[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