Each issue against the decision, unreviewed

• PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe project summary lists only Phelps County under 'Counties' but describes the action as a 'Programmatic amendment for the entire Mark Twain National Forest,' which spans multiple counties across Missouri.

  The project summary lists only Phelps County under 'Counties' but describes the action as a 'Programmatic amendment for the entire Mark Twain National Forest,' which spans multiple counties across Missouri.

  This geographic mismatch means the public notice does not accurately disclose the full spatial scope of a forest-wide plan amendment, potentially preventing affected residents, tribes, and users in other counties from knowing they should comment. The agency should correct the geographic scope listing to identify every county within the Mark Twain National Forest that would be subject to the amended standards, or explain in writing why only Phelps County is affected by a forest-wide programmatic amendment.

  A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice

  “General Location of Proposal: This is a programmatic amendment proposed for the Mark Twain National Forest 2005 Land and Resource Management Plan.”

  The agency’s own words, 20260916_NRTs and Timber Management Final EA_DN ↗, General Information · PLAN’s match, unchecked, an answer in part

• PLAN found no answer, not yet checked by a personThe Project Purpose field lists four purposes: 'Land management planning; Recreation management; Regulations, directives, orders; Vegetation management (other than forest products).' However, the project title explicitly includes 'Timber Management' and the description references 'timber management near National Recreation Trails.' Timber harvest is a forest product, yet 'Forest products' is conspicuously absent from the stated purposes.

  The Project Purpose field lists four purposes: 'Land management planning; Recreation management; Regulations, directives, orders; Vegetation management (other than forest products).' However, the project title explicitly includes 'Timber Management' and the description references 'timber management near National Recreation Trails.' Timber harvest is a forest product, yet 'Forest products' is conspicuously absent from the stated purposes.

  This omission may artificially narrow the scope of the NEPA analysis and exclude consideration of timber sale economics, haul roads, and logging impacts on trail corridors. The agency should either add forest products to the stated project purpose or explain in the EA why timber management here does not constitute vegetation management for forest products.

  A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice

• PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe notice identifies the lead contact as a single individual at the Mark Twain National Forest Supervisor's Office but does not identify any cooperating agencies, tribes consulted, or other federal or state entities involved in the programmatic amendment process.

  The notice identifies the lead contact as a single individual at the Mark Twain National Forest Supervisor's Office but does not identify any cooperating agencies, tribes consulted, or other federal or state entities involved in the programmatic amendment process.

  For a forest-wide plan amendment that could affect tribal treaty rights, state wildlife management, and National Recreation Trail designations administered in coordination with other agencies, the absence of any cooperating agency disclosure is a gap. The agency should disclose which tribes have been consulted, which cooperating agencies have been invited, and what the status of government-to-government consultation is before the EA is completed.

  A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice

  “All Native American Tribes that are part of the MTNF Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (Section 106 PA) were informed of this proposal during a quarterly PA call for the purposes of early engagement and collaboration.”

  The agency’s own words, 20260916_NRTs and Timber Management Final EA_DN ↗, Agencies and Persons Consulted · PLAN’s match, unchecked

• PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe project summary describes the proposal as updating 'standards relating to timber management near National Recreation Trails' but does not define what 'near' means -- no buffer distance, no list of affected National Recreation Trails, and no map or spatial data is referenced in the notice.

  The project summary describes the proposal as updating 'standards relating to timber management near National Recreation Trails' but does not define what 'near' means -- no buffer distance, no list of affected National Recreation Trails, and no map or spatial data is referenced in the notice.

  This vagueness makes it impossible for trail users, adjacent landowners, or the public to assess what ground-level changes to expect. The agency should define the geographic buffer or adjacency standard being proposed, list the specific National Recreation Trails affected, and provide maps before or at the opening of the comment period.

  A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice

  “No timber harvesting will be permitted within 100 feet from midline on either side of National Recreation Trails unless needed for restoration or enhancement of natural communities, salvage, insect and disease, or human health and safety situations.”

  The agency’s own words, 20260916_NRTs and Timber Management Final EA_DN ↗, Proposed Action: What are we proposing to do? · PLAN’s match, unchecked

• PLAN found no answer, not yet checked by a personThe notice lists no documents in the project documents section -- the widget references an external commercial platform (Box) and a third-party site (Pinyon Public) as the only means to access project materials, yet states 'Cookies must be enabled' and requires specific mobile tracking settings, creating access barriers.

  The notice lists no documents in the project documents section -- the widget references an external commercial platform (Box) and a third-party site (Pinyon Public) as the only means to access project materials, yet states 'Cookies must be enabled' and requires specific mobile tracking settings, creating access barriers.

  If no substantive documents are yet available, the public has no basis for informed comment. The agency should make all scoping and background documents directly accessible on the Forest Service's own website, and should not open a comment period until foundational documents describing the proposed standards are publicly available.

  A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice