Four conservation organizations claim in a new federal lawsuit the United States Forest Service could be logging and using prescribed burns in one of Montana’s best-known recreational areas without presenting required research that would demonstrate the project isn’t negatively impacting a handful of threatened or endangered species.

Attorneys for the Gallatin Wildlife Association, Alliance for The Wild Rockies, Native Ecosystems Council, and Council on Wildlife and Fish say logging and burning on more than 5,600 acres between Hyalite and South Cottonwood canyons, south of Bozeman in the Gallatin Mountains would mean cutting through old-growth forests, building new roads and negatively impact threatened species ranging from Canada lynx to Northern goshawks to whitebark pine trees.

It claims U.S. Forest Service officials have overlooked or ignored a handful of federal laws to fast-track the project which the groups say will be highly visible to recreational enthusiasts.

U.S. Forest Service staff have a policy of not commenting on any pending litigation.

The lawsuit said while the U.S. Forest Service has given notice of the project, many of those details — or lack thereof — make it impossible to understand what will be happening and therefore it’s impossible for scientists and the courts to understand the possible effects of the project. The attorneys claim the Forest Service hasn’t disclosed the number, location or status of whitebark pine throughout the area.

“In addition, the Forest Service relies on an overbroad and legally unsupported delineation of the wildland urban interface to exempt large areas of lynx habitat standards that prohibit vegetation management projects that degrade snowshoe hare habitat,” the suit said.

Canada lynx, which are listed by the federal government as “threatened,” rely on the snowshoe hare as a food source.

The conservation groups claim the Forest Service is using an overly broad definition of wildland-urban interface area to push ahead plans. The court documents accuse the Forest Service of using a law allowing officials to clear brush and trees from near structures as justification for damaging lynx habitat without more public scrutiny.

The attorneys claim that the Forest Service used a different density than what is required by the Healthy Forests Reforestation Act in order to claim the logging and burning area is an wildland-urban interface area and therefore allowing officials to more aggressively manage wildfire risks because there are structures in the area.

“Neither the project’s documents nor the Gallatin Community Wildfire Protection Plan identify structures in the project area, population density, groups of homes, shared utilities or other municipal infrastructure,” the lawsuit said.

They also said that the Forest Service provides no information about large stands of whitebark pine trees.

“Many logging units in the project will be highly visible for visitors and recreationalists to Hyalite Canyon, which is the most visited area of any National Forest in Montana,” the lawsuit said.

Of the 836 acres of old-growth forest in the project area, attorneys warn that 562 acres will no longer be considered “old growth” after that.

Attorneys said that forest officials have already admitted in the planning documents that “the project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect wildlife, habitat, and a tree species protected by the Endangered Species Act, including Canada lynx, Canada lynx critical habitat, grizzly bears and whitebark pine.”

The suit claims that as many as 3,688 acres of Canada lynx habitat is at risk with the project.

The conservation groups question why the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service didn’t issue a biological opinion on the project, something that is often standard for similar projects.

The groups said that the National Environmental Policy Act also requires more public involvement so that residents can help guide the project, something the conservation organizations argue didn’t happen in this case.

“In this case, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedures Act when it did not prepare a site-specific no-jeopardy determination that consider the action and/or the project’s environmental baseline, effects, including from temporary roads and cumulative effects,” the court documents said.

The groups are asking the federal courts to declare that the logging project violates a number of federal laws and policies, including the National Forest Management Act, the Healthy Forest Reforestation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act.

They are asking the courts to vacate the project’s decision and stop authorities from implementing the 15-year project. The groups are also asking for attorney’s fees.

“The Gallatin Range is undergoing tremendous recreational impact from the local community,” said Clint Nagel, president of the Gallatin Wildlife Association, one of the groups challenging the move in court. “These landscapes are critical for countless species of wildlife using these drainages as their home and provide connectivity to move freely about within and outside the area. Ignoring that fact will cause serious, irreparable harm to the local ecology as well as ignoring the petition from well over a thousand Montanans who want these areas to be left alone.”

This Douglas Fir tells and provides us with the same story. Mature and Old Growth Forests need to be protected to provide biodiversity, mitigate climate change, and maintain our atmosphere with life-giving gases for all life to survive. 

Our forests are under threats (and to use a common phrase by our current administration) threats like we have never seen before! That is true in this case, which is why we need all people to take center-stage and do something. As you read along you will find the many threats posed by this administration. We need and the forests need your help.

Fix Our Forest Act, S.1462, is waiting in the U.S. Senate. This is a misnomer of a name if there ever was one. Although there are improvements over the House version, the Senate version is not a panoply of greatness. There are still many elements wrong with this bill, serious omissions that need to be corrected. 

• This bill undermines Section 7 provisions of the ESA whereby it stipulates the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management must consult wildlife agencies when new species, critical habitat or new information is revealed. This decision overturns legal precedent and the Cottonwood Decision.

• This bill undermines judicial review. It restricts the American public’s right to have a say in their own government, thereby allowing illegal actions to continue. The bill dramatically shortens the time to challenge projects in court from six years in most instances to 150 days. The changes to injunctive standards favor logging projects and makes it harder to grant injunctions protecting species under the ESA."

• This bill expands the size of NEPA categorical exclusions from 3,000 to 10,000 acres, without scientific or environmental review. This is an alarming change that could prove devasting to our forests, especially our large, old growth forests which are the most fire resilient. These actions would result in huge acreages of logging projects exacerbating habitat loss and fragmentation.

• This bill fails to provide dedicated funding for home and community hardening, methods proven to save lives as well as infrastructure. It fails to address defensible space and emergency planning.

If these shortcomings aren’t rectified, we will indeed see ramifications from our inaction, perhaps more disastrous than those from action. Again, we need to look in the mirror. Do our forests need fixing? No, but we do. We need to fix ourselves from our own arrogant thinking.

How many people actually believe our forests are broken? How does a forest break itself? Impossible, but our society refuses to realize that whatever we don’t like about our forests, it is because of what we ourselves have done. We need to look in the mirror.

Rescinding the Roadless Rule: This action has received much attention in the public awareness campaign since mid-summer 2025. Here is the latest form the Pew Foundation as recorded in their February 18, 2026 article.

"The USDA’s notice of intent to repeal the roadless rule was followed by a public comment process that ran through Sept. 19, 2025. The notice states that the USDA will release its updated proposal and accompanying draft environmental impact statement, along with a request for additional public comments, by March 2026. A final decision is expected in late 2026".

Needless to say, roadless areas are necessary for potential wilderness designation (when appropriate), wildlife habitat, follows good wildfire science, and is a necessary source for clean air and water; all fundamental building blocks to sustain life.