Final Environmental Impact Statement and Bison Management Plan for the State of Montana and Yellowstone National Park

RECORD OF DECISION For FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND BISON MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA AND YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK December 20, 2000 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Forest Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 1 RECORD OF DECISION for FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND BISON MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA AND YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK Table of Contents I. Introduction . 3 II. Decision . 6 A. Statutory Basis for the Joint Management Plan . 8 B. Joint Management Plan . 10 C. Application of this Decision . 14 1. To the National Park Service . 14 2. To the U.S. Forest Service . 14 3. To the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service . 14 4. To Contracts, Permits, and Special Use Authorizations . 14 5. To Research Activities . 14 6. Relationship to Other Plans and Proposals . 15 7. Relationship to Other Lands . 15 III. The Alternatives . 16 A. Alternatives Considered . 16 B. The Joint Management Plan . 21 C. Rationale for Selecting the Joint Management Plan . 36 D. Mitigation Measures . 36 IV. Findings . 38 A. Compliance with Court Orders . 38 B. Legal and Regulatory Compliance . 38 1. National Environmental Policy Act . 38 2. National Park Service Laws and Regulations . 38 3. Forest Service Laws and Regulations . 40 4. APHIS Laws and Regulations . 40 5. Endangered Species Act . 40 6. Executive Orders . 41 V. Implementation . 42 A. Interagency Coordination . 42 B. Quarantine Decision . 42 C. Tribal Consultation . 42 D. Monitoring . 42 VI. Public Involvement . 43 A. Public Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement . 43 B. Public Comments on Final Environmental Impact Statement . 43 VII. Review and Approval . 45 A. Administrative Review. 45 B. Effective Date . 45 C. Administrative Record. 45 D. Signatures. 46 Appendix A: Response to Comments on Final Environmental Impact Statement. 47 Appendix B: Errata. 62 2 I. Introduction This Record of Decision is the culmination of a planning process in excess of ten years regarding the management of bison that leave Yellowstone National Park and enter the Gallatin National Forest and private lands within the State of Montana. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was a product of the cooperative efforts of the Department of the Interior (National Park Service), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Forest Service and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service), and the State of Montana (Department of Livestock and Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks). The Final EIS was a product of the cooperative efforts of the Department of the Interior (National Park Service) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (U.S. Forest Service and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service). The State of Montana has issued a separate final EIS under Montana law and has adopted and incorporated by reference the federal agencies’ final EIS Early European travelers to the Yellowstone area observed bison before and after the creation of Yellowstone National Park. As with bison outside the park, market hunting and poaching nearly eliminated bison inside the park. By 1901, only 25 bison remained in the park, down from a population of nearly 600 twenty years earlier. The park managers responded by augmenting the herd with bison from two captive herds and managing the animals strictly to protect them from predators, poachers, and the consequences of living in the occasionally harsh natural environment of Yellowstone National Park. Over the next 70 years, the herd size fluctuated, largely due to management removals to maintain the bison population at various levels. In the late 1960s, NPS decided to end the direct management of the herd to allow natural forces to affect and determine the herd size. Since then, the herd has increased from nearly 400 to a high of over 4,000. Presently the herd population is about 3,000 bison, due in large part to actions by NPS and the State of Montana to control the bison when they roam outside the park and due to winterkill inside the park. Early park managers recognized disease in the bison as a management concern. They found exotic/non-indigenous diseases in the bison herd early in the 20th century, including brucellosis that likely was transmitted to the bison from cattle. Although brucellosis apparently is not a threat to the long-term survival of the Yellowstone bison, the risk that bison leaving the park may transmit the disease to cattle on neighboring lands has been an issue for several decades and led to this planning process and decision. Brucellosis in bison and cattle is a contagious bacterial disease caused by Brucella abortus. Transmission of brucellosis generally occurs through the ingestion of bacteria shed from infected animals in birth materials at the time of calving or abortion. Presently, health authorities know of no feasible treatment or cure for animals infected with Brucella abortus. Some animals exposed to the bacterium react differently than others, some develop infections, and others may be resistant. Although research continues on how the bacterium is transmitted among wild ungulates, it is believed that the greatest risk arises from exposure and ingestion of contaminated material from the reproductive tract of females. Brucellosis also occurs in elk in the Greater Yellowstone Area. The National Academy of Sciences (1998) assessed elk transmission risk relative to that of bison. Unlike bison, elk tend to exhibit a “hiding” strategy during the calving period, separating themselves from the herd to calve. Elk also are meticulous at cleaning up afterbirth and soil and vegetation from calving sites. Both of these behaviors tend to reduce the opportunity for transmission of brucellosis among elk that are not artificially concentrated on feedgrounds (NAS 1998). This has probably contributed to the relatively low seroprevalence rate in the northern Yellowstone elk herd. This low seroprevalence rate of both the northern and the Madison-Firehole herds, despite occasional seasonal concentrations that result in densities similar to those found on winter feeding grounds (Ferrari 1999), suggests that the risk of transmission from those elk to cattle is lower than that of bison (NAS 1998). In the United States, the first state-federal cooperative efforts towards the eradication of brucellosis caused by Brucella abortus began in 1934. In 1934 and 1935, the brucellosis reactor rate in adult cattle tested was 11.5%. The magnitude of the brucellosis program in terms of economics to the cattle industry and human health prompted Congress in 1954 to appropriate funds for a coordinated effort to eradicate brucellosis in cattle. The National Brucellosis Eradication Program was designed as a cooperative effort among the federal government, the states, and the livestock producers. Shortly after the initiation of this program, almost 124,000 brucellosis affected herds were disclosed. It is estimated that this identified only one-third to one half of the actual brucellosis affected herds, since surveillance activities were not at an optimal level in 1954. Since the inception of the National Brucellosis 3 Eradication Program, billions of dollars have been spent from federal, state, and industry funds to eliminate the disease. The nation is now near completion of the eradication of brucellosis from livestock, and thus further emphasis is being placed on the need to ensure that transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle does not occur. As of November 30, 2000, only two brucellosis affected cattle herds remained under quarantine, one each in Texas and Florida. Lands adjacent to Yellowstone National Park include national forest system lands where cattle graze under federal permits and private lands where cattle use also occurs. When bison occasionally migrate from the park, usually in the winter, the risk of transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle increases. Without agency actions to minimize the risk, transmission could occur. Public controversy over bison management in Yellowstone National Park and the State of Montana has existed for many years. In the mid-1980s the Fund for Animals filed the first of several lawsuits directed at bison management. Even though the state and federal agencies successfully defended their actions at that time, they recognized that the apparent conflicts in agency mandates could best be met by a coordinated, joint bison management plan. In 1990 the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks formally recognized the need to cooperatively prepare a long-range bison management plan. At that time, those agencies published in the Federal Register a “Notice of Intent” to prepare an environmental impact statement examining options for such plan. In 1992, those agencies and the Montana Department of Livestock and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service signed a “Memorandum of Understanding” to work together in developing a plan to meet their varying and sometimes contradictory objectives. From 1990 through 1995, during the development of the long-range plan and environmental impact statement, the parties individually or jointly prepared three interim bison management plans and environmental assessments. In general, these three interim plans provided for agency personnel from Montana and the National Park Service to shoot bison moving from Yellowstone National Park into Montana in order to achieve the objectives of protecting private property, providing for human safety, and maintaining Montana’s brucellosis class-free status. In 1995 the State of Montana sued the National Park Service and APHIS, complaining both of NPS management of bison and the possibility that APHIS would change the state’s brucellosis class-free status. To resolve that case, the parties signed a settlement agreement that provided a schedule for the completion of the long-term bison management plan and environmental impact statement. The settlement agreement also incorporated the 1992 Memorandum of Understanding and expressly recognized that the termination provision of the Memorandum of Understanding would continue to apply.

Load more