Laserfiche WebLink
significant issue and outside the scope of the Project FEIS. ROD at 8. This conclusion is <br />arbitrary and capricious on its face, and even more so in view ofNEPA's requirement that an <br />agency consider cumulative impacts by analyzing the incremental effect of an action in light of <br />other "past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions." Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. <br />NHTSA, 508 F.3d 508, 549 (9th Cir. 2007) (concluding agency's NEPA analysis of cumulative <br />effects inadequate where it related to global warming impacts because the agency "does not <br />evaluate the `incremental impact' that these emissions will have on climate change or on the <br />environment more generally in light of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions <br />such as other light truck and passenger automobile CAFE standards"). The Forest Service failed <br />to conduct a meaningful analysis of these impacts and instead avoided a substantive discussion <br />by simply stating that the project "would contribute additional greenhouse gases, along with <br />those produced ... from every other man-made and natural source of greenhouse gases." Project <br />FEIS at 62.4 <br />This boilerplate non-discussion is an abdication of the Forest Service's statutory duties <br />under NEPA. "A cumulative effects analysis must be more than perfunctory; it must provide a <br />useful analysis of the cumulative impacts of past, present, and future projects." Or. Natural Res. <br />4 Further, the Forest Service cannot fail to analyze the impacts of global warming <br />because they are somehow not "reasonably foreseeable." It is well-established that some <br />"reasonable forecasting" by the agency is implicit in the NEPA process, and that it is the <br />responsibility of federal agencies to predict the environmental effects of proposed actions before <br />they are fully known. See Scientists' Inst. for Pub. Info. v. Atomic Energy Comm 'n, 481 F.2d <br />1079, 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1973) ("It must be remembered that the basic thrust of an agency's <br />responsibilities under NEPA is to predict the environmental effects of proposed action before the <br />action is taken and those effects fully known. Reasonable forecasting and speculation is thus <br />implicit in NEPA ....") (emphasis added). See also CEQ "Forty Most Asked Questions <br />Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations:" 46 Fed. Reg. 18026, 18031 (March 23, 1981) (-[I]n the <br />ordinary course of business, people do make judgments based upon reasonably foreseeable <br />occurrences.... The agency has the responsibility to make an informed judgment, and to estimate <br />future impacts on that basis, especially if trends are ascertainable.... The agency cannot ignore <br />these uncertain but probable, effects of its decisions.") <br />APPEAL OF E SEAM METHANE DRAINAGE WELLS PROJECT, APRIL 28, 2008 PAGE 8