Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Notices 62415 

interpret the Federal manufactured 

housing construction and safety 

standards in accordance with this 

subsection; 

(ii) Provide periodic 

recommendations to the Secretary to 

adopt, revise, and interpret the 

procedural and enforcement regulations, 

including regulations specifying the 

permissible scope and conduct of 

monitoring in accordance with 

subsection (b); 

(iii) Be organized and carry out its 

business in a manner that guarantees a 

fair opportunity for the expression and 

consideration of various positions and 

for public participation; and 

(iv) Be deemed to be an advisory 

committee not composed of Federal 

employees. 

Tentative Agenda 

Convene 

Federal Advisory Committee 

preliminaries 

Establish presence of Designated 

Federal Official (DFO) 

DFO Announcements 

Call to Order 

Roll Call/Establish Quorum 

Welcome/Introductions/New Members 

Administrative Matters/Announcements 

Report from HUD officials 

Call for Committee Reports (status 

information only) 

Public Comments 

Proposals from MHCC to HUD 

MHCC recommendations to the 

Secretary to adopt, revise, and 

interpret the Federal manufactured 

housing construction and safety 

standards 

MHCC recommendations to the 

Secretary to adopt, revise, and 

interpret the procedural and 

enforcement regulations 

Proposals from HUD to MHCC 

Adjourn 

Dated: October 4, 2010. 

David H. Stevens, 

Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal 

Housing Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25443 Filed 10–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

U.S. Geological Survey 

[USGS–8327CPDM2] 

Notice of a Revision of a Currently 

Approved Information Collection 

(1028–0091) 

Correction 

In notice document 2010–24374 

beginning on page 60134 in the issue of 

Wednesday, September 29, make the 

following correction: 

On page 60135, in the second line of 

the section beginning with DATES, 

‘‘December 28, 2010’’ should read 

‘‘October 29, 2010’’. 

[FR Doc. C1–2010–24374 Filed 10–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R5–R–2010–N115; BAC–4311–K9–S3] 

Nomans Land Island National Wildlife 

Refuge, Town of Chilmark, Martha’s 

Vineyard, MA 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of final 

comprehensive conservation plan and 

finding of no significant impact for 

environmental assessment. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

availability of our final comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP) and finding of 

no significant impact (FONSI) for the 

environmental assessment (EA) for 

Nomans Land Island National Wildlife 

Refuge (NWR). In this final CCP, we 

describe how we will manage this 

refuge for the next 15 years. 

ADDRESSES: You may view or obtain 

copies of the final CCP and FONSI by 

any of the following methods. You may 

request a hard copy or CD–ROM. 

Agency Web site: Download a copy of 

the document(s) at http://www.fws.gov/ 

northeast/planning/NomansLand/ 

ccphome.html. 

Electronic mail: 

northeastplanning@fws.gov. Include 

‘‘Nomans Land Island final CCP’’ in the 

subject line of the message. 

U.S. Postal Service: Eastern 

Massachusetts NWR Complex, 73 Weir 

Hill Road, Sudbury, MA 01776. 

In-Person Viewing or Pickup: Call 

978–443–4661 to make an appointment 

during regular business hours at the 

above address. 

Facsimile: 978–443–2898. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Libby Herland, Project Leader, Eastern 

Massachusetts NWR Complex, 73 Weir 

Hill Road, Sudbury, MA 01776; phone: 

413–443–4661, or Carl Melberg, 

Planning Team Leader, phone: 978– 

443–4661; electronic mail: 

Carl_Melberg@fws.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

With this notice, we finalize the CCP 

process for Nomans Land Island NWR, 

which we started with the notice of 

intent we published in the Federal 

Register (69 FR 72210) on December 13, 

2008. We prepared the EA/draft CCP in 

compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 

(Administration Act) (16 U.S.C. 668dd– 

668ee), as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 (Improvement Act). We 

released the EA/draft CCP to the public, 

announcing and requesting comments 

in a notice of availability in the Federal 

Register (75 FR 30052) on May 28, 2010. 

Nomans Land Island is a 628-acre 

roadless island located approximately 3 

miles south of Martha’s Vineyard, 

Massachusetts. The refuge was 

established in 1998 for the conservation 

and management of migratory birds. We 

first began managing a portion of the 

eastern side of the island in 1970 as an 

‘‘overlay’’ refuge under a joint 

management agreement between the 

U.S. Department of the Interior and the 

U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy), 

while it was still under Navy 

management. In 1998, management of 

the island was transferred to the 

Service, and all 628 acres became 

Nomans Land Island NWR. 

This island has a unique history, from 

its use by Native Americans as a 

summer camp, to sheep grazing when 

the island was privately owned in the 

1800s, to use as a bombing range by the 

Navy during World War II. Because 

Nomans Land Island provides diverse 

habitats including intertidal, freshwater 

wetland, grassland, and shrubland 

habitats, it serves an important role for 

nesting landbirds and colonial 

waterbirds, and is a stopover for 

migratory birds and raptors, including 

the peregrine falcon. 

We announce our decision and the 

availability of the FONSI for the final 

CCP for Nomans Land Island NWR in 

accordance with NEPA requirements. 

The FONSI is included as Appendix K 

in the final CCP. We completed a 

thorough analysis of impacts on the 

human environment, which we 

included in the EA/draft CCP. 

Alternative C, as we described in the 

EA/draft CCP, is the foundation for the 

final CCP. 

Background 

The Administration Act, as amended 

by the Improvement Act, requires us to 

develop a CCP for each national wildlife 

refuge. The purpose for developing a 

CCP is to provide refuge managers with 

a 15-year plan for achieving refuge 

purposes and contributing toward the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
62416 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Notices 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (NWRS), consistent with sound 

principles of fish and wildlife 

management, conservation, legal 

mandates, and our policies. In addition 

to outlining broad management 

direction on conserving wildlife and 

their habitats, CCPs identify wildlifedependent recreational opportunities 

available to the public, including 

opportunities for hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, 

and environmental education and 

interpretation. We will review and 

update the CCP at least every 15 years 

in accordance with the Administration 

Act. 

CCP Alternatives, Including Selected 

Alternative 

Our EA/draft CCP addressed several 

key issues, including the amount of 

shrubland to manage, other priority 

habitat types to conserve, land 

protection and conservation priorities, 

improving the visibility of the Service 

and refuge, and ways to improve 

opportunities for off-site public use 

while ensuring the restoration and 

protection of priority ecological and 

cultural resources. 

To address these issues and develop 

a plan based on the purposes for 

establishing the refuge, and the vision 

and goals we identified, we identified 

three alternatives in the EA. The 

alternatives have some actions in 

common, such as protecting and 

monitoring federally listed species and 

the regionally significant coastal 

shrubland, controlling invasive plants 

and wildlife diseases, monitoring 

programs that benefit our resource 

decisions, protecting cultural resources, 

and distributing refuge revenue-sharing 

payments to counties. 

Other actions distinguish the 

alternatives. Alternative A, or the ‘‘No 

Action Alternative,’’ consists of our 

current management activities. It serves 

as the baseline against which to 

compare the other two alternatives. Our 

habitat management and visitor services 

programs would not change under this 

alternative. We would continue to use 

the same tools and techniques, and not 

expand existing facilities. Under 

Alternative A, we would continue to 

passively manage refuge lands, and the 

Service would have minimal presence. 

Habitat management would be limited 

to continuing to passively oversee the 

current 400 acres of shrub habitat, up to 

150 acres of freshwater wetland 

communities, 100 acres of marine 

intertidal beach and rocky shore habitat, 

and 15 acres of herbaceous upland dune 

vegetation. We would continue minimal 

monitoring of focal species as current 

staffing allows. We would provide 

oversight and coordination to Navy 

contaminant and unexploded ordnance 

(UXO) cleanup. 

The refuge would continue to be 

closed to the public. Administration of 

off-site visitor services, land protection, 

and biological and law enforcement 

activities would be handled by existing 

staff from the Eastern Massachusetts 

NWR Complex based in Sudbury, 

Massachusetts, as funds and staffing 

permit. 

Under Alternative B, we would 

emphasize more active monitoring and 

management of all refuge habitats to 

support focal species whose habitat 

needs also benefit other species of 

conservation concern in the region. In 

particular, the alternative emphasizes 

active habitat management for breeding 

and migrating priority bird species of 

conservation concern identified by 

national, regional, and State 

conservation plans. 

With the addition of seasonal 

biological and law enforcement staff, 

under Alternative B, we would also 

implement a more active prescribed 

burning regime, invasive species and 

predator control programs, and better 

enforcement of the no-public-access 

policy. We would actively monitor and 

manage beach/nesting species such as 

terns, plovers, and rare plants, and 

consider the introduction of the New 

England cottontail. We would improve 

our visitor services through partnerships 

and working with them to develop 

programs and facilities on their lands 

that help increase awareness of the 

refuge’s biological and cultural 

resources. Finally, our biological 

program would be enhanced through 

partnerships that would increase our 

ability to conduct surveys and long-term 

monitoring. 

Alternative C was identified as the 

Service-preferred alternative in the 

EA/draft CCP. It allows the 400 acres of 

critical migration stopover shrub habitat 

to be influenced by natural processes 

such as succession over the next 15 

years, with minimal management. It 

allows coastal processes of wind and 

wave action to shape the current 15 

acres of herbaceous upland dune 

vegetation, 100 acres of marine 

intertidal beach and rocky shore 

habitats, and almost 150 acres of 

freshwater wetlands. Under this 

alternative, we also would continue to 

study the feasibility of introducing New 

England cottontail on the refuge. 

The alternative recognizes the island 

as one of the few opportunities in the 

Northeast region of the United States for 

wilderness designation and proposes 

pursuing formal designation as a unit of 

the National Wilderness Preservation 

System. It also recognizes the need to 

coordinate with the Navy annually to 

promote communication, exchange 

information on Navy operations and 

management planning, and facilitate 

cleanup of contaminants and UXO on 

the refuge. We would also closely 

coordinate with the Navy and the 

Massachusetts State Historic 

Preservation Office for any proposed 

ground-disturbing activity. We would 

monitor vegetation changes every 3 

years through aerial photography and/or 

site visitation. We would establish a fire 

regime to manage shrub habitat as 

needed, and we would monitor invasive 

plant species annually and control those 

that threaten healthy ecosystems. 

Existing refuge complex staff would 

enhance the visitor services program 

through a broader array of off-site 

programming and outreach through 

partnership opportunities as they arise, 

similar to, but to a lesser extent than 

would take place under the other 

alternatives. 

Comments 

We invited comments on the EA/draft 

CCP during a public review and 

comment period, from May 28 through 

July 3, 2010, and held a public meeting 

on June 23, 2010, in the Town of 

Chilmark, Massachusetts. 

We received 24 unique letters and 

oral comments representing individuals, 

organizations, and State agencies. We 

made modifications to the draft that are 

outlined in Appendix J, ‘‘Summary of 

Public Comments and Service’s 

Response on the Environmental 

Assessment and Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Nomans Land 

Island National Wildlife Refuge’’ in the 

final CCP. Highlights of some of the 

changes are listed below: 

1. We were made aware of additional 

partnership opportunities on Martha’s 

Vineyard and have modified the final 

CCP to reflect these opportunities (pages 

4–7 through 4–8). We also inserted 

language in the Rationale to Objective 

2.2 (page 4–30) that these partnerships 

would potentially provide additional 

resources to increase our visitor services 

capacity from what we originally 

proposed. 

2. We added language to Chapter 4 in 

the final CCP (page 4–11) stating that 

although it would not be possible to 

clean up the island to pre-bombing 

conditions, we would continue to work 

with the Navy and Federal and State 

regulators for the 5-year site reviews as 

required by the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act. If, at 

some point in the future, there is a 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Notices 62417 

major advance in technology that would 

allow the extraction of UXOs without 

massive ground disturbance or impact 

to wildlife, then additional cleanup 

might warrant further consideration at 

that time. 

3. We included language in our 

Habitat Management and Protection 

summary in Chapter 4 of the final CCP 

(page 4–14) and biological rationales 

[Objectives 1.1 (page 4–19) and 1.2 

(page 4–24)] to work with the 

Massachusetts Natural Heritage and 

Endangered Species Program to evaluate 

the appropriateness of altering the 

frequency of prescription burns to 

incorporate rare plant management, and 

for tern restoration efforts. 

4. We added language to several 

sections in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 in 

the final CCP to incorporate more life 

history information and to refine our 

biological objectives and management 

actions for piping plover (pages 3–33, 

3–35, 4–21, 4–23, and 4–24). This is due 

to the presence of a breeding pair on the 

island for the first time in 30 years. 

5. We corrected typographical and 

grammatical errors identified by 

reviewers. 

Selected Alternative 

After considering the comments we 

received on our EA/draft CCP, we have 

selected Alternative C for 

implementation, for several reasons. 

Alternative C comprises the mix of 

actions that, in our professional 

judgment, works best toward achieving 

refuge purposes, our vision and goals, 

and the goals of other State and regional 

conservation plans, and it is most 

consistent with the principles of sound 

fish and wildlife management. We also 

believe it most effectively addresses the 

key issues raised during the planning 

process. The basis of our decision is 

detailed in Appendix K, Finding of No 

Significant Impact, in the final CCP. 

Public Availability of Documents 

You can view or obtain documents as 

indicated under ADDRESSES. 

Dated: September 9, 2010. 

James G. Geiger, 

Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA 

01035. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25393 Filed 10–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Proposed Manzanita Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians Fee-to-Trust 

Transfer and Casino Project, Calexico, 

CA 

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA), as lead agency, and the National 

Indian Gaming Commission, the City of 

Calexico, and the Manzanita Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians as cooperating 

agencies, intend to file a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

with the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) for the Tribe’s proposed 

60.8-acre fee-to-trust transfer and casino 

project to be located in Calexico, 

California, and that the DEIS is now 

available for public review and 

comment. This notice provides a 75-day 

public comment period, which adds a 

30-day extension to the normal 45-day 

public comment period. 

DATES: The DEIS will be available for 

public comment beginning October 8, 

2010. Written comments on the DEIS 

must arrive by December 22, 2010. A 

public hearing will be held on 

Wednesday, November 10, 2010 from 

6 p.m. to 9 p.m. or until the last public 

comment is received. 

ADDRESSES: You may mail or hand carry 

written comments to Dale Risling, 

Acting Regional Director, Pacific 

Regional Office, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, 

California 95825. A public hearing will 

be held at: City of Calexico, 608 Heber 

Avenue, Calexico, California 92231. See 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this notice for directions on 

submitting comments and for locations 

where the DEIS will be available for 

review. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Rydzik (916) 978–6051. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Tribe 

proposes that 60.8 acres of land be taken 

into trust for the purpose of developing 

a casino facility. The property is located 

at the northernmost gateway to the City 

of Calexico, a California/Mexico border 

city of growing importance in 

international trade. The project site is 

situated at the southwest quadrant of 

State Highway 111 and Jasper Road and 

is bounded on the south and west by the 

Central Main and Dogwood Canals. The 

60.8-acre parcel is undeveloped former 

agricultural land and is located within 

the City of Calexico’s proposed 111 

Calexico Place project site, a 

commercial highway development 

project that was approved by the City of 

Calexico City Council on May 5, 2010. 

The proposed action consists of the 

fee-to-trust transfer of the project site, 

Federal review (by the National Indian 

Gaming Commission) of the 

development and management contract, 

and development of the proposed 

project. The proposed project includes a 

459,621-square-foot casino facility on 

the 60.8-acre parcel. The casino facility 

would include an approximately 

93,880-square-foot casino; 63,000 square 

feet of food/beverage and retail 

components; a 38,660-square-foot 

entertainment venue; and 218,081 

square feet of other operational facilities 

(e.g., back of house area, central plant). 

In addition, there will be a 46,000- 

square-foot banquet/meeting hall and 

200-room hotel. The casino will have 

2,000 slot machines and 45 gaming 

tables. There will be three guest 

restaurants and one employee dining 

room. A swimming pool and 6,000- 

space parking facility will also be 

developed within the project area. 

BIA, serving as the lead agency for 

compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

published a Notice of Intent to prepare 

the EIS for the proposed action in the 

Federal Register on March 6, 2008. In 

addition, BIA held a public scoping 

meeting on March 27, 2008, at the 

County of Imperial’s Board of 

Supervisors Chamber Room in the City 

of El Centro, California. From that 

scoping meeting, a range of project 

alternatives were developed and 

subsequently analyzed in the DEIS, 

including: (1) Alternative A—Proposed 

Action, (2) Alternative B—Reduced 

Casino, and (3) Alternative C—No 

Action. Environmental issues addressed 

in the DEIS include land resources, 

water resources, air quality, biological 

resources, cultural and paleontological 

resources, socioeconomic conditions, 

transportation, land use and agriculture, 

public services, noise, hazardous 

materials, visual resources, 

environmental justice, growth inducing 

effects, indirect effects, cumulative 

effects, and mitigation measures. 

Directions for Submitting Comments 

Please include on the first page of 

your written comments your name, 

return address, and the phrase ‘‘DEIS 

Comments, Manzanita Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians, 60.8-Acre Fee-toTrust Casino Project, Calexico, 

California.’’ 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES