To an outsider looking at it for the first time... not knowing what sort of effort in coordination might have occurred to deliver this as a result after negotiation, or of consensus among the participants, including the company...
A couple of obvious issues with it... including that it doesn't appear to include any obvious consideration of the costs of any aspects of the "proposed alternatives" other than what others have considered... and it appears that it purposefully avoids addressing that in terms of the costs to be borne by the company as a result of the last minute changes being imposed as requirements... which is particularly egregious in terms of agency misbehavior, in my opinion, if that is what it shows, in fact.
It appears in some part to consist of an agency wish list... that has them extorting the company into funding unrelated projects the agency wants that the public has failed to approve with budgeted allocations of tax dollars. Using the power to obstruct private enterprise as an alternative power to levy a direct tax in the form of extortion... "we got 'em over a barrel, so, let's make them do... this... for us" raises obvious questions of legitimacy. The permitting process clearly is not the proper venue for making fundamental decisions about re-allocations of public monies... nor are bureaucrats who should make those decisions. Obviously, that's another issues that's not a TLR company specific issue... but one for Montana to address.
It appears in some instances to apply "mitigation" that appears it has no rational connection to the project.
It clearly does err in requiring company mitigation of impacts that it predicts will not occur.
It fails tests of reason as well as reasonableness in requiring that the company mitigate... and also mitigate the impact of the mitigations being required... in order to sustain the impact of prior disturbances...
Also has issues with dependencies related to future determinations of "impacts" which might occur... without defining them clearly... leaving far too much potential latitude for costs imposed by future bureaucratic agency misbehavior. Future costs may or may not be imposed... depending only on agency whim, it appears, if they don't define thresholds of relevance in the determination of future impacts. Perhaps those things already exist and didn't need restating... but, I find it reasonable to not trust the lying bastards as an entering argument...
As a matter of process, it appears it may intend to craft a "work around" to the requirements of state law in terms of process completion within a finite period of time... by intentionally withholding announcements of significant requirements they intend to impose until the very final stages of permitting rather then committing to address them openly and properly EARLY in the initial stages. That ploy, if they do that, converts the process of "issuing a permit" into an defacto extension of the permitting process beyond the limits defined in the law... rather than having the issuance constitute an end point in a completion of a transparent process. It could well function that way (even if it does not, here), as a purposeful subversion of the public process the law intends... as the final step takes the form of a non-negotiable demand rather than a legitimate component of public process in the issuing of a permit. There appears to be no obvious check on the reasonableness of that as a process element... when the demand levied appears it may have no rational connection to the project, the requirements of the law... or the function of reason. It could mean that the agency waits to the final step... the issuance of the "permit"... in order to impose onerous conditions requiring that the "permit to proceed" constitutes saying "no"... after having postured for years as engaged in a good faith process in the public interest.
That approach, obviously, would have the agency necessarily not acting in good faith... but perhaps also not complying with the intent or specific requirements of the law... even if not engaged in a criminal conspiracy to subvert the public interest.
Given all that... and its being its my opinion and not the company's...
First, I'll wait to see what the company thinks about the cost being imposed versus the expected costs (which is all that matters in practical terms) rather than expecting the company will be caring about the legitimacy of the abuses of the public interest made apparent in a process that enables abuse by bureaucratic whim to be expressed in the way this document appears to show is possible...
So, bottom line... it is a result... it was delivered right about the time I expected it would be (around two years after it should have been)... and it looks like about as positive a result as you're ever going to get from any government... leaving only the question of the cost being imposed, and the company's analysis of their choices now, and their determination of market relevance of that cost...
|
