344.786046
E13MSI
1977
MONTANA SITING INVENTORY
AND
POLICY DEVELOPMENT
^TATe DOCIfMFNTS COLLECTION
IJt-C 1 2003
MONTANA PTATE L'RRAr'"'
1515
THOMAS L. JUDGEy GOVERNOR
MONTANA ENERGY ADVISORY COUNCIL
STATE CAPITOL
HELENA. MONTANA 5960J
LT. GOVERNOR BILL CHRISTIANSEN. CHAIRMAN
MONTANA STATE LIBRARY
3 0864 1002 3597
MONTANA STTTNG INVENTORY
AND
POLICY DEVELOPMENT
30' 3/03.' II
Montana Energy Advisory Council
Project Director: Sharon Solomon Project Investigator: Gail Kuntz
January 1977
TABLE OF CONTCNL'S
Page
1. Introduction 1
IT. Montana Energy Facility Siting 3
A. Major Facility Siting Act 3
B. Administration 5
C. Discussion 8
III. Survey of State Siting Processes 12
A. Oregon 13
B. Washington 16
C. North Dakota 18
D. Minnesota 21
E. Maryland 26
F. California 31
G. Analysis 37
IV. Criteria 44
V. Resource Data Assessment 50
VI. Data Systems 55
A. System Components 55
B. Discussion of Computer Systems and Programs 63
C. Summary Discussion 72
Recommendations 7f,
References gQ
Background Information 84
INTRODUCTION
The following report has been prepared for the Montana Energy Advisory
Council in partial response to the directive of the 1975 Legislature that "the
siting of certain energy conversion facilities shall be suspended . . . until
a long-term, comprehensive state energy conversion policy and plan" has been
prepared. Recognizing the need for a sound framework of policy and information
to guide future siting activities in the state, the Legislature specifically
called for "a statewide siting inventory and a proposed siting policy for the
coordinated siting of energy conversion facilities to meet Montana's energy
needs".
The responsibility for these tasks was assigned to the Montana Energy
Advisory Council with a further directive from the Governor to conduct a broad
assessment of the energy- related data situation in Montana.
Montana's existing involvement in energy facility siting is defined through
the provisions of the Montana Major Facility Siting Act. The following section
of this report presents a discussion of significant sections of the act and the
administrative activities employed by the Energy Planning Division of the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Conservation in interpreting the act and process-
ing specific energy facility applications. This discussion is followed by an
analysis and comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the Montana siting
process which have emerged during its three and one-half year existence.
At present, the state is not directly involved in energy facility siting
until an application is filed under the siting act for a specific facility at a
specific location. A major objective of this report has been the investigation
of alternative options open to the state in developing a statewide siting policy
and inventory to guide the activities of the state and future energy facility
applicants in the earliest possible stages of planning to meet energy needs. A
statewide siting inventory can be expected to supply a classification system
defining the relative compatibility or incompatibility of geographic areas of
the state with future siting activities. The third section of the report is a
survey of the siting processes employed in six other states which, in varying ways,
have taken steps to develop comprehensive policies and statewide studies to fill
the needs outlined above. The States of Oregon, Washington, North Dakota,
Minnesota, Maryland and California are included in this survey.
A siting inventory and future site selection activities must be guided by
the state's policies concerning economic growth, environmental protection, and
the types of development activities deemed most appropriate to meet the state's
future needs and societal goals. These policies must be reflected by specific
siting criteria which define the relative importance of various types of land
- 2 -
uses and natural and cultural environmental characteristics in terras of future
energy facility siting. The fourth section of the report discusses some of the
policy decisions and organizational activities which will be required In develop-
ing siting criteria.
The next two sections of the report discuss the availability of resource data
to meet the needs of a siting inventory and the availability of automated systems
to facilitate the storage and analysis of data in meeting a variety of resource
planning needs. The identification of data needs and subsequent coordination of
management efforts to meet those needs is a central topic of the discussion.
Siting decisions have been, and will continue to be, made amid conflicting
political pressures and concerns. The State of Montana is presently faced with
an important opportunity and a challenge to create a strong policy to guide the
future development of its resources and the siting of energy facilities within
its borders. National energy concerns and the increased activities of industrial
and energy-related interests in the western states have created a critical and
immediate need for a state siting policy. Although development of siting criteria
and a statewide siting inventory will not eliminate future political pressures,
these decision-making tools will help provide a definitive process and framework
of information to guide the planning activities and future Interactions of all
concerned parties in siting-related matters. The concluding section of this
report contains recommendations which outline specific proposals designed to meet
the policy and planning needs identified in the preceding sections.
- 3 -
II. MONTANA ENERGY FACILITY SITING
The State of Montana has been involved in energy facility siting since pas-
sage of the Montana Utility Siting Act in March of 1973 (Section 70-801, et seq. ,
R.C.M. 1947). At that time, the Legislature found that the construction of addi-
tional energy conversion facilities might be necessary to meet the increasing need
for electricity and other forms of energy, but that these facilities "have an
effect on the environment, an impact on population concentration and an effect
on the welfare of the citizens of this state" (Section 70-802, R.C.M. 1947). The
act was passed to ensure that the location, construction and operation of these
facilities will produce minimal adverse effects. Responsibility for administra-
tion of the act was given to the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
(Department) which subsequently created the Energy Planning Division (EPD) to carry
out the assignment. In the past three and one-half years, the siting act has been
applied to the Colstrip Units 3 and 4 application and to applications for a number
of transmission lines of varying voltages and lengths. EPD is also presently con-
ducting baseline environmental studies relating to the proposed Burlington Northern
coal-based industrial facility involving the possible production of fertilizer,
methanol fuel and diesel fuel near Circle, Montana. The following discussion of
the Montana siting situation will be presented in three subsections, including:
(1) a discussion of several significant provisions of the siting act; (2) a dis-
cussion of the administration of the act; and (3) an analysis of the siting
process thus far utilized in the state. The latter subsection will be partially
comprised of comments and observations collected from participants to the Colstrip
Units 3 and 4 application and hearings.
A. Major Facility Siting Act
The siting act was amended and retitled the Major Facility Siting Act in 1975.
It states that no energy facility (as defined by the act) may be constructed in
this state without a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need.
The act established the informational requirements which the state shall use in
evaluating and subsequently approving, denying or approving and modifying a
facility application. However, the specific process to be used in analyzing the
information and applying it to decision-making requirements is not clearly speci-
fied in the act. Therefore, this process has been developed through administrative
interpretation. Full responsibility for certification of a facility is given to
the Board of Natural Resources and Conservation, excepting air and water quality
related matters, which reside with the Board of Health and Environmental Sciences.
All other siting- related permits or approvals required by other regional, state
and local governmental agencies are superceded. The Board of Natural Resources
and Conservation is required to determine the basis of need for a proposed facility
as well as determine that the facility represents the minimum adverse environmental
- 4 -
impact. Additionally, the benefits to the applicant and the state, the effects
of economic activity resulting from the facility, the effects on public health,
welfare and safety, and "any other factors" considered relevant must be evaluated
(Section 70-810, R.C.M. 1947).
Among other requirements, an applicant must identify alternative facility
design technologies and sites and explain the reasons the preferred design and
site is considered superior to any reasonable alternative. This explanation must
include social, economic, engineering and environmental factors.
As amended in 1975, the siting act provides a maximum period of two years
after a major facility or transmission line application is filed for the Depart-
ment to complete all necessary studies and submit formal recommendations to the Board
(some types of transmission line applications must be evaluated within one year) ,
The Department and the Board are guided by an extensive list of environmental,
social and economic concerns which must be considered in the evaluation of an
application. The Board is required to hold a public hearing on an application
under the Montana Administrative Procedure Act not more than 120 days after
receiving the Department's final recommendations and issue a decision within 90
days after the close of the hearing. (It should be noted that there is no time
limitation on the length of the hearing.) During this proceeding, the applicant
must carry the burden of proving that the application should be granted and that
all requirements have been met.
The siting act requires annual submission of long-range plans by utilities
and any person contemplating construction of a facility within the ensuing ten
years. These plans must include the general location and design of all facili-
ties planned for the ten-year period as well as a complete explanation of the
demand projections used to determine the need for future facilities. This infor-
mation is made available to the public and all affected state agencies as well as
citizen environmental protection and resource planning groups. For any facilities
planned within five years of the submission of the long-range plan, the Department
is required to evaluate the proposed site to determine whether construction of
the facility would unduly impair the various environmental values cited in the
act (Section 70-815, R.C.M. 1947). At this time, no future facility sites have
been evaluated under this provision, but the process presumably would provide the
opportunity for negotiation and discussion between the state and a potential
applicant. The process also would reveal major areas of agreement and disagree-
ment regarding a proposed site, and thus would allow time for constructive modifi-
cations of the proposal before the application is filed.
The siting act also features an enforcement provision which states that any-
one who violates any portion of the act in the construction or operation of a
facility or knowingly submits false information in any report or application
required by the act is liable to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 per
violation. Each day of continuing offense constitutes a separate violation.
Authorization is also provided for the Department to seek injunctive or other
appropriate relief against a violation (Section 70-821, R.C.M. 1947).
- 5 -
Additionally, a certificate may be revoked or an application voided if false
information has been submitted by the applicant (Section 70-818, R.C.M. 19A7),
B, Administration
The Energy Planning Division was created within the Department in 1973 to
administer the siting act. Over the past three and one-half years, EPD has
primarily concentrated its efforts in the extensive studies required to evaluate
facility applications. However, the division also has undertaken planning acti-
vities and has developed tools to aid in the siting process.
One of the most important problems confronting a siting agency is the organi-
zation of large volumes of information into a format or process which will permit
orderly consideration of all necessary facts as well as comparison of conflicting
elements for decision-making purposes. A team of experts can use basic resource
data, and through a combination of professional judgment, familiarity with a given
study area, and manual comparison of maps, can evaluate various alternatives
and ultimately recommend a relatively optimal area or corridor for a proposed
facility. The division has generally employed all of these steps in considering
transmission facility applications. However, many facility applications are con-
tested at some point in the certification process and since the state must be
able to demonstrate exactly how each specific environmental factor has been
evaluated, documentation of the process is essential. Also, duplication or
reproduction of study results may become necessary. Therefore, the division has
been developing a methodology to meet these needs. A methodology ideally should
provide a logical breakdown of analytic steps which include all of the evaluation
requirements listed in the siting act. The need for a facility should be established
before comparative analyses of alternative energy sources, site locations and
design technologies are performed. When choices have been made among these
various alternatives, the natural and cultural environmental impacts of the
proposed facility can be identified and studied. Environmental, economic, social
and engineering factors must all be taken into account in evaluating these impacts.
This process represents an ideal study model which has not yet been applied in
the specified sequence. The reasons for this will be discussed in the following
subsection.
The division has made progress in developing a process for evaluating and
comparing the various resource elements included within the geographic study areas
associated with various transmission facility applications. It is virtually impos-
sible for a single site or corridor to minimize all types of adverse impacts on
all resource elements. Therefore, values or measures of "importance" must be
assigned to these elements in order to make trade-offs or comparisons between
them. The elements are locationally plotted on maps. Figure II-l on the fol-
lowing page presents an example of the maps and the analysis process used in the
division's study of the Anaconda-Hamilton transmission line application. Each
item in the legends of the maps shown in Figure II-l is assigned a weight or number
value which conveys its relative compatibility or incompatibility with a trans-
mission line. Each complete map is subsequently assigned an overall weighting
which establishes its importance relative to the other maps. After the weightings
have been assigned, the maps may be overlayed, combined and compared through a
computer process to reveal the areas or corridors where least impact could be
expected to occur.
L A
Z
o
„ .
UJ
u.
1-
X
3
V)
_I
m
Q
to
a.
5
o
s
t-
<
•- (/)
m UJ
< E
X o Q.
UJ w 5
C^ UJ 5
— 1-
-> <
a o
_)
\,
»
/^
COMP
UTER
UJ
UJ ^
u. —
— w
d o
Q Q_
d 2
? O
o
i
- 6 -
i
CO
s
UJ
t-
co
ll
Q.
<
01
o
>:
o
<n
J£
o
K
ir
Ul
IlI
o
^
3
o
1-
o
<
< 1
J)
o
<
i
UJ
a. Q.
o <
-J 5
en
i
OD < <
O I
cc
UJ
<
COMPUTER
Q.
<
_l
5
<
UJ "^
or
o >-
-)
Z 1-
1-
< >
1
CE —
-)
K
<>
Q<-^
is
<
q:
a
I/)
2
UJ
O UJ t
< C/)
3 >-
O CO
<s
UJ
K >
O <
= 5
Q
o
a:
a.
Q UJ
Q ^
UJ t
St
1- CO -
1- V).
X o o
X o 'o
O Q. :
O Q. ;
uJ 5
IL 2
^8
4 °
RELATIONSHIPS OF THE MAPS USED IN THE
CORRIDOR SELECTION PROCESS OF THIS STUDY
(ARROWS INDICATE INPUT OF ORIGINAL RESEARCH AND LITERATURE REVIEW)
(Dept. of Natural Resources and Conservation 1976)
Figure II-l
- 7 -
Tlie computerized aspects of the process provide important flexibility in
allowing EPD to make many types of comparisons between areas, using different
combinations of weights for the various environmental elements. This reveals
how different emphasis on the concerns can alter the desirability of a given
corridor and helps insure that all options are considered. The computer process
is discussed more fully in Section VI of this report.
The principal fact which must be understood is that the above process is only
as useful or as accurate as the information and professional thinking put into
it. The process will accommodate an almost infinite amount of data analyses,
but an individual or team of individuals must define the relative importance
of the elements used in the analyses. These types of judgments are unavoidable,
but to the greatest extent possible, they should reflect existing state policies.
The Department has been responsible for negotiating several planning agreements
between the State of Montana, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) . These federal agencies are responsible for administration
and management of significant units of land in the state, as well as the forest
and mineral resources within those areas. Since both agencies are responsible
for conducting studies related to siting activities within tbeir respective
areas of jurisdiction, and since the future siting of energy facilities in Montana,
particularly transmission lines, is likely to involve federal lands, the planning
agreements are beneficial to all parties. A cooperative agreement with the USFS
was signed in December 1973. It provides for joint development of an acceptable
process for energy transmission planning. The agreement provides a basis for
exchange of resource and land use data needed by both agencies in making siting
decisions. The two agencies also expect to collaborate in developing the computer
programs and procedures required to store, analyze and display the data. A mem-
orandum of understanding between the state and the BLM was executed in June 1975
and is primarily oriented toward the coordination of land use studies and data
collection activities and development of complementary land use planning systems.
There is also provision for exchange of land use information and mutual review
of related environmental impact studies. A more recent memorandum of understanding
between the state, USFS and BLM was executed in June 1976. It complements the
earlier agreements and is specifically intended "to provide guidelines for the
three agencies to effectively work together on planning, programming and manage-
ment issues related to major facilities" set forth in the Major Facility Siting
Act. Major objectives include establishment of siting decision criteria, defini-
tion of unsuitable areas for siting and definition of a public involvement process.
Also, guidelines for joint administrative efforts on individual facility applica-
tions are to be developed to meet short-term planning needs. It is hoped that
these planning agreements will provide a strong basis for coordination of federal-
state activities in the future, especially as mutual responsibilities are con-
centrated in siting-related issues.
- 8 -
C. Discussion
The Montana Major Facility Siting Act has two weaknesses which have hindered
the attempts of both applicants and the state to effectively comply with the require-
ments and intent of the law. These weaknesses are best described as (1) an inad-
equate planning and informational framework to guide the siting of energy facil-
ities, and (2) inadequate scheduling of the various procedures required by the act.
The siting act provides an extensive list of factors which must be included
and evaluated in a facility application (Section 70-816, R.C.M. 1947). A potential
applicant has this list to guide preparation of an application; however, nearly all
of the elements are oriented toward determining the total impact the facility
would represent, while very few elements provide specific guidance for selecting
an optimal site or corridor. Therefore, in the planning stages, the applicant
selects a site based upon the criteria he considers most important and at the
point that an actual application is filed, considerable amounts of time and funds
have been invested in studying that specific location.
As indicated in the siting act, the state must evaluate the facility and the
site which have been proposed in an application. Although the applicant is required
to submit information concerning alternative sites which have been considered, the
state is in an extremely unfavorable position to determine whether the proposed
site is the optimal choice. The applicant's criteria may be in conflict with the
state's responsibility for minimizing adverse impacts, but unless the state
initiates extensive siting studies at alternative locations, the possibility of
relocating a proposed facility appears slight. This Is especially true for major
facilities other than transmission lines. Also, there is no mechanism for select-
ing alternative sites for study.
The most essential problem facing both applicants and the state is the lack
of a geographically oriented framework of criteria to guide the actual siting of
facilities. The environmental elements listed in the siting act could be adapted
to this purpose, but thus far, this type of planning has not taken place, primarily
due to lack of funds and lack of specific authorization to include the results of
such planning in the state's siting regulations.
One siting inventory has been undertaken in Montana by the Montana Energy and MHD
Research and Development Institute (MERDI) located at Butte. This organization
is federally funded, primarily through the Energy Research and Development Admin-
istration, and is principally charged with furthering the development of magnetohydro-
dynamics (MHD) technology (a coal-fired process of energy production) and ultimately
siting and operating a 500 megawatt MHD plant somewhere in Montana. MERDI has con-
ducted a statewide study to identify candidate areas within Montana which will
potentially yield a suitable site for the MHD facility. The statewide study used
1:1,000,000 scale maps and considered the following criteria:
(1) Meteorology (air dispersion characteristics).
(2) Hydrology (volume of stream flow).
- 9 -
(3) Seismiclty (distance from geologic faults).
(4) Land use (legally proLected areas).
(5) Socio-economics (proximity to community of
at least 6,000 persons).
This study effort should be evaluated by the state. A state-sponsored siting
study might be organized under entirely different criteria, but the MERDl experience
can provide valuable insight into potential problems which may be encountered. For
example, lack of reliable statewide data prohibited use of some criteria categories
which MERDI had hoped to incorporate in its study. These included land productivity
and wildlife population density categories. Also, meteorology was used as a study
criterion, but the data were not detailed enough to allow more than an extremely
broad evaluation which generalized the available information over large geographic
areas. MERDI has taken its initial study, which identified candidate areas, through
a second, more detailed screening level. The large candidate areas have thus been
reduced to reveal smaller, suitable siting areas which are presently being studied
to identify potential sites for the future MHD facility. Although a state siting
study and criteria development process would be an independent effort with different
goals, interaction and exchange of information between the state and related efforts
such as the MERDI study should be encouraged.
Development of siting criteria and completion of a statewide siting inventory
constitute a medium long-range planning goal which will partially correct the state's
present reactive position in evaluating siting applications. However, other adjust-
ments may be required to correct problems in the scheduling and general organiza-
tion of the application evaluation procedures outlined in the act.
As noted in the methodology model described previously, the need for a facility
should be established before engineering design and environmental evaluations
proceed. However, the siting act requires that the entire evaluation of a major
facility must be completed within a maximum time period of two years. This
effectively prohibits the initiation of a separate study to determine "need"
and essentially requires that all phases of the evaluation proceed concurrently.
Policy determinations which go beyond the siting act are involved in interpreting
the definition of "need" for new facilities. If these policy determinations are
ultimately established, it may be possible to divide the siting evaluation period
into a "need" study and a subsequent environmental study, especially if earlier
state involvement in facility planning somewhat reduces the time required for some
types of evaluations.
The long-range plans and five-year site evaluation requirements presently
included in the siting act (Sections 70-814 and 70-815, R.C.M. 1947, respectively)
are intended to address the need for earlier state involvement in site planning,
but these provisions may not be functioning as intended. No funding source has
been provided to the Department to carry out the five-year site evaluations and
no studies of this type have been conducted thus far. Also, there is considerable
debate concerning the time that energy demand projections decisively show that a
new energy facility or facilities will be needed. Further, there is uncertainty
regarding the time the potential need for a new facility becomes an integral part
of a utility's long-range plans and begins to require plant design and site-
related decisions. The relative newness of the Montana siting process has not
- 10
allowed time for extensive state Involvement in the initial design and siting
plans for facilities proposed thus far under the siting act. The quality of the
state's involvement in these plans in the future will partially depend upon the
accuracy of the long-range plans and the openness of state-utility interaction
prior to the filing of specific applications. The siting act's long-range
reporting provisions may require further refinement to insure that their purpose
is adequately served. Several types of provisions which could help meet this
objective are featured in other state siting processes discussed in Section
III.
The recently completed certification process for the Colstrip Units 3 and 4
application has revealed many opportunities for improving the siting act's hear-
ing procedure as well as improving the interaction of federal, state and local
government agencies, and the public both prior to and during the hearing process.
The Colstrip hearing participants who submitted comments for this study agree
that the length of the hearing and the volume of material in the hearing record
could have been significantly reduced by clarification of contested issues and
other types of planning prior to commencement of the hearing. This matter should
be studied in detail before specific changes in the procedure are proposed, but
it appears that the hearing examiner should be appointed to an early stage in
the application process and given the responsibility for organizing pre-hearing
conferences to clarify areas of agreement and disagreement between the potential
hearing participants. More effective use of time could also be achieved by
requiring that all testimony to be included in the hearing be submitted in advance.
Additionally, the hearing examiner could streamline and clarify the entire pro-
ceeding for the Board if given the responsibility for summarizing the hearing
record in a form suitable for decision-making. Another related matter requiring
further study concerns the adaptability of the Montana Administrative Procedure
Act to the requirements of a siting proceeding. If procedural adjustments
improve the process, they should be considered.
The Colstrip application and hearing revealed a number of areas where coor-
dination between government agencies could be improved. Numerous state, federal,
regional and local government agencies have either statutory responsibilities or
geographic areas of jurisdiction which are directly affected by siting issues
and decisions. The Department is given lead responsibility for siting, but there
is no clearly defined mechanism to insure that proper communication, interaction
and coordination of interagency efforts is taking place. The siting act provides
a basis for coordination between state agencies in requiring that agencies with
expertise in areas affected by energy facility siting must make appropriate
reports to the Department. However, the absence of well-defined siting objectives
creates problems in achieving a comprehensive approach with these reports.
The Colstrip application is presently being evaluated by several federal
agencies. Although these evaluations may potentially be aided by the state's
hearing record and environmental studies, improved federal-state coordination at
an earlier time could have avoided much of the confusion and complex legal
entanglements presently surrounding the application.
(
I
- 11
The existing cooperative agreement and memorandums of understanding between
the state, U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management provide for mutual
exchange of land use and resource information applicable to siting and joint
development of an acceptable siting process. The latter objective will provide
a specific means for achieving sustained interaction and cooperation between the
agencies, but it has not yet been fully implemented.
A separate, but related, matter concerns public input and the involvement
of local government and community leaders in the siting process. As with the
other topics discussed herein, earlier and more clearly defined forms of involve-
ment would be a significant improvement. Public input in the siting process has
thus far been characterized by testimony at public hearings and submission of
written comments on specific applications and evaluations. Various forms of organ-
ized political activity have supplemented this input. The ultimate effectiveness
of the former types of involvement is, perhaps, questionable. More innovative
and effective forms of public input would include participation in the site plan-
ning process through the development of siting criteria and the siting inventory.
Public input in this type of planning would help insure that future site selections
are made within a policy-oriented, informational framework which the public has
helped construct. Alternative mechanisms for insuring public input in criteria
development are discussed in Section III.
Public involvement in the application evaluation process also requires
attention. If the certification and hearing procedures are eventually amended
in specific ways, the form and content of public input should also be analyzed
for possible improvement.
Further discussion of the various topics and problem areas outlined above will be
presented in the following sections of the report.
12
III. SURVEY OF STATE SITING PROCESSES
Nearly all state siting legislation has come into existence in the past six
or seven years with the objective of involving states in the energy facility
planning and siting process. All 38 state siting laws (Council on Environmental
Quality, 1976) have been oriented toward minimization of the various adverse
impacts associated with energy generation and conversion. This objective has
principally been served by requiring new energy facilities to apply for and
receive state evaluation and approval before construction may begin.
A principal objective of this report has been the identification and investi-
gation of siting activities in other states which have begun to move toward com-
prehensive involvement in the planning and siting of energy facilities prior to
the evaluation of individual facility applications. This investigation may provide
Important guidance to development of the Montana siting process. Therefore, this
section presents a review of siting activities in the States of Oregon, Washington,
North Dakota, Minnesota, Maryland and California. It must be noted that other
states not included in this study have also engaged in comprehensive site planning
activities, but time constraints and the results of initial study research and
communications have limited this review to the above listed states. It also must
be noted that these states vary considerably in the extent of their involvement
in site planning and in the approaches which have been applied to statewide siting
inventories.
The following list includes key questions which have emerged during the course
of this study in evaluating state siting processes in terms of comprehensive, long-
range planning:
(1) Does the siting legislation provide a direct mechanism for development
of a state siting plan, development of siting criteria and state involve-
ment in the facility planning and site selection process prior to eval-
uation of a specific application?
(2) Are long-range plans required from any person intending to construct
an energy facility in the state? Is there an enforcement clause or
similar mechanism to insure serious compliance with the intent of
these plans?
(3) Is the state authorized (required) to generate its own energy demand
data and perform subsequent forecasting tasks relating to an independent
assessment of the need for any proposed facility?
(4) Is there an adequate provision for staffing and funding to carry out
comprehensive site inventory studies, energy demand analyses, and
application evaluations?
(5) Is a mechanism provided for joint planning and interaction between the
state and the utilities in serving the public interest?
(6) Is there provision for one stop approval of applications and authoriza-
tion for the siting agency to coordinate activities of the various
j
- 13 -
federal, state, local and regional agencies with responsibilities
or jurisdictions related to siting?
(7) Is there provision for public involvement in designation of siting
priorities, development of siting criteria, and other types of site
planning? Is the public informed or provided the opportunity to
become involved in plans for new energy facilities at an early stage
in the process, before major decisions have been made?
The States of Oregon, Washington, North Dakota, Minnesota, Maryland and
California will be analyzed in the following subsections in terms of these
questions.
A. Oregon
In 1975, the Oregon legislature created a Department of Energy which absorbed
the former siting authority (the Oregon Nuclear and Thermal Energy Council) created
in 1971. The legislature declared that "a need exists for comprehensive state
leadership in energy production, distribution and utilization" (Section 469.300
et seq. , ORS 1975). The department was specifically authorized to obtain all
necessary information from producers, suppliers, and consumers of energy resources
in the state to predict the timing of construction of future energy facilities. g
The department presently includes about 30 staff members and has a budget of "
approximately $2 million over the next biennium (Woods 1976).
The siting council, retitled the Energy Facility Siting Council, is a part
of the energy department. The council was directed by the original siting
law (1971) to conduct studies, investigations, research and programs relating
to all aspects of site selection, and after public hearings, to designate areas
within the state that are suitable or unsuitable for use as sites for nuclear,
fossil-fueled and geothermal power plants.
A statewide siting task force was appointed by the Chairman of the Nuclear
and Thermal Energy Council in June 1972 to undertake the site designation study
and make recommendations to the council. The state was divided into three
sections — Eastern Oregon, Oregon Coast, and Western Interior Oregon (Oregon
Nuclear and Thermal Energy Council (ONTEC) 1974) and evaluated for the following
five parameters: (1) natural resource areas; (2) meteorology; (3) population;
(4) water restrictions; and (5) geology. Each parameter was considered individ-
ually in terms of each of the three types of energy facilities. Natural resource
areas and water restrictions were considered important in siting all types of
power plants. Meteorology was most strongly considered in fossil fuel plant
siting, while population and geology were more closely related to nuclear plants
(ONTEC 1974, p. 0-2). Natural resource areas Included national parks, wilderness
areas, wildlife management areas and refuges, and other types of special or
legally designated resource areas. The meteorological evaluation was based upon
"elements which affect the fate of appreciable quantities of air contaminant ^
emission to the atmosphere or emissions which may produce other significant ^
- 14 -
meteorological effects" (ONTEC 1974, p. 2-1). Broadly defined areas such as
confined valley floors were considered unsuitable for siting. The population
parameter applied a population proximity concept as a measure to suggest whether
or not the population in a region is sufficiently dispersed so that there would
be a high probability of finding suitable nuclear sites. The water restriction
parameter was determined by existing legal and policy constraints affecting water
withdrawals from each drainage basin. These restrictions were compared with
the water requirements of a 1,000 >fW plant, and the various tributaries sub-
sequently were rated unsuitable, less suitable or suitable for siting. Geology con-
siderations were described in terms of geomorphic provinces and included earthquake
potential, active faulting and volcanism. All five of the parameters were designed to
identify broad geographic areas. Extensive evaluations using specific plant
designs would be required to determine the true suitability or unsuitability of any
specific site.
The siting council was specifically directed to encourage the voluntary cooper-
ation of the people, municipalities, counties. Industries, agriculture, and other
pursuits, in establishing standards for site selection. The parameters used in
the siting study were developed by the task force and then presented to the public
for comment and modification.
The siting council amended the task force's study before adopting the results
into the siting rules and regulations. The entire water restriction parameter
was omitted. The council decided that applicants should deal with the problem
of water availability in terms of specific plant design proposals. The council
also omitted the "less suitable" designation which the task force had assigned
to some areas because there was no legal provision to support it. The "less
suitable" areas were redistributed between suitable and unsuitable designations.
The council also added a new study parameter, prime agricultural land. This para-
meter was based upon U.S. Soil Conservation Service classifications and was
defined in terms of a specific number of acres in each of the three sections of
Oregon which can be considered for future siting.
The areas designated suitable and unsuitable in the rules and regulations are
subject to re-evaluation and may be amended either by the council or through peti-
tions filed under Oregon law. By rule of the council, construction of thermal
power plants will not be permitted in areas designated unsuitable. However, the
council is presently concerned that lawsuits may result if an application is made
for a site in an unsuitable area and subsequently denied because of location. It
is hoped that negotiation can resolve such problems if they arise.
Oregon law requires that an applicant must file a notice of intent to file
an application for a site certificate at least twelve months prior to actually
filing for the certificate. The notice of intent must identify the proposed site
for the facility and a fee of $5,000 must be submitted for each site so indicated.
Copies of the notice are then sent to a specified list of agencies and the cities
and counties affected by the application for comments and recommendations. This
section is intended to provide greater opportunity for the public to become aware
of utility plans before the site certification process begins (even though these
- 15
plans should be reflected In long-range plans) and to allow for expression of
opinions, which, if opposed to the application, could lead to public hearings.
The council is also required to designate the governing body of a city or county
where a proposed site is located as a special advisory group when an application
is filed.
Discussion
Oregon's siting process contains many significant features which could provide
guidance to future siting efforts in Montana. The statewide siting study was
broadly based and was generally designed to reveal areas of outstanding unsuit-
ability for power plant sites. The parameters initially defined by the siting
task force are based upon eziisting federal and state environmental protection
and public health and safety statutes. Prime agricultural land was defined as a
resource of importance and included as an additional siting parameter through a
direct policy determination of the siting council. The unsuitable areas designated
by the study were formally included in the siting rules and regulations and the
state considers them closed to future siting. Montana could conduct a statewide
study of this type. Further discussion of this topic will be presented in the
analysis at the end of this section.
One aspect of Oregon's energy research activities has presented a problem
which directly affects the state's long-range site planning efforts. As mentioned
previously, the Oregon Department of Energy was established in 1975 and was directed
to prepare independent long-range energy forecasts which could be used to predict
the timing of construction of future energy facilities. The department's prelimin-
ary efforts to meet this responsibility were challenged from several standpoints,
including accuracy of data input, application of econometric analysis processes,
and general conclusions. This type of problem is best understood when con-
sidered in terms of the complexities involved in making reliable energy demand
forecasts. Additionally, the Oregon energy agency was making its first effort
in this area. If Montana eventually assumes a similar energy forecasting respon-
sibility, initial planning and evaluation of the implementation processes and
problems encountered elsewhere will be essential. The following discussions
of Maryland's and California's siting situations present different perspectives
on this topic.
Oregon's siting law contains two public involvement provisions which the
State of Montana should consider. These are, respectively, the notice of intent
requirement and the directive which requires the siting council to encourage
voluntary cooperation from various sectors of society in establishing standards
for site selection. The notice of Intent clause provides the opportunity for the
public to become aware of potential site proposals and to express opinions at a
preliminary point in the siting process. The state and the applicant are given
- 16 -
strong indications of public attitude before Iprge amounts of time, funds and
study efforts have been committed to a particular site. The state and the
applicant also are given additional time to clarify major issues or points of
disagreement concerning a particular application before official state studies
begin. The 12-month "notice" period provided by Oregon law would not be adequate
for evaluating the potential impacts of a site on a quantitative basis, but
qualitative impact determinations could be made. However, some source of funding
must be provided to support this activity.
B. Washington
The energy facility siting situation in the State of Washington is substantially
different from the other states discussed in this section because approximately
80 percent of Washington's energy is supplied by publicly-owned and operated
utilities which collectively comprise the Washington Public Power Supply System.
The long-range plans of these utilities, as well as all other utilities serving
the general Pacific Northwest Region, are published annually in a document entitled
the "West Group Forecast". The availability of this information essentially
explain the absence of a clause in the Washington siting law requiring submission
of long-range utility plans. Additionally, the siting law does not require a state-
wide siting inventory.
Washington's energy office was established by the 1975-76 Legislature and was
given responsibility for collection of all types of energy-related data and prep-
aration of analyses "necessary for development of recommendations with respect to
the timing of construction of additional facilities and other energy programs
(Section 80-50 et seq. , R.C.W. 1976). Additionally, this office is responsible
for development of conservation plans, preparation of contingency plans for dealing
with energy shortages or emergencies, and generally advising and supporting other
state agencies in energy-related matters.
The Washington siting agency is the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council,
This council was established through 1976 amendments to the original Washington
siting legislation of 1970 and is comprised of the directors of 14 state execu-
tive departments, as well as temporary representatives from each county affected
by individual site applications. The director of the energy office serves as the
council's non-voting chairman. The council's primary responsibility is the
evaluation of energy facility site applications. Since both the council and the
energy office function with very limited staffs, consultants are contracted to
conduct the site evaluation studies. These studies and the recommendations of
the council are forwarded to the Governor, who makes the final decision to approve
or disapprove an application.
The law presently requires the director of the Department of Commerce to work
with the energy office in expending funds appropriated by the Legislature to acquire,
develop and operate land and facilities which will foster development of the state's
nuclear economic potential. This provision has existed since 1961 and was utilized
to lease land for burial of radioactive wastes. It may be repealed or transferred
- 17 -
to the energy office in the near future (Adair 1976).
Although the siting council was not given authority to undertake a statewide
siting study, the siting law does provide for preliminary review of potential sites
if an applicant chooses to request such a review prior to actually filing an appli-
cation and furnishes a $10,000 fee to finance the study. It appears that the
state has no authority to modify utility plans at this stage, but the process is
designed to reveal problems with potential sites which could result in many types
of modifications in the facility application (up to and including relocation of
the proposed site). Additionally, the process provides a means of informing the
public of facility siting plans, although there is no specific provision for public
input. The first site review conducted under this provision is presently being
completed. The siting act also contains a "notice of intent to file" provision
similar to that required hy che Oregon law, except that no fee is required and
the notice period is 90 days. The notice must indicate the general location for
the proposed facility.
In the absence of a state-initiated site screening study, the public utilities
of the Washington Public Power Supply System commissioned their own statewide siting
study. The initial phase of the study, published in December 1975, considered seven
parameters in identifying suitable site candidate areas (WPPSS 1975; Adair 197fS).
The study has since progressed toward identification of nine potential specific sites,
with emphasis on nuclear facilities. No actual site applications have been based
upon this study to date, but the state considers it a useful planning tool contain-
ing information which will be considered in reviewing future site applications
(Adair 1976)- It should be noted that Washington does not have a statewide land
use plan. If such a plan is ultimately required, the state would have to initiate
its own statewide site screening study (Adair 1976).
The analysis and ultimate determination of need for a proposed facility has
not been a well defined process in Washington. The siting council's role in assess-
ing need is particularly ambiguous because, on one hand, the council is required
by the state environmental policy act to analyze alternatives to a proposed
facility (and must, therefore, indirectly deal with the need to be filled by the
facility). On the other hand, a need analysis is not mandated in the siting act
and apparently may not be considered in the council's consideration of a facility
application. Therefore, the siting council's role is rather strictly confined
to site evaluation.
Discussion
Washington's siting agency has the most narrowly defined area of jurisdiction
and analysis responsibilities of any of the states considered in this study. The
authorization to acquire all pertinent energy-related information from energy
producers, suppliers, and consumers is granted to the state's energy office, and
the data analyses and forecasts subsequently developed by this agency are used
- 18 -
by the Governor in approving or denying energy facility applications.
Washington's siting situation Is comparable to Montana's in some respects,
although Montana's siting agency is responsible for determining the need for
proposed facilities. Since the Washington siting act does not call for a state-
wide siting study and also does not require an applicant to submit to a preliminary
site review process or to reveal the location of a future facility except as pro-
vided in the 90-day notice of Intent period, the state must evaluate site appli-
cations solely on a case-by-case basis. The public nature of most utility plan-
ning activities in Washington may offset this situation. Also, long-range site
planning advantages of a statewide site screening study have been provided by
the Washington utilities. However, if this type of study tool is to provide the
widest possible basis for use in state siting decisions, it should most properly
be undertaken by the state with input from all concerned parties, including
utility interests and the public at large.
C. North Dakota
The North Dakota Energy Conversion and Transmission Facility Siting Act was
passed in the closing days of the 1975 legislative session, but for purposes of
actual siting, the effective date of the act was December 1975, when the siting
rules and regulations were adopted. The siting act and the rules and regulations
must be considered together in order to obtain a complete understanding of North
Dakota's siting process.
The North Dakota Public Service Commission (PSC) was assigned the responsibility
of administering the siting legislation. The first task of the commission was
to "initiate a public planning process where all interested persons can partici-
pate in developing the criteria and standards to be used ... in preparing an
inventory of potential energy conversion facility sites and transmission facility
corridors and to guide the site suitability evaluation and selection process"
(Section 49-22-OA, N.D.C.C. 1975). All future applications for sites will be
evaluated in terms of this inventory; however, all applications filed thus far
have been emergency cases which have been processed on an expedited time schedule
specified in the act (Englerth 1976).
Two citizen advisory committees were formed in May 1975 to propose the
criteria for locating energy conversion facility sites and transmission corridors,
respectively. Several public meetings were held by the committees during the
summer of 1975 to gather public input for criteria development.
The committee was guided by a list of evaluation factors included in the
siting act and also by North Dakota's policy of siting facilities so as to pro-
duce minimal adverse effects on the environment and the welfare of the state's
citizens. It was decided that certain areas of the state would be designated
19 -
<
I
"exclusion" or "avoidance" areas because of their uniqueness or susceptibility
to adverse environmental effects. Exclusion areas are completely removed from
siting consideration and avoidance areas are considered "last choices" which
would be utilized only on clear demonstration that no reasonable alternatives
exist.
The criteria developed for the siting inventory were based upon the exclusion
and avoidance categories and included legally designated parks, wildlife reserves
and historic sites as well as other types of scenic, recreational and natural
areas at the national, state and county administration levels. Additionally,
critical habitat areas for endangered or rare animal and plant species were
included as were areas of prime farm land and irrigated land and areas within
city limits or the boundaries of military installations. It was also recognized
that "buffer zones" would be required to preserve the quality or nature of some
criteria types. The width of the buffer zones were determined on a case-by-case
basis. The exclusion-avoidance criteria were mapped for each county in the
state and published in July 1976 as the site inventory.
At present, the siting act calls for criteria and an inventory to designate
specific potential energy conversion sites and transmission facility corridors.
It appears, however, that this provision may be amended in the near future, thus
leaving the task of specific site identification to applicants, who can then make
site applications based upon specific facility design criteria as well as the i
information provided in the inventory (Englerth 1976).
The criteria selection committees developed a number of site-specific criteria
which were not actually mapped in the inventory but which are intended to provide
guidance to future site selection efforts. These criteria fall within the
avoidance categorization and include: (a) areas where surface water drainage or
groundwater flow patterns would be adversely affected; (b) zones surrounding rural
residences, businesses or communication facilities; and (c) areas of unspecified
scenic, recreational or paleontological significance. Other socio-economic-
related criteria are also included.
Additionally, a separate listing (partially presented below) delineates
criteria which would cause the PSC to give preference to a proposed site:
(1) Recycling of conversion by-products and energy conservation
through location, process and design.
(2) Utilization of available labor in the state.
(3) Economic benefit to residents of the area and state
in general.
(4) Non-relocation of residents.
(5) Economies of construction and operation.
(6) Commitment of a portion of the energy for use in the state.
(7) Use of a primary energy source or raw material located in
the state.
- 20 -
It is unclear how some of these positive site selection criteria may actually be
dependent upon specific sites; nevertheless, they are specific factors for appli-
cants to consider in order to receive the most favorable evaluation of their site
proposals. All of the criteria discussed above are officially included in North
Dakota's siting rules and regulations.
North Dakota's siting process requires two types of long-range plans from
potential applicants. The ten-year plans must include information regarding
demand projections and future facility needs, as well as a description of on-
going efforts by the utility to coordinate its plans with other utilities to
meet regional needs. A second long-range plan requirement concerns "facility
development plans" which must be submitted by "every utility which owns, operates
or plans within the next five years to start construction, own, or operate" an
energy facility (Section 49-22-06, N.D.C.C. 1975). The plans must be submitted
annually, following publication of the site inventory and criteria described above.
The plans must identify the tentative preferred site (or corridor) and at least
one alternative and give preliminary indication of the potential environmental
impact of the proposed facility. The act presently states that sites or corridors
may be selected from the inventory of potential sites and corridors published by
the commission or they may be selected and proposed solely by the utility. This
provision presumably will be amended if the provision requiring state identification
of sites is revised.
An additional provision included in the rules and regulations requires an appli-
cant to file a letter of intent to file an application at least one year prior to
beginning construction of a facility. This enables the commission to determine if
it has jurisdiction over the facility and to plan for processing the applica-
tion. The applicant must obtain a certificate of site compatibility before
beginning construction, but it should be noted that after July 1977, the processing
time for a major facility application will be only six months and for a transmission
facility, three months. This expedited process will depend upon the pre-application
planning and evaluation capability provided by the criteria, the siting inventory
and the various long-range plans. However, the shortened evaluation period will
require careful review in the future to ensure that enough time is provided to
make adequate studies.
Discussion
North Dakota's siting legislation has not existed long enough to be analyzed
in terms of its complete operational capability. The potential for systematic
state involvement in applicants' site selection activities and for examination
of the need for facilities through a ten-year period are evident. North Dakota
has not specifically addressed the problem of insuring compliance with the intent
of the long-range plan requirements nor has it chosen to pursue detailed involve-
ment in energy demand forecasting through its siting act.
I
- 21 -
Public Involvement In North Dakota's siting process is partially defined by
a provision which directs the siting commission to appoint citizen advisory
committees to assist in criteria development. Additionally, there is provision
for appointment of "evaluation and selection committees" for each facility appli-
cation received. These citizen committees serve in an advisory capacity and are
composed of three utility representatives, one representative from the Montana
Department of Agriculture, and representatives from each county and city where
a facility would be located. This type of committee has not yet been organized
for a specific application (Englerth 1976).
One serious problem in North Dakota's siting process has been the lack of
provision for adequate staffing or funding to meet the mandates of the siting act.
A minimal staff from the state's land reclamation division was assigned to perform
staff responsibilities for the siting act. This group's activities have been
basically limited to evaluating the information supplied with the transmission
facility applications thus far received under the siting act. The siting inventory
was conducted by a private consulting firm. A recommendation to the legislature
for increased staff and funding is expected in the immediate future.
The general structure of North Dakota's site planning activities could be
applied to Montana in terms of scope and the types of criteria which have been
developed. This consideration will be discussed further in the analysis at the
end of this section.
D. Minnesota
The Minnesota siting act was passed in 1973, and was used as a pattern for
several of the provisions included in the North Dakota siting law. These two
laws and their accompanying rules and regulations feature similar requirements
for a siting inventory to identify suitable sites and corridors and include similar
sets of criteria to guide the selection and evaluation of preferred sites. The
two laws also feature somewhat similar long-range plan requirements and both laws
include provisions for citizen advisory committees to assist in criteria develop-
ment and to provide public input into the overall siting process. The description
of these portions of the North Dakota law also applies to the Minnesota siting
situation.
In Minnesota, the determination of need for a proposed energy facility is made
by the state energy agency before the siting authority, the Minnesota Environmental
Quality Council (EQC) , completes its site-related studies. These two agencies
and processes have a complex relationship which requires further clarification
(Hynes 1976). The energy agency is responsible for conducting independent energy
demand and forecasting studies which are compared to the 15-year, long-range plans
required annually from the state's utilities. At present, the energy agency issues
a certification of need for a specific facility application rather than certifying
- 22 -
the need for a certain amount of energy generation. This affects siting con-
siderations in terms of plant size and design and thus infringes, to some degree,
upon the siting evaluation options open to the EQC. A clearer definition of the
responsibilities of these two agencies Is necessary.
In addition to 15-year, long-range plans, utilities must submit five-year
facility development plans similar to those required by North Dakota. Minnesota's
siting law does not include a "notice of intent" clause.
The funding provision for Minnesota' s siting process Is notable In that the
EQC's baseline environmental studies, siting criteria development, site Inventory
preparation and other activities not Involved In the evaluation of specific applications
are financed from an assessment made annually by the council against the state's
utilities. Each utility's share is based on a percentage of its annual gross
revenue from retail kilowatt-hour sales in the state expressed as a ratio of the
total sales and revenue of all utilities in the state. The council's assessment
must be based on its actual annual expenses with provision for adjustments of over-
payments or underpayments for each utility.
Minnesota's siting process features a strong general policy of public partici-
pation. This includes the establishment of a power plant siting advisory committee
which may be composed of 15 to 25 persons appointed by the EQC for a one-year term.
The committee must Include a majority of private citizens and at least one repre-
sentative each from the utilities, regional development commissions, county govern-
ments and municipal governments. Additionally, advisory committees are formed for
each individual site or corridor application considered by the EQC. The EQC is also
required to hold an annual public hearing regarding its Inventory of potential sites
and corridors, its regulations and any other aspects of its activities set forth in
the regulations. These features should be closely examined for application to Montana's
needs.
The Minnesota power plant siting advisory committee developed siting criteria
and subsequently conducted a statewide siting inventory which identified suitable
candidate siting areas from portions of the state not specifically removed from
consideration by exclusion and avoidance type criteria. Minnesota's law presently
requires the state to identify specific suitable sites. At the time the inventory
was published in 1975, the identification of candidate areas was considered an
Interim step toward this goal.
The siting committee was aided by the EQC and an outside consultant firm in
developing the siting criteria. The committee set up a series of educational
forums to obtain information on the technology, environmental impact and primary
policy issues involved in siting power plants. It was decided that nuclear and
fossil fueled plants should be evaluated separately where their site requirements
and environmental impact potential differed. Site requirements and site impacts
relating to engineering or plant design characteristics were calculated for a
1,000 megawatt unit.
- 23
A number of policy issues required analysis and decisions before the inventory
could proceed. The committee was aided by the following list of "preferred" site
selection criteria included in the Minnesota siting rules and regulations (Minn.
Regs., MEQC 74(c)(3)):
(aa) Preferred sites require the minimum population displacement
and disruption of local communities and institutions.
(bb) Preferred sites minimize adverse health effects on human
population,
(cc) Preferred sites do not require the destruction or major
alteration of land forms, vegetative types, or wildlife habi-
tat which are rare, unique, or of unusual importance to the
surroi'nding area.
(dd) Preferred sites minimize the visual and audible impingement
on waterways, parks, or other existing and proposed public
recreation areas,
(ee) Preferred sites minimize the removal of valuable and productive
land and water from other necessary uses and minimize conflicts
among water users.
(ff) Preferred sites maximize reliability with respect to climate
and geology.
(gg) Preferred sites permit significant conservation of energy or
utilization of by-products.
(hh) Preferred sites are located near large load centers.
(ii) Preferred sites maximize the use of already existing operating
sites and transportation systems,
(jj) Preferred sites allow for larger rather than smaller generating
capacity.
The rules and regulations include a similar list of criteria for corridors and
transmission line routes.
Some of the policy questions examined by the committee are presented below.
Detailed statements which expressed the majority opinion on each issue were pub-
lished with the site Inventory (MEQC 1975).
(la) Should water Impoundment be allowed to provide make-up water
during dry years from smaller streams?
(lb) Should a distinction be made in the kinds of Impoundments to be
used?
- 24 -
(Ic) Should criteria be established for determining what portion
of a stream can be diverted for storage and consumption?
The majority voted "yes" on all three questions,
(2) Should the inventory identify areas suitable for power parks
(assumed generating capacity of 15,000 to 20,000 megawatts)?
The majority voted "no", due to the lack of adequate informa-
tion needed to answer important questions raised by this issue.
(3) Where should power plants be located relative to urban
areas?
The committee favored locating fossil fuel plant sites close
to urban areas, but stated that nuclear plant siting should
be more conservatively considered in relation to safety para-
meters.
(4) What consideration should be given to proposed land uses?
Proposed land use was left for future, more detailed investiga-
tions in regions identified as siting candidate areas; existing
land use was included in the study.
(5) Should unreliable or marginal data be used?
This issue was resolved by creating a "supplemental considera-
tions" category which included important Information not con-
sidered accurate enough for inclusion in the inventory.
The state was inventoried at a mapping scale of 1:500,000. As noted above,
there were Inadequate existing data for some of the environmental elements con-
sidered most important in determining suitability or unsuitability for siting.
These supplemental considerations included air quality, hydrology, water quality
and geologic hazards. The environmental elements which were included in the
inventory were either considered constraints to siting or opportunities favorable
to siting. These elements were classified and combined by the process shown in Figure
III-l on the following page.
The final results of the inventory included the identification of 40 candidate
siting areas for either nuclear or fossil fueled power plants. The areas ranged
in size from 428 square miles to 3 square miles.
- ^J -
Figure III-l
INFORMATION PROCESSING DIAGRAM
a:
LLI
cr
O
z
O
§
UJ
w
IXJ
H
(A
EXCLUSIOf J CRITERIA
Fedora! Reguiotions —
State Regulations —
ExcluJcd Land Ai eas
AVOIDANCE AREAS
Land Use Areas
EXCLUSION
COMPOSITE
map
AVOIDANCE
COMPOSITE
map
ENVIR ONMENTAL C ONSTRAINTS
Indian Reserx'ations —
Military Reservations
Laixl Forms
Vegetation
National Forests
Wildlife Habitat -
Visual & Audible Buffers —
for Recreation Areas -
Agricultural Lands — —
Forest Larvds
Iron, Copper-Nickel
ENVIROi>!iViENTAL
COivlSTRAINT
VyEIGHTING
-^
ENVIRONMENTAL
COK'STRAINTS
COMPOSITE
map
OPPORTUNITIES
Water Supply —.
Load Centers —
Highways —
Railroads
OPPORTUNITIES
COMPOSITE -
NUCLEAR
OPPORTUNITIES
COMPOSITE -
FOSSIL
1975JNVENTORY
CANDIDATE AREAS
FOR SITING LEPGP-
NUCLEAR AND FOSSIL
SUPPLEMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Other Wildlife
Other Vegetation
Otlier Social/Cultural
Geologic Hazards —
Air Ouaiity
HydrologyAVater Ouaiity
INVENTORY
EVALUATION
- 26 -
Discussion
Minnesota's siting inventory was published in Tnid-1975 with the expectation
that review by the public, the utilities and other state agencies would result
in modifications of the criteria and the candidate areas maps. However, the
inventory was not accepted by the EQC. Some of the major criticism of the study
originated within the Minnesota state agencies. A major topic of contention has
concerned the relative accuracy of the data which were used in the study and the
effects created by eliminating other types of data.
Another major problem concerned public interpretation of the candidate area
maps. The siting committee Intended that the maps would provide geographic guide-
lines for the state and the utilities to consider in searching for suitable sites.
The maps were not Intended to precisely define areas where siting would be absolutely
prohibited or specifically allowed. Sites could be proposed in areas not specifi-
cally designated as candidate areas, but this was not generally understood by the
public, and the utilities expressed strong objection to the potential public
pressure which they felt would result if the maps were formally accepted by the
state and then not "followed" in future site proposals.
Still another related problem concerns the siting act's requirement that the
state Identify specific suitable sites. The candidate area Inventory was intended
to provide the principal basis for a specific site selection study. Since the
inventory was unacceptable, the EQC has been meeting over the past year with other
state agencies and utility representatives in an attempt to reorganize the criteria
and resolve disagreements concerning the data to be utilized.
The problems of the Minnesota siting inventory must be considered by any state
attempting a similar study. The absence of reliable data or lack of agreement on
the relative worth of available data is a critical problem (see Section V for
further discussion). Also, the exact use of the inventory must be decided at the
beginning of the study. Exclusion criteria may be developed to define areas which
are unsuitable for siting, but many specific policy issues must be explicitly
defined before a general siting inventory can be used to legally close entire areas
to future siting.
As was noted previously, Minnesota has a problem of jurisdictional overlap
between its siting agency and the agency responsible for determining the need for
new facilities. While it may be possible to alleviate this problem through better
clarification of each agency's role, consolidation of the two functions under a
single administrative unit would be a potentially more optimal arrangement.
E. Maryland
The Maryland Power Plant Siting Act of 1971 is one of the older siting laws
and is certainly the most unique. The act is focused upon long-range site planning,
scientific research for all types of power plant siting problems, and state acquisi-
tion of potential power plant sites for future use.
- 11 -
\
Utilities are required to apply to the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC)
for a certificate of public convenience and necessity before a power plant or trans-
mission facility may be constructed. However, this procedure occurs near the end
of the siting process. A description of the process and the accompanying program
of siting research must begin with an explanation of Maryland's site funding pro-
vision. The siting law created an "Environmental Trust Fund" which finances all
siting activities and research through a surcharge on the kilowatt hours of
electric energy generated in the state. This surcharge is added to consumer power
bills. According to the law, the surcharge may not be continued beyond 1985; in
the meantime, it is providing an average annual operating budget of $7.5 million
for the siting program. This budget is expended through a staff of seven profes-
sionals and a contractual structure involving approximately 150 scientists (Maryland
Energy and Coastal Zone Administration 1976).
Maryland's Power Plant Environmental Research Program coordinates the scientlfi(
research contracts which account for most of the program's expenditures. This
program is comprised of four sub-programs which are briefly described below:
Impact Assessment Program : This program monitors, assesses and models
all types of environmental impact resulting from existing power plants and
evaluates new technologies designed to minimize impact.
Research Program : Through this program, general ecological baseline
studies and research of Maryland's environmental resources and socio-economic
structure are applied to the problem of siting and operating power plants with
maximum benefit to society and minimum detriment to the environment.
Site Evaluation Program : This program is responsible for detailed site
suitability investigations at sites proposed by utilities and sites identi-
fied by the state. This work forms the basis of recommendations to the PSC
for its consideration of all facility applications. Additionally, this program
is responsible for adopting methodologies to predict future electrical needs
and make independent demand projections for each utility service area in the
state.
Site Acquisition Program : The purpose of this program is to identify,
investigate and acquire an inventory of suitable plant sites for potential
future use.
The site evaluation and site acquisition programs implement the long-range
site planning objectives of Maryland's siting process. The PSC must undertake
"a long-range environmental evaluation of power plant building sites ... to
facilitate providing adequate electric power on reasonable schedules at reasonable
costs with the least possible depreciation of the quality of Maryland's environment
. . ." (Article 66C, Section 768, Ann. Code of Md.). The PSC annually evaluates
the long-range plans of Maryland's public electric companies and forwards a ten-
year plan of proposed sites to the Secretary of Natural Resources. The Secretary
is then responsible for preparing a preliminary environmental statement for each
proposed site, and those sites deemed acceptable are investigated in detail
through the Site Evaluation Program. The detailed site studies must be published
- 28 -
at least two years before any construction is expected to begin on those sites.
An application for a facility must be filed at least two years prior to commence-
ment of construction.
Fn addition to the activities described above, a cumulative environmental report
on all |)ower plants operating in the state is published biennially. This report
addresses state environmental policy concerns and must include "a section devoted
exclusively to the question of growth and the specific growth-related factors which
necessitate specific additional increments of electric energy by development of a
site in the ten-year plan". (Article 66C, Section 768(4), Ann. Code of Md.)
The state is authorized to purchase a number of facility sites sufficient to
satisfy the growth requirements outlined in the biennial report. The siting law
provides for a minimum of four and a maximum of eight potential plant sites in the
site inventory. The four sites are to be distributed through four regions (Eastern,
North-Central, South-Central and Western Maryland) which approximate the service areas
of the main utilities in the state. In recognition of the tight certification and
construction schedules facing utilities, the state makes these sites available
to utilities whose proposed sites have been judged unsuitable or whose efforts
to acquire a site have been unsuccessful. The purchase price of a site is based
on the appraisals of two independent agents and a utility may lease or purchase the
site from the state at its fair market value. The state estimates that during the
period 1973-1985, it will have acquired six sites and sold four sites,
Maryland is just beginning to search for sites based on regional site screening
methodologies such as those used in Minnesota, North Dakota and Oregon. Maryland
has acquired one site in its south-central region and another site has been
approved for acquisition in the north-central region. These sites were located
through a general search for available tracts of land. For example, the site in
the north-central region was federally-owned, surplus land (Massicott 1976). It
was decided, however, that this approach presented too great a chance for over-
looking sites which would cause the least adverse impact on surrounding areas.
Therefore, two separate studies were initiated to develop and conduct an inventory
process to identify candidate sites in Maryland's eastern and western regions.
The study relating to the western region is a demonstration project being
conducted by Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL) and the Nuclear Regulatory Com-
mission. It is nearly completed. ORNL utilized a regional siting analysis method
known as the ORNL Land Use Screening Procedure (LUSP) (Dobson 1976). ORNL-LUSP is
a combination of methodological and data manipulation techniques, designed to
simulate the results or consequences of alternative siting policies. The principal
conclusion of the ORNL study, which would apply to any state or agency attempting
to conduct a similar inventory, is that there is no "right" set of criteria, and
thus, there are no "best" candidate siting areas except as these criteria and
areas reflect the official siting policy of the region under study (Dobson 1976, p. 6-1)
- 29 -
ORNL applied 22 separate sets of criteria to different types of facilities in
order to demonstrate the conclusion stated above and to portray the flexibility
of the LUSP system. The study also experimented with several sets of values or
weightings applied to the various elements included in the study. ORNL sub-
sequently identified candidate siting areas in Western Maryland based on the many
sets of criteria which it developed. The Maryland siting agency will now have
to adopt specific criteria and select a final slate of candidate areas.
The ORNL study also tested the applicability of the Maryland Automated
Geographical Information System (MAGI) to siting issues. MAGI is a geographic
data base file which was designed in 197A by the Maryland Department of State
Planning to serve a variety of needs. The ORNL study concluded that "since the
construction of a geographic information system is the greatest potential con-
straint to the development of an automated (site) screening procedure, the data
base should be designed to serve diverse uses .... Costs can be minimized by
including only those data variables which receive high importance weights on
numerous criteria matrices." (Dobson 1976, p. 7-1). The study recommends that
"siting criteria should be defined early enough to serve as guides in determining
data requirements .... Geographic information systems constructed in ... an
a priori manner contain numerous variables which are expensive to obtain, and are
relevant only to a few specific applications." (Dobson 1976, p. 7-3). On the
whole, the ORNL study concluded that the MAGI data were extremely accurate and
precise. The MAGI system therefore places Maryland in an excellent position to
conduct its own automated site selection studies once policy and formal siting
criteria are established.
The screening study for Eastern Maryland is being handled by a private con-
sulting firm. Three specific sites are to be selected from the study results.
The consultant is being assisted in criteria development by an advisory committee
composed of representatives from each county in the study area, environmental
groups, utilities and staff members from each of the state agencies participating
in the power plant siting program. Two sets of site criteria must be developed:
facility criteria, including minimum requirements for entry of various types of
facilities into an area and the optimization factors for location (e.g., proximity
to transportation and markets); and site and related physical /ecological and human/
cultural criteria. Designation of candidate areas must be accomplished first;
detailed site-specific studies within these areas will then lead to identifica-
tion of three suitable facility sites. The consultant is required to hold three
public Information briefings during the candidate area selection process.
Discussion
Maryland's siting program is clearly committed by policy and statute to collect
and analyze a tremendous volume of data. Also, the state has assumed the burden
of public accountability for site selection. The state's position has been
described as follows:
- 30 -
"(T)he state, not the applicant, should, decide on the significant
issues to be addressed at any given site, collect the necessary data,
define appropriate alternatives, and carry out the analyses. It is
the ultimate of bureaucratic irresponsibility to ask the utilities to
to prove beyond doubt that which is not provable. On the other hand,
it is necessary that the agency given authority over siting have the
responsibility for providing adequate energy at reasonable costs as
well as for protecting the environment." (Md. Energy and Coastal
Zone Admin. 1976, p. 4)
The program's funding scheme was organized to finance its demanding data
handling responsibilities, but a recent report indicates that prior to January 1975
funding was lower than expected because the surcharge on electricity sales was not
collected from out-of-state consumers of Maryland-generated power due to a loop-
hole in the law. This problem was no sooner corrected than the rate of consumption
of electricity fell and induced a second significant shortfall in expected revenue.
The shortage has been absorbed primarily in the research and site acquisition pro-
grams, and as a result, several projects have become impossible to complete on
schedule. Due to its dependence on revenues provided by the sale of electricity,
the siting program could be adversely affected by energy conservation measures,
increased efficiency in the use of electricity, and other occurrences which would
result In reduced consumption of electricity.
The program's 1976 long-range plan indicates that national economic uncertainties
have hampered utility planning and that uncertainties in both future demand and
future capital availability have forced utilities to ahift construction plans "from
long lead time, capital intensive forms in favor of designs with shorter lead
times, lower capital cost per kilowatt installed, and smaller capacity per unit"
(Md. Energy and Coastal Zone Admin. 1976, p. 33). This trend disrupts the siting
program's short-terra site evaluation plans because it requires continual shifting
of priorities in order to complete evaluations on schedule. The cost of evaluation
has ranged up to $1.4 million per site for utility-owned sites and up to $1.7 million
for state-owned sites. The cost difference is due to the need to develop plant
designs for the state-owned sites. The state estimates it will be evaluating
about 1.4 sites per year through 1985.
Maryland's siting act requires public hearings on facility applications and
the long-range plans of the program provide for the notification and involvement
of local government officials in site evaluation and site selection activities.
Additionally, there is a Power Plant Siting Advisory Council which has general
oversight and advisory responsibility for the siting program and is composed of
representatives from the legislature, local government, utilities, environmental
groups, universities and state agencies. However, it appears that a policy of
general public involvement has not been strongly mandated by the siting act nor
has it been adopted as a major policy objective of the program. The 1976 long-
range plan states that:
- 31 -
"Efforts are now under way to develop an active, rather than passive,
interaction with the public during the evaluation process at each
site. Although the program is completely open to the public, with
all reports, data and communications available, indications are that
public interaction does not yet occur early enough in the evaluation
process." (Md. Energy and Coastal Zone Admin. 1976, p. 35)
F. California
Through legislation which became operative in January 1975, California instituted
one of the most comprehensive, long-range energy planning policies in existence.
This legislation, entitled "The Warren-Alquist State Energy Resources Conservation
and Development Act" (Section 25000 et seq. , Ca. Pub. Resources Code 1975), created
the Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (ERCDC) and assigned
it the following responsibilities.
(1 ) Siting and certification of thermal power plants and electric
transmission lines.
(2) Forecasting and assessment of energy demand and supplies. /
(3) Development of energy conservation programs and standards.
(4) Development of a program for research and development in energy
supply, consumption and conservation and the technology of
siting facilities.
(5) Development of contingency plans to deal with possible short-
ages of electrical energy or fuel supplies.
The implementation of these five functions has resulted in an energy organiza-
tion of considerable size headed by five commissioners from the following legally
specified backgrounds: (1) law, (2) engineering/physical science, (3) environ-
mental protection, (4) economics, and (5) the public at large. The commission
is presently composed of approximately 230 staff members and is operating on a
budget of approximately $25 million (Nichols 1976). Nearly half of this amount Is
federally funded with the balance supplied through a surcharge added to consum(>rs'
power bills.
The commission has expended most of its efforts thus far in organizing its
various divisions and interpreting its responsibilities. However, the extent
of the commission's mandate, especially as related to facility siting, is out-
lined in the following section of the law:
- 32
The commission shall "collect from electric utilities, gas utili-
ties, and fuel producers and wholesalers and other sources forecasts
of future supplies and consumption of all forms of energy, including
electricity, and of future energy or fuel production and transporting
facilities to be constructed; independently analyze such forecasts in
relation to statewide estimates of population, economic, and other
growth factors and in terms of the availability of energy resources,
costs to consumers, and other factors; and formally specify statewide
and service area electrical energy demands to be utilized as a basis
for planning the siting and design of electric power generating and
related facilities." (Section 25216(b), Ca. Pub. Resources Code 1975)
A major responsibility of the commission is the preparation of a biennial report
which in part, is to include: a five- and ten-year energy demand statement as described
in the above quote; a list (with maps) of all existing generating sites, indicating
those where expansion has been identified as feasible; a list (with maps) of areas
appropriate for additional electric generating sites, including capacity to be
installed, which the commission has determined will be required to meet the ten
year energy demand. This list is only a small portion of the information required
for the report, but it includes the main clauses relating to siting and indicates
the potential future extent of California's involvement in energy facility planning.
If this mandate becomes fully operational in terms of its information base and
administrative organization, the commission could decisively share the energy plan-
ning position traditionally held by the utility industry in California.
Some significant portions of California's siting statute are listed and sub-
sequently discussed below:
(1) Designation of siting authority,
(2) Submission of five-, ten- and twenty- year plans,
(3) Filing of notice of intent,
(4) Submission of site alternatives,
(5) Designation of multiple facility sites,
(6) Identification of unsuitable areas,
(7) Selection of candidate areas.
The commission has the exclusive power to certify all sites and related facil-
ities. The issuance of a site certificate supercedes any applicable statutes or
regulations of any state, local or regional agency, or federal agency to the extent
permitted by federal law. It should be noted, however, that the California Public
Utilities Commission (PUC) retains the authority to grant a facility a certificate
of public convenience and necessity. ERCDC certifies the need for a facility and
has exclusive authority over siting, but the PUC must evaluate a facilitiy s effect
on the rate structure. The relationship between ERCDC and PUC requires further
clarification in determining the need for specific facilities. The commission is
- 33 -
also authorized to adopt relevant land use, public safety, environmental and
other standards, except for air and water quality, to be met in designing or
operating facilities to protect public health and safety.
Utilities are required to submit detailed five-, ten- and twenty-year load
forecasts on a biennial basis. The forecasts must be computed through a standard
methodology established by the commission and must be accompanied by a listing
of additional generation facilities which will be needed to meet the load and
the general location of such facilities.
Prior to applying for certification of any specific facility, a notice of
intent to file such an application must be submitted. This notice allows the
suitability of the proposed site to be determined prior to the filing of the
actual application. The notice must include three alternative site locations
for the proposed facility(s), with a summary of the design criteria, fuels to
be used, construction and operation methods, and a statement of the relative
economic, technological, and environmental advantages and disadvantages of each
alternative site. The commission is required to solicit comments on the notice
from all appropriate agencies, hold public hearings and prepare both a preliminary
and a final report. The notice may not be approved unless the commission finds
the proposal in accordance with the ten-year forecast and the provisions of any
applicable land use plans. Further, it must find the two alternative sites
acceptable, although the commission has discretionary power to approve a notice
based on a single site if the applicant has made a good faith effort to find
acceptable alternatives and has failed.
If the commission finds all of the applicant's proposed sites unacceptable,
in spite of a good faith effort by the applicant to comply with this requirement,
the commission must identify a suitable site for the proposed facility. The com-
mission has not yet adopted a plan or policy for implementing this provision,
although the candidate area selection process discussed later in this subsection
may be refined for this purpose.
An applicant may propose a site which will accommodate a potential maximum
generating capacity in excess of the amount being proposed for Initial approval.
Such a proposal must contain information regarding the ultimate number and type
of units proposed for the site, the installation schedule, the amount of cooling
water ultimately to be required, and a statement of the impact at the site when
fully developed. If the commission approves such a notice, the site is designated
a potential multiple-facility site. The commission may specify conditions to
insure that future additional facilities will not exceed the carrying capacity
of the site.
All of the above described activities are completed before an application is
filed. The maximum time allowed to complete the review of a notice of intent
and issue a decision is 17 months, although this time may be considerably shorter.
The commission must issue a decision on an actual application within 18 montlis of
the time of filing. Public hearings on the application must be held no later than
2A0 days after the filing date. A facility may not be certified unless it conforms
- 3A -
with the ten-year demand forecast established by the conraiission.
The commission's role in site selection was analyzed in a staff report com-
piled by the Facility Siting Division in September 1976. A specific provision
In the law stipulates that parks, wilderness and natural reserves, areas for
wildlife protection, recreation and historic preservation, and estuaries in a
natural or undeveloped state shall not be approved for facility siting unless
the commission determines such use is not inconsistent with the primary use of
such land. The Siting Division has concluded that this provision effectively
prohibits the siting of energy facilities in such areas.
The division has developed a "candidate area selection process" to compile
a list of areas appropriate for additional electric generating sites. Public
input and coordination with other planning and regulatory agencies must form the
basis of this process. The division's position is stated as follows:
"The development of (a) Candidate Area Selection Process cannot
occur in a vacuum. The interests of the public, voiced as a
concern among interested citizens, or as represented by other
state agencies, must be considered in the long-term planning for
energy facilities. Decisions which will seriously affect the
options for siting future energy facilities will be made with or
without participation by the Energy Commission. It should be
considered that it will only be by direct participation in state-
wide planning that this Commission will retain necessary options."
(CERCDC 1976a, p. 7)
The staff assumes that a significant commitment to public participation must
be made and it recommends that the commission develop and implement a program to
achieve this objective.
With the above considerations in mind, the Siting Division sought to develop
a siting selection methodology which would be responsive to all types of generation
facilities as well as sensitive to the concerns of the public. The methodology
was split into two levels: statewide screening and regional screening.
The first phase of the methodology requires designation of the statewide
screening guidelines or criteria to be considered. These factors were initially
identified within the staff and then modified through public input acquired at
a series of four public workshops. In the absence of policy guidelines to establish
the relative importance of various factors, it was decided that at the statewide
level, factors would only be identified as "constraints" or "opportunities" and
they would represent areas large enough to be mapped at a scale of 1:500,000. A
constraint reflects some condition which would restrict siting or would be adversely
affected by siting, while an opportunity identifies conditions or resources which
offer advantages in siting. The factors ultimately selected for inclusion in the
statewide screening process were further categorized in terms of high avoidance
areas and significant areas . The former category includes factors representing
"last choice" areas which are either an important resource or a hazard to
potential sites. The latter category includes factors which should be given
- 35 -
special consideration in area-specific site planning, but which remain undefined
in importance at the statewide level. An example of some of these factors or
criteria and their respective classifications is presented in Figure III-2 on
the following page.
These factors allow some reduction of the total study area to be considered.
However, identification of actual candidate areas will not be accomplished at the
statewide level. The statewide criteria are primarily of use in evaluating the
site planning programs of utilities and in providing a framework to define how
and where other agencies may have already limited siting options. The statewide
factors also provide important "signals" to the utilities concerning the informa-
tion and conditions the state considers important to siting.
The regional screening process has not been undertaken. Whereas the factors
included at the statewide level were deliberately not weighted or compared, factors
to be used in regional screening must be more specific and must be weighted in
terms on their relative importance and potential magnitude of Impact. Further,
at the regional level, factors must be developed for each power plant type and
fuel type. These may vary in importance in different regions. Also, public
involvement in the regional screening process would require more emphasis than
at the statewide level.
Discussion
The regional screening process was formulated, in part, to cope with the plan-
ning problem presented by California's geographic diversity. The regions of the
state vary greatly in their geographic/natural environmental features as well as
in their energy demand characteristics. It may be necessary to study the regions
somewhat independently in order to accord all areas fair treatment.
Certain types of areas are granted special status under California law which
removes them from favorable siting consideration. However, it is Important to note
that California has chosen to develop only "high avoidance" criteria rather than
exclusionary criteria, except where areas are legally protected from siting. The
commission probably does not have the authority to close an area to siting on the
basis of its own policy delineations. Further, the California siting division
staff believes that very few areas not already legally protected from siting are
totally incompatible with all forms of energy facilities. For example, if all
state forest lands were declared closed to siting, it could be argued that a
small hydrogeneration facility would not adversely Impact the primary uses and
characteristics of the area. Montana will have to deal with these same consider-
ations in deciding how to protect the natural and cultural features it deems most
important. In the absence of a definitive policy for assigning "importance" to
the many factors required to select candidate areas (or to rule out other artMs
not specifically protected by statute) , California may not make specific site area
designations and instead may concentrate on developing sound criteria to guide the
utilities in their specific site selection activities for given plant types
- 36 -
Figure III-2
FACTOR MATRIX
lli'jli
FACTOH
1. Prime Ai'.ricu] tura] Land
?. Af.rirul t ur;i] Pic serves
3. Kacl] anils
A. Parks nn:l V'ildcrnosE Arcar
5. Coiistn] Zone
6. - Coastal Scenic Areas
7. - Consla] Mon-.«renlc Areas
8. - CoarUal Inciiist rial-L'rban
9. Coastal PvOGcrve Arcr.s
10. l^esert and Sciri-arit! Art as
11. Sceni c llighv.'ays
12. Existing Energy raclJitlcs
13. Military Bar.os
JL4.. r_Act 1 v(^ Kil It ary_ r.asr s
- Boirb and MisL;ile 'J'aviint
15. Areas and "est Arenr.
- Surplus !!i]itary
16. rro{>prty ^
17. State and National I'ovcsts
- National Forest Wijder-
18. ness & p Ir.iltlve Areas
flir.torical , ArcTiaeolof.icil
19. and Cultural Resources
- Desif.iiatod Historical,
20. Arciiaclof.ical T, Cultural
— -/.Tear;"
r.t .il iwiile
~. nj II i t -
j l.llll
n.
o
©
o
o
Q
;'.?.
C CI
rj ll
i: U'
CfiM".i:;;T;
Proposed addition - public
'■Piopoced addition - staff
*Proposcd addition - public
''Proposed add ition - public
Proposed addition - public
Proposed add 't I.or,_r_r' 1 9 Lf_
Proposed addition - staff
Propos ed ad rilli(-n - staff
Proposed addition - staff
Delete - see below
Proposed addition - staff
•Proposed .'.[ic'cia) .'tuJy
- 37 -
and designs (Nichols 1976).
It is unclear how the commission will eventually interpret its legal directive
to identify candidate site areas. Recent information indicates that the site
selection methodology will not be implemented beyond the delineation of broad
statewide criteria and equally broad identification of "areas of importance" for
any type of development activity. It appears that a major factor in this deci-
sion is the problem of coordinating all of the various levels of administrative
and regulatory agencies and their accompanying policies in a manner which would
permit the regional siting process to occur. Although the commission has the
legal mandate to command this type of coordination, it may not be exercised in
accordance with the selection of candidate siting areas.
The long-range planning advantages of combining comprehensive energy demand
research and conservation activities with the energy facility siting function are
quite obvious. An administrative arrangement of this type may not be organizationally
feasible for the immediate future in Montana. However, this approach should be
seriously evaluated as a long-term planning option.
The relationship between long-range facility siting and land use planning
is another complex area which must be considered. Montana presently does not have
a comprehensive land use plan and most land use responsibility currently rests
with local government. Land use planning is inherently a process of balancing
competitive needs; siting decisions should be closely coordinated with this process.
California has not yet achieved this coordination, but as was mentioned above,
its energy commission has the authority to deal with the problem as well as
specific authority to set land use standards to be applied to the design and
operation of energy facilities.
G. Analysis
The six state siting processes reviewed in this section provide a basis for
discussing the choices, opportunities and problems the State of Montana must con-
sider in developing its own siting process. This report has been based upon the
assumption that Montana must become involved in long-range energy planning and
energy facility site selection if optimal decisions are to be made in the future.
A large portion of this report is concerned with the development of siting criteria
and application of the criteria to classify areas of the state in terms of their
suitability for siting. However, it must be emphasized that this activity cannot
occur in isolation. It is dependent upon state involvement in the projection of
long- and short-term energy demand and the subsequent determination of the need
for new facilities at a point in time which will allow optimal site planning to
occur. It is also dependent upon technological developments in plant design and
size and the potential future reduction of many types of adverse environmental
impact. Further, in a fundamental sense, site planning depends upon interagency
coordination, public involvement, and availability of information.
(
38 -
One long-term aspect of energy planning which the State of Montana must define
is the level of involvement it will have in the determination of need for future
energy facilities. The States of California and Maryland have established a leg-
islative framework which, in theory, allows them to assume, or at least jointly
occupy, the position traditionally held by the utilities in forecasting energy
demand. In a less broadly defined sense, Oregon and Washington also are making
independent analyses of the information included in utility long-range plans.
These four states have had varying success in fulfilling their planning roles,
and in California in particular, the process is so new that a definitive evaluation
cannot yet be made. Both Maryland and California are characterized by extremely
well funded programs which can provide broadly-based expertise in making defensible
energy demand projections. Recent information from California indicates that,
for the present, projections will be developed for general regions and service
areas in the state, but that there will be no attempt to specify the number of
megawatts required (Brown 1976). Maryland has apparently been able to meet its
responsibility for developing an on-going, ten-year plan which delineates all
future energy facilities needed for the ten-year period. However, the exact
relationship or differences which have existed between this plan and the infor-
mation submitted by the Maryland utilities is not known.
Energy demand forecasting is not the major concern of this report. However,
a state cannot adequately prepare for the siting of future energy facilities unless
it possesses the best available information for determining the amount of energy
which will be needed at a future point in time. Utility long-range plans have been
the chief source of this information, but general experience has shown that due to
differing objectives and responsibilities, the utilities and the states are fre-
quently in disagreement on many aspects of forecasting methods and results. The com-
plexity involved in making forecasts compounds this problem. Further, forecasting
"formulas" utilized in the past have proven increasingly inadequate for preparing
forecasts which accurately reflect changing energy consumption patterns and the
increased effects of energy conservation measures over the past four or five
years. As a result of these changing trends and related economic uncertainty,
utilities have had to shorten the planning periods or "lead times" allowed for
developing new energy facilities. At the same time, the states have had to
become much more involved in the formulation of energy projections in order to
avoid being "surprised" by sudden, legitimate needs for new facilities which could
confound long-range site planning efforts. The primary means of avoiding this type
of situation is to insure state access to energy supply and demand data, conserva-
tion data and research concerning alternative means of meeting energy needs.
The level of state involvement in energy demand forecasting outlined by the
Maryland and California laws may not be essential to insure adequate state access
to necessary information. For example, Oregon and Washington conduct independent
demand studies with relatively small staffs and budgets. California law requires
all utility demand projections to be formulated according to a methodology developed
by the state, although the utilities may submit additional information using their
own processes. This provision may potentially simplify the state's analysis of
the utilities' projections and it could alleviate some of the need for state
- 39 -
duplication of utility forecasting activities. A similar provision in Montana's
law could greatly enhance the state's position in dealing with energy demand infor-
mation while a broader program of state involvement in this area is being considered.
The utility long-range plans required by the siting act are presently a
principal source of energy demand information available to the State of Montana.
Although the general national uncertainty surrounding accurate determination of
future need for energy facilities may not be easily overcome, the information
included in utility long-range plans must be accurate to the greatest extent pos-
sible. The problem of insuring accuracy could be handled by adding a special
enforcement clause to the Major Facility Siting Act which would specifically apply
to the long-range plans and would provide the state with some recourse if informa-
tion in the plans is found to be incomplete or falsely presented. Also, maximum
interaction should be encouraged between the state and the utilities in formulating
energy demand fore'^asts and in sharing all types of relevant information. It is
imperative that the State of Montana remedy its present position of determining
the need for a proposed facility solely on the basis of the individual application
evaluation process mandated in the siting act. The state must be intimately
acquainted with the potential need for a facility within a time frame that is
equivalent to the applicant's initial planning activities.
A statewide siting study and development of site criteria are activities
which respond to the problem situation described above. If the state can pro-
vide an informational and geographical framework to guide the utilities' initial
facility planning and siting studies, the application and evaluation process can
be streamlined and will permit much more effective use of the evaluation time
period presently provided by the siting act. This front-end involvement would
certainly be preferable to the state's present reactive position in the siting
process.
The scheduling of site criteria development and a subsequent statewide siting
inventory must be clarified. A siting study cannot proceed until appropriate
criteria have been developed. The following section of this report discusses the
types of problems and issues which must be considered in this process. Criteria,
in turn, depend upon the type of study mandated by the state's siting legislation.
The six states analyzed in this report essentially represent three siting
inventory alternatives and one situation which is basically comparable to Montana's
present siting process. This latter example is the State of Washington. In the
absence of a state mandate to conduct a siting inventory, an inventory was
initiated by the publicly-owned Washington utilities. It is questionable whether
such a study would provide an appropriate basis for state decision-making; however,
the preferred site selection criteria and the methodology used in the Washington
study should be examined for potential applicability to a state-initiated study
in Montana.
The three inventory alternatives mandated in the other five states' siting
legislation may be characterized as follows:
C
40 -
Maryland Responsible for selection and acquisition
of sites.
California Responsible for designation of specific
Minnesota suitable sites.
North Dakota
Oregon Responsible for designation of suitable
and unsuitable areas.
The characteristics of the siting inventories conducted in each state are summarized
in the table on the following page.
Maryland's unique siting process is based upon a program of extensive siting
research and an extremely expensive commitment to site-specific studies. Appro-
priate funding is a key element which must accompany a program of this type. Mary-
land's land use situation is a major factor underlying its siting process. The
competition between varying types of land uses is so intense on a statewide basis
that the state felt it necessary to acquire specific sites, especially sites repre-
senting the least total adverse impact to surrounding areas, in order to preserve
them from other conflicting land uses or development before they can be utilized
for future energy facilities. Montana may never be characterized by this type
of problem. The expense of conducting the site-specific studies required to justify
the direct selection of sites may not be warranted. Also, in this type of siting
process, the state is ultimately responsible for regulating activities at the sites
it selects. Further, this approach would require the state to assume some respon-
sibility for the design of future facilities in order to select appropriate sites.
Maryland's approach would not be feasible for Montana without entirely recon-
structing the existing siting legislation and creating a new funding mechanism, pre-
sumably similar to Maryland's and California's surcharge on consumer power bills.
Also, this type of siting process might not be necessary to insure that optimal sites
are chosen for energy facilities in Montana.
At present, California, North Dakota and Minnesota are legally responsible for
designation of specific suitable sites. Thus far, these states have not fulfilled
this responsibility. A review of the subsections for each state will show that
North Dakota has completed an inventory of unsuitable areas based upon exclusion/
avoidance criteria at the county level and is presently considering amending its
law to require only this level of study; Minnesota completed an inventory which
reached the level of identifying candidate site areas from larger areas not desig-
nated unsuitable. Due to problems with basic resource data and problems of
coordination between various state agencies, the study was not accepted. Efforts
to resolve disagreements and develop revised criteria are presently on-going;
California developed a regional process for identifying candidate areas, but the
anticipated problems involved in achieving interagency coordination for a more
detailed study have, for the present, halted this process at the point of develop-
ing general statewide criteria which will identify broad areas of "importance"
to siting and other forms of development.
•^ a
15
o «
ct. «
■ (B ta
3S
O -*
c at
m V a
s It.
« O D.
«u « S
W > /-.
U « O <£
«-' -a c »-
> a '■
as:
« ■
a o
(A a
a3
V
21
a 01 ^
O. V
b> c
O. (0 -rt ■
TJ C
^ -^ >, o
> e 3 00
01 (D W »
a u o u
«
CO
S 00
5S5
B O £
-^ O
a B
s 9a
V a.
g] 4>
■n o V >■
u 3 01 a
k> > 0) -^ u
SO ^ « (-
o.^ *j at ^
o .J -a •*- c B 3
'-4 3 a »<
w 13 u n n n
3 q n o« O
Q T3 >, -* -o -^
a B 01 -^ •-> n
eg C
I 4J 41 c» *< 1
i Q O ^ ^ f
. u tJ > »
> U B tJ 0> -I 1-*
' c a « c u iJ
I O -H O O W -H
O H
« 3
•3 S
■9 eo oj 01 ■«
•o a 01 *J d
B « M tt 'r4
• -a «
3 4J »* n
*J ■-< O O •'4
BUB K
no (0 V
u -r* m «
-* 0) a -a
9 - o B «
an -a ai n
u as
Q V ■> X
Q •« 00 01 •- -^
O > O. 0) B (71
O -rl Q. «-" W -'
irt W g 4J (J
:; Si
3 O O
m o. v ■
iM u T^ a
•rt -ri M at
U I' 01 •H
•a o -- -H
«i B >.
-HOB
I 0) w «0
T9 a. 3 ON
41 o a ^
4J -o 5
c n oi ;k
1j .1
01 Ik V
V U b S
Q Ol 0) ^
O "• a a.
■3 " a «
a b> B a
B o a
O <" O
U OJ
O "J *->
rt o u a
a o « t-i
o o •*.
U 00 ti u .—
J3 O.
S25
U I r-l
Ifl -H
a b
•s- i
>> B W
3 "* S
M « 9
(/) V) O
^ 1
u « I
|5S
si's
3 b^ m
o t»
O. Ml
'3
m B
n !• *« o.
d o b o
o •" « ^
a. u 4)
V ** U V
OC -H L> O
.3
B *>
*4 a
3S
r- .fl *H d
O" 3 u b.
I 41 I
-a a r-l I
£ rH en a
41 a v- — I
ah -H
■>* a M w
U 41 d
•4 a j3 tt
■O 1) O 01
3 B a
u a D 'H
I/) u v4 d
•a Q. 3
I 4> O W •
^ a -Q ^
3 —I a I-
-I. 3 «
» -H 3 y
3 by
i> a ■ a
i V -a to
} 9> ^ I
O a r-l
V rH
a ■ •
O u -g
•IBS
8SS
O u 3
5 r- I- f".
a* 4) o a>
W <« Jit o
3£ si
4i B a
u a 41 '-v
« Ti a
-• a 3 w
e u 41 TJ -^
- a B «
u^ H o « ot
</> 41 a & -4
^ -o -* O
I Ck fk
U u f<
« B w £
n 41 a 3
;' ^1
OB js a
B -^ a
O a £ •>
■Ha > a
w 3 w
a a a
wi a a o X
lu 3 M-H u
■r< ij c w a
u B -4 a V a
S > « ^ b a
■a 4> a X o ■ t -
•H a o >" -a »^
w<Mv4a.«4< "^
M rH a -o «* _
<j TJ ^ = «= S "2
9 4) 3 ti -4 > a
o-Bo.au« ""
« e£ o e h fl
a 5 ^ • "
>> a I' a a w B
rH-quauoi oa
M M B u 3 t'
eaua&a-aa
« S = B ■ S ■"
:i
J! S
■O -O *> -" ■
« 3 a u
u u c a
4J 3 a -4 Q.
to (/) < < « -
j! :;
- 42 -
Oregon's law calls for designation of areas suitable and unsuitable for
siting. This designation was accomplished through a broadly defined, regional
inventory using very general criteria. It is important to note that Oregon con-
siders its unsuitably designated areas closed to siting. North Dakota's existing
situation is quite comparable to Oregon's even though the legal mandates of the
two states are presently quite different. The actual prohibition of siting in
an unsuitable area may not be necessary if a state's unfavorable consideration
of applications for sites in such areas is guaranteed. This topic will require
further legal analysis before Montana's specific course of action can be deter-
mined.
The relative uncertainty presently characterizing the siting processes
in Minnesota and California must be carefully considered. Both states are question-
ing the advisability of actually identifying specific suitable sites for all the
reasons mentioned above in relation to Maryland, as well as the attendent adverse
effect this type of designation can have upon an area before development occurs.
The disadvantages of direct site selection may, in fact, outweigh the advantages.
Both Minnesota's and California's siting agencies are apparently in favor
of carrying the siting process as far as identifying candidate siting areas from
a more general designation of suitable and unsuitable areas. As noted previously,
this would involve the application of preferred siting criteria ( i.e. , criteria
designating geographic elements favorable to siting) to areas not designated
unsuitable in a more general, regional study.
This step must be evaluated at both theoretical and practical levels. The
more specific the criteria and size of area to be considered, the more precise
the data requirements and the more intricate the required coordination between
various regulatory and administrative agencies. In a practical sense, these two
considerations are responsible for most of the problems in both California and
Minnesota. It is essential to note that Montana will be confronted by these same
concerns in conducting any type of siting inventory. On a theoretical level,
there may be advantages to designating suitable candidate siting areas; however,
the same legal problems involved in closing some areas to siting would apply if
the intent, in this instance, was to permit siting only within candidate areas.
If, on the other hand, candidate areas primarily are intended to serve as strongly
recommended geographic guidelines for future siting, it appears that the same
objective could be served by designating areas unsuitable to siting and developing
a definitive set of "preferred" site criteria which would guide a potential appli-
cant's efforts to find a specific site within areas not designated unsuitable.
This latter alternative could be considerably less costly to the state in the
long run, while essentially providing applicants with preferred site criteria
to consider in combination with specific plant designs in locating a specific
site. Additionally, candidate area selection could be authorized at some future
time after an acceptable inventory of suitable and unsuitable areas has been completed.
Oregon, North Dakota and Minnesota assigned responsibility for criteria
development to an independent task force composed of members of the public at
large and representatives of special interest groups and governmental units.
Montana should consider a similar arrangement, although it would also be
43 -
important to insure that the task force contain members with expertise in the
various disciplines of concern to siting. A task force would require advisory
assistance from the state siting agency and all other agencies having related
concerns or expertise. Also, the siting agency could assume responsibility for
actual application of the criteria in data gathering and mapping activities,
although consultants carried out this responsibility in North Dakota, Minnesota
and Maryland. However, potential future conflicts of interest, especially within
state regulatory agencies will be avoided if the task force is responsible for
criteria development.
The overall objective of comprehensive state involvement in long-range
energy planning and facility siting can be effectively instituted through the
development of siting criteria, completion of a siting inventory, and improved
state access to and analysis of data required for energy demand forecasting.
However, these measures involve long-term projects which may not be completed
in time to meet short-term planning needs. The discussion of the six states
included in this section has revealed at least one type of provision which could
be immediately included in Montana's siting act to permit earlier state and public
review of utility facility planning and siting-related activities. The Oregon,
North Dakota and California laws require that a potential applicant must file a
notice of intent to file an application for a certificate to construct a major
facility at least one year prior to filing the application. The notice must dis-
close the specific site location being considered for the facility. The pro-
vision is not intended to extend the time required for state evaluation of the
facility. Rather, it provides a readily available means of insuring public
awareness of site location plans. It also provides the state and the applicant
the opportunity to confer on the suitability of a given site and identify problems
as well as areas of agreement prior to the actual application and evaluation
process.
Most of the states discussed in this section have featured some type of
public involvement in the siting process which has gone beyond public hearings
and gathering of public comments on siting studies and related activities. In
North Dakota, Minnesota and Maryland, public involvement has specifically been
incorporated in the form of siting advisory committees which assist the siting
agency in the consideration of individual facility applications. The input from
these committees may be helpful in identifying problem areas. The committees
generally are composed of representatives from legally specified interest groups
and occupations as well as the public at large. The public involvement concept
is essentially carried over to the creation of special task forces to develop
siting criteria rather than assigning this task to state officials. A task force
should also be responsible for providing for public review and input into its
activities. Montana should consider adopting a general policy encouraging public
involvement of this type.
- 44 -
IV. CRITERIA
At its most basic level, the process of energy facility siting depends upon
and is defined by criteria, "Criteria" is a rather broadly defined term which
refers to the complex inter-relationship of policy delineations and basic data
needed to compare and evaluate geographic areas in terms of their suitability
or unsuitability for siting. All of this information must be identified and
categorized in some comprehensive system. Several ways of classifying or con-
ceptualizing siting criteria will be discussed below.
Site criteria are based upon policy or legal designations which establish
the general relative importance or status of some natural or cultural environmental
element and infer the relationship of that element to an activity such as facility
siting. For example, air quality standards and policies requiring minimization
of adverse environmental impact dictate the need to consider air dispersion and
meteorological characteristics in any area being evaluated for siting. "Meteorology"
thus would be included in the criteria list for a siting study, but would require fur-
ther definition and refinement to reflect the objectives and level of detail
required by a specific study. It must also be noted that meteorological infor-
mation, as well as information from any other field, acquires meaning for a siting
study only when considered in terms of a total relationship with other environmental
elements and the impacts of an energy facility. It is not surprising that most
elements which must be considered in locating an optimum site are regulated through
some type of legislation or policy. Therefore, whether one develops criteria
which will identify areas favorable to plant siting or criteria which will identify
unsuitable areas, a legal or policy base is almost always present.
This suggests one way of organizing criteria. Some land uses, by legal
definition, absolutely prohibit the siting of any type of energy facility in an
area. The most common example of this type is a national park or some other
specifically protected area of natural, scenic or historic significance. Other
similar types of areas, such as state parks or recreation areas may have less
stringent legal protection or more vaguely defined policy status and may not be
absolutely closed to siting but remain highly incompatible with this type of
activity. These various types of resource areas may be grouped in two categories
called "exclusion" and "avoidance" area criteria, respectively. Other types of land
use or capability (prime agricultural land, for example) may not have a legally
defined relationship to activities such as siting, but through policy delineation,
these land areas may be included in an exclusion or avoidance category. Although
these types of land uses are most representative of exclusion/avoidance criteria,
areas with characteristics which would adversely affect a facility may also be
so designated. An example of this type would be an active fault or earthquake
zone.
45
Exclusion/avoidance criteria represent a conceptual means of classifying
information for purposes of declaring areas unsuitable to siting. However, this
objective could be reversed to reflect resource information in a way that would
define areas of optimum suitability for plant siting. In this instance, resource
and land use characteristics would be viewed as opportunities or constraints.
Opportunities might include such factors as adequate water availability or prox-
imity to existing transportation corridors. Constraints would be any of the types
of factors included in exclusion/avoidance criteria. Additionally, criteria
could be developed which would establish the characteristics preferred sites
should possess. These criteria might not be directly included in the siting
inventory but could serve as guidelines to future applicants for specific sites.
The classification of criteria may vary considerably in relation to dif-
ferent types of energy facilities. Fossil fueled, nuclear and hydroelectric
generating plants and various types of conversion plants produce different types
of impacts upon the environment. They also present different demands upon a site
in terms of water requirements, foundation suitability, etc. Likewise, the
siting of transmission facilities presents a completely separate set of concerns.
An inventory of suitable and unsuitable site areas must take these differences
into account and, thus, area designations will vary for the different facility
types. Since the specific requirements and specific impacts of a plant are
dependent upon specific design characteristics and pollution control technologies,
inventory studies are often based upon representative characteristics, such as
for a "typical" 1000 megawatt plant. However, a broad inventory to designate
suitable and unsuitable areas would probably not require this level of detail.
Another criteria consideration concerns the specific level or degree of
measurement which is applied to any given factor. The criteria to be included
in a study or inventory will depend upon the objectives and specificity of detail
required. For example, designation of suitable and unsuitable areas could be
accomplished through use of very broadly defined criteria which might consider
the general characteristics of entire air sheds or major stream drainages, assuming
that data availability would permit inclusion of these two factors. On the other
hand, a study designed to identify candidate siting areas or specific sites would
require much more detailed units of measurement to reflect the air dispersion
characteristics of specific areas or the flow characteristics of a specific
stream within a certain number of miles from a potential siting area.
As units of measurement become more specific, two requirements become
apparent. First, the data needed to meet the objectives of the study must be
available at a scale and level of accuracy which will permit reliable determina-
tions to be made. If the data are not available, compromises in the criteria
become unavoidable. Second, there must be a methodology for assigning the units
of measurement and subjectively weighting the various criteria for purposes of
trade off and comparison between areas. The methodology must be capable of
dealing with the level of detail required to meet the study objectives.
The credibility of any siting study is based upon the def ensibility of its
criteria and the accuracy of the basic data involved. Data and methodology-
related matters are discussed elsewhere in this report. The defenslbility of
- 46 -
criteria is a separate matter which is largely dependent upon supportive policy
delineations. The results of a statewide siting study can be expected to stir
controversy in terms of public opinion as well as impacts upon many separately
administered concerns. The decision to include some criteria and exclude others
must ultimately rest with the best judgment of the task force or agency responsible
for the siting inventory. The inventory results are obviously most secure if there
is some provision for their legal inclusion in a state's siting rules and regula-
tions after proper public and governmental review and modification procedures have
been completed. Nevertheless, the defensibility of the criteria depends upon
their basis in official state policy. Therefore, the more that a study can be
guided by such existing policy, the more secure its results will be. The follow-
ing paragraphs elaborate upon a few siting-related policy issues which the State
of Montana may be called upon to consider in the future.
Two issues of major concern in Montana and other states of the Great Plains
are the alternative uses to be applied to a limited water supply and the protection
or status to be accorded to agricultural and timbered lands in the face of mounting
pressure from other land uses. These matters have received considerable attention
in recent years and the amount of reliable information has increased proportionately.
However, Montana has no specific policy concerning the siting of energy facilities
or other industrial facilities in relation to surface and groundwater availability
except for protecting the status of existing water users. This situation may be
partially resolved by current water policy-related activities, but a statewide
siting study may eventually be required to address this issue as a specific siting
problem. If areas or water drainages with a questionable carrying capacity for
future, non-agricultural uses should be avoided, this should be a specific policy
decision. Likewise, the importance of agricultural and timbered land should be
addressed, perhaps in terms of the land's productive capability. As was discussed
in Section III, some states have taken this step by including such land in an
avoidance criteria category or by setting a limit upon the number of acres which
may be considered for alternative uses within a given size study area.
Another important policy issue concerns the siting of energy facilities near
urban areas as opposed to siting in remote, sparsely populated regions. The environ-
mental, social and economic trade-offs involved in such decisions have been well
documented. However, this issue exposes one of the most critical gaps in existing
policy and research. Most elements of the natural environment have a well-
established basis for protection from adverse impacts created by human activities.
The basis for protection of certain cultural, economic and social elements is
much less well defined. No general policy has been established to identify the
elements of human life style and cultural carrying capacity which should be pro-
tected. Also, mechanisms for making accurate predictions of future social and
biological impact in areas slated for development have been generally lacking.
These types of policies and analysis techniques must be developed if optimal siting
decisions are to be made in the future.
The issue of urban vs. rural siting involves many arguments inherent to the
related issue of siting near load centers vs. siting near fuel supply districts.
These choices naturally pose separate problems for the different types of energy
facilities. The safety-related aspects of nuclear plant siting may argue against
proximity to population centers. For fossil fueled plants, however, economic
- 47 -
considerations and impacts upon human health must be weighed against the minimized
environmental- and community-related impacts associated with more urban locations.
Also, the effects of transmission lines upon other land uses and questions of
reliability and efficiency require consideration.
The siting of energy facilities at "dispersed", single facility sites must
be compared with the potential development of energy parks or multiple facility
sites in the future. Although a few studies have considered this issue, it appears
that more information is needed regarding the potential impacts of clustered
facilities before definitive policies may be formulated. Additionally, the state
would need to consider a general size (in megawatts) for an energy park before
designing the "carrying capacity" studies which would be required to identify
potentially suitable siting areas. The water and fuel requirements of clustered
facilities coupled with the technological problems of meeting various pollution
standards may effectively eliminate most siting options. Further, policy resolu-
tion of the load center vs. mine mouth siting issue and a definition of need for
future facilities in Montana may render clustered facility siting a moot consider-
ation. Also, long-term commitments to multiple facility development would require
extremely careful planning to insure flexibility in terms of changing energy demand
conditions and incorporation of new technologies.
In addition to the above policy considerations, there are other technical
and policy-related topics which strongly affect siting and the development of j
appropriate criteria; however, these topics require detailed study before specific
siting recommendations can be formulated. Included in this category is the trans-
boundary effect of siting facilities near interstate or international boundaries
or in any location which would impact a neighboring region under separate govern-
mental administration. While it appears unrealistic to place arbitrary limits
upon this type of siting, many procedural policies should be adopted to insure the
fullest possible interaction between all potentially affected parties at the
earliest possible stage of project planning. Further, mutually acceptable prin-
ciples of environmental protection and minimization of all types of adverse impact
should be negotiated to guide future development plans.
Another topic requiring technical investigation is the synergistic effect
of siting two or more types of energy generation, conversion, or industrial facil-
ities in close spatial proximity. This topic will acquire additional importance
if multiple facility siting is considered in the future. Also, a separate, but
related concern involves the feasibility of recycling conversion by-products and
utilizing waste heat. Both of these concerns would involve concentrations of
facilities in a single area, and as related to siting, they would require carrying
capacity studies to evaluate specific locations. These studies should also be
applied to existing sites. It must be noted that many technical aspects of mini-
mizing synergistic environmental impacts have not been acceptably resolved. There-
fore, this problem requires further analysis of policy options as well as technical
research.
The siting of an energy-related facility involves indirect impacts by pro- d
vidlng potential encouragement to various future types of industrial development. "
- 48 -
This must be considered in terms of a specific seosraphical context as well as
general economic influence. Various aspects of community and land use impact
are obviously involved, as is the overall question of future economic growth.
It is clear that some sites or site areas are far better equipped to handle in-
direct impacts than others. It is also clear that the choice of location for a
facility will affect the magnitude of resulting economic activity. Although
this problem already must be considered in evaluating specific facility applica-
tions under the siting act, Montana presently does not have a definitive policy
for dealing with it as a site planning problem. This is also true of the other
concerns briefly discussed above.
Several other examples of siting criteria which may require policy guidance
and which might be formally included in the siting rules and regulations upon
completion of a site inventory are listed as follows (stated as preferred site
characteristics) :
(1) Permits maximum use of existing generation, trans-
mission and transportation facilities.
(2) Permits recycling of conversion by-products and
significant energy conservation.
(3) Permits minimum disruption of local communities.
(4) Avoids destruction of vegetation types and wildlife
habitat which are unique or of special significance
to an area.
This discussion has not been intended to provide specific site criteria
recommendations for a Montana siting study. Rather, it is expected that this
discussion will serve as a preliminary outline of criteria topics and organiza-
tional options which should be considered in designing a siting study. In con-
clusion, the two most essential goals of criteria development must be (1) the identi-
fication and subsequent assessment of the factors most important to siting, from
both "avoidance" and "preferred site" points of view, and (2) the insured credi-
bility of the study results. The discussion of other states' siting activities
presented in Section III may provide useful guidance in meeting the first goal.
Also, the widest possible range of interests and areas of expertise should be con-
sulted for criteria development.
In terms of the second goal, the importance of a strong policy base for
all criteria included in the study cannot be over-emphasized. Therefore, the
siting agency or task force should be authorized to investigate or commission
the outside investigation of the policy issues mentioned in this discussion, as
well as other siting questions requiring further study. Also, criteria develop-
ment must proceed in terms of the accuracy and reliability of available data.
- 49 -
A very useful by-product of this process should be the identification of
data categories as well as geographic areas within Montana which require further
research and data collection efforts before the existence of an adequate state-
wide resource data base can be claimed.
50 -
V. RESOURCE DATA ASSESSMENT
As noted in the preceding section of this report, a statewide siting inven-
tory will depend upon numerous types of basic resource data which must be cate-
gorized and defined in terms of site criteria. It was further noted that the
specificity and types of criteria are determined by the overall objectives of
the study and that studies designed to delineate areas unsuitable for siting
would require more general criteria and more generalized data than a study
designed to identify specific sites or candidate site areas. Although criteria
can be established to indicate the types and specific levels of detail of
environmental elements which should be applied to a siting inventory, the avail-
ability of data will determine the degree to which these criteria can be applied
in the immediate future. If certain data are not readily obtainable at a level
of accuracy or reliability sufficient to meet criteria specifications, compromises
in the criteria may be unavoidable.
This raises an important point. The generation of new resource data is an
extremely expensive process which involves extensive field studies, analysis
of remote sensing and aerial photographs, and detailed comparisons of various
existing maps and other data sources. The development of siting criteria will
unquestionably reveal many "gaps" in Montana's existing resource data base which
must be filled if siting activities, land use planning and resource management
efforts are to be improved in the future. In this sense, the siting study can
be expected to provide some specific direction for future data collection efforts.
However, it is unlikely that the scope of the siting study will permit incorpora-
tion of a major effort to generate new resource data. The time and expense involved
would be too great. Since the funding required for generation of new data is very
substantial, every effort should be made to secure federal cooperation and support
as well as a major funding commitment from the state. This activity should
proceed separately from the siting study and most optimally, it should be based
upon the results of the study as well as extensive interaction with other users
of resource data in the state who could help identify the most critical gaps in
existing information.
A preliminary assessment of certain categories of Montana's existing resource
data was undertaken to provide background information for this report. As a
result, some general observations and comments may be made. For a number of
categories, adequate data exist on a statewide basis to allow formulation of
criteria which could be utilized in a regional study designed to designate
areas unsuitable for siting. This is especially true of many types of human
resource data such as population and demographic characteristics, and economic
and social data. Coverage of natural resource data is generally not as compre-
hensive because both the quality and quantity varies considerably between cate-
gories and between various regions of the state. For example, baseline surface
- 51 -
water quality data has been collected for nearly all of the perennial streams
in the state. However, there is a critical lack of information regarding ground-
water quality (Karp 1976). Wildlife distribution and fisheries data, especially
for the major game species, is generally available on a statewide basis, but this
type of inventory information may not be applicable to a siting study unless it
conveys something about a particular area or region which would be adversely
affected by siting. For example, critical areas, habitat areas of exceptional
quality and areas of high population density probably should be included in
"avoidance" type criteria. However, this type of information may not be included
in general species distribution data.
A major problem is evidenced in attempting to assess the general availability
of land use and land capability data and vegetation types data as well as most
wildlife information. A great deal of data exist, but very few parameters or
classifications of information within these general data categories have been
uniformly covered on a statewide basis. Much of the information has been compiled
or mapped by different agencies or study teams in different regions using different
mapping scales. Also, some of the data are more up to date than others.
For some data categories, such as air quality and meteorology, existing
information could be generalized at a regional level, but the following two figures
indicate the areas where studies adequate for specific types of environmental
assessment actually have been completed. A considerable amount of new data would
obviously be required if a siting inventory is conducted at this level on a state-
wide basis.
It generally appears that criteria based on existing data could be developed
for a regionally oriented siting study. The experience provided by a similar
siting study conducted in Oregon supports this conclusion. However, this state-
ment must be qualified by noting that it may be impossible to map ideal criteria
for each data category which should be included. Lack of accurate data or general
lack of coverage for some data categories may require modification of some criteria
or potential elimination of other criteria. These decisions will be a major
responsibility of a siting task force.
The difficulties involved in making an accurate assessment of existing natural
resource data have implications which extend far beyond the needs of a statewide
siting study. Every major natural resource study conducted in Montana is con-
fronted with the demanding task of gathering fragmented existing data and either
combining it to form a comprehensive "picture" for a given geographic study
area or commissioning a new study to supply missing information or supplement
inadequate existing information. The fact that most resource studies have dif-
ferent objectives and require different levels and combinations of data compounds
the problem by requiring that similar data inventory processes be repeated over
and over.
Decision-making and regulatory agencies must remain free to initiate studies
and data collection efforts designed to meet their specific needs and responsibil-
ities, but better coordination and standardization of existing data and a mechanism
for the cateloging and storage of both new and existing information would clearly
represent an improvement of the present situation. This type of coordination makes
sense, but it will not be achieved without assigning specific authorization and
funding to a specific agency, office or advisory unit.
(
- 52 -
I
Pi
§
^
I
1-3 O-'^ 1-
^ 7 r( ;^-
23
•r^ -p
> 01
C T3
CI)
0)
O -H
C
0) -H
^
^^
rti CO
CO TJ
•^ §
ft)
+-■ (fl
+-I
H -P
^
2, 3
cr o
•H :3
4h a
0) w
^^
CO
cfl CO
(U
- CO
fj CO
< <n
s
I
>
D
00
- 53 -
o
o
w
-^
I - 5 !.■': 1..
■P Q)
C O
I
(/)
> T3
X)
a .
o w
(3 ft) fu
•H m ^
> >
O M
en -H (fl
•^^.^
(0 0) bO
■P > O
iH •> O
fO ttJ q5
o -p -p
•H rrt a)
bOTa s
o ^
S -H §
O rH O
■P ^ (JH
■P -H
C bO CO
0) C ,
•H -P ^
O T3 OJ
•H 3 4::
<4-t rH -p
^OO
QJ CO r3
o! C ro
W X3
W 03
fb QJ 13
Q) CO C
< m 3
- 54 -
Such a designation would require creation '^f a data assembly and storage
system. In turn, the establishment of this system would require many specific
decisions, including:
(1) Identification of potential system users and, to the greatest
degree possible, delineation of each user's major information
needs (i.e., data categories, scale and level of detail, as
well as specific operational needs) .
(2) Definition of mutually exclusive data categories for storage
purposes.
(3) Provision for double filing of data in both its original study
format and in categories developed for the overall storage
system.
(4) Setting of data accuracy standards.
(5) Development of uniform mapping standards to guide future resource
data collection activities to the greatest extent possible.
Several principles of operation for this type of system are immediatcdy evident,
The system should be designed to accommodate the widest possible range of user
needs. Therefore, it should be designed by those users to the greatest extent
practicable. One administrative option which would provide this user input is
the creation of a steering committee or board (made up of potential system users)
with directive powers and oversight responsibility for the activities of the
agency or office assigned to develop and maintain the system. It is assumed that
other on-going efforts to improve the mapping of resource data in the state could
be coordinated with the development of this system.
The potential designation of one agency to be responsible for assembly and
storage of resource data could have an especially significant and beneficial
effect on the statewide siting study if the authorization for these two activities
is granted within a similar time frame. A data assembly and storage agency as
well as other state agencies would be able to provide important assistance to
the criteria development effort in providing advice concerning the availability
of various specific types of data. Additionally, as noted previously, the siting
study could be expected to uncover specific data needs which could give direction
to future data collection efforts. If funding is secured, these efforts could be
designed primarily to improve the general resource data base for all users rather
than solely serve the needs of a single study.
- 55 -
VI. DATA SYSTEMS
A statewide siting Inventory and most other types of resource planning and
management activities require the assembly and analysis of a considerable volume
of resource information. Efficient execution of this task involves two comple-
mentary data handling requirements. First, a system must be established to coordinate
the assembly and storage of basic resource data (i.e., soils, vegetation types,
slope, land use, etc.). As was discussed in Section V, this system must be based
upon clearly defined, mutually exclusive data categories, but it must be flexible
enough to meet the needs of a wide range of users.
A second requirement concerns the availability and coordinated management of
computer hardware and software capabilities needed to efficiently store, analyze
and otherwise manipulate all types of spatial data on a statewide basis for deci-
sion-making purposes. This latter requirement will be the principal concern of
this section of the report.
It is important to note that this requirement can be fulfilled by a single,
well-designed computer system, although specialized software not needed for data
storage would be required for data manipulation and analysis. The use of a system
or systems to coordinate data storage and data manipulation functions is a manage-
ment concern which should not be confused with system capabilities.
The following discussion of automated data management must acknowledge a set
of concerns entirely separate from system capability analysis. These concerns
are concentrated upon a general lack of understanding by many decision-makers
and other potential users of the services an automated data system can provide
(Salmen 1973). Also, automated data systems may be viewed with some suspicion,
partially because of system-related barriers, such as complex programming processes,
which only system programmers and designers can operate. Additionally, decision-
makers may not adequately perceive the complexity or volume of information required
to assess various types of planning problems. As a result, inappropriate types
of responses may be made.
These concerns are a major problem because justifications and explanations
of data systems, which may seem self-evident on an empirical basis, must be
carefully prepared and presented to potential users if the systems are ever
to be utilized. The need for improved communication and presentation of system
capabilities will be discussed in subsequent portions of this section.
c.
- 56 -
A. System Components
A general discussion of the computer system components and capabilities
needed to assist resource management and planning efforts is presented below.
This discussion is exerpted from a 1975 Montana State Government publication
entitled "ERGIS Data Bank for Land and Resource Utilization" (DNR&C 1975).
The major operations involved in assembling a data system include: (1)
input material analysis; (2) input device selection; (3) storage format deter-
mination; (4) storage device selection; (5) output format and device selection;
and (6) data manipulation requirements. These operations and their relationships
are graphically presented in Figure VI-1 on the following page and are described
as follows:
Input Material Analysis
The source and format of input materials determine the data input hardware
system design as well as software generation. Most input materials are in
cartographic map format and may be categorized in terms of the range of scales
and physical sizes of input maps and the number of maps that need to be digitized,
All geographic information can be categorized into three groups: point, line
and polygon. Points represent historical sites, buildings, wells and springs.
Lines represent topographic contour lines, highways and streams. Polygons repre-
sent soil patterns, vegetation patterns and lakes. These data may be delineated
by location (point, line or polygon) or by descriptoi , such as the name of a soil
type, vegetation community or highway classification. A separate group of input
materials includes remote sensor imagery such as black and white air photos,
infrared or multi-band imagery and radar imagery. If these kinds of data input
are used, an extra dimension is added to the complexity of the data bank. This
includes the interpretation process, either an automated or manual technique,
and the process of correcting imagery distortion caused by sensor equipment.
Input Device Selection
As the format of input material is known, the next step is to design the hard-
ware and software of the input system. Three types of input devices can be
grouped:
(1) Manual input system, using a manual digitizer to digitize
the point, line and polygon. Also, the descriptors are
inserted manually.
(2) Semi-automated input system, using an automated digitizer and
either a raster scanner or a flying spot line follower to
digitize points, lines and polygons. If the input material
is a colored map, the description can be automatically
recorded. If delineation and descriptor of data are both
shown on the map, the descriptors must be manually inserted.
- 57 -
r
-
k
u
i» :•
a
,^
-(i
1.
t
J ,
t,"
11 i-
■s V.
^
i
cc
i~ >
o ^
c*.
o
a
LJ C-
.*- c
O
T 1 1
I
1 [
1
c
~'
o
•J
u
c
o .
>
<3-
r.
u
J
J 'O o
#a i-
3
t. >,
*-» c
J-
r> o cj;
•n 'J
»
o I' o!
. 1
t_^ — ^'
1 1
f:T~
~"
*J
C
M
13
e
C
<u
e ^
1- r
^e-
a>
f^oi
■ i_ ■ I-
1
ni
-i^
T
*-»
«:
a
TJ
T
J
1
>
.^E
>.
t
o
I.
->
-
C
3
L 1
cc »*-
r
t
}
i
i :
c
* I
1
o
•»-
■•->
c
ITJ
o
c
! !
CTi flj ♦-»
•a rg C
1- G Qi
: I
-O tj O
I- -r- <U
O U ♦-'
^J CJ O
v-i C5 i/>
c. cr-:
♦ ' o c-
o- c •
iA- crt*
— -• "
^.- v
*A
u- »/»: • ,-* >: u.
O OJ*
c- o: 1
o; u: 1
S Ci
o 04 1
o: a:
^
4--
.,-. < »..., . . .
; : 1
^'- -^^ -•• 1
[^
• : **"
*• ■ i ;
• •
. ■
!
t-
«b
I.
M
%
i-
VI
(Q *;
ra t-J
o
•u
c
3 t:
:3 —
*-»
C'
<u
d '■-'■
c —
irt
•v;
XT
*n r-
r- O
-n
(J
s: ■'-
:-■, -o
. J "-
q:
V
o
1 1 1 III
1
•u
o
> c
4J
<-
/
3 (U
c a>
I
!z^
(U
00
•H
1
i/>
<*~
'*- Oj
o
w
V-
a» t/*
<u
o^*—
Jl l/l
c «>
C Cl
t c.
"J r-J
tv in
i- I:
IT
J 1
1
o c
— o
♦-» ■'-
"O ♦>
O HJ
— ■— o
^ x. T> r-
^ r- C **-.
1- ♦* Tl -^
^ fO .n
y u- cj
"
■ ■' ■
■"
""~
MH
O
\1
rtJ
t: o
r
XJ
CT> >
«*J
r> —
'-
iTj
Q
*> ■>- (\J
Q 1/1 U
n
n
^- r-
(^
■n
o
<U -U [;
h-
U. XJ
■\.
L
(_) 1
'j'. \A ■--
1
1
1
1
c
o
•-*
■o
M
n U
e?,
(l> <u
•-» *-•
"J -M
>- J
. J
- 58
(A scanner map cannot be directly plotted out through a
linear or incremental plotter because the relationship
between the points is not indicated (i.e., points are
not grouped consecutively to form the line as shown on the
original map). Therefore, regrouping or vectorizing
the points is essential for plotting purposes.)
(3) Automated input system, using an automated digitizer
and also using a pattern recognition technique to auto-
matically record the descriptors. If the descriptors
that the data bank has to work with are numerous and
varied, an extensive software effort or specialized hard-
ware is required. Also, if the effort of developing an
automated process for descriptor recognition cannot be
offset by the time saved from using the manual method in
accomplishing the same amount of work, then the manual
approach is recommended.
A satisfactory input subsystem should meet requirements of efficiency, economy,
flexibility, accuracy and reliability. Further discussion of these requirements is
as follows:
Efficiency and Economy : The degree of automation relates to the character and
quantity of input materials. It is a cost-benefit and efficiency-related decision.
It is absurd to be automatic for the sake of automation only. If the manual approach
requires thousands of hours of manpower to do the digitizing work, then it is neces-
sary to use the automated approach. The amount of input material, the frequency of
use and the time allowed to input all necessary materials are major considerations.
Also, manual digitizing will present a greater chance of human errors and inaccuracy
which in the end will require more effort in data correction or editing. But, if
the quantity of input materials is small and the descriptors are in a very com-
plicated pattern, then it is better to use a manual digitizer.
Flexibility : The more varieties of input materials that can be processed by
the system, the higher the flexibility. This flexibility can be achieved either
by a manual or an automated digitizer. For an automated digitizer, higher flex-
ibility usually requires a higher level of system sophistication.
Accuracy and Reliability : If the input material is a map, then the inherent
accuracy of this map is beyond the control of the data bank. This inherent accuracy
is a factor to be considered due to its influence on the output accuracy. The
accuracy of a map results from the accuracy of the projection method, the resolu-
tion of the hardware that interprets the original material (such as black and
white and infrared air photography), the accuracy of map compiling and drafting,
either manually or mechanically, and the stability of the medium on which the
map is drawn and printed.
If the input material is from remote sensor imagery, the same factors used for
maps have to be considered, unless the input system is directly connected with the
- 59 -
remote sensor with an auxiliary system capable of automated data interpretation.
If the input system is using a manual digitizer, possible human error should be
considered and may require incorporation of an editing process.
The reliability of input hardware, either a manual or an automatic digitizer,
relates to its accuracy (or overall accuracy), resolution, repeatability, linearity,
orthogonality, scan curvature and stability.
Format Determination
Data storage relates to file format detemiinatlon, coordinates system determin-
ation, storage format determination, and storage device selection. Further dis-
cussion of these four items is presented as follows:
File Format Determination : The file format is closely tied to the efficiency
of the entire system. It not only saves data storage space and enhances the ran-
dom accessibility of data retrieval, it minimizes the time required for data man-
ipulation. There are two means of constructing a data file: one is by using one
data file per data variable for a unit area with a predetermined size or the entire
data bank region, and the second is by using one data file per unit area for all
or multivariables.
Coordinates System Determination ; When a data file for the entire study region
exceeds a certain size, it is economical to divide the file into small sections or
sub-files. This will greatly benefit the data output or retrieval subsystem,
because when a small area is to be retrieved from a large file, it is necessary to
search through the entire file, thus consuming a great deal of time. If the entire
file is divided into small sections, then only sections that are cut through by
the boundary lines of the retrieved area and the sections within the boundary lines
are needed for file searching. To divide the regional file into small sections,
one can use either arbitrary grid systems or geological survey coordinate systems.
The factors that have to be considered are input device capability (i.e., the
size of input material as limited by input device), required input efficiency,
random accessibility of stored data (i.e., the nature of data retrieval in order
to achieve efficiency), and data manipulation technique used.
Storage Format Determination : The data storage format for an input system is
rather simple. It takes the input digital format as its storage format. The
retrieval and manipulation systems, however, place many constraints on the format
determination. There are two major types of storage format: grid format and poly-
gon format.
A grid format presents the land use and resources data by uniform modular cells.
These modular cells can be squares or parallelograms or any other uniform shape
such as hexagons and octagons, if necessary. However, the square shaped cell
is used most commonly. The data within a modular cell can be presented either in
I
- 60 -
percentages, which is termed "percentile cell format", or represented by the
dominant datum only, which is termed "dominant cell format".
According to the cell size, the grid system can be represented by either
regular cell size (i.e., macro-cell) or micro-cell size. The difference between
the two sizes is based upon the scale and the actual ground size represented by
each cell. The dividing standard is rather arbitrary, but the micro-cell is
defined as that cell size smaller than or equal to 1/2500 square inch. (This size
is related to the size and scale of the input material.) Any larger amount is a
regular cell. For example, if input material with a scale of one inch equal to
one mile is used, a cell size smaller than or equal to 0,256 acres is called a micro-
cell.
In general, micro-cells of a regional and statewide data bank will have to
utilize an automated data input machine because a manual input method would be
too time-consuming and costly.
A polygon format represents a closed area or plane bound by line segments,
A line segment is a line defined by intersection points (i.e., the beginning and
end points of this line segment) or a closed circle.
Selection of storage format depends a great deal on the requirements of data
manipulation, although input methods used may create an extra burden in reaching
the desired storage format. For example, if polygon format is desired, then data
input from a raster scanner which is in run-length coding format must be vectorized
in order to be stored in the polygon format. On the other hand, if grid format
is desired, data input from a manual digitizer or line follower which is in a
linear, incremental or polygon format must be converted into a grid format before
going into the storage device.
In polygon format, lines are defined by points or vectors; areas are defined
by lines. The denser the digitized points or vectors, the closer this line
approaches its original configuration. The accuracy of the data builds at the
expense of the storage space available.
The grid system is prevailingly used in computer mapping due to its ready
availability. The early grid system was developed under the limitations of the
hardware system because most people have easy access to a computer line printer
while having very limited access to a manual digitizer and plotter. Converting a
geo-information system into a grid system is risky because a grid system is
unnatural to the geo-information characteristics. It may also distort the infor-
mation furnished by geo-information systems to a degree, depending upon the cell
size of the grid system when compared with the scale of the geo-information
system. Grid systems have their own advantages, but it is extremely important
to conduct a reliability analysis prior to using the system in order to determine
the size of the grid cell and to determine whether or not the grid system is com-
patible with the study intent.
- 61 -
Polygon storage format may be compared to grid storage format as both formats
relate to data retrieval. Retrieval criteria consist of random accessibility,
flexibility and compatibility. Random accessibility requires data output of any
arbitrary geographic boundary area desired. This Involves file separation and
file mergence. In order to separate a geographic area from an existing polygon
format data file, it is necessary to read in the X-Y coordinates of the lines
forming the area and search out the maximum and minimum X-Y coordinates of
each polygon in the file to determine whether it should be included, and if so,
check all line segments to determine which ones fall within the desired area.
The mergence of two areas or files involves an even more complex series of steps
to insure that all border-line segments are properly identified and matched.
In order to separate a geographic area from an existing grid format data
file, a rather simple process can be used to eliminate all cells outside of
boundary lines. Therefore, assuming that the data files have the same complexity
and can provide a similar level of accuracy, from the viewpoint of file separation,
the grid format will provide higher efficiency than the polygon format. Mergence
of the data file of the grid format involves only rearrangement of coordinates
of certain cells, a rather simple task of mathematic addition and subtraction.
Therefore, from the viewpoint of data file mergence, the grid format is more
efficient than the polygon format.
Higher flexibility of data retrieval demands a capability of arbitrary output
format. Data stored in a polygon format have the greatest accuracy (i.e., the i
original inherent accuracy that can be provided by the input device) and the '
greatest flexibility because these data can be plotted out at any desired scale.
Whether the plot-out is an enlargement or reduction in scale, the accur&cy of
the original data file Is preserved (although enlargement will not enhance the
accuracy of the original data file). The data can also be converted to the grid
system with any reasonable and desirable cell size.
If data were stored in a regular cell size grid system, these data can only
be aggregated upward toward a more crude level rather than disaggregated downward
toward a finer level. In this grid system, aggregating upward without losing
control of reliability can be conducted in only one fashion; that is, using the
width or length of the original cell as the interval unit and aggregating in an
integral interval. In each cell, whether it is a percentile cell or a dominant
cell, the data are not described by location-related coding. Therefore, no
method exists that can break the individual cell without losing control of reliabill
Disaggregated downward, the data will more likely lose their original reliability
or accuracy.
Because the accuracy of the dominant type, micro-cell size grid system
is similar to that of the polygon system (i.e., based upon the inherent accuracy
of the input material minus the resolution, e.g., 1/100" and 1/400", of an
input device such as the raster scanner), this grid system will have flexibility
of arbitrary output format similar to the polygon system if the square of the
scan resolution is used as the cell size. The least accurate is the percentile
type, regular size grid system because of its relatively large cell size and lack j
of location specifications within each cell. I
- 62 -
Data storage compatibility between two data bank systems or between different
data sets within the same data bank depends upon the coordinates system and scale
used. For grid systems, it also depends upon the size of the cell. Data com-
patibility is directly affected by the data input system and data storage format.
Different data sets, either from different data banks or the same data bank and
with the same coordinates system and scale, are compatible. Through a software
effort, one coordinates system or scale can be converted to another.
Data stored in a polygon or micro-cell format have higher compatibility than
data stored in a regular cell size grid system because this grid system has con-
straints due to cell size, as well as differences in coordinates system and scale.
If data sets use different coordinates systems, even though they have the same
cell size, they are incompatible.
Usually no location specifications are coded within a percentile cell format.
Therefore, one cell system cannot be converted to other coordinates systems without
losing data reliability. The degree of reliability loss depends upon the cell size
and the complexity of data. The smaller the cell size and the less complex the
data arrangement within each cell, upon conversion into another coordinates system,
the less reliability is lost.
As related to data manipulation criteria of reliability, accuracy and efficiency,
the micro-cell grid system offers the greatest advantages. The polygon system
offers reliability and accuracy, but is rather inefficient.
Storage Device Selection
Many data storage devices such as cards, tapes, drums and discs are available.
For a large bulk of data, cards are not recommended as large quantities are needed,
thereby presenting a handling problem. Cards also lack endurance. Tape has the
benefit of storing large amounts of data on a relatively small magnetic tape, but
it may lack random accessibility. A drum or disc storage device offers long-
lasting durability, random accessibility, and relatively small physical dimensions.
Output Format and Device Selection
Because the input and storage systems have already been built into the required
output format (either polygon or grid format), the output is only a matter of calling
the storage data. The important function of the retrieval system is the establish-
ment of random accessibility and optional scaling.
There are three major output devices available: line printer, matrix plotter,
and linear or incremental plotter, which can be either a drum plotter or a flat-bed
plotter. The first two devices are usually used for grid format output. The third
device is usually used for polygon format output, but can be used for grid format
output if necessary.
- 63 -
Data Manipulation Requirements
Data manipulation can be divided into two categories: (1) the manipulation
of a grid system which includes percentile cell and dominant cell subsystems;
and (2) the manipulation of a polygon system. Under each of these two categories
are two subcategories. One is to generate a new data set from a known data set
that is already stored in the data bank. Examples are generating a slope and
aspects analysis map from topographic data, or generating a construction compat-
ibility map from a soils type map. The second is to merge two different data sets.
This is known as the overlay (compositing) technique, and it relates to different
mathematical evaluation or combination methods. The following comparison between
the polygon overlay system and the grid overlay system is based upon the criteria
of reliability, accuracy and efficiency.
The polygon overlay system, offering an original delineation of data type,
has a higher rate of accuracy and reliability than the regular cell size grid
system. Again, this is because the data in each cell of the grid system are not
location specified. Because the micro-cell size grid system can provide accuracy
similar to the polygon system, these two systems have a similar level of reliability.
In a situation where a regular size grid system must be used for the overlay tech-
nique, it ic necessary to conduct a reliability study to determine the cell size.
Cell size determination depends upon the accuracy level of the original data, the
configuration complexity of each data set, and the nature of the study. If the
accuracy of the input map is about i 500' when compared with the ground truth,
it is of no value to use a cell size smaller than 500' x 500' due to the possi-
bility of the entire cell carrying completely false information. On issues related
to the configuration complexity of the data set, it is empirically recommended
that no more than three data types should be contained within one cell. Concerning
the nature of the study (i.e., the study objectives), a fine level decision-making
study should use either a dominant type micro-cell size grid system or a polygon
system. The scale selection is also essential.
In order to use the overlay technique of superimposing one polygon format
map on top of another, a complex series of steps are needed to check all points
of polygons which overlap in order to determine the exact configuration of new
polygons created by the overlay process. The superimposing of two grid format
maps is a rather simple mathematic addition as long as the grid systems of two
maps are compatible with each other.
B. Discussion of Computer Systems and Programs
Several data handling systems have been examined for potential application to
resource planning activities in Montana. Before discussing these systems, an
important comment must be made. There are many data manipulation techniques
which can be used to achieve approximately the same study results. Also, there
are many types of statistical calculations and computer programming variations
which will provide supplementary planning information that is very helpful to
decision-makers. These types of software generally can be written or acquired at
a relatively minimal cost. However, all types of data manipulation must be per-
formed within the context of some overall organizational methodology. "Methodo-
logy" may be defined as the entire planning process and succession of activities
i
- 64 -
required to evaluate some problem or proposal and reach a decision. Methodology
must be based upon existing state policy and legal requirements which delineate
the issues and types of information to be considered in any specific type of
proposal. These topics are discussed in the criteria section of this report.
Data manipulation and analyses occur near the end of the evaluation process, but
it is essential to note that these techniques will not provide an "answer" to
a given problem. At best, data manipulation will reveal the choices which exist
if the relative importance of the various data elements involved in a study are
defined.
GMAPS
The generalized map analysis planning system (GMAPS) was developed at the
Colorado School of Mines and features a composite computer mapping capability
(Turner 1976, p. 15). The GMAPS program is operated from small teletype terminals
which are connected to a DEC System-10 computer at the School of Mines. A very
attractive feature of the system is its accessibility to non-technical users.
The system is operated through a program which displays a series of questions on
the terminal screen. The user's responses command the operations to be performed.
These commands are listed in the following table.
Table VI-1
Available GMAPS Transactions
Command
Il£±
Transactions
Purpose
Help
Catalog
Area
Assign
Mask
New Data
Value
Delete
Combine
S
S
S
C
I
c
s
c
Gives GMAPS instructions.
Lists the areas and factors in
the catalog.
Changes the current area.
Duplicates a file and assigns
a new name.
Masks specified areas out of
a file.
Reads and checks new data.
Assigns numeric values to an
alphameric file.
Deletes areas and factors.
Arithmetically or logically
combines factors.
- 6S
Table VI-1 Cont'd.
Print
Gray
Statistics
End
Prints a symbolic map.
Prints a gray- tone map.
Prints statistics for a
file.
Exit from GMAPS
I = input transactions which allow the entry of new source
maps to the analysis.
= output transactions which produce all the map and
statistical displays.
C = create transactions which allow for the creation
of new map forms from existing maps.
S = system transactions which involve "housekeeping"
tasks needed during the operations of GMAPS. (Turner 1976)
Further description of the GMAPS system components is presented below.
GMAPS accepts map input through the use of manually coded map sectors. Each
sector is a block of 120 by 120 cells; each cell contains a single data element
or character. The data are coded in symbolic format (numbers or letters) on a
sector form sheet or "P-card" . It should be noted that only the points of change
in the data, which are scanned from left to right, need be recorded. The number
of acres per cell is flexible and depends primarily upon selection of a suitable
scale of resolution for the problem being addressed (Turner 1976a).
Data are stored as a sequence of matrices, each equivalent to one sector.
The format is cellular.
Data are output through a line printer which can produce gray-tone maps
or symbolic maps and histograms which delineate the percent of map area assigned
to each map variable or valuation code. The output maps can be checked and edited
for accuracy by overlaying them on the original source map. It should be noted
that this method of cellular input can present a stretching problem which results
in locational distortion of data.
GMAPS contains a number of significant data manipulation capabilities. As
many as ten separately weighted maps can be overlayed and combined to produce
a single composite map. Each map is weighted as a whole and all elements included
within each map are ranked by numeric codes in a possible range of zero to nine.
A logical compositing technique allows two maps to be merged on a cell-by-cell
basis so that up to ten pairs of conditions can be checked. The sensitivity of
each factor valuation also may be statistically calculated. This reveals the
"margin" or valuation for that factor which would be required, when combined with
any other factor or factors, to produce alternative study results (i.e., a
- 66 -
different preferred site or route designation) . Various study areas may be
selected for analysis from within a larger mapped region.
GCARS
The generalized computer aided route selection (GCARS) system was also developed
by Turner in 1968 and may be considered a partnership operation of GMAPS. GCARS
is an example of linear programming which applies minimum path analysis tech-
niques to numerical cost models to generate a series of ranked alternative routes
or corridors, "Cost" in this context is a measure of desirability which combines
directness of route and least cost of all factors considered. The numerical
cost models represent various objectives. They are stored as matrices but may be
conceptualized as three dimensional surfaces (see Figure VI-2 below) with the
"valleys" representing least cost.
CONTOUR MODELS
ANALVSISOF
ACHIEVEMENT
EVALUATION OF COST
Figure VI-2- Basic concept of GCARS system
(adapted from Turner 1968).
The computer analysis proceeds cell by cell, choosing the path of least cost.
Second, third, and successively less desirable alternatives are discovered by
raising the "cost" values of the cells or links of the preferred route so these
won't be selected in the same sequence again. The composite model is derived
through use of GMAPS compositing routines.
67 -
GCARS produces maps of the routes or superimposes the routes on appropriate
gray-tone maps. Statistical summaries are also produced which provide the user
with various numerical analysis of the length and cost of each route.
Discussion of GMAPS/GCARS
Ecological Consultants, Inc. : The GMAPS/GCARS system presently is programmed
through centralized computers at the Colorado School of Mines and is available
through a consulting firm called Ecological Consultants, Inc. (ECI) . ECI is
primarily interested in providing the GMAPS/GCARS methodology, rather than simply
providing software capabilities. A computer terminal and training in use of the
terminal and the GMAPS/GCARS analysis procedure are supplied to clients. If a
project is contracted, ECI takes responsibility for converting all source data
into sectors and placing them in the system.
The arrangement involved in utilizing GMAPS/GCARS through ECI is not applicable
to Montana's situation. As shall be discussed later, the State of Montana already
possesses computer hardware and software which can perform functions similar to
those provided by GMAPS. Therefore, advantages of purchasing ECl's services,
as well as a terminal connected to the Colorado School of Mines computer, appear
negligible. i
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (LASL) : The GMAPS program could also be
available to the State of Montana through the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
at Los Alamos, New Mexico. The Federal Energy Research and Development Adminis-
tration sponsors the Regional Energy Assessment Program (REAP) , which is partially
administered through a special LASL research group known as Q-10. This program
concentrates upon "resource utilization problems and opportunities likely to
arise in the course of energy development activities in the Mountain States . . .
of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico". The
specific goals of the program are listed below:
(1) To provide the basis for the development of a rational
energy policy for the utilization of resources in a
manner to minimize detrimental effects.
(2) To provide long-term projections of energy, water, and
mineral production and utilization for the region.
(3) To provide a means for the evaluation of the impact of
new technology so that these factors can be incorporated into
both regional and research planning.
(4) To evaluate the importance of legal and institutional
constraints on regional growth, energy consumption and
production (REAP 1976, p. 1). i
68 -
Under the auspices of this program, LASL is interested in providing assistance
to the states listed above.
LASL possesses highly sophisticated computer hardware which the Q-10 Research
Group has utilized to apply advanced research in spatial data handling techniques.
LASL utilizes the basic GMAPS program but has made several improvements to increase
efficiency, increase display capabilities and extend editing capabilities.
Any of the eight Mountain States may undertake a jointly funded spatial
data research project with LASL. Such a project must satisfy REAP's energy plan-
ning criteria before LASL's involvement could be justified, but it appears that
many aspects of a statewide energy facility siting study would provide this jus-
tification. Other considerations are as follows (Vogel 1976) :
(1) LASL has an in-house restriction on hiring new staff;
therefore, the availability of existing staff to work
on new projects is a major constraint.
(2) LASL cannot "sell" its computer capabilities; any projects
accepted must involve data analysis and application of
methodology.
(3) In a joint project, the state would be responsible for all
input data and for preparing this data in the manually
coded cellular format required by GMAPS. The state would
also be responsible for assigning weights to the various
data elements included in the study.
(4) LASL would process the data and produce either gray-tone
or colored maps which it would then composite and otherwise
analyze to produce the study results.
The possibility of negotiating a joint study between the State of Montana
and LASL remains an option for the future which could be tapped for many types
of statewide or area-specific resource and energy-related studies. LASL could
apply many sophisticated computer hardware capabilities to such a study which
would probably be economically unfeasible for a state to duplicate by itself.
This specifically refers to display capabilities, techniques for accurate analysis
of remote sensing data, and other advanced research techniques. However, the
advantages provided by these capabilities may not substantially affect study results.
The potential advantage of shared funding would have to be evaluated in terms of
the specific monetary costs involved, the study objectives, and the comprehensive
costs and benefits for each partner for a specific project.
69 -
CMS II
A cellular composite mapping program known as CMS II is available from the
Federation of Rocky Mountain States (FRMS) and Is presently being utilized by
the Montana State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) . This program contains
many data manipulation capabilities, but also presents some potential problems
for users. The original CMS I program was written In COBOL computer language
and was developed for use In UNIVAC and CDC computers. In 197A, FRMS secured a
grant to redevelop CMS I for use In more widely distributed IBM computers with
ANS-COBOL compilers (FRMS 1976a, p. 2). The new program Is called CMS II. It
can be adapted to many types of input and output devices and It will accept
various types of input data as indicated in Figure VI-3. The input may be manually
coded or automatically digitized. Cellular storage format is required.
Data manipulation capabilities include compositing, cell aggregation, various
statistical and logical computations, and a polygon to cell conversion program.
However, the conversion program is not operational at this time. A detailed
description of CMS II is provided in the users manual available from FRMS and
available for inspection at DCA.
Through the computer system operated by DCA, Montana was the first state
in the Federation to utilize CMS II. The primary problem DCA and others have
had with CMS II is its inefficiency in terms of the length of time the hard-
ware must take to perform the program operations. This inefficiency is directly
related to CMS II 's COBOL program language. Therefore, other programs with
similar capabilities written in more Inherently efficient languages may be con-
sidered preferable in terms of long-run cost.
Department of Community Affairs
The Research and Information Systems Division of DCA is a data collection
unit within Montana State Government which deals with many types of information
(i.e., demographic, social, economic, natural resource, etc.). This division
has the computerized capability to store and analyze spatial data. DCA has not
always been oriented toward the collection or handling of natural resource data,
but it has been acquiring increasing amounts of this type of Information in
response to various user contracts and data analysis projects over the past
few years. As a result, programs such as CMS II have been acquired. Additionally,
DCA was designated Montana's land use planning agency by executive order of
the Governor in July 1975 with attendant responsibility to develop and maintain
a centralized information system containing appropriate data. DCA depends upon
outside consultants for semi-automatic digitization of source data. The data
is stored in both polygon and regular cellular format. It is felt that both
formats serve necessary functions. However, a reliable conversion program for
transferring data between the two formats is essential.
i
- 70 -
VeA^aX^Zz Inpttts and OlUpuX6
.
CWVEKTIOfiAL
REMOTE
AERIAL
POLYGON
SOCIO-ECON
POINT
KWS
SENSING
TAPES
PHOTOGRAPHY
OIGITIZEO
DATA
DATA
SAMPLE
DATA
n«t. resources
seasonal chge
black 1 white
micro-geology
popn. eharact.
minerals
loclal f»ctor$
land uses
Infrared
engineering
econ. eharact.
social
plans, zones
land cover
land cover
legal bdrles
housing
urban
r^opticdi A
i 1
multl- \ / photo \
polygonal A
master map\
/outside \
proj'n to
spectral
Interpr'n.
XY trace
k dict'ry.
CKS
CHS grid
pixel
transfered
lines
precoded
pt.-to-pt.
or
Identlf.
Into CKS
converted
sr\y Stat.
Interpol 'n
highspeed
land uses
cellular
to cells
areas. In
routines
tcinners
Into CKS
, grid
, by CKS i
, CMS grid 1 I fed into 1
xx
\r/ \y \y \:^
J — -^,
r
1
■ r
-4
1
T. i CMS map file
^til
K
/
[
V
4^ 4^ 4^ 4^ 4' 4'
CELLULAR KAPS
COMPOSITE MAPS
STATISTICAL
TABLES
REDUCED SCALE
PRINTS
MICROFILM
COLORED MAPS
GREYTONE OR
MIXED WEIGHTS
BY EXTERNAL
BY EXTERNAL
DIGITAL
NUMERIC i GREY
VIA EXTERNAL
STAT PROGRAMS
BY CMS CELL
AGGREGATION
PROCESSES
PROCESSES
BY STANDARD
OR LOGICAL
USING CHS
USING CKS
USING CMS
COffUT
PROCESS MAPS
CELLULAR DATA
OR VARIOUS
REDUCTIONS
CELLULAR
OUTPUT
CELLULAR
OUTPUT
Figure VI-3
Federation of Rocky Mountain States, 1976a.
- 71 -
DCA has been involved in a project with the Department of Revenue for
the past year and a half to digitize the comers of all the section boundaries
in the State of Montana. When this project is complete, it will significantly
increase the accuracy of the DCA grid system.
DCA utilizes a drum plotter for production of polygon maps and a line printer
to produce its cellular map output. These hardware devices are located at the
Department of Highways. Output forms include gray-tone and symbolic maps and
histograms.
The DCA system possesses map compositing and analysis capability as well
as various types of logical and statistical analyses capabilities. Additionally,
the system has programs for cell aggregation, file separation and file mergence
for any combination of data factors.
Environmental Resources Geo-Information System (ERGIS)
The data handling system presently owned by the Montana Department of Admin-
istration but principally used by the Energy Planning Division (EPD) of the Montana
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation has been described in the 1975
publication referenced and quoted earlier in this report.
ERGIS' use as a data bank would necessarily involve very large amounts of
input data, frequent use, and relatively short amounts of time to process input
materials to required specifications. ERGIS' function as a tool to be used in
decision-making, with the accompanying demand on its data manipulation capabilities,
has not been considered a separate or additional load factor. However, this
function clearly places demands on the system (beyond its data storage functions)
which strengthen the conclusion that automatic digitization is essential (DNRC
1975, p. 71). Thus, a raster scanner was selected for the system input device.
This imposed the input format requirements identified in the discussion on input
device selection (see Section IV-A of this report) (DNRC 1975, p. A3).
A longitude-latitude coordinate system was selected for ERGIS. This coordinate
system theoretically does not present compatibility barriers to potential inter-
action with other systems, but it has not yet been utilized or applied to a
specific project.
Data is digitized, stored and manipulated in a dominant type micro-cell
grid format. This format appears to combine the advantages of accuracy, flex-
ibility, and compatibility with other systems provided by polygon storage, with the
greater data manipulation efficiency ( i.e. , compositing) and random accessibility
provided by cellular storage.
4
72 -
ERGIS is not restricted to any particular output device. A line printer and
matrix plotter are presently utilized.
ERGIS' data manipulation capabilities include: file separation and file
mergence to provide random accessibility of data (this allows for selection of
new study areas and other types of data configurations which may vary from the
initial input arrangement); vectorization of scanned data to return the data to
its original configuration for display purposes; conversion of run-length codes
into polygon format; aggregation of cells which can be scaled to a size equiva-
lent to the smallest cells used in regular grid systems; line thinning to reduce
data boundary lines to one-cell width; and calculation of acreages.
ERGIS has an efficient compositing program which has been successfully sub-
stituted in some of DCA's work for the more inefficient CMS II program. ERGIS
does not possess an automatic corridor selection technique. Routes or corridors
are traced manually through analysis of the shaded areas shown on composite maps,
C. Summary Discussion
The data systems described above require further discussion in terms of their
relationship to the management of resource data in Montana. The first portion of
this subsection deals with system-related concerns.
The advantages and disadvantages of manual and automatic or semi-automatic
system input devices have been discussed in Subsection IV-A. The volume and
complexity of data to be handled with efficiency, flexibility and reliability
are the basic factors to be considered in evaluating digitization techniques. It
was intended that the input material for ERGIS' raster scanner should "be limited
to descriptor maps with different colored dots representing different descriptors
and colored maps ... to simplify input material categorization" (DNRC 1975,
p. 72). However, ERGIS' capability to handle color has not been utilized fully
because of difficulties in scanner recognition of certain color variations. There-
fore, manually drafted "black and white maps" of publication quality with separate
overlays for descriptors have been used for most of ERGIS' input. Thus far, this
has not presented a hardship in that most of the map information put into ERGIS
has also been published by EPD and therefore has required manual drafting anyway.
However, depending on the complexity and volume of data involved, it appears
valid to raise the question of whether the manhours required for manual preparation
on input for the scanner fully offset the manhours which would be required for manual
or semi-manual digitization. Access to a cartographic staff is required by the
present situation. The scanner can record a finer degree of detail than may
be manually feasible, but it appears that the potential for human error has a
73 -
nearly equal chance of affecting some portion of either process. Most sources
consulted during this study have noted that manual and semi-manual digitization
techniques have not economically inhibited commercially competitive firms nor have
such techniques adversely affected the management of relatively large amounts of
data in short periods of time.
It should be noted that ERGIS was not fully applied to a major project before
publication of the Anaconda-Hamilton transmission line study by EPD earlier this
year. Thus, there has not been an adequate basis for comparison of ERGIS with
alternative systems.
This discussion is not intended to prove either type of digitization superior,
but it does touch on issues affecting future data handling choices for Montana.
In the past, DCA's digitization work has been contracted to out-of-state consulting
firms using semi-automatic techniques. Examples also exist of state agencies
and other users pursuing cost-inefficient digitization arrangements on their
own, perhaps due to unawareness of the options open to them through DCA or EPD
or perhaps because these options have involved the complications noted above (i.e.,
reliance on out-of-state contractors or extensive manual input preparation) .
Compatibility between systems is another major factor affecting future data
management within Montana, as well as future data exchanges within the western
region and with federal information sources. Compatibility may be analyzed in
several ways, including comparisons of coordinate systems, coding mechanisms, and
storage formats. For example, several systems discussed in this report utilize
the CMS II program or are compatible with it because of similar coding (i.e.,
use of P-cards) which is cellular based. Thus, GMAPS, as it is utilized by ECI
and LASL, and CMS II as utilized by ECI, LASL and DCA are compatible and data
programmed through these systems could probably be transferred or exchanged with
a minimum of programming adjustments.
Likewise, a number of programs have been or are being developed which address
the problem of converting data from cellular format to polygon format or vice
versa. It should be noted that these are two separate operations posing separate
technical problems; they are not merely the reverse of one another. ERGIS has
a program for conversion of micro-cell data to polygons which is presently opera-
tional, although all of ERGIS' data is in run-length coding format. A portion
of the CMS II package used by DCA was supposed to provide conversion from poly-
gons to cells, but this program has not worked properly and some specific directive
or assignment of personnel to work on the problem would be needed to make It
operational. Also, ERGIS' micro-cells are essentially equivalent to overlaying
a very small grid on a very large-scale data base. The micro-cells are still
cellular in format and their properties actually could be duplicated by a more
conventional cellular system through the process just noted if there was a
rationale for incurring the cost.
- 74 -
The principal ERGIS characteristic which i'' not featured in the other systems
and which would have to be considered in any transfer of data between these systems
is the run-length coding format. The run-length code is presently a part of the
software which operates the scanner and all of the scanner's output is in this
format. The means to trade ERGIS data with data programmed through CMS II presently
exists. However, it involves the use of two programs: One to convert CMS II
information and one to convert ERGIS data to an intermediate form which both systems
can accept. This intermediate form is from the CMS II package and it would output
information in CMS II' s coding format. ERGIS information (within its own code)
is more compact and therefore cheaper to store. If it were necessary or desirable to
transfer ERGIS data to any other cellular system, the ERGIS files would probably
have to be decoded.
The most important compatibility problem is not related to system design,
since programs exist or can be written to overcome most of the technical problems
of data exchange. Management of these systems is a far more formidable barrier
to the coordination of Montana's existing computer hardware to meet user information
needs (the data bank function) as well as decision-making requirements (data mani-
pulation and analysis). The most significant aspect of this problem has been the
lack of close coordination and communication between the agencies which manage the
systems. This has been evidenced through a general lack of awareness of one
another's activities as well as unfamiliarity with the contents of one another's
data files or the specific potential for compatibility between the systems.
A closely related issue concerns the fact that ERGIS is presently not a data
bank, even though it has the system capability to be utilized as such. At the
present time, ERGIS contains only data used in facility siting-related studies
performed by EPD. The bulk of this information is not source data which could
automatically be applied to other uses. Rather, it is manipulated data which
has been input in terms of its relation to various electric transmission line
impacts. Although the system has been oriented toward its potential use in making
siting decisions, this does not imply that EPD has no need or inclination to use
the system as a data bank, especially with regard to processing future siting
studies. However, development of this function has not yet occurred. Also, the
ERGIS system generally has not been used outside of the Energy Planning Division.
This situation may partially be explained by noting that no authorization
or funding has been granted to either EPD or ERGIS' present owner, the Department
of Administration, to develop the system's full potential. The lack of coordina-
tion between ERGIS and the DCA system also may be explained by a similar lack of
specific direction as well as a general lack of perception of common goals.
Until such official directives and funding are assigned, the coordination effort
and the accompanying expense of system development will not be undertaken. The
concerns mentioned initially in this section — lack of user awareness and under-
standing of the computer services available — have also been adversely affected by
the general lack of coordination of services, especially as they relate to natural
resource data and resource planning activities.
- 75 -
It is in the state's best interest to achieve coordination of its existing
computer capabilities. State coordination of resource data assembly and storage
activities is a complementary objective which is discussed in Section V. A
portion of the following recommendations offers a means of dealing with the overall
coordination problem.
- 76 -
RE COMMEND AT I OiMS
Criteria Development and Siting Inventory
The Major Facility Siting Act should be amended to require that a special
task force be funded and commissioned by the Legislature to develop criteria to
be utilized in a statewide siting inventory and to assume oversight responsibility
for the inventory effort. The criteria ultimately developed and utilized by the
task force should be formally included in the rules and regulations of the Major
Facility Siting Act .
This recommendation recognizes the need for comprehensive long-range planning
in the siting of energy conversion facilities. Its implementation will provide
front-end assistance to both regulatory agencies and to applicants.
A siting inventory must be based upon a series of criteria which identify
and categorize the complex information needed to compare and evaluate geographic
areas in terms of their relative suitability for energy facility siting. Develop-
ment of adequate siting criteria will be a major effort in Itself which will deter-
mine the subsequent quality of the siting inventory. A special consideration of
the task force should be the establishment of exclusion and avoidance criteria
categories which, respectively, would classify land uses and areas where siting
would be absolutely prohibited or permitted only in the absence of reasonable
alternatives.
Some types of criteria may require important policy-related decisions if they
are to be included in the inventory. These include, but are not limited to,
determination of the extent of non-agricultural uses to be allowed in areas of
limited surface and ground water supplies; the protection or status to be
accorded to agricultural and timbered lands as these areas relate to potential
facility siting; and the siting of facilities near urban areas as opposed to
siting in remote, sparsely populated regions.
The task force should be authorized to investigate or fund the investigation
of topics which will require development of appropriate criteria, but which will
require in-depth study before recommendations may be made. These topics include
the transboundary effect of siting facilities near interstate or international
boundaries; the synergistic effect of siting two or more types of energy generation
or conversion facilities in close spatial proximity; and the indirect impacts of
siting created by increased economic activity and development in a site area.
The task force should include individuals with established expertise in both
natural and cultural environmental disciplines which will affect or be affected
by siting decisions and should also include representatives from a wide range
of interest groups concerned with siting decisions, including, at least, the
public at large, local governments, industry, utilities and agriculture.
Ik -
The task force should be assisted and advised by all governmental agencies
having- expertise or regulatory responsibilities affected by siting decisions.
However, future decisions by the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
and other land use-related decisions by other agencies should not be compromised
or influenced by these agencies' roles in criteria development. Potential future
conflicts of interest of this type will be avoided if a task force independent
of these agencies is responsible for criteria decisions.
The siting inventory should be directed toward designation of areas within
the state that are unsuitable for future siting of energy facilities. The
designation of unsuitable areas is preferable to designation of specific suitable
sites because the latter option ultimately would require that the state conduct
costly site-specific studies without benefit of specific plant design characteristics
to justify site selections. Designation of unsuitable areas should be accompanied
by development of preferred site selection criteria to guide future applicants'
proposed site selection activities.
Data Collection, Storage and Retrieval
One Suate agency should be designated the resource data assembly and storage
unit, charged with the maintenance of resource data files to meet the planning and
decision-making needs of other state agencies, county and local governmental units,
and the widest possible range of other uses . ,
A general lack of interagency coordination and the preoccupation of each agency
with its own area of responsibility has resulted in fragmentation of responses
to land use and resource management problems. These types of problems, by nature,
involve many complex, overlapping concerns which it has been impossible to consoli-
date administratively. Portions of the information needed to solve these problems
may potentially be applied in many different contexts by different agencies, but
nonstandardization of resource information has hindered coordinated use. The
above recommendation would provide a means of correcting this situation.
Implementation of this recommendation will require funding and expansion
of appropriate staff within the agency assigned this responsibility. However, exist-
ing and potential users of resource data must have major input into the design of
a data storage system, selection of data storage categories, designation of data
accuracy standards, and other related decisions. Agencies with decision-making
responsibilities which require resource data should remain responsible for col-
lecting necessary information, but with the understanding that this data would be
stored and utilized in the overall data system.
It should be noted that the site inventory effort will require reliable,
standardized statewide information in many data categories. Depending upon
scheduling and other decisions, the implementation of that site inventory recom-
mednation and the above data assembly and storage recommendation would be highly
comp 1 emen t a r y .
C
- 78 -
Resource data is being digitized for use in existing computer systems
in the state. These efforts should be strongly encouraged and supported. Also,
the digitization of reliable statewide resource information to meet immediate
planning needs should be a major objective of the data assembly and storage
agency. The computer hardware used for data storage can also be used for data
maniuplation and analysis activities, but the management responsibility for each
function must be clearly specified and considered equally important.
A committee familiar with both the technical aspects of computer system design
and the special requirements of resource data should be assigned the responsibility
of evaluating the computer systems in the state and improving resource data hand-
ling capabilities .
The existing data processing policy committee could meet this requirement if
members with specific understanding of geographic, resource-related data are
included.
The two alternatives for data digitization presently existing through the Depart-
ment of Community Affairs and the Department of Administration appear less than
optimal. Improvements may be achieved through better coordination of existing
hardware. Also, the purchase of a semi-automatic digitizing device could be con-
sidered. However, it would be necessary to compare this expense with the cost
of continuing to contract projects to out-of-state firms. The capabilities of
the Department of Administration's raster scanner, with its special input
requirements and coding format, must also be evaluated before any decisions are
made.
With input from potential system users and the data assembly and storage agency,
the data processing committee should review the various software capabilities
presently available in the state and recommend other capabilities which should be
purchased or written in light of future needs for analysis of resource data.
Both cellular and polygon storage systems appear to offer distinct advantages
which should be maintained, but this will require development of reliable con-
version programs.
Tests and comparisons between systems and data handling costs may be required
in order to formulate optimal recommendations.
Effort must also be devoted to develop more effective presentation of Montana's
computer capabilities to potential users .
Public Involvement
The Major Facility Siting Act should be amended to adopt broad spectrum public
participation as a principle of operation.
- 79
The forms of participation should not be limited to public hearings, but
should also include advisory committees to work closely with the state siting
agency in the power plant siting and transmission line routing processes. This
policy also would apply to the activities of the siting inventory task force.
Short-Term Planning
The siting act should be amended to require the filing of a notice of intent
to file an application for a certificate of environmental compatibility and public
need for a major energy facility at least twelve months prior to the actual filing
of an application. This notice must disclose the specific site location being
considered for the proposed facility .
A specific enforcement clause should be added to the siting act which would
impose severe penalties upon any person who knowingly submits false or misleading
information in the ten-year plan .
These two provisions would serve short-term site planning needs prior to
completion of the siting inventory; however, they should not be viewed solely in
this context. The notice of intent would provide greater opportunity for public
review and input into site location decisions and would allow the state and the
applicant to confer on the suitability of a given site and identify problems as well
as areas of agreement prior to the actual application process. This would stream-
line the process and eliminate major delays following application. The enforce-
ment clause is designed to insure compliance with the intent of the ten-year utility
long-range plans presently required by the siting act. These plans are the state's
principal source of information regarding future plans for construction of energy
facilities and their proposed general locations.
Additionally, the state should consider developing a specific methodology
which utilities would be required to follow in formulating the energy demand fore-
casts required in the long-range plans. This would allow more efficient state
review and analysis of the forecasts while the future level of state involvement
in projecting energy demand is being determined.
I
- 80 -
REFERENCES
1. Adair, Frederick S. 19 16- 11 . Executive Director, Office of Nuclear Energy
Development, Washington Department of Commerce and Economic Development.
Telephone Communication, November 22, 24; January 6.
2. Annotated Code of Maryland, Cumulative Supplement, 1973. Power Plant
Siting Act, Article 66C, Section 766-771.
3. Ball, R. H. , et al. , 1972. California's Electric Quandary: II. Planning
for Power Plant Siting. Santa Monica, California: RAND, September.
4. Bowie, Michael, 1976. Staff, EDAW, Inc. , San Francisco. Telephone Com-
munication, December 22.
5. Brown, Barry, 1976. Project Coordinator, Facility Siting Division, California
Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission. Telephone Com-
munication, December 10; 20.
6. Brush, G. , 1976. Power Plant Siting Program, Maryland Energy and Coastal
Zone Administration. Telephone Communication, December 20.
7. California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, 1976.
Siting Manual: Thermal Power Plant Site Screening and Site Evaluation.
Sacremento, California, California Energy Resources Conservation and
Development Commission, April.
8. California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, Facility
Siting Division, 1976a. Power Plant Siting Report. Sacremento, California,
Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, September.
9. California Public Resources Code, 1975. Warren-Alquist State Energy Resources
Conservation and Development Act, Section 25000 et seq.
10. Council of State Governments, 1976. State Energy Management: The California
Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission. Lexington,
Kentucky: Council of State Governments, May.
11. Council on Environmental Quality, 1976. The Seventh Annual Report of the
Council on Environmental Quality. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, September.
12. Dobson, Jerome E. , 1976a, The Maryland Power Plant Siting Project: An
Application of the ORNL — Land Use Screening Procedure. Oak Ridge, Tennessee:
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, October.
- 81 -
I
13. Energy Research and Development Administration, 1976. Regional Energy
Assessment Program — Informal Progress Report, July.
14. Englerth, Edward, 1976. Director, Reclamation and Siting Division, North
Dakota Public Service Commission, Telephone Communications, November 2.
15. Federation of Rocky Mountain States, Inc., 1976. CMS II: A New Tool for
Policy Makers. Denver: Federation of Rocky Mountain States, Inc., April.
16. Federation of Rocky Mountain States, Inc., 1976a. CMS II: Regional Technical
Advisory. Denver: Federation of Rocky Mountain States, February.
17. Federation of Rocky Mountain States, Inc., 1976. Composite Mapping System
II: Users Manual. Denver: Federation of Rocky Mountain States, March.
18. Fort Union Regional Task Force on Energy Development, Regulation and Plant
Siting, 1976. Final Report. Bismarck, North Dakota: Legislative Council,
December.
19. Hynes, John, 1976. Director, Minnesota Power Plant Siting Program. Telephone
Communication, November 29.
20. Karp, Richard, 1976. Water Quality Specialist, Water Quality Bureau, Depart-
ment of Health and Environmental Sciences. Letter to Sharon M. Solomon,
Montana Energy Advisory Council, November 19.
21. Maryland Energy and Coastal Zone Administration, Power Plant Siting Program,
1976. Contract with Rogers and Golden, Inc., and Alan/Mallach Associates.
Annapolis, Maryland: Energy and Coastal Zone Administration, June.
22. Maryland Energy and Coastal Zone Administration, Power Plant Siting Program,
1976. Long Range Plan. Annapolis, Maryland: Energy and Coastal Zone
Administration, April.
23. Massicot, Paul, 1976. Power Plant Siting Program, Maryland Energy and
Coastal Zone Administration. Telephone Communication, December 3.
24. Minnesota Environmental Quality Council, 1974. Rules and Regulations for
Power Plant Siting and Transmission Line Routing, Chapter 21, 71-75.
25. Minnesota Environmental Quality Council, 1975. Inventory 1975: Candidate
Areas for Large Electric Power Generating Plants, April.
26. Minnesota Statutes, 1974. Power Plant Siting Act, Section 116C.51 et seq .
27. Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Air Quality Bureau,
1976. Background Air Quality and Meteorological Coverage for Siting Con-
sideration, November.
i
i
- 82 -
28. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 1975. ERGIS Data
Bank for Land and Resource Utilization. nelena, July,
29. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 1976. Draft
Environmental Impact Statement on Anaconda-Hamilton 161 KV Transmission
Line. Helena: Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, July.
30. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 1976. Draft
Montana Statewide Siting Study Proposal. Helena, November.
31. Montana Energy and MHD Research and Development Institute, Inc., 1975.
Preliminary MHD Systems Environmental Impact Study, Draft Interim Progress
Report. Butte, Montana: MEMERDI, November 3.
32. Morris, Melvin H. , 1976. Professor Emeritus, Range Management, University
of Montana. Letter to Sharon M. Solomon, Montana Energy Advisory Council,
November 23.
33. Nichols, Ronald 0., 1976. Licensing Office, Facility Siting Division,
California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission. Tele-
phone Communication, November 2.
34. North Dakota Century Code, 1975. North Dakota Energy Conversion and Trans-
mission Facility Siting Act, Chapter A9-22.
35. North Dakota Public Service Commission, 1976. Energy Conversion Facility
and Transmission Facility Siting Inventory Report. Bismarck, North Dakota:
Public Service Commission, July.
36. North Dakota Public Service Commission, 1976. Rules and Regulations Governing
the Siting of Energy Conversion and Transmission Facilities. R49-22,
January.
37. Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation, 1975. Designation of Areas of
Oregon as "Suitable" or "Unsuitable" for Thermal Power Plant Siting.
Chapter 345, Division 4, Section 40-005 et seq . , January.
38. Oregon Revised Statutes, 1975. Energy Facility Siting. Sections 469.300-
570, 469.922.
39. Revised Codes of Montana, 1947. Major Facility Siting Act. Chapter 8,
Section 70-801 et seq .
40. Revised Codes of Washington, 1976. Energy Facilities — Site Locations.
Section 80.50 et seq .
41. Salem, Larry J., 1973. Statewide Geographic Information Systems to Meet
State Specific Needs and the Requirements of Federal Legislation S. 268 and HR.
10294. Denver: Federation of Rocky Mountain States, November.
- 83 -
hi. Southern Interstate Nuclear Board, 1976. Power Plant Siting in the
United States. Atlanta, Georgia: Southern Interstate Nuclear Board, June.
43. Tillson, David D., 1977. Principal Geologist, Plant Siting and Geological
Services, Washington Public Power Supply System, Telephone Communication,
January 6.
44. Turner A. Keith, 1976. Computer Aided Environmental Impact Analysis, Part 1:
Procedures. Mineral Industries Bulletin, Vol. 19, No. 2. Colorado School
of Mines, March.
45. Turner, A. Keith, 1976a. Associate Professor of Geology, Colorado School
of Mines. Personal Communication, October 18.
46. Vogel, Richard, 1976. Q-10 Research Group, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory.
Personal Communication, October 20.
47. Washington Public Power Supply System, 1975. Executive Summary Siting Study.
Richland, Washington: Washington Public Power Supply System, December.
48. Western Governors' Regional Energy Policy Office, 1976. Information From
WGREPO //76-45. Denver: WGREPO, August.
49. Wood, W. Kelly, 1976. Energy Facility Siting Coordinator, Oregon Department
of Energy. Telephone Communication, November 2, December 20.
50. Zink, Vern, 1976. President, TPI, Inc., Bismarck, North Dakota. Telephone
Communication, December 20.
(
{
- 84 -
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. Colorado State University, College of Forestry and Natural Resources, 1973.
Colorado Environmental Daea Systems, Final Report to Colorado Department
of Natural Resources. Fort Collins: Colorado State University.
2. Federation of Rocky Mountain States, Inc., 1976. Briefing Materials for
FRMS. LANDSAT and Geographic Analysxs Activities. Denver, Colorado:
FRMS, January.
3. Federation of Rocky Mountain States, Inc., No Date. Technical Proposal:
Adaptational Development and Prototype Implementation of an Operationally
Oriented, Computerized, Map-Based Data Storage and Analysis System for Fish
and Wildlife Resource Management Use. R.F.P. No. FWS-8-199.
4. Idaho Water Resources Research Institute, 1975. Energy Plant Siting
Legislation: A Current Appraisal for Idaho. Moscow, Idaho: University
of Idaho. Information Circular No. 9, February.
5. Idaho Water Resources Research Institute, 1975. Energy Plant Siting Problems
of the Pacific Northwest. Gladwell, J.S., et al. , ed. Moscow, Idaho:
University of Idaho, June.
6. Jalbert, Jeffrey S. and Dobson, Jerome E. , 1976. A Cell-Based Land Use
Screening Procedure for Regional Siting Analysis. Oak Ridge, Tennessee:
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, October.
7. Jalbert, Jeff rey S. and Shepherd, Alf D. , 1976. A System for Regional
Analysis of Water Availability. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, October.
8. New Mexico Land Use Advisory Council, 1975. Land Use Information System
Design Study for State of New Mexico. Final Report. Albuquerque, New
Mexico: Land Use Advisory Council, January.
9. New York State Public Service Commission, 1974. Generating Station Site
Survey. Draft Report on Hudson River Valley/Long Island Pilot Area Site
Area. Albany, New York: Public Service Commission, July.
10. Peterson, John L. , 1976. Attorney for Colstrip Units 3 and 4 Applicant
Companies Under Montana Utility Siting Act. Letter to Lieutenant Governor
William Christiansen, November 22.
11. Shanahan, Ward A. , 1976. Attorney, Burlington Northern. Letter to
Lieutenant Governor William Christiansen, November 12.
12. Shenker, Arden E. , 1976. Attorney for Montana Department of Natural
Resources and Conservation for Colstrip Units 3 and 4 Hearing Proceeding
Under Montana Utility Siting Act. Letter to Lieutenant Governor William
Christiansen, November 9.
- 85 -
<
13. Smedes, H. W. , et al . , 197A. Land Use Planning Aided by Computer Cellular
Modeling - Mapping System to Combine Remote Sensing, Natural Resources, Social
and Economic Data. Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium of
Remote Sensing of the Environment, Ann Arbor, Michigan, April 15, 19.
14. Smedes, H. W. , et al . , 1976. Oblique Airphotos for Mapping, Educating User
Groups and Enhancing Public Participation in Environmental Planning: A
Case Study. Paper Presented at 55th Annual Meeting of Transportation Research
Board, Washington, D.C., January 19-23.
15. Smedes, H. W. and Turner, A. Keith, 1975. Cooperative Development of an
Environmental Information System for Jefferson County, Colorado. Presented
at ASO-ACSM Fall Convention, Phoenix, Arizona, October 26-31.
16. Smedes, H. W. and Turner, A. Keith, 1975. Map Atlas of Basic Data for
Computer-Aided Land Use Planning Studies of the Northern Part of Jefferson
County, Colorado. Denver: U.S.G.S. Open-File Report 75-608.
17. Southern Interstate Nuclear Board, 1972. Power Plant Siting in the United
States — a State Summary. Atlanta, Georgia: SINB, September.
i
18. Turner, A. Keith and Hausmanis, I., 1972. Computer-Aided Transportation
Corridor Selection in the Guelph-Dundas Area, Ontario, Canada. Presented
at 1972 Summer Meeting, Highway Research Board, Madison, Wisconsin, July 31 -
August 2.
19. U.S. Forest Service, Berkeley, California Management Sciences Staff, 1976.
Analysis of Computer Support Systems for Multi-Functional Planning. Report
III. Berkeley, California: U.S.F.S., June.
20. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1975. Final Report. The Objectives
and Institutional Mechanisms of a Regional Approach to Nuclear Power Plant
Siting, December.
21. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1975. Proceedings of the 1975 Federal-
State Conference on Power Plant Siting, Bethesda, Maryland, April 7-9.
22. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Special Studies, 1976. Nuclear
Energy Center Site Survey — 1975. Washington, D.C. : National Technical
Information Service, January.
23. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Standards Development, 1975.
General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations. Washington,
D.C: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November.
2A. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of State Programs, 1976. Efficiency
in Federal/State Siting Actions. Detailed Study Plan, October.
i
- 86 -
25. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of State Programs, 1976. Pro-
ceedings of the Second State-Federal Power Plant Siting Conference, Denver,
June 16-18.
26. Voelker, A. H. , 1976. Power Plant Siting: An Application of the Nominal
Group Technique, October.
27. Wyoming Conservation and Land Use Study Commission, 1974. Statewide Land
Use Planning Program for Wyoming. Cheyenne: Wyoming Conservation and Land
Use Study Commission, October.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11