Yellowstone National Park - Abstract (U.S. National Park Service)

SUMMARY
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE INTERAGENCY BISON MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA AND
YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK

AUGUST 2000

This summary documents the additions and changes made to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement released to the public in June 1998 that are now contained in volume 1 of the final environmental impact statement. Original text from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is shown in black, while changes and additions to the draft are shown in green. The exception to this is headings. Both original and new headings are shown in black.

Bison are an essential component of Yellowstone National Park because they contribute to the biological, ecological, cultural, and aesthetic purposes of the park. However, Yellowstone National Park is not a self-contained ecosystem for bison, and periodic migrations into Montana are natural events. Some bison have brucellosis and may transmit it to cattle outside the park boundaries in Montana. Left unchecked, the migration of brucellosis-infected bison from Yellowstone National Park into Montana could have not only direct effects on local livestock operators, but also on the cattle industry statewide. The cooperation of several agencies is required to fully manage the herd and the risk of transmission of brucellosis from bison to Montana domestic cattle.

The purpose of the proposed interagency action is to maintain a wild, free-ranging population of bison and address the risk of brucellosis transmission to protect the economic interest and viability of the livestock industry in the state of Montana.

The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, are the federal lead agencies. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), is a cooperating agency. Until December 1999, the state of Montana was the state lead agency in the preparation of the environmental impact statement.

In 1992, the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, APHIS, and the state of Montana executed a Memorandum of Understanding to establish an understanding regarding the roles and responsibilities of those agencies in the preparation of a long-term bison management plan and environmental impact statement for the Yellowstone area. This Memorandum of Understanding is included in volume 1, appendix C of the final environmental impact statement. The Memorandum of Understanding identified the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the state of Montana as joint-leads for the project and identified APHIS as a cooperating agency. The agreement provided that the joint-lead agencies must agree on the planning procedures and plan contents at each stage of the planning process. Finally, the agreement provided that any agency could terminate the agreement by providing a 30-day notice to the other parties that the agency would withdraw from the agreement.

In 1995 the state of Montana sued the National Park Service and APHIS, claiming, among other things, that their actions were delaying the completion of the environmental impact statement and long-term bison management plan. To resolve that case, the parties signed a settlement agreement that provided a schedule for the completion of the bison management plan. The settlement agreement incorporated the Memorandum of Understanding and expressly recognized that the termination provision of the Memorandum of Understanding would continue to apply to the process. The settlement agreement also required that if a party were to withdraw from the Memorandum of Understanding process, it must provide a written explanation of the reasons for the withdrawal. Finally, the settlement agreement provided that the court would dismiss the suit if a party terminated the Memorandum of Understanding.

Following the receipt and analysis of public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (the review period for which ended in October 1998), the federal agencies developed a strategy for bison management that they presented to the state as a possible modified preferred alternative for the final environmental impact statement. The new strategy would allow greater tolerance for bison outside the park under stringent conditions that would continue to control the risk of transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle. The strategy would also provide for a larger bison population than the preferred alternative in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The federal agencies and the state discussed aspects of the strategy over a period of several months. In November 1999, the federal agencies and the state’s governor agreed that the agencies were at an impasse. Several items were at issue, including

a population limit for bison in the preferred alternative

the ages and classes of bison to be vaccinated

the criteria used to decide whether and when bison would be allowed outside the park north of Reese Creek and in the western boundary area

the federal agencies’ support of an adaptive management approach to bison management using spatial and temporal separation as its primary risk management feature. This approach is explained in detail in the alternatives chapter as the modified preferred alternative.

In December 1999, the federal agencies wrote to the state of Montana declaring that they were withdrawing from the Memorandum of Understanding. This action terminated the Memorandum of Understanding and dismissed the 1995 Montana lawsuit. A copy of the 30-day notice is included in appendix C. The state objected to the federal agencies’ request to dismiss the case. In February 2000, the court agreed with the position of the federal agencies that they could withdraw from the Memorandum of Understanding and cause the dismissal of the suit. The federal and state agencies agreed, however, that before the court would formally dismiss the suit, the agencies would attempt to resolve their differences with the use of a court-appointed mediator. That mediation occurred in April and May 2000; however, the termination of the Memorandum of Understanding remains in effect as of the date of the release of this final environmental impact statement.

The primary purpose of revisions in volume 1 and responses to comments in volume 2 is to update factual information and to present and analyze the modified preferred alternative. The withdrawal by the federal agencies from the Memorandum of Understanding has had little effect, therefore, on the content of the final environmental impact statement, and much of the text remains unchanged from the draft. In addition, the state supplied information and some responses to comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement before the withdrawal by federal agencies from the Memorandum of Understanding.

The final environmental impact statement examines eight alternative means of minimizing the risk of transmitting the disease brucellosis from bison to domestic cattle on public and private lands adjacent to Yellowstone National Park. These alternatives each include a full range of management techniques, although they focus on one or two in particular. For instance, alternative 3 manages the bison herd primarily through hunting but includes provisions for quarantine. Alternative 5 proposes an extensive capture, test, and slaughter of bison that test positive for brucellosis. Alternative 6 is similar to alternative 5 but requires 10 years of vaccination before the test and slaughter phase begins. Alternative 1 is the no-action alternative. It continues the present plan of capture and slaughter of all bison crossing the north end and most bison crossing the west boundary of the park. Alternative 4 is similar to alternative 1, but would add quarantine, so that bison testing negative for brucellosis would not be slaughtered. Alternative 2 centers on changes in cattle operations and allows bison to range over the largest portion of their historic range. Alternative 7, the agencies’ preferred alternative identified in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, focuses on maintaining the bison population below about 2,500 animals to minimize migration into Montana. Alternatives 2, 3, 7, and the modified preferred alternative also include a framework for considering the use of lands acquired from willing sellers as winter range and for other bison management activities. Decisions to implement management actions on acquired lands will be or have already been supported with additional National Environmental Policy Act and/or Montana Environmental Policy Act analyses.

Implementing the modified preferred alternative would result in no moderate or major adverse impacts compared to the no-action alternative (alternative 1). Both the long-term bison population size and seroprevalence would be very similar to alternative 1. However, unlike alternative 1, bison would be allowed into management zones outside the park under certain conditions. In step 3 of the modified preferred alternative, bison would not be tested or marked before they exit the park, leading to major benefits to those groups and individuals who regard free-ranging, wild bison as culturally important, including positive impacts on those seeking to view bison. Positive impacts from the acquisition and use of about 6,000 acres outside the park for winter range would benefit ungulates, particularly pronghorn. A reduction in the use of the Stephens Creek facility during step 3 of the modified preferred alternative would also benefit wildlife in the vicinity. No adverse effect on any species protected under the Endangered Species Act is anticipated. Slight benefits to livestock operators from measures to mitigate the perception of risk, including additional testing of cattle, possible vaccination of adult cattle, and many other risk management measures at no cost to livestock operators, are expected. Some reduction in risk to the health of personnel handling bison in capture facilities is also expected in step 3 of the modified preferred alternative. Nonmarket benefits associated with the use of acquired winter range north of the park by bison are also predicted.

To summarize impacts from the other seven alternatives analyzed, implementation of alternative 7 would result in adverse impacts on the social values of some people, groups, or tribes, a few ranchers using public allotments on the Gallatin National Forest should those allotments be closed, wildlife species (predators and scavengers), the cultural importance of the herd to some tribes and visitors, and viewing opportunities for those seeking to view bison. Other alternatives might have these same impacts but could also affect winter recreation (particularly snowmobiling), nonmarket values, livestock operations, public funds (to acquire winter range), the trumpeter swan, bald eagle, lynx, and wolverine, and the historic landscape of the area. Alternatives 2, 3, and 7 would have beneficial impacts to wildlife and benefits associated with the nonmarket values attributed to the use of acquired winter range by bison. Similar nonmarket benefits associated with the reduction of seroprevalence achieved in alternative 5 and phase 2 of alternative 6 (which would not occur during the 15-year life of the plan) are also predicted. Mitigating measures and some monitoring would be needed to avoid impacts on threatened or endangered species in alternatives 5 and 6.

The Record of Decision was issued on 20 December of 2000. To inquire whether additional copies of the executive summary or the complete FEIS are still available contact Yellowstone National Park Bison Ecology and Management Office by mail at POB 168, YNP, WY 82190 or by calling (307) 344 2207.