1. White-tailed Deer Management Plan And Environmental Impact Statement Public Scoping Meeting November 1 and 2, 2006

2. Where we are today Where we should be

3. Purpose of this Meeting To give background information on deer population Information on decision-making process First opportunity for public comment

5. Rock Creek Park created to: “Provide for the preservation from injury or spoliation of all timber, animals, or curiosities within said park, and their retention in their natural condition, as nearly as possible.” Enabling Legislation September 25, 1890

6. Mandate of the National Park Service “To conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife there in and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” NPS Organic Act, 1916

7. Recent History of Deer in RCP Native species without natural predators Legislation of park does not permit hunting on NPS land No areas around the park allow hunting Diverse habitats in and around the park

8. Recent History of Deer in RCP (cont’d) A few sightings in the 1960s 1984 – First sighting in Glover Archbold Park 1990 – Sightings of deer more common in Rock Creek Park

9. Deer Population Data Only data collected until mid 1990s – reported road kills and observations First road kill in 1989 Locations mapped Numbers have steadily increased

11. Counts started in 1996 Conducted in September each year along same 23 mile long route in RCP Conducted on 4 nights and total deer counted Some sex and age determination Spotlight Counts

12. Total Deer Counted During Annual Spotlight Surveys Year Total Deer per Year

13. Conducted in March 1997-1999 by helicopter Rock Creek Park, Glover Archbold, Battery Kemble – year 1 and 2 Rock Creek Park only – year 3 Not very accurate estimate Expensive Forward Looking Infrared Surveys (FLIR)

14. Considered the best available science to estimate deer populations Conducted each year in November along same 10 mile route in RCP DISTANCE Sampling

15. Observers follow set routes Use a laser range finder to measure the exact distance to all animals from the transect (road) The density or number of deer is estimated using computer program DISTANCE DISTANCE Sampling (cont’d)

17. Method to measure direct impacts on park resources Can show impacts of deer browse on different plant layers, eg. tree seedlings, shrubs, herbaceous plants Vegetation Monitoring

18. Two types of plots: Long-term open plots Deer exclosure paired plots Plot locations are randomly selected Vegetation Monitoring (cont’d)

19. Vegetation Monitoring Plots

20. Long-term Open Vegetation Plots 27 plots installed in 1990 Capture change in park vegetation over time Establish a reference for other National Capital Region Parks Read every 4 years by park staff

21. Results of surveys show that between 1991 and 2003: Number of stems browsed increased 25% Shrub cover decreased 73% Number of tree seedlings significantly decreased and remain below acceptable levels Long-term Open Vegetation Plots (cont’d)

22. Tree seedlings are key to ensuring sufficient tree regeneration to sustain a diverse native forest structure. Rock Creek Park plots have consistently held fewer seedlings than research suggests are needed to achieve this goal.

23. Deer Exclosure Paired Plots 20 plots installed in 2000 in RCP and Glover Archbold Park Fenced plot (exclosure) to exclude deer paired with unfenced (open) plot Read every year More direct measurement of the effects of deer browse on park vegetation

24. Deer Exclosure Plots

25. Deer Exclosure Paired Plots (cont’d) Results from these surveys between 2001 and 2004 show that: A greater density of plants within the fenced plots than in open plots Plant densities in open plots have been 50% to 82% less than in the fenced plots

26. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Was passed in 1969. Is called the “foundation of modern American environmental protection” (CEQ 1997). Is “…the most important and far reaching environmental and conservation measure ever enacted by Congress.”

27. NEPA Called compliance by some because it is a legal requirement for federal agencies It is much more accurately described as a required environmental planning process

28. NEPA Sets environmental policy goals Imposes analysis and public review requirements on federal decision makers Created the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

29. Actions requiring NEPA planning Any federal action or federal decision being considered that would, if implemented, have an impact on the human environment. Projects, plans, grants, official policy, permits may trigger the need for NEPA review.

30. Human environment “…shall be interpreted comprehensively to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment.”

31. Elements of the NEPA planning process Articulate the Purpose, Need, and Objectives Look at all reasonable alternatives, including No Action. Analyze impacts using reliable scientific data and a problem solving approach…

32. Implementing NEPA Public Participation The Interested and Affected Public are involved and informed. The NPS is required to be diligent in its efforts to involve the public.

33. Implementing NEPA NEPA documents are meant to be focused, analytic, problem-solving reports to help agencies make informed and wise decisions.

34. Purpose The purpose is a broad goal statement. It tells readers what the proposal or its alternatives intends to accomplish by taking action

35. The purpose of the White-tailed Deer Management Plan/ EIS is to develop a deer management plan that supports long- term protection, preservation, and restoration of native vegetation and other natural and cultural resources within the park.

36. Need for Action NEED is the proper framing of the question “WHY take action now?” It is a “BECAUSE” statement

37. Action is needed at this time to ensure that  The potential of deer becoming the dominant force in the park’s ecosystem, and adversely impacting native vegetation and other wildlife.  Excessive deer browse causing a decline in forest tree regeneration of Rock Creek Park.  Excessive deer browse impacting the existing shrubs and herbaceous species.  Deer impacts on the character of the park’s cultural landscapes.  Opportunities to coordinate with other jurisdictional entities currently implementing deer management actions beneficial to the protection of park resources and values.

38. Objectives OBJECTIVES are smaller goals that must all be met in large part for the plan to be considered a success. We’ve developed 7 categories of OBJECTIVES for the plan— these are listed on the displays

39. Alternatives Where Purpose and Need define “the problems,” Alternatives are different ways to solve them, i.e. they meet the purpose and objectives while resolving need and issues. They are all within stated constraints, including NPS policies. Each should minimize impacts to all or several resources.

40. Alternatives are the “heart” of the NEPA environmental planning process. Alternatives provide options for decision makers. They are based on environmental, rather than technical, logistic or economical differences. They must be reasonable.

41. Reasonable Alternatives Economically feasible Display common sense Meet the objectives of taking action Technically feasible Not necessarily the cheapest or easiest solution

42. Must include: “No Action”; which means our current management actions. In other words, alternatives are compared to the No Action (the baseline) to determine both beneficial and adverse effects.

43. Preliminary Alternatives: No Action Reproductive Control Non-lethal Combination Lethal Reduction with Firearms Lethal Reduction without Firearms Lethal Reduction followed by Non-lethal Maintenance Measures

44. Accepting comments tonight You can submit comments directly on-line on the NPS Planning, Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) website at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/rocr Written comments may be submitted to: Superintendent, Rock Creek Park, 3545 Williamsburg Lane, NW.,Washington, DC 20008. How to Provide Comments during Public Scoping

45. The public comment period will be open through December 8, 2006