Going through the Fix Our Forests litigation tweaks (which hopefully someone understands better than I), I was reminded of another Nick Smith story about the Pintler Face Project on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge. I did see a time limit for filing in Fix our Forests, which seems like a good idea, especially when we look at this case.
According to AFRC,
Almost three years after the Pintler Face Project’s approval, and after nearly half of the commercial timber harvest had been completed, anti-forestry groups filed a complaint alleging that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Three months later, just as commercial harvest was about to resume, anti-forestry groups filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to halt all project activities, alleging irreparable harm under their NEPA and ESA claims.
On June 25, Judge Christensen held a hearing on the preliminary injunction, with strong support for the Forest Service, AFRC, and Defendant-Intervenors, evidenced by over 30 supporters present in the courtroom. This community support underscores the importance of projects like Pintler Face, which benefit forest health and the rural communities relying on a steady source of timber from federal lands.
In his decision, Judge Christensen ruled that the commercial harvest component of the project, encompassing 3,934 acres, can proceed. However, the non-commercial work, covering 7,765 acres, is enjoined until the court decides the case’s merits. Operations, which were suspended in May, can now resume on July 16 following the spring bear season’s close.
The Pintler Face Project includes four timber sales, all timber salvage contracts aimed at removing dead and dying trees from pine beetle infestations. One sale is complete, two are approximately 25 to 30 percent complete, and the last is set to begin in November.
Anti-forestry challenged the project based on a remapping of lynx habitat by the Forest Service in 2020, which reduced habitat without a NEPA analysis. They also contested the adequacy of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion (BiOp) for the project concerning the grizzly bear.
During the hearing, the federal attorneys argued for the dismissal of anti-forestry groups’ claims on the 2020 remapping due to their failure to raise concerns during the project’s objection and public commenting period. The government also argued against the preliminary injunction, highlighting the groups’ nearly three-year delay after the project’s approval in 2021 to file their motion.
In denying the injunction, Judge Christensen recognized that enjoining the project’s commercial activities would harm the local, timber-dependent communities, noting the significant economic investments made and the many jobs provided by Iron Pine and Sun Mountain. The judge highlighted the salvage nature of the commercial work: “Because dead and dying timber loses its commercial value rapidly, even a short-term injunction would jeopardize the local economy.”
Here’s a link to the project site. It has a 367 page EA, an 84 page Decision Notice, and the Decision Notice was signed on 9/09/21. To me, the timing of half-way through the completion of the project seems odd. I wonder why the plaintiffs chose that timeframe.
The story says plaintiffs “challenged the project based on a remapping of lynx habitat by the Forest Service in 2020, which reduced habitat without a NEPA analysis.” Not to sound too Ohio Forestry-esque, but mapping without specific projects doesn’t actually reduce habitat. And that was done in 2020 before the decision was made, so they could have commented or objected. There must be more here than meets the eye. Plus the trees involved are dead or dying. Guess who the plaintiffs are? AWR, Native Ecosystems Council and a group called Yellowstone to Uintas. Y to U advocates for a wildlife corridor, from Yellowstone to the Uinta Mountains in Utah. Now I’m not the greatest at Montana geography, but the site of the Pinteler project doesn’t seem anywhere near the corridor that Y to U’s are proposing.
Anyway, back to the discussion we had here. There is something different about Montana (or R-1) and I think it’s due to the presence of certain litigation-oriented groups. And I don’t think the FS or BLM proposing only projects supported by AWR is a good solution.
Dead forests make for very poor wildlife corridors. Properly managed forests are much better for retaining canopy cover than the ‘Whatever Happens’ style of management that some people desire.