[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 103 (Thursday, May 29, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32084-32086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-13338]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Elk and Vegetation Management Plan, Environmental Impact 
Statement, Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
for the Elk and Vegetation Management Plan, Rocky Mountain National 
Park.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 
U.S.C 4332(C), the National Park Service is preparing an Environmental 
Impact Statement for the Elk and Vegetation Management Plan for Rocky 
Mountain National Park, Colorado. This effort will result in a plan for 
adaptively managing elk and vegetation that addresses important 
environmental and social

[[Page 32085]]

issues in the Rocky Mountain National Park area. Rocky Mountain 
National Park is the lead agency and the final decision will be made by 
the Regional Director, Intermountain Region. Because of the regional 
nature of issues concerning management of the migratory elk herd, the 
park has joined with the following agencies to create an interagency 
planning team: Town of Estes Park, Estes Valley Recreation and Parks 
District, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Arapaho-Roosevelt National 
Forest, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Town of Grand Lake, Grand County, 
and Larimer County. Consultations are ongoing with the Northern Arapaho 
and Northern Ute Tribes.
    The appropriate population size and associated effects of elk in 
Rocky Mountain National Park and the Town of Estes Park have been 
intensely debated since the 1930s. The current elk population size is 
about 3,000 animals. Recent research results indicate that the elk 
population size, distribution, and migratory patterns are outside the 
range of variability that would be expected under natural conditions. 
This has resulted largely because the influence of any significant 
predation (including hunting) is missing from the system. All major, 
natural predators of elk were gone from the area by the early 1900s; 
and hunting on adjacent U.S. Forest Service and private lands has 
become largely ineffective due to extensive land development in and 
around Estes Park and elk habituation to residential areas.
    The increase in the size and concentration of the elk population is 
resulting in a number of adverse effects in the area.
    To date, the planning team has done some preliminary work to 
identify the purpose and need of an Elk and Vegetation Management Plan, 
as well as management tools that the agencies could potentially use to 
address specific needs. The planning team has not yet created 
alternatives and will draw heavily on the public input to both modify 
work to date and begin to build alternatives. The ``need for action'' 
summarizes the existing problems; e.g., it explains why the agencies 
are taking action at all:

    The National Park Service is obliged by law and policy to 
maintain and restore, to the extent possible, natural conditions and 
processes in park units. The elk herd in the vicinity of Rocky 
Mountain National Park and Estes Park is larger, less migratory, and 
more concentrated than it would be under natural conditions. As a 
result, aspen and willow communities, which support high levels of 
biodiversity, are declining on the winter range, and grasslands are 
grazed at extremely high levels. The herd concentrates in safe areas 
of the Park and Estes Park in the winter, where elk strip 
vegetation, cause property damage, and pose an increasing threat to 
tourists and residents as the numbers of encounters between elk and 
humans increase. Additional impacts include the drain on agency 
resources, as staff is called in to help manage human/elk conflicts.

    Purpose is an overarching statement of what the plan must do to be 
considered a success. The team has identified the following as the 
purpose of the Elk and Vegetation Management Plan:

    Reduce the impacts of elk on vegetation, as well as human/elk 
conflicts, and restore, to the extent possible, the natural range of 
variability in both the elk population and affected plant 
communities, while providing for elk viewing opportunities, 
associated recreational opportunities, and economic benefits.

    Some of the specific issues that the plan is likely to address 
include: the size and distribution of the elk population; disrupted 
migration patterns; aspen and willow declines on the core winter range; 
locally high levels of herbivory; impacts on biodiversity; the risk of 
elk to human safety; damage to private property; lack of major natural 
predators; limited access to areas outside the Park that are open to 
hunting; traffic congestion and motor vehicle accidents; the importance 
of elk viewing to park visitors and local residents; maintaining 
recreational opportunities associated with elk (e.g., viewing, 
hunting); the significance of the elk herd to tourism and local 
economies; and the need for consistency with interagency objectives for 
managing chronic wasting disease. Additional issues will be identified 
by the public during the scoping process.
    The planning team is committed to involving the interested and 
affected public in working through preliminary work to date, as well as 
future components of the planning process. This includes framing an 
appropriate range of alternatives. Although the team has not created 
alternatives, it has identified some management tools that may be 
useful in resolving the problems and planning issues identified above. 
These tools include the use of barriers (e.g., fences, rock/log piles), 
hazing (e.g., cracker shells or other noisemaking devices, rubber 
bullets) or herding (e.g., herding dogs, riders on horseback, people in 
golf carts, or people on foot with elk sticks), chemical repellents, 
habitat improvement in strategic locations, vegetation manipulation 
(e.g., cutting, planting, prescribed fire), water manipulations (e.g., 
reestablishing beaver, creating artificial dams), predator 
reintroduction, fertility control, hunting, and agency culling. Some of 
these tools would be more effective than others, and some would have 
more serious environmental consequences than others. Analysis of both 
effectiveness and impacts will be part of the Environmental Impact 
Statement.
    As noted above, the agencies consider public participation and 
input to be key in the planning and environmental impact analysis 
process guiding preparation of the Draft Elk and Vegetation Management 
Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Therefore, the planning team 
will offer several opportunities for education and involvement as part 
of scoping. A scoping brochure and webpage linked to the Rocky Mountain 
National Park Internet site (http://www.nps.gov/romo/ romo/) will be 
available by summer 2003. The scoping brochure and webpage will provide 
background information, describe the planning process, and identify 
opportunities for public involvement. The scoping brochure will be 
distributed to all parties on the project mailing list as well as other 
potentially interested stakeholders that are identified. The planning 
team will also conduct public scoping meetings, which at this time are 
anticipated in the summer of 2003. Specific dates, times, and locations 
will be announced in the local and regional news media and on the 
webpage and will be available by contacting Vaughn Baker, 
Superintendent of Rocky Mountain National Park.

DATES: The Park Service will accept comments from the public through 
August 27, 2003.

ADDRESSES: All interested parties are encouraged to provide written 
comments that identify concerns and issues associated with the Elk and 
Vegetation Management Plan or provide other relevant information. 
Comments may be mailed or hand-delivered to Vaughn Baker, 
Superintendent, Rocky Mountain National Park, 1000 U.S. Highway 36, 
Estes Park, Colorado 80517-8397. Comments may also be faxed to (970) 
586-1397, or e-mailed to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR TO BE ADDED TO THE PROJECT MAILING LIST 
CONTACT: Therese Johnson, Management Biologist, Rocky Mountain National 
Park, 1000 U.S. Highway 36, Estes Park, Colorado 80517-8397, (970) 586-
1262, Fax (970) 586-1359, or e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All comments that are submitted will become 
part of the public record. Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII

[[Page 32086]]

file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 
Please also include ``ATTN: Elk'' and your name and return address in 
your Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the 
system that we received your Internet message, contact Therese Johnson 
(970) 586-1262. The National Park Service will make comments, including 
names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review 
during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that 
their home address be withheld from the record, which will be honored 
to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in 
which the National Park Service would withhold from the record a 
respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If a respondent wishes the 
National Park Service to withhold their address, they must state this 
prominently at the beginning of the comment. The National Park Service 
will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from 
individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of 
organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their 
entirety.

    Dated: April 30, 2003.
Karen Wade,
Director, Intermountain Region, National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 03-13338 Filed 5-28-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-CP-P