Opinion ID: 165264
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cumulative acoustic effects

Text: 57 An environmental impact statement must analyze not only the direct impacts of a proposed action, but also the indirect and cumulative impacts. Utahns for Better Transp., 305 F.3d at 1172 (further quotation omitted); see also 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(2). 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7 defines cumulative impact as follows: 58 Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonable 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. 59 FSW argues FERC failed to analyze cumulative effects in three respects: the cumulative acoustic effect of the project in light of noise already in the marine environment; the cumulative acoustic effect of the project in light of reasonably foreseeable future projects; and the pipeline's cumulative environmental (non-acoustic) effect in the marine environment in light of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 60 A. Cumulative Acoustic Effect in Light of Background Marine Environment Noise 61 FSW argues FERC failed to properly analyze the additive effect of both constant (pipeline operation) and intermittent (pipeline repair, construction, maintenance) noise sources in combination with vessel traffic and other stressors already in place in the marine environment. Pet'r's Opening Br. at 53. This is simply another way of challenging FERC's analysis of the noise impact caused by the GSX project. We have already concluded that FERC's analysis of the impact on the marine environment of the construction, operation and maintenance of the project is reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. 10 We decline FSW's invitation to revisit that issue, under the guise of discussing the cumulative acoustic effect of the pipeline in the existing marine environment. 62 B. Cumulative Acoustic Effects in Light of Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects 63 Cumulative effect is defined as the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. FSW claims FERC's analysis of the cumulative effects of the GSX project and other reasonably foreseeable actions in the same geographic vicinity is cursory and conclusory. 64 The FEIS contains a table listing Existing or Proposed Activities Cumulatively Affecting Resources of Concern for the GSX-US Pipeline Project. Table 3.14-1, FEIS at 3-155, R. Vol. III. It lists present activities and reasonably foreseeable future projects which may affect, inter alia, marine resources. The only reasonably foreseeable future projects affecting marine resources are the construction and operation of the Canadian portion of the GSX project, which would involve 27.5 miles of offshore pipeline in the Strait of Georgia; the OPALCO pipeline project, involving constructing a lateral off the GSX-US pipeline and requiring eleven miles of offshore pipeline; and the Gateway Pacific Terminal, a deepwater marine terminal facility south of the BP/Amoco Cherry Point Refinery. 11 The FEIS contains the following summary of the likely cumulative acoustic impact of those projects: 65 Visual and acoustic disturbances associated with pipeline construction and operation may add to other commercial, public, and recreational vessel disturbances to affect marine mammals, fish, birds, and invertebrates. The magnitude of the impact would probably be insignificant relative to the total marine environment available to, and used by, these species, particularly given the short-term nature of the construction activities. 66 FEIS at 3-158, R. Vol. III. 67 While we do not consider the cumulative acoustic impact analysis of the FEIS to be a model of clarity or thoroughness, Custer County Action Ass'n, 256 F.3d at 1036, given our deferential standard of review, we find it sufficient. FERC reasonably concluded that the primary acoustic impact on marine resources will occur during the construction of the GSX pipeline and any other projects, should they be built. This is a limited time period. Additionally, many marine inhabitants are mobile and can avoid the area while any construction takes place. 12 Further, operational acoustic impacts are minimal and are generally less than those caused by vessels in the area. Any repair impacts will be intermittent and similar to construction impacts, except in the rare event that some catastrophic failure occurs. 68 Our job is not to question the wisdom of the [agency's] ultimate decision or its conclusion concerning the magnitude of indirect cumulative impacts. Colo. Envtl. Coalition v. Dombeck, 185 F.3d 1162, 1176 (10th Cir.1999). Rather, our job is to examine the administrative record, as a whole, to determine whether the [agency] made a reasonable, good faith, objective presentation of those impacts sufficient to foster public participation and informed decision making. Id. at 1177. We conclude that FERC discharged its duty to take a hard look at the cumulative acoustic impacts of the GSX project along with other reasonably foreseeable projects in the same area. 13 69 C. Cumulative Non-Acoustic Environmental Effects 70 FSW argues the FEIS devoted insufficient attention to the cumulative non-acoustic effects of the GSX project along with the other current and reasonably foreseeable actions and activities. We disagree. While the FEIS's analysis is again not a model of ... thoroughness, Custer County Action Ass'n, 256 F.3d at 1036, we again find, applying our deferential standard of review, that it is adequate and not arbitrary or capricious. See FEIS at 3-157—3-164, R. Vol. III.