Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Federal Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant advises Carter County on engagement options for Snowy River carbon sequestration project
Summary
Nathan Dvorsek of the Montana Natural Resource Coalition advised Carter County commissioners that, although the federal process on the Snowy River carbon sequestration proposal is advanced, the county can still influence outcomes by developing policy, filing position statements, requesting cooperating‑agency status or pushing for an Environmental Impact Statement in place of an EA.
The Carter County commissioners held a telephone briefing with Nathan Dvorsek of the Montana Natural Resource Coalition to discuss strategy for responding to the Snowy River carbon sequestration project and other federal land‑use proposals.
Dvorsek described MTNRC27s work helping counties prepare substantive comments and policy documents that federal agencies must consider under NEPA. He urged the county to develop a clear position statement or resolution and to strengthen land‑use policy language so the county can engage under the "coordination" process (government‑to‑government) rather than only as a cooperating agency with limited influence.
On timing, Dvorsek acknowledged the draft environmental assessment stage is advanced and that BLM is waiting on sage grouse plan decisions: "It may not be too late," he said, but added the county should move quickly to gather written comments and consider requesting cooperating agency status if feasible. He recommended practical immediate steps: compile written county comments into a single file to "equip the record," consider asking BLM for an EIS if appropriate, and explore pooled resources or a continuing services agreement with MTNRC or consultants to provide technical support.
Commissioners expressed interest in a short retainer or continuing services agreement; Dvorsek described potential arrangements ranging from hourly support ($60/hr referenced as a common consulting rate in his other engagements) to a monthly retainer for ongoing issues. He offered to visit Carter County in person after mid‑January to review documents and help draft policy language, and proposed reviewing the county27s draft land use plan before a follow‑up meeting.
The board asked staff to consolidate existing county comments, identify priority concerns (sage grouse habitat/designations, EIS vs EA, emergency response costs for CO2 infrastructure), and invite Dvorsek for an in‑person meeting once schedules permit.
