March
19, 2007
Richard
Fristik
Rural
Development, Utilities Programs
1400
Independence Ave, SW
Mail
Stop 1571, Room 2237
Washington,
DC 22050-1571
Dear
Mr. Fristik:
I am
writing to comment on both the Final EIS and the process of 106 consultation
for the proposed Highwood Station power plant. Our overall response is one of
grave concern and disbelief, that proponents and the USDA Rural Utilities
Services program are poised to bring irreparable harm to one of our nationÕs
most prominent Lewis & Clark landmarks, when alternatives very definitely
exist. Federal agencies are directed to take into account the effects of their
actions on historic properties and consult early on, according to CFR 800.1
Òcommencing at the early stages of project planning.Ó Had that effort been made
early in the scoping process, we would not now be facing the prospect of an
outdated and financially risky coal plant whose construction will result in the
destruction of the integrity of a prominent National Historic Landmark.
Proponents
were well aware back in 2004 that if they pursued a project in this vicinity it
would impact the Great Falls Portage NHL. Their delay and RUSÕ delay in
conducting timely 106 consultation violated the intent of Section 110(f)
requiring that Federal agencies exercise a higher standard of care when
considering undertakings that may directly and adversely affect NHLs. The law
requires that agencies, "to the maximum extent possible, undertake such
planning and actions as may be necessary to minimize harm to such
landmark." (Sec 106 Regulations UserÕs Guide, ACHP)
Failure
to Rigorously Explore All Reasonable Alternatives
Southern
Montana Electric purchased options to buy land in Sections 24-25 in August and
October 2004; yet two years went by before the SHPO, NPS programs, the ACHP,
interested parties and the public were advised of their intent to seriously and
adversely impact the Great Falls Portage NHL. The lack of initiative in holding
timely meetings to explore all possible alternatives defies both the spirit and
the mandate of the NHPA to consider ways to avoid and minimize impacts to
historic resources. Interestingly, project proponents were serving on local
Lewis & Clark boards during this time, and were engaged in statewide
observances of the Corps of DiscoveryÕs bicentennial and commemorations of the
Great Falls Portage NHL.
Clearly,
36 CFR Part 800.6(4) notes the need by RUS to involve the public during the
attempt to resolve adverse effects, which includes Òtaking into account the
magnitute of the undertaking and the nature of its effects on historic
properties, and the relationship of the Federal involvement to the undertaking
to ensure that the publicÕs views are considered in the consultation.Ó However, given the magnitude
of the project and its adverse effects on the Landmark, RUSÕ attempts to
involve the public in a timely resolution of adverse effects have been
insufficient, at best.
Furthermore,
RUSÕ actions to open 106 consultation with an agenda focused upon mitigation
(Oct 5, 2006), delay further consultation for 5 months, and then on March 7,
2007 declare an intention to conduct the bulk of meaningful 106 engagement after
a Record of Decision is issued, effectively forecloses the potential of
discussions to consider the broad range of alternatives to destruction of the
Landmark.
Delayed
consultation by RUS and the current rush by the agency to issue a record of
decision by early April 2007 makes it appear that the 106 process will be
merely a hollow formality, particularly when the reason for rushing to sign the
RoD prior to completion, stated by RUS officials in the March 15, 2007
consultation phone call, was because Òthat is our schedule.Ó Shortchanging the
process will result in a taxpayer-funded travesty for our national heritage at
this site, and undermines thoughtful consideration of cultural resources
threatened by this undertaking.
Reasonably
Foreseeable Impacts
The
FEIS fails to consider reasonably foreseeable impacts from the Highwood
project, such as an industrial park, a windfarm and the buried waste process.
¥ The property owners of the
preferred Salem Site applied to the Cascade County commission and were granted
a zoning change on Nov 29, 2006, rezoning 840 acres in Sections 24-25 from
agricultural A-2 to heavy industrial I-2 zoning. On Dec 29, 2006, the county
also designated the property a heavy industrial park, to encourage industrial
development and authorize industrial and technology infrastructure -- including
streets, roads, curbs, sidewalks, alleys, parking, sewers, buried stormwater
and gas lines, utility lines, cargo facilities, bridges, rail lines, fuel
manufacturing and public buildings. These pose additional impacts stemming from
the Highwood project that seriously threaten the Portage NHL.
¥ Output from the four, 6-mw
wind turbines at the Highwood Station will be inadequate to be a viable energy
source. For wind generation to provide a meaningful proportion of plant output,
installation of some 25-30 turbines would be needed. Therefore, once the plant
is completed with all infrastructure needed to develop an adequate wind
facility, the development of a windfarm is highly likely. Further, the four SME
wind turbines will be built within the landmark, and open land to the
north, also within the landmark and now slated for heavy industry under SME
ownership, will be the likely location. Thus a windfarm on the landmark
is a reasonably foreseeable impact associated with the Highwood Station
project.
¥ Disturbing industrial
activities such as buried waste disposal are not described in detail. In fact,
burying the waste ash will be a daily activity, requiring heavy equipment, and
likely, a building and parking lots for the personnel or subcontractors that
conduct these activities. This may well spawn additional businesses here that
operate from within the landmark since remaining open land zoned for heavy
industry will draw those businesses to this locality.
¥ Other impacts posed by the
plant are glossed over, such as the need for industrial lighting. SME describes
tactful downward lighting on their plant buildings, however a 400Õ stack, the
220Õ auxiliary boiler stack and xxÕ wind turbines will undoubtedly require
compliance with FAA safety regulations that require lighting any structure that
exceeds 200 feet in height. These include aviation red obstruction lights at
night, and white flashing lights during the day and at twilight. Also,
according to FAA, flashing red (L-864) or white (L-865) aviation lights may be
required on wind turbines. (US Dept of Ttransportation, FAA AC 70/7460-1K)
¥ Proponents announced in
January 2007 that they are exploring technology to capture some 90% of the
carbon from the plant. This prospect is nowhere discussed in the EIS. Carbon
capture technology cannot simply be attached to smokestacks, it should be
designed into a facility prior to construction. Therefore, this information
should be described and evaluated in the context of the EIS. It should be noted
that this is just one of numerous changes to be made by project proponents after
the final
EIS was issued. When do these changes necessitate the creation of a
supplemental EIS so that these effects on the quality of the human environment
and cultural resources may be measured?
Inadequate
Public Notice
Agencies
are to provide the public with timely and complete documentation to facilitate
their participation, and take appropriate steps to ensure that pertinent
information is shared with consulting parties and considered during
consultation.
The
scoping process did not clearly inform the public and interested parties of
pending threats to the Great Falls NHL, rather the public was misinformed,
repeatedly, as to the location of the Salem site and not told of potential
impacts to the Great Falls Portage NHL until June 2006. If one reviews the list
of documents cited by RUS as public notification, one will find that several of
those documents either did not specify the proposed plant location, or
contained erroneous descriptions of the Salem site being located in the wrong
location, Section 36, T21N, R5E.
Alternatives:
The
final EIS more fully disclosed information on rejected alternatives. However,
viable alternative sites that were not explored, including the area north of
Great Falls near the Missouri River where the desireable elements Ð water,
power grid, rail lines Ð are also available. In addition, the appealing
prospect of decentralizing the project, structuring an integrated wind and gas
generation facility in the most ideal area, and siting a cleaner IGCC coal
plant at Hardin or nearer to the coal fields was not developed as an
alternative. This scenario would harness more clean energy on the north end of
SME territory, and be more economical from a coal transportation perspective,
to the Highwood project as currently conceived.
Cultural
Landscape
A
more complete analysis of the cultural landscape elements that define the Great
Falls Portage NHL, and greater attention to the historical and archaeological
record will anticipate the full impacts of this project to the Great Falls
Portage NHL. We are encouraged by the ACHPÕs request for a 213 report on these
matters, and believe that the expertise of the NPS is critical to these
considerations. Original journal entries for the Lewis & Clark party, and
artifacts that have been recovered over time in the vicinity of the NHL must be
analyzed to gain a baseline for evaluating landscape values and archaeological
potential, and to insure against undue loss of archaeological and scholarly
values of the portage site.
We
conclude by advocating that the Great Falls Industrial Site or some other
feasible location would be preferable to siting this power plant on the edge of
the Great Falls Portage National Historic Landmark. And we firmly believe that
errors and omissions in the Draft EIS, along with essential information still
lacking in the Final EIS, clearly warrant preparation of a supplemental EIS.
Thank
you for the opportunity to comment.
Chere
Jiusto
Executive Director