Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 1997 / Notices 8013

Development, Implementation,

Cherokee National Forest, Ocoee

Ranger District, Polk County, TN,

Due: March 24, 1997, Contact: Dave

Carroll (423) 339–8620.

EIS No. 970058, Draft EIS, FAA, NH,

Manchester (New Hampshire) Airport

Master Plan Update, Improvements to

Airside and Landside Facilities,

Airport Layout Plan, Permits and

Approvals, Manchester, NH, Due:

April 07, 1997, Contact: John Sila

(617) 647–8211.

EIS No. 970059, Draft Supplement, AFS,

AK, Kensington Venture Underground

Gold Mine Project, Additional

Information, Development,

Construction and Operation,

Operating Plan Approval, NPDES,

Section 10 and 404 Permits, Tongass

National Forest, Sherman Creek, City

of Juneau, AK, Due: April 07, 1997,

Contact: Roger Birk (907) 586–8800.

Dated: February 18, 1997.

B. Katherine Biggs,

Associate Director, NEPA Compliance

Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 97–4351 Filed 2–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

[ER-FRL–5477–7]

Environmental Impact Statements and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared February 3, 1997 Through

February 7, 1997 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 FR dated April

5, 1996 (61 FR 15251).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D–AFS–J65060–UT Rating

EC2, Alta Ski Area Master Development

Plan Update Approval, Special-UsePermit and COE Permits Issuance,

Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt

Lake Ranger District, Salt Lake County,

UT.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns about impacts

to wetlands and air quality impacts.

ERP No. D–AFS–J65258–MT Rating

EC2, Lewis and Clark National Forest

Plan, Implementation, Oil and Gas

Leasing Analysis, Upper Missouri River

Basin, several counties, MT.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns about potential

cumulative impacts from directional

drilling and associated oil and gas

exploration and development activities.

The final EIS should address wetland

protection, specific air and water quality

monitoring and validation plans.

ERP No. D–AFS–J65259–CO Rating

EC2, Aspen Highlands Ski Area

Expansion, Master Development Plan

Amendment, COE 404 Permit and

Special-Use-Permit, White River

National Forest, Aspen Ranger District,

Pitkin County, CO.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns about

inadequate modeling and analysis to

determine air quality impacts.

ERP No. D–AFS–K65192–CA Rating

EC2, Jaybird Multi-Resource Project,

Implementation, Downieville Ranger

District, Yuba County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns that the

proposed management activities are not

directly integrated into the overall

watershed management plan. The final

EIS should clearly define roles and

responsibilities for monitoring

activities.

ERP No. D–AFS–L65265–WA Rating

LO, North Sherman and Fritz Timber

Sales, Implementation, Colville National

Forest, Kettle Falls Ranger District,

Ferry County, WA.

Summary: EPA expressed lack of

objections. No formal comment letter

was sent to the preparing agency.

ERP No. D–AFS–L65280–ID Rating

EC2, Mosquito-Fly Project Area,

Implementation, Harvest Timber, Road

Construction and Grant Access to

Private Land, Idaho Panhandle National

Forests, St. Joe Ranger District,

Shoshone County, ID.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns about the

retention of roadless area

characteristics, water quality, and

cumulative/indirect impacts.

ERP No. D–AFS–L67035–OR Rating

EO2, Stewart Mining Operation, Plan of

Operation Approval, Implementation,

City Creek, North Umpqua Ranger

District, Umpqua National Forest,

Douglas and Lane Counties, OR.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental objections about

compliance with Aquatic Conservation

Strategy Objectives provided in the

Northwest Forest Plan Record of

Decision, and about impacts to the

Outstandingly Remarkable Values

recognized in the North Umpqua River

and Streamboat Creek, from

sedimentation and acid rock drainage.

ERP No. D–BLM–J65191–00 Rating

EC2, Standards for Rangeland Health

and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing

Management on Bureau of Land

Management Administered Lands,

Implementation, MT, ND and SD.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns that the

Standards and Guidelines may not

adequately protect the chemical,

physical and biological integrity of

water quality to meet the Clean Water

Act. There was confusion concerning

what CWA Section 303 water quality

standards (WQS) mean and how the

States implement WQS. Consistency,

additional information and

environmental commitments were

requested in the final EIS. The final EIS

should include specifics of the

mitigation plans.

ERP No. D–BLM–K67039–NV Rating

LO, Denton-Rawhide Mine Expansion

Project, Plan of Operation Approval,

Implementation, Mineral County, NV.

Summary: EPA expressed a lack of

objection.

ERP No. D–BLM–L65272–ID Rating

EC2, Challis Land and Resource

Management Plan, Implementation,

Upper Columbus—Salmon Clearwater

Districts, Salmon River, Lemhi and

Custer Counties, ID.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns on water

quality impacts from grazing activities.

EPA suggests that the final EIS include

specifics on mitigation plans, including

implementation to improve degraded

riparian areas.

ERP No. D–COE–L36104–WA Rating

LO, Howard A. Hanson Dam Continued

Operation and Maintenance Plan,

Implementation, Green River, King

County, WA.

Summary: Our abbreviated review has

revealed no EPA concerns on this

project.

ERP No. D–IBR–K31018–AZ Rating

EO2, Programmatic EIS—PimaMaricopa Irrigation Project,

Construction and Operation, Maricopa

and Pinal Counties, AZ.

Summary: EPA had environmental

objection with the large scope of the

proposed action and its long-term

sustainability. The PDEIS did not

persuasively demonstrate that potential

adverse environmental impacts can be

avoided, minimized, or mitigated. EPA

recommended prioritization of project

components for implementation with

primary emphasis on rehabilitation of

existing irrigation systems and

agricultural areas. EPA also strongly

advocated monitoring and adaptive

management and urged full integration

of the local comprehensive water

management plan. EPA expressed

concern with potential adverse impacts

to surface and groundwater quality,

riparian areas, air quality, fish and
8014 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 1997 / Notices

wildlife habitat, and public health and

safety.

ERP No. D–STA–G50009–00 Rating

LO, Programmatic EIS—International

Bridge Crossing Project, Construction

and Operation, Along the United StatesMexico Border from EL Paso to

Brownsville, TX, Presidential Permit,

NM and TX.

Summary: EPA had no objection to

the proposed action.

ERP No. D–UMC–K24018–CA Rating

EC2, Sewage Effluent Compliance

Project, Implementation, Lower Santa

Margarita Basin, Marine Corps Base

Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns with the

alternative analysis and requested

clarification of wetland issues.

ERP No. DA–DOE–A22076–NM

Rating LO, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

Disposal Phase, Updated Information,

Disposal of Transuranic Waste,

Carlsbad, NM.

Summary: EPA expressed lack of

objections to the preferred alternative.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–AFS–J60017–CO Fraser

Valley Loop Transmission Line Project,

Construction, Operation, Associated

Operations and Maintenance Activities,

Approval of Permits, Arapaho and

Roosevelt National Forests, Grand

County, CO.

Summary: EPA continued to express

environmental concerns that many of

the potential impacts to wetlands, old

growth, and raptor nests will not be

known until a biological survey of the

area is done. EPA also expressed

environmental concern over possible

conflicts that may still exist between

this EIS and draft land management

plans.

ERP No. F–AFS–J65242–MT

Checkerboard Land Exchange, Plan of

Approval and Implementation,

Kootenai, Lolo and Flathead National

Forests, Lincoln, Flathead and Sanders

Counties, MT.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns about potential

adverse water quality and fisheries

impacts that could occur on lands

exchanged to the Plum Creek Timber

Company (PCTC) due to high intensity

timber harvesting and road building

activities by PCTC on these lands.

ERP No. F–AFS–K65189–CA, Cavanah

Multi-Resource Management Project,

Implementation, Enhancing Forest

Health and Productivity, Tahoe National

Forest, Foresthill Ranger District, Placer

County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns that the

number of proposed road obliterations

will not be adequate to improve water

quality.

ERP No. F–BLM–K67037–NV, Twin

Creeks Mine Consolidation and

Expansion, which Encompasses the

former Rabbit Creek Mine and the

former Chimmey Creek Mine, Plan of

Operation Approval and Permit

Issuance, Winnemucca District,

Humboldt County, NV.

Summary: Review of the Final EIS

was not deemed necessary. No formal

comment letter was sent to the

preparing agency.

ERP No. F–COE–G39029–LA,

Programmatic EIS—Marsh Management

Project, Hydrologic Manipulation, COE

Section 10 and 404 Permit Issuance,

Coastal Wetland of Louisiana a part of

the Coastal Wetlands Planning,

Protection and Restoration Act

(CWPPRA) River Basins, LA.

Summary: EPA recommended that the

Record of Decision identify the future

directions or activities that can be

implemented by the COE to address

hydrologic manipulation issues in

coastal Louisiana.

ERP No. F–COE–G85180–LA, Estelle

Plantation Partnership Municipal Golf

Course and Housing Development,

Implementation, Jefferson Parish, LA.

Summary: EPA continued to have

environmental concerns regarding the

preferred actions but defers further

comment pending completion of the

Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit

processing.

ERP No. F–FHW–K40214–CA,

Alternatives to Replacement of the

Embarcadero Freeway and the Terminal

Separator Structure, (Formerly CA–480)

Implementation, Permit Approvals and

Funding, San Francisco County, CA.

Summary: Review of the Final EIS

was not deemed necessary. No formal

comment letter was sent to the

preparing agency.

ERP No. F–GSA–C81017–NY, US

Brooklyn Court Project, Demolition of

the Emanuel Celler Federal Building,

Construction of a New Courthouse and

Renovation/Adaptive Reuse of the

General Post Office at Cadman Plaza

East, Kings County, NY.

Summary: EPA continued to have

environmental concerns about the

meteorological data used in the air

model. EPA has requested that updated

information be used in a revised

modeling analysis.

Dated: February 18, 1997.

B. Katherine Biggs,

Associate Director, NEPA Compliance

Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 97–4352 Filed 2–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

[FRL–5691–9]

Notice of Public Meeting on the

National Performance Measures

Strategy for Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of second public meeting

to solicit suggestions for innovative,

supplemental measures of enforcement

and compliance assurance program

performance; develop a common

understanding with partners and

stakeholders about a set of national

measures and the steps necessary to

implement them (based on the state of

national compliance); and discuss how

to carry out an implementation plan to

put the new set of measures into

practice.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Office of Enforcement

and Compliance Assurance (OECA) held

its first public meeting on Monday,

February 3, 1997, in Alexandria, VA to

hear presentations and statements from

a cross-section of stakeholders about

innovative approaches to measuring

enforcement and compliance assurance

program performance. This notice is

hereby given that the EPA is soliciting

comments for the second public meeting

to continue to hear from stakeholders

regarding the way EPA measures its

enforcement programs.

DATES: The meeting date will take place

on Monday, March 17, 1997, from 8:30

a.m to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will

take place on Monday, March 17, 1997

at the Holiday Inn Civic Center, 50 8th

Street, San Francisco, California 94103

(415–626–6103 or 1–800–243–1135).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James McDonald, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of

Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance, 401 M Street, S.W. (2201A),

Washington, D.C., 20460; telephone

(202) 564–4043, fax (202) 501–0701 or

via the INTERNET at

McDonald.James@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

For many years, EPA has counted

annual enforcement outputs (e.g.,

inspections conducted, number of civil

and criminal cases, penalties assessed)

as the predominant measure of

performance for the enforcement and

compliance assurance program. While

these outputs will continue to be used

as an important measure of

environmental enforcement, EPA seeks

additional measures to assess the status