of discrete parcels of land counsels towards transfer to the judicial district where that land is located. See, e.g., Intrepid Potash-New Mexico, LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 669 F.Supp.2d 88, 99 (D.D.C.2009) (stressing that “land commonly has been considered a local interest” due to its direct effects on local citizens). Set against this local interest in land is the plaintiffs’ argument that Utah’s natural beauty should concern the nation at large. Pis.’ Opp’n at 18. While there can be no debate about the objective natural beauty of these locations, this fact alone does not suffice to create a national interest that outweighs Utah’s strong local interest in having local controversies decided within its borders. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Harvey, 437 F.Supp.2d 42, 49-50 (D.D.C.2006) (<HOLDING>); Norton, 315 F.Supp.2d at 88-89 (concluding
holding that the everglades location in florida outweighed the national interest in the natural beauty of the area holding that defendants interest in preventing the impairment of its performance outweighed plaintiffs interest in disseminating racist materials anonymously through the mail holding that the grant of exclusive use to one unit owner of a common area is sufficient to change the relative interest of the unit owners in that common area recognizing the need for natural gas supply as a substantial public interest holding that bargaining unit employees have some nontrivial privacy interest in nondisclosure of their home addresses under the freedom of information act and concluding that that interest substantially outweighed the virtually nonexistent public interest in disclosure under foia and the privacy act not the nlra