The case, Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. Carey et al., focused on the Clark Fork Face Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Project, a 16,689-acre Bureau of Land Management (BLM) initiative designed to reduce wildfire risk, restore forest conditions, and support timber harvesting.
While the plaintiffs—five environmental organizations—initially challenged the entire project, they narrowed their request to stop just the Big River thinning portion, scheduled to begin on July 15, 2025.
The contested project involves non-commercial thinning of seedlings and small trees under 8 inches in diameter—part of a broader 10–15 year effort expected to:
Plaintiffs argued the work would harm grizzly bears and Canada lynx by fragmenting habitat and increasing road construction in a known wildlife corridor.
But BLM forester John Fothergill submitted a sworn declaration confirming the thinning would not involve road construction or improvements. The court found this critical, concluding that without roadwork, plaintiffs’ concerns were largely unsubstantiated.
To grant a preliminary injunction, the court must find the plaintiff likely to suffer irreparable harm. In this case, U.S. District Judge Dana L. Christensen ruled that:
“In the absence of any planned roadwork or road construction, the Court finds it unlikely that any harm to grizzly bears—be it the species as a whole or its individual members—will result from the Big River thinning project.”
The court also noted:
As such, the injunction request failed on the irreparable harm element, and the judge declined to address other claims related to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), NEPA, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
While the injunction was denied, the case is far from over. Cross-motions for summary judgment are scheduled for September 3, 2025, in Missoula. Those arguments will delve deeper into the legal merits, including whether the BLM sufficiently analyzed cumulative environmental impacts and wildlife protections under the Missoula Resource Management Plan.