Opinion ID: 769932
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Major Federal Action

Text: 35 NEPA requires a federal agency to prepare an EIS for all major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 42 U.S.C. S 4332(2)(C). The NEPA does not specify the scope of analysis that federal agencies must conduct in determining whether their actions, when combined with private actions, come within the mandate of S 4332(2)(C). Sylvester v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 884 F.2d 394, 398 (9th Cir. 1989). The Corps' NEPA implementing regulations, which we upheld in Sylvester, 884 F.2d at 399, require that, where the activity requiring a DA permit is merely one component of a larger project, the Corps address the impacts of the specific activity requiring [a] permit and those portions of the entire project over which the district engineer has sufficient control and responsibility to warrant Federal review in the EA or EIS. 33 C.F.R. Part 325 Appendix B S 7(b). The Corps' determination of the appropriate scope of the environmental review process is entitled to deference. See Marsh, 490 U.S. at 375-76; Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 359 (1989). 36 The Corps' NEPA implementing regulation provides in pertinent part: 37 b. Scope of analysis. (1) In some situations, a permit applicant may propose to conduct a specific activity requiring a Department of the Army (DA) permit (e.g., construction of a pier in a navigable water of the United States) which is merely one component of a larger project (e.g., construction of an oil refinery on an upland area). The district engineer should establish the scope of the NEPA document (e.g., the EA or EIS) to address the impacts of the specific activity requiring a DA permit and those portions of the entire project over which the district engineer has sufficient control and responsibility to warrant Federal review. 38 (2) The district engineer is considered to have control and responsibility for portions of the project beyond the limits of the Corps jurisdiction where the Federal involvement is sufficient to turn an essentially private action into a Federal action. These are cases where the environmental consequences of the larger project are essentially products of the Corps permit action. 39 Typical factors to be considered in determining whether sufficient control and responsibility  exists include: 40 (i) Whether or not the regulated activity comprises `merely a link' in a corridor type project (e.g., a transportation or utility transmission project). 41 (ii) Whether there are aspects of the upland facility in the immediate vicinity of the regulated activity which affect the location and configuration of the regulated activity. 42 (iii) The extent to which the entire project will be within Corps jurisdiction. 43 (iv) The extent of cumulative Federal control and responsibility. 44