N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
DESER T PR O TEC TIVE C OUNC IL, a C a l ifornia non-profit c orporation; e t a l., Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. U.S. DEPAR T M ENT OF THE INTER IOR ; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-55561 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-01281-GPC
PC L M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Gonz a lo P. C urie l, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 3, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FAR

R IS, B YB EE, a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s . Pla intiffs a

ppe a l the distric t

c o urt’ s judgm e nt de ny ing Pla i ntiffs’ m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt a

nd gra nting De fe nda

nts’ m otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt. W e have jurisdic tion pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED N OV 19 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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.W e re vie w a g e nc y c om plia nc e with theNationa l Environm e nta l Polic y Ac t (“NEPA” ) and the Fe de ra l La nd Polic y and M ana ge m e nt Ac t (“ FLPM A” ) a s outline d in theAdm inistra tive Proc e dure Ac t (“ APA” ). E arth Island Inst. v

. U.S. Fore st Se rv . , 697 F.3d 1010, 1013 (9th C ir. 2012). Unde r the APA, we m ay se t a side an a ge nc y

a c tion only

if it is “ arbitra

ry , c a pric ious, a

n a buse of disc re tion, or othe rwise not in a c c orda

nc e with la

w.” 5 U.S.C . § 706(2)(A). The distric t c ourt a lso re vie we d this B ure a

u of La nd M ana ge m e nt (“ B LM ” ) a c tion unde r the arbitra ry and c a pric ious sta

nda rd. W e re vie w de novo thedistric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt. Gardne r

v . U.S. Bure au of Land Mgmt. , 638 F.3d 1217, 1220 (9th C ir. 2011). 1. NEPA re quire s fe de ra l a ge nc ie s to follow c e rta in proc e dure s a n d ta ke a

“ ha rd look” at e nvironm e n ta l c onse que nc e s. Idaho C onse rv ation Le aguev . Mumma , 956 F.2d 1508, 1519 (9th C ir. 1992). NEPA re gula tions re quire a ge nc ie s to m ake “ e nvironm e nta l inform ation . . . a va ila b le to publicoffic ia ls a

nd c itiz e ns be fore de c isions a

re m a de , ” 40 C .F.R . § 1500.1(b), a n d “ insure the . . . sc ie ntific inte grity [] of the disc ussions a nd a na ly se s in e nvironm e nta l im pa c t sta te m e nts [(“ EIS” )] ,” § 1502.24. NEPA also re quire s a g e nc ie s to disc uss a ppropria te m itiga tion m e a sure s in a

n EIS “ in suffic ie n t de ta il to e nsure that e nvironm e nta l

-2-c onse q

ue nc e s ha ve be e n fa irly

e va luate d.” R o be r tson v . Me thow Valle y C itize ns C ounc il , 490 U.S. 332, 352 (1989). The distric t c ourt did not err in de te rm ining tha t the B LM c om

plie d with NEPA, be c a

use the B LM suffic ie ntly

e va luate d a

nd disc lose d the e nvironm e nta l im pa c ts of the Oc otillo wind e ne rgy fa c ility proje c t (the “ Proje c t ” ). Pla intiffs c onte nd tha

t the y we re not provide d with a n opportunity

for public c om

m e nt on 34 ra ptor studie s tha

t we re c ite d

in the fina l Avia

n a nd B at Prote c tion Pla

n (“ AB PP” ), but not in the

dra ft AB PP. A m itiga

tion pla n, suc h a s the AB PP, doe s not ne e d to be in fina l form

to c om ply with NEPA’ s proc e d

ura l re quire m e nts. Se e N at’l Park s & C onse rv ation Ass’n v . U.S. De p’t of Transp. , 222 F.3d 677, 681 n.4 (9th C ir. 2000). The dra ft EIS c onc lude d tha t ra ptor use of the Proje c t site wa s low a nd provide d supporting evide nc e . 1 Pla intiffs c o m m e nte d on the dra ft EIS and did not take issue with this c onc lusion. The fina l EIS wa s ava ila

ble for c om

m e nt during the 3 0-da y prote s t pe riod, a

n d Pla intiffs did not c om

m e nt on thefina l AB PP’ s c om pa rison of ra

ptor da t a , de spite subm itting c o m m e n ts on othe r a spe c ts of the

1 The dra ft EIS inc lude d the re sults of ra ptor m igration c ount a

nd a v ia n point c ount surve y s, a

nd a B iologic a l Te c hnic a l R e port, whic h c onc lude d tha t the c ollision risk of spe c ia l sta tus ra ptor spe c ie s wa s low. Thedra ft a n d fina l EIS a lso c ite the C alifornia Guide line

s for Re duc ing Impac ts to Birds and Bats from W ind Ene rgy De v e lopme nt

(2007), a public ly

ava i la ble doc um e nt tha

t c o nta ins m

uc h of the d ata from the 34 ra ptor studie s c i te d in the fina l AB PP.

-3-fina l EIS. Ac c ordingly , Pla intiffs ha ve not shown tha

t the B LM a c te d in a

n arbitra ry and c a pric ious m anne r by

not inc luding c e rta in ra

ptor studie s in thedra ft AB PP. Sim ila rly , Pla intiffs ha

ve not shown tha

t the m e thodologie s use d by the B LM in c onduc ting m igration surve y s we re arbitra ry or c a pric ious. W

hile Pla i ntiffs que stion theB LM ’ s m e thodologie s a s the y re late to the tim ing of ra

ptor m igration surve y s, the fina l EIS c onta i ns a re a s one d a

na ly sis of the m igration a nd pre s e nc e of Swa inson’ s ha wks a nd othe r ra

ptors a t the Proje c t site . W e are “ m ost de fe re ntia l whe n re vie w ing sc ie ntific judgm e nts a nd te c hnic a l a

na ly se s within the a ge nc y ’ s e xpe rtise unde r NEPA” and will not “ im pose [ourse lve s] a s a

pa ne l of sc ie ntists.” Se e N

ativ e Ec osy

ste ms C ounc il v
. W

e l don , 697 F.3d 1043, 1051 (9th C ir. 2012) (inte rna l c i tations a nd quota tion m arks om i tte d). Furthe r, the B LM inc l ude d a

re a sona bly c om ple te disc ussion of mitiga tion m e a s ure s in thefina l EIS. It wa s not a

rbitra ry an d c a pric ious for thefina l EIS to re quire turbine c urta ilm e nt for golde n e a gle s a

n d not othe r ra

ptors, be c a

use the spe c ia l le g a l sta

tus of golde n e a gle s justifie d diffe re n t m itiga tion m e a sure s. 2. FLPM A a

uthoriz e s the De pa

rtm e nt of Inte rior to gra

nt rights-of-wa

y a c ross public la n ds for va rious purpose s, inc luding for “ sy ste m s for ge ne ration, transm ission, a

nd distribution of e le c tric e ne rgy .” 43 U.S.C . § 1761(a)(4). The s e -4-gran ts m

u st “ re quire c om

plia nc e with Sta

te sta nda rds for . . . e nvironm e nta l prote c tion . . . if those

sta nda rds a re m ore stringe nt tha

n a pplic a ble Fe de ra l sta nda rds.” § 1765(a)(iv). The grants m ust a lso inc lude te rm s a

nd c onditions tha

t

“ m inim iz e dam a ge to . . . fish a nd wildlife ha

bita t a nd othe rwise prote c t

the e nvironm e nt.” § 1765(a )(ii). The B LM did not a c t a

rbitra rily and c a

pric iously in gra nting a right-of-wa

y for the Proje c t. The right-of-wa y e xplic itly re quire s c o m

plia nc e with sta

t e la w. C ontra ry to Pla intiffs’ argum e nt, the C a l ifornia De pa rtm e n t of Fish a

n d W ildlife ha s not interpre te d the C a lifornia Fish a nd Ga m e C o de a s re quiring wind ene rgy fa c i litie s to pre ve n t a ll bird a n d bat fata litie s. The right-of-wa y a l so inc lude s te rm s and c onditions m

inim iz i ng da

m a ge to wildlife

ha bita t a n d prote c ting the e nvironm e nt. The right-of-wa y wa s not re quire d to inc l ude turbine c urta ilm e nt for a ll ra ptor spe c ie s a s a

m itiga tion m e a sure . The Proje c t a dopte d suffic ie nt m itiga tion m e a sure s de signe d to m inim iz e dam a ge to wildlifeha bita t. 3. “ [B ] e c a

u s e the pre se nc e of one pa rty with sta nding is suffic ie nt to sa

tisfy Artic le III’ s c a se -or-c ontrove rsy re quire m e nt,” we do not ne e d to de t e rm ine whe the r the La

bore rs’ Union la c ke d orga niz ationa l sta

n ding. Rumsfe ld v
. Forum for Ac ad. & Institutional Rights, Inc
. , 547 U.S. 47, 52 n.2 (2006). The La bore rs’

-5-Union’ s c la im s and a rgum e nts we re none the le ss fully pre s e nte d to thedistric t c ourt by its m e m be r Pla intiff. 4. In its initia

l c om pla i nt, Pla intiffs did not a de quate ly ple a d c e rta in NEPA c la im s. None the le ss, the distric t c ourt m a de a m e rits de te rm ination on a ll of Pla i ntiffs’ unple a de d c la im s during thesum m ary judgm e n t

proc e s s. De fe nda

nts a lso fully re sponde d to a ll of the c la im s. The re fore , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion in re fusing to gra nt Pla intiffs le ave to a

m e nd the c om

pla i nt to a dd the s e c la im s. Suc h am e ndm e nt would ha ve be e n futile an d subje c t to dism issa l. Se e Moore

v . K ay port Pac k

ageEx pre ss, Inc
. , 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th C ir. 1989). AFFIRM E D .

-6-