Opinion ID: 169168
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cumulative Effects on CRCT and Water Quality

Text: 43 Under the NEPA, an EIS must analyze the cumulative effects of a proposed project on the environment. The NEPA defines cumulative effects as: 44 the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 45 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7 (2006). 46 UEC argues that the EIS for the project described the cumulative effects of the project but failed to analyze what the nature and extent of the impacts would be. See Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt, 130 F.Supp.2d 121, 138 (D.D.C.2001). It further argues that the EIS lacks meaningful analysis, and that it is conclusory, describing the negative impacts of the project but failing to provide a realistic evaluation of the cumulative impacts. Aplt. Br. at 49. 47 The Forest Service correctly notes, however, that the NEPA does not prohibit approval of projects with negative cumulative effects; it only requires that the Forest Service consider and disclose such effects. See Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350-51, 109 S.Ct. 1835. The Forest Service pointed to numerous cites in the administrative record where there is evidence of its cumulative effects analysis. Specifically, the Forest Service used two computer models to calculate the amount of expected runoff resulting from the project and the effect on stream channels. Both models showed that the impact of the project, when considered with previous actions taken in the project area, would be minimal. III Aplt.App. at 756. Additionally, the Forest Service analyzed the project's impact when considered together with past timber sales, all past timber harvests, old burns, and livestock grazing. Id. at 726. Again, UEC simply disagrees with the substance of the Forest Service's conclusions. This is insufficient because we must defer to the Forest Service's reasonable conclusions regarding technical or scientific matters within the agency's area of expertise. UEC III, 443 F.3d at 739. 48 We have said that the NEPA simply requires an agency to take a hard look at the potential impact of its proposed actions. Ecology Center, 451 F.3d at 1189. As long as the Forest Service complied with the NEPA's procedural requirements, we will not second-guess the wisdom of the ultimate decision. Id. In this case, the Forest Service took a hard look, analyzed a substantial amount of data, and simply reached a conclusion that UEC thinks is incorrect. The cumulative effects requirement of the NEPA was satisfied. 49 Accordingly, we AFFIRM those portions of the district court's order rejecting UEC's challenges concerning old growth and cumulative effects. However, we REVERSE the portion of the district court's order rejecting UEC's challenge to the Forest Service's monitoring of CRCT and its analysis of water quality and set aside its affirmance of the project's approval. We REMAND to the district court so it may remand to the Forest Service for further administrative action consistent with this opinion.