Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2001 / Notices 23879

CSREES–2004, ‘‘Budget;’’ Form

CSREES–2006, ‘‘National

Environmental Policy Act Exclusions

Form;’’ and Form CSREES–2008,

‘‘Assurance Statement(s)—For Research

Projects.’’

Forms CSREES–667, ‘‘Phase I and

Phase II Proposal Cover Sheet;’’ and

CSREES–668, ‘‘Phase I and Phase II

Project Summary’’ are used to obtain

USDA recordkeeping data, required

certifications, and information used to

respond to inquiries from Congress,

other Government agencies, and the

grantee community concerning grant

projects supported by the USDA SBIR

Program.

The following information has been

collected and will continue to be

collected:

Forms CSREES–667— Identification:

designates the research topic area under

which a proposal is submitted for

consideration; USDA recordkeeping

data: provides names and addresses of

principal investigators and authorized

agents of small business firms; and

Certifications: Provides required

certifications; for example, the applicant

qualifies as a small business for

purposes of the SBIR Program; the

applicant qualifies as a minority and

disadvantaged and/or women-owned

small business.

Form CSREES–668—Project

summary: Provides a Technical Abstract

used when releasing information about

grant projects supported and keywords

to identify the technology/research

thrust/commercial application of the

projects.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting

burden for this collection of information

is estimated to average 5.15 hours per

response.

Respondents: Businesses or other forprofits.

Estimated Number of Responses Per

Form: 480 for Form CSREES–667 and

480 for Form CSREES–668.

Estimated Number of Responses Per

Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on

Respondents: 2,472 hours, broken down

by: 672 hours for Form CSREES–667

(1.4 hours per 480 respondents) and

1,800 hours for Form CSREES–668 (3.75

hours per 480 respondents).

Copies of this information collection

can be obtained from Duane Alphs,

Policy and Program Liaison Staff,

CSREES, (202) 401–3319. E-mail:

OEP@reeusda.gov.

Comments: Comments are invited on:

(a) Whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether the

information will have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate

of the burden of the proposed collection

of information including the validity of

the methodology and assumptions used;

(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility

and clarity of the information to be

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on those who are to respond, including

through the use of appropriate

automated, electronic, mechanical, or

other technological collection

techniques or other forms of information

technology. Comments should be sent to

the address stated in the preamble.

Comments also may be submitted

directly to OMB and should be

addressed to: Desk Officer for

Agriculture, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, Washington,

DC 20502.

All responses to this notice will be

summarized and included in the request

for OMB approval. All comments also

will become a matter of public record.

Done at Washington, DC, this 2d day of

May, 2001.

Colien Hefferan,

Administrator, Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service.

[FR Doc. 01–11817 Filed 5–9–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Fox and Crescent Reservoir

Maintenance, High Uintas Wilderness,

Ashley National Forest, Duchesne

County, UT

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: Dry Gulch Irrigation Company

(DGIC), holder of special use permits to

operate Fox and Crescent reservoir dams

in the High Uintas Wilderness on the

Ashley National Forest, has requested

permission to maintain the dam

structures to correct deficiencies that

may result in failure of the dams in the

near future. This maintenance work will

require an assessment of environmental

consequences, including those

associated with proposals to use

motorized and mechanical tools and

equipment within the boundaries of the

High Uintas Wilderness.

DATES: To be most useful for early

identification of issues, comments

concerning the scope of the analysis

should be received in writing by May

29, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

questions should be send to: Dave Frew,

Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Attn:

Fox Lake Project, Roosevelt/Duchesne

Ranger Districts, Ashley National Forest,

244 West Highway 40, Roosevelt, Utah

84066.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Specific questions about the proposed

project and analysis should be directed

to Dave Frew, Interdisciplinary Team

Leader, 244 West Highway 40,

Roosevelt, Utah 84066.

Responsible Official: Jack Blackwell,

Regional Forester, Intermountain

Region, is the responsible official for

this EIS and the Record of Decision.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

proposal arose due to concerns found in

various state and federal inspections of

these dams over the past couple of

years. Both of these dams are over 70

years old, and like all human made

structures require periodic maintenance

to insure their safe continued operation.

These reservoirs are accessible only by

primitive trail—there are not roads

accessing these facilities. In the past,

these reservoirs have been accessed

from time to time by helicopter. The

reservoirs must be maintained if storage

is to continue to be allowed.

In 1984, Congress designated the area

encompassing these reservoir sites at the

High Uintas Wilderness, further

complicating access by the wilderness

provision against motorized or

mechanical access or the use of

motorized or mechanical tools and

equipment. The 1964 Wilderness Act

provides that motorized transport, tools

and equipment and/or mechanical

access may be authorized in specific

circumstances, that being when it is

determined they are the minimum

requirement necessary for the proper

administration of the area, and when

authorized by the proper authority.

Proposed Action

DGIC proposes the following activities

to insure the proper maintenance of the

dams. Both the State of Utah

Department of Natural Resources,

Division of Water Rights, and the Forest

Service agree that the maintenance

activities proposed meet the technical

requirements, and are necessary to

accomplish if the dams are to continue

to be used for their intended purpose.

The proposed action involves helicopter

transport to the reservoir sites for

materials and equipment, and also

proposes on-site motorized equipment

to complete the work.

Fox Lake

Repairs to the outlet pipe with consist

of slip lining the existing 36 inch

23880 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2001 / Notices

corrugated pipe with 30′′ ID and a 321⁄2′′

OD 40 pound pressure HEPE pipe with

two joints totaling 96 ft. 6 inches, with

a stainless steel band to join the pipes.

A new structure will be formed and a

new concrete structure will be poured.

The outlet structure may also need to be

replaced, or if not replaced, then some

grout work will be necessary. Existing

head gate controls will be removed and

the wet well will be filed with native

material. A new 30-inch Waterman head

gate and frame assembly will be

installed on the inlet end of the outlet

pipe. The southwest levee will be raised

approximately 3 inches in elevation to

match the elevation of the dam. The

north levee will be raised approximately

9 inches to match the elevation of the

dam. Native material from existing

borrow pits are proposed to be used to

complete this portion of the project.

There may also be some work on the

main dike to insure proper freeboard.

The leak at the toe of the southwest

levee will be excavated into the

downstream toe and a sand filter

installed to stop any fine material

movement through the dike. This sand

will be over laid with native material.

Any leaks on the upstream apron of

the spillway will be repaired. An 8 inch

thick retaining wall, three feet high, and

22 feet long will be poured on the

downstream apron and will be doweled

into the existing concrete spillway and

the cracks will also be repaired. Riprap

will be placed on the downstream to

protect the spillway. All woody

vegetation will be removed from the

existing dam, levees, and dike (this

action could take place annually or as

needed for long term maintenance.)

Crescent Lake

A new head gate frame assembly will

be installed and any repairs to the head

gate or outlet pipe will be performed to

ensure proper operation. The cracks in

the masonry dam will be repaired using

a grout facing material and glue mixture.

The proposed action requires the

following materials at the reservoir sites:

An oxygen and acetylene torch, 24

pieces of 1⁄2 inch rebar, one generator,

one generator welder, two portable

electric cement mixers, one grout pump,

100 gallons of fuel, one containment

trough, six feet of 36 inch culvert and

band, two wheel barrows, two 2 inch

water pumps, sealable containers for

transportation of human waste materials

from the job site, 96.5 feet of HDPE pipe,

a 30 inch Waterman head gate,

miscellaneous lumber and forms,

miscellaneous tools and supplies, and

camp equipment and supplies for the

work crews.

Transporting these tools and

equipment will require an estimated

minimum of 16 to 22 helicopter flights.

The project is estimated to take 40–45

days with work crews varying from six

to fourteen personnel. The helicopter

operation will require a staging area be

established at a site outside the

wilderness at the Reader Creek

meadows. The staging area is accessed

via the Chepeta Lake road, and the

helicopter refueling operations will take

place at the staging area. Helicopter

drop zones will be located either on the

dam itself or within close proximity, to

the work areas. If possible, drop zones

will be within the reservoir area.

It is proposed that four saddle horses

be at the worksite for the duration of the

project for safety reasons, and four to six

draft horses be available for 21 days to

assist with the project work. There will

be other horses used as needed for

transportation to and from the worksite.

The livestock will be using forage areas

to the north and west of Fox reservoir.

Supplemental feed may be required for

the livestock. Campsites will be

established t6o support up to 14 persons

at one time per campsite. Campsites will

be at least one mile apart.

Alternatives

At least two and possibly three action

alternatives will be considered in the

analysis.

Alternative 1—Proposed Action (As

Described Above)

Alternative 2—Complete Repairs Using

Primitive Means

This alternative will basically require

that the needed work be done with

wilderness friendly tools and

equipment—minimizing or eliminating

the proposed means of access by

helicopter and the one-site motorized

and mechanical equipment to perform

the needed work. This alternative must

be analyzed with the understanding that

changing the proposal to the extent that

repairs cannot effectively be made to

meet safety and other pertinent

standards will not meet the purpose and

need of the project.

Alternative 3—Modification of the

Proposed Action

There may be other ways to

accomplish the needed work through

some variation or modification of the

proposed action that will further

address important issues or minimize

impacts and costs of the project. These

modifications often become apparent as

the analysis of the project goes forward

and our publics become involved in the

process.

Alternative 4—No Action

Under this alternative, the proposed

repairs will not be completed. This will

require that a storage restriction be put

on the Fox reservoir immediately and

shortly on the Crescent reservoir. Future

work under this alternative will require

activity to permanently stabilize these

reservoirs so as not to function as draw

down reservoirs. This alternative

effectively eliminates the reservoirs as

storage for late season irrigation water to

the farms and ranches in the Uinta

Basin.

Issues

The following is a preliminary list of

issues identified by the ID Team. Other

issues raised during public involvement

will also be discussed in this EIS. The

preliminary issues include:

1. Impacts of the project on

wilderness values.

2. Ability to use legally held water

rights.

3. Access to the sites—impacts on

existing trails.

4. Water Quality.

5. Riparian Areas/Stream Conditions.

6. Borrow areas and sites—material

sources.

7. Rehabilitation of disturbed areas.

8. Impact to wilderness visitors

including noise, dust, and opportunities

for solitude.

9. Impacts to wildlife resources

including Threatened, Endangered and

Sensitive species.

10. Impacts to outfitter—guide

operations.

11. Historical integrity of the dams.

Decision To Be Made

The decision to be made is: Should

the DGIC be allowed to effect the

repairs, as proposed, on Fox and

Crescent dams to allow further use of

the reservoirs as storage for late season

irrigation water as presently authorized

under special use permit, and, if so,

what motorized and mechanical tools

and equipment will be allowed in the

designated High Uintas Wilderness to

complete the project. A decision will

also be made on the location of the

helicopter-staging site outside the

wilderness.

Public Involvement

Public participation is especially

important at several points during the

analysis, particularly during initial

scoping and review of the draft EIS.

Individuals, organizations, federal, state,

and local agencies who are interested in

or affected by the decision are invited to

participate in the scoping process. This

information will be used in the

preparation of the draft EIS.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2001 / Notices 23881

The second major opportunity for

public input is during the review of the

draft EIS. The draft EIS is expected to

be filed with the EPA (Environmental

Protection Agency) and to be available

for public review in September, 2001.

At that time the EPA will publish a

notice of availability of the draft EIS in

the Federal Register. The comment

period on the draft EIS will be 45 days

from the date the EPA’s notice of

availability appears in the Federal

Register. It is very important that those

interested in this proposed action

participate at that time. To be the most

helpful, comments on the draft EIS

should be as specific as possible and

may address the adequacy of the

statement or the merits of the

alternatives discussed (Reviewers may

wish to refer to the Council on

Environmental Quality Regulations for

implementing the procedural provisions

of the National Environmental Policy

Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing

these points). The Forest Service

believes, at this early stage, it is

important to give reviewers notice of

several federal court rulings related to

public participation in the

environmental review process. First,

reviewers of draft environmental impact

statements must structure their

participation in the environmental

review process. First, reviewers of draft

environmental impact statements must

structure their participation in the

environmental review of the proposal so

that it is meaningful and alerts an

agency to the reviewer’s position and

contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear

Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 533

(1978). Also environmental objections

that could be raised at the draft EIS

stage, but that are not raised until after

completion of the final EIS, may be

waived or dismissed by the courts. City

of Angoon v. Hodel, (9th Circuit, 1986)

and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc v. Harris,

490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis,

1980). Because of these court rulings, it

is very important that those interested

in this proposed action participate by

the close of the 30-day comment period

so that substantive comments and

objections are made available to the

Forest Service at a time when it can

meaningfully consider them and

respond to them in the final EIS.

To assist the Forest Service in

identifying and considering issues and

concerns on the proposed action,

comments on the draft EIS should be as

specific as possible. It is also helpful if

comments refer to specific pages or

chapters of the draft statement.

Comments may also address the

adequacy of the draft EIS or the merits

of the alternates formulated and

discussed in the statement. Reviewers

may wish to refer to the Council on

environmental Quality Regulations for

implementing the procedural provisions

of the National Environmental Policy

Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing

these points.

After the comment period ends on the

draft EIS, the comments will be

analyzed and considered in preparing

the final EIS. The final EIS is scheduled

for completion in March, 2002.

Dated: April 16, 2001.

Jack G. Troyer,

Deputy Regional Forester.

[FR Doc. 01–11740 Filed 5–9–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3401–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Census Bureau

School Enrollment Report

ACTION: Proposed collection; comment

request

SUMMARY: The Department of

Commerce, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork and

respondent burden, invites the general

public and other Federal agencies to

take this opportunity to comment on

proposed and/or continuing information

collections, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C.

3506(c)(2)(A)).

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted on or before July 9, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments

to Madeleine Clayton, Departmental

Paperwork Clearance Officer,

Department of Commerce, Room 6086,

14th and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230 (or via the

Internet at mclayton@doc.gov).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or

copies of the information collection

instrument(s) and instructions should

be directed to Josie Baker, U.S. Census

Bureau, Room 2331, Washington, DC

20233–0001, 301–457–2441,

josephine.d.baker@census.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abstract

Each year the U.S. Census Bureau

sends the School Enrollment Report, P–

4 form to the 30 state departments of

education that do not publish

enrollment data early enough in the year

for us to use their published reports.

Information requested includes fall

public and nonpublic enrollment by

grade for the state and counties. In six

states we collect year-end enrollment.

The U.S. Census Bureau uses school

enrollment data in preparing estimates

of state population. State population

estimates are used by dozens of Federal

agencies for allocating Federal program

funds, as bases for rates of occurrences,

and as input for Federal surveys. State

and local governments, businesses, and

the general public use state population

estimates for planning and other

information uses.

II. Method of Collection

The School Enrollment Report, P–4

form, is mailed each spring to

approximately 30 state education

agencies. We request fall public and

nonpublic school enrollment by grade

for the state and counties. Responses are

returned and reviewed on a flow basis

during the summer and early fall. Data

collected will be used as input for the

development of population estimates.

The estimates are made in November,

December, and January.

III. Data

OMB Number: 0607–0459.

Form Number: P–4.

Type of Review: Regular Review.

Affected Public: State education

agencies.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

30.

Estimated Time Per Response: 30

minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden

Hours: 15 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: @$27.25

per hour, $409.

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: Title 13 USC, Sections

181 and 182.

IV. Request for Comments

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the agency, including

whether the information shall have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden

(including hours and cost) of the

proposed collection of information; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on respondents, including through the

use of automated collection techniques

or other forms of information

technology.

Comments submitted in response to

this notice will be summarized and/or

included in the request for OMB

approval of this information collection;