83 FR 16120 - Ungulate Management Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve, Colorado
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 72 (April 13, 2018)
National Park Service
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 72 (April 13, 2018)
| Page Range | 16120-16121 | |
| FR Document | 2018-07681 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 72 (Friday, April 13, 2018)] [Notices] [Pages 16120-16121] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [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 http://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 http://parkplanning.nps.gov/grsa. How To Comment: You are encouraged to comment on the UMP DEIS at http://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
![16120 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2018 / Notices
Dakota, that this notice has been Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve acquisition and would be responsible
published. (GRSA) was approved in 2007. In the for removing their bison and associated
Dated: March 21, 2018. GMP Record of Decision, the NPS fencing prior to NPS acquisition of the
Melanie O’Brien,
committed to developing an elk Medano Ranch, in accordance with the
management plan to address concerns of 2007 GMP Record of Decision. Under
Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
elk overconcentration in GRSA. The this alternative, the NPS would remove
[FR Doc. 2018–07703 Filed 4–12–18; 8:45 am] GMP also addressed the potential future the current bison fencing on NPS lands.
BILLING CODE 4312–52–P acquisition of the Medano Ranch from Alternative 2 would incorporate
The Nature Conservancy (TNC). TNC active elk management to redistribute
currently manages a bison herd on these elk from areas of overconcentration.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR lands, and the GMP noted if additional Public elk hunting would continue in
bison habitat became available at some the Preserve, and NPS would use elk
National Park Service
time in the future, the NPS could dispersal tools in the Park, including
[NPS–IMR–GRSA–24169; PPWONRADE2, consider managing bison in the park. non-lethal hazing, and limited lethal
PMP00EI05.YP0000] As a result of the guidance in the removal using trained volunteers and
GMP and active, ongoing efforts to other authorized agents. Additional
Ungulate Management Plan Draft acquire the Medano Ranch, the NPS has exclosures (fencing) would be
Environmental Impact Statement, prepared this Ungulate Management constructed for the purpose of
Great Sand Dunes National Park and Plan Draft Environmental Impact protecting sensitive habitat or for habitat
Preserve, Colorado Statement (UMP DEIS). The purpose of restoration. This alternative would
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. the UMP DEIS is to determine the follow the current direction in the GMP
appropriate future management of elk for bison, as described for Alternative 1.
ACTION:Notice of availability; request and bison in GRSA. Action is needed at Alternative 3 (the NPS Preferred
for comments. this time because: Alternative) would include public elk
SUMMARY: The National Park Service • Elk and bison are currently on the hunting in the Preserve, and the same
announces the availability of a Draft landscape and there is no plan to non-lethal and lethal elk redistribution
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) address their management and impacts, tools described under Alternative 2. The
for the Ungulate Management Plan both positive and negative, in support of NPS would also make a programmatic
(UMP) for Great Sand Dunes National desired habitat conditions. decision to amend the GMP and manage
• Disproportionate elk use in a bison herd in the park after acquisition
Park and Preserve, Colorado. The UMP
sensitive and highly productive/diverse of the Medano Ranch. For the first 5–7
DEIS assesses the impacts that could
areas of the park is leading to adverse years after acquisition of the Medano
result from continuing current
impacts, particularly in wetland Ranch, the NPS would seek to partner
management (the no-action alternative),
vegetation communities. In addition, the with TNC to manage the bison herd.
or implementing any of the action
existing bison herd spends a After this timeframe, the NPS would
alternatives for the future management
disproportionate amount of time using assume responsibility of bison
of elk and bison at Great Sand Dunes.
these same vegetation communities, management within the existing bison
The NPS preferred alternative identified
particularly during winter when elk fence, with a population goal of 80 to
in the UMP DEIS is alternative 3.
overconcentration is the highest. 260 animals. The bison range could be
DATES: The National Park Service will • Bison are currently managed by expanded within the life of the plan, at
accept comments on the Draft TNC on the Medano Ranch and portions which point the NPS could consider a
Environmental Impact Statement for 45 of the Park and a decision is needed to population goal between 80 and 560
days after the date the Environmental determine whether to have bison at animals. Tools used to manage bison
Protection Agency publishes their GRSA in the future and, if so, how to abundance and distribution in the
Notice of Availability in the Federal manage them. future would include roundup and
Register. • The Department of the Interior translocation, hazing, and limited lethal
ADDRESSES: Information will be (DOI) Bison Conservation Initiative and removal.
available for public review and the NPS Call to Action (Back Home on Under Alternative 4, public elk
comment online at http:// the Range), combined with additional hunting in the Preserve would continue,
parkplanning.nps.gov/grsa, and in the information about bison and bison and the NPS would use the same non-
Office of the Superintendent, Great habitat in the San Luis Valley, provides lethal and lethal elk redistribution tools
Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve, an opportunity to reexamine the described under Alternatives 2 and 3 in
11500 Highway 150 Mosca, Colorado potential for bison conservation the Park. Under this alternative, the NPS
81146. following the 2007 GMP. would acquire the Medano Ranch and
This UMP DEIS, which was prepared work with TNC to remove all bison, but
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: with the US Fish and Wildlife Service would make a programmatic decision to
Acting Superintendent, Great Sand and Colorado Parks and Wildlife as amend the GMP so that after a period of
Dunes National Park and Preserve, cooperating agencies, evaluates the 5–7 years, the NPS would establish a
11500 Highway 150, Mosca, Colorado impacts of the no-action alternative new conservation herd to be managed
81146, (719) 378–6311, grsa_ (Alternative 1) and three action by the NPS. Once re-established, bison
superintendent@nps.gov; or Fred alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4). abundance and range would be the same
Bunch, Chief of Resource Management, Under alternative 1, public elk as described for alternative 3, as would
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Great Sand Dunes National Park and hunting would continue in the Preserve, potential future bison management
Preserve, 11500 Highway 150, Mosca, but there would be no other active elk tools.
Colorado 81146, (719) 378–6361, fred_ management and no new action would Because the range of alternatives
bunch@nps.gov. occur to manage impacts from elk, includes the removal of bison
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The including the effects of elk herbivory. completely or deferred NPS
combined General Management Plan TNC would continue to graze bison on management of bison for 5–7 years, and
(GMP)/Wilderness Study for the Great the Medano Ranch until government because of concerns that the high
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:41 Apr 12, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13APN1.SGM 13APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_16192/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2018 / Notices 16121
concentration of elk could be resulting held during the comment period. Dates, Tribes. Lineal descendants or
in impacts on certain park resources times, and locations of these meetings representatives of any Indian Tribe or
such as wetlands, the initial phase of will be announced in press releases and Native Hawaiian organization not
this plan would focus on managing elk on the NPS Planning, Environment, and identified in this notice that wish to
to alter their high concentrations at Public Comment website for the UMP request transfer of control of these
certain times in the Park. Over the long DEIS at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/ human remains and associated funerary
term, the NPS would develop grsa. objects should submit a written request
quantitative metrics of ecological How To Comment: You are to the Mississippi Department of
integrity and vegetative condition as encouraged to comment on the UMP Archives and History. If no additional
additional triggers to adaptively manage DEIS at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/ requestors come forward, transfer of
elk and, possibly, bison, depending on grsa. You may also hand-deliver or mail control of the human remains and
the selected action. Over the long-term, your comments to the Superintendent, associated funerary objects to the Indian
the NPS would use adaptive monitoring Great Sand Dunes National Park and Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations
and adaptive management of elk and, if Preserve, 11500 Highway 150, Mosca, stated in this notice may proceed.
appropriate, bison, to support a Colorado 81146. Written comments will DATES: Lineal descendants or
historical array of ecologically healthy also be accepted during scheduled representatives of any Indian Tribe or
plant communities across the Park’s public meetings discussed above. Native Hawaiian organization not
landscape that are used by these Comments will not be accepted by fax, identified in this notice that wish to
ungulates, specifically riparian and email, or by any method other than request transfer of control of these
wetland communities, as well as shrub those specified above. Bulk comments human remains and associated funerary
and grassland communities. The goal of in any format (hard copy or electronic) objects should submit a written request
this long-term adaptive management submitted on behalf of others will not be with information in support of the
framework is to continually evaluate the accepted. Before including your request to the Mississippi Department of
effectiveness of the ungulate address, phone number, email address, Archives and History at the address in
management plan; improve management or other personal identifying this notice by May 14, 2018.
over time; and ensure that impacts of information in your comment, you ADDRESSES: Patty Miller-Beech,
elk and bison, and their management should be aware that your entire Mississippi Department of Archives and
inside the Park, remain in the range comment—including your personal
predicted in the UMP/EIS. History, P.O. Box 571, Jackson, MS
identifying information—may be made 39205–0571, telephone (601) 576–6944,
The NPS is preparing this UMP DEIS publicly available at any time. While
to analyze specific proposals related to email pmbeech@mdah.ms.gov.
you can ask us in your comment to
elk management tools that might be SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
withhold your personal identifying
used to address overconcentration issue, here given in accordance with the
information from public review, we
while providing a programmatic Native American Graves Protection and
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
(broader and higher level) analysis of Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C.
do so.
potential decisions about the future of 3003, of the completion of an inventory
bison in GRSA. Those decisions include Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 43 CFR of human remains and associated
(1) whether or not to amend the GMP to part 46. funerary objects under the control of the
allow for bison at GRSA, and if so, how Dated: April 2, 2018. Mississippi Department of Archives and
many bison might be appropriate; (2) Sue E. Masica, History, Jackson, MS. The human
when the NPS would assume bison remains and associated funerary objects
Regional Director, Intermountain Region,
management responsibilities; and (3) National Park Service. were removed from Tunica County,
what management tools the NPS might DeSoto County, Clay County, and
[FR Doc. 2018–07681 Filed 4–12–18; 8:45 am]
use upon assuming bison management Panola County, MS.
BILLING CODE 4312–52–P
responsibilities. This programmatic This notice is published as part of the
analysis is intended to address the National Park Service’s administrative
general environmental issues, impacts, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25
and benefits relating to these broad U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d).
decisions about bison. NPS feels this a National Park Service The determinations in this notice are
meaningful point to make these broad the sole responsibility of the museum,
decisions, but there is too much [NPS–WASO–NAGPRA–NPS0025285; institution, or Federal agency that has
PPWOCRADN0–PCU00RP14.R50000]
uncertainty at this time as to the control of the Native American human
ultimate specific implementation of Notice of Inventory Completion: remains and associated funerary objects.
potential bison management tools, Mississippi Department of Archives The National Park Service is not
should the NPS select an alternative that and History, Jackson, MS responsible for the determinations in
includes bison at GRSA. If such an this notice.
alternative becomes the selected action, AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
Consultation
this programmatic National ACTION: Notice.
Environmental Policy Act review for A detailed assessment of the human
bison would support more specific SUMMARY: The Mississippi Department remains was made by the Mississippi
subsequent decisions and provide a of Archives and History has completed Department of Archives and History’s
body of information that can be an inventory of human remains and professional staff in consultation with
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
incorporated by reference into any associated funerary objects, in representatives of The Chickasaw
future planning/compliance that may be consultation with the appropriate Nation. The following Indian Tribes
needed. Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian were invited to consult but did not wish
Public Participation: After the organizations, and has determined that to participate: the Alabama-Coushatta
Environmental Protection Agency there is no cultural affiliation between Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the
Notice of Availability is published, the the human remains and associated Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas),
NPS will schedule public meetings to be funerary objects and present-day Indian Jena Band of Choctaw Indians,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:41 Apr 12, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13APN1.SGM 13APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_16192/page/2.svg)
Document Created: 2018-04-13 00:17:58
Document Modified: 2018-04-13 00:17:58
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice of availability; request for comments. | |
| 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. | |
| 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] | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 16120 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR