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

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]]

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 wildlife-caused 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 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:

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