## Facts

- Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) and Iowa Public Service Company (IPS) jointly planned and built a 345 kV electric transmission line from Iowa to Nebraska that would cross the Missouri River and then run through the Winnebago Reservation.
- Because the line required a structure in or affecting navigable waters, IPS applied to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a permit under § 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. § 403, for the Missouri River crossing.
- The Corps prepared an environmental assessment focused on the river crossing and adjacent riverbanks and issued a finding of no significant impact, concluding an environmental impact statement (EIS) was unnecessary.
- The Tribe objected that the broader line (including segments on tribal lands) would cause environmental harms, including alleged effects on bald eagles, and argued NEPA required an EIS for the entire project.
- The federal government neither funded nor constructed the transmission line; federal involvement consisted primarily of the single § 10 permit decision.

## Issues

1. Whether the Corps’ issuance of a § 10 permit for the Missouri River crossing converted the largely private transmission-line project into a “major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment” requiring an EIS for the entire line under NEPA.
2. Whether the Corps acted arbitrarily or unreasonably by limiting its NEPA analysis to the river-crossing segment rather than evaluating the entire transmission line, including portions on tribal lands.
3. Whether the administrative record showed substantial environmental questions requiring an EIS for the permitted river-crossing action.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of a permanent injunction.
- The court held the § 10 permit for a discrete river crossing did not “federalize” the entire privately planned and financed transmission line as a major federal action under NEPA.
- The Corps reasonably limited its NEPA review to environmental effects within its statutory jurisdiction over navigable waters and adjacent areas affected by the crossing.
- The Corps’ decision to rely on an environmental assessment and to forgo an EIS was upheld as reasonable on the record; the Tribe did not carry its burden to show ignored significant environmental impacts within the Corps’ jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- A federal permit for a limited component of an otherwise nonfederal project does not, by itself, transform the entire project into a “major Federal action” under NEPA.
- An agency’s NEPA obligations generally extend only to environmental effects of actions within the scope of the agency’s statutory authority and decision-making control.
- NEPA prohibits artificial segmentation to evade review, but an agency may confine analysis to the portion it regulates when it lacks authority over the remainder of the project.
- A court reviews an agency’s no-EIS determination deferentially and will uphold it when the agency reasonably evaluates impacts within its jurisdiction and the challenger fails to show substantial environmental issues were ignored.
- The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that an agency’s NEPA process was arbitrary, capricious, or omitted significant environmental considerations within the regulated action.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit held that the Corps’ § 10 permitting decision for a Missouri River transmission-line crossing did not make the entire private line a major federal action, and it upheld the Corps’ limited-scope environmental assessment and determination that an EIS was not required.


Winnebago Tribe of Neb. v. Ray, 621 F.2d 269 (8th Cir. 1980)