67398 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Notices

Unsuitable Properties

Buildings (by State)

Guam

Bldg. 609

Naval Forces Marianas

ComNavMar Co: Waterfront Annex GU

96540–0051

Landholding Agency: Navy

Property Number: 779740085

Status: Unutilized

Reason: Secured Area Extensive deterioration

Bldg. 611

Naval Forces Marianas

ComNavMar Co: Waterfront Annex GU

96540–0051

Landholding Agency: Navy

Property Number: 779740086

Status: Unutilized

Reason: Secured Area Extensive deterioration

North Carolina

Bldg. 45, Camp Lejeune

Camp Lejeune Co: Onslow NC 28542–0004

Landholding Agency: Navy

Property Number: 779740087

Status: Excess

Reason: Secured Area Extensive deterioration

Bldg. 420, Camp Lejeune

Camp Lejeune Co: Onslow NC 28542–0004

Landholding Agency: Navy

Property Number: 779740088

Status: Excess

Reason: Secured Area Extensive deterioration

Bldg. TP463, Camp Lejeune

Camp Lejeune Co: Onslow NC 28542–0004

Landholding Agency: Navy

Property Number: 779740089

Status: Excess

Reason: Secured Area Extensive deterioration

Ohio

Newtown Fish Toxicology

3411 Church Street

Newton Co: Hamilton OH 44244–

Landholding Agency: GSA

Property Number: 549740019

Status: Excess

Reason: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or

explosive material within airport runway

clear zone

GSA Number: 1–Z–OH–806

[FR Doc. 97–33503 Filed 12–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210–29–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Extension of Comment

Period for Draft Conservation

Agreement for the Wasatch Front and

West Desert Populations (Utah) of

Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Extension of comment period.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

announces an extension of the public

review and comment period for the

Draft Conservation Agreement for the

spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) in Utah.

The Service announced the availability

of the draft Conservation Agreement for

the Wasatch Front and West Desert

populations (Utah) of spotted frog for

review and comment on November 28,

1997 (62 FR 63375). The original

comment period requested comments be

received on or before December 29,

1997. On December 16, 1997, the

Service received an official request for

an extension of the comment period to

the week of January 13, 1998.

DATES: Comments on the Draft

Conservation Agreement must now be

received on or before January 16, 1998,

to be considered by the Service during

preparation of the final conservation

agreement and prior to the Service’s

determination whether it will be a

signatory party to the agreement.

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to review

the Draft Conservation Agreement may

obtain a copy by contacting the Field

Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 145 East 1300 South, Suite 404,

Salt Lake City, Utah 84115. Written

comments and materials regarding the

Draft Conservation Agreement should

also be directed to the same address.

Comments and written materials will be

available upon request for public

inspection, by appointment, during

normal business hours at the above

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Reed E. Harris, Field Supervisor (see

ADDRESSES section) (telephone 801/524–

5001).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) is a

candidate for Federal listing pursuant to

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended. In 1989 the Service received

a petition from the Board of Directors of

the Utah Nature Study Society

requesting that the Service add the

spotted frog (then referred to as Rana

pretiosa) to the List of Threatened and

Endangered Species. The Service

subsequently published a notice of a 90-

day finding in the Federal Register (54

FR 42529) on October 17, 1990, and a

notice of a 12-month petition finding in

the Federal Register (58 FR 27260) on

May 7, 1993. In the 12-month petition

finding the Service found that listing of

the spotted frog as threatened in some

portions of its range was warranted but

precluded by other higher priority

listing actions.

Shortly after the 12-month petition

finding the Utah Department of Natural

Resources began development of a

Conservation Agreement, working

cooperatively with other agencies, in an

effort to reduce the threats affecting the

spotted frog.

Public Comments Solicited

The Service will use information

received in its determination on

whether it should be a signatory party

to the agreement. Comments or

suggestions from the public, other

concerned government agencies, the

scientific community, industry, or any

other interested party concerning this

draft document are hereby solicited. All

comments and materials received will

be considered prior to the approval of

any final document.

Author

The primary author of this notice is

Janet A. Mizzi, Utah Field Office (see

ADDRESSES section) (telephone 801/524–

5001).

Authority

The authority for this action is the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, the Fish

and Wildlife Service Coordination Act

of 1964, and the National Memorandum

of Understanding (94(SMU–056)).

Dated: December 18, 1997.

Ralph O. Morgenweck,

Regional Director, Denver, Colorado.

[FR Doc. 97–33538 Filed 12–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Final Determination Against Federal

Acknowledgment of the MobileWashington County Band of Choctaw

Indians of South Alabama (MOWA)

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Final Determination.

SUMMARY: This notice is published in

accordance with authority delegated by

the Secretary of the Interior to the

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs

(Assistant Secretary) by 209 DM 8.

Notice is hereby given that the

Assistant Secretary declines to

acknowledge that the Mobile—

Washington County Band of Choctaw

Indians of South Alabama (MOWA),

1080 West Red Fox Road, Mt. Vernon,

Alabama 36560, exists as an Indian tribe

within the meaning of Federal law. This

notice is based on the determination

that the group does not satisfy one of the

mandatory criteria set forth in 25 CFR
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Notices 67399

83.7, namely criterion 83.7 (e).

Therefore, the MOWA do not meet the

requirements necessary for a

government-to-government relationship

with the United States, 25 CFR 83.10

(m).

DATES: This determination is final and

is effective 90 days after publication in

the Federal Register, unless a request

for reconsideration is filed with the

Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA)

by the petitioner or any interested party

no later than 90 days after publication,

25 CFR 83.11.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Holly Reckord, Chief, Branch of

Acknowledgment and Research, (202)

208–3592. A request for a copy of the

report which summarizes the evidence

and analyses that are the basis for this

Final Determination should be

addressed to the Bureau of Indian

Affairs, Branch of Acknowledgment and

Research, 1849 C Street NW, Mailstop

4603-MIB, Washington, D.C. 20240, or is

available at www.doi.gov/bia/

acklres.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

MOWA submitted a documented

petition on April 28, 1988, and received

an ‘‘obvious deficiency review’’ (OD)

from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)

dated February 15, 1990. On November

8, 1991, the MOWA responded to the

OD review and on November 19, 1991,

the petition was placed on the ‘‘ready’’

list of petitioners waiting to be placed

on active consideration. The AS-IA’s

investigation of the petition and

response to the OD review found little

or no evidence that the petitioner can

meet criterion (e) of 83.7, descent from

a historical tribe or from historical tribes

which combined and functioned as a

single autonomous political entity.

Under 25 CFR 83.10 (e) of the Federal

acknowledgment regulations, an

expedited Proposed Finding may be

issued by the Assistant Secretary when

there is little or no evidence that the

petitioner can meet one of the

mandatory criteria (e), (f), or (g) of 83.7.

Expedited findings may only be done

after the petition is complete and before

the petition has been placed on active

consideration. A notice of the expedited

Proposed Finding to decline to

acknowledge the MOWA was published

in the Federal Register on January 5,

1995 (60 FR 1874).

The Proposed Finding found that the

petitioner clearly did not meet the

requirements of criterion 83.7 (e),

descent from a historical tribe. To make

a Proposed Finding under 83.10 (e), the

burden of proof is on the Government to

show that the petitioner clearly does not

meet the criterion. The Proposed

Finding demonstrated that the MOWA

clearly did not meet criterion 83.7 (e),

thus meeting the burden of proof

required of the Government for making

a Proposed Finding under 83.10 (e).

Once the Proposed Finding has been

issued, however, the burden of proof

shifts to the petitioner for rebuttal. The

standard of proof which must be met in

the petitioner’s response to the

Proposed Finding is a lesser one, the

‘‘reasonable likelihood of the validity of

the facts’’ standard described in 25 CFR

83.6, the same standard used for all

acknowledgment determinations. If, in

its response to the Proposed Finding,

the petitioner can show that it meets the

‘‘reasonable likelihood of the validity of

the facts’’ standard, and thus

demonstrates descent from a historical

tribe, or historical tribes which

amalgamated, then the BIA will

undertake a full review of the petition

under all seven of the mandatory

criteria. However, the MOWA’s

response to the Proposed Finding did

not establish under the ‘‘reasonable

likelihood of the validity of the facts’’

standard that the MOWA met criterion

83.7 (e). No new evidence was

submitted or found which rebutted the

conclusions of the Proposed Finding.

Therefore, the MOWA response did not

trigger a BIA evaluation of the MOWA

petition under all seven mandatory

criteria.

The Final Determination is based

upon a new analysis of all the

information in the record. This includes

the information available for the

Proposed Finding, the information

submitted by the petitioner in its

response to the Proposed Finding, and

new evidence collected by the BIA

researchers for evaluation purposes.

Interested and informed parties did not

submit evidence during the comment

period. Two individuals submitted

comments after the close of the response

period, which were not considered in

the preparation of the final

determination in accord with 25 CFR

83.10 (l) (l). Also, numerous form letters

were received out of time and all were

transmitted to the Solicitor’s office for

retention for transmittal to the IBIA or

the AS-IA in the event of a remand.

None of the evidence submitted by the

petitioner or located by the BIA during

the evaluation process demonstrates

that the core ancestors of the MOWA

were Choctaw or of other Indian

ancestry.

Initially the petitioner claimed

descent from six historical Indian tribes:

Apache, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw,

Creek, and Houma. In its Response to

the Proposed Finding, the petitioner

continued to claim ancestry only from

the historical Choctaw, Cherokee, and

Creek tribes and narrowed its core

ancestors from 30 to 5 individuals. The

petitioner submitted additional

evidence on four of the five of these

ancestors from whom it claimed

descent. The BIA searched for evidence,

but could not locate any evidence

connecting these four claimed core

ancestors to the Choctaw or to any other

historical tribe. Neither the petitioner

nor the BIA found documentation

acceptable to the Secretary that the core

ancestors claimed to be Indian by the

MOWA, were descendants of the

historical Choctaw tribe or any other

Native American tribe.

The BIA found that all the MOWA

members descend from two core

families that resided in southwestern

Alabama by about 1830. Neither these

two families nor their ancestors were

found to be members of a historical tribe

of American Indians, or of tribes which

had combined and functioned as a

single American Indian entity. The

extensive evidence on these two

families either does not support, or in

part disproves, Indian ancestry. Only

one percent of the petitioner’s

membership could document any

American Indian ancestry through the

fifth core ancestor (see above) whose

lines married into the families in the

late 1880’s and early 1900’s. Except for

this one percent, Indian records for

Alabama do not include the known

ancestors of the petitioner. There was no

evidence in the substantial body of

documentation submitted by the

petitioner, or in the independent

research by the BIA, to demonstrate

Choctaw ancestry or any other Indian

ancestry for 99% of the petitioner’s

membership. Thus, the petitioner fails

to meet criterion (e), descent from a

historical tribe.

The Proposed Finding concluded that

the petitioner’s claim that its members

descended from ‘‘full and mixed blood

Choctaws, Creeks, Cherokees, and

Chickasaws who avoided removal West

during the Indian removal in the

1830’s’’ is not valid. The AS-IA found

that:

(1) The petitioner’s core ancestral

families did not have documented

American Indian ancestry;

(2) The actual MOWA progenitors

from the 1880’s were not documented as

descendants of the known, removal-era,

Indians claimed by the petitioner; and

(3) Many of the persons in the early

19th century ‘‘founding Indian

community’’ claimed by the petitioner

were not demonstrated to be Choctaw,

or even American Indian.
67400 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Notices

(4) Only one percent of the

petitioner’s membership can document

American Indian ancestry.

In its response to the Proposed

Finding, the petitioner submitted

evidence including letters, photographs,

interviews, school/church records,

published secondary sources,

newspaper/journal articles, court

documents, Federal documents, land

records, maps, and time lines. Every

piece of evidence submitted was

reviewed and it is concluded that:

(1) Some of the evidence was either

irrelevant to criterion 83.7(e) because it

did not demonstrate genealogical

descent from four claimed ancestors or

descent from any historical tribe;

(2) Much of the evidence was oral

history and was unreliable when tested.

Much of the evidence was found to be

unsubstantiated by primary

documentation; and

(3) The evidence did not connect

known MOWA ancestors to the

individuals whom the MOWA claimed

were Native American or to a historical

Indian tribe.

(4) The evidence disproved Indian

ancestry to some of the MOWA

ancestors.

The BIA searched for evidence on the

local, state, and national levels. The

core ancestors of the petitioning group

are known. None of the primary records

demonstrated that these documented,

known core ancestors were American

Indian, or were descendants of a

historical tribe. The BIA also searched

the records of the historical tribes which

the petitioner claimed and found no

connection between the MOWA core

ancestors and these historical tribes.

The MOWA response to the Proposed

Finding offered no basis for reversing

the conclusions of the Proposed Finding

against Federal acknowledgment of the

MOWA. The evidence in the record

does not support the petitioner’s claim

that it descends from a historical tribe.

The record does not provide substantive

evidence or any reason to believe that

additional research might uncover such

evidence. The MOWA petitioner has not

demonstrated by a ‘‘reasonable

likelihood of the validity of the facts’’

standard that it meets the requirements

of criterion 83.7(e). There is thus no

need to complete a full evaluation of the

documented petition under all seven of

the mandatory criteria. The petitioner

fails to meet the requirements for

Federal acknowledgment as an Indian

Tribe.

The Proposed Finding which declined

to acknowledge that the petitioner is an

Indian tribe is affirmed. This

determination is final and will become

effective 90 days from the date of

publication unless the petitioner or any

interested party files a request for

reconsideration of this determination

with the Interior Board of Indian

Appeals (83.11(a)(1)). The petitioner’s or

interested party’s request must be

received no later than 90 days after the

publication of the Assistant Secretary’s

determination in the Federal Register

(83.11(a)(2)).

Dated: December 17, 1997.

Kevin Gover,

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 97–33532 Filed 12–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

Notice of Availability and Public

Comment Period on Supplemental

Analysis to Environmental

Assessment No. CA–069–EA7–42;

Tritium and Related Materials Testing

on Public Lands in Ward Valley, San

Bernardino County, CA

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management.

ACTION: Public comment period on

Supplemental Analysis.

SUMMARY: The Department of the

Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) has prepared a

Supplemental Analysis on simultaneous

drilling activities by DOI/BLM and the

State of California, Department of

Health Services, and on related issues.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Public comments on the

Supplemental Analysis must be

received by January 9, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Supplemental

Analysis may be obtained upon request.

Submit requests to: External Affairs

Staff, Bureau of Land Management,

California Desert District, 6221 Box

Springs Blvd., Riverside, CA 92507; or

to: External Affairs Staff, Bureau of Land

Management, California State Office,

2135 Butano Drive, Sacramento,

California 95825. The EA is also

available on the Internet at:

www.ca.blm.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOI and

BLM prepared an Environmental

Assessment, EA No. CA–069–EA7–42,

on proposed tritium and related

materials testing and a proposal by the

State of California to conduct rainfall

infiltration studies. The EA was released

for public review on November 6, 1997.

Since the initial EA was released, new

information has become available that is

relevant to the DOI/BLM and State

proposals. Specifically, a simultaneous

drilling alternative is under

consideration, and more information

concerning unexploded military

ordnance on site has become available.

These topics are analyzed in the

Supplemental Analysis which is being

distributed for public review through

January 9, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ward Valley Project Coordinator Bureau

of Land Management, California State

Office, 2135 Butano Drive, Sacramento,

California 95825; tel: (916) 978–4630.

Carl Rountree,

Deputy State Director, Natural Resources.

[FR Doc. 97–33544 Filed 12–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–40–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[AZ–910–0777–61–241A]

State of Arizona Resource Advisory

Council Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Arizona Resource Advisory

Council Meeting, notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice announces a tour

and meeting of the Arizona Resource

Advisory Council. The tour and meeting

will be held January 23–24, 1998 in

Safford, Arizona. On January 23, the

RAC will tour a grazing allotment along

the Gila River and discuss various

issues involved in the Safford Field

Office Livestock Grazing Biological

Opinion. The tour will start at 8:00 a.m.

from the BLM Safford Field Office and

will conclude at 5:00 p.m. The Safford

Field Office is located at 711 14th

Avenue. On January 24, the RAC will

conduct a one-day business meeting.

Again, the meeting will be held at the

Safford Field Office, starting at 8:00 am.

until approximately 2:00 p.m. The

agenda items to be covered at the

meeting include review of previous

meeting minutes; BLM State Director’s

Update on legislation, regulations and

statewide planning efforts; Update on

Safford and Tucson Biological

Opinions; Presentation on a study

performed on the Gila River Watershed

and its Runoff; and Reports by the

Standards and Guidelines, Recreation

and Public Relations Working Groups;

Reports from RAC members; RAC

Discussion on future meeting dates and

locations. A public comment period will

take place at 11:30 a.m. January 24, 1998

for any interested publics who wish to

address the Council.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah Stevens, Bureau of Land