For large animals like grizzly bears, which roam across hundreds of square miles, access to large expanses of habitat is critical not only for the survival of individual animals but also for the conservation of the species as a whole. Even in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), one of the last strongholds for grizzlies in the lower-48, these bears are constantly subject to development pressures encroaching on crucial habitat areas. Two projects on federal lands that recently came up for review highlight the type of issues that grizzlies are facing.

The first project is a proposal to drill an exploratory oil well in the Shoshone National Forest in Wyoming, which could (literally) pave the way for expansive oil field development in this remote area. This project is known as Scott Well #2, although it would actually be the first well of the project. Despite the fact that the proposed well has huge potential for large-scale future development in an ecologically sensitive area, the Forest Service initially proposed to rubber-stamp the proposal with a “Categorical Exclusion” that would essentially exempt the project from environmental review.

A Categorical Exclusion would have ignored the oil well’s detrimental impacts on threatened grizzly bears and lynx, as well as elk—which use the area as their calving grounds—and other important native species. Data from the Department of the Interior show that this region is used heavily by grizzlies, with rising numbers in recent years as bears begin to expand beyond the boundaries of their protected Primary Conservation Area. Correspondingly, over the past decade researchers have also seen increasing numbers of grizzly bear mortalities in the area surrounding the proposed well site. This trend is likely to continue as key bear foods like whitebark pine and cutthroat trout collapse within the core of the GYE and bears are forced to expand into new areas.

There is a substantial body of evidence documenting the negative effects of both roads and human activities on grizzly bears, and a project like the proposed Scott Well would bring both to this area. In a region where mortality is already high and rising, the last thing grizzly bears need is another source of disturbance and conflict. With excessive levels of human-caused mortality in recent years, Yellowstone grizzly bears need more secure habitat, not less. And a Categorical Exclusion, a tool used extensively to expedite oil and gas exploration during the Bush administration, is inappropriate for a project with the potential to harm such sensitive and important species.

That’s why NRDC, the Wyoming Outdoor Council, and a number of other environmental groups urged the Forest Service to conduct a thorough environmental review of this proposal and consider its full impacts before allowing the project to move forward. And last week we received the good news that Forest Service listened to us. Agency officials decided to abandon the Categorical Exclusion and will instead conduct a full environmental analysis before deciding whether to approve the Scott Well project. As District Ranger Rick Metzger indicated, this will give the Forest Service a chance to address the concerns raised during the comment process and analyze the full impacts of the proposed Scott Well.

This decision doesn’t mean that grizzly bears are in the clear yet, as the Forest Service could ultimately decide that the project should still go forward. But it is a step in the right direction—a small but important victory for bears, and for the democratic process. Citizens spoke out for bears, and the government listened. Now we have to hope that their environmental analysis includes a truly comprehensive study of the impacts of this oil well on bears and other wildlife.

Meanwhile, on the opposite edge of the GYE, grizzly bears are facing pressure from a seemingly meeker foe: domestic sheep. A sheep research station run by the Department of Agriculture threatens to block wildlife movement through the Centennial Mountains, the best remaining habitat corridor between Greater Yellowstone and the Selway-Bitterroot ecosystem in central Idaho. To maintain healthy populations, grizzlies and other animals need to be able to travel through this corridor to mix with animals in other populations. But when grizzlies traveling through this area come across the federal sheep station, those wooly morsels can be irresistible for the bears—and in turn, these bears can then be killed for threatening domestic sheep.

After other federal agencies, ranchers, and various stakeholders went to great lengths to remove all other domestic sheep from the grizzly bears’ Primary Conservation Area, it makes no sense for a federal agency to continue grazing sheep within and adjacent to this protected area. The Sheep Experiment Station’s research activities could easily be conducted in a less ecologically sensitive area, where their negative impact on bears and other wildlife would be greatly reduced. In the public comment process, therefore, NRDC urged the sheep station to move or cease its grazing activities in the Dubois, Idaho area.

Although the results of the decision process were a somewhat mixed bag, we were again heartened to see the government taking some steps in the right direction. Grizzly bears were recently put back on the endangered species list, so to begin with, the USDA decided to expand its environmental analysis and issue a thorough environmental impact statement (EIS), which will analyze the full impacts on this threatened species. Unfortunately, the EIS isn’t due out for another few years, and the sheep station plans to continue operating in the meantime. But in response to voices like ours, and thanks to pressure from a few wise managers at the BLM, the sheep station will abandon the two most problematic pastures—the one that lies within the grizzly Primary Conservation Area and one immediately adjacent to it.

Only time will tell if the results of the final EIS will prompt the sheep station to shift its operations dramatically. But it is encouraging to see at least small steps in the direction of wildlife, citizen participation, and logical decision-making.

(Photos by xoque and Dave Bezaire & Susi Haven-Bezaire on Flickr)