Montana
Climate impact analysis procedures among recommendations in MEPA work group's report • Daily Montanan
The Montana Department of Environmental Quality and Environmental Quality Council might soon analyze climate impacts from energy projects in order to uphold Montanans’ constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment, according to draft recommendations from a workgroup.
The group of 20 people that are looking into ways to clarify and update the Montana Environmental Policy Act was convened in January by the Department of Environmental Quality and consists of lawmakers, energy industry representatives, environmental and conservation groups, tribes, environmental studies experts, and private citizens.
MEPA is a statute passed by Montana lawmakers in 1971 to ensure the legislature is fully considering the environmental impacts of state actions, and is passing laws that uphold the Montana Constitution’s protections of a clean and healthful environment and that the public is informed of them.
The work group’s task is to review how, and if, MEPA should be updated to clarify its role in both protecting the environment and permitting decisions, as well as to try to kickstart methods by which the DEQ can analyze greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts from projects while the Held v. Montana appeal is decided by the Montana Supreme Court this summer.
Last August, Judge Kathy Seeley found a legislative “limitation” to MEPA, which prohibited the state from considering greenhouse gas emissions or climate impacts when permitting energy and mining projects, was unconstitutional because it violated Montanans’ rights to a clean and healthful environment.
The DEQ released the working group’s 40-page draft report last week, and the full group met Wednesday in what was its second-to-last meeting to discuss the recommendations, voice any dissent, and suggest any final tweaks as the department finalizes the report next week. The full group is set to meet one final time on June 27 to sign off on the report.
“I think we’ve landed on a set of recommendations that really reflected the challenges that I feel in MEPA,” said DEQ Director Chris Dorrington. “I don’t agree with all the recommendations as they all come out, I’m just going to be honest. I think there are still things that are very challenging for the agency to both view and implement, and I think that’s fair, too.”
How the report will be utilized
The meeting showed some hardened divides – especially between conservation groups and energy groups – remain about MEPA’s role in the permitting process, how the courts have interpreted challenges under MEPA, how to best analyze emissions and climate impacts, whether the legislature is fulfilling its duties to the constitution and the environment, and what might become reality out from the recommendations.
The working group was divided into three subgroups — climate analysis, MEPA process and applicability, and public engagement and education. Each group developed a list of challenges that needed to be addressed and multiple recommendations on how to do so, which are compiled in the final report.
Subgroup recommends outline to perform climate analyses
MEPA and its underlying permitting statutes are key in determining whether some of the most controversial projects — including mines, power plants like the one NorthWestern Energy is building in Laurel, gravel pits, and wastewater pools — receive permits from the state based on their expected impacts to the environment and nearby residents.
The climate analysis subgroup’s challenge was finding a way for DEQ and other agencies to develop a short-term outline of how they could perform climate analyses in the MEPA process while the Held appeal is still pending and before the legislature convenes next January. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case on July 10.
The subgroup came up with two recommendations. The first says the DEQ should draft an interim study bill asking the Environmental Quality Council to look at different models to analyze climate impacts and a statutory framework that will hold up regardless of how the court rules in Held.
“While the Legislature will likely contemplate other MEPA legislation in 2025, this interim study can encourage legislators from both sides of the aisle to have an open mind and thoughtfully weigh the pros and cons to certain approaches on climate analysis,” the draft report says.
The second says DEQ should consider “the reasonably foreseeable (greenhouse gas) emissions of a proposed action” alongside a no-action alternative and “any reasonable alternatives.”
The draft report says the DEQ should assume that either part or all of Seeley’s decision in Held will be upheld by the Supreme Court and should take the time before the decision comes down to estimate costs of those analyses, how many employees it might need to perform them, and to study how other states or municipalities perform climate analyses.
But the report also notes there is disagreement about what type of climate analyses should be used by the state, a risk of litigation over which are chosen, and that the Republican-supermajority legislature – which strengthened the prohibition on climate analysis during last year’s session ahead of the Held trial – has “strong feelings” about climate analyses.
There was some disagreement about what the DEQ could do on its own without guidance from the legislature next year, and whether an interim study would be effective.
“I think we’re going to still be talking about climate analysis in two years, in four years, in 10 years. That doesn’t mean there won’t be action, but this won’t be decided on one point and then never discussed again,” Bennion said.
Report recommends more clarity on MEPA process for public
The public engagement, education and outreach subgroup found the department needed to better clarify for the public what type of public meetings should be held for various types of projects to cut down on confusion and set expectations from the beginning.
It also found that over the years, the legislature has not funded the EQC adequately enough to continue internal education and training on MEPA, nor updated resources for the public about how the process works. The group recommended adding at least one full-time staffer who could perform such work.
The group also recommended clarifying what type of comments the DEQ is asking for when it comes to the public review process and suggested building a clearinghouse of educational materials on MEPA on the DEQ’s website to make the laws more readily understandable.
The MEPA process and applicability subgroup found there needs to be a better public understanding of the types of actions, assessments, and reviews are required under MEPA.
Recommendation to re-organize MEPA statutes met with contention by some
But another subgroup also recommended the legislature re-organize the MEPA statutes “to clarify the legislative intent that MEPA is procedural, and distinctly different from the substantive statutes that regulate environmental impacts.”
For years conservation and environmental groups have argued whether MEPA has been about the procedures for permitting projects or meant to outline environmental policy.
“MEPA, neither in its original construction nor through amendment was ever intended to provide the substantive protections guaranteed in the Constitution; but rather to provide a transparent public process in which to analyze and disclose potential threats to the human environment,” the draft report says.
The subgroup also recommended that the legislature change the language of MEPA so it “clearly limits the ability of procedural challenges to hold up permits that could otherwise be issued.” It also recommends changing MEPA analyses so that they include “a balanced view of social, economic, and environmental impacts” – a nod to impacts businesses might face as permits are held up or denied.
The report notes some of the subgroup members disagreed about whether the legislature needed to re-write the laws, but Darryl James, a consultant for energy companies who co-led the subgroup, said the act should merely specify the procedures the agency must follow.
The Montana Environmental Information Center’s Anne Hedges told him the group would write a strong dissent to the recommendation and that she believed the group was attempting to re-write 25 years of case law and “trying to pretend those (court) decisions didn’t happen.”
Montana Trout Unlimited’s Clayton Elliott broke up the back-and-forth between the two by suggesting the work group should consider more public outreach before moving to have the legislature reorganize or re-write the laws.
“When I read your recommendation, it sort of seems like we’re pursuing the most aggressive treatment for the problem rather than starting with aspirin,” Elliott said.
James said he agreed more outreach should be the first step before putting pen to paper on those plans.
The work group will have to send their written dissents and opinions to DEQ by the end of the week for those to go into the final report, which will likely be released to the public by the end of next week.
The public comment portal for the draft report will remain open until June 17 for people to submit their own thoughts on the proposals, and the group is set to meet at 4 p.m. on June 27 to sign off on the report.
FINALDRAFT_Recommendations_Complete
Montana
Former Montana Heritage Commission director sentenced in embezzlement scheme
Former Montana Heritage Commission Executive Director Michael Elijah Allen was sentenced Thursday to 10-years in the Montana State Prison with seven years suspended for stealing public funds from the state agency charged with preserving some of Montana’s most significant historic sites.
Lewis and Clark County District Court Judge Kathy Seeley said she took no pleasure in imposing the sentence but told Allen he was the brains behind this operation of years of theft and fraud. On a count of theft by embezzlement as part of a common scheme, Seeley sentenced Allen to 10 years at the Montana State Prison with seven years suspended, and imposed a concurrent, fully suspended 14-year term on a felony money laundering count.
“You have destroyed yourself,” Seeley said. “You understand that. I hope you do. This is not anybody but you that did this.”
Allen was ordered to pay $280,000 in restitution to the Montana Heritage Commission, plus a 10% administrative fee, and a series of standard court costs and fees, including a presentence investigation fee and victim-witness surcharge. He received credit for eight days previously served in custody, from Dec. 27, 2024, through Jan. 3, 2025, and was barred from having contact with the Department of Commerce or related entities as he serves his sentence under conditions laid out in a plea agreement.
Prosecutors urged a stiffer punishment, asking the court to impose a 20-year prison sentence with 10 years suspended, arguing that Allen’s years-long scheme was a serious breach of public trust that demanded a lengthy custodial term. Deputy County Attorney Kevin Downs told the court that every defendant in similar embezzlement and financial-crimes cases submitted for comparison had received multi-year prison time and said a 10-year effective prison term was warranted to deter others from stealing public funds.
“He was the one that made this happen. He greased the wheels to steal from people,” Downs said. “This sentence sends a message to people. The people that work in any state agency, god forbid, that if you steal there will be significant consequence.”
Allen’s attorney asked Seeley for a lengthy but largely suspended sentence, arguing that a shorter period of incarceration — about two years, roughly double that imposed on co-defendant Casey Jack Steinke — would still hold Allen accountable while allowing him to work and pay restitution more quickly. The defense said Allen has suffered enough with the public humiliation and collateral consequences, including the loss of his career, voting rights and ability to serve on a jury or possess firearms.
Brenda Elias, chief legal counsel for the Montana Department of Commerce, told the court Allen had been a long-time state employee with significant autonomy as the Heritage Commission’s director and had been compensated for his work. She said Allen abused trust, manipulating people and resources.
“Hundreds of thousands of dollars that should have gone to preserve Montana’s heritage were diverted to Mr. Allen’s personal use,” Elias said.
Elias said Allen served as executive director from 2012 to 2024 and said the Heritage Commission has never been financially self-sufficient, relying heavily on bed tax revenue and other support from the Department of Commerce.
“The Heritage Commission continues to realize the impact of these crimes to this day, and it will take many years for the Commission to recover,” Elias said.
Detective Nathan Casey of the Helena Police Department, a veteran investigator in financial crimes, testified that he was contacted by Commerce employees in mid-2024 after they uncovered significant irregularities, prompting a wide-ranging probe. Casey said investigators ultimately reviewed roughly 744 pages of documents which included invoices, contracts and procurement justifications tied to a state-issued purchasing card controlled by Allen.
According to earlier court records, Allen used his position as head of the Heritage Commission to channel roughly $350,000 in commission funds to Steinke between 2020 and 2024, often through invoices for work that was not legitimately performed. In addition to those payments, investigators found evidence that Allen used public money to cover rent, educational expenses and other personal costs, and that Steinke lived rent-free in Reeder’s Alley, one of the commission’s historic properties, during the scheme.
Steinke, who was charged with accountability for theft by embezzlement and felony money laundering, previously pleaded guilty to one embezzlement-related charge and the money laundering count under a plea deal that called for prosecutors to recommend a 20-year prison sentence with 15 years suspended. As part of that agreement, Steinke agreed to pay $100,000 in restitution, including a $20,000 upfront payment at sentencing.
The embezzlement case comes as the Heritage Commission, which manages historic properties, is facing financial pressure. According to reporting from the Daily Montanan, the Commission is obligated to provide $1.1 million annually to the state but has only generated an average of about $750,000 in recent years, leaving less available for capital improvements than needed to maintain historic buildings.
Allen, 49, told the court he accepted full responsibility for his actions, saying he was ashamed and that the crimes were an aberration from how he had otherwise lived his life. He described the embarrassment his children have faced as his case played out publicly, and said he hopes to work and resume making restitution payments.
“I apologize to my friends and to my community,” Allen said. “I’m incredibly ashamed of the actions.”
Montana
Montana delegation backs bill to release wilderness study areas
Laura Lundquist
(Missoula Current) Most of Montana’s Congressional delegation is once again sponsoring a bill to remove three study areas from consideration as designated wilderness.
On Wednesday, Senators Steve Daines and Tim Sheehy and Rep. Troy Downing reintroduced Daines’ “Montana Sportsmen Conservation Act,” which would remove three wilderness study areas from wilderness consideration, releasing them to be managed as regular federal land. Rep. Ryan Zinke was not listed as a sponsor.
Two areas – the 11,580-acre Wales Creek and the 11,380-acre Hoodoo wilderness study areas managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management – are 40 to 50 miles east of Missoula in the Garnet Range north of Interstate 90. The third area, the much larger Middle Fork Judith wilderness study area, is around 81,000 acres managed by the U.S. Forest Service in the Little Belt Mountains southeast of Great Falls.
Daines previously introduced the Montana Sportsmen Conservation Act in 2023, but it was never heard in committee. Now, he’s bringing it forward again, and he explained his strangely titled bill in a press release Wednesday.
“As a lifelong sportsman, increasing access to Montana’s great outdoors is one of my top priorities. The ‘Montana Sportsmen Conservation Act’ promotes our outdoor way of life by returning restrictive WSA’s to general public land management, which will improve wildlife habitat restoration, reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires, and unlock better access to public land,” Daines said in the release.
It should be noted that neither hunting nor fishing are prohibited in wilderness study areas. In the past, sportsmen’s organizations have opposed the wholesale elimination of wilderness study areas. However, some have indicated they are considering the Wales Creek and Hoodoo areas could serve as political sacrifices to save other areas.
The wildfire risk in the Hoodoo area was significantly reduced this summer after the Windy Rock Fire burned a majority of the area.
Daines first proposed a similar bill – the Protect Public Use of Public Lands Act – in 2018 to release five Forest Service wilderness study areas, including the Middle Fork Judith. Former Rep. Greg Gianforte joined him but increased the number of wilderness study areas on the chopping block to 29, including those under BLM management. Both politicians had based their legislation off feedback from a select group of conservative counties and user groups, including the Montana Stockgrowers Association and the Montana Snowmobile Association. Other organizations protested the bills and the lack of transparency during the process.
This most recent bill is supported by the Montana Logging Association, Montana Snowmobiles Association, Montana Outfitters and Guides Association, Montana Farm Bureau Federation, Great Falls Bicycle Club and the Judith Basin and Powell county commissioners.
In 1976, the BLM established 38 wilderness study areas in Montana, including the Wales Creek and Hoodoo areas. In 1977, the Montana Wilderness Study Act set nine Forest Service study areas aside for wilderness consideration, including the Middle Fork Judith. Federal evaluations of the areas conducted during the 1980s concluded some areas, including the three being considered in the bill, weren’t suitable for wilderness designation.
This year’s bill cites the 2020 BLM Missoula Office Resource Management Plan as justification for eliminating the Wales Creek and Hoodoo wilderness study areas. The plan said the two areas were unsuitable for wilderness designation.
However, the plan was not developed during “a 5-year collaborative process,” as the bill claims, but under the direction of the first Trump administration, which ignored a lot of public comments made during scoping. The three resource management plans for Missoula, Lewistown and Miles City were scheduled to be released to the public in late 2018, but they were delayed when the three offices were required to send the drafts to Washington, D.C., for review and revision. When they were returned and published in May 2019, all three draft plans heavily emphasized natural resources extraction.
A Pew Charitable Trust review of six BLM resource management plans drafted in 2019 found all “would fail to conserve lands that the agency’s own research has deemed worthy of protection; cut decades-old safeguards; minimally protect a fraction of 1% of the areas found to contain wilderness characteristics; and open vast swaths of public lands to energy and mineral development.”
Several Montana conservation organizations protested the Montana plans, including Wild Montana and Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. When the draft plans were finalized in early 2020, some changes had been made to cater to sportsmen, but resource extraction still dominated. The Missoula Office’s new objective was to “produce the greatest quantities of forest products from vegetation restoration activities.”
The 2020 plans created a new designation – backcountry conservation area – that allows resource extraction but prioritizes the long-term maintenance of big game populations for hunting. The Missoula plan proposes to manage its three wilderness study areas as wilderness unless Congress releases them. Then, if Daines’ bill passes, portions of the wilderness study areas would become backcountry conservation areas: a 6,100-acre Hoodoos BCA and a 2,365-acre Wales BCA, according to the plan. The remainder of each area is open to any and all uses.
During the 2025 Legislature, the Senate Energy, Technology, and Federal Relations Committee voted 9-4 against a resolution calling on Congress to remove protection from Montana’s wilderness study areas. More than 3,300 Montanans signed a petition opposing the bill and supporting local solutions for study area management.
Some anticipate that more roads will invade wilderness study areas once they’re no longer protected. Zach Angstead, Wild Montana federal policy director, said Daines has countered those claims by saying the areas will still be protected under the Roadless Rule. But now, the Trump administration is on the verge of repealing the Roadless Rule, so that level of protection could disappear. And Daines strongly supports repeal of the Roadless Rule, according to a Dec. 5 email from a Daines spokesperson to the Flathead Beacon.
“Sen. Daines’ push to remove (wilderness study area) protections and roll back the Roadless Rule show that this isn’t about better local management – it’s about opening Montana’s public lands up to large-scale development to benefit corporations, not Montanans,” Angstead said in a statement. “Managing (wilderness study areas) properly requires local collaborative solutions developed by the people who know these places best. The people and the legislature have made it clear that Daines needs to give up this unpopular crusade to undermine and dismantle public lands and start taking his cues from real people who have been working to shape the future of (wilderness study areas).”
Contact reporter Laura Lundquist at lundquist@missoulacurrent.com.
Montana
Rare emergency alert issued as destructive windstorm batters Montana
The National Weather Service in Great Falls issued a rare civil emergency message on Wednesday, December 17, 2025, as a destructive windstorm pummeled Montana from one end of the state to the other, with some of the strongest gusts recorded in central Montana.
The weather service expected wind gusts greater than 90 mph in Pondera, Teton, and Lewis & Clark counties, prompting the emergency alert that activated the wireless emergency alert system to send warnings directly to cellphones.
Rare emergency alert issued as destructive windstorm batters Montana
“It can be used for weather or non-weather reasons. The primary reason why we deployed it today was to activate the wireless emergency alert system – WEA. That will allow these alerts to go to a person’s cellphone to take immediate action,” said Maura Casey, warning coordination meteorologist with the National Weather Service.
The civil emergency message was the first issued by the weather service since December 2020, during a similar wind and dust storm between Great Falls and Havre. The National Weather Service coordinates with county emergency managers to decide when to issue this rare alert.
What made Wednesday’s event particularly widespread was its prolonged nature and the strength of the accompanying cold front.
“This belt of wind came from the west and with how strong the cold front was accompanying it, it was able to reach down to the surface. What makes this event unique is it’s more of a prolonged wind event. It’s the entire day that we’re experiencing these strong winds,” Casey said.
The windstorm didn’t just hit the plains. Some typically protected mountain valleys experienced destructive wind gusts, with 70 to 80 mph gusts recorded in the Helena and Gallatin valleys.
“The more complex topography make it a little bit difficult south of Great Falls. In this case, because we had that belt of winds that came right over Helena and Bozeman – they essentially had a closer access to that wind,” Casey said.
The powerful winds toppled semi trucks and trees across the region, and knocked out electricity to tens of thousands of people across the state.
Windstorm damage across Montana
The destructive winds stem from an extremely active weather pattern that has been pummeling the Pacific Northwest with flooding rains, heavy mountain snow and high winds.
“We remain in the same very active Pacific weather pattern. While we have high confidence – maybe not as strong as today- but we will get more wind events in the coming weeks,” Casey said.
The weather service recommends staying prepared by keeping up with the latest forecast, especially given the active pattern that doesn’t appear to be going anywhere anytime soon.
This article has been lightly edited with the assistance of AI for clarity, syntax, and grammar.
-
Iowa4 days agoAddy Brown motivated to step up in Audi Crooks’ absence vs. UNI
-
Washington1 week agoLIVE UPDATES: Mudslide, road closures across Western Washington
-
Iowa6 days agoHow much snow did Iowa get? See Iowa’s latest snowfall totals
-
Maine3 days agoElementary-aged student killed in school bus crash in southern Maine
-
Maryland4 days agoFrigid temperatures to start the week in Maryland
-
Technology1 week agoThe Game Awards are losing their luster
-
South Dakota5 days agoNature: Snow in South Dakota
-
Nebraska1 week agoNebraska lands commitment from DL Jayden Travers adding to early Top 5 recruiting class

