Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 1995 / Notices 16661

associated with construction of the

Diamond Fork Pipeline System is 100

acre-feet or less, and sufficient progress

has been attained by the Recovery

Implementation Program to avoid the

likelihood of jeopardy to the Colorado

River endangered fish species; and (2)

the construction of the pipeline and

access road will affect, but is not likely

to jeopardize the continued existence of

the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid. The

Service made six conservation

recommendations pursuant to Section

7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act.

Conservation recommendations are

discretionary agency activities to

minimize or avoid adverse effects of a

proposed action on listed species or

critical habitat, to help implement

recovery plans, or to develop

information. In their January 5, 1995,

letter to the Service, copy enclosed, and

in their January 19, 1995, letter to the

Program Director, copy enclosed, the

District agreed to implement the

following Conservation

Recommendations included in the

January 5, 1995, Biological Opinion.

Those conservation recommendations

are stated verbatim as follows:

1. The District should prepare an

Environmental Commitment Checklist (ECC)

detailing requirements for construction

methods and associated activities that are

designed to avoid or minimize environmental

impacts of the construction project, including

impacts to the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid. For

example, the ECC should specify

requirements that will prevent impacts to the

orchid outside of the construction area;

establish the minimum necessary boundaries

of the construction zone; and, provide a

qualified individual to monitor construction

activity during stream crossings and at any

other sensitive locations identified by the

Service. The ECC should be prepared in

consultation with cooperating environmental

oversight agencies, including the Service.

The Service recommends that the District

provide this document for Service review

and approval prior to initiation of

construction.

2. The District should prepare a site

rehabilitation/revegetation plan in

consultation with, and acceptable to, both the

Service and the Forest Service. The plan

should include specifications for undesirable

plant species monitoring and management.

3. The District should conduct surveys for

the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid in areas to be

disturbed during the flowering season

immediately prior to construction. Plants

should be counted and flagged.

4. The District should provide funds for the

removal, holding, and transplanting of plants

that will be impacted by construction. Plants

should be transplanted to a holding facility

approved by the Service, such as the Red

Butte Garden and Arboretum of the

University of Utah. Plants should be

maintained there until the following

activities occur under the direction of the

Service:

a. Selected plants will be transplanted back

into the areas from which they were taken

when the sites have been rehabilitated and

appropriate conditions created to ensure

successful reestablishment.

b. Selected plants will be maintained in the

holding facility, and serve as propagation

stock as determined desirable, for future

reintroduction to other areas in the Diamond

Fork drainage or along the Wasatch Front.

This will ensure that there is a source of

genetically compatible individuals to

augment or replace populations that may be

impacted by the construction and operation

of the Diamond Fork System on Diamond

Fork and Spanish Fork drainage or Utah Lake

caused by operation of the Diamond Fork

System.

c. Plants selected by the Service would be

available to researchers for conducting

approved life history research.

5. After the identified plants have been

removed from the impact area, surface

substrates (top 6–12 inches) should be

scraped off and stockpiled. Following

construction, site rehabilitation activities

should include replacing the removed

surface materials. To the extent possible,

compaction and contamination of surface

soils with undesirable plant species or other

materials should be avoided.

6. The District should prepare and

implement a monitoring plan in consultation

with, and acceptable to, the Service and the

Forest Service. The monitoring plan should

be for a minimum of 10 years and have the

following objectives:

a. Document the presence and vigor of

orchid individuals transplanted back into

disturbed sites.

b. Determine the presence and number of

new individuals that appear on disturbed

sites.

c. Document hydrologic conditions,

principally soil moisture and depth to

groundwater, seasonally in disturbed sites.

d. Monitor the presence of undesirable

plant species and effects of management

activities for their control.

e. Over the 10 year monitoring period,

document major changes in plant community

composition, with particular focus on

detecting and documenting changes from a

wetland riparian community to a drier,

upland riparian community.

D. Environmental Permits

Several water quality permits must be

obtained prior to construction of the

Diamond Fork Pipeline, Access Road,

and Appurtenant facilities. The Clean

Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95–217) requires

that Section 402 permits be obtained

from Utah Department of Environmental

Quality through authority granted by the

Environmental Protection Agency for

the discharge of any wastewater or

process water. Section 404(r) of P.L. 95–

217 contains provisions to exempt, in

certain instances, congressionally

authorized Federal projects from having

to obtain a Section 404 Permit from the

Army Corps of Engineers for discharge

of dredged or fill material into waters of

the United States. On November 29,

1994, the Department of the Interior’s

Program Director submitted the

Diamond Fork 1984 FEIS and 1990 FS–

FEIS to the Chairman of the U.S. Senate

Appropriations Subcommittee on

Energy and Water Development and the

U.S. House of Representatives

Appropriations Subcommittee on

Energy and Water Development to

ensure the project is in full compliance

with Section 404(r) of the Clean Water

Act, copies attached. The construction

contract will not be awarded and no

actual discharge of dredged or fill

material in connection with the

construction of the Diamond Fork

Pipeline System will occur until fiscal

year 1996 funds are appropriated by the

Congress.

E. Environmental Commitment Plan

The District will prepare a detailed

project Environmental Commitment

Plan, documenting all mitigation

measures and environmental

commitments made in the 1984 FEIS

and the 1990 FS–FEIS prior to the

award of the construction contract of the

Diamond Fork Pipeline System. The

Environmental Commitment Plan will

be developed during the final design

and implemented during construction,

and operation of the Recommended

Plan.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Additional

information on matters related to this

Federal Register notice can be obtained

at the address and telephone number set

forth below: Mr. Reed Murray, Program

Coordinator, CUP Completion Act

Office, Department of the Interior, 302

East 1860 South, Provo UT 84606–6154,

Telephone: (801) 379–1237.

Dated: March 30, 1995.

Ronald Johnston,

CUP Program Director, Department of the

Interior.

[FR Doc. 95–7995 Filed 3–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–RK–P

Office of the Secretary

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Public Advisory

Group; Meeting

AGENCY: Department of the Interior,

Office of the Secretary.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Department of the

Interior, Office of the Secretary is

announcing a public meeting of the

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Public Advisory

Group.

DATES: April 20–21, 1995, at 8:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: First floor conference room,

645 ‘‘G’’ Street, Anchorage, Alaska.
16662 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 1995 / Notices

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Douglas Mutter, Department of the

Interior, Office of Environmental Policy

and Compliance, 1689 ‘‘C’’ Street, Suite

119, Anchorage, Alaska, (907) 271–

5011.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Public Advisory Group was created by

Paragraph V.A.4 of the Memorandum of

Agreement and Consent Decree entered

into the United States of America and

the State of Alaska on August 27, 1991,

and approved by the United States

District Court for the District of Alaska

in settlement of United States of

America v. State of Alaska, Civil Action

No. A91–081 CV. The agenda will

include the review of small-parcel

habitat protection efforts and a

discussion of long-range restoration

planning.

Dated: March 27, 1995.

Willie R. Taylor,

Director, Office of Environmental Policy and

Compliance.

[FR Doc. 95–7943 Filed 3–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–RG–M

Minerals Management Service

Information Collection Submitted to

the Office of Management and Budget

for Review Under the Paperwork

Reduction Act

The collection of information listed

below has been submitted to the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) for

reapproval under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35). Copies of the proposed

information collection and related forms

may be obtained by contacting Dennis

Jones at 303–231–3046. Comments and

suggestions on this information

collection should be made directly to

the Bureau Clearance officer at the

telephone number listed below and to

the OMB, Paperwork Reduction Project

(1010–0022), Washington, D.C. 20503,

telephone 202–395–7340.

Title: Report of Sales and Royalty

Remittance.

OMB Approval Number: 1010–0022.

Abstract: The Report of Sales and

Royalty Remittance is submitted by

those individual and companies

producing minerals from leased Indian

lands or from leased Federal onshore or

offshore lands. Respondents report

monthly the sales and royalties of oil,

gas, and solid minerals taken from

Federal and Indian lands. The Minerals

Management Service (MMS) uses the

data to monitor royalties received, for

audits, and to compare reported sales

data with production data reported in

the MMS Production Accounting and

Auditing System.

Bureau Form Number: MMS–2014.

Frequency: Monthly.

Description of Respondents:

Companies producing and processing

minerals from Federal onshore or

offshore leases, and from Indian leases.

Estimated Completion Time: 3 or 7

minutes per reported line.

Annual Responses: 2,000.

Annual Burden Hours: 240,600.

Bureau Clearance Officer: Arthur

Quintana 703–787–1101.

Dated: March 1, 1995.

James W. Shaw,

Associate Director for Royalty Management.

[FR Doc. 95–7996 Filed 3–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–M

Bureau of Reclamation

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

for Proposed Acreage Limitation and

Water Conservation Rules and

Regulations

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability on the

draft environmental impact statement;

INT–DES–95–13.

SUMMARY: In response to a September

1993 contract for settlement of a lawsuit

filed by the Natural Resources Defense

Council, National Wildlife Federation,

California Natural Resources Federation,

California Association of Family

Farmers, California Action Network,

League of Rural Voters, Inc., and County

of Trinity, California (hereinafter NRDC

et al.); and pursuant to the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as

amended, the Bureau of Reclamation

(Reclamation) has prepared a draft

environmental impact statement (DEIS)

on proposed acreage limitation and

water conservation rules and regulations

for implementing the Reclamation

Reform Act of 1982 (RRA), as amended,

throughout the 17 Western States.

The purpose of the DEIS is to evaluate

potential impacts associated with the

proposed rules and alternatives. As

such, the DEIS presents an evaluation of

five alternatives, including no action.

This is accomplished at a programmatic

level and provides the required

environmental documentation for

implementation of the RRA on a

Westwide basis.

DATES: Written comments on the DEIS

should be submitted to the Bureau of

Reclamation by May 31, 1995. A

recorded toll-free number (1–800–861–

5443) will be available to make oral

comments during the public review

period. Comments received in this

manner must include the commentor’s

name in order to be included in the

official record. Address and affiliation

are optional. Comments will be limited

to 15 minutes per call.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the

DEIS and requests for copies should be

addressed to: Mr. Ronald J. Schuster (D–

5010), Westwide Settlement Manager,

Bureau of Reclamation, PO Box 25007,

Denver CO 80225. Requests for copies

may also be made over the telephone at

(303) 236–1061 extension 237.

Copies of the DEIS are available for

inspection at the address above and also

at the following locations:

• Office of the Commissioner, Bureau

of Reclamation, Room 7612, 1849 C

Street, NW, Washington DC 20240

• Reclamation Service Center, Bureau

of Reclamation, Library, Room 167,

Building 67, Denver Federal Center,

Denver CO 80225

• Pacific Northwest Regional Office,

Bureau of Reclamation, Room 214, 1150

North Curtis Road, Boise ID 83706

• Mid-Pacific Regional Office, Bureau

of Reclamation, Library, Room W–1522,

2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento CA

95825

• Lower Colorado Regional Office,

Bureau of Reclamation, Library, Room

M117, Nevada Highway and Park Street,

Boulder City NV 89005

• Upper Colorado Regional Office,

Bureau of Reclamation, Library, Room

7101, 125 South State Street, Salt Lake

City UT 84147

• Great Plains Regional Office,

Bureau of Reclamation, Library, Room

2037, Federal Office Building, 316

North 26th Street, Billings MT 59101

Libraries

Arizona

Arizona Department of Water Resources

Library, Phoenix

Arizona State Library, Department of Library,

Archives and Public Records, Phoenix

Arizona State Regional Library for the Blind

and Physically Handicapped, Phoenix

Arizona State University, Noble Science and

Engineering Library, Tempe

Arizona State University, Hayden Library,

Tempe

Flagstaff City-Coconino County Public

Library, Flagstaff

Maricopa County Library, Phoenix

Mesa Public Library, Mesa

Northern Arizona University, Cline Library,

Flagstaff

Phoenix Public Library, Phoenix

Scottsdale Public Library, Scottsdale

Tempe Public Library, Tempe

Tucson Pima Library, Tucson

University of Arizona Library, Tucson

Yuma County Library District, Yuma

California

Bay Area Library and Information System,

Oakland