Post on 12-Jul-2020
MINUTES OF THE MEETING NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
MONTANA STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 25, 1985
The meeting of the House Natural Resources Committee was called to order by Chairman Dennis Iverson at 6:15 p.m. in Room 312-1 of the State Capitol.
ROLL CALL: All members of the committee were present.
SENATE BILL 156: SB 156 was introduced by the sponsor, Sen. Tom Towe, District 46. Sen. Towe told the committee that the bill changes criteria for coal board grants and loans to allow for the eligibility of more counties. Under current law, he said, only Rosebud County is designated as eligible, and if the coal board does not spend a certain portion of its grant money in Rosebud County, it cannot spend any of that money in other counties. SB 156 would allow the board to designate more counties to receive funding without changing the basic structure of the program, said Sen. Towe.
PROPONENTS: Pat Wilson, re?resenting Montco, said that company would be directly affected by SB 156. Coal board grants would help to alleviate potential problems faced by residents of Powder River County, when Montco begins expansion of its projects in the Broadus and Ashland area, she said. She distributed a booklet describing Monteo's activities in that area, which is attached as Exhibit 1.
There were no opponents to SB 156, and no questions from the committee.
Rep. Asay agreed to carry SB 156 on the House floor.
SENATE BILL 284: SB 284 was introduced by the sponsor, Sen. Tom Towe, District 46. The bill revises a bill which was passed last session regarding the authority of the coal board to make loans. SB 284 deals specifically with the provisions of 90-6-209 that deal with repayment of coal board loans, said Sen. Towe. It would allow that repayment be made from fees, rentals, admissions, use charges and special assessments. Earlier drafts of the bill allowed that repayment be made from property tax revenues, but those sections were deleted from the bill upon objection by the coal companies that they would then be forced to pay taxes twice on their product, said Sen. Towe.
Natural Resource~ Committee March 25, 1985 Page 2
PROPONENTS: Pat Wilson of Montco said that company has worked on the bill for the past three sessions, and is confident that a point has been reached where the loan program will work if SB 284 is put into statute.
There were no opponents to SB 284, and no questions from committee.
Rep. Cobb agreed to carry SB 284 in the House.
SENATE BILL 277: Sen. Chet Blaylock, District 43, introduced SB 277, which he sponsored at the request of the department of natural resources and conservtion. The bill would establish the Montana Legacy Program, providing security against loss or damage to the state's environment through the extraction of nonrenewable natural resources. It would be impossible to discuss SB 277 without allusion to HB 913, the legacy program bill introduced by Rep. Dave Brown, he said.
Sen. Blaylock explained that the impetus for the legacy program began with former Governor Torn Judge's state of the state address in 1973, when the resource indemnity trust was proposed. The earnings from that trust, said Gov. Judge, would be invested in a fund which would be spent to correct environmental damage, develop recreation and provide new work opportunities for Montanans. The proceeds of that resource indemnity trust fund would provide the public's share of the benefits derived from Montana's natural resources, said Sen. Blaylock.
Sen. Blaylock told the committee that the difference between SB 277 and HB 913 is essentially a difference in philosphy. SB 277 is a broad program, leaving the discretion as to how funds would be spent to the department, the legislature and the governor, and HB 913 allocates funding to four specific areas. SB 277 is superior because it does not say that the 49th Legislature "possesses all the wisdom," but allows for allocation to vary on the basis of future needs, he said.
PROPONENTS: Gene Huntington, representing the governor's office, supported SB 277. He noted that in 1983, the appropriations committee said that future RIT funds were not to be used for ongoing budget operations. That left the problem of determining how RIT funds should be allocated, he said, and resulted in the drafting of SB 277, which sets out both the policy and the design of the legacy program. Drafters of the bill, faced with the difficulty of finding projects that would not be ongoing, felt it would be better to put goals on long-term programs, and not to earmark specific types of projects, said Mr. Huntington.
Natural Resources Co~mrttee March. 25, 1985 Page 3
Larry Fasbender, director of the department of natural resources and conservation, spoke in support of SB 277. He said the main issue being debated is the question of whether the legislature should be able to make specific ohoices about how RIT funds should be spent. The more closely you restrict the legacy program, the fewer choices are available~ he said. Mr. Fasbender told the committee that the needs of Montanans have clearly changed over time, and the priorities for legacy funding can be expected to change in the future. That is why SB 277 is a broad bill, allowing choices to be made in the future as program needs change, said Mr. Fasbender.
Jeanne-Marie Souvigney, representing the Northern Plains Resource Council, spoke to the committee about the need for a legacy program. She distributed to the committee a chart displaying the setup o£ the current resource indemnity trust program, the proposed SB 277 program, and the proposed HB 913 program. The chart is attached as Exhibit 2. Ms. Souvigney said NPRC is concerned about the issue of earmarking particular funding categories, which may limit certain programs. She cautioned, however, that under SB 277, the proposed program is broad enough to "fund just about anything." She told the comittee that there are problems with both bills, and urged the committee to work out the differences between the proposals to arrive at an optimum program.
Mary-Linda Kemp, representing the Northern Lights Institute, said that group feels that HB 913 is a better proposal than SB 277, but supports the legacy program in whatever form might be approved.
OPPONENTS: George Ochenski, representing the Montana Environmental Information Center, appeared before the committee carrying a brown paper grocery bag, and opened by saying he wished he did not have to speak against SB 277. However, the specific mechanisms of both bills lend themselves to a supermarket analogy in which HB 913 comes out preferable, he said. He then emptied the contents of the bag, noting that an average shopping list would include a variety of items--in this case, fish, an artichoke, fruit, Twinkies, beer, hot dogs, and bread. Forced to choose between the products, nhe shopper would do well to categorize them -fruits, vegetables, breads, meats, and so on, he said. By analogy, when faced with a variety of RIT funding requests, the state· would benefit by assigning those requests to specific categories, and weighing water projects against one another, weed control projects in another category, and so forth. That, he said, is done in HB 913, and not in SB 277. That organizational head start would allow better distribution of lega~y money, and avoid a pork barrel approach to specific projects, he said. SB 277 would throw all the groceries
Natural Resources Committee March 25, 1985 Page 4
into a food processor, and the resultant soup would not satisfy anyone, he said.
Rep. Dave Brown, sponsor of HB 913, spoke against SB 277. He said there were two main reasons to oppose the Senate's legacy program bill. The first, he said, is that SB 277 would allow every session of the legislature to reset policy, and that the legacy program should be allowed more continuity. HB 913 would provide that continuity, he said. Secondly, Rep. Brown stated that the earmarking in SB 277 "is just disastrous" and does not meet the state's current or future needs. SB 277 addresses only RIT funds and renewable resource development projects, while the state faces pressing problems in water development, weed control and other issues.
Rep. Brown said the one amendment he would offer to SB 277 is HB 913. He recommended that the bill not be killed in committee, but rather be defeated on the House floor.
There were no further opponents to SB 277, and the £loor was opened to questions from committee.
Rep. Miles asked Mr. Fasbender about the process a funding request would follow under the provisions of SB 277. He said that applications for legacy funding would be ranked by an advisory council, referred to to the director of DNRC for further consideration, recommended to the governor, and passed to the legislature as proposed legislation.
Rep. Miles asked if the process would be the same under HB 913, with the difference that the applications would be first assigned to categories. Fasbender said that was essentially the case, except that the original reviewing boards would be differently stru~tured.
Rep. Peterson asked Rep. Brown if HB 913 contains a provision for emergency project funding, and was told that it does.
Rep. Kadas asked Mr. Huntington how the legacy program as set up under SB 277 could be used for funding weed and water projects, when those types of projects are not s~ecifically addressed in the constitutional basis of the RIT funds. Mr. Huntington replied that the stated intent of the RIT program was that funding be applied to renewable and nonrenewable resource projects, and that agriculture is a resource that falls under that intent.
Sen. Blaylock closed by saying that the bill is preferable to HB 913 precisely because of its different policy approach. The less restrictive approach is the bebter option for the state, he said.
Natural Resource& Comm~ttee March 25 t 1985 Page 5
EXECUTIVE ACTION
SENATE BILL 156: Rep. Kadas moved that SB 156 BE CONCURRED IN. The mot10n passed without discussion, with Rep. Harp voting no.
SENATE BILL 284: Rep. Cobb moved that SB 284 BE CONCURRED IN. Rep. Driscoll commented that the legislature has worked on conflicting bills regarding coal board money. He said he supports SB 284, but said that at some point, all the bills based on coal board money will have to come together. The bill passed with Rep. Harp voting no.
SENATE BILL 258: Rep. Addy moved that SB 258 BE CONCURRED IN. Rep. Miles moved an amendment she prepared that would refer the notice question in the bill back to the appropriate existing statute. Rep. Krueger suggested that the committee address the issue of adequate notice. He said drillers must have an idea of proposed projects more in advance than three days, and did not think the three-day notice was fair to surface owners.
Rep. Iverson said it is not unusual for a potential driller to check into existing leases, find an available drilling rig, and move into operation in two days' time.
Rep. Krueger maintained that if the legislature is concerned about the surface owner, the three-days' notice provision is inadequate, and said the time period should be longer. Rep. Raney said he agreed with Rep. Krueger on that point.
Rep. Cobb suggested that the notice provision be amended to 10 days, and the House should wait and see how the Senate views that amendment.
Sen. Tveit, the sponsor of the bill, was allowed to comment, and said the three day provision allows adequate notice.
Rep. Krueger again maintained that three days is insufficient time for negotiation or redress, and asked what the problem would be with a ten day provision. Sen. Tveit replied that the holder of the mineral rights has a right of access, and that settlement of damages due to access is not usually a problem. Rep. Krueger asked why there should not be a misdemeanor clause in the bill requiring due notice, and Sen. Tveit said that such a clause would be meaningless because the costs of developing a mineral right are much higher than the potential misdemeanor penalty could be.
Rep. Iverson said he was concerned about the apparent presumption that the landowner is "the good guy and the oilman is a rapist." That is not necessarily so, he said, and the committee should keep in mind that surface and mineral rights are equal property interests under the law.
Natural Resources Committee March 25, 1985 Page 6
Rep. Krueger said that if the committee were not willing to add a misdemeanor clause, he would push for an expanded time period for notice. He moved that the bill be amended to allow for no fewer than 14 days' notice by the developer of the mineral rights of proposed activity. That motion failed 9-8. A copy of the roll call vote is atuached following the standing committee reports.
Rep. Addy, a supporter of that amendment, said 14 days is not unreasonable, noting that the eminent domain bill passed in committee calls for 30-days' notice.
Rep. Krueger then moved that the notice clause be amended to require 10 days' notice. That motion passed 9-7.
Rep. Addy then moved that SB 258 BE CONCURRED IN AS AMENDED, and that motion passed with Reps. Smith, Cobb and Iverson voting no.
There being no further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 7: 4 0 p.m.
\
Re~~IVERSON' Chairman
DAILY ROLL CALL
HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES cmn.lITTEE
49th LEGISLATIVE SESSION 1985
Date ~(;ff z.~-
~------------------------------- ------------ -----------------------NAHE PRESENT ABSENT EXCUSED
IVERSON, Dennis (Chairman) )( KADAS, r.1ike (Vice-Chairman) ~ ADDY, Kelly I ~ ASAY, Torn I ~ COBB, John X DRISCOLL, Jerry X GARCIA, Rodney I 'X' I
GRADY, Edward i 'i( I
I 'i I HARP, John I
i
i Xl I I JONES, Tom I I I 'X I KRUEGER, Kurt I I
HILES, Joan X i·1QORE, Janet I X I I I
O'HARA, Jesse I X I I ·X I
PETERSO;;1, Mary Lou I I X i
RANEY, Bob I I
I X I I I
REAM, Bob
S;UTH, Clyde I 'X I
i I
I I !
1 I I ! i
I I I i
I i
I I I I
I I
I I
I I j I !
I I CS-30
STANDING COMMITTEE REPORT
?AGlt 1 OF 2 March ZS 35 .................................................................... 19 ........... .
SP~Ai~!tR: MR .............................................................. .
. . ~ATURAL aBSOURC~S We, your committee on ...................................................................................................................................................... ..
having had under consideration ...... J~~P.'l.'.~ .. JH.1t1-P ............................................................................ Bill No . .. 2.S.9 ...... .
Tl!I1U> iU .. UX "'. ) ____ -,--____ reading copy ( ___ _ color
Atl ACT aEVISING THE LAW RELATIUG TO COHPBllSATIOtl P'AYAlilLE FOll
Respectfully report as follows: That ...................... S.'i:.~A!~&:. ... a.tL~ ... J.S.a ............................................ Bill No .................. .
1) Title. lifts 13. Following: ~ANB*
Insert; ft32-10-50~,~
Followlnqt ·6l-1Q-~04· Iusert! .• , ..
STATE PUB. co. Helena, Mont.
~.~ .... ~.~ .......................................................... . Chairman.
Rep. DENNIS IVERSO~
COMMITTEE SECRETARY
, :; ('
paGE : OF 2' HAllett 25 19 .... ~.'- .. ....................................................................
2) ?a'i. 2. Follow1agl lin. l~ IIl •• rt:~ *Sect1011 1.. Section 82-1.0 ... 503,. NeA, 1 ••• end.4
to read;
-82-10·503. Kotic. of d~1111n9 operations. IA addition to t~o roq.ar ... nca ter geophysIcal oxp1oratloA activitl •• qoverned by ~ltl. 82, cllapter 1, pare 1, t~. oil .114. va- d ..... l.op.r er operator shall 9iv. the .. r~ac. owaer aa4 any purehaaer uader .0Atra~~ tor d •• 4 vrltte. notice of ta. drilling' operation. that. he pla.s to UD~.rtak.. TUi. Dotice ahall _. 91.0. to ~h. record. surf.ce owner and-,any pllrclla •• r: H4 •• contrAct for deed at their ad ......... a abown Dr tbe records of the couaty clerk aDd recorder At the tl •• t~. Aotice 1& ~iY.A. This Dotioe ellall su.tfielantly cU .• clos. tbe plan of vork and o~.Z'&tloll. to ellable tha surface ovaer to evaluate the .ffect of 4ril.l.1a4 operations Oil the .arfac. owner'. U •• ot ta. property. !~~~~!~~ 2~_!1 Jl~ s.l..!en. n~.I!~JF.!....£)u~.~_!!!._~t.!._~!-C!...!~ ~~!......!Ldi!.t... b.~!'!".~~J! .. ~!~!tnt. o.~_~!L_~tl .• ,l~l. ou tbe land suriace.·-____ ._h ___ ~ __
J) Page 4, laAe 7. Strike: .. u'! ~i; ~_~!-.. ~Z' f~t:'e owner _ o..! __ lli -!.P..!.!!!!!!_~t;g~J..o.!!.· I» •• rtl ·co.ply with the notice require •• nt. of 32-10-S03 P
4) Pa~. 4, 11n. 13. Strik., -2" %na.rt: lit 38
5) Page 4. lia. 15. St.rike t -2-Ia •• rti -3- ,
liE COtiCUllaJU) Ili ____ • _ L ___ _
STATE PUB, CO. Helena. Mont.
)
STANDING COMMITTEE REPORT
MARcn 2S 95 .................................................................... 19 ........... .
SPEAK:eJl: MR .............................................................. .
We, your committee on ................. J~~:+.r!.~.~.~ ... ~~H~9.~~~~.~.~ ..................................................................................... .
having had under consideration ................... ::?r.X{li,~~ .... ;U.MM ... nU ..................................................... Bill No ................. .
_---''f!<.;!'''''i.."l-''='iill ______ reading copy ( llLUE color
AS A<:l" REVtS~:.iG p ~oVISIOIlS Faa tU::rAY}(Zlt'l' OF COAL SOARD L>lAUS
SEdAT~ BILL 23' . Respectfully report as follows: That ............................................................................................................ Bill No .................. .
STATE PUB. co. Chairman. Helena, Mont.
COMMITTEE SECRETARY
STANDING COMMITTEE REPORT
MARCR 25 as .................................................................... 19 ........... .
MR ........ :iP.f;.a.al::.B.!. ................................ .
We, your committee on ............... );U~,~.O.i'U..r., ... )).f:.s.O'rJ.J,,;C.r.~ ........................................................................................ .
having had under consideration ................ s.E~A'.t.E. .. :sI.!.I... .. .lS.tL ...................................................... Bill No ................. .
___ A_4_H..,.I_R_l') ___ reading copy ( fU .. UE color
Mi .;\C1' CUAlfGI~G '!'n~ DES:ro;NA1'IO:1 C1U'1'""ERIA POR COAL :SOARD
Respectfully report as follows: That ........... ~.;t.~A:+.~ ... ~.~.:;,.tt ... ,\..~.~ ....................................................... Bill No .................. .
STATE PUB. co. Rep. D£~~lS IV£RSO~t Chairman. Helena, Mont.
COMMITTEE SECRETARY
ROLL CALL VOTE
HOUSE COMMITTEE NATURAL RESOURCES
DATE TIHE '-1.'3 0
NAME AYE NAY
IVERSON, Dennis (Chairman) ~ KADAS, Mike (Vice-Chairman) '( ADDY, Kelly "" ASAY, Torn y COBB, John V DRISCOLL, Jerry GARCIA, Rodney GRADY, Edward : HARP John JONES Torn . )(
KRUEG:C:R L Kurt 1\ 111 LES Joan V MOORE Janet I O'HARA Jesse '\...G' PETERSOIJ, Mary Lou j( RA~EY Bob \L REN"l Bob _X _~"lLTR Clyde V' "-
I
Secretary Chairman
Motion:
CS-31
ROLL CALL VOTE
HOUSE COMMITTEE NATURAL RESOURCES
DATE BILL NO. S~ 2 ~8" Tum ----1,'35 NAME AYE NAY
IVERSON, Dennis (Chairman) ~ KADAS, Mike (Vice-Chairman) i ADDY, Kelly A ASAY, TOI<\ X COBB, John / DRISCOLL, Jerry X GARCIA, Rodney "- '( GRADY, Edward )( HARP, John JONES Tom . X KRUEGER Kurt Ji. ,ULES Joan ~ MOORE Janet V,
O'HARA, Jesse '''l PETERSON Mary Lou -x: RANEY Bob X. RF.AM Bob -~ S:·!ITH Clyde X
9 1 Secretary Chairman
Motion:
CS-31
EN
ER
GY
FOR
TH
E N
AT
ION
, E
CO
NO
MIC
GR
OW
TH
FOR
M
ON
TA
NA
In a single generation, we have becom
e acutely aware of o
ur
reliance on
foreign sources of fuel. With the oil em
bargo of 1973 cam
e a national plea for energy independence, and domestic coal
emerged as an
economical alternative fuel for the 1980s an
d beyond.
Approxim
ately 75 billion tons, or 25%, of the U
.S. coal reserves lie in
the State of M
ontana: 1£ Am
erica is to achieve energy independence, M
ontana's coal mu
st play
a vital role.
The M
ontco mine is expected to produce m
ore than 186 million tons
of private and
state coal-th
e equivalent of 651 million barrels of
oil-a
t a maxim
um rate of 12 m
illion tons annually. The econom
y of the S
tate of Montana is expected to benefit substantially from
the developm
ent of the Montco m
ine. During the 24-year life of the
mine (construction an
d operation), m
ore than $3.7 billion will be
added to the state in the form of increased business activity, tax
revenues and
personal income.
..4
~tt
TH
E M
ON
TC
O PR
OJEC
T AR
EA
Montco is a M
ontana general partnership located in Billings, an
d
owned b
y T
ongue River R
esources, a subsidiary of Diam
ond S
hamrock C
orporation, Dallas, an
d T
hermal E
nergy, Inc., a subsidiary of W
ashington Energy C
ompany, S
eattle.
Developm
ent of the Montco properties began in 1973 w
ith acquisition of surface and coal leases an
d geological exploration. T
he M
ontco project area is located approximately 7.5 m
iles southwest of
the com
munity of A
shland in southeastern Montana. T
he reserves lie w
ithin the Montana portion of the P
owder R
iver Basin in the
Tongue R
iver mem
ber of the Fort U
nion Form
ation. The coal to b
e m
ined averages 8,752 BT
Us p
er pound, 27% m
oisture, 6.35% ash
and
0.34% sulphur (as received).
TH
E M
INE
PL
AN
AR
EA
T
he 24-year-life of Montco's m
ine consists of five mining units
(North K
ing, South K
ing, North O
'dell, South O
'dell and
South G
ate) an
d support facilities w
hich include shop/offices, coal handling and
storage structures, an
d a rail loop. T
his total area known as the m
ine plan area encom
passes 10,171 acres.
TH
E P
ER
MIT
AR
EA
U
nder State an
d F
ederal laws, M
ontco is required to apply for a separate perm
it for each of the five m
ining units. In Novem
ber 1980, M
ontco filed for a permit o
n its N
orth King M
ining Unit. T
he perm
it area totals 1,274 acres and includes only the North K
ing M
ining Unit and the F
acilities Area. T
he permit w
ould allow M
ontco to undertake the construction of the facilities, the developm
ent of the pit and three years of initial m
ining operations before applying for an
additional five-year permit.
PER
MIT
AR
EA
PL
AN
-NO
RT
H K
ING
MIN
ING
UN
IT
Coal
Storage F
acility
-P;. +j
•
AR
EA
TO
BE
M
INE
D
TH
E PE
RM
ITT
ING
PRO
CE
SS
Like all n
ew d
evelo
pm
ents, th
e Mo
ntco
project is and
will b
e subject to p
ub
lic scrutin
y an
d co
mp
rehen
sive g
ov
ernm
ental rev
iew
and
app
rov
al.
Surface m
ining in Montana is regulated by the M
ontana Dep
artmen
t o
f State L
ands (DSL
) and
the U.S. D
epartment of the Interior's O
ffice of S
urface Mining. S
ince Montana has a federally approved
regulatory program, the D
SL w
ill be the agency issuing m
ining p
ermits to M
ontco.
Th
e regulations and
guidelines developed by the DSL
in adm
inistering th
e Mo
ntan
a Strip an
d U
nd
ergro
un
d M
ine Reclam
ation Act
assure th
at the en
viro
nm
ent of the M
ontco project will b
e pro
tected
before, du
ring
and
after mining.
In 1977, M
on
tco en
tered into an
agreement w
ith the D
SL
wh
ereby
th
e two
parties jointly dev
elop
ed environm
ental study designs and
selected consultants to co
nd
uct the extensive environm
ental baseline studies an
d on-going en
viro
nm
ental m
onitoring pro
gram
s req
uired
by law as p
art of the perm
itting process.
Th
e 35-volume, ap
pro
xim
ately 5,000-page M
ontco perm
it applicatio
n took th
ree years to assem
ble. It involved more th
an 100 m
any
ears of effort, and
tells in detail ho
w M
ontco will ad
here to th
e strict en
viro
nm
ental law
s of M
ontana, returning the min
ed lan
d to a
pro
du
ctive condition that is eq
ual to o
r better than before m
ining.
Protecting the h
um
an en
viro
nm
ent is also a concern. M
on
tco
realizes the potential im
pact its w
orkforce and
their families w
ill h
ave o
n neighboring com
munities, an
d as a result, is w
ork
ing
with
state an
d local agencies.
EN
VIR
ON
ME
NT
AL
BA
SEL
INE
STU
DIE
S
Th
e following en
viro
nm
ental studies h
ave b
een co
nd
ucted
in the
Mo
ntco
project area to satisfy perm
itting
requ
iremen
ts, and
to g
ather th
e necessary inp
ut for th
e min
e plan, fish and
wildlife m
anag
emen
t plan, and
reclamatio
n activities. T
hese studies will also
pro
vid
e a ben
chm
ark for detecting an
y im
pacts of the p
rop
osed
m
ine, and
measu
ring
reclamatio
n success.
AIR
RE
SO
UR
CE
S
Th
e weath
er in and
arou
nd
a coal min
e is a determ
inin
g factor of
the m
ine's affect on
the atm
osp
here. To o
btain
an accu
rate assessm
ent of th
e conditions for the cu
rrent m
eteorology, visibility and
air quality of th
e area, mo
nito
ring
stations were located w
ithin
and
aro
un
d th
e Project A
rea. Th
e data w
ere then
com
piled
to sup
po
rt th
e air quality modeling effort designed to d
etermin
e potential ch
ang
es in amb
ient air q
uality
wh
ich m
ight occu
r from
the pro
po
sed m
ining operations. Th
e data w
ill also be u
sed to o
btain
an air
quality perm
it from th
e Air Q
uality
Bu
reau o
f the M
on
tana D
epartm
ent of H
ealth an
d E
nv
iron
men
tal Sciences.
BIO
LO
GIC
AL
RE
SO
UR
CE
S
Th
e Biological R
esources studies involved the collection of baseline
data o
n four m
ajor areas: vegetation, w
ildlife, aqu
atic ecology and
fisheries.
• The vegetation stu
dy
was the first baseline study im
plem
ented
on
th
e Montco P
roject Area in th
e sum
mer of 1977. F
ield studies and
literature searches w
ere used to identify all species within the
stud
y area. P
lant comm
unities were m
app
ed an
d plant produc
tion measu
red for future com
parison with reclaim
ed areas.
j
• Th
e wildlife stu
dy
is one of the m
ost time co
nsu
min
g an
d exten
sive studies requ
ired b
y th
e regulations. A w
ildlife biologist was
requ
ired on-site full tim
e for a min
imu
m of one year. T
hereafter, w
ildlife monitoring is req
uired
for a min
imu
m of 100 m
and
ays p
er year thro
ug
ho
ut the life of th
e mine. A
variety of aerial an
d g
rou
nd
observation techn
iqu
es were u
sed to identify
wildlife species in th
e area. Population densities, habitat an
d
migration d
ata were collected for fu
ture co
mp
arison
du
ring
and
after m
ining.
• Because th
e Tongue R
iver flows along th
e west b
ou
nd
ary of th
e P
roject Area, aquatic ecology an
d fishery studies w
ere necessary to d
etermin
e the affects of fu
ture m
ining and
increased hu
man
activity in th
e area. Water quality an
d biological co
mm
un
ities w
ere samp
led in th
e Tongue R
iver and
its tributaries. Com
parisons w
ill be mad
e before, du
ring
and
after mining. In th
e same
man
ner, th
e status of the fisheries in th
e Tongue R
iver and
its m
ajor tributaries were studied.
CU
LT
UR
AL
RE
SO
UR
CE
S
Th
ese stud
ies were co
nd
ucted
to identify, inv
ento
ry an
d ev
aluate
po
tential im
pacts to historical, archaeological an
d paleontological
(fossils) sites with
in th
e stud
y area. T
he su
rvey
s inclu
ded
an inten
sive 'on-foot' inv
ento
ry of 14,645 acres, as w
ell as site specific investigations.
Mitigation p
lans w
ere dev
elop
ed for th
ose areas th
at wo
uld
receiv
e either d
irect or in
direct im
pacts.
GE
OT
EC
HN
ICA
L R
ES
OU
RC
ES
S
oils and
ov
erbu
rden
data w
ere collected for use in the design of th
e m
inin
g an
d reclam
ation plans. Pre m
ining soil inventories were per
formed to collect inform
ation on
soil types, quantity and
distribution.
This w
as done by mapping the soils from
aerial photos and
taking sam
ples in the field. M
ontco collected approximately 800 soil
samp
les and
con
du
cted 11,200 soil analyses.
Ov
erbu
rden
drilling was conducted throughout th
e Project A
rea to d
etermin
e thickness and
to obtain samples for su
bseq
uen
t analyses. O
verb
urd
en d
ata consist of more th
an 50,000 lab
orato
ry analyses
from 71 drill holes.
WA
TE
R R
ES
OU
RC
ES
W
ater resource studies included surface water, g
rou
nd
water, w
ater quality an
d erosion an
d sedim
entation. Gro
un
dw
ater studies are req
uired
for bo
th th
e local area and
the region. Surface w
ater and
erosion an
d sedim
entation studies were required for th
e entire drainage basin in w
hich
the Project A
rea is located. Water quality studies
were conducted o
n the T
ongue River and its m
ajor tributaries.
To define the g
rou
nd
water system
, 88 wells w
ere com
pleted
in the aquifers occurring in th
e coal seams an
d in
terbu
rden
. Th
e wells
were periodically p
um
ped
to determ
ine w
ater quality, qu
antity
and
seasonal changes in w
ater level. Data collected has b
een used to
define the curren
t hydrologic conditions against wh
ich future
changes, if any, may b
e measured. T
he information w
as also used to assess the suitability of the w
aters for drinking, irrigation and
livestock use, an
d to provide input for m
ine and reclamation plan design.
ON
GO
ING
EN
VIR
ON
ME
NT
AL
MO
NIID
RIN
G
After the co
mp
letion
of the baseline studies, env
iron
men
tal moni
toring pro
gram
s were im
plemented. T
hese monitoring p
rog
rams
will co
ntin
ue th
rou
gh
ou
t the life of the mine an
d for an
additional ten
years after cessation of mining. T
he monitoring p
rog
rams w
ill p
laya key role in M
ontco's on-going reclamation activities.
TH
E M
ININ
G A
ND
R
EC
LA
MA
TIO
N PR
OC
ESS
Mo
ntco
is com
mitted
to adv
anced
surface mining tech
niq
ues an
d a
reclamatio
n p
rog
ram th
at will retu
rn th
e distu
rbed
areas to their
equ
al or b
etter use. Th
e reclamatio
n p
lan is an
integral part of
Montco's m
inin
g p
ermit ap
plicatio
n an
d w
as dev
elop
ed b
y a
reclamatio
n team
wh
ich in
clud
ed en
viro
nm
ental co
nsu
ltants,
Mo
ntco
perso
nn
el, and
land
ow
ners w
ithin
the P
roject Area.
Th
e reclamatio
n p
rocess w
ill beg
in w
hen
mining begins. M
on
tco
pro
po
ses to min
e the coal b
y th
e truck/shovel meth
od
. Before m
ining can
begin, a pit mu
st be developed. F
irst, the topsoil m
ust b
e rem
ov
ed, stockpiled, an
d protected from
erosion with
a vegetative crop. T
he next layer, kn
ow
n as overburden, is th
en rem
ov
ed an
d
stockpiled. Th
e coal is then
remo
ved
and
hauled by truck
to the
nearb
y crushing area. T
he coal is crushed in tw
o stages to less than
tw
o inches in size, th
en conveyed to a covered storage facility o
r directly loaded ab
oard
1O,000-ton unit trains. A
s the coal is removed,
the m
ine area w
ill be continuously recontoured, revegetated an
d
return
ed to productive use.
NO
RT
H K
ING
MIN
ING
UN
IT
RE
CL
AM
AT
ION
& B
ON
DIN
G C
OST
S In th
e 1,274-acre perm
it area alone, Montco is com
mitted to a $26.8
million in
vestm
ent in
reclamatio
n an
d bonding costs to assu
re protection of th
e env
iron
men
t during and
after mining.
TR
AN
SPOR
TIN
G T
HE
C
OA
L 1D
MA
RK
ET
In March
1980, the T
ongue River R
ailroad Co
mp
any
was form
ed to begin p
lann
ing
efforts for the d
evelo
pm
ent o
f a coal transp
ortatio
n
system
serving the A
shland-Birney/O
tter Creek
area. Participants in
th
e railroad are Wesco R
esources; D S C
artage Corporation, a sub
sidiary of Diam
on
d S
ham
rock
Corporation; O
tter Creek
1ransportation C
om
pan
y, a subsidiary of C
onsolidation Coal; an
d T
hermR
ail, Inc., a su
bsid
iary of W
ashington Energy C
om
pan
y.
Th
e Tongue R
iver Railroad w
ou
ld carry
coal by
un
it train 89 m
iles n
orth
to Miles C
ity, wh
ere the B
urlington No
rthern
Railroad w
ou
ld
transp
ort it to co
nsu
mers in th
e Pacific N
orth
west, U
pp
er Mid
west
or G
reat Lakes area.
EC
ON
OM
IC B
EN
EFIT
S 10
MO
NT
AN
A
Personal Incom
e in M
ontana ............. $971.8 Million
Montco E
xpenditures ................... $907.8 Million
New
Business O
ther T
han
Montco ......... $988.2 M
illion S
tate & L
ocal Tax R
evenues .............. $848.8 Million
Total E
conomic B
enefits ............. $3.72 B
illion
The M
ontco mine w
ill provide substantial economic an
d em
ploym
ent contributions to the S
tate of Montana an
d its people, according
to a stud
y b
y R
esearch Developm
ent Consultants of F
argo, North
Dakota, com
pleted in M
arch 1983. D
evelopment of the m
ine project w
ill enh
ance M
ontana's economy b
y contributing m
ore th
an $3.7
billion in the form o
f increased business activity, tax revenue and
personal incom
e.
Th
e stud
y assessed the direct an
d secondary (indirect) econom
ic benefits to th
e state during the four-year construction an
d 22-year
operational life of th
e mine. W
ith a two-year overlap, the entire
project life is plan
ned
for 24 years.
EM
PLO
YM
EN
T A
ND
PER
SON
AL
INC
OM
E
Directly an
d indirectly, m
ine operation (22 years) will create over
2,390 perm
anen
t new
jobs in M
ontana with
an an
nu
al personal incom
e of $42.8 m
illion. It is anticipated that 365 of these jobs will
be directly associated w
ith the m
ine, while the rem
aind
er will be
secondary jobs in several sectors o
f Montana's econom
y such as retail trade, professional an
d social services an
d governm
ent.
Additionally, an
ann
ual average of 938 jobs w
ill be created during
the four-year construction phase with
an an
nu
al payroll of approxim
ately $7.7 m
illion.
Altogether, it is estim
ated that the M
ontco Mine project w
ill add
m
ore th
an $971 m
illion to personal income in M
ontana through m
uch
needed new
employm
ent and
associated payrolls.
MO
NT
CO
EX
PEN
DIT
UR
ES A
ND
O
TH
ER
NE
W B
USIN
ESS A
CT
IVIT
Y
Montco w
ill spend nearly $908 million in M
ontana during the 24 years required to build and operate the m
ine. In addition to direct spending b
y M
ontco, the study identified the secondary (indirect or induced) new
business that would be generated b
y the m
ine project in the regional econom
y. An
additional $988 million w
orth
of new
business to the M
ontana economy w
ould result from the life of the
Montco m
ine (an average of more than $41 m
illion per year).
TA
X R
EV
EN
UE
S AN
D R
OY
ALTIES
As a result of the construction an
d operation of th
e Montco project,
as well as th
e secondary business generated, state and
local governm
ent entities in M
ontana are expected to realize an additional $849
million in
tax revenues and royalties over the life of the mine.
Governm
ent-supported services for the people of Montana w
ill gain approxim
ately $35.4 million annually. T
he various taxes include: coal severance, resource indem
nity, gross proceeds, local property, corporate incom
e and
personal income.
POST
SCR
IPT
Mu
ch can b
e said about the excellent quality of life we have in
M
ontana. But as a practical m
atter, it takes jobs and
a stable econom
y for us to enjoy the values that our state has to offer. Public
opinion studies show that M
ontanans support environmentally
responsible projects wh
ich create jobs for our children, b
road
en o
ur
economy an
d provide a strong tax base.
Th
e future of coal development in M
ontana can be described as
'promising,' a w
ord
seldom heard in
these times of high unem
ploym
ent an
d a sagging econom
y.
LEGACY PROGRAM PROPOSALS
Currently:
, .625% Coal Severance Tax Proceeds r Resource Indemnity Tax .625% Coal. Severance
(~% tax on minerals) .
(1~ of proceeds remaining after tax Proceeds - . ~. -", - 50% allocation to cQal trust fund.l_ . .... . - -
' .. "I' Renewable Resourc s Development Funq i .. ~ Resource Indemnity Tax Trust I
;
Fund - must reach $100 million (projects for conservation, manage-j 'Water Development before future receipts spent ment, utilization, development or
\ I
Interest on Trust Fund: preservation of the tand, water, fish, wildlife, other renewables) ~ I
30% to MT.I 6% to I other . !
water dev. hazardous 40% to water I 15% to timber stand I
program I waste I development improvement; 15% to; program projects ag land improvement;
I I
I 10% to coservation districts; 20% to i . other (3/4 of this I
..
I goes to loans under; HT Rangeland Re-sources from 7-1-83
I to 6-30-89) . -
Under .SB 277 (Blaylock):
RIT Interest: .625% Coal Tax Proceeds .625% Coal Tax Proceeds '\,.
.... .,30% to HT .\6% to water dev. hazardous
64% to Legacy program
~(Renewable Resources I Development Program ~ ~ Water Development program waste
program
-I ELIMINATED; . I
~. ______ $_$ to Water Developm~ MT. Rangeland Resources Program until 6-30-89
Legacy Program
Up to 10% for emergencies; balance used for reclamation, reforestation, purchase of recreational areas, mitigation of social and economic impacts of resource extraction, soil and water conservation, weed control, research and development projects, and remediation of hazardous waste sites; administrative costs.
Under HB 913 (D. Brown):
RIT Interest: I .625% Coal Tax Proceeds I (To Legacy Program) I (To Legacy program:---l
--- -'-- L ~ Legacy Program \V
Environmental Contingency Account Admininstrative costs 37% - water development 37% - mineral reclamation and research 15% - renewable resources 11% - hazardous wastes
I .625% Coal
r- (To
Tax Proceeds
Legacy Program)· I
HT. Rangeland ,It Resources Prog. until 6-30-89
J-M S Northern Plains Resource Council
VISITOR'S REGISTER
HOUSE NIt1Ul?A=L... 72£SottIYr;scOMMITTEE
BILL S B \'5'-' DATE M&I2c'1± L ~ -SPONSOR ~. TOW.L.
NAME RESIDENC.2 REPRESENTING SUP- OP-PORT POSE
r~\ \"U\\SoI ~ \\\\)CI~ 'M lYl-t ( 0 / If(u He I Y}lV rN Y I (
- -----
IF YOU CARE TO WRITE cor1MENTS, ASK SECRETARY FOR LONGER FORM.
WHEN TESTIFYING PLEASE LEAVE PREPARED STATEMENT WITH SECRETARY.
FORM CS-33
VISITOR'S REGISTER
HOUSE NATUlfAL ~~COMMITTEE ,.,
BILL_---'liiiSJ-8-=:....---"'"2d1~__''f ___ _ DATE /tIA£ut '2-~-. SPONSOR_--'~~;.JC......~7D:...L.lII!tJW.~~~ ____ _
NAME RESIDENCi:: REPRESENTING SUP- OP-PORT POSE
[j~V \~) \ \S0 () 1\11L~CI ~ ~ f ~ ·(,'l~lgt/ \f) (~ I ( tJ [ Itu Hi ¥
I
- ---
'WII
... IF YOU CARE TO WRITE COMMENTS, ASK SECRETARY FOR LONGER FORM.
WHEN TESTIFYING PLEASE LEAVE PREPARED STATEMENT WITH SECRETARY.
FORM CS-33
VISITOR'S REGISTER
HOUSE N4TUfA.L I2f;:SoUI2'J~:S COMMITTEE
BILL S 8 ').7 '1 DATE ,ttAeltf Z. S
. SPONSOR ~ . 13/'4locJ:....
NAME RESIDENCL REPRESENTING SUP-~
PORT / / - /"
~~ ~// ~7'//./ ~Z"~/t...lJ JLh~~~ L&'~J)zL.-? __ h- JA -~
/ (JJiJtJl2 S)1I\}~ I /WVA. ". / !I!)PRf~ V X-a{; -q~la. L·~. P.' 7
I
------GJ/l. J AL ..... j..~;., 1~1 r -d-,sl x >.JJ~
b&r Or!f-fbJ~ t-tEc&JA €:N v, xtJr:. d Cbj7f£_
~ ~~-,- ~~.~?:;.., fJz:Jjp'5/~~
IF YOU CARE TO WRITE COr1MENTS, ASK SECRETARY FOR LONGER FORM.
WHEN TESTIFYING PLEASE LEAVE PREPARED STATEMENT WITH SECRETARY.
FORM CS-33
OP-l POSEj
j
lUJ"-. •• r) ~~ ~ YO",
xJ '- -~.-
~
• 1 •
i,~ ~"
fI
iI I
I -
rI I
_I -I I I