1
Robert
E.
Yuhnke,
Esq.
(
CO
Bar
No.
012686)
Robert
E.
Yuhnke
&
Associates
2910­
B
County
Road
67
Boulder,
CO
80303
(
Ph)
(
303)
499­
0425
Thomas
M.
France,
Esq.
(
MT
Bar
No.
2028)
National
Wildlife
Federation
240
N.
Higgins
Missoula,
MT
59802
(
Ph)
(
406)
721­
6705
(
Fax)
(
406)
721­
6714
Sean
T.
McAllister,
Esq.
(
CO
Bar
No.
31350)
McAllister
Law
Office,
P.
C.
P.
O.
Box
18472
Denver,
CO
80218
(
Ph)
(
303)
903­
0076
(
Fax)
(
720)
406­
3518
Attorneys
for
Plaintiffs
UNITED
STATES
DISTRICT
COURT
FOR
THE
DISTRICT
OF
MONTANA
BILLINGS
DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL
DEFENSE,
NATIONAL
)
WILDLIFE
FEDERATION,
NATIONAL
PARKS
)
CONSERVATION
ASSOCIATION,
and
)
MONTANA
ENVIRONMENTAL
INFORMATION
)
CENTER
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
GALE
NORTON,
in
her
official
capacity
as
Secretary
)
of
the
DEPARTMENT
OF
THE
INTERIOR;
)
KATHLEEN
CLARKE,
in
her
official
capacity
as
)
Director,
BUREAU
OF
LAND
MANAGEMENT;
)
MARTIN
OTT,
in
his
official
capacity
as
the
)
Cause
No.
______________
Montana
Director,
BUREAU
OF
LAND
)
MANAGEMENT;
and
Robert
Bennett,
in
his
)
official
capacity
as
the
Wyoming
Director,
)
BUREAU
OF
LAND
MANAGEMENT
)
COMPLAINT
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________________
)
2
I.
INTRODUCTION
1.
Plaintiffs
Environmental
Defense,
National
Wildlife
Federation,
National
Parks
Conservation
Association,
and
Montana
Environmental
Information
Center,
on
behalf
of
themselves,
members
and
staff,
challenge
(
1)
the
failure
of
the
Secretary
of
the
U.
S.
Department
of
the
Interior
("
Secretary")
to
perform
statutory
duties
to
protect
air
quality
and
air
quality
related
values
in
national
parks
and
wilderness
areas
that
are
classified
by
law
as
Class
I
areas
when
the
Secretary,
acting
through
the
Bureau
of
Land
Management
("
BLM"),
approved
amendments
to
the
Buffalo
and
Platte
River
Resource
Management
Plans
in
Wyoming
and
the
Powder
River
and
Billings
Resource
Management
Plans
in
Montana
(
collectively
referred
to
as
"
RMP
Amendments")
for
the
Powder
River
Basin
Oil
and
Gas
Project
("
Oil
and
Gas
Project"),
(
2)
the
failure
of
the
Secretary
to
prepare
an
Environmental
Impact
Statement
that
fully
discloses
the
cumulative
adverse
impacts
of
emissions
from
such
Oil
and
Gas
Project
on
such
Class
I
areas
and
the
public
health
consequences
of
increased
exposure
to
harmful
pollutants,
(
3)
the
failure
to
describe
reasonable
mitigation
measures
that
are
available
to
prevent
such
significant
adverse
impacts
as
required
by
the
National
Environmental
Policy
Act
("
NEPA"),
and
(
4)
the
failure
to
provide
an
opportunity
for
the
public
and
agencies
with
expertise
to
review
and
comment
on
the
analysis
of
cumulative
air
quality
impacts
before
issuance
of
a
final
EIS.

2.
This
action
arises
from
the
Secretary's
approval
of
RMP
Amendments
that
violate
the
Federal
Land
Policy
and
Management
Act
("
FLPMA"),
43
U.
S.
C.
§
§
1701
et
seq.,
the
National
Environmental
Policy
Act
("
NEPA"),
42
U.
S.
C.
§
§
4321
et
3
seq.,
and
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
("
APA"),
5
U.
S.
C.
§
§
701
et
seq.,
and
the
Secretary's
failure
to
perform
the
mandatory
duty
imposed
by
the
Clean
Air
Act
("
CAA"),
42
U.
S.
C.
§
§
7401
et
seq.,
to
protect
air
quality
and
air
quality
related
values
in
national
parks
and
wilderness
areas
designated
as
Class
I
areas.

3.
Class
I
areas
are
areas
of
national
natural,
scenic,
recreational,
or
historic
value
for
which
the
CAA
provides
special
protection.
Class
I
areas
include
National
Parks
over
6,000
acres
and
Wilderness
Areas
over
5,000
acres
in
existence
on
August
7,
1977.
See
42
U.
S.
C.
7472.

4.
The
RMP
Amendments
approved
by
the
Secretary
are
based
upon
a
reasonably
foreseeable
development
scenario
of
over
100,000
oil
and
gas
wells,
the
majority
of
which
will
be
coal­
bed
methane
wells,
in
the
Buffalo
and
Platte
River
Resource
Management
Areas
in
northeast
Wyoming
and
in
the
Powder
River
and
Billings
Resource
Management
Areas
in
south
central
Montana.

5.
The
number
of
oil
and
gas
wells
authorized
by
the
RMP
Amendments
have
been
determined
by
BLM
to
emit
air
pollutants
in
quantities
sufficient
to
adversely
affect
air
quality,
visibility
and
other
air
quality
related
values
in
some
of
the
nation's
premier
national
parks
and
wilderness
areas
in
the
northern
Rocky
Mountains
and
northern
Great
Plains,
and
to
create
significant
risks
of
adverse
health
effects
to
people
residing,
working,
recreating
or
traveling
in
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
region.

6.
To
enforce
the
protections
established
by
FLPMA,
the
Clean
Air
Act,
and
NEPA
for
these
national
parks
and
wilderness
areas,
the
Plaintiffs
seek
declaratory
and
injunctive
relief
to
prohibit
the
Secretary
from
authorizing
oil
and
gas
4
development
under
the
RMP
Amendments
until
limitations
on
the
emissions
of
air
pollutants
sufficient
to
ensure
the
protection
of
air
quality
and
air
quality
related
values,
including
visibility,
have
been
adopted
as
part
of
the
RMP
Amendments.

II.
PARTIES
7.
The
Defendant
Gale
Norton
is
the
Secretary
of
the
U.
S.
Department
of
the
Interior.
The
Secretary
is
responsible
for
the
management
and
oversight
of
the
public
lands,
including
the
development
of
oil
and
gas
resources
on
lands
under
her
jurisdiction
in
accordance
with
all
applicable
laws.

8.
Defendant
Kathleen
Clarke
is
the
Director
of
the
U.
S.
BLM.
The
Defendant
Martin
Ott
is
the
Director
of
the
Montana
BLM.
The
Defendant
Robert
Bennett
is
the
Director
of
the
Wyoming
BLM.
BLM
is
the
agency
within
the
U.
S.

Department
of
the
Interior
that
manages,
subject
to
the
direction
and
supervision
of
the
Secretary,
approximately
262
million
acres
of
federal
public
lands
and
an
additional
300
million
acres
of
split­
estate
subsurface
mineral
resources,
including
the
oil
and
gas
mineral
resources,
such
as
coal­
bed
methane,
in
the
Buffalo
and
Platte
River
Resource
Management
Areas
in
Wyoming
and
in
the
Powder
River
and
Billings
Resource
Management
Areas
in
Montana.

9.
These
Defendants
are
collectively
referred
to
as
the
"
Secretary"
or
"
BLM".

10.
Plaintiff
Environmental
Defense
is
a
nonprofit
organization
representing
more
than
400,000
members
nationwide.
Environmental
Defense
is
dedicated
to
protecting
the
environmental
rights
of
all
people,
including
future
generations.

Among
these
rights
are
access
to
clean
air
and
water
and
a
flourishing
ecosystem.
5
11.
Environmental
Defense
members
live,
work,
recreate
and
travel
in
areas
shown
to
be
affected
by
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
authorized
by
the
RMP
Amendments,
including,
but
not
limited
to,
the
land
within
the
Buffalo
and
Platte
River
Resource
Management
Areas
in
Wyoming
and
the
Powder
River
and
Billings
Resource
Management
Areas
in
Montana.
Members
residing,
working,

traveling
and
recreating
in
areas
affected
by
emissions
are
likely
to
be
exposed
to
levels
of
air
pollutants
known
to
be
harmful
to
human
health.
Theses
members
are
harmed
by
the
failure
of
Defendants
to
disclose
these
likely
adverse
health
effects,

the
failure
to
consider
mitigation
measures
adequate
to
prevent
harmful
exposures
to
these
air
pollutants,
and
the
omission
from
the
RMPs
of
measures
that
will
provide
for
compliance
with
applicable
national
ambient
air
quality
standards.

12.
Environmental
Defense
members
also
live
near,
visit,
enjoy,
and
recreate
at
the
national
park
or
wilderness
areas
that
BLM
found
will
be
adversely
affected
by
air
pollution
from
oil
and
gas
well
development
activities
authorized
under
the
RMP
Amendments.
Environmental
Defense
members
have
aesthetic,
educational,

economic,
health,
and
spiritual
interests
that
will
be
adversely
affected
by
the
impairment
of
visibility
in
national
park
and
wilderness
areas
that
BLM
predicts
will
result
from
the
oil
and
gas
development
authorized
by
Secretary
in
the
RMP
Amendments.

13.
The
use
and
enjoyment
by
members
of
Environmental
Defense
of
the
air,

including
visibility
and
other
air
quality
related
values
in
these
national
parks
and
wilderness
areas
has
been
and
will
continue
to
be
adversely
affected
by
the
approval
by
the
Secretary
of
the
level
of
oil
and
gas
development
authorized
by
6
the
RMP
Amendments.
The
RMP
Amendments
authorize
a
level
of
development
that
has
been
shown
by
an
analysis
prepared
by
BLM
to
result
in
expected
emissions
of
air
pollutants
that
will
cause
or
contribute
to
the
deterioration
of
air
quality
and
air
quality
related
values
in
violation
of
federal
law.
These
members
use,
enjoy
and
benefit
from
these
lands
by
visiting,
fishing,
hunting,
rafting,
and
hiking
on
the
lands
and
waters
that
will
be
adversely
affected
by
the
emission
of
air
pollutants
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project.
Their
enjoyment
and
benefits
from
use
of
these
lands
will
be
adversely
affected
by
air
pollutants
emitted
from
the
oil
and
gas
development
authorized
by
the
RMPs.

14.
Kevin
McMahon
is
a
member
of
Environmental
Defense
and
a
member
of
the
Rocky
Mountain
Regional
Advisory
Board
of
Environmental
Defense.
Mr.

McMahon
resides
in
Johnson
County,
Wyoming,
where
he
engages
in
rigorous
physical
activity
including
running,
cross­
country
skiing,
horseback
riding,
hiking
and
biking.
He
also
engages
in
horseback
riding
in
both
Campbell
County,

Wyoming,
and
Sheridan
County,
Wyoming.
Mr.
McMahon's
use
and
enjoyment
of
the
air
and
other
resources
in
Johnson,
Campbell,
and
Sheridan
Counties
have
been
and
will
continue
to
be
adversely
impacted
by
the
approval
by
the
Secretary
of
coal
mining
on
federal
lands
that
has
resulted
in
violations
of
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
and
will
further
be
harmed
by
the
addition
of
air
pollution
expected
to
be
emitted
by
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
approved
by
the
RMP
Amendments.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
of
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
demonstrate
that
residents
living
in
Johnson,
Campbell,
and
Sheridan
Counties,
where
the
greatest
air
pollutant
concentrations
from
the
Project
are
7
expected
to
occur,
will
be
exposed
to
levels
of
particulate
matter
in
excess
of
levels
shown
to
be
associated
with
adverse
health
effects.
As
a
result,
Mr.

McMahon
will
be
exposed
to
increased
risks
of
adverse
health
effects
associated
with
such
pollutants
and
may
experience
such
adverse
health
effects.
Mr.

McMahon
also
regularly
visits,
and
will
continue
to
visit,
Grand
Teton
National
Park,
Yellowstone
National
Park,
Teton
Wilderness
Area,
and
Washakie
Wilderness
Areas
to
hike,
mountain
climb,
take
photographs,
cross­
country
ski,

and
enjoy
the
clear
air
and
grand
scenic
vistas.
Mr.
McMahon's
use
and
enjoyment
of
these
national
parks
and
wilderness
areas
will
be
adversely
affected
by
the
impairment
of
visibility
in
national
park
and
wilderness
areas
that
BLM
predicts
will
result
from
the
oil
and
gas
development
authorized
by
the
RMP
Amendments.
See
"
Declaration
of
Kevin
McMahon"
[
A
true
and
correct
copy
attached
as
Exhibit
A].

15.
Farwell
Smith
is
a
member
of
Environmental
Defense
and
an
Advisory
Trustee
for
Environmental
Defense.
Mr.
Smith
resides
in
Montana
and
has
visited,
and
plans
to
continue
visiting,
Yellowstone
National
Park,
North
Absaroka
Wilderness
Area,
Grand
Teton
National
Park
and
Bridger
Wilderness
Area
to
hike,
fish,
horse­
pack,
enjoy
the
clear
air
and
the
grand
scenic
vistas.
Mr.
Smith's
use
and
enjoyment
of
these
national
park
and
wilderness
areas
will
be
adversely
affected
by
the
acid
deposition
in
sensitive
lakes
in
the
Bridger
Wilderness
Area
and
the
impairment
of
visibility
in
these
national
parks
and
wilderness
areas
that
BLM
predicts
will
result
from
the
oil
and
gas
development
authorized
by
the
8
RMP
Amendments.
See
"
Declaration
of
Farwell
Smith"
[
A
true
and
correct
copy
attached
as
Exhibit
B].

16.
Michael
Yokell
is
a
member
of
Environmental
Defense
and
a
member
of
the
Rocky
Mountain
Regional
Advisory
Board
of
Environmental
Defense.
Mr.

Yokell
regularly
visits,
and
will
continue
to
visit,
Grand
Teton
National
Park
to
mountain
climb,
hike,
and
cross­
country
ski.
Mr.
Yokell's
use
and
enjoyment
of
this
national
park
will
be
adversely
affected
by
the
impairment
of
visibility
in
this
national
park
that
BLM
predicts
will
result
from
the
oil
and
gas
development
authorized
by
the
RMP
Amendments.
See
"
Declaration
of
Michael
Yokell"
[
A
true
and
correct
copy
attached
as
Exhibit
C].

17.
Doris
McDill
is
a
member
of
Environmental
Defense
who
lives
in
Custer,
South
Dakota.
She
regularly
visits,
and
will
continue
to
visit,
Wind
Cave
National
Park
and
she
periodically
visits,
and
will
continue
to
visit,
Badlands
Wilderness
Area
to
enjoy
hiking,
wildlife,
the
scenic
vistas,
and
the
air
quality.
Ms.
McDill's
use
and
enjoyment
of
these
national
park
and
wilderness
areas
will
be
adversely
affected
by
the
impairment
of
visibility
in
these
national
park
and
wilderness
areas
that
BLM
predicts
will
result
from
the
oil
and
gas
development
authorized
by
the
RMP
Amendments.
See
"
Declaration
of
Doris
McDill"
[
A
true
and
correct
copy
attached
as
Exhibit
D].

18.
Environmental
Defense's
organizational
purposes
are
adversely
affected
by
the
unlawful
approval
by
the
Secretary
of
the
RMP
Amendments
that
will
allow
expected
emissions
of
air
pollutants
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
to
degrade
the
9
air,
visibility,
grand
scenic
vistas,
waters,
and
wildlife
of
the
national
parks
and
wilderness
areas
included
in
the
air
quality
analysis.

19.
Plaintiff
National
Wildlife
Federation
("
NWF")
is
the
nation's
largest
conservation
advocacy
and
education
organization.
Founded
in
1936,
NWF
is
a
non­
profit,
tax­
exempt
corporation
with
its
headquarters
in
Reston,
Virginia.
NWF
has
nine
regional
offices,
including
offices
in
Boulder,
Colorado
and
Missoula,

Montana.
NWF's
mission
is
to
educate,
inspire,
and
assist
individuals
and
organizations
of
diverse
cultures
to
conserve
wildlife
and
other
natural
resources
and
to
protect
the
Earth's
environment
in
order
to
achieve
a
peaceful,
equitable,

and
sustainable
future.

20.
National
Wildlife
Federation
members
live,
work,
recreate
and
travel
in
areas
shown
to
be
affected
by
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
authorized
by
the
RMP
Amendments,
including,
but
not
limited
to,
the
land
within
the
Buffalo
and
Platte
River
Resource
Management
Areas
in
Wyoming
and
the
Powder
River
and
Billings
Resource
Management
Areas
in
Montana.
Members
residing,
working,

traveling
and
recreating
in
areas
affected
by
emissions
are
likely
to
be
exposed
to
levels
of
air
pollutants
known
to
be
harmful
to
human
health.
Theses
members
are
harmed
by
the
failure
of
Defendants
to
disclose
these
likely
adverse
health
effects,

the
failure
to
consider
mitigation
measures
adequate
to
prevent
harmful
exposures
to
these
air
pollutants,
and
the
omission
from
the
RMPs
of
measures
that
will
provide
for
compliance
with
applicable
national
ambient
air
quality
standards.

21.
National
Wildlife
Federation
members
also
live
near,
visit,
enjoy,
and
recreate
at
the
national
park
or
wilderness
areas
that
BLM
found
will
be
adversely
affected
10
by
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
oil
and
gas
well
development
activities
authorized
under
the
RMP
Amendments.
National
Wildlife
Federation
members
have
aesthetic,
educational,
economic,
health,
and
spiritual
interests
that
will
be
adversely
affected
by
the
impairment
of
visibility
in
national
park
and
wilderness
areas
that
BLM
predicts
will
result
from
the
air
pollutants
to
be
emitted
from
the
oil
and
gas
development
authorized
by
the
Secretary
in
the
RMP
Amendments.

22.
The
use
and
enjoyment
by
members
of
National
Wildlife
Federation
of
the
air,

including
visibility
and
other
air
quality
related
values
in
these
national
parks
and
wilderness
areas
has
been
and
will
continue
to
be
adversely
affected
by
the
approval
by
the
Secretary
of
the
level
of
oil
and
gas
development
authorized
by
the
RMP
Amendments.
The
RMP
Amendments
authorize
a
level
of
development
that
has
been
shown
by
an
analysis
prepared
by
BLM
to
result
in
expected
emissions
of
air
pollutants
that
will
cause
or
contribute
to
the
deterioration
of
air
quality
and
air
quality
related
values
in
violation
of
federal
law.
These
members
use,
enjoy
and
benefit
from
these
lands
by
visiting,
fishing,
hunting,
rafting,
and
hiking
on
the
lands
and
waters
that
will
be
adversely
impacted
by
the
emission
of
air
pollutants
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project.
Their
enjoyment
and
benefits
from
use
of
these
lands
will
be
adversely
affected
by
air
pollutants
emitted
from
the
oil
and
gas
development
authorized
by
Secretary
in
the
RMPs.

23.
National
Wildlife
Federation's
organizational
purposes
are
adversely
affected
by
the
unlawful
approval
by
the
Secretary
of
the
RMP
Amendments
that
will
allow
expected
emissions
of
air
pollutants
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
to
degrade
the
11
air,
visibility,
grand
scenic
vistas,
waters,
and
wildlife
of
the
national
parks
and
wilderness
areas
included
in
the
air
quality
analysis.

24.
Plaintiff
National
Parks
Conservation
Association
("
NPCA")
is
a
nonprofit
corporation
organized
under
the
laws
of
the
District
of
Columbia.
NPCA
maintains
regional
offices
in
several
states
including
two
offices
in
Montana
and
one
in
Wyoming.
NPCA
has
over
300,000
members
residing
in
the
United
States
and
abroad,
including
1,324
members
in
Montana,
418
members
in
North
Dakota,

494
in
South
Dakota,
and
679
in
Wyoming.
NPCA
exists
to
promote
its
members'
interest
in
protecting,
preserving,
and
enhancing
the
United
States
National
Park
System,
including
the
ecosystems
and
natural
resources
contained
therein.
NPCA
is
the
only
nongovernmental
nonprofit
citizen
organization
in
the
United
States
dedicated
solely
to
protecting
and
improving
the
National
Park
System.
Through
participation
in
numerous
legislative,
administrative,
and
judicial
proceedings,
including
proceedings
relating
to
threatened
parks,
NPCA
has
demonstrated
its
strong
interest
in
protecting
and
preserving
the
National
Park
System.
NPCA
achieves
its
organizational
purpose,
in
part,
through
proper
implementation
of
the
nation's
environmental
laws,
including
the
Clean
Air
Act,

NEPA
and
the
National
Parks
Organic
Act.

25.
NPCA
members
live,
work,
recreate
and
travel
in
areas
shown
to
be
affected
by
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
authorized
by
the
RMP
Amendments,

including,
but
not
limited
to,
the
land
within
the
Buffalo
and
Platte
River
Resource
Management
Areas
in
Wyoming
and
the
Powder
River
and
Billings
Resource
Management
Areas
in
Montana.
Members
residing,
working,
traveling
12
and
recreating
in
areas
affected
by
emissions
are
likely
to
be
exposed
to
levels
of
air
pollutants
known
to
be
harmful
to
human
health.
Theses
members
are
harmed
by
the
failure
of
Defendants
to
disclose
these
likely
adverse
health
effects,
the
failure
to
consider
mitigation
measures
adequate
to
prevent
harmful
exposures
to
these
air
pollutants,
and
the
omission
from
the
RMPs
of
measures
that
will
provide
for
compliance
with
applicable
national
ambient
air
quality
standards.

26.
NPCA
members
also
live
near,
visit,
enjoy,
and
recreate
at
the
national
parks
and
wilderness
areas
that
BLM
found
will
be
adversely
affected
by
air
pollutants
emitted
from
oil
and
gas
well
development
activities
authorized
under
the
RMP
Amendments.
NPCA
members
have
aesthetic,
educational,
economic,
health,
and
spiritual
interests
that
will
be
adversely
affected
by
the
impairment
of
visibility
in
national
park
and
wilderness
areas
that
BLM
predicts
will
result
from
the
air
pollutants
emitted
from
the
oil
and
gas
development
authorized
by
the
Secretary
in
the
RMP
Amendments.

27.
The
use
and
enjoyment
by
members
of
NPCA
of
the
air,
including
visibility
and
other
air
quality
related
values
in
these
national
parks
and
wilderness
areas,
has
been
and
will
continue
to
be
adversely
affected
by
the
approval
by
the
Secretary
of
the
level
of
oil
and
gas
development
authorized
by
the
RMP
Amendments.
The
RMP
Amendments
authorize
a
level
of
development
that
has
been
shown
by
an
analysis
prepared
by
BLM
to
result
in
expected
emissions
of
air
pollutants
that
will
cause
or
contribute
to
the
deterioration
of
air
quality
and
air
quality
related
values
in
violation
of
federal
law.
These
members
use,
enjoy
and
benefit
from
these
lands
by
visiting,
fishing,
hunting,
rafting,
and
hiking
on
the
lands
and
13
waters
that
will
be
adversely
affected
by
the
emission
of
air
pollutants
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project.
Their
enjoyment
and
benefits
from
use
of
these
lands
will
be
adversely
affected
by
air
pollutants
emitted
from
the
oil
and
gas
development
authorized
by
Secretary
in
the
RMPs.

28.
NPCA's
organizational
purposes
are
adversely
affected
by
the
unlawful
approval
by
the
Secretary
of
the
RMP
Amendments
that
will
allow
expected
emissions
of
air
pollutants
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
to
degrade
the
air,
visibility,
grand
scenic
vistas,
waters,
and
wildlife
of
the
national
park
and
wilderness
areas
included
in
the
air
quality
analysis.

29.
Plaintiff
Montana
Environmental
Information
Center
("
MEIC")
is
a
Montana
non­
profit
public
benefit
corporation
pursuant
to
§
35­
2­
101,
et.
seq.,
MCA,
with
over
4,000
members
state
and
nationwide,
and
at
all
times
pertinent
hereto,
has
had
its
principal
office
in
Helena,
Lewis
and
Clark
County,
Montana.
MEIC
has
been
in
existence
for
over
twenty­
eight
years,
and
strives
to
protect
the
air,
water,

and
lands
of
Montana
from
pollution
and
to
preserve
Montana's
quality
of
life.

MEIC
and
its
members
have
a
further
interest
in
participating
in
governmental
decisions,
in
disseminating
relevant
information
about
those
decisions
to
the
general
public,
and
in
insuring
that
all
laws
and
procedures
that
protect
the
interests
of
its
members
are
complied
with.

30.
MEIC
members
live,
work,
recreate
and
travel
in
areas
shown
to
be
affected
by
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
authorized
by
the
RMP
Amendments,

including,
but
not
limited
to,
the
Powder
River
and
Billings
Resource
Management
Areas
in
Montana.
Members
residing,
working,
traveling
and
14
recreating
in
areas
affected
by
emissions
are
likely
to
be
exposed
to
levels
of
air
pollutants
known
to
be
harmful
to
human
health.
Theses
members
are
harmed
by
the
failure
of
Defendants
to
disclose
these
likely
adverse
health
effects,
the
failure
to
consider
mitigation
measures
adequate
to
prevent
harmful
exposures
to
these
air
pollutants,
and
the
omission
from
the
RMPs
of
measures
that
will
provide
for
compliance
with
applicable
national
ambient
air
quality
standards.

31.
MEIC
members
also
live
near,
visit,
enjoy,
and
recreate
at
the
national
parks
or
wilderness
areas
that
BLM
found
will
be
adversely
affected
by
air
pollutants
emitted
from
the
oil
and
gas
well
development
activities
authorized
under
the
RMP
Amendments.
MEIC
members
have
aesthetic,
educational,
economic,

health,
and
spiritual
interests
that
will
be
adversely
affected
by
the
impairment
of
visibility
in
national
park
and
wilderness
areas
that
BLM
predicts
will
result
from
the
oil
and
gas
development
authorized
by
the
Secretary
in
the
RMP
Amendments.

32.
The
use
and
enjoyment
by
members
of
MEIC
of
the
air,
including
visibility
and
other
air
quality
related
values
in
these
national
parks
and
wilderness
areas
has
been
and
will
continue
to
be
adversely
affected
by
the
approval
of
the
level
of
oil
and
gas
development
authorized
by
the
RMP
Amendments.
The
RMP
Amendments
authorize
a
level
of
development
that
has
been
shown
by
an
analysis
prepared
by
BLM
to
result
in
expected
emissions
of
air
pollutants
that
will
cause
or
contribute
to
the
deterioration
of
air
quality
and
air
quality
related
values
in
violation
of
federal
law.
These
members
use,
enjoy
and
benefit
from
these
lands
by
visiting,
fishing,
hunting,
rafting,
and
hiking
on
the
lands
and
waters
that
will
15
be
adversely
affected
by
the
emission
of
air
pollutants
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project.
Their
enjoyment
and
benefits
from
use
of
these
lands
will
be
adversely
affected
by
air
pollutants
emitted
from
the
oil
and
gas
development
authorized
in
the
RMPs.

33.
MEIC's
organizational
purposes
are
adversely
affected
by
the
unlawful
approval
of
the
RMP
Amendments
that
will
allow
expected
emissions
of
air
pollutants
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
to
degrade
the
air,
visibility,
grand
scenic
vistas,

waters,
and
wildlife
of
the
national
parks
and
wilderness
areas
included
in
the
air
quality
analysis.

34.
The
Secretary's
a)
unlawful
approval
of
RMP
Amendments
that
violate
the
requirements
of
FLPMA
and
the
Clean
Air
Act,
and
b)
the
violations
of
NEPA
by
unlawfully
failing
to
disclose
all
significant
adverse
effects,
unlawfully
refusing
to
perform
a
comprehensive
analysis
of
the
cumulative
impacts
of
air
pollutants
emitted
from
the
project
together
with
air
pollutants
from
all
other
existing
and
reasonably
foreseeable
sources
of
emissions,
unlawfully
omitting
consideration
of
reasonable
mitigation
measures
that
could
prevent
the
significant
adverse
impacts
of
air
pollutants
emitted
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project,
and
unlawfully
depriving
plaintiffs
of
an
adequate
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
cumulative
impact
analysis
prior
to
approval
of
the
RMP
amendments,
have
adversely
affected
and
will
continue
to
adversely
affect
the
above
described
use
and
enjoyment
of
the
air,

grand
scenic
vistas,
land,
waters,
and
other
resources
in
national
parks
and
wilderness
areas,
and
interfere
with
the
exercise
procedural
rights
and
other
protections
established
by
law
to
the
detriment
of
members
of
Environmental
16
Defense,
NWF,
NPCA,
and
MEIC
unless
such
illegal
actions
are
vacated
by
this
Court.

III.
JURISDICTION
AND
VENUE
35.
Jurisdiction
for
judicial
review
of
the
Secretary's
failure
to
comply
with
duties
imposed
by
the
Clean
Air
Act
to
prevent
the
significant
deterioration
of
air
quality
and
to
prevent
adverse
effects
to
air
quality
related
values
in
national
parks
and
wilderness
areas
lies
in
the
district
courts
pursuant
to
the
APA.
5
U.
S.
C.
§
§
702­

704.

36.
Jurisdiction
for
judicial
review
of
the
Secretary's
failure
to
comply
with
duties
imposed
by
the
Federal
Land
Management
Policy
Act
to
only
approve
resource
management
plans
("
RMPs")
that
provide
for
compliance
with
federal
air
pollution
standards
and
provisions
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
that
protect
air
quality
related
values
in
national
parks
and
wilderness
areas
lies
in
the
district
courts
pursuant
to
the
APA.
5
U.
S.
C.
§
§
702­
704.

37.
Jurisdiction
for
judicial
review
of
the
Secretary's
failure
to
comply
with
the
requirements
for
the
preparation
of
an
environmental
impact
statement
("
EIS")
to
disclose
fully
the
cumulative
environmental
impacts
of
emissions
of
air
pollutants
from
activities
related
to
the
development
of
coal
bed
methane
on
federal
lands
under
the
National
Environmental
Policy
Act
("
NEPA"),
and
to
consider
alternatives
that
would
prevent
violations
of
federal
air
pollution
standards
and
protections
for
air
quality
related
values
in
national
parks
and
wilderness
areas,

lies
in
the
district
courts
pursuant
to
the
APA.
5
U.
S.
C.
§
§
702­
704.

38.
The
relief
requested
is
authorized
pursuant
to
5
U.
S.
C.
§
§
705,
706
and/
or
28
U.
S.
C.
§
§
2201,
2202.
17
39.
Venue
is
properly
vested
in
this
Court
pursuant
to
28
U.
S.
C.
§
1391(
e)
because
actions
and
omissions
giving
rise
to
these
claims
occurred
in
the
District
of
Montana,
and
because
some
of
the
lands
to
be
protected
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
lie
in
Montana.

IV.
ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDINGS
40.
The
RMP
Amendments
were
initiated
in
response
to
proposals
by
several
oil
and
gas
companies
(
including
Lance
Oil
and
Gas,
Barrett
Resources
Corporation,

Devon
Energy
Corporation,
Yates
Petroleum
Corporation,
Pennaco
Energy,
and
CMS
Oil
and
Gas)
to
increase
significantly
the
development
of
coal­
bed
methane
in
the
project
area
above
levels
anticipated
in
the
then­
existing
RMP.
See
BLM,

"
Record
of
Decision
and
Powder
River
and
Billings
Resource
Management
Plan
Amendments
for
the
Powder
River
Basin
Oil
and
Gas
Project,"
at
2
(
April
2003)

(
hereinafter
"
Montana
ROD").
AR
§
VII,
File
E,
Doc.
2.

41.
At
the
time
the
RMP
Amendments
were
proposed
in
this
case,
the
Montana
Project
area
was
governed
by
RMPs
adopted
in
1994
for
the
Powder
River
and
Billings
resource
areas.
See
BLM's
"
Oil
and
Gas
RMP/
EIS
Amendment
Record
of
Decision"
(
February
1994).
AR
§
VI,
File
D,
Doc.
46
(
hereinafter
"
1994
RMP
Amendments").
The
1994
RMP
Amendments
were
adopted
based
on
an
EIS
completed
in
1992.
See
"
Final
Oil
and
Gas
Amendment
of
the
Billings,
Powder
River
and
South
Dakota
Resource
Management
Plans/
Environmental
Impact
Statement"
(
December
1992).
AR
§
VI,
File
D,
Doc.
45.
The
1994
RMP
Amendments
authorized
conventional
oil
and
gas
development
and
a
limited
18
number
of
coal­
bed
methane
exploratory
and
test
wells.
See
id.,
at
iii­
iv.
AR
§
VI,

File
D,
Doc.
45.

42.
The
environmental
impact
statement
prepared
for
the
1994
RMP
Amendments
does
not
include
an
analysis
of
the
impact
of
full­
field
coal­
bed
methane
development.

43.
The
1994
RMP
amendments
briefly
mention
coal­
bed
methane
development
in
a
paragraph
titled
"
Issues
Not
Analyzed
in
this
Amendment."
Id.,
at
4.
AR
§
VI,

File
D,
Doc.
45.
The
1994
RMP
Amendments
stated
that
"
In
order
for
full­
field
[
coal­
bed
methane]
development
to
occur
on
Federal
oil
and
gas
lands,
an
additional
environmental
document
tied
to
this
[
1994
RMP]
amendment
would
be
required."
Id.
AR
§
VI,
File
D,
Doc.
45.

44.
At
the
time
the
RMP
Amendments
were
proposed
in
this
case,
the
Wyoming
Project
area
was
governed
by
two
RMPs:
(
1)
the
"
Platte
River
Resource
Area
Management
Plan
Record
of
Decisions"
from
1985;
and
(
2)
the
Approved
Resource
Management
Plan
for
Public
Lands
Administered
by
the
Bureau
of
Land
Management
Buffalo
Field
Office"
adopted
in
2001.
See
BLM's
"
Final
Environmental
Impact
Statement
and
Proposed
Plan
Amendment
for
the
Powder
River
Basin
Oil
and
Gas
Project,"
at
1­
1
(
January
2003)
(
hereinafter
"
Wyoming
Final
EIS"),
citing
"
Approved
Resource
Management
Plan
for
the
Public
Lands
Administered
by
the
Bureau
of
Land
Management
Buffalo
Field
Office,"
Buffalo
Field
Office
(
April
2001);
"
Platte
River
Resource
Area
Management
Plan,"

Casper
Field
Office
(
1985).
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc
18.
As
BLM
noted
in
this
Wyoming
Final
EIS,
19
the
levels
of
development
for
oil
and
natural
gas
anticipated
at
the
time
[
of
the
1985
and
2001
RMP
Amendments]
were
less
than
are
currently
proposed
by
the
Companies
and
the
agencies'
current
Reasonably
Foreseeable
Development
Scenario.
In
particular,
the
current
and
proposed
levels
of
development
of
CBM
[
coal­
bed
methane]
were
not
specifically
analyzed.

Id.,
at
1­
5.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc
18.

45.
On
June
21,
2000,
BLM
published
a
Federal
Register
notice
of
its
intent
to
prepare
an
EIS
to
evaluate
the
direct,
indirect,
and
cumulative
effects
of
expanded
oil
and
gas
development
in
the
Wyoming
portion
of
the
basin.

46.
In
July
2000,
Wyoming
BLM,
under
the
direction
of
the
Secretary,
requested
that
the
Argonne
National
Laboratory
("
ANL")
conduct
an
assessment
of
impacts
on
ambient
air
quality
and
air
quality
related
values
expected
to
result
from
emissions
of
air
pollutants
associated
with
the
development
of
coal
bed
methane
and
conventional
oil
and
gas
resources
in
the
Buffalo
and
Platte
River
Resource
Management
Areas
in
Wyoming..
See
"
Final
Technical
Support
Document:
Air
Quality
Impact
Assessment
for
the
Montana
Final
Statewide
Oil
and
Gas
EIS
and
Proposed
Amendment
of
the
Powder
River
and
Billings
Resource
Management
Plans
and
the
Wyoming
Final
EIS
and
Planning
Amendment
for
the
Powder
River
Basin
Oil
and
Gas
Development
Project,
prepared
for
the
U.
S.
Department
of
the
Interior
Bureau
of
Land
Management
Montana
and
Wyoming
State
Offices,

prepared
by
Argonne
National
Laboratory,"
at
1­
1
(
December
2002)
(
hereinafter
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment").
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

47.
ANL
completed
a
preliminary
air
quality
assessment
for
the
Wyoming
project
area
in
November
2001.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
1­
1.
AR
§
VII,

File
G,
Doc.
12.
20
48.
The
preliminary
air
quality
assessment
for
the
Wyoming
project
area
contained
a
limited
analysis
of
the
impacts
on
air
quality
that
would
result
from
air
pollutants
emitted
by
39,000
new
coal­
bed
methane
wells
and
3,200
new
oil
wells
over
a
ten­
year
period
in
the
Buffalo
and
Platte
River
Resource
Management
Areas
in
Wyoming.
This
assessment
failed
to
include
an
analysis
of
the
cumulative
impacts
of
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
in
the
Powder
River
and
Billings
Resource
Management
Areas
in
Montana.,
any
preexisting
sources
permitted
prior
to
September
1,
1994,
and
other
pre­
existing
sources
in
western
Wyoming,
Montana,
North
Dakota,
South
Dakota
or
northern
Colorado
that
would
be
expected
to
contribute
to
pollutant
concentrations
in
Class
I
national
park
and
wilderness
areas
within
the
zone
of
impact
of
air
pollutants
emitted
by
sources
in
the
project
region.

49.
In
December
2000,
BLM
announced
its
intent
to
prepare
another
EIS
as
required
to
adopt
an
RMP
Amendment
for
the
Billings
and
Powder
River
Resource
Management
Areas
in
Montana
and
to
analyze
the
development
of
up
to
10,000
coal­
bed
methane
wells
in
the
Montana
portion
of
the
Basin.
See
BLM's
"
Notice
of
Intent
to
Amend
the
Powder
River
and
Billings
Resource
Management
Plans
and
Conduct
Scoping
Meetings,"
(
December
14,
2000).
AR
§
I,
File
A,
Doc.
11.

50.
In
April
2001,
Montana
BLM
requested
that
ANL
conduct
an
assessment
of
impacts
on
ambient
air
quality
and
air
quality
related
values
associated
with
coalbed
methane
and
conventional
oil
and
gas
development
in
the
Powder
River
and
Billings
Resource
Management
Areas
in
Montana.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
1­
1.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.
ANL's
assessment
of
impacts
on
21
air
quality
and
air
quality
related
values
associated
with
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
in
the
Powder
River
and
Billings
Resource
Management
Areas
in
Montana
was
delivered
to
Montana
BLM
in
April
2002.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
1­
1.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

51.
In
January
2002,
the
BLM
released
two
Draft
EISs
for
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project,

one
each
for
the
Montana
and
Wyoming
portions
of
the
basin.
See
BLM's
Montana
"
Statewide
Draft
Oil
and
Gas
Environmental
Impact
Statement
and
Amendment
of
the
Powder
River
and
Billings
Resource
Management
Plans"

(
January
2002)
(
hereinafter
"
Montana
Draft
EIS").
AR
§
VI,
File
A,
Doc.
1.
See
also,
Wyoming
Draft
EIS,
supra.
AR
§
VI,
File
D,
Doc.
39.

52.
The
preliminary
air
quality
assessment
for
the
Wyoming
project
was
referenced,

but
not
attached
or
included
for
public
review,
in
the
Wyoming
Draft
EIS.
See
Wyoming
Draft
EIS,
at
3­
54,
10­
1.
AR
§
VI,
File
D,
Doc.
39.

53.
BLM,
under
the
direction
of
the
Secretary,
released
the
Montana
Draft
EIS
in
January
2002
without
an
air
quality
assessment
of
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
in
Montana
authorized
in
the
RMP
Amendments.
See
Montana
Draft
EIS,
supra.
AR
§
VI,
File
A,
Doc.
1.
Instead,
the
Montana
Draft
EIS
referenced
readers
concerned
about
air
quality
impacts
to
the
1992
EIS
for
oil
and
gas
development
in
the
Powder
River
and
Billings
Resource
Management
Areas,
which
did
not
analyze
the
air
quality
impacts
of
full­
field
coal­
bed
methane
development.
See
Montana
Draft
EIS,
at
4­
10.
AR
§
VI,
File
A,
Doc.
1.

54.
Neither
the
Montana
Draft
EIS
nor
the
Wyoming
Draft
EIS
contained
a
detailed
air
quality
assessment
of
the
proposed
project
that
evaluated
the
cumulative
22
impact
of
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
authorized
by
the
Secretary
in
the
RMP
Amendments
for
both
Montana
and
Wyoming.

55.
EPA
noted
that
in
a
January
17,
2002
letter
transmitting
the
Montana
Draft
EIS
to
the
EPA
for
review,
the
BLM
"
indicated
they
had
not
yet
analyzed
 
the
potential
human
health
impacts
and
visibility
changes
due
to
degraded
air
quality"

caused
by
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
authorized
by
the
Secretary
in
the
RMP
Amendments.
See
May
15,
2002
Letter
from
Robert
Roberts,
Regional
Administrator,
EPA,
to
Sherry
Barnett,
Acting
State
Director,
Montana
BLM,
Jan
Sensibaugh,
Director,
Montana
Division
of
Environmental
Quality,
David
Ballard,
Chairman,
Montana
Board
of
Oil
and
Gas
Conservation,
at
4.
AR
§
VI,

File
C,
Doc.
6,
at
11351.

56.
Commenting
on
the
Montana
Draft
EIS,
EPA
stated
a
"
combined
analysis
of
this
[
Montana]
Draft
EIS
and
the
Wyoming
Draft
EIS
should
be
prepared.
The
bifurcation
of
the
Powder
River
Basin
does
not
allow
the
decision­
maker
and
the
public
to
fully
evaluate
the
cumulative
impacts
of
both
projects."
Id.,
at
3­
4.
AR
§
VI,
File
C,
Doc.
6,
at
11350­
11351.

57.
EPA
recommended
that
BLM
include
a
revised
air
quality
assessment
in
"
a
revised
or
supplemental
Draft
EIS
to
allow
the
public
to
have
an
adequate
opportunity
to
review
and
comment
on
these
complex
issues."
Id.,
at
5.
AR
§
VI,

File
C,
Doc.
6,
at
11352.
See
EPA's
"
Detailed
Comments
by
EPA
on
the
Statewide
Draft
Oil
and
Gas
Oil
and
Gas
Environmental
Impact
Statement
and
23
Amendment
of
Powder
River
and
Billings
Resource
Management
Plans,"
at
41.

AR
§
VI,
File
C,
Doc.
6,
at
11394.

58.
BLM
held
public
meetings
to
discuss
the
Wyoming
Draft
EIS
between
March
18
and
March
21,
2002.
See
Wyoming
Final
EIS,
at
2­
2.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc
18.

BLM
held
public
meetings
to
discuss
the
Montana
Draft
EIS
in
Broadus,
Montana
on
April
1,
2002,
in
Billings,
Montana
on
April
2,
2002,
in
Lame
Deer,
Montana
on
April
3,
2002,
at
Crow
Agency,
Montana
on
April
3,
2002,
in
Helena,
Montana
on
April
4,
2002,
and
in
Bozeman,
Montana
on
April
9,
2002.

59.
Plaintiffs
submitted
extensive
comments
on
both
Draft
EISs.
See
May
15,
2002,

Comments
from
Vickie
Patton,
Senior
Attorney
Environmental
Defense,
to
BLM
Montana
and
Wyoming,
"
Comments
on
(
1)
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Statement
and
Draft
Planning
Amendments
for
the
Powder
River
Basin
Oil
and
Gas
Project,
Jan.
2002;
(
2)
Statewide
Draft
Oil
and
Gas
Environmental
Impact
Statement
and
Amendment
of
the
Powder
River
and
Billings
Resource
Management
Plans,
Jan.
2002"
(
hereinafter
"
Comments
of
Environmental
Defense").
AR
§
VI,
File
C,
Doc
6,
at
11241.
See
also
May
14,
2002,
Comments
of
National
Wildlife
Federation,
by
Tom
France
and
Ben
Deeble,
"
Comments
on
Statewide
Draft
Oil
and
Gas
Environmental
Impact
Statement
and
Amendment
of
the
Powder
River
and
Billings
Resource
Management
Plans."
AR
§
VI,
File
C,

Doc
6,
at
11024.

60.
The
comments
of
Environmental
Defense
focused
on
seven
main
issues:
(
1)

BLM's
failure
to
prepare
a
single
EIS
evaluating
the
cumulative
impacts
on
air
quality
and
other
resources
of
both
the
Montana
and
Wyoming
projects;
(
2)
24
BLM's
failure
to
evaluate
cumulative
air
quality
impacts
on
human
health
and
the
environment;
(
3)
BLM's
failure
to
consider
the
cumulative
impacts
of
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
together
with
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
reasonably
foreseeable
power
plants
in
the
vicinity
of
the
project;
(
4)
BLM's
failure
to
meaningfully
consider
the
impacts
of
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Projects
on
air
quality
and
air
quality
related
values
in
National
Park
and
Wilderness
Areas
designated
as
Class
I
areas
under
the
CAA;
(
5)
BLM's
failure
to
examine
additional
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
such
as
CO2
and
methane,
that
will
result
from
the
project;
(
6)

BLM's
failure
to
evaluate
all
viable
alternatives
and
air
pollution
mitigation
strategies
in
the
Draft
EISs;
and
(
7)
BLM's
failure
to
evaluate
the
cumulative
air
quality
impacts
on
nonattainment
areas
in
Wyoming
and
Montana.
See
Comments
of
Environmental
Defense,
supra.
AR
§
VI,
File
C,
Doc
6.

61.
On
May
15,
2002,
EPA
sent
a
letter
to
the
BLM
State
Director
in
Wyoming
explaining
that
EPA
found
the
Wyoming
Draft
EIS
"
Environmentally
Unsatisfactory."
See
May
15,
2002,
Letter
from
Robert
Roberts,
Regional
Administrator,
EPA
Region
VIII,
to
Al
Pierson,
State
Director,
BLM
Wyoming,

"
EPA's
Review
of
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Statement
and
Draft
Planning
Amendment
for
Powder
River
Basin
Oil
and
Gas
Project,"
at
4.
AR
§
III,
File
A,

Doc.
12.
EPA's
review
"
identified
adverse
environmental
impacts
that
are
of
sufficient
magnitude
that
they
are
unsatisfactory
from
the
standpoint
of
public
health
or
welfare
or
environmental
quality."
25
62.
On
May
15,
2002,
EPA
sent
a
letter
to
the
BLM
State
Director
in
Montana,

explaining
that
EPA
found
the
Montana
Draft
EIS
was
"
inadequate"
because
it
did
not
provide
"
sufficient
information
to
understand
the
impacts
of
the
preferred
alternative."
See
May
15,
2002
Letter
from
Robert
Roberts,
Regional
Administrator,
EPA,
to
Sherry
Barnett,
Acting
State
Director,
Montana
BLM,
Jan
Sensibaugh,
Director,
Montana
Division
of
Environmental
Quality,
David
Ballard,
Chairman,
Montana
Board
of
Oil
and
Gas
Conservation,
at
6.
AR
§
VI,

File
C,
Doc.
6,
at
11353.
EPA
stated
"
EPA
does
not
believe
that
the
draft
EIS
is
adequate
for
purposes
of
the
National
Environmental
Policy
Act
 
and
thus
should
be
formally
revised
and
made
available
for
public
comment
in
a
supplemental
or
revised
draft
EIS."
Id.,
at
6.
AR
§
VI,
File
C,
Doc.
6,
at
11353.

63.
In
detailed
comments
on
the
Montana
Draft
EIS
attached
to
EPA's
May
15,
2002
letter,
EPA
raised
objections
to
BLM's
failure
to
adequately
address
impacts
to
air
quality.
EPA
noted,
"
EPA
cannot
provide
a
meaningful
set
of
comments
on
impacts
to
air
resources
until
the
technical
study
currently
under
preparation
by
Argonne
Labs
for
BLM's
use
in
the
Final
EIS
is
provided."
See
EPA's
"
Detailed
Comments
by
EPA
on
the
Statewide
Draft
Oil
and
Gas
Environmental
Impact
Statement
and
Amendment
of
Powder
River
and
Billings
Resource
Management
Plans,"
at
34.
(
hereafter
"
Detailed
Comments").
AR
§
VI,
File
C,
Doc.
6,
at
11387.
EPA
explained
that
an
air
quality
assessment
from
Wyoming
and
Montana
"
should
be
coordinated
in
order
to
factor
in
the
cumulative
air
quality
impacts
to
the
entire
Powder
River
Basin,
not
just
each
State
separately."
Id.
AR
§
VI,
File
C,
Doc.
6,
at
11387.
26
64.
On
June
19­
20,
2002,
BLM
staff
from
Montana,
Wyoming,
the
Washington
headquarters
Office
and
the
Interior
Department's
Office
of
the
Solicitor
met
in
Billings,
Montana
to
develop
options
to
complete
the
EIS
process.
Among
the
issues
discussed
were
the
need
to
prepare
a
"[
c]
omplete
joint
cumulative
impacts
analysis
for
air"
resources
and
whether
to
prepare
a
supplemental
draft
EIS.
See
July
3,
2002,
Internal
Working
Document,
from
Pete
Culp,
Special
Assistant
to
Director
U.
S.
BLM,
"
Briefing
for
the
Director,"
at
1.
AR
§
VII,
File
I,
Doc.
3.

65.
On
July
3,
2002,
Pete
Culp,
Special
Assistant
to
the
Director
of
U.
S.
BLM,

transmitted
the
following
recommendation
developed
at
this
meeting
in
Montana
to
the
U.
S.
Director
of
BLM:

Complete
the
current
EISs
and
do
a
separate
NEPA
document
and
RMP
amendment
for
leasing
in
each
state.
Work
with
the
co­
leads
(
Montana)
and
cooperators
to
complete
the
Record
of
Decision
for
the
current
EISs
this
calendar
year.
Wyoming
would
complete
the
RMP
amendment
for
leasing
within
9­
12
months.

Id.
Among
the
advantages
listed
for
this
recommendation
was
that
both
EISs
could
include
a
joint
analysis
of
air
impacts.
Id.
Based
on
the
recommendations
made
at
this
meeting,
BLM
did
not
prepare
a
supplemental
Draft
EIS
for
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project.

66.
In
July
2002,
Montana
BLM
and
Wyoming
BLM
jointly
requested
that
ANL
conduct
a
more
comprehensive
joint
assessment
of
cumulative
impacts
on
ambient
air
quality
and
air
quality
related
values
expected
to
be
caused
by
air
pollutants
emitted
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
in
Montana
and
Wyoming
combined
with
other
existing
and
reasonably
foreseeable
future
sources.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
1­
1.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.
27
67.
In
September
2002,
ANL
submitted
to
Montana
BLM
and
Wyoming
BLM
the
initial
results
of
this
joint
assessment
of
the
cumulative
impacts
on
ambient
air
quality
and
air
quality
related
values
expected
to
be
caused
by
air
pollutants
emitted
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
in
Montana
and
Wyoming
combined
with
other
existing
and
reasonably
foreseeable
future
sources.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
1­
2.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

68.
In
October
2002,
Montana
BLM
requested
that
ANL
supplement
the
September
2002
joint
air
quality
assessment
to
include
emissions
from
current
and
reasonably
foreseeable
coal­
bed
methane
development
and
conventional
oil
and
gas
development
on
the
Crow
Indian
Reservation,
the
Northern
Cheyenne
Indian
Reservation,
and
the
Custer
National
Forest.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"

at
1­
2.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

69.
BLM
circulated
the
joint
air
quality
assessment
to
several
participating
state
and
federal
agencies.
Based
on
this
information,
on
October
23,
2002,
the
Montana
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
(
DEQ),
a
co­
lead
agency
with
responsibility
for
performing
an
impact
statement
under
state
law,
informed
the
BLM
that
DEQ
believed
that
the
new
information
on
air
impacts
and
other
impacts
required
a
supplemental
Montana
Draft
EIS
to
be
prepared
because
"
there
is
substantial
new
information
in
the
Final
EIS
that
the
public
will
not
have
had
a
chance
to
review
and
comment
on."
See
October
23,
2002
Email
from
Greg
Hallsten,
Montana
Department
of
Environmental
Quality,
to
Mary
Bloom,

Montana
BLM,
"
Fatal
Flaws,"
at
1.
AR
§
VII,
File
I,
Doc.
12.
28
70.
On
October
23,
2002,
after
reviewing
the
joint
air
quality
assessment,
the
Montana
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
sent
the
following
e­
mail
entitled
"
fatal
flaws"
to
the
BLM:

With
respect
to
the
revised
air
quality
material,
however,
we
still
have
problems.
John
[
North,
Montana
DEQ
attorney]
and
I,
as
well
as
other
attorneys
who
handle
air
issues
and
our
permitting
people,
continue
to
believe
that
the
DEIS
and
PFEIS
contradict
one
another.
The
DEIS
indicates
that
there
would
be
no
air
quality
problems,
while
the
PFEIS
shows
the
potential
for
violations
of
air
quality
standards,
both
directly
and
cumulatively.
In
the
DEIS,
we
asked
the
public
to
`
trust
us'
that
there
would
be
no
problems.
In
the
PFEIS,
we
show
there
could
be
problems,
and
we
put
numbers
to
it
to
support
that
view.
We
see
this
as
a
fatal
flaw.

The
set
of
responses
to
air
quality
related
comments
is
another
fatal
flaw.
Leaving
aside
the
dismissive
tone,
many
responses
are
unresponsive
to
the
comments.
Often,
the
commentor
[
sic]
is
referred
for
an
answer
to
a
technical
report
that
does
not
exist
yet
and
will
have
very
limited
availability
when
it
is
finished.
This
is
not
helpful
or
informative.
Further,
the
reader
is
repeatedly
told
that
information
not
found
in
the
DEIS
is
now
in
the
FEIS.
Once
or
twice
might
be
acceptable,
but
when
this
happens
over
and
over,
we
have
to
conclude
that
there
is
substantial
new
information
in
the
FEIS
that
the
public
will
not
have
had
a
chance
to
review
and
comment
on.

There
is
also
to
be
an
air
appendix
in
the
FEIS
that
is
a
new
feature
entirely.
We
continue
to
be
of
the
opinion
that
a
supplement
to
the
DEIS
is
in
order.

Id.
(
emphasis
supplied).
AR
§
VII,
File
I,
Doc
12.

71.
In
November
2002,
ANL
completed
and
delivered
to
Montana
BLM
and
Wyoming
BLM
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
which
provided
the
first
purported
analysis
of
the
cumulative
impacts
on
air
quality
and
air
quality
related
values
expected
to
be
caused
by
the
emission
of
air
pollutants
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
in
Montana
and
Wyoming,
together
with
some,
but
not
all,
existing
and
reasonably
foreseeable
future
sources.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"

included
the
air
pollutant
emissions
from
current
and
reasonably
foreseeable
coal­
29
bed
methane
development
and
conventional
oil
and
gas
development
on
the
Crow
Indian
Reservation,
the
Northern
Cheyenne
Indian
Reservation,
and
the
Custer
National
Forest
previously
requested
by
BLM
(
see
paragraph
68,
supra).
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
1­
2.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

72.
Throughout
the
development
of
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
Montana
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
assisted
the
BLM
in
preparing
the
air
quality
background
assumptions
and
reviewed
the
regional
data
for
these
assumptions
for
purposes
of
including
this
information
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment."
See
April
29,
2003,
Letter
from
Edward
Shepard,
Assistant
Director,
BLM
Renewable
Resources
and
Planning,
to
Michael
Reisner,
"
Denial
of
Protest",
at
26.
AR
§
VII,
File
D,
Doc.
4.

73.
National
Park
Service
("
NPS")
stated
that
it
received
the
draft
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
via
EPA
on
November
27,
2002,
the
day
before
Thanksgiving.
See
December
2,
2002,
Letter
from
Cheryl
Eckhart,
NEPA
Specialist,
Intermountain
region
of
National
Park
Service,
to
Paul
Beels,
Project
Manager,
BLM
Buffalo
Field
Office,
"
NPS
Review
of
Preliminary
Final
Environmental
Impact
Statement
and
Technical
Support
Document
for
the
Powder
River
Basin
Oil
and
Gas
Project,"
at
1.
AR
§
IV,
File
G,
Doc.
1.

74.
On
November
29,
2002,
NPS
states
that
it
was
"
notified
by
[
BLM's]
Susan
Caplan
that
the
due
date
for
comments
was
December
4,
2002."
Id.
AR
§
IV,
File
G,
Doc.
1.

75.
On
December
2,
2002,
after
what
NPS
described
as
a
"
cursory
review"
of
the
draft
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
the
NPS
stated
­­
30
We
are
particularly
concerned
that
the
project
may
result
in
significant
or
potentially
adverse
impacts
to
several
units
of
the
National
Park
System.
These
units
include
Badlands
National
Park
(
NP)
and
Wind
Cave
NP,
which
are
mandatory
Class
I
air
quality
areas
 
.

Id.,
at
1­
2.
AR
§
IV,
File
G,
Doc.
1.
The
NPS
explained
­­

We
[
NPS]
prefer
to
resolve
technical
issues
prior
to
the
public
release
of
an
FEIS.
In
this
case,
NPS
did
not
receive
the
documents
until
two
weeks
prior
to
the
comment
deadline,
thus
making
such
resolution
impossible.
Additionally,
NPS
was
not
advised
of,
nor
included
in,
any
of
several
technical
discussions
regarding
the
Final
EIS
following
our
[
NPS's]
April
12,
2002
comments
on
the
draft
EIS.

Id.,
at
2.
AR
§
IV,
File
G,
Doc.
1.
In
conclusion,
the
NPS
requested
the
"
BLM
either
defer
formal
publication
of
this
FEIS,
or
submit
it
as
a
supplement
to
the
previous
Draft
EIS
so
that
we
[
NPS]
may
be
allowed
to
discuss,
and
hopefully
resolve
the
technical
issues
regarding
this
[
Oil
and
Gas]
project."
Id.,
at
2.
AR
§
IV,
File
G,
Doc.
1.

76.
On
December
5,
2002,
EPA
commented
on
the
draft
of
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment."
EPA
stated
"
We
[
EPA]
have
not
had
sufficient
time
to
perform
an
in­
depth
technical
review
of
all
parts
of
all
of
the
documents."
December
5,
2002,

Email
from
Richard
Long,
EPA
to
Pete
Culp,
Special
Assistant
to
the
Director
U.
S.
BLM,
"
Overview
of
EPA
Region
8'
s
Comments
on
BLM's
CBM
EIS
Air
Quality
Analyses,"
at
2.
AR
§
VIII,
File
A,
Doc.
21.

77.
EPA
expressed
the
conclusion
that
the
air
quality
impacts
of
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
are
significant.
EPA
stated
­­

Our
review
of
the
EISs
and
the
TSD
[
the
"
Technical
Support
Document"
referred
to
herein
as
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"]
suggest
that
the
air
quality
impacts
of
CBM
[
coal­
bed
methane]
development
in
Wyoming
and
Montana
are
significant,
meaning
that:
PSD
Class
I
and
Class
II
increments
for
PM10
and
NOx
will
be
exceeded,
the
NAAQS
for
PM10
could
be
exceeded
by
CBM
construction
emissions
in
Montana,
additions
to
existing
impacts
31
(
near
coal
mines
in
Wyoming
and
Montana
and
in
Lame
Deer)
could
also
violate
the
PM10
NAAQS,
visibility
criteria
will
be
exceeded
by
significant
amounts
on
a
number
of
days
in
a
significant
number
of
Class
I
areas,
and
acid
deposition
impacts
will
be
of
concern
in
one
Class
I
area.
We
believe
that
the
unadjusted
modeling
results
indicate
these
impacts
even
without
considering
the
possibility
that
the
model
is
underpredicting
impacts.

Id.,
at
2.
AR
§
VIII,
File
A,
Doc.
21
78.
EPA
stated
that
the
EISs
were
not
written
in
a
manner
to
allow
non­
technical
laypeople
to
understand
it.
EPA
stated
 
As
mentioned
above,
the
EISs
could
be
written
better
so
they
are
more
accessible
to
the
lay
public.
 
As
the
EISs
are
currently
written,
it
is
very
difficult
for
the
layperson
(
or
even
the
technical
person)
to
come
to
reasonable
and
clear
understanding
regarding
calculated
effects.

Id.,
at
2.
AR
§
VIII,
File
A,
Doc.
21.

79.
EPA
then
explained
 
Monitoring
and
mitigation
are
given
short
shrift.
Several
months
ago
[
emphasis
in
original]
EPA
reassessed
its
technical
concerns
regarding
air
quality
modeling
for
the
CBM
EISs.
The
judgment
was
made
that
we
could
compromise
if
the
final
EISs
carefully
caveated
the
existing
modeling
results
and
their
uncertainties
and
described
how
air
quality
monitoring
could
be
used
to
track
PSD
increment
consumption
(
for
example)
and
how
mitigation
could
be
used
to
reduce
impacts.
The
BLM
documents
do
not
adequately
link
the
modeled
impacts,
which
are
clearly
above
regulatory
criteria
with
what
BLM
proposes
that
it
would
do
or
it
would
recommend
others
do
to
mitigate
impacts.
An
EPA­
developed
table
on
mitigation
options
is
provided
in
at
least
one
of
the
BLM
documents;
however,
it
is
not
tied
in
with
the
text.
How
is
this
information
to
be
used?
Significant
visibility
impacts
are
predicted,
but
we
do
not
know
whether
these
impacts
are
predominantly
from
PMlO
or
NOx.
One
cannot
propose
meaningful
mitigation
if
one
does
not
know
what
needs
to
be
controlled.

Id.,
at
2.
AR
§
VIII,
File
A,
Doc.
21.

80.
On
January
17,
2003,
Defendants
published
notice
of
availability
of
the
Wyoming
and
Montana
Final
EISs.
See
68
Fed.
Reg.
2569
(
Montana
Notice);
68
Fed.
Reg.

2570
(
Wyoming
Notice).
Defendants
released
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
32
to
the
public
for
the
first
time
as
part
of
the
Final
Montana
and
Wyoming
EISs.

See
BLM's
"
Statewide
Oil
and
Gas
Environmental
Impact
Statement
and
Amendment
of
the
Powder
River
and
Billings
Resource
Management
Plan"

(
January
2003)
(
hereinafter
"
Montana
Final
EIS").
AR
§
VII,
File
A,
Doc.
12
&

13.
See
also,
Wyoming
Final
EIS,
supra.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc
18.

81.
Neither
of
these
two
notices
of
availability
mention
the
availability
of
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
or
inform
the
public
that
there
is
any
opportunity
for
public
review
and
comment
on
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment."
Neither
of
these
notices
discuss
or
invite
the
public
or
agencies
to
comment
on
air
quality
impacts
related
to
the
proposed
Oil
and
Gas
Project
authorized
by
the
Secretary
in
the
RMP
Amendments
shown
by
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
to
be
expected
in
any
of
the
15
Class
I
areas,
including
visibility
impacts,
acid
deposition
in
sensitive
lakes,
or
exceedances
of
maximum
allowable
increases
of
air
pollutants.
Nor
did
these
notices
identify
the
need
for,
or
invite
the
public
to
comment
on
the
need
for
mitigation
measures
to
prevent
deterioration
of
air
quality
or
impairment
of
visibility
in
any
of
these
15
Class
I
areas.

82.
In
February
2003,
EPA
sent
a
letter
to
BLM
explaining
the
confusion
created
by
the
multiple
presentations
of
the
air
quality
information
in
the
Final
Montana
EIS
and
Final
Wyoming
EIS.
EPA
stated
­­

It
was
difficult
to
evaluate
the
full
air
quality
impacts
due
to
the
inconsistent
manner
in
which
direct
impacts
were
reported
between
the
Wyoming
and
Montana
Final
EISs.
The
modeling
approach
which
calculated
Montana
CBM
[
coal­
bed
methane]
and
Wyoming
CBM
direct
impacts
separately
does
not
allow
the
decision­
maker
to
look
at
the
total
direct
impacts
from
the
CBM
development
in
the
two
states.
In
the
Wyoming
EIS,
the
Montana
CBM
direct
impacts
are
considered
nonproject
impacts,
and
in
the
Montana
EIS,
the
Wyoming
CBM
direct
33
impacts
are
considered
non­
project
impacts.
Since
the
direct
impacts
from
each
EIS
cannot
be
simply
added
together,
it
is
therefore
impossible
to
determine
the
total
direct
impacts
due
to
CBM
development.
The
Powder
River
Basin
air
shed
is
impacted
by
oil
and
gas
development,
coalmines,
utilities
and
other
sources
from
both
states.

See
February
13,
2003,
Letter
from
Robert
E.
Roberts,
Regional
Administrator,

EPA,
to
Martin
Ott,
State
Director
Bureau
of
Land
Management,
Jan
Sensibaugh,

Director
Montana
Department
of
Environmental
Quality,
and
David
Ballard,

Chairman
Montana
Board
of
Oil
and
Gas
Conservation,
entitled,
"
EPA's
Review
of
Final
the
Statewide
Draft
Oil
and
Gas
Final
Environmental
Impact
Statement
(
Final
EIS)
and
Amendment
of
the
Powder
River
and
Billings
Resource
Management
Plans,
CEQ
#
030020,"
at
10.
AR
§
III,
File
A,
Doc.
24.

83.
In
February
2003,
several
environmental
organizations
filed
protests
to
the
Final
Montana
EIS
and
the
Final
Wyoming
EIS
and
requested
that
BLM
prepare
a
new
supplemental
EIS
evaluating
these
new
data
to
provide
an
opportunity
for
public
comment
on
the
cumulative
impacts
described
for
the
first
time
in
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment."

84.
BLM
denied
the
protests
and
refused
to
supplement
the
Montana
EIS
and
the
Wyoming
EIS.

85.
The
BLM,
under
the
supervision
of
and
pursuant
to
the
statutory
authority
granted
to
the
Secretary,
on
April
30,
2003
signed
the
Record
of
Decisions
approving
both
the
Wyoming
and
Montana
Final
EISs
and
the
RMP
Amendments.
See
Montana
ROD,
supra.
AR
§
VII,
File
E,
Doc.
2.
See
also
"
Record
of
Decision
and
Resource
Management
Plan
Amendments
for
the
Powder
River
Basin
Oil
and
Gas
Project,
Buffalo
Field
Office,"
Wyoming
BLM
(
April
2003)
(
hereinafter
"
Wyoming
ROD").
34
V.
EMISSIONS
FROM
THE
OIL
AND
GAS
PROJECT
ARE
PREDICTED
TO
CAUSE
VIOLATIONS
OF
CLEAN
AIR
ACT
AND
STANDARDS
FOR
AIR
POLLUTANTS
IN
NATIONAL
PARKS
AND
WILDERNESS
PROTECTED
AS
CLASS
I
AREAS.

86.
Evidence
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
demonstrates
that
air
pollutants
emitted
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
authorized
by
the
RMP
Amendments
would
contribute
to
or
cause
the
violation
of
state
and
federal
air
quality
standards,

including,
but
not
limited
to,
national
ambient
air
quality
standards,
maximum
allowable
increases
in
pollutants
in
excess
of
the
concentrations
allowed
in
mandatory
federal
Class
I
areas,
adverse
impacts
on
visibility,
and
adverse
impacts
on
acid
sensitive
waters,
as
described
in
section
V.
E.
infra.
See
generally,

"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment",
supra.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

87.
In
the
Wyoming
Final
EIS,
BLM
admits
that
"
Under
both
FLPMA
and
the
CAA,

BLM
is
required
to
assure
that
its
actions
(
either
direct
or
by
use
authorizations)

comply
with
all
applicable
local,
state,
tribal
and
federal
air
quality
requirements,

including
PSD
Class
I
and
II
increments."
Wyoming
Final
EIS,
at
S­
227,

(
emphasis
supplied).
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc
18.
See
also
Wyoming
Draft
EIS,
at
4­
102
(
stating
"
under
FLPMA,
and
the
Clean
Air
Act,
BLM
cannot
authorize
any
activity
that
does
not
conform
to
all
applicable
local,
state,
tribal,
and
Federal
air
quality
laws,
statutes,
regulations,
standards,
and
implementation
plans.").
AR
§
VI,
File
D,
Doc.
39.

88.
On
February
7,
2003,
a
BLM
air
quality
official
advised
the
Special
Assistant
to
the
national
Director
of
BLM
who
was
responsible
for
managing
approval
of
the
Project
that
­­

[
U]
nder
both
the
Clean
Air
Act
and
the
Federal
Land
Policy
and
Management
Act,
BLM
has
both
the
authority
and
responsibility
to
assure
35
that
it's
actions
(
including
all
authorized
actions)
comply
with
all
applicable
local,
state,
tribal
and
federal
air
quality
laws,
statutes,
regulations,
standards,
increments,
and
implementation
plans.
Under
FLPMA,
we
also
have
the
authority
and
responsibility
to
prevent
`
unnecessary
and
undue'
degradation
of
the
environment,
including
air
quality.

February
5­
7,
2003,
Email
from
Scott
Archer,
Senior
Air
Resource
Specialist,
BLM's
National
Science
and
Technology
Center,
Denver,
to
Pete
Culp,
Special
Assistant
to
the
Director
U.
S.
BLM,
regarding
the
need
for
air
quality
mitigation
measures
in
the
Montana
and
Wyoming
RODs,
at
1.
AR
§
VIII,
File
A,
Doc.
27.

89.
Neither
the
Montana
or
Wyoming
Record
of
Decision
adopts
any
measures
or
policies
intended
to
prevent
predicted
emissions
of
air
pollutants
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
from
exceeding
the
levels
shown
to
cause
or
contribute
to
violations
of
national
ambient
air
quality
standards,
maximum
allowable
increases
in
concentrations
of
air
pollutants
regulated
under
the
Clean
Air
Act,
or
to
prevent
adverse
impacts
on
air
quality
related
values
such
as
impairment
of
visibility
in
the
mandatory
federal
Class
I
areas
affected
by
emissions
from
the
activities
authorized
by
either
RMP.
See
Montana
ROD,
supra.
AR
§
VII,
File
E,
Doc.
2.

See
also
"
Record
of
Decision
and
Resource
Management
Plan
Amendments
for
the
Powder
River
Basin
Oil
and
Gas
Project,
Buffalo
Field
Office,"
Wyoming
BLM
(
April
2003).

A.
Air
Pollution
Emissions
From
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project.

90.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
explains
that
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
authorized
by
the
Secretary
would
produce
air
pollutant
emissions
in
several
ways.
During
the
construction
phase,
emissions
from
vehicle
traffic
and
temporary
field
generators
will
produce
volatile
organic
compounds
("
VOCs")
36
and
fugitive
particulate
matter
pollution.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
4­
23.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.
Additional
particulate
matter
pollution
will
be
emitted
by
the
construction
of
wells,
pipelines,
compressor
stations,
associated
facilities,
and
over
17,000
miles
of
new
roads
in
Wyoming
and
over
6,000
new
miles
of
roads
in
Montana.
Id.,
at
1­
12
(
Wyoming),
B­
60
(
Montana).
AR
§
VII,

File
G,
Doc.
12.

91.
During
the
operation
phase,
air
pollutants
will
be
emitted
by
compressor
engines
at
producing
oil
and
gas
wells.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
1­
6.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.
The
approximately
2,400
compressors
for
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
will
be
powered
by
diesel,
electric,
or
natural
gas­
fired
engines.
Id.,
at
1­
6,

1­
11.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.
The
Oil
and
Gas
Project
will
continue
to
produce
air
pollutant
emissions
during
the
life
of
the
project
from
work
crew
vehicles
and
road
maintenance
activities.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
4­
25.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

92.
In
addition
to
direct
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
activities,
other
sources
of
air
pollutants
in
the
region
will
also
contribute
to
air
pollutant
concentrations
in
the
15
Class
I
areas
shown
by
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
to
be
affected
by
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
approved
by
the
RMP
Amendments.
These
include
emissions
from
the
following
existing
sources:
operations
at
developed
oil
and
gas
fields,
coal
mines,
coal­
fired
power
plants,
gasoline
and
diesel
vehicle
engine
exhaust,
dust
generated
from
vehicle
traffic
on
unpaved
roads,
windblown
dust
from
neighboring
areas,
road
sanding
during
winter
months,
and
transport
of
air
pollutants
from
emissions
sources
37
outside
the
region.
See
Montana
Final
EIS,
at
3­
2.
AR
§
VII,
File
A,
Doc.
12.
See
also,
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
4­
15­
4­
43.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.
See
also,
Wyoming
Final
EIS,
at
4­
377­
4­
379.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc
18.

B.
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
Methodology.

93.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
evaluated
air
quality
impacts
by
predicting
the
air
pollutant
concentrations
that
are
expected
to
result
from
some,
but
not
all,

of
the
emissions
from
oil
and
gas
development
activities
authorized
by
the
Secretary
in
the
RMP
Amendments
and
emissions
from
some
other,
but
not
all,

existing,
new
and
reasonably
foreseeable
sources
of
air
pollution.
Predicted
air
pollutant
concentrations
are
compared
with
the
applicable
standards
under
the
Clean
Air
Act,
including
National
and
State
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards,

applicable
maximum
allowable
increases
for
Class
I
areas
(
also
referred
to
as
Prevention
of
Significant
Deterioration
(
PSD)
increments),
standards
for
determining
when
pollutants
cause
impairment
of
visibility
that
is
prohibited
in
Class
I
areas,
and
standards
for
determining
excess
deposition
of
acid­
forming
air
pollutants
into
watersheds
at
risk
of
suffering
from
acidification.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
2­
1,
6­
1.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

94.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
was
performed
using
the
CALPUFF
modeling
system.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
3­
1.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,

Doc.
12.
The
CALPUFF
modeling
system
is
an
atmospheric
dispersion
model
used
to
simulate
the
transport
of
air
pollutants
from
the
sources
of
emissions
through
the
atmosphere
to
downwind
receptor
areas.
The
CALPUFF
modeling
system
is
the
only
atmospheric
dispersion
model
approved
by
the
United
States
38
Environmental
Protection
Agency
for
the
purpose
of
reliably
predicting
concentrations
of
air
pollutants
in
the
ambient
air
more
than
50
kilometers
from
the
source.
68
Fed.
Reg.
18439
(
April
15,
2003).
The
CALPUFF
modeling
system
can
accurately
predict
concentrations
of
air
pollutants
in
the
50­
200
kilometer
range,
with
some
studies
showing
that
acceptable
results
can
be
achieved
out
to
300
kilometers.
Id.,
at
18441.

95.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
used
the
CALPUFF
model
to
"
estimate[]
and
assess[]
the
potential
impacts
of
air
pollutant
emissions
from
the
Montana
Project
and
Wyoming
Project
(
current
project)
sources,
other
new
and
RFFA
[
reasonably
foreseeable
future
actions]
in
the
surrounding
area,
and
cumulative
sources
 

under
the
18
alternative
combinations
of
the
two
projects."
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
2­
1.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

C.
Modeling
Domain
of
the
Air
Quality
Assessment
96.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
is
based
on
an
evaluation
of
the
air
quality
impacts
within
the
geographic
range
of
reliable
predictions
achievable
using
the
CALPUFF
model,
known
as
the
"
modeling
domain".
The
modeling
domain
included
most
of
Montana
and
Wyoming,
and
adjacent
portions
of
North
Dakota,

South
Dakota,
and
Nebraska.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
2­
1,
2­
3.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

97.
The
Montana
Oil
and
Gas
Project
area
consists
of
approximately
25,000,000
acres
and
encompasses
all
of
Big
Horn,
Carbon,
Gallatin,
Golden
Valley,
Musselshell,

Park,
Powder
River,
Stillwater,
Sweet
Grass,
Treasure,
Wheatland,
and
39
Yellowstone
Counties
and
portions
of
Carter,
Custer,
and
Rosebud
Counties.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
1­
4.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

98.
The
Wyoming
Oil
and
Gas
Project
area
consists
of
8,636,000
acres
and
includes
all
of
Campbell,
Johnson,
and
Sheridan
Counties
and
a
large
portion
of
northern
Converse
County.
Id.,
at
1­
5.

99.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
demonstrates
that
air
and
the
air
pollutants
emitted
from
sources
located
in
the
region
included
within
the
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment
move
freely
across
state
boundaries
within
the
Powder
River
Basin
and
are
transported
out
of
the
Project
region
to
other
downwind
areas
in
Montana,

Wyoming,
South
Dakota,
North
Dakota,
and
Nebraska.

D.
National
Parks
and
Wilderness
Areas
Designated
Class
I
That
Were
Included
in
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment."

100.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
evaluated
the
cumulative
air
impacts
of
some,
but
not
all,
of
the
air
pollutants
that
are
expected
to
be
emitted
as
a
result
of
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
allowed
by
the
RMP
Amendments,
along
with
emissions
of
some,
but
not
all,
existing
and
reasonably
foreseeable
sources
in
the
Project
region.
This
air
quality
assessment
provides
predicted
concentrations
of
air
pollutants
in
the
Project
region
and
at
national
parks
and
wilderness
areas
within
the
modeling
domain
that
have
been
classified
as
Class
I
for
purposes
of
the
Prevention
of
Significant
Deterioration
pursuant
to
section
162
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7472.

101.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
provides
evidence
that
concentrations
of
air
pollutants
in
at
least
fifteen
(
15)
Class
I
areas
will
be
affected
by
the
emission
of
air
pollutants
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
authorized
by
the
40
Secretary
in
the
RMP
Amendments.
These
Class
I
areas
include:
Badlands
Wilderness
Area,
Wind
Cave
National
Park,
Grand
Teton
National
Park,

Yellowstone
National
Park,
Theodore
Roosevelt
National
Park
North,
Theodore
Roosevelt
National
Park
South,
Bridger
Wilderness
Area,
Fitzpatrick
Wilderness
Area,
Washakie
Wilderness
Area,
North
Absaroka
Wilderness
Area,
Teton
Wilderness
Area,
Gates
of
the
Mountains
Wilderness
Area,
Scapegoat
Wilderness
Area,
U.
L.
Bend
Wilderness
Area,
and
Red
Rock
Lakes
Wilderness
Area.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
Figure
2.1
"
Topography
of
the
Modeling
Domain,
Population
Centers,
and
Sensitive
Receptors,"
at
2­
3
[
A
true
and
correct
copy
attached
as
Exhibit
E];
Table
4.3
"
PSD
Class
I
Areas
and
PSD
Class
II
Areas
of
Concern
within
the
Modeling
Domain
of
the
Montana
and
Wyoming
Projects,"
at
4­
11.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.
See
also
40
C.
F.
R.
§
§
81.400
(
Scope
of
Regulations),
81.417
(
Montana
Class
I
areas),
81.423
(
North
Dakota
Class
I
areas),
81.427
(
South
Dakota
Class
I
areas),
81.436
(
Wyoming
Class
I
areas).

102.
The
program
for
the
Prevention
of
Significant
Deterioration
("
PSD")
of
air
quality
in
Part
C
of
Title
I
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
protects
air
quality
of
Class
I
areas
in
regions
designated
attainment
or
unclassifiable
by
establishing
"
maximum
allowable
increases"
of
the
pollutants
sulfur
dioxide
and
particulate
matter,
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7473;
and
nitrogen
dioxide,
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7476;
40
C.
F.
R.
§
52.21(
c).

103.
Maximum
allowable
increases
(
also
referred
to
as
"
increments"
or
"
PSD
increments")
are
determined
in
relation
to
"
baseline
concentrations"
of
the
pollutant
that
exist
on
the
"
baseline
date."
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7479(
4).
A
baseline
date
is
41
the
date
upon
which
a
major
source
of
air
pollution
makes
a
complete
permit
application
under
the
relevant
regulations.
Id.;
see
also
40
C.
F.
R.
§
52.21(
b)(
14)(
ii).

104.
In
Montana,
the
statewide
baseline
date
for
SO2
was
triggered
by
the
permit
application
of
Pacific
Power
&
Light
(
Colstrip
Facility)
on
March
26,

1979.
The
Montana
statewide
baseline
date
for
PM10
was
triggered
by
the
permit
application
of
Spring
Creek
Coal
on
January
2,
1979.
The
Montana
statewide
baseline
date
for
NOx
was
triggered
by
the
permit
application
of
Continental
Lime
(
now
known
as
Graymont)
on
January
10,
1990.
These
baseline
dates
apply
to
all
Class
I
areas
in
Montana,
which
include
U.
L.
Bend
Wilderness
Area,

Scapegoat
Wilderness
Area,
Gates
of
the
Mountains
Wilderness
Area,
Red
Rock
Lakes
Wilderness
Area,
and
the
Northern
Cheyenne
Indian
Reservation.

105.
The
baseline
date
has
been
triggered
for
SO2,
PM10,
and
NOx
in
all
areas
of
Wyoming.
See
67
Fed.
Reg.
5485.
The
statewide
baseline
date
for
NOx
in
Wyoming
is
February
28,
1988.
See
53
Fed.
Reg.
40656.
The
statewide
baseline
date
for
SO2
in
Wyoming
is
February
2,
1978.
The
statewide
baseline
date
for
PM10
in
Wyoming
is
February
22,
1979.
These
baseline
dates
apply
to
all
Class
I
areas
in
Wyoming,
which
include
the
Washakie
Wilderness
Area,
Bridger
Wilderness
Area,
Fitzpatrick
Wilderness
Area,
Yellowstone
National
Park,
Grant
Teton
National
Park,
Teton
Wilderness
Area,
and
North
Absaroka
Wilderness
Area.

106.
The
baseline
date
for
SO2
in
the
baseline
area
in
North
Dakota
containing
Theodore
Roosevelt
National
Park
(
North
and
South
Units)
is
December
19,
42
1977.
The
baseline
date
for
PM10
in
the
baseline
area
in
North
Dakota
containing
Theodore
Roosevelt
National
Park
(
North
and
South
Units)
is
January
13,
1978.

The
baseline
date
for
NOx
in
the
baseline
area
in
North
Dakota
containing
Theodore
Roosevelt
National
Park
(
North
and
South
Units)
is
October
31,
1989.

107.
The
South
Dakota
baseline
date
for
the
baseline
areas
containing
Badlands
National
Park
and
Wind
Cave
National
Park
for
SO2,
PM10,
and
NOx
were
triggered
by
the
permit
application
of
Northern
States
Power
for
its
Sioux
Falls
facility
in
September
1991.

108.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
did
not
identify,
analyze,
or
determine
the
background
concentrations
existing
at
the
time
the
baseline
dates
were
established
in
the
baseline
areas
containing
the
Class
I
areas
that
will
be
affected
by
the
increases
in
air
pollution
emissions
resulting
from
the
activities
authorized
by
the
Secretary
in
the
RMP
Amendments.

E.
Violations
of
Air
Quality
Standards
Demonstrated
by
Air
Quality
Modeling
Analysis.

i.
Violation
of
Maximum
Allowable
Increases
(
i.
e.
PSD
Increments)

109.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
compared
the
air
pollutant
concentrations
attributable
to
emissions
from
the
sources
included
in
the
emissions
inventory
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
against
the
entire
maximum
allowable
increases
allowed
in
PSD
Class
I
areas.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
7­
1.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
did
not
evaluate
the
extent
to
which
the
maximum
allowable
increases
under
the
PSD
program
have
already
been
consumed
by
sources
43
permitted
since
the
baseline
date
was
triggered
in
baseline
areas
containing
Class
I
national
park
and
wilderness
areas.

110.
According
to
a
recent
study
of
air
quality
at
the
Theodore
Roosevelt
National
Park
 
North
unit,
the
maximum
allowable
increase
of
3­
hour
SO2
already
was
exceeded
four
times
in
1991,
twice
in
1992,
and
twice
in
1993.
See
EPA's
"
Dispersion
Modeling
Analysis
of
PSD
Class
I
Increment
Consumption
in
North
Dakota
and
Eastern
Montana,"
at
42
(
May
2003).
The
maximum
allowable
increase
in
24­
hour
SO2
was
exceeded
at
Theodore
Roosevelt
National
Park
 
North
unit
four
times
in
1990,
six
times
in
1991,
four
times
in
1992,
five
times
in
1993,
and
twice
in
1994.
Id.,
at
19.
The
study
evaluated
air
quality
at
the
Theodore
Roosevelt
National
Park
 
South
unit,
and
found
that
the
maximum
allowable
increase
for
3­
hour
SO2
was
exceeded
twice
in
1990,
twice
in
1993,
and
once
in
1993.
Id.,
at
41.
The
maximum
allowable
increase
for
24­
hour
SO2
was
exceeded
at
Theodore
Roosevelt
National
Park
 
South
unit
five
times
in
1990,

five
times
in
1991,
twice
in
1992,
four
times
in
1993,
and
eight
times
in
1994.
Id.,

at
19.

111.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
analyzed
eighteen
combinations
of
the
four
Alternatives
for
Wyoming
and
the
five
Alternatives
for
Montana,
with
Alternative
1
in
Wyoming
and
Alternative
E
in
Montana
being
the
two
Preferred
Alternatives
adopted
in
the
Final
EISs
and
approved
in
the
RODs.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
1­
10.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

112.
The
cumulative
air
quality
analysis
predicts
emissions
for
Wyoming
Alternative
1
based
on
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
the
development
44
of
39,367
coal­
bed
methane
wells
in
Wyoming
and
3,200
conventional
oil
and
gas
wells.
Id.,
at
1­
11.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.
Under
Alternative
1,
there
are
expected
to
be
1,060
booster
(
field)
compressors
and
298
reciprocating
(
sales)

compressors,
all
of
which
would
be
fueled
by
natural
gas.
Id.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,

Doc.
12.
The
cumulative
air
quality
analysis
predicts
emissions
for
Wyoming
Alternative
3
("
no
action"
alternative)
based
on
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
development
of
15,458
coal­
bed
methane
wells
and
1,409
conventional
oil
and
gas
wells
on
nonfederal
land
within
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
area.
Id.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.
The
emissions
inventory
for
Alternative
3
assumes
there
would
be
no
additional
air
pollutants
emitted
from
development
of
coal­
bed
methane
and
conventional
oil
and
gas
wells
on
federal
leases.
Id.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

113.
The
cumulative
air
quality
analysis
predicts
emissions
for
Montana
Alternative
E
based
on
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
the
development
of
up
to
18,265
coal­
bed
methane
wells,
1,000
booster
(
field)
compressors,
and
100
reciprocating
(
sales)
compressors.
Id.,
at
1­
7.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

Under
Alternative
E,
the
compressors
would
be
fueled
by
natural
gas,
except
that
electric
compressor
engines
may
be
required
in
areas
where
noise
is
a
problem.

Id.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.
The
analysis
for
Alternative
D
is
based
on
the
same
level
of
development
as
Alternative
E
except
that
all
the
booster
(
field)

compressors
would
be
required
to
be
powered
by
electricity.
The
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
under
Alternative
Ea
in
Montana
is
based
on
the
development
of
over
18,000
coal­
bed
methane
wells
in
Montana,
but
also
45
includes
reasonably
foreseeable
development
of
over
8,000
additional
coal­
bed
methane
wells
on
the
Crow
and
Northern
Cheyenne
Indian
Reservations
and
the
Custer
National
Forest.
Id.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.
The
cumulative
air
quality
analysis
predicts
emissions
for
Alternative
A
(
the
"
no
action"
alternative)
in
Montana
based
on
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
only
250
new
coalbed
methane
wells
that
would
be
drilled
and
tested,
but
no
new
wells
would
go
into
production
on
BLM
land.
The
emissions
inventory
for
Alternative
A
includes
emissions
for
up
to
2,000
conventional
oil
and
gas
wells.
Id.,
at
1­
6.
AR
§
VII,

File
G,
Doc.
12.

114.
The
results
of
the
modeling
analysis
for
the
cumulative
impacts
reported
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
show
that
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
the
level
of
oil
and
gas
and
coal­
bed
methane
development
in
Wyoming
Alternative
1
and
Montana
Alternative
E,
which
were
the
alternatives
authorized
by
approval
of
the
RMPs
for
the
four
planning
regions
in
Montana
and
Wyoming,
when
modeled
together
with
the
air
pollutants
emitted
by
the
existing
and
reasonably
foreseeable
future
sources
included
in
the
emissions
inventory,

will
contribute
to
a
9.18
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
("
µ
g/
m3")
increase
in
the
24­
hour
average
concentration
of
PM10
in
the
Washakie
Wilderness
Area,
which
is
a
Class
I
area.
See,
Wyoming
Final
EIS,
at
4­
387.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc
18.

See
also,
Montana
Final
EIS,
at
4­
26,
4­
27,
and
Table
4­
10.
AR
§
VII,
File
A,

Doc.
13.
See
also,
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
C­
9,
C­
32.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.
46
115.
The
"
maximum
allowable
increase"
established
pursuant
to
42
U.
S.
C.

§
7476(
f)
(
i.
e.,
the
PSD
Increment
for
24­
hour
PM10
in
the
Washakie
Wilderness
Area),
is
8
ug/
m3.
See
40
C.
F.
R.
51.166(
c);
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
C­

9,
C­
32.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

116.
The
results
of
the
modeling
analysis
of
cumulative
impacts
reported
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
show
that
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
lower
levels
of
development
allowed
by
other
combinations
of
Alternatives
considered
in
the
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment
(
e.
g.,
Alternatives
3
in
Wyoming
and
Alternative
Ea
in
Montana,
or
Alternative
1
in
Wyoming
and
Alternative
A
in
Montana)
when
modeled
together
with
the
air
pollutants
emitted
by
the
cumulative
existing
and
reasonably
foreseeable
future
sources
included
in
the
emissions
inventory,
would
each
contribute
less
than
8.0
µ
g/
m3
increase
in
the
concentration
of
24­
hour
PM10
in
the
Washakie
Wilderness
Class
I
Area.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
Appendix
C,
tables
C.
1.2.3.
at
C­
23
and
C.
2.2.4.

at
C­
53.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

117.
The
Secretary
failed
to
adopt
any
limits
on
coal­
bed
methane
well
development
that
would
achieve
the
levels
of
emissions
expected
from
Alternatives
considered
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
that
are
demonstrated
to
not
cause
a
violation
of
the
maximum
allowable
increase
in
the
Washakie
Wilderness
Area.
The
Secretary
also
failed
to
adopt
any
other
combination
of
alternatives,
or
mitigation
measures
that
will
prevent
24­
hour
concentrations
of
PM10
in
the
Washakie
Wilderness
Area
from
violating
the
maximum
allowable
increase
of
8.0
µ
g/
m3.
47
ii.
Visibility
Impacts
118.
The
best
visibility
in
the
contiguous
48
United
States
is
measured
at
the
visibility
monitoring
stations
operated
in
the
portions
of
the
northern
Rocky
Mountains
and
northern
Great
Plains
where
the
15
Class
I
areas
affected
by
the
air
pollution
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
are
located.
See
"
Deciviews
Annual
1996­
1998,"
Interagency
Monitoring
of
Protected
Visual
Environments
Program
(
hereinafter
"
IMPROVE"),
a
cooperative
effort
of
the
U.
S.
EPA,

National
Park
Service,
U.
S.
Fish
&
Wildlife
Service,
U.
S.
Bureau
of
Land
Management,
and
U.
S.
Forest
Service.
[
Map
available
by
clicking
on
pull
down
window
titled
"
Isopleth
Maps"
and
then
clicking
on
"
Deciview"
at
<
http://
vista.
cira.
colostate.
edu/
improve/
Data/
GraphicViewer/
seasonal.
htm>.
A
true
and
correct
copy
of
the
nationwide
deciview
map
attached
as
Exhibit
F].

119.
The
CAA
establishes
a
program
to
protect
visibility
in
mandatory
federal
Class
I
areas.
42
U.
S.
C.
§
§
7491,
7492.
The
Act
"
declares
as
a
national
goal
the
prevention
of
any
future,
and
the
remedying
of
any
existing,
impairment
of
visibility
in
mandatory
class
I
Federal
areas
which
impairment
results
from
manmade
air
pollution."
Section
7491(
a)(
1).
The
CAA
states
"
the
terms
`
visibility
impairment'
and
`
impairment
of
visibility'
shall
include
reduction
in
visual
range
and
atmospheric
discoloration."
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7491(
g)(
6).
EPA
has
further
elaborated
on
the
statutory
definition
by
promulgating
a
regulation
defining
"
visibility
impairment"
to
"
mean
any
humanly
perceptible
change
in
visibility
(
light
extinction,
visual
range,
contrast,
coloration)
from
that
which
would
have
existed
under
natural
conditions."
40
C.
F.
R.
§
51.301.
48
120.
The
Clean
Air
Act
imposes
on
"
the
Federal
Land
Manager
and
the
Federal
official
charged
with
direct
responsibility
for
management
of
such
lands
an
affirmative
responsibility
to
protect
the
air
quality
related
values
(
including
visibility)
of
any
such
lands
within
a
Class
I
area."
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7475(
d)(
2)(
B).
The
CAA
declares
that
the
Secretary
of
the
Department
with
authority
over
a
federal
Class
I
area
is
the
"
federal
land
manager"
for
such
lands.
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7602(
i).

121.
Federal
land
managers
with
responsibility
for
national
park
lands,
national
wildlife
refuge
lands
and
national
forest
lands
that
have
been
designated
as
Class
I
areas,
acting
through
the
National
Park
Service,
the
United
States
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
and
the
United
States
Forest
Service,
have
developed
technical
criteria
for
measuring
visibility
impairment,
and
for
determining
the
magnitude
of
change
in
visibility
that
is
perceptible
by
humans.
These
visibility
impairment
criteria
are
found
in
the
"
Final
FLAG
Phase
I
Report"
issued
jointly
by
the
U.
S.

Forest
Service,
the
National
Park
Service,
and
the
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service.

See
Federal
Land
Managers'
Air
Quality
Related
Workgroup
Phase
I
Report,

notice
of
availability
published
in
66
Fed.
Reg.
382
(
January
3,
2001)
("
FLAG
Report")
[
Available
at
<
http://
www2.
nature.
nps.
gov/
air/
Permits/
flag/
FlagFinal.
pdf>].

122.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
relied
on
the
criteria
adopted
in
the
FLAG
Report
to
evaluate
the
reduction
of
visibility
that
will
be
caused
in
Class
I
areas
affected
by
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
authorized
by
the
Secretary
in
the
RMP
Amendments.
The
FLAG
Report
states
that,
for
the
purpose
of
determining
whether
visibility
impact
of
emissions
from
multiple
sources
is
49
humanly
perceptible,
a
technical
parameter
known
as
change
in
light
extinction
( 
bext)
is
measured.

A
 
bext
of
5%
will
evoke
a
just
noticeable
change
in
most
landscapes
(
NAPAP,
1990).
The
FLMs
are
concerned
about
situations
where
a
change
in
extinction
from
new
source
growth
is
greater
than
5%
as
compared
against
natural
conditions.
Changes
in
extinction
greater
than
10%
are
generally
considered
unacceptable
by
the
FLMs
and
will
likely
raise
objections
to
further
pollutant
loading
without
mitigation.

FLAG
Report,
at
26
[
Available
at
<
http://
www2.
nature.
nps.
gov/
air/
Permits/
flag/
FlagFinal.
pdf>].

123.
The
U.
S.
EPA
defines
"
a
deciview
[
as]
a
haze
index
derived
from
calculated
light
extinction,
such
that
uniform
changes
in
haziness
correspond
to
uniform
incremental
changes
in
perception
across
the
entire
range
of
conditions,

from
pristine
to
highly
impaired ."
40
C.
F.
R.
§
51.301.
EPA
specifies
the
method
for
calculating
deciviews
from
light
extinction
in
the
definition.
Id.
The
FLAG
Report
adopts
EPA's
prescribed
method.

124.
A
10%
change
in
light
extinction
using
the
method
described
by
EPA
and
in
the
FLAG
Report
is
1
deciview
("
dv"),
and
a
5%
change
in
light
extinction
is
0.5
dv.

125.
A
5%
change
in
light
extinction,
i.
e.,
0.5
dv,
provides
a
quantitative
measure
of
the
humanly
perceptible
change
in
visibility
as
determined
by
the
FLAG
Report.

126.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
determined
the
cumulative
impacts
on
visibility
by
comparing
site­
specific
natural
background
concentrations
at
Class
I
areas
with
the
predicted
change
in
visibility
caused
by
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
each
pair
of
Oil
and
Gas
Project
Alternatives
when
50
combined
with
air
pollutants
emitted
from
other
sources
included
in
the
emissions
inventory.

127.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
relied
on
the
light
extinction
method
for
quantitatively
measuring
visibility
impairment
adopted
in
the
FLAG
Report
to
evaluate
the
cumulative
impact
of
Project
emissions
on
visibility
in
national
park
and
wilderness
areas
because
this
method
represents
"
the
best
available
scientific
information
to
identify
thresholds
of
significant
adverse
impacts."
Wyoming
Final
EIS,
at
F­
9.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc
18.

128.
Using
the
FLAG
methodology,
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"

demonstrates
that
the
cumulative
impact
of
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
the
approved
Alternatives
(
Montana
Ea
and
Wyoming
1),
when
combined
with
the
air
pollutants
emitted
from
existing
and
reasonably
foreseeable
sources
included
in
the
emissions
inventory
used
for
the
modeling
analysis,
will
cause
the
following
changes
in
visibility:

a)
A
change
in
visibility
greater
than
1.0
dv
on
28
days
per
year
at
the
Badlands
Wilderness
Area,
and
a
maximum
daily
deciview
change
(
i.
e.,
the
highest
deciview
impact
on
any
single
day)
of
10.91
dv.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
7­
27,
Table
7.10.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12;

Appendix
E­
11.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.
The
magnitude
of
degradation
caused
by
an
11
dv
change
in
visibility
at
the
Badlands
Wilderness
Area
is
demonstrated
by
two
photographic
Exhibits
obtained
from
the
photographs
taken
at
the
NPS
visibility
monitoring
station
in
the
Badlands
Wilderness
Area:
(
1)
Exhibit
G
shows
a
deciview
impact
of
4
dv
at
Badlands
Wilderness
51
Area
which
was
determined
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
to
represent
natural
background;
and
(
2)
Exhibit
H
shows
a
deciview
impact
of
15
dv
at
Badlands
Wilderness
Area.
Badlands
Wilderness
Area
photographs
showing
4.0
dv
impact
and
15.0
dv
impact
on
visibility,
Interagency
Monitoring
of
Protected
Visual
Environments
Program,
a
cooperative
effort
of
the
U.
S.
EPA,
National
Park
Service,
U.
S.
Fish
&
Wildlife
Service,
U.
S.

Bureau
of
Land
Management,
and
U.
S.
Forest
Service.
IMPROVE
photographs
available
at
<
http://
vista.
cira.
colostate.
edu/
Datawarehouse/
IMPROVE/
Data/
Photos/
BADL
/
start.
htm>
[
True
and
correct
copies
of
the
photographs
attached
as
Exhibits
G
and
H].

b)
A
change
in
visibility
greater
than
1.0
dv
on
12
days
per
year
at
the
Bridger
Wilderness
Area,
and
a
maximum
daily
deciview
change
(
i.
e.,
the
highest
deciview
impact
on
any
single
day)
of
13.28
dv.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
7­
27,
Table
7.10.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12;
Appendix
E­
11.

AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.
The
magnitude
of
degradation
caused
by
a
14
dv
change
in
visibility
at
the
Bridger
Wilderness
Area
is
demonstrated
by
two
photographic
Exhibits
obtained
from
the
photographs
taken
at
the
U.
S.
Forest
Service
visibility
monitoring
station
in
the
Bridger
Wilderness
Area:
(
1)

Exhibit
I
shows
deciview
impact
of
5
dv
at
Bridger
Wilderness
Area
which
was
determined
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
to
represent
natural
background;
and
(
2)
Exhibit
J
shows
a
deciview
impact
of
19
dv
at
the
Bridger
Wilderness
Area.
Bridger
Wilderness
area
photographs
showing
a
5.0
52
dv
impact
and
a
19
dv
impact
on
visibility,
Interagency
Monitoring
of
Protected
Visual
Environments
Program,
a
cooperative
effort
of
the
U.
S.
EPA,

National
Park
Service,
U.
S.
Fish
&
Wildlife
Service,
U.
S.
Bureau
of
Land
Management,
and
U.
S.
Forest
Service.
IMPROVE
photographs
available
at
<
http://
vista.
cira.
colostate.
edu/
Datawarehouse/
IMPROVE/
Data/
Photos/
BRID/

start.
htm>.
[
True
and
correct
copies
of
the
photographs
attached
as
Exhibits
I
and
J].

c)
A
change
in
visibility
greater
than
1.0
dv
on
12
days
per
year
at
the
Fitzpatrick
Wilderness
Area,
and
a
maximum
daily
deciview
change
(
i.
e.,
the
highest
deciview
impact
on
any
single
day)
of
16.57
dv.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
7­
27,
Table
7.10.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12;

Appendix
E­
11.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.
A
change
in
visibility
of
16.57
dv
will
be
greater
than
the
14
dv
change
in
visibility
demonstrated
by
a
comparison
of
Exhibits
I
and
J
from
the
Bridger
Wilderness
Area.

d)
A
change
in
visibility
greater
than
1.0
dv
on
4
days
per
year
at
the
Gates
of
the
Mountains
Wilderness
Area,
and
a
maximum
daily
deciview
change
(
i.
e.,

the
highest
deciview
impact
on
any
single
day)
of
14.99
dv.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
7­
27,
Table
7.10.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12;

Appendix
E­
11.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.
A
change
in
visibility
of
14.99
dv
will
be
greater
than
the
14
dv
change
in
visibility
demonstrated
by
a
comparison
of
Exhibits
I
and
J
from
the
Bridger
Wilderness
Area.

e)
A
change
in
visibility
greater
than
1.0
dv
on
8
days
per
year
at
the
Grand
Teton
National
Park,
and
a
maximum
daily
deciview
change
(
i.
e.,
the
highest
53
deciview
impact
on
any
single
day)
of
6.95
dv.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
7­
27,
Table
7.10.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12;
Appendix
E­
11.

AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

f)
A
change
in
visibility
greater
than
1.0
dv
on
15
days
per
year
at
the
North
Absaroka
Wilderness
Area,
and
a
maximum
daily
deciview
change
(
i.
e.,
the
highest
deciview
impact
on
any
single
day)
of
14.89
dv.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
7­
27,
Table
7.10.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12;

Appendix
E­
11.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.
A
change
in
visibility
of
14.89
dv
will
be
greater
than
the
14
dv
change
in
visibility
demonstrated
by
a
comparison
of
Exhibits
I
and
J
from
the
Bridger
Wilderness
Area.

g)
A
change
in
visibility
greater
than
1.0
dv
on
3
days
per
year
at
the
Red
Rock
Lakes
Wilderness
Area,
and
a
maximum
daily
deciview
change
(
i.
e.,
the
highest
deciview
impact
on
any
single
day)
of
2.85
dv.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
7­
27,
Table
7.10.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12;
Appendix
E­
11.

AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

h)
A
change
in
visibility
greater
than
1.0
dv
on
3
days
per
year
at
the
Scapegoat
Wilderness
Area,
and
a
maximum
daily
deciview
change
(
i.
e.,
the
highest
deciview
impact
on
any
single
day)
of
9.89
dv.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
7­
27,
Table
7.10.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12;
Appendix
E­
11.

AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

i)
A
change
in
visibility
greater
than
1.0
dv
on
11
days
per
year
at
the
Teton
Wilderness
Area,
and
a
maximum
daily
deciview
change
(
i.
e.,
the
highest
deciview
impact
on
any
single
day)
of
14.59
dv.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
54
Assessment,"
at
7­
27,
Table
7.10.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12;
Appendix
E­
11.

AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.
A
change
in
visibility
of
14.59
dv
will
be
greater
than
the
14
dv
change
in
visibility
demonstrated
by
a
comparison
of
Exhibits
I
and
J
from
the
Bridger
Wilderness
Area.

j
)
A
change
in
visibility
greater
than
1.0
dv
on
3
days
per
year
at
the
Theodore
Roosevelt
National
Park
(
North
Unit),
and
a
maximum
daily
deciview
change
(
i.
e.,
the
highest
deciview
impact
on
any
single
day)
of
3.65
dv.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
7­
27,
Table
7.10.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12;
Appendix
E­
11.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

k)
A
change
in
visibility
greater
than
1.0
dv
on
7
days
per
year
at
the
Theodore
Roosevelt
National
Park
(
South
Unit),
and
a
maximum
daily
deciview
change
(
i.
e.,
the
highest
deciview
impact
on
any
single
day)
of
4.62
dv.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
7­
27,
Table
7.10.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12;
Appendix
E­
11.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

l)
A
change
in
visibility
greater
than
1.0
dv
on
8
days
per
year
at
the
U.
L.

Bend
Wilderness
Area,
and
a
maximum
daily
deciview
change
(
i.
e.,
the
highest
deciview
impact
on
any
single
day)
of
29.05
dv.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
7­
27,
Table
7.10.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12;

Appendix
E­
11.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.
A
change
in
visibility
of
29.05
dv
will
be
greater
than
the
25
dv
change
in
visibility
demonstrated
by
a
comparison
of
Exhibits
I
and
K
from
the
Bridger
Wilderness
Area.
Bridger
Wilderness
Area
photographs
showing
a
5.0
dv
impact
and
a
30.0
dv
impact
on
visibility.
Interagency
Monitoring
of
Protected
Visual
Environments
55
Program,
a
cooperative
effort
of
the
U.
S.
EPA,
National
Park
Service,
U.
S.

Fish
&
Wildlife
Service,
U.
S.
Bureau
of
Land
Management,
and
U.
S.
Forest
Service.
IMPROVE
photographs
available
at
<
http://
vista.
cira.
colostate.
edu/
Datawarehouse/
IMPROVE/
Data/
Photos/
BRID/

start.
htm>
[
A
true
and
correct
copy
of
the
photographs
attached
as
Exhibits
I
and
K].

m)
A
change
in
visibility
greater
than
1.0
dv
on
18
days
per
year
at
the
Washakie
Wilderness
Area,
and
a
maximum
daily
deciview
change
(
i.
e.,
the
highest
deciview
impact
on
any
single
day)
of
24.79
dv.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
7­
27,
Table
7.10.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12;

Appendix
E­
11.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.
A
change
in
visibility
of
24.79
dv
is
demonstrated
by
a
comparison
of
Exhibits
I
and
K
from
the
Bridger
Wilderness
Area.
Bridger
Wilderness
Area
photograph
showing
a
5.0
dv
impact
and
a
30.0
dv
impact
on
visibility.
Interagency
Monitoring
of
Protected
Visual
Environments
Program,
a
cooperative
effort
of
the
U.
S.
EPA,

National
Park
Service,
U.
S.
Fish
&
Wildlife
Service,
U.
S.
Bureau
of
Land
Management,
and
U.
S.
Forest
Service.
IMPROVE
photographs
available
at
<
http://
vista.
cira.
colostate.
edu/
Datawarehouse/
IMPROVE/
Data/
Photos/
BRID/

start.
htm>
[
A
true
and
correct
copy
of
the
photographs
attached
as
Exhibits
I
and
K].

n)
A
change
in
visibility
greater
than
1.0
dv
on
32
days
per
year
at
the
Wind
Cave
National
Park,
and
a
maximum
daily
deciview
change
(
i.
e.,
the
highest
deciview
impact
on
any
single
day)
of
9.05
dv.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
56
Assessment,"
at
7­
27,
Table
7.10.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12;
Appendix
E­
11.

AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

o)
A
change
in
visibility
greater
than
1.0
dv
on
13
days
per
year
at
the
Yellowstone
National
Park,
and
a
maximum
daily
deciview
change
(
i.
e.,
the
highest
deciview
impact
on
any
single
day)
of
12.79
dv.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
7­
27,
Table
7.10.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12;

Appendix
E­
11.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.
The
magnitude
of
degradation
caused
by
a
13
dv
change
in
visibility
at
Yellowstone
National
Park
is
demonstrated
by
two
photographic
Exhibits
obtained
from
the
photographs
taken
at
the
NPS
visibility
monitoring
station
in
Yellowstone
National
Park:

(
1)
Exhibit
L
shows
deciview
impact
of
4
dv
at
Yellowstone
National
Park
which
was
determined
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
to
represent
natural
background;
and
(
2)
Exhibit
M
shows
a
deciview
impact
of
17
dv
at
Yellowstone
National
Park.
Yellowstone
National
Park
photograph
showing
a
4.0
dv
impact
and
a
17.0
dv
impact
on
visibility,
Interagency
Monitoring
of
Protected
Visual
Environments
Program,
a
cooperative
effort
of
the
U.
S.
EPA,

National
Park
Service,
U.
S.
Fish
&
Wildlife
Service,
U.
S.
Bureau
of
Land
Management,
and
U.
S.
Forest
Service.
IMPROVE
photographs
available
at
<
http://
vista.
cira.
colostate.
edu/
Datawarehouse/
IMPROVE/
Data/
Photos/
YELL
/
start.
htm>
[
True
and
correct
copies
of
the
photographs
attached
as
Exhibits
L
and
M].

129.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
shows
that
air
pollutants
emitted
by
Wyoming
Oil
and
Gas
Project
sources
alone,
without
considering
Oil
and
Gas
57
Project
sources
from
Montana
or
other
existing
or
reasonably
foreseeable
sources,

will
add
at
least
one
day
of
visibility
impacts
above
1.0
dv
to
eleven
of
the
fifteen
Class
I
areas
in
the
modeling
domain.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
7­

61,
Table
7.21.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

130.
The
Montana
Final
EIS
shows
that
the
emissions
of
air
pollutants
emitted
by
Montana
Oil
and
Gas
Project
sources
alone,
without
considering
Oil
and
Gas
Project
sources
from
Wyoming
or
other
existing
or
reasonably
foreseeable
sources,
will
add
at
least
one
day
of
visibility
impacts
above
1.0
dv
at
seven
of
the
fifteen
Class
I
areas.
See
Montana
Final
EIS,
at
AIR­
24,
Table
AQ­
9.
AR
§
VII,

File
A,
Doc.
13.

131.
Neither
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
nor
the
Final
EISs
provide
the
decision­
maker
with
an
alternative
that
would
limit
emissions
to
a
level
that
would
prevent
visibility
impairment
at
all
of
the
15
Class
I
areas.

132.
The
approved
RMPs,
and
the
RODs
approving
the
RMPs,
do
not
adopt
any
limits
on
development,
limits
on
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project,
or
any
other
mitigation
measures
that
would
prevent
emissions
from
exceeding
the
levels
that
have
been
shown
by
the
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment
to
cause
or
contribute
to
visibility
impairment
in
the
15
Class
I
areas.

iii.
Impacts
on
Sensitive
Lakes
133.
Federal
Land
Managers
have
published
criteria
for
determining
the
magnitude
of
deposition
of
acid­
forming
pollution
into
acid­
sensitive
lakes
that
constitutes
an
adverse
impact
on
air
quality
related
values
within
Class
I
areas
58
under
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7475(
d)(
2)(
B).
See
FLAG
Report,
at
6,
12,
Appendix
B,
at
163
[
Available
at
<
http://
www2.
nature.
nps.
gov/
air/
Permits/
flag/
FlagFinal.
pdf>].

134.
The
deposition
of
acid­
forming
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Projects
into
acid­
sensitive
lakes
threatens
to
degrade
water
quality
and
damage
populations
of
aquatic
species.

135.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
evaluated
the
impacts
on
water
quality
in
Class
I
areas
expected
to
result
from
the
deposition
of
acid­
forming
air
pollutants
emitted
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
authorized
by
the
Secretary
in
the
RMP
Amendments.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
6­
5.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,

Doc.
12.

136.
The
standard
adopted
by
the
Federal
Land
Managers
for
determining
adverse
impacts
of
air
emissions
on
the
water
chemistry
of
acid­
sensitive
lakes
is
a
ten
percent
change
in
the
acid
neutralizing
capacity
("
ANC")
for
lakes
with
background
ANC
values
greater
than
25
ueq/
L,
and
a
1
ueq/
L
change
for
lakes
with
background
ANC
values
equal
to
or
less
than
25
ueq/
L.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
6­
5.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

137.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
evaluated
acid
deposition
impacts
to
lakes
by
comparing
the
limits
of
acceptable
change
in
ANC
with
the
annual
total
change
in
ANC
that
will
be
caused
by
air
pollutants
emitted
from
the
development
allowed
in
the
RMP
Amendments
and
cumulative
existing
and
reasonably
foreseeable
future
sources
included
in
the
emissions
inventory.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
2­
2.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.
59
138.
BLM
determined
that
Upper
Frozen
Lake
in
the
Bridger
Wilderness
Area
has
a
baseline
ANC
level
below
25
ueq/
L.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
7­
32.

AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
finds
that
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
authorized
under
the
approved
RMP
Amendments,
in
combination
with
cumulative
air
pollutants
emitted
by
existing
and
reasonably
foreseeable
future
sources
included
in
the
emissions
inventory,
will
range
from
1.3
to
1.8
ueq/
L.
Id.;
Wyoming
Final
EIS,
at
4­
388.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc
18.
See
also
Montana
Final
EIS,
at
AIR­
17,
Table
AQ­
5
(
showing
an
impact
to
Upper
Frozen
Lake
of
1.6
ug/
m3).
AR
§
VII,
File
A,

Doc.
13.

139.
The
approved
RMPs,
and
the
RODs
approving
the
RMPs,
do
not
adopt
any
limits
on
development,
limits
on
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project,
or
any
other
mitigation
measures
that
would
prevent
emissions
from
exceeding
the
levels
that
have
been
shown
by
the
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment
to
cause
or
contribute
to
adverse
impacts
on
water
quality
in
acid­
sensitive
lakes
in
the
Bridger
Class
I
Wilderness
area.

VI.
PROJECT
EMISSIONS
WILL
CAUSE
OR
EXACERBATE
VIOLATIONS
OF
NATIONAL
AMBIENT
AIR
QUALITY
STANDARD.

140.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
predicts
that
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
both
the
Montana
and
Wyoming
Oil
and
Gas
Project
alternatives
approved
by
the
RMPs
will
cause
24­
hour
concentrations
of
PM10
to
exceed
212
µ
g/
m3
in
portions
of
the
Montana
Project
region.
Appendix
C,
table
C.
1.1.1
at
C­

6.
60
141.
The
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
for
PM10
is
violated
if
24­
hour
concentrations
exceed
150
µ
g/
m3
more
than
once
per
calendar
year
in
any
threeyear
period.
40
C.
F.
R.
§
50.6.

142.
Violations
of
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
for
PM10
averaged
over
24
hours
("
NAAQS")
were
measured
at
air
quality
monitors
located
in
the
vicinity
of
coal
mines
in
Campbell
County,
Wyoming,
during
2001
and
2002
when
the
Air
Quality
Assessment
was
being
prepared.
See
U.
S.
EPA
AIR
Data,

Monitor
Trend
Report,
Campbell
County,
PM10
(
2002),
available
at
<
http://
oaspub.
epa.
gov/
airsdata/
adaqs.
trends?
geotype=
co&
geocode=
56005&
geoi
nfo=%
3Fco%
7E56005%
7ECampbell+
Co%
2C+
Wyoming&
pol=
PM10&
year=
200
2&
fld=
monid&
fld=
address&
fld=
city&
fld=
county&
fld=
stabbr&
fld=
regn&
rpp=
25
>;
and
Monitor
Trend
Report
(
2001)
available
at
<
http://
oaspub.
epa.
gov/
airsdata/
adaqs.
trends?
geotype=
co&
geocode=
56005&
geoi
nfo=%
3Fco%
7E56005%
7ECampbell+
Co%
2C+
Wyoming&
pol=
PM10&
year=
200
1&
fld=
monid&
fld=
address&
fld=
city&
fld=
county&
fld=
stabbr&
fld=
regn&
rpp=
25
>.

143.
Campbell
County
is
one
of
the
counties
included
in
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
region.
Significant
well
development
is
expected
to
occur
in
the
coal
beds
underlying
Campbell
County.

144.
Concentrations
of
PM10
that
violate
the
NAAQS
were
not
reported
in
either
the
Draft
or
Final
EIS,
or
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment."

145.
Reported
24­
hour
concentrations
of
PM10
that
violate
the
NAAQS
were
not
used
in
performing
the
air
quality
modeling
analysis
to
demonstrate
the
cumulative
61
impact
of
emissions
from
the
Montana
and
Wyoming
Oil
and
Gas
Projects
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment."

146.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
predicts
that
emissions
from
sources
included
in
the
emissions
inventory
for
the
development
scenarios
in
the
approved
RMP
Alternatives
(
Montana
alternative
E
and
Wyoming
alternative
1)
are
expected
to
add
30.79
µ
g/
m3
to
background
concentrations
of
PM10
in
the
"
near
field"
portion
of
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
region
in
Wyoming,
which
includes
Campbell
County.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
Appendix
C,
Table
c.
2.1.1,
p.
C­
28.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

147.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
predicts
that
total
concentrations
of
PM10
(
predicted
contribution
from
sources
included
in
the
emissions
inventory
[
30.79]

added
to
a
reported
background
concentration
of
42
µ
g/
m3)
will
only
reach
72.79
µ
g/
m3.
Id.

148.
This
calculation
omits
monitored
concentrations
in
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
region
demonstrating
that
background
concentrations
in
the
vicinity
of
coal
mines
in
Campbell
County
exceed
150
µ
g/
m3
which
is
the
24­
hour
NAAQS
for
PM10.

Adding
30.79
µ
g/
m3
to
monitored
concentrations
of
PM10
in
Campbell
County
will
seriously
exacerbate
existing
violations
of
the
NAAQS.

149.
The
approved
RMPs,
and
the
RODs
approving
the
RMPs,
do
not
adopt
any
limits
on
development,
limits
on
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project,
or
any
other
mitigation
measures
that
would
prevent
emissions
from
exceeding
the
levels
that
have
been
shown
by
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
to
cause
or
contribute
to
new
violations
of
the
NAAQS
for
PM10
in
the
Project
region
in
62
Montana,
and
cause
or
contribute
to
more
severe
violations
of
the
NAAQS
for
PM10
in
the
Campbell
County
portion
of
the
Project
region
in
Wyoming.

VII.
AIR
QUALITY
IMPACT
ANALYSIS
UNLAWFULLY
OMITS
EMISSIONS
FROM
SOURCES
OF
AIR
POLLUTANTS
THAT
MUST
BE
INCLUDED
TO
DETERMINE
MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE
EMISSIONS
THAT
CAN
BE
ALLOWED
FROM
THE
OIL
AND
GAS
PROJECT
AND
STILL
PROVIDE
FOR
COMPLIANCE
WITH
AIR
POLLUTANT
STANDARDS
AND
PREVENT
ADVERSE
IMPACTS
ON
AIR
QUALITY
RELATED
VALUES
IN
CLASS
I
AREAS.

150.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
omitted
many
sources
from
the
emissions
inventory
used
in
the
various
modeling
analyses.
The
failure
to
include
emissions
from
many
large
sources
of
air
pollutants
resulted
in
a
seriously
deficient
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
because
it
fails
to
provide
a
"
full
and
fair
discussion"
of
the
cumulative
impacts
of
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
as
required
by
NEPA,
and
fails
to
show
the
true
cumulative
impact
of
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
on
air
quality
standards
throughout
the
Project
region
and/
or
air
quality
related
values
in
Class
I
areas.

A.
Emissions
Inventory
of
Air
Pollutants
Used
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
Omits
Many
Categories
of
Emissions
Sources.

151.
The
emissions
inventory
modeled
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"

included
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
five
broad
categories
of
sources
within
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
region:
(
a)
emissions
from
construction
and
operation
of
a
portion
of
the
potential
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
authorized
by
the
Secretary
in
the
RMP
Amendments,
(
b)
emissions
from
some,

but
not
all,
coal
mines
in
the
Project
region,
(
c)
emissions
from
the
Dakota,

Minnesota,
and
Eastern
("
DM&
E")
Railway
project
in
the
Project
region,
d)
63
emissions
from
existing
sources
that
had
been
permitted
to
construct
between
September
1,
1994
and
May
31,
2002,
and
(
e)
emissions
from
some,
but
not
all,

reasonably
foreseeable
future
sources.
See
description
of
the
development
of
the
emissions
inventory
in
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
4­
15.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,

Doc.
12.

152.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
was
performed
using
permitted
emissions
rates
from
sources
listed
in
Appendix
B.
These
sources
are
NOT
a
complete
list
of
all
sources
located
in
or
near
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
region
in
northeastern
and
central
Wyoming,
and
southeastern
Montana,
or
located
within
the
region
that
contributes
emissions
to
concentrations
at
the
15
Class
I
areas
affected
by
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"

Figure
4.5
at
4­
17;
and
Figure
4.6,
at
4­
18.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12
[
True
and
correct
copies
of
Figures
4.5
and
4.6
attached
as
Exhibits
N
and
O].

i.
Emissions
Inventory
Does
Not
Account
for
Emissions
from
All
Reasonably
Foreseeable
CBM
Wells.

153.
The
emissions
inventory
for
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
included
predicted
emissions
from
the
development
and
operation
of
up
to
57,000
coal­
bed
methane
wells,
including
up
to
approximately
18,000
coal­
bed
methane
wells
in
Montana
Alternative
E
and
approximately
39,000
coal­
bed
methane
wells
in
Wyoming
Alternative
1.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
4­
23,
citing
Tables
1.2
and
1.5.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

154.
In
Wyoming,
BLM's
Reasonable
Foreseeable
Development
Scenario
prepared
for
the
EIS
states
that
a
moderate
development
scenario
will
result
in
drilling
up
to
81,000
total
coal­
bed
methane
wells
and
that
a
high
development
scenario
will
64
accommodate
139,000
wells
in
Wyoming
alone.
See
Wyoming
Final
EIS,

Appendix
A,
at
12.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc
18.

155.
The
Wyoming
ROD
states
that
the
most
likely
scenario
is
the
development
of
51,000
coal­
bed
methane
wells
in
the
Wyoming
Oil
and
Gas
Project
area.
See
Wyoming
ROD,
at
2.

156.
Defendants
offered
no
explanation
why
the
emissions
inventory
for
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
in
Wyoming
that
were
modeled
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
are
limited
to
the
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
39,000
wells,
or
why
levels
of
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
moderate
and
high
levels
of
development
were
not
used
to
prepare
additional
emissions
inventories
for
modeling
analyses
to
determine
potential
air
quality
impacts
from
higher
rates
of
development
that
Defendants
determined
to
be
reasonably
foreseeable.

157.
For
Montana,
BLM
relied
on
a
Reasonably
Foreseeable
Development
Scenario
which
stated
that
new
development
allowed
by
the
preferred
Alternative
E
will
lead
to
drilling
up
to
26,000
new
coal­
bed
methane
wells.
See
Montana
Draft
EIS,
at
4­
2.
AR
§
VI,
File
A,
Doc.
1.

158.
BLM
offered
no
explanation
why
the
emissions
inventory
for
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
alternatives
in
Montana
that
were
modeled
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
are
limited
to
the
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
18,000
wells,
or
why
levels
of
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
development
of
26,000
wells
were
not
used
to
prepare
an
additional
emissions
inventory
for
65
modeling
analyses
to
determine
potential
air
quality
impacts
from
higher
rates
of
development
that
Defendants
determined
to
be
reasonably
foreseeable.

159.
Combining
the
most
likely
(
51,000
wells),
moderate
(
81,000
wells)
or
high
(
139,000
wells)
level
of
reasonably
foreseeable
development
in
Wyoming
with
26,000
reasonably
foreseeable
new
coal­
bed
methane
wells
in
Montana,

Defendants
provides
evidence
that
total
projected
levels
of
reasonably
foreseeable
development
could
reach
77,000,
107,000
or
165,000
new
wells.
Each
of
these
reasonably
foreseeable
scenarios
would
result
in
the
emission
of
significantly
greater
levels
of
air
pollutants
than
are
expected
to
be
emitted
from
the
57,000
wells
used
to
determine
the
emissions
inventory
used
for
the
air
quality
modeling
analyses
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment."

160.
Neither
the
RMPs
nor
the
Record
of
Decision
limit
to
57,000
the
total
number
of
oil
and
gas
or
coal­
bed
methane
wells
that
may
be
permitted
for
development
under
the
approved
RMP
Amendments.

ii.
Coal
Mine
Emissions
Not
Accounted
For.

161.
The
emissions
inventory
used
in
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
included
emissions
from
20
coal
mines
operating
within
the
modeling
domain.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
4­
16.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

162.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
did
not
include
air
pollutant
emissions
from
14
active
open­
pit
coal
mines
in
Campbell
County,
Wyoming.
See
Wyoming
Draft
EIS,
at
3­
176.
AR
§
VI,
File
D,
Doc.
39.

iii.
Emissions
From
Existing
Stationary
Sources
Permitted
Prior
to
1994
Are
Omitted
from
the
Emissions
Inventory.
66
163.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
evaluated
air
pollutants
from
sources
permitted
between
September
1,
1994
and
May
31,
2002.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
4­
22,
4­
23,
and
Appendix
B.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.
Air
pollutants
emitted
from
sources
permitted
prior
to
September
1,
1994
were
not
included
in
the
emissions
inventory
used
in
the
modeling
analysis
for
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment."

iv.
Sources
Within
Modeling
Domain
that
Have
an
Impact
on
Class
I
Areas,
but
Outside
Project
Region,
Are
Omitted.

164.
Sources
of
air
pollutants
located
within
the
modeling
domain
that
will
also
contribute
to
pollutant
concentrations
in
the
15
Class
I
areas
affected
by
Project
emissions,
but
outside
the
region
where
sources
listed
in
Appendix
B
are
located,

were
omitted
from
the
modeling
analysis.

165.
Among
the
sources
of
emissions
within
the
modeling
domain
that
are
excluded
from
the
emissions
inventory
used
for
the
modeling
analysis
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
are
emissions
from
mobile
sources,
including
but
not
limited
to
emissions
of
PM2.5
and
nitrogen
oxides
from
on­
road,
off­
road
and
non­
road
(
construction
equipment)
motor
vehicles.

v.
Sources
Outside
the
Modeling
Domain
that
Contribute
to
Air
Pollutant
Concentrations
at
Each
Class
I
Area
Were
Omitted
from
the
Emissions
Inventory.

166.
The
emissions
inventory
modeled
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
does
not
include
air
pollutants
emitted
from
any
sources,
either
existing
or
reasonably
foreseeable
future
sources,
that
are
located
or
operated
outside
the
modeling
domain
boundaries
but
are
within
the
zone
of
air
pollutant
transport
around
each
of
the
15
Class
I
areas
included
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment."
67
167.
Air
pollutants
emitted
from
activities
involving
the
extraction,
processing
and
transport
of
oil
and
gas
from
developed
fields
in
the
Green
River
Basin,

Wyoming,
and
the
Uinta
Basin,
Utah,
were
omitted
from
the
emissions
inventory
modeled
as
part
of
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment."

168.
Air
pollutants
emitted
from
activities
involving
the
extraction,
processing
and
transport
of
oil
and
gas
from
developed
fields
in
the
Green
River
Basin,

Wyoming,
and
the
Uinta
Basin,
Utah,
have
been
included
in
air
quality
modeling
analyses
performed
to
disclose
the
impact
of
these
emissions
on
the
Jim
Bridger,

Fitzpatrick
and
Popo
Agie
Wilderness
areas
located
in
the
Wind
River
Range.
See
e.
g.
BLM's
"
Pinedale
Anticline
Oil
and
Gas
Exploration
and
Development
Project,
Sublette
County,
Wyoming,
Air
Emissions
Inventory,"
Pinedale
Field
Office
(
June
1999).

169.
The
sources
included
in
the
Air
Emissions
Inventory
for
the
Pinedale
Anticline
Oil
and
Gas
Project
contribute
to
concentrations
of
air
pollutants
in
Class
I
areas
affected
by
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project,
and
are
as
close,

or
closer
to
some
Class
I
areas
within
the
modeling
domain
(
such
as
the
Bridger,

Fitzpatrick
and
Popo
Agie
Wilderness
Areas
and
the
Grand
Teton
and
Yellowstone
National
Parks)
than
sources
in
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
region.
The
impact
of
emissions
from
these
oil
and
gas
developments
on
air
quality
in
these
Class
I
areas
was
not
accounted
for
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
of
cumulative
impacts
of
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
approved
by
the
Secretary
in
the
RMP
Amendments.
68
170.
Among
the
sources
of
emissions
outside
the
modeling
domain
that
are
excluded
from
the
emissions
inventory
used
for
the
modeling
analysis
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
are
emissions
from
mobile
sources,
including,
but
not
limited
to,
emissions
of
PM2.5
and
nitrogen
oxides
from
on­
road,
off­
road
and
non­
road
(
construction
equipment)
motor
vehicles.

vi.
Specific
Sources
Within
Zone
of
Impact
for
Class
I
Areas
Omitted
from
Emissions
Inventory
for
Modeling
Analysis.

171.
The
following
sources
of
air
pollutants
are
located
closer
to
one
or
more
of
the
Class
I
areas
in
the
modeling
domain
than
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
sources
included
in
the
modeling
analysis.
Air
pollutants
emitted
from
the
following
existing
sources
were
omitted
from
the
emissions
inventory
used
to
model
the
cumulative
impacts
of
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment":

a)
Bonanza
Power
Plant
near
Vernal,
Utah;

b)
Unit
3
of
the
Craig
Power
Plant
in
Craig,
Colorado;

c)
Great
River
Energy's
1,200
MW
Coal
Creek
Station
50
miles
north
of
Bismarck,
North
Dakota.
See
EPA's
"
Dispersion
Modeling
Analysis
of
PSD
Class
I
Increment
Consumption
in
North
Dakota
and
Eastern
Montana"
(
May
2003).

d)
Great
River
Energy's
118
MW
Stanton
Station
near
Stanton,
North
Dakota.

See
id.

e)
Minnkota
Power
Cooperative's
670
MW
Milton
R.
Young
coal­
fired
power
plant
near
Center,
North
Dakota.
See
id.
69
f)
Basin
Electric's
656
MW
Leland
Olds
Station
near
Stanton,
North
Dakota.
See
id.

g)
Montana­
Dakota
Utilities
Company's
75
MW
Heskett
Station
near
Mandan,

North
Dakota.
See
id.

h)
Basin
Creek
100
MW
power
plant
near
Butte,
Montana.
See
id.

i)
Glacier
International's
160
MW
power
plant
on
the
Blackfeet
Reservation
in
Montana.
See
id.

j)
Great
Northern/
Kiewit's
500
MW
Eastern
Montana
coal­
fired
power
plant
near
Miles
City,
Montana.
See
id.

k)
Two
new
coal
mines
planned
for
Otter
Creek
in
the
southwest
corner
of
Powder
River
County.

l)
The
Tongue
River
Railroad
coal­
hauling
railroad
along
the
Tongue
River
between
Miles
City
and
Decker,
Montana.

m)
Dakota
Coal
Company's
Frannie
Lime
Plant
in
Big
Horn
County,
Wyoming.

See
May
5,
2003,
"
Custom
Report,
37
NSR
Report,"
Air
Quality
Division,

Wyoming
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
(
Attached
to
May
19,
2003
Letter
from
Dan
Olson,
Administrator,
Wyoming
DEQ,
to
Dan
Heilig,
Executive
Director,
Wyoming
Outdoor
Council).

n)
ExxonMobile's
Shute
Creek
gas
treatment
plant
in
Lincoln
County,
Wyoming.

See
id.

o)
Solvay
Mineral's
Soda
Ash
Plant
near
Green
River,
Wyoming.
See
id.

p)
William
Field
Services'
Opal
Gas
Plant
in
Lincoln
County,
Wyoming.
See
id.

q)
Mountain
Cement
Company's
Cement
Plant
near
Laramie,
Wyoming.
See
id.
70
r)
Puron
Corporation's
Coal
Conversion
Plant
in
Campbell
County,
Wyoming.

See
id.

s)
Wold
Trona
Company's
Soda
Ash
plant
near
Green
River,
Wyoming.
See
id.

t)
Wyoming
Interstate
Company's
Compressor
Station
near
Laramie,
Wyoming.

See
id.

u)
Wyoming
Interstate
Company's
Compressor
Station
near
Rawlins,
Wyoming.

See
id.

v)
General
Chemical's
Soda
Ash
Plant
near
Green
River,
Wyoming.
See
id.

w)
Louisiana
Land
&
Exploration's
Lost
Cabin
Gas
Plant
in
central
Wyoming
near
Lysite,
Wyoming.

x)
SF
Phosphate's
Fertilizer
Plant
near
Rock
Springs,
Wyoming.
See
id.

y)
FMC
Corporation's
Soda
Ash
Plant
near
Granger,
Wyoming.
See
id.

z)
Holly
Sugar
Corporation's
Sugar
Factory
near
Torrington,
Wyoming.
See
id.

aa)
William
Field
Services'
Gas
Plant
near
Echo
Springs,
Wyoming.
See
id.

bb)
Frontier
Refining
Inc.'
s
Oil
Refinery
near
Cheyenne,
Wyoming.
See
id.

cc)
Kern
River
Gas
Transmission
Company's
Compressor
Station
near
Muddy
Creek,
Wyoming.
See
id.

dd)
SRTV
Border
States
facility
in
Natrona
County
near
Casper,
Wyoming.
See
Wyoming
BLM's
"
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Statement
Desolation
Flats
Natural
Gas
Field
Development
Projects,
Sweetwater
and
Carbon
Counties,"

Rawlings
and
Rock
Springs
Field
Offices,
at
Appendix
B
(
April
2003)
.

ee)
Natrona
County
International
Airport
near
Casper
Wyoming.
See
id.
71
ff)
Williams
Field
Services'
natural
gas
facility
in
Sweetwater
County,
Wyoming.

See
id.

gg)
KN
Gas
Gathering's
gas
transportation
facilities
in
Fremont
County,

Wyoming.
See
id.

hh)
Louisiana
Pacific
Company's
facility
in
Carbon
County,
Wyoming.
See
id.

ii)
Presidio
Oil
Company's
oil
and
gas
facilities
in
Sweetwater
County,
Wyoming.

See
id.

jj)
Mountain
Cement
Company's
Cement
facility
near
Laramie,
Wyoming.
See
id.

kk)
Texaco
USA's
Stagecoach
Draw
Oil
and
Gas
production
facilities
in
Sweetwater
County,
Wyoming.
See
id.

ll)
N.
A.
Corporation's
facility
in
Sweetwater
County,
Wyoming
(
Wyoming
Air
Permit
number
CT­
1190).
See
id.

mm)
Department
of
Energy
Naval
Petroleum
Reserve
oil
and
gas
facilities
in
Natrona
County,
Wyoming.
See
id.

nn)
D.
G.
Huskins
Construction
Company's
facilities
with
Wyoming
Air
Permit
numbers
CT­
1229
&
1230
in
Lincoln
County,
Wyoming.
See
id.

oo)
Questar
Gas
Management's
facility
with
Wyoming
Air
Permit
number
CT­

1295
in
Sweetwater
County,
Wyoming.
See
id.

pp)
Williams
Field
Services'
natural
gas
facility
in
Sublette
County,
Wyoming.

See
id.

qq)
Aldila
Corporation's
golf
club
manufacturing
facility
in
Uinta
County,

Wyoming.
See
id.

rr)
TotalFinaELF's
TG
Soda
Ash
mine
in
Sweetwater
County,
Wyoming.
See
id.
72
ss)
Union
Pacific
Resource's
Champlin
Gas
Plant
in
Sweetwater
County,

Wymong.
See
id.

tt)
Clear
Creek
Storage's
facility
with
Wyoming
Air
Permit
number
CT­
1410
in
Uinta
County,
Wyoming.
See
id.

uu)
Jonah
Gas
Gathering's
facilities
with
Wyoming
Air
Permit
numbers
CT­
1422
and
CT­
1423
in
Sublette
County,
Wyoming.
See
id.

vv)
Black
Butte
Coal's
Black
Butte
Mine
in
Sweetwater
County,
Wyoming.
See
id.

ww)
Nelson
Refining
System's
facility
with
Wyoming
Air
Permit
number
CT­

1453
in
Sweetwater
County,
Wyoming.
See
id.

xx)
Church
&
Dwight
Incorporated's
baking
soda
facility
in
Sweetwater
County,

Wyoming.
See
id.

yy)
Northwest
Pipeline
Company's
gas
transmission
facilities
with
Wyoming
Air
Permit
number
MD­
427A
in
Sweetwater
County,
Wyoming.
See
id.

zz)
Bridger
Coal
Company's
coal
mine
in
Sweetwater
County,
Wyoming.
See
id.

aaa)
South
and
Jones
Timber
Company's
facility
with
Wyoming
Air
Permit
number
MD­
487
in
Uinta
County,
Wyoming.
See
id.

bbb)
Seneca
Coal
Company's
Seneca
II
mine
near
Hayden,
Colorado.
See
id.

ccc)
Western
Mobile's
Northern
Steamboat
Springs
Pit
with
Colorado
Air
Permit
number
87RO030­
1
in
Routt
County,
Colorado.
See
id.

ddd)
Elam
Construction
Incorporated's
Davenport
Gravel
Pit
in
Rio
Blanco
County,
Colorado.
See
id.
73
eee)
Umetco
Minerals
Corporation's
facility
with
Colorado
Air
Permit
number
95MF035
in
Moffat
County,
Colorado.
See
id.

fff)
Western
Gas
Resource's
Sand
Wash
Station
in
Moffat
County,
Colorado.
See
id.

ggg)
Twenty
Mile
Coal
Company's
facility
in
Routt
County,
Colorado.
See
id.

hhh)
Blue
Mountain
Energy's
Deserado
Mine
in
Rio
Blanco
County,
Colorado.

See
id.

iii)
Connell
Resources
Camelitti
Gravel
Pit
in
Routt
County,
Colorado.
See
id.

jjj)
Questar
Gas
Management
Company's
PFWC
Northside
1
and
Southside
2
facilities
in
Moffat
County,
Colorado.
See
id.

kkk)
The
Atlantic
Rim
CBM
Project
in
Carbon
County,
Wyoming
that
will
lead
to
the
construction
of
3,880
coal­
bed
methane
wells.
See
66
Fed.
Reg.
33975
(
June
26,
2001).

lll)
Bitter
Creek
Pipeline's
Symons
Central
Compressor
facilities
near
Decker
in
Big
Horn
County,
Montana.
See
Montana
BLM's
"
Air
Quality
Technical
Report,

Badger
Hills
POD
Environmental
Assessment,"
Miles
City
District
Office,
at
31
(
February
2004).

mmm)
Bitter
Creek
Pipeline's
Consul
27
Compressor
facilities
near
Decker
in
Big
Horn
County,
Montana.
See
id.

172.
The
sources
of
air
pollutants
identified
in
this
section
VII.
A.
are
within
the
range
of
one
or
more
Class
I
areas
where
their
cumulative
impact
on
daily
and
annual
concentrations
can
be
determined
by
the
CALPUFF
model.
74
B.
Defendants
Provide
No
Lawful
Explanation
For
Failure
to
Develop
the
Complete
Emissions
Inventory
Needed
to
Perform
a
Comprehensive
Air
Quality
Modeling
Assessment.

173.
BLM
explained
that
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
does
"
not
represent
a
regulatory
PSD
Increment
Consumption
Analysis."
Montana
Final
EIS,
at
3­
3.
AR
§
VII,
File
A,
Doc.
13.
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
6­
1.

AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

174.
At
no
time
prior
to
the
issuance
of
the
Montana
and
Wyoming
RODs
have
Defendants
undertaken,
or
caused
to
be
undertaken,
by
any
State
or
federal
agency,
or
by
any
consultant,
any
complete
assessment
of
the
air
pollutants
emitted
by
all
sources
contributing
to
maximum
allowable
increases
of
SO2,
PM10
or
NOx
in
the
15
mandatory
federal
Class
I
areas
adversely
affected
by
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
in
the
Buffalo
and
Platte
River
Resource
Management
Areas
in
Wyoming
and
in
the
Powder
River
and
Billings
Resource
Management
Areas
in
Montana.

175.
At
no
time
prior
to
the
issuance
of
the
Montana
and
Wyoming
RODs
have
Defendants
undertaken,
or
caused
to
be
undertaken,
by
any
State
or
federal
agency,
or
by
any
consultant,
any
complete
assessment
of
the
air
pollutants
emitted
by
all
sources
contributing
to
ambient
air
concentrations
of
SO2,
PM10,

PM2.5
or
NOx
in
the
counties
likely
to
be
most
adversely
affected
by
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
in
the
Buffalo
and
Platte
River
Resource
Management
Areas
in
Wyoming
and
in
the
Powder
River
and
Billings
Resource
Management
Areas
in
Montana.
75
176.
Defendants
have
not
required,
either
in
any
of
the
RMPs
or
in
one
or
both
Records
of
Decision
authorizing
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project,
or
in
any
other
legally
enforceable
order,
that
a
regulatory
increment
consumption
analysis
be
performed
prior
to,
or
as
a
condition
for,
the
issuance
by
BLM
of
permits
to
drill
wells,

develop
access
roads,
construct
pipelines
and
compressor
stations
or
undertake
any
other
oil
and
gas
development
activities
that
are
expected
to
cause
emissions
of
air
pollutants.

177.
Montana
has
not
undertaken
any
increment
consumption
analysis
to
determine
whether
maximum
allowable
increases
have
been
exceeded
for
any
pollutant
in
any
of
the
15
mandatory
federal
class
I
areas
expected
by
Defendants
to
be
affected
by
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project,
or
to
determine
whether
the
maximum
allowable
increases
in
such
class
I
areas
will
be
exceeded
if
expected
emissions
of
air
pollutants
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
are
added
to
emissions
that
currently
contribute
to
concentrations
of
air
pollutants
in
such
areas.

178.
Montana
has
not
performed
any
modeling
analysis
to
determine
whether
visibility
impairment
will
occur
in
any
of
the
15
mandatory
federal
class
I
areas
expected
by
Defendants
to
be
affected
by
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
if
expected
emissions
of
air
pollutants
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
are
added
to
emissions
of
air
pollutants
that
currently
affect
visibility
in
such
areas.

179.
Wyoming
has
not
undertaken
any
increment
consumption
analysis
to
determine
whether
maximum
allowable
increases
have
been
exceeded
for
any
pollutant
in
any
of
the
15
mandatory
federal
class
I
areas
expected
by
Defendants
to
be
affected
by
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project,
or
to
determine
whether
the
76
maximum
allowable
increases
in
such
class
I
areas
will
be
exceeded
if
expected
emissions
of
air
pollutants
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
are
added
to
emissions
that
currently
contribute
to
concentrations
of
air
pollutants
in
such
areas.

180.
Wyoming
has
not
performed
any
modeling
analysis
to
determine
whether
visibility
impairment
will
occur
in
any
of
the
15
mandatory
federal
class
I
areas
expected
by
Defendants
to
be
affected
by
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
if
expected
emissions
of
air
pollutants
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
are
added
to
emissions
of
air
pollutants
that
currently
affect
visibility
in
such
areas.

181.
Defendants
have
not
performed
a
"
regulatory
`
PSD
Increment
Consumption
Analysis'"
based
on
the
claims
that
compliance
with
state
and
federal
air
quality
laws
will
be
addressed
by
the
Montana
and
Wyoming
Departments
of
Environmental
Quality
during
the
new
source
review
process.

182.
The
"
new
source
review"
process
established
by
the
Clean
Air
Act
mandates
that
state
permitting
agencies
require
a
regulatory
PSD
increment
consumption
analysis
be
performed
by
the
permit
applicant
only
when
the
application
is
for
"
major
emitting
facility"
as
defined
by
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7479(
1).
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7475.

183.
The
Clean
Air
Act
requires
that
all
anthropogenic
emissions
of
regulated
pollutants,
whether
from
"
major
emitting
facilities,"
smaller
stationary
sources
or
mobile
sources,
contribute
to
ambient
concentrations
of
air
pollutants
"
for
purposes
of
determining
compliance
with
the
maximum
allowable
increases
in
ambient
concentrations
of
an
air
pollutant"
unless
they
are
exempted
pursuant
to
section
163(
c)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7473(
c).
77
184.
Neither
the
Montana
nor
the
Wyoming
Final
EIS
identified
any
of
the
sources
of
air
pollutants
related
to
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
that
are
listed
in
the
emission
inventory
used
in
the
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment
as
either
a
"
major
emitting
facility"
as
defined
by
§
169(
1),
or
exempt
pursuant
to
§
163(
c).

185.
Defendants
state
that
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
will
involve
"
many
small
sources"

which
are
"
spread
out
over
a
very
large
area."
Wyoming
Final
EIS,
at
4­
17,
4­
19.

AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc
18.

186.
The
New
Source
Review
process
contained
in
the
State
Implementation
Plans
adopted
by
Montana
and
Wyoming
for
the
purpose
of
implementing
the
requirements
of
Part
C
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
42
U.
S.
C.
§
§
7470­
7492,
do
not
require
a
cumulative
impact
analysis
or
other
method
for
determining
whether
emissions
from
one
or
many
"
minor
sources"
will
contribute
to
exceedances
of
the
maximum
allowable
increases
in
concentrations
of
air
pollutants,
contribute
to
violations
of
national
ambient
air
quality
standards,
or
contribute
to
visibility
impairment
in
any
area
in
violation
of
applicable
standards
under
the
Clean
Air
Act.

VIII.
ADVERSE
IMPACTS
ON
PUBLIC
HEALTH
ARE
NOT
DISCLOSED.

187.
Defendants
have
not
disclosed
the
adverse
impacts
on
public
health
that
will
result
from
public
exposure
to
increased
concentrations
in
the
ambient
air
of
PM10
and
PM2.5
in
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
region.

188.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
demonstrates
that
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
are
predicted
to
contribute
to
concentrations
of
PM10
greater
than
209
µ
g/
m3
within
the
Project
region
in
Montana.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
78
Assessment,"
Appendix
C,
Table
C.
1.1.3.,
"
Estimated
Near­
Field
Criteria
Pollutant
Impacts,"
p.
C­
6.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

189.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
demonstrates
that
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
are
predicted
to
contribute
an
additional
30.79
µ
g/
m3
of
PM10
to
areas
in
Campbell
County
where
ambient
concentrations
currently
exceed
150
µ
g/
m3
in
violation
of
the
NAAQS.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
Appendix
C,
Table
c.
2.1.1,
p.
C­
28.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

190.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
demonstrates
that
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
are
predicted
to
contribute
to
near­
field
annual
concentrations
of
PM2.5
of
13.75
µ
g/
m3
and
24­
hour
concentrations
of
64.42
µ
g/
m3
in
Montana.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
Appendix
C,

Table
C.
1.1.3.
"
Estimated
Near­
Field
Criteria
Pollutant
Impacts,"
p.
C­
6.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

191.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
demonstrates
that
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
are
predicted
to
contribute
to
near­
field
annual
concentrations
of
PM2.5
of
9.92
µ
g/
m3
and
24­
hour
concentrations
of
43.38
µ
g/
m3
in
Wyoming.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
Appendix
C,
Table
C.
2.1.1.
"
Estimated
Near­
Field
Criteria
Pollutant
Impacts,"
p.
C­
28.
AR
§
VII,

File
G,
Doc.
12.

192.
Prior
to
the
release
of
the
Final
EISs
for
both
the
Montana
and
Wyoming
RMPs,

the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
had
performed
and
released
for
public
comment
in
April
2002
a
review
of
the
published
peer­
reviewed
research
demonstrating
the
adverse
health
effects
of
human
exposure
to
PM10
and
PM2.5
.
79
See
"
Air
Quality
Criteria
for
Particulate
Matter
(
Third
External
Review
Draft),"

U.
S.
EPA,
Office
of
Research
and
Development
(
April
2002)
[
Available
at
<
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ncea/
pdfs/
partmatt/
VOL_
I_
AQCD_
PM_
3rd_
Review_
Draft.

pdf>
and
<
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ncea/
pdfs/
partmatt/
VOL_
II_
AQCD_
PM_
3rd_
Review_
Draf
t.
pdf
>].

193.
The
health
effects
research
evidence
reviewed
and
reported
by
EPA
demonstrates
that
severe
adverse
health
effects,
including
increased
frequency
and
severity
of
pulmonary
and
cardiovascular
disease
that
result
in
premature
death,

hospitalization,
emergency
and
urgent
care,
increased
medication
and
health
costs,
lost
work
and
school
days,
and
pain
and
suffering
are
associated
with
human
exposure
to
these
pollutants
at
concentrations
below
the
current
NAAQS
for
these
pollutants.

194.
Significant
public
health
risks
are
associated
with
exposure
to
the
concentrations
predicted
by
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
to
occur
within
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
region
where
citizens
reside,
work,
recreate
and
travel.

195.
These
significant
public
health
risks
were
not
disclosed
at
any
point
in
the
NEPA
process.

IX.
CLAIMS
FOR
RELIEF
COUNT
ONE
The
Secretary
failed
to
exercise
her
planning
authority
under
FLPMA
to
carry
out
her
statutory
duty
as
a
Federal
Land
Manager
to
protect
Air
Quality
Related
Values
in
Class
I
areas
under
the
Clean
Air
Act.

196.
All
previous
allegations
are
incorporated
by
reference.
80
197.
Section
165(
d)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
imposes
on
the
Secretary
of
the
Interior,
as
a
Federal
Land
Manager
("
FLM"),
"
an
affirmative
responsibility
to
protect
the
air
quality
related
values
(
including
visibility)
of
any
such
lands
within
a
Class
I
area
 
."
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7475(
d)(
2)(
B).

198.
The
Secretary
has
not
established
in
the
RMP
Amendments
limits
on
emissions
of
air
pollutants
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
that
would,
together
with
limitations
on
expected
emissions
from
existing
and
other
reasonably
foreseeable
future
sources,
"
protect
the
air
quality
related
values
(
including
visibility)"
of
Class
I
areas
and
prevent
significant
deterioration
of
air
quality
in
Class
I
areas
by
ensuring
that
emissions
will
not
cause
or
contribute
to
exceedances
of
the
maximum
allowable
increases
for
Class
I
areas
as
required
by
the
CAA.

199.
The
Secretary
violated
her
affirmative
responsibility
in
the
CAA
to
protect
air
quality
related
values
in
mandatory
federal
Class
I
areas
when
she
approved
the
RMP
Amendments
without
establishing
limitations
on
development
or
mitigation
measures
such
as
aggregate
limitations
on
emissions
adequate
to
ensure
that
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
would
not
cause
or
contribute
to
adverse
impacts
on
air
quality
related
values.

200.
The
Secretary
has
failed
to
exercise
her
authority
under
FLPMA
to
carry
out
her
duty
under
the
CAA
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
maximum
allowable
increases
of
air
pollutants
and
to
protect
air
quality
related
values
in
Class
I
areas
and
her
approval
of
the
RMP
Amendments
is
arbitrary,
capricious,
an
abuse
of
discretion,
or
otherwise
not
in
accordance
with
law.

COUNT
TWO
81
Defendants
Violated
FLPMA
by
Approving
the
RMP
Amendments
Without
Requiring
Measures
to
Prevent
Demonstrated
Violations
of
State
and
Federal
Air
Quality
Standards.

201.
All
previous
allegations
are
incorporated
by
reference.

202.
FLPMA
mandates
that
"[
i]
n
the
development
and
revision
of
land
use
plans,
the
Secretary
shall
 
(
8)
provide
for
compliance
with
applicable
pollution
control
laws,
including
State
and
Federal
air,
water,
noise,
and
other
pollution
standards
or
implementation
plans."
43
U.
S.
C.
§
1712(
c)(
8).

203.
FLPMA
"
declares
that
it
is
the
policy
of
the
United
States
that
 
(
8)
the
public
lands
be
managed
in
a
manner
that
will
protect
the
quality
of
 
scenic,

historical,
ecological,
environmental,
air
and
atmospheric,
water
resource,
and
archeological
values;
[
and]
that
where
appropriate,
will
preserve
and
protect
certain
public
lands
in
their
natural
condition."
43
U.
S.
C.
§
1701(
a)(
8).

204.
FLPMA
directs
that
"
In
managing
the
public
lands
the
Secretary
shall,
by
regulation
or
otherwise,
take
any
action
necessary
to
prevent
unnecessary
or
undue
degradation
of
the
lands."
43
U.
S.
C.
1732(
b).

205.
The
Secretary
has
determined
in
the
environmental
documents
for
the
review
and
analysis
of
impacts
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
that
"
air
pollution
standards"

or
control
laws
include
the
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
and
the
maximum
allowable
increases
in
air
pollutants
established
by
the
Clean
Air
Act,

i.
e.
the
"
PSD
increments
which
limit
the
incremental
increase
in
certain
air
pollutants
(
including
NOx,
PM10,
and
SO2)
above
legally
defined
baseline
concentration
levels."
Wyoming
Final
EIS,
at
4­
379.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc
18;

Montana
Final
EIS,
at
4­
14.
AR
§
VII,
File
A,
Doc.
13.
82
206.
The
Secretary
approved
RMP
Amendments
for
the
Buffalo
and
Platte
River
Resource
Management
Areas
in
Wyoming
and
for
the
Powder
River
and
Billings
Resource
Management
Areas
in
Montana,
which
are
the
"
land
use
plans"
required
by
§
1712(
a),
that
violate
the
duty
imposed
by
43
U.
S.
C.
§
1712(
c)(
8)
because
such
RMP
Amendments
fail
to
"
provide
for
compliance
with
applicable
pollution
control
laws,
including
State
and
Federal
air 
pollution
standards
or
implementation
plans"
by
failing
to
limit
emissions
of
air
pollutants
from
activities
allowed
by
such
plans
to
the
levels
necessary
to
prevent
concentrations
of
air
pollutants
in
excess
of
the
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
within
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
region,
and
the
maximum
allowable
increases
in
Class
I
areas
established
by
the
Clean
Air
Act.

207.
The
Secretary
approved
RMP
Amendments
for
the
Buffalo
and
Platte
River
Resource
Management
Areas
in
Wyoming
and
for
the
Powder
River
and
Billings
Resource
Management
Areas
in
Montana,
which
are
the
"
land
use
plans"
required
by
§
1712(
a),
that
violate
the
duty
imposed
by
43
U.
S.
C.
§
1712(
c)(
8)
because
such
RMP
Amendments
fail
to
"
provide
for
compliance
with
applicable
pollution
control
laws,
including
State
and
Federal
air 
pollution
standards
or
implementation
plans"
by
failing
to
limit
emissions
of
air
pollutants
from
activities
allowed
by
such
plans
to
the
levels
necessary
to
prevent
adverse
impacts
on
air
quality
related
values,
including
impairment
of
visibility
and
degradation
of
water
quality
by
acid
deposition,
in
Class
I
areas.

208.
The
Secretary's
approval
of
the
RMP
Amendments
which
authorize
a
level
of
oil
and
gas
development
that
the
Secretary
has
determined
will
result
in
the
83
emission
of
air
pollutants
sufficient
to
cause
or
contribute
to
the
violation
of
applicable
pollution
control
laws,
including
State
and
Federal
air
pollution
standards
or
implementation
plans,
violates
the
Secretary's
duty
in
FLPMA
to
adopt
land
use
plans
that
provide
for
compliance
with
such
laws,
standards
and
implementation
plans,
is
arbitrary
and
capricious,
an
abuse
of
discretion,
and
otherwise
not
in
accordance
with
law
.

COUNT
THREE
Defendants
Violated
FLPMA
by
Failing
to
Determine
Whether
Emissions
will
Violate
Maximum
Allowable
Increases
in
Class
I
Areas.

209.
All
previous
allegations
are
incorporated
by
reference.

210.
The
Secretary's
failure
to
perform
a
comprehensive
analysis
of
all
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project,
together
with
air
pollutants
emitted
from
all
other
existing
and
reasonably
foreseeable
sources
that
would
be
required
to
be
included
in
a
PSD
increment
consumption
analysis,
to
determine
whether
particulate
matter,
nitrogen
oxides
and
sulfur
dioxide
expected
to
be
emitted
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
will
cause
or
contribute
to
violations
of
the
maximum
allowable
increases
for
these
pollutants
at
each
Class
I
area,
violated
the
duty
enacted
in
FLPMA,
43
U.
S.
C.
§
1712(
c)(
8),
to
develop
land
use
plans
that
"
shall
 
(
8)
provide
for
compliance
with
applicable
pollution
control
laws,

including
State
and
Federal
air
 
pollution
standards
or
implementation
plans."

Such
failure
is
arbitrary,
capricious,
an
abuse
of
discretion,
or
otherwise
not
in
accordance
with
law.

COUNT
FOUR
Defendants
Violated
NEPA
by
Failing
to
Make
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
84
Available
for
Public
Review
and
Comment
Before
Issuance
of
the
Montana
and
Wyoming
Final
EISs.

211.
All
previous
allegations
are
incorporated
by
reference.

212.
"
NEPA
procedures
must
ensure
that
environmental
information
is
available
to
the
public
officials
and
citizens
before
decisions
are
made
and
before
actions
are
taken,"
and
"
public
scrutiny
[
is]
essential
to
implementing
NEPA."
40
C.
F.
R.
§
1500.1(
b).

213.
NEPA
regulations
require
that
"
Federal
agencies
shall
to
the
fullest
extent
possible
.
.
.
encourage
and
facilitate
public
involvement
in
decisions
which
affect
the
quality
of
the
human
environment."
40
C.
F.
R.
§
1500.2(
c).

214.
NEPA
regulations
mandate
that
agencies
preparing
NEPA
documents
"
shall
involve
environmental
agencies,
applicants,
and
the
public,
to
the
extent
practicable,
in
preparing
assessments
.
.
.
."
Id.
at
§
1501.4(
b).

215.
The
Secretary
never
made
available
for
public
review,
input,
and
comment
the
analysis
of
cumulative
air
quality
impacts
of
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
in
both
Montana
and
Wyoming
that
was
published
for
the
first
time
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment."
The
Secretary
did
not
provide
any
assessment
of
the
air
quality
impacts
of
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
in
the
Montana
Draft
EIS.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
was
not
released
as
part
of
the
Draft
EISs
for
either
Montana
or
Wyoming.
The
preliminary
air
quality
assessment
released
as
part
of
the
Wyoming
Draft
EIS
did
not
include
an
analysis
of
the
cumulative
air
quality
impacts
that
will
be
caused
by
air
pollutants
emitted
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
authorized
by
the
Secretary
in
the
Montana
and
Wyoming
RMPs.
85
216.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
contained
the
only
analysis
demonstrating
that
the
cumulative
effect
of
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
in
both
Montana
and
Wyoming.

217.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
provides
evidence
demonstrating
that
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
will
cause
or
contribute
to
significant
impacts
on
the
human
environment
by
causing
or
contributing
to
concentrations
of
PM10
that
exceed
the
maximum
allowable
increase
for
PM10
in
the
Class
I
Washakie
Wilderness
area,
cause
or
contribute
to
significant
impairment
of
visibility
in
15
class
I
areas,
and
cause
or
contribute
to
acid
deposition
that
would
have
an
adverse
impact
on
water
quality
in
a
class
I
area
in
violation
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
This
evidence
of
significant
impacts
was
released
for
the
first
time
as
part
of
the
Montana
and
Wyoming
Final
EISs.

218.
The
requirements
for
disclosure
and
public
involvement
required
by
40
C.
F.
R.

§
§
1500.1(
b)
and
1500.2(
c)
have
not
been
satisfied
because
the
cumulative
impact
analysis
published
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
was
not
disclosed
to
the
public,
and
no
opportunity
for
public
comment
was
provided
before
the
decisions
to
approve
the
RMP
Amendments
were
made.

219.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
was
not
adopted
pursuant
to
the
public
involvement
requirements
of
the
NEPA
process,
and
therefore
cannot
be
relied
upon
by
the
Secretary
to
satisfy
her
obligation
to
disclose
and
consider
the
"
cumulatively
significant
impacts"
of
multiple
related
actions
as
required
by
40
C.
F.
R.
§
1508.27(
b)(
7).
86
220.
The
Secretary's
failure
to
make
available
for
public
review
and
comment
the
analysis
of
the
cumulative
impacts
of
air
pollutants
emitted
from
both
the
Montana
and
Wyoming
Oil
and
Gas
Projects
as
published
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
and
the
failure
to
consider
such
cumulative
impacts
within
the
NEPA
process,
was
arbitrary,
capricious,
an
abuse
of
discretion,
or
otherwise
not
in
accordance
with
law.

COUNT
FIVE
Defendants
Violated
NEPA
by
Failing
to
Draft
and
Distribute
a
Supplemental
Draft
EIS
for
the
Montana
Project
Containing
an
Air
Quality
Assessment.

221.
All
previous
allegations
are
incorporated
by
reference.

222.
NEPA
regulations
require
that
"[
i]
f
a
draft
statement
is
so
inadequate
as
to
preclude
meaningful
analysis,
the
agency
shall
prepare
and
circulate
a
revised
draft
of
the
appropriate
portion."
40
C.
F.
R.
§
1502.9(
a).

223.
NEPA
regulations
require
the
Secretary
to
prepare
a
supplemental
EIS
if
"
there
are
significant
new
circumstances
or
information
relevant
to
environmental
concerns
and
bearing
on
the
proposed
action
or
its
impact."
40
CFR
§
1502.9(
c).

224.
The
draft
Montana
EIS
did
not
contain
an
air
quality
assessment
and
the
draft
Wyoming
EIS
did
not
contain
an
air
quality
assessment
of
the
cumulative
impacts
of
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
both
the
Montana
and
Wyoming
Oil
and
Gas
Project.

225.
By
failing
to
include
any
air
quality
assessment
of
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
in
Montana
in
the
draft
Montana
EIS,
and
by
failing
to
include
any
cumulative
air
quality
assessment
in
either
the
draft
Montana
EIS
or
the
draft
Wyoming
EIS,
the
87
Secretary
precluded
meaningful
analysis
by
citizens
of
the
impact
on
air
quality
authorized
by
the
Secretary
in
the
RMP
Amendments.

226.
The
Secretary's
failure
to
draft
a
supplemental
EIS
for
the
Montana
RMP
Amendments
based
on
the
significant
new
information
relevant
to
the
air
quality
impacts
shown
by
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
was
arbitrary,
capricious,

an
abuse
of
discretion,
or
otherwise
not
in
accordance
with
law.

COUNT
SIX
Defendants
Violated
NEPA
by
Failing
to
Perform
Comprehensive
Increment
Consumption
Analysis
As
Necessary
to
Determine
Whether
Emissions
will
Violate
Maximum
Allowable
Increases
in
Class
I
Areas.

227.
All
previous
allegations
are
incorporated
by
reference.

228.
An
EIS
must
"
consider"
a
project's
cumulative
impacts
in
addition
to
its
direct
impacts
on
the
environment.
See
40
C.
F.
R.
§
1508.25(
c)).
A
"
cumulative
impact"
is
defined
as
the
impact
on
the
environment
which
"
results
from
the
incremental
impact
of
the
action
when
added
to
other
past,
present
and
reasonably
foreseeable
future
actions
regardless
of
what
agency
(
Federal
or
non­
Federal)
or
person
undertakes
such
other
actions."
40
C.
F.
R.
§
1508.7.

229.
EPA
has
stated,
"
Class
I
increments
do
apply
to
[
a]
project,
even
though
it
is
not
a
major
stationary
source.
So
called
`
minor
sources'
(
less
than
250
tpy
potential
emissions)
also
consume
increment,
and
under
EPA's
PSD
regulations
minor
sources
cannot
be
allowed
[
by
federal
land
management
agency]
to
exceed
the
increment."
88
230.
The
regulation
prescribing
the
method
for
performing
an
increment
consumption
analysis
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
also
requires
a
cumulative
emissions
analysis
that
shows
that
 
allowable
emission
increases
from
the
proposed
source
or
modification,
in
conjunction
with
all
other
applicable
emissions
increases
or
reduction[
s]
(
including
secondary
emissions)
would
not
cause
or
contribute
to
air
pollution
in
violation
of:
(
1)
Any
national
ambient
air
quality
standard
in
any
air
quality
control
region;
or
(
2)
Any
applicable
maximum
allowable
increase
over
the
baseline
concentration
in
any
area.

40
C.
F.
R.
§
51.166(
k).

231.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
excluded
several
existing
or
reasonably
foreseeable
future
sources
from
its
evaluation
of
cumulative
impacts
within
the
modeling
domain,
including,
but
not
limited
to,
those
sources
listed
above
in
section
VII.
A.
supra.

232.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
includes
no
assessment
of
the
cumulative
impact
of
emissions
from
pre­
existing
sources
within
the
modeling
domain
that
began
emissions
after
the
baseline
date
was
established
but
before
September
1,

1994,
planned
developments
on
federal
lands
authorized
pursuant
to
other
RMPs
within
or
near
the
boundaries
of
the
modeling
domain,
and
reasonably
foreseeable
sources
located
within
or
near
the
modeling
domain
that
will
impact
air
quality
in
Class
I
areas
within
the
modeling
domain,
including
but
not
limited
to
sources
in
southwest
Wyoming,
northern
Colorado,
Montana
and
northeastern
Utah.

233.
The
Secretary
provided
no
lawful
explanation
for
failing
to
conduct
a
comprehensive
analysis
of
air
pollutants
emitted
from
all
sources
that
contribute
to
increases
in
pollutant
concentrations
to
determine
whether
the
maximum
89
allowable
increase
for
pollutants
emitted
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
would
be
violated
by
new
emissions
from
the
project
(
i.
e.
a
PSD
increment
consumption
analysis),
or
to
demonstrate
the
cumulative
air
quality
impacts
of
the
Project
as
required
by
40
C.
F.
R.
§
1508.8.

234.
The
Secretary's
failure
to
perform
a
complete
PSD
increment
consumption
analysis
to
determine
whether
particulate
matter,
nitrogen
oxides
and
sulfur
dioxide
emitted
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
will
be
expected
to
cause
or
contribute
to
violations
of
the
maximum
allowable
increases
for
these
pollutants
at
each
Class
I
area
violated
the
duty
under
NEPA
to
disclose
significant
environmental
impacts,
including
"
whether
the
action
threatens
a
violation
of
federal,
State,
or
local
law
or
requirements
imposed
or
the
protection
of
the
environment."
40
CF.
R.
§
1508.27(
b)(
10).
Such
failure
is
arbitrary,
capricious,
an
abuse
of
discretion,
or
otherwise
not
in
accordance
with
law.

COUNT
SEVEN
Defendants
Violated
NEPA
by
Failing
to
Provide
the
Public
with
Non­
technical
Explanation
of
the
Visibility
Impacts
that
Will
Be
Caused
by
Air
Pollutants
From
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project.

235.
All
previous
allegations
are
incorporated
by
reference.

236.
NEPA
requires
the
Secretary
to
"
provide
full
and
fair
discussion
of
significant
environmental
impacts"
in
the
EIS.
40
C.
F.
R.
§
1502.1.

237.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
does
not
provide
the
public
with
nontechnical
explanation
of
the
impacts
on
visibility
that
will
be
caused
by
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
approved
by
the
Secretary
in
the
RMP
Amendments.
There
is
no
discussion
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
of
the
normal
visibility
in
miles
90
or
kilometers
at
the
affected
Class
I
areas.
There
is
no
discussion
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
of
the
magnitude
of
reduction
in
visibility
in
terms
of
miles
or
kilometers
or
other
commonly
understandable
characteristics
that
will
be
caused
by
emissions
from
the
Project..
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
does
not
contain
photographic
or
other
information
that
would
have
allowed
the
public
or
non­
technical
decision­
makers
to
meaningfully
understand
the
significance
of
visibility
impacts
at
Class
I
areas
that
will
be
as
high
as
29.05
deciviews.

238.
Information
was
available,
including
photographic
information
and
deciview
maps,
that
would
have
allowed
the
Secretary
to
provide
a
full
and
fair
explanation
of
the
visibility
impacts
at
Class
I
areas.

239.
By
failing
to
provide
clear
and
non­
technical
information
on
the
visibility
impacts
at
Class
I
areas,
the
Secretary
failed
to
provide
a
full
and
fair
discussion
of
the
visibility
impacts
as
required
under
NEPA
and
this
failure
makes
the
Secretary's
approval
of
the
RMP
Amendments
arbitrary,
capricious,
an
abuse
of
discretion,
or
otherwise
not
in
accordance
with
law.

COUNT
EIGHT
Defendants
Violated
NEPA
by
Failing
to
Disclose
Adverse
Health
Effects
from
Human
Exposure
to
Predicted
Concentrations
of
Particulate
Matter
240.
All
previous
allegations
are
incorporated
by
reference.

241.
As
noted,
NEPA
requires
the
Secretary
to
"
provide
full
and
fair
discussion
of
significant
environmental
impacts"
in
the
EIS.
40
C.
F.
R.
§
1502.1.

242.
"
Significant"
environmental
impacts
include
"
the
degree
to
which
the
proposed
action
affects
the
public
health
and
safety."
40
C.
F.
R.
§
1508.27(
b)(
2).
91
243.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
of
the
proposed
action
states
that
concentration
increases
of
24­
hour
PM10
will
reach
212
µ
g/
m3
in
areas
affected
by
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"

at
7­
5,
Table
7.2.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.

244.
Research
assessing
the
adverse
health
effects
of
human
exposure
to
fine
particles
has
shown
that
exposure
to
concentrations
of
PM2.5
in
the
range
predicted
for
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
area
are
associated
with
increased
mortality,

hospitalization,
urgent
and
emergency
care
for
pulmonary
and
cardiovascular
diseases.

245.
Hundreds
of
epidemiological
research
studies
have
been
published
by
independent
investigators
reporting
the
relationship
between
exposures
to
PM
and
adverse
health
outcomes.
These
adverse
effects
include
causing
or
exacerbating
cardiovascular
and
respiratory
diseases
that
contribute
to
premature
death,
require
hospitalization,
urgent
or
emergency
care,
use
of
medications,
and
the
pain,

suffering
and
discomfort
associated
with
exacerbation
of
asthma
and
other
preexisting
respiratory
conditions.
These
studies
have
been
summarized
in
EPA's
ongoing
review
of
the
NAAQS
required
by
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7409(
d)(
1).
See
"
Air
Quality
Criteria
for
Particulate
Matter
(
Third
External
Review
Draft),"
U.
S.
EPA,

Office
of
Research
and
Development,
App.
8A
 
8B,
(
April
2002)
[
Available
at
<
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ncea/
pdfs/
partmatt/
VOL_
I_
AQCD_
PM_
3rd_
Review_
Draft.

pdf>
and
<
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ncea/
pdfs/
partmatt/
VOL_
II_
AQCD_
PM_
3rd_
Review_
Draf
t.
pdf
>].
92
246.
Based
on
this
new
evidence,
EPA
has
released
a
draft
Staff
Paper
summarizing
its
preliminary
conclusions
from
its
review
of
these
studies.
The
Staff
Paper
finds
that
"
many
new
studies
relating
ambient
PM2.5
concentrations
to
health
effects
provide
evidence
of
associations
at
air
quality
levels
below
those
for
which
statistically
significant
associations
were
observed
in
the
last
review
[
1996]."

EPA's
"
Review
of
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
for
Particulate
Matter:
Policy
Assessment
of
Scientific
and
Technical
Information,"
at
6­
22
(
OAQPS
 
First
Draft
Staff
Paper,
August
29,
2003).

247.
Based
on
these
research
studies,
EPA
has
announced
its
preliminary
conclusion
regarding
the
adequacy
of
the
current
annual
standard
for
PM2.5
that
­­

Consideration
should
be
given
to
revising
the
current
PM2.5
primary
standards
to
provide
increased
public
health
protection
from
fine
particles
based
primarily
on
newly
available
evidence
of
mortality
and
morbidity
health
effects
in
areas
where
the
annual
mean
concentrations
are
below
the
level
of
the
current
annual
PM2.5
standard.

Id.,
at
6­
39.

248.
The
Secretary
has
failed
to
disclose
in
any
environmental
document
the
recent
scientific
evidence
showing
that
human
populations
in
the
areas
where
concentrations
of
PM2.5
are
expected
to
be
highest
will
be
exposed
to
pollutant
levels
that
are
associated
with
a
significant
increased
risk
of
experiencing
adverse
health
effects
that
can
cause
premature
death,
hospitalization,
the
need
for
urgent
or
emergency
care,
medications,
and
possible
loss
of
work
days
and/
or
school
attendance
resulting
from
the
adverse
physical
effects
and
reduced
vitality
associated
with
pulmonary
and
cardiovascular
disease.
93
249.
The
Secretary
has
failed
to
disclose
in
any
environmental
document
that
the
U.
S.
EPA
has
determined
that
new
health
effects
research
provides
evidence
that
the
adverse
health
effects
of
exposure
to
PM2.5
has
been
demonstrated
in
areas
where
air
quality
complies
with
current
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
for
PM2.5.

250.
The
new
evidence
of
adverse
health
effects
of
fine
particulate
below
the
level
of
the
1997
NAAQS
must
be
evaluated
in
the
EIS
to
determine
acceptable
levels
of
exposure
to
avoid
endangering
public
health,
and
the
Secretary
must
disclose
the
impact
that
emissions
from
the
proposed
projects
will
have
on
public
health
as
a
result
of
increasing
PM2.5
levels
above
current
background
concentrations
of
PM2..
5.

251.
By
failing
to
disclose
and
take
into
account
the
adverse
health
effects
that
are
likely
to
be
experienced
by
persons
residing,
traveling,
working
or
attending
school
in
areas
where
PM2.5
concentrations
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
are
expected
to
be
highest,
the
Secretary
has
failed
to
prepare
an
EIS
that
"
provide[
s]

full
and
fair
discussion
of
significant
environmental
impacts"
and
that
"
inform[
s]

decision­
makers
and
the
public
of
the
reasonable
alternatives
which
would
avoid
or
minimize
adverse
impacts
or
enhance
the
quality
of
the
human
environment"
as
required
by
NEPA.
40
C.
F.
R.
§
1502.1.

252.
The
Secretary's
failure
to
provide
a
full
and
fair
analysis
of
the
public
health
risks
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
authorized
by
the
RMP
Amendments
is
arbitrary,
capricious,
an
abuse
of
discretion,
or
otherwise
not
in
accordance
with
law.
94
COUNT
NINE
Defendants
Violated
NEPA
by
Failing
to
Identify
Mitigation
Necessary
to
Prevent
Significant
Risks
to
Human
Health,
and
by
Failing
to
Explain
Why
Mitigation
Necessary
to
Prevent
Such
Impacts
Has
Not
Been
Adopted.

253.
All
previous
allegations
are
incorporated
by
reference.

254.
NEPA
requires
the
Secretary
to
take
a
hard
look
at
measures
to
mitigate
the
significant
environmental
impacts
of
a
major
federal
action.
See
40
C.
F.
R.
§
1502.14(
f).
Mitigation
includes:

a)
Avoiding
the
impact
altogether
by
not
taking
a
certain
action
or
parts
of
an
action.
(
b)
Minimizing
impacts
by
limiting
the
degree
or
magnitude
of
the
action
and
its
implementation.
(
c)
Rectifying
the
impact
by
repairing,
rehabilitating,
or
restoring
the
affected
environment.
(
d)
Reducing
or
eliminating
the
impact
over
time
by
preservation
and
maintenance
operations
during
the
life
of
the
action.
(
e)
Compensating
for
the
impact
by
replacing
or
providing
substitute
resources
or
environments.

40
C.
F.
R.
§
1508.20.

255.
The
Secretary
has
failed
to
identify
in
any
EIS
the
maximum
level
of
emissions
of
air
pollutants
that
contribute
to
concentrations
of
PM2.5
that
could
be
accommodated
in
the
areas
affected
by
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
without
causing
or
contributing
to
adverse
health
effects
for
the
exposed
population.

256.
The
Secretary
has
failed
to
identify
in
any
EIS
or
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
mitigation
measures
that
would
be
needed
to
avoid
or
minimize
the
significant
adverse
health
effects
likely
to
be
experienced
by
persons
residing,

traveling,
working
or
attending
school
in
areas
where
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
allowed
under
the
RMP
Amendments
authorized
by
the
Secretary
are
95
expected
to
contribute
to
PM2.5
concentrations
known
to
be
associated
with
adverse
health
effects.

257.
The
Secretary's
failure
to
identify
mitigation
measures
sufficient
to
protect
the
public
from
adverse
health
effects
associated
with
exposure
to
PM2.5
concentrations
expected
to
be
emitted
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
authorized
by
the
RMP
Amendments
is
arbitrary,
capricious,
an
abuse
of
discretion,
or
otherwise
not
in
accordance
with
law.

COUNT
TEN
Defendants
Violated
NEPA
by
Failing
to
Identify
Mitigation
Measures
Sufficient
to
Prevent
Exceedances
of
Maximum
Allowable
Increases
in
Class
I
Areas
.

258.
All
previous
allegations
are
incorporated
by
reference.

259.
NEPA
regulations
require
the
agency
to
"[
r]
igorously
explore
and
objectively
evaluate
all
reasonable
alternatives."
40
C.
F.
R.
§
1502.14.
Before
approving
RMPs,
the
Secretary
is
required
to
include
in
the
range
of
alternatives
"
appropriate
mitigation
measures
not
already
included
in
the
proposed
action"
and
a
"
means
to
mitigate
adverse
environmental
impacts."
40
C.
F.
R.
§
§
1502.14(
f);

1502.16(
h).

260.
The
Secretary
has
failed
to
identify
in
any
EIS
the
maximum
level
of
emissions
of
air
pollutants
that
could
be
accommodated
in
the
Class
I
areas
affected
by
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
without
causing
or
contributing
to
exceedances
of
the
maximum
allowable
increases
of
air
pollution
under
the
Clean
Air
Act.

261.
The
Secretary
has
failed
to
identify
in
any
EIS
or
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
mitigation
measures
that
would
be
needed
to
avoid
or
minimize
the
96
exceedances
of
the
maximum
allowable
increases
of
air
pollution
in
Class
I
areas
that
will
be
caused
by
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
allowed
under
the
RMP
Amendments
authorized
by
the
Secretary.

262.
The
Secretary's
failure
to
identify
mitigation
measures
sufficient
to
prevent
exceedances
of
the
maximum
allowable
increases
of
air
pollution
in
Class
I
areas
that
will
be
caused
by
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
authorized
by
the
RMP
Amendments
is
arbitrary,
capricious,
an
abuse
of
discretion,
or
otherwise
not
in
accordance
with
law.

COUNT
ELEVEN
Defendants
Violated
NEPA
by
Failing
to
Identify
Mitigation
Measures
Sufficient
to
Prevent
Impairment
of
Visibility
in
Mandatory
Federal
Class
I
Areas.

263.
All
previous
allegations
are
incorporated
by
reference.

264.
NEPA
regulations
require
the
agency
to
"[
r]
igorously
explore
and
objectively
evaluate
all
reasonable
alternatives."
40
C.
F.
R.
§
1502.14.
Before
approving
the
RMPs,
the
Secretary
is
required
to
include
in
the
range
of
alternatives
"
appropriate
mitigation
measures
not
already
included
in
the
proposed
action"
and
a
"
means
to
mitigate
adverse
environmental
impacts."
40
C.
F.
R.
§
§
1502.14(
f);
1502.16(
h).

265.
The
Secretary
has
failed
to
identify
in
any
EIS
the
maximum
level
of
emissions
of
air
pollutants
that
could
be
accommodated
in
the
Class
I
areas
affected
by
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
without
causing
or
contributing
to
impairment
of
visibility
in
those
Class
I
areas.

266.
The
Secretary
has
failed
to
identify
in
any
EIS
or
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
mitigation
measures
that
would
be
needed
to
avoid
or
minimize
the
97
impairment
of
visibility
in
Class
I
areas
that
will
be
caused
by
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
allowed
under
the
RMP
Amendments
authorized
by
the
Secretary.

267.
The
Secretary's
failure
to
identify
mitigation
measures
sufficient
to
prevent
the
impairment
of
visibility
in
Class
I
areas
that
will
be
caused
by
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
authorized
by
the
RMP
Amendments
is
arbitrary,
capricious,

an
abuse
of
discretion,
or
otherwise
not
in
accordance
with
law.

COUNT
TWELVE
Defendants
Violated
NEPA
by
Failing
to
Identify
Mitigation
Measures
Sufficient
to
Prevent
Adverse
Impacts
on
Water
Quality
Caused
by
Air
Pollution
Emissions
in
Mandatory
Federal
Class
I
Areas
.

268.
All
previous
allegations
are
incorporated
by
reference.

269.
NEPA
regulations
require
the
agency
to
"[
r]
igorously
explore
and
objectively
evaluate
all
reasonable
alternatives."
40
C.
F.
R.
§
1502.14.
Before
approving
the
RMPs,
the
Secretary
is
required
to
include
in
the
range
of
alternatives
"
appropriate
mitigation
measures
not
already
included
in
the
proposed
action"
and
a
"
means
to
mitigate
adverse
environmental
impacts."
40
C.
F.
R.
§
§
1502.14(
f);
1502.16(
h).

270.
The
Secretary
has
failed
to
identify
in
any
EIS
the
maximum
level
of
emissions
of
air
pollutants
that
could
be
accommodated
in
the
Class
I
areas
affected
by
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
without
causing
or
contributing
to
adverse
impacts
on
water
quality.

271.
The
Secretary
has
failed
to
identify
in
any
EIS
or
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
mitigation
measures
that
would
be
needed
to
avoid
or
minimize
adverse
impacts
on
water
quality
in
Class
I
areas
that
are
predicted
to
be
caused
98
by
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
allowed
under
the
RMP
Amendments
authorized
by
the
Secretary.

272.
The
Secretary's
failure
to
identify
mitigation
measures
sufficient
to
prevent
adverse
impacts
on
water
quality
in
Class
I
areas
that
are
predicted
to
be
caused
by
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
authorized
by
the
RMP
Amendments
is
arbitrary,
capricious,
an
abuse
of
discretion,
or
otherwise
not
in
accordance
with
law.

COUNT
THIRTEEN
Defendants
Violated
NEPA
by
Failing
to
Adopt
All
Practicable
Means
to
Avoid
Environmental
Harm,
or
Provide
Lawful
Explanation
Why
Such
Means
Were
Not
Adopted.

273.
All
previous
allegations
are
incorporated
by
reference.

274.
NEPA
requires
that
the
Secretary
"
state
whether
all
practicable
means
to
avoid
or
minimize
environmental
harm
from
the
alternative
selected
have
been
adopted,
and
if
not,
why
they
were
not."
40
C.
F.
R.
§
1505.2(
c).

275.
The
Secretary
identified
in
the
EISs
practical
means
that
could
avoid
or
minimize
environmental
harm
from
the
emission
of
air
pollutants,
such
as
requiring
dust
suppression
during
well
pad
and
road
construction,
the
use
of
zeroemission
electric
compressor
engines
to
avoid
emissions,
the
use
of
emissions
controls
for
fossil­
fueled
compressor
engines,
and
phased
development
to
limit
emissions
by
limiting
the
total
number
of
wells
being
developed
and
in
operation
during
any
period.
See
Montana
Final
EIS,
at
AIR­
31,
AIR­
32.
AR
§
VII,
File
A,

Doc.
13.
Wyoming
Final
EIS,
at
4­
404.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc
18.
The
Secretary
99
did
not
adopt
as
enforceable
requirements
any
of
these
means
and
offered
no
lawful
explanation
why
they
were
not
adopted.

276.
The
failure
of
the
Secretary
to
adopt
practical
means
that
could
avoid
or
minimize
environmental
harm,
and
the
failure
to
explain
why
such
means
were
not
adopted
is
arbitrary,
capricious,
an
abuse
of
discretion,
or
otherwise
not
in
accordance
with
law.

COUNT
FOURTEEN
Defendants
Violated
FLPMA
and
NEPA
by
Failing
to
Adopt
Mandatory
Requirements
Consistent
with
Mitigation
Assumptions
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment."

277.
All
previous
allegations
are
incorporated
by
reference.

278.
NEPA
requires
that
"
mitigation
and
other
conditions
established
in
the
environmental
impact
statement
or
during
its
review
and
committed
as
part
of
the
decision
shall
be
implemented
by
the
lead
agency
or
other
appropriate
consenting
agency."
40
C.
F.
R.
§
1505.3.

279.
FLPMA
planning
regulations
provides
that
RMPs:

[
S]
hall
establish
intervals
and
standards,
as
appropriate,
for
monitoring
and
evaluation
of
the
plan.
Such
intervals
and
standards
shall
be
based
on
the
sensitivity
of
the
resources
to
the
decisions
involved
and
shall
provide
for
evaluation
to
determine
whether
mitigation
measures
are
satisfactory,
whether
there
has
been
significant
change
in
related
plan
of
other
Federal
agencies,
State
or
local
governments,
or
Indian
tribes,
and
whether
there
is
new
data
of
significance
to
the
plan.

40
C.
F.
R.
160.4­
9.

280.
The
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
relied
on
several
assumptions
regarding
the
reduction
of
air
pollutant
emissions
for
the
purpose
of
estimating
emissions
from
100
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
allowed
under
the
RMP
Amendments
authorized
by
the
Secretary.

281.
These
assumed
reductions
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
that
control
measures
would
be
applied
to
reduce
fugitive
dust
from
unpaved
access
roads
by
50%,
that
natural
gas
rather
than
more
polluting
diesel
fuels
would
be
used
as
the
fuel
for
compressor
stations,
that
control
technology
would
be
installed
to
achieve
emissions
limitations
of
1.0
and
1.5
grams
of
nitrogen
oxides
("
NOx")
per
horsepower­
hour
of
operation
for
compressor
engines,
and
that
non­
selective
catalytic
reduction
technology
(
NSCR)
would
be
installed
to
control
NOx
emissions
from
diesel
engines.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
B­
55,
B­

82.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc.
12.
Montana
Final
EIS,
at
4­
17,
4­
18.
AR
§
VII,
File
A,
Doc.
13.
Wyoming
Final
EIS,
at
4­
381,
4­
382.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc
18.

282.
In
the
Wyoming
Final
EIS,
BLM
states
that
NOx
emissions
from
compressor
engines
is
assumed
for
purposes
of
the
modeling
analysis
to
be
1.0
grams
of
NOx
per
horsepower/
hour
of
operation.
Wyoming
Final
EIS,
at
4­
381.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc
18.
However,
BLM
notes
that
since
applicable
best
available
control
technology
for
compressor
engines
"
is
decided
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
actual
emission
rates
could
be
decided
to
be
less
or
more
than
this
level
by
the
Departments
of
Environmental
Quality
in
Wyoming
or
Montana,
and
on
Indian
lands
by
EPA."
Id.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,
Doc
18.
BLM
admits
that
emission
rates
for
compressor
engines
could
be
as
high
as
2.0
g
NOx/
hp­
hr.
Id.
If
compressors
were
allowed
to
operate
with
emissions
at
2.0
g
NOx/
hp­
hr,
total
emissions
from
all
101
compressors
in
the
project
region
would
be
100%
greater
than
the
emissions
assumed
for
the
modeling
analysis
of
concentrations
in
downwind
locations.

283.
If
actual
emissions
are
two
times
greater
than
the
emissions
assumed
in
the
emissions
inventory
used
to
perform
the
modeling
analysis
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
then
the
contribution
of
compressor
emissions
to
concentrations
of
NOx
in
Class
I
areas
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
would
be
double
the
impacts
predicted
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment."

284.
Defendants
have
not
adopted
any
of
the
emissions
standards
or
emission
control
measures
in
the
RMPs
or
ROD
to
require
lessees
and/
or
operators
to
install
and
operate
the
emission
control
measures
assumed
for
the
purpose
of
predicting
reduced
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment."

285.
Defendants
have
not
identified
any
requirement
of
State
law
or
commitment
from
the
State
as
a
"
consenting
agency"
upon
which
she
may
rely
that
would
require
operators
to
install
and
operate
the
emission
control
measures
assumed
for
the
purpose
of
predicting
reduced
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment."

286.
The
Secretary
has
not
adopted
or
entered
into
any
cooperative
agreement
with
any
State
agency
that
requires
the
State,
or
by
which
the
State
agrees
to
issue
permits
containing
standards
to
limit
emissions
to
the
levels
assumed
for
the
purpose
of
predicting
reduced
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment."
102
287.
The
air
pollutants
expected
to
be
emitted
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
that
were
used
to
predict
concentrations
of
air
pollutants
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"
were
assumed
to
be
limited
by
assumptions
of
the
maximum
number
of
wells
to
be
developed
in
any
year,
and
an
assumed
level
coal­
bed
methane
production.
See
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment,"
at
4­
23.
AR
§
VII,
File
G,

Doc.
12.

288.
The
ROD
does
not
adopt
any
limits
on
development,
the
rate
or
pace
of
development,
emissions
limitations,
control
measures
or
other
mitigation
measures
that
will
ensure
the
maximum
level
of
development
in
any
single
year
will
not
exceed
either
the
levels
of
wells
or
the
level
of
emissions
assumed
for
the
purposes
of
predicting
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment."

289.
To
the
extent
Defendants
rely
on
these
assumed
control
measures
to
limit
emissions
for
the
purpose
of
demonstrating
compliance
with
any
NAAQS
or
maximum
allowable
increase,
then
she
must
be
required
in
the
ROD
to
satisfy
the
obligation
under
FLPMA
to
adopt
RMPs
that
contain
the
limits
of
development
and/
or
emissions
limitations
and
control
measures
that
are
identified
as
necessary
to
"
provide
for
compliance"
with
applicable
air
pollution
standards
or
implementation
plans.

290.
In
the
alternative,
if
the
assumptions
used
to
reduce
the
expected
emissions
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
for
the
purpose
of
modeling
the
expected
impacts
are
not
adopted
in
the
RMPs
or
RODs
as
enforceable
requirements,
then
the
Defendants
failed
to
prepare
an
EIS
that
"
provide[
s]
a
full
and
fair
discussion
of
the
103
significant
environmental
impacts"
of
the
project
as
required
by
NEPA,
40
C.
F.
R.

§
1502.1,
because
the
air
quality
assessment
will
have
omitted
disclosure
of
the
air
quality
impacts
of
permissible,
potential
emissions
from
the
project
that
will
occur
if
the
rate
of
development
is
not
limited,
and
if
operators
are
not
required
to
meet
emissions
limitations
on
compressor
engines,
the
use
of
natural
gas
as
a
fuel
is
not
required,
and
dust
suppression
to
control
dust
from
dirt
roads
by
50%
are
not
required.

291.
Defendants'
failure
to
make
the
rate
of
well
development,
emission
limitations,

and
emission
control
measures
assumed
in
the
"
Final
Air
Quality
Assessment"

enforceable
requirements
of
the
RMP
Amendments
authorizing
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project,
or
in
the
alternative
to
prepare
an
environmental
impact
statement
that
provides
full
and
fair
discussion
of
the
significant
environmental
impacts
that
would
occur
if
development
is
not
limited
and
such
emission
controls
are
not
required,
was
arbitrary,
capricious,
an
abuse
of
discretion,
or
otherwise
not
in
accordance
with
law.

X.
PRAYER
FOR
RELIEF
WHEREFORE,
Plaintiffs
respectfully
request
that
the
Court
grant
the
following
relief:

(
1)
Declare
that
the
Secretary
unlawfully
approved
the
RMPs
for
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
because
she
failed
to
satisfy
her
duty
to
adopt
emissions
limitations,

measures
to
control
emissions,
or
limitations
on
development
sufficient
to
prevent
adverse
impacts
to
air
quality
values
in
Class
I
areas,
or
sufficient
to
prevent
concentrations
of
air
pollutants
in
Class
I
areas
that
exceed
the
104
maximum
allowable
increases
for
such
areas
in
violation
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
and
its
implementing
regulations,
as
set
forth
above;
and
(
2)
Declare
that
Defendants
unlawfully
approved
the
RMP
Amendments
for
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
because
she
failed
to
develop
RMPs
that
provide
for
compliance
with
applicable
pollution
control
laws,
namely
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
including
compliance
with
the
national
ambient
air
quality
standards,
the
protection
of
air
quality
related
values
and
the
prevention
of
significant
deterioration
beyond
the
maximum
allowable
increments
established
for
Class
I
areas
in
violation
of
FLPMA
and
its
implementing
regulations,
as
set
forth
above;
and
(
3)
Declare
that
Defendants
unlawfully
approved
the
RMP
Amendments
for
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
without
first
satisfying
various
requirements
of
NEPA,

including
but
not
limited
to,

a)
Defendants'
failure
to
fully
determine
the
cumulative
adverse
impacts
on
air
quality
and
air
quality
related
values
in
national
parks
and
wilderness
areas
designated
as
Class
I
as
result
of
air
pollutants
emitted
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
by
failing
to
perform
a
modeling
analysis
that
includes
a
complete
inventory
of
emissions
from
all
sources
of
air
pollutants
that
contribute
to
concentrations
of
air
pollutants
in
each
such
area;

b)
Defendants'
failure
to
fully
determine
the
cumulative
adverse
impacts
on
air
quality
in
the
Project
region
as
result
of
air
pollutants
emitted
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
by
failing
to
perform
a
modeling
analysis
that
includes
a
105
complete
inventory
of
emissions
from
all
sources
of
air
pollutants
that
contribute
to
violations
of
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
in
such
area;

c)
Defendants'
failure
to
disclose
such
cumulative
adverse
impacts
as
part
of
a
draft
or
supplemental
EIS
that
satisfies
the
public
participation
requirements
of
NEPA
and
provides
sister
agencies
with
responsibilities
as
Federal
Land
Managers
with
a
meaningful
opportunity
to
comment
on
such
impacts;

d)
Defendants'
failure
to
determine
the
extent
to
which
air
pollutants
emitted
from
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
would
cause
or
contribute
to
violations
of
State
and
Federal
air
pollution
laws,
standards
and
implementation
plans;

e)
Defendants'
failure
to
disclose
the
adverse
health
effects
likely
to
be
experienced
by
persons
living,
working,
traveling,
attending
school
or
recreating
in
the
area
where
concentrations
of
PM2.5
and
PM10
would
likely
reach
or
exceed
levels
shown
to
be
associated
with
serious
adverse
health
effects;

f)
Defendants'
failure
to
identify
alternatives
that
could
avoid
or
minimize
such
adverse
impacts;
and
g)
Defendants'
failure
to
adopt
mitigation
sufficient
to
avoid
such
adverse
impacts
or
explain
why
such
mitigation
was
not
adopted;
and
(
4)
Pursuant
to
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act,
vacate
Defendants'
decisions
approving
the
amendment
of
the
Resource
Management
Plans
in
Montana
and
Wyoming
as
arbitrary,
capricious,
and
not
in
accordance
with
law;
and
106
(
5)
To
preserve
the
status
quo
until
Defendants
prepare,
publish
for
comment
and
issue
final
EISs
that
fully
disclose
the
environmental
impacts
of
the
Oil
and
Gas
Project
as
required
by
the
National
Environmental
Policy
Act,
enjoin
the
Defendants
not
to
issue
any
leases
or
permits
for
the
development
of
oil
and
gas
or
coal­
bed
methane,
or
allow
the
development
of
oil
and
gas
or
coal­
bed
methane
on
leased
lands;

(
6)
Order
Defendants
not
to
issue
any
leases
or
permits
for
the
development
of
oil
and
gas
or
coal­
bed
methane,
or
allow
the
development
of
oil
and
gas
or
coalbed
methane
on
leased
lands
until
the
Secretary
has
adopted
RMPs
that
comply
with
FLPMA
by
providing
for
compliance
with
the
Clean
Air
Act
and
applicable
air
pollution
standards
and
implementation
plans;

(
7)
Retain
jurisdiction
of
this
action
to
ensure
compliance
with
its
decree;

(
8)
Award
Plaintiffs
the
costs
incurred
in
pursuing
this
action,
including
attorney's
fees,
as
authorized
by
the
Equal
Access
to
Justice
Act,
28
U.
S.
C.
§
2412(
d),
and
other
applicable
provisions
of
law;
and
(
9)
Grant
such
other
and
further
relief
as
is
just
and
proper.

Dated
this
20
th
of
May,
2004.

Respectfully
submitted,

____________________________________
Thomas
M.
France,
Esq
MT
Bar
No.
2028
107
Thomas
M.
France,
Esq.
(
MT
Bar
No.
2028)
National
Wildlife
Federation
240
N.
Higgins
Missoula,
MT
59802
(
Ph)
(
406)
721­
6705
(
Fax)
(
406)
721­
6714
Robert
E.
Yuhnke
&
Associates
2910­
B
County
Road
67
Boulder,
CO
80303
(
Ph)
(
303)
499­
0425
Sean
T.
McAllister,
Esq.*
(
CO
Bar
No.
31350)
McAllister
Law
Office,
P.
C.
P.
O.
Box
18472
Denver,
CO
80218
(
Ph)
(
303)
903­
0076
(
Fax)
(
720)
406­
3518
Attorneys
for
Plaintiffs
*
Admission
Pro
Hac
Vice
Pending
