[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65354-65357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30768]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 65355]]



DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Notice of Record of Decision on the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement on the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations 
(40 CFR part 1505) for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Fish and Wildlife Service 
(Service) issues this Record of Decision upon the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and 
Wildlife Refuge. The Service evaluated and considered a range of 
alternatives on how to implement the Silvio O. Conte National Refuge 
Act, as presented in the FEIS. The Service also reviewed and considered 
public and agency comments. Based on that evaluation and review the 
Service has selected for implementation the Revised Proposed Action 
described in the FEIS. This determination was based on a thorough 
analysis of the environmental, social, economic, and other essential 
considerations.

ADDRESSES: Copies of this Record of Decision and supporting 
documentation are available for public inspection upon request at the 
Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge, 38 Avenue A, Turners 
Falls, Massachusetts, 01376.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Larry Bandolin, Project Leader of the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and 
Wildlife Refuge at the address given above, telephone 413/863-0209.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The proposed action is designed to provide guidance for the 
establishment and operation of the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and 
Wildlife Refuge for a period of fifteen years. Shortly before his 
death, Silvio O. Conte, a 30 plus year member of Congress and 
conservationist, introduced legislation authorizing a national fish and 
wildlife refuge within the four state Connecticut River watershed. The 
watershed is contained within the states of New Hampshire, Vermont, 
Massachusetts, and Connecticut. After his death the Congress renamed 
the Act in his honor, the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife 
Refuge Act.
    The purposes of the Conte Refuge as stated in the Conte Refuge Act 
are:
    (1) To conserve, protect and enhance the Connecticut River 
populations of Atlantic salmon, American shad, river herring, shortnose 
sturgeon, bald eagles, peregrine falcons, osprey, black ducks, and 
other native species of plants, fish and wildlife;
    (2) To conserve, protect and enhance the natural diversity and 
abundance of plant, fish and wildlife species and the ecosystem upon 
which these species depend within the refuge;
    (3) To protect species listed as endangered or threatened, or 
identified as candidates for listing, pursuant to the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);
    (4) To restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological 
integrity of wetland and other waters within the refuge;
    (5) To fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United 
States relating to fish and wildlife and wetlands; and
    (6) To provide opportunities for scientific research, environmental 
education, and fish and wildlife-oriented recreation and access to the 
extent compatible with the other purposes stated in this section.
    The Service identified 434 species rare enough to be considered in 
need for protection on a watershed basis. In addition 125 plant 
communities were considered rare or exemplary. The Service identified 
about 180,000 acres of lands and waters that contributed in a 
substantial way to protecting these species and fulfilling the other 
purposes listed in the Conte Refuge Act. These areas have been named 
Special Focus Areas. An additional 500 small and scattered sites that 
contain some of the 434 rare species have been identified. The Special 
Focus Areas and small scattered sites will be the focus of the majority 
of Conte Refuge efforts.
    A notice of intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal 
Register in August, 1993. Sixty-one informal information meetings with 
organizations and agencies were held prior to that time, and another 82 
such meetings were held through the end of July, 1994. A series of 27 
more formal evening public scoping meetings were held at locations 
throughout the watershed during the last 4 months of 1993 and January 
of 1994. In April, 1994, a 3-day workshop was held in each of the four 
affected states. Each workshop involved 35 citizens of varied 
background and opinions in developing consensus recommendations for the 
Service. Over this entire time period, three informational mailings 
were made to the large mailing list. In addition, 3,500 copies of an 
issues workbook, soliciting input, were distributed and 500 completed 
workbooks were returned and analyzed.
    The notice of availability of the Draft EIS appeared in the Federal 
Register on May 19, 1995. One-thousand nine hundred documents and 2,000 
summaries were distributed. Sixteen afternoon walk-in sessions and 
subsequent evening public meetings were held throughout the watershed 
area during June, 1995 (four of which were formal public hearings). 
Over 990 people attended. Written comments were accepted through the 
end of July, 1995.
    The notice of availability of the FEIS appeared in the Federal 
Register on November 10, 1995. A Revised Proposed Action, modified in 
response to public comment, was presented and the FEIS also responded 
to all comments received. Copies of the document or a summary were 
distributed to all interested parties.

The Selected Alternative

    The selected alternative is Alternative D, the Revised Proposed 
Action as described in the FEIS. The activities to be undertaken 
include working with private landowners, state or local agencies and 
private organizations through the existing Partners for Wildlife and 
Challenge Cost Share Programs. The Service's major thrust through the 
year 2010 would focus on the use of voluntary efforts, developing 
partnerships, providing technical assistance, and administering a cost-
sharing grants program to help other conservation interests carry out 
their land protection programs. The Service would also initiate its own 
land protection program. The Service would use a combination of 
easements, cooperative management agreements and fee title 
acquisition--with emphasis on lands hosting endangered, threatened, 
rare and uncommon species and communities. Educational efforts would be 
carried out in cooperation with the watershed's many environmental 
education providers. This alternative would result in the establishment 
of watershed-wide cooperative management and education programs.
    This alternative would provide a high level of protection to 
federally listed species, rare species, migratory birds, area-sensitive 
species, and wetland habitats. Over 60% of the watershed's unprotected 
Special Focus Areas would receive some degree of protection under this 
alternative, a greater percentage than Alternatives A (7%), B (7%), or 
C(15%). Although Alternative E would offer some protection to 100% of 
the Special Focus Areas, Alternative D provides essentially the same 
protection to the listed and rare species and 

[[Page 65356]]
communities evaluated in the FEIS. Since Alternative D also has 
provisions to offer widespread environmental education, technical 
assistance and habitat management assistance, up to 25% of the land 
throughout the watershed, owned by conservation organizations and 
private owners, would provide improved habitat. The flexibility of 
programs and broad land base to be affected will benefit many aquatic, 
and/or wide-ranging species as well as species which require active 
habitat management; Alternative E cannot provide the same benefits to 
these species. For this reason, Alternative D is the environmentally 
preferable alternative.
    In addition to being environmentally preferable, Alternative D 
provides its high level of protection to targeted resources more cost 
effectively and in a socially preferred format. The cost of Alternative 
D is estimated to be $4 million a year less than that of Alternative E. 
Public input throughout the NEPA process consistently recommended 
partnerships with local organizations as the way to implement this 
refuge. Such partnerships offer the Service a practical alternative to 
the traditional way to administer a refuge with many scattered parcels, 
as well as a way to implement broad landscape-scale solutions to 
emerging habitat issues. A majority of written and verbal comments 
received on the Draft EIS supported the project and almost half 
specifically endorsed Alternative D. In addition, Alternative D was 
slightly modified in response to comments received to form the Revised 
Proposed Action described in the FEIS.

Other Alternatives Considered

    Besides the proposed action, the major alternatives under 
consideration that were analyzed and evaluated during the planning 
process include the following:

A. The No Action Alternative

    In this alternative, the Service would take no actions to implement 
the Conte Refuge Act. The existing programs for protection of 
threatened and endangered species would continue, as would the 
restoration programs to restore anadromous fish such as Atlantic salmon 
and American shad. The activities of the Service, such as commenting on 
Federally licensed, permitted or funded programs would also continue. 
State and local agencies and private organizations would continue their 
ongoing programs without additional Service assistance. This 
alternative describes the status quo.
    Based on current trends, minimal protection of aquatic habitats and 
plants and animal populations within the identified Special Focus Areas 
would result. Many species would continue to decline and some would be 
extirpated from the watershed. This alternative would not provide any 
additional Service efforts and is therefore not responsive to the Conte 
Refuge Act.

B. The Private Lands Work and Education Alternative

    In this alternative, the Service would work exclusively with 
private landowners through the existing Partners for Wildlife Program. 
The Service's major thrust through the year 2010 would focus on the 
voluntary restoration and enhancement of habitats on private lands to 
benefit plants and animals. A limited educational effort would be 
undertaken, targeting the watershed's private landowners.
    If this alternative were chosen, many species in the watershed 
would continue to decline. Minimal protection of aquatic habitats and 
plant and animal populations within the identified Special Focus Areas 
would result. Habitat improvement would occur randomly depending on 
landowner participation and would benefit certain species, primarily 
those who inhabit small wetlands and perhaps some early-successional 
species, but not substantially benefit many of the rare, area-sensitive 
or migratory species. This Alternative would not accomplish the 
purposes of the Act.

C. The Private Lands Work, Education and Partnerships Alternative

    In this alternative, the Service would work with private 
landowners, state or local agencies, and private organizations through 
the existing Partners for Wildlife and Challenge Cost Share Programs. 
The Service's major thrust through the year 2010 would focus on the use 
of voluntary efforts, developing partnerships, providing technical 
assistance, and administering a cost-sharing grants program to help 
other conservation interests carry out their land protection programs. 
Educational efforts would be carried out in cooperation with the 
watershed's many environmental education providers.
    If this alternative were chosen, small amounts of additional 
protection would be provided to federally-listed species, rare species, 
fish, migratory birds, area-sensitive species and wetland habitats. The 
protection and management provided by others with the support of the 
Service would be beneficial, but limited in scope. Species and sites 
not of interest to existing organizations would receive no protection. 
This Alternative would not fully accomplish the purposes of the Act.

E. The Private Lands Work, Education and Land Protection Alternative

    In this alternative, the Service would work with private 
landowners, state or local agencies and private organizations through 
the existing Partners for Wildlife Program. The Service would also 
initiate an extensive land protection effort through the year 2010, 
using a combination of conservation easements, cooperative management 
agreements and fee title acquisition, to ensure natural diversity. 
Educational efforts would focus on developing new programs and 
facilities on Service lands. This alternative would result in the 
establishment of a more traditional national fish and wildlife refute 
in the watershed.
    If this alternative were chosen, all the acreage within the Special 
Focus Areas would receive some degree of protection by the Service. 
This Alternative provides essentially the same level of protection to 
the listed and rare species and communities as does Alternative D, with 
slight additional protection for grassland and boreal species. Since 
habitat improvement efforts would largely be limited to Service lands, 
a smaller amount of the entire watershed would become improved habitat. 
Many aquatic, and/or wide-ranging species as well as species which 
require active habitat management would not be broadly benefitted.

Minimization of Impacts

    Possible project impacts, public concerns and methods used to 
mitigate those impacts and concerns are addressed in the FEIS. A major 
public concern was that the programs undertaken would be forced on the 
people. The Partners for Wildlife and the Challenge Cost Share programs 
require the participant to apply to the Service, and therefore are 
totally voluntary. The Service's land acquisition policy is to work 
with willing sellers. The loss of tax revenue due to Service purchase 
of land is a negative impact. The loss of tax revenue to the towns will 
be partially mitigated by payment-in-lieu taxes.

Findings and Decision

    Having reviewed and considered the FEIS for the Silvio O. Conte 
National Fish and Wildlife Refuge and the public comments thereon, the 
Service finds as follows:
    (1) The requirements of NEPA and their implementing regulations 
have been satisfied;

[[Page 65357]]

    (2) Statutory authority for the Service to implement this project 
exists subject to the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge 
Act, Public Law 102-212;
    (3) The Proposed Action Alternative represents the best balance 
between the Service's goals and objectives and the public's concerns 
identified throughout the public participation process; and
    (4) Consistent with social, economic and other essential 
considerations from among the reasonable alternatives, the Proposed 
Action Alternative is one which minimizes or avoids adverse 
environmental effects to the maximum extend practicable.
    Having made the above findings, the Service has decided to proceed 
with implementation of the Revised Proposed Action Alternative.
    This Record of Decision will serve as the written facts and 
conclusions relied on it reaching this decision.

    Dated: December 13, 1995.
Cathleen I. Short,
Acting Regional Director, Region 5, Hadley, Massachusetts.
[FR Doc. 95-30768 Filed 12-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M