Laserfiche WebLink
In Idaho Sporting Congress v. Alexander, the 91h Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that: <br />[I]f the Forest Service were permitted to correct deficiencies in an EA or an EIS by <br />means of an SIR or another non-NEPA procedure, the regulations governing the <br />supplementation of NEPA documents promulgated by the CEQ, as well as the Forest <br />Service's own rules on the issue, would be superfluous. <br />Idaho Sporting Congress v. Alexander, 222 F.3d 567 (91h Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). This case <br />is entirely applicable to the SIR at issue here. In essence, the GMUG National Forest has <br />attempted to correct deficiencies in the original FEIS, deficiencies identified by the Regional <br />Office in the February 13, 2008 Appeal Decision, by the use of a non-N EPA procedure - the in- <br />house and post-hoc preparation of the SIR. Such an action is illegal. <br />The CEQ NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR § 1500.1(b) state that: <br />NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public <br />officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. The <br />information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency <br />comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA. <br />See also, 40 CFR § 1501.2 (`Agencies shall integrate the NEPA process with other planning at <br />the earliest possible time[.]"). In this case, environmental information - namely Mr. Davis's <br />highly problematic letter of February 25, upon which the SIR is almost entirely based - was not <br />available to the public before Supervisor Richmond made his decision. The March 7, 2008 SIR <br />was not made available to the Appellants or any other member of the public before Supervisor <br />Richmond made his decision on the same day. And, because the SIR or a revised or <br />supplemental FEIS was not made available, Appellants were not able to provide comments to the <br />Supervisor to help him make a well-informed decision. This is especially significant because <br />the SIR contains new information and analysis that was not a part of the original FEIS. <br />Furthermore, as Appellants have explained, the SIR suffers from numerous deficiencies, <br />including that it fails to address information from MSHA engineers indicating that methane <br />flaring is feasible. <br />APPEAL OF E SEAM METHANE DRAINAGE WELLS PROJECT, APRIL 28, 2008 PAGE 36