An organization of former public employees announced Monday it has filed suit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for alleged violations of federal environmental law after the agency announced a possible transfer of administration of the National Bison Range to the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes.

The suit, filed Monday by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and 10 individuals in federal district court in Washington, D.C., requests an injunction to prevent the federal wildlife agency from moving forward with any proposed legislation to transfer the refuge.

In internal emails sent last February, administrators with the federal agency announced they had initiated discussions with the tribes on the possible transfer, which would require new federal legislation.

The bison refuge, located near Moiese within the Flathead Indian Reservation boundaries, is part of the National Wildlife Refuge System managed by the federal wildlife agency. Established in 1908, it is currently home to a herd of 300 to 400 bison, according to the refuge’s website.

The proposed transfer would remove the bison range from the refuge system. The federal government would instead hold the land in trust for the tribes, who would manage the 18,000-acre preserve.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility has been a vocal opponent of tribal involvement in the refuge, and in previous years fought proposals to share the costs and management authority of the bison range between the federal wildlife agency and tribal authorities.

The group’s lawsuit alleges that the agency is drafting legislation and has met with Montana’s congressional delegates on the matter, constituting a “recommendation on proposal for legislation” that requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement.

“Between October and November 2015, FWS Director Dan Ashe and the FWS developed a plan through meetings and telephone calls for the transfer of the [Bison Range] to the CSKT,” the suit states.

The lawsuit also refers to a Feb. 18, 2016, email to Department of Interior Solicitor Hilary Tompkins in which Ashe wrote that “he hoped to have a good draft [of legislation] by the end of the week.”

In addition to the injunction, the organization is seeking attorneys’ fees and asking the court to force the Fish and Wildlife Service to complete a comprehensive conservation plan for the refuge.

It states that the agency was required to complete the plan in 2012 under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, but has failed to do so.

Fish and Wildlife Service spokeswoman Anna Munoz stated in an emailed response to phone calls that the agency had no comment on the lawsuit, and she did not respond to requests for comment on other aspects of the proposal.

In a press release sent Monday, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility also claimed that agency emails obtained through a public records request indicated the bill would give the tribes the entire refuge and its facilities without compensating the federal government for them.

Rob McDonald, a spokesman for the tribes, responded in a statement that when the federal government created the refuge it took land promised to them in their treaty with the U.S., “over the strong objection of the tribes.” A federal court ruled in 1971 that the government’s original compensation was below fair market value, awarding the tribes an additional $231,548.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility also claimed the bill would “contain no requirement that the CSKT maintain the Bison Range as a refuge or admit the public,” adding it would also “make no provision for the fate of the range’s unique bison herd ... as a healthy native species.”

“The parties filing suit to try to stop the return of the Bison Range land to the tribes have always opposed tribal participation there — even though it is in the center of our reservation and has ties to our people dating back thousands of years,” tribal chairman Vernon S. Finley responded in an emailed statement. “We will move on with what we believe is an elegant solution to this issue. The tribes’ record as natural resources managers speaks for itself.”

Regarding public access, McDonald added, “Absolutely the Bison Range will be kept open to the public,” but said the tribes are still working out the specifics as they complete the bill-drafting process.

While the suit alleges the Department of Interior has been drafting legislation, the Fish and Wildlife Service has said it is not part of that process, but has cooperated with the tribes in their efforts to create a bill.

“We are not working on separate legislation,” Munoz said in an interview with the Daily Inter Lake last month, adding that the agency has been working with the tribes since news of the proposal broke.

“I’m sure those discussions have likely informed their process,” she said. “Most of our interaction with the tribes, to my knowledge, has been discussions of what our intentions are in terms of what legislation might look like.”

Tribal attorney Rhonda Swaney said last month that the tribes hoped to complete draft legislation while Congress is still in session, but said she wasn’t optimistic that a bill would appear until later in the year.

Brian Upton, another attorney for the tribes, said he couldn’t comment on the specifics of the proposal, but confirmed the transfer would only apply to the Bison Range, and not to the other components of the National Bison Range Complex such as the Ninepipe National Wildlife Refuge.

Munoz said the Fish and Wildlife Service officials have met with Montana’s congressional representatives in recent months.

“We’ve had some interactions with some of the congressional offices in the state of Montana. They’ve had questions and requested information from us,” she said.

Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., said on May 9 that he had met once with tribal representatives about the transfer. Bison are an important part of the tribes’ cultural heritage, Tester said, but he added he was waiting to see what form the proposed legislation takes.

“There are challenges here, positives and potential problems,” Tester said. “Fundamentally, I think it’s a decent idea. If we keep access for the public, if it’s fair to the public and the tribes and if there’s support on the ground for it, I think it’s possible to do, for sure.”

Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., indicated he was open to the possibility of a transfer, but also said his support would hinge on the final bill language.

“I have no doubt that the Salish and Kootenai tribes are capable of managing buffalo; I just want to see a plan because the transfer includes much more than buffalo,” Zinke said in an April 29 interview. “I’m listening, as long as it goes through the process and is in the interest of the public and public lands.”

Marcie Kinzel, a spokeswoman for Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., said in an emailed statement in April that Daines was also “closely monitoring” the proposals.

Reporter Sam Wilson can be reached at 758-4407 or by email at swilson@dailyinterlake.com.