I've not looked at the documents... don't have a .pdf reader currently for computer security reasons, so maybe someone else will look at them, or post them here... at least the "detailed description of the Agency Mitigated Alternative is set forth on pages 51 through 62 of the Final EIS." which should allow us to determine what "mitigated alternative" means in terms of DEQ trying to change the rules (or the economics by altering plans) at the last minute, that sort of thing... but, it looks like now it depends only on the DEQ's stipulations in their "Agency Mitigated Alternative" ? Barring stupidity in their requirements being imposed as deliberate obstruction for obstructions sake... and possibly any appeals processes if they're unreasonable, and don't "allow mining without any restrictions on Thursday afternoon's during a full moon when the temperature is over 95 degrees"... or require flying ore out using helicopters... perhaps we're finally "there" ?
Is there any evidence of an deliberate effort being made to exploit the multi-agency interface... imposing changes that will require alteration in process elements controlled by others ? Is DEQ imposing changes that will require revisiting the work already done with the Forest Service on the process of determining access ?
If I'm remembering it right, even having the green light from DEQ now still leaves a last hurdle in the agency coordination with the Forest Service providing their determination of the optimal solution on the access issues, with their comments on proposals and their changes addressing requirements for road construction and maintenance. Of course, that was all supposed to have been resolved years ago... and clearly should have been resolved long before reaching the final stages in the EIS process.
In looking at the other documents on the DEQ page... I note a total absence of any activity from Feb 2011 to Sept 2013... other than an undated Final EIS document on the Troy mine...
The changes imposed in the law in Montana do appear they've worked to force the agency to do something at least resembling its job, rather than what it was doing, in the deliberately anti-social set of functions that had it purposefully failing in doing its job. However, the changes implemented thus far... don't appear to have worked well in preventing the agency from dragging its feet. Certainly the expectations of the legislature re timelines, as seen in the process re the BHJV, appear to have the agency not close to complying with the requirements of the law on the timelines they'd determined to be optimal for the public good, or close to what the legislature had defined as reasonable.
It appears that might well be a function of scale... that has the bureaucrats focusing far more effort on obstructing smaller projects and smaller businesses rather than larger ones... because they can. Montana might be well served by revisiting the scale issues, to address them in ways which better balance the public interest re the nature of the potential risks versus the time and costs of process in smaller operations. Below some threshold... it might make sense to delegate the functions that the state properly retains in addressing larger risks... to have them determined, in compliance with state requirements, at the local level.
That's not a TLR issue at this point, it seems... but, it might be worth looking at that closely again in relation to the evolution of the political issues in Montana in the last few years. Perhaps the BHJV experience shows the legislature will need to revisit the issues again, in order to prevent the agency from obstructing the people's right to conduct business without unreasonable interference intending to prevent it ?
TLR's partners have worked the process in good faith, and with far more patience than the law says should be required. The cost of their patience has been quite significant... including both direct costs resulting from delays as a function of the $ value of time only, and as a function of paying for redundancies in bureaucracy... and huge value lost in terms of delays imposing very large lost opportunity costs.
|
