[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 48 (Monday, March 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13399-13401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6097]
========================================================================
Notices
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings,
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents
appearing in this section.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 1995 /
Notices
[[Page 13399]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
[Docket No. 92-190-5]
Animal Damage Control Program; Record of Decision Based on Final
Environmental Impact Statement
agency: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
action: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
summary: This notice advises the public of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service's record of decision for the Animal Damage Control
program. The decision is based on the final environmental impact
statement for the program.
addresses: Copies of the final environmental impact statement on which
the record of decision is based are available for review between 8 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays, at the following
locations:
APHIS Reading Room, room 1141, South Building, 14th Street and
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC;
Operational Support Staff, Animal Damage Control, APHIS, USDA, 4700
River Road, Riverdale, MD;
Eastern Regional Office, Animal Damage Control, APHIS, UDDA, Suite 370,
7000 Executive Center Drive, Brentwood, TN;
Denver Wildlife Research Center, Building 16, Denver Federal Center,
Denver, CO; and
Western Regional Office, Animal Damage Control, APHIS, USDA, 12345 W.
Alameda Parkway, Suite 313, Lakewood, CA.
Interested persons may obtain a copy of the final environmental
impact statement by writing to Mr. William H. Clay at the address
listed below under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
for further information contact: Mr. William H. Clay, Director, Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service, Animal Damage Control, Operational
Support Staff, 4700 River Road Unit 87, Riverdale, MD 20737-1228, (301)
734-8281.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 18, 1990, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) published a notice in the Federal Register (55 FR 24597-24598,
Docket No. 90-099) to inform the public of the availability of a draft
environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Animal Damage Control
program. The draft EIS evaluated environmental impacts associated with
wildlife damage control activities.
On January 14, 1993, APHIS published a notice (58 FR 4404-4405,
Docket No. 92-190-1) informing the public of our intention to make
available a supplement to the draft EIS for the Animal Damage Control
program; the supplement was made available through a Federal Register
notice published on February 12, 1993 (58 FR 8252, Docket No. 92-190-
2). We requested public comments on the supplement to the draft EIS for
a 45-day period ending on March 29, 1993. On the last day of the
comment period, we published a notice in the Federal Register (58 FR
16520, Docket No. 92-190-3) extending the comment period until April
28, 1993. All comments received on the draft EIS and its supplement
were considered in the final EIS.
On May 6, 1994, APHIS published in the Federal Register (59 FR
23683-23684, Docket No. 92-190-4) a notice advising the public of the
availability of the final EIS for the Animal Damage Control program.
The final EIS addresses the function, methods of operation, and
locations of the Animal Damage Control program and the biological,
sociocultural, economic, and physical impacts of reasonable
alternatives to the program.
This notice contains the agency's record of decision, based on the
final EIS, for the Animal Damage Control program. This record of
decision has been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2)
Regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for Implementing
the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA
Regulations Implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA
Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).
Done in Washington, DC, this 7th day of March 1995.
Lonnie J. King,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
The agency record of decision is set forth below.
United States Department of Agriculture; Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service
Record of Decision: Animal Damage Control Program; Final
Environmental Impact Statement
Introduction
This decision is the culmination of the environmental impact
statement (EIS) process for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS), Animal Damage Control (ADC) program. The final
programmatic EIS document underlying this decision develops at great
length and specific detail the strategies, methods, and processes
through which the mission of ADC is accomplished. Numerous examples
(``decision model'' applications presented in Appendix N, for
instance), of how the program has approached some of its environmental
responsibilities in the past are provided. Information concerning
categorizing classes of action and individual documentation
requirements could not be specified in the final EIS because the
development of APHIS regulations concerning compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was not yet completed.
Subsequently, the APHIS regulations have been published (60 FR 6000-
6005, February 1, 1995) and became effective on March 3, 1995. ADC will
fully comply with these implementation procedures and any amendments to
those procedures.
The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations
implementing NEPA tell decisionmakers what information must be included
in records of decision. Section 1505.2 of the CEQ regulations provides
that records of decision contain: [[Page 13400]]
A statement of what the decision is;
The identification of all alternatives considered by the
agency, including the environmentally preferable alternative(s);
A discussion of factors (economic, technical, and agency
statutory mission) and essential considerations of national policy
balanced in the decisionmaking process and how each factor weighs in
the decision; and
An explanation of whether the decision (the alternative
selected) is designed to avoid or minimize environmental harm and, if
not, why not.
The final EIS prepared by ADC is programmatic in nature. The EIS
process was undertaken to explore issues and alternatives associated
with program implementation, to identify data elements and other
information necessary to evaluate effects at the programmatic and
project levels, and to assist in the development of a flexible
framework within which effects of various alternatives may be
considered in site-specific contexts that are consistent with the
documentation and procedural requirements of NEPA.
Program Alternatives
The final EIS rigorously explored and objectively evaluated, in
detail, five alternative strategies that may be utilized by program
personnel in different site-specific settings. In addition, eight other
alternatives that involved restructuring or broadly applied, single-
focus approaches, were presented and briefly considered. The five
alternative strategies considered in detail are:
The current program (the integrated pest management
alternative), which consists of various practices and techniques,
including both nonlethal and lethal actions, that are available for
formulating a damage control strategy consistent with applicable State
and local requirements, cooperative agreements, and interagency
arrangements
A system of compensation, as a replacement for ADC program
actions, to pay partially or fully, for agricultural losses due to
damages by wildlife;
No action, under which USDA-APHIS funded wildlife damage
control activities would cease with no specified provisions for
replacement measures--compensation or other;
Use and recommendation of only nonlethal methods to
control wildlife-caused damage, precluding the use or recommendation of
any and all methods that are directly lethal to wildlife; and
A requirement that practical nonlethal methods of wildlife
damage control be recommended or used in each situation prior to
recommending or using any lethal methods.
Integrated pest management (the current alternative) has been
identified by ADC as both its ``preferred'' alternative and the
``environmentally preferable'' alternative.
A principal function of an EIS is its use by Federal officials, in
conjunction with other relevant materials, to plan actions and make
decisions. As a practical matter, the integrated pest management
alternative includes nearly all animal damage control options and tools
available to ADC officials at the project level. How these or other
options will be developed and integrated efficiently into program
planning and decisionmaking consistent with NEPA and other
environmental mandates are addressed in the new APHIS NEPA implementing
procedures. Specifically, ADC reaffirms its intention that nonlethal
control methods as the means of achieving project goals will be
considered, recommended, and, when appropriate, applied prior to
recommending or using lethal methods (ADC Directive 2.101).
The APHIS Framework for Environmental Decisionmaking
The starting point for environmental decisionmaking by agencies of
the Federal Government is NEPA. The CEQ implementing regulations
require agencies to integrate the NEPA process into their planning and
to establish procedures to facilitate compliance with the Act. The
final EIS prematurely asserted that APHIS had new, finalized NEPA
compliance procedures. In fact, as stated above, APHIS only recently
promulgated its new NEPA compliance procedures (60 FR 6000-6005,
February 1, 1995). The ADC program has adapted its planning and
decisionmaking practices to these new procedures. ADC, in compliance
with the APHIS Regulations, is structuring a cost-effective
environmental compliance system that will be published in the APHIS
Environmental Manual.
The programmatic EIS process has functioned as a catalyst to focus
on environmental issues raised both by the public and internally and to
provide environmental information to public officials and citizens
before decisions have been made. For its part, ADC has sought a useful
decisionmaking ``model'' (outlined in Chapter 2 of the final EIS and
assessed in Appendix N) that is compatible with both its mission and
NEPA. ADC will use this ``decision model'' process, in conjunction with
the general outline of NEPA compliance contained in the final EIS, the
CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1500, et seq.), the Department's NEPA
implementing regulations (7 CFR 1b and 3100.40), and the APHIS
implementing regulations (7 CFR 372, et seq., 60 FR 6000-6005), as its
system for compliance with NEPA. In this process, ADC also will assure
continued compliance with all other environmental statutes and
regulations, including section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, at the
local level. The program is cooperating with the Forest Service, the
Bureau of Land Management, other Federal and State agencies, and the
public, to coordinate the environmental assessment process through
which use of the decision model will be appropriately documented and
applied. CEQ recently agreed to assist in this endeavor.
The ADC program will continue to assure that its environmental
compliance processes comply with the new APHIS NEPA procedures.
Consistent with CEQ's regulations implementing NEPA, the public has
been informed and had ample opportunity to participate in the formation
of APHIS' and ADC's overall environmental compliance system.
Decision and Rationale
Aspects of most of the alternatives analyzed in the final EIS are
currently being used in specific situations in the United States or its
Territories. Since this final EIS is programmatic in nature and
national in scope, a single alternative as the sole, all-encompassing
focus of the ADC program may not adequately cover all wildlife damage
problems and situations. Therefore, my decision is to send forward to
regional and local decisionmakers the viable alternatives discussed in
the final EIS for consideration as management approaches, when
appropriate, practical, and reasonable, in preparation of local and
site-specific documents and actions. This approach provides a complete
range of wildlife damage control strategies available as part of an
overall integrated management approach. Application of appropriate
methods will be determined following the processes defined in the ADC
decision model (EIS, Chapter 2, pages 23-35) and completion of local
analyses subject to the NEPA process.
Minimizing Environmental Harm
The final EIS developed a host of mitigation measures that would
augment the numerous existing program policies, procedures, and
continuing research efforts, to minimize or eliminate environmental
impacts. These may be applied at virtually every level of consideration
and for each [[Page 13401]] appropriate alternative strategy.
Programmatically, ADC has proposed (and in some instances is already
implementing) a number of measures, including:
Environmental compliance training for supervisors and
managers;
The standardization of data collection and reporting;
Consultation, monitoring, and periodic evaluations; and
An outreach element, including publishing literature and
providing training on the application of nonlethal wildlife damage
control alternatives.
Many of the programmatic mitigation measures will be incorporated
into ADC's site-specific environmental compliance documents and
actions.
For possible mitigation at the local level, the final EIS listed 24
specific measures for consideration, for example:
Placing greater emphasis on nonlethal animal damage
control strategies and techniques;
Insisting upon the use of more human capture devices and
practices; and
Proving nonlethal control tools to resource managers.
The complete listing provides a menu to which program
decisionmakers may refer in various site-specific contexts.
Conclusions
In this decision, I have determined that:
All currently feasible Animal Damage Control program
alternatives have been adequately developed and explored, although the
program intends to continue searching for other environmentally
preferable means of achieving its mission;
Program decisionmakers will appropriately consider any
significant environmental impacts and the viable alternatives developed
in the final EIS in the context of the NEPA process for local actions;
An environmental compliance system, including APHIS' new
NEPA compliance procedures and ADC's specific accommodation of such
procedures, will be implemented immediately;
ADC will use the decisionmaking model explained in Chapter
2 of the final EIS and will follow CEQ regulations and the USDA, APHIS,
and ADC NEPA compliance procedures.
A satisfactory environmental mitigation strategy at both
the programmatic and local level has been developed and will be
implemented, as appropriate.
Executed in Washington, D.C., this 7th day of March 1995.
Lonnie J. King,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-6097 Filed 3-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-M
