Kootenai National Forest Supervisor Bob Castaneda
1101 U.S. Highway 2 West
Libby, MT 59923

RE: Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

Dear Mr. Castaneda,

In general, Montanans for Multiple Use position in regards to the "draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) forest plan amendments for motorized access management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear recovery zones" affecting the Kootenai, Lolo and Idaho Panhandle National Forests, is that it is not necessary or appropriate to amend three forest plans to accommodate the grizzly bear. The various lawsuits and agency decisions that are driving the "need" for an EIS do not specify the conditions of road access - only that management must address the issue "using the best biological information and considering the social and economic impacts." If this had been done, a Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone EIS wouldn’t be necessary.

The science used in the DEIS, while "best available", is outdated and suspect. Two premises are being used to justify road closures and road rip (destruction). One is that grizzlies avoid roads thus denying themselves the survival benefits of roaded habitat, and two, that roads contribute to the untimely deaths of the bears. Part of the "science" used to determine that grizzlies require roadless areas is suspect. One of the main contributors, Mr. Wayne Kasworm was president of the Montana Chapter of Wildlife Society, before, during and after much of the original research was being done. The philosophical bias of this organization towards limiting all human access to forest areas is well known. Is Mr. Kasworm’s science biased? Is this "conflict of interest" too much like the "scientists" recently caught planting evidence to prove the existence of Canadian Lynx population in Washington state, which also would have denied human access to those forests being studied?

Close scrutiny of the "Final Report: Grizzly Bear Ecology in the Swan Mountains", 1997, R. D. Mace and J. S. Waller, used as the scientific bedrock to justify closure of forest access to motorized vehicles, reveals insufficient data collection, unsubstantiated and contradicted telemetric sessions and resulting analysis anomalies, potential inflation of core area data, no recommendation for road rip (destruction) at all, and unproved "hypothesizes" such as increasing road traffic tends to lead to decreasing bear use. Current science is uncertain about how grizzlies react to roads in their neighborhood, and an actual number count of grizzlies in the wild is still "speculative", even after nearly two decades of grizzly bear study and management. How do we know whether current recovery methods have been successful, or that further restrictions of human access to valuable forest resources is appropriate? How do we know that "increased human caused bear mortality" - cited numerous times in the DEIS as justification for proposed action - isn't a result of a flourishing bear population spreading into developed areas? The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee recovery specialist (Servheen) has stated that higher mortalities would be a product of a larger bear population: "If there are more bears out there, you would expect more mortalities." (Jim Mann, "The Daily Inter Lake", 12/02/01.)

The consequences of decommissioning roads were improperly evaluated. Very little weight has been given to habitat manipulation options that will be foregone in the future or the significant social and economic impacts. As we understand the DEIS, the Forest Service proposes to reclaim (rip/decommission/destroy) 520 miles of restricted roads, reclaim some 61 miles of open roads, restrict some 36 miles of open roads, and restrict some 13 miles of trails. Where is the map that discloses this information? How can these destructive measures be justified to limit access to another 2.2-million acres of forest resource lands, given that past closures dismiss human and economic impacts with statements like "no significant impact" or "moderate impact?" Why aren’t the original construction costs and purposes of these roads included in the DEIS? The loss of millions of dollars worth of roads will mean that the areas can no longer be accessed for its intended purpose and the resource use as well as recreational use is lost forever. Isn’t the Forest Service supposed to reveal the cumulative effects of its actions as well as opportunities foregone? What are the opportunities lost and associated costs? The economic sections of the DEIS don’t even mention the timber industry and what has happened to it since 1982, when the original Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan was implemented, nor the current Kootenai National Forest Plan approved and implemented in 1987 - no mention. Doesn’t this seem odd since Lincoln County is a resource-based industry county? Under the 1987 Kootenai Forest Plan, the Forest was to produce 227-million board feet of regulated timber, and another 6-million board feet of unregulated, annually. In 2001, the Forest only sold 51.8-million board feet and actually harvested 50.2-million. Why the discrepancy? And what is the economic impact of present policies, let alone the closures proposed in the DEIS? How can you possibly manage these lands with a 57-trip restriction across three forests with different management groups?

Decommissioning or road rip (destruction) surely causes more short term and long term sedimentation of streams than asserted by the DEIS. Pictorial evidence of South Coal Creek culvert removals on the Flathead Forest showed massive erosion, well above predictions. Long term forest employees will tell you that culvert failures are very rare. Coupled with this erroneous hypothesis is the fact that the costs of reduced fire prevention and suppression haven’t been identified.

Lastly, our understanding is that it is improper and illegal to fail to include a no action alternative in a DEIS, even if the action has been forced by litigation. By definition of your proposed "Alternative A - No Action", you have not truly provided a "no action" alternative. Despite all the "legalese" wording of the DEIS, it appears to us that you are ignoring the law. Are you? We propose that the Forest Service tell the judge and the litigants who filed the lawsuit, that it is impossible to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act, and sound professional ethics, by submitting the DEIS as written.

Sincerely,

Clarence Taber

President, Montanans for Multiple Use

Official Comments of NorthWest Montana Gold Prospectors

December 24, 2001

NorthWest Montana Gold Prospectors
Box 3242
Columbia Falls, MT 59912

Kootenai National Forest Supervisor Bob Castaneda

RE: Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone EIS

Dear Sir:

Northwest Montana Gold Prospectors is a non-profit association of recreational prospectors and small miners banded together to promote our mutual prospecting interests. We have 185 member families, mostly from Flathead and Lincoln counties. We have claims on drainages on the east side of the Cabinets. We also prospect in the Vermillion River, Silver Butte, West Fisher and Yaak areas of Montana and the Boulder Cr. and Clearwater River areas of Idaho.

The various lawsuits and agency decisions that are driving the need for this EIS do not specify the conditions of road access only that management must address the issue "using the best biological information and considering the social and economic impacts.", Ch 1, pp5 If this had been done we would not have the Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone EIS

We believe that none of the alternatives are adequate because:

The biological information used in this EIS is not necessarily the best and much of it is suspect.

The consequences of decommissioning were improperly evaluated

Insufficient consideration was given to the social and economic impacts of this EIS.

"A majority of the public clearly displayed their disapproval of additional access restrictions, particularly on the Kootenai National Forest portion" Ch 1, pp6

It is improper and illegal to fail to include a true no action alternative in an EIS.

The irreversible and irretrievable loss of the road assets that will be decommissioned is not sufficiently addressed.

Part of the "science" used to determine that grizzlies require roadless areas is suspect. One of the main contributors, Mr. Wayne Kasworm was president of the Montana Chapter of Wildlife Society before, during and after much of the original research was being done. The philosophical bias of this organization towards limiting human access to forest areas is well known. Is Mr. Kasworm’s science biased?

Additionally, the science for this proposal is based on two studies, one of which is "research from the South Fork of the Flathead River regarding how road access affects grizzly bears (Mace and Manley 1993, Mace and Waller 1997).Ch 3a pp16. The title of the research is Final Report: Grizzly Bear Ecology in the Swan Mountains. We examined this research and found some inadequacies with it that suggest this study is in an unsuitable basis for a forest plan amendment.

Not enough data

"...it is clear that bi-weekly aerial telemetry flights were insufficient to accumulate the telemetry sample sizes necessary to analyze the fine scale patterns of habitat selection." Mace, R.D. and J.S. Waller. 1997. Final Report: Grizzly Bear Ecology in the Swan Mountains , pp 27

How then can something as finely scaled as a road habitat selection be analyzed? This lack of data affected several areas of the study.

The telemetry was limited to 1 session/wk in 1988 and 1989 and 2 session/wk from 1990-1994. They only gathered data in the morning between 7am and 11am ibid. pp13. The statement that bears "moved little at night" is unsubstantiated and contradicted by data from movement collars. According to charts on page 100, bears are active from 5am to 11pm.

The data is biased because it was collected only in daylight for 4 hours in the morning while the bears were active for16 hours/day. If these bears are clever enough to recognize a threat from humans, they also must be clever enough to figure out that humans are not very active or dangerous in the dark. One could expect to find different results from data that took the nocturnal wanderings of the bears into account.

A new study in the Middle Fork of the Flathead that is now in progress uses GPS collars that sends satellite location data every hour, 24 hours/day. Although this study is not intended to investigate bear reactions to roads, perhaps the study could be adapted to shed light on this subject.

Seasonal home ranges were determined with data from only 19 bears. Ibid. pp13

"We were unable to estimate core home ranges for each individual annually and therefore combined the summer and autumn season into I period( late season) to obtain a minimum sample..." ibid. pp19

"...therefore we could not investigate annual shifts in core areas." Ibid. pp20

Because of this a multi-year core area was used for study. This potentially caused an inflation of observed core areas - a data bias that reverberates throughout the science. More sessions and more collared bears would have increased data reliability

The study discovered that bears actually favored some cutting units during Summer. ibid. pp27

High succulent forage which is valued by bears was "due in part to past timber harvest..." ibid. pp92

"We found that cutting units can provide preferred habitat during summer,..." ibid. pp120

Since logging has a beneficial effect on bears and roads are necessary for logging, some roads would be indirectly beneficial.

Table 7.1.5 indicates that bears were neutral or only slightly negative in their reaction to low use roads (<=10 car trips/day) in their home ranges. ibid. pp72

"Conversely, no strong relationships were observed for closed road density and bear density." ibid. pp33

"Most grizzly bears exhibited either neutral or positive selection for buffers surrounding closed roads and roads receiving <10 vehicles/day." Ibid. pp64

"Neutral use of, or positive selection towards habitats near roads implies that important habitats occur near roads." ibid. pp73

 

The reverse must also be true. Negative selection implies that important habitats are not at that time occurring near roads. Bears make seasonal habitat selection based on foods of choice for that season - whether near roads or not. Hungry bears go to where the food is.

There is no recommendation for decommissioning or road rip anywhere in this document although the authors do recommend road closures. ibid. pp 73

Assuming that Mace et al are correct and bears do avoid OPEN roads to some extent, road rip is not necessary; neither is closing roads in some cases. Often seasonal closures will suffice.

Spring closures

Since authors believe bears avoid roads and since most roads occur at lower elevations which is also where a lot of early spring forage is found, the authors think that detrimental road impacts are highest during spring. Ibid. pp91 This hypothesis could be tested by carefully studying bear use in a low temperate forage area that is heavily roaded and then restudy after a few years of spring closures or do the reverse and open a closed road and study.

Year round closures and road rip are not necessary to provide a benefit to bears if indeed there is a benefit.

"Motorized restrictions should be most pronounced during spring, and could be relaxed somewhat in non-core areas during other seasons." Ibid. pp121

Lower elevations

Mace et al postulated that bears avoided lower elevations because of greater human presence. Ibid. pp16

However they overcame there fear in spring when they were hungry, if indeed they really were fearful, to feed on new green plants at lower elevations. The question is did they underuse lower elevations during summer and fall because of fear of humans or because of preferential food sources higher up later in the year?

Table 7.1.4 shows that from a sampling of 15 bears there was almost an equal preference for or against selecting roaded habitat in the spring. Ibid. pp71

"Under certain habitat conditions and seasons, the positive attraction to specific cover types were stronger than the negative impacts of roads." ibid. pp120

Both this study and the Grizzly Recovery EIS assume that bears avoid roads to their detriment. This is definitely not the case with closed or low use roads and may not be the case with moderate use roads. Are they avoiding roads or following their nose to habitat not commonly found near the more heavily roaded areas.?

In the Swan,

"There was a 59% probability that the population was stable to increasing." "...area was at or near capacity under present landscape conditions." ibid. pp 102

Experience in NCDE indicates that population estimates made by radio collar techniques are low.

"But in 1998, U.S. Geological Survey researcher Kate Kendall embarked on an elaborate study to develop a population estimate for the greater Glacier area. The study involved scent-baited sites surrounded by barbed wire that snagged bear hair. The hair samples were analyzed for genetic information that led to a count of individual grizzlies within the study area.
Through a mark-recapture statistical analysis, Kendall developed a population estimate of 332 bears in Glacier National Park and 437 bears within the 2-million-acre greater Glacier study area.
The unprecedented count surprised many because it was higher than expected. And it raised the possibility of counting bears throughout the ecosystem.", Jim Mann The Daily Interlake 12/02/01

"Until 1999 the population had been slowly increasing; however, mortalities during 1999 and 2000 apparently put the population on a slightly declining trend, though the confidence interval makes this conclusion statistically uncertain. ", EIS Ch 3a-pp6

Mortality

Repeatedly this DEIS refers to increased human caused bear mortality as a perceived reason for the Need for the proposed action. If population is at maximum carrying capacity then the mortality rate, both natural and human caused, WOULD increase.. Increased mortalities may indicate population growth pushing bears out into human zones.

"But Servheen sees the higher mortalities as a product of a larger bear population: ‘If there are more bears out there, you would expect more mortalities.’" , Jim Mann, The Daily Interlake, 12/02/01

If the increase in mortality is a result of a flourishing bear population then there is no Need for this action to protect them. We need something more than population estimates that are several years old and are based on outdated methods and questionable assumptions.

The authors of the Swan study document 3 cases of "malicious killings" - unreported outside of hunting season. Ibid. pp 105-106 Malicious killings may be the result of anger directed at bears for loss of road access. Thus road closures and other FS policies designed to protect bears might also cause increased mortality. Law of Unintended Consequences.

If the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan requires 0 mortality, Ch3a-pp14, it is an unreasonable plan because the nature of this animal would bring it into increasing conflict with humans as the population recovered. Since the plan is flawed, it cannot be used as an impelling need for this EIS or as a basis for the standards for this EIS, particularly for the drastic measure of decommissioning 598 miles of road..

 

This study only shows that, for some reason and to some degree, bears use roaded areas less than unroaded areas. It hypothesizes that increasing road traffic tends to lead to decreasing bear use. The hypothesis is unproven. There were occasions when at least one class of bear used roaded areas greater than expected. The more heavily roaded areas tend to be at lower elevations with different vegetation types which may not be preferred by the bears during some seasons. More study is needed to determine the cause of underuse of roaded areas by grizzlies.

The study does not quantify harmful road densities. That is left to forest managers who are often too eager to close roads to the public.

The study also shows that year round road closures and road rip are not necessary for grizzly survival even if avoidance behavior is accepted as fact.

The study does not support the need for the extreme road proscriptions proposed by Alternatives C & E. Nor does it support the proscriptions proposed in A & B, to the extent proposed.

 

CURRENT SCIENCE IS UNCERTAIN ABOUT HOW GRIZZLIES REACT TO ROADS IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. The fact that some bears ignore the presence of roads and others avoid them can be interpreted in contrasting ways.

"Some bears may become conditioned to the presence of vehicles and humans on roads and thus become more vulnerable to direct mortality through the means identified above. Other bears may be displaced from preferred habitat by the human disturbance associated with road use, with a resultant reduction in habitat availability and quality and potential effects on nutrition and reproduction." Ch3a-pp11

All the bases are covered in this unscientific justification for closing roads. You could just as easily say that some bears will become comfortable with roads and thus able to cross highway barriers and enrich the gene pool of a grizzly recovery area other than their own while other bears learn to stay away from human developments thus protecting the core population from human caused mortality. The position one takes on this issue often depends on pre-conceived opinion rather than scientifically discovered fact.

Until an up to date population study and a carefully crafted study to determine the real affect of roads on grizzlies can be done to verify the Need for more restrictive habitat controls, the irretrievable loss of 598 miles of taxpayer funded roads must not take place. Nor should the public be discomfited by road closures that are based on conjecture and outdated studies.

THE DECOMMISSIONING/REHABILITATION OF ROADS, WHICH WE REFER TO AS "ROAD RIP", IS UNNECESSARY, WASTEFUL, DESTRUCTIVE AND NOT SUPPORTED BY SCIENCE. Road rip is a highly controversial action. It is relatively new and not well understood.

adds more sediments to streams than simple closure or even public use.

On page 67 of Ch 3a the claim is made that many road failures have occurred. The claim is not documented and the exact number and severity of the failures is not recorded. Personal testimony from retired long time FS employees on the Flathead NF reveals that culvert failures are very rare.

Statements on 3a-70 to the effect that culvert removal would "outweigh the short-term negative effects of the work required to make proposed roads hydrologically neutral." are contradicted by photographic evidence (www.mtmultipleuse.org) in the Big Creek drainage of Flathead NF

The erosion from road rip extends long after the initial excavation of culverts and is many times more extensive than indicated on page 70. A retired 30+ year veteran of the Flathead National Forest states that he does not recall more than 2 or 3 total culvert failures in his entire career. If we take a rate 3 times that, which is highly unlikely considering that road construction standards are much higher today than previously, we could expect 9 culvert failures in 30 years.

Using figures from the Spotted Beetle project on the Flathead Forest the expected average sediment delivery from a road failure is 11.5 cu. ft. Nine failures in 30 years would yield (9 X 11.5 = 103.5 cu.ft.).. They expected to remove 44 culverts to rip 48 miles of road which, by their calculations would immediately yield a total of 127.6 cu. ft. under a moderate" erosion scenario. Thus nine failures over 30 years would yield less than the sediment delivered immediately after culvert removal.

The total sediment delivery of culvert removal which includes the inevitable and serious erosion that will occur during the first and possibly second or third succeeding spring runoffs will be at least two and possibly up to ten times the initial erosion (see the pictures), Consequently, in the short time of one or two summers the road rip activities, proposed for the Spotted Beetle project would deliver at least (2 X 127.6 =) 255.2cu. ft. of sediments for the Best Case, Moderate depth scenario. This is 2.5 times as much DIRT as would be expected with 9 culvert failures of similar type in 30 years - all delivered in one or two years!!

This EIS does not reveal how many culverts will be removed but figures from the Spotted Beetle project should be similar

precludes any meaningful management action including efficient fire suppression in affected areas.

"Extended response times due to reduced surface access increases the possibility of an escaped fire.. The cost of suppression increases due to needs for aviation support and firefighter support in remote areas."Ch 3,pp117. The belief expressed in this EIS that there would be fewer human caused fire ignitions after road rip because of difficulty of human access would also apply to barriered roads. However, barriered roads could be used for fire suppression but ripped roads could not. A combination of restricting admin access to 57 trips for all affected areas per year and up to 580 miles of road rip for Alternative E will lead to severe impact on forest management particularly if a situation arises that requires admin attention such as flooding, disease or fire rehab

Endangered/threatened bull trout, white sturgeon, and burbot in the Kootenai drainage will be affected by severely increased sedimentation.

Is it wise to destroy valuable roads that will be needed in the future?

What scientific study that uses current information and has been subjected to a rigorous peer review, differentiates between a barriered road and a decommissioned/obliterated road?

How do you know that a grizzly bear can tell the difference between a barriered road and an obliterated one? If he cannot then why go to the expense of obliteration, causing a large increase in stream sedimentation in the process?

THIS EIS IS FLAWED BECAUSE THE ONLY REAL NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE, WHICH IS F, HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED. An EIS must have a no-action alternative in order to represent all the choices available. Alternative F was "designed to respond to comments requesting the Forest Service maintain the existing levels of closed and open roads on the landscape. It also responds to public comments asking for no additional road closures." Alternative F should have been included.

THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONCERNS OF LOCAL RESIDENTS WERE ACKNOWLEDGED BUT NEVER REALLY CONSIDERED. The authors claim that the effects on the economy and on recreation would be moderate. How can they know what the cumulative effect of yet another forest shutdown will be on the lifestyles and livelihoods that have sustained these communities for generations. This is especially true in the town of Libby which is reeling from the closure of mining and logging and now the recreation in the area is being slammed by the nationwide coverage of the asbestos problem.

The writers tried to convey the idea that the local residents have mixed feelings about grizzlies and road closures. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. The residents of Boundary, Sanders, and Lincoln voted 80% against the roadless initiative and any other extension of roadlessness or road closures.

The EIS acknowledges that "The reduction in access and associated timber management and recreation would constrain the outdoor lifestyle of local populations and increase the perception that public participation does not appear to be effective at influencing management of the Forests." How could anyone have any other perception after reading how lightly hard-boiled, cold-eyed FS officials passed over their needs and concerns.

"...it was determined that the present status did not fully meet any particular desired biological or social condition. The "freezing" of the present status would not provide an option that more fully resolved any of the biological or social concerns identified as significant issues. With this language the EIS writers dismissed the social concerns that they had elaborated on for 16 pages.

How could the team have "fully" considered Alternative F if they concluded that it does not resolve social issues? The EIS mentions in several places the repeated concerns of the public over road closures. Are the legitimate concerns of the public not "social concerns" or are they not "significant"? What would the team consider to be a "significant" social concern? What significant social concerns did the team discover other than the concerns about loss of access ?

NEPA requires that the agency fully and carefully address social and economic concerns. Brushing them away without a backward glance hardly fulfills the NEPA requirement.

THIS EIS IS DEFECTIVE BECAUSE THERE IS NO RECOGNITION OR ACCOUNTING FOR THE IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE CONSEQUENCES OF ROAD OBLITERATION. The opportunity cost of loss of access is not accounted for in this EIS. "With the loss of access and further access restrictions comes a higher economic cost to access public lands, or in some cases, an inability to manage these lands for certain uses." Ch3b 8-57 How could FS manage the 57 trip restriction across 3 forests with different management groups? These roads cost millions of dollars of public funds to construct and maintain but the cost of the loss of this capital asset is not accounted for in this EIS.

The supposed benefit for grizzlies in the preferred alternative amounts to a 1-2% overall change in core areas and road densities. Most BMUs are already below the recommended targets for OMRD, TMRE and Core Area. Those few BMUs that are not can be addressed on a site specific basis in order to meet the legal mandates. To approach the stated need as a forest plan amendment is heavy handed and inefficient and will unnecessarily tie the hands of local forest supervisors. Therefore, we request that Alternative F be reconsidered because the marginal if any benefits to grizzlies are more than offset by social and economic costs.

The FS must find some way to satisfy its legal difficulties without severely impacting the human environment, which would occur with all the alternatives in this EIS except F. The Forest Service should re-evaluate the need for this EIS and either withdraw it or rework it with alternatives that address the social/economic impacts on even terms with grizzly bear needs. A true no action alternative must be included. If no peer reviewed, up-to-date, carefully crafted scientific studies can be found to support road closures are available, then no road closures should be attempted.

Please put NWMGP on the mailing list for this EIS.

Sincerely,

Harm Toren, President

BACK   MFMU Appeal