Laserfiche WebLink
the Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to consider all reasonable alternatives, specifically <br />an alternative requiring "bypass flows designed to meet Forest Plan requirements." Plaintiffs' <br />Fifth Claim alleges a violation of NEPA by failing to prepare a supplemental EIS that sufficiently <br />evaluated the Forest Plan amendment. Plaintiffs maintain that they "generally allege[d]" such <br />NEPA violations in their Notice of Appeal by stating that "a supplemental draft EIS should have <br />been prepared and circulated for public comment," that "the draft EIS ... did not include any <br />relevant information on the alternative finally selected by the Forest Service," and that "[t]here <br />are other inadequacies in the FEIS as well." (AR -LD at 5121.) These allegations are not <br />sufficiently similar to the allegations that are the basis for Plaintiffs' Second and Fifth Claims for <br />Relief before this Court so as to put the agency on notice of and provide an opportunity to <br />consider and decide, such claims. <br />Plaintiffs' Ninth Claim for Relief alleges the Forest Service violated its "viability <br />regulation," 36 C.F.R § 219.19 (1994). Plaintiffs do not dispute that they failed to cite that <br />regulation in their Notice but instead argue that they raised the concept behind that regulation by <br />alleging that "the Forest Service regulations that sanction plan amendments cannot authorize the <br />total suspension of all standards and guidelines for species protection ...." Standards and <br />guidelines are components of a Forest Plan; therefore, referencing them generally does not put <br />the agency on notice of Plaintiffs' specific claim regarding the viability regulation. <br />Plaintiffs' Thirteenth Claim for Relief asserts that the Forest Service failed to subject the <br />Madigan directive to public notice and comment procedures before implementing the directive in <br />the ROD, in violation of APA § 553 Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal failed to even mention the <br />Madigan directive. Instead, Plaintiffs argue that their repeated assertions that "the forest plan <br />-1 <br />