Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-13-15383/USCOURTS-ca9-13-15383-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 

---

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SIERRA CLUB; CENTER FOR

BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY; DEFENDERS

OF WILDLIFE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT;

JAMES KENNA, in his official

capacity as California State Director,

Bureau of Land Management;

SALLY JEWELL

*

, in her official

capacity as Secretary of the Interior,

Defendants-Appellees,

NORTH SKY RIVER ENERGY, LLC,

Intervenor-Defendant–Appellee.

No. 13-15383

D.C. No.

1:12-cv-01193-

AWI-JLT

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Anthony W. Ishii, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

February 5, 2015—San Francisco, California

* Sally Jewell is substituted for her predecessor pursuant to Fed. R.

App. P. 43(c)(2).

 Case: 13-15383, 05/27/2015, ID: 9550424, DktEntry: 52-1, Page 1 of 14
2 SIERRA CLUB V. BUREAU OF LAND MGMT.

Filed May 27, 2015

Before: Richard C. Tallman and Johnnie B. Rawlinson,

Circuit Judges, and Raymond J. Dearie, Senior District

Judge.**

Opinion by Judge Rawlinson

SUMMARY***

Environmental Law

The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment

upholding the decision of the United States Bureau of Land

Management to grant a right-of-way over federal land for a

wind energy project developed on private land by intervenor

North Sky River Energy, LLC.

The Wind Project was developed near Tehachapi,

California; and the Road Project was initiated when North

Sky applied to the BLM for a right-of-way to connect the

Wind Project to an existing state highway. Because the Wind

Project could be built without the federal Road Project, and

because the federal Road Project had independent utility, the

BLM concluded that the Wind Project was not subject to

formal consultation under the Endangered Species Act, and

** The Honorable Raymond J. Dearie, Senior United States District

Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

 

*** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 13-15383, 05/27/2015, ID: 9550424, DktEntry: 52-1, Page 2 of 14
SIERRA CLUB V. BUREAU OF LAND MGMT. 3

need not be analyzed as a connected action under the National

Environmental Policy Act.

The panel held that the Wind Project did not trigger

BLM’s duty to initiate consultation with the United States

Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act. 

The panel also held that the Wind Project did not trigger

BLM’s duty to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

under the National Environmental Policy Act because the

Wind Project was not a federal action or connected to the

Road Project.

COUNSEL

Matthew Vespa, Sierra Club, San Francisco, California; Jason

C. Rylander (argued), Defenders of Wildlife, Washington,

D.C.; Lisa T. Belenky, Center for Biological Diversity, San

Francisco, California; and Babak Naficy, Law Offices of

Babak Naficy, San Luis Obispo, California, for PlaintiffAppellants.

Robert G. Dreher, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jared

Pettinato, Stephen Finn, Bradley H. Oliphant, and Lane N.

McFadden (argued), Attorneys, United States Department of

Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division,

Washington, D.C.; and Gregory Russell, United States

Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor,

Washington, D.C., for Defendants-Appellees.

Daniel J. Dunn (argued), Andrew L. Spielman, Jennifer L.

Biever, and Margaret A. Parish, Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP,

Denver, Colorado; and Zachary R. Walton, Christine W.

 Case: 13-15383, 05/27/2015, ID: 9550424, DktEntry: 52-1, Page 3 of 14
4 SIERRA CLUB V. BUREAU OF LAND MGMT.

Griffith, and Elizabeth L. Bridges, SSL Law Firm, LLP, San

Francisco, California for Intervenor-Defendant–Appellee.

OPINION

RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs-Appellants Sierra Club, Center for Biological

Diversity, and Defenders of Wildlife (collectively Sierra

Club) appeal the district court ruling upholding the decision

by the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to

grant a right-of-way over federal land (Road Project) for a

wind energyproject (Wind Project) developed on private land

by Intervenor-Appellee North SkyRiver Energy, LLC (North

Sky). Because the Wind Project does not trigger the (1) duty

to consult under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or

(2) duty to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), we

affirm the decision of the district court.

I. BACKGROUND

The Wind Project is a wind energy project developed by

North Sky on more than 12,000 acres of private land located

in the Sierra Nevada mountain range, northeast of Tehachapi,

California. The Road Project was initiated when North Sky

applied to the BLM for a right-of-way over federal land to

connect the Wind Project to an existing state highway. The

right-of-way (Road Project) would contain underground

power and fiber optic communication lines from the Wind

Project to California’s energy grid.

 Case: 13-15383, 05/27/2015, ID: 9550424, DktEntry: 52-1, Page 4 of 14
SIERRA CLUB V. BUREAU OF LAND MGMT. 5

North Sky’s original request to the BLM included wind

turbines on BLM land. Several months later, North Sky

withdrew the original request and changed the proposal

(Revised Proposal) to eliminate the turbines on federal land. 

Instead, North Sky sought permission to use and improve

some existing BLM roads, to “construct a transmission

generation tie (gen-tie) line, and construct new roads to

access private property owned by” North Sky.

1

The Revised Proposal also identified an “alternative

route” of access to the Wind Project that traversed private

land only (Private Road Option). The Revised Proposal noted

that the Private Road Option would have “topographical

constraints,” which would require “earthmoving measures

such as cut-and-fill, grading,” “possible stream alteration,”

“[b]ulldozing, blasting, and tree-clearing.” That level of

disturbance would “greatly impact vegetation and wildlife

habitat,” and possibly cause erosion. After considering

“accessibility, distance, road condition, and potential

environmental impacts[,]” North Sky rejected the Private

Road Option in favor of the access Road Project “to utilize as

much existing road as possible, and thereby minimize

environmental impacts.”

Internal communications among BLM employees track

the BLM’s review of the evolving project. Initially, BLM

employees anticipated seeking consultation on the Wind

Project as an interdependent or interrelated activity under

section 7 of the ESA. But in these discussions, BLM staff did

not consider the Private Road Option. The BLM later

received and considered a draft environmental impact report

1 The gen-tie line would enable harvested wind energy to be transmitted

to the main power grid.

 Case: 13-15383, 05/27/2015, ID: 9550424, DktEntry: 52-1, Page 5 of 14
6 SIERRA CLUB V. BUREAU OF LAND MGMT.

prepared by Kern County during its state-level review of the

Wind Project. The report from Kern County addressed the

feasibility of the Private Road Option, which it described as

requiring improvements “on up to 28 miles” of existing roads

and construction of 2.5 miles of new roads through privatelyowned land. Nonetheless, North Sky submitted documents to

the BLM advising that the company could pursue the Private

Road Option if their right-of-way application were denied.

After review of the Revised Proposal and related

documents, the BLM issued an environmental assessment, in

which the BLM found that the Road Project would have no

significant environmental impact. Therefore, the BLM was

not required to (1) consult with the United States Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS) under the ESA, or (2) prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement under NEPA. This

determination depended in large part upon the BLM’s

conclusion that the Private Road Option was a viable

alternative to the Road Project.

The only public comment received was from Sierra Club

challenging, inter alia, the viability of the Private Road

Option. However, the BLM responded that it had analyzed

the Private Road Option as a “technically and economically

feasible” alternative to the Road Project. The BLM

determined that North Sky’s pursuit of the Private Road

Option, if the BLM denied easements over federal land for

the Road Project, was “neither remote nor speculative.” The

BLM noted that the Road Project would “provide dust

control, reduce erosion, and reduce unauthorized motor

vehicle access to the Pacific Crest Trail.” Because the Wind

Project could be built without the federal Road Project, and

because the federal Road Project had independent utility, the

BLM concluded that the Wind Project was not subject to

 Case: 13-15383, 05/27/2015, ID: 9550424, DktEntry: 52-1, Page 6 of 14
SIERRA CLUB V. BUREAU OF LAND MGMT. 7

formal consultation under the ESA, and need not be analyzed

as a connected action under NEPA.

The BLM initially sought informal consultation under the

ESA with the FWS about the impact of the Road Project on

the desert tortoise and California Condor. The BLM

withdrew consultation after the agencies determined that the

desert tortoise and California Condor were not present in the

Road Project area. The BLM also issued a Finding of No

Significant Impact under NEPA after concluding that the

Road Project would not have a significant environmental

impact. The BLM noted that, because of the existence of the

Private Road Option, North Sky was expected to go forward

with the Wind Project regardless of whether it received the

right-of-way grant from the BLM.

After the BLM issued a permit for the Road Project,

Sierra Club sued the BLM, alleging that the decision to grant

the easement through federal land violated both the ESA and

NEPA. Applying the arbitrary and capricious standard of

review, the district court denied Sierra Club’s motion for

summary judgment and granted the BLM’s and North Sky’s

motions for summary judgment. Sierra Club filed a timely

appeal.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment

in favor of the BLM de novo and the agency decision under

an arbitrary and capricious standard. See Chemehuevi Indian

Tribe v. Jewell, 767 F.3d 900, 903 (9th Cir. 2014) (summary

judgment); Friends of the Wild Swan v. Weber, 767 F.3d 936,

942 (9th Cir. 2014) (Administrative Procedure Act).

 Case: 13-15383, 05/27/2015, ID: 9550424, DktEntry: 52-1, Page 7 of 14
8 SIERRA CLUB V. BUREAU OF LAND MGMT.

III. DISCUSSION

The sole issue on appeal is whether the BLM was

required to initiate consultation with the FWS under the ESA,

or to prepare an EIS under NEPA analyzing the Wind Project. 

We conclude that no consultation or EIS was required.

A. The Endangered Species Act

The ESA “requires federal agencies to ensure, in

consultation with the appropriate wildlife agency, that any

action authorized or carried out by the agency is not likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species

or threatened species” or habitat. Alliance for the Wild

Rockies v. U.S. Dept. of Agric., 772 F.3d 592, 601 (9th Cir.

2014) (emphasis added) (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted). The ESA consultation requirement is

triggered only by federal agency actions. See 16 U.S.C.

§ 1536(a). The federal agency must consider “the direct and

indirect effects of [its] action on the species or critical habitat,

together with the effects of other activities that are

interrelated or interdependent with that action . . .” 50 C.F.R.

§ 402.02.

1. Direct Effects

The duty to consult on the direct effects of an agency

action is triggered only if the agency action is “affirmatively

authorized, funded, or carried out [by a federal agency]” and

“in which there is discretionary Federal involvement or

control.” Karuk Tribe of Cal. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 681 F.3d

1006, 1020–21 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted).

 Case: 13-15383, 05/27/2015, ID: 9550424, DktEntry: 52-1, Page 8 of 14
SIERRA CLUB V. BUREAU OF LAND MGMT. 9

Although the BLM was required to and did consult on the

direct effects of the Road Project, the BLM was not required

to consult on the direct effects of the Wind Project because

the Wind Project did not constitute agency action. The Wind

Project was developed by a private company on private land. 

Although North Sky ultimately sought a right-of-way over

BLM land to more directly access the Wind Project, North

Sky had the option of an alternative route traversing private

property. Consequently, construction of the Wind Project

was not dependent on existence of the federal right-of-way

(Road Project). In other words, the Wind Project and the

Road Project were separate and independent ventures, one

public (Road Project) and one private (Wind Project).

The Wind Project was not funded, authorized, or

constructed by any federal agency. Nor was there any

discretionary involvement or control over any part of the

Wind Project by any federal agency that had “the capacity to

inure to the benefit of a protected species . . . .” Karuk Tribe,

681 F.3d at 1024 (citation omitted). Consequently, no duty

to consult arose under the ESA. See Alliance for the Wild

Rockies, 772 F.3d at 600–01; see also Karuk Tribe, 681 F.3d

at 1020–21, 1024.

2. Indirect Effects

In addition to consulting on the direct effects, federal

agencies must consult on the indirect effects of their proposed

actions. See San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v.

Locke, 776 F.3d 971, 1009 (9th Cir. 2014); see also 50 C.F.R.

§ 402.02. “To show that something is an indirect effect of the

proposed action, [the plaintiff] must demonstrate (1) that it is

caused by the action, (2) that it is later in time than the action,

and (3) that it is reasonably likely to occur. . . .” Locke,

 Case: 13-15383, 05/27/2015, ID: 9550424, DktEntry: 52-1, Page 9 of 14
10 SIERRA CLUB V. BUREAU OF LAND MGMT.

776 F.3d at 1009 (citation omitted). Only the first factor is in

dispute.

Citing to the ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook

prepared by the FWS and the National Marine Fisheries

Service, we have explained that indirect effects are

“attenuated” consequences of the agency action. Id. In doing

so, we repeated the Handbook’s example of the renewal of

“water services contracts in the San Joaquin Basin.” Id.

(alterations omitted). Residents could use the water from the

contracts to engage in agriculture. However, agricultural

development destroyed the habitat of listed species. This

destruction of habitat was not directly caused by renewing the

water services contract, but resulted indirectly from use of the

water that was provided through the contracts. See id.

In contrast, the record does not support the conclusion

that the Wind Project is an indirect effect of the Road Project. 

It cannot be fairly said that the Road Project caused the Wind

Project or brought it into existence. See 50 C.F.R. § 402.02.

Rather, the record reflects that the Wind Project would have

been completed without the BLM’s approval of the Road

Project, if North Sky had proceeded with the Private Road

Option.

3. Interrelated or Interdependent Actions

Sierra Club contends in the alternative that the BLM was

required to consider the effects of the Wind Project as an

activity interrelated to and/or interdependent with the Road

Project, thereby requiring consultation under the ESA.

“Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger

action and depend on the larger action for their justification. 

 Case: 13-15383, 05/27/2015, ID: 9550424, DktEntry: 52-1, Page 10 of 14
SIERRA CLUB V. BUREAU OF LAND MGMT. 11

Interdependent actions are those that have no independent

utility apart from the action under consideration.” Id. “The

test for interrelatedness or interdependentness is ‘but for’

causation: but for the federal project, these activities would

not occur. . . .” Sierra Club v. Marsh, 816 F.2d 1376, 1387

(9th Cir. 1987) (emphasis added) (citation omitted).

As in Sierra Club, the private Wind Project was not part

of the federal Road Project, and was not dependent on it. See

id. Because North Sky was prepared to use a private access

road to complete the Wind Project if the federal Road Project

did not materialize, the federal Road Project was not the “but

for” cause of the private Wind Project.

Even if we accept Sierra Club’s argument that the Road

Project was required to have utility apart from the Wind

Project, Sierra Club still would not prevail. As the BLM

noted, both projects are independent and have utility separate

and apart from each other; the Wind Project was viable with

or without the right-of-way over federal land, and the Road

Project served the independent purposes of dust control,

reducing erosion, and controlling unauthorized vehicle access

to a national trail. In sum, these projects fail the “but for”

causation test, and neither is an integral part of the other,

neither depends on the other for its justification, and each has

utility independent from the other. Id.; see also 50 C.F.R.

§ 402.02.

B. The National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA mandates that federal agencies taking any “major

Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human

environment” prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. 

San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d

 Case: 13-15383, 05/27/2015, ID: 9550424, DktEntry: 52-1, Page 11 of 14
12 SIERRA CLUB V. BUREAU OF LAND MGMT.

581, 642 (9th Cir. 2014) (alteration omitted). Major federal

actions include all actions “which are potentially subject to

Federal control and responsibility.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.18. 

The scope of the Environmental Impact Statement extends to

“connected, cumulative, and similar actions.” W. Watersheds

Project v. Abbey, 719 F.3d 1035, 1046 (9th Cir. 2013).

The Wind Project did not trigger consultation

requirements under the NEPA. See San Luis &

Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d at 642; see

also 40 C.F.R. § 1508.18. As explained, the Wind Project is

not a major federal action because the BLM has no control or

responsibility over any aspect of the Wind Project. See id.

In any event, the BLM would not have been required to

consider the effects of the Wind Project under NEPA because

the Road and Wind Projects are not connected, cumulative,

or similar actions.2See Cal. ex rel. Imperial Cnty. Air

Pollution Control Dist. v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 767 F.3d

781, 795 (9th Cir. 2014), as amended. “We apply an

‘independent utility’ test to determine whether multiple

actions are so connected as to mandate consideration in a

single EIS. The crux of the test is whether ‘each of two

projects would have taken place with or without the other and

thus had independent utility.’” Id.(emphases added) (citation

omitted); see also Pac. Coast Fed. of Fishermen’s Ass’ns v.

Blank, 693 F.3d 1084, 1098 (9th Cir. 2012) (same). We have

occasionally stated this same test alternatively as “when one

of the projects might reasonablyhave been completed without

the existence of the other, the two projects have independent

utility and are not ‘connected’ for NEPA’s purposes.” Pac.

2 Because Sierra Club contends only that the projects are connected, we

confine our discussion to that factor.

 Case: 13-15383, 05/27/2015, ID: 9550424, DktEntry: 52-1, Page 12 of 14
SIERRA CLUB V. BUREAU OF LAND MGMT. 13

Coast Fed. of Fishermen’s Ass’ns, 693 F.3d at 1098

(emphasis added) (citation and alteration omitted). Rather

than adopting a single independent utility test, we have

focused on whether “each of two projects would have taken

place with or without the other,” and have extended our

analysis to each project. Id. at 1098–99 (emphasis added).

The Road and Wind Projects have independent utility and

are not connected. See id. The Road Project was

independently useful for providing dust and stormwater

control and limiting access to the Pacific Crest Trail. See id.

And, North Sky would likely have developed the Wind

Project even without the access provided by the Road Project

because it could have accessed its land using the Private Road

Option. Thus, these projects had independent utility.

Finally, the BLM sufficiently evaluated the Wind Project

as a cumulative effect of the Road Project. The

environmental assessment contained a detailed analysis of

wind farms within 25 miles of the right-of-way, including the

North Sky wind farm. In sum, the BLM was not required to

prepare an Environmental Impact Statement under NEPA,

because the Wind Project was not a federal action or

connected to the Road Project.

The district court’s passing remark suggesting that the

California Environmental Quality Act Environmental Impact

Report could serve as a mechanism to satisfy NEPA was

harmless, as the NEPA requirements were not triggered for

the Wind Project and the BLM conducted an environmental

assessment for the Road Project.

Admittedly, the BLM initially indicated that consultation

might be required for the Wind Project. However, the BLM’s

 Case: 13-15383, 05/27/2015, ID: 9550424, DktEntry: 52-1, Page 13 of 14
14 SIERRA CLUB V. BUREAU OF LAND MGMT.

evolving analysis was not a change in a published regulation

or official policy. Cf. F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.,

556 U.S. 502, 514–16 (2012) (clarifying that an agency must

explain a change in official policy); id. at 536 (Kennedy, J.,

concurring) (same). And, the BLM’s change of view

regarding the need for consultation was adequately justified

after further investigation demonstrated the feasibility of

private access. See id. at 516. Thus, the BLM did not act

arbitrarily or capriciously when it changed its unofficial

position regarding consultation.

IV. CONCLUSION

The BLM did not violate the ESA when it determined that

consultation was not required under the ESA for the Wind

Project because the federal Road Project and the private Wind

Project are two separate projects, the Wind Project is not an

indirect effect of the Road Project, and the two projects are

not interrelated or interdependent. The BLM did not violate

NEPA when it determined that no EIS analyzing the Wind

Project was required because the Road and Wind Projects

have independent utility and are not connected actions.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 13-15383, 05/27/2015, ID: 9550424, DktEntry: 52-1, Page 14 of 14