Public Comment. Volume III - Montana Legislature

More documents

Recommendations

Info

'. ATTACHMENT A 'VIBRATION AND IMPACT STUDIES PROPOSED TONGUE RIVER RAILROAD EASEMENT MILES CITY FISH HATCHERY -234- Volume Ill: Public Comment
Vibration and Impact Studies Suggested Study Plan to Evaluate Potential Biological Impacts of Tongue River Railroad to the Miles City Fish Hatchery Background Tongue River Railroad Company (TRRC) is proposing to construct and operate a 120 mile railroad (TRR) that links into the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad at ' Miles City and extends in a southerly direction along the Tongue River to Decker, Montana. The primary purpose of the link is to transport coal from the Tongue River coal region to electric power plants in the Midwest (Radian, 1998). With full development of mines in this area this will result in at least 12 train movements per day on the rail line (6 round trip coal trains). Every train will have approximately 1 13 coal cars that each carry 1 17 tons of coal (1 3,200 tons per train) (Radian, 1998) The proposed railroad will pass along the east side of the Miles City Fish Hatchery (MCFH). This hatchery is owned and operated by Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MT DFWP); hence the state of Montana must grant TRRC an easement to cross state lands. As a condition for granting an easement, MT DFWP will require studies to hlly identify impacts of the project, and will require full mitigation of these impacts. TRRC developed a study to assess the potential vibration effects of the TRR on hatchery operations (Womack and Associates- WAI - 1998). This study called for geotechnical analysis of soil types, movement and analysis of vibration, soil chemistry analysis, and evaluation of the potential effects of these factors on fish production. WAI conducted a literature review and consulted with fisheries experts regarding expected impacts. WAI also predicted vibration levels on-site and compared these with "threshold values" associated with adverse effects to fish. This report was received by the state in March of 1999. MT DFWP does not believe this study addressed all the potential project-related impacts (Bertellotti 1998, Peterson 1999). For example, WAI 's literature review contained studies that address avoidance responses of fish to vibrations, rather than the physiological effects on sensitive life stages and spawning and feeding behavior (Popper and Carlson 1998). This is because there is little, if any, existing information on vibration effects to fish in captive (closed system culture) situations where the fish are unable to avoid these conditions. In addition, studies &om this review, are not predictive of impacts to MCFH because of differences in species, physical environment, and processes associated with hatchery operations. WAIYstudy did not address vibration effects to egg/fry sunrival, forage species (plankton), feeding behavior, fish physiology, cumulative effects of elevated train traffic (Popper, personal communication, 1999); or other potential impacts resulting from herbicide use, coal dust, interruption of water supplies, derailments, or other detrimental conditions that may occur. The lack of biological information beyond anecdotal references weakens the WAI study's applicability to the MCFH situation, and was the impetus for the inclusion of this study request. EQC Eminent Domain Study -235-
Page 1 and 2:
Public Benefits and Private Rights:
Page 3 and 4:
Helena Public Hearing. December 1.
Page 5 and 6:
The Eminent Domain Subcommittee (Su
Page 7 and 8:
The location of the right-of-way of
Page 9 and 10:
land to locate the pipeline. She ad
Page 11 and 12:
in a case in Illinois a pipeline wa
Page 13 and 14:
REP. MCGEE questioned who would pay
Page 15 and 16:
PUBI-IC COMMENT - BILLINGS Dena Hof
Page 17 and 18:
use the power of eminent domain sho
Page 19 and 20:
were no answers provided. 'The Legi
Page 21 and 22:
telecorr~munication lines, and rail
Page 23 and 24:
EMINENT DOMAIN DRAFT STUDY REPORT P
Page 25 and 26:
certain criteria for State and Fede
Page 27 and 28:
Exhibit 6 from last meeting -- Requ
Page 29 and 30:
circumstances, which is exactly wha
Page 31 and 32:
ight to all of the surface damage p
Page 33 and 34:
I support eminent domain reform. I
Page 35 and 36:
of Property" should also be rejecte
Page 37 and 38:
that only a very few condem~iations
Page 39 and 40:
approved use, the bill should requi
Page 41 and 42:
While we don't believe this legisla
Page 43 and 44:
projects delayed it is the citizens
Page 45 and 46:
the subcommittee have been clear th
Page 47 and 48:
Cenex supports the findings and rec
Page 49 and 50:
up front. State and federal governm
Page 51 and 52:
Cenex supports the findings and rec
Page 53 and 54:
draft legislation, which does the f
Page 55 and 56:
-The "Necessity/Public Interest" is
Page 57 and 58:
I support eminent domain reform. I
Page 59 and 60:
e used as a guide to better underst
Page 61 and 62:
MEIC's testimony at the December 1,
Page 63 and 64:
Northern Plains Resource Council Ma
Page 65 and 66:
BROWN LAW F w P.C. Page 2 April 1 1
Page 67 and 68:
BROWN hw P.C. Page 4 April 1 1, 200
Page 69 and 70:
Page 2 March 3 1. 1000 3. Yearly fe
Page 71 and 72:
Montana Environmental Quality Counc
Page 73 and 74:
The five eminent domain reform bill
Page 75 and 76:
Lee, Krista From: 3ent: To: Subject
Page 77 and 78:
mlt~ Montana Independent Telecommun
Page 79:
THE .. *I& i k end o* CQALITBON Jan
Page 82 and 83:
knowledgeable buyer will pay and a
Page 84 and 85:
volume gasoline pipelines at the ti
Page 86 and 87:
January 23, 2000 Krista Lee Environ
Page 88 and 89:
3. The land value be based on whate
Page 90 and 91:
NFW SECTION, Section 1. Limitation
Page 92 and 93:
Memorandum TO: Aaron Browning FROM:
Page 94 and 95:
MEMORANDUM MONTANA DEP~TMENT OF '+
Page 96 and 97:
v 6 - c U :Preferable, maybe. Desir
Page 98 and 99:
Public water supply wells susceptib
Page 100 and 101:
Lee, Krista From: Alan Roiston [ala
Page 102 and 103:
11. Whether a condemning corporatio
Page 104 and 105:
BULL MOUNTAIN LANDOWNERS ASSOCIATIO
Page 106 and 107:
APR- 3-00 MON 1145 PM THE PRINTERY
Page 108 and 109:
. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
Page 110 and 111:
Environmental Quality Council March
Page 112 and 113:
Northern Plains Resource Council Ma
Page 114 and 115:
These examples illustrate that clea
Page 116 and 117:
is not already appropriated to some
Page 118 and 119:
Schoro v. Anaconda Co., 187 Mont. 3
Page 120 and 121:
the abuse. But the changes being co
Page 122 and 123:
DM1 ASPEN BOWER - COLORADO SPRIIUq
Page 124 and 125:
HOLLAND & HART ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
Page 126 and 127:
Environmental Quality Council April
Page 128 and 129:
GOVERNOR SI.ARC R\CICOT HOCSE SIESI
Page 130 and 131:
ROCKER SIX CAlTLE CO. HC 84 BOX 205
Page 132 and 133:
Hi Krista, This letter is in regard
Page 134 and 135:
NA COAL COUNCIL 01 COLONIAL DRIVE H
Page 136 and 137:
03/31/00 FRI 11:18 FAX 1 406 761 83
Page 138 and 139:
BROWNING, KALECZYC, BERRY & HOVEN,
Page 140 and 141:
EQC Eminent Domain Subcommittee-Pub
Page 142 and 143:
No matter what. No criteria is appl
Page 144 and 145:
On the issue of the use of taken la
Page 146 and 147:
3UDcommlttee-Pu blic Hearing WALLAC
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
h.VC Lvl~ll~ent Oun~will Subcummitt
Page 156 and 157:
1. hcgv Conservation. (Using less e
Page 158 and 159:
In conclusion, it is important to r
Page 160 and 161:
changed. Thosc who seek to condemn
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
*.I - EQC Eminent Domain Subcommitt
Page 166 and 167:
ights-of-way along with other uses,
Page 168 and 169:
STANDARD CORM 199 Pr*9c*bd by DOz/U
Page 170 and 171:
Other exemptions, waivers, or reduc
Page 172 and 173:
-168- Volume Ill: Public Comment U.
Page 174 and 175:
Ensuring just compensation: In most
Page 176 and 177:
company by statute, in order to obt
Page 178 and 179:
Crude Oil and Petroleum Products Pi
Page 180 and 181:
Mitigation Measures #2 (State and F
Page 182 and 183:
Burden of Proof EQC Eminent Domain
Page 184 and 185:
EQC Eminent Domain subcommittee May
Page 186 and 187:
TABLE OF CONTENTS . Section Page 10
Page 188 and 189: PROPOSED MASTER MITIGATION POLICY.
Page 190 and 191: DRAFT, 4/9/8 5 Indirect .land loss,
Page 192 and 193: DRAFT, 4/ 9/8 5 (5) Impacts During
Page 194 and 195: DRAFT, 4/9/85 the possibility of es
Page 196 and 197: DRAFT, 4/9/85 21) LARRS requests th
Page 198 and 199: DRAFT, 4/9/85 11 impacted communiti
Page 200 and 201: DRAFT, 4/9/85 13 appropriate . agen
Page 202 and 203: DRAFT, 4/9/85 ( 2 Strict speed limi
Page 204 and 205: DRAFT, 4/9/85 (5) A program of nois
Page 206 and 207: DRAFT, 4/ 9/ 8 5 b, Local. ambulanc
Page 208 and 209: DRAFT, 4/9/85 21 tion and operation
Page 210 and 211: DRAFT, 4/ 9/ 8 5 23 ces . These per
Page 212 and 213: DRAFT, 4/9/85 (a) quality (b) formi
Page 214 and 215: DRAFT, 4/9/85 27 tify new winter ra
Page 216 and 217: DRAFT, 4/9/85 29 of these individua
Page 218 and 219: DRAFT, 4/9/85 2. Topsoil should.. b
Page 220 and 221: DRAFT, 4/ 9/8 5 33 district ;would.
Page 222 and 223: DRAFT, 4/ 9/ 8 5 - and/or operation
Page 224 and 225: EQC Eminent Domain Subcommittee May
Page 226 and 227: Miles City Fish Hatchery Impact Ana
Page 228 and 229: Impact Analysis Studies and Propose
Page 240 and 241: Study Plan Page 2 . As a condition
Page 242 and 243: Study Plan Page 4 Lab Tests -Target
Page 244 and 245: Study Plan Page 6 Information neede
Page 246 and 247: Study Plan Page 8 Rcfcrcnce List Be
Page 248 and 249: United States Department of the Int
Page 250 and 251: Bobbi Keeler, FA Coordinator 3 Idea
Page 252 and 253: EQC Eminent Domain Subcommittee DEP
Page 254 and 255: Robert Ochsner April 5, 1994 Page 3
Page 260 and 261: . Robert Ochsner April 5, 1994 Page
Page 262 and 263: Memo--Marylee Norris, John North Fe
Page 264: EQC Eminent Domain Subcommittee May
show all

Public Comment. Volume III - Montana Legislature

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?