95-9414. Record of Decision for a Final Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (SPEIS) on the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration and Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Programs  

  • [Federal Register Volume 60, Number 73 (Monday, April 17, 1995)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 19283-19284]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 95-9414]
    
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
    
    Record of Decision for a Final Supplemental Programmatic 
    Environmental Impact Statement (SPEIS) on the Federal Aid in Sport Fish 
    Restoration and Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Programs
    
    AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
    
    ACTION: Notice.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Fish and Wildlife Service 
    (Service) has selected the No Change Alternative for its operation of 
    the Sport Fish Restoration and Wildlife Restoration Programs into the 
    next century. This decision was based on the Service analysis of the 
    program contained in a SPEIS to augment the Program Environmental 
    Impact Statement (EIS) published in 1978 and comments received from the 
    public regarding that SPEIS.
    
    ADDRESSES: Columbus H. Brown, Chief, Division of Federal Aid, U.S. Fish 
    and Wildlife Service, Arlington Square Building, Room 140, 4401 North 
    Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Columbus H. Brown, Chief, Division of 
    Federal Aid, Telephone (703) 358-2156.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Background
    
        The Federal Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Program was 
    initiated with the passage of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration 
    Act (16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.) in 1937. This Act has been commonly 
    referred to as the Pittman-Robertson Act in honor of the sponsors of 
    the Act. The purpose of the Act was to provide a stable and secure 
    source of funding to the States for the management, conservation, and 
    enhancement of wildlife species. The Act was passed in response to 
    dramatic declines in the populations of a number of game species and 
    was originally intended as a mechanism to restore those populations to 
    healthy levels. Funding for the Wildlife Restoration Program is derived 
    from Federal excise taxes on sporting arms, ammunition, and certain 
    archery equipment.
        The Wildlife Restoration Act authorizes the Service to deduct a 
    maximum of 8 percent of the funds for administration of the Act and for 
    carrying out the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. After making 
    administrative deductions, the remaining funds are apportioned to the 
    States based on the geographic area, number of hunting license holders, 
    and State population. Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American 
    Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands, receive a fixed percentage of 
    the funds apportioned. Funds apportioned under the Wildlife Restoration 
    Program for fiscal year 1994 came to a total of $182,081,117.
        While the Wildlife Restoration Act was specifically directed toward 
    developing funds for wildlife management, it served as the pattern for 
    a similar funding mechanism directed at fisheries management. In 1950, 
    the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 777 et seq.), 
    commonly called the Dingell-Johnson Act was passed. The legislation was 
    further augmented by the Wallop-Breaux amendment of 1984, providing 
    additional funds. The Sport Fish Restoration Program provides stable 
    funding for restoration, conservation, management and enhancement of 
    sport fish, and the provision of benefits from these resources to the 
    public; improved boating access; and aquatic resource education. Funds 
    provided by this Act are derived from Federal excise taxes on fishing 
    tackle and related equipment, federal taxes on gasoline used in 
    motorboats, duties on imported boats, and fishing tackle, and interest 
    earned on investment of these funds.
        Sport Fish Restoration Program funds are apportioned based on the 
    number of fishing license holders and the geographic area of each 
    State. Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the 
    Northern Mariana Islands, and the District of Columbia receive a fixed 
    percentage of the funds apportioned. The Service may deduct up to 6 
    percent for administration of the Act. State funds apportioned under 
    the Sport Fish Restoration program for fiscal year 1994 came to a total 
    of $174,628,718.
        The mentioned Act form the basis of the Federal Aid in Sport Fish 
    and Wildlife Restoration Program, or the Federal Aid Program (Program). 
    The Program is administered by the Service's Division of Federal Aid 
    (Division). The Division's mission is to strengthen the ability of 
    State and Territorial fish and wildlife agencies to restore and manage 
    fish and wildlife resources to meet effectively the consumptive and 
    nonconsumptive needs of the public for fish and wildlife resources.
    Alternatives Considered
    
        Five alternatives, listed below, were considered in the SPEIS. Each 
    alternative was developed by Service, State, and public inputs and 
    focuses on the needs and direction of the Federal Aid Program into the 
    next century. Under each of these alternatives, the basic core of 
    Program activities would continue as it is at present with gradual 
    changes in emphasis in response to public interest and need.
        Alternative 1--No Change to the Existing Program Direction. 
    Continue current administration and activities.
        Alternative 2--Emphasis on National and Regional Priorities. 
    Encourage States to consider funding projects contributing to national 
    or regional [[Page 19284]] priorities that are cooperatively identified 
    by the States and the Service in consultation with the public.
        Alternative 3--Emphasis on Additional Funding for Biodiversity and 
    Watchable Wildlife Projects. States will be provided an expanded 
    funding base for use on biodiversity and watchable wildlife enhancement 
    projects.
        Alternative 4--Increase Administrative Flexibility of States. 
    Increased responsiveness to State needs, such as administrative 
    flexibility, aquatic education expansion, and adult education for 
    wildlife programs.
        Alternative 5--Eliminate Most Service Overview of States. Propose 
    legislation and policy changes to eliminate most Service overview of 
    State projects including project approval. States would be provided 
    program rules, general guidance, and apportionment of funds. States 
    would provide reports of accomplishments and would be periodically 
    monitored by the Service.
    
    Decision
    
        Alternative 1, ``No Change to the Existing Program Direction'' was 
    selected by the Service for future administration of the Program. This 
    selection was made in response to overwhelming support of the existing 
    program by respondents to the draft document issued in November 1993. 
    The majority of comments received during the comment period expressed 
    the opinions that the Program was working well and urged the Service 
    not to make changes. Most persons commented that States are in the best 
    position to assess the needs of citizens for fish and wildlife 
    resources and that the Federal Government should not get more involved 
    in establishing priorities for State projects. The Service is convinced 
    that the existing Program is effectively meeting the needs of hunters, 
    anglers, boaters, and other users of the nation's fish and wildlife 
    resources and does not plan to change the way the Program is 
    administered.
    
    Significant Issues Raised
    
        After the final SPEIS was distributed to the public in December 
    1994, several parties asked that the Service adopt a more flexible 
    policy relating to projects to educate State employees. Currently, 
    employees that are actively working on Federally funded projects may be 
    trained using Program funds, but training of employees not working on 
    active projects may not be funded. The Service intends to explore the 
    need for this change with the States independently of this Record of 
    Decision.
        No other significant issues were raised during review of the Final 
    SPEIS. Because the Final SPEIS adopted the preferred alternative 
    suggested by most public comments, the few public comments on the final 
    draft were supportive.
    
    Copies Are Available
    
        Copies of the Final SPEIS are available from the U.S. Fish and 
    Wildlife Service, Division of Federal Aid, Arlington Square Building, 
    MS-140, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia, 22203, during 
    normal working hours. Telephone (703) 358-2156.
    
        Dated: March 22, 1995.
    Mollie H. Beattie,
    Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 95-9414 Filed 4-14-95; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
    
    

Document Information

Published:
04/17/1995
Department:
Interior Department
Entry Type:
Notice
Action:
Notice.
Document Number:
95-9414
Pages:
19283-19284 (2 pages)
PDF File:
95-9414.pdf