Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Notices 71731 

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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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. 

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 

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 

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 glaucouswinged 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 http://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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

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 

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed finding. 

SUMMARY: 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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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. 

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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES