appendix b responses to comments key to...

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impacts – Appendix B

South Fork and Watkins Creek Allotments Management Plan Update Appendix B- 1

APPENDIX B – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Key to Comment Letter Letter # Commenter

1 Darrell Geist

2 Form letter 1

3 Nancy Schultz

4 Hank Fisher

5 Karla Brandt

6 Roya Franz

7 Joe Gutkowski

8 William Belitskus

9 C.E. Probart

10 Form letter 2

11 Pat Povah

12 Chris Daum

13 Don Bachman

14 Joe Durglo

15 Mark Pearson

16 Brooklyn Baptiste

17 Glen Hockett

18 Michael Garrity, Sara Johnson

19 Daniel Brister, Jon Marvel

20 Stan Frasier

21 Patricia Dowd

22 Marc Albrecht

23 Ed Ryberg

24 James Horsley

Key to Subjects and Comments

Topic Comment #’s 1.Wildlife habitat -general 3-15, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-29, 9-44,

17-81, 17-82, 17-83, 17-84, 17-86, 18-116, 19-145, 19-146, 19-147, 19-148, 19-149, 19-181, 19-183, 19-195, 19-196, 19-197, 22-1

2.Wildlife habitat - bison 2-9, 2-10, 5-34, 7-37, 8-41, 12-49, 15-56, 15-57, 15-58, 17-68, 17-70, 17-77, 18-89, 18-90, 18-91, 18-92, 18-95, 18-101, 19-133, 19-135, 19-136, 19-140, 19-143, 19-144, 23-1

2.1 Forest Plan viable population requirement 2-4, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 4-33, 8-38, 8-40, 10-46, 14-51, 17-66, 17-71, 17-76, 18-93, 18-94, 18-96, 18-97, 18-98, 18-99, 18-100, 18-115, 19-132, 19-142,

2.2 Bison / livestock conflicts 2-5, 4-31, 9-43, 10-47, 11-48, 13-50, 14-52, 15-53, 15-54, 15-59, 15-60, 16-63, 16-64, 17-74, 17-65, 17-67, 17-69, 17-72, 17-73, 19-131, 19-134, 19-137,19-138, 19-141, 19-198, 2-200, 22-2,23-2

3 Vegetation 3-14, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18,18-109, 18-111, 18-112,

4 Recreation 23-4

5 Grazing - general

6. Water quality / sedimentation / stream channel form and function

3-30, 18-117, 18-119, 18-120, 18-121, 18-122, 18-123, 18-125, 19-150, 19-151, 19-152, 19-153, 19-154, 19-155, 19-156, 19-157, 19-158, 19-160, 19-161, 19-164, 19-167, 19-168, 19-169, 19-175, 19-187, 19-188, 19-189,

7. Soils 18-124, 18-126, 19-159,

8. Riparian / fish 3-12, 3-13, 19-171, 19-173, 19-174, 19-176, 19-177, 19-178, 19-179, 19-180, 19-182, 19-184, 19-185, 19-186, 19-192, 19-193,



Topic Comment #’s 9. Invasive weeds 18-106, 18-107, 18-108, 19-110, 18-127,

10. Economics 3-25, 5-35, 18-128, 19-199,23-3, 24-1

11. Alternatives / Document 3-11, 16-61, 16-65, 17-75, 17-78, 17-87, 18-102, 18-113, 18-114,

12. Other 17-79, 18-118, 19-190, 19-191, 19-194,

13. Process 1-2, 2-3, 3-28, 4-32, 8-39, 8-42, 10-45, 15-55, 17-80, 17-85, 19-130, 19-139, 19-165, 19-166, 19-170, 19-172,

14. Cultural Heritage 3-26

1. Wildlife Habitat –General Comment 3-15: If this habitat is not managed for wildlife values, then this critical area could become the missing habitat link of the Northern Rockies' core habitat. Part of the purpose of this Allotment Management Plan (AMP) revision is to maintain or improve habitat for wildlife species, while providing for livestock grazing. Alternative 4 includes provisions to improve long-term rangeland health for wildlife and livestock and also provide for the management of bison on the allotments. As described on page 2-8 of the EA, several actions will be implemented to improve current conditions and provide for future management options. Some of the actions proposed to improve wildlife habitat include: 1) Monitoring will be improved so that timing, duration, and/or intensity of grazing can be adjusted or infrastructure added if conditions deteriorate; 2) a water gap will be installed to distribute cattle more evenly across water sources; and 3) new fence will be installed and an aspen stand excluded to reduce cattle grazing on this important wildlife habitat.

Comment 3-19: The EA fails to recognize that this is inferred lynx habitat, and it is insufficient and inadequate to state that there are no known occupants - this is inferred habitat. The area south of I-90 is considered occupied by lynx, and the analysis in this EA assumes that lynx are present. The proposed action meets all management guidance in the Gallatin NF Plan (referred to as the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction) regarding lynx.

Comment 3-21: The No Grazing alternative 1 states: "Over time, a very minor amount of secondary potential lynx habitat (riparian, aspen) could increase and possibly support more snowshoe hares," a food source of the lynx. This however, seems to be a subjective point, more opinion than a fact-based assessment. There is a large body of research which supports the benefits of removing grazing from riparian areas and the rapid positive affects to vegetation. The amount of improvement that may occur within the riparian areas in the allotments is directly related to the amount of departure the riparian areas have experienced from reference



conditions. The riparian areas in the allotments are currently only slightly departed from reference conditions, and we would therefore only expect to see a small improvement if grazing were to be removed and the riparian areas were to move back to reference conditions as a result. As discussed on page 3-27 of the EA, in the South Fork Allotment, the Basin Cabin Spring Creek area was rated as having a “slight to moderate” departure from reference conditions due to slightly more bare soil than expected and more increaser plant species than expected. Because the vegetation has experienced only a slight departure from reference conditions, if grazing were to be removed from the area, we would only expect to see a slight to moderate improvement, in that there would be a small reduction in bare soil and a reduction in increaser plant species. As discussed on page 3-30 of the EA, in the Watkins Creek Allotment, most of the riparian areas are not accessible to livestock and therefore have experienced very little impact from livestock grazing. Both creeks had areas rated as having a “none to slight” departure from reference conditions and therefore only a small amount of improvement may be expected if grazing were to be removed.

Comment 3-22 :To me it seems clear, if lynx inhabit the area, the area must be maintained, if there are no lynx at the present time, the area should be improved, which means wildlife values should come first. The Gallatin NF Plan was designed to ensure that the Forest meets the intent and requirements of NFMA, which means that for wildlife, the forest plan ensures that the Gallatin NF “provides for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives”. The assumption is that if the Gallatin NF follows its Forest Plan, then it will also meet the intent and requirements of NFMA. Lynx guidance in the Gallatin NF Plan comes in the form of the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD), which was amended to the plan in 2007. The intent of the NRLMD was to provide direction that contributes to conservation and recovery of Canada lynx in the Northern Rockies ecosystem. Therefore, if the forest is following the guidance set forth in the NRLMD, then it is moving towards conservation and recovery of lynx. The guidelines in the NRLMD relative to livestock grazing are listed in Table 3.8.A on pages 3-49 and 3-50 of the EA. The table also includes a discussion of whether the specified guideline is applicable to the project and whether it is being met. As shown in this table, all guidelines are applicable, and all would be met if any of the action alternatives were to be selected. Because the project is in compliance with the guidelines in the NRLMD, we can infer that habitat conditions are moving towards conservation and recovery of lynx.

Comments 3-22, 3-27: What should be considered are the facts that moose browse deciduous shrubs and what affects deciduous shrubs, affects moose. When cattle are allowed in the allotments from 7/1 - 9/30 (hot season grazing and early fall - the worst time for woody shrub utilization) and livestock are allowed to utilize 55% of the uplands and 35-50% of riparian vegetation, it is difficult to understand how wildlife values will be protected. If the proposed water project is implemented, and livestock have greater access to the



uplands, then the uplands could be utilized past a time that they can regrow. Livestock will still continue to utilize riparian areas; their preference for riparian areas is well documented. How does this help the moose? It is not enough to say that livestock and moose don't compete. In the summer of 2012, field monitoring examined willow health and specifically looked at the amount of browsing on willow (project file doc. #E-20). Four different species of willow were identified. Very little browse occurred on Salix wolfie and Salix geyeriana (the two most abundant species). Some of the lower branches of Salix geyeriana were missing, perhaps from trampling (caused a slight mushroom shaped clump). The other two species Salix boothii and Salix planifolia were selectively browsed (tips were browsed and caused a hedged appearance). All willow appeared to be healthy, with numerous live shoots and leaves. Neither cattle nor moose appear to be browsing the willow to a level of detrimental impact. The action alternatives would maintain livestock grazing at the same levels that have been in place for the last 20 years. Existing vegetation conditions are therefore reflective of what conditions would continue to be like if grazing patterns are to be maintained. In the summer of 2012, a field review of the willow found them to look health, only a few stems showed signs of browse (project file doc. #E-20).

The riparian areas in the allotments are, in general, only slightly departed from reference conditions. As discussed on page 3-27 of the EA, in the South Fork Allotment, the Basin Cabin Spring Creek area was rated as having a “slight to moderate” departure from reference conditions due to slightly more bare soil than expected and more increaser plant species than expected. The stream was rated as being in “proper functioning condition”. As discussed on page 3-30 of the EA, in the Watkins Creek Allotment, most of the riparian areas are not accessible to livestock and therefore have experienced very little impact from livestock grazing. Both creeks had areas rated as having a “none to slight” departure from reference conditions. As described in the EA on page 3-28, willow in the South Fork Allotment were mapped and delineated based on size, with a distinction between those less than or greater than 3 feet tall. Field observations indicated that livestock have not utilized the short willows on the South Fork Allotment, while tall willow has experienced some browse damage around the base of the plants (project file, doc. #E-16). These slight departures from reference conditions and low levels of browse on willows are not expected to reduce availability or quality of habitat for moose. If monitoring indicates that conditions are deteriorating in riparian areas, the action alternatives have been designed to allow for implementation of strategies that would improve those situations.

Comment 3-23, The EA shows a Timber Harvest or Fuels Treatments Project in the proposed changes for the analysis area. In the SF, an additional 537 acres are proposed, which includes one mile of temporary road. This treatment is presumed necessary, as stated in the EA because "most of it is not usable (2763 acres) because the vegetation is not capable of producing sufficient forage (forest cover types such as lodge pole pine, subalpine fir or Douglas fir)". Moose feed on firs in the winter, and need the protective habitat, so how does



this help the moose? Watkins Creek has 199 acres that are proposed for timber harvest or fuels treatment. In addition, a one mile temporary road will need to be constructed, creating another 52,800 sq ft of disturbance (apprx). The quote cited by the commenter is on page 3-28 of the EA and is in reference to forage conditions on the Watkins Creek Allotment. It is not related in any way to the South Fork Allotment and the fact that the Lonesome Wood Vegetation Management 2 project proposes to treat in that allotment (as described on page 3-14 of the EA). A link to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Lonesome Wood 2 Vegetation Management project can be found on the Gallatin National Forest website (currently located here: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gallatin/landmanagement/projects/?cid=stelprdb5190886). Impacts of the project on moose are discussed in that document. Because forage conditions across most of the Watkins Creek Allotment are not suitable for cattle, competition for forage with moose will be reduced, and Alternative 4 will have a negligible effect on moose foraging opportunities in subalpine fir cover types in the allotment.

Comment 3-24: Wolverine is listed as a candidate on the Endangered, threatened, proposed and candidate species in Gallatin County under the Endangered Species Act, and as such one would reasonably expect the species to occur. As such, the Wolverine could be impacted by the lack of a continuous critical corridor and the fuels treatment projects in particular and generally impacted by diminished prey species associated with less than optimal wildlife management. One may reasonably expect wolverine to occur within the allotments, but occurrences are likely to be rare and transient. Inman et al. (2012) reported that wolverines at the southern end of their distribution (e.g., Montana) select high-elevation areas >8,530 feet while they select against areas below 7,050 feet. Elevation within the allotments ranges from 6,560 to 9,600 feet, with all of the area greater than 8,530 feet located within the Watkins Creek Allotment. The portion of the allotment above an elevation of 8,530 feet, and therefore most likely to be selected for by wolverines, is 5%. Approximately 29% of the Watkins Creek Allotment is below an elevation of 7,050 feet and all of the South Fork Allotment is less than 7,050 feet, with these amounts representing the areas that wolverines would select against, according to Inman et al. (2012).

Hornocker and Hash (1981) found that large areas of mature forest accounted for 70% of all relocations, while the remaining sites were in ecotonal areas such as small timber pockets, rocky areas, or broken areas of timbered benches. Inman et al. (2012) found that wolverines occupied areas near alpine tree-line with a mix of forest, meadow, and boulder fields. The habitat components described in both studies are present in the areas above 8,530 feet in the Watkins Creek Allotment. Subalpine fir was used most frequently by wolverines in this study and accounted for the majority of relocation sites. This is the dominant vegetation type in the forested areas within the Watkins Creek Allotment.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gallatin/landmanagement/projects/?cid=stelprdb5190886



Hornocker and Hash (1981) also reported that wolverines appear reluctant to cross openings of any size such as recent clear cuts or burns. Hash (1987) reported that wolverines may cross areas of human habitation and development during long-range travels, but these areas are usually fringe zone adjacent to remote habitats. Wolverine presence has not been documented in the project area, although they are known to occur in the higher elevations of the Henry’s Lake Mountains. Use of the allotments by wolverines is therefore likely limited to transient individuals, including those dispersing to new areas. The presence of livestock grazing is not likely to affect these movements, as wolverines would not be impeded by fencing.

Wolverines are opportunistic feeders and forage on a wide variety of food items, depending on their availability. Hash (1987) refers to wolverines as scavenging predators, and, although they are generally carnivores that rely on carrion or live prey such as small mammals and birds, they will also feed on fruits, berries, insects, and fish, if their preferred prey items are unavailable. Because wolverines are expected to use the allotments only on rare occasions and because they are foraging generalists that can capitalize on a wide range of food sources, livestock grazing will not have a measurable effect on feeding opportunities for wolverines that travel through the allotments.

Comments 3-29, 17-82, 19-181, 19-183: My last concern is where are the beaver? This is their habitat type. We did not find any discussion in the EA about the historic presence of beaver within the project area. However, we contend beaver were likely an important component of riparian systems, especially within the South Fork Madison allotment. Beaver are a keystone species and their absences is likely significant to a variety of different resource values. We believe the EA should take a more in depth look at the historic and potential future role of beaver in the area. For example, the EA mentions the importance of beaver ponds to nesting trumpeter swans (EA page 3-59 & 60). This is but one small example of the critical ecological role beaver play in shaping the landscape where they occur (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 1993) and their absence as a keystone species should be investigated more thoroughly in the EA. Beaver are present and thriving in the South Fork Madison drainage, upstream of the South Fork Allotment. At least three family groups are known to occupy the drainage north of U.S. Highway 20, and it is likely that more beavers occur there but just have not been observed at this time. Watkins Creek was surveyed for beavers in the summer of 2012. It was determined that Watkins Creek does not provide suitable habitat for beavers because it has too many logs; is too rocky, fast, and shallow; is in a gorge-like area and is too narrow; and it lacks small diameter woody vegetation. The Gallatin NF welcomes the presence of beaver on Forest System lands and is currently working with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to develop a management plan for beaver on the Hebgen Lake Ranger District.

Comment 19-181: The Forest Service's description (EA at 3-7) of the slow recovery of cattle damaged banks in spring creeks like Basin Cabin Spring Creek, totally ignores the important ecological role beavers play in habitat restoration and maintenance of ecological functions.



As stated on pages 3-6 and 3-7, recovery of streambanks along springs creeks tend to be slower because of the lack of high water and subsequent overbank sediment delivery. The EA clearly states that Basin Cabin Spring Creek is in proper functioning condition because of the lack of impacts to streambanks and riparian vegetation. Beaver have full access to Basin Cabin Spring Creek. They choose not to live within this reach of Basin Cabin Spring Creek located on the Gallatin NF. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks current management excludes beaver trapping within Hebgen Basin.

Comment 17-81, The EA states "Grazing is not believed to affect forest grouse, blue and ruffed grouse, and is therefore not an issue. (EA page 3-69). What data did the GNF use to make this claim? We disagree because these are ground nesting and brood rearing birds that can be significantly impacted by livestock use. We are indeed concerned about declining levels of both of these forest grouse, in particular blue grouse. Thus, we request the EA be corrected to include a more thorough discussion on the potential impacts from livestock use to forest grouse and the status of these species over time on the GNF and the project area in particular.

In response to this comment we reviewed additional literature and found that the commenter is correct. The literature suggests that grazing may indeed have effects on forest grouse. Zwickel (1972) showed that heavy grazing may have impacts on courtship activity of dusky (formerly referred to as blue) grouse and cited a number of papers that reported effects of heavy grazing on numbers of dusky grouse. Robertson (1976) reported that grazing affected brood distribution of ruffed grouse. Effects were most pronounced with heavy grazing. Broods selected habitat that was ungrazed, which resulted from a rest-rotation system, while lone individuals were not affected by grazing. Cattle will be in the allotments after July 1 during brood-rearing, and therefore have the potential to affect forest grouse species, both through alterations in habitat and by displacement of broods. Courtship activity of dusky grouse, which occurs prior to July 1, is not likely to be affected, because cattle will not be turned out until after that date.

Impacts cited in both studies occurred in response to heavy grazing. Proposed levels of grazing are considered light to moderate, are the same as those that have been used in both allotments for the past 20 years, and are not considered “heavy” (EA pages A-20 to A-27). Vegetation in the South Fork Allotment has shown only a slight to moderate departure from reference conditions in most pastures, with a moderate departure from reference conditions in sagebrush/Idaho fescue ecological sites in the South Pasture (EA pages 3-26 to 3-31). Vegetation in the Watkins Creek Allotment has shown no more than a “slight to moderate departure from reference conditions”, with most of the departure from reference conditions being characterized as “none to slight.” These departures from reference conditions may affect use of the allotment by both species of grouse, although effects would be minimal, as grazing will not be heavy. The proposed deferred rotation system will maintain period of ungrazed areas preferred by ruffed grouse and therefore will continue to provide brood-rearing habitat for this species in the presence of grazing.



The No Grazing alternative would remove all fence and water developments. This alternative was considered in detail.

Pages A-4 through A-5 of the EA provides a discussion of fencing and its potential for restricting wildlife movements. Fencing can be very harmful to wildlife, depending on the type and location of the fence and the wildlife species that move across an area. In a study of fence lines in elk, mule deer, and pronghorn range, Harrington and Conover (2006) reported that one ungulate was found dead and tangled in a fence every 2.5 miles of fence and one ungulate was found dead next to a fence every 1.2 miles of fence. Most of the animals found dead in the fence were caught in the top two wires while trying to jump over the fence. Of the carcasses found dead next to the fence, over 90% were fawns curled up next to the fence, indicating they had probably gotten separated from their mothers due to an inability to cross the fence and had starved to death. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) published guidelines for construction of fences that will minimize their potential for causing mortality in ungulates or for restricting their movements across the landscape (Paige, 2008). These recommendations include considering placement of fence, specifications for wire fence, increasing visibility, using lay-down fence when appropriate, and a variety of other recommendations. Wire fence should be constructed so that they are low enough for animals to jump over, high enough for animals to crawl under, and so that they minimize the potential for tangling. MFWP recommends that the top fence wire be 40” above ground, at least 12” be maintained between the two top wires, at least 18” between the ground and the bottom wire, smooth wire on the top and bottom, no vertical stays, and posts at 16.5′ intervals. Regarding young of the year, results from Harrington and Conover (2006) suggest that fences can have a marked impact on fawns. By following the recommendations in Paige (2008), fences would be constructed high enough to allow fawns to crawl under, and impacts on these young ungulates would be reduced. All new fence constructed on the allotments will be constructed according to the specifications in Paige (2008). As discussed on page A-5 of the EA, all fences on the South Fork and Watkins Creek Allotments are designed to allow big game passage, and some fences within the allotments are dropped in the winter to allow passage of wildlife.

Comment 17-84: Does the GNF have an historic understanding of what happened here to the bighorn sheep and is there any effort to restore native bighorns to the larger project area? We encourage the GNF to work with the FWP and other interested parties to restore the bighorn sheep habitat and bighorn sheep to the larger project area.

As stated on page A-3 of the EA, bighorn sheep do not occur within the South Fork and Watkins Creek Allotments. The proposed alternatives are not expected to impact this species.

Comment 17-86, 22-1: We recommend the GNF remove any existing fences and cattle guards, because fences and cattle guards are often problematic to wildlife movements and sometimes lethal to big game. We believe the EA is inaccurate in its conclusion that a 4 strand barbed-wire fence "does not impede the movement of wild ungulates", especially young of the year (EA page 3-71).We request the GNF do a more thorough literature review and analysis of the impacts of fences to native wildlife, in particular young of the year. Furthermore, the EA notes



that a private landowner in the area is considering building a high tensile fence to keep bison separate from cattle that use his land (EA page 3-71). Where is this fence to be located? This will likely impact a variety of wildlife movements, certainly bison. We contend this makes the GNF bison habitat even more important to ensuring the viability and free movement of wild bison and other wildlife onto and through the area. Who is the landowner that has indicated a desire to construct this fence and where does his land lay in relation to the allotments? We suggest the GNF consider an alternative that removes all existing fences, cattle guards and any artificial water diversions/developments (even if a livestock alternative is selected) unless some fencing is needed to keep private trespass livestock off the area.

Fences are necessary for managing livestock within grazing allotments. The purpose and need of this action includes making forage available to a qualified livestock operator, which is consistent with Congressional intent, and fences are an integral part of livestock operations. Without fences and cattle guards, it would not be possible to make the allotments available for livestock grazing without causing detrimental impacts on the vegetation. Likewise, without the fences and water developments, the riparian areas might experience excessive amount of use. Without livestock grazing, the purpose and need of this action would not be met. As stated on page 1-1 of the EA, “Where consistent with other multiple-use goals and objectives, there is Congressional intent to allow livestock grazing on suitable lands (Multiple-Use Sustained Act of 1960, Wilderness Act of 1964, Forest and Rangeland Resource Planning Act of 1974, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, and National Forest Management Act of 1976). Forest Service Policy is to make forage available to qualified livestock operators from lands suitable for grazing consistent with land management plans (Forest Service Manual 2203.1).”

Comment 18-116: Please examine how this project could affect grizzly bears, lynx and other species listed under the Endangered Species Act. Are you complying with lynx critical habitat requirements? Please examine how this project will affect all MIS and sensitive species and buffalo.

Effects of the proposed alternatives on grizzly bears and lynx are discussed on pages 3-46 to 3-55 of the EA. No critical habitat for lynx exists within the allotments or on the Hebgen Lake Ranger District. Effects of the proposed alternatives on sensitive and management indicator species and bison are discussed on pages 3-55 to 3-74.

Comment 19-145, 19-146, 19-147, 19-148, 19-149: The existing Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement for the Gallatin Forest Plan is itself inadequate and itself requires that "consultation should be reinitiated" if there are new impacts to threatened grizzly bears that were not considered in the initial Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement. In sum, the Forest's cumulative decisions impacting the abundance and distribution of buffalo is not compatible with threatened grizzly bear needs, does not prevent or minimize conflict with grizzly bears, violates the Endangered Species Act, threatens the viability and recovery of this distinct population, does not strive to avoid human-caused grizzly bear losses, and does not favor grizzly bear recovery, which all violate the Forest Plan, in violation of the National Forest Management Act. The Gallatin National Forest is in violation of its Forest Plan,



National Forest Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act requirements for failing to properly analyze forest-wide direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on threatened grizzly bears. Gallatin National Forest's agreements to prohibit migratory buffalo from occupying habitat in Zone 3 is directly, indirectly and cumulatively impacting distribution and abundance of buffalo, a key food source for threatened grizzly bears. Gallatin National Forest's agreement to permit intensive and intrusive human management of the Forest to prevent and preclude migratory buffalo from occupying habitat in Zone 2 is directly, indirectly and cumulatively impacting distribution and abundance of buffalo, a key food source for threatened grizzly bears. Gallatin National Forest decisions to renew and permit livestock grazing allotments on the Forest is preventing and precluding migratory buffalo from occupying habitat and directly, indirectly and cumulatively impacting distribution and abundance of buffalo, a key food source for threatened grizzly bears. The existing Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement for the Gallatin Forest Plan is itself inadequate and itself requires that "consultation should be reinitiated" if there are new impacts to threatened grizzly bears that were not considered in the initial Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement. In sum, the Forest's cumulative decisions impacting the abundance and distribution of buffalo is not compatible with threatened grizzly bear needs, does not prevent or minimize conflict with grizzly bears, violates the Endangered Species Act, threatens the viability and recovery of this distinct population, does not strive to avoid human-caused grizzly bear losses, and does not favor grizzly bear recovery, which all violate the Forest Plan, in violation of the National Forest Management Act.

Guidance for analysis of effects to grizzly bears does not require nor recommend analysis of effects at the forest-wide level. Amendment No. 19 of the Forest Plan defines the analysis area for grizzly bears as the bear management subunit (BMS). Bear management units (BMU) represent the spatial scale of the life range for a female grizzly bear in the GYE. The subunit provides additional landscape resolution by accounting for seasonal heterogeneity of grizzly bear use patterns within a BMU. The BMS represents the most energetically efficient area for a bear, and is correlated to the annual home range size of an adult female grizzly bear in the GYE.

The Gallatin NF is not aware of any research that identifies bison, specifically, as a key food source for the grizzly bear or that ties viability and recovery of the grizzly bear to bison. The Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area (Interagency Conservation Strategy Team 2007), which is considered best available science regarding grizzly bear management, does list meat (primarily ungulate carrion and elk calves) as one of the four most important food available to grizzly bears in the GYE, in addition to whitebark pine nuts, army cutworm moths, and cutthroat trout. Bison, therefore, likely contribute to the grizzly bear diet, primarily in the form of carrion, and the importance of bison may increase as the bison population continues to grow while the number of elk occupying the Hebgen Basin has declined in the last several decades. Grizzly bears may have become more dependent upon winter-killed bison within the Zone 2 boundary, and calves on Horse Butte, where calving grounds are located. Grizzly bears are not accustomed, however, to foraging for bison in Zone 3, where the allotments are located and where bison are currently not tolerated.



Bison management is conducted according to the management framework set forth in the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP), of which the Forest Service is a partner, and, as such, the Forest Service is obligated to manage bison according to the guidance provided in that plan. The Zone boundaries are mandated under the IBMP and are not determined under the direction of the Forest Service. The IBMP specifically states that “the principal role of the Forest Service in implementing the Joint Management Plan is to provide habitat for bison”. It is not the role of the Forest Service to determine when and where bison will be tolerated. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) and the Montana Department of Livestock (DOL) are currently conducting an environmental review of a proposal that would allow some bison to inhabit lands in the Hebgen Basin year-round and may include modifications of the Zone boundaries. If this proposal is adopted by the IBMP partners, bison will be managed according to any changes to the IBMP that result from the state’s proposal.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that the Forest Service ensure that any action it authorizes is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species. In compliance with ESA Section 7 consultation requirements, a biological assessment was prepared and a letter of concurrence received from US Fish and Wildlife Service that the actions described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the IBMP may affect, but were not likely to adversely affect grizzly bears. As stated in the letter of concurrence (US DOI Fish and Wildlife Service 2000):

According to your biological assessment, the proposed action [IBMP] may slightly alter the distribution of bison during the winter, but should result in bison numbers similar to current management practices. Therefore the number of bison available to listed species, primarily grizzly bears and wolves, as carrion or prey should not be substantively affected by the proposed action. Most recent information on grizzly bears and wolves in the Yellowstone area indicate stable to increasing populations.

However, as your biological assessment acknowledges, ungulate meat may become even more important to the nutritional well-being of grizzly bears if whitebark pine seeds and cutthroat trout are reduced by introduced organisms. The draft Conservation Strategy for Grizzly Bears in the Yellowstone Area (November 1999) calls for monitoring these and other grizzly bear foods. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team is currently conducting whitebark pine transects in the Yellowstone ecosystem and the Park is monitoring the effects of lake trout reduction efforts on cutthroat trout population trends. If such research or other information should suggest a decline in whitebark pine seed production or other key grizzly bear foods to levels that would impact grizzly bear nutritional status, an additional evaluation of the bison management plan should occur. The evaluation should examine, among other issues, whether bison management is substantively limiting the number of bison carcasses available to grizzly bears or whether the plan could be modified to allow bison to provide additional food resources for bears. Furthermore, if during implementation of the action, effects on grizzly bears or other threatened or



endangered species occur other than those described in your March 15 biological assessment, a revised biological evaluation may be necessary…

Implementation of the preferred alternative would not preclude the presence of bison on the allotments, and, in fact, was developed to ensure that habitat needs for bison would be provided, in the case that tolerance for bison on the allotments increases. As stated on page 2-9 of the EA, Alternative 4 would allow for livestock grazing, provided that it does not limit management of bison. As this language explicitly states, Alternative 4 ensures that the presence of bison would not be precluded by the fact that livestock grazing would be allowed, and, if the two management issues were in conflict, it would be livestock grazing, rather than bison management, that would be altered as necessary to ensure that bison management not be limited.

There has been no history of depredation or control action on the allotments, and conflict between livestock and grizzly bears is not currently anticipated. If conflicts were to occur, the situation would be evaluated by a Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks bear specialist and the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team to determine causes and mitigation necessary to prevent further problems.

Comment 19-195: The Gallatin National Forest fails to fully address migratory birds and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act concerns voiced in the Scoping Comments, meet the goals and objectives of the Land and Resource Management Plan, and uphold the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which applies to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Forest Service, the Gallatin National Forest and the public lands your District manages including the South Fork and Watkins Creek domestic grazing allotments.

A full analysis of effects of the proposed alternatives on migratory birds is provided on pages A-9 through A-17 of the environmental assessment. The analysis is in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186, as stated on page A-15 of the EA. Direction in the Gallatin NF Forest Plan for migratory birds is limited to Forest-wide Wildlife Standard 9, which states that “Habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds will be maintained and improved through coordination of land use activities and direct habitat improvements”. The preferred alternative is in compliance with the Gallatin NF Plan in that management actions proposed with this alternative are designed to maintain or improve conditions in riparian areas, which will benefit waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds. These actions are directed at improved and more frequent monitoring of riparian areas to provide for quicker and more adaptive responses to negative changes in site conditions.

Comment 19-196: Consider the example of adverse effects of domestic livestock grazing, which includes the construction, maintenance, and use of watering systems for cattle including stock tanks, ponds, and troughs. Unless they are outfitted with USFWS approved designs for ladders and rafts, migratory birds when trying to water will become trapped and drown. Many of the stock-watering devices on the Gallatin National Forest were observed by BFC and WWP as not being outfitted with the proper bird (also for amphibians and small



mammals) escape devices (e.g. floats, rafts, ladders, ramps) in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

In order to reduce the potential for mortalities of wildlife species related to drowning, all stock-watering tanks on the allotments will be properly installed with wildlife escape ramps.

Comment 19-197: The Gallatin National Forest also largely ignored the substance of our joint scoping comments concerning livestock fencing and adverse wildlife effects. Lacking in the discussions, analyses, and conclusions in the Environmental Assessment and its appendices are also how livestock fencing creates artificial perches for raptors and other bird/wildlife predators, giving them an advantage in preying on migratory birds and other wildlife that would not occur without these so-called "range improvements". The discussion on fences and wildlife like elk, moose, antelope, deer and others also ignores how barbed wire fences kill wildlife every year. Some bodies are not located because of salvage by scavengers and predators. This is particularly a recognized problem for sage-grouse, a Federal Candidate Species that is warranted for ESA listings and protections.

Wooden posts used as supports for livestock fencing are commonly known to provide raptor perches. Wooden posts are used on the South Fork and Watkins Creek Allotments fences, because they facilitate the ability of these fences to be dropped down when cattle are not in the allotments. T-posts, which are generally not used by raptors as perches, do not function well as supports in drop-down fences (they twist/lean and then snap wires). The trade-off, therefore, is that use of wooden posts allows fences to be dropped, which eases big game passage, but they may also create raptor perches, which has been shown to impact prey species, in some cases. The Forest Service does not know of any species present on the allotments that are at risk from or negatively impacted by predation from raptors. The Forest Service, therefore, supports the use of wooden posts in the allotment fences, because the benefits to wildlife passage from having drop-down fences outweighs the possible risk of impacts on prey populations due to the increased number of raptor perches. Raptor perch inhibitors are used on fences in areas where sage grouse occur, because raptors are believed to negatively influence sage grouse populations. The allotments do not provide suitable habitat for sage grouse, and sage grouse are not known to occur in the project area. If it is determined in the future, that raptors may be having an impact on prey populations, then perch inhibitors will be installed on the wooden posts to prevent raptors from using the posts as perches. A large nail in the top of wooden posts is believed to be effective as perch inhibitors.

The Gallatin NF acknowledges the dangers of improper allotment fencing to wildlife and is committed to ensuring that wildlife-friendly fencing be installed on all Forest Service lands to minimize the risk of harm to wildlife. In a study of fence lines in elk, mule deer, and pronghorn range, Harrington and Conover (2006) estimated that one ungulate was found dead and tangled in a fence every 2.5 miles of fence and one ungulate was found dead next to a fence every 1.2 miles of fence. Most of the animals found dead in the fence were caught in the top two wires while trying to jump over the fence. Of the carcasses found dead next to the fence, over 90% were fawns curled up next to the fence, indicating they had probably gotten



separated from their mothers due to an inability to cross the fence and had starved to death. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) published guidelines for construction of fences that will minimize their potential for causing mortality in ungulates or for restricting their movements across the landscape (Paige, 2008). These recommendations include considering placement of fence, specifications for wire fence, increasing visibility, using lay-down fence when appropriate, and a variety of other recommendations. Wire fence should be constructed so that they are low enough for animals to jump over, high enough for animals to crawl under, and so that they minimize the potential for tangling. MFWP recommends that the top fence wire be 40” above ground, at least 12” be maintained between the two top wires, at least 18” between the ground and the bottom wire, smooth wire on the top and bottom, no vertical stays, and posts at 16.5′ intervals. Regarding young of the year, results from Harrington and Conover (2006) suggest that fences can have a marked impact on fawns. By following the recommendations in Paige (2008), fences would be constructed high enough to allow fawns to crawl under, and impacts on these young ungulates would be reduced. All new fence constructed on the allotments will be constructed according to the specifications in Paige (2008). As discussed on page A-5 of the EA, all fences on the South Fork and Watkins Creek Allotments are designed to allow big game passage, and some fences within the allotments are dropped in the winter to allow passage of wildlife.

2. Wildlife Habitat – Bison Comment 17-68, 23-1: Given MT law, we contend the EA must make it clear the area encompassing both allotments and surrounding GNF public lands are available for bison at all times of year. This is particularly important because if a nearby private landowner such as Pat Povah who owns land to the south does not want bison on his property due to potential disease conflicts with cattle on his property where are the bison to go? The map and aerial photo at the very start of the EA depicts the importance of the South Fork Madison Allotment and surrounding public land as a narrow but critical corridor for wildlife movements south of Hebgen Reservoir and north of a block of private land. We suggest GNF lands in this area must be available for bison to move to naturally or be hazed to if necessary to address potential conflicts that may arise on nearby public lands.

Alternative 4 ensures that bison management options will not be limited due to the presence of livestock grazing on the allotments. If there is a change in bison management such that tolerance for bison in the Hebgen Basin increases, then management of the allotments will be evaluated to determine how the intent of Alternative 4 will be met. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) and the Montana Department of Livestock (DOL) are currently conducting an environmental review of a proposal that would allow some bison to inhabit lands in the Hebgen Basin year-round and may include an alteration of the Zone 3 boundary. If this were to happen, a number of management options would be considered to ensure that the new management options for bison could be implemented on the allotments, some of which are listed on page 2-9 of the EA. Alternative 4, as written, implies that the allotments will be made available to bison, if there is a change in tolerance for bison that would allow for their presence.



The Gallatin NF agrees that the South Fork Allotment provides a critical corridor for wildlife movements. The EA discusses effects of the proposed alternatives on habitat fragmentation and migration corridors on pages A-4 to A-5. As this discussion suggests, allotment fencing poses the greatest potential for affecting wildlife movement, but fences are designed to allow passage of big game, and implementation of Alternative 4 is therefore expected to have minimal effects on wildlife movements.

Comment 17-70, 23-1: We are sensitive to reasonable private landowner concerns about bison threatening livestock on private property, but public property is another matter. Indeed, for any private landowner concerned about bison threatening his/her livestock, MCA 81-2-121 allows the taking of publicly owned bison on private property is necessary. Thus, we view the GNF lands in this area, along with bison friendly landowners such as Ed Ryberg who owns land directly west of the West Fork Madison allotment, as critical habitat pieces for bison. MCA 81-2-121 and MCA 81-2-120 makes the GNF lands all that much more important in terms of contributing to the viability of bison and preventing potential bison conflicts or lethal removals on private lands where bison are not tolerated. How will the GNF make it clear our public lands are suitable and available to bison given Montana Law, especially if the GNF proceeds with a decision to authorize some cattle use on the allotments in question?

The Gallatin NF is not aware of any data that suggest that the South Fork and Watkins Creek Allotments are critical habitat pieces for bison or that those lands are tied to the viability of bison. The Gallatin NF is prepared to respond to any changes necessary to ensure that, if the state is successful in its efforts to increase tolerance for bison in the Hebgen Basin, bison will be allowed to occupy Forest Service lands identified for such purposes. As the language in Alternative 4 states, livestock grazing on the allotments will be allowed, provided that it does not limit the management of bison, and the management of livestock on the allotments will be modified to be consistent with management recommendations for bison and brucellosis. The presence of bison on the allotments would therefore not be precluded by the authorization to continue cattle grazing on the allotments.

Comment 17-77: We suggest the best GNF management indicator species for bison is elk and the habitat available to elk must also be available to bison to serve as a proxy to ensure that bison can persist on the Forest. This is far from the case currently, in spite of the fact that both elk and bison have been exposed to brucellosis. Why does this double standard persist on the GNF?

The 1982 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) implementing regulations required selection of management indicator species to estimate the effects of forest management on fish and wildlife populations. This requirement was removed from the current implementing regulations; however, the Gallatin NF Plan still requires the use of management indicator species. The 1982 implementing regulations (upon which the Gallatin NF Plan was based) required that “…certain vertebrate and/or invertebrate species present in the area shall be identified and selected as MIS.” Furthermore, it stated that “…these species shall be selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management



activities.” The 1982 regulations did not require that all wildlife species that occur on a forest have an MIS selected to serve as a proxy. At the time the Gallatin NF Plan was written, bison were neither selected as an indicator species, nor were they specifically selected as a species for which an MIS was necessary. For this reason, no MIS has been selected, specifically, as an indicator of management activities on bison populations; however, elk were selected as an MIS for “big game”, which includes bison.

Regarding the commenter’s statement that a double standard exists on the Gallatin NF in reference to elk and bison, it is important to note that the Gallatin NF does not maintain any restrictions for bison on National Forest System lands, and bison are welcome on the Gallatin NF. Bison management is conducted according to the management framework set forth in the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP), of which the Forest Service is a partner, and, as such, the Forest Service is obligated to manage bison according to the guidance provided in that plan. The IBMP currently restricts bison in the Hebgen Basin both temporally and spatially. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) and the Montana Department of Livestock (DOL) are currently conducting an environmental review of a proposal that would allow some bison to inhabit lands in the Hebgen Basin year-round and may include an alteration of the Zone 3 boundary. If this proposal is adopted by the IBMP partners, bison will be managed according to any changes to the IBMP that result from the state’s proposal. By selecting Alternative 4 as the preferred alternative, the Gallatin NF is taking steps to prepare for the possibility that the State of Montana may approve changes in bison management that will increase tolerance in the Hebgen Basin year-round and may include an alteration of the Zone 3 boundary.

Comment 18-82, 18-93: The Forest Plan also violates NFMA because it has no MIS to serve as a proxy for bison. NFMA requires the Forest Service to "provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area…" The diversity and viability requirements apply to all species on a forest, and to comply a forest plan must include adequate standards and guidelines to protect the wildlife species native to the forest.

The 1982 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) implementing regulations required selection of management indicator species to estimate the effects of forest management on fish and wildlife populations. This requirement was removed from the current implementing regulations; however, the Gallatin NF Forest Plan still requires the use of management indicator species. The 1982 implementing regulations (upon which the Gallatin NF Forest Plan was based) required that “…certain vertebrate and/or invertebrate species present in the area shall be identified and selected as MIS.” Furthermore, it stated that “…these species shall be selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities.” The 1982 regulations did not require that all wildlife species that occur on a forest have an MIS selected to serve as a proxy. At the time the Gallatin NF Plan was written, bison were neither selected as an indicator species, nor were they specifically selected as a species for which an MIS was necessary. For this reason, no MIS has been selected, specifically, as an indicator of management activities on bison populations; however, elk were selected as an MIS for “big game”, which includes bison.



Comment 18-100: The only Forest Plan standard to protect elk is the elk hiding cover standard, and the Forest Service has not assessed or explained whether that standard would also meet bison habitat needs and ensure bison viability across the Forest. Thus, the Forest Service cannot save its Forest Plan and bison management actions through elk as a MIS, and the Forest Service is violating NFMA, NEPA and the APA.

The 1982 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) implementing regulations required selection of management indicator species to estimate the effects of forest management on fish and wildlife populations. This requirement was removed from the current implementing regulations; however, the Gallatin NF Plan still requires the use of management indicator species. The 1982 implementing regulations (upon which the Gallatin NF Plan was based) required that “…certain vertebrate and/or invertebrate species present in the area shall be identified and selected as MIS.” Furthermore, it stated that “…these species shall be selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities.” The 1982 regulations did not require that all wildlife species that occur on a forest have an MIS selected to serve as a proxy. At the time the Gallatin NF Plan was written, bison were neither selected as an indicator species, nor were they specifically selected as a species for which an MIS was necessary. For this reason, no MIS has been selected, specifically, as an indicator of management activities on bison populations; however, elk were selected as an MIS for “big game”, which includes bison. Because elk serve as the MIS for big game, according to the Gallatin NF Plan, it is assumed that elk can be used to estimate the effects of forest management on big game, which includes bison.

2.1. Bison - Forest Plan Viable Population Requirement Comments 2-4, 2-6, 2-7, 4-40, 8-38, 9-43, 10-46,17-70, 17-76, 18-89,18-90,18-91, 18-93, 18-95,18-96, 18-97, 18-98, 18-115, 19-132, 19-136,19-140,19-141, 19-142, 19-143 : According to your own forest plan, you are supposed "provide habitat for viable populations of all indigenous wildlife species and for increasing populations of big game animals" including wild bison. For too long the GNF has ignored this Forest Plan requirement and habitat designations that support viable populations of wild buffalo on our National Forests. The buffalo is an indigenous species on the Gallatin NF which contains corridors and habitat essential to the persistence of this essential wild species.

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires the Forest Service to “provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives”. NFMA does not have a requirement regarding viability of species. Responsibilities of the Gallatin NF to maintain viability of species are outlined in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2602 and the Gallatin NF Plan. FSM 2602 states that one of the objectives of Forest Service policy is to “maintain ecosystem diversity and productivity by maintaining at least viable populations of all native and desired non-native wildlife, fish, and plants in habitats distributed throughout their geographic range on National Forest System lands”. Achievement of this objective is determined at the forest level, rather than at the project level. Goal 7 on page II-1 of the Gallatin NF Plan states that it is the goal of



the Gallatin NF to “Provide habitat for viable populations of all indigenous wildlife species and for increasing populations of big game animals”. Bison are an indigenous species on the Gallatin NF, and the Gallatin NF therefore supports the provision of habitat for this species. The preferred alternative is not in conflict with this goal, and, in fact, was developed, specifically, to ensure that the Gallatin NF will provide habitat for bison, which is consistent with Goal 7. As stated on page 2-9 of the EA, Alternative 4 would allow for livestock grazing, provided that it does not limit management of bison. As this language explicitly states, Alternative 4 ensures that the presence of bison would not be precluded by the fact that livestock grazing would be allowed, and, if the two management issues were in conflict, it would be livestock grazing, rather than bison management, that would be altered as necessary to ensure that bison management not be limited.

Pages 3-70 through 3-74 of the EA provide a discussion of effects of the proposed alternatives on bison. As disclosed in this section, the action alternatives will result in a reduction of forage available to bison. Pages A-4 and A-5 of the EA provide a discussion on effects of the proposed alternatives on habitat fragmentation and migration corridors. According to this discussion, the alternatives are not expected to impede the movements of big game (including bison) due the presence of wildlife-friendly fencing on the allotments.

Comments 2-6, 2-8, 2-9, 8-40, 18-99, 18-100, 19-133: The GNF needs to acknowledge the migratory species and evaluate suitable habitat in their Forest Plan to support viable and increasing populations of wild buffalo on our National Forests. The GNF Plan and renewal of grazing allotments in the buffalo's habitat violate the NFMA because the Forest Plan provides no buffalo management guidance. The GNF Plan is also in violation of the NFMA because there is no management indicator species to serve as a proxy to ensure that buffalo persist on the Forest. The only Forest Plan standard to protect elk is the elk hiding cover standard, and the Forest Service has not assessed or explained whether that standard would also meet bison habitat needs and ensure bison viability across the Forest. Thus, the Forest Service cannot save its Forest Plan and bison management actions through elk as a MIS, and the Forest Service is violating NFMA, NEPA and the APA.

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires the Forest Service to “provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives”. NFMA does not have a requirement regarding viability of species. Responsibilities of the Gallatin NF to maintain viability of species are outlined in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2602 and the Gallatin NF Plan. FSM 2602 states that one of the objectives of Forest Service policy is to “maintain ecosystem diversity and productivity by maintaining at least viable populations of all native and desired non-native wildlife, fish, and plants in habitats distributed throughout their geographic range on National Forest System lands”. Achievement of this objective is determined at the forest level, rather than at the project level. Goal 7 on page II-1 of the Gallatin NF Plan states that it is the goal of the Gallatin NF to “Provide habitat for viable populations of all indigenous wildlife species and for increasing populations of big game animals”. Bison are an indigenous species on the Gallatin NF, and the Gallatin NF therefore supports the provision of habitat for this species. The



preferred alternative is not in conflict with this goal, and, in fact, was developed, specifically, to ensure that the Gallatin NF will provide habitat for bison, which is consistent with Goal 7. As stated on page 2-9 of the EA, Alternative 4 would allow for livestock grazing, provided that it does not limit management of bison. As this language explicitly states, Alternative 4 ensures that the presence of bison would not be precluded by the fact that livestock grazing would be allowed, and, if the two management issues were in conflict, it would be livestock grazing, rather than bison management, that would be altered as necessary to ensure that bison management not be limited.

The Gallatin NF does not believe that closure of the allotments is warranted. As stated on page. 1-1 of the EA, “Where consistent with other multiple-use goals and objectives, there is Congressional intent to allow livestock grazing on suitable lands (Multiple-Use Sustained Act of 1960, Wilderness Act of 1964, Forest and Rangeland Resource Planning Act of 1974, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, and National Forest Management Act of 1976). Forest Service Policy is to make forage available to qualified livestock operators from lands suitable for grazing consistent with land management plans (Forest Service Manual 2203.1).” Through the analysis presented in this environmental assessment, the Gallatin NF has determined that the lands in the South Fork and Watkins Creek Allotments are suitable for grazing, and this is consistent with the Gallatin NF Plan.

The 1982 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) implementing regulations required selection of management indicator species to estimate the effects of forest management on fish and wildlife populations. This requirement was removed from the current implementing regulations; however, the Gallatin NF Plan still requires the use of management indicator species. The 1982 implementing regulations (upon which the Gallatin NF Plan was based) required that “…certain vertebrate and/or invertebrate species present in the area shall be identified and selected as MIS.” Furthermore, it stated that “…these species shall be selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities.” The 1982 regulations did not require that all wildlife species that occur on a forest have an MIS selected to serve as a proxy. At the time the Gallatin NF Plan was written, bison were neither selected as an indicator species, nor were they specifically selected as a species for which an MIS was necessary. For this reason, no MIS has been selected, specifically, as an indicator of management activities on bison populations; however, elk were selected as an MIS for “big game”, which includes bison. Because elk serve as the MIS for big game, according to the Gallatin NF Plan, it is assumed that elk can be used to estimate the effects of forest management on big game, which includes bison.

Comments 15-56, 15-57: One of the deficiencies in the analysis of the grazing actions described in this EA, and other Forest Service projects, is the agency's refusal to recognize bison as a sensitive species. By declining to make the obvious inclusion of bison to the regional sensitive species list, the Forest Service is able to skew analysis of cattle grazing on bison. The GNF, and the allotments specifically analyzed in this EA, encompasses the only habitat within the entire national forest system in the United States occupied by wild, indigenous bison. How would the analysis and conclusions shift if the EA necessarily had to



assess the environmental consequences of renewed cattle grazing on bison in the context of sensitive species analysis? There is a strong and compelling argument in favor of recognizing bison in Region 1 and the GNF as a sensitive species. The final EA should respond to the question of how the decision would be modified if bison were in fact appropriately described as a sensitive species. The 3,000+ animals in the Yellowstone bison herd are perhaps the only herd in existence with sufficient numbers and genetic diversity to possess reliable long-term viability. This is the only large, wild, migratory herd subject to natural predation in the United States that populates an extensive native landscape. Because of the uniqueness of the Greater Yellowstone bison herd, American bison (Bison bison) is entirely appropriate for the sensitive species list for Region 1. Viable wild populations, subject to the full range of natural limiting factors, are of pre-eminent importance to the long-term conservation, security and continued evolution of bison as a wildlife species. The bison herd in Region 1 is the only viable wild population on national forest lands nationwide.

One of the Forest Service’s objectives regarding wildlife management is to maintain viable populations of all native and desired nonnative wildlife, fish, and plant species in habitats distributed throughout their geographic range on National Forest System lands. Sensitive species are those identified by the Regional Forester as species for which population viability is a concern. An evaluation of bison for listing as a sensitive species was completed in 2010, and the conclusion was that bison were not appropriate for inclusion on the revised 2011 Regional Forester’s list. However, because bison were identified as an issue during scoping for this project, the effects of the proposed alternatives on the species were disclosed in the EA (pages 3-70 to 3-74) and analyzed in the same manner as other wildlife species. The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) minimizes impacts disclosed for Alternatives 2 and 3 by minimizing potential conflict with livestock operations.

Factors the Forest Service has previously considered in assessing candidates for the sensitive species list have included population size and distribution, population trend, level of habitat specialization, and level of threat to habitat. Bison utilizing the national forests in Region 1 (i.e. Gallatin NF) should rank as a high priority under a number of these criteria:

Population size and distribution - only one herd of 3,000 animals exists within the region. A herd size of 2,000 - 3,000 is necessary to avoid inbreeding depression, and Region 1's bison are the only wild herd of plains bison in existence that meets this requirement.

Population trend – the trend is flat. The 2011 population figure was 3,700, which was down from a peak of 5,000 a few years ago, but this trend aligned generally with the recent historical population average.

Threat to habitat - bison habitat is not threatened as much as bison's access to that habitat. Range expansion is severely limited by fear of disease transmission and presence of domestic cattle on national forest and private grazing ranges.



Region 1's sensitive species list contains no other species that is so severely restricted in geographic distribution, limited to a single herd, and exhibits a flat population trend.

It is not the purpose of this EA to consider whether listing bison as a sensitive species in Region 1 is warranted. This determination is made by the Regional Forester based on recommendations provided by the Regional Wildlife Program Leader. This position is currently held by Eric Tomasik, and he can be contacted for more information on the process for listing species as sensitive (406-329-3086).

Comment 15-60, 18-115: To ensure viability the GNF must provide habitat "to support, at least, a minimum number of reproductive individuals and that habitat must be well distributed so that those individuals can interact with others in the planning area." The GNF cannot meet its NFMA test by adopting management actions, such as revised allotment management plans, that necessitates the removal of every single reproductive individual of an existing native species such as bison from the entire national forest. Hence, the forest must incorporate stipulations into its allotment management plans that make clear its underlying legal priority to manage for viable populations of native species, in this case the clear dictate that bison cannot be chased off of the national forest to accommodate domestic cattle.

The preferred alternative does not necessitate the removal of every single reproductive bison, as the commenter asserts. In fact, the preferred alternative does not necessitate the removal of any bison at all, nor does it require that bison be managed in any way to accommodate domestic cattle. The preferred alternative was developed, specifically, to ensure that the Gallatin NF will provide habitat for bison, which is consistent with Goal 7. As stated on page 2-9 of the EA, Alternative 4 would allow for livestock grazing, provided that it does not limit management of bison. As this language explicitly states, Alternative 4 ensures that the presence of bison would not be precluded by the fact that livestock grazing would be allowed, and, if the two management issues were in conflict, it would be livestock grazing, rather than bison management, that would be altered as necessary to ensure that bison management not be limited. By selecting Alternative 4 as the preferred alternative, the Gallatin NF is acknowledging that the forest should be managing habitat for bison and is working proactively to ensure that their presence on the landscape will be considered in management decisions, should it be decided by the partners of the Interagency Bison Management Plan that bison will be tolerated on the allotments.

2.2. Bison / Livestock Conflicts Comments 2.2, 2-10, 4-31, 5-34, 6-36, 7-37,8-41, 9-44, 10-47, 12-49, 14-52, 15-53, 19-134, 19-137, 19-138, 19-144, 19-198, 20-200: Closing the allotments would protect habitat for bison and allow for free roaming bison.

The Gallatin NF does not believe that closure of the allotments is warranted. As stated on page 1-1 of the EA, “Where consistent with other multiple-use goals and objectives, there is Congressional intent to allow livestock grazing on suitable lands (Multiple-Use Sustained Act of



1960, Wilderness Act of 1964, Forest and Rangeland Resource Planning Act of 1974, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, and National Forest Management Act of 1976). Forest Service Policy is to make forage available to qualified livestock operators from lands suitable for grazing consistent with land management plans (Forest Service Manual 2203.1).” Through the analysis presented in this environmental assessment, the Gallatin NF has determined that the lands in the South Fork and Watkins Creek Allotments are suitable for grazing, and this is consistent with the Gallatin NF Forest Plan.

Selection of the No Grazing option would have no impact on the current management of bison, whose presence on the landscape is managed according to the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP). Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) and the Montana Department of Livestock (DOL) are currently conducting an environmental review of a proposal that would allow some bison to inhabit lands in the Hebgen Basin year-round and may include an alteration of the Zone 3 boundary. If this proposal is adopted by the IBMP partners, bison will be managed according to any changes to the IBMP that result from the state’s proposal. Alternative 4 was developed in anticipation of changes in bison management and allows for the presence of both bison and livestock, should there be increased tolerance for bison in the Hebgen Basin in the future. As stated on page 2-9 of the EA, Alternative 4 would allow for livestock grazing, provided that it does not limit management of bison. As this language explicitly states, Alternative 4 ensures that management options for bison take precedence over management of livestock, and, if the two management issues were in conflict, it would be livestock grazing, rather than bison management, that would be altered as necessary to ensure that bison management not be limited.

Comment 4-33, 22-2: We are encouraged that Alternative 4 contains direction that could minimize conflict between bison and cattle. We are specifically referencing the later turn-out dates and potential requirement of a different class of livestock (horses or steers). Given the FS's duty to manage for viable populations of native wildlife on national forests, this seems like an appropriate action. We feel strongly however, that the FS needs to implement these management changes through this EA rather than waiting for changes in the IBMP. The relatively small acreages involved with these allotments are of minor importance to our state's livestock industry, but they are exceedingly important for bison in the winter and spring.

The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) was designed to reduce conflicts between bison and livestock, and, as stated in the EA, bison management options will not be limited by implementation of Alternative 4. Bison are currently managed under the provisions of the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP). The IBMP specifically states that “the principal role of the Forest Service in implementing the Joint Management Plan is to provide habitat for bison”. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) and the Montana Department of Livestock (DOL) are currently conducting an environmental review of a proposal that would allow some bison to inhabit lands in the Hebgen Basin year-round and may include an alteration of the Zone 3 boundary. If this proposal is adopted by the IBMP partners, bison will be managed



according to any changes to the IBMP that result from the state’s proposal. Management actions on the allotments that that are designed to minimize conflict between bison and cattle will be determined once the State has proposed a course of action and that action has been adopted by the IMBP. Until the Gallatin NF has been made aware of what those changes in bison management might be, it cannot determine what mitigation measures or management direction will be necessary to reduce conflict.

Comment 11-, 23-2: If Alternative 4 is implemented than private land owners will need to install bison proof fences and they do not "let down." Consequently, there will be an impact of wildlife species that migrate through or those that forage on private land.

The purpose of Alternative 4 is to ensure that if tolerance for bison in the Hebgen Basin is increased in such a way as to allow for the presence of bison on lands that include the allotments, management options for bison will not be limited by the presence of livestock. Implementation of Alternative 4 will have no effect on the decision as to whether or not there will be increased tolerance for bison and, therefore, no effect on the need for bison-proof fencing. Presence of bison on the landscape is managed according to the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP). Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) and the Montana Department of Livestock (DOL) are currently conducting an environmental review of a proposal that would allow some bison to inhabit lands in the Hebgen Basin year-round and may include an alteration of the Zone 3 boundary. If this proposal is adopted by the IBMP partners, bison will be managed according to any changes to the IBMP that result from the state’s proposal. If bison were to be tolerated on lands that include the allotments, it is likely that private landowners would install bison-proof fencing where their lands border the Gallatin NF, regardless of whether or not cattle grazing is occurring on those lands, and, therefore, regardless of which alternative is selected for this project. The effects of conversion to bison-proof fencing will be evaluated in the state’s proposal to increase bison tolerance. It is not the purpose of this EA to evaluate the impacts of bison on the landscape; rather, it is the purpose of this EA to evaluate the impacts of the proposed alternatives, including Alternative 4, which was designed to ensure that bison management options would not be limited by the presence of livestock grazing.

Comments 17-65, 17-66, 17-72, 19-131: We are primarily concerned that the Gallatin National Forest recognize and manage these public lands such that they are suitable and available for bison migration and use. Currently, these public lands are designated in the IBMP as zone 3, where bison are not allowed. We see this IBMP designation that USFS lands are zone 3 as inconsistent with, and in violation of USFS Regulation 2601 and 2602, as noted below. Furthermore, the presence of cattle on these allotments triggers MT DOL responses that are fatal to bison, also noted below. Thus, we are not confident the GNF and other members of the IBMP team, in particular the DOL are on the same page in recognizing this area as bison habitat. This is our main concern. How will this decision to allow cattle to use these public lands affect the suitability and availability of these public lands as habitat for bison? Does the GNF support the current zone 3 designation under the IBMP which leads to government hazing, killing and exclusion of bison from this area and these allotments in particular? Are



the DOL and/or APHIS OK with both bison and cattle being present on these allotments at the same time? These questions must be answered in the EA before we can make an informed decision on whether or not to support a livestock use alternative, such as alternative 4. We are concerned the GNF is proposing to renew a 10-year permit to allow cattle use within important bison habitat when the presence of cattle is the reason bison have not been allowed to use the area in the past and may be used to exclude bison in the future. The GNF is party to the IBMP which declares these public lands off limits to bison (zone 3) due to potential conflicts with cattle. However, the public lands in the South Fork of the Madison River and Watkins Creek area have been proven to be important bison habitat. Bison migrate (or attempt to migrate) to this area nearly every year. Does authorizing cattle use in this area perpetuate the conflict between cattle and bison or these public lands? Are personnel from the DOL authorized to haze or kill bison on these public lands if conflicts occur with cattle on these allotments. (MT code Annotated 81-2-120)? This must be clarified in the EA.

The Forest Service views bison as an indigenous wildlife species on the Gallatin NF and supports their presence on Forest System lands. Bison management is conducted according to the management framework set forth in the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP), of which the Forest Service is a partner, and, as such, the Forest Service is obligated to manage bison according to the guidance provided in that plan. The IBMP specifically states that “the principal role of the Forest Service in implementing the Joint Management Plan is to provide habitat for bison”. It is not the role of the Forest Service to determine when and where bison will be tolerated (i.e. the Zone designations), nor is it the role of the Forest Service to determine how enforcement of tolerance levels set in the IBMP will occur. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) and the Montana Department of Livestock (DOL) are currently conducting an environmental review of a proposal that would allow some bison to inhabit lands in the Hebgen Basin year-round and may include an alteration of the Zone 3 boundary. If this proposal is adopted by the IBMP partners, Zone 3 will be altered, and bison will be managed according to any changes to the IBMP that result from the state’s proposal.

FSM 2601.2 states that USDA policy is as follows: “Habitats for all existing native and desired non-native plants, fish, and wildlife species will be managed to maintain at least viable populations of such species”. FSM 2602 repeats this language by stating that one of the objectives of Forest Service policy is to maintain ecosystem diversity and productivity by maintaining at least viable populations of all native and desired non-native wildlife, fish, and plants in habitats distributed throughout their geographic range on National Forest System lands.” Compliance with this policy is determined at the forest level, and not at the project level. It is not the purpose of this EA to determine if the current policy meets this forest-wide objective; however, the Gallatin NF feels that the preferred alternative does provide for the habitat needs of bison. Alternative 4, the preferred alternative, was designed to ensure that, if tolerance were to increase for bison in the Hebgen Basin, the allotments would be available to bison, and management options for bison would not be limited by the presence of cattle. The Gallatin NF specifically designed this alternative in anticipation of changes in bison management, under the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP), and was determined to ensure that presence of bison on the allotments would not be precluded by the authorization



of continued livestock use. As stated on page 2-9 of the EA, Alternative 4 would allow for livestock grazing, provided that it does not limit management of bison. As this language explicitly states, Alternative 4 ensures that the presence of bison would not be precluded by the fact that livestock grazing would be allowed, and, if the two management issues were in conflict, it would be livestock grazing, rather than bison management, that would be altered as necessary to ensure that bison management not be limited.

Comment 17-67, 19-131: It appears the GNF will be empowering the DOL under MCA 81-2-120 to take severe and/or lethal actions against bison on GNF lands if it approves livestock use on these public lands which are important bison habitat. The GNF needs to take this into account in the EA and thus question the wisdom of permitting cattle use on these lands at the expense of native bison. Will the GNF take actions to prevent the DOL from hazing or killing bison on the public lands in question if conflicts with permitted cattle/livestock arise?

Among other things, MCA 81-2-120 states that, “Whenever a publicly owned wild buffalo or wild bison from a herd that is infected with a dangerous disease enters the state of Montana on public or private land and the disease may spread to persons or livestock or whenever the presence of wild buffalo or wild bison may jeopardize Montana's compliance with other state-administered or federally administered livestock disease control programs, the department may, under a plan approved by the governor, use any feasible method in taking one or more of the following actions:”, and those actions include removal, hazing, public hunting, etc… This law does not prohibit the presence of bison on the landscape. It does allow the state to manage bison for disease control.

Bison management is conducted according to the management framework set forth in the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP), and it is this framework that determines the spatial and temporal boundaries of bison tolerance on the landscape and the methods of enforcing those boundaries. The Forest Service is a partner agency in the IBMP, and, as such, the Forest Service, along with all IBMP partners is obligated to manage bison according to the guidance provided in that plan. The IBMP specifically states that “the principal role of the Forest Service in implementing the Joint Management Plan is to provide habitat for bison”. It is not the role of the Forest Service to determine when and where bison will be tolerated (i.e. the Zone designations), nor is it the role of the Forest Service to determine how enforcement of tolerance levels set in the IBMP will occur.

The mere removal of cattle from a particular landscape does not necessarily impl

appendix b responses to comments key to...

Documents