Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-356696

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 17/24Owed an answerPosted September 12, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's DEIS fails to quantify grizzly core habitat loss or provide the compensatory mitigation required by the USFWS Biological Assessment's own definition of core habitat loss upon road construction.

Scored directly — The comment's whole text was scored on its own.

Scorecard

Each dimension is scored 0–3; the eight sum to the substance score out of 24.

  • Specific placeNames a specific location — from a region down to an exact creek, trail, road, or map reference.
  • Local knowledgeDraws on a first-hand connection to the place — visits, sustained activity, occupation, or a professional role.
  • EA analysisEngages the agency's environmental analysis directly.
  • Analytical gapIdentifies something the analysis fails to address.
  • EvidenceBacks claims with specific facts, data, or research.
  • RequestMakes a specific, actionable request of the agency.
  • AlternativeProposes a different course of action.
  • LegalCites statutes, regulations, or legal obligations.

How hard it is to set aside

A1 strong: Must be answered — it names the law.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap, Evidence, Legal.

Standard dismissals it defeats

  • Already addressed The agency says its analysis already covers the point. Defeated when the comment cites the law itself: there is no analysis to cite against a statutory claim.
  • Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
  • No cause and effect shown The agency says the comment asserts a harm without showing how the action causes it. Defeated when the comment shows the mechanism.
  • Outside the scope The agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.
  • Certified not substantive The agency certifies the comment raises nothing substantive. Defeated when the comment alleges illegality, which is substantive by the definition the certification runs on.

Still open to the agency

  • Alternative already eliminated The agency says it considered and eliminated the alternative the comment proposes, with a reason. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
  • Deferred to a later decision The agency says the point belongs to a later, site-specific decision. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
  • Not required The agency says the analysis the comment asks for is not required. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
  • Preference noted The agency notes the comment as a statement of preference and takes no action on it. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.

Topics

  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “Grizzly Core Habitat Is Lost the Moment a Road Is Built”
    • “road construction in grizzly core habitat equals core habitat loss”
    • “grizzly recovery zones”
    • “compensatory secure-habitat creation”
  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “thought of deforestation and logging roads running through them breaks my heart”
    • “These areas are irreplaceable”
    • “Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood”
  • Legal Regulatory Framework
    • “NEPA requires the acreage exposed to that mechanism be disclosed and analyzed by alternative”
    • “USFWS Biological Assessment states at page 125”
    • “DEIS neither quantifies the core habitat placed at risk”

What it names

Law cited
161 F.3d 1208161 F.3d 1208

The comment

I have spent much of my life in these woods and the thought of deforestation and logging roads running through them breaks my heart. These areas are irreplaceable. Please do not allow this to happen. By the Assessment's Own Definition, Grizzly Core Habitat Is Lost the Moment a Road Is Built The USFWS Biological Assessment states at page 125: "By definition core habitat for grizzly bears is lost when a road is constructed, unless it is mitigated by the creation of new secure habitat elsewhere through road decommissioning or other actions." This is not a prediction subject to project-level uncertainty; it is a definitional identity: road construction in grizzly core habitat equals core habitat loss, full stop, absent compensatory decommissioning. The rescission makes road construction newly possible across previously protected portions of grizzly recovery zones (see the SSA reliance finding at p. 122), yet the DEIS neither quantifies the core habitat placed at risk nor identifies any mechanism ensuring the compensatory mitigation the definition requires. Where the agency's own document establishes a per-se loss mechanism, NEPA requires the acreage exposed to that mechanism be disclosed and analyzed by alternative. Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 1998). I request the FEIS map and quantify grizzly core habitat within potentially affected IRAs by recovery zone, and state whether and how compensatory secure-habitat creation would be assured.

Keep learning. Keep speaking up.The Roadless Rule depends on public engagement. Share what you've learned.

© 2026 roadless.org - Defending America's Last Wild Forests

Privacy Policy|Questions or concerns? noroads@roadless.org|Follow us: @defendroadless