Opinion ID: 172401
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dell Creek

Text: The Forest Service has never conducted an environmental analysis of the Dell Creek feedground. NEPA's implementing regulations state major federal actions may include new and continuing activities, including projects and programs entirely or partly financed, assisted, conducted, regulated, or approved by federal agencies. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.18(a). Because GYC's challenge to the Forest Service's initial failure to conduct an environmental analysis of the Dell Creek feedground would presumably be barred by the relevant statute of limitations, [3] GYC argues the Forest Service's involvement with the Dell Creek feedground is a continuing federal activity that satisfies the definition provided in 40 C.F.R. § 1508.18(a) of a major federal action. This is so, according to GYC, because like the Forest Park permit, the Dell Creek permit provides the Forest Service may amend the permit when, at the discretion of the authorized officer, such action is deemed necessary or desirable to incorporate new terms, conditions, and stipulations. In support of this argument, GYC relies primarily on two cases. In Hart v. Denver Urban Renewal Authority, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) entered into a loan and capital grant contract prior to NEPA's enactment. 551 F.2d 1178, 1179 (10th Cir. 1977). This contract required HUD to approve all acquisitions and dispositions of property. Id. at 1181. This court concluded HUD's handling of a certain structure within the project, which included treating this building separately in its negotiations and administratively as evidenced by the fact it was not demolished and has been contracted to be sold as a separate structure, was continuing federal action constituting a major federal action. Id. at 1181-82. GYC relies heavily on this court's statement in Hart that, as long as agency decisions remain to be made or are open to revision, [NEPA] should be applied. Id. at 1181. This statement, however, merely summarizes the holdings of two cases from other circuits in which the courts also were faced with whether or not to apply NEPA to major agency actions ongoing at the time NEPA became effective. Id. The courts in those cases concluded that for projects ongoing at the time of NEPA's passage, Congress intended NEPA to apply unless the project had reached a stage of completion such that NEPA's application could be considered a retroactive application not intended by Congress. Swain v. Brinegar, 517 F.2d 766, 773-74 (7th Cir.1975); Arlington Coal. on Transp. v. Volpe, 458 F.2d 1323, 1331 (4th Cir. 1972). Contrary to GYC's assertion, instead of merely considering whether there were agency decisions yet to be made or open to revision, this court in Hart went on to identify the key inquiry in the analysis: whether the actual, not potential, involvement of the federal government to date in the activity constituted a major federal action. See Hart, 551 F.2d at 1181-82. In the second case relied upon by GYC, Morris County Trust for Historic Preservation v. Pierce, HUD approved an urban renewal plan and entered into a loan and capital grant contract, again prior to the passage of NEPA. 714 F.2d 271, 273 (3d Cir.1983). The contract required the local public agency ... to furnish HUD promptly with documentary data concerning any proposed actions of the local agency pertaining to the project and authorized HUD to inform the local agency in writing of its objection to a proposed step, and to refuse a requested payment if the agency proceeds without securing the prior approval of the Secretary of HUD. Id. at 278. It was alleged that HUD failed to comply with NEPA because it never undertook an environmental analysis of the project. Id. at 275. HUD argued its inaction did not violate NEPA because the effective date of NEPA succeeded the signing of the contract and the approval of the urban renewal plan. Id. After noting the district court's finding that HUD has remained meaningfully involved in the Project[,] the court concluded NEPA should be applicable to federally-assisted projects [like the one in question] which were initiated prior to 1970 but which remain subject to the authority of a Federal agency to review the implementation of the project on a stage by stage basis. Id. (emphasis added). Thus, like this court in Hart, in reaching its conclusion the court analyzed the actual degree of ongoing federal involvement in the project. Id. The cases cited by GYC stand only for the proposition that if an agency began a project prior to the passage of NEPA, that alone would not shield the agency from NEPA compliance if the agency remained meaningfully involved in the project after NEPA became effective. They are not, however, authority for the existence of a major federal action merely because an agency retains a degree of discretion in a project. The district court was thus correct when it opined that it would be a stretch to use these cases to stand for the proposition [GYC] desires. The projects in the cases cited by GYC involved continuing meaningful federal agency involvement at various stages. Here, however, the State of Wyoming manages the feedground and there is nothing in the permit mandating continuing, stage-by-stage involvement of the Forest Service. More relevant to this analysis is Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 124 S.Ct. 2373, 159 L.Ed.2d 137. While Norton involved the question of whether there was ongoing major Federal action or major Federal action to occur in a federally approved activity so as to require a supplementary environmental analysis, id. at 73, 124 S.Ct. 2373, the Court's analysis is certainly relevant to the issue of whether there is a continuing Federal action requiring an initial environmental analysis. In Norton, although the Secretary retained discretion to issue management decisions to implement the land use plan in question, the Court held that the federal action was completed when the plan was approved. Id. at 69, 73, 124 S.Ct. 2373. This holding indicates that, as with the Forest Park permit, the major federal action was completed when the Forest Service issued the Dell Creek permit in 1996, and was not continuing. [4] See id.; Cold Mountain v. Garber, 375 F.3d at 894. Thus, the Forest Service's decision not to undertake an environmental analysis of the Dell Creek feedground was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. We therefore affirm the district court's denial of GYC's request to compel an environmental analysis of the Dell Creek feedground.