Case Summary
Issue:
Whether all existing uses, including livestock grazing, oil and gas development, and commercial and private recreation, should continue within the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument?
Plaintiff:
Montana Wilderness Association; The Wilderness Society; Friends of the Missouri Breaks Monument; National Trust for Historic Preservation; Oil and Gas Accountability Project; Western Watersheds Project; Inc.; Glenn Monahan; Nancy Schultz
Defendant:
Gene R. Terland, Montana State Director, Bureau of Land Management; Bob Abbey, Director, Bureau of Land Management; Gary E. Slagel, Manager, Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument; Gary L. Benes, Manager, Lewiston Field Office, Bureau of Land Management; U.S. Department of the Interior; Bureau of Land Management
Intervenor:
Missouri River Stewards; Blaine County; Chouteau County; Fergus County; Phillips County (all represented by MSLF)
Join the Fight
Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.
Case History
In January 2001, President Clinton used the Antiquities Act of 1906 to designate 375,000 acres of federal land in Montana managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument. All of these lands were thus withdrawn from operation of the General Mining Law and oil, gas, and geothermal leasing. Grazing and other uses remained unchanged and “valid existing rights” were protected.
In December 2008, the BLM issued a Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the Monument, which authorized continued oil and gas development but barred new leases, allowed continued motorized boat use along the river corridor; recognized 400 miles of roads (and permits off-road camping and travel within 100 feet of roadway), recognized six airstrips, authorized limited animal damage control, permitted development of new recreational facilities, authorized rights-of-way and utility corridors, and recognized grazing as an authorized use.
In April 2009, the environmental groups sued the BLM, arguing that the RMP violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), President Clinton’s Proclamation, and various environmental statutes. A particular target of the lawsuit is grazing in the Monument.
On August 18, 2010, MSLF entered its appearance on behalf of its clients. On November 23, 2010, the environmental groups filed motions for summary judgment. On December 16, 2010, the federal defendants moved to strike the environmental groups’ extra record evidence and supporting memoranda. On December 17, 2010, MSLF filed a response joining that motion. On January 19, 2011, the district court granted the motion and ordered the environmental groups to file new supporting memoranda on or before February 11, 2011.
On February 11, 2011, the environmental groups filed their new supporting memoranda. On March 4, 2011, MSLF filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to the motions for summary judgment. On March 25, 2011, the environmental groups filed their briefs. On April 15, 2011, MSLF filed a reply.
On July 18, 2011, the district court heard oral arguments. On August 9, 2011, the district court issued an order granting summary judgment in favor of federal defendants and the Stewards in all three consolidated cases.
