A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel recently sided with the Flathead National Forest on two grizzly bear habitat security lawsuits.

The Swan View Coalition and Friends of the Wild Swan sued over Flathead Forest projects that were carried out in the wake of the 2003 Wedge Canyon, Robert and West Side Reservoir fires. The groups contended that the post-fire projects illegally deviated from road density standards applied through Amendment 19 to the Flathead Forest Plan.

In April 2008, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy ruled in favor of the forest, and that decision was appealed.

In another lawsuit, the two groups challenged the forest for not completing road closure and reclamation goals by 2005 as originally outlined in the forest plan. Molloy again ruled in favor of the forest, and again the case was appealed.

Only five days after hearing oral arguments on the cases, a three-judge appeals panel in Seattle upheld Molloy's rulings on Oct. 13.

"We're glad that the 9th Circuit agreed with what we feel is a common sense approach to managing for the recovery of grizzly bear populations in the Northern Continental Divide ecosystem," said Joe Krueger, the Flathead forest's environmental coordinator.

"Our management efforts, along with the efforts of our cooperating agencies, are successful as indicated by the current population numbers of bears in the ecosystem."

A key issue in the post-fire project lawsuit was whether the forest could adopt "site specific" forest plan amendments, allowing for deviations from a rigid Amendment 19 road-density formula.

In one case, a site-specific amendment was adopted in the North Fork drainage's Wedge Canyon project area to maintain road access to private property and to avoid having to close and relocate key trailheads.

But the plaintiffs argued for a strict application of the road-density standards.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed the projects and determined that the deviations would not cause grizzly bear mortalities.

Judge Molloy found that a strict application of Amendment 19 road-density standards is not required.

"Amendment 19 is not an action or a project; it is part of a forest plan, which is a programmatic document that does not authorize any specific projects and does not obligate the Forest Service to undertake specific projects," his ruling stated.

When the Flathead Forest did not meet 2005 objectives for Amendment 19 road closures, it consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to set new goals.

The 9th Circuit panel found that Amendment 19 objectives are "statements of priorities, not legally binding commitments."

In its efforts to meet Amendment 19 timelines, Krueger said the forest has encountered unexpected obstacles, such as large fires and reduced funding. And in applying the road-density formula "on the ground," it has encountered unworkable situations that have required deviations from the formula.

"What the court saw is that our common-sense approach is valid by the law," Krueger said. "The way we've been doing it is appropriate."

Barring appeals to the Supreme Court, Krueger said the appellate rulings "put those particular cases to rest."

Reporter Jim Mann may be reached at 758-4407 or by e-mail at jmann@dailyinterlake.com