Department of the Interior August 29, 2005 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents
Results 1 - 8 of 8
Final Decisions Regarding Self-Determination and Self-Governance Funding Agreement Language on Fiduciary Trust Records Management
This notice announces the final decision regarding Self- Determination and Self-Governance language to be negotiated into funding agreements for 2006 regarding fiduciary trust records management. The Federal Register notice published on February 2, 2005 (70 FR 5457) presented a proposed policy on fiduciary trust records management for Self-Determination (Title I) and Self-Governance (Title IV) Tribes/Consortia and language to be negotiated into 2006 Title I and Title IV funding agreements. The February 2, 2005, notice also announced three consultation meetings and an invitation to submit written comments on the proposed policy and funding agreement language. Final Decision: After reviewing numerous comments and suggestions, both written and oral, the Department decided not to institute the proposed policy on fiduciary trust records management for Title I and Title IV Tribes/Consortia; rather, the Department will negotiate with each Tribe/Consortium a specific section in the funding agreement that addresses Tribe's/Consortium's and the Secretary's respective responsibilities regarding the management of fiduciary trust records. This specific section will include the definition of ``fiduciary trust records,'' ``Indian trust assets,'' and ``management.'' The language to be negotiated into the 2006 Title I and Title IV funding agreements regarding fiduciary trust records management is the following and will replace the three options used in the past. The Tribe/Consortium and Secretary agree to the following: The Tribe/Consortium agrees to: (a) Preserve, protect and manage all fiduciary trust records, created and/or maintained by the Tribes/Consortia during their management of trust programs in their Title IV agreements. (A fiduciary trust record is any document that reflects the existence of an Indian trust asset and was used in the management of an Indian trust asset. An Indian trust asset refers to lands, natural resources, monies or other assets held in trust at a particular time by the Federal Government for a Tribe, Alaska natives or that are or were at a particular time restricted against alienation, for individual Indians. Management includes actions that influence, affect, govern, or control an Indian trust asset. The following are examples not considered to be fiduciary trust records: General administrative, personnel or travel records; education records; law enforcement records; health records; law making unrelated to Indian trust assets; tribal council resolutions and laws unrelated to Indian trust assets; and tribal elections.) (b) Make available to the Secretary all fiduciary trust records maintained by the Tribe/Consortium, provided that the Secretary gives reasonable oral or written advance request to the Tribe/Consortium. Access shall include visual inspection and, at the expense of the Secretary, the production of copies (as agreed upon between the parties), and shall not include the removal of the records without tribal approval; and (c) Store and permanently retain all inactive fiduciary trust records at the Tribe/Consortium or allow such records to be removed and stored at the American Indian Records Repository (AIRR) in Lenexa, Kansas, at no cost to the Tribe/Consortium. The Secretary agrees to: (a) Allow the Tribe/Consortium to determine what records it creates to implement the trust programs assumed under its Title IV agreement, except that the Tribe/Consortium must create and maintain the information required by statute and regulation. No additional record keeping requirements are required by this agreement. (b) Store all inactive fiduciary trust records at the American Indian Records Repository (AIRR) at no cost to the Tribe/Consortium when the Tribe/Consortium no longer wishes to keep the records. Further, the Tribe/Consortium will retain legal custody and determine access to these records. Such records shall not be treated as Federal records for purposes of chapter 5 of Title 5 of the United States Code unless expressly agreed to by the Tribe; (c) Create and manage a single tribal storage and retrieval system for all fiduciary trust records stored at AIRR (No records will be accepted at AIRR until such a retrieval system exists); and (d) Provide filing equipment and technical assistance for Tribes/ Consortia in preserving, protecting and managing their fiduciary trust records from available funds appropriated for this purpose. Summary of Comments: The final decision above is the result of a nearly 2-year consultation process by the Department with some Title I and IV Tribes/Consortia. This process included: Conducting pre-scoping telephone conversations with tribal leaders, staff and consultants; holding a scoping meeting as part of a 2-day conference on Indian trust records management at Haskell Indian Nations University; forming a Tribal Fiduciary Trust Records Management Workgroup; conducting four workgroup meetings; transmitting a tribal leader letter soliciting comments on the proposed policy language to be presented for consultation; and engaging in discussions with Tribal leaders and staff at the Fall 2004, Self-Governance Conference. This process culminated with three consultation meetings held in Nashville, Tennessee; Portland, Oregon; and Phoenix, Arizona that were attended by approximately 60 tribal leaders, staff and consultants. In addition, written comments were received from 14 tribes, tribal organizations or tribal consultants some of whom attended the consultation meetings. The comments received can be grouped into the following four major categories: Category 1: New funding agreement language is not needed because existing compact and funding agreement language sufficiently provides for the maintenance of records of trust programs managed by the Tribes/ Consortia, and Tribes/Consortia should not be required to implement a Federal policy on fiduciary trust records management through their funding agreements. The Department respectfully disagrees. The Department believed that the three options available to Tribes/ Consortia in the past are too vague and do not specifically address the Secretary's primary concerns that fiduciary trust records not be destroyed and that the Secretary have the right to access those records if needed in her capacity as trustee delegate. The Department does agree with the comments that a Federal policy does not need to be instituted through the Departmental Manual. Instead the Department has chosen to negotiate language with each Tribe/Consortium into its funding agreement to address fiduciary trust records management. Category 2: The definition of ``fiduciary trust records'' is too broad and vague and the Department should produce a specific list of what fiduciary trust records should be maintained and preserved by the Tribe/Consortium. The definition is purposely broad in recognition of tribal sovereignty. It allows Tribes/Consortia the flexibility to create those records they believe are necessary to properly manage their trust assets through their Title I or Title IV funding agreements. For the Department to create a list of fiduciary trust records would have been both overly restrictive for some Tribes/ Consortia and overly expansive for others. A Department-generated list to be used by all Tribes/Consortia would have been restrictive in that it could deter tribes from creating certain records they feel were appropriate and at the same time it could be expansive by ``requiring'' Tribes/Consortia to create fiduciary trust records they did not believe were necessary for effective management of their trust assets. The Department's concern is that whatever trust records are created be properly protected and available to the Secretary. Category 3: The funding agreement language creates an unfunded mandate because no funding is being provided, and the language requires Tribes/Consortia to maintain record facilities and administer and monitor a records policy. The Department believes that the language proposed for negotiation does not require Tribes/Consortia to create and keep any additional records beyond those they now keep; namely, those that are required by statute or regulation or those records the Tribe/Consortium chooses to create in the management of its own trust resources. The language does not require a tribe to have any other kind of record keeping system other than the ones they currently operate. Before becoming a Title I or Title IV Tribe/Consortium, a Tribe/ Consortium had to demonstrate that it had a functional record keeping system and this language does not expand that requirement. Further, while the language does indicate that Tribes/Consortia are to preserve, protect and manage all fiduciary trust records and that all fiduciary trust records are to be kept permanently, once the Tribe/Consortium chooses that it no longer wants to house their inactive fiduciary trust records at their facility, the Secretary has offered to store those records, at the Secretary's expense, at the American Indian Records Repository. Finally, the Secretary is willing to provide to the Tribes/ Consortia equipment, training and technical assistance, subject to availability of appropriated funds for that purpose. Category 4: A potential problem exists for Tribes/Consortia in storing records at AIRR in that outside interests might gain access to Tribal/Consortium trust records through the Freedom of Information Act because the Tribal/Consortium trust records are held on the Tribe's/ Consortium's behalf by the Department in a Federal facility. To accommodate this concern, language was inserted stating that the Tribe/ Consortium retains legal custody and determines access to those records. Further, language was inserted stating that such records shall not be treated as Federal records for purposes of chapter 5 of Title 5 of the United States Code, unless expressly agreed to by the Tribe.
Invasive Species Advisory Committee
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of meetings of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee. The purpose of the Advisory Committee is to provide advice to the National Invasive Species Council, as authorized by Executive Order 13112, on a broad array of issues related to preventing the introduction of invasive species and providing for their control and minimizing the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause. The Council is Co-chaired by the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Commerce. The duty of the Council is to provide national leadership regarding invasive species issues. The purpose of a meeting on October 11-13, 2005 is to convene the full Advisory Committee; and to discuss implementation of action items outlined in the National Invasive Species Management Plan, which was finalized on January 18, 2001.
Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, Subpart A
On December 8, 2004, we, the Federal Subsistence Board, published a proposed rule to revise and clarify the jurisdiction of the Federal Subsistence Management Program in coastal areas in southwestern Alaska. This rulemaking is necessary in order to exclude numerous saltwater embayments within National Wildlife Refuge boundaries that were never intended to fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Subsistence Management Program. We are now reopening the comment period for this rulemaking action because of newly available maps of the specific embayments in southwestern Alaska to be excluded from the jurisdiction of the Federal Subsistence Management Program. If you have already commented on the proposed rule and have no additional comments to make as a result of viewing the newly available maps, then you do not need to resubmit your comment(s), as they will be fully considered in the final determination.
Receipt of Two Applications for Incidental Take Permits for Construction of Single-Family Homes in Brevard County, FL
Maronda Homes, Inc. of Florida and Duke Construction Corporation (Applicants) each request an incidental take permit (ITP) pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), as amended (Act). The Applicants anticipate taking a combined total of about 0.48 acre of Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) (scrub-jay) foraging, sheltering, and possibly nesting habitat incidental to lot preparation for the construction of single-family homes and supporting infrastructure in Brevard County, Florida (Project). The destruction of 0.48 acre of foraging, sheltering, and possibly nesting habitat is expected to result in the take of one family of scrub-jays over requested permit terms of 10 years (Maronda) and 2 years (Duke). The Applicants' Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) describe the mitigation and minimization measures proposed to address the effects of the Projects to the Florida scrub-jay. These measures are outlined in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. We have determined that the Applicants' proposals, including the proposed mitigation and minimization measures, will individually and cumulatively have a minor or negligible effect on the species covered in the HCPs. Therefore, the ITPs are ``low-effect'' projects and qualify as categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as provided by the Department of Interior Manual (516 DM 2, Appendix 1 and 516 DM 6, Appendix 1). Copies of the HCPs may be obtained by making a request to the Regional Office (see ADDRESSES). Requests must be in writing to be processed. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, Subpart D; Seasonal Adjustments-Wildlife
This provides notice of the Federal Subsistence Board's in- season management actions to protect moose populations in Unit 22 and caribou populations in Unit 9. These actions will provide an exception to the Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, published in the Federal Register on June 22, 2005. Those regulations established seasons, harvest limits, methods, and means relating to the taking of wildlife for subsistence uses during the 2005 regulatory year.
Receipt of an Application for an Incidental Take Permit for the Florida Scrub-Jay Resulting From Construction of a Single-Family Home in Brevard County, FL
Maronda Homes, Inc. (Applicant) requests an incidental take permit (ITP) for a duration of 10 years, pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The Applicant requests a permit to remove about 0.24 acre of Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) (scrub-jay) foraging, sheltering, and possibly nesting habitat incidental to lot preparation for the construction of a single-family home and supporting infrastructure in Section 23, Township 23 South, Range 35 East, Port St. John, Brevard County, Florida. The proposed destruction of 0.24 acre of foraging, sheltering, and possibly nesting habitat could result in the take of one family of scrub-jays. The Applicant's Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) describes the mitigation and minimization measures proposed to address the effects of the project to the scrub-jay. These measures are outlined in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has determined that the Applicant's proposal, including the proposed mitigation and minimization measures, will individually and cumulatively have a minor or negligible effect on the species covered in the HCP. Therefore, the ITP is a ``low-effect'' project and qualifies as a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as provided by the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 2, Appendix 1 and 516 DM 6, Appendix 1). We announce the availability of the ITP application and HCP for the incidental take application. Copies of the application and HCP may be obtained by making a request to the Southeast Regional Office (see ADDRESSES). Requests must be in writing to be processed. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10 of the Endangered Species Act and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
Receipt of an Application for an Incidental Take Permit for the Florida Scrub-jay Resulting From Construction of a Single-Family Home in Charlotte County, FL
Mr. and Mrs. Nicholas Tamburri (Applicants) request an incidental take permit (ITP) for a period of one year, pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The Applicants anticipate removal of about 1.2 acres of occupied Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) (scrub-jay) nesting, foraging, and sheltering habitat, incidental to partial land clearing of their 5-acre lot and subsequent residential construction of a single-family home and supporting infrastructure in Charlotte County, Florida. Up to three scrub-jay individuals could be taken as a result of the Applicants' proposed action. It is not currently known if these three scrub-jays are part of the same scrub- jay family. The Applicants' Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) describes the mitigation and minimization measures proposed to address the effects of the project to the scrub-jay. These measures are outlined in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. We announce the availability of the ITP application, HCP, and accompanying Environmental Assessment (EA). Copies of the application, HCP, and EA may be obtained by making a request to the Southeast Regional Office (see ADDRESSES). Requests must be in writing to be processed. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10 of the Act and National Environmental Policy Act regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
Notice of Availability of a Proposed Amendment to Environmental Defense, Inc.'s Safe Harbor Agreement
Environmental Defense, Inc. (ED) has submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) a request to amend their Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) and associated Endangered Species Act (Act) Section 10(a)(1)(A) Safe Harbor Enhancement of Survival permit (Permit) for habitat restoration activities on private lands for the endangered Black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla) (BCVI) and Golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) (GCWA) in the Hill Country of Texas to include twelve additional counties, along with amending language in Attachment 2 of their SHA. The amendment would allow the Safe Harbor program to expand onto additional private lands in Texas, thus furthering the conservation of BCVIs and GCWAs.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.