Final White-Tailed Deer Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Summer 2014

Antietam National Battlefield, Maryland National Park Service Monocacy National Battlefield, Maryland U.S. Department of the Interior Manassas National Battlefield Park, Virginia Final White-tailed Deer Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Summer 2014 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR – NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FINAL WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ANTIETAM NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD, MONOCACY NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD, AND MANASSAS NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK, MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA Lead Agency: National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Department of the Interior This Final White-tailed Deer Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement describes four alternatives for the management of deer at Antietam National Battlefield, Monocacy National Battlefield, and Manassas National Battlefield Park, as well as the environment that would be affected by the alternatives and the environmental consequences of implementing these alternatives. The purpose of this action is to develop a deer management strategy that supports preservation of the cultural landscape through the protection and restoration of native vegetation and other natural and cultural resources. Action is needed at this time because the sizes of deer herds and deer population density have increased substantially over the years at all three battlefields. Results of vegetation monitoring in recent years have documented the effects of the large herd size on forest regeneration in all three battlefields. In addition, deer browsing has resulted in damage to crops and associated vegetation that are key components of the cultural landscapes of the battlefields. It is important to all three battlefields to preserve and restore important cultural landscapes and to preserve agricultural viability within the battlefield grounds. Although the goals vary from battlefield to battlefield, cultural landscape preservation goals are written into the management plans, enabling legislations, and other documents for all three battlefields. In addition, chronic wasting disease (CWD) is proximate to the parks and represents an imminent threat to resources in the parks. There are opportunities to evaluate and plan responses to threats from CWD over the long term. Under alternative A (no action), current management would continue, including deer and vegetation monitoring, data management, research, limited fencing, possible repellent use, education and interpretation, and agency/interjurisdictional cooperation. No new actions would be taken to reduce the effects of deer overbrowsing. The existing deer management plan of monitoring, data management, research, and use of protective caging and repellents in landscaped areas would continue; no new deer management actions would be taken. All parks would continue with opportunistic and targeted surveillance for CWD. Antietam and Monocacy would also respond to CWD presence in or near the parks in accordance with the 2009 CWD Detection and Initial Response Plan, and Manassas would work toward creating a similar plan. Under alternative B, the main focus of deer management would be the use of a combination of nonlethal actions including the construction of large-scale deer exclosures (fencing) for the purposes of forest regeneration and the use of nonsurgical reproductive control of does to restrict population growth, using an agent that meets NPS-established criteria. Alternative B would also include several techniques (such as fencing of crops and woodlots, changing crop configurations or selection, and using aversive conditioning) to prevent adverse deer impacts. Under alternative C, direct reduction of the deer herd would be achieved by sharpshooting, with a very limited use of capture and euthanasia of individual deer if needed in those few circumstances where sharpshooting would not be considered appropriate due to safety concerns, along with the use of the same techniques as listed for alternative B. Alternative D (preferred alternative) would combine elements from alternatives B and C. Sharpshooting and very limited capture/euthanasia would be used initially to quickly reduce deer herd numbers. Then, population maintenance could be conducted either by nonsurgical reproductive control methods, depending on several factors, or by sharpshooting. Both of these population maintenance methods are retained as options in order to maintain maximum flexibility for future management. Alternative D would also include the same techniques listed for alternative B (such as fencing of crops and woodlots, changing crop configurations or selection, and using aversive conditioning). All of the action alternatives include a long-term CWD management plan that provides for a longer-term response to CWD when it is in or within 5 miles of the parks. The plan includes lethal removal of deer to substantially reduce deer density, because high population densities generally support greater rates of disease transmission and have been found to be positively correlated with the prevalence of CWD. The potential environmental consequences of the alternatives are addressed for vegetation; white-tailed deer; other wildlife and wildlife habitat; special status species; socioeconomics; visitor use and experience; cultural landscapes; health and safety; and park management and operations. Under alternative A, no action would be taken to reverse the expected long-term continued growth in the deer population, and damage to vegetation and cultural landscapes would likely continue. The draft plan/EIS was available for public and agency review and comment from July 26 to September 27, 2013. Copies of the document were distributed to individuals, agencies, organizations, and local businesses. This final plan/EIS provides responses to substantive stakeholder and public comments, incorporates those comments and suggested revisions where necessary, and provides copies of relevant agency and organization letters. Once this document is released and a Notice of Availability is published by the Environmental Protection Agency, a 30-day no-action period will follow. Following the 30-day period, the alternative or actions constituting the approved plan will be documented in a record of decision that will be signed by the Regional Director of the National Capital Region. For further information regarding this document, please contact: Antietam National Battlefield c/o Superintendent P.O. Box 158 Sharpsburg, MD 21782 (301) 432-2243 Monocacy National Battlefield c/o Superintendent 4632 Araby Church Road Frederick, MD 21704 (301) 696-8650 Manassas National Battlefield Park c/o Superintendent 12521 Lee Highway Manassas, VA 20109-2005 (703) 754-1861 National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Antietam National Battlefield Monocacy National Battlefield Manassas National Battlefield Park Antietam National Battlefield Monocacy National Battlefield Manassas National Battlefield Park Final White-tailed Deer Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Summer 2014 SUMMARY PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION The purpose of this plan/EIS is to develop a deer management strategy that supports preservation of the cultural landscape through the protection and restoration of native vegetation and other natural and cultural resources. Although relatively rare at the turn of the twentieth century, white-tailed deer populations in the Mid- Atlantic region have grown during recent years. Deer thrive on food and shelter available in the “edge” habitat conditions created by suburban development. In addition, fragmentation of the landscape and the increase in developed areas have reduced suitable hunting opportunities. This is particularly true in Maryland’s growing suburban areas (MD DNR 1998) and in suburban Northern Virginia near Manassas. The size of deer herds and deer population density have increased substantially over the years at all three battlefields. Current deer densities are substantially larger than commonly accepted sustainable densities for this region, estimated at about 15–25 deer per square mile (NPS 2010; deCalesta 1997a; Horsley, Stout, and deCalesta 2003). Results of vegetation monitoring in recent years have documented the effects of the large herd size on forest regeneration in all three battlefields. In addition, deer browsing has resulted in damage to crops and associated vegetation that are key components of the cultural landscapes of the battlefields. It is important to all three battlefields to preserve and restore important cultural landscapes and to preserve agricultural viability within the battlefield grounds. Although the goals vary from battlefield to battlefield, cultural landscape preservation goals are written into the management plans, enabling legislations, and other documents for all three battlefields. This plan is therefore needed because Attainment of the parks’ cultural landscape preservation goals and mandates are compromised by the high density of white-tailed deer in the parks. Browsing of and other damage to native seedlings, saplings, and understory vegetation by deer in the parks has prevented successful forest and riparian buffer regeneration. An increasing number of deer in the parks has resulted in adverse impacts on native vegetation and wildlife. Opportunities to coordinate with other jurisdictional entities currently implementing deer management actions to benefit the protection of park resources and values can be expanded (e.g., Bull Run Regional Park near Manassas). Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is proximate

Load more