Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Notices 7577

• Quality Inn-South Mountain, 5121 E.

LaPuente St. (Elliot Rd. & I–10),

Ahwatukee, Arizona.

• Coolidge High School Auditorium, 800

W. Northern Ave., Coolidge, Arizona.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Sandra Eto, Environmental Protection

Specialist, Bureau of Reclamation,

Phoenix Area Office (Code: PXAO–150)

23636 N. 7th Street, PO Box 9980,

Phoenix, AZ 85068; Telephone (602)

870–6771.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Colorado River Basin Project Act of

1968 (CRBPA) authorized the Secretary

of the Interior (Secretary), acting

through Reclamation, to construct the

Central Arizona Project (CAP). The

CRBPA also authorized Reclamation to

assist Indian communities receiving

CAP water allocations with

development of their water delivery

facilities. In 1985, GRIC developed an

agriculturally based master plan for

rehabilitating and improving existing

irrigation systems and agricultural

lands, as well as developing new land

and water resources. This plan was

adopted by the Tribal Council in

December 1985. Under the plan, an

irrigation water delivery system and

appurtenant facilities would be

constructed to serve up to 146,330 acres

of land.

On October 22, 1992, the Secretary

entered into a water service contract

with GRIC for the delivery of 173,100

acre-feet of CAP water annually to GRIC.

To obtain the maximum benefit from

Reclamation resources available through

CRBPA, Reclamation and GRIC propose

to use CAP-authorized funds for the

design and construction of a common

use irrigation delivery system. This

common use irrigation delivery system

would be capable of conveying

irrigation water (including existing and

potential future ground, surface, and

CAP water resources) to a maximum of

146,330 acres identified in the master

plan as having the potential for

agricultural development. Plans also

provide for enhancement of certain

wildlife habitat within GRIC, and

rehabilitation and betterment of the San

Carlos Indian Irrigation Project (SCIIP)

Joint Works, which are under BIA’s

jurisdiction. Reclamation would

contribute resources to implement the

agricultural development master plan in

an amount that is equivalent to what

would have been spent to design and

construct a single purpose CAP water

delivery system.

The major components of GRIC’s

agricultural development master plan

include the following: (1) Development

of up to 146,330 acres of land for

agricultural use and construction of a

water delivery system to serve those

lands; (2) development of riverine and

riparian habitat areas associated with

agricultural development; and (3)

rehabilitation and betterment of SCIIP

Joint Works, which would consist of (a)

rehabilitation of Ashurst-Hayden

Diversion Dam; (b) construction of

sediment removal basins and

designation of a sediment disposal area

near the headworks of the Florence-Casa

Grande Canal; (c) construction of a new

concrete-lined Florence-Casa Grande

Canal and rehabilitation and lining of

the remaining SCIIP Joint Works

distribution system canals; and (d)

construction of an earth and soil

cement-lined regulation reservoir. There

would be no modification to the existing

Picacho Reservoir, which would be

available for temporary storage of

drainage and floodflows.

Because CAP-authorized funds would

be used to implement portions of the

master plan, Reclamation will prepare a

draft PEIS to evaluate potential overall

impacts to the human environment from

implementing the master plan. Once

finalized, the PEIS would assist

Reclamation in making decisions

regarding use of Federal funds to

implement portions of the master plan.

For activities related to the master plan

that require a Federal action or involve

Federal funds, future NEPA

documentation would be prepared as

the specific design- and constructionrelated details are developed. Future

NEPA documents would be tiered from

the PEIS.

The draft PEIS will describe two

proposed alternatives plus a no Federal

action alternative. Under the preferred

alternative, Reclamation would support

and consider funding portions of all

aspects of the agricultural development

master plan. Under the second

alternative, Reclamation would support

and consider funding of all aspects of

the agricultural development master

plan that fall within GRIC’s boundaries,

and rehabilitation and betterment of the

Pima Lateral portion of the SCIIP Joint

Works.

Thus far, the following are significant

environmental issues that will be

evaluated in the draft PEIS: Potential

loss of desert habitat and impacts to

plants and wildlife, including

threatened or endangered species;

potential impacts to archaeological sites,

and historic and traditional cultural

properties; potential impacts to, and

creation/enhancement of, wetland and

riparian habitat; potential impacts to

surface and ground water quality and

quantity; potential impacts to Indian

and non-indian land owners, allottees

and residents; potential impacts to the

socio-economic conditions of GRIC at

large; potential impacts to Indian Trust

Assets; and potential opportunities for

developing passive recreational benefits.

Extensive scoping has occurred since

the mid-1980’s within GRIC, involving

members of GRIC at all levels. This

input was taken into consideration in

identifying significant environmental

issues to be evaluated in the draft PEIS.

Therefore, no additional separate formal

scoping meetings within GRIC are

planned to be held in connection with

the preparation of the draft PEIS.

The draft PEIS is expected to be

completed and available for review and

comment by late summer 1995. The

authority for approving and filing this

draft PEIS has been delegated to

Reclamation.

Comments regarding the proposed

action are welcome at the public

meeting. To ensure consideration in the

preparation of the draft PEIS, written

comments should be sent to the address

shown above by March 17, 1995. All

public input received by Reclamation as

a result of previous public involvement

will automatically be considered in the

preparation of the draft PEIS. If you

would like to be placed on a mailing list

for any subsequent information, please

write or telephone Ms. Sandra Eto.

Dated: February 2, 1995.

Lawrence F. Hancock,

Regional Director.

[FR Doc. 95–3156 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–94–P

Fish and Wildlife Service

Endangered and Threatened Species

Permit Application; Notice of Intent To

Prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement To Allow Incidental Take of

Four Threatened Species on Lands

Administered by Plum Creek Timber

Company, L.P. in the State of

Washington

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Intent.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) intends to gather

information necessary for the

preparation of an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS). The EIS will consider

a permit application by Plum Creek

Timber Company, L.P. (applicant) to

take federally listed species, under the

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

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act),

as amended. It will also consider the

development of an unlisted species

agreement. The Service is conducting

scoping and hereby encourages
7578 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Notices

interested agencies, organizations, and

individuals to provide comments on the

issues which should be addressed in the

EIS.

DATES: Written comments regarding the

scope of the EIS should be received on

or before March 10, 1995. A scoping

workshop will be held on February 22,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to Mr. Curt Smitch; U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service; 3773 Martin

Way East; Building C, Suite 101;

Olympia, Washington 98501. Comments

received will be available for public

inspection by appointment during

normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00

p.m., Monday through Friday). A

scoping workshop will be held from

6:00–9:00 p.m. at the Bellevue Red Lion

Hotel; Overlake Room; 300 112th

Avenue S.E.; Bellevue, Washington

98004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Vogel, Wildlife Biologist; U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service; 3773 Martin

Way East; Building C, Suite 101;

Olympia, Washington 98501, (360) 534–

9330.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

applicant has launched an effort to

address species conservation and

ecosystem management on

approximately 171,000 acres of private

land in the Cascade Mountains of

Washington. The subject ownership

occurs in a ‘‘checkerboard’’ pattern in

an area commonly referred to as the I–

90 Corridor. The term ‘‘checkerboard’’

refers to alternate sections of public and

private land. This effort will include the

development of a Habitat Conservation

Plan (HCP) and application for an

incidental take permit as authorized

under section 10 of the Act. The

applicant intends to request permits for

the incidental take of the northern

spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)

which would occur as a result of timber

harvest within a portion of the owl sites

present on the subject property. There

are currently more than 100 owl sites

present within the larger 419,000-acre

planning area.

The applicant plans to avoid the take

of marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus

marmoratus marmoratus), but will

likely include murrelets in the

incidental-take permit application in the

event take occurs accidentally. The

applicant also plans to include grizzly

bear (Ursus arctos = U.a. horribilis) and

gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the permit

application to cover circumstances

where these species may occur on the

subject property in the future and may

at some point be subject to disturbance.

The applicant is also addressing

numerous other species in the HCP and

intends to request an unlisted species

agreement.

As a further opportunity for interested

persons to comment on these and other

issues associated with this planning

effort, a scoping workshop is scheduled

for 6:00–9:00 p.m. on February 22, 1995.

The workshop location will be the

Overlake Room of the Bellevue Red Lion

Hotel, 300 112th Avenue S.E.; Bellevue,

Washington 98004.

Interested parties may contact the

Service at the address listed above to

receive additional information,

including a map for the workshop

location.

Dated: February 1, 1995.

Thomas Dwyer,

Deputy Regional Director.

[FR Doc. 95–3079 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

Intent To Prepare a Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement for

the Application of the Coastal Barrier

Resources Act to the Pacific Coast

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice advises the public

that the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

intends to gather information to prepare

a programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) on the application of the

Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)

on the Pacific coast. The National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Regulations (40 CFR 1501.7) require

publication of a notice to inform other

agencies and the public on the scope of

issues to be addressed and identified in

the EIS. All previous public comments

received by the FWS during the review

of the 1993 Draft Coastal Barriers Study,

conducted according to Section 6 of the

Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of

1990, will be considered part of the

information gathering process for this

EIS.

Changes to individual mapped coastal

barrier unit boundaries that would

depict new development or structural

changes are not within the scope of this

programmatic EIS. All major issues

raised during the public review of the

1993 Draft Coastal Barriers Study and

maps regarding technical criteria used

in mapping the units have been

considered and will be addressed in the

EIS. Any future changes to individual

units in the current inventory will

require the recommendation of the

Governors or Congressional

representatives of the affected States.

Please submit recommendations or

comments on the scope of issues to be

addressed in this EIS by 45 days after

the publication of this notice.

DATES: Written comments should be

received by March 27, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to: CBRA EIS Team Leader,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 NE.

11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232–

4181.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paula Levin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland,

Oregon 9732–4181, (503) 231–2068.

Table ‘‘A’’ provides a summary of

technical changes on the 1993 Draft

Coastal Barrier Maps of California,

Oregon, and Washington. No unit

boundary changes were made in Hawaii,

however, the EIS will address the

applicability of the technical criteria to

the coastal barriers in Hawaii, the

Pacific Islands and the other affected

States. The 1994 draft Coastal Barrier

maps can be viewed at the central

locations listed in this notice. The maps

are being provided for informational

purposes at the locations listed and only

to county planning offices in those

counties where unit boundaries were

changed.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Coastal

barriers are unique landforms that

provide protection for diverse aquatic

habitats and are the mainland’s first line

of defense against the impacts of coastal

storms and erosion.

Congress recognized the vulnerability

of coastal barriers to development by

passing the Coastal Barriers Resource

Act in 1982 (CBRA). CBRA (Pub L. 97–

348) established the Coastal Barriers

Resources System (System) that

prohibits all new Federal expenditures

and financial assistance within the units

of that System unless specifically

excepted by the Act. Congress took this

action because Federal expenditures

and financial assistance have the effect

of encouraging development of coastal

barriers. By restricting these Federal

expenditures, Congress intended to

minimize the loss of human life,

wasteful expenditure of Federal

revenues, and damage to fish, wildlife,

and other natural resources associated

with coastal barriers along the Atlantic

and Gulf of Mexico coasts.

In 1990, Congress passed the Coastal

Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA). The

CBIA (Pub. L. 101–591) tripled the size

of the System by adding coastal barriers

of the Great Lakes and additional areas

along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico

coasts. The System currently includes

560 units, comprising almost 1.3 million

acres and about 1,200 shoreline miles.