Comments closed September 14 · decided
Stop commercial logging in Chalk Buttes on Custer Gallatin National Forest
U.S. Forest Service · Sioux Ranger District, Custer Gallatin National Forest
- What
- The Forest Service plans to log over 1,600 acres in the Chalk Buttes area of Custer Gallatin National Forest.
- Where
- Sioux Ranger District, Custer Gallatin National Forest, MT, SD
- How much
- Approximately 1,643 acres face commercial timber harvest, with an additional 4,354 acres proposed for mechanical or hand thinning and 3,106 acres for prescribed burning in the Chalk Buttes area of the Sioux Ranger District.
- Decided
- Comments closed September 14, 2026. The decision is on file: 20260722_ChalkButtes_CommentResponse. Open it ↗Date from Forest Service comment page (CARA) ↗, read August 1, 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.
- DecidedSeptember 14, 2026, from Forest Service comment page (CARA), its “comments are requested through” date ↗. Read August 1, 2026. The decision document is the one on file in PLAN’s record.
- Read from PLAN’s record November 10, 2026.
What the proposal said, and what the decision did
Unreviewed · Source: Response to comments, 20260722_ChalkButtes_CommentResponse ↗
Did the agency answer?
PLAN found 10 issues in the agency’s analysis.
Each issue against the decision not yet reviewed
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe northern long-eared bat is listed as Endangered and the agency determined the project may affect, is likely to adversely affect the species, triggering formal ESA Section 7 consultation with the U.S.
The northern long-eared bat is listed as Endangered and the agency determined the project may affect, is likely to adversely affect the species, triggering formal ESA Section 7 consultation with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. The EA references a Biological Assessment in the project record but does not disclose whether formal consultation has been completed, whether a Biological Opinion has been issued, or whether an incidental take statement is in place. Approving the project before formal consultation is complete and a Biological Opinion is received would be premature. The agency should disclose the status of Section 7 consultation and confirm a Biological Opinion and incidental take statement are in place before implementation begins.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“The consultation with the USFWS is in progress. The Custer Gallatin National Forest has worked closely with the USFWS throughout the consultation process to develop a study plan to monitor for federally listed bat species in the project area. The Forest will have two years of survey data prior to implementation of the commercial component of the project. The consultation will be completed before the decision is signed”
The agency’s own words, 20260722_ChalkButtes_CommentResponse ↗, Federally Listed Species · PLAN’s match, unchecked
PLAN found no answer, not yet checked by a personThe document proposes treating 4,354 acres but states that prescribed fire maintenance, planned for 3,106 of those acres, would not occur for 5 to 15 years after primary treatments.
The document proposes treating 4,354 acres but states that prescribed fire maintenance, planned for 3,106 of those acres, would not occur for 5 to 15 years after primary treatments.
The crown fire reduction achieved by thinning is itself described as lasting only 10 to 15 years. This means the window of effectiveness and the window of maintenance overlap at best and may not overlap at all if implementation of prescribed fire is delayed toward the 15-year end of the range. The agency does not analyze what happens to fuel loads, crown fire risk, or wildlife habitat if the prescribed fire cycle slips beyond the period when thinning benefits remain. The agency should quantify the risk of this treatment gap and analyze it as a distinct scenario, or prepare an EIS addressing the significance of a possible lapse in fire risk reduction.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
PLAN found no answer, not yet checked by a personThe soils analysis identifies that one commercial unit would exceed the 15 percent detrimental soil disturbance threshold if all primary and secondary treatments are implemented, yet the agency approves full implementation of the proposed action across all units and defers the unit-specific DSD assessment to post-harvest field work.
The soils analysis identifies that one commercial unit would exceed the 15 percent detrimental soil disturbance threshold if all primary and secondary treatments are implemented, yet the agency approves full implementation of the proposed action across all units and defers the unit-specific DSD assessment to post-harvest field work.
Approving the action before knowing whether the DSD threshold will be violated in that unit means the significance determination is made without complete information. The agency should complete the field DSD assessment before issuing the FONSI, or at minimum analyze the significance of a potential threshold exceedance, rather than deferring that determination to implementation.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe EA states that tribal consultation meetings and presentations occurred through September 2025, and that the Class III cultural report and project information were sent to interested tribes, but provides no substantive description of what tribes raised, how those concerns were addressed, or whether any tribe requested additional consultation or expressed unresolved concerns.
The EA states that tribal consultation meetings and presentations occurred through September 2025, and that the Class III cultural report and project information were sent to interested tribes, but provides no substantive description of what tribes raised, how those concerns were addressed, or whether any tribe requested additional consultation or expressed unresolved concerns.
The Chalk Buttes area contains National Register-eligible cultural sites. The tribal consultation section is limited to a table of meeting records with no analysis of outcomes. The agency should disclose the substance of tribal input, identify any unresolved concerns, and confirm that government-to-government consultation was completed to the satisfaction of consulting tribes before issuing the FONSI.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“Tribal consultation is discussed on page 24 of the EA. A Cultural Class III report has been shared only with interested Tribes (EA, p. 24) and was not posted on the Forest Service project site for the public. The EA does not disclose confidential information regarding sites or their locations.”
The agency’s own words, 20260722_ChalkButtes_CommentResponse ↗, Cultural Resources · PLAN’s match, unchecked, an answer in part
PLAN found no answer, not yet checked by a personThe EA states that the Hell Creek Formation exposed in the project area is highly fossiliferous and that one known paleontological site exists in the project area, but the analysis of effects to paleontological resources consists of a single sentence citing a Forest Plan guideline.
The EA states that the Hell Creek Formation exposed in the project area is highly fossiliferous and that one known paleontological site exists in the project area, but the analysis of effects to paleontological resources consists of a single sentence citing a Forest Plan guideline.
No assessment is provided of whether ground disturbance from 4.3 miles of temporary roads, tractor-based harvest on 1,643 acres, and mastication equipment would affect known or unknown fossil localities within the highly fossiliferous formation. The agency should provide a site-level paleontological resources assessment and disclose how project activities would avoid or mitigate effects to fossil localities before approving ground-disturbing activities.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe EA acknowledges that oval-leaf milkweed and Visher's buckwheat are Species of Conservation Concern with suitable habitat in the project area, but states there are no documented occurrences of either species and that the area may still support populations of these species.
The EA acknowledges that oval-leaf milkweed and Visher's buckwheat are Species of Conservation Concern with suitable habitat in the project area, but states there are no documented occurrences of either species and that the area may still support populations of these species.
Despite this uncertainty, the analysis concludes the proposed action would not affect viability or cause a trend toward federal listing without any documented survey confirming absence from treatment units. The botany section notes that surveys were conducted between 2022 and 2024 but does not state that all treatment units were surveyed specifically for these two species. The agency should disclose the survey coverage for oval-leaf milkweed and Visher's buckwheat in each treatment unit and, where suitable habitat exists without confirmed absence, conduct additional surveys or apply protective design features before approving ground-disturbing treatments.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“botany surveys were conducted to identify populations of plant Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) in addition to state-listed Species of Concern (SOC)/ Potential Species of Concern (PSOC). These surveys are discussed in the Botany report. Within the planning area, seven state listed SOC/PSOC species were found.”
The agency’s own words, 20260722_ChalkButtes_CommentResponse ↗, Proposed Action, Design, and Project Implementation · PLAN’s match, unchecked, an answer in part
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe EA acknowledges that elk secure habitat in the project area already sits at only 19 percent, well below the generally recommended 30 percent threshold, yet the agency approves the action anyway without explaining why existing conditions that are already deficient in secure habitat make temporary further reductions acceptable.
The EA acknowledges that elk secure habitat in the project area already sits at only 19 percent, well below the generally recommended 30 percent threshold, yet the agency approves the action anyway without explaining why existing conditions that are already deficient in secure habitat make temporary further reductions acceptable.
The Wildlife section states the recommended level is 30 percent but that strict adherence should be cautioned, yet no site-specific analysis is provided to justify departing from that benchmark given the already-deficient baseline. The agency should either provide a site-specific quantitative justification for why 19 percent is adequate at Chalk Buttes, or prepare an EIS that fully analyzes the significance of this cumulative deficit.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“The Wildlife report includes analysis effects to elk security, cover, and habitat effectiveness (pp. 12-14) under the proposed action. This includes temporary changes during implementation and long-term changes after implementation. The analysis is consistent with Forest Plan direction for big game.”
The agency’s own words, 20260722_ChalkButtes_CommentResponse ↗, Wildlife · PLAN’s match, unchecked, an answer in part
PLAN found no answer, not yet checked by a personThe crown fire model the agency relies on to demonstrate a reduction from 34 percent to 11 percent passive crown fire is acknowledged in the same section to underestimate actual risk.
The crown fire model the agency relies on to demonstrate a reduction from 34 percent to 11 percent passive crown fire is acknowledged in the same section to underestimate actual risk.
The document states that crown fire potential is often underestimated in Eastern Montana ponderosa pine due to model limitations, yet the FONSI uses these same model outputs to conclude no significant effects. The agency should disclose the direction and magnitude of model bias, provide a sensitivity analysis or alternative estimate, and explain why modeled outputs that the agency itself calls underestimates are sufficient to support a FONSI rather than an EIS.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
PLAN found no answer, not yet checked by a personThe FONSI certifying statement checkboxes are all unchecked.
The FONSI certifying statement checkboxes are all unchecked.
The document instructs that the Responsible Official must be able to check every box, yet every box remains empty. This means the agency has not formally certified that the EA thoroughly considered NEPA-mandated factors, reflects expert judgment, or contains analysis adequate to inform the decision. The agency should either complete the required certification before issuing the FONSI or reopen the decision process until the certifying statement can be properly executed.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
PLAN found no answer, not yet checked by a personThe FONSI signature block is blank: no responsible official name, no title, and no date are entered.
The FONSI signature block is blank: no responsible official name, no title, and no date are entered.
A FONSI with no signature is not a legally complete decision document. The agency should provide a properly executed signature block before treating the FONSI as effective and before allowing any implementation activities to begin.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
Response to comments: 20260722_ChalkButtes_CommentResponse ↗
PLAN's read: high threat
The Forest Service plans to log over 1,600 acres in the Chalk Buttes area of Custer Gallatin National Forest.
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
“Secure habitat for elk occurs on 19 percent of the project area. The general recommended level for elk security is 30 percent, but is dependent on site-specific conditions and strict adherence should be cautioned.”
The EA acknowledges that elk secure habitat in the project area already sits at only 19 percent, well below the generally recommended 30 percent threshold, yet the agency approves the action anyway without explaining why existing conditions that are already deficient in secure habitat make temporary further reductions acceptable.
The agency says
“The actual risk of crown fire may be higher than the landscape fire behavior analysis results show, as crown fire potential is often underestimated in Eastern Montana ponderosa pine due to model limitations.”
The crown fire model the agency relies on to demonstrate a reduction from 34 percent to 11 percent passive crown fire is acknowledged in the same section to underestimate actual risk.
Certifying Statement for EA Page Limit and Deadline ↗
The agency says
“This section is required. See 7 CFR 1b.5(c)(6). Must be able to check every box.”
The FONSI certifying statement checkboxes are all unchecked.
Signature and Authorization Date ↗
The agency says
“Responsible Official's name Responsible Official's title Click or tap to enter a date. Insert digital, autopen, or hand-written signature in this section.”
The FONSI signature block is blank: no responsible official name, no title, and no date are entered.
The agency says
“The reduction in crown fire potential is expected to last 10-15 years, until regeneration redevelops in the understory and creates ladder fuels.”
The document proposes treating 4,354 acres but states that prescribed fire maintenance, planned for 3,106 of those acres, would not occur for 5 to 15 years after primary treatments.
The agency says
“One commercial unit was identified to have a post-treatment DSD value above the 15% threshold if all primary and secondary treatments were implemented to full extent.”
The soils analysis identifies that one commercial unit would exceed the 15 percent detrimental soil disturbance threshold if all primary and secondary treatments are implemented, yet the agency approves full implementation of the proposed action across all units and defers the unit-specific DSD assessment to post-harvest field work.
The agency says
“May affect, likely to adversely affect; project activities would occur in the active season and may harm NLEB.”
The northern long-eared bat is listed as Endangered and the agency determined the project may affect, is likely to adversely affect the species, triggering formal ESA Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Consultation with Federally Recognized Tribes ↗
The agency says
“Project information, status updates, and the Chalk Buttes Class III report have been sent to interested Tribes, in addition to opportunities to provide recommendations on project planning.”
The EA states that tribal consultation meetings and presentations occurred through September 2025, and that the Class III cultural report and project information were sent to interested tribes, but provides no substantive description of what tribes raised, how those concerns were addressed, or whether any tribe requested additional consultation or expressed unresolved concerns.
The agency says
“The Late Cretaceous Hell Creek Formation is exposed on the lower elevations of the Chalk Buttes and is highly fossiliferous.”
The EA states that the Hell Creek Formation exposed in the project area is highly fossiliferous and that one known paleontological site exists in the project area, but the analysis of effects to paleontological resources consists of a single sentence citing a Forest Plan guideline.
The agency says
“There were no documented occurrences of oval-leaf milkweed or Visher's buckwheat within the project area; however, the area may still support populations of these species.”
The EA acknowledges that oval-leaf milkweed and Visher's buckwheat are Species of Conservation Concern with suitable habitat in the project area, but states there are no documented occurrences of either species and that the area may still support populations of these species.
In the agency’s own words
The Sioux Ranger District is proposing commercial harvest on approximately 1,643 acres; fuels treatments on approximately 4,354 acres using mechanical or hand thinning; and prescribed fire treatments on 3,106 acres, with some acreages proposed for more than one treatment.
The groups on this fight
4 groups predicted likely to care in Montana and South Dakota
Predicted likely to care is a guess from the group's sourced work in Montana and South Dakota, 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.
- Badlands Natural History Association
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works South Dakota: They work only in South Dakota.
- 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.
- Wind Cave National Park Friends Group
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works South Dakota: They work only in South Dakota.
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: 20260722_ChalkButtes_CommentResponse ↗.
The ground
The window has closed, so there’s no watch to set on it here.
The photograph on this page: Custer Gallatin National Forest, Montana. More Than Just Parks.
In court on this ground
No court case we track is over Custer National Forest and Gallatin 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 for 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.