GALLATIN NATIONAL FOREST PROPOSED FOREST PLAN CLEAN-UP AMENDMENT

Transcription

1 GALLATIN NATIONAL FOREST PROPOSED FOREST PLAN CLEAN-UP AMENDMENT RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE COMMENT PERIOD PROVIDED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Appendix A to the Decision Notice) April 29, 2015 LETTER # SENDER DATE 1 Native Ecosystem Council/Alliance for the Wild Rockies January 22, 2015 Note: Comments are numbered as they are in Native Ecosystem Council s comment letter dated January 22, GENERAL COMMENTS 1. First and foremost, these 56 "amendments" to the Gallatin Forest Plan are a violation of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). The 1986 Forest Plan is clearly outdated, and fails to include many years of updated, current science for management of wildlife. However, the Forest Service is once again avoiding Forest Plan Revision by doing these massive changes called "amendments." The scope of the proposed changes, including what was changed in the 2006 Travel Plan, clearly is a violation of the NFMA for amending Plans. A revision is required. Amendment of forest plans is provided for in the NFMA planning regulations at 36 CFR 219. The applicable regulations to this amendment is the 1982 Rule as provided for by the transition provisions of the 2000 Rule at 36 CFR Amendment. The Forest Supervisor may amend the forest plan. Based on an analysis of the objectives, guidelines and other contents of the forest plan, the Forest Supervisor shall determine whether a proposed amendment would result in a significant change in the plan. If the change resulting from the proposed amendment is determined to be significant, the Forest Supervisor shall follow the same procedure as that required for development and approval of a forest plan. If the change 1

2 resulting from the amendment is determined not to be significant for the purposes of the planning process, the Forest Supervisor may implement the amendment following appropriate public notification and satisfactory completion of NEPA procedures. (36 CFR (f), 1982). In addition, revision of the Custer Gallatin Forest Plan is scheduled to begin in the fall of 2015 and is to be completed in Scheduling revision is largely a function of national and regional budget allocation and distribution. It is not at the total discretion of the Forest Supervisor. 2. It appears that the agency has already predetermined that an EA is all that is needed for such massive changes to the Forest Plan as per the National Environmental Policy Act. The Clean-up EA at 31 states that a Decision Notice will be prepared Under the discussion of the Decision to be Made at the end of Chapter 1 of the EA it states: The primary purpose of preparing an environmental assessment (EA) is to briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact statement (40 CFR (a)). If it is determined that an EIS is not necessary, then the Responsible Official shall prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), which completes Forest Service compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Once NEPA compliance is completed then the Responsible Official will prepare a Decision Notice to document the decisions on the proposals discussed above. More specifically, the decision to be made is whether to adopt any or all of the proposed changes to Forest Plan direction as described in the previous section, as an amendment to the Plan (EA, page 32) We assume the comment refers to the first line of the second paragraph above. We acknowledge that it would have been better to say (o)nce NEPA compliance is completed then the Responsible Official will prepare a Decision Notice or Record of Decision to document the decisions on the proposals discussed above. There was no intent to predetermine that an EIS was not necessary as evidenced by the discussion in the first paragraph. However, this decision will be based on whether analysis shows that there may be significant impacts from the proposal and/or whether the amendment is found to result in a significant change in the Plan. It is not based on the number of changes being considered. 3. The required scoping for this illegal amendment process is outdated. It was completed most recently in 2011, or 4 years ago. Since that time, a number of important issues have arisen, including the need for the Gallatin National Forest to have a Biological Opinion for management of lynx critical habitat, and a failure of the Travel Plan to be consistent with the Grizzly Bear 2

3 Management Units for monitoring, as well as a need to revise the OMARD and TMARD for the Travel Plan, incorporating the updated analysis methods for motorized access. As it stands now, the public cannot determine how these road density standards are to be applied to grizzly bear habitat. Also, Travel Plan areas outside the Recovery Zone need to be made consistent with Bear Analysis Units, and OMARD and TMARD criteria established for monitoring and management of grizzly bears. We strongly disagree with the commenter s statement that this is an illegal amendment process. It is true that the second public comment period was conducted in That does not make it outdated or illegal. New issues that may arise is part of the reason that a comment period is provided after an EA has been prepared. The assertion that the GNF needs a Biop on lynx critical habitat is currently the subject of litigation at the Regional level, and outside the scope of this amendment. This amendment does provide the context of the updated analysis methods for motorized access, which are reflected in the percentages of secure habitat (see Appendix 1); in addition, the amendment does provide the secure habitat percentages by Bear Analysis Units for those areas outside of the Recovery Zone or Primary Conservation Area (see Appendix 1). In April 2013, the Forest sent a letter to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to inform them of recent updates to databases and software used to evaluate OMARD and TMARD for the 2006 Gallatin Forest Travel Management Plan (Travel Plan). In this correspondence, the Forest provided updated figures for OMARD and TMARD inside the grizzly bear recovery zone, as well as indicated our intent to change reporting requirements for outside the recovery zone to use Bear Analysis Units (BAU) as the standard reporting unit. The Forest asked the USFWS to consider these changes relative to the biological opinion, and associated incidental take statement issued for the Travel Plan. Upon consideration of these changes, the USFWS responded to the Forest with a letter in November 2013, including an amended incidental take statement for the 2006 Travel Plan (BA ; pp ). Under the proposed amendment, there would no longer be standards, but rather monitoring requirements for OMARD and TMARD inside the RZ/PCA (EA p. 89). Therefore, there was no need to re-scope the proposed action based on these issues as presented in this comment. 4. The EA is extremely misleading to the public, in violation of the NEP A and the APA. The claim that these changes are not intended to change the substance of the Forest Plan is clearly false. The most extreme example is the proposal to eliminate any access management standards in grizzly bear recovery habitat. The Forest Service believes that the reasons for each proposed change given in Chapter 1 of the EA and the disclosure of consequences in Chapter 3 demonstrate that there would be little change in management activities on the Gallatin National Forest as a result of the Amendment from what has been occurring in the recent past. 3

4 In response to the second sentence Forest Plan Amendment 19 (1995) directs the Forest Service to adopt Yellowstone access standards when they become available. The Greater Yellowstone Area GYA Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy provides these standards (USDI 2006:4) and the proposed Amendment would formally adopt these access standards as required (EA, page 30). Also, please refer to the discussion of predicted effects to the grizzly bear beginning on page 69 of the EA and more specifically to page 80 where it addresses projections for the timber program due to the proposed changes in grizzly bear management direction and it concludes: Given the small amount of affected acreage allowed under the application rules, combined with a relatively small portion of lands with a timber management emphasis within the RZ/PCA, the proposed amendment to adopt language from the Conservation Strategy as direction for managing grizzly bear habitat is not expected to have substantial impacts (increases or decreases) on timber harvest and associated activities. 5. The claim that the EA is an environmental analysis of the proposed changes is also false. We could only find 2 scientific references in the literature cited, even though the EA supposedly is evaluating the impacts of 56 changes to the Forest Plan. A good example is the elimination of the requirement to have old growth distributed across the landscape, the change to call logged habitat old growth, the change to call big game hiding cover logged areas with a 40% canopy cover, the change to require hiding cover in only specific timber types, and the elimination of any requirements to manage big game winter range for wildlife. None of these proposals were evaluated as per environmental impacts. There are a considerable number of recent articles on the impacts of roads and recreation on grizzly bears, for example. None of these are included in the analysis. The reason the EA does not contain a lot of literature citation is that no ground-disturbing activity is being proposed in conjunction with the amendment. It is also not projected that the Amendment would lead to changes in management activities. The amendment does not eliminate the need to conduct more site-specific analysis in compliance with NEPA at the time ground-disturbing actions are proposed. In reference to the specific examples provided: (1) There are no proposals to eliminate the requirement to have old growth distributed across the landscape, or to call logged habitat old growth. (2) Item #3 (EA, page 8) that proposes to use 40% canopy cover to identify stands that function as hiding cover is based on field cover board analysis that shows a correlation between canopy cover and hiding cover (Canfield 2011a and MDFWP and USDA Forest Service 2013). Areas with prior timber harvest can and do provide hiding cover even though there is no mention of logged areas in this proposed change to the standard. (3) It is not desirable to manage all conifer forest as hiding cover as the existing standard prescribes. For example, limber pine, whitebark pine, and/or ponderosa pine may have more value overall to wildlife where they have less than 40% canopy cover (EA, 4

5 page 9). (4) There is no proposal to eliminate direction to manage big game winter range for wildlife. Even if all of these alleged changes were proposed they do not mandate that ground disturbing activity occur. In response to the last sentence, there is no proposal to build roads or change recreation management in this amendment. Canfield, J. E. 2011a. Gallatin Forest Plan Hiding Cover Assessment. Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Gallatin National Forest Supervisor s Office, Bozeman, MT, 22 pp. MDFWP and USDA Forest Service. September U.S Forest Service and Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks Collaborative Overview and Recommendations for Elk Habitat Management on the Custer, Gallatin, Helena, and Lewis and Clark National Forests. Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Gallatin National Forest Supervisor s Office, Bozeman, MT, 36 pp. 6. In regards to #5 above, the agency actually has noted at page 59 of the EA that the required NEPA analysis for these amendments will be done in the future, at the time of Forest Plan revision!!!! What NEPA process allows postponing evaluation of proposed Forest Plan direction to some unknown future date? There is no statement in the EA that says that the required NEPA analysis for the amendment will be done in the future. We assume this comment refers to the explanation of why climate change was found not to be a significant (relevant) issue to this proposed amendment. The explanation, in part, states: The purpose of this proposed amendment is to remove or correct outdated, ineffective or unnecessary direction from the Gallatin Forest Plan. Entertaining possible new management direction that addresses climate change is outside of this purpose. Under the Planning Regulations at 36 CFR (2012), an assessment of ecological systems and processes (including climate change) shall be completed for the Plan area as part of the forest plan revision process. For the Gallatin National Forest this assessment is currently scheduled to be completed in fiscal year (FY) 2016 with Forest Plan revision completed in NEPA provides for the identification and elimination from detailed study those issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review, thus narrowing the discussion of those issues to a brief statement as to why they will not have a significant effect on the human environment or by providing reference to their coverage elsewhere (40 CFR (3)). 5

6 7. It is not clear how the agency determined that only specific issues are important to the public, given the lack of recent scoping. Some issues were identified as "not meeting the purpose and need for the project." What is the purpose and need for the project? How were the specific Forest Plan directions determined to be within or outside of the purpose and need for amending? For programmatic (Forest Plan level) analysis the word issue can often be used to refer to two different components of planning. In compliance with NEPA an environmental issue is a topic that is addressed in environmental analysis that may be potentially affected by a proposed action. It is typically expressed in a cause-effect relationship where the cause is part or all of some action that is proposed, and the effect is the resource or element of concern. For example if a proposal to build a road was being considered, an issue statement could be the potential effect of the proposed road and its construction on water quality. When used as a title of a section of a NEPA document the issue may just be referred to as water quality. As part of scoping the NEPA regulations (40 CFR (3)) provides the following direction regarding issues: (2) Determine the scope ( ) and the significant issues to be analyzed in depth in the environmental impact statement. (3) Identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review ( ), narrowing the discussion of these issues in the statement to a brief presentation of why they will not have a significant effect on the human environment or providing a reference to their coverage elsewhere. This is the principle followed in determining which environmental issues were studied in detail in Chapter 3 versus those that considered but eliminated from detailed study in Chapter 2, page 56 to 60. In forest planning, the term issue can also refer to a resource topic area for which an assessment of current conditions may be done and for which there may be a desire to establish programmatic management direction for (e.g. goals, objectives, standards). When the Forest Service is looking to correct or change a specific provision of a forest plan through amendment they have the discretion to limit the scope of the associated NEPA analysis to that proposed change, the no action alternative, and other alternatives that alleviate an undesirable effect but still achieve the purpose and need for the change. In general, the primary reason for the proposed Clean-up Amendment is to remove or correct outdated, ineffective or unnecessary direction from the Gallatin Forest Plan, given that full revision of the Plan is currently scheduled to be completed in The Forest Service identified those provisions that they believed needed to be clarified or removed to meet this purpose. In contrast, a request that the Forest Service add new standards or goals for resources to address other purposes would not be within the scope of this analysis. Adding management direction for bison, 6

7 which is not currently addressed in the Plan, is an example of an issue the Forest Service would find outside the scope of the purpose and need for this amendment. 8. It is not clear why addressing the ever-increasing noxious weed problem is not included in the purpose and need for amendment. This is an example of the planning principle described in the response to comment 7 above in terms of binding the scope of analysis to those changes that are within the scope of the proposal and the purpose and need. The Gallatin Forest currently has a programmatic EIS that was prepared to address the impacts of a management program designed to control weeds. The Forest Service is not currently looking to change that direction or add new direction to the Forest Plan for weeds. 9. The claim that whitebark pine will not be impacted by the amendment is clearly false, given the extensive logging planned in whitebark pine stands in the North Hebgen project. The potential effects to whitebark pine, short- and long-term by a proposal to log in those stands would be an issue to be addressed in the North Hebgen project analysis. This amendment does not propose any changes to the current 1987 Forest Plan direction related to whitebark pine. The changes that are proposed do not approve ground disturbing activities or promote those types of activities such that there could be resultant impacts to whitebark pine (EA, page 57). 10. The claim that climate change is not included in the purpose and need for action is curious. Logging will reduce carbon dioxide uptake per unit area of forest. This is a direct impact on climate change, which needs to be addressed given the proposed increased logging of grizzly bear recovery habitat, old growth, and big game winter range, for example. Refer to the response to comment 6 above. Again, logging and other ground disturbing activities are not part of this proposal. 11. The range of alternatives for the proposed 56 changes to the Forest Plan is surprising. How can 3 alternatives address all these changes? In regards to not considering a change in the old growth requirement, how is it possible that the agency biologists have never seen any old growth recommendations for 20-25% old growth? As stated on page 60 of the EA, four alternatives were determined to be adequate because; (a) the effects of hypothetical alternatives (i.e. combinations of the Proposed Action and No 7

8 Action Alternatives) can be adequately understood through comparison of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives and (b) Alternatives 1B and 3 include options that are responsive to specific public comments received. Although the commenter refers to the 20-25% old growth recommendation, her comments did not provide any citations indicating where agency biologists might find such a recommendation. 12. The Forest Service is proposing to amend the amendments created in 2006 in the Travel Plan, such as OMARD and TMARD for grizzly bears in recovery habitat. This is a good example of how the agency is using Forest Plan amendments to avoid Plan revision. Instead of revising the Plan, you will just go along revising previous amendments. How is this consistent with the NFMA? First, the comment is not clear on what standard of the 2006 Travel Plan that the commenter believes is being changed by this proposed amendment. Secondly, consistent with NFMA, revision of the Custer Gallatin Forest Plan is scheduled to begin in the fall of 2015 and is to be completed in Scheduling revision is largely a function of national and regional budget allocation and distribution. It is not at the total discretion of the Forest Supervisor. The Conservation Strategy includes road management requirements for grizzly bears in the Secure Habitat Standard and associated application rules (EA pp. 27, ). Open motorized access route density (OMARD) and total motorized access route density (TMARD) are calculated using GIS with a moving window application to determine the percent of a Bear Management Subunit in a defined motorized route density category. Route densities of particular concern with respect to grizzly bear habitat management are OMARD > 1 mi/mi 2 and TMARD > 2 mi/mi 2. Secure habitat is calculated as the proportion of area at least ten acres in size, that is at least 500 meters from an open or gated motorized access route. In the development of the Conservation Strategy it was determined that maintaining habitat standards for all three access parameters (OMARD, TMARD and secure habitat) was unnecessary and somewhat redundant in meeting grizzly bear management objectives. Constructing a new motorized route or reopening a previously closed motorized route would typically affect secure habitat. The only way a new or reopened motorized route would not affect secure habitat is if it were located in close proximity (within 500 meters) to existing open roads on both sides. Such an event would be rare, and would not likely have a notable effect on the proportion of OMARD > 1 mi/mi 2, or TMARD > 2 mi/mi 2. Finally, in accordance with the Conservation Strategy, the proposed amendment would require monitoring of OMARD and TMARD inside the recovery zone and secure habitat outside the recovery zone over time (EA p. 28, 55, 75, 89 and 176). 13. The MIS for the Forest need revision, with additional species included for snags and old growth, as well as undisturbed older forest habitat. Proceeding with the current list of MIS for an unlimited future time period is a violation of the NFMA. 8

9 Page 11 of the EA states that the purpose of the proposed change to the provision identifying management indicator species (MIS) is: This proposal clarifies the purpose of each indicator species. Due to changes in the listings of bald eagle and grizzly bear under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) these species are identified as indicators of habitat for threatened, endangered or sensitive (TES) species. Elk remains as an indicator for big game habitat. For coldwater aquatic habitats, wild trout (all species included) remains listed by the Plan as indicator species. Wild trout are trout which maintain their populations through natural reproduction. The word dependent for goshawk and marten is replaced with the word related as this is more biologically accurate. The word Pine is added in front of Marten as the correct name for the species. The specificity (or limitation) of goshawk as an indicator of old growth on dry Douglas fir sites and pine marten as an indicator of old growth on moist spruce sites was dropped because their utility as an indicator goes beyond just those sites and they were not restricted to old growth forest. Consideration of adding additional MIS species goes beyond the need to clarify existing direction and the overall purpose to remove or correct outdated, ineffective or unnecessary direction from the Gallatin Forest Plan, given that full revision of the Plan is currently scheduled to be completed in 2019, and the new planning regulations outline the use of focal species and species of conservation concern, and no longer use MIS. Refer to page 6 of the EA where it states: The proposed amendment is only designed to make the needed corrections and is not an attempt to change the underlying substance of the 1987 Forest Plan. The amendment will not eliminate the need to revisit various resource planning issues during the revision process. 14. It is not clear how habitat proxies are to be measured for MIS in the proposed amendments. Since no actual monitoring of populations has yet to occur on the Gallatin, there is no other means of determining that MIS populations are persistent without habitat standards. Why continue with a Forest Plan that will not do this? This is a violation of the NFMA because there is no process provided to ensure that a diversity of wildlife will be maintained. We have not proposed to change any habitat standards or change MIS species. MIS populations have been monitored and trends have been reported to the best of our ability (Canfield 2011b). Canfield, J. E. 2011b. Gallatin Forest Plan Management Indicator Species Assessment Population and Habitat Trends. Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Gallatin National Forest Supervisor s Office, Bozeman, MT, 25pp. 9

10 15. Aspen needs to be added as a management indicator species, and protections that limit livestock browsing need to be included. This is the only way this important tree species will be maintained over time on livestock allotments. The response to comment 13 above applies to this comment as well. Under the 2012 Planning Regulations, aspen could be considered as a focal species during Forest Plan Revision. 16. The proposed changes (yet more changes) to MA 11 are a violation of the NFMA, because the agency is providing false definitions for management areas. There will be basically no differences between wildlife MA 11 and a timber MA. Why not just call them all timber MAs and be honest with the public? Two changes are proposed for management area (MA) 11. The first would delete a standard that states: Resource area analysis will identify vegetative characteristics and habitat effectiveness for featured species. This change is proposed based on a principle that forest plans should not contain procedural direction because procedures frequently change and are improved. In this case resource area analysis is an outdated process. Also, habitat effectiveness refers to a standard that had been removed from the Forest Plan in the decision for the 2006 Travel Plan. The second change would delete a standard that states: No commercial thinning is planned. This is just a statement and doesn t provide direction. The reason this statement was in the Forest Plan was just to indicate that commercial thinning was not planned as a contributor to the allowable sale quantity (ASQ). Also, while the statement was true, it is not necessarily accurate today. Commercial thinning is used on the Gallatin Forest in some situations. These changes do not affect the management goals for MA 11 or other included provisions to provide for big game habitat (see Gallatin Forest Plan pages III-33 to III-36). The description of MA 11 land remains productive forest lands that are available for timber harvest, provided that big game habitat objectives are met. 17. The Forest Plan needs to require adequate wildlife surveys for all MIS in project analyses. We have not proposed to change any habitat standards or change MIS species. MIS populations have been monitored and trends have been reported to the best of our ability (Canfield 2011b). 10

11 Again, the purpose and need for the project is to clarify existing direction and the overall purpose to remove or correct outdated, ineffective or unnecessary direction from the Gallatin Forest Plan, given that full revision of the Plan is currently scheduled to be completed in Refer to page 6 of the EA where it states: The proposed amendment is only designed to make the needed corrections and is not an attempt to change the underlying substance of the 1987 Forest Plan. The amendment will not eliminate the need to revisit various resource planning issues during the revision process. The Forest Service also would not favor such direction in a forest plan because it is procedural. Procedural direction is better provided in Forest Service handbooks. Lastly, the 2012 NFMA Planning Regulations no longer includes the concept of management indicator species (MIS) as a means of monitoring the effects of management programs. 18. There needs to be clear habitat objectives established for migratory songbirds, which are a significant component of forest wildlife. These standards need to address the provision of productive forest lands with high conifer seed production, high snag densities, high levels of hiding and thermal cover, and undisturbed habitat for intolerant species. Adding habitat objectives for migratory songbirds goes beyond the need to clarify existing direction and the overall purpose to remove or correct outdated, ineffective or unnecessary direction from the Gallatin Forest Plan, given that full revision of the Plan is currently scheduled to be completed in Refer to page 6 of the EA where it states: The proposed amendment is only designed to make the needed corrections and is not an attempt to change the underlying substance of the 1987 Forest Plan. The amendment will not eliminate the need to revisit various resource planning issues during the revision process. In addition, migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the MOU between the USDA Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. These important protections and guidelines provide protections for migratory birds at the project level. 19. The objective to have a diversity of age classes needs to be supported with why this is needed for wildlife. It is clearly needed for timber production, but it is unknown why this is needed for wildlife. At a minimum, please include an MIS that needs a diversity of age classes and different forest structures. In the proposed amendment, forest-wide standard 6(c)2 that directs the Forest to strive to achieve a minimum of 10% of a timber compartment in each of six different age/size classes would be removed from the Forest Plan and replaced with: Use fire and other management tools to help achieve vegetative size and age class diversity. In part, to achieve this vegetative diversity, strive to maintain a minimum 10% old growth forest on lands 11

12 classified as forested at the mountain range scale (EA, page 14). The rationale for removal of this standard was that it was impossible to obtain this age class diversity, which would require ambitious use of fire or timber harvest to set back succession in the overwhelming preponderance of mature tree size classes that currently characterize forests on the Gallatin National Forest. The numeric threshold for old growth was retained, because of its social and ecological importance. 20. The Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction, which has been amended to the Gallatin Forest Plan, is an amendment that does need to be updated. This direction does not address habitat fragmentation or provide minimum levels of lynx winter habitat, and as such, does not protect recruitment of lynx winter habitat with likely irretrievable results. The NRLMD is outside the scope of this cleanup amendment. The NRLMD will be revisited on a Regional level, probably in the near future. In addition, the NRLMD does have objectives, standards and guidelines for maintaining connectivity. In addition, the NRLMD vegetation standards specifically limit treatment of lynx winter habitat (multistory mature and stand initiation structural stages) with standards VEG S5 and VEG S The proposal to remove any road management standards in grizzly bear recovery habitat is a violation of the ESA. The agency is not using the current best science to manage this threatened species. The ESA does not contain any requirements specific to road management standards in recovery habitat. However, the proposed amendment does address road management. The Forest is proposing replace Amendment No. 19 (access management direction) with standards and application rules as mandatory habitat management based on the GYA Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy. These include a Secure Habitat Standard: Inside the Primary Conservation Area (PCA) or Recovery Zone (RZ), maintain the percent of secure habitat in each Bear Management Subunit at or above 1998 baseline levels. For those subunits identified in the Conservation Strategy as needing improvement from 1998 levels (Gallatin #3, Madison #2, and Henry s Lake #2), secure habitat levels at full implementation of the 2006 Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan become the new baseline, and these subunits must be maintained at or above this new baseline. Projects that result in reductions to secure habitat below the applicable baseline (1998 or Travel Plan) must follow the Application Rules. Secure Habitat is defined as any contiguous area > 10 acres and more than 500 meters away from an open or gated motorized route (EA p. 27, 73, 170; BA p. 9). Therefore the secure standard is a road management standard, because it would be difficult to add new roads without affecting secure habitat. The commenter stated the agency is not using the current best science to manage this threatened species, but did not cite to any particular science they felt was better, more 12

13 current than, or contrary to that considered in the EA. This Forest, the GYA Grizzly Bear Habitat Coordinator, and the USFWS Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator all concur that the Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Yellowstone Area, provides the current best science for managing grizzly bears and their habitat in this ecosystem (EA p. 11, 27, 29, 73, and 78). 22. Should the Forest Service proceed with eliminating road management requirements for grizzly bears in recovery habitat, NEC and AWR both request that to fulfill the agency requirements as per the NEP A, that the Forest Service Biological Assessment and USFWS Biological Opinion be provided to the public "prior" to the Objection Process. It is critical that the public be provided with information as to how the Forest Service is managing the grizzly bear, including how you will implement any terms and conditions required by the USFWS. As noted in response to the previous comment (#21), the proposed amendment includes road management requirements for the grizzly bear recovery zone in adoption of the Secure Habitat Standard and associated application rules (EA pp. 27, ). Road impacts can be measured by the availability of secure habitat, which is defined as those areas at least 500 meters from a motorized route (EA p. 81). The 2006 Gallatin Forest Travel Management Plan, which is not affected by this proposed amendment, provides Forest-wide road management direction (EA pp. 80, 82, 84 and 87; BA pp. 14, 15). The Forest Service will provide the BA upon request. The EA, BA and Draft Decision Notice provide adequate information for the public to understand how the Forest intends to manage habitat for the grizzly bear, including our intent to follow any terms and conditions that may be issued by the USFWS. 23. The proposed changes to grizzly bear management will be a significant change to existing management direction, and will have significant adverse impacts on the grizzly bear, impacts that require the completion of an EIS for this amendment, as per the NEP A. In this EIS, the agency needs to identify what the expected increase in grizzly bear mortality risk, and displacement from occupied habitat, will be, and how this will impact population trends. The comment does not indicate how the proposed amendment would result in significant changes, or have significant adverse impacts on grizzly bears. The EA describes how the proposed amendment would affect other resource activities (e.g. timber, fire, livestock, lands, special uses, recreation, and mineral development), concluding little notable change in these areas (EA p ). The outcome of implementing proposed changes is expected to be improved management techniques and consistency. None of the alternatives considered contain any substantive changes that would marginalize the consideration of grizzly bears under a multiple use management scenario (EA p. 83). Much of the existing Forest Plan direction is procedural and/or duplicative in that it requires actions already mandated by existing laws, regulations or policy. Removal of such direction would have no 13

14 notable effect on grizzly bears because the forest must comply with existing laws, regulation and policy. Many of the concepts addressed by existing language in the Plan are incorporated into new standards proposed in this amendment. A detailed summary of existing standards and guidelines proposed for removal, and how those issues would be handled under the proposed amendment, is contained in the project file (EA p. 84). The analysis of direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the proposed amendment went into great detail about many aspects of the proposed changes relative to existing direction, and disclosed anticipated effects to grizzly bears, including a number of beneficial effects. The analysis concluded that the proposed amendment would result in minor; i.e. not significant, changes from existing management direction (EA pp ). Since the proposed amendment includes programmatic direction, and neither authorizes nor requires any site-specific land management action at any point in time, it is impossible to quantify increases in mortality risk and/or displacement impacts until actual projects are proposed, at which time a site-specific analysis of direct, indirect and cumulative effects would always be required under the NEPA, and also required under the ESA so long as the grizzly bear is listed. The BA for the proposed amendment acknowledged the potential for adverse effects to grizzly bears resulting from existing conditions, as well as future proposals that could be implemented under the proposed programmatic direction (BA pp , 25-26). The BA determined that overall changes in grizzly bear habitat management would be minor, and consequently, added impacts would also be minor compared to existing programmatic direction contained in the Forest Plan (BA p. 25). In practice, the Gallatin Forest has been implementing the Conservation Strategy since it was first finalized in 2003 (EA pp ; BA p. 25). Since that time, the grizzly bear population has increased in number and distribution on the Forest (EA pp. 78, 82; BA pp , 13). 24. The proposed amendments are a violation of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) because the Forest Plan is supposed to be a contract with the public defining how the Forest Service will manage public lands. This is the second major amendment to the Gallatin Forest Plan. The first major amendment to this Plan was the 2006 Travel Plan, which made countless changes to the plan. There is no way the public can understand exactly what the Forest Plan requires. They will be required to mix and match 3 different documents to determine which standards still apply, or if standards have been changed to guidelines. We are not aware of any other National Forest that has proceeded with a piecemeal dispatching of a Forest Plan in such a manner that it will be impossible for the public to actually use or refer to. The agency needs to stop these major changes to the Plan, and instead do a Forest Plan Revision, where a Forest Plan will be one document the public can reference. A consolidated copy of the Gallatin Forest Plan, with the amendments made to it to date, is available on the Custer Gallatin National Forest website at This document provides a single source that the public can reference to find current applicable Forest Plan direction. 14

15 In addition, revision of the Custer Gallatin Forest Plan is scheduled to begin in the fall of 2015 and is to be completed in Scheduling revision is largely a function of national and regional budget allocation and distribution. 25. The proposal to end the management of grizzly bear access with applying the Conservation Strategy (2003) will probably not survive legal challenge. May we suggest that instead of trying to remove management requirements for the grizzly bear, which is still listed as a threatened species, that the Forest Service correct the severe problem with the 2006 Travel Plan. The OMARD and TMARD identified in the Travel Plan for grizzly bear Management Units are currently invalid, due to revised methodology in measuring roads. This makes the current Incidental Take Statement for the Travel Plan impossible to decipher, for the public. This is a NEPA violation, because the agency is basing management decisions and criteria in a manner that the public can not review or understand. Please obtain a Revised Biological Opinion for the 2006 Travel Plan for grizzly bears, so that the Incidental Take Statement can be correctly identified to the public. The proposed amendment includes access management requirements for the grizzly bear recovery zone in adoption of the Secure Habitat Standard and associated application rules (see response to comment #21 and 22.). Amendment 19 to the existing Forest Plan directs the Forest to adopt Yellowstone access standards when they become available. The GYA Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy provides these standards and the proposed amendment would formally adopt Yellowstone access standards as required (EA p. 29, 86 and 93). A December 2014 Montana District Court ruling (CV GF-BMM) concurred that the Conservation Strategy provides the standards required by Amendment 19. This court emphasized that the Forest Service cannot delay indefinitely the adoption of these currently available access standards. Further, this Court noted the Forest s attempt to amend the Forest Plan to include the Conservation Strategy after the grizzly bear had been delisted, and also that the Ninth Circuit rejected FWS s attempt to remove the grizzly bear from the threatened species list (Greater Yellowstone Coal., Inc. v. Servheen, 665 F.3d 1015, 1030 (9 th Cir. 2011). However, while the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court ruling to remand the decision to delist the grizzly bear back to the FWS, it reversed the District Court in part, and found that the Conservation Strategy provides adequate regulatory mechanisms for managing grizzly bears (EA p. 29, 86). The Forest received an amended incidental take statement for the Travel Management Plan in November 2013 (see response to General Comment #3). 26. Since the Clean-up Amendment is supposed to correct deficiencies in the old 1986 Plan (including outdated direction) you need to use the current best science in addressing grizzly bear management, old growth management, woodpecker management areas/ snag management, big game habitat effectiveness, big game security, and wildlife that need large tracts of undisturbed older forest habitat at lower elevations for viability. We did not see any references to any science 15

16 in the discussion of proposed changes. Inclusion of the current best science in these proposed evaluations of proposed changes is both a NEPA and an NFMA requirement. Forest Plan Revision will begin in 2016 and will provide a complete overhaul of current Plan deficiencies. Please refer to the purpose and need for the amendment. We are proposing to adopt best science, the conservation strategy standards, for grizzly bear since Amendment 19 directs us to do so, as did a recent court decision. Other state of the art analysis methods and recent scientific literature are being used for project level analyses. The EA presents the proposed changes and rationale for replacing existing grizzly bear direction with recommendations, guidance and application rules from the GYA Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy. For amendment items #10, 38 and 55, the proposed new standard and/or the rationale specifically reference the Conservation Strategy (2007) as the current best science available (EA pp. 11, 21, 27 and 29). Other standards modified or added to adopt Conservation Strategy language (e.g. Items # 27, 31, 32, 33, 39 and 47) point to the rationale given for item #10; i.e. acknowledge the Conservation Strategy as the current best science by reference (EA pp ). The Forest, the GYA Grizzly Bear Habitat Coordinator, and the USFWS Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator all concur that the 2007 Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Yellowstone Area, provides the current best science for managing grizzly bears and their habitat in this ecosystem (EA p.78). The Conservation Strategy was developed by an interagency team consisting of representatives from the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, National Park Service, US Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and State Wildlife Management Agencies. This team brought a wealth of knowledge and experience to the table, and developed the Conservation Strategy using their combined expertise, as well as drawing on the best available scientific research relative to grizzly bear conservation and management (EA p. 90). 27. The proposed amendment continues to be a violation of the NFMA, because there are no measures to ensure viability of MIS elk. What are the habitat conditions needed for occupancy of habitat by this species? Why isn't there a standard for habitat effectiveness and security? There should also be standards for winter range and calving range. The requirement for MIS cannot be met without some habitat measures to ensure occupancy of a given landscape by the MIS. Without this, there is no actual function of an MIS. MIS were identified to monitor the effects of management activities on various wildlife and aquatic species. They are not necessarily species in need of special protective measures like threatened, endangered or sensitive species. This is especially true of elk, whose numbers are regulated by MDFWP through hunting (see Canfield 2011b). Because of the social importance of elk and elk hunting, there are habitat standards (e.g. hiding cover) in the 1987 Gallatin Forest Plan, and those have been retained, but in some cases, clarified, so they can be more easily applied and understood internally and externally. Habitat 16

17 effectiveness and Security type analyses have been consistently applied at the project scale per the MDFWP and USDA Forest Service September 2013 Collaborative Overview and Recommendations for Elk Habitat Management and the USDA Forest Service (October 2013) Framework for Project-Level Effects Analysis on Elk. The 2012 Planning (NFMA) Rule at 36 CFR 219 no longer includes a requirement to identify management indicator species (MIS). In the final rule, MIS monitoring has been replaced with monitoring of focal species. The concept of focal species is well supported in the scientific literature and community. Focal species are not surrogates for the status of other species. Focal species monitoring provides information regarding the effectiveness of the plan in providing the ecological conditions necessary to maintain the diversity of plant and animal communities and the persistence of native species in the plan area. 28. We recommend that the no action alternative be selected, and the agency use finances and time to revise the Forest Plan so that the public has one specific document, a document based on the current best science, as a guide to how the Forest Service will manage our public lands. The proposed changes, as discussed below, are nothing more than piecemeal deletions of important measures for wildlife, and do not meet the purpose of Forest Planning. At a minimum, it is clear that the proposed EA will not even marginally address the impacts of the proposed changes, something that needs to be done in an EIS for Forest Plan revision. Revision of the Custer Gallatin Forest Plan is scheduled to begin in the fall of 2015 and is to be completed in In general, the primary reason for the proposed Clean-up Amendment is to remove or correct outdated, ineffective or unnecessary direction from the Gallatin Forest Plan. The Forest Service identified those provisions that they believed needed to be clarified or removed to meet this purpose. A consolidated copy of the Gallatin Forest Plan, with the amendments made to it to date, is available on the Custer Gallatin National Forest website at This document provides a single source that the public can reference to find current applicable Forest Plan direction. Specific Comments on Proposed Changes: 1. We object to the change of Forest Plan Standard 6(a)(3) to a guideline, where other uses compete with wildlife needs. This is not a defensible management strategy. What current science indicates that habitat standards are not needed for big game winter range? What are the expected impacts to big game populations as a result of reduced management of winter ranges? How many acres are going to be impacted, and what are the expected costs to wildlife. There is no question that if management of winter range is not a requirement on the Gallatin National Forest, it will never happen. What is the specific rationale to reduce protections of big game winter range? This 17

18 is certainly not an outdated wildlife issue. What science indicates that management of big game winter ranges is not needed? What other uses will have a higher priority? Forest Plan Standard 6(a)3 has NOT been changed to a guideline. It was reworded to include BOTH summer and winter range for big game, and to remove the reference to increasing elk and deer populations because MFWP manages big game populations through hunting and their herd goals, in many places, are no longer for herd increases. Also, since there are numerous big game species on the Forest, the emphasis in the proposed wording change includes all big game, not just deer and elk. 2. We object to the change of Forest Plan standard 6(a)(5). This is the only other management requirement for big game, other than protection of winter ranges. It is not clear why this standard needs to be removed. We note in the North Hebgen project that one of the reasons by specific timber types are being targeted for cover retention is for logging of white bark pine stands. This makes the rationale for deleting standard 6(a)(5) clear-to benefit logging. We also object to the claim that 40% canopy cover is hiding cover. It is clear that this revised definition of hiding cover is being used to allow logging, as was noted in the South Bridger Project. Please provide valid, published and peer reviewed science that demonstrates that 40% canopy cover provides hiding cover for big game, including calving/fawning cover from predators, and security cover from hunters. We noted previously that the purpose of changing hiding cover to a 40% canopy cover is to promote logging, not wildlife cover. We also note that the 40% canopy cover claim for hiding cover is not supported by past research in regards to the "Montana Rule" by Lyon and others in If the agency is going to change the definition of hiding cover, you need to make this clear to the public, change the definition in the glossary of the Forest Plan, and demonstrate that this is consistent with the current best science. It is not clear in regards to amending this standard 6(a)(3), why white-bark pine, limber pine and ponderosa pine are to be excluded as suitable hiding cover for elk. What is this based on? What science identifies that limber pine, whitebark pine and ponderosa pine have more wildlife values if the canopy cover is below 40%? We are not removing the standard, but we are clarifying the standard and how to apply it, because the existing wording is very confusing, and a white paper was needed to provide guidance on the interpretation of this standard (Canfield 2011a). As far back as 1982, MDFWP supported the use of stands with 40% canopy cover as providing cover for elk (see Lonner and Cada 1982). The hiding cover white paper (Canfield 2011a) includes documentation of the work done by the Gallatin National Forest in field validating forest cover types with respect to the Forest Plan definition of elk (hides 90% of an elk at 200 feet). This work concluded, based on plots located in different stand types in different areas of the forest, that stands that have 40% or greater canopy cover (as mapped by imagery) meet the definition of hiding 18