Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n v. Jewell
2016 WL 6127053, 840 F.3d 562 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a federal agency's environmental impact statement is arbitrary and capricious if it relies on inaccurate data and flawed reasoning to extrapolate a baseline environmental condition, especially when that baseline is critical to assessing the project's most significant environmental impact.
Facts:
- Columbia Energy Partners proposed the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a large wind turbine facility, on private land on Steens Mountain in Oregon.
- The project required constructing a new transmission line that would cross public lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
- The project area is a critical habitat for the greater sage grouse, a bird species whose population is in decline and which relies on sagebrush for survival, especially during winter.
- The windswept ridges of the Echanis site, ideal for wind turbines, are also the type of habitat where sagebrush remains exposed above snow, providing essential winter forage for sage grouse.
- The BLM, in its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), did not conduct on-site surveys to determine the presence of sage grouse at the Echanis site during the winter.
- Instead, the BLM extrapolated from surveys at two nearby, lower-elevation sites, asserting that no sage grouse were found there during periods of snow accumulation.
- Based on this extrapolation, the BLM assumed sage grouse were absent from the Echanis site during winter.
- The data the BLM relied upon was inaccurate; it failed to mention that four sage grouse had, in fact, been observed at one of the nearby sites during February.
Procedural Posture:
- Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA) and the Audubon Society of Portland filed a complaint against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, challenging its environmental review under NEPA.
- Harney County and the project developer, Columbia Energy Partners, intervened as defendants.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court (a court of first instance) granted summary judgment for the defendants (BLM, et al.) and denied ONDA's motion.
- ONDA (appellant) appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Bureau of Land Management's environmental impact statement violate the National Environmental Policy Act when it assumes the absence of a protected species from a project site during winter by extrapolating from inaccurate data collected at a nearby location?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Berzon
Yes. A federal agency's environmental analysis is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it relies on an inaccurate factual premise and flawed reasoning to establish a baseline environmental condition. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had a duty under NEPA to ensure the scientific integrity of its analysis and to provide an accurate description of the affected environment. The FEIS stated that no sage grouse were found at the nearby East Ridge site between late December and April, but the record showed that four grouse were found there in February. This inaccuracy rendered the BLM's extrapolation—that sage grouse were absent from the higher-elevation Echanis site—unsupported and arbitrary. Given that grouse were present at the nearby site, the BLM's own logic should have led to an assumption of presence, not absence, at the Echanis site. This error was not harmless because it fundamentally skewed the analysis of the project's most significant environmental impact and prevented informed decision-making and public participation.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical importance of establishing an accurate environmental baseline in any NEPA analysis. It clarifies that while agencies are granted deference on technical matters, this deference does not protect conclusions based on factually inaccurate data or illogical extrapolations. The ruling serves as a check on agency shortcuts, emphasizing that a flawed baseline cannot be cured by subsequent mitigation measures because the agency cannot properly assess what impacts need to be mitigated. For future environmental reviews, this case requires agencies to ensure that any extrapolation from one site to another is grounded in accurate information and defensible scientific reasoning, particularly when assessing impacts on sensitive species.
