Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie
National Forest
Supervisor’s Office
2930 Wetmore Avenue, Suite 3A
Everett, WA 98201
(425) 783-6000
File Code: 1570-1Date: May 14, 2009
Alpine Lakes Protection Society and North Cascades Conservation CouncilAttn: Rick McGuire CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN
P.O. Box 27646 RECEIPT REQUESTED
Seattle, WA 98125 NUMBER: 7002 2030 0005 8842 4368
Dear Mr. McGuire:
This constitutes my decision, pursuant to 36 CFR 215, on your appeal of District Ranger James Franzel’s Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Lower Pratt Trail Reconstruction and Partial Relocation Environmental Assessment.
I have considered the appeal record for the project and the recommendations of the Appeal Reviewing Officer. The Appeal Reviewing Officer focused his review on the appeal record and the issues raised in your appeal. A copy of his recommendation is enclosed.
A review of the decision documentation indicates that consideration was given to the relevant, sitespecific issues raised in your appeal. I find that the decision is in compliance with law, regulation, and policy, and there is no indication that the decision should be withdrawn.
I affirm the Responsible Official’s decision and deny your requested relief. This decision constitutes the final administrative determination by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and is not subject to further administrative review.
Sincerely,
/s/ Cynthia A. Tencick (for)Y. ROBERT IWAMOTO
Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper
Forest SupervisorAPPEAL DECIDING OFFICER
cc: Jim FranzelCurtis SpaldingDoug SchrenkKristy Boscheinen
Hard copy to: North Cascades Conservation CouncilAttn: Mark Bardsley16823 Interurban Blvd.Snohomish, WA 98290
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Heppner
Ranger
District
P.O. Box 7
Heppner, OR 97836
541-676-9187
File Code: 1570-1 Date: May 1, 2009Route To:
Subject: Lower Pratt Trail Reconstruction and Partial Relocation ARO Letter
To: Forest Supervisor, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest
This memorandum documents my recommendations regarding the disposition of the appeal on the Lower Pratt Trail Reconstruction and Relocation Environmental Assessment and Decision Notice. I have enclosed a summary of the appellants’ issues, along with a short description of my findings. The appeal review was conducted in accordance with 36 CFR 215 and regional procedures.
I recommend affirming the decision made by the Responsible Official. I have reviewed the project documentation provided by the Snoqualmie Ranger District and considered the appellants’ appeal issues. The decision documentation is consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act, and the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended.
I believe that the project analysis adequately supports the decision and is consistent with law, regulation, and policy. Specifically, the decision to reconstruct/relocate the Lower Pratt Trail will provide a safe route of access for the public and Search and Rescue teams in the area. It will also provide enhanced recreation by maintaining an existing recreation trail that is inadequate while reducing surface erosion and improving water quality by eliminating user created trails. The project is designed to meet standards outlined in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended.
The appellants from the Alpine Lakes Protection Society and North Cascades Conservation Council requested that the Deciding Officer withdraw the decision and modify the project to “meet their objections.”
After reviewing the appeal record, I recommend that the requested relief be denied and the Responsible Official’s decision be affirmed on all points. Enclosed with this memo are my responses to each appeal issue.
It’s Cool to be Safe Printed on Recycled Paper
/s/ Thomas E. Mafera THOMAS E. MAFERA District Ranger APPEAL REVIEWING OFFICER
Lower Pratt River Trail Reconstruction and Partial Relocation Appeal Issues and Responses
Snoqualmie Ranger DistrictMt. BakerSnoqualmie National Forest
May 2009
Appellants Appeal NumberAlpine Lakes Protection Society and 09060501215North Cascades Conservation Council
Appeal Issue 1: Appellants state that the project would violate the standards and guidelines of latesuccessional reserves (LSRs) under the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) because there was “no analysis or ontheground surveys to support [the] conclusion” that the clearing of about three acres would result in a neutral impact. Appeal at 6. Appellants assert that the “loss of trees up to 70 years old” would prevent the future recruitment of new oldgrowth trees, and that the suppression of new growth along the trail would also prevent the creation of new latesuccessional forest. Appeal at 6.
Appellants assert that the consultation undertaken for this project was inadequate, so impacts to animals such as marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl are undetermined. Appeal at 6. Appellants state that no specific analysis was undertaken for the first 1/10th of a mile of trail, which “[is] the most ecologically important.” Appeal at 7.
RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official appropriately and sufficiently analyzed the effects of the proposed project on LSR, and that the project will not violate the standards and guidelines of latesuccessional reserves under the Northwest Forest Plan.
Under the NWFP, the objective of latesuccessional reserves is to protect and enhance conditions of latesuccessional and oldgrowth forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for latesuccessional and old growthrelated species including the northern spotted owl. NWFP Standards and Guidelines (S&G) at C9. NWFP S&G at C10. Nonsilvicultural activities are allowed in LSR if they are neutral or beneficial to the creation and maintenance of latesuccessional habitat. NWFP ROD at C16. Developments that were in existence at the time of LSR designation (1994) are considered existing uses with respect to LSR objectives and may remain, consistent with other standards and guidelines. NWFP S&G at C17. Dispersed recreational uses, including hunting and fishing, generally are consistent with the objectives of LSR. NWFP S&G at C17. Adjustment measures such as education, use limitations, traffic
control devices, or increased maintenance are to be used when dispersed and developed recreation practices retard or prevent attainment of LSR objectives. NWFP S&G at C17.
The Environmental Assessment (EA) states that implementation of either action alternative would include approximately three acres of brush clearing and the removal of small trees. EA at 62. Brush clearing would occur on about four feet on either side of the trail and trees would be limbed approximately 10 feet high as measured from the height of the tread. EA at 12. The total clearing width would be about eight feet. EA at 12 & 62. The resulting three acres of clearing would be spread along a trail corridor that is eight feet wide by 3.25 miles long. EA at 62. Where branches overhang the trail corridor, the canopy above the 10foot limbing height would remain in place, so tree canopy along forested portions of the trail would likely remain continuous or nearly so. The proposed project runs through LSR 122, a 16,734acre reserve. EA at 17. Three acres constitutes less than 0.018 percent of the total acreage of this LSR. At most, the overall result of the clearing would be small gaps, which are consistent with the structure and composition of latesuccessional forests. NWFP S&G at B2. The conclusion that implementation of any of the action alternatives would be neutral to the functioning of this LSR is an appropriate conclusion based on LSR Standards and Guidelines.
Standard practice for trail construction/reconstruction is to avoid cutting large trees unless absolutely necessary, with a goal of cutting as few trees as possible. EA at 62. The EA also states that there is a “rare possibility that individual midsuccessional coniferous trees could be removed (up to 70 years of age).” EA at 63. The EA clearly states that the removal of such trees is undesirable and would take place only if absolutely necessary. The removal of such trees for construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of the proposed trail is within the NWFPs standards and guidelines for activities within LSR, and does not prevent attainment of LSR objectives. At most, the overall result of maintaining the trail corridor by clearing brush and small trees would be small gaps, which are consistent with the structure and composition of latesuccessional forests. NWFP S&G at B2.
See the Response to Appeal Issue 15 for a discussion of consultation for effects to animals such as marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl.
Appeal Issue 2: Appellants state that “significant portions of the [current] trail do not exist within riparian reserves,” and that the relocation of the trail into riparian reserves would prevent or retard attainment of ACS objectives, thereby violating the NWFP. Appeal at 8. Specifically, appellants assert that the trail would introduce fine sediments into the riparian areas, but there is “no actual analysis or ontheground investigation to support [the] conclusion that proposed
2
mitigation will mitigate impacts to Riparian Reserves.” Appeal at 89. Appellants state that the District’s “conclusion of compliance with ACS objectives is unsupported” because the district failed to analyze projectlevel impacts in conjunction with watershedlevel detrimental conditions. Appeal at 9.
RESPONSE: I find that the Responsible Official has established the prior existence of the trail in question, providing a detailed description of historical documents that support this conclusion in the EA (EA at 2), and that the Responsible Official correctly concluded that project is consistent with Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS).
The Responsible Official has identified Standards and Guidelines RM1 and RM2 from the Northwest Forest Plan that are relevant to both new and existing recreation facilities in Riparian Reserves (EA at 15):
• RM1: New recreational facilities within Riparian Reserves, including trails and dispersed sites, should be designed to not prevent meeting Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. Construction of these facilities should not prevent future attainment of these objectives. For existing recreation facilities within Riparian Reserves, evaluate and mitigate impact to ensure that these do not prevent, and to the extent practicable contribute to, attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives (USDA, USDI 1994, page C34).
• RM2: Adjust dispersed and developed recreation practices that retard or prevent attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. Where adjustment measures such as education use limitations, traffic control devices, increased maintenance, relocation of facilities, and/or specific site closures are not effective, eliminate the practice or occupancy (USDA, USDI 1994, page C34).
In response to this direction, the project proposes to relocate substantial portions of the trail completely outside of Riparian Reserves, and to reconstruct the entire trail to current standards that provide for drainage and tread stability. The project also proposes to rehabilitate existing usercreated trails within Riparian Reserves. EA at 10.
A summary of compliance with the ACS has also been provided. EA Appendix at B1 to B3 While the ACS compliance summary is brief, it reiterates compliance with the previously discussed standards and guidelines, and is based on findings of mitigation effectiveness that were provided in Chapter 2 of the EA. EA at 3336. The mitigations that are specific to alleviating the adverse effects of fine sedimentation are based on professional experience gained
3
during implementation of similar projects in the Middle Fork drainage that were identified by name. EA at 33. In addition, the project relocates over half of the original trail location out of the riparian reserve and chooses locations that avoid impacts from river channel migration and flood damage. This is consistent with a finding in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Watershed Analysis that channel migration and associated instability represent a primary threat to roads and facilities. The Watershed Analysis goes on to recommend that treatments to protect these facilities be evaluated, consistent with the relevant standards and guides referenced in the EA. Middle Fork Snoqualmie Watershed Analysis Page 514.
The EA discloses that impacts to riparian reserves will not be significant at the project scale, based on the effectiveness of included mitigations. And as previously noted, the project is consistent with recommendations with the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Watershed Analysis (1998).
Appeal Issue 3: Appellants assert that Best Management Practices (BMPs) will not adequately mitigate direct sediment input, and therefore compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA) is not assured. Appeal at 910.
Appellants assert that the EA and DN “lack data or analysis to support a conclusion that the proposed project will not violate Washington state water quality standards,” and therefore the project would violate NFMA and CWA. Appeal at 16. Appellants state that the EA should have quantified “the amount of sediment input to aquatic systems due to Project activities or determine[d] whether the level of sedimentation will violate water quality standards.” Appeal at 16. Appellants further assert that “a discussion of impacts to water quality is warranted and required by NEPA.” Appeal at 23.
RESPONSE: I find that the responsible official has provided an assessment of the effectiveness of BMPs and mitigation measures to protect water quality and has correctly concluded that the project complies with the Clean Water Act.
The EA provides the following discussion of the legal requirements of the Clean Water Act with regard to the project:
“The Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA) and subsequent amendments established the basic structure of regulating discharges of pollutants into the water of the United States. The
4
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to implement pollution control programs and to set water quality standards for all contaminants, including fine sediment resulting from erosion sources. The EPA has delegated implementation of the CWA to the States. The State of Washington recognizes the Forest Service as the Designated Management Agency for meeting Clean Water Act requirements on National Forest System lands. Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires the Washington State Department of Ecology to periodically prepare a list of all surface waters where pollutants have impaired the beneficial uses of water. Executive Order 12088 also requires that the Forest Service meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act.” EA at 1920.
Additional direction for compliance with the Clean Water Act and Washington State Water Quality Standards are provided in the Mt Baker/Snoqualmie Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). LRMP at 4118 to 4119. Specifically, Water Resources and Riparian Area Standard #2 directs that water quality regulations will be met through the application of BMPs. Water Resources and Riparian Area Standard #3 further directs use of a process wherein the Washington State Department of Ecology and the USDA Forest Service enter into a Memorandum of Understanding that provides Department of Ecology acceptance of National Forest BMPs as meeting or exceeding the state requirements. MOU Washington Department of Ecology and USDA Forest Service 1979.
A discussion of the effectiveness of mitigation measures is provided in Chapter 2 of the EA. EA at 3336. The mitigations that are specific to alleviating the adverse effects of fine sedimentation on water quality are based on professional experience gained during implementation of similar projects in the Middle Fork drainage. EA at 34. Projects that provided professional experience on which the assessment of effectiveness is based include: construction of the Middle Fork Trail (from the Middle Fork Bridge, east towards Goldmyer Hot springs) and construction of the road, camping areas, picnic areas, and dayuse area in the recently constructed Middle Fork Campground.
The EA also documents that the Washington 303(d) list of impaired waters was consulted and that the project does not occur in the vicinity of 303(d) impaired waters. EA at 7071.The EA discloses that some sedimentation may occur in the vicinity of the two stream crossings during construction. EA at 72, 94. However, the conclusion that the amount of sedimentation that is likely to occur is not significant is reasonable, considering that it is confined to two locations only, and confined to the duration of construction. Given the limited scope and intensity of ground disturbance in riparian areas (less than 0.36 acres of bare soil EA at 39) associated with the project, additional analysis is not necessary to provide a basis for an informed decision.
5
Appeal Issue 4: Appellants assert that the project documentation does not address how the project would “impact soil productivity or water quality as required by Soil Resource standard #2, [does] not discuss the maintenance of ground cover to minimize erosion as required by Soil Resource standard #5 or utilize soil surveys as required by Soil Resource standard #9.” Appeal at 18 & 2223. Appellants assert that “soil disturbance surveys were not completed and the actual percentage of compaction and/or displacement is unknown.” Appeal at 18 & 22. Appellants state that there was no analysis of the potential for increases in soil erosion based on construction, higher visitor usage, and having a horse/hiker trail versus having a hikeronly trail. Appeal at 18. Finally, appellants believe the Forest Service violated the LRMP by not adhering to the standard regarding trail suitability and prioritization of the use of trail funds. Appeal at 1819.
RESPONSE: I find that the Responsible Official has complied with applicable Standards and Guidelines in the Mt Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan that pertain to management and protection of soil resources.
The following applicable Standards and Guidelines (MBS LRMP at 4117,118) were identified by the appellant (Appeal at 1719) as being inadequately supported in the project Environmental Assessment:
1. Plan and conduct land management activities so that reductions of soil productivity potentially caused by detrimental compaction, displacement, puddling, and severe burning are minimized. Nutrient capital on forest and rangelands is to be maintained at acceptable levels as determined by state of the art technology.
2. Plan and conduct land management activities so that soil loss from surface erosion and mass wasting, caused by these activities, will not result in an unacceptable reduction in soil productivity and water quality (as stated in FSM 2500 R6 Supp. 45 or as revised).
3. No more than 20% of an activity area may be severely burned, compacted, puddled, or displaced as a result of the activity. Only permanent features of the transportation system will remain in a detrimentally compacted, puddled, and/or displaced conditions.
4. Surface erosion will be minimized by maintaining effective ground cover after cessation of any soil disturbing activity: [Table omitted].
6
5. Plan and accomplish rehabilitation projects as necessary to meet soil and water objectives and standards.
9. Utilize soil surveys and/or soil scientists in the project planning work that involves activities that affect or are affected by the soil resource.
The appellant references the project soils report (Appeal at 18), questioning compliance with standards 2 and 9, with specific questions about the presence of clay soils and impacts of trail construction on clay soils. The environmental assessment discloses that clay soils exist within the project area. EA at 9394. The EA further discusses the effectiveness of mitigation that was employed when clay soils were encountered during implementation of similar projects. EA at 94. A discussion of mitigation effectiveness is also provided in Chapter 2 of the EA. EA at 3336. The mitigations that are specific to alleviating the adverse effects of fine sedimentation on water quality are based on professional experience gained during implementation of similar projects in the Middle Fork drainage. EA at 34. Projects that provided professional experience on which the assessment of effectiveness is based include: construction of the Middle Fork Trail (from the Middle Fork Bridge, east towards Goldmyer Hot springs) and construction of the road, camping areas, picnic areas, and dayuse area in the recently constructed Middle Fork Campground.
Standard 9 does not mandate soil surveys, but requires either surveys or consultation with a soil scientist during project planning. The prior discussion demonstrates that a soil scientist was consulted and that adequate information was available to effectively mitigate impacts to soil productivity and water quality as required by Standard 2.
The appellant references the project soils report (Appeal at 18), questioning compliance with standards 1 and 3, specifically questioning whether the numeric standard identified in standard 3 would be met by the project cumulatively with the impacts of past management.
With the exception of the Middle Fork Road (EA at 11[Map]), the project area is basically without roads. And while visual evidence of past logging practices still exist in the project area, the vast majority of the harvest occurred from the 1920s –the 1940s, (Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Watershed Assessment at 36) and the area has been recovering for 60 to 80 years.
The appellant asserts that the soils report and decision documents speculatively conclude that the action alternatives will reduce erosion through the implementation erosion controls. Erosion control practices are widely used on both public and private lands as an effective means of protecting soil productivity and water quality. They are included in the Best Management Practices that are endorsed by the Washington Department of Ecology in a Memorandum of
7
Understanding that provides Department of Ecology acceptance of National Forest BMPs as meeting or exceeding the state requirements. MOU WA Dept. of Ecology and USDA Forest Service 1979.
Both of the action alternatives include erosion practices on portions of the trail to be constructed/reconstructed, as well as existing user trails. DN at 5, EA at 14,15,7578, 94. These practices were effectively employed on prior projects as previously discussed.
The appellant asserts that the soils report does not address a hikingonly alternative versus a hiking/horse trail. The soils effects analysis discusses both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. EA at 94.
The appellant asserts that a “rehabilitation only alternative” was not considered, and that this is not consistent with Standard 5. Appeal at 18. Standard 5 requires the Forest to plan and accomplish rehabilitation projects as necessary to meet soil and water objectives and standards. There is no requirement to consider a rehabilitationonly alternative during project planning. Additionally, a rehabilitationonly alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the project. EA at 78.
Finally, the appellant asserts that the project violates Forest Plan direction regarding the priority for use of trail funds. EA at 1819. The standard in question is Forest Wide Standard and Guideline #13 (LRMP at 487),which states that the priority for use of trail funds will generally be used for maintenance of existing trails, reconstruction to protect resources, and reconstruction for user safety and convenience in that order. It is written as a guideline rather than an absolute standard so that flexibility is permitted. The project, based on purpose and need for public safety (EA at 78) and protection of resources (DN at 5, EA at 14,15,7578, 94), addresses two of the three identified priorities in the standard.
Appeal Issue 5: Appellants assert that the project “will likely contribute further to the degradation of the wilderness character of the area” by “facilitating even greater use of the area and impacts from recreational use,” thereby violating the Alpine Lake Management Plan (ALMP) requirement to preserve and protect the area’s wilderness character. Appeal at 14. Appellants state the conclusion that the trail will alleviate recreational use elsewhere in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness is “unsupported” by data or analysis. Appeal at 23.
8
RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official sufficiently reviewed and displayed effects of the proposed action on the wilderness character, verified compliance with the Alpine Lakes Management Plan, and provided sufficient supporting analysis.
Although the Responsible Official did not select effects to the Alpine Lakes Wilderness as a key issue (the Responsible Official approves the issues to be analyzed in depth by the interdisciplinary team in the environmental analysis (FSM 1950.41) (40 CFR 1501.7(a)(2))), it was included as a general issue for project analysis. The analysis displayed why this issue would not result in a significant effect on the human environment (40 CFR 1501.7(a)(3)) or the Wilderness.
The Responsible Official incorporated analysis of effects of wilderness characteristics by showing the following:
• The selected alternative will provide an additional hiking opportunity on a trail that is currently inadequate for hiker and equestrian use and that could take pressure off of trails adjacent to the I90 corridor that enter the Alpine Lakes Wilderness (DN at 3, EA at 8);
• Implementation of the selected alternative will meet the VQOs of Retention and Partial Retention because the trail is not visible from river banks, Forest Road 56, or from trails or viewpoints from the Alpine Lakes Wilderness due to vegetation and terrain. (DN at 6);
• The Lower Pratt River Trail Reconstruction and Partial Relocation project is in compliance with the Mt. BakerSnoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (as amended) which incorporates the Alpine Lakes Area Management Plan (DN at 29);
• Measures for effects analysis were defined (EA at 2223);• Incorporating Alpine Lakes Area Management Plan into the alternative development
process (EA at 2425); • Analyzing existing use around the Alpine Lakes Wilderness (EA at 4347);• The Alpine Lakes Area Land Management Plan (1981) calls for stewardship to “provide
for the protection of the area and preservation of its wilderness character.” By rebuilding the Lower Pratt River Trail, an alternative opportunity for recreation activities will be available that could take pressure off overcrowded wilderness areas (EA at 8).
By providing an adequate trail along the south side of the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River, the Forest would be consistent with current land management direction and associated standards and guidelines. These standards and guidelines are described in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness EIS (1981), the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Recreation Use EA (1993), and the Mt. Baker
9
Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) as amended (1990), which states, “Hiker and interpretive trails should be provided near most large campgrounds to provide for visitor use and enjoyment. Some of these should be suitable for barrier free access” and, “The overall wilderness management goal will be to reduce or eliminate the adverse effects associated with human use, when use approaches or exceeds the established, “Limits of Acceptable Change.” LRMP page 439; EA at 5051.
An analysis of cumulative effects determined that this project would not degrade the wilderness character of this area. EA at 5455. This analysis was supported by data found at in the following locations:
• Existing direction found in the ALAMP[Alpine Lakes Area Management Plan] and ALRU [Alpine Lakes Recreation Use EA] (Lower Pratt EA at 5);
• Opportunity for addressing overuse in certain areas of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness (EA at 8);
• Information on past and current use (EA at 4148);
• Analysis of effects (EA at 4853), and analysis of effects related to wilderness expansion (EA at 8891).
Appeal Issue 6: Appellants assert that the EA does not address four standards set forth in the ALMP:
(1) Recreation standards that requires modification or discontinuance of horse use if detrimental soil or water quality impacts are apparent. ALAMP at 140. There was no discussion of compliance with this standard in choosing an alternative that would allow pack animal use of the proposed trail.
(2) Trail and recreation standards that require an analysis of the level of service that can be afforded by trails and appropriate management related to level of service. ALAMP at 14144.
(3) Wildlife, fish and plant standards that require priority management for protection of threatened and endangered species and specific monitoring and analysis obligations related to determining impacts to these species. ALAMP at 15051.
(4) Wildlife, fish and plant standard requiring a mapping of the ranges for deer, elk and goats at the project level. ALAMP at 150. Appeal at 15.
RESPONSE: I find that the Responsible Official incorporated all four standards from the Alpine Lakes Area Management Plan into the analysis and decision. Analysis included horse use, trail standards, threatened and endangered species, and deer and elk.
10
Although the Responsible Official did not select effects to the Alpine Lakes Wilderness as a key issue (the Responsible Official approves the issues to be analyzed in depth by the interdisciplinary team in the environmental analysis (FSM 1950.41) (40 CFR 1501.7(a)(2))), it was included as a general issue for project analysis. The analysis displayed why this issue would not result in a significant effect on the human environment (40 CFR 1501.7(a)(3)) or the wilderness characteristics.
In addition to the items listed in the response for the appeal issue 5, the Responsible Official addresses the appellants’ issue in the following ways:
• Analysis of trail users through Project Elements and Mitigation Measures (based on monitoring, designate appropriate use areas for horses) to assure compliance with existing requirements and direction (DN at 17), direction from the MBS Land and Resource Management Plan & Alpine Lakes Area Management Plan (DN at 3, EA at 45), discussion of areas permitting horse access (EA at 48);
• Analysis of trail standards through discussion of trail use (DN at 3), desired condition (EA at 35), trail standards (EA at 89), consideration as a key issue which included potential user groups (EA at 22), comparison of alternatives (EA at 38), display of current usage and objectives for trails (EA at 4647), and maintenance needs based on expected use (EA at 5152);
• Analysis of threatened and endangered species that make effects determinations of no net loss of core habitat for grizzly bear; no effect for critical habitat for spotted owl, marbled murrelet, bald eagle, Chinook or bull trout (DN at 6, 1011, EA at 7172); inclusion of mitigation measures to protect sensitive plants (DN at 15, EA at 33), protection of TES plant & animal species during alternative development (EA at 25), USFWS concurrence with effects determinations (EA at 61), no effect determination for TES plants (EA at 8082;
• The basis for analysis of deer and elk are discussed in the Decision Notice (at 3132); analysis for deer was included with grey wolf (EA at 59) as well as discussed separately (EA at 60, 62); and mountain goats are discussed in the EA (at 60, 61). Analysis of wildlife habitat determined there would be no impact to mountain goats and slight impact (not measurable at scale of animal’s home range) to deer and elk.
Appeal Issue 7: Appellants assert that the EA “fails to identify and evaluate the cumulative impacts of the project” and that the tables that list the past management activities are inadequate to illustrate “how these past and foreseeable future activities affect, or will affect, the environment and would contribute cumulatively to the impacts of the Project.” Appeal at 24.
11
Appellants assert that the EA fails to discuss cumulative impacts of fragmentation, connected actions, and changes in visitor use. Appeal at 2526. Appellants state that the “District has improperly limited the geographic scope of the cumulative impacts analysis” and that there is “no specie specific analysis of potential cumulative impacts.” Appeal at 26.
RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official has identified past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions as well as evaluated the cumulative impacts of the combined actions.
Consideration must be given to the incremental effects of the action when added to the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable related future actions of the Forest Service, as well as those of other agencies and individuals, that may have a measurable and meaningful impact on particular resources. FSH 1909.15, 15.1; 40 CFR 1508.7. The CEQ regulations, however, do not require agencies to catalogue or exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions. Simply because information about past actions may be available or obtained with reasonable effort does not mean that it is relevant and necessary to inform decision making. 36 CFR 220.4 (f)); 40 CFR 1508.25. "Significantly" as used in NEPA requires considerations of both context and intensity. 40 CFR 1508.27.
Cumulative impacts are discussed as part of the finding of no significant impacts (DN at 10 #7) and in the introduction to effects analysis. EA at 41. Cumulative effects analysis for individual resource areas (EA at 5455, 6667, 7375, 7879, 82, 85, 8788, 94) discussed other projects that could potentially overlay the proposed project in either space or in time that could potentially impact that specific resource analysis, and the EA also displayed all potential projects that could influence cumulative impacts when combined with the proposed project. EA, Appendix C.
In regards to fragmentation, the district analyzed the impact area for each species appropriately based on habitat use. This is displayed in the discussion of key issues (DN at 6), determination regarding habitat for threatened and endangered species (DN at 1011), response to public comments (DN at 3032, comments #912), inclusion of relevant goals, standards and guides from the MBS Forest Plan (EA at 1517), analysis of key issues (EA at 22), comparison of alternatives (EA at 3840), and analysis of effects to terrestrial wildlife species (EA at 5767).
The Project Scope section of the EA (at 12) discussed connected actions and displayed that there are no connected actions for this proposed project. Visitor use is discussed in the finding of no significant impact (DN at 8), as part of the trail standard needed (EA at 89), was included as a key issue (EA at 22), was included in the comparison of alternatives (EA at 38), and was discussed in the analysis of recreational use (EA at 4155).
12
The project documentation discloses that there are no significant cumulative effects, nor are there any connected actions, associated with implementing the proposed trail reconstruction and relocation.
Appeal Issue 8: Appellants assert that the project would “involve significant loss of core grizzly habitat.” Appeal at 11. Appellants state that “there is no real way to verify the accuracy of the numbers set forth by the District” in terms of the loss of core habitat and how much it would be offset by road closure and decommissioning. Appeal at 11. Appellants dispute the validity of the determination that there would be no net loss of core grizzly habitat, and assert that the analysis did not adequately study the effect of the increased access the trail would provide to the greater area for activities like illegal hunting. Appeal at 1112. Appellants assert that the district should have differentiated between the quality of grizzly habitat available in the Lower Pratt Valley versus the Upper Middle Fork, and that not differentiating between quality is causing the Forest Service to violate the Endangered Species Act. Appeal at 1213.
RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official did not violate the Endangered Species Act when considering loss of core grizzly bear habitat as documented through the consultation process.
Section 7(a) (2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires Federal agencies to ensure that their activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species, or result in the adverse modification of critical habitat for such species. The Responsible Official displayed an analysis of core grizzly bear habitat within Bear Management Unit #01 that showed a net gain of 3799 acres following the Middle Fork Snoqualmie Access and Travel Management Plan and the Lower Pratt River Trail Project. EA at 6365. Results of this analysis are consistent with the “no net loss” core habitat policy developed for the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone. After consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Responsible Official received a Letter of Concurrence and on December 18, 2007 an extension of consultation coverage through June 16, 2009 (USFWS reference document 134102006F0015).
Appeal Issue 9: Appellants assert that the Mt. BakerSnoqualmie National Forest did not survey for a variety of management indicator species, which is a violation of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). Appeal at 1314.
13
RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official adequately addressed management indicator species and did not violate NFMA.
NFMA requires the Forest Service to identify and monitor management indicator species. 36 CFR 219.19. Sitespecific monitoring or surveying of a proposed project or activity area is not required, but may be conducted at the discretion of the Responsible Official. 36 CFR Part 219.14(2)(f). Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires Federal agencies to ensure that their activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species, or result in the adverse modification of critical habitat for such species.
After consultation with USFWS, the Responsible Official received a letter of concurrence that the project would not likely adversely affect the grizzly bear or the gray wolf (USFWS reference number 1303I1143) and on December 18, 2007, received an extension of consultation coverage through June 16, 2009 (USFWS reference document 134102006F0015). Other MIS species such as the American Marten, pileated woodpecker, other primary cavity nesters, and mountain goat were addressed in the EA at 5960.
Appeal Issue 10: Appellants assert that the Forest Service violated the LRMP standard MA5A as well as NEPA by not doing any “analysis or management of impacts related to deer and elk habitat associated with this Project.” Appeal at 19 & 22.
RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official did not violate the LRMP standard for MA5A or NEPA when analyzing deer and elk habitat. EA at 62.
LRMP standard for MA5A “Recommended Recreation Rivers” only requires assessment of designated deer and elk winter range. LRMP at 4189 to 4191.
The Responsible Official considered deer and elk use on winter range, summer range and even nearby privately owned ground. EA at 60. The analysis included habitat types (forage and hiding cover) impacted by brush removal the along the 3.25 miles of trail. EA at 62.
Appeal Issue 11: Appellants assert that the Forest Service did not take the requisite “hard look” regarding the project’s effects to grizzly bear habitat. Appeal at 21. Appellants assert that the lack of consultation regarding spotted owl and marbled murrelet does not “satisfy NEPA’s hard look obligations.” Appeal at 2122.
14
RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official did take the requisite “hard look” when considering project effects to grizzly bear habitat, the spotted owl and marbled murrelet.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires Federal agencies to ensure that their activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species, or result in the adverse modification of critical habitat for such species.
The Responsible Official displayed an analysis of core grizzly bear habitat within Bear Management Unit #01 that showed a net gain of 3,799 acres following the Middle Fork Snoqualmie ATM project and the Lower Pratt River Trail Project. EA at 6365. Results of this analysis are consistent with the “no net loss” core habitat policy developed for the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone. After consultation with USFWS, the Responsible Official received a letter of concurrence that the project would not likely adversely affect the grizzly bear. USFWS reference number 1303I1143.
Programmatic consultation for terrestrial wildlife species was completed with the USFWS for this project to cover a period of 5 years (20032007). USFWS reference number 1302F1583. The Responsible Official received a Biological Opinion on the effects of the project to the spotted owl and marbled murrelet indicating that the project would not likely jeopardize the continued existence or likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. EA at 61. On December 18, 2007 an extension was granted for Programmatic coverage through June 16, 2009. USFWS reference document 134102006F0015.
Appeal Issue 12: Appellants assert that the description of mitigation measures is “perfunctory” and that the documents do not satisfy NEPA because there is no discussion of the measures’ “use, efficacy, or anything beyond their mere existence.” Appeal at 27. Appellants state that the discussion is inadequate regarding soil erosion, grizzly bear habitat, northern spotted owl, marbled murrelets, and “other wildlife species.” Appeal at 2728.
RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official documented the mitigation measures contained in the EA, DN/FONSI, and appeal record, and included a discussion of their effectiveness and proposed application sufficient to evaluate the environmental consequences of the proposed project.
NEPA is intended to guide public officials in making decisions that are based on understanding of environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the
15
environment. For all identified resources, measures are taken that protect, restore, and enhance the current environment. 40 CFR Parts 15001508, Item 1508.20Mitigation. Mitigation of impacts must be considered whether or not the impacts are significant. (40 CFR § 1500.1(b)). Federal agencies shall to the fullest extent possible use all practicable means consistent with the requirements of the Act and other essential considerations of national policy, to restore and enhance the quality of the human environment and avoid or minimize any possible adverse effects of their actions on the quality of the human environment (40 CFR 1500.2(f)). Agencies are required to identify and include in the action all relevant and reasonable mitigation measures that could improve the action.
Descriptions of project elements and mitigation measures are provided in the EA on pages 3336 and in Appendix A of the Decision Notice on pages 15 – 18. The description of the mitigation measures includes a discussion of their effectiveness. Mitigation measures have been incorporated as part of the alternative design and they have been considered in the effects analysis by resource area (e.g. EA, Botany, Alternatives 2 and 3 Environmental Effects, page 81, Botany Cumulative Effects, page 36, EA, Wild and Scenic Rivers, 99; EA, Project Record, Wildlife, Botany, and Recreation Reports). The DN adopts the design features and mitigation measures specific to this project to avoid adverse effects on recreation, soils, streams, wildlife, cultural resources, air quality, and adjacent specialuse permit activities, and for limiting the spread of noxious weeds to document compliance with the Forest Plan. DN at 4. Monitoring is prescribed for the reconstruction to ensure that all requirements (mitigations and best management practices listed in the EA) are included in the reconstruction contract and that they are adhered to during reconstruction activities. EA at 37.
Appeal Issue 13: Appellants assert, “The District has failed to survey for sensitive and listed species and therefore lacks the necessary information on which to base its DN/FONSI for the Project;” in particular, spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and MIS species. Appeal at 28.
RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official had the necessary information on the spotted owl, marbled murrelet and MIS species on which to base the DN/FONSI for the project.
Section 7(a) (2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires Federal agencies to ensure that their activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species, or result in the adverse modification of critical habitat for such species.
Programmatic consultation for terrestrial wildlife species was completed with the USFWS for this project to cover a period of 5 years (20032007). USFWS reference number 1302F1583.
16
The Responsible Official received a Biological Opinion on the effects of the project to the spotted owl and marbled murrelet indicating that the project would not likely jeopardize the continued existence or was not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. EA at 61. On December 18, 2007 an extension was granted for Programmatic coverage through June 16, 2009 (USFWS reference document 13402006F0015). Sensitive species were addressed in the Wildlife Specialist’s Report. (unpaginated).
Appeal Issue 14 : Appellants assert that the purpose and need of the EA is “unduly narrow” and that reasonable alternatives were not evaluated; for example, that a rehabilitationonly alternative or a “different trail project” should have been analyzed. Appeal at 29. Appellants assert that the “safety need” is poorly or inadequately supported. Appeal at 2930. Appellants assert that their comments and those of the US Fish and Wildlife Service were not taken onto consideration in the development of alternatives. Appeal at 3132.
RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official appropriately developed the purpose and need for the EA based on the desired conditions found in the LRMP and to meet the need for improved public safety. The purpose and need and the scope of the project are consistent with the Forest Plan. Alternatives suggested by the appellants and by the USFWS were considered in the environmental analysis.
NEPA requires agencies to include a statement of a proposed project’s purpose and need: “The statement shall briefly specify the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the proposed action.” 40 CFR 1502.13. NEPA also requires the agency to “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated.” 40 CFR 1502.14(a).
The second of the two elements in the purpose and need statement of this EA is to reconstruct the trail to a standard consistent with the Forest Plan as amended, consistent with the Alpine Lakes Area Land Management Plan of 1981 and consistent with the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Recreation Use EA of 1993. EA at 8. The district provided numerous excerpts from these documents as the rationale for defining the purpose and need to the reconstruction and partial relocation of this particular trail. EA at 35.
The Lower Pratt River Trail, even in its current inadequate condition, is being used as a recreation trail. Userbuilt trails associated with the trail have caused damage to vegetation and soils. EA at 10. The damage must be addressed, especially if the area may be incorporated into
17
an expanded wilderness. I find the EA appropriately identifies the need to address the deficiencies of the current trail, and defines the purpose and need of the project according to the current and desired conditions for this trail: improving public safety, providing for recreational needs in the area, and improving resource protection.
The safety need is addressed in the Decision Notice, EA, and appendices. The need for improved access for hikers and Search and Rescue personnel is discussed under finding of no significant impact (DN at 9 #2), in responses to public comments (DN at 2132, EA at A13 [public safety]), in need for action (EA at 7), public safety discussion (EA at 7), and public safety analysis (EA at 9596).
The appellants assert that their comments and those of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) were not taken into consideration in the development of alternatives. In a letter dated April 11, 2001, ALPS representative Rick McGuire suggested that the district consider different trail options to better serve the need for new recreation opportunities in the Middle Fork, and identified several of these options. This alternative was considered in the EA, but was eliminated from further study because it did not meet the purpose and need or fall within the scope of the project. EA at 26. In a letter dated June 6, 2002, the USFWS references the 1997 interim standard of “no net loss of existing core habitat” for grizzly bears in the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone. The Service writes: “If the analysis identifies that grizzly bear core habitat may be impacted, we recommend the environmental analysis identify and analyze alternatives that do not result in a loss of core habitat, as well as minimize loss of core habitat.” Rather than explicitly considering an alternative based on potential effects to grizzly bear habitat, the EA provides an analysis of the effects of the proposed project on grizzly bear habitat, and concludes that there will be no net loss of core habitat against the 1997 baseline. EA at 64. After consultation with USFWS, the Responsible Official received a Letter of Concurrence and on December 18, 2007 an extension of consultation coverage through June 16, 2009 (USFWS reference document 134102006F0015).
Appeal Issue 15: Appellants assert that an EIS should have been used instead of an EA (Appeal at 32) because of the following potentially significant effects:
• Impacts to grizzly bear, spotted owl, and marbled murrelet habitat;• Impacts to aquatic resources and soil conditions;• Impacts to LSR, riparian reserves, wilderness, and the wildlife species that reside in
them;• The controversy of a largely “new trail construction;” and• Cumulative effects.
18
Appeal at 3234.
RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official has used the appropriate level of analysis and documentation for the Lower Pratt Trail Project, and an EIS is not needed for this project.
The regulations state that, based on the environmental assessment, the Responsible Official shall make its determination whether to prepare an environmental impact statement. (40 CFR 1501.4(c)) The Responsible Official shall prepare a finding of no significant impact (Sec. 1508.13) if the agency determines on the basis of the environmental assessment not to prepare an environmental impact statement. 40 CFR 1501.4(e).
The Responsible Official completed a finding of no significant impact, which discloses there are no projectrelated impacts that would require additional analysis under an EIS. DN at 711. Wildlife determinations for impacts to grizzly bear (no net loss of core habitat), spotted owl and marbled murrelet (likely to adversely affect for noise disturbance; no effect for owl and murrelet critical habitat) (DN at 6, 8, 1011, 3031 [#9, 10], EA at 61), and implementation of mitigation measure to address the noise impact (DN at 18, EA at 36), received concurrence from USFWS in 2002, 2003 and 2007 (DN at 11, EA at 61). Impacts to grizzly bear, owl and murrelet are also addressed in the response to Appeal Issue #7.
The issue of whether the district was proposing reconstruction/relocation of an existing trail or “new trail construction” was brought up during public scoping (DN at 2627 [#2], EA at A13A15 [disagreements]). The following list shows that the trail is not a new trail:
• The trail is listed in the Forest Plan (DN at 4, 8, 9 [#4], EA at 4);• Historic and current condition is disclosed (EA at 13, 24, 2526 [rebuilding trail in
original location], 4143); and• Proposed changes to the existing trail are disclosed (EA at 910, 3031).
Impacts to the other resources listed by appellant, above, were responded to earlier in this document, as follows:
• Aquatic resource issues are addressed in responses to appeal issue 2;• Soil conditions are addressed in response to Appeal Issue 4;• LSR is addressed in response to Issue 1; • Riparian reserves are addressed in response to Appeal Issue 2;• Wilderness is addressed in response to Appeal Issue 5; and• Cumulative effects are addressed in response to Appeal Issue 7.
19
Given the documentation and determinations made in the EA and decision notice, an EIS is not needed for the Lower Pratt Trail project.
Appeal Issue 16:a. Appellants assert “The Forest Service violated the Endangered Species Act by approving
the Lower Pratt River Trail Project”. (Appeal at 34). Appellant asserts that consultation should have been conducted for this project since the project is “likely to adversely affect” listed species, and no concurrence later than October 2004 has been documented. (Appeal at 3536 and 3839).
b. Appellant states that the programmatic BA was not sitespecific, nor specific to the type of project, and that the consistency form was timelimited and that the time has now expired. (Appeal at 36). Similarly, appellants state that the project fails to comply with “at least” the following Section 9 requirement: 2. review available information obtained from monitoring and applicable investigations completed regarding murrelets and spotted owls. Apply this information to an adaptive management approach to conservation measures, effects determinations, and other considerations regarding murrelets and spotted owls.” (Appeal at 37).
c. Appellants further state that the project would violate ESA by harassing grizzly bears and “other listed species”, and that “no incidental take statement (ITS) was issued for project impacts beyond construction noise”. (Appeal at 38).
d. Appellants assert “no consultation or NEPA analysis was undertaken in conjunction with adoption of interim direction” regarding grizzly bear. (Appeal at 39).
RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official has complied with the Endangered Species Act in approving the Lower Pratt River Trail Project. Appeal at 34. Consultation for effects to listed species has been completed and is fully documented by the project record.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, requires Federal agencies to review actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them, to ensure such actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of Federally listed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of listed critical habitat. The Forest Service consults with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NOAA Fisheries when it is determined that a project may affect listed species.
20
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service completed a consultation (USDI 1994a) on Alternative 9 in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for LateSuccessional and OldGrowth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (FSEIS) (USDA and USDI 1994a) in 1994. National Forest Plans and Bureau of Land Management Resource Area Plans were amended by the Record of Decision (ROD) for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (also known as the Northwest Forest Plan or NWFP) (USDA and USDI 1994b). In the Biological Opinion (BO) for the NWFP, the USFWS determined that the adoption of the NWFP would not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in adverse modification or destruction of designated critical habitats. However, because the NWFP is a rangewide management strategy, the USFWS did not quantify incidental take for sitespecific management actions. Thus, incidentaltake assessments were deferred to future consultations.
An assumption in the BO for the NWFP was that all future actions would be consistent with the NWFP. The USFWS continues to assume that U.S. Forest Service (USFS) projects are designed to be in compliance with the NWFP. Through Level One team reviews, projects are reviewed for compliance with the NWFP, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and existing programmatic consultations such as the Lower Pratt River Trail Reconstruction and Partial Relocation Environmental Assessment.
A programmatic consultation was first completed on December 3, 1996 (USFWS reference numbers 1397F007 and 1397FW109). This document covered adverse effects associated with activities conducted by the Mt. BakerSnoqualmie National Forest (MBS) and USFWS in the Western Washington Cascades Physiographic Province. This programmatic was in effect for three years. It was extended for one more year on February 22, 2000 (USFWS reference numbers 1300FR0368 and 1300I0369). The programmatic BO provided coverage for adverse effects from projects considered throughout these 4 years. This initial programmatic coverage lapsed in 2001.
While the USFS and USFWS realized that the most effective programmatic consultation from a workload perspective would be a consultation which covered all projects that may result in adverse effects to listed species, the agencies were unable to complete a programmatic consultation during 2001. From 2001 to 2002, the MBS brought forward for consultation projects which were batched. These projects, while adhering to the framework and conservation measures outlined in the 1996 Programmatic BO, determined either “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” or “no effect” for spotted owls and marbled murrelets. The USFWS concurred with these effect determinations in the batched consultations.
21
However, in 2002 the USFWS and MBS succeeded in the coordination and preparation of a new Biological Opinion. The final Biological Assessment (BA) (USDA 2002) from the MBS was received by the Service on June 17, 2002, along with the request for consultation. The initial due date of the BO was to be August 16, 2002, but was mutually extended to September 25, 2002. The MBS determined that actions considered under the Programmatic BO were “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” actions relative to: threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), threatened grizzly bear (Ursus arctos = U. a. horribilis), threatened Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), and endangered gray wolf (Canis lupus) (USDA 2002). The USFWS concurred with these determinations. Conservation measures to minimize effects of proposed work to all listed species were described in the USDA BA (2002), and were to be implemented throughout the five years of coverage provided by the BO (5year Programmatic Biological Assessment for Forest Management: Mt. BakerSnoqualmie National Forest (2002). USFWS Reference Number 1302F1583). The USFWS issued a Biological Opinion (BO) on this consultation (for the programmatic) in September 2002. The USFWS issued incidental take permits of spotted owl and marbled murrelet due to harassment from above ambient noisegenerating projects, consistent with this Biological Opinion.
Effects of activities proposed under the Lower Pratt Trail project on threatened and endangered wildlife species are considered by the programmatic BO. Consultations with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on this point were documented when the USFWS signed off on the Project Consistency Evaluation Form on January 2003, February 2003, and March 2003, thus meeting consultation requirements for the project under the Endangered Species Act.
On December 18, 2007, the USFWS transmitted new revisions to the existing programmatic BA/BO while extending the period of coverage for the Programmatic Biological Assessment through June 16, 2009. This included effects to marbled murrelets, northern spotted owl, and grizzly bear. This revision clearly states that all analyses presented earlier concerning effects, annual amounts of incidental take, terms and conditions, and conservation measures in the previous consultation remain in the revision/extension.
Appeal Issue 17: Appellants assert that the decision is “inconsistent with applicable laws and is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.” Appeal at 40. Appellants state that this violation occurred because the EA failed to “eruditely consider all relevant environmental impacts.” Appeal at 40.
22
RESPONSE: I find the Responsible Official’s decision was a reasoned decision. The Responsible Official took the requisite “hard look” and disclosed the environmental consequences associated with the implementation of Alternative 2 of the Lower Pratt Trail Reconstruction and Relocation Project. I base this finding on the review of the appeal points and the project record. The project record, environmental analysis, decision notice and Findings of NonSignificant Impact provide adequate documentation that the Responsible Official had sufficient information to make an informed decision on the project.
23