Opinion ID: 720609
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Listing of the Salmon as a Threatened Species

Text: 22 NEPA requires that a Supplemental EIS (SEIS) be prepared when there 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)(ii). ISC maintains that the listing of the spring/summer and fall chinook salmon as a threatened species constitutes a new circumstance, and that a SEIS was thus required. 23 As the government notes, however, the new listing changed the legal status of the salmon, but it did not change the biological status. Forest Conservation Council v. Espy, 835 F.Supp. 1202, 1216 (D.Idaho 1993), aff'd, 42 F.3d 1399 (9th Cir.1994). The Forest Service previously determined that it was unlikely that the proposed actions would have a negative impact on the salmon; as this finding was not premised on the salmon's non-threatened status, the determination that the salmon were in fact threatened did not constitute new information that would show that the timber harvests and sales were likely to  'affec[t] the quality of the ... environment' in a significant manner or to a significant extent not already considered. Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 374, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 1859, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989) (citations omitted). Thus, we hold that the determination by the NMFS that the spring/summer and fall chinook salmon were a threatened species was not a significant new circumstance[ ] that would require a SEIS.