Western Organization of Resource Councils et al v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management et al

Filing 124

ORDER; Federal Defendants shall complete, within sixteen months of todays date and no later than November 29, 2019, new coal screening and remedial NEPA analyses in compliance with the Courts March 26, 2018, Order 111 . Any new or pending leases o f coal, oil, or gas resources in the planning areas subject to the Buffalo RMP and the Miles City RMP must undergo comprehensive environmental analyses in compliance with the Courts March 26, 2018, Order 111 and all existing procedural requirements under NEPA and the APA. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants on Claim 1, Claim 3, and Claim 5, in accordance with the Courts March 26, 2018, Order. 110 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants/Intervenors and against Plaintiffs on Claim 2, Claim 4, and Claim 6, in accordance with the Courts March 26, 2018, Order. 111 Federal Defendants Motion to Reconsider 112 is DENIED AS MOOT. Federal Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors Motions for Leave to File Response to Plaintiffs Remedies Brief 117 119 are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 7/31/2018. (TLO)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION
WESTERN ORGANIZATION OF
RESOURCE COUNCILS, et al.

CV 16-21-GF-BMM

Plaintiffs,
vs.
ORDER
U.S. BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, an agency within
the U.S. Department of the Interior, et
al.
Defendants.

I.

INTRODUCTION

The Court issued an Opinion and Order in this matter on March 26, 2018.
(Doc. 111.) The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer in good faith to reach
an agreement as to remedies. Id. at 52. In the absence of such agreement, the Court
ordered the parties to submit, within sixty days, supplemental briefing on the issue.
Id. The parties submitted remedies briefs on May 25, 2018. (Docs. 113; 114; 115.)
II.
A.

DISCUSSION

Timeline for Expedited EIS Revisions
Federal Defendants have provided two proposed expedited schedules for the

preparation of a supplemental EIS for the Buffalo RMP and a supplemental EIS for
1

the Miles City RMP. The first timeline provides a twelve-month schedule for a
corrective NEPA analysis. (Doc. 114 at 22.) The second timeline provides a
sixteen-month schedule that adds four months for new coal screening. Id.; (Doc.
114-1 at 9.) Federal Defendants have filed additionally a motion to reconsider the
section of the Court’s March 26, 2018, Order that requires Federal Defendants to
perform new coal screening. (Doc. 112.)
The Court deems it inappropriate to take up the motion to reconsider at this
juncture, as reconsideration should not serve as a substitute for appeal. County of
Santa Clara v. Trump, 267 F. Supp. 3d 1201, 1209 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (internal
references omitted); cf. Equal Empl. Opportunity Commn. v. Wah Chang Albany
Corp., 499 F.2d 187, 190 (9th Cir. 1974) (discussing reconsideration of a final
judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). With the entry of judgment pursuant to this
Order resolving remedies, Federal Defendants remain free to appeal the Court’s
final decision. See F. R. App. P. 4.
The Court notes, however, that the BLM stated that the coal screening
criteria could be reapplied as necessary in both the Miles City PRMP and FEIS and
the Buffalo PRMP and FEIS. MC:7-3315; BUF:6-2231. BLM responded to public
comment advocating for updated coal screening in the Miles City PRMP and FEIS
by deferring to the ready reapplication of the coal screening factors. MC:7-38553857. The Court sees no reason that Federal Defendants cannot reapply the coal
2

screening factors at this juncture. The Court adopts Federal Defendants’ 16-month
expedited timeline for the remedial NEPA analyses, to be completed no later than
November 29, 2019. (Doc. 114-1 at 9.)
B.

Injunctive Relief
Plaintiffs assert that the Court should enjoin issuance of new leases, and any

surface-disturbing activity on existing leases. Injunctive relief represents “a drastic
and extraordinary remedy” that a court should not grant “as a matter of course.”
Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 165 (2010). A party seeking
a permanent injunction must demonstrate: “(1) that it has suffered an irreparable
injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are
inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of
hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; (4)
that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” Id. at
156-57 (internal references omitted).
The Court has already ordered Federal Defendants to comply with the
Court’s March 26, 2018, Order. This Order applies when issuing any new or
pending lease of coal, oil, or gas resources in the Buffalo or Miles City planning
areas until Federal Defendants produce remedial analyses that comply with its
obligations under NEPA. (Doc. 111 at 51.) With such relief already imposed,
Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate an irreparable injury, or that that the balance
3

of hardships favors a more restrictive injunction. Monsanto, 561 U.S. at 156-57.
C.

Vacatur
Plaintiffs seek a vacatur of the ROD issued by Federal Defendants on

September 21, 2015. The Administrative Procedures Act allows a court to “hold
unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be. . .
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with
law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The APA does not “mechanically obligate[]” Courts,
however, “to vacate agency decisions that they find invalid.” Pac. Rivers Council
v. U.S. Forest Serv., 942 F. Supp. 2d 1014, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2013). “When equity
demands,” the Court may leave the agency action in place while the agency
completes appropriate remedial measures. Cal. Cmtys. Against Toxics v. EPA, 688
F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted).
The ROD addresses twelve RMP revisions and amendments spanning
millions of acres of federally owned lands across the western United States. Were
the Court to set aside the ROD, such action would invalidate all underlying RMPs.
As the Court noted in its Order, invalidation of the RMPs would cause BLM’s
management plan to revert to the 1985 Buffalo RMP and the 1996 Miles City
RMP. (Doc. 111 at 49.) The parties have not refuted directly this premise. In light
of this circumstance, the Court deems it inequitably disproportionate to the scope
of the instant action, which challenged only the Buffalo RMP and the Miles City
4

RMP, to issue a vacatur of the ROD. The ROD remains in place subject to the
restrictions of the Court’s March 26, 2018, Order.
III.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
1. Federal Defendants shall complete, within sixteen months of today’s date
and no later than November 29, 2019, new coal screening and remedial
NEPA analyses in compliance with the Court’s March 26, 2018, Order
(Doc. 111).
2. Any new or pending leases of coal, oil, or gas resources in the planning
areas subject to the Buffalo RMP and the Miles City RMP must undergo
comprehensive environmental analyses in compliance with the Court’s
March 26, 2018, Order (Doc. 111) and all existing procedural
requirements under NEPA and the APA.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and
against Defendants on Claim 1, Claim 3, and Claim 5, in accordance with
the Court’s March 26, 2018, Order. (Doc. 111.)
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of
Defendants/Intervenors and against Plaintiffs on Claim 2, Claim 4, and
Claim 6, in accordance with the Court’s March 26, 2018, Order. (Doc.
111.)
5

5. Federal Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 112) is DENIED AS
MOOT.
6. Federal Defendants’ and Defendant-Intervenors’ Motions for Leave to
File Response to Plaintiffs’ Remedies Brief (Docs. 117; 119) are
DENIED AS MOOT.
DATED this 31st day of July, 2018.

6