CHAPTER 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Changes Between Draft and Final Environment Impact Statement Updated the visitor use information. Added environmental analysis of Alternative 4 Added environmental analysis of forest plan amendment concerning camps within 200 feet of meadows, streams, lakes, and key interest areas. Expanded analysis in each section to address DEIS comments and concerns. Incorporated information from 2012 Needs Assessment. Added an Economic and Social Analysis. Made numerous, minor editorial and spelling corrections. Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Introduction This chapter summarizes the affected physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the project area and the effects of implementing each alternative. The scientific and analytic basis is presented for the comparison of alternatives listed in Chapter 2. The effects disclosed are based on the effectiveness of the design criteria and mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 2. The analysis of resources uses varying measures due to management direction, research, or field practice. Therefore, the effect of similar resources cannot always be directly compared, although analysis for each alternative can be compared for the same resource. The effects resulting from each action are described in terms of their context, intensity, speed, direction, magnitude and duration. Other activities occurring in the same area over time, under certain circumstances, may have incremental effects that produce cumulative effects. It is sometimes necessary to look beyond the defined project area to determine the cumulative effects on certain resources. The effects disclose the direct and indirect effects plus the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that define cumulative effect in this chapter. Many of the effects discussed in this chapter are not easily quantified. It should be kept in mind that many of the values presented are modeled or estimated predictions of effects, and that the actual effects may not occur exactly to the degree presented. In some cases, the value of the analysis is in the comparison of the estimated effects between alternatives, rather than in the absolute values of the effects shown. Each environmental component is discussed in terms of the consequences of implementing each of the alternatives listed in Chapter 2. This allows the reader interested in specific resources to find the effects related to that resource in one place. The following format is used for each environmental component: Regulatory Framework provides management direction from the Forest Plan, policy from the Forest Service Handbooks and Manuals, and laws, rules, and regulations for each resource. Analysis Method details how the analysis of each resource was conducted. Affected Environment describes the environment of the area to be affected by the alternatives, that is, the baseline environment, thus including past actions. It provides background for understanding the discussion that follows. Pack and Saddle Stock Outfitter-Guide Permit FEIS 3-1 February 2013 Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Environmental Consequences of implementing each alternative are discussed. There are three types of effects considered: 1. Direct Effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place [40 CFR 1508.8(a)]. 2. Indirect Effects are caused by the action but occur later in time or further removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable [40 CFR 1508.8(b)]. 3. Cumulative Effects result from the incremental impacts of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable actions [40 CFR 1508.7]. Consistency Finding is a statement for each resource area that demonstrates how the action alternatives are consistent with the amended Forest Plan. The Chapter begins with a discussion of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that may affect the project area. Environmental components are detailed as above. This EIS hereby incorporates by reference the wilderness, recreation, botany/sensitive plants, wildlife, hydrology, aquatics, soil, range, noxious weed, heritage resources, and air quality specialist reports in the Analysis file [40 CFR 1502.21] all of which are summarized in this chapter. Other specialist reports are wholly contained in the respective sections of this chapter. The referenced reports are located in the corresponding resource section of the Analysis file. All specialist reports contain the detailed data, methodologies, analyses, conclusions, maps, references and technical documentation (best available science) that the resource specialists relied on to reach conclusions. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions The project interdisciplinary team (IDT) identified past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, that might have cumulative impacts with the proposed action. Those actions in and adjacent to the project area are listed below. Each resource specialist considered different mixes of these actions, depending on the cumulative effects boundary for the resource area and the resource affected. Only those past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions that overlap the geographic analysis area boundary for each particular resource are considered, and only if those other actions have or are expected to have overlapping effects (spatially and temporally) with the pack and saddle stock outfitter-guide project. Some past projects may still be having effects on one resource, but not another. Past Actions In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. Pack and Saddle Stock Outfitter-Guide Permit FEIS 3-2 February 2013 Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking this approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly costly to obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over the last century (and beyond), and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would be nearly impossible. Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposed action or alternatives. In fact, focusing on individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because there is limited information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions, and one cannot reasonably identify each and every action over the last century that has contributed to current conditions. Additionally, focusing on the impacts of past human actions risks ignoring the important residual effects of past natural events, which may contribute to effects just as much as human actions. By looking at current conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. Third, public scoping for this project did not identify any public interest or need for detailed information on individual past actions. Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005 regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” The cumulative effects analysis in this FEIS is also consistent with Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations (36 CFR 220.4(f)) (July 24, 2008), which state, in part: “CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to determine the present effects of past actions. Once the agency has identified those present effects of past actions that warrant consideration, the agency assesses the extent that the effects of the proposal for agency action or its alternatives will add to, modify, or mitigate those effects. The final analysis documents an agency assessment of the cumulative effects of the actions considered (including past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions) on the affected environment. With respect to past actions, during the scoping process and subsequent preparation of the analysis, the agency must determine what information regarding past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis of cumulative effects. Cataloging past actions and specific information about the direct and indirect effects of their design and implementation could in some contexts be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposal. 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.” (40 CFR 1508.7) For these reasons, the analysis of past