A coalition of wildlife advocates, hunters and anglers filed suit, challenging the U.S. Forest Service’s (USFS) decision on a revised forest plan for the Helena portion of the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest, stating it abandoned all 10 “crucial wildlife standards” that have guided wildlife habitat.
“The 10 wildlife standards were essential for maintaining habitat for wildlife such as grizzly bears, lynx and big game including bighorn sheep,” said Jocelyn Leroux, Washington and Montana director with Western Watersheds Project. “However, with the removal of these protective 10 standards, the Forest Service completely failed to consider what the cumulative impacts of climate change and other uses such as business as usual livestock grazing might have on wildlife.”
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana in July, claims USFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The coalition asserts USFS and USFWS did not consider the removal of the wildlife standards from the Helena Forest Plan and their effect on big game or threatened species, including grizzly bears and lynx in the Helena National Forest.
In October 2021, USFS issued its final record of decision covering the nearly 2.8 million acres for the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest—the former Helena National Forest and Lewis and Clark National Forest combined in 2015—covering management for the next 15 years. Since the fall of 2014, USFS has worked on the revision with several opportunities for public comment throughout the process. The plaintiffs—Western Watersheds Project, the Sierra Club, WildEarth Guardians and the Helena Hunters and Anglers Association—objected to the revision.
Gayle Joslin, Helena Hunters and Anglers Association board member and retired wildlife biologist, said in a statement the organization has been working on the Helena portion with USFS since 1986.
“We are extremely concerned with the Service’s decision to abandon all the wildlife standards that were in the previous plan and were based on peer-reviewed science. The intent is clearly to preempt the public’s ability to hold the Forest Service accountable for its actions,” Joslin said.
The 10 standards called for USFS to maintain adequate thermal and hiding cover on essential summer and winter ranges, perform a hiding cover analysis on projects, and maintain at least 35 percent hiding cover in elk summer range and at least 25 percent thermal cover in elk winter range. Additionally, it called for banning motorized vehicles on elk calving grounds and winter range areas.
The standards also called on USFS to follow the Montana Cooperative Elk-Logging Study’s recommendations for road construction and timber harvests and mapping all summer/fall/winter elk ranges. Additionally, it called for USFS to analyze impacts on big game winter range, protect bighorn sheep and mountain goat range and maintain moose habitat.
In addition to abandoning the wildlife standards, the suit further contends the plan allows an expansion of fuel treatment in the forest that encompasses large areas of lynx habitat. The revised plan also removes grizzly bear habitat standards in many of the areas in the national forest important for grizzly bear movement and connectivity between grizzly populations in Montana, including the Upper Blackfoot and Continental Divide areas, the groups contend.
The suit states the revised plan violates Section 7 of the ESA, as it does not specify the amount of incidental take in the proposed actions, and USFWS must prepare a biological opinion to determine whether the action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the grizzly bears that are listed as threatened. It further asserts the agencies violated the ESA, as they failed to evaluate and analyze how the decision to remove all 10 wildlife standards for big game may affect grizzly bears, lynx and critical lynx habitat.
The suit claims the decision also violated NEPA, as USFS did not adequately disclose, consider, and analyze the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of its proposed actions.
The coalition is asking the judge to vacate the Helena National Forest portion of the revised forest plan pending compliance with the law and to remand the matter back to the agencies to comply with NEPA and the ESA. — Charles Wallace, WLJ editor
