[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26045-26048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12013]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Interagency Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Animal Damage
Control and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management; Interior.
ACTION: Notice of final memorandum of understanding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) and the Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service--Animal Damage Control (APHIS-ADC) have signed a
Master Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that recognizes APHIS-ADC as
the lead federal agency for the conduct of animal damage management on
lands administered by the BLM. Specifically, the MOU assigns
responsibility to APHIS-ADC for carrying out animal damage management,
primarily for protection of livestock, including compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the issuance of records of
decision. The MOU also recognizes the State's responsibilities for
management of resident wildlife populations and the need for
communication among the parties, the States, and other affected
agencies such as the USDA Forest Service.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This MOU becomes effective May 16, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cal McCluskey, Bureau of Land
Management, Wildlife, Fisheries, Rangeland and Forestland Group, 1849 C
St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240; telephone (202) 452-7765.
Background Information
On August 5, 1994 the BLM published for a 60-day public comment
period, a draft MOU between BLM and APHIS-ADC outlining the proposed
shift of responsibility for compliance with NEPA, ESA, and
authorization of animal damage management actions on BLM administered
lands to APHIS-ADC. The BLM received a total of 66 written comments
from various sources. Approximately half (36) of the comments came from
individuals, 20 from non-profit, nongovernment organizations and 10
were received from either State or Federal agencies.
A summary of the comments received, responses to the comments and a
copy of the final MOU is provided in the following section.
Denise Meridith,
Acting Director.
Comment: APHIS-ADC does not have any administrative appeals process
thereby forcing individual citizens or organizations to resort to
litigation in order to challenge a decision issued by APHIS-ADC on
their control program.
Response: The transfer of NEPA compliance and decision-making
responsibility to APHIS-ADC does not eliminate the responsibility to
obtain adequate public input into the decision-making process. APHIS-
ADC must consider issues presented to them during the NEPA process and
comment period. APHIS recently published its new NEPA implementation
procedures (60CFR 6000-05, February 1, 1995) which contain specific
commitments to public involvement and notification during the NEPA
process.
Comment: The BLM should complete NEPA analysis using either an
Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement before it
makes a decision to transfer NEPA responsibilities and decision-making
authority for animal damage control to APHIS-ADC as proposed by the
MOU.
Response: The development of policies, directives, regulations and
guidelines of an administrative, financial, legal, technical or
procedural nature, or environmental effects which are too broad,
speculative or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis
and that will be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or
case by case are categorically excluded from the NEPA process under
[[Page 26046]] Department of the Interior Manual Section 516, Chapter
2. The transfer of responsibilities to complete NEPA for animal damage
management activities from the BLM to APHIS-ADC via the MOU is a
decision that meets several of the above-listed criteria. The
implementation of the MOU will result in the action-agency, in this
case APHIS-ADC, being responsible for completing NEPA analysis on its
program. In addition, site-specific NEPA analysis on individual ADC
Plans will occur at the local level with involvement from the BLM,
other appropriate agencies or organizations and individual citizens.
Comment: The missions of APHIS-ADC and the BLM conflict. APHIS-ADC
is responsible for carrying out animal damage management under the
authority of the Animal Damage Control Act, as amended, while the BLM
is responsible for multiple use management.
Response: While it is true that the BLM and APHIS-ADC have
different missions, the MOU provides a framework for coordinating
activities and communicating information that needs to be considered in
the NEPA process. The MOU states that APHIS-ADC will coordinate their
activities annually with the BLM and other appropriate State and
federal agencies and cooperate with the BLM in identification of human
safety zones and other areas where mitigation or restriction may be
required to comply with BLM Resource or Management Framework Plans
(ie., land use plans).
Comment: The MOU fails to state how often coordination between the
two agencies will occur.
Response: The draft MOU stated in section III (A), that the BLM
shall cooperate with APHIS-ADC in the development and annual review of
animal damage management plans affecting BLM lands and resources on
those lands and ensure they are consistent with the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act. In addition, Section IV (B) of the draft MOU stated
the APHIS-ADC shall develop and update animal damage management annual
plans in cooperation with BLM, appropriate State and federal agencies,
permittees, and others. Section III (A) of the final MOU is essentially
unchanged. Section IV (B) has been modified to more clearly state that
APHIS-ADC shall annually review and update as needed, ADC plans in
cooperation with the BLM, appropriate State and federal agencies,
permittees and others.
Comment: APHIS-ADC will conduct animal damage control programs
without public input.
Response: As a federal agency, APHIS-ADC is subject to the same
public involvement requirements under the National Environmental Policy
Act as any other agency. We have no reason to believe that APHIS-ADC
will not provide adequate opportunities for public involvement and
comment. In addition, section IV (B) of the MOU clearly states the
APHIS-ADC agrees to ensure that coordination between all appropriate
State and federal agencies, permittees, and others will occur.
Comment: APHIS-ADC lacks sufficient staff to complete NEPA analysis
for its program at a site-specific level.
Response: The BLM is not in a position to evaluate the capabilities
of APHIS-ADC staff. We are generally aware that APHIS-ADC has
accelerated training on NEPA for their field personnel over the past
two years and that additional funds have been allocated to
implementation of NEPA. In addition, in accordance with the MOU, the
BLM has agreed to provide information and assistance to APHIS-ADC for
the NEPA process, when requested.
Comment: The transfer of NEPA compliance for animal damage
management on BLM lands from the BLM to APHIS-ADC is a violation of the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
Response: The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
(FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. section 1701 et seq., authorizes the Secretary of
the Interior to manage the public lands under principles of multiple
use and sustained yield. The Secretary, in managing the public lands,
is subject to other applicable law, such as the Animal Damage Control
Act as amended (7 U.S.C. 426-426(c)). FLPMA also allows the Secretary
to permit other Federal agencies to use public lands through
cooperative agreements. 43 U.S.C. 1732.
The Animal Damage Control Act, as amended, gives the Secretary of
Agriculture, among other things, the authority to conduct campaigns for
the destruction or control of predatory animals on public and private
lands. It also provides that the Secretary may cooperate with public
agencies, States and others.
Both APHIS-ADC and the BLM must comply with a variety of federal
environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act,
and the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA. NEPA directs all
Federal agencies to use systematic interdisciplinary approach in
planning and authorizing activities that affect the human environment.
The transfer of NEPA compliance for animal damage management activities
performed by APHIS-ADC will not diminish or eliminate compliance
requirements for these important environmental statutes. It will only
place responsibility for compliance with the action-agency, in this
case APHIS-ADC, with full cooperation and coordination with the land
management agency, in this case the BLM.
Comment: APHIS-ADC is not required to consider biological needs of
ecosystems on BLM lands.
Response: APHIS-ADC, like the BLM, is required to comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. This statute
established a national policy for the protection and enhancement of the
environment. NEPA directs all Federal agencies to use a systematic
interdisciplinary approach, which ensures integration of natural and
social sciences and environmental design arts in planning and decisions
that affect the human environment. In addition, Executive Order 11514,
Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality, directed heads of
Federal agencies to monitor, evaluate, and control their activities to
protect and enhance the quality of the environment.
Comment: APHIS-ADC activities should conform to State laws.
Response: We are not aware of any APHIS-ADC activities that do not
conform to State laws. However, the BLM is not in a position to dictate
to another Federal agency what its statutory obligations or commitments
are under existing State law.
Comment: The BLM should retain the decision-making authority for
animal damage management activities carried out on public lands.
Response: APHIS-ADC is the Federal agency with the expertise and
authority under the Animal Damage Control Act of March 2, 1931, as
amended, for providing wildlife damage management services. This
includes maintaining technical expertise in the science of wildlife
damage management, control tools and techniques, conducting research,
management programs, and NEPA compliance for APHIS-ADC activities
related to predator control protection on public lands. Both the BLM
and APHIS-ADC recognize that without proper management, damage in the
form of livestock predation, big game predation, range, watershed and
forest resource destruction, and negative impacts to human health and
safety can occur. Both agencies have an interest in limiting this
damage caused by, and to wildlife, so as to protect other multiple-use
objectives. They also agree that in [[Page 26047]] evaluating the need
for, and in conducting wildlife damage management programs, multiple-
use objectives must be considered.
In addition, both agencies recognize that the States are
responsible for managing the resident wildlife within their respective
borders on land owned by the United States under control and
jurisdiction of the BLM. The State responsibilities include regulation
of wildlife populations so the habitat on public lands will remain
productive for future wildlife populations. The BLM is responsible for
managing wildlife habitat, not wildlife populations. The MOU
establishes a framework for close coordination and cooperation between
APHIS-ADC, the BLM and the State agencies with legal authorities for
managing resident wildlife species.
Comment: The transfer of NEPA responsibility and authorization to
APHIS-ADC for animal damage management activities by it on BLM lands
will result in increased impacts to nontarget or threatened and
endangered species.
Response: APHIS-ADC is responsible for compliance with applicable
State and Federal environmental laws including the Endangered Species
Act for animal damage management activities it conducts. APHIS-ADC will
be responsible for evaluating and disclosing the impacts of their
program through the NEPA process. In addition, through annual
coordination with the BLM and other appropriate State and Federal
agencies, data on livestock losses, harvest of target and nontarget
animals and sensitive habitats will be reviewed and evaluated, and if
needed, adjustments to animal damage control activities will be
implemented by APHIS-ADC. In those areas where federally listed
threatened or endangered species occur, site-specific activities will
be evaluated and reviewed by the Fish and Wildlife Service in
compliance with the Section 7 process of the Endangered Species Act.
Through annual coordination, the BLM will provide any information on
sensitive species and habitats that should be considered in the
decision-making process, including any land use restrictions that are
needed to comply with applicable Resource or Management Framework
Plans.
The following is the final MOU which reflects several changes that
resulted from the comments received on the draft.
Master Memorandum of Understanding Between the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture and the
Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of the Interior
This Master Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), is made and entered
into by and between the United States Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management, hereinafter referred to as the BLM, and
United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service-Animal Damage Control, hereinafter referred to as
APHIS-ADC.
I. Purpose
The purpose of this MOU is: (1) To establish general guidelines to
assist field personnel in carrying out their wildlife damage management
responsibilities consistent with the policies of BLM and APHIS-ADC; (2)
to strengthen the cooperative approach to wildlife damage management on
BLM lands through exchange of information and mutual program support;
and (3) to reaffirm working relationships with State governments and
(4) to identify responsibilities in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of the respective agencies and foster a
partnership in discharging the federal commitment under the Animal
Damage Control Act of March 2, 1931 (46 Stat. 1468, 7 U.S.C. 426-426b),
as amended, for the management of wild vertebrates causing damage on
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in accordance with the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 43 U.S.C. Section 1201 et seq.
II. Statement of Mutual Interest and Responsibilities
The parties recognize the importance of effective animal damage
control on lands under the administrative jurisdiction of the BLM
including control of predation by individual animals and/or local
populations to achieve land and resource management objectives.
Further, it is mutually recognized that the tools and procedures
available to APHIS-ADC for managing populations must be used in a
professional manner according to a wildlife damage management plan
developed in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), Endangered Species Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act,
and the Animal Damage Control Act.
Both agencies recognize that without proper management, damage in
the form of livestock predation, big game predation, range, watershed
and forest resource destruction, and negative impacts to human health
and safety can occur. Both agencies have an interest in limiting this
damage caused by, and to wildlife, so as to protect other multiple-use
objectives. They also agree that in evaluating the need for, and in
conducting wildlife damage management programs, multiple-use objectives
must be considered.
The parties also recognized that:
A. The BLM administers public lands located primarily in the
western States and Alaska amounting to about 270 million acres. These
lands and resources are managed under multiple-use principles providing
for a variety of uses, including timber harvesting, recreation,
livestock grazing, mining and mineral development and fish and wildlife
habitat management under the laws of Congress and regulations of the
Department of the Interior.
B. The States are responsible for managing the resident wildlife
within their respective borders on land owned by the United States
under control and including jurisdiction of the BLM. The BLM is
responsible for managing habitat. For purposes of this agreement, the
term ``wildlife'' shall not include wild horses or burros, as defined
in Public Law 92-195 dated December 15, 1971.
C. APHIS-ADC is the agency with the expertise and authority under
the Animal Damage Control Act of March 2, 1931, as amended, and the
Rural Development, Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
of 1988 for providing wildlife damage management services. This
includes maintaining technical expertise in the science of wildlife
damage management, control tools and techniques, and conducting
research and management programs.
To implement the foregoing, the parties agree as follows where BLM
lands are involved:
III. The BLM Shall
A. Cooperate with APHIS-ADC in the development and annual review of
wildlife damage management plans affecting BLM lands and resources on
those lands and ensure they are consistent with FLPMA.
B. Cooperate with the APHIS-ADC to identify areas on BLM lands
where mitigation or restrictions may be needed to comply with BLM's
Resource or Management Framework Plans.
C. When requested, provide information and assistance to APHIS-ADC
during the NEPA processes.
D. Complete NEPA compliance for nonpredator wildlife damage
[[Page 26048]] management activities initiated by BLM to protect
natural resources and facilities.
IV. The APHIS-ADC Shall
A. Evaluate wildlife damage management needs in cooperation with
State agencies and permittees.
B. Annually review and update as needed, wildlife damage management
plans in cooperation with the BLM, appropriate State and federal
agencies, permittees, and others. Cooperate with the BLM to identify
areas where mitigation or restriction may be needed to comply with
BLM's Resource or Management Framework Plans.
C. Complete necessary NEPA documents and decision records on
activities related to predator control primarily for livestock
protection on BLM lands.
D. Conduct activities on BLM lands in accordance with APHIS-ADC
policies, wildlife damage management plans, applicable State and
Federal laws and regulations, and consistent with BLM Resource or
Management Framework Plans.
E. Provide the BLM with technical information on recommended
wildlife damage management tools and techniques, when requested.
V. It Is Mutually Agreed by the Parties That
A. The parties will participate, as needed, in State agreements
relating to wildlife damage management on BLM lands with the
appropriate State and federal agencies.
B. The parties will ensure interagency coordination and review of
the effects of wildlife damage management activities on BLM lands and
resources before APHIS-ADC makes decisions on management plans that it
develops.
C. The parties will meet on a State or regional basis annually or
more often if needed, to coordinate management operations.
Representation shall be by the BLM State Director and the APHIS-ADC
Regional or State Director. The BLM and APHIS-ADC may agree to have
other parties or agencies with shared or related responsibilities be
present at these annual meetings such as the State Wildlife Agency
Director, State Departments of Agriculture and the Forest Service
Regional Forester or their designated representatives.
D. The parties will elevate any problems regarding implementation
of this agreement that cannot be resolved to the next higher level for
resolution.
E. This MOU shall supersede all existing MOUs between APHIS-ADC and
BLM and supplements and amendments thereto, relating to the conduct of
wildlife damage management programs by the parties on BLM lands.
F. Nothing in this MOU is intended to modify in any manner the
present cooperative programs of either agency with States, other public
agencies, or educational institutions.
G. This MOU is neither a fiscal nor a funds obligation document.
Any endeavor involving reimbursement or contribution of funds between
the parties to this MOU will be handled in accordance with applicable
laws, regulations, and procedures including those for Government
procurement and printing. Such endeavors will be outlined in separate
agreements that shall be made in writing by representatives of the
parties and shall be independently authorized by appropriate statutory
authority. This MOU does not provide such authority.
H. Nothing in this memorandum shall obligate either the BLM or
APHIS-ADC to expend appropriations or to enter into any contract or
other obligations.
I. All wildlife damage management activities on BLM lands will be
coordinated with appropriate State and Federal agencies.
J. This MOU may be modified or amended upon written consent of both
parties or may be terminated by either party with 30-day written notice
to the other party.
K. The principal contacts for this agreement are:
Cal McCluskey, Senior Wildlife Biologist, Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management, Wildlife, Fisheries, Rangeland, and Forestry
(WO 330), 1849 C N.W. (LSB Rm. 204), Washington, D.C. 20240, Phone #:
202-452-7765
Donald Hawthorne Associate Deputy Administrator, USDA Animal & Plant
Health, Inspection Service, P.O. Box 96464, Washington, D.C. 20090,
Phone #: 202-720-2054.
VI. Effective Date
In Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have executed this MOU as of
the last written date below.
Dated: March 21, 1994.
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Denise P. Meridith,
Director.
Dated: March 21, 1995.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service.
Lonnie J. King,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-12013 Filed 5-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
