N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LA C UNA DE AZTLAN SAC RED SITES PR OTEC TION C IR C LE ADVISOR Y C OM M ITTEE, e t a l., Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. U.S. DEPAR T M ENT OF INTERIOR , e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-56415 D.C . No. 5:11-c v-01478-GW -SS
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Ge orge H. W

u, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 4, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : WARDLAW

and HUR

W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s a

nd RIC E, *** C hie f Distric t Judge
. 

# F IL ED
M AR 04 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honora

ble Thom a s O. Ric e , C hie f Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion. 1La

C una De Az tla n Sa c re d Site s Prote c tion C i rc le Advisory C om m itte e , C Alifornia

n s for R e ne wa

ble Ene rgy , a

nd se ve ra l of the i r m e m

be rs a ppe a l the dism issa l of the ir c la i m s unde r the Ene rgy Polic y Ac t of 2005, a s a

m e nde d (“ EPAc t” ), the Nationa l Historic Pre se rvat ion Ac t (“ NHPA” ), and the Nationa l Environm e nta l Polic y

Ac t (“ NEPA” ). W e re vie w de novo, N . C nty
. C ommc ’ns C orp. v . C al. C atalog & Te c h

. , 594 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th C ir. 2010), a n d a ffirm
. 1. W e de ny

Ge ne s is Sola

r, LLC ’ s m otion for judic ia l notic e (Dkt. No. 21). 2. Pla intiffs ha

ve fa ile d to e sta

blish sta nding to pursue

a c la i m unde r Se c tions 1702 a

nd 1705 of the

EPAc t, 42 U.S.C . §§ 16512, 16516. To de m o nstra te individual sta

nding, a pla intiff m

ust “ have suffe re d or be im m ine ntly thre ate ne d with a c o nc re te and pa

rtic u l ariz e d ‘ injury

in fa c t’ tha

t is fa irly tra c e a

ble to the
c ha lle nge d a c tion of the de fe nda nt a nd like ly to be re dre s se d by

a favora ble judic ia l de c ision.” Le

x mark Int’l, Inc . v . Static C

ontrol C ompone nts, Inc
. , 134 S. C t. 1377, 1386 (2014) (c iting Lujan v . De fs. of W ildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). Eve n if we a ssum e Pla intiffs a de quate ly ple d injury -in-fa c t a

nd re dre s sa

b ility , the y have not suffic ie ntly

a lle ge d c a

usation. Pla intiffs m a

k e a c onc lusory

a lle gation tha

t the G e ne s is Sola

r Ene rgy Proje c t (“ Proje c t” ) would not ha ve gone forward without the fe de ra l loa

n gua ra nte e , but the y

a lle ge no supporting fac ts. Pla intiffs ha ve fa ile d to de m onstra

te tha t the ir a lle ge d injury

— suffe ring ha

rm to e nvironm e nta l 2and c ultura l re sourc e s at the Proje c t site

— is “ fa i rly

tra c e a ble ” to the Fe de ra l De fe nda nts’ a pprova l of the loa

n gua rante e for the Proje c t. 3. Pla intiffs ha

ve fa ile d to sta

te a c la im unde r Se c tion 106 of the NHPA, 54 U.S.C . § 306108, a

nd its im p le m e nting re g ulations, 36 C .F.R . pt. 800. First, Pla intiff Va

n Fle e t, a “ triba l m onitor” for the Fort M oja v e India n Tribe , doe s not ha

ve sta n ding to bring a c la im

for ina de quate triba l c onsulta tion on be ha lf of the Tribe
. The re gula t ions e xte n d the right to governm e nt-to-gove rnm e nt
c onsulta tion to the

Tribe , not its individua

l m e m be rs. Se e 36 C .F.R . § 800.2(c )(2). Se c ond, Pla intiffs ha

ve fa ile d to sta

te a c la im for fa ilure to involve Pla intiffs,
a s m e m be rs of the public , in the NHPA c o nsulta tion proc e s s. While a

fe de ra l
a ge nc y is re quire d to providea de quate opportunitie s for public involve m e nt, the
a ge nc y m ay

“ use [its] proc e dure s for public involve m e nt unde r [NEPA] or othe r program re quire m e n ts in lieu of [the NHPA’ s ] public involve m e nt re quire m e nts.” Id. § 800.2(d)(3). He re , Pla i ntiffs’ c la i m is re n de re d im pla usible by the NEPA doc um e nts— inc orporate d into the ple a ding by re fe re nc e
— e v ide nc ing suc h public involve m e nt opportunitie s.

34. Eve n if we a ssum e Pla intiffs ha ve sta nding, the y have fa i le d to sta t e a
c la im unde r NEPA, 42 U.S.C . §§ 4321-4370h, a nd its im ple m e nting re gula

tions, 40 C
. F.R . pts. 1500-1508. First, Pla intiffs fa ile d to sta te a c la im for fa ilure to pre pa

re a supple m e nta l
e nvironm e nta l im

pa c t sta te m e nt (“ EIS” ). An a ge nc y is re quire d

to pre pa re a supple m e nta l EIS if a

ne w proposa l or ne w inform at ion “ will ha ve a signific ant im pa c t on thee nvironm e nt in a m anne r not pre viously e v a luate d a

nd c onside re d.” W e s tlands W ate r Dist. v . U.S. De

p’t of Inte rior , 376 F.3d 853, 873 (9th C i r. 2004) (c ita tion omitte d). He re , Pla intiffs fa ile d to a lle g e tha t the origina l EIS did not
e va luate and c onside r the Proje c t’ s im pa c ts on c ultura l re sourc e s a nd the kit fox
suc h tha t a supple m e nta l EIS wa s re quire d. Se e id. Se c ond, Pla intiffs fa ile d

to sta te a c la im for fa ilure to pre p are a singleEIS. An a g e nc y

is re quire d to pre pa

re a singleNEPA re vie wdoc um e nt whe n proje c ts
are “ c onne c te d, c um

ulative , or sim ila

r a c tions.” Earth Island Inst. v . U.S. Fore

st Se rv . , 351 F.3d 1291, 1304 (9th C ir. 2003). He re , Pla i ntiffs fa ile d to a de quate ly
a lle ge tha t the Ge ne sis Proje c t a

nd othe r fa c ilitie s within the C D C A we re
c onne c te d, suc h tha

t t he Proje c t c ould not or would not proc e e d without a pprova l of the othe r proje c ts; c um ulative , suc h tha

t the proje c ts im

pa c t the sa

m e re sourc e s ;

4or sim i la

r, suc h tha

t the a ge nc y

wa s re quire d to a d dre ss the proje c ts in thesa m e NEPA re vie w doc um e nt. Se e id. at 1305-06. Third, Pla intiffs fa ile d to sta te a va lid c la im

for ina de quat e proje c t re v ie w. While an a ge nc y

m ust ta k e a “ ha rd look” at

the e nvironm e n t a l c onse que nc e s of its
m a jor propose d a c tions, C

tr. for Biologica l Div e r

sity v . U.S. Fore

s t Se r v . , 349 F.3d 1157, 1166 (9th C ir. 2003), Pla intiffs’ a lle gations a re c onc lusory

an d unsupporte d by fa c tua l e nha

nc e m e nt a

nd thus inade quate to surviveR ule 12(b)(6) dism issa l. Se e Ashc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). 5. Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion in de ny ing Pla intiffs le ave to file a

fifth a m e nde d c om

pla i nt. The distric t c ourt provide d Pla intiffs a n opportunity

to a m e nd e a c h

c l a im at le a st onc e , a

nd Pla intiffs ha

ve not de m onstra

te d tha t le ave to file a

fifth a m e nde d c om

pla int is wa

rrante d. Se e AE e

x
re l. He rnande

z v . C ounty of Tulare , 666 F.3d 631, 636 (9th C ir. 2012). AFFIRM E D.

5