Opinion ID: 223638
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: cumulative effects of past projects

Text: In assessing Reclamation's cumulative impacts analysis, some description is in order. As CELP rightly points out, only three paragraphs of the cumulative effects section deal with past projects, and none of those paragraphs rises above vague generalities. The first of the three paragraphs simply parrots the potential categories of impacts listed in Ecology's PEIS. Reclamation's repetition of these possible effects recognizes that the PEIS concerned various water projects in the Columbia River Basin, but Reclamation neither discusses which effects are likely to result from the drawdown project nor provides any detail about those impacts. Instead, the EA rests on the truism that [t]he cumulative impacts could cause ... more severe impacts than if a single project were constructed in a less disturbed environment. The second paragraph is no better; it merely restates the conclusions in Ecology's SEIS that the drawdown could incrementally increase the impacts described in the [PEIS] but that the incremental impact would not be expected to be significant. Finally, the third paragraph  again like the SEIS  states that [t]he increased stream flows [from the project] are expected to provide cumulative benefits to fish in most months, without more. In short, these paragraphs include nothing more than repetition of general and vague information culled from other documents. Such a superficial analysis is a far cry from the requirements we set out in Kern and, were that the sum of the analysis, such statements would not constitute a `hard look' at the cumulative effects of the drawdown. Kern, 284 F.3d at 1075. The perfunctory discussion in the Cumulative Impacts section of the EA is not, however, reflective of Reclamation's overall approach. The analysis of various effects in other portions of the EA displays sensitivity to, and consideration of, the multitude of changes previously wrought by mankind on the Columbia River Basin. For example, much of the first section of the EA that addresses environmental consequences for the land is devoted to the risk of landslides in the Columbia River basin; the section also considers alluvial deposits and erosion. The discussion of landslides opens by noting that [t]he Upper Columbia River has an extensive history of landslides, both prior to and after completion of the Grand Coulee Dam and then goes on to recognize that landslides both upstream and downstream of the dam often occur when water levels are unusually low. Specifically, for the area around Lake Roosevelt, the EA identifies [t]he concern for landslides ... as minor for lake levels above 1,260 feet, moderate for lake levels between 1,240 and 1,260 feet, and major for lake levels below 1,240 feet. The EA then states that [l]andslide potential would not change as a result of the proposed action, in large part because [t]he additional drawdown during the period when the lake is less than 1,240 feet would be minimal (less than 1 inch). Although contained in the portion of the EA devoted to direct effects, this discussion of the risks of landslides is indicative of the manner in which the EA satisfies NEPA's requirement that Reclamation consider the cumulative effects of the drawdown project with past actions. It explains both the existing condition of [the] area and what the effects of the project would be, Ecology Ctr. v. Castaneda, 574 F.3d 652, 667 (9th Cir.2009), mentions past projects necessary to describe the cumulative effect of all past actions combined, Allen, 615 F.3d at 1135, notably including construction of the Grand Coulee Dam, assesses the impact of the drawdown project against the risk of landslides resulting from the aggregate of all past projects, and relies on quantified or detailed information to support its conclusion that the project will not increase that risk, Kern, 284 F.3d at 1075 (internal quotation marks omitted). Crucially, the EA's detailed scrutiny is not limited to landslides. The section on surface water, for instance, describes in detail the human-driven fluctuations in Lake Roosevelt's level, known information about the determinants of water quality in the lake, the timing and severity of downstream water quality concerns, the effect of existing dams on instream flow, and existing diversions of water in the Odessa Subarea. That section goes on to detail precise information about the effects of the additional drawdown. The EA also includes similarly detailed accounts of the cumulative effects of the drawdown with past projects on, among other things, groundwater, water rights, fish populations, aquatic plants, and prehistoric sites. In other words, [t]he record includes extensive evidence that [Reclamation] considered the relevant prior ... actions and took the requisite hard look before approving the drawdown project. Ecology Ctr., 574 F.3d at 667. Although this evidence is not presented in the cumulative effects section of the EA, it would impermissibly elevate form over substance to hold that Reclamation must replicate its entire analysis under the heading of cumulative effects. See id. (holding that an EIS's discussion of cumulative effects was adequate because, even though the cumulative effects section ... refer[red] generally to `past and proposed activities,' ... other parts of the EIS g[ave] extensive history about past actions in the area); see also Envtl. Prot. Info. Ctr., 451 F.3d at 1014 (approving a cumulative effects analysis based on a model that pervaded the EA). We therefore hold that the EA's discussion of the cumulative effects of the drawdown project and past projects satisfies NEPA. [4] In reaching this conclusion, we do not countenance an agency shirking its obligation to take a hard look and fully consider the cumulative effects of past projects. Nor do we suggest that agency discussion of impacts can be so diffuse, scattered, or opaque that a court must play Humpty Dumpty to put the pieces together in a coherent fashion.