) This “commercially impracticable” standard places atrisk a variety of state laws that affect the profitability of mining on federal land. Numerous environmental regulations potentially affect the profitability of mining a given claim, including regulations related to water pollution by mercury and other toxic chemicals (e.g., Water Code, § 13370 et seq.); air quality, such as limitations on emissions from generators and other equipment(e.g., Cal. Code Regs., tit. 13, §§ 2450-65); fuel, including penalties for discharging oil and gasoline(e.g., Fish & G. Code, § 5650(a)(1); Water Code, § 13272); explosives, including limitations on the use of dynamite (Health & Safety Code, § 12000 et seq.); endangered species (Fish & G. Code, § 2080 et seq.); streambed protections (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.); coastal zoneprotections (Pub. Resources Code, § 30000 et seq.); and nuisances (Civil Code, § 3479 et seq.).

AR003098. Like FLPMA, the National Forest Management Act (“NFMA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1600 et seq., sets forth “multiple use” and “sustained yield” as the guiding principles for the Forest Service’s National Forest management. 16 U.S.C. § 1601(d) (“It is the policy of the Congress that all forested lands in the National Forest System shall be maintained . . . to secure the maximum benefits of multiple use sustained yield management in accordance with land management plans.”)

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ITS Incidental Take Statement LCR Lower Columbia River LAA Likely to Adversely Affect LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan NEPA National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq. NFMA National Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600 et seq. NIR New Information Review NLAA Not Likely to Adversely Affect NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NWFP Northwest Forest Plan PDC Project Design Criteria RLK RLK and Company, Inc.

There are only a few hundred adult bull trout left in the Malheur and North Fork Malheur River watersheds. The legal issues in this case center on whether the Forest Service has violated substantive provisions of the National Forest Management Act (“NFMA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600–14, and the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (“WSRA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1271–1286, in its management of livestock grazing within and adjacent to the Wild and Scenic River corridors and their tributaries. Under the NFMA, the Forest Service must ensure that any grazing it authorizes is consistent with the Forest Plan that guides the use of the Malheur National Forest.

The Project takes an active approach to managing fire risk to owl habitat, which is recommended in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (“FWS”) 2011 Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (“2011 Recovery Plan”), see FS-18992, in part, because the primary source of habitat loss for the owl is catastrophic wildfire. FS-4251.1 Plaintiff, Conservation Congress, disagrees with this active management approach and challenges the Forest Service’s final Environmental Assessment (“EA”) and Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (“DN/FONSI”) for the Project under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.; the National Forest Management Act (“NFMA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1600 et seq.; and the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., and FWS’s related Project approvals under the ESA. Plaintiff’s claims, however, are flawed because the Project comports with applicable law.

NFMA governsth the United States Forest Service’s regulation of the National Forest System. 16 U.S.C. §§1600, et. seq.

These decisions by the Forest Service and the FWS were the basis for the authorization of 13 Plaintiffs also raise a claim under the National Forest Management Act. 16 U.S.C. § 1600 et seq. Plaintiffs’ argument is rather straight forward: if the 2005 map is invalid due to the agencies’ failure to conduct the proper analysis under NEPA, then the 2001 map, which delineated LAUs within the project area remained in effect, and the Forest Service violated NFMA by not following the vegetation standards contained in the Lynx Management Direction and applicable to LAUs.

The USFS Failed to Comply with the SRNF Plan and Failed to Ensure the Diversity of Species, in Violation of the NFMA A. Species Diversity, MIS Monitoring, and the Six Rivers National Forest Plan The USFS manages the national forests pursuant to its duties and obligations under the NFMA. 16 U.S.C. § 1600 et seq. One of these duties is the duty to “provide for diversity of plant and animal communities.”

31-8133 publicdefense@gmail.com Timothy M. Bechtold BECHTOLD LAW FIRM, PLLC P.O. Box 7051 Missoula, MT 59807 (406) 721-1435 tim@bechtoldlaw.net Kristine Akland AKLAND LAW FIRM, PLLC PO Box 7274 Missoula, MT 59807 (406) 544-9863 aklandlawfirm@gmail.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES, NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS COUNCIL, Plaintiffs, vs. LEANNE MARTEN, et al., Defendants. CV- 17-21-DLC PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Case 9:17-cv-00021-DLC Document 20 Filed 06/30/17 Page 1 of 2 Plaintiffs respectfully move this Court for summary judgment on the merits of this case. The U.S. Forest Service’s authorizations, analyses, and lack thereof for the Stonewall Project on the Helena - Lewis & Clark National Forest and the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §§4331 et seq., the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 16 U.S.C. §§1600 et seq., the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. §§1531 et seq, and/or the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§701 et seq. Plaintiffs file a brief in support of this motion.

CV- 17-47-JCL-DLC PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Case 9:17-cv-00047-DLC-JCL Document 10 Filed 06/16/17 Page 1 of 2 Plaintiffs respectfully move this Court for summary judgment on the merits of this case. The U.S. Forest Service’s and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s authorizations, analyses, and lack thereof for the Telegraph Project on the Helena - Lewis & Clark National Forest violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §§4331 et seq., the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 16 U.S.C. §§1600 et seq., the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. §§1531 et seq, and/or the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§701 et seq. Plaintiffs file a brief in support of this motion.