Comments closed September 14 · decided
Mark Twain National Forest approves logging in Blooming Rose project
U.S. Forest Service · Mark Twain National Forest, MO
- What
- The Forest Service is near a final decision to allow logging and vegetation treatment on the Mark Twain National Forest.
- Where
- Mark Twain National Forest, MO
- How much
- Only people who submitted written comments during the earlier public participation period are eligible to file a formal objection.
- Decided
- Comments closed September 14, 2026. The decision is on file: Blooming Rose EA 291090 DN FONSI 09212026. Open it ↗Date from Forest Service legal notice in Houston Herald ↗, read August 15, 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 legal notice in Houston Herald, published July 30, 2026, plus 45 days under 36 CFR 218.6 ↗. Read August 15, 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
Forest Service acres in the project area
Decided
approximately 6,774 acres
Unreviewed · Source: Decision notice, Blooming Rose EA 291090 DN FONSI 09212026 ↗
Did the agency answer?
PLAN found 10 issues in the agency’s analysis.
Each issue against the decision, unreviewed
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe Section 106 review explicitly states that historic properties are present within the Area of Potential Effects and that, without mitigation, they could be adversely affected, yet the FONSI declares no significant impacts and authorizes immediate implementation.
The Section 106 review explicitly states that historic properties are present within the Area of Potential Effects and that, without mitigation, they could be adversely affected, yet the FONSI declares no significant impacts and authorizes immediate implementation.
The EA acknowledges that Section 106 consultation remains ongoing and has not been completed, meaning the agency is signing a FONSI before legally required consultation has concluded. The agency should either complete Section 106 consultation and receive concurrence from Tribes and SHPO before signing, or at minimum extend the decision until all consulting parties have responded and all survey limitations have been resolved.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“Section 106 consultation for the Blooming Rose Proposal remains ongoing and is being conducted in accordance with the processes established in the 2019 Section 106 Programmatic Agreement. Analysis of the anticipated effects of specific activities proposed as well as any letters of comment from consulting parties will be included in the Blooming Rose proposal record.”
The agency’s own words, Blooming Rose EA 291090 DN FONSI 09212026 ↗, National Historic Preservation Act – Section 106 Review · PLAN’s match, unchecked, an answer in part
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe Osage Nation requested an extension to the original consultation deadline of January 16, 2026, and as of April 8, 2026, no letters of comment had been received from any of the three Tribes formally consulted.
The Osage Nation requested an extension to the original consultation deadline of January 16, 2026, and as of April 8, 2026, no letters of comment had been received from any of the three Tribes formally consulted.
The public comment period then closed May 29, 2026, and the FONSI was issued in July 2026, all while Tribal responses were still outstanding. The agency should pause the decision, allow adequate time for Tribal responses, and document how Tribal input was considered before issuing a final decision.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“Osage Nation representatives requested an extension to the original consult deadline, January 16th, 2026. No letters of comment have been received as of April 8th, 2026.”
The agency’s own words, Blooming Rose EA 291090 DN FONSI 09212026 ↗, Consultation with Federally Recognized Tribes · PLAN’s match, unchecked, an answer in part
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe soils section acknowledges that the cumulative effects model constrains analysis to a single year, even though the project is typically implemented over a ten-year period and involves up to 14.5 miles of temporary road construction and over 1,100 acres of regeneration harvests.
The soils section acknowledges that the cumulative effects model constrains analysis to a single year, even though the project is typically implemented over a ten-year period and involves up to 14.5 miles of temporary road construction and over 1,100 acres of regeneration harvests.
By compressing all disturbances into one modeled year, the agency produces a worst-case single-year snapshot but never analyzes the actual multi-year cumulative sediment and compaction loading that would occur across overlapping watersheds. The agency should either run multi-year cumulative watershed analysis or explicitly justify why the single-year model is protective given a decade-long implementation schedule.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“The proposed actions are constrained to a single year with this model. This will express the maximum possible effect that could occur and set no limits on the timing of implementation. On the Mark Twain National Forest, projects are typically implemented over the course of 10-year time period and on average only 15% of the proposed silviculture treatments occur on an annual basis throughout the project area”
The agency’s own words, Blooming Rose EA 291090 DN FONSI 09212026 ↗, Soil and Water Prediction Models Used in Blooming Rose · PLAN’s match, unchecked
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThree bat species (Indiana bat, Northern Long-Eared bat, and Tricolored bat) received a 'Likely to Adversely Affect' determination under the Endangered Species Act, yet the EA's FONSI concludes there are no significant impacts without explaining how adverse effects to three federally endangered species are consistent with a Finding of No Significant Impact.
Three bat species (Indiana bat, Northern Long-Eared bat, and Tricolored bat) received a 'Likely to Adversely Affect' determination under the Endangered Species Act, yet the EA's FONSI concludes there are no significant impacts without explaining how adverse effects to three federally endangered species are consistent with a Finding of No Significant Impact.
The agency should prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or, at minimum, provide explicit reasoned analysis reconciling the LAA determinations with the FONSI significance thresholds under 40 CFR 1508.27.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“Indiana bat Endangered No LAA See Programmatic BCS; Northern Long Eared bat Endangered No LAA See Programmatic BCS; Tricolored bat Endangered No LAA See Programmatic BCS”
The agency’s own words, Blooming Rose EA 291090 DN FONSI 09212026 ↗, Table 7 · PLAN’s match, unchecked, an answer in part
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe scoping period ran only 14 days, from April 21 to May 5, 2025, which is far shorter than the 30-day minimum recommended by Council on Environmental Quality guidance for projects of this scale and complexity.
The scoping period ran only 14 days, from April 21 to May 5, 2025, which is far shorter than the 30-day minimum recommended by Council on Environmental Quality guidance for projects of this scale and complexity.
Only two comments were received, a result that may reflect inadequate notice rather than lack of public concern. The agency should explain why a 14-day scoping window was sufficient for a 6,774-acre project involving multiple threatened and endangered species, ongoing Section 106 consultation, and over 2,200 acres of commercial harvest, or extend the scoping period and re-engage the public.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“A preliminary scoping period began on April 21st, 2025, and concluded on May 5th, 2025. Interested parties were emailed a copy of the scoping period letter and scoping period package. Two comments were received during this period and were considered by the interdisciplinary team.”
The agency’s own words, Blooming Rose EA 291090 DN FONSI 09212026 ↗, Individuals and Public Involvement · PLAN’s match, unchecked, an answer in part
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe document states that the Big Piney River scenic segment carries a Visual Quality Objective of Retention or Partial Retention under Management Prescription 6.3, yet the EA provides no stand-level analysis demonstrating that any of the regeneration harvests, salvage units, or temporary road construction within or adjacent to the MP 6.3 corridor actually meet those VQO standards.
The document states that the Big Piney River scenic segment carries a Visual Quality Objective of Retention or Partial Retention under Management Prescription 6.3, yet the EA provides no stand-level analysis demonstrating that any of the regeneration harvests, salvage units, or temporary road construction within or adjacent to the MP 6.3 corridor actually meet those VQO standards.
The agency should provide site-specific VQO compliance analysis for all treatment units visible from the Big Piney River scenic segment before approving harvest activities in or near that corridor.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“In Management Prescription 6.3, for scenic segments, the Forest Plan states, 'design management activities to meet, as a minimum, a Visual Quality Objective of Retention or Partial Retention to maintain current characteristic landscape'”
The agency’s own words, Blooming Rose EA 291090 DN FONSI 09212026 ↗, Scenic Resources · PLAN’s match, unchecked, an answer in part
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe document states that the area of potential effects includes historic properties that could be adversely affected, yet the heritage section simultaneously declares that proposal activities are 'not expected to have an impact on heritage resources.' These two statements directly contradict each other with no explanation.
The document states that the area of potential effects includes historic properties that could be adversely affected, yet the heritage section simultaneously declares that proposal activities are 'not expected to have an impact on heritage resources.' These two statements directly contradict each other with no explanation.
The agency should resolve this internal contradiction by completing the full archaeological survey, obtaining SHPO and Tribal concurrence, and issuing a single, consistent effects determination before implementation.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“Proposal activities are not expected to have an impact on heritage resources. Additional analysis can be found in the section titled 'National Historic Preservation Act – Section 106 Review'.”
The agency’s own words, Blooming Rose EA 291090 DN FONSI 09212026 ↗, Heritage · PLAN’s match, unchecked, an answer in part
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe document acknowledges that some Bender, Poynor, and Viburnum soils are highly erodible at slopes of 15 percent and greater, and that slopes in these series range up to 60 percent, yet no quantitative analysis identifies how many harvest acres fall on slopes above the erodibility threshold or how many acres exceed 35 percent slope where the soils are described as poorly suited for harvest equipment.
The document acknowledges that some Bender, Poynor, and Viburnum soils are highly erodible at slopes of 15 percent and greater, and that slopes in these series range up to 60 percent, yet no quantitative analysis identifies how many harvest acres fall on slopes above the erodibility threshold or how many acres exceed 35 percent slope where the soils are described as poorly suited for harvest equipment.
The agency should provide a slope and soil erodibility overlay for all harvest units and demonstrate that units on high-risk slopes either meet Forest Plan standards or will be excluded from heavy equipment operations.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“Several of these soil series are highly erodible at 15% and greater as stated in the Mark Twain Forest Plan. This will mean implementation standards and guidelines created for highly erodible soils will be necessary.”
The agency’s own words, Blooming Rose EA 291090 DN FONSI 09212026 ↗, Existing Soil Conditions · PLAN’s match, unchecked, an answer in part
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe carbon and climate analysis cites literature acknowledging that harvest operations release carbon and reduce carbon storage, and that older stands have higher carbon storage, yet the agency concludes that harvesting will increase carbon storage without quantifying the net carbon balance, the magnitude of the release, the time lag to recovery, or the probability of offsetting wildfire emissions under No Action.
The carbon and climate analysis cites literature acknowledging that harvest operations release carbon and reduce carbon storage, and that older stands have higher carbon storage, yet the agency concludes that harvesting will increase carbon storage without quantifying the net carbon balance, the magnitude of the release, the time lag to recovery, or the probability of offsetting wildfire emissions under No Action.
The agency should provide a quantitative net carbon accounting across the project life, including the release from logging slash, soil respiration, and wood product decay, before relying on carbon benefits to justify the harvest program.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“The proposed harvest operations would result in a release of carbon and reduce carbon storage in the forest both by removing organic matter (trees) and by increasing heterotrophic soil respiration. Logging operations would cause an increase in the amount of down woody debris from logging slash that is left following the removal of merchantable logs.”
The agency’s own words, Blooming Rose EA 291090 DN FONSI 09212026 ↗, Vegetation (Silviculture) · PLAN’s match, unchecked, an answer in part
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe document proposes decommissioning approximately 2.4 miles of National Forest System Roads and states these roads would be closed to public use after NEPA signing, yet it also states these same roads would be used to facilitate timber harvesting after closure.
The document proposes decommissioning approximately 2.4 miles of National Forest System Roads and states these roads would be closed to public use after NEPA signing, yet it also states these same roads would be used to facilitate timber harvesting after closure.
The EA does not analyze the traffic, sediment, or access impacts of continuing commercial logging use on roads that are simultaneously being closed to the public and eventually decommissioned. The agency should analyze the interim period of logging traffic on roads designated for decommissioning and explain what resource protections will apply during that window.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“Currently, the public does not have access to the entire 2.4 miles of road being decommissioned due to vegetation growing in the roadway. Decommissioning would help ensure that drivers are not using unsafe roads and would return the land back into suitable areas for natural resource production”
The agency’s own words, Blooming Rose EA 291090 DN FONSI 09212026 ↗, Alternative 2 · PLAN’s match, unchecked, an answer in part
Decision notice: Blooming Rose EA 291090 DN FONSI 09212026 ↗
PLAN's read: high threat
The Forest Service is near a final decision to allow logging and vegetation treatment on the Mark Twain 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.
National Historic Preservation Act – Section 106 Review ↗
The agency says
“Section 106 consultation for the Blooming Rose Proposal remains ongoing and is being conducted in accordance with the processes established in the 2019 Section 106 Programmatic Agreement.”
The Section 106 review explicitly states that historic properties are present within the Area of Potential Effects and that, without mitigation, they could be adversely affected, yet the FONSI declares no significant impacts and authorizes immediate implementation.
Consultation with Federally Recognized Tribes ↗
The agency says
“Osage Nation representatives requested an extension to the original consult deadline, January 16th, 2026. No letters of comment have been received as of April 8th, 2026.”
The Osage Nation requested an extension to the original consultation deadline of January 16, 2026, and as of April 8, 2026, no letters of comment had been received from any of the three Tribes formally consulted.
Soils Prediction Models Used in Blooming Rose ↗
The agency says
“The proposed actions are constrained to a single year with this model. This will express the maximum possible effect that could occur and set no limits on the timing of implementation.”
The soils section acknowledges that the cumulative effects model constrains analysis to a single year, even though the project is typically implemented over a ten-year period and involves up to 14.5 miles of temporary road construction and over 1,100 acres of regeneration harvests.
The agency says
“Indiana bat Endangered No LAA See Programmatic BCS; Northern Long Eared bat Endangered No LAA See Programmatic BCS; Tricolored bat Endangered No LAA See Programmatic BCS”
Three bat species (Indiana bat, Northern Long-Eared bat, and Tricolored bat) received a 'Likely to Adversely Affect' determination under the Endangered Species Act, yet the EA's FONSI concludes there are no significant impacts without explaining how adverse effects to three federally endangered species are consistent with a Finding of No Significant Impact.
Individuals and Public Involvement ↗
The agency says
“A preliminary scoping period began on April 21st, 2025, and concluded on May 5th, 2025. Two comments were received during this period and were considered by the interdisciplinary team.”
The scoping period ran only 14 days, from April 21 to May 5, 2025, which is far shorter than the 30-day minimum recommended by Council on Environmental Quality guidance for projects of this scale and complexity.
The agency says
“Big Piney River, Scenic Segment 6.9 Retention or Partial Retention”
The document states that the Big Piney River scenic segment carries a Visual Quality Objective of Retention or Partial Retention under Management Prescription 6.3, yet the EA provides no stand-level analysis demonstrating that any of the regeneration harvests, salvage units, or temporary road construction within or adjacent to the MP 6.3 corridor actually meet those VQO standards.
The agency says
“Proposal activities are not expected to have an impact on heritage resources. Additional analysis can be found in the section titled 'National Historic Preservation Act – Section 106 Review'.”
The document states that the area of potential effects includes historic properties that could be adversely affected, yet the heritage section simultaneously declares that proposal activities are 'not expected to have an impact on heritage resources.' These two statements directly contradict each other with no explanation.
The agency says
“Several of these soil series are highly erodible at 15% and greater as stated in the Mark Twain Forest Plan. This will mean implementation standards and guidelines created for highly erodible soils will be necessary.”
The document acknowledges that some Bender, Poynor, and Viburnum soils are highly erodible at slopes of 15 percent and greater, and that slopes in these series range up to 60 percent, yet no quantitative analysis identifies how many harvest acres fall on slopes above the erodibility threshold or how many acres exceed 35 percent slope where the soils are described as poorly suited for harvest equipment.
The agency says
“The proposed harvest operations would result in a release of carbon and reduce carbon storage in the forest both by removing organic matter (trees) and by increasing heterotrophic soil respiration.”
The carbon and climate analysis cites literature acknowledging that harvest operations release carbon and reduce carbon storage, and that older stands have higher carbon storage, yet the agency concludes that harvesting will increase carbon storage without quantifying the net carbon balance, the magnitude of the release, the time lag to recovery, or the probability of offsetting wildfire emissions under No Action.
Forest Service System Road Decommissioning ↗
The agency says
“These roads would be closed to public use after NEPA signing.”
The document proposes decommissioning approximately 2.4 miles of National Forest System Roads and states these roads would be closed to public use after NEPA signing, yet it also states these same roads would be used to facilitate timber harvesting after closure.
In the agency’s own words
The Blooming Rose project is intended to respond to the goals, objectives and standards outlined in the 2005 Forest Plan and to move the project area towards the desired future conditions for 2.1 and 6.3.
The groups on this fight
3 groups work this ground: Mark Twain National Forest
Works this ground means the editors' sourced record puts the group on this land, not that it has taken a side on this decision. Give straight to them; nothing routes through us.
- Sierra Club
Works this ground · not linked to this decision
Works this ground at Mark Twain National Forest: Its Missouri Chapter joined Heartwood and the Missouri Forest Alliance in an October 2024 formal objection to the revised forest plan over removed roadless areas, lead mining, and subsidized commercial logging.
Source ↗ - Southern Environmental Law Center
Works this ground · not linked to this decision
Works this ground at Mark Twain National Forest: Its February 2024 timber targets lawsuit charges the Forest Service with ignoring the cumulative climate impacts of logging projects including one on the Mark Twain National Forest.
Source ↗ - The Conservation Fund
Works this ground · not linked to this decision
Works this ground at Mark Twain National Forest: Has conveyed more than 2,000 acres into the forest, including Current River frontage in 2016 and 229 acres at Piney Creek Wilderness in 2018.
Source ↗
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: Blooming Rose EA 291090 DN FONSI 09212026 ↗.
The ground
The window has closed, so there’s no watch to set on it here.
The photograph on this page: Wild turkey in hardwood forest. It’s the country this decision sits in, not the site itself. More Than Just Parks.
In court on this ground
No court case we track is over Mark Twain 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.