Tuesday, November 11, 2008
What I am Working On
Now, you tell me, does this place need defending? Shall we see this area damned? Will we stand idly by while this area is destroyed? This is my sanctuary, this is my church. This is more important than irrigation, this is more important than some damn project to store water. The desert has just enough water. Just too many people. And this, this is not really the desert. Only the foothills going into the desert. This place needs help!
Monday, November 10, 2008
A little bit of rambling.
This is an excerpt from the journal I keep when I go into the woods.Deep In The Backcountry AgainAn unknown ridge, except to the sheep, the bear, birds, bugs and me. Climber's won't come here, too loose. Hikers won't come here, too much climbing. Hunters, HA!, too far away from where a horse can take them. The waterfall is half a mile, straight across, maybe three by hiking. I have always been told I have billy goat legs, this is a good thing. From where I sit, it is a good thousand foot drop, to my right, only a couple feet away. Best not to siesta here. I am recharged, refreshed, renewed. It must be how a Catholic feels, after Confession. I would not know of that. All I know is the deep connectedness I feel up here. I am alone, but totally surrounded. The chirp of grasshoppers on wing verify this, and remind me.I do not know where I am, in terms of a map. But, I know I am looking DOWN into Sunlight Peak's massive bowl. The sound of the waterfall is quite inviting. Funny, even with all it's rage, all it's volume, it still peters to nothing by the time it hits the road. I can see the road if I look behind me. I choose not to. There is too much looking behind in life, and far too many roads. In this place, there is no road. Thank God for wilderness, or there would be a tram to the top of this place by now. What drives me out here? I could build my little cabin up here, and you would never see me again. Is that bad? Why do people seem so terrified of running away? Don't they realize there is so much more out there, and beyond what they can see from the road?It feels good to get away. I am free to sing aloud, talk to myself, contemplate the deepest thoughts I have, and the only complaint heard is the whistle from the wind. She is not too cynical today, though, she seems to be agreeing with me. She, along with some clouds she blows in, have made, MADE, the place I sit. I feel like they have carved out this nook in the rock just for me, just waiting until I came along.I want to push up further. My view of a high mountain is blocked by a goblin of gneiss. I could climb up the once I am leaning on, but with the long fall to the right, this shitty bonded rock is not quite convincing me to caress her. If a man in the mountain falls, and no one is around, does he still make a sound?So many ridgelines up here to explore. I, for one, have always been more fond of following the ridgelines, rather than go up the bottoms of the canyons. I like to be able to see off into the distance, rather than just in front of me. I will look back only so I know how to get down. Right now, where I sit, that is a good thing. I am completely cliffed out, and taking the wrong way back, we may be able to test our falling theory. Walking and climbing the gneiss, or kitty litter, is an art form. For every step up, you lose two down. Maybe that is why people don't like hiking in the Absarokees. The bedrock is another fun concept, and challenge. Usually found right where you don't want to fall, raw cliff will be covered by an inch or less of tiny, tiny ball bearings. You don't sink enough to get traction, and the ball bearings cause even the best boots to skitter. Sticks from the ground are helpful. Move quickly, and take deliberate steps, hoping you find deeper scree before you get cliffed out and cannot go back. If the kitty litter is bad, the cliffs themselves are worse. Low angle, slabby nightmares, where every hold breaks off. Climb fast friends, and pray you don't crumble a hold, while you are using it!
Coalbed Methane, and what goes with it......
From the Billings Gazette. At least the state is stepping in and saying ENOUGH!
Fidelity violating permit with water tests
By CLAIR JOHNSON Of The Gazette StaffA state department has started enforcement action against a coalbed methane producer for repeatedly failing toxicity tests on water it discharges into the Tongue River.Fidelity Exploration and Production Co. violated the toxicity provision in its discharge permit 132 times in a 2 1/2-year period, from April 2006 through August 2008. The company also failed to submit an adequate compliance plan, said John Arrigo, administrator of Montana Department of Environmental Quality's Enforcement Division.Fidelity produces methane from coal beds in the Decker area of the Powder River Basin. Ground water pumped to the surface through the drilling for natural gas is discharged untreated into the Tongue at 15 sites covered by the permit. Fidelity is a subsidiary of MDU Resources Group Inc. and is based in Denver.Although tests are finding toxicity in the discharge water, that doesn't mean the Tongue River is being harmed, Arrigo said.
"We're don't have any dead fish," Arrigo said. "If we saw dead fish or saw effects on the receiving water, we would act more aggressively. But we don't see that."Rather, DEQ is seeing dead fleas - ceriodaphnia dubia fleas to be exact. The fleas are used in laboratory tests as an indicator of toxicity.Fidelity is required to test for toxics by taking samples of its discharge water and putting in organisms to see if they survive. In addition to the fleas, similar tests also are conducted on fathead minnows.Fidelity's tests using minnows have all passed. The tests using the fleas are failing, Arrigo said.While the toxicity failures have been consistent, pinpointing the cause has been difficult and expensive.Both DEQ and Fidelity officials said they are working to find a solution."It's complicated," Arrigo said. One test costs about $500 and Fidelity has done hundreds of them, he added.The problem has been that Fidelity hasn't been able to identify what is causing the toxicity. Despite a variety of tests on different discharges at different times, the results are inconsistent, Arrigo said.Joe Icenogle, a spokesperson for Fidelity, said the violations represent "a permit concern" and do not threaten or degrade the Tongue's water quality. "One of the things Fidelity, DEQ and everybody shares down there is the health of the Tongue River," he said.Fidelity has performed similar toxicity tests with fleas on Tongue River water samples taken six inches from its discharge points. "They've survived every time," Icenogle said.The tests require using nonnative fleas, Icenogle said. In some tests, the fleas are not surviving in undiluted discharge water, he said. Fleas start surviving when the coalbed discharge water is diluted 25 percent, he said."Our discharge into the Tongue River never makes up 75 percent of the total flow," he said. "It's less than 1 to 2 percent of the total flow of the river."Prior to April 2006, Fidelity passed its toxicity tests using another nonnative flea species, Icenogle said. DEQ then changed to a different flea species.Fidelity used to test once a year under a previous permit, Icenogle said. The company went to quarterly with the current permit. Because of the violations, the company has to test monthly.The company has hired water specialists, fisheries biologists and other consultants. There is a possibility that total dissolved solids may be the problem, Icenogle said, while researchers have pretty much eliminated methane in the water as the cause.There is a permit limit for total dissolved solids, and Fidelity is not exceeding it, Arrigo said.In the meantime, Fidelity is experimenting with running its discharge water through a holding tank before it enters the Tongue. The results have been variable, Icenogle said.Fidelity also submitted a compliance plan, but DEQ said it did not adequately describe how toxicity would be controlled. Failure to submit an adequate plan is a permit violation.Arrigo said in his enforcement letter Fidelity may have to develop a plan that addresses the overall quality of the wastewater, such as treating selected discharges. Also, some control options may require a permit modification.Icenogle said it was premature to say whether Fidelity would treat the discharge water. "We're working with them to reach a solution," he said of DEQ.DEQ has met with company officials and plans to meet again. DEQ is proposing the agency and Fidelity enter into a negotiated administrative order to resolve the violations. Penalties would be assessed but waived if Fidelity submits an adequate compliance plan and implements it in a timely manner, Arrigo said.The penalties would be used as leverage to require Fidelity to submit a more definite control plan in a tighter schedule, Arrigo said. "We want them to submit a better compliance plan. We're not interested in fining them a lot of money. We want them to do more faster. If they blow us off and say no, we have a variety of enforcement options."Contact Clair Johnson at cjohnson@billingsgazette.com or 657-1282.
Published on Monday, November 10, 2008.Last modified on 11/10/2008 at 4:42 pm
Fidelity violating permit with water tests
By CLAIR JOHNSON Of The Gazette StaffA state department has started enforcement action against a coalbed methane producer for repeatedly failing toxicity tests on water it discharges into the Tongue River.Fidelity Exploration and Production Co. violated the toxicity provision in its discharge permit 132 times in a 2 1/2-year period, from April 2006 through August 2008. The company also failed to submit an adequate compliance plan, said John Arrigo, administrator of Montana Department of Environmental Quality's Enforcement Division.Fidelity produces methane from coal beds in the Decker area of the Powder River Basin. Ground water pumped to the surface through the drilling for natural gas is discharged untreated into the Tongue at 15 sites covered by the permit. Fidelity is a subsidiary of MDU Resources Group Inc. and is based in Denver.Although tests are finding toxicity in the discharge water, that doesn't mean the Tongue River is being harmed, Arrigo said.
"We're don't have any dead fish," Arrigo said. "If we saw dead fish or saw effects on the receiving water, we would act more aggressively. But we don't see that."Rather, DEQ is seeing dead fleas - ceriodaphnia dubia fleas to be exact. The fleas are used in laboratory tests as an indicator of toxicity.Fidelity is required to test for toxics by taking samples of its discharge water and putting in organisms to see if they survive. In addition to the fleas, similar tests also are conducted on fathead minnows.Fidelity's tests using minnows have all passed. The tests using the fleas are failing, Arrigo said.While the toxicity failures have been consistent, pinpointing the cause has been difficult and expensive.Both DEQ and Fidelity officials said they are working to find a solution."It's complicated," Arrigo said. One test costs about $500 and Fidelity has done hundreds of them, he added.The problem has been that Fidelity hasn't been able to identify what is causing the toxicity. Despite a variety of tests on different discharges at different times, the results are inconsistent, Arrigo said.Joe Icenogle, a spokesperson for Fidelity, said the violations represent "a permit concern" and do not threaten or degrade the Tongue's water quality. "One of the things Fidelity, DEQ and everybody shares down there is the health of the Tongue River," he said.Fidelity has performed similar toxicity tests with fleas on Tongue River water samples taken six inches from its discharge points. "They've survived every time," Icenogle said.The tests require using nonnative fleas, Icenogle said. In some tests, the fleas are not surviving in undiluted discharge water, he said. Fleas start surviving when the coalbed discharge water is diluted 25 percent, he said."Our discharge into the Tongue River never makes up 75 percent of the total flow," he said. "It's less than 1 to 2 percent of the total flow of the river."Prior to April 2006, Fidelity passed its toxicity tests using another nonnative flea species, Icenogle said. DEQ then changed to a different flea species.Fidelity used to test once a year under a previous permit, Icenogle said. The company went to quarterly with the current permit. Because of the violations, the company has to test monthly.The company has hired water specialists, fisheries biologists and other consultants. There is a possibility that total dissolved solids may be the problem, Icenogle said, while researchers have pretty much eliminated methane in the water as the cause.There is a permit limit for total dissolved solids, and Fidelity is not exceeding it, Arrigo said.In the meantime, Fidelity is experimenting with running its discharge water through a holding tank before it enters the Tongue. The results have been variable, Icenogle said.Fidelity also submitted a compliance plan, but DEQ said it did not adequately describe how toxicity would be controlled. Failure to submit an adequate plan is a permit violation.Arrigo said in his enforcement letter Fidelity may have to develop a plan that addresses the overall quality of the wastewater, such as treating selected discharges. Also, some control options may require a permit modification.Icenogle said it was premature to say whether Fidelity would treat the discharge water. "We're working with them to reach a solution," he said of DEQ.DEQ has met with company officials and plans to meet again. DEQ is proposing the agency and Fidelity enter into a negotiated administrative order to resolve the violations. Penalties would be assessed but waived if Fidelity submits an adequate compliance plan and implements it in a timely manner, Arrigo said.The penalties would be used as leverage to require Fidelity to submit a more definite control plan in a tighter schedule, Arrigo said. "We want them to submit a better compliance plan. We're not interested in fining them a lot of money. We want them to do more faster. If they blow us off and say no, we have a variety of enforcement options."Contact Clair Johnson at cjohnson@billingsgazette.com or 657-1282.
Published on Monday, November 10, 2008.Last modified on 11/10/2008 at 4:42 pm
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Wolf Meeting Thoughts
First off, if you ever have a chance to go to a wolf meeting, do so, just for the amazing uneducated dialogue that takes place. I could have watched FOX news and been more educated.
This meeting was simply on the proposed changes for the Wyoming Wolf Management plan, since it was shot down by Judge Molloy in Montana earlier this year. Basically there were four main issues in the judges ruling to overturn Wyoming's management plan. They included: Genetic Connectivity, Minimum Population Commitment, The Trophy Game Management Area, and Depredation Control. This new Emergency Plan is supposed to be a way to address these issues a little bit better, and wishfully thinking, allow Wyoming to regain control of it's gray wolf population.
Bill Rudd basically walked through the word changes, and described them as simply a firmer commitment to maintaining the number of packs, in case something catastrophic happens withing the Parks. They also threw in a new little blurb about the genetic connectivity issue:
To the extent practicable, the Commission is committed to managing the gray wolves in Wyoming so that genetic diversity and connectivity issues do not threaten the gray wolf population. This will be accomplished by encouraging the incorporation of effective migrants into the gray wolf population. Conservation measures will include, but are not limited to, working with other states to promote natural dispersal into and within the WTGMA (Wolf Trophy Game Management Area) and, if necessary, by relocation and translocation. You know, I passed many a college biology test by simply being able to bullshit through what I thought the professor wanted to hear. This is a fine example of that. There is no plan here, no groundbreaking revelations, just a desperate attempt to blow smoke up the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's collective skirt.
There is also some new wording on Lethal Take Permits. Chapter 21, Section 3(a) Chapter 21, Section 3(a) defines "chronic wolf depredation" as "a geographic area limited to a specific parcel of private land or a specific grazing allotment described on the permit within the Wolf Trophy Game Management Area where gray wolves have repeatedly (twice or more within a two month period immediately preceding the date on which the owner applies for a lethal take permit) harassed, injured, maimed or killed livestock or domesticated animals." Wolves taken under the authority of a lethal take permit shall be reported to the Department representative specified on the permit within 23 hours. Lethal take permits shall expire on December 31 of the year issued. However, lethal take permits shall be immediately suspended or cancelled if the Department determines further lethal control may result in the number of wolves in the WTGMA decreasing below 15 breeding pairs or 150 wolves, or below 7 breeding pairs outside the national parks and parkway. In addition, lethal take permits shall be immediately suspended or cancelled if the Department determines further lethal control may result in the re listing of gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act. In either of these circumstances, non-lethal control actions shall be initiated to mitigate continued harassment, injury, maiming or killing of livestock or domesticated animals. Whew! My fingers hurt after that, and what exactly does all that say? Basically if you are Joe Shmoe rancher, and you have evidence of wolves killing animals, you can apply for this permit that will allow you to shoot them on sight. After you kill your two wolves, you can reapply for another permit. Now, there is also a state law, pertaining to all predators, that allows for Joe Schmoe rancher to blast an animal in the act, or even thinking of the act "as a reasonable person would suspect" of hurting their livestock. Add on top of all that, the control measures that the Feds and State will be doing, and it is open season.
Predator status is still a go, one of the main hang ups with a lot of people, myself included. Outside of the WTGMA, people would still be allowed to blast any wolf they saw, for any reason, unless the number of packs falls below 15, where the Feds would step back in and take control. With the changes to the law, you would no longer be required to turn over a pelt and skull, only report your name and address, the date of the kill, the sex of the wolf, and a location. And, this makes me laugh quite hard. The Department may also seek the person's cooperation in obtaining any additional information relevant to wolf management, as warranted. If someone is out shooting wolves for pleasure, what do you think his response is going to be on management? This is not rocket science people!
A fairly large issue was brought up, concerning the word "predator". That, as already stated, is a major hang up with the judge in Montana. So why not remove that word? I have my own theories on that, but the way it has been pushed through is simple. The state has to have this plan into the USFWS by November 28th. The Wyoming Commission does not meet until November 17th and 18th, and the State Legislature does not meet until February 14th. The word predator is in law, and can only be repealed by Legislature. Now, a Representative from the Wyoming Government was there, and he said, something to the effect of "Well you people have already been liberal with your Plan under the law, why don't you just remove it and call it good." No one wants to remove that particular word, it is what has held Wyoming up this whole time. If that word were removed, this would go through.
So, what does this mean, long and short? It means victory for people who would like to keep wolf management in the hands of the Federal Government. Wyoming has had it's chance to change the laws, remove predator status, and be cooperative, and they have blown it. They have made their bed, now it is time for them to sleep in it. As for what it means for Wyoming? I doubt we will be re-gaining control in a timely manner. The wording in this emergency plan does not address the issues of litigation proposed by Molloy, and, in fact, adds to the issues in certain places.
Public comments are due in the office of the Wyoming Game and Fish by November 10th. Your comment must be in their hands on this date.
The address to write to is:
Wolf Plan Comments
Attn: Bea Pepper
Wyoming Game and Fish Department
5400 Bishop Blvd
Cheyenne, WY 82006
The next planned meeting in Cody is December 16th.
This meeting was simply on the proposed changes for the Wyoming Wolf Management plan, since it was shot down by Judge Molloy in Montana earlier this year. Basically there were four main issues in the judges ruling to overturn Wyoming's management plan. They included: Genetic Connectivity, Minimum Population Commitment, The Trophy Game Management Area, and Depredation Control. This new Emergency Plan is supposed to be a way to address these issues a little bit better, and wishfully thinking, allow Wyoming to regain control of it's gray wolf population.
Bill Rudd basically walked through the word changes, and described them as simply a firmer commitment to maintaining the number of packs, in case something catastrophic happens withing the Parks. They also threw in a new little blurb about the genetic connectivity issue:
To the extent practicable, the Commission is committed to managing the gray wolves in Wyoming so that genetic diversity and connectivity issues do not threaten the gray wolf population. This will be accomplished by encouraging the incorporation of effective migrants into the gray wolf population. Conservation measures will include, but are not limited to, working with other states to promote natural dispersal into and within the WTGMA (Wolf Trophy Game Management Area) and, if necessary, by relocation and translocation. You know, I passed many a college biology test by simply being able to bullshit through what I thought the professor wanted to hear. This is a fine example of that. There is no plan here, no groundbreaking revelations, just a desperate attempt to blow smoke up the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's collective skirt.
There is also some new wording on Lethal Take Permits. Chapter 21, Section 3(a) Chapter 21, Section 3(a) defines "chronic wolf depredation" as "a geographic area limited to a specific parcel of private land or a specific grazing allotment described on the permit within the Wolf Trophy Game Management Area where gray wolves have repeatedly (twice or more within a two month period immediately preceding the date on which the owner applies for a lethal take permit) harassed, injured, maimed or killed livestock or domesticated animals." Wolves taken under the authority of a lethal take permit shall be reported to the Department representative specified on the permit within 23 hours. Lethal take permits shall expire on December 31 of the year issued. However, lethal take permits shall be immediately suspended or cancelled if the Department determines further lethal control may result in the number of wolves in the WTGMA decreasing below 15 breeding pairs or 150 wolves, or below 7 breeding pairs outside the national parks and parkway. In addition, lethal take permits shall be immediately suspended or cancelled if the Department determines further lethal control may result in the re listing of gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act. In either of these circumstances, non-lethal control actions shall be initiated to mitigate continued harassment, injury, maiming or killing of livestock or domesticated animals. Whew! My fingers hurt after that, and what exactly does all that say? Basically if you are Joe Shmoe rancher, and you have evidence of wolves killing animals, you can apply for this permit that will allow you to shoot them on sight. After you kill your two wolves, you can reapply for another permit. Now, there is also a state law, pertaining to all predators, that allows for Joe Schmoe rancher to blast an animal in the act, or even thinking of the act "as a reasonable person would suspect" of hurting their livestock. Add on top of all that, the control measures that the Feds and State will be doing, and it is open season.
Predator status is still a go, one of the main hang ups with a lot of people, myself included. Outside of the WTGMA, people would still be allowed to blast any wolf they saw, for any reason, unless the number of packs falls below 15, where the Feds would step back in and take control. With the changes to the law, you would no longer be required to turn over a pelt and skull, only report your name and address, the date of the kill, the sex of the wolf, and a location. And, this makes me laugh quite hard. The Department may also seek the person's cooperation in obtaining any additional information relevant to wolf management, as warranted. If someone is out shooting wolves for pleasure, what do you think his response is going to be on management? This is not rocket science people!
A fairly large issue was brought up, concerning the word "predator". That, as already stated, is a major hang up with the judge in Montana. So why not remove that word? I have my own theories on that, but the way it has been pushed through is simple. The state has to have this plan into the USFWS by November 28th. The Wyoming Commission does not meet until November 17th and 18th, and the State Legislature does not meet until February 14th. The word predator is in law, and can only be repealed by Legislature. Now, a Representative from the Wyoming Government was there, and he said, something to the effect of "Well you people have already been liberal with your Plan under the law, why don't you just remove it and call it good." No one wants to remove that particular word, it is what has held Wyoming up this whole time. If that word were removed, this would go through.
So, what does this mean, long and short? It means victory for people who would like to keep wolf management in the hands of the Federal Government. Wyoming has had it's chance to change the laws, remove predator status, and be cooperative, and they have blown it. They have made their bed, now it is time for them to sleep in it. As for what it means for Wyoming? I doubt we will be re-gaining control in a timely manner. The wording in this emergency plan does not address the issues of litigation proposed by Molloy, and, in fact, adds to the issues in certain places.
Public comments are due in the office of the Wyoming Game and Fish by November 10th. Your comment must be in their hands on this date.
The address to write to is:
Wolf Plan Comments
Attn: Bea Pepper
Wyoming Game and Fish Department
5400 Bishop Blvd
Cheyenne, WY 82006
The next planned meeting in Cody is December 16th.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Wolf Comment Meeting Tomorrow!
If you don't show up and comment, you have absolutely no right to bitch. Here is OUR time to let all of our voices be heard.
The Game and Fish Department has released a draft revised version of the gray wolf management plan for public comment.The draft revised plan addresses many of the issues brought up in recent court decisions regarding removal of the Northern Rocky Mountain population of wolves from the federal Threatened and Endangered Species List.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reopened the public comment period on its proposal to delist the wolves.
That public comment period ends Nov. 28.Wyoming's revised plan will be submitted to the USFWS during this comment period as part of Wyoming's comments on the federal delisting proposal.Revisions to Wyoming's wolf plan are consistent with emergency rule changes to G&F regulations.Those emergency rules were signed by Wyoming Game and Fish Commission president Jerry Galles and Gov. Dave Freudenthal Oct. 27 and are in effect for 120 days.G&F is initiating a formal rulemaking process to make those rules permanent.“First of all, these rules do not become effective unless and until the wolf is delisted in Wyoming,” Freudenthal said. “This is an attempt to operate within the current statute and to be responsive to the signals that we are receiving from USFWS and the judge in Montana.”G&F will hold two public meetings to discuss the revised plan and accept public comments.�Cody, 7 p.m. Nov. 5 at the Holiday Inn.�Lander, 7 p.m. Nov. 6 at the Lander Community Center.The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission will review public comments and take action on the revised plan at the commission's next meeting Nov. 17-18 in Jackson.Written public comments on the revised plan will be accepted at the Cody and Lander meetings, by mail or by fax and must be received by 5 p.m. Nov. 10.“We realize this is a tight time frame for public review,” said G&F director Steve Ferrell. “Our goal is to have a revised plan approved by the Game and Fish Commission at their next meeting. This will allow the USFWS to consider a revised Wyoming plan as they move forward with another delisting proposal.”Draft revisions to the plan include language to clarify Wyoming's commitment to maintain at least 15 breeding pairs of wolves and 150 individual wolves in the established Trophy Game Management Area. The draft also addresses actions the commission will take if numbers within Yellowstone and Grand Teton parks and the Rockefeller Parkway drop below eight breeding pairs.Other revisions in the draft include shortening some reporting requirements for those who kill wolves, either through licensed hunting or through livestock depredation actions, further defining “damage to private property” and “chronic wolf depredation,” further restricting the Game and Fish Commission's ability to change the boundaries of the Trophy Game Management Area and restricting lethal take permits to no more than two wolves.The Game and Fish Commission last revised its wolf management plan in November 2007. That plan was subsequently accepted by the USFWS.Wolves were removed from the federal Threatened and Endangered Species List in March 2008, and were subsequently relisted in September 2008, after a federal judge in Montana granted a preliminary injunction against the delisting decision and the USFWS requested a remand of their delisting rule.“We see revising Wyoming's plan to address the judge's concerns as a necessary step toward getting wolves permanently delisted,” Ferrell said. “It's clear that wolves are recovered in the Northern Rocky Mountains and doing well. We have more than five times the number of wolves called for in the original delisting proposal. It's time for them to be delisted and for the states to assume management.”
The Game and Fish Department has released a draft revised version of the gray wolf management plan for public comment.The draft revised plan addresses many of the issues brought up in recent court decisions regarding removal of the Northern Rocky Mountain population of wolves from the federal Threatened and Endangered Species List.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reopened the public comment period on its proposal to delist the wolves.
That public comment period ends Nov. 28.Wyoming's revised plan will be submitted to the USFWS during this comment period as part of Wyoming's comments on the federal delisting proposal.Revisions to Wyoming's wolf plan are consistent with emergency rule changes to G&F regulations.Those emergency rules were signed by Wyoming Game and Fish Commission president Jerry Galles and Gov. Dave Freudenthal Oct. 27 and are in effect for 120 days.G&F is initiating a formal rulemaking process to make those rules permanent.“First of all, these rules do not become effective unless and until the wolf is delisted in Wyoming,” Freudenthal said. “This is an attempt to operate within the current statute and to be responsive to the signals that we are receiving from USFWS and the judge in Montana.”G&F will hold two public meetings to discuss the revised plan and accept public comments.�Cody, 7 p.m. Nov. 5 at the Holiday Inn.�Lander, 7 p.m. Nov. 6 at the Lander Community Center.The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission will review public comments and take action on the revised plan at the commission's next meeting Nov. 17-18 in Jackson.Written public comments on the revised plan will be accepted at the Cody and Lander meetings, by mail or by fax and must be received by 5 p.m. Nov. 10.“We realize this is a tight time frame for public review,” said G&F director Steve Ferrell. “Our goal is to have a revised plan approved by the Game and Fish Commission at their next meeting. This will allow the USFWS to consider a revised Wyoming plan as they move forward with another delisting proposal.”Draft revisions to the plan include language to clarify Wyoming's commitment to maintain at least 15 breeding pairs of wolves and 150 individual wolves in the established Trophy Game Management Area. The draft also addresses actions the commission will take if numbers within Yellowstone and Grand Teton parks and the Rockefeller Parkway drop below eight breeding pairs.Other revisions in the draft include shortening some reporting requirements for those who kill wolves, either through licensed hunting or through livestock depredation actions, further defining “damage to private property” and “chronic wolf depredation,” further restricting the Game and Fish Commission's ability to change the boundaries of the Trophy Game Management Area and restricting lethal take permits to no more than two wolves.The Game and Fish Commission last revised its wolf management plan in November 2007. That plan was subsequently accepted by the USFWS.Wolves were removed from the federal Threatened and Endangered Species List in March 2008, and were subsequently relisted in September 2008, after a federal judge in Montana granted a preliminary injunction against the delisting decision and the USFWS requested a remand of their delisting rule.“We see revising Wyoming's plan to address the judge's concerns as a necessary step toward getting wolves permanently delisted,” Ferrell said. “It's clear that wolves are recovered in the Northern Rocky Mountains and doing well. We have more than five times the number of wolves called for in the original delisting proposal. It's time for them to be delisted and for the states to assume management.”
Yellowstone Winter Use Plan
A new winter use plan for Yellowstone and Grand Teton parks would provide for limited, guided snowmobile and snowcoach travel, including over Sylvan Pass, this winter.The two parks are seeking public comment through Nov. 17 on the proposal, which was released Monday and replaces a previous plan that was rejected by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., in September.The 2008-09 winter season is scheduled to open Dec. 15.
“Neither snowmobiles nor snowcoaches can be allowed in the parks this winter without (adopting) a new plan and new regulation,” Yellowstone spokesman Al Nash said Monday.The preferred alternative would allow up to 318 commercially guided, Best Available Technology (BAT) snowmobiles, and up to 78 snowcoaches per day in Yellowstone.The preferred alternative would also provide for motorized oversnow travel over Sylvan Pass and Yellowstone's East Entrance road, as agreed to this summer by the Sylvan Pass Study Group.Daily snowmobile limits in the new plan are slightly above last winter's average of 294 snowmobiles per day, but well below the 720 per day allowed the past four winters, and lower than the 540 snowmobiles a day that would have been allowed this winter under the plan rejected by the judge.The daily snowcoach limit is the same as allowed during the past four years.“I'm happy the Park Service and Department of the Interior are taking action to keep the park open for this coming winter season,” state Rep. Colin Simpson of Cody said Monday. He serves on the study group that worked to keep the east gate open in winter. The initial NPS decision was to close it for safety and financial reasons.“Regardless of the numbers they're using, something needs to be done to keep (the parks) open,” Simpson added. “They have used a number that was upheld in the 2004 EA, and I'm sure since it's survived judicial scrutiny once, it could do so again.”He added that he is pleased the agencies “are honoring the agreement on Sylvan Pass, which is the right thing to do.”In Grand Teton and the Rockefeller Parkway, grooming and motorized oversnow travel on the Continental Divide Snowmobile Trail between Moran Junction and Flagg Ranch would be discontinued.However, those interested in through travel on the CDST could transport their snowmobiles on trailers between these locations, Nash said.A total of 25 snowmobiles per day would be allowed to travel on the Grassy Lake Road, with no BAT or guiding requirement.In addition, 25 unguided BAT snowmobiles per day also would be allowed on Jackson Lake for ice fishing.The plan would be in effect for up to three winters in Yellowstone.“Park managers believe an approach including both snowmobile and snowcoach access reduces impacts of both to acceptable levels,” Nash said. “This environmental assessment addresses the impact concerns raised by the recent ruling of the U.S. District Court.”The Winter Use Plan's Environmental Assessment (EA) and an electronic form to submit comments can be found at http://parkplanning.nps.gov.Written comments, due by Nov. 17, may be submitted through this Web site.Nash said a proposed rule to implement the preferred alternative in the new plan will be published within a few days in the Federal Register, and also will be open for a 15-day public comment period.Once comments are analyzed, the Park Service will make a decision on the proposed plan, Nash said.If the preferred alternative is selected, the Regional Director of the Intermountain Region of the Park Service will sign a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) containing details of his decision.A final rule would have to be published in the Federal Register to implement the FONSI and provide for motorized oversnow travel in the parks this winter.The Park Service expects to have a decision on winter use prior by the Dec. 15 start of the winter season.Document requests also may be made by sending an e-mail to yell_winter_use@nps.gov or calling (307) 344-2019.(Carole Cloudwalker can be reached at carole@codyenterprise.com.)
“Neither snowmobiles nor snowcoaches can be allowed in the parks this winter without (adopting) a new plan and new regulation,” Yellowstone spokesman Al Nash said Monday.The preferred alternative would allow up to 318 commercially guided, Best Available Technology (BAT) snowmobiles, and up to 78 snowcoaches per day in Yellowstone.The preferred alternative would also provide for motorized oversnow travel over Sylvan Pass and Yellowstone's East Entrance road, as agreed to this summer by the Sylvan Pass Study Group.Daily snowmobile limits in the new plan are slightly above last winter's average of 294 snowmobiles per day, but well below the 720 per day allowed the past four winters, and lower than the 540 snowmobiles a day that would have been allowed this winter under the plan rejected by the judge.The daily snowcoach limit is the same as allowed during the past four years.“I'm happy the Park Service and Department of the Interior are taking action to keep the park open for this coming winter season,” state Rep. Colin Simpson of Cody said Monday. He serves on the study group that worked to keep the east gate open in winter. The initial NPS decision was to close it for safety and financial reasons.“Regardless of the numbers they're using, something needs to be done to keep (the parks) open,” Simpson added. “They have used a number that was upheld in the 2004 EA, and I'm sure since it's survived judicial scrutiny once, it could do so again.”He added that he is pleased the agencies “are honoring the agreement on Sylvan Pass, which is the right thing to do.”In Grand Teton and the Rockefeller Parkway, grooming and motorized oversnow travel on the Continental Divide Snowmobile Trail between Moran Junction and Flagg Ranch would be discontinued.However, those interested in through travel on the CDST could transport their snowmobiles on trailers between these locations, Nash said.A total of 25 snowmobiles per day would be allowed to travel on the Grassy Lake Road, with no BAT or guiding requirement.In addition, 25 unguided BAT snowmobiles per day also would be allowed on Jackson Lake for ice fishing.The plan would be in effect for up to three winters in Yellowstone.“Park managers believe an approach including both snowmobile and snowcoach access reduces impacts of both to acceptable levels,” Nash said. “This environmental assessment addresses the impact concerns raised by the recent ruling of the U.S. District Court.”The Winter Use Plan's Environmental Assessment (EA) and an electronic form to submit comments can be found at http://parkplanning.nps.gov.Written comments, due by Nov. 17, may be submitted through this Web site.Nash said a proposed rule to implement the preferred alternative in the new plan will be published within a few days in the Federal Register, and also will be open for a 15-day public comment period.Once comments are analyzed, the Park Service will make a decision on the proposed plan, Nash said.If the preferred alternative is selected, the Regional Director of the Intermountain Region of the Park Service will sign a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) containing details of his decision.A final rule would have to be published in the Federal Register to implement the FONSI and provide for motorized oversnow travel in the parks this winter.The Park Service expects to have a decision on winter use prior by the Dec. 15 start of the winter season.Document requests also may be made by sending an e-mail to yell_winter_use@nps.gov or calling (307) 344-2019.(Carole Cloudwalker can be reached at carole@codyenterprise.com.)
Monday, November 3, 2008
A Note From Katie Lee
Bless her, she made my day. Gives me a little bit more hope, that I am not alone.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
