W. Org. of Res. Councils v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt.
| Decision Date | 24 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | 4:20-cv-76-BMM |
| Parties | WESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, Defendant, and STATE OF WYOMING, Intervenor Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Montana |
The Western Organization of Resource Councils, Montana Environmental Information Center, Powder River Basin Resource Council, Northern Plains Resource Council, Center for Biological Diversity, Wildearth Guardians, and Sierra Club ("Plaintiffs") bring this action against the U.S. Bureau of Land Management ("BLM"). Plaintiffs allege that BLM improperly approved amended Miles City and Buffalo resource management plans ("RMPs") in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), the Federal Vacancies Reform Act ("FVRA"), the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), and the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. (Doc. 21).
BLM filed a motion to make a number of procedural arguments relating to Plaintiffs' claims. (Doc. 24). BLM first argues that the Court should dismiss claims regarding the Buffalo RMP for improper venue, or, in the alternative, should sever and transfer those claims to the federal district court in District of Wyoming. Id. BLM further argues that the Court should stay claims regarding the Miles City RMP. Id. The Court held a motion hearing on February 18, 2021. (Doc. 33).
BLM manages the use and maintenance of 245 million acres of federal public lands (around 12 percent of the nation's landmass) and 700 million acres of subsurface acreage (around 30 percent of the nation's minerals). The Federal Land Management and Policy Act ("FLPMA") charges BLM with administering those lands and subsurface acres.
FLPMA requires that "the public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values." 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(8). BLM accomplishes this directive by developing, maintaining, and revising RMPs for particular areas of public land. Id. § 1712(a)-(b); 43 C.F.R. §1601.0-5(n). RMPs "guide and control future management actions." 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-2. RMPs designate "[l]and areas for limited, restricted or exclusive use" and determine "[a]llowable resource uses (either singly or in combination) and related levels of production or use to be maintained." Id. § 1601.0-5(n)(1)-(2). RMP approval represents a major federal action that significantly affects the quality of the human environment. Id. § 1601.0-6. As a result, BLM must publish an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") as required under NEPA when it approves an RMP. Id.
BLM undertook a large multi-state land planning effort to protect the greater sage-grouse and its habitat in response to concerns that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may need to list the sage-grouse as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. See Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as an Endangered or Threatened Species, 80 Fed. Reg. 59,858, 59,874 (Oct. 2, 2015). BLM revised or amended 98 land management plans ("2015 Plans") to adopt sage-grouse protections across the bird's range in ten Western states. See id.
Among those 2015 Plans, BLM published revisions that encompassed two adjacent BLM field offices in the Powder River Basin: The Miles City Field Office in Montana and the Buffalo Field Office in Wyoming. The Powder River Basinrepresents an interconnected river landscape of grasslands and badlands. The Powder River Basin also yields approximately 40% of all coal extracted in the United States. The Miles City Field Office administers 2.75 million acres of surface lands and 11.9 million acres of subsurface mineral estate across 17 eastern Montana counties. (Doc. 25-5 at 6). The Buffalo Field Office administers about 800,000 acres of surface lands along with 4.7 million acres of subsurface mineral estate in north-central Wyoming. (Doc. 25-2 at 4).
BLM approved both the Miles City RMP and the Buffalo RMP through a single record of decision ("ROD"). The two approved RMPs represented "full scale resource management plan revisions" and were "not limited to [greater sage-grouse] habitat management." (ROD at 15). A nearly identical set of plaintiffs as in this case challenged those two RMPs in 2016 for inadequate environmental analysis in this Court. BLM sought initially to dismiss or sever and transfer claims relating to the Buffalo RMP. W. Organization of Res. Councils v. BLM ("WORC I"), No. CV 16-21-GF-BMM, 2017 WL 374705, at *1 (D. Mont. Jan. 25, 2017). BLM made arguments nearly identical to those made in this case. Id. at *4.
This Court found that the District of Montana represented a proper venue for the plaintiffs' claims. Id. at *4-*5. This Court further refused to sever and transfer the Buffalo City RMP claims after weighing plaintiffs' choice of forum against the competing interest in having localized controversies decided at home. Id. at *7-*10. The Court invalidated the Miles City and Buffalo RMPs based upon an inadequate environmental analysis for each RMP. See W. Organization of Res. Councils v. BLM ("WORC II"), No. CV 16-21-GF-BMM, 2018 WL 1475470, at *6 (D. Mont. Mar. 26, 2018), appeal dismissed, No. 18-35836, 2019 WL 141346 (9th Cir. Jan. 2, 2019). The Court later remanded the two RMPs to BLM to correct those deficiencies in conformity with this Court's previous order. W. Organization of Res. Councils v. BLM ("WORC III"), No. CV 16-21-GF-BMM, 2018 WL 9986684, at *2 (D. Mont. July 31, 2018).
BLM since has completed its reconsideration of those same RMPs. BLM published the Miles City Resource Management Plan Amendment ("RMPA") in November 2019. (Doc. 25-5). The Miles City RMPA encompasses 11.7 million acres of subsurface federal mineral coal estate. See id. at 3. BLM published the Buffalo RMPA in November 2019 as well. (Doc. 25-2). The Buffalo RMPA encompasses 4.7 million acres of subsurface federal mineral coal estate. Id. at 4. BLM approved the two RMPAs with two separate RODs. (Docs. 25-2, 25-5). BLM asserted that these new RMPAs comply with this Court's previous orders in WORC II. (Docs. 25-2 at 4, 25-5 at 6).
Plaintiffs allege in this case that BLM failed to comply with the Court's previous orders and with federal law. (Doc. 21). BLM filed a motion to make a series of procedural arguments relating to Plaintiffs' claims. (Doc. 24). BLM firstargues that the Court should dismiss claims regarding the Buffalo RMP because the District of Montana no longer represents a proper venue. (Doc. 25 at 10-16). BLM next argues, in the alternative, that the Court should sever and transfer the Buffalo RMP claims to the District of Wyoming. Id. at 16-33. Those two arguments mirror the arguments in WORC I. See WORC I, No. CV 16-21-GF-BMM, 2017 WL 374705, at *4-*6. BLM finally argues that the Court should stay claims regarding the Miles City RMP because this Court invalidated the Miles City RMP in an unrelated case. (Doc. 25 at 7 (citing Bullock v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., No. 4:20-cv-62-BMM, 2020 WL 6204334, at *2, *4 (D. Mont. Oct. 16, 2020))).
A defendant can move to dismiss a claim for improper venue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3). Venue is appropriate in a civil action where the defendant is a federal employee or officer in any of the following judicial districts: (1) a judicial district in which defendant resides; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; or (3) a judicial district in which the plaintiff resides, if the case involves no real property. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). A district court must dismiss or transfer a case when it finds that a plaintiff has filed in an improper venue. Id. § 1406(a). The Court possesses discretion to select eitherthe dismissal or transfer remedy when appropriate. Martensen v. Koch, 942 F. Supp. 2d 983, 996 (N.D. Cal. 2013).
The plaintiff bears the burden to demonstrate proper venue. Piedmont Label Co. v. Sun Garden Packing Co., 598 F.2d 491, 496 (9th Cir. 1979). The plaintiff must establish venue as to each claim. Martensen, 942 F. Supp. 2d at 996. A court affords substantial deference to a plaintiff's choice of forum so long as the forum represents a proper venue. Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987); Anderson v. Thompson, 634 F. Supp. 1201, 1204 (D. Mont. 1986). Such deference diminishes, however, if "the operative facts have not occurred within the forum of original selection and that forum has no particular interest in the parties or subject matter." Pac. Car & Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968).
Multiple proper venues may exist for a claim. WORC I, No. CV 16-21-GF-BMM, 2017 WL 374705, at *4 (citing Woodke v. Dahm, 70 F.3d 983, 985 (8th Cir. 1995)). No requirement exists that the chosen venue represents the best choice. See id. (citing Cottman Transmission Sys., Inc. v. Martino, 36 F.3d 291, 294 (3d Cir. 1994)). Venue merely must be proper in the relevant federal district to survive a motion to dismiss.
BLM concedes that Plaintiffs selected a proper venue in the District of Montana for claims against the Miles City RMPA. (Doc. 25 at 10). BLM argues, however, that venue proves improper for the Buffalo RMPA. See id. at 10-16.Plaintiffs claim venue based on two theories: where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, and where the plaintiff resides if the case involves no real property. (Doc. 28 at 11-18). The Court addresses each in turn.
BLM argues that the District of Montana no longer represents a proper venue to consider claims against the Buffalo RMPA because the case involves real property located in Wyoming. (Doc. 25 at 14). BLM raises a somewhat novel argument that...
To continue reading
Request your trial