Western Watersheds Project v. Schneider

The federal district court for the District of Idaho granted a motion for a preliminary injunction barring the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from implementing the 2019 BLM Sage-Grouse Plan Amendments for Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada/Northeastern California, and Oregon. The court directed that a 2015 plan (which is also being challenged in the lawsuit) remain in effect while the court considers the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, which include claims that the 2019 Plan Amendments failed to evaluate climate change impacts. In granting the preliminary injunction, the court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims that the 2019 Plan Amendments contained substantial reductions in protections for the sage grouse (compared to the 2015 Plans) without justification and that the environmental impact statements (EISs) failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act’s requirement that reasonable alternatives be considered; failed to contain a sufficient cumulative impacts analysis; and failed to take the required “hard look” at the environmental consequences. The court also found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that supplemental draft EISs should have been issued. In addition, the court found a likelihood of irreparable harm due to numerous site-specific applications for drilling and mining projects in sage-grouse habitats that would be subject to the 2019 Plan Amendments and found that the balance of hardships tipped towards the plaintiffs.

The federal district court for the District of Idaho denied intervenors’ motions to sever and transfer a case challenging the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) sage grouse plans for 15 sub-regions in 10 western states. The plaintiffs originally challenged plans issued by the Obama administration and later supplemented their challenges with additional claims, including a failure to evaluate climate change impacts, after BLM revised the plans, allegedly in response to a directive from Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke to relax restrictions on oil and gas development in sage grouse habitat. The court was not persuaded by the intervenors’ arguments that local concerns justified severing the case and transferring the challenges to the sage grouse plans for a particular state to the federal court in that state. The court said this argument ignored the complaint’s allegations of “common failings” that “were heavily influenced by directions from the Trump Administration and the Interior Secretary.” The court concluded that severing the case would require duplicative arguments and perhaps lead to conflicting decisions, and that circumstances had not changed since the court rejected a previous motion to sever and transfer.