71730 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Notices 

Director’s Order Number 2 (Park 

Planning) and Director’s Order Number 

12 (Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis, and 

Decision-making) the NPS announces 

the availability of the ROD for the GMP/ 

FEIS for the Tuskegee Airmen National 

Historic Site, Tuskegee, Alabama. On 

August 11, 2010, the Regional Director, 

NPS, Southeast Region, approved the 

ROD for the project. The ROD includes 

a description of the project’s 

background, a decision statement, 

synopses of other alternatives 

considered, the basis for the final 

decision, findings on impairment of the 

site’s resources and values, a 

description of the environmentally 

preferable alternative, and an overview 

of public and agency involvement in the 

planning process. 

DATES: The ROD was signed by the 

Regional Director, NPS, Southeast 

Region, on August 11, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD are 

available by contacting the Park 

Superintendent at the Tuskegee Airmen 

National Historic Site (NHS), 1616 

Chappie James Avenue, Tuskegee, 

Alabama 36083; telephone: 334–727– 

6390. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Five 

alternatives were evaluated in the EIS. 

Alternative A, the no-action alternative, 

described current management of the 

site and served as a basis for comparison 

in evaluating the other alternatives. 

Alternative B emphasized the natural 

environment by keeping Tuskegee 

Airmen NHS largely undeveloped and 

natural in character outside of the core 

historic area. Alternative C aims to 

restore much of the Park to its historic 

1945 appearance. Alternative D is the 

selected alternative. It preserves and 

protects cultural resources and the core 

historic area while offering the most 

diversity of visitor interpretive 

programs, natural areas, and 

recreational opportunities. Alternative E 

preserved the core historic area and 

offered the most recreational 

opportunities. 

Among the five alternatives 

considered, the selected alternative best 

protects the diversity of Park resources 

while also maintaining a range of 

quality visitor experiences, meets NPS 

purposes and goals for the Tuskegee 

Airmen NHS, and meets National 

Environmental Policy Act goals. The 

selected alternative will not result in the 

impairment of Park resources and will 

allow the NPS to conserve Park 

resources and provide for their 

enjoyment by visitors. 

Authority : The authority for publishing 

this notice is 40 CFR. 1506.6. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Contact the Superintendent, Tuskegee 

Airmen NHS, at the address and 

telephone number shown above. An 

electronic copy of the ROD is available 

on the Internet at http:// 

parkplanning.nps.gov. 

The responsible official for this ROD 

is the Regional Director, Southeast 

Region, NPS, 100 Alabama Street, SW., 

1924 Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. 

Dated: September 20, 2010. 

David Vela, 

Regional Director, Southeast Region. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29539 Filed 11–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–KB–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

[2031–A046–409] 

General Management Plan/Wilderness 

Study/Off-Road Vehicle Management 

Plan, Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, Big Cypress National 

Preserve Addition, Florida 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for the General Management Plan/ 

Wilderness Study/Off-Road Vehicle 

Management Plan (FEIS/GMP/WS/ORV 

Plan), Big Cypress National Preserve 

(Preserve) Addition. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

4332(2)(C) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and 

National Park Service (NPS) policy in 

Director’s Order Number 2 (Park 

Planning) and Director’s Order Number 

12 (Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis, and 

Decision-making), the NPS announces 

the availability of a Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the GMP/WS/ORV 

Plan for the Big Cypress National 

Preserve Addition, Florida. 

The 1991 GMP for the original 

Preserve contains no guidance for the 

approximately 147,000 acres added to 

the Preserve in 1988 by Public Law 100– 

301 (the Addition). A GMP is needed to 

clearly define resource conditions and 

visitor experiences to be achieved in the 

Addition. 

DATES: The National Park Service will 

execute a Record of Decision (ROD) no 

sooner than 30 days following 

publication by the Environmental 

Protection Agency of the Notice of 

Availability of the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

ADDRESSES: The document will be 

available for public review online at 

http://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/bicy. 

In addition, a limited number of CDs 

and hard copies will be made available 

at Preserve headquarters. You may also 

request a hard copy or CD by contacting 

Big Cypress National Preserve, 33100 

Tamiami Trail East, Ochopee, Florida 

34141–1000; telephone 239–695–1103. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public 

scoping was initiated in the summer of 

2001. Public meetings and seven 

newsletters were used to keep the 

public informed and involved 

throughout the planning process for the 

Addition. The Draft GMP/WS/ORV 

Plan/EIS was distributed to other 

agencies, interested organizations, and 

individuals for their review and 

comment during the summer of 2009. 

Four public meetings and wilderness 

hearings were held. 

The draft document was revised as a 

result of public and agency feedback 

received during the public comment 

period. The Final GMP/WS/ORV Plan/ 

EIS provides a framework for 

management, use, and development 

options for the Addition by the NPS for 

the next 15 to 20 years. It describes four 

management alternatives for 

consideration, including a no-action 

alternative that continues the current 

management framework. The three 

action alternatives present a range of 

ORV opportunities, proposed 

wilderness, and visitor facilities. The 

document analyzes the environmental 

impacts of the alternatives. 

The four alternatives (with names as 

they appear in the document) are as 

follows: 

Alternative A: No-Action 

Alternative—the continuation of current 

management practices and trends. The 

enabling legislation would be the longterm document to guide management 

and development of the Preserve. 

Alternative B: The concept for 

management under alternative B would 

be to enable visitor participation in a 

wide variety of outdoor recreational 

experiences. It would nearly maximize 

motorized access to sustainable trails 

(up to 132 miles of motorized trails), 

provide the least amount of proposed 

wilderness (about 37,567 acres), and 

develop limited new hiking-only trails. 

The entire off-road vehicle (ORV) trail 

system would be implemented without 

phased establishment and the 

assessment of monitoring results. New 

visitor and operations facilities along 

the I–75 corridor would also be 

provided. 

Preferred Alternative: The preferred 

alternative would provide diverse 

frontcountry and backcountry 

recreational opportunities, enhance day 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

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