Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision for the Harvest of Glaucous-Winged Gull Eggs by Huna Tlingit in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve Legislative Environmental Impact Statement, 71731-71732 [2010-29536]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Notices
use and interpretive opportunities along
road corridors, and enhance recreational
opportunities with new facilities and
services. This alternative would provide
substantial ORV access to sustainable
trails (approximately 130 miles of
motorized trails), provide a moderate
amount of proposed wilderness (about
47,067 acres), provide nonmotorized
trail opportunities and new camping
opportunities, and develop a
partnership approach to visitor
orientation. Implementation of the ORV
trail system would be phased to ensure
protection of sensitive species and the
environment. Areas found to be eligible
for wilderness designation but not
proposed as wilderness would be
protected through management zoning
that would maintain and protect natural
values. New visitor and operations
facilities along the I–75 corridor would
also be provided.
Alternative F: Alternative F would
emphasize resource preservation,
restoration, and research while
providing recreational opportunities
with limited facilities and support. This
alternative would provide the maximum
amount of wilderness (about 71,260
acres), no ORV use, and minimal new
facilities for visitor contact along I–75.
Authority: The authority for publishing
this notice is 40 CFR 1506.6.
Big
Cypress National Preserve at the address
and telephone number shown above.
The responsible official for this Final
EIS is the Regional Director, Southeast
Region, NPS, 100 Alabama Street, SW.,
1924 Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dated: November 18, 2010.
Gayle Hazelwood,
Acting Regional Director, Southeast Region,
National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–29769 Filed 11–22–10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310–V6–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
National Park Service
Notice of Availability of the Record of
Decision for the Harvest of GlaucousWinged Gull Eggs by Huna Tlingit in
Glacier Bay National Park and
Preserve Legislative Environmental
Impact Statement
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of availability of the
Record of Decision for the Harvest of
Glaucous-Winged Gull Eggs by Huna
Tlingit in Glacier Bay National Park and
Preserve Legislative Environmental
Impact Statement.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:30 Nov 23, 2010
Jkt 223001
The National Park Service
(NPS) announces the availability of the
Record of Decision (ROD) for the
Legislative Environmental Impact
Statement (LEIS) on the Harvest of
Glaucous-Winged Gull Eggs by Huna
Tlingit in Glacier Bay National Park and
Preserve.
The Record of Decision (ROD)
documents the NPS determination that
harvest of glaucous-winged gull eggs
could be authorized in Glacier Bay
National Park without impairing the
biological sustainability of the Park’s
glaucous-winged gull population or
impacting other Park purposes and
values. Implementation of the decision
would require promulgation of public
law and regulations, revising Title 36 of
the Code of Federal Regulations.
Section 4 of the Glacier Bay National
Park Resource Management Act of 2000
(Pub. L. 106–455) directed the NPS to
‘‘* * * undertake a study of sea gulls
living within the park to assess whether
sea gull eggs can be collected on a
limited basis without impairing the
biological sustainability of the sea gull
population in the park.’’ The legislation
also states that if the study determines
collection could occur without
impairing the biological sustainability of
the gull population in the park, ‘‘ * * *
the Secretary shall submit
recommendations for legislation * * *’’
to the House and Senate authorizing
committees.
The ROD documents the NPS
selection of Alternative 3 (Two Annual
Harvest Visits to Five Locations) based
on consideration of the Park’s purposes
and mission, NPS policies, resource
information and values analyzed in the
Final Legislative Environmental Impact
Statement (FLEIS), and comments
received throughout the LEIS process.
The FLEIS analysis determined this
alternative would not adversely impact
Park purposes and resources.
Disturbance to nesting gulls is expected
to be minimal. The FLEIS analysis
concluded that these effects would be
minor and would not affect
sustainability of gull populations in the
Park.
The basis for the decision stems from
Park objectives and purposes and the
need to respond to Section 4 of Public
Law 106–455. Specifically, the decision
was based on the following objectives:
• Provide for a limited gull egg harvest
in the Park by tribal members of the
Hoonah Indian Association (HIA)
• Not impair the biological
sustainability of the Park’s glaucouswinged gull population
• Protect Park resources and values
The ROD briefly discusses the
background of the project, states the
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
71731
decision and discusses its basis,
identifies mitigating measures,
summarizes public involvement,
describes other alternatives considered,
specifies the environmentally preferable
alternative, provides a non-impairment
determination, and provides a
conclusion.
ADDRESSES: The ROD can be found
online at the NPS Planning,
Environment and Public Comment Web
site at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/
index.cfm. Copies of the ROD are
available on request from: Wayne
Howell, Glacier Bay National Park and
Preserve, Box 140, Gustavus, Alaska
99826. Telephone: (907) 697–2662.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wayne Howell, Glacier Bay National
Park and Preserve, Box 140, Gustavus,
Alaska 99826. Telephone: (907) 697–
2662.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NPS
prepared an EIS, as required, under the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969 and Council of
Environmental Quality regulations (40
CFR Parts 1500–1508). A Notice of
Intent to prepare an environmental
impact statement, published in the
Federal Register on September 18, 2006
(71 FR 54687), formally initiated the
NPS planning and EIS effort. A Draft EIS
was issued on December 19, 2008 (73
FR 77837) with a 77-day public
comment period. A Federal Register
notice announcing the availability of the
Final EIS was published on May 26,
2010 (75 FR 29574), commencing the
required 30-day no-action period (71 FR
3290). The Final EIS described and
analyzed the environmental impacts of
two action alternatives and a no-action
alternative.
The ROD describes how the selected
Alternative (Alternative 3—Two Annual
Harvest Visits to Five Locations) could
be implemented upon enactment of
legislation to authorize the annual
harvest of glaucous-winged gull eggs at
up to five designated locations in
Glacier Bay National Park on two
separate dates by members of the Huna
Indian Association (HIA). Legislative
proposals from the NPS are subject to
review by the Department of the Interior
and the Executive Office of the
President before transmittal to Congress
can be approved. Thus, a legislative
proposal is not included in the Record
of Decision. If legislation authorizing
the annual harvest of glaucous-winged
gull eggs is enacted, each year the NPS
and the HIA would prepare a harvest
plan to identify sites open to harvest
based on annual monitoring and harvest
history. A first harvest visit could occur
at each of the open sites on or before the
E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM
24NON1
71732
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Notices
5th day following onset of laying, as
determined by NPS staff monitoring a
reference site. A second harvest at the
same sites could occur within nine days
of the first harvest. If inclement weather,
logistics, or other issues prevented a
first harvest visit within five days of
onset of laying, only one harvest would
be allowed in that year. No harvest
visits would occur after June 15 of any
year. The harvest plan would include, at
a minimum, vessel(s) to be used to
access harvest sites, tentative itinerary
for harvest date(s), harvest locations,
and names of harvesters. Information in
this plan would be used to prepare any
necessary Park permits including
regulatory exemptions to 36 CFR
13.1178.
Victor W. Knox,
Acting Regional Director, Alaska.
[FR Doc. 2010–29536 Filed 11–23–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–HX–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Proposed Finding Against Federal
Acknowledgment of the Tolowa Nation
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of proposed finding.
AGENCY:
The Department of the
Interior (Department) gives notice that
the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs
proposes to determine that the Tolowa
Nation, of Fort Dick, CA is not an Indian
tribe within the meaning of Federal law.
This notice is based on a determination
that the group does not meet one of the
seven mandatory criteria for a
government-to-government relationship
with the United States. This proposed
finding is based on one criterion alone.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed finding by May 23, 2011.
We must receive any request for a
technical assistance meeting by January
24, 2011. See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this notice for
more information about these dates.
ADDRESSES: Address comments on the
proposed finding or requests for a copy
of the report to the Office of Federal
Acknowledgment, 1951 Constitution
Avenue, NW., MS: 34B–SIB,
Washington, DC 20240. Parties who
make comments on the proposed
finding must also provide a copy of
their comments to the petitioner.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R.
Lee Fleming, Director, Office of Federal
Acknowledgment, (202) 513–7650.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:30 Nov 23, 2010
Jkt 223001
Pursuant
to 25 CFR 83.10(h), the Department
gives notice that the AS–IA proposes to
determine that the Tolowa Nation, P.O.
Box 213, Fort Dick, CA 95538, c/o Ms.
Sharon Sligh, is not an Indian tribe
within the meaning of Federal law. This
notice is based on a preliminary finding
that the petitioner fails to satisfy one of
the seven mandatory criteria for
acknowledgment set forth in 25 CFR
83.7(a) through (g), and thus, does not
meet the requirements for a governmentto government relationship with the
United States.
The Tolowa Nation, Petitioner #85,
submitted a letter of intent to petition
for Federal acknowledgment on
September 11, 1982. It submitted partial
documentation on March 22, 1983, and
made subsequent submissions in 1983,
1986, 1987, 1996, and 1999. The
Department provided technical
assistance in 1988 and in 1995. The
petition was ready for evaluation on
August 3, 2009.
To evaluate unambiguous previous
Federal acknowledgment under 25 CFR
83.8, OFA’s review of Petitioner #85’s
narrative and documentation revealed
three factors for consideration: the
establishment of the Klamath
Reservation from 1855 to 1861 and the
Smith River Reservation from 1862 to
1869; the establishment of the Smith
River, Elk Valley, and Resighini
Rancherias in 1906, 1908, and 1938
respectively; and Federal interaction
with the Del Norte Indian Welfare
Association (DNIWA) from 1941
through 1968.
There is not substantial evidence in
the record to show previous
unambiguous Federal acknowledgment
of the Athabascan-speaking Indians,
residing in the villages in Del Norte
County, California, known as ‘‘Tolowa,’’
either as separate entities or as one
entity that included the ancestors of
Petitioner #85. Evidence is also
insufficient to show that the petitioner
evolved from the Indian groups at the
Klamath Reservation established in
1855, or at the Smith River lease in
1862, or from the Resighini Rancheria.
Unambiguous Federal
acknowledgment of the Elk Valley and
Smith River Rancherias, which include
descendants of Athabascan-speaking
Tolowas from Del Norte County,
California, continues to the present day.
Because a group of the petitioner’s
ancestors did not enroll at these
rancherias and did not evolve as a group
from them, Petitioner #85 has not
shown unambiguous previous Federal
acknowledgment based on the
government’s acknowledgment of the
Smith River and Elk Valley Rancherias.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The Federal Government never
recognized DNIWA as a tribal political
entity. There is no substantial evidence
of unambiguous previous Federal
acknowledgment in the record.
Therefore, the petitioner is evaluated
under 25 CFR 83.7. Whether the
petitioner is eligible to be evaluated
under 83.8 of the regulations is subject
to reconsideration based on new
evidence at the time of an amended
proposed finding, if any, or the final
determination.
Petitioner #85 maintains that its
membership and its ancestors existed
continuously as a tribe of Indians
descended from the Tolowa, an
Athabascan-speaking group of Indians
residing in Del Norte County, California.
The petitioner maintains that its
members specifically are the
descendants of those Tolowa who were
not enrolled at the Smith River and Elk
Valley Rancherias.
In order to meet criterion 83.7(b) a
petitioner must demonstrate that a
predominant portion of its group
comprises a distinct community and has
existed as a community from historical
times until the present. Petitioner #85
did not provide sufficient evidence to
demonstrate the petitioner’s ancestors
existed as a distinct community from
first sustained contact in 1853 to 1903,
before the rancherias formed. The
evidence shows that some of Petitioner
#85’s ancestors were involved in
interaction indicative of a social
community, but does not to show that
they constituted an entity distinct from
the others, or were part of any entity
evolving from the people described in
the record. For the period 1903 through
1949, Department researchers examined
recollections from this time gathered
from interviews conducted during their
site visit in 2010, as well as Federal
census material, BIA enrollments, and
BIA correspondence to document
further DNIWA’s activities and informal
social interaction. Researchers also
consulted BIA enrollments conducted
by Henry Roe Cloud in 1939. The
evidence is insufficient to show that the
petitioner’s ancestors evolved as a
distinct community from 1903 through
the 1930s, after the Elk Valley and
Smith River Rancherias formed, or later.
DNIWA, claimed by the petitioner as its
precursor, did not function as a distinct
community from its alleged beginnings
in the 1930s through the 1980s. The
evidence for this time does not support
the assertion by Petitioner #85 that
DNIWA provided leadership over an
evolving entity that included both the
ancestors of Petitioner #85 and the
Smith River or Elk Valley Rancherias, or
that it evolved into the petitioner in the
E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM
24NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71731-71732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29536]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision for the Harvest
of Glaucous-Winged Gull Eggs by Huna Tlingit in Glacier Bay National
Park and Preserve Legislative Environmental Impact Statement
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability of the Record of Decision for the
Harvest of Glaucous-Winged Gull Eggs by Huna Tlingit in Glacier Bay
National Park and Preserve Legislative Environmental Impact Statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) announces the availability of
the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Legislative Environmental Impact
Statement (LEIS) on the Harvest of Glaucous-Winged Gull Eggs by Huna
Tlingit in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve.
The Record of Decision (ROD) documents the NPS determination that
harvest of glaucous-winged gull eggs could be authorized in Glacier Bay
National Park without impairing the biological sustainability of the
Park's glaucous-winged gull population or impacting other Park purposes
and values. Implementation of the decision would require promulgation
of public law and regulations, revising Title 36 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Section 4 of the Glacier Bay National Park Resource Management Act
of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-455) directed the NPS to ``* * * undertake a study
of sea gulls living within the park to assess whether sea gull eggs can
be collected on a limited basis without impairing the biological
sustainability of the sea gull population in the park.'' The
legislation also states that if the study determines collection could
occur without impairing the biological sustainability of the gull
population in the park, `` * * * the Secretary shall submit
recommendations for legislation * * *'' to the House and Senate
authorizing committees.
The ROD documents the NPS selection of Alternative 3 (Two Annual
Harvest Visits to Five Locations) based on consideration of the Park's
purposes and mission, NPS policies, resource information and values
analyzed in the Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement
(FLEIS), and comments received throughout the LEIS process. The FLEIS
analysis determined this alternative would not adversely impact Park
purposes and resources. Disturbance to nesting gulls is expected to be
minimal. The FLEIS analysis concluded that these effects would be minor
and would not affect sustainability of gull populations in the Park.
The basis for the decision stems from Park objectives and purposes
and the need to respond to Section 4 of Public Law 106-455.
Specifically, the decision was based on the following objectives:
Provide for a limited gull egg harvest in the Park by tribal
members of the Hoonah Indian Association (HIA)
Not impair the biological sustainability of the Park's
glaucous-winged gull population
Protect Park resources and values
The ROD briefly discusses the background of the project, states the
decision and discusses its basis, identifies mitigating measures,
summarizes public involvement, describes other alternatives considered,
specifies the environmentally preferable alternative, provides a non-
impairment determination, and provides a conclusion.
ADDRESSES: The ROD can be found online at the NPS Planning, Environment
and Public Comment Web site at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/index.cfm.
Copies of the ROD are available on request from: Wayne Howell, Glacier
Bay National Park and Preserve, Box 140, Gustavus, Alaska 99826.
Telephone: (907) 697-2662.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Howell, Glacier Bay National
Park and Preserve, Box 140, Gustavus, Alaska 99826. Telephone: (907)
697-2662.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NPS prepared an EIS, as required, under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and Council of
Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). A Notice of
Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement, published in the
Federal Register on September 18, 2006 (71 FR 54687), formally
initiated the NPS planning and EIS effort. A Draft EIS was issued on
December 19, 2008 (73 FR 77837) with a 77-day public comment period. A
Federal Register notice announcing the availability of the Final EIS
was published on May 26, 2010 (75 FR 29574), commencing the required
30-day no-action period (71 FR 3290). The Final EIS described and
analyzed the environmental impacts of two action alternatives and a no-
action alternative.
The ROD describes how the selected Alternative (Alternative 3--Two
Annual Harvest Visits to Five Locations) could be implemented upon
enactment of legislation to authorize the annual harvest of glaucous-
winged gull eggs at up to five designated locations in Glacier Bay
National Park on two separate dates by members of the Huna Indian
Association (HIA). Legislative proposals from the NPS are subject to
review by the Department of the Interior and the Executive Office of
the President before transmittal to Congress can be approved. Thus, a
legislative proposal is not included in the Record of Decision. If
legislation authorizing the annual harvest of glaucous-winged gull eggs
is enacted, each year the NPS and the HIA would prepare a harvest plan
to identify sites open to harvest based on annual monitoring and
harvest history. A first harvest visit could occur at each of the open
sites on or before the
[[Page 71732]]
5th day following onset of laying, as determined by NPS staff
monitoring a reference site. A second harvest at the same sites could
occur within nine days of the first harvest. If inclement weather,
logistics, or other issues prevented a first harvest visit within five
days of onset of laying, only one harvest would be allowed in that
year. No harvest visits would occur after June 15 of any year. The
harvest plan would include, at a minimum, vessel(s) to be used to
access harvest sites, tentative itinerary for harvest date(s), harvest
locations, and names of harvesters. Information in this plan would be
used to prepare any necessary Park permits including regulatory
exemptions to 36 CFR 13.1178.
Victor W. Knox,
Acting Regional Director, Alaska.
[FR Doc. 2010-29536 Filed 11-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-HX-P
