Groups threaten to sue Forest Service over road plans in Bitterroot

The Bitterroot Mountains of the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in Montana. (Photo by Getty Images.)

A Bozeman-based environmental law firm on Tuesday gave the U.S. Forest Service notice it intends to sue if the agency does not change plans to amend the Bitterroot National Forest’s Forest Plan in a manner that doesn’t violate Endangered Species Act’s protections for grizzly bears and bull trout.

The law firm Earthjustice sent notice to the Forest Service and the Bitterroot National Forest on behalf of conservation groups Friends of the Bitterroot, Friends of the Clearwater, Native Ecosystems Council and WildEarth Guardians.

The groups allege the updated plans would eliminate limitations on road density within the national forest, leading to more road building on forest land, which would harm grizzlies and bull trout by encroaching on their territory and dumping sediment into streams and rivers.

“Allowing an increase in the number of roads on the Bitterroot National Forest will further diminish the wild character of the forest, fragment wildlife habitat, and irreparably harm existing ecosystems,” Friends of the Bitterroot President Jim Miller said in a statement. “Extensive human intrusions into the forest have already done enough damage and the Forest Service cannot adequately maintain the existing road system. It is time to recognize the forest is a classroom and not a place to satisfy human wants and desires.”

Last September, the Forest Service issued its final decision on amending the Bitterroot National Forest’s 1987 Forest Plan, which the group threatening to sue says relied on a 2021 biological opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that the groups believe was deficient in considering ESA impacts to grizzlies and bull trout.

The group’s threat to sue says the Forest Service amendment removes “longstanding” management directions to remove or close roads within the forest before any new roads are built or opened.

“While originally intended to protect elk, this limitation on open-road densities also protected the Forest’s grizzly bear and bull trout habitat,” the letter to the Forest Service officials said. “However, Amendment 40 abandoned this protective requirement, instead allowing the Forest Service to open or build unlimited road miles in Forest drainages without closing comparable road miles as was previously required.”

The final decision found the amendment would not negatively affect grizzly bears if it kept roads out of 95% of forest land in grizzly bear habitat on which they currently exist. But the conservation groups said the Forest Service in the amendment “overinflates” its calculations to find secure grizzly bear habitat can be as small as one acre.

The letter says the amendment allows the Forest Service to “open or construct new roads without closing other roads,” which they say goes against research that shows grizzly bear populations can suffer when road densities in their habitat increase.

The groups say that part of the decision to count single-acre parts of roadless land was made because there was no current research on grizzly bear habitat use for the Bitterroot Ecosystem. That area is currently being considered for grizzly bear restoration, as it sits between the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem and is seen by some as key to ensuring genetic connectivity between the two ecosystems.

“In practice, then, Amendment 40 allows the Forest Service to checkerboard the Bitterroot National Forest with roads open to motorize use without meaningfully decreasing administrative calculations of secure core intended to limit road use and protect grizzly bears,” the letter says.

Regarding bull trout, the conservation groups contend that allowing for more roads and motorized access on forest lands would jeopardize the threatened fish and that the Forest Service did not consider impacts to the species when making its decision.

“The facts and science do not support the Forest Service’s conclusion that Amendment 40 to the Bitterroot Forest Plan will have no effect on bull trout, which informed the agency’s conclusion not to consult with FWS,” the letter says, claiming that decision violated the Endangered Species Act.

“The Bitterroot National Forest has thousands of miles of roads that continue to choke streams with sediment and fragment wildlife habitat, hindering the recovery of bull trout and grizzly bears,” said WildEarth Gurdians’ rewilding manager Adam Rissien. “This is not the time to abandon safeguards and expand road building, especially in areas where grizzly bears need better habitat security.”