MSWD Secures MEPA win in gallatin gateway
On December 23, 2025, the Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court (Gallatin County) issued an order resolving cross-motions for summary judgment in Gateway Conservation Alliance v. Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Cause No. DV-2024-452A. The case challenges DEQ’s approval of a standard opencut mining permit for an operation referred to as the “Black Site” along Highway 191, and DEQ’s issuance of a final Environmental Assessment (EA) under the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) on the same date as the permit approval.
Gateway Conservation Alliance (GCA)—represented by Rob Farris-Olsen and Kim Wilson of Morrison Sherwood Wilson Deola (MSWD)—moved for summary judgment arguing, among other things, that DEQ’s MEPA process violated the Montana Constitution’s right of public participation and the right to a clean and healthful environment, and that DEQ should have been required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). DEQ and the intervenor-defendant, TMC, Inc., opposed those claims and filed their own summary-judgment arguments.
A central factual issue addressed in the order is the sequence and timing of public involvement. The court recounts that a large public meeting occurred on July 25, 2023, with extensive community participation and substantive concerns raised (air quality, noise, water, traffic, wildlife, and related impacts). The court also notes that GCA’s counsel requested issuance of a draft EA and an opportunity to comment, and that DEQ ultimately issued a final EA while “effectively” ending public comment when it released the EA and permit.
In its legal analysis, the court focuses on ARM 17.4.610, the rule governing public review of EAs. It rejects DEQ’s position that the rule did not require a draft EA/comment process here, explaining that the rule’s structure and mandatory language (“shall consider” substantive comments received “in response to an EA”) require meaningful public review tied to the EA itself, scaled to the seriousness of impacts and public interest. The court further concludes that MEPA’s “to the fullest extent possible” directive is not a license to minimize participation, and it is not displaced simply because the Opencut Mining Act includes compressed permit-review timelines.
The order’s bottom-line ruling grants GCA’s motion for summary judgment on its Second Claim for Relief, holding that DEQ violated MEPA’s public participation requirement.