Opinion ID: 487461
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Other NEPA Claims

Text: 34 Appellants charge that the EIS and worst case analysis are insufficient under NEPA on numerous other grounds. These challenges principally fall in two categories: (1) the EIS does not adequately disclose the cumulative effects associated with the program, and (2) the EIS manipulates and ignores data to conceal health risks. 35 We have considered the numerous contentions. Many concern the use of particular scientific methodologies, decisions to rely on certain scientific studies instead of others, and the use and application of Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) and No Observable Effect Levels (NOELs) in various risk assessments. We are convinced that the district court's treatment of these challenges is sufficient and does not warrant restating here. See OEC III, 636 F.Supp. at 636-40; OEC II, 614 F.Supp. at 661-64. We do observe, however, that NEPA does not require that we decide whether an [EIS] is based on the best scientific methodology available, nor does NEPA require us to resolve disagreements among various scientists as to methodology. Friends of Endangered Species, 760 F.2d at 986; see also 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1502.24 (1986). Our task is simply to ensure that the procedure followed by the [agency] resulted in a reasoned analysis of the evidence before it, and that the [agency] made the evidence available to all concerned. Id. The use of methodologies, studies, and data in this EIS was not arbitrary or capricious.