Opinion ID: 2737007
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Need for an EIS

Text: Wild Swan’s second argument regarding NEPA is essentially a logical extension of the first: that the Forest Service should have considered the cumulative impacts from the neighboring project in determining whether or not to prepare a full-blown EIS. The agency must prepare an EIS if substantial questions are raised as to whether a project may cause significant environmental impacts. Ocean Advocates v. USACE, 402 F.3d 846, 864 (9th Cir. 2005). One factor for the agency to consider is “[w]hether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(7). As discussed above, with respect to the lynx and grizzly bear, the Forest Service prepared a separate EA for each project and its FONSI addressed the cumulative effects within geographic areas that are larger than those affected by the particular project, but limited to one side of the river. Because Wild Swan has not demonstrated that the Forest Service acted arbitrarily in delineating the geographic boundaries of its cumulative effects analysis, we affirm the denial of the preliminary injunction because Wild Swan has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its NEPA claim. Cf. Great Basin Mine Watch v. Hankins, 456 F.3d 955, 969 (9th Cir. 2006). As also discussed above, the Forest Service sufficiently addressed the effects of each project on the fisheries, but even if the Forest Service should have also considered the cumulative impact of both worstcase sediment scenarios on the main channel of the South FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER 19 Fork, there is no immediate risk of irreparable injury justifying a preliminary injunction.