23G - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(10' Cir. 1999). Plaintiffs have made no attempt to demonstrate that such information is essential to a reasoned decision. The record demonstrates that the Forest Service had information addressing aquatic habitat and explained the limitations of the information it relied on. When the water users presented the revised JOP to the Forest Service, they also included extensive analysis done by their hydrology and fishery consultants which compared Alternative B (JOP) with Alternative C (bypass flows). (AR -G at 4364 - 4620.) The Forest Hydrologist and Fishery Biologist evaluated the consultants work in a report included as Appendix I to the FEIS. (AR -LD at 4459- 4563.) The Forest Service analysts cautioned that because the habitat results generated by the consultants relied on limited data, the results "should not be considered accurate in terms of absolute values." Id. at 4461. That limitation, however, did not mean the consultants' analysis had no value in the decision - making. The analysis provided "an index to assess relative differences among the alternatives presented." Id. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that NEPA regulations required inclusion of the missing information. 2 Failure to prepare a supplemental EIS NEPA regulations provide that federal agencies "[s]hall prepare supplements to either draft or final environmental impact statements if: (i) [t]he agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns; or (ii) [t]here are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts." 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1). This requirement does not mean that a SEIS must be done every time an agency is presented with new information. Marsh v Oregon Natural Resource Council, 490 U.S. 360, 373 (1989). Instead, an SEIS is only required if the new information shows the proposed action will affect the quality of the human environment in a -30-