Park County Environmental Council v. Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court reviewed challenges to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality’s approval of Lucky Minerals, Inc.’s exploration license in Emigrant Gulch. The court held that the plaintiffs had standing and that DEQ was required to conduct additional analysis concerning road improvements, water quality, and project alternatives, but it rejected the argument that DEQ had to analyze potential full-scale mining on adjacent federal lands at the exploration-permit stage. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to DEQ for further analysis.

Holdings

1. The environmental organizations had standing because their members alleged particularized aesthetic, recreational, property, and business injuries caused by the exploration permit that could be alleviated by vacating the permit.
2. DEQ was not required at the exploration-permit stage to analyze the environmental impacts of potential future full-scale mining on adjacent federal lands because issuance of the exploration permit did not irreversibly set that mining in motion and a later DEQ approval would be required.
3. DEQ failed to take the required hard look at the impacts of expected road improvements on wildlife, particularly grizzly bears and wolverines, and supplemental review was required.
4. DEQ took the required hard look at groundwater-quality data in evaluating the likely effects of the proposed exploration, but its requirement that Lucky later develop a mitigation plan for artesian flow was inadequate and required supplemental review.
5. MEPA did not require DEQ to devise a scaled-down alternative to Lucky's privately sponsored exploration project, such as fewer drill holes. DEQ satisfied its alternatives obligation by considering alternative ways to respond to the application, including approval, approval with modifications, and denial.
6. Montana Code Annotated § 75-1-201(6)(c) and (d), which limit MEPA remedies to remand and prohibit injunctions or invalidation of permits during further review, are facially unconstitutional under Article II, Section 3, and Article IX, Section 1, of the Montana Constitution.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the environmental plaintiffs had standing to challenge DEQ's issuance of the exploration permit.
2. Whether DEQ was required to evaluate the environmental impacts of potential full-scale mining on adjacent federal lands.
3. Whether DEQ adequately analyzed the environmental impacts of expected access-road improvements.
4. Whether DEQ took the required hard look at water-quality issues.
5. Whether DEQ adequately analyzed alternatives to approving the exploration proposal under MEPA.
6. Whether Montana Code Annotated § 75-1-201(6)(c) and (d), which limit remedies for MEPA violations, violated the Montana Constitution.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded