Full opinion text
ORDER HUCK, District Judge. THIS CAUSE came before the Court on March 29, 2005 for a non-jury trial on the merits of the Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Complaint seeking declaratory and injunc-tive relief against the Defendants, who are various federal agencies and agencies’ representatives acting in their official capacities, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief they seek. BACKGROUND On March 22, 2005, this Court was requested to hear Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction on an emergency basis. The following day, March 23, 2005, the Court held a status conference to discuss scheduling and other matters with counsel. At the status conference, the parties advised the Court that they now had available the complete record of all of the pertinent administrative proceedings related to the subject highway project (“Administrative Record”). The parties agreed that this matter could and should be resolved based solely on that Administrative Record, eliminating the need for testimony or other evidence outside that record. The parties also requested that this matter be resolved on an expedited basis. In view of this, and with the parties’ agreement, the Court consolidated the preliminary injunction hearing with a non-jury trial on the merits pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a). The trial was held on March 29, 2005. In summary, the Plaintiffs, Florida Keys Citizens Coalition, Inc., Sierra Club, Inc. and Friends of the Everglades, request that this Court enjoin the Defendants from proceeding with a highway improvement project in the Florida Keys (“Project”). Major construction is scheduled to begin April 4, 2005, thus the need for an expedited resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims. The Plaintiffs are all not-for-profit environmental groups with members who have interests in the Florida Keys which are the focus of their challenge. Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on December 20, 2004, which was supplemented on March 15, 2005. The Plaintiffs challenge the decision-making processes and ultimate decisions which have led to federal agencies’ approval of the Project. Those challenged federal agency decisions include: (1) the Federal Department of Transportation’s (“DOT”) and the Federal Highway Administration’s (“FHWA”) decision in 2004, as the lead or action agency, not to prepare, or require the state partner, the Florida Department of Transportation (“FDOT”), to prepare, a second Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) or a supplement to the 1992 Environmental Impact Statement for the Project, in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and attendant federal regulations; (2) the DOT’s and the FHWA’s decisions not to evaluate, or require the FDOT to properly evaluate, the actual or constructive use of the Everglades National Park in violation of the Federal Department of Transportation Act; (3) the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (“Corps”) decision to issue a Section 404 Permit in violation of the Clean Water Act; (4) U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s (“FWS”) decision to issue a Biological Opinion in violation of the Endangered Species Act; and (5) the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service’s (“NMFS”) decision to issue a Biological Opinion in violation of the Endangered Species Act. As an interested party, the FDOT was granted leave to intervene in support of the Project. Based on the Administrative Record, the parties’ respective legal memoranda and oral argument at the trial, the Court makes the following findings of facts and conclusions of law. JURISDICTION AND VENUE This Court has jurisdiction over this civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question); under 5 U.S.C. §§ 702 and 706(1),(2)(A),(C),(D) (Administrative Procedure Act); under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a .duty owed to the Plaintiffs); under 33 U.S.C. § 1365 (citizen suits under the Clean Water Act); under 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g) (citizen suits under the Endangered Species Act); and pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida under: (1) 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the actions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occur here; (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because it is a civil action against an agency and/or officers or employees of an agency of the United States acting in their official capacities; and (3) under 5 U.S.C. § 703. APPLICABLE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS In order to better understand and evaluate the Plaintiffs’ claims, a review of the applicable federal statutes and attendant regulations, which set forth the requirements for the challenged decisions, is in order. The National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., is essentially a procedural statute that requires federal agencies to inform themselves of the environmental effects of proposed federal actions. See Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 295 F.3d 1209, 1214 (11th Cir.2002) (“[NEPA] is not a substantive environmental statute which dictates a particular outcome if certain consequences exist.”). When an agency proposes a “major [federal action[] significantly affecting the quality of the human environment,” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C), NEPA requires preparation of an EIS in which the agency must examine: (1) the impacts of the proposed action; (2) any adverse environmental effects of the action that cannot be avoided; (3) alternatives to the proposed action; (4) the relationship between local, short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and .(5) any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources which would be involved. See 42 U.S.C. § 4332. If there is a question whether a proposed action satisfies these criteria, an environmental assessment (“EA”) may be prepared. An EA is a brief and concise document containing sufficient evidence and analysis for the agency to determine whether to prepare a more extensive EIS or a finding of no significant impact. 40 C.F.R. 1508.9(a)(1); River Rd. Alliance, Inc. v. Corps of Eng’rs of United States Army, 764 F.2d 445, 449 (7th Cir.1985) (“The purpose of an [EA] is to determine whether there is enough likelihood of significant environmental consequences to justify the time and expense of preparing an [EIS].”). An EA must include only “brief discussions of the need for the proposal, of alternatives as required by section 102(2)(E), of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and a listing of agencies and persons consulted.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(b). A third option is available for certain federal actions that have been determined, because of their very nature and past experience, not to have, individually or cumulatively, a significant effect on the human environment. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.4(a), 1508.4. Such actions are considered “categorically excluded” from the requirement of either an EA or EIS review. Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act The Federal Department of Transportation Act (“FDTA”), 49 U.S.C. § 303 (commonly known as “Section 4(f)”), provides, in pertinent part, that the Secretary of Transportation may approve a transportation project requiring the use of publicly-owned park lands or a publicly-owned site of national, state, or local significance only if: (1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and (2) the proposed program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the use. Once it is determined that a protected resource will be actually or constructively “used” by a project, subsection 4(f)(1) requires the FHWA to determine whether there is any feasible and prudent alternative to using that resource. If no feasible and prudent alternative is available, the FHWA must find pursuant to 4(f)(2) that the plans for the project minimize the harm to. the protected resource. The Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., prohibits the discharge of pollutants, including dredged spoil, into waters of the United States, except in compliance with various sections of the CWA, including Section 404. See 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a). “Waters of the United States” is defined by regulation to include wetlands. 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a), (b). Section 404(a) authorizes the Secretary of the Army (“Secretary”), acting through the Corps, to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (“Section 404 Permit”). See 33 U.S.C. § 1344(a). Section 404(b) provides that, in reviewing each permit application, the Secretary must apply guidelines developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) in conjunction with the Secretary. 33 U.S.C. § 1344(b). The guidelines developed pursuant to Section 404(b) (“404 guidelines”) are published at 40 C.F.R. § 230.1 et seq. If the Corps finds that the permit application complies with the 404 guidelines, the Corps must issue the permit “unless the district engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.” 33 C.F.R. § 320.4(a)(1). The Corps’ “public interest review” evaluates “the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public interest.” Id. The Corps must then balance “benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal” against the proposal’s “reasonably foreseeable detriments.” Id. Among the factors to be considered by the Corps in its public interest review are: conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. Id. The regulations that govern the Corps’ issuance of a Section 404 Permit require the Corps to consider whether there are “practicable” alternatives to a proposed discharge of dredged or fill material that would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem. See 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a). “An alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of being done after taking into consideration costs, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.” 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a)(2). The Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., provides “a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, [and] to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species. ...” 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b). Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA provides that federal agencies must ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to “jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary ... to be critical.” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). “Jeopardize the continued existence” means “engaging] in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species.” 5Ó C.F.R. § 402.02. Critical habitat includes “the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species ... on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection.... ” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(5)(A). The ESA requires the action agency to consult with the FWS and/or the NMFS whenever a federal action “may affect” an endangered or threatened species. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a). Section 7 and its implementing regulations set out detailed consultation procedures designed to provide action agencies with expert advice to determine the biological impacts of their proposed activities. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b); 50 C.F.R. § 402.01 et seq. “Formal consultation” is described at length at 50 C.F.R. § 402.14. Formal consultation culminates in the issuance of a “biological opinion” by the FWS or the NMFS, which advises the action agency whether jeopardy is likely to occur for any listed species and, if so, whether “reasonable and prudent alternatives” exist to avoid a jeopardy situation. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(h)(3). The ESA’s implementing regulations also recognize the use of “informal consultation” to assist an action agency in determining whether and when further consultation is necessary, Informal consultation “includes all discussions, correspondence, etc., between the Service and the Federal agency or the designated non-Federal representative prior to formal consultation, if required.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.02. If the federal action agency determines, with written concurrence of the FWS or the NMFS, that the action “is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat, the consultation process is terminated, and no further action is necessary.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.13. See also 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(b)(1) (action agency need not initiate formal consultation if it determines, after informal consultation, with written concurrence of the FWS or the NMFS, that proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat). In general, the FWS has authority over terrestrial and freshwater species, including the manatee, and the NMFS has authority over marine species, including the short tooth sawfish and sea turtles. See, e.g., Northwest Res. Info. Ctr. v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 56 F.3d 1060, 1065 (9th Cir.1995) (discussing the division of responsibility for listed species). STANDARD OF REVIEW The parties agree that the challenged agency actions should be reviewed under the arbitrary and capricious standard. Nevertheless, a brief review of that standard and how it has been applied under the APA in other environmental claim cases is instructive. Administrative Procedure Act Under the APA, the appropriate standard for judicial review is whether the actions of a federal agency were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The scope of judicial review under the arbitrary and capricious standard is narrow, and the court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983). In effect, the court reviewing APA claims against an agency “sits as an appellate tribunal, not as a court authorized to determine in a trial-type proceeding whether [the agency’s action] was factually flawed.” Marshall County Health Care Auth. v. Shalala, 988 F.2d 1221, 1225 (D.C.Cir.1993). In an APA case, the court “is not required to resolve any facts in a review of an administrative proceeding. Certainly there may be issues of fact before the administrative agency. However, the function of the court is to determine whether as a matter of law the evidence in the administrative record permitted the agency to make the decision it did.” Occidental Eng’g Co. v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 766, 769 (9th Cir.1985), not to conduct its own investigation and substitute its own judgment for the administrative agency’s decision. Preserve Endangered Areas of Cobb’s History, Inc. (“PEACH”) v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 87 F.3d 1242, 1246 (11th Cir.1996). Consequently, the agency action should be upheld if the agency has “considered the relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Baltimore Gas & Elec. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 462 U.S. 87, 105, 103 S.Ct. 2246, 76 L.Ed.2d 437 (1983). The Court is not empowered to substitute, its own judgment for that of the agency. Motor Vehicle Mfrs., 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856. See also Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971) (overruled on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977)). The court’s well-reasoned observation in Florida Wildlife Federation v. Goldschmidt is particularly informative here: NEPA, while establishing significant substantive goals for the nation, imposes upon agencies duties that are essentially procedural. It was designed to insure a fully-informed and well-considered decision but not necessarily a decision this or any other Court would have made had we been members of the decision-making unit of the agency. Nor does NEPA require an agency to elevate environmental concerns over other legitimate and appropriate considerations. In evaluating the adequacy of environmental impact statements, the Courts have consistently enforced the “hard look” requirement tempered by a practical “rule of reason.” An EIS is required to furnish only such information as appears to be reasonably necessary under the circumstances for evaluation of the project rather than to be so all-encompassing in scope that the task of preparing it would become either fruitless or well nigh impossible. Applying thé rule of reason, the Court’s task is to determine whether the EIS was compiled in objective good faith and whether the resulting statement would permit a decisionmaker to fully consider and balance the environmental factors. 506 F.Supp. 350, 375 (S.D.Fla.1981) (citations omitted). This review of an agency’s action is necessarily based on the record presented by the agency as the basis for its decision. While the court defers to the expertise of the agency, and may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency, the court must limit its review to the record at the time the ageney acted, and may not consider subsequent matters. Fla. Pow. & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 743-44, 105 S.Ct. 1598, 84 L.Ed.2d 643 (1985). See also Volpe, 401 U.S. at 414, 91 S.Ct. 814. The court “must judge the propriety of [the agency’s determination] solely by the grounds invoked by the agency. If those grounds are inadequate or improper, the court is powerless to affirm the administrative action.” I.C.C. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs, 482 U.S. 270, 290, 107 S.Ct. 2360, 96 L.Ed.2d 222 (1987) (quoting SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196, 67 S.Ct. 1575, 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947)). In fulfilling APA review, courts defer to the agency’s construction of the statutory scheme it administers and to the agency’s special expertise. See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 842-45, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984); Envtl. Coalition of Broward County, Inc. v. Myers, 831 F.2d 984, 986 (11th Cir.1987); Baltimore Gas, 462 U.S. at 103, 103 S.Ct. 2246. Not surprisingly, particular deference is accorded to the informed discretion of the responsible federal agencies where issues of science, technical expertise or complex environmental statutes are involved. Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 377, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989); Envtl. Coalition of Broward County, 831 F.2d at 986. “When specialists express conflicting views, an agency must have discretion to rely on the reasonable opinions of its own qualified experts even if, as an original matter, a court might find contrary views more persuasive.” Marsh, 490 U.S. at 378, 109 S.Ct. 1851. This is because “government agencies — and not the federal courts — are the entities NEPA entrusts with weighing evidence and reaching factual conclusions.” Spiller v. White, 352 F.3d 235, 243 (5th Cir.2003). Standard for Permanent Injunction As indicated above, the parties have consented to forego a preliminary injunction- hearing and proceed to a final trial on Plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction. An injunction to preserve the status quo pending preparation of an EIS may be appropriate where there has been a violation of NEPA. See Envtl. Def. Fund v. Marsh, 651 F.2d 983, 1005-06 (5th Cir.1981). Such an injunction serves two beneficial purposes. First, it furthers the aims of NEPÁ that the relevant decision-makers and the public have the opportunity to choose among alternatives before resources are committed and a decision is made. Second, it provides “the agency with an incentive to comply with NEPA in as rapid and thorough a manner as is reasonably possible.” Id. at 1005-06. The standard for issuance of a permanent injunction is very similar to the standard for issuance of a preliminary injunction. Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 935 F.Supp. 1556, 1571 (S.D.Ala.1996). Of course, “a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must show actual success on the merits, rather than a mere likelihood of success on the merits.” Id. (citing Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, AK, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n. 12, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987)). The four elements for granting a permanent injunction are: 1) irreparable harm; 2) success on the merits; 3) a balancing of the competing claims of injury to the parties; and 4) consideration of the public interest. Sony Music Entm’t, Inc. v. Global Arts Prods., 45 F.Supp.2d 1345, 1347 (S.D.Fla.1999). In an APA environmental ease, as here, the Plaintiffs must show that Defendants have violated the applicable statutory and/or regulatory authority, that there will be a continuing irreparable injury to the Plaintiffs in the absence of an injunction, and the lack of an adequate remedy at law. Newman v. State of Alabama, 683 F.2d 1312, 1319 (11th Cir.1982). The element of “continuing irreparable injury” describes the quality or severity of the harm necessary to trigger equitable intervention while the test for “inadequate remedy at law” considers the possibilities of alternative relief, however serious the initial injury. Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1213 (11th Cir.2000) (quoting Lewis v. S.S. Baune, 534 F.2d 1115, 1124 (5th Cir.1976)). Plaintiffs, of course, have the initial burden of showing that they will succeed on the merits. This element is the most important element, and if Plaintiffs fail in that regard, an injunction will not be entered. See Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. Contacts, Inc., 299 F.3d 1242, 1247 (11th Cir.2002) (“If the movant is unable to establish a likelihood of success on the merits, a court need not consider the remaining conditions prerequisite to injunctive relief.”). With these standards in mind, the Court has now considered each of the Plaintiffs’ claims to determine whether Plaintiffs have carried their burden of proof justifying enjoining this proposed Project. FINDINGS OF FACT A. The NEPA Claims. This Project involves the long evolving highway improvement project proposed along a 20.6 mile stretch of highway US-1 running from Abaco Road on Key Largo at the southern terminus in Monroe County, Florida, to Card Sound Road just south of Florida City at the northern terminus in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Approximately 6.4 miles of the Project are located in Monroe County while the majority of it is located in Miami-Dade County. The segment of US-1 along the Project corridor is currently a two-lane road with two four-lane undivided passing zones, each approximately one mile in length. On June 29, 1988, the FDOT initiated the Project pursuant to a “Project Development and Environmental Study.” The study included 47 meetings and one public hearing among governmental agencies and concerned citizen groups. On March 27, 1992, after publication of a draft EIS and public comment, the FHWA and the FDOT, in cooperation with the United States Coast Guard, issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”). The FEIS examined three alternate roadway corridors, five roadway designs (four of which were examined as viable options), several options for replacing the obsolete bascule bridge (drawbridge) over Jewfish Creek (including a high-level, fixed span bridge, a replacement bascule bridge, and a tunnel), and a no build option. Several alternative typical roadway sections and no build alternatives were evaluated. Several alignment alternatives were evaluated in the 1992 FEIS. Several replacement options for the Jewfish Creek Bridge and Lake Surprise Causeway were evaluated in the FEIS and Final Engineering Report. Three different four-lane alternatives were evaluated ranging from an undivided median option to a 20-foot median option. Five distinct three-lane alternatives with medians ranging from - 4 to 20 feet wide were evaluated. A cost-benefit analysis of the Jewfish Creek Bridge alternatives was performed in the Preliminary Engineering Report for the Project and summarized in the FEIS. Accommodation of growth in the Florida Keys was identified in the FEIS as one of the Project’s important purposes. Other Project purposes identified included safety, navigation, emergency evacuation, system linkage, traffic service, and consistency with transportation plans. The FEIS’ preferred and recommended alternative, titled Alternative C-East, consisted of a four-lane divided roadway, with 12-foot travel lanes, a paved 22-foot median divided by a concrete “Jersey” barrier, 10-foot paved inside and outside shoulders, together with a high-level, fixed span bridge over Jew-fish Creek to replace the existing bascule bridge. Highway safety needs are a primary factor in the Defendants’ and the FDOT’s decision that the improvements were required along this segment of US-1. The original automobile crash study reflected in the FEIS included data for years 1982 ■through 1986. This data revealed that the crash frequency for the Monroe County portion of this segment exceeded the Florida statewide average for similar fatalities, while the Miami-Dade portion did not. However, the data revealed that most of the crash fatalities (approximately 75%) occurred in the Miami-Dade County portion. The FDOT’s 2003 Reevaluation’s updated data for the years 1995 through 2001 revealed that the crash frequency over the entire 20.6 mile segment again exceeded the statewide average with approximately the same Monroe versus Miami-Dade County breakdown. From 1997 through 2001 there were 18 fatal crashes resulting in .29 fatalities.and 38-injuries. The data showed that the majority of the crashes were head-on collisions resulting from drivers’ failed passing attempts or drivers running off the travel lanes onto the shoulders, and then over-correcting into the opposing lane of traffic. There were a total of 363 injury related crashes during this period, resulting in 832 injured occupants. In-addition, the Reevaluation established that a large portion of the crashes along the Monroe County portion, being mostly -rear-end collisions, were attributed to the Jewfish Creek bascule bridge, which, according to the FDOT was just one of the major sources of safety problems along this highway segment. In June 1992, after distributing the FEIS for agency and public input, the FHWA gave approval to proceed with the four-lane divided roadway design as originally recommended. In May, 1994, the federal, state, and local agencies approved the permits required for the completion of the upfront wetlands mitigation projects proposed by the FDOT in connection with the four-lane Project. In June, 1994, the FDOT began the permitting process for the roadway improvements as approved under the 1992 FEIS. In the course of permitting the originally designed Project, and in response to requests from the public' and the Monroe County Board of Commissioners, the FDOT downsized the Project and its related permit applications to a three-lane configuration — one southbound and two northbound lanes — with three four-lane passing zones. These changes reduced the wetlands impacts of the Project from 164.2 acres to 149.07 acres. In October 1995, the South Florida Water Management District (“SFWMD”) recommended the issuance of wetlands and surface water management permits to the FDOT for the three-lane Project. Citizens advocacy groups, including Plaintiff Florida Keys Citizens’ Coalition, objected to the issuance of the permits pursuant to the State Administrative Procedures Act. After 24 days of hearing testimony from 41 witnesses and three public hearings, the administrative law judge approved the issuance of the wetlands and surface water management permits subject to the conditions proposed in the SFWMD staff reports and certain additional conditions based upon the evidence presented at the hearing. On June 11, 1997, SFWMD issued the permits. After the issuance of those permits, the FDOT became involved in extensive inter-agency consultation and study related to the issuance of a wetlands Section 404 Permit from the Corps under the CWA. This interagency consultation and study included efforts to formulate a methodology for analyzing the cumulative and secondary impacts resulting from the three-lane Project and other future highway projects. These efforts continued over several more years and resulted in the issuance of a final report in 1999, entitled “Guidelines to Address Secondary and Cumulative Impacts in the Planning and Project Development Process” (the “Guidelines”). Secondary impacts are those that, though outside the Project footprint, are closely linked and causally related to the Project. In other words, if not for the Project, the secondary impact would not occur. Following completion of the administrative hearing for the previously permitted three-lane Project, the administrative law judge issued a Recommended Order that recognized certain temporary and permanent secondary impacts related to the Project. This Recommended Order was adopted as the SFWMD’s Final Order authorizing the issuance of the permits for the three-lane Project. Additional Project analysis, environmental review, and permitting discussions occurred over the ensuing years following the issuance of the Guidelines, ultimately culminating in the FDOT’s release of its “SR-5/US-1 SOUTH Project Reevaluation, From Key Largo to Florida City” in December, 2003 (the “Reevaluation”). The Reevaluation eliminated “accommodation of growth” as one of the Project’s purposes and focused upon improvements associated with a revised and reduced list of needs: safety, emergency evacuation, navigation, and consistency with transportation plans. The new Project proposed under the Reevaluation consisted of a two-lane, rather than a four-lane or three-lane, roadway during normal operating conditions, with a ten-foot shoulder (only six feet paved) adjacent to the southbound lane and a twelve-foot shoulder (only ten feet paved) adjacent to the northbound lane. (“Two Lane Safety Project” or “2LSP”). The supporting structure of the paved portion of these shoulders is considerably thinner and less substantial than that of the traffic lanes and thus is not designed for heavy vehicular traffic. However, the northbound shoulder can be temporarily used as an additional traffic lane for emergencies. The Two Lane Safety Project also provides for the replacement of an existing bascule bridge with a high-level, fixed span bridge over Jewfish Creek that will connect to a low-level bridge over Lake Surprise. The structure of the replacement bridge is essentially the same as that contemplated in the originally designed Project and recommended in the FEIS, albeit with two rather than four traffic lanes. All of the improvements to be constructed under the Two Lane Safety Project will be located entirely within the existing right-of-way and entirely within the footprint of the previously approved four-lane version of the Project. The Two Lane Safety Project represents a significant reduction in the typical roadway section of the four-lane alternative and also occurs within essentially the same alignment. From an environmental impact standpoint, the currently preferred 2LSP alternative is a scaled down version of the four-lane alternative approved in the FEIS. As a result of the scaling down from the original four-lane version of the Project to the 2LSP, the estimated wetlands losses have been further reduced from 164.20 acres to 108.9 acres (83.9 acres of which are permanent and 20 acres of which are temporary). The existing US-1 roadway does not contain a surface water management system or water quality treatment facilities. Consequently, untreated stormwater runoff from the paved roadway surface currently sheetflows to adjacent wetlands and tidal waters. The 2LSP contains a surface water management system and water quality treatment facilities to reduce the threats posed by contaminated stormwater runoff and by erosion. The Reevaluation also analyzed whether a supplement to the FEIS was required for the roadway portion of the 2LSP in light of the scaling down of the Project since its initial approval. The Reevaluation’s supplementation analysis concluded: “Particularly given the specific language in the FHWA regulations regarding the targeting of a SEIS [supplemented EIS] to greater environmental impacts, as well as the information on primary and secondary impacts provided by the State proceedings as discussed in this Reevaluation, it does not appear that construction of a smaller project [the 2LSP] in essentially the same location, with the same or greater mitigation and environmental enhancements, should warrant a SEIS.” The Reevaluation also included an analysis of the secondary and cumulative impacts projected to result from the Two Lane Safety Project, including any projected growth related impacts. This analysis included, among other findings, the finding that the “Project will not act as an impetus to further construction, either in the immediate project footprint area or anywhere within the project’s potential Area of Influence.” The Reevaluation also analyzed the 2LSP’s potential impacts on any lands protected by Section 4(f) of the FDTA. Based on this analysis, which included the determination that the 2LSP would not utilize any property from the Everglades National Park, the Reevaluation determined Section 4(f) does not apply. In addition to the 2LSP’s extensive, wetlands mitigation to compensate for wetlands -losses resulting from construction, and the stormwater runoff treatment/retention facilities, the 2LSP includes other new features that will enhance the environment. -These environmental enhancements include: (1) numerous improvements designed to restore hydrologic flows across the US-1 corridor, including the construction of 25 equalizing pipe culverts and three bridges south of Canal C-lll, the removal of the Lake Surprise Causeway, and the- construction of a new 140-foot Spreader Canal Bridge between Canal C-111 and Florida City, as specifically requested by the Corps in connection with the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program; and (2) wildlife protection improvements, including the construction of 16 large box culverts to assist endangered crocodiles and manatees crossing the Project corridor between Key Largo and Canal C-lll, fencing to direct wildlife to the designated crossings rather than onto the roadway, four crossings between Canal C-lll and Florida City for endangered panthers and other wildlife (with directive fencing), and the erection of wildlife fencing along the entire west side of the Project corridor and along the east side north of the C-lll canal to prevent road crossings by wildlife. The FHWA approved the bridge replacement portion of the 2LSP (“Bridge Replacement Project”) over Jewfish Creek and Lake Surprise under NEPA by finding that it presented no impacts not known and scrutinized by the FEIS. The FHWA approved the remainder of the 2LSP, consisting primarily of roadway safety improvements (“Road Safety Improvements”), pursuant to a categorical exclusion under NEPA. Specifically, the FHWA found that the Road Safety Improvements are the type of safety improvements that are generally considered to be “categorically excluded” from detailed environmental review under NEPA, “such as shoulders for emergency use and bridge replacements and attendant environmental mitigation,” which do not increase traffic capacity. In this regard, the FHWA concluded: We find that roadway reconstruction projects that do not increase capacity, but provide safety improvements and replace bridges, such as the bridge over the C-lll canal, are normally categorically excluded from detailed NEPA study. Such is the case with the Two Plus design for this US-1 project. In addition, most mitigation for impacts anticipated when the design concept was four lanes in the 1992 FEIS and ROD have been completed. Other mitigation concepts envisioned earlier for the four-lane concept, such as to restore hydrology and minimize vehicle/wildlife conflicts using appropriate culvert design as wildlife crossings, will be part of the Two Plus design. Thus, we find that the Two Plus roadway design will have no significant adverse impacts, and is therefore properly categorically excluded under FHWA regulation. Our approvals are only for the Two Plus design concept. Any different design will require another NEPA evaluation. To reach these findings the Florida Division staff have engaged in extensive coordination and discussion with the FHWA Legal Counsel and FDOT staff, including General Counsel. We have determined it is in the public interest to make these findings now and advance the needed safety and structures work at the earliest convenience and opportunity of the FDOT. The FHWA’s approval of the 2LSP (or “Two Plus design”) was “given under the condition that Florida DOT will continue to operate the roadway and bridge portions of this project as a two-lane facility except in emergency events.” B. The CWA Claims. In 1994, the FDOT applied to the Corps for authorization under Section 404 of the CWA for a permit to fill approximately 149 acres of wetlands in connection with the construction of the original four-lane highway Project. In 1995, pursuant to a permit granted by the Corps in 1993, the FDOT restored and enhanced 385.22 acres of wetlands at four sites as compensatory mitigation (“upfront mitigation”) for future adverse wetland impacts that would occur in connection with the originally proposed four-lane Project. Subsequently, the Corps’ expressed concerns that the four-lane Project “would result in significant degradation and adverse cumulative impacts.” This prompted the FDOT to withdraw its permit application on September 24, 1997. On July 23, 2003, the FDOT submitted another application for a Section 404 Permit that would authorize discharges of dredged and fill material into 105.7 acres of wetlands in connection with the now downsized 2LSP. On December 2, 2003, the Corps issued a public notice to interested parties inviting comments regarding the FDOT’s permit application. The Corps received and considered numerous written comments from government agencies, organizations, and individuals. In its January 16, 2004 letter, the EPA commented on the FDOT’s new permit application, suggesting that the FDOT consider reducing the size of certain access ramps and service roads and alternative locations for an emergency turnaround area. The EPA also sought additional information to justify the need for a six-foot median on each side of the center barrier. On February 16, 2004, the FDOT responded in writing to the concerns raised in the EPA’s letter. The FDOT stated that further reductions in wetland impact could be obtained only by compromising the safety of the highway. On May 5, 2004, the Corps informed the EPA that it was approaching a final decision on the permit application and invited the EPA to submit any additional comments on the application within 15 days. The EPA offered no further comments. In the FWS’ January 13, 2004 letter, it informed the Corps that “the applicant’s mitigation proposal is adequate to compensate for the project’s impacts to wetlands and seagrasses.” Plaintiff, Florida Keys Citizens Coalition, commented in writing on the proposed permit, urging the Corps to consider a roadway median alternative known as the Cape Code Berm Design (“Cape Cod Alternative”). The Cape Cod Alternative refers to an interim safety improvement that was used along a two-lane road to Cape Cod, Massachusetts. It consists of a six-foot median with a three-foot raised asphalt berm supporting flexible delineator posts. Florida Keys Citizens Coalition suggested that use of the Cape Cod Alternative could potentially reduce the extent of wetland impacts. In response to this suggestion, the Corps asked the FDOT to consider the Cape Cod Alternative. Upon its review, the FDOT concluded that the Cape Cod Alternative did not fulfill the safety objectives of the 2LSP because the Cape Cod Alternative is intended to be an interim, not permanent, safety improvement. Further, because the Cape Cod Alternative consists of an asphalt hump rather' than a fixed median barrier, it would not 'prevent head-on collisions and could potentially launch fast moving vehicles into oncoming traffic. Based on the FDOT’s review of this alternative, the Corps concluded that the Cape Cod Alternative was not a practicable alternative to the 2LSP because “the safety standards and needs identified for the US-1 South improvement are clearly not met by the ‘Cape Cod Alternative.’ ” The Corps itself considered two additional alternatives to the proposed 2LSP: the no action alternative and the Card Sound Road alternative. Neither was a practicable alternative because neither could fulfill the safety needs related to US-1. On March 10, 2004, the Corps held a public meeting to discuss the FDOT’s permit application and obtain additional comments. The Corps’ review of the 2LSP encompassed “the entire project corridor, as well as surrounding navigable waters where construction equipment will be staged and will operate from.” After reviewing the entire Project, the Corps requested that the FDOT consider whether the additional modifications to the Two Lane Safety Project could further reduce the impact to wetlands. On April 22, 2004, the FDOT provided to the Corps a revised plan for an intersection that further reduced wetland impacts from 105.9 acres to 103.9 acres. As indicated above, the relevant stretch of US-1 presently lacks any system for treating stormwater runoff from the affected roadway. As a result, stormwater is discharged directly from the roadway into the adjacent wetlands ecosystem. The proposed Project includes a stormwa-ter management system which, in the Corps’ review, “is expected to enhance wetland functions along the length of the project by improving water quality and reducing erosional effects.” The stormwa-ter treatment system for the 2LSP exceeds the minimum standard under applicable design requirements. The Corps concluded that the 2LSP would lead to cleaner water in the US-1 corridor: “Ecosystem functions will be improved by providing water quality treatment to storm water runoff before it enters the surrounding wetland habitat and adjacent surface waters.” In its review, the Corps also considered the potential direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the 2LSP. The Corps specifically considered the potential for induced growth as a result of the revised Project. After considering the record before it, the Corps concluded that the proposed two-lane road would not induce growth in light of the specific growth management commitments by the relevant local land use authorities. With regard to minimizing incidents of powerboat propel-lor scarring, a potential secondary impact to seagrass beds traceable to recreational water use, the Corps recognized that this impact was “related to the volume of use of the Keys as a recreation area” and that the Florida Keys National Maxine Sanctuary regulations “substantially reduce such impacts.... ” On August 17, 2004, after completing its review of the 2LSP, the Corps granted the FDOT a Section 404 Permit upon finding that “[t]he project as proposed with minimization efforts and mitigation ... is the least damaging practicable alternative.” In connection with its issuance of the permit, the Corps also prepared an EA under NEPA. The EA concluded with a “finding of no significant impact.” This finding was based on a review of the 1992 FEIS, the 2008 Reevaluation, and the Corps’ own administrative record. As it explained, “The Corps has determined that with the Re-evaluation Repoi't and all other supporting documentation that has been provided, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement is not required (indirect effects were included in our review).” The Corps found that the FDOT adequately addressed the concerns identified by government agencies and other commenters. The Section 404 Permit, which authorizes the FDOT to discharge dredge and fill material onto adjacent wetlands, is subject to 29 special conditions. The permit authorizes the FDOT to fill 103.9 acres of wetlands, subject to the condition that the FDOT provide 427.11 acres of mitigation to compensate for the impacts of its discharges. The permit: acknowledges that as partial mitigation for the wetland impacts the permittee has performed upfront mitigation authorized by DA permit number 199302368 and incorporated herein by reference. The upfront mitigation includes a total of 385.22 acres of wetland creation, enhancement and/or restoration provided at the Harrison Tract within the Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge, the C-109 Canal, the Roadside Spoil, and the C-lll East Canal mitigation sites. As a further condition, the FDOT must create, enhance and/or restore 49.26 acres of wetlands at on-site and off-site locations as specified in the permit. This mitigation is to be performed concurrently with the Project construction. The permit acknowledges that the FDOT will minimize impacts to wetlands during construction by restricting water-based construction work associated with the Jewfish Creek Bridge to a designated corridor in order to protect aquatic resources, including seagrass beds. Another condition is designed to minimize impacts by requiring the FDOT to perform the removal of the Lake Surprise Causeway from upland areas to minimize the disturbance to aquatic resources. The conditions also call for the FDOT to monitor the barge corridor for any loss or damage to seagrass beds, and, if substantial adverse impacts to seagrass beds occur, the FDOT is to submit to the Corps a separate plan for mitigating such impacts. Other conditions require the FDOT to perform additional mitigation activities to compensate for the unavoidable impacts that are not offset by the upfront mitigation work performed in 1995. The permit also mandates the preparation of a “contingency mitigation plan” outlining procedures to be followed if the contemplated mitigation proves to be less successful than anticipated. The Corps’ Section 404 Permit further requires the FDOT to “conduct pre-construction and post-construction seagrass monitoring within and adjacent to the designated barge corridor to quantify potential loss or damage to seagrass beds.” These “post construction surveys [ ] will be used to determine any adverse impacts not anticipated as a result of the project.” In addition to mitigating for anticipated impacts, the FDOT is required to perform one additional acre of seagrass mitigation to offset unanticipated seagrass impacts in Lake Surprise. Seagrass impacts anticipated in this Project account for 7.3 acres of the total 103.9 acres of wetlands that will’ be impacted. The Corps appropriately assessed the sufficiency of mitigation for impacts to submerged habitats in this case based upon acreage ratios. Based on the extent of seagrass mitigation required, the FDOT identified sites where the mitigation could be accomplished. It noted that while the Boca Chica Mitigation Site lies outside the Project boundaries, this site is within the Florida' Keys National Marine Sanctuary and, therefore, within the same geographic area. Nevertheless, both the EPA and the NMFS, in their comments to the Corps, specifically inquired about the availability of mitigation,, areas closer to the Project site. The FDOT responded directly to these inquiries, explaining that it had conducted a thorough search for sites closer to the Project, but none “would provide the necessary mitigation acreage to offset impacts to seagrasses.” According to the FDOT, the primary problem was that “[m]ost of the potential sites were small-scale restoration areas located on privately owned property.” The Boca Chica Mitigation Site, by contrast, was a “larger, regionally significant seagrass restoration sites located on publicly owned lands,” able to accommodate the 20.25 acres of seag-rass mitigation needed for the Project. Thus, the FDOT concluded: “The Boca Chica Seagrass Mitigation Project, although 100 miles away from the [Project], is the only large-scale seagrass restoration site available on public lands within the Florida Keys that will meet the seagrass mitigation needs of the Project.” The Corps’ decision to grant the Section 404 Permit rests, in part, on its conclusion that the issuance of the permit was not contrary to the public interest. The justifications in support of the Corps’ decision to issue the permit are set forth in a 70-page Statement of Findings/EA dated August 13, 2004. The Corps documented its consideration of the relevant public interest factors in that statement. With regard to the public interest in navigation, the Corps determined that: “Navigation will not be adversely impacted by the Project. The design of Jewfish Creek Bridge maintains the vertical and horizontal clearances over the navigable portion of Jewfish Creek.” Jewfish Creek is part of the In-tracoastal Waterway, which affords continuous, protected passage for more than 1,243 miles between Norfolk, Virginia and Key West, Florida. The toll free channel is used by commercial light-draft vessels and tows unable to navigate long stretches in the open ocean, and by pleasure craft. Many small boat and recreational facilities are found along the waterway. Jewfish Creek connects Barnes Sound, with depths of 7 to 10 feet along the channel, to Black-water Sound, with depths of 7 to 9 feet. Depths along Jewfish Creek vary from 8 to 12 feet. Only shallow draft pleasure and commercial vessels are capable of using the Jewfish Creek channel. The Corps further noted in the record that “large sailing vessels must use Hawk’s Channel (oceanside) because the Intra-Coastal Waterway, which includes Jewfish Creek, has a relatively shallow controlling depth.... This will continue to be true even if a 65 foot clearance bridge were built.” C. The ESA Claims. In 1991, the FDOT completed an Endangered Species Biological Assessment addressing impacts of the original four-lane version of the Project. The FDOT compiled an updated Biological Assessment in December 2003, noting that the Project had been minimized in scope, upfront mitigation had been completed, and design modifications had been included to benefit potentially affected endangered species. Based in part on information included in the FDOT’s 2003 Biological Assessment and in accordance with Section 7 of the ESA, the Corps pursued consultations with the FWS and the NMFS to further ascertain potential Project impacts on endangered species. In its February 12, 2004 letter, the FWS concurred with the Corps’ determination that the Project is “not likely to adversely affect” the endangered American crocodile, the endangered wood stork, the endangered Everglade snail kite, the endangered Key Largo woodrat, the endangered Key Largo cotton mouse, the threatened bald eagle, the endangered Cape Sable seaside sparrow, the threatened eastern indigo snake, and the endangered Schaus swallowtail butterfly. Among the proposed mitigation measures employed to avoid vehicle-related crocodile mortality, box culverts will be built to enable crocodiles to pass under the roadway, while new fencing will prevent the animals from entering the roadway. On February 20, 2004 the FWS issued its Biological Opinion concluding that the Project “is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the manatee and is not likely to adversely modify critical habitat.” The FWS’ determination with respect to the manatee was based, in part, on the FWS’ analysis of the Project’s potential adverse impacts due to any change in watercraft use in the area. The FWS observed, “This proposed project will not provide increased watercraft access in the area. The propose [sic] removal of the Lake Surprise Causeway, and the removal and reconstruction of the bridges over Lake Surprise and Jewfish Creek are not expected to change patterns of watercraft use in the project area.” In assessing the potential adverse effects of the 2LSP on the manatee, the FWS was aware that the removal of the existing US-1 Lake Surprise Causeway would restore historic navigational and hydrologic connectivity between eastern and western Lake Surprise. It noted that: Another proposed design change in the project will affect navigation in Lake Surprise.... Small boats and personal water craft [sic] will be able to pass back and forth under the low-level portion of the new Jewfish Creek/Lake Surprise Bridge after the Lake Surprise Causeway has been removed to an elevation of-2.0 feet NGVD. Nevertheless, the FWS opined that the Project will not change patterns of watercraft use in the project area because operation of watercraft in both the eastern and western portion of Lake Surprise is part of the existing “environmental baseline,” noting that “[mjanatees are known to occur within Jewfish Creek and Lake Surprise, and powerboats are known to operate in these areas.” The environmental baseline also incorporates existing speed zones and other manatee protection measures. For example, the FWS noted that “Lake Surprise east of the existing causeway has been designated as ‘no wake’ by the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.” In its Biological Opinion, the FWS opined that based on its analysis: It does not appear that the rate of watercraft-related manatee mortality is increasing significantly in this subset of the action area. In addition, the proposed project is not expected to change watercraft use patterns or increase war tercraft traffic in the action area. The majority of boat traffic will still occur within the AIW and boaters will still be required to observe the “no wake” zone within 100 feet of the new bridge structure over Jewfish Creek. Consequently, it is our view that there are no indirect effects associated with construction of the proposed project. In the summary conclusion of its opinion, the FWS stated: After reviewing the current status of the manatee, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service’s biological opinion that the action, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the manatee and is not likely to adversely modify critical habitat. Our conclusion is based on the fact that this project will not increase watercraft access nor change watercraft use patterns in the area. ' On August 6, 2004, the NMFS issued its letter concurring with the Corps’ determination that the Project is not likely to adversely affect protected sea turtles or the smalltooth sawfish. The NMFS noted that direct impacts on the sawfish (e.g., injury or death from contact with excavation equipment/piles) are unlikely because sawfish are mobile and can avoid the area during construction. Moreover, the NMFS observed that commercial and recreational catches of smalltooth sawfish are very rare, as detailed by the NMFS in the Federal Register notice listing the species as endangered. The NMFS also noted that “[vjessel traffic is restricted within the project area. A no-access buffer zone and an idle speed zone exists within the project area for manatees and the American crocodile,” and that “existing speed zones will provide additional protection for sea turtles that may enter the area.” As part of its analysis, the NMFS considered the beneficial effects of the Project’s mitigation program in assessing the extent of any potential adverse impacts on species. Specifically, the NMFS, in its letter to the Corps, notes that while 33.7 acres of mangrove habitat will be lost as a result of the Project, 82 acres of mangrove habitat in the action area have been restored prior to the beginning of construction, and also that “[a]n additional 5.2 acres of manatee foraging habitat will be created. Furthermore, the proposed causeway removal is expected to improve water quality in Lake Surprise and benefit the manatee by improving existing foraging habitat.” In summary, the NMFS concluded that: Based on your description of the proposed activity and your commitment to protect federally-listed species, we concur with your determination that this project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect federally-listed species or designated critical habitat under NOAA Fisheries’ purview. We believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the ESA have been satisfied and no further consultation is required. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. The NEPA Claims Against the FHWA. Plaintiffs first challenge the FHWA’s utilization of a “categorical exclusion” instead of preparing a supplemental EIS to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Road Safety Improvements portion of the Two Lane Safety Project. As discussed above, NEPA requires an action agency to consider the environmental impacts of any “major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). This consideration may take the form of an EIS (or a supplemental EIS), an EA or a categorical exclusion. The FHWA approved the Road Safety Improvements contained within the 2LSP under NEPA by finding the improvements to be “categorically excluded” from the class of actions for which an EIS or EA is required. Thus, the Court must determine whether the FHWA’s use of a categorical exclusion provides the appropriate level of environmental review for this portion of the Project. In order to do so, a review of the pertinent regulatory guidelines for categorical exclusions is necessary. These guidelines provide that in appropriate cases of environment review neither an EIS nor an EA is required. See 23 C.F.R. § 771.115. The Council on Environmental Quality’s (“CEQ”) NEPA regulations authorize the use of exclusions for those categories of actions “which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and which have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency in implementation of these regulations.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.4. Pursuant to CEQ regulations, each federal agency is charged with developing criteria to determine the appropriate level of environmental types of actions. 40 C.F.R. § 1507.3(b)(2). See also 23 C.F.R. § 771.115 (FHWA regulation describing three classes of environmental review— EIS, EA, or CE [categorical exclusion], each requiring a different level of NEPA documentation). These regulations further direct that action agencies establish procedures and criteria for determining whether their proposed actions require an EA or an EIS or whether the actions fall into categories which, by their nature, do not require either an EA or an EIS. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500.4(p), 1501.4, 1508.4. In accordance with this a