Ogden Poorman vegetation project on Lincoln Ranger District
Ogden Poorman
U.S. Forest Service· Lincoln Ranger District, Helena-Lewis and Clark National ForestU.S. Forest Service project page ↗
Forest ServiceWe track this on the agency’s own system of record, where most on-the-ground decisions live.
The groups on this fight
4 groups work Montana
By footprint, from the same match the STAND matchmaker runs; none is linked to this decision in our record yet. Give straight to them; nothing routes through us.
- American Prairie
Works Montana: defending its own bison herd, formally protesting BLM's revocation of grazing permits on 63,000 public-land acres.
- Defenders of Wildlife
Works Montana: named plaintiff in the Rock Creek Mine case, which turned on threatened grizzly bears and bull trout.
- Earthjustice
Works Montana: counsel in the long-running litigation against the Rock Creek and Montanore mines proposed beneath the wilderness.
- Western Watersheds Project
Works 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.
The Forest Service wants to treat forest south of Highway 200 for insect and disease damage.
What’s at risk
Trees and wildlife habitat on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest face removal or alteration through vegetation management treatments. The stated driver is high hazard insect and disease damage and mortality.
If this goes through
Vegetation treatments would be authorized across the Ogden Poorman area of the Lincoln Ranger District, changing the structure of the forest there.
Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.
9 holes in the agency’s own analysis
Make these points, in your own words
- I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below.
- The notice lists no NEPA Start Date and no Finding/Decision Date under Project Milestones, meaning the public has no idea when the analysis will begin, when it will close, or when a decision will be made. Without those dates, affected people cannot plan to submit comments or objections in time. The agency should publish a concrete project timeline, including the scoping notice date, comment period open and close dates, and anticipated decision date, before proceeding further.
- The notice asserts the project will be processed as a Categorical Exclusion under Section 603 of HFRA (16 U.S.C. 6591b) but provides no acreage, no treatment types, no description of methods, and no explanation of why the project fits within that CE's statutory thresholds and conditions. The public cannot evaluate whether the CE is appropriate without knowing what treatments are proposed and at what scale. The agency should publish a full project description, including treatment types, acreage, and the specific findings required to invoke this CE, before any decision is made.
- The notice describes the purpose as 'Vegetation management (other than forest products)' but simultaneously says the project will 'address high hazard insect concerns with treatments that address damage and mortality from insects and disease.' These two characterizations conflict: vegetation management that removes insect-killed timber typically produces forest products. If timber harvest is part of the treatment, the project purpose is mis-categorized, which affects which CE applies and what environmental review is required. The agency should clarify whether any commercial or non-commercial timber removal is included and correct the project purpose accordingly.
- The notice provides a location summary of 'South of Lincoln, MT in Powell and Lewis and Clark Counties' and nothing more -- no map, no legal description, no acreage, no watershed identification. Without geographic specificity, people who live, hunt, fish, hike, or hold water rights in the area cannot determine whether the project affects them. The agency should release a project map and legal land description, identifying specific drainages, roads, and boundaries, as part of any scoping notice.
Show all 11 points from the document
- The notice states the project will use a Categorical Exclusion, which by regulation requires a finding that no extraordinary circumstances are present. The notice contains no extraordinary-circumstances screening -- no mention of threatened or endangered species, critical habitat, roadless areas, wetlands, floodplains, cultural resources, or prior condition of the area. The Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, of which this area is part, supports grizzly bear and other listed species. The agency should publicly disclose its extraordinary-circumstances checklist and findings before finalizing any CE determination.
- The notice identifies no public scoping period, no comment period dates, and no objection period dates, yet it provides a 'Comment/Object on Project' link. Under 36 CFR Part 218 and HFRA Section 603, projects subject to a CE still require opportunity for public comment and, for certain projects, an objection period. Without published dates, the public cannot exercise those rights. The agency should immediately publish a formal scoping notice with explicit open and close dates for both comment and objection periods.
- The notice says the project will address 'high hazard insect concerns' but cites no data, no risk rating, no forest health assessment, and no inventory of affected stands. A CE under HFRA Section 603 requires the agency to identify a 'substantial risk of uncharacteristic wildfire or insect or disease outbreak.' That factual predicate is asserted here but never supported. The agency should release the forest health assessment or risk-rating data that underlies the hazard determination before any CE is signed.
- The notice lists no interdisciplinary team members, no specialists consulted, and no indication that tribal consultation under NHPA Section 106 or government-to-government consultation has been initiated or completed. The Lincoln area has documented cultural resource sensitivity. The absence of any reference to consultation is a procedural gap the agency must fill. The agency should disclose which tribes were contacted, when, and what their responses were, as part of any project record before a CE decision is made.
- The notice contains no alternatives analysis and does not state that alternatives were considered or why a no-action alternative was rejected, even at the project-description stage. While a CE does not require a full alternatives analysis, the absence of any discussion of treatment options -- prescribed fire, no-action, different entry areas -- means the public cannot assess whether the chosen treatment approach is the least environmentally damaging practicable option. The agency should describe what alternatives were considered and why the selected treatment type was chosen over others.
- Say something only you can say. The law requires the agency to consider and respond to substantive comments, and specifics are what make a comment substantive.
In the agency’s own words
The Ogden Poorman Project would address high hazard insect concerns with treatments that address damage and mortality from insects and disease. It is located on the Lincoln Ranger District, south of Highway 200.
Did the agency answer?
9 issues are on this record. The agency has not published its decision document yet, so each one stays pending until the agency answers.
Issues on the record, awaiting the decision
- PendingThe notice lists no NEPA Start Date and no Finding/Decision Date under Project Milestones, meaning the public has no idea when the analysis will begin, when it will close, or when a decision will be m
The notice lists no NEPA Start Date and no Finding/Decision Date under Project Milestones, meaning the public has no idea when the analysis will begin, when it will close, or when a decision will be made. Without those dates, affected people cannot plan to submit comments or objections in time. The agency should publish a concrete project timeline, including the scoping notice date, comment period open and close dates, and anticipated decision date, before proceeding further.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice asserts the project will be processed as a Categorical Exclusion under Section 603 of HFRA (16 U.S.C.
The notice asserts the project will be processed as a Categorical Exclusion under Section 603 of HFRA (16 U.S.C. 6591b) but provides no acreage, no treatment types, no description of methods, and no explanation of why the project fits within that CE's statutory thresholds and conditions. The public cannot evaluate whether the CE is appropriate without knowing what treatments are proposed and at what scale. The agency should publish a full project description, including treatment types, acreage, and the specific findings required to invoke this CE, before any decision is made.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice describes the purpose as 'Vegetation management (other than forest products)' but simultaneously says the project will 'address high hazard insect concerns with treatments that address dama
The notice describes the purpose as 'Vegetation management (other than forest products)' but simultaneously says the project will 'address high hazard insect concerns with treatments that address damage and mortality from insects and disease.' These two characterizations conflict: vegetation management that removes insect-killed timber typically produces forest products. If timber harvest is part of the treatment, the project purpose is mis-categorized, which affects which CE applies and what environmental review is required. The agency should clarify whether any commercial or non-commercial timber removal is included and correct the project purpose accordingly.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice provides a location summary of 'South of Lincoln, MT in Powell and Lewis and Clark Counties' and nothing more -- no map, no legal description, no acreage, no watershed identification.
The notice provides a location summary of 'South of Lincoln, MT in Powell and Lewis and Clark Counties' and nothing more -- no map, no legal description, no acreage, no watershed identification. Without geographic specificity, people who live, hunt, fish, hike, or hold water rights in the area cannot determine whether the project affects them. The agency should release a project map and legal land description, identifying specific drainages, roads, and boundaries, as part of any scoping notice.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice states the project will use a Categorical Exclusion, which by regulation requires a finding that no extraordinary circumstances are present.
The notice states the project will use a Categorical Exclusion, which by regulation requires a finding that no extraordinary circumstances are present. The notice contains no extraordinary-circumstances screening -- no mention of threatened or endangered species, critical habitat, roadless areas, wetlands, floodplains, cultural resources, or prior condition of the area. The Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, of which this area is part, supports grizzly bear and other listed species. The agency should publicly disclose its extraordinary-circumstances checklist and findings before finalizing any CE determination.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice identifies no public scoping period, no comment period dates, and no objection period dates, yet it provides a 'Comment/Object on Project' link.
The notice identifies no public scoping period, no comment period dates, and no objection period dates, yet it provides a 'Comment/Object on Project' link. Under 36 CFR Part 218 and HFRA Section 603, projects subject to a CE still require opportunity for public comment and, for certain projects, an objection period. Without published dates, the public cannot exercise those rights. The agency should immediately publish a formal scoping notice with explicit open and close dates for both comment and objection periods.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice says the project will address 'high hazard insect concerns' but cites no data, no risk rating, no forest health assessment, and no inventory of affected stands.
The notice says the project will address 'high hazard insect concerns' but cites no data, no risk rating, no forest health assessment, and no inventory of affected stands. A CE under HFRA Section 603 requires the agency to identify a 'substantial risk of uncharacteristic wildfire or insect or disease outbreak.' That factual predicate is asserted here but never supported. The agency should release the forest health assessment or risk-rating data that underlies the hazard determination before any CE is signed.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice lists no interdisciplinary team members, no specialists consulted, and no indication that tribal consultation under NHPA Section 106 or government-to-government consultation has been initia
The notice lists no interdisciplinary team members, no specialists consulted, and no indication that tribal consultation under NHPA Section 106 or government-to-government consultation has been initiated or completed. The Lincoln area has documented cultural resource sensitivity. The absence of any reference to consultation is a procedural gap the agency must fill. The agency should disclose which tribes were contacted, when, and what their responses were, as part of any project record before a CE decision is made.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice contains no alternatives analysis and does not state that alternatives were considered or why a no-action alternative was rejected, even at the project-description stage.
The notice contains no alternatives analysis and does not state that alternatives were considered or why a no-action alternative was rejected, even at the project-description stage. While a CE does not require a full alternatives analysis, the absence of any discussion of treatment options -- prescribed fire, no-action, different entry areas -- means the public cannot assess whether the chosen treatment approach is the least environmentally damaging practicable option. The agency should describe what alternatives were considered and why the selected treatment type was chosen over others.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
The reporting behind this
From More Than Just ParksAfter more than a decade chasing peak color across America, we built the foliage map we always wanted.
Another foreign mining company wants a piece of America’s public lands. This one comes with millions of gallons of groundwater pumping and radioactive radon.
The administration went looking for a sliver of Yosemite for a private developer and finally convinced the rest of public-lands world that if Yosemite is negotiable, nothing is safe.
More actions 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.
Know an open comment period we are missing, or spotted a wrong deadline? .