F OR P UBLICATION



### UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

O R E G O N N A T U R

A L D E S E R

T A S S O C I A T I O N ; A U

D U B O N S O C I E T Y
O F P O R T L A N D , Plaintiffs-Appellants

,

v.

S A L L Y J E W E L L , Secretary

of the I nterior; B U R

E A U O F L A N D M A N A G E M E N T , Defendants-Appellees

,

C O L U M B I A E N E R

G Y P A R T N E R S , L L C; H A R

N E Y C O U

N T Y , Intervenor-Defendants-Appellees. No. 13-36078

D.C. No. 3 :12-cv-00596-MO

OPI NI ON

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oreg on Michael W . Mosman, Chief District J udg e, Presiding

Arg ued and Submitted March 10, 2016

Portland, Oreg on

F iled May

26, 2016

B e fore: Ray

mond C. F isher, Marsha S. B erz on, and Paul J . W atford, Circuit J udg es.

Opinion by J udg e B e rz onONDA V

. J E W E L L 2

SUMMARY *

Environm ental Law

The panel reversed in part the district c o u r t ’s summary judg ment i n f

avor of defendants in an action challeng ing under the National Environment al Policy Act a wind-energ

y development project on the g round t h a t the U.S. B ureau o f L and Manag ement’s environmental review of the project did not adequately

address impacts to the g reater sag e g rouse.

The p anel held that B L M’s r eview did not adequately

assess baseline sag e g rouse num b e r s d uring winter at the proposed Echanis wind energ y f ac i l ity in Harney County
, Oreg on. The panel a lso held that the B L M’ s e r r o r was not harmless. According ly

, the panel reversed the district court’s

e n t r y of summary judg ment in favor of the B L M, Harne y County
, a

nd C o l umbia Energ y Partners, the project developer, as to that issue.

The panel also held that because plaintiffs did n ot bring the issue o f inter-population or g enetic connectivity b etween sag e g rouse populations to the B L M’s attention dur i ng the environmental review process, the issue was not ex h a u s t e d and is not now subject to review.

* T h is su m m ary co n stitu

tes n o part o f th e o p in io n o f th e co u rt. It h as b een p rep ared b y

co u rt staf

f f o r th e co n v en i en ce o f

th e read er.ONDA V

. J E W E L L 3

COUNSEL

Peter M. L acy (arg

ued), Oreg on Natural Desert Association, Portland, Oreg on; L aurence J

. L ucas, B oise, I daho; David H

. B ecker, Portland, Oreg on, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

J ohn C. Cruden, Assistant U n i t ed States Attorney General, W a shing t o n D.C.; Ty B air, Allen M. B rabender, & Peter Krz y wicki ( a r g ued), United States Department of J ustice, W a shing ton D.C.; Veronica L arvie, Office of the S o l i citor, Department of the I nterior, Salt L a k e C i t y , Utah, for Defendants-Appellees.

J onathan M. N o rling

, Portland, Oreg on, for I ntervenorAppellee Columbia Energ y Partners.

Dominic M. Carollo (arg ued), Ronald S

. Y ockim, Y ockim Carollo L L P, Roseburg

, Oreg on, for I ntervenor-DefendantAppellee Harney

County

.

OP INION

B ERZ ON, Circuit J udg e :

Renewable energ y projects, althoug h critical to the effort
to c o m b at climate chang e, can have sig nificant adverse

e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m

p a c t s, just as o ther larg e-scale developmen t s do. Here, the Oreg o n N a t u ral Desert Association and the Audubon S o c i ety of Portland (collectively

, “ONDA”) challeng e a w ind-energ y development on the g round that the U.S. B ureau of L and Manag ement’s (“B L M”) environmental review o f the p roject d id not adequately address impacts to the gr e a ter sag e g rouse, a relatively larg e g round-dwellingONDA V

. J E W E L L 4

bird once abundant i n t h e western United States. G reater sag e g rouse depend on sag ebrush ha b i t a t for their survival. The challeng e d pr o

j e ct entails the construction o f wind turbines and a rig ht-of-way a c r oss a sag ebrush landscape in southeastern Oreg on’s Harney County

.

W e conclude that the B L M’s review d i d n ot adequately

assess b as e l ine sag e g rouse numbers during winter at the Echanis site, where the wind turbines are to be installed. A s to that point, we reverse the d istrict court’s entry of summary judg ment in fav o r of the B L M, H arney County
, a nd Columbia Energ y Partners, the p r o j ect developer. W e also conclude, h owever, that O NDA did not ex haust its arg ument reg arding g enetic connectivity

, and so we affirm as to th at issue.

I

.

A. The P roject

The Echanis W ind E n e rg y Project “is a 104-meg awatt (MW ) wind e nerg y facility that would be construc t e d o n a 10,500-acre privately -owned tract” on Steens Mounta i n i n Harney County
, Oreg on. BL M
, North S teens 230-kV Transmission Line Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (Oct. 2011) (“F EI S”) ES-1. B etween 40 and 69 wind turbines woul d b e b u i lt o n the Echanis site. F EI S ES11, 2-21, 3.1-2; see F E I S 2-22–23. The North Steens 230-kV Transmission L ine

, w hich involves “the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new [ 230-kilovolt] overhead electric transmission line and associated facil i t ies on B L Madministered land,” would transport energ y from the turbines
to the electrical g rid. F E I S ES-1–2. The ent i re underta k i ng—that is, both the transmission line and theONDA V

. J E W E L L 5

turbine complex —(“the Project”), w as approved in the B L M’s F E I S and Record of Decision (“ROD”) h e re challeng ed.

Columbia Energ y Partners received a condition a l use permit f rom Harney County to develop the Project, commissioned several studies of the Project, a nd se cured a 20-y ear ag reement to sel l e nerg y g enerated by the wind facility

. 1 F E I S ES-1. B ecause the r ig ht-of-wa y f o r the transmission line crosses public lands a dministe r e d by the B L M, and the construction of the turbines is a “ connected action,” 40 C.F .R. § 1508.25(a) ( 1 )

, the entire Project is subject to environmental review under the National Environmental Pol i c y Act (“NEPA”), 4 2 U.S.C. § 4321, et
seq

. See F EI S 1-1.

The Echanis site was chosen b ecause “[ i] nitial s i te reconnaissance revealed wind-swept a r e as well ex p osed to prevailing west winds and – where present

– sig nificant ‘flag g ing ’ of v eg etation, indicating a robust w esterly wind resource.” F EI S app. F at 6. This p r el i minary a ssessment

was confirmed after a meteorolog ical tower was erected at the site. Id. After considering three alternatives, the B L M chose

a route f or the transmission line and associated infrastructure
t h a t would cut across, in part, the Steens Mountai n Cooperative Manag e ment and Protection Area (“Steens Protection Area”). See
, e .g. , F EI S ES-3, ES-11, 1-4–5.

1 T h i s ag reem en t, alo n g w ith certain o th er an cillary f acets o f th e P ro

j ect, h as s in ce b een ca n c e l l e d

. T h e p arties assu re u s, h o w ev er, th at if th e P ro j ect su rv i v es en v iro n m en tal rev iew , it w ill g o f o rw ard

.ONDA V

. J E W E L L 6

B. Steens Mountain

Steens Mountain is many miles long and near l y 1 0
, 000 feet in elevation at its hig h est point. I n 2 000, Congr e s s

ena ct e d the Steens Mountain Cooperative Manag ement a nd Protection Act (“Steens A c t”), which, among other thing s, established the Steens Protection Area and the Steen s Mountain W ilderness Area. F EI S 1-19; see 16 U .S.C. § 460nnn, e t seq

. “The purp o s e o f t he [ Steens Protection Area] is to conserve, protect, and manag e the long

- t e r m ecolog ical integ rity of Steens Mountain for future and present g enerations.” 16 U.S.C. § 460nnn-12(a). Under the Steens Act, the “ ec o l og ical integ rity ” that must be conserved, protected, and manag ed includes “ t h e m a intenance of

. . . g enetic interchang e.” 1 6 U

. S

. C

. § 460nnn(5)(B ). Steens Mountain, home to many sag e brush communities, lies near the center of one of the last re m a i n i n g “ strong holds o f contig uous sag ebrush h a b itat e ssenti a l f

or the long -term persistence of g

reater sag e-g rouse.”

C. G reater Sage G rouse

The g r eater sag e g rouse is a sag ebrus h-oblig ate b ird, meaning that it relies on sag ebrus h f o r its survival y earround. F EI S 3.5-22; Oreg on Department of F ish & Wildlife, Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation A ssessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to Maintain and Enhance Popula t i ons and Habitat

, Draft, March 1, 2011 (“ Sage Grouse Strategy ”)
at 8. Sag e g rouse use d ifferent aspects of sag ebrush habitats for vario u s p u rposes. F EI S 3 .5-22. F or instance, a t leks, “open areas surrounded by sag ebrush,” male sag e g r ouse strut and c ompete f

or female m ates, d isplay ing their elaborate plumag e. F EI S 3.5-22 ; S age Grouse Strategy at 8. I nONDA V

. J E W E L L 7

addition, sag e g rouse use sag ebrush habitats for nesting a nd brood rearing . F EI S 3.5-22.

S a gebrush habitat is also essential for winter surviva l o f
sag e g r ouse. “During the w inter months, [ the] g reater sa ge

g rouse’s diet consists almost entirely of sag ebrush leaves a nd buds.” F EI S 3 .5-23. To facilitate sag ebrush consumption,
sag e grouse in the w inter months “ tend toward areas with hig h canopy and taller sag ebrush plants

. . . . Sag e brush must be ex posed at least 9.8 to 11.8 inches (25 to 30 c m) above the

snow level to provide adequate forag e and cover.” F EI S 3 .5- 23. “[ I ] f sag ebrush is covered with snow, g reater sag e-g rouse will move to areas where the sag ebrush is ex posed .

. . . The availability of sag ebrush above the snowpack is critical to the survival of g reater sag e-g rouse throug h the w i n t er.” F E I S 3.5-23–24; see also Sage Grouse Strategy at 10.

Once abundant across much of the western United States and Canada, the g reater sag e g rouse now lives in “continually declining ” and “increasing ly separate” p opulations. F E I S 3.5-22. Since the 1950s, the overall population of sag e g rouse has declined b y somew h e r e between 4 5% and 80%. Id. “Habitat loss and frag mentation are the primary cause[ s] for long -term chang es in [sag e g rouse] population abundance and distribution.” Sage G rouse S trategy at 1. As a consequence, “[ m] aintenance of connectivity and reduction of frag mentation of sag ebrush habitats is key to the long -term welfare of all

. . . sag ebrush associated sp e c i es.” Id. a t 4. Oreg on is unique in that, “[ c] ompared to other states w it hin the rang e of sag e-g rouse, [ i t] h as larg e ex p anses o f contig uous habitat w ith minimal threats of fossil fuel

ex p loration or development.” Id. a t x

. “Oreg on sag e-g rouse populations and sag ebrush habitats likely comprise n e a rlyONDA V

. J E W E L L 8

20% of the North American rang e w ide distribution.” Id. at 2.

D. Environm ental Review

The impacts of the Project on sag e g r ouse were by far the

mos t s i g nificant concern d uring the environmental r eview
process at issue here. I n t h e d r aft e n vironmental impact
statement (“DEI S”), F EI S, and ROD, th e B L M adopted information, g uidance, and mi tig a tion measures concerning the sag e g rouse from the O r ego n Department of F ish & W ildlife’s Mitigation Framework and Sage Grouse Strategy documents. F EI S E S-19, 3.5-21, 3.5-25–26; see C.A. H ag en, Mitigation Framew o rk for Sage-Grouse Habitats

, Aug

. 23, 2011 (“ Mitigation Framework

”).

I n resp o n s e t o the D EI S, ONDA submitted to the B L M

numerous comments on a variety of is sues, supporting the

c o mments with scientific studies, wildlife manag ement materials, and other documents. After t h e comment period ended, the B L M issu ed the F EI S a n d ROD, selecting the North Route transmission line as the preferred alternative to be implemented. 2 F E I S ES-3. The N o r th Route line would be approx imately 46 miles lo n g, connecting an electric substation at the Echanis site with an interconnection station near Crane, Oreg on. F EI S ES-3.

2 A lth o u g h th e en tire P ro

j ect in clu d es b o th t

h e tran sm issio n lin e an d th e

w in d t u rb in es, t h e p ro p o sed actio n altern ativ es v aried o n ly as t o th e ro u te th e tran sm issio n lin e w o u ld t ak e. Harn ey Co u n ty issu ed th e p erm it to b u ild t h e w in d tu rb in es at th e Ech an i s site, w h ich is p riv at e l an d

, so th e p ro p osed tu rb in es w o u ld be b u ilt th ere an d n o w h ere else. Fo r th at reaso n , o th er th an th e n o

- actio n altern ativ e, th e FEIS an d ROD d id n ot co n s id er altern ativ e sites f

o r th e tu rb in es.ONDA V

. J E W E L L 9

Of relevance here, the F EI S acknowledg ed the “potential conflict between wind e nerg y development and g r eater sag eg rouse winter forag ing h abitats, b ecause the w i n d s w e p t ridg e s that keep sag ebrush ex p osed during winter months could also be ideal locations for wind energ y development.” F EI S 3.5- 25. Despite this c oncern, no su r v e y s were c onducted to determine if sag e g rouse are present a t the Echanis site during the winter months o f November throug h April. I nst e ad, the B L M assumed, based on survey s done at the nearby E a st Ridg e and W est Ridg e sites, that no g rouse u se t h e E chanis site during winter. 3 F E I S 3.5-25, 3.19-4. T he F EI S stated that “no g reater sag e -g rouse were found” at the East and W e st Ridg e sites between late December and April, during the period of snow accumulation. F EI S 3.5-25. I t ex plained:

The East Ridg e and W est Ridg e projects a re similar but potentially a t e ven lower elevations [ than is the Echanis site]

. . . . B e cause the Echanis Project area is g enerally

covere d w i t h snow earlier and later in the

s e ason because of it’s [ sic] relatively hig he r elevation, it is r easonabl e to ex trapolate winter use from the survey s a t the East Ridg e and W e st Ridg e sites. Therefore, based upon these data, g r eater sag e-g rouse are a ssumed
not to u t i liz e the Echanis Project Area for winter habitat from the time t h a t the
veg etation is covered with snow until snowmelt, roug hly December throug h April.

3 T h e East an d W est Rid g e sites w ere o rig in ally also slated f o r w i n d

en erg y d ev elo p m en t, b u

t ap p licatio n s f

o r th o s e p ro

j ects w ere w ith d raw

n

. FEIS 3 .1 9- 2– 3

.ONDA V

. J E W E L L 10

F EI S 3.5-25.

As to connectivit y c o n cerns, the transmission lines a nd associated access and maintenance roads would phy s ically divide sag e g rouse habitat, and the lines would provide perches f or predatory r aptors (such a s hawks and e ag les) a nd corvids (such a s ra v e ns, crows, and jay s). See Sage G rouse Strategy at 47–48. Acco r d i n g ly

, the F EI S assumed that
gr ouse w ould avoid and b e displaced from areas n e a r transmission lin e s a n d poles. F EI S 3.5-43–44. This displacement, combined with possible avoidanc e o f some

areas due to noise or other p r oject-related disturbances, would result in h abitat frag mentation, as the lines transect otherwise contig uous g rouse habitat. F EI S 3.5-43, 3.5-80.

E. This Litigation

After the F EI S and ROD issued, O NDA filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the D istrict of Oreg on, challeng in g environmental review of the Project under NEPA. Harney County and Columbia Ener gy Partners intervened. The parties then f iled cross-motions for summary judg ment. 4 Ultimately

, the co u r t g ranted the defendants’ motions for summary

judg ment and denied ONDA’s.

W e reverse the district court’s ruling

.

4 In su p p o rt o f its m o tio n , th e d i st r i c t c o u r t p erm itted ONDA to

su p p lem en t th e reco rd w ith ex p ert declaratio n s

. T h e d ef en d an t s o b

j ect to ONDA ’ s relian ce o n th ese declaratio n s. T h e d eclaratio n s d o n o t af f ect ou r d ecisio n , so w e d o n o t ad d ress th e o b j ectio n

.ONDA V

. J E W E L L 11

I I

.

ONDA asserts tha t t h e BL M’s review of the Project did
not comply with NEPA, “ou r b a s i c national charter for protection of the environment.” 40 C.F .R. § 1500.1(a). The centerpiece of environmental r e v iew u nder N E P A is the environmental impact statement (“EI S”), in which the responsible federal ag ency describes the proposed project a nd its impacts, alternatives to the project, and possible mitig ation for a ny impacts. See 40 C.F

. R

. § § 1 500.1, 1502.15. N EPA imposes procedural re q uirements on federal ag encies undertaking review; it does not m andate outcomes. W ildEarth G u a r d ians v. Mont. Snowmobile Ass’n
, 790 F .3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2015).

NEPA challeng es are reviewed under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Id. Under the APA, we ask whether the ag ency ’s action w as “arbitrary

, capriciou s, an a buse o f d i s c retion, o r otherwise not in accordance w ith law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). An ag ency ’s action can be set aside

a s arbitrary and capricious only if the ag en c y relied o n factors Cong ress d id not intend it to

co n s ider, entirely f

ailed to consider an important aspect o f the problem, or offered an

ex p lanation that r

uns count er to the evidence b efore the ag e ncy or is so implausible that i t could not be a scribed to a diffe r e nce in v iew or the product of ag ency ex pertise.

Lands Council v. McNair
, 537 F .3d 981, 987 (9th Cir. 2 008) (en banc) (citations omitted), o verruled on other grounds by W inter v

. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.
, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).ONDA V

. J E W E L L 12

A. Baseline Winter Conditions

ONDA first contends that t h e B L M e rred in failing directly to assess baseline co n d i tions at the Echanis site, i n s tead relying on an ex trapolation from nearby sites t o conclude that there is no g reater sag e g rouse winter habitat at Echanis.

The e stablishment of a “ baselin e i s not an independent leg al r equirement, but rather

, a practical requirement in environmental analy sis often employ e d to identify the environmental cons e q u e nces of a proposed ag ency action.” Am. R i v e r

s v

. FERC
, 201 F .3d 1186, 1195 n.15 (9th Cir. 1999). An EI S must “ succinctly describe the environment o f the a rea(s) to be affected

. . . by the alt e r n a t i ves under consideration,” 40 C.F .R. § 1 5 0 2 .15, and “insure that environmental information is available to public officials a nd citiz ens before decisions a re made an d b e

f o re a ctions a

re taken,” id. § 1500.1(b) (emphases added). “Accurate scientific analy sis

. . . [ is] e ssential to implementing NEPA.” Id.

Apply ing these principle s , several cases have f ound environmental analy ses insufficient for failing to establish an environmental baseline. I ndeed, a s to another project planned for sag e g rouse territory

, the B L M submitted comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT”) urg ing DOT to

assess baseline w i nter sag e-g rouse populations along a rail line. See N. Plains Res. Council v. Surface Tra n s p

. B d

. , 668 F .3d 1067, 1084 (9th Cir. 2011). Specifically

, with
reg ard to DOT’s EI S, the B L M commented that “[ w ] i th the increasing importance o f s ag e g rouse, more discussion on sag e g rouse is n eeded, in cluding discussion on wintering

areas

. . . . Sag e g rouse inventories need to be co nducted atONDA V

. J E W E L L 13

least two miles from any proposed disturbance.” Id. Northern Plains Resource Council ag reed with the B L M that DOT did not adequately as sess baseline conditions for the challeng ed project. Id. at 1083–85. Similarly

, H a lf M oon Bay ruled that analy sis i n an EI S was inadequate because it failed to assess baseline underwater conditions at a site where it w a s p r oposed dredg ed materials would be d umped. Half Moon Bay Fish e r m a n’s Marketing Ass’n v. Carlucci

, 857 F .2d 505, 510 (9th Cir. 1988).

Under Northern Plains Resource Council a nd Half M oon Bay , the B L M had a duty to assess, in some reasonable way

, the actual baseline conditions at the E chanis site. B aseline conditions w ere particularly important here because impacts
to sag e g rouse were by fa r the most sig nificant concern during environmental review

, a nd the unique f

eatures o f winter habitat are essential to sag e-g r ouse survival. See, e.g. , Sage Grouse Strategy at 47, 83. B a seline con d i tions at the Echanis site thus warranted comprehensive study in the F EI S.

The F EI S did not r e port on any observations of the Echanis site survey

ing winter sag e gr o u s e use of the area. I nstead, the F EI S assumed that sag e gr o u s e are absent from the site during winter. F EI S 3 .5-25. To justify this assumption, the F EI S r elied on da t a from the East and W e st Ridg e sites, located n e a r the Echanis site but at g enerally lower e l e v a t i ons. Id. I n doing so, the F EI S asserted that, althoug h 36 sag e g rouse w ere found at the East Ridg e site on December 17, 2008 a

n d nine birds were f

o u n d on the W e st Ridg e site on December 1 1, “ n o g r eater sage

- gr o u se were found later in December, o r in J anuary , F ebruary

, March, o r April, during the time that snow had accumulated.” Id. The F EI S then e x plained that i t s ex trapolation from survey s at these sites was reasonable because the “potentially ” lowerONDA V

. J E W E L L 14

elevation of the sites, as compared to th e E chanis site, indicated that it is more likely that snow would accumulate at Echanis earlier and dissipate later in winter. I t is less likely

, the F EI S asserted, that sag e g rouse use the Echanis site than the East and W est Ridg e sites in winter. Id. A fundamental flaw infects this reasoning

. Contrary to what the F EI S stated, four sage gr o u s e were found at t h e East Ridg e site—the survey ed site c loser to Echanis—during February

, indicating that some sag e g rouse do spend the wi n t er there. The F EI S thus did not comply with the r equirement to provide “[ a] ccurate scientific

a naly sis,” w hich is “essential to implementing NEPA,” 40 C.F .R. § 1500.1(b), or with th e a g ency ’s oblig ation to “insure the professional in t e grity

, including scientific integ rity

, of the discussions and analy ses i n [ EI Ss] ,” id. § 1502.24.

F urther, that some g rouse were found at the E a s t Ridg e site in mid-winter g reatly undermines t h e validity of the B L M’s assumed absence of sag e g rouse at t h e E chanis site. Gi v e n that g rouse do use the East Ridg e site during the winter, the B L M’s own e x t rapolation method should have resulted in assuming the birds’ presence , not their absence

.

The record a s a whole confirms the validity of this contrary assumption. Christian Hag en, the O reg on Department o f F ish & Wildlife scientist who prepared the Mitigation Framework

, sug g est ed that, if g rouse were still present at the East a

nd W est Ridg e sites in Decemb e r , the conditions were probably rig ht to spend the entire w i n t e r there; in fact, as noted, gr o u s e w ere p resent in F ebruary

. F urther, several sources o n w h i c h the F EI S relied, and the F EI S itself, acknowledg e that the wind-swept character o f theONDA V

. J E W E L L 15

Echanis site—the aspect of the site t h a t m a k e s it ideal for wind-energy g eneration—sug g ests it could be g ood winter habitat for sag e g rous e, despite its “ potentially ” hig her elevation, as snow the r e may be blown off sag e brush a nd

ex p osed for g rouse to eat. See, e .g. , F EI S 3.5-25, app. F at 6; Sage Grouse Strategy at 47. And scientists and cooperating
ag encies recommended to th e B L M either that actual winter
survey s o f sag e g rouse be conducted or, if not, that the B L M

assume sag e g rouse were present at the Echanis si t e d uring the entire winter. See
, e.g. , Sage Grouse Strategy at 86.

I n short, the F EI S’s inaccurate data concerning the closer East Ridg e site that was survey e d rendered its assumption concerning the winter presence of sag e g rouse at the Echanis site arbitrary a

nd capricious. See Lands Council

, 5 37 F .3d at 987.

T h e defendants maintain that the B L M is owed special deference when undertaking scientific or t e chnical analy sis within its purview, which it is. See Lands Council

, 537 F .3d
at 993. B ut deference d oes not ex c use the B L M from ensuring the accuracy a

n d scientific inte grity of its analy sis, a NEPA requirement. See 40 C.F .R. § § 1500.1(b), 1502.24. The defendants also posit that invalidating th e B L M’s
assessment of winter conditions at Echanis, a n d therefore requiring the B L M to g ather better information, would essentially impose a procedural requirement not derived from NEPA. B ut we do not hold that h a b itat ex trapolations from

one site to another are impermissible. I n stead, our holding is that any such ex trapolation must b e based on ac c u rate information and defensible reasoning

.

The errors in the B L M’s a n aly sis were not harmless. See T u cson Herpetological S

oc’y v

. Salazar

, 566 F .3d 870, 8 8 0ONDA V

. J E W E L L 16

(9th Cir. 2009). The inaccurate information a nd u n supported assumption materially i m

p e d e d i n f o r m e d d e c isionmaking a

nd public p articipat ion. See id. ; cf. Montana Snowmobile

, 790 F .3d at 926. W itho u t a ppropriate data reg arding sag e g rouse u se o f the Echani s s i t e during the winter, whether direct or via a supportable ex trapolation, it was not p o s s i ble
to beg in to assess w hether sag e g rouse would b e impacted with reg ard to access to viable sag ebrush habitat in the winter months.

I n addition, ha d t h e B L M assumed the Echanis site provides winter sag e g rouse habitat, rather than that it does not, the site would be deemed “ Categ o r y -1 Habitat” pursuant to the Sa g e G r o use Strategy a nd Mitigation Framework

. Under that desig n a tion and the mitig ation measures adopted in the F E I S a

nd ROD, the Project w ould not g o forward there. 5 F EI S 3.5-53; ROD 14–15; see Sage Grouse Strategy at 83, 86; Mitigation Framework at 1–2. I n that respect, the B L M’ s analy sis materially affected the outcome o f

e nvironmental review. See Idaho W ool Growers Ass’n v

. Vilsack , 816 F .3d 1095, 1104 (9th Cir. 2016).

5 T h e S a g e Gro u se S t ra t e

g y , w h ich t

h e B L M relied o n f

o r its sag e g ro u se co n serv atio n

ap p ro ach , FEIS ES- 19 , 3 .5

- 2 5 –2 6 , id en tif ies w in ter h a b i t a t as “ Categ o ry

- 1,” m ean in g th at it is “ essen tial f o r g reater sag eg ro u se po p u latio n s an d is lim ited b y th e in ab ility to m iti g ate f o r h ab itat lo ss

. . . in [a] reaso n ab le tim e f ram e, an d is irrep laceab l e.” S a g e Gro use S tra t eg y at 86

. P u rsu an t to th at d esig n atio n , th e “ m itig atio n g o al

. . . is n o lo ss o f eith er h ab i tat q u ality o r q u an tity ,” so im pacts are to b e “ av o id [ed ] th ro u g h [th e u se o f

] altern ativ es to th e p ro p osed d ev elo p m en t actio n ,” o r, if im pacts can n o t b e av o id ed t h ro u g h t h e u se o f altern ativ es, th ere sh ou ld b e “ [n ]o a u t h o r i zatio n of th e p ro p osed d ev elo p m en t actio n .” Id

. In ad d itio n , th e Mitig a tio n Fra mewo rk rec o m m e n d s th at im p acts to Categ o ry

- 1 Hab itat “ w ith d o cu m en ted sag e- g ro u se p resen ce” b e av o id ed

, as su ch h ab itat is “ b o th essen tial an d irrep laceab le.” Mitig atio n Fra mewo rk

at 1

– 2

.ONDA V

. J E W E L L 17

The defendants urg e that the mitig ation measures adopted i n the F EI S cured any potential p rejudice resulting from a faulty baseline analy sis. 6 M itig ation measures, however, while relevant to the adequacy of an environmental analy sis,

see City of Sausalito v. O’Neill

, 386 F

. 3d 1186, 1212–13 (9th Cir. 2 004), are not a panacea for inadequate data co l l e c t i on and a naly sis. More specifically

, they do not address the

concerns relevant to the prejudice analy sis: the error’s effect

on informed decisionmaking and public participation, and on the outcome of the decision. See, e.g. , Cal. W ilderness Coal.

v. U.S. Dep’t of

Energy
, 631 F .3d 1072, 1093 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, w ith baseline conditions inadequately established, the public was not able to tailor its comments to a ddress concerns reg arding the potential winter presence of sag e g rouse at the Echanis site. Nor was the B L M’s e x planation of the impacts
to winter g rouse h a

b itat adequ a t el y informed. Having no reasonable assessment as to whether sag e g rouse are present at the Echanis site in w inter, the B L M could not a ssess the Project’s impacts to them, qualitatively o r quantitatively

. And w ith the impacts on sag e g rouse not properly established, the B L M did not know what impacts to mitig ate, or whether

6 T h e FEIS an d ROD in co rp orated th e sag e g ro u se m itig atio n m easu res

reco m m en d ed in th e Mitig a tio n Fra m ewo rk

. S ee FEIS ES- 1 8– 19

. T h ese

m easu res in clu de th e n o

- im p act reco m

m en d atio n f

o r Categ o ry

- 1 Hab itat, d escrib ed s u

pra n .5
, as w ell as a “ n o n et lo s s w ith a n et b en ef it” strateg y , lead i n g to th e reh ab ilitatio n o f ap p ro x i m ately 9,0 0 0 acres o f n o n

- P ro j ectarea sag eb ru sh h ab itat to m ak e u p f or th e h ab itat p o ten tially lo st w ith in th e P ro j ect- area. FEIS ES- 1 8

– 1 9 ; see M itig a tio n Fra mewo rk at 1

– 2, 5

– 6

. T o ef f ect th ese m easu res, t h e BL M, H arn ey Co u n ty , an d Co lu m b i a En erg y P artn ers co u ld tak e m easu res t o im pro v e th e q u ality o f g r o u s e h ab itat, in clu d in g co u ld secu r in g co n s erv atio n easem en ts f o r o r p u rch asin g p articu lar m itig atio n sites. Mitig a t i o n F r a mewo rk at 6

. In ad d itio n , m o d elin g an d m o n ito rin g strateg ies w o u l d be u s ed to asse ss t h e ef f ectiv en ess o f p ro po sed an d im p l em en t ed reh ab ilitatio n o f g iv en areas, resp ectiv ely

. S

ee, e.g

. , id

. at 2 , 5

.ONDA V

. J E W E L L 18

the mitig ation proposed would be adequate to offset damag e to wintering sag e g rouse. Most importantly

, had the B L M assumed the presence of sag e g r ouse, rather than their ab s e n c e , the Echanis site would be deemed Categ ory

- 1 Habitat, a nd the mitig ation measures adopted in the F EI S a nd ROD would not allow development to g o forward there.

Given the B L M’s prejudicial error, the dis t r ict court’s entry o f summary judg ment in f a v o r of the defendants must be reversed.

B. G enetic Connectivity

ONDA nex t a sserts that the F EI S e rroneously failed to

a d d r e s s g e n e t i c co n n e c t i v i t y b e t w e e n s a ge g r o u s e populations. “ Genetic connect i v i t y ” means the e x tent to which separate p opulations of a spec i es are able to share
g enes and thereby to maintain a h e a lt hy g enetic diversity within each population. The defendants arg ue that ONDA failed to ex haust this arg ument during e n vironmental review. They a lso point out that the F EI S a nd ROD adequately addressed the more g eneral issue of habitat connectivity a nd frag mentation. W e ag ree with the defendants.

J udicial review is available for N E P A c h a lleng es under the APA only if the NEPA plaintiffs ex haust their administrative remedies. Great Basin Mine W atch v

. Hankins

, 4 5 6 F.3d 955, 965 (9th Cir. 2006); see 5 U .S.C. § 704. ONDA did not use the term “g e netic connectivity ” in its comments on the draft EI S, n or did it m a k e s p ecific
arg uments about that issue, separately from the more g eneral issues of habitat connectivity and frag mentation.ONDA V

. J E W E L L 19

The closest ONDA came to raising the g enetic connectivity arg ument as a d istinc t i s s ue was the following comment to the B L M:

Accor ding to [ the U.S. F ish & W ildlife Service’s] c andidate s pecies listing d ecision, leks w i t h in 18 km (11.2 miles) of each other have common features, such a s genetic characteristic[ s] (g enetic evidence proves that

ex c hang e between different leks by individual b i r d s has not b een restricted), compared to leks farther away

. [ The U.S. F ish & W ildlife Service] used this distance to determine connectivity between lek sites. B ecause Echanis and the transmission line alternatives fall within the p a r ameters of connectivity

, there will likely b e impacts on the ability for
sag e-g rouse to move across the l a n d scape to lek sites for breeding

and courtship.

Comment L etter from O NDA to B L M (September 17, 2010),
at 35–36 (“ONDA Comment L etter”) (footnote o m i t t ed). Notably

, the foreg oin g statement mentions the issue o f
g enetic ex c hang e only a s a premise to a ssert that the Project will affect connectivity in general

. T his statement, althoug h

r e l a t e d t o g e n e t i c c o n n e c t i v i t y c o n c e r n s , i s n o t sufficient—particularly in lig ht of ONDA’s othe rw i se

ex tremely comprehensive comments—to alert the B L M that O N D A was asking f

or a g enetic connectivity analy sis
reg arding separate sag e g rouse populations.

I n one of its comment letters O NDA, quoted a B L M instructi on memorandum, which articulated B L M p olicy

r eg arding the desig n ation of priority habitat for v ar i o u sONDA V

. J E W E L L 20

wildlife species, as stating that “[ p] riority habitat w ill be

areas of hig h quality habitat s u p p o r ting important sag e-g rouse populat i o n s , including those populations that are v ulnerable
to localiz ed ex tirpation but necessary to maintain range-wide connectivity and genetic diversity .” ONDA Comment L etter at 25 ( emphasis added) (quot i n g BL M, I M 2010-071, G u n n i s o n a n d G r e a t e r S a g e

- g r o u s e M a n a g e m e n t Considerations for Energy Development (2010)). I n contex t, this statement was insufficient to put the B L M on notice that ONDA soug ht discussion o f the g enetic connectivity issue a s such. T he overall comment of which the statement was a part asserte d t h a t the DEI S did not demonstrate that the B L M properly followed its own statutory , reg ulatory

, and g uidance mandates. The comment referred to “rang e -wide connectivity ” and “g enetic diversity ” only as a subpremise o f its insistence that the B L M should follow mandates reg arding the d e sig nation of priority habitat for many species, including
sag e g rouse. This opaque comment was not adequately specific to al e r t the B L M that it should analy z e the substantively distinct issue of cross-popu l at ion g enetic connectivity

.
Elsewhere, ONDA’s comments address connectivity a nd frag mentation at leng th, but only in a g ene r a l sense, not specifically with reg ard to c ross-population g enetic connectivity

. S

ee ONDA Comment L etter a t 22 (noting that the Project will “ r i d d l e[ ] ” core sag e g rouse habitat in the Steens Protection Area with turbines, transmiss i on lines, roads, and o t h e r infrastructure), 26 (noting the B L M p olicy that “it is imperative that frag mentation and deg rad a tion o f

. . . g reater sag e-g r ouse habitat not continue to the point that

s ustainable sag e-g rouse populations can no long er b e supported”), 33 (“Habitat frag mentation a nd disturbance

across much of the sag e -g rouse’s r ang e has contribute d t oONDA V

. J E W E L L 21

s i g nificant p opulation declines over the past century

. I f
current trends persist, many local populations may disappear in the nex t several decades, with the remaining frag mented population vulnerable to e x t i n ction.”), 34–35 (referring to hab i t at frag mentation), 3 6 (referring to “connectivity corrido r s ”), 37 (referring to “new habitat loss a nd frag mentation”), 38 (noting “habitat loss, fragmentation, o r deg radation” concerns), 3 9 ( referring to “the need for

ex c luding habitat-frag mentin g activities from sag e-g rouse

core habitat”), 80–82 (referring to habitat frag mentation), 86 (referring to habitat frag m e ntation and deg radation); L etter from ONDA to Secretary
, Dep’t of I nterior (November 15, 2 0 1 1 )

, at 1 (referring to habitat frag mentation and a “frag mented population”) ; L etter from O NDA to Secretary
, Dep’t of I n terior (J uly 21, 2011), a t 2, (“frag ment vital habitat”), 3 (“loss o f irreplaceabl e h a b i tat

. . . due to f r a gm e n t at i o n ” )

, 5 (“wildlife habita t c o n n e c t i v i t y ”) ; Supplemental Comment L e tter from ONDA to B L M ( J anuary 26, 2011), at 2 (“[ H] a

rm to sag e-g rouse o n S teens w o uld be

ex a c erbated by habitat frag mentation

. . . . ” ). B ecause ONDA’s comments refer only to overall habitat connectivity and frag mentation, they w ere too v a g ue to raise the specific genetic connectivity

issue r eg arding separate populations as

a distinct concern. G reat Basin Mine W a tch

, 456 F .3d at 967.

Barnes v. U

.S. Department of Transpo r t a t ion confirms that ONDA’s comments were i n a dequate to ex haust the
g enetic connectivity issue. See 655 F .3d 1124, 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011)

. Barnes r

uled that where a commenter could have been “mo r e ex p ansive or more detailed with his comments,” h e nonetheless adequately raised h is concerns reg arding increased air tr affic by specifically noting the

“ i n c re a sed air traffic” the p roject w ould cause. Id. at 1133

. B y contrast, Barnes held that commenters did not adequatelyONDA V

. J E W E L L 22

raise the issue o f i m pacts caused by a potential new control tower, b ecau s e the comments “ did not include one sing le reference to a new control tower.” Id. at 1135. Here, ONDA did not use the phrase “g e netic connectivity ” any where in its comments, nor did it raise any distinct concern reg arding
g enetic interchang e between otherwise separate sag e g rouse populations. Under Barnes
, therefore, ONDA did not put the B L M sufficiently on n otice t h at it should address g enetic connectivity

in the F E I S.

Contrary to ONDA’s assertion, g enetic connect i vity a nd the d istinction b e t w e e n g enetic connectivity and habitat connectivity a

re not such o bviou s i s sues that ONDA h a d no oblig atio n t o raise them to the ag ency

. O NDA cites Department of Trans

portation v. Public Citizen for the proposition that “an EI S’s flaws mi gh t be so obvious that there is no need for a commentator to poi n t t h e m out specifically in order to preserve its ability to cha l leng e a proposed action.” See 5 41 U.S. 752, 765 (2004). B ut P ublic Citizen decided that the issue of a lternatives t o t h e project under review was not so obvious that i t d i d not have to be

ex h austed. See id. I f the analy sis o f a lternatives in P ublic Citizen was not an obvious issue, then the much more specific issue of g enetic conne c t ivity

, as well as the fairly nuanced distinction between g enet ic connectivity and habitat connectivity , are also not that “obvious.”

ON DA also cites the Steens Act’s reference to “g enetic interchang e ,” 16 U.S.C. § 4 60nnn(5)(B ); several passag es in the Sage Grouse Strategy
, Sage Grouse Strategy at 1 0
, 5 7; discus sion by the U.S. F ish & W ildlife Service in its March 2010 d etermination not to list the sag e g rouse as an endang ered species; and mention in the proposed Resource Manag ement Plan a

nd F inal E n v i r o n mental I mpact StatementONDA V

. J E W E L L 23

for the A ndrews Manag ement A rea, which covers some of the land that the proposed rig ht of way would cross, to sug g e st that g enetic connectivity is an important is s u e and therefore that the F EI S should have di s cu s s e d it. B ut where no other

ex c e ptions to the e x haustion requi r e m ent are met, the importance of g enetic c o n n e c tivity to the health a nd wellbeing of the g reater sag e g rouse does not ex cuse ONDA from raising the issue to the B L M so that the ag e n c y c o u l d “g ive the issue meaning ful consideration.” Great Basin Mine W atch , 456 F .3d at 965 (citations omitted). 7

ONDA cites Oregon Natural Desert Association v

. Bureau of Land Management
, 625 F .3d 1092, 1112 (9th Cir. 2008), for the p roposition that the Steens Act’s mention of the B L M’s duty to manag e the long -term ecolog ic a l integ rity o f the Steens Protection Area, in cluding the maintenance o f
g enetic interchang e, indicates that the B L M had to discuss
g enetic connectivity

in the F EI S. B ut the statutes at issue in Oregon Natural Desert A ssociation specifically required the B L M to undertake review of certain issues, n o t, a s is the case with the Steens Act, to undertake management

. B ecause the Steens Act does n ot impose a requirement to review the issue

7 ONDA h as n o t arg u ed th at th e B L M h ad “ in d ep en d en t k n o w led g e” of

a g en etic co n n ectiv i ty im p act o f th e P ro

j ect, s o t h a t e x h au stio n w as n o t req u ired

. S

ee Ba rn es , 6 5 5 F.3 d at 1 1 3 2

. No r h as ONDA arg u ed th at o th er

co m m en ters raised th e issu e o f g en etic co n n ectiv ity

, an d th eref o re th at it d i d n o t h av e t o ex h au st t

h e issu e. S

ee, e.g

. , S h a sta Res. Co u n cil v. U

. S

. Dep ’t o f In terio r , 6 2 9 F. Su

p p

. 2 d 1 04 5
, 1 0 5 2 (E.D. Cal. 20 09 ). A t m o st, ONDA cite s s e c tio n s o f t h e U.S. F ish & W ild lif

e Serv ice’ s March 2 0 1 0 d ecisio n n ot to list th e sag e g ro u se as en dan g ered to su g g est th at g en etic

co n n ecti v ity w as a liv e issu e in t h is ad m in istrativ e p ro cess. T h e d iscu ssio n in th at d e c i s i o n , h o w ev er, i s n o t a co m m en t o n th is P ro

j ect’ s im p act o n g en etic in terch an g e.ONDA V

. J E W E L L 24

of g enetic interchang e , Oregon Natural Desert Association is not pertinent.

Althoug h O NDA n ever raised the ge n e tic connectivity issue, as such, to the BL M
, it sug g ests that it did so b y making a d istinction between inter -population connec tivity (essentially the issue of g enetic connectivity ) and i ntra

population connectivity

. Not so. Althoug h ON D A n ow clearly disting uishes betwee n i nter- and intra-population connectivity , its comments to the B L M did not mention that distinction. Fo r that reason as well, the comments were simply not “structure[ d]

. . . [ t o ] a lert[ ] the ag ency to [ ONDA’s] positions and contentio n s.” Barnes
, 655 F .3d at 1132 (citations and alterations omitted).

ONDA also maintains that it r a i s e d the inter-population connectivity issue by pointing to w hat it c a l l s the Steens Mountain connectivity corridor. B ut O NDA did not specifically identify the Steens Corridor in its comments; it only referred g enerally to “connectivity c o rridors.” Ag ain, ONDA did not point to the inter-populati o n c o nnectivity issue

as a separate, more specific concern that the B L M s h o uld address in the F EI S.

I n short, ONDA n e v er r aised the issue of cross-population
g enetic c onnectivity

, specifically

, to the B L M, either by using the term “g enetic connectivity ” or by making the inter- versus intra-population connectivity distinction, or by ref e rring to t h e Steens Corridor. The B L M responded to comments reg arding habitat connectivity and frag mentation issues at the level o f detail at which those comments were presented. See F EI S 3 .5-22–23, 3.5-25–26. B ecause ONDA never brought the issue of inter-population or g ene t ic connectivity to the B L M ’ s a t t e ntion during the environmental review process, w eONDA V

. J E W E L L 25

conclude that the issue was not ex hausted a n d is not n ow subject to review. 8 , 9

I I I

.

F or the foreg oing reasons, we reverse the district court’s entry of summary

judg ment in part.

REVERSED.

8 ONDA m ad e th e in ter- po p u latio n co n n ectiv ity arg u m en t c l e a r l y

en o u g h t o t h e d istrict co u rt th at it ru led o n th e issu e. It th u s w as n o t

w aiv ed

. S

ee S ta te o f Ariz. v. Co mp o nen ts In c. , 6 6 F.3 d 2 1 3
, 2 1 7 (9 th Cir. 1 9 9 5 ).

9 W e n o te th at th e ex h au st i o n a n a ly sis in t h is case i s u n

u su al, as th e issu e o f g en etic co n n ectiv ity is a t ech n ical, sp eci fi c issu e th at in th is

co n tex t req u ired clear d i f

f eren tiatio n f

ro m th e g en eral h ab itat co n n ectiv ity issu e. T h e sam e m o d e o f an aly sis m ig h t n o t ap p ly to cases in v olv in g th e

ex h au stio n

o f m o re g en eric issu es.