[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 48 (Monday, March 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13399-13401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6097]



========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 1995 / 
Notices
[[Page 13399]]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
[Docket No. 92-190-5]


Animal Damage Control Program; Record of Decision Based on Final 
Environmental Impact Statement

agency: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

action: Notice.

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

summary: This notice advises the public of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service's record of decision for the Animal Damage Control 
program. The decision is based on the final environmental impact 
statement for the program.

addresses: Copies of the final environmental impact statement on which 
the record of decision is based are available for review between 8 a.m. 
and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays, at the following 
locations:

APHIS Reading Room, room 1141, South Building, 14th Street and 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC;
Operational Support Staff, Animal Damage Control, APHIS, USDA, 4700 
River Road, Riverdale, MD;
Eastern Regional Office, Animal Damage Control, APHIS, UDDA, Suite 370, 
7000 Executive Center Drive, Brentwood, TN;
Denver Wildlife Research Center, Building 16, Denver Federal Center, 
Denver, CO; and
Western Regional Office, Animal Damage Control, APHIS, USDA, 12345 W. 
Alameda Parkway, Suite 313, Lakewood, CA.

    Interested persons may obtain a copy of the final environmental 
impact statement by writing to Mr. William H. Clay at the address 
listed below under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

for further information contact: Mr. William H. Clay, Director, Animal 
and Plant Health Inspection Service, Animal Damage Control, Operational 
Support Staff, 4700 River Road Unit 87, Riverdale, MD 20737-1228, (301) 
734-8281.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 18, 1990, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
(APHIS) published a notice in the Federal Register (55 FR 24597-24598, 
Docket No. 90-099) to inform the public of the availability of a draft 
environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Animal Damage Control 
program. The draft EIS evaluated environmental impacts associated with 
wildlife damage control activities.
    On January 14, 1993, APHIS published a notice (58 FR 4404-4405, 
Docket No. 92-190-1) informing the public of our intention to make 
available a supplement to the draft EIS for the Animal Damage Control 
program; the supplement was made available through a Federal Register 
notice published on February 12, 1993 (58 FR 8252, Docket No. 92-190-
2). We requested public comments on the supplement to the draft EIS for 
a 45-day period ending on March 29, 1993. On the last day of the 
comment period, we published a notice in the Federal Register (58 FR 
16520, Docket No. 92-190-3) extending the comment period until April 
28, 1993. All comments received on the draft EIS and its supplement 
were considered in the final EIS.
    On May 6, 1994, APHIS published in the Federal Register (59 FR 
23683-23684, Docket No. 92-190-4) a notice advising the public of the 
availability of the final EIS for the Animal Damage Control program. 
The final EIS addresses the function, methods of operation, and 
locations of the Animal Damage Control program and the biological, 
sociocultural, economic, and physical impacts of reasonable 
alternatives to the program.
    This notice contains the agency's record of decision, based on the 
final EIS, for the Animal Damage Control program. This record of 
decision has been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) 
Regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for Implementing 
the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA 
Regulations Implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA 
Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

    Done in Washington, DC, this 7th day of March 1995.
Lonnie J. King,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

    The agency record of decision is set forth below.

United States Department of Agriculture; Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service

Record of Decision: Animal Damage Control Program; Final 
Environmental Impact Statement

Introduction

    This decision is the culmination of the environmental impact 
statement (EIS) process for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service (APHIS), Animal Damage Control (ADC) program. The final 
programmatic EIS document underlying this decision develops at great 
length and specific detail the strategies, methods, and processes 
through which the mission of ADC is accomplished. Numerous examples 
(``decision model'' applications presented in Appendix N, for 
instance), of how the program has approached some of its environmental 
responsibilities in the past are provided. Information concerning 
categorizing classes of action and individual documentation 
requirements could not be specified in the final EIS because the 
development of APHIS regulations concerning compliance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was not yet completed. 
Subsequently, the APHIS regulations have been published (60 FR 6000-
6005, February 1, 1995) and became effective on March 3, 1995. ADC will 
fully comply with these implementation procedures and any amendments to 
those procedures.
    The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations 
implementing NEPA tell decisionmakers what information must be included 
in records of decision. Section 1505.2 of the CEQ regulations provides 
that records of decision contain: [[Page 13400]] 
    <bullet> A statement of what the decision is;
    <bullet> The identification of all alternatives considered by the 
agency, including the environmentally preferable alternative(s);
    <bullet> A discussion of factors (economic, technical, and agency 
statutory mission) and essential considerations of national policy 
balanced in the decisionmaking process and how each factor weighs in 
the decision; and
    <bullet> An explanation of whether the decision (the alternative 
selected) is designed to avoid or minimize environmental harm and, if 
not, why not.
    The final EIS prepared by ADC is programmatic in nature. The EIS 
process was undertaken to explore issues and alternatives associated 
with program implementation, to identify data elements and other 
information necessary to evaluate effects at the programmatic and 
project levels, and to assist in the development of a flexible 
framework within which effects of various alternatives may be 
considered in site-specific contexts that are consistent with the 
documentation and procedural requirements of NEPA.

Program Alternatives

    The final EIS rigorously explored and objectively evaluated, in 
detail, five alternative strategies that may be utilized by program 
personnel in different site-specific settings. In addition, eight other 
alternatives that involved restructuring or broadly applied, single-
focus approaches, were presented and briefly considered. The five 
alternative strategies considered in detail are:
    <bullet> The current program (the integrated pest management 
alternative), which consists of various practices and techniques, 
including both nonlethal and lethal actions, that are available for 
formulating a damage control strategy consistent with applicable State 
and local requirements, cooperative agreements, and interagency 
arrangements
    <bullet> A system of compensation, as a replacement for ADC program 
actions, to pay partially or fully, for agricultural losses due to 
damages by wildlife;
    <bullet> No action, under which USDA-APHIS funded wildlife damage 
control activities would cease with no specified provisions for 
replacement measures--compensation or other;
    <bullet> Use and recommendation of only nonlethal methods to 
control wildlife-caused damage, precluding the use or recommendation of 
any and all methods that are directly lethal to wildlife; and
    <bullet> A requirement that practical nonlethal methods of wildlife 
damage control be recommended or used in each situation prior to 
recommending or using any lethal methods.
    Integrated pest management (the current alternative) has been 
identified by ADC as both its ``preferred'' alternative and the 
``environmentally preferable'' alternative.
    A principal function of an EIS is its use by Federal officials, in 
conjunction with other relevant materials, to plan actions and make 
decisions. As a practical matter, the integrated pest management 
alternative includes nearly all animal damage control options and tools 
available to ADC officials at the project level. How these or other 
options will be developed and integrated efficiently into program 
planning and decisionmaking consistent with NEPA and other 
environmental mandates are addressed in the new APHIS NEPA implementing 
procedures. Specifically, ADC reaffirms its intention that nonlethal 
control methods as the means of achieving project goals will be 
considered, recommended, and, when appropriate, applied prior to 
recommending or using lethal methods (ADC Directive 2.101).

The APHIS Framework for Environmental Decisionmaking

    The starting point for environmental decisionmaking by agencies of 
the Federal Government is NEPA. The CEQ implementing regulations 
require agencies to integrate the NEPA process into their planning and 
to establish procedures to facilitate compliance with the Act. The 
final EIS prematurely asserted that APHIS had new, finalized NEPA 
compliance procedures. In fact, as stated above, APHIS only recently 
promulgated its new NEPA compliance procedures (60 FR 6000-6005, 
February 1, 1995). The ADC program has adapted its planning and 
decisionmaking practices to these new procedures. ADC, in compliance 
with the APHIS Regulations, is structuring a cost-effective 
environmental compliance system that will be published in the APHIS 
Environmental Manual.
    The programmatic EIS process has functioned as a catalyst to focus 
on environmental issues raised both by the public and internally and to 
provide environmental information to public officials and citizens 
before decisions have been made. For its part, ADC has sought a useful 
decisionmaking ``model'' (outlined in Chapter 2 of the final EIS and 
assessed in Appendix N) that is compatible with both its mission and 
NEPA. ADC will use this ``decision model'' process, in conjunction with 
the general outline of NEPA compliance contained in the final EIS, the 
CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1500, et seq.), the Department's NEPA 
implementing regulations (7 CFR 1b and 3100.40), and the APHIS 
implementing regulations (7 CFR 372, et seq., 60 FR 6000-6005), as its 
system for compliance with NEPA. In this process, ADC also will assure 
continued compliance with all other environmental statutes and 
regulations, including section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, at the 
local level. The program is cooperating with the Forest Service, the 
Bureau of Land Management, other Federal and State agencies, and the 
public, to coordinate the environmental assessment process through 
which use of the decision model will be appropriately documented and 
applied. CEQ recently agreed to assist in this endeavor.
    The ADC program will continue to assure that its environmental 
compliance processes comply with the new APHIS NEPA procedures. 
Consistent with CEQ's regulations implementing NEPA, the public has 
been informed and had ample opportunity to participate in the formation 
of APHIS' and ADC's overall environmental compliance system.

Decision and Rationale

    Aspects of most of the alternatives analyzed in the final EIS are 
currently being used in specific situations in the United States or its 
Territories. Since this final EIS is programmatic in nature and 
national in scope, a single alternative as the sole, all-encompassing 
focus of the ADC program may not adequately cover all wildlife damage 
problems and situations. Therefore, my decision is to send forward to 
regional and local decisionmakers the viable alternatives discussed in 
the final EIS for consideration as management approaches, when 
appropriate, practical, and reasonable, in preparation of local and 
site-specific documents and actions. This approach provides a complete 
range of wildlife damage control strategies available as part of an 
overall integrated management approach. Application of appropriate 
methods will be determined following the processes defined in the ADC 
decision model (EIS, Chapter 2, pages 23-35) and completion of local 
analyses subject to the NEPA process.

Minimizing Environmental Harm

    The final EIS developed a host of mitigation measures that would 
augment the numerous existing program policies, procedures, and 
continuing research efforts, to minimize or eliminate environmental 
impacts. These may be applied at virtually every level of consideration 
and for each [[Page 13401]] appropriate alternative strategy. 
Programmatically, ADC has proposed (and in some instances is already 
implementing) a number of measures, including:
    <bullet> Environmental compliance training for supervisors and 
managers;
    <bullet> The standardization of data collection and reporting;
    <bullet> Consultation, monitoring, and periodic evaluations; and
    <bullet> An outreach element, including publishing literature and 
providing training on the application of nonlethal wildlife damage 
control alternatives.
    Many of the programmatic mitigation measures will be incorporated 
into ADC's site-specific environmental compliance documents and 
actions.
    For possible mitigation at the local level, the final EIS listed 24 
specific measures for consideration, for example:
    <bullet> Placing greater emphasis on nonlethal animal damage 
control strategies and techniques;
    <bullet> Insisting upon the use of more human capture devices and 
practices; and
    <bullet> Proving nonlethal control tools to resource managers.
    The complete listing provides a menu to which program 
decisionmakers may refer in various site-specific contexts.

Conclusions

    In this decision, I have determined that:
    <bullet> All currently feasible Animal Damage Control program 
alternatives have been adequately developed and explored, although the 
program intends to continue searching for other environmentally 
preferable means of achieving its mission;
    <bullet> Program decisionmakers will appropriately consider any 
significant environmental impacts and the viable alternatives developed 
in the final EIS in the context of the NEPA process for local actions;
    <bullet> An environmental compliance system, including APHIS' new 
NEPA compliance procedures and ADC's specific accommodation of such 
procedures, will be implemented immediately;
    <bullet> ADC will use the decisionmaking model explained in Chapter 
2 of the final EIS and will follow CEQ regulations and the USDA, APHIS, 
and ADC NEPA compliance procedures.
    <bullet> A satisfactory environmental mitigation strategy at both 
the programmatic and local level has been developed and will be 
implemented, as appropriate.

    Executed in Washington, D.C., this 7th day of March 1995.
Lonnie J. King,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-6097 Filed 3-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-M