Laserfiche WebLink
Appeal Deciding Officer <br /> <br />11 <br />Under A ppeal Issue II , the A ppellant claims the Forest Service did not consider reasonable <br />alternatives to the proposed action . <br /> <br />• An EA must “study, develop, and describe” reasonable alternatives to the proposed <br />action <br /> <br />The Appel lant misquotes many of the statutes and regulations or provides the incorrect citation <br />in its NEPA challenges. NEPA does not require that “all” alternatives be considered, only those <br />which are “reasonable” (40 CFR§ 1502.14) and within the scope of the sta tement (40 CFR § <br />1502.16) encompass those [alternatives] to be considered by the ultimate agency decisionmaker <br />(40 CFR § 1502.2 (e)) for the purposes of “sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis <br />for choice among options by the decisionmaker and the public” (40 CFR § 1502.16). <br /> <br />Nor does NEPA require mitigation for every adverse impact, only those which are “appropriate” <br />(40 CFR § 1502.14(f) and 40 CFR § 1502.16(h)). The discussion should include “any adverse <br />environmental effects which cann ot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, the <br />relationship between short -term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and <br />enhancement of long -term productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of <br />resources which would be inv olved in the proposal should it be implemented ” (40 CFR § <br />1502.16). <br /> <br />Alternatives are designed to achieve the basic aims of the proposed action by different means, <br />while eliminating or lessening the adverse environmental consequences of that action. Miti gation <br />measures are the terms and conditions developed to eliminate or lessen any adverse <br />environmental impacts that cannot be avoided if the proposed action or a preferred alternative is <br />authorized . The actions, discussed here, brought forward by the App ellant in the comment <br />period and in the appeal are, in reality, not “alternatives to the proposed action” as defined <br />above, but are mitigation measures that could be implemented if the proposed action is <br />authorized (see Appeal Issue III). <br /> <br />The EA consider e d reasonable alternatives that met the purpose and need (we re within the <br />“scope”) and discusse d adverse effects. Alternatives considered in detail included the No Action <br />and the Proposed Action alternatives (Section 2.1, EA). There were three alternatives considered <br />but eliminated from detailed study (Section 2.2, EA). <br /> <br />As described in the Decision Notice (Tab 3, Appendix C), consenting to the lease does not result <br />in any direct effects to the land surface of the lease tract. No surface occupancy will be a llowed. <br />Lease stipulations were prescribed for cultural and paleontological resources; endangered or <br />threatened species; Canada lynx, raptors, big game winter range, water depletions, breeding <br />birds, geologic hazards, baseline studies, monitoring requireme nts, riparian, wetland or <br />floodplain, subsidence, roadless and visuals. These stipulations could require surveys and <br />monitoring off NFS lands where off -site surface disturbance adjacent to the lease tract may <br />impact resources located on NFS. The lessee is required to establish a monitoring system to <br />locate, measure, and quantify the progressive and final effects of underground mining activities <br />on the topographic surface, subsurface and surface hydrology, soils and vegetation. <br />