ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ASSESSMENT OF EFFECT

COMPLETE THE REMOVAL OF AFRICAN ORYX

WHITE SANDS NATIONAL MONUMENT, NEW MEXICO

 

 

 

Prepared by:

U.S. Department Of Interior

National Park Service

White Sands National Monument

New Mexico

 

 

November, 2001

 

 

 

 

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

 

Environmental Assessment/Assessment of Effect

Complete The Removal of African Oryx,

White Sands National Monument

Otero and Doña Ana Counties, New Mexico

 

SUMMARY: This environmental assessment describes two action alternatives and a no-action alternative, and their impacts to complete the removal of African oryx (estimated 12-20) from White Sands National Monument in south-central New Mexico. The preferred alternative is by lethal reduction (shooting). A non-lethal reduction alternative and a no action alternative are described. Two potential alternatives are considered but rejected as infeasible. African oryx are large (up to 500 pound) members of the African antelope family, and were released by New Mexico Department of Game and Fish in the 1960s on military land near the monument to establish a population for hunting. The National Park Service completed a boundary fence in 1996, with some animals contained within the fence. The fenced area is over 225 square miles or 144,000 acres. The monument is closed to public hunting. By 1998 soil and vegetation impacts were apparent. A variety of non-lethal operations removed 228 since 1993. Non-lethal removal methods are hazardous to workers and became increasingly expensive as animal density declined.

 

CONTENTS

SUMMARY i

INTRODUCTION 1

PURPOSE AND NEED 11

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Alternative A (Preferred): Complete The Removal Of African Oryx By Lethal Reduction 12

Alternative B Complete The Removal Of African Oryx By Non-lethal Reduction 12

Alternative C: No Action – No Oryx Reduction 12

Alternatives Considered But Rejected 13

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 16

Impact Topics Analyzed In This Environmental Assessment 16

Impact Topics Dismissed From Further Analysis 18

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 25

Impacts Of Alternative A 27

Impacts Of Alternative B 29

Impacts Of Alternative C 31

Identification Of Environmentally Preferred Alternative In Compliance With NEPA

Sections 102, 102(1) 33

CONSULTATION/COORDINATION 34

REFERENCES 34

PREPARER 35

MAPS 5, 7, 9

TABLE 1: Summary of Alternatives 14

TABLE 2: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts 15

 

INTRODUCTION

SETTING

White Sands National Monument (the monument) was established in 1933 by presidential proclamation for "...the preservation of the white sands and additional features of scenic, scientific, and educational interest." The monument contains about half of the world’s largest gypsum sand dune field and is managed by the National Park Service (NPS) under the Department of Interior.

White Sands National Monument is located within the Tularosa Basin in south-central New Mexico. The nearest town is Alamogordo, 15 miles east of the monument, and the city of Las Cruces is 60 miles southwest of monument headquarters. A visitor center and administrative facilities are located at monument headquarters, on highway U.S. 70 between Alamogordo and Las Cruces, New Mexico. The western portion of the monument is within Doña Ana County, and the eastern portion of the monument is within Otero County.

The monument is almost entirely surrounded by military lands, including the White Sands Missile Range managed by the U.S. Army, and Holloman Air Force Base. Land within the monument boundary is entirely federally owned.

ORYX BIOLOGY

Oryx are native to desert lands of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, and are also known as gemsbok or Oryx gazella. They are a type of African antelope and members of the family Bovidae.

Between 1969 and the early 1970s, the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish released 95 African oryx on White Sands Missile Range adjacent to the monument, for the purpose of developing a population for public hunting on the White Sands Missile Range. Oryx thrive in southern New Mexico, and the population has increased to over 4,000. The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish issues 900 annual hunting permits for scheduled hunts on White Sands Missile Range, plus an additional 500-800 permits for off-range depredation hunts. The hunter success rate is about 95 percent. White Sands Missile Range and New Mexico Department of Game and Fish goals are to reduce the existing oryx population of over 4,000 to 750-1,250 animals.

Adult oryx are about the size of female elk, with adult males weighing up to 500 pounds. Both males and females have long, sharply pointed horns and both males and females fight with their horns. Sexes are hard to differentiate from a distance. Calves are born year around. The gestation period is nine months, and females can become pregnant almost immediately after calving. This makes for a possible birth rate of 1.3 calves per mature (at least two years old) female per year (Estes, 1991). Calf mortality is estimated at 30-35 percent the first year. The sex ratio of calves is 1:1. Twin calves are very rare (Burkett 1999). Oryx in New Mexico do not migrate seasonally, and appear to have favored territories. Oryx live in dispersed small bands, often consisting of a dominant male, several females, and non-breeding juveniles. Solitary males or groups of males are also sighted.

The southern New Mexico oryx range has mild winters. In mountain areas with more severe weather, occasional extreme winters result in mass reductions of elk, deer, bighorn sheep, and other native wildlife populations. This is not the case with oryx. Severe droughts also do not affect oryx populations, because they are not dependant on surface water. Oryx can subsist with little or no surface water by using the moisture in plant material or digging to ground water. American predators are ineffective in controlling the population, with the exception of calves under 14 days old (Burkett 1999).

A demographic model is being developed as part a three-year interagency research project on White Sands Missile Range. Preliminary information indicates that the oryx population is increasing and their range is spreading out (personal communication, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and White Sands Missile Range staff) (USGS-BRD 2000).

NPS ORYX HISTORY

In 1996 the National Park Service completed a six-foot high oryx exclusion fence around the perimeter of the monument. Cost for 67.6 miles of fence was $1,040,000. Annual cost to maintain the fence is approximately $5,000. Approximately 12-20 oryx are currently contained within the fence on monument land. A section of 3.8 miles of fence was constructed on Air Force land, with about 1,900 acres of Air Force land included within the fenced area. A section of 5.0 miles of fence was constructed on Army land, with about 3,200 acres of land Army land within the fenced area.

A total of 228 oryx have been removed from the monument by non-lethal means from 1993 to 2001. Total cost was $399,000 (direct cost for crew, helicopters, supplies, and equipment, does not include planning, benefits, or administrative overhead). Assisting agencies were the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, U.S. Army White Sands Missile Range, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In all cases, animals were released on White Sands Missile Range, where the oryx population can be controlled by public hunting. Removal methods included use of horsemen, trucks, all terrain vehicles (ATVs), and helicopters to herd groups of oryx to fence openings. Success was variable and it became apparent oryx have a strong home range affinity (want to return home), and the farther they are herded, the more they tend to break away from the herd to head back. This results in loosing a large percentage of animals in a given herding operation. Labor was also needed to take down 100 yards of fence, remove the wire and posts, then replace before dark on a daily basis for the herding operation. Temporary wing fences were used at two locations of about 0.25 mile each, with burlap fabric draped over the fence to create a visual barrier.

As the animal density became less and herding became less effective, the operation shifted to using helicopters for capture by darting and sling loading. Oryx were located by flying helicopters in a grid search pattern. When an animal was located, the first helicopter flew within 30 feet of the running animal, and a dart gunner fired a hypodermic dart with anesthesia drug into a muscle mass of the animal. After the oryx became unconscious, a second (and larger) helicopter landed with a crew of animal handlers to load the 500 pound animal into a specially designed bag, which was hooked to a sling line below the hovering helicopter. The bagged oryx was then flown to a release site on White Sands Missile Range outside the monument. A receiving crew at the release site included a veterinarian. Vital signs were recorded, the anesthesia reversed, and the recovered animal walked away. While the second helicopter flew the sling load to the release site, a third helicopter picked up the animal handler crew and flew them to the next downed animal. Meanwhile, the 1st helicopter was searching for another animal, and the cycle was repeated.

This was a very hazardous operation due to factors of flying low in pursuit of the running animal, handling hypodermic darts with very potent anesthesia drug, working under hovering helicopters while sling loading, and working around large animals with sharp horns and hooves.

Cost of removal per animal increased as the population and density were reduced. The first operation in 1993 cost about $145/animal. Herding with helicopters in 1999 and 2000 cost $900/animal and $1,200/animal. Darting was more expensive due to need for more helicopters, animal handling crew, veterinary fees, and anesthesia drugs. Again, cost per animal increased as animals decreased and became harder to locate. Darting cost $3,300/animal in 2001, however the last day only produced one animal. Cost of removing this animal was about $20,000. Costs are direct costs of crew salary, helicopters, equipment, and supplies, and do not include benefits, administrative overhead, or other indirect cost.

Summary, Non-lethal Removal

Dec 1993 14 oryx removed, herding with trucks and horsemen 1 day

May 1996 40 removed, herding with 2 helicopters for 3 days

Feb 1999 46 removed, herding with 2 helicopters for 3 days

Feb 2000 31 oryx removed, dart/slinging with 3 helicopters used for 3 days, veterinarian plus 2 ground crews

Mar 2000 22 removed, herding with 31 ATVs and 1 helicopter for 3 days

Nov 2000 39 removed, herding with 2 helicopters used for 4 days

Jan 2001 36 removed, dart/slinging with 3 helicopters used for 5 days, veterinarian plus 2 ground crews

TOTAL: 228 oryx removed by non-lethal methods

SCOPING MEETINGS HELD

Between September 10 and 13, 2001, public scoping meetings were held in Las Cruces, Albuquerque, and Alamogordo, New Mexico. The purpose of the meetings was to announce the preparation of an environmental assessment, and identify issues and stakeholders. The Las Cruces meeting was attended by two representatives of New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and no members of the general public. No one attended the Albuquerque meeting. Three persons attended the Alamogordo meeting, with one comment made preferring non-lethal removal if practical.

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE POLICY

The National Park Service uses the word "park" to mean any unit managed by the Service. The degree of protection of resources is the same for parks and monuments.

National Park Service policy prohibits hunting by the general public on park/monument lands, unless specifically authorized by the legislation establishing that unit of the National Park System. The executive order that established White Sands National Monument in 1933 did not authorize hunting.

In 1916, Congress (16 USC 1) established the National Park Service

...to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein 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 (National Park Service organic act, 16 USC 1).

National Park Service policy is to manage park/monument wildlands to protect native species, and to remove non-native species when feasible. In this case, oryx is a non-native species to the monument and to North America. The Management Policies: U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service (National Park Service 2000) (4.4.4.2) states:

All exotic plant and animal species that are not maintained to meet an identified park purpose will be managed-up to and including eradication-if (1) control is prudent and feasible, and (2) the exotic species interferes with natural processes and the perpetuation of natural features, native species or natural habitats… High priority will be given to managing exotic species that have, or potentially could have, a substantial impact on park resources, and that can reasonably be expected to be successfully controllable…

The Management Policies also state (1.4.4):

The impairment of park resources and values may not be allowed by the Service unless directly and specifically provided for by the legislation or by the proclamation establishing the park. The relevant legislation or proclamation must provide explicitly (not by the implication or inference) for the activity, in terms that keep the Service from having the authority to manage the activity so as to avoid the impairment.

PURPOSE AND NEED

ORYX IMPACTS ON THE MONUMENT

By 1998, impacts on soil and vegetation were evident over widespread areas of the monument. Soil impacts included broken soil surface crust from game trails, trampled soil at oryx gathering sites, and soil pits dug for water and roots (National Park Service photo files). Game trails were numerous and evident, especially when viewed from aircraft, to the point of looking like web networks. Desert lichen soil crust is ecologically very important in processes of soil formation, stabilizing soil from wind and water erosion, holding moisture, and fixing nitrogen. Game trails make a visual intrusion on an otherwise naturally appearing landscape where no large game trails would naturally exist.

Impact on vegetation includes destroying plants while digging for roots, and browsing on flowers, leaves, and buds. Oryx eat native plants, including flower tops and roots of yucca, grass, and the leaves and buds of shrubs and cottonwood trees (Dye 1997) (Esterak 1992) (York 1992). Such grazing or browsing consumption reduces plant productivity in a desert ecosystem where productivity is low to begin with, and introduces unnatural disturbance to native plant community processes (Reid and Patrick 1983) (Saiz 1975). Oryx spread mesquite by eating seeds, which remain viable after passing through the animal (Esterak 1992) (Smith 1994).

No reported confrontations have occurred between monument visitors and oryx, however oryx have injured personnel on White Sands Missile Range. Oryx are not highly aggressive toward humans, however do fight other oryx (Walther 1980) and are not afraid of people. Numerous injuries of visitors in other national parks have occurred by curious people getting too close to large wild animals.

NPS ORYX MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

To resolve problems described above, a method of resolving the oryx situation is needed that:

The purpose of the action alternatives would be to complete the removal of oryx from within the fenced area of the monument. An estimated 12-20 oryx are contained within the boundary fence of White Sands National Monument. This is down from an estimated 190 in 1998, as a result of non-lethal oryx removal. If left untreated, this remaining population would approach previous levels within 10 years, negating the effort and expense of past oryx population reduction action and resulting in resource impacts (see below), and conflict with NPS policy of removing non-native species (see above).

 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

ALTERNATIVE A: (PREFERRED) COMPLETE THE REMOVAL OF AFRICAN ORYX BY LETHAL REDUCTION

Authorized monument staff in conjunction with New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and White Sands Missile Range wildlife officers would locate (over time) and shoot the remaining estimated 12-20 oryx. For long-term monument resource management, whenever oryx sign is detected within the fenced area, immediate action would be taken to locate and shoot the animal. No public hunting on the monument would occur. Significant use of helicopters is not anticipated. Off-road travel for locating animals and removing carcasses would be by foot, ATVs, and horses. Carcasses would be salvaged whenever possible and transferred to New Mexico Department of Game and Fish for human use by standard department procedure. Wild game carcasses are sold for the meat, hides, and horns by New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. On Air Force land within the fenced area, existing procedures would be followed for animal control.

To mitigate impacts from ATV tracks, playa surfaces (about 20 percent of the monument) would be avoided due to long lasting nature of tracks on these soil/moisture conditions. ATVs would not follow other ATV tracks but would take a separate route to avoid deepening tracks. Vehicle speed would be moderate (about 5-10 miles per hour) and turns gentle to minimize track depth. An archeologist would oversee ATV use in dune areas with known archeological sites and two village sites would be avoided. No shooting would occur in areas open to the public, during public use times.

ALTERNATIVE B: COMPLETE THE REMOVAL OF AFRICAN ORYX BY NON-LETHAL REDUCTION

Monument staff would continue use of non-lethal methods to complete the removal of the 12-20 remaining oryx from the 144,000-acre (225 square-mile) fenced area of the monument. Methods could include herding to fence openings using helicopters, ATVs, horsemen; and using helicopters for darting with anesthesia drug and sling loading to a release site out of the monument on White Sands Missile Range. With existing low oryx numbers and very low density, the method of using helicopters for darting and sling loading would be more effective than herding. Herding only works on animals within 10 miles of the west and south boundary fence, where animals can be driven onto White Sands Missile Range. Animals cannot be driven to the east because Holloman Air Force Base on the east side of the monument will not accept oryx. A concerted removal effort would be made during winter of 2002. After this time when occasional oryx are detected, a removal operation would be delayed until the following year or years until funding and staffing could be secured. Non-lethal removals would place oryx on White Sands Missile Range, where they are then hunted game animals.

ALTERNATIVE C: NO ACTION-NO AFRICAN ORYX REDUCTION

No removal of animals by lethal or non-lethal means would occur for the near future, allowing the population to build up within the 67 mile boundary fence enclosing over 144,000 acres (225 square miles). Within 5-10 years, the oryx population would equal 1998 levels of about 190, and would continue to increase over time.

ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: INJECT CONTRACEPTIVE DRUG TO STERILIZE REMAINING ORYX

Helicopters would be used for locating the remaining 12-20 oryx, and females would be darted with contraceptive drug to prevent reproduction. Contraception drugs require a booster be given within six weeks, then annually. Each application would use helicopters for locating animals and darting. The population contained within the boundary fence would be rendered sterile and in 10-15 years would die off from natural attrition.

Reason For Rejection: The concept is not technically feasible. No single dose, permanent contraception drug is available. One dose of the drug lasts one year, so the process would be repeated annually to renew the medication effect of the contraceptive drug. Due to the large monument area with a low density of free-ranging animals, helicopters would have to be used annually for locating and darting oryx, and this would be prohibitively expensive as well as hazardous. Contraception works better for confined animals where the process of locating them is not difficult, such as domestic livestock, or in animals with a short lifespan and high birth rate (rodents, small birds). Contraception is about 80-90 percent effective, so some births would still occur. At this time, no contraception drug is approved and commercially available for wildlife use. Experimental applications can be approved and used under veterinary supervision. Female oryx have horns and are hard to tell from males except at very close range, further complicating the process. A method of long-term marking each animal would have to be made at each darting, so that treated versus un-treated animals could be visually identified, as they would intermingle in a free-ranging setting. The same methods would have to be used to treat occasional oryx that enter via temporary fence breaks from flash flood damage. For these reasons, contraception is not considered feasible as an alternative.

ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: USE ONE-WAY FENCE GATES FOR PASSIVE REMOVAL

One-way gates would be installed in fence corners where oryx walk the fence line, and water tanks or feed would be placed outside the fence for bait.

Reason For Rejection: This was tried, with two different designs of gates used at four different locations for one year each. Water troughs and alfalfa were used as bait. Track counts were made on raked ground at each gate, and only one animal was recorded as definitely passing through a gate.

 

TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A: (Preferred) Complete The Removal Of African Oryx By Lethal Reduction

Alternative B: Complete The Removal Of African Oryx By Non-Lethal Reduction

Alternative C: No Action – No African Oryx Reduction

Monument staff in cooperation with New Mexico Department of Game and Fish locate and shoot 12-20 remaining African oryx that are enclosed within a 67-mile fenced area of over 225 square miles of monument land. Carcasses would be removed where possible. ATVs or horses would be used for off-road travel. ATVs would not be used on playas and other sensitive sites, and use would be overseen by an archeologist in areas known to have archeological sites. Oryx removal would continue over years whenever fresh sign is detected. No public hunting would be allowed on monument land.

Monument staff use non-lethal methods to complete removal of 12-20 oryx, including using helicopters for herding and anesthesia darting to capture and release oryx onto adjacent military land. Oryx are managed as a game animal on land outside White Sands National Monument.

No removal of African oryx from White Sands National Monument would occur, and the current population of 12-20 would be allowed to build up within the fenced area of the monument.

 

TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

IMPACT TOPIC

ALTERNATIVE A

(Preferred)

Complete The Removal Of African Oryx By Lethal Reduction

ALTERNATIVE B

Complete The Removal of African Oryx By Non-Lethal Reduction

ALTERNATIVE C

No Action – No African Oryx Removal

Soil and Vegetation

Improved long-term natural ecosystem functions by removing African oryx as a source of disturbance to soil crust, vegetation destruction. Short-term minor impact from off-road ATV or horse tracks to locate oryx and remove carcasses. Negligible long-term impact from ATV tracks anticipated.

Improved long-term ecosystem functions from removing African oryx same as under Alternative A. No short-term impacts on soil or vegetation from helicopter operations.

African oryx would increase to beyond 1998 population of 190 with increasing long-term impacts on soil and vegetation from trampled soil crust, digging for roots and water, and consumption of native plants.

Cultural Resources

No effect on historic buildings, historic ruins, or ethnographic resources. Potential impact on archeological sites from off-road ATV tracks mitigated by on-site archeologist.

No effect on historic buildings, historic ruins, ethnographic resources, or archeological sites.

No effect on historic buildings, historic ruins, ethnographic resources, or archeological sites.

Monument Operations

Allows for long-term oryx control that is safe for workers, efficient, economical, and flexible, with least impact on other monument operations.

Hazardous to workers due to need for recurring helicopter operations. Very expensive and likely to impact other park needs. No potential for quick response to newly detected oryx.

No short-term impact on monument operations. As oryx become more numerous, staff may spend more time preventing visitor confrontations with oryx.

 

 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

IMPACT TOPICS ANALYZED IN THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Soils: The western alluvial slopes are well-drained silt-loam calcareous soils of moderate gradient of the Mimbres-Glendale Association and Duneland-Dona Ana Complex. Lake Lucero playa and Alkali Flats are flat or very gently sloping gypsum soil of a fine silty texture that is poorly drained due to a high water table. The white sand dunes are granules of nearly pure hydrated calcium sulfate and range up to 50 feet in height. Annual dune movement varies from 30 feet per year to nearly stationary where vegetation predominates. Older dune deposits are stabilized and have extensive soil crust and some vegetation, of the Duneland-Yessum Association. East and south of the dunefield is mostly flat, deep, well-drained wind-deposited soil of moderately coarse texture and very high in gypsum content of the Yessum-Holloman Association (USDA-SCS 1976).

Vegetation: Vegetation along the west side of the monument is characterized as creosote/mesquite shrubland sloping down to grassland just west of Lake Lucero. Lake Lucero playa and Alkali Flats range from no visible vegetation to sparse vegetation. Between Lake Lucero and the dune field, and south and east of the dunes, grasslands composed of alkali sacaton, little bluestem, gyp-gramma grass, and Indian ricegrass intergrade into four-wing saltbush shrubland. Different portions of the dune field have different stages of vegetation cover, depending on the site’s exposure to the prevailing wind and how mobile the dunes are in that area (New Mexico Natural Heritage Program 1994).

The following plant communities are found:

Non-native or exotic plants include salt cedar (tamarisk) scattered throughout the monument. Salt cedar and other exotics are being controlled in the area within one mile of monument public roads. African rue, Russian thistle, star-thistle, and ragweed are found on disturbed sites around buildings and road shoulders.

Cultural Resources Including Archaeological Sites, Historic Buildings, and Ethnographic Resources: The National Historic Preservation Act, as amended in 1992 (16USC 470 et seq.); the National Environmental Policy Act; and the National Park Service's Cultural Resource Management Guideline (1996), Management Policies (2001), and Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis and Decision Making Handbook (2001), require the consideration of effects on cultural resources, including those listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

The undertakings described in this document are subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, under the terms of the 1995 programmatic agreement among the National Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers. This document will be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for review and comment.

Unmapped prehistoric sites are found scattered throughout the monument, dating from the archaic period to the Jornada-Mogollon and possible Apache cultures. Sites are generally of two types: surface scatterings on nearly flat ground of lithic and ceramic material, and raised hearth sites on gypsum sand. Two village sites are known and assigned state site numbers.

The visitor center and seven other headquarters buildings were constructed in the 1930s by the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and are listed on the National Register of Historic Places as an historic district.

Several ruins of ranch sites remain on the monument, including fence posts, corrals, wells, and water storage structures, but there are no standing buildings. A missile tracking station was constructed in the 1950s by the military. Several buildings, concrete pads, road, and earth works remain but are no longer used by the military.

A Native American group is allowed to collect limited quantities of certain plants for traditional medicine.

Monument Oryx Management Operations: Past non-lethal oryx removal operations were complex operations requiring advance scheduling, detailed planning, interagency assistance, and considerable cost to the NPS and partner agencies, and extensive staff exposure to highly hazardous conditions. Helicopter use for herding, darting, and sling transport requires considerable flight time in hazardous conditions of low speed, hovering, and low elevation flying within 100 feet or less above ground level. Normal helicopter flight involves a take off and landing, with the rest of the flight at hundreds of feet above ground level and at normal cruising speed, with the exception of sling-load transportation. Both factors of higher elevation above ground level and higher speed provide a safety margin should a malfunction occur, but these factors are not options for much of wildlife flight work. Darting oryx and handling the anesthesia drug to load and transport darts also exposes crew to hazardous conditions on a repetitive basis. The sling loading operation for transporting oryx requires crew to work under hovering helicopters, which is a hazardous condition.

Two roads penetrate into the 144,000 acres (225 square miles) of monument backcountry, with the rest of the backcountry accessible by ground only from roads near the boundary. No formally designated wilderness is within the monument. A wilderness study was made in 1972, with a finding of not suitable for designation at that time (National Park Service 1972).

Impairment Of Park Resources Or Values: In addition to determining the environmental consequences of the preferred and other alternatives, National Park Service policy (Management Policies, 2001) requires analysis of potential effects to determine whether actions would impair park resources.

The fundamental purpose of the national park system, established by the Organic Act and reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act, as amended, begins with a mandate to conserve park resources and values. National Park Service managers must always seek ways to avoid, or to minimize to the greatest degree practicable, adverse impacts on park resources and values. However, the laws do give the National Park Service the management discretion to allow impacts to park resources and values when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of a park, as long as the impact does not constitute impairment of the affected resources and values. Although Congress has given the National Park Service the management discretion to allow certain impacts within parks, that discretion is limited by the statutory requirement that the National Park Service must leave park resources and values unimpaired, unless a particular law directly and specifically provides otherwise. The prohibited impairment is an impact that, in the professional judgement of the responsible National Park Service manager, would harm the integrity of park resources or values, including the opportunities that otherwise would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values. An impact to any park resource or value may constitute an impairment. An impact would be more likely to constitute an impairment to the extent it affects a resource or value whose conservation is:

• Necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park;

• Key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or

• Identified as a goal in the park's general management plan or other relevant NPS planning documents.

Impairment may result from National Park Service activities in managing the park, visitor activities, or activities undertaken by concessionaires, contractors, and others operating in the park. This environmental assessment will analyze the potential effects of all alternatives presented to determine if the alternative would result in an impairment of park resources. An impairment finding is included in the conclusion section for the following impact topics: Soil, Vegetation, Cultural Resources, and Monument Oryx Removal Operations, as well as the conclusion section for each alternative.

 

IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS:

Air Quality: Section 118 of the 1963 Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et. Seq.) requires a National Park Service unit to meet all federal, state, and local air pollution standards. White Sands National Monument is designated a Class II air quality area under the Clean Air Act, as amended. A Class II designation allows moderate deterioration of air quality within national ambiant air quality standards. The Clean Air Act also provides that the federal land manager has an affirmative responsibility to protect air quality related values (including visibility, plants, animals, soils, water quality, cultural resources, and visitor health) from adverse pollution impacts.

There would be no affect by proposed actions as emissions from helicopters or ATVs would be well within usual background levels of normal daily operations in the region.

Terrain Features: No proposed action would affect terrain features. The monument consists of 144,000 acres (225 square miles) of Chihuahuan Desert valley floor between elevations of 3,890 and 4,116 above sea level. The monument is known for the world’s largest gypsum sand dune field, of which about half is on the monument and the rest on military land. Just west of the monument, the rugged San Andres Mountains slope down to the western portion of the monument. From the western boundary of the monument, low gradient alluvial slopes (bajadas) drain down into a closed basin, with the low area of the basin and monument forming a playa or mostly dry lakebed called Lake Lucero. North and east of the playa is a very gently sloping land surface called Alakali Flat, which merges easterly into the sand dune field. East and south of the dune field are flat areas of grass mixed with shrubs.

Water Resources Including Floodplains and Wetlands: No proposed action would affect water resources including floodplains and wetlands.

National Park Service policies require protection of water quality consistent with the Clean Water Act (1977), a national policy to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters and to prevent, control, and abate water pollution.

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, requires federal agencies to avoid, where possible, impacts on wetlands. Proposed actions that have the potential to adversely impact wetlands must be addressed in a Statement of Findings. Proposed actions would avoid wetlands, including the Lake Lucero playa surface, therefore, the topic of wetlands has been dismissed from further analysis and a Statement of Findings for wetlands will not be prepared.

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, requires all federal agencies to avoid construction within the 100-year floodplain unless no other practical alternative exists. There would be no construction in the proposed actions and no affect on floodplains.

Rainfall averages 8-10 inches per year, although summer storms can be very intense and local in nature. Stream channels from the San Andes Mountains west of the monument discharge into the monument toward Lake Lucero during summer thunderstorm rain events. Lake Lucero is a playa lakebed and is seasonally flooded by highly mineralized water. Besides flash floods along the west boundary, the only other surface water affecting the monument is the Lost River, which is an ephemeral stream at the northeast corner of the monument. Surface water of Lost River has not flowed into the monument since 1996, when a sand dune blocked the stream channel 1,000 feet upstream of the monument boundary. Ground water from the Lost River reaches into the dune field as evidenced by a large area of salt cedar along the stream channel in the monument. Ground water in the dune field at the end of the public road is within 3-6 feet below the surface. This water is highly mineralized and is not potable for humans.

Native Wildlife: No proposed action would affect native wildlife. Actions would be specific to oryx. Native wildlife includes six species of amphibians, 12 snake species, 13 lizard species, one turtle species, 210 bird species, and 26 mammal species. Bird species include various perching birds as winter migrants and nesting during spring, some spring and fall migratory shore birds and waterfowl, and migratory raptors. Mammals include various rodents, kit fox, coyote, badger, raccoon, ringtail, and bobcats.

Endangered Species: There would be no effect on state- or federally-listed threatened or endangered species. The Endangered Species Act (1973) requires an examination of impacts on all federally-listed threatened or endangered species. National Park Service policy also requires examination of the impacts on federal candidate species, as well as state-listed threatened, endangered, candidate, rare, declining, and sensitive species.

The following species are listed for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act as endangered or threatened and may be found on the monument. Several state-listed species may also be found. State and federal listings are by county, with no explanation of where in the county they may be found. None of the listed plants are known on the monument, and with the exception of night blooming cereus cactus, are not likely to be found due to requirements of soil type, elevation, and moisture. Cereus grows within mesquite thickets, which would protect it from any disturbance related to oryx removal. No listed birds or mammals are known to nest or breed within the monument. Occasional sporadic through flight or foraging use is possible by migratory birds. A breeding population of the state-listed white sands pupfish occupies the Lost River, which ends about 1,000 feet upstream from the monument boundary.

Doña Ana County:

Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus federal: threatened

Interior least tern Sterna antillarum federal: endangered

Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida federal: threatened

Northern aplomado falcon Falco femoralis septentrionalis federal: endangered

Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii extimus federal: endangered

Sneed pincushion cactus Coryphantha sneedii sneedii federal: endangered

Night blooming cereus Peniocereus greggii state: endangered

Dune prickly pear Opuntia arenaria state: endangered

Mescalero milkwort Polygala rimulicola mescalerorum

state: endangered

Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis federal: species of concern

Desert pocket gopher Geomys bursarius arenarius federal: species of concern

Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes federal: species of concern

Greater weestern mastiff bat Eumops perotis californicus federal: species of concern

Occult little brown bat Myotis lucifugus occultus federal: species of concern

Organ Mountains Colorado chipmunk Eutamias quadrivittatus australis

federal: species of concern

Townsends big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii federal: species of concern

Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii federal: species of concern

Pecos River muskrat Ondatra zibethicus ripensis federal: species of concern

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum federal: species of concern

White Sands woodrat Neotoma micropus leucophacea federal: species of concern

American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum federal: species of concern

Arctic peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus tundrius federal: species of concern

Baird’s sparrow Ammodramus bairdii federal: species of concern

Black tern Chlidonias niger federal: species of concern

Feruginous hawk Buteo regalis federal: species of concern

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus federal: species of concern

Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugaea federal: species of concern

White faced ibis Plegadis chihi federal: species of concern

Yellow billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus federal: species of concern

Desert viceroy butterfly Limenitis archippus obsoleta federal: species of concern

Texas horned lizard Phrynosoma cornutum federal: species of concern

Anthony blister beetle Lytta mirifica federal: species of concern

Dona Ana talussnail Sonorella todseni federal: species of concern

Alamo beardtongue Penstemon alamosenis federal: species of concern

Night blooming cereus Cereus greggii var greggii federal: species of concern

Mescalero milkwort Polygala rimulicola var mescalerorum

federal: species of concern

Nodding rock-daisy Perityle cernua federal: species of concern

Organ Mountain primrose Oenothera organensis federal: species of concern

Organ Mountain figwort Scrophularia laevis federal: species of concern

Sand prickly pear Opuntia arenaria federal: species of concern

Sandhill goosefoot Chenopodium cycloides federal: species of concern

Standly whitlow-grass Draba stanleyi federal: species of concern

Otero County:

Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus federal: threatened

Interior least tern Sterna antillarum federal: endangered

Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida federal: threatened

Northern aplomado falcon Falco femoralis septentrionalis federal: endangered

Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii extimus federal: endangered

Brown pelican Pelecanus accidentalis federal: endangered

White sands pupfish Cyprinodon tularosa state: threatened

Kuenzler’s hedgehog cactus Echinocereus fendleri kuenzleri federal: endangered

Sacramento Mountains thistle Cirsium vinaceum federal: threatened

Sacramento prickly poppy Argemone pleiacantha extimus federal: endangered

Todsen’s pennyroyal Hedeoma todsenii federal: endangered

Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis federal: species of concern

Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus federal: candidate species

Cave myotis Myotis velifer federal: species of concern

Desert pocket gopher Geomys bursarius arenarius federal: species of concern

Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes federal: species of concern

Gray footed chipmunk Tamias canipes federal: species of concern

Greater weestern mastiff bat Eumops perotis californicus federal: species of concern

Guadalupe southern pocket gopher Thomomys umbrinus guadalupensis

federal: species of concern

New Mexico meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius luteus federal: species of concern

Occult little brown bat Myotis lucifugus occultus federal: species of concern

Townsends big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii federal: species of concern

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum federal: species of concern

White Sands woodrat Neotoma micropus leucophacea federal: species of concern

American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum federal: species of concern

Arctic peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus tundrius federal: species of concern

Baird’s sparrow Ammodramus bairdii federal: species of concern

Black tern Chlidonias niger federal: species of concern

Feruginous hawk Buteo regalis federal: species of concern

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus federal: species of concern

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis federal: species of concern

Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugaea federal: species of concern

White faced ibis Plegadis chihi federal: species of concern

Yellow billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus federal: species of concern

White Sands pupfish Cyprinodon tularosa federal: species of concern

Sacramento mountain salamander Aneides hardii federal: species of concern

Texas horned lizard Phrynosoma cornutum federal: species of concern

Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly Euphydrydryas anicia cloudcrofti

federal: species of concern

Sacramento Mountains silverspot butterfly Icaricia icarioides federal: species of concern

Alamo beardtongue Penstemon alamosensis federal: species of concern

Night blooming cereus Cereus greggii var greggii federal: species of concern

Goodings onion Allium gooddingii federal: species of concern

Guadalupe rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus nauseosus var texensis federal: species of concern

Gypsum scalebroom Lepidospartum burgessii federal: species of concern

Sierra Blanca cliffdaisy Chaetopappa elegans federal: species of concern

Villard’s pincushion cactus Escobaria villardii federal: species of concern

Wright’s marsh thistle Cirsium wrightii federal: species of concern

 

 

Visitor Use: No proposed action would affect visitor use of the monument.

About 500,000-600,000 visitors enter the monument annually. The main use season is March through October, with Easter weekend and school spring breaks especially busy. Summer temperatures influence use, with daytime highs commonly reaching 100 degrees.

Other than primitive backcountry camping, use is confined to daylight hours along the corridor of the eight-mile public road. The road ends at the "Heart of the Sands," a loop of parking and picnic areas that is the focal point of visitor use in the dunes. People enjoy playing on the dunes near the road, hiking, picnicking, and photographing the dune landscape. Few people hike more than one mile from the main road. Access to the rest of the monument is restricted by military ownership of roads that provide access to the monument boundary. The monument is almost entirely surrounded by military land.

Ranger guided interpretive hikes are led daily along from the dunes road, and one trip per month is led to the western portion of the monument and Lake Lucero playa.

Social/Economic Conditions: No proposed action would affect social or economic conditions.

The city of Alamogordo, New Mexico, is 15 miles east of the monument, and has a population of about 35,000. Holloman Air Force Base is just east of the monument, with a base population of about 4,000. Military spending dominates the local economy. Tourism adds to the economy, and the monument draws national and international visitors. Other nearby tourist attractions include the Space Center Museum in Alamogordo, Oliver Lee Memorial State Park south of Alamogordo, the resort town of Cloudcroft and Lincoln National Forest east of Alamogordo, and the resort town of Ruidoso and two casinos to the northeast.

West, north, and south of the monument is the White Sands Missile Range, managed by the Army. This area of 2 million+ acres is the largest Department of Defense installation and has been a primary military testing and training reservation since the beginning of World War II. Fort Bliss is south of and adjacent to the missile range, with over 1 million acres. Also west of the monument is the San Andres National Wildlife Refuge, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect desert bighorn sheep. On the east side of the monument is Holloman Air Force Base, which is the home base of the F-117 Stealth fighter jet, a German Air Force flight training unit, and several research and development facilities. Airspace over the monument is controlled by the military and ground access to most of the monument boundary is via military land and roads and controlled by military security.

The city of Las Cruces is 60 miles west of the monument, with a population over 100,000, and diversified economy including New Mexico State University. The cities of El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juárez, Republic of Mexico, are 90 miles south of the monument, with a combined population of about 2 million. El Paso/Juárez provides a transportation hub, a major entry port from Mexico to the U.S., NAFTA oriented manufacturing, oil refining, the University of Texas at El Paso, and Fort Bliss Army base.

Prime and Unique Farmland: No proposed action would affect prime and unique farmland. In August, 1980, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) directed that federal agencies must assess the effects of their actions on farmland soils classified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service as prime or unique. Prime or unique farmland is defined as soil which particularly produces general crops such as common foods, forage, fiber, and oil seed; unique farmland produces specialty crops such as fruits, vegetables, and nuts. There is no farmland or agriculture practiced on the monument, and therefore prime and unique farmlands has been dismissed as a possible impact topic.

Environmental Justice: According to the guidance issued by the Council on Environmental Quality, environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including a racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies. Presidential Executive Order 12898, "General Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations," requires all federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their missions by identifying and addressing the disproportionately high and/or adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs and policies on minorities and low-income populations and communities. The proposed action would not have health or environmental effects on minorities or low-income populations or communities as defined in the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Justice Guidance (1998). Therefore, environmental justice was dismissed as an impact topic in this document.

Sustainable Design/Development: NPS Management Policies (NPS, 2000) require that facilities be integrated into the park landscape and environs with sustainable designs and systems to minimize environmental impact. There is no proposed facility development.

Natural Soundscapes: NPS Management Policies (NPS 2000) direct the NPS to preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the natural soundscapes of parks. The Service will restore degraded soundscapes to the natural condition wherever possible, and will protect natural soundscapes from degradation due to noise (undesirable human-caused sound).

Using appropriate management planning, superintendents will identify what levels of human-caused sound caused by the proposed action can be accepted within the management purposes of parks. The frequencies, magnitudes, and durations of human-caused sound considered acceptable will vary throughout the park, being generally greater in developed areas and generally lesser in undeveloped areas. In and adjacent to parks, the Service will monitor human activities that generate noise that adversely affects park soundscapes, including noise caused by mechanical or electronic devices. The Service will take action to prevent or minimize all noise that, through frequency, magnitude, or duration, adversely affects the natural soundscape or other park resources or values, or that exceeds levels that have been identified as being acceptable to, or appropriate for, visitor uses at the sites being monitored. Due to military use of adjacent land bordering the monument, public access to monument land away from the public use road is greatly limited. Proposed actions generating noise would be in areas away from visitor use areas, and therefore soundscapes are not considered for analysis.

 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

METHOLOLOGY FOR ASSESSING IMPACTS

Terms

Impacts are described in terms of context (site-specific, local, or regional), duration (short-term or long-term), and intensity (negligible, minor, moderate, or major). The thresholds of change for the duration and intensity of an impact are defined as follows:

Short-term: The impact lasts one year or less

Long-term: The impact lasts more than one year

Negligible: The impact is at the lowest levels of detection

Minor: The impact is slight, but detectable

Moderate: The impact is readily apparent

Major: The impact is a severe or adverse impact or of exceptional benefit

Cumulative Impacts

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, which implement the National Environmental Quality Act (NEPA), require assessment of cumulative impacts in the decision-making process for federal projects. Cumulative impacts are defined as "the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions" (40 CFR 1508.7).

Cumulative impacts are determined by combining the impacts of each alternative with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions. Therefore it was necessary to identify other ongoing or reasonable foreseeable future actions within White Sands National Monument and, if applicable, the surrounding region.

No past or present projects or management actions within the monument have occurred that would directly affect resources analyzed in this environmental assessment. At this time the only future project that would potentially affect resources described herein would be a fire management program, which is in the planning process. It is unlikely outcomes of the fire management plan would affect large areas of land within the next five years, due to need for gathering data by possible small test plot burns, if any burns would be approved. If post-burn ecological response data indicates a benefit for resource values, then prescribed burning may be increased.

Impacts On Cultural Resources And Section 106 Of The National Historic Preservation Act

In this environmental assessment, impacts to the potentially eligible cultural resources are described in terms of type, context, duration, and intensity, as described above, which is consistent with the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) that implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These impact analyses are intended, however, to comply with the requirements of both NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations implementing Section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties), impacts to archaeological resources were identified and evaluated by (1) determining the area of potential effects; (2) identifying cultural resources present in the area of potential effects that were either listed in or eligible to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places; (3) applying the criteria of adverse effect to affected cultural resources either listed in or eligible to be listed in the National Register; and (4) considering ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects.

Under the Advisory Council’s regulations a determination of either adverse effect or no adverse effect must also be made for affected cultural resources. An adverse effect occurs whenever an impact alters, directly or indirectly, any characteristics of a cultural resource that qualify it for inclusion in the National Register, e.g. diminishing the integrity of the resource’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse effects also include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the preferred alternative that would occur later in time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative (36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse Effects). A determination of no adverse effect means there is an effect, but the effect would not diminish in any way the characteristics of the cultural resource that qualify it for inclusion in the National Register.

CEQ regulations and the National Park Service’s Conservation Planning, Environment Impact Analysis and Decision-making (DO-12) also call for a discussion of the appropriateness of mitigation, as well as an analysis of how effective the mitigation would be in reducing the intensity of a potential impact, e.g. reducing the intensity of an impact from major to moderate or minor. Any resultant reduction in intensity of impact due to mitigation, however, is an estimate of the effectiveness of mitigation under NEPA only. It does not suggest that the level of effect as defined by Section 106 is similarly reduced. Although adverse effects under Section 106 may be mitigated, the effect remains adverse.

A Section 106 summary is included in the impact analysis section of each alternative.

The Section 106 summary is intended to meet the requirements of Section 106 and is an assessment of the effect of the undertaking (implementation of the alternative) on cultural resources, based upon the criterion of effect and criterion of adverse effect found in the Advisory Council’s regulations.

Regulations And Policy

As with all units of the National Park System, management of White Sands National Monument is guided by the 1916 Organic Act; the General Authorities Act of 1970 and the act of March 27, 1978, relating to the management of the National Park System, NPS Management Policies, 2001, and other applicable federal laws and regulations. The conditions prescribed by laws, resolutions, and policies most pertinent to the planning and management of the monument are summarized below:

Desired Condition: Federal- and State-listed threatened and endangered species and their habitats are sustained.

Source: Endangered Species Act; NPS Management Policies

Desired Condition: Populations of native plant and animal species function in as natural condition as possible except where special management considerations are warranted.

Source: NPS Management Policies.

 

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE A: (PREFERRED) COMPLETE THE REMOVAL OF AFRICAN ORYX BY LETHAL REDUCTION

Impacts on Soil and Vegetation

Removal of oryx from the monument would improve natural ecosystem functions by removing the cause of existing impacts on soil/vegetation such as game trails, trampling, digging roots, grazing, and browsing. Disturbed areas would grow back, with lichen soil crust and other vegetation becoming re-established over time on existing bare soil, resulting in long-term benefit to soil and vegetation natural conditions. Lichen soil crust functions of nitrogen fixing, moisture holding, stabilization, and reducing wind and water erosion would become re-established on areas currently disturbed and bare due to oryx use. Consumption of vegetation by oryx would cease, with that biomass made available to other consumers or recycled during decomposition.

Overland human travel in roadless areas of the monument to locate oryx and remove carcasses would cause some short-term, minor soil/vegetation disturbance, whether by horseback or ATV travel. Tire tracks of ATVs running at a moderate speed (about 5-10 miles per hour) on these soils are about the same depth as human a footprint. Erosion is not expected. In most cases, ATV tracks would be not visible after two years, as indicated by past experience on the monument (National Park Service files). About 80 percent of the monument area could be affected (all but playa surface, which would be avoided), and track density would be very sparse. Dark lichen soil crust is most developed on about 20 percent of the monument land, which would be the most sensitive to disturbance. In the worst case where developed soil crust is broken by one passage of an ATV, soil crust would be largely re-established within five years and track visibility is anticipated to be negligible.

Cumulative Impacts

The fire management plan being developed is the only other future program with potential for affecting soil and vegetation in roadless areas, and no effects are expected within five years.

Past management practice of allowing oryx to increase to 1998 estimated population levels of 190 animals within the fenced area resulted in existing minor-to-moderate (readily apparent) soil and vegetation impacts distributed over the majority of the monument. An estimated 20 percent of the monument is especially sensitive due to fragile soil crust conditions. Proposed action in this alternative would create minor, short-term impact (ATV or horse tracks) on soil/vegetation in the process of removing the cause (oryx) of long-term impacts. Within a two year period, 90 percent of track visibility would be expected to be negligible and natural conditions recovered. Within a five year period, the remaining 10 percent of track visibility would be expected to be negligible and natural conditions recovered. Past soil and vegetation disturbances from high oryx populations would recover over time as soil crust and vegetation became re-established.

Conclusion

There would be short-term, minor intensity impacts on soil/vegetation from ATV or horse tracks. Within five years, expected impacts would be negligible. Natural soil/vegetation conditions would benefit in the long-term by removing oryx and allowing oryx-caused impacts on soil/vegetation to restore.

Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing proclamation of White Sands National Monument; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the monument or to opportunities for enjoyment of the monument; or (3) identified as a goal in the monument’s master plan or other relevant National Park Service planning document, there would be no impairment of the monument’s resources or values.

Impacts On Cultural Resources

No impacts would occur to historic buildings or historic ruins, because proposed operational activities would avoid these areas. No impact would occur on ethnographic resources as oryx removal operations would not occur in areas or seasons plants are gathered by Native Americans. No impact on cultural resources is known from existing oryx use.

Overland access by horseback or ATV for locating and removing oryx could possibly pass over an unmapped archeological site consisting of a surface scatter of material, as these sites are not obvious. Such sites are found over a wide variety of site types on the monument. Hearth crust archeological sites are raised pedestals, which provide obstacles a person would naturally avoid and no effect is anticipated. Cultural material would not be displaced by ATV or horse passage, erosion is not expected to result, and impact would be expected to be negligible. No adverse effect is expected.

Cumulative Impacts

No other past or present management actions have resulting impacts on cultural resources that would have a cumulative effect when combined with effects of the proposed action. No other proposed management actions would have a cumulative effect when combined with the proposed alternative.

Section 106 Summary

There would be no effect on historic buildings or ranch ruins, or on ethnographic resources. Some archeological sites consisting of surface scattered material may be affected, however after applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National Park Service determines that implementation of the preferred alternative would have no adverse effect on sites eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

Conclusion

No effects would occur on historic buildings and ranch ruins, or on ethnographic resources. Negligible effects on archeological sites consisting of surface scattered material may occur from ATV passage over a remote and unmapped site on a one-time basis, resulting in no adverse effect.

Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing proclamation of White Sands National Monument; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the monument or to opportunities for enjoyment of the monument; or (3) identified as a goal in the monument’s master plan or other relevant National Park Service planning document, there would be no impairment of the monument’s resources or values.

Impacts On Monument Operations

The proposed action is feasible, safe, efficient, and within normal operations budget. Staff would be able to quickly respond when fresh oryx sign is detected. With 67 miles of fence to monitor and maintain, oryx inevitably will enter at sites where fence is temporarily damaged by flash floods or vehicle accidents. By elimination of a reproducing monument oryx population, and maintaining quick response to accidental entries or previously undetected animals, long-term operational expense would be reduced to minimum levels. Monument resources could then be used on other resource management projects. No unusually hazardous working conditions would be encountered as the project would not depend on low-level helicopter use.

Cumulative Impacts

No other monument operation issues would combine to make a cumulative impact on monument operations. The proposed action would have a negligible impact on overall typical monument operations.

Conclusion

The proposed action would be the most effective way to accomplish the above stated oryx management objectives and efficiently operate the monument.

Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing proclamation of White Sands National Monument; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the monument or to opportunities for enjoyment of the monument; or (3) identified as a goal in the monument’s master plan or other relevant National Park Service planning document, there would be no impairment of the monument’s resources or values.

 

 

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE B: COMPLETE THE REMOVAL OF AFRICAN ORYX BY NON-LETHAL REDUCTION

Soil and Vegetation

Removal of oryx from the monument would remove a source of impact on soil and vegetation as described under alternative A. Disturbed soil and vegetation would restore to more natural conditions as described under alternative A.

There would be negligible short-term impacts and no long-term impacts from overland travel for oryx removal, with the only soil/vegetation impacts occurring when helicopters landed and crews worked on animals to prepare for sling loading to the release site.

Cumulative Impacts

As stated under alternative A, the fire management plan being developed is the only other future program that would affect vegetation away from developed areas, and no large-scale effects are expected within five years.

Conclusion: No impact on soil and vegetation conditions would result from the proposed action.

Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing proclamation of White Sands National Monument; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the monument or to opportunities for enjoyment of the monument; or (3) identified as a goal in the monument’s master plan or other relevant National Park Service planning document, there would be no impairment of the monument’s resources or values.

Impacts On Cultural Resources

No impacts would occur on cultural resources including historic buildings, historic ruins, ethnographic resources, and archeological sites.

Cumulative Impacts

No other past or present management actions have resulting impacts on cultural resources that would have a cumulative effect when combined with effects of the proposed action. No other proposed management actions would have a cumulative effect when combined with the proposed alternative.

Section 106 Summary

There would be no effect on cultural resources including historic buildings, historic ruins, ethnographic resources, and archeological sites.

Conclusion

No impacts on cultural resources would result from the proposed action.

Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing proclamation of White Sands National Monument; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the monument or to opportunities for enjoyment of the monument; or (3) identified as a goal in the monument’s master plan or other relevant National Park Service planning document, there would be no impairment of the monument’s resources or values.

Impacts On Monument Operations

Non-lethal removal by helicopter is a major operation that requires advanced planning to schedule the helicopters (three at a time used in 2000 and 2001), requires specialists that have to travel from out of state, and depends on good weather for the scheduled time period. The work is hazardous due to the great amount of low level pursuit flying, animal handling, and flying with sling loads. Over time, the odds of a very serious accident occurring are high.

The cost per animal in the last darting operation averaged at $3,300 per animal, but as the week progressed and animal density became less, the last day resulted in only one animal captured, at a cost of about $20,000. An estimated 12-20 animals remain and are scattered all over the 144,000 acre (225 square mile) monument making locating difficult. Cost of non-lethal removal of the remaining animals would be well over $200,000 and could be in the range of $500,000. This would not include recurring removals when a new animal enters through a short-term fence break after a flash flood or some other event, which is an annual occurrence. The cost and staff time required for a helicopter-based, non-lethal removal operation would result in other needed monument projects going unfunded and not performed. There is a realistic chance that the operation would have to be repeated every few years to remove animals that enter through temporary fence breaks or escaped earlier removal operations. This would in effect commit the monument to a significantly expensive, recurring cyclic cost for controlling the oryx population by helicopter operations.

Cumulative Impacts

The proposed action would have a major negative impact on monument operations, due to the high initial cost and recurring cost to respond to new oryx re-entering the fenced area. The high cost would divert operation resources from other potential projects.

Conclusion

A major negative impact from cost and time commitments would occur on monument operations resources. Staff would be exposed to highly hazardous working conditions on a repetitive basis. This alternative would not meet the above stated oryx removal management objectives.

 

 

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE C: NO ACTION-NO AFRICAN ORYX REDUCTION

Soil and Vegetation

After 10+ years without oryx reduction, the population would approach to 1998 monument level of about 190 animals. In 1998, impacts on soil and vegetation were becoming evident, as described above in Purpose and Need. Over time with no hunting, no significant predation, and containment by the boundary fence, the monument oryx population would continue to increase to some level that would significantly damage soil and vegetation. At some time the oryx population would stabilize, with controlling factors likely being some behavioral mechanism and/or severely impacted vegetative conditions. At this stage, there would be moderate to major impacts on native vegetation for as long as the oryx population remained high. Soil erosion could increase due to damage to soil crust and plant cover. This scenario is typical of world-wide desert ecosystems that are destabilized by grazing. The overall result is a loss of ecosystem stability and productivity of native species.

Cumulative Impacts

As stated above, the fire management plan being developed is the only other future program with potential for affecting soil and vegetation in roadless areas of the monument, and no large-scale effects are expected within five years.

Conclusion

Monument soil and vegetation would be at risk of moderate to major, long-term impact from uncontrolled oryx population increase within the fenced area of the monument.

If the above potential impacts on soil and vegetation were allowed to occur, this would be an impact on resources: (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing proclamation of White Sands National Monument; and (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the monument or to opportunities for enjoyment of the monument; and as such, there would be an impairment of the monument’s resources or values.

Impacts On Cultural Resources

No impacts would occur to cultural resources including historic buildings, historic ruins, ethnographic resources, and archeological sites. Plant gathering could still occur, however vigor of plants may be impacted by heavy grazing and browsing.

Cumulative Impacts

No other past or present management actions have resulting impacts on cultural resources that would have a cumulative effect when combined with effects of the proposed action. No other proposed management actions would have a cumulative effect when combined with the proposed alternative.

Section 106 Summary

There would be no effect on cultural resources including historic buildings, historic ruins, ethnographic resources, and archeological sites.

Conclusion

No impacts on cultural resources would result from the proposed action.

Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to a (cultural) resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing proclamation of White Sands National Monument; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the monument or to opportunities for enjoyment of the monument; or (3) identified as a goal in the monument’s master plan or other relevant National Park Service planning document, there would be no impairment of the monument’s resources or values.

 

Impacts On Monument Operations

No short term impacts on monument operations would occur. In the long term as oryx population levels increase above 1998 levels, monument staff would spend more time on education of visitors about oryx viewing safety and attempt to keep visitors from animals. In 1998, oryx were frequently viewed from the from the public road, and several employees while hiking accidentally got uncomfortably close to oryx. Large parks with major wildlife populations spend operational effort educating the public about hazards of approaching large animals. Hikers and photographers would have close encounters with oryx, which could be hazardous.

Maintenance of the boundary fence would become a low priority, as there would be little incentive to maintain this facility. At some time with a greatly increased oryx population, and a density that exceeds oryx use on White Sands Missile Range, it would be desirable to remove the fence (in part or in whole) so oryx could emigrate from the monument.

 

 

Cumulative Impacts

No other monument operation issues would combine to make a cumulative impact on monument operations.

Conclusion

While there would be no direct impact on monument operations and possibly minor long term operation cost, this alternative would not meet the above stated oryx removal management objectives.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The environmentally preferred alternative is determined by applying the criteria suggested in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), which is guided by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The CEQ provides direction that "the environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's Section 101.

1. fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations;

2. assure for all generations safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;

3. attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk of health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences;

4. preserve important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our national heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and variety of individual choice;

5. achieve a balance between population and resource use that will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and

6. enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.

Alternative A is the environmentally preferred alternative. It is the least complex and most realistic method to achieve the stated management objectives of oryx removal from the monument. Safety hazard to staff is a great concern of alternative B, as well as likelihood of reduced success reduced due to greater operational complexity. Alternative C makes no attempt to protect the environment or meet oryx removal management objectives, but is used as a necessary basis for comparison of alternatives.

CONSULTATION/COORDINATION

Staff of U.S. Senator Pete Domenici

Staff of U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman

Staff of U.S. Representative Joe Skeen

Larry Bell, Director, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Steven Henry, Southwest Area Supervisor, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Las Cruces, New Mexico.

Elizabeth Oster, New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Larry Furrow, Chief of Public Affairs, White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.

T.A. Ladd, Environmental Services Division, White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.

Patrick Morrow, Wildlife Biologist, Environmental Services Division, White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.

Hildy Reiser, Wildlife Biologist, 49 Civil Engineer Squadron, Environmental Flight, Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico.

Kevin Cobble, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, San Andres National Wildlife Refuge, New Mexico.

Elizabeth Jennings, Animal Protection of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

 

REFERENCES

BURKETT, Doug

    1. "Comprehensive Oryx Management Plan." Cooperative Report From White Sands Missile Range and New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, New Mexico.

DYE, J.

    1. "Gemsbok And Mule Deer Diets In Southern New Mexico." M.S. Thesis, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico.

ESTES, R.D.

    1. The Behavior Guide To African Mammals. The University of California Press. Berkeley, California.

ESTARAK, Robin

    1. "An Observational Study On The Behavior Of Oryx At White Sands National Monument." Prepared for National Park Service in "Ecological Research At White Sands National Monument." University of Texas at El Paso, Texas.

FAGERSTONE, K.A. et al

    1. "Wildlife Fertility Control." The Wildlife Society, Technical Review, Bethesda, MD.

NEW MEXICO NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM

    1. "White Sands National Monument Vegetation." Southwest Geographic Information Center, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

REID, W. H. and G.R. Patrick

1983 "Gemsbok (Oryx Gazella) In White Sands National Monument." The Southwestern Naturalist Volume 28, No. 1.

SAIZ, R.B.

    1. "Ecology And Behavior Of The Gemsbok On the White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico." M.S. Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

SMITH, C.

1994 "Michrohistological Analysis Of Diets Of Exotic And Native Ungulates In Southcentral New Mexico. M.S. Thesis, M.S. Thesis, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

1976 Soil Survey Of White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

    1. Wilderness Recommendation – White Sands National Monument, New Mexico.

1976 Final Master Plan, White Sands National Monument, New Mexico.

    1. Management Policies. Washington, D.C.

WALTHER, F.R.

1980 "Aggressive Behavior Of Oryx Antelope At Water-Holes In The Etosha National Park." Madoqua 11:271-302.

YORK, M.

    1. "Damage to Yucca elata in White Sands National Monument by Oryx gazella Grazing." Prepared for National Park Service in "Ecological Research at White Sands National Monument." University of Texas at El Paso, Texas

 

PREPARER

William F. Conrod, Natural Resource Specialist, White Sands National Monument, New Mexico

 

 

 

 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Complete The Removal Of African Oryx

White Sands National Monument, New Mexico

At White Sands National Monument the National Park Service (NPS) will implement alternative A (preferred) of the Environmental Assessment - Assessment of Effect: "Complete The Removal Of African Oryx." Alternative A (preferred) is "Complete The Removal Of African Oryx By Lethal Reduction." NPS staff in conjunction with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish will perform the removal work on NPS land. No NPS staff will travel on U.S. Air Force land within the fenced area without express written consent of the installation. Off-road surface transportation will be by means of foot, horseback, and by all terrain vehicles (ATVs), as under a memorandum of agreement between the NPS and New Mexico State Historic Preservation Division to mitigate potential damage to unmapped archeological sites.

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The preferred alternative as stated in the environmental assessment:

Authorized monument staff in conjunction with New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and White Sands Missile Range wildlife officers would locate (over time) and shoot the remaining estimated 12-20 oryx. For long-term monument resource management, whenever oryx sign is detected within the fenced area, immediate action would be taken to locate and shoot the animal. No public hunting on the monument would occur. Significant use of helicopters is not anticipated. Off-road travel for locating animals and removing carcasses would be by foot, ATVs, and horses. Carcasses would be salvaged whenever possible and transferred to New Mexico Department of Game and Fish for human use by standard department procedure. Wild game carcasses are sold for the meat, hides, and horns by New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. On Air Force land within the fenced area, existing procedures would be followed for animal control.

To mitigate impacts from ATV tracks, playa surfaces (about 20 percent of the monument) would be avoided due to long lasting nature of tracks on these soil/moisture conditions. ATVs would not follow other ATV tracks but would take a separate route to avoid deepening tracks. Vehicle speed would be moderate (about 5-10 miles per hour) and turns gentle to minimize track depth. An archeologist would oversee ATV use in dune areas with known archeological sites and two village sites would be avoided. No shooting would occur in areas open to the public, during public use times.

As a further clarification, no oryx control would be performed by NPS staff on U.S. Air Force land within the fenced area.

Animal control by shooting would be performed by NPS and there would be no public hunting on the monument. The preferred alternative would be safe for staff, cost effective, and could be done on a short-term basis without specialized crews or helicopters.

 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The environmental assessment considered three alternatives and two alternatives considered but rejected. Alternative A was the preferred alternative described above.

Alternative B was "Complete The Removal Of African Oryx By Non-lethal Reduction." This would continue non-lethal methods used in recent years such as herding to fence openings by using helicopters and all terrain vehicles, and capture using helicopters for darting with anesthesia drugs and sling loading to release sites outside of the monument on the White Sands Missile Range. The environmental assessment discussed the cost for non-lethal removal becoming very high as animals became scarce, and the recurring need to expose staff to very hazardous conditions during helicopter operations. The animals would also be placed in areas that are open to hunting. No non-hunted areas suitable for release are available within the short distance in which animals can be transported under anesthesia.

Alternative C was "No Action-No African Oryx Reduction." This course of action would lead to a build-up of the oryx population on the monument. The monument does not have the option of sport hunting as a means of population control, as used on adjacent lands. As long as the boundary fence is maintained, the monument oryx population would increase to a density that would result in ecological impacts on soil and native vegetation. Past investment in fence construction and non-lethal removal would be negated. Oryx could still be viewed by the public from roads on adjacent land, such as highway U.S.-70 passing through White Sands Missile Range. Oryx were only rarely viewed from the public road in the monument at the height of oryx numbers.

An alternative was considered but rejected from full analysis status, "Inject Contraception Drug To Sterilize Remaining Oryx." This is non technically feasible on free ranging wildlife as in contained livestock, as annual booster shots are required, and the same helicopter cost and hazard considerations would apply as in alternative B.

Another alternative considered but rejected was "Use One-way Fence Gates For Passive Removal." This was tried with two different designs of gates, with little success. Water troughs and alfalfa were used as bait with no success.

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The environmentally preferred alternative is determined by applying the criteria suggested in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), which is guided by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The CEQ provides direction that "the environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in the National Environmental Policy Act’s (NEPA) Section 101:

The preferred alternative is the environmentally preferred alternative. Overall, the preferred alternative would result in long-term beneficial impacts on natural resources (natural soil and native plant conditions) and monument operations and more fully meet the above criteria. The public would still have the opportunity to enjoy viewing and hunting oryx on adjacent lands that do not have the management mandates of National Park Service units such as White Sands National Monument.

WHY THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

As defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §1508.27, significance is determined by examining the following criteria:

Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse:

The preferred alternative will not impact visitor use; ethnographic resources; prehistoric or historic structures; cultural landscapes; prime and unique farmlands; air quality; water resources (including wetlands and floodplains); threatened and endangered species; the socioeconomic environment; or environmental justice. There would be potential impacts to archeological sites from ATV tracks, but this would be mitigated by supervision of an on-site archeologist to avoid sites. Impacts to soils and plant communities, will be adverse, but short-term and minor intensity. Negligible long-term impact from ATV tracks is expected. Long-term improvement in natural ecosystem function is expected from removing oryx as a source of disturbance to soil crust and vegetation destruction.

Degree of effect on public health or safety:

There would be no effect on the public health or safety of visitors using the monument, or in nearby communities. Safety of employees would be improved under the preferred alternative, by meeting objectives of wildlife control without the hazards of helicopter use in alternative B.

Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas: As described in the environmental assessment/assessment of effect, historic sites, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, and ecologically critical areas will not be affected. Cultural resources in the form of prehistoric sites could potentially be impacted by ATV use, however would be mitigated as described in a signed memorandum of agreement between the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Division and White Sands National Monument.

Degree to which effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial: There were no highly controversial effects identified during either preparation of the environmental assessment/assessment of effect or the public review period. Some comments opposed to the preferred alternative were received during public review, however the degree or intensity of opposition does not indicate the project is highly controversial. More comments were in support of the preferred alternative than in opposition. See paragraph below on Public Involvement for a summary of comments.

Degree to which the possible effects on the quality of the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks: There were no highly uncertain, unique or unknown risks identified during either preparation of the environmental assessment/assessment of effect or the public review period.

Degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration: The preferred alternative neither establishes a National Park Service precedent for future actions with significant effects nor represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.

Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts: A fire management plan under development with potential for burning vegetation is the only other project that would affect vegetation away from roads. Both the preferred alternative and possible fire program would be expected to reinstate natural vegetation conditions. No new negative impact is expected when combined with other ongoing management or potentially new programs, regarding natural, cultural, or social resources.

Degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed on National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources: As described in the environmental assessment/assessment of effect, implementing the preferred alternative will have potential for disturbance to archeological sites by ATV traffic, however this would be mitigated by on-site supervision of an archeologist.

Degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its critical habitat: As described in the environmental assessment/assessment of effect, no federally listed threatened or endangered species, as well as candidate species, are known to breed on the monument (although may forage or pass through) and no species of special concern would be affected by the preferred alternative.

Whether the action threatens a violation of federal, state, or local environmental protection law: The preferred alternative violates no federal, state, or local environmental protection laws.

In addition to reviewing the list of significance criteria, White Sands National Monument determined that implementation of the preferred alternative will not constitute an impairment of resources and values. This conclusion is based on a thorough analysis of the impacts described in the environmental assessment/assessment of effect, the agency and public comments received, and the professional judgement of the decision-maker in accordance with the National Park Service’s Management Policies, 2001. As described in the environmental assessment/assessment of effect, implementation of the preferred alternative will not result in major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing proclamation of White Sands National Monument; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the monument or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant National Park Service planning documents.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

In September, 2001, public scoping meetings were held in Las Cruces, Albuquerque, and Alamogordo, New Mexico. Press releases were sent to newspapers and broadcast media in those cities plus El Paso, Texas. Attendance was light, with a total of three members of the public attending, plus representatives of New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

An article was published in the High Country News on October 22, 2001. An El Paso television station (channel 9) showed a feature on oryx at WHSA at 6:00 PM and 10:00 PM news, November, 2001. A monthly NPS produced television talk show produced by Chamizal National Memorial in El Paso, conducted an interview on the oryx removal project, which was shown on channel 9.

An environmental assessment was prepared and released for public review and comments between November 11 and December 15, 2001. Publicity was by legal notices placed in the newspapers of El Paso, Las Cruces, Albuquerque, and Alamogordo, New Mexico. Press releases were also submitted to the same newspapers plus broadcast media. Copies were placed in public libraries of the above cities and posted on the internet website for White Sands National Monument. Responses were light, with three comments received by email. Responses were one opposed to the preferred alternative, one supporting the preferred alternative, and one requesting hunting information (probably confused with non-NPS land; hunting was not an option on the monument).

Public agency response included letters from the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and the U.S. Army White Sands Missile Range supporting the preferred alternative. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred by telephone on the preferred alternative having no effect on species listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act. The New Mexico State Historic Preservation Division requested an on-site archeologist supervise ATV use in areas with high potential of unmapped archeological sites, as described in a memorandum of agreement. Holloman Air Force Base requested clarification of status of the NPS fence and oryx management on Air Force land, with a requirement of written permission for NPS employees to enter Air Force land. Zuni Pueblo made a "no comment" response.

Email service and website access for White Sands National Monument was interrupted between December 6 and February 12, 2002, due to a Department of Interior shut down of internet access. On January 29, 2002, and article on oryx in New Mexico appeared on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. A similar front-page article appeared in the February 17 El Paso Times. This renewed publicity in addition to the loss of public opportunity to send email to the monument or view the website led to a decision to re-open public comment from February 10 to February 24, 2002. Legal notices and display ads were placed in the above newspapers plus Santa Fe, and press releases were submitted to newspapers and broadcast media. A total of fourty-eight comments were made by telephone call, email, FAX, and written letters. Thirty-nine comments supported the preferred alternative, often stating need for cost effective management, resource protection, and continuation of hunting and viewing opportunities off the monument. Nine comments either opposed the preferred alternative, or supported the no-action alternative, or were addressing public hunting that was never an option. Some comments may reflect confusion with White Sands Missile Range regarding hunting or viewing of oryx from roads.

No comments were made by organized groups. Copies of the environmental assessment were mailed to Animal Protection of New Mexico, National Parks and Conservation Association, and New Mexico Wilderness Alliance.

CONCLUSION

The preferred alternative does not constitute an action that normally requires preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). The preferred alternative will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Negative environmental impacts that could occur are minor or moderate in intensity. There are no significant impacts on public health, public safety, threatened or endangered species, historic properties either listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or other unique characteristics of the region. No highly uncertain or controversial impacts, unique or unknown risks, significant cumulative effects, or elements of precedence were identified. Implementation of the action will not violate any federal, state, or local environmental protection law.

Based on the foregoing, it has been determined that an EIS is not required for this project and thus will not be prepared.

 

 

 

Recommended: _____________________________________ _______________

James A. Mack Date

Superintendent, White Sands National Monument

 

 

Approved: ________________

Karen P. Wade Date

Director, Intermountain Region

 

For more information, contact: bill_conrod@nps.gov