Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Notices 45219

include the effects of vegetation

management on area wildlife and

wildlife habitat, recreation use, wildfire

risk, and the transportation system.

Preliminary alternatives include, but are

not limited to;

1. No Action, no vegetation

management would be proposed except

existing firewood and Christmas tree

gathering.

2. Alternatives based on the White

River National Forest LMP.

a. Generate 6 million board feet of saw

timber treating 1380 acres, including 6.4

miles of new road construction (to be

closed after sale), and recruiting 500

acres for future old growth forest.

b. Generate 2.5 million board feet of

saw timber treating 653 acres, including

4.6 miles of new road construction (to

be closed after sale), and recruiting 972

acres for future old growth.

c. Generate 7 million board of saw

timber treating 1452 acres, including 7

miles of new road construction (3.9

miles to remain open after sale), 500

acres for future old growth recruitment.

d. Generate 3 million board feet of

saw timber treating 712 acres, including

0.2 miles of new road construction (to

be closed after sale), and 972 acres for

future old growth recruitment.

3. Alternatives yet to be developed.

Alternatives will be carefully

examined for their potential impacts on

the physical, biological, and social

environments so that tradeoffs are

apparent to the decisionmaker.

The decision to be made by the Forest

Supervisor, based on the pending

analysis to be documented in this EIS

are:

Should the vegetation in the Basalt

Mountain area be managed for timber

harvest at this time? And, if so; Should

road construction be allowed for timber

harvest in this area?

How does the inclusion of parts of the

proposed sale in former roadless area

surveys influence the current and long

term LMP direction of managing the

area for wood fiber production? Which

alternative best fits the White River LMP

prescription and ecosystem health

priorities of the Forest Service?

Permits and licenses required to

implement the proposed action will, or

may, include the following: consultation

with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for

compliance with Section 7 of the

Threatened & Endangered Species Act;

review from the Colorado Division of

Wildlife, and clearance from the

Colorado State Historic Preservation

Office.

Public participation will be fully

incorporated into preparation of the EIS.

The first step is the scoping process,

during which the Forest Service will be

seeking information, comments, and

assistance from Federal, State, and local

agencies, and other individuals or

groups who may be interested or

affected by the proposed action. No

public meetings are planned for this

project. Public comments received

during initial scoping and those raised

during public review of the Draft

Environmental Assessment for this

project will be incorporated into this

EIS. The Forest Service predicts the

draft environmental impact statement

will be filed during the winter of 1997/

1998 and the final environmental

impact statement and record or decision

during the spring of 1998.

The comment period on the draft

environmental impact statement will be

forty-five 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 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

Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553

(1978). Also, environmental objections

that could be raised at the draft

environmental impact statement stage

but that are not raised until after

completion of the final environmental

impact statement may be waived or

dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon

v. Hodel, 803, F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir.

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 forty-five

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

environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in

identifying and considering issues and

concerns on the proposed action,

comments on the draft environmental

impact statement 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 environmental

impact 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: August 19, 1997.

Martha J. Ketelle,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 97–22587 Filed 8–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–BW–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation

Service

Choctaw Watershed, Bolivar County,

Mississippi

AGENCY: Natural Resources

Conservation Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of a finding of no

significant impact.

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

of the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969; the Council of

Environmental Quality Regulations (7

CFR part 650); the Natural Resources

Conservation Service, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, gives notice that an

environmental impact statement is not

being prepared for Choctaw Watershed,

Bolivar County, Mississippi.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Homer L. Wilkes, State Conservationist,

Natural Resources Conservation Service,

Suite 1321, A.H. McCoy Federal

Building, 100 West Capitol Street,

Jackson, Mississippi 39269, telephone

601–965–5205.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

environmental assessment of this

federally assisted action indicates that

the project will not cause significant

local, regional, or national impacts on

the environment. As a result of these

findings, Homer L. Wilkes, State

Conservationist, has determined that the

preparation and review of an

environmental impact statement are not

needed for this project.

The project concerns a watershed

plan for the purpose of providing

assistance to the disadvantaged

residents of Choctaw Watershed to solve

the problems associated with impaired

water quality. Works of improvement

consist of one facultative lagoon and

associated sewer line installation.

The Notice of a Finding of No

Significant Impact (FONSI) has been

forwarded to the Environmental

Protection Agency and to various

Federal, State, and local agencies and

interested parties. A limited number of

copies of the FONSI are available to fill

single copy requests at the above
45220 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Notices

address. Basic data developed during

the environmental assessment are on

file and may be received by contacting

Homer L. Wilkes.

No administrative action on

implementation of the proposal will be

taken until 30 days after the date of this

publication in the Federal Register.

(This activity is listed in the Catalog of

Federal Domestic Assistance under No.

10.904—Watershed Protection and Flood

Prevention and is subject to the provisions of

Executive Order 12372 which requires

intergovernmental consultation with State

and local officials)

Dated: August 14, 1997.

Homer L. Wilkes,

State Conservationist.

[FR Doc. 97–22581 Filed 8–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–16–M

ARCHITECTURAL AND

TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS

COMPLIANCE BOARD

Access Board; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Architectural and

Transportation Barriers Compliance

Board.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Architectural and

Transportation Barriers Compliance

Board (Access Board) has scheduled its

regular business meetings to take place

in Washington, D.C. on Monday,

Tuesday, and Wednesday, September 8–

10, 1997 at the times and location noted

below.

DATES: The schedule of events is as

follows:

Monday, September 8, 1997

9:00 a.m.–3:30 p.m. Committee of the

Whole—ADAAG Revision (Closed

Meeting).

3:30 p.m.–5:30 p.m. Committee of the

Whole—Telecommunications

Equipment (Closed Meeting)

Tuesday, September 9, 1997

9:00 a.m.–Noon Committee of the

Whole—ABA Guidelines (Closed

Meeting)

1:30 p.m.–1:45 p.m. Planning and

Budget Committee

1:45 p.m.–3:30 p.m. Committee of the

Whole—Long-Range Plan

3:30 p.m.–5:30 p.m. Technical Programs

Committee

Wednesday, September 10, 1997

9:00 a.m.–Noon Executive Committee

1:30 p.m.–3:30 p.m. Board Meeting

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held

at: Marriott Metro Center Hotel, 775

12th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

further information regarding the

meetings, please contact Lawrence W.

Roffee, Executive Director, (202) 272–

5434 ext. 14 (voice) and (202) 272–5449

(TTY).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At the

Board meeting, the Access Board will

consider the following agenda items.

Specific voting items are noted next to

each committee report.

Open Meeting

• Executive Director’s Report.

• Approval of the Minutes of the July

9, 1997 Board Meeting.

• Planning and Budget Committee

Report—Fiscal Year 1997 Spending

Plan.

• Technical Programs Committee

Report—Fiscal Year 1998 Research and

Technical Assistance Agenda.

• Executive Committee Report—

Rulemaking Plan Update.

• Long-Range Plan Committee

Report—Goals and Action Strategies.

Closed Meeting

• Committee of the Whole Report—

ADAAG Revision Proposed Rule.

• Committee of the Whole Report—

Telecommunications Equipment Final

Rule.

• Committee of the Whole Report—

ABA Guidelines.

All meetings are accessible to persons

with disabilities. Sign language

interpreters and an assistive listening

system are available at all meetings.

James J. Raggio,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 97–22689 Filed 8–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8150–01–P

ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW

BOARD

Formal Determinations, Assassination

Records Designations, and

Reconsiderations

AGENCY: Assassination Records Review

Board.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Assassination Records

Review Board (Review Board) met in a

closed meeting on August 5, 1997, and

made formal determinations on the

release of records under the President

John F. Kennedy Assassination Records

Collection Act of 1992 (JFK Act). By

issuing this notice, the Review Board

complies with the section of the JFK Act

that requires the Review Board to

publish the results of its decisions on a

document-by-document basis in the

Federal Register within 14 days of the

date of the decision.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T.

Jeremy Gunn, General Counsel and

Associate Director for Research and

Analysis, Assassination Records Review

Board, Second Floor, Washington, D.C.

20530, (202) 724–0088, fax (202) 724–

0457.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

notice complies with the requirements

of the President John F. Kennedy

Assassination Records Collection Act of

1992, 44 U.S.C. § 2107.9(c)(4)(A) (1992).

On August 5, 1997, the Review Board

made formal determinations on records

it reviewed under the JFK Act. These

determinations are listed below. The

assassination records are identified by

the record identification number

assigned in the President John F.

Kennedy Assassination Records

Collection database maintained by the

National Archives.

Notice of Formal Determinations

For each document, the number of

postponements sustained immediately

follows the record identification

number, followed, where appropriate,

by the date the document is scheduled

to be released or re-reviewed.

FBI Documents: Postponed in Part

124–10184–10267; 0; 2; 10/2008

124–10184–10269; 5; 17; 10/2008

124–10193–10019; 1; 7; 10/2008

124–10228–10358; 0; 1; 10/2008

124–10257–10303; 0; 2; 10/2008

CIA Documents: Postponed in Part

104–10061–10064; 1; 10/2017

104–10065–10273; 1; 10/2017

104–10081–10004; 1; 08/2008

104–10092–10007; 3; 10/2017

104–10092–10010; 10; 10/2017

104–10092–10033; 4; 10/2017

104–10092–10034; 2; 10/2017

104–10092–10035; 1; 10/2017

104–10092–10044; 3; 10/2017

104–10097–10041; 1; 10/2017

104–10097–10047; 1; 10/2017

104–10097–10069; 1; 10/2017

104–10097–10072; 3; 10/2017

104–10097–10074; 2; 10/2017

104–10097–10077; 8; 10/2017

104–10097–10083; 5; 10/2017

104–10097–10097; 2; 10/2017

104–10097–10101; 5; 10/2017

104–10097–10102; 1; 10/2017

104–10097–10112; 1; 05/2001

104–10097–10126; 1; 10/2017

104–10097–10129; 2; 10/2017

104–10097–10132; 3; 10/2017

104–10097–10139; 2; 10/2017

104–10097–10142; 2; 10/2017

104–10097–10143; 3; 10/2017

104–10097–10145; 5; 10/2017

104–10097–10157; 18; 10/2017

104–10097–10163; 1; 10/2017

104–10097–10169; 4; 10/2017

104–10097–10170; 3; 10/2017

104–10097–10171; 1; 10/2017

104–10097–10173; 1; 10/2017

104–10098–10319; 1; 10/2017