Ungulate Management Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve, Colorado, 16120-16121 [2018-07681]
Download as PDF
16120
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2018 / Notices
Dakota, that this notice has been
published.
Dated: March 21, 2018.
Melanie O’Brien,
Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
[FR Doc. 2018–07703 Filed 4–12–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–52–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
[NPS–IMR–GRSA–24169; PPWONRADE2,
PMP00EI05.YP0000]
Ungulate Management Plan Draft
Environmental Impact Statement,
Great Sand Dunes National Park and
Preserve, Colorado
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The National Park Service
announces the availability of a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
for the Ungulate Management Plan
(UMP) for Great Sand Dunes National
Park and Preserve, Colorado. The UMP
DEIS assesses the impacts that could
result from continuing current
management (the no-action alternative),
or implementing any of the action
alternatives for the future management
of elk and bison at Great Sand Dunes.
The NPS preferred alternative identified
in the UMP DEIS is alternative 3.
DATES: The National Park Service will
accept comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for 45
days after the date the Environmental
Protection Agency publishes their
Notice of Availability in the Federal
Register.
SUMMARY:
Information will be
available for public review and
comment online at https://
parkplanning.nps.gov/grsa, and in the
Office of the Superintendent, Great
Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve,
11500 Highway 150 Mosca, Colorado
81146.
ADDRESSES:
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Acting Superintendent, Great Sand
Dunes National Park and Preserve,
11500 Highway 150, Mosca, Colorado
81146, (719) 378–6311, grsa_
superintendent@nps.gov; or Fred
Bunch, Chief of Resource Management,
Great Sand Dunes National Park and
Preserve, 11500 Highway 150, Mosca,
Colorado 81146, (719) 378–6361, fred_
bunch@nps.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
combined General Management Plan
(GMP)/Wilderness Study for the Great
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Apr 12, 2018
Jkt 244001
Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve
(GRSA) was approved in 2007. In the
GMP Record of Decision, the NPS
committed to developing an elk
management plan to address concerns of
elk overconcentration in GRSA. The
GMP also addressed the potential future
acquisition of the Medano Ranch from
The Nature Conservancy (TNC). TNC
currently manages a bison herd on these
lands, and the GMP noted if additional
bison habitat became available at some
time in the future, the NPS could
consider managing bison in the park.
As a result of the guidance in the
GMP and active, ongoing efforts to
acquire the Medano Ranch, the NPS has
prepared this Ungulate Management
Plan Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (UMP DEIS). The purpose of
the UMP DEIS is to determine the
appropriate future management of elk
and bison in GRSA. Action is needed at
this time because:
• Elk and bison are currently on the
landscape and there is no plan to
address their management and impacts,
both positive and negative, in support of
desired habitat conditions.
• Disproportionate elk use in
sensitive and highly productive/diverse
areas of the park is leading to adverse
impacts, particularly in wetland
vegetation communities. In addition, the
existing bison herd spends a
disproportionate amount of time using
these same vegetation communities,
particularly during winter when elk
overconcentration is the highest.
• Bison are currently managed by
TNC on the Medano Ranch and portions
of the Park and a decision is needed to
determine whether to have bison at
GRSA in the future and, if so, how to
manage them.
• The Department of the Interior
(DOI) Bison Conservation Initiative and
the NPS Call to Action (Back Home on
the Range), combined with additional
information about bison and bison
habitat in the San Luis Valley, provides
an opportunity to reexamine the
potential for bison conservation
following the 2007 GMP.
This UMP DEIS, which was prepared
with the US Fish and Wildlife Service
and Colorado Parks and Wildlife as
cooperating agencies, evaluates the
impacts of the no-action alternative
(Alternative 1) and three action
alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4).
Under alternative 1, public elk
hunting would continue in the Preserve,
but there would be no other active elk
management and no new action would
occur to manage impacts from elk,
including the effects of elk herbivory.
TNC would continue to graze bison on
the Medano Ranch until government
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
acquisition and would be responsible
for removing their bison and associated
fencing prior to NPS acquisition of the
Medano Ranch, in accordance with the
2007 GMP Record of Decision. Under
this alternative, the NPS would remove
the current bison fencing on NPS lands.
Alternative 2 would incorporate
active elk management to redistribute
elk from areas of overconcentration.
Public elk hunting would continue in
the Preserve, and NPS would use elk
dispersal tools in the Park, including
non-lethal hazing, and limited lethal
removal using trained volunteers and
other authorized agents. Additional
exclosures (fencing) would be
constructed for the purpose of
protecting sensitive habitat or for habitat
restoration. This alternative would
follow the current direction in the GMP
for bison, as described for Alternative 1.
Alternative 3 (the NPS Preferred
Alternative) would include public elk
hunting in the Preserve, and the same
non-lethal and lethal elk redistribution
tools described under Alternative 2. The
NPS would also make a programmatic
decision to amend the GMP and manage
a bison herd in the park after acquisition
of the Medano Ranch. For the first 5–7
years after acquisition of the Medano
Ranch, the NPS would seek to partner
with TNC to manage the bison herd.
After this timeframe, the NPS would
assume responsibility of bison
management within the existing bison
fence, with a population goal of 80 to
260 animals. The bison range could be
expanded within the life of the plan, at
which point the NPS could consider a
population goal between 80 and 560
animals. Tools used to manage bison
abundance and distribution in the
future would include roundup and
translocation, hazing, and limited lethal
removal.
Under Alternative 4, public elk
hunting in the Preserve would continue,
and the NPS would use the same nonlethal and lethal elk redistribution tools
described under Alternatives 2 and 3 in
the Park. Under this alternative, the NPS
would acquire the Medano Ranch and
work with TNC to remove all bison, but
would make a programmatic decision to
amend the GMP so that after a period of
5–7 years, the NPS would establish a
new conservation herd to be managed
by the NPS. Once re-established, bison
abundance and range would be the same
as described for alternative 3, as would
potential future bison management
tools.
Because the range of alternatives
includes the removal of bison
completely or deferred NPS
management of bison for 5–7 years, and
because of concerns that the high
E:\FR\FM\13APN1.SGM
13APN1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2018 / Notices
concentration of elk could be resulting
in impacts on certain park resources
such as wetlands, the initial phase of
this plan would focus on managing elk
to alter their high concentrations at
certain times in the Park. Over the long
term, the NPS would develop
quantitative metrics of ecological
integrity and vegetative condition as
additional triggers to adaptively manage
elk and, possibly, bison, depending on
the selected action. Over the long-term,
the NPS would use adaptive monitoring
and adaptive management of elk and, if
appropriate, bison, to support a
historical array of ecologically healthy
plant communities across the Park’s
landscape that are used by these
ungulates, specifically riparian and
wetland communities, as well as shrub
and grassland communities. The goal of
this long-term adaptive management
framework is to continually evaluate the
effectiveness of the ungulate
management plan; improve management
over time; and ensure that impacts of
elk and bison, and their management
inside the Park, remain in the range
predicted in the UMP/EIS.
The NPS is preparing this UMP DEIS
to analyze specific proposals related to
elk management tools that might be
used to address overconcentration issue,
while providing a programmatic
(broader and higher level) analysis of
potential decisions about the future of
bison in GRSA. Those decisions include
(1) whether or not to amend the GMP to
allow for bison at GRSA, and if so, how
many bison might be appropriate; (2)
when the NPS would assume bison
management responsibilities; and (3)
what management tools the NPS might
use upon assuming bison management
responsibilities. This programmatic
analysis is intended to address the
general environmental issues, impacts,
and benefits relating to these broad
decisions about bison. NPS feels this a
meaningful point to make these broad
decisions, but there is too much
uncertainty at this time as to the
ultimate specific implementation of
potential bison management tools,
should the NPS select an alternative that
includes bison at GRSA. If such an
alternative becomes the selected action,
this programmatic National
Environmental Policy Act review for
bison would support more specific
subsequent decisions and provide a
body of information that can be
incorporated by reference into any
future planning/compliance that may be
needed.
Public Participation: After the
Environmental Protection Agency
Notice of Availability is published, the
NPS will schedule public meetings to be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Apr 12, 2018
Jkt 244001
held during the comment period. Dates,
times, and locations of these meetings
will be announced in press releases and
on the NPS Planning, Environment, and
Public Comment website for the UMP
DEIS at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/
grsa.
How To Comment: You are
encouraged to comment on the UMP
DEIS at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/
grsa. You may also hand-deliver or mail
your comments to the Superintendent,
Great Sand Dunes National Park and
Preserve, 11500 Highway 150, Mosca,
Colorado 81146. Written comments will
also be accepted during scheduled
public meetings discussed above.
Comments will not be accepted by fax,
email, or by any method other than
those specified above. Bulk comments
in any format (hard copy or electronic)
submitted on behalf of others will not be
accepted. Before including your
address, phone number, email address,
or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you
should be aware that your entire
comment—including your personal
identifying information—may be made
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask us in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 43 CFR
part 46.
Dated: April 2, 2018.
Sue E. Masica,
Regional Director, Intermountain Region,
National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 2018–07681 Filed 4–12–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–52–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
[NPS–WASO–NAGPRA–NPS0025285;
PPWOCRADN0–PCU00RP14.R50000]
Notice of Inventory Completion:
Mississippi Department of Archives
and History, Jackson, MS
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Mississippi Department
of Archives and History has completed
an inventory of human remains and
associated funerary objects, in
consultation with the appropriate
Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian
organizations, and has determined that
there is no cultural affiliation between
the human remains and associated
funerary objects and present-day Indian
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16121
Tribes. Lineal descendants or
representatives of any Indian Tribe or
Native Hawaiian organization not
identified in this notice that wish to
request transfer of control of these
human remains and associated funerary
objects should submit a written request
to the Mississippi Department of
Archives and History. If no additional
requestors come forward, transfer of
control of the human remains and
associated funerary objects to the Indian
Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations
stated in this notice may proceed.
DATES: Lineal descendants or
representatives of any Indian Tribe or
Native Hawaiian organization not
identified in this notice that wish to
request transfer of control of these
human remains and associated funerary
objects should submit a written request
with information in support of the
request to the Mississippi Department of
Archives and History at the address in
this notice by May 14, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Patty Miller-Beech,
Mississippi Department of Archives and
History, P.O. Box 571, Jackson, MS
39205–0571, telephone (601) 576–6944,
email pmbeech@mdah.ms.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
here given in accordance with the
Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C.
3003, of the completion of an inventory
of human remains and associated
funerary objects under the control of the
Mississippi Department of Archives and
History, Jackson, MS. The human
remains and associated funerary objects
were removed from Tunica County,
DeSoto County, Clay County, and
Panola County, MS.
This notice is published as part of the
National Park Service’s administrative
responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25
U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d).
The determinations in this notice are
the sole responsibility of the museum,
institution, or Federal agency that has
control of the Native American human
remains and associated funerary objects.
The National Park Service is not
responsible for the determinations in
this notice.
Consultation
A detailed assessment of the human
remains was made by the Mississippi
Department of Archives and History’s
professional staff in consultation with
representatives of The Chickasaw
Nation. The following Indian Tribes
were invited to consult but did not wish
to participate: the Alabama-Coushatta
Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the
Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas),
Jena Band of Choctaw Indians,
E:\FR\FM\13APN1.SGM
13APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 72 (Friday, April 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16120-16121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07681]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
[NPS-IMR-GRSA-24169; PPWONRADE2, PMP00EI05.YP0000]
Ungulate Management Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve, Colorado
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Park Service announces the availability of a
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Ungulate Management
Plan (UMP) for Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve, Colorado.
The UMP DEIS assesses the impacts that could result from continuing
current management (the no-action alternative), or implementing any of
the action alternatives for the future management of elk and bison at
Great Sand Dunes. The NPS preferred alternative identified in the UMP
DEIS is alternative 3.
DATES: The National Park Service will accept comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for 45 days after the date the
Environmental Protection Agency publishes their Notice of Availability
in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Information will be available for public review and comment
online at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/grsa, and in the Office of the
Superintendent, Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve, 11500
Highway 150 Mosca, Colorado 81146.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Acting Superintendent, Great Sand
Dunes National Park and Preserve, 11500 Highway 150, Mosca, Colorado
81146, (719) 378-6311, [email protected]; or Fred Bunch,
Chief of Resource Management, Great Sand Dunes National Park and
Preserve, 11500 Highway 150, Mosca, Colorado 81146, (719) 378-6361,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The combined General Management Plan (GMP)/
Wilderness Study for the Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve
(GRSA) was approved in 2007. In the GMP Record of Decision, the NPS
committed to developing an elk management plan to address concerns of
elk overconcentration in GRSA. The GMP also addressed the potential
future acquisition of the Medano Ranch from The Nature Conservancy
(TNC). TNC currently manages a bison herd on these lands, and the GMP
noted if additional bison habitat became available at some time in the
future, the NPS could consider managing bison in the park.
As a result of the guidance in the GMP and active, ongoing efforts
to acquire the Medano Ranch, the NPS has prepared this Ungulate
Management Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement (UMP DEIS). The
purpose of the UMP DEIS is to determine the appropriate future
management of elk and bison in GRSA. Action is needed at this time
because:
Elk and bison are currently on the landscape and there is
no plan to address their management and impacts, both positive and
negative, in support of desired habitat conditions.
Disproportionate elk use in sensitive and highly
productive/diverse areas of the park is leading to adverse impacts,
particularly in wetland vegetation communities. In addition, the
existing bison herd spends a disproportionate amount of time using
these same vegetation communities, particularly during winter when elk
overconcentration is the highest.
Bison are currently managed by TNC on the Medano Ranch and
portions of the Park and a decision is needed to determine whether to
have bison at GRSA in the future and, if so, how to manage them.
The Department of the Interior (DOI) Bison Conservation
Initiative and the NPS Call to Action (Back Home on the Range),
combined with additional information about bison and bison habitat in
the San Luis Valley, provides an opportunity to reexamine the potential
for bison conservation following the 2007 GMP.
This UMP DEIS, which was prepared with the US Fish and Wildlife
Service and Colorado Parks and Wildlife as cooperating agencies,
evaluates the impacts of the no-action alternative (Alternative 1) and
three action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4).
Under alternative 1, public elk hunting would continue in the
Preserve, but there would be no other active elk management and no new
action would occur to manage impacts from elk, including the effects of
elk herbivory. TNC would continue to graze bison on the Medano Ranch
until government acquisition and would be responsible for removing
their bison and associated fencing prior to NPS acquisition of the
Medano Ranch, in accordance with the 2007 GMP Record of Decision. Under
this alternative, the NPS would remove the current bison fencing on NPS
lands.
Alternative 2 would incorporate active elk management to
redistribute elk from areas of overconcentration. Public elk hunting
would continue in the Preserve, and NPS would use elk dispersal tools
in the Park, including non-lethal hazing, and limited lethal removal
using trained volunteers and other authorized agents. Additional
exclosures (fencing) would be constructed for the purpose of protecting
sensitive habitat or for habitat restoration. This alternative would
follow the current direction in the GMP for bison, as described for
Alternative 1.
Alternative 3 (the NPS Preferred Alternative) would include public
elk hunting in the Preserve, and the same non-lethal and lethal elk
redistribution tools described under Alternative 2. The NPS would also
make a programmatic decision to amend the GMP and manage a bison herd
in the park after acquisition of the Medano Ranch. For the first 5-7
years after acquisition of the Medano Ranch, the NPS would seek to
partner with TNC to manage the bison herd. After this timeframe, the
NPS would assume responsibility of bison management within the existing
bison fence, with a population goal of 80 to 260 animals. The bison
range could be expanded within the life of the plan, at which point the
NPS could consider a population goal between 80 and 560 animals. Tools
used to manage bison abundance and distribution in the future would
include roundup and translocation, hazing, and limited lethal removal.
Under Alternative 4, public elk hunting in the Preserve would
continue, and the NPS would use the same non-lethal and lethal elk
redistribution tools described under Alternatives 2 and 3 in the Park.
Under this alternative, the NPS would acquire the Medano Ranch and work
with TNC to remove all bison, but would make a programmatic decision to
amend the GMP so that after a period of 5-7 years, the NPS would
establish a new conservation herd to be managed by the NPS. Once re-
established, bison abundance and range would be the same as described
for alternative 3, as would potential future bison management tools.
Because the range of alternatives includes the removal of bison
completely or deferred NPS management of bison for 5-7 years, and
because of concerns that the high
[[Page 16121]]
concentration of elk could be resulting in impacts on certain park
resources such as wetlands, the initial phase of this plan would focus
on managing elk to alter their high concentrations at certain times in
the Park. Over the long term, the NPS would develop quantitative
metrics of ecological integrity and vegetative condition as additional
triggers to adaptively manage elk and, possibly, bison, depending on
the selected action. Over the long-term, the NPS would use adaptive
monitoring and adaptive management of elk and, if appropriate, bison,
to support a historical array of ecologically healthy plant communities
across the Park's landscape that are used by these ungulates,
specifically riparian and wetland communities, as well as shrub and
grassland communities. The goal of this long-term adaptive management
framework is to continually evaluate the effectiveness of the ungulate
management plan; improve management over time; and ensure that impacts
of elk and bison, and their management inside the Park, remain in the
range predicted in the UMP/EIS.
The NPS is preparing this UMP DEIS to analyze specific proposals
related to elk management tools that might be used to address
overconcentration issue, while providing a programmatic (broader and
higher level) analysis of potential decisions about the future of bison
in GRSA. Those decisions include (1) whether or not to amend the GMP to
allow for bison at GRSA, and if so, how many bison might be
appropriate; (2) when the NPS would assume bison management
responsibilities; and (3) what management tools the NPS might use upon
assuming bison management responsibilities. This programmatic analysis
is intended to address the general environmental issues, impacts, and
benefits relating to these broad decisions about bison. NPS feels this
a meaningful point to make these broad decisions, but there is too much
uncertainty at this time as to the ultimate specific implementation of
potential bison management tools, should the NPS select an alternative
that includes bison at GRSA. If such an alternative becomes the
selected action, this programmatic National Environmental Policy Act
review for bison would support more specific subsequent decisions and
provide a body of information that can be incorporated by reference
into any future planning/compliance that may be needed.
Public Participation: After the Environmental Protection Agency
Notice of Availability is published, the NPS will schedule public
meetings to be held during the comment period. Dates, times, and
locations of these meetings will be announced in press releases and on
the NPS Planning, Environment, and Public Comment website for the UMP
DEIS at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/grsa.
How To Comment: You are encouraged to comment on the UMP DEIS at
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/grsa. You may also hand-deliver or mail
your comments to the Superintendent, Great Sand Dunes National Park and
Preserve, 11500 Highway 150, Mosca, Colorado 81146. Written comments
will also be accepted during scheduled public meetings discussed above.
Comments will not be accepted by fax, email, or by any method other
than those specified above. Bulk comments in any format (hard copy or
electronic) submitted on behalf of others will not be accepted. Before
including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal
identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your
entire comment--including your personal identifying information--may be
made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your
comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public
review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 43 CFR part 46.
Dated: April 2, 2018.
Sue E. Masica,
Regional Director, Intermountain Region, National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-07681 Filed 4-12-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-P