[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 13, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10309-10313]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5972]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Noxious Weed Management
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of availability of final policy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service gives notice of adoption of a final policy
for noxious weed management in accordance with the 1990 Farm Bill
amendments to the 1974 Noxious Weed Act. The final policy sets forth
new direction to Forest Service personnel on the management for control
of noxious weeds and undesirable plants on National Forest System
lands, clarifies responsibilities and authorities for noxious weed
management, and provides for an integrated weed management approach.
The intended effect is to implement an integrated management approach
which includes cooperation, education, prevention, treatment,
containment, and control measures for noxious weed and undesirable
plant infestations on National Forest System lands.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This policy, issued as Amendment 2000-95-5 to Chapter
2080 of the Forest Service Manual, was effective November 29, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Questions about this policy should be addressed to Deborah Hayes, Range
Management Staff, Forest Service, USDA, P.O. Box 96090, Washington, DC
20090-6090 or telephone (202) 205-1460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Expansion of noxious weed infestation increasingly threatens
susceptible land and water and can adversely affect food production,
wilderness values, wildlife habitat, visual quality, forage production,
reforestation, recreation opportunities, and land values.
In November 1990, in section 1453 of the 1990 Farm Bill (7 U.S.C.
2801 et seq.), Congress amended section 15 of the 1974 Noxious Weed Act
to strengthen USDA's noxious weed management efforts. Pursuant to the
1990 amendment, the Secretary of Agriculture is to develop and
coordinate a management program on National Forest System lands for
control of noxious weeds and undesirable plants which are harmful,
injurious, poisonous, or toxic, to establish and adequately fund the
program; to complete and implement cooperative agreements regarding the
management of noxious weeds on National Forest System lands; and to
establish an integrated weed management approach to control or contain
species identified and targeted under cooperative agreements and/or
memorandums of understanding.
Additionally, the act authorizes the Forest Service to cooperate
with State, county, and other Federal agencies in the application and
enforcement of all laws and regulations relating to the management and
control of noxious weeds.
In response to the 1990 Farm Bill, the Forest Service issued
Interim Directive (ID) 2080-92-1 to Forest Service Manual Chapter 2080,
Noxious Weed Management on August 3, 1992. Notice of this ID, with a
request for public comment, was published in the Federal Register at 58
FR 6429. This ID expired February 3, 1994.
On February 18, 1994, the Forest Service reissued Interim Directive
2080-92-1 as Interim Directive (ID) 2080-94-1. This ID expired August
18, 1995. As a matter of agency directive system policy, the direction
could not be reissued as interim direction again. Therefore, on August
31, 1995, the Forest Service issued Amendment 2000-95-3 to Forest
Service Manual Chapter 2080, Noxious Weed Management, which kept the
direction in force until a final revised policy, based on consideration
of comments received from the public, could be issued.
The final noxious weed management policy, Amendment 2000-95-5,
issued on November 29, 1995, reflects careful consideration of comments
received. The direction requires an Integrated Weed Management approach
to meet vegetation management goals documented in Forest Land and
Resource Management plans. Stated goals are to prevent the introduction
and establishment of new noxious weed infestations; to contain and
suppress existing noxious weed infestations; and to cooperate with
State and local agencies, local landowners, weed control districts and
boards, and other Federal agencies in management and control of noxious
weeds. The noxious weed management program provides an opportunity for
employees, users of National Forest System lands, adjacent landowners,
and State agencies to increase their knowledge about noxious weed
threats to native plant communities and ecosystems. Single copies of
Forest Service Amendment
[[Page 10310]]
2000-95-5 may be obtained by contacting the Range Management Staff at
the address listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Summary of Comments Received
In response to ID 2080-92-1, published in this Federal Register on
December 6, 1993, with request for comment, 18 people submitted written
comments. Of the 18 letters, 6 were from Federal agencies, 1 was from a
State department of transportation, 3 were from State departments of
agriculture, 2 were from weed management associations, 1 was from a
native plant society, 1 was from a professional society, 1 was from a
weed advisory council, and 3 were from individuals. This respondents
represented the District of Columbia and nine States: Nevada, Florida,
Maryland, Colorado, South Dakota, California, Oregon, New York, and
Idaho.
The respondents broadly supported the overall policy direction for
the noxious weeds management program. Comments dealt with funding, line
officer responsibilities, program staffing, training, proposed weed
classification system, definitions, flexibility for the local level,
types of materials covered by closures, and activities that spread
noxious weeds.
A summary of specific comments were received and organized by broad
subject area, and the agency's response follows:
1. Comments: Objectives. Section 2080.2 of ID 2080-92-1 set out
several noxious weed management objectives. Paragraph 2 of that section
stated that one objective was to ``Prevent the introduction and
establishment of new noxious weed infestations.'' One respondent
thought it important to prevent the introduction of noxious weeds, but
that this was not part of a management program. Furthermore, this
respondent stated that the prevention of the introduction and
establishment of noxious weeds is of critical importance to all lands
in the United States, not just to Forest Service lands. Since the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has this broad
responsibility, this respondent was unsure how the Forest Service could
coordinate this activity purely in relation to Federal lands under
Forest Service jurisdiction.
Response: As defined in the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (7
U.S.C. 2801 et seq.) as integrated weed management program includes
prevention; therefore, preventing introduction of noxious weeds on
National Forest System lands and from National Forest System lands to
other lands is considered a vital part of ongoing management and is
appropriately addressed in a Forest Service directive. This directive
applies only to management of noxious weeds in relation to management
of National Forest System lands and does not usurp any role or
authority of the Animal and Plant and Health Inspection Service.
Therefore, the prevention objectives were retained in the final policy.
2. Comments: Policy. Section 2080.3 of ID 2080-92-1 establishes a
policy to ``Develop, coordinate, and allocate adequate funds, to the
extent funds are made available, for a noxious weed management program
for NFS lands * * *.'' One respondent suggested deleting the words,
``to the extent funds are available,'' on the grounds that these words
created the impression that the Noxious Weed Management program might
be inadequately funded. Additionally, two respondents suggested
including, as part of the final directive, the South Dakota Guidelines
for coordinated management of noxious weeds. Another respondent
recommended including words in the policy section that emphasize
biodiversity.
Response: The agency has reworded the ``to the extent funds are
available'' statement to be more positive, that is to ``Establish and
adequately fund the program.'' The agency did consider the
recommendation to include South Dakota Guidelines for the coordinated
management of noxious weeds as part of its final policy statement and
determined that guidelines of this type are appropriate to technical
handbooks and thus, under agency directive system policy cannot be
issued as Manual direction. In response to the recommendation to
emphasize biodiversity, this goal is addressed by other agency policies
and through the forest planning process. Therefore, this recommendation
was not adopted.
3. Comments: Scale of Planning. Two respondents felt that in order
for effective exotic-invader control to occur, it is imperative for the
agency to develop a plan on an ecosystem-wide basis that would include
``* * * long term inter-agency and inter-jurisdictional strategic
planning, inventory, agency and public education, conventional and
innovative control procedures as well as long term commitment * * *.''
Response: By law, the Forest Service must prepare land and resource
management plans on a forest unit basis. Also, this agency engages in
assessments and inventories at multiple scales, including ecoregional
assessments and involves its Federal and State partners in these
efforts. The final policy includes language that allows and promotes
planning in cooperation with other Federal and State agencies, county
and local governments, and individuals; supports education and sharing
of information; and considers multiple techniques for control and
noxious weeds.
4. Comments: Project-level Analysis and Management. Paragraph 3 of
section 2080.32, Project-level Analysis and Management, of ID 2080-92-1
stated that the agency personnel must ``Ensure that environmental
controls and objectives are met for threatened and endangered or other
species, as specified in applicable laws, policy, and regulations for
project-level actions, as provided in the NEPA process.'' One
respondent believed this implied that consideration for endangered
species took priority over other activities when planning for the
management of noxious weeds. While this respondent thought that
endangered species, in general, needed to be protected, this reviewer
also thought endangered species in a very small area may need to be
sacrificed in order to avoid the spread of a noxious weed infestation
to multi-millions of acres. Another person stated that the Noxious Weed
Management policy contained no references to coordination with existing
Forest Service policy on threatened and endangered species.
Response: Compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) takes
priority over the 1974 Noxious Weed Act. Coordination of the noxious
weed management activities with existing threatened and endangered
species policy is addressed under Prevention and Control Measures in
section 2081.2 of the final policy; however, section 2080.32 of ID
2080-92-1 was not retained in the final policy, because project level
planning is adequately addressed in the Forest Planning section or in
other applicable agency directives.
5. Comment: Prevention and Control Measures. Section 2080.33 in ID
2080-92-1 set out methods and approaches for prevention, control, and
management of the spread of noxious weeds. One respondent indicated
that the activity of prevention and control was the responsibility of
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), not of the
Forest Service.
Response: The respondent's statement that prevention and control is
the responsibility of APHIS is correct as far as introduction of new
species into the United States is concerned. However, when new invaders
threaten National Forest System lands, the Forest Service is authorized
to cooperate with local
[[Page 10311]]
prevention and control efforts on a State-by-State or county-by-county
basis, under Departmental Regulation 9500-10 issued January 18, 1990,
and under final policy 2000-95-5, section 2080.2, which states, ``To
use an integrated weed management approach to control and contain the
spread of noxious weeds on National Forest System lands and from
National Forest System lands to adjacent lands.''
6. Comment: Mandatory Compliance With State Law. Paragraph 3 in
section 2080.33 of the ID stated that ``Where States have enacted
legislation and have an active program to make weed-free forage
available, forest officers should issue orders restricting the
transport of feed, hay, straw, or mulch that is not declared weed-
free,'' as provided in 36 CFR Parts 261.50(a) and 261.58(t). Some
reviewers recommended changing the directive word ``should issue'' to
``shall issue,'' requiring mandatory compliance by agency officials,
because weed-free hay, feed, mulch, and straw programs are powerful
preventive measures and could save the Forest Service and taxpayers
substantial money.
Response: As to the suggested word change from ``should'' to
``shall,'' the agency agrees and has adopted this recommended change to
require mandatory compliance with State laws restricting transport of
materials stated which are not declared weed-free.
7. Comment: List of Weed-free Materials. Another respondent
recommended that the Prevention and Control Measures section include
soils, mulches, borrow materials, and sod in the list of materials that
are required to be weed-free.
Response: Many, but not all, of the items recommended for inclusion
in the final policy are listed in section 2081 Management of Noxious
Weeds of the final policy. However, the agency is not precluded from
taking action to prevent the introduction of weeds through any source.
8. Comment: Expanding Prevention and Control Measures. One
respondent questioned how weed-free hay could be regulated, how the
program would be implemented, and whether it applies to livestock.
Three respondents recommended addressing prevention and control
measures as they pertain to other uses such as recreational activities
on the National Forest System by adding references to recreationists,
sports persons, and other forest visitors.
Response: The agency agrees with the suggestion that direction
should address prevention and control of the spread of noxious weeds
from recreational and other activities. Pursuant to 36 CFR part 261,
Subpart B, the Forest Service may issue orders prohibiting the
possession, storage, and transportation of plants or parts of plants,
which may cause introduction of noxious weeds onto National Forest
System lands. Therefore, the agency may restrict use, such as livestock
grazing and recreational activities, that effectuate the introduction
of noxious weeds.
9. Comment: Cooperation. Section 2080.34 of ID 2080-92-1 set out
criteria for cooperative agreements between the Forest Service and
other Federal and State agencies and County and local governments, as
well as the Forest Service and individuals. Paragraph 2 in this section
addressed ``cooperative research that defines the ecological
requirements of noxious weeds, cost-effective management strategies,
and beneficial uses.'' One respondent asked if the term ``beneficial
uses'' referred to beneficial uses of weds or to the beneficial use of
the land occupied by the weeds. Another respondent commented on
Paragraph 3.c. of this section that referred to ``Research and using
desirable plant species that are competitive with noxious weeds.'' The
respondent said this statement does not define ``desirable plant.''
Response: The agency believes that the text makes clear that the
term ``beneficial uses'' refers solely to beneficial uses of weeds.
Therefore, no changes were made. In reference to the comment on
``desirable plants,'' the definition of ``desirable plant'' varies,
since desirability depends on local ecosystem objectives. Therefore,
the agency did not define desirable plant in this final policy.
10. Comment: Education and Public Awareness. One reviewer expressed
concern about the introduction of noxious weeds by humans (on clothing,
vehicles, all terrain vehicles, camping gear, etc.) and animals.
Response: The Forest Service is also concerned about this issue and
sets out in section 2080.4 of final policy 2000-95-5 responsibilities
that include development of public education programs and dissemination
of information to the public about the threat of noxious weeds and
potential methods of spreading them. Section 2082 of the final policy,
the Cooperation section, includes direction to cooperate with other
Federal, State, local and international agencies, and universities by
developing educational and public awareness material and handbooks.
This direction and emphasis was retained without change from that in
the ID.
11. Comment: Managers' Responsibilities. Section 2080.4 of ID 2080-
92-1 included the responsibility for each administrative level of the
agency to appoint a noxious weed program coordinator. One respondent
recommended that the words ``who is adequately trained in management of
noxious weeds'' be inserted to require the appointment of adequately
trained managers as specified in Section 15 of the Federal Noxious Weed
Act. Another respondent suggested that in section 2080.4 the agency
should require that field programs have a fully staffed and funded weed
management specialist and not assign a staff person the weed management
duties as a secondary assignment.
Response: In Section 2080.4 of the final policy, Regional
Foresters, Forest Supervisors, and District Rangers are assigned
responsibility to appoint noxious weed program responsibilities and to
provide training. The specific elements of the training program are
developed and tailored to meet the Noxious Weed Management training
needs of the agency. The Forest Service does not have full time noxious
weed management positions in many staff areas, because there is
insufficient workload to warrant a full time position. The designated
officials are responsible for the completion of the work required and
have the discretion to hire additional employees based upon their
noxious weed management workload.
12. Comment: Definitions. Section 2080.5 of ID 2080-92-1 defined
noxious weeds as ``those plant species designated as noxious by Federal
or State law.'' One respondent raised the issue that the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service can not participate in programs on weed
management that are listed solely on a State noxious weed list.
In this section of the ID, Integrated Weed Management was defined
as ``A process for managing noxious weeds that considers other
resources, uses an interdisciplinary approach, and incorporates a
variety of methods for prevention and control. Methods include
education, preventative measures, physical or mechanical methods,
biological control, chemical methods, and cultural methods such as
livestock or wildlife grazing strategies which accomplish vegetation
management objective.''
The North American Weed Management Association (NAWMA) suggested
that ``Integrated Weed Management'' (IWM) be defined as ``Integrated
Weed Management, within the context of ecosystem management, is the
planning and implementation of a coordinated, ecologically-based
program using all proven methods to prevent, contain, and control
noxious weeds to achieve the optimum
[[Page 10312]]
management desired with the least possible environmental damage. IWM
uses an interdisciplinary approach and incorporates a variety of
methods including education, preventive measures, physical or
mechanical methods, biological control agents, herbicide methods,
cultural methods, and management practices such as manipulation of
livestock or wildlife grazing strategies, or improving wildlife or
livestock habitat.''
Another respondent suggested the need for a definition of ``noxious
weed'' that included other plants not listed by Federal or State
government. One respondent stated that, by definition, indigenous
plants cannot be included in the ``Undesirable Plants'' category.
Response: Addressing the role of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service is outside the scope of Forest Service policy.
In Section 2080.5 of the final policy, the Integrated Weed
Management definition has been changed to more closely reflect the
terminology in section 15 of the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 and
now defines integrated weed management as follows:
An interdisciplinary pest management approach for selecting
methods for preventing, containing, and controlling noxious weeds in
coordination with other resource management activities to achieve
optimum management goals and objectives. Methods include: education,
preventive measures, herbicide, cultural, physical or mechanical
methods, biological control agents, and general land management
practices, such as manipulation of livestock or wildlife grazing
strategies, that accomplish vegetation management objectives.
The definition of noxious weed has not been expanded. The agency
believes the most defensible approach is to define noxious weeds as
those plants species officially recognized by the legal jurisdictions
in which the agency operates. Endangered species and indigenous plants
are not included in the definition of ``Undesirable Plants.'' This is
consistent with section 15 of the Federal Weed Act of 1974.
13. Comment: National Weed Classification System. A respondent
indicated that the description of ``Class B'' noxious weeds was
confusing as stated in paragraph 2 in section 2081.2 of ID 2080-92-1.
The description stated ``Those noxious weeds that are non-native
(exotic) species that are of limited distribution or are unrecorded in
a region of the State but are common in other regions of the State.
Class B plants receive second highest priority. Management emphasis is
to contain the spread, decrease population size, and eventually
eliminate the infestation when cost effective technology is
available.''
Another respondent questioned whether the proposed National Noxious
Weed Classification System defined in section 2080.2 of ID 2080-92-1
would be used throughout all National Forests or if each forest would
have its own list. The respondent expressed concern that confusion will
arise if each one uses a separate classification system.
Response: The agency agrees that a separate national classification
system was confusing. Therefore, the agency has decided to use the same
classification system of noxious weeds as that used by the respective
State in which the National Forest System lands are located.
14. Comment: Memorandums of Understanding/Cooperative Agreements.
Section 2082 of the Interim Directive 2080-92-1 set out basic criteria
for Memorandums of Understanding and Cooperative Agreements. One
respondent suggested modifying the wording on cooperative agreements to
provide for greater flexibility at the state/regional level and have
the local agreements spell out the specifics of a control program.
Response: The agency agrees and has made this change in the final
policy.
Additional Changes
In addition to the changes due to comments, the agency deemed it
necessary to change portions of the text to clarify the content, move
and re-number sections in a different sequence, and emphasize
subsections by making them sections. In the Objectives section, the
first objective was deleted. Sections, Forest Planning and Prevention
and Control, are now under section 2081--Management of Noxious Weeds.
The section, Project-level Analysis and Management, was deleted,
because it was redundant of direction on addressing noxious weeds in
Forest Land and Resources Management plans and through NEPA compliance.
The agency revised section 2080.33 of the ID, Prevention and
Control Measures, to clarify how prevention and control measures are
determined. Prevention and Control Measures contains the priority for
work and directs that project managers ensure applicable laws, policy,
regulations and planning direction be followed.
Section 2080.34 of the ID, Cooperation, is now a separate section
2082--Cooperation.
Section 2080.35 of the ID, Education and Policy Awareness, has been
deleted. The responsibility for education is now addressed in 2080.4--
Responsibility, where appropriate.
Section 2080.36 of the ID, Information Collection and Reporting,
now section 2083--Information Collection and Reporting.
Paragraph 1 of section 2080.42, Responsibility--Regional Forester
is redundant of Forest Land and Resource Management planning, therefore
it was changed by removing the statement. Paragraph 4 was removed since
priorities would be determined by State classification system and
Forest level planning. Paragraph 4 of this section was removed, since
priorities would be determined by State classification system and
Forest level planning.
Paragraphs 1 and 6 of section 2080.43 of the ID, Responsibility--
Forest Supervisor, was removed. Paragraph 1 referred to the statement
of responsibilities for preventing and controlling noxious weeds and
paragraph 6 referred to preparing noxious weed risk assessments. These
are covered by the responsibilities of the District Ranger.
Section 2081.3 of the ID, Training, was deleted, because it has
been placed in the appropriate section of managers' responsibilities in
the final policy.
Regulatory Impact
This final policy has been reviewed under USDA procedures and
Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review. It has been
determined that this is not a significant rule. This policy will not
have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy nor
adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, nor State or local governments. This rule will
not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency nor
raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, this action will not alter
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients of such programs.
Accordingly, this final rule is not subject to OMB review under
Executive Order 12866.
Moreover, this final policy has been considered in light of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and it has been
determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities as defined by that Act. The
rule imposes no additional requirements on the affected public.
Environmental Impact
Section 31.1b of Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 (57 FR 43180;
September 18, 1992) excludes from documentation in an environmental
assessment or impact statement ``rules,
[[Page 10313]]
regulations, or policies to establish Service-wide administrative
procedures, program processes or instructions.'' Based on consideration
of the comments received and the nature and scope of this policy, the
Forest Service has determined that this policy falls within this
category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances exist which
would require preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement.
Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
This policy does not contain any recordkeeping or reporting
requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in
5 CFR 1320 and, therefore, imposes no paperwork burden on the public.
Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and implementing regulations at 5 CFR
1320 do not apply.
Unfunded Mandates Reform
Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
which the President signed into law on March 22, 1995, the Department
has assessed the effects of this rule on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private section. The noxious weed management policy
directs only the work of Forest Service employees and does not compel
the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, or tribal
governments or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement
under section 202 of the act is not required.
Dated: March 7, 1996.
David M. Unger,
Associate Chief.
[FR Doc. 96-5972 Filed 3-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
