Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Notices 60101 

recognition in general as evidence 

during this period, based on the 

reasoning in the IBIA decision, the 

evidence for this period was 

reevaluated. The RFD concluded that 

there was insufficient evidence that 

there was political influence or 

authority within the group as a whole or 

in any portion of it between 1913 and 

1973. This reevaluation concluded that 

there was insufficient evidence for 

Atwood I. Williams’s leadership of all or 

a part of the group, and of interactions 

with the State that showed political 

activity within the group. The state 

relationship did not provide evidence in 

this time period. 

The FDs relied on the state 

relationship as evidence and concluded 

that historical Eastern Pequot met 

criterion 83.7(c) from 1973 to 2002 as 

one group. Based on the reevaluation in 

accord with the IBIA decision, without 

reliance on the state relationship, the 

RFD concluded that the two petitioners 

meet criterion 83.7(c) as one group from 

1973 to the early 1980’s, and did not 

exercise political authority and 

influence as one group after that time. 

The two separate groups did not meet 

criterion 83.7(c) because of the 

recentness of the evolution and split 

into two separate groups, represented by 

the EP and PEP petitioners. No evidence 

was submitted concerning the 

petitioners after the date of the FDs to 

the IBIA, and the RFD did not evaluate 

them after that date. 

Criteria 83.7(a),(d),(e),(f), and (g): The 

reevaluation of the post-1973 period in 

the grounds described in Item 5 resulted 

in the conclusion that the two 

petitioners formed separate 

communities after the early 1980’s, 

rather than a single group. The 

evaluations of criteria 83.7(a),(d),(e),(f) 

and (g) have been revised to reflect this 

conclusion. The evaluations of criteria 

83.7(a),(d),(e),(f), and (g) were not 

otherwise affected because they did not 

rely on the state relationship as 

evidence. Both petitioners met these 

criteria as separate groups. 

The RFD is final and effective upon 

the date of publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register, pursuant to 25 

CFR 83.11(h)(3). 

Dated: October 11, 2005. 

James E. Cason, 

Associate Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–20720 Filed 10–12–05; 2:26 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4310–W7–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Reconsidered Final Determination To 

Decline To Acknowledge the 

Schaghticoke Tribal Nation 

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the Associate Deputy Secretary has 

determined that the Schaghticoke Tribal 

Nation (STN) does not satisfy all seven 

criteria for acknowledgment as an 

Indian tribe in 25 CFR 83.7. Upon the 

date of publication of this notice, 

pursuant to 25 CFR 83.11(h)(3), the 

Reconsidered Final Determination 

(RFD) is final and effective for the 

Department of the Interior (Department). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: The procedures defined 

by this notice are effective on October 

17, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. 

Lee Fleming, Director, Office of Federal 

Acknowledgment (OFA), MS: 34B–SIB, 

1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20240, phone (202) 

513–7650. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice is published in the exercise of 

authority delegated by the Secretary of 

the Interior to the Associate Deputy 

Secretary by Secretarial Order 3259, 

February 8, 2005, as amended on 

August 11, 2005. 

This notice is based on a 

determination that the Schaghticoke 

Tribal Nation (STN) does not satisfy all 

of the seven mandatory criteria for 

acknowledgment in 25 CFR 83.7. 

Several lawsuits filed in the Federal 

courts affected the history and 

administrative handling of the 

Schaghticoke Tribal Nation petition. 

Two of these were land claims suits 

under the Non-Intercourse Act, 

Schaghticoke Tribal Nation v. Kent 

School Corp., Inc., Civil No. 3:98 

CVO1113 (PCD) and Schaghticoke 

Tribal Nation v. Connecticut Light and 

Power Company, Civil No. 3:00 

CV00820 (PCD). The third lawsuit is 

United States of America v. 43.47 Acres 

of Land, et al., Civil No. H–85–

1078(PCD), filed on December 16, 1985, 

in which the U.S. sought to condemn 

certain lands on the Schaghticoke 

Reservation to become part of the 

Appalachian Trail. All three lawsuits 

involve the question of whether the STN 

is an Indian tribe. 

The Department conducted its 

evaluation of this petitioner under a 

court-approved negotiated agreement 

between the Department, STN, and 

parties to the several, concurrent 

lawsuits mentioned above. This 

scheduling order, entered May 8, 2001, 

and subsequently amended, established 

timelines for submission of materials to 

the Department and deadlines for 

submission of comments, issuance of a 

proposed finding (PF), and issuance of 

a final determination (FD) which 

superseded the provisions of the 

acknowledgment regulations, 25 CFR 

part 83. 

The Department published notice of 

the STN PF on December 11, 2002, and 

found against acknowledgment of STN. 

Following the comment and response 

periods and the submission of new 

evidence, the Department concluded, 

relying in part on the state relationship 

and a calculation of marriage rates 

within the Schaghticoke as carryover 

evidence for criterion 83.7(c), that STN 

met all the seven mandatory criteria for 

acknowledgment as an Indian tribe. In 

accordance with the court-approved 

negotiated schedule, on January 8, 2003, 

the Department provided the petitioner 

and interested parties with a copy of the 

Federal Acknowledgment Information 

Resource (FAIR) database used for the 

STN PF, together with the scanned 

images of documents that OFA 

researchers added to the administrative 

record in the course of preparing the 

STN PF, including materials that OFA 

requested from the State and the STN. 

The Department issued the STN FD 

acknowledging the STN as an Indian 

tribe on January 29, 2004, and notice of 

the STN FD appeared in the Federal 

Register on February 5, 2004 (69 FR 

5570). On May 3, 2004, the State of 

Connecticut (State), jointly with the 

Kent School Corporation, Connecticut 

Light and Power Company, the towns of 

Kent, Danbury, Bethel, New Fairfield, 

Newton, Ridgefield, Stamford, 

Greenwich, Sherman, Westport, Wilton, 

Weston, and the Housatonic Valley 

Council of Elected Officials, the 

Coggswell family group (CG), and the 

Schaghticoke Indian Tribe (SIT) 

petitioning group filed timely requests 

for reconsideration of the STN FD with 

the Interior Board of Indian Appeals 

(IBIA). 

On May 12, 2005, the IBIA vacated 

the STN FD and remanded it to the 

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs for 

further work and reconsideration. The 

IBIA decision addressed a number of 

issues within the context of the related 

Federal acknowledgment decision of the 

Historical Eastern Pequot FD that was 

also vacated and remanded to the 

Department on May 12, 2005. IBIA 

linked the two cases because of their 

reliance on state recognition as 

60102 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Notices 

additional evidence for criterion 83.7(b) 

and 83.7(c). 

In its request for reconsideration of 

the STN FD, the State challenged the 

use of the historically continuous state 

recognition and the state relationship as 

providing evidence for criterion 83.7(b) 

‘‘community’’ and criterion 83.7(c) 

‘‘political influence or authority.’’

Moreover, the State argued that even if 

the use of the state relationship were to 

be upheld by IBIA in the case of the 

Historical Eastern Pequot, it should not 

be allowed for STN, since the STN FD, 

in the opinion of the State, 

‘‘impermissibly’’ expanded the use of 

the state relationship as evidence of 

political influence or authority in the 

absence of evidence of political activity 

within the group (41 IBIA 34). In regard 

to the use of the state relationship as 

evidence, IBIA concluded: 

Today, in Historical Eastern Pequot Tribe, 

the Board concludes that the State of 

Connecticut’s ‘‘implicit’’ recognition of the 

Eastern Pequot as a distinct political body—

even if a correct characterization of the 

relationship—is not reliable or probative 

evidence for demonstrating the actual 

existence of community or political influence 

or authority within that group. The FD for 

STN used state recognition in the same way 

that we found to be impermissible in 

Historical Eastern Pequot Tribe. In addition, 

we agree with the State that the STN FD gives 

even greater probative value and evidentiary 

weight to such ‘‘implicit’’ state recognition, 

and therefore it constituted a substantial 

portion of the evidence relied upon. 

Therefore, in light of our decision in 

Historical Eastern Pequot Tribe, the Board 

vacates the FD and remands it for 

reconsideration in accordance with that 

decision (41 IBIA 34). 

The IBIA also evaluated other issues 

raised by the State and other interested 

parties in the requests for 

reconsideration that were outside of its 

jurisdiction and referred these issues to 

the Department to consider. The State 

challenged the STN FD’s calculations of 

marriage rates for the period 1801 to 

1870 used for carryover evidence to 

satisfy criterion 83.7(c). Moreover, OFA 

submitted a ‘‘supplemental 

transmission’’ to IBIA regarding the 

calculation of marriage rates on 

December 2, 2004. Based on the 

allegation raised by the State regarding 

the marriage rate calculations, and 

within the context of the supplemental 

transmission, the IBIA concluded: 

Because we are already vacating and 

remanding the FD to the Assistant Secretary 

for reconsideration based on Historical 

Eastern Pequot Tribe, and because OFA has 

acknowledged problems with the FD’s 

endogamy rate calculations—at a minimum, 

inadequate explanation—we conclude that 

this matter is best left to the Assistant 

Secretary on reconsideration. (41 IBIA 36). 

The IBIA referred other allegations 

made by the State, SIT, and the CG 

based on the determination that it 

lacked jurisdiction over the issues. The 

first was the claim that the STN FD 

enrolled 42 non-STN members into the 

STN petitioning group. The SIT and the 

CG also raised the issue that the 

enrollment was not based on the notice, 

consent, or equal protection of those 

added to the STN rolls, that the 42 

individuals in question were not 

sufficiently linked to STN, and the 

individuals were not a part of the STN 

social and political community. The 

RFD concluded that the STN FD should 

be reconsidered on the grounds that at 

least 33 of the 42 individuals on the 

STN list of ‘‘unenrolled members’’ were 

not members of STN because they had 

not consented to enroll. Under the 

regulations, one must consent to being 

a member of a petitioning group. 

Criterion 83.7(b) ‘‘community’’: The 

STN PF found and the STN FD affirmed 

that STN met criterion 83.7(b), 

community, from first sustained contact 

to 1900 (STN PF, 15–16, STN FD, 18). 

The STN FD did not rely on the state 

relationship for criterion 83.7(b), 

community, for this period. Therefore, 

the RFD reaffirmed the STN FD for this 

time period, first sustained contact to 

1900. 

The RFD reanalyzed STN marriage 

rates, and found that marriage rates 

provided evidence in combination with 

other evidence sufficient to satisfy 

criterion 83.7(b) for the period 1801–

1900. The STN FD did not rely on the 

state relationship for criterion 83.7(b), 

community, for the period 1900–1920. 

The STN FD used a combination of 

evidence including residential and 

intermarriage patterns to conclude that 

STN met criterion 83.7(b), community, 

between 1900 and 1920. The RFD 

reaffirmed the STN FD for this time 

period. 

The STN FD relied on the state 

relationship as additional evidence for 

criterion 83.7(b), community, for the 

periods 1920–1940 and 1940–1967. The 

RFD reevaluated the state relationship 

with the STN, and concluded that it did 

not provide evidence of 83.7(b), 

community, within STN. The RFD 

reevaluated the evidence for community 

without the state relationship for these 

periods, and found that there was 

insufficient evidence for STN to meet 

criterion 83.7(b), community for 1920–

1967. 

The STN FD did not rely on state 

recognition for community for the 

period 1967–1996. Therefore, the STN 

FD conclusion that STN met criterion 

83.7(b), community, for these years was 

affirmed. 

For the period after 1996, the RFD 

concluded that at least the 33 of 42 

individuals who specifically declined to 

consent to be part of the STN petitioner 

cannot be considered members of the 

STN group. The STN, thus, did not 

represent the entire Schaghticoke 

community from 1997 to the present 

and, therefore, did not meet criterion 

83.7(b). Therefore, the STN did not meet 

criterion 83.7(b), community. 

Criterion 83.7(c) ‘‘political influence 

or authority’’: The RFD affirmed the 

finding of the STN FD that the 

petitioner met the requirements of 

criterion 83.7(c) for political influence 

or authority from the colonial period to 

1801. The STN FD used marriage rates 

for the periods 1801 to 1820 and 1841 

to 1870 under criterion 83.7(b)(2)(ii) to 

provide carryover evidence under 

83.7(c)(3). The RFD recalculated 

marriage rates for the period 1801 to 

1900, and reversed the finding of the 

STN FD that marriage rates reached the 

50 percent threshold to provide 

carryover evidence to meet 83.7(c). The 

RFD also reevaluated the evidence for 

residency rates for the period 1850 to 

1902. The RFD affirmed the conclusion 

of the STN FD that the residency rates 

were not high enough to provide 

carryover evidence to meet criterion 

83.7(c). The RFD reviewed the evidence 

for political influence or authority for 

the period 1801 to 1875, and found that 

there was insufficient evidence to 

satisfy criterion 83.7(c). 

The RFD affirmed the finding of the 

STN FD that two Schaghticoke petitions 

to the State from the years 1876 and 

1884 provided sufficient evidence of 

political influence or authority to meet 

criterion 83.7(c) for the years 1876–

1884. The RFD reevaluated the evidence 

regarding an 1892 petition based on new 

evidence submitted to the IBIA, and 

found that this document did not 

provide evidence of the existence of 

political influence or authority within 

the Schaghticoke. Therefore, the RFD 

concluded that STN did not meet 

criterion 83.7(c) for the period 1885–

1892. 

The STN FD relied on the state 

relationship to provide sufficient 

evidence to meet criterion 83.7(c) for the 

period 1892 to 1936. The RFD 

reevaluated the state relationship and 

concluded that it did not provide 

additional evidence of political 

influence or authority within the 

Schaghticoke. The RFD reevaluated the 

remaining evidence for political 

influence or authority without the state 

relationship and found that there was 

insufficient evidence to meet criterion 

83.7(c) for this period. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Notices 60103 

For the period 1936–1967, the RFD 

reevaluated the state relationship and 

concluded that it did not provide 

additional evidence of the exercise of 

political influence or authority within 

the Schaghticoke. The RFD concluded 

that the remaining evidence was 

insufficient to meet criterion 83.7(c) for 

the period 1936–1967. 

The STN FD conclusion that STN 

exercised political influence or 

authority between 1967 and 1996 was 

affirmed. No arguments or new evidence 

were submitted regarding this 

conclusion. 

STN did not meet criterion 83.7(c) for 

the period after 1996, in light of the 

known continued refusal of most of the 

42 individuals to be members of the 

STN. STN’s membership list does not 

reflect a significant portion of the 

political system. STN did not meet 

criterion 83.7(c) for the periods 1800–

1875, 1885–1967, and 1997-present. 

Therefore, STN did not meet criterion 

83.7(c). 

STN met criteria 83.7(a), petitioner 

was identified as an American Indian 

group from 1900 to present; 83.7(d), 

petitioner has submitted its governing 

documents; 83.7(e), petitioner’s 

membership has descent from an 

historical tribe; 83.7(f), petitioner does 

not have membership with any federally 

recognized tribes; and 83.7(g), petitioner 

has no Congressional legislation 

prohibiting the Federal relationship. No 

new arguments, evidence, or analysis 

merited revision of the STN FD 

evaluations of these criteria. The 

conclusions of the STN FD on these 

criteria were affirmed. 

The Associate Deputy Secretary 

denied to acknowledge that STN was an 

Indian tribe as it failed to satisfy all of 

the seven mandatory criteria for Federal 

acknowledgment under the regulations. 

The STN petitioner did not submit 

evidence sufficient to meet criteria 

83.7(b), community, and 83.7(c), 

political influence or authority, and, 

therefore, does not satisfy the 

requirements to be acknowledged as an 

Indian tribe. 

Upon the date of publication of this 

notice, pursuant to 25 CFR 83.11(h)(3), 

the RFD is final and effective for the 

Department. 

Dated: October 11, 2005. 

James E. Cason, 

Associate Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–20719 Filed 10–12–05; 2:26 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4310–W7–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

Notice of Availability of the Hollister 

Draft Resource Management Plan and 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Hollister Field Office (California). 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of the 

Hollister Draft Resource Management 

Plan and Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 and the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976, the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) has prepared 

a Draft Resource Management Plan and 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(RMP/EIS) for the Hollister Field Office. 

DATES: Written comments on the Draft 

RMP/EIS will be accepted for 90 days 

following the date the Environmental 

Protection Agency publishes the Notice 

of Availability in the Federal Register. 

Future meetings or hearings and any 

other public involvement activities will 

be announced at least 15 days in 

advance through public notices, media 

news releases, and/or mailings. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

at the public meetings or by any of the 

following methods: 

• Web Site: http://www.ca.blm.gov/ 

hollister (subject to change). 

• Fax: (831) 630–5000. 

• Mail: 20 Hamilton Court, Hollister, 

California 95023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sky 

Murphy, (831) 630–5039. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

planning area covers approximately 

278,000 surface acres and 

approximately 443,806 acres of 

subsurface mineral estate within the 

following California counties: Alameda, 

Contra Costa, Monterey, San Benito, San 

Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and 

portions of Fresno, Merced, and San 

Joaquin counties. The Hollister RMP, 

when completed, will provide 

management guidance for use and 

protection of the resources managed by 

the Hollister Field Office. The Hollister 

Draft RMP/EIS has been developed 

through a collaborative planning 

process and considers four alternatives. 

The primary issues addressed include: 

Recreation; protection of sensitive 

natural and cultural resources, livestock 

grazing; guidance for energy and 

mineral development; land tenure 

adjustments; and other planning issues 

raised during the scoping process. 

The Draft RMP/EIS also includes 

consideration of the designation of 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACECs). The preferred alternative 

includes the following ACECs: PanocheCoalinga ACEC—29,604 acres (existing); 

Panoche-Coalinga ACEC Expansion—

40,514 acres (proposed); Joaquin Rocks 

ACEC/RNA—7,327 acres (proposed); 

Fort Ord Public Lands ACEC—

approximately 15,200 acres (proposed); 

and Santa Cruz Coast Dairies ACEC—

approximately 6,770 acres (proposed). 

Two additional ACECs, Joaquin Ridge 

ACEC—19,215 acres and PanocheCoalinga ACEC—42,123 acres, were 

considered but not included in the 

preferred alternative. Use of public 

lands within these ACECs would vary, 

depending on the resources and/or 

values identified (see Chapter 2 of the 

Draft RMP/EIS), but would likely 

include limitations on motorizedvehicle use and other surface disturbing 

activities. 

Individual respondents may request 

confidentiality. If you wish to withhold 

your name or street address from public 

review or from disclosure under the 

Freedom of Information Act, you must 

state this prominently at the beginning 

of your written comment. Such requests 

will be honored to the extent allowed by 

law. All submissions from organizations 

and businesses, and from individuals 

identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, will be 

available for public inspection in their 

entirety. CD and paper copies of the 

Hollister Draft RMP/EIS are available at 

the Hollister Field Office at the above 

address; CD copies are available at the 

California BLM State Office, 2800 

Cottage Way, Sacramento, California 

95825. 

Robert Beehler, 

Hollister Field Office Manager. 

[FR Doc. 05–20618 Filed 10–13–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–40–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

Notice of Availability of the Proposed 

Resource Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Sloan Canyon National 

Conservation Area (SCNCA) 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

COOPERATING AGENCIES: Nevada 

Department of Wildlife, Nevada State 

Historic Preservation Office, Clark 

County Department of Comprehensive 

Planning, City of Henderson, City of 

Boulder City, Las Vegas Paiute Tribe,