Bear Creek Council's Comments on the Bear Palmer Forest Health Project

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed Bear Palmer Forest Health Plan. These comments are submitted on behalf of Bear Creek Council (BCC), an all-volunteer, grassroots community organization based in Gardiner, Montana. BCC was founded in 1983 to protect our environment and unique quality of life here on the edge of Yellowstone National Park. Jardine, the location of the proposed logging project, is part of our community and many of our members live and work there.

BCC continues to be involved in many projects and proposals that may affect our small community. We emphasize that our community is culturally and economically different from many others in rural Montana, and the management of resources, the surrounding National Forest in this case, should reflect this difference.

BCC seeks to protect this unique and fragile area immediately adjacent to Yellowstone National Park from any project that will negatively impact its intrinsic value. The commercial logging elements of this project as currently described will have devastating effects on our economy and community for generations to come.

The Jardine area has long been a sacred recreation ground for local citizens and provides livelihoods for many community members as well — including horseback riding, hunting, cross country skiing, hiking, vacation rentals, and camping. The areas that are under consideration for commercial logging will negatively impact all those activities and the associated economic livelihoods that are dependent on a thriving tourism industry. The use of heavy machinery and logging trucks will damage our roads and inconvenience everyone who lives in, works in, and visits the area. Relative to the entirety of the Custer Gallatin National Forest, the area that surrounds Jardine is small, but the consequences of this project will be huge. Please consider our opposition to this project and our position as stakeholders in federal management projects that affect the well-being of our residents, our livelihoods, and our future.

Threshold Concerns with the Emergency Process

BCC objects to the use of an IIJA Emergency Action to address the Bear Palmer Project. The exact nature of the emergency remains unclear; however, we believe that circumventing a thorough administrative review and scientific assessment of the area poses a far greater threat to the resource and to our community than any perceived emergency. Therefore, BCC requests that the Forest Service explain the exact nature of the emergency that supports the use of the IIJA Emergency Action declaration.

BCC believes it is unreasonable to expect a small unincorporated rural community to respond to a project of this scope and complexity in the time originally provided. Our residents, many of whom are scientists and are uniquely qualified to provide valuable input on this project, found the original 30-day comment period too short to be able to adequately assess this multi-faceted project. This is complicated by the fact that despite our milder than usual winter season, much of the project area will remain inaccessible until after the end of even the extended comment period. We are grateful for the extension of the comment period to June 1, but more time would be appreciated. Therefore, BCC requests the Forest Service further extend the Comment Period by an additional 30 days.

On many occasions during this process, Forest Service personnel have assured our community that our comments would be taken into consideration. It is unclear how we will know which comments have been considered and how without the courtesy and benefit of a formal response to our comments. Therefore, BCC requests that the Forest Service provide at a minimum a written response to those specific comments that were in fact “considered” by your agency.

As you are undoubtedly aware, our community has been impacted by several disasters in recent years. In 2020, the center of our town tragically burned causing the loss of several businesses and subsequent job loss for many residents. In 2022, our community was devastated by a flood event of epic proportion. The economies of both Gardiner and Jardine rely heavily on tourism. Because access to the park was restricted in the aftermath of the flood, our towns were severely impacted. Again, businesses failed, jobs were lost, and residents were forced to leave. We are still recovering. Nowhere in this proposal is there an assessment of the cultural, economic, and public health impacts this project will have on our community. Dust, noise, and smoke from prescribed fires are all known to have associated health risks and are not mentioned in the PED. Truck traffic on Highway 89 will impact visitor access to businesses — shops, raft companies, restaurants, vacation rentals and other visitor support services. Businesses that provide recreational experiences in the Jardine area will be directly impacted by the project — and for several years. BCC requests that you provide a comprehensive evaluation of the cultural, economic, and health impacts on our community.

Specific Comments on the Preliminary Effects Document

1. Introduction, par. 3 — Disingenuous “density” rationale

   States that the project area forest, like much of western US, has undergone “increased density and homogenization”, and is therefore in need of management. However, due to its history, the area is anything but homogeneous regarding density and stand diversity. Witness the project map showing dozens of different stands and treatment proposals. A major rationale for the proposal is therefore disingenuous. Please explain how and why the specific project area was included in the Secretary's emergency action declaration.

2. Need for Action, par. 2 — Missing site-specific documentation

   There is no documentation specific to the project area (i.e., based on actual conditions on the ground) that shows it meets the criteria for coverage by Section 602 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, and lands under very high or high fire risk as identified in the 2023 Wildfire Hazard Potential. Please provide that documentation.

3. Need for Action, par. 5 — Science on the proposed treatments

   How does “Creating new age classes and diversifying species composition within the project area … help address spruce budworm levels and reduce the stand hazard ratings for mountain pine beetle…”? The proposed treatments will actually reduce current tree species diversity by thinning and “habitat enhancement”, and increase stresses to remaining trees due to mechanical tree removal and roadbuilding; potentially increasing their susceptibility to disease and pests. Opening canopies increases air circulation at ground level and can increase drought stress by drying soils and increasing transpiration, making trees more vulnerable to pests and disease. Please cite peer-reviewed research literature that supports the purported benefits of the proposed treatments in the existing forest types.

4. Need for Action, par. 6 — Wetlands and conifer encroachment

   Wetlands are generally maintained by site hydrology and hydric soils, to which certain plants are adapted. Accordingly, upland (unspecified conifer species; presumably upland since you are characterizing them at undesirable intruders) tree encroachment into historical wetlands can generally be attributed to some change in the hydrology resulting in conditions favoring the upland plant over wetland plants; perhaps based on climate change or natural landscape successional processes. The establishment of upland conifers is therefore a response to hydrological change, not the cause and does not justify classifying them as undesirable. What scientific evidence is available to support the assertion that conifer encroachment in these forests degrades wetland habitats, and that artificial removal of conifers will restore or enhance wetlands?

5. Proposed Action — Clarification on overall scope

   We ask for clarification and explanation on several topics that apply to the overall proposed action.

   A. Timing: When during the year, and over how many years will the various ground activities occur? The PED makes some mention of limiting interference with certain public uses, but to evaluate the magnitude and extent of negative effects such as noise, truck traffic, dust, and displacement of public use of the forest, a general schedule of project activities is necessary.

   B. Mitigation and monitoring: There is little mention of how project activities will be modified to mitigate negative effects, such as what best management practices will be contractually mandated and how their implementation will be monitored and enforced. We fear that FS oversight throughout the ground activities will not be adequately resourced by the agency, and believe the project should not be approved without some guarantees of agency commitment to obligate all resources needed to adequately administer the entire project including subsequent monitoring, necessary mitigation measures, and evaluation and assessment of expected treatment results following adaptive management principles.

   C. Non-special-status species: The PED addresses plant and wildlife species of special conservation concern, but fails to mention mitigation of effects on other species, including many birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, and plants. For example, how will effects on breeding birds (protected by the MBTA) including primary and secondary hole nesters be mitigated; what about migration corridors and winter cover for ungulates; are tiger salamanders present in any ponds and adjacent uplands; will mammal dens and rare forest plants be surveyed and avoided? It seems appropriate to make these efforts under the purported rubric of forest health and ecological integrity.

   D. Community Wildfire Protection Plan alternative: If reducing wildfire risk is truly a project objective, why are you not suggesting alternative strategies to achieve that goal such as a Community Wildfire Protection Plan which is supported under HFRA if the community is an “at-risk” community — which Jardine is. A CWPP is meant to be a collaborative effort between the community and the federal land management agency. Such a collaboration would have better results than your proposed plan for reducing wildfire risk adjacent to the community, building relationships across the communities of Jardine/Gardiner and the USFS, and generating pole wood and firewood for the community.

   E. Endorsement of other commenters: BCC strongly endorses and concurs with comments already submitted by others listed below. These comments further develop and reinforce points and arguments BCC makes in this submittal, including why this project does not meet the criteria for Emergency Action, and that the proposed project is too complex and potentially impactful to justify an abbreviated NEPA process. Rather, it demands much more comprehensive analysis and consideration of alternatives compliant with a full EIS process. These commenters lay out the legal, procedural, and logical deficiencies of the proposed EA in addition to those outlined in BCC comments herein. The PED does not present any quantitative effects that are required for meaningful evaluation of the magnitude of positive and negative effect comparisons. Without actual quantifications of existing and projected conditions, determination of “significant” or “negligible” effects becomes a matter of opinion with no objective basis. This is pertinent to the argument that the lack of rigorous analyses inherent in the process leading to this PED is arbitrary and capricious, and comprehensive analyses are needed.

   • Stephen Capra of Bold Vision Conservation (submitted 4/22)
   • Clint Nagel of Gallatin Wildlife Association (submitted 4/22)
   • Jason Christensen of Yellowstone to Uintas Connection (submitted 5/1)
   • Mike Garrity of Alliance for the Wild Rockies (submitted 5/4, 5/9, 5/24)
   • Hilary Eisen of Wild Montana (submitted 5/19)
   • Kathryn Eklund of The Wilderness Society (submitted 5/22)

6. Clearcut — Stated purpose vs. actual purpose

   The PED fails to explain how clearcuts are necessary to serve the stated purpose and need. Clearcuts are a prominent proposed “treatment” solely to provide merchantable timber, and not to promote forest health. Clearcuts will result in further stand homogeneity (see comment 1, above), and set back natural vegetative succession that would otherwise lead to mature stands and old-growth forest touted elsewhere in the PED. It, along with other mechanical treatments proposed, necessitates additional road-building (including encroachment into Inventoried Roadless Areas) and heavy equipment moving off-road in sloping terrain resulting in extensive soil and vegetation damage, and subsequent erosion and multiple other negative ecological effects. The implicit justification for the proposed clearcuts as “fuel reduction and management” seems disingenuous both because forest fires have frequently been documented to burn through even recent clearcuts, and because the associated opening of roads and access to areas has been shown to increase human-caused fire starts. This disingenuous rationale leads to increased public distrust of the Forest Service and “knee-jerk” opposition to any management proposal. It also makes it easier for people to believe that the real reason for the commercial timber sale is simply because of the Executive Order to increase the cut, and the FS, for purely political reasons, will not admit it.

7. Commercial Thinning, par. 2 — Target densities

   “Large diameter stands … will be reduced to target stand densities of 25 to 50 trees per acre…” What is the current range of tree density in these stands? “…residual densities will be increased to 70 to 194 trees per acre…” How can you increase current densities, and why such a broad range of desired densities? Please provide research data that shows these target densities have a substantial effect of reducing wildfire intensity and rate of spread in these types of forest stands. “…post-treatment retention of applicable old growth criteria for each stand type” Please describe these criteria.

8. Group Selection, par. 2 — Tree marking and snag retention

   The process of selecting trees to cut described here implies that a trained forester will examine and mark every tree within the planned opening. Is that true, and will the logging contractor have any role in the tree selection? Will the FS have complete control over the tree selection process? Also, forest wildlife habitat recommendations prescribe a minimum number of snags per acre be retained for different forest ages and types. Will these guidelines be followed for this and other tree removal treatments?

9. Group Selection, par. 3 — Restocking obligations

   Who is responsible for the required restocking of all regenerative harvested areas, and will the funds and resources be obligated for restocking? If resources are not obligated, how are we to have any confidence that restocking will occur in a timely manner? Also, will the stocking material be ecologically appropriate native species locally sourced?

10. Prescribed Fire — Pile Burning

    Burn piles can produce very hot fires that burn organic soils and promote establishment of certain invasive exotic plants. What formal monitoring and control procedures will be conducted to prevent burn pile footprints from establishment and subsequent spreading of weeds?

11. Roads — Sediment and habitat impacts

    What sediment control methods will be used to prevent erosion of disturbed soils and stream sedimentation? In the minimal discussion of environmental effects of roads, there is no mention of standard sediment control methods (silt fence, catchment basins, etc.) typically used for land-clearing and roadbuilding projects. This section underemphasizes the potential negative effects of roads and road construction including habitat fragmentation, tree root damage, erosion and stream sedimentation, unauthorized access and poaching, increased anthropogenic fire starts, weed spread, and costs of construction, maintenance, and decommissioning.

12. Preliminary Effects — Scenery

    The unstated implication is that a Low Scenic Integrity designation (which many community members would dispute) allows activities that would not be allowed in higher Scenic Integrity categories. Is this correct? If so, we would argue that activities that degrade scenic integrity should not be allowed because it is in the community's and forest health interest to raise its integrity. Clearly, the scars left by clearcuts and road opening and building are not conducive to raising Scenic Integrity. What are the “design features … under development to further reduce potential project effects on scenic character” mentioned?

13. Preliminary Effects — Cultural Resources

    How can FS claim no effects on these before any surveys or analyses have yet occurred, as required by the NHPA Section 106? For example, there are graves in the vicinity of Parker Place in the lower portion of the Eagle Creek units where the map indicates you propose to build a road, burn, log, and mechanically thin. Also, there are many un-reclaimed historical mining sites throughout the area that are potential sources of arsenic and heavy metal pollution if disturbed or unvegetated, and these should be located and avoided. Besides historical sites within the project area, there are likely prehistorical resources that could be damaged by heavy equipment and other logging activities.

14. Preliminary Effects — Noxious Weeds

    Will heavy equipment be cleaned before brought into the project area? As noted in the PED, noxious weeds are already a problem in much of the project area due to past disturbances and lack of effective control efforts. The statement that post-treatment weed control depends on adequate funding and staff within the FS in the current and foreseeable funding environment inspires no confidence that this issue will be adequately addressed. See comment 5B above. The project must include a commitment to a comprehensive weed control plan during and after the project implementation.

15. Preliminary Effects — Hydrology

    It is well known that forests are the best protectors of watersheds regarding water quality, storm runoff rates, aquifer recharge, erosion control, and slope stabilization. Given that, the claim that clearing hundreds of acres of forest and adding miles of roads within a watershed will have negligible effects strains credulity. Soil compaction, vegetation destruction, erosion leading to stream sedimentation and channelization, and the desiccation resulting from canopy removal are all potential effects of the project on hydrology that demand detailed analysis which is not described in the PED.

16. Preliminary Effects — Effects to Fire and Fuels

    It is our understanding that the WUI boundary (which was not marked on the PED map, but shown at the 4/30 meeting) is inaccurate and currently being revised, and may ultimately be redrawn to include a much smaller area than you show. This would have implications for prioritizing where cutting, thinning, and controlled burns should happen. This revision is on track to happen before this project takes place, and we expect you to modify the plan accordingly. Also, an adjusted WUI boundary has implications for evaluating effects of the project on lynx (and snowshoe hares) and grizzly bears, necessitating appropriate re-analyses.

17. Preliminary Effects — Effects to Forested Vegetation, par. 4

    “The lack of young forests presents a concern to the long-term persistence of forest cover…” This statement incorrectly presumes that damage to a mature forest would not result in natural regeneration, and is counter to the implicit high value placed on old growth throughout other parts of this PED because you cannot get more old growth without maturing forest and time without disturbance. Clearcutting mature forest results in an even-aged young forest, and a young forest is not inherently beneficial. Clearcutting also indiscriminately removes trees that may be genetically resistant to pests and disease. Also, the last sentence in this paragraph mistakenly confuses changing the average size of the trees by disproportionally removing smaller trees with actually increasing the number of larger trees rather than simply the proportion of them.

18. Preliminary Effects — Effects to Soils p2

    It is not clear whether FS will modify or abandon the proposed treatment if the 15% DSD threshold cannot be met simply by modifying harvest methods. Please clarify, and indicate where this is needed on the map. The PED mentions ongoing analyses of soil effects. We hope this includes potential effects on herbaceous vegetation, mycorrhizae, lichen and mosses, and humus layers and the potential for repairing and restoring damage to them.

19. Effects on T&E Species — Canada Lynx

    Given the likely adverse effects, why are no mitigating activities proposed? The recent removal of the Jardine area from Lynx Critical Habitat designation has been challenged in court because there was no required public review of that decision, and the FS should assess the project effects based on it being within Critical Habitat. Under the Forest Management Plan, reduction of snowshoe hare habitat should be avoided in Lynx Critical Habitat, and forest clearing and undercover removal should not occur in those cases. Also, the percentage of the LAU that is affected within the Project Area is discounted due to the mistakenly inflated WUI, where mitigation actions are less rigorous. The admission that the project will have adverse effects demands consultation with USFWS and a Biological Opinion (BO), but the PED does not mention those results and recommendations, or even whether this has been done.

20. Effects on T&E Species — Grizzly Bear

    The PED continues to use the erroneous definition of secure habitat as 10 or more acre patches more than 500 meters from roads, which has been debunked in court during the SPLAT suit. In fact, the criteria is 2500 acre patches over 500 meters from roads, resulting in a drastic reduction in the amount of secure habitat that will remain during the project implementation. Claiming that temporary (less than 4 years) displacement of bears constitutes insignificant and tolerable effects is disputable. The admission that the project will have adverse effects demands consultation with USFWS and a Biological Opinion (BO), but the PED does not mention those results and recommendations, or even whether this has been done.

21. Effects on T&E Species — Suckley's Cuckoo Bumble Bee

    Given the uncertainty of the bee's likely presence and when and where it could be affected, it seems feasible to have specific project sites surveyed by an expert before their location is finalized.

22. Effects on T&E Species — Whitebark Pine

    As regards Clark's Nutcracker, given their interdependence with WBP, and that they also feed on Limber pine seeds especially on poor WBP cone years, it seems prudent to not cut any 5-needle pines, even outside of WBP management areas. We are aware that there is controversy within the WBP management community about the benefits of the Daylighting method you are proposing, and are encouraged that you are committed to adhering to the most up-to-date recommendations of the BO, and avoid treatments that could damage WBP seedlings and saplings.

23. Preliminary Economic Analysis

    This analysis is too narrow and cursory. As mentioned above, the economic effects on the greater Gardiner community are of great concern, as indicated by the disapproval of the project by the Gardiner Chamber of Commerce. Gardiner depends on tourists having a positive experience while visiting and the numerous disturbances created by this project will undermine attempts to provide this, likely cancelling any beneficial effects. A much more detailed analysis is warranted, including effects on vacation rentals and property values in Jardine and Gardiner, damage to public infrastructure, estimated profits from timber sales, and an estimate of the net costs of planning, implementation, and site rehabilitation and monitoring to the FS.

24. Conclusion

    The FONSI on the human environment is clearly not supported by the predominant community response to this proposal. Who is better to make that determination than the people who will incur the costs but not the benefits of this unnecessary action? At minimum a comprehensive effects analysis comparable to that of a full EIS is warranted; including quantitative measures of effects wherever possible, full consideration of multiple project alternatives, and an administrative review after public input. Please see the endorsements (5E above) for further development of the points raised herein.

Respectfully submitted,
Barbara Ulrich
President, Bear Creek Council