The latest of ICIE’s annual “Gold Room Workshop,” held earlier this month, focused on bull trout, nearly 20 years after the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service was petitioned to list the species.
Brian Kelly and Ted Koch of the US Fish and Wildlife Service joined Nate Fisher of the Idaho Office of Species Conservation and Norm Semanko of the Idaho Water Users Association in providing historical context and highlighting key issues on the topic for a session of the House Resources and Conservation Committee. The presentation was made to the Senate Committee on Resources and the Environment on Monday.
Kelly described the process for designating critical habitat in Idaho, noting that the critical habitat designation that the USFWS made in 2005 excluded 75% of the area designated in the original rule. Lawsuits were filed and in 2008 the Inspector General found fault with the proposed plan. The new plan designates a total of more than 9,000 miles of streams and 170,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs in Idaho.
Kelly said the economic impact of this plan will be minimal since 94% of this habitat is occupied and protected by original listing regulations. The USFWS compiled the final rule, addressing more than 1,100 comments from 350 commentators including federal agencies, tribes, the state, and the general public all related to water use.
Kelly noted that the primary impact of establishing critical habitat is to focus recovery efforts, including educating the public, collaborating with partners to restore habitat and water flows, implementing improvements in stream habitat and water quality, and protecting the species from direct take. He maintained that so much of the state is designated as critical habitat precisely because Idaho’s bull trout population is in such good shape.
“Bull trout have been listed since 1998, and we have not made a jeopardy finding. In all the areas where bull trout is doing so well, a listing of critical habitat does help focus critical habitat dollars for things like piping or fish screens for ranchers, for example, that want to engage in those actions.”
Fisher contended, however, that efforts to downplay this extension of critical habitat as “no big deal” are disingenuous, otherwise, why sue the federal government to extend it?
“Conservation groups and the Fish and Wildlife Service say it (critical habitat extension) won’t do much since the species is listed anyway,” Fisher says, “We differ … Their estimate of $5 to 7 million in economic impact is a gross underestimate.”
Fisher also maintained that extending critical habitat will have an impact on efforts to curb invasive aquatic species such as milfoil.
“Under critical habitat designation,” he said, “what consultation will we have to undertake to control these species with pesticide? We cannot simply dismiss this as another procedural practice of a federal agency and move on.”
Semanko outlined several points of contention with the rule, including what he called the arbitrary and capricious decision of Secretary of the Interior to fail to exert his discretion to exclude any particular area from designation on the basis of economic impact, when industry experts estimate over a billion dollars in potential costs in southwest Idaho.
Koch noted that so few exclusions were made to the new critical habitat designation because of the mechanisms needed in order to identify potential exclusions, like tribal management plans, did not exist in Idaho.
“We excluded from critical habitat designation those lands with a plan authorized by us with an endangered species permit, or Tribal management plan, and there were none of those in Idaho,” Koch said. “This is a simple fact – there is no judgment beyond that.”
Drawdowns of Dworshak Dam doesn’t impact one of the most healthy habitats for bull trout, Koch said. “So we would be hard pressed to find that this draw down would have an adverse impact.”
Semanko also pointed out that the designation of critical habitat as spelled out in the rule includes bankful streams and reservoirs. While the Bureau of Reclamation attempted to fix the rule by recognizing reservoir fluctuations, the USFWS didn’t concur. This decision, Semanko asserted, could be used to make the argument that drawing down reservoirs to deliver water constitutes “adverse modification of bankful streams and reservoirs.”
“The fact that an existing Federal project is not presently adversely modifying critical habitat does not mean that the same operations would not result in adverse modification under future circumstances,” he said.
Semanko said there are other adverse impacts of the rule, such as requiring federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Federal regulations require federal agencies to re-initiate consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where critical habitat has subsequently been designated. As a result, federal agencies may sometimes need to re-initiate consultation on actions for which formal consultation has been completed. This is exactly what happened with the Upper Snake Basin water project in southwest Idaho, Semanko said, which has undergone consultation pursuant to the Nez Perce Water Rights Agreement.
“It is unclear what new conditions may be required because of re-initiation of consultation,” Semanko said, “or whether such consultations will undo the existing biological opinions for salmon. This potentially impacts the entire region.”
Activities listed in the rules that may result in consultation include:
- Detrimental alteration of the minimum flow or the natural flow regime of any designated stream segment or water bodies,
- Alteration to designated stream segments or water bodies including construction, grazing, off-road vehicle use and mining,
- Detrimental alteration of channel morphology,
- Detrimental alteration to water chemistry,
- Activities that could spread invasive species,
- Activities that could create significant instream barriers such as diversions, impounds and hydropower generation.
Semanko invited USFWS to voluntarily remand this rule and examine potential economic and other impacts in Southwest Idaho for potential exclusion of reservoirs from the critical habitat designation.
Representative Boyle noted her chagrin that the new designation is so much more extensive than the last one. Koch countered that this 2010 modification is very similar to the originally proposed rule, from which the USFWS deleted 75%, an action which resulted in a law suit and with which the inspector general found fault.
Representative Boyle was unsympathetic.
“It appears to be a job protection for federal agencies and a job killer for Idaho,” she said.
Chairman Stevenson addressed the anxiety expressed by the committee members in attendance at the end of the presentation.
“You know why we seem a little spooked with talk about listing species,” he said. “We’ve been burned by the wolf issue.”
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
Centra Consulting and Bridge Energy present on oil and gas drilling in Payette County
On Monday, February 14, in a presentation for the Senate Resources & Environment Committee, Steve West of Centra Consulting introduced a geophysicist with Bridge Energy who talked about developing the first natural gas field in Idaho—in Payette County. They hope to get wells into production and also construct a pipeline.
The organization has drilled 11 wells. Four of which are unproductive, three are economically viable as they are and four could be viable with the use of fracturing, commonly known as fracing. Fracing is a process that stimulates a well so that the gas flows and the well can produce economically. In the process of drilling and placing the pipeline structure, the concrete and drilling mud block the pathways that connect the pores in the rock that contain
the natural gas. The process that Bridge is using is known as a mini-frac and is not nearly as extensive as the large shale fracturing process that has been in the press.
A mini-fracing process will clear pathways in those four wells to allow the gas to flow, analogous to a building like the Statehouse. The pores are the rooms which are reached through hallways. Fracing re-opens the doorway to the hallway so people can move between the rooms. The fracing that will be used only goes out about 150 feet from the bore hole and uses 3% of the fluid pressure volumes of the large shale fracs and the actual treatment takes 45 minutes.
The Payette County aquifers are 60 to 300 feet below the surface; the gas sands are between 2000 and 4000 feet and are separated from the aquifers by 1700 feet of impermeable shale.
Officials noted that they were presenting to the committee with the hope that negotiated rulemaking would take place to set up the regulatory program to cover oil and gas drilling. The Idaho Land Board also serves as the Idaho Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. The Commission has not had to meet for at least 18 years. The Commission is made up of Governor Otter and the state’s top elected officials and has has oversight of oil and gas drilling. This same presentation was made to the Commission on Tuesday.
The organization has drilled 11 wells. Four of which are unproductive, three are economically viable as they are and four could be viable with the use of fracturing, commonly known as fracing. Fracing is a process that stimulates a well so that the gas flows and the well can produce economically. In the process of drilling and placing the pipeline structure, the concrete and drilling mud block the pathways that connect the pores in the rock that contain
the natural gas. The process that Bridge is using is known as a mini-frac and is not nearly as extensive as the large shale fracturing process that has been in the press.
A mini-fracing process will clear pathways in those four wells to allow the gas to flow, analogous to a building like the Statehouse. The pores are the rooms which are reached through hallways. Fracing re-opens the doorway to the hallway so people can move between the rooms. The fracing that will be used only goes out about 150 feet from the bore hole and uses 3% of the fluid pressure volumes of the large shale fracs and the actual treatment takes 45 minutes.
The Payette County aquifers are 60 to 300 feet below the surface; the gas sands are between 2000 and 4000 feet and are separated from the aquifers by 1700 feet of impermeable shale.
Officials noted that they were presenting to the committee with the hope that negotiated rulemaking would take place to set up the regulatory program to cover oil and gas drilling. The Idaho Land Board also serves as the Idaho Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. The Commission has not had to meet for at least 18 years. The Commission is made up of Governor Otter and the state’s top elected officials and has has oversight of oil and gas drilling. This same presentation was made to the Commission on Tuesday.
Changes to the anti-deg rule raise concerns about the public process among HEET committee democrats
In January, the House Environment, Energy and Technology Committee was given a heads up from the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) that a rule change was coming regarding water quality anti-degradation. The rule, and pending legislation would together address requirements of the Clean Water Act that Idaho have an anti-degradation implementation plan as well as the water quality standards already in place. The fact that such an implementation plan does not exists in Idaho is the subject of a lawsuit brought by the Idaho Conservation League, which touched off a flurry of negotiated rule making last summer.
Barry Brunelle representing Idaho DEQ, outlined changes to the originally proposed rule that he said would both pass muster with the EPA and strike language that gave industry cause for concern about stringency. Legislation in the form of HB153 would provide a subsequent mechanism to make connections to the rule and statute by accommodating some areas in the rule that were deleted.
The proposed changes to the rule address:
- Definition of degradation or “lower quality” water
- General permits
- Identification of Tier 2 water limits
- What constitutes significant versus insignificant discharges
Democrat committee members questioned the logic behind adopting a rule prior to hearing about the legislation designed to shore up the rule. They also questioned the rulemaking process. Was there adequate public input? Brunelle responded that between 60 and 80 people participated in the rulemaking sessions.
“I’m not sure how we can vote to reject portions of the rule without understanding what we’re
going to replace it with,” Representative Brian Cronin noted.
Chairman Raybould, IACI and DEQ representatives explained that HB 153, which would be considered by this committee pending the outcome of this rule change, was put together to accommodate areas in the rule that were being deleted. The deletions were from the proposed additions brought about in the rule making process this summer. They don't constitute new rule making, Raybould noted, but a process whereby DEQ and IACI agreed upon changes in the rule that each could live with.
Alan Prouty, speaking on behalf of the IACI environmental committee, noted that the deleted sections represented major actions to those in the “permitting world,” that caused anxiety.
Representative Jaquet proposed a substitute motion to hold the rule, noting that as a member of the committee she had not been consulted about the proposed changes and how they came about.
“I don’t think it’s appropriate when you have negotiated rule making and someone goes through making changes and I think we should hold this rule until people feel comfortable,” she said.
Representative Schaefer asked about the possibility of creating a temporary rule. But Raybould noted the urgency created by ICL's lawsuit and the need to have an anti-degradation plan in place. Without this rule and a companion bill, he said, there is a risk that permits written in the interim would be more stringent than necessary, creating a hardship on those seeking permits.
Jaquet’s motion to hold the original motion failed, and the original motion to approve the water quality standards rule passed, with dissent from all three Democrats on the committee.
Chairman Raybould then presented his companion bill, HB 153 to address the rule changes.
Prouty, representing IACI and the regulated community, outlined the key properties of the bill:
- It maintains consistency with the Federal CWA, in reference to navigable waters of the US
- It defines “degradation” or “lower water quality,” providing replacement language for that which was stricken in the rule
- It provides language about how general permits are defined , clarifying how general permits are evaluated by the department for meeting anti-degradation requirements
- It identifies Tier 2 or high quality water, recognizing that there are certain water bodies that may not meet the definition of high quality water for isolated reasons but otherwise might meet that standard
- It replaces language for what was rejected in the rule regarding significant versus insignificant discharge
Brunelle noted that there were three specific policy areas this bill addresses:
- Where classification of the waters is being looked at with respect to what pollutant for which it was listed, it gives leeway to the department to move a water body from a Tier I to a Tier II definition, in recognition that there may be one element that is off, but that the body has a robust ecology
- It addresses special resource waters
- It includes language defining insignificant discharges. The rule deletes this part. The assumption is that the assimilative capacity could be split up between discharges. This rule would allow the current discharger to be deemed as an insignificant discharger, while future sources of discharges would not.
ICL’s Justin Hayes noted that while the DEQ feels the rule and this bill would pass muster with the EPA, should they be approved, the ICL will challenge them. Referring back to the rule changes that had recently been passed, he noted that they erode the potential that the rule will be approved.
“I think that the rule was very delicately balanced and may have been approved, but with this legislation, it won’t. By passing it you are placing permit seekers at peril,” he said.
Barry Brunelle representing Idaho DEQ, outlined changes to the originally proposed rule that he said would both pass muster with the EPA and strike language that gave industry cause for concern about stringency. Legislation in the form of HB153 would provide a subsequent mechanism to make connections to the rule and statute by accommodating some areas in the rule that were deleted.
The proposed changes to the rule address:
- Definition of degradation or “lower quality” water
- General permits
- Identification of Tier 2 water limits
- What constitutes significant versus insignificant discharges
Democrat committee members questioned the logic behind adopting a rule prior to hearing about the legislation designed to shore up the rule. They also questioned the rulemaking process. Was there adequate public input? Brunelle responded that between 60 and 80 people participated in the rulemaking sessions.
“I’m not sure how we can vote to reject portions of the rule without understanding what we’re
going to replace it with,” Representative Brian Cronin noted.
Chairman Raybould, IACI and DEQ representatives explained that HB 153, which would be considered by this committee pending the outcome of this rule change, was put together to accommodate areas in the rule that were being deleted. The deletions were from the proposed additions brought about in the rule making process this summer. They don't constitute new rule making, Raybould noted, but a process whereby DEQ and IACI agreed upon changes in the rule that each could live with.
Alan Prouty, speaking on behalf of the IACI environmental committee, noted that the deleted sections represented major actions to those in the “permitting world,” that caused anxiety.
Representative Jaquet proposed a substitute motion to hold the rule, noting that as a member of the committee she had not been consulted about the proposed changes and how they came about.
“I don’t think it’s appropriate when you have negotiated rule making and someone goes through making changes and I think we should hold this rule until people feel comfortable,” she said.
Representative Schaefer asked about the possibility of creating a temporary rule. But Raybould noted the urgency created by ICL's lawsuit and the need to have an anti-degradation plan in place. Without this rule and a companion bill, he said, there is a risk that permits written in the interim would be more stringent than necessary, creating a hardship on those seeking permits.
Jaquet’s motion to hold the original motion failed, and the original motion to approve the water quality standards rule passed, with dissent from all three Democrats on the committee.
Chairman Raybould then presented his companion bill, HB 153 to address the rule changes.
Prouty, representing IACI and the regulated community, outlined the key properties of the bill:
- It maintains consistency with the Federal CWA, in reference to navigable waters of the US
- It defines “degradation” or “lower water quality,” providing replacement language for that which was stricken in the rule
- It provides language about how general permits are defined , clarifying how general permits are evaluated by the department for meeting anti-degradation requirements
- It identifies Tier 2 or high quality water, recognizing that there are certain water bodies that may not meet the definition of high quality water for isolated reasons but otherwise might meet that standard
- It replaces language for what was rejected in the rule regarding significant versus insignificant discharge
Brunelle noted that there were three specific policy areas this bill addresses:
- Where classification of the waters is being looked at with respect to what pollutant for which it was listed, it gives leeway to the department to move a water body from a Tier I to a Tier II definition, in recognition that there may be one element that is off, but that the body has a robust ecology
- It addresses special resource waters
- It includes language defining insignificant discharges. The rule deletes this part. The assumption is that the assimilative capacity could be split up between discharges. This rule would allow the current discharger to be deemed as an insignificant discharger, while future sources of discharges would not.
ICL’s Justin Hayes noted that while the DEQ feels the rule and this bill would pass muster with the EPA, should they be approved, the ICL will challenge them. Referring back to the rule changes that had recently been passed, he noted that they erode the potential that the rule will be approved.
“I think that the rule was very delicately balanced and may have been approved, but with this legislation, it won’t. By passing it you are placing permit seekers at peril,” he said.
Friday, February 11, 2011
House committee hosts energy efficiency symposium
Representative Wendy Jaquet organized an energy conservation symposium to present to the House Environment, Energy, and Technology Committee this week, with speakers presenting on energy conservation efforts.
Rocky Mountain Power, which supplies power to customers in Utah, Wyoming and Idaho focuses on energy efficiency and peak reduction programs, including significant outreach to residential customers. In 2010, reductions in peak demand equaled the equivalent of power from a 160 mWh wind farm. For every dollar invested in energy efficiency, Rocky Mountain Power officials estimate their customers save between $2.50 and $2.70 over time.
Idaho Power is also focusing on residential customers through energy efficiency programs. Residential customers represent about 37% of their customer base, and about 83% of the total annual mW consumption.
John J. Williams of BPA noted that cost of conservation has decreased over the years. The highest source of power in the northwest is hydro, the second is coal and the third, he said, is conservation. Conservation efforts to date have resulted in enough electricity to serve all of Idaho and Montana in 2009.
Bruce Fulsom with Avista noted his company seeks to offer very specific and deep programs that are meaningful to customers but also broad so that they are accessible to various customers. Conservation is the least expensive new resource, which is why they’ve focused efforts to help customers use less of their product through rebates, energy audits and communication.
McKinstry is a company that has been involved in design/build projects for the past 50 years. For the past 10 years, they have been involved in energy efficiency projects. Last year they participated in $20 million worth of energy retrofitting projects in Idaho, employing more than 300 local subcontractors. Their projects also represent savings figures in terms of reductions in operating costs for their customers, and annual reductions in carbon emissions.
Paul Kjellander of the Idaho Office of Energy Resources updated the committee on stimulus funding projects, including energy efficiency audits in schools. The dollars saved, he says, are on behalf of the tax payer. In addition, he says, 15,000 Idahoans took part in the appliance rebate program that will conclude next month. The total savings was about $1.4 million. More information about stimulus funding programs is available online at www.energy.idaho.gov.
Rocky Mountain Power, which supplies power to customers in Utah, Wyoming and Idaho focuses on energy efficiency and peak reduction programs, including significant outreach to residential customers. In 2010, reductions in peak demand equaled the equivalent of power from a 160 mWh wind farm. For every dollar invested in energy efficiency, Rocky Mountain Power officials estimate their customers save between $2.50 and $2.70 over time.
Idaho Power is also focusing on residential customers through energy efficiency programs. Residential customers represent about 37% of their customer base, and about 83% of the total annual mW consumption.
John J. Williams of BPA noted that cost of conservation has decreased over the years. The highest source of power in the northwest is hydro, the second is coal and the third, he said, is conservation. Conservation efforts to date have resulted in enough electricity to serve all of Idaho and Montana in 2009.
Bruce Fulsom with Avista noted his company seeks to offer very specific and deep programs that are meaningful to customers but also broad so that they are accessible to various customers. Conservation is the least expensive new resource, which is why they’ve focused efforts to help customers use less of their product through rebates, energy audits and communication.
McKinstry is a company that has been involved in design/build projects for the past 50 years. For the past 10 years, they have been involved in energy efficiency projects. Last year they participated in $20 million worth of energy retrofitting projects in Idaho, employing more than 300 local subcontractors. Their projects also represent savings figures in terms of reductions in operating costs for their customers, and annual reductions in carbon emissions.
Paul Kjellander of the Idaho Office of Energy Resources updated the committee on stimulus funding projects, including energy efficiency audits in schools. The dollars saved, he says, are on behalf of the tax payer. In addition, he says, 15,000 Idahoans took part in the appliance rebate program that will conclude next month. The total savings was about $1.4 million. More information about stimulus funding programs is available online at www.energy.idaho.gov.
House committee considers bill on hazardous waste designation
US Ecology, a radioactive waste treatment site outside of Grandview, presented a report to the House Environment, Energy and Technology Committee this week. The Grandview site is one of five facilities the company operates in North America, employing more than 100 Idahoans.
President Jim Baumgardner noted that the sites' revenue has been impacted by the slowing economy, and short term projections are for 2011 to look a great deal like 2010 in terms of the volume of radioactive material they transport, treat and dispose of.
As these revenues have fallen, Baumgardner noted, so too have the tipping fees that the company pays into the general fund, which amount to about $2 million each year. It costs the state about half of that to monitor the site. The company is also currently covering costs to maintain the road between the site and the rail line, which normally would be a function of the Mountain Home Highway District.
The site’s biggest customer is the Army Corps of Engineers, which sends primarily low level radioactive material, such as soils from site clean-ups and other debris. This is non-regulated radioactive material, rated as exempt by the NRC.
While Baumgardner expects both clean-up projects and base business to improve throughout the year with the economy, which will ultimately improve revenue and earnings slowly but steadily over time, he says economic conditions are not robust and signs of weakness remain in the market.
Immediately following the presentation, Roy Eiguren presented a bill to the committee that would effect a technical correction to the Idaho Waste Management Act. The bill anticipates a federal change in designation of material that is hazardous waste, but also exempt for the purpose of treatment by the Grandview facility.
“What we’d like to do is allow the State to continue to accept by-product consistent with the federal act of 2005,” Eiguren said. “It would not expand the type of waste currently coming into the facility, but prevent a change in designation.”
Eiguren noted that historically about 20,000 tonnes of this material has come into the facility. Should the facility not be allowed to accept this waste, it would result in a loss of about $100,000 annually in fees to the general fund.
The bill was sent to the floor with a do-pass recommendation.
President Jim Baumgardner noted that the sites' revenue has been impacted by the slowing economy, and short term projections are for 2011 to look a great deal like 2010 in terms of the volume of radioactive material they transport, treat and dispose of.
As these revenues have fallen, Baumgardner noted, so too have the tipping fees that the company pays into the general fund, which amount to about $2 million each year. It costs the state about half of that to monitor the site. The company is also currently covering costs to maintain the road between the site and the rail line, which normally would be a function of the Mountain Home Highway District.
The site’s biggest customer is the Army Corps of Engineers, which sends primarily low level radioactive material, such as soils from site clean-ups and other debris. This is non-regulated radioactive material, rated as exempt by the NRC.
While Baumgardner expects both clean-up projects and base business to improve throughout the year with the economy, which will ultimately improve revenue and earnings slowly but steadily over time, he says economic conditions are not robust and signs of weakness remain in the market.
Immediately following the presentation, Roy Eiguren presented a bill to the committee that would effect a technical correction to the Idaho Waste Management Act. The bill anticipates a federal change in designation of material that is hazardous waste, but also exempt for the purpose of treatment by the Grandview facility.
“What we’d like to do is allow the State to continue to accept by-product consistent with the federal act of 2005,” Eiguren said. “It would not expand the type of waste currently coming into the facility, but prevent a change in designation.”
Eiguren noted that historically about 20,000 tonnes of this material has come into the facility. Should the facility not be allowed to accept this waste, it would result in a loss of about $100,000 annually in fees to the general fund.
The bill was sent to the floor with a do-pass recommendation.
Joint Committee hears testimony on ATV-riding hunters bills
Senator Tim Corder presented Senate Bills 1015 and 1016 to a joint session of the House and Senate Resources and Conservation Committees Monday. The bills would eliminate what he calls a basic inequity between hunters and the classes of vehicles they ride. The purpose of the joint session was to hear testimony on the bills, and no vote was taken.
The legislation targets rules that allow Fish and Game officers to cite those they deem to be hunting from an ATV. Proponents of the bill say that ATV users are being unfairly targeted by Fish and Game officers arbitrarily making decisions about whether a person is actively engaged in hunting while riding an ATV. Some of those testifying in favor of the bill say they have had experiences with Fish and Game officers harassing ATV users.
Other proponents note the absurdity of assuming one might successfully hunt from an ATV, noting that as a method of take, an ATV would be highly ineffective because of the noise, and riding off trail is already illegal.
There were also those testifying in favor of the bill who expressed a belief that the Idaho Department of Fish and Game is colluding with the US Forest Service and/or the Bureau of Land Management to restrict access to public lands through road closures.
Opponents of the bill say that hunting from an ATV is tantamount to utilizing an aid like dogs, spotlighting game at night, or hunting from an airplane. Several testified that they have witnessed hunters chasing game from an ATV, improperly accessing winter range areas, or otherwise traveling off trail. They say the rule is necessary to allow Fish and Game officers the latitude to manage for conflict between ATV users and others.
Idaho Fish and Game Commissioner Randy Budge says the rule does not apply to one using an ATV to retrieve game, set up or taking down a camp, or someone holding a disability license.
“We are not opposed to four-wheelers in any way,” he said, noting that Fish and Game officers have to judge whether or not an ATV is being used as an aid to hunting based upon personal judgment: is the person transporting a stowed, unloaded weapon, and not dressed in hunters’ orange? One can reasonably assume, Budge says, he is not hunting.
Budge said the original rule was not enacted to restrict the right to bear arms or to ride ATVs, but was to regulate aids to hunt. This is, he said, part of Fish and Game’s statutory authority, and allows the department to:
- deal with conflicts between hunters with ATVs and those without,
- manage the resource--big game has increased vulnerability to hunters on ATVs, and
- maintain the quality of Idaho’s big game population.
“We’re convinced that those who oppose this rule are a very small, yet a very vocal minority,” Budge said. “Surveys show that hunters feel overwhelmingly that too many unregulated ATVs diminish their quality of hunt.”
Several members of that “vocal minority” were on hand to testify in favor of the bills. They noted several instances of harassment by Fish and Game officers of those using ATVs.
“Fish and Game officers look for people who have weapons on their ATVs and harass them,” David Clairborne said. Clairborne testified on behalf of the Idaho State ATV Association, and said he thinks there is an additional objective to this rule besides managing game.
“We think this rule is an attempt by the Fish and Game to restrict the access to public lands,” he said.
Danny Cohn testified that he believes this is indeed the case, saying that closures of roads that have been accessible by ATV for decades are often done arbitrarily, poorly marked as such, and that Forest Service maps are unclear or out of date, leaving hunters vulnerable to citation.
The legislation targets rules that allow Fish and Game officers to cite those they deem to be hunting from an ATV. Proponents of the bill say that ATV users are being unfairly targeted by Fish and Game officers arbitrarily making decisions about whether a person is actively engaged in hunting while riding an ATV. Some of those testifying in favor of the bill say they have had experiences with Fish and Game officers harassing ATV users.
Other proponents note the absurdity of assuming one might successfully hunt from an ATV, noting that as a method of take, an ATV would be highly ineffective because of the noise, and riding off trail is already illegal.
There were also those testifying in favor of the bill who expressed a belief that the Idaho Department of Fish and Game is colluding with the US Forest Service and/or the Bureau of Land Management to restrict access to public lands through road closures.
Opponents of the bill say that hunting from an ATV is tantamount to utilizing an aid like dogs, spotlighting game at night, or hunting from an airplane. Several testified that they have witnessed hunters chasing game from an ATV, improperly accessing winter range areas, or otherwise traveling off trail. They say the rule is necessary to allow Fish and Game officers the latitude to manage for conflict between ATV users and others.
Idaho Fish and Game Commissioner Randy Budge says the rule does not apply to one using an ATV to retrieve game, set up or taking down a camp, or someone holding a disability license.
“We are not opposed to four-wheelers in any way,” he said, noting that Fish and Game officers have to judge whether or not an ATV is being used as an aid to hunting based upon personal judgment: is the person transporting a stowed, unloaded weapon, and not dressed in hunters’ orange? One can reasonably assume, Budge says, he is not hunting.
Budge said the original rule was not enacted to restrict the right to bear arms or to ride ATVs, but was to regulate aids to hunt. This is, he said, part of Fish and Game’s statutory authority, and allows the department to:
- deal with conflicts between hunters with ATVs and those without,
- manage the resource--big game has increased vulnerability to hunters on ATVs, and
- maintain the quality of Idaho’s big game population.
“We’re convinced that those who oppose this rule are a very small, yet a very vocal minority,” Budge said. “Surveys show that hunters feel overwhelmingly that too many unregulated ATVs diminish their quality of hunt.”
Several members of that “vocal minority” were on hand to testify in favor of the bills. They noted several instances of harassment by Fish and Game officers of those using ATVs.
“Fish and Game officers look for people who have weapons on their ATVs and harass them,” David Clairborne said. Clairborne testified on behalf of the Idaho State ATV Association, and said he thinks there is an additional objective to this rule besides managing game.
“We think this rule is an attempt by the Fish and Game to restrict the access to public lands,” he said.
Danny Cohn testified that he believes this is indeed the case, saying that closures of roads that have been accessible by ATV for decades are often done arbitrarily, poorly marked as such, and that Forest Service maps are unclear or out of date, leaving hunters vulnerable to citation.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Wolves, Sage Grouse and Bull Trout the Topics of OSC Update
Administrator Nate Fisher of the Governor’s Office of Species Conservation (OSC) presented an update to the Senate Resources & Environment committee on Monday. Some of the functions of OSC include coordinating federal ESA policies with state agencies; soliciting, providing and delegating funding for ESA programs; and serving as the “the voice” for Idaho on ESA policy and facilitating collaboration among state, federal and private stakeholders. Current OSC activities discussed were sage grouse, bull trout, the new secretarial order for wildlands on BLM acres, and wolves.
A March 5, 2010 order by the USFWS said that sage grouse were warranted for listing as endangered species but were precluded at this time because there are more important species that need to be listed. Sage grouse status will be reviewed annually to see if anything has changed. In the meantime, OSC is working with state, federal and private sector stakeholders to determine the short-term and long-term ramifications of the warranted but precluded determination. Western Watersheds Project is challenging the decision.
Last year, USFWS published a new, expanded proposal for critical habitat for bull trout in Idaho and surrounding states. OSC coordinated the state’s comments focusing on the economic impacts of such a far reaching designation. The USFWS rejected the state’s comment and designated 8,772 miles of streams and 170,218 acres of lakes and reservoirs as critical habitat.
The designation will further restrict land use, and more environmental activist lawsuits could be filed against activities on federal land near rivers and lakes designated as critical habitat. Fisher showed maps of the land mass in Idaho impacted by sage grouse and bull trout pointing the vast number of acres that will be impacted.
Just before Christmas, 2010, Interior Secretary Salazar issued an executive order expanding BLM wilderness planning. BLM is supposed to inventory lands that have “wilderness characteristics.” Once approved, those lands would have to be managed as de facto wilderness since only Congress has the authority to designate public land as wilderness. Even without Congressional designation, those lands would be managed as wilderness which will impact multiple uses of BLM land.
Last, but not least, is the issue of wolves. The Governor is appealing a Montana judge’s ruling that wolves could not be delisted in Idaho and Montana while still being listed in Wyoming. Idaho has tried to negotiate a new “designated agent status” which would give the state some flexibility to manage wolves and include a public hunting season to keep the numbers at manageable levels. The Department of Interior wasn’t interested in the state’s concerns so the Governor terminated Idaho’s role in day-to-day management of wolves. Idaho’s wolf population continues to expand putting livestock and elk, deer and moose populations at risk.
A March 5, 2010 order by the USFWS said that sage grouse were warranted for listing as endangered species but were precluded at this time because there are more important species that need to be listed. Sage grouse status will be reviewed annually to see if anything has changed. In the meantime, OSC is working with state, federal and private sector stakeholders to determine the short-term and long-term ramifications of the warranted but precluded determination. Western Watersheds Project is challenging the decision.
Last year, USFWS published a new, expanded proposal for critical habitat for bull trout in Idaho and surrounding states. OSC coordinated the state’s comments focusing on the economic impacts of such a far reaching designation. The USFWS rejected the state’s comment and designated 8,772 miles of streams and 170,218 acres of lakes and reservoirs as critical habitat.
The designation will further restrict land use, and more environmental activist lawsuits could be filed against activities on federal land near rivers and lakes designated as critical habitat. Fisher showed maps of the land mass in Idaho impacted by sage grouse and bull trout pointing the vast number of acres that will be impacted.
Just before Christmas, 2010, Interior Secretary Salazar issued an executive order expanding BLM wilderness planning. BLM is supposed to inventory lands that have “wilderness characteristics.” Once approved, those lands would have to be managed as de facto wilderness since only Congress has the authority to designate public land as wilderness. Even without Congressional designation, those lands would be managed as wilderness which will impact multiple uses of BLM land.
Last, but not least, is the issue of wolves. The Governor is appealing a Montana judge’s ruling that wolves could not be delisted in Idaho and Montana while still being listed in Wyoming. Idaho has tried to negotiate a new “designated agent status” which would give the state some flexibility to manage wolves and include a public hunting season to keep the numbers at manageable levels. The Department of Interior wasn’t interested in the state’s concerns so the Governor terminated Idaho’s role in day-to-day management of wolves. Idaho’s wolf population continues to expand putting livestock and elk, deer and moose populations at risk.
INL presents on the state of cleanup efforts
A representative from INL presented an update on the state of the site cleanup efforts to the Environment, Energy and Technology Committee this week.
Exhumation and disposal of transuranic waste on site – including waste from the historically significant Pit 9 facility – has been the focus of this effort, with completion targeted by 2012. To date, INL is on schedule to meet all the parameters of the 2005 Batt agreement.
When complete, the INL will have reduced its footprint from an acreage of 775 acres to 250 acres, and from about 4 million to 2 million square feet of building. About $460 million in stimulus funding has been put to use in this effort.
INL representatives note that by 2015, if we can maintain funding, this footprint can be further reduced to one area and site cleanup completed, avoiding about 2 billion dollars in ongoing fees.
They are focusing on the Obama administration’s goal of presenting 20% of our energy from clean sources by 2035. Nuclear power, representatives say, is going to need to be a significant contributor if that’s to be realized. INL has made what they consider to be significant progress in the facility infrastructure over the past five years and even more will be made in the next five years to provide more clean energy.
Exhumation and disposal of transuranic waste on site – including waste from the historically significant Pit 9 facility – has been the focus of this effort, with completion targeted by 2012. To date, INL is on schedule to meet all the parameters of the 2005 Batt agreement.
When complete, the INL will have reduced its footprint from an acreage of 775 acres to 250 acres, and from about 4 million to 2 million square feet of building. About $460 million in stimulus funding has been put to use in this effort.
INL representatives note that by 2015, if we can maintain funding, this footprint can be further reduced to one area and site cleanup completed, avoiding about 2 billion dollars in ongoing fees.
They are focusing on the Obama administration’s goal of presenting 20% of our energy from clean sources by 2035. Nuclear power, representatives say, is going to need to be a significant contributor if that’s to be realized. INL has made what they consider to be significant progress in the facility infrastructure over the past five years and even more will be made in the next five years to provide more clean energy.
Underground Storage Tank Fees Addressed
Idaho DEQ representatives presented a bill related to fee assessment on underground storage tanks to the committee.
In 2005, a bill was passed including the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act, and the EPA tasked the DEQ to promulgate rules related to the act. The 2008 legislature approved negotiated rules, and sent a draft to the EPA to assume program primacy. As the federal maximum penalties for noncompliance are much higher than the proposed state penalties, the resulting impact in terms of assessed fees is significant.
Representative Simpson asked about the differentiation between knowingly submitting false information and accidentally submitting false information in applying for an underground storage tank permit. The current Idaho code recognizes the standard of knowingly submitting false information, which can invoke criminal sanctions as well as fees. Examples of violations most commonly found include failure to maintain gage records, install leak detectors, or maintain financial assurance required for a regulated underground storage tank.
Representative Eskridge pointed out that while Idaho code specifies the act of knowingly submitting false information, this legislation omits that distinction. If the act of knowingly submitting false information is significant enough to generate criminal charges, it will have an impact on the penalty assessed. DEQ representatives noted that most penalties assessed are not criminal, and are usually in the hundreds of dollars at most. DEQ has been known to forgive up to 75 percent of the penalties once the error is corrected.
“Our focus is on education to keep in full compliance with the law… in the area of compliance assistance and education and training, I think we’ve been really doing well,” he said.
Representative Cronin moved to send the bill to the floor with a do pass recommendation. The motion passed, and Representative Cronin will sponsor the bill.
In 2005, a bill was passed including the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act, and the EPA tasked the DEQ to promulgate rules related to the act. The 2008 legislature approved negotiated rules, and sent a draft to the EPA to assume program primacy. As the federal maximum penalties for noncompliance are much higher than the proposed state penalties, the resulting impact in terms of assessed fees is significant.
Representative Simpson asked about the differentiation between knowingly submitting false information and accidentally submitting false information in applying for an underground storage tank permit. The current Idaho code recognizes the standard of knowingly submitting false information, which can invoke criminal sanctions as well as fees. Examples of violations most commonly found include failure to maintain gage records, install leak detectors, or maintain financial assurance required for a regulated underground storage tank.
Representative Eskridge pointed out that while Idaho code specifies the act of knowingly submitting false information, this legislation omits that distinction. If the act of knowingly submitting false information is significant enough to generate criminal charges, it will have an impact on the penalty assessed. DEQ representatives noted that most penalties assessed are not criminal, and are usually in the hundreds of dollars at most. DEQ has been known to forgive up to 75 percent of the penalties once the error is corrected.
“Our focus is on education to keep in full compliance with the law… in the area of compliance assistance and education and training, I think we’ve been really doing well,” he said.
Representative Cronin moved to send the bill to the floor with a do pass recommendation. The motion passed, and Representative Cronin will sponsor the bill.
Crop residue burning bill addresses small scale projects
DEQ representatives presented an amendment to crop residue burning legislation passed in 2008. In 2007, crop residue burning was prohibited. Temporary rules were approved in spring of 2008, with the practice of crop residue burning reinitiated that fall.
Last year the DEQ was approached by farmers asking for legislation that addresses propane burning of crops on a small scale. This is a practices used heavily by the mint industries. They assert that small scale burns should be legislated differently than large scale burns, specifically propane flaming, broken hay bale burns and small spot burns.
The amendment is a one sentence that eliminates the fees associated normal crop residue burning for propane flaming which burns the soil to control pests. If it passes, DEQ will submit a temporary rule to the EPA and before this committee for their approval next year.
Representative Hartgen asked for a clarification of size limits with regard to these burns. The proposal is to allow for 10 acres a year or what amounts to 2 tons of baled hay per day.
Roger Batt, executive director for the Idaho Mint Growers Association, and VP of Food Producers of Idaho, testified in favor of the bill, saying it was, in fact, the mint growers who initiated this discussion.
The bill was sent to the floor with a do pass recommendation. Representative Harwood will carry the bill to the floor of the House.
Last year the DEQ was approached by farmers asking for legislation that addresses propane burning of crops on a small scale. This is a practices used heavily by the mint industries. They assert that small scale burns should be legislated differently than large scale burns, specifically propane flaming, broken hay bale burns and small spot burns.
The amendment is a one sentence that eliminates the fees associated normal crop residue burning for propane flaming which burns the soil to control pests. If it passes, DEQ will submit a temporary rule to the EPA and before this committee for their approval next year.
Representative Hartgen asked for a clarification of size limits with regard to these burns. The proposal is to allow for 10 acres a year or what amounts to 2 tons of baled hay per day.
Roger Batt, executive director for the Idaho Mint Growers Association, and VP of Food Producers of Idaho, testified in favor of the bill, saying it was, in fact, the mint growers who initiated this discussion.
The bill was sent to the floor with a do pass recommendation. Representative Harwood will carry the bill to the floor of the House.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)