2026-8-24_CDS_SS_Briefings (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

These materials are not merely supplemental background documents. They are cited to support the project purpose and need, commitments to FHWA and WSDOT, ecological objectives, recreation analysis , and the rationale for the closure. For example,the Draft EA cites the FEIS to support commitments associated with the wildlife-crossing project and directs readers to FEIS Appendix D for the conclusion that human activity near crossing structures can compromise their effectiveness. As of August 19, 2026, several supporting files appeared to have been uploaded on August 18, 2026, 18 days into the 30 day comment period. This left the public approximately 12 days to review materials referenced by and incorporated into the Draft EA and FONSI. Because the Part 218 process requires specific written comments with supporting reasons, the Forest Service should ensure that the public can access the documents necessary to evaluate and comment meaningfully on the proposal. The County requests that the Forest Service: l. Identify each document incorporated by reference or materially relied upon in the Draft EA; 2. Verify that each document is publicly accessible; 3. Repair or replace all inaccessible links; 4. Make all the referenced materials available on the project website or by another reliable means; and 5. Provide members of the public a meaningful opportunity to review those materials before their obligation to submit specific comments is considered complete. 3. The Draft EA should explain why a permanent closure is necessary before monitoring and reassessment occur. The public notice describes a five-year temporary closure. The Draft EA instead proposes a permanent closure, while also acknowledging that long-term wildlife monitoring will provide additional information and create an opportunity to reassess closure size and effectiveness. The Draft EA also provides for continuing monitoring in coordination with the I-90 Connectivity Working Group, including WSDOT,Washington State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Central Washington University, FHWA, Conservation Northwest, and other participants. This raises a central question: Why is a permanent closure necessary before the anticipated monitoring results are available? A five-year closure followed by formal monitoring,reassessment, and potential renewal or modification appears to be a reasonable management approach. The Draft EA analyzes only the Proposed Action and No-Action Alternative. Yet the five-year temporary closure described in the public notice is not clearly analyzed as an alternative. The County requests that the Forest Service explain: 0 Whether a five-year closure followed by monitoring and reconsideration was evaluated;