Brookings update – Request for Extension GRANTED!

Filed under:Brookings Routing Docket — posted by admin on October 18, 2010 @ 10:27 am

eagleeyeThe whole world is watching…

Order Granting Extension & Extending Briefing Schedule

In short:

Public Comments due November 1, 2010 @ 4:30

Initial Briefs of Parties – November 8, 2010

Reply Briefs of Parties – November 18, 2010

Once more with feeling, Public Comments on Brookings are now due November1,2010@ 4:30 p.m.:

or by mail directly to Judge Luis at:

Judge Richard Luis

Brookings Docket – 08-1474

Office of Administrative Hearings

P.O. Box 64620

St. Paul, MN  55164-0620

Request for Extension:

Friday late I got a call from Lisa Agrimonti asking whether NoCapX 2020 and United Citizens Action Network were OK with an extension of the Comment period for USFWS to submit a comment.   Hmmmmmmmm… I don’t see why they can’t get it together before today’s deadline, and rumor has it they might, but I’m all for getting their latest info in the record.  With any luck (and considerable effort) they might even recognize that the impacts are the same at either crossing and that a non-aerial crossing is not workable, with any luck they’d say they won’t permit an aerial crossing because the alternative of undergrounding is available.

Applicant’s Request for Extension

NoCapX 2020 & U-CAN – No Objection to Extension

Johnsons – No Objection to Extension

MOES – No objection to extension – objection to extension for public responsive comments


No objections, except that MOES objects to an extension of time for the public to respond to any USFWS comment as suggested by Paula Maccabee, for the Johnsons.  I’d asked for at least 48 hours for parties to address this in briefs, because the comment deadline for USFWS may be extended to the same day Initial Briefs are due, and that’s not fair.

We shall see…

Here’s their Comment letter for the Potato Lake transmission line in northern Minnesota where they noted “that nesting data provided by the DNR’s Natural History Database may not reflect current eagle nest status,” “that eagle concentration areas, including winter feeding and roosting areas, are not reflected in the Natural History Database,” (as in the Minnesota River Valley) and “that both northern and southern routes are likely to bisect important eagle foraging areas, as well as travel corridors used by other migratory birds.”  Here’s that Comment letter:

USFWS Comment Letter – October 8, 2010

Here’s how National Park Service (same NPS, different region, that has the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line crossing of the Wild & Scenic Delaware Water Gap under review) came down on the Stillwater Bridge crossing of the St. Croix – a big NO!

National Park Service – Transmittal Letter

National Park Service – Stillwater Bridge – Section 7a Review Final

Is there a trend?  We can only hope…

zero comments so far »

Please leave a comment below!

Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI

Leave a comment