Montana Wilderness Ass'n v. Connell, No. 11-35818 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseEnvironmental groups challenged the BLM's Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument. The court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs' Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1782(a), and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), claims; held that the district court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiffs' National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470f, claims; and vacated that portion of the judgment and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs on the NHPA claim and to enter an appropriate order requiring BLM to conduct Class III surveys with respect to roads, ways, and airstrips that have not been subject to recent Class III surveys.
Court Description: Bureau of Land Management. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment in this action brought by environmental groups challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s Resource Management Plan for the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument. The panel held that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) complied with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) but violated the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The panel vacated that portion of the judgment and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the NHPA claim and to enter an appropriate order requiring BLM to conduct Class III surveys with respect to roads, ways and airstrips that have not been subjected to recent Class III surveys. Judge Gould concurred in the majority opinion’s discussion of NEPA and the NHPA. He also joined, in part, with the majority’s discussion of the Resource Management Plan’s compliance with the FLPMA and the Proclamation establishing the Monument. Judge Gould dissented from the majority’s conclusion that the RMP’s definition of “road” for purposes of the off-road travel ban was reasonable.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.