Full opinion text
OPINION & ORDER CHARLES C. LOVELL, Senior District Judge. Before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court heard oral argument from the parties from Ms. Summer Nelson for the Plaintiffs and from Mr. Paul D. Barker, Jr., and Ms. Anna Stimmel, for the Defendants. The Court having read the papers, having reviewed the administrative record, and having heard and considered the arguments of the parties, is prepared to rule. Prior Bison Litigation Prior to oral argument, the Court, believing that certain issues raised here by Plaintiffs had already been before the undersigned and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, addressed the following introductory comments to counsel and the parties to review the litigation history relating to Yellowstone bison: THE COURT: We are ready, then, to proceed. What we will do today, I think some little preliminary introduction by the Court is warranted in view of the fact that we’ve had some considerable amount of litigation in the past relating to the bison, then we will proceed after my introductory remarks. Now, it has been a few years since the Court has had a case involving the Yellowstone bison, but there have been a number of cases decided in the past involving the Yellowstone bison. In some respects, many of the issues here have been considered in the past, the Court has taken them into account and ruled on certain issues. I want to touch on some of those cases and to ask Counsel, in argument, to consider the applicability of some of those cases, let the Court know we are not plowing new ground here with respect to some of these issues, or are we? Are we going to sweep aside all the decisions that have been made since 1985 relating to this same topic? Let the Court know is there anything here relating to res adjudicata? Is there any stare decisis considerations here? The Court certainly should be permitted, in some respects, to take judicial notice of prior decided cases. Now, I want to just briefly review these cases. We all know this proceeding is brought under the Administrative Procedures Act before the Court, it comes here by cross motions for summary judgment. The Administrative Act provisions, of course, are applicable. In looking back, by way of background, I think the evidence shows that around 1902 there were between 20 and 50 bison inside Yellowstone Park. Now, by the time of the first case that came before this Court in 1985, the bison had multiplied until their numbers inside the park were in the thousands. The first case that was filed that year is commonly referred to here as Fund Case No. 1. That’s not F-U-N, that’s FU-N-D. It was Fund for Animals against [Hodel]. In that case the plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to stop the Park Service from allowing migrating bison to be killed. Bison were leaving the park because of the winter snows and a lack of adequate feed. They were starving. It also was caused, at least in part, by the cleaning of the roads of snow for snowmobile and snow coach use and, obviously, the bison would rather walk down a plowed trail than go through deep snow. In any event, the court in that case did rule in favor of the defendants. The preferred alternative in the environmental assessment did not constitute arbitrary and capricious action, neither did it mandate an environment impact study. In other words, it wasn’t Federal action that was majored [sic] in the Park’s decision not to build a fence or not to feed the bison or to take other action, but in simply allowing them to migrate out of the park. Now, incidentally, that case was not appealed. But sometime after that, I believe that in 1991, the Fund for Animals filed another case, and that is Fund Case No. 2. The defendants were Manuel Lujan, Secretary of the Interior, and others, but notably the State of Montana was joined in that action. An emergency injunction was requested by the proceeding, but this case sought to stop the State of Montana from shooting the— shooting bison outside the state boundaries. In other words, in the first case the remedy sought was for the Park Service to keep the bison in; this case dealt with not allowing the bison to be [shot] when they migrated into Montana. The court considered a number of things in that case, among other things found that the caring [sic] capacity of the park was about 2,400 animals as of that time, that the numbers of the herd exceeded that amount substantially. Among other notable points, the court decided that this disease of brucellosis, which was carried by approximately half the bison herd at that time according to certain studies, actually was a very serious disease, that it had a substantial impact on the economy of Montana, and I think the numbers involved were that ranchers and others in the State of Montana had expended about $30 million to have the state declared brucellosis free. And I don’t recall the exact amount, but it would have amounted to millions of dollars to — of expense to Montana ranchers, in selling their cattle, to have every cow sold tested in the event that that brucellosis free designation would be lost. In any event, out of that case the court recognized that the State of Montana has the absolute right, under its police powers in protecting the health, safety and welfare of its inhabitants, to remove, by reasonable means, possibly infected trespassing Federal bison which migrate into Montana. The court examined the disease of brucellosis, found that, according to the expert testimony, the brucellosis parasite is a facultative intracellular parasite, which in English simply means that, number one, it is a parasite. As it invades any host, it invades the boundaries of the cell itself, therefore it’s hard to reach by way of treatment. Brucellosis, when contacted by human beings, was referred to as undulant fever. Undulant fever at one time was a substantial health problem in this country, but it was largely eliminated by the pasteurization of raw milk. In any event, the disease here was thought to be substantial. Now, that case was appealed, and it went to the Circuit Court, and the Circuit Court did affirm the District Court in that case. And I don’t mean by that affirmance to suggest that everything the District Court said was endorsed by the Circuit Court, but, certainly, the result was — and there may be portions of that case where the evidence there and the findings by the Court are still of some use, or not. In argument you can help me by telling me what the circumstance is in your mind. Now, the next case, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, American Buffalo Foundation, Gallatin Wildlife Association, there were a number of parties here, this case was in 1996. Here, the plaintiffs sought to enjoin an interim plan for management of bison. Now, that included the capture and removal of bison within the park. The parties here were striving to avoid the parties leaving — or the bison leaving the park, migrating into Montana, and the thrust of the plaintiffs’ case was that the Park Service ought not be allowing capturing or killing of animals within the park. The court here — the District Court here decided that it is permissible for park personnel to proceed to capture or kill wild game in the park, and that was, incidentally, despite the existing anti-poaching statutes, which the court held were intended to apply only to members of the public. The court made a number of findings in the case, some of which may still be pertinent. The court found that the bison which were being removed within the park at that time were not required for the future integrity of the herd now that they were threatening neighboring landowners. Now, there was a motion for stay of appeal in District Court, that was denied, but there is no evidence of an appeal ever having been taken from that case of which I’m aware. The next case, then, came in 1998. This was the Intertribal Bison Cooperative case against Babbitt. In this case, the plaintiffs sought to enjoin the State and Federal Government agreement to manage the bison herd inside Yellowstone Park. The District Court found that the interim bison management plan was not contrary to statute, there was no significant impact, the FONSI here was not arbitrary, failure to prepare an environmental impact statement did not violate NEPA, and this ruling has — has been made with some regularity here by the District Court where it found that the modified interim plan was also lawful. The court stated that the National Park Service has authority to destroy park wildlife pursuant to properly prepared wildlife management plans. The court held that the operation of the capture facility before they exit the park, and shipment of -the bison for slaughter, didn’t violate the National Park Service Organic Act, and particularly here — and this is a thought that is repeated by the parties throughout these cases — the seronegative bison leaving the Yellowstone Park would otherwise be destroyed by the State of Montana, and the purpose of that agreement was to prevent that. In any event, that case was appealed, the District Court was affirmed. And this is something that doesn’t happen very often. It sure beats a decision that comes back down that says reversed and remanded. But here the [Circuit] Court said we affirm for reasons set forth in the District Court’s well-reasoned opinion and reported, and then a citation was given. So I would think that those determinations by the District Court, perhaps, you tell me if you don’t think that’s the case, bear some weight in expressing the holding by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Then the next case, this is Case No. 5, you won’t find much about this case in the reports, this is the State of Montana and the Fund for Animals, which was an intervenor in the case, against Bruce Babbitt, then Secretary of the Interior. The case was filed in 1995. And I think it was resolved in January of 2001, and it was dismissed at that time by the court. Now, what went on during that period of five or six years was that this was the State of Montana suing the National Park Service and the United States because these bison were regularly coming into Montana and they were a risk to the Montana economy, as noted earlier, and the parties began negotiating and trying to reach an agreement. And to find the nature of what went on there you almost have to look at the docket sheets. And there are quite a few pages of docket sheets. But as the parties negotiated between the State of Montana and the Park Service, they were having difficulty in reaching an agreement. Finally, I decided that I would order a formal settlement conference of the parties, which I did. And rather than my meddling into the specifics of the case, I ordered that that conference be held before and supervised by Magistrate Robert Holter, which he did step into the case then, entered the negotiations, and worked and worked and worked with the parties so that some six years after the case was filed a final agreement was reached. I approved it, and we then dismissed the action filed by the state with prejudice. Now, that resulted in the current agreement existing between the state and the United States agencies. Assuming that the Plaintiffs are successful in this case, does that in any way renew this suit by the State of Montana? Or what is its effect? Does the State of Montana have any right to come back again to this Court and say, hey, we settled this with those people and the agencies and the Feds, Federal Government, it was an agreement, we dismissed our suit, what do we do next? I would like to hear from you lawyers here who have most of the wisdom in the room today as to what the repercussion, if any, might be. And keep in mind that the State of Montana has not been made a party to this proceeding. Now, the next case, then, was Cold Mountain, Cold Rivers. This came along in 2004. It was interesting in some respects here in that the allegation was that hazing, which actually was intended and utilized and successfully accomplished preserving some buffalo from being killed outside the park, where they were hazed back into the park, but the Buffalo Field Campaign did not approve of the hazing even though it was, in its practice, saving the lives of those buffalos that did get out of the park and were not infected but were returned to the park rather than going to the capture facility and going through the process of being tested and so forth. In any event, the court in that case found that these eagle nests, which were held (sic) to be endangered by the hazing process by the use of snowmobiles and helicopters, were not a violation of any law, that they were within the scope of the agreement, and that they were good for the bison. The Circuit Court of Appeals listened to the appeal and affirmed the District court. Now, I probably have bored some of you with the discussion here, but I would hope that maybe it will help you in guiding your arguments to answer some questions that the Court does have. Summ. Judg. Hrg. Tr. 4:16-15:17. General Factual and Procedural Background This case focuses the Court’s attention on the decades-old controversy regarding the Yellowstone National Park bison herd, which is a marvelous natural resource within the care of the National Park Service and is a resource justifiably treasured by the American public. At the end of the 19th Century, following years of hunting and illegal poaching in Yellowstone Park, the mountain bison (Bison bison athabascae) herd there dwindled down to just 23 bison by actual count in 1902. NPS AR 33. To save the herd from near-extinction, the federal government imported 21 plains bison (B. b. bison) from two captive bison herds, one in Texas and one in Montana. NPS AR 5. “The present bison population consists of hybrid descendants of the two subspecies.” NPS AR 5. Initially, the two herds were kept separately and they were referred to as the “tame” herd and the “wild” herd. By 1923, the tame herd had increased from 21 to 578, and the wild herd had increased from 23 to 125 or 150. During the years between 1902 and 1923, the Department of the Interior donated surplus Yellowstone buffalo (as they were then called) to preserves, municipal parks, and other institutions in order to reduce the economic burden of dealing with the very prolific Yellowstone bison herd. Apparently requests for institutional donations of bison were too few to keep up with a rapidly expanding herd, so in 1923, the Department of the Interior requested Congressional permission to sell surplus tame buffalo (i.e., those bison imported from outside the Park) to private citizens managing their own buffalo herds, and it went to Congress to ask for a statute that would authorize such sales to private citizens. Significantly, the Acting Director of the National Park Service stated in 1923 that [notwithstanding the fact that practically every request for buffalo coming from a public institution has been granted, the demand from this source is too limited to have any appreciable effect in keeping the herd to such a size that it can be accommodated on the range that is available. Therefore, in the interests of better administration it is desirable that some other means should be available for disposing of the surplus, either by sale or otherwise in the discretion of the Secretary. This statement was made by the Acting Director of the National Park Service in 1923, when the entire Yellowstone bison herd numbered (at least by his estimate) a little more than 700 bison. Thus, in response to a request by the National Park Service, Congress enacted 16 U.S.C. § 36: The Secretary of the Interior is authorized, in his discretion and under regulations to be prescribed by him, to give surplus elk, buffalo, bear, beaver, and predatory animals inhabiting Yellowstone National Park to Federal, State, county, and Municipal authorities for preserves, zoos, zoological gardens, and parks: Provided, That the said Secretary may sell or otherwise dispose of the surplus buffalo of the Yellowstone National Park herd, and all moneys received from the sale of any such surplus buffalo shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts.” 16 U.S.C. § 36 (Jan. 24, 1923, ch. 42, 42 Stat. 1214). This statute has not been repealed. The National Park Service is authorized by Congress “to sell or otherwise dispose” of the surplus buffalo of the Yellowstone National Park herd. Congress made this provision to shield the National Park Service from the economic burden of surplus Yellowstone bison and from the lack of available range for the surplus bison, and this statute is still in force and effect today. The Yellowstone bison herd tripled in size over the next few decades, with complete intermingling and cross-breeding between the “tame” bison and the “wild” bison herds, and with semi-ranching care for all of the Yellowstone bison (including culling, supplemental feeding, and other animal-husbandry practices) by the National Park Service. (NPS AR 6155-56.) (Indeed, the plains bison generally made a remarkable comeback, because plains bison are now numbered “more than 20,500 in 62 conservation herds, while the number under commercial propagation is about 400,000.” NPS AAR 9543.) The Yellowstone bison herd is one of nine herds that are considered “genetically pure,” in that they do not appear to have been crossbred with cattle. By 1969, the new philosophy of natural regulation of resources had reached Yellowstone National Park, and the Yellowstone Park Service began taking a hands-off approach to the Yellowstone bison. Without appreciable pressure from natural predators and with abundant forage in Yellowstone Park, however, this largely man-made herd now began to grow exponentially, and with this growth came problems and controversy. Increasingly, this large Yellowstone bison herd began to exceed the forage available within the Park on a seasonal basis. These bison are the largest mammals in Yellowstone Park (the largest land mammals in North America), weigh up to 2,000 pounds, and have the ability to pivot and to run more than 30 miles per hour. Bison can be unpredictable and dangerously aggressive. Inside Yellowstone Park boundaries, visitors are gored every year, and sometimes even killed by Yellowstone bison. They are magnificent creatures, but not to be trifled with. They can simply jump or blast through typical ranch fencing, and there is an old saying in Montana (containing much truth) that ‘you can herd a bison just about anywhere it wants to go.’ Therefore, as the herd has increased and begun to seek forage outside the Park, a proportionate increase in human-wildlife conflicts and public safety issues have presented themselves. Yellowstone bison outside the Park find their way onto highways, residential properties, and into the middle of towns and even school yards. There are times when bison simply cannot be encouraged or forced to move and must be removed to preserve public safety. Through the 1980s and 1990s, as the Yellowstone bison herd began to migrate during the winter into Montana, causing property damage and presenting safety issues for people living around the Park, they presented yet another danger. Unfortunately, the Yellowstone bison herd is infected with a highly toxic and contagious disease known as Brucellosis (.Brucella abortus), which carries with it severe consequences if transmitted to cattle or humans (in whom it is commonly known as undulant fever). It is estimated that approximately half of the Yellowstone bison herd has been exposed to the disease, and perhaps half of those are actually infected with the disease at any one time. Since 1923, the basic problem has not changed, but the numbers have, because today the Yellowstone herd numbers not just 700, but 3,900, and disagreements have indeed broken out among the many parties interested in the welfare of the Yellowstone bison: rural inhabitants living in the communities and areas adjacent to the Park, private landowners, environmentalists, farmers and ranchers, livestock associations, state and local governments, and state and federal wildlife specialists, scientists, and administrators. Motions to Strike To complete the Administrative Record, the Court first decides the parties’ Motions to Strike. “Courts may review [ ] extra-record materials only when: (1) it is necessary to determine whether the agency has considered all relevant factors and explained its decision, (2) the agency has relied on documents not in the record, (3) supplementing the record is necessary to explain technical terms or complex subject matter, or (4) plaintiffs make a showing of bad faith.” City of Las Vegas v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 570 F.3d 1109, 1116 (9th Cir.2009) (citing Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Serv., 100 F.3d 1443, 1450 (9th Cir.1996)). These criteria are to be “narrowly construed and applied.” Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1030 (9th Cir.2005). Merely relevant materials are not therefore reviewable under the APA. Id. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs’ extra-record evidence (Doc. 34, consisting of eight declarations and two maps) is not necessary to determine whether the agency has considered all relevant factors. In fact, most of the extra-record materials attempt to introduce post-decision quasi-expert scientific opinions for the purpose of setting up a battle of experts. See Northwest Envtl. Advocates v. National Marine Fisheries, 460 F.3d 1125, 1144 (9th Cir.2006). Plaintiffs have not established that Defendants relied on extra-record materials or acted in bad faith. Nor have they established that their extra-record submissions are necessary to determine whether the agencies considered all relevant factors and explained their decisions. The extra-record submissions are clearly not necessary to explain technical terms or complex subject matter as they contain the opinions of lay people and activists. Thus, Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ Declarations (Doc. 34) is well taken (other than the standing representations in Doc. 34-3, 34-5 and 34-6, although standing does not appear to be an issue in this case and is not challenged by Defendants). The Court believes that the Declarations containing both standing allegations and the extra-record submission should be stricken in full because standing is not in dispute and the extra-record submissions are intermixed with the standing allegations. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs move to strike the Defendants’ Exhibit 1 (Declaration of NPS Wildlife Biologist Richard Wallen) to Defendants’ Summary Judgment Reply Brief and its attachment, Exhibit A, which is an early draft report of Dr. Luikart and other scientists on their five-year study of the conservation of genetic diversity in the Yellowstone bison herd. Doc. 52-1. Plaintiffs argue that this draft report is outside of the Administrative Record and released late in the summary judgment briefing process. However, there are a few important points to be made. This study was commissioned by the NPS in 2005, not in anticipation of this lawsuit. It does support Defendants’ argument that they have taken, and they continue to take, a “hard look” at the genetic integrity and diversity of the Yellowstone herd. The report is one more verification that Defendants have taken the requisite “hard look,” and they are entitled to submit it for that purpose. This draft report in no way constitutes an agency post-hoc rationalization, as Plaintiffs would like to call it, given that this scientific study was commissioned by the NPS in 2005 and peer-review publication is forthcoming in the near future. It is an important piece of all of the genetics work that has been considered by the Defendants, which as a body of work is substantial. See infra note 12; NPS AR 4679-4709; 7395-7406;4738 — 4834; 5364-5372; 5700-5762; 5329-5340; 3236-3448; 7364-7373; 7464-7533; 3472-3515; 6910-6914. Legal Standards Summary Judgment Summary judgment is a suitable vehicle for resolution of a challenge to agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq.; see Nw. Motorcycle Ass’n v. U.S. Dept. of Agric., 18 F.3d 1468, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1994). However, unlike the typical civil summary judgment resolution, the Court does not make findings of fact or determine the existence of genuine issues of material fact. The Court must instead review the Administrative Record that was before the federal agency at the time it made its decision to determine whether the record supports the agency’s decision or whether the agency’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise contrary to law. 5 U.S.C. § 706; Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 105 S.Ct. 1598, 84 L.Ed.2d 643 (1985). Administrative Review None of the statutes supporting Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint contains a private right of action, and therefore review is obtained by Plaintiffs pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. APA judicial review is limited to determining whether the agency acted in a manner “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The burden of persuasion is placed on the party bringing the APA case. See Comm. to Preserve Boomer Lake Park v. Dept. of Transp., 4 F.3d 1543, 1555 (10th Cir.1993). Judicial review is limited to the administrative record before the agency decision maker. Fla. Power & Light Co., 470 U.S. at 743-44, 105 S.Ct. 1598. When evaluating agency action, courts extend deference to the agency’s interpretation of the statutes and regulations that the agency administers. Natural Res. Def. Council v. Dept. of Interior, 113 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.1997). An agency’s interpretation of its own regulations controls unless it is “plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation^].” Nev. Land Action Ass’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 8 F.3d 713, 717 (9th Cir.1993) (internal quotations omitted). For example, the Forest Service’s interpretations of its own Forest Plans are given this deference. See Lamb v. Thompson, 265 F.3d 1038, 1047 (10th Cir.2001). Deference is also appropriately extended to matters within the agency’s scientific expertise. See Ecology Center v. Castaneda, 574 F.3d 652, 658-59 (9th Cir. 2009). It is not the role of the courts to “weigh competing scientific analyses.” Id. (citing Lands Council v. McNair (“Lands Council II”), 537 F.3d 981, 988 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)). A decision may be reversed as arbitrary and capricious “if the agency relied on factors Congress did not intend it to consider, ‘entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem,’ or offered an explanation ‘that runs counter to the evidence before the agency or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.’ ” Lands Council II, 537 F.3d at 987 (quoting Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 442 F.3d 1147, 1156 (9th Cir. 2006)). Discussion In 2000, the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”) released a Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) regarding the Inter-agency Bison Management Plan (“IBMP”). An agency Record of Decision, issued on December 20, 2000, chose the Modified Preferred Alternative, consisting of a three-step plan for spatial and temporal separation of bison from cattle as a means of controlling the risk of Yellowstone bison transmitting brucellosis to cattle in the Greater Yellowstone Area (“GYA”). In 2005, the IBMP was adjusted to allow bison hunting in the State of Montana by licensed hunters and American Indians with treaty rights. NPS AR 7680. In 2007, the General Accounting Office conducted an audit of the IBMP and noted a failure to progress from Step One to Step Two by the anticipated deadline and criticized the IBMP partners generally for failing to establish metrics by which the IBMP’s success could be measured. NPS AR 6143-6194. In response, the agencies prepared the 2008 Adaptive Management Plan by which it amended the IBMP to correct the problems identified by the GAO Report and establish the needed metrics. NPS AR 7179-7188. Under the Adaptive Management Plan, for example, APHIS and the MDOL planned to track the number of bison slaughtered by “document[ing] the number, age, sex, and serostatus of bison sent to slaughter.” NPS AR 7185. This documentation was required to further one of the goals of the IBMP, which is to reduce the need for lethal removals of bison. The adaptive management techniques to be used instead of lethal removals are increased hazing, state and treaty hunting, quarantine, and sending bison to alternate areas. NPS AR 7185. The three main goals of the Adaptive Management Plan are to increase tolerance for bison outside the Park to the north and west, to conserve a wild, free-ranging bison population, and to prevent the transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle. NPS AR 7179. Clearly Plaintiffs are not supporters of the 2000 IBMP. However, the six-year statute of limitations applicable to APA claims precludes a direct challenge to the IBMP. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 593 F.3d 923, 930 (9th Cir.2010). Instead, Plaintiffs take issue with several of the adaptive management changes that have unfolded during the ten-year period of IBMP operations. Plaintiffs argue that full NEPA analysis should have been conducted prior to making these changes. Plaintiffs also argue that the Defendants should prepare a supplemental environmental impact analysis for the IBMP to address genetic integrity/diversity, changes in livestock grazing on public lands, and risk of brucellosis transmission, as well as the adaptive management changes of 2008. I. Alleged Failure to Comply With NEPA. 1. NEPA Standard. The purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) is to “encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment....” 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. However, NEPA imposes procedural rather than substantive requirements. See Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 371, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989). Pursuant to NEPA, federal agencies prepare reports such as Environmental Assessments (“EA”) and Environmental Impact Statements (“EIS”) on “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment....” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). An EA is prepared to determine whether an EIS is required and to inform the public of the proposal of the action, the available alternatives, and the environmental impact considerations. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9. An agency may determine that an EIS is not required, at which time the agency must issue a finding of no significant impact (“FONSI”), sometimes based on a categorical exclusion (“CE”) of that category of action from preparation of an EIS. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1507(b)(2)(h), 1508.4; 40 C.F.R. § 1500.4(p). After an EA or EIS has been prepared, further NEPA analysis may be required if the agency makes substantial changes affecting the environment to the proposed action or if significant new information arises that affects the quality of the environment “in a significant manner or to a significant extent not already considered.” Marsh, 490 U.S. at 374, 109 S.Ct. 1851. Under NEPA, when an agency makes a change in a project but determines that supplemental NEPA documentation is not required, a court “must defer to that informed discretion.” Price Road Neighborhood Ass’n v. Dept. of Transp., 113 F.3d 1505, 1509-12 (9th Cir.1997) (internal citation omitted). NEPA also requires that the public be informed of an agency’s considerations of environmental issues during the decisionmaking process. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 462 U.S. 87, 97, 103 S.Ct. 2246, 76 L.Ed.2d 437 (1983). At the suggestion of the GAO, and in addition to specific-action notifications to the public, the agencies have created a website to inform the public regarding its decisionmaking and consideration of environmental issues vis-a-vis the Yellowstone bison herd. 2. Kilpatrick Article. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants have not appropriately considered a study by Kilpatrick in 2009 that discusses risk of brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle. Plaintiffs claim that the study shows that the risk of transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle is near zero, and Plaintiffs believe that this study presents new information requiring new NEPA analysis. However, the Kilpatrick study actually says that the risk of transmission of brucellosis from Yellowstone bison to neighboring cattle is near zero because the bison and cattle are kept apart both spatially and temporally, and because of this management the risk of transmission is near zero. “[T]he current management plan ... prevents bison from coming near grazing cattle in space and time (essentially reducing the risk of transmission to zero).... ” NPS AR 7220. The Kilpatrick study notes that when the herd is large and the weather severe, there are “occasional years of substantially higher risk.” NPS AR 7222. In fact, the Kilpatrick study considers seven scenario resulting in differing risk of transmissibility. Scenario 7, wherein there would be no more culling of the herd, estimates that the herd abundance would increase to 7,000, and states that this would “substantially increase the number of bison outside the Park [to thousands of bison in the winter], and the risk of transmission by 20-fold compared to scenario 1 [herd size 3000, less than 200 bison outside the Park].” NPS AR 7223. This study acknowledges that the years of high risk “increase with increasing bison populations and severe snowfall or thawing and freezing events (Gates et al. 2005).” NPS AR 7226. Although the Court is aware that the Kilpatrick study is recent and makes a significant contribution to science and to knowledge about Yellowstone bison, the Kilpatrick study does not actually prove anything significantly new, in a legal sense, in the context of this case, e.g. it does not reject prior scientific understandings or present novel information of a type that has never before been considered by the Defendants in prior NEPA analysis. The Defendants have obviously considered the Kilpatrick study because it is contained in the administrative record. NPS AR 7680, 7684. There is simply nothing in the Kilpatrick study that should require preparation of a supplemental environmental impact statement on the IBMP. The Kilpatrick study strongly comes down in favor of adaptive management, stating that “[e]learly adaptive management will be most effective.” NPS AR 7226. It is noteworthy that the Kilpatrick study acknowledges that there is a “strong relationship between bison population size and the number of bison that leave the park (equation 2), and the stochasticity inherent in snowfall and weather processes, suggest that the risk of transmission will grow as bison populations grow, but in a haphazard fashion, and with great year-to-year variability.” NPS AR 7226. In addition, taken by itself, the claim that Defendants have failed to prepare a supplemental EIS based on the Kilpatrick study is not a site-specific allegation as is required by Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 64, 124 S.Ct. 2373, 159 L.Ed.2d 137 (2004). 3. Rate of Seroprevalence of Brucellosis. Plaintiffs claim that the Yellowstone bison herd is increasingly testing seropositive for brucellosis, instead of decreasingly seropositive, as was expected under the IBMP. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have not appropriately considered this significant new information. It is true that the IBMP assumed that the estimated 40-60% herd seroprevalence would decrease with the IBMP’s proposed vaccination program. However, the IBMP vaccination program has not proceeded as quickly as was expected, but a draft environmental impact statement regarding remote delivery vaccination of bison in the Park was released for public comment in 2010. 75 F.R. 30022. The Final EIS on the remote delivery vaccination program is expected to be completed in the near future. The study cited by Plaintiffs simply points out that seroprevalence is not decreasing as was anticipated under the IBMP. NPS AR 7691. The Defendants are aware of the literature and the somewhat inconsistent evidence on the point whether seroprevalence is remaining constant or increasing slightly. Due to the fact that a new NEPA analysis is in progress on the vaccination program and the Defendants’ awareness of current status of seroprevalence in the herd, no significant information has arisen that would justify revisiting the NEPA analysis of the IBMP. Plaintiffs fail to show the significance of the seroprevalence data and why it requires supplemental NEPA analysis. In addition, taken by itself, the claim that Defendants have failed to prepare a supplemental EIS based the seroprevalence data is not a site-specific allegation as is required by Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 64, 124 S.Ct. 2373, 159 L.Ed.2d 137 (2004). 4. Polymerase Chain Reaction (“PCR”) Test. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have failed to use a Polymerase Chain Reaction (“PCR”) Test to identify actual infected bison. Defendants respond that the PCR Test is not yet available for use in bison and may not even yield accurate results for bison when the infection is intracellular, at which point the only certain testing available requires killing the bison to examine its lymph nodes. NPS AR 3196. The NPS believes that the PCR test “shows promise for increasing accuracy of detection” but it is not yet able to detect “a high percentage of infected animals after the bacteria becomes intracellular.” NPS AR 3196. Unfortunately, there is no quick and easy blood test that identifies Brucella abortus bacteria. That is why there is an ongoing Environmental Assessment being performed on a Quarantine Feasibility Study. NPS AR 4495. The NPS and APHIS are seeking better diagnostic tools. Defendants have considered the study promoted by Plaintiffs, see NPS AAR 8997, but do not believe that it provides significant new information beyond what is already known and studied. Plaintiffs also fail to acknowledge the implications of the fact that seropositive bison may be latent carriers of brucellosis that lapse in and out of actual infected states (“recrudescence”). NPS AR 7594. Plaintiffs fail to show that the PCR Test is significant new information that requires further NEPA analysis. In addition, taken by itself, the claim that Defendants have failed to prepare a supplemental EIS based on the alleged existence of a real-time PCR Test is not a site-specific allegation as is required by Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 64, 124 S.Ct. 2373, 159 L.Ed.2d 137 (2004). 5. Genetic Diversity and Population Demographics. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have not appropriately responded to new studies regarding genetic diversity in the Yellowstone bison herd. However, Defendants have not only considered the issue of genetic diversity in the IBMP FEIS, see NPS AR 650-652, 782, the Defendants have considered all the bison genetic diversity literature since the FEIS, and Defendants have also commissioned (i.e., assisted in obtaining funding for) an academic study of the issue. NPS AR 6885-86, 6910-6925, 6926-6936, 6593. No new information contained in the genetic diversity literature requires further IBMP NEPA analysis. The newest study commissioned by the NPS was recently released as a final project report: “Conserving Genetic Diversity in Yellowstone Bison: The effects of population fluctuations and variance in male reproductive success in age structured populations,” A. Pérez-Figueroa, T. Antao, J.A. Coombs, and G. Luikart (Technical Report for the National Park Service, June 2010. Mammoth Hot Springs, Wyoming, YCR-2010-07). (Doc. 52-1 at 5-40.) This study, which has been submitted for professional publication and is currently under peer review, shows that the Yellowstone bison “consist of a single population with at least two breeding herds (subpopulations) that are not genetically distinct but show some genetic differences.” Doc. 52-1, Wallen Dec. at 2. The fact that the study was conducted, as well as its conclusions, demonstrates that the National Park Service is carefully monitoring and preserving the Yellowstone herd’s genetic diversity within the context of the IBMP and specifically with regard to seasonal culls of the herd. “The results [of the study] suggest that culling to maintain population census size goals will seldom accelerate loss of genetic variation when population size remains larger than 2,000 to 3,000 individuals.” (Doc. 52-1 at 19.) Recommending maintaining a herd between 2,500 and 4,500 bison and maintaining average population census above 3,000 bison, the study also assumes that infrequent large population fluctuations will occur. (Doc. 52-1 at 19.) Because the current herd size is 3,700, there is no imminent or future threat of irreparable harm to the genetic diversity of the Yellowstone bison herd. The adaptive management plan under the IBMP calls for severely limiting the criteria for lethal removals when the herd size falls to 2,300 and a cessation of lethal removals when the herd size drops to 2,100. NPS AR 7185. The NPS has diligently continued to monitor the size and population characteristics of the Yellowstone herd throughout the IBMP period and has continued to conduct and fund studies to promote its understanding of the best practices to preserve the herd’s genetic diversity. Plaintiffs fail to show that new scientific information is significant to an extent or degree not analyzed in the existing NEPA documents by the Defendants or that additional NEPA analysis is necessary. In addition, taken by itself, the claim that Defendants have failed to prepare a supplemental EIS based on new genetics studies is not a site-specific allegation as is required by Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 64, 124 S.Ct. 2373, 159 L.Ed.2d 137 (2004). 6. Removal of cattle from Horse Butte/other areas. Plaintiffs argue that closing of the Horse Butte Peninsula grazing allotment presents a new circumstance that should alter the need for bison management in this area. However, IBMP managers have been documenting the vacant grazing allotment on the Horse Butte Peninsula at least since 2005. The Defendants continue to operate the Horse Butte Bison Capture Facility, which itself is supported by NEPA analysis, because there are still cattle grazing within the area on the southwest side of the peninsula and north of Lake Hegben, and bison swim across the Lake or walk across it when the Lake is frozen. USFS AR Doc. 68, App. A at 1-2, 6,11. 7. Prior NEPA Analysis is not stale. Plaintiff argues that the IBMP FEIS was based on false assumptions. Of course, there have been changes in the IBMP program in the past ten years, which changes have been documented. The question is whether the changes are so significant in extent or so new that a supplemental environmental analysis is appropriate. Marsh, 490 U.S. at 374, 109 S.Ct. 1851. However, in this case Plaintiffs do not show significant changes. For example, Plaintiffs argue that the IBMP FEIS assumed that brucellosis could be eliminated in wildlife. To the contrary, the FEIS stated that “elimination of brucellosis, even in bison; is not within the scope of this management plan.” NPS AR 614. Additionally, the FEIS did not assume that elk were not responsible for any brucellosis disease transmission. NPS AR 1265. The Defendants continue to consider and study the rates of brucellosis infection in the elk that winter in Yellowstone Park. NPS AAR 7616-7619; 9379-87. Recent studies indicate that the rate of infection among elk in the northern Park is low (2-4% seropositive) and that transmission of the infection from bison-to-elk is rare. NPS AAR 9379. Elk to cattle transmission of brucellosis demonstrates that brucellosis can be transmitted from wildlife to cattle, and there is no reason believe that bison cannot also transmit brucellosis to cattle. The fact that there is no documented transmission of brucellosis from wild bison to cattle is most likely due to the fact that Yellowstone bison have historically been kept apart from cattle outside Park boundaries, and during the IBMP period that has certainly been the case. This is evidence of the success of the IBMP. Evidence regarding elk-to-cattle transmission is not new and significant evidence relevant to the bison, except that it does prove that wildlife-to-cattle transmission does occur, and it also provides no reason to think that it would not occur were Yellowstone bison to be allowed to come into contact with neighboring herds of cattle. 8. Agencies complied with NEPA in the IBMP FEIS for Adaptive Management Adjustments. The adaptive management philosophy in natural resource conservation is based upon the unremarkable notion that resource managers should evaluate the results of their efforts and adjust their actions according to what they have learned from their experiences with the natural resource system being managed. This natural resource management philosophy emphasizes learning from experience to better manage complexity and uncertainty. However, Plaintiffs challenge certain of Defendants’ “adaptive management” changes to the IBMP as not having been properly documented by NEPA analysis. Defendants carefully documented their consideration of adaptive management changes to the IBMP: “These agencies [USDA APHIS, USFS, DOI NPS, MTFWP, MTDOL] anticipated future adaptive management adjustments to the IBMP based on research, monitoring, and feedback from the implementation of a suite of conservation and risk management actions. After eight years of experience in implementing the IBMP, the agencies formally agreed to several short- and long-term adaptive management adjustments in December 2008. These adjustments were based largely on new information, changing landownership and use, and newly gained operational experience. However, they were intended to be applied within the framework of the IBMP and not alter its basic management direction or goals.” NPS AR 7384. For example, the IBMP anticipated that eventually there would be a limited number of untested bison permitted to enter public and private lands north and west of Yellowstone National Park during winter. (ROD p. 22, p. 36.) This was not expected to happen all of a sudden, but gradually, over time, in a controlled fashion, after observing the behavior of a limited number of bison. Thus, in 2008, one of the proposed adaptive management actions was to “[a]llow untested female/mixed groups of bison to migrate onto and occupy the Horse Butte peninsula and the Flats each winter and spring in Zone 2.” NPS AR 7384. Also, the IBMP anticipated that research would be conducted regarding the viability of Brucella abortus bacteria shed in the field during winter and spring, with the expectation that the knowledge gained would be used to determine appropriate temporal separation between migrating bison and grazing cattle. NPS AR 7385. Making use of that information gained by research and experience was contemplated by the IBMP FEIS, and would not require further NEPA analysis unless the management changes affect the environment in a manner or to a degree not previously considered. The IBMP program managers conscientiously examined the adaptive management changes made to the IBMP for the purpose of determining whether NEPA supplementation was necessary, and they determined in 2009 that the adaptive management changes would not affect the environment in a manner or to a degree not previously considered. NPS AR 7384-7388. The adaptive management changes “were intended to be applied within the framework of the IBMP and not alter its basic management direction or goals.” NPS AR 7384. Plaintiffs allege specifically Defendants failed to conduct appropriate NEPA analysis for three adaptive management changes involving (i) the Horse Butte Special Use Permit Renewal, (ii) the Royal Teton Ranch (“RTR”) Fence Special Use Permit, and (iii) the RTR Grazing Restrictions. (i) The Horse Butte Special Use Permit. In 1999, the Forest Service issued the first Ten-year Special Use Permit to the Montana Department of Livestock (“MDOL”) to permit the MDOL to capture and test migrating bison as they exit Yellowstone Park. At that time, the Forest Service had conducted an Environmental Assessment and a Biological Assessment and made a Finding of No Significant Impact. That NEPA analysis was approved by this Court and the Ninth Circuit. See Cold Mountain v. Garber, 375 F.3d 884, 893 (9th Cir.2004). Since then, during five of the past 10 years, the MDOL has operated this temporary facility (several holding pens on two acres) on the Gallatin National Forest, just outside the western boundary of Yellowstone Park. The Horse Butte Capture Facility is authorized for operations between November and May of each year. The IBMP managers believe that this capture facility “continues to be an important bison management tool.” USFS AR Doc. 68 at 2. In 2009, the U.S. Forest Service renewed the Horse Butte Capture Facility’s Special Use Permit. Incorporating the original NEPA analysis by reference, the renewal decision determined that the renewal should be categorically excluded (“CE”) from further NEPA analysis because no extraordinary circumstances were involved and no change or increase in scope or intensity of the authorized facility is expected, and “environmental impacts have been minimal, as predicted.” USFS AR Doc. 68 at 8; see 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(e)(15). The Decision Rationale concludes that “ultimately the lack of the capture tool [Horse Butte Capture Facility] would limit tolerance for bison in Zone 2 west of Yellowstone National Park.” USFS AR Doc. 68 at 12. (ii) Royal Teton Ranch Fence. One of the Adaptive Management Plans identified in December, 2008, called for increased tolerance for Yellowstone bison (specifieally, bison testing seronegative) on private lands along the western Yellowstone River corridor north of Yellowstone Park through which the bison can eventually access public lands. This plan involved purchase by MT FWP of 30-year grazing rights from Royal Teton Ranch and construction of a fence to control the movement of Yellowstone bison. The Forest Service granted MT FWP a special use permit to construct the fence on USFS land. Approximately 4900 feet (1.1 acre) of four-strand smooth wire fence was constructed on National Forest System lands and 2.2 miles of four-strand wire fence was constructed on private RTR lands. The fence is designed to allow smaller wildlife to pass under it. Only two wires are electrified, and the fence is designed to be taken down when not in use for bison purposes between January and April. In approving of this fence, the Forest Service relied upon the categorical exclusion (“CE”) regulation that exempts further NEPA analysis EA and EIS) for “approval, modification, or continuation of minor special uses of NFS lands that require less than five contiguous acres of land.” 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(e)(3). The ultimate purpose of the fence and the special use permit, quite obviously, is to give Yellowstone bison a safe place for winter migration and forage opportunities outside of Yellowstone Park. In fact, this very plan was anticipated by the IBMP FEIS, which proposed in the modified preferred alternative that lands north of Yellowstone Park should be made available for winter forage for seronegative Yellowstone bison as Step 2 of the IBMP. NPS AR 523-524. Furthermore, the Gallatin Ranger District did prepare a detailed Biological Assessment for the “Gardiner Basin Bison Fence Construction” in 2009 before granting the special use permit for the fence. USFS Doc. 86. This adaptive management action was clearly implemented in order to benefit the Yellowstone bison and provide it with adjacent migration/forage territory. It is a reasonable action contemplated by the IBMP FEIS, and the NEPA analysis was both reasonable and adequate under the law. (iii) RTR Grazing Restrictions. Plaintiffs assert that additional NEPA analysis was required before the NPS helped the State of Montana fund RTR grazing restrictions. The RTR Grazing Restrictions are the necessary companion project to the RTR Fence initiative (and the more expensive of the two), for it is necessary that RTR refrain from grazing its cattle on its private property when Yellowstone bison migrate north in the winter. To accomplish that end, the State of Montana purchased RTR’s grazing rights for 30 years, and the NPS contributed to the funding of this project. However, Plaintiffs are incorrect when they claim that this is a new development lacking in NEPA analysis. This project was contemplated by the modified preferred alternative of the IBMP FEIS. It was contemplated that restriction of grazing of cattle on RTR would be funded by the IBMP state and federal partner agencies. NPS AR 615, 619, 755. The Record of Decision specifically tied the acquisition of RTR’s Reese Creek grazing rights to Step Two of the Joint Management Plan. NPS AR 2806. In other words, the acquisition of RTR grazing restrictions is part of the original NEPA analysis accomplished by the IBMP FEIS. It is not merely within the scope of what was contemplated by the FEIS, it was actually contemplated by the FEIS. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to support their claims that Defendants have violated NEPA. The Defendants decision not to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement for the IBMP was reasonable under all these circumstances. II. Alleged Failure to Comply with NFMA. 1. NFMA Diversity Requirement. The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (“NFMA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., requires that the Forest Service maintain Forest Plans that “provide for multiple use and sustained yield of the products and services obtained” from the Forest, including “coordination of outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness.... ” 16 U.S.C. § 1604(e)(1). As the language of the NFMA indicates, the NFMA “is to be addressed in light of overall multiple use objectives.” Seattle Audubon Soc. v. Moseley, 80 F.3d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir.1996). The NFMA requires that the Secretary of Agriculture establish regulations that specify guidelines for Forest Plans goals 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.... 16 U.S.C. § 1604(g)(3) (emphasis supplied). Elsewhere, in the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (“MUSY”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 528-531, Congress has recognized that “[njothing herein shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the several States with respect to wildlife and fish on the national forests.” 16 U.S.C. § 528 (emphasis supplied). Indeed, a state has “historical powers to manage wildlife on federal lands within its borders” unless Congress manifests a contrary purpose. Wyoming v. United States, 279 F.3d 1214, 1231 (10th Cir.2002) (citing Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230, 67 S.Ct. 1146, 91 L.Ed. 1447 (1947)). In this case, MUSY clearly indicates that states are to be permitted their traditional management role with respect to wildlife on national forests. And the State of Montana does not permit Yellowstone bison on the Gallatin National Forest except in a limited fashion under controlled circumstances as set forth in the IBMP. The question posed by Plaintiffs is whether the Forest Service, and specifically the Gallatin National Forest (“GNF”) should be required to put bison on the forest in order to provide animal diversity under the NFMA, and the answer to that question, under these particular circumstances, must be no. There have not been bison on the Gallatin National Forest for 100 years (give or take the occasional bison groups wandering out of the Park). (In fact, when the Gallatin National Forest was created in 1899, there were no bison on the forest then, either.) The NFMA recognizes that the Forest Plan has a multiple-use objective. Putting Yellowstone bison, and diseased bison at that, on the Gallatin Forest would interfere with multiple uses of the Forest and would violate the State of Montana’s wildlife management program for the Gallatin Forest. Based on its commitment to multiple uses, its participation in the IBMP, and its cooperation with the State of Montana’s wildlife management on the GNF, it is apparent that the Forest Service came to the reasonable conclusion that the GNF is not currently suitable for the Yellowstone bison except as permitted by the IBMP. Based on that conclusion alone, the Forest Plan need not provide for bison. There is plentiful big game habitat on the Gallatin Forest. The management indicator species for that habitat is elk. Elk are abundant on the Gallatin National Forest. USFS AR Doc. 1 at V-ll. Taking into consideration the suitability of the land for big game species, there are already diverse and abundant big game on the Gallatin National Forest such that NFMA’s animal diversity requirement is met. The Gallatin National Forest’s failure to set standards for the practically nonexistent Yellowstone bison on the Gallatin Forest does not violate the NFMA’s diversity requirement and is not “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Not only have Plaintiffs failed to show that the Forest Service have failed to meet the requirements of the Gallatin Forest Plan and the NFMA, Plaintiffs fail to tie this complaint to a site-specific challenge. “Challenges to forest-wide management practices or claims that the Forest Plan does not comply with NFMA must be made in the context of site-specific actions.” Ecology Center v. Castaneda, 574 F.3d 652, 658 (9th Cir.2009) (citing Ohio Forestry Ass’n, Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 734, 118 S.Ct. 1665, 140 L.Ed.2d 921 (1998)). 2. NFMA Regulation Requirements. The 2000 NFMA Regulations require that the Forest Service meet the diversity requirement of the NFMA by complying with the Forest Plan and using the best available science. 36 C.F.R. § 219.35. Courts grant considerable deference to agencies on issues requiring great technical expertise, including the important question of what is the best available science. Ecology Center, 574 F.3d at 658-59. To the extent that Plaintiffs argue that the best available science indicates that the viability of the Yellowstone bison herd is at risk, that argument is without merit. Based on the best available science before it, the Forest Service reasonably determined that the Yellowstone bison herd is viable and genetically diverse. It is not this court’s role to weigh competing scientific analyses, Lands Council II, 537 F.3d at 988, and, in any event, even if it were, the best available science clearly indicates that the Yellowstone bison herd is viable and secure. 75 F.R. 45717-01 (USFWS rejection in 2007 of a petition to list Yellowstone bison herd under the Endangered Species Act); NPS AR 4012, 6100-6013, 8941, 8944, 9013-14, 9188. 3. NFMA Forest Plan Requirement. The GNF Forest Plan identifies a goal to “provide habitat for viable populations of all indigenous wildlife species and for increasing populations of big game animals.” USFS AR Doc. 1 at II — 1. The Forest Plan provides standards (forage, cover,