N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT QUEC HAN TRIB E OF THE FOR T YUM A INDIAN RESER VATION, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. U.S. DEPAR T M E NT OF THE INTER IOR ; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s, OC OTILLO EXPR

ESS LLC , Inte rve nor-De fe nda

ntAppe lle e . No. 13-55704 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-01167-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. 

# FIL ED D EC 21 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Que c ha n Tribe of the Fort Yum a India n R e s e rva tion (“ Que c ha

n Tribe ” )
a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r gran ting sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of the Appe l le e s, inc luding theB ure a u of La nd M ana ge m e nt (“ B LM ” ). Que c ha n Tribe
m a inta ins tha

t the B LM viola

te d (1) the C a l ifornia

De se rt C onse rva tion Are a (“ C DC A” ) Plan , (2) the Fe de ra l La nd Polic y and M ana g e m e n t Ac t (“ FLPM A” ),
and (3) the Nationa l Environm e nta l Polic y Ac t (“ NEPA” ) whe n it gra

n te d Oc otillo Expre ss LLC (“ Oc otillo” ) a right-of-wa

y to c onstruc t a

nd ope ra te the Oc otillo W ind Ene rgy

Fa c ility (“ O W EF Proje c t” or “ the Proje c t” ) ne ar Oc otillo, C a lifornia
. W e m ay a ffirm a distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt “ on a

ny ba sis supporte d by the re c ord.” Gordon v . Virtumundo, Inc
. , 575 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th C ir. 2009). B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c ts a

nd proc e dura l history

of this c a s e , we will not re c ount the m he re . 1. Que c ha n Tribe first c onte nds the B LM viola te d the C DC A Pla

n by fa iling to de te rm ine whe t

he r the OW EF Proje c t m e t the substa n tive re quire m e nts the Pla n im pose s on propose d use s of C la ss L la nd— t he c la ss of la

nd upon whic h the OW EF Proje c t is loc a te d. The C DC A Pla n gove rns a ll la

nd use a c tivitie s within the C DC A. B e c a

u se the OW EF Proje c t

is loc a te d on C DC A la

nd, the B LM wa s re quire d to e nsure the Proje c t c om plie d with thePla

n be fore granting theright-ofway . Signific antly , the C DC A Pla n inc lude s a

Pla n am e ndm e n t proc e ss tha t a llows
2the B LM to m ake c ha nge s to the Pla

n for a m u ltitudeof re a sons, inc luding
a c c om m odating a

spe c ific proje c t tha

t m ight not othe

rwise c om

ply with the C DC A Plan . Se e B L M , C a lifornia De se rt C onse rva tion Are a Plan 1980, a s a

m e nde d, at 119 (M a r. 1999) [he re ina fte r C DC AP]
. In the R e c ord of De c i sion gra nting a right-of-wa

y for the OW EF Proje c t, the B LM a dopte d a

C a te gory 3 Pla n am e ndm e nt to a c c om

m o date the Proje c t. Se e B LM , R e c ord of De c ision Oc otillo W ind Ene rgy Fa c ility and Am e ndm e nt to the C a lifornia De se rt C onse rva tion Are a Pla n , at 39 (M a

y 2012). The B LM am e nde d the C DC A Pla

n to de signa

te the a pproxim a te ly

10,151 a c re s of public la nd whe re the Proje c t wa s to be loc a te d a s suita ble for wind e ne rgy

de ve l opm e nt. Id. at 1. A C ate gory

3 a m e ndm e nt “ a c c om

m odate [s] a

re q ue st for a spe c ific use or a c tivity [that] will re q

uire a dditiona l a

na ly sis” of its own. C DC AP, at 119. A C a te gory 3 a m e ndm e nt, like a

z oning va

rianc e , a llows theB LM to c arve out a n e xc e ption to the

C DC A Pla

n for a spe c ific use or a c tivity
. Id. Onc e the B LM de te rm i ne s tha

t a spe c ific proje c t wa

rra nts a C a t e gory 3 a m e ndm e nt, tha

t proje c t is no longe r re quire d to c om ply with the substa

ntive re quire m e nts of the c la ss of la nd on whic h the proje c t is site d. R a the r, the proje c t is gove rne d by the Pla

n am e ndm e nt.

3W he n c onside ring a C a te gory 3 a m e ndm e nt, the Distric t M ana ge r be gins by
e va luating the“ a dditiona l a na ly sis” spe c i fic to the use or a c tivity for whic h the
am e ndm e nt is re que ste d. Id. a t 121. This additiona l a na ly s is is ge ne ra lly an Environm e nta l Im

pa c t Sta te m e nt (“ EIS” ); the re fore , a C at e gory 3 a m e ndm e nt doe s not re quire its own EIS. Id. at 119, 121. If the Distric t M an a ge r a

p prove s, he or she re c om m e nds the am e ndm e nt to theState Dire c tor. Id. a t 121. If theState Dire c t or a gre e s, the Distric t M ana ge r re nde rs a de c i sion a

nd issue s a

public notic e of the am e ndm e nt de c ision tha t c le arly e xpla ins how theC DC A Pla n would be
c ha nge d by the am e ndm e nt. Id. The B LM m ust the n a llow thirty

da y s for the public to obje c t to the am e ndm e nt. Id. Afte r re solving the obje c tions, theB LM
m ay a pprove the am e ndm e nt. Id. The Distric t M ana ge r a lso ha s a se rie s of six de te rm i nations a

nd obliga tions tha t m ust be c om

ple te d be fore the am e ndm e nt c an be a p prove d. Id. The B L M substa n tia lly c om p lie d with this proc e ss. Onc e the B LM a dopte d this C a t e gory 3 a m e ndm e nt to a c c om

m o date the OW EF Proje c t, the Proje c t wa s no longe r re quire d to c om ply with them

ultiple -use c la ss de signa

tions, guide line s, or e le m e nts for C l a ss L la n d. The re fore , e ve n if we
a gre e with Que c h an Tribe tha t the B LM fa ile d to de t e rm i ne whe the r the OW EF Proje c t m e t the substa

ntive re quire m e nts the Pla n im pose s on propose d use s of C la ss L la nd, we m u st ne ve rthe le ss c onc lude tha t the Proje c t

did not viola

te the
4C DC A Pla

n. The Proje c t wa s gove rne d by the Pla n am e ndm e nt rathe r tha

n the Plan itse l f. Ac c o rdingly , we a ffirm the distric t

c o urt’ s grant of sum

m ary judgm e n t finding tha

t the B LM did not viola

te the C DC A Pla

n. 2. Que c ha

n Tribe ne xt c onte nds tha t the B LM viola

te d FLPM A by
arbitra rily a ssigning the

inte rim Visua l R e sourc e M ana g e m e n t c la ssific at ion of the Proje c t site . FLPM A dire c t s the B LM to inve ntory public la nds a nd the ir
re sourc e s, inc luding the “ sc e nic va lue s” of public la nds. 43 U.S.C
. § 1711(a ). To inve ntory the sc e nic va lue s of public la nds, the B LM pre p are s a

Visua l R e sourc e Inve ntory (“ VR I” ) tha

t a s signs a

VR I C la ss (I through IV) to e a c h a re a of la nd
ana ly z e d. S

e e B LM , M anua l Ha

ndbook: Visua

l R e sourc e Inve ntory

(H-8410-1) (Jan. 17, 1986) [he re ina fte r VR I Handbook] . The VR I C la s s de signa tions a re m e re ly inform a tiona l; the y

do not c onstra in or limit la nd use a c tivitie s. Id. a t 6. Using thea ssigne d VR I C la sse s a s a ba sis, the B LM a ssigns Visua l R e sourc e M an a g e m e nt (“ VRM ” ) C la sse s (I through IV) to a n a re a , ty pic a l ly during the de ve lopm e nt of a la

nd use pla

n. Se e B LM , M a

n u a l Ha ndbook: Visua

l R e sourc e M an a g e m e nt (H-8400) (Apr. 5, 1984). VR M C la sse s “ pre sc ribe [] the am ount of
c ha nge a l lowe d

in the c ha

ra c te ristic la

ndsc a p e . ” Id. , Glossa

ry , at 6. VR

M C la ss I
a llows thele a st a

m ount of c ha

n ge to the e x isting c ha

ra c te r of the la

ndsc a pe and VRM C la ss IV pe rm its the g re a te st a m ount of c ha

nge . VR I Handbook, a

t 6–7.
5W he n a

ne w la n d use is propose d on public la nds whe re the gove rning la nd use pla n la c ks VR M C la ss de signa

t ions, the B LM m

ust e sta blish interim

VR M C la sse s. VRI Handbook, a t 7. The C DC A Pla

n doe s not provide VR I or VRM C la ss de signa tions for the la nd whe re Oc otillo propose d building the

OW E F Proje c t ; the re fore , the B LM wa s re quire d to e sta

blish interim

VR M C la sse s for the Proje c t site . In its fina l EIS for the O W EF Proje c t, the B LM a ssigne d the Proje c t site an inte rim VRM C l a ss of IV— the le a st re s tric tive c la ss. Que c ha n Tribe argue s tha

t this a ssignm e n t wa s arbitra ry and inc om

patible with there quire m e nts of C la ss L la n d sta t us. Aga in,
e ve n if we a gre e d with Que c h an Tribe , we c onc l ude tha t the B LM ’ s a

pprova l of the O W EF Proje c t (a

nd its interim

VR M C la ss IV de s igna

tion) wa s pe rm i ssible be c a use the B LM a dopte d a C a te gory 3 am e ndm e nt to theC DC A Pla n. W e ne e d not de c ide whe the r the VR M C la ss IV de signa

tion c o nflic ts with C l a ss L la n d sta tus, be c a use the Proje c t wa s gove rne d by the Pla n am e ndm e nt a

n d wa s not subje c t to the substa

ntive re quire m e nts of C la ss L la nd. Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm the d istric t c o urt’ s c onc lusion tha t the B LM did not viola

te FLPM A
. 3. Fina lly , Que c ha

n Tribe c la i m s tha

t the B LM viola

te d NEPA by

fa iling to
c onside r the c um

ulative im pa c ts of a lte rna tive e ne rgy proje c ts on a ll C la ss L la nds in the C D C A. Ea c h EIS m ust c onta in a

c um ulative e ffe c ts a

na ly sis, whic h
6“ an a ly z e [s] the im pa c t of [the ] propose d proje c t in light of tha

t proje c t’ s inte ra c tion with the e ffe c ts of pa st, c urre nt, a nd re a sona

bly fore se e a ble future proje c ts.” Lands C ounc i l v . Pow e ll , 395 F.3d 1019, 1028 (9th C ir. 2004); 40 C .F.R . § 1508.7. Age nc ie s ha

ve disc re tion in de t e rm ining thege ogra phic sc o pe of the c um

ulative
e ffe c ts a na ly sis, but m

u s t provide re a sone d support for the ge ogra phic sc ope of its
ana ly sis. Frie n d

s of the W ild Sw an v . W

e be r , 767 F.3d 936, 943 (9th C ir. 2014). The B LM an a ly z e d

the e ntire 12,436 a c re s of the propose d Proje c t site , plus
a te n-m ile ra dius in a sse ssing thec um ulative e ffe c ts on visual a nd c u ltura l
re sourc e s. The B LM re a sone d tha t the visibility

of the OW E F Proje c t would substa ntia lly dim inish be y ond te n m ile s a nd this a re a would e nc o m

pa ss a ny c om bine d e ffe c t s of the OW EF Proje c t a nd othe r proje c ts on c ultura l re sourc e s. This justific a tion suffic ie ntly supporte d the B LM ’ s c hose n ge ogra phic sc ope of the
c um ulat ive im pa c ts a na ly s is. The B LM ne e d not ha ve ana l y z e d the c um

ulat ive im pa c t of a lte rna tive e ne rgy proje c ts throughout a

ll C l a ss L la

n ds in the C DC A a s this would ha

ve be e n unduly

burde nsom e and it would ha ve dilute d the antic ipate d im pa c t of the OW EF Proje c t on re sourc e s in the proje c t are a . Se e Se l

k irk C onse rv ation All. v
. Forsgre n , 336 F.3d 944, 960 (9th C i r. 2003). The B LM ide ntifie d 116 pa st, pre se n t, a nd re a sona

bly fore se e a ble proje c ts that c ould ha ve an im pa c t on c ultura l re sourc e s in this a re a . The B LM the n
7de sc ribe d the e xisting da m a ge to c ultura l re sourc e s in tha t a re a and disc usse d ge ne ra lly how re a s ona

bly fore se e a ble proje c ts would further im pa c t those
re sourc e s. Suc h a

na ly s is wa s suffic ie nt to ide ntify and de sc ribe the c um

ulative im pa c ts on c ultura l re sourc e s. The B LM sim ila rly an a ly z e d e a c h pote ntia lly im pa c te d re sourc e . B e c a

use the B LM ’ s c um

ulative im p a c ts a n a l y s is wa s not
arbitra ry or unre a sona

ble , we c onc lude the B L M ’ s a na ly s is did not viola

te NEPA. AFFIRM E D.

8Que c han Tribe of Fort Yuma v
. DOI

, No. 13-55704 (Pa sa de na - Nove m b e r 2, 2015) B YB EE, C irc uit Judge , c onc urring in thejudgm e nt:

I re spe c tfully

disa g re e with the m a

jority ’ s de c ision to a

pprove the Oc otillo W ind Ene rgy

Fa c ility (“ O W EF” ) be c a

use the B LM am e nde d its C a lifornia De se rt C onse rva tion Are a

Pla n (“ C DC A Pla

n” ). In m y vie w the B LM a

pprove d the OW EF proje c t be c a

use it c onform e d to the C DC A Pla n, not a s a

wa y of short
c irc uiting our re v ie w. Sinc e 1980, theC DC A Pla n ha s provide d tha

t wind e ne rgy

ge ne ra tion fa c i litie s for this la

nd c la ssific a tion “ [m ] ay

be a llowe d a fte r NEPA re q uire m e nts
are m e t.” He re , the B LM did e xa c tly what it wa s suppose d to do. It pre pa re d a n e xha ustive e nvironm e nta l im

pa c t sta te m e nt. It c are fully

c onside re d the im

pa c t that the propose d

proje c t would ha

v e on c u ltura l a

nd na tura l re sourc e s in the are a and, in re sponse , it re d

uc e d the footprint of the proje c t. The B LM a lso
a c knowle dge d tha

t it c ould not sa

tisfy a ll of the c om

pe ting c la im s to the la

n d a nd, in a n e xe rc ise of its judgme nt, it de c ide d to a pprove the OW EF. Only a fte r it ha d
satisfie d itse lf tha

t it ha d he ard from

a l l inte re ste d pa

rtie s, c onside re d the ir vie ws, followe d the proc e sse s se t forth in theC DC A Pla n, a nd de te rm ine d tha

t the proje c t
c onform e d with thePla

n’ s re quire m e nts, did the

B LM am e nd the C DC A Pla n. In 

# FIL ED D EC 21 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALSm

y vie w, the B LM did not a m e nd the C DC A Pla

n to a void the Pla

n ’ s re quire m e nts
and this c ourt’ s sc rutiny unde r the APA; it a m e nde d the C DC A Pla

n to re fle c t tha

t the O W EF proje c t wa s c onsiste nt with the Pla n a nd to a dd OW EF to a

list of
a pprove d e ne rgy de ve lopm e nt site s in the C DC A. The B LM ’ s c are ful a nd
c onside re d de c i sion wa s m ode l and is not “ arbitra ry , c a pric ious, a

n a buse of disc re tion, or othe rwise n o t in a c c o rdanc e with la w.” 5 U.S.C . § 706(2)(A). I c onc ur in the judgm e nt.