SCOPING COMMENTS

Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment
Attn: Jon Haber, Project Manager
Northern Region Headquarters
PO BOX 7669
Missoula, MT 59807

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment. Montanans For Multiple Use is a grass roots non- profit organization dedicated to preserving public access to our public lands. We are headquartered in some of the best lynx habitat in the lower 48 and have already seen negative impacts of lynx listing on forest management. Please add us to your mailing list.

MFMU requests that no action to amend forest plans be taken at this time.

In our opinion the Canadian Lynx should never have been listed. U.S. forests in the lower 48 have always been on the edge of lynx habitat There have never been large numbers of lynx here and never will be.

"Because the lynx is such a rare animal, the size of the total population in the lower 48 states is unknown. Lynx in the contiguous United States are part of a larger population whose core is located in central Canada. In the lower 48 states, lynx populations naturally occur at lower densities and it’s normal for them to be rare. The rarity of lynx is based largely on the limited availability of their primary prey. At our latitudes, lower snowshoe hare populations are likely a result of our naturally patchy, transitional habitat, preventing hare populations from achieving the high densities found in the extensive northern boreal forest." Lynx FAQ from the amendment website

Although your agencies are not responsible for the lynx ESA listing, your response should be crafted with these truths in mind. Widespread restrictions that severely limit public access and FS ability to manage for multiple use CANNOT restore a species that never thrived here - at least not since the last ice age. We have very, very few jaguars in the US because they are a South American animal. Should we list them and require forest managers to plan for their restoration?

Nevertheless, individual forest plans should recognize the tenousness of lynx existence here on the edge of their range and develop local forest plans to make a reasonable effort to manage for continued lynx habitation at historical levels. From reading the science it appears that many of the lynx habitat requirements may be in conflict with other habitat requirements and FS management goals such as fire suppression. Lynx management should not overrule other goals with higher multiple use priorities because it has not and cannot be demonstrated that lynx survival globally depends on habitat in the lower 48.

Furthermore, since half of the LAUs are in wilderness and protected roadless areas there is no immediate threat to lynx here on the edge of its range. Connectivity should not be a problem because "Lynx readily move across landscapes fragmented by conventional industrial forestry," and "… we have anecdotal accounts of lynx crossing roads of various types," and "Existing data, though sparse, do not indicate that roads are a major mortality factor for lynx." (Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States ch 16) Since lynx "…can double their population size every year under optimal conditions,…" (ibid.), we have time to fully study lynx requirements and population trends in lower 48 before committing to a plan of action. One aspect of that study should be to compare populations in wilderness and nearby multiple use areas to determine if any management changes are necessary at all.

There is no scientific basis for modifying the existing management direction in forest plans to benefit the lynx. According to the amendment website, Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States formed the basis for LCAS which is the driving force behind this amendment. EUCLUS makes it very clear that very little is known for sure about lynx in America except that they are rare and they like to eat rabbits.

"Our generally poor understanding of lynx -habitat relation-ships at all spatial scales hampers the development of specific habitat-management prescriptions." Ibid.

"The pattern of hare habitat that is optimal for lynx is unknown and represents a critical information need" ibid.

"..we acknowledge a very incomplete understanding of what constitutes suitable lynx and hare habitat in the contiguous United States." Ibid.

"…we know very little about lynx ecology in the United States…" ibid.

If the principal scientific document driving lynx listing and this amendment concedes to a general and pervasive lack of knowledge on lynx ecology, how can we proceed with one size fits all planning over such a wide area? We must not take the actions considered in this amendment unless the lynx are in immediate danger of extinction which they are not, for we have no corroborating data which is unlikely considering that American habitats only represent the fringes of lynx range and half of that is already protected in Northern Rockies area and the lynx are very fecund.

In summary, Montanans For Multiple Use firmly requests that NO ACTION be taken on plan amendments for lynx in the Northern Rockies until a credible and reasonably complete body of scientific information is available to justify such changes. When and if such a body of information is available the plan amendments should be done on a forest by forest basis to assure the best application and most efficient result. Streamlining consultation with USFWS is no excuse for ignoring local experience and knowledge.

We make this determination for the following reasons which have been detailed above:

Lack of adequate knowledge base

No immediate threat to lynx

Lynx always rare not necessarily endangered in US

Shotgun approach to forest planning is inefficient

Because the need for this amendment is not established and cannot be with the scientific data available, there is no purpose for the amendment and it must be voided. Therefore we have not commented on the specific proscriptions included in the proposal, such as limiting pre-commercial thinning and over-snow recreation, because we obviously think they are unnecessary and intrusive.

If the decision team decides to proceed with this amendment, it must do so as an EIS because this project will never pass the significance test for an EA.

Please keep us informed of developments. If you have any questions regarding our comments please contact us at our address in Columbia Falls or contact me directly through my email address listed below.

Sincerely,

Gary Hall, Boardmember MFMU

DEIS COMMENTS

Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment

FS Region 1

Dear Sirs, 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment.  Montanans For Multiple Use is a grass roots non- profit organization dedicated to preserving public access to our public lands.  MFMU is a growing organization with nearly 500 members.  We are headquartered in some of the best lynx habitat in the lower 48 and have already seen negative impacts of lynx listing on forest management.   

First we wish to thank you for responding favorably to our scoping comment that this amendment must proceed as an EIS rather than an EA.  However, we regret that you have decided not to adopt a No Action alternative as we suggested.  We thought then and we think now that widespread restrictions that severely limit public access and FS ability to manage for multiple use CANNOT restore a species that never thrived here.  Therefore, lynx management should not overrule other goals with higher multiple use priorities because it has not and cannot be demonstrated that lynx survival globally depends on habitat in the lower 48.  We still believe that the No Action alternative is the best decision for enlightened multiple use management.

 Since we consider it unlikely that you will choose the No Action alternative, we feel that it is critical that an alternative be crafted and chosen that maximizes management flexibility and protects ALL multiple uses.  Alternative E meets those requirements better than any other of the proposed alternatives. 

However, Alternative E addresses several presumed threats that were hypothesized in the LCAS but that have been re-addressed in the USFWS Remand Notice.  Specifically grazing, mining, forest roads, and snow compaction.  

We found no evidence that some activities, such as forest roads, pose a threat to lynx. Some of the activities suggested, such as mining and grazing, were not specifically addressed because we have no information to indicate they pose threats to lynx.[1]

 We find no information demonstrating that forest roads negatively impact lynx  (Roe et al. 2001) and, therefore do not consider forest roads to be a threat to lynx.[2]

Because no evidence has been provided that packed snowtrails facilitate competition to a level that negatively affects lynx, we do not consider packed snowtrails to be a threat to lynx at this time.[3] 

Since USFWS finds no evidence of negative impact or threat from these activities or entities, this amendment should not address them in any way. 

It has been suggested in forest service documents[4] and official public comments that the FS will continue to implement LCAS restrictive recommendations including those that are not supported by the final published USFWS opinion on lynx survival requirements.  This appears to be “just in case” management that is unjustified considering the negative impacts to many forest uses.  Continuing those restrictions, which are not supported by the Remand Notice, constitutes a arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority that will produce only harm to forest resources like roads and the public safety on those roads and harm to segments of the populace who participate in mining, winter recreation and grazing without a concurrent benefit to lynx. 

Once the amendment becomes part of the Forest Plan it should replace the Conservation Agreements, which are due to expire soon anyway (12/31/04).  Therefore, the FS is free to abandon the unsupported restrictions in the amendment because it will supercede the CA.  And they should be abandoned because they are harmful and are not consistent with the “best science” available today.  If the studies underway prove conclusively after sufficient peer review that further protections are needed, measures including another CA or another amendment could be adapted.  In the mean time, site specific project decisions would still have to go through USFWS consultations and the new protections would be implemented then.   . 

In fact continuing to implement these unsupported restrictions would constitute a violation of the CA, which says that,

The process of amending or revising a Forest Plan will include consideration of the Science Report, the LCAS and the FWS’s final listing decision document.[5]

FWS’s  final listing document is the Remand Notice and it is a much later interpretation of the science as it relates to species survival and ESA requirements than the other two documents. 

To comply with the scientific and legal interpretations of the Remand Notice you should remove all HU, GRAZ standards, objectives and guidelines as well as LINKS2 and LINKG2 from Alternative E and any other language or restriction affecting winter recreation, forest roads, grazing or mining.

 The recognition in Alternative E that forest fuel loads must be reduced is commendable.  Please retain the ability to conduct fire fuel reduction projects that in Alternative E.

 It seems to us that the special treatments featured in Alternative D for White Pine, Whitebark Pine, Larch and Ponderosa should be included in the final Alternative.  The caveat that these thinning projects would only proceed if 80% of hare habitat is retained should certainly protect the lynx and provide much needed benefits for these tree species.  The total acreage involved only constitutes 1.3% of the total defined lynx habitat on FS lands in Idaho and Montana.  There would also be a badly needed economic benefit for local inhabitants if these thinning projects went forward.   

The VEG S1 standard seems too restrictive.  For example, 73% of the Flathead Forest is lynx habitat.  Roughly 30% of FNF is suitable for timber harvest.  If we assume that 73% of the suitable timber lands are lynx habitat, that leaves only 8% of FNF land that is suitable for timber and unregulated by VEG S1 where there might be a reasonable assurance that timber harvest could occur.  Clearly this is not enough to sustain any level of timber harvest infrastructure.  Therefore we must be able to harvest some of that lynx habitat.  It is doubtful that enough merchantable timber can be harvested as fire hazard reduction or that very much will be slated as lynx habitat improvement.  

 Because there is no data on the percentage of LAUs that would meet the VEG S1 standard and allow for some degrading vegetation management the standard has the potential to drastically reduce that management. The 70% suitability threshold requirement for vegetation management seems too high since the effects of this threshold and undisclosed.  How did you arrive at this figure?  How can you predict the effects on forest management if you don’t know the suitability percentages of the habitat?

 Special Use Permits for access to private property should not be encumbered with any restrictions.  In most cases these permits are for low use averaging less than 2 trips per day.  Low use forest roads are not even a problem according to the Remand Notice.  The acreage involved is infinitesimal so loss of habitat is insignificant.  The virtually non-existent benefits of lynx restrictions for property access SPUs are far outweighed by the need to comply with ANILCA and by the attendant loss of property rights and values as well as the economic hardship that lynx regulation places on inholders. 

Although habitat mapping is not part of the amendment, we believe that too much land on the FNF has been included as lynx habitat.  The science indicates that “Areas below 4000 feet usually should be excluded. (sic from lynx habitat)”[6]  The FNF map depicts many areas below 4000 feet in lynx habitat.  This should be corrected before the amendment is adopted.

 In summary, Montanans For Multiple Use requests that you adopt the No Action alternative because it best meets the needs of lynx and multiple use management.  Failing that we request that you adopt Alternative E with the following changes:

1.      Remove from consideration the issues declared by the Remand Notice to have no effect on lynx survival.  Those issues are snow compaction, forest roads, grazing and mining.

2.      Add the special treatments for tree species included in Alternative D.

3.      Reexamine VEG S1, specifically consider lowering the 30% unsuitability threshold.

4.      Exempt all Special Use Permits for access to private property from lynx considerations.

5.      Redraw the maps to comply with the 4000 foot standard and other habitat criteria 

Please keep us informed about the activities and progress of this amendment.  I would appreciate it if you could send a copy of any mailings to my personal address as well as to the organization address in the letterhead.  Thank you. 

Respectfully,