Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Non-Native Deer Management Plan Point Reyes National Seashore; Marin County, CA; Notice of Availability, 380-382 [05-48]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
380
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2005 / Notices
appropriate to ensure public access and
proper management of Federal lands
and interests therein. Upon publication
of this notice in the Federal Register,
the land will be segregated from all
forms of appropriation under the public
land laws, including the general mining
laws, except for lease or conveyance
under the R&PP Act and leasing under
the mineral leasing laws. On or before
February 18, 2005, interested persons
may submit comments regarding the
proposed lease/conveyance or
classification of the land to the BLM Las
Cruces Field Manager. Any adverse
comments will be reviewed by the State
Director. In the absence of any adverse
comments, the classification will
become effective March 7, 2005.
Classification Comments: Interested
parties may submit comments involving
the suitability of the land for
community expansion. Comments on
the classification are restricted to
whether the land is physically suited for
the proposal, whether the use is
consistent with local planning and
zoning, or if the use is consistent with
State and Federal programs.
Application Comments: Interested
parties may submit comments regarding
the specific use proposed in the
application and plan of development,
whether the BLM followed proper
administrative procedures in reaching
the decision, or any other factor not
directly related to the suitability of the
land for community expansion.
Dated: November 5, 2004.
Tim L. Sanders,
Acting Field Manager, Las Cruces.
[FR Doc. 05–8 Filed 1–3–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–VC–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
Non-Native Deer Management Plan
Point Reyes National Seashore; Marin
County, CA; Notice of Availability
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C)
of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91–190, as
amended), and the Council on
Environmental Quality Regulations (40
CFR part 1500–1508), the National Park
Service (NPS), Department of the
Interior, has prepared a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
identifying and evaluating five
alternatives for a Non-Native Deer
Management Plan for Point Reyes
National Seashore administered lands.
Potential impacts, and appropriate
mitigations, are assessed for each
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:02 Jan 03, 2005
Jkt 205001
alternative. When approved, the plan
will guide, for the next 15 years, nonnative deer management actions on
lands administered by Point Reyes
National Seashore. The Non-Native Deer
Management Plan and Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
documents the analyses of four action
alternatives, and a ‘‘no action’’
alternative. Five other preliminary
alternatives were considered but
rejected because they did not achieve
the objectives of the non-native deer
management plan or were infeasible.
Planning Background: Axis deer (Axis
axis) are native to India and fallow deer
(Dama dama) are native to Asia Minor
and the Mediterranean region. Axis and
fallow deer were introduced to the Point
Reyes area in the 1940s and 1950s,
before establishment of the Seashore.
Between 1976 and 1994, NPS rangers
removed more than 2,000 non-native
deer. In 1994, cullling was
discontinued. Since then, non-native
deer have not been actively managed
and numbers and range have increased
to, or surpassed, pre-control levels.
Seashore staff estimates current
numbers of axis and fallow deer to be
approximately 250 and 860,
respectively.
The purpose of the Non-Native Deer
Management Plan (NNDMP) is to define
management prescriptions for nonnative deer. Both the park’s General
Management Plan (GMP) and Resource
Management Plan (RMP), identify goals
for management of these exotic species.
The park’s 1999 RMP indicates
‘‘Regardless of potential competition
and disease issues, the presence of these
non-native deer compromises the
ecological integrity of the Seashore and
the attempts to reestablish the native
cervid fauna comprising tule elk and
black-tailed deer’’ and notes that three
scientific panels comprised of federal,
state, and university researchers and
managers recommended the removal of
non-native deer to promote restoration
of native deer and elk. The objectives of
the plan are:
• To correct past and ongoing
disturbances to Seashore ecosystems
from introduced non-native ungulates
and thereby to contribute substantially
to the restoration of naturally
functioning native ecosystems.
• To minimize long-term impacts, in
terms of reduced staff time and
resources, to resource protection
programs at the Seashore, incurred by
continued monitoring and management
of non-native ungulates.
• To prevent spread of populations of
both species of non-native deer beyond
Seashore and GGNRA boundaries.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
• To reduce impacts of non-native
ungulates through direct consumption
of forage, transmission of disease to
livestock and damage to fencing to
agricultural permittees within pastoral
areas.
The primary problems associated with
the presence of these nonnative deer are
their interference with native species
and native ecosystems; conflicts with
the laws, regulations and NPS policies
regarding restoration of natural
conditions and native species; and the
impacts on ranchers in the park, on park
operations, budget. In addition there is
the potential for each of these impacts
to increase as deer populations expand
beyond park boundaries. The objectives
of the planning effort are to solve these
problems.
The planning area for the NNDMP
includes NPS lands located
approximately 40 miles northwest of
San Francisco in Marin County,
California. These lands include the
70,046-acre Point Reyes National
Seashore, comprised primarily of
beaches, coastal headlands, extensive
freshwater and estuarine wetlands,
marine terraces, and forests; as well as
18,000 acres of the Northern District of
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
(GGNRA), primarily supporting annual
grasslands, coastal scrub, and Douglasfir and coast redwood forests. Thirtyfive percent, or 32,000 acres, of
Seashore lands are managed as
wilderness.
Proposed Non-Native Deer
Management Plan: Alternative E is the
agency-preferred alternative in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Under this alternative (Removal of All
Non-Native Deer by a Combination of
Agency Removal and Fertility control
-Sterilants or Yearly Contraception), all
axis and fallow deer inhabiting the
Seashore and the GGNRA lands
administered by the Seashore would be
eradicated by approximately 2020
through lethal removal and fertility
control. Culling would be conducted by
NPS staff specifically trained in wildlife
sharpshooting. The contraceptive
program would incorporate the latest
contraceptive technologies to safely
prevent reproduction, for as long as
possible, and with minimal treatments
per animal. Because no long-acting
‘‘sterilant’’ has been approved for use in
wildlife by the Food and Drug
Administration, studies on safe and
efficacious use of a candidate drug
would have to be conducted at PRNS
before it could be used for management
and population control. Population
models of Seashore fallow deer indicate
that under this alternative, if the
contraceptives used were effective in
E:\FR\FM\04JAN1.SGM
04JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2005 / Notices
blocking fertility for at least 4 years,
eradication could be accomplished with
fewer fallow deer lethally removed.
Because the effectiveness of long-term
contraceptives on axis deer is unknown,
similar models have not been developed
for this species. Studies on sterilant
efficacy and deer population response to
treatment will be used adaptively to
guide the non-native deer management
program. The goal will be to maximize
benefits to natural resources and
minimize safety risks to NPS staff, while
striving to reduce numbers of animals
killed.
Alternatives To Proposed Plan: The
NNMP / Draft EIS analyzes four
alternatives besides the preferred
alternative. Alternatives E and D
(Removal of All Non-Native Deer by
Agency Removal) are both identified in
the Draft EIS as the ‘‘environmentally
preferred’’ alternatives and are
considered equally likely to best protect
the biological and physical environment
of the project area. Both would result in
eradication of non-native deer within 15
years and consequently would result in
complete removal of all adverse impacts
caused by non-native deer to wildlife,
vegetation, soils, special status species
and water resources.
Alternative A—No Action. This
alternative represents the current nonnative deer management program. It
would perpetuate the non-native deer
management practices undertaken since
1994, when ranger culling was
discontinued. No actions to control the
size of non-native deer populations
would be taken. In order to ensure
protection of native species and
ecosystems, continued monitoring for at
least 15 years would be an integral part
of this alternative as well as all other
alternatives considered.
Alternative B—Control of Non-Native
Deer at Pre-Determined Levels by
Agency Removal. Alternative B would
focus on the use of lethal control to
reduce the size of non-native deer
populations. Culling would be
conducted by NPS staff specifically
trained in wildlife sharpshooting. Nonnative deer populations would be
maintained at a level of 350 for each
species (700 total axis and fallow deer).
Because fallow deer concentrations are
currently higher than this, and axis deer
populations are lower than this target,
the focus of initial reductions would be
on fallow deer. This target population
level was chosen because of its history,
and for management reasons. However,
the number would be re-evaluated by
resource managers regularly and could
be changed based on results of ongoing
monitoring programs. Efforts would be
made to reach target (reduced) levels in
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:02 Jan 03, 2005
Jkt 205001
15 years and to ensure continued
presence of both species in the
Seashore. Because fallow deer currently
exceed 350 animals, and axis deer have
historically done so, any chosen
population control method would need
to be used in perpetuity to maintain
each species at this population size.
Because the management time frame is
very long (theoretically lasting forever),
the total numbers of deer lethally
removed could be very high.
Alternative C—Control of Non-Native
Deer at Pre-Determined Levels by
Agency Removal and Fertility Control.
As in Alternative B, non-native deer
populations would be maintained at a
level of 350 for each species (700 total
axis and fallow deer), but through a
combination of lethal removals and
fertility control. This target population
level was chosen because of its history,
and for management reasons. However,
the number would be re-evaluated by
resource managers regularly and could
be changed based on results of ongoing
monitoring programs. Culling would be
conducted by NPS staff specifically
trained in wildlife sharpshooting. The
contraceptive program would
incorporate the latest contraceptive
technologies to safely prevent
reproduction, for as long as possible,
and with minimal treatments per
animal. Because no long-acting
‘‘sterilant’’ has been approved for use in
wildlife by the Food and Drug
Administration, studies on safe and
efficacious use of a candidate drug
would have to be conducted at PRNS
before it could be used for management
and population control. Population
models of Seashore fallow deer indicate
that under Alternative C, if the
contraceptive used were effective in
blocking fertility in does for at least 4
years, population control could be
accomplished with fewer fallow deer
lethally removed. Because the
effectiveness of long-term
contraceptives on axis deer is unknown,
similar models have not been developed
for this species. Studies on sterilant
efficacy and deer population response to
treatment would be used adaptively to
guide the non-native deer management
program in maximizing benefits to
natural resources and in minimizing
safety risks to NPS staff, while striving
to reduce numbers of animals killed.
Because fallow deer numbers are
currently higher than 350, and axis deer
populations are lower than this target,
the focus of initial reductions would be
on fallow deer. Efforts would be made
to reach target (reduced) levels in 15
years. Because the goal of this
alternative will be to control axis and
fallow deer at a specified level and not
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
381
to eradicate them from PRNS, annual
culling and fertility control would
continue indefinitely. Because the
management time frame is very long
(theoretically lasting forever), the total
numbers of deer removed and treated
with contraceptives could also be very
high under this alternative.
Alternative D—Removal of All NonNative Deer by Agency Personnel. In
Alternative D, all axis and fallow deer
inhabiting the Seashore and the GGNRA
lands administered by the Seashore
would be eradicated through lethal
removal (shooting) by 2020. Culling
would be conducted by NPS staff
specifically trained in wildlife
sharpshooting. The management actions
included in this alternative would
continue until both species were
extirpated, with a goal of full removal in
no more than 15 years. This time frame
minimizes the total number of deer
removed (a longer period of removal
would mean more fawns are born and
more total deer are killed) and is
reasonable from a cost and logistics
standpoint. Because of their current
large numbers (∼250 axis deer and ∼860
fallow deer), it is expected that total
removal of both species would require
a minimum of 13 years. Monitoring
during program implementation would
be done to assess program success and
to guide adjustments in the location,
intensity and logistics of removal.
Actions Common to All Alternatives—
In order to ensure protection of native
species and ecosystems and to assess
success of any management program,
continued monitoring for at least 15
years would be an integral part of any
Alternative Chosen. All actions which
involve direct management of
individual animals, ranging from aerial
surveillance to live capture and lethal
removal, would be conducted in a
manner which minimizes stress, pain
and suffering to every extent possible.
All actions occurring in designated
Wilderness, from monitoring to active
deer management, would be consistent
with the ‘‘minimum requirement’’
concept.
Scoping Summary: On April 10, 2002,
a ‘‘Notice of Scoping for Non-Native
Deer Management Plan at Point Reyes
National Seashore’’ was published in
the Federal Register (v67, n69, pp
17446–17447). Through public scoping
and internal analysis by the Seashore’s
interdisciplinary NNDMP/EIS team, it
was determined that an Environmental
Impact Statement, rather than an
Environmental Assessment, should be
prepared. As mandated by NEPA, an EIS
was chosen because data was deemed
insufficient to decide whether the
project had potential to be controversial
E:\FR\FM\04JAN1.SGM
04JAN1
382
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2005 / Notices
because of disagreement over possible
environmental effects. In addition to
consulting NPS resource specialists,
within and outside the Seashore, park
managers consulted federal, state and
local agencies about management issues
of concern.
The beginning of public scoping was
announced on May 4, 2002, at a public
meeting of the Point Reyes National
Seashore Citizens Advisory Commission
with a presentation on the NNDMP
planning process. In this meeting, input
on non-native deer management issues
of concern and range of alternatives was
solicited from the public. The public
meeting featured a short presentation by
the Seashore wildlife biologist on the
environmental planning process,
background on non-native deer, and
issues of importance to park
management. Background informational
handouts were provided. Members of
the Citizen’s Advisory Committee for
Point Reyes National Seashore and
Golden Gates National Recreation Area
were given the opportunity to ask
questions of park staff. Five individuals
spoke at the public meeting. A sign-up
sheet at the public meeting provided an
opportunity for members of the public
to be included on a mailing list for
upcoming information on the
management plan in development.
Public comments were accepted in
letter or email form from May 4, 2002
until July 5, 2002. All those who sent
written comments during the scoping
period and included a return mailing
address were also put on the mailing
list. An acknowledgment of the
Seashore’s receipt of written comments,
in postcard form, was also sent to those
who wrote letters. A similar e-mail
message was sent back to those who
emailed comments. A total of 32 written
comments were received by the close of
the public comment period. The major
themes communicated by the public
during the May 4, 2002 meeting and the
subsequent scoping period
encompassed a range, from a desire to
retain non-native deer in the park or to
use non-lethal deer control techniques,
to concern about impacts to natural
resources from non-native deer and a
desire to eliminate all non-native deer
from the Seashore.
Commenting on the Draft EIS: The
purpose of the management plan is to
define management prescriptions for
non-native deer. A public workshop on
the proposed NNDMP will be held
during late winter 2005 at the Point
Reyes National Seashore Red Barn
meeting (confirmed date and other
workshop details will be advertised by
direct mailing to 210 individuals and
organizations) and a notice placed in the
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:02 Jan 03, 2005
Jkt 205001
local newspapers. All interested
individuals, organizations, and agencies
will be encouraged to provide
comments, suggestions, and relevant
information (earlier scoping comments
need not be resubmitted); written
comments must be postmarked not later
than 60 days following publication in
the Federal Register by EPA of their
notice of filing of the availability of the
Draft EIS (as soon as this date can be
confirmed it will be announced on the
park’s website, and included in the
workshop mailing). Questions at this
time regarding the NNDMP planning
process or work shop should be
addressed to the Superintendent either
by mail (see address below) or by
telephone at (415) 663–8522. Please
note that names and addresses of people
who comment become part of the public
record. If individuals commenting
request that their name and/or address
be withheld from public disclosure, it
will be honored to the extent allowable
by law. Such requests must be stated
prominently in the beginning of the
comments. There also may be
circumstances wherein the NPS
withholds from the record a
respondent’s identity, as allowable by
law. As always: the NPS will make
available to public inspection all
submissions from organizations or
businesses and from persons identifying
themselves as representatives or
officials of organizations and
businesses; and, anonymous comments
may not be considered.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Draft EIS may
be obtained from the Superintendent,
Point Reyes National Seashore, Point
Reyes, CA 94956, Attn: NNDMP, or by
e-mail request to: Ann_Nelson@nps.gov
(in the subject line, type: NNDMP). The
document will be sent directly to those
who have requested it, and also posted
on the Internet at the park’s Web page
(https://www.nps.gov/pore/pphtml/
documents.html.); and both the printed
document and digital version on
compact disk will be available at the
park headquarters and local libraries.
Decision: Following careful analysis
of public and agency comment on the
Draft EIS, it is anticipated at this time
that the final EIS would be available in
fall of 2005. As a delegated EIS, the
official responsible for the final decision
is the Regional Director, Pacific West
Region. A Record of Decision would not
be signed sooner than 30 days following
release of the Final EIS; notice of the
decision will be posted in the Federal
Register and announced in local and
regional newspapers. Following
approval of the Non-Native Deer
Management Plan, the official
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
responsible for implementation will be
the Superintendent, Point Reyes
National Seashore.
Dated: December 17, 2004.
Jonathan B. Jarvis,
Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 05–48 Filed 1–3–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–FW–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Draft Merced Wild and Scenic River
Revised Comprehensive Management
Plan and Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement, Yosemite National
Park, Tuolumne, Mariposa, and Madera
Counties, CA; Notice of Availability
Summary—Pursuant to section
102(2)(c) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91–190, as
amended), the Council of
Environmental Quality regulations (40
CFR Part 1500), and the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act (as amended, 16
U.S.C. 1271), the National Park Service,
Department of the Interior, has prepared
the Draft Merced Wild and Scenic River
Revised Comprehensive Management
Plan and Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (Draft Revised Merced
River Plan/SEIS). It is intended to
amend and supplement the Merced
Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive
Management Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Statement
(Merced River Plan/FEIS) released in
June 2000. The Draft Revised Merced
River Plan/SEIS identifies and evaluates
four alternatives for guiding
management of the Merced Wild and
Scenic River in Yosemite National Park.
When approved, the plan will serve as
a template for all future decisions
relating to recreation and land use
within Yosemite’s 81-mile Merced River
corridor. The primary goals of the plan
are to ensure the free-flowing condition
of the river, along with providing longterm protection and enhancement of
what the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
calls the river’s ‘‘Outstandingly
Remarkable Values’’—the unique
qualities that make the river worthy of
special protection.
Purpose and Need for Federal
Action—The Merced River Plan is the
official document for guiding future
management of the main stem and
South Fork of the Merced Wild and
Scenic River within the jurisdiction of
Yosemite National Park. In August 2000,
the Merced River Plan/FEIS was
approved and signed in a Record of
Decision (subsequently revised in
November 2000). Shortly after the
E:\FR\FM\04JAN1.SGM
04JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 380-382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-48]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Non-Native Deer Management
Plan Point Reyes National Seashore; Marin County, CA; Notice of
Availability
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended), and the Council on
Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500-1508), the National
Park Service (NPS), Department of the Interior, has prepared a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement identifying and evaluating five
alternatives for a Non-Native Deer Management Plan for Point Reyes
National Seashore administered lands. Potential impacts, and
appropriate mitigations, are assessed for each alternative. When
approved, the plan will guide, for the next 15 years, non-native deer
management actions on lands administered by Point Reyes National
Seashore. The Non-Native Deer Management Plan and Draft Environmental
Impact Statement documents the analyses of four action alternatives,
and a ``no action'' alternative. Five other preliminary alternatives
were considered but rejected because they did not achieve the
objectives of the non-native deer management plan or were infeasible.
Planning Background: Axis deer (Axis axis) are native to India and
fallow deer (Dama dama) are native to Asia Minor and the Mediterranean
region. Axis and fallow deer were introduced to the Point Reyes area in
the 1940s and 1950s, before establishment of the Seashore. Between 1976
and 1994, NPS rangers removed more than 2,000 non-native deer. In 1994,
cullling was discontinued. Since then, non-native deer have not been
actively managed and numbers and range have increased to, or surpassed,
pre-control levels. Seashore staff estimates current numbers of axis
and fallow deer to be approximately 250 and 860, respectively.
The purpose of the Non-Native Deer Management Plan (NNDMP) is to
define management prescriptions for non-native deer. Both the park's
General Management Plan (GMP) and Resource Management Plan (RMP),
identify goals for management of these exotic species. The park's 1999
RMP indicates ``Regardless of potential competition and disease issues,
the presence of these non-native deer compromises the ecological
integrity of the Seashore and the attempts to reestablish the native
cervid fauna comprising tule elk and black-tailed deer'' and notes that
three scientific panels comprised of federal, state, and university
researchers and managers recommended the removal of non-native deer to
promote restoration of native deer and elk. The objectives of the plan
are:
To correct past and ongoing disturbances to Seashore
ecosystems from introduced non-native ungulates and thereby to
contribute substantially to the restoration of naturally functioning
native ecosystems.
To minimize long-term impacts, in terms of reduced staff
time and resources, to resource protection programs at the Seashore,
incurred by continued monitoring and management of non-native
ungulates.
To prevent spread of populations of both species of non-
native deer beyond Seashore and GGNRA boundaries.
To reduce impacts of non-native ungulates through direct
consumption of forage, transmission of disease to livestock and damage
to fencing to agricultural permittees within pastoral areas.
The primary problems associated with the presence of these
nonnative deer are their interference with native species and native
ecosystems; conflicts with the laws, regulations and NPS policies
regarding restoration of natural conditions and native species; and the
impacts on ranchers in the park, on park operations, budget. In
addition there is the potential for each of these impacts to increase
as deer populations expand beyond park boundaries. The objectives of
the planning effort are to solve these problems.
The planning area for the NNDMP includes NPS lands located
approximately 40 miles northwest of San Francisco in Marin County,
California. These lands include the 70,046-acre Point Reyes National
Seashore, comprised primarily of beaches, coastal headlands, extensive
freshwater and estuarine wetlands, marine terraces, and forests; as
well as 18,000 acres of the Northern District of Golden Gate National
Recreation Area (GGNRA), primarily supporting annual grasslands,
coastal scrub, and Douglas-fir and coast redwood forests. Thirty-five
percent, or 32,000 acres, of Seashore lands are managed as wilderness.
Proposed Non-Native Deer Management Plan: Alternative E is the
agency-preferred alternative in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). Under this alternative (Removal of All Non-Native Deer
by a Combination of Agency Removal and Fertility control -Sterilants or
Yearly Contraception), all axis and fallow deer inhabiting the Seashore
and the GGNRA lands administered by the Seashore would be eradicated by
approximately 2020 through lethal removal and fertility control.
Culling would be conducted by NPS staff specifically trained in
wildlife sharpshooting. The contraceptive program would incorporate the
latest contraceptive technologies to safely prevent reproduction, for
as long as possible, and with minimal treatments per animal. Because no
long-acting ``sterilant'' has been approved for use in wildlife by the
Food and Drug Administration, studies on safe and efficacious use of a
candidate drug would have to be conducted at PRNS before it could be
used for management and population control. Population models of
Seashore fallow deer indicate that under this alternative, if the
contraceptives used were effective in
[[Page 381]]
blocking fertility for at least 4 years, eradication could be
accomplished with fewer fallow deer lethally removed. Because the
effectiveness of long-term contraceptives on axis deer is unknown,
similar models have not been developed for this species. Studies on
sterilant efficacy and deer population response to treatment will be
used adaptively to guide the non-native deer management program. The
goal will be to maximize benefits to natural resources and minimize
safety risks to NPS staff, while striving to reduce numbers of animals
killed.
Alternatives To Proposed Plan: The NNMP / Draft EIS analyzes four
alternatives besides the preferred alternative. Alternatives E and D
(Removal of All Non-Native Deer by Agency Removal) are both identified
in the Draft EIS as the ``environmentally preferred'' alternatives and
are considered equally likely to best protect the biological and
physical environment of the project area. Both would result in
eradication of non-native deer within 15 years and consequently would
result in complete removal of all adverse impacts caused by non-native
deer to wildlife, vegetation, soils, special status species and water
resources.
Alternative A--No Action. This alternative represents the current
non-native deer management program. It would perpetuate the non-native
deer management practices undertaken since 1994, when ranger culling
was discontinued. No actions to control the size of non-native deer
populations would be taken. In order to ensure protection of native
species and ecosystems, continued monitoring for at least 15 years
would be an integral part of this alternative as well as all other
alternatives considered.
Alternative B--Control of Non-Native Deer at Pre-Determined Levels
by Agency Removal. Alternative B would focus on the use of lethal
control to reduce the size of non-native deer populations. Culling
would be conducted by NPS staff specifically trained in wildlife
sharpshooting. Non-native deer populations would be maintained at a
level of 350 for each species (700 total axis and fallow deer). Because
fallow deer concentrations are currently higher than this, and axis
deer populations are lower than this target, the focus of initial
reductions would be on fallow deer. This target population level was
chosen because of its history, and for management reasons. However, the
number would be re-evaluated by resource managers regularly and could
be changed based on results of ongoing monitoring programs. Efforts
would be made to reach target (reduced) levels in 15 years and to
ensure continued presence of both species in the Seashore. Because
fallow deer currently exceed 350 animals, and axis deer have
historically done so, any chosen population control method would need
to be used in perpetuity to maintain each species at this population
size. Because the management time frame is very long (theoretically
lasting forever), the total numbers of deer lethally removed could be
very high.
Alternative C--Control of Non-Native Deer at Pre-Determined Levels
by Agency Removal and Fertility Control. As in Alternative B, non-
native deer populations would be maintained at a level of 350 for each
species (700 total axis and fallow deer), but through a combination of
lethal removals and fertility control. This target population level was
chosen because of its history, and for management reasons. However, the
number would be re-evaluated by resource managers regularly and could
be changed based on results of ongoing monitoring programs. Culling
would be conducted by NPS staff specifically trained in wildlife
sharpshooting. The contraceptive program would incorporate the latest
contraceptive technologies to safely prevent reproduction, for as long
as possible, and with minimal treatments per animal. Because no long-
acting ``sterilant'' has been approved for use in wildlife by the Food
and Drug Administration, studies on safe and efficacious use of a
candidate drug would have to be conducted at PRNS before it could be
used for management and population control. Population models of
Seashore fallow deer indicate that under Alternative C, if the
contraceptive used were effective in blocking fertility in does for at
least 4 years, population control could be accomplished with fewer
fallow deer lethally removed. Because the effectiveness of long-term
contraceptives on axis deer is unknown, similar models have not been
developed for this species. Studies on sterilant efficacy and deer
population response to treatment would be used adaptively to guide the
non-native deer management program in maximizing benefits to natural
resources and in minimizing safety risks to NPS staff, while striving
to reduce numbers of animals killed.
Because fallow deer numbers are currently higher than 350, and axis
deer populations are lower than this target, the focus of initial
reductions would be on fallow deer. Efforts would be made to reach
target (reduced) levels in 15 years. Because the goal of this
alternative will be to control axis and fallow deer at a specified
level and not to eradicate them from PRNS, annual culling and fertility
control would continue indefinitely. Because the management time frame
is very long (theoretically lasting forever), the total numbers of deer
removed and treated with contraceptives could also be very high under
this alternative.
Alternative D--Removal of All Non-Native Deer by Agency Personnel.
In Alternative D, all axis and fallow deer inhabiting the Seashore and
the GGNRA lands administered by the Seashore would be eradicated
through lethal removal (shooting) by 2020. Culling would be conducted
by NPS staff specifically trained in wildlife sharpshooting. The
management actions included in this alternative would continue until
both species were extirpated, with a goal of full removal in no more
than 15 years. This time frame minimizes the total number of deer
removed (a longer period of removal would mean more fawns are born and
more total deer are killed) and is reasonable from a cost and logistics
standpoint. Because of their current large numbers (250 axis deer and
860 fallow deer), it is expected that total removal of both species
would require a minimum of 13 years. Monitoring during program
implementation would be done to assess program success and to guide
adjustments in the location, intensity and logistics of removal.
Actions Common to All Alternatives--In order to ensure protection
of native species and ecosystems and to assess success of any
management program, continued monitoring for at least 15 years would be
an integral part of any Alternative Chosen. All actions which involve
direct management of individual animals, ranging from aerial
surveillance to live capture and lethal removal, would be conducted in
a manner which minimizes stress, pain and suffering to every extent
possible. All actions occurring in designated Wilderness, from
monitoring to active deer management, would be consistent with the
``minimum requirement'' concept.
Scoping Summary: On April 10, 2002, a ``Notice of Scoping for Non-
Native Deer Management Plan at Point Reyes National Seashore'' was
published in the Federal Register (v67, n69, pp 17446-17447). Through
public scoping and internal analysis by the Seashore's
interdisciplinary NNDMP/EIS team, it was determined that an
Environmental Impact Statement, rather than an Environmental
Assessment, should be prepared. As mandated by NEPA, an EIS was chosen
because data was deemed insufficient to decide whether the project had
potential to be controversial
[[Page 382]]
because of disagreement over possible environmental effects. In
addition to consulting NPS resource specialists, within and outside the
Seashore, park managers consulted federal, state and local agencies
about management issues of concern.
The beginning of public scoping was announced on May 4, 2002, at a
public meeting of the Point Reyes National Seashore Citizens Advisory
Commission with a presentation on the NNDMP planning process. In this
meeting, input on non-native deer management issues of concern and
range of alternatives was solicited from the public. The public meeting
featured a short presentation by the Seashore wildlife biologist on the
environmental planning process, background on non-native deer, and
issues of importance to park management. Background informational
handouts were provided. Members of the Citizen's Advisory Committee for
Point Reyes National Seashore and Golden Gates National Recreation Area
were given the opportunity to ask questions of park staff. Five
individuals spoke at the public meeting. A sign-up sheet at the public
meeting provided an opportunity for members of the public to be
included on a mailing list for upcoming information on the management
plan in development.
Public comments were accepted in letter or email form from May 4,
2002 until July 5, 2002. All those who sent written comments during the
scoping period and included a return mailing address were also put on
the mailing list. An acknowledgment of the Seashore's receipt of
written comments, in postcard form, was also sent to those who wrote
letters. A similar e-mail message was sent back to those who emailed
comments. A total of 32 written comments were received by the close of
the public comment period. The major themes communicated by the public
during the May 4, 2002 meeting and the subsequent scoping period
encompassed a range, from a desire to retain non-native deer in the
park or to use non-lethal deer control techniques, to concern about
impacts to natural resources from non-native deer and a desire to
eliminate all non-native deer from the Seashore.
Commenting on the Draft EIS: The purpose of the management plan is
to define management prescriptions for non-native deer. A public
workshop on the proposed NNDMP will be held during late winter 2005 at
the Point Reyes National Seashore Red Barn meeting (confirmed date and
other workshop details will be advertised by direct mailing to 210
individuals and organizations) and a notice placed in the local
newspapers. All interested individuals, organizations, and agencies
will be encouraged to provide comments, suggestions, and relevant
information (earlier scoping comments need not be resubmitted); written
comments must be postmarked not later than 60 days following
publication in the Federal Register by EPA of their notice of filing of
the availability of the Draft EIS (as soon as this date can be
confirmed it will be announced on the park's website, and included in
the workshop mailing). Questions at this time regarding the NNDMP
planning process or work shop should be addressed to the Superintendent
either by mail (see address below) or by telephone at (415) 663-8522.
Please note that names and addresses of people who comment become part
of the public record. If individuals commenting request that their name
and/or address be withheld from public disclosure, it will be honored
to the extent allowable by law. Such requests must be stated
prominently in the beginning of the comments. There also may be
circumstances wherein the NPS withholds from the record a respondent's
identity, as allowable by law. As always: the NPS will make available
to public inspection all submissions from organizations or businesses
and from persons identifying themselves as representatives or officials
of organizations and businesses; and, anonymous comments may not be
considered.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Draft EIS may be obtained from the
Superintendent, Point Reyes National Seashore, Point Reyes, CA 94956,
Attn: NNDMP, or by e-mail request to: Ann--Nelson@nps.gov (in the
subject line, type: NNDMP). The document will be sent directly to those
who have requested it, and also posted on the Internet at the park's
Web page (https://www.nps.gov/pore/pphtml/documents.html.); and both the
printed document and digital version on compact disk will be available
at the park headquarters and local libraries.
Decision: Following careful analysis of public and agency comment
on the Draft EIS, it is anticipated at this time that the final EIS
would be available in fall of 2005. As a delegated EIS, the official
responsible for the final decision is the Regional Director, Pacific
West Region. A Record of Decision would not be signed sooner than 30
days following release of the Final EIS; notice of the decision will be
posted in the Federal Register and announced in local and regional
newspapers. Following approval of the Non-Native Deer Management Plan,
the official responsible for implementation will be the Superintendent,
Point Reyes National Seashore.
Dated: December 17, 2004.
Jonathan B. Jarvis,
Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 05-48 Filed 1-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-FW-P
