Record of Decision on the White-Tailed Deer Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement for Gettysburg National Military Park/ Eisenhower National Historic Site, Pennsylvania

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Record of Decision on the White-Tailed Deer Management Plan Final

Environmental Impact Statement for Gettysburg National Military Park/

Eisenhower National Historic Site, Pennsylvania

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of release.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended), and the regulations

promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality in 40 CFR 1505.2,

the National Park Service (NPS) has released the Record of Decision

(ROD) on the White-tailed Deer Management Plan, Environmental Impact

Statement for Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhower National

Historic Site.

DATES: The Record of Decision was recommended by the Superintendent of

Gettysburg National Military Park/Eisenhower National Historic Site and

approved by the Field Director of the Northeast Field Area on June 28,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Inquiries regarding the Environmental Impact Statement or

the Record of Decision should be submitted to the Superintendent,

Gettysburg National Military Park, 97 Taneytown Road, Gettysburg, PA

17325, telephone (717) 334-1124.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhower National Historic

Site, located in Adams County, Pennsylvania, were established for their

historic significance. Gettysburg National Military Park preserves the

battlefield at Gettysburg and interprets its significance as one of the

most eventful battles of the American Civil War. Eisenhower National

Historic Site is adjacent to the battlefield and interprets the life

and career of President Dwight D. Eisenhower and the important events

that occurred there.

The landscapes of the sites are critical to the interpretation of

the events that took place in each park. Management objectives for

maintaining landscape components, specifically historic woodlots and

cropfields, were developed to enhance visitor understanding of each

park's events. Perpetuation of the historic woodlots and the rural

agricultural scene, according to the management objectives, is not

possible because of deer browsing.

[[Page 36160]]

Background

In the late 1970's resource managers at the parks noticed

increasing evidence of deer browsing in the historic woodlots. At the

same time, permittees that maintain the agricultural fields reported

increasing deer browsing on field crops. In 1985, research was begun to

document deer browsing impacts to the woodlots and to determine the

deer population status, movements, and habitat use. Population surveys

commenced in 1987 in the 11 square mile deer study area and have

continued to the present. The April mean population estimates have

ranged from 721 to 1,441 deer for the study area.

Data from the study showed that the woodlots and cropfields could

not be maintained in a way necessary to achieve park management

objectives. The high level of deer browsing was preventing a sufficient

number of tree seedlings from becoming established, which is needed to

perpetuate the historic woodlots. The agricultural program was unable

to grow historical crops to maturity in Eisenhower NHS and the southern

part of Gettysburg NMP due to deer browsing.

In 1992, the parks proposed to manage the level of deer browsing in

the parks so the landscape management objectives could be met. The

estimated number of deer in the study area that will have a level of

deer browsing that allows the parks to meet their landscape management

objectives is approximately 80 deer (see Appendix C and Appendix E of

the EIS). The 1995 population survey estimated 1,148 deer in the study

area.

Reasonable options for controlling the level of deer browsing were

investigated. The decision was made to complete an environmental impact

statement (EIS) in order to reach a decision on the best deer

management alternative that would enable the parks to meet their

management objectives. The EIS process was begun on August 21, 1992,

with the publication in the Federal Register of a Notice of Intent to

prepare a draft EIS. A public information meeting and a scoping meeting

were held to identify issues and concerns related to the deer

management proposal. The Notice of Availability of the draft EIS was

published in the Federal Register on November 14, 1994. The comment

period on the draft EIS ended February 10, 1995. Substantive comments

were responded to in the final EIS which was released May 26, 1995. The

Notice of Availability of the final EIS appeared in the May 16, 1995,

Federal Register.

The Selected Action

The National Park Service has selected a combination approach

(Alternative 5) to reduce the deer population and thus the level of

deer browsing in the parks. Alternative 5 is the combination of

Alternative 2B and Alternative 4. Deer will be shot in the parks by

authorized personnel (Alternative 2B) and hunted outside the parks by

licensed hunters in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Game Commission

and private landowners (Alternative 4). The two methods will be

repeated, as needed, annually from October through April. The deer

population will be reduced to a predetermined population density so the

parks can meet their landscape management objectives.

Basis for Decision

The selected action addresses the impacts the deer population has

on the historic woodlots and cropfields, which are components of the

cultural landscapes of the parks. Without the proposed action, the NPS

would have increasing difficulty in maintaining the essential landscape

features necessary for understanding the historic occurrences of each

park. This action should also reduce deer browsing damage to private

property near the parks.

Shooting deer inside and outside of the parks is the most effective

and efficient method to reduce and maintain the deer population at a

density which will have acceptable impacts to park woodlots and

cropfields. With increased public hunting outside the parks and no

shooting in the parks, there would be limited effect on deer density in

the parks (see p.65 of the EIS). Alternately, shooting deer only in the

parks, while hunting on private land remained limited, would diminish

the effectiveness of reducing deer density in the parks. An effective

combination approach will have fewer impacts to visitor use and cost

less than using Alternative 2B alone (see p. 66 of the EIS).

Encouraging public hunting outside the parks is the preferred

method, according to NPS policy, for controlling wildlife populations

in parks. In this case, however, shooting inside the parks will occur

during the same period. This was determined to be necessary to achieve

the density goal because it removes the parks as a place where deer

seek refuge. Hunting is not permitted in either park, because it is not

authorized by law (see p. 103 of the EIS). Therefore, only NPS

authorized individuals will be allowed to shoot deer in the parks. The

NPS will seek to coordinate deer management activities near the parks

with nearby private landowners and the Pennsylvania Game Commission.

Private landowners that are willing can increase hunting opportunities

by allowing or increasing hunter access to their land during the deer

hunting seasons. The Pennsylvania Game Commission, which establishes

the length of the hunting seasons and harvest limits in the state, may

play a crucial role. If the effort to increase public access does not

result in sufficient deer being killed, the NPS will seek cooperation

from the Pennsylvania Game Commission to increase the number of deer

that could be killed near the parks.

Measures To Minimize Impacts and Address Public Concerns

The selected alternative incorporates a variety of measures to

minimize the adverse environmental, social, and economic impacts as

described in the final EIS.

Visitor safety will be the first priority before and during any

management action. Shooting in the parks will occur only in areas where

and when public safety and resource protection is assured. Deer will be

shot in the parks during both day and nightime hours. To ensure public

safety, night shooting will be conducted only at bait stations which

will also improve the effectiveness of the reduction program. Prior to

each annual reduction period, public notification will be provided as

to the time period when shooting may occur and the areas where access

will be restricted or prohibited. This notification will lessen

inconvenience to visitors and provide for public safety. Only NPS

authorized individuals highly skilled and trained in the use of

firearms and public safety will shoot deer in the parks. This

requirement will result in a humane means of direct reduction and

reduce the risk of damage to historical resources. The venison will be

donated to food service organizations for distribution to the needy.

The hides, if removed, and entrails will be disposed of consistent with

federal and state laws. In the short term, a large number of deer will

be killed annually to reach the density goal. When the population is

reduced to the density goal, fewer deer will need to be killed annually

to maintain the population at that level. As the management action

progresses, the remaining deer population will be monitored by park

personnel. Monitoring information on the deer, woodlots and cropfields,

will guide the ongoing deer population maintenance program.

[[Page 36161]]

Some individuals have expressed concerns during the scoping and

comment periods regarding the alternatives for managing the deer

population in the parks. Some of the expressed concerns relating to the

selected alternative included: Killing deer on a historic battlefield;

that animals will lose their life; and that NPS personnel, not hunters,

will kill deer in the parks. The NPS acknowledges the feelings and

concerns of these individuals. Keeping in mind the purpose for which

each park was established, however, this action was chosen to maintain

the historic landscapes of the two parks and aid visitor understanding

of the historic events, while ensuring public safety.

Other Alternatives Considered

Nine alternatives for controlling the deer browsing in the parks

were dismissed from further analysis for reasons explained in the EIS.

The rejected alternatives included: releasing predators; using

deterrents, repellents, or poison; hunting in the parks; fencing;

converting cropfields to hay and grass; selling the deer; and allowing

private landowners to kill as many deer as they wished on their

property and sell the carcasses for profit. Six alternatives, including

the proposed action, were considered in the EIS. Alternative 1, No

Action, considered taking no management action to control the effects

of deer browsing in the parks. The NPS statutory mission is to preserve

parks for the enjoyment of present and future generations. The historic

woodlots could not be perpetuated for future generations under the No

Action Alternative because deer browsing would continue to prevent

seedlings from becoming established. In addition, the parks could not

meet their landscape management objectives for cropfields with the No

Action Alternative.

Alternative 2A, Capture and Transfer, discussed deer population

management through capturing and relocating the deer. Live trapping for

relocation, according to NPS policy, is the preferred method for

controlling wildlife populations within parks. Suitable relocation

sites outside the parks, however, have not been identified (see p. 61

of the EIS). Deer-related problems are amplified at the release site if

deer are transferred to an unsuitable location. The Pennsylvania Game

Commission will not support requests for permits to transfer any

trapped deer (see Pennsylvania Game Commission comment letter p. 105-1

in final EIS). Transferring deer also requires the long-term commitment

of a large amount of resources.

Alternative 3, Reproductive Intervention, explored surgical

sterilization and contraception of deer. This alternative was a

component of the preferred alternative in the draft EIS. The use of

contraceptives on deer, which are considered food-producing animals,

must be approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Contraceptive

vaccines and steroids to control deer reproduction for population

management have not been approved for use at this time. In addition,

surgical sterilization was considered impractical because of the large

number of deer in the parks. This alternative was, therefore, rejected

and removed from the preferred alternative in the final EIS.

Alternative 2B, Direct Reduction, is management of the deer

population in the parks through shooting by NPS personnel and

authorized agents. Alternative 4, Cooperative Management, is the

combined effort of the NPS, Pennsylvania Game Commission, and nearby

private landowners to increase public hunting opportunities outside the

parks. These two alternatives comprise the selected alternative,

Alternative 5, Combined Management.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

The environmentally preferred alternative is the one that causes

the least damage to the biological and physical environment. It is the

alternative or alternatives which best protect, preserve, and enhance

the historic, cultural, and natural resources in the area where the

proposed action is to take place.

Alternative 5, Combined Management, is the selected action and the

environmentally preferred alternative. The combination of shooting deer

inside and outside the parks will be the most successful at reducing

the number of deer in the parks. This action will reduce the park deer

population so park management objectives may be achieved. The historic

and cultural resources are particularly important at these parks. The

reduced deer density in the parks will make it possible for the

historic woodlots to regenerate and the agricultural programs at the

battlefield and the Eisenhower Farm to maintain the cropfield component

of the cultural landscapes. The reduced level of deer browsing will

result in an increase in abundance and diversity of herbaceous and

woody vegetation. This reduction, not elimination, of the deer

population in the parks will enhance the protection and preservation of

the historic, cultural, and other natural resources of each park.

Capture and transfer was initially considered as another

environmentally preferred alternative. Suitable relocation sites and

transfer permits, however, are not available. Even if relocation sites

could be found, the ability of capture and transfer to control deer

populations on a long-term basis has not been proven for large

populations (see p. 61 of the EIS). This alternative, therefore, was

not selected as an environmentally preferred alternative.

Conclusion

The above factors and considerations justify selection of the

preferred alternative as identified and detailed in the final EIS.

In July, park personnel will begin dialogue with local private

landowners in an effort to increase hunting opportunities on private

lands near the parks. An action plan will be written for the deer

reduction efforts in the parks. Killing deer to reduce and maintain the

population at a level where park landscape management objectives are

met is proposed to begin in October, 1995.

Dated: July 5, 1995.

Warren D. Beach,

Northeast Field Area, Acting Associate Field Director.

[FR Doc. 95-17226 Filed 7-12-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-70-M