Article published Jun 30, 2007

Report: Move proposed site of power plant

By RICHARD ECKE

Tribune Staff Writer

Officials involved with the proposed coal-fired Highwood Generating Station east of Great Falls should consider changing the site, a National Park Service report suggested this week.

Otherwise, Great Falls might be stripped of most or all of its Lewis and Clark National Historic Landmark status, the study said.

The report said the coal plant "would have widespread, profound and adverse impacts" on the landmark, and "would likely lead to the loss of National Historic Landmark status for most, if not all, of the route" in the Great Falls area.

A power plant project official, however, questioned much of the thrust of the so-called 213 report, and said it would be difficult to change the plant location at this juncture.

"A record of decision has been issued at that site," said Tim Gregori, general manager of the Southern Montana Electric Generation & Transmission Cooperative in Billings. He said much of the engineering and planning has already been done with that site in mind.

The $720 million coal-fired plant is proposed to be built eight miles east of Great Falls along Salem Road on property owned by the Urquhart family. The plant would be directly adjacent to boundaries of a National Historic Landmark, where explorers Meriwether Lewis and William Clark and their party portaged around a handful of waterfalls to the north and east of where Great Falls now sits.

Matt Thomas, staff member for the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in Washington, D.C., said the report is being forwarded to the federal Rural Utilities Service for review. That agency is considering lending SME money to pay for most of the coal-fired power plant.

Thomas said the Rural Utilities Service, the advisory council and other groups will try to find solutions. An agreement could be reached, or the RUS or the advisory council eventually could terminate the process, he said.

"We don't ever like that to happen," Thomas said. Occasionally, someone will file a lawsuit over a project, he added.

Chere Juisto, executive director of the Montana Preservation Alliance, said attorneys for the National Trust for Historic Preservation are watching the Great Falls case closely.

Gregori noted that plant opponents have pledged to try to stop the project "at every juncture."

"I guess we'll just have to see how that unfolds," he said. Critics oppose the plant on environmental, historical and financial grounds.

Supporters say it would boost the property-tax base and provide high-paying permanent work and temporary construction jobs.

Juisto on Friday contended that SME, the plant's developer, failed to include historic agencies early on in the site selection process. She said Montana preservation officials did not receive formal notification of the site until June 2006.

"There was a two-year gap there," Juisto said. "They came with almost a done deal."

"I don't agree with that," Gregori said.

He contended the developer and RUS "followed closely the process" required. Juisto said earlier informal discussions involved a different, nearby site.

Gregori added it's speculation to say the Great Falls portage area could be delisted as a National Historic Landmark. He expressed confidence that RUS will respond to the report appropriately.

"We believe they've done a thorough job at this point," Gregori said.

The report said that the Great Falls section of the trail "is one of the few sections of the historic route ... that can be identified and mapped using William Clark's original survey notes."

Gregori was quoted in the July-August edition of Preservation magazine as saying, "Let's be honest, this isn't the Gettysburg battlefield; this isn't Valley Forge."

In an interview Friday, Gregori reiterated the argument of plant backers that the coal plant would not impact the view from the landmark. For instance, a Great Falls "malt plant is also visible from the Lewis and Clark landmark," he said.

The federal report also criticized plans to place windmills directly on the landmark, a move Juisto called "completely inappropriate."

She also questioned Gregori's claim that the proposed site needs to be the place the plant is built.

"I just don't buy the argument that there is only one place in Montana (where) this coal plant can be built," she said.

Gregori said an alternative site north of Great Falls near the malt plant would present a host of problems, from where to bury waste ash to how to connect to the Missouri River for water. That site also would be much closer to housing developments in Great Falls, he said.

Plus, if a site north of the city was chosen, "coal trains would have to go through the city," Gregori said.