Opinion
Case No. 1:04-CV-181-BLW
09-29-2014
WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT Plaintiff, v. STEVEN ELLIS, Director, Idaho State Office, Bureau of Land Management; RICK VANDERVOET, Jarbidge Field Manager, BLM; BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, an agency of the United States, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Simplot filed a motion to allow grazing to continue on the Grassy Hills and Camas Slough allotments under the terms of Interim Grazing Management Plans (IGMPs) that currently govern grazing on these two allotments but are due to expire. WWP filed a response stated that it "will not oppose an extension of the Interim Grazing Management Plans on the Camas Slough and Grassy Hills allotments until either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued its ESA listing decision for the greater sage grouse or until September 30, 2015, whichever comes first." See Response Brief (Dkt. No. 521) at p. 9. Simplot replies that WWP's limitation on the duration of the extension is unreasonably short.
This Court has previously extended IGMPs until the Jarbidge Resource Area (JRA) has completed the environmental reviews for those allotments, as part of its ongoing project to review each allotment in the JRA. See Memorandum Decision (Dkt. No. 505). The Court can find no reason to depart from that decision. That conclusion has two consequences for the parties. The Court will reject WWP's argument that the duration of the extension should be shorter than that imposed by the decision. And the Court will reject Simplot's argument that the terms and conditions governing grazing set forth in that decision should be modified. In sum, the Court reconfirms its prior decision.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion for relief from judgment (docket no. 517) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is granted to the extent it seeks an extension of the Interim Grazing Management Plans for the Camas Slough and Grassy Hills allotments along the terms set forth in the Memorandum Decision (docket no. 505). It is denied to the extent it seeks to modify the terms and conditions set forth in that decision.
DATED: September 29, 2014
/s/_________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court