Mont. Code Ann. § 75-1-201

(iv) A customer fiscal impact analysis pursuant to 69-2-216 or an allegation that the customer fiscal impact analysis is inadequate may not be used as the basis of an action challenging or seeking review of the agency's decision.

(1) The legislature authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent possible:

(a) under this part, all agencies the of policies, regulations, and the laws of state, except the state must be interpreted legislature and administered except as provided in accordance with the policies set forth

(i) use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach that will ensure:

(A) the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and assessing a state-sponsored project that may have an impact on Montana's environment by projects in Montana; and

(B) that in any environmental review that is not subject to subsection (1)(a)(iv), when an agency considers alternatives, the alternative analysis must be in compliance with the provisions of subsections (1)(a)(iv)(C)(I) and (1)(a)(iv)(C)(II) and, if requested by the project sponsor or if determined by the agency to be necessary, subsection (1)(a)(iv)(C)(III);

(ii) identify and develop methods and procedures that ensure that presently unquantified environmental amenities may be given appropriate consideration and assessment for state-sponsored projects;

(iii) identify and develop methods and procedures that ensure that state government actions that may impact Montana's environment are evaluated for regulatory restrictions on private property, as provided in subsection (1)(a)(iv)(D);

(iv) include in each recommendation or report on proposals for projects, programs, and other major actions of state government significantly affecting the quality of Montana's environment a detailed statement on:

(A) the proximate environmental impacts of the proposed action;

(B) any proximate adverse effects on Montana's environment that cannot be avoided if the proposed action is implemented;

(C) alternatives to the proposed action. An analysis of any alternative included in the environmental review must comply with the following criteria:

(I) any alternative proposed must be reasonable, in that the alternative must be achievable under current technology and the alternative must be economically feasible as determined solely by the economic viability for similar projects having similar conditions and physical locations and determined without regard to the economic strength of the specific project sponsor;

(II) the agency proposing the alternative shall consult with the project sponsor regarding any proposed alternative, and the agency shall give due weight and consideration to the project sponsor's comments regarding the proposed alternative;

(III) the agency shall complete a meaningful no-action alternative analysis. The no-action alternative analysis must include the projected beneficial and adverse environmental, social, and economic impact of the project's noncompletion.

(D) any regulatory impacts on private property rights, including whether alternatives that reduce, minimize, or eliminate the regulation of private property rights have been analyzed. The analysis in this subsection (1)(a)(iv)(D) need not be prepared if the proposed action does not involve the regulation of private property.

(E) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the proposed action if it is implemented;

(F) the customer fiscal impact analysis, if required by 69-2-216; and

(G) the details of the beneficial aspects of the proposed project, both short-term and long-term, and the economic advantages and disadvantages of the proposal;

(v) in accordance with the criteria set forth in subsection (1)(a)(iv)(C), study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommend courses of action in any proposal that involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. If the alternatives analysis is conducted for a project that is not a state-sponsored project and alternatives are recommended, the project sponsor may volunteer to implement the alternative. The alternatives analysis or the resulting recommendations may not bind the project sponsor to take a recommended course of action.

(vi) make available to counties, municipalities, institutions, and individuals advice and information useful in restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the quality of Montana's environment;

(vii) initiate and use ecological information in the planning and development of resource-oriented projects; and

(viii) assist the legislature and the environmental quality council established by 5-16-101;

(b) all agencies of the state, except the legislature and except prior to making any detailed statement as provided in subsection (2), shall: (1)(a)(iv), the responsible state official shall consult with and request the comments of any state agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in Montana and with any Montana local government, as defined in 7-12-1103, that may be directly impacted by the project. The responsible state official shall also consult with and request comments from any state agency in Montana with respect to any regulation of private property involved. Copies of the statement and the comments of the appropriate state, federal, and local agencies that are authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards must be made available to the governor, the environmental quality council, and the public and must accompany the proposal through the existing agency review processes.

(i) use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach that will ensure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decisionmaking that may have an impact on the human environment;

(ii) identify and develop methods and procedures that will ensure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decisionmaking, along with economic and technical considerations;

(iii) identify and develop methods and procedures that will ensure that state government actions that may impact the human environment are evaluated for regulatory restrictions on private property, as provided in subsection (1)(b)(iv)(D);

(iv) include in each recommendation or report on proposals for projects, programs, and other major actions of state government significantly affecting the quality of the human environment a detailed statement on:

(A) the environmental impact of the proposed action;

(B) any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposal is implemented;

(C) alternatives to the proposed action;

(D) any regulatory impacts on private property rights, including whether alternatives that reduce, minimize, or eliminate the regulation of private property rights have been analyzed. The analysis in this subsection (1)(b)(iv)(D) need not be prepared if the proposed action does not involve the regulation of private property.

(E) the relationship between local short-term uses of the human environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and

(F) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the proposed action if it is implemented;

(ix) assist the environmental quality council established by 5-16-101;

(v) study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommend courses of action in any proposal that involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources;

(vi) recognize the national and long-range character of environmental problems and, when consistent with the policies of the state, lend appropriate support to initiatives, resolutions, and programs designed to maximize national cooperation in anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality of the world environment;

(vii) make available to counties, municipalities, institutions, and individuals advice and information useful in restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the quality of the environment;

(viii) initiate and use ecological information in the planning and development of resource-oriented projects; and

(c) prior to making any detailed statement as provided a transfer of an ownership interest in subsection (1)(b)(iv), the responsible state official shall consult with and obtain the comments of any a lease, permit, license, certificate, state agency that has jurisdiction by or law other entitlement for use or special expertise with respect permission to any environmental impact involved. The responsible state official shall also consult act by an agency, either singly or in combination with and obtain comments from any other state agency with respect to any regulation of private property involved. Copies of the statement and agencies, does not trigger review under subsection (1)(a)(iv) if there is not a material change in terms or conditions the of comments and views of the appropriate state, federal, and local agencies that are authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards entitlement or unless otherwise provided by law. must be made available to the governor, the environmental quality council, and the public and must accompany the proposal through the existing agency review processes.

(d) a transfer of an ownership interest in a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use or permission to act by an agency, either singly or in combination with other state agencies, does not trigger review under subsection (1)(b)(iv) if there is not a material change in terms or conditions of the entitlement or unless otherwise provided by law.

(2) The department of public service regulation, in the exercise of its regulatory authority over rates and charges of railroads, motor carriers, and public utilities, is exempt from the provisions of parts 1 through 3.

(2) (a) An environmental review conducted pursuant to subsection (1) may include a greenhouse gas assessment subject to 75-1-211. The department of environmental quality shall develop a guidance document for use by state agencies to determine when a greenhouse gas assessment may be necessary. The guidance must include direction on methodologies for completing a greenhouse gas assessment. Prior to finalizing this guidance, the department shall provide public notice of the draft guidance and allow for public comment.

(b) An environmental review conducted pursuant to subsection (1) may include an evaluation of the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of a proposed action if conducted jointly by a state agency and a federal agency to the extent the review of the expanded assessment is required by the federal agency.

(3) The department of public service regulation, in the exercise of its regulatory authority over rates and charges of railroads, motor carriers, and public utilities, is exempt from the provisions of parts 1 through 3.

(3) (a) In any action challenging or seeking review of an agency's decision that a statement pursuant to subsection (1)(b)(iv) is not required or that the statement is inadequate, the burden of proof is on the person challenging the decision. Except as provided in subsection (3)(b), in a challenge to the adequacy of a statement, a court may not consider any issue or evidence that was not first presented to the agency for the agency's consideration prior to the agency's decision. A court may not set aside the agency's decision unless it finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that the decision was arbitrary or capricious or not in compliance with law.

(b) When new, material, and significant evidence is presented to the district court that had not previously been presented to the agency for its consideration, the district court shall remand the new evidence back to the agency for the agency's consideration and an opportunity to modify its findings of fact and administrative decision before the district court considers the evidence within the administrative record under review. Immaterial or insignificant evidence may not be remanded to the agency. The district court shall review the agency's findings and decision to determine whether they are supported by substantial, credible evidence within the administrative record under review.

(4) (a) (i) A challenge to an agency's environmental review under this part may only be brought against a state action approved in a final decision document and may only be brought in district court or in federal court, whichever is appropriate. A challenge may only be brought by a person who submits formal comments on the agency's environmental review prior to the issuance of the agency's final decision document, and the challenge must be limited to those issues raised in those comments.

(b) Any action or proceeding under subsection (4)(a)(ii) must take precedence over other cases or matters in the district court unless otherwise provided by law.

(c) Any judicial action or proceeding brought in district court under subsection (4)(a) involving an equine slaughter or processing facility must comply with 81-9-240 and 81-9-241.

(5) (a) (i) In an action alleging noncompliance or inadequate compliance with a requirement of parts 1 through 3, including a challenge to an agency's decision that an environmental review is not required or a claim that the environmental review is inadequate, the agency shall compile and submit to the court the certified record of its decision at issue. The agency, prior to submitting the certified record to the court, shall assess and collect from the person challenging the decision a fee to pay for actual costs to compile and submit the certified record. Except as provided in subsection (5)(b), the person challenging the decision has the burden of proving the claim by clear and convincing evidence contained in the record.

(b) (i) When a party challenging the decision or the adequacy of the environmental review or decision presents information not in the record certified by the agency, the challenging party shall certify under oath in an affidavit that the information is new, material, and significant evidence that was not publicly available before the agency's decision and that is relevant to the decision or the adequacy of the agency's environmental review.

(ii) If on reviewing the affidavit the court finds that the proffered information is new, material, and significant evidence that was not publicly available before the agency's decision and that is relevant to the decision or to the adequacy of the agency's environmental review, the court shall remand the new evidence to the agency for the agency's consideration and an opportunity to modify its decision or environmental review before the court considers the evidence as a part of the administrative record under review.

(iii) If the court finds that the information in the affidavit does not meet the requirements of subsection (5)(b)(i), the court may not remand the matter to the agency or consider the proffered information in making its decision.

(c) (i) The remedies provided in this section for successful challenges to a decision of the agency or the adequacy of the statement are exclusive.

(ii) If the court finds that noncompliance has occurred with parts 1 through 3, the court may remand the matter to the agency to correct the noncompliance.

(iii) Notwithstanding the provisions of 27-19-201 and 27-19-314, a court having considered the pleadings of parties and intervenors opposing a request for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, permanent injunction, vacatur, or other equitable relief may not enjoin, void, nullify, revoke, modify, or suspend the issuance or effectiveness of a license or permit or a part of a license or permit issued pursuant to Title 75 or Title 82 unless the court specifically finds that the party requesting the relief is more likely than not to prevail on the merits of its complaint given the uncontroverted facts in the record and applicable law and, in the absence of a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, a permanent injunction, vacatur, or other equitable relief, that the:

(A) party requesting the relief will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the relief;

(B) issuance of the relief is in the public interest. In determining whether the grant of the relief is in the public interest, a court:

(I) may not consider the legal nature or character of any party; and

(II) shall consider the implications of the relief on the local and state economy and make written findings with respect to both.

(C) relief is as narrowly tailored as the facts allow to address both the alleged noncompliance and the irreparable harm the party asking for the relief will suffer. In tailoring the relief, the court shall ensure, to the extent possible, that the project or as much of the project as possible can go forward while also providing the relief to which the applicant has been determined to be entitled.

(d) The court may issue a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, permanent injunction, or other injunctive relief only if the party seeking the relief provides a written undertaking to the court in an amount reasonably calculated by the court as adequate to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party that may be found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained by a court through a subsequent judicial decision in the case, including but not limited to lost wages of employees and lost project revenues for 1 year. If the party seeking an injunction or a temporary restraining order objects to the amount of the written undertaking for any reason, including but not limited to its asserted inability to pay, that party shall file an affidavit with the court that states the party's income, assets, and liabilities in order to facilitate the court's consideration of the amount of the written undertaking that is required. The affidavit must be served on the party enjoined. An injunction may only be issued if the challenger:

(i) proves there is a likelihood of succeeding on the merits;

(ii) proves there is a violation of an established law or regulation on which the lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement or authority is based; and

(iii) subject to the demonstration of the inability to pay, posts the appropriate written undertaking.

(e) An individual or entity seeking a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement or authority to act may intervene in a lawsuit in court challenging a decision or statement by a department or agency of the state as a matter of right if the individual or entity has not been named as a defendant.

(f) Attorney fees or costs may not be awarded to the prevailing party in an action alleging noncompliance or inadequate compliance with a requirement of parts 1 through 3.

(6) For the purposes of judicial review, to the extent that the requirements of this section are inconsistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, the requirements of this section apply to an environmental review or any severable portion of an environmental review within the state's jurisdiction that is being prepared by a state agency pursuant to this part in conjunction with a federal agency proceeding pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.

(7) The director of the agency responsible for the determination or recommendation shall endorse in writing any determination of significance made under subsection (1)(a)(iv) or any recommendation that a determination of significance be made.

(8) A project sponsor may request a review of the significance determination or recommendation made under subsection (7) by the appropriate board, if any. The appropriate board may, at its discretion, submit an advisory recommendation to the agency regarding the issue. The period of time between the request for a review and completion of a review under this subsection may not be included for the purposes of determining compliance with the time limits established for environmental review in 75-1-208.

General directions -- – environmental impact statements