Stop grazing expansion on Mark Twain National Forest openings
Range and Open Lands Proposal
U.S. Forest Service· Mark Twain National Forest, Ava/Cassville/Willow Springs Ranger DistrictU.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
3 groups work Missouri
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.
- Sierra Club
Works Missouri: 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..
- Southern Environmental Law Center
Works Missouri: 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..
- The Conservation Fund
Works Missouri: 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..
Every group above is on STAND for Public Lands, with its court record, its filings and who backs it.
The Forest Service may intensify grazing and vegetation changes across wildlife habitat in the Ava/Cassville/Willow Springs District.
What’s at risk
Wildlife areas and native plant communities in the Ava/Cassville/Willow Springs Ranger District face degradation from expanded grazing allotments and hay production. Changes to road management and vegetation treatment compound the pressure on these open lands.
If this goes through
Grazing allotments, hay production areas, and wildlife openings on Mark Twain National Forest would be restructured in ways that prioritize livestock forage over native plant communities and wildlife habitat.
Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.
4 holes in the agency’s own analysis
What the public could have raised, from the agency’s own document
- I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below.
- The project summary lists 'Forest products' as a project purpose alongside grazing and vegetation management, but no description of any forest products activity is provided anywhere in the notice. The agency should explain what forest products activities are proposed, how they relate to the stated goal of improving pasture and native plant communities, and whether that component alone could trigger a higher level of NEPA review.
- The project summary references 'wildlife areas' and 'wildlife openings' as locations where native plant communities will be enhanced, but provides no description of which species, habitats, or sensitive species may be affected. The notice contains no mention of ESA Section 7 consultation, sensitive species surveys, or migratory bird protections. The agency should disclose whether listed or sensitive species are present and whether consultation is required before the EA is completed.
- The notice lists 'Tribal Relations' as a topic area in the site navigation and identifies lands across six Missouri counties, yet contains no statement about government-to-government consultation with Tribal nations that have treaty interests or cultural connections to these lands. The agency should disclose which Tribes were or will be consulted, under what authority, and at what stage of the process.
- The notice provides no baseline description of current range conditions, no identification of which allotments are affected, and no metrics for what 'improved' pasture conditions would look like. Without this information the public cannot evaluate whether the proposed action is necessary or whether the EA's purpose and need is supported. The agency should release existing range condition data for all affected allotments concurrent with the scoping notice.
Show all 6 points from the document
- 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
This project is needed to improve cool and warm season grass pasture conditions and enhance native plant communities in grazing allotments, hay production areas, wildlife areas, and wildlife openings.
Did the agency answer?
4 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 'Tribal Relations' as a topic area in the site navigation and identifies lands across six Missouri counties, yet contains no statement about government-to-government consultation with
The notice lists 'Tribal Relations' as a topic area in the site navigation and identifies lands across six Missouri counties, yet contains no statement about government-to-government consultation with Tribal nations that have treaty interests or cultural connections to these lands. The agency should disclose which Tribes were or will be consulted, under what authority, and at what stage of the process.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe project summary references 'wildlife areas' and 'wildlife openings' as locations where native plant communities will be enhanced, but provides no description of which species, habitats, or sensiti
The project summary references 'wildlife areas' and 'wildlife openings' as locations where native plant communities will be enhanced, but provides no description of which species, habitats, or sensitive species may be affected. The notice contains no mention of ESA Section 7 consultation, sensitive species surveys, or migratory bird protections. The agency should disclose whether listed or sensitive species are present and whether consultation is required before the EA is completed.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe project summary lists 'Forest products' as a project purpose alongside grazing and vegetation management, but no description of any forest products activity is provided anywhere in the notice.
The project summary lists 'Forest products' as a project purpose alongside grazing and vegetation management, but no description of any forest products activity is provided anywhere in the notice. The agency should explain what forest products activities are proposed, how they relate to the stated goal of improving pasture and native plant communities, and whether that component alone could trigger a higher level of NEPA review.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice provides no baseline description of current range conditions, no identification of which allotments are affected, and no metrics for what 'improved' pasture conditions would look like.
The notice provides no baseline description of current range conditions, no identification of which allotments are affected, and no metrics for what 'improved' pasture conditions would look like. Without this information the public cannot evaluate whether the proposed action is necessary or whether the EA's purpose and need is supported. The agency should release existing range condition data for all affected allotments concurrent with the scoping notice.
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.
It’s referred to as Unit 346 in the Twin Mountain II Timber Sale. On the ground, it’s some of the most spectacular old growth we’ve ever witnessed, and it’s marked for clearcutting.
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? .