An area of the Bitterroot National Forest where the Mud Creek Vegetation Management Project is slated to occur. In 2024, nonprofit groups sued over a different project in the Bitterroot National Forest. (Photo via USFS decision notice)
A logging and clearcutting project in the Bitterroot National Forest will make it harder to hunt elk, inflates the amount of “old growth” that would be left, and will cost taxpayers $4.2 million, according to a lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court for the District of Montana.
It also illegally ignores grizzly bears and wolverines, and it misinforms the public about effects on pine marten, among other problems, said the complaint about the Gold Butterfly Project and related Forest Plan amendments filed by two conservation groups.
For instance, the U.S. Forest Service doesn’t appear to have ever collected required monitoring data on pine marten, and it doesn’t have a population trend established, the lawsuit said. But it said the Record of Decision approving the project said this:
“Monitoring data for pine marten was last collected in 2020 and revealed that marten distribution and detections have trended upwards.”
A spokesperson for the Bitterroot National Forest was not available Monday to answer a question about pine marten data, and the Forest Service generally does not comment on pending litigation.
In 2020, the Forest Service staved off separate litigation over the same project by withdrawing a formal decision in favor of more analysis, according to the current lawsuit. It said the agency then denied 19 objections filed against a new “supplemental” environmental impact statement and new draft decision, and authorized the project anyway in August 2023.
The current lawsuit was filed by the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting native biodiversity in the Northern Rockies, and the Native Ecosystems Council, which has a mission to conserve natural resources on public lands in the Northern Rockies.
The complaint alleges that Bitterroot Forest Supervisor Matt Anderson, Regional Forester Leanne Marten, and the U.S. Forest Service are violating federal laws including the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act.
Represented by the Public Interest Defense Center and Bechtold Law Firm, both of Missoula, the groups filing the lawsuit are asking the court to find the project is illegal and stop it.
They also note most of the 3,100 members of the public who weighed in on it wanted “no old-growth logging and no new roads,” contrary to the 17.1 miles of permanent new roads to be built in the area, which has Douglas fir, ponderosa pine, Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir.
The Bitterroot already lacks old growth forest, according to the complaint. It said in the mid-19th century, subsistence logging took place, logging later was used to support mines, railroads and cities, and a lot of large trees are gone as a result of those decades.
“This historic logging dramatically reduced the amount of old growth in the Bitterroot, particularly the ponderosa pine in the lower elevations, and explains the lack of old growth” in some drainages today, the lawsuit said.
In addition to the claims in the lawsuit, the groups allege the Forest Service is violating the Endangered Species Act by failing to account for grizzly bears and wolverines in the area. The groups said they will incorporate those claims into their case if the Forest Service doesn’t fix the problems within 60 days.
The project, the costs
The project area includes 55,147 acres of national forest land in the Sapphire Mountains, and it authorizes commercial logging on 5,281 acres, “including clearcutting across wide swaths of forest,” the lawsuit said.
It also allows non-commercial tree-cutting and burning on another 2,084 acres, and it will require the transport of as many as 7,000 truckloads of wood from the area, according to the complaint.
It greenlights a net increase of 17.1 miles of “permanent system roads” (6.4 miles of new roads, 5.8 miles of decommissioned miles, and 16.5 miles of illegal non-system roads) and construction of 17.3 miles of temporary roads, among other changes.
“Regarding illegal roads, also referred to as ‘undetermined’ roads, which are not lawfully on the forest as part of the National Forest roads system but nonetheless exist on the ground, the Gold Butterfly Project area has at least 33.1 miles of these illegal roads,” the lawsuit said.
Citing an estimate from 2018, it also said the project anticipates $1.57 million in total revenue for the eight-year endeavor, but a cost of $5.79 million for tasks including sale preparation and administration, tree planting, trailhead relocation, burning and other work.
Commercial activity is proposed on up to 3,082 acres of whitebark pine habitat, which could be damaged or destroyed, the lawsuit said. And it said the project could decrease cover for wildlife on 6,100 acres through timber harvest, thinning and/or prescribed burning.
The lawsuit also said the public wanted to know how many people live adjacent to the project area, but the Forest Service didn’t analyze available data to support “its delineation of the project wildland urban interface.”
New math for ‘old growth’
According to the lawsuit, the project also uses lower standards to calculate “old growth” forest, with fewer large trees per acre, no requirements for canopy closure, and no requirements for moss and lichen.
The agency did so by issuing an exemption, a “project specific” Forest Plan amendment in its supplemental environmental review, that says the Gold Butterfly Project doesn’t have to comply with the Forest Plan’s old-growth requirements.
Citing internal agency notes, the lawsuit said “it became obvious that it is difficult to definitively say that … old growth characteristics would be retained” after the project.
It also said the Forest Service admits it wasn’t using the Forest Plan criteria and definition for old growth, but an alternative one.
When members of the public asked for details about how the project would keep old-growth characteristics, the Forest Service not only ignored the issue in its environmental review, it directed the public to a report that also didn’t disclose the criteria, the complaint alleges.
But a document in the project file shows the Forest Service used lower standards to count old growth, the lawsuit said. For example, the Forest Plan “mandates 15 large trees per acre,” but the project requires just eight to 10 large trees for the same area.
“Accordingly, the old-growth criteria used for the project are significantly less protective than the old-growth definition and criteria set forth in the Forest Plan standard,” the complaint said.
“The ‘project specific’ Forest Plan amendment allows a 46% reduction in large trees per acre, unlimited reduction in canopy closure, and the whittling down of old-growth forest stands to stands as small as four acres in size” as opposed to 40 acres, the lawsuit said.
Effects on the pileated woodpecker, other animals
The lawsuit also alleges the project will adversely affect bull trout, and it said the Forest Service mischaracterized data about the health of the pileated woodpecker population.
The Forest Service concedes it hasn’t monitored pileated woodpeckers since 2018, but it points to an earlier report with data that show a “declining trend” for that species, the lawsuit said.
“The Forest Service record of decision represents that ‘pileated woodpecker detections have remained relatively stable’ and does not disclose the declining trend found in … the agency’s own monitoring report,” the lawsuit said.
It said the Forest Service concluded those birds and pine martens, both indicator species for old growth, would experience negative effects from the project, but it doesn’t provide detailed information to support that finding.
The Forest Service also doesn’t discuss “numerous confirmed grizzly bears” in the Sapphire Mountains and five wolverines in the Bitterroot Valley, including a lactating female in the project area, the lawsuit said. It noted the bear and female wolverine sightings took place around the same time the project was finalized, although bears were documented nearby earlier.
As such, the groups are asking the Forest Service to conduct supplemental environmental reviews that address the new information on those species.
The complaint also said the logging will disrupt winter elk refuge and send elk into the valley, citing the need for low road densities and public comment:
“As ranchers, we raise hay. The Willow Creek herd already does a significant amount of damage to our haystacks and fences.
“In addition, the elk will be pushed down to our property where there is a land easement and no hunting. This will be detrimental to the forest plan goal of maintaining hunting opportunity.”
But the lawsuit also said the Bitterroot Forest plans to write an exemption related to elk for this project, as it has done with other projects in the past.
Local News
