639.9797368 D783EIB 1998 Montana Stale Library 3 0864 1006 0574 3 Printed on recycled paper DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE INTERAGENCY BISON MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR STATE OF MONTANA AND YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK 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 state of Montana is the state lead. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, is a cooperating agency. This environmental impact statement examines seven alternative means of minimizing the risk of transmitting (he 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 Tor 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, focuses on maintaining the bison population below about 2,500 animals to minimize migration into Montana. Alternatives 2, 3, and 7 also include a framework for considering the acquisition of lands from willing sellers for use as winter range and for other bison management activities. Decisions to implement management actions on acquired lands will be supported with additional National Environmental Policy Act and/or Montana Environmental Policy Act analyses. Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in adverse impacts on the bison population size, wildlife viewing opportunities, 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 (particularly the pronghorn antelope, grizzly bear, and gray wolf), and visual resources of the area. 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. Alternative 2 would have significant beneficial impacts associated with the nonmarket values attributed to the well-being of bison, while this alternative would also present the greatest potential for the transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle. Were that to occur, there would be major negative economic effects on Montana's livestock industry. Alternatives 2, 3, and 7 would have significant benefits for ungulates (elk, deer, pronghorn, and bison) if additional winter range could be acquired. Mitigating measures and some monitoring would be needed to avoid impacts on threatened or endangered species in alternatives 5 and 6. Written comments on this draft environmental impact statement will be taken for a period of 120 days. The review period for this document ends October 1 , 1998. Comments should be sent to Sarah Bransom, Interagenc) Bison Management Plan, DSC-RP, P.O. Box 25287, Denver, CO 80225-0287 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from Montana State Library http://archive.org/details/draftenvironment09unit SUMMARY PROPOSED ACTION NEED EOR ACTION This environmental impact statement analyzes impacts of several different means (alternatives) for the interagency, long-term management (assumed for purposes of analysis to be 15 years) of Yellowstone area bison to ensure domestic cattle in portions of Montana adjacent to Yellowstone National Park are protected from brucellosis, a disease some of these bison carry, and to ensure the viability of the bison herd. Each alternative requires the cooperation of the U.S. Department of the Interior's National Park Service (NPS), the state of Montana, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service (USFS) and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), as all have jurisdiction over a portion of the management effort, either directly or indirectly. At this time alternative 7, main- taining a specific bison population range, is the agencies' preferred means of management. PROJECT LOCATION The analysis area is a part of what is often described as the Greater Yellowstone Area, the largest and most nearly intact ecosystem in the contiguous United States (Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee 1991). The portion specifically subject to analysis includes those areas in Yellowstone National Park habitually occupied by bison (approximately 1 .75 million acres) and adjacent federal, state, and private lands outside the park in southwestern Montana (parts of Park and Gallatin Counties) that have been periodically occupied by Yellowstone bison over the past 12 years. The area outside the park includes approxi- mately 568,994 acres, of which about 97% is managed by Gallatin National Forest, 1% by state or local government, and 2% by private owners. 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. As bison migrate out of the park and into Montana, they move from one jurisdiction with management objectives to a different jurisdiction with different management objectives. There- fore, 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. Bison exiting Yellowstone National Park through north entrance near Gardiner, Montana. PURPOSE OF ACTION 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. in SUMMARY BACKGROUND The Yellowstone Area Bison Herd Bison are native to the Greater Yellowstone Area and were observed there by early travelers both before and after the creation of Yellowstone National Park in 1872 and the Yellowstone Timber Land Reserve in 1891 . Hunting and poaching of bison in the late 1800s substantially reduced the number of bison in the Yellowstone herd, and by 1902, only 23 were counted. Fearful the small wild herd might vanish, park managers imported 21 bison from captive herds into the park. These bison were raised using livestock techniques on the "Buffalo Ranch" in Lamar Valley until the 1930s, when the National Park Service gradually began efforts to restore the bison to a more natural distribution (NPS, USDI, Meagher 1973). However, artificial feeding of the Lamar Valley herd, herd reductions to achieve range management goals, and other manipulation of the population continued from the 1920s until the late 1960s, and were often quite intensive. The highest reported bison count during this period was 1,477 in 1954. In 1967, when herd reductions in the park ceased as part of a larger redirection of park policies, 397 bison were counted. Since that time bison, elk, and other animals have been allowed to reach population levels dictated by environ- mental conditions. In 1968, in response to livestock industry concerns over brucellosis, the National Park Service proposed a program to control bison at the boundary of the park. More recently, a series of four interim bison management plans (the latest in 1996) put specific boundaries and lethal control measures in place. In 1996-97, a particularly harsh winter with deep snow and ice conditions sent hundreds of bison toward park boundaries, seeking accessible forage at lower elevations. Implementation of the interim plan, combined with the severe winter conditions, resulted in the slaughter or shooting of 1,084 bison in the five months between November 14, 1996, and April 15, 1997. Others died of starvation or other natural causes inside the park, bringing the total population down from an estimated 3,500 in fall 1996 to an estimated 2,000 animals by early spring 1997. Brucellosis in Cattle and Bison Brucellosis is a contagious bacterial disease, caused by various species of the genus, Brucella, that infects domestic animals, wildlife, and humans worldwide. Brucella abortus is the species that infects both cattle and bison. There is no cure for brucellosis. Vaccines developed so far are not 100% effective, and are to date less effective with bison than with cattle. The first known case of brucellosis in the bison herd was reported in 1917. It is generally agreed that the transmission of brucellosis to the Yellowstone bison herd was from cattle, and occurred either through contact with infected cattle or from infected cows' milk fed to captive bison calves. In cattle, the organism is shed primarily in aborted tissues, reproductive tissues, and discharges, especially just before, during, or soon after abortion or live birth. Ingestion by other cattle of contaminated material is the primary route of infection. Cows infected with brucellosis characteristically abort their first calf after the fifth month of gestation. Less is known about the disease in bison, particularly free-ranging bison. Transmission from bison to cattle has occurred under experimental conditions in confined spaces, but has not been documented under free-ranging conditions. Diagnosis. In cattle, diagnosis is based on the results of blood tests, herd history, clinical signs, and other information. The only sure way to know if an animal has the disease is to slaughter it and culture tissues from several locations for bacteria. In Yellowstone bison, agencies have used a blood test for the presence of Brucella antibodies. For a number of reasons, these blood tests tend to overestimate the number of bison actually harboring the bacteria. Difficulties in IV Summary isolating the bacteria from tissues and other factors have also meant fewer positive culture tests than the number of infected bison. Risk of Transmission. Scientists and researchers disagree on even some of the most basic factors influencing the risk of transmission. These include whether studies on cattle are applicable to bison, whether controlled studies are applicable in the field, and the best ways to conduct additional research to determine the risk of transmission. Alternative Interpretation of Risk. The above information represents areas where scientists generally agree on the interpretation of available data. However, considerable debate and need for additional research remain. The bulk of brucellosis research and disease management has focused on domestic livestock, yet limited published information suggests the disease may be transmitted differently and have different clinical, pathological, and population effects in bison (Williams, Cain, and Davis 1994; Meyer and Meagher 1 995a). These disagreements and a paucity of information on brucellosis in bison make it impossible to quantify the risk of B. abortus transmission from bison (and elk, although this environmental impact statement does not analyze brucellosis in elk) in the Yellowstone area to domestic livestock. Instead, the agencies have identified factors that affect risk. They include the following: 1 . The degree of association between potentially infectious and susceptible animals. Manage- ment actions emphasize separation to minimize risk. 2. The number and density of infectious animals in the host population. 3. The number of susceptible animals that may associate with infectious animals. 4. Environmental factors such as weather, sunlight, and other factors that determine the viability of the organism outside its host. Those who suggest the risk is negligible point out that there have been no documented cases of baicellosis transmission from wild, free-ranging bison to cattle. It is possible that, although brucellosis may be endemic in the Yellowstone area bison herd, few of the animals are capable of transmitting the disease. This suggestion is supported by noting the discrepancy between the number of bison that test seropositive for brucellosis but culture tissue negative (Rhyan et al. 1997). This discrepancy and the infrequency of observed abortions in the Yellowstone bison herd (usually required for transmission of the disease between cattle) has led to the theory that the primary route of transmission among cattle (abortions and birthing events) may be different from that among bison. In bison, the bacteria may be transmitted through milk (Meyer and Meagher 1995a). Bison Distribution 5. The class of the infectious animals. Because the disease is transmitted in cattle through ingestion of contaminated birth materials, pregnant bison are considered higher risk than other classes. 6. Vaccination and neutering reduce the transmission of the disease. 7. Some animals are naturally resistant to infection. The Yellowstone bison population uses three different wintering areas in the park: Pelican Valley (the smallest), Mary Mountain (the largest, in the Hayden Valley-Firehole River area), and the northern range. Yellowstone National Park grooms roads in the winter for snowmobile use, which allows bison to easily traverse the park. Bison seem to use the roads to exit in severe winters, such as the 1975-76 and 1996-97 winters, and retain the memory of the access routes (Meagher 1989a). While experts agree that bison traveling on groomed routes are SUMMARY traveling in a more energy-efficient manner than bison traveling through deep snow, there is disagreement about what bison would do if grooming ceased. What result this would have on bison numbers and distribution is not known. Bison migrate across the north and west ends of the park during the winter into Montana. In the north they exit primarily across the Reese Creek boundary of Yellowstone National Park, and move immediately onto adjacent private land where several hundred cattle are present year- round. Bison may also enter national forest land in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area east of Reese Creek, where they occasionally enter private lands in the Gardiner area by traveling along the Maiden Basin hydrographic divide and Little Trail Creek drainage. These lands are collectively referred to as the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek "special management area" (areas outside the park where bison are allowed) in this document. To the east of these lands (and north of the park) lie Hellroaring and Slough Creek drainages and the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness, part of the national forest where cattle are not present. A few bison use these higher elevation, more rugged lands in winter and summer. Economic Impacts of Brucellosis in Cattle Brucellosis {B. abortus) has the following direct impacts on the livestock industry: • Abortion of calves • Decreased weight gain by calves • Delays in calf production • Increased rates of culling and replacement • Increased testing and vaccinating costs The presence of livestock disease may also affect each state's classification by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Montana is currently "class-free" and can transport its cattle across state lines without testing for brucellosis. Downgrading would have extensive economic ramifications throughout the livestock industry in Montana by restricting ranchers' access to interstate and international livestock markets. Interstate limits on Montana producers' ability to market livestock may also come about from actions of state veterinarians whose states import Montana cattle and who see Yellowstone cattle as a potential disease threat. The potential for such widespread economic consequences is a primary motivating factor in taking management actions described in the alternatives in this environmental impact statement. From the west side of the park, bison move along the Madison River, Duck Creek, and Cougar Creek in the vicinity of West Yellowstone. From here, bison infrequently move north (usually along Highway 191) onto public lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service in the Cabin Creek Recreation and Wildlife Management Area and the Monument Mountain Unit of the Lee Metcalf Wilderness. The western special management area (SMA) in this document includes these lands south to the West Yellowstone area. Up to a few hundred cattle may occupy select public and private lands in the West Yellowstone area in the summer months. No cattle are present in the winter. OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS IN TAKING ACTION In addition to the above-stated purpose, the agencies have agreed that nine objectives would guide them in determining whether an alter- native is reasonable, and in selecting the preferred alternative. Each alternative must meet the following objectives: 1 . Address bison population size and distribution; have specific commitments relating to size of bison herd. 2. Clearly define a boundary line beyond which bison will not be tolerated. 3. Address the risk to public safety and private property damage by bison. VI Summary 4 Commit to the eventual elimination of brucellosis in bison and other wildlife. bison management is provided in part 1, "Purpose of and Need for Action." 5. Protect livestock from the risk of brucellosis. 6. Protect the state of Montana from risk of reduction in its brucellosis status. 7. At a minimum, maintain a viable population of wild bison in Yellowstone National Park, as defined in biological, genetic, and ecological terms. 8. Be based on factual information, with the recognition that the scientific database is changing. 9. Recognize the need for coordination in the management of natural and cultural resource values that are the responsibility of the signatory agencies. Another important factor in deciding the ^reasonableness of alternatives are agency constraints imposed by laws, regulations, or other requirements. All alternatives must be within these constraints to be a viable choice. A summary of legislative and regulatory require- ments of each of the four agencies involved in ISSUES Public scoping identified several environmental problems (issues) that should be addressed in a cooperative bison management plan. Scoping also identified other objectives and alternatives the public wished agencies to consider in their planning. The resources that agencies believed would experience more than negligible impacts are listed below, and each is analyzed in the environmental impact statement: • the Yellowstone area bison population size, distribution, and seroprevalence • recreation • socioeconomics, including the regional economy, minority and low-income popula- tions, social values, and nonmarket values • livestock operations in the region • threatened and endangered species, such as the grizzly bear, and sensitive species or species of special concern • other wildlife • human safety • cultural resources • visual resources Bison calf. Vll SUMMARY ALTERNATIVES This environmental impact statement evaluates seven alternatives for the long-term management of bison. Alternative 1 is the no-action alter- native (continue with existing interim plan), and alternative 7 (manage for specific bison popula- tion range) is the agencies' preferred alternative at this time. Each of the seven alternatives has several features in common, including the following: • All alternatives require the cooperation of the state of Montana, the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. All alternatives except alternative 5 allow bison outside the park. To do so and not affect Montana's class-free status, special management areas (SMAs) would be created. The creation of these SMAs would not require changes to current APHIS regula- tions, but would require the approval of the state of Montana as specified by Montana law. Slaughtered bison could be auctioned or distributed to social service organizations. Bison shot in the field may be released to tribes. Live bison would be available if they had completed the approved quarantine protocol. Every alternative envisions the bison population would be managed primarily through natural processes inside Yellowstone National Park. In Montana, private landowners may shoot bison on their land with permission from the Department of Livestock, or they may ask the department to remove bison. In all alternatives (except alternative 5 in the short term), the use of lethal controls to manage bison is minimized as the population size approaches 1 ,700 animals. All alternatives include large geographic areas where bison are able to range with little human intervention. In alternative 5, this area is limited to Yellowstone National Park. Monitoring is an integral part of every alternative, especially as bison approach designated border areas in Montana. All alternatives define a management boundary beyond which agencies would take action to ensure bison do not remain. If a capture facility is sited as part of an alternative, it would meet certain environ- mental criteria and comply with requirements of the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act before construction began. All alternatives include humane treatment of bison held in capture or quarantine facilities. All alternatives include the suggested vaccination of female cattle calves in areas adjacent to the park or in SMAs, as well as surveillance testing of these herds should contact with bison be suspected or occur. All alternatives also assume vaccination of bison calves and captured adult bison when a safe and effective vaccine is available. All alternatives include future research efforts. Alternative 1: No Action - Continuation of the Current Interim Bison Management Plan Adopting this alternative would continue current bison management as set forth in the 1 996 Interim Bison Management Plan as defined by National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guiding regulations (40 CFR 1502.14). The interim plan relies on strict border enforcement to keep bison and cattle separate, and has no provision for the quarantine of bison. Bison are prevented from crossing the northern park boundary at Reese Creek because the adjacent land is private and occupied by cattle throughout Vlll Summary the year. All bison captured at the Stephens Creek facility are shipped to slaughter. Bison are allowed in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area, a large tract of public (U.S. Forest Service) land north and east of Reese Creek. The Department of Livestock, with help from the agencies, maintains a boundary at Little Trail Creek/Maiden Basin hydrographic divide in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area. Bison moving north of this boundary and approaching private land in the Gardiner area are removed by agency personnel with the permission of the landowner. In the West Yellowstone area, public lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service are adjacent to the park. Cattle are more dispersed than at Reese Creek and are not grazed during the winter months. Up to 50-100 seronegative nonpregnant bison in the West Yellowstone area are able to overwinter successfully outside the park without coming in contact with cattle. Seropositive, untested, or any pregnant bison are removed. Bison are excluded from the West Yellowstone area from May through October to prevent contact while cattle occupy the region. Bison located outside the park in the west boundary area would be hazed back into the park in the spring, 30 to 60 days before cattle occupy the area. The exact number of days, between 30 and 60, would be at the discretion of the state veterinarian. Those bison that could not be hazed back into the park would be shot. In addition, a handful of bison (usually single bulls) use the Cabin Creek/Lee Metcalf area on the west, or Hellroaring and Slough drainages to the north and east of Eagle Creek/Bear Creek. Those few that do move beyond the borders of either of these large tracts of public land would be hazed or shot. Although agencies have made subsequent changes to the interim plan, these are not reflected in the description or analysis of the no- action alternative. In other words, existing conditions were assumed to begin when the analysis in this environmental impact statement began in spring 1997. Changes in the interim plan made since this time are included in appendix A for the reader's information. Alternative 2: Minimal Management The purpose of this alternative is to restore as near-natural conditions as possible for bison, including a small portion of their historic nomadic migration patterns. The area outside Yellowstone National Park over which bison would be able to range (e.g., the SMAs) without interference from agencies is the largest of all alternatives. In each alternative, including alternative 2, many changes, such as land acquisition, changes in cattle operations, and a safe and effective bison vaccine, are described. Each of these involves some unknowns, as well as time to implement. Therefore, until these changes were in place, relevant management tools in the interim plan would remain in effect. The description below assumes these changes have been made. The primary means to minimize the risk of disease transmission would be changes in cattle operations in the SMAs. This alternative would provide for lethal control of bison only in cases where human safety was in immediate danger, on private property at the request of the landowner, or outside the SMA border. Bison would not be captured or slaughtered by agencies. A key tool available to restore natural conditions and help control bison distribution would be the closure (e.g., discontinuing grooming) of winter groomed roads in Yellowstone National Park that the animals now use to traverse the park. Bison have "discovered" these pathways from the interior to both the northern and western boundaries of the park, and can use them routinely during the winter to access areas they would otherwise have more difficulty reaching. It is hypothesized that the energetic cost of traveling long distances on groomed roads would be low, and they in effect could be allowing bison to access other foraging areas, leave the interior, and move to boundary areas. Alternative 2 would be the only alter- native to propose changes in winter operations in some segments of park roads to control bison distribution, although other alternatives include research on the use of roads and potential barriers to bison travel (alternative 3), and IX SUMMARY plowing to access capture facilities (alternatives 5 and 6). In addition to leaving road segments ungroomed, the agencies would maintain boundary lines through hazing and shooting. Landowners could request bison on their property be removed, or could shoot them with permission of the Montana Department of Livestock. Cattle operators on private lands inside designated SMAs might be offered incentives to remove susceptible (breeding) cattle, or grazing rights, easements, or property in bison winter range might be purchased from willing sellers to remove cattle altogether. In addition, public grazing allotments might be modified to accommodate bison. Alternative 3: Management with Emphasis on Public Hunting Alternative 3 would rely on hunting of bison to regulate population numbers and distribution of bison outside the park, and on separation of bison in time and space to preclude contact of bison with cattle. Where hunting was infeasible or inappropriate, capture and shipment of sero- positive bison to slaughter and seronegative bison to quarantine would be used to maintain separation and manage the risk of disease transmission. As in other alternatives, bison would be vaccinated when a safe and effective vaccine was developed to further reduce this risk. This alternative would have both a distinct short-term (phase 1) and a long-term (phase 2) management strategy. In the short term, the separation of cattle and bison on the northern (Reese Creek) boundary would be maintained through capture at Stephens Creek and the shipment of sero- positives to slaughter and seronegatives to quarantine (or slaughter until the quarantine facility was built). Under the provisions of the interim management plan, the agencies now ship some of the bison captured at Stephens Creek to slaughter. A quarantine facility would give the agencies flexibility in the disposition of seronegative bison they do not now have. Bison that completed the entire quarantine procedure would be shipped live to requesting tribes or organizations, or used to repopulate herds on public lands. The location, design, and operation of a quarantine facility has not been determined, and an appropriate range of alternatives with different features would be evaluated before one was built. Additional NEPA and other compliance would be required to build such a facility on federal land or use federal money. Until the time a quarantine facility was constructed (assumed for the purposes of analysis to begin in 1999), all seronegative bison captured at Stephens Creek would be sent to slaughter. The Department of Livestock, with help from the agencies, would maintain a boundary at Little Trail Creek/Maiden Basin hydrographic divide similar to alternative 1. Bison moving north of this boundary would be removed by agency personnel with the permission of the landowner. Bison would be hazed back into the park in the spring, 30 to 60 days before cattle occupy the area. The exact number of days, between 30 and 60, would be at the discretion of the state veterinarian. Those bison that could not be hazed back into the park would be shot. As in alternatives 1 and 4, agencies would also maintain a boundary at the north end of the Cabin Creek Recreation and Wildlife Manage- ment Area/Monument Mountain Unit of the Lee Metcalf Wilderness. Hunting would be used in both the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek and western SMAs to help control population numbers and distribution. Research on the degree to which the winter grooming of park roads contributed to migration out of the park would continue, and changes in road grooming practices would be made in the long term if research showed they were warranted. These changes would be implemented through amendments to the park's winter use plan and appropriate NEPA documentation. In the long term, alternative 3 would call for acquisition of bison winter range through purchase of grazing rights, easements, or Su property from willing sellers, alterations in cattle allotments, and/or changes in livestock opera- tions to remove susceptible cattle. This newly acquired winter range would be designated as the Reese Creek SMA, and would include lands on the west side of the Yellowstone River between Reese Creek and Yankee Jim Canyon. If suitable land north of the park was acquired through purchase or easement, the Stephens Creek capture facility might be moved to a different location. The Department of Livestock, with help from the agencies, would maintain a boundary at Yankee Jim Canyon, and hunting in the Reese Creek SMA would be used to help control population size and distribution of the bison herd. The location of the facility has not been deter- mined, and locating it on federal land or using federal money would mean subsequent NEPA analysis, including public input, would be required. Hunting, should it be approved by the Montana Legislature, would be another tool proposed to help agencies control population numbers and distribution. A limited hunt, primarily for recreation, would be allowed in the West Yellowstone and Eagle Creek/Bear Creek areas. Except for these differences, alternative 4 would be identical to the interim management plan, alternative 1 . If this alternative was selected, the agencies would request the 1999 Montana Legislature to authorize a fair-chase hunt for bison. Public hunting would then become the primary tool for agencies to control population sizes in the new Reese Creek SMA, and would also be allowed in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area and western SMA. Modifications in grazing allotments, acquisition or easement of private land, or conversion from cow-calf to steer or spayed heifer production are options in this alternative for the West Yellowstone area to further reduce the risk of bison commingling with susceptible cattle. Alternative 4: Interim Plan with Limited Public Hunting and Quarantine The interim plan (no action, or alternative 1 in this analysis) has served to ensure spatial separation of the bison herd from domestic cattle on the northern and western borders of Montana. However, it has given agencies few options when harsh winters force more than the average number of bison toward the boundaries of Yellowstone National Park. For this reason, alternative 4 includes a quarantine facility to preserve seronegative bison captured at Stephens Creek. Bison completing the quarantine protocol would be released to tribes, requesting organi- zations, or to repopulate herds on public lands. Alternative 5: Aggressive Brucellosis Control within Yellowstone National Park through Capture, Test, and Removal This alternative would implement an aggressive three-year capture and test program for all bison in the park, including those in its interior. Those testing negative would be released in the park, and seropositives would be shipped to slaughter. If a safe and effective vaccine was available, seronegative bison would also be vaccinated. Bison would not be allowed outside the park anywhere in Montana, and agencies would maintain northern and western boundaries. Bison at these boundaries would be hazed back into the park if possible, but shot if they were unresponsive to hazing. Capture facilities would be set up in nine areas. All untested bison would be shot in the latter stages of the capture, test, and slaughter program. When subsequent testing indicated brucellosis had been eradicated from the bison population, a new bison management plan would be prepared. Alternative 6: Aggressive Brucellosis Control within Yellowstone National Park through Vaccination This alternative, like alternative 5, would pursue the aggressive reduction of brucellosis from the Yellowstone bison herd. However, the entire XI SUMMARY bison herd would first be vaccinated (when a safe and effective vaccine was available), primarily through remote means, and tested as they attempted to exit at park boundary locations. When tests showed the incidence of exposure to B. abortus had stabilized as a result of vaccination, (estimated to occur in 10 years) the herdwide capture, test, and slaughter of seropositive bison outlined in alternative 5 would begin. Unlike alternative 5, bison would be allowed in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek and western SMAs, although the majority of bison in the western SMA would be tested and released sero- negatives. The National Park Service would construct and operate a capture facility at Seven- Mile Bridge inside the park on the west side. Nearly all bison migrating toward the West Yellowstone area cross through this narrow area. These facilities (at Duck Creek and the Madison River) would be dismantled, although a small, backup capture facility near Horse Butte, might be maintained. Alternative 7: Preferred Alternative - Manage for Specific Bison Population Range The preferred alternative departs from all other alternatives in that a range of bison population numbers would be the focus, and specific management scenarios would be put in place as the population approached either end of that range. This range would be from 1 ,700 to 2,500 bison. Agency controls would decrease as the bison population approached 1,700 and would cease at 1,700 bison in certain areas as described in management sections for each area. Additional measures to remove increasing numbers of bison would be implemented near the 2,500 mark if bison left the park or SMAs described in this alternative. Because bison removals occur at or outside the park boundary, the bison population could at times exceed 2,500 inside the park. In the long term, the agencies might acquire access to additional winter range in the Gardiner Valley on the west side of the Yellowstone River through purchase of grazing rights, easements, or property from willing sellers. If acquired, this tract would be designated an SMA subject to the approval of the state of Montana as specified by Montana law. The capture facility now located at Stephens Creek could be dismantled and moved to an appropriate location in the SMA. No modifications in grazing allotments or acquisitions of property, easements, or grazing rights in the western SMA would be anticipated. Although the preferred alternative (alternative 7) is distinct, it has elements similar to other alternatives. Capture and slaughter of seropositives would be the primary means of managing risk, as it is in alternatives 1, 4, and 5. Most seronegative bison would be shipped to quarantine, as described in alternative 4. Also like alternative 4, low levels of hunting would be allowed in one or more of the SMAs outside the park. As in alternative 3, the preferred alternative has a long-term phase that proposes the acquisition of winter range north of the park boundary. However, as described above, this alternative is much more specific in defining a population size and management tools to keep it at that size. It is also true that alternatives 1 through 6 are unique, as each emphasizes a particular strategy to manage bison or combination of strategies not analyzed in alternative 7. Stephens Creek capture facility. Xll Summary ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The environmental impacts of each alternative were analyzed and compared to existing conditions. Below is a summary of those impacts. Impacts on Bison Population A simple model based on averages (deter- ministic) was used to predict changes in bison populations and/or seroprevalence rates should a given alternative be implemented. Because a single severe winter, such as the 1996-97 winter, could alter estimates of bison numbers significantly, the analysis also includes a section on the effects of small, average, and large-scale migrations out of the park in response to these "stochastic" events on the population size. The deterministic model predicts the continued implementation of alternative 1 would result in a growing bison population. From 1997 to 2006, the bison population would increase at 4% per year to approximately 3,100. Management actions in this alternative would not measurably affect the age/sex distribution or reproductive rates of bison in this or any alternative except for alternative 5. Bison distribution outside the park is indicated in chart 1 . In this, and all other alternatives except alternative 5, 100-200 bison would freely range on public lands in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area. Alternative 2 would result in the largest and fastest growth of the bison population of all alternatives. From 1997 to 2006, the population is expected to increase to 3,500, moderately more bison (14%) than in alternative 1. Alternative 3 would result in growth of the bison population, with numbers controlled primarily through hunting. From 1997 to 2006, the bison population would be expected to increase from about 2,200 to 3,500 (average increase 6%/year). Limited capture operations, agency shooting, hunting, and periodic severe environmental conditions would likely maintain the bison population near the upper management range of 1,700 to 3.500. It is estimated that alternative 5 would result in moderately more bison in the population ( 14% increase) compared to alternative I . In alternative 4, bison population numbers would be controlled through capture, shipment of seropositive bison to slaughter, and hunting. This alternative would result in a slowly increasing bison population with lower popula- tion numbers than alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 6. From 1997 to 2006, the bison population would be expected to increase from about 2,200 bison to 2,800 (average increase 3%/year). This would be a minor decrease (8% lower) in bison population size relative to alternative 1 . For alternative 5, the bison population would be expected to decline from 2,200 bison to approximately 1,250 bison by 1999. The bison population would be expected to number approximately 2,000 by 2006, and approxi- mately 2,900 bison by 201 1, 10 years after capture, test, and slaughter operations have ceased. No bison would be expected in Reese Creek, Eagle Creek/Bear Creek, or West Yellowstone in this alternative. The bison population would experience a major decrease in this alternative, representing a nearly 47% reduction, compared to alternative 1 , over a period of only three years. No bison would be allowed anywhere outside Yellowstone National Park boundaries under alternative 5. Management actions in alternative 5 could affect the age/sex distribution or repro- ductive rate of the bison population. Bison distribution within the park would likely be affected, and several areas would likely have few or no bison for as long as 10 years. In alternative 6, all bison would be vaccinated for approximately 10 years (beginning in the year 2000) to reduce seroprevalence in the population. After whole herd vaccination, bison would be captured, tested, and seropositives slaughtered, similar to alternative 5. Two different estimates of population size were calculated based on the effectiveness of the vaccine. Assuming a 70% effectiveness, the xm SUMMARY bison population would be expected to increase during the vaccination phase from 2,200 bison to approximately 3,500 bison in 2010, a negligible to minor increase compared to alternative 1 . After 10 years of vaccination (2010), capture and slaughter would begin, and the population would drop from 3,500 to about 2,900 in a single year, a moderate (17%) decrease compared to alternative 1. If the vaccine was only 25% effective, the population would drop from 3,500 animals in 2010 to 2,500 the following year, when parkwide capture and slaughter began. This would represent a major short-term adverse impact (28% reduction) on the population. The herd would begin to increase following completion of the test and slaughter program; from 2,900 to 3,400 bison by 2014 (assuming 70% effectiveness), or from 2,500 to about 3,000 animals (assuming 25% effectiveness) by 2014. Unlike other alternatives, in alternative 7 the agencies would attempt to manage the bison population within the more narrow range of 1,700 to 2,500 animals. Given the mix of management tools described above in "The Alternatives," the model predicts the bison population would be expected to increase from about 2,200 bison to 2,700 (average increase 2.6%/year) in 2004, and level off at or about 2,700 throughout the remainder of the 15-year plan. This alternative would result in a bison population 12% lower than alternative 1 in 2006 and 23% lower in 201 1. However, because of limitations with the deterministic model, the differences between alternatives 1 and 7 might be less. Slaughter, quarantine, agency shooting, and hunting are predicted to remove an average of 132 to 137 bison per year. If bison exited the park in larger numbers during severe winters, more would be killed if the bison population was near or above 2,500 animals. During mild winters, fewer bison would exit the park and thus fewer bison would be killed. Stochastic Influence on Bison Population. Chart 2 indicates how alternatives would vary in handling a large migration (975 bison) out of the park in response to a stochastic or periodic event, such as severe winter weather. Additional removals might include shipment of sero- negative bison to slaughter or quarantine, or additional agency shooting or increases in the number of hunting permits issued, and would depend on the bison management tools available in a given alternative. Each action assumes all elements of the alternative would be in place (e.g., phase 2 of the alternative). Seroprevalence Rate. Modeling efforts for this environmental impact statement assumed 50% seroprevalence in the bison population. The model also assumed either a 70% rate of effectiveness of the bison vaccine (based on current success with cattle) or 25% rate of effectiveness (based on effectiveness in bison calves). Bison calves were assumed to be vaccinated with a safe and effective vaccine beginning in 2000. Assuming a vaccine that was 70% effective and calfhood vaccinations began in 2000, the population seroprevalence rate under alternative 1 would be expected to decline from a starting point of 50% seropositive in 1 997 to at least 33% seropositive in 2006 (see chart 3). If the vaccine was 25% effective, seroprevalence was predicted to drop from 50% to 40% by 2006. Continued management efforts and calfhood vaccination (assuming 70% efficacy) would reduce seroprevalence to 24% in 201 1. In alternative 2, the population seroprevalence rate would be expected to decline to at least 34% seropositive in 2006 (assuming 70% efficacy) or to 42% by 2006 (assuming 25% efficacy). Continued management efforts and calfhood vaccination (70% efficacy) would reduce seroprevalence to 26% in 201 1. This would represent a minor adverse impact (3% to 8% less reduction) compared to alternative 1. In alternative 3, the population seroprevalence rate would be expected to decline to at least 36% seropositive in 2006, assuming a 70% vaccine efficacy. With calfhood vaccination and a vaccine efficacy of 25%, seroprevalence was predicted to drop to 45% by 2006. Continued management efforts and calfhood vaccination xiv Chart 1: Population Changes Predicted to Occur Using Deterministic (Averaging) Model Alternative Population Size (1997) Population Size (2006) Population Size (2011) Number of Bison in Western SMA Number of Bison in Reese Creek SMA 1 2,200 3,100 3,500 18-52 0 2 2,200 3,500 3.500 20-60 0- 1 20 3 2.200 3,500 3,500 16-120 60-80 4 2,200 2,800 3,200 1-52 0 5 2,200 2,000 2,900 0 0 6 2,200 3,100 2,900 22-60 0 7 2,200 2.700 2,700 1 3-5 1 0-100 Chart 2: Number of Bison Slaughtered, Hunted, Quarantined, and Ranging in Special Management Areas if 975 Bison Were to Leave the Park (Represents 90% of the Highest Number of Bison to Historically Leave the Park -1,084) Alternative Slaughtered Hunted Quarantined Additional Removals* Total Removed Number Ranging inSMAs 1 829 0 0 0 829 146 2h.L 0 0 0 0 0 975 3b 0 60-70 0 705-715 765-785 200 4h 498-823 20 331-6 26 875 100 5 975 0 0 0 975 0 6 810 0 0 65 875 100 T 166 20 23 566 775 200 a. According to the alternative, additional removals might include bison shipped to slaughter, quarantined, hunted, or shot by agency personnel. b. Assumes all elements of the alternative were in place (phase 2). c. If 975 bison were to exit the park, the possibility exists that some bison might move onto private land or attempt to move beyond SMA boundaries and be shot, if hazing were unsuccessful. Predicting the total number of bison that may move beyond the boundaries of the SMAs and be shot is not possible, but it might likely be greater than zero. Chart 3: Predicted Seroprevalence Rates for Each Alternative Using Deterministic (Averaging) Model Alternative Seroprevalence 2006 (assuming 70% efficacy) Seroprevalence 2006 (assuming 25% efficacy) Seroprevalence 2011 (assuming 70% efficacy) 1 33 40 24 2 34 45 26 3 36 45 28 4 34 42 26 5 0 0 0 6* 32 40 0 7 32 40 23 * For both vaccine efficacies, seroprevalence would be 0% after completion of capture, test, and slaughter operations by 2013. xv SUMMARY (70% efficacy) would reduce seroprevalence to 28% in 201 1. This would be a minor to moderately higher seroprevalence (9%-17% higher) than that predicted for alternative 1 . In alternative 4, capture and removal of sero- positive bison, and calfhood vaccination (70% efficacy) was predicted to decrease sero- prevalence to at least 34% in 2006 and 26% in 201 1. Assuming a 25% vaccine efficacy, sero- prevalence would drop to 42% by 2006. This would be a minor adverse impact (3%-5% higher seroprevalence) compared to alternative 1. In alternative 5, the seroprevalence rate in bison would be expected to drop from 50% in 1 997 to 0% in 2001, assuming 70% vaccine efficacy, capture, test, slaughter operations, and whole- herd vaccination. In the 25% vaccine efficacy model the seroprevalence rate dropped to 0% by 2001. This would be a significant decrease in the seroprevalence rate and a major beneficial impact compared to alternative 1. In alternative 6, the seroprevalence rate would remain similar to alternative 1 during the vaccination phase (2000-2010), and then drop to 0% by 2013. This would be a major reduction in seroprevalence compared to alternative 1 . In alternative 7, the population seroprevalence rate would be expected to decline from a starting point of 50% seropositive in 1997 to at least 32% seropositive in 2006 due to removal of seropositive bison leaving Yellowstone National Park in the West Yellowstone and Reese Creek area, and calfhood vaccination (70% efficacy) beginning in 2000. Continued management efforts and calfhood vaccination (70% efficacy) would reduce seroprevalence to 23% in 201 1 . With calfhood vaccination and a vaccine efficacy of 25%, seroprevalence was predicted to drop from 50% to 40% by 2006. This would be a negligible to minor beneficial impact (0-4% lower seroprevalence rate) compared to alternative 1. Impacts on Recreation United States citizens and people from all over the world spend more than 9 million visitor days of recreation in developed sites of the Yellowstone area each year. In Yellowstone National Park, recreational visitation has grown by more than 25% in the last 14 years. As is common in most other western national parks, visitor use in Yellowstone is concentrated in the summer months, with 66% of the visitation in June, July, and August. By the year 2003, estimated visitation is expected to range from 3.6 million to 4.3 million visitors per year (NPS 1994a). An additional nearly 2.8 million recreation visitor days on the adjacent Gallatin National Forest were logged in 1992. Wildlife and Bison Viewing. When Yellow- stone National Park was set aside in 1 872 as the world's first national park, the "wonders of the Yellowstone" were the primary motivation — spectacular geysers, colorful hot pools, and the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone (Meagher 1974). However, in modern times, wildlife viewing is the primary activity for many visitors who come to Yellowstone National Park. Bison are ranked as one of the top 10 animals visitors hope to see on a visit to the park. Increases and reductions in bison numbers in and around the park could directly affect visitor wildlife-viewing experiences. Alternative 1 would lead to a moderate growth in bison numbers over the next 10 years (42% increase in population by 2006). Alternatives 2 and 3 populations would be 14% greater than alter- native 1 populations and lead to a minor to moderate increase in viewing opportunities. Alternative 4 would be expected to result in a population of 2,812 bison in 2006. This is 8% smaller than under alternative 1 and would lead to a minor decrease in viewing opportunities. Alternative 5 would lead to a 35% decrease in bison populations compared to alternative 1 by 2006 and a moderate to major adverse impact on associated viewing opportunities. Alternative 6 would lead to very similar populations as alternative 1 through 2009 until seroprevalence stabilizes from vaccination (estimated at roughly xvi Summary 10 years), then would reduce them temporarily by 17%, a minor to moderate adverse impact. Alternative 7 calls for the lowest long-range (15+ years) bison population of all the alternatives. By 2006, the population would be nearly 23% lower. These reductions in population size would likely lead to minor to moderate reductions in bison viewing opportunities relative to alternative 1. Winter Recreation. Winter use in the park has been growing at an accelerating rate, nearly doubling in the decade between 1984 and 1994, to 140,000 in the 1994-95 winter season. An estimated 46% of winter visitors liked viewing the scenery most, and 17% specifically identified wildlife viewing as what they liked most about the park in the winter (NPS 1990b). In addition, snowmobiling has become a popular sport in the town of West Yellowstone. Winter recreational use of Yellowstone National Park would be affected under alternatives 2, 5, and 6. Alternative 2 would lead to long-term closure of winter access to the park from the popular snowmobiling town of West Yellowstone and possibly restrict access from Mammoth to the park interior. Proposed alternative 2 road and trail closures would likely affect well over 50% of current winter oversnow visitors to the park, and either displace their activities to other roads and trails in the area or cause them to go to areas other than Yellowstone for winter recreation. Alternative 2 would likely have a minor to moderate effect on winter recreation users in the Yellowstone region. During the three to four years of capture and slaughter operations, alternative 5 would have a higher negative impact on winter recreation than alternative 2 in that the west, north, and east entrances would all be cut off from winter access to the popular Old Faithful area. For the first 10-12 years alternative 6 would have similar negative impacts on winter recreation to alternative 2. During the following two to three years, the impacts on winter recreation under alternative 6 would be similar to those for the capture and slaughter period of alternative 5. Hunting. The five-week elk general rifle season in the study area takes place in late October and November. Mean harvest of elk in and near the affected environment is 3,044. By comparison, deer harvest is 2,564, moose is 93, bighorn sheep is 22, mountain goat is 10, and pronghorn is 23. The American bison is a trophy animal for big- game hunters. Bison hunting takes place on both public lands and private game ranches in North America. Private ranches charge relatively high prices (ranging from $2,250 to $4,000 in the Northern Rocky region) for hunting a trophy- sized bull. Limited hunting of bison would be allowed under alternatives 3, 4, and 7. Under alternative 3 between 75 and 85 bison hunting permits would be issued per year. Under alternative 4 the number of permits would be approximately 35. Under alternative 7 between 25 and 35 permits would be issued. This change in hunting oppor- tunities in the area would represent a minor increase in overall big game hunting in the Greater Yellowstone Area, but would be a minor to moderate benefit for those receiving permits. No hunting of bison would occur under alternatives 1, 2, 5, or 6. Impacts on Livestock Operations In the Yellowstone area, the livestock industry is composed mainly of cow-calf operations with the exception of a few sheep producers. Cow- calf pairs are grazed on national forest allot- ments that can include adjacent private land, and on private holdings not associated with grazing allotments. In addition to risks of disease transmission, bison can harm livestock, as well as damage structures. To the north of Yellowstone National Park, grazing allotments located in the broadest area included in this environmental impact statement have about 434 cow-calf pairs on national forest land and about 191 pairs on adjacent private land included as part of the allotments. When only the Reese Creek area is considered, cow- xvn SUMMARY calf pairs on national forest land number about 86, with about 130 pairs on allotted private land. In the West Yellowstone area, about 364 cow- calf pairs are grazed on national forest land in the Horse Butte and Wapiti areas. An additional 128 pairs (and 2 pairs on allotted private land) are found on allotments to the west and south of Hebgen Lake. Cattle near Whitehall, Montana, by G. Wunderwald. (NPS photo) Privately owned lands that are not part of allotments include both livestock holdings and nonranch residences. North of Yellowstone National Park, the largest of the livestock operations is in the Reese Creek area on the Royal Teton Ranch. It has about 100 cow-calf pairs on unallotted private land, in addition to 150 on allotted private and public land. In the West Yellowstone area, there are four private holdings located in the Horse Butte region between Duck Creek and the Madison River, totaling about 1,250 acres. Only the largest, with an area of about 650 acres, has a summer cattle operation with about 215 cow-calf pairs. Including producers to the west and south of Hebgen Lake, there are an estimated 800 cow- calf pairs on private land in the West Yellowstone area that could be directly affected by the most extensive of the SMAs (alternative 2). Altogether, publicly and privately grazed cattle to the north and west of Yellowstone that could be directly affected are estimated to total about 2,019 cow-calf pairs. They comprise less than 4% of the cattle population of Gallatin and Park Counties. The impacts of brucellosis on livestock operations involve not only the area adjacent to Yellowstone National Park, but also producers throughout Montana. The threat of disease transmission and the economic effects of disease-exposed bison entering the state have potential impacts that could indirectly affect all producers in the state. Under alternative 1, cattle producers near Yellowstone National Park currently take precautions against the threat of brucellosis by vaccinating all female calves. In addition, herds from Idaho that graze in the West Yellowstone area are tested both when entering and leaving Montana. The cost of vaccinating and testing is relatively minor, estimated at about 2% of average yearly cow-calf production costs in the western United States. Producers' perceptions of the potentially negative consequences of grazing near Yellowstone National Park underlie recent decisions by two purebred stock owners to no longer graze their cattle in the area. Alternative 2, characterized by minimal bison management, would involve modification of grazing allotments on the national forest, acquisition or easement of private lands, and conversion of cow-calf operations to steer or spayed heifer production. In the short term, until these changes are accomplished, the interim plan would continue. Public funds would be required for compensating producers who agreed to convert their operations and for acquiring the title or use of the private properties. These transactions would be voluntary with fair remuneration. Nevertheless, they would represent major impacts for the producers involved. Modification of public grazing allotments could affect as many as 926 cow-calf pairs. Incidents of damage by bison would be similar to occurrences under alternative 1 until susceptible cattle were removed from the areas designated as SMAs. Afterward, incidents would be fewer, since the only cattle would be those on converted holdings. Producers near SMA xvui Summai \ boundaries would likely continue to vaccinate female calves. Under alternative 3, testing and vaccinating would continue as under the interim plan (alternative 1 ) in the short term. In the long term, modifications in grazing allotments on the national forest as described under alternative 2 would reduce the need for vaccinating and testing, but within less extensive SMAs. Producers near SMA boundaries would likely continue to vaccinate female calves. Whereas about 2,019 cow-calf pairs are found within the areas designated to be SMAs under alternative 2, the smaller areas of alternative 3 contain about 895 cow-calf pairs. Moderate to major impacts in the long term for these herds would result from possible conversion to steer or spayed heifer enterprises, closure or modification of grazing allotments, and private land acquisitions. Hunting could provide a minor source of income for remaining converted holdings. Alternative 4 differs from alternative 1 in that bison hunting would be allowed. Hunting in the West Yellowstone area could provide a minor source of income for some private holdings. Under alternative 5, livestock operators in the vicinity of Yellowstone National Park would likely perceive a reduced disease threat because no bison would be allowed outside the park. Restriction of bison to the park would lessen concerns over brucellosis transmission, although vaccination of cattle could continue, especially in the short term. Relaxation of testing practices in the West Yellowstone area would depend on changes in Idaho's agreement with Montana. Private grazing resources might increase in value due to reduced risks of disease spread and damage by bison. Thus, the overall impact on affected livestock producers could be moderately beneficial. Consequences of alternative 6 with respect to testing and vaccinating would be the same as in alternative 1 during the first years of vaccination of Yellowstone bison. Once capture, test, and slaughter of bison were undertaken, conse- quences for livestock producers would be like those of alternative 5, although seronegative bison would be allowed on public land in the West Yellowstone SMA. Cattle vaccination would probably continue, depending on producers' risk perceptions. Continued testing of herds in the West Yellowstone area would depend on Idaho's agreement with Montana. In the long term, moderate benefits overall would be realized under this alternative, as under alternative 5. SMAs under phase 1 of the preferred alternative (alternative 7) would be the same as they are now under the interim plan (alternative 1 ). Testing and vaccinating would continue, as would possible incidents of damage by bison within the boundaries of the SMAs. No modifications of livestock operations would occur under phase 1 . In phase 2 (following acquisition of winter range north of the Reese Creek boundary), impacts could affect at least one private holding and could modify three public grazing allotments along the western side of the Yellowstone River in the Gardiner Valley. In addition to direct impacts on local producers outlined above, ranchers throughout the state could suffer from increased testing or vacci- nating requirements or interstate sanctions should brucellosis be transmitted to Montana cattle. The possibility of such transmission and associated indirect impacts would be considered remote in all alternatives, although it would be slightly less in alternative 5, slightly greater in alternative 2, and roughly equal in the remaining alternatives. Impacts on Socioeconomics Regional Economy. The affected area primarily encompasses two Montana counties, Park and Gallatin, and portions of Yellowstone National Park. Throughout the Greater Yellowstone Area, public lands provide the basis for much of the economic activity in the region (recreation, mining, forestry, and agriculture). The area's overall economy has been changing for more xix SUMMARY than 20 years. The economy has shifted from commodity-extraction dependence to a more diversified economy based on recreation, tourism, and service industries. For example, between 1969 and 1989, more than 96% of all new jobs in the Greater Yellowstone Area came from sectors other than timber, mining, and agriculture (Rasker, Tirrell, and Kloepfer 1992). Approximately 10% of Park County employ- ment and 5% of Gallatin County employment is in the agriculture, forestry, and mining sectors. In addition, some component of employment in manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, and services is derivative of activity in these resource-based sectors. Most jobs pertaining to the recreation and tourism industry are found in the retail trade and service sectors of a county's economy. Recreation and tourism are significant to the economic viability of the area. Retail trade and services accounted for approximately 40%-45% of each county's earnings. These sectors, along with the government sector, have a strong tie to the region's resources and would likely continue to be important in sustaining segments of the economy of the Greater Yellowstone Area. The alternatives described in this environmental impact statement would have the potential to affect jobs and income primarily through changes in visitation levels to Yellowstone National Park. Visitation levels could be affected by changes in winter road grooming, changes in wildlife viewing as a result of lowered popula- tion levels of bison, or in response to tourism boycotts. Visitors to Yellowstone National Park from outside Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho spent an average of $840 during their trips (Duffield 1992). Expenditures related to recreation — A 1 994 report on snowmobiling in Montana found nonresidents spend approximately $40 million annually in the state, and three-fourths of those nonresidents spent time in or near West Yellowstone (Sylvester and Nesary 1994). If alternative 2, which would include closing roads now groomed for snowmobile use from West Yellowstone into the park was implemented, the annual loss in winter tourism expenditures in the town of West Yellowstone could be between $656,000 and $2 million. Under alternative 5 these regional annual losses could be $1.8 million to $3.2 million during the three to four years of road plowing (to pavement, and therefore unavailable for snowmobile use) for the capture and slaughter operations. Alternative 6 could lead to expenditure losses similar to those under alternative 2 for the first 10-1 2 years, and similar to those under alternative 5 for the next two to three years. The loss under all these alternatives would be substantially higher if not for considerable snowmobiling oppor- tunities on the nearby national forest. Losses of winter recreation expenditures under alternatives 1,3,4, and 7 would probably be negligible. The adverse impacts on winter recreation expendi- tures under alternative 2 could be more than offset by positive impacts on visitation related to wildlife viewing (see below). The adverse impacts on winter recreation expenditures under alternatives 5 and 6 would be in addition to adverse impacts on visitation related to wildlife viewing. Resident elk hunters spent $54 per day while resident deer hunters spent $41 per day. Nonresident hunters expenditures associated with elk and deer hunting are $252 and $ 1 1 5 per day, respectively (Duffield 1988). Expenditures related to bison hunting in alternatives 3, 4, and 7 would add to this base, by as much as $440 per day. Since a maximum of 85 hunting permits for any alternative would be expected, expenditures related to it would be only a negligible benefit to the regional economy. Expenditures related to wildlife viewing — Alternatives 2 and 3 would increase bison viewing opportunities, and alternatives 5, 6, and 7 would reduce them. The beneficial impact on the regional economy from alternatives 2 and 3 from increased visitor expenditures could be $20 million in annual park area visitor spending. Conversely, the adverse impact from alternatives 5, 6, or 7 could be $20 million in lost revenues from tourism. xx Summary The management of bison would involve killing through agency shooting, transport of sero- positive animals to slaughter, hunting, and other actions that some would find objectionable. People who do take offense might object for any number of reasons: e.g., the killing of any animals is inappropriate, human management of wildlife is not needed, or bison do not need to be controlled to prevent brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle. All alternatives would involve bison management, and thus each would have some potential for adverse public reaction that might result in the call for a tourism boycott, although the potential would likely vary among alternatives. The potential for such a call and the effectiveness of such a boycott would be difficult to judge. Minority and Low-Income Populations. As of the 1990 U.S. census. Park County had a per capita income of $ 1 1 ,378, approximately equal to that of the state of Montana. Gallatin County had a substantially higher income level of $17,032 per person. The percentage of the population in poverty across the two counties and the state was relatively consistent in 1990 at between 15.2% and 17.1%. Unemployment in the two counties in 1994 was below the state average of 5. 1 % (Park County, 4%; Gallatin County, 2.3%). Montana's Native American population had a much lower per capita income ($5,422) than either the two counties or the state, a much higher percentage of population living in poverty (46. 1 %) than the counties or the state, and an unemployment rate (26.2%) much higher than the counties or the state. Several area tribes have expressed interest in receiving bison carcasses, or, more importantly, live bison as seed stock from the Yellowstone herd to begin their own bison operations. Bison meat sells for nearly twice the cost of beef because it is considered a health food by some consumers. Under the interim management plan, a total of 1,084 bison were killed outside the park in Montana in 1996-97. Of this total, 590 bison were shot on the spot and donated to charities or released to Native Americans in exchange for the labor of gutting, cleaning, and transporting carcasses. Charities received 77 bison, and Indian tribes, tribal members, and affiliated organizations received 513 bison (State of Montana, C. Siroky, pers. comm. 1997). Alternatives 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 all would include slaughter and the distribution of carcasses, and all alternatives would include provisions for shooting bison if they crossed boundary lines (and the subsequent gutting, cleaning, and distribution of carcasses, hides, and heads). The estimates for numbers of bison to be sold or donated for consumption would range from an incidental number per year in alternative 3 to 720 over four years under alternative 5. These numbers would represent a very minor portion of the total U.S. annual market for bison meat. The impact of charitable donations or release of carcasses to tribes would generally be negligible. The release of live bison would require quarantining captured seronegative bison for the completion of a lengthy quarantine protocol. Quarantine facilities would be proposed for alternatives 3, 4, and 7, and live bison completing the procedure would be available to tribes and other requesting organizations. Live animals received after quarantine would have substantially more value to tribes than would carcasses. Social Values. Bison are symbolically an icon for the independent, wild, and free American way of life, and are considered by some people to be "a unique symbol of the strength and determination of the people of North America" (National Bison Association 1997a). Bison embody the culture of many native Plains peoples. They are a link to the spiritual world, spiritual power concentrated in physical form, the "great provider," and ultimately a symbol of power and strength. Bison skulls are used as altars, bone is used on traditional dress, and they are at the heart of the continuing sun dance. xxi SUMMARY Bison are important to other groups as well. To hunters, they are a trophy animal; to cattle ranchers, bison have historically represented competition with livestock for limited forage; and to many animal rights activists, they are an aesthetic and historic resource. Written comments collected from the Interim Bison Management Plan/Environmental Assessment in 1995 indicated the public was strongly against the slaughter of bison. Ranchers also indicated strong feelings on the need to protect cattle from brucellosis. These are moralistic-humanistic and utilitarian values, respectively (see the "Socioeconomics" chapter, "Social Values" section of this document for definitions). No systematic surveys have been conducted, but it appears that alternatives relying on slaughter ( 1 , 4, 5, 6, and 7) would have a minor to major adverse impact on those having strong moralistic-humanistic values toward animals. Attitudes in the Yellowstone region would be more balanced between utilitarian and other attitudes than in the nation as a whole (based on wolf recovery information). Native American values may be more complex, as many of the management actions are viewed as disrespectful or wasteful of bison. Nonmarket Values. People place value on knowing a species is maintained in a viable state or has been augmented in some way. In a study involving elk winter range north of Yellowstone National Park, those surveyed found the benefit of a land purchase to benefit elk far outweighed actual land acquisition costs. This "nonmarket" or "existence" value applies to bison as well, and although no studies specific to bison were conducted, alternatives 2, 3, and 7 could potentially have large nonmarket value benefits associated with expansion of bison winter range, on the order of $ 1 .6 to $22.9 million annually. Additional nonmarket values attributable to the opportunities to view natural wildlife popula- tions, or for recreational opportunities, could also be in the millions of dollars. Social Cost-Benefit. From a social cost-benefit perspective, alternatives 2, 3, and 7 would have the potential to range from a moderate negative to a major positive impact, while alternative 4 would likely have a minor adverse to negligible impact compared to alternative 1 . Alternative 5 would likely have a major adverse impact, and the impact on alternative 6 could range from minor to moderate adverse. From a regional economic perspective, alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would likely have a negligible to minor positive impact, while alternatives 5 and 6 would have a minor to moderate adverse impact. Regional economic impacts under alternative 7 would be expected to range from a moderately adverse effect to a minor positive impact. Impacts on Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Peregrine falcons, bald eagles, grizzly bears, and gray wolves are the only known species to occur within the affected area that are protected by the Endangered Species Act. Wolverine, lynx, and trumpeter swan, USFS sensitive species, could also occur in the affected area. These species could be directly affected by bison management actions, such as shooting, hazing, or habitat loss or modification. Because bison are an important food source, predatory species could also be indirectly affected by reduced foraging oppor- tunities caused by changes in bison numbers, distribution, and seasonal migration patterns. xxn Summan Peregrine Falcons. The alternatives would have no effect on peregrines because bison manage- ment activities would not occur near active aerie or foraging areas, and because they do not feed on bison carrion. Bald Eagles. Alternatives 5 and 6 would negatively affect bald eagles that winter and nest near Seven-Mile Bridge because of the location of a capture facility in this area. Other bald eagles in the analysis area would be protected by avoiding their nesting and wintering areas. Change in bison carrion availability would have a negligible effect because it is only a small part of the bald eagle diet. Grizzly Bears. All alternatives could potentially disturb or displace grizzly bears from areas near bison management activities. The alternatives would affect only a small part of the Greater Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone, an area where seasonal or year-long grizzly activity is common and contains habitats important to the recovery of grizzly bears. Denning bears would not be affected during the winter when most activities would occur. Under alternatives 3, 4, and 7, increased human activity could increase the probability for human/bear conflicts and bear mortality. This probability would be reduced to negligible by educating hunters, removing gut piles, and implementing other mitigating measures. The degree to which an alternative modifies bison population numbers could likewise affect grizzly bears. Bison, along with other ungulates, rank as one of the highest sources of net digestible energy for grizzly bears in the Yellowstone ecosystem. Data indicate that 32% of all meat in the diet is carrion, and most of that is from adult bison. Bison are particularly important to bears because they provide a high quality food source during early spring before most vegetal foods are available to bears. Grizzly bears that den in the Pelican and Hayden Valleys in the park depend on bison carrion and are most likely to be affected by changes in bison populations. Under alternative I, bison numbers would not be maintained within a specific range, and low population levels could result during some periods. Consequently, foraging opportunities could be reduced during some years and negatively impact grizzly bears, particularly during the spring. This impact would likely be negligible unless bison disappeared from Pelican or Hayden Valleys in the park. Alternative 2 would allow the bison population to reach a long-term maximum of 3,500 bison quickly, and would leave park roads ungroomed, which would likely increase winter bison mortalities and carrion in the park. This would increase the availability of bison as a food source and moderately benefit grizzly bears. Alternative 3 would have minor benefits. Alternatives 4, 6, and 7 would maintain the bison populations within a specific range and cause only minor changes in the population. Thus, the impacts on grizzly bear foraging opportunities would be negligible. Alternative 5 would cause a major decrease in the first few years in the bison population and reduce the carrion supply available to grizzly bears. Gray Wolves. The Rocky Mountain gray wolf was reintroduced in Yellowstone National Park in March 1995 and is part of a "nonessential experimental population." This means that the species is listed and protected under the Endangered Species Act, but agencies have additional flexibility in their management. To date nine packs are in the Greater Yellowstone Area, mostly in the park. Some individuals and packs have made exploratory movements outside the park, but none is resident outside the park. All alternatives could disturb or displace wolves from areas near bison management activities. However, any impact on the small wolf popula- tion would likely be negligible. Wolves prey primarily on elk, moose, and deer. These species are abundant in the analysis area, and usually account for more than 90% of the biomass consumed. Smaller mammals may be an important alternative food during the snow-free months. Wolves rarely prey on live bison, but do eat bison carrion if it is available. Although xxni SUMMARY wolves could eventually increase their take of bison as prey as the wolf population increased, impacts from changes in the bison population during the 1 5 years this plan was in effect would be negligible in alternatives 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7. Alternative 2 would have a moderate beneficial impact and alternative 5 a moderate to major adverse impact to wolves through larger-scale changes in bison population numbers. On December 12, 1997, the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming ruled that the gray wolf reintroduction program in Yellowstone National Park and northern Idaho violated one provision of the Endangered Species Act. The court ordered the federal government to remove the reintroduced wolves and their offspring. The court stayed the effect of the order pending appeals. Because the decision is on appeal, this document considers the gray wolf as a permanent component of the study area. Should the decision be upheld on appeal and the wolves were removed, impacts on the gray wolf would not be an issue associated with bison management under the alternatives analyzed. Wolverine and Lynx. Both wolverine and lynx are very susceptible to human activities, and wolverines readily abandon den sites when disturbed. All the alternatives could displace or disturb wolverine and lynx from areas near bison management activities. Under alternatives 2, 5, and 6, snowmobile use now on the groomed trails inside the park would be displaced to trails and off-trail areas in the neighboring Gallatin National Forest where wolverine and lynx occur. Lynx are specialized predators that may face competition from generalist predators given access to their habitat by following packed-snow routes such as those resulting from snowmobile use. Winter recreation activities would be monitored on the national forest and, if necessary, mitigating measures implemented to protect the wolverine and lynx. Changes in bison numbers would have a negligible impact because wolverine and lynx seldom feed on bison carrion. Trumpeter Swans. Trumpeter swans could be affected by the location and operation of bison management facilities. The swan occupies meadows and open fields, plus lakes, ponds, or slow-moving water inside the park on the Madison River. In particular, a breeding pair at Seven-Mile Bridge where a capture facility is proposed in alternative 6, would experience major adverse impacts from construction and operation. Impacts on Other Wildlife Species Ungulates. The Stephens Creek capture facility occupies 13 acres of critical pronghorn winter range, and has had adverse impacts on the antelope population through displacement, disturbance, and blocked movements. Observations from capture operations during winter 1996-97 showed pronghorn avoided using habitat in the capture facility area, and some pronghorn may have been confused by the wing fences when fleeing from predators. The capture facility at Stephens Creek would continue to exist in all alternatives except alternative 2 (in the short term only in alternatives 3 and 7), and would have a moderate to major adverse impact on the pronghorn population. Other capture facilities, such as those in West Yellowstone and planned for different locations within the park in alternatives 5 and 6, could have minor adverse impacts on wildlife through displacement and disturbance. Potential acquisition of additional wildlife winter range in the Gardiner Valley, a part of alter- natives 2, 3, and 7, would make more winter habitat available to elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep, and particularly pronghorn. This would be a minor benefit to most ungulates and a moderate to major beneficial impact on pronghorn. Occasional hazing operations associated with all alternatives would be expected to have minor impacts on elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep, and other ungulates through disturbance and temporary displacement. xxiv In alternatives where snowmobile use would be displaced outside the park (alternatives 2, 5, and 6), impacts on ungulates outside the park could be more intense than they are now. This is because snowmobiles would be restricted to trails inside the park, but allowed to travel off trails in many areas of adjacent public lands. Elk, pronghorn, deer, bighorn sheep, and moose would not likely be affected through competition for forage or spaee with bison, as each has an eeologieal niche that differs from bison through food choices, occupied habitat, or tolerance of snow depth. Therefore, increases or decreases in the bison population size would not be expected to affect any other large ungulates. Predators and Scavengers. Hazing activities directed at moving bison into capture facilities or inside the SMA boundary could disturb and displace predator and scavenger species, including black bear, mountain lion, coyote, fox, wolverine, bobcat, lynx, and a variety of smaller mammalian and avian carnivores and scavengers using those areas. Hazing should be infrequent, however, and displacement and stress would be local and temporary and would have only minor effects on those populations. Changes in the bison population size and resulting availability of carrion would not affect predators and scavengers except during the parkwide capture and slaughter phases of alternatives 5 and 6, when reductions would be severe enough to cause a moderate impact. Displaced snowmobile use associated with alternatives 2, 5, and 6 might affect some of these species more severely than at present, as this activity is restricted to trails inside the park and might not be if it was displaced outside the park. Impacts on some species could be moderate. Impacts on Human Health Brucellosis is a zoonotic disease that can infect people, causing undulant fever. Symptoms include intermittent fever, chills, night sweats, body and joint pain, poor appetite, and weakness. The general public would be at no risk of contracting the disease from bison. Summai v However, people responsible foi carrying out proposed bison management actions such as capturing, vaccinating, gutting, loading foi slaughter, and laboratory analysis, could be at moderate risk. Hunters could also be at some risk. Recipients of auctioned or donated meat could be at minor risk of exposure through the handling of potentially contaminated meat and the consumption of improperly prepared meat. Proper handling and cooking completely kills the bacteria. Mitigating and preventive measures, such as proper equipment, ventilation, and information, would prevent impacts from being more than negligible to minor in all alternatives except during the parkwide capture and slaughter phases of alternatives 5 and 6, when the risk would be minor to moderate. Impacts on Cultural Resources The Great Plains and the northern Rocky Mountains of western Montana and Wyoming served as feeding grounds for bison. This region is also the homeland of various native peoples who hunted these herds. Bison were critical to the indigenous cultures of North America and were an important part of the landscape covering over half the continent. They once ranged from the Appalachian Mountains to the "deserts" of the Great Basin south into Mexico and as far north as the Yukon territory in Canada. English settlers arriving in what is now Georgia wrote of the "innumerable" bison they encountered. The numbers were so great that early Euro-American explorers could only describe them as "numberless," and wrote that the plains were "black and appeared to be moving" with the herds of bison. The most commonly used estimates of their numbers were between 30 and 65 million. xxv SUMMARY &$* Illustration entitled "By the Millions" by Martin S. Garretson, 1913. (NPS photo) Bison provided not only food, clothing, fuel, tools, and shelter, but also were central to Plains tribal spiritual culture, viewed as an earthly link to the spiritual world. For many tribes, bison represent power and strength. For example, the Shoshone believe that spiritual power is concen- trated in the physical form of the bison. Many contemporary tribes maintain a spiritual connection with bison. Today, the InterTribal Bison Cooperative describes itself as "tribes proudly serving the buffalo nation," indicating respect and a sense of equality and direct spiritual connection. Traditional use of bison by humans centers on hunting and is evidenced in the archeological record. The remains of game drives, including both the fences and bison jump sites, as well as chipping stations, wickiups, and weapons, are all associated with the importance of hunting bison for tribal economy and culture. Most archeological sites in the Yellowstone area have not been evaluated according to the National Register of Historic Places criteria, although Obsidian Cliff, an area particularly rich in cultural remains, has been nominated as a national historic landmark. Several others, including the Yellowstone road system, one archeological site in the Stephens Creek area, and one archeological site in the Eagle Creek area, are considered to be eligible for inclusion in the national register. In all alternatives, bison would be killed while occupying their historic range. Reductions in the population size compared to the no-action alternative (alternative 1) would occur on a short-term basis in alternatives 5 and 6, might occur on a short- term basis in alternative 4, and would occur on a long-term basis in alternative 7. In all alternatives except alternative 2, the process of monitoring and vaccinating bison would change their appearance. Bison would be marked with visible metal ear tags, paper back tags, and paint/peroxide stripes to indicate to managers and others that they have tested negative for the Brucella organism. These actions alter the historic image of the bison and would have a temporary, moderate impact on the historic landscapes. The construction of new capture or quarantine facilities would have the potential to affect archeological resources. In all alternatives proposing construction of bison management xxvi Summary facilities (all except alternative 2), site-specific surveys would be conducted prior to ground- disturbing activities, and every effort would be made to avoid known archeological resources. Should avoidance prove impossible, the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and state agencies would develop mitigating measures in consultation with the state historic preservation officer and the advisory council. Therefore, the impact would likely be minor. Removal of the capture facility at Stephens Creek, as proposed in alternative 2, would have a beneficial impact on the historic landscape. The construction of several new capture facilities in alternatives 5 and 6 would have a temporary but significant adverse impact on the historic landscape of Yellowstone National Park. Impacts on Visual Resources Visual resources consist of landform (topography and hydrology) and land cover (vegetation, buildings, roads, etc.). Visual resources are centered on significant features and intrinsic features. Also included is visibility of the undertaking, such as exposure and location. The Greater Yellowstone Area is world renown for its scenery, wildlife, wilderness, rivers, fishing, hunting, outdoor recreation oppor- tunities, and geologic and thermal features. The natural landscape is rugged and formidable due to the rapid gains in elevation, and most of the area remains in a wilderness state. Bison and other wildlife are frequently observed meandering through the landscape. Visual resources within Yellowstone National Park fall into two general zones — the natural zone and the park development zone. Bison are observed within both, although they are most frequently observed within the natural zone. Vehicle pullouts in the park are designed for visitors to stop and experience the visual resources, and are placed in areas where bison are most frequently found — e.g., valley low- lands off the main loop roads. Some locations include the open areas within Hayden Valley, Old Faithful/Firehole area, the Madison River (past Seven-Mile Bridge), Indian Creek in the Mammoth area, the Norris Campground, Gibbon Meadows, Elk Park, and others. The view from these pullouts includes an unobstructed natural setting containing habitat desirable to bison as well as other wildlife species. The process of capturing and/or vaccinating bison would temporarily change their natural appearance. Bison would be visibly marked with tags and peroxide stripes due to vaccination and testing procedures. These processing marks would detract from the natural appearance of the animal. This would be a short-term, moderately adverse impact on the viewer, photographer, and anyone interested in seeing bison. Capture would be a part of all alternatives except phase 2 of alternative 2. Agency shooting of bison and some hazing operations would be visible if bison ventured beyond delineated management areas. Hunting of bison outside the park in designated SMAs is also part of alternatives 3, 4, and 7. These bison management actions would have a minor to major short-term (winter only) visual impact on the landscape, or on some viewers, who might be opposed to shooting, hunting, or hazing bison, or might be sensitive to these activities. The existing capture and test facility would continue to intrude on the viewshed at Stephens Creek in all alternatives except alternatives 2, 3, and 7. Because this facility is of a compatible design with the nearby Yellowstone National Park wrangling facilities, the impact on visual resources would be minimal. Also, this facility would not be readily visible to the majority of visitors to the park and surrounding areas. Capture and test facilities within the viewshed on the western boundary of Yellowstone National Park would continue to adversely impact visual resources in alternatives 1, 4, 6, and 7. The visual impact of capture facilities at West Yellowstone would be minor to moderate. These facilities would not be visible in major xxvn SUMMARY viewsheds, but some park visitors, national forest users, and local residents would see them. Bison management actions, such as hazing, shooting, and gutting, could be a major adverse visual impact on some of these viewers. Construction of capture and testing facilities in the Seven-Mile Bridge viewshed near the western boundary of the park in alternative 6 would be a major impact on visual resources. The proposed construction of capture and test facilities within Yellowstone National Park at the Lamar Valley/Crystal Bench, Blacktail Plateau, Madison River, West Yellowstone boundary area. Old Faithful/Firehole River, and Hayden/Pelican Valleys, which is part of alternatives 5 and 6, would have a major impact on visual resources. These areas are highly sensitive to visual intrusions, and while measures would be taken to minimize impacts, the presence of these facilities would be highly noticeable. A quarantine facility is part of alternatives 3, 4, and 7. Although the location or design of a quarantine facility for bison has not been determined, the facility would probably appear as large-scaled corrals and pens within which bison would be visible. Siting of a relocated capture facility and a new quarantine facility would be sensitive to views and features of the viewshed; therefore, impacts are expected to be minor. In alternatives 2, 3, or 7, grazing allotments might be modified and could cause negligible to minor changes in the rural landscape near park boundaries. In the long term, cattle grazing would be modified in some allotments on lands adjacent to Yellowstone National Park, and the scenery would change to views of bison and wildlife habitat. Changes in the size of the bison population would affect viewers. Some would find increased opportunities to view bison a benefit; others opposed to wildlife management policies would be adversely affected. Alternatives 2, 5, and 6 include provisions for closing roads to snowmobile traffic. This would help restore the winter visual scene inside the park to a more natural one, but would adversely affect visual resources on adjacent Gallatin National Forest where much of the snowmobile traffic would be displaced. xxvm CONTENTS Purpose of and Need for Action Introduction 3 Proposed Action 3 Project Location 3 The Environmental Impact Statement/Planning Process 3 Other Ongoing Planning Efforts 4 Need for Action 1 1 Purpose of Action 1 1 Background 1 2 The Yellowstone Area Bison Herd 12 Brucellosis in the Yellowstone Bison Herd 15 Brucellosis in Cattle and Bison 16 Bison Distribution 20 Economic Impacts of Brucellosis in Cattle 22 Administrative History of Bison Management 27 Objectives and Constraints 28 Objectives in Taking Action 28 Constraints in Taking Action 30 Scoping Process and Public Participation 35 Objectives, Alternatives, and Issues from Public Comments 35 Issues Considered but Not Evaluated Further in the Environmental Impact Statement 45 The Alternatives Introduction 51 Actions Common to All Alternatives 54 Interagency Involvement 54 Bison Population Numbers 54 Management as a Wild, Free-Ranging Population 54 Brucellosis Class-Free Status 55 Bison Distribution Limits 55 Bison Capture 56 Humane Treatment of Bison 56 Monitoring 57 Special Management Area 57 Distribution of Carcasses 58 Distribution of Live Bison 58 Private Land 58 Vaccination 58 Research Efforts 59 xxix CONTENTS Alternative 1 : No Action - Continuation of the Current Interim Bison Management Plan 61 Northern Boundary 61 Reese Creek 61 Eagle Creek/Bear Creek 62 Western Boundary 62 Special Management Areas 65 Risk Management 65 Population Management 66 Estimate of Cost 66 Alternative 2: Minimal Management 67 Northern Boundary 68 Reese Creek 68 Eagle Creek/Bear Creek 68 Western Boundary 68 Special Management Areas 68 Risk Management 71 Population Management 73 Estimate of Cost 73 Alternative 3: Management with Emphasis on Public Hunting 74 Northern Boundary 75 Reese Creek 75 Eagle Creek/Bear Creek 76 Western Boundary 76 Special Management Areas 76 Risk Management 79 Population Management 80 Quarantine 80 Public Hunting 81 Estimate of Cost 82 Alternative 4: Interim Plan with Limited Public Hunting and Quarantine 84 Northern Boundary 84 Reese Creek 84 Eagle Creek/Bear Creek 85 Western Boundary 85 Special Management Areas 85 Risk Management 86 Population Management 86 Quarantine 89 Public Hunting 89 Estimate of Cost 89 Alternative 5: Aggressive Brucellosis Control within Yellowstone National Park through Capture, Test, and Removal 90 Northern Boundary 90 Reese Creek 90 Eagle Creek/Bear Creek 93 Western Boundary 93 xxx ( 'ontents Special Management Areas 93 Risk Management 93 Population Management 94 Estimate of Cost 94 Alternative 6: Aggressive Brucellosis Control within Yellowstone National Park through Vaccination 95 Northern Boundary 95 Reese Creek 95 Eagle Creek/Bear Creek 96 Western Boundary 96 Special Management Areas 96 Risk Management 99 Population Management 100 Estimate of Cost 100 Alternative 7: Preferred Alternative - Manage for Specific Bison Population Range 101 Northern Boundary 103 Reese Creek 1 03 Eagle Creek/Bear Creek 104 Western Boundary 1 04 Special Management Areas 104 Risk Management 107 Population Management 108 Quarantine 109 Public Hunting 1 10 Estimate of Cost 1 1 0 Alternatives Considered but Rejected 1 12 How Alternatives Meet Stated Objectives 1 13 Affected Environment Project Setting 1 37 Landscape of the Area 138 Vegetation 139 Wetlands 141 Access 141 Human Population 141 Bison Population 143 Behavior and Social Interactions 143 Habitat and Forage 144 Breeding, Calving, and Sex-and-Age Classes 144 Mortality 145 History of Bison in Yellowstone National Park 145 Ecological Role of Bison 148 Brucella Abortus in Bison 148 xxxi CONTENTS Recreation 1 50 Overall Visitor Use and Experience 150 Wildlife and Bison Viewing 152 Winter Recreation 153 Hunting 155 Livestock Operations 157 Cattle Management Practices 1 57 Land Use 157 Bison Ranching 159 Property Damage by Bison 1 6 1 Socioeconomics 162 Regional Economy 162 Bison as Food 165 Minority and Low-Income Populations 166 Social Values 167 Nonmarket Values 171 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 174 Endangered Species 174 Threatened Species 174 Sensitive Species 178 Sensitive and Special Concern Plant Species 179 Other Wildlife Species 180 Ungulates 180 Predators and Scavengers 1 84 Species Associated with Bison Grazing and Behavior 1 85 Human Health 1 86 Cultural Resources 187 History 187 Livestock and Agricultural Influences 1 89 Affected Cultural Resources 1 89 Visual Resources 191 Landscapes and Viewsheds 191 Public Lands 191 Bison Management Activities 192 Environmental Consequences Introduction 195 Impacts on Bison Population 196 Summary of Regulations and Policies 1 96 Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts 1 96 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 200 xxxn ( 'ontenls Cumulative Impacts Common to All Alternatives 202 Impacts of Alternative 1 : No Action 202 Analysis 202 Cumulative Impacts 205 Conclusion 205 Impacts of Alternative 2 205 Analysis 205 Cumulative Impacts 207 Conclusion 207 Impacts of Alternative 3 208 Analysis 208 Cumulative Impacts 210 Conclusion 210 Impacts of Alternative 4 211 Analysis 21 1 Cumulative Impacts 213 Conclusion 213 Impacts of Alternative 5 214 Analysis 214 Cumulative Impacts 215 Conclusion 215 Impacts of Alternative 6 216 Analysis 216 Cumulative Impacts 220 Conclusion 220 Impacts of Alternative 7: Preferred Alternative 220 Analysis 220 Cumulative Impacts 224 Conclusion 224 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 224 Loss in Long-Term Availability or Productivity of the Resource to Achieve Short-Term Gain 225 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 225 Impacts on Recreation 226 Summary of Regulations and Policies 226 Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts 226 Cumulative Impacts Common to All Alternatives 226 Impacts of Alternative 1 : No Action 226 Analysis 226 Cumulative Impacts 227 Conclusion 227 Impacts of Alternative 2 227 Analysis 227 Cumulative Impacts 228 Conclusion 229 Impacts of Alternative 3 229 Analysis 229 Cumulative Impacts 229 Conclusion 229 xxxin CONTENTS Impacts of Alternative 4 229 Analysis 229 Cumulative Impacts 230 Conclusion 230 Impacts of Alternative 5 230 Analysis 230 Cumulative Impacts 231 Conclusion 231 Impacts of Alternative 6 231 Analysis 231 Cumulative Impacts 231 Conclusion 231 Impacts of Alternative 7: Preferred Alternative 232 Analysis 232 Cumulative Impacts 232 Conclusion 232 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 232 Loss in Long-Term Availability or Productivity of the Resource to Achieve Short-Term Gain 232 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 232 Impacts on Livestock Operations 233 Summary of Regulations and Policies 233 Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts 233 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 234 Cumulative Impacts Common to All Alternatives 234 Impacts of Alternative 1 : No Action 235 Analysis 235 Cumulative Impacts 236 Conclusion 236 Impacts of Alternative 2 236 Analysis 236 Cumulative Impacts 238 Conclusion 238 Impacts of Alternative 3 239 Analysis 239 Cumulative Impacts 240 Conclusion 240 Impacts of Alternative 4 240 Analysis 240 Cumulative Impacts 241 Conclusion 241 Impacts of Alternative 5 241 Analysis 241 Cumulative Impacts 241 Conclusion 241 Impacts of Alternative 6 242 Analysis 242 Cumulative Impacts 242 Conclusion 242 XXXIV Contents Impacts of Alternative 7: Preferred Alternative 242 Analysis 242 Cumulative Impacts 243 Conclusion 243 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 244 Loss in Long-Term Availability or Productivity of the Resource to Achieve Short-Term Gain 244 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 244 Impacts on Socioeconomics 245 Summary of Regulations and Policies 245 Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts 245 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 245 Cumulative Impacts Common to All Alternatives 246 Impacts of Alternative 1: No Action 246 Analysis 246 Conclusion 248 Impacts of Alternative 2 248 Analysis 248 Conclusion 252 Impacts of Alternative 3 252 Analysis 252 Conclusion 253 Impacts of Alternative 4 254 Analysis 254 Conclusion 254 Impacts of Alternative 5 255 Analysis 255 Conclusion 256 Impacts of Alternative 6 256 Analysis 256 Conclusion 257 Impacts of Alternative 7: Preferred Alternative 257 Analysis 257 Conclusion 259 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 259 Loss in Long-Term Availability or Productivity of the Resource to Achieve Short-Term Gain 259 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 259 Summary of Benefits and Costs 259 Impacts on Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 266 Summary of Regulations and Policies 266 Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts 266 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 267 Cumulative Impacts Common to All Alternatives 268 Impacts of Alternative 1 : No Action 269 Analysis 269 Cumulative Impacts 271 Conclusion 271 xxxv CONTENTS Impacts of Alternative 2 27 1 Analysis 271 Cumulative Impacts 272 Conclusion 272 Impacts of Alternative 3 273 Analysis 273 Cumulative Impacts 274 Conclusion 274 Impacts of Alternative 4 274 Analysis 274 Cumulative Impacts 274 Conclusion 275 Impacts of Alternative 5 275 Analysis 275 Cumulative Impacts 276 Conclusion 276 Impacts of Alternative 6 276 Analysis 276 Cumulative Impacts 277 Conclusion 277 Impacts of Alternative 7: Preferred Alternative 277 Analysis 277 Cumulative Impacts 279 Conclusion 280 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 280 Loss in Long-Term Availability or Productivity of the Resource to Achieve Short-Term Gain 281 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 281 Impacts on Other Wildlife Species 282 Summary of Regulations and Policies 282 Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts 282 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 282 Impacts of Alternative 1: No Action 284 Analysis 284 Cumulative Impacts 285 Conclusion 286 Impacts of Alternative 2 286 Analysis 286 Cumulative Impacts 288 Conclusion 288 Impacts of Alternative 3 288 Analysis 288 Cumulative Impacts 288 Conclusion 288 Impacts of Alternative 4 289 Analysis 289 Cumulative Impacts 2 289 Conclusion 290 xxxvi Contents Impacts of Alternative 5 290 Analysis 290 Cumulative Impacts 291 Conclusion 291 Impacts of Alternative 6 292 Analysis 292 Cumulative Impacts 292 Conclusion 292 Impacts of Alternative 7: Preferred Alternative 292 Analysis 292 Cumulative Impacts 293 Conclusion 293 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 293 Loss in Long-Term Availability or Productivity of the Resource to Achieve Short-Term Gain 294 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 294 Impacts on Human Health 295 Summary of Regulations and Policies 295 Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts 295 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 295 Cumulative Impacts Common to All Alternatives 296 Impacts of Alternative 1: No Action 296 Analysis 296 Conclusion 296 Impacts of Alternative 2 296 Analysis 296 Conclusion 296 Impacts of Alternative 3 296 Analysis 296 Conclusion 297 Impacts of Alternative 4 297 Analysis 297 Conclusion 297 Impacts of Alternative 5 297 Analysis 297 Conclusion 297 Impacts of Alternative 6 297 Analysis 297 Conclusion 297 Impacts of Alternative 7: Preferred Alternative 298 Analysis 298 Conclusion 298 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 298 Loss in Long-Term Availability or Productivity of the Resource to Achieve Short-Term Gain 298 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 298 Impacts on Cultural Resources 299 Summary of Regulations and Policies 299 xxxvn CONTENTS Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts 299 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 300 Cumulative Impacts Common to All Alternatives 300 Impacts of Alternative 1: No Action 301 Analysis 301 Cumulative Impacts 301 Conclusion 301 Impacts of Alternative 2 302 Analysis 302 Cumulative Impacts 302 Conclusion 302 Impacts of Alternative 3 302 Analysis 302 Cumulative Impacts 302 Conclusion 303 Impacts of Alternative 4 303 Analysis 303 Cumulative Impacts 303 Conclusion 303 Impacts of Alternative 5 303 Analysis 303 Cumulative Impacts 304 Conclusion 304 Impacts of Alternative 6 304 Analysis 304 Cumulative Impacts 304 Conclusion 304 Impacts of Alternative 7: Preferred Alternative 305 Analysis 305 Cumulative Impacts 305 Conclusion 305 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 305 Loss in Long-Term Availability or Productivity of the Resource to Achieve Short-Term Gain 305 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 305 Impacts on Visual Resources 306 Summary of Regulations and Policies 306 Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts 306 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 306 Impacts of Alternative 1 : No Action 306 Analysis 306 Cumulative Impacts 307 Conclusion 307 Impacts of Alternative 2 307 Analysis 307 Cumulative Impacts 308 Conclusion 308 Impacts of Alternative 3 308 Analysis 308 xxxvin ( (intents Cumulative Impacts 309 Conclusion 309 Impacts of Alternative 4 309 Analysis 309 Cumulative Impacts 309 Conclusion 309 Impacts of Alternative 5 309 Analysis 309 Cumulative Impacts 310 Conclusion 310 Impacts of Alternative 6 310 Analysis 310 Cumulative Impacts 31 1 Conclusion 311 Impacts of Alternative 7: Preferred Alternative 31 1 Analysis 31 1 Cumulative Impacts 31 1 Conclusion 311 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 3 1 2 Loss in Long-Term Availability or Productivity of the Resource to Achieve Short-Term Gain 3 1 2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 312 Consultation and Coordination Public Involvement 315 Agencies and Organizations that Received Copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3 1 6 Preparers and Contributors 321 Appendixes Appendix A: Changes and Adjustments to the 1996 Interim Bison Management Plan 327 Appendix B: Quarantine Protocol for Bison 343 Appendix C: Memorandum of Understanding among the National Park Service, State of Montana, U.S. Forest Service, and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 348 Appendix D: Draft Brucellosis/Bison/Elk Information Needs and Research Topics 353 Appendix E: Legislation and Policy Guidance 358 Appendix F: Summary of Bison Management Techniques 365 Appendix G: Definition of Low Risk Bison 369 Appendix H: Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Animal Species That May Occur in Areas Likely to Be Affected by Alternative Bison Management Plans 372 Glossary / Bibliography / Index Glossary 375 Bibliography 378 Index 392 XXXIX > V f. r *r --■■ rOF^r&^fZ &F ANt> N&mC> FORs AGTI&N INTRODUCTION The "Purpose of and Need for Action" part of the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) explains why the document is being developed. It describes the EIS planning process, details the need for action, provides background on why action is required, and identifies the specific purpose, objectives, and constraints in taking action. It also outlines the public input received to date on the bison management plan, including additional objectives, alternatives, or environ- mental issues the public has asked that this environmental impact statement analyze. A summary of all environmental issues analyzed, including those from the public, and an explanation of why some have been dropped from further analysis, concludes this part of the document. PROPOSED ACTION The National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and the state of Montana have proposed several options for the interagency, long-term management of Yellowstone area bison to ensure domestic cattle in portions of Montana adjacent to Yellowstone National Park are protected from brucellosis, a disease that some of these bison carry, and to ensure the viability of the bison herd. Each option requires the cooperation of all agencies as all have jurisdiction over a portion of the management effort, either directly or indirectly. Members of these agencies working on this environmental impact statement are referred to as the "interagency EIS team," "interagency team" or simply "agencies" throughout the document. The management actions proposed for evalua- tion in this environmental impact statement were developed with consideration for the current authorities of these cooperating agencies and information relevant to the management of the bison herd that periodically migrates across their jurisdictional boundaries. Management decisions that are made pursuant to this environmental impact statement would remain in effect until the puipose of the plan has been achieved (see "Purpose of Action"); agency authorities change; or, new information, gained through implementation of those decisions, suggests a need for change. Future decisions to revise bison management procedures will be supported with additional NEPA analysis if necessary. For purposes of analysis, this environ- mental impact statement assumes that the selected alternative will remain in effect for 15 years. PROJECT LOCATION This project involves the northern Rocky Mountains of the United States, specifically Yellowstone National Park and an area of private, state, and federal lands in Montana to the north and west of the park boundary (see Region map). The study area is within what is known as the Greater Yellowstone Area or GYA (see the Greater Yellowstone Area and Study Area maps). THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT / PLANNING PROCESS The first step in any planning process is to completely define the problem. In this case, the involved agencies must agree on why action is required. Members of the interagency EIS team are specialists in different fields relevant to the management of bison, cattle, and/or brucellosis, and have composed the need for action statement below as a brief synopsis of the problem they are attempting to solve by proposing action. A more in-depth discussion of the need for action is presented later in the "Background" chapter. The interagency team also identified the general and specific purposes or goals it felt the action must accomplish to be successful. The general PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION goal is stated in the purpose section below, and the specifics are presented in the "Objectives and Constraints" chapter under "Objectives in Taking Action." The interagency team agreed these objectives would apply to all alternatives, as well as to the selection of a preferred alter- native. Any alternative unable to meet one or more of the nine objectives to some degree would be eliminated as unreasonable. The same was true for any alternative that did not comply with the legal or regulatory mandates of each agency. These mandates are identified in the "Constraints in Taking Action" section. Public input on additional objectives, as well as on environmental issues and alternatives, was gathered in scoping and document review sessions described in the "Scoping Process and Public Participation" chapter. A more detailed description of public participation is in part 5 of the document, "Consultation and Coordination." The interagency team then used objectives, constraints, and input from the public to devise a set of alternatives it felt covered the full spectrum of viable options. All were legally implementable and met objectives to some degree. None was considered to have such severe environmental, technical, or economic impacts or constraints as to be considered infeasible. All were distinct enough from each other to be separate alternatives. A description of each of the seven alternatives, as well as summary comparisons of the features and impacts of each, is found in part 2 of the document, "The Alternatives." The environmental impacts of each alternative were analyzed and compared to existing conditions. A summary of this information is presented in part 3, "Affected Environment," and part 4, "Environmental Consequences." cause regional changes in one or more of the resources analyzed. These are discussed primarily qualitatively, and since they occur over such a large scale, impact analysis is less precise. Conversely, impacts of specific management actions at a capture facility, or the impacts of locating a new capture facility (such as at Seven- Mile Bridge) are discussed in more site-specific detail. Because some choices are by design policy or program ones, additional site-specific environmental impact analysis may be required to implement them at some future date. For instance, the construction and operation of a quarantine facility on federal land or built with federal money, should quarantine be a selected management strategy, would be analyzed in a subsequent document. That document would be prepared, as is this one, to comply with NEPA requirements, and would be tiered to this environmental impact statement. This means the policy guidance derived from this environmental impact statement would apply to the subsequent analysis, and agencies would not evaluate nonquarantine options. Rather, they would focus on sites, designs, operation choices, etc., for the facility. Information in this environmental impact statement was used by decision makers from the interagency team to help in selecting a preferred alternative from the alternatives analyzed. When the time period for public review has ended, the interagency team will revise the environmental impact statement to respond to comments and update and refine the document. The final environmental impact statement, together with public input, advice from staff, and economic, technical, and other information, will form an information base to be used by decision makers in selecting an alternative for implementation. This choice will be reflected in the final environ- mental impact statement and formalized in both federal and state records of decision. This environmental impact statement has both policy, or programmatic elements, as well as site-specific elements. Bison range over most of the 2.2-million-acre park, as well as into areas outside the park. Management actions may affect distribution of bison within this area, or may OTHER ONGOING PLANNING EFFORTS Bison management is only one of many management issues in Yellowstone National Park. Ongoing planning on these issues may J2Q3ION Yellowstone National Park I mini States Ik p. mimm ni the Interioi 'National Park Service l>si • M.iy 1998 M01 • 20.10} Yellowstone National Park I nited States Department ol the Inte ''National Park Servici DS( • May IWK- llll • 20 104 T/-&e>rte.e national Fo&es>r Introduction ultimately affect or guide the decision made on bison management. Therefore, the decision on bison management will need to be coordinated with other ongoing planning efforts. In addition, pursuant to the settlement of litigation, Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National Park anticipate commencing a plan and environmental impact statement for winter visitor use management. The parks should commence scoping on that plan in spring 1998. Yellowstone National Park is also preparing a commercial services plan that should be completed in 1999. As the agencies make decisions on these various processes, they will need to consider existing decisions and, perhaps, revise those decisions. 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 (see "Background"). As bison migrate out of the park and into Montana, they move from one jurisdiction with management objectives to another jurisdiction with different management objectives. Therefore, 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 U.S. Forest Service's Gallatin National Forest Plan (1987) would also be considered in ongoing planning efforts. NEED FOR ACTION Bison are an essential component of Yellowstone National Park and the Gallatin National Forest because they contribute to the PURPOSE OF ACTION The purpose of the action (that is, the bison management plan) 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. Bison migrating outside Yellowstone National Park. 11 BACKGROUND THE YELLOWSTONE AREA BISON HERD Bison are native to the Greater Yellowstone Area, and were observed there by early travelers before and after the creation of Yellowstone National Park in 1872 (see the Historic Bison Range map). In the 1870s and 1880s, the North American bison was driven nearly extinct by market hunting. In 1880, after a decade of intensive market hunting (for elk, bison, and other large mammals) in the park, the superintendent reported three herds totaling about 600 animals (Schullery and Whittlesey 1992). Over the next 15 years, this number was substantially reduced by poaching, but improved policing of the park by the U.S. Army (after 1 886), combined with strengthened legal protection (after 1 894), prevented complete elimination of park bison (NPS, Meagher 1973). In 1902, 23 bison were counted in the native Yellowstone herd (see also "History of Bison in Yellowstone National Park" section in the "Affected Environment, Bison Population" chapter). Fearful the small wild herd might vanish, park managers imported 21 bison from captive herds in Montana and Texas into the park. These bison were raised using livestock techniques on the "Buffalo Ranch" in Lamar Valley. They were fenced, fed, vaccinated, and separated for shipment to slaughter. Between 1915 and 1920, intermingling of this captive herd and the remaining wild herd began, and by 1930, bison wintering in the Lamar area numbered more than 1,000 (Keiter and Forelicher 1993). In the 1930s, the National Park Service gradually began efforts to restore the bison to a more natural distribution (NPS, Meagher 1973). However, herd reductions to achieve range management goals and other manipulation of the population continued from the 1920s until the late 1960s, and were often quite intensive. The highest reported bison count during this period was 1,477 in 1954. In 1967, when bison population controls ceased, 397 bison were counted in the park. At that time, as part of a larger redirection of park policies, ungulate herd reductions ceased. Bison, elk, and other animals were allowed to reach population levels primarily affected by environmental conditions. As the population has grown since the late 1960s, more bison have attempted to move to ranges outside the park, particularly in harsh winters. However, past data demonstrate that the number of bison moving beyond Yellowstone boundaries is highly variable from year to year, and show no strong or discernible correlation with population size. This means bison may not move outside the park even at high population numbers. Conversely, large numbers of bison may leave when population numbers are low if winter conditions prevent access to forage. During a given stochastic or periodic event such as a severe winter, it is likely that more bison would leave the park if popula- tion sizes are larger. In 1968, in response to livestock industry concerns over the disease brucellosis, the National Park Service proposed a program to control bison at the boundary of the park. The program relied on shooting bison that approached or passed beyond park boundaries and could not be deterred from leaving the park. As early as the winter of 1975-76, National Park Service and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks personnel experimented with hazing, herding, baiting, physical barriers, and scare devices in order to discourage bison from leaving the park. Barriers and harassment were found ineffective in preventing bison movement (Meagher 1989a). Shooting bison had been regarded as a last resort in management but became more necessary as time passed. Three bulls were shot in 1974, and one was shot in 1978. In 1978 approval for park personnel to shoot bison inside park boundaries was rescinded, unless human safety was 12 Hie>T&FZlC E>ie>ON &AN(E?e Yellowstone National Park I nitecl States Department of the Interior 'National Park Service DSC • May 1WH • 101 • 20,106 VO SCH~ N0KTH HISTOFZCH- ATIAS OF TH= AM=FKAH W=ST E>Y P-SCK AVP HAASS CCFTPI&HT ll&l PY THE. UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA FFCSS PVFFAU) FOR FOPES ANP HIPES ArFPOXIMATC FAN6E OF THE TWO &REAT APPROXIMATE PAN&E OF THE SOUTHERN HERP IN l&?5 / 1&&1, approximate rah&e of the northern herp in i&&0 / i&&1 APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF pison LEFT e>Y JANUARY' I&&1 Background threatened (Meagher 1989b). This authority was later returned in the 1995 Interim Bison Management Plan. In 1984, Montana wardens killed 88 bison outside the park. In 1985 the Montana Legislature authorized public hunting to remove bison that migrated from Yellowstone National Park into Montana. In the next three winters, 99 bison were killed after leaving the park, mostly by hunters. In the winter of 1988-89 following a summer drought and areawide fires, a much larger migration out of the park on the north side resulted in the removal of 569 bison. Most of these were killed by hunters, and the rest were taken by wardens or park rangers. In 1991 , due to public controversy over the large number of bison killed during the 1988-89 season, the Montana Legislature removed the authorization to hunt bison in Montana. The number of bison grew to a peak population of more than 4,200 animals as of July 1994, and declined to a high count of 3,436 in September 1996. In 1996-97, a particularly harsh winter with deep snow and ice sent hundreds of bison toward park boundaries, seeking exposed forage at lower elevations. With capture, slaughter, and other agency-maintained boundary control measures in place, the migration meant the slaughter or shooting of 1 ,084 bison in the five months between November 14, 1996, and April 15, 1997. This, added to losses from natural causes like extreme weather, winter kill, and starvation, brought the total population down to an estimated 2,000 animals. BRUCELLOSIS IN THE YELLOWSTONE BISON HERD The first known positive serologic test for brucellosis in the bison herd was reported in 1917. Brucella abortus was introduced to North America with imported cattle. Brucella organisms isolated from bison are identical to those that cause brucellosis in cattle (see "Brucellosis in Cattle and Bison"). While it is unknown exactly how and where the original transmission to bison occurred, it is presumed that bison acquired the disease directly or indirectly from domestic livestock. Cattle were grazed inside Yellowstone National Park from 1 886 to 1917, and included beef and dairy herds run by concessioners in support of restaurants and hotels or tent operations (Whittlesey 1994; Meagher and Meyer 1994). Permits were granted to pasture cattle at seven different locations around the park, many in the same location as bison, particularly those on the Buffalo Ranch. In addition, bison calves from the wild population were captured and fed cows' milk around the turn of the century. Some of the bison that were imported to the park in 1 902 originated from a brucellosis-affected bison herd (Don Ferlicka, pers. comm.), and the Texas herd had been closely associated with cattle. Bison from the Texas herd were exported to the Moiese Bison Range, Elk Island, and Yellow- stone National Park. Subsequently, brucellosis was discovered in each of these herds. It does not appear that brucellosis is a threat to the long-term survival of park bison. Although brucellosis-related abortions are known to occur, studies have demonstrated that the park bison population has been generally increasing, in spite of the disease and intermittent control actions outside the park, for the last 30 years. In 1997, the secretary of the interior commissioned the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to complete a report on brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area. In December 1997, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences issued a prepublication draft, "Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area." The agencies have not referenced or cited the NAS report because it is in preliminary form. The NAS report will provide further information on topics addressed by this draft environmental impact statement. When the NAS report has been finalized, the agencies fully anticipate reviewing and utilizing it where appropriate in writing the final environmental impact statement. The NAS report will be widely 15 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION distributed to the public, placed in libraries, and put on the Internet (http://www.nas.edu/). BRUCELLOSIS IN CATTLE AND BISON One of the most difficult aspects of developing a management plan for the wild, free-ranging bison that migrate from Yellowstone National Park is that some animals in this herd are infected with Brucella abortus. This organism causes the disease brucellosis, which can occur in humans, domestic livestock, bison, elk, and other mammals. Within the scientific community and among the people who are interested in bison management, there are differing opinions about the appropriateness or necessity of a management emphasis on the control or elimination of B. abortus, the environmental consequences of actions necessary to control or eradicate the disease, and the consequences of not controlling or eradicating brucellosis from this bison herd. Given the controversy about brucellosis in wildlife, the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee (GYIBC) developed and approved at its April 1997 meeting a paper entitled "Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area," which summarizes some of the information about brucellosis as it might relate to management of bison and elk. This paper represents the factual information for which there is general agreement among the technical experts employed by the responsible state and federal agencies that are members of the GYBBC. The following summary of brucellosis, as it relates specifically to the management of bison that migrate from Yellowstone National Park into Montana, is based on that paper. What is Brucellosis? Brucellosis is a contagious bacterial disease caused by various species of the genus Brucella that infect domestic animals, wildlife, and humans worldwide. In North America, the primary livestock hosts of Brucella spp. are cattle (B. abortus), goats (B. melitensis, Mexico only), swine (B. suis), and sheep (B. ovis). The principal North American wildlife hosts for Brucella spp. are bison and elk (B. abortus), caribou and reindeer (B. suis), and feral and wild swine (B. suis). Brucellosis also may occur in carnivores, including dogs, and it is usually caused by B. canis. Wild canids also may develop antibodies to B. abortus without developing clinical infections or shedding the organism. In cattle and possibly wild ungulates, trans- mission of B. abortus typically occurs through ingestion of the bacteria in birth materials shed from infected animals. The incubation period (the time between exposure and onset of infection) varies widely depending on exposure dose, previous vaccination, species, age, sex, stage of gestation, and susceptibility. Following a brief systemic (bodywide) infection, the organism typically localizes in the udder and/or lymphatic system and, depending on the stage of gestation, in reproductive tissues. Abortion is the characteristic sign of acute brucellosis. Other signs include retained placenta, infertility, reduced milk production, lameness, swollen joints, and swollen testicles. Microscopic lesions may also occur in lymph nodes. Following pregnancy, the Brucella organism may become dormant, persisting only within cells of the lymphatic system. Following a dormant period, acute infection may recur during subsequent pregnancy. The organism is shed in aborted tissues, repro- ductive tissues, and discharges, especially just prior to, during, or soon after abortion or live birth. The organism also may be shed in milk for variable lengths of time. Some infected cattle, bison, and elk intermittently shed the organism. The quantity of Brucella organisms shed at any particular time is variable and the number of organisms that comprise an infectious dose also is variable. There is no feasible treatment or cure for animals infected with Brucella. Some animals may develop immunity and never have the disease. Animals that overcome the clinical signs of brucellosis may develop recurrent infections 16 Background and thus may be a source of exposure and possi- ble infection for other animals. Some animals may completely clear the bacterium. Some individual cattle are reported to have a natural resistance to brucellosis, and this trait may be inherited. Natural resistance may also occur in other species including bison. Brucellosis Transmission The primary mechanism for transmission of B. abortus in cattle is well understood. Typically, transmission occurs when susceptible animals come into direct contact with contaminated aborted fetuses, birth membranes, uterine fluids, or vaginal discharges from infectious animals. Ingestion of contaminated material is the primary route of infection. A female calf born to an infected dam (female parent) can also become infected in utero, but may not manifest the disease until it has matured and either aborted or calved. Infected females typically abort their first pregnancy following infection. Abortion usually occurs during the third trimester. Thereafter, the bacteria usually localizes in lymph nodes surrounding reproductive organs and the udder. Transmission of B. abortus is less understood in wild ungulates. It is far less documented in elk than cattle, but it is believed to be similar to that described above. There is disagreement over the primary means of brucellosis transmission among bison. Research projects now underway are designed to provide more and better scientific information. clinical signs, epidemiology, and bacteriology. The bacteriological procedures used to identify Brucella infection include culturing the bacteria from tissues, milk, udder secretions, aborted fetuses, and uterine discharges. Some animals may lack antibodies but still may be infected, especially those incubating the bacteria. In contrast, antibodies may be present in an animal from which the bacteria have not been cultured. An animal with natural resistance to the Brucella organism that has been chal- lenged with B. abortus will generally experience a short-lived antibody response. Tissues collected from these animals will be culture negative, supporting their resistance to infection. A herd is classified as an affected herd after B. abortus has been isolated from at least one animal in a suspect and/or reactor herd, or epidemiological data support that conclusion. Killing suspect animals generally is necessary to obtain adequate samples for bacteriologic culture. Biopsy of tissues from live animals may also be performed. Biopsy is not currently a routine diagnostic technique, but is being evaluated as a research tool for studies of wild bison. Interpretation of culture results is difficult because the ability to isolate the bacteria varies with the location and abundance of B. abortus in the animal. The culture of Brucella organisms from tissue or blood is a definitive indication of infection; however, the organism may not always be recovered even though it is present. Failure to culture the bacteria may be due to inappropriate techniques, improper storage of specimens, or failure to use sufficient amounts of tissue. Brucellosis Diagnosis Standard serologic tests for the presence of Brucella antibodies in milk and blood are used to identify potentially affected cattle herds. An affected herd is one in which one or more animals have been determined to be infected. The presence of antibodies is used as an indication of infection, particularly on a herd basis. Diagnosis is based on the results of serologic tests combined with other information, including individual animal and/or herd history, It is not possible to determine or quantify the risk of bacterial transmission based on the results of these standard serologic and culture tests. Within a herd, the number of animals capable of transmitting the bacteria generally is less than the number of animals with positive blood tests. The number of infected animals generally is greater than the number of animals with positive culture tests. There is no test to specifically identify all infectious animals, i.e., those animals currently capable of transmitting brucellosis. It is assumed that if antibodies are present, the 17 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION animals must have had a large enough quantity of bacteria in their systems to trigger an immune response. Management actions in this environ- mental impact statement are based on the assumptions that (1) the antigen, i.e., B. abortus, must be present in the herd because the anti- bodies to B. abortus are present in this herd; (2) B. abortus is being transmitted from bison to bison because antibodies to B. abortus persist in this herd; and (3) therefore, there is a potential for brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle. In particular, it is assumed that each female bison testing positive for the presence of anti- bodies will shed the organism at some time in her life. Brucellosis in Other Wild Ungulates About 1.5% of the elk in the Montana portion of the GYA herd has consistently tested positive for Brucella antibodies. These include the Madison, Gallatin, Gravelly-Snowcrest, Absaroka, and Northern Yellowstone herds. These elk herds are free-ranging and do not use artificial feed- grounds. The seroprevalence of brucellosis in the southern elk herds, i.e , those associated with the National Elk Refuge and the feedgrounds managed by the state of Wyoming, is considerably higher (ranging from 3% to 65% seropositive) and probably maintained at high levels through increased exposure while on the feedgrounds. The source of brucellosis in GYA elk has not been identified. Six of the 104 elk (5.8%) harvested during the 1997 late hunt near Gardiner tested positive for brucellosis. At this time it is too early to determine what this rate of seropositivity in this one sample means. Were the agencies successful in eliminating brucellosis from the bison herd, elk could be a potential source for reinfection. Bovine brucellosis only rarely occurs in deer, pronghorn, and mountain sheep, and any infection in these species is inconsequential to the management of brucellosis-affected bison and elk populations. Brucellosis has not been documented in any of these species within the Greater Yellowstone Area. One study suggested that when brucellosis occurs in moose, the disease appears to be systemic and typically causes death (Forbes et al. 1996). Whether moose are exposed is unknown. Process for Bison Quarantine A quarantine protocol has recently been developed for bison from Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. According to the protocol, a bison quarantine facility can be used to test bison from either national park to qualify the animals as brucellosis-free. The facility must be approved by state and federal animal health officials. The complete protocol is included as appendix B. Prior to entering the facility, bison must test negative on official brucellosis serological tests that are conducted at the National Veterinary Services Laboratories or at an approved cooperative state-federal brucellosis laboratory. Those bison found to be reactors (seropositive) must go either to slaughter or to an approved research facility. Bison not properly separated by fencing are considered one test group and will go through the quarantine testing protocol together. If any in the group are found to be reactors at any time, the rest of the group must start the testing protocol over. Thus, it would be advantageous to have a number of small test groups of bison rather than one or a few large test groups because fewer bison would have to start the testing protocol over if a reactor were found. As a minimum, all bison must have three consecutive negative serological tests with at least 12 months between the first and last tests. In addition, specific age/sex groups have additional requirements. For example, all female bison not born in the facility must be bred and calve in the facility, and all bison in a test group having such female bison must be tested 30-90 days after calving and again six months after calving. Calves born in the facility may be released at six months of age provided certain conditions specified in the protocol are met. 18 Background Those bison that qualify as brucellosis-free could be moved intrastate or interstate provided the state animal health authorities in the receiving state authorize movement into their state. The new owners must agree to have the bison tested approximately six months and one year after release from the quarantine and must keep the bison separate from all other animals until the six-month test has been completed. Risk of Transmission There is considerable disagreement regarding the risk of B. abortus transmission from bison and elk to domestic livestock, the applicability of information derived from studies of the disease in domestic bison and cattle, and appropriate methods for the conduct of additional research to determine the risk of transmission. Prior to 1995 there had been no controlled field studies, specific to bison in Yellowstone National Park, to determine either the mechanism of B. abortus transmission from bison to livestock or the frequency of brucellosis-induced abortions. In 1995 a multiyear research project was initiated to study brucellosis transmission and the natural course of the disease in Yellowstone bison. Most of the knowledge regarding brucellosis has been developed from studying the disease in cattle and captive bison, although a limited amount of published information has been developed from controlled and field studies of brucellosis in bison. Brucellosis may behave differently in cattle than in bison (see "Alternative Interpretation of Risk" below). It is also known that the infection behaves differently in chronically infected herds as compared to cattle or captive bison herds that experience a new outbreak of the disease. For instance, chronically infected bison and cattle have a lower frequency of brucellosis-induced abortions because they have a higher acquired immunity in response to frequent exposure to noninfectious doses. Chronically infected bison herds also have lower calving rates than uninfected herds. It is not possible to quantify the risk of B. abortus transmission from bison and elk in the Greater Yellowstone Area to domestic livestock because most of the variables that define risk are unknown. However, it is possible to identify the various factors that affect risk and to quali- tatively evaluate how alternative management approaches affect those factors. Important factors include the following: 1 . Risk of transmission is affected by the degree of association between potentially infectious and susceptible animals. To become infected, a susceptible animal must come in contact with an infectious animal or discharges that contain a sufficient dose of viable Brucella organisms. Separation in space and time reduces the potential for transmission. In addition to separation that occurs as a result of management actions, separation may occur as a result of differences in behavior, habitat selection, geographic features, and distri- bution in response to weather. 2. The risk of B. abortus transmission increases as the number and density of infectious animals in the host population increases. Conversely, the risk is reduced when the number of infectious animals is lowered through reduction in animal crowding, reduction in population size, and vaccination. 3. The risk of transmission increases as the number of susceptible animals that may associate with infectious animals increases, and decreases as the number of animals that may be associated with infectious animals decreases. 4. The risk of transmission is affected by environmental factors. Outside its host, Brucella organisms have limited viability. Discharges remain infectious for longer periods during cold weather. Direct sunlight quickly kills the organism. Scavenging by wildlife reduces the occurrence of infectious tissues, but scavengers may also physically transport infectious tissues. 5. The risk of transmission is affected by the class of the infectious animals. The available evidence indicates that the primary risk of B. 19 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION abortus transmission from bison to cattle is contamination resulting from abortions and birthing events by infected adult female bison. However, limited available data documents the presence of B. abortus organisms in bison semen. Therefore, the risk of transmission from bull bison, although logically small, cannot be entirely eliminated based on existing information. Neutered animals are unlikely to transmit the disease. 6. The risk of transmission may be reduced by vaccination, neutering, and herd management (such as separation of animals in time and space). 7. Some animals are naturally resistant to infection. Alternative Interpretation of Risk As noted above, there is considerable disagree- ment about the significance of brucellosis in bison, especially the degree to which bison pose a risk of brucellosis transmission to livestock. There is no definitive information with which to resolve this disagreement. The following infor- mation summarizes ideas discussed during development but not included in the paper on "Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area" (GYIBC 1997). The bulk of brucellosis research and disease management has focused on domestic livestock, yet limited published information suggests the disease may be transmitted differently and have different clinical, pathological, and population effects in bison (Williams, Cain, and Davis 1994; Meyer and Meagher 1995a). Those who suggest that the risk is negligible point out that there have been no documented cases of brucellosis transmission from wild, free- ranging bison to cattle. No documented cases exist of wild, free-ranging male bison trans- mitting brucellosis to domestic cattle (bison and cattle may interbreed in captivity). Epidemi- ological studies, however, have indicated wildlife (probably elk) to cattle transmission of brucellosis on six Wyoming premises since the 1960s. In cattle, semen from an infected bull did transmit the disease when used in artificial insemination, but has rarely been observed as a result of natural breeding (Nicoletti and Gilsdorf 1994). It is possible that, although brucellosis may be endemic in this bison herd, few of the animals are capable of transmitting the disease. This suggestion is supported by noting the discrepancy between the frequency of seropositive animals in samples collected at various times since 1917 and the frequency of culture positive animals in samples of tissues collected during 1991-92 to determine the presence of B. abortus. Because of the technical difficulties in the isolation of B. abortus from bison tissues, the recovery rate is typically lower than the seroprevalence would suggest. Thus, as a negative culture does not provide conclusive evidence that the animals' tissues are free of bacteria, all seropositive animals are currently considered to be potentially infected. Studies are in progress to more specifically define the relationship between a seropositive animal and the isolation of bacteria from its tissues. It has been theorized that the primary route of transmission among cattle (abortions and birthing events) may be different from that among bison. This suggestion is based on the infrequency of observed abortions in the Yellowstone area (usually required for trans- mission of the disease between cattle) and the discrepancy between the frequency of sero- positive and culture positive animals. In bison, the disease may transmit through milk from cow to calf, which develops antibody response from repeated exposure (Meyer and Meagher 1995b). BISON DISTRIBUTION The Yellowstone bison population uses three different wintering areas in the park: Pelican Valley (the smallest), Mary Mountain (the largest, in the Hayden Valley-Firehole River 20 Background area), and the Lamar Valley or northern range (see Bison Winter Movements map). Individuals or small groups of bison (usually bulls) move to other areas of the park, or occasionally leave the park to the east, south, or southwest, but most movement from the park has been into Montana, along the Madison River to the west and the Yellowstone River to the north. Although at one time these groups were semidistinct subpopulations and continue to winter in these areas, the subpopulations are no longer distinct (Meagher et al. 1994). Bison migrate from Yellowstone National Park during the winter into Montana in five general areas (also see Bison Winter Movements map). During some years, substantial numbers of bison move north across the Reese Creek boundary of Yellowstone National Park and onto adjacent private land along the Yellowstone River valley near Gardiner (the Gardiner Valley). These lands are leased to cattle operators who graze livestock year-round. Bison have historically used the Gardiner Valley, and would likely migrate much farther north without agency or other controls. Bison drive - Upper Nez Perce Creek, 1966. Large numbers of bison also move from Yellowstone National Park onto Gallatin National Forest in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area, northeast of Gardiner. Land use in this area emphasizes wildlife and precludes domestic livestock. Although most bison remain in this area all winter, some may move north and west beyond the Little Trail Creek/Maiden Basin hydrographic divide and onto private land in the Gardiner Valley. Limited numbers of bison also migrate into the Hellroaring and Slough Creek drainages in the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness, a con- gressionally designated wilderness area to the east of the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area. These drainages are geographically isolated from areas with permitted cattle. An occasional bison moves even farther east and leaves the park boundary by way of Cooke City or Silver Gate. A few individual bison and small groups use public lands contiguous with the northwestern boundary of Yellowstone National Park in the area that is generally north of Grayling Creek/Fir Ridge and referred to as the Lee Metcalf Wilderness and Cabin Creek Recreation and Wildlife Management Area. Land use in this area emphasizes wildlife and precludes domestic livestock. Bison that use this area are unlikely to migrate farther but could associate with domestic livestock if they do. During some winters, substantial numbers of bison move west along the Madison River, Duck Creek, and Cougar Creek and leave Yellowstone National Park in the vicinity of West Yellowstone, although they typically return to the park after snowmelt, normally around May 1. The numbers and timing are highly variable from year to year. After leaving the park, these bison either occupy public lands in the Gallatin National Forest that are allocated to multiple-use management or move onto adjacent private lands, some of which may be occupied by livestock during summer. The number of bison migrating out of the park in any given year is impossible to predict. The policy of Yellowstone National Park has been to manage park resources with minimal human manipulation and to allow ecological processes, to the extent possible, to determine wildlife population levels. After termination of bison and elk reduction programs in the park in 1968, these wildlife populations have increased. As a result, some experts believe range resource conditions in the northern range of the park do not produce adequate forage for winter habitat resulting in increased bison migration. However, there is scientific evidence that shows that grassland 21 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION productivity is high, species diversity is stable, and the standing crop is not correlated with wildlife populations (Reardon 1996; Singer 1996; Wallace 1991, 1996; Frank-McNaughton 1996). It has been further speculated that bison migration out of the park is facilitated by winter road grooming for oversnow machine use, or plowing for wheeled use during the winter (the highway from Mammoth to Cooke City is plowed for wheeled vehicle use during winter). Some bison use the roads for energy-efficient travel, particularly during winter. One line of argument is that energy-efficient travel provided by the roads allows bison to access habitats that would otherwise be too energy costly to use. This allows higher survival and facilitates move- ments to new areas. The memory of these access routes is retained and used in subsequent years. The groomed road system in winter allows long distance movement over short periods of time that would otherwise not be possible, partic- ularly in the park interior, where snow depths are typically much greater. On the northern range, where snow depths are significantly lower, it is not likely that bison use of groomed roads in this area provides them any meaningful energy savings. The precise relationship between road grooming and bison movements is not well defined. Research to better understand these relationships has been initiated. As a result of the settlement agreement in "Fund for Animals v. Babbitt (D., D.C., Civ. No. 97-1 126), Yellowstone National Park has recently (January 1998) decided to formally monitor wildlife movements and wildlife use of two segments of groomed roads (in Hayden Valley and along the Gibbon River) inside the park. Stochastic events such as winter severity, snow depth, and access to forage and other periodic events are known to be important influences on bison migration. For instance, large migrations occurred in the severe winters of 1988-89 after large-scale fires burned much of the Greater Yellowstone Area and summer drought reduced forage for bison (and other wildlife), and in 1996-97 due to deep snow and ice. Despite increases in migration during these events, the opportunities for transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle have been negligible because bison management programs have not permitted bison to freely associate with domestic livestock during high risk periods (see "Administrative History of Bison Management" for more information on management actions). ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF BRUCELLOSIS IN CATTLE Agriculture has been and continues to be Montana's basic industry. It accounts for over 30% of the state's industrial sector employment, labor income, and gross sales. Approximately 64% of the state's 93 million acres is used for farming and ranching. In 1995, Montana agriculture generated $2 billion in cash receipts, of which cattle calves and dairy accounted for 40% of total cash receipts. 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. Production in infected herds could decline due to a number of consequences of the disease, including the following: • Abortions. Abortion losses constitute the largest single cost of brucellosis in beef cattle. A cow that aborts or has a calf that does not survive because of the debilitating effects of brucellosis has, in effect, been maintained for a year without financial return. • Decreased weight gain by calves. Calves from infected cows may have less than normal weight gains, since milk production from infected cows may be inadequate. Affected calves at the time of sale may weigh 100 pounds less than calves from healthy cows. 22 is>ie>oN w//vns^ MoveMGM~s> Yellowstone National Park TAF&HeE NATIONAL FOISeST msromc pison winter movement ►recewr bison w/wra^ movemeht MIL=> Background • Delays in calf production. Brucellosis would result in some infected cows being difficult to breed, resulting in fewer market cattle each year. • Increased rates of culling and replacement. Brucellosis-affected cows are usually culled at a faster than normal rate because of repro- ductive deficiencies. Another cost for affected herds would be the expenses related to additional testing and vaccinating. Testing for brucellosis is done every 30 days, as long as reactors are found. The herd is then retested after 90 days, and again after another 90 days (three negative tests in 180 days). After the quarantine is lifted, the herd is tested again after six months. Current incomes from affected herds would be disrupted because of quarantines, and future incomes would be lost due to depopulations. Depopulation costs would be somewhat mitigated by the sale of affected cattle and indemnity payments, but in most instances indemnification would provide only partial compensation. Producers statewide could suffer the marketing consequences of the disease. Sales at all levels — intrastate, interstate, and international — would be affected. There would be the direct impacts on sales of herd depopulations and quarantines, but far more detrimental to the state's livestock industry would be the requirement of a negative brucellosis test within 30 days before interstate movement. Of greatest consequence would be diminished interstate and international demand for test-eligible stock because of the presence of brucellosis. Increased production and marketing costs and a contraction in demand would mean fewer breeding cattle sold out-of-state, and widespread losses for Montana's cattle producers. Nationally, stockgrowers and livestock disease management agencies have spent $3.5 billion to eradicate the disease from cattle (Frye and Hillman 1994). Any new outbreak would be a setback to this program. Federal animal-disease regulations declare that the presence and spreading of brucellosis among cattle herds would place Montana's "brucellosis class-free status" in jeopardy. State animal health authorities may levy additional restrictions beyond those imposed by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which have the same impact as downgrading if they believe a threat exists from importing Montana cattle. In Montana increased testing could add $6 million per year statewide should an outbreak occur (State of Montana, L. Petersen, pers. comm. June 1997). If brucellosis is diagnosed in a livestock herd, the affected herd is immediately quarantined. A thorough epidemiological investigation, including brucellosis testing, is immediately conducted to determine the origin and potential spread of the infection. An action plan is developed for potential source and destination herds. This action plan would likely include herd tests and may necessitate quarantine of additional herds. If the affected herd is in a brucellosis class-free state such as Montana and is imported into the state, the herd must be either depopulated or returned to the state of origin to maintain class- free status. If the infection is found not to have been imported or has spread to other herds, class-free status is automatically suspended and the herd is kept under quarantine until it is brucellosis free or sent to slaughter. As a minimum, suspension of class-free status requires brucellosis testing of certain age/sex cattle prior to interstate shipment unless the cattle are going to slaughter or to a quarantine feedlot. Since Montana producers export a majority of their commodity to other states and to international markets, the perception of diseased animals could impede producers from around Montana from marketing livestock. For instance, during the 1996-97 winter the state of Oregon imposed restrictions on the movement of untested livestock from Montana into Oregon. In 1994, APHIS informed the Montana State veterinarian that states surrounding Yellowstone 25 PURPOSI OF AND NEED ! OR ACTION National Park would be downgraded from class- free status if the states failed to take action against bison within the state's borders when bison leave the park (letter to Dr. Clarence Siroky from APHIS dated December 9, 1994). Also in 1 994 and 1995 the states of Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, and Washington informed the Montana State veterinarian that testing requirements would be imposed on Montana cattle due to the emigration of bison into Montana from Yellowstone National Park. In 1994, 1995, and 1996 the Montana State veterinarian also received inquiries from other states regarding the presence of disease-exposed bison emigrating into Montana and whether testing requirements should be imposed. The economic consequences of these actions would be felt by other segments of Montana's economy in communities throughout the state. While no specific information is available on the amount of livestock exported out of Montana, it is important to note every dollar of meat animal (beef cattle, sheep, hogs, and poultry) product sold to entities outside Montana results in approximately $1.25 of additional sales by Montana economic sectors tied to the meat sector (Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce). Cash receipts from sales of cattle and calves in 1996 for Montana were $655,770,000 (Montana Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture), and the average for the last five years is $730 million. Also, for every additional job in the meat animal sector, approximately 1 .3 jobs are generated in the Montana economy. The potential for such widespread economic consequences is a primary motivating factor in taking action to ensure brucellosis is not transmitted from Yellowstone bison to Montana cattle, and/or that federal downgrading or state sanctions do not occur. In this regard, all alternatives in this environmental impact statement include measures to "address the risk of brucellosis transmission to protect the economic interest and viability of the livestock industry in the state of Montana" (see "Purpose of Action"). The agencies have taken action for several years to meet this goal, and are currently operating under an interim bison management plan (see following section on "Administrative History of Bison Management"). Compliance with the plan has had economic impacts on each of the agencies; these costs are reported in the description of alternative 1 (continuation of the strategies in the interim plan) in this environ- mental impact statement, as are estimated costs to implement alternatives 2 through 7. Cattle drive, by m. (NPS photo) 26 Background ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY OF BISON MANAGEMENT The need to cooperatively prepare a long-range bison management plan was formally recognized in July 1990, when the National Park Service, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and U.S. Forest Service filed a "Notice of Intent" in the Federal Register to prepare an environmental impact statement examining options for such a plan. The list of participating agencies was expanded to include the Montana Department of Livestock and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Both state agencies — Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks and Montana Department of Livestock — are represented as the state of Montana. All parties signed a May 1992 "Memorandum of Understanding" (see appendix C) to work together in developing a cohesive plan to meet their varying objectives. During the development of the long-range plan and environmental impact statement, a series of four interim bison management plans and environmental assessments were prepared by the National Park Service (1990, 1992), state of Montana (1995), and National Park Service and state of Montana (1996). In general, these interim plans provided for agency personnel from Montana and the National Park Service to cooperatively 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. A finding of no significant impact and decision notice signed in August 1996 approved for implementation of the latest Interim Bison Management Plan (see alternative 1 in "The Alternatives" part of this environmental impact statement). Adjustments to the Interim Bison Management Plan were made by both state and federal agencies in 1997 (see appendix A). This bison management plan provided for capture of bison in Yellowstone National Park near the north boundary in the Stephens Creek area and shipment of bison to slaughter. Bison were allowed to enter the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area northeast of Gardiner, Montana, as these public lands are wildlife winter range and no domestic cattle are present at any time. Capture of bison also took place outside Yellowstone in the West Yellowstone area, and seropositive bison and seronegative-pregnant females were shipped to slaughter. Seronegative-nonpregnant bison were released on public lands in the Horse Butte area. After completion of the interim plan, work resumed on the long-term management plan and environmental impact statement. As part of a court-approved settlement agreement to a lawsuit Montana brought against the National Park Service and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service in 1995, the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Animal and Plant Health and Inspection Service, and state of Montana agreed to complete the long-term bison management plan and environmental impact statement (this document) for public review according to a specific schedule. 27 OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS OBJECTIVES IN TAKING ACTION This section elaborates on the general and specific statements of purpose (objectives). The purpose statement agreed upon by the interagency team is as follows: 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 interagency team has defined a "wild, free- ranging population" of bison as one that is not routinely handled by humans and can move without restrictions within specific geographic areas. The operation of a capture facility would not affect the wild, free-ranging character of the herd. However, assigning bison to a quarantine facility would affect individual bison. These animals would be unlikely to return to Yellowstone National Park, but would be available to requesting organizations to establish or augment populations elsewhere. The "economic interest and viability of the livestock industry in the state of Montana" is tied directly to the maintenance of a class-free designation by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (see the above section on "Economic Impacts of Brucellosis in Cattle" and the "Socioeconomics" chapters in the "Affected Environment" and "Environmental Consequences"). The secretary of agriculture is authorized to make such regulations and take such measures as are deemed necessary to prevent the introduction or dissemination of any contagious, infectious, or communicable disease of livestock or poultry from a foreign country into the United States or interstate. The department has the authority to cooperate with states and political subdivisions in the control and eradication of diseases of livestock and poultry. The Cooperative State-Federal Brucellosis Eradication Program was imple- mented in partnership with the states to use the combined authorities to control and eradicate brucellosis. Under the program, individual states progress through various classifications by reducing the prevalence of brucellosis until brucellosis class-free status is attained. To obtain class-free status under the require- ments in Title 9, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 78 (9 CFR 78), a state must, among other things, conduct brucellosis ring tests on all dairy herds at least twice a year, test at least 95% of cows and bulls slaughtered annually, and successfully trace 90% of reactors back to the herds from which they originated. If field strain Brucella is found, an epidemiological investi- gation is conducted to identify possible sources of brucellosis. Appropriate action must be taken based on the results of this epidemiological investigation to eliminate the potential spread of baicellosis. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has agreed not to initiate a downgrade of Montana's brucellosis class-free status if Montana has complied with its responsibilities under the selected bison management plan. APHIS anticipates that any of the bison management plans (alternatives) outlined in this document would be sufficient to prevent the actual outbreak of disease in domestic livestock and the subsequent spread of brucellosis. Therefore, APHIS would not downgrade the brucellosis status of Montana based on the mere presence of bison migrating out of Yellowstone National Park into special management areas, or SMAs (management areas along the park boundary), in accordance with the selected bison plan (see "Actions Common to All Alternatives" in "The Alternatives" part of the document for the definition of an SMA). The "risk of brucellosis transmission" to cattle and ranched bison is addressed through specific objectives, particularly numbers 5 and 6, identified below: 28 Objectives and Constraints The nine objectives that the interagency team agreed would be used to help determine reasonableness of each alternative, and that would be applied to the selection of a preferred alternative are as follows: 1 . Address bison population size and distribution; have specific commitments relating to size of bison herd - The policies of the National Park Service direct that native populations of wildlife be managed by natural processes in a relatively undisturbed setting to the maximum extent possible. Therefore, inside the park, bison population sizes would be determined by weather, winter snow depth, competition for forage, predation, and other environmental conditions. However, since uncontrolled movements of bison outside the park would be inconsistent with the purpose of the plan, each alternative also includes measures to control bison distribution. Each alternative also includes measures to prevent the population from dropping below low numbers as a result of increased kills by agencies controlling bison entries into the state. The agencies used mathematical models published in scientific literature to estimate the number of bison, based on plant forage production and winter severity, the park could support (Boyce and Gaillard 1992); see "Impacts on Bison Population" chapter of the "Environmental Consequences." 2. Clearly define a boundary line beyond which bison will not be tolerated - Each alternative defines a boundary on both the west and north where management actions take place. In some cases, the boundary is maintained through hazing or shooting; in others, capture facilities are also used. 3. Address the risk to public safety and private property damage by bison - The risk to public safety and private property damage by bison outside Yellowstone National Park is addressed as an environmental issue in the "Affected Environment" (part 3) and "Environmental Consequences" (part 4) of this document. With permission from the Department of Livestock, current state law allows private landowners to shoot bison occurring on private land and causing damage or considered a threat to safety. 4. Commit to the eventual elimination of brucellosis in bison and other wildlife - The interagency team concluded that the elimi- nation of brucellosis, even in bison, is not within the scope of this management plan. This is because elk in the Greater Yellowstone Area also carry the disease, and it is potentially mutually transmissible between the two species. However, all agencies are committed to the eventual eradication of brucellosis from the Greater Yellowstone Area. This management plan is one of several steps in that process. The eventual elimination of brucellosis from the Greater Yellowstone Area is the task of a larger-scope plan, currently under discussion by the GYIBC. The interagency EIS team agreed actions in the bison management plan must not detract from this objective, and must demonstrate progress toward it. 5. Protect livestock from the risk of brucellosis - All alternatives include specific measures aimed at meeting this objective. 6. Protect the state of Montana from risk of reduction in its brucellosis status - The interagency team agreed this objective was referring to the federal status conferred by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Montana is currently identified as class-free. Producers are able to ship their cattle interstate to national and international markets with minimal program restrictions. Any change in this status could mean significant economic impacts for the livestock industry in Montana. 7. At a minimum, maintain a viable population of wild bison in Yellowstone National Park, as defined in biological, genetic, and ecological terms - Currently available information indicates that the bison population should be maintained above 580 29 PURI'OSh C)[; AND NI-.I DIOR ACTION animals in order to preserve minimum genetic integrity. This number in no way represents a management objective or goal for the herd, but is the lowest level to which the herd would be allowed to fall. Agencies would undertake actions beforehand to ensure that this number is not reached. This number is based on research from a private bison herd that determined the population size and structure needed to ensure random intermixing of breeding animals and avoid significant inbreeding (Knowles, unpub. data). The number may be adjusted as ongoing research provides new information. 8. Be based on factual information, with the recognition that the scientific database is changing - Professionals in the fields of wildlife science, livestock disease, wildlife disease, livestock management, and wildlife management do not agree on the central issues relating to brucellosis in Yellowstone bison. The disagreements include (1) the degree of risk of transmission from the bison to livestock, (2) the level of prevalence of brucellosis in the bison, (3) the safety and effectiveness of existing brucellosis vaccines, and (4) which management actions to take with regard to the disease in the bison. The agencies have agreed to support research to help resolve these issues and will update the bison management plan as new information becomes available. A list of research topics approved by the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee is found in appendix D. 9. Recognize the need for coordination in the management of natural and cultural resource values that are the responsibility of the signatory agencies - The agencies have interpreted this objective as a requirement for the cooperative compliance with statutes designed to protect cultural and natural resources that may be affected by bison management actions proposed in the plan. Impacts are most likely to come from actions called for in various alternatives, effects on bison populations, and effects from actions proposed such as construction and operation of capture or quarantine facilities or acquisition of additional range. Future site- specific NEPA analysis (including public review) may be required. In addition to the objectives, the agencies have also recognized, as noted in the "Need for Action" section, that Yellowstone National Park is not a self-contained ecosystem for bison. Lower elevation range could provide areas for bison to winter adjacent to the park as well as additional management options. Three of the alternatives (2, 3, and 7) analyzed in this environmental impact statement include provisions for such possible acquisitions. Although the agencies agree any acquisition of grazing rights, easements, or property from willing sellers could be by a public entity, Yellowstone National Park has no plans for expansion of the park boundary. CONSTRAINTS IN TAKING ACTION Each agency involved in producing this environ- mental impact statement has well-established mandates. If these mandates conflict, the number of options for management may be affected. Discussions among team members have resulted in some alternatives being dropped from the analysis because they conflicted with agency mandates. None of the alternatives retained for analysis was outside the agencies' legal constraints. Agency Responsibilities The National Park Service manages bison inside park boundaries. Outside the park, in Montana, wildlife-management and wildlife-damage cases are supervised by the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. This authority extends onto Gallatin National Forest in the state of Montana. The U.S. Forest Service has the authority to manage wildlife habitat on the national forest, but the management of the wildlife itself is largely the responsibility of the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 30 Objectives and Constraints Because of the presence of brucellosis in Yellowstone bison and the risk of its transmission to domestic cattle, the Montana Department of Livestock and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service have a role in bison management. The Animal Health Division of the Montana Department of Livestock adopts rules, policies, and orders fostering the prevention, control, and extirpation of animal diseases. Legal and Policy Mandates A brief summary of the respective legal and policy backgrounds of each of these federal and state agencies is provided below (also see appendix E for legal and policy guidance). Each agency must satisfy its particular mandates and operate within its legislative and regulatory constraints. The alternatives analyzed in this environmental impact statement are considered implementable by each of the agencies involved, i.e., they meet these criteria. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires consideration of the environmental effects of proposed federal actions. NEPA procedures ensure that environmental infor- mation is available to public officials and members of the public before decisions are made and actions are taken. This act has equal effect on all federal agencies involved in the manage- ment of Yellowstone bison. A similar state act, the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), applies to Montana state agency actions. Yellowstone National Park, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. An act of Congress on March 1 , 1 872, established Yellowstone National Park as "a public park or pleasuring ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people." The act required the secretary of the interior to "make and publish such rules and regulations" that will "provide for the preser- vation, from injury or spoliation, of all timber, mineral deposits, natural curiosities, or wonders within said park, and their retention in their natural condition." It also required the secretary of the interior to "provide against the wanton destruction of the fish and game found within said Park, and against their capture or destruction for the purposes of merchandise or profit." Fishing and hunting, for sport or personal subsistence, were informally considered appropriate uses of the park at that time. On January 15, 1883, the secretary of the interior amended park regulations to "prohibit absolutely" public hunting of wildlife species, including bison, in the park, and to restrict fishing to sporting means. The precedent of allowing sportfishing and prohibiting sport hunting was applied in most subsequently created national parks. The act of May 7, 1894, known informally as the first "Lacey Act," prohibited the "killing, wounding, or capturing at any time of any bird or wild animal, except dangerous animals, when it is necessary to prevent them from destroying human life or inflicting an injury . . . within the limits of said park." This law, which was enacted in response to a bison poaching incident, provided park managers with improved power to punish offenders. On August 16, 1916, Congress created the National Park Service, whose mission is "to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife in parks 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." The act of January 24, 1923, recognized the authority of the secretary of the interior to "sell or otherwise dispose of the surplus buffalo of the Yellowstone National Park herd." Several recent planning and policy documents, including the Yellowstone National Park Master Plan (NPS 1974), the Yellowstone National Park Statement for Management (NPS 1991), and the National Park Service Management Policies (NPS 1988), require the protection of ecological processes and native species in a relatively undisturbed setting, and require that park planning be accomplished in a regional 31 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION context. This latter concern is summarized in the Management Policies as follows: "Recognizing that parks are integral parts of larger regional environments, the National Park Service will work cooperatively with others to anticipate, avoid, and resolve potential conflicts, to protect park resources, and to address mutual interests in the quality of life for community residents, considering economic development as well as resource and environmental protection." Gallatin National Forest, U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. The national forests of the United States derive management authority and direction from a variety of laws. Principal among these are the following: The Creative Act of 1 89 1 , which authorized the president to set aside public lands as forest reserves. The Organic Administration Act of 1897, which specifies the purposes for which forest reserves might be established and provided for their protection and management. The Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960, which established the multiple-use and sustained yield policies for management of the national forests. The 1974 Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act and the 1976 National Forest Management Act, which direct preparation of strategic plans for all Forest Service activities, including a comprehensive plan for each national forest. Through these statutes the Gallatin National Forest maintains viable populations of existing native and desired nonnative vertebrate species, and maintains diversity of plant and animal communities to meet overall multiple-use objectives. These broad objectives are further clarified in the 1987 Gallatin National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, which portrays a program of uses for these 1.8 million acres that best meets the demands of a diversified public. In addition to the general laws guiding Forest Service activities, an Act of May 26, 1926 (16 USC 37) is significant to management of the upper Yellowstone River corridor as it gives specific recognition and authority for federal acquisition and manage- ment of the northern winter range for migratory animals. This early recognition of need for extensive winter range, especially mentioning elk but not exclusive to them, continues to be expressed in land acquisition efforts by the Gallatin National Forest. In the last decade alone, some 1 2,000 acres of winter range has been added to the forest to complement acquisitions by the state of Montana, through partnerships with private organizations. Expressed in the preferred alternative (alternative 7) in this environmental impact statement is a tentative acquisition of some 8,000 acres of lands that may be acquired in title and another 2,000 acres of lands on which easements may be acquired for the benefit of wintering wildlife. For the portion of these lands that may become the Gallatin National Forest, priority for uses will be for big game winter range, as directed by the 1987 forest plan. The further utility of these lands for either concen- trated uses or site-specific facilities will be determined through appropriate public involvement and NEPA decision-making processes. State of Montana, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Montana statutes authorize the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission to set the policies for the protection, preservation, and propagation of the wildlife, fish, game, furbearers, waterfowl, nongame species, and endangered species of the state. Within the policies established by the commission, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks is responsible for supervising the management and public use of all the wildlife, fish, game, furbearing animals, and game and nongame birds of the state. The 1985 Montana Legislature authorized a hunting season for bison. This legislation was repealed during the 1991 legislative session, making bison a game animal that cannot be legally hunted. This 1991 legislation and a House Joint Resolution adopted during the 1989 32 Objectives and Constraints session are consistent expressions of Montana's concern for (1 ) the possible transmission of brucellosis from Yellowstone bison to domestic livestock, (2) the possibility of damage to private property when bison leave Yellowstone National Park, and (3) the implementation of a long-term, flexible management program in cooperation with Yellowstone National Park, Gallatin National Forest, the Montana Department of Livestock, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. State of Montana, Department of Livestock. The Animal Health Division of the Montana Department of Livestock has statutory authority to protect and promote the Montana livestock industries through the adoption of rules, policies, and orders fostering the prevention, control, and extirpation of animal disease. The Department of Livestock has the power to quarantine, inspect, test, and slaughter animals in the interest of its mandated mission. The department may coop- erate with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other federal agencies to remove infection and suppress disease. The department may, in fact, adopt applicable portions of federal policies and rules to attain its goals. Some state statutes define specific prohibitions of certain actions that are counterproductive to sound disease suppression. These center primarily on require- ments for entry of animals into Montana and for animals in known diseased herds or premises. Between 1952 and 1985, eradication of brucellosis in cattle from Montana was a major control endeavor. Upon completion of the goal of eradication from cattle in 1985, the efforts against brucellosis have concentrated on preventing its reintroduction. addressing the disease risks presented by publicly owned bison versus privately owned bison. The department believes that this is appropriate when conflict areas lie within the jurisdictional boundaries of the state of Montana. Specific statutes (81-2-120 MCA) address the removal from the state of publicly owned bison originating from a herd infected with a dangerous disease when the disease may spread to persons or livestock or jeopardize the state's compliance with other state-administered or federally administered livestock disease control programs. In essence, wild bison may be summarily removed from within the state's boundaries by the safest and most expeditious means if they originate from a diseased herd. In Montana, Yellowstone National Park bison fit within these specific statutory obligations. The Montana Department of Livestock, Animal Health Division, is funded by "State Special Revenue (per capita tax) sec. 15-24-901 through 931 (MCA), Article 12, sec. 1 sub (2) Montana Constitution." This tax is paid by all Montana livestock producers and no general fund monies are expended by the department. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (cooperating agency). The mission of this agency is to lead the national effort to protect, sustain, and improve the health, quality, and productivity of United States' agricultural resources. The Act of May 29, 1884, established the Bureau of Animal Industry and authorized the commissioner of agriculture to cooperate with states to prevent the spread of livestock diseases. The act also prohibited the transportation of diseased livestock from one state or territory to another. The Department of Livestock has specific statutes and rules pertaining to bison. The department has the authority to regulate estrayed or improperly disposed of animals that fit within Montana's legal definitions; this includes bison. Most legislative or regulatory authorities applied to diseased bison have evolved from experiences with privately owned bison classified as live- stock. The Department of Livestock, however, makes no legal or medical distinction in Subsequent acts authorized the secretary of agriculture to establish regulations to prevent the introduction or spread of animal disease from a foreign country or from one state or territory into another, and to quarantine any state or portion of a state and prohibit transportation of animals to and from quarantine, and in other ways defined in detail the scope and effect of APHIS authority. Extensive authority was granted for cooperation with other agencies (state and 33 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION federal), not only in eradication and control of diseases, but also in research on those activities. The act of July 2, 1962, prohibited the interstate movement of animals reacting to the tests for brucellosis, and subsequent regulations provided a system for classifying states or portions of states (areas), herds, and individual animals with respect to brucellosis status. States or portions of states are classified according to their rate of Brucella infection present in cattle and the general effectiveness of their brucellosis control and eradication program. The classifications are class free, class A, class B, and class C. States or areas that do not meet the minimum standards for class C are required to be placed under federal quarantine. Restrictions on the interstate movement of cattle and bison are generally more stringent for movements from class A states or areas than from class-free states or areas, and are more stringent for movements from class B states or areas than from class A states or areas, and so on. The most stringent restrictions are for movements from quarantined states or areas. 34 SCOPING PROCESS AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks initiated the process of preparing an environmental impact statement for an inter- agency bison management plan by publishing a "Notice of Intent" in the Federal Register in July 1990 (the Montana Department of Livestock and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service joined the planning process shortly thereafter). In order to identify issues and alternatives to be considered, a public participation and interagency coordi- nation program was developed. This effort, called "scoping," included the review of all relevant previous planning and management documents, as well as scientific and popular literature related to the issues involved. In November 1989, prior to the publication of the notice of intent, a brochure entitled The Yellowstone Bison: Managing a National Heritage was published and distributed to provide an interested public with current information on the bison management issue. As a way of more completely informing the public on the issue's background, and of initiating public involvement, a booklet entitled Yellowstone Bison: Background and Issues was then published in May 1990. This booklet, distributed to the interested public, was accompanied by a scoping letter that suggested a range of alternatives for bison management. During development of the long-range plan and environmental impact statement, a series of four interim bison management plans and environ- mental assessments have been prepared (NPS 1990, 1992; State of Montana 1995; NPS and State of Montana 1995). All have been publicly available or included public comment periods. The most recent of these was released to the public on December 20, 1995 (NPS and State of Montana 1995). This environmental assessment was on public review through February 2, 1996. The agencies received 260 comments from state and federal agencies, Native American tribes, organizations, and individuals. The agencies prepared a summary of public comments and issues, responses to issues, and corrections to the environmental assessment. A finding of no sig- nificant impact (FONSI) was signed on August 5, 1996, and made available to the public. OBJECTIVES, ALTERNATIVES, AND ISSUES FROM PUBLIC COMMENTS The scoping and public review processes described above provided the agencies with public input on objectives, alternatives, and environmental issues. Many of these suggestions became part of the analysis for this environ- mental impact statement and are enumerated below. Written and verbal public comments identifying issues and concerns about these suggested alternatives were sought from August 1 1 through October 31, 1990. Public scoping meetings were held in Gardiner, West Yellowstone, and Bozeman, Montana, on October 9, 10, and 1 1, 1990, respectively. Public responses to the scoping document were summarized and the comment summary was distributed to those interested in December 1990. A second public input session in spring 1991 focused on the review of a short list of alternatives. Objectives The following objectives gathered through public commentary were incorporated by the interagency team in creating its list, discussed above (see "Objectives in Taking Action" section): • Minimize impacts on bison population dynamics and behavior. (Objective #1, general purpose statement) 35 PURPOSE OF AND NEHI) TOR ACTION • Develop an ecosystem based, bison disease management plan. (Objective #1, general purpose statement) • Control bison distribution (movements) and numbers. (Objectives #1 and #2) • Protect human health and safety. (Objective #3) • Maintain Montana's brucellosis-free status. (Objective # 6) • Maintain a self-sustaining, genetically diverse bison population (a minimum viable population). (Objective #7) • Determine impacts and cooperatively manage impacts on threatened and endangered species, wetlands, and historic and cultural resources. (Objective #9) Alternatives Included in this Environmental Impact Statement The following options suggested by the public were included in the range of alternatives analyzed in this environmental impact statement. Some were slightly modified, but are considered similar enough to the original suggestion to be included in this section. Manage bison without lethal controls. Although alternatives minimize the use of lethal controls in some cases (alternative 2), none completely eliminates the option of shooting bison. This is because agencies could not meet the objective to "clearly define a boundary line beyond which the bison will not be tolerated" without the ability to use lethal means to control bison. Provide opportunities for Native American tribes, other organizations, and the general public to obtain live bison. Concerns were expressed that live bison be made available to Native Americans, other organizations, or the general public as an alternative to the killing of bison by government agents or hunters. Many of these concerned citizens thought that Native Americans and other people would have the opportunity to benefit culturally, spiritually, and economically by receiving Yellowstone bison. Bison can be shipped live only after meeting the release requirements of an approved quarantine protocol. Alternatives 3, 4, and 7 include quarantine. Some of these Native American groups have contacted various agencies expressing an interest in the participation of a quarantine facility program. One group, the InterTribal Bison Cooperative, consisting of 42 tribes in 17 states, has developed a proposal for a program for a quarantine facility. Another such group, One People, One Nation, is a nonprofit organization dedicated to returning the buffalo to native lands and is actively raising funds to assist the state of Montana in the cost of building and maintaining a quarantine facility. If the selected alternative includes quarantine, the location, funding, and design of the quarantine facility would be analyzed in a future NEPA process. The two proposals specifically mentioned, and others the agencies receive, will be among those considered and analyzed. Provide opportunities for Native American Tribes, other organizations, and the general public to obtain bison carcasses. All alter- natives include provisions to provide carcasses to social service organizations, tribes, or the general public or other organizations through auction. Acquire additional lands for bison. Recent initiatives and public-private partnerships in acquiring elk winter range north and west of Yellowstone National Park were cited as effective ways to improve wildlife habitat availability north of the park. Alternatives 2, 3, and 7 in this environmental impact statement allow for acquiring additional winter range from willing sellers, or for altering cattle operations on those lands to remove susceptible cattle, or both. 36 Scoping Pro< ess and Public Participation Establish bison management areas outside Yellowstone National Park. A central question for the public and for land managers is which lands bison would be allowed to occupy. The alternatives provide a variety of answers to this question, including restricting bison distribution to Yellowstone National Park (alternative 5); allowing bison unrestricted access to most public lands they may seek to occupy (alternative 2); and allowing bison restricted access to designated public lands in and immediately adjacent to Yellowstone National Park (alternatives 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7). Many concerns center, favorably or unfavorably, on the establishment of special management zones on public lands along the park boundary. The creation of special bison management areas (SMAs) adjacent to Yellowstone National Park is a part of all alternatives except alternative 5. Restrict winter recreational use in Yellowstone National Park. Increasing winter recreational use of Yellowstone National Park, with concurrent winter grooming of roads for use by oversnow travel, is seen by some members of the public as contributing to increased bison population size and movement. Concern over these departures from traditional use patterns has resulted in an interest in reducing winter use in the park, presumably to restore more natural limitations on bison. Some changes in winter use activities are a part of alternative 2 and would also be a consequence of alternatives 5 and 6. In a settlement agreement executed on September 23, 1997, in "The Fund for Animals v. Babbitt" (D. D.C., Civ. No. 97-1 126), the National Park Service agreed to prepare a new winter use plan and environmental impact statement to evaluate a full range of alternatives on all aspects of winter use activities in Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Park, and John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway. Modify cattle grazing allotments on the national forest to reduce conflict between bison and cattle. Concerns were expressed over existing grazing allotments, and if Gallatin National Forest should manage the allotments to emphasize use by livestock, wildlife, or a combination of both. All alternatives except alternative 5 allow for minor alterations in these allotments, including timing of use to accommo- date both cattle and bison. Alternatives 2, 3, and 7 envision more changes to the allotments, including modifying operations to remove susceptible cattle or moving cattle operations. Make Yellowstone National Park responsible for bison disease management. The bison that have occupied Yellowstone National Park continually since prehistoric times are the remnants of once larger herds that occupied much of the west. These bison have long been almost solely the management responsibility of the National Park Service, and some members of the public expressed a feeling that "this is the park's problem, so the park should solve it." Alternatives 5 and 6 address bison management primarily as a park operation with management operations almost entirely within the park boundary. However, in each of the alternatives analyzed in this environmental impact statement, Yellowstone National Park plans to be an active participant. Conduct additional research and public education. The agencies agree that continued research and education into many aspects of bison and their management as well as brucellosis in bison and elk is needed. Efforts to collect and analyze research data and improve public education is an ongoing effort by all the agencies, and will in fact continue whether an interagency bison management plan is approved or not approved. The relevant research and its status are listed in appendix D. The agencies have developed this environmental impact statement based on the best currently available knowledge, and have included alternative interpretations when there is disagreement among the scientific community. 37 PURPOSE OF: AND NEED EOR ACTION Alternatives Suggested but Not Analyzed Members of the public also suggested a number of alternatives that were considered by the agencies, but precluded from further analysis. A brief discussion of each of these alternatives follows. Fence the perimeter of Yellowstone National Park to physically prevent bison from migrating beyond the park boundary. Migrating bison are not easily deterred by normal fences. While substantial or electrified fences could limit bison migrations, they would have major impacts on the movements of other wildlife species, such as pronghorn, bighorn sheep, elk, moose, deer, and bear. Restricting these species has serious ecological and social consequences, including prevention of normal migrations of game species onto public lands (some of which are designated for winter use of animals moving from Yellowstone National Park) and concentration of animals in a confined area with resultant damaging effects on local vegetation. These consequences are inconsistent with both state and federal wildlife management policies. Fences also tend to create a zoo-like atmosphere that is contrary to the wildlife management policies of several agencies. Adequate fences would also be expensive to purchase, install, and maintain, and their installation could cause major site impacts. Estimates for purchase and construction of "bison-proof fences are $30,000 to $50,000 per mile depending on access and terrain. Yellowstone National Park has a perimeter of about 250 miles, and bison migrations from the park have at times occurred at a number of widely scattered points. Constant monitoring would be required to ensure that fences were not breached by animal damage, falling trees, or other events. Fences would be less effective, or perhaps even useless, during winter months, when snowdrifts could bury them and the bison could leave through the public access points of the park. For the above reasons, fencing the park is not being evaluated further, although limited, site-specific fencing will be retained as a management option. Provide supplemental forage for bison to prevent them from migrating beyond the park boundary. As an expedient or temporary measure, the distribution of high-quality hay and commercially prepared rations at strategic loca- tions near the park boundary could conceivably have the desired effect of encouraging bison to migrate no farther. However, hay baiting was largely unsuccessful even though it was used extensively in the 1970s to influence bison migrations. If done consistently, providing supplemental forage would do nothing to relieve the pressures of bison migrations. Over time, with such additional food sources, bison numbers might increase to unnaturally high numbers. Undesirable changes in behavior and social organization, and increased incidence of brucellosis infection and other diseases in bison would probably result from such long-term concentrations on artificial feeding sites. These outcomes are contrary to the intended purposes of a bison management plan and NPS policy. Among professional managers and ecologists, supplemental feeding of wild herbivores is widely recognized as a poor range and wildlife management practice. Animals become increasingly dependent on the feedgrounds while they continue to forage heavily on vegetation in the vicinity, resulting in serious damage to native range. Artificial feedsites are recognized as reservoirs of disease. Bison concentrated at such a feed site would be increasingly exposed to risk of infection by brucellosis, other diseases, and parasites. Other ungulates, especially elk, would be attracted to the feedgrounds, increasing their exposure to disease as well. The potential for subsequent transmission of brucellosis from these elk to domestic livestock also could increase. For these reasons, supplemental feeding of bison to stop their migrations will not be evaluated further in this environmental impact statement. Relocate bison to other public ranges or private lands. The option of relocating bison has been addressed in several of the alternatives 38 Scoping Process and Huhlii I'm lie t/>(t!inii but with specific restrictions. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's Uniform Methods and Rules for Brucellosis Eradication and relevant regulations control the relocation of brucellosis-exposed livestock. Once captive, these methods and rules would apply to bison. The unrestricted relocation of the captive bison would not be allowed and is therefore not analyzed further in the environmental impact statement. The relocation of bison successfully completing quarantine procedures is a part of alternatives 3, 4, and 7. Stop oversnow vehicle (snowmobiles and other tracked vehicles) travel on all roads in Yellowstone National Park. A Winter Use Plan for Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and John D. Rockefeller Jr., Memorial Parkway (approved in 1990) identified that use of snowmobiles and snowcoaches along road corridors, and maintenance of the road corridors (through grooming) for this use, were appropriate activities that would not result in significant impacts. Winter use of Yellowstone National Park is growing rapidly, and winter activities are undergoing monitoring and research. Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Park, and the six surrounding national forests recently issued a joint assess- ment of winter use on federal lands within the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Operationally, some oversnow travel is required for park maintenance and protection purposes during the winter months. Discontinuing maintenance (winter grooming) of some segments on some key roads within the park to reduce the number of bison migrating toward Montana boundaries is part of alternative 2. In resolving litigation challenging the winter use program in Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Park, and John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway, the National Park Service agreed to prepare a new winter use plan and environmental impact statement. The National Park Service agreed to consider a full range of alternatives for all winter use activities, and is scheduled to commence scoping on that document in 1998. Control bison population numbers using current wildlife birth control methods. The purpose of actions proposed in this environ- mental impact statement is to maintain a wild, free-ranging bison population and maintain the brucellosis class-free status of Montana by ensuring a low potential risk of brucellosis trans- mission between bison and cattle. However, unlike this specific goal, contraception is broad- based and a nonspecific population control method. Currently, the bison population numbers 2,156 animals (actual fall 1997 count). However, as population sizes increase to a point where numbers management is important, the ability to effectively use contraception falls. Research has been done on using contraception as a technique to limit the growth of certain nonnative wildlife populations elsewhere in North America. A six- year study of wild horses at Assateague Island National Seashore in Maryland showed promising results. However, researchers at Assateague indicated that a major factor in the success of that program was that they were dealing with a small population of animals (165 horses) confined to a relatively small island habitat (8,500 acres). Bison population control using contraceptives would be a highly technical program, requiring professional personnel and specialized supplies and equipment. Some contraceptive agents must be delivered by hand, requiring handling of the animals. Others could be delivered remotely (by hypodermic darting, for example), up to a distance of 50 yards. In both cases, bison could develop conditioned avoidance, making it increasingly difficult to administer the agent. Long-term effects of having a large number of nonreproducing animals in a herd are unknown. Hormonal contraception of females would suppress ovarian function, prevent estrous cycles, and reduce male attraction to females (McCullough et al. 1993). Immunocontraception does not prevent ovarian cycling, and males could be repeatedly attracted to females. The breeding season likely would be extended because of the polyestrous (multiple ovulation) 39 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION nature of nonpregnant animals and could have physiological effects on males and females. It is also unknown if immunocontraception would affect the immune system of bison and potentially make them more susceptible to disease. For these reasons, contraception will not be considered as a population control strategy for bison in this environmental impact statement. Using sterilization (neutering) as a means of controlling brucellosis in bison in Yellowstone National Park. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's Uniform Methods and Rides for Brucellosis Eradication and relevant regulations offer sterilization as an option to livestock producers with brucellosis-exposed cattle. It has been suggested as a means of controlling the spread of brucellosis in bison as well. statement, although changing cattle operations to run steers or spayed heifers is a part of alternatives 2 and 3. Depopulate the entire Yellowstone bison herd and replace it with brucellosis-free bison. The Uniform Methods and Rules for Brucellosis Eradication and relevant regulations provide owners of brucellosis-affected herds with the option of depopulation and herd replacement. Depopulation of the Yellowstone National Park bison herd is rejected for the following reasons: 1. While all Yellowstone bison have been exposed to baicellosis, not all are infected. Uninfected bison are no risk to cattle. 2. The removal of thousands of bison that have merely been exposed to brucellosis is unacceptable to most people who have submitted comments thus far. Brucellosis is a disease usually affecting the reproductive tract of animals, causing abortions. It is transmitted primarily when noninfected animals come into physical contact with aborted materials or birthing products that harbor the Brucella organism. Sterilized female bison would be rendered harmless for any potential transmission of brucellosis given the biological circumstances for such transmission. The Uniform Methods and Rules for Brucellosis Eradication and relevant regulations require that bull bison also be sterilized, even though the risk of bulls transmitting the disease sexually is uncertain but unlikely. Neutering, by whatever means and for whatever purpose, may alter the social interactions and behavior of bison, such as family bonds or the dominance of bulls during the rut. Sterilization, if done on a large scale, might have genetic influences on the population by eliminating pre- selected animals from the gene pool. And, neutering would not contribute to controlling migrations. For these reasons, neutering bison and returning them to Yellowstone National Park will not be considered further in the environmental impact 3. Depopulation operations, by whatever method, would have negative impacts on other wildlife and park resources, including threatened and endangered species. 4. A portion of Yellowstone bison may have desirable genetic materials, such as a demonstrated immunity to brucellosis, to contribute to future genetics research and development, as well as to the biodiversity of the species and the planet. They are also descendants of the only continually wild bison herd in the United States. 5. Brucellosis is also found in elk in the Greater Yellowstone Area, so the risk of elk infecting a replacement bison herd renders depopula- tion meaningless. For the reasons listed above, depopulation of the Yellowstone National Park bison herd will not be considered further in this environmental impact statement. Allow native predatory animals to control the bison population. Yellowstone has an abundance of predators, including grizzly and black bears, mountain lions, coyotes, and 40 Scoping Process a/ul Public Participation wolves, but to date these animals have had limited influence on the bison population. Coyotes, bears, wolves, and mountain lions may take an occasional bison calf, but there are other prey species, such as elk and deer, that are more numerous and more susceptible to predation than a healthy adult bison. Wolves, which have been recently reintroduced on an experimental basis in Yellowstone National Park, may eventually reduce the bison population by some measurable amount. However, data from Wood Buffalo National Park in Canada indicates that wolf predation on bison is a major factor only in combination with major habitat changes or the lack of alternate prey (Carbyn, Oosenbrug, and Anions 1993). Because there are no indications that changes in the availability of alternate prey species or in major habitat are likely to take place in Yellowstone in the foreseeable future, wolves cannot be expected to have a major impact on bison populations. While predatory animals will continue to play an important role in the natural systems of Yellowstone, they are not expected to signifi- cantly impact bison populations and will not be further evaluated in the environmental impact statement. Control or eradication of brucellosis in elk. It does not appear possible to eradicate brucellosis from bison without also eradicating it from elk and is therefore not part of this bison manage- ment plan. However, eradication in both species will be addressed by the GYIBC in a future planning process. Require livestock owners to stop raising cattle, to raise bison instead of cattle, or to graze only steers. Although incentives to eliminate susceptible cattle are parts of some of the alternatives analyzed, requiring livestock owners to modify their operations is not a legal option. Require cattle to be vaccinated for brucellosis. The cooperating agencies have no authority to require vaccination of animals that remain on their owner's premises. Cattle pro- ducers are encouraged to voluntarily vaccinate cattle in high-risk areas. At this time, all Montana female calves near Yellowstone National Park are voluntarily vaccinated against brucellosis by owners (State of Montana, former state veterinarian, C. Siroky, pers. comm., May 21 , 1997). State animal health authorities may also require vaccination of female calves grazed on public lands within a bison contact area (e.g., within theSMA). Vaccination may adversely affect marketing of animals in some international markets, as several foreign countries perceive vaccination as a possible disease risk and know older vaccines can cause positive responses on diagnostic tests for baicellosis (see "Livestock Health and Operations" section). Allow bison to exist without human influence. Allowing bison to exist without human influence would lead to their migration out of the park and eventually onto their historic range. This violates the interagency agreed upon purpose to "address the risk of brucellosis transmission to protect the economic interest and viability of the livestock industry in the state of Montana," as well as objective #2 (clearly define a boundary line beyond which bison will not be tolerated), objective #4 (commit to the eventual elimination of brucellosis in bison and other wildlife), objective #5 (protect livestock from the risk of brucellosis), and objective #6 (protect the state of Montana from risk of reduction in its brucellosis status). For these reasons, the alternative to "do nothing" is considered unreasonable (see "Alternatives Considered but Rejected" section). Restore bison to the Great Plains. Interest was expressed in allowing bison to recolonize large areas of the plains beyond the Greater Yellowstone Area, even "as far as St. Louis." For reasons stated above, this alternative is considered unreasonable and will be not analyzed further. However, all alternatives except alternative 5 do allow very limited numbers of bison to recolonize some public 41 PURPOSE OF AND NEED TOR ACTION lands beyond the boundary of Yellowstone National Park. Environmental Issues The public also asked that certain environmental issues be analyzed. Issues are environmental problems that might occur should action be taken as proposed. They are analyzed in this document in part 4, "Environmental Consequences." The National Environmental Policy Act requires that only important issues, e.g., those with the potential for significant or severe impacts, be discussed in an environ- mental impact statement, and that the discussion of unimportant issues be minimized or elimi- nated. Table 1 includes a summary of issues considered by technical experts on the intera- gency team to be important. Following the table is a brief discussion of issues considered, but eliminated as less important. The list of issues was created by both the public and agency specialists. Table 1: Environmental Issues and Corresponding Impact Topics Description of Environmental or Other Issue Corresponding Topics in Part 4, "Environmental Consequences," Where Impact is Discussed Lethal means of control would reduce bison population numbers, but not below an established minimum (580 bison) required to maintain genetic viability. Impacts on bison population chapter, methodologies for analyzing impacts section Slaughter and shooting, used by agencies to maintain separation of cattle and bison and reduce the risk of transmission of brucellosis, would slow natural growth rates of the Yellowstone bison population. Impacts on bison population chapter, effects on the bison population section Parkwide slaughter of seropositive bison (in alternative 5) would temporarily drop population numbers below the lower end of the range of bison for which agencies would manage. Impacts on bison population chapter, effects on the bison population section Vaccinating calves (alternatives 1 through 7) would result in lower seroprevalence rates in the bison population. Impacts on bison population chapter, seroprevalence in the bison population section (alternatives 1 through 7) Parkwide vaccination of calves and adults would, in combination with capture and slaughter, reduce seroprevalence rates to near zero. Impacts on bison population chapter, seroprevalence in the bison population section (alternatives 5 and 6) Hunting would reduce population numbers in special management areas outside the park in alternatives 3, 4, and 7. Impacts on bison population chapter, effects on free-ranging status and distribution of bison section (alternatives 3, 4, and 7) Winters with varying severity or other periodic events would result in varying migrations of bison outside the park. Impacts on bison population chapter, stochastic influence on bison population section Increases in bison population numbers, which would occur in alternatives 1 through 4 if winters are normal, would increase viewing opportunities for Yellowstone area visitors. Impacts on recreation chapter, bison viewing section (alternatives 1 through 4) Decreases in bison population numbers, which would occur for up to 15 years in alternatives 5 through 7, would decrease viewing opportunities for Yellowstone area visitors. Impacts on recreation chapter, bison viewing section (alternatives 5 through 7) 42 Sinpini: Process and Public Putin i/nilion Description of Environmental or Other Issue Corresponding Topics in Part 4, "Environmental Consequences," Where Impact is Discussed Changes in winter road grooming, road plowing, or road closures on some roads inside Yellowstone National Park to keep bison from migrating outside the park boundaries would mean snowmobile and snowcoach traffic on these roads would be displaced. Impacts on recreation chapter, winter recreation section (alternatives 2, 5, and 6) Bison hunting, if approved by the Montana Legislature, would supply additional recreational opportunities in the Yellowstone area. Impacts on recreation chapter, hunting section (alternatives 3, 4, and 7) Perceived risks of brucellosis transmission to cattle in the Yellowstone area may cause producers to leave the area. Impacts on livestock operations chapter, cumulative impacts common to all alternatives section Yearly testing of herds in the parts of Montana adjacent to Yellowstone where bison may range in some alternatives would add to the cost of livestock operations. Impacts on livestock operations chapter, brucellosis testing and vaccinating section Changing operations to remove susceptible cattle may be difficult for livestock operators, as changes in equipment, structures, and personnel would be required. Impacts on livestock operations chapter, conversion from cow-calf to steer or spayed heifer enterprise section (alternatives 2 and 3) Modifications in public grazing allotments may displace cattle herds to other locations and increase demand for grazing resources. Impacts on livestock operations chapter, Gallatin National Forest grazing allotments section (alternatives 2 and 3), and impacts on socioeconomics chapter, summary of benefits and costs section Acquisition of easements or purchase of property from willing sellers as winter range for bison would cost taxpayers money. Impacts on livestock operations chapter, private land acquisitions and easements section (alternatives 2, 3, and 7) Bison may damage fences, livestock, and other private property if they leave the park. Impacts on livestock operations chapter, property damage by bison section Upon completion of the quarantine procedure, live bison may be used to seed herds on Native American reservations and improve income for tribes (alternatives 3, 4, and 7). Impacts on socioeconomics chapter, minority and low-income populations section Increases in tourism and individual entrepreneurs are offsetting the decline in resource extraction industries in the Yellowstone area to maintain a prosperous economy in Gallatin and Park Counties. Impacts on socioeconomics chapter, cumulative impacts common to all alternatives section Changes in winter road grooming, road plowing, or road closures on some roads would reduce winter tourism-related income in West Yellowstone and the Greater Yellowstone Area. Impacts on socioeconomics chapter, regional economy section (alternatives 2, 5, and 6) Bison hunters would benefit the economy of the Greater Yellowstone Area through dollars spent while in the area. Impacts on socioeconomics chapter, regional economy section (alternatives 3, 4, and 7) Reducing bison numbers through lethal means may trigger a boycott with economic consequences. Impacts on socioeconomics chapter Changes in cattle operations or acquisition of easements or property from willing sellers may change the contribution of livestock-related dollars to the regional or state economy. Impacts on socioeconomics chapter, regional economy section 43 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION Description of Environmental or Other Issue Corresponding Topics in Part 4, "Environmental Consequences," Where Impact is Discussed Bison that are shot or slaughtered may be released to Native American tribes, and to charitable organizations. Impacts on socioeconomics chapter, minority and low-income populations section Bison are perceived many different ways, and their slaughter and shooting offends some. Impacts on socioeconomics chapter, social values section If bison are perceived as disease-carrying animals, ranchers outside the park boundaries may be worried their lifestyle will be threatened. Impacts on socioeconomics chapter, social values section (alternatives 2, 3, and 7) People are willing to pay additional taxes to secure land for bison if it would reduce or eliminate slaughter and return more natural conditions. Impacts on socioeconomics chapter, nonmarket values section Increases in the bison population would mean increases in tourism; decreases would mean decreases in tourism. Impacts on socioeconomics chapter, nonmarket values section Food sources for grizzly bear, including whitebark pine nuts and cutthroat trout, are decreasing in the Greater Yellowstone Area due to blister rust and the accidental introduction of lake trout to Yellowstone Lake, respectively. This, in combination with increased private development, increased recreation, and timber harvest has influenced the amount and quality of grizzly bear habitat. Impacts on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species chapter, cumulative impacts common to all alternatives section Grizzly bears and gray wolves may lose habitat from the construction of capture or quarantine facilities. Impacts on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species chapter, impacts common to all alternatives section Shooting, hazing and other human activities may displace or disturb grizzly bears and gray wolves in the short term. Impacts on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species chapter Bison serve as live prey and carrion for grizzly bears and gray wolves. If more bison are present, these predators may fare better; if bison numbers are decreased, some grizzly bears, wolves, and other species may suffer. Impacts on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species chapter Grizzly bears feed primarily on bison and elk carrion when they emerge from their dens in the spring in the park interior. However, increased bison populations provide more carrion and more bears enter the summer in good condition. Impacts on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species chapter (alternative 2) Grizzly bears feed primarily on bison and elk carrion when they emerge from their dens in the spring in the park interior. If bison are slaughtered in large numbers, bears may be adversely affected. Impacts on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species chapter (alternative 5) A decrease in snowmobile use in the park, with a result in increased use on the adjacent national forests, may shift the location of effects on various sensitive wildlife species, including the wolverine and lynx. Impacts on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species chapter (alternatives 2, 5, and 6) A capture facility at Seven-Mile Bridge may disrupt nesting trumpeter swans as well as displace wintering swans. Impacts on other wildlife species chapter (alternative 6) Large numbers of bison may displace ungulates like elk, deer and bighorn sheep where they overlap. Impacts on other wildlife species chapter, impacts common to all alternatives section If bison populations increase, predators and scavengers will benefit. If they decrease, predators and scavengers may suffer. Impacts on other wildlife species chapter, impacts common to all alternatives section 44 Scoping Process and Public Partu ipation Description of Environmental or Other Issue Corresponding Topics in Part 4, "Environmental Consequences," Where Impact is Discussed Capture operations, hazing, and shooting may affect wildlife through displacement and disturbance. Impacts on other wildlife species chapter The Stephens Creek facility is located on pronghorn winter range. It removes habitat and displaces animals from the area. Impacts on other wildlife species chapter. Wing fences and corrals in capture facilities may inadvertently capture other ungulates. Impacts on other wildlife species chapter. Acquisition of additional wildlife winter range in the Yellowstone River valley near Gardiner would provide additional habitat for elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep and pronghorn. Impacts on other wildlife species chapter People who work in slaughterhouse, hunters, and veterinarians or laboratory personnel working with infected carcasses or tissues are at risk of exposure from brucellosis if proper procedures are not followed. Impacts on human health chapter Shooting, blood, and viscera associated with killing bison is not visually appealing. Impacts on visual resources chapter ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT NOT EVALUATED FURTHER IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT If an issue was considered to either be outside the scope of the environmental impact statement, or the best available scientific evidence indicated it would experience only negligible impacts, it was eliminated from further analysis, as per NEPA requirements. The issues considered but not evaluated further in this document are as follows. State vs. federal authority to manage bison. To some, the bison management issue is perceived as a local situation not requiring the involvement of "outsiders." In this view, which often translates into a state versus federal authority issue, local regulatory and management agencies should take care of their own decisions. This position is not considered further because, as outlined above under "Legal and Policy Mandates," state and federal laws dictate management authorities for each of the coopera- ting agencies. None of the cooperating agencies has the option to ignore its responsibilities or abrogate its authority to another agency for wildlife or disease management. Furthermore, the agencies have made a conscious effort and signed a "Memorandum of Understanding" (see appendix C) to work together to develop this bison management plan. Agencies are being influenced by the livestock lobby and protecting the livestock industry. Concern has been expressed that the livestock industry has a disproportionate influence over the planning process. It is probably the belief of those on any side of an issue that those on the opposite side have more power and influence. This issue is beyond the scope of the environmental impact statement, and not relevant as the agencies have made every effort to address all concerns without giving any one individual or group opinion any more weight than any others. This issue will not be further evaluated in the environmental impact statement. Livestock grazing impacts on public lands. A variety of livestock-related concerns involved the impacts of livestock on public lands admini- stered by the U.S. Forest Service. Concerns expressed included the beliefs that the livestock industry had excessive political power, that livestock should not be grazed on public lands but wildlife should, that livestock are damaging public land ranges, and that bison should be 45 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION given preference over livestock on grazing lands adjacent to Yellowstone National Park. Livestock grazing is a legally authorized activity on many public lands, and these issues are beyond the scope of this environmental impact statement, although modifications in public allotments on the Gallatin National Forest are part of alternatives 2 and 3. Bison should be listed as a threatened or endangered species. The agencies do not believe that bison as a species meet the criteria for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Vegetation and vegetative communities. The bison diet consists of sedges and grasses, and these plant communities may experience small changes if population numbers in any one area were to increase or decrease dramatically for a long period of time, e.g., if bison density were to change. Bison would also exert a more intense impact on vegetation in capture facilities and quarantine areas through trampling. Building facilities and associated structures would also result in the removal of some vegetation as land is cleared for construction. Surveys would be conducted before these facilities are built to ensure no threatened, endangered, or sensitive plant species are present. Otherwise, impacts on vegetative communities to build capture and quarantine facilities proposed in the alternatives are negligible compared to total similar vegetation in the study area. On the Gallatin National Forest, standards for range condition will be met in accordance with the Gallatin National Forest Plan (p. G-14). This issue will not be evaluated further. Overpopulation of humans. Concern exists that wildlife and wildland are primarily threatened by "encroaching civilization" and increasingly intensive use of landscapes by humans. This issue is beyond the scope of the environmental impact statement and will not be analyzed further. Impacts on bison genetics. Based on data available at present, a minimum of 580 or more bison (Knowles, unpub. data) is required to maintain genetic viability and diversity in the population. None of the alternatives is expected to reduce the bison population to 580 animals. In fact, in the long term all alternatives would maintain populations at or above 1 ,700. Brucellosis in elk and other wildlife species. One concern involving brucellosis is that it is also present in the Greater Yellowstone Area elk, which raises questions of the value of attempting to eradicate brucellosis from bison when elk will still carry it and may transmit it back to bison. This issue involves, to one extent or another, most or all of the elk herds in the GYA, and involves lands in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. This issue is beyond the scope of this environmental impact statement, but will be addressed by the GYEBC in a future planning process. Bison and elk at Old Faithful, by D. L. Cole. 1962. (NPS photo) Brucellosis survival value in ungulates. Concern exists that brucellosis may have evolutionary survival value in wild animals that have it and seem to have built up a resistance to it; apparently the implication is that loss of the disease in a given ungulate population could lead to that population's increased vulnerability in the future. Brucellosis was not identified in Yellowstone bison until the 20th century, meaning that the bison presumably survived a variety of environmental conditions for several thousand years without such resistance, just as they survived the disease when it was trans- 46 Scoping Process and Public Participation mitted to them, probably from domestic livestock. This issue is beyond the scope of the environmental impact statement and will not be analyzed further. Impact of capture facilities on special natural or cultural resources. Capture facilities would be located using specific criteria outlined in part 2, "The Alternatives." These criteria include minimizing impacts on wetlands, threatened and endangered animals and plants, and important historic or other cultural resources. The exact location of capture facilities is unknown in alternatives 5 and 6. If agency decision makers choose either of these alternatives, the facilities would be located within the general areas described in "The Alternatives" using the above criteria. Additional site-specific compliance, including impact analysis, may be necessary to construct and operate additional capture facilities. Impact of quarantine facility on special natural or cultural resources. If a quarantine facility is located on public land, or built using federal or state money, it would be located using at least the same specific criteria as outlined for capture facilities. These criteria include minimizing impact on wetlands, threatened or endangered animals and plants, and important historic or other cultural resources. Additional impact analysis and site-specific compliance with environmental laws would be required to build such a facility on public land. Therefore, although these resources and impacts on them are discussed generally in this environmental impact statement, the specifics are not known and cannot be evaluated in detail. Impacts on air quality. Air emissions from trucks transporting bison to slaughter would occur if alternatives 1,3,4, 5, 6, or 7 were selected. In addition, particulates and other pollutants from diesel generators required at any of the capture facilities in alternatives 5 and 6 would have a temporary adverse impact on air quality. Because impacts are expected to be negligible, they will not be analyzed further in this environmental impact statement but would be analyzed in any siting evaluation. Impacts from noise. Generators, snowmobiles, and management activities may result in temporary, minor disturbances to workers or wildlife. The impact of these disturbances to wildlife is addressed in the "Environmental Consequences" part of this document. The impact to humans is negligible and is not analyzed further in this environmental impact statement. 47 THE AL-TEf^NATIV INTRODUCTION As indicated in "Purpose of and Need for Action," the agencies developed a statement of need, a statement of purpose, and nine specific objectives they believed each alternative had to meet to a large degree before it could be considered reasonable. If the alternative met these objectives, fulfilled the purpose of taking action, complied with legal or regulatory mandates of each agency, and was technically and economically feasible, it was included in the range of alternatives analyzed in this environ- mental impact statement. Notably, agency mandates differ, and this difference is reflected in the divergent nature of the purpose statement and objectives, as well as in the range of alternatives analyzed. The objectives and alternatives were developed through a six-year ongoing planning effort (see "Administrative History of Bison Management" section of the "Background") that included several opportunities for public input. Alter- natives were added in response to this input. Several commenters insisted on management without lethal controls. Although this type of bison management was considered and rejected from further analysis, the agencies developed alternative 2 as the means to minimize lethal controls and accomplish the purpose of and need for this environmental impact statement. Alternative 3 is similar to a proposal, referred to as the "citizens' alternative," that was developed by representatives from a broad range of conservation, hunting, livestock, and tribal interests. Alternatives 5 and 6 are two different approaches to substantially reduce the incidence of brucellosis in the Yellowstone bison herd, a consistent concern of the livestock industry. Agency decision makers met in March 1997 to review a list of objectives they had developed in 1992 (see "Objectives and Constraints" in the "Purpose of and Need for Action"). Originally, this list would have driven the selection of only the preferred alternative. However, decision makers agreed that all alternatives must meet these objectives, resolve need, and fulfill the purpose of action to some degree to be carried forward for analysis. This approach would provide agencies several practical options, all of which are implementable. The decision makers also agreed that the existing six alternatives (alternatives 1 through 6 in this environmental impact statement) the agencies had developed with help from public input represented the full range of options. Like agency mandates, public opinion on how bison should be managed proved to be diverse. In June 1997 agency decision makers met to review information from the in-house draft environmental impact statement and select a preferred alternative from among the six alternatives. However, the agencies found that none of the six alternatives adequately met all their respective needs, and a seventh alternative was developed. Alternative 7 has features of other alternatives, but is also distinct. In response to public input and agency needs, the range of alternatives was created to "capture" the most divergent, yet reasonable, scenarios each agency could legally implement. Where one might emphasize the "wild, free-ranging population of bison" piece of the purpose statement, another might focus on "addressing the risk of brucellosis transmission." Some also emphasized different management techniques, such as hunting, quarantine, or vaccination. Alternatives were also built to illustrate the effect of the presence or absence of a particular technique. For instance, the impact of quarantine is best understood by comparing alternatives 1 and 4, as they are similar except for quarantine. The effect of vaccinating the entire herd for several years is illustrated by comparing alternatives 5 and 6, which are nearly identical except for this feature. The impact of acquiring land to the north of the park is most clearly understood by comparing alternatives 4 and 7. The "theme" of each alternative is described below to show some of these differences. 51 THE ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 is the no-action alternative. As defined by the National Environmental Policy Act, the no-action alternative in this case is a continuation of the 1996 Interim Bison Management Plan. The 1996 plan was modified by state and federal agencies to maintain a generally stable bison population during the winter of 1997-98. The no-action alternative does not consider those modifications; however, the modified features of the interim plan are analyzed under other alternatives. For example, all alternatives except alternative 5 provide for the tolerance for bison posing a lower risk of transmission on public lands at lower population numbers; Alternatives 3, 4, and 7 contemplate holding seronegative bison and feeding them at the Reese Creek facility at the lower end of the population range; Alternative 7 also considers the effects of moving the Madison River capture facility to Horse Butte. Appendix A includes state and federal documents on adjustments to the Interim Bison Management Plan. Alternative 2 focuses on changes in cattle operations outside the park and minimal, nonlethal methods of management to ensure separation and minimize the risk of disease transmission between bison and cattle. It assumes acquisition through purchase, easement, or other means of the largest tracts of land from willing sellers on property adjacent to the park for bison winter range. Alternative 5 is at the other end of the spectrum. It assumes bison would not be allowed to leave Yellowstone National Park and maximizes agency manage- ment of the herd. The focus of this alternative is the elimination of brucellosis from bison through the capture of all bison in the herd and the slaughter of all seropositives. The other alternatives are more moderate in the amount of land available to bison and the intensity and use of management techniques than alternatives 2 or 5. Alternative 3 relies on hunting of bison to regulate population numbers and distribution of bison outside the park, and separation in time and space to preclude contact of bison with cattle. Where hunting is infeasible, capture and shipment of seropositive bison to slaughter and seronegative bison to quarantine are used. Alternative 3 includes provisions for acquisition of some winter range to the north of the park's Reese Creek boundary. Alternative 4 is similar to the Interim Bison Management Plan, but it includes quarantine and hunting as additional bison management tools. Although bison leaving the park to the west are allowed to occupy public lands, private land abuts the park to the north. Under the interim plan, all bison leaving the park to the north are shipped to slaughter, regardless of whether they test seropositive or seronegative. A quarantine facility would allow agencies to ship seronegative bison live to complete a protocol, whereupon they would be available to tribal governments or others. A quarantine facility and hunting would also give agencies management tools they do not now have under the interim plan to manage the population size to some degree. Alternative 6 is a variation of alternative 5, as it, too, focuses on the elimination of brucellosis from the bison herd. However, parkwide capture, test, and slaughter would not begin until a safe and effective vaccine had been applied to the entire herd for a number of years. Bison would be tested, and when seroprevalence had leveled off, capture, and slaughter of remaining seropositives would begin. Alternative 7, the preferred alternative, departs from all other alternatives in that a range of bison population numbers would be the focus, and specific management scenarios would be put in place as the population approaches either end of that range. As the bison population approaches 2,500, the upper end of the range, the agencies would increasingly use lethal means to enforce separation of cattle and bison and to maintain population limits. At the lower end, 1,700 bison, agencies would cease all but the most necessary lethal means to maintain separation. Beyond this, alternative 7 includes a mix of management techniques similar to alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 6. Capture and slaughter of seropositives is the primary means of managing risk, as it is in alternatives 1, 4, and 5. Low levels of hunting outside the park are also 52 Introduction allowed, as they are in alternatives 3 and 4. Land to the north of the park's Reese Creek boundary may be acquired, as is proposed in alternative 3. Parkwide vaccination with a safe and effective vaccine is a part of all alternatives, including the preferred alternative. The agencies believe that these seven alter- natives represent a full range of options for management techniques and habitat available to bison to ensure separation between cattle and bison, minimize the risk of transmission of brucellosis to Montana cattle, and maintain a wild, free-ranging bison population. All seven alternatives address the stated agency need for taking action and fulfilling the stated purpose of taking action. Although the alternatives may differ in the degree to which they meet one or more of the objectives (see "Objectives and Constraints" section of the "Purpose of and Need for Action"), the agencies have agreed that each alternative meets all nine objectives to a large enough degree to be considered reasonable. All alternatives are analyzed in similar detail in the "Environmental Consequences" part of this environmental impact statement. Bison at Old Faithful, 1970. 53 ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES INTERAGENCY INVOLVEMENT Cooperation among agencies is essential to maintain a wild, free-ranging bison herd in Yellowstone National Park and to maintain Montana's federal brucellosis class-free status. The bison traditionally spend summers in Yellowstone National Park, which is managed by the National Park Service, and some move in winter outside the park to neighboring USFS and private land. In Montana, wildlife is managed by the state's Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and cattle diseases are managed by the state's Department of Livestock. Both of these agencies are referred to as the state of Montana in this document. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service determines whether Montana is class-free, i.e., its cattle can be moved interstate without brucellosis testing. Animal health authorities in each individual state may impose import regulations equal to or more restrictive than APHIS regulations as long as there are no irreconcilable conflicts with APHIS regulations. Within the identified management boundary for each alternative, different agencies would have primary authority for various management activities. However, agencies would share responsibility for bison management actions. These agencies have agreed through a "Memorandum of Understanding" (see appendix C) to devise a long-range management plan that is mutually acceptable. Each alternative evaluated in the range of alternatives in this environmental impact statement is one that the agencies considered technically and legally implementable. The alternatives also represent the further limits of acceptability on each side of the range. Those alternatives considered infeasi- ble or illegal have been eliminated from analysis. BISON POPULATION NUMBERS All alternatives, except alternative 1 (no action), employ population numbers to guide manage- ment actions. A "minimum viable bison population" for Yellowstone National Park may not be possible to define. However, information developed from research with private bison herds suggests that about 580 bison and a normal population sex and age structure are required to ensure random intermixing of breeding animals and avoid significant inbreeding (Knowles, unpub. data). All of the alternatives would preserve the genetic and biological integrity of bison in Yellowstone National Park by maintaining the bison herd at population levels considerably greater than 580 bison. None of the alternatives is intended to reduce the herd to that level, and, in all alter- natives, lethal control measures would cease well before the herd has been reduced to 580 bison. Population models suggest that the maximum number of bison that can live year-long in Yellowstone National Park varies between 1,700 and 3,500 bison, depending on forage pro- duction and winter severity. All of the alter- natives are intended to maintain a viable bison herd in Yellowstone National Park. During periods of natural or management-induced population declines and as bison numbers approach 1,700, the agencies would more aggressively employ nonlethal methods to encourage bison to remain within management boundaries. Lethal controls would be employed only to remove those bison that pose the greatest risk of brucellosis transmission. Bison also might be held for extended periods in capture facilities for subsequent return to the park. MANAGEMENT AS A WILD, FREE- RANGING POPULATION The agreed-upon purpose of taking 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." Therefore, each alternative sustains a 54 Actions Common to All Alternatives wild, free-ranging bison population over the long term, although the degree to which each fulfills this goal varies. A wild, free-ranging bison is defined as one that is not routinely handled and that can move without restrictions within specific geographic areas. None of the alternatives envisions a "no management" strategy, that is, letting bison roam wherever they want with no agency actions to minimize the risk of brucellosis transmission to cattle. Doing so would be inconsistent with the purpose and need for implementing a long-term, cooperative bison management plan (see "Objectives in Taking Action" section of the "Purpose of and Need for Action"). Rather, each alternative features different levels of "hands- on" management actions to reduce sero- prevalence in the bison population. However, as described above, even during the periods of most active management, each alternative ensures that a viable population of bison is allowed to range over large areas of Yellowstone National Park. In some alternatives, bison are captured and tested for exposure to brucellosis. Extraordinary measures, which would include the over- wintering of captive bison in agency capture facilities to prevent population numbers from dropping below those required by a particular alternative, would entail a temporary loss of the wild, free-ranging status of the captive animals. BRUCELLOSIS CLASS-FREE STATUS As previously stated, the purpose of taking 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. Both the risk of transmission and the economic interest and viability of Montana livestock figure heavily into the state's class-free status. Protecting the state of Montana from a reduction of its status (an objective of taking action) requires actions that ensure, among other things, separation of bison and cattle, ensuring that livestock that graze on public and private lands are not exposed to the Brucella organism, and implementation of bison management actions that minimize the risk of transmission from a disease perspective. The agencies have made a commitment to the eventual elimination of brucellosis from the Greater Yellowstone Area. This commitment is also a stated objective to which each alternative must be responsive. Although each alternative meets these objectives, they do so to varying degrees. The distinction among the alternatives lies in the specific actions proposed and the varying methods and adequacy of ensuring these objectives are accomplished (see table 9 in "How Alternatives Meet Stated Objectives"). BISON DISTRIBUTION LIMITS All alternatives include a management boundary that defines a certain distribution of bison. While the location of the boundary and the blend of management actions differ, in all alternatives, agency actions within the boundary are intended to prevent the movement of bison beyond the boundary. When bison move beyond the designated management boundary, agency personnel may haze bison back into the management area. Hazing may employ a variety of methods including noise, rubber bullets, cracker shells, dogs, and baiting. Hazing may take place on foot, on horseback, in vehicles, or by air. If bison cannot be hazed back into the management area, they may be shot. Yellowstone National Park extends into the state of Montana along the park's northern and western border. Three specific entries from the park in this area are of concern, and measures to prohibit or restrict bison movement are in place at these entry points in all alternatives (see Bison Winter Movements map). Two entries lie along the northern boundary near the northwestern corner of the park — one a direct approach from the park into the town of Gardiner or across the boundary at Reese Creek onto private land, and the other farther east through the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek drainage. The third entry is 55 THE ALTERNATIVES along the west side of the park in the general vicinity of the town of West Yellowstone. Two additional boundary areas are mentioned in the alternatives. One is the combined Monument Mountain Unit of the Lee Metcalf Wilderness and Cabin Creek Wildlife and Recreation Management Area on the west side of the park and north of West Yellowstone (generally north of Grayling Creek/Fir Ridge). Land use in this area emphasizes wildlife and precludes domestic livestock. The other, which includes Hellroaring Creek and Slough Creek drainages in the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness lies along the northern boundary of the park to the east of the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek drainage. Both Hellroaring Creek and Slough Creek drainages are geographically isolated from areas with permitted cattle. In most alternatives, bison are allowed into Lee Metcalf/Cabin Creek and Hellroaring and Slough drainages, although very few are able to traverse the rugged terrain and deep snow in the winter. BISON CAPTURE The agencies have included capture facilities to help keep bison from moving across the boundaries in all alternatives except alternative 2. Bison are either herded into the facility with fences and hazing, or they are baited to enter. Captured bison are card tested for exposure to B. abortus, and either slaughtered, quarantined, or released depending on serological status, pregnancy status, population numbers, and the alternative. The size of the capture facility would vary with location, but siting criteria always include at a minimum the following: • Holding pastures, corrals, handling equipment, and wing fences would be temporary structures. • Capture facilities would use existing roads inside the park and to the extent practicable outside the park. Brucellosis card test, 1997. • Adequate water for captured bison, and hay if animals are kept longer than 24 hours, would be available. • Ground disturbance would be kept to the minimum needed to properly construct the facilities. • Facilities would be located in areas that do not contain significant wetland and riparian areas, or endangered, threatened, rare, and sensitive plant or animal species. • If sited on U.S. Forest Service land, the location of the facility would be such that it meets the visual quality objectives of the Gallatin National Forest Plan. • Natural and cultural resource surveys to comply with applicable laws would be completed before the facilities were built. Facilities would be located to avoid known sensitive or important cultural and natural resources. • Facilities would be constructed and operated in such a manner that capture and handling of bison would be as humane as possible. HUMANE TREATMENT OF BISON The agencies are concerned with humanely managing bison (see appendix F for a summary of bison management techniques). Female bison and calves usually travel in groups of 25 to 30. 56 Anions Common to All Alternatives At the Stephens Creek capture facility, the entire group is directed by wing fences and by NPS personnel moving bison slowly and quietly on foot into a large pasture adjoining the capture facility. A few agency personnel may occupy catwalks overlooking the compound to help in moving groups of bison into corrals or chutes for testing. Battery-operated cattle prods to administer electric shocks are used only sparingly. Captured bison are separated into different sex and age groups, and older bulls are not commingled, if possible, with other bison for safety reasons. A recent evaluation by veterinarians and members of the Humane Society of the United States indicated directing fewer animals into the capture facility at one time may reduce stress and injuries to the bison (letter from Humane Treatment Evaluation Team to Gov. Marc Racicot, Feb. 3, 1997). This same evaluation indicated fewer personnel on the catwalks as bison are being driven toward the facility may be helpful as well. Bison destined for slaughter would be shipped to one of five slaughterhouses in the state of Montana, all within a 160-mile radius of the Stephens Creek capture facility. The humane treatment team suggested all open grid fences used to direct bison into trucks for shipment be covered so the animals do not catch and rip their horns. The team also advised it would be more humane to shoot bison at the capture facility, rather than transport them live to slaughter. "While gunshots to the brain may be aesthetically unpleasant to some individuals," the report notes, "unconsciousness is instantaneous" if the procedure is performed by skilled personnel. Agencies provide water at the capture facilities if bison are held less than 24 hours, and both water and food if they are held longer. The humane treatment team found this treatment adequate. The team concluded that, while some changes could be made in the capture operation, "NPS had made a considerable effort to minimize any fatalities and injuries to the bison." MONITORING All alternatives follow the same monitoring schedule as bison move toward and outside the boundaries. As they approach Yellowstone National Park boundaries from inside the park in the winter, bison are monitored once per week. As they get closer to the boundary areas on the north and west, monitoring is increased to daily during winter months (November 1 to April 30). On the north side, the boundary is identified as the Reese Creek area. If bison move beyond this boundary, their movements may be monitored daily. On the west side, bison are monitored once per week when they are traveling along the Madison River inside the park, and daily as they move into the West Yellowstone area. Once outside the park in the western boundary area, they may be monitored as frequently as three times per week. Monitoring activities would include aerial or ground reconnaissance of individual bison or groups of bison. In the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area, bison are monitored twice per week during the winter. If bison move toward the Little Trail Creek/Maiden Basin hydrographic divide and Gardiner, their movements are monitored daily. Bison may also be monitored during other times of the year, but little movement outside the park is expected during June 1 to October 1 . SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA All alternatives (except alternative 5) allow some bison outside the park and envision the creation of special management areas. A special management area is an area contiguous to the park where some or all bison may be tolerated for part or all of the year, as specified in the selected alternative, without increasing the risk of brucellosis transmission to domestic livestock. SMAs and the management within them vary within an alternative and between alternatives. Adequate disease control measures taken within these SMAs would protect Montana's brucellosis class-free status. The risk of transmission is managed in various alternatives through spatial separation of bison and cattle, 57 THE ALTERNATIVES temporal separation, changes in cattle operations (such as running steers or spayed heifers), disease control in cattle or bison, or a combi- nation of these factors. APHIS has indicated that any of the bison management plans (alternatives) in this environmental impact statement would be sufficient to prevent the actual outbreak of disease in domestic livestock and the subsequent spread of brucellosis. Therefore, it would not initiate a downgrade of Montana's class free status based on the mere presence of Yellowstone bison migrating out of the park into the SMAs in accordance with the selected bison plan (alternative). APHIS has also indicated that no changes in the current requirements for obtaining class-free status (Title 9, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 78) would be required for the agencies to establish SMAs. Pursuant to statutory and regulatory require- ments, the establishment, modification, or revision of SMAs requires the approval of the state of Montana as specified by Montana law. These decisions regarding SMA designation, modification, or revision will be based on the best science and information available, including bison management circumstances of the area. DISTRIBUTION OF CARCASSES Bison that are captured and test positive for exposure to B. abortus are slaughtered (a few may be used for research purposes). Those that cross the designated management boundary or evade capture may be shot. Seropositive bison are not slaughtered at the capture facility, but are trucked to slaughterhouses in the state of Montana within a 160-mile radius of the capture facility. partially offset its operating costs for bison management activities of $245,703. Heads and hides may be auctioned or released to tribal governments. Some bison that are shot are gutted and dressed by tribal members, who keep meat, heads, and hides. Otherwise, most bison are sent to slaughterhouses. Carcasses may also be left inside park boundaries to serve as a source of food for wildlife in any of the alternatives. DISTRIBUTION OF LIVE BISON Live bison are only available for release outside the area if they have successfully completed an APHIS-approved quarantine protocol. Occasional live bison may be used for research purposes. PRIVATE LAND Under Montana statute (81-2-120, MCA), the Department of Livestock with assistance from other agencies removes bison known or suspected to be carrying a disease on public land or, with landowner permission, on private property. If private landowners want bison removed from their property, the landowner must contact the Department of Livestock and allow ample time to respond. If the Department of Livestock does not respond to the land- owner's request, the landowner may shoot the bison, but must contact the department to report the shooting and must retain the carcass for distribution by the department. Other agencies may assist in the effort at the request and with permission of the Department of Livestock. Under Montana statute (81-2-120, MCA) wild bison "that are certified by the state veterinarian as brucellosis-free may be transferred for full or partial compensation." Accordingly, meat from slaughtered animals is distributed to social service organizations, tribal governments, or is auctioned to help defray state costs of capture and slaughter. In 1997 the state received $185,763 from the sale of bison products, which VACCINATION All alternatives include the suggested vacci- nation of female cattle calves in higher-risk areas, e.g., those adjacent to the park or to the SMAs. Vaccination of cattle against brucellosis remains a common practice in Montana and other areas across the country. However, because vaccination of cattle does not provide 100% 58 Actions Common to All Alternatives immunity against the disease, vaccination alone will not prevent the transmission of the disease from an infected animal. Within high-risk areas, the Department of Livestock requires surveil- lance testing of all test-eligible cattle coming into direct contact with bison. Testing require- ments for those cattle occupying adjacent areas is conducted at the discretion of the Montana State veterinarian. If a herd is in contact with bison, test-eligible female cattle are tested. State animal health authorities would encourage calfhood (4-12 months old) vaccination with RB51 (the current vaccine for cattle) of all test- eligible cattle on private lands within a 20-mile radius of areas where bison are allowed (SMAs) and encourage vaccination on public lands within the SMA. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service would provide the vaccine for all cattle vaccinations required on public land performed within the SMA, although livestock operators would be responsible for costs. In all alternatives, the agencies are proposing the use of a vaccine for brucellosis in the bison population. In alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7, vaccination of bison calves or captured adult bison would begin when a safe and effective vaccine is available. In alternatives 5 and 6, whole herd vaccination is planned. A vaccine known to be safe and effective in bison and safe for nontarget species does not currently exist. The agencies have agreed that a safe vaccine is one that has no long-term pathological effects on the vaccinated bison or its fetus, and no debilitating reaction that would increase mortality in the population. A safe vaccine would also be one in which the bacteria incurs no genetic mutations or reversions, and that causes no pathological effects, death, or disability in nontarget animals exposed to the vaccine or vaccinated bison. Effectiveness, or efficacy, is the ability to impart protection from abortion and infection when exposed to brucellosis. To date vaccines protect better from abortion than from infection. The decision on when a vaccine is safe and effective "enough" is complex and depends on several factors. The decision to administer a specific vaccine would depend, in part, on the opportunity afforded by the selected management actions for a given location. For instance, bison already in a capture facility and being prepared for testing and marking (as sero- negative) may be vaccinated with a safe but relatively less effective vaccine than one slated for remote delivery or through a parkwide roundup and capture program. Research on the vaccine RB5 1 may show this or a similar strain to be appropriate for the former situation. Also, a vaccine with a relatively high efficacy rate that could be broadcast for oral administration in bait, but which offered a potential hazard to a native nontarget species, might be used if that hazard could be eliminated through timing or method of administration. Therefore, the decision on whether a particular vaccine is safe and/or effective will be made cooperatively and should be based on many factors. When the National Park Service and the state of Montana agree that a vaccine is safe for bison and nontarget species, and the vaccine is at least somewhat effective in protecting vaccinated bison from infection, the agencies would determine when and where, within the approved management plan, that vaccine might be used. The agencies would review ongoing vaccine research results and assess the consequences of using vaccines as they are developed. If vaccine characteristics require it, the National Park Service and the state of Montana would complete the appropriate environmental review (according to state and federal laws) before administering the vaccine. RESEARCH EFFORTS Research is underway now and will continue during implementation of the selected manage- ment alternative. Research topics include, but are not limited to, testing and development of a safe and effective vaccine for bison, studies on the epidemiology and pathogenesis of B. abortus in bison, bison-specific blood tests for the exposure to B. abortus and presence of brucellosis, risk assessment of brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle in a wildland 59 THE ALTERNATIVES setting, and the use of groomed roads and trails by bison (see appendix D). Agencies would use the information from these research efforts to review pieces of the plan as appropriate. Whole bison carcasses and/or blood and tissue samples would be collected from bison for the purposes of disease surveillance, and for research to increase understanding of B. abortus in bison. Live seronegative bison may be obtained from winter capture operations for approved research. Tissue samples would be collected from all seronegative-pregnant bison killed during management operations. Sampling protocols would be based on those developed by the GYD3C. The agencies, including APHIS Veterinary Services and the Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, with assistance from the Montana Departments of Livestock and Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the National Park Service, would provide qualified personnel to conduct necropsies and collect tissues. Test results would be provided to all cooperating agencies. 60 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION - CONTINUATION OF THE CURRENT INTERIM BISON MANAGEMENT PLAN Adopting this alternative would continue current bison management as set forth in the 1996 Interim Bison Management Plan. NEPA guiding regulations (40 CFR 1502.14) define the no- action alternative in a plan as "no change from current management direction or level of management intensity," and state that an alternative based on no management at all is often "a useless academic exercise." (Although the 1996 plan was modified by state and federal agencies to maintain a generally stable bison population during the winter of 1997-98, the no- action alternative does not consider those modifications. Instead, the environmental impact statement assumes bison management actions, environmental conditions, and other relevant factors are as they were in spring 1997 when work on this environmental impact statement began. Appendix A includes the evaluation and state and federal decision documents on adjustments to the Interim Bison Management Plan.) The interim plan relies on strict border enforcement to keep bison and cattle separate, and has no provision for quarantining bison. Bison are prevented from crossing the northern park boundary at Reese Creek because the adjacent land is private and occupied by cattle throughout the year. Bison are allowed in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area. In the West Yellowstone area, public lands are adjacent to the park. Cattle are more dispersed than at Reese Creek and are not grazed during the winter months. Up to 200 bison in Eagle Creek/Bear Creek, and 50-100 in the West Yellowstone area have been able to overwinter successfully outside the park without coming in contact with cattle. Bison located outside the park in the west boundary area would be hazed back into the park in the spring, 30 to 60 days before cattle occupy the area. The exact number of days, between 30 and 60, would be at the discretion of the state veterinarian. Those bison that could not be hazed back into the park would be shot. In addition, a handful of bison (usually single bulls) use the Lee Metcalf/Cabin Creek area on the west, or Hellroaring and Slough drainages to the north and east of Eagle Creek/Bear Creek. Those few bison that move beyond the borders of either of these large tracts of forest land would be hazed or shot. NORTHERN BOUNDARY Reese Creek Private property (the Royal Teton Ranch) abuts the Yellowstone National Park boundary at Reese Creek. Through a lease with property owners, approximately 250 cow-calf pairs graze in the Gardiner Valley during the winter from the Corwin Springs bridge for about 8-9 miles to the north end of the property just south of Yankee Jim Canyon (see Alternative 1 map). A capture facility inside the park at Stephens Creek is within 2 miles of Reese Creek, and operates from November 1 to April 30. Wing fences and agency personnel guide bison toward the facility when they are approaching the park boundary. Bison not captured cross the property where they are hazed back into the park or shot. The Stephens Creek capture facility (see Alternative 1 map) occupies 13 acres, and includes four pens to separate bison, two holding pastures (one large and one small), and chutes to help direct bison. It is adjacent to a park horse corral, receives water and electricity, and is easily accessible by dirt road. All captured bison are divided into groups for safety reasons, held for a few hours (or occasionally for one to two nights), and shipped to slaughter. A few might be used for research purposes. 61 THE ALTERNATIVES Stephens Creek capture facility. Eagle Creek/Bear Creek About 23,000 acres of bison winter habitat are located on the Gallatin National Forest in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area bordering Yellowstone National Park to the north and east of Gardiner. Bison are able to occupy portions of these lands during the winter (and summer, although most migrate back into the park in May and June). In this alternative, agency personnel would maintain a boundary at the Little Trail Creek/Maiden Basin divide by hazing or shooting bison that crossed it. In average winters, no bison approach this boundary. WESTERN BOUNDARY Bison migrate out of Yellowstone National Park along the Madison River corridor, traveling along groomed roads or bison trails inside the park and feeding at riverbanks and pools warmed by thermal features. Most leave by way of Duck and Cougar Creeks to the north of Madison River and travel west to the national forest in the 24,000-acre Horse Butte area. Some of these lands are forested, but the bison prefer open areas where they can find forage under the snow. hazed back into park boundaries in May, well before cattle appear in the summer. Under the provisions of this alternative, bison would be hazed back into the park in the spring 30 to 60 days before cattle occupy land in the area west of the park. The exact number of days, between 30 and 60, would be at the discretion of the state veterinarian. Those bison that could not be hazed back into the park would be shot. The scheduled on-date for cattle on Horse Butte is June 15, and for other allotments in the West Yellowstone area is July 15. Cattle can occupy private land at any time; however, they normally are present from about June 1 to November 15. Two capture facilities smaller than the one at Stephens Creek are also operated by the Department of Livestock from November 1 to April 30 outside the western park boundaries. One is located on private land in the Duck Creek area, about 100 yards from the park boundary. The second is near the Madison River on Gallatin National Forest land. Each facility occupies about 1 acre, and relies primarily on "opportunistic" methods of capturing bison, e.g., baiting with hay. Both facilities have three pens for sorting, as well as a capture pen and hydraulic chutes. Captured bison are blood tested for exposure to B. abortus, and all seropositive bison are shipped to slaughter. Seronegative-nonpregnant females and all seronegative males are identified with a metal ear tag and a temporary visual marker, and are shipped to and released on public lands in the West Yellowstone area. Seronegative-pregnant bison are shipped to slaughter. All bison evading capture on public lands are shot. Those evading capture on private lands are shot at the request of or with permission of the landowner. Capture facilities could be relocated to take advantage of changing bison migration routes under this alternative using criteria outlined in the "Actions Common to All Alternatives." The public land outside the park on the west side is intermixed with private holdings, and bison might be shot at any time on private land under the conditions described in the "Actions Common to All Alternatives." No cattle are grazed in this area in the winter, and bison are Bison are able to occupy the Cabin Creek Recreation and Wildlife Management Area and Monument Mountain Unit of the Lee Metcalf Wilderness on the west side of Yellowstone National Park without agency management, as 62 Yellowstone National Park United Stales Department of the interior -National Park Service DSC • May 1998 • 101 • 20.108 •ifiS«eg NATIONAL /=d/3eST Alternative I: No Ac us- TA^&Hee NATIONAL FOfsSST natich*- fotest Iv/ILPEFNESS \pofeao of lamp management yeiumstone national- fafk i state lanp \FI5H, v/ilpufe. anp faffs IpFIVATE pit? SKY LUMPER C&MFANY mppc&fwm \SPEC1AL MANAGEMENT APEA % % % % AREA? WHERE BISON MAY OCCUR ,!•> OUTeiPE OF YEi-LOWSTONE ... NATIONAL- PARK POUNPARY 69 Alternativi 2 Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness north of the park, including the Hellroaring and Slough Creek drainages;, and the West Yellowstone area. Cabin Creek Recreation and Wildlife Management Area, and Monument Mountain Unit of the Lee Metcalf Wilderness west of the park. Agencies would maintain boundaries at Reese Creek and the Little Trail Creek/Maiden Basin hydrographic divide, and would capture or shoot bison crossing these boundaries and on private property. Carcasses would be retrieved by the Department of Livestock and distributed as described in the "Actions Common to All Alternatives." The agencies would attempt to acquire winter range and expand the SMAs to include what are now private lands between Reese Creek and Yankee Jim Canyon on both sides of the Yellowstone River. They might also offer incentives to change livestock operations, acquire winter range from willing sellers, or modify grazing allotments in the western SMA. Following acquisition through purchase or easement, or appropriate changes in cattle operations, capture facilities would be dismantled and bison allowed to range freely. The northern boundary would move north to Yankee Jim Canyon, and the north edge of the western SMA would shift north to Buffalo Horn Creek. In the western SMA, bison would no longer be hazed back from the West Yellowstone area into the park in May. Most of these bison return to the park on their own in late spring, and agencies would expect only a few, if any, to stay behind. If needed, agencies would haze remaining bison from private to public land in the SMA. RISK MANAGEMENT The primary means to minimize risk in this alternative would be those used to maintain the separation of cattle and bison. These include the provisions of the interim plan described in alternative 1 for phase 1, and changes in livestock operations and the return to ungroomed conditions of certain key sections of park roads in phase 2 of this alternative. On private land in the SMAs, which now is used for cattle grazing or other livestock operations, agencies might offer incentives to change operations so susceptible cattle were removed. Nonbreeding cattle, such as steers or spayed heifers, would not transmit the disease if they were infected through contact with bison. Brucellosis is spread primarily through ingestion of reproductive fluids and birth materials from infected cows. Therefore, convincing operators to change management practices to raising nonsusceptible livestock such as steers would eliminate the risk of spreading the disease. Also, procurement of access to winter range by acquiring grazing rights, easements, or outright purchase of property from willing sellers could be used to remove cattle altogether on private property in the designated SMAs. Until these measures were in place, agencies would maintain boundaries as described above (see "Special Management Areas" section) and capture and test on the west side. Seronegative bison would be released, and seropositive bison would be shipped to slaughter, as they are now. The agencies would seek agreements with grazing permittees to modify grazing allotments on the national forest where bison might roam. Potential modifications include working with permittees to change class of livestock or operations so that there would be no conflict between cattle and bison, close allotments and move cattle to areas where bison are never present, or other modifications to minimize exposure of susceptible cattle to bison. The National Park Service would modify its winter road management plan to eliminate winter grooming and snowmobile use of some roads in Yellowstone National Park. Bison have "discovered" these pathways, and routinely use them in the interior of the park to avoid traversing areas of deep snow. It is hypothesized that the energetic cost of traveling these roads is low, and that bison using them are more likely to 71 THE ALTERNATIVES survive the winter than those who do not use them. In other words, they are made to pay what some believe is "the true cost" of travel. Some bison also could be accessing areas of the park near its borders because of groomed trails and plowed roads. Bison herd along road in Yellowstone National Park in the winter. Alternative 2 is the only alternative to propose routine changes in some segments of park roads to control distribution, although other alter- natives include research on the use of roads and potential barriers to bison travel (alternative 3), and/or plowing to access capture facilities (alternatives 5 and 6). Some changes in road grooming might occur in phase 1 of this alternative as well help control distribution (see discussion on bison distribution in the "Background" chapter of the "Purpose of and Need for Action"). Roads left ungroomed could include sections from Madison to West Yellowstone, Madison to Norris, and Madison to the Fountain Freight Road (see Alternative 2 map), which would isolate herds inside the park from boundary areas, and increase natural winter kill. The agencies would conduct research to determine the effectiveness of those closures in preventing bison from leaving the park during winter, and to evaluate the contribution of other groomed roads to bison movements out of the park. Based on those investigations, additional changes and NEPA compliance to further inhibit bison from leaving the park or to maintain bison population size are possible. In addition to measures to ensure separation of cattle and bison, state animal health authorities would encourage livestock owners throughout the area whose cattle might come in contact with bison to vaccinate female calves (4-12 months old) against brucellosis with RB51 or other approved vaccine. Operators in boundary areas would be encouraged to annually vaccinate all subadult cattle as well as calves. Cattle herds in contact areas would continue to be surveillance tested periodically, and any herd whose member or members was in contact with bison would be checked for exposure to B. abortus. Livestock owners on private property would continue to be responsible for all costs and materials associated with calfhood vaccination. When a safe and effective vaccine was developed for bison, it would be administered to bison inside Yellowstone National Park through remote means. Depending on the vaccine, 72 Alternative 2 calves, yearlings, or possibly adults might be vaccinated as long as the vaccine was safe and effective. POPULATION MANAGEMENT No actions specifically to control or maintain population numbers, other than changes in road grooming described above, would be anticipated. It is expected that these changes would ultimately force more bison to experience the full brunt of natural processes, such as harsh winters and ongoing predation and competition, and would maintain the population within the natural range of 1,700 and 3,500 animals. However, it is unknown whether, or the degree to which, changes in road grooming would affect bison distribution. Allowing bison to occupy additional range beyond the park boundaries in the northern and western SMAs would help keep population numbers from falling below 1,700. ESTIMATE OF COST Table 3 indicates the costs that would be incurred by the interagency team for alternative 2. Table 3: Annual Cost/Income Estimates - Alternative 2 National Park Service U.S. Forest Service State of Montana APHIS Shared Costs Test/sample $22,000 Monitoring $25,000 $15,000 Operations 57,000 $150,000 Acquisition1 $65,0002 $44.1 million Easement1 Unknown3 Conversion of livestock operations' Unknown3 Vaccination 150,000 8,000 Increased snowmobile enforcement 50,000 Wildlife/winter use monitoring 25.000 Allotment modification1 15,0002 TOTALS ($232,000) ($170,000) ($150,000) ($30,000) (Up to $44.1 million) 1. One time only. 2. Administrative costs (one time only). 3. Easement and conversion would substitute for acquis ition, and costs wc uld be less than $44.1 million. 73 ALTERNATIVE 3: MANAGEMENT WITH EMPHASIS ON PUBLIC HUNTING Alternative 3 relies on the hunting of bison to regulate population numbers and distribution of bison outside the park, and on separation of bison in time and space to preclude contact with cattle. Where hunting was infeasible or inappropriate, capture and shipment of sero- positive bison to slaughter and seronegative bison to quarantine would used to maintain separation and manage the risk of disease transmission. As in other alternatives, bison would be vaccinated when a safe and effective vaccine was developed to further reduce this risk. This alternative has two phases. Phase 2 is a long-term strategy to manage bison through hunting, quarantine, and use of acquired land or easements for additional winter range and bison management options. Because many of these require additional permits, environmental review, or changes not within the complete control of the agencies, alternative 3 also envisions continuing appropriate features of the interim plan (alternative 1) until these features were in place. This is referred to as phase 1. Alternative 3 includes the use of capture, test and slaughter, creation of SMAs, quarantine of some seronegative bison, hunting, vaccination of bison, acquisition of additional winter range, and creation of an SMA on that range as bison management tools. Vaccination of bison requires a safe and effective vaccine, which does not currently exist. Construction and operation of a quarantine facility would require environmental review and compliance, as well as a funding source and management entity. The acquisition of winter range, whether through purchase or easement or changes in cattle operations, is a time-consuming and uncertain process. In alternative 3 (as well as in alternatives 4 and 7), bison hunting is assumed; yet, this would require approval by the Montana Legislature, which does not convene until 1999. In addition to the inherent uncertainty of several of these factors, some management tools, such as the construction of a quarantine facility or use of a bison vaccine, would also likely require additional time for environmental review and compliance. For purposes of analysis, each of these management tools or regulatory changes was assumed to occur by a certain date. If they occurred earlier or later, the impacts of alternative 3 could be slightly different than reported. Also, the mix of management tools could be slightly different than described herein, as agencies would use whichever tools are approved and available. The necessary changes in regulations to allow bison outside the park were assumed to be made immediately upon the agency decision to select an alternative (docu- mented in both a state and a federal record of decision). Hunting was assumed to be approved by the legislature and to begin in 2000. The quarantine facility was assumed to be built and operating by 1999. A safe and effective vaccine was assumed to be available in the year 2000. Because less land was targeted for acquisition in alternative 3 than alternative 2, acquisition was assumed to be completed by 1999. Phase 1 in this alternative refers to the time prior to 1999. Until land acquisition occurred (phase 2), the separation of cattle and bison on the northern (Reese Creek) boundary would be maintained through capture at Stephens Creek and the shipment of seronegatives to quarantine (or slaughter if the facility was not yet built) and seropositives to slaughter. The National Park Service now ships all bison captured at Stephens Creek (under the provisions of the Interim Bison Management Plan) to slaughter, as capture facilities were not designed to hold animals for more than a day or so. A quarantine facility would give the National Park Service flexibility in the disposition of seronegative bison it does not now have. Bison that completed the full quarantine procedure would be shipped live to requesting tribes or organizations, or used to repopulate herds on public lands. The location, design, and operation of the facility has not been determined, 74 Alternative 3 and would require subsequent MEPA/NEPA analysis, including public input, before any decision was made. Until the time a quarantine facility was constructed, bison captured at Stephens Creek would be sent to slaughter. The Department of Livestock, with help from the agencies, would maintain a boundary at Little Trail Creek/Maiden Basin hydrologic divide similar to alternative 1. Bison on private land moving north of this boundary would be removed by agency personnel with the permission of the landowner. No capture would occur in the West Yellowstone area in either phase 1 or phase 2, but bison would be hazed back into the park in the spring, 30 to 60 days before cattle occupy the area. The exact number of days, between 30 and 60, would be at the discretion of the state veterinarian. Those bison that could not be hazed back into the park would be shot. As in alternatives 1 and 4, agencies would also maintain a boundary at the northern end of the Cabin Creek Recreation Area/Monument Mountain Unit of the Lee Metcalf Wilderness. Hunting would be used in both the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek and western SMAs to help control population numbers and distribution. Research on the degree to which the winter grooming of park roads contributes to migration out of the park may continue, and changes in road grooming practices made in phase 2 if research showed they were warranted. These changes would be implemented through amendments to the park's winter use plan and appropriate NEPA documentation. Alternative 3 calls for acquisition of bison winter range through purchase of grazing rights, easements, or property from willing sellers, modifications in cattle allotments, and/or changes in livestock operations to remove susceptible cattle in phase 2. This newly acquired winter range would be designated an SMA (referred to as the Reese Creek SMA throughout the remainder of the description of alternative 3), and would include lands on the west side of the Yellowstone River between Reese Creek and Yankee Jim Canyon. If appropriate, the park's capture facility at Stephens Creek would be dismantled and relocated between the park boundary and Yankee Jim Canyon at a suitable site. The Department of Livestock, with help from the agencies, would maintain a boundary at Yankee Jim Canyon, and hunting in the Reese Creek SMA would be used to control population size and distribution of the bison herd. If this alternative was selected, the agencies would request the 1999 Montana Legislature to authorize a fair-chase hunt for bison. Public hunting would then become the primary tool for agencies to maintain population sizes in the new Reese Creek SMA as well as the western SMA. Modifications in grazing allotments in the West Yellowstone area would be an option in this alternative, which could mean bison would be allowed to occupy public lands year-round. The area over which bison would eventually be able to range (e.g., the SMAs) is shown on the Alternative 3 map. NORTHERN BOUNDARY Reese Creek The National Park Service would continue to operate the capture facility at Stephens Creek inside Yellowstone National Park at the Reese Creek boundary in phase 1 of this alternative. Features of the facility are described in alternative 1, and no changes in the Stephens Creek operation except the additional shipping of seronegative bison to quarantine would be anticipated. Bison evading capture inside the park may be shot by park or other agency personnel with permission from the National Park Service. Those crossing the Reese Creek border and unresponsive to hazing would be shot by the Department of Livestock with help from other agencies, and with permission of the landowner. Currently, efforts would be made to keep all bison from crossing onto private land, and only those unresponsive to hazing and crossing the 75 THE ALTERNATIVES Reese Creek boundary would be shot. When a quarantine facility was constructed, some or all seronegative bison that would be captured could be quarantined. Captured bison would be divided into groups for safety reasons, and blood tested for exposure to B. abortus. Seropositive bison would be shipped to slaughter at approved slaughter facilities. If a safe and effective vaccine was available, seronegative bison would be vaccinated. If population numbers were high or winter con- ditions were harsh, seronegative bison would be shipped to quarantine. If numbers were low, seronegative bison may be held and released when the weather moderated. Under normal circumstances, bison would not remain at the Stephens Creek facility longer than 24 hours. However, if the quarantine facility was not built or room was not available, if population numbers were low, or if winters were harsh, the agencies estimate between 100 and 125 bison could be safely held in the Stephens Creek capture facility. In phase 2 of this alternative, agencies would dismantle the Stephens Creek capture facility and would not maintain any boundary control at the northern border of Yellowstone National Park. Bison could be hunted in the expanded SMA outside the park. Bison movements would be monitored from November 1 to April 30, but bison would not be hazed unless they approached Yankee Jim Canyon, a narrowing of the valley on national forest land about 12 miles north of Reese Creek. The majority of land north of this point in the valley bottom is privately owned, and agencies would enforce a boundary to keep bison from migrating beyond it. The capture facility would be relocated to a suitable area north of the park and south of Yankee Jim Canyon to provide agencies an option of shooting bison crossing the boundary and to help regulate population numbers. Eagle Creek/Bear Creek Agencies would monitor bison movements in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area and maintain a boundary at the Little Trail Creek/Maiden Basin hydrographic divide through hunting, hazing, and shooting. WESTERN BOUNDARY Agencies would monitor and shoot bison leaving the West Yellowstone area north of Cabin Creek Recreation and Wildlife Management Area/Lee Metcalf Wilderness. Those leaving to the west along Hebgen Lake Dam, or south on private property, would also be hazed or shot (see Alternative 3 map). Public hunting would be allowed in the western SMA on appropriate public lands and on private lands if landowners were willing. Existing capture facilities in the Duck Creek and Madison River area would be dismantled, as this alternative would not include capture or slaughter in the western SMA. Bison would be hazed by agencies to move them from private to public land. Bison would also be hazed to remove them from the West Yellow- stone area in May so cattle can occupy existing allotments in summer. Longer term modifi- cations in allotments would also be possible in alternative 3, although hunting might reduce bison numbers in West Yellowstone to where they would provide no particular advantage to bison. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS In alternative 3, SMAs in phase 1 would be established in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area; the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness, including the Hellroaring and Slough Creek drainages; and the western boundary area south of Buffalo Horn Creek, including the Cabin Creek Recreation and Wildlife Management Area/Lee Metcalf Wilderness and West Yellowstone area (see Alternative 3 map). When either acquisitions were completed or modifications in cattle operations to remove susceptible cattle were accomplished, the Gardiner Valley west of the Yellowstone River from Reese Creek to Yankee Jim Canyon would also become an SMA (the Reese Creek SMA). The usable winter range 76 Yellowstone National Park Hayden Valley Fishing Bridge, Lake Village, and Bridge Bay | Pelican Valley Yellowstone la^e TA&&HSE NATIONAL fORSST NATIONAL FO&eST NATICHAL FOREST tWILPEPNESS \pOPEAO OF LANP MANAGEMENT YEUOWSTONE NATIONAL PAFK l STATE LAND IriSH. WILPLIFE. ANP PAFKS PI& SKY LCMPEP COMPANY HYPP06PAPHY %\\% APEAS WHEPE PISON MAY .ill OCCVP OUTSIPE OF YELLOWSTONE . . . NATIONAL PAP* POUNPAPY \SPEOAL MANAGEMENT APEA I PISON HONTIN& APEA RHA,e>e. oNt3 /=>rtAS>e TWO \SFEC1AL MANAGEMENT . POSSIBLE PISON CAPTUPE FACILITY (APPX. LOCATION) 77 Alternative 3 available to bison without agency management in this alternative would be similar to but less than alternative 2. Winter hunting would be a primary population management tool in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek SMA, the newly created Reese Creek SMA, and the western SMA (including Cabin Creek/Lee Metcalf)- The hunt would likely be conducted periodically between October 1 and February 28 as bison move into the SMAs. Any capture operations, should they be needed, would occur during the remainder of the winter following the hunt, e.g., from March 1 to April 30. In the West Yellowstone area cattle would be grazed during the summer months and bison hazed back into the park during May as long as required. Bison would be hazed back into the park in the spring, 30 to 60 days before cattle occupy the area. The exact number of days, between 30 and 60, would be at the discretion of the state veterinarian. Those bison that could not be hazed back into the park would be shot. Hunting would help control population numbers and distribution in this SMA. In phase 2, if modifications in grazing allotments and other acquisitions and incentives allowed it, bison could remain year-round on public lands in the West Yellowstone area, although most would be probably be killed through hunting or would return inside park boundaries during the summer. RISK MANAGEMENT Strategies to ensure separation of cattle and bison explained above would be the primary means to manage the risk of transmission. These include temporal separation, capture, test, slaughter, and shooting in phase 1 , and changes in existing cattle operations and boundary control measures in phase 2. Hunting in all SMAs would reduce the number of bison and the chances of bison migrating toward the boundaries maintained at Yankee Jim Canyon and Buffalo Horn Creek, and therefore the risk of transmission through contact with cattle grazed to the north of these areas. In phase 1 of this alternative, the separation of cattle and bison at the northern border would be maintained by restricting bison at Reese (nek and Little Trail Creek/Maiden Basin hydro- graphic divide. At Reese Creek, this would include monitoring, hazing, capture and slaughter, and shooting as described above under the "Northern Boundary." At Eagle Creek/Bear Creek, monitoring, hazing and shooting would be used to prevent entry into the Gardiner area. Hunting would reduce the number of bison overall, hence the number migrating toward the Little Trail Creek/Maiden Basin hydrographic divide boundary. In the western SMA, separation would be maintained through temporal means on public lands in the short term. Bison in the West Yellowstone area would be hazed back into the park in the spring, 30 to 60 days before cattle occupy the area. The exact number of days, between 30 and 60, would be at the discretion of the state veterinarian. Those bison that could not be hazed back into the park would be shot. Bison would not be allowed back into the SMA until cattle have been removed in October. Topography, availability of habitat, hazing, hunting, and shooting would also keep bison from moving beyond SMA boundaries. In phase 2, the primary means of separation on both the northern, newly created Reese Creek SMA, and the western SMA would shift to modifications in livestock operations or acquisition of property, easements, or other rights of use. On private land in the SMAs, which now is used for cattle grazing or other livestock operations, agencies might offer incentives to change operations so susceptible cattle were removed. Also, acquisition of private grazing rights, easements, or outright purchase of property from willing sellers might be used to remove cattle altogether on private property in the designated SMAs. In the western SMA, hunting would be expected to reduce the number of bison substantially, although modifications in grazing allotments might allow them to remain year-round. Until such changes were made, bison remaining after the winter hunt would be hazed into the park in May to ensure cattle 79 THE ALTERNATIVES occupying the allotments during the summer did not commingle with bison. Agencies would continue to maintain boundaries between public and private land at Yankee Jim Canyon on the north, and Buffalo Horn Creek to the west to ensure separation of bison and cattle in phase 2. Also, hunting in all SMAs would reduce the number of bison migrating toward these boundaries. Vaccination of cattle calves in the western SMA on public lands would reduce risk of trans- mission. State animal health authorities would encourage livestock owners in the western SMA whose cattle might come in contact with bison to vaccinate female calves (4-12 months old) against brucellosis with RB51 or other approved vaccine. Operators in boundary areas would be encouraged to annually vaccinate all subadult cattle as well as calves. Cattle herds in contact areas would continue to be surveillance tested periodically, and any herd whose member (or members) was in contact with bison would be checked for exposure to B. abortus. Livestock owners on private property would continue to be responsible for all costs and materials associated with calfhood vaccination. When a safe and effective vaccine was developed for bison, it would be administered to bison captured at the northern boundary capture facility, held at the quarantine facility, and/or through remote means to bison inside Yellowstone National Park. POPULATION MANAGEMENT Bison population numbers at the northern park boundary would be controlled through capture and quarantine or slaughter in phase 1, and hunting, capture, and quarantine in phase 2. Hunting would also be used to control numbers in phases 1 and 2 in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek SMA and West Yellowstone area of the western SMA. Quarantine A quarantine facility would operate inter- mittently to give agencies flexibility in handling captured bison that they do not now have (see Alternative 3 map). It would also provide a source of live, disease-free bison for tribal governments and requesting organizations that would not be returned to the park. Current regulations do not permit removal of any part of the Yellowstone bison herd for quarantine and eventual release to interstate movement. Accordingly, APHIS, in cooperation with state livestock regulatory authorities, is developing a proposed change to 9 CFR 78 that would allow quarantine and eventual release of seronegative bison completing quarantine for interstate movement (see appendix B). Seronegative bison could be shipped to the quarantine facility and complete an approved quarantine protocol to ensure they were disease free, rather than slaughtered as they are now. Each animal initially assigned to a quarantine facility would have tested seronegative. When the bison have completed the procedure, they would be released live to requesting organizations or agencies. If bison were migrating out of the park (or Reese Creek SMA in phase 2), and movements were large, making hunting infeasible, they would be captured. Seropositives would be sent to slaughter, and seronegatives would be quarantined and available for eventual release. If a winter was unusually severe and the herd size was low, some bison might be held through the winter and returned to the park. At a minimum, all bison must have three consecutive negative serological tests, with at least 1 2 months between the first and last tests to complete quarantine protocol. To minimize the effect of finding reactors (seropositives), bison would likely be kept in several separated groups rather than one large group. Any bison showing signs of exposure to B. abortus during this quarantine period would be slaughtered, and testing of the remaining bison in contact with it begun again. Because of this, bison may need to remain in quarantine for several years to be declared disease-free. Bison successfully 80 Alternative 3 completing the full quarantine procedure without contact with any infected animals would be available for release. Concurrent with testing, bison in quarantine could be vaccinated. Quarantine facilities could be constructed on Gallatin National Forest in the vicinity of Gardiner, other public lands in the vicinity of Yellowstone National Park, lands elsewhere in Montana that would be leased or purchased for this purpose, or on the lands of a cooperating tribe or other organization. Possible designs and costs for a quarantine facility vary widely from a small feedlot-type approach to multiple pasture operation. Because a quarantine facility must ensure potentially diseased animals are not released, they include precautions such as double or triple fencing. Costs range from $500,000 to $800,000 and more to construct such a secure facility. If alternative 3 was selected, the agencies would sign a memo- randum of understanding to formalize commitments regarding the quarantine facility. A quarantine facility can only be operated in a class-free state if (1 ) APHIS allows the bison to be moved to the facility and (2) the state animal health authorities of that state permit the operation of a quarantine facility and allow the bison to be imported into the state. Also, evalua- tion of alternative locations and designs could be subject to additional compliance requirements, including criteria described in the "Actions Common to all Alternatives" section and NEPA analysis. For purposes of analysis, this environ- mental impact statement assumed all needed approvals were received and the quarantine facility was sited, built, and available in 1999 or within one year of the decision to select any alternative that included quarantine as a manage- ment tool (alternatives 3, 4, and 7). Public Hunting Upon issuance of the records of decision for the environmental impact statements, the agencies would request the 1999 Montana Legislature to authorize Montana to establish regulations for the public hunting of bison. Any public hunting program would be coordinated with the Depart merit of Livestock and the state veterinarian in identifying acceptable animals and areas. In addition to controlling bison numbers, hunting would also help prevent bison on public lands in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area, bison on acquired winter range in the Reese Creek area (Reese Creek SMA) and in the western SMA from migrating to private lands, and help main- tain bison population numbers and distribution. This alternative envisions a fair-chase hunt to the extent possible. This would be in contrast to the hunts of the late 1980s, which were widely criticized as unfair to bison and unsporting. Features of a fair-chase hunt would include training or orientation to ensure accurate marksmanship, knowledge of and respect for bison, and emphasizing that all meat, as well as the hide and heads should be used. Hunters would be "on their own" and not accompanied by agency personnel as they were in the 1980s hunts. Hunters would be given no unfair mechanical advantage. Only a few permits would be issued for any given hunting period. Permit numbers would vary, depending on population size and the season format approved by the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission. Bison might be hunted in more aigged and remote terrain in the neighboring Gallatin National Forest (Eagle Creek/Bear Creek). It is not possible to completely describe how the bison season would be administered because Montana statutes do not currently authorize bison hunting. The analysis in this environ- mental impact statement assumed an application and selection process similar to procedures used to issue permits and licenses for other big game species. The state's Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, in consultation with all cooperating agencies, would prepare recommendations for season length and format, permit quotas, and special regulations for the bison season. The department's recommendations would be developed to be consistent with the purpose of this alternative and in response to current 81 THE ALTERNATIVES population levels, anticipated migrations, and current bison management issues. The Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission would approve these recommendations, with or without amendments, as tentative regulations. Upon approval, the commission would provide notice of publication and request public comment on the tentative regulations. Thereafter, the commission could adopt as final, amend, or disapprove the tentative regulations. Upon final approval, the general bison hunting regulations would be in effect for two years, except that permit quotas could change annually. Each licensed hunter would be authorized to hunt bison only during the time period and only in the area designated on the person's license. The hunting license would not provide the assurance that bison would actually occupy the specified area during the designated hunting period. License fees would not be refunded to licensed hunters who chose not to hunt, nor would fees be refunded because bison were not available during the designated hunting period. Hunting regulations would be strictly enforced. Hunters would be notified of the health risks and appropriate precautions for handling dead bison. Hunters would be required to attend a bison hunting orientation program prior to hunting. Successful hunters would be required to properly dispose of the offal and to report their kill to a designated official. Blood and tissue samples could be collected from hunter-killed bison. Prior to implementing the bison season, the cooperating agencies would negotiate agreements with affected landowners to provide private land access for bison hunting where possible. Licensed hunters would not be other- wise restricted or assisted by agency personnel. Hunting is assumed to begin in the year 2000. The analysis assumed that initial quotas would provide for a minimum of 10 permits in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area and that bulls would likely be harvested in this area. Twenty permits would be offered in the Reese Creek area. Bulls and larger females would likely be harvested in this area. Due to projected increasing bison numbers moving into the Reese Creek area, 25 permits could be offered begin- ning in 2005. Thirty permits would be offered in the West Yellowstone area, and nearly all bison, except possibly calves, would be harvested. Based on bison population numbers, winter distribution on public and private lands, and other factors, the agencies may hold additional special drawings to harvest additional bison. Research on the degree to which winter road grooming inside the park contributes to migra- tion outside the park (i.e., bison distribution) would be initiated if this alternative was selected. If the research showed bison use these roads, segments could be left ungroomed to keep more bison inside the park boundaries (see des- cription of alternative 2 for more information). ESTIMATE OF COST Table 4 indicates the costs that would be incurred by the interagency team for alternative 3. 82 Alternative < Table 4: Annual Cost/Incomk Estimates - Alternatm 3 National Park Service U.S. Forest Service State of Montana APHIS Shared Costs Test/sample $25,000 Capture facility (Stephens Creek)' $120,000 Operations (capture, hunting, and bison management) 158,000 $25,000 $225,000 Vaccination 150,000 8,000 Relocate capture facility' 60,000 Quarantine facility1 500,000 - 800.0002 Quarantine operations (50/yr) 400,000 Acquisition' $33.1 million Easement' Unknown1 Conversion of livestock operations' Unknown3 Allotment modification1 15,000 TOTALS ($488,000) ($40,000) ($225,000) ($933,000- $1,233,000) (Up to $33.1 million) 1. One time only capital costs (costs for Stephens Creek facility have already been incurred). 2. Does not include land costs for quarantine facility. 3. Easement and conversion would substitute for acquisition, and costs would be less than $33.1 million. 83 ALTERNATIVE 4: INTERIM PLAN WITH LIMITED PUBLIC HUNTING AND QUARANTINE The interim plan (no action, or alternative 1 in this analysis) has served to ensure spatial separation of the bison herd from domestic cattle on the north and west borders of Yellowstone National Park. However, it has given agencies few options when population numbers are high, and/or when harsh winters force more than the average number of bison toward the boundaries of Yellowstone National Park. The capture facility at Stephens Creek on the northern boundary was not designed to hold bison for more than a day or so; yet, because the 1996-97 winter was severe and unprecedented numbers of bison were being removed by management actions, the facility was used to keep more than 100 bison throughout the winter. For this reason, alternative 4 includes a quarantine facility to keep seronegative bison captured at Stephens Creek. Removal of bison to quarantine would also help keep population numbers from growing too large, as bison completing the quarantine protocol would be released to tribes, requesting organizations, or to repopulate herds on public lands. The location of the facility has not been determined, and would require subsequent MEPA/NEPA analysis, including public input, before any decision is made. The details of a quarantine facility are described in alternative 3. Hunting is also a tool proposed for alternative 4 to help control population sizes and distribution. Except for these differences, alternative 4 is identical to the interim plan, alternative 1 . Vaccination of bison, which is part of all the alternatives, requires a safe and effective vaccine, yet one does not currently exist. Alternative 4 also assumes a quarantine facility would be available and hunting would be approved. A quarantine facility located on public land would require environmental review and compliance, and hunting could not take place unless the 1999 Montana Legislature approves it. This environmental impact statement assumes for purposes of analysis certain dates by which each of these events would occur. Any regula- tion changes needed to allow bison into SMAs outside the park are assumed to take place immediately upon signing the records of decision to select an alternative. Both the quarantine facility and hunting are assumed to be available by 2000. The provisions of the interim plan would continue until these features were in place. If the dates were not met, analysis in the "Environmental Consequences" part of this document for alternative 4 would be as described in alternative 1, the no-action alternative 1. NORTHERN BOUNDARY Reese Creek The NPS capture facility located at Stephens Creek inside Yellowstone National Park at the Reese Creek boundary would continue to operate. Features of the facility are described in alternative 1, and no changes in the Stephens Creek operation except the additional shipping of seronegative bison to quarantine would be anticipated. Bison not captured and crossing the property would be hazed back into the park, or shot with permission of the landowners, as they are now. All captured bison would be tested for exposure to B. abortus. Bison evading capture inside the park or unresponsive to hazing would be shot on private land. When the quarantine option was available, some bison would be quarantined. Captured bison would be divided into groups for safety reasons, and blood tested for exposure to B. abortus. Seropositive bison would continue to be shipped to slaughter at approved slaughter facilities. If a safe and effective vaccine was available, seronegative bison would be vaccinated. If population numbers were high or winter conditions were harsh, seronegative bison (including pregnant females) would be shipped to quarantine. If numbers were low, seronegative 84 Alternative 4 bison could be held until weather moderated and released for return to the park's interior. Under normal circumstances, bison would not remain at the Stephens Creek facility for longer than 24 hours. However, if the quarantine facility was not yet built or room was not available and population numbers were low, it could be used to keep some bison through the winter. The agencies estimate between 100 and 125 bison could be safely held in the Stephens Creek capture facility. Eagle Creek/Bear Creek Agencies would continue to monitor bison movements in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area and maintain a boundary at the Little Trail Creek/Maiden Basin hydrographic divide from November to April. However, if the Montana Legislature approved it, a fair-chase hunt from approximately October 1 to February 28 would be the primary tool used to control population numbers in this area. Details of the hunt are described in alternative 3. Fewer bison would likely attempt to cross over into the Little Trail Creek/Maiden Basin area if hunting reduced their numbers. WESTERN BOUNDARY Entry into the western boundary area would continue to be controlled using capture facilities (now located at Duck Creek and along the Madison River) from November 1 to April 30. Facilities might be moved to take advantage of changing bison migration routes from year to year. Bison evading capture at these facilities on public lands would be shot. Those evading capture on private lands would be shot at the request or with permission of the landowner. Bison on both private and public land in the area of each of these facilities might respond to baiting or hazing and be captured by agency personnel. Captured bison would be blood tested for exposure to B. abortus. All seropositive bison would be shipped to slaughter. Seronegative-nonpregnant females and all seronegative males would be identified with a small metal ear tag and a temporary visual marker, and released on public lands in the West Yellowstone area, where they could remain until May. If necessary, bison might need to be shipped a short distance from the capture facility to public lands. Seronegative-pregnant bison would be shipped to quarantine, where they would follow the quarantine protocol. Following successful completion of the quarantine protocol (see quarantine description in alternative 3), bison would be released to requesting tribes and organizations or used to repopulate herds on public lands. Limited hunting in the western boundary area, primarily as a recreational opportunity rather than as a population management tool, is also a part of this alternative. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS In this alternative, SMAs would be established in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area; the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness, including the Hellroaring and Slough Creek drainages; and the western boundary area south of Buffalo Horn Creek, including the Cabin Creek Recreation and Wildlife Management Area/Lee Metcalf Wilderness and the West Yellowstone area (see Alternative 4 map). Cattle would continue to be grazed in the West Yellowstone area on Gallatin National Forest lands from about June 15 to October 15. Cattle graze on private land from approximately June 1 to November 15. Bison would be hazed back into the park in the spring, 30 to 60 days before cattle occupy the area. The exact number of days, between 30 and 60, would be at the discretion of the state veterinarian. Those bison that could not be hazed back into the park would be shot. Bison would be allowed back into the West Yellowstone area following the departure of livestock. Bison would be shot by agencies if they occupied private lands in the area (by request or with permission of the landowner), or left the SMAs. Because there is very high elevation country to the west and private lands to the south, bison would only be able to leave the West Yellowstone area on public lands via a 85 THE ALTERNATIVES narrow corridor around Hebgen Lake Dam. Those that did so would be shot. Bison would be able to occupy the Cabin Creek Recreation and Wildlife Management Area/Lee Metcalf Wilderness to the north of the West Yellowstone area without interference from the agencies. These are public lands free of cattle, although topography and snow depths limit the number of bison that actually use them. Hunting from October 1 to February 28 would be allowed in both the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek SMA and West Yellowstone area of the western SMA. It would be the primary means of controlling population numbers in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area, and be used mostly for recreational purposes in West Yellowstone, although some secondary population control benefits would be expected. RISK MANAGEMENT Alternative 4 would rely on separation, capture, and slaughter to minimize the risk of brucellosis transmission. The primary means to ensure separation of cattle and bison would be the enforcement of con- trolled entry at the northern border described above, and temporal separation at the western border on public lands. At Reese Creek, this would include monitoring, hazing, capture and slaughter, quarantine, and shooting. At Eagle Creek/Bear Creek, monitoring, hazing, hunting and agency shooting would be used to prevent entry into the Gardiner area. In the western SMA, bison would be hazed back into the park from the West Yellowstone area to prevent them from mingling with cattle during the time livestock were present. Any remaining bison would be shot. Hunting would reduce the number of bison and slightly reduce pressure of migrating bison on boundary areas. As described above, bison would be hazed back into the park in the spring, 30 to 60 days before cattle occupy the area. The exact number of days, between 30 and 60, would be at the discretion of the state veterinarian. Those bison that could not be hazed back into the park would be shot. Bison would not be allowed into the SMA until cattle have been removed in October. Topography, availability of habitat, hazing, and agency shooting would also keep bison from moving beyond SMA boundaries or onto private land. In addition to separation, this alternative would reduce risk of transmission through capture and slaughter, and quarantine (see below for more information on quarantine). All seronegative bison captured in the Stephens Creek facility and seronegative-pregnant bison in the western SMA would be quarantined, and all seropositives would be slaughtered. This would remove all possible reactors from the vicinity where cattle would eventually be. Removing pregnant bison would ensure their birth materials did not remain onsite when cattle returned to the allotments. State animal health authorities would encourage livestock owners in the western SMA whose cattle might come in contact with bison to vaccinate female calves (4-12 months old) with RB51. Operators in boundary areas would be encouraged to annually vaccinate all subadult cattle as well as calves. Cattle herds in contact areas would continue to be surveillance tested periodically, and any herd whose member or members might be in contact with bison would be checked for exposure to B. abortus. Livestock owners on private property would continue to be responsible for all costs and materials associated with calfhood vaccination. When a safe and effective vaccine was developed for bison, it would be administered to bison in capture facilities testing negative. It might also be delivered through remote means to bison inside Yellowstone National Park. POPULATION MANAGEMENT Bison population numbers at the Reese Creek boundary would be controlled through quaran- tine or slaughter. In the West Yellowstone area, slaughter, quarantine, and to a lesser extent, hunting would be used to control population numbers. Hunting would be the primary means 86 ACPS/ZNAT/Ve f=OOR: TAF&Hes NATIONAL FOfSeST NAnCHM- foksf I wiLPerwess IpOFCAV OF IANP MAHA&tMFKT YO-U7WST0NC NATIONAL- FAFK I st Are iahp IfISH, V/ILPUFE, ANP ("ARKS \fpivatc && sky ivmpck comfany hypfo&fafhy rassiet-e e>iech CAFFX. IOCATIC ISFECSAL- MAtJA&CMFNr AFCA ^Me>i50N hunting afza % % % ♦ AFFAS WHERE CTStfN MAY Hit OCCVF OLTFSIPt OF YO-LOf/STONZ . . . NAIIONAL- FAFf POUNPAFY 87 Alternative 4 of controlling numbers in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek SMA. Quarantine A quarantine facility would give agencies flexibility in handling captured bison that they did not have (see "Alternative 3"). It would also provide a source of live, disease-free bison for tribal governments, requesting organizations, or to establish populations on other public lands. Seronegative bison could be shipped to the quarantine facility and complete an approved protocol to ensure they were disease free, rather than slaughtered as they are now. When they have completed the quarantine procedure, they would be released live to requesting organi- zations or agencies (see appendix B for quarantine protocol). If population numbers in the Yellowstone herd were high and bison were migrating out of the park, more seronegative bison captured on the west side might be quarantined, rather than released into the SMA. If numbers were low and unusually severe weather caused migration out of the park, seronegative bison might be held through the winter at the capture facilities and returned to the park rather than quarantined. Quarantined bison would be available for release to requesting tribes, organizations, or to repopulate herds on public lands, but would not be returned to the park. Any bison showing signs of exposure to B. abortus during the quarantine period would be slaughtered, and testing of the remaining bison in contact with it begun again. Because of this, bison might need to remain in quarantine for several years to be declared disease free. Bison successfully completing the full quarantine procedure without contact with any infected animals would be available for release. (See "Quarantine" section in alternative 3 for more information on facility descriptions and procedures.) Public Hunting Procedures for administering a bison hunting season would be similar to that described for alternative 3. Upon issuance of the records of decision, the agencies would request the Montana Legislature to authorize Montana to establish regulations for the public hunting of bison. If approved, regulated public hunting seasons would be administered primarily for the purpose of providing recreational hunting; to control bison numbers on public lands in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area; and, as a secondary method to control bison numbers in the West Yellowstone areas. ESTIMATE OF COST Table 5 indicates the costs that would be incurred by the interagency team for alternative 4. Table 5: Annual Cost/Income Estimates - Alternative 4 National Park Service U.S. Forest Service State of Montana APHIS Test/sample $20,000 Capture facilities' $120,000 $175,000 50,000 Operations (capture, hunting, and bison management) 158,000 $25,000 275,000 100,000 Quarantine facility1 500,000 - 800,0002 Quarantine operations 400,000 Vaccination 150,000 8,000 Average income from the sale from meat, hides, and heads +42,000 TOTAL ($428,000) ($25,000) ($408,000) ($1,078,00- $1,378,000) 1. One time only (costs for existing facilities at Stephens Creek and western SMA have already been incurred). 2. Does not include costs for land acquisition. 89 ALTERNATIVE 5: AGGRESSIVE BRUCELLOSIS CONTROL WITHIN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK THROUGH CAPTURE, TEST, AND REMOVAL This alternative would implement an aggressive three-year capture and test program for all bison in the park, including those in its interior. Those testing negative would be released in the park, and seropositives would be shipped to slaughter. If a safe and effective vaccine was available, seronegative bison would also be vaccinated. Bison would not be allowed outside the park anywhere in Montana (see Alternative 5 map), and agencies would maintain northern and western boundaries. Bison at these boundaries would be hazed back into the park if possible, but shot if they were unresponsive to hazing and leave the park. Capture facilities at Stephens Creek and at the western boundary area would be retained. In addition, an estimated seven temporary capture facilities would be set up in interior areas of the park. All untested bison would be shot in the latter stages of the capture, test, and slaughter program. After all park bison have been tested or removed, the herd would be monitored for re- appearance of brucellosis. After a number of years, the entire herd would be captured and retested. Some or all of the capture facilities would be retained for this purpose. If sero- positive bison were found, they would be sent to slaughter and the herd monitored and retested again after a period of time. If the entire herd tested free of brucellosis (i.e., less than .1% seropositive for five years), the agencies would devise a new long-term bison management plan recognizing the herd as brucellosis free. For this reason, management under alternative 5, should it be selected, might not extend the full 15 years assumed for other alternatives. Fewer unknowns exist for this alternative than most of the other alternatives. Quarantine, SMAs, or land acquisition are not part of alternative 5. Although a safe and effective vaccine for bison is not yet available, implemen- tation of this alternative does not depend on such a vaccine, but would only use it as a follow-up to parkwide capture and slaughter of seropositive bison. Each of the capture facilities would require environmental clearance to prevent impacts on natural or cultural resources, in particular threatened or endangered species or archeological resources. However, the agencies believe the areas where capture facilities would be needed are broadly defined enough that a suitable location within each (where these resources would not be affected) could be identified. NORTHERN BOUNDARY Reese Creek Although the NPS capture facility located at Stephens Creek inside Yellowstone National Park at the Reese Creek boundary would continue to operate, boundaries would primarily be controlled through monitoring of bison movements (see "Actions Common to All Alternatives"), hazing to return them to the park, and shooting. The Stephens Creek facility and its operation is described in alternative 1. Agencies would monitor bison prior to and during capture operations to locate bison groups for capture. Monitoring to assist with capture would occur at least twice a month during the period in which capture operations are taking place. During winter as bison approached the northern boundary, agency personnel would record bison locations once per week. When bison approached the Reese Creek area, the northern boundary area east of Gardiner, and the West Yellowstone area, their movements would be monitored daily. Because numerous capture and slaughter operations would be located throughout the park, fewer bison would likely be available to migrate to Reese Creek or other boundary areas. Agency personnel could haze on foot or horseback, in vehicles or aircraft, and might use cracker shells, rubber bullets, or other techniques, or any combination of those methods 90 Fishing Bridge, Lake Village, and Bridge Bay i YEU-CW5T0NC. LAKE TAfZ&Hee. NATIONAL FO^G&T ALTS/ZNATIVe Five Yellowstone National Park NATIONAL FOFCST teVKALI OF LANP MANAGEMENT YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PAPK t STATE LANP iFISH, WILPUFE, ANP PARIS' PRIVATE. PIG- SKY LL>MI>EP~ COUP Am HYPPO&PAPHY POSSIBLE CISON CAPTUPE FACILITY CAPPX. LOCATION) MILES 91 Alternative "> to move bison back into the park or into the Stephens Creek capture facility. Those bison crossing the Reese Creek border and unresponsive to hazing would be shot on private land by agencies with permission of the landowner. Eagle Creek/Bear Creek Agencies would monitor bison movements in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area from November to April, and, unlike other alternatives, would shoot any bison in this area. The frequency of moni- toring would be the same as in other alternatives, except bison would not usually be able to make it to the Little Trail Creek/Maiden Basin hydro- graphic divide without being detected and shot. Hazing would not normally be a viable option to return bison to the park, unless bison were near the park boundary. WESTERN BOUNDARY Bison would be monitored as they approached the western park boundary. They would be hazed to return them to the park, and shot or captured outside the park if unresponsive to hazing. Two Department of Livestock capture facilities located at Duck Creek and along the Madison River might be retained to aid in the brucellosis eradication effort and help enforce the western boundary. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS No SMAs would be created in this alternative, as bison would not be allowed outside park boundaries. maintain temporary capture facilities and carry out capture and testing operations in some or all of the following locations inside Yellowstone National Park in an attempt to capture every bison inside the park (see Alternative 5 map): Stephens Creek (existing capture facility) Blacktail Plateau Lamar/Crystal Bench Pelican Valley Hayden Valley Firehole River/Old Faithful (two facilities) Madison River Capture facilities in the western boundary area could also be retained. The precise locations of these facilities is unknown. However, the criteria listed in the "Actions Common to All Alternatives" chapter would apply in siting the facilities. Capture operations in the north and west boundary areas (Stephens Creek and West Yellowstone) would take place throughout winter, with interior park capture operations occurring during early to mid winter (November to January) when areas were accessible by wheeled vehicles. Park roads now left unplowed would be plowed to transport seropositive bison to slaughter (see Alternative 5 map). NPS personnel would shoot untagged bison in remote areas where capture operations would not be feasible during the latter stages when few seropositive bison remain in the herd. Agencies would monitor at least twice a month during the period when capture operations are taking place. If bison approached either the northern or western boundary area, their locations would be recorded weekly. As they approached the park boundary line, their movements would be monitored daily. RISK MANAGEMENT The primary means of managing the risk of transmission in this alternative would be the confinement of bison to park boundaries and the parkwide capture and slaughter of seropositive bison. The National Park Service would Captured bison would be divided into groups for safety reasons, and blood tested for exposure to B. abortus. Seropositive bison would continue to be shipped to slaughter at approved slaughter facilities. Therefore, temporary capture facilities would be located adjacent to existing roads. Seronegatives would be identified with a small 93 THE ALTERNATIVES metal ear tag and a temporary visual marker, and released into Yellowstone National Park. Features of the capture facilities include separating pens, chutes, loading facilities, and areas to hold bison. In addition to parkwide capture, test, and slaughter, risk would be managed by preventing bison from leaving the park. Because no cattle graze inside the park, cattle and bison would be completely spatially separated. Existing capture facilities at Reese Creek on the north, and at Duck Creek and the Madison River on the west, might be retained to provide agencies the option of capture to maintain these boundary controls. However, the primary means of controlling the exit of bison from the park would be shooting and hazing. Drops in population numbers associated with the capture and slaughter of all seropositive bison in the park would also act to reduce the number of bison migrating out of the park. Operators in boundary areas would be encouraged to annually vaccinate all subadult cattle as well as calves. Cattle herds in contact areas would continue to be surveillance tested periodically, and any herd whose member or members might be in contact with bison would be checked for exposure. Livestock owners on private property would continue to be responsi- ble for all costs and materials associated with calfhood vaccination. When a safe and effective vaccine was developed for bison, it would be administered to seronegative bison in capture facilities. It might also be delivered through remote means to bison inside Yellowstone National Park. POPULATION MANAGEMENT The aggressive capture and slaughter program is likely to lower population numbers quickly, particularly if it was accomplished over a three- year span of time. If the herd approached the minimum viable size (estimated at 580 animals) needed to maintain genetic viability, capture and slaughter operations would be slowed or halted. When it was clear the population was not in danger of falling below this number, operations would begin again. ESTIMATE OF COST Table 6 indicates the costs that would be incurred by the interagency team for alternative 5. Table 6: Annual Cost/Income Estimates - Alternative 5 National Park Service U.S. Forest Service State of Montana APHIS Test/sample $45,000 Vaccination during capture $25,000 6,000 Vaccination during phase 2 150,000 Capture facility (Stephens Creek)1 120,000 Capture operations (continuing) 206,000 $15,000 Other capture facilities (8)1 960,000 Operation of other capture facilities (3 years) during test and slaughter 655,000 Equipment/repair/replacement 200,000 Road plowing (3 years) 250,000-350,000 Average income during parkwide capture from the sale of meat, hides, and heads +430,700 TOTALS ($2,135,300- $2,235,300) ($15,000) ($51,000) 1. One time only (costs for Stephens Creek facility have already been incurred). 94 ALTERNATIVE 6: AGGRESSIVE BRUCELLOSIS CONTROL WITHIN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK THROUGH VACCINATION This alternative, like alternative 5, pursues the aggressive reduction of brucellosis from the Yellowstone bison herd. However, the entire bison herd would first be vaccinated (when a safe and effective vaccine was available), primarily through remote means, and tested as they attempted to exit at park boundary locations. When tests showed the incidence of exposure to B. abortus ceased to decline as a result of vaccination, the herdwide capture, test, and slaughter outlined in alternative 5 would begin. The vaccination stage of this alternative is referred to as phase 1 ; the capture, test, and slaughter as phase 2. Unlike alternative 5, bison would be allowed in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek and western SMAs (see Alternative 6 map), although the majority of bison in the western SMA would be tested and seronegatives released. The National Park Service would construct and operate a capture facility at Seven-Mile Bridge inside the park on the west side. Nearly all bison migrating toward the West Yellowstone area cross through this narrow area, giving agencies a better chance for capturing 100% of the bison than if existing Department of Livestock facilities at Duck Creek and Madison River were used. These facilities (at Duck Creek and Madison River) would be dismantled, although a small, backup capture facility near Horse Butte might be maintained. Like alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 7, alternative 6 would include the creation of SMAs to allow bison outside the park. It also depends heavily on a safe and effective vaccine for bison for implementation. Both of these management tools involve some unknowns. For the purposes of this environmental impact statement, the agencies have assumed that any approvals needed to allow bison outside the park would be made immediately upon signing the records of decision to select an alternative, and that a vaccine that was safe and effective for bison, and safe for nontarget species, would be available by 2000. If these dates were not met, the impacts described in the "Environmental Consequences" of alternative 6 could be slightly different than indicated. NORTHERN BOUNDARY Reese Creek The National Park Service would continue to operate the capture facility at Stephens Creek inside Yellowstone National Park to maintain boundary control at Reese Creek. Features of the facility are described in alternative 1, and no changes in the Stephens Creek operation would be anticipated under this alternative. Bison crossing the boundary would be hazed back into the park or shot. All captured bison would be tested for exposure to B. abortus. Bison evading capture inside the park might be shot. Those crossing the Reese Creek boundary and unresponsive to hazing would be shot on private land by agencies with permission of the landowner. Captured bison would be divided into groups for safety reasons. All bison, whether seropositive or seronegative, would be shipped to slaughter at approved slaughter facilities. Under normal circumstances, bison would not remain at the Stephens Creek facility for longer than 24 hours. When the aggressive capture and slaughter phase of this alternative began following the stabili- zation of seroprevalence in the population (predicted to occur after year 1 0 of vaccination), the Stephens Creek facility would become one of several capture facilities in the park, although boundary control at Reese Creek would likely be less problematic as population numbers would drop quickly. Monitoring, hazing, and shooting would remain as border control measures at Reese Creek. 95 THE ALTERNATIVES Eagle Creek/Bear Creek Agencies would monitor bison movements in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area and maintain a boundary at the Little Trail Creek/Maiden Basin hydrographic divide from November to April as described in alternatives 1, 3, and 4. (see Alternative 6 map), or remain inside the park. They can remain on public lands in the western SMA until May, when agencies would haze them back inside park boundaries. Bison would be shot by agencies if they occupied private lands in (by request or with permission of the landowner) or attempted to leave the SMA. WESTERN BOUNDARY During phase 1 and as needed during phase 2, entry into the western boundary area from November 1 to April 30 would be controlled with a new NPS capture facility located at Seven-Mile Bridge inside the western end of Yellowstone National Park, 7 miles from the western border of the park. Bison evading capture at this facility and exiting the park would be shot. Agencies would use hazing (as described above for the Stephens Creek facility), wing fences, and/or bait to move bison into the facility. Bison would be separated and blood tested for exposure to B. abortus. All sero- positive bison would be shipped to slaughter. The facility would occupy approximately 13 acres, with corrals for holding bison, and four pens to separate them. Two pastures would be available to hold bison for 24 to 36 hours until testing was completed. Water would be provided from the nearby Madison River. Electricity, if needed, would be provided by diesel generators. The facility would be located adjacent to a road, so seropositive bison could be shipped to slaughter. It would also be located so as to meet all additional criteria described in the 'Actions Common to All Alternatives." The 7 miles of park road between the facility and West Yellowstone would be plowed to facilitate transport of seropositives to slaughter. When a safe and effective vaccine was available, sero- negative bison captured at this facility would be vaccinated. Seronegative animals would be identified with a small metal ear tag and a temporary visual marker, and released onsite. They might continue their migration to the West Yellowstone area and occupy public lands outside the park in the West Yellowstone area The Seven-Mile Bridge facility would continue to operate following the stabilization of sero- prevalence rates and progression to the aggressive capture and slaughter phase of this alternative. As population numbers dropped in the interior of the park, fewer bison would be likely to migrate toward the west end of the park and be captured in the Seven-Mile Bridge facility. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS In this alternative, SMAs would include the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area, the Hellroaring and Slough Creek drainages, Cabin Creek Recreation and Wildlife Management Area/Lee Metcalf Wilderness, and the portion of West Yellowstone shown on the Alternative 6 map. Cattle would be grazed on Gallatin National Forest lands in the West Yellowstone area from about June 15 to October 15. During phase 1 and as needed during phase 2 of this alternative, bison in the West Yellowstone area would be hazed back into the park in the spring, 30-60 days before cattle occupy the area. The exact number of days, between 30 and 60, would be at the discretion of the state veterinarian. Bison that could not be hazed back into the park would be shot. They would be allowed back into the western SMA following the departure of livestock. Bison could occupy the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area year-round. They would also be allowed to occupy the Cabin Creek area, Lee Metcalf Wilderness, and Hellroaring and Slough Creek drainages without agency intervention. 96 ALTSJSNAT/Ye S/X Yellowstone National Park United Stales Department of the Interior ■ National Park Se DSC "May 1998* 101-20,113 TAR&Hee NATIONAL FO&e^T % % % % APEAS WHEFC &SOH NAY ,>>> occuk oursipe. of Yellowstone. . , . NATIONAL- FAPf- POUNPAfV ISTEi I At MANAO-tMOJI- Af*€A PHA&e. ONG POSSIBLE ttSON CAFTUPC FACILITY (AFFX. LOCATION) FHA&e. TWO 97 Alternative (> RISK MANAGEMENT Phase 1 of this alternative relies on vaccination of bison and spatial and temporal separation measures to minimize risk until seropre valence rates stabilized. When they did (predicted to occur about 10 years after whole-herd vaccination begins), a phase 2 parkwide capture, test, and slaughter program would be implemented to reduce risk to near zero. Throughout both phases, spatial separation would be assured through the enforcement of controlled entry at the northern and western borders described above, as well as temporal separation at the western border on public lands. At Reese Creek, this would include monitoring, hazing, capture and slaughter, and shooting. At Eagle Creek/Bear Creek, monitoring, hazing, and shooting would be used to prevent entry into the Gardiner area. On the western end, the Seven-Mile Bridge capture facility would catch most bison migrating toward the West Yellowstone area, and monitoring, hazing, capture and slaughter, and shooting would be used to maintain this boundary and ensure separation of bison and cattle. Topography and availability of habitat also keep bison from straying beyond SMA boundaries. In the West Yellowstone area of the western SMA, cattle and bison would also be separated in time. During phase 1 and as needed during phase 2 of this alternative, bison would be hazed back into the park in the spring, 30 to 60 days before cattle occupy the area. The exact number of days, between 30 and 60, would be at the discretion of the state veterinarian. Those bison that could not be hazed back into the park would be shot. Bison would not be allowed into the SMA until cattle have been removed in October. The capture facilities and boundary control measures would continue in phase 2 of this alternative, when aggressive capture and slaughter of all seropositive bison in the herd begins. However, since population numbers would drop quickly, fewer bison would migrate out of the park toward lands occupied by cattle. In addition to the means described above to ensure boundary control and bison and cattle separation, this alternative would include aggressive vaccination of the entire park herd on an annual basis, and the capture and slaughter of all remaining seropositive bison. Vaccination with a safe and effective vaccine of captured seronegative bison would occur through hand injection during phase 2, as well as remote vaccination through means such as bio-bullets. Remote vaccination would occur yearly. While the vaccination effort is ongoing, the risk of transmission would be controlled by restricting bison to areas where cattle were not present (described above), or through temporal separation. Risks would be further reduced by slaughtering all captured seropositive bison. When seroprevalence rates did not decrease for a period of two years, they would assume to have stabilized and phase 2 would begin. The National Park Service would then construct seven additional capture facilities across the park as described in alternative 5. Bison throughout the park would be captured, tested, and seropositives slaughtered. Roads inside the park indicated on the alternative 6 map would be plowed as needed to allow transport of sero- positive bison to slaughter. Agencies would attempt to capture every bison in the park, and would shoot those not marked as seronegative in inaccessible areas. Capture operations inside the park would occur primarily during late fall and early winter. Agencies would haze on foot, on horseback, or by helicopter to move bison toward capture facilities, using wing fences, bait, loud noise, or other methods. The combination of vaccination and capture and slaughter would eventually result in a very low rate of seroprevalence in the bison population, and reduce the risk of trans- mission to cattle to near zero. Vaccination of bison would continue following the capture and slaughter of seropositive bison to help ensure the lowest possible infection rate. The length of time vaccination of the herd continues would depend on the original efficacy of the vaccine, and the success of ongoing efforts to control brucellosis in the Wyoming elk population. 99 THE ALTERNATIVES State animal health authorities would encourage livestock owners in the western SMA whose cattle may come in contact with bison to vaccinate female calves (4-1 2 months old) against brucellosis with RB51 or other approved vaccine. Operators in boundary areas would be encouraged to annually vaccinate all subadult cattle as well as calves. Cattle herds in contact areas would continue to be surveillance tested periodically, and any herd whose member or members may be in contact with bison would be checked for exposure. Livestock owners on private property would continue to be responsible for all costs and materials associated with calfhood vaccination. harsh winters when many bison might attempt to move toward park boundaries. During phase 2 of this alternative when capture facilities were set up throughout the park, population numbers would be expected to move toward the lower, rather than higher, end of the range. If numbers moved toward the lower end of the range during phase 1 of this alternative, both capture facilities could be converted to temporary holding facilities to keep bison during harsh winters. If population numbers fell too quickly during the second parkwide capture and slaughter phase of this alternative, operations would be slowed or halted until the population numbers showed stabilization or recovery. POPULATION MANAGEMENT ESTIMATE OF COST The effect of capture and slaughter operations at Stephens Creek and Seven-Mile Bridge and other boundary control measures would be to reduce population numbers, particularly during Table 7 indicates the costs that would be incurred by the interagency team for alternative 6. Table 7: Annual Cost/Income Estimates - Alternative 6 National Park Service U.S. Forest Service State of Montana APHIS Test/sample - phase 1 $10,000 $20,000 Test/sample - phase 2 40,000 25,000 Capture facilities at Stephens Creek and Seven-Mile Bridge - phase 1 ' 270,000 Operations 294,000 $15,000 Road plowing - phase 1(10 years) 21.000 Vaccination 150,000 2,000 Capture facilities - phase 2 (6)' 720,000 Operations - phase 2 (3 years) 855,000 Road plowing - phase 2 (3 years) 250,000-350,000 Operations $175,000 Average income from the sale of meat, hides, and heads Phase 2 - +278,000 Phase 1 - +33,000 TOTALS ($745,000-phase 1 - $l,909,000-phase2) ($15,000) ($142,000-phase 1 - $175,000-phase2) ($47,000) 1. One time only (costs for Stephens Creek facility have already been incurred). 100 ALTERNATIVE 7: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE - MANAGE FOR SPECIFIC BISON POPULATION RANGE This alternative, like others evaluated in this environmental impact statement, involves many unknowns and assumptions about future conditions and available tools to manage the bison population. These assumptions represent what the agencies believe are most reasonable time frames for these tools to become available. Should one or more be available earlier or later than assumed for the purposes of analysis in this environmental impact statement, the impacts on several resources could be slightly different than indicated in the "Environmental Consequences." It is also possible that while one management option is approved in the time frame assumed, another might not. The agencies would use whichever tools were approved when they became available. Again, this might mean slightly different impacts than those described for alternative 7. The preferred alternative includes the use of capture, test, and slaughter, the creation of special management areas (SMAs) in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area and west of the park, hazing and shooting bison outside the SMAs and on private lands within the SMAs, quarantine of some seronegative bison, hunting for recre- ational purposes and to help control bison distribution, vaccination of bison, the potential acquisition of additional winter range and the proposed creation of an SMA on that range as management tools. As in all alternatives except alternative 5, the preferred alternative would allow bison outside park boundaries. This, or agency actions to manage bison on these lands, would require the creation of SMAs to protect Montana's class- free status, and the approval of the state of Montana as specified by Montana law to establish SMAs. Use of quarantine as a management tool would provide the agencies flexibility in handling captured bison they do not now have. However, such a quarantine facility does not yet exist, and environmental compliance and public review would be required to examine alternative designs and locations before it could be built or operated on public land. For purposes of analysis, the environmental impact statement assumes any required approvals to create SMAs would occur immediately upon signing the records of decision to implement the selected alternative and that the quarantine facility would be built and operating by the year 1999. If this proved not to be the case, the agencies would continue to rely on the capture, slaughter, hazing, and/or shooting of all bison attempting to exit the park at Reese Creek as described in the Interim Bison Management Plan under which the agencies now operate. When the facility was built, seronegative bison captured at the Stephens Creek facility would normally be transferred to quarantine, although at very low or very high population numbers this might not be the case (See "Population Management" section). Seronegative-pregnant bison captured at facilities inside the western SMA would also be quarantined and available for release following the successful completion of quarantine protocol. Hunting is an additional management tool this alternative assumes would be available to help maintain a prescribed population size and distribution. The agencies would request the 1999 Montana Legislature to authorize a fair- chase hunt for bison. If authorized, the agencies would recommend Montana establish regulations for the public hunting of bison in a timely manner in accordance with applicable state laws. This analysis has assumed hunting would be available as a management tool in the year 2000. However, both authorization and appropriate state environmental compliance and public review would be completed before implementation of a bison hunt could begin. 101 THH ALTERNATIVES This alternative, like all others, also assumes the use of a safe and effective vaccine on bison throughout the park, as well as the use of a safe vaccine on captured or quarantined bison. As the section on "Vaccination" in Actions Common to All Alternatives" indicates, a vaccine known to be safe and effective for bison, and safe for nontarget species does not currently exist, and the administration of a vaccine would require agreement from the agencies as well as possible environmental compliance and review. The decision on when a vaccine is safe and effective "enough" is complex and depends on a variety of factors. It is unknown when such a vaccine would be available, although the agencies believed it was reasonable to assume that vaccination would begin in the year 2000. For purposes of analysis, this alternative also anticipates acquisition through purchase or easement of private property to the north of the park. This could only occur if the current owners of the property were willing to sell or grant easements on part or all of the property the agencies believed was useful for plan implemen- tation, money was available for such a purchase, an organization or public entity agreed to manage the land, and all necessary environ- mental review and compliance was completed. Any or all of these conditions might or might not be met. The agencies are currently discussing the possible acquisition of land north of Yellowstone National Park, and have assumed for the purposes of analysis that the conditions would be met and purchase or easement would occur in the year 2000. The terms of the possible acquisition or easement at this time are unknown. In part because of these unknowns, this environmental impact statement analyzes the effect of the preferred alternative on bison distribution with and without the purchase or easement. This same information for impacts on other resources is available by comparing the environmental consequences sections for alter- native 4, where acquisition was not anticipated. The preferred alternative (alternative 7) departs from all other alternatives in that a range of bison population numbers is analyzed that differs from the other alternatives. This range is from 1,700 to 2,500 bison. Agency-implemented lethal controls would decrease as the population approached 1 ,700 bison and would cease at 1,700 bison in certain areas as described in management sections for each area. In general, hazing bison from areas where they were not permitted such as outside SMAs or on private land would be attempted before they were shot. Untested bison in the western SMA that posed a lower possibility of transmission of brucellosis and animals testing negative and previously released, would be allowed on public land during periods of the year that cattle were not present. Bison that posed a greater possibility of disease transmission would be removed. The state of Montana reserves the right to identify bison with a lower possibility of transmission according to such criteria as the state veterinarian and the Board of Livestock deem necessary to prevent brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle and to prevent import sanctions on Montana cattle by other states. The determination of animals in the western SMA that pose a lower possibility of transmission would be within the discretion of the Montana state veterinarian. The Montana state veterinarian would consult with APHIS and other state animal health authorities and use the best available science when making this determination (see appendixes A and G). Measures to remove increasing numbers of bison would be implemented as the population approached 2,500. However, the agencies might not be able to limit the herd to 2,500 because all lethal measures would occur at or outside the park boundary and in response to bison migrations. In phase 2, it is assumed the agencies would acquire access to additional lands in the Gardiner Valley on the west side of the Yellowstone River for uses including winter range, siting the capture facility, and other bison management activities provided willing sellers were identified and funding was available. These lands would be evaluated along with other alternative sites for a quarantine facility. This might mean purchase of grazing rights, easements, or property from all willing sellers. Assuming land or easements were acquired and 102 Alternative 7: Preferred Alternative placed under state or federal management, this area could be used for winter range, siting the capture facility, and other bison management activities. Physical barriers such as heavy jack- leg fencing might be placed at the north end next to the Yellowstone River to block bison movement. Protective fencing around small private inholdings could be constaicted with landowner concurrence. Allowing bison outside the park in this area, should it be acquired, would require the creation of an SMA. For the remainder of this description, this SMA is referred to as the Reese Creek SMA. The capture facility now located at Stephens Creek could be dismantled and relocated to a suitable location north of the park boundary and south of Yankee Jim Canyon in this SMA. Although the preferred alternative is distinct, it has elements similar to other alternatives. Capture and slaughter of seropositives is the primary means of managing risk, as it is in alternatives 1, 4, and 5. As many seronegative bison as possible would be shipped to a quarantine facility, as they would be in alternative 4. Also like alternative 4, low levels of hunting would be allowed in one or more of the SMAs outside the park. As in alternative 3, the preferred alternative allows the Stephens Creek facility to be moved to a suitable location north of the park boundary and south of Yankee Jim Canyon if the land was acquired under public ownership. However, as described above (and in the "Population Management" section below), this alternative is much more specific in defining a narrower population range and management actions to keep it within that range. NORTHERN BOUNDARY described in alternative 1, and no changes in operation except the additional shipment of as many seronegative bison as possible to quarantine would be anticipated. Criteria listed in "Actions Common to All Alternatives" for the location of a capture facility would apply to siting such a facility if it were moved. Management actions at the capture facility would vary, depending on the population size. Bison evading capture at the Stephens Creek facility (or at the new capture facility on acquired property, should this occur) might be shot or hazed on private land. If population numbers approached 1,700, agencies would haze bison in the park or capture facility if possible rather than shoot them. If population numbers approached 2,500, agency personnel would likely shoot bison when they occupied private land, rather than trying to haze them back into the park or capture facility. Captured bison would be divided into groups for safety reasons and blood tested for exposure to B. abortus. Seropositive bison would be shipped to slaughter at approved slaughter facilities. Until a quarantine facility was approved, sited, and built, seronegative captured bison at Stephens Creek would also be shipped to slaughter, unless population numbers were approaching 1,700. If population numbers were low (approaching 1,700), seronegative bison might be held until weather moderated and released back into the park. Should such environmental conditions recur at low popula- tion numbers, the Stephens Creek capture facility might again be used to temporarily hold overwintering bison. The agencies estimate between 100 and 125 bison could be safely held in the Stephens Creek facility. Reese Creek If acquisition of land from willing sellers north of the park occurred, it would be evaluated as an alternate site for the Stephens Creek capture facility managed by the park. However, if lands were not acquired, the park would continue to operate the facility throughout the life of this plan. Features of the capture facility are If bison numbers were approaching 2,500 and bison left the park, seronegative bison would be sent to quarantine for release following completion of protocol described in appendix B. Bison completing the full quarantine protocol would be made available to establish bison populations on tribal lands, other appropriate public lands, or provided to other appropriate public institutions or other qualified recipients. 103 THE ALTERNATIVES When a safe vaccine was available, seronegative bison would also be vaccinated at the capture or quarantine facility. If the quarantine facility was full (and population numbers at or above 2,500), captured seronegative bison would be sent to slaughter. In phase 2, these same functions could be relocated to a new capture facility on acquired lands north of the park boundary and south of Yankee Jim Canyon. This is dependent on the acquisition from willing sellers of private lands, easements, or grazing rights to property north of the park border to Yankee Jim Canyon (see Alternative 7 map). Changes to allotments on the north side of the park would be possible in phase 2. Eagle Creek/Bear Creek Agencies would monitor bison movements in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area and maintain a boundary at the Little Trail Creek/Maiden Basin hydrographic divide through limited hunting (if approved by the Montana Legislature), hazing, and agency shooting. Hunting would also keep population numbers lower and decrease the number of bison approaching the boundary at the Little Trail Creek/Maiden Basin hydro- graphic divide. WESTERN BOUNDARY be moved to the Horse Butte area to take advantage of changing bison migration routes. This capture facility would likely be located south of the Horse Butte village and east of the cattle guard going onto the butte to avoid the existing designated bald eagle protection area. It would be sited using criteria outlined in "Actions Common to All Alternatives" and operated jointly by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the National Park Service. Either of these capture facilities could be relocated in future winters if bison migration paths changed. Bison would be moved into the facilities using bait, hazing, wing fences, or other appropriate methods. They would be tested for exposure to B. abortus, and all seropositive bison shipped to slaughter at an approved slaughterhouse. Seronegative-pregnant bison would be sent to quarantine. Normally (e.g., when population size is in the mid-range), seronegative-nonpregnant bison would be identified with a metal ear tag and a temporary visual marker and released onto public lands in the West Yellowstone area. The treatment of seronegative bison captured on the west side would change if populations levels approached the low (1,700) end or the high (2,500) end (see "Population Management" section below). No changes in allotments or grazing rights on the west side of the analysis area would be anticipated in either phase 1 or phase 2. Agencies would monitor and haze or shoot bison leaving the northern boundary (to the south of Buffalo Horn Creek) of the West Yellowstone area of the western SMA (see Alternative 7 map). Those leaving to the west along Hebgen Lake Dam would also be hazed or shot. Although hunting in the West Yellowstone area is not a part of the preferred alternative in phase 1, the agencies could include hunting as a population management tool in phase 2. The state of Montana would continue to operate a capture facility on private land at Duck Creek in the western SMA. A second facility, located on public land along the Madison River, would SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS In this alternative, SMAs would be established in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area, the Hellroaring and Slough Creek drainages, and the West Yellowstone area south of Buffalo Horn Creek, including the Cabin Creek Recreation and Wildlife Management Area/Lee Metcalf Wilderness (see Alternative 7 map). If lands were acquired north of the park border at Reese Creek, they too could become an SMA. Any SMA requires the approval of the state of Montana as specified by Montana law. 104 rAjs&nee national forest NATIONAL fofest injfeau of lanp management yeiumstone national, pafk i state. l-anp iTISrt, V/ILPUFE, ANP FAPf^ \fpivate w#- sky wmpef- company % % % % AFEAS V/HEPE CTStfW MAY ml occur*, outsipe of yeu-owstone ... NATIONAL PAFV- KXMPAKY \5PECIAL MANAGEMENT AFEA I CTftfN HUNTING AFEA RHAS>e. ONB FHAe>e two Sy/\S\ possible phase two (XX, PISON HUNTING- AFEA 105 Alternative 7: Preferred Alternative Agencies would use the management tools described in the "Northern Boundary" and "Western Boundary" sections of this alternative. Although hunting in the Reese Creek SMA is not part of the alternative in phase 1, it might become a part later if agencies felt it was appropriate and the legislature approved it. If so, the number of hunting permits would be increased when the population level approached 2,500, and decreased when it approached 1 ,700. The details of the hunt and how it would be conducted would be similar to those described in alternative 3, although the number of permits would likely be more limited. A limited public hunt in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek SMA would be used to help control population numbers and distribution and to provide recreation. The hunt would likely run between October 1 and February 28 (see the description in "Population Management" section below). Cattle would continue to be grazed on Gallatin National Forest lands in the West Yellowstone area from about June 1 5 to October 30. Cattle graze on private land from approximately June 1 to November 15. Bison would be hazed back into the park in the spring, 30 to 60 days before cattle occupy the area. The exact number of days, between 30 and 60, would be at the discretion of the state veterinarian. Those bison that could not be hazed back into the park would be shot. Seronegative-nonpregnant bison released from capture facilities on the west side would be allowed back into the SMA following the departure of livestock if populations were in the low or mid range. If the bison herd was approaching 2,500, a larger proportion of captured seronegatives would be shipped to quarantine rather than released. If population numbers were high, bison would be shot by agencies (by request or with permission of the landowner) if they occupied private lands in or attempted to leave the SMA. If numbers were low, it would be the preference of the agencies to use hazing as a primary tool to keep bison off private land or from crossing out of the western SMA. If hazing was unsuccessful or the private landowner would not allow hazing, the agencies would shoot bison identified for removal. Very high elevation country to the west would help keep bison confined to the SMA. Bison would be able to occupy the Cabin Creek Recreation and Wildlife Management Area and Monument Mountain Unit of the Lee Metcalf Wilderness to the north of the West Yellowstone area without agency management. These lands are without livestock allotments, although topography and snow depths limit the number of bison that actually use them. Hunting bison in the western SMA might be considered as an adjunct to capture operations. If so, it would be used to help manage population size and distribution. The number of hunting permits issued would increase when the population approached 2,500, and decrease as it approached 1,700. As described above, the Duck Creek capture facility would continue to operate at its present location, and a second west side capture facility would likely be built at Horse Butte. RISK MANAGEMENT Alternative 7 would rely on separation, capture, slaughter of seropositives, and vaccination of bison to reduce the risk of brucellosis transmission. The primary means to ensure separation of cattle and bison would be the enforcement of controlled entry at the northern border and in the western SMA as described above, and temporal separation in the western SMA. On the north end, agencies would use monitoring, hazing, capture, slaughter of seropositives, and agency shooting to maintain separation at Reese Creek. At Eagle Creek/Bear Creek, monitoring, hazing, hunting, and agency shooting would prevent entry into the Gardiner area. If land was acquired north of the park and a Reese Creek SMA was established, hunting could be used in the SMA 107 THE ALTERNATIVES to help control population numbers and distribution. In the West Yellowstone area, temporal separation would be maintained by allowing seronegative-nonpregnant bison in the area in the winter months and cattle in the summer. To prevent commingling of bison and cattle, bison would hazed back into the park in the spring, 30 to 60 days before cattle occupy the area. The exact number of days, between 30 and 60, would be at the discretion of the state veterinarian. Those bison that could not be hazed back into the park would be shot. Bison would not be allowed in the SMA until cattle have been removed in October/November. Hunting, if it was approved, would help control population numbers and distribution. Topography, availability of habitat, hazing, hunting, and agency shooting would keep bison from moving beyond SMA boundaries or onto private land. In addition to separation, this alternative would reduce risk of transmission to cattle in the West Yellowstone area of the western SMA through capture and slaughter of seropositives in two the capture facilities described above. Seronegative-pregnant females and bison that posed a greater possibility of disease transmission, including pregnant, untested females or females with newborn calves who have not passed all birth membranes would be captured and quarantined or removed. Removing pregnant bison would ensure no birth materials are left behind when cattle reoccupy the area in the summer. Removal could be through shooting, or if logistically feasible, through immobilization via dart. If the bison has a newborn calf, the calf would be captured by hand or darted. The immobilized animals would be transported back into the park, to quarantine, or to an approved research facility. (Experience to date indicates the chance of a female with a newborn calf who has not passed all birth membranes appearing in the western boundary area is very low. None was observed in any of the past bison control operations.) Operators in the West Yellowstone area of the western SMA on public lands would be encouraged to vaccinate female cattle calves against brucellosis. Operators in all other boundary areas would be encouraged to annually vaccinate all subadult cattle as well as calves. Cattle herds in contact areas would continue to be surveillance tested periodically, and any herd whose member or members might have come in contact with bison would be checked for exposure. Livestock owners on private property would continue to be responsible for all costs and materials associated with calfhood vaccination. When a vaccine was developed that was determined safe for bison and nontarget animals, it would be administered to captured bison and bison placed in quarantine. When a safe and effective vaccine was developed, it would be administered through remote means to free- ranging bison. POPULATION MANAGEMENT Bison population numbers at the northern park boundary would be controlled through the increasing or decreasing use of lethal methods to manage bison. At low population numbers, if bison crossed the Reese Creek boundary onto private land, the agencies would attempt to haze the bison back into the park. If hazing was unsuccessful or the private landowner would not allow hazing, the agencies would shoot those bison on private land. If winter conditions were very severe, some bison could be held and fed at the capture facility throughout the remainder of the winter. If lands north of the park were acquired and a Reese Creek SMA was estab- lished on the west side of the Yellowstone River, bison would be hazed off private land within the SMA if population numbers remained low. If hazing was unsuccessful or the private landowner would not allow hazing, the agencies would shoot those bison on private land within the SMA. Also, if hunting was approved in the SMA, few or no permits would be issued if the herd size was approaching 1 ,700. 108 Alternative 7. Preferred Alternative If the bison population approached 2,500 and bison approached the SMA boundary, captured seronegative bison would be sent to quarantine. If the quarantine facility was full, seronegative bison would be sent to slaughter. Bison released from quarantine would be made available to establish bison populations on tribal lands, other appropriate public lands, or provided to other appropriate public institutions or other qualified recipients. In phase 1, bison crossing the park boundary at Reese Creek would be shot on private land. In phase 2, bison going beyond the SMA boundary would be shot by agencies. If the Reese Creek SMA was created, bison on private land within its boundary would be shot upon landowner request. If hunting was approved in the new SMA, increasing numbers of permits would probably be issued as population numbers approached 2,500. If the population was in the mid range, seronegative-nonpregnant bison captured at the two existing capture facilities on the west side would be released onto public lands. Seronegative-pregnant bison would be sent to quarantine. When the population numbers approached 2,500, agencies would shoot bison on private land or those bison attempting to leave the SMA. All seronegative bison captured in the two facilities operating in the western SMA would be shipped to quarantine provided facility space was available and those bison would be released upon completion of quarantine protocol to establish bison populations on tribal lands, other appropriate public lands, or provided to other appropriate public institutions or qualified recipients. Hunting permits for the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area would also increase or decrease, depending on the size of the herd. Agencies would attempt to haze bison back into the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek SMA if possible at low population levels and would rely more on shooting to maintain the boundary at Little Trail Creek/Maiden Basin hydrographic divide at higher population levels. The agencies would use the same types of methods in the western SMA to control population size. When population numbers were low, bison would be hazed off private land, rather than shot. Those attempting to leave the SMA would be hazed if possible, and shot only as a last resort. Bison would continue to be captured on the west side as the population approaches the low end (1,700 animals). All bison posing a lower risk of transmission and animals testing negative and previously released would be allowed on public lands in the SMA. All bison in the SMA would be hazed back into the park in May to facilitate reoccupation of the area by cattle in the summer. If hunting was approved in this SMA, no permits would be issued until the population grew beyond 1 ,700. Quarantine A quarantine facility would be proposed (e.g., when population levels were not approaching 1 ,700 and bison were migrating out of the park) to give agencies flexibility in handling captured bison that they do not now have (see alternative 3). It would also provide a source of live, disease-free bison for tribal governments, requesting organizations, or to establish populations on other public lands. Seronegative bison could be shipped to the quarantine facility and complete an approved protocol to ensure they were disease free. When they have completed the quarantine protocol described in appendix B, they could be released to establish bison populations on tribal lands, other appropriate public lands, or provided to other appropriate public institutions and qualified recipients. Any bison showing signs of exposure to B. abortus during the quarantine period would be slaughtered, and testing of the remaining bison in contact with it begun again. Because of this, bison might need to remain in quarantine for several years to be declared disease free. Bison successfully completing the full quarantine procedure without contact with any infected animals would be available for release (see "Quarantine" section in alternative 3 for 109 THE ALTERNATIVES more information on facility description and procedures). The agencies would sign a memorandum of understanding to formalize commitments regarding a quarantine facility should the preferred alternative or another alternative including quarantine be selected. Details of the design, location, and other factors would be decided following appropriate environmental review and compliance. Public Hunting Upon issuance of the records of decision, the agencies would request the Montana Legislature authorize Montana to establish regulations for the public hunting of bison. If approved, regulated public hunting seasons would be administered to help control bison numbers and provide recreation on public lands in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area. In addition to controlling bison numbers, hunting would also help prevent bison on public lands in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area from migrating to private lands. Hunting might also be allowed in the West Yellowstone and other SMAs. If so, it would be used to help remove bison from private lands in both areas, and in maintaining bison population and distribution. Regulations likely would authorize a season that would begin no earlier than October 1 and end no later than February 28, with several desig- nated hunting periods within the season. Individual licensed hunters would be authorized to hunt during one designated hunting period. The regulations would specify a quota on the number of licenses to be issued for each area during each hunting season. Each licensed hunter could legally take one bison of any age and of either sex. Each hunter interested in participating in the bison season would submit an application for a license, similar to an application for other special hunting licenses. Applicants would submit the fees for the license and a processing fee with the application. Hunting would begin in the year 2000 at the earliest. Based on bison population numbers, winter distribution on public and private lands, and other factors, the agencies might conduct additional special drawings to harvest additional bison (see additional details of the hunt in the description of alternative 3). ESTIMATE OF COST Table 8 indicates the costs that would be incurred by the interagency team for alternative 7. 110 Alternative 7: Preferred Alternative Table 8 : Annual Cost/Incomk Estimates - Alternative 7: Preferred Alternative National Park Service U.S. Forest Service Stale of Montana APHIS Shared Costs Test/sample $25,000 Capture facility (Stephens Creek)' $ 1 20,000 Capture facility (west area)' $175,000 50,000 Operations at capture facilities 337,000 $15,000 225,000 1 00,000 Hunting operations 10.11(10 50,000 Equipment, repair, replacement 66,000 Vaccination 150,000 8,000 Relocate Stephens Creek capture facility1 60,000 Quarantine facility' 500,000- 800,0002 Quarantine operations (50 bison /yr) 400,000 Acquisition1 $29.1 million Easement1 Unknown3 Conversion of livestock operations' Unknown3 Wildlife/winter use monitoring 5,000 Average income from the sale of meat, hides, and heads +46,800 TOTALS ($733,000) ($30,000) ($403,200) ($1,083,000- $1,383,000) (Up to $29.1 million) 1. One time only capital costs. 2. Does not include land costs for quarantine facility. 3. Easement and conversion would substitute for acquisition, and costs would be less than $29.1 million. 111 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED A segment of the public asked that agencies develop alternatives that used no lethal controls and that allowed bison to exist with no restrictions on their distribution or population size. This alternative would not resolve need or meet the purpose of the plan (see the "Purpose of and Need for Action"), and was therefore eliminated from full-scale analysis and consideration, although it was considered thoughtfully before doing so. Information and conclusions from the preliminary analysis of this alternative is presented below to show a "no management" baseline. If bison were allowed to freely leave Yellowstone National Park, they would move north into the Gardiner, Paradise, and Yellowstone River valleys and west along the Madison River, Duck Creek, and Cougar Creek into the Madison River valley. The continental divide lies to the west of these areas, but bison could travel north, south, and east, and potentially reinhabit adjacent river valleys. As bison travel onto private lands, or onto public lands where cattle are grazed, the chances of contact and of the transmission of brucellosis would increase, jeopardizing the state's class- free status. If the disease were to spread undetected, it could quickly move to other states since Montana exports breeding cattle. As bison move into populated areas, the risk of human injury and private property damage would increase. Areas to the north and west of the park have experienced significant increases in human occupation and development over the past few years, and this trend is not expected to change. Additional traffic accidents involving bison would likely occur as well. The corresponding social and economic consequences would be substantial. Additional alternatives were considered but rejected for reasons outlined in the "Public Scoping" section of the "Purpose of and Need for Action." 112 HOW ALTERNATIVES MEET STATED OBJECTIVES The interagency team included methods in each of the alternatives to ensure they met the nine stated objectives (see "Objectives and Constraints" section of the "Purpose of and Need for Action") to some degree. These are listed in table 9. Many of these objectives are discussed in more detail in both the "Objectives and Constraints" section of the "Purpose of and Need for Action," and in the description of each alternative in part 2, "The Alternatives." Table 9: Methods Each Alternative Uses to Ensure Each Agreed-upon Objective Is Met Objective Alternative 1: No Action - Continuation of the Current Interim Bison Management Plan Alternative 2: Minimal Management Alternative 3: Management with Emphasis on Public Hunting Alternative 4: Interim Plan with Limited Public Hunting and Quarantine Alternative 5: Aggressive Brucellosis Control within Yellowstone National Park through Capture, Test, and Removal Alternative 6: Aggressive Brucellosis Control within Yellowstone National Park through Vaccination Alternative 7: Preferred Alternative - Manage for Specific Bison Population Range 1. Address bison population size and distribution; have specific commitments relating to size of bison herd Overall size not specified in Interim Bison Management Plan; distri- bution (winter numbers): Eagle Creek/Bear Creek - 100-200, Reese Creek - 0; West Yellowstone - 50-100; no commingling of bison/cattle per landowner discretion; capture/slaughter and agency shooting controls distribution Overall size: 1,700 to whatever environmental conditions dictate; road closure controls distribution; limited by landowner tolerance; acquire additional winter range; allow bison on all public land inside line; distribution (winter numbers): Eagle Creek/Bear Creek - 100-200, Gardiner Valley area - 200; West Yellowstone -50-100 Overall size: 1,700-3.500; West Yellowstone and Eagle Creek/Bear Creek: hunting program to regulate numbers/ distribution; Reese Creek: capture/slaughter - run capture facility until additional winter range acquired; quarantine seronegatives: Eagle Creek/Bear Creek - 100-200, Reese Creek SMA - 50-100; W. Yellowstone - 50-100 Overall size: 1 ,700-3,500; distri- bution (winter numbers): Eagle Creek/Bear Creek - 100-200; Reese Creek - 0; West Yellowstone - 50-100; capture, test, slaughter, or quarantine, shooting to control distribution; hunting in Eagle Creek/Bear Creek and West Yellowstone; remove seronegatives captured at Reese Creek to control numbers Distribution limited to Yellowstone National Park; agencies capture/test/ slaughter seropositives parkwide; shoot strays; population size dictated by disease control success Overall size: 1,700-3,500; distri- bution (winter numbers): Eagle Creek/Bear Creek - 100-200; Reese Creek - 0; West Yellowstone - 50-100; capture, test, slaughter, shooting; capture at Seven-Mile Bridge; incidental hunting at Eagle Creek/Bear Creek and West Yellowstone may help control numbers; capture and slaughter control distribution Overall size: 1,700- 2,500: Eagle Creek/Bear Creek - 100-200; Reese Creek SMA - 50-100; West Yellowstone - 50-100; capture, test, slaughter and quarantine, shooting, limited hunting in Eagle Creek/Bear Creek and West Yellowstone control numbers and distribution; specific measures at specific population ranges 2. Clearly define a boundary line beyond which bison will not be tolerated Maiden/Little Trail, Reese Creek, on north; West Yellowstone/Horse Butte/north boundary of Cabin Creek; Hebgen Lake on west side Yankee Jim Canyon on north; Buffalo Horn Creek; Hebgen Lake on west side Yankee Jim Canyon, west side of Yellowstone River and Gardiner; Little Creek/Maiden Basin on east side of river; Cabin Creek, Hebgen Lake on west side Same as alternative 1 All bison restricted to Yellowstone National Park Inside Yellowstone National Park; Eagle Creek/Bear Creek; West Yellowstone, Horse Butte Same as alternative 3 3. Address the risk to public safety and private property damage by bison Removal at landowner request or by Department of Livestock Same as alternative 1 Removal at landowner request or by Department of Livestock; West Yellowstone - hunting on private lands with agreement by landowners Removal at landowner request or by Department of Livestock; special hunt on private land Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 4 4. Commit to the eventual elimination of brucellosis in bison Vaccinate bison when safe and effective vaccine developed; capture/slaughter seropositives in West Yellowstone; slaughter all at Reese Creek Vaccinate bison when safe and effective vaccine developed Vaccinate bison when safe and effective vaccine developed; slaughter seropositives; remove seronegatives captured at Reese Creek Vaccinate bison when safe and effective vaccine developed; capture/slaughter seropositives; remove seronegatives captured at Reese Creek Parkwide capture and slaughter of seropositives; vaccinate when safe and effective vaccine developed Capture/slaughter seropositives at Reese Creek/Seven-Mile Bridge; parkwide vaccination until seropositive rate plateaus; then parkwide capture and slaughter of seropositives Vaccinate bison when safe and effective vaccine developed; slaughter seropositives; quarantine seronegatives captured at Reese Creek 5. Protect livestock from the risk of brucellosis Monitor movement; test/slaughter all seropositives (and some sero- negatives); vaccinate bison/cattle; enforced boundary; remove on private land; surveillance testing; test/vaccinate adult contact cattle; shoot on private land or crossing out ofSMAs Monitor movement; modify livestock use where bison present; public acquisition of private land; easements; modify cattle allotments and operations in SMAs; hazing; shoot on private land or crossing out of SMAs; boundary control; vacci- nate cattle in SMA; surveillance testing; test/vaccinate adult contact cattle; vaccinate bison calves Monitor movement; capture/ slaughter seropositives (phase 1); hunting; temporal separation in West Yellowstone with possible changes in allotments in phase 2; public acquisition of winter range, easements, or modifications in cattle operations; surveillance testing; test/vaccinate adult contact cattle; vaccinate bison calves; haze or shoot on private land or crossing out of SMAs Monitor movement; test/slaughter seropositives; vaccinate bison/cattle; enforced boundary; hunting to remove at West Yellowstone; remove on private land; surveillance testing; test/vaccinate adult contact cattle; shooting on private land or crossing out of SMAs Restrict to park; capture/test/ vaccinate/ slaughter inside Yellowstone National park; monitor movement; vaccinate cattle; surveillance testing; shoot on private land Vaccinate bison; capture/test/ slaughter; vaccinate cattle; monitor movement; surveillance testing; shoot on private land or crossing out ofSMAs Monitor movement; test/slaughter seropositives; vaccinate bison/cattle; enforced boundary; remove bison on private land; surveillance testing; test/vaccinate adult contact cattle; public acquisition of winter range; haze or shooting on private land or crossing out ofSMAs 6. Protect the state of Montana from risk of reduction in its brucellosis status Designate SMAs; adopt above measures to protect livestock from risk of brucellosis Designate SMAs; adopt above measures to protect livestock from risk of brucellosis Designate SMAs; adopt above measures to protect livestock from risk of brucellosis Designate SMAs; adopt above measures to protect livestock from risk of brucellosis Adopt above measures to protect livestock from risk of brucellosis Designate SMAs; adopt above measures to protect livestock from risk of brucellosis Designate SMAs; adopt above measures to protect livestock from risk of brucellosis 113 Objective Alternative 1: No Action - Continuation of the Current Interim Bison Management Plan Alternative 2: Minimal Management Alternative 3: Management with Emphasis on Public Hunting Alternative 4: Interim Plan with Limited Public Hunting and Quarantine Alternative 5: Aggressive Brucellosis Control within Yellowstone National Park through Capture, Test, and Removal Alternative 6: Aggressive Brucellosis Control within Yellowstone National Park through Vaccination Alternative 7: Preferred Alternative - Manage for Specific Bison Population Range 7. At a minimum, maintain a viable population of wild bison in park, as defined in biological, genetic, and ecological terms Discussion process to develop contingency measures Increase available winter habitat through modifications in cattle allotments, private cattle operations, etc. Increase available winter habitat through modifications in cattle allotments, private cattle operations, etc.; reduce number of hunting permits issued; use capture facilities to hold bison for park release Reduce number of hunting permits issued; release live, rather than quarantine and remove Slow down pace of bison eradication Same as alternative 5, plus reduce number of hunting permits issued Haze instead of shoot bison on private land or crossing SMA boundary; release rather than quarantine seronegatives, use capture facilities to overwinter bison in severe winters 8. Be based on factual information, with the recognition that the scientific database is changing Ongoing research to develop safe, effective vaccine; better blood test; understand intra- and inter-species transmission; estimates of minimum population; brucellosis pathology and epidemiology in bison Same as alternative 1 except add research effects of road grooming on bison migration Same as alternative 2 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 2 9. Recognize the need for coordination in the management of natural and cultural resource values that are the responsibility of signatory agencies Apply laws, constraints for siting facilities, consultation/coordination; specify cooperative responsibilities Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 115 Table 10: Summary Comparison of Alternative Actions Action Alternative 1: No Action - Continuation of the Current Interim Bison Management Plan Alternative 2: Minimal Management Alternative 3: Management, with Emphasis on Public Hunting Alternative 4: Interim Plan with Limited Public Hunting and Quarantine Alternative 5: Aggressive Brucellosis Control within Yellowstone National Park through Capture, Test, and Removal Alternative 6: Aggressive Brucellosis Control within Yellowstone National Park through Vaccination Alternative 7: Preferred Alternative - Manage for Specific Bison Population Range Bison population range No range specified in existing interim plan Allow natural forces to determine herd size Manage herd within range of natural variation: 1,700-3,500 Same as alternative 3 Manage herd size to prevent loss of genetic integrity and ensure success of disease control Same as alternative 5 Manage herd within range of 1 ,700 to 2,500 Capture, test, and slaughter operations Reese Creek: capture all bison at Stephens Creek facility inside park and ship to slaughter; West Yellowstone: capture, test, and ship seropositive males and females and all pregnant females to slaughter; test and release seronegative male and nonpregnant females on public land; capture facilities on national forest and/or private land used during winter months Phase 1 same as alternative 1; phase 2 no capture, test, and slaughter operations Reese Creek: in phase 1, ship all seropositives to slaughter, sero- negatives to quarantine; in phase 2, capture facility between Yankee Jim Canyon and Reese Creek as backup to hunting; West Yellowstone: no capture facilities Capture facilities same as alternative 1, except ship seronegatives from Reese Creek to quarantine Temporary capture facilities throughout park; test; ship all seropositives to slaughter and release all seronegatives within park; Stephens Creek facility remains Reese Creek: ship all captured bison to slaughter; West Yellowstone capture facility at Seven-Mile Bridge area inside park; test and ship seropositives to slaughter; test, vaccinate, and release all seronegatives onsite; phase 2 capture facilities same as alternative 5 Reese Creek: in phase 1, ship all seropositives to slaughter, seronegatives to quarantine; in phase 2 , capture facility between Yankee Jim Canyon and Reese Creek; West Yellowstone: same as alternative 1, except quarantine all seronegatives at high population levels and all seronegative-pregnant bison at population mid range; capture facility at Horse Butte Quarantine operations No quarantine operations No quarantine operations Quarantine operations - take sero- negatives from Stephens Creek in phase 1 ; relocate capture facility in phase 2 Quarantine operations - Reese Creek: quarantine all seronegatives; West Yellowstone: quarantine seronegative-pregnant females No quarantine operations No quarantine operations Quarantine operations - take sero- negatives from Stephens Creek in phase 1; West Yellowstone: quarantine seronegative-pregnant females; if population high, quarantine all seronegatives Monitoring of bison Aerial and ground reconnaissance of bison in and adjacent to park Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 and monitor bison to facilitate capture inside park Phase 1 , same as alternative 1 ; phase 2, same as alternative 5 Same as alternative 1 Bison hunting No hunt No hunt If legislature approves, state of Montana institutes fair-chase hunt on public and private land in all SMAs; public hunt during winter (Oct. -Feb.) primary method to control pop- ulation numbers and distribution If legislature approves, state of Montana institutes fair-chase hunt on public lands; public recreational hunt during winter (Oct. -Feb.) No hunt No hunt If legislature approves, state of Montana institutes fair-chase hunt on public lands at Eagle Creek/Bear Creek; in phase 2, hunting could be allowed on public lands in all SMAs Bison management on public lands adjacent to Yellowstone National Park Allow bison on public lands in Eagle Creek/Bear Creek except north of Little Trail Creek/Maiden Basin hydrographic divide; do not allow aison north of Reese Creek; do not allow bison in West Yellowstone area beyond May and until November 1 Allow bison on public lands in Eagle Creek/Bear Creek; in Gardiner Valley south of Yankee Jim Canyon; and south of Buffalo Horn Creek and east of Hebgen Lake in western area Allow bison on public lands in Eagle Creek/Bear Creek except north of Little Trail Creek/Maiden Basin hydrographic divide; do not allow bison in West Yellowstone area beyond May and until November 1 ; in phase 1 , bison not allowed north of Reese Creek; phase 2, bison allowed between Reese Creek and Yankee Jim Canyon Same as alternative 1 Do not allow bison outside park; haze to return bison to interior of park Same as alternative 1 Allow bison on public lands in Eagle Creek/Bear Creek except north of Little Trail Creek/Maiden Basin hydrographic divide; do not allow bison in West Yellowstone area beyond May and until November 1; in phase 1 , bison not allowed north of Reese Creek; in phase 2, bison allowed between Reese Creek and Yankee Jim Canyon Bison management on private lands adjacent to Yellowstone National Park Remove bison at landowner request Same as alternative 1 Bison hunted with landowner permission; remove at landowner request Remove bison at landowner request; possible bison hunt under special and limited circumstances Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 3 Surveillance testing of cattle No change in existing cattle surveillance requirements Require testing of susceptible cattle inSMA Require testing of cattle in contact with bison Same as alternative 3 Same as alternative 1 Require testing of cattle in high-risk areas in West Yellowstone Whole herd surveillance protocols for cattle within SMAs recommended by APHIS 117 Action Alternative 1: No Action - Continuation of the Current Interim Bison Management Plan Alternative 2: Minimal Management Alternative 3: Management, with Emphasis on Public Hunting Alternative 4: Interim Plan with Limited Public Hunting and Quarantine Alternative 5: Aggressive Brucellosis Control within Yellowstone National Park through Capture, Test, and Removal Alternative 6: Aggressive Brucellosis Control within Yellowstone National Park through Vaccination Alternative 7: Preferred Alternative - Manage for Specific Bison Population Range Vaccination of cattle with RB51 Encourage calfhood vaccination of cattle adjacent to park Encourage vaccination of all susceptible female cattle calves within SMA, adjacent to park or within 20-mile radius of either Same as alternative 2 Same as alternative 2 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 2 Same as alternative 2 Vaccination of bison Vaccinate bison calves after vaccine is developed that is safe and effective for bison using capture facilities and remote means Same as alternative 1, using remote means only Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Modify national forest grazing allotments No modification of national forest grazing allotments Modification of national forest grazing allotments may occur No modification of national forest grazing allotments expected in phase 1 , but may occur in phase 2 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 3 Change in land use, easement, or acquisition of additional wildlife habitat No change in existing land use/ownership Easement or acquisition of additional winter wildlife habitat; or change from breeder cattle (susceptible cattle) to steers/spayed heifers within SMA Similar to alternative 2, with reduced acquisition Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Phase 1, no change; phase 2, acquire additional winter range north of Reese Creek; no changes in cattle operations Winter road grooming No change in existing winter road management Eliminate winter grooming and snowmobile use of some trails; research effects of closures on population numbers and on ability to keep bison within park boundaries Research effects of road closures on bison Same as alternative 1 Plow roads in winter for access to bison capture facilities Phase 1 - plow road to Seven-Mile Bridge capture facility; phase 2 - plow roads same as in alternative 5 Same as alternative 1 Total annual cost of alternative (includes one-time only costs such as quarantine, capture facilities, and land acquisition) • NPS - $450,000 •USFS -$15,000 • State of MT - $ 1 40,000-$420,000 •APHIS -$183,000 • NPS - $232,000 •USFS -$170,000 •State of MT- $150,000 • APHIS - $30,000 • Shared costs (up to $44.1 million) • NPS - $488,000 • USFS - $40,000 •State of MT- $225,000 • APHIS - $933,000-$ 1,233,000 • Shared costs (up to $33.1 million) • NPS - $428,000 • USFS - $25,000 •State of MT- $408,000 • APHIS - $ 1 ,078,000-$ 1 ,378,000 • NPS - $2,135,300-$2,235.300 •USFS -$15,000 • State of MT - 0 •APHIS -$51,000 • NPS - $745,000 (phase 1) $1,909,000 (phase 2) •USFS -$15,000 • State of MT- $142,000 (phase 1) $175,000 (phase 2) • APHIS - $47,000 • NPS - $733,000 • USFS - $30,000 •State of MT- $403,200 • APHIS - $1,083,000-$ 1,383,000 • Shared costs (up to $29.1 million) 119 Table 11 : Comparison of Features of Each Alternative Action Alternative 1: No Action - Continuation of the Current Interim Bison Management Plan Alternative 2: Minimal Management Alternative 3: Management, with Emphasis on Public Hunting Alternative 4: Interim Plan with Limited Public Hunting and Quarantine Alternative 5: Aggressive Brucellosis Control within Yellowstone National Park through Capture, Test, and Slaughter Alternative 6: Aggressive Brucellosis Control within Yellowstone National Park through Vaccination Alternative 7: Preferred Alternative - Manage for Specific Bison Population Range Agency-enforced boundary control at Reese Creek / / (phase 1) / (phase 1) / / / /(phase 1) Agency enforced boundary control at Little Trail Creek/Maiden Basin divide / / (phase 1 ) / / / / Bison shot inside Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area • (hunt) / (hunt) / (agency) Agency-enforced boundary at Yankee Jim Canyon (northern boundary beyond Reese Creek) / / (phase 2) / (phase 2) Agency-enforced boundary at Cabin Creek area boundary on western side / / / / / Agency-enforced boundary at Buffalo Horn Creek on western side / Capture facility at Stephens Creek (northern, Reese Creek boundary inside park) / / (phase 1 ) / (phase 1) / / / /(phase 1) Capture facilities at Duck Creek and Madison River (western boundary) / / (phase 1) / / Capture facilities at several locations inside park / / (phase 2) Capture facilities at Duck Creek and Horse Butte (western boundary) / Capture facilities at Seven-Mile Bridge (western boundary inside park) / Seronegative bison from Stephens Creek slaughtered / / (phase 1 ) / / Seronegative bison from Stephens Creek quarantined / / / Seronegative-nonpregnant bison from West Yellowstone capture facilities released onsite / / (phase 1 ) / / / Seronegative-pregnant bison from West Yellowstone slaughtered / / (phase 1 ) Seronegative-pregnant bison from West Yellowstone quarantined / /(at high population levels) Seronegative-pregnant bison from West Yellowstone released onsite / Quarantine facilities • / / 121 Action Alternative 1: No Action - Continuation of the Current Interim Bison Management Plan Alternative 2: Minimal Management Alternative 3: Management, with Emphasis on Public Hunting Alternative 4: Interim Plan with Limited Public Hunting and Quarantine Alternative 5: Aggressive Brucellosis Control within Yellowstone National Park through Capture, Test, and Slaughter Alternative 6: Aggressive Brucellosis Control within Yellowstone National Park through Vaccination Alternative 7: Preferred Alternative - Manage for Specific Bison Population Range Bison hazed into capture facilities, away from borders / / (phase 1) / / / / • Bison crossing boundaries shot / / / / / / / SMA in Eagle Creek/Bear Creek • / / / / / SMA between Reese Creek and Yankee Jim Canyon on west side of Yellowstone River only / / SMA between Reese Creek and Yankee Jim Canyon on east and west side of Yellowstone River / Western SMA including Horse Butte area / / / / / / Western SMA includes Cabin Creek/Lee Metcalf area / / / / / / Western SMA includes all land south of Buffalo Horn Creek / Bison hazed back into park from West Yellowstone in May / / (phase 1) / (phase 1) / / / Bison hunted in West Yellowstone area / / (limited) •" (possible) 123 Table 12: Summary Comparison of Impacts of Alternatives The following terms are used in this impact summary chart and throughout the environmental impact statement. In some cases, the terms are defined quantitatively. However, when they are not, the following definitions apply: • Negligible - at lower levels of detection • Minor - detectable, but slight • Moderate - readily apparent environmental effects with the potential to become major • Major - severe adverse or exceptional beneficial effects Topic Alternative 1: No Action 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Alternative 7: Preferred Alternative IMPACTS ON THE BISON POPULATION Estimated popula- tion size (# bison) in 2006 or later 3,100 in 2006 3,500 in 2006; moderate increase 3,500 in 2006; moderate increase 2,800 in 2006; minor decrease 2,150 in 1997 to 1,250 in 1999; up to 2,000 by 2006; major decrease 3,500 in 2010; 2,500- 2,900 in 201 1; moderate to major decrease 2,700 in both 2006 and 2011; moderate to major decrease Estimated distribution in West Yellowstone 18-52 bison 20-60 bison 16-120 bison 1-52 bison 0 bison 22-60 bison 13-51 bison Estimated distribution in Reese Creek 0 bison 0-120 bison 60-80 bison 0 bison 0 bison 0 bison 0-100 bison Estimated sero- prevalence rate in 2011 (70% vaccine efficacy assumed) 24% 26%; minor adverse impact 28%; minor to moderate adverse impact 26%; minor adverse impact 0%; major beneficial impact 0% by 2013; major beneficial impact 23%; negligible to minor beneficial impact IMPACTS ON RE( :reation Visitor experience Minor adverse and positive impacts No impact Negligible adverse impact Minor adverse and positive impacts Minor to moderate adverse impact Similar to, but less adverse than alternative 5 Minor adverse impact Wildlife viewing opportunities - percent change by 2006 42% increase is bison population over 1997; minor benefit compared to existing conditions 14% increase over alternative 1 ; minor to moderate benefit compared to alternative 1 14% increase over alternative 1 ; minor to moderate benefit compared to alternative 1 8% decrease over alternative 1; minor adverse impact compared to alternative 1 35% decrease over alternative 1; moderate to major adverse impact compared to alternative 1 1 % higher than alternative 1 ; Same as alternative 1 through the year 2009, and similar to alternative 5 after 2010 12% decrease by 2006; 23% by 201 1; minor to moderate adverse impact compared to alternative 1 Winter recreation; snowmobiling No impact Displacement of well over 50% of oversnow park visitors; major impact on individual in-park users; minor to moderate adverse impact overall Possible minor to major impact if research indicates road closures needed No impact Major impact on some individual in- park snowmobile users; minor to moderate impact overall Similar to alternative 2 for first 10 years; then similar to alternative 5 for 2- 3 years No impact Hunting No impact No impact 75-85 bison hunting permits; minor to moderate benefit 35 bison hunting permits; minor benefit No impact No impact 15-25 bison hunting permits; minor benefit IMPACTS ON LIVl ESTOCK OPERATIONS Cost of vaccination and testing 2% of yearly production costs; minor impact in the long term, but more apparent in years of low cattle prices With removal of test-eligible cattle, no testing or vaccinating in SMAs; possibly continued testing and vaccinating in areas near SMAs Similar to alternative 2 in the long term, but smaller SMAs and possible continued presence of test-eligible herds in western SMA Same as alternative 1 Possibly less vaccination and testing; minor beneficial impact First 12 years, same as alternative 1; final 3 years, same as alternative 5 Same as alternative 3 north of Yellowstone National Park; same as alternative 1 west of park Operational changes to non- breeding cattle- individual ranchers No impact Possible conversion of cow-calf operations; moderate to major impact on a few individual ranchers Fewer possible conversions than in alternative 2; moderate to major impact on a few individual ranchers No impact No impact No impact No impact 125 Topic Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Alternative 7: Preferred Alternative Modification of grazing on national forest allotments No impact Possible allotment modifications; moderate to major impact on a few ranchers using allotments now Fewer possible modifications than in alternative 2; moderate to major impact on a few ranchers using allotments now No impact No impact No impact Short term, no impact; long-term, a few allotments on the north end may be modified; moderate to major impact on those users Private land acquisition or easements No impact Possible buyouts or easements; major impact on public funds Fewer possible buyouts or easements than in alternative 2; major impact on public funds No impact No impact No impact Same as alternative 3, but no acquisitions in West Yellowstone Property damage by bison Minor impact overall, but could be moderate to major for individuals affected Short term, same as alternative 1 ; long term, reduced adverse impact Short term, same as alternative 1 ; long-term, reduced adverse impact Same as alternative 1 Minor impact overall, but could be a moderate to major benefit for individuals who might otherwise experience damage under interim plan Same as alternative 1 Short term, same as alternative 1 ; long term, reduced adverse impact Perception of risk Risk exists; minor impact Risk exists; moderate adverse impact Until changes in operations or acquisitions occur, same as alter- native 1 ; thereafter reduced risk Same as alternative 1 Reduced risk, moderate beneficial impact Slightly less, but similar to alternative 5; miner to moderate benefit West Yellowstone, same as alternative 1; Reese Creek, reduced risk in long term IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMICS - REGIONAL ECONOMY Impacts on regional economy from wildlife viewing 40-45% of regional economy ($500 million) dependent on tourism Moderately beneficial impact from increased tourism; possible gain of up to $20 million Similar to alternative 2 Similar to alternative 1 with hunting an additional source of local income Major adverse impact from lost tourism; possible loss of up to $20 million Similar to alternative 1 in most years, possibly more adverse during parkwide capture and slaughter Similar to alternative 1, but more adverse over long term as population numbers are lower Impacts on regional economy from snow- mobiling No change in existing conditions; $30 million per winter Loss of up to $656,000 to $2 million annually in West Yellowstone; negligible impact on overall economy, possible major adverse impacts on some individual businesses; possible minor positive impact in Gardiner Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Loss of $1.8 million to $3.2 million annually during 3-4 years of parkwide capture, test, and slaughter Same as alternative 2 during first 12 years, then similar to alternative 5 for 2- 3 years of parkwide capture, test, and slaughter Same as alternative 1 Impacts on regional economy from hunting Bison hunting not allowed Same as alternative 1 $33,000 annual expenditures $15,380 annual expenditures Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 $10,890 per year increase from fees, expenditures Impacts on regional economy from livestock sector Livestock cash receipts for Gallatin and Park Counties comprise 5% of livestock cash receipts statewide A few livestock operators may relocate their private and/or federal grazing operations to other locations; adverse impact offset by increased wildlife viewing related tourism Same as alternative 2, but fewer livestock operators potentially displaced Same as alternative 1 Aggressive brucellosis control may increase livestock use of area; negligible benefit Similar to alternative 5, but less beneficial to livestock operators as brucellosis eliminated more slowly Same as alternative 3, but without the possibility of displacements in the West Yellowstone area IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMICS - MINORITY AND LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS Minority and low- income populations $ 1 9,500 of bison meat donated on average per year; minor beneficial impact Negligible adverse impact from loss of bison meat Negligible adverse impact from loss of bison meat to hunters; negligible benefit from availability of live bison $23,000 per year of bison meat received; value would be higher if some bison are donated live; minor benefit $61 ,000 in meat available for 3-4 years; otherwise similar to alt 1; minor beneficial impact $19,000 per year donated during phase 1 ; Similar to alt 5 during phase 2; minor beneficial impact $26,000 per year of bison meat received; value would be higher if some bison are donated live; minor benefit IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMICS - SOCIAL VALUES Social values Minor to moderate impacts to those with humanitarian/ moralistic values; negligible impact to ranching values Minor impact on traditional ranching lifestyles; relative positive impact on moral and humanitarian attitudes; possible major impacts on individual ranchers, tribes, those with moral/humanitarian values Minor to moderate impacts on those opposed to hunting; negligible impacts on those with humanitarian/moral values; minor impact on ranching values Overall minor to moderate; impacts on tribes minor; ranching similar to alternative 1 Those with humanitarian/moral values, tribes, some visitors experience major impact; ranchers negligible to minor benefits from eradication of brucellosis in bison Similar to alternative 5 during phase 2 (parkwide capture, test, and slaughter), to alternative 1 during first 12 years Minor to moderate adverse impact on humanitarian/moral values; minor to major impact on tribes; minor impact on traditional ranching lifestyle 127 Topic Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Alternative 7: Preferred Alternative IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMICS - NONMARKET VALUES Annual nonmarket values attributed to well-being of bison population Negligible to minor beneficial impact Major beneficial impact; $1.6 million to $22.9 million Similar to or slightly less than alternative 2 Similar to alternative 1 Major adverse impact; $1.6 to $22.9 million opportunity cost Same as alternative 1 until parkwide capture and slaughter, then same as alternative 5 Similar to alternative 1 in the short- term, but to alternative 5 in the long- term from decreased population size Nonmarket values attributed to wildlife viewing Negligible to minor beneficial impact Impact estimate ranges from negligible benefit up to $9.8 million Similar to or slightly less than alternative 2 Similar to alternative 1 Impact estimate ranges from adverse negligible loss up to $9.8 million Same as alternative 1 until parkwide capture and slaughter, then same as alternative 5 Similar to alternative 1 in the short- term, but to alternative 5 in the long- term from decreased population size Nonmarket values attributed to recreation or hunting No impact $2.5 to $7.6 million loss (winter recreation) $19,000 gain from hunting $1 1,000 gain from hunting $6.9 to $8.0 million loss (recreation) during 3-4 years of park-wide capture and slaughter $2.5 to $7.6 million loss (winter recreation) first 12 years; up to $17 million loss for remaining 3-4 years Negligible loss to recreation; minor gain to hunting (estimated $1 1,000) IMPACTS ON THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECEES Peregrine falcon No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact Bald eagle Potential human disturbance impacts reduced to negligible through avoidance mitigation No impact No impact Same as alternative 1 Potential direct effect on wintering eagles from capture facility in Madison River area; major impact possible Potential major adverse impact on one pair of nesting bald eagles from construction of a capture facility at Seven-Mile Bridge Same as alternative 1 Analysis area grizzly bear - carrion supply Slower than natural increase to maximum bison population level would have negligible impact Quicker growth of bison population, largest range; moderate benefit compared to alternative 1 to bears by increasing carrion foraging Minor benefit to bears compared to alternative 1 from increased growth rate, range of bison population Same as alternative 1 Rapid decrease in bison numbers, reduction in carrion foraging oppor- tunities for bears from range of bison population; moderate to major adverse impact Same as alternative 1 Bison numbers less than alternative 1 ; bison numbers to be monitored in the park to ensure sufficient numbers to protect foraging opportunities resulting in a negligible impact Park interior grizzly bear - carrion supply Groomed roads now allow bison . to leave park during severe winter; negligible impact on bear carrion supply Closing groomed roads to snowmobiles may keep bison in interior; minor to moderate beneficial impact on bear carrion supply by increased winterkill Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Rapid decrease in bison numbers, reduction in carrion foraging oppor- tunities for bears from range of bison population; moderate to major adverse impact Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Grizzly bear - human confrontations Possibility of human/bear encounter and bear being shot increased by bison management actions; currently mitigated by removal of bison viscera, body parts after shooting Fewer bison likely shot because of larger SMAs, more dispersed shooting; beneficial impact compared to alternative 1 Possibility of human/bear encounter and bears being shot increased by bison hunting; impact reduced to negligible through hunter education Same as alternative 3 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 3 Grizzly bear - bison management activities Potential disturbance and displacement caused by hazing and shooting of bison; negligible impact; no or negligible impact from capture facilities, as bears are denning Potential temporary disturbance and displacement caused by hazing and shooting of bison; negligible impact, as most occurs during denning period Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Gray wolves - human confrontation No impact No impact Possibility of a human/wolf encounter and wolf being shot increased by bison hunting; impact reduced to negligible through hunter education Same as alternative 3 No impact No impact Same as alternative 3 129 Topic Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Alternative 7: Preferred Alternative Gray wolves - bison management activities Disturbance and displacement caused by hazing and shooting; short-term, negligible impact; no or negligible impact from capture facilities Potential displacement of wolves that may inhabit the area in the future caused by shooting bison; negligible impact Same as alternative 2 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Gray wolves - bison as prey and carrion Negligible impact Moderate benefit for wolves by increasing their opportunities to forage on carrion due to quickest growth of bison population and largest range Similar to alternative 2, but negligible as range and growth rate of bison population would be less Same as alternative 1 Smaller range and rapid decrease in bison population would reduce wolf foraging opportunities; moderate to major adverse impact Same as alternative 1 Reduced size of bison herd over the long term would have a negligible impact on wolf foraging opportunities Wolverine and lynx - changes in snowmobile grooming Negligible impact Potential shift in use to national forest caused by stopping road grooming for snowmobiles at west entrance; potential increase in packed snow routes, allowing predators to access prey now used by lynx; negligible adverse impact Same as alternative 1 Negligible impact Negligible impact Negligible impact Negligible impact Trumpeter swan - nesting pair No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact Major adverse impact from Seven-Mile Bridge facility No impact IMPACTS ON OTHER WILDLIFE SPECIES Pronghom antelope - habitat removal Removal of >13 acres of critical winter habitat due to Stephens Creek facility; moderate to major adverse impact Same as alternative 1 during phase 1, then moderate to major benefit from removal of facility at Reese Creek Same as alternative 1 unless land acquired and capture facility moved north; if so, possible major benefit Same as alternative 1 Removal of critical winter habitat caused by Stephens Creek and other facilities; moderate to major adverse impact Same as alternative 5 Same as alternative 3 Elk, antelope, and other ungulates - capture operations Disturbance and displacement caused by hazing, fences, and shooting; minor impact Same as alternative 1 during phase 1 , then minor benefit from removal of facility Short term, same as alternative 1 ; long term, minor benefit from removal of Stephens Creek facility Same as alternative 1 Minor impact caused by additional capture facilities Same as alternative 5 Same as alternative 3 Elk, antelope, and other ungulates - acquisition of land No impact Moderate to major beneficial impact on pronghorn; minor benefit to other ungulates Moderate to major beneficial impact on pronghorn; minor benefit to other ungulates Same as alternative 1 No impact No impact Same as alternative 3 Predators and scavengers Potential minor impact caused by hazing; negligible impact on carrion supply from removal of bison No impact Potential minor impact caused by hazing; no impact associated with changes in bison population relative to alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Major decrease in prey/carrion; moderate adverse impact Slight to moderate decrease in prey/carrion; minor adverse impact Minor adverse impact from maintaining smaller bison population size over long term Impacts associated with snowmobiling Displacement, noise, habitat modification; degree of impact unknown, likely minor Minor to moderate impact from snowmobile use displaced to national forest Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 Moderate adverse impacts during parkwide capture and slaughter from displacement due to road closures Same as alternative 2 for first 12 years, then additive with alternative 5; moderate impacts likely Same as alternative 1 IMPACTS ON HUMAN SAFETY Risk of bison management personnel or hunters contracting undul jnt fever Negligible to minor impact Negligible impact Negligible to minor impact Negligible to minor impact Moderate impact (phase 1); negligible impact (phase 2) Negligible to minor impact for first 1 2 years; moderate impact last 3 years With mitigation, negligible to minor 131 Topic Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Alternative 7: Preferred Alternative IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES Archeological resources No additional impact Potential disturbance from removal of capture facilities; minor impact Potential disturbance from grading for capture or quarantine facilities; minor impact Same as alternative 3 Same as alternative 3 Same as alternative 3 Same as alternative 3 Historic landscape Capture facilities visually intrusive on landscape; negligible impact Dismantling capture facilities, additional bison restores scene; beneficial impact Dismantling captu.e facilities inside park, some increase in bison restores scene Similar to alternative 3 Additional capture facilities not part of historic scene inside park; major short- term adverse impact Same as alternative 5 Similar to alternative 3 IMPACTS ON VISUAL RESOURCES Presence of capture/quarantine facilities Minor to moderate impact on natural vista No impact Minor to moderate impact from relocated facility; quarantine minor impact Minor to moderate impact on natural vista; quarantine minor impact Short-term moderate to major impact on natural vista Short-term moderate to major impact on natural vista; major adverse impact from Seven Mile Bridge facility Location of Horse Butte facility minor to moderate impact; otherwise similar to alternatives 3 and 4 Bison viewing Potential increase in viewing opportunities from increase in bison population over time; minor impact on those seeking bison; minor to major impact for those opposed to increased bison population Moderate benefit for those seeking bison due to moderate increase in bison population, compared to alternative 1; minor to major adverse impact for those opposed to increased bison population Same as alternative 2 Same as alternative 1 Major adverse impact on viewing opportunities for those seeking bison due to major decrease in bison population, compared to alternative 1 ; minor to major benefit for those opposed to increased bison population Moderate to major adverse impact on viewing opportunities for those seeking bison due to moderate to major decrease in bison population, compared to alternative 1; minor to major benefit for those opposed to increased bison population Same as alternative 6 Bison management activities Potential major visual impact caused by hazing, shooting and gutting No impact Potential major visual impact caused by hunting Potential major visual impact caused by hazing, shooting, hunting, and gutting Major visual impact from capture operations Same as alternative 5 Similar to alternative 4 Winter scene Current effect on scene from snowmobiles and other winter recreationists Minor to major benefits for the park visual scene from displaced snowmobiles, minor to major adverse impacts on the scene on adjacent USFS lands Same as alternative 1 , unless research indicates closures; if so, same as alternative 2 Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 2, except visitors able to access park would experience moderate to major impact from capture operations on winter scene Same as alternative 2, except visitors able to access park would experience moderate to major impact from capture operations on winter scene 5 Same as alternative 1 133 PROJECT SETTING The project, or analysis, area is a part of what is often described as the Greater Yellowstone Area, the largest and most nearly intact ecosystem in the contiguous United States (Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee 1991); see the Greater Yellowstone Area map). The portion of the Greater Yellowstone Area specifically subject to analysis includes those areas in Yellowstone National Park habitually occupied by bison (approximately 1.75 million acres), as well as adjacent federal, state, and private lands outside the park in southwestern Montana (parts of Park and Gallatin Counties) that have been periodically occupied by Yellowstone bison during the past 12 years (see the Study Area map). The portion of the analysis area outside the park includes approximately 568,994 acres, of which about 97% is managed by Gallatin National Forest, 1% by state or local government, and 2% by private owners. In all alternatives except alternative 5, the following would be designated special management areas (SMAs) on the Gallatin National Forest: • Cabin Creek Recreation and Wildlife Management Area outside the park's western boundary • Monument Mountain Unit of the Lee Metcalf Wilderness outside and adjacent to the park's northwestern boundary • Horse Butte area near West Yellowstone • Portions of the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness adjacent to the park's northern boundary, including the Hellroaring and Slough Creek drainages • Gallatin National Forest land in the vicinity of the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek drainage adjacent to the northwestern portion of the park. The Cabin Creek Recreation and Wildlife Management Area, Monument Mountain Unit of the Lee Metcalf Wilderness, and Horse Butte area lands are referred to collectively as the western SMA throughout this document, and are depicted on all alternative maps except alternative 5. In alternative 2, the boundary of the western SMA continues south from Hebgen Dam, and then follows the Montana-Idaho state line to the border of Yellowstone National Park. In alternatives 2, 3, and 7, land in the Gardiner Valley, from the park's northern boundary to Yankee Jim Canyon, is either partially or wholly included in an SMA. In alternatives 3 and 7, land to the west of the Yellowstone River in this valley is referred to as the Reese Creek SMA in this document. In alternative 2, land on both sides of the river becomes part of an SMA. The portion of the Cabin Creek Recreation and Wildlife Management area available to bison is approximately 37,000 acres in size, and is accessed by U.S. Highway 191 and U.S. Highway 287. It is primarily high elevation (8,200 feet to 10,600 feet) mixed forest and open meadow. The Cabin Creek area is managed for grizzly bear and big game, and allows recreation consistent with animal presence. Semiprimitive and nonmotorized recreation is allowed. The area is rarely used by bison, but may be occupied by a few bulls. The Monument Mountain Unit of the Lee Metcalf Wilderness is 31,000 acres in size, and is also accessed by U.S. Highway 191 and U.S. Highway 287. It ranges in elevation from 7,400 feet to about 10,100 feet, and is mixed conifer forest and mountain meadows. Bison are most likely to use the lower elevations of the wilderness, and enter the area from the east on Bacon Rind Creek or from either of the roads leading into it. In most alternatives, bison leaving the Taylor Fork drainage and heading north past Buffalo Horn in the Gallatin Canyon would be shot by agencies (several cattle ranches lie to the north). 137 A I I I (I I I) I NV1RONMI Nl The Horse Butte area is approximately 24,000 acres in size and lies generally north of Highway 20 leading west from the town of West Yellowstone. It is also east of the south fork of the Madison River and Hebgen Lake. Lands north of Hebgen Lake up to and adjacent to the southern boundary of the Cabin Creek Recreation and Wildlife Management Area are part of the area described as the West Yellowstone or Horse Butte area in this environmental impact statement. Much of this area is open meadow mixed with conifer forest, and is lower in elevation than the Cabin Creek or Lee Metcalf portions of the western SMA. The Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness is high elevation land, and is more heavily forested than the Cabin Creek or Lee Metcalf areas. Bison typically enter this area from the south along the Slough Creek and Hellroaring Creek drainages. The hydrographic divide is the northern boundary of this SMA. Between 10 and 20 bison may use this area, primarily in the summer. The portion available to bison is about 270,000 acres. The Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area, identified as an SMA for all alternatives except number 5, is approximately 23,000 acres in size and is located on the Gallatin National Forest, primarily on the benches about a half mile north and east of Gardiner, Montana. A network of roads and trails crisscross the area, but the major access is via Park County Road 15 (known locally as the Jardine Road), which goes to the town of Jardine. There are significant elevational differences found across the breadth of the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek SMA, as well as the presence of several drainages. The elevation is 5,200 feet at the valley floor and 10,500 feet at the crest of the hydrographic divide. The SMA is bordered on the southwest by the Yellowstone River, and the northwest by the Little Trail Creek/Maiden Basin hydrographic divide. It is traversed by Bear Creek and Eagle Creek and their respective tributaries. LANDSCAPE OF THE AREA The landscape of the analysis area is characterized by steep, mountain ranges, most of which trend north and south. The Gallatin and Absaroka mountain ranges dominate the north- central portion of the area on the west and east sides of the Yellowstone River valley, respectively. West of Yellowstone Park, the Madison Range parallels the Gallatin Range. The Continental Divide crosses Yellowstone National Park diagonally, from a few miles south of West Yellowstone, Montana, to the southeast corner of the park near the Thorofare region. North and east of the divide, numerous streams flow from the park area into the Missouri River drainage. Preeminent among these is the Yellowstone River, which heads just southeast of the park, then flows north and northwest through the park, then north into Montana and northeast across Montana to the North Dakota border, where it joins the Missouri River. The Madison River, formed by the geothermally influenced waters of the Gibbon and Firehole rivers, flows west from the park, then north to Three Forks, Montana, where it meets the Jefferson, coming in from the west, and the Gallatin, which rises in the Gallatin Mountain Range in northwestern Yellowstone National Park. The three form the Missouri River. The climate of the study area features long, cold winters, and short, cool summers. Mean monthly temperatures average 32.3 °F. Weather conditions at Gardiner, Montana, are generally the mildest in the area. Between 75% and 85% of precipitation in the mountainous regions of Yellowstone National Park falls as snow. In the interior plateau regions of Yellowstone National Park, 35% to 55% of precipitation falls as rain (Despain 1987). 38 Project Setting Bison in Yellowstone National Park. VEGETATION The region in and around Yellowstone has great variations in elevation, soils, and climate, and is something of a botanical crossroads, with at least seven "distinct floras" present, ranging from desert to alpine (Despain 1990; Glick et al. 1991). About 1,700 species of plants have been identified in the region, but most of the landscape is dominated by only a few species. Approximately 60% of the federal lands in Greater Yellowstone is covered by forest, and the majority of that area, especially in the elevations between 7,500 feet and 9,000 feet, is dominated by lodgepole pine. Between 6,000 feet and 7,000 feet depending on conditions, grasslands and shrub steppes are the native vegetation communities in river valleys, floodplains, and terraces, though many plants' distributions have been changed by cultivation. Distinctive vegetative communities also occur on private land and lower elevations in riparian areas bordering both moving and still waters. Lodgepole pine, in various stages of succession, is the primary tree species inside the park, covering about 1.4 million acres of park land. Englemann spruce and subalpine fir are most often found in moist areas, and form the "climax" forest in areas underlain by the richer andesite soils. Whitebark pine is usually the dominant tree species at elevations above 8,400 feet. Douglas-fir and aspen occur at elevations ranging from 6,000 to 7,600 feet. These communities are chiefly associated with the Yellowstone, Lamar, and Madison River drainages. A few other species, such as cottonwood, found along stream corridors, and limber pine and Rocky Mountain juniper, found at lower elevations primarily in the northern end of the park, are intermittent species comprising a very small portion of the Yellowstone landscape. Nonforested areas consist of shrublands, grasslands, subalpine or other wet meadows, and alpine tundra. Several species of sagebrush, rabbitbrush, yarrow, sulphur buckwheat, Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, and junegrass are among the species that dominate shrubland communities. Grasslands are typically repre- sented by bluebunch wheatgrass, Sandberg's bluegrass, bearded wheatgrass, Hood's phlox, rosy pussy-toes, and others. In subalpine or other wet meadows, willows, cinquefoil, American bistort, tufted hairgrass, alpine timothy, and various sedges are common. A wide variety of 139 ah-ectki) environment low-growing grasses and forbs are found in alpine tundra. The Stephens Creek area is located in the Yellowstone River valley at the lowest elevations within park boundaries, ranging from 5,000 to 6,000 feet. Annual precipitation averages from 8 to 12 inches. Vegetation is best described as bunchgrass steppe or shrub steppe communities. Grasses in these areas include Idaho fescue, junegrass, and occasionally bluebunch wheatgrass. About 570 acres of abandoned agricultural fields, added to the park in 1932, are present in this area. Prominent vegetation on these lands is crested wheatgrass. In Eagle Creek/Bear Creek, precipitation is about 10 to 12 inches a year, and the vegetation is a mosaic of dry sagebrush shrublands and dry grasslands such as bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho fescue. As the elevation increases, the average annual precipitation increases as well. The additional moisture allows for the presence of forests. Most of the West Yellowstone area of the western SMA is found on a 7,000-foot plateau, which includes the obsidian flats, found in the area in the east and central portion of the SMA. This part of the SMA supports primarily lodgepole pine. At one point a rhyolite monolith (Horse Butte) rises about 300 feet in elevation from the center of the SMA. The monolith supports an Abies lasiocarpa/Calamagrostis rubesens habitat type on northerly exposures, grasses such as Idaho fescue and Ross's sedge on southern exposures, and distinctive aspen groves on the small area of flat terrain. There is a wide variety of vegetation within the Cabin Creek Recreation and Wildlife Management Area and the adjoining Monument Mountain Unit of the Lee Metcalf Wilderness. This variety is associated with elevations that range from 7,200 to 10,600 feet (Sage Peak) and numerous soil types. The vegetation present within the Cabin Creek Area and adjoining Monument Mountain Unit is associated with either forested, mountain meadow, alpine meadow, or rock rubble habitats. Approximately 65% of the land area is forested. These forested areas are dominated by mixed conifer stands of lodgepole pine, Englemann spruce, and subalpine fir. Whitebark pine is generally the dominant tree species above 8,400 feet. Aspen is not a significant component of the forested habitats. Douglas-fir exists at the lower elevations on southern aspects. The grass/forb associations within the forested areas consist of pine grass, sedge, trisetum, huckleberry, and arnica. Mountain meadows are interspersed throughout the area and comprise about 20% of the area. Some of these meadows are up to 600 acres and contain clumps or isolated patches of subalpine fir/spruce and/or clumps of whitebark pine, subalpine fir/spruce. The grass component consists of grasses such as meadow barley, sedge, tufted hair-grass, alpine timothy, while forb components consist of plants such as meadowrue, carrotleaf, paintbrush, aster, potentilla, mountain dandelion, and geranium. The wetter mountain meadows have shrub components consisting of willow, and some of the drier meadows have a sagebrush component. Set apart from the mountain meadows by elevation are the alpine meadows. These non- forested areas comprise 10% of the area and are generally above 9,400 feet where harsh climate limits growth. Trees such as alpine fir, spruce, and whitebark pine are stunted, deformed, and isolated. Grass plants include Idaho fescue, tufted hairgrass, and sedge. Forbs include mountain dandelion, lupine, and clover. Shrubs include purple mountain heath. Rock rubble or rubble land make up approxi- mately 5% of the unit. Moss and lichen are found in these high elevation areas, but there are also isolated areas of stunted whitebark pine. Purple mountain heath is also found in some of the rock crevices. The portion of the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness bordering Yellowstone National Park to the north is characterized by a series of deep, parallel drainages. Hellroaring, Buffalo Fork, and Slough Creek are the major drainages. 140 Projet t Si They begin at the Boulder Divide 10 to 1 5 miles north of the park boundary and flow in a north- south direetion. The area was heavily impacted by fires in 1988. The upper reaches that did not burn are densely forested. Several large willow communities and wet meadows are present at wider parts of the valleys. After the creeks flow into Yellowstone Park, sage/grasslands are prevalent. High ridges with whitebark pine forests, exposed bedrock, and alpine meadows separate the drainages. Snow conditions preclude access to most ungulates during most of the year. Bison are found in this Absaroka- Beartooth Wilderness rather infrequently, but there is suitable summer and fall habitat for this species. WETLANDS Only general mapping of wetland resources has occurred in the affected area of Yellowstone National Park and the Gallatin National Forest. According to these maps, wet forest habitat dominated by subalpine fir and Englemann spruce covers about 8% of the park. The forest floor is dominated by a variety of wet-site species including horsetails, bluejoint reedgrass, trapper's tea, twisted stalk, arrowleaf groundsel, and a variety of mosses. Shrubby riparian habitats are usually dominated by willows and sedges. They are most often distributed along streams and near seeps. Grassland riparian habitats are most often sedge marshes or bogs. Their distribution is usually associated with standing water throughout the growing season. Prior to placement of capture or quarantine facilities (if they are part of the selected alternative), sites would be surveyed for wetland resources and facilities modified or moved to avoid them. ACCESS The region is served by a wide variety of federal, state, and local road systems. Two Montana travel corridors approach Yellowstone National Park: U.S. Highway 89 from the north and U.S. Highway 191 on the west. An all-season gravel- surfaced county road parallels about 7 miles of U.S. Highway 89 north and west of Gardiner. About 4.5 miles of this road are in the park. The only paved roads in Yellowstone National Park open to conventional vehicles year-round are from the north entrance at Gardiner, Montana, to Cooke City, Montana, outside the northeast entrance, and U.S. Highway 191 along the northwest boundary of the park. Except for this road, winter travel in Yellowstone National Park is limited to oversnow vehicles (on groomed roads only) and nonmotorized modes of transportation. A number of county and USFS roads provide access to public and private land both north and west of the park. Winter travel on most of the USFS roads is limited to oversnow vehicles. HUMAN POPULATION In 1990 the combined population of Park and Gallatin Counties, Montana, bordering Yellowstone National Park to the north and west, respectively, was 65,000 people. Less than 5% of that population, perhaps 2,500 people, reside within the analysis area. Other residents in the study area are employees in Yellowstone National Park. At the height of the summer season in the park, there are approximately 3,930 employees; 3,200 are concession employees, and 730 work for the National Park Service. During the winter months there are 700 employees; 450 are concession employees, and 250 are NPS employees. Gallatin and Park Counties include 38% and 48% federal land, respectively. In the study area, more than 90% of the land is federal. 141 AFFECTED ENV1RONMENT In 1996, 5.8 million recreational visits were recorded in the area (3.0 million in Yellowstone National Park and 2.8 million in Gallatin National Forest). Recreational visits are expected to increase between 16% and 38% by the year 2003. Cattle operations on public and private lands are located north and northwest of the towns of West Yellowstone and Gardiner. Near West Yellowstone, there are five cattle allotments on public land and a few private holdings in the Hebgen Lake area (see Bison Winter Movements map). Northwest of Gardiner, several operators run livestock on public allotments on the Gallatin National Forest, and at least one large operator (and several smaller) on private lands (see "Livestock Operations" section). In some alternatives, the boundary on the west side extends as far north as Buffalo Horn Creek. Extensive private land holdings lie north of this boundary and out of the analysis area. Cattle operations in the West Yellowstone area and most of those in the Gardiner area are predominantly summer only. Cattle are maintained on a year-round basis on the privately owned Royal Teton Ranch adjacent to the park's Reese Creek border. 142 BISON POPULATION The terms "bison" and "buffalo" are both acceptable names for the animal scientifically classified as Bison bison. The genus Bison crossed the Bering Strait from Eurasia sometime during the late Pleistocene Era. Studies of the paleon- tology and history of the area indicate bison have inhabited the Greater Yellowstone Area since prehistoric times (NPS, Meagher 1973; Schullery and Whittlesey 1992). BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL INTERACTIONS Bison are driven by instincts for survival and mating. Distinct behaviors may vary with age and sex. Behaviors are also influenced by habitat and environmental conditions, which affect the availability and access to forage. Land manage- ment decisions by agencies may affect behavior. Much of bison behavior is based on the differ- ential groupings of animals. Cow-calf herds, for example, are most pronounced in the spring, during calving. This herding instinct may be motivated primarily to protect calves against predators because adult bison have few natural predators. The social bonds formed by cow-calf herds are strong and usually are broken only by severe environmental conditions. Young bulls (up to 6 years of age) or older bulls (more than 10 years of age) exhibit different social behaviors. Young bulls often separate from the cow-calf herds after the rut to form small fraternal groups. They will generally coexist peacefully with each other for most of the year, but as the rut approaches, increased competition and fights for dominance occur. Older bulls are often found as scattered individuals that may move long distances. These bulls are often the least tolerant of any other animals, including humans. Bison are quite sociable, as long as the habitat allows them to aggregate. Large herds of bison of mixed sex and age classes may congregate on range with suitable forage, especially during the rut. In Yellowstone, Hayden Valley, Pelican Bull bison fighting. Valley, and Lamar Valley are suitable habitats for seasonally large bison herds. The National Park Service is currently initiating research to study the ecological carrying capacity in the park. However, herds of any size will seldom spend much time in any one place. Because individual bison tend to live on large quantities of low-quality forage, bison herds are constantly on the move, feeding from one site to the next. They will seek out higher-quality forage, but those sources are generally available only on a short-term, seasonal basis. Despite their size and seemingly slow-moving habits, bison are surprisingly agile and quick. They have great stamina to travel long distances. Bison will usually choose the most energy- efficient travel route, over flat, open terrain, although they may sometimes select courses that are exceptionally steep, rough, or otherwise inhospitable. In deep snow, they commonly travel in single file, with alternating leaders, to reduce energy expenditures. Currently, a number of routes in the park are groomed for snowmobiling, and the road from Mammoth to Cooke City is plowed. Bison use plowed roads and compacted or groomed trails in the winter, and this may reduce their energy expenditure (Aune 1981 ; Aune, pers. comm.). In the winter Yellowstone National Park is the most severe North American habitat supporting a viable population of free-ranging bison (Meagher 1 97 1 ). Canada may have colder temperatures, but 143 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT the accumulation of snow on the Yellowstone Plateau makes it more stressful for bison and affects their behavior. Bison, however, are well adapted to this environment. Using their massive heads, supported by powerful neck and shoulder muscles, bison have the ability to displace snow to access forage in areas unavailable to other ungulates. When conditions such as very deep or heavily crusted snow limit availability or access to forage, a breakdown in social bonds may occur. Smaller groups of bison split from the large herds and search for isolated habitats, such as Yellowstone's numerous geyser basins and scattered meadows, which individually support only limited numbers of bison. Bison learn quickly to avoid actions such as hazing or hunting as easily as they learn to use groomed roads or trails for travel (Meagher 1989a). HABITAT AND FORAGE Bison are most often seen grazing in open meadows and along river valleys (NPS, Meagher 1973). Suitable bison habitat outside Yellowstone National Park would likely include lower elevation winter range along major drainages, and much of it is currently under private ownership. Willow thickets and sage steppe, the habitat occupied by white-tailed deer or pronghorn, are not preferred by the bison. Thermal areas are important winter feeding grounds due to the easy accessibility of plants growing on the warmer soil. The heat from warm ground and thermal features also reduces the amount of energy bison must expend to keep warm in winter. Sedges, and to a lesser extent grasses, constitute the preferred diet of Yellowstone bison. In winter, 99% of their diet is grasses and sedges, with browse being the remaining 1 %. In summer they consume slightly more forbs (NPS, Meagher 1973). BREEDING, CALVING, AND SEX-AND- AGE CLASSES The rut (breeding activity) season occurs from about mid-July to mid-August. Female bison rarely breed as 1.5-year-olds. Approximately one- quarter of the 2.5-year-olds breed (NPS, Meagher 1973). The majority of females attain sexual maturity by 3.5 years of age. Males are sexually mature at approximately the same time as females, but more dominant older bulls usually will not allow younger bulls to become part of the active breeding population until they are at least six years of age. Typically, bison are born in the spring. Calving begins by mid-April, but most births occur during May. There are always a few out-of-season births. Single births are the rule; reports of twins are extremely rare. From 1990 to 1992, researchers found 52.6% of mature females produced calves on the northern range compared to 42.6% for the Mary Mountain area (Kirkpatrick et al. 1996). They also found pregnancy rates, estimated by urinary or fecal steroid analysis, of 51.6% for the northern range and 39.8% for the Mary Mountain area. Comparison with observed calving rates suggest that neonatal loss was not significant for bison in Yellowstone National Park. However, the pregnancy rate determined by necropsy of hunter- killed bison from the northern range during the 1988-89 winter was 75% (Pac and Frey 1991). The pregnancy rate, determined by necropsy of animals killed during management actions, for northern range bison during the 1930s and 1940s averaged 80% (range 65% to 95%, N=5) and from 1964 to 1966 was 52% for the entire adult female population (NPS, Meagher 1973). At low bison population numbers, little calfhood mortality was found, although subadult mortality (from calf to 2.5 year old) was estimated at 50% (NPS, Meagher 1973). Sex ratios of bison in Yellowstone favors males over females (NPS, Meagher 1973; Pac and Frey 1991; Meyer and Meagher 1995). At low bison population numbers, a sex ratio of 56% males to 44% females was reported (NPS, Meagher 1973). Data from 1988 to 1989 showed fetal sex ratios favored females over males, but the sex ratio of 144 Bison Population harvested bison was 57% male and 43% female (PacandFrey 1991). MORTALITY Except for human management removals, winter- kill is the main cause of mortality for bison in Yellowstone. Winterkill results from the combined effects of climatic stress, low forage availability, and declining physiological condition of individual animals. Bison expend most of their body fat in early to mid winter. As winter progresses, some bison cannot acquire enough of the nutrients needed to survive the remainder of the season. The old, sick, and young generally are the first to die of winterkill. In the harsh Yellowstone climate, relatively few members of the population reach "old age," which probably begins at 12 to 15 years of age (Fuller 1959). Very rarely will a wild Yellowstone bison reach the age of 20. Predation is not a significant cause of death among bison in Yellowstone. Historically, wolves may have hunted bison, although they would probably have had a limited effect because of the availability of alternate prey, such as elk and deer (Boyce and Gaillard 1992). HISTORY OF BISON IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK In 1902, 23 bison were counted in the native Yellowstone herd. Due to subsequent protection from poaching, the number of wild bison steadily increased. Wild bison primarily used the Mirror Plateau and upper Lamar River area in summer, and primarily wintered in the Pelican Valley. Bison from captive herds were introduced in 1902 and held in enclosures, first at Mammoth and then in 1907 moved to facilities at Lamar (NPS, Meagher 1973). Between 1915 and 1920, intermingling of the introduced and wild animals began, and after about 1921 little or no effort was made to keep the two populations separate. By 1929 the total number of bison wintering in the Lamar area was more than 1 ,000 (see table 13). Beginning in the 1930s, the National Park Service reduced bison numbers wintering in Lamar (NPS, Meagher 1973). Some of these bison were used to establish herds in the Hayden Valley and Firehole River areas. By 1952 management reductions lowered the number of bison in Lamar to 143 individuals. In January 1954 an aerial count of all primary wintering valleys indicated the bison population in the park was 1,477. Subsequent reductions conducted on the northern range (Lamar), Mary Mountain (Madison and Firehole Rivers and Hayden Valley), and Pelican Valley herds lowered the population of bison in the park to 397 individuals by 1967 (NPS, Meagher 1973). Beginning in 1967, manipulative management of bison in the park ceased. Under minimal manage- ment, the bison population increased to about 2, 1 00 in the 1 984-85 winter (see table 1 3). Management actions from 1902 through 1968 removed an average of 94 bison each year (range 0-407) from the Yellowstone population (see table 13). Those removals occurred primarily within the park. During the period 1968 through 1996, management actions removed an average of 72 bison per year (range 0-569). Almost all of these removals occurred after 1984, and with the exception of one adult cow, all of these removals occurred outside of the park. Despite natural mortality and management removals during 1984 to 1996, bison numbers increased an average of 5.1% per year peaking at approximately 4,000 bison in 1994 and declining to approximately 3,500 in the early 1996-97 winter. In 1996-97, severe winter conditions and other factors such as large herd numbers resulted in a major movement of bison outside the national park and management removals totaled 1 ,084 (32% of the early winter population). About 300-400 bison died as a result of winterkill. A July aerial survey of the total bison population indicated approximately 2,000 bison survived to spring 1997 (Meagher, unpub. data). 145 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Table 13: Historic Bison Population Counts and Removals from 1901-02 to 1996-97 Winter of Year Total Bison Counted Total Bison Removed Winter of Year Total Bison Counted Total Bison Removed 1901-02 44 0 1931-32 nc nc 1902-03 47 1 1932-33 nc nc 1903-04 51 7 1934-35 nc nc 1904-05 74 0 1935-36 847 109 1905-06 nc nc 1936-37 674 17 1906-07 84 2 1937-38 755 25 1907-08 95 1 1938-39 811 67 1908-09 118 5 1939-40 868 3 1909-10 149 3 1940-41 809 213 1910-11 168 2 1941-42 869 202 1911-12 192 28 1942-43 964 11 1912-13 215 8 1943-44 747 407 1913-14 nc nc 1944-45 932 nc 1914-15 270 4 1945-46 791 238 1915-16 348 18 1946-47 nc nc 1916-17 397 11 1947-48 960 237 1917-18 nc nc 1948-49 1,126 nc 1918-19 504 46 1949-50 1,094 228 1919-20 501 17 1950-51 nc nc 1920-21 602 7 1951-52 976 250 1921-22 647 56 1952-53 nc nc 1922-23 748 14 1953-54 1,477 139 1923-24 nc nc 1954-55 1,350* 288 1924-25 830 109 1955-56 1,258 373 1925-26 931 23 1956-57 543 273 1926-27 1,008 41 1957-58 nc 12 1927-28 1,057 58 1958-59 800* 44 1928-29 1,109 106 1959-60 800* nc 1929-30 1,124 132 1960-61 869 nc 146 Bison Population Winter of Year Total Bison Counted Total Bison Removed Winter of Year Total Bison Counted Total Bison Removed 1961-62 975* 148 1979-80 1,803 nc** 1962-63 819* 370 1980-81 2,396 nc** 1963-64 821* 6 1981-82 2,239 0 1964-65 388 392a 1982-83 2,160 0 1965-66 226 54 1983-84 2,229 0 1966-67 397 3 1984-85 2,114 88 1967-68 418 4 1985-86 2,291 57 1968-69 556 0 1986-87 2,433 6 1969-70 592 0 1987-88 2,644 35 1970-71 565 0 1988-89 3,159 569 1971-72 713 0 1989-90 2,606 4 1972-73 837 0 1990-91 3,178 14 1973-74 873 0 1991-92 3.426 271 1974-75 1.068 0 1992-93 3,304 79 1975-76 1,125 8 1993-94 3,551 5 1976-77 1,252 nc** 1994-95 3,956 427 1977-78 1,626 nc** 1995-96 3,398 433 1978-79 1,727 nc** 1996-97 3,436 1,084 SOURCE: NPS, Meagher 1973; Meagher, unpub. data; Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Montana Department of Livestock, and National Park Service, unpub. data). NOTE: Sources of removals include culling from the semidomestic Lamar Ranch, hunting and agency shooting, and capture and slaughter. nc = not counted or information unavailable * Estimates, rather than actual counts. ** During 1976-81, a few bulls were removed. a. Includes 38 from natural mortality. 147 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ECOLOGICAL ROLE OF BISON Bison play an important role in Yellowstone's ecosystem. They are the largest ungulate in the park, and consume huge quantities of grasses and sedges. Bison do not play the same ecological role in the park today that they did prior to settlement. That role may be different than prior to settlement because the park herd has been isolated. There is some indication that grazing by both bison and elk can increase the productivity and stability of grassland systems, and enhance the nutrient content of grazed plants (Frank and McNaughton 1993; Singer 1995; Wallace 1996). Bison may contribute to new plant growth by distributing seeds, breaking up soil surfaces with their hooves and wallows, and fertilizing by recycling nutrients through their waste products. Large numbers of bison can physically alter environments. Bison rub trees and saplings, debarking and sometimes killing them (NPS, Meagher 1973). This activity, over time and in some places, may benefit some insects and bird species (such as woodpeckers and cavity-nesting birds). Other species (such as Steller's jay) could be affected by loss of mature trees. It has been suggested that tree rubbing and debarking by bison may impede or even prevent forest invasion of open grasslands (NPS, Meagher 1973; J. Shaw, pers. comm. 1997). Grazing may also maintain open grassland communities by preventing accumulation of dead grass litter that would otherwise suppress growth of grasses (T. Baumeister, pers. comm. 1997). These physical impacts, in combination with the previously mentioned stimulation of productivity in grazed areas, are likely to help maintain open grasslands that are important to many other species. Historically, prairie dog distribution in the U.S. overlapped completely with bison distribution (J. Shaw, pers. comm. 1997). It is likely that burrowing rodents benefit from disturbances created by bison trampling and wallowing. Trampled areas and wallows, however, may also provide opportunities for invasion by nonnative and exotic vegetation, and may contribute to soil and streambank erosion. Bison are not a significant prey for predatory animals. However, their carcasses are scavenged by many species of mammals, birds, insects, and other agents of decomposition. BRUCELLA ABORTUS IN YELLOWSTONE BISON Surveys to detect Brucella abortus seroprevalence rates in the Yellowstone bison population have been conducted during several periods since brucellosis was first discovered in Yellowstone bison in 1917. Most surveys for brucellosis have relied on serological tests that detect antibodies to the B. abortus bacteria, rather than presence of the bacteria itself. Historical surveys have reported seroprevalence rates of 53% (Rush 1932), 54%-74% (Tunnicliff and Marsh 1935), and 28%-59% (NPS, Meagher 1973). For the latter survey, conducted in 1964-65, a weighted average of brucellosis seroprevalence for bison from three wintering areas was 38%. All of the above seroprevalence rates were from bison sampled during NPS management actions within Yellowstone National Park, directed at main- taining bison population objectives through either roundup and slaughter or shooting of bison. More recently, bison killed during control hunts and management actions (shooting and capture/test/slaughter operations) at or near the Yellowstone National Park boundary have been sampled opportunistically for seroprevalence. Pac and Frey (1991) reported a seroprevalence rate of 54% among 484 bison sampled in 1988-89. Of 240 bison tested in 1990-91, 45.4% were classed as seropositive (Aune and Schladweiler 1993). Between 1985 and 1992 a total of 904 bison were serologically tested for B. abortus antibodies. Of that sample 49.2% were classed as seropositive, and 50.8% were seronegative (Aune and Schladweiler 1993). During the winter of 1996-97, 246 bison were serologically tested at the Stephens Creek capture facility in Yellowstone National Park. Ninety-seven (39%) of those tested 148 were found to be seropositive, and 149 (61 %) were seronegative (NPS, unpub. data). The serological tests used on bison in Yellowstone National Park were originally developed for use in cattle, in which the relationship between sero- prevalence and presence of the bacteria is highly correlated (Manthei and Deyoe 1970). In cattle, B. abortus has been isolated (cultured) from 86%-90% of seropositive animals (Lambert et al. 1960; Herr, Roux, and Pieterson 1982; Manthei and Deyoe 1970). There is some evidence, however, that the relationship between sero- prevalence and actual infection is not highly Bison Population correlated in bison (Meyer and Meagher 1995a). The precise relationship between serological tests and presence of B. abortus bacteria in bison is not well understood at this time. Preliminary evidence, however, indicated B. abortus isolations from 50% (5 of 10) of seropositive female bison (Rhyan et al. 1 997). Research is currently underway to determine this relationship more precisely (Roffe et al. 1997). Most of the bison shot and slaughtered during the winter of 1996-97 were tested for seroprevalence. Specimens for B. abortus culture were collected from some of these bison, but the results are not yet available. 149 RECREATION OVERALL VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE United States citizens and people from all over the world spend more than 9 million visitor days of recreation in developed sites of the Yellowstone area each year. Though the draw of people worldwide to Yellowstone National Park is obvious, the less visible national forests and state-managed lands and resources near the park also offer an abundance and diversity of recreational opportunities. In the national parks, more than 95% of all recreation takes place at developed sites. In national forests, developed sites account for only about 25% of recreational use, and the rest is dispersed. Federal, state, and county public recreation sites number about 460, including campgrounds, picnic areas, trailheads, interpretive sites, and boat-launching facilities (Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee 1987). Bison herd at Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone National Park Recreational visitation to Yellowstone National Park has grown by more than 25% in the last 14 years, from 2,404,862 in 1982 to 3,012,171 in 1996. As is common in most other western national parks, visitor use in Yellowstone is concentrated in the summer months, with 66% of the visitation in June, July, and August. The potential future recreational use of Yellowstone has been estimated, based on recreational use during the last 10 years. By the year 2003, estimated visitation is expected to range from 3.6 million to 4.3 million visitors per year (NPS 1994). In the park, visitor use patterns are an image of entrance traffic. The west entrance to the park accounts for 34% of the vehicles entering in 1992, with the north and northeast entrances accounting for 14% and 6%, respectively, of the traffic (BRW 1994). Peak season average daily traffic on the west entrance road is 6,060 vehicles, while on the northeast entrance road, peak average daily traffic is 3040 vehicles (using 1992 figures). On the north entrance road between Gardiner and Mammoth, the peak average daily traffic number is 3,160 (BRW 1994). In 1993 the National Park Service began counting traffic through the park on U.S. Highway 191 as nonrecreational visitors (in prior years, these visitors were uncounted). In that year, 893,000 nonrecreational visitors were counted on U.S. Highway 191. Visitor use in the park is concentrated in the major developed areas, such as Old Faithful, Canyon, Lake, and Mammoth Hot Springs. In 1990, 57% of summer visitors reported visiting the Mammoth Hot Springs area during their visit to the park (Littlejohn, Dolson, and Machlis 1990). Old Faithful is the most popular developed area in the park; 84% of 1990 visitors stopped at the Old Faithful area. Visitor accommodations are also concentrated in the developed areas. In the parts of the park that would be affected most by bison management alternatives, the Mammoth Hot Springs area has 223 hotel rooms and cabins available for visitors, and 85 campsites in the NPS-managed campground, while the Tower-Roosevelt area has 80 cabins and a 32-site campground (out of a total of 2,181 motel rooms and cabins and 2,21 1 campsites, parkwide). The nearby states of Wyoming, Montana, Utah, and Idaho accounted for 25% of all Yellowstone 150 Ret reation visitors in 1990. These four states have a combined population of nearly 4 million, or just 1.5% of the United States population. Nearly one-half of the visitors are making their first trip to Yellowstone, and one-third are making a second, third, or fourth trip. Seven percent of the park's visitors were from outside the United States (primarily Canada and Germany). Backcountry use accounts for about 5% of park visitation. Day use of backcountry areas is not recorded, but 44,000 visitor use nights by backcountry users were counted in 1993 (NPS 1994). In the northern and western portions of the park backcountry campsite use varied from an average of 25 person-use nights to 199 person-use nights for the 1986 through 1992 period. The most used campsite had an average of 756 person-use nights. Stephens Creek Area. The Stephens Creek area (which is now used for a capture facility) of the park has few visitor-related facilities, and no statistics are kept for use of the area. The abandoned railroad bed has been designated as a mountain bicycling trail, and the county road provides access for visitors wishing to view wildlife (such as pronghorn) on the Stephens Creek flats. Some cross-country walking and horseback riding also occurs in the area. Recreational rafting, canoeing, and kayaking of the Yellowstone River downstream of Gardiner, which parallels the Stephens Creek area, is popular during the summer months, as is fishing on this segment of river. Trails from the county road lead to the river for fishing access. Gallatin National Forest Gallatin National Forest provided a total of 2,798,000 recreation visitor days in 1992 or nearly 4 million recreation visits. In 1992 recreational use in developed sites accounted for 27% of the total recreation visitor days in the national forest. Hunting accounted for 7% of the recreation days and nonconsumptive wildlife use was 1% of the recreation days. The remaining use is dispersed/wilderness use (Gallatin National Forest 1992). Horse Butte Area. During the spring, summer, and fall, all of the Horse Butte area included in the SMA is designated as a day-use area. Overnight camping is restricted to the two developed campgrounds, at Baker's Hole and Rainbow Point. Camping at these two sites begins in late May and lasts through mid- September. Rainbow Point has 85 units, with only hard-sided campers allowed, while Baker's Hole has 72 units. During the fall months, October and November, waterfowl hunters use the Madison River, Madison Arm, Horse Butte Peninsula, and southern shorelines of the Grayling Arm. Big- game hunting for elk, moose, and deer occurs throughout the SMA in September, October, and November (see discussion on hunting below). Along the south shore of the Madison Arm are 40 private recreational residences. In addition, two recreational residences are on Rainbow Point, and three are at Baker's Hole. These residences are occupied throughout the summer season with some incidental use on weekends and holidays in the fall and winter. Located midway along the south shore of the Madison Arm is the private Madison Arm Resort, which offers camping and a marina. The resort is open from Memorial Day through the end of September. Bear Creek/Eagle Creek Area. The Bear Creek/Eagle Creek area serves as a major wintering area for big-game and is important both to horn hunters in the spring and to big- game hunters in the fall and winter. The hunting season runs from mid-October to mid-February in the area. Fall hunters heavily use the campgrounds in the Bear Creek/Eagle Creek region, as well as the dispersed camping opportunities available throughout the area. The trailhead at Little Trail Creek also receives heavy use during both the fall and winter hunts. The Bear Creek and Palmer Mountain trailheads are located in this district, and they too receive a significant amount of use, especially by outfitters and others 15: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT during the backcountry hunting season (September 15-November). This area is especially popular and well known for elk hunting. Summer activities include hiking, mountain biking, hang gliding, and camping at the Eagle Creek, Timber Camp, and Bear Creek camp- grounds. Eagle Creek campground has 16 units, and Bear Creek and Timber Camp are dispersed camping. Eagle Creek is open year-round, while Timber Camp and Bear Creek campgrounds are open June 15 through October 31. Fees began to be charged as of 1997 at the Eagle Creek campground, so reliable records of use are not available. WILDLIFE AND BISON VIEWING When Yellowstone National Park was set aside in 1872 as the world's first national park, the "wonders of the Yellowstone" were the primary motivation — spectacular geysers, colorful hot pools, and the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone (Meagher 1974). However, it is clear that in modern times, wildlife viewing is the primary activity for many visitors who come to Yellowstone National Park. In 1989 visitors who stayed in the park more than one day reported that their activities included viewing wildlife (93%), seeing thermal features (85%), photography (83%), walking for pleasure (75%), and visiting visitor centers (73%) (Littlejohn, Dolson, and Machlis 1990). Similarly surveys of park visitors during August-September 1990 and June 1991 found that wildlife observation was the single-most important activity for Yellowstone National Park visitors with 94% of respondents participating (Duffield 1992). This exceeds participation for geyser viewing (87%), bird watching (48%), hiking (29%), camping (19%), fishing (13%), and boating (3%). The relative importance of wildlife viewing is further revealed by the surprisingly high share of respondents reporting wildlife photography as an activity (73%). The August-September 1990 survey also asked participants to rank the top 10 mammals and birds they hoped to see on their trip from a list of 21 animals (see table 14). Bison were ranked eighth in this list, with a ranking between eagles and wolves. Bison herds are commonly seen along three of the park's road segments: in the Lower Geyser Basin between Madison Junction and Old Faithful; in Hayden Valley between Lake and Canyon; and in the Lamar Valley Bull elk. 152 Re> reation between Tower Junction and the northeast entrance. Individuals and small groups can often be seen along all road segments. Because 75% of Yellowstone visitors enter the park through one gate and exit via another, most visitors pass through one of these areas. The major, observable effect of bison on existing visitor travel is traffic jams created when visitors slow or stop to watch herds of bison cross park roads. Traffic jams several miles long and up to several hours in duration have been observed in mid- summer in Hayden Valley. Wildlife viewing is a primary activity in Yellowstone National Park and the adjacent national forests, and significant changes in wildlife populations can be expected to affect park visitation levels and total visitor spending in the regional economy. For example, visitor surveys conducted for the environmental impact statement concerning recovery of wolves in Yellowstone National Park (USFWS 1994) indicated that, other things equal, the oppor- tunity to see or hear wolves in Yellowstone National Park could lead to an approximate 59t increase in visitation for nonresident visitors. This would amount to about $20 million per year in increased tourism spending. Similarly, a 1989 survey showed that the opportunity to see elk had a measurable impact on the visitor experience in terms of the value of a current trip to the park (Duffield 1991a). While wildlife viewing is a primary activity in Yellowstone National Park, there have been no studies to date that explicitly focus on the impact of changes in bison populations on visitation levels or the visitor experience. Table 14: Order of Preference to See Animals in Yellowstone National Park Rank Species Percent Rank Species Percent ] Grizzly 55 12 Otter 3 2 Black bear 33.2 13 Whooping crane 2.3 3 Moose 33.2 14 Peregrine falcon -) 4 Elk 23.9 15 Coyote 1.9 5 Mountain lion 22.9 16 Pronghorn 1.8 6 Bighorn sheep 21.9 17 Mule deer 1.3 7 Eagle 18.7 18 Chipmunk .5 8 Bison 16 19 Harlequin duck .3 9 Wolf 15.4 20 Sandhill crane .1 10 Wolverine 4.7 21 Marten 0 11 Swan 3.4 Source: J. Duffield (1992). NOTE: Based on percent of respondents ranking the top three animals they would like to see (visitors sampled in August- September 1990). WINTER RECREATION Winter use has been growing at an accelerating rate, nearly doubling in the decade between 1984 and 1994, to 140,000 in the 1994-95 winter season. Little overnight backcountry use occurs in the winter. During the winter, 25% of the visitors stopped at Mammoth, while 10% visited Tower Junction. Old Faithful is the single-most common destination, with 60% of winter visitors stopping at that location. Forty- six percent of winter visitors liked viewing the scenery most, and 17% specifically identified 153 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT wildlife viewing as what they liked most about the park in the winter (NPS 1990). In areas surrounding the park winter recreation is also growing. The town of West Yellowstone, Montana, is located at the west entrance to the park and has been touted as "the snowmobile capital of the world." Total entrances to the park through the west entrance for the months of December through March rose 31% from the 1989-90 winter season to the 1994-95 winter season. A 1994 report from the Bureau of Business and Economic Research at the University of Montana suggests that three- quarters of all nonresidents snowmobiling in Montana spent time in or near West Yellowstone (Sylvester and Nesary 1994). During the 1994-95 winter season, 47% of park visitation entered through the west entrance, 32% through the north, 18% through the south, and 3% through the east. Paralleling the increase in winter visitation to the park has been winter recreational use of USFS lands adjacent to the park. Table 15 shows historical winter use levels for Yellowstone National Park and adjacent Gallatin National Forest. It shows that both aggregate recreational use in the park, and all listed types of use in the national forest have been trending upward over the decade 1984-94. During the winter season, the major recreational activity in the Horse Butte area is snowmobiling, which begins around December 1 each year and lasts until March 30. Records are not kept of dispersed recreational use in the area. Snow- mobile use occurs throughout the groomed trail system and play areas, and the majority of the play areas are located on Horse Butte Peninsula. Snowmobiles are also used to reach ice-fishing areas, most notably on the Madison Arm of Hebgen Reservoir. Minor amounts of cross-country skiing occur in the area, primarily on Horse Butte itself. Snowmobiling and cross-country skiing are also important winter recreational activities that take place mostly at the upper elevations above Jardine. Records are not kept for dispersed recreation use in the Horse Butte area. Table 15: Winter Use Levels by Years for Yellowstone National Park and Gallatin National Forest Year Yellowstone National Park Winter Recreational Use Level Gallatin National Forest Hebgen Lake District Wide Cooke City Hebgen Lake Rendezvous Trail Snowmobiles Snowmobiles Skiers 1984-85 77,679 47,552 4,125 1985-86 93,971 46,100 4,325 1986-87 89,615 50,333 6,866 1987-88 100,105 64,300 7,874 1988-89 96,304 62,200 1989-90 118,017 84,800 10,000 15,138 1990-91 103,539 69,800 11,800 1991-92 117,410 74,900 13,052 1992-93 141,510 81,500 13,308 1993-94 143,523 75,054 38,000 14,497 1994-95 139,810 87,245 21,617 1995-96 119,539 106,713 37,050 22,055 SOURCE: Winter Visitor Use Management: a Multi-Agency Assessment, Greater Yellowstone Winter Visitor Use Management Working Group, April 1997. 54 Recreation HUNTING Big-Game Hunting The focus of this discussion will be on elk, the type of hunt most likely to be affected by bison management. Hunting seasons occur during the fall and early winter in Montana. The elk general rifle season occurs from the fourth week of October to the fourth week of November for a five-week season. An archery season occurs from the first week of September to mid- October, allowing one-either-sex elk per hunter. Special permits are issued for harvest of antler- less elk during the general hunting season and late hunts for elk. Mean harvest of elk in and near the analysis area is 3,044. By comparison, deer harvest is 2,564, moose is 93, bighorn sheep is 22, mountain goats is 10, and pronghorn is 23. In Montana, elk are managed in elk management units. These units are divided into one or more hunting districts (delineated in Montana's big- game hunting regulations) that share similar ecological characteristics and, in most cases, encompass the year-long range of major elk populations inhabiting the management unit (Youmans 1992). The analysis area outside the park includes three elk management units and their respective hunting districts: the Gallatin (hunting districts 301, 310, 314), the Madison (hunting districts 310, 360, 361, 362), and the Emigrant (hunting districts 313, 314, 316). The northern Yellowstone elk herd (approximately 18,000 animals) occupies winter and summer range in Yellowstone National Park, and is associated with hunting districts 313 and 316. These elk winter in what is described as the northern Yellowstone elk winter range, which includes about 400 square miles from the Lamar Valley in the park west and north to the Dome Mountain Wildlife Management Area outside Yellowstone National Park in hunting district 313. Hunting district 316 is primarily high elevation summer and fall range, with most elk typically migrating to the northern winter range in the park. Elk wintering and summering near the northwestern corner of the park are associated with hunting districts 360, 361, 362, and 310. The elk hunt is perhaps most similar to the proposed bison hunts for alternatives 5 and 4 and the special permit Gallatin and Gardiner Late elk hunts. These hunts are primarily for elk that have migrated out of Yellowstone National Park during the winter months. Bison Hunting in North America The American bison is a trophy animal for big- game hunters. Bison hunting takes place on both public lands and private game ranches in North America. Private ranches charge relatively high prices (ranging from $2,250 to $4,000 in the Northern Rocky region) for hunting a trophy- sized bull (see table 16). Just north of Yellowstone National Park, the Flying D Ranch charges $3,500 per bison and receives about 10 customers per year (Numerous personal communications and WEB advertisements). Bison are hunted on public lands in Wyoming, Utah, South Dakota, and Alaska. Lotteries are held for the Wyoming, Utah, and Alaska hunts. A percentage of the limited permits is reserved for resident applicants. A nonrefundable application fee of $5 to $10 is required. The permits for nonresidents range from $1,008 to $2,605. The tag cost for residents ranges from $0 (Alaska) to $1,105 (Utah). All hunters must have state big-game hunting licenses. Three public bison hunts have taken place in the Greater Yellowstone Area in the 1990s: a discontinued hunt in Montana, a discontinued hunt on the Jackson herd south of Yellowstone National Park, and an ongoing Wyoming hunt, officially called the "Wild Bison Reduction Season" held on the Absaroka herd. The Absaroka herd unit is located on the north fork of the Shoshone River near Cody on the east side of Yellowstone National Park, and is part of the larger Yellowstone population. The Montana hunt held in the mid 1980s and early 1990s was discontinued after it received bad publicity because the bison were shot in a firing line situation as they crossed the border of Yellowstone National Park into Montana. In addition, the hunters were accompanied by 55 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks personnel, and many bison were shot within a short time period. The hunt on the Jackson herd in Wyoming was discontinued during the development of a bison management plan by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state of Wyoming, and U.S. Forest Service. The wild bison reduction season on the Absaroka herd is held in the following manner. Applications are accepted during a specified time period in late summer and are randomly assigned a draw number. When the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission determines that the bison population needs to be reduced, they notify the applicants in order of their draw number. The applicant is then interviewed, asked to demonstrate his/her capacity to use a firearm, and is instructed on the issues involved in hunting a bison. If the applicant "passes" the interview, they are allowed to hunt (on their own) for their animal. The population objective for the Absaroka herd is 15 bull bison. Public- hunting is employed to remove all female bison and all male bison in excess of that objective. In 1996, 17 bison were taken at a 100% success rate. Despite its close proximity to Yellowstone National Park, this hunt was not protested, in part because of its low profile, the small number of bison killed, the lack of a specific time or opening date, and lack of hunter accompaniment by agency officials. Table 16: A Sample of Bison Hunting in the United States Location/Ownership of Herd Cost per Bison Bison per Year Number of Applicants Private herds Flying D (Gallatin County, MT) $3,500 No set limit About 10 Windels Wildlife Preserve (Hogeland, MT) $4,000 4 First-come, first-served Terrills (Cheyenne, WY) $2,250 -- -- Fort Belknap Reservation (MT) $2,500 for 4-6 year old $4,000 for trophy-size 4 First-come, first- served Puhlic Herds Henry Mountains, UT $1,008 nonresident $408 resident 44 Data not available Antelope Island, UT $2,605 nonresident $1,105 resident 6 1 ,000s Delta Bison Range, AK $450 nonresident $650 nonresident/alien $0 resident 40 6,000-11,000 Custer State Park, SD $3,000 for 3-day hunt 10 About 20 Absaroka Herd, WY $1,688 nonresident $275 resident 17 2,316 Discontinued Hunts Yellowstone Herd, MT (1990) $1,005 nonresident $205 resident Data not available Data not available Jackson Herd, WY( 1990) $1,000 nonresident $200 resident 16 3,000+ 156 LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS The purpose of taking action is to prevent the transmission of brucellosis from Yellowstone bison to cattle. Since some alternatives would have specific impacts on livestock operations in the region, cattle operations in the Greater Yellowstone Area are analyzed in greater detail in this environmental impact statement than are other land use practices (such as residential and commercial). The monetary aspects of ranching, e.g., the contribution to the regional economy, are included in the "Socioeconomics" chapter of the document. CATTLE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES In the Yellowstone area, the livestock industry is composed mainly of cow-calf operations with the exception of a few sheep producers. Privately owned land and leased public land grazing allotments provide summer pastures. After the first snowfall, or at the end of the allotment period in the fall, most cattle are returned to their home base, usually elsewhere in Montana or Idaho where snow depths are more shallow and hay sources are more accessible. Near Yellowstone National Park in the winter, the snow is too deep and the winters are too cold for cattle to graze, and extra feed is required to maintain their body heat. Cattle under lease are fed hay and retained at Royal Teton Ranch (adjacent to the park's northwestern boundary) year-round. The mother cows of a cow-calf operation are usually bred in the spring or summer for calving in late winter or spring. Calves are with their mothers until fall, at which time they are weaned. Intensive management activities, including calving, neonatal care, branding, castration, dehorning, semen testing, and breeding usually take place at a producer's home operation. Yearly phases of production include weaning of calves, feeding or selling steers and surplus heifer calves, and culling of old or unbred cows. Owners of cow-calf operations usually do not purchase cattle, with the exception of breeding bulls, but rather rely on replacement heifers from the same herd. Their incomes generally reflect the 10- to 12-year price cycle for beef. Income in some years may not cover expenses, but usually a positive cash flow is realized by the completion of the cycle. At the producers' discretion, female cattle in the park vicinity are vaccinated against brucellosis one time, between 4 and 1 2 months of age. Yearly testing for brucellosis is performed on an estimated 80%-90% of the cattle grazed in the West Yellowstone area. These are herds brought from Idaho for summer grazing, since by agreement with Montana, Idaho requires that cattle 1 8 months or older pasturing in the West Yellowstone area be tested when entering Montana, and again before returning to Idaho, regardless of any known exposure. If Montana's Department of Livestock suspects that cattle may have been exposed to brucellosis, then area (whole herd) testing can be required, including calves as young as six months. Area testing last occurred in the Reese Creek area in 1989. Cattle drive. LAND USE Land to the north and west of Yellowstone National Park is primarily part of the Gallatin National Forest, with some areas of privately owned property. The two existing management 157 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT areas designated in the Interim Bison Management Plan are located on national forest land adjacent to the park. The Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area, located northeast of Gardiner, has about 23,000 acres. The Horse Butte area, located northwest of West Yellowstone, is about 24,000 acres in size. The interim plan allows for the winter migration of bison into these two management areas (only ones tested seronegative in West Yellowstone). Active cattle allotments identified as lying within potential bison habitat are shown in table 17. Cow-calf pairs grazed on these public allotments on the Gallatin National Forest and on nearby private land managed by the U.S. Forest Service number about 625 to the north of the park and about 494 in the West Yellowstone area. Table 17: Active Cattle Grazing Allotments to the North and West of Yellowstone National Park, Located within the Most Extensive of Proposed Special Management Areas Number of Cow-Calf Pairs Allotment Name On National Forest Land On Private Land Included as Part of the Allotment1 Total Gardiner Area Green Lake 59 0 59 Lion Creek 53 47 100 Park 20 130 150 Section 22/Mill Creek 35 14 4') Sentinel Butte 7 0 7 Slip-and-Slide 260 0 260 Subtotal 434 191 625 West Yellowstone Area Basin 16 0 16 Horse Butte 1422 0 142 South Fork 19 0 19 Sulphur Springs 37 2 39 Wapiti 222 0 222 Watkins Creek 56 0 56 Subtotal 492 2 494 TOTAL 926 193 1,119 SOURCE: U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1 . Private Property adjacent to a grazing allotment on national forest land can be designated as part of the allotment at the discretion of the national forest. The U.S. Forest Service determines the maximum number of cow-calf pairs permitted on both the private and national forest parts of an allotment. 2. This allotment also permits 30 horses. Privately owned land in the Reese Creek area that could be affected by one or more of the alternatives includes both livestock holdings and nonranch residences, with the latter, in particular, found along the Yellowstone River. The largest of the livestock operations in the Reese Creek area is the Royal Teton Ranch, with about 250 cow-calf pairs grazed on public and private land. It has many buildings and improvements. Other private properties in the Gardiner Valley, between the Yellowstone National Park boundary and north to Yankee Jim Canyon, occupy a total area of about 2,100 acres. These property owners would only be affected should alternative 2 be implemented. Some of these properties do have cattle, but usually only a few head. As described in the "Environmental Consequences," the number of cattle on grazing allotments and private holdings to the north of the park that may be directly affected varies, 158 depending on the size and location of the SMAs proposed for each alternative. In the West Yellowstone area, there are four private holdings (totaling about 1,250 acres) in the Horse Butte region between Duck Creek and the Madison River. Only the largest, with an area of about 650 acres, has cattle, with about 215 pairs on private land (as well as the 142 pairs on the Horse Butte allotments). Additional private holdings to the west of Hebgen Lake, and south of the Madison Ann of Hebgen Lake (west of the South Fork), would be directly affected only by alternative 2, which has the most extensive SMAs. These areas have an additional 585 cow-calf pairs. Table 18 shows the estimated number of cow- calf pairs expected to be directly affected by each of the seven alternatives set forth in this environmental impact statement. Impacts vary across alternatives, as described in the "Environmental Consequences." BISON RANCHING There are approximately 200,000 bison in North America — about 5% on public lands managed by state and federal governments, about 5% on tribal lands, and about 90% on private lands, primarily commercial herds. There are several private bison herds that are more than 30 miles from any proposed SMA boundary, the largest being on the 107,000-acre Flying D Ranch, which has over 3,000 head. Bison are raised for meat, novelty items, breeding stock, trophy hunting, and wildlife preserves and zoos. Bison ranching is a young and rapidly growing industry. The National Bison Association estimates that 7.5 million pounds of meat from approximately 15,000 bison are sold annually in the United States. However, the industry is extremely small compared to the cattle industry, which slaughters over 124,000 cattle per day. The auction price of live bison was fairly constant in the United States from 1975 to 1985, averaging about $600 per animal at the National / m estot A Opt i Bison Association Gold Trophy auction in Denver. Since then, however, the average price per animal has steadily increased to an all-time high of about $4,400 per animal in 1997 with a yearling bull selling for as much as $36,000 at the Gold Trophy Show on January 25, 1997. The price of a live bison depends on its age, sex, and the location of the sale. Heifers, mature cows, and mature bulls are generally more valuable as breeding stock than as meat. Table 19 samples the results for recent auctions in Montana and South Dakota, and compares them to the 1997 National Bison Association Gold Trophy auction. Seven Native American tribes in the Greater Yellowstone Area (Crow, Shoshone-Bannock, Gros Ventre, Assiniboine, Blackfeet, Northern Cheyenne, and Arapaho) have bison herds. At the present time, many tribes want bison to start or increase their herd. Other tribes such as the Crow are in the position of donating or selling bison to other tribes because their herd has reached capacity. The Crow herd increased in size to from 76 bison in 1973 to 1,500 by 1995. (Ravandal, unpub. data 1997). The alternatives are not expected to have more than a negligible impact on bison ranching; therefore, it is not analyzed as a topic in the "Livestock Operations" section of the "Environmental Consequences." However, it is included here to show auctioning live bison may result in agency income higher than the $337 average from the auction of bison meat, hides, and heads used to calculate revenues for each alternative (also see "Bison as Food" in the "Socioeconomics" section). Only those alternatives with quarantine facilities (currently alternatives 3, 4, and 7) would be able to provide a source of live bison, as any seronegative Yellowstone bison must complete a full quarantine protocol before it could be trans- ported to a reservation or other location. 59 "3 o H as o\ in ON ON in t~~ On t-~ t~- ON >/"> o oo in >n OO "O (N s 03 u O > 2 ON ^1" ON ON ON ON o r- ON r~ r~ r- t^ < H m CN> >n a i- c •S J in o o oo in in in in Cfl o *• < « M Ol c 5 as -1- ce H u < o> a o z •A (fl -o ** ** c b c -J ft- £ o H a S3 o < <• CO 0) 2"S^ £ CU J2 J3 en a CO 0 c £ •2 j "* (N ■tf Tf ■sf Tj- — NO ON NO NO NO NO c as a. a 1 ~ Z, 0) m -tf (^i CO m m = O b H Z O -— Z 03 5 o H p in NO o o NO c ro CI as < _, a. ■o _ - < u B s « o o O o ~o o o •5 nJ o o aj o O *» ^^ ^^ ^— 0 S « u 03 0> CU C/5 u. 0 as Lri 2 0> G •o -~ — = « c 03 W 0> o o o 3 O =: o o z Q td ■5 L. cs O ON m n r- < £ 3 <" ft- 5 J3 § O.S'S E 01) 03 c w OC c 5 03 E H •2 J o ■* NO o ^ o NO J < ci OO OO Z. oi -* o > 03 C fc. 0) < — .S 03 H 03 - C E c g « O E o ■ - o CO o 03 * CI T3 — 03 is •£ E ° o ■o ^3 03 1 .§ u 03 ca 'C ra U F - C O 03 ° 2 S i) o i" •£ , P X) as C 03 a a u z « o -° o ^8.2 CO £J «« 73 pq 03 y 22 « as £ £ a i: Q ? O C/3 O ON ,^ T3 >,o 2 (N , | X) o r- in 00 ! O H S c &o &o ON o «/} «/} C ^ 0) O S. C/3 03 Z a. 3 O U O Ui M D D < 00 03 ~H 03 3 03 U >-> 03 >■ > JH tN ^ ^ < cc Livestock Operations PROPERTY DAMAGE BY BISON In 1991, 90 incidents involving bison (1 to 55 bison per incident, but usually involving small groups of bulls) were recorded by the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, the agency responsible before 1994 for managing and recording bison-related complaints and incidents. Most reported incidents (92%) were complaints originating in the West Yellowstone area along U.S. Highway 191, with the remainder reported in the Gardiner area. The incidents include road nuisances, threats to personal and livestock safety, and property damage, as shown in table 20 for 1991-93. Losses due to road accidents, livestock damage, and fences and landscape destruction were not recorded, with the exception of damage to one vehicle in 1992 valued at $1,000. In Yellowstone National Park during 1993 and 1994, five motor vehicle accidents were the only visitor reports o\' private property damage caused by bison. Damages were estimated to total $17,800. Records were not examined before 1993, but personal accounts indicate that this frequency of bison-related accidents is typical. Records of damage to public property by bison are not maintained. During 1996, a total of 15 motor vehicle accidents involving bison inside Yellowstone National Park were recorded. In 1997, 14 accidents inside the park and 2 in the vicinity of neighboring areas of Montana were recorded (NPS, unpub. data). While anecdotal accounts might suggest that bison damage to public and private property is not a major problem, the individuals directly affected sometimes sustain sizable costs. Recent instances in which horses have been gored by bison demonstrate the serious but infrequent threat bison can pose for livestock producers. Table 20: Number and type of Bison Nuisance Incidents in the State of Montana - 1991-1993* Type of Incident 1991 1992 1993 Reported bison incidents 90 47 6 Bison involved in total incidents** 435 124 21 Incidents Road nuisance Road kills Fence damage Landscape damage Property damage Personal safety Threat to livestock Vehicle damage On property Injured bison on road 23 5 12 2 1 19 24 7 17 4 12 2 6 2 1 5 9 5 10 5 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 * Most recently recorded data. ** May involve the same bison more than one tii 161 SOCIOECONOMICS REGIONAL ECONOMY The analysis area for the regional economy is a part of the Greater Yellowstone Area. It includes Park and Gallatin Counties, and in some cases (livestock sector analysis) Madison County, as well as portions of Yellowstone National Park (see the Region and Greater Yellowstone Area maps). Throughout the Greater Yellowstone Area, public lands provide the basis for much of the economic activity (recreation, mining, forestry, and agriculture) that occurs in the region. The area's overall economy has been changing for more than 20 years. The economy has shifted from commodity-extraction dependence to a more diversified economy based on recreation, tourism, and service industries. For example, between 1969 and 1989, more than 96% of all new jobs in the Greater Yellowstone Area came from sectors other than timber, mining, and agriculture (Rasker, Tirrell, and Kloepfer 1 992). Employment The diversification of the economy in the GYA and the growth in the total number of jobs has helped keep unemployment in Gallatin and Park Counties relatively low, between 2.6% and 4.8% in 1996 (Montana Department of Labor and Industry annual figures). The economy is diversifying to include both extractive industries and service industries and provides a more stable employment for the region. Employment by economic sector in the two counties is shown in table 21. Approximately 10% of Park County employment and 5% of Gallatin County employment is in the agriculture, forestry, and mining sectors. In addition, some component of employment in manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, and services is derivative of activity in these resource-based sectors. Most jobs pertaining to the recreation and tourism industry are found in the retail trade and service sectors of a county's economy. Income Total employment for the two-county area is shown in table 21, while the percent allocation of income by major industry is shown in table 22; retail trade and services account for approximately 40%-45% of each county's earnings. These sectors, along with the government sector, have a strong tie to the region's resources and are expected to continue to be important and sustaining segments of the economy of the Greater Yellowstone Area. Recreation Sector Park Visitors. As noted in the "Recreation" section, recreational use of the affected environ- ment is a key component of the area's economy. Visitors to Yellowstone National Park from outside Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho spent an average of $840.00 during their trips (Duffield 1992). A 1994 report on snowmobiling in Montana found nonresidents spend approximately $40 million annually in the state, and three-fourths of those nonresidents spent time in or near West Yellowstone (Sylvester and Nesary 1994). A 1997 study commissioned by the National Park Service estimated the economic effects of the winter 1995-96 government shutdown on local economies surrounding park units (Neher, Robison, and Duffield 1997). Yellowstone National Park and the community of West Yellowstone, Montana, in particular, served as a case study. The NPS report estimated a statistical relationship between Yellowstone National Park west gate entrances and West Yellowstone sales tax collections for the period January 1989 through February 1996. The study found a significant difference between estimated tourist expenditures in West Yellowstone for 162 Table 21: Industry Breakdown of Employment for Park andGai (Number of Individuals Employed) Sot ioe< onomics latin Counties, 1994 Industry Park County Gallatin County Total Total farm 481 1 ,032 1 ,5 1 3 Total nonfarm 8,144 38,292 46,436 Private: 7,35 1 30,351 57,702 Misc. agr. and forestry 233 606 839 Mining ] n 214 336 Construction 557 2,910 3,467 Manufacturing 624 2,614 3,238 Transport/utilities 400 1,410 1,810 Wholesale 502 1 ,405 1,907 Retail 1,732 8,622 10,354 Insurance/real estate 399 2,504 2,903 Services 2,782 10,066 12,848 Government 793 7,941 8,734 SOURCE: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System, 1996. Table 22: Percent Allocation of Income by Major Industry for Park and Gallatin Counties, 1994 Industry Park County Gallatin County Mining and construction 11.24 10.84 Manufacturing 10.94 7.92 Other* 13.32 11.71 Retail trade 14.72 16.26 Finance, insurance, and real estate 2.80 4.10 Services 31.04 25.11 Government 12.50 21.53 Farm 3.44 2.53 Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional Economic Information System, 1996. * Includes agriculture services, forestry, and fisheries; transportation and public utilities; wholesale trade. 163 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT the winter and nonwinter periods. For the winter months of December through March it was estimated that each west entrance visit accounted for $152.67 in expenditures in the West Yellow- stone economy. Nonwinter visitor expenditures were estimated to be $25.37 per visit. Impacts of the shutdown are discussed in the "Environ- mental Consequences" part of this document. A remaining element of the affected environment with regard to park visitors is the possibility of a tourism boycott. The call for a boycott would likely be associated with the killing of bison, either by agencies or hunters. Boycotts have been attempted in response to the hunting of Yellowstone bison in 1988-89, and in response to high levels of agency shooting and slaughter during the winter of 1996-97 under the provisions of the interim plan. Hunters. From 1987 to 1990 bison that migrated out of Yellowstone National Park into Montana were hunted by sportsmen in a controlled situation. Expenditures associated with this activity were not measured, but elk hunter expenditures probably provide a good estimate of what bison hunters would spend. Big-game hunting is a major activity in the Greater Yellowstone Area in Montana, and elk and deer are the primary species hunted during the season. Resident elk hunters spent an average of $54.00 per day while resident deer hunters spent $41.00 a day. Average nonresident hunters expenditures associated with elk and deer hunting are $252.00 and $1 15.00 per day, respectively (Duffield 1988). Cattle grazing near Mission Mountains, Montana, by G. Wunderwald. (NPS photo) Livestock Sector Based on USFS information on cow-calf operations to the north and west of Yellowstone National Park, it is estimated that there are about 725 cow-calf pairs to the north of the park and 1 ,294 pairs in the West Yellowstone area grazing land that would lie within the boundaries of the most extensive of the SMAs described in this environmental impact statement. Gallatin County has about 62,000 cattle and calves, and Park County has about 58,000 cattle and calves, as shown in table 23. Table 23 also indicates some differences between the livestock populations in the two counties. Gallatin County has livestock cash receipts 1 .6 times those of Park County. Whereas Gallatin County has a smaller number of beef cows, this is balanced by larger milk cow, sheep, and swine populations, and twice the number of total farms and ranches found in Park County. As the last column of the table shows, livestock cash receipts for the two counties together represent about 5% of livestock cash receipts statewide. Madison County is also included in table 23 (and table 24). Although it does not border Yellowstone National Park, during the winter of 1996-97 there were two instances of bison migrating along roads to within 1 mile of livestock in Madison County. Nine bison made the trek in January, and 13 bison made the trek in late February. As shown in table 23, Madison has a significant livestock industry that could be jeopardized by such incursions. Although Gallatin, Park, and Madison Counties contain a relatively small portion of Montana's total livestock wealth, cattle are at least as important to these counties' economies as they are for the state as a whole, as indicated in table 24. About one-half of agricultural cash receipts for Gallatin County and for Montana are from the sale of livestock and livestock products. In Park and Madison Counties, livestock provide around 80% of agricultural cash receipts. Approximately 37% of Montana's agricultural cash receipts came from cattle and calf sales. 164 Socioeconomics Table 2 3: Livestock Production in ( Jallatin, p ARK, AND MA lDISON Coun riES, AND J" Itate ok Montana Total Farms/ Ranches 1992' Approximate Acres and Proportion in Farms/Ranches 19922 All Cattle & Calves Jan. 96' Beef Cows Jan. 96' Milk Cows Jan. 96' Sheep Jan. 96' Swine Dec. 95' Livestock (ash Receipts 19944 Gallatin Co. 789 1,604,386-43.6% 62,000 27,000 4,900 6.200 2,400 $31,538,000 Park Co. 385 1,699,943-45.8% 58,000 35,700 5 2,500 s $19,685,000 Madison Co. 418 2,295,443 - 55.4% 94,000 56,000 5 9,500 1 ,200 $27,949,000 State of MT 22,821 92,999,006-64.1% 2,750,000 1 ,570,000 20,000 430,000 180,000 $1,057,318,000 SOURCE: Montana Agricultural Statistics Service and USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 1. Annual sales of agricultural products of $1,000 or more, 1992. 1992 Census of Agriculture, Table 6. No county-level data available since 1992. (Note: Montana's total farms and ranches in 1996 numbered 22,000. 1996 Montana Agricultural Statistics, p. 13.) 2. 1992 Census of Agriculture, Table 6. 3. 1996 Montana Agricultural Statistics, pp. 93. 94, and 95. 4. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1996 Montana Agricultural Statistics, p. 17. Includes estimates of interfarm and intrastate sales. 5. Less than 500 head or individual operators having 60% or more of the head in county. Table 24: Cash Receipts krom Livestock kor Gallatin, Park, and Madison Counties, and Montana, 1994 Livestock and Livestock Products All Agricultural Cash Receipts Proportion from Livestock Gallatin County $31,538,000 $66,578,000 47% Park County $19,685,000 $24,804,000 79% Madison County $27,949,000 $33,428,000 84% State of Montana $1,057,318,000 $2,296,457,000 46% Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. This demonstrates the importance of cattle, and especially cow-calf production, for the state. Statewide, the number of cow-calf operations in 1996 numbered 13,200, and the inventory of cattle and calves totaled 2.7 million in January 1997. Because Yellowstone National Park bison are exposed to brucellosis, their movement into Montana subjects livestock producers in that state to risks of disease transmission and economic sanctions from state animal health authorities. Therefore, the affected environment potentially includes, indirectly, Montana's entire cattle industry, in addition to livestock producers directly affected in areas adjacent to Yellowstone National Park. BISON AS FOOD Bison meat sells for nearly twice the cost of beef because it is considered a health food by some consumers. It is lower in fat than beef and is generally organically grown. The current retail price of bison meat ranges from $3.95/lb (90% lean hamburger) to $1 7.95/lb (tenderloin) in Colorado. Most of the commercially available meat comes from 24- to 30-month-old bulls that weigh from 900 to 1,100 pounds. This slaughter weight is equivalent to the standard cattle slaughter weight. The dressing percentage of bison (60%) is similar to cattle (Hawley 1989). Finished bulls are sold for 1 .30/lb, or $1 ,450 for a 1,100-pound bison (adjusted to 1996 U.S. dollars) (Baier 1991). The hides, horns, and skulls are also valuable (Hawley 1989). The meat of older bison is tough and gristly and used mostly for hamburger. The salvage (hamburger) value for a mature cow bison is about $800 and a mature bull is $1,500 (National Bison Association 1997b). 165 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT During the 1996-97 winter, the Montana Department of Livestock slaughtered and sold at auction 459 bison for a total of $154,506, averaging $337 per animal. This value per animal was probably much lower than market price for several reasons: (1) the bison were not necessarily of marketable age (either older or younger than the optimal market age), (2) some of the bison were suspected to have brucellosis, which, although not a human health risk in consuming the meat, may have been perceived as such, (3) the perception that the bison left Yellowstone National Park in search of food suggests they had low body weight, (4) there is not an established market in Montana for bison auctioned by the Department of Livestock, and (5) the unexpectedly large number of bison sold in such a short time may have lowered the going price. The most saleable item apparently was trophy-size heads (skulls and horns), which sold for as much as $380 apiece (Wilkinson 1997). (46.1%) and unemployment rate (26.2%) much higher than the counties or the state. Management officials and hunters have killed a total of 3,076 bison outside the park in Montana between 1984-85 and 1996-97, including 1,084 killed under the federal- and state-approved interim management plan in 1996-97. The killed bison have been donated to charities and Native Americans who were able to go to the shooting location and gut and haul away the carcasses. Native American tribes, tribal members, and affiliated organizations received about 60% of the bison killed in 1991-92, 90% of those killed in 1994-95, and 47% of those killed under the interim management plan in 1996-97. Native Americans have received over 1,000 bison carcasses since the 1991-92 winter. Charities received about 7% of those killed in 1996-97 (State of Montana, Clarence Siroky, pers. comm. 1997), and have also received bison carcasses in previous years. MINORITY AND LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS Alternative bison management strategies have the potential to affect differing socioeconomic groups in different ways. Table 25 gives an overview of how Park and Gallatin Counties compare to the state of Montana in per capita income and percent of population in poverty and unemployment rate. Also shown in the table are these statistics for the Montana Native American population. As of the 1990 U.S. census, Park County had a per capita income of $1 1,378, approximately equal to that of the state of Montana. Gallatin County had a substantially higher income level of $17,032 per person. The percent of the population in poverty across the two counties and the state was relatively consistent in 1990 at between 15.2% and 17.1%. Unemployment in the two counties in 1996 was below the state average of 5.3% (Park and Gallatin County unemployment was 4.8% and 2.6%, respectively). Table 25 shows that Montana's Native American population had a much lower per capita income ($5,422) than either the two counties or the state, and a much higher percent of population living in poverty Tribes, Indian alliances, and individual tribal members that have received bison include the Blackfeet, Salish and Kootenai, Gros Ventre, Assiniboine, Nez Perce, Shoshone-Bannock, Crow, Cherokee, Chippewa, Little Shell, Yakima-Umatilla, Rosebud Lakota Sioux, Ogalala Sioux, Sisseton Wahpeton, Northern Cheyenne, the Montana State University-Big Sky Indian Alliance, Helena Indian Alliance, and the Butte Indian Alliance. In addition, charities (not directly affiliated with Native American groups) receiving bison include the Baptist and Community Churches in Gardiner, Gallatin Food Bank, Bozeman Shelter Care, Gold Hill Lutheran Church in Butte, Livingston Food Bank, Powell County Senior Citizen Group, St. Paul's Lutheran Church in Harlowton, St. Mary's Catholic Church in Livingston, West Yellowstone Food Bank, Montana Guides and Outfitters Food For the Hungry, and the Whitefish Food Bank. 166 Socioeconomics Table 25: Comparative Statistics on Economic Status, 19X9 Statistic* Montana Native Americans Park County Gallatin County State of Montana Per capita income $5,422 $11,378 $17,032 $11,213 Percent of population in poverty 46.1% 15.2% 17.1% 1 6. 1 % Percent unemployment 26.2% 4.8% 2.6% 5.3% Per capita income and poverty status statistics and Native American unemployment rate are from U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 U.S. Census Data. Percent unemployment is from Montana Department of Commerce, Office of Research and Analysis, Helena. MT. SOCIAL VALUES This section describes general attitudes toward wildlife and the livestock industry. None of these attitudes is superior or inferior to another. The general public has strongly held divergent values and opinions on public policy issues concerning wildlife management. As an example, the draft environmental impact statement concerning wolf recovery in Yellowstone National Park received over 160,000 comments, more than any other federal action ever proposed in the U.S. (E. Bangs, pers. comm. 1997). Similarly, proposals concerning the use of leg-hold traps, bear-baiting, and aerial gunning of wolves have been decided through public referenda in states including Colorado, Idaho, and Alaska. The general public also has strongly held divergent values and opinions on public policy concerning ranching. Since the mid- 1890s, livestock ranching has been an integral part of Montana's social character. Ranching and other agricultural activities continue to provide open range for wildlife. All 56 of Montana's counties have livestock operations. The social values at issue in the bison- brucellosis conflict in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem are as disparate as the participants. As Thorne, Meagher, and Hillman (1991) comment: "Whereas most people regard the GYE [Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem] and its wildlife as a world treasure, because of its reservoir of brucellosis, others regard the GYE as a threat to an important international industry and economy and a black eye to their efforts." Management of bison in the Yellowstone area has become a matter of national attention and interest. In recent years individuals and groups representing many viewpoints have challenged management practices, both in court and in a variety of public forums. Some residents across the country may not understand the science behind the management actions of alternatives in this environmental impact statement because many perceive the bison as an endangered species, which it is not. Rural Way of Life Montana has remained a very rural state deep in traditions founded in this rural way of life. Most Montanans believe agriculture and the businesses and communities it supports are paramount in maintaining this way of life. While Montana's population and distribution of population has fluctuated and changed over its history, it remains rural. In 1989 about 53% of Montanans lived in urban areas compared to 74% nationally. Montana's first census conducted in 1870 found that the territory had fewer than 21 ,000 people. Today Montana is the fourth largest state geographically (145,388 square miles), and the 1990 census concluded that Montana had about 800,000 residents. There are 5.5 people per square mile in Montana, and no city has a population of 100,000 (Montana Agriculture Statistic 1996). 167 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Native Americans Bison embody the culture of many native Plains peoples. Bison are a link to the spiritual world; many tribes connect their cultural and spiritual identity to them. Bison were perceived as the "great provider" for nonagrarian tribes as they were essential to the spiritual, cultural, and physical well-being of the tribe. These relation- ships and beliefs have spanned the centuries of bison and tribal interaction. Today bison are directly tied to ceremonies such as traditional pow-wows. Bison skulls are used as altars, bone is used on traditional costumes, and they are the subject of many dances. Many tribes believe that all animals, including bison, have "intrinsic value that supersedes any value people might place on them." Certain tribes require that the bison must be killed in a respectful manner before it can be used for traditional spiritual practices (Ravandal, unpub. data 1997). The InterTribal Bison Cooperative is dedicated to the restoration of bison to the daily lives of Indian people for economic development, cultural enrichment, and environmental restora- tion. They have proposed transporting surplus bison from Yellowstone to tribal reservations where they would join bison already on ranches. Some tribes are not members of the cooperative because they do not agree with the economic emphasis placed on the return of bison. Hunters Cattle Ranching Cattle ranches and the cowboys who ran them represent a different type of "popular cultural icon" as "people around the world recognize the American cowboy as a national symbol" (Slatta 1991, 243). Cattle frontiers "separated indigenous and European cultures" from the onset. "White, European values met and mixed with indigenous cultures on the Plains" resulting in competition for resources. (Slatta 1991, 223). Organization advocates include the Montana Stockgrowers Association, which is dedicated to promoting the economic, political, environ- mental, and cultural interests of the livestock industry in Montana. The association works to improve economic opportunities for ranchers, improve access to political avenues in areas of concern, and ensure that the traditional farming and ranching livelihoods are not adversely affected by the continuing evolution of the human or natural environments. Bison Ranching Bison were hunted in the past for meat, hide, and bones by North America's first people. Some tribes today wish to begin or expand bison ranching on reservation lands while private ranchers also are involved with managing bison for meat production. The relatively low- maintenance bison have become lucrative market animals. Bison represent a prize game animal "due to its symbolism as part of the West, part is due to its value as meat and as a trophy." Hunting in general is viewed as essential and a natural part of ecosystems, as it is a natural human activity and may be "an instinct after millions of years." Some hunters in the Yellowstone area feel that the population of bison needs to be lowered. Most believe that an environment containing healthy populations of a variety of species can support human use of the area. (Ravandal, unpub. data). There are also those who oppose bison ranching (e.g., Farm Animal Reform Movement, Humane Farming Association). They note the environ- ment is damaged enough without bison ranching. They feel that "if left alone by humans, bison do a good job of protecting themselves, and don't need to be exploited in order for the species to survive." Other groups, such as the Humane Society of the United States, note both positive and negative aspects of bison ranching. As an industry, bison ranching is "ecologically a step forward as an alternative to continuing to graze the wrong 168 Socioeconomics species, namely, cattle, on the high plains and prairies." The negative aspects revolve around questionable husbandry practices, primarily transportation and slaughter. Currently, bison ranchers get more income from skins and skulls than from the carcasses (Dillingham 1997). Conservation Associations It is impossible to define a single "conservation ethic," as conservation associations differ in their views depending on the resource they are attempting to conserve. The following views represent only two of many different and divergent conservation groups. The Greater Yellowstone Coalition's mission is to preserve and protect the Yellowstone area and its unique quality of life including its bio- diversity, geothermal activity, rural lifestyle, ranches, and small towns. According to the coalition there is a "fundamental question" for the park's bison management policy: "Is Yellowstone a sanctuary for wildlife or are we going to allow the livestock industry to turn it into a livestock yard and zoo?" The National Parks and Conservation Associa- tion believes "bison should be allowed to roam freely in Montana," and has asked supporters to inform government agencies to that effect. It also holds that "there is an insignificant risk, if any, of the transmission of the bacteria causing brucellosis from bison to cattle," and that "Yellowstone bison are scientifically, histor- ically, and aesthetically important and should be protected." If the state of Montana implements and defends the "anti-bison" policy the association has encouraged that "vacation dollars be spent elsewhere." which they perceive as dominating bison management decisions. Animal protectionists and open-range cattle ranchers agree on some issues. The most humane domestic ranching operations, according to both, sends fewer animals to market; raises them in the way most natural to the species; treats them with the least cruelty possible; and uses husbandry practices that avoids cruelty to other species. Western cattle ranchers, for the most part, do not confine animals nor are calves separated from their mothers. The animals live in "semi-natural herds under semi-natural conditions." Open-range ranchers are the smallest part of the beef industry but provide a more humane form of meat production for the future (Rollin 1989). Attitudes Toward Wildlife There is extensive literature concerning general social attitudes and values towards wildlife, although no systematic surveys of information specific to bison and brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area exist. For example, Kellert ( 1 976) identified a number of distinct attitudes toward wildlife including naturalistic, ecologistic, humanistic, moralistic, scientistic, aesthetic, utilitarian, dominionistic, and negativistic (see table 26 for definitions). Most people typically possess more than one attitude toward animals and react differently in different situations. Nonetheless, it is possible to identify in most people predominant character- istics of a primary attitude toward animals. For example, animal rights groups tend to have a moralistic attitude towards animals, while scientists tend to take a scientific view (Kellert 1976). Animal Rights Concerns Animal rights groups believe bison should not be shot regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. Also, they voice concerns over animal rights violations within the overall ranching industry, A number of empirical studies reflect attitudes toward wildlife, particularly large carnivores (e.g., McNaught 1987; Llewellyn 1978; Bath 1991; Kellert et al. 1996). Llewellyn classified comments received concerning a proposed change in wolf status in Minnesota from endangered to threatened. Those commenters 169 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT who favored maintaining the endangered species classification most frequently expressed ecologistic, moralistic, and naturalistic attitudes (as defined in table 26). By contrast those favoring declassifying wolves had predomi- nantly utilitarian and negativistic attitudes. Table 26: Perceptions of Animals in American Society Attitude Key Identifying Terms Highly Correlated With Most Antagonistic Toward Naturalistic Wildlife exposure, contact with nature Ecologistic, humanistic Negativistic Ecologistic Ecosystem, species interdependence Naturalistic, scientistic Negativistic Humanistic Pets, love for animals Moralistic Negativistic Moralistic Ethical concern for animal welfare Humanistic Utilitarian, dominionistic, scientistic, aesthetic, negativistic Scientistic Curiosity, study, knowledge Ecologistic None Aesthetic Artistic character and display Naturalistic Negativistic Utilitarian Practicality, usefulness Dominionistic Moralistic Dominionistic Mastery, superiority Utilitarian, negativistic Moralistic Negativistic Avoidance, dislike, indifference, fear Dominionistic, utilitarian Moralistic, humanistic, naturalistic SOURCE: S. Kellert (1976). Approximately 260 comment letters were received concerning the Interim Bison Management Plan/Draft Environmental Assessment (NPS and State of Montana 1995). The assessment was issued in December 1995 and most comments were received in January 1996. Based on a review of the written comments, the feature of the proposed plan about which commenters felt most strongly was the killing of bison. This suggests, not surprisingly, that social values related to moralistic and humanistic beliefs and attitudes are definitely at issue in the bison-brucellosis conflict. Also, just as in Llewellyn's (1978) analysis of the wolf declassification issue in Minnesota, another opinion apparent in these letters often strongly expressed practical or utilitarian views concerning the impact of brucellosis on livestock. The bison-brucellosis controversy concerning the Yellowstone area is not the only such conflict in North America. There is a parallel in Wood Buffalo National Park in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Research into social and economic values is apparently underway in this case (J. Chisholm, pers. comm. 1997). While no formal analysis of social values is yet complete, general public opinions toward several possible management options in Canada have been revealed through public debate. In 1990 the Canadian Environmental Assessment Panel on this issue recommended that "all free-ranging bison now living in Wood Buffalo National Park and surrounding areas be removed and replaced by disease-free bison" (Wood Buffalo National Park 1997). According to Wood Buffalo National Park: "The recommendation of the panel received mixed response. While agricultural interests and some environmental groups supported it, other environmental groups and aboriginal communities protested. There was a national outcry against the recommen- dation. More than 1 1,000 written protests were sent to the Minister responsible for Parks Canada; the largest response to any wildlife- related issue in Canada to date." In response to the outcry over the Canadian Environmental Assessment Panel recommendation, the proposal was abandoned and another panel formed. In J 992 the latter panel recommended that because of significant knowledge gaps concerning the 170 Socioeconomics epidemiology and ecological role of the disease and effects of possible management actions that a bison research program be initiated before developing a final action plan. A five-year research program was announced in 1995 and is underway. (Depopulation to the degree proposed in the Wood Buffalo herd is not part of any alternative analyzed in this environmental impact statement. It is cited here simply to show public reaction to bison slaughter.) NONMARKET VALUES The wildlife and natural environments of the Yellowstone area bison are of substantial value to winter and summer park visitors, hunters, and other individuals who value the idea that these resources are maintained in a viable state. Part of this value is reflected in the expenditures that visitors make for lodging, food, and other travel services (e.g., see "Recreation Sector" section). However, the main reason that visitors make the often long and expensive trip to see Yellowstone National Park is not primarily to eat in West Yellowstone or spend a night in a motel in Gardiner. Visitors make these trips because the benefits of the trip exceed the dollar costs. Benefit studies are concerned with the demand side of the tourism industry. Because visitors are charged only nominal or no fees for park visits or use of surrounding public lands for hunting or snowmobiling, trip values do not have market prices. The nonmarket value (values for items not exchanged in established markets) of trips for both park visitors and hunters is measured by how much they would be willing to pay over and above the costs of the trip before they would choose to forego the trip (Ward and Duffield 1992). Previous studies have estimated the median nonmarket value of a trip to Yellowstone National Park at $166 for regional (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming) residents and $700 for out- of-state visitors (Duffield 1992). These median estimates indicate that visits to Yellowstone National Park are, as one would expect, highly valued experiences. However, it may be noted that this range of values is not without precedent for recreational trips. For example, Loomis, Cooper, and Allen (1988) estimated the value of elk hunting trips in some Montana districts at around $400/trip. These values would likely be considerably higher at present. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks is currently using variable market prices to sell outfitter-sponsored nonresident combination licenses (which are mainly purchased for elk hunting). The market-clearing price in the last two years has been $835. Duffield (1988) estimated the value per day of elk hunting in districts around Gardiner, Montana, at $92.08 (1991 dollars). No estimates of the nonmarket value of snowmobiling in the Yellowstone area are available in the literature. These trips may have a value similar to general park visits. Wildlife viewing is an important aspect of the Yellowstone National Park visitor experience, and it is likely that the abundance and variety of wildlife a given visitor actually sees affects the satisfaction and value placed on the trip. Duffield (1991) examined how the value of trips to Yellowstone National Park that were taken in October 1989 and August-September 1990 varied by whether the survey respondent had or had not seen elk. The median trip value for regional residents (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming) was $22 higher and $145 higher for nonresidents if elk were seen by the respondent. This study also estimated the impact of a 20% decline in elk populations on trip value. It was estimated that this would lead to only a small (3%) change in the probability that any given visitor would see an elk. The corresponding change in trip values was also small: $0.63 for residents and $4.61 for nonresidents. The annual value park visitors place on having wolves present in Yellowstone National Park for purposes of seeing or hearing them has been estimated at $7.34 for regional residents and $5.48 for out-of-region visitors (Duffield 1992). There have been no estimates reported in the economic literature of the affect of the presence or abundance of bison on the value park visitors derive from Yellowstone National Park. 171 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The economic value of Yellowstone National Park resources is only partly measured by the demand for onsite use by park visitors, hunters, and other users. As the world's first national park, Yellowstone is clearly a resource of national and even international significance (Keiter and Boyce 1991). Many individuals value the idea that this resource and its wildlife are being maintained in a viable state independent of whether they will actually themselves be able to visit the park (USFWS 1994). This type of nonmarket value is sometimes termed "intrinsic," or "existence," or "bequest" value (Krutilla 1967). The existence of the resource itself (separate from direct use) or the motivation to provide the resource for future generations are the sources of this economic value. There have been several studies of the economic existence or intrinsic value of specific wildlife populations, as summarized in table 27. Generally, these values have been measured in terms of stated willingness of survey respondents to donate to achieve the restoration or augmen- tation of a given population. Studies listed in table 27 include grizzly bear recovery in the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness (USFWS forthcoming), elk winter range purchases near Gardiner, Montana, to benefit the Northern Yellowstone herd (Duffield 1991b), recovery of wolves in Yellowstone National Park (Duffield 1989, 1991a, 1992; Duffield, Neher, and Patterson 1993; USFWS 1994), protection of bald eagles in Wisconsin (Boyle and Bishop 1987), protection of a population of desert bighorn sheep near Tucson, Arizona (King, Flynn, and Shaw 1988), and preservation of whooping cranes at Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in Texas (Bowker and Stoll 1988). The species for which values are reported are listed in the same order as in table 14, which set forth Yellowstone National Park visitor preference for seeing that animal on a visit to the park. Generally, the animals that people are most anxious to see are those that they are willing to pay the most to protect. However, values held by site visitors do not show a systematic trend, but depend as much on the site and the type of visitors the site attracts. For example, whooping cranes are relatively highly valued by visitors to Aransas National Wildlife Refuge and by the U.S. population, but are not a primary species for viewing in Yellowstone National Park. Also generally speaking, values are highest for area visitors and generally decline for resident populations centered at increasing distances from the site in question. The values in table 27 have been standardized to 1997 dollars (corrected for inflation by the Consumer Price Index), are per person for the relevant human population (corrected, for example, for original study values that are just for respondents in favor of a given action), and are adjusted based on the conservative assumption that nonrespon- dents to a given survey place a zero value on the species at issue. Nonetheless, there are undoubtedly remaining differences in the values that are in part due to methodology (Loomis and White 1996), the extent to which nonresponse was minimized, and the actual change in wildlife population (restoration vs. increased abundance, for example) and the choice of economic welfare measure (median vs. mean, for example). No estimates specific to bison are available in the literature. However, as shown in table 27, an approximate bound to a range of possible values for bison may be given by entries lower (wolves) and higher (elk and eagles) in the visitor viewing-preference ranking. 172 )ihioc( onoinic \ Table 27: Nonmarkkt Values fok Wh.di.ifk Prkskrvai ion (1997 Don. arm1 1997 Human Population Sampled Species Preference to View2(%) Area Visitor ($) Resident Local Counties ($) Resident Local States ($) Resident U.S.($) Grizzly bear ' 55 14.86 16.65" 15.22 Elk5 24 32.61 Bighorn sheep6 22 14 74 Bald eagle 1') 28. 627 to 157.60x 13.057 9.32" to 13.23s Bison 16 Wolf 15 39.46'" 8.35" 8.28IJM 3.04 ,: to 3.70" Whooping crane14 2.3 34.86 12.29 1 . All values adjusted to 1997 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. Values are per person for relevant populations (adjusted to account for share in population a given action). Nonrespondents assumed to place zero value on the given wildlife resource. 2. Percent of Yellowstone National Park visitors ranking species in top three they would prefer to see on a trip to the park (Duffield 1992) 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997 (based on 1995 survey). One time contribution. Overall survey response rate used for all human populations. 4. Sample of residents of ID, MT, WY, OR, WA, and UT. 5. Duffield 1989, 1991b (1989 data). Lump sum. 6. King, Flynn, and Shaw 1988. Local area population is Tucson, AZ, desert bighorn sheep. Annual Payment. 7. Boyle and Bishop 1987 (1984 data). Annual membership. 8. Swanson (1993), Visitors to Skagit River Natural Area. Lump sum value. 9. Stevens et al. 1991. Sample of New England households. Annual payment. 10. Duffield 1992 (1991 survey data). Lump sum. 1 1 . Duffield, Nehcr, and Patterson 1993 (1991 and 1992 survey data). Lump sum. 12. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1994. (1993 survey data). One time contribution. 13. Sample of residents of ID, MT, and WY. 14. Bowker and Stoll 1988. U.S. sample based on Texas plus four SMSAs (Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York). Visitor area is Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in Texas. 173 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES This section describes the threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (collectively referred to as species of special concern) that may be affected by the alternatives (also see appendix H). Other species of special concern inhabit the project area, but are not expected to be affected in any way by the actions described in any of the alternatives. Bison management has the potential to affect species of special concern in three ways: ( 1 ) directly through management actions, such as shooting and hazing, (2) by removing or polluting habitat that would otherwise be available for threatened or endangered plants or wildlife, and (3) indirectly by affecting the numbers and distribution of bison, which serve as live prey or carrion for threatened or endangered animals in some cases. The habitat and other relevant information for species that might be affected by such actions is described below. ENDANGERED SPECIES Peregrine Falcon The peregrine falcon is the only endangered species inhabiting the project area. Peregrine populations have been increasing in the Greater Yellowstone Area. The peregrine is found in open country near riparian areas and typically nests on rocky cliffs or in gorges. Birds are the primary component of the peregrine diet (Langelier 1989). THREATENED SPECIES Bald Eagle The bald eagle, a threatened species, nests and winters within the northern part of the Greater Yellowstone Area. In the analysis area, bald eagles are concentrated around Hebgen and Quake Lakes near the Horse Butte allotment. Bald eagles also winter and nest in the Seven-Mile Bridge area where they feed primarily on waterfowl (McEneany, pers. comm.). Bald eagles will eat bison carrion but also use various fish species and any other carrion available (Harmata 1989). Particularly in the west, bald eagles will scavenge on carcasses of large mammals succumbing to winter kill (Stalmaster 1987). In Wood Buffalo National Park in Canada, bald eagles feed on bison carrion (Young 1983). Scavenging is most common in winter and early spring (Stalmaster 1981). Two studies on food habits in the Yellowstone area showed that mammals comprised 1 8% (Swenson 1 975) and 1 1 % of the bald eagle diet (Alt 1980). Grizzly Bear The grizzly bear is classified as a threatened species. The project area is entirely within the Greater Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone and is almost exclusively management situation 1 (MSI) grizzly bear habitat. MSI contains grizzly population centers (areas key to the survival of grizzlies where seasonal or year-long grizzly activity, under natural, free-ranging conditions is common) and habitat components needed for the survival and recovery of the species or a segment of its population. A portion of the project area falls within MS2 grizzly bear habitat. MS2 areas are those lacking distinct grizzly bear population centers or highly suitable habitat, although some habitat exists and grizzlies may be present occasionally. The entire area inside the park is considered MS 1 . The majority of the area proposed to be within SMAs under the alternatives outside the park lies within MSI except for the area west of the park in the Horse Butte area (which is stippled on the alternative maps) and the lower elevation area along the Yellowstone River north of the park which are MS2. The percentage of the SMAs that is comprised of MS2 varies from 0% to approximately 10% depending on the 174 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Spet ies alternative. In addition, MS3 has not been mapped on the national forest, but consists of developed areas like campgrounds and summer home sites where grizzly bear presence is untenable for humans and/or grizzly bears. Some of these MS3 areas lie within the areas considered as SMAs in the alternatives (i.e., Baker's Hole campground). The grizzly bear population has increased in recent years (Knight and Blanchard 1995). General Grizzly Bear Food Habits. Food habits of grizzly bears in the Yellowstone area vary greatly from year to year depending on availability of preferred foods. Although some bears depended heavily on garbage in the interior of the park prior to 1969-70, they shifted their diets to other foods when the dumps were closed in 1969-70 (Craighead, Sumner, and Mitchell 1995). Craighead, Sumner, and Mitchell (1995) suggest that bears may have increased their annual range sizes to compensate for loss of garbage food sources. They also suggest that the bear population decreased and bears redistributed themselves away from the Central Plateau and moved toward the park peripheries following the closing of the dumps. Researchers relate reduced litter sizes in grizzly bears to the loss of garbage in the diet. Human-caused mortality of grizzly bears increased after the dumps were closed (Craighead et al. 1995), and the grizzly bear population is reported to have declined from 1967 through 1980 (Craighead, Varney, and Craighead, Jr. 1974; Knight and Eberhardt 1985). By the mid-1980s, human-caused mortality of adult female grizzly bears had decreased and began to allow the grizzly bear population to increase again (Fberhardt and Knight 1996). When whitebark pine seeds were available from 1977 to 1987, they were used almost exclusive of other foods (Craighead, Sumner, and Mitchell 1995). Meat, as prey or carrion, ranked second in the diet after the dumps were closed, although there was substantial difference in use of ungulates from year to year (Mattson, Blanchard, and Knight 1991 ). Forbs became more important in the bear diet alter the dumps were closed and ranked third from 1977 to 1987. In fact, the grizzly bears appeared to compensate for the loss of garbage in the diet primarily through increased use of forbs, although the use of vertebrates (ungulates, specifically) and invertebrates also increased (Craighead, Sumner, and Mitchell 1995). Invertebrates ranked fourth in the diet, grasses and sedges ranked fifth, and fleshy fruits (berries) ranked sixth (Craighead, Sumner, and Mitchell 1995). Current information (Mattson 1997) suggests that ungulate meat is now playing an important part in the grizzly bear diet, and may be important in the late summer and fall (during the big game breeding season) as well as in the spring. Other changes not related to the closing of garbage dumps have also either taken place or been discovered in the grizzly diet in recent years. The fires of 1988 reduced the whitebark pine canopy, and may have a long-term effect on the amount of pine seeds available to bears (Craighead, Sumner, and Mitchell 1995). Winter-killed ungulates have long been an important food source for bears in the spring, although field research indicates a decrease in the use of ungulate carrion from 1970-71 to 1980-82 (Craighead, Sumner, and Mitchell 1995). Spawning native cutthroat trout have become an important dietary component for some individual bears, and the use of fish increased from 1980 to 1990 (Craighead, Sumner, and Mitchell 1995). Grizzly bears in the Yellowstone area have recently (1986) been "discovered" to be feeding on army cutworm 175 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT moths in the late summer and fall at high elevations in Wyoming (Craighead, Sumner, and Mitchell 1995). Moths are now known to be a very important food of the seasonal diet for some bears. Craighead, Sumner, and Mitchell (1995) conclude that the grizzly bear population of Yellowstone was nutritionally pressured rather than being nutritionally stable for at least a decade following the closure of the dumps. Ungulate Availability as a Food Source for Grizzly Bears. The number of ungulates has increased dramatically since herd-reduction programs in the park ceased in the early 1970 (Mack and Singer 1992). The elk herd increased from less than 5,000 animals around 1968 to an estimated 14,000-16,000 on the northern winter range. The population of the interior elk herd (Madison-Firehole) has remained fairly constant at about 800 animals year-round (Craighead, Sumner, and Mitchell 1995). Bison also increased during this same time period from about 460 animals in 1961-68 to about 4,000 in 1994 (see table 13), and currently (September 1997) there are an estimated 2,200 bison in the Yellowstone area. Grizzly Bear Use of Meat in the Diet. Grizzly bears will eat meat whenever it is available (Mattson 1997), and ungulates are an important part of the grizzly bear diet (Mattson, Blanchard, and Knight 1991). The percentage of meat consumed by grizzly bears has apparently been underestimated in fecal analysis (Pritchard and Robbins 1989; Mattson 1997). Meat is now considered to be one of the most important components of the grizzly bear diet in the Yellowstone area (Mattson 1997). As suggested by Robbins (pers. comm.), as much as 50% of the annual grizzly bear diet of Yellowstone bears may be meat, and that some bears' annual diets could be comprised of as much as 90% meat. Ungulate meat is the second highest source (following army cutworm moths) of net digestible energy for grizzly bears in the Yellowstone area at 6.0 kcal/g (Craighead, Sumner, and Mitchell 1995). Meat consumption is highest in spring and fall and lowest in June and July. From 1977 to 1992, 53% of the ungulate meat consumed by Yellowstone grizzlies was from elk, 24% from bison, 18% from moose, 4% from domestic livestock, and 1% from mule deer (Mattson 1997). The amount of moose and bison was 20 times and 3 times greater, respectively, than what would have been expected by the population size of either species. Bear use of ungulates appears to be more closely tied to amount and availability of carrion and the whitebark pine seed crop than simply to numbers of live ungulates. Ungulate use was 2.1 times higher in years of low use of pine nuts. Most (70%) of ungulate meat consumed by grizzlies is in the form of carrion, although grizzlies do prey upon live ungulates as well. On average, an adult bear kills 1.4 to 5.8 ungulates per year. Predation plays a more important role in October (58% of ungulate meat) than from April to May (9%). An important source of ungulate carrion is from road kills, which accounts for 16% of the meat consumed on average (Mattson 1997). The largest biomass consumed per carcass is from scavenged male bison, and the least from elk calves and mule deer. Only 4% of bison consumed is from predation. Spring Food Habits of Bears. Green, Mattson, and Peek (in review) found spring use of carcasses was positively related to elevation and was lower near roads or recreational developments. The correlation with elevation may be related to the fact that grizzly bears den and are first active in the spring at higher elevations, and that fewer competitors for the carrion live at these elevations. Grizzly bear use of carrion is affected by the number of winter- killed ungulates on winter range. Variation in numbers of elk and bison that die on the winter range are likely to have the greatest effect on bears. 176 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Spet ies Grizzly bears more often used larger-sized carcasses as a source of carrion, and bison carcasses are used more frequently than elk. Other scavengers such as coyotes, black bears, and probably wolves tend to outcompete grizzly bears for ungulates that are less than 16 kg of edible biomass (Mattson 1997). Use of Bison Carrion in the Bear Diet. Grizzly bears make use of available carrion, and when the number of bison increases, the proportion of bison carrion in the grizzly bear diet also increases, as shown in surveys in 1980-81 and 1985-92 (Craighead, Sumner, and Mitchell 1995). These surveys indicate the frequency of bison carcass use was much greater in 1985-92 (39.9% of the number available, or 258 bison carcasses) than in 1 980-8 1 (26. 1 % of the number available, or 86 bison carcasses). The same survey showed grizzly bear use of bison carcasses was greater in 1985-88 and 1990-91 when it was 52% of elk and 48.2 % of bison than in 1989 when it was only 16.5% of elk and 12.0% of bison (Craighead, Sumner, and Mitchell 1995). This was likely due to the flush of carrion available that spring after the fires of 1988 and a subsequent hard winter. During the 1960 to 1972 time frame, frequency of use of bison was 82.8% and of elk was 39.2%. This was probably due to the relative size and number of bison carcasses compared with elk carcasses and the apparent preference of grizzly bears for bison carcasses, as well as less competition with other scavengers for bison carcasses (Craighead, Sumner, and Mitchell 1995). In the Firehole River drainage, the number of ungulate carcasses found varied from six in 1990 to 401 in 1989 (Mattson and Knight 1992). Bison that were least vulnerable to mortality in this area were from one to six years of age. Adult bison carcasses were used proportionally more often (92% of those available) than any other carcass type; however, carcasses of adult bison went unused if located near human facilities. Bears used adult elk least often (38%). In all years and areas, adult bison cows were the most consistently and heavily used by grizzly bears. Competition for Carrion. Grizzlies dominate other scavengers at carcasses (Servheen and Knight 1990), but many carcasses get consumed prior to being found by a bear (Green 1994). Individual bears benefit if they can be the only consumers of an ungulate carcass. This is less likely as the ungulate body size increases. Individual bears are most likely to get their largest meals from adult moose and elk that are prey and from adult female bison that are scavenged (Mattson 1997). Gray Wolf The gray wolf was reintroduced into the Yellowstone area in 1995 and has the status of a nonessential, experimental population in this area according to section 10 (j) of the Endangered Species Act (1973, as amended). This means that the species is treated either as proposed for listing in the national forest or as threatened in the national park (50 CFR 17) for the purposes of several sections of the Endangered Species Act, including section 7 consultation. Currently nine breeding pairs (as of 9/97) inhabit the Greater Yellowstone Area, mostly within the park boundaries. There are occasional forays by individuals and packs outside the park, but no wolves from the nonessential, experimental population are known to be denning outside the park in Montana at this time. 177 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT In the Yellowstone area, wolves feed on live and dead elk, deer, bison, and smaller mammals. Wolves rarely prey on live bison, but do eat bison carrion if it is available. By their large body size and pack social organization, the wolf is adapted to feed on large species of prey animals. Wolves are believed to play a beneficial role in removing sick or inferior animals from a herd through predation. They will prey on large ungulates such as moose, and, to some degree, bison (Mech 1970). Endangered Species Act. The court ordered the federal government to remove the reintroduced wolves and their offspring. The court stayed the effect of the order pending appeals. Because the decision is on appeal, this document will consider the gray wolf as a permanent com- ponent of the study area. Should the decision be upheld on appeal and the wolves are removed, impacts on the gray wolf would not be an issue associated with bison management under the alternatives analyzed. Due to their size and shape, bison in deep snow are vulnerable to wolves (Teller and Kelsall 1984). However, wolves are not expected to successfully prey on many bison on the northern winter range of Yellowstone because (1) there are alternate prey such as elk, which research has shown is preferred by wolves (Carbyn, Oosenbrug, and Anions 1993) and whose biomass and numbers greatly exceed that of bison, (2) snow depths are shallower on the northern winter range than the other winter ranges in and near the park (NPS, Meagher 1973), and (3) bison will fend off predators (Carbyn and Trottier 1987, 1988). Historically, bison in Yellowstone National Park may not have been heavily preyed upon by wolves (NPS, Meagher 1973). It appears that wolves killing live bison in Yellowstone is a rare phenomenon, as only two incidents of this have been observed since wolves were reintroduced in 1995 (NPS, D. Smith, pers. comm., May 29, 1997). However, as their numbers increase, wolves may increasingly use bison as a prey source (Koth et al. 1990). Boyce and Gaillard (1992) modeled bison numbers after wolf reintroduction and projected an average bison population less than 15% lower with wolves than without wolves. On December 12, 1997, the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming ruled that the gray wolf reintroduction program in Yellowstone National Park and northern Idaho violated certain provisions of the SENSITIVE SPECIES Sensitive species do not receive the same degree of protection as endangered or threatened species, although decreasing numbers or loss of habitat makes them of concern to federal land management agencies. Lynx Although lynx are scarce in the Greater Yellowstone Area, there have been some documented occurrences (Nellis 1989). Lynx would not prey on bison, but may consume bison as carrion. This is expected to happen only rarely, as lynx normally consume snowshoe hares and occupy lodgepole pine forests in the winter when bison migrate to lower elevation range. Should a bison die in lynx habitat in the winter, its carcass may be consumed quickly by other carnivores, and can be fully used within a day or two of the bison death. Bison would therefore be only an occasional food source for the lynx (Meagher, pers. comm. 1993). Recently people petitioned to add lynx to the threatened and endangered species list. Listing of this species was found by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be "warranted but precluded" at this time. This finding indicates that the lynx could be classified as threatened or endangered in the next few years. 178 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Spt , iei Wolverine Wolverines are considered rare or scarce in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Wolverines inhabit high elevation conifer forests in the summer and move to mid or lower elevations in winter. Wolverines tend to avoid large openings, the preferred habitat of Yellowstone bison. The wolverine is an opportunistic carnivore and will eat whatever is available (Hash 1989). This species may occasionally use a bison carcass, but bison would not be a major food for the wolverine (Meagher, pers. comm. 1993). Wolverines den at high elevations and are very susceptible to human disturbance. It has been noted in several studies that wolverines have abandoned den sites in response to what was believed to be very minor disturbance (Copeland 1996). Trumpeter Swan This species may be affected by the location and operation of bison management facilities such as capture facilities or quarantine faci- lities. The swan occupies meadows and open fields, as well as lakes, ponds, or slow-moving water inside the park on the Madison River at Seven-Mile Bridge (see Alternative 6 map in "The Alternatives") and outside the park on the Madison arm of Hebgen Lake. SENSITIVE AND SPECIAL CONCERN PLANT SPECIES In addition to Ross' bentgrass (Agrostis rossiae) and Yellowstone sand verbena (Abronia ammophila), many other sensitive (as classified by the U.S. Forest Service) and special concern plants may occur within the area affected by the alternatives. The lists of these species are updated regularly by the Montana Natural Heritage Program, the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, and the U.S. Forest Service. Plants do not maintain any Montana or Wyoming protective status. No plant species are discussed in this environ- mental impact statement because no general impacts are anticipated. Specific impacts would be avoided through the siting criteria outlined in "The Alternatives" for capture and/or quarantine facilities on public land. These criteria include a site-specific survey and completion of biological assessments for threatened, endangered, sensitive, or other special concern species that may be affected. Surveys to determine the location of listed plants (or wildlife, if appropriate) would be conducted before the construction of capture facilities, quarantine facilities, or associated structures (such as fences and installing utilities). If threatened or endangered species would be affected by these facilities, they would be redesigned, moved, or their impacts otherwise mitigated. 179 OTHER WILDLIFE SPECIES The Yellowstone area is a diverse ecosystem, with 10 species of amphibians, 1 1 species of reptiles, 317 species of birds, 88 species of mammals, and 1 8 species of fishes. The categories of species most likely to be affected by bison management are ( 1 ) other large ungulates, in terms of competition for food, (2) predators and scavengers, in terms of food base, and (3) species associated with bison grazing and behavior. A brief overview of these categories of species follows. UNGULATES In addition to bison, seven other large ungulate species exist in the affected area: elk, pronghorn, mule deer, white-tailed deer, bighorn sheep, moose, and mountain goats. Because there is little habitat overlap between bison and mountain goats (Chadwik 1983), they will not be addressed further. Yellowstone supports large migratory herds of numerous ungulates due to its climate, geology, elevational and vegetational diversity, and its relatively undeveloped state. Differences in size, habitat preferences, food sources, tolerance of snow depth, and behavior likely minimize com- petition between species. Singer and Norland (1994) found that competition among ungulate species during a period following release from artificial controls was not great enough to curtail population growth of any species, although it is possible that growth rates of some species (except bison) were slowed. In Yellowstone, as in most areas, winter is the critical time period for ungulates. Snow depth and density limit the amount of range accessible for use (Gilbert, Wallmo, and Gill 1970). The severity of the winters also makes ungulates more vulnerable to other stresses. Unfamiliar activity on winter range can be extremely draining on energy reserves compared to predictable and habitual activities, or to disturbances occurring during other seasons. Elk Management, Distribution, and Abundance. In Montana, elk are managed in elk-management units (EMUs). The area affected by bison management actions in this environmental impact statement includes three EMUs: the Gallatin, the Madison, and the Emigrant. The northern Yellowstone elk herd (approximately 14,000 to 16,000 animals) occupies winter and summer range within Yellowstone National Park. These elk winter in a 400-square-mile area from the Lamar Valley in the park west and north to the Dome Mountain Wildlife Management Area outside Yellowstone National Park. Elk are hunted outside the national park in all these EMUs, with a late-season hunt conducted in the area between Yellowstone's north boundary and the Dome Mountain area. Ecology, Habitat Use, and Food Habits. Elk are versatile generalists (Houston 1982) and use a mixture of habitat types in all seasons. In winter they use primarily open grassland, in spring they use relatively open grassland with some timber, and in late summer and fall they use a variety of grassland and forest types. Where hunted, elk may use dense forest (Hamlin, pers. comm. 1994). Cole (1969) found that northern Yellowstone elk distribution in winter occurred along an elevational gradient in relation to suitable foraging areas, distribution of other elk, response to human disturbance, and weather variables. Elk select preferred plant species and plant parts during spring and summer, whereas winter grazing of grasses appears to be indiscriminant (Houston 1982). Grass comprises most of the elk diet in all seasons (see table 28). Elk can cope with a wide variety of deep and crusted snow conditions (Barmore 1980). 180 Other Wildlife Species Table 28: Comparative Ungulate Habitat Use and Food Habits in the Yellowstone Bison Management Area Species Winter Summer Areas of Competition Bison (NPS, Meagher, pers. comm. 1994) Habitat Use Open valleys, swales and sedge bottoms-snow may limit areas. Wide variety of sites. Follow plant phenology-rest rotation gra/ing-open valleys- always on move-nomadic. Food habits Grass/Sedge 99% Forbs Browse 1 % Grass/Sedge 91% Forbs 6% Browse 2% Mule deer (Pac and Frey 1991; Singer and Norland 1994) Habitat Use Semiopen rugged foothills, sagebrush steppe, Douglas-fir interspersed with sage and juniper bunchgrass. Open to moderately dense- canopy montane forest; follow greenup to higher elevation from wintering areas. Some habitat overlap but no evidence of competition for food. Food Habits Grass - 20% Forbs- 15% Browse - 65% Grass - 5% Forbs - 80% Browse- 15% White-tailed Deer (MTDFWP, Dusek, pers. comm. 1994) Habitat Use Agricultural/riparian Intermittent wooded hardwood drainages No evidence of competition for food; some overlap in habitat use, especially in bison movements out of park- displacement. Food Habits Grass - Negligible Forbs - Negligible Browse - High Detritus - High Grass - Negligible Forbs - May 30 - July Browse - Deciduous species- leaves Pronghorn Antelope (Scott 1994; Goodman 1996) Habitat Use Sagebrush shrublands-flats Open grasslands, shrubfields, and forest edges at all elevations Winter range overlap in Stephens Creek area. Sagebrush in winter, distinct from bison food preferences. Food Habits Grass 4% Forbs 14% Browse 82% (Rabbitbrush, winter fat, greasewood) Grass 7% Forbs 38% Browse 54% Bighorn Sheep (Irby et al. 1971; Singer and Norland 1994) Habitat Use Lower open grasslands near rocky outcrops Open grassland-edge of timber at higher elevations Some spatial overlap, but separated by diet, tolerance of snow. Food Habits Grass 55% Forbs 10% Browse 35% Grass 50% Forbs 36% Browse 14% Elk (Houston 1982) Habitat Use Open grassland Open to dense forest by August and September Mixture of habitat types, similar to bison; low to moderate food overlap. Food Habits Grass 80% Forbs 10% Browse 10% Grass 60-65% Forbs 30% Browse 5-10% Areas of Competition With Bison. Singer and Norland (1994) found a low to moderate degree of diet overlap between bison and elk, although the two species share a high degree of habitat overlap. During a period in which both species increased rapidly following release from artificial control, neither bison nor elk appeared to suffer any decrease in population growth due to competition from the other species. It is possible that stimulation of production and nutrition in grasses may have resulted in a beneficial effect for both species at observed population levels (Singer and Norland 1994). 181 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Pronghorn Antelope Management, Distribution, and Abundance. The pronghorn antelope (known simply as pronghorn) population in the affected area numbers approximately 220 animals. This population has experienced a major decline in recent years, dropping from a high of nearly 600 pronghorn in 1991 to the present level. Goodman (1996) has indicated that this pronghorn population is at a high risk of extinction within the next 100 years. Pronghorn winter range is restricted to approximately 2,900 ha (7,168 acres), 75% of which is within Yellowstone National Park. This area is located between Mammoth Hot Springs and Cinnabar Mountain, with the core use area in the predomi- nantly open grasslands near Stephens Creek. Approximately 25% of the pronghorn population migrates to summer range on the Blacktail Plateau and in the Lamar Valley (D. Scott, unpub. data). Periodic depredation hunts have been conducted on private land adjacent to the north boundary of the park, with harvests ranging from 2 to 37 animals. Ecology, Habitat Use, and Food Habits. The Yellowstone pronghorn population contains unique genetic elements, and has been shown to have greater genetic variability than many other pronghorn populations (Lee, Bickham, and Scott 1994). The cause of the recent population decline is unknown, but possible contributing factors include predation, winter habitat quality, human-caused mortality, and competition with other ungulate species on winter range. Scott (unpub. data) suggested that coyote predation may be the cause of 90% of pronghorn fawn mortality, and coyote predation has been implicated as a source of mortality in adult pronghorn as well. Of all the ungulates native to the Greater Yellowstone Area, pronghorn are least able to cope with deep snow. Sagebrush is an important food item for pronghorn, with forbs and grasses making up a significant portion of their diet (Singer and Norland 1994). Sagebrush may be important in winter both as food and as shelter from severe weather. Because running from danger, over sometimes long distances, is the pronghorn's major defense against predation, they require suitable forage distributed over a large area in both summer and winter ranges (Pyrah 1987). Pronghorn appear to be less able to successfully cross fences than most other ungulates (BLM, USDI, Yoakum 1980). Pronghorn may also be quite vulnerable to harassment by humans (Autenreith 1983). Areas of Competition With Bison. Yellow- stone bison and pronghorn are separated by habitat selection, food habits, snow tolerance, and seasonal distribution (Barmore 1980; Singer and Norland 1994). Bison and pronghorn winter ranges overlap in the Stephens Creek area of the park. Deer Management, Distribution, and Abundance. Mule deer and white-tailed deer are both found in and adjacent to Yellowstone. White-tailed deer, however, were quite rare in the park in the early historical period (Schullery and Whittlesey 1992), and few currently summer or winter in the park. White-tailed deer numbers increase with increasing distance from the park boundary and become more numerous along major riparian areas and river drainages north and northwest of Yellowstone National Park. Small numbers of white-tailed deer winter in thickets along the lower Gardiner River and along the Yellowstone River in and adjacent to the park (Barmore 1980). Viable populations occur in dense contiguous thickets along the Yellowstone River beginning about 19 miles (30 km) north of the park. White-tailed deer winter along the 182 Other Wildlife Spa ies Madison River, and a few winter in the Hebgen Basin, which is described as good summer range (MDFWF, unpub. data). Currently no estimates are available of the number of white-tailed deer in the northern Yellowstone area, but they appear to exist at very low population levels (MDFWP, T. Lemke, pers. comm., 1997). Mule deer are the primary deer species found in and adjacent to Yellowstone. Mule deer in the northern Yellowstone National Park area winter predominantly along the Yellowstone River valley to the north of the park boundary. Mule deer winter range also includes the Gallatin River valley and neighboring foothills, and the edge of mountain slopes in the Madison Valley. Many of the mule deer wintering in these areas summer in the high elevation mountains throughout the northern Yellowstone National Park area. The northern range mule deer population has been decreasing in recent years. In May 1997 biologists conducting an aerial survey counted 1,748 mule deer. This is the second lowest count in 1 1 years of aerial surveys (MDFWP, T. Lemke, unpub. data). Ecology, Habitat Use, and Food Habits. While-tailed deer occur in mesic and more forested habitats within the affected area, preferring thickets and cottonwood stands along river valleys, and other areas of relatively dense cover. They consume mostly browse and some forbs. Mule deer occur in more open, xeric portions of the study area. Houston (1982) observed that mule deer used xeric steppe, sage steppe, and mesic steppe on 80% of feeding observations in the park. Sagebrush steppe is very important to mule deer outside Yellowstone National Park, although Barmore (1980) indicated that use of Douglas-fir is underestimated throughout the area. Mule deer are found in semiopen rugged foothills in winter, and in spring they follow greenup adjacent to foothills. In summer and fall they use open to moderately dense canopy and montane forest, depending on hunting pressure (MDFWP, H. Pac, pers. comm. 1994). Areas of Competition With Bison. There appears to be little, if any. habitat or diet ovei lap between white-tailed deer and bison. Although bison and mule deer experience some degree of overlap in habitat use, there appears to be little or no competition between these two species because of differing diet preferences (Singer and Norland 1994). Competition may also be precluded by seasonal distribution differences and by the limited ability of deer to deal with deep snow (Barmore 1980). Bighorn Sheep Management, Distribution, and Abundance. Approximately 150 bighorn sheep occupy portions of the affected area. An additional 40-50 bighorn sheep occupy two ranges north of the area (MDFWP, T. Lemke, unpub. data). An outbreak of chlamydia in the early 1 980s resulted in a rapid decline in bighorn sheep numbers, from which the population appears not to have recovered (Legg 1996). The 1997 count represents a decrease of about 13% overall from the previous year. Although bighorn sheep wintering ranges inside and outside the park appear to be quite distinct, recent research has demonstrated that there is some degree of mixing of subpopulations (Legg 1996). Therefore, all bighorn sheep in the northern Yellowstone area, both inside and outside the park, should be considered part of a contiguous population. A limited, special-drawing hunt is conducted for bighorn sheep in the area outside the park. Ecology, Habitat Use, and Food Habits. Upland grassy habitat accounts for 60%-80% of observations of feeding bighorn sheep (Houston 1982). Bighorn sheep traditionally use steep slopes and ridgetops, and can occupy high elevation windswept cliffs (Barmore 1980). In spring they follow greenup to higher elevations, and in summer and fall use open grasslands and timber edge areas at higher elevations (see table 28). Grasses comprise approximately 58% of bighorn diets, with shrubs and forbs as additional important diet components (Singer and Norland 1994). In winter, bighorns use 183 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT lower elevation, open grasslands near rocky outcrops. Proximity to escape terrain appears to be a primary factor in bighorn sheep habitat selection (Legg 1996), although some groups of 10-20 or more rams often feed far from cliffs on grasslands near the Yellowstone and Gardiner rivers (Houston 1982). Bighorn sheep appear to be particularly vulnerable to a variety of diseases that can have adverse effects on individuals and on the population as a whole. Areas of Competition With Bison. While there has been some increase in habitat overlap between bighorn sheep and bison in recent years (Singer and Norland 1994), the two species are separated ecologically by differences in distribution, diet, and tolerance of snow. During spring, bison increasingly select habitats with characteristics important to bighorn sheep, but there does not appear to be an appreciable degree of overlap in use of those areas. variety of smaller mammals. Avian predators and scavengers include bald eagles, golden eagles, ravens, magpies, and several smaller bird species. Specialized scavengers also include a variety of insect species. Impacts on grizzly bears, wolves, wolverines, lynx, and bald eagles are analyzed in the chapter on "Impacts on Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species. "Because of their size and social organization, healthy bison of all ages would be difficult prey even for large predators (Fuller 1962). Scavengers in the Greater Yellowstone Area, however, rely heavily on carcasses of bison and elk for both winter and early spring food. Although the number of winter-killed bison varies from year to year (Gunther et al. 1997), carcasses are likely to occur in predictable locations. Some scavengers may have learned to rely on those locations to provide food during the period from late winter through early spring. Moose Moose exist in small numbers in the northern portion of Yellowstone National Park and vicinity and are known for their ability to winter in deeper snows that other ungulates. They are most common in the Cooke City and West Yellowstone areas and tend to use riparian habitats. Moose and bison are not likely to compete for forage. Recent research has shown that B. abortus may be fatal to moose (Forbes, Tessaro, and Lees 1996). Other studies indicate that brucellosis may not be a threat to moose (Zarnke 1993). In Grand Teton National Park where bison with brucellosis and moose co-exist, no one has observed a decline in moose population that can be attributed to the disease. PREDATORS AND SCAVENGERS Mammalian predators and scavengers that are potentially present in the affected area include grizzly bears, wolves, black bears, mountain lions, coyotes, foxes, wolverines, bobcats, and a * 184 SPECIES ASSOCIATED WITH BISON GRAZING AND BEHAVIOR Large numbers of bison can physically alter environments. Bison Rib trees and saplings, debarking and sometimes killing them (NPS, Meagher 1973). It has been suggested that this activity may impede or even prevent forest invasion of open grasslands (NPS, Meagher 1973; J. Shaw, pers. comm. 1997). Grazing may also maintain open grassland communities by preventing accumulation of dead grass litter that would otherwise suppress growth of grasses (T. Baumeister, pers. comm. 1997). These physical Other Wildlife Spa U ! impacts, in combination with the previously mentioned stimulation o\ productivity in grazed areas, are likely to help maintain open grasslands that are important to many other species. Historically, prairie dog distribution in the U.S. overlapped completely with bison distribution (J. Shaw, pers. comm. 1997). It is likely that burrowing rodents benefit from disturbances created by bison trampling and wallowing. Trampled areas and wallows, however, may also provide opportunities for invasion by normative vegetation, and may contribute to soil and streambank erosion. 185 HUMAN HEALTH Brucellosis is a zoonotic disease that can infect people working with infected tissues or fluids, causing undulant fever. Symptoms include intermittent fever, chills, night sweats, body and joint pain, poor appetite, and weakness. Undulant fever can be caused by several different species of bacteria including Brucella sitis (found in swine), B. melitensis (found in goats), B. abortus (found in cattle, elk, and bison) and vaccines containing live bacteria (Strain 19andRB51). Historically, people who have been at greatest risk for undulant fever are those who tend infected livestock, especially during birth or abortion events; veterinarians who work with pregnant animals or who vaccinate livestock; people who work in abattoirs (slaughterhouses); and people who consume unpasteurized dairy products and raw organs that have been contaminated and not properly prepared. Risk of transmission to people is dose- dependent. People generally become infected either through exposure to tissues with large quantities of Brucella organisms, e.g., infected reproductive tissues, or frequent, multiple exposure to tissues and fluids with smaller quantities of bacteria. Subsequent transmission of brucellosis from person to person is unlikely. Prompt and accurate diagnosis is essential for effective treatment of human brucellosis. Accurate diagnosis may be complicated because early symptoms are similar to those for several other diseases. Moreover, with progress toward the eradication of brucellosis, many physicians are not familiar with the disease. As a part of all alternatives, the agencies would employ a number of standard practices, including routinely advising everyone who is potentially at risk for exposure to the disease of appropriate precautions and the symptoms of the disease. Veterinarians or others who work with bison carcasses would take standard measures such as wearing gloves, masks, and protective eyewear. Laboratory workers may also wear protective clothing. Slaughterhouses should be well ventilated, and workers should wear gloves, masks, and eyewear, although enforcement of these measures for slaughterhouse personnel is beyond the ability of the agencies. Hunters would receive training on the disease and appropriate precautions. All who work with open carcasses or tissues would be advised of health risks and appropriate safety measures. This information also would encourage people who manifest these symptoms to seek immediate medical attention and to advise their physicians that they may have been exposed to brucellosis. Visitors to Yellowstone National Park and the analysis area may also be subject to injury from car collisions, either with bison crossing roads or with other cars whose passengers are stopping to view bison. Bison may be dangerous and can charge and gore people if approached too closely. 186 CULTURAL RESOURCES HISTORY The Great Plains and the northern Rocky Mountains of western Montana and Wyoming served as home for bison. This region is also the homeland of various native peoples who hunted these ranging herds. Archeological evidence within Yellowstone National Park places earliest human occupation at 1 1 ,000 years ago (although some tribes believe they have occupied the lands much longer). No less than 10 tribes dwelled in the Yellowstone area during both historic and prehistoric times. Those tribes whose traditional territory falls within the Yellowstone area include the Crow, Eastern Shoshone, Salish and Kootenai, Shoshone-Bannock, Blackfeet, Nez Perce, Northern Arapaho, and the Northern Cheyenne Tribes (Turek 1994, 2-4). For many the Yellowstone area contained hunting grounds. As late as the 1880s, a band of Shoshone known as the Sheepeaters occupied portions of what is now Yellowstone National Park. Currently a few tribes claim hunting rights within the national park; the Shoshone-Bannock, who roamed the western portion; the Crow, who traversed the east; and some First Nations of Canada (Blackfoot, Blood, Piegan, and Assiniboine), who also hunted in the region (Waldman 1985, 187). Treaties allowed the use of lands within the Yellowstone area by various tribes. Prior to 1 872 the areas now known as Yellowstone National Park, Gallatin National Forest, Bridger-Teton National Forest, and Shoshone National Forest were reserved for some Plains tribes. The land west of the Yellowstone River was used traditionally by the Blackfoot, land to the southeast was part of the historic Crow territory, and the lands near the upper Missouri River constituted a common hunting ground for the above-mentioned as well as the Piegan, Blood, Gros Ventre, Flathead, Upper Pend d'Oreille, Kooteniai, and the Nez Perce Tribes according to the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie. Seventeen years later, the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty removed many acres of Yellowstone area land from tribal control but allowed for hunting in "unoccupied" lands. Shoshone and Bannock Shoshone Indians, by William Henry Jackson, 1871. (IMPS photo) 187 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT treaties did not include reference to the Yellowstone area, yet they lived and hunted there until the end of the 19th century (Turek 1994,2-4). Bison were critical to the indigenous cultures of North America and were an important part of the landscape covering over half of the continent. They once ranged from the Appalachian Mountains to the "deserts" of the Great Basin south into Mexico and as far north as the Yukon territory in Canada. English settlers arriving in what is now Georgia wrote of the "innumerable" bison they encountered. The numbers were so great that early Euro-American explorers could only describe them as "numberless," and wrote that the plains were "black and appeared to be moving" with the herds of bison. The most commonly used estimates of their numbers were between 30 and 65 million. Bison provided food, clothing, fuel, tools, and shelter, and were central to Plains tribal spiritual culture. Bison were viewed as an earthly link to the spiritual world. For many tribes, bison represent power and strength. For example, the Shoshone believe that spiritual power is concen- trated in the physical form of the bison. Many contemporary tribes maintain a spiritual connection with bison. Horses, brought to the Americas by Europeans in the 16th century, made the hunting of bison far more efficient. Europeans introduced a radically different notion of land use that emphasized resource-dependent, extractive industries. Consumptive use of land and its resources and the subsequent killing of the bison herds helped to alter the interrelated world of both tribes and bison. The near extermination of the American bison did not occur in a few short, violent years. Bison populations already had begun to decline in the 1820s. This was accelerated as a result of years of drought in the 1840s. By the 1890s, increased numbers of domestic cattle competing for limited forage and intense hunting, which reflected a global market demand for buffalo robes and buffalo tongues, reduced the number of bison to slightly more than 300. Some believe cattle-borne contagious diseases in 1881-82 were a greater cause than hunting in the decline of the bison populations (Malone, Roeder, and Long 1991). 6 T- rtSJSfc -r v .«*■ ^m&* Buffalo bones at Buell, 1885 Many Americans believed that the bison had completely vanished from the American landscape, along with the indigenous peoples. Both were memorialized on the nickel in 1913 (Waldman 1985, 219). While private herds existed throughout the U.S., by 1902 no more than 23 individual bison remained of the thousands that had occupied the Yellowstone area since prehistoric times (Callenbach 1996). On the heels of the near-destruction of the bison, some Americans were determined to preserve what remained of the herds. Prior to the forma- tion of the American Bison Society in 1905, its honorary president, Theodore Roosevelt, had persuaded Congress to establish a number of wildlife preserves. Also the creation of the nation's first national park helped protect the remaining bison. Concerns that the small wild herd might vanish, park managers imported 21 bison from captive herds in Montana and Texas into the park. From 1902 to about 1915 the imported bison were raised using livestock techniques in the "Buffalo Ranch" in Lamar Valley. They were fenced, fed, and separated for shipment to slaughter. The native population was not managed or fenced and was allowed to increase on its own (NPS, Meagher 1973). After about 1 930, management moved from ranching bison to preservation of bison in a more natural state although vaccination and herd reductions 188 Cultural Resources occurred within the park to varying degrees until 1968 (NPS, Meagher 1973). The herds of the Yellowstone area are of special importance as the last remnant of the indigenous wild herds in North America (UC Davis, Van Buren, pers. comm. June 25, 1997). Some other bison herds, such as the Henry Mountain herd in Utah, are direct descendants of the Yellowstone herd. As bison continue to inhabit the landscape of what remains of the western frontier, a part of the unique American experience is preserved for future generations. LIVESTOCK AND AGRICULTURAL INFLUENCES The Montana Territory was greatly changed by the introduction of domestic livestock. While the trade of cattle from Montana did not prosper until the gold rushes of the 1860s, cattlemen were found in the Montana Territory before this time. They include Jesuit missionaries and other small producers. These producers found new local markets for beef with the existence of mining camps and military facilities. These markets led to more livestock being brought in through cattle drives from other areas of the nation. For example, Nelson Story drove the first Texas longhorns into Montana in 1866. The increased amount of livestock, the increased economic importance of this new industry, and the presence of disease resulted in the 1885 Montana Territory legislature authorizing "a territorial veterinary surgeon who had the power to quarantine cattle" (Malone, Roeder, and Long 1991). AFFECTED CULTURAL RESOURCES Archeology Traditional use of bison by humans centers on hunting and is evidenced in the archeological record. The remains of drive lanes, chipping stations, wickiups, and weapons are all associated with the importance of hunting bison for tribal economy and culture. Less than 2% of Yellowstone National Park's 2.2 million acres and a small percentage in the project areas of Gallatin National Forest have been archeologically surveyed. Approximately 850 prehistoric and historic archeological sites have been recorded to date within Yellowstone National Park. The sites contain evidence of hunting and gathering, trails, obsidian quarries (most notably Obsidian Cliff, a national historic landmark), hearths, base camps, stone for manufacturing, rock shelters, and stone circles. When Montana producers were raising more livestock than could be consumed locally, they looked for new markets which included Wyoming, Utah, and Canada. Some of these new markets were the result of economic development activities due to the construction of railroad lines in other states and Canada. One of the first long drives of Montana cattle to new markets took place in 1868. In addition, new world markets were formed. New urban popula- tions in America and Europe resulted in an increased demand for beef. These new markets and the increased demand for cattle are factors in the decrease in bison herds due to the rise in the amount of livestock grazed on lands within Montana, which were used by bison. Historic archeological sites present are represen- tative of both Indian and Euro-American cultures, the latter including early hunters, miners, ranchers, U.S. military occupation, and park administration. Historic archeological sites include remains of transportation routes, farming and ranching operations, remains of buildings, pastures, cultivated fields, irrigation ditches, and the ruins of the town of Cinnabar. The range of alternatives considers a number of areas for possible construction of new facilities. Any areas ultimately selected for construction would need to be archeologically inventoried to locate sites and evaluate them for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places before determinations of effect can be made for each alternative. 89 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Historic Structures The greatest number of historic buildings and structures within the analysis area are located in Yellowstone National Park and are associated with civilian activities ( 1 872-1 886), U.S. military occupation (1886-1918), and NPS administration (1918-present). None of the buildings and structures is considered to be within the area of potential effect. The Yellowstone road system, which includes the Grand Loop Road and five entrance roads, has been nominated for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. While alternative 2 considers no grooming or closure of sections of certain roads to bison use, neither would change the character or overall condition of the circulation system. Cultural resources within Yellowstone National Park and the Gallatin National Forest are managed to maintain their scientific, social, and historical value in compliance with all applicable federal and state laws (Gallatin National Forest Plan, p. II-3). Near the Reese Creek area, archeological and historic structure inventories were conducted by the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service. No national register eligible or listed archeological resources were located and no historic structures exist. In West Yellowstone, the U.S. Forest Service conducted archeological and historic structure inventories in some of the areas of effect, and no national register eligible or listed archeological resources or historic structures were located. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho; the Blackfeet and Northern Cheyenne Tribes, the Salish and Kootenai Tribes, and the Crow Nation in Montana; and the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes of the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming. Cultural Landscapes Cultural landscapes in Yellowstone National Park and Gallatin National Forest have not yet been formally inventoried or evaluated for national register eligibility. A cultural landscape is a geographic area, including both cultural and natural resources, that is associated with a historic event, activity, or person that exhibits other cultural or aesthetic values. Four different landscape types may be found in Yellowstone National Park, Gallatin National Forest, and the Yellowstone area — historic vernacular, specific historic sites, historic design, and ethnographic landscapes. While landscapes are not fixed in time and continue to evolve, they maintain certain character-defining features that make them distinctive. Many Yellowstone area landscapes and viewsheds have changed over time and retain various degrees of historical integrity. Within the Greater Yellowstone Area, the bison constitute an important element of these landscapes. For further discussion of landscapes, see the "Visual Resources" chapter. Ethnographic Resources The ethnographic record for Yellowstone National Park and project areas of Gallatin National Forest is incomplete. An ethnographic overview and assessment is being developed for Yellowstone National Park. As funds become available, agencies anticipate conducting site- specific ethnographic research in consultation with affiliated Native American tribes. Yellowstone National Park consults with several affiliated tribes with lands near the Yellowstone area. These include the Nez Perce Tribe and the Montana ranch within the Great one Area. 190 VISUAL RESOURCES Visual resources consist of landform (topography and hydrology) and land cover (vegetation, buildings, roads, etc.). Visual resources are centered on significant and intrinsic features. Assessment of visual resources also includes visibility of the proposed under- taking, such as exposure and location, in relation to current viewsheds. Yellowstone bison are an important part of the visual resources. They have existed within the Yellowstone area for centuries and remain the only herd to continuously occupy their original rangeland. The bison herd is a characteristic element of the viewshed. LANDSCAPES AND VIEWSHEDS Visitors to and residents of the Greater Yellowstone Area have many opportunities to experience various landscapes and viewsheds that make up the visual resources. This area is world renowned for its scenery, wildlife, wilderness, rivers, and geologic and thermal features. The area contains high elevation mountains and riverbed valleys. There are steep mountain walls, clear-running streams, geothermal formations, and mountain prairie grasslands. The landscape consists of both natural and cultural elements. Yellowstone National Park, Gallatin National Forest, other public lands, and surrounding communities contain infrastructure such as roads, turnouts, rural housing, campgrounds, and groups of administrative and concession buildings. The landscape is rugged and formidable due to the rapid rises in elevation, and most of the area remains in a natural state. Bison and other wildlife are frequently observed on the landscape. PUBLIC LANDS Visual resources within Yellowstone National Park fall into two general zones: the natural zone and the park development zone. The natural zone encompasses those lands classified as wilderness in the Wilderness Recommendation of 1(>72. which applies to 909? of the park. The viewshed in this /.one is characterized In primeval nature, lack of facilities, and low-level visitor use. The development /one makes up the remaining 10'; , and is broken down into two broad categories: developed areas and trans- portation corridors (NPS 1992). Bison are observed within both zones, although they are mostly within the natural zone. Generally. people in the developed zone are able to observe bison in the natural zone. Vehicle pullouts within Yellowstone National Park are designed specifically for visitors to stop and experience the visual resources, including bison and other wildlife. Thus, many of these pullouts are placed in areas where bison are most frequently found, in valley lowlands off the mam roads. Some locations include the open areas within Hayden Valley, the Old Faithful/Firehole area, the Madison River (past Seven-Mile Bridge), Indian Creek in the Mammoth area, the Norris Campground, Gibbon Meadows, Elk Park, and others. The view from these pullouts is an unobstaicted natural setting containing habitat desirable to bison as well as other wildlife species. National forest land use is managed to maintain specific visual quality objectives or a level of scenic quality and diversity of natural features based on physical and sociological character- istics of an area. Project areas contain national forest lands with visual quality objectives ranging from preservation to maximum modifi- cation. "Preservation" allows only ecological changes; "retention" means that human activities are not evident to the casual visitor; "partial retention" allows evidence of human activity if it is subordinate to the characteristic landscape; "modification" means that human activity may dominate the land but should appear as a natural occurrence, and "maximum modification" allows human activity to dominate, yet it should appear natural when viewed as background (Gallatin National Forest Plan, p. VI-44). 191 Al II ( I ID I NVIkONMI Nl In the Gardiner area, forest lands are managed for recreation, livestock, big game winter habitat, timber harvest, and wilderness within which the visual quality objectives are primarily focused on preservation, partial retention, and modification. The West Yellowstone lands also support recreation, livestock, and timber harvest as well as forest operations, electrical corridors, heavily used public areas, and research areas. The visual quality objectives accommodate modification, partial retention, and retention. Near Cooke City, national forest lands accommodate a combination of recreation, livestock, timber harvest, and wilderness with portions that have heavy public use and mining operations. This area contains visual quality objectives primarily focused on partial retention and retention, with pockets of preservation and maximum modification (USFS, Jane Ruchman, pers. comm. July 1997). BISON MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES Residents and visitors who view bison manage- ment operations in the analysis area currently include primarily the approximately 100 persons living near the West Yellowstone area as well as accidental or intentional observers in the Stephens Creek area. Bison management activities include hazing, capture, testing, agency shooting, and shipment to slaughter. Future actions may include hunting or quarantine, depending on the alternative selected. Visible hazing activities that may have an adverse impact on visual resources include herding bison by helicopter, by vehicle, and on horseback or foot; shooting with rubber bullets; and possible use of dogs. Various hazing activities affect visual resources and quality for residents and visitors in the Yellowstone area. Hazing is visible from roads and lands near areas where bison leave the park and enter other public or private lands. Most hazing activities occur outside the park as needed. In addition under state law, the Department of Livestock is required to remove the bison from private property if requested by the property owner. Capture and test facilities are visible from the county road in the Stephens Creek area and from a few residences in the West Yellowstone area. Activities such as testing and tagging are not visible due to the solid high walls, except for the initial herding and final loading operations. The solid walls are used to facilitate the handling of bison within the facilities. Some agency shooting is visible in areas where bison leave the park boundary. Current exit locations include the Yellowstone River drainage basin near Stephens Creek and Gardiner and near West Yellowstone by way of the Madison Valley. Agency shooting is undertaken mostly in the morning hours, as needed, depending on bison out-migration. After bison are shot, they are towed to a central location to be processed and transported to carcass recipients. In West Yellowstone the act of dragging bison across the snow results in highly visible trails of blood. This does not occur in the Stephens Creek area because of the limited or absence of snowfall; thus, blood trails are less visible. The entrails are occasionally piled up as carcasses are processed (amount depends on processing volume) and may remain until proper disposal is arranged by truck or bucket loader. Reproductive organs are immediately disposed of by agency officials because they pose the highest threat in the spread of brucellosis to humans and domestic livestock. Shipment of bison to slaughter requires large transport vehicles, which are visible in the Yellowstone area and along highways leading to the slaughter facilities within a 160-mile radius from the northern and western park boundaries. 192 EZN'VtP^&NM&NTAl- CON^>&G>U&NC&'£> INTRODUCTION The following chapters discuss the environmental impacts of each of the alternatives on natural, cultural, and other resources of concern. The degree of impact can be quantified in some cases, such as when a model is used or data are obtainable. However, often only qualitative descriptions of impact are available. The following definitions are applied throughout the environmental impact statement: • Negligible - the impact is at the lower levels of detection. • Minor - the impact is slight, but detectable. • Moderate - the impact is readily apparent and has the potential to become major. • Major - the impact is severe, or if beneficial, has exceptional beneficial effects. 195 IMPACTS ON BISON POPULATION SUMMARY OF REGULATIONS AND POLICIES Several recent planning and policy documents, including the Yellowstone National Park Master Plan (NPS 1974), the Yellowstone National Park Statement for Management (NPS 1 99 1 ), and the National Park Service Management Policies (NPS 1988), require the protection of ecological processes and native species in a relatively undisturbed setting, and prescribe that park planning be accomplished in a regional context. This latter concern is summarized in the Management Policies as follows: "Recognizing that parks are integral parts of larger regional environments, the National Park Service will work cooperatively with others to anticipate, avoid, and resolve potential conflicts, to protect park resources, and to address mutual interests in the quality of life for community residents, considering economic development as well as resource and environmental protection." When bison leave Yellowstone National Park, they are no longer within the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, and management is governed by Montana statutes (81-2-201 M.C.A., 81-2-120, M.C.A; and, 87-1-216, M.C.A.). These laws define bison that originate from Yellowstone National Park as "a species requiring disease control." In combination with the mandates of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, brucellosis-infected bison originating from Yellowstone National Park are not permitted to freely roam in Montana. METHODOLOGIES FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS Population Estimates Bison population changes were estimated using both the scientific literature and predictive models based on that literature. First, a review of relevant literature was conducted to determine a population range within which to base analyses of management actions on the bison population. Green herbaceous vegetation (Merrill et al. 1988) and winter severity have been used in stochastic (e.g., based on frequency of random events, such as winter mortalities and weather conditions) and deterministic (e.g., using an averaging approach) population models to predict bison numbers within Yellowstone National Park (Boyce 1990; Boyce and Gaillard 1992). Based on average forage production, winter severity, and other factors, Yellowstone National Park will support a long-term average of 2,700 bison. However, weather and forage production are quite variable and, correspondingly, the maximum herd size fluctuates between 1,700 and 3,500 (Boyce 1990; Boyce and Gaillard 1992). The low end of the range would result from effects of harsh winters and poor annual forage production, with the high range repre- senting bison numbers after a series of mild winters and high annual forage production. For all alternatives except alternative 7 (where the upper limit is lower), population numbers were assumed never to exceed 3,500 because of random, periodic environmental events (poor forage production, severe weather) bison emigration, and the agencies' increasing levels of lethal control of bison (or removal to quarantine) at higher population levels. A first step in the quantitative analysis was to construct a basis for estimating the expected early winter bison population for 1997. The spring bison population was estimated at 1,900 based on aerial counts. Based on findings from the 1960s (NPS, Meagher 1973) and 1980s (Pac and Frey 1991) the bison male/female ratio was 57/43. Using this ratio, the spring 1997 female component of the population was estimated at 817 animals. Calves and yearlings do not produce calves (NPS, Meagher 1973; Kirkpatrick et al. 1996). Results from data collected during four winters 196 Impacts on Bison Population between 1988 and 1997 showed that calves and yearlings comprised an average of 40% of total female bison killed (Pac and Frey 1991; Aune, unpub. data). Using these data, approximately 60% of the female component, or 490 bison, would be of reproductive age and capable of producing calves. Calf production for the Mary Mountain and northern range subpopulations was observed at 42.6% and 52.6%, respectively (Kirkpatrick et al. 1 996). Using a 52% calf production value, approximately 255 calves would be born, and assuming no additional calf mortality the 1997 early winter population is estimated at approxi- mately 2,156. This number was used as a beginning population for the analysis. This number closely approximates the 1997 early winter aerial counts of approximately 2,200 bison. Bison with nursing calf. The next step in the analysis was to construct a simple deterministic (averaging) population model that included estimates of the rate of change in the population, taking management actions into account, and estimates of changing seroprevalence rate. The rate of increase was calculated using the rate of change between the late winter population, after management removals and natural mortality, and the fall high population count for the following year (Eberhardt 1987). Early winter bison population counts and removals (Meagher, unpub. data; National Park Service and State of Montana 1996; National Park Service, unpub. data) from 1979 to 1997, when the population ranged between 1,700 and 3,500 animals, were used to calculate the rate of change for the bison population (see table 29). The geometric mean of the rate of change was calculated to be 1 .082 (see table 29); this means the bison population increased at an average rate of 8.2%/year over (his time period. This rate was validated using actual population counts through 1996. Based on management removals from 1984-85 to 1 995-96, an average of 5.1 % of the total early winter bison population exited Yellowstone National Park into the Reese Creek area north of the park and the West Yellowstone area west of the park (see table 29). The 5.1% value was used in the model to calculate the average total number of bison exiting the park each year. Past data indicate that after large removals in the Reese Creek area, few bison exit the north boundary area for approximately two years. This trend is expected to continue, and very few or no bison are expected to exit to the north boundary area prior to 1999. Based on the large number of bison removed from the Reese Creek area in the winter of 1996-97, the model assumed no bison would exit the Reese Creek area until 1999. Bison were assumed to exit the park during winter at the West Yellowstone area for all years in the model. Comparing total removals across all years, 65% of the total bison removed were from the Reese Creek area, and 35% were from the West Yellowstone area. These ratios were used in the model to estimate the proportion of bison exiting at the two areas. Average numbers of bison entering the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area in the winter are unknown, but it was assumed approximately 100 would inhabit this area. The model used the above assumptions to calculate average population growth, the average number of bison leaving the park by area, and predictions of population size based on specific management actions. A minor increase or decrease in population size is defined for purposes of analysis as less than 10%, a moderate change is 1 1%-20%, and a major change is greater than 20%. Methods and assumptions used to calculate seroprevalence in the model are explained below. Those calcula- tions resulted in predictions of seroprevalence !97 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES rates for each alternative. The same definitions of minor, moderate, and major apply to changes in seroprevalence as population size. Past data demonstrate that rates of increase and removals are highly variable from year to year and show no strong or discernible correlation. Because averages of rates of increase and removals are used, the model could predict population numbers that are higher or lower than those that might actually be observed in the future. It is important to note that results from the simple deterministic model presented in the analyses are intended to compare impacts of the alternatives based on the different management actions occurring in the alternatives. Table 29: Total Parkwide Winter Bison Counts and Bison Management Removals Outside Yellowstone National Park, 1979-80 to 1996-97' Management Removals Outside Yellowstone National Park Winter Total Winter Bison Counts West Boundary North Boundary Total Removals Percent of Population Removed Est. Spring Population After Removals2 Rate of Increase 1979-80 1,727 1,727 1980-81 1,803 1,803 1.044 1981-82 2,396 2,396 1.329 1982-83 2,239 2,239 0.934 1983-84 2,160 2,160 0.965 1984-85 2,114 0 88 88 4.2 2,026 0.979 1985-86 2,291 16 41 57 2.5 2,234 1.131 1986-87 2,433 7 0 7 0.3 2,426 1.089 1987-88 2,644 37 2 39 1.5 2,605 1.090 1988-89 3,159 2 567 569 18.0 2,590 1.213 1989-90 2,606 3 1 4 0.2 2,602 1.01 1990-91 3,178 14 0 14 0.4 3,164 1.221 1991-92 3,426 22 249 271 7.9 3,155 1.083 1992-93 3,304 79 0 79 2.4 3,225 1.047 1993-94 3,551 5 0 5 0.1 3,546 1.101 1994-95 3,956 1193 305 424 10.7 3,532 1.116 1995-96 3,398 393 33 426 12.5 2,972 0.962 1996-97 3,436 358 726 1 ,0844 31.5 2,352 1.156 MEAN 5.1s 1.0826 NOTE: Table 13 in the "Affected Environment" contains population sizes and removals starting in 1. From M. Meagher, unpub. data 1993; M. Meagher, pers. comm.; Montana Department of Fish, data;, Montana Department of Livestock, unpub. data. 2. These estimated totals assume zero losses to winterkill. 3. Does not include four illegal kills. 4. As of May 9, 1997. 5. Mean includes management removals from 1984-85 to 1995-96. 6. Geometric mean of rate of increase. 1902. Wildlife and Parks, unpub. 198 Impacts on Bison Population Seroprevalence Estimates For many of the alternatives, bison removals are tied to serological status of the animal. There- fore, annual seroprevalence rates were estimated for each alternative to use in predicting the changes in seroprevalence rates and predicting impacts on the bison population. Although all alternatives include vaccination in estimates of seroprevalence, efficacy of the vaccine that would be eventually used is unknown (because the safety and effectiveness of current vaccines have not been tested in bison) and was assumed based on studies of earlier vaccines. Seroprevalence estimates in the Yellowstone herd have varied from 28% seropositive in the park interior during 1964-68 (NPS, Meagher 1973) to 54% seropositive among bison removed through hunting and agency shooting between 1984 and 1989 (Pac and Frey 1991). Between 1985 and 1 992, 49% of 904 bison sampled as a result of management actions were seropositive. Based on these estimates, initial seroprevalence was assumed to be 50% for model calculations. The efficacy (preventing infection) of Strain 1 9 vaccine in cattle has been estimated at approxi- mately 65% (Davis et al. 1991), and about 9% in bison calves (Davis et al. 1989). Twenty-five percent of bison vaccinated as calves were protected from having abortions when injected with a challenge dose of Brucella bacteria (Davis et al. 1989). Based on the ability of the vaccine to protect adults from infection and from having abortions, efficacy values used in the model were 70% and 25%, respectively. For the purposes of the model, efficacy was assumed to mean the percent of the vaccinated population for which there was no chance of seroconver- sion. For the purposes of the model, vaccination was assumed to begin in the year 2000 after safety and efficacy testing in bison was expected to be completed. For alternatives 1 through 4, the beginning population of seronegative adult bison and a proportion of vaccinated calves that were seronegative and recruited into the adult population were assumed to remain seronegative in subsequent years. Beginning in 2000 for alternatives 1 through 4, the model assumed that approximately 9595 of bison calves would be vaccinated. In alternative 5, vaccination of 95% of seronegative bison calves and adults was assumed to begin in 2000, during the capture and testing operations. In alternative 6, whole herd vaccination of 95% of the bison population would be the primary method of brucellosis control and was assumed to begin in 2000. The rate at which unvaccinated and vaccinated but unprotected calves, the 30% (100%-70% effective) or 75% (100%-25% effective; see above) of calves for whom the vaccination is ineffective, became seropositive in the model was based on the seroprevalence of the adult bison population for that year. Computer simulation of the effect of vaccines in bison calves in Grand Teton indicated vaccines would reduce the initial population seroprevalence rate of 61 % to a seroprevalence rate of 23% in 20 years (Peterson, Grant, and Davis 1991). Because abortion events containing infected tissues were considered the most likely vector for exposure to other animals, factors such as vaccination that might provide protection from abortion could result in seroprevalence lower than predicted by the model. The predicted seroprevalence rates are useful for comparison among alternatives. However, because the models are based on average migra- tion, capture, and slaughter rates, the actual numbers might not be accurate in the short term. Realistically, bison migrations (and therefore capture, slaughter, and decreased seroprevalence rates) follow stochastic events, such as weather changes and forage production in a given year. Since the seroprevalence estimate in any alternative for a particular year might or might not be realistic, alternatives cannot be accurately tested for statistical differences. Stochastic Influence on Bison Population The variability of a stochastic bison population model might be high because of various environ- mental factors that could be included. The resulting population differences among alter- 99 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES natives generated by such a stochastic model might be less than those generated by a simple deterministic model. The population model used in this analysis is deterministic, and it is not capable of predicting changes in bison numbers that might result from events such as severe weather. Except for alternatives 5 and 6, all management removals would occur in response to bison migrations at or near the park boundary, i.e., a stochastically influenced event. Regardless of the alternative, few bison would be removed during years when few bison migrated, and substantial numbers of bison could be removed when large numbers of bison migrated. For this reason, the actual differences in the conse- quences to bison numbers among alternatives might be greater or less than that predicted by the deterministic model. To help understand the influence of stochastic events and resulting bison management, the number of bison killed (shot or sent to slaughter), sent to quarantine, hunted, or allowed to range on public lands was estimated assuming a small, medium, and large migration out of the park for each alternative. Therefore, the analysis also shows the relative disposition of bison under each of these three scenarios for each alternative (see "Stochastic Influences on Bison Population" in each alternative and tables 31, 32, and 33.). level of approximately 50%. The number of bison killed (shot or sent to slaughter), sent to quarantine, hunted, or allowed to roam on public lands was determined for each alternative based on the management actions specified in that alternative. Management at low population levels in many alternatives would include temporarily holding some bison at the Stephens Creek capture facility for return to the park. However, for this analysis no bison were assumed to be returned to the park. This analysis is useful for comparing the influence of stochastic events in determining the fate of bison under each alternative (or phase of alternative), but is not intended to predict the number of bison exiting the park because of the unpredictable nature of weather events and other factors that influence bison movements. Under all alternatives except alternative 5, approximately 100-200 bison would be allowed to roam in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area north of Yellowstone National Park. These bison are not included in the estimates of numbers of bison exiting the park or in the estimates of disposition of exiting bison discussed in the analysis of each alternative (see "Stochastic Influence on Bison Population"). IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES The three different migration sizes were based on the largest number of bison removed in one winter (1,084 in 1996-97). A simple percentage of this number was taken for the low of 108 bison (10% of 1,084). An average migration of 236 bison was calculated using actual exit data for the past 13 years. The upper end migration of 975 was again a percentage (90%) of the largest removal recorded (1,084). At each level it was assumed, based on averages from the past 13 years, that 66% of the bison would exit the park along the north boundary, and 34% would exit along the west boundary. In most alternatives, serological status determines how many bison would be sent to slaughter. As described above, seroprevalence was assumed to be at the current All of the alternatives include lethal manage- ment actions to control the distribution of bison and prevent situations in which brucellosis might transmit from bison to cattle. Except for alter- natives 5 and 6, all lethal actions occur in response to stochastic events. The movement of bison to the boundary area of Yellowstone National Park is affected by many factors, including annual summer forage production, the severity of winter weather, (particularly snow depth and condition), and previous bison movement experience. There are also dramatic differences between the move- ments of bison on the northern winter range and 200 Impacts on Bison Population the interior areas such as Pelican Valley, Hayden Valley, and Madison-Firehole area. The northern winter range is lower elevation grassland area that has significantly lower snow depths than other areas of the park. The road between Mammoth Hot Springs and Cooke City is plowed for wheeled vehicle use all winter. There is an elevational gradient from the upper areas of the winter range in the Lamar River valley to the lower elevations along the Yellowstone River as it exits the park near Gardiner, Montana. There are no significant areas of geothermal activity that are used by bison on the northern range. Bison movements on the northern range are highly variable. They are not correlated with population size, but appear to be influenced by extremely severe winter weather, particularly deeper than normal snow combined with saturated and frozen snow conditions or ice layers. These conditions occurred in the winters of 1988-89, 1991-92, and 1996-97 and correspond to years of very high removals of bison when most of the northern herd moved to lower elevations and exited the park. Conse- quently, at current population levels, movements on the northern range appear to be highly influenced by extreme winter weather events, which sometimes result in episodic movements of most bison to lower elevations of the northern winter range. In the park interior, snow depths are normally much greater, and there is little elevational gradient. A distinguishing feature is the large areas of geothermal activity, offering bison a thermal buffer during winter. Bison foraging in these areas, where temperatures are modified, minimize energy expenditure and experience body heat savings. Bison movements from the interior seem to be less episodic than on the northern range although they are still highly variable. Movements beyond park boundaries range from 0% to 10% of the interior popula- tions compared to the near total migrations of northern range population during extreme weather events. Except for short-term reductions that might be associated with extreme stochastic events, none of the alternatives, except alternative 5, would reduce the bison population below a level of 1,700, i.e., the maximum herd size that can be supported in Yellowstone National Park during periods of severe winter and limited forage production. Agency-implemented lethal controls would decrease as the population approached 1 ,700 bison and would cease at 1,700 bison in certain areas described in management sections of each area. In general, bison would be hazed from areas where they are not permitted, such as outside SMAs or on private land, and shot only if hazing were unsuccessful. Bison posing a low possibility of brucellosis transmission as designated by the Montana state veterinarian and those that tested negative and were previously released would be allowed on public land. Bison posing a higher possibility of brucellosis transmission would be removed. Based on limited available data, a minimum of 580 bison is required to maintain genetic via- bility and diversity in the population (Knowles, unpub. data). However, over the life of the plan, the deterministic model predicts the number of bison would increase under each alternative. Even during the most extreme stochastic events analyzed (90% of the 1996-97 migration), no alternative would result in population drops below 580. In all alternatives, lethal controls would cease at population levels considerably higher than 580. Therefore, none of the alter- natives is expected to compromise the genetic viability or diversity of bison in Yellowstone National Park. Management actions in all alternatives except alternative 5 would not measurably affect the age/sex distribution or reproductive rates of bison. In alternative 5, either or both could be affected. 201 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CUMULATIVE IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES The bison population is affected by a number of natural factors, including severe weather, forage production, and predation, as well as human actions not part of this management plan. Wolf and grizzly predation might reduce the population, although studies predict wolf predation at its maximum would result in no more than a 15% decrease in bison numbers (Boyce and Gaillard 1992). Grizzly bears eat bison meat, but it is usually in the form of carrion, rather than prey the bears have killed. Cumulative effects from grizzly bears on the bison population to date are negligible or minor. Vehicle collisions might also contribute to negligible additional mortality. A small number of bison also move from Yellowstone into the North Fork Shoshone River drainage where a few could be removed through hunting in Wyoming. Periodic severe winter weather can also cause varying (sometimes significant) levels of natural winterkill. Typically, young (calves and yearlings) and older animals die first. During the severe winter of 1996-97, approxi- mately 300-400 bison (8%-l 1 % of the early winter population) were estimated to have died due to natural mortality. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION Analysis Effects on the Bison Population. Alternative 1 has no specific population management objectives identified, and therefore, ecological factors and bison management actions were assumed to maintain the population between the ecologically defined range of 1,700 to 3,500 animals. This alternative emphasizes capture of bison at Stephens Creek and shipment of all these animals to slaughter (see 1996 Interim Bison Management Plan). Seropositive bison and seronegative-pregnant females captured at West Yellowstone are sent to slaughter. Sero- negative males and seronegative-nonpregnant females are released on public lands in the Horse Butte area. Given the assumptions described in the "Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts," the model predicts selecting alternative 1 would result in an increasing bison population. From 1997 to 2006, the bison population is projected to increase from about 2,100 bison to approxi- mately 3,100 (overall average increase 4% per year following capture and slaughter operations; see table 30). By 201 1 the population is esti- mated to reach 3,500. Capture and shipment of bison to slaughter and periodic severe environ- mental conditions would likely maintain the bison population within the range of 1,700 to 3,500. Episodic movements of bison caused by severe winters could result in larger than esti- mated removals and reduce population growth and overall population size. Similarly, a series of mild winters could result in increased population sizes. If assumptions described above under "Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts" for the population model are correct, implementation of this alternative would result in an increase in the bison population of about 63% over the life of the management plan. The population growth rates of all other alternatives are contrasted to this "no action" rate for comparison purposes. Effects on Free-Ranging Status and Distribution of Bison. Management activities such as capture, slaughter, and shooting would keep bison from moving beyond the identified management areas. On private lands where the landowner wanted bison removed, agency personnel would shoot those bison. For the life of the plan, there would be no bison north of the park boundary at Reese Creek. Bison would freely range in Yellowstone National Park except near the Stephens Creek capture facility. Winter management objectives would allow up to 50-100 seronegative bison in the West Yellowstone region, but modeling indicates only 18 to 52 seronegative-nonpregnant (i.e., those that were tested and released) bison would remain after testing in this area. This alternative would provide for 100-200 bison to freely range on public lands in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek SMA. 202 Table 30: Estimated Early Winter Population, Rate of Population Incri \m . Removals, and Estimated Seroprevalence Rail for the Bison Popula i i<>\ Impacts on Bison Population Projected Managi ment UNDER All I KN\ 1 1\ I I Management Removals Outside Yellowstone National Park Year Early Winter Population Yearly Percent Increase North Boundary West Boundary Total Removals Remaining on Public Land Outside YNP at West Estimated Percent Scro- prevalence1 1997 2,156 -- 62 62 48 50 1998 2,266 5.1 -- 64 64 52 4l> 1 999 2,383 5.2 80 23 103 18 48 2000 2,467 3.5 83 ii 105 21 47 2001 2,556 3.6 86 22 108 22 45 2002 2,649 3.6 89 22 111 24 42 2003 2.74(> 3.7 92 22 114 26 39 2004 2.848 3.7 96 21 117 28 37 2005 2.955 3.8 99 22 121 29 35 2006 3,066 3.8 103 22 125 31 33 2011 3,500 24 MEAN: 4.0 1. Based on calfhood vaccination beginning in 1999 and 70% vaccine efficacy. 2. Mean rate of increase calculated from 1997 to 2006. Under this alternative, bison movements would probably remain similar to what they have been in recent years. To date, bison continue to winter in the interior of the park (Pelican and Hayden Valleys) and provide a spring source of carrion to grizzly bears in this area (Meagher, pers. comm.). Seroprevalence in the Bison Population. The population seroprevalence rate is expected to decline from a starting point of 50% seropositive in 1997 to at least 33% seropositive in 2006 due to removal of seropositive bison leaving Yellowstone National Park in West Yellowstone and Reese Creek, and calfhood vaccination at 70% efficacy beginning in 2000 (see table 30). Continued management efforts and calfhood vaccination would reduce seroprevalence to 24% in 201 1. Assuming calfhood vaccination and a vaccine efficacy of 25%, seroprevalence was predicted to drop from 50% to 40% by 2006. Stochastic Influence on Bison Population. All bison exiting at the north boundary would be captured and shipped to slaughter, along with all seropositive bison and all seronegative-pregnant females captured exiting at the west boundary. Based on current seroprevalence and pregnancy rates and the average proportion of bison exiting at the north boundary versus the west boundary, 85% of bison exiting Yellowstone National Park under this alternative would be sent to slaughter. Therefore, if 108 bison exited the park (10% of the highest number removed), roughly 92 would be sent to slaughter, and about 16 seronegative- nonpregnant bison would be allowed to roam on public land in the West Yellowstone area (see table 31). If 236 bison exited the park (mean number removed), roughly 201 would be sent to slaughter and about 35 seronegative- nonpregnant bison would be allowed to roam on public land near West Yellowstone (see table 32). If 975 exited the park (90% of the highest number removed), 829 would be sent to slaughter and 146 seronegative-nonpregnant bison would be allowed to roam on public land in the West Yellowstone area (see table 33). 203 environmental consequents Table 31: Number of Bison Slaughtered, Hunted, Quarantined, and Ranging in Special Management Areas if 108 Bison Were to Leave the Park (Represents 10% of the Highest Number of Bison to Historically Leave the Park - 1 ,084) Alternative Slaughtered Hunted Quarantine Additional Removals* Total Removed Number Ranging in SMAs 1 92 0 0 0 92 16 2h 0 0 0 0 0 108 3" 0 60-70 0 0 60-70 38-48 4b 55-91 16 37-1 0 108 0 5 108 0 0 0 108 0 6 90 0 0 0 90 18 7h 19 20 3 0 42 66 a. According to the alternative, additional removals could include bison shipped to slaughter, quarantined, hunted, or shot by agency personnel. b. Assumes all elements of the alternative are in place (phase 2). Table 32: Number of Bison Slaughtered, Hunted, Quarantined, and Ranging in Special Management Areas if the Mean Number of Bison (236 Bison) Were to Leave the Park Alternative Slaughtered Hunted Quarantine Additional Removals" Total Removed Number Ranging in SMAs 1 201 0 0 0 201 35 0b 0 0 0 0 0 236 3„ 0 60-70 0 21-26 81-96 140-155 4b 120-199 20 81-2 0 221 15 5 236 0 0 0 236 0 6 196 0 0 0 196 40 T 41 20 6 36 67-103 133 a. According to the alternative, additional removals could include bison shipped to slaughter, quarantined, hunted, or shot by agency personnel. b. Assumes all elements of the alternative are in place (phase 2). Table 33: Number of Bison Slaughtered, Hunted, Quarantined, and Ranging in Special Management Areas if 975 Bison Were to Leave the Park (Represents 90% of the Highest Number of Bison to Historically Leave the Park - 1,084) Alternative Slaughtered Hunted Quarantine Additional Removals'" Total Removed Number Ranging in SMAs 1 829 0 0 0 829 146 'jh.c 0 0 0 0 0 975 3" 0 60-70 0 705-715 765-785 200 4b 498-823 20 331-6 26 875 100 5 975 0 0 0 975 0 6 810 0 0 65 875 100 7h 166 20 23 566 775 200 a. According to the alternative, additional removals could include bison shipped to slaughter, quarantined, hunted, or shot by agency personnel. b. Assumes all elements of the alternative are in place (phase 2). c. If 975 bison were to exit the park, the possibility exists that some bison might move onto private land or attempt to move beyond SMA boundaries and be shot, if hazing were unsuccessful. Predicting the total number of bison that might move beyond the boundaries of the SMAs and be shot is not possible, but it might likely be greater than zero. 204 Impacts an Bison Population Cumulative Impacts There would be no additional sources of cumulative impact beyond those described in "Cumulative Impacts Common to All Alternatives." Conclusion Capture and shipment of bison to slaughter, periodic severe environmental conditions, and additional mortality would likely maintain the bison population in the range of 1,700 to 3,500, with the bison population near the higher end of the range during the later years of the manage- ment plan. This alternative would allow bison to freely range throughout Yellowstone National Park and would provide for 100-200 bison to freely range in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area. Bison would not be allowed to freely range north of the Reese Creek area, and a limited number of bison would be allowed to winter in the West Yellowstone area from November 1 to May 1 . Removal of seropositive bison at Reese Creek and West Yellowstone and calfhood vaccination at 70% efficacy would be expected to decrease seroprevalence in the bison population to at least 33% by 2006 and 24% by 201 1. Other factors, such as protection from abortion as a result of vaccination, might contribute to an additional decrease in seroprevalence in the bison population. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 Analysis Effects on the Bison Population. Assumptions used in alternative 1 were also used in this alternative to construct bison population dynamics. For alternative 2, the agencies would attempt to manage the Yellowstone bison population within the range of 1,700 to 3,500 animals. This alternative has two phases. In phase 1, the management actions described in alternative 1 (the interim plan) would continue. For the analysis of impacts on the bison popula- tion, phase I actions were assumed to occur lor five years. During this lime, development and implementation of phase 2 elements of alter- native 2, such as changes in winter road grooming, purchase or easement of lands from willing sellers, site-specific and localized fencing, or conversion of high risk breeding cattle operations to nonbreeding cattle would occur. For purposes of analysis, these manage- ment changes were expected to be in place by 2002. At this time, alternative 2 would switch to emphasize nonlethal methods of bison control, such as hazing, to control bison distribution and reduce conflicts with other land uses. Killing of bison would be allowed to protect human safety. but such occurrences would likely be limited. Bison could be shot on private property, but other measures such as hazing or fencing would be emphasized to reduce conflicts and the need for lethal control. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that a lower percentage of bison would access boundary areas than in other alternatives because the groomed roads they used to leave the interior of the park would either not be maintained or would be closed. Given the assumptions of the model, this alternative would result in growth of the bison population (4.3%) similar to alternative 1 to the year 2002 (five years). After that time the bison population was predicted to grow at about 8.2%/year due to the emphasis on nonlethal methods to control bison. The bison population would be expected to increase from about 2,100 bison to 3,500 by 2006 and remain near that level through the duration of the management plan (average increase 5.7% per year; see table 34). This would be about 14% higher than alternative 1 after 10 years of management. Lethal management removals were expected to be minimal after 2002, and as population numbers increased, conflicts with private property could increase. At higher population numbers, it was expected agencies would use lethal control, such as shooting rather than hazing, to remove bison from private lands and resolve management conflicts. Periodic severe environmental conditions, closure of some road 205 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES segments to winter use, and increased use of lethal control, particularly for some bison that moved beyond the identified management areas, would likely maintain the population near 3,500 animals. expected to winter in the West Yellowstone area, an area where management objectives would allow up to 50-100 bison (see table 34). Closure of some park roads during winter might reduce movement into the West Yellowstone area. Effects on Free-Ranging Status and Distribution of Bison. This alternative would provide the maximum potential for bison to freely range beyond Yellowstone National Park boundaries onto other public lands and private lands where they were tolerated. Few bison would be expected to move beyond the defined management area boundaries, but if they did, they would be removed. Although management objectives would allow approximately 200 bison to winter in the Reese Creek area, estimates of between 0 and 1 20 bison would be expected for the first 10 years. Between 20 and 60 bison would be This alternative would provide for 100-200 bison to freely range on public lands in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area. On private lands where the landowner wanted bison removed, agency personnel could haze or shoot those bison. When the bison population was near the high end of the range (2,700 to 3,500), agency personnel would likely shoot those bison on private lands where their presence was not tolerated. At these population levels, the agencies would also be more likely to shoot rather than haze any bison moving beyond the management boundaries defined for this alternative. Table 34: Estimated Early Winter Population, Rate of Population Increase, and Estimated Seroprevalence Rate for the Bison Population under Alternative 2 Management Removals Outside Yellowstone National Park Year Early Winter Population Yearly Percent Increase North Boundary West Boundary Total Removals* Remaining on Public Land Outside YNP at West Estimated Percent Sero- prevalence1 1997 2,156 62 62 48 50 1998 2,266 5.1 64 64 52 49 1999 2,383 5.1 80 23 103 18 48 2000 2,467 3.5 83 i~> 105 21 47 2001 2,556 3.6 86 22 108 22 45 2002 2,649 3.6 46 42 2003 2,866 8.2 50 40 2004 3,101 8.2 54 38 2005 3,355 8.2 58 36 2006 3,500 61 34 2011 3,500 26 MEAN2 5.7 Based on calfhood vaccination beginning in 2000 and 70% vaccine efficacy. Mean rate of increase calculated from 1997 to 2005 because the maximum modeled value of 3,500 bison was met in 2006. Management removals are expected to occur during phase 1 of this alternative for approximately 5 years and be the same as contemplated under alternative 1. Consistent with the management objectives of this alternative, no management removals are contemplated for this alternative after 2001. However, management removals, primarily by shooting, might occur on private land and outside SMAs beginning in 2002, but were assumed to be zero for this analysis. 206 Impacts on Bison Population In phase 1 of this alternative, no bison would be allowed north of Reese Creek, seronegative- nonpregnant females and seronegative males would be allowed in the West Yellowstone area, and untested bison would be allowed to range in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area. In phase 2, bison distribution would be affected by the implementation of a different set of management actions, in which winter grooming of park roads for snowmobiles would cease from the west side of the park. Bison numbers in the park were relatively low until recent times, after which snowmobile grooming had already been initiated in the park (the early 1970s). Therefore, determining what bison, at current and higher population levels, would do if there were no grooming is difficult. Without grooming, bison would not be able to move as efficiently. Whether or not they would chose to move on alternate routes is uncertain. Bison might learn to start moving to winter range earlier in the year (Aune, pers. comm.). It would be likely that more bison would die within the borders of the park if grooming and snowmobile use ceased within the park interior. Seroprevalence in the Bison Population. The population seroprevalence rate would be expected to decline from a starting point of 50% seropositive in 1997 to at least 34% seropositive in 2006 due to calfhood vaccination at 70% efficacy beginning in 2000 (see table 34). Continued management efforts and calfhood vaccination at 70% efficacy would reduce seroprevalence to 26% in 201 1. With calfhood vaccination and a vaccine efficacy of 25%, seroprevalence was predicted to drop from 50% to 42% by 2006. Stochastic Influence on Bison Population. During approximately the first five years of alternative 2, it was assumed not all components of the alternative would be in place. Therefore, during that time period the disposition of bison would be expected to be the same as under alternative 1, with 85% of bison exiting the park removed through shipment to slaughter. Once all components of the alternative were in place, all bison that exited the park would be allowed to winter on adjacent public land in the western and Reese Creek SMAs. Although hazing would be the preferred method used to move bison off private land in this alternative, a small number o\' bison that cannot be hazed could be shot. Some number of bison might be shot at the SMA boundaries if they could not be successfully hazed. That number is not possible to predict, but would likely be negligible except possibly in severe winters at high population levels. If 108 bison exited the park (10% of the highest number previously removed), approxi- mately 72 bison might winter in the north boundary area and 36 bison might winter in the west boundary area (see table 3 1 ). If 236 bison exited the park (mean number of removals), approximately 156 bison might winter in the north boundary area and approximately 80 bison might winter in the west boundary area (see table 32). If 975 bison exited the park (90% of the highest number previously removed), approximately 644 bison might winter in the north boundary area, and approximately 331 bison might winter in the west boundary area (see table 33). At these levels, it is possible that bison would move onto private land or attempt to move beyond SMA boundaries and be shot if hazing was unsuccessful. The number of bison likely to be shot cannot be predicted but could be substantially more than that estimated when fewer bison exited the park. Cumulative Impacts No additional sources of cumulative impact would exist beyond those described in "Cumulative Impacts Common to All Alternatives." Conclusion Periodic severe environmental conditions, closure of some road segments within the park to winter use, and increased use of lethal control, particularly for some bison that moved beyond the identified management areas, would allow the population to fluctuate up to 3,500 animals. It is estimated this alternative would result in 207 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES moderately more bison in the population (14%) than alternative 1 . This alternative would provide the maximum potential for bison to freely range beyond Yellowstone National Park boundaries onto other public lands and private lands where they would be tolerated. Between 100 and 200 bison could freely range in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area. Between 0 and 120 bison could winter in the Reese Creek area, and 20-60 could winter in the West Yellowstone area. Calfhood vaccination at 70% efficacy of this population was predicted to decrease seroprev- alence to at least 34% in 2006 and 26% by 201 1 . This alternative would be expected to result in a minor increase in seropre valence rate (3%-8% higher) compared to alternative 1 . The model assumed hunting would begin in 2000 and initial quotas would provide for a minimum of 15 permits in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area. Bulls would likely be harvested in this area. Assuming land acquisition (see description of alternative 3 in "The Alternatives"), 30 permits would be offered in the Reese Creek area. Bulls and larger females would likely be harvested in this area. Due to increasing bison numbers moving into the Reese Creek area, the model assumed 35 permits would be offered beginning 2005. Thirty permits would be initially offered in the West Yellow- stone area; 35 would be offered beginning 2005. Nearly all bison, except possibly calves, would be harvested in this area. Based on bison popula- tion numbers, winter distribution on public and private lands, and other factors, the agencies might conduct additional special drawings to harvest additional bison. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 3 Analysis Effects on the Bison Population. Assumptions used in alternative 1 were also used in this alternative to construct bison population dynamics. For alternative 3, the agencies would attempt to manage the Yellowstone bison population within the range of 1,700 to 3,500 animals. This alternative emphasizes recreational hunting as the primary method to control bison numbers and distribution on adjacent public and private lands in Montana. If bison moved to the Reese Creek area prior to approved hunting or large numbers were present that make hunting infeasible, the capture facility at Stephens Creek (or a possible facility north of the Reese Creek area) could be used as a backup measure to control bison numbers. Captured seronegative bison would be sent to quarantine. If population numbers were low (near 1 ,700), bison might be held temporarily at capture facilities and released in the spring when forage was available. No capture operations would occur in the West Yellowstone area, and bison numbers would be primarily controlled through hunting. Given the assumptions described in the "Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts," the model predicts moderately higher growth rates for alternative 3 than the no-action scenario (alternative 1). For the life of the management plan, bison distribution and population numbers would be controlled through hunting. From 1997 to 2006, the bison population would be expected to increase from about 2,200 bison to 3,500 (average increase 6%/year; see table 35), where it would remain (on average) until 201 1. This would be about 14% higher following 10 years of implementation than alternative 1. Limited capture operations, agency shooting, hunting, and periodic severe environmental conditions would likely maintain the bison population above the population midpoint of 2,500-2,700 but within the long term range of 1,700-3,500. Effects on Free-Ranging Status and Distribution of Bison. Under this alternative, bison movements would probably remain similar to what they have been in recent years. Few bison would be expected to move beyond the identified management area, but if they did, they would be removed. Agency personnel would shoot bison on private lands where the land- owner wanted them removed and hunting was not allowed. Management objectives would 208 Impacts on Bison Population allow 100-200 bison to winter in the Hagle Creek/Bear Creek area, and approximately 100 bison would be expected to winter in this area. During phase 2, winter management would allow up to 50-100 bison in the Reese Creek area when additional lands were acquired. Following hunter harvests, approximately 60-80 bison would winter in the area for the 15 years the plan was in effect. The population would likely consist of younger males and females and calves. More bison could be allowed in this area if additional winter range was purchased or easements were acquired from willing sellers on private lands. In the West Yellowstone area, management objectives would allow up to 50-100 bison to winter in the West Yellowstone area. However, nearly all bison would be removed, with 16-30 (and 44-130 remaining before the hunt begin in 2000) bison remaining after the hunt (see table 35). Those remaining would likely be subadult males, females, or calves. More bison could be allowed in this area if winter range was purchased or easements were acquired on private lands and hunting quotas were modified. Seroprevalence in the Bison Population. The population seroprevalence rate would be expected to decline from a starting point of 50% seropositive in 1997 to at least 36% seropositive in 2006 due to the removal from capture and slaughter (as a backup to hunting) of seropositive bison leaving Yellowstone National Park and calfhood vaccination at 70% efficacy beginning in 2000 (see table 35). Continued management efforts and calfhood vaccination at 70% efficacy would reduce seroprevalence to 28% by 201 1. With calfhood vaccination and a vaccine efficacy of 25%, seroprevalence was predicted to drop from 50% to 45% by 2006. Reduced seroprevalence would be similar to alternative 2 because hunters would presumably remove both seronegative and seropositive bison in proportion to the population seroprevalence. Stochastic Influence on Bison Population. During phase 1 of this alternative, it was assumed that quarantine facilities would not be in operation and hunting would not be imple- mented. Therefore, during this period all bison exiting the north boundary of the park would be shipped to slaughter. All bison exiting the west boundary would be free to roam on public lands in winter. For this alternative approximately 66% of bison exiting the park would be removed from the population through shipment to slaughter during the first two years. If 108 bison exited the park (10% of the highest number removed), roughly 72 would be sent to slaughter and about 36 would be allowed to winter on public land in the West Yellowstone area (see table 31). If 236 bison exited the park (mean number removed), roughly 156 would be sent to slaughter and about 80 would be allowed to winter on public land near West Yellowstone (see table 32). If 975 exited (90% of the highest number removed), 644 would be sent to slaughter and approximately 331 might winter in the west boundary area (see table 33). This alternative would allow up to 50-100 bison in this area, and the agencies might remove 250 more bison from the population in the West Yellowstone area. During phase 2 of this alternative, hunting would be the primary management tool used in both the north and west boundary areas, and the capture facilities at Stephens Creek would be removed and relocated north into the Reese Creek SMA. Beginning in the year 2000, hunting in the north boundary area and in the West Yellowstone area would remove a total of 60-70 bison (30-35 in each area). If 108 bison exited the park (10% of the highest number removed), roughly 72 would exit north and about 36 would exit west. Between 30 and 35 bison could be hunted in each area (56%-65% of bison exiting), leaving 37-42 bison to winter on public lands in the Reese Creek area and approximately 1-6 bison wintering on public lands near West Yellowstone. If 236 bison exited the park (mean number of removals), approximately 156 would exit north and 80 would exit west. Following the hunting removals of 30-35 bison in each area, 121-126 bison would winter on public lands in the north boundary area, and 45-50 would winter on public lands in the West Yellowstone area. 209 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Table 35: Estimated Early Winter Population, Rate of Population Increase, Projected Management Removals Due to Hunting, and Estimated Seroprevalence Rate for the Bison Population under Alternative 3 Management Removals Outside Yellowstone National Park1 Year Early Winter Population Yearly Percent Increase North Boundary West Boundary Total Removals Remaining on Public Land Outside YNP at West Estimated Percent Sero- prevalence2 1997 2,156 0 0 0 110 50 1998 2,333 8.2 0 0 0 119 50 1999 2,524 8.2 853 0 85 44 50 2000 2,639 4.6 45 30 75 16 50 2001 2,775 5.2 45 30 75 IS 47 2002 2,921 5.3 45 30 75 21 45 2003 3,079 5.4 45 30 75 23 43 2004 3,250 5.6 45 30 75 26 40 2005 3,435 5.7 50 35 85 25 38 2006 3,500 50 35 85 26 36 2011 3,500 28 MEAN4 6.0 1. Beginning in the year 2000, hunting on the north boundary would remove 30 bison in the Reese Creek area (35 beginning 2005), 15 bison at Eagle Creek/Bear Creek, and 30 bison in the West Yellowstone area (35 beginning 2005). 2. Based on calfhood vaccination beginning in 2000 and 70% vaccine efficacy. 3. This total included bison captured at the Reese Creek area because hunting does not begin until 2000. 4. Mean rate of increase calculated from 1997 to 2005 because the maximum modeled value of 3,500 bison was met in 2006. Management objectives would allow up to 50-100 bison to winter for the Reese Creek area; thus, an additional 21-26 bison might be hunted, shipped to slaughter, or quarantined. Approximately 81-96 bison (34%-41% of bison exiting the park) could be removed from the population. If 975 bison exited the park (90% of the highest number removed), approximately 644 would exit north and 331 would exit west. Following hunter removals of 30-35 bison in each area, 609-614 bison would be located in the Reese Creek area and 296-301 bison would be located in the West Yellowstone area. Management objectives would allow up to 50-100 bison to winter on public lands in each of these areas; therefore, an additional 509-514 bison in the Reese Creek area and 196-201 bison in the West Yellowstone area might be hunted, shipped to slaughter, or quarantined. Approximately 765-785 bison (78%-81% of bison exiting the park) could be removed from the population. Cumulative Impacts No additional sources of cumulative impact would exist beyond those described in "Cumulative Impacts Common to All Alternatives." Conclusion This alternative would maintain the bison population within the range of 1,700 to 3,500 and would be expected to result in growth of the population. Limited capture operations, agency shooting, hunting, and periodic severe environmental conditions would allow the 210 Impacts on Bison Population population to fluctuate up to 3,500 animals. This alternative could result in moderately more bison in the population (14%) compared to alternative 1. This alternative would allow bison to freely range throughout Yellowstone National Park, and approximately 100 bison would be expected to freely range in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area. Following hunter harvests, approximately 60-80 bison would winter in the Reese Creek area for the life of the management plan. Fewer bison might winter in this area if the capture facility was used to control bison numbers in this area. More bison might be allowed in this area if additional winter range was purchased or easements were acquired on private lands from willing sellers. After hunter harvests, fewer than 30 bison would winter in the West Yellowstone area. Calfhood vaccination at 70% efficacy were predicted to decrease seroprevalence to at least 36% in 2006 and 28% by 201 1 . The model predicts a minor to moderate increase in sero- prevalence rate (9%-17% higher) compared to alternative 1. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 4 Analysis Effects on the Bison Population. Assumptions used in alternative 1 were also used in this alter- native to construct bison population dynamics. For alternative 4, the agencies would attempt to manage the Yellowstone bison population within the range of 1,700 to 3,500 animals. This alter- native emphasizes capture of bison at Stephens Creek and shipment of seronegative bison to quarantine. As the population approached 3,500, the agencies might be more likely to use lethal control (capture and shipment to slaughter, agency shooting, or hunting) or quarantine to manage bison numbers, distribution, and conflicts with other land uses. As the population approached 1 ,700, the agencies might emphasize nonlethal means (such as hazing or fencing) to manage bison numbers, distribution, and conflicts. Bison could be temporarily held at capture facilities through the winter if population numbers were low (near 1,700) and the winter severe. Hunting would be used to control populations in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area. Capture operations would occur at West Yellowstone, and only seronegative males and seronegative-nonpregnant females would be allowed on public lands in the West Yellowstone area. Low levels of hunting would be allowed in the West Yellowstone area as an adjunct to capture operations. Hunting would begin in 2000, and quotas would provide for a minimum of 15 permits in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area and 20 in the West Yellowstone area. Based on bison population numbers, winter distribution on public and private lands, and other factors, the agencies could conduct additional special drawings to harvest additional bison. Under this alternative, bison population numbers would be controlled through capture, shipment of seropositive bison to slaughter, and hunting. Modeling indicates the population would increase at a slower rate than alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 6. From 1997 to 2006, the bison population was expected to increase from about 2,100 bison to 2,800 (average increase 3%/year; see table 36). This would be about 8% fewer bison after 10 years of management than if alternative 1 was implemented. By 201 1 the model predicted the population could reach nearly 3,200. However, in combination with periodic severe environ- mental conditions, it would be likely that capture operations and limited hunting would maintain the long-term bison population between 2,800 and 3,200 after 10 years. Effects on Free-Ranging Status and Distribution of Bison. Under this alternative, bison movements would probably remain similar to what they have been in recent years. Bison would not be expected to move beyond the identified special management area, but if they do, they would be removed. On private lands where the landowner wants bison removed and hunting was not allowed, agency personnel would shoot those bison. 211 HNV1RONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Winter range management objectives would allow 100-200 bison to freely range in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area. Beginning in the year 2000, an annual hunter harvest of 15 animals would be expected in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area. Bulls would likely be harvested in this area. Bison would be allowed to freely range in Yellowstone National Park except near Stephens Creek where the capture facility was located. No bison would be allowed in the Reese Creek area. Management objectives would allow up to 50-100 seronegative male and seronegative- nonpregnant female bison in the West Yellowstone area, and 18-52 animals would be expected following the removal of animals testing seropositive (and seronegative-pregnant female bison). Beginning in 2000, annual hunter harvests of 20 bison would likely consist of males, but some larger females might also be taken. Following hunter harvests, few if any bison would winter in the West Yellowstone area for the life of the management plan (see table 36). Seroprevalence in the Bison Population. The population seroprevalence rate would be expected to decline from a starting point of 50% seropositive in 1997 to at least 34% seropositive in 2006 due to removal of seropositive bison in the West Yellowstone and Reese Creek area and calfhood vaccination at 70% efficacy beginning in 2000 (see table 36). Continued management efforts and calfhood vaccination at 70% efficacy would reduce seroprevalence to 26% in 201 1. With calfhood vaccination and a vaccine efficacy of 25%, seroprevalence was predicted to drop from 50% to 42% by 2006. Stochastic Influence on Bison Population. During the first phase of implementation, alternative 4 would be similar to alternative 1 . Therefore, the same number of bison would be removed from the population as in alternative 1 (85% of those exiting the park). During this phase, if 108 bison exited the park (10% of the highest number removed), approximately 92 bison would be sent to slaughter, and 16 seronegative-nonpregnant bison would be allowed to winter on public lands in the West Yellowstone area (see table 31). If 236 bison exited the park (mean number of removals), approximately 201 bison would be sent to slaughter, and 35 seronegative-nonpregnant bison would be allowed to winter on public lands in the West Yellowstone area (see table 32). If 975 bison exited the park (90% of the highest number removed), approximately 829 bison would be sent to slaughter, and 146 seronegative-nonpregnant bison would winter on public lands in the West Yellowstone area (see table 33). Management objectives would allow up to 50-100 bison to winter in the West Yellowstone area; therefore, the agencies could remove an additional 46 bison from the popula- tion. For this scenario approximately 875 bison (90% of total exiting the park) could be removed from the population. Phase 2 of alternative 4 would begin in the year 2000, with the addition of hunting and quarantine as management tools to control bison numbers. Alternative 4 would provide the agencies with an option to vary the number of bison sent to slaughter or quarantine. For each of the exiting levels discussed above, the number of bison removed from the population would increase by 20 (the number of hunting permits allowed in the West Yellowstone area). Therefore, if 108 bison exited the park (10% of the highest number removed), all 108 bison (100% of those exiting) would be removed from the population. Disposition of those bison would range from 55 sent to slaughter and 37 sent to quarantine, to 91 sent to slaughter and 1 sent to quarantine; the remaining 16 would be removed through hunting. If 236 bison exited (mean number of removals), a total of 221 (94% of those exiting) would be removed from the population. Disposition of those bison would range from 120 sent to slaughter and 81 sent to quarantine to 199 sent to slaughter and 2 sent to quarantine; hunting would remove another 20 bison. The remaining 15 seronegative- nonpregnant bison could be allowed to winter on public lands in the West Yellowstone area or sent to quarantine. If 975 bison exited the park (90% of the highest number removed), 849 would be removed from the population. 212 Impacts i>n Bison Population Table 36: Estimated Early Winter Population, Rate 01 Popi lation [ncri vsi . Projected Management Removals, and is hma i ■ i > Seropre\ m.knce Rate for the Bison Population under Alternativi 4 Management Removals Outside Yellowstone National Park Year Early Winter Population Yearly Percent Increase North Boundary1 West Boundary2 Total Removals Remaining on Public Land Outside YNP at West Estimated Percent Sero- pre valence1 1997 2.156 62 62 48 50 1 99S 2,266 5.1 64 64 52 49 1999 2,383 5.2 80 23 103 18 48 2000 2.467 3.5 98 42 140 1 47 2001 2,5 IS 2.1 100 42 142 2 45 2002 2,571 2.1 102 42 145 3 43 2003 2,626 2.1 103 42 145 4 41 2004 2,684 2.2 105 41 146 6 38 2005 2,746 2.3 107 40 147 8 36 2006 2,812 2.4 110 40 150 9 34 2011 3,188 26 MEANJ 3.0 1. Totals include seropositive and seronegative bison captured at Stephens Creek facility and sent to slaughter, hunted at Eagle Creek/Bear Creek beginning in 2000. 2. Totals include seropositive and seronegative-pregnant bison captured in the West Yellowstone area and sent and 20 bison hunted in the West Yellowstone area beginning in 2000. 3. Based on calfhood vaccination beginning 2000 and 70% vaccine efficacy. 4. Mean rate of increase calculated from 1997 to 2006. and 15 bison to slaughter Disposition of those bison would range from 498 sent to slaughter and 331 sent to quarantine to 823 sent to slaughter and 6 sent to quarantine; hunting would remove another 20 bison. The remaining 126 seronegative-nonpregnant bison could winter on public lands in the West Yellowstone area or be sent to slaughter. Management objectives would allow for up to 50-100 bison to winter in the West Yellowstone area, and an additional 26 bison could be removed from the population through hunting, quarantine, or agency shooting. For this scenario a total of 875 bison (90% of those exiting the park) could be removed from the population. Cumulative Impacts There would be no additional sources of cumulative impact beyond those described in "Cumulative Impacts Common to All Alternatives. " Conclusion This alternative would maintain the bison population within the range of 1,700 to 3,500 animals and would be expected to result in an increasing bison population. Capture operations, limited hunting, and periodic severe environmental conditions would likely maintain the population between 2,800 and 3,200 bison in the long term. It was estimated this alternative would result in fewer but minor differences in numbers of bison in the population (8.2% fewer) after 10 years of implementation compared to alternative 1. This alternative would allow bison to freely range within Yellowstone National Park except 213 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES in the Stephens Creek area. Approximately 100-200 could freely range in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area, and no bison would be allowed to range in the Reese Creek area. Although seronegative-nonpregnant bison would be released in West Yellowstone, few would be expected to remain after hunting. Capture and removal of seropositive bison and calfhood vaccination at 70% efficacy were predicted to decrease seroprevalence to at least 34% in 2006 and 26% by 201 1. This alternative would be expected to result in a minor reduction (less than 10% change) in seroprevalence compared to alternative 1 . was assumed to be zero because approximately 95% of seropositive bison would be removed in the first year of capture operations beginning in 1998. Dobson and Meagher (1996) found that brucellosis transmission rate in Yellowstone National Park bison appeared to be a function of the proportion of individuals in the bison population that are infected. Also, all captured seronegative bison would be vaccinated. In addition to protecting against infection, vacci- nation prevents abortion and hence transmission of the bacteria. The seroprevalence rate for unvaccinated and vaccinated but unprotected calves was assumed to be equal to the sero- prevalence in the adult population for that year. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 5 Analysis Effects on the Bison Population. In calculating the impacts on the bison population, it was assumed that capture, test, and slaughter operations would take place in nine areas simultaneously within and at the boundary of Yellowstone National Park. Simultaneous captures would be necessary to reduce the likelihood that untested, potentially infected bison would come into contact with seronegative bison that had been tested and released in the park. Based on methods used in the livestock industry, it was assumed that capture, test, and slaughter operations would begin in 1 998 and be conducted for three consecutive years (Peterson, Grant, and Davis 1991). All seropositive bison would be sent to slaughter. Unlike alternatives 1 through 4, in which only calves were vaccinated, this alternative calls for all seronegative bison to be vaccinated before release. During a fourth and possibly fifth year, all unmarked (untested) bison more than one year old would be shot. It was assumed that 95% of the bison population would be captured each year (Peterson, Grant, and Davis 1991), with the remaining 5% exhibiting a seroprevalence rate similar to that found in the total precapture population for that year. The seroconversion rate for adult bison used in the Yellowstone National Park model For alternative 5, the agencies would attempt to manage the Yellowstone bison population within the range of 1,700 to 3,500 animals; however, this alternative is impossible to implement without reducing the population below 1,700 for at least six years following its start. The bison population would be expected to be reduced to approximately 1,250 animals in 1999, after removal of over 1,000 bison in the first year of capture, test, and slaughter. This compared to nearly 2,400 animals in 1999 under the continued implementation of alternative 1 (a 47% decrease compared to alternative 1). The bison population would be expected to number approximately 2,000 by 2006, and approxi- mately 2,900 bison by 201 1, 10 years after capture, test, and slaughter operations have ceased. This was comparable to model simulations (Peterson, Grant, and Davis 1991) that showed the Grand Teton National Park bison population recovered to preremoval size within about 10 years following test, slaughter, and vaccination operations. It is possible under alternative 5, in which bison numbers were projected to be reduced as low as 1,250, certain segments of the park bison population would be more affected than others. Slowing the rate at which bison were slaughtered might result in higher population numbers, but doing so would compromise the ability of the capture, test, and slaughter program to separate tested and untested bison. Potential contact with infected animals could increase the 214 Impacts on Bison Population number of bison testing seropositive and therefore increase the number sent to slaughter when capture operations were resumed. Populations would not be expected to drop to 580 animals, the minimum number needed (based on current data) to maintain genetic viability. If the bison population approached this number, capture and slaughter operations would slow or cease until the population recovered. Effects on Free-Ranging Status and Distribution of Bison. Under this alternative bison would not be permitted to move outside Yellowstone National Park boundaries. During the anticipated three-year capture period, a minimum of 95% of the bison within the park would be captured and tested for exposure to brucellosis. Those testing negative and released into the park during the final year would be visibly marked to facilitate removal of the remaining untested animals. Several areas in the park would be likely to have few to no bison following the three years of capture, test, and slaughter, and this condition could last as long as 10 years following the final year of captures. Bison movements toward the winter range as well as distribution and overwintering within the park by bison would likely be affected. Seroprevalence in the Bison Population. The effects of vaccination were calculated at two levels of efficacy, 70% and 25%. The sero- prevalence rate in bison under this alternative would be expected to drop from 50% in 1997 to 0% in 2001, assuming 70% vaccine efficacy and whole-herd vaccination (see table 37). In the 25% vaccine efficacy model, the seroprevalence rate also dropped to 0% by 2001. This sero- prevalence rate was lower than that predicted by Peterson, Grant, and Davis (1991) in simulations of test, slaughter, and vaccination of Grand Teton National Park bison. The difference could be a result of the Grand Teton model assuming a higher transmission rate (to reflect higher initial seroprevalence rates, the additive influence of feedlot elk on the bison seroprevalence rate, etc.; these conditions are not present in the Yellowstone population). No information was available about the trans- mission rate among Yellowstone bison, or between Yellowstone elk and bison, lew data exist regarding the proportion of bison exhibiting false negative tests or becoming newly infected each year. Assuming that sources of infection still existed in the park following three to five years of extensive capture, test, and slaughter operations, some bison might become reinfected. Calfhood vaccination was assumed to continue in this alternative, which might reduce the risk of infection. Other factors, such as whole-herd vaccination, multiple-dose vaccination, protection from abortion, and the observed rarity of abortions in the Yellowstone bison population might all contribute to a low risk of the bison population becoming reinfected in this alternative. Stochastic Influence on Bison Population. Under this alternative all bison exiting the park would be captured and sent to slaughter. Up to 108, 236, or 975 bison (100% of those exiting) could be removed under the predicted range of exit numbers. Efforts could be undertaken to haze bison back inside the boundary in order to reduce the number of bison removed from the population. However, during the capture phase of this alternative (three years), large migrations would not be expected. Cumulative Impacts During the first five years of alternative 5, total management removals would range from 0.4% to 48% of the bison population and average 14%. Cumulative impacts as described in "Cumulative Impacts Common to All Alternatives" would add to decreases in the population. Conclusion The bison population would rapidly decline under this alternative, representing a major reduction of 47% over a period of only three years. More than 95% of the bison in the park would be rounded up and handled in capture 215 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Table 37: Estimated Early Winter Population, Rate of Population Increase, Projected Management Removals, and Estimated Seroprevalence Rate for the Bison Population under Alternative 5 Management Removals Outside Yellowstone National Park Year Early Winter Population Yearly Percent Increase North Boundary West Boundary Total Removals1 Remaining on Public Land Outside YNP at West Estimated Percent Sero- prevalence2 1997 2,156 110 50 19983 2,214 2.7 1,052 50 1999 1,257 -43.2 56 4.7 20004 1,299 3.3 4 0.3 2001 1,401 7.8 65 0 20025 1,446 3.1 0 2003 1,565 8.2 0 2004 1,693 8.2 0 2005 1,832 8.2 0 2006 1,982 8.2 0 2011 2,940 0 MEAN 0.7 1. In 1997, all bison exiting at West Yellowstone are removed. In years 1998-2001 . total bison removals are from capture, test, and slaughter operations. 2. Seroprevalence of the population just prior to early winter capture, test, and slaughter operations. 3. Beginning of three-year capture, test and slaughter. 4. Beginning of whole-herd vaccination, at 70% efficacy in 2000 5. Beginning of no lethal management, but continued calfhood vaccination. facilities, with the remainder being shot at the end of the three-year capture period. Bison would not be free-ranging during the capture period, although negative-testing bison would be set free immediately after capture and vaccination. All seronegative bison would be marked to facilitate future testing and post- capture shooting operations. The extensive capture operation, as well as confinement to the park might detract from the wild, free-ranging qualities of the bison population during the three- to four-year period these actions were in effect. This alternative would have a major impact on the distribution of bison. Bison would not be allowed outside Yellowstone National Park, and many areas within the park where bison have previously existed would be expected to have few or no bison for as long as 10 years. This alternative would have a major impact on seroprevalence rate in bison, decreasing the proportion of seropositive bison from 50% to approximately 0% by the year 2001. Continued vaccination of bison with a safe and effective vaccine would be expected to maintain a low seroprevalence rate for the long term. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 6 Analysis Effects on the Bison Population. For alternative 6, the agencies would attempt to manage the Yellowstone bison population within the range of 1 ,700 to 3,500 animals. In this alternative, whole-herd vaccination would be used initially to reduce the seroprevalence rate in the bison population. After the seroprevalence 216 Impacts an Bison Population rate has appeared to stabilize, capture, test, and slaughter operations as described in alternative 5 would remove the remaining seropositive animals. For this analysis, the capture, test, and slaughter operations occurred after 10 years of vaccination. In calculating the impacts on the bison population, the effects of vaccination were calculated at 70% and 25% efficacy, and, as in all other alternatives, assumed to begin in the year 2000. The model assumed 95% of total bison population was vaccinated each year. The seroprevalence rate for unvaccinated and vacci- nated but unprotected calves was assumed to be equal to the seroprevalence in the adult population for that year. Scenario A - 70% Vaccine Efficacy — The bison population would be expected to increase from 2,100 to approximately 3,100 animals in 2006 (average increase 4.2%; see table 38) and 3,500 by 2010. Bison population numbers would be controlled through capture and removal of all bison leaving Yellowstone National Park at Reese Creek, and removal of seropositive bison moving west near the Seven-Mile Bridge area in the park. Bison would not be expected to move beyond the identified management area, but if they did, they would be removed by agency shooting, usually within the park. Implemen- tation of capture, test, and slaughter operations was assumed to begin in 2010 after 10 years of vaccination. Assumptions used for this portion of calculations were as described under the impacts of alternative 5. This stage of operations resulted in a reduction of the bison population from about 3,500 in 2010 to 2,900 in 201 1 , followed by an increase to 3,400 by 2014. Alternatives 6 and 4 differ on the west side in that seronegative-pregnant female bison would be slaughtered in alternative 4, but released in alternative 6 for the first phase. By the year 2006, modeling predicted the population in alternative 6 would have reached 3,100, whereas implementation of alternative 4 would result in only about 2,800 animals. Much (but not all, as limited hunting would be a part of alternative 4 as well) of the difference in population sizes in these two alternatives would be a result of the release of seronegative females. Winter range management objectives would allow up to 100-200 bison in Eagle Creek/Bear ( Ireek, 0 in the Reese Creek area, and up to 50-100 seronegative bison in the Wesl Yellowstone area. Approximately 20-60 seronegative bison were predicted to winter in the West Yellowstone area. Scenario B - 25% Vaccine Efficacy - During the 10-year vaccination phase, the bison population would be expected to increase from 2,100 to approximately 3,100 animals in 2006 (average increase 4.2%; see table 39). During this 10-year period, bison population numbers would be controlled as described under the 70% vaccine efficacy model. Implementation of the capture, test, and slaughter program would begin in 2010 and reduce the population from 3,500 to approximately 2,500 bison in 201 1, followed by an increase to 3,000 animals by 2014. The lower number of bison estimated in this model would be a result of more bison being slaughtered because of the lower vaccine efficacy. Effects on Free-Ranging Status and Distribution of Bison. Management actions under this alternative would not be expected to appreciably alter the age/sex structure of the bison population for either vaccine efficacy. Bison would be allowed to freely range in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area, and seronegative bison would be allowed to range in the West Yellowstone area. During the three-year capture, test and slaughter phase, a minimum of 95% of the bison within Yellowstone National Park would be rounded up and tested for exposure to brucellosis. Those testing negative and released into the park would be visibly marked to facili- tate removal of the remaining untested animals. Seroprevalence in the Bison Population. The seroprevalence rate of bison would be expected to decline from a starting point of 50% seropositive in 1997 to at least 27% at 70% vaccine efficacy or to 36% at 25% vaccine efficacy by 2009 (10-year vaccination period). After 10 years of vaccination, the capture, test, and slaughter operations were assumed to begin in 2010. After four years of capture and removal of all seropositive bison (and removal of 217 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Table 38: Estimated Early Winter Population, Rate of Population Increase, Projected Management Removals, and Estimated Seroprevalence Rate for the Bison Population under Alternative 6 at 70% Vaccine Efficacy Management Removals Outside Yellowstone National Park Year Early Winter Population Yearly Percent Increase North Boundary West Boundary Total Removals' Remaining on Public Land Outside YNP at West Estimated percent Sero- prevalence2 1997 2,156 -- 55 55 55 50 1998 2,273 5.4 - 56 56 60 49 1999 2,399 5.5 81 20 101 22 47 20003 2,486 3.6 84 19 103 24 47 2001 2,578 3.7 87 19 106 26 44 2002 2,675 3.8 90 18 108 28 42 2003 2,777 3.8 93 18 111 30 39 2004 2,885 3.9 97 17 114 33 37 2005 2,998 3.9 101 17 118 35 34 2006 3,116 3.9 105 17 122 37 32 2007 3,240 4.0 109 16 125 40 30 2008 3,370 4.0 113 16 129 42 28 2009 3,500 118 15 133 46 27 20 104 3,500 826 46 25 2011 2,893 -17.3 45 49 1.6 2012 3,082 6.5 2 53 0.1 2013 3,333 8.1 154 58 0 2014 3,440 3.2 0 60 0 MEAN5 4.2 1. From 1997 to 2006, removals included all seronegative and seropositive bison exiting the north boundary and seropositive bison captured at the west boundary area (Seven-Mile Bridge area). In years 2010-2013, included seropositive and untested bison removed in capture, test, and slaughter operations. 2. Seroprevalence of the population just prior to early winter operations. 3. Whole-herd vaccination beginning in 2000 and 70% vaccine efficacy. 4. Capture, test, and slaughter operations begin 2010 and end 2013. 5. Average rate of increase from 1997 to 2006. (Reese Creek) total removals 218 Impacti on Bison Population Table 39: Estimated Early Winter Population, Rati <>i Popi i vtionIncri vse, Projected Management Removals, and Estimated Seroprevalence Rate kor the Bison Population under Alternative 6 at 25% Vaccine Ei fk \c\ Management Removals Outside Yellowstone National Park Year Early Winter Population Yearly Percent Increase North Boundary West Boundary Total Removals' Remaining on Public- Land Outside YNP at West Estimated percent Sero- prevalence2 1997 2.156 - 55 55 55 50 1998 2,273 5.4 -- 56 56 60 49 1999 2,399 5.5 81 20 101 22 47 20003 2,486 3.6 S4 20 104 23 47 2001 2,577 3.7 87 20 Mi/ 25 46 2002 2,673 3.8 90 20 110 26 44 2003 2,773 3.7 93 20 113 28 43 2004 2,878 3.8 97 21 118 29 42 2005 2,986 3.9 101 21 122 31 41 2006 3,099 3.8 104 21 125 33 40 20074 3,218 3.8 108 21 129 35 38 2008 3,342 3.9 117 21 133 37 37 2009 3,472 3.9 117 21 138 39 36 2010 3,500 1168 39 35 2011 2,523 -27.9 63 43 2.6 2012 2,662 5.5 3 46 0.1 2013 2,877 8.1 133 50 0 2014 2,969 3.2 0 51 0 MEAN' 4.1 1. From 1997 to 2009, removals included all seronegative and seropositive bison exiting the north boundary and seropositive bison captured at the west boundary area (Seven-Mile Bridge area). In years 2010-2013, included seropositive and untested bison removed in capture, test, and slaughter operations. 2. Seroprevalence of the population just prior to early winter operations. 3. Whole-herd vaccination beginning in 2000 and 25% vaccine efficacy. 4. Capture, test, and slaughter operations begin 2010 and end 2013. 5. Average rate of increase from 1997 to 2006. (Reese Creek) total removals 219 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES untested bison) throughout the park, the seroprevalence rate would decline to 0 for both vaccine efficacies. This model result would likely be due to whole-herd vaccination for 10 years followed by capture, test, and slaughter, and would be similar to alternative 5 in that seroprevalence was predicted to be 0% in 201 1 . Stochastic Influence on Bison Population. Under this alternative, all bison exiting the north boundary and all seropositive bison exiting the west boundary would be captured and sent to slaughter, resulting in removal through shipment to slaughter of approximately 83% of bison exiting the park. Therefore, if 108 bison exited the park, roughly 90 would be sent to slaughter and 18 seronegative bison would be allowed to winter on public lands in the West Yellowstone area (see table 31). If 236 bison exited the park, roughly 196 would be sent to slaughter and 40 seronegative bison would be allowed to winter on public lands in the West Yellowstone area (see table 32). If 975 exited the park, roughly 810 would be sent to slaughter and 165 seronegative bison would be released into the West Yellowstone area. This alternative would allow up to 50-100 bison to winter in that area. Therefore, in this scenario, up to 65 additional bison might be removed through shipment of seronegative bison to slaughter, or through agency shooting. A total of up to 875 bison (90% of those exiting the park) could be removed from the population (see table 32). Cumulative Impacts Under alternative 6, bison management removals during the 10-year vaccination phase (through 2009) would average between 3.8% at 70% vaccine efficacy and 4.0% at 25% vaccine efficacy of the bison population. In the capture, test, and slaughter phase, removals would average 7.5% at 70% vaccine efficacy to 10.2% at 25% vaccine efficacy of the bison population from 2010 to 2013. Cumulative impacts as described in "Impacts Common to All Alternatives" would add to decreases in the population. Conclusion During the vaccination phase of alternative 6, the bison population would be expected to increase an average of 4.2% each year, a negligible to minor increase compared to alternative 1 (less than 10% difference). After the capture, test, and slaughter phase began in 2010, this alternative would result in a moderate (17% decrease, 70% vaccine efficacy) to major reduction (28% decrease, 25% vaccine efficacy) in the bison population. Bison would not be free ranging for a short time during the capture, test, and slaughter period. This alternative would likely have a minor to moderate impact on bison distribution, by limiting the number of bison allowed outside Yellowstone National Park and by temporarily removing bison from some areas within the park where they previously existed. This alternative would have a similar impact on seroprevalence rate for the initial 10 years of vaccination, compared to alternative 1 . Following capture, test, and slaughter, the reduction in seroprevalence rate would be major, decreasing to 0. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 7: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Analysis Effects on the Bison Population. Assumptions used in alternative 1 were also used in this alter- native to construct bison population dynamics. Unlike the other alternatives, the agencies would attempt to manage the bison population within a range of 1,700 to 2,500 in alternative 7. This alternative would emphasize capture of bison at Stephens Creek (or at a facility north of Reese Creek if additional lands were purchased), shipment of seropositive bison to slaughter, and shipment of seronegative bison to quarantine. If populations were high and/or quarantine space was unavailable, seronegative bison would be shipped to slaughter. If the population was near the low range ( 1 ,700), seronegative bison could 220 Impacts on Bison Population be held at the capture facility and released in Yellowstone National Park in spring rather than quarantined. Hunting would be used to control populations in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area. Capture operations would occur in the West Yellowstone area, and only seronegative males and seronegative-nonpregnant females would be released on public lands in the West Yellowstone area. Seropositive bison would be shipped to slaughter, and seronegative-pregnant females would be shipped to quarantine. Low levels of hunting were assumed in the West Yellowstone area as an adjunct to capture operations. Property north of the park in the Gardiner Valley might be acquired from willing sellers through purchase, easement, or leases. If so, limited hunting could be allowed here as well. When the bison population was approaching or above 2,500 animals, management efforts would emphasize additional lethal controls. These controls would include shipment of additional seropositive and seronegative bison to slaughter, shipment of seronegative bison to quarantine, increased hunting, and agency shooting outside the park. However, these actions could only occur in response to the movement of large numbers of bison to or beyond the park boundary. Hunting would begin in 2000, and quotas would provide for a minimum of 15 permits in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area. It was also assumed a total of 1 0 permits would be offered in the West Yellowstone area beginning 2002 as an adjunct to capture operations and 10 (if approved) in the Reese Creek SMA. Based on bison population numbers, winter distribution on public and private lands, and other factors, the agencies could conduct additional special drawings to harvest additional bison. Under this alternative, bison population numbers would be controlled through capture, shipment of seropositive bison to slaughter, shipment of seronegative bison to slaughter or quarantine, hunting, and agency shooting outside the park. Modeling predicts this alternative would initially result in a small increase in the bison population, and assumes management actions (increased removals) would limit the total population to approximately 2,500. This alternative would be expected to result in lower long-term population levels than any of the other alternatives except alternative 5. From 1997 to 2004, the bison population would be expected to increase from about 2,100 bison to 2,700 bison (average increase of 2.6%/year; see table 40) where it would remain over the life of the management plan. At 10 years and assuming 70% vaccine efficacy, population levels under alternative 7 would be about 12% lower than alternative 1 . The population would be 23% lower by 201 1 . However, because of the limitations of the deterministic model discussed previously, the differences between alternatives 1 and 7 could be less. This might result because more bison could be removed in alternative 1 than that displayed in the analysis. The agencies would expect severe winter conditions to periodically force additional bison outside park boundaries. When these conditions occurred and the early winter bison population was near or above 2,500 animals, this alternative would require the agencies to ship additional bison to slaughter or quarantine, increase hunter harvest, or increase agency shooting outside the park to maintain the spring bison population below or near 2,500. If the assumptions of the model proved true (e.g., average winters and average number of bison exiting), such removals would begin in the year 2003. Average removals from slaughter, quarantine, and hunting were predicted to remove between 132 and 137 bison each year. The agencies would expect to remove 42-73 additional bison each year as they moved outside the park boundary at the north boundary and West Yellowstone areas, for total annual removals of 179-205 bison. Management actions in this alternative would not measurably affect the age/sex distribution or reproductive rates of the Yellowstone bison population. Capture operations, shipment of bison to slaughter and quarantine, limited hunting, agency shooting outside the park, and periodic severe environmental conditions would likely maintain the spring bison population near 2,500. 221 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Effects on Free-Ranging Status and Distribution of Bison. Bison would not be expected to move beyond the identified SMA, but if they did, they would be removed. If the bison population approached the low range (1,700), efforts would be made to haze bison back into the SMAs. Agency personnel would shoot bison or haze them off private lands where the landowner wanted bison removed and hunting was not allowed. Management objectives would allow 100-200 bison to freely range in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area. Approximately 100 bison would be expected to winter in this area. Beginning in the year 2000, an annual hunter harvest of 15 animals would be expected in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area. Bulls would likely be harvested in this area. Initially, no bison would be allowed in the Reese Creek area. If additional lands were purchased, management objectives would allow up to 50-100 bison in the Reese Creek area, although the total number of animals in the entire bison population would not be increased. Management objectives would allow up to 50-100 seronegative male and seronegative- nonpregnant female bison in the West Yellowstone area and 14-51 animals would be expected. Beginning in 2002, annual hunter harvests of 10 bison would likely consist of males, but some larger females could also be taken. Following hunter harvests and potential additional removals that might be required to manage the population at 2,500 animals, few if any bison would winter in the West Yellowstone area during the life of the plan (see table 40). Seroprevalence in the Bison Population. The population seroprevalence rate would be expected to decline from a starting point of 50% seropositive in 1997 to at least 32% seropositive in 2006 due to removal of seropositive bison in the West Yellowstone and Reese Creek area and vaccination at 70% efficacy beginning in 2000 (see table 40). Continued management efforts and vaccination at 70% efficacy would reduce seroprevalence to 23% in 201 1. With vaccination and a vaccine efficacy of 25%, seroprevalence was predicted to drop from 50% to 40% by 2006. Stochastic Influence on Bison Population. In phase 1, this alternative would feature capture and shipment to slaughter of all bison exiting at the north boundary and all seropositive and seronegative-pregnant bison exiting at the west boundary. During the first two years after implementation, the number of bison removed through shipment to slaughter would be the same (85% of the total bison exiting the park) as under alternative 1. During phase 2 of this alternative, quarantine, hunting, and land acquisition would likely occur. If lands were acquired, bison exiting the north boundary would be allowed to roam in the Reese Creek SMA, where some could be hunted. Capture operations in the West Yellowstone area would continue to send seropositive bison to slaughter, and seronegative-pregnant bison to quarantine. Seronegative-nonpregnant bison would be released on public lands in the West Yellowstone area, where some could be hunted. In this phase, if 108 bison exited the park, 19 would be sent to slaughter, 3 would be sent to quarantine, and 15 seronegative-nonpregnant bison would be released and could winter on public lands in the West Yellowstone area. Ten of those bison could be hunted. Approximately 72 bison would exit into the Reese Creek SMA and 10 bison could be hunted. Approximately 62 could winter in the Reese Creek SMA. A total of 42 bison (39% of the bison exiting the park) could be removed from the population (19 to slaughter, 3 to quarantine, and 20 through hunting); see table 3 1 . If the early winter bison population numbered between 2,400 and 2,600 and 108 bison exited the park, 100% of the bison would be removed to keep the bison population below 2,500 animals. If 236 bison exited the park, 41 would be sent to slaughter, 6 to quarantine, and 34 seronegative-nonpregnant bison would be released and could winter on public lands in the West Yellowstone area. Ten of those bison could be hunted. Approximately 156 bison would exit into the Reese Creek SMA and 10 bison could be hunted. Approximately 222 Impacts mi Bison Population Table 40: Estimated Early Winter Population, Rate of Population Incri \se, Projected Management Rkmovais, andKstimaikdSikoi'ki \ u i \< i Rate kor the Bison Population under Alternative 7 Management Removals Outside Yellowstone National Park Year Early Winter Population Yearly Percent Increase North Boundary1 West Boundary2 Total Removals Remaining on Public Land Outside YNPat West Estimated Percent Sero- prevalence3 1997 2,156 -- 55 55 48 50 1998 2,266 5.1 -- 57 57 51 49 1999 2.381 5.1 80 23 103 18 48 2000 2.465 3.5 98 23 121 20 47 2001 2.536 2.9 100 23 123 21 45 2002 2,61 1 3.0 103 32 1 vS 13 42 2003 2.679 2.6 105 32 1794 14 39 2004 2.705 1.0 106 31 205s 16 37 2005 2.705 0.0 106 30 205 17 34 2006 2,705 0.0 106 29 205 18 32 2011 2,705 23 MEAN" 2.6 1. Totals include seropositive and seronegative bison captured at Stephens Creek facility and sent to slaughter, and 15 bison hunted at Eagle Creek/Bear Creek beginning in 2000. 2. Totals include seropositive and seronegative-pregnant bison captured in the West Yellowstone area and sent to slaughter and 10 bison hunted in the West Yellowstone area beginning in 2002. 3. Based on calfhood vaccination beginning 2000 and 70% vaccine efficacy. 4. Includes additional opportunistic removal of 42 bison that are exiting Yellowstone National Park at the north boundary or West Yellowstone areas. 5. For the years 2004 to 2006, includes additional opportunistic removal of 68-70 bison that are exiting Yellowstone National Park at the north boundary or West Yellowstone areas. 6. Mean rate of increase calculated from 1997 to 2006. 50-100 bison could winter in the Reese Creek SMA and the agencies could remove an addi- tional 36 bison through capture and shipment to slaughter, quarantine, additional hunting, or agency shooting. A total of 67-103 bison (28%-44% of the bison exiting the park) could be removed from the population (41 to slaughter, 6 to quarantine, 20 through hunting, plus an additional 36 from the Reese Creek SMA to slaughter, quarantine, hunting, or agency shooting); see table 32. If the early winter population numbered between 2,500 and 2,700, and 236 bison exited the park, 100% of the bison would be removed to keep the bison population less than 2,500. If the early winter population was greater than 2,500 bison, and fewer than 236 left the park, it would not be possible to maintain the herd below 2,500 bison. If 975 bison exit the park, 166 would be sent to slaughter, 23 would be sent to quarantine, and 143 seronegative-nonpregnant bison would be released and could winter on public lands in the West Yellowstone area. Ten of those bison could be hunted. Approximately 50-100 bison could winter in the West Yellowstone area (Horse Butte) and the agencies could remove an additional 33 bison through capture and shipment to slaughter quarantine, additional hunting, or agency shooting. Approximately 643 bison would exit into the Reese Creek SMA and 10 bison could be hunted. Should capture and 223 ENVIRONMHNTAL CONSEQUENCES testing of bison occur in the Reese Creek SMA because of the large number of remaining bison (633), approximately 316 seropositive bison would be sent to slaughter with 317 seronegative bison remaining. Approximately 50-100 bison could winter in the Reese Creek SMA and the agencies could remove an additional 217 bison through capture and shipment to slaughter, quarantine, additional hunting or agency shooting. A total of 209-775 bison (21%-79% of the bison exiting) could be removed from the population under this scenario (166 to slaughter, 23 to quarantine, 20 through hunting, plus an additional 33 in the West Yellowstone area and 533 in the Reese Creek SMA to slaughter, quarantine, additional hunting, or agency shooting); see table 33. If the early winter bison population numbered between 3,275 and 3,500, and 975 bison exited the park, this alternative would require the agencies to remove 100% of the exiting bison to reduce the population below 2,500 animals. compared to alternative 1 . Because of the limitations of the deterministic model, the differences between alternatives 7 and 1 might be less. This alternative would allow bison to freely range within Yellowstone National Park except in the Stephens Creek area. Approximately 100-200 could freely range in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek SMA, and up to 50-100 in the Reese Creek SMA if additional winter range was acquired. After capture and removal of seropositives, and hunting, few if any bison would be expected to winter in the West Yellowstone area. Capture and removal of seropositive bison and calfhood vaccination at 70% efficacy were predicted to decrease seroprevalence to at least 32% in 2006 and 23% by 201 1. This would be a negligible to minor decrease in seroprevalence compared to that predicted to occur if alternative 1 was implemented. Cumulative Impacts For alternative 7, total management removals would average about 5% of the total bison population from 1997 to 2002. Beginning in 2003, additional removals would be required to manage the bison population near 2,500 animals, and these removals would average about 7.6% of the early winter population. These removals would be in addition to those described in "Cumulative Impacts Common to All Alternatives." Conclusion This alternative would maintain the bison population within the range of 1,700 to 2,500 animals. Capture operations, shipment of bison to slaughter or quarantine, limited hunting, agency shooting outside the park, and periodic severe environmental conditions would likely maintain the population near 2,500 bison. It was estimated this alternative would result in a moderate decrease (12%) in the bison population by 2006 and a major decrease (23%) by 201 1 IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES No irreversible (long term or permanent) commitments of the bison population were identified in any of the alternatives. Irretrievable (short term or reversible) commit- ments of 13 acres of winter habitat are identified in alternatives 1, 4, 5, and 6. Under these alternatives, bison would be prevented from using a small amount of public land in the Reese Creek area, north of Yellowstone National Park because private land would be immediately adjacent to the park and would be grazed by domestic cattle. Also, in alternatives 1, 3 (short term), 4, 5, 6, and 7 (short term), 13 acres of winter range habitat inside Yellowstone National Park in the Stephens Creek area would be unavailable to bison because of the management actions to capture bison at the Stephens Creek facility. In alternative 5, bison would not be allowed to use any public land beyond Yellowstone National Park boundaries. For alternatives 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 bison would be 224 prevented from occupying public lands (primarily in the West Yellowstone area) from about May 1 through October 31. No irretrievable commitments to the bison population were identified. Irretrievable commitments of resources would include only those individual bison killed as part of management actions (capture and shipment to slaughter or agency shooting) that might have otherwise survived. LOSS IN LONG-TERM AVAILABILITY OR PRODUCTIVITY OF THE RESOURCE TO ACHIEVE SHORT-TERM GAIN None was identified for the bison population in alternatives 1 through 6. In alternative 7, the agencies would manage the bison population to approximately 2,500. This could represent a loss in long-term availability compared to the ecological potential of the Yellowstone ecosystem. The long-term ecological potential would average 2,700 and fluctuate between 1,700 and 3,500 bison. No short-term gain for the bison population was identified in alternative 7. Impacts on Iiisn Sot ioei Otiom'u s It should be noted that a wide range is presented for bison existence values because of the considerable uncertainty associated with assigning a particular value. Some factors, such as the fact that bison are not an endangered species, and bison would only inhabit the newly acquired land during winter months, might support adoption of the lower end of the range. On the other hand, the fact that the Yellowstone area bison constitute one of the few free-ranging herds in the United States, and their home is in the world's oldest and possibly best known national parks, suggest that the upper end on the range is also plausible. Livestock Grazing Resources. The livestock operations that are within the special manage- ment areas provide benefits to the operators in terms of net annual revenues. For livestock operators displaced from public grazing, the value of these grazing resources can be approximated by the private market lease rate (on the assumption that the public leases are as productive as the average private grazing lease in Montana), which in 1996 averaged $1 1.80 per AUM in Montana (Montana Agricultural Statistics Service, pers. comm. 1997). On the other hand, these leases cost only $1 .35 per AUM, the lease rate on U.S. Forest Service lands. It is possible that the true productivity of these leases is reflected in the rate actually paid. Accordingly, in table 46 a range of $1 .35 to $1 1.80 per AUM is used to value the foregone livestock grazing uses on these leases. The estimate is computed by multiplying the number of cow-calf pairs to be displaced from public grazing (found in table 18) by the number of months they are on the particular area and by the relevant lease rate. This estimation assumes that all the public grazing allotments are for four months. For private livestock operations that are purchased under the alternatives, the foregone net revenues for the livestock operator are one element in the appraised total value of the ranch and are therefore included in the purchase price of the ranch (shown as acquisition cost in table 46). Bison Donated or Sold. Bison that are selected to be either donated or sold have value. As stated earlier, the average \'>l>(> auction price for live bison from the National Bison Range was $1,834, while the average auction price at the Gold Trophy Show was $4,400. The salv.i (hamburger) value for bison as reported by the National Bison Association in 1997 ranged between $800 for a mature cow to $1,500 for a mature bull, while during the winter of 1996-97, the Department of Livestock received only an average of $337 per bison carcass. Given this information, this summary uses $337 per slaughtered bison and $1,800 to estimate the value of bison that are removed from the park alive and that go through quarantine successfully as conservative figures. Hunting Benefits. The benefits associated with hunting are discussed in the "Impacts on Socio- economics." Benefits are defined as the net economic value, which is the hunter's willing- ness to pay over and above his actual costs and is similar to estimating a recreation and preservation benefit. Bison Management Costs and Land Acquisition Costs. These costs include all the government agencies capital expenditures and O&M costs directly associated with the manage- ment of bison in the Greater Yellowstone Area. In particular, the costs used in this analysis are those costs listed throughout "The Alternatives" discussion. Land acquisition is a lump-sum cost in the present that will yield benefits in perpetuity. To scale this asset and cost to the 15- year time horizon, annual costs have been amortized in perpetuity. An alternative is to amortize the purchase price over 1 5 years, then deduct the amortized future resale price. This latter approach requires a realistic assumption on future resale price. Given historical increases in real estate values in Park County, this approach would likely result in lower (or even negative) annual costs compared to amortization in perpetuity. The agency costs included in those tables, however, do not include two costs associated with the alternatives. The first cost is the value associated with increased normal park operation and maintenance due to increased tourism. The second cost is the value associated with grooming trails, which is addressed next. 261 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Trail Grooming Costs. The cost of grooming trails and roads in Yellowstone National Park would be another cost that varied throughout the different alternatives. Even though this would generally be a cost, in alternative 2, which eliminates the grooming of trails in certain road segments, this cost savings would be a benefit in the alternative. The cost savings range was obtained from the "Environmental Assessment on Temporary Closure of a Winter Road in Yellowstone National Park." Other Costs. There would be several other costs associated with the seven alternatives that were not included in table 46. First, there would be the damages bison caused to private property. This would include vehicle damage in and around the park as well as damages to property located outside the park including fences and livestock. Second, there would be costs associated with possible changes in testing and vaccinating practices for livestock within a 20- mile radius of the SMAs. Regional Economic Impacts Changes in sales of goods and services for export outside the affected area or sales to nonresident tourism would have an economic impact on the regional economy. In addition to the direct change in expenditures in an export- base framework, there would be multiplier effects on other area businesses. With regard to livestock lease operations that would be converted to other uses, there would be a reduction in the lease payments coming into the region. There would also be multiplier effects of lost revenue to the local economy; for example, through equipment and ranch supply purchases. With regard to tourism, changes in the number of nonresident tourists coming to the affected area would also result in expenditure changes and multiplier effects on the regional economy. Similarly, expenditures by hunters would impact the regional economy. Table 47 details those regional economic impacts that have been estimated under each of the alternatives. As detailed in the section on "Socioeconomics," changes in the livestock and tourism sectors would be generally offsetting. Changes in expenditures in the region by governmental agencies would also impact the overall level of economic activity in the regional economy. For this reason, table 47 includes changes in bison management costs, as well as changes in road grooming costs. Financial Impacts The various alternatives would have financial impacts on a number of governmental entities, including changes in county and state tax revenues, changes in entry fees to Yellowstone National Park, changes in hunter fees to Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and changes in grazing fees to the U.S. Forest Service. These changes would all likely be relatively small in the context of the overall impacts of the alternatives and in general have not been quantified. However, as an example, changes in county tax payments due to changes in livestock operations might be estimated by multiplying the per capita tax rate by the number of livestock grazed in the SMAs. Even if the livestock were put elsewhere in the county and state, they would displace other livestock assuming all available AUMs in the county and state were currently being used. There would be no loss in property taxes on private land if the land was acquired and managed by the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks or an easement was placed on the property. However, if the land was acquired by a federal agency, there would be potential for losses in property taxes. For example, alternative 2 proposes to acquire or place an easement on 5,600 acres of private land in the Gardiner area in order to provide a new SMA for bison. If this land was acquired by a federal agency, the potential for lost property taxes would be approximately $3,472 assuming an average tax rate for grade 3 grazing land of $0.62/acre. 262 Impacts on Soi ioeconomics Hunter fees to the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks were quantified. These are estimated to be $53,320 for alternative 3, $31,016 for alternative 4, and $25,440 foi alternative 7. Bison in Gardiner, Montana. 263 JO en o NO OO oo — OO O ">» oo o o ON oo oo ^« oo o © r- ON oo 00 y~i m . — 1 OO © r- -t oo t in in m ^— oo oo in o <o ©^ io_ NO r~_ ro "* rn in rl oo* ON of ■** >rf ON* _' ro 00* of ^J -** in ON* _J i-T t-- ~^ oo oo Ol >/-> Ol >o ro l-H NO Ol ol in Ol in ol Ol Ol OO CN. °°. °i. Ol o| oo oo m oq © of o" oo m" On* TT of r-* ' — ' oo m* ON* of ^^ 1—1 oo i—i O) - — 1 -tf oo i—i ^H t2. oo - — ' OO OO oo ^— ' oo -H oo OO o o 1—1 o Ol o Co o o •n o o in o Ol o Co O o o-T oo oo p- oo -<* OO fi- ve oo t-i 00 oo o- © © 00 OO o ON* oo NO* O0 f~ rn oo oo in -i no ON Ol oo *r> 1 — 1 Ol oo t-~ X "1 i—i -* °l ON 1—1 ^* OJ 'Vi H of oo ol" •*f U-{ oo of oo* ee oo oo oo O0 oo oo c U c /• < 50 H s OS o ON o ol o v~> o o ^h ON o in o ol o in O o o- o\ oo co oo Ol oo 1* oo oo NO ON oo ^-i oo Ol oo ^ oo oo rr, J o Ol °°, oo ro o oo oo oq °l H no' ■<*" r-i r^* NO NO* r-* o-* m* as ea m ■«t CO ■ r^ r-; OO ^i r-^ r-^ °°. oo °i r-^ u of NO* of ^_T of o-* of of z o- oo oo 00 r- oo oo 00 oo oo oo oo u UJ c/i a. a GQ > £ E- gj < Z H Of o o o o NO r- NO o o rr> o o o o NO r~ NO oo o rn < - oo oo oo V) Ol rn r^i OO O0 r>- oo oo oo oo Ol m en oo r- >" r- t~- NO_ o) 00 f-; NO ol 00 K a Tt NO* r~ ■*' oT NO* r~ ■** ON UJ •c a: as o 1—1 o NO o o o ON o ■t o r^ o ON o o o ON o ON OO o oo 00 o NO ON Tt oo NO OO Ol oo 1* o NO ON <5t oo ON ^ ^t Ol m NO ol 00 ON o~ Ol rn NO ol cO U rn of m NO U-l o ^H "tf CO NO in o © CO O w ■* NO Ol oo 00 o ol ■* NO ol oo © 2; r- N — ^ ^^ — 1—1 mO 4* "T. oo — T-~ ■ — i >n oq W _" oo OO oo of © o-* *~^ oo OO oo of ** -i- Ol »-H NO Ol ■cl- oo 00 OO 1—1 oo i— 1 ^^ ^-^ oo ^^ OO U X w a u Z lid as o ON Ol Ol •"* o oo o NO in o r~ ~^ rn -t o 00 o ^t- Ol oo •St- •+" CO* oC - of of NO* NO* Tf-* ^— CO _ ON ON 1—1 OJ oo oo ^^ Ol r- Ol i* •-I 00 oo t-1 m u. ""1 co oo Ol ON o oo T-H r- ^^ Ol ON o ^^ i—i Q in* co* ^-^ OO oo o* t~^ ol ol oo o oo oo oo o oo CO m Ol t m m u. OO oo oo oo oo 00 ^H 0 a ^^ ' ' OO a < > * o o o o o o o o o © o o o o o o o o o © oo * oo oo oo «>o oo oo O0 oo oo oo O0 00 OO oo oo OO O0 00 oo ^. UJ c« a s< a- ^^ f r- j= -a -a •a ^f ■* o VO o NO ■a T3 -a o ^1- o NO o ■* a "c3 > 2 CJ /~> ON in in r-~ VI VI VI «/» CO NO_ OO t7? VI VI oo ro NO^ CJ CJ r" s — ' c 3 O VI CJ 60 C 'n C3 00 O o CJ "2 VI O O § VI J3 > 5J z o u c cj X> 60 c '? cj > 3 o s 1) X> CJ o s 1) VI '"< z 6C C 1> X) 60 C '? CO > c o c (U X) eg u c CJ c/l >< CJ c o *o VI O -a CJ 03 c o -a a o VI ta CJ c CJ X) 60 C C c CJ E CJ 60 ca c a E a o o o c o VI '5 O" t/3 3 C/l c3 s C/3 2 ^ > VI 3 VI SI oa £ J i-Q n: ffl -J H cc cc -J m X £ -J H T ^. -C CJ 3 E p .2 3 •a ^ nj &-5 o _o "53 >- . ^-> vj O .a c .- o u-l < > Z w 0. Q. D U S o E p-i u z w 0. PJ E u. Q 00 - < H Z 5 ^< 00 L^ Oi Z °- E 60^ c - § .E CJ C3 U5 .3 c X) C3 ^ n CJ O C3 03 cj 2 T3 -C « CJ ^ vi J .— C3 O u. !i a. Z M E -53 - E ca o w — c vi o o "■> C CJ u- o 3 ra M 2 CJ CJ VI c u > 2J2 o vd n ^^ i» c u _o S >■ 2 o o •a o ■a s § 03 E "> 3 Ol o ^ on cj t« c 2" «j n j= E «-> y 53 — 5 — C3 o E u ? — -a o o c c *3 3 c/3 w C "O .52 o c 0 .- a 3 -r? CJ CJ ^ — 60 3 IS 22 E *S -* = ?? 5.-9 "53 J3 £ CJ Q. 5 x: o 2 >- o C/5 " ^ .3 60 S • = o C j= — -5 « S % E -5 03 .E 2 ", E £3 -o * « c o T3 03 C 3 — ^ "ea u o .2 cj ■£> > « ^ -5 -a o CJ ^ ^- cj .S l) ■— > T3 e-> > 2 g M >* 2P-§ XJ ra P <« 2 o u a o 3 « Ml •o O 'o CJ 03 J^ -3 03 - H PJ Z -J LL. o Z o II §1 y cj H"S cj 5 cj E □ > 3 o — S^2 <« ,« -*-* -° CJ 60 y -3 H II o 2 £ - o ^ VI II 60 t, " c o 2 P S > ■— _ T3 -J o •s: x a u ca cj 3 X) o — 1 60 =5 3 3 a 3 -a O 3 3 ° o cj ej II t- £ 2 II H o 2 II ft .2 m D ^ C ill ea ac ° 3 ^ VD ^ 03 05 J H -)f a o o sO (-- >/-| o o T SO OO faO Os tN v-i feO 00 <-•( 1^ W ~ OO o SO sc r~ _) &e t«^ ^o BO OO # * C^; c o o o o %o faO Os oo oo — H — 04 - - o o" o o T 00 00 o o o iri •* *» Q Z ca - ^ co < Z co — as _J z _ — z «* J y •< o o o o o (N o o s© s© »N SO SO I Tt oo oo oo o oo u in 4^ o* OS oo- x > H CN (N < , — s Z w ■*-; o o o r~ OS o o V 1) a! < < oo «/» SO sO_ oo oo 3 3 H f»> a ca C CO so' 00 jSo *3d < ~ ~ (A be a> -I a> D to CO CO z Z Z u u < -J -J H Z w as as 3 CO T3 CO o o m o o a> 01 U Id co ,_ £ k ca ■_ o o o o «A oo OS o in o o 3 3 r^ '5 ca x: o ~ CO CO "3 > l~ •a co '3 c o t; SO o" O >o ci CN ]3o '3d H X 3 U 3 W) cr ca 5 3 in SO oo SO OO oo m oo "eJo Z "3d 1) Z X U Z x D, 2 u z Ed as * o O o o o O o o o o o ^H oo OO oo &o oe (A (»0 oo oo Oft oo u. u. a eft r-> 0* J3 -r -o -a ■a •o , ,__, ^_ o o u > co u u u 60 >o o o o j c3 « 3 cd oo [~-; "T. o x C £ £ £ £ O so" ri fsf < ■^3 •J3 -.3 'X3 i/~) r^ oo m H CU U 3 co CO CO CO CO CO %0 oo O O o O U Z Z Z z z sz CO 60 CO 3 to CO CO _o IS 3 c E ■5 1) a. CO CO CO u e X c C ex o ^ CO u «J X ex (U CS Q. Q. (U x Ui O C X X E co O is _o xs 60 IS £ CO 3 _o J3 IE 3 ■3 c 1) a. -J u> L- £ £ 00 C3 C3 0) c C3 2 C 3 c o CO ca 00 00 H 2 o :- o I c a. o ,Xi — -. CO 1-1 o u p C3 Q. 03 £ '2 -r- U X 3 = 3 u ■S u. xi ^c .2 CO I 3 Q. _. O X — — CO l- u. •£. h co ca £ = "2 E y co C 3 S5 w >. ■z. .-z. .C > ._ co J "O co w T3 co c C3 T3 C3 CO O " « 00^ co c o -5 o oo c CO E ■- a ° c ca ca 9 i€.£J .y " — u i2 u c ra 3 S J > 3 3 S2 CX O ° 5i -o d3 P c 5 ^ o £ rt o "- >,■=: .t; [2 X) x> .2 o ca " £ y £ o ex o E ^ ■- o o c w CO co "O co ^ E CO CO -— ca0^ « O 3 E co o ■a £ r^ U LU • — 5; co !" O 60 >"* ~ E XI CO -r! M> C3 ;£ CJ 00 "2 -S •*- - S E ° cx — CO ii .£ g *1 CO O CO o 3 i1- 3 00 1 ° X o w ^ 5 c a. O 3 ex H i cr, -J II .3 oo •O ,, ^ S ^ U S t_l--3 o s PL, LU Q & « .2 I 3 S 3 ex ° X ^s co o - i_ o «•> " «; ^ X J £ .£ co x: co " .3 O "° w CO co {S s CO f— CO '^ S2 II - ex | 2 S 3° oo-5 « £ £ 2 o ~ co ca co H SO Cs] IMPACTS ON THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES SUMMARY OF REGULATIONS AND POLICIES The Endangered Species Act mandates that all federal agencies consider the potential effects of their actions on species listed as threatened or endangered. The U.S. Forest Service must also consider the potential effects of their actions on sensitive species in the national forest. NPS policy also requires consideration of state and locally listed species. The Endangered Species Act directs federal agencies to assess the effects of their proposed actions on threatened and endangered species and critical habitat for these species, to write biological assessments for these proposed actions, and consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if any effect is anticipated. The threatened and endangered species occurring in the project area for this environmental impact statement that have the potential to be affected are the grizzly bear (threatened), gray wolf (nonessential, experimental), bald eagle (threatened), and peregrine falcon (endangered); also see appendix H. Due to its unique nature as a nonessential, experimental population, the wolf is required to be treated as threatened within national parks and national wildlife refuges and proposed for listing outside them (e.g., on the national forests). Formal consulta- tion with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required if a "may affect-likely to adversely affect" determination is made for one or more of the threatened or endangered species. The only action alternatives with this determination are alternative 5, which has this anticipated effect on the grizzly bear, and alternative 6, which has a "may affect-likely to adversely affect" deter- mination on bald eagles. Informal consultation will occur on the preferred alternative, alter- native 7, which has a "may affect-not likely to adversely affect" determination for the grizzly bear and gray wolf and "no effect" for the bald eagle and peregrine falcon.. Sensitive species consist of both plants and animals (see appendix H) and are listed as sensitive by the regional forester for national forests in their region. Sensitive species are those for which there are viability or habitat concerns but they are not currently federally listed as threatened or endangered. For the Gallatin National Forest in Region 1 of the U.S. Forest Service, a number of vertebrate species are listed as sensitive, of which the lynx, wolverine, and trumpeter swan have the potential to be affected by bison management activities. In addition, 23 species of plants are listed as sensitive on the Gallatin National Forest. Some of these sensitive species also have the status of state species of special concern. METHODOLOGIES FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS The primary steps in assessing impacts on species of special concern were to determine (1) which species are found in areas likely to be affected by management actions described in the alternatives in this environmental impact statement, (2) habitat loss or alteration caused by the alternatives, (3) displacement and distur- bance potential of the actions and the species' potential to be affected by activities, and (4) relative population levels and distribution of bison under the alternatives. The information contained in this analysis was obtained through best professional judgment of team members, experts not on the team (but cited in the document), and by conducting a literature review. Because quantitative information on affected species is rarely available, impacts are usually assessed qualitatively. Bison mortality is not density-dependent (Meagher, pers. comm.) but is largely influenced by weather (density-independent); therefore, one cannot assume that a high bison population necessarily means more bison carrion for carnivores unless there is the weather event that leads to mortality. The link between high bison 266 Impacts on Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Spt i i'< numbers being better for carnivores and low numbers being worse is somewhat tenuous due to the influence of weather on bison mortality. What could be of more importance than projected bison numbers when assessing the impact of the alternatives on grizzly bears (and other carnivores) is the distribution of bison carcasses in relation to the bears that appear to be most dependent on this food source in the spring (i.e. those bears that den in and near Pelican and Hayden Valleys in the interior of the park). The Yellowstone area is a dynamic system in which stochastic processes operate and many factors are interconnected; therefore, it is difficult to quantify or predict outcomes with great accuracy. Whether or not something is beneficial or detrimental to bears appears to be relatively easy to assess, but the degree to which it is beneficial or detrimental is difficult to determine. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES The actions described in this environmental impact statement could affect species of special concern in three ways — through management actions such as hazing or shooting; by removing habitat to build and operate capture or quaran- tine facilities; and indirectly by influencing the number of bison available as a food source for wildlife. The latter could further influence habitat quality for predators and carrion eaters by changing the availability, location, and timing, as well as the abundance of the food source. Human activity associated with bison management (e.g., hazing, construction of quarantine or capture facilities, and operation of quarantine or capture facilities) could also affect threatened and endangered species through disturbance leading to displacement and energy expenditure. Construction of facilities associated with bison management could directly affect sensitive plants if these species were located on the construction site. Because capture and quarantine facilities would be sited using site- specific criteria described in "The Alternatives," including surveys and redesign or relocations of the proposed facilities if conflicts with threatened or endangered species would be likely, the impacts of these facilities will only be discussed in general terms in this environmental impact statement. Management activities, including hazing, shooting, capture facility operation, quarantine operation, and public hunting, generally would have impacts on species of special concern that are minor, or that could be mitigated so they would be negligible. Other factors that would likely a more acute impact on threatened and endangered species, in particular the grizzly bear, would include those resulting in larger population increases or decreases such as slaughter, changes in grooming or plowing of roads, and the potential acquisition of additional winter range for bison through purchase or easement from willing sellers. The impacts of all alternatives on the peregrine falcon would be expected to be negligible; thus, the impact sections that follow focus on the threatened grizzly bear and bald eagle; the gray wolf, classified as nonessential, experimental in the Yellowstone area; and the USFS sensitive species, lynx, wolverine, and trumpeter swan (see "Affected Environment" for more information). Endangered Species Peregrine Falcon. The peregrine falcon uses virtually no mammal carrion in its diet, and so would not be affected by increases or decreases in bison population numbers. Peregrines could be affected if management activities occurred near an active aerie or foraging area, although at this time, no management activities would be expected to occur near known sites. Impacts on peregrines would be expected to be negligible. 267 Environmental consequences Threatened Species Bald Eagle. Bald eagles would occasionally scavenge on large mammal carcasses; however, this would not be a large proportion of their diet. Bald eagles could be affected if management activities occurred or capture facilities were constructed near an active nest or foraging area. In West Yellowstone, the potential to disturb nesting and foraging bald eagles through noise and human activity from hazing, shooting, and capture, and slaughter operations exists. Capture facilities on public land in West Yellowstone would need to be located to avoid eagle nesting or foraging areas. Sensitive Wildlife Species Although lynx and wolverine exist in the study area and might rarely feed on bison carrion, management operations or changes in bison population numbers proposed in the alternatives would have only negligible impacts on these species, except for alternative 2, in which a change in snowmobile use in the national forest would be expected. Although no known general impacts from siting facilities would be anticipated, site-specific impacts would be avoided. Sensitive Plant Species The alternatives would have no impacts on sensitive plant species from management opera- tions or changes in bison population numbers. No known general impacts from siting facilities would be anticipated; site-specific impacts would be avoided through compliance with national forest and park policies protecting sensitive species. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES Cumulative impacts are past, present, and future (reasonable and foreseeable) actions of federal, state, and private entities. For this analysis, the maps of the different alternatives were used to bound the analysis area for the effects of activities on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. In order to be considered, the effects of actions must overlap temporally or spatially with bison distribution and manage- ment activities. Most bison management activities would be limited to relatively small areas due to the fairly limited area in which bison would likely occur outside Yellowstone National Park (stippled areas on the alternative maps), or the limited areas within the park where activities might occur under alternatives 5 and 6. To set the context for cumulative impacts, there are numerous naturally or seminaturally occurring factors of interest in relation to the grizzly bear in particular. Whitebark pine seeds are a meaningful source of fall food for grizzly bears. In the Greater Yellowstone Area, this tree species is experiencing the beginning of an outbreak of blister rust. The disease will result in the eventual decline and potential loss of this important food. Also, grizzly bears have fed extensively on spawning trout in the spring around Yellowstone Lake. Due to the intro- duction of lake trout into Yellowstone Lake, native cutthroat trout populations are likely to decline, and the bear could lose an important spring food in this area of the park (R. Knight, pers. comm.). Other factors influencing grizzly bears include fluctuations in sizes of ungulate herds in and around the park, weather influences on winter kill of ungulates and the number of carcasses available in the spring to bears, and competition for carrion with other scavengers and carnivores including wolves. Within the potential areas of bison management activities, there are some proposed timber sales on the Gallatin National Forest that have the effect of short-term displacement of threatened and endangered species from localized areas. These sales have not been planned other than naming an area in which a sale might occur. Most other public projects are fairly small in size and of limited duration and should have insignificant effects on threatened and endangered species. 268 Impacts on Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Spet ici animals due to increased recreational activities, such as hiking, fishing, hunting, and skiing, in what was formerly high-quality land for wildlife near this development. It would be expected that this trend toward development and loss of habitat would continue indefinitely. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 ACTION NO Bison with gray wolf Mattson and Knight (1992) concluded that the reintroduction of wolves to the area would likely have both positive and negative effects on grizzly bears. Slight reductions in populations of elk and bison would be probable, and interior herds may be most affected. Big game populations could become more stable allowing for a more stable supply of carrion. Elk would likely be more affected by wolves than bison. Interactions among predators would be likely, with wolves perhaps reducing coyote popula- tions and perhaps reducing competition for carcasses. Bears should be able to displace individual wolves from kills, but might not be able to displace larger groups of wolves. Overall, the issue of how wolves and grizzly bears would interact on the biomass available in terms of prey and carrion would be uncertain. Competition for carrion in the spring between bears and wolves is likely (Servheen and Knight 1990). The most serious threat to threatened and endangered species would be private land development and the concomitant increase in interactions between humans and these species. In the last 5 to 10 years, development has increased dramatically on private land near Yellowstone National Park. The particular areas experiencing this increase are the Yellowstone River valley (or Paradise Valley) north of Gardiner, the area in and around Gardiner, and the West Yellowstone area, particularly around Hebgen Lake. The increases in development to accommodate human habitation would decrease habitat for important wildlife species, such as grizzly bear and wolves, and also displace Analysis The continued operation of the 13-acre capture facility at Stephens Creek and the construction and operation of two 1-acre capture facilities at West Yellowstone affects threatened and endangered species' habitat directly by removing acreage from potential habitat, and indirectly by disturbance and displacement of threatened and endangered species from management activities, such as shooting, hazing, and capture operations. This would most likely affect the grizzly bear and gray wolf that could normally use the area. However, the total acreage occupied by the facilities or over which bison management operations occurred would be small compared to habitat available for the wolf population, and the impact on the wolves would be negligible. Also, capture facilities would be most heavily used from December to February, a time of year when grizzly bears were denning and would not be disturbed; therefore, the impacts on grizzly bears from operation of the capture facilities would also be expected to be negligible. Hazing activity near Reese Creek and West Yellowstone to return bison to the park would have the potential to disturb and displace any threatened and endangered species in the area near the hazing operation. Hazing would most likely occur in April and May, but might occur throughout the winter at the SMA boundaries. This would most likely affect the grizzly bear and gray wolf that could be using the area. Although individual animals may be affected, impacts of hazing on the population of either species would be short term and negligible. At this time, no grizzly bears or their sign have been observed prior to hazing operations at West 269 Environmental consequences Yellowstone (USFS, Inman, pers. comm. 1997). Currently, hazing operations would cease if there was evidence of grizzlies being active in the area. The management activity of agency personnel shooting bison that crossed the boundaries of tolerance under this alternative could disturb and displace individual wolves or grizzly bears. This would likely be a short-term, negligible impact, limited to the time shooters were actually in place and firing. Bears and wolves would be expected to reoccupy the area once agency personnel were gone. Shooting bison at West Yellowstone and Reese Creek, and leaving bison viscera or other body parts in these areas would increase the chance grizzlies would occupy the area and encounter humans. Under such conditions, the possibility would increase that bears would be shot. Mitigation requiring agencies to remove bison parts from these areas between March 1 , when bears begin to emerge from their dens, and the time boundary control operations ceased (usually in May, but possibly throughout the summer as well), is already in place under this alternative. This mitigating measure would continue under this and any other alternative involving shooting bison, and would reduce any potential impact from grizzly bear-human conflicts as a result of agency or private individual shooting to negligible. Mitigating measures currently in place to avoid disturbance to bald eagles during bison hazing or removal operations would continue if this alternative (with management actions in the Horse Butte area) was selected. The measures include (1) no bison removal activity that would disturb eagles would occur within 1/4 mile of any active bald eagle nest from February 1 through May 15 (after which time bison have not been allowed in this area), and (2) activities associated with bison management within lA mile of open water of the South Fork of the Madison River and the Madison River and Madison Arm of Hebgen Lake are limited to 10:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. (when eagles are not foraging). If one or more bison capture facilities were proposed, the site-specific effects of these facilities on bald eagles would have to be analyzed and mitigation applied, if needed, to prevent negative impacts on bald eagles. Because of these measures, the impacts on bald eagles would be negligible in all alternatives except alternatives 5 and 6. In alternative 5, a capture facility is proposed inside the park along the Madison River corridor. In alternative 6 the proposed capture facility could be located anywhere other than Seven-Mile Bridge. Either alternative could have adverse impacts on bald eagles. Under this alternative, bison could range outside the park into the West Yellowstone area (until April 30) and Eagle Creek/Bear Creek SMA. This would add about 35,000 acres to the available winter range (stippled area on the Alternative 1 map). Alternative 1 is the baseline to which others can be compared. Under this alternative, the bison herd was modeled to increase from 2,200 animals at present to 3,100 bison in 10 years (2006), and the population would continue to increase to 3,500 in the year 2010, which would be the maximum population allowed under the model. Because of the relative slower increase (4% per year) in bison population, this alternative would have a short-term, negligible impact on grizzly bears. Under this alternative, snowmobile grooming and use would continue as it has in the past. As discussed in the "Affected Environment" in the section on "Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species," compaction of snow makes oversnow travel relatively energy-efficient for bison, allowing them to move long distances after the snow has fallen. This allows bison to exit the park to the west in the fall and winter. If an average number of bison exited the park and were captured and slaughtered as dictated under the interim management plan, enough bison would remain in the park to die over the winter and provide grizzly bears with a source of spring carrion. However, when periodic environmental events such as a severe winter occurred, bison could be reduced to low levels, and some 270 segments of the bison herd could be seriously reduced. This would result in a similar reduction in bison carrion, which could have a temporary, minor adverse impact on grizzly bears (Meagher, pers. comm.). Alternative 1 has no specific measures to ensure that the bison population would remain within a given range. For this reason, and because bison would be able to exit the park on groomed trails and leave the system rather than remain as carrion, this alternative would have a potential negative impact on grizzly bears, particularly on those bears that den in the park interior where winter carrion other than bison was uncommon. Although grizzly bears are omnivorous, (i.e., they will eat almost any plant and animal matter; see "Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species" section of "Affected Environment"), some individual bears that den in the interior of the park depend on bison carrion in the spring, as little other food is available upon den emergence (male grizzly bears emerge earliest in the spring). These bears would likely be adversely affected if bison were reduced or disappeared from this area. As long as bison continued to winter and die in the interior of the park, this alternative would have only a negligible impact on the grizzly bear. Cumulative Impacts The additive effects of actions proposed in alternative 1 , including hazing, shooting, and other human disturbances, the ongoing operation of capture facilities at Stephens Creek and in West Yellowstone, and the expected losses of bison resulting from these actions combined with potential adverse impacts from timber sales and development, would not be expected to have more than a negligible impact on any threatened, endangered, or sensitive species in the study area. Continued grooming within the park could assist bison in leaving the interior of the park, but it has not yet resulted in a loss of wintering bison in these areas (Pelican and Hayden Valleys). Impacts I'n Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Spi Conclusion Alternative 1, in combination with other known impacts on threatened and endangered species, would have no effect on the bald eagle (with mitigation, if needed) and peregrine falcon. would not likely adversely affect the grizzly bear (as defined by the Endangered Species Act), and would not likely adversely affect (NPS) or jeopardize (USFS) the gray wolf. Due to the status of the wolf as a nonessential, experimental population, the terminology for the deter- mination differs between the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service. All impacts from this alternative on threatened or endangered species in the study area would be negligible. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 Analysis No capture, quarantine, or hunting operations, and minimal hazing would be allowed under this alternative. It would include the largest area outside the park for bison to roam, and include the modification of winter grooming activities inside Yellowstone National Park to help control bison movements. Hazing would only be used to keep bison off private land, and it would be unlikely any wolves or grizzly bear would be disturbed. Shooting to enforce boundaries at Buffalo Horn Creek and Yankee Jim Canyon could displace grizzly bears or wolves in the short term, although the bears would be denning for some of the time shooting would take place. This activity would most likely occur from December through May, and the average emergence date for bears is in March, so there could be some displace- ment. At this time, wolves have rarely ventured into the areas where shooting would likely occur at the SMA boundaries. It is possible that wolves could be displaced due to this activity in the future if wolves began to inhabit these areas. Displacement impacts on bears and wolves due to shooting operations would probably be 271 Environmental consequences negligible. Carcasses and viscera outside the park would likely be removed, reducing the risk of human/grizzly bear interaction. Under alternative 2 bison would be allowed to roam more widely outside the park (see Alternative 2 map). According to the model, this alternative would have the highest average growth rate of the bison population (7% per year) and number of bison for most years the plan would be in effect. The bison population was modeled to reach 3,500 by the year 2006. It should be noted that weather events causing a major movement of bison out of the park and beyond the outer SMA boundaries would likely lead to bison removal at the boundaries of the SMAs. This could keep the bison population below 3,500. It would also include the largest area over which bison were allowed to range, thereby increasing distribution of a possible food source. This alternative would have a moderately beneficial impact on the gray wolf and grizzly bear compared to alternative 1 . Under alternative 2, snowmobile trail grooming from the west entrance would cease. This could affect bison movements out of the park in the winter, making bison less efficient in leaving the park in the winter, and perhaps resulting in more bison carrion being available within the interior of the park in the spring. Grizzly bears in the park interior are known to use bison carrion, and bison carrion can be an especially important component of the spring diet for bears in the Hayden and Pelican Valleys emerging from their dens (Meagher, pers. coram.; see the chapter on "Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species" in "Affected Environment.") For this reason, alternative 2 would have the potential for an additional minor to moderate beneficial impact on grizzly bears, particularly on those bears denning in portions of the park interior where winter carrion other than bison was uncommon. Under this alternative, it would be expected that at least a portion of the snowmobile use that would have occurred in Yellowstone National Park would shift to Gallatin National Forest, particularly in the West Yellowstone area. Concerns have recently arisen regarding susceptibility of wolverines (Copeland 1996, 93) and lynx (USFS 1994) to disturbance. In addition, lynx are especially adapted to deep snow conditions and specialized to prey upon snowshoe hare (Weaver, pers. comm. 1997). It has been suggested that snowmobile or other packed routes into lynx habitats might allow generalist predators (e.g., coyotes and bobcats) to compete with lynx for a limited food source (Idaho Fish and Game et al. 1995). If alternative 2 was selected, which would be expected to increase winter use on the Gallatin National Forest, the increase in activities and locations would be monitored, and if needed, mitigating measures would be designed and implemented for the protection of lynx and wolverine. With mitigation, impacts would be negligible. Cumulative Impacts The additive effects of actions proposed in alternative 2, including the expansion of bison winter range and proposed changes in park winter road grooming would improve conditions for threatened species feeding on bison, particularly grizzly bears. It would also help offset any potential displacement impacts from timber sales and natural changes in the bears' food supply. Overall, under alternative 2, the cumulative impacts would be moderately beneficial to grizzly bears, would have a minor benefit for wolves, and would have no impact on bald eagles and peregrine falcons. Conclusion In comparison with alternative 1 ( the baseline), alternative 2 would have a minor to moderate benefit on grizzly bears, particularly those denning in the Hayden and Pelican Valleys, by concentrating some bison in the park interior through the modification of winter grooming practices on park roads. It would also have a moderately beneficial impact on grizzly bear and gray wolf populations throughout the study area by increasing the number of bison and their distribution. If grizzly bears and wolves were 272 Impacts en Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Spet ies drawn outside the park to feed on bison carcasses due to increased distribution and numbers of bison, they might be subjected to a slightly higher human-caused mortality rate This should have a negligible effect on these species and could partially offset the benefit of the potential increased distribution of bison. This alternative would have no effect on the bald eagle and peregrine falcon, and is not likely to adversely affect or jeopardize the gray wolf. Alternative 2 would have negligible impacts on both wolverine and lynx with the addition of mitigating measures, if needed, by the U.S. Forest Service. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 3 Analysis In the short term, alternative 3 would differ from alternative 1 in that there would not be a capture facility at West Yellowstone, seronegative bison captured at Stephens Creek would be quaran- tined, and public hunting would play a role. In the long term, the Stephens Creek facility would likely be dismantled and a new, smaller facility constructed north of the park in a newly established SMA. The construction, operation, and maintenance of capture and quarantine facilities would directly affect threatened and endangered habitat by removing acreage from potential habitat, and would indirectly affect threatened and endangered species by disturbance and displacement due to management activities, including hazing, shooting, and other operations. Although capture facilities would only operate during the winter (short term) or early spring (March 1 to April 30 in the long term), quarantine facilities would operate year-round. Locations for the quarantine facilities have not been determined and would undergo MEPA/NEPA analyses and surveys and mitigation in compliance with the Endangered Species Act if this alternative was selected. Because of this, the impact of quarantine facilities to species of special concern would be negligible. Public hunting would be allowed if approved by the Montana Legislature. Bison would be allowed outside the park and hunted on public land. Hunting has the potential to disturb and displace the grizzly bear and the gray wolf. Although most of the hunting season (October 1 to February 28) would occur when grizzly bears were denning, bears might still be out in the fall when hunting begins. During this period, grizzly bears and armed persons might come in contact with one another with a potential result of increased bear mortality risk. However, compared with the regular season elk hunt (which runs from late October to late November), the risk would be fairly low of bison hunters and grizzly bears coming in contact. This would happen because many more elk permits would be issued than the proposed number of permits to hunt bison, elk more typically use habitats used by grizzly bears, and hunter techniques would be different for hunting elk versus hunting bison, making elk hunters more subject to contact with grizzly bears. Hunter education on species identification for grizzly bears and wolves should be conducted as a mitigating measure to ensure hunters did not kill these species while hunting bison. The impacts on either grizzly bears or wolves as a result of human interactions during bison hunting would be negligible. Bison would be allowed to roam over a large area outside the park (see stippled areas on Alternative 3 map), and the distribution of bison as prey or carcasses would also be larger than all other alternatives except alternative 2. Bison populations would increase nearly as quickly in this alternative (6%) as in alternative 2 (7%), and modeling predicts they would reach 3,500 bison by the year 2006. Implementation of alternative 3 would have negligible impacts on the grizzly bear compared to alternative 2. Compared to the no-action alternative (alternative 1), the bison population would increase quicker, carrion would be more readily available, and grizzly bears and wolves would experience a minor beneficial impact. 273 Environmental consequences The effects of snowmobile trail grooming on grizzly bears would be the same as in alternative 1. Cumulative Impacts The additive effects of actions proposed in alternative 3, including hazing, shooting, and other human disturbances; the ongoing operation of capture facilities at Stephens Creek and possibly in the future in Yankee Jim Canyon; the construction and operation of a quarantine facility; hunting; and displacement impacts from timber sales and development, would not be expected to have more than a minor combined impact on any threatened, endangered, or sensitive species in the study area. Potential acquisition of additional winter range and resulting predicted increases in the number of bison would have a minor beneficial impact on grizzly bears and wolves. There would be potential adverse impacts on grizzly bears from the continued grooming of roads and possible loss of bison from the interior of the park. Bison numbers were much lower before the time that winter grooming began; thus, the effects of discontinuing grooming on park interior bison at their present population would not be known. Conclusion Alternative 3 would have no effect on the bald eagle and peregrine falcon, is not likely to adversely affect the grizzly bear, and is not likely to adversely affect or jeopardize the gray wolf. Although this alternative would allow for public hunting of bison, it would not significantly increase the mortality risk to bears or wolves given the likely number of permits issued, the locations where bison would be present, and the fact that the grizzly bears would be denning during most of the hunting season. Therefore, impacts from hunting would be negligible. However, impacts from increases in the number of bison and the area over which they would range would be a minor benefit to grizzly bears and wolves. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 4 Analysis The impacts of bison management actions proposed as part of alternative 4 (capture and quarantine facilities and associated habitat removal and the hazing, shooting, and other capture and quarantine operations as a disturbing and dislocating force for threatened or endangered wildlife) have been discussed in other alternatives, although the combination of public hunting and quarantine inside the SMAs described in alternative 1 would result in different population estimates discussed below. Bison, and hence carrion, would be removed from the ecosystem in alternative 4 either by quarantine, capture, and slaughter or hunting — the method would not affect the degree of impact on grizzly bears. According to the bison population model, this alternative would result in approximately 2,800 bison by the year 2006, about 250 or 8% lower than in alternative 1. The bison population would run an average 8% to 9% lower than under the model for alternative 1 . As mentioned earlier, the uncertainty in the model estimates might be fairly large due to the deterministic nature of the model. Thus, 8% to 9% would not be biologically different from alternative 1, and thus alternative 4 would have a negligible impact on grizzly bears. In the 15-year life of the management plan, bison population numbers would remain 8%-9% lower than if the no-action alternative was adopted, primarily due to the added influence of hunting. The impacts of a capture facility located near Horse Butte on the bald eagle are described in alternative 1. The impacts of snowmobile grooming on grizzly bears would be the same as in alternative 1, as would be the potential mitigating measures. Cumulative Impacts Alternative 4 would include the combination of quarantine facilities and public hunting in the 274 Impacts on threatened. Endangered, and Sensitive Spet ies future. Under alternative 4, the SMAs would be fairly large but exclude the area west oi the Yellowstone River. There would be negligible cumulative impacts on the bald eagle and no impact on the peregrine falcon by implemen- tation of alternative 4. Implementation of this alternative would have a negligible to minor adverse impact on grizzly bears and wolves Conclusion Alternative 4, in combination with other known impacts on threatened and endangered species, would have no effect on the bald eagle (with mitigation, if needed) and peregrine falcon, is not likely to adversely affect the grizzly bear, and is not likely to adversely affect or jeopardize the gray wolf. Although this alternative would allow public hunting of bison, it would not significantly increase the mortality risk to bears or wolves given the likely number of permits issued, the locations where bison would be present, and the fact that the grizzly bears would be denning during most of the hunting season. Impacts on grizzly bears and wolves from human interactions as a result of hunting would be negligible. Hunter education on species identification for grizzly bears and wolves should be conducted as a mitigating measure to ensure hunters did not kill these species while hunting bison. The effect on grizzly bears from the slightly smaller bison population would be negligible. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 5 Analysis Alternative 5 would differ from alternative 1 in that the capture facilities would be located throughout the park and bison would not be tolerated outside the park. The construction and operation of nine capture facilities at several locations would affect threatened and endangered species' habitat directly by removing acreage from potential habitat, and indirectly by disturbance and displacement due to management activities. However, capture operations would be heaviest at a time of year when grizzly bears are denning and would not be disturbed. There could be potential problems for other species of concern depending on exact facility location. Any proposed capture facility in the vicinity of Madison River would have the potential to directly affect wintering bald eagles through disturbance. The primary impact on grizzly bears and wolves in this alternative would be the reduction in the number of bison these species would have available as food. Bison would not be allowed to roam outside the park, and an aggressive park- wide capture and slaughter program to control brucellosis would significantly decrease the number of bison available as prey or carcasses for grizzly bears or wolves. Modeling alternative 5 showed a bison population of approximately 1,300 in the year 2000, a bison population of 1,982 in 2006, and a population of 3,188 in 201 1. The initial decrease in bison numbers for the first 10 years of implementation of the alternative would have the bison population at approximately 50%-65% of what it is modeled to be under alternative 1 (no action). In the year 201 1 the bison population would reach approximately 85% of the population modeled under alternative 1. In the first 10 years or more bison numbers would be substantially lower than under the no-action alternative and would biologically important with potential moderate to major negative impacts on the grizzly bear, even given the limitations of the model to deal with stochastic events such as weather. Although some roads would be plowed to transport bison under this alternative, the effects of snowmobile grooming and road plowing would be similar on bison movements; therefore, this alternative would have the same general effect on grizzly bears as alternative 1 in promoting efficient travel for bison to the park boundaries where they would be removed from the system. However, alternative 5 would also result in major decreases in the bison population, 275 Environmental consequences which would have an added effect on the carrion supply available to grizzly bears. The combi- nation of these factors would likely have a moderate to major adverse impact on grizzly bears, particularly those in the park's interior. It would also have a moderate to major adverse impact on wolves. Cumulative Impacts The additive effects of actions proposed in alternative 5, including capture, shooting, and other human disturbances, and the expected losses of bison resulting from these actions combined with displacement impacts from timber sales and development, would be expected to have a negligible effect on the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and gray wolf. The proposed capture facility at Seven-Mile Bridge would have the potential to directly affect wintering bald eagles and a nesting pair of bald eagles through disturbance. This would be a major adverse effect. The grizzly bear would experience a moderate to major adverse impact from this alternative due to a rapid decrease in bison numbers projected and the reduced area where bison were allowed to roam (park only). Conclusion Alternative 5, in combination with other known impacts on threatened and endangered species, would have no effect on the peregrine falcon, may affect the grizzly bear, and is not likely to adversely affect or jeopardize the gray wolf. The grizzly bear would experience a moderate to major adverse impact from this alternative. This alternative would have a major adverse impact on one pair of bald eagles that nest near the Seven-Mile Bridge if the potential capture facility was constructed at this site and also would have an impact on other eagles that winter in this area. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 6 Analysis Alternative 6 would differ from alternative 1 in that a capture facility would be located at Seven- Mile Bridge within the park rather than outside the park at West Yellowstone. The capture facility at Stephens Creek would remain the same. There would also be a quarantine facility, public hunting (as in alternative 3 ), and bison would not allowed outside the park except in the Eagle Creek area. The impacts of capture facilities on grizzly bears and wolves have been discussed in other alter- natives. They could affect these species directly by removing acreage from potential habitat and indirectly by disturbing and displacing indi- vidual species from management activities such as hazing, shooting, and other operations. The facility at Stephens Creek and the facility proposed for the Seven-Mile Bridge area would be most heavily used during a time of year when grizzly bears were denning and would not be disturbed. Wolves could be displaced from either area. The impacts on either species would be negligible. The capture facility at Seven-Mile Bridge in alternative 6 would have the potential to directly affect wintering bald eagles through disturbance. This facility, located at the bridge, would have a major adverse impact on one pair of nesting bald eagles and other bald eagles that winter in this area (McEneany, pers. comm.). Unlike other alternatives, the capture facility at Seven-Mile Bridge in alternative 6 would have the potential to directly affect trumpeter swans. This species is one of concern in the park, a class 2 species of special concern for the state of Wyoming, and considered a sensitive species by neighboring national forests. The Seven-Mile Bridge location is an important area year-round for a breeding pair of trumpeter swans, who occupy slow-moving water of the Madison River (crossed by Seven-Mile Bridge). This pair is one of only four attempting to breed inside the park. The park has closed the area during breeding 276 season for a quarter-mile around the nest to prevent human disturbance. Habitat along the Madison River near the area where this pair breeds supports up to about 1 10 trumpeter swans during migration. It would be unlikely that a capture facility could be built and operated without disturbing some migrating birds and the nesting pair. This alternative would include aggressive brucellosis management actions, but numbers of bison would not fall as quickly as alternative 5, since capture and slaughter would not begin until vaccination has had its maximum effect on the bison population. Bison would also be restricted to the park and the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area and Horse Butte (in West Yellowstone). The model predicts that there would be approxi- mately 3,100 bison by the year 2006 and 3,500 by the year 2010. The model used to predict population was run using two different vaccine efficacy rates, and the resulting numbers differed depending on which rate was assumed. Bison numbers increases until the year 2010, when capture and slaughter of all remaining sero- positive bison began. A large drop occurred and was followed by growth at the intrinsic rate of increase (about 8%) when brucellosis was eradicated. Under the two vaccine efficacy rates, the bison population declined in the year 201 1 and dropped to an estimated 79 to 82% of what it was under alternative 1. The bison population increased again after 201 1 , and in 201 5 was between approximately 2,900 and 3,500 depending on the vaccine efficacy. Up until 201 1, this alternative was modeled to be almost exactly the same as alternative 1. Because of the assumptions inherent in the model and the inability to account for stochastic events such as weather, it was predicted that alternative 6 would have a negligible impact on grizzly bears. Some roads would be plowed under this alter- native, but the effects of snowmobile grooming and road plowing on bison movements would be similar, and therefore this alternative would not change winter bison movements (see alternative 1) from those that currently exist. Impacts on Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Spa ies Cumulative Impacts The additive effects of actions proposed in alternative 6, including capture, shooting, and other human disturbances, and the expected losses of bison resulting from these actions combined with potential displacement impacts from timber sales and development, would be expected to have a negligible impact on any threatened, endangered, or sensitive species in the study area except for the bald eagle. The capture facility at Seven-Mile Bridge in alternative 6 would have the potential to directly affect wintering bald eagles and a nesting pair of bald eagles through disturbance. This would be a major adverse affect. Conclusion Alternative 6, in combination with other known impacts on threatened and endangered species. would have no impact on the peregrine falcon, is not likely to adversely affect the grizzly bear, and is not likely to adversely affect or jeopardize the gray wolf. The numbers of bison and distribution are not very different from alter- native 1 ; therefore, this alternative would be expected to have a negligible impact on grizzly bears. This alternative would have a major adverse impact on one pair of bald eagles that nest near the Seven-Mile Bridge and would have an impact on other eagles that winter in this area. Alternative 6 would have the potential to have a major impact on one breeding pair of trumpeter swans and a minor to moderate impact on other trumpeter swans, a species of concern in the park and a sensitive species in neighboring national forests, that use the area around Seven- Mile Bridge where a capture facility is proposed. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 7: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Analysis Alternative 7, the agency preferred alternative, would differ from the other alternatives in that it 277 Environmental consequences would attempt to hold the bison population between 1,700 and 2,500. Differences in management would occur as the population approached either end of the range with more lethal controls employed outside the park as the population approached 2,500 and less lethal means as the population approached 1 ,700 animals. Bison numbers would be held to an upper limit of approximately 2,500 animals rather than the 3,500 animals in the other alternatives; however, removal actions would only occur outside the park, thus potentially allowing the population to exceed 2,500 if bison remained in the park. Alternative 7 would include three capture facilities, a quarantine facility, public hunting, and the potential acquisition of additional winter range north of the park's Reese Creek boundary. Hazing and shooting would occur at or near SMA boundaries. As described in other alter- natives, the construction, operation, and maintenance of capture and quarantine facilities would affect threatened and endangered habitat directly by removing acreage from potential habitat, and would indirectly affect threatened and endangered species by disturbance and displacement due to management activities, including hazing, shooting, and other operations. The impacts of a capture facility near Horse Butte on the bald eagle and potential mitigating measures needed to avoid negative impacts are described in alternative 1 . Although capture facilities would only operate during the winter or early spring, quarantine facilities would operate year-round. The effects on threatened or endangered species of the capture facilities, hazing, and shooting would be short term, while the effects of the quarantine facility would likely be long term. The location of the quarantine facility has not been determined and would undergo additional analysis if located on public land, with necessary surveys and mitigation in compliance with the Endangered Species Act if this alternative was selected. Thus, the impact of quarantine facilities on species of special concern should be negligible. Public hunting would be allowed under this alternative if approved by the Montana Legislature. Bison would be hunted on public land outside the park. Hunting would have the potential to disturb and displace grizzly bears and gray wolves. Although most of the hunting would occur when grizzly bears were in their dens, bears might be out of their dens in the fall when hunting commences. During this period the potential for contacts between hunters and grizzly bears would exist with a result in an increased bear mortality risk. However, compared with the regular season elk, the risk that bison hunters and grizzly bears would come into contact with one another would be fairly low. This would be because many more elk permits would be issued than the proposed number of bison permits, elk would more often be found in habitats used by grizzlies, and hunter techniques would be different for elk and bison. Wolves might also experience a minor increase in the risk of mortality from hunters in the area. Hunter education on species identification for grizzly bears and wolves should be conducted as a mitigating measure to ensure that hunters did not kill these species while hunting bison. The impacts on either grizzly bears or wolves as a result of human interactions during bison hunting would be expected to be minor. Mitigating measures requiring agencies to remove bison viscera and remains from the areas on the national forest where bears might occur after March 1 would be required. This would reduce the potential impact of grizzly-human conflicts to negligible. Under alternative 7, the bison population was modeled to increase fairly rapidly to 2,705 animals (by the year 2003) and remain at this level due to the management actions employed in this alternative. In the year 2006, alternative 7 has an estimated 88% of the bison population predicted by the model for alternative 1 . In the year 201 1, alternative 7 has an estimated 77% of the bison in alternative 1 . The bison population might exceed 2,500 under alternative 7 because if bison stayed within the park boundaries, no bison management actions would be proposed (except for use of the Reese Creek capture facility in the short term). Because of the 278 Impacts on Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Spt assumptions inherent in the model and the inability to aceount for stochastic events such as weather, alternative 7 would not be biologically different from alternative 1, and therefore would have a negligible impact on grizzly bears. In addition, the segments of the bear population that would be of concern in relation to losing their spring food supply would be the bears that denned in the vicinity of Pelican and Hayden Valleys. As long as bison continued to winter and die in these areas in the interior of the park, the impact on grizzly bears would be negligible. There has been concern that all bison would exit the interior of the park, and no bison or bison carrion would be left for grizzly bears emerging in the spring in these areas. Conditions that would cause this to occur would be unknown. Bison populations and movements relative to the park's interior, especially Pelican and Hayden Valleys, should be monitored to attempt to determine how many bison would be left in the park's interior each winter. If insufficient numbers of bison were deemed to be remaining in the interior, mitigation should be considered. In conclusion, alternative 7 would have a negligible impact on grizzly bears. Cumulative Impacts The additive effects of actions proposed under this alternative, including hazing, shooting, and other human disturbances related to bison management, the construction and operation of three capture facilities and one quarantine facility, and public bison hunting, would not likely have more than a negligible impact on grizzly bears. This would be because grizzly bears were denning during the period of much of the bison management activity with a possibility for some overlap in fall and March when bears were not in dens. Mitigating measures in the form of bison viscera removal on the national forest after March 1 to reduce the potential for conflict with grizzly bears in and near areas of human habitation and use, and hunter education for bison hunters to also help avoid bear-human conflict would enable these activities to have a negligible impact on grizzly bears. Gray wolves might experience a negligible effect due to the slightly reduced potential availability of bison carrion under this alternative. Activities related to bison management might have some temporary disturbance and displacement effects on wolves. As a measure, hunter education for bison hunters on the identification of grizzly bears and wolves would mitigate the potential misidentification by bison hunters and reduce the risk of mortality during the bison hunting season. The construction of a new capture facility in the Hebgen Lake area of West Yellowstone would have the potential to affect the bald eagle. Mitigating measures for the bald eagle would be needed to ensure that this alternative would have no impact on this species. Measures currently in place to avoid disturbance to bald eagles during bison hazing or removal operations would continue. These would include (1) no bison removal activity that would disturb bald eagles would be permitted within 1/4 mile of any active bald eagle nest from February 1 through May 1 5 (after which time bison have not been allowed in this area), and (2) activities associated with bison management within 1/4 mile of open water of the south Fork of the Madison River and the Madison River and Madison Arm of Hebgen Lake would be limited to 10:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. If one or more bison capture facilities were proposed, the site-specific impacts of these facilities on bald eagles would have to be analyzed, and mitigating measures would be applied if needed. Because of these measures, the impacts on bald eagles would be negligible. Trumpeter swan numbers have been decreasing in the Greater Yellowstone Area over the past several years. Inside the park, only 21 adults were counted in spring 1997 (NPS, McEneany, pers. comm., May 30, 1997). Although the reasons for the decline are unknown, it is speculated that snowmobiling and loss of habitat in the Yellowstone region might be a contributor. 279 Environmental consequences Conclusion Alternative 7 would have no effect on the peregrine falcon and negligible impacts on the bald eagle with required mitigating measures. Alternative 7 would have a negligible effect on the gray wolf but is not likely to adversely affect or jeopardize this species. Alternative 7 would have negligible effects on the grizzly bear from the displacement and disturbance caused by bison management activities, and from the potential availability of slightly less bison carrion under this alternative than alternative 1 . However, based on modeling and comparison of alternatives above, alternative 7 is not likely to adversely affect the grizzly bear because the bison population and potential amount of bison carrion available under this alternative was not believed to be measurably different from that available under alternative 1 given the inherent natural variability in populations and mortality. If one could model the natural variability in the bison population and carrion on an annual basis, the bison numbers under all alternatives except alternative 5 would be very likely to overlap, meaning that no real or measurable difference would exist among the effects of these alternatives. Public hunting would not significantly increase the mortality risk to bears or wolves given the likely number of bison permits issued, the locations where bison would be present, and the fact that the grizzly bears would be denning during most of the hunting season. The impact of hunting on grizzly bears and wolves as a result of human contact would be minor. Hunting education on species identification for grizzly bears and wolves should be conducted as a mitigating measure to ensure that hunters did not kill these species while hunting bison. IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES There would be no irreversible (long-term or permanent) commitments of resources for any of the alternatives. There would be some irretrievable (short-term or reversible) commitments of resources under several alternatives. Implementation of alternative 5 might have a moderate to major adverse impact on the grizzly bear. This would be because the bison numbers would be low during the first 10 years of implementation and would climb slowly. The initial decrease in bison numbers and slow increase for the first 10 years of implementation of the alternative would have the bison population at approximately 50%-65% of what it was modeled to be under alternative 1 (the no- action alternative). In the year 201 1 the bison population would reach approximately 85% of the population modeled under alternative 1. In the first 10 years or more bison numbers would likely be substantially lower than under alternative 1, and this difference between alternatives 5 and 1 would likely be biologically important, even given the limitations of the model to deal with stochastic events such as weather. Planned management activities would significantly lower bison population numbers. This would be most important if bison numbers and distributions declined and/or altered to the point that few bison would no longer winter (and die) in the interior of the park, particularly in Pelican and Hayden Valleys. This would affect bears that depended on bison carcasses in the spring when they emerged from their dens. Mitigating measures for bald eagles, wolverine, and lynx would prevent the irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources as related to these species. Wolverine and lynx have the most potential to be affected by alternative 2 in which snowmobile use would decrease in the national park and likely increase in the national forest. Bald eagles that nest and winter in the vicinity of the Seven-Mile Bridge would suffer a major negative impact under alternatives 5 and 6. Operation of a capture facility in the Seven-Mile Bridge area (alternative 6) would likely result in the loss of at least one breeding pair of trumpeter swans. 280 Sensitive plant surveys prior to facility location would ensure that sensitive plants would not be affected. LOSS IN LONG-TERM AVAILABILITY OR PRODUCTIVITY OF THE RESOURCE TO ACHIEVE SHORT-TERM GAIN Under alternative 5 grizzly bear productivity could be affected in the long term. Under alternatives 5 and 6 the loss of productivity of one pair of nesting bald eagles would occur, and bald eagles wintering in the Seven-Mile Bridge area would also be negatively affected. Loss of a breeding pair of trumpeter swans at Seven-Mile Bridge (alternative 6) and the creation of an area unsuitable for nesting could contribute to a decline in the overall productivity of the local swan population in the long term. Impacts on Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Spei ies Implementation of mitigating measures, where needed, would ensure no loss in long-term availability or productivity of other threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Under alternative 5, there may be unavoidable adverse impacts on the grizzly bears. Under alternatives 5 and 6, the only possible location for the Seven-Mile Bridge capture facility would have an impact on nesting and wintering bald eagles. Operation of a capture facility at Seven-Mile Bridge (alternative 6) would result in a major adverse impact on at least one pair of breeding trumpeter swans, and could have a moderate adverse impact on the local swan population by removing several acres from availability for nesting sites. 281 IMPACTS ON OTHER WILDLIFE SPECIES SUMMARY OF REGULATIONS AND POLICIES Several planning and policy documents, including the Yellowstone National Park Master Plan (NPS 1 974), the Yellowstone National Park Statement for Management (NPS 1991 ), and the National Park Serx'ice Management Policies (NPS 1988) require the protection of ecological processes and native species in a relatively undisturbed setting, and require that park planning be accomplished in a regional context. The goals outlined in the Resource Management Plan (NPS 1995) are to "preserve the natural and cultural resources of Yellowstone and to allow natural process and interactions between resources to occur with a minimum of human influence." The wildlife-related goals of the Gallatin National Forest as stated in the Gallatin National Forest Plan (1987) include the following: (1) provide habitat for viable populations of all indigenous wildlife species and for increasing populations of big game animals, (2) provide sufficient habitat for recovered populations of threatened and endangered species, and (3) strive to prevent any human-caused grizzly bear losses. The U.S. Forest Service is a multiple use agency, and in the area closest to the park that lies in the grizzly bear recovery zone, the Forest Plan allows for resource use (e.g., timber harvest, recreation) compatible with the recovery of the grizzly bear. METHODOLOGIES FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS The method used to identify impacts on other wildlife species was to initially identify which species might occupy habitat in areas where bison management activities might occur or otherwise be affected by them. A review of the available literature was conducted, to determine whether the ecological niche of bison might overlap with these species as well. This includes food choices as well as the geographical area each species occupies. Potential effects were then analyzed based on information obtained from the literature review and from accumulated knowledge about the particular species and the location and nature of bison management activities. Impacts are assessed qualitatively, due to a lack of quantitative data and quantitative methods for predicting effects. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES Elk Hazing activities directed at moving bison into capture facilities or inside the SMA boundary might disturb and displace elk using those areas. Displacement and disturbance could increase energy expenditures and result in increased chance of mortality for some individual elk. Hazing would likely be infrequent, however, and displacement and stress would be local and temporary and would have only minor effects on the elk population. Shooting activities to control bison in boundary areas would likely have the same effect on elk as hazing. Although elk and bison share habitat and eat similar foods, these species do not have to compete for either in the analysis area (Singer and Norland 1994). Therefore, increases or decreases in bison population numbers would not expected to affect elk through competition for food or habitat. Pronghorn Pronghorn winter range in the analysis area is limited, and is restricted to approximately 7,000 acres, 75% of which is within the park. This area is located between Mammoth Hot Springs and Cinnabar Mountain, with the core use area in the open grasslands near the Stephens Creek area. A bison capture facility currently exists at Stephens 282 Impacts on Other Wildlife Spi Creek, and would continue to operate in all alternatives (for the short term only in alternatives 3 and 7) except alternative 2. The facility occupies 1 3 acres of this core use area, and removes it from winter range available to the pronghorn. Hazing and shooting activities to manage bison in this area might have also had an adverse effect on the herd. Pronghorn could be particularly vulnerable to stress caused by human distur- bance (Autenrieth 1983), and observations made during bison captures and associated activities in the winter of 1996-97 indicated that pronghorn were displaced from the area extending at least Vz mile outward from the Stephens Creek capture facility (Caslick and Caslick 1997). In addition to displacement, hazing and shooting activities could increase energy expenditures and could result in increased risk of mortality of some individuals. Because of the small size and vulnerability of this population, the loss of a few individuals could have moderate to major impacts on the population as a whole. Hazing and shooting activities in areas other than the Gardiner Valley/Stephens Creek area would be expected to have minimal impact, if any, on pronghorn. Yellowstone bison and pronghorn are separated by habitat selection, food habits, snow tolerance, and seasonal distribution. Therefore, increases or decreases in the number of bison would not be expected to affect pronghorn through competition for food or habitat. Deer Hazing and shooting activities would have a similar effect on deer as that described for elk. Fewer deer than elk would likely be affected, due to lower numbers of deer in the area and different distribution of deer on the winter range. Although bison and mule deer experience some degree of overlap in habitat use, there appears to be little or no competition between these two species because of differing diet preferences (Singer and Norland 1994). Competition may also be precluded by seasonal distribution differences and by the limited ability of deer to deal with deep snow. Bison and white-tailed deer also appear to avoid competition through food choices. Therefore, no impacts on deer from increases or decreases in bison population sizes would be expected. Bighorn Sheep Hazing and shooting activities could temporarily affect a small number of sheep in the vicinity of those activities. Hazing and shooting activities would likely be very infrequent in areas used by bighorn sheep and would not have any effect on the population. While there has been some increase in habitat overlap between bighorn sheep and bison in recent years (Singer and Norland 1994), the two species are separated ecologically by differences in distribution, diet, and tolerance of snow. During spring, bison increasingly select habitats with characteristics important to bighorn sheep, but there does not appear to be appreciable overlap or competition for the use of those areas from bison. Therefore, increases or decreases in the bison population size would not be expected to affect bighorn sheep through competition for food or habitat. Moose Hazing and shooting activities would be expected to have no detectable impact on the moose population. A few moose in the West Yellowstone area might be temporarily displaced by activities in that area. Moose tend to use riparian habitats, and are not likely to compete with bison for forage or habitat. Increases or decreases in the bison population size would not be expected to have an impact on moose through competition for either forage or habitat. 283 Environmental consequences One study (Forbes et al. 1996) has indicated that infection with Brucella abortus might be fatal to moose, while another study (Zarnke 1983) suggested that brucellosis might not be a threat to moose. Because only small numbers of moose inhabit the analysis area and they do not occupy the same habitat as bison, and because bison in the area might have few or no brucellosis-related abortions (the route of disease transmission in other ungulates), the risk of transmission would be remote (e.g., less than negligible). In addition, in all alternatives, vaccination would be used to reduce seroprevalence rates in bison. Vacci- nation would accomplish this in part by further reducing abortions and therefore reducing the amount of bacteria available in the environment. The selection of any alternative analyzed in this environmental impact statement would therefore further reduce the risk of transmission to moose. Predators and Scavengers Hazing activities directed at moving bison into capture facilities or inside the SMA boundary might disturb and displace predator and scavenger species using those areas. Hazing would likely be infrequent, however, and displacement and stress would be local and temporary and have only minor effects on those populations. Shooting activities could provide an additional food source (gut piles) for scavengers in areas where such food was not previously available. However, this would not likely represent a significant addition to the food supply for these animals, and therefore would not have more than a negligible impact on scavenger populations. Measures requiring removal of gut piles or carcasses from areas near human habitation might prevent conflicts between humans and scavengers using the additional food source. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION Analysis Ungulates. Elk and other ungulates could be captured unintentionally in temporary enclosures designed to hold bison. Some animals might be unable to escape the enclosures on their own. Animals unable to escape would be separated from the bison and released. Although unlikely, bison could physically injure other ungulates that are captured with bison in the capture facilities. The additional stress might affect individual ungulates, but this should not significantly affect ungulate populations using winter range in the Stephens Creek and West Yellowstone areas. Capture operations and associated capture facilities and wing fences would occur on critical pronghorn winter range in the Stephens Creek area. Pronghorn winter range is restricted to approximately 7,000 (7,168) acres (Houston 1982) in south end of the Gardiner Valley, west of the Yellowstone River. Wing fences and increased human activity might cause displace- ment of pronghorn from a portion of their winter range, and increase stress on animals. Caslick and Caslick (1997) reported that pronghorn avoided the area within about xh mile of the Stephens Creek facility when bison management activities were occurring during the winter of 1996-97. They also reported that the center of pronghorn activity apparently shifted away from the Stephens Creek service road junction with the County Road, possibly in response to increased traffic associated with bison manage- ment activities. At least one adult pronghorn was killed by a coyote along the wing fence (Caslick and Caslick 1997). The wing fence design included a 24-inch gap under the bottom wire to facilitate pronghorn movement, but presence of the fence in a previously open area might have 284 Impacts on Other Wildlife Species confused pronghorn, which rely on rapid flight over long distances to escape predators. Species Associated with Bison Grazing and Behavior. Habitat disturbances such as tree rubbing, trails, and wallowing occur in certain locations favored by bison, and would likely be unaffected by all but the most dramatic reductions of bison numbers (NPS, Meagher 1973). Therefore, species associated with these features would not be affected by this alternative. Predators and Scavengers. Some bison that might otherwise have died within the park would be removed through capture and shipment to slaughter in this alternative. This removal should be of great enough magnitude to affect the food supply of scavengers. Impacts Associated with Snowmobiling. Currently, some segments of road inside the park are groomed during the winter, and are used by winter recreationists including snowmobilers. The use of snowmobiles likely affects a wide range of wildlife species, including big game, furbearers, and small mammals. In general, snowmobiling is believed to lead to displace- ment and increased energetic costs of wildlife (Caslick and Caslick 1997). Winter recreation can result in harvest, habitat modification, pollution, and disturbance. These results have a number of potential impacts on wildlife species, including altered behavior, altered vigor, altered productivity, or death in the long term. The abundance, distribution, and demographics of populations could be affected, and this could result in a change in species composition and interactions among species (Knight and Cole 1995, 52). These could include alteration of wildlife movement or displacement from normal wintering areas and higher energy costs for stressed wildlife, potentially resulting in decreased production of young, and occasionally, in the case of snowmobile/wildlife collisions, direct mortality. Use of snowmobiles in thermal areas, which are of great value to wintering wildlife, would be of special concern inside the park (Caslick and Caslick 1997). Grooming for snowmobiles, which compacts the snow, can benefit wildlife species that use these groomed trails for energy-efficient travel (Aune 1981). The presence of groomed (compacted > trails also allows species to venture into areas where they do not normally winter (Copeland 1996). This might result in adverse impacts when it allows generalist predators, such as coyotes and bobcats, to enter the winter foraging areas of specialized predators such as the lynx. The extent to which animals other than bison use groomed snowmobile roads within the park to facilitate movement in winter is not well known. The degree of impact is also unknown. Cumulative Impacts Human development of winter range adjacent to the Yellowstone National Park boundary, in combination with increased human activity both inside and outside the park could be causing increased disturbance and displacement of elk, mule deer, and bighorn sheep from important habitat. These activities would occur on winter range that would be critical for the pronghorn population. The current pronghorn population of approximately 220 animals is considered to be at an unacceptably high risk of extinction due to chance events such as weather, predation, and disease (Goodman 1996). Winter range available to pronghorn is limited in size and could be of suboptimal quality due in part to invasion by normative vegetation into the Stephens Creek area. Predation by coyotes might be causing a very low level of fawn survival, and might also be affecting adult survival. Hunting would remove a small but possibly significant number of pronghorn from the population annually. These factors, in combination with disturbance and displacement resulting from the presence and operation of the Stephens Creek capture facility, could result in a cumulative adverse impact, particularly for pronghorn. There would be no actions proposed or now being taken that might mitigate the impacts of the capture facility. The impact of coyote predation on the pronghorn population would be unknown; therefore, the potential effect of 285 Environmental consequences coyote control would also be unknown. Currently, only five permits are offered for pronghorn in the hunting district adjacent to Yellowstone National Park, in part because of concern over the low population size. The potential effect of ceasing the hunt altogether would be unknown except that 2-10 additional pronghorn might survive in the population each year. Ceasing the hunt would require action on the part of the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Rehabilitation of habitat on the winter range could provide some benefit, the degree of which is unknown, but plans to do so have not been fully developed. Purchase or easement of additional winter range that would expand the area currently available to pronghorn might mitigate the effects of the capture facility at Stephens Creek. Conclusion The impacts of hazing and capture operations on elk, bighorn sheep, mule deer, and moose would likely be negligible. Operation of the capture facility at Stephens Creek could potentially contribute to a moderate to major decrease in the pronghorn population, through displacement of pronghorn from a portion of critical and limited winter range, through creation of a barrier to movement (wing fences), and through disturbance-related increases in energy expenditure during the critical winter period. Impacts on wildlife from the continuation of snowmobile use would not be well known, but would likely be minor as it would be confined to groomed trails. Wildlife would tend to habituate to snowmobile traffic and would use packed snowmobile routes for energy-efficient travel. No impacts on predators, scavengers, or other species associated with bison grazing and behavior from increases or decreases in bison population size would be expected as a result of this alternative. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 Analysis Ungulates. The presence and operation of a capture facility at Stephens Creek during the first phase of this alternative would have impacts similar to those described under alternative 1 , although they could be less severe because they would be of shorter duration (five years compared to 15 years). Acquisition of additional winter range in the Gardiner Valley under this alternative would make more winter habitat available to elk, mule deer, and, to a lesser extent, bighorn sheep, and might result in a negligible or minor increase in the population size of these ungulates. Acquisition of access to winter range in the Gardiner Valley would also make more winter habitat available to pronghorn. Although some pronghorn currently use private lands north of the park boundary, a hunt has been conducted for the past 10 years on those lands. The purpose of the hunt has been to remove, through hunting and associated displacement, pronghorn from agricultural land in that area. Acquisition of additional winter range in the north boundary area could remove the need for the hunt, and could lead to a moderate, or possibly major, increase in the population. Increased bison distribution and numbers outside the park under this alternative would not likely affect other ungulate species. Singer and Norland (1994) indicated that at bison popula- tion levels at or higher than that anticipated under this alternative, no competitive effects would be detectable in other ungulate species. Species Associated with Bison Grazing and Behavior. Habitat disturbances such as tree rubbing, trails, and wallowing occur in certain locations favored by bison and would likely be unaffected by all but the most dramatic reductions or increases of bison numbers (NPS, Meagher 1973). Therefore, species associated with these features would not be affected by this alternative. 286 Impacts on Oilier Wildlife Species Predators and Scavengers. Increased distri- bution of bison outside Yellowstone National Park might result in increased distribution of carcasses, providing food for scavengers in areas where this food source was not previously available. This would have the potential to create both positive and negative impacts on certain scavenger species. The additional food source would be beneficial but could be offset by bringing those scavengers, particularly bears and coyotes, into conflict with humans. Measures requiring removal of gut piles or carcasses from areas near human habitation might mitigate these effects. Impacts Associated with Snowmobiling. In this alternative, roads currently groomed and used by snowmobiles in the winter might be closed to help keep bison from easily migrating outside the park. The cessation of winter road grooming from the west entrance under alter- native 2 would have the effect of discontinuing snowmobile use from West Yellowstone into the park, and displacing it onto adjacent public lands outside the park. On the Gallatin National Forest, many parts of the forest, excluding wilderness areas and generally big game winter ranges, would be open to snowmobiling on or off groomed routes. The technology of snowmobiles has improved to the point that the machines are capable of going up very steep slopes and entering areas of the forest where they have not been able to travel in the past. As more snowmachines used the national forest and entered areas away from roads and trails, some species of wildlife would have the potential to be affected, and the effects could potentially be major as snowmobile use increased in areas where it had either not occurred or occurred in small amounts in the past. Where snowmobiles were permitted over a wide- ranging area in and near big game winter ranges, as they were in the Gallatin National Forest, potentially major impacts on already stressed ungulates in the form of increased energy expenditures could occur (Caslick 1997). Predators that normally feed on these ungulates would also suffer adverse impacts from displacement. Extensive literature is now available on the effects of various forms of wintei recreation on wildlife. In general. snowmobiling could lead to displacement and increased energetic costs of wildlife (Caslick and Caslick 1997). The cessation of snowmobile grooming and snowmobile activity in the park would probably have some beneficial effects on wildlife in the park, such as reducing displacement away from groomed roads and snowmobile activity. It might also change the way in which wildlife move within the park in the winter, or at least cause animal movement to be less energy-efficient. Grooming for snowmobiles, which compacts the snow, could benefit wildlife species that use these groomed trails for energy-efficient travel ( Aune 1 98 1 ). The presence of groomed (compacted) trails would allow species to venture into areas where they did not normally winter (Copeland 1996). However, it might also have major adverse impacts through competition with specialized predators such as lynx when it would allow generalized predators such as coyotes and bobcats to enter their winter foraging areas. The extent to which animals other than bison would use groomed snowmobile roads within the park to facilitate movement in winter would be unknown. It would be likely that many species use them, and these animals would find those movements restricted by closure of roads to grooming and snowmobiling. Restricted movement could result in increased cost of movement between foraging areas and consequently decreased survival and reproduction. Conversely, the removal of a major disturbance and displacement factor (snowmobiles) could benefit some species by reducing stress and associated energy expendi- ture. Although the degree of impact would vary among species, restricting travel and removing snowmobiles could generally be offsetting to park wildlife. Without mitigation, impacts of increased snow- mobile uses on wildlife on the national forest would be moderately negative. With mitigation, 287 Environmental consequences such as confining snowmobile use to existing trails, these impacts might be reduced to minor, although the degree of impact would be unknown. Specifically, snowmobiles may be restricted in big game habitat or other wildlife habitat during critical times of the year, such as when winters were particularly harsh or food supplies were low. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts would be expected to be similar in the first phase of this alternative to those described under alternative 1 , but less severe because the presence and operation of a capture facility at Stephens Creek was assumed to last about five years until 2002 and not 15 years as under alternative 1. Acquisition of winter habitat in the Gardiner Valley could offset the negative impacts of human development and increased human activity. Although more than one factor has likely contributed to the decline in the pronghorn population, availability of more winter range might help offset some of those influences. Conclusion During phase 1 of this alternative, the presence and operation of a capture facility at Stephens Creek might result in a moderate adverse impact on the pronghorn population through displace- ment of pronghorn from portions of critical winter habitat and creation of a barrier to movement (wing fences) in the midst of critical winter habitat. Acquisition of additional winter range in the Gardiner Valley might slightly increase popula- tions of elk and mule deer, by increasing the amount of winter forage available and reducing stress associated with current displacement from those areas. Acquisition of winter range in the Gardiner Valley could contribute to at least a moderate and possibly a major increase in the pronghorn population, by greatly expanding the limited winter range available to them. The degree of impact on wildlife of displaced snowmobile use to public lands outside the park would be unknown, but would likely be more adverse than under existing conditions as snowmobiles would not be restricted to trails outside the park. No impacts on predators, scavengers, or other species associated with bison grazing and behavior from increases or decreases in bison population size would be expected under this alternative. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 3 Analysis Ungulates. Operation of capture facilities during the first phase of this alternative would have the same impacts as those described for alternative 1. Movement of the capture facility out of the Stephens Creek area in phase two of this alternative would likely have a beneficial effect on the pronghorn population, by allowing them to again use that part of their winter range and by removing disturbances associated with operation of the facility. Acquisition of additional winter range would have impacts similar to those described for alternative 2. The beneficial effects of habitat acquisition might be slightly offset for all ungulate species by bison hunting activities conducted within the acquired area. Hunting might create temporary and localized displace- ment or stress of individuals or small groups of elk, bighorn sheep, mule deer, and pronghorn. Species Associated with Bison Grazing and Behavior. Habitat disturbances such as tree rubbing, trails, and wallowing would occur in certain locations favored by bison and would likely be unaffected by all but the most dramatic reductions or increases in bison numbers (NPS, Meagher 1973). Therefore, species associated with these features would not be affected by this alternative. Predators and Scavengers. Viscera associated with hunting in the acquired area, in addition to winter-killed carcasses distributed over a larger area, could draw scavenger species, such as 288 Impacts en Other Wildlife Sp> coyotes and bears, into the area and potentially into conflict with humans. Measures requiring removal of viscera or carcasses from areas near human habitation might mitigate these effects. Impacts Associated with Snowmobiling. No changes in existing winter road grooming would be anticipated in this alternative. Bison movements along groomed trails would be monitored, and options for restricting bison movement through blocking or closing roads researched. Any closures resulting from amendments to the park's winter use plan that restrict bison movement might also restrict the movement of other wildlife species, and research on bison movement would continue. Otherwise, impacts on wildlife from snowmobiling would be similar to those described in alternative 1 . Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts would be expected to be the same as those described under alternative 1 in the short term, and the same as those described under alternative 2 in the long term. use would be unknown, but would likely be minor as it was confined to groomed trails. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 4 Analysis Ungulates. Operation of capture facilities under this alternative would have the same impacts as those described under alternative 1 . Hunting activities conducted under this alternative would likely have little to no effect on other ungulate species because hunting would be limited to areas in which extensive elk hunting already occurred. Bison hunting would not be conducted within pronghorn winter range. Species Associated with Bison Grazing and Behavior. Habitat disturbances such as tree nibbing, trails, and wallowing occur in certain locations favored by bison, and would likely be unaffected by all but the most dramatic reductions or increases of bison numbers (NPS, Meagher 1973). Therefore, species associated with these features would not be affected by this alternative. Conclusion The impacts of hazing and capture operations on elk, pronghorn, mule deer, and moose would not be major. During the period in which the capture facility at Stephens Creek was in operation, there would be the potential for a moderate to major impact on the pronghorn population through their displacement from portions of critical winter habitat and creation of a barrier to movement (wing fences) in the midst of critical winter habitat. Acquisition of wildlife habitat in the Gardiner Valley would have a moderate to major beneficial impact on elk, mule deer, pronghorn, and bighorn sheep by providing additional winter range that would be of limited availability. No impacts on predators, scavengers, or other species associated with bison grazing and behavior from increases or decreases in bison population size would be expected as a result of this alternative. Impacts on wildlife from the continuation of snowmobile Predators and Scavengers. Scavengers feeding on gut piles would not likely come into conflict with humans any more than they currently do as a result of feeding on offal from the elk hunting season. Impacts Associated with Snowmobiling. No changes in existing road grooming practices would be anticipated under this alternative. Therefore, impacts from snowmobiling would be the same as those described for alternative 1 . Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts would be expected to be the same as those described under alternative 1 . The degree to which land acquisition or easement might offset other impacts on wildlife would be dependent on whether additional winter range was acquired by purchase or easement, on the terms of easement, on the land use and manage- 289 Environmental consequences ment of the acquired area, and on whether the capture facility would be moved into the acquired area and where it would be located. Conclusion Impacts on all wildlife species would be expected to be the same as those described under alternative 1. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 5 Analysis Ungulates. Capture facilities would be constructed and operated at up to nine locations within and adjacent to the park. These facilities would occupy several acres each, in areas previously available to a variety of wildlife species. Activity associated with capture operations would likely temporarily displace most wildlife from the area immediately surrounding each facility. Capture operations in the Lamar and Blacktail Plateau areas could displace elk, mule deer, pronghorn, and a variety of predators and scavengers (see below). Capture operations in the Madison River, Firehole River, and Hayden and Pelican Valley areas could displace elk. During the fall and spring elk would be present in Pelican and Hayden Valleys; they would not be present in the winter. The temporary displacement and disturbance to elk and mule deer would be expected to affect individuals but would have no effect on those populations as a whole. Little is known about the habits and habitat use of pronghorn in the Blacktail Plateau and Lamar Valley areas, but it would be unlikely that capture facilities in these locations would have a major impact on the population. As in alternative 1, operation of a capture facility at Stephens Creek could contribute to a moderate to major decline in the pronghorn population. Species Associated with Bison Grazing and Behavior. Removal of more than half the bison population could have ecological consequences that would be difficult to assess. There is some overlap in habitat use and diets of bison, elk, and bighorn sheep, but there has been no measurable degree of interspecific competition among these species (Singer and Norland 1994). Removal of a large number of bison from Yellowstone Park could result in increased habitat and forage species available for elk and bighorn sheep. Conversely, there is evidence that bison grazing contributes to increased production and nutritional content of grasses as well as to the stability of grassland systems (Frank and McNaughton 1993; Singer 1995; Wallace 1996). Removal of large numbers of grazers (i.e., bison) could actually reduce the productivity of grass- lands, at least temporarily, for other species. Absence of bison from some areas where they previously existed could result in some minor habitat changes. Some wallows could grow in, depending on the duration of absence of bison from those areas, and result in microsite changes affecting individual mammals, birds, and insects. Absence of tree rubbing and grazing in some areas could contribute to the promotion of forest invasion into open areas, although continued grazing by large numbers of elk might offset these effects. It would be likely that the continued presence of other grazers combined with climate and fire events would contribute more to maintaining landscape characteristics than the presence or absence of bison alone. Predators and Scavengers. Removal of more than 40% of the bison population would result in a substantial reduction in the number of winter- killed bison carcasses available to scavengers. Black bears, grizzly bears, wolves, coyotes, foxes, ravens, magpies, and many other bird and insect species rely on bison carcasses as an important food source in late winter and spring. Although elk and other ungulate carcasses would still be available, the major reduction in biomass associated with removal of so many bison from the system would likely have a moderate adverse effect on scavenger species. Grizzly bears would be the most likely scavenger species to be affected by the reduction in availability of bison carcasses in spring. A large reduction in the number of winter-killed bison 290 Impacts on Other Wildlife Species carcasses, in combination with low availability of other natural foods, could also contribute to increased bear-human conflicts both inside and outside Yellowstone National Park. Impacts on grizzly bears are discussed in detail under "Impacts on Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species." Some scavengers might have learned to rely on carcasses available at predictable locations. Removal of such a large portion of the bison population might result in complete removal of bison from some localities within the analysis area where they previously existed. Carcasses might therefore be absent from areas where they had been predictably found. The absence of these carcasses might adversely affect individual scavengers or localized portions of scavenger populations. The impact on scavenger popula- tions overall would likely be minor to moderately adverse. A significant reduction in the amount of carrion available to scavengers might increase compe- tition for the remaining carrion (i.e., elk carcasses). This competition could adversely affect some scavenger species, such as foxes, coyotes, and black bears, that might not be able to compete against larger scavengers (grizzly bears and wolves). The extent of this impact, or species that might be affected, would be unknown. Impacts Associated with Snowmobiling. This alternative would require the plowing to pavement of some sections of road inside the park for short periods of time to facilitate transport of seropositive bison to slaughter. This would mean snowmobiles and other winter recreationists who have traditionally used the groomed roads as winter trails would be temporarily displaced, and the roads would be used intermittently by trucks and other vehicles associated with the capture operations in the park. The extent to which animals other than bison use groomed snowmobile roads within the park to facilitate movement in winter would be unknown. Plowing of roads to access capture facilities would allow for continued use of those travel routes. The removal of a majoi disturbance and displacement factor (snowmobiles) could benefit some species by reducing stress and associated energ} expenditure. Unlike alternative 2, the adverse impact of prohibiting the use of travel corridors and associated increases in energy expenditure would not take place in alternative 5. However, to the extent snowmobile use was displaced from the park onto public lands in the adjacent Gallatin National Forest, impacts on wildlife as described in alternative 2 would occur. The degree of impact on forest wildlife within the Gallatin National Forest would be similar to that in alternative 2. Cumulative Impacts The effects of operation of capture facilities at Stephens Creek, combined with increased development outside the park, increased human activity both inside and outside the park, predation, and hunting could have a moderate to major negative effect on the pronghorn population, resulting in decreased numbers. Increases in development and activity outside the park, combined with loss of a significant portion of their food source inside the park, might have a moderate impact on scavenger populations. Conclusion Operation of capture facilities throughout Yellowstone National Park would likely have minor temporary and local adverse impacts on ungulates and other species. Impacts on pronghorn of the capture operation at Stephens Creek could potentially contribute to a moderate to major decline in numbers. Although most scavengers rely on elk carcasses in addition to bison carcasses, the reduction in availability of an important late winter and early spring food source would likely create a moderate reduction in scavenger populations in specific areas. 291 Environmental consequences The removal of 40% of the bison herd could result in ecological changes affecting other ungulates and minor microsite changes affecting individual mammals, birds, and insects. The degree of these impacts and species affected would be unknown. Impacts as a result of snowmobile displacement from plowed roads might occur as snowmobile use would be expected to increase in the adjacent national forest. The impact would likely be moderately negative on wildlife for the first few years as this alternative was implemented and roads were plowed in the park. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 6 Analysis Ungulates. Impacts on ungulates during the first phase of this alternative would likely be similar to those described under alternative 1 . The types of impacts described under alternative 5 would be the same that wildlife would experience during the second phase of this alternative, although the magnitude would not be as great as the bison population size would be much larger before the areawide capture, test, and slaughter phase began. Species Associated with Bison Grazing and Behavior. Habitat disturbances such as tree rubbing, trails, and wallowing would occur in certain locations favored by bison, and are likely to be unaffected by all but the most dramatic reductions of bison numbers (NPS, Meagher 1973). Therefore, species associated with these features would not be affected by this alter- native. Predators and Scavengers. Some bison that might otherwise have died within the park would be removed through capture and shipment to slaughter in this alternative. Removal of a significant portion of the bison population during the capture, test, and slaughter phase could temporarily have a minor to moderate effect on scavenger species. The magnitude of this effect would be less than in alternative 5 because the bison population would be higher in alternative 6 and fewer bison would be removed. Impacts Associated with Snowmobiling. The impacts from plowing roads for a short period of time during the winter for the years capture and slaughter operations took place would have impacts on wildlife comparable to those described in alternative 5. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts on ungulates (pronghorn in particular) would likely be the same as those described under alternative 1 in the short term, and as those described under alternative 5 in the long term. Conclusion As in alternative 5, operation of capture facilities throughout Yellowstone National Park during phase 2 of this alternative might locally and temporarily affect a variety of wildlife species. Adverse impacts on scavenger populations would be less intense than in alternative 5, but similar in that they would involve the loss in a single year of several hundred bison from the ecosystem. Operation of capture facilities at Stephens Creek could contribute to a moderate to major decline in the pronghorn population. Impacts as a result of snowmobile displacement from plowed roads might occur, although the degree of impact would be unknown. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 7: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Analysis Ungulates. Operation of capture facilities during phase 1 of this alternative would have impacts similar to those described under alternative 1 . Movement of the capture facility out of the Stephens Creek area in phase 2 would likely have a beneficial effect on the pronghorn 292 Impacts on Other Wildlife Species population, by allowing pronghorn to use that part of their winter range and by removing disturbance associated with operation of the facility. Operation of a second capture facility in the Horse Butte area would not be likely to measurably affect any wildlife species because this area would not be used by other ungulates for winter range. Acquisition or easement of additional winter range would have impacts similar to those described under alternative 2. The degree to which acquisition or easement of additional winter range might benefit wildlife would be dependent on whether habitat was purchased or easement acquired, and on the terms of easement. The beneficial effects of habitat acquisition or easement might be slightly offset for all ungulate species by bison hunting activities conducted within the acquired area. Hunting might create temporary and localized displacement or stress of individuals or small groups of elk, bighorn sheep, mule deer, and pronghorn. Impacts Associated with Snowmobiling. The impacts associated with snowmobiling under alternative 7 would be the same as those described for alternative I . Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts would be expected to be similar to those described under alternative 1 . Easement or acquisition of additional winter range in the Gardiner Valley might be a mitigating measure for the cumulative impacts on ungulate populations as described under alternative 2. The degree to which land acquisition or easement could offset other impacts would depend on whether additional winter range was acquired by purchase or easement, on the terms of easement, on the land use and management of the acquired area, and on whether the capture facility would be moved into the acquired area and where it would be located. Species Associated with Bison Grazing and Behavior. Habitat disturbances such as tree rubbing, trails, and wallowing would occur in certain locations favored by bison, and would likely be unaffected by all but the most dramatic reductions of bison numbers (NPS, Meagher 1973). Therefore, species associated with these features would not be affected by alternative 7. Predators and Scavengers. Viscera associated with hunting in the acquired area, in addition to winter-killed carcasses distributed over a larger area, could draw scavenger species, such as coyotes and bears, into the area and potentially into conflict with humans. Measures requiring removal of gut piles or carcasses from areas near human habitation might mitigate these effects. Maintenance of the bison population at or below 2,500 animals would remove, through capture and shipment to slaughter or quarantine, some bison that might otherwise have died within the park. The overall reduction in the bison popula- tion as compared to alternative 1 might have a minor negative impact on scavenger populations. Conclusion During the period in which the capture facility at Stephens Creek would be in operation, there would be potential for moderate to major adverse impact on the pronghorn population as described under alternative 1. Acquisition of wildlife habitat in the Gardiner Valley would likely have a moderately beneficial impact on elk, mule deer, pronghorn, and bighorn sheep, depending on the terms of acquisition or easement. Removal of bison for the purpose of maintaining the population at about 2,500 animals might have a minor negative impact on predators and scavengers. No impacts on species associated with bison grazing and behavior from increases or decreases in bison population size would be expected under this alternative. IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES The effects of the Stephens Creek capture facility and associated structures and activities 293 Environmental consequences (in all alternatives except alternative 2) in critical pronghorn winter range could result in an irretrievable loss of individual pronghorn antelope. The cumulative effects of the capture operation combined with predation, restricted winter range, increasing human development and activity, and other factors (see discussion on pronghorn ecology, habitat use, and food habits in "Affected Environment, Other Wildlife Species") could result in eventual irreversible loss of this pronghorn population. These impacts might be mitigated or reversed by acquisition of additional wildlife winter range in the Gardiner Valley and associated cessation of capture operations at Stephens Creek (alternatives 3 and 7). Removal of more than 40% of the bison popula- tion (alternative 5) and the consequent reduction in the number of bison carcasses available to scavengers could result in the irretrievable loss of individual scavengers. Mortality of individual scavengers might also result from increased conflicts with humans or from competition with other scavengers for a reduced food supply. LOSS IN LONG-TERM AVAILABILITY OR PRODUCTIVITY OF THE RESOURCE TO ACHIEVE SHORT-TERM GAIN The impacts on the pronghorn population from bison management activities in alternatives 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 could contribute to a long-term decline or, combined with other factors, eventual loss of the pronghorn population (see discussion on pronghorn ecology, habitat use, and food habits in "Affected Environment, Other Wildlife Species "). UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The capture facility and associated structures and activities in the Stephens Creek area (alternatives 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) could have a moderate to major adverse impact on the pronghorn population, by displacing pronghorn from a portion of their limited, critical winter range, by increasing stress and energy expendi- tures related to disturbance by humans, and by increasing vulnerability to predation. Loss of a significant portion of late winter and early spring food supply, in the form of winter- killed bison carcasses (alternative 5), might result in moderately adverse impacts on scavenger populations, through possible increases in mortality and decreases in reproduction related to undernutrition and competition with other scavengers for a reduced food supply. Adverse impacts might also include increased mortality as a result of increased conflicts with humans. 294 IMPACTS ON HUMAN HKALTH SUMMARY OF REGULATIONS AND POLICIES Under authority of public laws, executive order, regulations, and APHIS directive, APHIS has a brucellosis health monitoring program that provides educational information concerning the disease and assists in the prevention of brucellosis for APHIS employees. No regula- tions or policies regarding the protection of human health from brucellosis exist, although standard measures such as those described in the impacts section for protection from disease would apply. reproductive tissues of infected bison < for instance, females with placental lesions or who have aborted fetuses, or males with testicular abscesses or other lesions of the external genitalia) might be subject to higher risks of contracting the disease. Infection would also be possible as a result of inhalation of the organism by people working with bison or bison tissues. especially in poorly ventilated areas. People who ingested contaminated raw organ tissue would be at risk for infection. Also, persons responsible for vaccinating bison are at risk for accidental injection and subsequent infection with the vaccine strain of the brucella organism. METHODOLOGIES FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS The agencies reviewed information about human brucellosis in the literature to qualitatively evaluate the risks to human health that might result from bison management. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES Although the risk of brucellosis transmission from bison to people could not eliminated, the potential could be significantly reduced by employing reasonable precautionary measures. These would include the following: • Those who assist with capture operations and load live bison for shipment to slaughter would be warned to avoid direct contact with vaginal discharges; birth membranes; or, blood from animals that might have been injured during capture. Based on information about transmission of brucellosis from livestock to people, bison management would not be a health risk to the general public. However, brucellosis transmission from bison to people responsible for various management actions, e.g., hunters or those dressing bison carcasses, might occur. Transmission to people might result from contact with infectious tissues by people responsible for eviscerating or processing bison carcasses or otherwise handling infectious materials. Contact infection might occur either directly through the skin on the hands; the infection could be carried from the hands to the eyes or mouth; or, infection could occur through the splattering of uterine fluids or blood into the eye or mouth. In particular, veterinarians, lab workers or others working with carcasses or Those who collect blood or tissue, conduct field blood tests, or give vaccinations would have to have the necessary training and skills to safely conduct these procedures, and would have to wear gloves, masks, and protective eyewear. Laboratory work on potentially infected tissues and fluids would be done by trained professionals using appropriate safety measures. Slaughterhouse workers should wear appropriate clothing and eyewear, and use standard sanitation procedures. In addition, slaughterhouses should include proper ventilation and provide safety training for their employees. 295 Environmental consequences • Hunters would complete orientation, including instruction on safe procedures for field dressing bison and safe handling of meat. Instruction would emphasize avoiding contact with the uterus and the udder, with strong advice against opening the uterus of pregnant cows. • Qualified agency officials would supervise field dressing and the removal of pregnant uteri, male external genitalia, or the entire offal from the field. In addition to the risk of transmission of brucellosis from bison to people, there would be low to moderate risks of human injury in all actions that include handling of live bison. These injuries could occur during hazing, capture, testing, vaccination, or loading bison. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES animals. The risk of infection would be negligible to minor. Personnel in charge of vaccinating would also be at minor risk from accidental injection because the available brucellosis vaccines would consist of live organisms. Tribal representatives or those staff who assist agency personnel in cleaning and loading carcasses might also be exposed. With proper precautions, the risk would be negligible to minor. Conclusion The risk of transmission to people responsible for bison management would be negligible to minor if safe handling practices were employed. If safe handling practices were not used, the risk might be moderate to those who worked with fluids or birth materials from infected animals. No cumulative impacts related to the trans- mission of brucellosis to humans would occur in the study area. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION Analysis Alternative 1 would include capture, testing, and slaughter of bison. As described above under "Impacts Common to all Alternatives," agency personnel who collect blood samples and administer blood tests would be at risk of contracting the disease. The degree of risk to these personnel would be considered moderate. However, with the addition of precautionary measures, such as training and implementation of safe handling procedures, the risk would be negligible to minor. People assisting with capture and loading of live seropositive bison in trucks for slaughter might be exposed to the disease through discharged fluids, birth membranes, or blood from infected IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 Analysis Under alternative, the risk of brucellosis transmission to humans would be the lowest of all alternatives. This would be because bison would not be captured, slaughtered, tested, or vaccinated with hand injection. Conclusion The risk of brucellosis transmission to any bison management personnel would be negligible to minor. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 3 Analysis Many of the impacts described for alternative 1 would also apply to alternative 3. An additional group of people at moderate risk includes 296 hunters, who would come in contact with tissues during field dressing, and might handle pregnant females or their fetuses. With training, which would be considered mandatory, the risk of transmission of brucellosis to hunters would be minor. Conclusion The risk of transmission to people responsible for bison management and to hunters would be negligible to minor if safe handling practices and training were employed. If safe handling practices and training were not used, the risk to either hunters or to those who work with fluids or birth materials from infected animals could be moderate. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 4 Analysis Populations at risk in this alternative would include agency personnel involved with capture, slaughter, testing, vaccination, loading for shipment, and shooting as described above, and would be similar to alternative 1. In addition, hunters, tribal representatives, or those staff who would assist agency personnel in cleaning and loading carcasses could be exposed. Conclusion The risk of transmission to people responsible for bison management and to hunters would be minor if safe handling practices and training were employed. If safe handling practices and training were not used, the risk to either hunters or to those who work with fluids or birth materials from infected animals might be moderate. Impacts on Human Ih alth IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 5 Analysis In this alternative, nine capture facilities would run simultaneously and bison would be shipped to slaughter if they tested seropositive. Given that about one-half of the population typically tests seropositive, more bison would be transported to slaughterhouses than in any other alternative. Even with sate handling practices, the increased volume of processed bison and resulting increased contact with infected body fluids or fetuses could lead to a moderate risk to veterinarians, laboratory workers, and slaughterhouse workers (e.g., those actually in contact with fluids, birth materials, or fetuses). When the test and slaughter phase ended, risk of transmission would be expected to decline markedly because the vast majority of seropositive bison would have been removed from the herd. During the succeeding monitoring phase, the risk of transmission would be negligible as there would be few if any sero- positive bison remaining in the herd. Conclusion The risk of transmission to people responsible for bison management would be moderate, even when safe handling practices were used during the first phase of this alternative. When the test and slaughter phase ended, the risk of transmission would be negligible. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 6 Analysis During the vaccination phase, impacts of alternative 6 would be the same as alternative 1 , During the test and slaughter phase, impacts would be the same as alternative 5. Conclusion The risk of transmission to people responsible for bison management would be minor to 297 Environmental consequences moderate, but more likely to be moderate. When the test and slaughter phase is completed, the risk of transmission would likely be negligible. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 7: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Direct contact with fluids and reproductive materials from infected bison would present some risk of transmission of the disease to bison management personnel. Analysis Populations at risk in this alternative would include agency personnel involved with capture, slaughter, testing, vaccination, loading for shipment, and shooting as described above, and would be similar to alternative 1. In addition, hunters, tribal representatives, or those staff who assisted agency personnel in cleaning and loading carcasses might be exposed to brucellosis. Conclusion The risk of transmission to people responsible for bison management and to hunters would be negligible to minor if safe handling practices and training were employed. If safe handling practices and training were not used, the risk to either hunters or to those who work with fluids or birth materials from infected animals might be moderate. IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES There would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources under any of the alternatives. «f"T Bison in holding pens at Stephens Creek capture facility, 1997. LOSS IN LONG-TERM AVAILABILITY OR PRODUCTIVITY OF THE RESOURCE TO ACHIEVE SHORT-TERM GAIN There would be no loss in long-term availability or productivity of the resource to achieve short- term gain under any of the alternatives. 298 IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES SUMMARY OE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES All federal actions affecting cultural resources are subject to the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; the National Environmental Policy Act; the Native American Graves Repatriation Act; the American Indian Religious Freedom Act; the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Implementing Regulations Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR 800); The Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (FR 48:44716-40); and federal agency responsi- bilities under section 1 10 of the National Historic Preservation Act (FR 53:4727-46). Other applicable legislation, regulations and specific management procedures are detailed in the Cultural Resources Management Guideline (NPS-28). The National Park Service Management Policies state that cultural resources are to be preserved and appreciation of the resources should be fostered through appropriate programs of research, treatment, protection, and interpretation. Gallatin National Forest standards require that cultural resources are to be inventoried, evaluated, and preserved for enhancement and protection purposes (Gallatin National Forest Plan, H-17). Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires a federal agency to take into account the effects of its undertaking on properties included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. This also applies to properties not formally determined eligible, but which meet eligibility criteria. Section 1 10 of the act requires that federal agencies establish a program to identify, evaluate, and nominate properties to the national register. It also requires agencies to act as necessary to minimize harm to historic properties adversely affected by a federal proposal, requires consultation with the state's historic preservation officer when historic resources are potentially affected, and gives the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment. In summary, the section 106 process requires the identification of resources that would be affected by a federal proposal, their evaluation under national register criteria, an assessment of proposed impacts on those resources, and consideration of ways to avoid, reduce, or mitigate adverse impacts. METHODOLOGIES FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS In this environmental impact statement various bison management options would be explored, including the building of quarantine and capture facilities that would not only affect archeological sites, but also the bison and the landscape they inhabit. Effects on cultural resources primarily would result from the construction of facilities to support various bison management options. For example, construction of corrals and fences would have the potential to affect prehistoric and historic resources. The number of facilities would vary among alternatives. It should be noted that the cultural landscape(s) of the Yellowstone area have not been evaluated under national register criteria. However, these resources must be treated as eligible until otherwise documented. Under National Register of Historic Places criteria, historic properties retain integrity through their ability to convey historical significance. This concept is com- prised of the seven aspects of integrity, which include location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. For example, the presence of bison contributes to the location, setting, feeling, and association aspects of the integrity and significance of the cultural landscape of Yellowstone National Park. The presence of bison also constitutes a significant resource. The management of these resources 299 Environmental consequences might in turn have effects on other resources. In preparing for any ground-disturbing activities, the project area would be assessed for cultural landscapes. Assessment of impacts on cultural resources followed a four-step process outlined in the advisory council's revised regulations: (1) identify the area of potential effect of the proposed action, (2) compare that location with that of resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, (3) identify the extent and type of impact of the proposed action on national register properties, and (4) assess these effects according to procedures established in the regulations. An effect on a historic property would occur if an undertaking had the potential of changing in any way the characteristics that qualify that property for inclusion in the national register. If the proposed action diminished the integrity of such characteristics, it would be considered to have an adverse effect. Effects that might occur later than or at a distance from the location of the undertaking would also have potential impacts of the action. These would be indirect effects. IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES Bison are significant to the cultural and spiritual lives of many Native American tribes. The specific significance of bison in tribal life varies from tribe to tribe. To adequately assess the impacts, it is important that representatives of each tribe articulate the specific impacts on their tribe of the alternatives. Their comments will be incorporated into the final document. In all alternatives proposing construction of bison management facilities, site-specific surveys would be conducted prior to ground- disturbing activities. Any resources uncovered in the surveys would be evaluated under national register criteria in consultation with the state historic preservation officer. Every effort would be made to avoid known archeological resources. Should avoidance prove impossible, the National Park Service, Gallatin National Forest, and state agencies would develop mitigating measures in consultation with the state historic preservation officer and the advisory council. Should unknown resources be uncovered during construction, work would be stopped in the project area, and the agencies would consult according to 36 CFR 800.1 1 and as appropriate, provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Each alternative would seek to retain the presence of bison within varying areas of their historic range; however, bison would be killed while occupying historic range if they are outside Yellowstone National Park or the SMAs. This management action would have a moderate to major negative impact on the cultural resource the bison herd represented. Based on current information, the physical appearance of bison does not appear to be affected by the presence of the Brucella organism. In all alternatives except alternative 2, the process of monitoring and vaccinating bison would change their appearance. Bison would be identified by a small metal ear tag and visual marker to indicate that they had tested negative for the Brucella organism. These actions would alter the historic image of the bison and would have a negligible impact on the landscape. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES Archeological resources can be at risk from development, natural occurrences, and human activity. Proposed construction of facilities could add to this loss, although the losses of any pro- posal could be mitigated through avoidance and data recovery. Similarly, the cumulative effect of construction of facilities could add to the loss of undisturbed historic landscapes in specified locations in the Greater Yellowstone Area. 300 Impacts on Cultural Resoun < i Sketch of Indian and buffalo, by American naturalist Titian Ramsey Peale, 1832. (NPS photo) IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION Analysis Capture facilities at Stephens Creek and on the Madison River and Duck Creek already exist, and there would be no additional impact on archeological resources beyond what has already occurred. Management Area. This would ensure the presence of bison on segments of historically occupied range. However, bison would not be allowed to occupy winter range inside Yellowstone National Park in the Stephens Creek area north about 2 miles to the Reese Creek boundary. Cumulative Impacts Capture facilities at Stephens Creek and on the Madison River and Duck Creek would continue to have an impact on the landscape of those areas. Because the facilities on the Madison River and Duck Creek would be temporary and those at Stephens Creek would be compatible with nearby Yellowstone National Park wrangling facilities, the effect would be negligible. This alternative would not add to the loss of archeological resources nor would it add to the loss of undisturbed landscapes. Thus, it would protect and maintain a remnant herd of free- ranging bison on the landscape, although the amount of available habitat would be limited. Conclusion Bison would occupy historic ranges in Yellowstone National Park and would be allowed to inhabit some other historic foraging areas in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area, along Hellroaring and Slough Creek, near Silver Gate and, during the winter, in the West Yellowstone area, including public lands on Horse Butte and in the Cabin Creek Recreation and Wildlife There would be no impacts on archeological resources, nor additional impacts on landscapes. Bison would exist on historic ranges within most areas of Yellowstone National Park and limited historic winter range outside the park. 301 Environmental consequences IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 Analysis Removal of capture facilities at Stephens Creek on the Madison River and Duck Creek near the western boundary of Yellowstone National Park could result in disturbance of unknown archeological resources. Because any impact would be mitigated through procedures described above in "Impacts Common to All Alternatives," the loss of archeological resources would be minor. Removal of structures would have a beneficial impact on the landscapes; however, the degree of benefit could be determined until a cultural landscape study was completed. If alternative 2 was implemented, bison could inhabit the largest portion of their historic ranges inside and outside Yellowstone National Park of any of the alternatives. This would ensure the presence of bison on historically occupied range and would promote a greater understanding of the historic Great Plains and seasonal movement of bison in and around the northern Yellowstone area range. Cumulative Impacts Removal of capture facilities on Stephens Creek and near the western boundary of Yellowstone National Park could add to the loss of archeological resources but would have a beneficial impact on the historic landscapes of the area. The cumulative effect on free-ranging bison and the landscape would be the same as alternative 1, except that bison could range over a larger area. Conclusion Any potential loss of archeological resources associated with removal of bison management facilities at Stephens Creek and near the western boundary of the park could be mitigated. The removal of these structures would have a beneficial impact on the historic landscape. Free- ranging bison would be protected and maintained on historic landscapes inside and outside Yellowstone National Park. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 3 Analysis The construction of quarantine facilities in Montana and relocation of the Stephens Creek capture facility north of the park boundary could result in the disturbance of as yet unknown archeological resources. Because any impacts would be mitigated through procedures des- cribed in "Impacts Common to all Alternatives," the loss of archeological resources would be minor. Relocation of the Stephens Creek capture facility and construction of quarantine facilities on public or private lands north of the park boundary would have a beneficial impact on the landscape at Stephens Creek, but would introduce new elements into the landscapes outside Yellowstone National Park. The degree of impact on the landscape would depend on location and design and results of a cultural landscape assessment. Implementation of alternative 3 would ensure the presence of free-ranging bison in a larger portion of their historic range than alternative 1, but a smaller portion than alternative 2. Cumulative Impacts Construction of facilities could add to the loss of archeological resources, although the loss could be mitigated. Construction/relocation of facilities would have a beneficial impact at Stephens Creek, but might add to the loss of undisturbed landscapes in new areas. The cumulative effect of maintaining free-ranging bison on the landscape would be the same as in alternative 1 . 302 Impacts on Cultural /UI-TATI ON ANO COOF^OI NAT! Oi PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT A summary of the environmental impact statement planning process and public participation, including that conducted for the 1996 Interim Bison Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, can be found in part 1 , "Purpose of and Need for Action," in the "Scoping Process and Public Participation" chapter. A summary of the major concerns identified throughout the past several years by the public on the issues of bison management are also provided in the "Purpose of and Need for Action." In addition to public scoping activities, agencies and tribes have been consulted throughout the preparation of the environmental impact statement. In particular, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has been consulted with regard to threatened and endangered species and provided information for use in this environmental impact statement. Native American tribes have been involved throughout the planning process. The 1996 Interim Bison Management Plan/Environmental Assessment was distributed for comment to the Crow, Northern Cheyenne, Northern Arapaho, Arapaho, Shoshone, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Blackfeet, Nez Perce, Shoshone and Bannock, Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes. Consultation with the tribes for the assessment was done both verbally and in writing. The National Park Service has consulted periodically with the InterTribal Bison Cooperative regarding its interest in a quarantine facility on tribal lands (see discussion of quarantine facility in "The Alternatives" part of the environmental impact statement). Other tribes that have expressed interest have been contacted periodically and will receive copies of this environmental impact statement (see the following "Agencies and Organizations that Received Copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement"). Tribes contacted from November 1995 until March 1997 for the purposes of this environmental impact statement include the following: Blackfeet, Choctaw, Crow, Eastern Shoshone, Gros Ventre - Assiniboine, Nez Perce, Northern Arapaho, Northern Cheyenne, Rosebud Lakota, Salish and Kootenai, and Shoshone-Bannock. The Crow Nation also commented on the archeological surveys conducted for the siting of possible bison management facilities both inside and outside Yellowstone National Park in 1995. Other tribes were contacted per written request, specifically the Sissiton-Wahpeton Sioux, Loyal Shawnee, Flandreay Santee Sioux, Lower Brule Sioux, Picuris Pueblo, Native Village of Mekoryuk, Round Valley Tribal Council, Modoc of Oklahoma, and Nambe Pueblo. Readers are encouraged to send their comments on the draft environmental impact statement to the National Park Service's Denver Service Center. After the comment period concludes on this draft document, the team will review and respond to all substantive comments in the final environmental impact statement. In addition, comments received during public meetings will be addressed in the final document. The final document will be distributed to everyone who comments on the draft and all others wishing to receive a copy. 315 AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT RECEIVED COPIES OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FEDERAL AGENCIES Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Department of Agriculture Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service Forest Service Beaverhead National Forest Bridger-Teton National Forest Custer National Forest Gallatin National Forest Shoshone National Forest Targhee National Forest Natural Resources Conservation Service Department of the Army Corps of Engineers Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs Fish and Wildlife Service Montana Office Wyoming Office National Elk Refuge National Wildlife Health Center Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge National Park Service Big Hole National Battlefield Glacier National Park Grand Teton National Park Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site Little Bighorn National Battlefield Yellowstone National Park Intermountain Regional Office Office of the Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division Environmental Protection Agency STATE AGENCIES Idaho Department of Commerce Department of Livestock Fish and Game Department Governor's Office Montana Montana Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department of Livestock 316 Agencies and Organizations Governor's Office Intergovernmental Review Clearinghouse Montana State Library, U.S. & Senate Documents Dept. Montana State University Libraries State Historic Preservation Office Wyoming Department of Agriculture Department of Environmental Quality Department of Livestock Game and Fish Department Governor's Office State Clearinghouse LOCAL AGENCIES City of West Yellowstone, Montana Fremont County, Idaho Gallatin County, Montana, Commissioners Park County, Montana, Commissioners Park County, Wyoming, Commissioners Teton County, Wyoming, Commissioners NATIVE AMERICANS Arapaho Business Council Blackfeet Tribe Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Chippewa Cree Business Committee Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Preservation Officer Crow Tribal Council Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Eastern Shoshone Business Council Eastern Shoshone Cultural Committee Flandreau Santee Sioux Fort Belknap Community Council Fort Hall Business Council, Shoshone and Bannock Tribes Fort Peck Council InterTribal Bison Cooperative Little Shell Tribe Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Lower Brule Wildlife Enterprise Loyal Shawnee Tribe Medicine Wheel Alliance Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma Native Village of Mekoryuk Nambe Pueblo Nez Perce Cultural Resource Program Nez Perce Tribal Council Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council Cultural Commission 317 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Northern Arapaho Business Council Northern Arapaho Tribe Oglala Sioux Parks & Recreation Authority Picuris Pueblo Rosebud Lakota Tribal Council Round Valley Tribal Council Santo Domingo Tribe Shoshone Business Council Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Cultural Resource Coordination Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Land Use Director Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Land Use Policy Committee Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Taos Pueblo, Office of Natural Resource Protection Ute Indian Tribe Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska ORGANIZATIONS Alliance for the Prevention of Animal Abuses American Buffalo Foundation American Farm Bureau Federation American Fisheries Society, Montana Chapter AMFAC Recreational Services, Inc. Audubon Society Rocky Mountain Region Bighorn Cheyenne High Plains Fremont County Montana Audubon Council Sacajawea Snake River Upper Missouri Breaks Utah Yellowstone Valley American Wildlands, Northern Rockies Office Bear Creek Council Bearnet Beartooth Alliance Biodiversity Legal Foundation Brucellosis Research Unit Buffalo Bill Historical Center Canyon Coalition Chambers of Commerce Billings, Montana Bozeman, Montana Cody Country, Wyoming Cooke City/Silver Gate, Montana Gardiner, Montana Idaho Falls, Idaho Jackson Hole, Wyoming Lander, Wyoming 318 Agencies and Organizations Livingston, Montana Pinedale, Wyoming Red Lodge, Montana Riverton, Wyoming Thermopolis, Wyoming West Yellowstone, Montana Citizens for Teton Valley Defenders of Wildlife Defenders of the Rockies Ecology Center Elsa Wild Animal Appeal Fund for Animals Gallatin Valley Snowmobile Assoc. Georgia Earth Alliance Great Bear Foundation Greater Yellowstone Coalition Greater Yellowstone Association of Conservation Districts Grizzly Bear Education Hamilton Stores, Inc. Humane Education Network Humane Society of the U.S. Hunter of Bison Idaho Cattle Association Idaho Conservation League Idaho Farm Bureau Federation Jackson Hole Alliance for Responsible Planning Madison Gallatin Alliance Montana Farm Bureau Federation Montana Farmer-Stockman Montana Farmers Union Montana Power Montana Stockgrowers Association Montana Wilderness Association National Assoc, of State Recreation Planners National Wildlife Federation Idaho Wildlife Federation Montana Wildlife Federation Wyoming Wildlife Federation Utah Wildlife Federation The Nature Conservancy Idaho Montana Wyoming Northern Plains Resource Council National Parks & Conservation Association, Rocky Mountain Region Park County (Montana) Environmental Council Park County (Wyoming) Travel Council Predator Project Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Sierra Club 319 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Idaho Chapter Northern Plains Regional Office Teton Group Utah Chapter Wyoming Chapter Star Valley Development Association Stone Fly Society US WEST Utah Wilderness Association Wasatch Mountain Club Wild Forever Wilderness Society Idaho Chapter Montana Chapter Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation Wyoming Heritage Society Wyoming Outdoor Council Wyoming Stockgrowers Inspector Wyoming Travel Commission Yellowstone Association Yellowstone Park Medical Services Yellowstone Park Service Stations Because of the voluminous number of people and organizations on the mailing list, not all are listed. A complete list of names (addresses may not be released) is available upon request from the Denver Service Center, National Park Service. 320 PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS Name Title/Responsibility Education Experience National Park Service, Denver Service Center Sarah E. Bransom Job Captain/Quality Leader B.A. Political Science/ Environmental Science M.S. Environmental Planning 7 years NPS, 1 2 years other federal experience Steve Culver Natural Resource Specialist; threatened and endangered species summary and appendix B.S. Fishery Biology 12 years NPS, 8 years state experience Joan DeGraff Historian; cultural resources M.A. History B.S. History/Criminal Justice 9 years NPS David Hesker Visual Information Specialist; graphics and artwork B.F.A. Graphics 8 years NPS, 1 year private sector Danna Kinsey Historian; cultural resources B.A. U.S. History and Geography 6 years NPS John R. Kirkaldie Outdoor Recreation Planner; socioeconomics and recreation B.S. Land Use 5 years NPS Mary McVeigh Outdoor Recreation Planner; logistical support B.A. Communications 14 years NPS Lisa Norby Natural Resource Specialist; wildlife and public health M.E.P.M. Environmental Policy and Management M.S. Geology B.S. Geology 5 years NPS; 13 years private sector Linda Russo Writer/Editor N/A 34 years NPS Frank Williss Historian B.A. History M.A. History 21 years NPS National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park Wendy Clark Wildlife Biologist; bison population and seroprevalence assessment, wildlife B.A. Biology M.S. Ecology 3 years NPS; 6 years other wildlife research 321 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION John Mack Wildlife Biologist; B.S. Biological Sciences 9 years NPS; 2 years bison population and M.S. Fish and Wildlife other federal and state related topics Management experience NPS Consultants Jennifer Carey Analyst and Researcher; M.S. Environmental 3 years experience, socioeconomics, Studies Bioeconomics, Inc. recreation, consumptive use of bison John Duffield Research Professor Ph.D. Economics 24 years experience; University of Montana; President, socioeconomics, Bioeconomics, Inc. recreation, consumptive use of bison Chris Neher Economist; M.A. Economics 8 years experience, socioeconomics, Bioeconomics, Inc. recreation, consumptive use of bison Heidi West EIS Team Facilitator; Ph.D. Environmental 1 8 years purpose and need, Science and Engineering Total Quality NEPA alternatives M.A. Science Communication M.S. Biology B.S. Biology and private practice U.S. Department of \\ •riculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Phylo Evangelou Senior Staff Economist; Ph.D., Agricultural 6 years APHIS, 7 livestock economics Economics M.S. Agricultural Economics M.Ed., Earth Sciences B.A. Social Sciences years private sector U.S. Department of Aj »riculture, U.S. Forest Ser vice Marion Cherry Wildlife Biologist; M.S. Range Science 17 years USFS, other threatened, endangered, M.S. Wildlife wildlife positions and sensitive species Science, A.B. since 1976 322 Preparers and Contributors State of Montana, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks John Mundinger Administrative Officer, Director's Office; human health safety; brucellosis sections of purpose and need M.S. Fish and Wildlife Management B.A. Zoology B.S. Fish and Wildlife Management 25 years experience with state State of Montana, Department of Livestock Clarence Siroky Former State Veterinarian; brucellosis control issues DVM B.S. Animal Science 20 years experience 323 • -N AF>r&NC>TX&'£> APPENDIX A: CHANGES AND ADJUSTMENTS TO THE 1996 INTERIM BISON MANAGEMENT PLAN Decision on Bison Management Operations for Winter of 1997-1998 Regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality require federal agencies to review environmental analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act to determine whether the agency should supplement existing NEPA documents. An agency triggers this requirement when the agency makes substantial changes to the proposed actions that are relevant to the environmental concerns or when the agency has significant new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts. 40 C.F.R. 1502.9(c). Following the winter of 1996-97, the National Park Service, together with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the Forest Service, determined that they should adjust implementation of the interim bison management plan. The federal agencies, thus, proposed adjustments to the implementation of the interim bison management plan and transmitted those to the State of Montana on September 26, 1997. Then, on October 9, 1997, the federal and state agencies met to discuss the proposed adjustments. On November 13, 1997, the federal agencies again transmitted the proposals for bison management to the State of Montana. The federal agencies recognize that these adjustments must be implemented while they continue to work with the State of Montana to develop the long-term bison management plan and EIS. The goal of the adjustments to the implementation of the plan is to provide a generally stable bison population by reducing the number of bison killed as part of the interim bison management actions at or outside the boundary of Yellowstone National Park, while still preserving Montana's brucellosis class-free status. The federal agencies seek to reduce the number of bison that would be shot or shipped to slaughter should extreme winter weather conditions, such as those that occurred during the winter of 1996-97, cause movement of bison to or beyond the boundary. The NPS will implement the adjustments at the onset of winter so, if bison migrate from the park, the adjustments will provide the most flexibility in reducing the number of bison that the agencies need to remove. At the northern boundary the NPS will capture and hold, throughout the winter, all bison that test seronegative until reaching the capacity of the facility. The NPS, thereafter, will selectively ship bison testing seronegative to slaughter along with those testing seropositive. The alternatives, either shipping all captured bison to slaughter, or allowing them to leave the park and go onto private lands where they likely will be shot, would not provide this flexibility and are less likely to allow stability in the bison population. Additionally, when necessary, the NPS also will implement reasonable actions within the park, primarily through hazing, to attempt to limit bison movement from the interior of the park to the northern boundary . It is recognized that management actions in Montana are within the jurisdiction and discretion of the State of Montana. The federal agencies have recommended that the state allow low-risk bison, as defined by APHIS in both the September 26 and November 13 letters, that evade capture to remain on public lands until 60 days before cattle are released on federal grazing allotments. As set out in the November 13 letter, allowing low- risk bison wintering 327 Appendix A on those public lands specified in the interim plan in the west boundary area will not jeopardize the brucellosis class-free status of Montana. The adjustments that the federal agencies set out in the November 13 letter will provide for a generally stable population. The determination of what population level constitutes a viable herd or at what level the integrity of the herd would be compromised is under evaluation in the draft environmental impact statement for the interagency bison management plan for Montana and Yellowstone National Park. This decision does not address the herd viability and integrity issues because the adjustments to the implementation of the interim bison management plan will provide for a generally stable bison population, and the draft EIS is the more appropriate place for the evaluation of these complex issues. Guided by the CEQ regulation cited above, the staff at Yellowstone National Park undertook an evaluation of the adjustments to the management actions outlined in the November 13 letter and considered the results of management actions during the winter of 1996-97. After reviewing the available information, the letters from the federal agencies to the State of Montana, Montana's responses, and the evaluation of the proposed adjustments, I have concluded that the National Park Service should implement the adjustments set out in the November 13, 1997, letter and the November 24, 1997, evaluation and also have concluded that additional analysis of those actions under NEPA is not required. Recommended: ^erinfendent, Regional Director, Intermountain Region Date: ufe^ffr^ , 1997 328 APPENDIXES DEPARTMENT OF LIVESTOCK MARC HACICOT. GOVERNOR POBOX 202OO1 STATE OF MONTANA BRANDS ENFORCEMENT DIV 406-444-2045 ANIMAL HEALTH DIV 406-444-2043 BOARD OF LIVESTOCK - CENTRALIZED SERVICES 406-4442023 MEAT MILK & EGG INSPECTION DIV 406-444 S202 HELENA. MONTANA S9620-2001 Decision Notice and Supplemental Environmental Evaluation For the Management of Wild Bison Originating from Yellowstone National Park December 9, 1997 :l To: Environmental Quality Council, Capitol Building, Helena, 59620-1704 Governor's Office, Capitol Building, Helena, 59620-0801 Montana State Library, 1515 E. 6th Ave., Helena, 59620-1800 Yellowstone National Park, attn: Mike Finley Gallatin National Forest, attn: Dave Garber APHIS Veterinary Services, attn: Wilbur Clark Montana Stockgrower's Association, attn: Jim Peterson Greater Yellowstone Coalition, attn: Jeanne-Marie Sauvigney Fund for Animals, attn: Andrea Lococo Montana Wildlife Federation, attn: Tony Jewett Intertribal Bison Cooperative, attn: Mike Fox The Montana Department of Livestock and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks have decided to manage bison that have been exposed to brucellosis and that originate from Yellowstone National Park and migrate into Montana according to the provisions of the August 9, 1996 Interim Bison Management Operating Procedures, with adjustments to those procedures as described in the attached supplement to the December 20, 1995 environmental assessment of the Interim Bison Management Operating Procedures. Such management will continue until the Interim Bison Management Operating Plan is revised, in cooperation with Yellowstone National Park, APHIS Veterinary Services and the Gallatin National Forest or until a long-term bison management plan and EIS have been completed. Based on the supplemental environmental evaluation and a review of the applicable laws and regulations, we have determined that this action will not significantly affect the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. Sincerely, Laurence Petersen, Executive Officer Department of Livestock ^<3|£V Pat Graham, Director Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks 329 APPENDIXES Adjustments to Interim Bison Management Operating Procedures Supplemental Environmental Evaluation December 9, 1997 Purpose and Need The bison herd in Yellowstone National Park (YNP) is infected with brucellosis, a cattle disease that is regulated, pursuant to provisions of the National Brucellosis Program, by USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and state veterinarians. When bison migrate from YNP into Montana, they pose threats to human health and safety, risks of damage to private property; risk of transmission of brucellosis to domestic livestock; jeopardize Montana's compliance with the National Brucellosis Program; and, they may cause regulatory veterinarians to impose testing requirements on Montana cattle prior to importation to their states. On August 9, 1996 the State of Montana, in Cooperation with the National Park Service (NPS), USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and USDA National Forest Service (USFS) implemented an Interim Bison Management Plan. That decision was supported with an Environmental Analysis that had been released for public comment on December 20, 1995 and a response to the public comments to that Environmental Analysis. The purpose of the Plan was to provide spatial and seasonal separation of bison and domestic cattle in order to maintain Montana's brucellosis class-free status, while permitting the bison herd within the park to fluctuate, to the maximum extent possible, in response to natural ecological processes. The plan was designed to prevent bison from leaving Yellowstone National Park across the Reese Creek boundary onto adjacent private lands; to limit the distribution in the West Yellowstone area to times, situations and locations in which the risk of brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle could be controlled; and, allow unrestricted use by bison of specified public lands in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area adjacent to Yellowstone National Park. Management actions specified by the August 1996 Interim Plan include capture and transport to slaughter of all bison that approached the Reese Creek boundary; capture and transport to slaughter of all pregnant females and all other bison that test positive for brucellosis in the West Yellowstone area; capture, mark and release to federal lands all non-pregnant females and other bison that test negative for brucellosis in the West Yellowstone area during the period November 1 through April 30; shooting of all bison on private lands or that move beyond the specified distribution; shooting of all untested bison that cannot be captured in the West Yellowstone area; and, hazing bison back into the park or onto cattle free public lands as an acceptable alternative to lethal removal. The 1996-97 winter, the first year of operation of the Interim Bison Management Plan, was unusually severe and an unusually large number of bison left or attempted to leave Yellowstone National Park and migrate into Montana. As a result, a total of 1,123 bison were removed from the Yellowstone bison population by various management actions. Capture operations were less effective because the APHIS trap was poorly located. If that facility functioned more effectively, fewer bison would have been shot in the West Yellowstone area. The Interim Bison Management Plan allowed for contingency planning in the event of unusual 330 Appendix A circumstances, beyond the range of environmental conditions experienced since 1984-85, to ensure that the removal of bison in Montana do not compromise the integrity of the bison herd within Yellowstone National Park. The State of Montana proposes several adjustments to the August 1996 Interim Bison Management Plan to accomplish that purpose. The analysis presented in this document supplements the December 20, 1995 Environmental Assessment and the Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact issued by the Montana Departments of Livestock and Fish, Wildlife and Parks and Yellowstone National Park on August 9, 1996. Adjustments to the Interim Bison Management Plan The following adjustments to the interim plan will be implemented to reduce the number of bison that are removed by management action and to provide for a generally stable bison population at current levels: 1. Whenever it is safe and practical, hazing bison back into the park or onto public lands designated for bison use will be employed as an alternative to lethal controls. NPS will haze bison to prevent movement from the park interior to the park boundary. Montana agrees with this proposal. 2. NPS will modify operations of the Stephens Creek capture facility to remove bison that serologically test positive for brucellosis, selectively hold seronegative bison through the winter and release those bison to move back into the park in the spring. Montana agrees with this proposal. 3. In the West Yellowstone area, Montana has proposed to relocate the APHIS capture facility from the Madison River location to public lands near Horse Butte. Relocation of the facility will meet the siting criteria specified in the interim plan. A permit to locate the trap has been requested from the Hebgen Lake Ranger District, Gallatin National Forest and that permit will be supported with the appropriate environmental analysis. More efficient capture operations are intended to reduce the number of seronegative bison, including non-pregnant females, that otherwise might be shot in the field. 4. During the period November 1 through April 30, the Montana State Veterinarian will determine which untested bison represent the greatest potential for brucellosis transmission to domestic livestock. All untested adult female bison and other untested bison that the Montana State Veterinarian determines pose unacceptable risk will be removed as soon as feasible. All untested bison in the proximity of cattle will be removed. At the discretion of the Montana State Veterinarian, untested calves and bulls may be tolerated on public lands during the November 1 through April 30 period. Within 60 days of anticipated return of cattle, all bison will be hazed back into Yellowstone National Park. Those which cannot be hazed, may be removed. 331 APPENDIXES Impacts of Adjustments to the Interim Bison Management Plan A supplemental evaluation of adjustments to the Interim Bison Management Plan, dated November 24, 1997, was prepared by NPS, APHIS and USFS. That evaluation is included within Montana's evaluation as Appendix "A" and is incorporated herein. Montana concurs with and adopts that analysis, with two exceptions: 1. The analysis prepared by NPS, APHIS and USFS assumes that the regulatory veterinarians in the other 49 states would agree with APHIS' determination that untested bulls, calves, yearlings and postparturient cows that have totally passed placenta represent a low risk for brucellosis transmission if removed 60 days prior to cattle returning to public lands. Without such agreement, regulatory veterinarians from other states could make independent decisions to impose testing requirements on Montana cattle prior to importation to their states. The economic effects on the livestock industry could be substantial. To avoid that economic risk, the Montana State Veterinarian may use professional discretion about whether and when to remove bison and will retain authority for the decision to remove untested bison in the West Yellowstone area. 2. The analysis prepared by NPS, APHIS and USFS assumed tolerance for untested yearling females on public lands in the West Yellowstone area, as well as tolerance for untested bulls and calves. Under deep snow conditions, it is not always possible to distinguish between yearling females and smaller, older females. Therefore, under the worst case scenario described in the analysis, 128 bison, including 13 yearling females, might be removed. This difference would not alter the conclusion that, even under a worst case scenario, adjustments to the interim plan are sufficient to provide for a generally stable bison population at current levels. 332 Appendix \ November 24, 1997 EVALUATION OF ADJUSTMENTS TO INTERIM BISON MANAGEMENT PLAN, WINTER 1997-1998 I. SUMMARY OF INTERIM BISON MANAGEMENT PLAN, WINTER 1996-97 The goal of the interim plan is to "conduct operations ... to provide spatial and seasonal separation of bison and domestic cattle in order to maintain Montana's brucellosis class-free status, while permitting the bison herd within the park to fluctuate, to the maximum extent possible, in response to natural ecological processes." (Final Interim Bison Management Plan, page 1) . The objectives of the interim plan included limiting the distribution of free- ranging bison to specified federal public lands adjacent to Yellowstone National Park in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area, preventing bison from leaving Yellowstone National Park in the Reese Creek boundary area and moving north onto adjacent private land where cattle are grazed, and limiting bison distribution in the West Yellowstone area to times, situations, and locations in which the risk of brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle can be controlled. The Interim Bison Management Plan adopted in 1996 called for the following actions : 1. Eagle Creek/ Bear Creek Area: The Gallatin National Forest manages this area of public land north and east of the Yellowstone River and Gardiner, MT, primarily for wildlife resources. Bison would be monitored, hazing would be attempted to discourage bison from leaving this area, and no capture operations would occur in this area. The agencies would haze those bison moving beyond the Little Trail Creek-Maiden Basin hydrographic divide back into the management area. Montana Department of Livestock (DOL) would shoot those bison that could not be hazed. 2. Reese Creek Area : The Yellowstone National Park boundary at Reese Creek abuts private land that leases cattle grazing year round. This private land is located west of the Yellowstone River and north of the park boundary. As intended in the plan, the National Park Service (NPS) constructed and operated a capture facility at Stephens Creek, about 2 miles south of the Reese Creek boundary within Yellowstone National Park, to prevent bison movement onto adjacent private land. All bison moving onto the Stephens Creek flats area were expected to eventually go beyond the boundary if not hazed or captured. Hazing would be used to keep bison from moving beyond the boundary, if possible, and bison would be captured if hazing were unsuccessful. All captured bison would be shipped to slaughter. Bison that evaded capture, were unable to be hazed, and moved beyond the Reese Creek boundary would be shot. Bison shot in the field would be donated to Native American Tribes or Associations or social services organizations. Montana would sell at public auction those bison that were shipped to slaughter. 3 . West Boundary Area: Bison would be monitored and all bison beyond parkboundaries between May 1 and October 31 would be hazed back into the park or shot. Between October 31 and May 1, Montana, with assistance from APHIS, would maintain capture facilities at 2 locations. Capture facilities were located at Duck Creek on private land and at the Madison River on Gallatin National Forest. Both facilities were located immediately adjacent to the park boundary. The plan called for all bison 333 APPENDIXES exiting YNP to be captured and tested for exposure to Brucella abortus. Montana DOL would ship to slaughter those bison testing seropositive and all seronegative, pregnant females. Seronegative males and seronegative, nonpregnant females would be released on public land. DOL could choose to shoot all bison that evaded capture and testing. Bison on private land were to be shot . Contingency Measures: It was not anticipated that removals from the population would exceed the range of those experienced since 1985. The largest removal previously recorded was 569 bison during the winter of 1988-89. The plan stated, "Should unusual circumstances develop that are beyond the range of environmental conditions experienced since 1984-85, the agencies may develop contingency plans to assure that removals of bison outside of cattle-free public lands in Montana do not compromise the integrity of the bison herd within Yellowstone National Park." (Final Interim Bison Management Plan, page 1) . II. RESULTS OF INTERIM BISON MANAGEMENT PLAN, WINTER 1996-97 The bison population at the beginning of the 1996-97 winter was estimated at 3,500 bison (based on a high count of 3,436 on September 24, 1996). This included 865 bison on the northern range, 265 in the Mirror-Pelican, and 2,306 in the Mary Mountain area (includes the Gibbon, Firehole, and Madison River drainage as well as the Cougar Meadows and west boundary area) . The winter began within the normal range of temperatures and snowfall. In late December heavy snows, 2 to 5 feet, were followed by several days of rain in early January, immediately followed by extreme cold. These conditions caused rain saturated snow to freeze and resulted in thick crusting and ice layers that precluded bison access to forage. These conditions did not moderate until late March, 1997. 1. Contingency Measures: In November and December, bison monitoring, hazing, slaughter, and shooting operations occurred as described in the interim plan. On January 10, 1997 and January 17, 1997, YNP wrote to Montana identifying that management removals were fast approaching the levels of historic removals (569) and that contingency measures should be developed. By January 17, 1997, 532 bison had been killed. It was proposed that YNP begin testing and holding those bison testing negative at Stephens Creek capture facility as well as additional hazing from private land back into the park or into Eagle Creek. It was also requested that Montana contact private landowners to see if there were easement opportunities where bison could be allowed on private land where livestock was not present. Additionally, it was requested that Montana stop shooting bison on public land in the West Yellowstone area where no livestock were present. A number of options were discussed between NPS and Montana staff over the next several days. On January 25, 1997, YNP informed Montana that operation of the Stephens Creek capture facility had been suspended, that negative tested bison were being held, and hazing efforts were being increased. On January 29, 1997, the agency heads of NPS, USFS, and APHIS sent a letter to Montana proposing contingency measures. These measures included testing at Stephens Creek and holding test negative animals, increased hazing, and hazing of animals leaving at Reese Creek off private land back into the park. Additional proposals for the West Yellowstone 334 Appendix A area included suspension of shooting on public land, resumption of capture operations, and barricading park roads if additional bison begin to move from the park interior. On February 7, 1997, federal agency heads provided detailed responses to questions submitted by Montana on January 30, 1997, and provided detailed proposed contingency measures. On February, 14, 1997, Montana replied and suggested a meeting as soon as possible, outlined steps Montana would take including selectively removing only adult females on public land, removing bison on private land only at the request of the landowner, increased hazing, and hazing bison back into the park at West Yellowstone, and establishment of a quarantine facility inside the park at Stephens Creek. 2. Eagle Creek/ Bear Creek Area: Bison began moving to this area in December. As winter progressed and conditions worsened, monitoring indicated over 250 bison were in this area at peak numbers. As numbers increased and bison spent more time in the area, some began moving west beyond Little Trail Creek. Some were hazed back into the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area, but those bison that moved west onto private land or highway rights of way were shot . About 250 bison survived in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area and inside the park in the vicinity of Mammoth and returned to the northern range when weather moderated. With the addition of the 107 released from the Stephens Creek facility, the northern range contained about 350 animals. 3. Reese Creek Area: Bison began moving to the Reese Creek area in mid- December. Animals were initially hazed but large movements occurred in late December, 1996 and early January, 1997. Capture operations began on January 4, 1997 and from that date through January 17, 1997, NPS personnel captured 467 bison at the Stephens Creek facility and transferred 347 to DOL for shipment to slaughter. At that time the available slaughter facilities were full and the total number of bison killed was 567. Beginning on January 21, 1997, the NPS began testing the remaining 120 animals for exposure to brucellosis, shipped 54 seropositive animals to slaughter, four additional animals died as a result of injuries during capture operations, and held 62 seronegative bison in the capture facility. Starting in late January, Park personnel implemented very intensive hazing operations (virtually 24 hours per day) to keep bison away from the boundary, move bison back into the park from across the northern boundary, or move bison further into the park. Eventually, hazing became much more difficult, inefficient, ineffective, and unsafe for personnel. For example, the bison resisted the attempts to move them and also fatigued rapidly - to the point of laying down immediately when the hazing operations ceased. Further, bison weight loss during this period increased dramatically. Park personnel concluded that continuing these efforts from the end of January through the rest of the winter would have been impractical and ineffective. Beginning February 11, 1997, National Park Service personnel resumed capture and testing of an additional 148 bison. When capture and testing operations were stopped on February 13, 1997, a total of 61 bison were shipped to slaughter (two additional bison died as a result of injuries in 335 APPENDIXES the capture facility) and 85 additional seronegative bison were held in the capture facility. The NPS was then holding and feeding a total of 147 seronegative bison in the Stephens Creek facility. The capture facility was not designed to hold bison more than a day or two and holding this large group of bison precluded operating the facility as a capture facility . In March, as more bison migrated toward the Mammoth/Gardiner area, the park commenced hazing bison to prevent them from leaving the park or move them back into the park. DOL continued to shoot those bison that could not be hazed back into the park and moved north of the Reese Creek boundary onto adjacent private land. In March, 35 of the 147 bison being held were transferred to Idaho for vaccine research purposes. Four female bison that tested positive at that time were transferred to Montana State University for research and one injured animal was removed. On April 24, 1997, the remaining 107 bison held in the capture facility were released and they returned on their own to the northern range . During the winter, a total of 616 bison were captured, 462 bison were shipped to slaughter and 147 seronegative bison were held in the capture facility. In addition, NPS personnel killed six bison that received serious debilitating injuries in the capture operations. One additional bison was killed because of a previous parasite infection. From December 30, 1996, through March 18, 1997, 257 bison that had moved out of the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area or north of the park boundary onto private land were shot in the field. This brought the removals to 725 bison shot or shipped to slaughter, 3 9 additional bison removed for research purposes, plus one animal removed because of a previous parasite infection . When comparing the number of bison on the northern range in early winter, the number of management removals, and the number of animals surviving, several hundred animals would have had to move from the interior of the park to Stephens Creek area to account for all animals removed and surviving on the northern range. This type of movement was confirmed when animals that had been captured, tested, marked, and released at Horse Butte in West Yellowstone area were subsequently observed and captured at Stephens Creek. West Boundary Area: Montana constructed two capture facilities in the area north of West Yellowstone, Montana, to capture and test bison leaving the park and then ship to slaughter bison that tested seropositive and seronegative pregnant females. Montana was to release all male and nonpregnant female bison testing serologically negative. The plan provided for shooting any bison that left the park and evaded the capture facilities. By early January heavy snows and poor capture facility location largely undermined the effectiveness of the capture facilities. Bison were captured on seven occasions, November 14, 1996, November 19, 1996, December 10, 1996, January 29, 1997, February 25, 1997, March 25, 1997, and March 27, 1997. A total of 113 bison were captured with 48 (42%) seropositives or pregnant females shipped to slaughter and 65 (58%) 336 Appendi \ A seronegative bison released on Horse Butte. Untested bison that evaded capture or moved beyond the management area boundary were shot in the field from November 14, 1996 through April 15, 1997. During this period 310 bison were shot. All bison remaining in the West Yellowstone area were hazed back into the park in mid May. Classification of all bison sent to slaughter and those shot in the field in the West Yellowstone area showed 41% were males, 43% females, and 16% calves . Summary of Management Removals: For the 1996/97 interim bison management operations, a total of 1,123 bison were removed from the Yellowstone bison population. A breakdown of removals north of the park boundary and at Stephens Creek includes 726 bison (462 sent to slaughter, 264 shot in the field) plus 39 additional bison sent to Idaho and Bozeman for research purposes. Removals from the West Yellowstone area includes 358 bison (48 sent to slaughter, 310 shot in the field) . III. EARLY WINTER BISON SITUATION, 1997. 1. Status and Evaluation. An aerial count of bison in YNP , conducted on July 30, 1997, resulted in the highest count so far this year. Subsequent counts in August, September, and early November observed fewer bison. Based on the July count of 1,921 adults and 248 new calves for a total count of 2,169 bison, the population is conservatively estimated at 2,200 bison . When examining the July, 1997, count by major wintering area, the northern range count in July included 321 adults and 33 calves, for a total of 354 bison. Some shifts in population numbers may take place before bison select their wintering area but assuming 3 50 winter on the northern range then approximately 1,850 bison would comprise the interior population (Mary Mountain and Pelican Valley) . Some bison may move to the west boundary area . Movements in the last several decades on the northern range have been highly variable and have been episodic during extremely severe winters occasionally resulting in nearly all of the northern range population moving to the northern boundary. The variability is characterized by movements of no or few bison during mild winters, even at high populations, and large movements during severe winters at all population levels . In contrast, movements from the interior population to the western boundary area has exhibited less variability and less volatility at different population levels. A major difference between the northern range and the interior is bison use of extensive geothermal areas in the interior which moderate the effects of severe winter weather. Movements from the interior have varied over the last decade from 0% to as much as 16% (winter 1996/97) of the interior population. 337 APPENDIXES IV. ADJUSTMENTS TO INTERIM PLAN IN 1997 AND EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE IMPACTS. The following proposed adjustments are consistent with the goal and objectives of the 1996 interim bison management plan. Over a wide range of population levels, it appears that winter weather is a major factor influencing bison movement outside park boundaries, with stronger influences on the northern range than for the park interior. One possible weather scenario is that the winter will be mild or average over the entire season. Under these conditions, little or no bison movement to the boundary areas would be expected. Learned behavior of bison that have previous experience with these boundary areas may result in some bison moving to or outside YNP in the Reese Creek and West Yellowstone areas. Lower winterkill would be expected. A second scenario is that winter weather conditions are mild to average during the first part of the winter and become more severe during late February and March. This scenario may produce some movement of bison on the northern range during early winter but precipitate larger movements to the Reese Creek boundary later in the winter. In the past, hazing bison back into the park in late winter has been successful in reducing the number of bison killed as a result of management actions. Movements of the interior population in response to increasing winter severity are likely to be less than the response on the northern range. Moderate winterkill may occur depending on the timing of severe weather, location of snow conditions preventing access to forage, and spring breakup. A third and worst case scenario is that winter weather conditions are severe throughout the winter. This scenario would likely produce larger movement of bison on the northern range during early winter and could conceivably result in most bison on the northern range seeking lower elevation winter range in the Mammoth, Eagle Creek/Bear Creek, and Stephens Creek areas. Similar to the winter of 1996/97, movements of bison in the interior of the park would likely occur earlier in response to increasing winter severity but total numbers of bison moving into the West Yellowstone area are likely to be less than on the northern range. Winterkill, similar to percentage levels in 1996/97, could occur . 1. Adjustments to the Interim Plan. The overall objective of adjustments to the interim plan is to reduce the number of bison that are killed as part of interim bison management actions at or outside the Yellowstone National Park boundary and provide for a generally stable bison population at its current levels. Several actions, such as monitoring and sample data collection would continue as previously described in the interim plan. Whenever it is safe and practical, hazing bison back into the park or specified public lands (for example Eagle Creek/Bear Creek) will be considered first in order to reduce the need for lethal removal. If private landowners request bison to be removed they will be hazed off private land first, if appropriate, or shot. Landowners will still have all rights provided by state law for the removal of bison on their property. Hazing may also be attempted, between Madison Junction to Mammoth, to prevent bison movement from the interior portions of the park to the north boundary. 338 Appendix A Reese Creek area. A second measure specifically addresses bison likely to exit at the Reese Creek boundary area. When hazing bison in the vicinity of Reese Creek to keep them within the park has failed or become ineffective, the NPS will capture all bison at the Stephens Creek capture facility and serologically test bison for exposure to brucellosis. Only seropositive bison would be sent to slaughter and seronegatives would be held in the capture facility. These bison will be held until late winter or early spring (mid- to late-April) and then released to move back into the park on their own. NPS personnel would shoot bison at the park boundary of Reese Creek that evade capture or are deemed unsafe to handle (usually large adult males) . West Yellowstone Area. In the West Yellowstone area, two capture facilities existed, one on private land and one on public land. The intent of the capture operations is to capture and test as many bison as possible that move into the West Yellowstone area. The capture facility that was on public land near the Madison River was dismantled and may be moved to other land near Horse Butte to increase capture efficiency and facilitate bison capture. Relocation of the capture facility would meet siting criteria described in the interim plan. These actions are intended to reduce the number of seronegative bison that might be shot in the field. However, in the event some bison are not captured and tested, APHIS has provided that untested low risk bison that include bulls, yearlings, calves, and postparturient cows that have totally passed placenta do not have to be shot in the field and can be allowed on certain public lands in the West Yellowstone area during the winter. APHIS has determined that allowing untested low risk bison wintering on those public lands specified in the interim plan in the west boundary area will not jeopardize the brucellosis class-free status of Montana. In addition, to further mitigate any potential risk, APHIS has determined that bison must be hazed back into Yellowstone National Park 60 days prior to cattle returning to the public lands, thus maintaining a temporal and spatial separation between cattle and bison. These adjustments will minimize the potential for the spread of brucellosis. The intent is to reduce the killing of low risk bison on public land when cattle are not present. Impacts of Adjustments to the Bison Population. For this evaluation, effects of the interim plan adjustments to the bison population are described for a worst case scenario under severe winter conditions. Consequently, effects are expected to be less if weather conditions are less severe (as described in the first two possible weather scenarios) and fewer bison move outside Yellowstone National Park boundaries in the West Yellowstone and Reese Creek areas. Reese Creek area. Under severe winter conditions in 1996/97, between 200 and 250 bison left the northern winter range inside YNP and wintered in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area, representing 29% of the beginning winter population on the northern range. Current estimates indicate approximately 350 bison may winter in the northern range and it is expected approximately 100 (29%) bison could winter in the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek area under severe weather conditions. If the remaining 250 bison were to move to the Reese Creek area, the NPS would first attempt to hold bison in the park and haze bison further into the park. If hazing were 339 APPENDIXES unsuccessful, NPS personnel would capture and test all bison moving to the Stephens Creek area, ship seropositives to slaughter, and hold seronegatives until weather conditions moderate. Assuming a 50% seroprevalence rate for bison, approximately 125 bison would be sent to slaughter and 125 would be held in the capture facility. Hazing bison between Madison Junction and Mammoth is intended to prevent bison movement from the park interior toward Mammoth and the Stephens Creek areas. If hazing were not completely successful and some bison from the park interior moved to the Stephens Creek area, the NPS would capture those bison and hold additional seronegative bison in the capture facility. If the capacity of the capture facility is reached, the NPS may selectively ship seronegative bison to slaughter. These adjustments would result in approximately 125 bison remaining in the population that might have otherwise been sent to slaughter under last years operating plan. With these adjustments, approximately 225 bison could inhabit the northern range in the spring of 1998 following a very severe winter. If NPS were to take no action, all bison leaving the park could be killed under Montana law. West Yellowstone area. Under the winter conditions of 1996/97, approximately 16% of the total bison wintering in the Mary Mountain and Pelican Valley areas moved outside the Park in the West Yellowstone area. Approximately 1,850 bison are expected to winter in the Mary Mountain and Pelican Valley areas and if severe weather conditions occurred, similar to 1996/97, approximately 300 (16%) bison may move into the West Yellowstone area during the 1997/98 winter. Assuming all bison were captured and tested 126 (42%) seropositive bison and all pregnant females would be sent to slaughter. About 174 (58%) would be released and allowed to inhabit public lands during the winter. If the capture facilities were rendered ineffective, similar to last year, only 27% of the bison in the West Yellowstone area would be captured and tested. Of the 81 that would be captured, 34 would be sent to slaughter and 47 would be released on public land in the Horse Butte area. The remaining 219 would be untested. Removal data from 1996/97 showed 41% of all bison removed were bulls, 43% were females and 16% were calves. Past removal data from 1988/89, 1991/92, 1994/95, and 1996/97 showed yearling females comprised an average of 14% of female bison older than calves ( Pac and Frey 1991, Aune unpubl . data) . If higher risk adult females were shot and low risk bulls (includes yearling males), female yearlings, and calves were allowed on public land in the winter, approximately 81 adult females would be shot in the field. Approximately 90 adult and yearling males, 13 yearling females, and 3 5 calves would be allowed to winter on public lands in the West Yellowstone area. Under this scenario, bison removals would total about 115 . Total Estimated Bison Removals. If the agencies were to immediately implement all adjustments to the interim bison management plan a total of 240-250 bison (125 Stephens Creek, 115-125 West Yellowstone) may be removed as a result of management actions under a worst case weather scenario. Approximately 10% of the bison population was estimated to have winterkilled during the severe winter of 1996/97 and if similar conditions existed for the 1997/98 winter, approximately 220 bison might winterkill. Winterkill might actually be less because many of the older, susceptible 340 Appendix A animals likely died from last winter's conditions and the number of susceptible calves in the 1997 population (about 250) is substantially less than last winter's population (about 500) . Total losses from the population could be as many as 460 to 470 bison. With a beginning winter population of 2,200, the following early spring population is estimated to be 1,730-1,740 or 87% of the early spring population in 1997. Under a worst case scenario and with average recruitment in spring 1998, the bison population would be expected to number approximately 2,000, within 10% of the 1997 summer estimate. Without adjustments to the interim plan, removals in a worst case scenario could number as many as 503 bison killed (250 sent to slaughter from the north boundary and 253 sent to slaughter or shot from the West Yellowstone area) as part of the interim plan plus 220 winterkill for an approximate total of 773. This may result in an early winter population of 1,427 or 71% of the early spring population in 1997 . 3. Impacts of Adjustments to Threatened and Endangered Species. Peregrine falcons are not found in the area during winter months . Adjustments to the interim plan are not expected to impact peregrine falcons. Whooping cranes are not found in the affected areas and will not be affected. Bald eagles may be found along the Yellowstone River to the east of the Reese Creek area and may be present along open water corridors in the West Yellowstone area. Adjustments to the interim plan are not expected to affect bald eagles in the Reese Creek area. In the West Yellowstone area, the capture facility will be placed on public land in the Horse Butte area to avoid disturbance to bald eagles. Current measures are in place that prohibit bison removal activity within 1/2 mile of any active bald eagle nest from- February 1 through May 15. The timing of activities in areas near open water and bald eagle foraging areas would be limited to periods when eagles were not foraging. No impacts to grizzlies are predicted due to adjustments to the interim plan. Most management activity is expected to occur during winter months when bears are hibernating and capture and handling operations in the West Yellowstone and Reese Creek areas are not expected to affect grizzly bears . Winterkill may be an important food source for bears in interior portions of Yellowstone National Park (Mattson and Knight 1992) . Bison winterkill may be density-independent and largely influenced by severe weather events. For a worst case scenario under severe weather conditions, adjustments to the interim plan could result in 250 bison being killed as part of management actions. Without adjustments, as many as 503 bison could be killed. Thus, adjustments to the interim plan could potentially reduce human caused bison removals by as much as 50% compared to interim plan actions without adjustments. In a worst case scenario, adjustments to the interim plan may result in a 13% lower spring bison population compared to spring 1997 (1,740 versus 2,000) but may also result in a spring bison population 22% higher (1,740 with adjustments versus 1,427 without adjustments) than if adjustments were not implemented under similar severe winter conditions. For a worst case scenario, these 341 APPENDIXES adjustments would likely result in fewer bison killed and a larger bison population than if adjustments were not implemented. These adjustments could potentially provide for a larger bison population which in turn could potentially provide more carrion for bears in the future. Gray wolves are found in several areas of Yellowstone National Park. Adjustments to the interim plan are not expected to affect gray wolves. 4. Impacts of Adjustments on Other Wildlife Adjustments to the interim plan are not expected to significantly impact other wildlife above that analyzed for the interim plan. Capture and handling activity in the Stephens Creek area occurs on critical pronghorn winter range and capture facilities exclude pronghorn from at least 13 acres and may temporarily affect pronghorn through displacement from a much larger area of winter range. Pronghorn may also shift their activity away from the capture facility. This interim plan and associated adjustments are short term and impacts to pronghorn are expected to be minor . 5. Impacts of Adjustments on Wetland Areas As set out in the 1995 EA, capture facilities would be located away from sensitive wetland sites and no additional impacts to wetland areas are expected due to adjustments to the interim plan. 6. Impacts of Adjustments on Vegetation Adjustments to the interim plan are expected to impact vegetation only to the extent described for the interim plan. Capture and handling facilities and wing fences would continue to avoid rare and sensitive plant species, and adjustments to the interim plan are not expected to impact these species . 7. Impacts of Adjustments on Cultural Resources Consistent with the 1995 EA, adjustments to the interim plan are not expected to impact archeological resources, historic structures, cultural landscapes, or ethnographic resources. 8. Impact of Adjustments on Domestic Livestock Operations As in the 1995 EA, adjustments to the interim plan would continue to prevent bison from coming in contact with domestic cattle on private or public lands, and Montana's brucellosis class-free status would be maintained. Adjustments to the interim plan, thus, are not expected to impact domestic livestock operations. 9. Impacts of Adjustments on Visitor Use Adjustments to the interim plan are not expected to impact visitor use beyond that previously described for the interim plan. 342 APPENDIX B: QUARANTINE PROTOCOL FOR BISON Brucellosis Eradication: Uniform Methods and Rules Chapter 1, General Provisions — Cattle and Bison Part II. Procedures 6. Procedures for Handling Infected or Restricted Herds D Approved Bison Quarantine Facilities A group or individual may establish an approved bison quarantine facility (ABQF) to provide testing for brucellosis-exposed bison from Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks in order to qualify the animals as brucellosis-free. These facilities may be located in Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Park, or adjacent to the Parks in the adjoining States of Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming. State and Federal animal health officials must approve each facility Facility approval is valid for one year and can be reapproved provided all requirements are met. State and/or Federal animal health officials will select the serological tests to be conducted, establish procedures to account for all animals entering or leaving the ABQF, and supervise all operations. All bison entering an approved bison quarantine facility are considered to be brucellosis- exposed animals and must be permanently identified with official metal eartags and placed under quarantine restrictions. Prior to entering the facility, all animals must test negative on official brucellosis serological tests conducted at the National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) or at an approved Cooperative State-Federal Brucellosis Laboratory (CSFBL). All serological and/or milk tests conducted in the ABQF are considered preliminary and must be confirmed at NVSL or at an approved CSFBL. Specimens or milk samples for bacterial culture must also be cultured at NVSL or at an approved CSFBL. It is recommended that test-negative bison captured during a single season entering the ABQF be placed in an ABQF holding pen until they can be sorted and penned separately into individual test groups (ITG). The holding pens and ITG pens should be separated by at least two fences that are a minimum of 10 feet apart. Upon entry into the ABQF, it is recommended, but not required, that serological tests be conducted on every bison every 30-45 days while they are in a holding pen or ITG until each animal classified as a reactor has been removed and the remaining animals test negative. If the testing results in any bison being classified as a reactor, a subsequent ITG test must be conducted on the remaining animals in the ITG at least 30 days later. Initially, this procedure will more readily identify reactors animals, minimizing the time spent in the ABQF completing the testing requirements to qualify for quarantine release. 343 APPENDIXES All Brucella culture-positive animals and/or all animals classified as reactors must be removed from the ABQF within 15 days of being identified. Any bison removed from the ABQF before completing the requirements to qualify for quarantine release must move under permit either to an approved research facility or to an approved slaughter facility for slaughter only. All bison that are classified as reactors because they tested positive to an official serological and/or milk test or are confirmed culture-positive must go to an approved research facility or to an approved slaughter facility for slaughter only Each ITG must qualify for quarantine release following the procedures listed below before any individual bison within the ITG may be released from quarantine 1 . Sexually mature bison (3 years of age or older) (a) Males — Male bison must pass a minimum of three consecutive negative ITG tests. The first ITG test must be conducted when the ITG starts the quarantine period. The second ITG test must be conducted at least 180 days after the first ITG test. There must be at least 12 months between the first and last consecutive negative ITG tests (b) Pregnant females — Pregnant female bison must complete two calvings within the ABQF. Pregnant female bison not born in the facility and continually penned within a test-negative ITG must be rebred in the ABQF following their first calving to a test-negative male from a holding pen or ITG An ITG test must be conducted when the ITG starts the quarantine period before the first calving, another ITG test must be conducted at least 30 days and not more than 90 days after each female has calved during the first and second calvings, and an ITG test must be conducted six months after the last animal has calved during the first and second calvings. Each postparturient female bison must have discharges, fluids, and swabs collected and cultured within 5 days after calving. There must be at least 12 months between the first and last consecutive negative ITG test. (c) Nonpregnant females — Nonpregnant female bison not born in the facility and continually penned within a test-negative ITG must be bred in the ITG to a test-negative male from a holding pen or ITG, complete a gestation cycle, calve, and pass a minimum of three consecutive negative ITG tests. The first ITG test must be conducted when the ITG starts the quarantine period before being bred. The second ITG test must be conducted at least 30 days and not more than 90 days after each female has calved, and the third ITG test must be conducted six months after the last animal has calved in the ITG. Each postparturient female bison must have discharges, fluids, and swabs collected and cultured within 5 days after calving. There 344 Appendix H must be at least 12 months between the first and last consecutive negative ITG tests . 2. Sexually immature bison (under 3 years of age) (a) Immature males — Male bison under three years of age must pass a minimum of three consecutive ITG tests. The first ITG test must be conducted when the ITG starts the quarantine period, and the last consecutive negative ITG test must be conducted after the animals are at least three years of age. The second ITG test will be conducted at least 180 days after the first ITG test. There must be at least 12 months between the first and last consecutive negative ITG tests. (b) Immature females — Immature female bison under three years of age not born in the facility and continually penned within a test-negative ITG must be bred to a test-negative male from a holding pen or ITG, complete a gestation cycle, calve, and pass a minimum of three consecutive negative ITG tests. The first ITG test must be conducted when the ITG starts the quarantine period before being bred. The second ITG test must be conducted at least 30 days and not more than 90 days after each female has calved, and the third ITG test must be conducted six months after the last animal has calved in the ITG. Each postparturient female bison must have discharges, fluids, and swabs collected and cultured within 5 days after calving. There must be at least 1 2 months between the first and last consecutive negative ITG tests 3 . Calves — Calves born in the ABQF from a test- and/or culture-negative ITG of adult pregnant females may be released from quarantine at six months of age or older provided that all of the following conditions are met: 1) there have been no reactor animals in the ITG immediately after their birth or within one month prior to their birth, 2) all calves in the ITG are serologically test-negative, 3) each adult in the ITG is serologically test-negative at least 30 days postcalving and culturally test-negative within 5 days postcalving, and 4) the adult animals in the ITG have tested negative on three consecutive herd tests over a 12 month period. For calves born to females that were pregnant at the time of entrance into the ABQF and/or calves born during a time in which reactors are disclosed, the males calves would be classified as "immature males" and be tested as in 2(a) above, the females would be classified as "immature females" and be tested as in 2(b) above, or the calves could be neutered and released from quarantine without restrictions. 4. Test- and/or culture-positive animals or animals that die in quarantine — Any aborted fetus, stillborn animal, or an animal that dies in the ABQF for any reason, will be necropsied, serologically tested, and its tissues and other appropriate 345 APPEND1XI S specimens cultured for Brucella. Tissue collection methods should be based on the sampling protocol outlined by the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee (GYTBC). Any culture and/or serologically test-positive animal found in an ITG will cause the ITG to restart the quarantine requirements. Restarting the quarantine requires the ITG to be tested every 30-45 days until all animals classified as reactors have been removed from the ITG and a complete ITG test is negative. Bred female bison in the ITG that have been pregnancy checked and determined not be pregnant must be sacrificed, necropsied, and specimens collected and cultured. In addition, a complete epidemiologic assessment will be made of all test or culture-positive cases of brucellosis within the ABQF. All Brucella culture-positive animals and/or all animals classified as reactors must be removed from the ABQF within 15 days of being identified. They must be neutered, slaughtered, or moved to an approved research facility. Breeding bulls — Bulls must be tested negative for brucellosis within 30 days of being placed within an ITG for breeding purposes or be from an ITG that has qualified for a quarantine release Neutered animals — Neutered bison may be released from quarantine without restrictions. Post-quarantine requirements — The entire ITG must qualify for quarantine release before any individual bison within the ITG may be released to a group or individual in a State or area. All animals released from the ITG must be retested at approximately six months and then one year later to verify that they remain test- negative. An agreement to test must be signed by the receiving owners or managers before the animals will be released into their custody. The agreement must also state that the animals must be kept separate from all other animals until the six month test has been completed. In addition, the State Animal Health Authorities in the State of destination must authorize movement into their State. 346 Appendix II Minimum tests required to release Minimum test intervals Minimum quarantine periods Sexually mature males 3 1st: start of quarantine period 2nd: at least 180 days after first test 3rd: at least 12 months after first test 1 year Pregnant females 5 1st: before calving 2nd: between 30 and 90 days after each animal has calved during 1 st and 2nd calvings Last: 6 months after last animal has calved during 1 st and 2nd calvings 1 Vi years Nonpregnant sexually mature females 3 1st: before bred 2nd: between 30 and 90 days after each animal has calved Last: 6 months after last animal has calved 1 !/2 years Immature males 3 1st: start of quarantine period 2nd: at least 180 days after first test 3rd: at least 12 months after the first test, and at least 3 years of age 1 year Immature females 3 1st: before bred 2nd: between 30 and 90 days after each animal has calved Last: 6 months after last animal has calved 2'/2 years Calves* 1 One test at 6 months of age Vi year * Calves born to females that were pregnant upon entry into the ABQF and calves born in an ITG in which reactors have been disclosed shall not be released as calves. 347 APPENDIX C: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, STATE OF MONTANA, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, AND ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STATE OF MONTANA U.S. FOREST SERVICE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE Purpose: Tn e«tahli\ United States Animal and Veterinary jiM Department of Plant Health Services <&y Agriculture Inspection Service Western Regional Office 384 Inverness Drive South Suite 150 Englewood. CO 80112 subject: Low Risk Bison Date: October 17, 1997 To: Joan M. Arnold! Deputy Administrator, VS Washington, DC This memorandum defines the term "low risk bison" as it is used in the Draft Environmental Imoact Statement for the Interagency Bison Management Plan for Montana and Yellowstone National Park. DEFINITION Low risk bison are those bison that do not present a significant risk of transferring brucellosis to livestock through environmental contamination - bulls, yearlings, calves, and postparturient female bison that have live calves and have totally passed all birth membranes. This definition applies to untested bison for which trapping attempts have been unsuccessful, within the Special Management Area (as defined in certain EIS alternatives) in the area adjacent to the western boundary of the Park, where there is temporal separation of cattle and bison. RATIONALE Birth membranes and associated fluids are the greatest potential source of increasing the risk of brucellosis transmission through environmental contamination. Low risk bison, as defined above, are not capable of contaminating the environment with birth membranes and fluids. A postparturient female that has a live calf and has passed all birth membranes is not likely to be infected. In the event she is infected, the quantity of infective organisms she may shed is de minimis compared to that in the birth membranes and fluids. l&UO&F^AF>HY • fN&tzX GLOSSARY APHIS. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture bison calf. Bison that are 0-12 months old. bison yearling. Bison that are 13-24 months old. biological assessment. The information prepared by or under the direction of the federal agency concerning listed and proposed species and designated and proposed critical habitat that may be present in the action area and the evaluation of potential effects of the action on such species and habitat. (50 CFR 402.02) blood testing. The withdrawal of a sample of blood from the vein of an animal for testing on one or more serological tests that are available. brucellosis. Infection with or disease caused by the Brucella abortus bacteria. Also known as Bangs disease, undulant fever, and contagious abortion. culling. The removal of an animal from the herd. depopulate. The removal of all animals in the herd. deterministic model. A model based on averages. ecosystem. A complex community of plants and animals that function as an ecological unit in nature. effectiveness (or efficacy). Ability to impact protection from abortion and infection when exposed to brucellosis. endangered species. Any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. (16 USC 1532(6)) epidemiology. That field of biological science which is concerned with the relationship to the various factors and conditions which determine the frequencies and distributions of an infectious process, a disease, or a physiological state in an animal population. feedgrounds. An area where a herd of elk are given feed during the winter months. genetic diversity. A source of genetic material supplied by a diverse population of animals. grazing allotments. A permit authorizing livestock to use national forest system or other lands under U.S. Forest Service control for the purpose of livestock production (see 36 CFR 222.1(b)(5)). groomed trails. In the context of this environmental impact statement, mechanically smoothed and compacted rough surfaces of snow that provide easier movement across in either snow machines, snow cats, or skis. GYA. Greater Yellowstone Area. GYIBC. Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee. heifer. A female calf. immunity. A specific defense mechanism of resistance brought about by the interaction of a specific agent and the humoral and cellular factors of the host. 375 GLOSSARY/BIBLIOGRAPHY/INDEX immunocontraception. The induction of contraception by injecting an animal with a compound that produces an immune response that precludes pregnancy. infectious period. The time during which the microorganism progeny are making an exit from the host or are available for transfer to a new host. jeopardy opinion. The decision of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that an action would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species (see CFR 402.02). management situation 1 and 2 (MSI and MS2). MSI areas are those that contain grizzly bear population centers and/or habitat that is needed for the survival and recovery of the species. In those areas the needs of the grizzly bear are given priority over other management considerations. MS2 areas have grizzly bears, although there are no population centers, and no highly suitable habitat occurs. The needs of the grizzly bear will be given consideration where feasible. Management should accommodate grizzly populations and/or habitat use if feasible, but not to the extent of excluding other land uses. Where the importance of habitat resources for recovery has not been determined, other uses prevail to the extent that they do not preclude the possibility of restratification to MSI. pathogenesis. The natural course of a disorder from the first interaction with the disease provoking stimuli to the changes in form and function which result or until equilibrium is reached or recovery, defect, disability, or death ensues; OR, The natural course of a disease that results in changes in form or function of the body until the animal recovers, becomes disabled, or dies. plowed roads. Roads where snow has been removed. policies. A definite course of action selected by a government agency to guide and determine present and future decisions. range management. Range management is the manipulation of rangeland components to obtain the optimum combination of goods and services for society on a sustained basis. Range management has two basic components: (1) protection and enhancement of the soil-vegetation, and (2) maintenance and improvement of the outputs of consumable range products such as red meat, fiber, wood, water, and wildlife. The range management profession deals with the plant-animal interface rather than dealing with either plants or animals in isolation. The distinguishing feature of range management is that it deals with manipulation of grazing activities by large herbivores so that both the plant and animal production will be maintained or improved. (Holechek, Pieper, and Herbel 1989, 5) reactor. An animal that is officially classified as a brucellosis reactor based on results of one of more official tests or is positive on bacterial examination for field strain Brucella abortus. recovery. Improvement in the status of a listed species to the point at which listing no longer is appropriate under the criteria set out in 16 USC 1533(a)(1)). recovery zone. The Yellowstone grizzly bear recovery zone as defined by the Grizzly Bear Management Subcommittee of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. recruitment. The natural addition of mature calves into the adult herd. regulation. A rule or order issued by a government agency, having the force of law under power granted through legislation. 376 Glossary reservoir of infection. The natural habitat of the organism in which an infectious agenl lives, multiplies, and depends primarily for survival reproducing itself in such a manner that it can be transmitted to animal or man. riparian areas. Zones of transition from aquatic to terrestrial ecosystems, dependent on surface and or subsurface water for existence, and which manifest the influence of that water. rules. An accepted set of written procedures having the force of regulations but established by agreemenl between the industries, agencies, and groups involved. rut. Breeding activity. sensitive species. Those plant and animal species identified by a regional forester for which population viability is a concern. seroconversion. The process whereby an animal that was previously seronegative becomes seropositive. serological. The use of serum. serology. The study of disease and infection in populations by the measurement of serum variables present in blood serum. seronegative. An animal with no detectable antibody in blood serum. seropositive. An animal with a detectable antibody titre in blood serum. slaughter. The killing of livestock or other animals and preparation of their meat, hides, etc., for sale or for other use by humans. special management area (or SMA). An area contiguous to the park where some of all bison may be tolerated for part or all of the year without increasing the risk of brucellosis transmission to domestic livestock. stochastic. Random or unpredictable event such as severe winter weather, snow depth, and access to forage test and slaughter. A procedure that involves capture, handling, and testing a group of cattle or bison for brucellosis, tuberculosis, or other communicable livestock diseases, identifying the seropositives, and removing them from the herd to a slaughter establishment for slaughter. threatened and endangered species. Any species of fish, wildlife, and plants that is listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. threatened species. Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)) undulant fever. A persistent human brucellosis caused by several species of Brucella and marked primarily by remittent fever, pain and swelling in the joints, and great weakness. wild, free-ranging bison. Bison not routinely handled by humans that can move without restrictions within specific geographic areas. wildlife management. The science of protecting, restoring, or manipulating populations of wild animals in order to meet any of several objectives ranging from intense human use to preservation of complete natural processes. 377 BIBLIOGRAPHY Alt, K. L. 1980 "Ecology of the Breeding Bald Eagle and Osprey in Grand Teton-Yellowstone National Parks Complex." MS Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 1992 Uniform Methods and Rides for Brucellosis Eradication. Aune, K. E. 1981 "Impact of Winter Recreationists on Wildlife in a Portion of Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming." MS Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. 1 1 1 pp. Aune, K., and P. Schladweiler 1993 Wildlife Laboratory Annual Report. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Park, Helena, MT. Autenrieth, R. E. 1983 Guidelines for the Management of Pronghorn Antelope. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin TX. 51 pp. Baier, Bill 1991 "A Consensus of Costs and Returns for a 100 Head Bison Cow-calf Enterprise in the Peace River Region." Economic Services Division, Alberta Agriculture. Barmore, W. J. 1980 "Population Characteristics, Distribution, and Habitat Relationships of Six Ungulates in Northern Yellowstone Park. Final report. On file at Yellowstone National Park, WY. Bath, A. J. 1991 "Public Attitudes in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho Toward Wolf Restoration in Yellowstone National Park." In Transactions of the North Am. Wildl. & Nat. Resour. Conf. 65: 91-95. Beck and Haase 1989 Historical Atlas of the American West. The Buffalo Herds. University of Oklahoma Press. Bishop, R. C. and T. A. Heberlein 1979 "Measuring Values of Extra-Market Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?" In American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61: 926-30. Bourland, Gregg 1997 "Reunite the Plains Tribes and their Bison." The Christian Science Monitor. April 4. Bowker, J. M., and J. R. Stoll 1988 "Use of Dichotomous Choice Methods to Value the Whooping Crane Resource." In American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70: 372-81. Boyce, M. S. 1990 "Wolf Recovery in Yellowstone National Park: A Simulation Model." In Wolves for Yellowstone? A Report to the United States Congress, Vol.2, Research and Analysis, pp. 3-3 to 3-59. On fde at Yellowstone National Park, WY. 378 Bibliography Boyce, M. S., and J. M. Gaillard 1992 "Wolves in Yellowstone, Jackson Hole, and the North Fork ol the Shoshone River: Simulating Ungulate Consequences of Wolf Recovery." In J. D. Varley and W.G. Brewster, eds. Wolves for Yellowstone? A Report to the United States Congress, Vol. 4, Research and Analysis, pp. 4-71 to 4- I 16. On file at Yellowstone National Park, WY. Boyle, K. J., and R. C. Bishop 1987 "Valuing Wildlife in Benefit-cost Analysis: a Case Study Involving Endangered Species." In Water- Resources Research 23(5): 943-50. Braden, J. B. and C. D. Kolstad 1991 Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality: North Holland. Brooke, James 1997 "Yellowstone Bison Herd Cut in Half over Winter," The New York Times. April 1 3. BRW, Inc. 1994 "Alternative Transportation Modes Feasibility Study, Vol. 3." Prepared for the National Park Service in association with Dames and Moore. Bryant, Peter J. 1996 "Captive Breeding and Reproduction." Biological Conservation, School of Biological Sciences. University of California, Irvine. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior 1980 Habitat Management Guides for the American Pronghorn Antelope, by J. Yoakum. Denver, CO. Callenbach, Ernest 1996 "Bring Back the Buffalo! A Sustainable Future for America's Great Plains," The Bison Heartland. Carbyn, L. N., S. M. Oosenbrug, and D. W. Anions 1993 Wolves, Bison . . . and the Dynamics Related to the Peace-Athabasca Delta in Canada 's Wood Buffalo National Park. Art Design Printing, Inc., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 270 pp. Carbyn, L. N., and T. Trottier 1987 "Responses of Bison on their Calving Grounds to Predation by Wolves in Wood Buffalo National Park." In Can. J. Zool. 65(8): 2072-78. 1988 "Descriptions of Wolf Attacks on Bison Calves in Wood Buffalo National Par." In Arctic 41(4): 297-302. Caslick, J. W. 1997 "Impacts of Winter Recreation on Wildlife in Yellowstone National Park: A Literature Review and Recommendations." 1 1 pp. Caslick, J., and E. Caslick 1997 "Pronghorn Distribution in Winter 1996-97, Yellowstone National Park." On file at Yellowstone National Park, WY. Chadwick, D. 1983 A Beast the Color of Winter. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco. 208 pp. 379 GLOSSARY/BIBLIOGRAPHY/INDEX Cheville, Norman F., M. Meagher, T. J. Roffe, F. Enright, and M. S. Boyce 1994 "Future Brucellosis Research Needs for the Greater Yellowstone Area." In National Brucellosis Symposium Proceedings, Sept. 26-28, pp. 289-316. Cole, Glen F. 1969 "The Elk of Grand Teton and Southern Yellowstone National Parks." In Natl. Park Serv. Research Rep. GRTE-N-1.80pp. 1983 "A Naturally Regulated Elk Population." In Proceedings, 1978 Symposium on Natural Regulation of Wildlife Populations, Vancouver, BC. Copeland, J. P. 1996 "Biology of the Wolverine in Central Idaho." MS Thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 1997 Memorandum to Bob Martin, Targhee National Forest. February 18. Craighead, J. J., J. R. Varney, and F. C. Craighead, Jr. 1974 A Population Analysis of the Yellowstone Grizzly Bears. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. Bulletin 40, University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 20 pp. Craighead, J. J. , J. S. Sumner, and J. A. Mitchell 1995 The Grizzly Bears of Yellowstone: Their Ecology in the Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1959-1992. Washington, DC: Island Press. 535 pp. Crawford, R. P., J. D. Huber, and R. B. Sanders 1986 "Brucellosis in Heifers Weaned from Seropositive Dams." In Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 189: 547-49. Davis, D. S. 1990a "Recent Advances on Brucellosis in Wildlife Populations." In Proceedings, 1990 student chapter American Veterinary Medical Association symposium, edited by B. Lyle and P. Brandt, 194-99. Texas A&M Univ. Student Chap. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc, College Station, TX. 1990b "Brucellosis in Wildlife." In Animal Brucellosis,. K. Nielsen and J. R. Duncan, eds. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Inc. Pp. 322-34. Davis, D. S., J. W. Templeton, T. A. Ficht, L. G. Adams, E. T. Thorne, and J. D. Kopeck 1989 "Brucella abortus in Captive American Bison. II. Preliminary Evaluation of Calfhood Strain 19 Vaccination Results." In Abstr. Brucellosis Research Conference, Chicago, IL. Davis, D. S., J. W. Templeton, T. A. Ficht, J. D. Williams, J. D. Kopec, and L. G. Adams 1990 Brucella abortus in Captive Bison. I. Serology, Bacteriology, Pathogenesis, and Transmission to Cattle." In Journal of Wildlife Diseases 26: 360-71 . Davis, D. S., J. W. Templeton, T. A. Ficht, J. D. Huber, E. T. Thorne, R. D. Angus, and L. G. Adams 1991 "Brucella Abortus in Bison. II. Evaluation of Strain 19 Vaccination of Pregnant Cows." In Journal of Wildlife Diseases 27: 258-64. Despain, Donald 1987 "The Two Climates of Yellowstone National Park." In Biol Sci. Proceedings Mont. Acad. Sci. 47(1987): 11-19. 1990 Yellowstone Vegetation, Consequences of Environment and History in a Natural Setting. Boulder, CO: Roberts Rinehart Publishers. 239 pp. 380 Bibliography Dillingham, Maud 1996 "Matter of Opinion: From Great Spirit to Great Steak?" E Magazine. Distributed by the Los An Times Syndicate. Dindinger, B. Nd. "Perspectives on the Impact to the Tourism Industry, Remarks." Alaska Tom ism Mai keting ( 'nuncil. Anchorage. Unpub. MS. 33 pp. Dobson, A. 1993 "Brucellosis in Yellowstone's Bison Population. I. Observed Epidemiology and Transmission Potential." Report to National Park Service by Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. Dobson, A., and M. Meagher 1996 "The Population Dynamics of Brucellosis in the Yellowstone National Park." In Ecology 77: 1026-36. Duffield, J. 1988 "The Net Economic Value of Elk Hunting in Montana." Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, MT. 1989 "Nelson Property Acquisition: Social and Economic Impact Assessment." Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, MT. 1991a "Existence and Nonconsumptive Values for Wildlife: Application to Wolf Recovery in Yellowstone National Park." In Benefits and Costs in Natural Resources Planning, Fourth Interim Report. Department of Agricultural Economics, edited by C. L. Kling, University of California, Davis. 1991b "Elk Economics: Implications for Management of Elk Security." In Proceedings, Elk Vulnerability Symp., compiled by A. G. Christensen, L. J. Lyon and T. N. Lonner, pp. 55-59. Montana State University, Bozeman. 1992 "An Economic Analysis of Wolf Recovery in Yellowstone: Park Visitor Attitudes and Values." In Wolves for Yellowstone? A Report to the United States Congress, Volume IV, Research and Analysis, edited by J. D. Varley and W. G. Brewster, National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park. Duffield, J., C. Neher and D. Patterson 1993 "Wolves and People in Yellowstone: A Case Study in the New Resource Economics." Report submitted to the Liz Claiborne and Art Ortenberg Foundation. 63 pp. Eberhardt, L. L., B. M. Blanchard, and R. R. Knight 1994 "Population Trend of the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear as Estimated from Reproductive and Survival Rates." In Can. J. Zool. 72: 147-50 Forbes, L. B., S. V. Tessaro, and W. Lees 1996 "Experimental Studies on Brucella abortus in Moose (Alces alces)." In Journal of Wildlife Diseases 32(1): 94-104. Frank, D.A., and S. J. McNaughton 1993 "Evidence for the Promotion of Aboveground Grassland Production by Native Large Herbivores in Yellowstone National Park." In Oecologia 96: 157-61. 381 GLOSSARY/BIBLIOGRAPHY/INDEX Fritz, William J. 1989 "Roadside Geology of the Yellowstone Country," Roadside Geology Series. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Co. Frye, Granville H., and Bob Hillman 1994 "National Cooperative Brucellosis Eradication program." In National Brucellosis Symposium Proceedings, Sept. 26-28, 1994: 210-219. Fuller, W. A. 1959 "The Horns and Teeth as Indicators of Age in Bison." In J. Wildl. Manage. 23(3): 342-A 1962 "The Biology and Management of the Bison of Wood Buffalo National Park." In Wildlife Management Bulletin. Series 1, No. 16. 52 pp. Frank, D., and S. J. McNaughton 1996 "Evidence for the Promotion of Aboveground Grassland Production by Native Large Herbivores in Yellowstone National Park." Pp. 57-62 in F. J. Singer, ed. Effects of Grazing by Wild Ungulates in Yellowstone National Park. Technical Report NPS/NRYELL/NRTR/96-01. NPS, Natural Resource Information Division, Denver. Gilbert, P. F., O. C. Wallmo, and R. B. Gill 1970 "Effect of Snow Depth on Mule Deer in Middler Park, Colorado." In J. Wildl. Manage. 34(1): 15-23. Glick, D., M. Carr, and B. Harting, Eds. 1991 "An Environmental Profde of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem." Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Bozeman, MT. 132 pp. Goodman, D. 1996 "Viability Analysis of the Antelope Population Wintering near Gardiner, Montana." Final report to the National Park Service. Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee 1997 "Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area." Green, G. 1994 "Use of Spring Carrion by Bears in Yellowstone National Park." MS Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow. Green, G. I. , D. J. Mattson, and J. M. Peek Nd. "Spring Feeding on Ungulate Carcasses by Grizzly Bears in Yellowstone National Park." In Journal of Wildlife Management. In review. Gunther, K. A., M. J. Biel, H. L. Robison, and H. N. Zachary 1997 Bear Management Office Administrative Annual Report for Calendar Year 1996. On file at Yellowstone National Park, WY. Gunther, K. A., M. Bruscino, S. Cain, T. Chu, K. Frey and R. R. Knight 1995 "Grizzly Bear-Human Conflicts, Confrontations, and Management Actions in the Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1994." Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee Report, Yellowstone National Park. 382 Bibliography Harmata, A. R. 1989 "Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Pages 65-67 in T. W. Clark, A. H. Harvey, R. D. Dorn, D. L. Genter, and C. Groves, eds. Rare, Sensitive, and Threatened Species oj the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative, Montana Natural Heritage Program, The Nature Conservancy, and Mountain West Environmental Services. 153 pp. Hash, H. S. 1989 "Wolverine (Gulo gulo). Pages 1 17—18 //I T. W. Clark, A. H. Harvey, R. D. Dorn, D. L. Genter, and C. Groves, eds. Rare, Sensitive, and Threatened Species of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative, Montana Natural Heritage Program, The Nature Conservancy, and Mountain West Environmental Services. 153 pp. Hawley, A. W. L. 1989 "Bison Farming in North America." In Wildlife Production Systems: Economic Utilization of Wild Ungulates, edited by R. J. Hudson, K. R. Drew, and L. M. Baskin, pp. 346-67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Herr, S., D. Roux, and P.M. Pieterson 1982 "The Reproducibility of Results in Bovine Brucellosis Serology and Their Correlation with Isolation of Brucella abortus." In Holechek, J. L., R. E. Pieper, and C. H. Herbel 1989 Range Management: Principles and Practices. Prentice-Hall, Inc. 501 pp. Houston, D. B. 1982 "The Northern Yellowstone Elk - Winter Distribution and Management." Pp. 263-72. In M. S. Boyce and L. D. Hayden-Wing, eds. Northern American Elk: Ecology, Behavior and Management. University of Wyoming, Laramie. Huber, J. D., and P. Nicoletti 1986 "Comparison of the Results of the Card, Rivanol, Complement-Fixation, and Milk Ring Tests with the Isolation Rate of Brucella abortus from Cattle." In American Journal of Veterinary Research 47: 1529-31. Idaho Fish and Game, Nez Perce Tribe, and Sawtooth National Forest 1995 "Habitat Conservation Assessments and Strategies for Forest Carnivores in Idaho." Jellison, W. J., C.W. Fishel, and E. L. Cheatum 1953 "Brucellosis in Moose, Alces americanun. In Journal of Wildlife Management 17(2): 217-8. Kavanagh, Thomas Nd. "Various Pow-wow Types Include: Northern/southern, Lakes, Plateau, Southwest; Urban/reservation; Annual/Benefit/Honoring; Contest/No-contest; Gigantic Pageant (i.e. Pequod/Gathering of Nations/Red Earth vs. Local Community, i.e. Comanche Homecoming)." Indiana University. Keiter, Robert B., and M .S. Boyce 1991 The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. New Haven: Yale University Press. Keiter, Robert B., and Peter H. Forelicher 1993 "Bison, Brucellosis, and Law in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem," Land and Water Law Review 28(1): 1-75. University of Wyoming, College of Law, Laramie. 383 GLOSSARY/BIBUOGRAPHY/INDEX Kellert, S. R. 1976 "Perceptions of Animals in American Society." In Trans. North Am. Wilcll. & Nat. Resour. Conf. 41: 533-46. Kellert, S. R., M. Black, C. R. Rush and A. J. Bath 1996 "Human Culture and Large Carnivore Conservation in North America." In Conservation Biology 10: 977-90. King, D. A., D. J. Flynn, and W. W. Shaw 1988 "Total and Existence Values of a Herd of Desert Bighorn Sheep." In Benefits and Costs in Natural Resource Planning, compiled by J .B. Loomis. University of California, Davis. Kirkpatrick, J. F., J. C. McCarthy, D. F. Gudermuth, S. E. Shideler, and B. L. Lasley 1996 "An Assessment of the Reproductive Biology of Yellowstone Bison (Bison bison) Subpopulations Using Noncapture Methods." Can. J. Zool. 74: 8-14. Knapp, S. E., S. E. Marley, S. M. Button, and M. C. Rognlie 1993 Bibliography: Brucellosis in the American Bison, Bison bison L., and Related Wildlife. Veterinary Molecular Biology, Montana State University, Bozeman. 585 pp. Knight, R. L. and D. N. Cole 1995 "Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. Pages 51-60. In R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. Washington, DC: Island Press. Knight, R. R., and L. L. Eberhardt 1985 "Population Dynamics of Yellowstone Grizzly Bears." In Ecology 66(2): 323-34. Koth, B., D. W. Lime, and J. Vlaming 1990 "Effects of Restoring Wolves on Yellowstone Area Big Game and Grizzly Bears: Opinions of Fifteen North American Experts." Pages 4-53 to 4-81. In Wolves for Yellowstone? A Report to the U.S. Congress. Vol. II Research and Analysis. U.S. On file at Yellowstone National Park, WY. Krutilla, J. 1967 "Conservation Reconsidered." In American Economic Review 57(4): 77-86. Lambert, G., T. E. Amerault, C. A. Manthei, and E. R. Goode, Jr. 1960 "Further Studies on the Persistence of Brucella abortus Infection in Cattle." In Proceedings of the U.S. Livestock Sanitary Association 64: 109-1 17. Langelier, L. 1989 "Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)." Pages 68-69 in T. W. Clark, A. H. Harvey, R. D. Dorn, D. L. Genter, and C. Groves, eds. Rare, Sensitive, and Threatened Species of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative, Montana Natural Heritage Program, The Nature Conservancy, and Mountain West Environmental Services. 153 pp. Lee T. R., J. W. Bickham, and M. D. Scott 1994 "Mitochondrial DNA and Allozyme Analysis of North American Pronghorn Populations. In Journal of Wildlife Management, 58: 307-18. Legg, K. L. 1996 "Movements and Habitat Use of Bighorn Sheep along the Upper Yellowstone River Valley, Montana." MS Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. 384 Bibliography Lemke, Tom 1996 "Gardiner Lake Elk Hunt Annual Report." Montana Department ol Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Limerick, Patricia Nelson 1987 The Legacy of Conquest. Norton and Company. Littlejohn, M., D. E. Dolson, and G. E. Machlis 1990 Visitor Services Project, Report 25. Yellowstone National Park, WY. 36 pp. Loomis, J. B., and D. S. White 1996 "Economic Benefits of Rare and Endangered Species: Summary and Mela Analysis." In Ecological Economics 18(1996): 197-206. Loomis, J., J. Cooper, and S. Allen 1988 "The Montana Elk Hunting Experience: A Contingent Valuation Assessment of Economic Benefits to Hunters." Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, MT. 47 pp. Llewellyn, L. 1978 "Who Speaks for the Timber Wolf?" In Trans. North Am. Wildl. & Nat. Resour. Conf. 43: 442-52. Lott, D. F., and S. C. Minta 1983 "Random Individual Association and Social Group Instability in American Bison (Bison bison)." Mack, J. A., and F. J. Singer 1992 "Population Models for Elk, Mule Deer, and Moose on Yellowstone's Northern Winter Range." Section 4, pp. 2-41. In Wolves for Yellowstone? A Report to the U.S. Congress. Vol. IV Research and Analysis. U.S. On file at Yellowstone National Park, WY. Manthei, C. A., and B. L. Deyoe 1970 "Brucellosis." In Bovine Medicine and Surgery and Herd Management, by W. J. Gibbons, E. G. Catcott, and J. F. Smithcors, eds. Wheaton, IL: American Veterinary Publishers, Inc. pp. 104-121. Mattson, D. J. 1997. "Use of Ungulates by Yellowstone Grizzly Bears (Ursus arctos)." Biological Conservation 8 1 : 161-77. Mattson, D. J., and R. R. Knight 1992 "Spring Bear Use of Ungulates in the Firehole River Drainage of Yellowstone National Park." Section 5, pp. 93-120. In Wolves for Yellowstone? A Report to the U.S. Congress. Vol. IV Research and Analysis. On fde at Yellowstone National Park, WY. Mattson, D. J., Blanchard, B. M., and Knight, R. R. 1991 "Food Habits of Yellowstone Grizzly Bears, 1977-87." Can. J. Zool. 69: 1619-29. McCullough, D. R., R. A. Garrott, J. F. Kirkpatrick, E. D. Plotka, J. D. Ralls, E. T. Thorn 1993 "Report of the Scientific Advisory Panel on Control of the Tule Elk on Point Reyes National Seashore." Unpub. typewritten report. 43 pp. McMillion, Scott 1997 "Activists to Bring Protests to Park." In Bozeman Daily Chronicle. April 16. McNaught, D. 1987 "Wolves in Yellowstone? - Park Visitors Respond." In Wildlife Society Bulletin 15: 518-21. 385 GLOSSARY/BIM.IOGRAPHY/INDEX Meagher, Mary 197 1 "Winter Weather as a Population Regulating Influence on Free-Ranging Bison in Yellowstone National Park." Pages 63-67. In American Association for the Advancement of Science Symposium on Research in National Parks. Washington, DC. 1974 "Yellowstone's Bison: A Unique Wild Heritage." In National Parks and Conservation Magazine (May): 9-14. 1985 "Yellowstone" Free-Ranging Bison," Naturalist 36(3): 20-27. 1989a "Range Expansion by Bison of Yellowstone National Park." In Journal of Mammalogy 70(3): 670-75. 1989b "Evaluation of Boundary Control for Bison of Yellowstone National Park." In Wildlife Society Bulletin 17(1): 15-19. Meagher, Mary, and Margaret E. Meyer 1994 "On the Origin of Brucellosis in Bison of Yellowstone National Park: A Review." In Conservation Biology 8: 645-53. Meagher, Mary, S. Cain, T. Toman, J. Kropp, and D. Bosnian 1994 "Bison in the Greater Yellowstone Area: Status, Distribution and Management." In National Brucellosis Symposium Proceedings, pp. 96-105. Mech, L. D. 1970 The Wolf Garden City, NY: Nat. Hist. Press. 384 pp. Meinig, D. W. 1993 "The Shaping of America." In Vol. 2, Continental America, 1800-67. Yale University Press. Merrill, E. H., M. S. Boyce, R. Marrs, and M. Brodahl 1988 "Relationships among Climatic Variation, Grassland Phytomass and Ungulate Population Characteristics on the Northern Range of Yellowstone National Park." Unpublished final report for the University of Wyoming/National Park Service Research. Center, 64 pp. Laramie, WY. Meyer, Margaret E. 1992 "Brucella abortus in the Yellowstone National Park Bison Herd," Report to the Department of the Interior by Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis. 1995 "Brucella Abortus Infection in the Free-Ranging Bison (Bison bison) Herd in Yellowstone National Park." In National Brucellosis Symposium Proceedings, Sept. 26-28. Meyer, M., and M. M. Meagher 1995a "Brucellosis in Captive Bison." In Journal of Wildlife Diseases 31: 106-10. 1995b "Brucellosis in Free-Ranging Bison (Bison bison) in Yellowstone, Grand Teton, and Wood Buffalo National Parks: A Review." In Journal of Wildlife Diseases 31: 579-98. Mohler, J. R 1917 "Report of the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, Pathological Division." Pages 105-6. In Annual Reports of the Department of Agriculture. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 386 Bibliography Moore, C. G., and P. R. Schnurrenberger 1981 "A Review of Naturally Occurring Brucella Abortus Infections in Wild Mammals." In Journal oj the American Veterinary Medical Association 179: 1105—12. National Biological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior 1995 "Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Investigations: Report of the Interagency Study Team," by R. R. Knighl and B. M. Blanchard. National Bison Association 1997a Bison World. Jan-March. 1997b Bison Cow/Calf Enterprise Budget (1993 Costs and Returns in the Central Great Plains). National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 1973 "The Bison of Yellowstone National Park," by M. Meagher. Sci. Monogr. Series, No.l, 161 pp. 1974 Yellowstone National Park Master Plan. On file at Yellowstone National Park, WY. 1986 "Yellowstone Bison." Information Paper No. 1, Yellowstone National Park, WY. 1988 National Park Service Management Policies. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office 1990a "Report of an Archeological Survey of the East Entrance Highway, Yellowstone National Park, WY." Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, NE. 1990b Winter Use Plan Environmental Assessment, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway. Denver Service Center, Denver, CO 1991 Yellowstone National Park Statement for Management. On file at Yellowstone National Park, WY. 1994 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Interagency Bison Management Plan. 1995 Resource Management Plan, Yellowstone National Park. On file at Yellowstone National Park, WY. 1996 Draft Environmental Assessment, Northeast Entrance Road Improvement. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, and State of Montana 1996 Interim Bison Management Plan. Neher, Chris, Hank Robison, and John Duffield 1997 "The Economic Impacts of the 1995-1996 Shutdown of the National Park System — Micro Study." Draft report. Nellis, C. H. 1989 Lynx (Eelis lynx). Pages 123-34 in T. W. Clark, A. H. Harvey, R. D. Dorn, D. L. Genter, and C. Groves, eds. Rare, Sensitive, and Threatened Species of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative, Montana Natural Heritage Program, The Nature Conservancy, and Mountain West Environmental Services. 153 pp. Nicoletti, P. 1980 "The Epidemiology of Bovine Brucellosis." Advances in Veterinary Science and Comparative Medicine 24: 69-97. 387 GLOSSARY/BIBI.IOGRAPHY/INDEX Nicoletti, Paul, and M. J. Gilsdorf 1994 "Brucellosis-The Disease in Cattle." In National Brucellosis Symposium Proceedings, Sept 26-28, pp. 122-27. Pac, H. I., and K. Frey 1991 Some Population Characteristics of the Northern Yellowstone Bison Herd During the Winter of 1988-89. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Bozeman, MT. Peacock, D. 1997 "The Yellowstone Massacre," Audubon (May/June): 41-49, 106-108. Peterson, M. J., W. E. Grant, and D. S. Davis 1 99 1 "Bison-Brucellosis Management: Simulation of Alternative Strategies." In Journal of Wildlife Management 55: 205-31. Power, T. 1990 "Ecosystem preservation and the economy in the Greater Yellowstone Area." In Conser\>ation Biology 5(3): 395-404. Pyrah, D. B. 1987 "American Pronghorn Antelope in the Yellow Water Triangle, Montana." In Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Bulletin. Rasker, R., N. Tirrell, and D. Kloepfer 1992 The Wealth of Nature: New Economic Realities in the Yellowstone Region. Bozeman: Colorworld printers. 64 pp. Ravandal, Virginia 1997 "Social and Cultural Environment Surrounding the Bison/Brucellosis Issue in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem." Prepared under contract for the National Park Service. Unpublished draft. Reardon, J. 1996 "Changes in Grazed and Protected Plant Communities in Yellowstone National Park. Pp. 1 15-26 in F. J. Singer, ed. Effects of Grazing by Wild Ungulates in Yellowstone National Park. Technical Report NPS/NRYELL/NRTR/96-01. NPS, Natural Resource Information Division, Denver. Rhyan, J 1995 "Epidemiology and Pathogenesis of Brucellosis in Bison of Yellowstone National Park, A Prospective Study." Draft proposal. Rhyan, J. C, D. R. Ewalt, G. Gidlewski, L. M. Philo, K. Aune, and T. Roffe 1997 "Preliminary Results on Tissue Location Sites of Brucella abortus in Female Bison from Yellowstone National Park." Abstract and oral presentation given at the International Symposium on Bison Ecology and Management in North America. Bozeman, MT. Roffe, T. J., J. C. Rhyan, G. Gidlewski, D. Ewalt, K. Aune, L. M. Philo, and S. Olsen 1997 "Epidemiology and Pathogenesis of Brucellosis in Yellowstone National Park (YNP) Bison (Bison bison), Second Year Summary." Abstract and oral presentation given at the International Symposium on Bison Ecology and Management in North America. Bozeman, MT. Rollin, Bernard 1989 The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain, and Science. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. 388 Bibliography Rush, W. M. 1932 "Bang's Disease in Yellowstone National Park Buffalo and I Ik I [erds." In ./. Mammalogy, I I 371-72. Schubert, D. J. Nd. Brucellosis: Its Impact on Bison, Cattle and Humans in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The Fund for Animals, Silver Spring, MD. Schullery, P., and L. Whittlesey 1992 "The Documentary Record of Wolves and Related Wildlife Species in the Yellowstone National Park Area Prior to 1882." Pages 1-4 to 1-174. In J. D. Varley and W. G. Brewster, eds. Wolves foi Yellowstone? A Report to the United States Congress. Vol. IV, Research and Analysis. On file at Yellowstone National Park. WY. Servheen, C. W., and R. R. Knight 1990 "Possible Effects of a Restored Wolf Population on Grizzly Bears in the Yellowstone Area." Section 4, pp. 35^9. In Wolves for Yellowstone? A Report to the U.S. Congress. Vol. IV, Research and Analysis. On file at Yellowstone National Park, WY. Singer, F. J. 1995 "Grassland Responses to Elk and Other Ungulate Grazing on the Northern Winter Range of Yellowstone National Park." In Northwest Science 69: 191-203. 1996 "Effects of Grazing by Ungulates on Upland Bunchgrass Communities of the Northern Winter Range of Yellowstone National Park." Pp. 127-38 in F. J. Singer, ed. Effects of Grazing by Wild Ungulates in Yellowstone National Park. Technical Report NPS/NRYELL/NRTR/96-01 . NPS, Natural Resource Information Division, Denver. Singer, F. J., and J. E. Norland 1994 "Niche Relationships Within a Guild of Ungulate Species in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, Following Release from Artificial Controls." In Can. J. Zool. 72: 1383-84. Slatta, Richard 1991 Cowboys of the Americas. Yale University Press. Stalmaster, M. V. 1981 "Ecological Energetics and Foraging Behavior of Wintering Bald Eagles." Ph.D. dissertation. Utah State University, Logan, UT. 1987 The Bald Eagle. New York, NY: Universe Books. 227 pp. Stevens, T., J. Echeverria, R. Glass, T. Hager, and T. More 1991 "Measuring the Existence Value of Wildlife: What Do CVM Estimates Really Show?" In Land Economics 67: 390-400. Swanson, C. 1993 "Economics of Non-game Management: Bald Eagles on the Skagit River Bald Eagle Natural Area, Washington." Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Agricultural Economics, Ohio State University. Swenson, J. E. 1975 "Ecology of the Bald Eagle and Osprcy in Yellowstone National Park." MS Thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. 389 GLOSSARY/BIBLIOGRAPHY/INDEX Sylvester, J. T., and M. Ncsary 1994 Snowmobiling in Montana. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana. Telfer, E. S., and J. P. Kelsall 1984 "Adaptation of Some Large North American Mammals for Survival in Snow." Ecology 65(6): 1828-34. Thome, E. T., M. Meagher, and R. Hillman 1991 "Brucellosis in Free-Ranging Bison: Three Perspectives." In The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: Redefining America's Wilderness Heritage, edited by R. B. Keiter and M. S. Boyce. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Pp. 275-87. Tunnicliff, E .A., and H. Marsh 1935 "Bangs Disease in Bison and Elk in Yellowstone National Park and on the National Bison Range." In J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 86: 745-52. Turek, Michael F. 1994 Native Americans, Yellowstone National Park and Buffalo. InterTribal Bison Cooperative. Feb. U.S. Department of Agriculture 1917 "Report of the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, Pathological Division," by J. R. Mohler. In Annual Reports of the Department of Agriculture, 105-1 1. Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 1994 Final Environmental Impact Statement, The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho. Helena, MT. Nd. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, The Reintroduction of the Grizzly Bear into the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness. In preparation. U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 1987 Gallatin National Forest Plan. Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman, MT. 1992 "The Wealth of Nature: Rural Economies of the Greater Yellowstone," by R. Rasker. In Symposium Proceedings, the Economic Value of Wilderness. Jackson, WY, May 9-11, 1991. Forest Service Southeast Experiment Station, Athens, GA. 1994 The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the Western United States. GTR RM254. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO. U. S. Department of Interior, Water Resources Council 1983 Economic and Environmental Principles for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Voorhees, Philip H. 1996 State Operation of National Parks and Regarding Yellowstone National Park Bison Before the Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation on S.1451, to Authorize State Operation of National Parks and S.745, Regarding Yellowstone National Park Bison. National Parks and Conservation Association. March 7, 1996. 390 Bibliography Waldman, Carl 1985 Atlas of the North American Indian. Facts on File. Wallace, L. L. 1991 "System Stability and Perturbation in Yellowstone's Northern Range: the Effects of the 1988 Drought on Grassland Communities." In Plants and Their Environments: First Biennial Scientifu Conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Agenda and Abstracts. Yellowstone National Park, WY. 1996 "Grazing and Competition in Montane Grasslands." Technical Report YCR-NR-96-6. Yellowstone National Park, WY. Walsh, R. G., and J. M. McKean 1993 "Intellectual Capital and the Transfer Process." In Benefits and Costs Transfer in Natural Resource Planning, Sixth Interim Report, compiled by J. Bergstrom. Athens: University of Georgia. Ward, Jeffery 1996 The West. Little & Brown. Ward, K., and J. Duffield 1992 Natural Resource Damages: Law and Economics. New York, NY: John Wiley. White, Richard 1991 It's Your Misfortune and None of My Own, A New History of the American West. University of Oklahoma Press. Whittlesey, Lee H. 1994 "Cows All Over the Place," Wyoming Annals, Winter 1994-95, pp. 42-53. Wilkinson, Todd 1997 "No Home on the Range." High Country News. Feb. 17. Vol. 29, No. 3. Williams, Elizabeth S., S. L. Cain, and D. S. Davis 1994 "Brucellosis: The Disease in Bison." In National Brucellosis Symposium Proceedings, Sept 26-28: 128-44. Wood Buffalo National Park 1997 "Bison Research and Containment Program: Background." Unpub. MS. Fort Smith, NWT. Youmans, J. 1992 Montana - Elk Management Plan. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Helena, MT. 170 pp. Young, L. S. 1983 "Movements of Bald Eagles Associated with Autumn Concentrations in Glacier National Park." MS Thesis. University of Montana, Missoula, MT. Zarnke, R. L. 1983 "Serologic Survey for Selected Microbial Pathogens in Alaskan Wildlife." In J. Wildl. Diseases 19: 324-29. 391 INDEX Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness 21, 56, 71, 76, 85, 137, 138, 140 acquisition 30, 32, 43, 45, 52, 67, 7 1 , 73-75, 79, 83, 89,90, 101-104, 111, 113, 116, 120, 122,208, 222, 232, 236-239, 241-244, 252, 253, 259-261, 264, 267, 274, 278, 286, 288, 289, 293, 294 agency shooting 65, 86, 104, 107, 108, 113, 147, 164, 192, 199, 208, 210, 21 1, 213, 217, 220, 221,223-225,245,306 allotment 65, 73, 83, 120, 157, 158, 160, 174, 239, 309 allotments 37, 43, 46, 62, 65, 68, 71, 75, 76, 79, 80, 86, 104, 107, 113, 114, 116, 120, 142, 157-159, 233, 235, 237-244, 258, 261, 307-309 analysis area 104, 121, 137, 138, 141, 142, 155, 162, 174, 186, 190, 192, 227, 235, 268, 282, 284,291 bison management plan 3, 1 1, 15, 26-30, 35, 37, 38, 45,52,55,61,74,90, 101, 113, 115, 117, 156, 158, 170,202,247,315 brucellosis 3, 1 1, 12, 15-20, 22, 25-31, 33, 34, 36-43, 45, 46, 51-55, 57-59, 65, 66, 71, 72, 80, 86, 90, 93, 95, 99, 100, 102, 107, 108, 112-115, 117, 120, 148, 157, 165-167, 169, 170, 184, 186, 192, 196, 199-201, 214, 215, 217, 225, 233-245, 247, 255-257, 260, 275, 277,284,295-298,318,323 Buffalo Horn Creek 68, 7 1 , 76, 79, 80, 85, 1 04, 1 1 3, 115, 117, 118, 142,271 Cabin Creek 21, 56, 61, 62, 65, 68, 71, 75, 76, 79, 85,86,96, 104, 107, 113, 117, 118, 137, 138, 140,301 Cabin Creek Recreation and Wildlife Management Area 21, 62, 68, 71, 76, 85, 86, 96, 104, 107, 137, 138, 140,301 calfhood 59, 72, 80, 86, 94, 100, 108, 1 15, 144, 203, 205-216,223,224 capture 4, 15, 27-31, 42, 44-47, 52, 54-62, 65-68, 71, 72, 74-76, 79, 80, 83-86, 89, 90, 93-96, 99-104, 107-109, 111, 113-118, 120-123, 141, 147, 148, 151, 179, 192, 199, 200, 202, 205, 208-227, 229-231, 234, 242, 244, 248, 253, 255-257, 267-271, 273-286, 288-299, 301-304,306-311 capture facility 4, 28, 44, 52, 56-59, 61, 62, 68, 75, 76, 80, 83-85, 90, 93-96, 99, 102-104, 107, 108, 111, 113, 115, 117, 121, 122, 148, 151, 200, 202, 208, 211, 212, 221, 227, 231, 267, 269, 270, 273-283, 285, 286, 288-290, 292-294, 298, 302, 304, 308, 310, 31 1 cattle operations 36, 37, 40, 43, 52, 58, 67, 68, 7 1 , 74,76,79, 113, 114, 116, 142, 157,205,250, 307, 309 class-free status 25-28, 39, 54, 55, 57, 58, 65, 1 12, 233, 236, 242, 260 distribution 4, 12, 20, 29, 36-38, 42, 52, 55, 58, 67, 72-75,79,81,82,84, 101, 102, 107, 108, 110, 112, 113, 115, 119, 141, 148, 167, 174, 180, 182-185, 200-202, 205-208, 211,215-217, 220-222, 225, 227, 230, 236, 238-242, 248, 253, 266-268, 272, 273, 277, 283, 285-287, 311,312, Eagle Creek/Bear Creek 21, 27, 55-57, 61, 62, 65, 66, 68, 75, 76, 79-82, 85, 86, 89, 93, 95, 96, 99, 101, 104, 107, 109, 110, 113, 115, 117, 118, 137, 138, 140, 158, 197,200,202, 205-214, 217, 221-224, 257, 270, 277, 301, 303, 304 easement 52,67,71,73,74,83, 102, 111, 116,205, 221, 238-240, 243, 244, 250, 253, 262, 267, 286, 289, 293 easements 30, 32, 43, 67, 71, 74, 75, 79, 102, 104, 1 1 3, 1 20, 209, 2 1 1 , 233, 236, 238-243, 25 1 , 258 effectiveness 30, 34, 59, 72, 199, 229, 246 efficacy 59, 99, 1 19, 199, 203, 205-224, 277 endangered 32, 36, 40, 44, 46, 47, 56, 90, 121, 167, 169, 170, 174, 177-179, 184, 247, 253, 261, 266-278, 281, 282, 291, 315, 321, 322 fair-chase hunt 75, 81, 85, 101, 1 15 Firehole River 20, 93, 145, 177, 290, 303, 304, 309 forage 12, 15, 21, 22, 29, 38, 54, 62, 122, 143-145, 182, 184, 188, 196, 199-202, 208, 283, 288, 290 Gallatin National Forest 1 1, 21, 30, 32, 33, 37, 43, 46, 56, 62, 66, 81, 85, 96, 107, 137, 138, 141, 142, 151, 154, 157, 158, 187, 189-191,228, 235, 237, 239-243, 249, 266, 268, 272, 282, 287, 291, 299, 300, 306-308, 316 Gardiner 18, 21, 27, 35, 45, 55, 57, 61, 62, 65, 68, 76, 79, 81, 86, 90, 99, 102, 107, 1 12, 113, 1 15, 120, 137, 138, 141, 142, 150, 151, 155, 158, 160, 161, 166, 171, 172, 182, 184, 192,201, 221, 238, 243, 244, 249, 250, 262, 263, 269, 283, 284, 286, 288, 289, 293, 294, 318 Gardiner Valley 21,61,68,76, 102, 113, 115, 137, 158, 221, 244, 283, 284, 286, 288, 289, 293, 294 Grayling Creek/Fir Ridge 21, 56, 65 392 hull- grazing allotments 37,43,68,71,75,79, 116. 157, 158, 233, 235, 237-244, 258, 261, 307-309 grazing rights 30, 71, 75, 79, 102, 104, 239 Greater Yellowstone Area 3,7, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22,29,40,41,43,44,46,55, 137, 143, 155, 157, 159, 162, 164, 169, 174, 177-179, 182, 184, 190, 191, 226, 228, 233, 252, 261, 268, 279,300,305,307,309-311 greater Yellowstone ecosystem 39, 167, 247, 248, 252 GYA3, 18,46, 162 Hayden Valley 20,22,93, 143, 145, 152, 153, 191, 201 hazed 55, 61, 62, 65, 68, 71, 75, 76, 79, 84-86, 90, 93, 95, 96, 99, 103, 104, 107-109, 118, 201, 207 hazing 12, 29, 44, 45, 55, 56, 62, 65, 66, 68, 75, 76, 79, 84-86, 90, 93-96, 99, 101, 102, 104, 107, 108, 113, 121-123, 144, 174, 192,201,204, 205, 207, 211, 267-271 , 273, 274, 276, 278, 279, 282-284, 286, 289, 296, 306, 307 Hebgen Lake 65, 68, 76, 86, 104, 1 13, 1 15, 138, 142, 154, 159, 179, 228, 249, 269, 270, 279 Hellroaring and Slough Creek drainages 21, 65, 71, 76,85,96, 104, 137,257 Hellroaring Creek 56, 138,304 Horse Butte 27, 52, 62, 65, 95, 104, 107, 1 13, 1 15, 117, 118, 123, 137, 138, 140, 151, 154, 158, 159, 174, 202, 223, 238, 239, 243, 257, 270, 274, 277, 278, 293, 301, 304, 311 hunt 15, 18, 75, 79, 81, 82, 85, 101, 107, 1 10, 113, 115, 117, 155, 156, 180, 183,209,230, 252-254, 257, 258, 273, 286 hunting 12, 15, 31, 32, 42, 43, 51, 52, 74-76, 79-86, 89, 101, 103, 104, 107-111, 113-115, 117, 119-121, 123, 144, 147, 151, 152, 155, 156, 159, 164, 168, 171, 183, 187-189, 192, 199, 202, 208-214, 217, 221-224, 226-232, 234, 239, 241, 245-248, 252-255, 258, 259, 261, 264, 265, 267, 269, 271, 273-276, 278-280, 285, 286, 288, 289, 291, 293, 306, 308, 309, 311,312 interagency EIS team 3, 29 interagency team 3, 4, 28, 29, 35, 66, 73, 82, 89, 94, 100, 110, 113 Lamar Valley 12, 21, 143, 152, 155, 180, 182, 188, 290 Lee Metcalf 21, 56, 61, 62, 65, 68, 71, 75, 76, 79, 85, 86, 96, 104, 107, 118, 137, 138, 140 Lee Metcalf Wilderness 21, 56, 62, 68, 71, 75, 76, 85,86,96, 104, 107, 137, 140 Little Trail Creek/Maiden Basin 21, 57, 62, 65, 68, 71, 75, 76, 79, 85, 93, 96, 104, 109, 1 15, 1 17, 138 livestock 11, 12, 15, 16, 19-22,25-31,33, 35, 37-41, 43,45-47, 51, 54-60, 62, 65, 66. 68, 71-73, 75,79-81,83, 85,86, 93-96. 100, 102, 107, 108, 111, 113. 119, 120, 142, 147, 157. 158, 161, 162, 164-170, 176, 186, 188, 189, 192, 198, 214, 233-244, 246, 247, 250-257, 261, 262, 264, 265, 295, 316, 317, 322, 323, livestock industry 11, 12,25,26,28,29,41,45,51, 54,55, 157, 164, 167-169,214,233-240,242, 244, 247, 252 Madison River 21, 52, 57, 62, 76, 85, 93-96. 104, 1 12, 1 17, 121, 138, 139, 151, 159, 179, 183, 191, 270, 275-277, 279, 290, 301-305, 309, 311 management boundary 54, 55, 58 management tool 79,85, 101, 104,209 Mary Mountain 20, 144, 145, 197 migration 15,21,22,41,62,67,75,85,89,96, 104, 1 14, 158, 192, 199-201, 244, 251, 255, 277, 304 monitoring 38, 39, 57, 65, 66, 73, 79, 86, 90, 93, 95, 99, 107, 1 1 1, 1 15, 236, 238, 240, 242, 295, 297, 300, 306 Montana Legislature 15, 32, 43, 74, 75, 81, 84, 85, 89, 101, 104, 110,273,278 Monument Mountain Unit 56,62,71,75, 107, 137, 140 nontarget species 59, 67, 95, 102, 356, 357 oversnow 22, 37, 39, 1 19, 141, 228, 232, 248, 259, 270,307,310 Pelican Valley 20, 93, 145, 201, 290 population range 52, 101, 103, 113, 115, 117, 196 population size 12, 19, 29, 30, 37, 52, 67, 72, 75, 81, 101, 103, 104, 107, 109, 112, 113, 121, 122, 176, 197, 198, 201, 202, 231. 232, 283, 286, 288, 289, 292, 293, 306, 309 protocol 18, 36, 52, 58, 80, 84, 85, 89, 101, 103, 109, 159,253,254,258 purchase 38, 43, 52, 67, 71, 74, 75, 79, 102, 157, 205, 221, 238-240, 243, 244, 250, 251, 253, 258,261,267,286,289,293 quarantine 4, 18, 19, 25, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 39, 43, 44, 46, 47, 51, 52, 58, 74-76, 80, 81, 83-86, 89, 90, 101-104, 107-1 1 1, 113-115, 1 17, 123, 141, 159, 179, 189, 192, 196, 200, 204, 208, 209, 211-213, 220-224, 232, 234, 240, 253, 254, 258, 261, 267, 271, 273, 274, 276, 278, 279, 293, 299, 302-304, 306, 308, 309, 311. 315 quarantine facility 4, 18, 28, 36, 47, 52, 74-76, 80, 81, 83-85, 89, 101-104, 109-1 1 1, 234, 274, 276, 278, 279, 302-304, 308, 309, 311,315 RB51 59,66,72,80,86, 100, 115, 186,243 393 GLOSSARY/BIBLIOGRAPHY/INDEX recreation 21, 42-44, 56, 62, 68, 71, 75, 76, 85, 86, 96, 104, 107, 110, 119, 121, 137, 138, 140, 150, 151, 153, 154, 162, 192,226-232,246, 248-250, 252, 255-257, 261, 282, 285, 287, 301,310,318,319,321,322 Reese Creek 21, 52, 53, 55, 57, 61, 65, 68, 71, 74-76, 79-82, 84, 86, 90, 93-95, 99, 101, 103, 104, 107-109, 113, 115-120, 122, 137, 142, 157, 158, 190, 197, 202, 203, 205-212, 214, 217-224, 239, 240, 242-244, 253, 257, 258, 269,270,278,301 safe and effective 52, 53, 59, 66, 67, 72-74, 76, 80, 84, 86, 90, 94-96, 99, 102, 108, 1 13, 1 16, 216 sensitive 44,46,56, 121, 174, 178, 179, 184, 266-268, 270-272, 274, 276, 277, 281, 291, 303,304,306,308-311,322 seronegative 27, 52, 59, 60, 62, 65, 68, 71, 74-76, 80, 84-86, 89, 90, 94-96, 99, 101, 103, 104, 107-109, 115, 117, 148, 149, 158, 159, 199, 202, 203, 207-209, 21 1-214, 216-224, 242, 253, 254, 273 seropositive 18, 20, 27, 42, 52, 58, 62, 71, 76, 84, 85, 90, 93-96, 99, 103, 104, 1 13, 1 15, 148, 149, 199, 202, 203, 205, 207, 209, 21 1-224, 257,291,296,297,310,311 seroprevalence 18, 20, 42, 52, 55, 95, 96, 99, 148, 149, 197-200, 203, 205-220, 222-224, 284, 321 Seven-Mile Bridge 4, 44, 95, 96, 99, 100, 1 13, 1 15, 1 17, 121, 122, 179, 191, 217-219, 231, 270, 276,277,280,281,304,310,311 slaughter 12, 15, 18, 25, 27, 33, 42, 44, 47, 52, 57, 58, 61, 62, 65, 68, 71, 74-76, 79, 80, 84-86, 90,93-96,99-101, 103, 104, 107-109, 113, 115, 117, 120-122, 147, 148, 164, 165, 169, 171, 188, 192, 199, 200, 202-205, 207, 209-225, 227, 230-232, 234, 242, 244-248, 253-259, 267, 268, 274, 275, 277, 285, 291-293,295-298,306 Slough Creek 21, 56, 65, 71, 76, 85, 96, 104, 137, 138, 140,257,301,303,304 SMA 28, 41, 58, 59, 65-68, 71, 74-76, 79-81, 86, 89,95,96,99-104, 107-109, 113-116, 118, 119, 137, 138, 140, 151, 159,202,204,207, 209, 221-224, 235, 237-240, 242-244, 250, 257, 258, 262, 269-273, 278, 282, 284, 302-304, 309 SMAs 28, 37, 57-59, 65, 67, 71, 73-76, 79, 80, 84, 85,90,93,95,96, 101-104, 110, 113, 115, 119, 121, 137, 159, 164, 174, 175,201,204, 206, 207, 222, 227, 233, 234, 237-240, 242, 244, 250, 258, 259, 262, 272, 274, 275, 300, 306 snowmobile 43, 44, 68, 71, 73, 1 16, 1 19, 122, 154, 207, 228, 230, 231, 249, 255, 264, 265, 268, 270, 272, 274, 275, 277, 280, 285-289, 291, 292,307,319 snowmobiles 39,47, 121-123, 154,207,285,287, 288,291,307,310 spatial separation 57, 84, 99, 236, 240, 242 special management area 57, 160, 211, 380 Stephens Creek 27, 45, 56, 57, 61, 62, 66, 68, 74-76, 83-86, 89, 90, 93-96, 100, 101, 103, 1 1 1, 1 15, 117, 122, 140, 148, 151, 181, 182, 192,200, 202, 208, 209, 211-214, 220, 223, 224, 226, 269, 271, 273, 274, 276, 282-286, 288-294, 298,301-311 stochastic 12, 22, 42, 196, 199-201, 203, 207, 209, 212, 215, 220, 222, 247, 260, 267, 275, 277, 279, 280 study area 3,9,46, 137, 138, 141, 178, 183,235, 268,271,272,274,277,296 surveillance testing 113,115 test 15, 17-19, 25, 28, 33, 52, 58-60, 65, 66, 71, 73, 74, 79, 83, 89, 90, 94, 95, 99-101, 111, 113-1 15, 1 17, 1 19, 120, 148, 192, 214-220, 234-236, 242, 244, 248, 292, 297, 306-310 testing 18, 25, 26, 43, 54, 57, 59, 66, 80, 81, 86, 89, 90, 93, 96, 102, 109, 1 13, 1 15, 1 19, 157, 192, 199, 202, 212, 215-217, 224, 233-244, 262, 296-298,303,304,306,310 threatened 15, 36, 40, 44, 46, 47, 56, 90, 121, 169, 174, 177-179, 184, 266-269, 271-278, 281, 282,291,315,321,322 transmission 11, 15-20, 22, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 38-43, 5 1-55, 57, 59, 65-67, 74, 79, 86, 93, 99, 102, 107-109, 112, 114, 157, 165, 169, 186, 201, 214, 215, 233, 234, 236, 238-242, 244, 245, 284, 295-298 ungulate 12,46, 148, 175-177, 180-182,268,284, 286, 288-290, 293 ungulates 16-18,38,44-46, 122, 141, 144, 175-178, 180, 182, 184, 227, 268, 284, 286-293 vaccination 16, 19,20,41,42,51,53,58,59,66, 67, 72-74, 80, 83, 84, 86, 89, 94, 95, 99-102, 107, 108, 111, 113, 115-117, 119, 188, 199, 203, 205-220, 222-224, 234-237, 241-244, 257, 277, 284, 296-298 vaccine 52, 53, 59, 66, 67, 72-74, 76, 80, 84, 86, 90, 94-96,99, 100, 102, 104, 108, 113, 114, 116, 1 19, 199, 203, 206, 207, 209, 210, 212, 213, 215-223,236,243,277,295 viable population 29, 36, 55, 114, 143, 236, 358 394 hide: West Yellowstone 2 1 , 27, 35, 43, 56, 57, 61 , 62, 65, winter range 27, 32, 36, 43, 45, 52, 67, 7 1 , 74-76, 71,72,75,76,79,80,82,85,86,89,90,93, 81, 101-103, 113, 116, 144, 155, 172, 176, 95,96,99, 104, 107, 108, 110, 113, 115, 178, 180-183,200,201,207,209,211,212, 117-120, 137, 138, 140, 142, 154, 157-162, 215,217,224,240,250,251,253,257-259, 164, 166, 171, 184, 190, 192, 197, 202, 203, 267, 270, 272, 274, 278, 282-286, 288, 2X9. 205-214, 216, 217, 220-225, 228, 230, 231, 293, 294, 301 234-244, 248-250, 253-255, 257, 268-273, Yankee Jim Canyon 6 1 , 68, 7 1 , 75, 76, 79, 80, 1 03, 276,277,279,283,284,287,301,303,304, 104, 113. 115, 117, 118, 137, 158,271,274, 307-311,317,319 305 wild, free-ranging 16, 20, 28, 39, 53-55, 216 Yellowstone River 21, 32, 45, 71, 75, 76, 102, 103, willing sellers 30,36,43,52,67,71,75,79, 108, 112, 113, 118, 137, 138, 140, 151, 158, 102-104,205,209,211,221,253,267 174, 182, 183, 187, 192,201,243,258,269. wing fences 45, 56, 57, 61, 96, 99, 104, 284, 286, 275, 284 288,289 395 As the nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. NPSD-655/May 1998 United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service