23G

• Board Meeting Date: 4/30/2004
• Description: 23G
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Executive Session

significant manner or to a significant extent not already considered. Id. at 374.
Plaintiffs first contend that the Forest Service should have issued a supplemental EIS
before adopting the May 18, 1994 JOP, because the public was given no opportunity to comment
on the revised JOP. Where the agency has been presented with new information, an agency's
decision to forego a SEIS must be upheld so long as the record demonstrates the agency reviewed
the proffered supplemental information, evaluated the significance — or lack of significance — of
the new information, and provided an explanation for its decision not to supplement the existing
analysis. Colorado Environ. Coalition, 185 F.3d at 1178. Because the Forest Service had
substantially completed the FEIS when the revised JOP was submitted, it produced an addendum
to the FEIS addressing the revised JOP (AR -LD at 4565 -66), and the Forest Fisheries Biologist
and Forest Hydrologist collaborated on an extensive analysis of its impacts (Id. at 4459- 4563).
The addendum explains that the IDT considered whether to issue a supplemental EIS and
determined that doing so was not necessary "because the revised proposal did not make
substantial changes to the proposed action or present significant new circumstances." Id. at
4565. Although Plaintiffs characterize the JOP and the revised JOP as "vastly different ", they
offer no explanation to support that characterization. The IDT concluded the revised JOP did not
represent a substantial change from the initial JOP for two reasons: (1) the revised JOP was an
environmental improvement; and (2) two key elements remained the same between the two draft
proposals. Id. As the IDT observed, both the initial JOP and the revised JOP mitigate by
increasing the water flow in the mainstem Cache la Poudre River, and both proposals left La
Poudre Pass Creek below Long Draw Reservoir dewatered for several months of the year. Id.
In the ROD, Supervisor Underwood further explained the decision not to issue a
-31-