Opinion ID: 223638
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: indirect effects

Text: Agencies conducting NEPA review must also consider the indirect effects of the proposed project. Indirect effects are those effects caused by the [agency] action [that] are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(b). Such effects include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. Id.; see also, e.g., Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 402 F.3d 846, 867-70 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that an agency violated NEPA by failing to account for the environmental effects of the additional tanker traffic that would be caused by a proposed dock expansion). CELP's indirect effects challenge is rooted in the expansion of the Weber Siphons, which form two portions of a canal system near Interstate 90 in eastern Washington. Specifically, CELP relies on the fact that the expansion will increase the siphons' capacity by 1,950 cubic feet per second (cfs), even though the drawdown project itself will only use 181 cfs of that capacity. It is undisputed both that the expansion will remove one barrier to further diversions of water from Lake Roosevelt and that the EA does not account for the effects of diverting the additional 1,769 cfs that the expanded siphons could handle. The effects of full usage of the expanded siphons are not indirect effects of the drawdown project. Agencies need not account for potential growth effects that might be caused by a project if the project is exclusively intended to serve a much more limited need. Seattle Cmty. Council Fed'n v. FAA, 961 F.2d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir.1992). That rule applies with force here. To be sure, the siphon expansion will make it easier to divert up to 1,950 cfs from Lake Roosevelt, but it is uncontested that the current project  as approved  will only use a fraction of that capacity. In fact, the causal tie between the project and growth is significantly more attenuated than it was in Seattle Community Council. There, air traffic ... [was] expected to increase as the result of private actions once the agency implemented its proposal. See 961 F.2d at 835. Here, by contrast, expansion of the siphons is not sufficient to allow additional diversions from the Columbia River. Even with the expansion, those diversions cannot occur unless at least three other events take place  a decision by Reclamation to utilize the expanded capacity, the expansion of other canals in the area, and NEPA review of the additional drawdowns. The use of the expanded capacity remains both firmly in the control of Reclamation and is subject to review in a future EA or EIS. [6] Any environmental effects from additional diversions that flow through the Weber Siphons are not indirect effects of the current drawdown project.