This is a weekly roundup of some of ICIE’s activities in and around the Idaho Legislature. Staffing limits mean we can’t cover every meeting. If there’s an item of interest to you at an upcoming meeting of one of the environment or agriculture committees, let us know and we’ll try to cover it. Agendas are available at http://www.state.id.us/. Click on “Legislative” and click on “Calendars and agendas.”
The House Resources & Conservation committee heard a presentation on the 27th from George Bacon, Director of the Idaho Department of Lands. Mr. Bacon asked the committee to print a bill proposed by the department to increase the cap on the cost that private forest land owners pay for fire protection from 60 to 65 cents an acre and from $20 to $40 per improved lot or parcel. This increase would help the department have the equipment and resources to continue initial attach efforts wild fires. The department currently receives $2 million from the general fund for fire preparedness. It also receives $4 million from forest landowner assessments and $4 million in grants. Initial attack reduces the cost of firefighting on Idaho’s forest lands. Last year 250 fires started on state forest land. Three of these fires were not stopped with initial attack and the department spent $5.5 million to fight just those three fires. The increase would allow the department to establish a fund to replace fire equipment as necessary to continue its efforts to protect forest land and residences. The Idaho Land Board makes the final decision on fees, but must stay within the higher cap set by this legislation. *****
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Wastewater Flow Areas - Saturday Summary 1/31/09
This is a weekly roundup of some of ICIE’s activities in and around the Idaho Legislature. Staffing limits mean we can’t cover every meeting. If there’s an item of interest to you at an upcoming meeting of one of the environment or agriculture committees, let us know and we’ll try to cover it. Agendas are available at http://www.state.id.us/. Click on “Legislative” and click on “Calendars and agendas.”
The House Environment Energy and Technology Committee met again on Wednesday (1-28-09) to discuss rules brought forth by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Barry Brunell, Idaho DEQ water qualiy administrator presented a rule he said was intended to protect consumers from buying homes with faulty septic systems. The rule would increase the estimated wastewater flow area for septic systems based upon updated water use information for residential homes. Many members of the committee wondered to what extent consumers needed such protection, but Brunell didn’t have exact figures as to how many septic systems have actually failed due to too small a waste water field, versus other factors such as lack of maintenance or shoddy installation. The rule was also opposed by realtors and citizens who testified against it. The committee voted to reject the rule.
The House Environment Energy and Technology Committee met again on Wednesday (1-28-09) to discuss rules brought forth by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Barry Brunell, Idaho DEQ water qualiy administrator presented a rule he said was intended to protect consumers from buying homes with faulty septic systems. The rule would increase the estimated wastewater flow area for septic systems based upon updated water use information for residential homes. Many members of the committee wondered to what extent consumers needed such protection, but Brunell didn’t have exact figures as to how many septic systems have actually failed due to too small a waste water field, versus other factors such as lack of maintenance or shoddy installation. The rule was also opposed by realtors and citizens who testified against it. The committee voted to reject the rule.
Ground Water Quality - Saturday Summary 1/31/09
This is from a weekly roundup of some of ICIE’s activities in and around the Idaho Legislature. Staffing limits mean we can’t cover every meeting. If there’s an item of interest to you at an upcoming meeting of one of the environment or agriculture committees, let us know and we’ll try to cover it. Agendas are available at http://www.state.id.us/. Click on “Legislative” and click on “Calendars and agendas.”
The House Environment, Energy and Technology Committee met again on Wednesday (1-28-09) to discuss rules brought forth by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Barry Brunell, Idaho DEQ water qualiy administrator, presented a Ground Water Quality Rule. The DEQ has been meeting over the past two years with stakeholders, including those in the mining industry and environmental groups, to address setting points of compliance within which a mine can contaminate groundwater. Federal agencies leave these standards up to the state. The DEQ feels the resulting proposal is a good compromise between the two stakeholder groups, and expands the existing rule to include opportunities for the mine operator to request a point of compliance review for a fee. Testifying in favor of the rule were John Tippets, a representative of phosphate and nitrogen company, Agrium, and Jack Lyman of the Idaho Mining Association. Both noted that the DEQ proposal wasn’t exactly what they would have brought to the table, but it was a good compromise. Not so, said Justin Hayes, of the ICL who testified in opposition to the proposal, as it would grant permanent exemptions to the groundwater contamination parameter – leaving the state no recourse to pursue restitution from those companies that go out of business. He suggested implementing a bond requirement, which the DEQ staff felt was beyond the scope of the bill. Representative Eskridge asked the DEQ to consider the timeline issues raised by Hayes. The committee ultimately approved the rule, with Representatives Smith, Jaquet and Cronin dissenting. * * * * *
The House Environment, Energy and Technology Committee met again on Wednesday (1-28-09) to discuss rules brought forth by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Barry Brunell, Idaho DEQ water qualiy administrator, presented a Ground Water Quality Rule. The DEQ has been meeting over the past two years with stakeholders, including those in the mining industry and environmental groups, to address setting points of compliance within which a mine can contaminate groundwater. Federal agencies leave these standards up to the state. The DEQ feels the resulting proposal is a good compromise between the two stakeholder groups, and expands the existing rule to include opportunities for the mine operator to request a point of compliance review for a fee. Testifying in favor of the rule were John Tippets, a representative of phosphate and nitrogen company, Agrium, and Jack Lyman of the Idaho Mining Association. Both noted that the DEQ proposal wasn’t exactly what they would have brought to the table, but it was a good compromise. Not so, said Justin Hayes, of the ICL who testified in opposition to the proposal, as it would grant permanent exemptions to the groundwater contamination parameter – leaving the state no recourse to pursue restitution from those companies that go out of business. He suggested implementing a bond requirement, which the DEQ staff felt was beyond the scope of the bill. Representative Eskridge asked the DEQ to consider the timeline issues raised by Hayes. The committee ultimately approved the rule, with Representatives Smith, Jaquet and Cronin dissenting. * * * * *
Bunker Hill - Saturday Summary 1/31/09
This is from a weekly roundup of some of ICIE’s activities in and around the Idaho Legislature. Staffing limits mean we can’t cover every meeting. If there’s an item of interest to you at an upcoming meeting of one of the environment or agriculture committees, let us know and we’ll try to cover it. Agendas are available at http://www.state.id.us/. Click on “Legislative” and click on “Calendars and agendas.”
On the 26th, the House Environment, Energy and Technology Committee addressed the expansion of the impact area of the Bunker Hill Mine site. Bunker Hill has been listed as a super fund site since 1982. The area surrounding the site was later expanded into the lower Silver Valley basin. The bill proposed by Department of Environmental Quality is intended to stimulate the local economy, providing a vehicle for land transfers for commercial development. For example, Eagle Crest Golf and Ski Resort has had a tremendous economic impact in the Silver Valley. The committee voted unanimously to send the bill to the floor. *****
Transmission - Saturday Summary 1/31/09
This is from a weekly roundup of some of ICIE’s activities in and around the Idaho Legislature. Staffing limits mean we can’t cover every meeting. If there’s an item of interest to you at an upcoming meeting of one of the environment or agriculture committees, let us know and we’ll try to cover it. Agendas are available at http://www.state.id.us/. Click on “Legislative” and click on “Calendars and agendas.”
House Environment, Energy & Technology Committee, 1-26-09: At last week’s House Environment, Energy and Technology Committee, Office of Energy Resources Administrator Paul Kjellander presented a bill to create priority status for transmmission projects in Idaho. This week, he returned with more information about its impacts. Committee members were particularly interested in how the designation of priority status would impact local government agencies. Kjellander noted the benefits of granting transmission projects priority status include providing an open public forum and public records to facilitate better public understanding of such projects. “People may still not like (a particular) project,” Kjellander noted, “but at least they’ll have the opportunity to understand it and why the priority status was designated.” Kjellander noted that the bill would not challenge the decision-making autonomy of county government where transmission projects were concerned. The bill would only pertain to those agencies that the State and Public Utilities Commission deal with. Representatives from the PUC and the Association of Idaho Counties testified that they agreed with Kjellander’s assessment of the impact of this bill on local authority. The committee voted to send the bill to the floor with a do-pass recommendation.
*****
*****
ICIE Legislative Activities - Saturday Summary 1/31/09
This is from a weekly roundup of some of ICIE’s activities in and around the Idaho Legislature. Staffing limits mean we can’t cover every meeting. If there’s an item of interest to you at an upcoming meeting of one of the environment or agriculture committees, let us know and we’ll try to cover it. Agendas are available at http://www.state.id.us/. Click on “Legislative” and click on “Calendars and agendas.”
Senate Health & Welfare Committee, 1-26-09 Members of ICIE’s Environmental/Regulatory Affairs (E/RA) Committee gave a presentation to the Senate Health & Welfare Committee on Rules, Guidance and Stringency. Norm Semanko, Chairman of the E/RA Committee introduced the presenters—Roy Eiguren, Eiguren Public Law & Policy; Jack Lyman, Idaho Mining Association; Joan Cloonan, member of the Board of Environmental Quality and environmental consultant discussed the differences between rules and guidance and the issue of state stringency over federal rules. The same presentation was made the next day to the House Resources & Conservation Committee.
*****
*****
Sheep Update - Saturday Summary– 1-31-09
This is from a weekly roundup of some of ICIE’s activities in and around the Idaho Legislature. Staffing limits mean we can’t cover every meeting. If there’s an item of interest to you at an upcoming meeting of one of the environment or agriculture committees, let us know and we’ll try to cover it. Agendas are available at http://www.state.id.us/. Click on “Legislative” and click on “Calendars and agendas.”
More on Sheep ...
I received a couple of calls this week about my report on the issue of sheep grazing rights in the Payette National Forest. So I did some research on the subject and watched the same presentation by sheep rancher, Ron Shirts and his attorney, Alan Schroeder, a second time when they came before the House Resources & Conservation Committee.
The correction: Big horn sheep were extirpated from the Hells Canyon area in the 1940’s, but there are currently big horn sheep in that area as a result of program to reintroduce them.
The dispute: Alan Schroeder showed the committee a map of the area in question with the location of big horn sheep marked. The Shirts family contends that there are few if any collared big horn sheep in the area during the time his domestic sheep would graze. His attorney presented a map that showed areas where bighorn sheep have been detected, and a map showing big horn sheep detected in that same area during the time domestic sheep would graze.
At the center of the dispute is the 1997 agreement which was signed by the state wildlife agencies of Idaho, Washington and Oregon, the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (which has jurisdiction over Hells Canyon), Bureau of Land Management, the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep that allowed further reintroductions of bighorns in exchange for an agreement that domestic grazing would not be impaired.
According to a letter sent Idaho Wool Growers Association at the time, “the committee understands that bighorns may occasionally migrate outside of their designated range and come into contact with domestic sheep. These bighorns will be considered ‘at risk’ for potential disease transmission and death. There is also the potential for an exposed bighorn to leave the area and spread disease to other bighorn sheep. Under these conditions, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Washington Department of Wildlife will assume the responsibility for bighorn losses and further disease transmission in their respective areas. The three departments will also take whatever action is necessary to reduce further losses of bighorn sheep without adversely impacting domestic sheep operators.”
The Payette National Forest released its updated forest plan in 2003, and it seemed to include the essence of the 1997 agreement that bighorn reintroductions would not impair the grazing of domestic sheep. Several environmental groups and the Nez Perce Tribe challenged the plan in part over the domestic sheep-grazing issue. In 2005, the Chief of the Forest Service agreed that the plan did not provide enough protection for big horn sheep. The next year the Payette Forest published a risk assessment that found one allotment in the area in question, Smith Mountain, at very high risk for big horn sheep and four allotments at high risk. Domestic sheep grazing continued, however, while groups from both sides tried to reach some sort of accord.
In April, 2007, the anti-grazing group, Western Watersheds Project and the Hells Canyon Preservation Council sued the Forest Service for failing to protect a viable population of bighorn sheep as required by the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Act and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA).
NFMA rule says that each national forest must maintain a minimum, viable population of the species that live there which applied to the re-introduced big horn sheep. Once the big horn sheep were re-established, the Forest Service has a duty to protect them despite the 1997 agreement.
Faced with the lawsuit, the Payette National Forest agreed to a bighorn-protection plan drawn up by the Nez Perce Tribe. During a hearing in May, Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah A. Ferguson told Judge Winmill that the Payette National Forest would stop grazing during the 2007 season on portions of two domestic sheep allotments in the bighorn country on the Idaho side of the Snake River. Grazing on two allotments on the Salmon River would also be curtailed. The permittees were given just a few days to find alternate grazing or sell large portions of their herds.
The Forest Service had to do a risk assessment and an SEIS before modifying the permits; however, according to the ranchers, it modified the permits before the risk assessment and SEIS were done.
The ranchers contend there is no documented evidence of transmission of disease from domestic sheep to wild big horn sheep. There are some common pathogens but both wild and domestic sheep have them. The big horn sheep that have been reintroduced come from Canada and other states and are not tested for pathogens. Domestic sheep that are moved across state lines are tested for pathogens.
Those who want to end domestic grazing on these allotments or on all federally-managed land claim that bighorn sheep are highly susceptible to pathogens carried by domestic sheep. They also claim that there are numerous examples of big horn sheep dying after suspected contact with domestic sheep.
More on Sheep ...
I received a couple of calls this week about my report on the issue of sheep grazing rights in the Payette National Forest. So I did some research on the subject and watched the same presentation by sheep rancher, Ron Shirts and his attorney, Alan Schroeder, a second time when they came before the House Resources & Conservation Committee.
The correction: Big horn sheep were extirpated from the Hells Canyon area in the 1940’s, but there are currently big horn sheep in that area as a result of program to reintroduce them.
The dispute: Alan Schroeder showed the committee a map of the area in question with the location of big horn sheep marked. The Shirts family contends that there are few if any collared big horn sheep in the area during the time his domestic sheep would graze. His attorney presented a map that showed areas where bighorn sheep have been detected, and a map showing big horn sheep detected in that same area during the time domestic sheep would graze.
At the center of the dispute is the 1997 agreement which was signed by the state wildlife agencies of Idaho, Washington and Oregon, the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (which has jurisdiction over Hells Canyon), Bureau of Land Management, the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep that allowed further reintroductions of bighorns in exchange for an agreement that domestic grazing would not be impaired.
According to a letter sent Idaho Wool Growers Association at the time, “the committee understands that bighorns may occasionally migrate outside of their designated range and come into contact with domestic sheep. These bighorns will be considered ‘at risk’ for potential disease transmission and death. There is also the potential for an exposed bighorn to leave the area and spread disease to other bighorn sheep. Under these conditions, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Washington Department of Wildlife will assume the responsibility for bighorn losses and further disease transmission in their respective areas. The three departments will also take whatever action is necessary to reduce further losses of bighorn sheep without adversely impacting domestic sheep operators.”
The Payette National Forest released its updated forest plan in 2003, and it seemed to include the essence of the 1997 agreement that bighorn reintroductions would not impair the grazing of domestic sheep. Several environmental groups and the Nez Perce Tribe challenged the plan in part over the domestic sheep-grazing issue. In 2005, the Chief of the Forest Service agreed that the plan did not provide enough protection for big horn sheep. The next year the Payette Forest published a risk assessment that found one allotment in the area in question, Smith Mountain, at very high risk for big horn sheep and four allotments at high risk. Domestic sheep grazing continued, however, while groups from both sides tried to reach some sort of accord.
In April, 2007, the anti-grazing group, Western Watersheds Project and the Hells Canyon Preservation Council sued the Forest Service for failing to protect a viable population of bighorn sheep as required by the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Act and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA).
NFMA rule says that each national forest must maintain a minimum, viable population of the species that live there which applied to the re-introduced big horn sheep. Once the big horn sheep were re-established, the Forest Service has a duty to protect them despite the 1997 agreement.
Faced with the lawsuit, the Payette National Forest agreed to a bighorn-protection plan drawn up by the Nez Perce Tribe. During a hearing in May, Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah A. Ferguson told Judge Winmill that the Payette National Forest would stop grazing during the 2007 season on portions of two domestic sheep allotments in the bighorn country on the Idaho side of the Snake River. Grazing on two allotments on the Salmon River would also be curtailed. The permittees were given just a few days to find alternate grazing or sell large portions of their herds.
The Forest Service had to do a risk assessment and an SEIS before modifying the permits; however, according to the ranchers, it modified the permits before the risk assessment and SEIS were done.
The ranchers contend there is no documented evidence of transmission of disease from domestic sheep to wild big horn sheep. There are some common pathogens but both wild and domestic sheep have them. The big horn sheep that have been reintroduced come from Canada and other states and are not tested for pathogens. Domestic sheep that are moved across state lines are tested for pathogens.
Those who want to end domestic grazing on these allotments or on all federally-managed land claim that bighorn sheep are highly susceptible to pathogens carried by domestic sheep. They also claim that there are numerous examples of big horn sheep dying after suspected contact with domestic sheep.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)