 |
 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
||||
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Christopher Servheen April 24, 2000 Dear Dr. Servheen, On behalf of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, I respectfully submit our comments for the public comment record on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), titled Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem. We incorporate in full by reference our comments on the DEIS and the separate Proposed Special Rule under Section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act, comments dated November 26, 1997 (copies attached). We note that in our view the deficiencies noted therein have not been satisfactorily remedied in the FEIS. Introduction Alliance for the Wild Rockies is a regional conservation organization consisting of more than 3,000 individual members and more than 900 businesses and organizations. We are directly affected by any plan regarding the recovery of the grizzly bear in the Northern Rockies. Many of our members, board members, and advisors have been directly involved in numerous studies of the grizzly bear. Alliance for the Wild Rockies strongly supports Alternative 4 for grizzly bear recovery in the Greater Salmon-Selway-Bitterroot Ecosystem. The Experimental, Non-Essential Designation is Inconsistent With the Goals of the FEIS, the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan and Public Comment The ultimate goal of the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan is the recovery of the grizzly bear and its removal from the list of threatened and endangered species. The FEIS states in its Purpose for Action section that: "...the BE offers excellent potential to recover a healthy population of grizzly bears and to boost long-term survival and recovery prospects for this species in the contiguous U.S." (FEIS at 1-4). Moreover, the DEIS (at 6-107) stated: "Grizzly bear population viability in the lower 48 states would be greatly enhanced and accelerated by reintroduction in the Bitterroot Ecosystem." The DEIS (at vi) also stated: "...recovery of grizzly bears in the BE would facilitate conservation and recovery of the species in the lower 48 states..." The FEIS also states that recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem would have these effects: "The potential for grizzly bear recovery will be enhanced in the lower 48 states...," and would "...provide for a higher recovery potential for the species as a whole..." Appendix 21C. Metapopulation Analysis for the Bitterroot Population, authored by Dr. Mark Boyce, shows quite clearly that addition of a Bitterroot population, linked with other populations in a metapopulation structure, dramatically lowers the probability of extinction of grizzly bears in the contiguous 48 states. Since recovery of the grizzly bear within the Bitterroot Recovery Area has been directly linked to the recovery and survival of grizzly bears in the lower 48 states, this population is essential to boost the long-term survival and recovery prospects of the grizzly bear, a listed species. Thus, the proposed action is essential to the long-term survival and recovery of the grizzly bear in the contiguous U.S. states. Therefore, a "non-essential" designation for this population, as proposed, is wholly inconsistent with the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan, the goals of the FEIS, as well as inappropriate under the Endangered Species Act, including section 10(j) of the Act regarding experimental populations. Section 10(j) requires that the Secretary of the Interior, prior to any release of any population, determine on the basis of the best available information whether or not the population is essential to the continued existence of the species. Based on Dr. Boyce's analysis and the Service's own description of the purpose and need for the proposed action, the preferred alternative is the yield of a process which did not avail itself of the best available scientific information, and therefore is in violation of both the spirit and the letter of the Endangered Species Act. Moreover, the DEIS and the FEIS have failed to inform the public of another reasonable alternative under section 10(j) of the ESA, which is "experimental, essential" status. The failure to notify the public of this provision of the Act shows a predecisional bias towards the "experimental, non-essential" designation. The FEIS fails to inform of the "experimental, essential" status, which is more consistent with the descriptions of purpose and need and the scientific data outlined above. The failure to discuss or include the "experimental, essential" status as a reasonable alternative offered for public comment, is a clear violation of the National Environmental Policy Act. It is also clear that the public comment analysis performed by the Service on the DEIS comment record indicates that a vast majority favored threatened status over experimental, non-essential. The FEIS, at 1-17 states, This statement is contrasted with another at 1-17, "However, a few respondents felt experimental nonessential designation would give needed flexibility." There is Inadequate Habitat Protection Under the Preferred Alternative Under the "non-essential" designation, activities such as timber sales, roadbuilding plans, and other development would not require consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, meaning less habitat protection for bears. Moreover, under a non-essential designation, there can be no designation of critical habitat. Likewise, with "non-essential" status, agencies would be under no obligation under Section 7(a)(2) to avoid actions likely to jeopardize the species. Also eliminated are Section 9 takings provisions of the ESA. However, "experimental, essential" status gives flexibility to the Service to implement such provisions of the ESA. With such a small founding population, additional measures are needed to increase the prospects for successful recovery efforts in the BE. The Recovery Zone is Too Small Under the Preferred Alternative and Fails to Make Use of the Best Available Scientific Information The primary recovery zone under the preferred alternative consists of the Selway-Bitterroot and Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness Areas. However, the long list of vegetation and habitat analysis studies cited in the DEIS and FEIS all have consistently shown that the best habitat in the BE is to the north of the proposed recovery zone boundary. Most recently, Appendix 21D. of the FEIS, Abundance and Spatial Distribution of Grizzly Food-Plant Groups in the Salmon-Selway Ecosystem: A Preliminary Analysis and Report, authored by the Craighead Wildlife-Wildlands Institute, clearly shows that the two main grizzly bear food group habitat types are most abundant to the north and south of the proposed recovery zone (Figure 6-15). In comparing the two boundaries of Alternatives 1 and 4, it is immediately obvious that the boundary associated with Alternative 4 contains vastly more lands classified as the mesic berry-producing shrubfields type and the mixed whitebark pine stands type than does the boundary of Alternative 1. For example, Table 6-22 shows that Alternative 1 encompasses 60,896 ha of the mesic shrublands type, while Alternative 4 encompasses 297,201 ha of this critical habitat type. In the mixed whitebark pine type, Alternative 1 encompasses 103,983 ha, compared to 286,657 ha in Alternative 4. While much of this area is captured within the "Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Nonessential Experimental Population Area" (Figure S-2, FEIS at xvii), we note that conflicts between humans and bears in this area would be resolved in favor of human activities. Only within the primary recovery zone are conflicts resolved in favor of grizzly bears. Thus, the area which affords the highest levels of protection for grizzly bears will not incorporate the two most productive areas for the two most important grizzly bear habitat types. These critical food sources are critical to the success of any recovery program in the BE. The approach embodied in the preferred Alternative 1 does not make use of the best available scientific information. Therefore, the proposed recovery boundary, and the political approach used to arrive at it, may well be in violation of the ESA. We support enlarging the official primary recovery zone to the recovery zone encompassed by Alternative 4. Linkage Corridors The preferred alternative fails to designate or recover habitat linkage corridors for grizzlies to link the Bitterroot population with other grizzly populations. It fails to do this for purely political reasons. Proponents of the preferred alternative and the government itself (DEIS at 2-15) has pointed to a legal need under Section 10(j) of the ESA to keep the Bitterroot population isolated from other grizzly populations as a way to maintain the "experimental, non-essential" designation. However, this runs contrary to the stated purpose of the proposed action (FEIS at 1-4). Dr. Boyce's metapopulation analysis in Appendix 21C. clearly shows the enhanced prospects of survival of grizzlies in the lower 48 states if linked into a metapopulation.
We reject the proposed Citizen Management Committee (CMC) structure and we reiterate and incorporate our previously submitted arguments against this provision of the proposed action alternative. We also note that this structure has been made even less desireable by incorporation of Governor Marc Racicot's proposal for additional layers of mediation. We also note and object to the fact that two scientific advisors will have a non-voting role. Even if the scientific advisors do object to the actions of the CMC based on biological grounds, this objection must be "mediated." This allows the potential for unfavorable conditions which undermine recovery to continue in force while scientific objections languish in a multi-layered bureaucracy of mediation and negotiation. This is a clear violation of the ESA. Source Population Analysis Methodology is Not Revealed Both the DEIS and the FEIS contain a very cursory level of analysis on the potential effects on currently designated "threatened" source populations, even while admitting that 10-15 grizzlies might be removed from either the NCDE or Yellowstone populations over a five year period. This issue remains unresolved by the FEIS. Many Canadian conservationists contend that southern B.C. populations are now biologically threatened and that capture and removal of reproductively mature bears from these populations may be biologically unsound. Moreover, it may be illegal to arbitrarily downgrade grizzlies currently protected as "threatened" to "non-essential." Section 4(a) of the ESA presents 5 factors to be considered in decisions to list or de-list a species. Creating "experimental, non-essential" populations using bears currently listed as "threatened" is not included in the five factors. As originally proposed (Alliance for the Wild Rockies 1996) we would like the Scientific Committee as envisioned in Alternative 4 to first undertake an analysis of potential source populations to determine if these populations could sustain removal of reproductive age grizzlies to be used for reintroduction purposes. Population Growth Curves May Be Unrealistic Given the lack of legal protections under the preferred alternative, the growth curves shown in the FEIS may be unrealistic.
The FEIS states there have been no credible sightings of grizzly bears within the BE in many decades. A 1998 letter from Lolo National Forest wildlife biologist Mike Hillis documents two grizzly bear observations made by Forest Service employees within the Bitterroot Mountains. One observation was an actual sighting, and the other a measured track. The How To's and the Measurements of Progress The FEIS fails to outline specific methods to be used in carrying out a reintroduction program. Moreover, measurements to be used to guage the success of the program are not discussed. The FEIS simply assumes that moving a total of 25 bears into the area over a five year period will automatically lead to steady population growth until recovery objectives are achieved. This may not be the case and there is a need for specific measurements designed for both short term and long term monitoring to accurately determine trends in population numbers, mortalities, habitat conditions and security, and other indicators. Alternative 4 is More Responsive to Public Comment A tally of testimony at 7 hearings held by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in Idaho and Montana show that more people testified in support of Alternative 4 than any other alternative. Alternative 1 was supported by only 11% of those who testified, while 40% supported Alternative 4. Official comments on the DEIS show Alternative 4 was specifically identified and supported by dozens of organizations, businesses, unions, local governments, scientists, and economists including the Missoula County Commissioners, the Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays, U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, the Associated Students of the University Of Montana, the Montana Chapter of the Society for Conservation Biology, the Idaho Audubon Council, the Sierra Club, and numerous others. Process Issues While the legal case has finally been settled regarding our Freedom of Information Act request and lawsuit, neither Alliance for the Wild Rockies nor the general public has yet been afforded the opportunity to fully analyze and assess the public comment record on the DRAFT EIS. We believe the issuance of a FEIS prior to resolution of legal issues associated with the DEIS is a procedural violation of NEPA and poor process. Summary We strongly encourage the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to adopt Alternative 4 as the action alternative in the final proposed register rule. We are strongly opposed to the preferred Alternative 1, and ask that it be withdrawn from consideration and the experimental, non-essential proposed rule associated with the preferred alternative be withdrawn as well. We believe the legal deficiencies present in the FEIS are substantial enough that they require preparation and issuance of a Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement prior to a Record of Decision notice. Finally, we wish to register our objection to the way Alternative 4 was characterized in the FEIS, where it states that several laws would have to be amended to implement this alternative. We feel this is prejudicial language and it is inaccurate. Decisions to log or not log, build roads, close roads, etc. are all subject to existing ESA regulations pursuant to grizzly bear recovery. These decisions do not require amendments to existing federal laws. Alternative 4 seeks agency compliance with these laws. We appreciate your consideration of our comments. Sincerely,
|
|||
|
|||