In re Montana Wilderness Ass'n
807 F. Supp. 2d 990
D. Mont.2011Background
- Clinton Proclamation (2001) designated the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument and vested BLM with management authority over ~377,346 acres in four Montana counties.
- BLM prepared a 2008 Plan and FEIS with six alternatives; Alternative F was the preferred plan and closely tracked the final decision in the Record of Decision.
- Plan restrictions included road closures, airstrip reductions, limited off-road and motorized use near the river, and mandatory rangeland health standards for livestock.
- Plaintiffs challenging the decisions include environmental and conservation groups; intervenors represent aviation interests and Missouri River Stewards; districts filed consolidated suits under APA, NEPA, WSRA, FLPMA, and NHPA claims.
- BLM argued that its actions complied with the Monument Proclamation and applicable laws, that it conducted a thorough NEPA process with a reasonable range of alternatives, and that it adequately consulted under NHPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proclamation/FLPMA compliance | BLM failed to protect Monument objects and misapplied multiple-use principles. | BLM reasonably reconciled Proclamation with multiple use and followed FLPMA to prevent undue degradation. | No violation; BLM reasonably integrated authorities to protect Monument objects. |
| WSRA protection of values and user capacities | BLM failed to protect solitude and balance recreation within wild/ scenic segments. | BLM balanced solitude and recreation and addressed user capacities via long-standing river plans. | No arbitrary or capricious action; agency reasonably balanced values. |
| NEPA hard look and range of alternatives | BLM did not conduct a hard look or adequately consider backcountry airstrips; range of alternatives was insufficient. | Six alternatives provided a reasonable range; hard look conducted across resources; no requirement to create a middle-ground alternative. | NEPA satisfaction; range of alternatives and analysis were reasonable. |
| NHPA consultation and inventory | BLM failed to inventory and consult adequately with the State Historic Preservation Officer. | Consultation occurred; Class II/III inventories were not required where status quo was maintained and no new disturbance occurred. | NHPA consultation and inventory requirements met. |
| Oil and gas leases validity and off-road definition | BLM should have validated leases beyond proclamation claims; definition of road/off-road used to favor plan. | Lease validity not a required determination; road definition reasonable under Proclamation; administrative discretion allowed. | No reversible error; actions were reasonable and supported by record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1965) (establishes standard for deference to agency expertise)
- Hells Canyon Alliance v. USFS, 227 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2000) (deference to agency determinations of protective uses)
- River Runners for Wilderness v. Martin, 593 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2010) (balancing values under WSRA warrants deference)
- Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (Supreme Court 1976) (agency decisions reasonable within statutory mandates)
- Cal. v. Block, 690 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1982) (scope of environmental impact analyses varies with context)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (Supreme Court 1997) (judicial review limits on programmatic decisions)
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (Supreme Court 1971) (arbitrary or capricious standard in agency action review)
- Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (Supreme Court 2004) (standing and scope considerations in environmental challenges)
- City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. USDOT, 123 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 1997) (rule of reason for evaluating reasonable alternatives under NEPA)