29574 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Notices 

concessioners will know not only the 

amount of money they will be obliged 

to pay the prior concessioner for 

existing LSI under the terms of the new 

contract, but also will know with a high 

degree of certainty how much money 

they will recover from this payment 

upon the expiration of the new contract 

(based on the 40-year amortization 

period). The proposed LSI alternative 

effectively eliminates the speculation 

about physical depreciation and CPI 

that is required for proposed contracts 

under the standard LSI formula. The 

resulting lower risk and greater certainty 

in the business opportunity will foster 

competition for the new contract by 

providing a reasonable opportunity to 

make a profit. 

The proposed LSI alternative is 

projected to provide approximately the 

same rate of return for the new 

concessioner as the standard LSI 

formula. This is because, in developing 

the minimum franchise fee under the 

proposed LSI alternative, NPS estimated 

that the new contract would provide the 

new concessioner with a reasonable 

opportunity to make a net profit. This 

estimate took into consideration, among 

other matters, applicable industry rate 

of return expectations, the purchase 

price of the existing LSI improvements, 

and the LSI value that will be payable 

to the concessioner after contract 

expiration under the proposed LSI 

alternative. If the standard LSI formula 

were utilized, the projected LSI value 

payment to the new concessioner would 

necessarily be much higher, resulting in 

a much higher minimum franchise fee 

for the new contract. 

In other words, the lower LSI value 

payment upon contract expiration under 

the proposed LSI alternative (as 

opposed to the standard LSI formula) 

results in a lower minimum franchise 

fee, and achieves the same approximate 

projected rate of return to the 

concessioner. The proposed LSI 

alternative results in increased cash 

flows to the concessioner during the 

entire term of the contract, while the 

standard LSI formula provides a higher 

payment of LSI at the expiration of the 

contract. 

The proposed LSI alternative, if 

adopted by NPS, would be applicable 

only to the new contract, GRTE003–11. 

NPS has made no decision to apply the 

proposed LSI alternative or any other 

LSI alternative to future concession 

contracts. If the same or other 

alternative LSI formulas are considered 

for utilization in subsequent contracts 

pursuant to Section 405(a)(4) of the 

1998 Act, opportunities for public 

comment will be provided as required. 

NPS will provide notice of its final 

decision regarding the LSI provisions of 

the new contract in the Federal Register 

and/or in FedBizOpps (FedBizOpps.gov 

under Solicitation No. CC–GRTE003– 

11). 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Daniel N. Wenk, 

Deputy Director, Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12703 Filed 5–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–53–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Final Legislative Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Harvest of GlaucousWinged Gull Eggs by the Huna Tlingit 

in Glacier Bay National Park 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of the 

Final Legislative Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Harvest of GlaucousWinged Gull Eggs by the Huna Tlingit 

in Glacier Bay National Park. 

SUMMARY: The National Park Service 

(NPS) announces the availability of a 

final Legislative Environmental Impact 

Statement (LEIS) for the harvest of 

glaucous-winged gull eggs by the Huna 

Tlingit in Glacier Bay National Park. 

The document describes and analyzes 

the environmental impacts of a 

preferred alternative and one additional 

action alternative for managing a limited 

harvest of glaucous-winged gull eggs. A 

no action alternative is also evaluated. 

This notice announces the availability 

of the final LEIS. 

DATES: A Record of Decision will be 

made no sooner than 30 days after the 

date the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s Notice of Availability for this 

final LEIS appears in the Federal 

Register. 

ADDRESSES: The final LEIS may be 

viewed online at http:// 

parkplanning.nps.gov. Hard copies of 

the final LEIS are available on request 

from the address below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Beth Moss, Project Manager, 

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, 

Telephone: (907) 723–1777. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NPS 

has prepared an LEIS to analyze the 

effects of authorizing the limited 

collection of glaucous-winged gull eggs 

within Glacier Bay National Park by 

Hoonah Indian Association (HIA; the 

federally recognized government of the 

Huna Tlingit) tribal members. Glacier 

Bay is the traditional homeland of the 

Huna Tlingit who traditionally 

harvested eggs there prior to park 

establishment. The practice was 

curtailed in the 1960s, as the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act and federal regulations 

prohibit it. In the late 1990s, at the 

behest of tribal leaders, the NPS agreed 

to explore ways to authorize this 

important cultural tradition. Section 4 

of the Glacier Bay National Park 

Resource Management Act of 2000 

directed the Secretary of Interior, in 

consultation with local residents, to 

assess whether gull eggs could be 

collected in Glacier Bay National Park 

on a limited basis without impairing the 

biological sustainability of the gull 

population. The Act further requires 

that the Secretary submit 

recommendations for legislation to 

Congress if the study determines that 

gull egg harvest could occur without 

impairing the biological sustainability of 

the park’s gull population. NPS 

commissioned ethnographic and 

biological studies to inform the analysis 

included in this LEIS. 

The NPS outlined a range of 

alternatives based on project objectives, 

park resources and values, and public 

input and analyzed the impacts each 

would have on the biological and 

human environment. 

Alternative 1: No Action: This 

alternative serves as a baseline for 

evaluating the impacts of the action 

alternatives. This alternative would not 

authorize the harvest of glaucouswinged gull eggs in Glacier Bay National 

Park. Glaucous-winged gulls would 

continue to breed in Glacier Bay 

without human disturbance. 

Alternative 2: This alternative would 

propose legislation to authorize the 

annual harvest of glaucous-winged gull 

eggs at up to two designated locations 

on a single pre-selected date on or 

before June 9 of each year. 

Alternative 3: NPS Preferred 

Alternative: Alternative 3 would 

propose 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. A first harvest visit 

would be authorized to occur at each of 

the open sites on or before the 5th day 

following onset of laying as determined 

by NPS staff monitoring a reference site. 

A second harvest at the same sites 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Notices 29575 

would be authorized to occur within 

nine days of the first harvest. 

Both action alternatives would 

manage harvest activities under the 

guidelines of a harvest management 

plan cooperatively developed by the 

NPS and the HIA. NPS would conduct 

monitoring activities to ensure that park 

resources and values were not impacted. 

The Superintendent would retain the 

authority to close gull colonies to 

harvest. 

Victor W. Knox, 

Acting Regional Director, Alaska. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12608 Filed 5–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–HX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R3–ES–2010–N094; 30120–1113–000– 

F6] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Indiana Bat; Notice of 

Intent To Prepare a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for a 

Proposed Habitat Conservation Plan 

and Incidental Take Permit 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a 

draft environmental impact statement 

and draft habitat conservation plan; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service) intend to 

prepare a draft environmental impact 

statement (EIS) to evaluate the impacts 

of several alternatives relating to the 

proposed issuance of an Endangered 

Species Act Permit to EverPower Wind 

Holdings, Inc., its subsidiary Buckeye 

Wind LLC, and its affiliates (applicant) 

for incidental take of the Indiana bat 

(Myotis sodalis), a Federal endangered 

species, from activities associated with 

the construction and operation of a 

wind power project in Champaign 

County, Ohio. We also announce a 

public comment period. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, please 

send your written comments by June 25, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Ms. 

Megan Seymour, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Ohio Field Office, 4625 Morse 

Rd., Suite 104, Columbus, OH 43230; 

E-mail comments: 

EverPowerHCP@fws.gov; or 

Fax: (614) 416–8994 (Attention: 

Megan Seymour). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Megan Seymour, at (614) 416–8993, 

extension 16. Individuals who are 

hearing-impaired or speech-impaired 

may call the Federal Relay Service at 

(800) 877–8337 for TTY assistance. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We 

publish this notice in compliance with 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), and its implementing 

regulations (40 CFR 1506.6), and section 

10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.). We intend to gather the 

information necessary to determine 

impacts and alternatives to support a 

decision regarding the potential 

issuance of an incidental take permit to 

the applicant, and the implementation 

of the supporting draft HCP. We intend 

to prepare an EIS to evaluate the 

impacts of several alternatives relating 

to the proposed issuance of an 

incidental take permit under the Act. 

The applicant proposes to apply for an 

incidental take permit through 

development and implementation of an 

HCP. The proposed HCP will cover take 

of the Indiana bat that is incidental to 

activities associated with the 

construction and operation of the 

applicant’s Buckeye Wind Energy 

project and will include measures 

necessary to minimize and mitigate 

impacts to the Indiana bat and its 

habitat to the maximum extent 

practicable. 

Public Comments 

We request data, comments, new 

information, or suggestions from the 

public, other concerned governmental 

agencies, the scientific community, 

Tribes, industry, or any other interested 

party on this notice. These comments 

will be considered by the Service in 

developing a draft EIS and in the 

development of an HCP and ITP. We 

particularly seek comments concerning: 

(1) Biological information concerning 

the Indiana bat; 

(2) Relevant data concerning wind 

power and bat interactions; 

(3) Additional information concerning 

the range, distribution, population size, 

and population trends of the Indiana 

bat; 

(4) Current or planned activities in the 

subject area and their possible impacts 

on the Indiana bat; 

(5) The presence of archeological 

sites, buildings and structures, historic 

events, sacred and traditional areas, and 

other historic preservation concerns, 

which are required to be considered in 

project planning by the National 

Historic Preservation Act; and 

(6) Identification of any other 

environmental issues that should be 

considered with regard to the proposed 

development and permit action. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials considering this notice by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. If you previously submitted 

comments on this project during the 

public comment period associated with 

Federal Register notice 75 FR 4840 

(published January 29, 2010), you need 

not resubmit your comments. All 

previously received comments on this 

project will be considered in 

development of the draft EIS. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

use in preparing the NEPA document, 

will be available for public inspection 

by appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Ohio Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

You may obtain copies of this notice on 

the Internet at: http://www.fws.gov/ 

midwest/Endangered/permits/hcp/ 

r3hcps.html, or by mail from the Ohio 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

Background 

Section 9 of the Act prohibits ‘‘taking’’ 

of fish and wildlife species listed as 

endangered under section 4 of the Act. 

The Act’s implementing regulations 

extend, under certain circumstances, the 

prohibition of take to threatened 

species. Under section 3 of the Act, the 

term ‘‘take’’ means ‘‘to harass, harm, 

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 

capture, or collect, or to attempt to 

engage in any such conduct.’’ The term 

‘‘harm’’ is defined by regulation as ‘‘an 

act which actually kills or injures 

wildlife. Such act may include 

significant habitat modification or 

degradation where it actually kills or 

injures wildlife by significantly 

impairing essential behavioral patterns, 

including breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering’’ (50 CFR 17.3). The term 

‘‘harass’’ is defined in the regulations as 

‘‘an intentional or negligent act or 

omission which creates the likelihood of 

injury to wildlife by annoying it to such 

an extent as to significantly disrupt 

normal behavioral patterns which 

include, but are not limited to, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering’’ (50 CFR 17.3). 

Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act requires 

an applicant for an incidental take 

permit to prepare an HCP that describes: 

(1) The impact that will result from such 

taking; (2) the steps the applicant will 

take to minimize and mitigate that take 

to the maximum extent practicable, and 

the funding that will be available to 

implement such steps; (3) the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1