A Mountain Railroad Spells Death for Grizzlies and Cubs By JIM ROBBINS in the NY Times March 23, 2004 WEST GLACIER, Mont. - Every day, trains climb a steep mountain corridor between the southern boundary of Glacier National Park and the northern boundary of the Great Bear Wilderness. The corridor is at the heart of the continent's wildest landscape, and it is prime bear habitat. In some 24-hour periods, up to 42 milelong trains use the line. Every once in a while, a grizzly runs or wanders onto the tracks and is hit by a locomotive. The threat to the grizzlies has fueled a dispute between the railroad, which says it has done all it can to protect the bears, and some wildlife experts, who say it should try harder. At least 32 bears, including 9 cubs, have been killed by trains since 1980. Three died last year. Dr. Chris Servheen, coordinator of the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in Missoula, surmises that the tracks have claimed a disproportionately high number of grizzly cubs because the long trains split family groups. The trains are high enough for the bears to see one another beneath them, and we think the cubs bolt across to get to mom and can't go fast enough to avoid getting killed, Dr. Servheen said. The number of killed grizzlies is likely to be higher than reported, experts said, because some may be knocked off the trestles, killed at night or remain uncounted because they have wandered away to die. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, which operates the line, says it has taken numerous measures to prevent the grizzlies, a federally protected species, from being killed. The steps include reducing grain spills that attract the bears and cleaning up the spills that do occur, removing dead animal carcasses from the tracks and, in some places, installing electric fences. The railroad says it is impossible to stop the killings completely, and it has applied for a federal take permit to legalize its actions. The railroad has taken very effective steps, said Philip Crissman, director of the Great Northern Environmental Stewardship Area in Kalispell, a group that helps the railroad reduce bear deaths. Can we totally stop it? That's wishful thinking. Some wildlife experts, however, are outraged. If I applied for a permit to kill bears, they'd laugh in my face, Dr. Charles Jonkel, a grizzly biologist who is president of the Great Bear Foundation in Missoula, said. If I killed one, I'd get a $10,000 fine and a year in jail. Dr. Servheen said poaching was different from killing a bear accidentally. The railroad has made a lot of progress, he said. It's not like they are trying to kill bears. Dr. Jonkel was deeply critical of the railroad when it spilled a large amount of grain in 1985, and trains killed at least eight grizzlies. He said rail executives informally agreed then on a 15 mile-an-hour speed limit. Company officials deny any such agreement and say that the limit is now 25 miles an hour, the lowest speed for the trains to travel safely. Lane Ross, a Burlington trainmaster in Whitefish, said speed did not really matter. A grizzly bear is not afraid of a train, Mr. Ross said. If one runs out in front of you, you're going to hit it, whether you are going 25 or 60. Part of the problem is that the tracks have become much busier. Up to 42 trains a day pass through, compared with up to 35 in the 1990's. Railroad executives say the corridor is so critical to interstate and international commerce that when an avalanche blocked it this year, trains were backed up to Minneapolis to the east and Seattle to the west. The success of the Endangered Species Act has also meant an increase in bear numbers - and more bears on the tracks. Grizzlies are reclusive and difficult to count, but their numbers in the area are roughly estimated at 500. Railroad aides concede that they were originally lax about grain spills. In 1985, workers buried the spilled grain. Wet from snow, it fermented, and the rich aroma attracted many black and grizzly bears. Many bears became drunk and tottered out to the tracks. Dr. Jonkel said he believed that the spill set the stage for future deaths. The mother grizzly bears teach their cubs, and they keep coming back, even if it's gone, he said. Bear experts at the state's Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks have installed motion-activated alarms, critter gitters, at the ends of train trestles over steep valleys. The alarms emit high-pitched shrieks, trying to keep bears away. Despite the efforts, bears continue dying. We are asking people to provide us with ideas on ways to prevent collisions, said Tim Bodurtha, the biologist at the Fish and Wildlife Service who is writing the plan. But officials expect the railroad to have its take permit by next spring. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/science/23BEAR.html?pagewanted=prin...

Coalition says road violations ignored: Grizzly bear habitat marred, group claims By John O'Connell in the Idaho State Journal IDAHO FALLS - Pete Blau wasn't too interested in the information on the U.S. Forest Service map he carried when he wandered a section of the Targhee National Forest for 31 days last summer. He was more concerned about what he and members of a local environmental group claim the map did not include. When Blau hiked, biked and drove through an 85,000-square-mile section of protected grizzly bear habitat near Island Park, he found 181 miles of active roads where just 64 miles are allowed by regulation, says Marv Hoyt, Idaho director of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. Blau, an intern hired by the coalition, used a Global Positioning System to map undocumented roads and took photographs of tire marks on roads which were labeled on his map as closed to motorized use. Hoyt said the Forest Service is violating regulations by its failure to limit the proliferation of roads in the protected area, called the Plateau 2 Bear Management Unit, and important habitat for the endangered Yellowstone grizzly bear has been marred. You can go up there and drive around and see all kinds of roads that don't appear on their travel map, Hoyt said. It's the public's resources that are being harmed by the Forest Service's disregard for this. They are ignoring a very serious problem. The Forest Service defended its management practices in the unit and believes there has been no violation of the Endangered Species Act, as Hoyt's group is alleging. The Forest Service is not in violation of the Endangered Species Act. Individuals who violate the official Forest Travel Plan are the ones who are in violation of the law, Forest Service Wildlife Biologist Mark Orme wrote in response to the coalition's findings. In 1993, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition won a lawsuit against the Forest Service for having too many roads in Greater Yellowstone grizzly habitat. In its 1997 Forest Plan Revision, the Forest Service set a restriction of 0.6 miles of roads and trails allowed per square mile of land in three Targhee bear management areas - east of U.S. Highway 20 near Island Park, near Henry's Lake and near the west slope of the Tetons. Hoyt said the amount of road building which the Forest Service allowed under the plan is the maximum grizzly bears will tolerate before abandoning a habitat, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had to give a biological opinion affirming the decision. When (Fish and Wildlife) agreed with the road densities, they said emphatically these had to be effective closures to motorized use, Hoyt said. Bears haven't completely abandoned this area, but their use of this area is substantially and noticeably less, and we're convinced it has to do with the fact they're not in compliance with their management plans and the Fish and Wildlife Service's biological opinion. According to Orme, that unit has had little grizzly bear use since 1960. Orme said the Forest Service closed 380 miles of roads within the unit in 1998 to meet the 1997 revisions. Contrary to the coalition's findings, according to Orme's analysis, earthen berms and gates have been effective in keeping motorized vehicles off closed roads and roads which don't appear on Forest Service maps. Orme said Forest Service photographs show grass and trees growing on the same roads which the coalition alleges are still being used. Orme said the Forest Service knows about roads not on its map but doesn't label them because the Forest Service does not want to show the public the locations of roads and trails that are not legally open for public use. Deb Mignogno, supervisor for the Eastern Idaho Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said her agency and the Forest Service have a meeting scheduled for March 25 discuss the biological opinion regarding road densities in the bear management units. She did not comment on specifics of the coalition's findings. We need to talk about where we are with the opinion and the findings and if the terms and conditions of the biological opinion have been met, Mignogno said. Hoyt said his group is also considering what action it will pursue. Hoyt said the coalition gave the Forest Service findings of a similar project last year, and nothing has been done about it. We're going to take some action on it in the next few weeks, Hoyt said. Right now, we're weighing our options. http://www.journalnet.com/articles/2004/03/10/news/local/news01.txt ======================================== Environmentalists threaten lawsuit over lax grizzly recovery efforts Associated Press ISLAND PARK, Idaho - The Targhee National Forest is failing to enforce road closures to preserve grizzly bear habitat under the Endangered Species Act, an environmental group says. The Greater Yellowstone Coalition put the U.S. Forest Service on notice this week that it will go to court if changes are not made in the bear management units near Island Park, Henrys Lake in northeast Idaho and the west slope of the Teton Range along the Wyoming state line. The Forest Service rejected the charge. Targhee National Forest managers said 380 miles of roads in the area have been effectively closed with earthen berms and gates and grass and shrubs are growing on closed-off trails. The Forest Service is not in violation of the Endangered Species Act, Mark Orm, a wildlife biologist for the Targhee, wrote in a response to the coalition. Individuals who violate the official Forest Service Travel Management Plan are the ones who are in violation of the law. Marv Hoyt, the coalition's Idaho director, contended a survey of one area last summer documented 181 miles of actively used roads where only 64 miles were permitted by regulation. The point is this is part of the grizzly bear recovery area, Hoyt said. It's supposed to be managed for grizzly bear security, and they're not doing it. http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2004/03...

We are asking people to provide us with ideas on ways to prevent collisions, said Tim Bodurtha, the biologist at the Fish and Wildlife Service who is writing the plan. But officials expect the railroad to have its take permit by next spring. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/science/23BEAR.html?pagewanted=prin... Will a rail conduct mild electricity?  Enough to annoy the bears away without harming them or electro welding the rails together?

Forests OK road plans for grizzly habitat area By Jim Mann in The Kalispell Daily Inter Lake March 25, 2004 Supervisors on the Kootenai, Idaho Panhandle and Lolo national forests have signed off on forest plan amendments to guide motorized access in the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk grizzly bear recovery areas. The changes are expected to provide greater flexibility for providing roadless habitat and managing roads in defined bear management units. But environmental groups have been deeply critical of that flexibility and are likely to sue the forests. The Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle supervisors say the amendments will improve grizzly bear habitat while providing pragmatic flexibility for public access and forest management. This alternative provides for the best overall protection and management of grizzly bear habitat, Kootenai Supervisor Bob Castaneda said. It is the closest to a 'win-win' situation for the bear population, public access and resource management and protection. Ranotta McNair, supervisor on the Idaho Panhandle Forest, said the holistic approach of the amendment offers the best long-term chance of success for recovery of grizzly bears in the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones. The result across all three forests will be the closure of 52-72 miles of currently open road by the year 2013. The 1,800 miles of road currently closed seasonally or year-round will be reduced to 1,350 miles after 450 miles of road are obliterated or rendered impassable through barriers other than gates. On the Kootenai, just 30 miles of currently open road will be closed and about 300 miles of gated roads will be blocked with barriers. The supervisors approved Alternative E from a final environmental impact statement developed in collaboration with officials from state wildlife agencies and biologists from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The decision approved by the supervisors on Tuesday made only minor adjustments to that alternative. Environmentalists who have monitored grizzly bear recovery efforts contend the approach amounts to a compromise that doesn't go far enough in improving bear habitat. Basically, my take is that it is not going to help recover bears, said Liz Sedler, speaking for the Alliance for the Wild Rockies. They need to take it a lot further. They didn't make changes that will make a big improvement for that population, and where motorized access is concerned, that's critical. You can't go halfway, said Brian Peck, a consultant with the Great Bear Foundation who challenges the science behind the new road standards. They are wasting their time and taxpayer dollars, because as sure as the sun will come up, they have to know they will be challenged on this, Peck added. In 1998, a committee of state and federal land and wildlife managers in charge of grizzly bear recovery recommended tighter access management in the two recovery areas. The forests adopted an interim access strategy and in 1999 the Alliance for the Wild Rockies sued the Idaho Panhandle and Kootenai forests for failing to amend their forest plans with improved standards. The forests settled that lawsuit, agreeing in 2001 to amend their forest plans. A final environmental impact statement outlining alternative approaches was released in March 2002, and last month, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service came out with a formal review called a biological opinion. The Cabinet-Yaak biological opinion sets a ti_meta_ble for reducing road densities in each bear management unit with an emphasis on units that provide the best bear habitat. The strategy approved in the biological opinion affords the Forest Service some flexibility in meeting maximum road density standards and in providing a minimum amount of roadless core areas in 32 bear management units. There are an estimated 30 to 40 grizzly bears in the Cabinet-Yaak recovery area and an estimated 46 bears in the Selkirk recovery area, which encompasses the northern Idaho Panhandle, eastern Washington and southern British Columbia. The road density standards proposed on the Kootenai are less restrictive than highly controversial standards implemented on the Flathead National Forest in 1995. That has raised concerns from environmental groups because the Cabinet-Yaak grizzly population is much smaller and occupies a fraction of the area used by bears on the Flathead Forest. http://www.dailyinterlake.com/NewsEngine/SelectStory_AD.tpl?command=s... ======================================== Feds alter grizzly habitat plan By SHERRY DEVLIN of the Missoulian March 25, 2004 The Lolo, Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle national forests will erase up to 500 miles of roads over the next 10 years to provide safer habitat for grizzly bears. However, amendments to the forests' management plans signed this week leave open 3,000 miles of roads for year-round motorized recreation. And any closures will be determined on a case-by-case basis. In a written statement released Wednesday, Kootenai Forest Supervisor Bob Castaneda said the revised grizzly bear standards represent a pragmatic approach that provides flexibility in limiting the density of roads in grizzly bear habitat. It is the closest to a win-win situation for the bear population, public access and resource management and protection, he said. Years of planning and research in the forests clearly showed that a one-size-fits-all standard doesn't work well for grizzly bears, he said. Idaho Panhandle Supervisor Ranotta McNair agreed. The holistic approach of the amendment offers the best long-term chance of success for recovery of grizzly bears in the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear recovery zones, she said. As adopted, the amendments would reduce the mileage of open roads on the three forests from 3,082 to 3,010. Another 353-498 miles of not drivable roads would be obliterated and reclaimed. Grizzly bears are protected by the U.S. Endangered Species Act, and federal agencies are responsible for recovering healthy bear populations in established areas. The new rules would increase the amount of roadless core habitat for grizzlies. Over the years, studies of radio-collared bears in the Selkirk, Cabinet and Yaak showed that grizzlies avoid areas with open roads and seek areas with no roads or with limited motorized access. Environmentalists have criticized the forests for leaving too many roads open as a threat to the Cabinet-Yaak's estimated 40 grizzly bears. Motorized recreation groups, on the other hand, have railed against any move to decrease access to national forests. Under the amendments, decisions to change the status of a specific road or trail will be proposed by an individual national forest or ranger district, and will be taken one trail or road at a time. The forests adopted new grizzly guidelines in 1998, but rescinded the decision after environmentalists sued the Idaho Panhandle and Kootenai forests. That lawsuit insisted that any changes be incorporated into the forests' long-term management plans. http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2004/03/25/news/mtregional/news07.txt

Blocking a bridge for grizzlies by Jeff Woods in the Missoula Independent March 25, 2004 It took a lawsuit from local conservationists, but the Flathead National Forest has agreed to obey the law and remove a portable bridge that would have funneled snowmobiles and ATVs into grizzly habitat as the bears are emerging from their dens in the northern Swan Mountains. The agency issued a special permit for the 8-foot-wide steel bridge to the Flathead Snowmobile Association in November. In its lawsuit, the Swan View Coalition pointed out that the bridge would allow motorized access into a wildlife habitat that's supposed to be secured beginning March 15 of each year. The lawsuit also noted that there was no public planning process for the bridge as required by law. The Forest Service quickly agreed to remove the bridge. It's buried under 6 feet of snow at the moment, so barricades have been thrown up to block access until the bridge can be taken down. Under its permit, the snowmobile club was supposed to remove the bridge, but not until early summer. The Swan View Coalition's Keith Hammer says the Forest Service knew it would land in court by issuing the bridge permit but intentionally did it anyway as part of a political blame game. The Forest Service knows it has no business promoting snowmobiling after March 15, it knows it has no business providing a bridge leading to a network of unauthorized ATV trails, and it knows it must do its planning in public, Hammer says. The Forest Service intentionally took a shortcut it knew would land them in federal court in a lame attempt to shift the blame for motorized closures to the conservation community. Forest Service spokeswoman Denise Germann denied his accusation. That's interesting, she said, but I don't believe that's the case. Research conducted in the Lost Johnny area and elsewhere has shown that grizzlies with cubs are especially vulnerable to motorized disturbance during the weeks they remain lethargic and near their dens, which can occur as early as March and as late as June. http://www.everyweek.com/News/News.asp?no=3933

Reviews mixed on smaller scale grizzly plan THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Friday, March 26, 2004 LEAVENWORTH, Wash.