Western Watersheds Project et al v. Schneider et al

Filing 181

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to sever and transfer (docket no. 144 ) and the motion to sever and transfer (docket no. 147 )are DENIED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jd)

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,

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

Plaintiffs,
v.
JANICE SCHNEIDER, Assistant
Secretary of Interior; BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT; and U.S. FOREST
SERVICE,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it two motions to sever and transfer brought by the
Utah intervenors and the Wyoming intervenors.1 The motions are fully briefed and
at issue. For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny both motions.

1

The first motion was filed by the State of Utah, the Governor of Utah, the Utah Schools, and the
State of Wyoming. For ease of reference, the Court will refer to this motion as having been filed by the
Utah intervenors. The second motion was filed by the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, the
Petroleum Association of Wyoming, and Western Energy Alliance. For ease of reference, the Court will
refer to this motion as having been filed by the Wyoming intervenors.
Memorandum Decision & Order – page 1

ANALYSIS
The original complaint in this case was brought by four different
environmental groups challenging fifteen Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
issued in 2015 that govern land covering ten western states. The gist of plaintiffs’
lawsuit was that the BLM and Forest Service artificially minimized the harms to
sage grouse by segmenting their analysis into 15 sub-regions without conducting
any range-wide evaluation – the agencies looked at the trees without looking at the
forest, so to speak. The plaintiffs brought their claims under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA), and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA).
The BLM filed a motion to sever and transfer arguing that, for example, the
challenge to the Utah Plan should be transferred to Utah and the challenge to the
Nevada Plan should be transferred to Nevada. The Court denied the motion,
reasoning that “plaintiffs made overarching claims that applied to each EIS and
RMP and required a range-wide evaluation that extended beyond the boundaries of
any particular court.” See Memorandum Decision (Dkt. No. 86).
As this litigation was underway, the Trump Administration came into office
and began a process to review and revise the 2015 Sage-Grouse Plans. This
litigation was put on hold pending that review. In 2017 that review was
completed, and as a result, WWP alleges, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke directed
Memorandum Decision & Order – page 2

agencies to relax restrictions on oil and gas development in sage grouse habitat.
The BLM responded by issuing amendments to the Sage Grouse Plans (referred to
as the 2019 Amendments). Plaintiffs supplemented their complaint to challenge
the BLM’s 2019 Amendments, alleging that the agency – acting at the direction of
the Trump Administration – again made common errors across numerous Plans,
including (1) failing to take a range-wide analysis, (2) failing to evaluate climate
change impacts, and (3) generally removing protections for the sage grouse.
The Utah and Wyoming intervenors have filed a motion to transfer, arguing
that the circumstances have changed since the Court denied the BLM’s motion
discussed above.2 The intervenors argue that the interests of justice and the
interests of local concerns justify transferring, for example, the Utah Plan
challenges to Utah and the Wyoming Plan challenges to Wyoming. The
intervenors argue that the challenges in this case are Plan-specific and will be
unique to each State.
This argument, however, ignores plaintiffs’ complaint. Plaintiffs allege that
the challenged Plans suffer from common failings that did not result entirely from
errors of local Field Offices but rather were heavily influenced by directions from
the Trump Administration and the Interior Secretary. Transferring these cases to

2

The Idaho intervenors join in the motions, arguing that the Court can more effectively focus on
issues unique to Idaho if the other matters are severed and transferred to their respective States.
Memorandum Decision & Order – page 3

various States would require plaintiffs to make duplicative arguments and courts to
render duplicative – and perhaps conflicting – decisions. The Court cannot agree
with intervenors that circumstances have changed since the Court denied the earlier
motion to sever and transfer. The Court will not repeat the analysis of that
decision but will simply confirm its reasoning and once again deny these motions.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to sever
and transfer (docket no. 144) and the motion to sever and transfer (docket no. 147)
are DENIED.

DATED: August 16, 2019

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
U.S. District Court Judge

Memorandum Decision & Order – page 4