Comments closed August 3 · decided
Judith Springs logging decision nears in Little Belt Mountains
U.S. Forest Service · Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest, Judith-Musselshell Ranger District
- What
- The Forest Service is close to approving 7,600 acres of commercial logging in Montana's Little Belt Mountains.
- Where
- Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest, Judith-Musselshell Ranger District, Little Belt Mountains, MT
- How much
- Only people who filed written comments during the earlier public participation window are eligible to object.
- Decided
- Comments closed August 3, 2026. The decision is on file: Comment Response. Open it ↗Date from Forest Service comment page (CARA) ↗, read July 27, 2026.
Where these four lines come from
- WhatOur plain-English read of the Forest Service project page ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words under Case.
- WhereThe places and states the project page names, as PLAN read them.
- How muchThe first sentence of our What’s at risk read of the notice; the whole read is under Case.
- DecidedAugust 3, 2026, from Forest Service comment page (CARA), its “comments are requested through” date ↗. Read July 27, 2026. The decision document is the one on file in PLAN’s record.
- Read from PLAN’s record November 9, 2026.
What the proposal said, and what the decision did
PLAN has read 5 figures from the proposal and the decision here, and a person hasn't checked them yet. They go here once someone has.
Did the agency answer?
PLAN found 2 issues in the agency’s analysis. They’re waiting to be read against the decision.
The issues, awaiting the decision
PendingThe post-treatment fire behavior model is run using the same extreme weather inputs as the no-action model: 21 mph gridded winds, 1-hour fuel moisture of 5, 10-hour of 6, and 100-hour of 7.
The post-treatment fire behavior model is run using the same extreme weather inputs as the no-action model: 21 mph gridded winds, 1-hour fuel moisture of 5, 10-hour of 6, and 100-hour of 7.
These are severe fire weather conditions. The document never states what percentile of fire weather these inputs represent, whether they reflect the 90th, 97th, or some other design fire scenario, or whether they are appropriate for evaluating the full range of probable fire conditions the treated landscape would face. Without this disclosure, the modeled improvement cannot be evaluated as realistic or conservative. The agency should identify the fire weather percentile used, disclose the basis for selecting it, and analyze at least one lower-intensity weather scenario.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
PendingThe document's methodology table lists crown fire activity and flame length as the sole measures for all three resource condition indicators.
The document's methodology table lists crown fire activity and flame length as the sole measures for all three resource condition indicators.
No measure addresses smoke production, air quality impacts on nearby communities, or compliance with Clean Air Act permit limits during prescribed burns, even though the law section acknowledges the project must operate within a Montana DEQ open burn permit. With 2,427 acres of hand and prescribed fire treatments and 160 acres of post-harvest burning proposed, smoke impacts are a foreseeable effect that is identified in law but not analyzed. The agency should add smoke and air quality as an effect indicator, disclose the applicable permit limits, and analyze whether the proposed burning schedule can be accomplished within those limits.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
PLAN's read: high threat
The Forest Service is close to approving 7,600 acres of commercial logging in Montana's Little Belt Mountains.
What’s at risk
If this goes through
Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.
The agency’s own analysis
What the notice says, and what it leaves out
The window has closed; the record of what was missing stays.
The agency says
“Resource Condition Indicators and Measures for Assessing Effects”
The document's methodology table lists crown fire activity and flame length as the sole measures for all three resource condition indicators.
In the agency’s own words
The Responsible Official, District Ranger Jason Oltrogge, has prepared an Environmental Assessment, Finding of No Significant Impact and draft Decision Notice for the Judith Springs Vegetation Project. The Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest Service, Judith-Musselshell Ranger District, has proposed the Judith Springs Vegetation Project located on the east side of the Little Belt Mountains north of Highway 12. Treatments would occur on Forest Service land in the Spring Creek,?Musselshell?and South Fork Judith River watersheds. The purpose of the project is to?reduce hazardous fuel loading and?to?provide timber…
The groups on this fight
4 groups predicted likely to care in Montana
Predicted likely to care is a guess from the group's sourced work in Montana, with no link to this decision. Give straight to them; nothing routes through us.
- American Prairie
Predicted likely to care · a guess
American Prairie, Montana: Defending its own bison herd, formally protesting BLM's revocation of grazing permits on 63,000 public-land acres.
- Defenders of Wildlife
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Cabinet Mountains Wilderness, Montana: Named plaintiff in the Rock Creek Mine case, which turned on threatened grizzly bears and bull trout.
- Earthjustice
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Cabinet Mountains Wilderness, Montana: Counsel in the long-running litigation against the Rock Creek and Montanore mines proposed beneath the wilderness.
- Western Watersheds Project
Predicted likely to care · a guess
American Prairie, Montana: Filed a protest against BLM's revocation of the bison grazing permits.
Every group above is on STAND for Public Lands, with its court record, its filings and who backs it.
Who signs it
PLAN hasn’t read a signer into its record for this fight. The decision on file carries the signature: Comment Response ↗.
The ground
The window has closed, so there’s no watch to set on it here.
The photograph on this page: An unpaved national forest road climbing through autumn aspens. More Than Just Parks.
In court on this ground
No court case we track is over Helena National Forest and Lewis & Clark National Forest.
Who holds the vote
PLAN’s record doesn’t tie a member of Congress to this fight yet. The scorecard grades the votes and bills that decide public lands; nothing joins a vote or a bill to this decision, so there’s no member to name here without guessing.
See how your members vote ↗Forest ServiceWe track this on the agency’s own system of record, where most on-the-ground decisions live.
Know an open comment period we are missing, or spotted a wrong deadline? .
More fights that need you
Go deeper, free
See how your members of Congress vote on public lands
Every representative, graded on the votes that decide the fate of parks, forests, and refuges.
Open ↗The mapSee the places under active threat
A live map of the parks, monuments, and wild country in the crosshairs right now.
Open ↗A wrong fact, a dead link, a form that wouldn’t take your letter: one tap and it comes to the people who build PLAN, with this fight attached.