19282 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 1995 / Notices

boundary, east boundary, subdivisional lines,

and 1873 meander lines of Summit Lake, and

the subdivision of section 35, and the survey

of the 1988–1991 meander lines and an

informative traverse of the 1988–1991 bank

of a portion of Summit Lake, T. 42 N., R. 25

E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Group No. 655,

Nevada, was accepted March 16, 1995.

The plat, in three sheets, representing the

dependent resurvey of portions of the south

boundary, subdivisional lines, 1873 meander

lines of Summit Lake, and the Camp McGarry

Military Reservation Line, and the

subdivision of certain sections, and the

survey of the 1988–1991 meander lines of a

portion of Summit Lake, T. 42 N., R. 26 E.,

Mount Diablo Meridian, Group No. 655,

Nevada, was accepted March 16, 1995.

The plat representing the dependent

resurvey of a portion of the west boundary

of T. 41 N., R. 26 E.; and the survey of a

portion of the south boundary of T. 411⁄2 N.

R. 25 E.; and the survey of a portion of the

subdivisional lines of T. 41 N., R. 25 E.,

Mount Diablo Meridian, Group No. 655,

Nevada, was accepted March 16, 1995.

The plat representing the survey of a

portion of the subdivisional lines of T. 411⁄2

N., R. 25 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Group

No. 655, Nevada, was accepted March 16,

1995.

These surveys were executed to meet

certain administrative needs of the

Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau

of Land Management.

3. Subject to valid existing rights the

provisions of existing withdrawals and

classifications, the requirements of

applicable laws, and other segregations

of record, those portions of the lands

listed under item 2 that are original

survey are open to application, petition,

and disposal, including application

under the mineral leasing laws. All such

valid applications received on or prior

to May 17, 1995, shall be considered as

simultaneously filed at that time. Those

received thereafter shall be considered

in order of filing.

4. The above-listed surveys are now

the basic record for describing the lands

for all authorized purposes. These

surveys will be placed in the open files

in the BLM Nevada State Office and will

be available to the public as a matter of

information. Copies of the surveys and

related field notes may be furnished to

the public upon payment of the

appropriate fees.

Dated: March 31, 1995.

Robert H. Thompson,

Acting Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Nevada.

[FR Doc. 95–9320 Filed 4–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–HC–P

Bureau of Reclamation

Environmental Impact Statement on

the City of San Jose’s South Bay Water

Recycling Program, San Jose,

California

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as

amended, the Bureau of Reclamation

(Reclamation) proposes to prepare an

environmental impact statement (EIS)

on the City of San Jose’s (City) proposed

construction of facilities to support the

South Bay Water Recycling Program

(SBWRP). The EIS will be based on a

1992 environmental impact report (EIR)

prepared by the City. The SBWRP

would divert treated freshwater effluent

from South San Francisco Bay through

a water reclamation program. This

project would include construction of

pump stations and recycled distribution

pipelines.

DATES: Written comments on the scope

of alternatives and impacts to be

considered should be sent to

Reclamation by May 17, 1995.

Reclamation estimates that the EIS will

be available for public review in late

spring of 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the

project scope should be sent to Mona

Jefferies-Soniea, Bureau of Reclamation,

Mid-Pacific Region, Division of

Resources Management Planning, 2800

Cottage Way, MP–720, Sacramento,

California 95825.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Jefferies-Soniea at the above address;

telephone (916) 979–2297.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

SBWRP, formerly known as the San Jose

Nonpotable Reclamation Project, was

developed in response to an order from

the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) and San Francisco Regional Water

Quality Control Board in order to reestablish salinity levels of the salt water

marsh in the southern tip of San

Francisco Bay. In addition to protecting

the South Bay habitat, the program also

develops nonpotable water supply for

the Santa Clara Valley, which can be

used in place of potable water for

appropriate purposes. Funding will

come from loans from the State Water

Resources Control Board and EPA, a

grant from Reclamation, and local

funding.

The SBWRP would be implemented

in two phases: Phase I would consist of

installing facilities to supply up to 9,000

acre-feet/year of nonpotable water for

landscape irrigation, agriculture and

industrial uses. Phase II would consist

of installing facilities to supply an

additional up to 27,000 acre-feet/year

for either nonpotable or potable use.

The City completed a final EIR for the

SBWRP in November 1992. At that time,

Reclamation had not been involved and

therefore no compliance with NEPA was

needed. Because federal funding is now

being used to support the SBWRP,

compliance with NEPA is required at

this time. The EIS will be based on this

final EIR. The EIR analyzed Phase I in

detail and analyzed Phase II

programmatically. Supplemental local

and Federal environmental compliance

will be done later this year to analyze

Phase II in detail.

An EIS scoping meeting is not

planned because of scoping already

done by the City. The City sent out a

notice of preparation of their EIR to the

public in 1992 and held a public

scoping meeting on February 19, 1992.

The proposed action (Phase I) is to

construct pump stations, storage tanks,

48.5 miles of 6- to 54-inch diameter

pipeline and appurtenant facilities in

the cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, and

Milpitas. There would also be minor

modifications of the existing San Jose/

Santa Clara Water Pollution Control

Plant to provide additional chlorination.

Alternatives to the proposed action

include:

• Pipeline Alignment Alternative, to

avoid construction of pipelines near

residences.

• Flow Allocation Alternative, which

would allocate most of the reclaimed

water for potable uses. The water would

be used for groundwater recharge,

mainly using percolation basins.

• Habitat Enhancement Alternative,

to also supply water to riparian

restoration areas along creeks and rivers

in the study area, as well as for potable

and other nonpotable purposes.

• No Action.

Dated: April 7, 1995.

Roger K. Patterson,

Regional Director.

[FR Doc. 95–9340 Filed 4–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–94–P

Fish and Wildlife Service

Endangered and Threatened Species

Permit Application

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of application,

document availability, and public

comment period.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 1995 / Notices 19283

The following applicant has applied

for permits to conduct certain activities

with endangered species. This notice is

provided pursuant to section 10(c) of

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.):

Applicant: Assistant Regional

Director, Ecological Services, Region 3,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort

Snelling, Minnesota.

Permit No. PRT–697830

The applicant requests an amendment

to their current permit to take the

following species for scientific purposes

and the enhancement of propagation or

survival in accordance with recovery

outlines, recovery plans, listing, or other

Service work for those species.

1. Clubshell (Pleurobema clava)

2. Cracking pearly mussel (Hemistena

(=Lastena) lata)

3. Ring pink (=golf stick pearly) mussel

(Obovaria retusa)

4. Purple cat’s paw pearly mussel

(Epioblasma (=Dysnomia) obliquata

obliquata (=E. sulcata sulcata))

5. Northern riffleshell (Epioblasma

torulosa rangiana)

6. Hungerford’s crawling water beetle

(Brychius hungerfordi)

7. Hine’s emerald dragonfly

(Somatochlora hineana)

Documents and other information

submitted with these applications are

available to the public during normal

business hours (7:30 a.m.—4 p.m.) in

Room 650, Bishop Henry Whipple

Federal Building, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Division of Endangered

Species, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling,

Minnesota 55111–4056.

Interested persons may comment on

any of these applications within 30 days

of the date of this publication by

submitting written views, arguments, or

data to the Regional Director, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Region 3, 1

Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota

55111–4056. Please refer to PRT–697830

when submitting comments.

Dated: April 10, 1995.

William F. Hartwig,

Regional Director, Region 3, Fish and Wildlife

Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.

[FR Doc. 95–9339 Filed 4–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

Record of Decision for a Final

Supplemental Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement

(SPEIS) on the Federal Aid in Sport

Fish Restoration and Federal Aid in

Wildlife Restoration Programs

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)

has selected the No Change Alternative

for its operation of the Sport Fish

Restoration and Wildlife Restoration

Programs into the next century. This

decision was based on the Service

analysis of the program contained in a

SPEIS to augment the Program

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

published in 1978 and comments

received from the public regarding that

SPEIS.

ADDRESSES: Columbus H. Brown, Chief,

Division of Federal Aid, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Arlington Square

Building, Room 140, 4401 North Fairfax

Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Columbus H. Brown, Chief, Division of

Federal Aid, Telephone (703) 358–2156.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Federal Aid in Sport Fish and

Wildlife Restoration Program was

initiated with the passage of the Federal

Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (16

U.S.C. 669 et seq.) in 1937. This Act has

been commonly referred to as the

Pittman-Robertson Act in honor of the

sponsors of the Act. The purpose of the

Act was to provide a stable and secure

source of funding to the States for the

management, conservation, and

enhancement of wildlife species. The

Act was passed in response to dramatic

declines in the populations of a number

of game species and was originally

intended as a mechanism to restore

those populations to healthy levels.

Funding for the Wildlife Restoration

Program is derived from Federal excise

taxes on sporting arms, ammunition,

and certain archery equipment.

The Wildlife Restoration Act

authorizes the Service to deduct a

maximum of 8 percent of the funds for

administration of the Act and for

carrying out the Migratory Bird

Conservation Act. After making

administrative deductions, the

remaining funds are apportioned to the

States based on the geographic area,

number of hunting license holders, and

State population. Guam, Puerto Rico,

the Virgin Islands, American Samoa,

and the Northern Mariana Islands,

receive a fixed percentage of the funds

apportioned. Funds apportioned under

the Wildlife Restoration Program for

fiscal year 1994 came to a total of

$182,081,117.

While the Wildlife Restoration Act

was specifically directed toward

developing funds for wildlife

management, it served as the pattern for

a similar funding mechanism directed at

fisheries management. In 1950, the

Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration

Act (16 U.S.C. 777 et seq.), commonly

called the Dingell-Johnson Act was

passed. The legislation was further

augmented by the Wallop-Breaux

amendment of 1984, providing

additional funds. The Sport Fish

Restoration Program provides stable

funding for restoration, conservation,

management and enhancement of sport

fish, and the provision of benefits from

these resources to the public; improved

boating access; and aquatic resource

education. Funds provided by this Act

are derived from Federal excise taxes on

fishing tackle and related equipment,

federal taxes on gasoline used in

motorboats, duties on imported boats,

and fishing tackle, and interest earned

on investment of these funds.

Sport Fish Restoration Program funds

are apportioned based on the number of

fishing license holders and the

geographic area of each State. Puerto

Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands,

American Samoa, the Northern Mariana

Islands, and the District of Columbia

receive a fixed percentage of the funds

apportioned. The Service may deduct

up to 6 percent for administration of the

Act. State funds apportioned under the

Sport Fish Restoration program for fiscal

year 1994 came to a total of

$174,628,718.

The mentioned Act form the basis of

the Federal Aid in Sport Fish and

Wildlife Restoration Program, or the

Federal Aid Program (Program). The

Program is administered by the

Service’s Division of Federal Aid

(Division). The Division’s mission is to

strengthen the ability of State and

Territorial fish and wildlife agencies to

restore and manage fish and wildlife

resources to meet effectively the

consumptive and nonconsumptive

needs of the public for fish and wildlife

resources.

Alternatives Considered

Five alternatives, listed below, were

considered in the SPEIS. Each

alternative was developed by Service,

State, and public inputs and focuses on

the needs and direction of the Federal

Aid Program into the next century.

Under each of these alternatives, the

basic core of Program activities would

continue as it is at present with gradual

changes in emphasis in response to

public interest and need.

Alternative 1—No Change to the

Existing Program Direction. Continue

current administration and activities.

Alternative 2—Emphasis on National

and Regional Priorities. Encourage

States to consider funding projects

contributing to national or regional