Laserfiche WebLink
decision- making. Utah Shared Access Alliance v US. Forest Service. 288 F.3d 1205, 1207 (10` <br />Cir. 2002). <br />NEPA places upon federal agencies the obligation "to consider every <br />significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action." Baltimore <br />Gas & Elec Co v Natural Res Defense Council, 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983). It also <br />ensures that an agency will inform the public that it has considered environmental <br />concerns in its decision- making process. Id. The Act does not require agencies to <br />elevate environmental concerns over other appropriate considerations; however, it <br />requires only that the agency take a "hard look" at the environmental <br />consequences before taking a major action.... The role of the courts in <br />reviewing compliance with NEPA "is simply to ensure that the agency has <br />adequately considered and disclosed the environmental impact of its actions and <br />that its decision is not arbitrary and capricious." Baltimore Gas & Elec., 462 U.S. <br />at 97 -98. <br />Id. at 1207 -08 <br />1. Failure to include all necessary information in the EIS <br />Plaintiffs fault the Forest Service for amending the Forest Plan while acknowledging <br />"detailed flow and habitat assessments have not been conducted for the Cache la Poudre River <br />between La Poudre Pass Creek and Joe Wright Creek to determine consistency with Forest Plan <br />standards." (AR -LD at 4603.) Plaintiffs urge such studies were necessary to determine whether <br />that portion of the Cache la Poudre could be exempted from the Forest Plan standards. <br />NEPA regulations require agencies to include complete information in an environmental <br />impact statement "[i]f the incomplete information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant <br />adverse impacts is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the overall costs of <br />obtaining it are not exorbitant." 40 C.F.R. § 15O2.22(a). To demonstrate a violation of NEPA <br />on this basis, Plaintiffs must show (1) the missing information is essential to a reasoned decision <br />between the alternatives, and (2) that the public was unaware of the limitations of the data the <br />Forest Service relied on. See Colorado Environ. Coalition v Dombeck, 185 F.3d 1162, 1172 -73 <br />-29- <br />