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.

Notices Federal Register

22037

Vol. 60, No. 86

Thursday, May 4, 1995

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forms Under Review by Office of

Management and Budget

April 28, 1995.

The Department of Agriculture has

submitted to OMB for review the

following proposal for the collection of

information under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35) since the last list was

published. This list is grouped into new

proposals, revisions, extension, or

reinstatements. Each entry contains the

following information:

(1) Agency proposing the information

collection; (2) Title of the information

collection; (3) Form number(s), if

applicable; (4) Who will be required or

asked to report; (5) An estimate of the

number of responses; (6) An estimate of

the total number of hours needed to

provide the information; (7) Name and

telephone number of the agency contact

person.

Questions about the items in the

listing should be directed to the agency

person named at the end of each entry.

Copies of the proposed forms and

supporting documents may be obtained

from: Department Clearance Officer,

USDA, OIRM, Room 404–W Admin.

Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20250, (202)

690–2118.

Revision

• Foreign Agricultural Service

Application for Supplementary Dairy

Product Import Licenses—Addendum

FAS 924A

Individuals or households; Business or

other for profit; 1,560 responses; 920

hours

Richard Warsack, (202) 720–9439

• Agricultural Marketing Service

Meat Market News

Individuals or households; Business or

other for-profit; Farms; State, Local or

Tribal Government; 195,000

responses; 3,250 hours

Jimmy A. Beard, (202) 720–6231

• Agricultural Marketing Service

Cotton Classification and Market News

Service

CN–59

Business or other for-profit; 2,494

responses; 237 hours

Elvis W. Morris, (901) 384–3000

Extension

• Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

APHIS Exit Survey

Individuals or households; 300

responses; 75 hours

Richard F. Fraser, (301) 734–5747

• Foreign Agricultural Service

Regulations—Financing Commercial

Sales of Agricultural Commodities

Under Title I, P.L. 480—

Recordkeeping and Reporting

Requirements

Business or other for-profit; 252

responses; 528 hours

James Chase, (202) 720–5780.

Donald E. Hulcher,

Deputy Departmental Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–10949 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–01–M

Office of the Secretary

Agricultural Biotechnology Research

Advisory Committee Meeting

In accordance with the Federal

Advisory Committee Act of October

1972 (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770–776),

the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA), Research, Education, and

Economics, announces the following

advisory committee meeting:

Name: Agricultural Biotechnology

Research Advisory Committee.

Date: June 26, 1995.

Time: 9:00 a.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m.

Place: Club Room, Westpark Hotel, 1900

North Fort Myer Driver, Arlington (Rosslyn),

Virginia 22209.

Type of Meeting: This meeting is open to

the public. Persons may participate in the

meeting as time and space permit. Members

of the public wishing to speak at the meeting

may be given such an opportunity at the

discretion of the Chair.

Comments: The public may file written

comments before or after the meeting with

the contact person specified below.

Purpose: To review matters pertaining to

agricultural biotechnology research and to

develop advice for the Secretary through the

Under Secretary for Research, Education, and

Economics with respect to policies,

programs, operations and activities

associated with the conduct of agricultural

biotechnology research.

The items to be considered at this meeting

include performance standards for research

with genetically modified aquatic organisms.

Contact Persons: Dr. Alvin L. Young,

Director, or Dr. Daniel D. Jones, Deputy

Director, Office of Agricultural

Biotechnology, Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service,

Department of Agriculture, Room 3868,

South Building, 14th and Independence

Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 20250–0904,

phone (202) 720–5853.

Done at Washington, D.C., this 17th day of

April, 1995.

Floyd P. Horn,

Acting Under Secretary, Research, Education,

and Economics.

[FR Doc. 95–11041 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–22–M

Forest Service

[RIN 059–AB47]

Animal Damage Management

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; adoption of final policy.

SUMMARY: The Forest Service is adopting

a revised policy for animal damage

management on National Forest System

lands. This action incorporates the

tenets of a 1993 Memorandum of

Understanding between the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)

and the Forest Service. The policy

clarifies the role and responsibility of

the Forest Service in coordinating with

the APHIS—Animal Damage Control

program on APHIS-sponsored animal

damage management plans and in

cooperating with APHIS to manage wild

vertebrates causing damage on National

Forest System lands under the Animal

Damage Control Act of 1931, as

amended. This final policy also outlines

the procedures for settling differences

between the two agencies and clarifies

agency responsibility for National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

compliance.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This policy is effective

May 4, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tom Darden, Wildlife Program Leader,

Forest Service, USDA, P.O. Box 96090,

Washington, DC 20090–6090, (202) 205–

1205.
22038 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Notices

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On June 13, 1994, the Forest Service

published a proposed revision of its

animal damage management direction

in Forest Service Manual Chapter 2650

[59 FR 30334]. The proposed policy

clarified the role of the Forest Service,

and Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS) in NEPA compliance

for animal damage management

activities on National Forest System

lands.

The Forest Service cooperates with

APHIS under the Animal Damage

Control Act of 1931, as amended (7

U.S.C. 426–426c), which, in part,

authorizes animal damage management

activities on National Forest System

lands. In cooperation with the Forest

Service and States, APHIS carries out

animal damage management activities

on some National Forest System lands,

mostly to minimize livestock losses

from predation by coyotes, black bears,

and other predators. Under other

authorities (e.g., Multiple-Use,

Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 [16 U.S.C.

528(note), 528–531]), the Forest Service

conducts activities to control animal

damage caused by small mammals and

other animals to National Forest System

resources, such as damage to timber

stands and roads by beavers.

The Secretary of Agriculture has

assigned APHIS the lead responsibility

for animal damage management

activities (7 CFR 2.51(a)(41)). The

principal change proposed to existing

Forest Service Manual policy (FSM

2650) is the designation of APHIS as the

lead agency for preparing environmental

documentation on those animal damage

management activities conducted by

APHIS that would be carried out on

National Forest System lands. The

Forest Service will be a cooperating

agency in preparing and reviewing

environmental analysis and

documentation of actions proposed by

APHIS that would occur on or affect

National Forest System lands. In that

role, the Forest Service would provide

any mitigation measures needed to

ensure that animal damage management

activities performed by APHIS are

compatible with direction established in

the Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan.

The proposed policy would bring the

Forest Service Manual direction into

conformance with the Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) between APHIS

and the Forest Service, signed June 18,

1993. Notice of availability of the MOU

was published in the Federal Register

on July 13, 1993 (58 FR 37704).

The 1993 MOU clarified the role of

each Forest Supervisor in cooperating

with APHIS and the States to ensure

that animal damage management

activities performed by APHIS are

compatible with direction provided in

forest plans. The MOU also clarified

that APHIS, in cooperation with the

Forest Service, develops annual work

plans for animal damage management

activities on National Forest System

lands. These plans address control

areas, specific control techniques,

emergency control procedures,

timeframes, and other limitations and

restrictions on the implementation of

ADM decisions based on NEPA

analysis. The MOU recognizes APHIS

annual work plans as establishing the

guidelines for predator control actions

initiated by APHIS on National Forest

System lands.

Response to Public Comments Animal

Damage Management Policy

The public comment period on the

proposed policy closed August 12, 1994.

The Forest Service received 58 letters

from individuals, organizations, six

State agencies, and one federal agency.

Of the 58 letters submitted, two (2)

letters expressed support for the

proposed policy. Four (4) letters

expressed support if specific changes

were made to the policy. Two (2) letters

requested that all animal damage

management be abolished. One (1) letter

expressed support for only non-lethal

methods of animal damage

management. Forty six (46) letters

expressed opposition to the policy

changes for a variety of reasons.

The 58 letters were from 11 Western,

six Eastern, two Southern and two

Midwestern states. Of the 58 letters, 30

were written by individuals who

identifies no affiliation with any group

or organization. Twenty-one (21) letters

represented a variety of organizations,

including: animal rights or welfare

organizations (11 letters); environmental

action organizations (3 letters);

organizations concerned with

biodiversity (3 letters); wilderness

organizations (3 letters); an organization

of state agencies (1 letter). Six letters

were from State agencies with

responsibility for fish and wildlife

management. One letter was from a

federal agency. A summary of major

comments received and the agency

response to them follow.

1. Role of States

Comment: Of the 50 States, six

responded individually and comments

were generally favorable. Six State fish

and wildlife agencies and the

International Association of Fish and

Wildlife Agencies, representing all the

50 States, generally concurred with the

proposed policy. Two State agencies,

however, requested (1) that a statement

be included that any animal damage

management activities on National

Forest System (NFS) lands by any

individual or agency must be done in

accordance with State law; and (2)

section 2651.2 be revised to require not

only cooperation but also consultation

with the State Fish and Wildlife

agencies to control damage caused by

game animals and furbearers through

hunting or trapping, where practical.

Response: While ‘‘cooperation’’

requires ‘‘consultation’’, the Forest

Service has no substantive concern with

revising section 2651.2 to include

‘‘consultation’’ and has adopted the

proposed suggestion.

The Forest Service, historically, has

viewed the regulation of hunting and

fishing as the responsibility of the

States. This is recognized in agency

direction and FS cooperative

agreements with State fish and wildlife

agencies. This policy does not infringe

or modify that approach. Since 1897,

under the federal statutes governing

National Forests, general civil and

criminal jurisdiction of States has

extended to federal lands reserved as

National Forests. 16 U.S.C. 480. Over

the years, State wildlife and game laws

have therefore controlled hunting and

fishing in these reservations. Beginning

in 1960, when Congress enacted

modern, multiple-use provisions for

forest resources, it carefully preserved

the States’ role in managing the wildlife

resources in National Forests:

It is the policy of Congress that the national

forests are established and shall be

administered for (multiple use). * * *

Nothing herein shall be construed as

affecting the jurisdiction of the several States

with respect to wildlife and fish on the

national forests (16 U.S.C. 528). More

recently, Congress reiterated the States’ role

over wildlife, hunting, and fishing on

national forest land in the Federal Land

Management Policy Act of 1976: (N)othing in

this Act shall be construed as authorizing the

Secretary concerned to require federal

permits to hunt and fish on * * * lands in

the National Forest System * * * or as

enlarging or diminishing the responsibility or

the authority of the States for management of

fish and resident wildlife (43 U.S.C. 1732

(b)).

Thus, consistant with the statutory

context, the Forest Service is strongly

encouraged to rely on State regulation of

hunting on National Forest System

Lands; and the Forest Service is not

expected to intervene, absent some

overriding federal concern. See, e.g.,

Hunt v. United States, 278 U.S. 96
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Notices 22039

(1928). The new FSM 2650 is consistent

with this approach.

2. Loss of Administrative Appeal

Opportunity

Comment: While recognizing that

APHIS is subject to the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),

many reviewers opposed designating

APHIS as the lead agency for NEPA

compliance. Respondents emphasized

that APHIS, unlike the Forest Service,

has no administrative appeal process for

NEPA decision documents. Several

reviewers stated that the loss of this

administrative process is very

significant to them, leaving only the

option of challenging animal damage

management decisions in court.

Response: While those interested in

ADM activities carried out by APHIS on

NFS lands have enjoyed an appeal

opportunity until now, this is not a

‘‘right.’’ The only reason APHIS–ADC

proposals affecting NFS lands have been

subject to appeal under Forest Service

procedures until now is that, prior to

the 1993 MOU, the Forest Service has

assumed lead agency responsibility for

NEPA analysis and disclosure. Since

APHIS will not assume these NEPA

compliance duties, those interested and

affected by an APHIS-initiated ADM

proposal will no longer be able to use

Forest Service appeals procedures, since

the Forest Service will not be the

proponent or deciding agency.

It is true that APHIS has no formal

appeal process, but APHIS must

consider all issues and concerns

presented to them by the public during

the NEPA process and comment period.

A final decision must address those

concerns raised during public comment

periods. Given the protections of NEPA

procedures and the availability of

judicial review, the Forest Service does

not believe the loss of ADM appeal

opportunity is sufficient grounds for

revising the final policy.

3. APHIS NEPA Experience and

Procedures

Comment: Many of the reviewers who

objected to transferring NEPA

compliance from the Forest Service to

APHIS asserted that APHIS has no

formalized NEPA procedures.

Response: This comment is not

accurate and provides no compelling

reason for the Forest Service and APHIS

to revise the terms of the MOU. APHIS

follows Council on Environmental

Quality (CEQ) NEPA Regulations (40

CFR parts 1500–1508, et. seq.), the

USDA NEPA procedures (7 CFR part

1b), and the APHIS NEPA Implementing

Procedures (60 FR 6000–6005, Feb. 1,

1995) effective March 3, 1995, in

meeting its NEPA compliance

obligations.

Comment: Twenty-six respondents,

including a government agency,

expressed concerns about differences

between APHIS and Forest Service

NEPA procedures, and differences in

quality of analyses. They thought that

APHIS lacked sufficient experience in

writing environmental documents.

Response: While APHIS and Forest

Service NEPA procedures, and

ultimately, NEPA documents, may be

identical, they must be prepared in

accordance with the Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ)

regulations. Where APHIS requests

NEPA analysis assistance or help with

developing NEPA compliance

procedures, the Forest Service will

cooperate with APHIS personnel. The

MOU and final policy provide the basis

for such a partnership. Similarly, as the

Forest Service or another agency

reviews NEPA documents prepared by

APHIS, each agency can note any issues

related to quality of analyses and

suggest improvement. Additionally, in

its leadership and training roles, the

Council on Environmental Quality has

had opportunity to work with APHIS as

it devised formal NEPA implementing

procedures. CEQ will have additional

opportunities as APHIS implements

these procedures and prepares NEPA

documents on animal damage

management activities.

4. Abdication of Forest Service

Responsibility

Comment: Eleven of the response

letters claimed that the Forest Service is

‘‘abdicating its responsibility’’ or

‘‘turning over all decisionmaking

procedures’’ to APHIS and that as a

result the Forest Service will not be able

to ‘‘adequately critique and challenge

Animal Damage Control proposals and

data.’’ These respondents all expressed

concern that the Forest Service would

no longer take an active role in

managing these activities. Additionally,

another agency asked ‘‘if APHIS would

have the lead in ensuring compliance

with forest land and resource

management plans on NFS lands? To

what extent might APHIS predator

control policies conflict with such

plans, and which governs in the event

of a conflict, and who decides?

Response: There are two assertions

underlying these comments: (1) that the

Forest Service has all [ultimate]

authority for ADM activities and (2) that

the Forest Service is abdicating its

responsibilities for ADM on National

Forest System lands (NFS). Neither of

these assertions is accurate. The legal

authorities of each agency are

recognized in the Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) between APHIS

and the Forest Service, signed in June

1993.

Under the final policy and the MOU,

tools and procedures for animal damage

management activities on NFS lands are

to be used ‘‘according to a plan

developed in compliance with National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),

National Forest Management Act

(NFMA); and Animal Damage Control

Act.’’ This plan is the Wildlife Damage

Management (WDM) Plan, developed by

APHIS/ADC in cooperation with the

land management agencies, including

the Forest Service. The plan is assessed

through NEPA documents that cover an

entire forest or larger area and is

developed under APHIS/ADC

leadership. An annual work plan

implements the WDM plans, which

APHIS–ADC prepares to analyze

impacts in logical geographic areas to

assess damage caused by wildlife and

alternative strategies to manage the

damage, regardless of land ownership

status. These assessments include NEPA

analysis and consider the concerns of all

affected interests. The WDM plans are

completed as necessary, or when new or

changed conditions occur, prior to

specific ADM actions. The Forest

Service also cooperates with APHISADC in development and review of

these WDM plans. The 1993

Memorandum of Understanding states

that:

APHIS-ADC is the agency with the

authority and expertise under the Animal

Damage Control Act of March 2, 1931, as

amended; and pursuant to The Rural

Development, Agriculture, and Related

Agencies Appropriation Act of 1988 for

providing ADM services. This includes

maintaining technical expertise in the

science of animal damage management,

control tools and techniques, conducting

ADM research, conducting management

programs, and NEPA compliance on

activities related to predator control [that

APHIS-ADC conducts].

This approach in the MOU is based

on the Secretary of Agriculture’s

longstanding assignment of ADM

activities to APHIS. Additionally, the

Memorandum of Understanding states

that both the Forest Service and APHIS

agree to:

Ensure interagency coordination and

concurrence on the effects of predator control

activities on National Forest resources before

NEPA decisions on predator control are

signed.

The Secretary has delegated National

Forest System forest planning

authorities in the Chief of the Forest

Service, including the responsibility to

ensure that Forest Service authorized
22040 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Notices

activities are not in conflict with forest

plans. The MOU allows the Forest

Service to ensure consistency of ADM

activities with Forest Plans, agency

regulations, and policy.

It is impossible to speculate whether,

or to what degree, if any, APHIS Animal

Damage Management activities might

conflict with Forest Plans. If there is any

conflict, the Forest Service will identify

and APHIS will adopt these measures

necessary to ensure consistency with

the goals and objectives in the Forest

Plans. The MOU formalizes the two

agency’s intent to work closely and

cooperate on all activities.

Finally, the Memorandum of

Understanding also calls for annual

meetings at the State and regional levels

to evaluate and coordinate ADM

activities. Therefore, on its face, the

1993 MOU recognizes the Forest Service

duty to regulate use of NFS lands and

ensures that the Forest Service plans a

cooperative role in reviewing and

commenting on proposed actions and

associated NEPA documents prior to

APHIS making a decision for predator

ADM activities.

If conflicting interpretations arise, the

Forest Service will make the final

determination of whether the proposed

activity conforms to a standard or

guideline in a forest plan. A

fundamental principle of APHIS’ ADM

program is its commitment to comply

with landowner/manager’s restrictions

as to where animal damage management

activities can and cannot be conducted.

5. Animal Damage Management in

Wilderness

Comment: Three respondents

expressed concerns about ADM

activities in wilderness areas, stating

that this ‘‘is counter to the meaning and

intent of a wilderness area.’’

Response: All ADM activities on NFS

lands must be carried out in a manner

consistent with the Wilderness Act and

subsequent amendments establishing

wilderness areas within the NFS system.

6. Compatibility With Ecosystem

Management

Comment: Nine reviewers stated that

Animal Damage Management is

incompatible with the Forest Service’s

ecosystem management approach on

NFS lands.

Response: There is nothing inherent

in Animal Damage Management that is

incompatible with ecosystem

management. Under the final policy and

the 1993 MOU, APHIS will consult with

the Forest Service concerning any and

all effects of APHIS ADM actions on

NFS lands. The 1993 MOU states that

both agencies agree to:

Conduct ADM on NFS lands in accordance

with the APHIS-ADC Policies, USDA policy

on fish and wildlife and consistent with

Forest Land and Resource Management

Plans’’ and to ‘‘[e]nsure interagency

coordination and concurrence on the effects

of predator control activities on National

Forest resources before NEPA decisions on

predator control are signed.’’

Comment: In addition, another agency

stated that the Forest Service recently

signed a MOU with the Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS), Bureau of Land

Management (BLM), National Park

Service (NPS), and National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS), ‘‘* * *

which encourages an ecosystem

approach to addressing endangered

species. How will FS ensure that it

meets this commitment where APHIS is

the lead agency?’’

Response: The Forest Service’s

cooperative role will ensure that ADM

activities are consistent with broader

goals and mandates such as ecosystem

management. APHIS will coordinate

with the Forest Service concerning any

and all effects of their actions on Forest

Service lands including the Forest

Service’s ecosystem management

approach.

7. Inadequate Opportunity for Public

Comment

Comment: Ten reviewers stated that

designating APHIS as the lead agency

for NEPA compliance for Animal

Damage Management was completed

with inadequate opportunity for

comment.

Response: Intradepartmental

agreements have always been

considered a routine business operation

of the agency. Such agreements are the

mechanisms by which USDA agencies

reach agreement on responsibilities and

procedures to be followed when

programs and activities involve more

than one USDA agency. The Forest

Service places intradepartmental

agreements into Title 1500 of the Forest

Service Manual to ensure that agency

personnel across the country have

access to them in carrying out day-today management activities. The Forest

Service interprets such intra-agency

agreements to be of the same nature as

administrative support activities such as

personnel, procurement, service

contracting and other routine business

practices. As such, the Agency was not

legally required to give notice of and

opportunity to comment on the

agreement, pursuant to 36 CFR part 216.

However, the Forest Service did give

notice of the new agreement on July 13,

1993, at 58 FR 37704 and notice that

copies were available upon request.

Subsequently, the agency decided to

give notice of revisions to its Animal

Damage Management policy arising

from implementation of the 1993 MOU.

The notice was published in a Federal

Register Notice on June 13, 1994, at 59

FR 30334 and provided a 60-day

comment period. Thus, the public has

been given adequate notice of and

adequate opportunity to comment on

the proposed policy.

8. Legality of Animal Damage

Management Activities on NFS Lands

and of Transfer of NEPA

Responsibilities

Comment: Thirty-five respondents

stated that it is ‘‘illegal’’ for APHIS/ADC

to conduct animal damage management

on NFS lands or for the Forest Service

to ‘‘transfer’’ NEPA planning

responsibilities to APHIS. These

respondents contend that, in doing so,

the Forest Service violates the

Endangered Species Act, National

Forest Management Act, Multiple-Use

Sustained Yield Act, Wilderness Act,

and the Animal Damage Control Act.

Additionally, another agency asked if

the Forest Service role as stated in FSM

2651.1 is consistent with APHIS

approach so that ESA obligations are

met.

Response: The MOU serves to

reemphasize the authority that APHIS

and the State agencies already have for

ADM activities on National Forest

System lands. Under the Animal

Damage Control Act of 1931, as

amended, the Secretary of Agriculture is

authorized to control predators and

other wild animals causing damage on

NFS lands. The Secretary has delegated

this authority to APHIS at 7 CFR

2.51(a)(41). Animal damage

management for predators has never

been a Forest Service responsibility.

APHIS is the authorized action agency

and has had, and continues to have,

responsibility for its ADM activities.

Therefore, it is completely lawful for

APHIS to conduct animal damage

management on NFS land. It is also

appropriate for APHIS to be the lead

agency in preparing environmental

documentation of APHIS-sponsored

ADM activities on NFS lands.

However, the policy, at FSM 2651.1,

explicitly recognizes the responsibility

of Forest Supervisors in cooperating

with APHIS to complete necessary sitespecific environmental analysis and

documentation of actions proposed by

APHIS and in providing mitigation

measures to ensure that animal damage

management activities performed by

APHIS are compatible with direction

provided in forest plans.

As the lead agency (40 CFR 1508.16)

for completing environmental
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Notices 22041

documentation of APHIS-sponsored

ADM activities on NFS lands, APHIS

will also be responsible for completion

of all Endangered Species Act-mandated

interagency consultations (16 U.S.C.

1536.7; FSM 2671.4). Presently, APHIS

operates under the programmatic

biological opinion issued by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service for the

Animal Damage Control Program on

July 28, 1992 and will consult with the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service both

formally and informally, as appropriate,

under Section 7 of the Endangered

Species Act, on future actions including

those on NFS lands.

As to consistency of approaches to

ensure Endangered Species Act (ESA)

compliance, under the MOU, the FS and

APHIS will cooperate in ESA

compliance. In addition to changes

based on public comment, the Forest

Service, after consideration of the

potential for joint responsibility under

the ESA, developed additional policy to

assure consistent application of

protection for threatened and

endangered species.

In the final amendment this language

appears in section 2650.3, paragraph (5)

and reads as follows:

Additionally, the lead agency responsible

for completing environmental documentation

is responsible for completion of all

Endangered Species Act-mandated

interagency consultations. However, the

Forest Service will be a cooperating agency

with APHIS during consultation under the

Endangered Species Act where actions

involve National Forest System resources or

authorities.

Nothing in the Forest Service policy

relieves APHIS of any of its current

responsibilities to consult with the FWS

nor does it violate any Forest Service

policies.

9. Clarification of Each Agency’s Roles

Comment: Another government

agency asserted that ‘‘the Forest Service

and APHIS must clarify their precise

roles in preparation of environmental

impact analyses and documentation for

animal damage management activities

on National Forest System lands

* * *.’’

Response: The roles have been

clarified in the 1993 MOU and proposed

FSM 2650.6. The Forest Service and

APHIS have agreed that APHIS will

ensure NEPA compliance and be the

lead agency for all actions that APHIS

initiates and carries out on NFS lands.

Predator control to reduce livestock loss

is an example of an action carried out

by APHIS. If the Forest Service carries

out the action, such as reducing bear or

beaver damage to tree regeneration, the

Forest Service will be the lead agency

for NEPA compliance.

APHIS has not and will not work on

any Forest Service administered land

without proper NEPA compliance. The

Forest Service will cooperate in each

effort by APHIS. Disagreements on any

specific points are handled through

annual meetings or during the

development of work plans or NEPA

documents, as appropriate. The MOU

describes the specific framework for

meetings and states that disagreements

will be elevated to appropriate levels for

resolution.

Comment: Twenty-five reviewers

noted their view that APHIS ‘‘cannot

comply with forest plans;’’ and ten

others questioned whether APHIS ‘‘fails

to comply with the Endangered Species

Act, National Environmental Policy Act,

National Forest Management Act,

Wilderness Act, Administrative

Procedures Act, and numerous other

State and Federal laws’’.

Response: The Department does not

agree. The statement that APHIS

‘‘cannot comply with forest plans’’

reflects a misunderstanding of law and

authority. Under the 1993 MOU, APHIS

consults with the Forest Service to

assure that any ADC plans and actions

are consistent with the standards and

guidelines in the applicable forest plan.

As already stated under comments on

‘‘Forest Service Abdication of

Responsibility’’, the Forest Service

retains the ability to assure that ADM

plans and actions are consistent with

forest plan requirements.

10. NEPA Analysis and Disclosure on

Proposed Policy

Comment: Seventeen respondents

asserted that the Forest Service must

‘‘complete an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) to analyze the impact of

this transfer.’’ Six stated that an

Environmental Assessment (EA) is

needed.

Response: The Forest Service

disagrees. Section 31.1b of Forest

Service Handbook 1909.15 (57 FR

43180; September 18, 1992) excludes

‘‘rules, regulations, or policies to

establish Service-wide administrative

procedures, program processes, or

instructions.’’ Based on consideration of

the comments received on the proposed

policy, and the nature and scope of the

proposed 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.

11. Use of Pesticides in Animal Damage

Management

Comment: Two respondents were

concerned about the use of pesticides on

NFS lands stating that the Forest Service

does not ‘‘understand the public’s

biological concerns about the use of

pesticides and the effects on wildlife’’

and ‘‘that no one is responsible for

overseeing of tracking sodium cyanide

in M–44s’’.

Response: By law and regulation, both

APHIS and the Forest Service allow

only certified individuals to administer

pesticides being used on NFS lands for

animal damage management activities.

APHIS reports their use of pesticides

annually to the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA). The Forest

Service also annually reports pesticide

use. Use of sodium cyanide present in

M–44s would appear in APHIS reports.

Conclusion

Having carefully considered the

comments received in response to the

June 13, 1994, notice of proposed policy

and having reconsidered the 1993

Animal Damage Management MOU

between the Forest Service and APHIS,

the Forest Service is adopting the

revised Animal Damage Management

policy as proposed, except for the

revisions noted in the response to

public comments and several minor

technical revisions. The agency believes

the policy is fully responsive to the

agency’s legal and management

obligations. The policy implements the

1993 Memorandum of Understanding

which recognizes APHIS as the lead for

NEPA compliance where APHIS is the

action proposing agency. APHIS has

entered into a similar agreement with

the Bureau of Land Management of the

U.S. Department of Interior, thus

providing a fully coordinated,

streamlined and consistent approach to

NEPA compliance across all land

ownerships on federally-funded animal

damage management activities to be

undertaken by APHIS. This partnership

with APHIS will achieve efficiencies

through both economies of scale and

integrated NEPA documentation. The

full text of the directive as it will appear

in the Forest Service Manual is set out

at the end of this notice.

Environmental Impact

This policy provides administrative

instructions to Forest Service field

offices on the procedures and processes

to follow in order to coordinate with

APHIS on animal damage management

activities and implements the terms of

the 1993 Memorandum of

Understanding between the Forest
22042 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Notices

Service and APHIS. As noted in the

response to comments, section 31.1b(2)

of Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 (57

FR 43180, Sept. 18, 1992) excludes from

documentation in an environmental

assessment or impact statement ‘‘rules,

regulations, or policies to establish

Servicewide administrative procedures,

program processes, or instructions.’’

Accordingly, the agency’s assessment is

that this policy falls within this category

of action and that no extraordinary

circumstances exist which would

require preparation of an environmental

assessment or environmental impact

statement. This decision is further

documented in a Decision Memo

available from the Forest Service

through the Wildlife Program Leader

whose address is provided as a contact

for further information at the beginning

of this notice.

Controlling Paperwork Burden on the

Public

This policy will not result in

additional paperwork. Therefore, the

review provisions of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3507)

and implementing regulations at 5 CFR

Part 1320 do not apply.

Regulatory Impact

This policy has been reviewed under

USDA procedures and Executive Order

12866 on Regulatory Planning and

Review. It has been determined that this

is a significant policy.

Dated: April 5, 1995.

David G. Unger,

Associate Chief.

FSM 2600—Wildlife, Fish, and

Sensitive Plant Habitat Management

Chapter 2650—Animal Damage

Management

(Note: The Forest Service organizes its

directive system by alpha-numeric codes and

subject headings. Only those sections of the

Forest Service Manual that are the subject of

this notice are set out here. The audience for

this direction is Forest Service employees

charged with coordinating with the Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Service—Animal

Damage Control Unit on animal damage

management activities on National Forest

System lands.)

The Forest Service and Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS)—Animal Damage Control

program along with the states, cooperate

under the Animal Damage Control Act

of 1931, as amended, to manage animal

damage on National Forest System

lands. These activities include actions

to provide wildlife damage management

through direct control, as well as

technical assistance to achieve desired

management objectives. APHIS carries

out animal damage management

activities on National Forest System

lands, mostly to minimize livestock

losses from predation by coyotes, black

bears, and other predators. The Forest

Service conducts activities to control

animal damage caused by small

mammals and other animals to National

Forest System resources, such as timber

stands and roads.

2650.1—Authority. In addition to the

authorities listed in FSM 2601, the

following authorities govern animal

damage management activities on

National Forest System lands:

1. The Animal Damage Control Act of

March 2, 1931, as amended, (7 U.S.C.

426–426c) authorizes the Secretary of

Agriculture to provide animal damage

management services, to maintain

technical expertise for evaluating and

recommending animal damage

management techniques, and to perform

animal damage research. The Secretary

has delegated this authority to the

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS) and the Animal

Damage Control program in APHIS is

specifically responsible for ADM

activities.

2. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,

and Rodenticide Act limits the use of

pesticides to those that are properly

registered in accordance with federal

and state requirements for animal

damage management and that conform

to policies on pesticide-use management

and coordination (FSM 2150). (61 stat.

63, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 136 (note),

136, 136b, 136i–m, 136p)

3. Executive Order 12342, January 24,

1982, permits the use of chemical

toxicants registered by the

Environmental Protection Agency for

predator damage control on federal

lands.

4. Department of Agriculture

Regulation (DR) 9500–4 (FSM 2601.2)

requires Department of Agriculture

programs to include measures to

alleviate damage by plant and animal

pests; develop new techniques and

methodologies through management

and research programs to limit damage

to agriculture or forestry production;

and apply integrated pest management

practices, where feasible, in carrying out

these responsibilities.

5. A Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) between APHIS and the Forest

Service, June 18, 1993, outlines the

cooperative approach to animal damage

management on National Forest System

lands. Both agencies have a joint

responsibility for limiting damage

caused by wildlife. In this MOU, APHIS

and state agencies are recognized as

having the authority and expertise to

conduct predator control on National

Forest System lands, to determine

livestock losses, and to determine

methodology for animal damage

management. Under the MOU, APHIS is

named the lead agency in preparing

environmental documentation for

predator control and other animal

damage management activities initiated

by APHIS on National Forest System

lands.

Also, under the MOU, the Forest

Service agrees to:

a. Cooperate to ensure that the animal

damage management plans developed

by APHIS will provide for protection of

National Forest System resources and;

b. Cooperate with APHIS in the

development of work plans to ensure

consistency with forest land and

resource management plans. See FSM

1543.14 for the full text of the MOU.

2650.2—Objective. The objective of

animal damage management activities is

to protect National Forest System

resources, to protect activities taking

place on National Forest System lands,

and to reduce threats to human health

and safety.

2650.3—Policy. National Forest

System resources must be adequately

protected during animal damage

management activities authorized by the

states and conducted by the states or

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS)—Animal Damage

Control program. This policy in no way

defines or limits the authority of States

to regulate the taking of predators

according to State and other applicable

Federal laws.

When the Forest Service conducts

animal damage management activities,

such as controlling small mammal

populations on plantations, the agency

must comply fully with state and federal

laws. In carrying out animal damage

management activities, Forest Service

employees shall—

1. Rely upon APHIS or the state

agencies to provide the expertise and

conduct predator control on National

Forest System lands, to determine

livestock losses, and to determine

methodology for animal damage

management.

2. Conduct non-predator animal

damage management, such as

controlling small mammal populations

on plantations, and necessary

environmental analysis and disclosure

on National Forest System lands

consistent with forest plans.

3. Coordinate with the Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) and other federal

and state agencies to improve

effectiveness of control program

activities conducted on National Forest

System and other public lands.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Notices 22043

4. Use an integrated approach to the

prevention of animal damage and

management of animal damage control

programs. Consider a full range of

methods, including physical barriers,

repellents, habitat manipulation,

biological controls, silvicultural

methods (for example, fertilizing to

improve soil fertility), pesticides, and

hunting and trapping. Use licensed

hunting, fishing, and trapping as a

control technique where practicable.

5. Follow direction in FSM 2670,

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive

Plants and Animals, to determine

whether proposed control measures

conducted by the Forest Service are

likely to have an effect on federally

proposed, threatened, endangered, or

sensitive species.

Additionally, the lead agency

responsible for completing

environmental documentation is also

responsible for completion of all

Endangered Species Act-mandated

interagency consultations. However, the

Forest Service will be a cooperating

agency with APHIS during consultation

under the Endangered Species Act

where actions involve National Forest

System resources or authorities.

2650.4—Responsibility.

2650.41—Deputy Chief for National

Forest System. The Deputy Chief for the

National Forest System is responsible

for resolving any difficulties arising

between Regions and the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS)—Animal Damage Control

program that cannot be resolved by

Regional Foresters under the

Memorandum of Understanding (FSM

1543.14).

2650.42—Regional Foresters. Regional

Foresters are responsible for:

1. Reviewing and approving all

proposed pesticide uses for animal

damage management on National Forest

System lands (FSM 2151). Regional

Foresters may redelegate this authority

to Forest Supervisors, except that only

Regional Foresters may approve animal

damage management in wilderness

(FSM 2323).

2. Establishing or amending existing

Memorandums of Understanding

between the Region and appropriate

State and other federal agencies

regarding animal damage management.

3. Reviewing all proposed Forest

Service animal damage management

activities within areas occupied by and

habitat of federally proposed or listed

threatened or endangered species and

Regional Forester approved sensitive

species. Regional Foresters may

redelegate this authority to Forest

Supervisors.

4. Meeting with or designating a

representative to meet with State or

regional representatives, such as the

APHIS Regional Director, as needed to

coordinate animal damage management

operations.

5. Resolving any difficulties arising

among APHIS personnel and Forest

Supervisors under the Memorandum of

Understanding (FSM 1543.14), or

referring unresolved issues to the

Deputy Chief, National Forest System,

for resolution.

2650.43—Forest Supervisors. Forest

Supervisors are responsible for:

1. Ensuring appropriate

environmental analysis requirements

are met for proposed non-predator

control activities conducted by the

Forest Service and ensuring consistency

with forest plan direction.

2. Recommending changes in state

hunting, fishing, or trapping regulations

to accommodate animal damage

management activities on National

Forest System lands (FSM 2640).

3. Meeting with APHIS personnel and

responsible state agencies to cooperate

where proposed predator control is

needed to ensure coordination of Forest

Service resources or activities on

National Forest Systems lands.

4. Cooperating with APHIS in

preparation of environmental

documentation for predator control or

other animal damage management

activities conducted by APHIS on

National Forest System lands (40 CFR

1508.15).

5. As necessary, referring any

difficulties arising from activities with

APHIS under the Memorandum of

Understanding (FSM 1543.14) for

resolution by the Regional Forester.

6. When needed, requesting training

from APHIS in animal damage

management techniques.

7. Ensuring that licensing and

certification of Forest Service personnel

performing animal damage management

activities comply with applicable

federal and state regulations and that

certified pesticide applicators use or

supervise the use of restricted-use

pesticides on National Forest Systems

Lands (FSM 2150).

2650.6—Cooperation in Animal

Damage Management Activities. Both

the Forest Service and Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service (APHIS)—

Animal Damage Control program have a

responsibility for limiting damage

caused by wildlife, consistent with

other wildlife values and resource

management objectives. APHIS

responsibilities are generally directed

toward the management and control of

animals causing damage to livestock,

agriculture, wildlife, and human health

and safety. Trapping or shooting coyotes

to prevent losses of sheep or cattle are

examples of these activities.

Forest Service animal damage

management activities are related to the

management of National Forest System

resources. Examples of Forest Service

initiated activities include, but are not

limited to, removing beavers that are

damaging roads, reducing bear damage

to tree regeneration and controlling

mice and pocket gophers to protect

seedlings. Pursuant to the delegation of

authority to APHIS at section 2.51

(a)(41) of Title 7 of the code of Federal

Regulations (7 CFR 2.51 (a)(41)), the

1993 Memorandum of Understanding

between the Forest Service and APHIS

for animal damage management

activities (FSM 1543.14), the role of

APHIS is as follows:

1. Evaluate animal damage

management needs and conduct

predator control in cooperation with the

Forest Service, state agencies, and

permittees.

2. Serve as lead agency for preparing

environmental documentation on

animal damage management activities

initiated by APHIS on National Forest

System lands.

3. Develop and update animal damage

management work plans in cooperation

with the Forest Service and appropriate

state and federal agencies, and

interested publics to ensure compliance

with forest plans.

4. Inform the Forest Service about

animal damage management requests,

management activities, and results on a

timely basis.

5. Provide the Forest Service with

technical information on recommended

animal damage management tools and

techniques.

6. Conduct animal damage

management training sessions for Forest

Service personnel, when requested.

2651—WILDLIFE AND FISH

DAMAGE MANAGEMENT.

2651.1—Threatened and Endangered

Species. Follow specific species control

plans for federally listed species (for

example, grizzly bear and wolf) cleared

through consultation with the Fish and

Wildlife Service and National Marine

Fisheries Service.

2651.2—Game and Furbearers.

Control damage caused by game animals

and furbearers through hunting or

trapping, where practicable, in

cooperation and consultation with the

State fish and wildlife agencies, and

APHIS, where appropriate.

2651.3—Nongame Species. Control

damage caused by nongame species on

National Forest System lands in close

cooperation with the State fish and
22044 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Notices

wildlife agencies, or other involved state

or federal agencies.

2651.4—Birds. Nonlethal repellents,

frightening devices, pesticides, or

physical barriers may be used to prevent

or reduce resource damage or hazards,

where birds damage reforestation or

other resources, or where they create

health hazards. Obtain permits from the

Fish and Wildlife Service for any lethal

control of species protected under the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Consult the

Fish and Wildlife Service for permit

requirements and procedures.

2651.5—Fish and Aquatic Animals.

States or other responsible agencies

have the authority to control

undesirable fish and aquatic animals in

National Forest System waters. The

Forest Service is responsible for

coordinating with the responsible

agencies to develop a work plan to

ensure control activities are consistent

with direction provided in forest plans.

Control activities conducted by the

Forest Service must meet appropriate

environmental analysis requirements

and be consistent with forest plan

direction.

2651.6—Wildlife and Fish Damage

Management in Wilderness Areas.

Follow direction in FSM 2151, FSM

2323, and FSM 4063 for management of

wildlife or fish damage in wilderness

and Research Natural Areas. Animal

damage management is permitted in

wilderness only when it was used prior

to wilderness designation; when it

conforms with direction in FSM 2323.33

on resource management in wilderness;

and when it is needed for the recovery

of federally listed threatened or

endangered species.

2652—REPORTS. Report pesticide

uses annually following direction in

FSM 2158.

[FR Doc. 95–10918 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

Tongass Land Management Plan

Revision, Tongass National Forest,

Alaska

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a

revised supplement to the draft

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will

prepare a revised supplement to the

draft environmental impact statement

on a proposal to revise the Tongass

Land Management Plan. This is a

revision of the supplement published in

August 1991.

DATES: Formal comments are not being

solicited at this time. A revised

supplement to the draft environment

impact statement is scheduled to be

filed with the Environmental Protection

Agency in November 1995, at which

time a formal comment period will

begin.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary

Lidholm, Public Affairs Officer, Tongass

Revision Team, 8465 Old Dairy Road,

Juneau, AK 99801. Telephone (907)

586–8726.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

original notice of intent for the Tongass

Land Management Plan revision was

published September 10, 1987 (52 FR

34264, *34265). A draft environmental

impact statement was available for

public review and comment from July

1990 to January 1991, and a supplement

to that draft was available from

September to December 1991. Release of

a final environmental impact statement

was delayed pending completion of

additional studies. Based on the results

of these studies, other new information,

and the lapse of time since public

review of the supplement, the Forest

Service has decided to issue another

draft document, the revised supplement,

for public review.

The issues identified in the August

1991 supplement to the draft

environmental impact statement have

been updated. The focus for the revised

supplement will be on the following

specific issues: providing for species

viability consistent with the provisions

of NFMA and the Endangered Species

Act; evaluating recommendations for

additional fisheries habitat protection;

cave and karst management; ensuring

conformance with ecosystem

management principles; and the socioeconomic effects of alternative actions.

The alternatives described in the 1991

supplement will be the basis for

formulating alternatives to deal with

these issues.

A partnership approach with the

agency’s Pacific Northwest Research

Station (PNW) will be an important

vehicle to bring science to bear on the

issues. PNW will be involved along with

the Alaska Region of the Forest Service

at every phase of the project. Other

federal agencies are being asked to

cooperate in the planning process,

including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, the National Marine Fisheries

Service, and the Environmental

Protection Agency. In addition, the

skills and expertise of Alaska State

agencies and Alaska tribal governments

will be sought.

A revised supplement to the draft

environment impact statement is

anticipated to be filed with the

Environmental Protection Agency in

November 1995, and a final

environmental impact statement is

projected for June 1996.

The responsible official is Phil Janik,

Regional Forester, Alaska Region, P.O.

Box 21628, Juneau, AK 99801.

A 90-day public comment period on

the revised supplement to the draft

environmental impact statement will

begin on the date the Environmental

Protection Agency publishes the notice

of availability in the Federal Register.

An extensive scoping process has

already taken place with respect to the

proposed TLMP revision. No further

formal scoping process is scheduled as

part of the preparation of the revised

supplement to the draft environmental

impact statement. Public meetings are

expected and will be announced.

The Forest Service believes, at this

early stage, it is important to give

reviewers notice of several court rulings

related to public participation in the

environmental review process. First,

reviewers of draft environmental impact

statements (or, in this case, the revised

supplement to the draft) must structure

their participation in the environmental

review of the proposal so that it is

meaningful and alerts an agency to the

reviewer’s position and contentions.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.

NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also,

objections that could be raised at the

draft (or revised supplement to the

draft) environmental impact statement

stage but that are not raised until after

completion of the final environmental

impact statement may be waived or

dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon

v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir.

1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v.

Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D.

Wis. 1980). Because of these court

rulings, it is very important that those

interested in this proposed action

participate by the close of the 90 day

comment period so that substantive

comments and objections are made

available to the Forest Service at a time

when it can meaningfully consider them

and respond to them in the final

environmental impact statement.

The revised supplement is preceded

by two other draft documents (the 1990

draft and 1991 supplement referred to

earlier). Reviewers should note that

comments on either of these two

previous documents are still valid, and

will be considered along with all

comments received on the revised

supplement in reaching a final decision.

Participation in any of the three

comments periods satisfies the intent of

the previous discussion, provided that

the reviewer’s position and/or concerns

have been raised.

To assist the Forest Service in

identifying and considering issues and