Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief District Judge. 1. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on Federal Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 70], Motion for Summary Judgment of Intervenor Wisconsin Department of Transportation [Docket No. 73], Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 78], and Intervenor State of Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 87]. The Court heard oral argument on September 14, 2009. II. SUMMARY OF THE COURT’S OPINION The Court concludes that the National Park Service’s 2005 Section 7 Evaluation was arbitrary and capricious because the National Park Service ignored its contrary position in the 1996 Section 7 Evaluation. The 2005 Section 7 Evaluation is vacated. In 1996, the National Park Service concluded that a “massive” proposed four-lane bridge connecting TH 36 and STH 64 across the Lower St. Croix approximately one mile south of the Stillwater Lift Bridge would directly and adversely affect the Lower St. Croix’s outstandingly remarkable scenic and recreational values with its “dramatic and disruptive” visual impact. This Section 7 Evaluation prevented federal authorization for the 1995 proposed bridge. In 2005, the National Park Service performed a Section 7 Evaluation for a longer and taller proposed four-lane bridge connecting TH 36 and STH 64 across the Lower St. Croix approximately one mile south of the Stillwater Lift Bridge and again characterized the bridge’s visual effect as “dramatic and disruptive.” The National Park Service then inexplicably concluded that the new bridge would not directly and adversely affect the Lower St. Croix’s outstandingly remarkable scenic and recreational values. In the 2005 Section 7 Evaluation, the National Park Service wholly failed to mention, let alone distinguish, the 1995 proposed bridge or the contrary 1996 Section 7 Evaluation. While there are some differences between the two bridges, common sense provides that they are generally similar — in purpose, location, and physical characteristics. The new proposed bridge includes minimization measures, which the National Park Service concluded could not reduce the visual impact of the proposed bridge to an acceptable level. It also includes a handful of new mitigation measures aimed at offsetting the bridge’s visual impact. However, the National Park Service fails to explain how combining a group of apparently ineffective measures, all of which relate to shoreline actions, can create an effective mitigation package, when, in 1996, it concluded that no available mitigation measures could significantly reduce the negative visual impact of a similar bridge. In 1996, the National Park Service concluded that the visual impacts of shoreline development were simply “not comparable” to the visual impacts of the bridge. Yet, in 2005, the National Park Service abruptly changed course and concluded that visual mitigation based solely on shoreline actions, when combined with minimization measures, could adequately offset the bridge’s negative visual impact. In the 1996 Section 7 Evaluation, the National Park Service’s main concern for visual impact was based on the massiveness of a bridge spanning the Lower St. Croix in that basic location — a concern it concluded could not be effectively mitigated or minimized. In the 2005 Section 7 Evaluation, the National Park Service failed to explain why that concern has evaporated. A federal agency may reevaluate previous determinations and change its mind, but the agency must explain its reasons for changing its position. Because the 2005 Section 7 Evaluation completely omitted reference to the 1995 proposed bridge and the 1996 Section 7 Evaluation, the Court must conclude that the National Park Service gave no thought to its change in position. The National Park Service’s failure to acknowledge its previous contrary position, let alone explain why, in its opinion, a change is justified, is the hallmark of an arbitrary and capricious decision. III. BACKGROUND A. Statutory Framework 1. National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) The NEPA is a procedural statute that requires federal agencies to prepare a detailed environmental impact statement (“EIS”) for “major Federal actions significantly affecting the. quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). An agency’s EIS should “[rjigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives,” but need only “briefly discuss” the reasons why other alternatives were eliminated from more detailed study. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. Additionally, an EIS should identify the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of each alternative that is studied and consider mitigation measures to reduce any impacts on the environment. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14, 1502.16,1508.7. “NEPA mandates that a federal agency take a hard look at the environmental consequences of a major federal action before taking that action.” Mid States Coalition for Progress v. Surface Transp. Bd., 345 F.3d 520, 533 (8th Cir. 2003) (citation and internal quotations omitted). 2. Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 Generally, under Section 4(f), the Secretary may approve a transportation program or project ... requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, State, or local significance ... only if— (1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and (2) the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use. 49 U.S.C. § 303(c). Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”) regulations require that, for projects subject to the section 4(f) requirement, the 4(f) evaluation shall document why there is no “feasible and prudent” alternative and the planning measures taken to “minimize harm” to the property resulting from the use. 49 C.F.R. § 266.19(b)(4). Additionally, a final EIS or Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) should document compliance with applicable requirements, including section 4(f). 23 C.F.R. § 771.133. 3. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (“WSRA”) The WSRA was enacted in 1968 to preserve the free-flowing condition of certain rivers. 16 U.S.C. § 1271. The WSRA created a national Wild and Scenic Rivers System and developed a process so that other rivers with “outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition.” Id. The WSRA identifies the rivers in the System, sets forth a procedure by which additional rivers may be added, and provides guidance on how the designated rivers should be managed. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1271-87. Under Section 10(a), the administering agency must manage each designated river segment “in such manner as to protect and enhance the values which caused it to be included in said system without, insofar as is consistent therewith, limiting other uses that do not substantially interfere with public use and enjoyment of these values.” 16 U.S.C. § 1281(a). The upper stretch of the St. Croix River was one of the rivers originally included in the Wild and Scenic River System. 16 U.S.C. § 1274(a)(6). The Lower St. Croix was later added. 16 U.S.C. § 1274(a)(9). Under the WSRA, rivers are classified as “wild,” “scenic,” or “recreational.” 16 U.S.C. § 1273(b). Recreational rivers are the most developed category and are “[tjhose rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past.” § 1273(b)(3). The uppermost 10.3 miles of the Lower St. Croix are scenic, while the downstream 42 miles of the Lower St. Croix, including the portion at issue here, are classified as recreational. (2005 Section 7 Evaluation, National Park Service Administrative Record (“NPS”) 467.) Section 7 of the WSRA provides that “no department or agency of the United States shall assist by loan, grant, license, or otherwise in the construction of any water resources project that would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which such river was established, as determined by the Secretary charged with its administration.” 16 U.S.C. § 1278(a). Thus, Section 7 requires the National Park Service (“NPS”) to evaluate whether a “water resources project ... would have a direct and adverse effect” on a river’s values. When a water resources project is found to have a “direct and adverse effect” on a wild and scenic river, the project cannot be authorized or funded absent congressional intervention. Id. 4. Organic Act and General Authorities Act The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (“Organic Act”) established NPS and created its authority over the maintenance of national parks. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1-18f-3. The Organic Act provides that NPS must “regulate the use” of national parks by means that conform to their “fundamental purpose,” namely: to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. 16 U.S.C. § 1. Congress later passed an amendment to the Organic Act, known as the General Authorities Act, which provides: The authorization of activities shall be construed and the protection, management, and administration of these areas shall be conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress. 16 U.S.C. § la-1. NPS has construed the “derogation” standard in the General Authorities Act as a reiteration of the non-impairment standard set forth in the Organic Act — that is, a duty to prohibit the impairment of the integrity of park resources and values. NPS Management Policies § 1.4.2 (2006); Record of Decision, 66 Fed.Reg. 56848, 56850 (Nov. 13, 2001). Under NPS policy, NPS must “examine the duration, severity, and magnitude of the impact; the resources and values affected; and direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the action.” 66 Fed.Reg. 56848, 56850. “If there would be an impairment, the action may not be approved.” NPS Management Policies § 1.4.7 (2006). 5. Comprehensive Management Plan The WSRA requires governing agencies to develop comprehensive management plans (“CMPs”) to provide for the protection of wild and scenic rivers’ values: For rivers designated on or after January 1, 1986, the Federal agency charged with the administration of each component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System shall prepare a comprehensive management plan for such river segment to provide for the protection of the river values. The plan shall address resource protection, development of lands and facilities, user capacities, and other management practices necessary or desirable to achieve the purposes of this chapter. The plan shall be coordinated with and may be incorporated into resource management planning for affected adjacent Federal lands. The plan shall be prepared, after consultation with State and local governments and the interested public within 3 full fiscal years after the date of designation. Notice of the completion and availability of such plans shall be published in the Federal Register. 16 U.S.C. § 1274(d)(1). “Management plans for any such component [of a wild and scenic river] may establish varying degrees of intensity for its protection and development, based on the special attributes of the area.” 16 U.S.C. § 1281(a). Minnesota, Wisconsin, and NPS entered into a new CMP for the Lower St. Croix in 2001. Record of Decision, 66 Fed.Reg. 56,848 (Nov. 13, 2001). B. Factual Background 1. The Parties and the River Plaintiff is the Sierra Club North Star Chapter (“Sierra Club”). The Federal Defendants are Ray LaHood, Secretary of Transportation; Victor Mendez, the Federal Highway Administrator; Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior; and Jonathan B. Jarvis, Director of the NPS. IntervenorDefendants are the Minnesota Department of Transportation (“MnDOT”) and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (“WisDOT”). (“Defendants” shall collectively refer to the Federal Defendants and the Intervenor-Defendants.) This case relates to a proposed bridge that would cross the Lower St. Croix River near Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. The Lower St. Croix runs along the Minnesota-Wisconsin border. The Lower St. Croix has many wildlife species, including federally-protected bald eagles and peregrine falcons. It contains one of the world’s richest freshwater mussel communities and is home to forty species of mussels, including two federally-endangered species: the Higgins’ eye pearlymussel and the winged mapleleaf mussel. Currently, ten bridges traverse the St. Croix, including the Stillwater Lift Bridge (“Lift Bridge”), between Stillwater, Minnesota, and Houlton, Wisconsin. Sierra Club N. Star Chapter v. Pena, 1 F.Supp.2d 971, 974 (D.Minn.1998). The Lift Bridge connects Minnesota Trunk Highway 36 (“TH 36”) to Wisconsin State Trunk Highway 64 (“STH 64”). Id. 2. 1995 Bridge Proposal FHWA, MnDOT, and WisDOT have long sought to construct a new bridge over the river. These efforts resulted in a final EIS in April 1995, and a record of that decision in July 1995. Sierra Club N. Star Chapter, 1 F.Supp.2d at 974. The highway departments’ preferred alternative was a four-lane bridge that would cross the river about one mile south of Stillwater, Minnesota (“1995 Proposal”). The total length of the bridge would be 6 miles; it would be 104 feet wide with a total height of 72 feet on the Minnesota side of the river and 128 feet on the Wisconsin side of the river; and 8 of the 25 bridge piers would be located in the riverbed. (Section 7(a) Evaluation; Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; Proposed New St. Croix River Crossing (“1996 Section 7 Evaluation”), NPS 386-87.) Because the 1995 Proposal would have required extensive dredge and fill, the Clean Water Act required the transportation agencies to obtain a “dredge and fill” permit from the Corps of Engineers. 33 U.S.C. § 1344; Sierra Club N. Star Chapter, 1 F.Supp.2d at 975. In June 1996, the Sierra Club and another conservation group filed suit to enjoin construction of the project. Among other claims, Sierra Club alleged that the Department of the Interior failed to discharge its obligation under the WSRA to analyze whether the 1995 Proposal satisfied the standards of Section 7 of the WSRA. Sierra Club N. Star Chapter, 1 F.Supp.2d at 975. After Sierra Club filed suit, NPS conducted the necessary Section 7 evaluation on the 1995 Proposal. FHWA suspended its authorization of the 1995 Proposal pending the outcome of the Section 7 process. Id. On December 27, 1996, NPS issued its WSRA Section 7 evaluation, which concluded that the 1995 Proposal would have a direct and adverse impact on the Lower St. Croix’s scenic and recreational values. (See 1996 Section 7 Evaluation.) The evaluation particularly criticized the potential visual impact of the proposed bridge. (NPS 435-36.) In particular, NPS found, “Placing a massive bridge where there previously was not one results in a fundamental change in the scenic qualities that existed in this portion of the Riverway at the time of designation.” (NPS 435.) It opined, “The severity and magnitude of the visual impacts related to the proposed project are so great that they cannot be significantly reduced by the available mitigation measures.” (NPS 436.) NPS also concluded that the 1995 Proposal would negatively affect the Lower St. Croix’s recreational values and its mussel populations, which “should be protected to the same extent as the outstandingly remarkable scenic and recreational values.” (NPS 410.) After the Section 7 evaluation was released, the federal government withdrew its authorization and financial support for the 1995 Proposal. In an effort to save the project, MnDOT and WisDOT (“state DOTs”) intervened in Sierra Club’s lawsuit and directly challenged the Section 7 evaluation. On April 13,1998, the Court rejected the state DOTs’ claims and upheld the NPS determination. Pena, 1 F.Supp.2d at 983. 3. Current Bridge Proposal After the 1998 court decision, FHWA and the state DOTs began working to revive the project. During the process, FHWA and the state DOTs consulted a Stakeholders Group, which included Sierra Club. (FHWA 4094.) The Stakeholders Group was permitted to comment on the process but did not have decision-making authority. (Id.) In March 2004, FHWA and the state DOTs issued an Amended Final Scoping Decision Document identifying five build alternatives and one no-build alternative for the project. (FHWA 2906.) The alternatives were: Alternative A, which involved renovating the existing Stillwater Lift Bridge and using a combination of transportation techniques, including mass transit and attempting to redirect more traffic to the 1-94 river crossing. (FHWA 2923.) Alternative B, which was the 1995 Proposal. This proposal included construction of a four-lane highway bridge with a bicyele/pedestrian trail approximately a mile south of the Lift Bridge. (FHWA 2923.) Alternative B-l, which eventually became the Proposed Bridge, included construction of a four-lane highway bridge slightly south of the 1995 Proposal. (FHWA 2924, 9023.) (A number of other variations on Alternatives B were also studied, including the option to convert the Lift Bridge into a pedestrian and bicycle bridge, the option to retain the Lift Bridge for limited vehicle use by banning large trucks, and the option to install park-and-ride facilities in Wisconsin and Minnesota. (FHWA 2924.)) Alternative C, which included construction of a four-lane highway bridge three-quarters of a mile south of the Lift Bridge. (FHWA 2924.) Alternative D, which called for construction of a four-lane bridge less than half a mile south of the Lift Bridge on the Minnesota side and 160 feet south on the Wisconsin side. (FHWA 2925.) Alternative E, which included construction of a two-lane bridge less than half a mile south of the Lift Bridge on the Minnesota side and 200 feet south of the Lift Bridge on the Wisconsin side. The new bridge would handle eastbound traffic and the converted Lift Bridge would handle westbound traffic. (FHWA 2926.) In August 2004, FHWA and the state DOTs issued a supplemental draft EIS (“SDEIS”). (FHWA 4019 et seq.) Alternative A, the transit option, was not studied because it did not meet the need and purpose of the project because it would not alleviate congestion, would shift congestion to 1-94, and would not address reliability problems associated with the Lift Bridge. (FHWA AR 2966-67.) Also, Alternative B was eliminated from further study because of the 1996 Section 7 Evaluation determination that it would have direct' and adverse effects on the outstandingly remarkable values of the Lower St. Croix. (Id. 2967.) Alternative B-l, with a different alignment, was instead considered. (Id.) Alternative B-l contained two sub-alternatives: Alternative B-la proposed closing the Lift Bridge to vehicular traffic and converting it into a non-motorized pathway, while Alternative B-lb would leave the Lift Bridge open to local traffic. (FHWA 4132.) In October 2005, NPS issued a draft Section 7 evaluation of the project. (Draft Section 7(a) Evaluation; Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; St. Croix River Crossing Project (October 2005) (“2005 Section 7 Evaluation”), NPS 462 et seq.) The 2005 Section 7 Evaluation studied the impact of Alternative B-la on the Riverway. (Id. at 468-78.) NPS admitted that Alternative B-la would have a direct adverse effect on the scenic and recreational values of the Lower St. Croix. (NPS 517-18.) However, NPS concluded that, given the proposed mitigation package, the Proposed Bridge’s adverse effect on the scenic and recreational values of the Lower St. Croix would be adequately offset. (Id.) The 2005 Section 7 Evaluation did not mention the 1996 Section 7 Evaluation. In June 2006, when the transportation agencies released the Supplemental Final EIS (“SFEIS”), they chose Alternative fila as the Preferred Alternative. (FHWA 7791-92.) This proposal (“Proposed Bridge”) became the Selected Alternative when FHWA issued its November 2006 Record of Decision (“ROD”). (FHWA 9023.) The Proposed Bridge would be located between TH 36 in Stillwater and Oak Park Heights, Minnesota, and STH 64 in St. Joseph, Wisconsin. (NPS 464.) C. Procedural Background On June 5, 2007, Sierra Club filed a Complaint against Defendants in this Court. The Complaint alleges Count I, Violations of WSRA and the [Administrative Procedure Act] [“]APA[”] by NPS and FHWA based on the claim that the Proposed Bridge project creates a new transportation corridor without restoring the existing corridor to natural conditions in violation of the CMP; Count II, Violations of the WSRA and the APA against NPS based on the claim that NPS’s 2005 Section 7 Evaluation wrongly concluded that the Proposed Bridge project would not have a direct and adverse effect on the Lower St. Croix’s scenic, recreational, wildlife, and other natural values; Count III, Violations of the WSRA and the APA by NPS, in the alternative to Count II, based on the claim that if NPS’s 2005 Section 7 Evaluation was not final agency action, NPS’s failure to issue a Section 7 determination represents “agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed;” Count IV, Violations of the WSRA, Organic Act, General Authorities Act, and the APA by NPS based on the claim that NPS’s approval of the Proposed Bridge is contrary to the non-degradation and nonimpairment policies promulgated under those statutes; Count V, Violations of the WSRA and the APA by NPS based on the claim that NPS’s grant of a new right-of-way for the Proposed Bridge does not protect the qualities for which the Lower St. Croix was designated a wild and scenic river; Count VI, Violations of the Transportation Act and the APA by FHWA, based on the claim that FHWA violated Section 4(f) of the Transportation Act by approving the Proposed Bridge without adequately considering alternatives that could have avoided use of the Lower St. Croix Riverway and approving a project that does not minimize harm to the Riverway; and Count VII, Violations of NEPA and the APA by FHWA based on the claim that FHWA violated the NEPA due to inadequacies in the EISs and ROD. Defendants moved to dismiss this case based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction because 1) as to the claims against FHWA, Plaintiff failed to file its Complaint within the statutory 180-day limitations period; and 2) as to claims against NPS, the Complaint does not challenge a final agency action. On May 15, 2008, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. Sierra Club North Star Chapter v. Peters, Civil No. 07-2593 (MJD/SRN), 2008 WL 2152199 (D.Minn. May 15, 2008). The Court dismissed Count III, but permitted the other Counts to remain. On July 8, 2008, Magistrate Judge Nelson issued an Order, based on the parties’ stipulation, permitting MnDOT and Wis-DOT to intervene as Defendants in this matter. [Docket No. 38] Currently before the Court are motions for summary judgment by all parties. IV. DISCUSSION A. Summary Judgment Standard 1. General Summary Judgment Standard Summary judgment is appropriate if, viewing all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of showing that there is no disputed issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Summary judgment is only appropriate when “there is no dispute of fact and where there exists only one conclusion.” Crawford v. Runyon, 37 F.3d 1338, 1341 (8th Cir.1994) (citation omitted). 2. APA Standard Sierra Club’s claims are all brought pursuant to the APA. Under the APA, a court will set aside an agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). “The scope of review under the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency. Nevertheless, the agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) (citation and internal quotations omitted). Generally, an agency’s action is arbitrary and capricious if it has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise. The reviewing court should not attempt itself to make up for such deficiencies: We may not supply a reasoned basis for the agency’s action that the agency itself has not given. Id. (citation and internal quotations omitted). Also, a decision is arbitrary and capricious if the agency “fail[s] to apply the relevant statutory authority in making its decision.” Sokol v. Kennedy, 210 F.3d 876, 878 (8th Cir.2000). B. Whether NPS’s 2005 Section 7 Evaluation Is Arbitrary and Capricious Sierra Club claims that the 2005 Section 7 Evaluation was unlawful for six main reasons: 1) by approving construction of the Proposed Bridge, NPS arbitrarily reversed its earlier position on the 1995 Proposal without explanation; 2) in the alternative, even if NPS did not arbitrarily reverse its position, NPS’s mitigation conclusions are counter to the evidence in the record; 3) NPS failed to consider the Proposed Bridge’s impact on the mussel communities; 4) NPS’s authorization of the project violated the Lower St. Croix CMP; 5) NPS failed to apply the “protect and enhance” requirement of Section 10(a) of the WSRA; and 6) NPS failed to consider whether the Proposed Bridge would violate the non-impairment requirement of the Organic Act and General Authorities Act. 1. Whether the 2005 Section 7 Evaluation Is Judicially Reviewable The Court rejects defense claims that the Section 7 Evaluation is not judicially reviewable. As previously noted, under the APA, a court may set aside an agency action if that action is “arbitrary, - capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). However, APA review does not apply when “agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2). This “very narrow exception” applies when “statutes are drawn in such broad terms that in a given case there is no law to apply.” Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 410, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971) (citation omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977). “[Tjhere is a strong presumption that Congress intends judicial review of administrative action.” Kenney v. Glickman, 96 F.3d 1118, 1124 (8th Cir.1996) (citation omitted). There must be “clear and convincing evidence of Congress’s intent to preclude judicial review.” Arkla Exploration Co. v. Texas Oil & Gas Corp., 734 F.2d 347, 354 (8th Cir.1984) (citation omitted). In this case, the Section 7 Evaluation is subject to APA review. The relevant statutory test sets forth the applicable standard: NPS must decide whether a water resources project, such as the Proposed Bridge, “would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which [the wild and scenic] river was established.” 16 U.S.C. § 1278(a). In this case, NPS is required to consider whether the Proposed Bridge would have a direct and adverse effect on the Riverway’s scenic, recreational, and geologic values. (See NPS 4, 14.) This statutory requirement provides a meaningful standard of review. Cf. Sokol v. Kennedy, 210 F.3d 876, 879 (8th Cir.2000) (rejecting “the defendants’ contention that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provided no meaningful standard for the selection of detailed boundaries,” because Section 1281(a) “clearly set out” a duty to “identify and seek to protect” the river’s outstandingly remarkable values). See also Sierra Club North Star Chapter v. Pena, 1 F.Supp.2d at 981-83 (reviewing 1996 Section 7 Evaluation under APA). 2. Significance of the Lower St. Croix’s State-Administered Designation The parties assert various arguments regarding the Section 7 Evaluation that depend upon whether the portion of the Lower St. Croix at issue in this lawsuit— the lower section of the Lower St. Croix— is considered to be state-administered. Sierra Club argues that the relevant section of the Lower St Croix is not strictly a state-administered river. The Court disagrees. Therefore, the Court begins its discussion with an explanation of why the relevant section of the Lower St. Croix is a state-administered river under the WSRA. a. Designation Process for the Lower St. Croix A river can be added to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System in one of two ways: through an Act of Congress or through a state application for WSRA designation, approved by the Secretary of the Interior. 16 U.S.C. § 1273(a)®, (ii). Rivers designated under the second provision, which must be administered by the state “without expense to the United States other than for administration and management of federally owned lands,” are referred to as state-administered rivers. Id. § 1273(a). The Lower St. Croix River Act of 1972 designated the upper stretch of the Lower St. Croix as a wild and scenic river, to be administered by the Secretary of the Interior. (Pub.L. 92-560, NPS 71.) The Act further authorized designation of the lower stretch upon application by the Governors of Minnesota and Wisconsin. (Id.) It further provided that the Secretary of Interi- or was to jointly act with the states to create a development plan that “shall provide for State administration of the lower twenty-five miles of the Lower St. Croix River segment.” (Id.) In 1976, upon application by the Governors of Minnesota and Wisconsin, the Secretary of the Interior approved the lower stretch of the Lower St. Croix for inclusion “in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System as a State Administered Area of the National Scenic Riverway.” 41 Fed.Reg. 26236 (June 25, 1976). This lower segment, which begins at the northern limits of the City of Still-water and stretches south to Prescott, Wisconsin, was “designated a State administered recreational river area in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.” Id. Both the existing Lift Bridge and the Proposed Bridge are within the state-administered portion of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System because the Governors of Minnesota and Wisconsin applied for and received that designation for the lower 25 miles of the St. Croix under 16 U.S.C. § 1273(a)(ll). See 16 U.S.C. § 1274(a)(9). Therefore, the portion of the Lower St. Croix at issue here is “permanently administered” by “an agency or political subdivision of the State or States concerned.” 16 U.S.C. §§ 1273(a)(ii), 1274(a)(9). See Fitz-Gerald v. Harris, 549 F.3d 46, 48-49 (1st Cir.2008) (“State-administered rivers are those rivers designated after a state applies to the federal Secretary of the Interi- or under section 2(a)(ii). Federally-administered rivers are those established by Congress under section 2(a)®.... A single river may have zones that are state-administered and others that are federally-administered. E.g., id. § 1274(a)(9) (designating a section of the Lower St. Croix River as federally-administered and providing that the governors of Wisconsin and Minnesota may apply to have another segment designated as state-administered).”); Kiemat v. Chisago County, 564 F.Supp. 1089, 1091 (D.Minn.1983) (“An additional 25 mile segment [of the Lower St. Croix River] immediately south of this federal segment was to be included upon application of the states of Wisconsin and Minnesota and jointly administered by those states.”); State v. St. Croix County, 266 Wis.2d 498, 668 N.W.2d 743, 745 (Wis.Ct. App.2003) (“The lower 25-mile segment [of the Lower St. Croix] is to be administered by the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin and is referred to as the ‘state zone.’”). Sierra Club argues that, despite the clear statutory language, the lower stretch of the Lower St. Croix is not state-administered based on NPS’s joint management responsibility under the CMP and the federal government’s expenditure of resources to manage this portion of the river. Sierra Club asserts that NPS shares management responsibility with the states over the 25-mile state-administered zone. NPS’s participation in cooperative management under the CMP does not change the state-administered designation of the lower portion of the Lower St. Croix. The WSRA explicitly provides that NPS shall cooperate with and assist states in managing their rivers, whether or not the rivers are state- or federally-administered: The Secretary of the Interior ... shall assist, advise, and cooperate with States ... to plan, protect, and manage river resources. Such assistance, advice, and cooperation may be through written agreements or otherwise. This authority applies within or outside a federally administered area and applies to rivers which are components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and to other rivers. Any agreement under this subsection may include provisions for limited financial or other assistance to encourage participation in the acquisition, protection, and management of river resources. 16 U.S.C. § 1282(b)(1). It is true that, as Sierra Club points out, the 2001 ROD regarding the CMP provides that “[t]he states and the federal government jointly conduct planning for the riverway.” 66 Fed.Reg. 56848, 56848-89 (Nov. 13, 2001). However, the ROD also provides that “[t]he states of Minnesota and Wisconsin administer the lower 25 miles.” Id. The ROD reflects that the federal government and the Minnesota and Wisconsin governments cooperate regarding the management of the entire lower St. Croix Riverway, which consists of both federally- and state-administered segments. In any case, the proclamations in the ROD have effect only to the extent that they are consistent with applicable statutory language. b. Effect of the State-Designation on NPS’s Section 7 Duty WisDOT argues that the Court should defer to the states’ joint decision on how best to administer the state-administered recreational portion of the wild and scenic river at issue here. Regardless of the WSRA’s deference to state decisions regarding state-administered rivers, NPS has the same duty to comply with Section 7 when a water resources project is at issue. Here, Sierra Club is challenging NPS action, not state action. Cf. FitzGerald v. Harris, 549 F.3d 46, 56, 57 n. 5 (1st Cir.2008) (discussing deference to state action regarding state-administered Wild and Scenic River but not addressing level of scrutiny for review of federal agency decisions because plaintiff “could have challenged the [Army Corps of Engineers] ACE permit under the APA but did not”). 3. Whether NPS Arbitrarily Reversed Its Position in the 2005 Section 7 Evaluation Sierra Club argues that NPS has reversed its policy regarding the permissibility of a four-lane bridge, approximately one mile south of the Lift Bridge over the lower portion of the Lower St. Croix. In the 1996 Section 7 Evaluation, NPS concluded that the 1995 Proposal would directly and adversely affect the Lower St. Croix’s outstandingly remarkable scenic and recreational values and that no available mitigation package could adequately offset the negative effect. Sierra Club argues that in 2005, with no explanation for its reversal in position, NPS concluded that the substantially similar Proposed Bridge would not directly and adversely affect the scenic or recreational values. Defendants retort that the 1996 Section 7 Evaluation was not a general rule or policy regarding bridges across the lower portion of the Lower St. Croix, but was, instead, a narrow, fact-specific evaluation of the 1995 Proposal, which is factually distinguishable from the current Proposed Bridge. While the 1995 Proposal and the Proposed Bridge are substantially similar— i.e., two large, four-lane bridges connecting TH 36 and STH 64 across the Lower St. Croix approximately one mile south of the Lift Bridge — there are some differences between the projects. And, undoubtedly, federal agencies generally have discretion to change their positions on issues. However, because the 2005 Section 7 Evaluation completely omitted reference to the 1995 Proposal and the 1996 Section 7 Evaluation, the Court must conclude that NPS gave no thought to its change in position. A failure to acknowledge NPS’s previous position, let alone explain why, in NPS’s opinion, a change is justified, is the hallmark of an arbitrary and capricious decision. a. Applicable Standard of Review “[A]n agency changing its course by rescinding a rule is obligated to supply a reasoned analysis for the change beyond that which may be required when an agency does not act in the first instance.” State Farm, 463 U.S. at 42, 103 S.Ct. 2856. “An agency’s view of what is in the public interest may change, either with or without a change in circumstances. But an agency changing its course must supply a reasoned analysis indicating that prior policies and standards are being deliberately changed, not casually ignored.... ” Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 852 (D.C.Cir.1970) (footnotes omitted), quoted in State Farm, 463 U.S. at 57, 103 S.Ct. 2856. The requirement that an agency explain a change in position is not only applicable to rescission of rules. See, e.g., N.Y. Pub. Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Johnson, 427 F.3d 172, 182-83 (2d Cir. 2005) (requiring that EPA provide a “reasoned analysis indicating that prior policies and standards are being deliberately changed, not casually ignored” when it reversed its policy position regarding circumstances in which an operating permit should be issued); Springfield, Inc. v. Buckles, 292 F.3d 813, 819-20 (D.C.Cir. 2002) (applying State Farm “reasoned analysis” standard to review Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms decision to reverse its policy that “a rifle’s ability to accept a large, military-style magazine did not automatically disqualify it for importation” and, therefore, revoke import permits for firearms it had allowed in the past). Put another way, “when an agency treats two similar transactions differently, an explanation for the agency’s actions must be forthcoming.” Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Heintz, 760 F.2d 1408,-1418 (4th Cir.1985), cited with approval in Duncan Energy Co. v. Ü.S. Forest Serv., 50 F.3d 584, 591 (8th Cir.1995). “Patently inconsistent application of agency standards to similar situations lacks rationality and is arbitrary.” Contractors Transp. Corp. v. United States, 537 F.2d 1160, 1162 (4th Cir.1976) (citation omitted). See also id. (“[T]he grounds for an agency’s disparate treatment of similarly situated applicants must be reasonably discernible from its report and order.”) (citations omitted). The Supreme Court has “frequently reiterated that an agency must cogently explain why it has exercised its discretion in a given manner.” State Farm, 463 U.S. at 48, 103 S.Ct. 2856. Therefore, NPS could not simply ignore its prior policy in issuing the 2005 Section 7 Evaluation. Although it did not need to provide better or stronger reasons for its new position than for its 1996 position, it was required to acknowledge its previous position and provide a reasoned explanation for its change: To be sure, the requirement that an agency provide reasoned explanation for its action would ordinarily demand that it display awareness that it is changing position. An agency may not, for example, depart from a prior policy sub silentio .... And of course the agency must show that there are good reasons for the new policy. But it need not demonstrate to a court’s satisfaction that the reasons for the new policy are better than the reasons for the old one; it suffices that the new policy is permissible under the statute, that there are good reasons for it, and that the agency believes it to be better, which the conscious change of course adequately indicates. This means that the agency need not always provide a more detailed justification than what would suffice for a new policy created on a blank slate. Sometimes it must — when, for exartiple, its new policy rests upon factual findings that contradict those which underlay its prior policy; or when its prior policy has engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account. It would be arbitrary or capricious to ignore such matters. In such cases it is not that further justification is demanded by the mere fact of policy change; but that a reasoned explanation is needed for disregarding facts and circumstances that underlay or were engendered by the prior policy. F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1800, 1811, 173 L.Ed.2d 738 (2009) (citations omitted). The Court reiterates that NPS was not bound by its 1996 Section 7 Evaluation when it evaluated the Proposed Bridge. NPS clearly has the power to reevaluate its prior determination. See, e.g., High Country Resources v. FERC, 255 F.3d 741, 748 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that Forest Service had discretion to reevaluate its 1986 Section 7 decision regarding hydroelectric projects on the Skagit River because res judicata did not apply and “the existence of new information gave the Forest Service good reason to reevaluate the 1986 determination”). But, the agency must explain its reasons for changing its policy; the Court cannot provide that basis during APA review: The Court may not accept “counsel’s post hoc rationalizations for agency action. It is well-established that an agency’s action must be upheld, if at all, on the basis articulated by the agency itself.” State Farm, 463 U.S. at 50, 103 S.Ct. 2856 (citations omitted). b. Whether the Proposed Bridge and the 1995 Proposal Are Substantially Similar i. Introduction Defendants argue that the 1996 and 2005 Section 7 Evaluations addressed wholly different projects; therefore, NPS’s conclusion that the 1995 Proposal did have a direct and adverse effect on the Lower St. Croix’s outstandingly remarkable values is not in conflict with its conclusion in the 2005 Section 7 Evaluation. Defendants claim that the Proposed Bridge incorporates various new minimization and mitigation measures, which are adequate to offset the adverse effect on scenic and recreational values. In the 2005 Section 7 Evaluation, NPS concluded that “the preferred crossing, when taken along with its mitigation package would not have a direct and adverse effect on the scenic and recreational values for which the Riverway was included in the System.” (NPS 518.) In its 1996 Section 7 Evaluation, NPS found that construction of the 1995 Proposal would have a direct and adverse effect on the scenic and recreational values of the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, which could not be adequately mitigated. (NPS 436, 440.) The main basis for finding a negative impact on the recreational value was that the 1995 Proposal would “negatively impact recreationistsf] enjoyment of the natural and history scene.” (NPS 440.) It is NPS’s conflicting analyses of the scenic impact in the 1996 and 2005 Section 7 Evaluations that are at the heart Sierra Club’s claim of arbitrariness. Sierra Club asserts that the 1995 Proposal is identical to the Proposed Bridge in all relevant respects. Therefore, Sierra Club concludes that NPS’s 2005 Section 7 Evaluation conclusion — that construction of a similar large bridge over the Lower St. Croix would not have a direct and adverse effect on the Riverway’s scenic value with sufficient mitigation — written with no explanation for the reversal or citation to the 1996 Evaluation, was an arbitrary and capricious reversal in policy. Sierra Club asserts that NPS was required — and failed — to supply a reasoned analysis for its change in policy. ii. Comparison of the Two Bridges The Proposed Bridge and the 1995 Proposal both call for a four-lane highway bridge to be built on nearly the same location and rise more than 100 feet above the Lower St. Croix with widths of more than 100 feet. (NPS 386-87, 469.) The 1995 Proposal would be located approximately 1 mile downstream of the Lift Bridge. (NPS 386.) The Proposed Bridge would be located 7,550 feet south of the Lift Bridge on the Minnesota shoreline and 6,450 feet south of the Lift Bridge on the Wisconsin shoreline. (NPS 468.) Thus, although the locations are slightly different, they are close by one another. The Proposed Bridge is longer and taller than the 1995 Proposal. The Proposed Bridge is approximately 1,000 feet longer than the 1995 Proposal: 3,930 feet for the 1995 Proposal versus 4,953 feet for the Proposed Bridge, including 2,840 feet over the river. (NPS 386, 469.) The height of the 1995 Proposal, not including lighting, would be 128 feet, while the deck height of the Proposed Bridge would be 159 feet, not including the 70-foot high towers. (NPS 387, 469; FHWA 7871.) However, the Proposed Bridge does have a perpendicular alignment, versus the more diagonal alignment of the 1995 Proposal. (NPS 1586.) Defendants also note that the portion of the Proposed Bridge over the river is minimally shorter that the portion of the 1995 Proposal over the river. Defendants argue that an important difference is that the 1995 Proposal required 8 of the 25 piers to be placed in the riverbed, while the Proposed Bridge calls for only 4 to 6 piers in the riverbed. (NPS 387, 481.) NPS concluded that the impact on the free-flowing character of the river would be “minor” with the 1995 Proposal and “negligible” with the Proposed Bridge. (NPS 392, 483.) The 1996 Section 7 Evaluation’s determination of a direct and adverse impact on scenic value was not based on individual components of the 1995 Proposal — such as the number of piers — , but, rather, was based on the overall impact of a “massive bridge” with a “dramatic and disruptive” visual impact based on many factors, including its “length and height” and both vertical and. horizontal visual impact. (NPS 435-36.) Similarly, in the 2005 Section 7 Evaluation, NPS characterized the Proposed Bridge as “highly disruptive;” concluded that “[t]he length, height, mass and position of the bridge (crossing the river) would make it more visually intrusive to river and riverbank users than other developments in the affected area;” stated that the bridge’s horizontal visual impact would be “dramatic and disruptive to the view;” and concluded that the project “would dramatically change and adversely affect the visual character of the river.” (NPS 503-04.) In both evaluations, NPS concluded that placing a “bridge where there previously was not one results in a fundamental change in the scenic qualities that existed in this portion of the Riverway at the time of designation.” (NPS 435, 503.) Although both evaluations cited the particularly negative visual impact created by the respective bridges’ heights, lengths, location, and both horizontal and vertical impacts, and the Proposed Bridge is both taller and longer than the 1995 Proposal and is located in almost the same location, NPS made no attempt to distinguish the massive Proposed Bridge from the massive 1995 Proposal. iii. Minimization Measures Defendants retort that the minimization and mitigation measures in the Proposed Bridge differentiate it from the 1995 Proposal, although this point was not made anywhere in the 2005 Section 7 Evaluation. In the 1996 Section 7 Evaluation, NPS concluded that there was no opportunity to reduce the negative visual impact through “location, site and layout.” (NPS 434.) It further stated that no use of color, materials, or planting would be effective in lessening the visual impact. (NPS 435.) In the 2005 Section 7 Evaluation, NPS concluded that the mostly perpendicular alignment of the Proposed Bridge minimized bridge length and bluff view impacts, and the extradosed bridge design would reduce apparent mass by minimizing the number of piers set in the river and the height. (NPS 504.) NPS admitted that “the use of color as a minimization method [would be] difficult to apply.” (NPS 505.) It vaguely mentioned that “[o]ther strategies that may be effective in minimizing visual impacts would be to use treatments on the piers and abutments to provide an obvious connection to the historic materials found in structures in nearby downtown Stillwater and the natural materials that make up the river bluffs.” (Id.) But those “treatments are being developed.” (Id.) Combining all minimization techniques, NPS concluded, These strategies minimize the impact of the proposed bridge to the extent possible. However, the construction of a bridge of this size would introduce a massive constructed feature that fundamentally alters the scenic qualities of this segment of the Riverway. Minimization strategies alone cannot reduce the impact of the proposed bridge on the scenic values of the Riverway to an acceptable level. (NPS 505.) It concluded that, by combining minimization and mitigation measures, the negative impact could be appropriately reduced. (Id.) iv. Mitigation Measures Defendants further argue that the Proposed Bridge includes new mitigation items, such as the removal of a shoreline barge facility and industrial building, removal of the Buckhorn sign, bluffland purchases and restoration, and the conversion of the Lift Bridge to pedestrian and bike traffic. (NPS 505-08.) The 2005 Evaluation only identifies a handful of mitigation measures within the viewshed that would directly offset the -visual impacts of the Proposed Bridge: removal of the Xcel barge facility, the Buckhorn sign, and the Terra Terminal Building, and bluffland restoration. (NPS 506.) NPS acknowledged the limited effect of removing the Xcel Energy barge facility because its structures “are lower in height and positioned parallel to the Minnesota riverbank” and “do not obstruct views to [the] same degree as would the [Proposed Bridge].” (NPS 508.) Removing the Buckhorn sign “provides very little in the way of restoring scenic values” because its visibility “is very limited due to its position and vegetation cover.” (Id.) NPS did conclude that removal of the Terra Terminal Building would be positive because it is visible for long distances, but also noted that the mitigation would only be effective if the City of Stillwater allowed the site’s shoreline to be naturalized. (Id.) NPS noted that purchase of blufflands “would not have the same scenic or wildlife value as that impacted by the [Proposed Bridge].” (Id.) Finally, while other mitigation measures, such as the removal of vehicular traffic from the Lift Bridge and the increased recreational facilities have a positive impact on the noise levels and recreational values of the Lower St. Croix, they do not mitigate the visual impact of the Proposed Bridge. In the 2005 Section 7 Evaluation, NPS concluded that although “[t]here is no one mitigation measure that completely offsets the impact” to scenic resources, “the mitigation package minimizes the impact to the Riverway by using the extrados bridge type, removes a number of existing visual intrusions to restore scenic values, and provides means to help prevent future visual impacts.” (NPS 517.) NPS failed to explain how combining this group of apparently ineffective measures can create an effective mitigation package, when, in 1996, NPS concluded that no available mitigation measures could significantly reduce the negative visual impact of a similar bridge. All of the proposed visual mitigation measures in the 2005 Section 7 Evaluation relate to shoreland actions. In the 1996 Section 7 Evaluation, NPS concluded that “[t]he visual impacts of the existing shoreline development, which interrupts the vegetative cover, is not comparable to visual impacts which would occur if the [1995] proposed bridge is constructed. A bridge cutting across the river is fundamentally different in terms of its visual impacts than the impacts of shore and bank development.” (NPS 436.) It followed that adequate mitigation cannot be achieved through restoration action on the shoreline. (See NPS 436 (“The severity and magnitude of the visual impacts related to the proposed project are so great that they cannot be significantly reduced by the available mitigation measures.”).) In the 2005 Section 7 Evaluation, NPS similarly concluded, “The length, height, mass and position of the bridge (crossing the river) would make it more visually intrusive to river and riverbank users than other developments in the affected area. A bridge cutting across the river is fundamentally different in terms of its visual impacts than the impacts of shore and bank development.” (NPS 503-04.) As NPS had stated in the 1996 Section 7 Evaluation, in the new evaluation it noted that “[t]he placement of a visual obstruction horizontally across the river makes the visual impact far more dramatic and disruptive to the viewer.” (NPS 436, 504.) Despite proclaiming the same concern that the bridge’s visual impact was simply not in the same category as the visual impact of shoreline development, NPS abruptly changed course in the 2005 Section 7 Evaluation and concluded that visual mitigation based on shoreline actions, when combined with minimization measures, adequately offset the bridge’s negative visual impact. v. Conclusion In this litigation, Defendants attempt to distinguish the 1995 Proposal from the current Proposed Bridge. They argue that, while the Proposed Bridge is longer and taller than the 1995 Proposal, it has a less serious visual impact due to the extra-dosed design, altered alignment and location, and fewer riverbed piers. They point to new mitigation measures included in the newer plan. While there are, indeed, differences between the two bridges, common sense provides that they are generally similar — in purpose, location, and physical characteristics. In the 1996 Section 7 Evaluation, NPS’s main concern for visual impact was based on the massiveness of a bridge spanning the Lower St. Croix in that basic location — a concern it concluded could not be effectively mitigated or minimized. In the 2005 Section 7 Evaluation, NPS failed to explain why that concern has evaporated. The Court is not concluding that NPS’s attempt to distinguish the two bridges was inadequate; rather, the Court concludes that NPS wholly failed to mention, let alone distinguish, the 1995 Proposal and 1996 Section 7 Evaluation in the 2005 Section 7 Evaluation. Because NPS failed to acknowledge the 1996 Section 7 Evaluation in its 2005 Section 7 Evaluation, Defendants cannot demonstrate that the “prior policies and standards are being deliberately changed, not casually ignored.” Greater Boston Television Corp., 444 F.2d at 852. NPS’s attempts to explain its current position, as set forth in this litigation, cannot correct this fundamental flaw in the 2005 Section 7 Evaluation, because the Court may not accept “counsel’s post hoc rationalizations for agency action. It is well-established that an agency’s action must be upheld, if at all, on the basis articulated by the agency itself.” State Farm, 463 U.S. at 50, 103 S.Ct. 2856 (citations omitted). 4. NPS’s Consideration of Mussels Sierra Club asserts that, irrespective of NPS’s reversal of its previous policy, the 2005 Section 7 Evaluation is arbitrary and capricious because it fails to assess the impact of the Proposed Bridge on the Lower St. Croix’s mussel population. The 2005 Section 7 Evaluation does not evaluate the effect of the Proposed Bridge on any of the Lower St. Croix’s mussel communities. It merely mentions potential adverse effects on mussels in passing. (NPS 487-88.) In the 1996 Section 7 Evaluation, NPS professed its belief that the river’s mussel populations “should be protected to the same extent as the outstandingly remarkable scenic and recreational values.” (NPS 410.) NPS concluded that the 1995 Proposal would “negatively impact native mussels,” and “has the very real potential of irreversibly altering the world class mussel community of the St. Croix River as a whole due to habitat fragmentation and the threat of zebra mussel infestations.” (NPS 420-21.) The Lower St. Croix was added to the Wild and Scenic System based on its outstanding scenic, recreational, and geological values, not its mussel population — or any of its fish and wildlife population. (NPS 378, 466.) Therefore, NPS had no obligation under the WSRA to evaluate the Proposed Bridge’s effects on the mussel population. The fact that NPS discussed mussels in the 1996 Section 7 Evaluation does not change NPS’s legal obligation under Section 7. However, NPS’s complete about-face in policy — from stating that the mussels should be protected to the same extent as the river’s outstandingly remarkable values and including an in-depth chapter devoted to the mussels to, in 2005, only mentioning the negative effect on the mussels in passing represents an abrupt change in position with no explanation whatsoever. This further highlights NPS’s failure to acknowledge that its 2005 Section 7 Evaluation represented a 180-degree change in position from its 1996 Section 7 Evaluation. NPS’s reasons for its current decision do not need to be any more convincing than its reasons for its 1996 decision. However, NPS may not simply ignore the 1996 Section 7 Evaluation. 5. Whether NPS’s Authorization of the Proposed Bridge Violated the Lower St. Croix’s Cooperative Management Plan a. Introduction Pursuant to the WSRA’s requirement for development of a CMP, the Cooperative Management Plan for the Lower St. Croix was adopted in 2001. 66 Fed.Reg. 56,848 (Nov. 13, 2001). “The purpose of this plan is to describe the direction the managing agencies intend to follow in managing the lower riverway for the next 15 to 20 years while meeting the river-way’s stated purpose. This plan provides a framework for proactive decision making ...” (NPS 9.) Sierra Club focuses on the portion of the CMP related to river crossings. “The [CMP’s] long-term goal will be to reduce the number and size of visible river crossings.” (NPS 53.) The CMP notes: “Crossings come in three forms: bridges for roads, railroads, pedestrians; overhead wires for communications and electrical energy; and under-river crossings (often called sub-marine crossings) for communications, electrical energy, and material such as fuel or natural gas.” (Id.) The CMP further states: There will be no net increase in the number of transportation corridors. In general, transportation corridors will be replaced in or adjacent to the existing corridor. Existing transportation corridors will be relocated only if all of the following are true: 1) the need for the project is clearly justified, 2) the project is consistent with state and regional transportation plans, 3) there is no feasible and prudent a