[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 13, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10309-10313]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5972]



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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Noxious Weed Management

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of availability of final policy.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service gives notice of adoption of a final policy 
for noxious weed management in accordance with the 1990 Farm Bill 
amendments to the 1974 Noxious Weed Act. The final policy sets forth 
new direction to Forest Service personnel on the management for control 
of noxious weeds and undesirable plants on National Forest System 
lands, clarifies responsibilities and authorities for noxious weed 
management, and provides for an integrated weed management approach. 
The intended effect is to implement an integrated management approach 
which includes cooperation, education, prevention, treatment, 
containment, and control measures for noxious weed and undesirable 
plant infestations on National Forest System lands.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This policy, issued as Amendment 2000-95-5 to Chapter 
2080 of the Forest Service Manual, was effective November 29, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Questions about this policy should be addressed to Deborah Hayes, Range 
Management Staff, Forest Service, USDA, P.O. Box 96090, Washington, DC 
20090-6090 or telephone (202) 205-1460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Expansion of noxious weed infestation increasingly threatens 
susceptible land and water and can adversely affect food production, 
wilderness values, wildlife habitat, visual quality, forage production, 
reforestation, recreation opportunities, and land values.
    In November 1990, in section 1453 of the 1990 Farm Bill (7 U.S.C. 
2801 et seq.), Congress amended section 15 of the 1974 Noxious Weed Act 
to strengthen USDA's noxious weed management efforts. Pursuant to the 
1990 amendment, the Secretary of Agriculture is to develop and 
coordinate a management program on National Forest System lands for 
control of noxious weeds and undesirable plants which are harmful, 
injurious, poisonous, or toxic, to establish and adequately fund the 
program; to complete and implement cooperative agreements regarding the 
management of noxious weeds on National Forest System lands; and to 
establish an integrated weed management approach to control or contain 
species identified and targeted under cooperative agreements and/or 
memorandums of understanding.
    Additionally, the act authorizes the Forest Service to cooperate 
with State, county, and other Federal agencies in the application and 
enforcement of all laws and regulations relating to the management and 
control of noxious weeds.
    In response to the 1990 Farm Bill, the Forest Service issued 
Interim Directive (ID) 2080-92-1 to Forest Service Manual Chapter 2080, 
Noxious Weed Management on August 3, 1992. Notice of this ID, with a 
request for public comment, was published in the Federal Register at 58 
FR 6429. This ID expired February 3, 1994.
    On February 18, 1994, the Forest Service reissued Interim Directive 
2080-92-1 as Interim Directive (ID) 2080-94-1. This ID expired August 
18, 1995. As a matter of agency directive system policy, the direction 
could not be reissued as interim direction again. Therefore, on August 
31, 1995, the Forest Service issued Amendment 2000-95-3 to Forest 
Service Manual Chapter 2080, Noxious Weed Management, which kept the 
direction in force until a final revised policy, based on consideration 
of comments received from the public, could be issued.
    The final noxious weed management policy, Amendment 2000-95-5, 
issued on November 29, 1995, reflects careful consideration of comments 
received. The direction requires an Integrated Weed Management approach 
to meet vegetation management goals documented in Forest Land and 
Resource Management plans. Stated goals are to prevent the introduction 
and establishment of new noxious weed infestations; to contain and 
suppress existing noxious weed infestations; and to cooperate with 
State and local agencies, local landowners, weed control districts and 
boards, and other Federal agencies in management and control of noxious 
weeds. The noxious weed management program provides an opportunity for 
employees, users of National Forest System lands, adjacent landowners, 
and State agencies to increase their knowledge about noxious weed 
threats to native plant communities and ecosystems. Single copies of 
Forest Service Amendment

[[Page 10310]]
2000-95-5 may be obtained by contacting the Range Management Staff at 
the address listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Summary of Comments Received

    In response to ID 2080-92-1, published in this Federal Register on 
December 6, 1993, with request for comment, 18 people submitted written 
comments. Of the 18 letters, 6 were from Federal agencies, 1 was from a 
State department of transportation, 3 were from State departments of 
agriculture, 2 were from weed management associations, 1 was from a 
native plant society, 1 was from a professional society, 1 was from a 
weed advisory council, and 3 were from individuals. This respondents 
represented the District of Columbia and nine States: Nevada, Florida, 
Maryland, Colorado, South Dakota, California, Oregon, New York, and 
Idaho.
    The respondents broadly supported the overall policy direction for 
the noxious weeds management program. Comments dealt with funding, line 
officer responsibilities, program staffing, training, proposed weed 
classification system, definitions, flexibility for the local level, 
types of materials covered by closures, and activities that spread 
noxious weeds.
    A summary of specific comments were received and organized by broad 
subject area, and the agency's response follows:
    1. Comments: Objectives. Section 2080.2 of ID 2080-92-1 set out 
several noxious weed management objectives. Paragraph 2 of that section 
stated that one objective was to ``Prevent the introduction and 
establishment of new noxious weed infestations.'' One respondent 
thought it important to prevent the introduction of noxious weeds, but 
that this was not part of a management program. Furthermore, this 
respondent stated that the prevention of the introduction and 
establishment of noxious weeds is of critical importance to all lands 
in the United States, not just to Forest Service lands. Since the 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has this broad 
responsibility, this respondent was unsure how the Forest Service could 
coordinate this activity purely in relation to Federal lands under 
Forest Service jurisdiction.
    Response: As defined in the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (7 
U.S.C. 2801 et seq.) as integrated weed management program includes 
prevention; therefore, preventing introduction of noxious weeds on 
National Forest System lands and from National Forest System lands to 
other lands is considered a vital part of ongoing management and is 
appropriately addressed in a Forest Service directive. This directive 
applies only to management of noxious weeds in relation to management 
of National Forest System lands and does not usurp any role or 
authority of the Animal and Plant and Health Inspection Service. 
Therefore, the prevention objectives were retained in the final policy.
    2. Comments: Policy. Section 2080.3 of ID 2080-92-1 establishes a 
policy to ``Develop, coordinate, and allocate adequate funds, to the 
extent funds are made available, for a noxious weed management program 
for NFS lands * * *.'' One respondent suggested deleting the words, 
``to the extent funds are available,'' on the grounds that these words 
created the impression that the Noxious Weed Management program might 
be inadequately funded. Additionally, two respondents suggested 
including, as part of the final directive, the South Dakota Guidelines 
for coordinated management of noxious weeds. Another respondent 
recommended including words in the policy section that emphasize 
biodiversity.
    Response: The agency has reworded the ``to the extent funds are 
available'' statement to be more positive, that is to ``Establish and 
adequately fund the program.'' The agency did consider the 
recommendation to include South Dakota Guidelines for the coordinated 
management of noxious weeds as part of its final policy statement and 
determined that guidelines of this type are appropriate to technical 
handbooks and thus, under agency directive system policy cannot be 
issued as Manual direction. In response to the recommendation to 
emphasize biodiversity, this goal is addressed by other agency policies 
and through the forest planning process. Therefore, this recommendation 
was not adopted.
    3. Comments: Scale of Planning. Two respondents felt that in order 
for effective exotic-invader control to occur, it is imperative for the 
agency to develop a plan on an ecosystem-wide basis that would include 
``* * * long term inter-agency and inter-jurisdictional strategic 
planning, inventory, agency and public education, conventional and 
innovative control procedures as well as long term commitment * * *.''
    Response: By law, the Forest Service must prepare land and resource 
management plans on a forest unit basis. Also, this agency engages in 
assessments and inventories at multiple scales, including ecoregional 
assessments and involves its Federal and State partners in these 
efforts. The final policy includes language that allows and promotes 
planning in cooperation with other Federal and State agencies, county 
and local governments, and individuals; supports education and sharing 
of information; and considers multiple techniques for control and 
noxious weeds.
    4. Comments: Project-level Analysis and Management. Paragraph 3 of 
section 2080.32, Project-level Analysis and Management, of ID 2080-92-1 
stated that the agency personnel must ``Ensure that environmental 
controls and objectives are met for threatened and endangered or other 
species, as specified in applicable laws, policy, and regulations for 
project-level actions, as provided in the NEPA process.'' One 
respondent believed this implied that consideration for endangered 
species took priority over other activities when planning for the 
management of noxious weeds. While this respondent thought that 
endangered species, in general, needed to be protected, this reviewer 
also thought endangered species in a very small area may need to be 
sacrificed in order to avoid the spread of a noxious weed infestation 
to multi-millions of acres. Another person stated that the Noxious Weed 
Management policy contained no references to coordination with existing 
Forest Service policy on threatened and endangered species.
    Response: Compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) takes 
priority over the 1974 Noxious Weed Act. Coordination of the noxious 
weed management activities with existing threatened and endangered 
species policy is addressed under Prevention and Control Measures in 
section 2081.2 of the final policy; however, section 2080.32 of ID 
2080-92-1 was not retained in the final policy, because project level 
planning is adequately addressed in the Forest Planning section or in 
other applicable agency directives.
    5. Comment: Prevention and Control Measures. Section 2080.33 in ID 
2080-92-1 set out methods and approaches for prevention, control, and 
management of the spread of noxious weeds. One respondent indicated 
that the activity of prevention and control was the responsibility of 
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), not of the 
Forest Service.
    Response: The respondent's statement that prevention and control is 
the responsibility of APHIS is correct as far as introduction of new 
species into the United States is concerned. However, when new invaders 
threaten National Forest System lands, the Forest Service is authorized 
to cooperate with local

[[Page 10311]]
prevention and control efforts on a State-by-State or county-by-county 
basis, under Departmental Regulation 9500-10 issued January 18, 1990, 
and under final policy 2000-95-5, section 2080.2, which states, ``To 
use an integrated weed management approach to control and contain the 
spread of noxious weeds on National Forest System lands and from 
National Forest System lands to adjacent lands.''
    6. Comment: Mandatory Compliance With State Law. Paragraph 3 in 
section 2080.33 of the ID stated that ``Where States have enacted 
legislation and have an active program to make weed-free forage 
available, forest officers should issue orders restricting the 
transport of feed, hay, straw, or mulch that is not declared weed-
free,'' as provided in 36 CFR Parts 261.50(a) and 261.58(t). Some 
reviewers recommended changing the directive word ``should issue'' to 
``shall issue,'' requiring mandatory compliance by agency officials, 
because weed-free hay, feed, mulch, and straw programs are powerful 
preventive measures and could save the Forest Service and taxpayers 
substantial money.
    Response: As to the suggested word change from ``should'' to 
``shall,'' the agency agrees and has adopted this recommended change to 
require mandatory compliance with State laws restricting transport of 
materials stated which are not declared weed-free.
    7. Comment: List of Weed-free Materials. Another respondent 
recommended that the Prevention and Control Measures section include 
soils, mulches, borrow materials, and sod in the list of materials that 
are required to be weed-free.
    Response: Many, but not all, of the items recommended for inclusion 
in the final policy are listed in section 2081 Management of Noxious 
Weeds of the final policy. However, the agency is not precluded from 
taking action to prevent the introduction of weeds through any source.
    8. Comment: Expanding Prevention and Control Measures. One 
respondent questioned how weed-free hay could be regulated, how the 
program would be implemented, and whether it applies to livestock. 
Three respondents recommended addressing prevention and control 
measures as they pertain to other uses such as recreational activities 
on the National Forest System by adding references to recreationists, 
sports persons, and other forest visitors.
    Response: The agency agrees with the suggestion that direction 
should address prevention and control of the spread of noxious weeds 
from recreational and other activities. Pursuant to 36 CFR part 261, 
Subpart B, the Forest Service may issue orders prohibiting the 
possession, storage, and transportation of plants or parts of plants, 
which may cause introduction of noxious weeds onto National Forest 
System lands. Therefore, the agency may restrict use, such as livestock 
grazing and recreational activities, that effectuate the introduction 
of noxious weeds.
    9. Comment: Cooperation. Section 2080.34 of ID 2080-92-1 set out 
criteria for cooperative agreements between the Forest Service and 
other Federal and State agencies and County and local governments, as 
well as the Forest Service and individuals. Paragraph 2 in this section 
addressed ``cooperative research that defines the ecological 
requirements of noxious weeds, cost-effective management strategies, 
and beneficial uses.'' One respondent asked if the term ``beneficial 
uses'' referred to beneficial uses of weds or to the beneficial use of 
the land occupied by the weeds. Another respondent commented on 
Paragraph 3.c. of this section that referred to ``Research and using 
desirable plant species that are competitive with noxious weeds.'' The 
respondent said this statement does not define ``desirable plant.''
    Response: The agency believes that the text makes clear that the 
term ``beneficial uses'' refers solely to beneficial uses of weeds. 
Therefore, no changes were made. In reference to the comment on 
``desirable plants,'' the definition of ``desirable plant'' varies, 
since desirability depends on local ecosystem objectives. Therefore, 
the agency did not define desirable plant in this final policy.
    10. Comment: Education and Public Awareness. One reviewer expressed 
concern about the introduction of noxious weeds by humans (on clothing, 
vehicles, all terrain vehicles, camping gear, etc.) and animals.
    Response: The Forest Service is also concerned about this issue and 
sets out in section 2080.4 of final policy 2000-95-5 responsibilities 
that include development of public education programs and dissemination 
of information to the public about the threat of noxious weeds and 
potential methods of spreading them. Section 2082 of the final policy, 
the Cooperation section, includes direction to cooperate with other 
Federal, State, local and international agencies, and universities by 
developing educational and public awareness material and handbooks. 
This direction and emphasis was retained without change from that in 
the ID.
    11. Comment: Managers' Responsibilities. Section 2080.4 of ID 2080-
92-1 included the responsibility for each administrative level of the 
agency to appoint a noxious weed program coordinator. One respondent 
recommended that the words ``who is adequately trained in management of 
noxious weeds'' be inserted to require the appointment of adequately 
trained managers as specified in Section 15 of the Federal Noxious Weed 
Act. Another respondent suggested that in section 2080.4 the agency 
should require that field programs have a fully staffed and funded weed 
management specialist and not assign a staff person the weed management 
duties as a secondary assignment.
    Response: In Section 2080.4 of the final policy, Regional 
Foresters, Forest Supervisors, and District Rangers are assigned 
responsibility to appoint noxious weed program responsibilities and to 
provide training. The specific elements of the training program are 
developed and tailored to meet the Noxious Weed Management training 
needs of the agency. The Forest Service does not have full time noxious 
weed management positions in many staff areas, because there is 
insufficient workload to warrant a full time position. The designated 
officials are responsible for the completion of the work required and 
have the discretion to hire additional employees based upon their 
noxious weed management workload.
    12. Comment: Definitions. Section 2080.5 of ID 2080-92-1 defined 
noxious weeds as ``those plant species designated as noxious by Federal 
or State law.'' One respondent raised the issue that the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service can not participate in programs on weed 
management that are listed solely on a State noxious weed list.
    In this section of the ID, Integrated Weed Management was defined 
as ``A process for managing noxious weeds that considers other 
resources, uses an interdisciplinary approach, and incorporates a 
variety of methods for prevention and control. Methods include 
education, preventative measures, physical or mechanical methods, 
biological control, chemical methods, and cultural methods such as 
livestock or wildlife grazing strategies which accomplish vegetation 
management objective.''
    The North American Weed Management Association (NAWMA) suggested 
that ``Integrated Weed Management'' (IWM) be defined as ``Integrated 
Weed Management, within the context of ecosystem management, is the 
planning and implementation of a coordinated, ecologically-based 
program using all proven methods to prevent, contain, and control 
noxious weeds to achieve the optimum

[[Page 10312]]
management desired with the least possible environmental damage. IWM 
uses an interdisciplinary approach and incorporates a variety of 
methods including education, preventive measures, physical or 
mechanical methods, biological control agents, herbicide methods, 
cultural methods, and management practices such as manipulation of 
livestock or wildlife grazing strategies, or improving wildlife or 
livestock habitat.''
    Another respondent suggested the need for a definition of ``noxious 
weed'' that included other plants not listed by Federal or State 
government. One respondent stated that, by definition, indigenous 
plants cannot be included in the ``Undesirable Plants'' category.
    Response: Addressing the role of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service is outside the scope of Forest Service policy.
    In Section 2080.5 of the final policy, the Integrated Weed 
Management definition has been changed to more closely reflect the 
terminology in section 15 of the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 and 
now defines integrated weed management as follows:

    An interdisciplinary pest management approach for selecting 
methods for preventing, containing, and controlling noxious weeds in 
coordination with other resource management activities to achieve 
optimum management goals and objectives. Methods include: education, 
preventive measures, herbicide, cultural, physical or mechanical 
methods, biological control agents, and general land management 
practices, such as manipulation of livestock or wildlife grazing 
strategies, that accomplish vegetation management objectives.

    The definition of noxious weed has not been expanded. The agency 
believes the most defensible approach is to define noxious weeds as 
those plants species officially recognized by the legal jurisdictions 
in which the agency operates. Endangered species and indigenous plants 
are not included in the definition of ``Undesirable Plants.'' This is 
consistent with section 15 of the Federal Weed Act of 1974.
    13. Comment: National Weed Classification System. A respondent 
indicated that the description of ``Class B'' noxious weeds was 
confusing as stated in paragraph 2 in section 2081.2 of ID 2080-92-1. 
The description stated ``Those noxious weeds that are non-native 
(exotic) species that are of limited distribution or are unrecorded in 
a region of the State but are common in other regions of the State. 
Class B plants receive second highest priority. Management emphasis is 
to contain the spread, decrease population size, and eventually 
eliminate the infestation when cost effective technology is 
available.''
    Another respondent questioned whether the proposed National Noxious 
Weed Classification System defined in section 2080.2 of ID 2080-92-1 
would be used throughout all National Forests or if each forest would 
have its own list. The respondent expressed concern that confusion will 
arise if each one uses a separate classification system.
    Response: The agency agrees that a separate national classification 
system was confusing. Therefore, the agency has decided to use the same 
classification system of noxious weeds as that used by the respective 
State in which the National Forest System lands are located.
    14. Comment: Memorandums of Understanding/Cooperative Agreements. 
Section 2082 of the Interim Directive 2080-92-1 set out basic criteria 
for Memorandums of Understanding and Cooperative Agreements. One 
respondent suggested modifying the wording on cooperative agreements to 
provide for greater flexibility at the state/regional level and have 
the local agreements spell out the specifics of a control program.
    Response: The agency agrees and has made this change in the final 
policy.

Additional Changes

    In addition to the changes due to comments, the agency deemed it 
necessary to change portions of the text to clarify the content, move 
and re-number sections in a different sequence, and emphasize 
subsections by making them sections. In the Objectives section, the 
first objective was deleted. Sections, Forest Planning and Prevention 
and Control, are now under section 2081--Management of Noxious Weeds.
    The section, Project-level Analysis and Management, was deleted, 
because it was redundant of direction on addressing noxious weeds in 
Forest Land and Resources Management plans and through NEPA compliance.
    The agency revised section 2080.33 of the ID, Prevention and 
Control Measures, to clarify how prevention and control measures are 
determined. Prevention and Control Measures contains the priority for 
work and directs that project managers ensure applicable laws, policy, 
regulations and planning direction be followed.
    Section 2080.34 of the ID, Cooperation, is now a separate section 
2082--Cooperation.
    Section 2080.35 of the ID, Education and Policy Awareness, has been 
deleted. The responsibility for education is now addressed in 2080.4--
Responsibility, where appropriate.
    Section 2080.36 of the ID, Information Collection and Reporting, 
now section 2083--Information Collection and Reporting.
    Paragraph 1 of section 2080.42, Responsibility--Regional Forester 
is redundant of Forest Land and Resource Management planning, therefore 
it was changed by removing the statement. Paragraph 4 was removed since 
priorities would be determined by State classification system and 
Forest level planning. Paragraph 4 of this section was removed, since 
priorities would be determined by State classification system and 
Forest level planning.
    Paragraphs 1 and 6 of section 2080.43 of the ID, Responsibility--
Forest Supervisor, was removed. Paragraph 1 referred to the statement 
of responsibilities for preventing and controlling noxious weeds and 
paragraph 6 referred to preparing noxious weed risk assessments. These 
are covered by the responsibilities of the District Ranger.
    Section 2081.3 of the ID, Training, was deleted, because it has 
been placed in the appropriate section of managers' responsibilities in 
the final policy.

Regulatory Impact

    This final policy has been reviewed under USDA procedures and 
Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review. It has been 
determined that this is not a significant rule. This policy will not 
have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy nor 
adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, 
public health or safety, nor State or local governments. This rule will 
not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency nor 
raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, this action will not alter 
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients of such programs. 
Accordingly, this final rule is not subject to OMB review under 
Executive Order 12866.
    Moreover, this final policy has been considered in light of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and it has been 
determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities as defined by that Act. The 
rule imposes no additional requirements on the affected public.

Environmental Impact

    Section 31.1b of Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 (57 FR 43180; 
September 18, 1992) excludes from documentation in an environmental 
assessment or impact statement ``rules,

[[Page 10313]]
regulations, or policies to establish Service-wide administrative 
procedures, program processes or instructions.'' Based on consideration 
of the comments received and the nature and scope of this 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.

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public

    This policy does not contain any recordkeeping or reporting 
requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 
5 CFR 1320 and, therefore, imposes no paperwork burden on the public. 
Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and implementing regulations at 5 CFR 
1320 do not apply.

Unfunded Mandates Reform

    Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 
which the President signed into law on March 22, 1995, the Department 
has assessed the effects of this rule on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private section. The noxious weed management policy 
directs only the work of Forest Service employees and does not compel 
the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, or tribal 
governments or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement 
under section 202 of the act is not required.

    Dated: March 7, 1996.
David M. Unger,
Associate Chief.
[FR Doc. 96-5972 Filed 3-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M