It looks like the Forest has at least two alternatives now for wilderness recommendations, with competing proposals from a local wilderness group and a “partnership” that includes a state wilderness group. (What should count more, local or collaborative?). An interesting comment from the local group:
“I recently met with the Custer/Gallatin National Forest supervisor regarding the forest plan revision available for public comment. She cautioned me to limit my comments to science-based concerns rather than value-based. I have a problem with that.”
That disagreement sounds like one we have discussed before.
Then you’ve got bison (and protesters). It’s a pretty unique situation, but triggers the standard requirement for the Forest to determine if there is substantial concern about their persistence in the plan area, which would require them to be formally treated as a species of conservation concern and maintain habitat for a viable population. They can’t just say they’ll do whatever the state wants, or whatever the Park Service wants, or assume that those other parties would ensure that the species persists on the Forest.