`
`Rebecca K. Smith
`Public Interest Defense Center, P.C.
`P.O. Box 7584
`Missoula, MT 59807
`(406) 531-8133
`publicdefense@gmail.com
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
`MISSOULA DIVISION
`
`CV-20-
`
`COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE
`AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
`
`
`
`FRIENDS OF THE BITTERROOT,
`ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD
`ROCKIES,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`MATT ANDERSON, Supervisor,
`Bitterroot National Forest; LEANNE
`MARTEN, Regional Forester, U.S.
`Forest Service Northern Region; U.S.
`FOREST SERVICE,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Case 9:20-cv-00104-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 2 of 42
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil action for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure
`
`Act of the U.S. Forest Service’s (USFS) authorization of the Gold Butterfly
`
`Project (Project) on the Bitterroot National Forest (Forest).
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs Friends of the Bitterroot and Alliance for the Wild Rockies attest
`
`that the decision approving the Project is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse
`
`of discretion, and/or otherwise not in accordance with law.
`
`3.
`
`Defendants’ approval of the Project violates the National Environmental
`
`Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §4331 et seq., the National Forest
`
`Management Act (NFMA), 16 U.S.C. §1600 et seq., the Healthy Forest
`
`Restoration Act, 16 U.S.C. §6591 et seq, and the Administrative Procedure
`
`Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, the award of costs,
`
`and expenses of suit, including attorney and expert witness fees pursuant to
`
`the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. §2412, and/or such other relief as
`
`this Court deems just and proper.
`
`II. JURISDICTION
`
`5.
`
`This action arises under the laws of the United States and involves the United
`
`States as a Defendant. Therefore, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction
`
`over the claims specified in this Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 9:20-cv-00104-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 3 of 42
`
`1346.
`
`6.
`
`An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants. Plaintiffs’
`
`members use and enjoy the Forest for hiking, fishing, hunting, camping,
`
`photographing scenery and wildlife, and engaging in other vocational,
`
`scientific, spiritual, and recreational activities. Plaintiffs’ members intend to
`
`continue to use and enjoy the area frequently and on an ongoing basis in the
`
`future.
`
`7.
`
`The aesthetic, recreational, scientific, spiritual, and educational interests of
`
`Plaintiffs’ members have been and will be adversely affected and irreparably
`
`injured if Defendants implement the Project. These are actual, concrete
`
`injuries caused by Defendants’ failure to comply with mandatory duties
`
`under NFMA, NEPA, HFRA, and the APA. The requested relief would
`
`redress these injuries and this Court has the authority to grant Plaintiffs’
`
`requested relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 & 2202, 5 U.S.C. §§ 705 & 706,
`
`and 16 U.S.C. §1540.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiffs fully participated in the available administrative review processes for
`
`the Project; thus they have exhausted administrative remedies. The Court
`
`therefore has jurisdiction to review Plaintiffs’ APA claims.
`
`III. VENUE
`
`9.
`
`Venue in this case is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(e) and Local Rule
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 9:20-cv-00104-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 4 of 42
`
`3.2(b). Defendant Anderson resides in Ravalli County, which is within the
`
`Missoula Division of the United States District Court for the District of
`
`Montana.
`
`IV. PARTIES
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff FRIENDS OF THE BITTERROOT is a tax-exempt, non-profit
`
`public interest organization based in Hamilton, Montana and dedicated to
`
`preserving wildlands and wildlife, and protecting the forests and watersheds
`
`of their region as they work for a sustainable relationship with the
`
`environment. Members of the Friends of the Bitterroot observe, enjoy, and
`
`appreciate native wildlife, water quality, and terrestrial habitat quality, and
`
`expect to continue to do so in the future, including in the Project area. Their
`
`members’ professional and recreational activities are directly affected by
`
`Defendants’ failure to perform their lawful duty to protect and conserve
`
`these ecosystems. Friends of the Bitterroot brings this action on its own
`
`behalf and on behalf of its adversely affected members.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES is a tax-exempt,
`
`non-profit public interest organization dedicated to the protection and
`
`preservation of the native biodiversity of the Northern Rockies Bioregion, its
`
`native plant, fish, and animal life, and its naturally functioning ecosystems. Its
`
`registered office is located in Missoula, Montana. The Alliance has over
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 9:20-cv-00104-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 5 of 42
`
`2,000 individual members, many of whom are located in Montana. Members
`
`of the Alliance observe, enjoy, and appreciate Montana’s native wildlife,
`
`water quality, and terrestrial habitat quality, and expect to continue to do so
`
`in the future, including in the Project area. Alliance’s members’ professional
`
`and recreational activities are directly affected by Defendants’ failure to
`
`perform their lawful duty to protect and conserve these ecosystems.
`
`Alliance for the Wild Rockies brings this action on its own behalf and on
`
`behalf of its adversely affected members.
`
`12. Defendant MATT ANDERSON is the Forest Supervisor for the Bitterroot
`
`National Forest, and is the decision-maker who signed the Record of
`
`Decision approving the Project.
`
`13. Defendant LEANNE MARTEN is the Regional Forester for Region
`
`One/Northern Region of the U.S. Forest Service. Her office denied
`
`Plaintiffs’ objections to the Project.
`
`14. Defendant UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE (USFS) is an
`
`administrative agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and is
`
`responsible for the lawful management of our National Forests, including the
`
`Bitterroot National Forest.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 9:20-cv-00104-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 6 of 42
`
`V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`A. Project and Project Area
`
`15.
`
`The Gold Butterfly Project area includes 55,147 acres of National Forest
`
`System lands and is located within Ravalli County east of Corvallis, Montana
`
`in the Sapphire Mountains on the Bitterroot National Forest.
`
`16.
`
`The Project area includes a portion of the Stony Mountain Inventoried
`
`Roadless Area but no treatment activities will occur within the Inventoried
`
`Roadless Area or Wilderness or Research Natural Areas.
`
`17.
`
`The Project authorizes commercial logging on 5,461 acres, including
`
`clearcutting across wide swaths of forest.
`
`18.
`
`The Project also allows non-commercial activities such as cutting smaller
`
`trees and planting trees on 7,238 acres.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`The Project further allows prescribed burning activities on 4,854 acres.
`
`In addition, the Project allows road maintenance on 80.1 miles, construction
`
`of 6.4 miles of new system road, which will be closed to the public,
`
`conversion of 0.22 miles of open public road to a non-motorized trail,
`
`decommissioning 5.8 miles of existing system roads, decommissioning of
`
`16.5 miles of illegal “undetermined” roads, addition of 16.5 miles of illegal
`
`“undetermined” roads to the system as closed roads, construction of 7.7
`
`miles of temporary road, construction of 8.5 miles of tracked line machine
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 9:20-cv-00104-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 7 of 42
`
`trail, construction of 1.1 miles temporary skid trail, and closure (storage) of 5
`
`miles of system road.
`
`21.
`
`Finally, the Project will relocate two trailheads, create new horse campsites at
`
`the Gold Creek Campground, and replace Arrastra and Grizzly Creek
`
`culverts.
`
`22.
`
`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 has about 33
`
`miles total of these unlawful undetermined roads.
`
`23.
`
`The Project allows approximately 16.5 miles of these undetermined roads to
`
`become part of the lawful transportation system and be stored, i.e. closed,
`
`after logging operations. These roads would be opened to accommodate
`
`commercial logging operations and log hauling in commercial logging units
`
`for this Project.
`
`24. Another 16.5 miles of these undetermined roads would be decommissioned.
`
`25.
`
`Project activities would require the transport of approximately 6,000-7,000
`
`truckloads of material.
`
`26. All Project activities are expected to be completed within 8 years of Project
`
`initiation.
`
`27. All temporary roads and trails would be obliterated after use.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 9:20-cv-00104-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 8 of 42
`
`28.
`
`Temporary roads and trails would be closed to public use by a closure order
`
`during operations.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`The Forest Service anticipates $1,572,054 in total revenue from the Project.
`
`The Forest Service anticipates the following costs from the Project:
`
`Sale Preparation
`Sale Administration
`Road BMP Upgrades
`Tree Planting
`Road Decommissioning
`Road Storage
`Meadow Restoration, Herbicide
`Meadow Restoration, Biocontrol
`Willow Trailhead Relocation
`Burnt Fork Trailhead Relocation
`Non-Commercial Thinning
`Non-Commercial Thinning, White Bark Pine
`Non-Commercial Thinning, Mechanical Fuels
`
`Reduction
`Maintenance Burn
`Restoration Burn
`
`Brush Disposal – Purchaser
`Brush Disposal – Forest Service
`Erosion Control
`Roadside Herbicide
`Temporary Roads
`Road Maintenance
`Unusual Condition Adjustment**
`Specified Roads -Construction
`Specified Roads - Reconstruction
`Road Decommissioning
`Road Storage
`
`-$732,432
`-$518,806
`-$321,761
`-$1,193,400
`-$1,000
`-$2,995
`-$1,000
`-$3,000
`-$36,200
`-$21,000
`-$78,995
`-$240,870
`-$52,325
`
`-$62,100
`-$521,600
`
`$72,933
`$715,809
`$151,481
`$60,900
`$86,722
`$261,234
`$150,511
`$381,739
`$102,782
`$3,440
`$15,830
`
`31.
`
`These costs add up to $5,790,869, which means the Project results in a net
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 9:20-cv-00104-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 9 of 42
`
`loss of $4.2 million.
`
`B. Procedural Background
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`Scoping for the Project commenced on June 9, 2017.
`
`The draft EIS was issued in June 2018, and the Forest Service accepted
`
`public comment from June 15, 2018 to July 30, 2018.
`
`34. Over 100 individuals, including dozens of local residents, submitted
`
`comments on the draft EIS; the vast majority of commenters opposed the
`
`Project and requested a different alternative, including one comment letter
`
`signed by 3,000 members of the public. In summary, the majority of the
`
`public requested an alternative with no old growth logging and no new roads.
`
`The final EIS and draft Record of Decision were issued in March 2019.
`
`The Forest Service held a pre-decisional administrative objection period from
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`July 3, 2029 to August 8, 2019.
`
`37.
`
`19 objections were filed against the Project.
`
`38. On September 3, 2019, the Forest Service denied the objections.
`
`39. A revised final EIS was issued in October 2019.
`
`40.
`
`The final Record of Decision was issued on November 15, 2019.
`
`C. Wildland Urban Interface Designation
`
`41.
`
`The Record of Decision (ROD) states: “Approximately 90 percent of
`
`treatment acres are within the insect and disease treatment area designated
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 9:20-cv-00104-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 10 of 42
`
`under HFRA Title VI. Seventy-six percent of treated acres would occur
`
`within the Wildland-Urban Interface.”
`
`42.
`
`The Final EIS for the Project implies that the “Bitterroot Community Wildfire
`
`Protection Plan (2006)” delineated the wildland urban interface used for the
`
`Project.
`
`43. However, there is no map in the EIS that clearly sets forth the wildland urban
`
`interface as defined by the 2006 Bitterroot Community Wildfire Protection
`
`Plan.
`
`44. Although a new wildland urban interface map was proposed in a 2009 update
`
`to the Bitterroot Community Wildfire Protection Plan, the Ravalli County
`
`Commissioners did not approve the newer 2009/2010 wildland urban
`
`interface map as described in a 2009 update to the Bitterroot Community
`
`Wildfire Protection Plan. See “Will a twice-burned county change its
`
`ways?,” High Country News (October 24, 2016); “County commissioners
`
`decline to act on WUI,” Bitterroot Star (December 28, 2011); Ravalli County
`
`Commissioners’ Meeting Minutes (December 20, 2011).
`
`45.
`
`The 2006/2007 Bitterroot Community Wildfire Protection Plan wildland
`
`urban interface is defined as follows: “For the purposes of the CWPP, the
`
`Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) is defined as the zone where structures or
`
`other human development meet to intermingle with undeveloped wildland or
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 9:20-cv-00104-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 11 of 42
`
`vegetative fuels. The width of the zone is determined on a site-specific basis
`
`to protect values at risk from wildland fire. At-Risk Communities are those
`
`communities identified and addressed in the CWPP that are considered at
`
`risk by wildland fire. At-Risk Communities, as defined in the Healthy Forest
`
`Restoration Act 2004, are comprised of: • An interface community as
`
`defined in the notice “Wildland Urban Interface Communities Within the
`
`Vicinity of Federal Lands That Are at High Risk From Wildfire” issued by
`
`the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Interior in accordance with
`
`Title IV of the U.S. Dept. of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
`
`Act, 2001. OR • A group of homes and other structures with basic
`
`infrastructure and services (such as utilities and collectively maintained
`
`transportation routes) within or adjacent to Federal land AND • In which
`
`conditions are conducive to large-scale wildland fire disturbance event AND
`
`• For which a significant threat to human life or property exists as a result of
`
`a wildland fire disturbance event. At-Risk Ravalli County communities
`
`include: Florence, Stevensville, Victor, Pinesdale, Corvallis, Hamilton,
`
`Darby, West Fork, Sula, and other areas where numerous residents live in the
`
`Wildland Urban Interface in Ravalli County that meet the above mentioned
`
`criteria.” The EIS does not disclose this wildland urban interface definition
`
`or demonstrate that the Project wildland urban interface complies with this
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 9:20-cv-00104-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 12 of 42
`
`definition.
`
`46.
`
`In contrast, the 2009/2010 Bitterroot Community Wildfire Protection Plan
`
`wildland urban interface would have dramatically expanded the wildland
`
`urban interface, and included a one-mile buffer zone along the entire National
`
`Forest boundary, regardless of housing density.
`
`47.
`
`It appears from maps discovered in the Project file that the Forest Service
`
`used the 2009/2010 wildland urban interface map rather than the 2006/2007
`
`wildland urban interface map because the map used for the Project appears
`
`to contain a one-mile buffer zone along the entire National Forest boundary,
`
`regardless of housing density:
`
`48.
`
`The Project file received by Plaintiffs does not contain the 2006/2007
`
`wildland urban interface map that is currently in effect in Ravalli County.
`
`49.
`
`Instead, the Project file contains two maps that both set forth the 2009/2010
`
`Bitterroot Community Wildfire Protection Plan wildland urban interface map,
`
`which was never authorized by the Ravalli County Commissioners.
`
`50.
`
`In response to public concerns and questions regarding the Project and how
`
`many people actually live adjacent to the Project area, the Forest Service
`
`refused to disclose any such analysis and instead simply stated:
`
`“Landownership including individual addresses for the WUI adjacent to the
`
`project area are available through Ravalli County tax records and the
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 9:20-cv-00104-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 13 of 42
`
`Montana Cadastral Mapping Project (http://svc.mt.gov/msl/mtcadastral).”
`
`51.
`
`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.
`
`52.
`
`Indeed, it appears that the vast majority of private land along the Project area
`
`boundary is “vacant” agricultural land with no living units.
`
`53. Accordingly, it is unclear how much, if any, of the Project area would meet
`
`the definition of wildland urban interface from the 2006 Bitterroot
`
`Community Wildfire Protection Plan, which adopts the statutory HFRA
`
`definition and requires either an “interface community” or a “[a] group of
`
`homes and other structures with basic infrastructure and services . . . .”
`
`54.
`
`The Federal Register notice cited in the HFRA defines “interface
`
`community” as “3 or more structures per acre, with shared municipal
`
`services” or “a population density of 250 or more people per square mile . . .
`
`.” 66 Fed. Reg at 753, 2001 WL 7426.
`
`D. Old Growth
`
`55.
`
`Lesica (1996) estimates that old growth occupied 20 – 50% of the
`
`pre-settlement forest landscape in low and many mid elevation habitats, and
`
`between 18 and 37% in mid to upper elevation habitats.
`
`56.
`
`The Project EIS discloses that the Sapphire area currently has only 10% old
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 9:20-cv-00104-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 14 of 42
`
`growth, which is significantly less than historic conditions regardless of
`
`elevation.
`
`57. Arno et al. (1995b) states that old growth ponderosa pine was abundant in
`
`the accessible lower elevation valleys and mountain slopes in western
`
`Montana and has been logged heavily for more than 100 years. They suggest
`
`that less than one percent of the old growth seral ponderosa pine type in
`
`western Montana has no history of logging.
`
`58.
`
`Logging in the Bitterroot Valley started in the late 1840's and continued
`
`through the 1870’s. Early logging was mostly to produce logs and other
`
`wood products for use by local farmers and ranchers. This subsistence
`
`logging took the most accessible timber from the foothills and lower slopes
`
`of the Bitterroot Mountains. Once nearby timber was exhausted, the mills
`
`were dismantled and moved to a new location.
`
`59.
`
`In the 1880’s through the early 1900’s the Bitterroot’s lumber industry
`
`expanded from subsistence logging and milling for local use to providing
`
`mass quantities of timber and lumber for hardrock mines, railroads and
`
`growing cities throughout Montana. Completion of the railroad to its
`
`terminus at Darby in 1889 allowed lumber companies to exploit timber on a
`
`large scale from the upper valley, along Tin Cup Creek and the West Fork of
`
`the Bitterroot. The logging by the Anaconda Copper Company was
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 9:20-cv-00104-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 15 of 42
`
`extensive. In some areas “Nothing is left standing, for every tree over 6
`
`inches in diameter is converted into lumber.”
`
`60.
`
`This historic logging dramatically reduced the amount of old growth in the
`
`Bitterroot drainage, particularly the ponderosa pine in the lower elevations,
`
`and explains the lack of old growth in some 3rd order drainages today.
`
`61. Old growth habitat in the Gold Butterfly Project area is composed largely of
`
`forest types dominated by Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine at lower to mid
`
`elevations, and Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir at mid to
`
`upper elevations.
`
`62.
`
`The Project analysis indicates that old growth distribution within the Project
`
`area fails the applicable Forest Plan Standards for old growth habitat in one
`
`of the third order drainages designated as “Management Area 1,” and four of
`
`the third order drainages designated as “Management Area 2.”
`
`63.
`
`The Project EIS represents that the Project will allow commercial logging of
`
`approximately 750 acres of old growth forest, including approximately 350
`
`acres of clear-cutting.
`
`64.
`
`In contrast, the Record of Decision states that no clear-cutting, i.e.
`
`“regeneration harvest,” will occur in old growth, though commercial logging
`
`will still occur in 750 acres of old growth forest.
`
`65.
`
`The Record of Decision represents that the new logging prescription for
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 9:20-cv-00104-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 16 of 42
`
`these old growth areas formerly proposed for clearcutting is to “leav[e] most
`
`of the large green trees and snags while removing mostly co-dominant and
`
`intermediate trees that show symptoms of susceptibility to western spruce
`
`budworm and/or other insects and diseases. In addition . . . create canopy
`
`openings around dominant ponderosa pine trees to encourage natural
`
`regeneration of ponderosa pine.” Additionally, two former clearcutting units
`
`(111 acres) in old growth will now be non-commercial, and “would remove
`
`target specie(s) within a unit up to a certain diameter limit.”
`
`66. More specifically, internal agency meeting notes state that old growth logging
`
`will “remov[e] ½ to 2/3 of the basal area.”
`
`67.
`
`Internal agency meeting notes further indicate that the criteria the Forest
`
`Service will use to determine whether a logged stand still counts as old
`
`growth “for most of the units is 8 TPA [trees per acre] over 21” dbh and 170
`
`years or older” and “Whitebark pine and subalpine fir old growth
`
`requirements are 10 [trees per acre] > 13” dbh.”
`
`68.
`
`Internal agency meeting notes further estimate “that at least 1/3 or slightly
`
`more of the overstory will remain in many of the units.”
`
`69.
`
`The public was concerned about old growth logging, and noted in comments
`
`on the draft EIS that “[t]he DEIS does not provide a diameter limit on trees
`
`to be cut in old growth stands. The DEIS fails to explain how this meets
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 9:20-cv-00104-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 17 of 42
`
`HFRA requirements.”
`
`70.
`
`In response, the Forest Service stated: “Title VI of the Healthy Forest
`
`Restoration Act requires the project to maximize the retention of old growth
`
`and large trees, as appropriate for the forest type, to the extent that the trees
`
`promote stands that are resilient to insect and disease. A diameter limit is not
`
`specified in the HFRA language.”
`
`71. Other than the two sentences quoted above, there is no analysis in the EIS
`
`for the Project regarding how old growth logging across 750 acres could be
`
`consistent with the HFRA mandate requiring maximum retention of old
`
`growth and large trees.
`
`72.
`
`Internal agency meeting notes found: “During our conversations, it became
`
`obvious that it is difficult to definitively say that that old growth
`
`characteristics would be retained following treatment. Any treatment activity
`
`(e.g., logging, burning, etc.) has the potential to remove stands from old
`
`growth.”
`
`73.
`
`Internal agency meeting notes further found: (1) “Have to verify old growth
`
`by measurement, not possible to use satellite imagery[;]” (2) “Cannot
`
`determine which units are old growth or the distribution of old growth until
`
`all the data is collected and processed[;]” and (3) “Cannot determine the
`
`need for treatment or type of treatments in old growth stands until data is
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 9:20-cv-00104-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 18 of 42
`
`collected and processed.”
`
`74.
`
`The HFRA only allows projects under 16 U.S.C. § 6591a (d) in order to
`
`“reduce the risk or extent of, or increase the resilience to, insect or disease
`
`infestation” or “reduce hazardous fuels.” Additionally, the area where the
`
`project occurs must be at risk of “substantially increased tree mortality due
`
`to insect or disease infestation” or at risk of “dieback due to infestation or
`
`defoliation by insects or disease” or “in an area in which the risk of hazard
`
`trees poses an imminent risk to public infrastructure, health, or safety.”
`
`75.
`
`The Forest Plan defines “salvage harvest” as “the cutting of trees that are
`
`dead, dying, or deteriorating (e.g., because they are overmature or materially
`
`damaged by fire, wind, insects, fungi, or other injurious agencies) before they
`
`lose their commercial value as sawtimber.”
`
`76.
`
`The Forest Plan defines “sanitation harvest” as “the removal of dead,
`
`damaged, or susceptible trees, essentially to prevent the spread of pests or
`
`pathogens and so promote forest hygiene.”
`
`77.
`
`Forest Plan Forest-wide Management Standard (1)(e)(6) states: “Sanitation
`
`and salvage harvests may occur in stands classified as old growth if old
`
`growth characteristics are retained after logging.”
`
`78.
`
`Forest Plan Forest-wide Management Standard (1)(e)(2) states: “Stand
`
`conditions that qualify as old growth will vary by habitat type and landform.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 9:20-cv-00104-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 19 of 42
`
`Criteria to consider for identifying old growth include:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`large trees, generally 15 per acre greater than 20 inches dbh for species
`
`other than lodgepole pine and 6 inches for lodgepole pine;
`
`canopy closure at 75 percent of site potential;
`
`stand structure usually uneven-aged or multistoried;
`
`snags, generally 1.5 per acre greater than 6 inches dbh and .5 per acre
`
`greater than 20 inches;
`
`more than 25 tons per acre of down material greater than 6 inches
`
`diameter;
`
`heart rot and broken tops in large trees are common; and
`
`mosses and lichens are present.”
`
`79.
`
`The Forest Plan also provides the following definition of old growth: “A
`
`forest stand with 15 trees per acre greater than 20 inches dbh (6 inches in
`
`lodgepole pine) and canopy closure that is 75 percent of site potential. The
`
`stand is uneven-age or multistoried. There should be 1.5 snags per acre
`
`greater than 6 inches dbh; 0.5 snags per acre greater than 20 inches dbh; and
`
`25 tons per acre of down material greater than 6 inches diameter. Heart rot
`
`and broken tops are common and mosses and lichens are present.”
`
`80.
`
`In the Project EIS, the Forest Service admitted that it was not using the
`
`Forest Plan criteria/definition of old growth, but rather using an alternative
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 9:20-cv-00104-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 20 of 42
`
`definition set forth in an internal agency document that has never been peer-
`
`reviewed, subjected to NEPA, or amended to the Forest Plan: “old growth
`
`criteria used were the more current R1 definitions in Green et al. (1992, errata
`
`2005).”
`
`81.
`
`Public commenters requested that the Forest Service clarify how the Project
`
`will retain the old growth characteristics required by the Forest Plan. In
`
`response, the Forest Service refused to address the issue in the EIS, and
`
`instead directed the public to a document in the Project file S the “Wildlife
`
`Specialist Report, pages 10-16 (PF-WILD-001).”
`
`82.
`
`The Wildlife Specialist Report at pages 10-16 does not disclose the Forest
`
`Plan old growth definition/criteria or apply them, nor does it disclose the
`
`actual criteria used to assess old growth for the Project area.
`
`83.
`
`Consistent with the agency meeting notes quoted above, a document in the
`
`project file designated as SILV-013 indicates that the following criteria were
`
`used to calculate old growth for the Project:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`10 trees per acre greater than 20 inches dbh in Douglas fir forest type
`
`and 8 trees per acre greater than 20 inches dbh in ponderosa pine
`
`forest type;
`
`no requirements for canopy closure;
`
`no requirements for uneven-aged or multi-storied structure;
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 9:20-cv-00104-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 21 of 42
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`no requirements for snags per acre over 6 inches dbh or snags per
`
`acre over 20 inches dbh;
`
`no requirements for tons per acre for down material greater than 6
`
`inches diameter;
`
`no requirements for heart rot and broken tops;
`
`no requirements for mosses and lichens.
`
`84. 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, although the Forest Service never clearly disclosed that fact to
`
`the public.
`
`85.
`
`In particular, the Forest Plan mandates 15 large trees per acre for old growth,
`
`but the Forest Service old growth calculations for the Project only require 8
`
`or 10 large trees per acre; also, the Forest Plan mandates 75% canopy
`
`closure, while the agency indicates the Project will only retain 33% canopy
`
`closure.
`
`86.
`
`The Forest Plan further mandates that in Management Area 1, old growth
`
`must be in stands of at least 40 acres, and must comprise at least 3% of each
`
`third order drainage.
`
`87.
`
`The Forest Plan further mandates that in Management Areas 2 and 3a and 3c,
`
`old growth must be in stands of at least 40 acres, and must comprise at least
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case 9:20-cv-00104-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 22 of 42
`
`8% of each third order drainage.
`
`88.
`
`The Forest Plan further mandates that in Management Areas 3b old growth
`
`must be in stands of at least 40 acres, and must comprise either 25% or 50%
`
`of riparian areas.
`
`89. Neither the Project EIS nor the Wildlife Specialist Report discloses whether
`
`all old growth acres counted in the Project area occur in stands of 40 acres
`
`or more.
`
`90. A document in the Project file designated as SILV-006 appears to find that a
`
`number of stands are counted as old growth although they are less than 40
`
`acres.
`
`91. Without application of the Forest Plan old growth definition and criteria and
`
`the 40-acre stand size minimum, it is unclear how many drainages actually
`
`meet the Forest Plan old growth retention standards now or post-Project,
`
`and thus it is not possible to determine whether old growth logging is
`
`proposed for drainages that currently violate the Forest Plan old growth
`
`standards.
`
`92. Moreover, if all areas designated for old growth logging by the Project are
`
`logged down to the Project old growth criteria, none of those areas will
`
`comply with the Forest Plan definition of old growth post-Project.
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case 9:20-cv-00104-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 23 of 42
`
`E. Elk
`
`93. Many elk in this area winter on private lands several miles to the west of the
`
`Project area. Some of these elk travel through the Project area during their
`
`spring or fall migrations between winter range and summer range high in the
`
`Sapphires. However, many of the elk in HD 261 have essentially become
`
`year-round residents on lower elevation private lands, and no longer migrate
`
`to summer ranges due to the high road density on public lands.
`
`94.
`
`In terms of population, the ten-year average from elk counts in the area (722)
`
`is below the elk count for the same area in 1987, when the Forest Plan was
`
`approved (792).
`
`95.
`
`Forest Plan Forest-wide Management Standard (1)(e)(14) states: “Manage
`
`roads through the Travel Plan process to attain or maintain 50 percent or
`
`higher elk habitat effectiveness (Lyon, 1983) in currently roaded third order
`
`drainages. Drainages where more than 25 percent of roads are in place are
`
`considered roaded. Maintain 60 percent or higher elk habitat effectiveness in
`
`drainages where less than 25 percent of the roads have been built.”
`
`96.
`
`Six different drainages in the Project area violate the Forest Plan elk habitat
`
`effectiveness standard.
`
`97.
`
`The Project Record of Decision states: “Implementation of the Selected
`
`Alternative, as modified, will require a project-specific forest plan
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case 9:20-cv-00104-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/10/20 Page 24 of 42
`
`amendment to the 1987 Bitterroot Forest Plan to suspend certain Forest Plan
`
`standards relating to elk habitat effectiveness and thermal cover. Discussion
`
`concerning the plan amendment and its effects is found in Appendix D of the
`
`Gold Butterfly FEIS.”
`
`98.
`
`The Forest Service states: “The plan amendment is guided by the 2012
`
`Planning Rule, which has different provisions from the 1982 Planning Rule
`
`procedures that the Forest Service used to develop the existing forest plan.”
`
`99.
`
`Public commenters raised the concern that the EIS “fails to document an
`
`analysis consistent with the 2012 Planning Rule regarding amendments” and
`
`that the Forest Service failed to “use the best available scientific information
`
`to inform the amendment process.”
`
`100. Public commenters further stated: “The purpose of the amendments, as
`
`stated in the FEIS, is ‘to allow six third order drainages in the analysis area to
`
`not meet EHE standards’. . . . To merely ‘allow’ deviation of the Forest
`
`Plan is not adequate justification . . . .”
`
`101. The 2012 NFMA planning regulations require:
`
`(b) Amendment requirements. For every plan amendment, the
`responsible official shall:
`
`(5) Determine which specific substantive requirement(s)
`within §§ 219.8 through 219.11 are directly related to the plan
`direction being added, modified, or removed by the
`amendment and apply such requirement(s) within the scope
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case 9:20-cv-0