![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Final Environmental Impact Statement/Non-Native Deer Management Plan Point Reyes National Seashore; Marin County, CA; Notice of Availability
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: August 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 159)]
[Notices]
[Page 47513-47516]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17au06-74]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 http://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