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

ORDER AND AMENDED 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 A mended October 20, 2016ONDA V

. J E W E L L 2

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 on

SUMMARY *

Environm ental Law

The pa nel amended its opinion, filed on May 26, 2016, and reversed in part the district court’s summary judg ment in favor of defendants in an a c t i o n c halleng ing under the National Environmental P o l i c y A c t a w i n d

- e n erg y development project on the g round that the U.S. B u r e au o f L and Manag ement’s environmental review of the project did
not adequately address impacts to the g reater sag e g rou se; and remanded.

The panel hel d that B L M’s r eview did not adequately

assess b a s e l i ne sag e g rouse numbers during winter at the proposed Echanis wind e n e r gy f acility in Harney County
, O r e go n

. The panel also held that the B L M’s error was not harmless. According ly
, the panel reversed the district court’s entry of summary judg ment i n f avor o f the B L M, Harney County
, a n d Columbia Energ y Partners, the project developer, as to that issue.

The pan e l also held that because p laintiffs did not bring the issue o f inter-population o r g enetic connectivity b etween

* 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

sag e g rouse populati o n s to the B L M’s attention during the environmental review p r o c e ss, the issue was not ex hausted and is not now subject to review.

The panel remanded to the district court with instructions
to vacate the Secretary of the I nterior’s Record of D ecision unless the d istrict court determines that this is t he rare circumstance where the ag e ncy action should remain in force until the action is reconsidered or replaced.

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 United States Atto r n e y General, W a shing t o n D.C.; Ty B air, Allen M. B rabender, & Peter Krz y wicki (arg

ued), United States Department of J u s t i ce, W a shing ton D.C.; Veronica L arvie, Office of t h e S olicitor, Department of the I nterior, Salt L a k e C i t y , Utah, for Defendants-Appellees.

J onathan M. Norling
, Portland, Oreg on, for I n tervenorAppellee Columbia Energ y Partners.

Dominic M. Carollo (arg ued), Ronald S

. Y ockim, Y ockim Carollo L L P, Rosebur g , Oreg o n, f or I ntervenor-DefendantAppellee Harney

County

.ONDA V

. J E W E L L 4

ORDER

The o pinion filed on May 26, 2016, and repo r t e d a t 823 F .3d 1258 is hereby amended. The a mended o p inion will be filed concurrently w ith this order.

The opinion is amended as follows:

1. On 823 F .3d a t 1270, after <F or the foreg oing reasons,

we reverse the district c o u rt’s e n try o f summary judg ment in part.> a dd <W e remand this a c t i o n to the district court with instructions to vacate the Secretary of the I nterior’s Record o f Decision unless the district court determines that this i s o ne of the “rare circumstances, when [ it is] advisable that the
ag ency action r ema i n i n f orce until the action can be reconsidered or replaced

. . . .” Hu ma n e S o c’y of U.S. v

. Locke
, 626 F .3d 1040, 1053 n.7 (9th C i r

. 2010). Whether, and when, construction of the transm i s s ion line a nd wind
t u r b i n e c omplex will g o forward absent vacatur may be relevant to that determination.>

2

. On 823 F .3d at 1270, the final line o f the op i n i o n i s chang ed to: <REVERSED and REMANDED.>

The Petition f

or Panel Rehearing is DENIED

. N o f urther petitions for rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc will be entertained.ONDA V

. J E W E L L 5

OP INION

B ERZ ON, Circuit J udg e :

Renewable energ y projects, althoug h critical to the effort
to combat c l i m a te chang e, can have sig nificant adverse environmental im

p a c t s , j u s t a s o t

h e r l a r g e-scale developments do. H e r e , t h e Oreg on Natural Desert Association and the Audubon Society o f Portland (collecti v e l y , “ONDA”) challeng e a wind-energ y development on the g round that the U.S. B u reau of L and Manag ement’s (“B L M”) environmental revi e w of the p roject d id not adequately address impacts to t h e greater sag e g rouse, a relatively larg e g round-dwelling bird once abundant in the western U n i t e d States. G reater

s a g e g rouse depend on sag ebrush habitat for their surv i v a l

. The challeng e d project enta i l s t he construction o f wind turbines and a rig ht-of-way across a sag ebrush l a n d scape in southeastern Oreg on’s Harney County

.

W e conclude that the BL M ’ s review did not adequately

assess baseline sag e g rouse numbers during wi n t e r a t the Echanis site, w here the wind turbines are to be installed. A s to that p o int, w e r everse the district court’s entry of summary judg ment in favor of t h e B L M, H arney County
, a nd Columbia Energ y Partners, the project develo p e r

. W e also conclude, h owever, that O NDA did not ex haust its arg ument reg arding g enetic c onnectivity
, and so we affirm as to that issue.ONDA V

. J E W E L L 6

I

.

A. The P roject

The Echanis W ind Energ y Pro j e c t “is a 104-meg awatt ( M W ) w i nd e nerg y facility that would be constructed on a 10, 5 0 0

- acre privately -owned tract” on Steens Mountain in Harney C o u n ty , Oreg on. B L 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 tu r b i n es w ould be built 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, which involves “the constructi o n, operation, and maintenance of a n ew [ 230-kilovolt] overhead electri c transmission line a nd associated facilities on B L Madministered land,” would transport energ y from the turbines
to the electrical gr id. F EI S ES-1–2. The entire undertaking

— that is, both the transmi s s ion line and the turbine com p lex —(“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 r e ceived a conditional use permit f rom Harney County to develop the Project, commissioned several studies of t he Project, and secured a 20-y ear ag reement to sell e nerg y g enerated b y the wind facility

. 1 F E I S ES-1. B ecau s e t h e r ig ht-of-way for the transmission line crosses publ ic lands administered 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 Pr o j e c t is

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 7

subject to environmental review under the National Environmenta l P olicy Act (“NEPA”), 4 2 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq

. See F EI S 1-1.

The Echanis site was chosen b ecause “[ i] nitia l site

r econnaissance revealed wind-swept areas well ex posed to prevailing west winds and – where pre s ent – sig nificant ‘flag g ing ’ of v e g etation, indicating a robust w esterly wind resource.” F EI S app. F at 6. This preliminary a s s e s sment

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

a route for the transmission line and associated infrastructure
t h at w ould cut across, in part, the Steens Moun t a i n Cooperati v e Manag e ment and Protection Area (“Steens Protection Area”). See
, e .g. , F EI S ES-3, ES-11, 1-4–5.

B. Steens Mountain

Steens Moun t a i n i s many miles long and nearly 10,000 feet in elevation at its hig h est point

. I n 2000, Cong ress enacted t h e Steens Mountain Cooperative Manag ement a nd Protection Act (“Steens Act”), which, a mo n g other thing s, established the Steens Protection Are a and the Steens Mountain W ilderness Area. F EI S 1-19; see 16 U .S.C. § 460nnn, e t seq

. “The purpose of the [ Stee n s P ro t e ction Area] is to conserve, p r otect, and manag e the long -term 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 “ ecolog ical integ rity ” that m u st be conserved, protected, and manag ed includes “the maintenance o f

. . . g enetic interchang e

. ” 1 6 U.S.C. § 460nnn(5)(B ). Steens Mountain, home to many sag e brush communities, lies near th e ce n t e r of one of the last remaining “ strong holds o fONDA V

. J E W E L L 8

contig uous sag ebrush h a b itat e ssential fo r t h e 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 ebrush-obli g ate b ird, meaning that it relies on sag ebrush for its surviva l y e a r

round. F EI S 3.5-22; Oreg o n Department of F ish & Wildlife, Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation A ssessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to Maintain and Enh a n ce Populations and Habitat
, Draft, March 1, 2011 (“ Sage Grouse Strategy ”)
at 8. Sag e g rouse use different aspects of sag ebrush habitats f o r v a rious purposes. F EI S 3 .5-22. F or instance, a t leks, “open areas surrounded by sag ebrush,” male sag e g rouse strut and c ompete f

or female mate s , d isplay ing their elaborate plumag e. F EI S 3.5-22; S age G r ouse Strategy at 8. I n addition, sag e g rouse use sag ebrush habitats for nesting a nd brood rearing . F EI S 3.5-22.

Sag ebrush habitat is also essential fo r w i n t er survival o f
sag e g r ouse. “During the w inter mont h s , [ the] g reater sag eg 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 g rouse in the winter months “tend toward a reas wi th hig h canopy and taller sag ebrush plants

. . . . Sag ebrush must be ex posed at least 9.8 to 11.8 inches (25 to 30 cm) above the

snow level to provide adequate forag e and cover.” F EI S 3 .5- 23. “[ I ] f sag ebrush is covered w ith 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 r o u s e t hroug h the winter.” F E I S 3.5-23–24; see also Sage Grouse Strategy at 10.ONDA V

. J E W E L L 9

Once abundant across much of the western United States and Canada, the g reater sag e g rouse n ow lives in “continually declining ” and “increa s ing ly separate” populations. F E I S 3.5-22. Since the 1950s, the overall population of sag e g rouse has declined b y somewhere b e t w e e n 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 Strategy at 1. As a consequence, “[ m] aintenance of connectivity and reduction of frag mentation of sag ebrush h abitats is key to the long -term welfare of a l l

. . . sag ebrush a ssociated species.” Id. a t 4. Oreg on is unique in th at, “[ c] o mpared to other states within the rang e of sag e-g rouse, [ it] has larg e ex panses o f contig uous h a bitat with 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 l i kely comprise nearly 20% of the North American rang e w ide distributio n.” Id. at 2.

D. Environm ental Review

The impacts o f the Project on sag e g rouse were by far the
most sig nificant concern during the e n vironmental r e v i e w process at issue here. I n the d raft enviro n m e n t a l impact
statement (“DEI S”), F EI S, a n d ROD, the B L M adopted information, g uidance, and mitig ation measure s concerning
t he sag e g rouse from the Oreg on Department of Fi s h & 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 Framework for Sage-Grouse Habit a ts , Aug

. 23, 2011 (“ Mitigation Framework

”).

I n re sponse to the DEI S, ONDA submitted to the BL M

numerous comments on a varie ty of issues, supporting theONDA V

. J E W E L L 10

comments with scientific studies, wildlife manag eme n t materials, and other d o cuments. A fter the comment period ended, the B L M i ssued 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 North Route line w o u ld be approx i m a tely 46 miles long
, connecting an electric substation at the Echanis site with an interconnection station near Crane, Oreg on. F EI S ES-3.

Of relevance here, the F EI S acknowledg ed the “potential conflict b etween wind e nerg y development and g r eater sag eg rouse winter forag ing h abitats, b ecause t h e w i n d s w e p t ridg e s that keep sag ebrush e x posed during winter months could also be ideal locations for wind energ y development.” F EI S 3.5- 25. Despite this c onc er n , no survey 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 Apr i l. I nstead, 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 ro u s e use the Echanis site during winter. 3 F E I S 3.5-25, 3.19-4. The F EI S stated that “no g reater sag e-g rouse were found” at the East and W e st Ri dg e sites between late December and April, during the period of snow accumulation. F EI S 3.5-25. I t ex plained:

2 A lth o u g h th e en tire Pro

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 ate l an d
, so th e p ro p osed tu rb in es w o u ld be b u ilt t h 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.

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 11

The East Ridg e and W est Ridg e projects a re simi l ar but potentially a t even lower elevations [ than is the Echanis s ite]

. . . . B e cause the E chanis Project area is g enerally

cov e r e d with snow earlier and later in the

season because of it’s [ sic] relatively hig her elevation, it is r eason ab le to ex trapolate winter use from the survey s at the East Ridg e and W est Ridg e sites. T h erefore, based upon these data, g r eater sag e-g rouse are a ssumed

n o t t o utiliz e the Echanis Project Area for winter h a bitat from the time that the
veg etation is covered with snow until snowmelt, roug hly December throug h April.

F EI S 3.5-25.

As to connectivity concerns, the tran s m i s s ion lines a nd associated access and maintenance roads would phy sically divide sag e g rouse habitat, and the lines w ould provide perches f or predatory r aptors ( such as hawks and eag les) a nd corvids (such a s ravens, crows, an d jay s). See Sage G rouse Strategy at 47–48. A c c o r ding ly
, the F EI S assumed that
g rouse would avoid and be displaced f r o m a r eas near transmission lines a

n d po l e s

. F EI S 3.5-43–44. This displacement, combined with possible avoid a n c e of 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,ONDA V

. J E W E L L 12

challeng ing environmental r eview of the Project und er NEPA. Ha r n e y County and Columbia Energ y Partners intervened. The parties then filed cross-motions for summary judg ment. 4 Ultimately
, th e c o urt g ranted the defendants’ motions for summary

judg ment and denied ONDA’s.

W e reverse the district court’s ruling

.

I I

.

ONDA asserts that the B L M’s review o f t h e Project did
not comply with NEPA, “our basic national ch a r t er for protection of the environment.” 40 C.F .R. § 1500.1(a). The centerpie ce of environmental review under NEPA is the environmental impac t 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. §§ 15 0 0

. 1
, 1 502.15. N EPA imposes procedural requ i rements on federal ag encies undertaking review; i t does not mandate outcomes. W ildEarth G uardians v

. Mont. Snowmobile A ss’n
, 7 90 F. 3 d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2015).

NEPA challeng es are reviewed u nder the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Id. Under the APA, we ask whether the ag ency ’s action was “arbitrary
, capricious, an a buse o f discretion, or o ther wi s e not in accordance w ith law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). An ag ency ’s action can be set aside

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 13

as arbitrary and capr i c i o u s only if the ag ency relied o n factors Cong ress d id not intend it to consider, entirely failed t o consider an important aspect o f the problem, or offered an

ex p lanation that r

uns counter to the evide n ce before the a g ency or i s so implausible that it

co u l d not b e ascribed to a difference 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), overruled on other grounds by W inter v

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

A. Baseline Winter Conditions

ON D A first contends that the B L M e rred in failing directly to assess baseline conditions at the Ec h an i s site, instead r ely ing on a

n e x trapolation f

ro m nearby sites to conclude that there is no g reater sag e g rouse winter habitat at Echanis.

The e stablishm e n t o f a “baseline is not an independent leg al r equirement, but rather, a practical r e quirement in environmental analy sis often employ ed to ident i fy the

e n v i ronmental consequences of a proposed ag ency action.” Am. Rivers v. FERC
, 201 F .3d 1186, 1195 n. 1 5 ( 9 t h Cir. 1999). An EI S must “ succinctly describe the environment o f the a rea(s) to be affected

. . . b y the alternatives under consideration,” 40 C.F .R. § 1502.15, a n d “ i nsure that environmental information is available to public officials a nd citiz ens before decisions a re made and before acti o n s a r e t aken,” id. § 1500.1(b) (emphases a dded). “Accura t e scientific analy sis

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

. J E W E L L 14

Apply ing these principles, several cases hav e f ound environmental analy ses insufficient for failing to establish an environmental baseline. I ndeed, as 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 winter s a g e-g rouse populations along a rail line. See N. Plains Res. C o u n c i l v. Surface Transp. Bd.
, 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 i m p o r tance of sag e g rouse, more discussion on sag e g rouse is needed, including discussion on wintering

ar eas

. . . . Sag e g rouse inventories need to be conducted at least two miles from any proposed disturbance.” Id. Northern Plains Resource Council ag r eed with the B L M that DOT did not adequately assess base l i n e conditions for the challeng ed project. Id. at 1083–85. Similarly
, H a lf M oon Bay ruled that analy sis in an EI S was inadequate b ecause it failed to assess baseline underwater conditions at a site where it was proposed dredg ed materials would b e d u mped. Half Moon Bay Fisherman’s M a r k eting Ass’n v. Carlucci
, 857 F .2d 505, 510 (9th Cir. 1988).

Under Northern Plains Resource Council and 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 f ar t h e most sig nificant concern during environmental review, and the unique f eatures o f winter habitat are essential to sag e-g r ouse survival. See, e.g. , Sage Grou s e S

trategy at 47, 83. B aseline conditions at the Echanis site thus warranted comprehensive study in the F EI S.

The F EI S did not report on any observations o f t h e Echanis site survey

ing w i n t e r sag e g rouse use of the area.ONDA V

. J E W E L L 15

I n s t e a d, the F EI S assumed that sag e g rouse are absent f r o m the site during winter. F EI S 3.5-25

. To justify this assumption, the F EI S r elied on data from the East and W e s t Ridg e sites, located near th e E c h anis site but at g enerally l o w e r elevations. Id. I n doing so, the F EI S asserted th a t , 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 i n 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 its e x trapolation from s u r v e y s at these sites was reasonable because the “potentially ” lower elevation of the site s , as c ompared to the 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 sag e g r o u s e w e r e found at the East Ridg e site—the survey ed sit e c loser to Echanis—during February
, indicating that some sag e g rouse do spend the winter there. The F EI S thus did not c o m ply with the r equirement to provide “[ a] ccurate scientific

an aly sis,” w hich is “essential to implementing NEPA,” 40 C.F .R. § 1500.1(b), or with the ag ency ’s o b l ig ation to “insure t h e professional integ rity
, including scientific integ rity
, of the discussions a n d analy ses in [ EI Ss] ,” id. § 1502.24.

F urther, that some g rou s e w ere found at the East Ridg e site in mid-winter g reatly undermines the validity o f the B L M’s assumed absence of sag e g rouse at the Echanis s i t e. Given t h a t g rouse do use the East Ridg e site during theONDA V

. J E W E L L 16

winter, the B L M’s own ex trapo l at i on method should have resulted in assuming the birds’ presence , not their absence

.

The record as a whole confirms t h e validity of this contrary as s u mption. Christian Hag en, the O reg on D e p a rtment of F ish & W ildlife scientist who prepared the Mitigation Framework
, sug g ested that, if g rouse w er e s till present at the East a

nd W es t R i d g e sites in December, the conditions were probably righ t t o spend the entire winter there; in fact, as noted, g rouse were present in Fe b r u a ry

. F urther, several sources on which the F EI S reli e d
, a n d the F EI S itself, acknowledg e that the wind-swept character o f the E c h a n i s s ite—the aspect of the site that makes it ideal for wind-energy g ener ation—sug g ests it could be g ood winter habitat for sag e g rouse, despite i t s “ potentially ” hig her elevation, as snow there ma y 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 a t 6; Sage Grouse Strategy

at 47. And scientists and cooperating
ag encies recommended to the 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 th e E c h anis site during 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 ed rendered i t s 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.

The d efendants maintain that t he B L M is owed special defere n ce w hen undertaking scientific or technical 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 scientifi c integ rity of its analy sis,ONDA V

. J E W E L L 17

a NEPA requirement. See 40 C.F .R. §§ 1500.1(b), 1502.24. The def e ndants a lso posit that invalidating the B L M’s
assessment of winter c o n d i tions at Echanis, and 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 habitat ex trapolation s fr om

one site to another are impermissible. I n stead, our holding is that any s uch ex trapolation must be based on accurate information and defensible reasoning

.

The errors in the B L M’s a n aly sis were not harmless. See Tucson Herpetological Soc’y v. S a l a z ar , 566 F .3d 870, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). The inaccurate information and u n supported assumption materially impeded inf o r m e d d e c i s i o n m a

k i n g a nd public p articipation. See id. ; cf. Montana Snowmobile
, 790 F .3d at 926. W ithout appropria t e data reg arding sag e g rouse u se o f the Echanis site durin g t h e w inter, whether direct or v i a a supportable ex trapolation, it was n ot possible
to beg in to assess whether 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, had the B L M a s s u med the Echanis site provides winter sag e g rouse habitat, rather than that it does not, the site would be deemed “Categ ory -1 Habitat” pursuant to the Sage G r o u se Strategy a nd Mitigation Framework

. Under that desig nation 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

5 T h e S a g e Gro u se S tra teg

y , w h i ch t h e B LM r e l i e d 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 ab itat as “ Categ o r y -1
, ” m ean in g th at it i s “ 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 t o m itig ate f o r h ab itatONDA V

. J E W E L L 18

at 83, 86; Mitigation Framework at 1–2. I n that respect, the B L M’s a

na l y sis materially affected the outcome o f environmental review. See Idaho W o ol Growe r

s Ass’n v

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

The defendants urg e that the mitig ation measures adopted in the F EI S cured any potential prejudice resulting f rom a faulty baseline a

naly sis. 6 Mitig ation measures, however, while r elevant 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 panac e a f o r inadequate data collection and a naly sis. More specifically
, they do not address the

lo ss

. . . in [a] reaso n ab l e tim e f ram e, an d is irrep laceab le.” 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 i m p acts 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 o sed d ev elo p m en t actio n ,” o r, if im pacts can n o t b e av o id ed th ro u g h th e u se o f altern ativ es, th ere sh ou ld b e “[ n] o au t

h o rizatio n o f th e pro p o sed d ev elo p m en t actio n .” Id

. In ad d i t i o n , th e Mitig a t io n Fra mewo rk reco m m en 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

.

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 19

concerns relevant to the p rejudice 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, 1 093 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, w ith baseline conditions inadequately established, the public was not able to tailor its comments to address concerns reg arding the potential winter presence of sag e g rouse a t the Echanis site. N or was the B L M’s e x planation of the impacts
to winter g r o use habitat adequately 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 Proj e c t’s impacts to them, qualitatively or 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 a te, or whether the mitig ation proposed would be adequate to offset damag e to wintering sag e g rouse. Mos t importantly
, had the B L M assumed the presence of sag e g r ou s e , rather than their

a b s e n ce, the Echanis site would be d eemed 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.

Gi v e n the B L M’s prejudicial error, the district court’s entry o f summary judg ment in favor of the d e f e n dants must be reversed.

B. G enetic Connectivity

ONDA nex t asserts that the F E I 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 ro u s e populations. “ G e n e t i c c o nnectivity ” means the e x tent to which separate p opulations of a species are able t o s hare
g enes and thereby to maintain a h e a lthy g enetic div e rsity within each population. The defendants arg ue that ONDA failed to ex haust this arg ument during e n vironmental review.ONDA V

. J E W E L L 20

They a lso point out t h a t the F EI S and ROD adequately addressed the more g eneral issue of habitat connectivity and frag mentation. W e ag ree with the defendants.

J ud i ci a l review is a v a ilable for NEPA challeng es under the APA only if the NEPA pla intiffs ex haust their administrative remedies. Great Basin Mine W atch v

. Hankin s , 4 56 F

. 3d 955, 965 (9th Cir. 2006); see 5 U .S.C. § 704. ONDA did n ot u se the term “g e netic connectivity ” in i t s c omments on the draft EI S, nor did it make speci fi c arg uments about that issue, separately from the more g eneral issues of habitat connectivity and frag mentation.

The closest ONDA came to raising the g enetic

c onnectivity a

rg ument as a distinct issue was the foll o w i n g comment to the B L M:

According to [ the U.S. F ish & W ildlife Service’s] c andidate species listing decision
, leks wi t hin 18 km (11.2 miles) of each other have c o m m on features, such as g enetic characteristic[ s] (g enetic evidence proves that

ex c hang e between different leks by individual birds has n o t b een restricted), c o m p a r ed to leks farther away

. [ The U.S. F ish & W ildlife Service] used this distance to determine connectivity between lek si tes. B ecause Echanis and the transmission line alternatives fall wi t h in the p arameters of connectivity
, there will likely b e impacts on the ability for
sag e-g rouse to move ac r o s s the landscape to lek sites for breeding

and courtship.ONDA V

. J E W E L L 21

Comment L etter from O NDA to B L M (September 17, 2010),
at 35–36 (“ONDA Comment L etter”) ( f o otnote omitted). Notably
, the foreg oing statement mentions t he 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 ON DA’s otherwise

ex tremely comprehensive comments—to alert the B L M that O NDA was asking for a g enetic connectivity ana l y s i s reg arding separate sag e g rouse populations.

I n one of its comment letters ONDA
, quoted a B L M instruction memorandum, w hich articulated B L M pol icy
reg arding the desig nation o f p rio ri t y habitat for v arious wildlife species, as s tating that “[ p] riority habitat will be

areas of hig h quality habita t s u p p o rting important sag e-g rouse p o pulations, including those populations that a re vulnera b l e to localiz ed ex tirpation but necessary to maintain range-wide connectivity and genetic diversity .” ONDA Comment L etter at 25 ( emphasis added ) ( q u oting B L 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 c omment of which the statement was a part asserted that the DEI S d i d 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 desig nation of priority h abitat for many species, including
sag e g rouse. This opaque comment was not adequately specific t o a l e r t the B L M that it should analy z e theONDA V

. J E W E L L 22

substantively distinct issue of cross-pop u l a tion g enetic connectivity

.
Elsewhere, ONDA’s comments address connectivity a nd frag mentation at leng th, b u t only in a g eneral sense, not specifically with reg ard to c ross-population g enetic connectivity

. S

ee ONDA Comment L etter at 22 (noting that the Project will “ ri d dle[ ] ” core sag e g rouse habitat in the Steens Protection Area with t urbines, transmission lines, roads, and o t her infrastructure), 26 (noting the B L M p olicy that “it is imperative that f rag mentation and deg radation o f
. . . g reater sag e-g rouse habitat not continue to the point that sustainable 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 ra n ge has c ontributed to sig nificant population declines over the p a s t 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 tinction.”), 34

– 3 5 (referring to h a bitat frag mentation), 36 ( referring to “connectivity

c orridors”), 37 (referring to “new habitat loss a n d frag mentation”), 38 (noting “hab itat loss, frag mentation, o r deg radation” concerns )
, 3 9 (referring to “the need for

ex c luding habitat-frag menting activities fr o m sag e-g rouse

core habitat”), 80–82 (referring to h abitat frag mentation), 86 (referring t o habitat frag mentation and deg radation); L etter from ONDA to Secretary
, Dep’t of I nterior (November 15, 2011), at 1 (referring to hab i t a t f r ag mentation and a “frag mented p o pulation”); L etter from O NDA to Secretary
, Dep’t of I n terior (J uly 21, 2011), at 2, (“frag me nt vital habitat”), 3 (“loss o f irreplaceable habitat

. . . d u e t o frag mentatio n ” )
, 5 ( “ w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t c o n n e ctivity ”); Supplemental Comment L etter from ONDA to B L M (J anuary 26, 2011), at 2 (“[ H] a

rm t o s ag e-g rouse on Steens w o uld beONDA V

. J E W E L L 23

ex a c erbated by habitat frag mentation

. . . . ”). B ecause ONDA’s comments r efer only to overall habitat connectivity and fra gm e ntation, they were too vag ue to raise the specific genetic connectivity issue reg arding separate populations as

a distinct concern. G reat Basin Mine W atch
, 456 F .3d at 967.

Barnes v. U

.S. Department of Transp o r t a tion confirms that ONDA’s comments were inadequ a t e 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 “more e x pan s i v e or more detailed with his comments,” h e nonetheless adequately raised h is concerns reg arding increased air traffic by specifical ly noting the “increased a ir traffic” the p roject w ould caus e

. I d

. at 1133. B y contrast, Barnes held that commenters did not adequately

ra i s e the issue of impacts caused by a potential new control tower, b ecause the c omments “did n o t 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 that it should a d dress g enetic connectivity

in the F E I S.

Contrary to ONDA’s assertion, g enetic conn e ctivity a nd the d is t i n c tion between g enetic connectivity and habitat connectivity a

re not such o bvious issues that O N D A h a d no

o b l i gation to raise them to the ag ency

. ONDA cites Department of Tr ansportation v. Public Citizen for the proposition that “an EI S’s flaws mig ht be so o bvio u s that
t h e r e is n o need for a commentator to p oint them o u t specifically in order to preserve its a b ility to challeng e a proposed action.” See 541 U.S. 752, 765 (2004). B ut P ublicONDA V

. J E W E L L 24

C i t i z e n decided that the issue of a lternatives to the proj e ct

u n d e r r e view was not so obvious that it did not have to b e

ex h austed. See id. I f t h e analy sis of alternatives in P ublic Citizen was not an obvious issue, then the much more specific issue of g enetic connectivity
, as w ell as the fairly nuan c e d distinction between g ene tic connectivity and habitat connectivity , are also not that “obvious.”

ONDA also c ites the Steens A ct’ s reference to “g enetic interchang e ,” 16 U.S.C. § 460nnn(5)(B ); several passag es in the Sage Grouse Strategy
, Sage G r o u s e Strategy a t 1 0, 57; disc ussion 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 nmental I mpact Statement 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 t h at g enetic connectivity is an important issue and therefore that the F EI S should have discussed it. Bu t w h e re no other

ex c e ptions t o the ex haustion requirement are met, the importance of g enetic c onnectivit y t o 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 s o t h a t the ag ency could “g ive the issue meaning ful consideration.” Great Basin Mine W atch , 456 F .3d at 965 (citations omitted). 7

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

a g en etic co n n ectiv i ty i m p a c t o f t h e P ro j ect, s o th at ex h au stio n w as n o t req u ired

. S

ee Ba r n 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 id n ot h av e to ex h au st th 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 0 4 5
, 1 0 5 2 (E.D. Cal. 2 0 0 9 ). A t m o st, O N DA cites sectio n s o f th e U .S. Fish & 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 d an g ered to su g g est th at g en etic

c o n n ectiv ity w as a liv e issu e in t h is ad m in istrativ e p ro cess. T h eONDA V

. J E W E L L 25

ONDA cites Oregon Natural Desert Association v

. Bureau of Land Management
, 625 F .3d 1092, 1112 (9th Cir. 2008), for the proposition that the Steens Act’s mention of the B L M’s duty to manag e the long -term ecolog ical integ r it y o f the Steens Protection Area, including 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 e cause the Steens Act does not impose a requirement to review the issue of g enetic interchang e , Oregon Natural D esert Association is not pertinent.

Althoug h O NDA n ever ra i s e d the g enetic connectivity issue, as such, to the B L M, it sug ge s t s that it did so b y making a d istinction between inter -popula tion connectivity (essentially the issue of g enetic connec t i vity ) and intra

population c o nnectivity

. Not so. Althoug h ONDA n ow clearly disting uishes between inter- an d i ntra-population connectivity
, its comments to the B L M did n ot mention that distinction. F or that reason as well, the comme n ts were simply not “structure[ d]

. . . [ to] a lert[ ] t h e ag ency to [ ONDA’s] positions and contentions.” Barne s , 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 t o wh at it calls the Steens Mountain connectivity corri d o r. B u t O NDA did not specifically identify the Steens Corridor in its comments; it only referred g enerally to “connectivity corrid o r s.” Ag ain,

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 26

O N D A did not point to the inter-population connectivity is s u e

as a separate, more specific concern that th e BL M should address in the F EI S.

I n short, O NDA never raised the issue of cross-population
g enetic c onnectivity
, specifically
, to the B L M, either by using the term “ g enetic connectivity ” o r by making the inter- versus intra-pop u lation connectivity distinction, or by referring to the Steens Corridor. T he B L M responded to com m e n ts 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 n ever broug ht the issue of inte r -population or g enetic connectivity to the B L M ’ s a t t e n tion during the environmental review process, w e conclude that the issue was n o t ex hausted and 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 o f summary judg ment in part. W e remand this action to the district court with instructions to v a c a t e the Secretary o f the I nterior’s Record of Decision unless the district court determines that this i s o ne of the “rare circumstances, when

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.ONDA V

. J E W E L L 27

[ it is] advisable that the ag ency actio n r e main in force until
t h e action can be reconsidered or replaced

. . . . ” Huma n e Soc’y o f U.S. v. Locke
, 6 2 6 F .3d 1040, 1053 n.7 (9th Cir. 2010). W hether, and when, c onstruction of the transmission line and wind turbine complex will g o f orward absent vacatur may be relevant to that determination.

REVERSED and REMANDED.