Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-583421

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the Draft EIS's critical habitat counts (79 USFWS, 19 NMFS) are unreproducible because the cited Biological Assessments lack the specific query dates, IPaC codes, and enumerations necessary to verify the figures, and that the NMFS source is admittedly incomplete regarding Southern Oregon/Northern California coho salmon, thereby failing the data standards required for formal consultation under 50 CFR 402.14(d).

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

Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Under 50 CFR 402.14(d), '[t]he Federal agency requesting formal consultation shall provide the Service with the best scientific and commercial data available'”
- “The cross-reference at page 168 points to documents that do not contain the numbers it attributes to them”
- “A critical-habitat baseline that cannot be traced to a dated query... has not been shown to meet that standard”
- “The Forest Service should, in the Final EIS: (1) state the IPaC consultation code and list-generation date”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “79 final or proposed critical habitats designated under the Endangered Species Act”
- “19 critical habitats designated for species evolutionarily significant units”
- “exposure to road construction and timber activity the effects analysis addresses”
- “Southern Oregon/Northern California coho salmon critical habitat”

What it names

Law cited: 50 CFR 402

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeEA analysisAnalytical gap

The Draft EIS states, at page 141 and again at page 168, that "[w]ithin the potentially affected environment there are 79 final or proposed critical habitats designated under the Endangered Species Act for species managed by USFWS and 19 critical habitats designated for species evolutionarily significant units or distinct population segments managed by NMFS." At page 168 the Draft EIS attributes these figures to the draft Biological Assessments: "These analyses are detailed in the USFWS and NMFS Biological Assessments." Neither figure appears in either Biological Assessment. The count of 79 appears nowhere in the draft USFWS Biological Assessment, and the count of 19 appears nowhere in the draft NMFS Biological Assessment. The cross-reference at page 168 points to documents that do not contain the numbers it attributes to them, and no reader can reproduce either count from the incorporated analysis. What the Biological Assessments do disclose makes the gap sharper rather than closing it. The USFWS Biological Assessment states, at page 25, that "[a] shapefile of IRA boundaries by administrative unit were imported into IPaC to compile the list of species under FWS's jurisdiction." No IPaC consultation code and no list-generation date is given. An IPaC official species list is generated on a stated date and expires; without that date the count of 79 cannot be checked against the designations in force at any point in time. The NMFS Biological Assessment states, at page 22, that "[s]pecies critical habitat shapefiles were uploaded from NOAA Fisheries National ESA Critical Habitat Mapper," then overlaid with Forest Service administrative boundaries and the affected environment with a two-mile buffer. No access date is given. The same page states that Southern Oregon/Northern California coho salmon critical habitat is "not included in the NOAA's Critical Habitat Mapper" and that mapping used by the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest during ESA consultation was substituted. By the agency's own account the source of the count of 19 omits at least one designation, and neither the Draft EIS nor the Biological Assessment says whether the 19 includes the SONCC coho designation. The Biological Assessments record only that species lists "were sent to the Services in September and October 2025 for review" (USFWS BA p. 25) and that "[s]pecies lists and critical habitat were reviewed by the National Marine Fisheries Service in September and October 2025" (NMFS BA p. 22). A review window is not a query date. Critical habitat is designated, revised, and removed by rule throughout a year, and a count with no query date cannot be reconciled against the designations in force when the Final EIS issues. This is not a formatting objection. The count bounds the set of critical habitats whose exposure to road construction and timber activity the effects analysis addresses; an unreproducible count means the exposure analysis is bounded by a set no one can verify. The same data is what the Forest Service must supply to the consulting agencies. Under 50 CFR 402.14(d), "[t]he Federal agency requesting formal consultation shall provide the Service with the best scientific and commercial data available or which can be obtained during the consultation for an adequate review of the effects that an action may have upon listed species or critical habitat." A critical-habitat baseline that cannot be traced to a dated query, that is not enumerated in the Assessments to which the Draft EIS attributes it, and whose NMFS source the agency concedes is incomplete, has not been shown to meet that standard. The Draft EIS states at page 166 that the agency "anticipate[s] initiating consultation under Section 7(a)(2)," so this is curable now rather than after the fact. The Forest Service should, in the Final EIS: (1) state the IPaC consultation code and list-generation date underlying the USFWS count, and the date on which the NOAA Fisheries National ESA Critical Habitat Mapper was queried for the NMFS count; (2) state whether the count of 19 includes Southern Oregon/Northern California coho salmon critical habitat, given the Biological Assessment's statement that the designation is absent from the Mapper; (3) reconcile both figures against the critical habitat designations in force at the date of the Final EIS and correct them where designations have been added, revised, or removed since the query; and (4) present in the Biological Assessments the enumeration of critical habitats from which each count is derived, so that the cross-reference at Draft EIS page 168 resolves to the figures it attributes to those documents.