Final Environmental Impact Statement/Non-Native Deer Management Plan Point Reyes National Seashore; Marin County, CA; Notice of Availability, 47513-47516 [06-6973]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Notices
include a statement that the nominator
is so authorized.
4. Information about nominees: All
nominations must include the following
information:
a. nominee’s name, address, and
daytime telephone number and e-mail
address; and
b. nominee’s resume or brief
biography emphasizing the nominee’s
NAGPRA experience and ability to work
effectively as a member of an advisory
board.
Nominations that do not include all of
the abovementioned information will be
considered non-responsive to this
solicitation.
DATES: Nominations must be received
by October 16, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Via U.S. Mail: Address
nominations to Designated Federal
Officer, Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Review
Committee, National NAGPRA Program,
National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW
(2253), Washington, DC 20240. Because
increased security in the Washington,
DC, area may delay delivery of U.S. Mail
to U.S. Government offices, a copy of
each mailed nomination should also be
faxed to (202) 371–5197. Via
commercial delivery: Address
nominations to C. Timothy McKeown,
Designated Federal Officer, Native
American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Review Committee,
National NAGPRA Program, National
Park Service, 1201 Eye Street NW, 8th
floor, Washington, DC 20005.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. The Review Committee was
established by the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
of 1990 (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3001 et
seq.
2. The Review Committee is
responsible for—
a. monitoring the NAGPRA inventory
and identification process;
b. reviewing and making findings
related to the identity or cultural
affiliation of cultural items, or the return
of such items;
c. facilitating the resolution of
disputes;
d. compiling an inventory of
culturally unidentifiable human
remains and developing a process for
disposition of such remains;
e. consulting with Indian tribes and
Native Hawaiian organizations and
museums on matters within the scope of
the work of the Review Committee
affecting such tribes or organizations;
f. consulting with the Secretary of the
Interior in the development of
regulations to carry out NAGPRA; and
g. making recommendations regarding
future care of repatriated cultural items.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:32 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
3. Seven members compose the
Review Committee. All members are
appointed by the Secretary of the
Interior. The Secretary may not appoint
Federal officers or employees to the
Review Committee.
a. Three members are appointed from
nominations submitted by Indian tribes,
Native Hawaiian organizations, and
traditional Native American religious
leaders. At least two of these members
must be traditional Native American
religious leaders.
b. Three members are appointed from
nominations submitted by national
museum organizations and scientific
organizations.
c. One member is appointed from a
list of persons developed and consented
to by all of the other members.
4. Members serve as Special
Governmental Employees, which
requires submission of annual financial
disclosure reports and completion of
annual ethics training.
5. Appointment terms: Members are
appointed for 4–year terms and
incumbent members may be
reappointed for 2–year terms.
6. The Review Committee’s work is
completed during public meetings. The
Review Committee normally meets faceto-face two times per year, and each
meeting is normally two or three days.
The Review Committee may also hold
one or more public teleconferences of
several hours duration.
7. Compensation: Review Committee
members are compensated for their
participation in Review Committee
meetings.
8. Reimbursement: Review Committee
members are reimbursed for travel
expenses incurred in association with
Review Committee meetings.
9. Additional information regarding
the Review Committee, including the
Review Committee’s charter, meeting
protocol, and dispute resolution
procedures, is available on the National
NAGPRA program Web site,
www.cr.nps.gov/nagpra (click ‘‘Review
Committee’’ in the menu on the right).
10. The terms ‘‘Indian tribe,’’ ‘‘Native
Hawaiian organization,’’ and
‘‘traditional religious leader’’ have the
same definitions as given in 43 CFR
10.2.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
C. Timothy McKeown, Designated
Federal Officer, Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Review
Committee, National NAGPRA Program,
National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW
(2253), Washington, DC 20240;
telephone (202) 354–2206; e-mail
timlmckeown@nps.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47513
Dated: June 26, 2006
C. Timothy McKeown,
Designated Federal Officer,
Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Review Committee.
[FR Doc. E6–13589 Filed 8–16–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4314–50–S
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Final 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, Department of the Interior has
prepared a Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) identifying and
evaluating five alternatives for a NonNative Deer Management Plan for Point
Reyes National Seashore administered
lands. When approved, the plan will
guide the NPS in managing the herds of
non-native deer over the next two
decades on all lands administered by
Point Reyes National Seashore. Through
the FEIS, the potential impacts of a ‘‘no
action’’ alternative and four ‘‘action’’
alternatives are assessed and, where
appropriate, mitigation measures are
applied to reduce the intensity of the
potential effect or to avoid the potential
effect. 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 European 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 by local
ranchers, before establishment of the
Seashore. Between 1976 and 1994, the
NPS controlled the populations of the
herds by shooting the deer and more
than 2,000 non-native deer were culled
during this 18-year period. Culling was
discontinued in 1994 in response to
budgetary and public concerns. For the
past 16 years, the NPS has not actively
managed the non-native deer and their
numbers and overall range have
increased to, or surpassed, pre-control
levels. Seashore staff estimates current
numbers of axis and fallow deer to be
E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM
17AUN1
47514
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Notices
approximately 250 and 860,
respectively.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Description of the Planning Area
The planning area for the Non-Native
Deer Management Plan (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 and
protected as Wilderness.
Purpose and Need for the Federal
Action
The primary problems resulting from
the presence of non-native deer in the
planning area 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;
the impacts on ranchers in the parks;
and by affecting park operations and
budget. In addition there is the potential
for each of these impacts to increase
should deer populations expand beyond
park boundaries.
As a unit of the NPS, PRNS is
governed by a set of laws, regulations
and polices including the 2001
Management Policies, and it is the set of
rules as well as research data, standard
biological and ecological peer-reviewed
literature, and public and agency input
that the park has used to develop the
non-native deer management
alternative. Management Policies
Section 4.4.1.3 clearly defines ‘‘native
species’’ as all species that have
occurred or now occur as a result of
natural processes on lands designated as
units of the national park system.
‘‘Exotic species’’ are those species that
occupy park lands directly or indirectly
as the result of deliberate or accidental
human activities. Units of the NPS are
charged to ‘‘re-establish natural
functions and process in humandisturbed components of natural
systems (sec 4.1.5).’’ The presence and
recent population and range expansion
of non-native axis and fallow deer in the
park is adversely impacting many
elements of the natural ecosystem
including; competition with, and
displacement of, native tule elk and
black-tailed deer; the documented
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:36 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
potential for transmitting disease to
these native ungulates; and degradation
of important riparian and oak woodland
habitats. If the non-native deer continue
to spread unabated, their expansion
outside PRNS boundaries could result
in these adverse impacts occurring to
natural areas throughout Marin County.
The objectives of theNNDMP 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 caused by direct consumption
of forage, transmission of disease to
livestock and damage to fencing to
agricultural permittees within pastoral
areas.
Proposed Non-Native Deer Management
Plan
Alternative E has been identified as
the preferred alternative in the Draft EIS
and the FEIS. Under this alternative
(Removal of All Non-Native Deer by a
Combination of Agency Removal and
Fertility Control), all axis and fallow
deer in the planning area would be
eradicated by the year 2021 through a
combination of lethal removal and
contraception. Culling would be
conducted by NPS staff or contractors
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 registered for use in
wildlife by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), data on safe
and efficacious use of a candidate drug
would have to be submitted to the EPA
by a sponsoring agency or research
group before it could be used at PRNS
on the basis of experimental
management and population control.
Population models of fallow deer at
PRNS indicate that under this
alternative, if the contraceptive used
was effective in blocking fertility for at
least 4 years, eradication could be
accomplished with fewer fallow deer
lethally removed. Because effectiveness
of long-term contraceptives on axis deer
is unknown, similar models are not yet
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
developed for this species. Studies on
sterilant efficacy and monitoring of deer
population response to treatment will be
used adaptively to guide or refine nonnative deer management activities. 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.
Principal Differences Between the Draft
and Final EIS
Wildlife monitoring in the PRNS is
ongoing and the analysis in the FEIS on
impacts of non-native deer has been
supplemented by new information since
the Draft EIS was published, including
the following: A U.S. Geological Survey
analysis of the impacts of non-native
deer on native black-tailed deer (Fellers,
2006), a U.S. Geological survey report
on the impacts of ‘‘lekking’’ fallow deer
to woodland and riparian vegetation
and soils (Fellers and Osbourn, 2006),
and a Humboldt State University report
on dietary overlap between fallow deer
and native tule elk (Fallon-McKnight,
2006). Based on consideration of the
results of these studies and other
information, which elucidated the
adverse impacts of non-native deer on
natural resources, discussion in the
FEIS of the following resource topics—
water resources, soils, vegetation, and
wildlife impact—was revisited and
conclusions about intensity were
clarified.
Information on wildlife contraceptive
agents under development (e.g.,
GonaCon and others) and costs has
been updated. Information regarding
contraceptive agents withdrawn from
availability and changes in regulatory
authority over these agents was added to
the FEIS. This new information became
available after release of the Draft EIS
and was obtained from experts in the
filed of wildlife contraceptive and from
the EPA.
Consideration of the recent studies
and new information did not necessitate
substantively altering the proposal, nor
were conclusions about significant of
foreseeable environmental
consequences substantially changed.
Alternatives to Proposed Plan
The FEIS for the NNDMP analyzes
four alternatives in addition to the
preferred alternative. Alternatives E and
D (Removal of all Non-Native Deer by
Agency Removal) were both identified
in the Draft EIS as ‘‘environmentally
preferred’’ and are considered equally
likely to best protect the biological and
physical environment of the planning
area. Both would strive to accomplish
eradication of non-native deer within 20
years and consequently would result in
E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM
17AUN1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Notices
cessation of new adverse impacts
caused by non-native deer to wildlife,
vegetation, soils, special status species,
water resources, and park operations.
Alternative A—No Action. This
‘‘baseline’’ alternative represents the
current non-native deer management
program. It would perpetuate the nonnative 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 20 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 or contractors
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 levels in 15 years
and to ensure continued unharmful
presence of both species in the
Seashore. Because fallow deer numbers
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,
and operational and monitoring costs
would not be minimized.
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 based on historical
records and for management reasons.
However, the targeted population
number would be re-evaluated by
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:36 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
resource managers regularly and could
be changed based on results of ongoing
monitoring programs and practical
adaptive management. Culling would be
conducted by NPS staff or contractors
specifically trained in wildlife
sharpshooting. The contraceptive
program would be similar to that for
Alternative E.
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 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,
and operational and monitoring costs
would not be minimized. 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 PRNS and the GGNRA lands
administered by the Seashore would be
eradicated through lethal removal
(shooting) by 2021 through annual
shooting. Culling would be conducted
by NPS staff or contractors 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 a minimum of 13 years
and no more than 20 years. In
comparison to the alternatives that rely
on contraception, Alternative D
minimizes the overall 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. 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. Regardless of the
alternatives selected, all actions
involving 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 within desginated
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47515
Wilderness, from monitoring to active
deer management, would be consistent
with the minimum requirement concept.
Summary of Public Engagement
On December 5, 2001, representatives
of public agencies were invited to attend
an informational meeting at the
Seashore, with the objective of
conferring with those agencies about
updating the park’s non-native deer
management plan. On April 10, 2002, a
Notice of Scoping was published in the
Federal Register and in local
newspapers. Public scoping comments
were solicited at a public information
meeting held at the Point Reyes Dance
Palace on May 4, 2002. Written scoping
comments were accepted through July 5,
2002. All those who sent written
comments dfurign the scoping period
and who gave a return mailing address
were included in the NNDMP mailing
list. During the February–July 2002
period, PRNS staff gave numerous
presentations to local and state public
groups on the NNDMP conservation
planning process and provided
background information on non-native
deer. Audiences ranged from local
homeowners and ranchers’ associations
to local branches of national
environmental and animal rights
groups.
The Draft EIS was made available for
public review and comment for 63 days,
from February 4, 2005 through April 8,
2005. Midway through the public
comment period, on March 3, 2005, an
informational meeting was held int he
Red Barn Classroom at Seashore
Headquarters. Approximately 60 people
attended the 3-hour meeting and posed
questions to a panel of scientists and
staff or expressed their concerns and
preferences regarding the plan and
management alternatives. Audience
members were informed of a number of
ways to submit comments on the
NNDMP either that night at the meeting,
or by mail/e-mail by April 8, 2005.
Some comment letters arrived past the
end of the comment period (up to April
19, 2005) but were nontheless included
as part of the public comment received.
During the comment period, the NPS
received a total of 1,980 peices of
correspondence (including letters, emails, fascimiles, and hand-delivered
comment forms), containing 4450
individual comments. Ninety-four
percent of the comments were sent in by
individual members of the public and
the remainder were received from
environmental, professional, and
recreational groups, civic organizations,
and government agencies. All comments
were carefully reviewed, and responses
to substantive comments were prepared
E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM
17AUN1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
47516
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Notices
for inclusion in the FEIS. Where
warranted, portions of the FEIS reflect
edits to the Draft EIS text in response to
salient recommendations from some
commentors or to provide clarification
in view of concerns brought up by the
public. And as noted above, new studies
and technical information not available
prior to release of the Draft EIS are
discussed. All comments received are
included in the administrative record.
In conformance with Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act, on March 26,
2003, PRNS initiated the consultation
process with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). On
March 10, 2005, the park requested
concurrence from USFWS with its
finding that the proposed plan would be
not likely to adversely affect nine plant
and wildlife species or the proposed
critical habitat for the California redlegged frog or adversely affect nine plant
and animal species during
implementation of the preferred
alternative. On April 7, 2005, the
USFWS concurred with the park’s
findings that measures in the proposed
plan are sufficient to reduce any direct,
indirect, and cumulative effects to the
nine listed species and proposed critical
habitat to an insignificant or
discountable level. With the issuance of
this memo, the USFWS concluded its
consultation process for the NNDMP.
On March 28, 2005, PRNS transmitted
a letter to the NMFS with regard to
potential effects on listed anadromous
fish species and fish habitat within the
planning area. PRNS clarified that no
proposed actions would take place in
creeks, waterways, or riparian areas and
therefore the proposed project is not
likely to adversely affect central
California coast environmentally
significant unit (ESU) coho salmon,
central California coast ESU steelhead,
California coastal ESU Chinook salmon,
Designated Critical Habitat for central
California coast ESU coho salmon, or
Essential Fish Habitat for coho salmon
and Chinook salmon. NMFS concurred
with the park’s findings in a letter to the
NPS on May 3, 2005, ending the
information consultation process.
ADDRESSES: New requests for copies of
the FEIS may be sent to the
Superintendent, Attn: NNDMP, Point
Reyes National Seashore, Point Reyes,
CA 94956 (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 received
the DEIS or previously have requested
it, and it is also available in electronic
format at the NPS’s Planning,
Environment, and Public Comment Web
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:36 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
site https://parkplanning.nps.gov/pore.
Both the printed document and digital
version on compact disk will be
available at the park headquarters and
local libraries. Any correspondence
regarding the NNDMP should be
addressed to the Superintendent either
by mail or e-mail (see addresses above).
Please note that names and addresses of
all respondents will become part of the
public record. It is the practice of the
NPS to make comments, including
names, home addresses, home phone
numbers, and e-mail addresses of
respondents, available for public
review. Individual respondents may
request that we withhold their names
and/or home addresses, etc., but if you
wish us to consider withholding this
information, you must state this
prominently at the beginning of your
comments. In addition, you must
present a rationale for withholding this
information. This rationale must
demonstrate that disclosure would
constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of privacy. Unsupported
assertions will not meet this burden. In
the absence of exceptional,
documentable circumstances, this
information will be released. We will
always make submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as
representatives of or officials or
organizations or businesses, available
for public inspection in their entirety.
Decision
As a delegated EIS, the official
responsible for the final decision is the
Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
A Record of Decision, documenting the
environmental decision-making process
on the NNDMP will be prepared not
sooner than 30 days following the
publication in the Federal Register of
the EPA’s notice of filing and
availability of the Final EIS.
Subsequently and prior to
implementation, notice of approval of
the Record of Decision will be posted in
the Federal Register and announced via
local and regional news media.
Following approval of the Non-Native
Deer Management Plan, the official
responsible for implementation will be
the Superintendent, Point Reyes
National Seashore.
Dated: April 7, 2006.
Jonathan B. Jarvis,
Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 06–6973 Filed 8–16–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–FW–M
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Landmarks Committee of the National
Park System Advisory Board Meeting
National Park Service,
Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given in
accordance with the Federal Advisory
Commission Act and 36 CFR Part 65
that a meeting of the Landmarks
Committee of the National Park System
Advisory Board will be held beginning
at 1 p.m. on October 10, 2006 and at the
following location. The meeting will
continue beginning at 9 a.m. on October
11.
DATES: October 10–11, 2006.
Location: The 2nd Floor Board Room
of the National Trust for Historic
Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia Henry, National Historic
Landmarks Program, National Park
Service; 1849 C Street, NW. (2280);
Washington, DC 20240; Telephone (202)
354–2216.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
purpose of the meeting of the
Landmarks Committee of the National
Park System Advisory Board is to
evaluate nominations of historic
properties in order to advise the
National Park System Advisory Board of
the qualifications of each property being
proposed for National Historic
Landmark (NHL) designation, and to
make recommendations regarding the
possible designation of those properties
as National Historic Landmarks to the
National Park System Advisory Board,
at its subsequent meeting at a place and
time to be determined. The Committee
also makes recommendations to the
National Park System Advisory Board
regarding amendments to existing
designations, and proposals for
withdrawal of designation. The
members of the National Landmarks
Committee are:
Dr. Larry E. Rivers, Chair,
Dr. James M. Allan,
Dr. Cary Carson,
Ms. Mary Werner DeNadai, FAIA,
Dr. Alferdteen Brown Harrison,
Mr. E. L. Roy Hunt, J.D.,
Mr. Ronald James,
Dr. William J. Murtagh,
Dr. William D. Seale,
Dr. Jo Anne Van Tilburg.
The meeting will be open to the
public. Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 65, any
member of the public may file, for
E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM
17AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 159 (Thursday, August 17, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47513-47516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6973]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Final 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, Department of the Interior has prepared a Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) identifying and evaluating five
alternatives for a Non-Native Deer Management Plan for Point Reyes
National Seashore administered lands. When approved, the plan will
guide the NPS in managing the herds of non-native deer over the next
two decades on all lands administered by Point Reyes National Seashore.
Through the FEIS, the potential impacts of a ``no action'' alternative
and four ``action'' alternatives are assessed and, where appropriate,
mitigation measures are applied to reduce the intensity of the
potential effect or to avoid the potential effect. 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 European 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 by local ranchers, before establishment of the Seashore.
Between 1976 and 1994, the NPS controlled the populations of the herds
by shooting the deer and more than 2,000 non-native deer were culled
during this 18-year period. Culling was discontinued in 1994 in
response to budgetary and public concerns. For the past 16 years, the
NPS has not actively managed the non-native deer and their numbers and
overall range have increased to, or surpassed, pre-control levels.
Seashore staff estimates current numbers of axis and fallow deer to be
[[Page 47514]]
approximately 250 and 860, respectively.
Description of the Planning Area
The planning area for the Non-Native Deer Management Plan (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 and protected as Wilderness.
Purpose and Need for the Federal Action
The primary problems resulting from the presence of non-native deer
in the planning area 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; the impacts on ranchers in the parks; and by affecting park
operations and budget. In addition there is the potential for each of
these impacts to increase should deer populations expand beyond park
boundaries.
As a unit of the NPS, PRNS is governed by a set of laws,
regulations and polices including the 2001 Management Policies, and it
is the set of rules as well as research data, standard biological and
ecological peer-reviewed literature, and public and agency input that
the park has used to develop the non-native deer management
alternative. Management Policies Section 4.4.1.3 clearly defines
``native species'' as all species that have occurred or now occur as a
result of natural processes on lands designated as units of the
national park system. ``Exotic species'' are those species that occupy
park lands directly or indirectly as the result of deliberate or
accidental human activities. Units of the NPS are charged to ``re-
establish natural functions and process in human-disturbed components
of natural systems (sec 4.1.5).'' The presence and recent population
and range expansion of non-native axis and fallow deer in the park is
adversely impacting many elements of the natural ecosystem including;
competition with, and displacement of, native tule elk and black-tailed
deer; the documented potential for transmitting disease to these native
ungulates; and degradation of important riparian and oak woodland
habitats. If the non-native deer continue to spread unabated, their
expansion outside PRNS boundaries could result in these adverse impacts
occurring to natural areas throughout Marin County.
The objectives of theNNDMP 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 caused by direct
consumption of forage, transmission of disease to livestock and damage
to fencing to agricultural permittees within pastoral areas.
Proposed Non-Native Deer Management Plan
Alternative E has been identified as the preferred alternative in
the Draft EIS and the FEIS. Under this alternative (Removal of All Non-
Native Deer by a Combination of Agency Removal and Fertility Control),
all axis and fallow deer in the planning area would be eradicated by
the year 2021 through a combination of lethal removal and
contraception. Culling would be conducted by NPS staff or contractors
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
registered for use in wildlife by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), data on safe and efficacious use of a candidate drug
would have to be submitted to the EPA by a sponsoring agency or
research group before it could be used at PRNS on the basis of
experimental management and population control. Population models of
fallow deer at PRNS indicate that under this alternative, if the
contraceptive used was effective in blocking fertility for at least 4
years, eradication could be accomplished with fewer fallow deer
lethally removed. Because effectiveness of long-term contraceptives on
axis deer is unknown, similar models are not yet developed for this
species. Studies on sterilant efficacy and monitoring of deer
population response to treatment will be used adaptively to guide or
refine non-native deer management activities. 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.
Principal Differences Between the Draft and Final EIS
Wildlife monitoring in the PRNS is ongoing and the analysis in the
FEIS on impacts of non-native deer has been supplemented by new
information since the Draft EIS was published, including the following:
A U.S. Geological Survey analysis of the impacts of non-native deer on
native black-tailed deer (Fellers, 2006), a U.S. Geological survey
report on the impacts of ``lekking'' fallow deer to woodland and
riparian vegetation and soils (Fellers and Osbourn, 2006), and a
Humboldt State University report on dietary overlap between fallow deer
and native tule elk (Fallon-McKnight, 2006). Based on consideration of
the results of these studies and other information, which elucidated
the adverse impacts of non-native deer on natural resources, discussion
in the FEIS of the following resource topics--water resources, soils,
vegetation, and wildlife impact--was revisited and conclusions about
intensity were clarified.
Information on wildlife contraceptive agents under development
(e.g., GonaCon [supreg] and others) and costs has been updated.
Information regarding contraceptive agents withdrawn from availability
and changes in regulatory authority over these agents was added to the
FEIS. This new information became available after release of the Draft
EIS and was obtained from experts in the filed of wildlife
contraceptive and from the EPA.
Consideration of the recent studies and new information did not
necessitate substantively altering the proposal, nor were conclusions
about significant of foreseeable environmental consequences
substantially changed.
Alternatives to Proposed Plan
The FEIS for the NNDMP analyzes four alternatives in addition to
the preferred alternative. Alternatives E and D (Removal of all Non-
Native Deer by Agency Removal) were both identified in the Draft EIS as
``environmentally preferred'' and are considered equally likely to best
protect the biological and physical environment of the planning area.
Both would strive to accomplish eradication of non-native deer within
20 years and consequently would result in
[[Page 47515]]
cessation of new adverse impacts caused by non-native deer to wildlife,
vegetation, soils, special status species, water resources, and park
operations.
Alternative A--No Action. This ``baseline'' 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 20
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 or contractors 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 levels in 15 years and to ensure
continued unharmful presence of both species in the Seashore. Because
fallow deer numbers 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, and operational and monitoring costs would not be minimized.
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 based on historical records and for management reasons. However,
the targeted population number would be re-evaluated by resource
managers regularly and could be changed based on results of ongoing
monitoring programs and practical adaptive management. Culling would be
conducted by NPS staff or contractors specifically trained in wildlife
sharpshooting. The contraceptive program would be similar to that for
Alternative E.
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 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, and operational and monitoring costs would not
be minimized. 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 PRNS and the
GGNRA lands administered by the Seashore would be eradicated through
lethal removal (shooting) by 2021 through annual shooting. Culling
would be conducted by NPS staff or contractors 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 a minimum of 13 years and no more than 20
years. In comparison to the alternatives that rely on contraception,
Alternative D minimizes the overall 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. 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. Regardless of the
alternatives selected, all actions involving 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 within desginated Wilderness, from monitoring to active deer
management, would be consistent with the minimum requirement concept.
Summary of Public Engagement
On December 5, 2001, representatives of public agencies were
invited to attend an informational meeting at the Seashore, with the
objective of conferring with those agencies about updating the park's
non-native deer management plan. On April 10, 2002, a Notice of Scoping
was published in the Federal Register and in local newspapers. Public
scoping comments were solicited at a public information meeting held at
the Point Reyes Dance Palace on May 4, 2002. Written scoping comments
were accepted through July 5, 2002. All those who sent written comments
dfurign the scoping period and who gave a return mailing address were
included in the NNDMP mailing list. During the February-July 2002
period, PRNS staff gave numerous presentations to local and state
public groups on the NNDMP conservation planning process and provided
background information on non-native deer. Audiences ranged from local
homeowners and ranchers' associations to local branches of national
environmental and animal rights groups.
The Draft EIS was made available for public review and comment for
63 days, from February 4, 2005 through April 8, 2005. Midway through
the public comment period, on March 3, 2005, an informational meeting
was held int he Red Barn Classroom at Seashore Headquarters.
Approximately 60 people attended the 3-hour meeting and posed questions
to a panel of scientists and staff or expressed their concerns and
preferences regarding the plan and management alternatives. Audience
members were informed of a number of ways to submit comments on the
NNDMP either that night at the meeting, or by mail/e-mail by April 8,
2005. Some comment letters arrived past the end of the comment period
(up to April 19, 2005) but were nontheless included as part of the
public comment received. During the comment period, the NPS received a
total of 1,980 peices of correspondence (including letters, e-mails,
fascimiles, and hand-delivered comment forms), containing 4450
individual comments. Ninety-four percent of the comments were sent in
by individual members of the public and the remainder were received
from environmental, professional, and recreational groups, civic
organizations, and government agencies. All comments were carefully
reviewed, and responses to substantive comments were prepared
[[Page 47516]]
for inclusion in the FEIS. Where warranted, portions of the FEIS
reflect edits to the Draft EIS text in response to salient
recommendations from some commentors or to provide clarification in
view of concerns brought up by the public. And as noted above, new
studies and technical information not available prior to release of the
Draft EIS are discussed. All comments received are included in the
administrative record.
In conformance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, on
March 26, 2003, PRNS initiated the consultation process with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS). On March 10, 2005, the park requested concurrence from
USFWS with its finding that the proposed plan would be not likely to
adversely affect nine plant and wildlife species or the proposed
critical habitat for the California red-legged frog or adversely affect
nine plant and animal species during implementation of the preferred
alternative. On April 7, 2005, the USFWS concurred with the park's
findings that measures in the proposed plan are sufficient to reduce
any direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the nine listed species
and proposed critical habitat to an insignificant or discountable
level. With the issuance of this memo, the USFWS concluded its
consultation process for the NNDMP.
On March 28, 2005, PRNS transmitted a letter to the NMFS with
regard to potential effects on listed anadromous fish species and fish
habitat within the planning area. PRNS clarified that no proposed
actions would take place in creeks, waterways, or riparian areas and
therefore the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect
central California coast environmentally significant unit (ESU) coho
salmon, central California coast ESU steelhead, California coastal ESU
Chinook salmon, Designated Critical Habitat for central California
coast ESU coho salmon, or Essential Fish Habitat for coho salmon and
Chinook salmon. NMFS concurred with the park's findings in a letter to
the NPS on May 3, 2005, ending the information consultation process.
ADDRESSES: New requests for copies of the FEIS may be sent to the
Superintendent, Attn: NNDMP, Point Reyes National Seashore, Point
Reyes, CA 94956 (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 received the DEIS or previously have requested it, and it is also
available in electronic format at the NPS's Planning, Environment, and
Public Comment Web site https://parkplanning.nps.gov/pore. Both the
printed document and digital version on compact disk will be available
at the park headquarters and local libraries. Any correspondence
regarding the NNDMP should be addressed to the Superintendent either by
mail or e-mail (see addresses above). Please note that names and
addresses of all respondents will become part of the public record. It
is the practice of the NPS to make comments, including names, home
addresses, home phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of respondents,
available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we
withhold their names and/or home addresses, etc., but if you wish us to
consider withholding this information, you must state this prominently
at the beginning of your comments. In addition, you must present a
rationale for withholding this information. This rationale must
demonstrate that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of privacy. Unsupported assertions will not meet this burden.
In the absence of exceptional, documentable circumstances, this
information will be released. We will always make submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying
themselves as representatives of or officials or organizations or
businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
Decision
As a delegated EIS, the official responsible for the final decision
is the Regional Director, Pacific West Region. A Record of Decision,
documenting the environmental decision-making process on the NNDMP will
be prepared not sooner than 30 days following the publication in the
Federal Register of the EPA's notice of filing and availability of the
Final EIS. Subsequently and prior to implementation, notice of approval
of the Record of Decision will be posted in the Federal Register and
announced via local and regional news media. Following approval of the
Non-Native Deer Management Plan, the official responsible for
implementation will be the Superintendent, Point Reyes National
Seashore.
Dated: April 7, 2006.
Jonathan B. Jarvis,
Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 06-6973 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-FW-M
