SNRC growls over bear plans for forests

TROUT CREEK – Biological concerns for bears roaming in the Kootenai National Forest have given cause for the Forest Service to explore bear management options that could potentially affect Sanders County residents; however, Sanders County Natural Resource Council maintains these effects have not been explained fully to the public and sought to inform the public Thursday evening at an open town hall meeting in Trout Creek.

About 350 people crowded into Lakeside Motel Conference Center to hear the presentation given by moderators Senator Greg Hinkle, Jennifer Fielder and Paul Fielder. The main objective of the meeting, according to SNRC chairman Ron Olfert, was to “bring information to the attention of the public.”

Topics explored during the presentation mainly stemmed from documents researched by the moderators found on the Forest Service’s website. Such documents included the Record of Decision, Forest Plan Amendment, Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (Nov. 2011), and FWP Recovery Plan. The moderators displayed highlighted paragraphs and excerpts from the documents to better explain how the plans could affect area forestland, as well as residents. The main areas of forest that are most cited in the plans are that of Bear Management Units (BMUs) and bear management “core” areas.  According to the moderators, the Forest Service seeks to suppress the number of bear-human conflicts in the Kootenai, and therefore limit forest access to people to achieve this objective; but, with such limitations, there is “cause for concern.”

Prior to the meeting, the Plains-Thompson Falls Ranger District released a statement on behalf of the Forest Service in response to flyers that had promoted the concerns of the town meeting. In the statement, it is said “the Kootenai, Lolo, and Idaho Panhandle National Forests recently signed a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Grizzly Bear Access Amendment that will guide future decisions related to road use on a portion of these forests. The Draft Forest Plan will not close these areas to the public and will not limit recreational activities by the public.”

The statement further described the details of BMUs.

“Bear Management Units (BMUs) are a geographic subset of the Recovery Zone. They were dilenated by agency biologists to cover multiple watersheds and represent a size that would approximate the relative home range of a female bear (Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee Taskforce Report, 1994)….The Access Amendment and Forest Plan make no site-specific decisions concerning road or trail closures (ROD pg 1).”

Biologist Paul Fielder gave a presentation regarding his examination of the documents and bear management plans. He explained to the audience that grizzly bears are food-driven, and gravitate towards areas of forest where vegetation is plentiful. He cited data from the grizzly bear management plan, explaining that the Forest Service anticipates grizzly land space needed would be one bear for every 26 miles. For the Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan, 100 bears are needed to reach the recovery objective, which equals out to 2,600 square miles.

“According to the Yellowstone Recovery Plan, they indicated 34 square miles for every one grizzly bear as home range,” Fielder said. “For 26 miles for one bear, that is biologically impractical to come up with that density without having human conflict.”

Fielder also added that the data gathered and used in the documents were determined over months of research on the Forest Service’s part. He also explained to the audience there is more data that still needed to be determined. 

“I don’t think it’s completely fair to gang up on the Forest Service,” he said. “They’re just trying to do thier job and meet the standards.”

Jennifer Fielder then took the stage and gave a presentation about timber suitability and how the Forest Service, according to their documents, decides what areas of timber are suitable for harvesting. Timber suitability, according to Fielder’s research in the documents, has set objectives and deductions that include areas where wildlife are concerned, such as the BMUs within the Kootenai National Forest. Fielder explained that of the 2.2 million acres within the Kootenai, only 791,400 acres is deemed suitable. 

“I’m not against the Forest Service, I never have been, I went into their meetings with respect, and believing what they were telling me,” Jennifer Fielder said following her presentation. “But then I started reading the plan, and there’s a lot of cause for concern in their actual documents. And it’s a little bit different from what they’re telling us in the meetings. 

They’re saying, ‘don’t worry it’s just a plan, it’s general, it’s not really going to change anything…’ but when you read the document, you’re going ‘oh, my, this is huge,’ these are major implications and it’s permanent. 

“They’re talking about permanent restrictions. And so, as we grow as a community - if we ever are to grow - you know there’s no ability to put in any new trails or roads or campgrounds in some of these areas; in these bear management core areas. It’s not the whole forest, it’s the bear management core areas - which is about 55% or more, up to least 80% of half the Kootenai National Forest. I don’t think they’re doing a good job of telling people what this plan really involves and how it will affect us.”

Senator Greg Hinkle spoke about habitat restrictions and how such restrictions could potentially affect forest access. In his closing statement, he made a point to moderate the view of the situation between the Forest Service and the committees that allegedly comprise the bear management modifications.

“In essence, in my view, these guys [USFS] are stuck between a rock and a hard place,” Senator Hinkle said. “Because it’s the interagency committees, the bear recovery committee, that are behind all this.”

Jennifer Fielder then encouraged the audience to get involved with SNRC, and how coordination of non-governmental organizations, such as SNRC, can make a difference if they work with the federal agencies, not against. 

“I used to run public involvement for government agencies and I know how proactive public involvement works,” Jennifer Fielder said. “It seems like the public involvement process through this draft plan has been the bare minimum  - required. Because the majority of the people here had never heard of a bear management unit until we started advertising about it. Now they’re aware of it, and the Forest Service should have been doing this.”

Education was the main focus of the meeting, as a means to break down the documents and plan literature for the audience to digest, in lieu of SNRC’s interpretation. 

“We didn’t have time to cover everything tonight, but this is the first of many meetings,” Fielder said. “It’s not the end, it’s only the beginning as far as we’re concerned.”