Been there -- Done that…

Summary of Joint Meeting

Meeting held at Montana Tech on June 24, 2009

Attending were representatives of Move MSTI, Northwest Energy, DEQ, BLM, Forest Service, Rehberg’s office, Department of Commerce, and the Governor’s office.

Mike Cashell, NWE, opened the meeting and did introductions

Discussion followed about where we are in the process.

PBS&J brought a new and better map, which many attendees looked at.  Discussion followed about local routing options in response to specific landowners’ concerns.

DEQ indicated that they are looking at routing options in the Fairmont area and are continuing to assess the “northern route” from Townsend to Mill Creek.

They specified that local routing options are a collective decision by DEQ, NWE, and PBS&J.

DEQ was asked to verify that they are continuing to accept and consider public comment.  Their response was that they are accepting letters, but that the later we go in the process, the less time is available to look at comments.  They also pointed out that if the comments are restating previously raised concerns, there is little reason to go through those again.  However, it became clear that unless the agencies have heard from a specific landowner, their assumption is that the landowner is fine with the project as is.

The conversation moved to how siting decisions are made.  DEQ offered a long discourse on looking at impacts on various types of land.  The question was posed, “How do you balance a private landowner’s livelihood, property value, and potentially their life against things like Sage Grouse habitat, bears, and Pygmy Rabbits?”  They had no clear answer.

After lengthy discussion about local routing options and landowners’ rights, the conversation focused on the stated mission of Move MSTI, which is to see the entire MSTI project sited on public land.  Documents from the application were produced to establish that BLM, Forest Service, and other agencies had expressed their opinions that they did not want the project two years ago on public lands.  Forest Service initially denied having said anything of the kind, until the letters were read and the names of those signing were specified.

We brought up the Federal Mandate instructing the agencies to develop National Energy Corridors on public land.  After repeated questions  on our part, it became clear that the agency reps took the mandate to mean – use present corridors where there are power lines (which mainly cross private land), and if those present corridors happen to cross public land, designate that piece as part of the National Energy Corridor.  The result has been that BLM has set aside substantial land, but Forest Service has designated only a few tiny areas.

We restated our position that it is likely that more transmission line projects will be coming, which makes it vital that these corridors be established on public land in preparation for future projects.  We mentioned the Chinook project being in the application process.  Tom Ring denied that the application has started (the Chinook project appears on the DEQ website) but he knew the power company, TransCanada, was interviewing companies to write their application for the MFSA.  Tom Ring also turned to NWE and asked them if they had any other projects in the early application process, and they said they did not.  We asked instead, “Can you guarantee that NWE will never build another transmission line?”  Of course they said they could not make that guarantee.  Our response, “Exactly, which is why we need to plan ahead and get this done right.”

After further lengthy discussion, Mike Cashell stated that “We get it.  We understand that you want to see this project sited on public land.”  Those attending stated that they hadn’t previously understood that anyone wanted that to happen (which is interesting, because all of our letters that they were supposedly considering have stated that specifically).

After more discussion, Mike Cashell, along with other NWE reps, proposed that those present get together in a working group to assess options for siting on public land.  DEQ, PBS&J and BLM readily agreed.  Forest Service reluctantly agreed and started pointing out all the areas on Forest Service that could not be used for a variety of reasons, and how difficult it would be if anything that is asked for affects the Forest Service Plan.

We asked if one person from Move MSTI could attend the working group as an observer only.  NWE, DEQ, and PBS&J seemed willing to have that happen.  BLM reluctantly agreed.  Forest Service strongly rejected the idea, referring to some sort of regulation.  That seemed to surprise the other agencies, but they went along with the Forest Service opposition.

The meeting wound down after that, with Mike Cashell stating that the working group would get together (with the Forest Service making sure that everyone knew how busy they were and how difficult it would be for them to set aside time since they had 64 appeals to the FS plan) and would get back to us with a working proposal at a public meeting.  DEQ asked for clarification that it was acceptable to delay the Draft EIS in order to consider these new routing options.  NWE reps (Mike Cashell, Rick Walsh, and Tom Pancrantz) stated that they would accept the delay in order to pursue this process.  

PBS&J representative Paul Callahan said they would 1. Run a Fatal Flaw Analysis 2. Come up with a line on public land 3. Meet with the Forest Service

DEQ said they would look at original corridors and try to find public land options. The department would also look at new additional routes from Mill Creek to Idaho border and they could work effectively with the Forest Service.