BuzzH
Well-known member
The Energy Bill:
Fewer Fish and Fewer Hunting Opportunities
By Craig Sharpe, Executive Director
From: Montana Wildlife
A Publication of the Montana Wildlife Federation
Volume 28 • Number 2• February/March 2004
Imagine arriving at your favorite fishing spot only to find the river is now so high in bicarbonates that few, if any, fish survive. Or you head for your favorite spring creek to find it all dried up. Maybe you venture to your best pronghorn hunting area only to discover its now a web of roads, powerlines, waste pits and a gas well or two on every 20 acre patch. Sound farfetched? It’s already happening in some places, and may get worse if the energy bill currently before the US Senate is passed. In a recent article for Field & Stream magazine, writer Ted Kerasote summed it up this way: “If these energy policies continue, we will have more rivers without fish and fewer hunting opportunities.”
In late January, I helped organize a trip to Washington DC, sponsored by Trout Unlimited, accompanying a half dozen other hunters and anglers from throughout the Rockies, including fellow Montanans Stoney Burk, of Choteau, and Ryan Busse, of Kalispell. When we sat down with a legislative aid to Montana Senator Conrad Burns, and said we had concerns about how the energy bill might impact hunting and fishing, she shot back, “Well that’s because it’s an energy bill, not a hunting and fishing bill.” When I handed her a summary of our concerns, she tossed it back at me, saying, “I don’t read those, because I know they’re not accurate.” It was obvious that neither she nor Burns had any interest in hearing us out. Another meeting, with an aid to Senator Baucus, was more friendly, but still disappointing. Baucus has shown support for the bill, and appears to be less aggressive on his previous commitments to protect the Rocky Mountain Front. Congressman Rehberg also supports the energy bill, having helped push it through the House.
At a symposium conducted by Montana Wildlife Federation (MWF) last September in Choteau, dozens of anglers, hunters, outfitters, ranchers, businessmen, tribal leaders and other local Montanans spoke of the importance of the Rocky Mountain Front for wildlife, hunting and fishing, and spoke against policies that would open parts of these wildlands to expanded gas and oil development. Noticeably absent, though invited, were any representatives from Burns, Baucus or Rehberg’s offices.
Some elected officials in DC seem more interested in doling out some $28 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to the oil and gas industry, and turning them loose on our public lands, than listening to the concerns of constituents.
For Montana, the Energy Bill would mean further expansion of Coal Bed Methane development in eastern Montana, and calls for “expediting” energy development in places like the Rocky Mountain Front.
The bill would exempt energy companies from key parts of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, diminish public participation and weaken regulations that protect fish and wildlife. More specifically, the bill would:
Allow for drilling fluids and other byproducts of gas and oil development to be injected into the ground, potentially contaminating rivers, streams, wells and groundwater.
Require the Bureau of Land Management to make decisions on new energy development applications within 10-30 days, making it nearly impossible for the agency to conduct crucial analysis necessary to protect fish and wildlife.
Undermine traditional multiple-use management of public lands by requiring documentation of any actions that have “a significant adverse effect on the supply of domestic energy resources from Federal public lands,” giving energy development priority over fish and wildlife habitat, hunting, fishing and other recreational activities.
Perpetuate the idea that important seasonal restrictions and limitations on development put in place to conserve fish and wildlife habitat conservation and protecting water are “impediments” to energy development.
Allow the Interior Department to designate utility and pipe line corridors across public lands (including wilderness areas, wild and scenic river corridors and National Parks and Monuments) without accountability or input from the public.
What does this mean for Montana’s fish and wildlife? More than 22 million acres—24 percent of Montana—falls within areas of recoverable gas and oil where development could occur. Nearly 25 percent of Montana’s mule deer habitat, 26 percent of pronghorn habitat, 16 percent of sage grouse habitat and 15 percent of our elk habitat falls within areas of potential gas and oil development. More than 15 percent of all trout habitat in the five Rocky Mountain states fall within areas containing gas and oil reserves (including 50 percent of Yellowstone cutthroat trout habitat, nearly 40 percent of fine spotted and Bonneville cutthroat habitat, and 20 percent of Colorado River cutthroat habitat). Potential impacts include reduced water quality, reduced water quantity, loss of fish and wildlife habitat, wildlife habitat fragmentation, wildlife habitat disturbance, reduced wildlife habitat security, increased wildlife vulnerability and diminished aesthetics and loss of wild places.
Following our visit to the nation’s Capital, Senator Burns released a statement in defense of the energy bill: “Here’s the simple truth,” he said, “without it, we will continue to face soaring natural gas prices and limited access to affordable energy…with today’s technology there’s no reason to choose between energy production and recreation. We can do both.”
Reports from the US Department of Energy and US Geological Survey show that 88 percent of recoverable natural gas in the Rockies falls within areas already open to gas and oil development, with little if any restrictions—enough to meet our energy needs for the next 35-40 years. According to the US Energy Information Administration, streamlining environmental reviews and increasing access to federal natural gas on public lands (as the energy bill will do) would increase supplies by less than one percent and save the average U.S. household $5 per year through 2020. The simple truth is this: The potentially devastating impacts to fish, wildlife and our hunting and angling heritage is not worth what little there is to gain. Energy can be done right, but this bill rewards industry for irresponsible development. We do not need to expedite development, undermine conservation regulations, exempt the industry from the Clean Water Act, and open up the last of our wildlands to meet our energy needs. These outrageous policies—hatched in secrecy by President Bush’s Energy Task Force headed by Vice President Cheney—are already beginning to have severe impacts.
A study on Montana’s Tongue River indicates a dramatic decline—as high as 70 percent—in mayflies, caddisflies, dragonflies and other macroinvertabrates caused by coal bed methane discharges. The American Fisheries Society warns that the release of toxic bicarbonates from coal bed methane wastewater can have serious impacts on fisheries. The Bureau of Land Management states that “indirect discharge of concentrated salts from evaporation basins may have profound effects on fish and aquatic life.” A report by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality’s Industrial and Energy Minerals Bureau states that coal bed methane wastewater “may have substantial adverse chemical impacts on irrigated lands and crops, livestock, wildlife and fish populations.”
Montana Rancher and MWF member Clint McRae, of Forsyth, puts it this way: “I live in an area where there is approximately 10,000 coal bed methane wells planned, and at a spacing of one well every 80 acres, with each of these wells initially producing 60 gallons of water per minute, this will wreak havoc on wildlife, wildlife habitat and agriculture. I too use energy from natural resources, but that does not mean that I am willing to prostitute my ranch of the public wildlife and habitat for a short term gain.”
If, as Burns suggests, technology can prevent impacts to wildlife and fisheries, and we can have both, it’s not being done on the ground. Gas and oil development is spreading across Wyoming like cancer, choking crucial migratory corridors for pronghorn and mule deer, causing disturbance on crucial winter range, and impacting wildlife far beyond the “small footprint” that some politicians and industry folks often tout. In the Big Piney-LaBarge oil and gas field in Wyoming, the physical area of structures, roads, pipeline, pads and waste pits covers only 7 square miles. However, the entire 166 square mile landscape is within ½-mile of a road, and 160 square miles—or 97 percent of the landscape—is within ¼ mile of a road. Similar developments are proposed throughout the West.
Certainly we need new energy policies to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and increase our nation’s security. However, we do not need to sacrifice America’s fish, wildlife and hunting and angling heritage. We need a more balanced, common-sense policy that promotes responsible, environmentally and economically sound energy development; emphasizes efficient methods of energy use and extraction, and seeks to expand the development of alternative and renewable sources of energy.
In 1910, President Theodore Roosevelt said, “I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us.”
Our elected officials should heed Roosevelt’s advice, listen to the hunters and anglers of Montana, and develop a more prudent and conservative energy policy that does not sacrifice our public lands, fisheries, wildlife and hunting and angling heritage.
In the words of Montana Rancher Karl Rappold, of Depuyer: “If we’re this short of gas that we have to ruin every last piece of ground, it’s time we found a new source of energy. We need some of these places left just the way they are, just the way nature created them.”
Fewer Fish and Fewer Hunting Opportunities
By Craig Sharpe, Executive Director
From: Montana Wildlife
A Publication of the Montana Wildlife Federation
Volume 28 • Number 2• February/March 2004
Imagine arriving at your favorite fishing spot only to find the river is now so high in bicarbonates that few, if any, fish survive. Or you head for your favorite spring creek to find it all dried up. Maybe you venture to your best pronghorn hunting area only to discover its now a web of roads, powerlines, waste pits and a gas well or two on every 20 acre patch. Sound farfetched? It’s already happening in some places, and may get worse if the energy bill currently before the US Senate is passed. In a recent article for Field & Stream magazine, writer Ted Kerasote summed it up this way: “If these energy policies continue, we will have more rivers without fish and fewer hunting opportunities.”
In late January, I helped organize a trip to Washington DC, sponsored by Trout Unlimited, accompanying a half dozen other hunters and anglers from throughout the Rockies, including fellow Montanans Stoney Burk, of Choteau, and Ryan Busse, of Kalispell. When we sat down with a legislative aid to Montana Senator Conrad Burns, and said we had concerns about how the energy bill might impact hunting and fishing, she shot back, “Well that’s because it’s an energy bill, not a hunting and fishing bill.” When I handed her a summary of our concerns, she tossed it back at me, saying, “I don’t read those, because I know they’re not accurate.” It was obvious that neither she nor Burns had any interest in hearing us out. Another meeting, with an aid to Senator Baucus, was more friendly, but still disappointing. Baucus has shown support for the bill, and appears to be less aggressive on his previous commitments to protect the Rocky Mountain Front. Congressman Rehberg also supports the energy bill, having helped push it through the House.
At a symposium conducted by Montana Wildlife Federation (MWF) last September in Choteau, dozens of anglers, hunters, outfitters, ranchers, businessmen, tribal leaders and other local Montanans spoke of the importance of the Rocky Mountain Front for wildlife, hunting and fishing, and spoke against policies that would open parts of these wildlands to expanded gas and oil development. Noticeably absent, though invited, were any representatives from Burns, Baucus or Rehberg’s offices.
Some elected officials in DC seem more interested in doling out some $28 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to the oil and gas industry, and turning them loose on our public lands, than listening to the concerns of constituents.
For Montana, the Energy Bill would mean further expansion of Coal Bed Methane development in eastern Montana, and calls for “expediting” energy development in places like the Rocky Mountain Front.
The bill would exempt energy companies from key parts of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, diminish public participation and weaken regulations that protect fish and wildlife. More specifically, the bill would:
Allow for drilling fluids and other byproducts of gas and oil development to be injected into the ground, potentially contaminating rivers, streams, wells and groundwater.
Require the Bureau of Land Management to make decisions on new energy development applications within 10-30 days, making it nearly impossible for the agency to conduct crucial analysis necessary to protect fish and wildlife.
Undermine traditional multiple-use management of public lands by requiring documentation of any actions that have “a significant adverse effect on the supply of domestic energy resources from Federal public lands,” giving energy development priority over fish and wildlife habitat, hunting, fishing and other recreational activities.
Perpetuate the idea that important seasonal restrictions and limitations on development put in place to conserve fish and wildlife habitat conservation and protecting water are “impediments” to energy development.
Allow the Interior Department to designate utility and pipe line corridors across public lands (including wilderness areas, wild and scenic river corridors and National Parks and Monuments) without accountability or input from the public.
What does this mean for Montana’s fish and wildlife? More than 22 million acres—24 percent of Montana—falls within areas of recoverable gas and oil where development could occur. Nearly 25 percent of Montana’s mule deer habitat, 26 percent of pronghorn habitat, 16 percent of sage grouse habitat and 15 percent of our elk habitat falls within areas of potential gas and oil development. More than 15 percent of all trout habitat in the five Rocky Mountain states fall within areas containing gas and oil reserves (including 50 percent of Yellowstone cutthroat trout habitat, nearly 40 percent of fine spotted and Bonneville cutthroat habitat, and 20 percent of Colorado River cutthroat habitat). Potential impacts include reduced water quality, reduced water quantity, loss of fish and wildlife habitat, wildlife habitat fragmentation, wildlife habitat disturbance, reduced wildlife habitat security, increased wildlife vulnerability and diminished aesthetics and loss of wild places.
Following our visit to the nation’s Capital, Senator Burns released a statement in defense of the energy bill: “Here’s the simple truth,” he said, “without it, we will continue to face soaring natural gas prices and limited access to affordable energy…with today’s technology there’s no reason to choose between energy production and recreation. We can do both.”
Reports from the US Department of Energy and US Geological Survey show that 88 percent of recoverable natural gas in the Rockies falls within areas already open to gas and oil development, with little if any restrictions—enough to meet our energy needs for the next 35-40 years. According to the US Energy Information Administration, streamlining environmental reviews and increasing access to federal natural gas on public lands (as the energy bill will do) would increase supplies by less than one percent and save the average U.S. household $5 per year through 2020. The simple truth is this: The potentially devastating impacts to fish, wildlife and our hunting and angling heritage is not worth what little there is to gain. Energy can be done right, but this bill rewards industry for irresponsible development. We do not need to expedite development, undermine conservation regulations, exempt the industry from the Clean Water Act, and open up the last of our wildlands to meet our energy needs. These outrageous policies—hatched in secrecy by President Bush’s Energy Task Force headed by Vice President Cheney—are already beginning to have severe impacts.
A study on Montana’s Tongue River indicates a dramatic decline—as high as 70 percent—in mayflies, caddisflies, dragonflies and other macroinvertabrates caused by coal bed methane discharges. The American Fisheries Society warns that the release of toxic bicarbonates from coal bed methane wastewater can have serious impacts on fisheries. The Bureau of Land Management states that “indirect discharge of concentrated salts from evaporation basins may have profound effects on fish and aquatic life.” A report by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality’s Industrial and Energy Minerals Bureau states that coal bed methane wastewater “may have substantial adverse chemical impacts on irrigated lands and crops, livestock, wildlife and fish populations.”
Montana Rancher and MWF member Clint McRae, of Forsyth, puts it this way: “I live in an area where there is approximately 10,000 coal bed methane wells planned, and at a spacing of one well every 80 acres, with each of these wells initially producing 60 gallons of water per minute, this will wreak havoc on wildlife, wildlife habitat and agriculture. I too use energy from natural resources, but that does not mean that I am willing to prostitute my ranch of the public wildlife and habitat for a short term gain.”
If, as Burns suggests, technology can prevent impacts to wildlife and fisheries, and we can have both, it’s not being done on the ground. Gas and oil development is spreading across Wyoming like cancer, choking crucial migratory corridors for pronghorn and mule deer, causing disturbance on crucial winter range, and impacting wildlife far beyond the “small footprint” that some politicians and industry folks often tout. In the Big Piney-LaBarge oil and gas field in Wyoming, the physical area of structures, roads, pipeline, pads and waste pits covers only 7 square miles. However, the entire 166 square mile landscape is within ½-mile of a road, and 160 square miles—or 97 percent of the landscape—is within ¼ mile of a road. Similar developments are proposed throughout the West.
Certainly we need new energy policies to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and increase our nation’s security. However, we do not need to sacrifice America’s fish, wildlife and hunting and angling heritage. We need a more balanced, common-sense policy that promotes responsible, environmentally and economically sound energy development; emphasizes efficient methods of energy use and extraction, and seeks to expand the development of alternative and renewable sources of energy.
In 1910, President Theodore Roosevelt said, “I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us.”
Our elected officials should heed Roosevelt’s advice, listen to the hunters and anglers of Montana, and develop a more prudent and conservative energy policy that does not sacrifice our public lands, fisheries, wildlife and hunting and angling heritage.
In the words of Montana Rancher Karl Rappold, of Depuyer: “If we’re this short of gas that we have to ruin every last piece of ground, it’s time we found a new source of energy. We need some of these places left just the way they are, just the way nature created them.”
