Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2001 / Notices 10685

§ 1506.3(b) of the Council on

Environmental Quality Regulations.

EIS No. 010044, Final Supplement,

NPS, MS, Natchez Trace Parkway,

Update Information on the

Construction of Section 3P13 (Old

Agency Road), City of Ridgeland,

Madison County, MS, Wait Period

Ends: March 19, 2001, Contact:

Wendell A. Simpson (662) 680–4004.

EIS No. 010045, Draft EIS, EPA,

Proposed Rule on Environmental

Impact Assessment of

Nongovernmental Activities in

Antarctica, To implement the Protocol

on Environmental Protection to the

Antarctic Treaty of 1959, Comment

Period Ends: April 02, 2001, Contact:

B. Katherine Biggs (202) 564–7144.

Dated: February 13, 2001.

Joseph C. Montgomery,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 01–3999 Filed 2–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–6615–6]

Environmental Impact Statements and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared pursuant to the Environmental

Review Process (ERP), under section

309 of the Clean Air Act and section

102(2)(c) of the National Environmental

Policy Act as amended. Requests for

copies of EPA comments can be directed

to the Office of Federal Activities aT

(202) 564–7167.

An explanation of the ratings assigned

to draft environmental impact

statements (EISs) was published in

Federal Register dated April 14, 2000

(65 FR 20157).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D–AFS–J65327–CO Rating

EC2, Baylor Park Blowdown Project,

Salvage and Treat Down and Damaged

Timber, To Reduce Impact of Spruce

Beetles, Implementation, White River

National Forest, Sopris and Rifle Ranger

Districts, Garfield, Mesa, and Pitkin

Counties, CO.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns about potential

impacts from road construction on

water quality, watershed health and

wetlands.

ERP No. D–AFS–K39064–CA Rating

LO, Mammoth Creek Revised Instream

Flow Requirements, Implementation for

Point of Measurement and Place of Use,

Mammoth Lakes, Mono County, CA.

Summary: EPA has no objections to

the proposed project.

ERP No. D–EPA–E90016–NC Rating

NA, New Wilmington Ocean Dredged

Material Disposal Site, Designation,

Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina

State Port and the Military Ocean

Terminal (Sunny Point (MOTSU), NC.

Summary: EPA EISs are not subject to

309 review.

ERP No. D–FHW–C40152–NJ Rating

EC2, NJ–52(1) Causeway (known as

MacArthur Boulevard) Construction

Project, between NJ–9 in Somers Point,

Atlantic County to Bay Avenue in

Ocean City City, Cape May County,

Funding, COE Section 404 and 10

Permits, USCGD Permit, Atlantic and

Cape May Counties, NJ.

Summary: EPA raised concerns with

the project based on purpose and need

and alternatives, wetlands, water

quality, coastal zone, and cumulative

impacts.

ERP No. D–FHW–C40153–NY Rating

EC2, NY–22 Transportation

Improvement, from I–684 to north of

County Road 65, Doansburg Road,

Construction, COE Section 404 Permit,

Town of Southeast, Putnam County, NY.

Summary: EPA raised concerns with

the project based on direct and growth

induced impacts to water quality and

the New York City Watershed.

ERP No. D–FHW–F40784–OH Rating

EC2, OH–7 (LAW–7) Relocation, OH–7

and OH–527 to a point Northeast of

Rome Township and OH–607 from East

Huntington Bridge to an Interchange

with proposed OH–7 and OH–775,

Funding, Lawrence County, OH.

Summary: EPA expressed concern

due to potential wetland impacts.

ERP No. D–FTA–F40390–MN Rating

EC2, Northstar Transportation Corridor

Project, Improvements from downtown

Minneapolis to the St. Cloud area along

Trunk Highway (TH) 10/47 and the

Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)

Railroad Transcontinental Route,

Connecting the Hiawatha Light Rail

Transit (LRT) Line at a Multi-Modal

Station, Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP)

International.

Summary: EPA expressed concern for

and requested additional information

regarding; storm water management;

wetland mitigation; air quality; and

cumulative impact analysis.

ERP No. D–HUD–C85043–NY Rating

EC2, 1105–1135 Warburton Avenue,

River Club Apartment Complex

Development and Operation, Funding,

City of Yonkers, Westchester County,

NY.

Summary: EPA expressed concerns

regarding the draft EIS’s lack of an

Environmental Justice analysis as

required by Executive Order 12898. EPA

requested that the final EIS include an

EJ analysis in order to ensure that EJ

issues if identified would be addressed

or mitigated.

ERP No. D–HUD–K89062–CA Rating

EC2, North Hollywood Arts and

Entertainment District Project,

Construction and Operation, North

Hollywood Redevelopment Project, City

of Los Angeles, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed concerns

regarding the information supporting

the air quality conformity determination

and requested that this information be

provided in the final EIS.

ERP No. D–NOA–K91008–00 Rating

EC2, Pelagic Fisheries of the Western

Pacific Region, Fishery Management

Plan, To Analyze Longline Fisheries,

Commercial Troll and Recreational Troll

Fisheries, Commercial Pelagic

Handliner and Commercial Pole and

Line Skipjack Fishery, Hawaii,

American Samoa, Guam and

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana

Island.

Summary: EPA expressed concerns

regarding proposed changes to the plan

and requested additional information on

the Biological Opinion for sea turtles

and the Hawaii longline fishery and the

relationship between this

comprehensive planning effort and

similar ongoing or planned revisions to

related fishery management plans in the

Western Pacific Region and Pacific

Coast.

ERP No. D–SFW–K64020–CA Rating

EC2, Metro Air Park Habitat

Conservation Plan, Issuance of an

Incidental Take Permit, To Protect,

Conserve and Enhance Fish, Wildlife

and Plants and their Habitat, Natomas

Basin, Sacramento County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed concerns

regarding cumulative impacts,

compliance with Section 404 Wetland

requirements, conformity with regional

air quality plans, adequate and sound

science, and species population

viability. EPA recommended better

integration with the Natomas Basin

Habitat Conservation Planning and a

commitment to planned growth which

is town-centered, transit and pedestrian

oriented, and has a greater mix of

housing, commercial and retail uses that

could significantly enhance the benefits

of the Metro Air Park and Natomas

Basin habitat conservation planning

efforts.

ERP No. DB–NOA–B91017–00 Rating

EC2, Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery

Management Plan (FMP), Updated

Information, Framework Adjustment 14

to adjust the annual Amendment 7 dayat-sea allocation for 2001 and 2002 and

to re-open portions of the Hudson

10686 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2001 / Notices

Canyon and Virginia/North Carolina

Areas for Scallop Fishing.

Summary: EPA had environmental

concerns regarding the plan and

requested additional information on

yield, total allowable catch, observers,

water quality, gear and vessel trip

reports.

ERP No. DR–FTA–K40237–CA Rating

LO, Orange County Centerline Project,

Transportation Improvements, Revised

Alternatives, Advanced Rail Transit in

the Heart of Orange County, CA.

Summary: EPA found that the

document adequately discussed the

environmental impacts of the proposed

project.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–AFS–F65027–MN. Little

East Creek Fuel Reduction Project, Plan

to Grant Access Across Federal Land to

Non-Federal Landowners,

Implementation, LaCroix Ranger

District, Superior National Forest, Saint

Louis County, MN.

Summary: EPA expressed lack of

objections to the proposed project.

ERP No. F–AFS–L65289–00. Interior

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Projects, Updated and New Information

on Three Management Alternatives,

Implementation, WA, OR, ID and MT.

Summary: No formal comment letter

was sent to the preparing agency.

ERP No. F–FRC–F03008–00. Guardian

Pipeline Project, Proposal to Construct

and Operate an Interstate Natural Gas

Pipeline that would extend from Joliet

(Will County), IL and Ixonia (Jefferson

County), WI.

Summary: EPA continues to express

objections due to potential cumulative

impacts and the lack of adequate

mitigation for forested wetlands and

upland forest impacts.

ERP No. F–UAF–J11018–WY. F. E.

Warren Air Force Base Deactivation and

Dismantlement of the Peacekeeper

Missile System, To Comply with the

Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty

(START), Laramie, Platte and Goshen

Counties, WY.

Summary: EPA had no additional

comments on the FEIS.

Dated: February 13, 2001.

Joseph C. Montgomery,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 01–4000 Filed 2–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[OPP–00698; FRL–6767–6]

Notice of Availability of Region III

Strategic Agricultural Initiative Grants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA Region III is announcing

the availability of approximately

$200,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2001 grant/

cooperative agreement funds under

section 20 of the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

as amended, (the Act), for grants to

States and federally recognized Native

American Tribes for research, public

education, training, monitoring,

demonstrations, and studies. For

convenience, the term ‘‘State’’ in this

notice refers to all eligible applicants.

DATES: In order to be considered for

funding during the FY 2001 award

cycle, all applications must be received

by EPA Region III on or before March

19, 2001. EPA will make its award

decisions by March 30, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Racine L. Davis, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region III, Mail

Code 3WC32, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029;

telephone: (215) 814–5797; e-mail

address: davis.racine@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this Action Apply to Me?

This action is directed to the public

in general. This action may, however, be

of interest to eligible applicants who

primarily operate out of and will

conduct the project in one of the

following Region III States: Delaware,

District of Columbia, Maryland,

Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West

Virginia.

II. Availability of FY 2001 Funds

With this publication, EPA Region III

is announcing the availability of

approximately $200,000 in grant/

cooperative agreement funds for FY

2001. The Agency has delegated grant

making authority to the EPA Regional

Offices. EPA Region III is responsible for

the solicitation of interest, the screening

of proposals, and the selection of

projects. Grant guidance will be

provided to all applicants along with

any supplementary information Region

III may wish to provide. All applicants

must address the criteria listed under

Unit IV.B. of this document. Interested

applicants should contact the Regional

Strategic Agricultural Initiative

coordinator listed under Unit V. of this

document for more information.

III. Eligible Applicants

In accordance with the Act ‘‘. . .

Federal agencies, universities, or others

as may be necessary to carry out the

purposes of the act, . . .’’ are eligible to

receive a grant. Eligible applicants for

purposes of funding under this grant

program include those operating within

the six EPA Region III states (Delaware,

District of Columbia, Maryland,

Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West

Virginia), any agency or instrumentality

of a Region III State including State

universities and non-profit

organizations operating within a Region

III state. For convenience, the term

‘‘State’’ in this notice refers to all

eligible applicants.

IV. Activities and Criteria

A. General

The goal of the Strategic Agricultural

Initiative Grant Program is to reduce the

risks and use of pesticides in

agricultural settings. Another goal is to

rapidly spread available technology and

information about ways to reduce

dependence on the more highly toxic

pesticides.

B. Criteria

Proposals will be evaluated based on

the following criteria:

1. Qualifications and experience of

the applicant relative to the proposed

project.

• Does the applicant demonstrate

experience in the field of the proposed

activity?

• Does the applicant have the properly

trained staff, facilities, or infrastructure

in place to conduct the project?

2. Consistency of applicant’s

proposed project with the risk reduction

goals of Strategic Agricultural Initiative.

3. Provision for a quantitative or

qualitative evaluation of the project’s

success at achieving the stated goals.

• Is the project designed in such a way

that it is possible to measure and

document the results quantitatively and

qualitatively?

• Does the applicant identify the

method that will be used to measure

and document the project’s results

quantitatively and qualitatively?

• Will the project assess or suggest a

means for measuring progress in

reducing risk associated with the use of

pesticides?

4. Likelihood the project can be

replicated to benefit other communities

or the product may have broad utility to

a widespread audience. Can this project,

taking into account typical staff and