29582 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Notices 

Takings (Executive Order 12630) 

The Department has determined that 

these rate adjustments do not have 

significant ‘‘takings’’ implications. The 

rate adjustments do not deprive the 

public, state, or local governments of 

rights or property. 

Federalism (Executive Order 13132) 

The Department has determined that 

these rate adjustments do not have 

significant Federalism effects because 

they will not affect the States, the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among various levels of 

government. 

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 

12988) 

In issuing this rule, the Department 

has taken the necessary steps to 

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, 

minimize potential litigation, and 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct, as required by section 

3 of Executive Order 12988. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

These rate adjustments do not affect 

the collections of information which 

have been approved by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995. The OMB Control Number is 

1076–0141 and expires December 31, 

2012. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The Department has determined that 

these rate adjustments do not constitute 

a major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment and that no detailed 

statement is required under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370(d)). 

Information Quality Act 

In developing this notice, we did not 

conduct or use a study, experiment, or 

survey requiring peer review under the 

Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106– 

554). 

Dated: May 17, 2010. 

Larry Echo Hawk, 

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12658 Filed 5–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–W7–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R7–R–2010–N082; 70133–1265–0000– 

U4] 

Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge, 

Fairbanks, AK 

AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability: record of 

decision. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

availability of the record of decision 

(ROD) for the final environmental 

impact statement (EIS) for a Proposed 

Land Exchange in the Yukon Flats 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, 

Refuge). We completed a thorough 

analysis of the environmental, social, 

and economic considerations and 

presented it in our final EIS, which we 

released to the public on March 12, 

2010. 

DATES: The Regional Director of the 

Alaska Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, signed the ROD on April 21, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may view or obtain 

copies of the ROD/final EIS on paper or 

CD–ROM by any of the following 

methods: 

Web Site: Download a copy of the 

document(s) at http:// 

yukonflatseis.ensr.com. 

E-mail: yukonflats_planning@fws.gov. 

Include ‘‘Yukon Flats ROD’’ in the 

subject line of the message. 

Fax: Attn: Laura Greffenius, EIS 

Project Coordinator, (907) 786–3965. 

Mail: Laura Greffenius, EIS Project 

Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, MS–231, 

Anchorage, AK 99503. 

In-Person Viewing or Pickup: Call 

Laura Greffenius, EIS Project 

Coordinator at (907) 786–3872 to make 

an appointment during regular business 

hours at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

1011 East Tudor Rd., MS–231, 

Anchorage, AK 99503. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Greffenius, EIS Project 

Coordinator, phone (907) 786–3872. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: With this 

notice, we finalize the EIS process for a 

Proposed Land Exchange in the Yukon 

Flats NWR. In accordance with National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 

CFR 1506.6(b)) requirements, this notice 

announces the availability of the ROD 

for the final EIS for a Proposed Land 

Exchange in the Yukon Flats NWR. We 

completed a thorough analysis of the 

environmental, social, and economic 

considerations, which we included in 

the final EIS. The ROD documents our 

selection of the No Land Exchange 

Alternative (No Action Alternative), the 

Service’s preferred alternative in the 

final EIS. Under this alternative the 

Service would not exchange land with 

Doyon, Limited (Doyon). The No Land 

Exchange Alternative, as we described 

in the final EIS/ROD, is the decision to 

continue to manage lands within the 

Refuge as they currently are. 

Background Information 

The Final EIS analyzes the potential 

direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts 

associated with the Service’s proposed 

‘‘Agreement in Principle’’ (Agreement) 

between the Service and Doyon to 

exchange and acquire lands within the 

Refuge. Under the terms of the 

Agreement, the proposed land exchange 

involved 110,000 acres of Refuge lands 

that may hold developable oil and gas 

reserves, and oil and gas rights to an 

adjacent 97,000 acres of Refuge lands. 

Under the Proposed Action, the Refuge 

would have received a minimum of 

150,000 acres of Doyon lands within the 

Refuge boundaries, and Doyon would 

have reallocated 56,500 acres of Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act 12(b) land 

entitlements within the Refuge to lands 

outside the Refuge. 

Alternatives 

Alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS 

included the No Land Exchange (No 

Action) Alternative, or continuation of 

present management. The No Action 

Alternative was the Service’s preferred 

alternative. In addition, three action 

alternatives were evaluated: (1) The 

Proposed Action, with land exchanges 

and acquisitions as described in the 

Agreement; (2) A Land Exchange with 

Non-development Easements 

Alternative, where Doyon would grant 

non-development easements on 120,000 

acres, but would not sell land to the 

Service; and (3) A Land Exchange 

Excluding the White-Crazy Mountains 

Alternative that would exclude from the 

exchange an area within the Refuge that 

had been recommended for Wilderness 

designation. 

Among the alternatives evaluated, the 

No Land Exchange Alternative is the 

environmentally preferable alternative. 

It has the least potential for adverse 

effects to the biological and physical 

environment of the Refuge, it best 

protects and preserves the Refuge’s 

resources, and it best supports the 

purposes for which the Refuge was 

established. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Notices 29583 

Public Involvement 

Public involvement and comments 

have been requested, considered, and 

incorporated throughout the EIS 

process. The Notice of Intent to prepare 

an EIS for a proposed land exchange in 

the Refuge was published in the Federal 

Register on October 19, 2005 (70 FR 

60845). The notice of public scoping 

meetings was published in the Federal 

Register on March 3, 2006 (71 FR 

10988). Public scoping meetings were 

held in local communities within the 

Refuge and surrounding areas. The 

Service distributed newsletters with 

project updates discussing opportunities 

for public involvement and results of 

public input. Comments and concerns 

received during this time were used to 

identify issues and draft alternatives for 

evaluation in the Draft EIS. 

The Notice of Availability for the 

Draft EIS was published in the Federal 

Register on January 25, 2008 (73 FR 

4617). Public hearings were held in each 

local community affiliated with the 

Refuge, plus Fairbanks and Anchorage. 

From May to July 2008, government-togovernment consultations were also 

held with Tribal Councils who 

requested them. In response to 

numerous requests for additional time 

to review and comment, the comment 

period was reopened and extended via 

a Federal Register notice published 

April 18, 2008 (73 FR 20931). We 

received more than 100,000 comments 

during the full comment period. The 

vast majority of comments, including 

those from several area tribal 

governments, opposed the proposed 

exchange. The Responses to Comments 

are contained in Volume 2 of the Final 

EIS. 

The Notice of Availability for the 

Final EIS was published in the Federal 

Register on March 12, 2010 (75 FR 

11905). Comments from tribal 

governments, Alaska Native and 

conservation organizations, and 

individuals expressed support for the 

Service’s designation of the No Action 

Alternative as the preferred alternative. 

Findings and Basis for Decision 

In making its decision, the Service 

reviewed and carefully considered the 

impacts identified in the draft and final 

Environmental Impact Statement; 

relevant issues and concerns; public 

input received throughout the EIS 

process, including comments on the 

draft and final Environmental Impact 

Statement; and other factors including 

refuge purposes and relevant laws, 

regulations, and policies. For the 

following reasons, the Service selected 

the No Land Exchange Alternative. 

First, the Service has a limited 

understanding of the effects that oil and 

gas development would have on the 

hydrology of lands exchanged to Doyon 

and lands that would be retained by the 

Service. Second, the exchange would 

create a private lands corridor that 

would almost split the Refuge into two 

parcels, resulting in habitat 

fragmentation, and that could degrade 

the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge. 

Third, the Service is concerned that the 

proposed land exchange could magnify 

projected changes to Refuge resources 

from climate change. Fourth, 

infrastructure associated with access 

corridors from the proposed exchange 

would increase human use of the 

Refuge. Fifth, there is concern that the 

lands proposed for acquisition by the 

Service are more likely to be adjacent to 

prospective areas of development (based 

on revised U.S. Geological Survey oil 

and gas data). Impacts from adjacent 

development would make those lands 

less desirable to the Service. This has 

cast doubts on the benefits of the 

exchange to all involved. The adoption 

of the No Land Exchange Alternative is 

effective immediately. 

Dated: May 19, 2010. 

Geoffrey L. Haskett, 

Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Anchorage, Alaska. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12629 Filed 5–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Special Resource Study and 

Environmental Impact Statement, 

Coltsville, Hartford, CT 

AGENCY: National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Termination of the 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Coltsville Special Resource Study in 

Hartford, Connecticut. 

SUMMARY: As directed by the US 

Congress in Public Law 108–94, the 

National Park Service (NPS) undertook 

a special resource study (SRS) of the 

Coltsville Historic District in Hartford, 

Connecticut. In accordance with NPS 

policy, the Coltsville SRS was initially 

undertaken as an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) process in compliance 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). A 

Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS was 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 4, 2004. The purpose of an 

SRS is to determine the degree and kind 

of federal actions that may be desirable 

for the management and protection of an 

area considered to have potential for 

addition to the national park system. 

The EIS assesses the impacts of the 

management alternatives examined in 

the SRS. 

The SRS examines a site in terms of: 

• National significance of the 

resources; 

• Determination of suitability of the 

site for inclusion within the national 

park system in comparison to other 

protected sites with similar resources or 

themes; 

• Determination of feasibility for the 

NPS to own, manage or participate in 

conservation and interpretation in the 

study area; 

• Need for NPS management 

measured against other alternatives. 

This SRS examined the resources in 

the existing Coltsville Historic District, 

which preserves the history of precision 

manufacturing that developed at the 

Colt Fire Arms Company. All of the 

elements of the site are located within 

the City of Hartford, Connecticut. The 

study team concluded that the Coltsville 

Historic District NHL meets the criteria 

for national significance and suitability; 

however, the study concluded that the 

site does not meet the feasibility 

criterion for potential designation as a 

unit of the national park system. As a 

result, there is no need for NPS 

management and, therefore, no federal 

actions subject to the requirements of 

NEPA. Thus, the NEPA process has 

been terminated. 

The Coltsville Special Resource Study 

is available for public review at: 

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/nero. 

Public comments were received 

between November 13 and December 

18, 2009. A summary of the public 

comments is also available at http:// 

parkplanning.nps.gov/nero. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James O’Connell, Project Manager, 

National Park Service, Northeast Region, 

15 State Street, Boston, MA 02109. 

Michael T. Reynolds, 

Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region, 

National Park Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12604 Filed 5–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act 

Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby 

given that on May 17, 2010, a proposed 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1