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
29584 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Notices 

Consent Decree in United States v. 

Schurkman, et al., Civil Action No. 07– 

915 (KMK) (LMS), was lodged with the 

United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York. 

The proposed Consent Decree 

resolves claims of the United States, on 

behalf of the Environmental Protection 

Agency (‘‘EPA’’), under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., 

and the Federal Debt Collections 

Procedures Act (‘‘FDCPA’’), 28 U.S.C. 

3304 and 3306, in connection with the 

Shenandoah Road Groundwater 

Contamination Superfund Site (the 

‘‘Site’’), against Steven A. Schurkman, 

Esq., in his capacity as Trustee of the 

Jacob Manne Irrevocable Trust 

(‘‘Schurkman’’), and Joseph S. Manne, in 

his capacity as the representative of the 

Estate of Jacob Manne. The complaint 

filed in this action sought 

reimbursement of response costs 

incurred or to be incurred for response 

actions taken or to be taken at or in 

connection with the release or 

threatened release of hazardous 

substances at the Site, a declaration that 

the Estate of Jacob Manne is liable for 

any future response costs incurred by 

the United States at the Site, and, 

pursuant to Sections 3304 and 3306 of 

the FDCPA, an order voiding a transfer 

of cash and real property from Jacob 

Manne to the Jacob Manne Irrevocable 

Trust (the ‘‘Trust’’). 

The Consent Decree requires payment 

to the United States of the appraised 

value of five parcels of real property in 

East Fishkill (unrelated to the Site 

property) (the ‘‘Land’’) that had been in 

the Estate of Jacob Manne and 

transferred to the Trust. Specifically, 

Schurkman will convey the Land held 

by the Trust to a new corporation, ND– 

4, LLC. Settling Defendants Dr. Joseph 

S. Manne (Jacob Manne’s son), 

personally, and as the representative of 

the Estate of Jacob Manne, and ND–4, 

LLC, will pay the United States the 

appraised value of the Land within 

three years of entry of the Consent 

Decree, whether the properties are sold 

within that time frame or not. There are 

minimal assets in the Estate of Jacob 

Manne other than the Land. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of 30 days from the date of 

this publication comments relating to 

the proposed Consent Decree. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General of the 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC 20530, and either emailed to pubcommentees.enrd@usdoj.gov or mailed to P.O. 

Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC 20044–7611, and 

should refer to United States v. 

Schurkman, et al., Civil Action No. 07– 

915 (KMK) (LMS), DJ No. 90–11–3– 

08989. 

The proposed Consent Decree may be 

examined at the Office of the United 

States Attorney, Southern District of 

New York, 86 Chambers Street, New 

York, New York 10007. During the 

public comment period, the proposed 

Consent Decree may also be examined 

on the following Department of Justice 

Web site, http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

proposed Consent Decree may be 

obtained by mail from the Consent 

Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a 

request to Tonia Fleetwood 

(tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), fax no. 

(202) 514–0097, phone confirmation 

number (202) 514–1547. In requesting a 

copy of the proposed Consent Decree, 

please enclose a check in the amount of 

$8.50 (25 cent per page reproduction 

cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury. 

Maureen Katz, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12585 Filed 5–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Clean Air Act 

Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby 

given that on May 17, 2010 a Consent 

Decree in United States of America and 

Allegheny County Health Department v. 

Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, Civil 

Action No. 10–0673 was lodged with 

the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Pennsylvania. 

In a complaint that was filed 

simultaneously with the Consent 

Decree, the United States and the 

Allegheny County Health Department 

(‘‘ACHD’’) sought injunctive relief and 

penalties against Allegheny Ludlum 

Corporation (‘‘ALC’’) pursuant to Section 

113(b) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 

7413(b), for alleged Clean Air Act 

violations and violations of the 

Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan 

at a steel manufacturing facility in 

Natrona, Pennsylvania owned by ALC. 

Under the terms of the settlement, the 

settling defendant will: (1) Cease 

operation of the Natrona steel 

manufacturing facility not later than 

November 30, 2010; (2) pay a $1.6 

million civil penalty for settlement of 

the claims in the complaint; and (3) 

apply interim measures to control 

visible air emissions, until the Natrona 

facility finally ceases operation. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

comments relating to the Consent 

Decree for a period of thirty (30) days 

from the date of this publication. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, or submitted via e-mail to 

pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov, and 

should refer to United States and the 

Allegheny County Health Department v. 

Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, D.J. Ref. 

No. 90–5–2–1–09378/1. 

The Consent Decree may be examined 

at the Offices of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 3, 1650 Arch 

Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. During the public comment 

period, the Consent Decree may also be 

examined on the following Department 

of Justice Web site, http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

Consent Decree may also be obtained by 

mail from the Consent Decree Library, 

P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611 or 

by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia 

Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), 

fax number (202) 514–0097, phone 

confirmation number (202) 514–1547. In 

requesting a copy from the Consent 

Decree Library, please enclose a check 

in the amount of $7.50 (25 cents per 

page reproduction cost) payable to the 

U.S. Treasury. 

Maureen Katz, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12582 Filed 5–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act 

Notice is hereby given that on May 19, 

2010, a proposed Consent Decree 

between the United States of America 

and Rineco Chemical Industries, Inc. 

(‘‘Rineco’’) was lodged with the United 

States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Arkansas in the case of 

United States v. Rineco Chemical 

Industries, Inc., Civil Action No. 4–07– 

CV–01189SWW. 

In December 2007, the United States 

filed a complaint seeking injunctive 

relief and civil penalties resulting from 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1