Opinion ID: 772447
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Major Federal Actions May Arise From

Text: A Non-Federal Project 20 Federal defendants may be bound by NEPA to perform additional environmental review of Route 840 South, notwithstanding the fact that the project is not federally funded. According to the regulations promulgated by the CEQ, major federal actions include[] actions with effects that may be major and which are potentially subject to Federal control and responsibility. 40 C.F.R. §1508.18. These actions may be assisted, conducted, regulated, or approved by federal agencies. Id. §1508.18(a). The regulation goes on to provide: 21 Federal actions tend to fall within one of the following categories:  22 Approval of specific projects, such as construction or management activities located in a defined geographic area. Projects include actions approved by permit or other regulatory decision as well as federal and federally assisted activities. 23 Id. §1508.18(b)(4). These regulations are due substantial deference from reviewing courts. Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347, 358 (1979). The regulations clearly indicate that major federal actions need not be federally funded to invoke NEPA requirements. See 40 C.F.R. §1508.18(a); see also Southwest III, 173 F.3d at 1037; Save Barton Creek Ass'n v. FHWA, 950 F.2d 1129, 1134 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1220 (1992); Macht v. Skinner, 916 F.2d 13, 18 (D.C. Cir. 1990);Historic Preservation Guild of Bay View v. Burnley, 896 F.2d 985, 990 (6th Cir. 1989); Maryland Conservation Council, Inc. v Gilchrist, 808 F.2d 1039, 1042 (4th Cir. 1986). Federal defendants' efforts to argue to the contrary are totally unavailing in light of this court's and other circuits' supporting precedent. Of course, federal funding is a significant indication that a project constitutes a major federal action; however, the absence of funding is not conclusive proof of the contrary. See Bay View, 896 F.2d at 990. 24 In addition, it is apparent that a non-federally funded project may become a major federal action by virtue of the aggregate of federal involvement from numerous federal agencies, even if one agency's role in the project may not be sufficient to create major federal action in and of itself. See 40 C.F.R. §§1508.25; 1508.27(b) (noting that more than one agency may make decisions about partial aspects of a major [Federal] action); see also Gilchrist, 808 F.2d at 1042 (holding that [b]ecause of the inevitability of the need for at least one federal [agency] approval, ... the construction of the [state] highway will constitute a major federal action). Thus, the federal defendants' argument that they were only involved in one aspect of the highway's design and approval process, namely the four interchanges, does not necessarily serve to defeat the Association's claim that the pervasiveness of federal activity required to complete the highway converts the project into a major federal action. 25