Bison Range planning docs open for comment

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is taking public comments on some of its planning documents for the National Bison Range Complex.

The complex includes the National Bison Range, home to about 350 of its namesake mammals, and five other protected zones in the greater Flathead Valley. Managed as a National Wildlife Refuge, it covers about 18,800 acres.

In recent years, the 108-year-old range been plagued by funding cuts and jurisdictional disputes between the government and the neighboring Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. In a lawsuit that stemmed from these issues, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility alleged that the Fish and Wildlife Service had failed to complete required planning processes for the range. One of these failures, it claimed, was the absence of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

In their settlement in January, the Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to complete such a plan for the range, along with an environmental impact statement, by the end of 2023. In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Service aims to complete a conservation plan for the complex’s other five units.

Michael D’Agostino, public affairs specialist for the agency, explained that “these two processes will run side-by-side, which will allow the service to combine public meetings and outreach, saving time, resources and money.”

The planning’s most recent step was the release for public comment of three draft documents: a vision, list of goals and a range of management alternatives for the project. That last file details five possible approaches for managing the refuge.

Option 1 takes “no action” and maintains the complex’s management rules, programming, funding and staffing levels as they are.

Option 2 stresses “managing habitat and wildlife populations to provide quality, wildlife-dependent opportunities for the public.”

Under option 3 managers would focus on protecting and restoring the refuge’s ecosystem.

In option 4, the needs of certain “target species” would guide plant and wildlife management.

Option 5 aims to incorporate input from the area’s residents and public and private entities as much as possible in the decision-making process.

The 34-page Draft Range of Management Alternatives breaks down these alternatives, explaining how they would apply to the refuge’s animals, plants, landscape and human users.

In many cases, the different alternatives build on the range’s current management policies, but break with it or add steps to suit their respective goals.

On managing the area’s iconic bison, for instance, the “no action” alternative continues with current practice. The “public experience” sought in option 2 would do the same and “strive to ensure bison are visible to the visiting public.”

The “ecological sustainability” and “species-focused management” options take more steps to boost the population’s health, such as promoting “low stress handling techniques” and evaluating roundup methods that treat the animals “less like livestock.” The fifth option would develop bison management techniques in association with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and other stakeholders.

Some hunting is currently permitted on the complex’s Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, as well as the Flathead and Lake County Wetland Management Districts. The alternatives would variously continue this practice; favor expanded hunting; possibly increase hunting closures if species need it; and create a team to evaluate and implement hunting guidelines.

D’Agostino said that “at this stage, we would appreciate feedback from the public on which units or what opportunities they would like us to consider expanding.”

The complex’s funding challenges also factor into the Management Alternative. The fifth, collaborative option calls for managers to “consider allowing a private timber company to harvest timber on Lost Trail [National Wildlife Refuge] if they leave more timber or aspen on their land.” D’Agostino explained in an email that this “has not been done in the past.”

“Due to the refuge’s limited resources, we are unable to address all necessary forest management activities in-house. The refuge complex also does not have the funds to hire others for this work. By partnering with a private company, the Service would be able to have a private company thin lodgepole pine-encroached forested areas to meet our forest management goals.”

He added that “the Service would retain the right to decide what trees would be removed and where and which areas should stay thick for wildlife habitat.”

These possibilities and others are now open for public comment. On its website, the Fish and Wildlife Service states that “all substantial comments will be used to improve the draft vision, goals, and alternatives prior to the development” of the conservation plan drafts, along with the required environmental documents. Those will be drafted and released for public comment sometime next year. The agency aims to complete the project in 2020.

This planning process comes after years of arguments over jurisdiction and regulations between the federal government, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, whose reservation surrounds five of the complex’s sites, the Department of the Interior and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

When that group’s lawsuit was settled in January it voiced willingness to move on. Jeff Ruch, its executive director, told the Daily Inter Lake that it was preparing detailed comments on the document. But he’s concerned that, with the refuge’s current funding levels, “the management alternatives appear to be putting an overcoat on a skeleton.”

Tribal attorney Brian Upton said that the tribes have not taken any position on the proposed alternatives.

The Draft Vision, Goals and Management Alternatives are available at https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/refuges/nbrc.php, under the “Documents” tab. Comments should be submitted by May 25. Public meetings have already been held on these documents.

Comments concerning the National Bison Range Comprehensive Conservation Plan should be sent to:

Vanessa Fields

Planning team leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Scientific Resources

922 Bootlegger Trail

Great Falls, MT 59404

Telephone: 406-727-7400x219

Fax: 406-727-7432

Email: Scoping_nbr@fws.gov

Comments concerning the plan for the rest of the complex should be sent to:

Bernardo Garza

Planning team leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Branch of Planning and Policy

134 Union Blvd., Suite 300

Lakewood, CO 80228

Telephone: 303-236-4377

Fax: 303-236-4792

Email: Scoping_pablo_ninepipe@fws.gov

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that additional meetings would be held later this summer. These meetings were held last summer and earlier this month.

Reporter Patrick Reilly can be reached at preilly@dailyinterlake.com, or at 758-4407.