Federal court halts Panhandle's Hanna Flats project

A federal court in Idaho has ruled that the U.S. Forest Service violated federal law when it categorically exempted a commercial timber sale project in the Idaho Panhandle National Forest from environmental assessment or environmental impact studies required by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act.

The project, located in the Priest Lake Ranger District of the IPNF, is 6,814 acres with approximately 6,598 acres on federal land and 216 acres that are privately owned.

USFS officials justified the decision, citing an allowed exclusion in the HFRA in relation to one of the project’s stated objectives is to “reduce the risk or extent of, or increase resilience to, insect or disease infestation.”

The USFS’s scoping notice stated the project would likely be exempt because of the insect and disease infestation categorical exclusion (“CE”) found in HFRA, according to the memorandum.

“The insect and disease infestation [categorical exclusion] is applicable for this project because … the entire project area is in the wildland-urban interface,” the scoping notice stated.

The Alliance for the Wild Rockies, which first raised opposition to the project in August 2019, contended that the approval of the project was “arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and/or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

Among other complaints, the alliance contended that the USFS failed to establish how the project met the definition of “wildland urban interface” in violation of NEPA and HFRA.

USFS previously stated in a scoping notice that the project “lies entirely within the wildland-urban interface defined by Bonner County[’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan],” but did not define the wildland-urban interface used in any Bonner County Wildfire Plan, or contain a map of the wildland-urban interface involved in the project.

A wildland-urban interface is generally defined as an area where wilderness meets or intermingles with buildings.The USFS plan used definitions in maps from Bonner County Wildfire Plans as grounds for its definition of the entire area a WUI.

However, the alliance contended that the USFS failed to use the statutory definition of a WUI — and therefore, the exclusion from an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement as unlawful.

That assertion is something the court agreed with, stating in the ruling and decision order that simply declaring the area qualified as a WUI was not sufficient, in particular when the goal of the assertion is intended to avoid an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

“There must be something else that connects the dots and thereby would support Defendants’ position that categorical exclusion under HRFA applies,” the memorandum read. “Perhaps the foundation for claiming the categorical exclusion could have been constructed, but it was not … In short, simply saying that the [p]roject is within the wildland-urban interface does not make it so.”

Further, the memorandum stated, whatever definition the USFS did use failed to account for at-risk communities as required by the HFRA.

The memorandum also stated the decision is not meant to say are unimportant or cannot be relied upon — but rather, the wildfire protection plan is meant to work in cooperation with HFRA.

“Such that,” the memorandum stated, “where it does not coincide with HFRA (e.g., when it defines wildland-urban interface differently than HFRA does), it cannot then operate as a justification for categorical exclusion under HRFA.”

The USFS also argued that the area, and almost all of Bonner County, fit under the broad definition of a wildland-urban interface, based on the 2016 wildfire plan.

“The relevant question, however, is whether it should be, under the requirements of HFRA,” the memorandum stated.

The USFS will now be required to revisit its claim that the entire project area is within the wildland-urban interface, according to the court order.

According to the order, the USFS will need to issue a supplemental decision memo that clearly states how the wildland-urban interface is defined, apply that definition to a map that depicts the project area, and explain how the project area falls within the wildland-urban interface under HFRA.

The project is suspended until those conditions are met and a supplemental decision memo issued with a 30-day notice of any beginning or resumption of related activities.

Mike Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, said in a statement that the Hanna Flats project would threaten grizzly bears and the natural beauty of the area.

“[The] project area is home to a dwindling population of grizzly bears in northern Idaho, and the logging project was strongly opposed by local residents who cherish this area near Priest Lake, Idaho for its natural beauty and abundant recreational opportunities,” he said.

Paul Sieracki, a retired Forest Service biologist and geospatial analyst quoted in the alliance press release, said that because of the area’s topography, it was at lower risks of wildfire.

“With high ridges on three sides, which captures cold air in the low elevations and traps cool moist air in the summer, the low elevation winter snowpack is deeper and more persistent than elsewhere in northern Idaho, and summertime conditions are relatively moist and cool compared to neighboring areas,” he said, “therefore not as susceptible to wildfires."