under the enumerated constraints and concludes that any environmental impacts will not be significant. The EA also contains very specific and detailed information on the ways that the timber harvest will be conducted in order to minimize effects on wildlife or watershed. In addition to these specifically identified measures, the EA also cross-references applicable Best Management Practices (“BMPs”), attached in an appendix, which are also quite detailed. Compare Wetlands Action Network v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 222 F.3d 1105, 1121 (9th Cir.2000) (upholding mitigation measures where special permit conditions were “extremely detailed,” even though all details of mitigation plan were not yet finalized) with Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. USFS, 137 F.3d 1372, 1380 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). The EA also explains that there will be
holding that words which expressly refer to adequate legal description provide nucleus of description that is legally sufficient for statute of frauds holding that mitigation of damages is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded holding that an eis must consider the extent to which adverse effects can be avoided by discussing possible mitigation measures holding that perfunctory description of mitigation measures was inadequate holding that description was sufficiently detailed