The Conservation Biology Alternative for Grizzly Bear Population Restoration
in the Greater Salmon-Selway Region Central Idaho and Western Montana

APPENDIX A

End Notes

(1) Mapping costs assume a two year period to complete the work. It would encompass two field seasons to accomplish one iteration of modification. The work would use existing vegetation map data created by the Wildlife Spatial Analysis Lab at the University of Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit through their Columbia River Basin mapping effort. It would also use existing data created by the GAP analysis projects being completed by the National Biological Survey.

(2) It is assumed that the Scientific Committee shall meet at least three times per year. Most if not all committee members will likely be located within the Northern Rockies region, keeping travel costs minimal. Since the major offices of federal and state agencies in the recovery area region are located in Boise, Coeur d?Alene, and in Missoula, and the two universities with forestry and wildlife programs are located in Missoula and Moscow, it is assumed that meeting locations will be in these areas and many team members will be in these areas as well. Therefore, travel costs are estimated as mileage distance between these towns. It is also estimated that as many as eight team members will be required to travel to attend committee meetings. It is also assumed that each trip will require one night of lodging at $50 per night, for an annual cost of $1,200. Meals are assumed to costs $40 per person per day at an average of two days per meeting. The annual cost would be $2,400.

One Way Distance Between Towns

Missoula-Coeur d?Alene 140 miles

Boise-Missoula 400 miles

Moscow-Missoula 250 miles

Mileage Costs - Trips will require an average of 526 miles per round trip. Using a 26 cents per mile mileage figure, the average travel costs per meeting is $1,094.08. At three meetings per year the total cost is $3,282.24. Personnel and Per Diem - The costs for personnel associated with additional habitat mapping is included in the mapping cost estimate. Up to half (5) of the committee members may be employees of state and federal agencies. These agencies are expected to absorb the majority of the salaried time spent on grizzly recovery efforts. The other committee members may be compensated for their committee related work at a per diem rate of $100 per day. It is estimated that committee members will spend approximently 30 days per year on committee related work. This works out to $15,000 per year for per diem. Phone, fax and e-mail are estimated to be $5,000. Postage and shipping are estimated at $2,000 and materials (maps, photos, etc.) $2,000.

(3) Cost of capturing, transporting and monitoring 4-6 grizzlies a year for five years is estimated to be $160,000 per year for 5 years, or $800,000 (Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem, Answers to Citizens Questions, U.S. Forest Service et al, 1995)

(4) The average loss per MBF (thousand board feet) is from the General Accounting Office (GAO) report RCED-95-237FS, Sept. 1995. It uses the acres harvested and volume from Timber Sale Program Information Reports (TSPIRS) and Forest Service Timber Management Division data on Suitable Timber acres to give a per MMBF (million board feet) cut loss for the relevant forests. The average loss for the years 1992-1994 was used except for the Boise N.F. For the Boise N.F., the loss estimate developed by Robert Wolf, retired forest analyst for the Congressional Budget Office, was used because the GAO report states that the Boise N.F. did not include substantial costs (GAO, 1995).

This loss estimate is higher than estimates based on Timber Sale Program Information Reports. When calculating the TSPIRS figures, the Forest Service omits its construction costs for road prism, design, and evacuation because they are non-deductible assets (Gorte 1993). The road prism is the base of the road. The Forest Service does not include the cost of building the road prism as an expense because they estimate that they will last forever, which of course they will not. The Gifford Pinchot N.F. has found that it is more cost effective to obliterate a road if it will not be used over the next twenty years (Tumble Creek Drainage Study, 1993). Roads are a cost to the U.S. Treasury. Treating them as an asset is incompatible with private sector accounting. The roads will be an expense for years to come because of maintenance, sedimentation and weed control costs.

The Forest Service also does not include payments to states. The federal government reflects these as a cost in other financial reports. Since this is an expense it should be treated as such in the profit and loss statement.

Presale expenses associated with management of the timber resource are also excluded. In a signed decision notice, the Washington office of the U.S. Forest Service directed that Gate 1 and Gate 2 sale preparation costs be removed. These are expenses incurred prior to the official offering of the sale. The Washington office of the Forest Service estimates these costs at over $14.00/MBF. These expenses should count because they are only incurred when logging is planned.

The GAO used only $651 million of the $995.4 million in cash losses to make its estimates of which forests lost or made money. GAO gives a very conservative picture of forest level losses. If the omitted $344 million were counted, losses on the forests would be 50 per cent higher. The actual loss would be even higher if future road maintenance and weed control expenses were included (Garrity 1994). The Boise N.F. estimates that the cost of sedimentation from logging roads running into the stream at $25 per ton (Boise Wildfire Timber Sale EIS, 1995).

(5) The Clearwater N.F. Plan, Table II-12 page II-80 lists the ASQ (allowable sale quantity) as 212 MMBF per year for 1998-2007. Nez Perce Forest Plan, page 4-41, lists the ASQ as 138 MMBF/year. The Boise Forest Plan states the ASQ is 85 MMBF per year (page 252). The Salmon ASQ is 21.7 MBF per year (Forest Plan p. 7-A-8). The Challis ASQ is 4.5 MMBF (Forest Plan, p. 4-39). The Payette N.F. ASQ is 80.9 MMBF per year ( Forest Plan appendix A-6). Laura Tippin of the Boise N.F. planning staff stated that the Boise ASQ is 85 mmbf (phone interview with Michael Garrity 12/7/95). The ASQ for the Sawtooth N.F. is 7.5 MMBF per year (Table II-28).

(6) Doug Gouchnour of the Clearwater N.F. planning staff estimated that 42.2 percent of their ASQ will come from roadless areas (phone interview with Jennifer Ferenstein 11/30/95). Dick Artly of the Nez Perce N.F. planning staff estimated that 30 percent of the ASQ will come from roadless areas (phone interview with Jennifer Ferenstein 11/30/95). Laura Tippin stated that 24 percent of their ASQ will come from roadless areas (phone interview with Michael Garrity, 12/8/95). Cliff Keane estimated that only 9.5 per cent of the ASQ would come from roadless areas over the next ten years from the Salmon-Challis N.F. (phone interview with Jennifer Ferenstein 12/1/95). Gary Eckert of the Payette N.F. Planning department stated that 30 percent of the ASQ would come from roadless areas (phone interview with Jennifer Ferenstein 11/30/95). Dave Bossler of the Sawtooth Planning department stated that less than 10 per cent of the ASQ would come from roadless areas (phone interview with Jennifer Ferenstein 12/1/95).

(7) The GAO report omitted all regeneration costs, which typically run at least $400 per acre (Wolf, 1995). The National Forest Management Act requires that the Forest Service certify that all logged land is regenerating within five years. A conservative cost estimate was used by using a price of $400 per acre. Twenty-five percent of the land was estimated to require tree and grass planting with the rest regenerating naturally. This is a conservative estimate. Robert Wolf believes the actual cost would be much higher (phone interview with Michael Garrity, 12/5/95).

(8) The total estimated loss for each national forest was estimated by the average net loss per thousand board feet (MBF) and multiplying by the percent of the ASQ coming from roadless areas. The regeneration costs were added to this. Both of these figures are very conservative. Robert Wolf (1995) found that the GAO figures are at least 50 percent too low. The GAO estimate is based on logging over the entire national forest. Losses for logging in roadless areas is often higher because of the new roads required.

(9) The regeneration costs for the Boise are higher because they are cutting thousands of acres of land which are not in their timber base. The amount of timber per acre cut is much lower. Therefore, thousands of more acres need to be reclaimed.

(10) Laura Tippin of the Boise N.F. planning staff said that more than 24 percent of the ASQ would come from roadless areas because of salvage sales but she could not estimate how much (phone interview with Michael Garrity, 12/8/95). From 1992 - 1994 the Boise N.F. cut an average of 122.4 million board feet. Salvage sales are not counted as part of the ASQ because the timber comes from land not counted as part of the timber base. Most salvage sales occur in roadless areas. It was estimated that over the years 1997 - 2006 salvage sales would average the same rate that they have averaged over the years 1992 - 1994. This loss figure is a conservative estimate because salvage sales losses are often 100 percent higher due to the low price received for logs (Wolf 1995). If a higher loss rate for salvage logging was used the total loss for the Boise N.F. would be over $80 million.

(11) The Forest Service estimates that the benefit of each cubic yard of sedimentation prevented at $25 per ton (Boise River Fire Sale E.I.S., 1995). Each yard excavated represents an equal volume saved from future erosion and sedimentation yield. At $25 per ton over $650 million in future expenses would be saved by removing these roads. Sedimentation will vary. It could be as much as 100 times higher in future erosion prevented (Weaver and Sonnevil 1984)

Next
Back to Table of Contents