Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2002 / Notices 99

be evaluated and may be implemented: 

(1) reduce or eliminate the invertebrate 

food source, (2) reconfigure raceway 

ponds to make them unattractive to the 

Hawaiian stilt, (3) net ponds to exclude 

Hawaiian stitl, (4) use biodegradable 

repellents, and (5) implement various 

hazing methods. Cyanotech will 

mitigate for incidental take of Hawaiian 

stilt eggs and chicks by creating suitable 

nesting habitat onsite. These measures 

would ensure (1) positive Hawaiian stilt 

reproductive success, (2) recruitment of 

fledged birds into the overall 

population, and (3) that the Cyanotech 

facility does not become a reproductive 

sink for stilts. 

The Service’s Proposed Action 

consists of the issuance of an incidental 

take permit and implementation of the 

HCP, which includes measures to 

minimize the incidental take of 

Hawaiian stilt eggs, chicks, subadults, 

and adults, and measures to mitigate 

any incidental take of Hawaiian stilts 

eggs and chicks at the Cyanotect facility. 

The four alternatives to the proposed 

alternative considered in the HCP are: 

(1) No Action, (2) Long-term 

Management Off Site, (3) Haze/Fee, and 

(4) Integrated Management Approach. 

Under the No Action Alternative, no 

permit would be issued. Cyanotech 

would continue its microalgae operation 

without an HCP to address take of the 

Hawaiian stilt. Cyanotech did not select 

this option as it would be in violation 

of Section 9 of the Act. 

Under the Long-term Management Off 

Site Alternative, Cyanotech would 

contribute funds to create, restore, or 

enhance habitat for Hawaiian stilt at an 

off site location. This alternative would 

provide mitigation for take of the 

Hawaiian stilt however, Cyanotech did 

not select this alternative due to the 

prepetutation of incidental take that 

would be caused by continued foraging 

and nesting of stilts at the Cyanotech 

facility. 

Under the Haze/Fee Alternative, 

Cyanotech would haze Hawaiian stilts 

using non-lethal deterrents. This 

alternative may minimize take, 

however, Cyanotech did not select this 

alternative because hazing birds from a 

site has not proven effective as a longterm solution and would likely result in 

a long-term commitment of resources 

without reducing stilt numbers at the 

Cyanotech facility. 

Under the Integrated Management 

Approach Alternative, Cyanotech would 

implement non-lethal bird deterrence, 

manage protected nesting habitat for 1 

year only, and reallocate funds from onsite management to an off-site 

mitigation fund in years 2 and 3. 

Cyanotech did not select this alternative 

due to the unconditional closure of the 

on-site protected habitat after 1 year and 

the desire for flexibility provided by 

adaptive management. 

The Service has made a preliminary 

determination that the Cyanotech HCP 

qualifies as a ‘‘low-effect’’ plan as 

defined by its Habitat Conservation 

Planning Handbook (November 1996). 

Our determination that a habitat 

conservation plan qualifies as a loweffect plan is based on the following 

three criteria: (1) Implementation of the 

plan would result in minor or negligible 

effects on federally listed, proposed, or 

candidate species and their habitats; (2) 

implementation of the plan would result 

in minor or negligible effects on other 

environmental values or resources; and 

(3) impacts of the plan, considered 

together with the impacts of other past, 

present and reasonable foreseeable 

similarly situated projects would not 

result, over time, in cumulative effects 

to environmental values or resources 

which would be considered significant. 

As more fully explained in our 

Environmental Action Statement, 

Cyanotech’s HCP for the Hawaiian stilt 

qualifies as a ‘‘low-effect’’ plan for the 

following reasons: 

1. Approval of the HCP would result 

in minor or negligible effects on the 

Hawaiian stilt. The Service does 

anticipate significant direct or 

cumulative effects to the Hawaiian stilt 

from Cyanotech’s microalgae operation. 

2. Approval of the HCP would not 

have adverse effects on unique 

geographic, historic, or cultural sites, or 

involve unique or unknown 

environmental risks. 

3. Approval of the HCP would not 

result in any cumulative or growth 

inducing impacts and, therefore would 

not result in significant adverse effects 

on public health or safety. 

4. The HCP does not require 

compliance with Executive Order 11998 

(Floodplain Management), Executive 

Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), or 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, nor 

does it threaten or violate a Federal, 

State, local or tribal law or requirement 

imposed for the protection of the 

environment. 

5. Approval of the HCP would not 

establish a precedent for future action or 

represent a decision in principle about 

future actions with potentially 

significant environmental effects. 

We provide this notice pursuant to 

section 10(c) of the Act and pursuant to 

implementing regulations for the 

National Environmental Policy Act (40 

CFR 1506.6). We will evaluate the 

permit application, HCP, and comments 

submitted thereon to determine whether 

the permit application meets the 

requirements of section 10(a) of the Act 

and National Policy Act regulations. If 

we determine that the requirements are 

met, we will issue a permit under 

section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act to 

Cyanotech for take of Hawaiian stilt 

incidental to otherwise lawful activities 

in accordance with the HCP. We will 

fully consider all comments received 

during the comment period and will not 

make our final decision until after the 

end of the 30-day comment period.

Dated: December 18, 2001. 

Rowan W. Gould, 

Deputy Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Portland, Oregon.

[FR Doc. 01–32142 Filed 12–31–01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management 

[WO–220–1020–PB–24 1A; OMB Approval 

Number 1004–0005] 

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 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 

21, 2001, the BLM published a notice in 

the Federal Register (66 FR 43901) 

requesting comments on this proposed 

collection. The comment period ended 

on October 22, 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–

0005), 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: 

100 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2002 / Notices 

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 and 

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: Grazing Application-Grazing 

Schedule (43 CFR 4130). 

OMB Approval Number: 1004–0005. 

Bureau Form Number: 4130–1. 

Abstract: The Bureau of Land 

Management uses the information to 

provide the opportunity for grazing 

operators to apply for changes to the 

grazing schedules in their BLM 

authorized grazing leases or permits. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Description of Respondents: Holders 

of BLM-issued grazing leases and 

permits. 

Estimated Completion Time: 20 

minutes. 

Annual Responses: 6,000. 

Application Fee per Response: 0. 

There is no filing fee. 

Annual Burden Hours: 2,000. 

Bureau Clearance Officer: Michael 

Schwartz, (202) 452–5033.

Dated: December 11, 2001. 

Michael H. Schwartz, 

BLM Information Collection Clearance 

Officer.

[FR Doc. 01–32126 Filed 12–31–01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–84–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management 

[CA–660–1430–ER–CACA–43368] 

Proposed Environmental Impact 

Statement/Environmental Impact 

Report (EIS/EIR) for the San Diego Gas 

And Electric Company Valley-Rainbow 

500 kV Interconnect Project, CA

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM), and the California Public 

Utilities Commission (CPUC).

ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare a 

joint EIS/EIR addressing the proposed 

Valley-Rainbow 500–kV Interconnect 

Project; an electrical transmission line 

project. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with 

regulations at 40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 

CFR 1610.2, notice is hereby given that 

the BLM, together with the CPUC, 

propose to direct the preparation of a 

joint EIS/EIR for the 500 kilovolt (kV) 

Valley-Rainbow Interconnect Project, 

proposed by the San Diego Gas and 

Electric Company (SDG&E). The BLM is 

the lead Federal agency for the 

preparation of this EIS/EIR in 

compliance with the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulation for 

implementing NEPA (40 Code of 

Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500–1508), 

and the Department of the Interior’s 

manual guidance on NEPA; and the 

CPUC is the lead State of California 

agency for the preparation of this EIS/

EIR in compliance with the 

requirements of the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 

(Public Resources Code Section 21000 

et. seq.), and implementing guidelines 

(California Code of Regulations [CCR] 

Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq.), and 

CPUC’s Rules and Regulations to 

Implement CEQA. This notice initiates 

the public scoping for the EIS and also 

serves as an invitation for other 

cooperating agencies. Potential 

cooperating agencies include the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

Department of Defense, the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, the State Historic 

Preservation Officer, U.S. Corps of 

Engineers and the California 

Department of Fish and Game.

DATES: For scoping meeting and 

comments: One NEPA public scoping 

openhouse will be held during 2002 on 

the following date: January 8, 2002, 

from 3:00 pm to 8:00 pm, at the Comfort 

Inn, 27338 Jefferson Ave., Temecula, 

California. 

Written comments must be 

postmarked no later than 30 days from 

the date of this notice in order to be 

included in the draft EIR/EIS. Please 

submit any comments to the address 

listed below.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be addressed to Mr. James G. Kenna, 

Field Manager, Bureau of Land 

Management, Palm Springs-South Coast 

Field Office, 690 West Garnet Ave, P.O. 

Box 581260, North Palm Springs, 

California 92258–1260.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Kalish, Bureau of Land Management, 

Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office, 

690 West Garnet Ave, P.O. Box 581260, 

North Palm Springs, California 92258–

1260, (760) 251–4849.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Valley-Rainbow 500 kV Interconnect 

Project is proposed by SDG&E to 

provide an interconnection between 

SDG&E’s existing 230 kV transmission 

system at the proposed Rainbow 

Substation, on Rainbow Heights Road 

near the unincorporated community of 

Rainbow in San Diego County, and the 

Southern California Edison’s (SCE) 

existing 500 kV transmission system at 

the Valley Substation on Menifee Road 

in the unincorporated community of 

Romoland in Riverside County. The 

project area is located entirely in 

California within northern San Diego 

County and western Riverside County. 

This project consists of the following 

new or expanded electric transmission 

and substation facilities. A single circuit 

500 kV electric transmission line 

approximately 31 miles in length would 

connect a proposed new SDG&E 500 kV/

230 kV bulk power transmission 

substation near the community of 

Rainbow, San Diego County to SCE’s 

Valley substation near Romoland, 

Riverside County. The proposed 500 kV 

transmission line would be built on 

steel poles and lattice towers within a 

new right-of-way. To support this 

proposed 500 kV Interconnect system, a 

second 230 kV circuit would be added 

to the existing Talega to Escondido 230 

kV transmission line on the U.S. Marine 

Corps Base, Camp Pendleton and 

private lands within San Diego County. 

This proposed second 230 kV circuit 

would be placed on existing steel 

supported structures. A 7.7 mile section 

of an existing 69kV transmission circuit, 

currently installed on one side of the 

Talega-Escondido 230 kV transmission 

line structures, would be rebuilt on new 

structures within the existing right-ofway between SDG&E’s Pala and Lilac 

Substations, San Diego County. Voltage 

support upgrades to SDG&E’s existing 

Mission, Miguel and Sycamore Canyon 

substations would also be needed. 

The CPUC held public scoping 

meetings from July 10–12, 2001 in the 

communities of Temecula, Winchester 

and Pauma Valley and accepted 

comments from June 30 through August 

7, 2001. The BLM actively participated 

in this State scoping process as the lead 

Federal agency. The State scoping 

process resulted in substantial comment 

that is broadly summarized as involving 

environmental issues and concerns, 

growth inducement, purpose and need 

for the project and alternatives. Possible 

impacts to quality of life, property 

values, visual and aesthetic qualities of 

the area, wine making and other 

agricultural operations, placement of 

schools and parks, community and 

residential development, recreation 

including hot air ballooning and human 

health were addressed by the public. In 

addition to these concerns, the BLM has 

identified issues related to wildlife,