New Biological Opinion Lacks Good Science and Common Sense
The new Biological Opinion issued by the USFWS, and the impacts the Rock Creek mine will have on grizzly bears and bull trout.
New Biological Opinion Lacks Good Science and Common Sense
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) recently released the third
biological opinion (BiOp) for the Rock Creek mine pertaining to
threatened grizzly bear and bulltrout. The process of producing a
document that has the Court will not reject has been ongoing for more
than five years now.
The first biological opinion was released in 2001 and subsequently withdrawn and re-worked in response to our litigation that raised issues that the federal agency admitted “needed more careful analysis.”
The second opinion, released in 2003, found that grizzly bears and bulltrout “would not be jeopardized” by the mine. The rational for this determination? Revett Minerals would be required to “mitigate” for the loss of habitat and increased mortality risks to grizzlies. They would purchase land, obtain conservation easements, or trade land with the Forest Service amounting to 2,400 acres of existing habitat. This, the Fish and Wildlife Service claims, would offset the loss of 7,000 acres. Two new federal employees would be hired to teach miners immigrating into the community how to live in bear country.
Our legal counsel argued that the small population of grizzly bears in the Cabinets, already facing a serious population decline, could not survive the impacts of a massive industrial complex adjacent to the wilderness. The District Court Judge hearing the case was alarmed that the FWS was ignoring its own dire predictions about population numbers and remanded the opinion back to the agency.
Unbelievably, the latest opinion released this October determined that the mine would not jeopardize grizzly bears and would actually enhance their survival. While we were not surprised at the issuance of another non-jeopardy opinion, no one could have imagined that the Fish and Wildlife Service would attempt to market the mine as a good thing for bears. Common sense tells us that the mine could not possibly benefit bears.
According to the BiOp, “The most prominent direct and indirect effects on grizzly bears from the implementation of the proposed Rock Creek Mine project would stem from the influx of mine employees into this relatively remote area…Unmitigated, this number of people could pose some risk to bears in this ecosystem. This phase would bring people into an area that is relatively undeveloped at the current time, which could be associated with higher mortality risk to grizzly bears.” In a feeble effort to address the large immigration into the community, the latest opinion relies heavily on the same “mitigations.” New “mitigations” include rules prohibiting employees from feeding wildlife and from carrying firearms. Mine employees would also attend “sensitivity training.”
The FWS has decided that because of the mine’s lethality, bear numbers should be maintained by augmenting the population. Up to 15 bears from the Continental Divide Ecosystem near Glacier would be captured, drugged, collared, and released in the Cabinets to offset the mortality the mine would cause during its operating life. We believe this plan is poor bear management because relocating imperiled grizzly bears into the midst of an ecosystem with a massive mine is akin to placing them on the Titanic. The process of relocation is itself a risky business. At least one bear has died in a recent relocation attempt.
For bulltrout, the agency concluded that although the mine would likely wipe out bulltrout in Rock Creek, this population is expendable. To rationalize the loss of this population of fish, the FWS has come up with a new scheme. Populations designated as “core areas” would be lumped together for FWS analyses. Core areas are important because they have existing bulltrout along with habitat that is critical for the long-term security of bulltrout. Core areas are the unit upon which recovery is measured.
In previous biological opinions, Rock Creek was considered one of two populations important for the core area referred to as Cabinet Gorge. By combining four core areas together (Thompson Falls, Noxon Reservoir, Cabinet Gorge, and Lower Flathead) into a “Lower Clark Fork Core Area,” Rock Creek is now one of 14 populations considered important in a core area. Previously, it was one of two. FWS now contends that although Rock Creek bulltrout are vulnerable from catastrophic collapse of the tailings impoundment, pipeline ruptures, and large increases in sediment, based on their new hierarchal ranking, Rock Creek has diminished in importance. Thus, the agency now contends that the loss of bulltrout would be much less significant than once thought. Unfortunately for this population, the mine proposal, risks, and impacts have not changed—only the Service’s attempt to diminish the importance of the population.
Sadly, the agency has forgotten their mandate to recover threatened and endangered species. Decisions are based not on science, but on political conspiring. Tellingly, in an AP story from October 14, 2006, Mark Wilson of the FWS in Helena referred to the Rock Creek mine as “a good thing for the bears.”
In the coming weeks, our experts and attorneys will be carefully pouring through the enormous document to determine our next steps. Stay tuned for the next round. Action Alert: Write to the US Fish & Wildlife Service and tell officials that the FWS should honor its mandate to protect threatened species. Biological opinions should reflect sound science and be peer-reviewed by independent biologists. Demand that the agency voluntarily withdraw the Biological Opinion for Rock Creek and solicit independent review of the science.
To view the current Biological Opinion go to: http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/grizzly/cabinet.htm Who to write: Director Dale Hall U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Main Interior 1849 C. St., N.W., Rm. 3238 Washington, D.C. 20240-001 Ralph Morgenwick Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Denver Federal Center P.O. Box 25486 Denver, Colorado 80225-0486
The first biological opinion was released in 2001 and subsequently withdrawn and re-worked in response to our litigation that raised issues that the federal agency admitted “needed more careful analysis.”
The second opinion, released in 2003, found that grizzly bears and bulltrout “would not be jeopardized” by the mine. The rational for this determination? Revett Minerals would be required to “mitigate” for the loss of habitat and increased mortality risks to grizzlies. They would purchase land, obtain conservation easements, or trade land with the Forest Service amounting to 2,400 acres of existing habitat. This, the Fish and Wildlife Service claims, would offset the loss of 7,000 acres. Two new federal employees would be hired to teach miners immigrating into the community how to live in bear country.
Our legal counsel argued that the small population of grizzly bears in the Cabinets, already facing a serious population decline, could not survive the impacts of a massive industrial complex adjacent to the wilderness. The District Court Judge hearing the case was alarmed that the FWS was ignoring its own dire predictions about population numbers and remanded the opinion back to the agency.
Unbelievably, the latest opinion released this October determined that the mine would not jeopardize grizzly bears and would actually enhance their survival. While we were not surprised at the issuance of another non-jeopardy opinion, no one could have imagined that the Fish and Wildlife Service would attempt to market the mine as a good thing for bears. Common sense tells us that the mine could not possibly benefit bears.
According to the BiOp, “The most prominent direct and indirect effects on grizzly bears from the implementation of the proposed Rock Creek Mine project would stem from the influx of mine employees into this relatively remote area…Unmitigated, this number of people could pose some risk to bears in this ecosystem. This phase would bring people into an area that is relatively undeveloped at the current time, which could be associated with higher mortality risk to grizzly bears.” In a feeble effort to address the large immigration into the community, the latest opinion relies heavily on the same “mitigations.” New “mitigations” include rules prohibiting employees from feeding wildlife and from carrying firearms. Mine employees would also attend “sensitivity training.”
The FWS has decided that because of the mine’s lethality, bear numbers should be maintained by augmenting the population. Up to 15 bears from the Continental Divide Ecosystem near Glacier would be captured, drugged, collared, and released in the Cabinets to offset the mortality the mine would cause during its operating life. We believe this plan is poor bear management because relocating imperiled grizzly bears into the midst of an ecosystem with a massive mine is akin to placing them on the Titanic. The process of relocation is itself a risky business. At least one bear has died in a recent relocation attempt.
For bulltrout, the agency concluded that although the mine would likely wipe out bulltrout in Rock Creek, this population is expendable. To rationalize the loss of this population of fish, the FWS has come up with a new scheme. Populations designated as “core areas” would be lumped together for FWS analyses. Core areas are important because they have existing bulltrout along with habitat that is critical for the long-term security of bulltrout. Core areas are the unit upon which recovery is measured.
In previous biological opinions, Rock Creek was considered one of two populations important for the core area referred to as Cabinet Gorge. By combining four core areas together (Thompson Falls, Noxon Reservoir, Cabinet Gorge, and Lower Flathead) into a “Lower Clark Fork Core Area,” Rock Creek is now one of 14 populations considered important in a core area. Previously, it was one of two. FWS now contends that although Rock Creek bulltrout are vulnerable from catastrophic collapse of the tailings impoundment, pipeline ruptures, and large increases in sediment, based on their new hierarchal ranking, Rock Creek has diminished in importance. Thus, the agency now contends that the loss of bulltrout would be much less significant than once thought. Unfortunately for this population, the mine proposal, risks, and impacts have not changed—only the Service’s attempt to diminish the importance of the population.
Sadly, the agency has forgotten their mandate to recover threatened and endangered species. Decisions are based not on science, but on political conspiring. Tellingly, in an AP story from October 14, 2006, Mark Wilson of the FWS in Helena referred to the Rock Creek mine as “a good thing for the bears.”
In the coming weeks, our experts and attorneys will be carefully pouring through the enormous document to determine our next steps. Stay tuned for the next round. Action Alert: Write to the US Fish & Wildlife Service and tell officials that the FWS should honor its mandate to protect threatened species. Biological opinions should reflect sound science and be peer-reviewed by independent biologists. Demand that the agency voluntarily withdraw the Biological Opinion for Rock Creek and solicit independent review of the science.
To view the current Biological Opinion go to: http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/grizzly/cabinet.htm Who to write: Director Dale Hall U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Main Interior 1849 C. St., N.W., Rm. 3238 Washington, D.C. 20240-001 Ralph Morgenwick Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Denver Federal Center P.O. Box 25486 Denver, Colorado 80225-0486