[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 134 (Thursday, July 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36159-36161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17226]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service


Record of Decision on the White-Tailed Deer Management Plan Final 
Environmental Impact Statement for Gettysburg National Military Park/
Eisenhower National Historic Site, Pennsylvania

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of release.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended), and the regulations 
promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality in 40 CFR 1505.2, 
the National Park Service (NPS) has released the Record of Decision 
(ROD) on the White-tailed Deer Management Plan, Environmental Impact 
Statement for Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhower National 
Historic Site.

DATES: The Record of Decision was recommended by the Superintendent of 
Gettysburg National Military Park/Eisenhower National Historic Site and 
approved by the Field Director of the Northeast Field Area on June 28, 
1995.

ADDRESSES: Inquiries regarding the Environmental Impact Statement or 
the Record of Decision should be submitted to the Superintendent, 
Gettysburg National Military Park, 97 Taneytown Road, Gettysburg, PA 
17325, telephone (717) 334-1124.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

    Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhower National Historic 
Site, located in Adams County, Pennsylvania, were established for their 
historic significance. Gettysburg National Military Park preserves the 
battlefield at Gettysburg and interprets its significance as one of the 
most eventful battles of the American Civil War. Eisenhower National 
Historic Site is adjacent to the battlefield and interprets the life 
and career of President Dwight D. Eisenhower and the important events 
that occurred there.
    The landscapes of the sites are critical to the interpretation of 
the events that took place in each park. Management objectives for 
maintaining landscape components, specifically historic woodlots and 
cropfields, were developed to enhance visitor understanding of each 
park's events. Perpetuation of the historic woodlots and the rural 
agricultural scene, according to the management objectives, is not 
possible because of deer browsing.

[[Page 36160]]


Background

    In the late 1970's resource managers at the parks noticed 
increasing evidence of deer browsing in the historic woodlots. At the 
same time, permittees that maintain the agricultural fields reported 
increasing deer browsing on field crops. In 1985, research was begun to 
document deer browsing impacts to the woodlots and to determine the 
deer population status, movements, and habitat use. Population surveys 
commenced in 1987 in the 11 square mile deer study area and have 
continued to the present. The April mean population estimates have 
ranged from 721 to 1,441 deer for the study area.
    Data from the study showed that the woodlots and cropfields could 
not be maintained in a way necessary to achieve park management 
objectives. The high level of deer browsing was preventing a sufficient 
number of tree seedlings from becoming established, which is needed to 
perpetuate the historic woodlots. The agricultural program was unable 
to grow historical crops to maturity in Eisenhower NHS and the southern 
part of Gettysburg NMP due to deer browsing.
    In 1992, the parks proposed to manage the level of deer browsing in 
the parks so the landscape management objectives could be met. The 
estimated number of deer in the study area that will have a level of 
deer browsing that allows the parks to meet their landscape management 
objectives is approximately 80 deer (see Appendix C and Appendix E of 
the EIS). The 1995 population survey estimated 1,148 deer in the study 
area.
    Reasonable options for controlling the level of deer browsing were 
investigated. The decision was made to complete an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) in order to reach a decision on the best deer 
management alternative that would enable the parks to meet their 
management objectives. The EIS process was begun on August 21, 1992, 
with the publication in the Federal Register of a Notice of Intent to 
prepare a draft EIS. A public information meeting and a scoping meeting 
were held to identify issues and concerns related to the deer 
management proposal. The Notice of Availability of the draft EIS was 
published in the Federal Register on November 14, 1994. The comment 
period on the draft EIS ended February 10, 1995. Substantive comments 
were responded to in the final EIS which was released May 26, 1995. The 
Notice of Availability of the final EIS appeared in the May 16, 1995, 
Federal Register.

The Selected Action

    The National Park Service has selected a combination approach 
(Alternative 5) to reduce the deer population and thus the level of 
deer browsing in the parks. Alternative 5 is the combination of 
Alternative 2B and Alternative 4. Deer will be shot in the parks by 
authorized personnel (Alternative 2B) and hunted outside the parks by 
licensed hunters in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Game Commission 
and private landowners (Alternative 4). The two methods will be 
repeated, as needed, annually from October through April. The deer 
population will be reduced to a predetermined population density so the 
parks can meet their landscape management objectives.

Basis for Decision

    The selected action addresses the impacts the deer population has 
on the historic woodlots and cropfields, which are components of the 
cultural landscapes of the parks. Without the proposed action, the NPS 
would have increasing difficulty in maintaining the essential landscape 
features necessary for understanding the historic occurrences of each 
park. This action should also reduce deer browsing damage to private 
property near the parks.
    Shooting deer inside and outside of the parks is the most effective 
and efficient method to reduce and maintain the deer population at a 
density which will have acceptable impacts to park woodlots and 
cropfields. With increased public hunting outside the parks and no 
shooting in the parks, there would be limited effect on deer density in 
the parks (see p.65 of the EIS). Alternately, shooting deer only in the 
parks, while hunting on private land remained limited, would diminish 
the effectiveness of reducing deer density in the parks. An effective 
combination approach will have fewer impacts to visitor use and cost 
less than using Alternative 2B alone (see p. 66 of the EIS).
    Encouraging public hunting outside the parks is the preferred 
method, according to NPS policy, for controlling wildlife populations 
in parks. In this case, however, shooting inside the parks will occur 
during the same period. This was determined to be necessary to achieve 
the density goal because it removes the parks as a place where deer 
seek refuge. Hunting is not permitted in either park, because it is not 
authorized by law (see p. 103 of the EIS). Therefore, only NPS 
authorized individuals will be allowed to shoot deer in the parks. The 
NPS will seek to coordinate deer management activities near the parks 
with nearby private landowners and the Pennsylvania Game Commission. 
Private landowners that are willing can increase hunting opportunities 
by allowing or increasing hunter access to their land during the deer 
hunting seasons. The Pennsylvania Game Commission, which establishes 
the length of the hunting seasons and harvest limits in the state, may 
play a crucial role. If the effort to increase public access does not 
result in sufficient deer being killed, the NPS will seek cooperation 
from the Pennsylvania Game Commission to increase the number of deer 
that could be killed near the parks.

Measures To Minimize Impacts and Address Public Concerns

    The selected alternative incorporates a variety of measures to 
minimize the adverse environmental, social, and economic impacts as 
described in the final EIS.
    Visitor safety will be the first priority before and during any 
management action. Shooting in the parks will occur only in areas where 
and when public safety and resource protection is assured. Deer will be 
shot in the parks during both day and nightime hours. To ensure public 
safety, night shooting will be conducted only at bait stations which 
will also improve the effectiveness of the reduction program. Prior to 
each annual reduction period, public notification will be provided as 
to the time period when shooting may occur and the areas where access 
will be restricted or prohibited. This notification will lessen 
inconvenience to visitors and provide for public safety. Only NPS 
authorized individuals highly skilled and trained in the use of 
firearms and public safety will shoot deer in the parks. This 
requirement will result in a humane means of direct reduction and 
reduce the risk of damage to historical resources. The venison will be 
donated to food service organizations for distribution to the needy. 
The hides, if removed, and entrails will be disposed of consistent with 
federal and state laws. In the short term, a large number of deer will 
be killed annually to reach the density goal. When the population is 
reduced to the density goal, fewer deer will need to be killed annually 
to maintain the population at that level. As the management action 
progresses, the remaining deer population will be monitored by park 
personnel. Monitoring information on the deer, woodlots and cropfields, 
will guide the ongoing deer population maintenance program.

[[Page 36161]]

    Some individuals have expressed concerns during the scoping and 
comment periods regarding the alternatives for managing the deer 
population in the parks. Some of the expressed concerns relating to the 
selected alternative included: Killing deer on a historic battlefield; 
that animals will lose their life; and that NPS personnel, not hunters, 
will kill deer in the parks. The NPS acknowledges the feelings and 
concerns of these individuals. Keeping in mind the purpose for which 
each park was established, however, this action was chosen to maintain 
the historic landscapes of the two parks and aid visitor understanding 
of the historic events, while ensuring public safety.

Other Alternatives Considered

    Nine alternatives for controlling the deer browsing in the parks 
were dismissed from further analysis for reasons explained in the EIS. 
The rejected alternatives included: releasing predators; using 
deterrents, repellents, or poison; hunting in the parks; fencing; 
converting cropfields to hay and grass; selling the deer; and allowing 
private landowners to kill as many deer as they wished on their 
property and sell the carcasses for profit. Six alternatives, including 
the proposed action, were considered in the EIS. Alternative 1, No 
Action, considered taking no management action to control the effects 
of deer browsing in the parks. The NPS statutory mission is to preserve 
parks for the enjoyment of present and future generations. The historic 
woodlots could not be perpetuated for future generations under the No 
Action Alternative because deer browsing would continue to prevent 
seedlings from becoming established. In addition, the parks could not 
meet their landscape management objectives for cropfields with the No 
Action Alternative.
    Alternative 2A, Capture and Transfer, discussed deer population 
management through capturing and relocating the deer. Live trapping for 
relocation, according to NPS policy, is the preferred method for 
controlling wildlife populations within parks. Suitable relocation 
sites outside the parks, however, have not been identified (see p. 61 
of the EIS). Deer-related problems are amplified at the release site if 
deer are transferred to an unsuitable location. The Pennsylvania Game 
Commission will not support requests for permits to transfer any 
trapped deer (see Pennsylvania Game Commission comment letter p. 105-1 
in final EIS). Transferring deer also requires the long-term commitment 
of a large amount of resources.
    Alternative 3, Reproductive Intervention, explored surgical 
sterilization and contraception of deer. This alternative was a 
component of the preferred alternative in the draft EIS. The use of 
contraceptives on deer, which are considered food-producing animals, 
must be approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Contraceptive 
vaccines and steroids to control deer reproduction for population 
management have not been approved for use at this time. In addition, 
surgical sterilization was considered impractical because of the large 
number of deer in the parks. This alternative was, therefore, rejected 
and removed from the preferred alternative in the final EIS.
    Alternative 2B, Direct Reduction, is management of the deer 
population in the parks through shooting by NPS personnel and 
authorized agents. Alternative 4, Cooperative Management, is the 
combined effort of the NPS, Pennsylvania Game Commission, and nearby 
private landowners to increase public hunting opportunities outside the 
parks. These two alternatives comprise the selected alternative, 
Alternative 5, Combined Management.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    The environmentally preferred alternative is the one that causes 
the least damage to the biological and physical environment. It is the 
alternative or alternatives which best protect, preserve, and enhance 
the historic, cultural, and natural resources in the area where the 
proposed action is to take place.
    Alternative 5, Combined Management, is the selected action and the 
environmentally preferred alternative. The combination of shooting deer 
inside and outside the parks will be the most successful at reducing 
the number of deer in the parks. This action will reduce the park deer 
population so park management objectives may be achieved. The historic 
and cultural resources are particularly important at these parks. The 
reduced deer density in the parks will make it possible for the 
historic woodlots to regenerate and the agricultural programs at the 
battlefield and the Eisenhower Farm to maintain the cropfield component 
of the cultural landscapes. The reduced level of deer browsing will 
result in an increase in abundance and diversity of herbaceous and 
woody vegetation. This reduction, not elimination, of the deer 
population in the parks will enhance the protection and preservation of 
the historic, cultural, and other natural resources of each park.
    Capture and transfer was initially considered as another 
environmentally preferred alternative. Suitable relocation sites and 
transfer permits, however, are not available. Even if relocation sites 
could be found, the ability of capture and transfer to control deer 
populations on a long-term basis has not been proven for large 
populations (see p. 61 of the EIS). This alternative, therefore, was 
not selected as an environmentally preferred alternative.

Conclusion

    The above factors and considerations justify selection of the 
preferred alternative as identified and detailed in the final EIS.
    In July, park personnel will begin dialogue with local private 
landowners in an effort to increase hunting opportunities on private 
lands near the parks. An action plan will be written for the deer 
reduction efforts in the parks. Killing deer to reduce and maintain the 
population at a level where park landscape management objectives are 
met is proposed to begin in October, 1995.

    Dated: July 5, 1995.
Warren D. Beach,
Northeast Field Area, Acting Associate Field Director.
[FR Doc. 95-17226 Filed 7-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M