the agency with responsibility for carrying out its policies and representing the agency in its dealings with the federal government, the Director possesses a sufficient connection to the alleged violation of federal law. Our jurisprudence supports the district court’s conclusion that a state official violates federal law by continuing work on a “major federal action” when the requirements of NEPA and its implementing regulations have not been satisfied. E.g., Gilchrist, 808 F.2d at 1043 (finding county officials can be enjoined from pursuing a project before federal participants in the project had complied with NEPA); Ely II, 497 F.2d at 257 (finding state officials can be barred from using federal funds on projects that do not comply with NEPA); Arlington Coalition, 458 F.2d at 1329 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, because it asserts the Director’s
holding that the contribution by a federal agency of 531 million toward a project did not constitute a major federal action because the funding represented less than 10 of the 584 billion project cost holding that vermonts licensing scheme was preempted by the fpa because it enabled the state to thwart a federal project by withholding a state permit holding that permitting a state official to proceed with a highway project despite alleged nepa violations by federal participants in the project would make a sham of the reconsideration required by federal law holding that alleged violations of a state statute did not give rise to federal constitutional claims holding that intervenors could appeal and challenge the grant of injunctive relief by defending the governments action against alleged violations of nepa when the federal defendants decided not to appeal