Representative chastises EPA for lack of action to protect salmon, but organization questions the data behind the threat
President Obama has issued an executive order for a retrospective review of existing regulations (including existing environmental regulations) that are unduly burdensome to industry. Section 5 of the order also says that “each agency shall ensure the objectivity of any scientific and technological information and processes used to support the agency's regulatory actions.” A review of the whole consultation process within the regulations governing the Endangered Species might be a great place to start.
Last month Rep. Edward Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts and two representatives from California issued a press release about a letter they had sent to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about its lack of action to protect endangered Northwest salmon from pesticides. While EPA has jurisdiction over registration of herbicides and pesticides, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has jurisdiction over salmon recovery. And therein lies the problem.
Under ESA, EPA needs to consult with NMFS on the issue of the impact of herbicides and pesticides in salmon streams. NMFS, however, has no expertise with the products while EPA has been testing, studying and regulating them for decades.
A lawsuit was filed in 2002 against EPA by environmental and fishing groups, including the Washington Toxics Coalition. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle found that EPA had violated its obligations under the Endangered Species Act.
The court ordered EPA to review the effects of 54 pesticide active ingredients on threatened and endangered salmonids and to consult, as appropriate, with NMFS on any of the 54 pesticides that may affect salmon. In 2004, the court ordered protections—including buffer zones—to prevent the potential adverse effects of any of the 54 pesticides on threatened and endangered salmonids.
The letter from the three Congressman to the EPA Administrator says that it is time for EPA to take action and asking EPA for a progress report in protecting this “critically important species” and pointing out that restoring salmon “could yield annual economic benefits of over $5 billion.” According to the Congressmen from Massachusetts and California, “We have science on our side…It’s time for EPA to take action.”
There are a couple of problems with the assertions made in this letter. First, the data used to determine the pesticide threat to salmon looks to be inaccurate.
Washington Friends of Farms & Forests (WFFF) is an organization concerned with producing safe, abundant, economical food, fiber and landscaping and maintain a healthy, productive and safe environment for our agricultural and urban communities. They responded to the Congressmen, calling into question the facts, science and computer models that NMFS used in making the determination that these 54 pesticides posed a threat to salmon.
They pointed out that use of the pesticides listed is significantly lower than in the past, asserting that no fish kills have been reported from the legal use of these products. In fact many salmon runs have been at record high levels in recent years.
It seems NMFS created its own computer models rather than use the ones that EPA had developed to evaluate the safety of these products for decades. In addition, NMFS used a farm pond model which assumes stagnant water to predict the exposure levels of salmon, forgetting that juvenile salmon swim in fast moving waters and rest is in areas of moving water. One NMFS model included a use that was never labeled and modeled uses not currently on labels. The agency assumed amounts much higher than are actually used. The models were so inaccurate that the EPA, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, the Oregon and Washington Departments of Agriculture were all critical. The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture has asked that the BiOps be redone.
In six years of monitoring surface water in agricultural areas, the Washington State Department of Agriculture has noted that these pesticides are at or below detection levels. NMFS did not to consider this data in their findings. They also left out the department’s database which helps determine the amount and locations of product used and correlates the location and timing of fish presence.
Next, with regard to the economics which the Congressmen raised in the letter to EPA: the NMFS outlined the economic cost to EPA to implement the BiOps, but not the costs to farmers and foresters. One farmer in Oregon estimated that if the buffer zones were enacted he would not be able to produce crops on 50% of his farm.
Rep. Markey estimated that full recovery of salmon would bring $5 billion in annul economic benefits to Oregon and Washington. A substantial figure, but compare it to agriculture production in Washington at $16 billion in economic impact; food processing and manufacturing, $17 billion in total economic impact; and agriculture and forestry support industries; $1.8 billion in total economic impact. These figures were compiled by Washington State University in November, 2010.An updated study based on 2009 figures shows that Oregon agriculture is directly and indirectly linked to $22 billion in sales of goods and services—15% of the statewide totals of sales in all industry sectors, and that’s during a recession year. Processing added $2.2 billion to the value of Oregon-grown food and fiber.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Fires in beetle-killed timber get scrutiny
An Associated Press article in Thursday’s Idaho Statesman said that new studies presented at a Helena, Montana, seminar are getting close to leading to great understanding of the connection between mountain beetle epidemics and wildfires in the West. A study by a Forest Service ecologist shows for the first time that beetle-killed trees contain 10 times less moisture and a different chemical makeup than healthy trees. According to the story “that means the red needles of beetle-killed trees can ignite three times faster and burn more intensely than healthy trees.”
There it is: a study confirming what we all have observed if we’ve watched a forest fire.
There it is: a study confirming what we all have observed if we’ve watched a forest fire.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Idaho's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission approves temporary rule on fracturing
Some of us discovered that Idaho has an Oil and Gas Conservation Commission during an information hearing on natural gas drilling in Payette County before the Idaho House Environment, Energy & Technology Committee during the legislative session.
Idaho Land Board members, including the Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, State Controller and Superintendent of Public Instruction also serve as the State Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. On April 19th they met first as the latter body to discuss issues related to drilling for natural gas in Payette County.
The duties of the Oil and Gas Commission are to prevent waste of natural gas, regulate drilling and review requests for directional drilling. If there are concerns about air quality, dusty roads or sage grouse, those are handled by other agencies such as the Office of Species Conservation, Department of Environmental Quality or the Idaho Public Utilities Commission. At this meeting, the Governor acting as Chairman of the Commission asked those who wished to testify to limit their remarks to the issues which can properly come before the commission, not roads, air quality or sage grouse.
The first order of business was the number of wells per acre that should be permitted. Bridge Energy had requested the spacing be based on one well per 160 acres instead of one well per 640 acres in order to properly capture all the natural gas being sought. After a contested case which required a public hearing, the hearing officer recommended approval of one well per 160 acres.
While there was no opposition stated during the contested case, Melinda Harper, a source water protection specialist with the Idaho Rural Water Association testified that there was no physical printout presented at the original hearing and no technical information for the March 31st meeting was available. She raised concern about the impact on drinking water and asked that the variance not be applied unless more information is presented to those who have concerns.
The Commission adopted the amended rule as recommended by the hearing officer.
The next topic on the agenda was consideration of temporary rules for hydraulic fracturing to establish consistent standards. The Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) modified draft rules to address concerns that had been raised about the process of fracturing or “fracing” as it is known in the industry. The hydraulic fracturing that is being proposed in Payette County is a common process that is generally considered safe. Problems that have been publicized have to do with fracing in large shale and coal methane drilling.
IDL believes this proposed temporary rule meets the state’s needs and that it goes beyond what other states currently have for this type of drilling and fracing. A request for a negotiated rulemaking will be presented at the May commission meeting.
Justin Hayes with Idaho Conservation League participated in the public meeting in Payette County and has visited with concerned members in the New Plymouth area. He presented friendly amendments to protect groundwater quality saying that the temporary rule needs to capture the need to protect ground water quality.
The amendments would prohibit the use of known carcinogens as well as the use of toxic substances that inhibit the human embryo growth and cause fetal mutations. A second amendment would prohibit fracturing that is more than 150 feet. Hayes suggested that we close the door on these items so that they can be discussed during negotiated rulemaking.
He also wanted to amend the temporary rule to require sufficient bonding. ICL wants bonding for each well, bonds for surface disturbances, and bonds for mitigation of ground water contamination. The attorney general questioned the timing of these proposals. ICL did submit proposals which were received and reviewed by IDL
IDL testified that it can use the permitting process to be vigilant until more formal rules are negotiated. How much bonding to require is limited by Idaho Code. Hayes pointed out the IDL is directed by statute to have reasonable performance bonds. Bonding for fracturing and well treatments is included in the bond required by IDL for drilling the wells (either per well or by a blanket bond). IDL responded that a statutory change would be needed to get authority for more bonding.
Diesel fuel is not allowed in fracturing and Bridge will continue to make all the compounds available to the public. Idaho does not allow use of any BTEX or volatile organic compounds
Steve West and Kim Parsons spoke for Bridge Energy. Parsons pointed out that definitions of carcinogenic and other such compounds are unclear. She mentioned that the temporary rule is one of the most restrictive there is at this time. With current rules, Bridge is required to make full disclosure of material used in fracing and the materials must be approved by IDL.
Parsons said Bridge uses the highest quality protection of ground water with liners and berms. The aquifer is protected by two to three layers of cement. The fracing is taking place 1000 fee below the aquifer. Bridge has invited the rest of the industry to come up to the levels of groundwater protection that its uses. Materials used are evaluated under Idaho’s groundwater rules and Bridge uses a number of safety measures and engineering redundancies.
IDL pointed out that the temporary rule was previously amended to answer the concerns of New Plymouth residents.
David Hawk who represents a competitor of Bridge is in favor of the draft temporary rule. From an operation and experience point of view, Bridge is very protective of groundwater. He urged the committee to support the temporary rule and not block the potential for other drilling that is currently held up by the BLM.
Melinda Harper testified again asking that the ingredients used in the fracing be food grade quality on the small chance that something not food grade enters the aquifer.
Justin Hayes said that ICL wants to create sideboards to protect groundwater and ensure that Bridge does what it needs to do to protect it as well.
“We can’t clean an aquifer once it is fouled,” he said.
After further questions of Bride Energy, the commission voted to adopt the temporary rule as recommended by IDL.
Idaho Land Board members, including the Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, State Controller and Superintendent of Public Instruction also serve as the State Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. On April 19th they met first as the latter body to discuss issues related to drilling for natural gas in Payette County.
The duties of the Oil and Gas Commission are to prevent waste of natural gas, regulate drilling and review requests for directional drilling. If there are concerns about air quality, dusty roads or sage grouse, those are handled by other agencies such as the Office of Species Conservation, Department of Environmental Quality or the Idaho Public Utilities Commission. At this meeting, the Governor acting as Chairman of the Commission asked those who wished to testify to limit their remarks to the issues which can properly come before the commission, not roads, air quality or sage grouse.
The first order of business was the number of wells per acre that should be permitted. Bridge Energy had requested the spacing be based on one well per 160 acres instead of one well per 640 acres in order to properly capture all the natural gas being sought. After a contested case which required a public hearing, the hearing officer recommended approval of one well per 160 acres.
While there was no opposition stated during the contested case, Melinda Harper, a source water protection specialist with the Idaho Rural Water Association testified that there was no physical printout presented at the original hearing and no technical information for the March 31st meeting was available. She raised concern about the impact on drinking water and asked that the variance not be applied unless more information is presented to those who have concerns.
The Commission adopted the amended rule as recommended by the hearing officer.
The next topic on the agenda was consideration of temporary rules for hydraulic fracturing to establish consistent standards. The Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) modified draft rules to address concerns that had been raised about the process of fracturing or “fracing” as it is known in the industry. The hydraulic fracturing that is being proposed in Payette County is a common process that is generally considered safe. Problems that have been publicized have to do with fracing in large shale and coal methane drilling.
IDL believes this proposed temporary rule meets the state’s needs and that it goes beyond what other states currently have for this type of drilling and fracing. A request for a negotiated rulemaking will be presented at the May commission meeting.
Justin Hayes with Idaho Conservation League participated in the public meeting in Payette County and has visited with concerned members in the New Plymouth area. He presented friendly amendments to protect groundwater quality saying that the temporary rule needs to capture the need to protect ground water quality.
The amendments would prohibit the use of known carcinogens as well as the use of toxic substances that inhibit the human embryo growth and cause fetal mutations. A second amendment would prohibit fracturing that is more than 150 feet. Hayes suggested that we close the door on these items so that they can be discussed during negotiated rulemaking.
He also wanted to amend the temporary rule to require sufficient bonding. ICL wants bonding for each well, bonds for surface disturbances, and bonds for mitigation of ground water contamination. The attorney general questioned the timing of these proposals. ICL did submit proposals which were received and reviewed by IDL
IDL testified that it can use the permitting process to be vigilant until more formal rules are negotiated. How much bonding to require is limited by Idaho Code. Hayes pointed out the IDL is directed by statute to have reasonable performance bonds. Bonding for fracturing and well treatments is included in the bond required by IDL for drilling the wells (either per well or by a blanket bond). IDL responded that a statutory change would be needed to get authority for more bonding.
Diesel fuel is not allowed in fracturing and Bridge will continue to make all the compounds available to the public. Idaho does not allow use of any BTEX or volatile organic compounds
Steve West and Kim Parsons spoke for Bridge Energy. Parsons pointed out that definitions of carcinogenic and other such compounds are unclear. She mentioned that the temporary rule is one of the most restrictive there is at this time. With current rules, Bridge is required to make full disclosure of material used in fracing and the materials must be approved by IDL.
Parsons said Bridge uses the highest quality protection of ground water with liners and berms. The aquifer is protected by two to three layers of cement. The fracing is taking place 1000 fee below the aquifer. Bridge has invited the rest of the industry to come up to the levels of groundwater protection that its uses. Materials used are evaluated under Idaho’s groundwater rules and Bridge uses a number of safety measures and engineering redundancies.
IDL pointed out that the temporary rule was previously amended to answer the concerns of New Plymouth residents.
David Hawk who represents a competitor of Bridge is in favor of the draft temporary rule. From an operation and experience point of view, Bridge is very protective of groundwater. He urged the committee to support the temporary rule and not block the potential for other drilling that is currently held up by the BLM.
Melinda Harper testified again asking that the ingredients used in the fracing be food grade quality on the small chance that something not food grade enters the aquifer.
Justin Hayes said that ICL wants to create sideboards to protect groundwater and ensure that Bridge does what it needs to do to protect it as well.
“We can’t clean an aquifer once it is fouled,” he said.
After further questions of Bride Energy, the commission voted to adopt the temporary rule as recommended by IDL.
Friday, April 8, 2011
2011 Legislative Wrap Up
Idaho’s legislators called it quits Thursday with a couple of startling results.After killing a wind farm moratorium bill in committee and negotiating a compromise on the extension of the sales tax rebate for alternative energy in the final days, the House passed two bills on April 5 in favor of wind projects.
H347 would extend the rebate for those projects already in the works to December 31st. H348 would give the Idaho Public Utilities Commission jurisdiction over the avoided cost rates paid to PURPA solar and wind qualifying facilities. Only wind and solar projects producing 100 kW or less would continue to receive the standard avoided costs under PURPA but bigger projects would negotiate a purchase price.
When H347 failed by one vote in the Senate yesterday, the companion bill, H348, was returned to the State Affairs Committee at the request of Sen. Curt McKenzie.
An anti-degradation rule was negotiated this summer and fall. As with all rules it had to go by the legislature. In a rare move, the legislature chose to reject portions of the rule and replace them with H153. In doing so, legislators were acquiescing to a request by the industries involved and supported by the Department of Environmental Quality. They assured the legislators that this action will meet with EPA’s approval. Opponents may still proceed with a lawsuit to challenge the new rule and the statutory changes.
Under NOT SO STARTLING BUT IMPORTANT news: an amendment to Idaho’s current Right to Farm statute was challenged in committee hearings by several people whose concerns centered on dairies and confined animal feeding operations (CAFO). The amended law protects agricultural practices from nuisance lawsuits by adding an extensive list of standard agricultural practices. It does not add protection for negligent practices or change the current regulation of dairies or CAFOs. It also does not interfere with local planning and zoning authority. It passed the House and Senate and was signed by the Governor on April 6th.
Other Legislation That Made It:
H40: PROPANE FLAMING - There was a successful negotiated rulemaking to streamline the process for propane flaming of fields which is necessary for crops like mint but should not be regulated under the regular crop residue burning program. This bill changes the current law so that fees shall not apply to this practice.
H137a: ALTERATION OF CHANNELS OF STREAMS – This amends existing law relating to the alteration of channels of streams to provide that in specified situations, no permit shall be required by the state or any agency or political subdivision thereof from a water user or his agent.
H206: POULTRY – This adds to and amends existing law relating to poultry to provide for the Poultry Environmental Act; to provide for permits and registration of existing facilities; permits for expansions of operations; to provide for the design and construction of certain new and modified wastewater storage and containment facilities; to provide that the review and approval of plans by the Idaho Department of Agriculture shall supersede that of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality.
H270: AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT - RULEMAKING – This requires the director of the Idaho State Department of Agriculture to notify the public and the legislature in the event rules of the director are more stringent than federal law or regulations, or propose to regulate an activity not regulated by the federal government. It requires the director to use the best available science and apply well established risk assessment methods (The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality already has similar requirements).
H328: PUBLIC RECORDS – This amends existing law relating to public records to provide that public agencies may charge fees for the cost of filling requests for public records. This legislation was the result of records requests that were more like fishing expeditions and required a large commitment of staff time and copying thousands of pages.
HJR 2: NO MORE WILDERNESS - Idaho shall not support any wilderness designations without having used the public process, which includes the citizens of the state of Idaho, and urging our elected officials to defend this position whenever necessary with the full support of the citizens of the state.
S1001aa: SPECIALTY OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES – This amends existing law relating to all-terrain vehicles, utility type vehicles, specialty off-highway vehicles or motorbikes to revise provisions relating to certain operators of all-terrain vehicles, utility type vehicles, specialty off-highway vehicles or motorbikes on certain roads, to provide that certain unlicensed operators on national forest roads must have completed a safety course, to provide that a certificate or proof of completion shall be in the possession of the unlicensed operator and shall be provided for inspection upon request. This came about as a result of Forest Service action to close roads to ATV use because of concern for the safety of children under the age of 16 operating ATVs.
SCR105: WILD LANDS – This urges the Secretary of Interior to abandon the "Wild Lands" wilderness re-inventory and request the United States Congress to honor the longstanding commitment to multiple use management of public lands in Idaho and the western United States....
And some legislation that did not:
H242aa: EMINENT DOMAIN – This would have amended existing law to provide that eminent domain shall not be used for trails, bike paths, walking paths, greenways, or other alternate or limited use transportation corridors, except where bike lanes, bike paths, sidewalks, walking paths, greenways or other alternate or limited use corridors are adjoining or adjacent to highways, roads, streets, permitted bridges, toll roads, byroads, plank and turnpike roads. This passed the House but was held in the Senate Local Government Committee.
H268: EMINENT DOMAIN – This would have amended existing law relating to eminent domain to provide that certain entities exercising the right of eminent domain in behalf of certain public uses shall demonstrate that such use materially serves the interests of the citizens of Idaho. This bill would have applied to a private company trying to use eminent domain to build a merchant power transmission line that did not serve the interests of Idaho citizens. It was also held in the Senate State Affairs Committee after passing the House.
H347 would extend the rebate for those projects already in the works to December 31st. H348 would give the Idaho Public Utilities Commission jurisdiction over the avoided cost rates paid to PURPA solar and wind qualifying facilities. Only wind and solar projects producing 100 kW or less would continue to receive the standard avoided costs under PURPA but bigger projects would negotiate a purchase price.
When H347 failed by one vote in the Senate yesterday, the companion bill, H348, was returned to the State Affairs Committee at the request of Sen. Curt McKenzie.
An anti-degradation rule was negotiated this summer and fall. As with all rules it had to go by the legislature. In a rare move, the legislature chose to reject portions of the rule and replace them with H153. In doing so, legislators were acquiescing to a request by the industries involved and supported by the Department of Environmental Quality. They assured the legislators that this action will meet with EPA’s approval. Opponents may still proceed with a lawsuit to challenge the new rule and the statutory changes.
Under NOT SO STARTLING BUT IMPORTANT news: an amendment to Idaho’s current Right to Farm statute was challenged in committee hearings by several people whose concerns centered on dairies and confined animal feeding operations (CAFO). The amended law protects agricultural practices from nuisance lawsuits by adding an extensive list of standard agricultural practices. It does not add protection for negligent practices or change the current regulation of dairies or CAFOs. It also does not interfere with local planning and zoning authority. It passed the House and Senate and was signed by the Governor on April 6th.
Other Legislation That Made It:
H40: PROPANE FLAMING - There was a successful negotiated rulemaking to streamline the process for propane flaming of fields which is necessary for crops like mint but should not be regulated under the regular crop residue burning program. This bill changes the current law so that fees shall not apply to this practice.
H137a: ALTERATION OF CHANNELS OF STREAMS – This amends existing law relating to the alteration of channels of streams to provide that in specified situations, no permit shall be required by the state or any agency or political subdivision thereof from a water user or his agent.
H206: POULTRY – This adds to and amends existing law relating to poultry to provide for the Poultry Environmental Act; to provide for permits and registration of existing facilities; permits for expansions of operations; to provide for the design and construction of certain new and modified wastewater storage and containment facilities; to provide that the review and approval of plans by the Idaho Department of Agriculture shall supersede that of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality.
H270: AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT - RULEMAKING – This requires the director of the Idaho State Department of Agriculture to notify the public and the legislature in the event rules of the director are more stringent than federal law or regulations, or propose to regulate an activity not regulated by the federal government. It requires the director to use the best available science and apply well established risk assessment methods (The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality already has similar requirements).
H328: PUBLIC RECORDS – This amends existing law relating to public records to provide that public agencies may charge fees for the cost of filling requests for public records. This legislation was the result of records requests that were more like fishing expeditions and required a large commitment of staff time and copying thousands of pages.
HJR 2: NO MORE WILDERNESS - Idaho shall not support any wilderness designations without having used the public process, which includes the citizens of the state of Idaho, and urging our elected officials to defend this position whenever necessary with the full support of the citizens of the state.
S1001aa: SPECIALTY OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES – This amends existing law relating to all-terrain vehicles, utility type vehicles, specialty off-highway vehicles or motorbikes to revise provisions relating to certain operators of all-terrain vehicles, utility type vehicles, specialty off-highway vehicles or motorbikes on certain roads, to provide that certain unlicensed operators on national forest roads must have completed a safety course, to provide that a certificate or proof of completion shall be in the possession of the unlicensed operator and shall be provided for inspection upon request. This came about as a result of Forest Service action to close roads to ATV use because of concern for the safety of children under the age of 16 operating ATVs.
SCR105: WILD LANDS – This urges the Secretary of Interior to abandon the "Wild Lands" wilderness re-inventory and request the United States Congress to honor the longstanding commitment to multiple use management of public lands in Idaho and the western United States....
And some legislation that did not:
H242aa: EMINENT DOMAIN – This would have amended existing law to provide that eminent domain shall not be used for trails, bike paths, walking paths, greenways, or other alternate or limited use transportation corridors, except where bike lanes, bike paths, sidewalks, walking paths, greenways or other alternate or limited use corridors are adjoining or adjacent to highways, roads, streets, permitted bridges, toll roads, byroads, plank and turnpike roads. This passed the House but was held in the Senate Local Government Committee.
H268: EMINENT DOMAIN – This would have amended existing law relating to eminent domain to provide that certain entities exercising the right of eminent domain in behalf of certain public uses shall demonstrate that such use materially serves the interests of the citizens of Idaho. This bill would have applied to a private company trying to use eminent domain to build a merchant power transmission line that did not serve the interests of Idaho citizens. It was also held in the Senate State Affairs Committee after passing the House.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Federal agency has some 'splaining to do, lawmaker says
The 2011 state legislative session, in which almost every conversation was dominated by the subject of budget shortfalls, wrapped up today. 43 other states and the District of Columbia face similar difficulties, for a combined shortfall of $112 billion.
The federal budget for the fiscal year starting October 1, 2011 includes a $1.5 trillion deficit. Congress has not even finished the budget for this fiscal year. While all the wrangling is going on in Washington, D.C., agencies are presenting their budget requests for the next fiscal year. In light of the economy and the state of the national debt, it is surprising that not all of these agencies are setting their sights on making do with less. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) has submitted a budget that includes an increase of 15.8% ($700 million) over last year.
Rep. Doc Hastings (4th District of Washington), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee issued a statement to the oversight hearing on NOAA’s budget request. “This hearing is very important for my constituents in central Washington—as well as for Americans nationwide. As NOAA comes to testify in support of a sizable budget increase over current funding levels, many of the millions of people that live on the land and coastal areas NOAA regulates are struggling economically.”
He points out that for the past 20 years NOAA has expanded its management responsibilities over listed salmon to include 28 separate populations. NOAA has only finalized a handful of salmon recovery plans while increased lawsuits have taken a “huge bit out of our nation’s economy.”
NOAA has spent more than $150 million since 2001 studying the Steller sea lion which eats endangered salmon. It is suggesting new restriction on fishing in the western Aleutian Islands because of three tagged animals. The impact of these restrictions on the fishing economy of the islands would total up to $61 million per year.
With the 15.8% increase, NOAA will add expensive new satellite programs while cutting funds for existing fishery research vessels that provide data to guide fishery regulations. It also wants to create a new bureaucracy called the NOAA Climate Service which includes plans for a “customer engagement and education division.”
Maybe the federal bureaucracy has “some ‘splaining to do.”
Chairman Hastings' entire statement is below.
This hearing is very important for my constituents in central Washington—as well as for Americans nationwide. As NOAA comes to testify in support of a sizable budget increase over current funding levels, many of the millions of people that live on the land and coastal areas NOAA regulates are struggling economically.
For the past 20 years, NOAA has expanded its management responsibilities over Endangered Species Act-listed salmon to include 28 separate populations, resulting in severe economic impacts on vast portions of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California.
These listings have resulted in policies that require federal approval of literally every human activity involving water and salmon. Over the past decade, increased lawsuits against agriculture, irrigation, forestry, transportation, operators of clean hydropower-producing dams, and other development, have taken a huge bite out of our nation’s economy. These lawsuits have even blocked efforts to stop sea lions from eating more and more endangered salmon.
Despite several recent years of record and near-record salmon returns, not one population of salmon has been removed from the ESA list. NOAA has finalized only a handful of salmon recovery plans. NOAA has even suggested in a recent decision that more ESA-listed salmon species will be needed to feed another listed species under its jurisdiction—the orca whale.
President Obama, in his State of the Union address, referred to the duplicative federal endangered salmon management in the ocean and in rivers as an example of how the government needs to be more efficient and competent. I agree the federal government can and must be more efficient in these areas. Unfortunately, this latest NOAA budget request falls far short.
This budget request represents an increase of more than $700 million over current funding levels—a 15.8% increase—largely for expensive new satellite programs and to create a whole new bureaucracy—the NOAA Climate Service, including plans for a “customer engagement and education division.”
In exchange for that huge increase, NOAA seeks to ramp up law enforcement against fishermen in the midst of recent media reports that NOAA officials shredded documents, imposed unjustified fines and shut down fisheries.
NOAA also seeks a $37 million increase for a “national catch share program” –in the process moving money out of a more productive cooperative research program. While I understand the need to fund existing catch share programs, I am concerned that the Administration seems intent on imposing catch shares in fisheries where they are not wanted.
I am concerned with adequacy of NOAA’s data collection activities. This budget request significantly cuts ship time from fishery research vessels and heightens concerns about whether NOAA will have reliable science to guide its fishery regulations.
This data concern is particularly apparent in the science used by the agency to regulate activities—like ocean-based fishing—that might affect listed species.
Even though NOAA has spent more than $150 million since 2001 for Steller sea lion research, significant questions remain unanswered. This is especially true in the western Aleutian Islands where NOAA-imposed restrictions could result in up to $61 million in losses per year based on the actions of only three tagged animals. Such decisions made without adequate scientific information are unacceptable.
NOAA also seeks new funds to implement the controversial Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning initiative and National Ocean Council activities, which is constructed to lead to sweeping new regulations on coastal and inland waterway across the nation. I am troubled that these executive branch actions are moving forward without Congressional or statutory approval.
In the coming months, I look forward to a robust oversight of NOAA’s programs and activities to ensure that species, coastal area—and American jobs—are protected for generations to come, and that NOAA decisions are based on sound science and only move forward under proper statutory authority.
The federal budget for the fiscal year starting October 1, 2011 includes a $1.5 trillion deficit. Congress has not even finished the budget for this fiscal year. While all the wrangling is going on in Washington, D.C., agencies are presenting their budget requests for the next fiscal year. In light of the economy and the state of the national debt, it is surprising that not all of these agencies are setting their sights on making do with less. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) has submitted a budget that includes an increase of 15.8% ($700 million) over last year.
Rep. Doc Hastings (4th District of Washington), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee issued a statement to the oversight hearing on NOAA’s budget request. “This hearing is very important for my constituents in central Washington—as well as for Americans nationwide. As NOAA comes to testify in support of a sizable budget increase over current funding levels, many of the millions of people that live on the land and coastal areas NOAA regulates are struggling economically.”
He points out that for the past 20 years NOAA has expanded its management responsibilities over listed salmon to include 28 separate populations. NOAA has only finalized a handful of salmon recovery plans while increased lawsuits have taken a “huge bit out of our nation’s economy.”
NOAA has spent more than $150 million since 2001 studying the Steller sea lion which eats endangered salmon. It is suggesting new restriction on fishing in the western Aleutian Islands because of three tagged animals. The impact of these restrictions on the fishing economy of the islands would total up to $61 million per year.
With the 15.8% increase, NOAA will add expensive new satellite programs while cutting funds for existing fishery research vessels that provide data to guide fishery regulations. It also wants to create a new bureaucracy called the NOAA Climate Service which includes plans for a “customer engagement and education division.”
Maybe the federal bureaucracy has “some ‘splaining to do.”
Chairman Hastings' entire statement is below.
STATEMENT BY THE HONORABLE DOC HASTING
CHAIRMAN
HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
WILDLIFE, OCEANS, AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON
THE FY2012 BUDGET REQUEST OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC
AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)
MARCH 31, 2011
CHAIRMAN
HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
WILDLIFE, OCEANS, AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON
THE FY2012 BUDGET REQUEST OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC
AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)
MARCH 31, 2011
This hearing is very important for my constituents in central Washington—as well as for Americans nationwide. As NOAA comes to testify in support of a sizable budget increase over current funding levels, many of the millions of people that live on the land and coastal areas NOAA regulates are struggling economically.
For the past 20 years, NOAA has expanded its management responsibilities over Endangered Species Act-listed salmon to include 28 separate populations, resulting in severe economic impacts on vast portions of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California.
These listings have resulted in policies that require federal approval of literally every human activity involving water and salmon. Over the past decade, increased lawsuits against agriculture, irrigation, forestry, transportation, operators of clean hydropower-producing dams, and other development, have taken a huge bite out of our nation’s economy. These lawsuits have even blocked efforts to stop sea lions from eating more and more endangered salmon.
Despite several recent years of record and near-record salmon returns, not one population of salmon has been removed from the ESA list. NOAA has finalized only a handful of salmon recovery plans. NOAA has even suggested in a recent decision that more ESA-listed salmon species will be needed to feed another listed species under its jurisdiction—the orca whale.
President Obama, in his State of the Union address, referred to the duplicative federal endangered salmon management in the ocean and in rivers as an example of how the government needs to be more efficient and competent. I agree the federal government can and must be more efficient in these areas. Unfortunately, this latest NOAA budget request falls far short.
This budget request represents an increase of more than $700 million over current funding levels—a 15.8% increase—largely for expensive new satellite programs and to create a whole new bureaucracy—the NOAA Climate Service, including plans for a “customer engagement and education division.”
In exchange for that huge increase, NOAA seeks to ramp up law enforcement against fishermen in the midst of recent media reports that NOAA officials shredded documents, imposed unjustified fines and shut down fisheries.
NOAA also seeks a $37 million increase for a “national catch share program” –in the process moving money out of a more productive cooperative research program. While I understand the need to fund existing catch share programs, I am concerned that the Administration seems intent on imposing catch shares in fisheries where they are not wanted.
I am concerned with adequacy of NOAA’s data collection activities. This budget request significantly cuts ship time from fishery research vessels and heightens concerns about whether NOAA will have reliable science to guide its fishery regulations.
This data concern is particularly apparent in the science used by the agency to regulate activities—like ocean-based fishing—that might affect listed species.
Even though NOAA has spent more than $150 million since 2001 for Steller sea lion research, significant questions remain unanswered. This is especially true in the western Aleutian Islands where NOAA-imposed restrictions could result in up to $61 million in losses per year based on the actions of only three tagged animals. Such decisions made without adequate scientific information are unacceptable.
NOAA also seeks new funds to implement the controversial Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning initiative and National Ocean Council activities, which is constructed to lead to sweeping new regulations on coastal and inland waterway across the nation. I am troubled that these executive branch actions are moving forward without Congressional or statutory approval.
In the coming months, I look forward to a robust oversight of NOAA’s programs and activities to ensure that species, coastal area—and American jobs—are protected for generations to come, and that NOAA decisions are based on sound science and only move forward under proper statutory authority.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Right to Farm bill seeks to counter conflicts arising from urbanization in rural areas
The Senate Agricultural Affairs Committee heard testimony on H210, the Right to Farm bill on Tuesday, March 22. Roger Batt, representing several agricultural groups, opened with testimony on the importance of agriculture to the state. For every dollar that is generated by agriculture, $6 circulates through the community. Twenty percent of Idaho’s total workforce is related to agriculture.
Batt noted that farming operations need to expand if they are going to compete in global markets; however there has been dramatic growth in urbanization in the last few years. Canyon County has lost 25% of its ag land to urbanization between 2000 and 2007. The intent of this bill is to reduce the loss to the state of its agricultural resources.
H 210 is the result of thorough study of 50 right-to-farm statutes. Idaho’s current statute defines agriculture operations broadly and says that no city, county or taxing district can limit the right to farm. It does not, however, protect farming operations from nuisance lawsuits. This new law has been declared constitutional by the Idaho Attorney General’s office and does not deny local governments' ability to grant or deny a permit.
Expansions of farming operations are allowed if they follow applicable laws and the existing operation has been in place for one year. This legislation is not a CAFO or dairy bill and it does not protect a farmer from a lawsuit based on negligence.
Dan Steenson, the attorney who researched and helped draft the legislation went through each section of it and explained how it differed from current law and what it contained line by line.
Ben Otto, representing the Idaho Conservation League, raised concerns about the proposed legislation. ICL is concerned about expansion. Otto used the example of a retiree living on five acres the he has turned into a wildlife refuge. Then a cheese factory expands and becomes very loud. This bill would take away a right of action against an agricultural operation that expands and becomes a nuisance to the residents who were already living there.
Another person testified against the bill, citing a feedlot operation that she said had been out of compliance for 14 years and no one has done anything about the violations.
Individual farmers and representatives of agriculture groups testified in favor of the legislation.
After several questions from the committee members, the bill was sent to the Senate floor with a do-pass recommendation by a party line vote of six to two.
Batt noted that farming operations need to expand if they are going to compete in global markets; however there has been dramatic growth in urbanization in the last few years. Canyon County has lost 25% of its ag land to urbanization between 2000 and 2007. The intent of this bill is to reduce the loss to the state of its agricultural resources.
H 210 is the result of thorough study of 50 right-to-farm statutes. Idaho’s current statute defines agriculture operations broadly and says that no city, county or taxing district can limit the right to farm. It does not, however, protect farming operations from nuisance lawsuits. This new law has been declared constitutional by the Idaho Attorney General’s office and does not deny local governments' ability to grant or deny a permit.
Expansions of farming operations are allowed if they follow applicable laws and the existing operation has been in place for one year. This legislation is not a CAFO or dairy bill and it does not protect a farmer from a lawsuit based on negligence.
Dan Steenson, the attorney who researched and helped draft the legislation went through each section of it and explained how it differed from current law and what it contained line by line.
Ben Otto, representing the Idaho Conservation League, raised concerns about the proposed legislation. ICL is concerned about expansion. Otto used the example of a retiree living on five acres the he has turned into a wildlife refuge. Then a cheese factory expands and becomes very loud. This bill would take away a right of action against an agricultural operation that expands and becomes a nuisance to the residents who were already living there.
Another person testified against the bill, citing a feedlot operation that she said had been out of compliance for 14 years and no one has done anything about the violations.
Individual farmers and representatives of agriculture groups testified in favor of the legislation.
After several questions from the committee members, the bill was sent to the Senate floor with a do-pass recommendation by a party line vote of six to two.
Conservation Fund Raises Ire of Lawmakers
El Paso Western Pipeline Group president Jim Cleary presented to a joint session of the Senate Resources and Environment and House Resources and Conservation committees this week on a multi-million dollar conservation fund established to mitigate environmental impacts from the Ruby Pipeline. The project is a $3.5 billion, 680-mile buried pipeline that will conduct natural gas through Wyoming, Utah, Nevada and Oregon, serving roughly 4 million homes.
The Sagebrush Habitat Conservation Fund was established to address concerns of environmental groups that sued the company over anticipated impacts to the sage-steppe habitat through which it would be constructed. The fund’s board includes representation from Ruby Pipeline, the Western Watersheds Project – a party in one of the lawsuits against the project – and one independent member.
The fund will support conservation projects in the pipeline’s area of impact (which includes southern Idaho counties). It will also fund the purchase and retirement of grazing permits from willing sellers – a point which has caused a significant amount of anxiety among land users and policy makers throughout the western states impacted by the fund.
Lawmakers were quick to question assertions of the fund’s independence from the conservation groups who were a party to the settlement. The fund’s current president and executive director, Debra Ellers, negotiated the terms of the settlement of behalf of the environmental groups suing over the pipeline project and represents the Western Watershed Project’s interests.
There was also considerable consternation over what could be seen as a precedent for paying what lawmakers called “blood money” to appease environmental groups.
“You have set a template for a group that has as its mission to remove livestock from public lands,” said Senator Siddoway, a sheep rancher from eastern Idaho. “How is removing livestock going to alleviate the scars from construction on this project?”
“Traditionally, multiple land users stick together,” added Representative Bedke, “now we’re left with one of those multiple users setting the terms for the rest of us.”
Cleary disagreed that a precedent had been set.
“Typically such settlements involve writing a check to the organization bringing the suit,” he said. “We set up a fund with conservation at its center, but that funds projects aimed at conservation. Our mission is very different from that of Western Watersheds.” He gave lawmakers his word that no one would be coerced into selling grazing permits.
The Sagebrush Habitat Conservation Fund was established to address concerns of environmental groups that sued the company over anticipated impacts to the sage-steppe habitat through which it would be constructed. The fund’s board includes representation from Ruby Pipeline, the Western Watersheds Project – a party in one of the lawsuits against the project – and one independent member.
The fund will support conservation projects in the pipeline’s area of impact (which includes southern Idaho counties). It will also fund the purchase and retirement of grazing permits from willing sellers – a point which has caused a significant amount of anxiety among land users and policy makers throughout the western states impacted by the fund.
Lawmakers were quick to question assertions of the fund’s independence from the conservation groups who were a party to the settlement. The fund’s current president and executive director, Debra Ellers, negotiated the terms of the settlement of behalf of the environmental groups suing over the pipeline project and represents the Western Watershed Project’s interests.
There was also considerable consternation over what could be seen as a precedent for paying what lawmakers called “blood money” to appease environmental groups.
“You have set a template for a group that has as its mission to remove livestock from public lands,” said Senator Siddoway, a sheep rancher from eastern Idaho. “How is removing livestock going to alleviate the scars from construction on this project?”
“Traditionally, multiple land users stick together,” added Representative Bedke, “now we’re left with one of those multiple users setting the terms for the rest of us.”
Cleary disagreed that a precedent had been set.
“Typically such settlements involve writing a check to the organization bringing the suit,” he said. “We set up a fund with conservation at its center, but that funds projects aimed at conservation. Our mission is very different from that of Western Watersheds.” He gave lawmakers his word that no one would be coerced into selling grazing permits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)