logo
Conservation groups, Forest Service, argue merits and harms of Big Belts logging operation

Conservation groups, Forest Service, argue merits and harms of Big Belts logging operation

Yahoo03-06-2025
(Photo courtesy of Pixabay | Public domain).
Conservation groups argued in federal court that a forest management project comprising 1,241 acres of timber harvest east of Helena may violate several federal statutes, but the government lawyers said rules were followed and the timber sale has economic and public interest benefits.
Three conservation groups, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Native Ecosystems Council and the Council on Fish and Wildlife filed suit against the U.S. Forest Service in the U.S. District Court in Missoula against the Wood Duck Project and seek a preliminary injunction to halt work.
On Tuesday, they argued their case before Judge Dana Christensen, alleging the project violates the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act, that the government had failed to include data showing possible negative impact on wildlife, and that the Forest Service had ignored points of concern from the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
'This is not just a procedural claim. It is a hard look at substantive environmental protections,' Rebecca Smith, counsel for the conservation groups, said during arguments on June 3.
Smith argued two species in particular would be harmed by the logging project — elk and grizzly bears — due to an increased density of temporary roads constructed.
As part of the forest management project, two companies were awarded timber sales.
One company, Sun Mountain Lumber, which was awarded 356 acres of timber sale, filed as a party to the lawsuit, claiming substantial harm if the project is halted.
Sun Mountain Lumber began its operations on the sale last fall, constructing several miles of temporary road and cutting 199 acres of lumber, according to court documents. Its operations are expected to resume around mid-June.
Judge Christensen raised the timing of the lawsuit as a potential issue to the plaintiff's claims.
'I don't understand, when we've got an (environmental assessment) that was issued in April of 2024, a contract that was awarded to Sun Mountain on September 17 of 2024, why we had to wait until logging activities are about to resume up there… and come into this court and seek temporary relief?' Christensen said. 'That concerns me.'
The Wood Duck Project is located in the Townsend Ranger District of the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest in the Big Belt Mountains. The total project area is roughly 70,000 acres, of which there will be 1,241 acres of commercial logging, 15 miles of temporary road construction, 10 miles of road reconstruction and 8 miles of road reconditioning.
A portion of the temporary roads will be constructed in elk wintering grounds, according to the project plan, which the plaintiffs argue will decrease elk habitat effectiveness.
'90 to 95% of the elk in this hunting district are already being displaced from public National Forest lands because of poor (habitat) elk security. And these are areas that would otherwise provide good elk habitat if there was security,' Smith said, quoting from comments made by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks about the project. 'There is nowhere in the project (environmental assessment) that the Forest Service disclose to the public that the current status of this area is that already 90 to 95% of elk are being displaced.'
The plaintiffs also challenged the logging project on the basis of affecting grizzly bear habitat connectivity. Although there is no known population of grizzlies in the Big Belts, the area provides a possible route between grizzlies in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, centered around the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, and Yellowstone National Park. The plaintiffs argued that increased road density harms that connectivity.
'(Part of the project area) already has a road density of 2.6 miles per square mile. That is far and away, a road density level that is too high for grizzly bears,' Smith said. '…It's not really possible for the Forest Service to say that it's maintaining connectivity for grizzly bears in this area.'
But Assistant U.S. Attorney Abby Nordhagen Cziok, said the plaintiffs were mischaracterizing their arguments as a 'false choice between logging, and elk and grizzly bears.'
'Really this entire case is meant to work towards vegetative desired conditions, and that means ensuring that there's health in the forest, making sure that the trees are resilient to changes in the environment, like fires, drought, disease,' Cziok said, adding that the species of concern would ultimately benefit.
In her arguments, Cziok said the plaintiffs had failed to show they would suffer irreparable harm from the logging, the last-minute timeline showed a lack of urgency, and the Forest Service's environmental assessment had correctly weighed possible harms to wildlife.
Cziok added the logging project was substantially changed during the public processes that accompany an environmental assessment, including in response to comments by FWP, cutting it from a 3,000-acre logging operation to one half that size.
'Really, the project we are considering today is not the same project that Fish, Wildlife and Parks wrote to the Forest Service about. It's a very different project,' she told the court. 'Importantly, at the beginning of that letter Fish, Wildlife and Parks said, 'We are generally in favor of this project.' That's because this project seeks to maintain a healthy, diverse forest.'
Tyson McLean, attorney for Sun Mountain Lumber, said the company has made significant investment in the Wood Duck sale, could lose up to $3 million in revenue if the sale is halted, and that the harvested lumber would support operations of the company's lumber mills for months.
At a time where lumber mills in Montana have been closing due to labor shortages and low lumber prices, timber sales like Wood Duck are essential to the remaining mills, McLean said.
'Sun Mountain employs approximately 65 people at its Livingston mill whose livelihoods would be jeopardized by the delay or cancellation of harvest activities,' he told the court. 'Sun Mountain is unable to pivot and find another viable option to replace the raw material that they are planning on or the volume of timber from the Wood Duck timber sale.'
'It's too late,' McLean said.
Smith, on behalf of the conservation groups, said at the end of arguments that because the Sun Mountain timber sale was partially completed, the plaintiffs would be open to allowing the remaining 143 acres to be logged, and would seek an injunction against the remaining timber sales.
Christensen said he would work to deliver an expedient ruling due to the impending restart of Sun Mountain's operations, but again took issue with the plaintiff's last-minute actions in the case.
'I do not like getting motions for temporary restraining orders days or weeks before a project is to recommence where logging has already taken place, when this claim could have been brought 10 months ago,' Christensen said. 'I am getting overwhelmed with requests for temporary restraining orders — overwhelmed — and every time a temporary restraining order is filed … that takes priority over everything else that I'm doing. And when I have a case where the issues could have been brought before me months ago that now has found its way into a temporary restraining order, I'm concerned.'
Two of the conservation groups were previously successful in halting a large-scale logging project near Townsend in 2024, settling a suit with the Forest Service. The settlement allowed the government to proceed with a project tens of thousands of acres smaller than originally proposed.
Wood Duck preliminary injunction brief
U.S. Forest Service opposition to motion for injunction
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump Hands Elon Musk Big Win With New Order
Trump Hands Elon Musk Big Win With New Order

Newsweek

timean hour ago

  • Newsweek

Trump Hands Elon Musk Big Win With New Order

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday that directed federal agencies to cut or speed up regulatory reviews for commercial rocket launches. The order, which was designed to "eliminate outdated, redundant, or overly restrictive rules for launch and reentry vehicles," concerns the types of launches carried out by SpaceX, one of Musk's largest companies. Newsweek reached out to SpaceX via email for comment. Why It Matters SpaceX is the world's most valuable private startup, with a value of $350 billion. Musk's shares in the company are the largest singular contributor to his net worth, after Tesla's lackluster first quarter in 2025. SpaceX holds several major contracts with NASA and the federal government and is responsible for regular resupply and manned missions to the International Space Station (ISS). Elon Musk and Donald Trump address reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on May 30, 2025. Elon Musk and Donald Trump address reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on May 30, To Know The executive order directed Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy to review Part 450 of FAA regulations governing launch licensing and to remove or revise rules deemed obsolete or overly restrictive for launch and reentry vehicles, potentially speeding approvals for multiple-launch licensing and novel activities. The president's directive also elevated the Office of Space Commerce to report directly to the Commerce secretary and made the head of the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation a political appointee, changes the White House said would give commercial space greater priority. SpaceX, the most frequent U.S. launcher and the company developing the large Starship system, stands to gain the most from these changes, as it conducts regular commercial launches to test Starship and maintain the Starlink network. The order also instructed Duffy to work with the Council on Environmental Quality to eliminate or expedite environmental reviews for launches, including reviews carried out under the National Environmental Policy Act. SpaceX conducts several launches a month. These are normally a mix of private commercial flights and collaborations with NASA, which contracts Musk's company for regular flights to the ISS. What People Are Saying SpaceX restated its goals for reaching Mars in a March statement: "Expansion of Starship production and launch operations in Florida will enable SpaceX to significantly increase the build and flight rates for Starship, which will be the first rapidly and fully reusable launch vehicle in history. "Access to space is a critical and growing need for U.S. national security, leadership in science, the country's exploration goals, and for the growth of the economy. Starship will ultimately be responsible for sending millions of tons of payload to Mars—building a self-sustaining city to make humanity multiplanetary." What Happens Next SpaceX will continue with commercial and NASA-backed launches throughout the year while the directive takes effect.

Environmental concerns could halt construction at Florida's ‘Alligator Alcatraz'
Environmental concerns could halt construction at Florida's ‘Alligator Alcatraz'

Boston Globe

time16 hours ago

  • Boston Globe

Environmental concerns could halt construction at Florida's ‘Alligator Alcatraz'

President Advertisement Environmental groups and a Native American tribe have sued over the facility, saying it was hastily set up without the environmental impact considerations needed for all federal projects, even though it deals with immigration, a federal matter. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'It just flies in the face of what NEPA requires,' said Paul Schwiep, an attorney for the environmental groups, referring to the National Environmental Policy Act. Florida and the Trump administration argue that the state is building and operating the detention center, so those rules about an environmental review don't apply. Adam Gustafson, an attorney for the federal government, said during the hearing's closing arguments Wednesday that the federal government only plays an advisory role at the facility. The judge last week said the center was, at a minimum, a joint partnership between the state and federal government. Advertisement The first phase of 'Alligator Alcatraz' opened in July atop a lightly used, single-runway training airport. Less than 1,000 detainees were being held there as of last week, and it's designed to eventually hold up to 3,000 people. Inside the compound's large white tents, rows of bunkbeds are surrounded by chain-link cages. People held there say worms turn up in the food, toilets don't flush, and floors flood with fecal waste, while mosquitoes and other insects are everywhere. At times, the air conditioners abruptly shut off in the sweltering heat. Detainees are said to go days without showering or getting prescription medicine, and can only speak to lawyers and loved ones by phone. Governor Ron DeSantis has said the location in the rugged and remote Everglades was meant as a deterrent against escape, much like the island prison in California that Republicans named it after. The detention center has an estimated annual cost of $450 million, according to a public database. When asked by the judge why a detention facility needed to be located in the middle of the Everglades, Jesse Panuccio, an attorney representing the state of Florida, referred to government officials' statements that the remote location and existing runway made it ideal for immigration detention. Williams pointed out that many other detention centers were operated safely and effectively in urban areas. 'Florida is lousy with airports,' the judge said. 'Why in the middle of the Everglades?' Witnesses for the environmental groups have testified that at least 20 acres of asphalt have been added to the site since the Florida Division of Emergency Management began construction. They said additional paving could lead to an increase in water runoff to the adjacent wetlands, spread harmful chemicals into the Everglades, and reduce the habitat for endangered Florida panthers. Advertisement Chris Ajizian, an attorney for the Miccosukee Tribe, said that neither the state nor federal government gave the tribe any notice of their plans for a detention facility, despite legal obligations and the tribe's incontrovertible connection to the Everglades. 'It is the lifeblood of their community, their history and their identity,' Ajizian said during the hearing's closing. The lawsuit was being heard as DeSantis′ administration was preparing to build a second immigration detention center at a Florida National Guard training center in the state's north. A second lawsuit claims detainees' constitutional rights are being violated because they are barred from meeting lawyers, are being held without any charges, and a federal immigration court has canceled bond hearings. Over the weekend, a federal judge gave the state until late September to prepare arguments against an effort to get the civil rights litigation certified as a class action.

Judge to rule within a week on whether to temporarily shutter Alligator Alcatraz
Judge to rule within a week on whether to temporarily shutter Alligator Alcatraz

Miami Herald

time16 hours ago

  • Miami Herald

Judge to rule within a week on whether to temporarily shutter Alligator Alcatraz

The fate of Alligator Alcatraz is now in the hands of a Miami federal judge who over the last four months sanctioned Florida's Republican attorney general and blocked police from enforcing a new state immigration law. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams said Wednesday following days of testimony about the environmental impacts of the Everglades immigration detention camp that she plans to rule no later than Aug. 21 on a request to temporarily shut it down. Were she to side with the plaintiffs, it would be a significant blow to the Trump and DeSantis administrations, which have touted the hastily constructed detention center as a successful new tool in the president's mass-deportation campaign. Williams, an Obama appointee, is presiding over a lawsuit filed by Friends of the Everglades, the Center for Biological Diversity, Earthjustice and the Miccosukee Tribe alleging the federal government and the state dodged federal environmental regulations. They say the DeSantis and Trump administrations ignored the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires environmental review for any 'major' federal action. Williams has already given the plaintiffs a small victory in the case. As part of unexpectedly long multiple-day proceedings, Williams last week placed a restraining order on construction at the site until Aug. 21. She said Wednesday that she would issue her ruling on the proposed temporary injunction halting Alligator Alcatraz operations within that timeframe. An injunction would hold until a verdict is reached in the case, unless a government appeal on the ruling is successful. State lawyers said during the hearing they plan to appeal immediately if Williams issues an injunction. In order for an injunction to go into place, the environmental groups and the Miccosukee Tribe have to prove there will be 'irreparable harm' done to the environment around the site, plus a high likelihood that they will win the case. They also have to prove that damages to the ecosystem will outweigh any harm done to the government if the facility is shut down. Lawyers from the Trump and DeSantis administrations have dismissed concerns about environmental damages. But they have also argued jurisdictional issues, saying NEPA doesn't apply to Alligator Alcatraz because it is state-run and state-funded. 'A local plan does not become a major federal action upon federal approval,' said state lawyer Jesse Panuccio, citing case law. The question of who runs the site — since immigration enforcement is a federal power — has hovered over the environmental lawsuit and puzzled immigration lawyers attempting to get access to their clients – the subject of another ongoing suit playing out in a courtroom across the hall from Williams' chamber. The government lawyers in both cases have argued that the state's various federal agreements affording law enforcement immigration-enforcement powers give the state the authority to manage the site — though the Florida Division of Emergency Management, tasked with running it, does not have such an agreement. The federal 287(g) program underpinning those agreements initiates a partnership, federal lawyers argued in the environmental case, but it doesn't cede state control of its own facilities to the federal government. The state had full control over planning and executing the facility, and as now it has full control over managing it, state lawyers added. Lawyers for the environmental advocacy groups and the Miccosukee have pointed out that 287(g) agreements authorize local and state law enforcement officers to operate 'under the color of federal authority,' with the supervision of the U.S. Attorney General and Immigration and Customs Enforcement approval. They argue that makes Alligator Alcatraz a federal facility. 'The buck has to stop with ICE,' said Paul Schwiep, a lawyer representing the environmental groups in the case. Williams also questioned federal and state lawyers about what level of harm it would do to close Alligator Alcatraz in particular. She agreed an additional immigration detention center relieves overcrowding at other facilities in Florida, but she pushed for answers on why a new facility had to be built in the midst of Big Cypress National Preserve, asking if the governments involved had considered any other options. The federal and state lawyers said the remoteness of the facility was a factor, but Williams pointed out that other detention centers were within the bounds of cities. 'Why there?' Williams asked.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store