FOLLOW US

Several environmental groups have urged the Ninth Circuit to uphold a Montana federal judge's decision halting a large logging operation in the Kootenai National Forest over concerns about the project's effect on grizzly bears and old-growth trees.

The green groups argued Friday in separate briefs that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Forest Service erred in backing the Black Ram Project in the Kootenai National Forest, saying the logging project would significantly harm a small grizzly bear population in the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem in northwestern Montana and northeastern Idaho.

The federal government has violated the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act with its faulty analysis of the logging project, according to the brief from the Center for Biological Diversity, Yaak Valley Forest Council, and WildEarth Guardians.

"Contrary to the agencies' assertions, they relied on stale population data and disregarded the documented decrease in the minimum number of grizzlies detected and the simultaneous increase in bear mortalities over the past several years," the brief said. "The agencies failed to provide an accurate baseline for assessing project impacts, as mandated by the ESA's 'best available science' requirement, and mistakenly concluded that the project would not jeopardize grizzly bear conservation."

Andrea Zaccardi, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, told Law360 on Monday that the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service are wrong to rely on outdated data to support their assumption that the population of grizzly bears in the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem in northwest Montana is growing.

"If you look at recent data from the past several years, it shows that mortalities are on the rise and grizzly bear detection has been decreasing," Zaccardi said. "The agencies ignored that data or disregarded it to present an optimistic picture of the grizzly bear population that is already small and struggling and not meeting recovery goals. The Fish and Wildlife Service found that the project would not jeopardize grizzly bears, but it admitted that the project will harm reproductive success for at least three female bears who are using the area."

Meanwhile, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and the Native Ecosystems Council argued in their Friday brief that the Ninth Circuit should either dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction or affirm U.S. District Judge Donald W. Molloy's August decision that vacated the Forest Service's approval of the Black Ram Project and the Fish and Wildlife Service's finding that the logging would have no significant environmental impact.

"Since the Forest Service did not appeal all of the claims it lost, or appeal the remedy issued (vacatur), the Black Ram Project decision will remain vacated, and the plaintiffs will remain prevailing parties regardless of the outcome of this appeal," the brief said.

The U.S. government asked the Ninth Circuit on March 22 to overturn the Montana federal judge's decision halting the large logging operation in the Kootenai National Forest over concerns about the project's effect on grizzly bears and old-growth trees.

Judge Molloy's August 17 ruling vacated federal analyses of the Black Ram Project's impact on the environment and endangered species and the service's finding that the logging would have no significant environmental impact.

Overriding pleas from the Forest Service and appellant Kootenai Tribe of Idaho not to stop the logging operation, the judge said their legal errors were serious while the disruptive consequences of vacatur were relatively minor.

On Friday, the Forest Service told the Ninth Circuit that Judge Molloy's ruling must be overturned because he failed to properly defer to the federal government's judgment on scientific and factual matters.

The district court judge sided with the environmental groups, finding that the Fish and Wildlife Service did not use the best available science for grizzly population size estimates in its biological opinion and that the Forest Service acted arbitrarily in relying on the analysis.

"Fish and Wildlife relied on a comprehensive study of grizzly population size and a well-accepted statistical method for projecting that population size forward. It also explained why the data plaintiffs and the district court relied on was 'an over-simplification of population biology,'" the federal government said in its opening brief.

The Center for Biological Diversity and other green groups also won on their claims in district court that the road density in the project area violated the National Forest Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, but the government argued that the judge got those issues wrong, too.

"The Forest Service complied with NFMA's requirement that the project be consistent with its Forest Plan," the March 22 brief said. "The Forest Service explained at length how the project met, or improved upon, existing metrics relating to road density designed to ensure sufficient core habitat for grizzly bears."

A Forest Service representative declined to comment Monday, saying it is the agency's practice not to comment on pending litigation. Counsel for the tribe did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

The Center for Biological Diversity, Yaak Valley Forest Council and WildEarth Guardians are represented by Andrea Zaccardi and Edward B. Zukoski of the Center for Biological Diversity.

The Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Native Ecosystems Council are represented by Rebecca K. Smith of the Public Interest Defense Center PC and Timothy M. Bechtold of Bechtold Law Firm.

The government is represented by Todd Kim, Thekla Hansen-Young, Hayley A. Carpenter, Erika A. Furlong, John P. Tustin, and Jacob D. Ecker of the U.S. Department of Justice's Environment and Natural Resources Division; Elise Foster of the U.S. Department of Agriculture; and Kathryn L. Williams-Shuck and Sarah E. McLain of the U.S. Department of the Interior.

The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho is represented by Julie A. Weis of Haglund Kelley LLP.

The cases are Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. U.S. Forest Service et al., case number 23-2882, Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. U.S. Forest Service et al., case number 23-2886, and Yaak Valley Forest Council et al. v. U.S. Forest Service et al., case number 23-3146, all in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.