Misleading claims about the Eastside Project

by Tyler Durden, Florence

The opinion piece entitled “Massive Deforestation Project Halted” written by Mike Garrity, Executive Director, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, misrepresents both the intent and environmental value of the Forest Service’s Eastside Project in Montana’s Bitterroot Valley. Framing this carefully designed forest restoration effort as “massive deforestation” is not only inaccurate—it’s misleading and harmful to the public understanding of science-based land stewardship.

Let us be clear: the Eastside Project is not a deforestation effort. It is a forest restoration and fuels reduction project, specifically developed to reduce wildfire risk, restore ecological resilience, and improve wildlife habitat across fire-adapted landscapes. The project will not remove any trees greater than 10 inches in diameter, focusing instead on removing small-diameter trees and ladder fuels that contribute to catastrophic wildfires.

These types of low-impact, science-driven treatments reflect the best practices of modern forest management and are designed in collaboration with partners and wildlife specialists to avoid harming sensitive habitat.

Ironically, by halting this project, the groups filing the lawsuit are undermining the very species they claim to protect. Meadows, grasslands, and wetlands are critical to the survival of grizzly bears, particularly in spring and summer when they rely on these open areas to forage for roots, grasses, and berries that help them build up fat reserves before hibernation.

Dense, overgrown forests choke out these habitats. Controlled thinning and prescribed fire are tools used to restore and maintain meadows and early-successional habitats—landscape features that support not only grizzlies but a wide range of species, including deer, elk, and native pollinators.

Additionally, these meadows and wetlands retain snowmelt and gradually release it into streams and rivers, benefiting aquatic species and maintaining cool water flows that are essential to fish like bull trout, another species listed under the Endangered Species Act.

The claim that the Forest Service ignored bull trout and their critical habitat is misleading. The Eastside Project was designed specifically to improve watershed conditions by reducing the risk of high-severity wildfire that can destroy streamside vegetation, increase sedimentation, and raise water temperatures—all of which are lethal to bull trout. Treatments near riparian areas are limited, carefully reviewed, and guided by best available science to ensure protection of water quality and aquatic ecosystems.

The article incorrectly portrays the use of a categorical exclusion (CE) as a loophole or illegal shortcut. In fact, this CE was authorized by Congress for exactly this kind of project: hazardous fuels reduction in forests at high risk of wildfire, especially in areas near communities and critical habitat. It is not intended for minor actions like “painting an outhouse”—it is a legal and appropriate tool for implementing time-sensitive, science-backed restoration.

Moreover, contrary to the claim that the public is being shut out, each treatment under this project must go through further environmental review and follow existing laws. The Forest Service has made clear that the location, scope, and timing of treatments will be subject to site-specific planning before any implementation begins.

If the Eastside Project is delayed indefinitely, the result will be more overcrowded forests, greater fire risk, degraded meadows, and worsening habitat conditions for grizzly bears, bull trout and their critical habitat, and other sensitive species like Canada lynx and wolverines.

Instead of helping wildlife, this lawsuit risks increasing the severity of wildfires that can destroy entire watersheds in a matter of days—an outcome that science tells us is far more damaging to threatened species than the carefully targeted, light-touch restoration proposed in this plan.

We should be investing in collaborative, science-informed forest management that restores ecosystem function, protects wildlife, and makes our forests more resilient to wildfire and climate change. The Eastside Project does exactly that. Halting it based on mischaracterizations and procedural technicalities serves neither the public interest nor the long-term health of Montana’s forests and wildlife.