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

13399

Vol. 60, No. 48

Monday, March 13, 1995

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:
13400 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 1995 / Notices

• A statement of what the decision is;

• The identification of all alternatives

considered by the agency, including the

environmentally preferable

alternative(s);

• A discussion of factors (economic,

technical, and agency statutory mission)

and essential considerations of national

policy balanced in the decisionmaking

process and how each factor weighs in

the decision; and

• An explanation of whether the

decision (the alternative selected) is

designed to avoid or minimize

environmental harm and, if not, why

not.

The final EIS prepared by ADC is

programmatic in nature. The EIS

process was undertaken to explore

issues and alternatives associated with

program implementation, to identify

data elements and other information

necessary to evaluate effects at the

programmatic and project levels, and to

assist in the development of a flexible

framework within which effects of

various alternatives may be considered

in site-specific contexts that are

consistent with the documentation and

procedural requirements of NEPA.

Program Alternatives

The final EIS rigorously explored and

objectively evaluated, in detail, five

alternative strategies that may be

utilized by program personnel in

different site-specific settings. In

addition, eight other alternatives that

involved restructuring or broadly

applied, single-focus approaches, were

presented and briefly considered. The

five alternative strategies considered in

detail are:

• The current program (the integrated

pest management alternative), which

consists of various practices and

techniques, including both nonlethal

and lethal actions, that are available for

formulating a damage control strategy

consistent with applicable State and

local requirements, cooperative

agreements, and interagency

arrangements

• A system of compensation, as a

replacement for ADC program actions,

to pay partially or fully, for agricultural

losses due to damages by wildlife;

• No action, under which USDA–

APHIS funded wildlife damage control

activities would cease with no specified

provisions for replacement measures—

compensation or other;

• Use and recommendation of only

nonlethal methods to control wildlifecaused damage, precluding the use or

recommendation of any and all methods

that are directly lethal to wildlife; and

• A requirement that practical

nonlethal methods of wildlife damage

control be recommended or used in

each situation prior to recommending or

using any lethal methods.

Integrated pest management (the

current alternative) has been identified

by ADC as both its ‘‘preferred’’

alternative and the ‘‘environmentally

preferable’’ alternative.

A principal function of an EIS is its

use by Federal officials, in conjunction

with other relevant materials, to plan

actions and make decisions. As a

practical matter, the integrated pest

management alternative includes nearly

all animal damage control options and

tools available to ADC officials at the

project level. How these or other options

will be developed and integrated

efficiently into program planning and

decisionmaking consistent with NEPA

and other environmental mandates are

addressed in the new APHIS NEPA

implementing procedures. Specifically,

ADC reaffirms its intention that

nonlethal control methods as the means

of achieving project goals will be

considered, recommended, and, when

appropriate, applied prior to

recommending or using lethal methods

(ADC Directive 2.101).

The APHIS Framework for

Environmental Decisionmaking

The starting point for environmental

decisionmaking by agencies of the

Federal Government is NEPA. The CEQ

implementing regulations require

agencies to integrate the NEPA process

into their planning and to establish

procedures to facilitate compliance with

the Act. The final EIS prematurely

asserted that APHIS had new, finalized

NEPA compliance procedures. In fact,

as stated above, APHIS only recently

promulgated its new NEPA compliance

procedures (60 FR 6000–6005, February

1, 1995). The ADC program has adapted

its planning and decisionmaking

practices to these new procedures. ADC,

in compliance with the APHIS

Regulations, is structuring a costeffective 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 1995 / Notices 13401

appropriate alternative strategy.

Programmatically, ADC has proposed

(and in some instances is already

implementing) a number of measures,

including:

• Environmental compliance training

for supervisors and managers;

• The standardization of data

collection and reporting;

• Consultation, monitoring, and

periodic evaluations; and

• An outreach element, including

publishing literature and providing

training on the application of nonlethal

wildlife damage control alternatives.

Many of the programmatic mitigation

measures will be incorporated into

ADC’s site-specific environmental

compliance documents and actions.

For possible mitigation at the local

level, the final EIS listed 24 specific

measures for consideration, for example:

• Placing greater emphasis on

nonlethal animal damage control

strategies and techniques;

• Insisting upon the use of more

human capture devices and practices;

and

• Proving nonlethal control tools to

resource managers.

The complete listing provides a menu

to which program decisionmakers may

refer in various site-specific contexts.

Conclusions

In this decision, I have determined

that:

• All currently feasible Animal

Damage Control program alternatives

have been adequately developed and

explored, although the program intends

to continue searching for other

environmentally preferable means of

achieving its mission;

• Program decisionmakers will

appropriately consider any significant

environmental impacts and the viable

alternatives developed in the final EIS

in the context of the NEPA process for

local actions;

• An environmental compliance

system, including APHIS’ new NEPA

compliance procedures and ADC’s

specific accommodation of such

procedures, will be implemented

immediately;

• ADC will use the decisionmaking

model explained in Chapter 2 of the

final EIS and will follow CEQ

regulations and the USDA, APHIS, and

ADC NEPA compliance procedures.

• A satisfactory environmental

mitigation strategy at both the

programmatic and local level has been

developed and will be implemented, as

appropriate.

Executed in Washington, D.C., this 7th day

of March 1995.

Lonnie J. King,

Acting Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–6097 Filed 3–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–M

Forest Service

Intergovernmental Advisory

Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Intergovernmental

Advisory Committee (IAC) will meet on

March 28 and 29, 1995, at the Sheraton

Portland Airport Hotel, 8235 N.E.

Airport Way, Portland, Oregon 97230.

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss

the role of the committee in the

implementation of the Northwest Forest

Plan. The meeting will begin at 1:30

p.m. on March 28 and continue until

4:30 p.m. It will resume at 8:30 a.m. on

March 29, concluding at 3:00 p.m.

Agenda items to be covered include: (1)

background on the Northwest Forest

Plan; (2) introduction of members and

general orientation; (3) operating

guidelines and ground rules; (4) a

summary of actions taken by the federal

agencies regarding plan

implementation; and (5) a discussion of

topics to be addressed at future

meetings. The IAC meeting will be open

to the public. Written comments may be

submitted for the record at the meeting.

Time will also be scheduled prior to

adjourning on March 28 for brief oral

public comments. Interested persons are

encouraged to attend.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions regarding this meeting may

be directed to Don Knowles, Executive

Director, Regional Ecosystem Office, 333

SW 1st Avenue, P.O. Box 3623,

Portland, OR 97208 (Phone: 503–326–

6265).

Dated: March 7, 1995.

Donald R. Knowles,

Designated Federal Official.

[FR Doc. 95–6057 Filed 3–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

Natural Resources Conservation

Service

PME–6 Southwest White Lake Shore

Protection Demonstration Project

AGENCY: Natural Resources

Conservation Service, formerly Soil

Conservation Service.

ACTION: Notice of finding of no

significant impact.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C)

of the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969; the Council on

Environmental Quality Guidelines (40

CFR part 1500); and the Soil

Conservation Service Guidelines (7 CFR

part 650); the Natural Resources

Conservation Service, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, gives notice that an

environmental impact statement is not

being prepared for the Southwest White

Lake Shore Protection Demonstration

Project, Vermilion Parish, Louisiana.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald W. Gohmert, State

Conservationist, United States

Department of Agriculture, Natural

Resources Conservation Service, 3737

Government Street, Alexandria,

Louisiana 71302; telephone (318) 473–

7751.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

environmental evaluation of this

federally assisted action indicates that

the project will not cause significant

local, regional, or national impacts on

the environment. As a result of these

findings, Donald W. Gohmert, State

Conservationist, has determined that the

preparation and review of an

environmental impact statement are not

necessary for this project.

This project concerns the stabilization

and protection of the southwest

shoreline of White Lake in Vermilion,

Parish. The planned project work

consists of planting emergent vegetation

in shallow water at the lake’s edge. As

the vegetation becomes established, it

will function as a buffer against the

erosive wave energy created by the wide

fetch of the lake and artificially high

water levels. Shoreline erosion rates

will be reduced and interior fresh

marshes will remain protected from

incorporation into White Lake.

The Notice of a Finding of No

Significant Impact (FONSI) has been

forwarded to the Environmental

Protection Agency and to various

Federal, State, and local agencies and

interested parties. A limited number of

copies of the FONSI are available to fill

single copy requests at the above

address. Basic data developed during

the environmental evaluation are on file

and may be reviewed by contacting

Donald W. Gohmert.

No administrative action on

implementation of the proposal will be

taken until 30 days after the date of this

publication in the Federal Register.

This activity is being conducted under the

provisions of Public Law 101–646—Coastal