Western Watersheds Project et al v. Schneider et al

Filing 138

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. The motion to file supplemental complaint (docket no. 118 ) is GRANTED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (alw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT,
WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, CENTER
FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, and
PRAIRIE HILLS AUDUBON SOCIETY,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 1:16-CV-83-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
JANICE SCHNEIDER, Assistant
Secretary of Interior; BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT; and U.S. FOREST
SERVICE,
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it WWP’s motion to file a supplemental complaint. The
motion is fully briefed and at issue. For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant
the motion.
ANALYSIS
The plaintiffs challenge 15 different Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) and
their associated land use plans – issued in 2015 – that govern land covering ten western
states. The EISs were issued as part of a National Planning Strategy by the BLM and
Forest Service to update protections for sage grouse. Plaintiffs allege that the agencies
artificially minimized the harms to sage grouse by segmenting their analysis into 15 subregions without conducting any range-wide evaluation, and bring claims under the

Memorandum Decision & Order – page 1

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act (FLPMA), and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA).
This lawsuit was stayed for a lengthy period as the parties pursued settlement. But
more recently, the agencies have issued amendments (referred to as the 2019
Amendments) to the 2015 Plans. Plaintiffs have responded by filing a motion to file a
supplement complaint to challenge the 2019 Amendments in this case. Defendants and
intervenors object, arguing that any challenge to the 2019 Amendments should be filed in
a new case.
Plaintiffs’ motion is governed by Rule 15(d), which states that “the court may, on
just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction,
occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.”
The courts have generally granted motions to supplement under Rule 15(d) where a
matter is still pending, and final judgment has not yet been entered. LaSalvia v. United
Dairymen of Ariz., 804 F.2d 1113 (9th Cir. 1986).
The Court considered Rule 15(d) in WWP v. Zinke, 347 F.Supp.3d 554 (D. Id.
2018). By way of background, the case was a decade old by the time plaintiff WWP
sought to file a supplemental complaint containing (1) a new legal challenge, and (2) a
new substantive challenge that would require additional fact-finding. The latter challenge
was somewhat separate from the issues raised in the original complaint and threatened to
delay resolution of an already ancient case. Accordingly, the Court held that the new
claims “belong in a new case.” Id.

Memorandum Decision & Order – page 2

In the present case, the 2019 Amendments replace and modify only portions of the
2015 Amendments; other portions remain unaffected. For example, the 2015 Plans for
Montana and the Dakotas were not affected by the 2019 Amendments. Moreover, in
those instances where the 2019 Amendments replaced or modified the 2015 Plans, the
plaintiffs allege that the 2019 Amendments are less protective of sage grouse and subject
to the same challenges plaintiffs raised to the 2015 Plans – that they fail to take a rangewide analysis, evaluate climate change impacts, designate sage grouse ACECs, or adopt
adequate regulatory mechanisms to protect sage grouse habitats and populations.
Under these circumstances, requiring plaintiffs to file a new lawsuit rather than a
supplemental complaint would not do much to promote efficiency or lower costs.
Indeed, requiring a new lawsuit would result in two active cases proceeding on parallel
tracks that would eventually have to be reconciled. Given the patchwork-quilt effects of
the 2019 Amendments – and the intertwined nature of these agency actions – it would be
more efficient and cost-effective to allow the supplemental complaint to be filed in this
case to further a global resolution of the challenges to both the 2015 Plans and the 2019
Amendments.
For these reasons, the Court will grant WWP’s motion to file a supplemental
complaint.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to file
supplemental complaint (docket no. 118) is GRANTED.
Memorandum Decision & Order – page 3

DATED: May 2, 2019
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
U.S. District Court Judge

Memorandum Decision & Order – page 4