Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation v. U.S. Department of the Interior
673 F. App'x 709
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- The Quechan Tribe challenged BLM’s grant of a right-of-way to Ocotillo Express LLC to build the Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) on ~10,151 acres in the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA).
- Quechan asserted BLM violated the CDCA Plan, FLPMA, and NEPA in approving the Project and assigning visual resource classifications.
- BLM prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and issued a Record of Decision adopting a Category 3 amendment to the CDCA Plan designating the Project area suitable for wind energy.
- Category 3 amendments allow site-specific exceptions to Plan class requirements and are implemented through analysis (typically an EIS), public notice, objection period, and prescribed determinations.
- For visual resource management (VRM), the Project area lacked plan VRM designations, so BLM assigned an interim VRM Class IV in the EIS.
- BLM’s NEPA cumulative-effects analysis evaluated impacts across the Project area plus a ten-mile radius and identified 116 relevant past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CDCA Plan compliance — whether BLM failed to determine Project met Class L substantive requirements | Quechan: BLM did not determine Project complied with Class L substantive requirements | BLM: Adopted Category 3 amendment; once amended, Project governed by amendment not Class L requirements | Affirmed — Category 3 amendment governs; Project not subject to Class L substantive requirements |
| FLPMA/VRM classification — whether interim VRM Class IV assignment was arbitrary | Quechan: VRM IV conflicts with Class L protections; assignment arbitrary | BLM: Interim VRM needed; assignment permissible and, in any event, Project governed by Category 3 amendment | Affirmed — need not decide conflict; amendment made Class L substantive rules inapplicable |
| NEPA cumulative impacts — scope of cumulative-effects analysis | Quechan: BLM should have analyzed cumulative effects across all Class L lands in CDCA | BLM: Geographic scope reasonable (Project area + 10-mile radius); broader scope unduly burdensome and would dilute focus | Affirmed — ten-mile scope reasonably supported; analysis of 116 projects adequate |
| NEPA adequacy — sufficiency of cumulative impacts detail | Quechan: Analysis failed to identify/describe cumulative impacts on cultural resources | BLM: EIS described existing damage and how foreseeable projects would further impact resources | Affirmed — cumulative analysis not arbitrary or unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009) (appellate court may affirm summary judgment on any record-supported basis)
- Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2005) (NEPA requires cumulative-effects analysis of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions)
- Friends of the Wild Swan v. Weber, 767 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2014) (agency must provide reasoned support for geographic scope of cumulative-effects analysis)
- Selkirk Conservation Alliance v. Forsgren, 336 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2003) (agencies may limit cumulative-analysis scope when broader review would be unduly burdensome or dilute relevant effects)