67292 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices

primarily in Tamaulipas, Mexico, but

occasionally also in Texas and other

southern states, including an occasional

nest in North Carolina. The Service’s

nesting surveys of the Fort Morgan

Peninsula, from Laguna Key to Mobile

Point, for the period 1994–2001 report

no nests of the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle

on beaches along the Applicants’

properties. In 1999, a Kemp’s ridley sea

turtle nested on Bon Secour National

Wildlife Refuge and another along the

Gulf Island’s National Seashore in

Perdido Key Florida. In 2001, two dead

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle hatchlings were

recovered, one on Bon Secour National

Wildlife Refuge, and the second in Gulf

Shores, Alabama.

The two projects, Gulf Highlands

Condominiums (GHC) and Beach Club

West (BCW), are separate developments

but are being considered together at the

request of Gulf Highlands LLC and Fort

Morgan Paradise Joint Venture, the

respective Applicants. The two

Applicants have joined together to

produce a single Habitat Conservation

Plan (HCP), as required by the

Endangered Species Act, for their

projects. The Applicants hope to obtain

their permits and jointly implement the

provisions of the HCP.

The EA considers the effects of six

project alternatives, including a noaction alternative that would result in

no new construction on the Project site,

and a single family home alternative

that would result in build out of the

properties as originally platted. Neither

of these alternatives would be

economically feasible for the applicants.

The remaining four alternatives involve

various arrangements of high-rise

condominiums. The important

differences among these four

alternatives relate to the amount of

beach front developed, the width and

placement of an undeveloped ABM

‘‘corridor’’ to allow ABM movements to

and from the dune and escarpment

habitats, and the placement of the

condominium towers. One of these

alternatives was suggested by the

Service as a ‘‘less-take’’ alternative and

would move the development

approximately 300 feet north of the

escarpment. The applicants have cited

legal and economical reasons for why

the less-take alternative could not be

implemented.

In the Applicant’s preferred

alternative, the two projects involve

construction of large condominium

developments near the Gulf of Mexico

on approximately 62 of the total 180.5

acres of wet beach, coastal dune,

escarpment, wetlands, and scrub

habitats owned by the applicants. An

additional 16 acres of platted road

rights-of-way, owned by Baldwin

County, exist within the project

boundary. The project area therefore

encompasses about 196.4 acres.

Applicant land holdings extend from

the Gulf to Alabama Highway 180. Only

part of this acreage would actually be

developed, totaling about 62.7 acres of

ABM habitat. The remaining area, some

of which is ABM habitat, would be

conserved in perpetuity. Six 20-story

condominium towers (two for BCW and

four for GHC), thirteen single family

units, and a commercial development

including about 20 housing units on the

upper level would be constructed.

Collectively this development would

contain 973 living units. Other facilities

would include parking lots, access

roads, swimming pools, tennis courts,

patios, a club house, shops, a proposed

medical facility, sidewalks, landscaped

areas, small freshwater lakes-detention

ponds, trails, and dune walkovers for

access to the Gulf of Mexico. The

condominium structures would be

oriented on an east-west alignment

starting approximately 660 to 730 feet

north of the Gulf of Mexico. The

applicants own approximately 2,844

feet of Gulf frontage. As proposed in the

Applicants’ preferred alternative, 1,835

feet of that frontage would be developed

and 909 feet conserved in perpetuity.

The area south of the structures would

be sloped by the applicants and native

vegetation planted.

All proposed alternatives include

measures designed to avoid or minimize

take. In addition to these measures, in

the applicant’s preferred alternative, a

planned development adjoining the

western boundary of the project, the

French Caribbean, would not be

constructed and would remain

undeveloped as an ABM conservation

area. Fort Morgan Paradise Joint Venture

owns the French Carribean

development, and has offered to forego

its construction. As this development

has received a Corps of Engineers

wetland permit, and was subject to

review under section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act, there is no ITP

required for it.

Based on trapping data and other

research, the ABM uses portions (some

on a permanent basis, others

episodically) of the entire tract of land,

except for wetlands, heavily vegetated

areas, and northern sections that lack

suitable soil for burrowing. The

proposed project would adversely

impact the ABM population directly by

killing individuals in the construction

areas via crushing or entombment and

indirectly by introduction of house pets

(cats), introduction of competitors

(house mice), attraction of predators,

permanent human disturbances and

fragmentation of habitat and ABM

populations. Occupation of the

proposed structures could adversely

affect sea turtle nesting by disorienting

nesting females and misorienting

hatchlings by excess artificial lighting,

trampling nests, and trapping or

disorienting nesting females and

emerging hatchlings among tire ruts or

beach equipment left after dark.

Under section 9 of the Act and its

implementing regulations, ‘‘taking’’ of

endangered and threatened wildlife is

prohibited. However, the Service, under

limited circumstances, may issue

permits to take such wildlife if the

taking is incidental to and not the

purpose of otherwise lawful activities.

The Applicants have prepared an HCP

as required for the incidental take

permit application, and as described

above as part of the proposed project.

As stated above, the Service has not

made a preliminary determination

whether the issuance of the ITPs is a

major Federal action significantly

affecting the quality of the human

environment within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of NEPA. This

determination will be made

incorporating public comment received

in response to this notice and will be

based on information contained in the

EA and HCP.

The Service will also evaluate

whether the issuance of section

10(a)(1)(B) ITPs complies with section 7

of the Act by conducting an intraService section 7 consultation. The

results of the biological opinion, in

combination with the above findings,

will be used in the final analysis to

determine whether or not to issue the

ITP.

Dated: December 20, 2001.

Sam D. Hamilton,

Regional Director.

[FR Doc. 01–31907 Filed 12–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

Draft Multiple Habitat Conservation

Program Plan and Draft Environmental

Impact Statement/Environmental

Impact Report for Northwestern San

Diego County

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In anticipation of receiving an

application for an incidental take permit

for the Multiple Habitat Conservation

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices 67293

Program (MHCP) pursuant to section 10

(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended, the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)

is requesting public comment on all four

volumes of the draft MHCP Plan and a

draft Environmental Impact Statement/

Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR)

prepared jointly by the Service and San

Diego Association of Governments.

The draft MHCP Plan is intended to

inform the public of our proposed

action to provide a comprehensive

multiple-jurisdictional planning

program designed to create, manage,

and monitor an ecosystem preserve in

northwestern San Diego County,

California. Local governments within

this area have a need for an incidental

take permit from the Service to

accommodate lawful development

projects outside of the preserve system

and to accommodate monitoring and

maintenance projects within the

preserve system that are associated with

the MHCP. Our issuance of such a

permit is a Federal action that requires

documentation under the National

Environmental Policy Act.

The analysis provided in the draft

EIS/EIR is intended to inform the public

of our proposed action and alternatives;

address public comments received

during the scoping period; disclose the

direct, indirect, and cumulative

environmental effects of the proposed

action and each of the alternatives; and

indicate any irreversible commitment of

resources that would result from

implementation of the proposed action.

DATES: We must receive your written

comments on or before April 29, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Mr. Jim

Bartel, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 2730 Loker Avenue

West, Carlsbad, California 92008. You

also may submit comments by facsimile

to (760) 431–9618.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Lee Ann Carranza, Fish and Wildlife

Supervisory Biologist, at the above

address; telephone (760) 431–9440.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Documents

You may request copies of the

documents by contacting the office

above. You may view the documents, by

appointment, during normal business

hours (8 a.m. to 5 p.m.), Monday

through Friday at the Carlsbad Fish and

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES). Copies

are also available for viewing at the

office of the San Diego Association of

Governments, 401 B Street, Suite 800,

San Diego, California; and on the world

wide web at http://www.sandag.org.

Background

Section 9 of the Act and Federal

regulation prohibit the ‘‘take’’ of fish

and wildlife species listed as

endangered or threatened. Take of listed

fish or wildlife is defined under the Act

to include kill, harm, or harass. Harm

includes significant habitat modification

or degradation that actually kills or

injures listed wildlife by significantly

impairing essential behavioral patterns,

including breeding, feeding, and

sheltering (50 CFR 17.3(c). Under

limited circumstances, the Service may

issue permits to authorize incidental

take; i.e. take that is incidental to, and

not the purpose of, otherwise lawful

activity. Regulations governing

incidental take permits for threatened

and endangered species are found in 50

CFR 17.32 and 17.22, respectively.

The MHCP is intended to protect

viable populations of native plant and

animal species and their habitats in

perpetuity through the creation of a

preserve system, while accommodating

continued economic development and

quality of life for residents of

northwestern San Diego County. The

MHCP is one of several large, multiplejurisdictional habitat planning efforts in

San Diego County, each of which

constitutes a ‘‘subregional’’ plan under

the State of California’s Natural

Community Conservation Planning

(NCCP) Act of 1991. The MHCP

encompasses 175 square miles

comprised of the following seven

incorporated cities: Carlsbad, Encinitas,

Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos,

Solana Beach, and Vista.

All four volumes of the MHCP Plan

and a draft EIS/EIR prepared jointly by

the Service and San Diego Association

of Governments are being made

available for a 120-day public comment

period. The MHCP is described in the

Public Review Draft MHCP Plan Volume

1 (November 2000). The scientific

methods used to prepare the MHCP are

provided in the Public Review Draft

MHCP Plan Volume II (November 2000).

Volume III of the Public Review Draft

MHCP Plan is comprised of five draft

Subarea Plans for the cities of Carlsbad,

Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside and

San Marcos; these subarea plans are

analyzed in the draft EIS/EIR. Volume

IV of the Public Review Draft MHCP

Plan describes the biological monitoring

program associated with managing the

MHCP preserve system to ensure that all

of the species covered by the MHCP will

survive into perpetuity.

As described in Volumes I and II of

the Public Review Draft MHCP Plan

(November 2000) and the draft EIS/EIR,

the MHCP would create a preserve

system that protects, manages, and

monitors 66 percent of coastal sage

scrub, 66 percent of chaparral, 80

percent of coastal sage/chaparral mix,

and 100 percent of riparian and

estuarine habitats in perpetuity. A major

component of the preserve is the

conservation of 400 to 500 acres of

contiguous coastal sage scrub centered

around the cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas,

and the extreme southwest portion of

San Marcos, which supports 16 to 23

pairs of the federally threatened coastal

California gnatcatcher [Polioptila

californica californica]. In addition, 338

acres of coastal sage scrub would be

restored in key locations within the

preserve area. Overall, 19,871 acres (66

percent) of the natural habitats found in

the total MHCP study area would be

conserved. As a result, coverage for 60

different listed and non-listed species is

being requested under the MHCP.

The MHCP is designed to be

implemented through individual

Subarea Plans prepared by participating

cities. Five of the seven cities (Carlsbad,

Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, and

San Marcos) within the MHCP planning

area have prepared draft Subarea Plans

which describe the specific mechanisms

their respective city will use to

implement the MHCP. The City of Vista

has not completed their plan; when

completed it will require a separate

environmental analysis. The City of

Solana Beach does not need to prepare

a Subarea Plan at this time since they do

not anticipate impacting any of the

species or habitats covered in the

MHCP.

The EIS/EIR considers three

alternatives in addition to the preferred

alternative/proposed project described

above: a reduced preservation

alternative, an increased preservation

alternative, and a no action alternative.

Under the reduced preservation

alternative, the preserve system would

be similar to the proposed project,

however, the following conservation

actions would not occur: preservation of

the 400 to 500 acres of contiguous

coastal sage scrub in the coastal

California gnatcatcher core area and the

restoration of 338 acres of coastal sage

scrub habitat throughout the MHCP

planning area. Overall, 19,371 acres (65

percent) of the habitat in the total MHCP

study area would be conserved under

this alternative.

Under the increased preservation

alternative, all large contiguous areas of

habitat, all areas supporting major and

critical species populations or habitat

areas, and all important functional

linkages and movement corridors

between them would be conserved.

Conservation levels include 89 percent

67294 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices

coastal sage scrub, 93 percent chaparral,

95 percent coastal sage/chaparral mix,

and 100 percent riparian and estuarine

habitats. Overall, 25,031 acres (84

percent) of the habitat in the total MHCP

study area would be conserved under

this alternative.

Under the no project alternative, only

listed species and habitat occupied by

such listed species would receive

protection. It was estimated that

conservation levels would include 19

percent coastal sage scrub, 31 percent

chaparral, and 18 percent coastal sage/

chaparral mix. Overall, 8,969 acres (30

percent) of natural habitats in the MHCP

study area would be conserved under

this alternative.

Once the MHCP program and draft

documents are finalized and the

participating cities are ready to

implement the program and create the

preserve system, the participating cities

will need to apply for incidental take

permits from the Service and California

Department of Fish and Game to

accommodate lawful development

projects outside of the preserve system

and monitoring and maintenance

projects within the preserve system. At

this time, the Service will publish in the

Federal Register separate notices

announcing the receipt of an Incidental

Take Permit Application and draft

Implementing Agreement for each city

when they submit applications. The

subregional MHCP and associated

Subarea Plans for each city are designed

to serve as a multiple species Habitat

Conservation Plan (HCP) pursuant to

section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the federal

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended and to meet the requirements

of section 2800 of the California

Endangered Species Act and the NCCP

Act.

The Service invites the public to

comment on the draft MHCP Plan and

draft EIS/EIR during a 120-day comment

period. All comments received,

including names and addresses, will

become part of the administrative record

and may be made available to the

public. This notice is provided pursuant

to section 10(a) of the Endangered

Species Act and regulations for

implementing the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (40

CFR 1506.6).

Dated: December 11, 2001.

John Engbring,

Acting Deputy Manager, Region 1, California/

Nevada Operations Office, Sacramento,

California.

[FR Doc. 01–31199 Filed 12–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WO–320–1330–PB–24 1A]

OMB Approval Number 1004–0103;

Information Collection Submitted to

the Office of Management and Budget

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

The Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) has submitted the proposed

collection of information listed below to

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for approval under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). On August

1, 2001, the BLM published a notice in

the Federal Register (66 FR 39787)

requesting comments on this proposed

collection. The comment period ended

on October 1, 2001. The BLM received

no comments from the public in

response to that notice. You may obtain

copies of the proposed collection of

information and related forms and

explanatory material by contacting the

BLM Information Collection Clearance

Officer at the telephone number listed

below.

The OMB is required to respond to

this request within 60 days but may

respond after 30 days. For maximum

consideration your comments and

suggestions on the requirement should

be made within 30 days directly to the

Office of Management and Budget,

Interior Department Desk Officer (1004–

0103), Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC

20503. Please provide a copy of your

comments to the Bureau Information

Collection Clearance Officer (WO–630),

1849 C St., NW., Mail Stop 401 LS,

Washington, DC 20240.

Nature of Comments: We specifically

request your comments on the

following:

1. Whether the collection of

information is necessary for the proper

functioning of the BLM, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

2. The accuracy of the BLM’s estimate

of the burden of collecting the

information, including the validity of

the methodology and assumptions used;

3. The quality, utility and clarity of

the information to be collected; and

4. How to minimize the burden of

collecting the information on those who

are to respond, including the use of

appropriate automated, electronic,

mechanical, or other forms of

information technology.

Title: Mineral Materials Disposal (43

CFR 3600, 3601, and 3602).

OMB Approval Number: 1004–0103.

Bureau Form Number: 3600–9.

Abstract: The Bureau of Land

Management proposes to extend the

currently approved collection of

information for the disposal of mineral

materials on public lands through sales

(sand, gravel, and petrified wood). BLM

uses the information the applicants

provide to:

(1) Determine if the sale of the

mineral materials is in the public

interest;

(2) Mitigate any environmental

impacts associated with the mineral

development;

(3) Get fair market value for the

materials sold; and

(4) Prevent the trespass removal of the

resource.

Frequency: annually (sometimes

monthly for some contracts).

Description of Respondents:

Operators desiring sand, gravel, stone,

and other mineral materials from public

lands under BLM jurisdiction.

Estimated Completion Time: Varies

from 15 minutes to several days for large

projects, with an average of 30 minutes.

Annual Responses: 4,400.

Application Fee Per Response: 0.

There is no filing fee.

Annual Burden Hours: 2,200.

Bureau Clearance Officer: Michael

Schwartz, (202) 452–5033.

Dated: December 11, 2001.

Michael H. Schwartz,

BLM Information Collection Clearance

Officer.

[FR Doc. 01–31933 Filed 12–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–84–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WO–220–1020–PB–24 1A]

Information Collection Submitted to

the Office of Management and Budget

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

The Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) has submitted the proposed

collection of information listed below to

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for approval under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). On July 31,

2001, the BLM published a notice in the

Federal Register (66 FR 39526)

requesting comments on this proposed

collection. The comment period ended

on October 1, 2001. The BLM received

no comments from the public in

response to that notice. You may obtain

copies of the proposed collection of

information and related forms and

explanatory material by contacting the

BLM Information Collection Clearance