looked to the proportion of federal funding to non-federal funding to determine whether there is a major federal action. If the amount of federal funding is insignificant or only provided with respect to a small segment of the project, the involvement of the federal agency may not constitute a “major federal action.” See, e.g., Rattlesnake Coal. v. EPA, 509 F.3d 1095, 1101 (9th Cir.2007) (“While significant federal funding can turn what would otherwise be a state or local project into a major federal action, consideration must be given to a great disparity in the expenditures forecast for the local and federal portions of the entire program.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Ka Makani, 295 F.3d at 960 (same); Sancho v. Dep’t of Energy, 578 F.Supp.2d 1258, 1267 (D.Haw.2008) (<HOLDING>); but cf. Sierra Club v. Fish & Wildlife Serv.,
holding that merely reporting concerns of mischarging a government project or investigating an employers noncompliance with federal or state regulations was insufficient to constitute protected activity under the fca 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 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 federal express despite the use of the word federal in its name is not a federal agency and therefore cannot be sued in this court