Opinion ID: 3053503
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Tunnel Alternative

Text: NICAN argues that the Agencies violated NEPA by failing to consider a new tunnel alternative for the Project. Again, we disagree. [5] Agencies have a continuing obligation to consider new information that comes to light, even after the issuance of an EIS. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9 (c)(1)(ii) (requiring the agency to prepare supplements to either draft or final environmental impact statements if “[t]here are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and 1 NICAN’s reliance on Idaho Sporting Cong., 222 F.3d at 566-67, is misplaced. In that case, this court already had determined there were deficiencies in the agency’s EA and EIS. Rather than issue a revised EA and EIS to address those deficiencies, the agency improperly attempted to address the deficiencies through issuance of a supplemental information report (“SIR”). In contrast, in the present case, as in Price Road, the reevaluation process was used not in an attempt to correct deficiencies in an EA or EIS, but instead to make an ex-ante decision about the need for a SEIS or supplemental EA. 14112 NORTH IDAHO COMMUNITY ACTION v. DOT bearing on the proposed action or its impacts”); see also Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 373-74 (1989) (“[A]n agency need not supplement an EIS every time new information comes to light after the EIS is finalized. . . . On the other hand, . . . NEPA does require that agencies take a ‘hard look’ at the environmental effects of their planned action, even after a proposal has received initial approval.”); Friends of the Clearwater v. Dombeck, 222 F.3d 552, 558 (9th Cir. 2000) (“When new information comes to light the agency must consider it, evaluate it, and make a reasoned determination whether it is of such significance as to require [a supplemental EIS].”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Hughes River Watershed Conservancy v. Glickman, 81 F.3d 437, 444-45 (4th Cir. 1996) (holding that the agency violated NEPA by failing to take a “hard look” at new information regarding zebra mussel infestation). [6] This continuing obligation, however, extends only to new information or circumstances regarding environmental impacts that may not have been appreciated or considered when the EIS was prepared. An agency is not required by NEPA to consider new alternatives that come to light after issuance of the EIS absent “substantial changes in the proposed action relevant to environmental concerns,” or “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); see 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. [7] Here, the tunnel alternative is not new “information” or a new “circumstance” regarding environmental impacts that may not have been appreciated or considered when the 1999 EIS was prepared, and there is no substantial change in the Project that is “relevant to environmental concerns.” Accordingly, we hold that the Agencies did not violate NEPA by failNORTH IDAHO COMMUNITY ACTION v. DOT 14113 ing to consider the tunnel alternative when it was brought to their attention in 2006.2