27934 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2001 / Notices

winged blackbirds away from sunflower

production areas. Roost management

activities involve the treatment of cattail

stands larger than 10 acres with

glyphosate herbicide. Effective

management of cattail stands can

disperse blackbirds from traditional

roosting sites that are often in close

proximity to sunflower crops.

Lethal Techniques

Under the proposed management

program, WS would employ the use of

2 percent DRC–1339-treated brown rice

at red-winged blackbird staging areas in

the spring to reduce breeding

populations and subsequent damage to

ripening sunflowers in the fall. DRC–

1339 baiting would occur on not more

than 50 acres in harvested fields near

red-winged blackbird staging areas in

east-central South Dakota and target not

more than 2 million red-winged

blackbirds annually. The baiting areas

would be determined based on the most

current red-winged blackbird roost site

distribution and the areas where redwinged blackbirds stage. Baiting areas

and sites would be determined through

field observations by trained personnel,

and DRC–1339-treated bait would not be

distributed until risks to nontarget

species were evaluated.

Prior EPA-Authorized Use of DRC–1339

The avian toxicant DRC–1339 (3-

Chloro-p-toluidine hydrochloride) has

been used to reduce blackbird

populations causing agricultural damage

in Louisiana, North Dakota, South

Dakota, and Texas under Section 24C of

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act. In February 1995, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

granted a Section 3 label for

‘‘Compound DRC–1339 Concentrate

Staging Areas’’ for bird control in

noncrop staging areas associated with

red-winged blackbird roosts. The

Section 24C label for ‘‘Compound DRC–

1339 Concentrate ND and SD’’ is still in

effect for North Dakota because this

label allows a broader use pattern,

including baiting within ripening

sunflower fields during late summer.

Scoping Process

The initial step in the process of

developing an environmental impact

statement (EIS) is scoping. Scoping

includes solicitation of public

involvement in the form of either

written or oral comments, and

evaluation of these comments. This

process is used for determining the

scope of issues to be addressed. We are

therefore asking for written comments

that identify significant environmental

issues that should be analyzed in the

EIS. We invite comments from affected

Federal, State, and local agencies, any

affected Indian tribe, and any other

interested persons, and from Federal

and State agencies that have either

jurisdiction by law or special expertise

regarding any issue or environmental

impact that should be discussed in the

EIS.

Note: On March 22, 2001, we published a

notice in the Federal Register (66 FR 16028–

16031, Docket No. 01–013–1) soliciting

public involvement in the development of

issues necessary to complete an analysis of

the environmental impacts of reducing redwinged blackbird damage to ripening

sunflowers in North Dakota, South Dakota,

and Minnesota. We solicited comments on

that notice for 30 days ending on April 23,

2001, and received 163 comments by the

close of the comment period and an

additional 27 comments by April 30, 2001.

We will consider all the comments that we

received in response to our March 22, 2001,

notice during the preparation of the EIS that

is the subject of this notice. Therefore, if you

submitted comments in response the March

2001 notice, you do not need to resubmit

those comments in order for the information

provided in them to be considered during the

development of the EIS.

We are encouraging members of the

public and interested agencies and

organizations to assist in the planning of

this program and the development of an

EIS by answering the following

questions:

• What issues or concerns about the

proposed sunflower protection program

should we analyze?

• What alternatives to the proposed

action should we analyze?

• Do you have additional information

(i.e., scientific data or studies) that we

should consider in the analysis?

Alternatives

We will consider all reasonable and

realistic action alternatives

recommended in the comments we

receive. The following alternatives have

already been identified for

comprehensive analysis in the EIS:

• No involvement by WS in

sunflower protection (no Federal

program);

• Non-lethal before lethal program;

• Continue the current WS blackbird

damage management program;

• Integrated adaptive management

with the use of DRC–1339 baiting to

reduce damage caused by red-winged

blackbirds (preferred action);

• Lethal only program; and

• Payment of compensation to

affected growers.

Major Issues

The following are some of the major

issues that will be discussed in the EIS:

• Cumulative effects of the proposed

damage management program on redwinged blackbird populations;

• Safety concerns regarding the

potential effects of the proposed damage

management program on the public,

domestic pets, and nontarget species,

including threatened and endangered

species;

• Efficacy of DRC–1339 spring baiting

in reducing damage to unharvested

sunflowers;

• Public concern about WS’ use of

chemicals; and

• DRC–1339 spring baiting effects on

biodiversity.

Other alternatives and issues may also

be included in the analysis and will be

identified based on comments

submitted by the public and other

agencies and organizations.

Preparation of the EIS

Following completion of the scoping

process, we will prepare a draft EIS for

the program to protect sunflowers from

blackbird damage. A notice announcing

that the draft EIS is available for review

will then be published in the Federal

Register. The notice will also request

comments concerning the draft EIS.

Done in Washington, DC, this 16th day of

May 2001.

Craig A. Reed,

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 01–12695 Filed 5–18–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–U

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Duck Creek—Swains Access

Management Project, Dixie National

Forest, Iron, Garfield, and Kane

Counties, UT

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the Forest Service, USDA, will prepare

an environmental impact statement

(EIS) for the Forest Service to

implement several proposals within the

Duck Creek—Swains Access

Management Project area, on the Cedar

City Ranger District, Dixie National

Forest. These proposals include:

1. Maintain approximately 286 miles

of road open to motorized vehicle travel.

These roads are presently open to

motorized use, and will remain open.

Approximately 32 miles of these roads

are open to street-legal vehicles only

and would continue with the same

management.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2001 / Notices 27935

2. Construct 30 miles of motorized

vehicle trail by restricting travel to

motorized trail use on approximately 28

miles of road, and constructing

approximately two miles of new trail.

Motorized travel that would be allowed

would consist of ATV’s and

motorcycles. Foot, horse, and bicycle

use would also be allowed. This trail

construction would include

constructing a bridge over Swains

Creek. These motorized trails would be

segments that would connect existing

trails with the goal to improve travel to

destination points. Combined with the

existing Duck Creek ATV trail, the total

motorized travel would be

approximately 32 miles.

3. Remove (decommission)

approximately 122 miles from the road

system and close to public motorized

use. Levels of decommissioning on all

or parts of these roads may include

blocking the entrance, reestablishing

vegetation and water barring, removing

fills and culverts, establishing drainage

ways and removing unstable road

shoulders, or full obliteration by

recontouring and restoring natural

slopes. Recontouring would generally

occur on slopes exceeding 30%.

Approximately five segments of road

totaling 1.3 acres would need

recontouring. Three segments on

unclassified road U–434 would need

recontouring; two are within

T.37S.,R.6W., Section 18, and one in

T.37S.,R.7W., Section 13. The other two

segments are on unclassified roads: U–

349, near Swains Creek in T.38S.,

R.7W., Section 13; and U–85 in T.38S.,

R.7W., Section 28.

4. Close approximately 180 miles of

road to motorized public use, retaining

them on the Forest Transportation

System for forest management needs.

These roads would be kept on the Forest

Transportation System for forest

management, but not open to public

motorized vehicle use. Methods used to

close these roads would include a

variety of techniques depending on road

condition, topography, vegetation type

and condition, and soil type.

Management options could include

gates, logs, rocks, signs, brush piles, or

segments of fence.

5. Amend the Dixie National Forest

Travel Plan to implement a ‘‘closed to

motorized vehicle use, unless posted

open’’ signing program in the Duck

Creek—Swains Area. This proposed

activity would be administrative in

nature and would not involve grounddisturbing activities. The present

direction in the travel plan that

prohibits off-road vehicle use (except

snowmobiles when adequate snow

exists) would remain in effect and

unchanged.

6. Relocate approximately one-eighth

of a miles of the Bower’s Flat road out

of a wet meadow. Relocating the

Bower’s Flat road would require heavy

equipment to create a new road and

restore the old road and disturbed

meadow to natural condition. The legal

location is: T.37S., R.7W., Section 33.

7. Any new roads or travel ways

developed by users and not approved by

the Forest Service and observed after

this proposal and corresponding

decision will be decommissioned. The

purpose of the Roads Analysis and this

proposal is to identify which roads are

needed for forest management,

including recreation needs. In

compliance with Federal Regulations at

36 CFR 212 et al. January 12, 2001,

roads that are not needed will be

decommissioned.

The purpose of these proposals is to

initiate actions that would improve the

motorized transportation system,

improve habitat for wildlife, and reduce

sedimentation and erosion. The project

area is located approximately 24 miles

east of Cedar City, Utah. The project

would be implemented in accordance

with direction in the Land and Resource

Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the

Dixie National Forest, 1986.

The agency gives notice that the

environmental analysis process is

underway. During the analysis process,

an issue surfaced that warranted the

disclosure of effects under an EIS. This

issue is the high degree of interest

associated with closing roads in the

area.

Interested and potentially affected

persons, along with local, state, and

other Federal agencies, are invited to

participate in, and contribute to, the

environmental analysis. The Dixie

National Forest invites written input

regarding issues specific to the proposed

action.

DATES: Written comments to be

considered in the preparation of the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS) should be submitted on or before

June 20, 2001. The DEIS is expected to

be available for review by August 2001.

The Record of Decision and Final

Environmental Impact Statement are

expected to be available by December

2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

to: District Ranger, Cedar City Ranger

District, 82 North 100 East, P.O. Box

0627, Cedar City, Utah 84721–0627;

FAX: (801) 865–3791; E-mail:

psummers@fs.fed.us

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct questions about the proposed

action and EIS to Priscilla R. Summers,

Project Environmental Coordinator, by

mail at 82 North 100 East, P.O. Box 627,

Cedar City, Utah 84721–0627; or by

phone at (801) 865–3700; FAX: (801)

865–3791; E-mail: psummers@fs.fed.us

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

proposed project is located in a 93,099-

acre analysis area (including 20,241

acres on private land) in the Lower

Mammoth, West Fork Asay Creek, Asay

Creek, Duck Creek, Strawberry Creek,

Swains Creek, and Castle Creek

watersheds of the Upper Sevier SubBasin; and Upper North Fork Virgin

River, Muddy Creek, Lydia’s Canyon,

Stout Canyon, and Upper East Fork

Virgin River watersheds of the Upper

Virgin Sub-Basin. There are

approximately 617 miles of road in the

project area, with increasing all-terrain

vehicle (ATV) use.

The purpose of the project is to

improve the motorized travel system in

the project area while reducing erosion

and sedimentation, and improving

habitat for wildlife.

Construction of approximately two

miles of motorized vehicle trail will

connect existing routes to provide

improved access to destination points

(mostly private lands within the area).

Road density of the area is

approximately 4.8 miles per square

mile. The guideline in the Dixie

National Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan is two miles of road

per square mile or less. Generally, road

densities above two miles per square

mile reduce habitat effectiveness and

habitat quality for big game. The higher

the road density, the lower the quality

of habitat. Roads within nesting areas

for raptors causes disturbance to adults

and young, and can cause nesting

failure.

Stream crossings that lack adequate

structures incur higher levels of

sedimentation and erosion than those

with proper structures. There are five

streams lacking these structures that are

causing undesirable sedimentation into

streams. Approximately 12 miles of road

in the project area are hydrologically

connected to streams. Runoff on these

roads delivers sediment from the road

directly into the stream. Approximately

24 miles of road have poor drainage

where people drive around the wet area

creating a new route or widening the

existing one. This is occurring in a wet

meadow on one road, which is

impacting the meadow in larger and

larger areas each year.

Signing in the area is an open unless

closed system. Enforcement of closures

is difficult because signs get torn down.

Currently, motor vehicle use is only

27936 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2001 / Notices

allowed on roads and designated

motorized vehicle trails. Off-road use is

prevalent and common, which has

created what appear to be new roads .

With the present signing system, closing

this road with a sign and assuring that

the sign remains in place is difficult.

There are approximately four miles of

unauthorized ATV trail that are causing

undesirable impacts to streams and/or

wildlife habitat.

Motorized vehicle trail construction

(including a bridge), road closures, road

decommission, and signing roads closed

unless posted open would occur on

National Forest system lands located

within portions of Sections 23–26, and

35–36 of T.37S., R.8W., Salt Lake Base

Meridian (SLBM), Iron County, UT;

Sections 13–14, and 22–36 of T.37S.,

R.7W., and Sections 3–6, 17–23, and

26–35 of T.37S., R.6W., Salt Lake Base

Meridian (SLBM), Garfield County, UT;

and Sections 1–29, 33–36 of T.38S.,

R.8W.; Sections 1–36 of T.38S., R.7W.;

Sections 3–8, 17–20, and 28–33 of T.28–

33 of T.38S., R.6 W.; Sections 4–8, and

17–20 of T.39S. R.6W.; Sections 1–24 of

T.39S., R.7W.; and Sections 1–3, and

11–13 of T. 39S., R.8W., Salt Lake Base

Meridian (SLBM), Kane County, UT.

The proposed actions would

implement management direction,

contribute to meeting the goals and

objectives identified in the Dixie

National Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan, and move the project

area toward the desired condition. This

project EIS would be tiered to the Dixie

National Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan EIS (1986), which

provides goals, objectives, standards

and guidelines for the various activities

and land allocations on the Forest.

No permits or licenses are required to

implement the proposed action and the

issuing authority is the Forest Service.

As lead agency, the Forest Service

would analyze and document direct,

indirect, and cumulative environmental

effects for a range of alternatives. Each

alternative would include mitigation

measures as necessary and monitoring

requirements. No alternatives to the

proposed action have been identified at

this time, however, the following

preliminary issue has been identified:

(1) Use of roads within nesting areas for

northern goshawk and peregrine falcon

contribute to nesting failures.

Mary Wagner, Forest Supervisor,

Dixie National Forest, is the responsible

official. She can be reached by mail at

82 North 100 East, P.O. Box 580, Cedar

City, Utah, 84720–0580.

The Forest Service is seeking

comments from individuals,

organizations, and local, state, and

Federal agencies who may be interested

in or affected by the proposed action.

Scoping notices have been sent to

potentially affected persons and those

currently on the Dixie National Forest

mailing list that have expressed interest

in timber management proposals,

proposals relating to wildlife habitat

modifications and Forest Plan

amendments. Other interested

individuals, organizations, or agencies

may have their names added to the

mailing list for this project at any time

by submitting a request to: Priscilla R.

Summers, Project Environmental

Coordinator, 82 North 100 East, P.O.

Box 627, Cedar City, UT 84720–0627.

The analysis area includes both

National Forest System lands and

private lands. Proposed treatments

would occur only on National Forest

system lands. Motorized trails are

proposed to cross State Highway 14. No

federal or local permits, licenses or

entitlements would be needed.

The comment period on the draft

environmental impact statement will be

45 days from the date the

Environmental Protection Agency

publishes the notice of availability in

the Federal Register.

The Forest Service believes, at this

early stage, it is important to give

reviewers notice of several court rulings

related to public participation in the

environmental review process. First,

reviewers of the DEIS must structure

their participation in the environmental

review of the proposal so that it is

meaningful and alerts an agency to the

reviewers’ position and contentions.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.

NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also,

environmental objections that could

have been raised at the DEIS 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 the

proposed action participate by the close

of the 45-day comment period so that

substantive comments and objections

are made available to the Forest Service

at the time 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 about the proposed action,

comments on the DEIS 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 statement or the merits

of the alternatives 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.

Dated: May 11, 2001.

Mary Wagner,

Forest Supervisor, Dixie National Forest.

[FR Doc. 01–12664 Filed 5–18–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

DOC has submitted to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

clearance the following proposal for

collection of information under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.

Title: Quarterly Financial Reports

(QFR) Program.

Form Number(s): QFR–101(MG),

101A(MG), 102(TR), 103(NB).

Agency Approval Number: 0607–

0432.

Type of Request: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Burden: 77,708 hours.

Number of Respondents: 13,125.

Avg Hours Per Response: 2 hours and

3 minutes.

Needs and Uses: The QFR Program

has published up-to-date aggregate

statistics on the financial results and

position of U.S. corporations since 1947.

It is a principal economic indicator that

also provides financial data essential to

calculation of key U.S. Government

measures of national economic

performance. The importance of this

data collection is reflected by the

granting of specific authority to conduct

the program in Title 13 of the United

States Code, Section 91, which requires

that financial statistics of business

operations be collected and published

quarterly. Public Law 105–252 extended

the authority of the Secretary of

Commerce to conduct the QFR Program

under Section 91 through September 30,

2005.

The QFR is scheduled to convert to

the North American Industry

Classification System (NAICS) in April

2002 with the publication of the fourth

quarter 2001 data. With the adoption of

the NAICS, a number of industries

currently covered by QFR under the

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)

system will be out of scope.

Specifically, QFR will no longer collect