| OCR Text |
Show 1088 481 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES be slighted in a case-by-case analysis. And it avoids duplicative reconsideration of basic policy questions. * * * " 30 [3] We think it plain that at some point in time there should be a detailed statement on the overall LMFBR program. The program comes before the Congress as a "proposal for legislation" each year, in the form of appropriations requests by the Commission. And as the Council on Environmental Quality has noted in its NEPA Guidelines, the statutory phrase "recommendation or report on proposals for legislation" includes "[Recommendations or favorable repo'rts relating to legislation including that for appropriations." 31 In addition, the program constitutes "major Federal action" within the meaning of the statute. [4-6] The statutory phrase "actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment" is intentionally broad, re- 30. Council on Environmental Quality (hereinafter CEQ), Memorandum to Federal Agencies on Procedures for Improving Environmental Impact Statements (May 16, 1972) (hereinafter CEQ, NEPA Memorandum), reprinted in 3 BNA Environment Reporter 82, 87. See CEQ, Third Annual Report 233-234 (Aug. 1972) ; id. at 227: "Changes in individual projects are only a partial index of NEPA's impact. Perhaps a more important sign is that agencies are reviewing their policies to determine the need for across-the-board changes affecting entire Federal programs." See also CEQ, Statements on Proposed Federal Actions Affecting the Environment: Guidelines, 36 Fed.Reg. 7724, 7726 (Guidelines 10(a)) (April 23, 1971) (hereinafter cited as CEQ, NEPA Guidelines) : "Agencies will need to identify at what stage or stages of a series of actions relating to a particular matter the environmental statement procedures of this directive will be applied. It will often be necessary to use the procedures both in the development of a national program and in the review of proposed projects within the national program. * * *»• 31. CEQ, NEPA Guidelines, supra note 30, 36 Fed.Reg. at 7724 (Guideline 5(a) (i)) (emphasis added). fleeting the Act's attempt to promote across-the-board adjustment in fede* agency decision making so as to male the quality of the environment a concer of every federal agency.32 The legisia. tive history of the Act indicates that th term "actions" refers not only to con struction of particular facilities, but in eludes "project proposals, proposals for new legislation, regulations, policy statements, or expansion or revision of ongoing programs * * *."33 Thus there is "Federal action" within the meaning of the statute not only when an agency proposes to build a facility itself,3* but also whenever an agency makes a decision which permits action by other parties which will affect the quality of the environment.35 NEPA's impact statement procedure has been held to apply where a federal agency approves a lease of land to private parties,36 grants licenses and permits to private parties,3' or approves and funds state highway projects.38 In each of these instances 32. See generally Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee v. USAEC, supra note 1, 146 U.S.App.D.C. at 36-37, 449 F.2d at 1112-1113. 33. S.Rep. No. 91-296, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 20 (1969), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 1969, p. 2751. See also CEQ, NEPA Guidelines, supra note 30, 36 Fed. Reg. at 7724 (Guideline 5(a) ( i ) ). 34. See, e. g., Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Corps of Engineers of U.S. Army, RD.Ark., 325 F.Supp. 728 (1971). 35. "NEPA's implications are similar where the Government does not undertake or finance activities directly but regulates the private concerns that do." CEQ, Third Annual Report, supra note 30, at 225. 36. See, e. g., Davis v. Morton, 10 Cir., 469 F.2d 593 (1972). 37. See, e. g., Greene County Planning Board v. FPC, 2 Cir., 455 F.2d 412, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 849, 93 S.Ct. 56, 34 L. Ed. 90 (1972) ; Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. FPC, 2 Cir., 453 F.2d 463, 481 (1971) ; Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee v. USAEC, supra note 1. 38. See, e. g., Lathan v. Volpe, 9 Cir., 455 F.2d 1111 (1971). |
