Case 4:18-cv-00524-HSG Document 110 Filed 06/03/19 Page 1 of 49 1 Nathan Matthews, CA Bar No. 264248 Sierra Club 2 2101 Webster Street, Suite 1300 3 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (415) 977-5695 4 Fax: (510) 208-3140 [email protected] 5 Counsel for Plaintiff Sierra Club 6 (Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page) 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SIERRA CLUB; CENTER FOR ) BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY; DINÉ ) 11 CITIZENS AGAINST RUINING OUR ) ENVIRONMENT; EARTHWORKS; ) 12 FORT BERTHOLD PROTECTORS OF ) 13 WATER AND EARTH RIGHTS; ) SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ) 14 ALLIANCE, THE WILDERNESS ) SOCIETY; and WESTERN RESOURCE ) 15 ADVOCATES, ) ) Case No. 4:18-cv-00524-HSG 16 Plaintiffs, ) 17 ) Related to Case No. 4:18-cv-00521-HSG v. ) 18 ) DAVID BERNHARDT, in his official ) 19 capacity as Secretary of the Interior; ) CITIZEN GROUP PLAINTIFFS’ 20 UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LAND ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MANAGEMENT; and UNITED STATES ) 21 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ) ) Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 22 Defendants. ) Date: December 5, 2019 23 ) Time: 2:00 p.m. ) Location: Courtroom 2, 4th Floor 24 ) 1301 Clay St., Oakland, CA 94612 ) 25 ) ) 26 ) 27 ) ) 28 Citizen Group Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment Case No. 4:18-cv-00524-HSG, related to Case No. 4:18-cv-000521-HSG Case 4:18-cv-00524-HSG Document 110 Filed 06/03/19 Page 2 of 49 1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 5, 2019, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as 3 possible, this motion will be heard before the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam. Plaintiffs Sierra 4 Club, et al. (the Citizen Group Plaintiffs) move for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of 5 Civil Procedure 56(a). As set forth in the Citizen Group Plaintiffs’ accompanying memorandum, the 6 Federal Defendants’ decision to rescind the Bureau of Land Management 2015 Hydraulic Fracturing 7 Rule, 82 Fed. Reg. 61,924 (Dec. 29, 2017), violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the National 8 Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Because there are no genuine issues of 9 material fact and Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, this Court should enter 10 summary judgment for the Citizen Group Plaintiffs on all four causes of action in the First Amended 11 Complaint, ECF No. 55. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 12 The Citizen Group Plaintiffs’ standing to bring this case is demonstrated by the 13 accompanying declarations, which are attached as Exhibit C. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Citizen Group Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment Case No. 4:18-cv-00524-HSG (Related to Case No. 4:18-cv-00521-HSG) i Case 4:18-cv-00524-HSG Document 110 Filed 06/03/19 Page 3 of 49 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................1 3 FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................2 4 I. BLM PROMULGATES THE 2015 RULE TO PROTECT PUBLIC AND TRIBAL 5 LANDS ......................................................................................................................................2 6 II. BLM REPEALS THE 2015 RULE ..........................................................................................5 7 STANDARD OF REVIEW ...................................................................................................................6 8 ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................................6 9 I. BLM’S REPEAL WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS ...................................................7 10 A. BLM’s Own Analysis Shows that the Repeal Will not Promote Oil and Gas Development ..................................................................................................................8 11 B. The 2015 Rule Is not Duplicative of State and Tribal Regulations ...............................9 12 C. BLM Arbitrarily Ignored the 2015 Rule’s Benefits .....................................................11 13 1. BLM Ignored the Benefits that the 2015 Rule Provided Over State and 14 Tribal Regulations ............................................................................................12 15 2. BLM Failed to Offer a Reasoned Explanation for Reversing Its Position on 16 the 2015 Rule’s Benefits ..................................................................................13 a. Accidents Are not a “Rarity” ...............................................................13 17 b. BLM Failed to Explain Its Reversal on the Benefits of Tanks ............14 18 c. BLM Ignored the Benefit of Increased Oversight and Information ....16 19 II. THE REPEAL DISREGARDS BLM’s STATUTORY DUTIES AND IS CONTRARY TO 20 LAW ........................................................................................................................................18 21 A. BLM Adopted the 2015 Rule to Carry Out Its Statutory Obligations .........................19 22 B. BLM Failed to Provide a Reasoned Explanation for Reversing Its Earlier 23 Conclusion that It Had a Legal Obligation to Promulgate the 2015 Rule ...................20 24 C. The Repeal Unlawfully Delegates BLM’s Duties Under FLPMA, the MLA, and the IMLA ...............................................................................................................23 25 III. THE REPEAL VIOLATES THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT ......................................25 26 27 A. BLM Must Consult FWS Before Taking Actions that May Affect ESA-Listed Species .........................................................................................................................25 28 Citizen Group Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment Case No. 4:18-cv-00524-HSG, related to Case No. 4:18-cv-000521-HSG ii Case 4:18-cv-00524-HSG Document 110 Filed 06/03/19 Page 4 of 49 1 B. BLM Violated the ESA by Failing to Consult FWS About the Repeal .......................27 2 1. The Repeal May Adversely Affect ESA-Listed Species .................................27 3 a. Waste Storage Pits ...............................................................................28 4 b. Preventing Surface and Groundwater Pollution ..................................29 5 c. Disclosure of Water Source and Volume .............................................29 6 2. BLM Violated the ESA by Failing to Consult with FWS ...............................30 7 IV. THE REPEAL VIOLATES NEPA ..........................................................................................31 8 A. BLM Failed to Take a Hard Look at the Repeal’s Impacts .........................................31 9 1. BLM Failed to Take a Hard Look at the Impacts of Storing Wastes in 10 Pits, Rather than Tanks ....................................................................................32 11 2. BLM Failed to Take a Hard Look at the Repeal’s Impacts on Tribal Lands ...34 12 B. BLM Violated NEPA by not Preparing an EIS ...........................................................36 13 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................40 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Citizen Group Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment Case No. 4:18-cv-00524-HSG, related to Case No. 4:18-cv-000521-HSG iii Case 4:18-cv-00524-HSG Document 110 Filed 06/03/19 Page 5 of 49 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page(s) 3 Cases 4 Anderson v. Evans, 5 371 F.3d 475 (9th Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................................36, 40 6 Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck Indian Reservation v. Bd. of Oil & Gas Conservation of Mont., 7 792 F.2d 782 (9th Cir. 1986) .......................................................................................20, 23, 24, 25 8 Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 9 462 U.S. 87 (1983) .........................................................................................................................34 10 Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 1988) .................................................................................................32, 36 11 Boesche v. Udall, 12 373 U.S. 472 (1963) .......................................................................................................................19 13 California v. Azar, 14 911 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2018) .........................................................................................................20 15 California v. BLM, 286 F. Supp. 3d 1054 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ...............................................................................9, 11, 13 16 Cal. ex rel. Becerra v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 17 -- F. Supp. 3d --, No. 4:17-cv-5948-SBA, 2019 WL 2223804 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 18 2019) ..............................................................................................................................................18 19 Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 459 F. Supp. 2d 874 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ...........................................................................................38 20 Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 21 575 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................................26, 30 22 Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 23 481 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (N.D.