|
|
|
Yellowstone National Park
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 [Record of Decision for Final Environmental Impact Statement and Bison Management Plan (1MB pdf)] 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|