Sierra Club v. Bureau of Land Management
786 F.3d 1219
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- North Sky River Energy (North Sky) proposed a private wind project on ~12,000 acres of private land in the Sierra Nevada and sought a BLM right-of-way (Road Project) on federal land to install an underground gen‑tie and access roads.
- North Sky initially included turbines on BLM land but revised the proposal to remove federal turbines and requested only road and gen‑tie access over BLM land; a private alternative route (Private Road Option) remained feasible.
- BLM prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) and found the Road Project would have no significant environmental impact (FONSI), concluding the Wind Project on private land did not require ESA section 7 consultation or a NEPA EIS because it was not a federal action and had independent utility.
- Sierra Club challenged BLM’s decision, arguing the Wind Project triggered ESA consultation and NEPA EIS analysis as an indirect, interrelated, or connected action; administrative record included Kern County materials showing the private route was possible.
- District court granted summary judgment to BLM and North Sky; Sierra Club appealed and the Ninth Circuit reviewed the agency decision under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BLM had to consult FWS under ESA §7 regarding the Wind Project | The Wind Project is an indirect/interrelated or interdependent effect of the federal Road Project and thus requires consultation | Wind Project is a private action on private land not funded, authorized, or controlled by BLM; Road Project is not the but‑for cause | Held: No consultation required—Wind Project is not federal action, not an indirect effect, and not interrelated/interdependent with Road Project |
| Whether BLM had to prepare an EIS under NEPA analyzing the Wind Project | The Wind Project is connected/cumulative to the Road Project and so must be analyzed in an EIS | Road and Wind Projects have independent utility; Wind Project is not a major federal action and is not connected to the Road Project | Held: No EIS required—projects have independent utility; NEPA not triggered for Wind Project |
Key Cases Cited
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. U.S. Dept. of Agric., 772 F.3d 592 (9th Cir. 2014) (ESA consultation applies only to federal agency actions)
- Karuk Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 681 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2012) (discretionary federal involvement required to trigger ESA consultation)
- San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Locke, 776 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2014) (tests for indirect effects under ESA)
- Sierra Club v. Marsh, 816 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1987) (but‑for causation test for interrelated/interdependent actions)
- San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2014) (NEPA requires EIS for major federal actions and connected actions)
- Pac. Coast Fed. of Fishermen’s Ass’ns v. Blank, 693 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2012) (independent utility test for connected NEPA actions)
- W. Watersheds Project v. Abbey, 719 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2013) (NEPA scope includes connected, cumulative, similar actions)
- Cal. ex rel. Imperial Cnty. Air Pollution Control Dist. v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 767 F.3d 781 (9th Cir. 2014) (analysis of connected actions under NEPA)
- F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2012) (agency must adequately explain changes in positions)