Comments:

April 24, 2000

Dr. Christopher Servheen
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Project Leader
Bitterroot Grizzly Bear EIS
P.O. Box 5127
Missoula, Mt. 59806

Dear Chris,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Bitterroot Grizzly Bear FEIS, and efforts to restore grizzlies to a portion of the Greater Salmon-Selway Ecosystem. In our comments on the Draft EIS we noted : "At its most basic level, any DEIS must achieve several things : (1) It must be firmly grounded in the biology of the grizzly bear; (2) it must employ the best available science throughout; (3) all pertinent federal laws must be strictly followed; (4) precedents undermining this, or future recovery efforts must be avoided; (5) and of course it must demonstrably lead to recovery of the grizzly bear. While economics, sociology, and politics may all considered during the process, they cannot be allowed to override the fundamental biological requirements of the species. Those thoughts are equally valid here.

We note that throughout the FEIS the Service seems to have heard, and genuinely attempted to address, some of the concerns raised by the environmental community over the Draft EIS. We wish to commend the Service for these efforts. These include several changes in the Citizen Management Committee concept. These are noted below, and while they are appreciated changes for the better, we feel they do not resolve the underlying problem - the delegation of substantial authority over national public lands to a purely local, unrepresentative minority.

Areas of Improvement :

* Grizzlies moving outside the Recovery Area onto public land in the "experimental area would not be disturbed unless they demonstrate a real and imminent threat to human safety or livestock.

* The Governors of Idaho and Montana will have to provide written documentation as to the qualifications of those nominated (To the Citizen Management Committee) relating to knowledge and experience on a variety of natural resource issues and collaborative decision making.

* The CMC "must consult with scientists to ensure that scientific information is considered in decision making.

* Sec. of Interior would appoint 2 Scientific Advisors to provide scientific expertise to the CMC.

* "The CMC could make recommendations to land and wildlife mgmt. agencies regarding changes to plans and policies, but the final decision on implementation of these recommendations would be made by those agencies.

* "The CMC would base its decisions on the best scientific and commercial data available. The CMC would develop a process for obtaining the best biological, social, and economic data, which would include an explicit mechanism for peer reviewed, scientific articles to be submitted to and considered by the CMC, as well as periodic public meetings in which qualified scientists could submit comments to, and be questioned by the CMC.

* "All decisions of the CMC including components of its mgmt. plans must lead toward recovery of the grizzly bear and minimize social and economic impacts to the extent practicable, within the context of the existing recovery goals for the species.

* Efforts to reduce impacts on potential lower 48 source populations by stating that no female bears would come from either the NCDE or GYE recovery areas, or their surrounding 10 mile buffers.

Remaining Concerns:

While we appreciate the above changes, we continue to be concerned by a number of troubling passages in the FEIS as follows :

Citizen Management Committee :

* In Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination, P: 5-99 and 5-100, we see the statement, "Several respondents stated that the CMC proposal is illegal because the Secretary of Interior is not legally able to delegate decision-making authority to this group. We agree completely, and yet the Service never answers this pivotal question. We are told that, "The creation of a CMC to manage a listed species is possible because of the experimental approach of reintroduction under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act, with its increased flexibility. We understand that the Service favors this method, and that it thinks management flexibility is a good thing, but nowhere are we told what specifically makes such a delegation of authority to the CMC legal. Exactly which words in Section 10, supported by what case law, back up this claim?

 

* As the Service knows, conservationists have been very concerned as to whether the CMC would be a strong "advisory body, or one entrusted with "management control over public lands and public wildlife. Despite some reassuring wording in the FEIS, and communications from you, we find a number of FEIS passages which continue to cloud the issue.

* Passages suggesting an "Advisory role are found on pages 2-6, 2-8, 2-12, 2-21, and 2-26. They include various wording along the lines of: "Regarding the land and wildlife management agencies, the role of the CMC would be to make recommendations to them that the CMC thinks would lead to recovery of the grizzly bear....The CMC could make recommendations to land and wildlife management agencies regarding changes to plans and policies, but the final decision on implementation of those recommendations would be made by those agencies, and the requirements of NEPA could apply....The CMC would only make recommendations to these agencies.

* Passages suggesting "Management Control are found on pages 2-8, 2-11, 2-14, 4-18, and 6-128. Wording includes the following : "The CMC would be authorized management implementation responsibility....The CMC would develop management plans and policies, as necessary....various land and wildlife mgmt. agencies would exercise day-to-day management responsibility...while implementing the BE Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan Chapter, the Special Rule, and the policies and plans of the CMC....This alternative allows for a citizen management committee to decide if trails, roads, and other areas would be closed to improve recovery efforts....The CMC would be responsible for developing land-use restrictions as necessary for grizzly bear management.

The above sections seem to us to be mutually exclusive, and once more raise concerns over the Service,s intent. While we hope these are merely semantic oversights, and the plan is for the CMC to be advisory only, it is imperative that FWS clearly and unambiguously state its intentions. Are there situations in which land/wildlife mgmt. agencies must follow a CMC directive? If so, what are they? If, on the other hand, the CMC is strictly advisory, and management agencies are free to disregard their recommendations, then why is there a need for a Scientific Review Panel? No impass, requiring mediation should be possible if the CMC cannot compel action, if all state and federal laws must be adhered to, and if the agencies are free to say "No.

* Regardless of whether the CMC is "advisory or "management, we have serious reservations about substantially turning over public land management decisions to 15 individuals whose states collectively represent 0.7% of the American people - the real landowners, and rightful decision makers. The transfer of federal responsibility on over 20,000 square miles of the American peoples land, and its delegation to a small, unrepresentative, local minority, is so sweeping as to raise serious concerns - particularly when one realizes that this delegation spans 50-110 years!. That the Department of Interior itself is pushing this plan is disturbing, and sets dangerous precedents for all future recovery efforts.

* As we,re sure you know, the Idaho legislature recently voted to remove endangered species decision making from Idaho Fish and Game and its Commission, and turn it over to the Governor. It seems to us that this effectively destroys the underlying premise of the Preferred Alternative - that of "citizen management, substituting for it the political whims of one man, the Idaho Governor. By effectively removing Idaho,s wildlife biologists from the game, the governor now virtually controls what recommendations the CMC is allowed to make, and whether they get carried out by state personnel.

* Several of the basic reasons used to justify the CMC are clearly false. First, we were told that a CMC with management control would lessen "local opposition, yet the government,s own survey, referenced in this FEIS, shows that 62% of locals are in favor of recovery, with only 26% opposed. Second, we were told that a CMC would lessen people,s fears of "land use restrictions, yet the same survey shows that only 7% of locals express such fears. Third, we were told that local "input wasn,t enough to reduce opposition, only local "control would accomplish that. Unfortunately, the FWS attitude survey shows that 64% of locals would be more supportive if they had more input, while only 41% would be more supportive of local control. Even local people don,t want their friends and neighbors in charge of this precedent setting endeavor.

In fact, it seems to us that FWS has developed its preferred alternative on the basis of a completely untested and unproven assumption, - that local control = lower grizzly conflicts and mortalities. Perhaps we state the obvious, but it was under primarily local control, aided by federal agencies, that grizzlies were exterminated in the Selway-Bitterroot to begin with. Since the entire foundation of the FEIS is built on this assumption, the Service should scientifically demonstrate, with actual grizzly bear case studies, that this hypothesis is true.

* In our DEIS comments, we expressed serious concern that the process by which the Secretary of Interior would reassert control was too long at 6 months, and would require a Secretary of "iron will to take on two western governors and their congressional delegations. The FEIS, unfortunately, makes matters worse. By creating a new Scientific Review Panel to mediate disputes, the Service has now created a process that could drag on for 12-18 months, with recovery and the lives of grizzlies in the balance. Such "analysis paralysis in an effort to appease the bear,s intractible foes is unconscionable and unnecessary. A rapid, fail-safe mechanism spanning no more than 60 days is a must.

We further note in the Figure on page 2-15, that even after FWS and the Scientific Review Panel have determined CMC actions aren,t leading to recovery, the Secretary can make a completely political decision, ignore the experts and science, and give the CMC a free pass to continue destroying grizzly recovery. Such a loophole is totally unacceptable and renders the Scientific Review Panel functionally worthless.

* As noted above, we are pleased to see that two Scientific Advisors for the CMC have been added to the process. However, since they will presumably be experts, and come from the affected states, we question their non-voting status. In addition, we are concerned with wording on 2-6, and elsewhere, which says the scientists will "attend all meetings and provide scientific expertise in support of CMC management recommendations., This implies that their role is to rubber stamp CMC actions. We hope that this is merely a case of unfortunate wording.

 

Experimental Nonessential Status :

* A fundamental assumption by the Service which underpins the entire FEIS, is that there are currently no grizzly bears in the SBE recovery or experimental areas. Should this underlying assumption be found to be invalid, therefore, the entire preferred alternative is no longer tenable. Thus, although the Service has an affirmative duty to act in ways which further the recovery of the species, including maximizing habitat protection, it has steadfastly clung to a politically based experimental nonessential designation, and sought to undermine all evidence to the contrary.

* At a November 17th meeting in Missoula, agency officials off-handedly dismissed otherwise reputable sightings of grizzly bears in the Bitterroot area because of elapsed time, distance from the bear, and track description. Using similar standards, reputable sightings by Dr. John Craighead, Dr. Charles Jonkel and the Recovery Coordinator himself would be dismissed, despite 95 years of combined grizzly bear experience.

* In a similar vein, the FEIS on page 6-292 defines a grizzly population as, "A grizzly bear population is defined by verified evidence within the previous six years, consisting of photos within the area, verified tracks and/or sightings by reputable scientists or agency personnel, of at least two different female grizzly bears with young or one female seen with different litters in two different years in an area geographically distinct from other grizzly bear populations... If we hold FWS to its own standard, we see that it has failed to meet the "two females standard in 9 of the last 11 years in the Cabinet-Yaak, 10 of 11 in the Selkirks, and 11 of 11 in the North Cascades, despite acknowledged populations in all three areas.

Clearly, the goal is not to provide a reasonable population standard, but to prevent proponents of "threatened status from proving the presence of a grizzly "population. As if to further that objective, we read in the DEIS, page 6-118 that "Once this special rule is in effect and grizzly bears have been released into the recovery area, any grizzly bears found within the experimental area, including any bears that move in from outside the experimental area, will be classified as part of the experimental population. Thus, proponents of threatened status must meet a population definition that the Service itself cannot; must be deemed "reputable by the Service; and must get their sighting in before FWS arbitrarily cancels its own population definition.

* On page 2-26 of the FEIS we read, "Experimental populations must be designated either essential, or nonessential, (Appendix 12). Essential, refers to a reintroduced population whose loss would be likely to reduce the likelihood of the survival of the species in the wild....,Nonessential, refers to an experimental population whose loss would not be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of the species in the wild.

On page 3-20, and in Appendix 21C by Boyce (1999) we read, "The modeling results predict the addition of the Bitterroot population will reduce the probability of extinction by 88-99%, depending on different growth rate variances used in the model. In all cases examined in the report,there is a significant reduction in the probability of extinction for grizzly bears in the United States with a restored Bitterroot population. The addition of population areas (such as the proposed Bitterroot population) causes a geometric decline in extinction probability, and greatly improves the probability of existence and therefore the effectiveness of conservation for the grizzly bear.

Finally, the FEIS states on page 6-128, " Reintroduction of grizzly bears into the Bitterroot Ecosystem would enhance bear metapopulation viability in the northern Rockies by increasing genetic diversity, and potentially increasing genetic interchange among populations if bears immigrate or emigrate. It would also accelerate achievement of recovery goals through reintroduction over natural recovery.

A clearer, more compelling definition of a population "Essential to the survival and recovery of the species is hard to imagine, yet FWS not only persists in its "nonessential population claims, it fails entirely to even include an "Experimental Essential alternative in either the Draft or Final EIS.

Use of NCDE and GYE Bears :

* While Section 10(j)(2)(A) of the Endangered Species Act "permits the use of threatened or endangered individuals in reintroduction programs, it,s clear that FWS is confusing this with a "requirement." Congress simply realized that in many cases, the only source populations remaining would be listed ones. However, that is not the case for grizzly bears, and there is no mandated use of Yellowstone or Glacier grizzlies. We feel this would set a damaging, and unnecessary precedent for all future reintroductions, and we are unalterably opposed.

* As we noted in our DEIS comments, populations which are currently listed as threatened are, by definition, not "healthy, and contain no surplus or "spare bears. If the Service does not agree, then it should clearly demonstrate that it has met the biological and legal requirements for recovery in these areas before further depleting the ranks of currently listed populations. Unless and until it can offer such proof, FWS must rely on other, non-threatened source populations.

* As you know, federal agencies are prohibited from authorizing, funding, or engaging in activities which may jeopardize the existence of a species. They are also required to ensure that the activities they do take will lead to the recovery of the species. Given the current "threatened status of both populations, and recent excessive mortalities in both, it is difficult to understand how the Service intends to comply with the law while removing even more grizzlies from these populations.

* While we appreciate the commitment to take no female grizzlies from either of these Recovery Areas or their surrounding 10 mile buffers, the Service continues to perpetuate the myth that any bears beyond this 10 miles are spare animals, and thus up for grabs as source populations. First, we note that the Service should scientifically prove this assumption to the broader scientific community before it bases action on it. Second, since these "dispersing bears may in fact be re-populationg formerly viable linkage zones, we,d suggest they may be some of the last bears that FWS should use. Rather, after examining its own linkage work, along with that of American Wildlands and the Craighead Institute, the Service should consider augmentation in several of these areas.

 

 

Use of Best Available Science :

* A fundamental principle of both Conservation Biology and Wildlife Biology over the last 15 years has been that providing functional linkages between otherwise isolated populations (particularly for large carnivores) can substantially improve prospects for viability. The FEIS acknowledges this on page 6-128 when it says, "Reintroduction of grizzly bears into the Bitterroot Ecosystem would enhance bear metapopulation viability in the northern Rockies by increasing genetic diversity, and potentially increasing genetic interchange among populations if bears immigrate or emigrate.

Unfortunately, where linkages are discussed, the FEIS presents a somewhat confusing picture as to whether such connections are permitted under the nonessential experimental designation for the SBE. For example on page 2-24 we hear that, " Linkage zones to the BE would have to be considered from management of other ecosystems, because for reintroduction purposes, the nonessential experimental population designation under Section 10(j) of the ESA requires that the recovery area be totally separate from other grizzly bear populations. However, on page 5-89 & 5-90 we are told, " Experimental status does not preclude linkage with other ecosystems, it requires that there be no population of the animal in question and that the area be geographically separate....If the Bitterroot is eventually linked to other existing populations, which is desirable and so stated in the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan, such linkage may be in fact initiated by the members of the Bitterroot population expanding their range toward the closest population, the Cabinet-Yaak population, not the other way around. One seems to suggest that linkages aren,t legal, while the other says they are, and in fact are "desirable. The Service needs to clear this up once and for all, and unequivocally state whether it intends to identify, designate, and formally protect such linkages.

* As noted earlier, the definition of a "population from Appendix 25 seems to have little to do with the required use of "best available science. While a recent ruling in a wolf case gives FWS substantial discretion in such matters, we doubt that it extends to providing a definition the Service itself has failed to meet in the Cabinet-Yaak, Selkirk, and North Cascade Ecosystems most, or all, of the time.

* As you know, the methodology for calculating allowable mortalities has its origin with an NCDE study by Harris (1985). As the following passage from that report shows, the intent was to determine what "annual mortality rates large grizzly populations (448) could sustain and remain viable : "Population quotas (defined as the proportion of the entire population that can be removed annually without causing chronic decline) cannot be greater than about 6.5% of the total population if the mean harvests are at least 70% male.

Yet in the FEIS, pages 3-24 and 4-6 to 4-7, we see a rather serious departure from the underlying science of meeting "annual mortality limits, replacing them with "running 6-year averages, and in so doing artificially masking the effect of serious and on-going mortalities in both ecosystems. Such statistical averaging of course tends to smooth out high and low years, and magically render acceptable many years when the proper measure, "annual mortality, was exceeded. For example, one could have a six year span as follows : 5%, 5%, 5%, 5%, 3%, 1%, which "averages to an acceptable 4%, while actually exceeding allowable annual mortality levels in 4 of 6 years, and perhaps sending a small reintroduced population into a tailspin.

* Although grizzly bear security, as measured by Access Route Density is of primary concern in assuring recovery, we find a number of problems and inconsistencies in the FEIS as follows: (1) The analysis presented is for the Bitterroot Environmental Analysis (BEA) instead of the significantly different Recovery Area and surrounding roaded forest; (2) road densities are mostly reported as averages across entire landscapes, rather than using accepted methodologies; (3) We are given road access densities only from the Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests, rather than all those touched by the Recovery Area;(4) contrary to accepted scientific techniques, Open Motorized Trails are not included in the analysis.

(1) The BEA focuses on only the Bitterroot and Frank Church wilderness north of the Salmon River and areas in the north Clearwater River country, while the Recovery Area considers none of the north Clearwater country and all of both wilderness areas. Thus the roads analysis presented isn,t even for the correct Recovery Area and its surrounding roaded lands. An analysis covering the RA plus surrounding 10 and 20 mile roaded buffers would have been more on point and useful.

(2) When calculating Open and Total Motorized Access Route Density (OMARD/TMARD), the current "best available standard is the use of "moving windows, 30m X 30m pixels and the reporting of route densities on a miles/sq.mi. basis. Despite a reference to this technique being used by Boyce and Waller to evaluate habitat capability in Appendix 21B, it appears that the Service has not used this technique in Appendix 10, but has simply averaged road densities across the entire Bitterroot Evaluation Area (BEA). As with averaging mortalities across multiple years, this tends to mask areas with otherwise excessive road densities, and for that reason is a methodology no longer accepted.

A footnote in Table 6-14, page 6-112 tells us that in the roaded portion of the BEA (240.6 sq.mi.) there are 72 sq.mi. having road densities greater than 2 mi./sq.mi. While this suggests that some sort of moving windows analysis was done, we still see that these densities were averaged across the entire roaded landscape. Even so, these figures show the roaded BEA with a TMARD of 29.8% greater than 2 miles/sq.mi., well beyond the NCDE Amendment 19 standard of 19%. Even more questionable, we see on page 6-111 that the "Unroaded portion of the BEA contains 201 miles of roads, with no explanation as to how that is possible. When TMARD is calculated for all non-wilderness lands, we still see densities at 14%, even with the outmoded averaging technique. To further complicate matters, the Boyce/Waller figures from Appendix 21B appear to disagree due to yet another different analysis area being used.

Since we raised these same concerns over "averaging 3 years ago during the DEIS, and the proper use of moving windows is well known to all grizzly mgmt. agencies, we question why the Service has done nothing to close this obvious gap in their best available science? Given that BMU,s in other ecosystems are simulated, rather than being based on actual home ranges of individual grizzlies, why has FWS not used the time to simulate BMU,s here based on habitat similarities to Yellowstone and Glacier? Could the Game Management Units shown on page 3-12 perhaps have served this purpose as well, at least temporarily?

(3) Road Densities are reported only for the Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests rather than all forests directly impacted by the Recovery Area, such as the Payette, Salmon, Lolo, Bitterroot, and Boise. Again, only precise access route densities for the Recovery area and surrounding roaded forest allow us to calculate the actual impacts to grizzly security and potential for survival.

(4) Finally, we see on page 3-39 that there are 7547 miles of recreational trails open to motorized vehicles in the Primary Analysis Area (PAA). As you know, it is standard scientific practice in all other Recovery Areas to treat these as open motorized routes and add them to OMARD calculations, and yet that apparently has not occurred here. How many of these miles occur in the BEA - or more accurately, adjacent to the Recovery Area - and how do they affect properly done Access Route Density calculations?

* As anyone working with grizzly bear issues soon learns, quantity and distribution of key bear foods, and fluctuations in their availability, exerts a profound impact on bear survival and reproduction, as well as level of conflict with humans. Data from Yellowstone clearly shows that years of low whitebark pine production correspond to high grizzly mortality. Data from the NCDE show a similar relationship to poor berry years.

The obvious conclusion is that any recovery document seeking to maximize chances of success, should consider options providing for the greatest quantity, quality, and distribution of key foods possible. Yet Alternative 1, (as opposed to Alternative 4) seems to be headed in the opposite direction. Table 3-5 on page 3-23 analyzes several key foods with the results reported in Square Miles of coverage : Whitebark Pine, Alternative 1 = 63, Alternative 4 = 171; Primary Berries, Alternative 1 = 724, Alternative 4 = 2059; Secondary Berries, Alternative 1 = 193, Alternative 4 = 742.

The FEIS specifically notes that, "Particularly significant berry distribution occurs north of the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness area in the North Fork of the Clearwater River drainage and throughout much of the Lochsa and Selway River drainages. Yet, despite repeated requests by conservationists, all of the above areas are left out of the Recovery Area. We are concerned that the Service, in an effort to placate powerful political and extractive industry foes, has adopted a "minimalist approach in terms of the habitat, security, and foods required for successful grizzly recovery.

In addition, although the southern half of the Recovery Area is often compared to the Greater Yellowstone, where ungulates and native trout are key foods, we find no comprehensive analysis of either in the FEIS, despite the fact that an estimated 280,000 ungulates and unquantified numbers of bull and cutthroat trout occupy the PAA. Similar omissions are noted for army cutworm moths, another critical GYE food source. What levels and concentrations of these species occupy the Recovery Area, or adjacent National Forest habitat?

* Extractive Industry favored over Grizzly Recovery : On page 4-9 we read that, "Alternative 1 indicates that the CMC would review any potential impacts to land uses and assure that resource extraction activities would be maintained in the BE. Alternative 1 also indicates that existing USDA Forest Service (USFS) Forest Plan standards and guidelines, as amended, would be deemed adequate pending review by the CMC. Such "acceptable by definition standards, with no documented relationship to known grizzly bear habitat needs, is a sharp departure from the "best available science required by the ESA, and claimed in this FEIS.

Even more damaging than the words themselves, is the realization that they essentially authorize "existing Forest Plan levels of logging, roading, mining and grazing for the next 50-110 years! We have already noted the problems with the way road density figures are calculated and reported, and remind the Service of its own words from the 1993 Recovery Plan : "Roads probably pose the most imminent threat to grizzly habitat today. The management of roads is one of the most powerful tools available to balance the needs of people with the needs of bears.

Nor do we find much solace in the past and future timber targets from "existing Forest Plans shown in the FEIS. As noted on page 3-32, the various forest,s projected harvests during 1992-98 were 448.9 mmbf, while the actual cut was 191 mmbf. Although we find it hopeful that the cutting of nearly one half billion board feet, and its associated habitat fragmentation were trimmed back, no one should think for a moment that this resulted from any mind shift toward real, ecologically based forestry at USFS. It occurred because of air and water concerns, the presence of several environmental laws, and the relentless pressure from environmentalists to follow the science and obey the law. USFS had every intention of cutting every board foot and roading every sale.

Given that reality, the fact that this FEIS arbitrarily "grandfathers in current standards, and the likelihood that the CMC membership will be pro-extraction, there is real concern for what the next Forest Plans will contain. Under the lax standards sanctioned by this FEIS there is little reason to expect that the lower timber targets of Table 3-10 will see the light of day. It is far more likely that the Forest Service, using this FEIS as cover, will lower standards, raise the cut, and check in with the CMC for its rubber stamp of approval. In fact, the recently released Supplemental DEIS for the Interior Columbia Basin Environmental Management Plan (ICBEMP) notes that a 21% increase in timber volumes is possible.

Finally, it seems to us that the automatic acceptance of current grazing practices and areas, particularly as it relates to sheep, is a predictable trainwreck waiting to happen, with controversy and dead bears the likely result. Volumes of scientific evidence and decades of experience have clearly shown the incompatibility of continued sheep grazing in a core Recovery Area. Just such knowledge has led the various federal agencies to close many sheep allotments in the Greater Yellowstone. Yet the FEIS turns a blind eye to the presence of over 229,000 sheep and nearly 69,000 cattle in the PAA, including allotments within the core Bitterroot Recovery Area.

Related problems are already apparent on page 2-10, where we read that, "...grizzly bear management decisions in the recovery area would favor bear recovery, allowing the area to serve as core habitat for survival, reproduction and dispersal of the recovering population. This is followed one paragraph later with, "If significant conflicts occurred between grizzly bears and livestock within the experimental population area, these could be resolved in favor of the livestock... Since the Recovery Area is included within, and as part of, the Experimental Population Area, these two statements are in fundamental conflict. Even more ominous is the assurance on the same page that under certain circumstances, "A livestock owner may be issued a permit to kill a grizzly bear killing or pursuing, livestock on private lands... The door to all manner of far fetched "pursuing definitions is left wide open - not the best science and unlikely to lead to recovery of the species.

* The various discussions of "source populations contain a number of problems from a scientific perspective. First, the method by which British Columbia (B.C.) estimates its grizzly populations is, putting it mildly, scientifically questionable. This is the province that magically increased its estimated population from 6600 to13,000 with the stroke of its research pen in the early 90,s, and which extrapolates the entire B.C. population from a few select study areas. Unless B.C. comes up with some scientifically credible population estimates demonstrating that their grizzlies are not imperiled as well, the Service should be extremely cautious about hitching their wagon to that star. Second, as noted earlier, the Service is relying on the questionable assumption that any grizzlies beyond the 10 mile buffers around the GYE and NCDE are "spare bears not needed for recovery, and can, therefore, be removed with out consequences. We know of no broad scientific consensus supporting such an assertion.

In conclusion, we would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on this landmark recovery document. We would also like to thank the Service and other federal agencies for what seems to be a genuine effort to solve some of the Draft,s more glaring problems. At the same time, we hope that you will give equal attention to our "Remaining Concerns, the resolution of which would generate a stronger, more effective, more defensible document.

Those concerns principally encompass several areas. First, we are concerned that FWS does not fully appreciate the gravity and precedent of delegating substantial authority over the American people,s land to an unelected, unrepresentative, "locals only committee - for 50-110 years! Second, the document in far too many places turns a blind eye to the conservative use of the "precautionary principle, and in so doing imperils recovery. And finally, we find that the FEIS frequently departs from sound biological and legal principles into political and social engineering, in a vain attempt to placate the grizzly,s foes at the expense of the grizzly bear itself.

We understand that the current plan was framed by the belief that recovery efforts take too long, cost too much, and are too divisive. We agree. However, given the continued human population expansion, ever shrinking habitat, and the grizzly,s naturally controversial profile, all of the above may be inevitable. The solution, however, should never be to simply push aside the well documented needs of the species. Given the unrelenting hostile reception the Service,s "preferred alternative has received from those it was intended to appease, we ask that you abandon that approach and adopt one firmly grounded in grizzly biology, broad based national, rather than local accountability, and adherence to law. Please enter our comments into the formal record.

Sincerely,

 

Brian Peck Louisa Willcox
Great Bear Foundation Sierra Club Grizzly Bear
Ecosystems Project

Joe Scott David Gaillard
Northwest Ecosystem Alliance Predator Conservation Alliance

Len Broberg Tim Stevens
Montana Chapter, Sierra Club Greater Yellowstone Coalition