Wilderness Society v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 526 F. App'x 790

TWS and others challenge BLM land management plans for Grand Canyon-Parashant and Vermilion Cliffs National Monuments.
District Court granted summary judgment for BLM; decision is reviewed de novo on appeal.
Plaintiffs allege violations of proclamations, statutes, and regulations governing the monuments.
BLM argued the proclamations permit balancing protection of monument objects with grazing and public visitation.
The court considers whether BLM’s route designations and protections proceeded lawfully under NEPA, NHPA, FLPMA, and related regulations.
Court affirms; BLM’s interpretations and actions are not arbitrary or unlawful.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proclamations permit balancing protection with other uses?	TWS contends protections must be absolute for each object.	BLM may balance protection with grazing and visitation.	BLM’s balancing interpretation reasonable.
Definition of 'road' and off-road vehicle prohibition?	TWS favors a restrictive road definition to limit uses.	BLM reasonably defined road to include routes used by certain vehicles.	BLM’s road interpretation reasonable; not all trails treated as roads.
Minimization of harm to resources under NEPA/FLPMA?	BLM cannot minimize harms via NEPA process alone for all routes.	BLM minimized impacts through route evaluations and NEPA-selected alternatives.	BLM satisfied minimization obligation; NEPA process supported by record.
NHPA compliance and phased inventory?	Insufficient identification of historic properties before designation.	Agency used phased inventories appropriate for large planning areas.	Phased inventory approach reasonable and permitted.
SHPO consultation sufficiency?	Formal consultation with SHPO required more input.	SHPO was kept informed; no additional input sought by SHPO.	Consultation efforts sufficient under NHPA.
Designation of Wilderness Study Areas and NEPA implications?	BLM unlawfully confined discretion by not designating Wilderness Study Areas.	BLM retains discretion to protect wilderness characteristics even without WSA designation.	No unlawful restriction; policy change is semantic; discretion preserved.

Pit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 469 F.3d 768 (9th Cir. 2006) (de novo review of agency action)
Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 204 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 2000) (deferential review of agency interpretations)
Quechan Tribe of Fort Yuma Indian Reservation v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (S.D. Cal. 2010) (consultation context under NHPA)
Or. Natural Desert Ass’n v. BLM, 625 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010) (BLM FLPMA discretion to protect wilderness values)