Montana Wilderness Association v. Gene Terland
725 F.3d 988
9th Cir.2013Background
- President Clinton proclaimed the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument in 2001 to protect biological, geological, and historical “objects” across ~375,000 acres and directed the Interior Secretary to prepare a transportation plan prohibiting off-road motorized/mechanized use except for emergency/administrative purposes.
- BLM prepared an RMP and FEIS (adopted 2008) that: closed many roads, left several open (including two-track "ways"), authorized several airstrips, prohibited off-road use generally but defined “roads” to include certain two-track routes, and allowed parking/camping within 50 feet of roads (except in WSAs).
- Plaintiffs (Montana Wilderness Association and environmental groups) sued, alleging violations of FLPMA (WSAs and off-road ban), NEPA (cumulative impacts & range of alternatives), and NHPA (inadequate identification and consultation regarding historic properties).
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants; the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded: upholding FLPMA and NEPA claims but finding NHPA violations.
- Key practical dispute: whether BLM’s road definitions/management and cultural-resource survey level (Class I vs. Class III) adequately protect wilderness characteristics and historic objects, given potential concentration of use on designated routes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FLPMA — WSAs: roadlessness (maintenance levels) | RMP assigns two-track routes within WSAs to Maintenance Level 2 (mechanical maintenance), converting ways into roads and violating FLPMA’s roadless requirement | RMP specifically says WSA ways remain managed under IMP and maintained solely by vehicle passage (no Level 2 maintenance) | RMP is reasonable; WSAs remain roadless because IMP nonimpairment rules govern those ways (affirmed) |
| FLPMA — WSAs: nonimpairment (designation/mapping of ways) | Designating 23.8 miles of ways as open and mapping them will increase use and impair wilderness suitability | Designation/mapping was consistent with pre-existing plans and record lacks evidence of increased use degrading wilderness values; BLM must monitor and act if impairment occurs | No current nonimpairment violation; BLM adequately considered monitoring/mitigation obligations (affirmed) |
| FLPMA / Proclamation — off-road ban & definition of “road” | Defining "road" to include two-track ways is unreasonable and undermines Proclamation’s protection of objects | Proclamation is silent; BLM may adopt reasonable definition; other plans and guidance support including clearly evident two-tracks as roads | Court upheld BLM’s definition as a reasonable interpretation for the off-road ban (affirmed) |
| FLPMA — parking/camping within 50 feet of roads | Allowing parking/camping within 50 feet authorizes off-road travel and violates the ban | Rule falls within the Proclamation’s "administrative purposes" exception and is reasonable for safety | Court found parking rule authorizes limited off-road movement but is permissible under the administrative-purpose exception (affirmed) |
| Proclamation scope — Bullwhacker area as an "object" | Bullwhacker area itself should be treated as a Monument object and given greater protection (e.g., prohibit airstrips) | Proclamation language is ambiguous; objects within Bullwhacker were intended to be protected and BLM’s narrower reading is reasonable | Court deferred to BLM’s reasonable interpretation; no violation shown (affirmed) |
| NEPA — cumulative impacts (river solitude, elk, bighorn sheep) | FEIS failed to take a hard look at cumulative impacts on key objects (UMNWSR solitude, elk, bighorn sheep) | FEIS considered relevant impacts across topical sections and included cumulative analyses; agency has discretion on presentation | Court held BLM took the requisite hard look and adequately addressed cumulative impacts (affirmed) |
| NEPA — reasonable range of alternatives (airstrips) | BLM should have considered additional mid‑range alternatives (opening between 0 and 6 airstrips) | BLM did consider a zero-airstrip and several higher-opening alternatives including a 5(+1 seasonal) option; NEPA does not require every conceivable mid-point | Court held range was reasonable and sufficient to inform decisionmaking (affirmed) |
| NHPA — identification (Section 106 surveys) | BLM’s reliance on a Class I (literature) survey was inadequate given concentration/authorization of routes and airstrips; Class III inventories were required for roads/ways/airstrips | Class I was reasonable for general planning; Class II/III across the whole Monument would be costly; BLM can survey site-specifically later | Court held BLM failed to make reasonable, good-faith identification efforts for roads/ways/airstrips; ordered Class III surveys for those features (reversed on NHPA claim) |
| NHPA — consultation with SHPO | Plaintiffs claimed inadequate consultation | BLM coordinated and offered participation; SHPO did not complain | Court found consultation adequate and no procedural violation (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kester v. Campbell, 652 F.2d 13 (9th Cir. 1981) (agency interpretations of executive proclamations reviewed with deference)
- Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone of Nev. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 608 F.3d 592 (9th Cir. 2010) (NHPA survey and consultation standards discussed)
- Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. BLM, 387 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2004) (EIS hard-look and purpose of NEPA analysis)
- Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2005) (NEPA sufficiency: EIS must enable informed decisionmaking)
- Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 376 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2004) (range of alternatives requirement under NEPA)
- Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. FAA, 161 F.3d 569 (9th Cir. 1998) (existence of viable but unexamined alternatives undermines EIS)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (APA review requires reasoned explanation connecting facts to agency choice)