Western Watersheds Project v. Jewell, 69 F. Supp. 3d 41

Plaintiffs Western Watersheds Project and Cottonwood Environmental Law Center filed suit in D.D.C. alleging NEPA, APA, and ESA violations related to cattle grazing in Capitol Reef National Park and its impact on two rare cacti.
Defendants Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell and the National Park Service answered and moved to transfer venue to the District of Utah, arguing Utah-based facts and records make it the proper forum.
Capitol Reef National Park, the relevant administrative record, the cacti, and local NPS offices are located in Utah, while the Secretary resides in Washington, D.C.
The District of Utah and the District of Columbia both meet threshold venue requirements; the court must weigh private and public interest factors in deciding transfer.
A prior, nearly identical D.D.C. decision favored transfer to Utah, and the court finds Utah has substantial local interest outweighing plaintiff forum preference.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether transfer to the District of Utah is proper	Plaintiffs argue meaningful national significance warrants keeping forum.	Defendants contend Utah is the proper venue due to local park, records, and cactus locations.	Transfer granted to the District of Utah.

West Watersheds Project v. Pool, 942 F. Supp. 2d 93 (D.D.C. 2013) (factors weigh in favor of transfer in similar factual setting)
Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 523 F.Supp.2d 5 (D.D.C. 2007) (insubstantial nexus between case and chosen forum)
Pres. Soc. of Charleston v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 893 F.Supp.2d 49 (D.D.C.2012) (local controversy interest weighs in favor of transfer)
M & N Plastics, Inc. v. Sebelius, 997 F. Supp. 2d 19 (D.D.C. 2013) (deference to plaintiff's forum choice yields to home forum considerations)
Cameron v. Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 253 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (courts must examine venue challenges carefully when national officials are named)