Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2001 / Notices 20831

2. Prescribed Fire Use: The use of

prescribed fire is currently an area of

public concern due to recent publicity

over escaped burns in Los Alamos and

California. The Elko District could

benefit from prescribed fire use in high

fuel load areas to reduce the potential

impacts from severe wildland fire and to

improve habitat. Local residents need to

be involved with all prescribed fire

planning and support any proposed

prescribed fire projects.

3. Conversion of Sagebrush Habitat:

Wildlife managers throughout the Great

Basin are concerned over the

precipitous decline in sage grouse

numbers in recent years, thus causing

an increased demand for the protection

of sagebrush habitat throughout Elko

District. Wildfire can both improve and

devastate sage grouse habitat. Managing

this habitat in view of competing

resource uses and the spread of

invasive, nonnative weeds throughout

the district is a challenge for local land

managers.

4. Emergency Fire Rehabilitation

(EFR): Some EFR procedures are

controversial, including fencing recently

burned and/or rehabilitated areas to

prevent grazing on fragile re-vegetation,

as well as seeding with non-native grass

species which out-compete noxious

weeds and cheatgrass. Fencing burned

areas in wild horse Herd Management

Areas can disrupt movement of wild

horses and are not popular with wild

horse advocacy groups. Livestock

owners are also concerned about the

economic impacts of some EFR projects

on their livelihood.

5. Forest Resources: Declining forest

resources throughout the district put

remaining stands at risk. Some stands

need fire to insure forest ecosystem

health. However, extensive fuels

buildup could cause high intensity fires,

leading to stand replacement as well as

firefighter safety issues. In addition,

Native Americans have concerns over

the health of pinyon pine tree stands,

since the tree and its fruit are important

in maintaining their traditions.

6. Invasive, Nonnative Weeds: The

significant resources required to fight

noxious weed and cheatgrass invasions

requires the cooperation of all

landowners in affected areas in the

district. Wildfire management is one of

the most important factors affecting the

spread of these weeds in the Elko

District.

7. Fire Suppression Costs and Affect

on Local Rural Economies: Although

high suppression costs affect all

taxpayers, many local rural

communities depend heavily on the

influx of dollars from fire suppression

efforts. Less fire suppression could lead

to the saving of tax dollars and the

possible improvement of some habitat

values, however, several local

economies may be negatively impacted

by any changes.

8. Community Assistance: Better

communication, training, and

cooperation with local communities

would aid in reducing the threat from

wildfire in the wildland urban interface,

reduce arson, trespass, and negligence

occurrence, and encourage fire

prevention.

BLM planning regulations (43 CFR

1610) require preparation of planning

criteria to guide development of all

resource management plans, revisions,

and amendments. Planning criteria are

based on: standards prescribed by

applicable laws and regulations; agency

guidance; the result of consultation and

coordination with the public and other

Federal, State and local agencies and

governmental entities and Native

American tribes; analysis of information

pertinent to the planning area; and

professional judgement. The following

preliminary criteria were developed

internally and will be reviewed by the

public before being used in the

amendment/EA process. After analysis

of public input, they will become

proposed criteria, and can be added to

or changed as issues are addressed or

new information is presented. The Elko

Field Manager will approve all planning

criteria, as well as any proposed

changes:

—The fire management RMP

amendment will be completed in

compliance with FLPMA and all other

applicable laws and regulations.

—The Elko Field Office Planning

Interdisciplinary Team will work

cooperatively with the State of

Nevada, tribal governments, county

and municipal governments, other

Federal agencies, and all other

interested groups, agencies, and

individuals. Public participation will

be encouraged throughout the

planning process.

—The RMP amendment will establish

the fire management guidance upon

which the BLM will rely in managing

the Elko District, for the life of both

the Elko and Wells RMPs.

—The RMP amendment process will

include an Environmental Assessment

that will comply with all National

Environmental Policy Act standards.

—The RMP amendment will emphasize

the protection and enhancement of

Elko District natural resources, while

at the same time providing the public

with opportunities for use of these

resources.

—The lifestyles and concerns of area

residents, including livestock grazing,

recreational uses, and other land uses,

will be recognized in the amendment.

—Any lands located within the Elko

District administrative boundary

which are acquired by the BLM, will

be managed consistent with the

amendment, subject to any constraints

associated with the acquisition.

—The amendment will recognize the

State’s responsibility to manage

wildlife.

—The amendment will incorporate the

Nevada Rangeland Health Standards

and Guidelines and be consistent with

the Nevada Sage Grouse Management

Guidelines.

—The planning process will involve

Native American tribal governments

and will provide strategies for the

protection of recognized traditional

uses.

—Decisions in the amendment will

strive to be consistent with the

existing plans and policies of adjacent

local, State, Tribal and Federal

agencies, to the extent consistent with

Federal law.

Freedom of Information Act

Considerations: Public comments

submitted for this planning amendment,

including names and street addresses of

respondents, will be available for public

review and disclosure at the Elko Field

Office during regular business hours.

Individual respondents may request

confidentiality. If you wish to withhold

your name or address from public

review or from disclosure under the

Freedom of Information Act, you must

state this prominently at the beginning

of your comments. Such requests will be

honored to the extent allowed by law.

All submissions from organizations or

businesses, and from individuals

identifying themselves as

representatives or officials of

organizations or businesses, will be

made available for public inspection in

their entirety.

Dated: April 6, 2001.

Helen Hankins,

Elko Field Manager.

[FR Doc. 01–10210 Filed 4–24–01; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 4310–HC–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation

Banks Lake Drawdown, Columbia

Basin Project, Washington

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

20832 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2001 / Notices

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C)

of the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, the

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation)

proposes to prepare an environmental

impact statement (EIS) to evaluate

impacts of altering existing operations at

Banks Lake to provide for an annual

drawdown of up to 10 feet from full

pool to enhance flows in the Columbia

River during the juvenile out migration

of salmonid stocks listed under the

Endangered Species Act. The proposed

drawdown would occur in August and

the elevation of the surface water would

remain constant from August 31st

through December 31st. This action

would constitute a change in existing

operations, although it is within existing

operating authorization. The proposed

drawdown is being evaluated in

response to Action item 31 of the

Federal Columbia River Power System

(FCRPS) Biological Opinion issued by

the National Marine Fisheries Service

on December 21, 2000.

DATES: A scoping meeting to identify

issues to be evaluated in the EIS will be

held at:

• Coulee City, WA: May 15, 2001, 7

to 9 p.m.

Written comments will be accepted

through May 31, 2001 for inclusion in

the scoping summary document.

Requests for sign language

interpretation for the hearing impaired

or other auxiliary aids should be

submitted to Jim Blanchard as indicated

under ADDRESSES by May 8, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments and requests to

be added to the mailing list may be

submitted to Bureau of Reclamation,

Ephrata Field Office, Attention: James

Blanchard, 32 C Street, Box 815,

Ephrata, WA 98823.

The scoping meeting will be held at

the following location:

• Coulee City Middle School Gym,

312 E. Main Street, Coulee City, WA.

Our practice is to make comments,

including names and home addresses of

respondents, available for public

review. Individual respondents may

request that we withhold their home

address from public disclosure, which

we will honor to the extent allowable by

law. There also may be circumstances in

which we would withhold a

respondent’s identity from public

disclosure, as allowable by law. If you

wish us to withhold your name and/or

address, you must state this

prominently at the beginning of your

comment. We will make all submissions

from organizations or businesses, and

from individuals identifying themselves

as representatives or officials of

organizations or businesses, available

for public disclosure in their entirety.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Blanchard, Bureau of

Reclamation, telephone: (509) 754–

0226, fax: (509) 754–0239. The hearing

impaired may contact Mr. Blanchard at

the above number via a toll free TTY

relay: (800) 833–6388. The meeting

facilities are physically accessible to

people with disabilities. Please direct

requests for sign language interpretation

for the hearing impaired, or other

special needs, to James Blanchard at the

telephone numbers indicated above by

May 8, 2001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Banks Lake is operated as a reregulation reservoir for the Columbia

Basin Project (CBP). The reservoir is

approximately 27 miles long and

contains slightly more than one million

acre feet of water at full pool. The water

supply for the reservoir is stored behind

Grand Coulee Dam and is lifted from

Franklin Delano Roosevelt Reservoir

into Banks Lake. Water is delivered into

the Main Canal at Dry Falls Dam on the

southern end of Banks Lake and from

there delivered to approximately

670,000 acres. This is just over 1⁄2 of the

authorized lands for the CBP. Although

Reclamation is currently authorized to

operate the reservoir down to 5 feet

below full pool, for the past 5 years it

has been operated at close to full pool

throughout the year to increase the

generating capability of the pump/

generators at Grand Coulee. Previous

operations were within the top two feet

of full pool during irrigation season and

then drawing the reservoir level down

five feet during the non-irrigation

season.

Action 31 of the FCRPS Biological

Opinion calls for the assessment of

operation of Banks Lake at up to 10 feet

below full pool beginning in August of

each year. Refill would occur from

January through April. The reduction of

pumping into Banks Lake will increase

the amount of water available to support

endangered salmonid stocks in the

Columbia River.

Public Involvement

Reclamation is requesting public

comment to help identify the significant

issues and reasonable alternatives to be

addressed in the EIS. Reclamation will

summarize comments received during

the scoping meeting and from letters of

comment received during the scoping

period, identified under DATES, into a

scoping summary document. This

scoping summary will be sent to all who

responded during the scoping period,

and also will be made available to the

public upon request.

Dated: April 19, 2001.

J. Eric Glover,

Acting Regional Director, Pacific Northwest

Region.

[FR Doc. 01–10218 Filed 4–24–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Importer of Controlled Substances;

Notice of Registration

By notice dated August 18, 2000, and

published in the Federal Register on

September 6, 2000, (65 FR 54071)

Salsbury Chemicals, Inc., 1205 11th

Street, Charles City, Iowa 50616–3466,

made application to the Drug

Enforcement Administration (DEA) to

be registered as an importer of

phenylacetone (8501), a basic class of

controlled substance listed in Schedule

II.

The firm plans to import

phenylacetone to manufacture

amphetamine for distribution to its

customers.

No comments or objections have been

received. DEA has considered the

factors in title 21, United States Code,

section 823(a) and determined that the

registration of Salsbury Chemicals, Inc.

is consistent with the public interest

and with United States obligations

under international treaties,

conventions, or protocols in effect on

May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has

investigated Salsbury Chemicals, Inc. to

ensure that the company’s continued

registration is consistent with the public

interest. This investigation included

inspection and testing of the company’s

physical security systems, verification

of the Company’s compliance with state

and local laws, and a review of the

company’s background and history.

Therefore, pursuant to section 1008(a) of

the Controlled Substances Import and

Export Act and in accordance with title

21, Code of Federal Regulations, section

1301.34, the above firm is granted

registration as an importer of the basic

class of controlled substance listed

above.

Dated: April 13, 2001.

Laura M. Nagel,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–10257 Filed 4–24–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M