any or all of the other five projects identified by Plaintiffs, and they have found in the negative.” (Def. Mem. at 36.) While the Court agrees that “the determination of the extent and effect of [cumulative impact] factors, and particularly identification of the geographic area within which they may occur, is a task assigned to the special competency” of the Forest Service, no cited portions of the record demonstrate that the Forest Service made a determination with respect to the extent and effect of cumulative impact factors. See Kleppe, 427 U.S. 390, 414, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 49 L.Ed.2d 576 (1976). Absent such, the Court cannot be assured that the Forest Service took a “hard look” at the potential cumulative impacts of these projects. See Vermont Yankee, 435 U.S. at 535, 98 S.Ct. 1197 (<HOLDING>). The Forest Service asserts that the Phase 1
holding that in determining the manageability of a proposed antitrust class action the district court must consider proof of damages holding that birdwatchers interest in preventing adverse environmental effects from agency action fell squarely within the zone of interests of nepa holding the director of the united states environmental protection agency in contempt for failure to comply with court order holding apa 5 usc  702 inapplicable because no agency proceeding took place for the court to review holding court must insure that agency took hard look at environmental effects of proposed action