Public Comment. Volume III - Montana Legislature

Bobbi Keeler, FA Coordinator 2
EWP needs to identify the Federal Aid assets involved before this
can be answered. Hopefully, the easement could be routed to avoid
impacting ponds, nursery facilities, pumps and water distribution
systems, infrastructures etc, that have had Federal Aid funding.
If so, the only mitigation needed would be for lands that may have
some incidental wildlife value. The State would have to receive
fair market value for the easement or the mitigation package would
have to be of the same or higher value. If Federal Aid facilities
are physically altered or the functionality impaired, the
mitigation package would need to include measures to restore the
function and purpose of the facility or structure. Otherwise,
compensation would be required. It is assumed that the Federal
Aid facilities are directly (e.g. rearing ponds) or indirectly
(e.g. housing) necessazy to sustain the production capabilities of
the hatchery. Any impacts to existing facilities, without
replacement, would result in decreased production or, perhaps,
require significant changes in operations to maintain fish
production levels. Maintaining capabilities to operate the
hatchery in an effective and efficient manner must be critically
considered in a mitigation package and the way in which the
easement is written. Also, in this regards, the indirect impacts
of the easement on facilities (e.g. vibration, runoff from rightof-way,
etc.) need to be fully covered in the easement document.
J Ja
es in
A 0' 0
o ' a 'ons siabilities der the
Federal Aid Promam?
There are a number of scenarios. The basic obligations and/or
liabilities are addressed in the first two questions. If O&M
costs are expected to rise as a result'of the easement this should
be included as part of the mitigation package. It is critical
that the potential indirect impacts (vibration etc.) be fully
considered and mitigation for these impacts be included as part of
the easement agreement. Federal Aid could not participate in
additional OCM costs resulting from any problems associated with
the easement or use of the right-of-way.
The degree of impact to operations would be a concern if Federal
Aid funds continue to be used to operate and maintain the
hatchery. The facility must continue to remain functional, meet
production goals, and be cost effective.
Is there anv ad-txonal
. .
ad vice vou would aive to our aaency as we
face a s situation?
Perhaps of most concern are impacts that are not fully
anticipated. Effects of long term vibration on pipelines, local
geology, water quality (from runoff-herbicides etc.) that could
impact the future operations of the hatchery or result in
significant costs to correct. This should be fully covered in the
easement document to ensure FWP is not responsible for the
additional costs. Would subtle vibration affect egg vitality or
other critical life stage?
EQC Eminent Domain Study -245-