Gold Butterfly forest project challenged

by Michael Howell

The Gold Butterfly Project, a Bitterroot National Forest project covering 55,147 acres in the Sapphire Mountains east of Corvallis, is facing its second lawsuit since scoping on the project began in 2017. The Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Native Ecosystems Council filed the latest suit last month in U.S. District Court in Missoula on September 9, seeking to stop the project that was finally approved in August of 2023. A Record of Decision (ROD) on the project was originally issued in November, 2019. In July of 2020, Friends of the Bitterroot filed suit challenging that decision. After the lawsuit was filed, the Forest Service formally withdrew that decision in order to “conduct additional review and analysis” and the lawsuit was dismissed as moot.

The current Forest Service project plan authorizes commercial logging on 5,281 acres, including clear cutting and other commercial logging methods. It also allows non-commercial thinning and burning activities on an additional 2,084 acres. It is estimated that it will require the transport of approximately 6,000 to 7,000 truckloads of wood products to be hauled primarily down Willow Creek Road. 

The project plan authorizes the construction of 6.4 miles of new system roads, the decommissioning of 5.8 miles of system road, and addition of 16.5 miles of non-system “illegal” roads into the system for a net increase of 17.1 miles of permanent system roads through the project area. It also authorizes construction of 17.3 miles of temporary roads and the closure of 21.5 miles of roads as well as the decommissioning of 16.5 miles of non-system roads in the project area. Road maintenance and reconstruction is proposed on up to 80.1 miles of existing roads.

Implementation of the project is projected to last eight years and anticipates a revenue of a little over $1.57 million with costs estimated at $5.79 million, resulting in a total net loss of $4.2 million.

Litigants complain that the project is likely to kill whitebark pine trees, a species listed under the Endangered Species Act. Commercial activities are proposed on up to 3,082 acres of white bark pine habitat. 

They also note that the Forest Service Record of Decision states, “Approximately 57 percent of treated acres would occur within the Wildland-Urban Interface,” implying that it was using the Bitterroot Community Wildlife Protection Plan which was approved in 2006, but does not include any map delineating that WUI.   Instead, they claim, it appears that the Forest Service used the map proposed in 2009/2010 showing a one-mile buffer zone along the entire National Forest boundary, despite the fact that this proposal and associated map was never adopted.

“In other words, although there is available data, the Forest Service did not complete an analysis of the available data on human or structure density to support its delineation of the Project wildland urban interface. Indeed, it appears that the vast majority of private land along the Project area boundary is ‘vacant’ agricultural land with no living units,” it states in the complaint.

Litigants also complain about the amendment to old growth standards that is now included in the project proposal, which allows for leaving a minimum of 10 trees per acre greater than 20 inches diameter basal height (dbh) in Douglas fir type habitat and 8 trees per acre greater than 20 inches dbh in ponderosa pine type habitat, with no minimum requirements for canopy closure, uneven-aged or multi-storied structure; snags per acre over 6 inches dbh or snags per acre over 20 inches dbh; tons per acre for down material greater than 6 inches in diameter; for heart rot and broken tops; or for mosses and lichens.

Michael Garrity, Executive Director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, said an acre of land is about equal to a football field in size. “To get a picture of what this proposed amendment to the Forest Plan would allow, picture a football field with two trees in each end zone, two trees at the fifty yard line and one tree at the 20 and 30 yard lines without any understory and call it old growth forest,” he said.  

“Old growth is not just big old trees, it is a complex environment,” said Garrity. “It is not just eight big trees, it is also a thick forest with standing dead trees, dead trees leaning on older trees and trees on the ground and a thick understory. Leaving only eight trees per acre is more like a park, almost the opposite of an old growth forest. 

“In other words, 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.” Garrity said in terms of the Forest Plan, “It’s a big enough loophole to drive a logging truck through.”

The lawsuit also complains about the lack of monitoring data and lack of disclosure of the project’s impact on the forest “indicator species,” pine marten and pileated woodpecker.

The wildlife report appended to the ROD indicates that the Project would eliminate 2,998 acres of high and moderate quality marten habitat and 2,451 acres of high and moderate quality pileated woodpecker habitat.

“No quantified, detailed information regarding the acreage of marten and pileated woodpecker habitat removal that will be facilitated by these three amendments is provided to support their conclusion in the ‘Cumulative Effects’ section of the supplemental EIS that the proposed amendment does not substantially lessen protections for a specific resource or use or have any substantial impacts to a species or substantially lessen protections for a species,” it states in the complaint.  “There is no scientific evidence that old growth indicator species can survive in what they define as old growth,” said Garrity.

The complaint also criticizes the “no effect” conclusion for grizzly bears for the Project based on a June 16, 2022 FWS map that does not show grizzly bears as a species that “may be present” in the Project area. Garrity rebuts the claim based on newspaper articles in the Missoulian and the Bitterroot Star regarding numerous grizzly sightings in the Sapphire Mountains. According to Garrity, the confirmed presence of at least three grizzly bears in the Sapphire Mountains in August 2023 was not discussed in the Project EIS.

The complaint also disputes the Forest Service’s claim about no significant impact on wolverines, another threatened species. In total, litigants claim, “in 2023 monitoring efforts detected five wolverines in the Bitterroot National Forest – four males and one female.” Four of them, three males and one female, were detected at a monitoring site directly east of Corvallis and “appear to be within the Gold Butterfly Project area.”

The lawsuit also complains about “a pattern of non-compliance with the Forest Plan elk habitat standards: “There have been 11 project-specific amendments related to EHE since the Forest Plan was approved in 1987. There have been 9 project-specific amendments related to thermal and hiding cover,” the complaint states.

The complaint also states that the Healthy Forests Act requires the Forest Service to follow the Forest Plan but the Gold Butterfly project violates the Forest Plan standards for elk road density and cover. It states that the combined activities of timber harvest, non-commercial thinning and/or prescribed burning will decrease hiding cover for wildlife, including elk, to well below Forest Plan standards. 

“I am not sure why the Forest Service thinks the public wants millions of dollars of taxpayer funds spent destroying elk habitat on public lands when there is already a huge problem of elk fleeing to private lands where hunting is prohibited,” said Garrity. “It’s no wonder the vast majority of the thousands of people who commented opposed the Gold Butterfly project.”