DOCSLIB.ORG

Utility Restoration, Replacement, and Relocation in the State of Montana

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Utility Restoration, Replacement, and Relocation in the State of Montana Utility Restoration, Replacement, and Relocation in the State of Montana Programmatic Environmental Assessment Montana October 2020 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Table of Contents ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................... iv SECTION ONE | INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 OVERVIEW................................................................................................ 1 1.2 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 1 SECTION TWO | PURPOSE AND NEED ...................................................................................................... 4 SECTION THREE | ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................. 5 3.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 5 3.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ............................................................. 5 Alternative 1: No Action .............................................................................. 5 Alternative 2: Replacement ......................................................................... 5 Alternative 3: Relocation ............................................................................ 6 Alternative 4: Combination ......................................................................... 6 3.3 ALTERNATIVES NOT CONSIDERED .................................................... 6 SECTION FOUR | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................... 8 4.1 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................... 8 4.1.1 Affected Environment ..................................................................... 8 4.1.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................... 12 4.1.3 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 13 Alternative 1: No Action ............................................................................ 13 Alternative 2: Replacement ....................................................................... 13 Alternative 3: Relocation .......................................................................... 14 Alternative 4: Combination ....................................................................... 14 4.2 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES ......................................................... 14 4.2.1 Affected Environment ................................................................... 14 4.2.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 15 Alternative 1: No Action ............................................................................ 15 Alternative 2: Replacement ....................................................................... 15 Alternative 3: Relocation .......................................................................... 15 Alternative 4: Combination ....................................................................... 15 4.3 SAFETY AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ........................................ 15 4.3.1 Affected Environment ................................................................... 15 4.3.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 16 Alternative 1: No Action ............................................................................ 16 Alternative 2: Replacement ....................................................................... 16 Alternative 3: Relocation .......................................................................... 16 Alternative 4: Combination ....................................................................... 17 4.4 SOCIOECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENAL JUSTICE .................... 17 4.4.1 Affected Environment ................................................................... 17 4.4.2Regulatory Setting ............................................................................. 20 4.4.3 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 21 Alternative 1: No Action ............................................................................ 21 Alternative 2: Replacement ....................................................................... 22 Page i October 2020 Utility Restoration, Replacement, and Relocation Programmatic Environmental Assessment Table of Contents Alternative 3: Relocation .......................................................................... 22 Alternative 4: Combination ....................................................................... 22 4.5 AIR QUALITY ......................................................................................... 22 4.5.1 Affected Environment ................................................................... 23 4.11.1 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 24 Alternative 1: No Action ............................................................................ 24 Alternative 2: Replacement ....................................................................... 24 Alternative 3: Relocation .......................................................................... 25 Alternative 4: Combination ....................................................................... 25 4.6 NOISE ....................................................................................................... 25 4.6.1 Affected Environment ................................................................... 25 4.5.1 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................... 27 4.6.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 28 Alternative 1: No Action ............................................................................ 28 Alternative 2: Replacement ....................................................................... 28 Alternative 3: Relocation .......................................................................... 29 Alternative 4: Combination ....................................................................... 29 4.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES ................................................... 29 4.7.1 Affected Environment ................................................................... 29 4.7.2 Environmental Consequences .......................................................... 30 Alternative 1: No Action ............................................................................ 30 Alternative 2: Replacement ....................................................................... 30 Alternative 3: Relocation .......................................................................... 30 Alternative 4: Combination ....................................................................... 30 4.8 WATER RESOURCES............................................................................. 30 4.8.1 Affected Environment ................................................................... 30 4.8.1.1 Wild and Scenic Rivers ................................................................. 32 4.8.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 33 Alternative 1: No Action ............................................................................ 33 Alternative 2: Replacement ....................................................................... 33 Alternative 3: Relocation .......................................................................... 34 Alternative 4: Combination ....................................................................... 34 4.9 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................................................. 34 4.9.1 Affected Environment ................................................................... 34 Alternative 1: No Action ............................................................................ 41 Alternative 2: Replacement ....................................................................... 41 Alternative 3: Relocation .......................................................................... 42 Alternative 4: Combination ....................................................................... 42 4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................... 42 4.10.1 Affected Environment ................................................................... 42 4.10.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 43 Alternative 1: No Action ............................................................................ 43 Alternative 2: Replacement ....................................................................... 43 Alternative 3: Relocation .......................................................................... 44 Alternative 4: Combination ....................................................................... 44 4.11 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .......................................................................... 44 Page ii October 2020 Utility Restoration, Replacement, and Relocation Programmatic Environmental Assessment Table of Contents 4.11.1 Summary of Cumulative Impacts .................................................. 44 SECTION FIVE | MITIGATION MEASURES ..............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jersey Industrial Complex Rancho Cucamonga, California
    JERSEY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA NOISE STUDY Prepared for: Ralph Karubian 11298 Jersey Boulevard, LLC 1801 South Mountain Avenue Monrovia, CA 91016 Prepared by: December 2020 Jersey Industrial Complex Noise Study JERSEY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX PROJECT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Noise Study Table of Contents Page Project Description ........................................................................................................................... 1 Setting ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Overview of Sound Measurement ................................................................................................. 4 Sensitive Receptors .......................................................................................................................... 6 Project Site Setting ............................................................................................................................ 6 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................................ 8 Vibration Standards ....................................................................................................................... 11 Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 12 Methodology and Significance Thresholds ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Modification of the CONDOR 1 and CONDOR 2 Military Operations Areas (MOA), August 2009
    Maine State Library Digital Maine Transportation Documents Transportation 8-1-2009 Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Modification of the CONDOR 1 and CONDOR 2 Military Operations Areas (MOA), August 2009 Maine Department of Transportation Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalmaine.com/mdot_docs Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Modification of the Condor 1 and Condor 2 Military Operations Areas 104th Fighter Wing, Barnes Air National Guard Base, Westfield, MA Project No. ANG0956737 August 2009 Acronyms and Abbreviations 104 FW 104 Figher Wing MDIFW Maine Department of Inland AGL above ground level Fisheries and Wildlife AHAS Avian Hazard Advisory System MOA military operations area ANG Air National Guard MOU Memorandum of Understanding APE Area of Potential Effect MR_NMAP Military Operating Area and Range AQCR Air Quality Control Region Noise Model and Assessment AT Appalachian Trail Program ATC Air Traffic Control MSL mean sea level BAM Bird Avoidance Model MTR military training route BASH Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality CAA Clean Air Act Standards CAP Combat Air Patrol NEPA National Environmental Policy CEQ Council on Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations NHDES New Hampshire Department of CLNA Connecticut Lakes Natural Area Environmental Services CMR Combat Mission Ready NHNHB New Hampshire Natural Heritage CO Carbon Monoxide Bureau CWA Clean Water Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act dB decibel NM nautical mile dBA A-weighted decibel NO2 nitrogen dioxide
    [Show full text]
  • Suggestions for Expanding the Capabilities of the Emergency Alert System (Comments on EB Docket No. 04-296)
    October 29, 2004 Suggestions for Expanding the Capabilities of the Emergency Alert System Peter K. Sheerin (Comments on EB Docket No. 04-296) 1121 Nimitz Lane Foster City, CA 94404 The FCC is currently soliciting comments about proposed changes to the Emergency Alert System [email protected] Existing disaster notification methods in common use within the U.S. include: • National Weather Radio All-Hazards alert system with county-specific alert coding • EAS alerts transmitted via AM and FM broadcast stations • EAS alerts transmitted via television broadcast stations • Community Civil-Defense siren systems For various technological and social reasons, I don’t believe that these warning channels are sufficient to notify enough of the public to preserve lives and avoid panic in any true large-scale disaster that would require specific responses from the public, such as evacuation or shelter-in-place. Therefore, these existing alert systems should be augmented with the use of modern technology to enable the dissemination of high-quality, concise alerts to the public by multiple, redundant methods, so as to ensure reception by the widest possible percentage of the population, no matter what their current activity. I believe a few new mandates need to be created in order to ensure that common electronic devices can participate in the expanded national/local alert system, and while such mandates may on the surface appear in direct conflict with the American ideals of competition and freedom of innovation, the particular technologies I believe should be used would be a very small, or even non-existent burden on the device manufacturers, and will even serve to enhance the business prospects of these device manufacturers and the broadcast and telecommunications industries that use the devices.
    [Show full text]
  • Hawaii County Letter Re: Compliance with Conditions
    William P. Kenoi BJ Leithead Todd layor Director Margaret K, Masanaga Deputy West Hnwaiq Office East Hawai'i ()ffice 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy 10l Pauahi Street, Suile 3 Kailua-Kona. Hawai'[ 96740 County of Hawai'i Phone {808) 323-4770 Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 Fax (808) 327-3563 Phone (808) 961-8288 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Fax (808) 961-8742 March 7, 2012 P'o t- Mr. Joe Vierra Belt Collins Hawaii Ltd. 2153 North King Street, Suite 200 rÿq Cÿ F:I Honolulu, HI 96819-4554 I C-o :::E "5. Dear Mr. Vierra: Applicant: The Newton Family Limited Partnership Docket No. A99-729 (SLU 1128) tad :ÿ7 Change of Zone Ordinance No. 06 27 (REZ 05-017) Subject: 2011 AnnualProgress Report Tax Map Key: 2-4-008: por. 033 This is to acknowledge receipt of your letters dated November 21, 201 l, containing annual progress reports in compliance with Condition No. 20 of Docket No. A99-729 and with Condition N of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 06 27 (REZ 05-017). Thank you for complying with these requirements. It is our understanding that the water commitment payment lequired by Condition D of Ordinance No. 06 27 was paid in 2006 but then returned to the applicant. Thus, the applicant has not complied with Condition D. Please immediately remit the water commitment payment to the Department of Water Supply. Once the applicant has complied with Condition D, an administrative time extension to secure final subdivisiun approval, as required by Condition E, can be granted. The next almual reports will be due on or before February 24, 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • Archived Content Contenu Archivé
    ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé Archived Content Contenu archivé Information identified as archived is provided for L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche is not subject to the Government of Canada Web ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas Standards and has not been altered or updated assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du since it was archived. Please contact us to request Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour a format other than those available. depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous. This document is archival in nature and is intended Le présent document a une valeur archivistique et for those who wish to consult archival documents fait partie des documents d’archives rendus made available from the collection of Public Safety disponibles par Sécurité publique Canada à ceux Canada. qui souhaitent consulter ces documents issus de sa collection. Some of these documents are available in only one official language. Translation, to be provided Certains de ces documents ne sont disponibles by Public Safety Canada, is available upon que dans une langue officielle. Sécurité publique request. Canada fournira une traduction sur demande. February 1964 United States - Canada Agreement on Civil Emergency Planning Hurricane Carla's Lessons Control of Food Supplies Exposed to Fallout Emergency Sanitation in Disaster Santa Fe Civil Defence System hICY EASURES RGANIZATION THE EMO NATIONAL DIGEST Published by the Emergency Measures Organization, Ottawa, Ont.
    [Show full text]
  • Could Unionize If Pay Is
    4:.......----A SMS U fligher education devoured in budget cuts Swallowing up funding ~onclusion at town meeting showed proposed Judget cuts could have detrimental effects anyone knows yet what that really back into education. means." The sales tax was another 1muanve Eck agreed that pirhanas were eat- discussed at the meeting. Swanson ing away Montana's economic future. said she was putting her votes towards Piranhas are feeding on higher edu­ "The university system is the key to that form of tax reform. tion. At least that was the perception the economy in Montana," Eck said. "l would very much like to see a a recent town meeting held with "If we cut the education system, there sales tax go on the ballot," Swanson ~atin County legislators. is really no hope for economic growth said. "I think that's what both cam­ I Sen. Don Bianchi, D-Belgrade, Sen. in Montana." paignsforthegubematorial raceprom­ orothy Eck, D-Bozeman, Rep. Norm Eck said education was getting ised and I thirik that is what the people (allin, R-Bozeman,Rep. Joe Barnett, slashed in place of pushed government ofMontana want a chance to vote on." -Belgrade, and Rep. Emily Swanson, cuts. Swanson stressed the importance of -Bozeman, discussed legislative is- "Let's face it, a lot of legislators thorough tax reform for Montana in es, including higher education and there feel the reason they are there is coordination with the four percent sales e sales tax, with members of the becausereople want government cut," tax proposal. Reforms include prop­ :izeman community Thursday at Eck said.
    [Show full text]
  • Sharing General Miscellaneous Montana Law Prepared by Jim Nugent, Missoula City Attorney Montana Municipal Attorney Cle Conference September 27-28, 2018, Butte I
    SHARING GENERAL MISCELLANEOUS MONTANA LAW PREPARED BY JIM NUGENT, MISSOULA CITY ATTORNEY MONTANA MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY CLE CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 27-28, 2018, BUTTE I. 1972 MONTANA CONSTITUTION PROVISIONS RELEVANT TO MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT A. Mont. Const. Preamble. We the people of Montana grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of life, equality of opportunity, and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations do ordain and establish this constitution. (Emphasis added). B. Mont. Const. art. II, Section 3. Inalienable Rights. All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life’s basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways. In enjoying these rights, all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities.” (Emphasis added). 1. Montana Environmental Center v. Department of Environmental Quality, 1999 MT 248, 296 MT 207, 988 P.2d 1236. Right to a clean and healthful environment is fundamental. 2. State law effort to better ensure safety for small children. § 45-8-113 MCA Creating a Hazard. 45-8-113. Creating hazard. (1) A person commits the offense of creating a hazard if the person knowingly: (a) discards in any place where it might attract children a container having a compartment of more than 1 1/2 cubic feet capacity and a door or lid that locks or fastens automatically when closed and cannot easily be opened from the inside and fails to remove the door, lid, or locking or fastening device; 3.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legislator's Handbook
    LEG.MT.GOV Montana State Legislature The Legislator’s Handbook November 2018 Published by. Address. Phone. Montana Legislative PO Box 201706 Phone 406.444.3064 Services Division Helena, MT 59620-1706 Table of Contents Chapter One: Introduction 1 Chapter Two: Government in Action 3 Introduction 4 Three Branches of State Government 4 Federal Government 7 Tribal Governments 7 Local Governments 9 Chapter Three: Organization and Services of the Legislative Branch 11 Introduction 12 Senate 12 House of Representatives 15 Legislative Council 18 Legislative Services Division 18 Legislative Audit Committee 21 Legislative Audit Division 21 Legislative Finance Committee 23 Legislative Fiscal Division 24 Consumer Counsel 25 Chapter Four: Legislators 27 Introduction 28 Representation 28 Qualifications 29 Privileges 30 Duties 31 Accountability 33 Chapter Five: Organizing the Montana Legislature 35 Introduction 36 Election of Members 36 Legislative Sessions 36 Caucuses 37 Presession Organization 38 Convening the Senate 39 Convening the House of Representatives 39 Chapter Six: Legislative Procedures 41 Introduction 42 Montana Constitution 42 Montana Statutes 45 Rules of the Montana Legislature 45 Tradition 46 Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure 46 Committee Procedural Rules 47 Interpretation by the Judicial Branch 47 Attorney General’s Opinions 48 Learning the Rules: Tips and Concepts 49 Chapter Seven: Making Public Policy Through Bills and Resolutions 51 Introduction 52 Overview of Bills and Resolutions 52 Requirements for Bills: Tips for Legislators
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 City of Helena Annual Sustainability Report
    City of Helena Sustainability Report 2020 Patrick Judge Sustainability Coordinator [email protected] City of Helena Sustainability Report 2020 Table of Contents Chapter 1) Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2 2) Progress Report: 2009 Climate Action Plan ................................................................................ 3 3) Energy Use & Greenhouse Gas Assessment: City Government ............................................... 31 4) Energy Use & Greenhouse Gas Assessment: Helena Community ............................................ 39 5) Looking Forward ....................................................................................................................... 43 Appendix A) List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. 50 B) Sustainability Timeline .............................................................................................................. 52 C) Progress Chart: 2009 Climate Action Plan ................................................................................ 54 D) Helena Renewable Projects, a Selected List ............................................................................. 55 E) Earth Day 50 Proclamation ....................................................................................................... 56 F) City of Helena "Quick Facts" ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bannack State Park Dillon, Montana Loss Event: Flash Flood C a S E S T U D Y
    Bannack State Park Dillon, Montana Loss Event: Flash Flood C A S E S T U D Y In July, Montana’s first territorial capitol (and one of the most visited state parks), Bannack State Park, was inundated with water, mud, rocks, and artifacts from a flash flood. Most of the 80 historic structures were damaged and it was thought by some that the park would never recover. Within 48 hours, BELFOR was on site with incident management personnel, equipment, and restoration workers to assess the damage and begin the recovery process. Through pre-established disaster recovery contracts with BELFOR, the work was completed in just six weeks (well before the winter freeze). The magnitude of the loss, the historic nature of the properties, and the efficiency in which the park was restored garnered positive statewide attention from all major media sources, elected officials, and members of the Montana legislature. Montana Governor Steve Bullock cited BELFOR’s expertise and the cooperative efforts of the Department(s) of Administration, Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, and BELFOR as an example of “Montanan’s coming together during time of crisis.” The scope of the recovery work included: • Removal of debris, mud and rubble from buildings, roads and parking lots. • Water extraction and structural drying of the Post Office, Graves House, State House, hotels and other park buildings. • Structural inspections of park buildings. • Completely rebuilt Assay Office building from pieces recovered downstream. • Repaired and rebuilt bridges, boardwalks and fences. • Cleaned and repaired an aqueduct/flume. “We were completely blown away at how • Worked with archaeologists to find and preserve historic artifacts.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Construction of the Montana Governorship by the Montana Supreme Court
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1969 Judicial construction of the Montana governorship by the Montana Supreme Court John A. Layne The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Layne, John A., "Judicial construction of the Montana governorship by the Montana Supreme Court" (1969). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 8581. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/8581 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE MONTANA GOVERNORSHIP BY THE MONTANA SUPREME COURT By John A, Layne III B.S., University of Montana, 1963 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA 1969 Approved by; Chairman, board of Examiners Date 6/ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: EP39382 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMT Oissertation PuUiahang UMI EP39382 Published by ProQuest LLC (2013).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 From: Williams Institute Date: September 2009 RE: Montana
    MEMORANDUM From: Williams Institute Date: September 2009 RE: Montana – Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law and Documentation of Discrimination I. OVERVIEW Montana currently has no laws that prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. State personnel rules issued by former Governor Marc Racicot in 2000 prohibit discrimination and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation with respect to employment by state government, but the available remedies are limited due to the lack of a statewide statute. Bills have been introduced to add either sexual orientation or gender identity and expression, or both, to Montana‟s human rights laws in most of the legislative sessions of the past decade, including the current 2009 legislative session. None have passed despite enjoying recent support from the Governor‟s office.1 Opponents in Montana have been very vocal in their opposition to laws protecting LGBT people from employment discrimination. During the 2005 state legislative session, state senator Dan McGee stated “I‟ll never be able to support bills which try to overturn centuries of moral ideology. Homosexuality is wrong.”2 Other Montana legislators have expressed similar public sentiments, including state senator Al Bishop of Billings, who made a statement on the Montana Senate floor that homosexual sex was “even worse than a violent sexual act.” 3 In 1997, the Montana Supreme Court recognized the combined impact that the state's sodomy law and licensing requirements had on LGBT employees with professional licenses. The issue of employment discrimination came via arguments for standing to challenge the sodomy law statute: “[Respondents] contend that the damage to their self-esteem and dignity and the fear that they will be prosecuted or will lose their livelihood or custody of their children create an emotional injury that gives them standing to challenge the statute.
    [Show full text]