The district court recognized some tension in our cases as to whether the "reasonableness" standard or the "arbitary and capricious" standard should apply to the review of an agency's decision not to prepare an EIS where no EA precedes the decision.
We therefore conclude that the federal funding contribution alone could not transform the entire Kohala Project into a "major federal action." Go to At this point, the State of Hawaii and DWS have spent $3,453,161 on the Kohala Project and intend to fund the rest of the project, when it is ready to proceed, with the proceeds of bonds issued by the State and/or County. In the present case, the sum total of all of the federal funding that was ever offered to the Kohala Project is $1.3 million, which is less than two percent of the estimated total project cost of $80 million. 1990) (noting that the federal funding of a large portion of a preliminary study was "minuscule in comparison with the cost of the total bridge project" and did not rise to the level of major federal action). 1975) (identifying a large funding disparity and finding that the federal involvement was not sufficient to "federalize" the project for NEPA purposes) see also Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque v. 1979), consideration must be given to a "great disparity in the expenditures forecast for the state and federal portions of the entire program." See Friends of the Earth, Inc. While "significant federal funding" can turn "what would otherwise be" a state or local project into a "major federal action," Alaska v.To make this determination, we look "to the nature of the federal funds used and the extent of federal involvement." Sierra Club v. "`Marginal' federal action will not render otherwise local action federal." Id. "The matter is simply one of degree." Id. "There are no clear standards for defining the point at which federal participation transforms a state or local project into a major federal action." Almond Hill Sch.Usually, under the APA, we review an agency's decision to determine whether it was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law " however, where an agency has decided that a particular project does not require the preparation of an EIS, without having conducted an environmental assessment ("EA"), and we are dealing with primarily legal issues that are based upon undisputed historical facts, we review the decision under the less deferential standard of "reasonableness." See Northcoast Envtl.
Because NEPA does not contain a separate provision for judicial review, we review an agency's compliance with NEPA under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C.It is REQUIRED that you bring and wear a face mask throughout the check-in process and throughout the tour.Instead, guests will receive a rain check that can be redeemed at a later date. There will be NO REFUNDS issued for any individual and groups/families denied participation due to the preceding COVID19 requirements.Any group or family(s) associated with any person being denied participation in the tour due to exhibiting COVID19 symptoms will also be denied participation in the tour.Any person exhibiting a fever, cough, sneezing, difficulty breathing, or any other symptom indicating possible infection with COVID19, will be denied participation in the tour.Any person with a temperature of 100.4ºf or greater will be denied participation in the tour.All guests will have their temperatures taken upon check-in.
This tour is not for those with back or neck problems, expectant mothers, or those fearful of dark, confined places, nature, learning, getting wet, or good fun.
0 kommentar(er)
