In 1992, the Montana Department of State Lands (DEQ’s predecessor) was considering a permit for the expansion of GSM. During the review of the permit application all of DSL’s technical staff signed a memo that said (in part):

Despite these concerns, DSL granted GSM its expansion permit without any environmental review. Based on DSL’s failure to require an adequate reclamation plan or produce an environmental impact statement analyzing such a plan, MEIC, National Wildlife Federation, Gallatin Wildlife Association, and Mineral Policy Center (now called Earthworks) sued the State seeking the cancellation of the expansion permit.

In August 1994, while still awaiting the outcome of this lawsuit, an event happened at the mine that might have been foreseen had an environmental review been conducted. The earth began to move, literally, beneath the mine. The weight of millions of tons of waste rock in the mine’s dumps began to move the very earth beneath the site. At the mine’s mill site, a crack more than two feet wide opened up in the ground. The mine had to close for a period of time. This unexpected event leant further credence to MEIC’s contention that not enough analysis had been done of the operation.

Finally, in December 1994, Helena district court judge Thomas Honzel ruled that, “a reclamation plan is constitutionally required for open pit mines.” He further stated: “MEPA [the law which requires environmental review of permitting decisions] does not permit this kind of approve now, ask questions later approach to environmental decision making.”

"This decision affirmed MEIC’s position that a mining company cannot simply leave an open pit behind after it is finished mining. Article IX, section 2 of the Montana Constitution requires that “all lands disturbed by the taking of natural resources shall be reclaimed.” That wording clearly requires the reclamation of open pits.

Given that it’s been more than twelve years since Judge Honzel’s decision, one would think a plan must have been implemented requiring reclamation of GSM’s pit. That’s not the case. After the 1994 decision, the legislature twice passed laws defining “reclamation” in such a way that GSM could escape having to reclaim. Both times, Judge Honzel ruled that the new laws failed to pass constitutional muster.

While all this wrangling was going on over the meaning of the word “reclamation,” DEQ (formerly DSL) finally issued an environmental impact statement for GSM’s expansion in 1998. The EIS found that a reclamation alternative known as the “partial pit backfill alternative” was the environmentally preferable one. Remarkably, DEQ did not require GSM to implement this alternative, and instead permitted the “pit pond alternative.” DEQ approved this alternative because it allowed GSM a greater profit than the partial pit backfill alternative.

Again MEIC and the other groups challenged the State’s decision, and again Judge Honzel ruled in MEIC’s favor. Judge Honzel said: “There is nothing in the constitution or the MMRA which allows a reclamation decision to be based on a threshold determination of whether a mine operator will make a profit.” Judge Honzel ordered DEQ to “immediately implement” the partial pit backfill alternative.

Now one might think that “immediately implement” meant that DEQ was supposed to put the partial pit backfill alternative in place right away. DEQ had a different interpretation. It decided “immediately implement” meant it needed to produce another EIS examining reclamation alternatives for GSM.

On August 17, 2007, DEQ released its record of decision (ROD) on amending the reclamation plan of the open pit gold mine operated by Golden Sunlight Mines, Inc.  The DEQ  selected the "Underground Sump Alternative" with specific
stipulations. Under this alternative, the pit will not be backfilled.

MEIC has maintained a consistent position throughout this saga. First, DEQ must abide by Article IX, section 2 of the Montana Constitution and ensure that GSM is reclaimed. Second, no matter which reclamation plan is ultimately selected, it must be real reclamation that adequately protects Montana’s environment. That is the perspective MEIC will use to decide if it is necessary to go to court once again.