Conservation groups on Tuesday challenged a proposed thinning and prescribed-burn project in forests south of Bozeman that aims to protect the city’s drinking water.
It’s the group’s third time challenging the proposal.
“Simply stated, the agency’s proposal breaks a number of laws and this time around is no different,” said Michael Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies.
The Gallatin National Forest’s plan, called the Bozeman Municipal Watershed project, calls for burning, harvesting and thinning 4,800 acres in the Hyalite and Bozeman Creek drainages. Those drainages supply more than 80 percent of the Bozeman community’s water, and thinning efforts there are intended to reduce the extent of any potential wildfires.
A severe wildfire could put so much sediment and ash in the creeks that the treatment plant couldn’t handle it and would have to shut down, according to Marna Daley, forest spokeswoman.
Montana Ecosystem Defense Council and Native Ecosystems Council joined the Alliance for the Wild Rockies in challenging the plan.
The groups say the project would log federally designated lynx critical habitat and core grizzly bear habitat, and that it would remove elk hiding cover and destroy habitat for other old-growth-dependent species. They also worry the logging and road building would add sediment to creeks containing the native westslope cutthroat trout, which is listed as a “species of special concern.”
“Those same creeks also supply Bozeman’s municipal water,” said Steve Kelly, a board member for two of the conservation groups. “The best thing we could do for wildlife, fish, opportunities for backcountry recreation and solitude, and our drinking-water supply, would be to back away from this foolish project and enjoy the forest’s many enduring gifts.”
Garrity also alleged that some areas affected by the plan have been inaccurately designated as wildland-urban interface zones.
Daley said she has not yet seen the challenge but said the Gallatin National Forest is committed to moving forward with the project.
“We’re very confident the decision is a good decision,” she said of the most recent proposal. “We look forward to moving toward the implementation of the project in the near future.”
Daley said the challenge will go to the regional forester for review, and he’ll decide in about six weeks whether to uphold the forest’s plan.
The city of Bozeman partnered with the Gallatin National Forest to produce the watershed plan.
Carly Flandro may be reached at 582-2638 or cflandro@dailychronicle.com.
bearpaw posted at 10:45 am on Thu, Jan 19, 2012.
Implying? No, just leaving you guessing.
noyouare posted at 9:05 am on Thu, Jan 19, 2012.
If they (environmentalists) are such experts on everything why do they even need lawyers, why not represent themselves in court. They know everything right?
I think I am going to go up to Bozeman Deaconess Hospital this afternoon, go into a surgery room and tell the brain surgeon how to make an incision into the frontal lobe.
bearpaw, are you implying you work for the forest service and some sort of angel? If so you should be out there 'arresting people'.
bearpaw posted at 5:29 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.
Farmgirl: correction to "If not for us" -- If not for some of us.God hands out halos only where halos are deserved.
farmgirl posted at 3:42 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.
PS, Lefty, you don't sound like a cowboy. You sound like an "environmentalist". Farmers and ranchers are the true environmentalists, we have been working for generations to preserve the land. If not for us, Montana would just be one big subdivision, which it nearly is. Let those who use and care for the land use and care for the land.
farmgirl posted at 3:39 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.
Where does Michael Garrity think logging should occur? Does he use paper? Does he live in a house?
twostrokeburrito posted at 12:10 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.
These groups are NOT conservationists! They are ENVIRONMENTALISTS and there is a BIG difference. Conservationists manage resources to benefit BOTH nature abd man. Environmentalists preserve resources by blocking use of them. The forest WILL burn badly soon and if we don't clear out the deadfall somehow, we will not have forest to enjoy- even YOU envirfreaks! Google image search "moonscaping". Is that what you want?
lefty the cowboy posted at 9:45 am on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.
The argument they have to do this to 'protect' the watershed is so bogus it hardly deserves a response. This is more cynical manipulation to provide cheap logs to RY Timber... seems there are still old school attitudes in the FS, like 'get out the cut'. Mother Nature has been cleaning her own water pretty well for the last several million years... somehow I doubt the FS can do better.
Positivist posted at 9:06 am on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.
BCMontana said it. These people don't have any clue as to what is good for the wildlife. The logging would provide so many benefits, everyone is just afraid that it would become an "eyesore". In fact, most of the time, if it is done correctly, a thinning project makes everything look 10 times better.
BCMontana posted at 8:19 am on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.
Sticking to your principles is one thing... ignoring real-world potential consequences is another.
Let's see how well the Lynx, Bears, and Elk do when that area is 20,000 acres of barren sterilized soil and blackened sticks from a massive wildland fire.
Our forests are choked with overgrowth, beetle kill and dead and down trees that have not been allowed to burn naturally. We created the situation, and now these so-called "conservation" groups are blocking a plan to help mitigate the potential destruction.
Ignorance on display.