by Sarah Glass
U.S. District Judge of the District of Montana Dana Christensen published his opinion and order on a case concerning Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections related to road building and motorized vehicle usage in the Bitterroot National Forest, Tuesday, June 9.
Conservation groups, including Friends of the Bitterroot, Friends of the Clearwater, Wildearth Guardians and Native Ecosystem Council, represented by Earthjustice, won multiple court claims. The court recognized that the impacts of Amendment 40, introduced in 2023 to the Forest Plan for the Bitterroot National Forest, was implemented without federal agencies taking the required “hard look” at available scientific material that would affirm the impacts it might have on grizzly bear and bull trout. Both species are listed as being “threatened” under the ESA.
According to Judge Christensen’s case document, “The crux of this case is whether the agencies [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and U.S. Forest Service (FS)] adequately considered the impact Amendment 40 – a programmatic elk standard amendment that eliminated prior restrictions on road densities and motorized access – would have on grizzly bears and bull trout.”
“Road densities” is a metric used to help assess habitat fragmentation and avoid adverse wildlife disturbances. Typically, such roads are used for wildlife management, wildfire mitigation, recreation and timber harvesting.
The document further states, “the Forest Service removed this standard because it: (1) constrained the agency’s ability to undertake activities that would benefit elk; (2) was no longer based on the best available science for elk prosperity; and (3) was consistently being abrogated through project-specific amendments. FS010225–30.”
The case alleging ESA violations was filed in December of 2024. The June 9 decision mandates further briefing to determine the “potential disruptive consequences of either vacatur or the failure to vacate” Amendment 40.
While the amendment does not authorize any specific road-related activities, Judge Christensen surmised that it “permits the approval of site-specific projects that could increase road density” and that this “is the very problem.”
According to court documents, it “permits sediment-producing project activity that would otherwise be foreclosed by current open road density limitations.”
The judge agreed with the plaintiffs that the FS and FWS did not review the best available science when considering the potential impact Amendment 40 might have on ESA-listed species; the ways in which roadbuilding and motorized vehicle use in the Bitterroot National Forest could deter grizzly bear recovery and contribute to the degradation and sedimentation of bull trout habitat were overlooked.
The Bitterroot Ecosystem, as recognized by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, is considered one of the best places in the lower 48 states for grizzly bear recovery to occur. While multiple grizzlies have been sighted in the Bitterroot since 2007, the defendants stood by a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis that stated, “the Bitterroot National Forest is currently unoccupied by grizzly bears” and “reoccurring grizzly bear use does not occur in the action area at this time.”
In a June 9 press release from Earthjustice, WildEarth Guardians rewilding manager Adam Rissien commented on the case decision, saying, “This is a big win for grizzly bears. The court affirmed what we all know – roads are bad for grizzly bears, and they need large areas of intact habitat if they are ever to reoccupy the Bitterroot Mountains.”
FWS and FS received a favorable ruling in their defense that they were not required by law to file an Environmental Impact Statement for Amendment 40.
Judge Christensen ordered the plaintiffs and defendants to file briefs on the issue of remedy by the end of June.
Leave a Reply