federal judge Judge orders protections reinstated for gray wolf in Montana and Idaho

HELENA, Mont. A federal judge on Thursday reinstated protections for wolves in Montana and Idaho, saying the government made a political decision in removing the protections from just two of the states where Northern Rocky Mountain wolves roam.The decision puts a halt to wolf hunts in Montana and Idaho planned for this fall. Montana wildlife regulators last month set the wolf-hunt quota at 186, more than doubling last year’s number, with the aim of reducing the state’s wolf population.U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula said in his ruling that the entire region’s wolf population either must be listed as an endangered species or removed from the list, but the protections for the same population can’t be different for each state.

Last year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service turned over wolf management to Montana and Idaho wildlife officials but left federal endangered species protections in place for wolves in Wyoming. There, legislators have approved a plan classifying wolves in most areas of the state outside the vicinity of Yellowstone National Park as predators that could be shot on site.

Molloy sided with the wildlife advocates who sued the federal government, ruling that Endangered Species Act does not allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to list only part of a species as endangered, and the federal agency must protect the entire Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population.”The rule delisting the gray wolf must be set aside because, though it may be a pragmatic solution to a difficult biological issue, it is not a legal one,” Molloy wrote.

Gray wolves were listed as endangered in 1974, but following a reintroduction program in the mid-1990s, there are now more than 1,700 in the Northern Rockies, which includes all of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, along with portions of Washington, Oregon and Utah.Defenders of Wildlife, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and other wildlife advocates sued the federal government after the Fish and Wildlife Service decision in April 2009. They argued that the government’s decision would have set a precedent allowing the government to arbitrarily choose which animals should be protected and where.

Doug Honnold, an attorney for EarthJustice representing the plaintiffs, said he was gratified by the ruling, though he is sure there will be another chapter to the story.”For today, we are celebrating that the approach we thought was flatly illegal has been rejected. The troubling consequences for the Endangered Species Act have been averted and the wolf hunts are blocked,” Honnold said.

The plaintiffs don’t want wolves on the endangered species list forever, but they do want a solid plan in place, said Suzanne Stone, Northern Rockies representative for Defenders of Wildlife. The government’s plan was poorly devised and would have allowed too many wolves to be killed, she said.”We need a good wolf management and delisting that allows for a healthy interconnected wolf population,” Stone said.

Officials with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game declined to comment immediately after the ruling was released, saying they had yet to read the whole decision.The Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Commission has asked the state to appeal the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, according to a statement by the state Fish, Wildlife and Parks agency.

Carolyn Sime, wolf program coordinator for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, said Montana has done everything it’s been asked to do in developing its state management program but now will have to apply federal law and regulations once more.”This puts a spotlight on Wyoming and seeing what can be done with Wyoming,” Sime said.The increase in the wolf population brought livestock losses for ranchers and competition for hunters for big game, such as elk. Molloy’s decision means ranchers in northwestern Montana will no longer be able to haze, harass or kill wolves that prey on their livestock, Sime said.

Wolves in southwestern Montana will revert to their “experimental population” status and ranchers there will still be able to kill wolves that attack their animals, she said.But a big blow is the loss of a hunting season, Sime said.”That’s clearly a management tool that we want to have in the toolbox. We think it’s legitimate and appropriate,” she said.Both Idaho and Montana held wolf hunts last year. Montana’s kill ended with 73 wolves and Idaho’s with 185.

Idaho’s congressional delegation released a statement that said Molloy’s ruling ignored the exploding population of wolves and that the state can manage wolves in a sustainable and responsible way.”We look for a more reasonable decision from a higher court,” said the statement from Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch and Reps. Mike Simpson and Walt Minnick.At the end of 2009, there were at least 843 wolves in Idaho, 524 in Montana and 320 in Wyoming, with more in parts of Oregon and Washington state.

Thursday’s ruling could affect a lawsuit in which Wyoming charges the Fish and Wildlife Service had no reason to refuse to turn over management of gray wolves to Wyoming as it did to the other states. The case is before U.S. District Judge Alan B. Johnson of Cheyenne.”If the rule is vacated, there’s a question that Judge Johnson has to consider of whether or not there is something for him to decide,” said Bruce Salzburg, Wyoming attorney general.(AP)

U.S. natural gas industry officials on Thursday defended a controversial drilling technique

U.S. natural gas industry officials on Thursday defended a controversial drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing as the industry braces for possible new government regulations.Hydraulic fracturing injects millions of gallons of water, sand and a proprietary mix of chemicals up to two miles underground where it breaks open fissures in the gas-bearing shale to allow the gas to be extracted.Some environmental groups claim the technique, which is often referred to as “fracking”, is unsafe and threatens supplies of drinking water, but the industry claims its practice is safe.

“There is no known instance where fracking has contaminated someone’s drinking water,” said Will Brackett, the managing editor of the Powell Barnett Shale Newsletter, speaking on an industry panel sponsored by the George W. Bush Institute and Southern Methodist University’s Cox Maguire Energy Institute.Bush, the former U.S. president and Texas oil man, said more natural gas drilling would create more U.S. jobs. Bush did not touch on the hydraulic fracturing debate.

“When you explore for natural gas, when you develop natural gas, when you lay pipelines for natural gas, Americans are working,” Bush said in opening remarks to the conference.Earlier this month, the top U.S. environmental regulator said she was “very concerned” about the practice. The Environmental Protection Agency last week said it will conduct a study of drinking water impacts, which could mean new regulations on a booming area of the energy sector.

An industry scramble to develop vast shale deposits that are estimated to contain enough natural gas to meet U.S. needs for up to a century has brought drilling rigs within the limits of cities like Dallas and Fort Worth.

A bill in Congress would require gas companies to disclose the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and give the EPA oversight of the industry, which is now regulated by the states.

Industry officials dismissed any suggestion that their drilling practices were dangerous.”We have had some issues in less than half a dozen cases and they have been mostly mistakes and it is not clear that the issue is directly related to the fracking process itself,” said Randy Foutch, chairman and CEO of privately-held Laredo Petroleum.

Some residents who live near gas rigs in states from Pennsylvania to Wyoming say their water has become undrinkable since drilling companies fractured the wells and they complain of sickness and skin rashes after using the water.

Removing gas from shale rock accounts for 15 to 20 percent of U.S. natural gas production and provides a relatively clean energy source for the United States, which is trying to reduce its dependence on foreign oil.(Reuters)

license application for new US uranium mill

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) received the radioactive materials license application and environmental report from Energy Fuels on 18 November. The application will undergo a comprehensive technical review process including technical evaluations, a review of the environmental report and two public hearings. Public comments will also be accepted throughout the review process, which Colorado law stipulates must take no more than 14 months. Energy Fuels has previously mentioned the possibility of starting construction of the mill by the second quarter of 2011.

Steve Tarlton, radiation program manager for CDPHE, said the review would consider short- and long-term impacts of the proposed mill, including radiological and non-radiological impacts to water, air and wildlife, as well as economic, social and transportation-related impacts. “Our job is to ensure that the licence, if approved, will protect public health and the environment,” he said.Energy Fuels plans to build the Pinon Ridge mill near Naturita on land that it bought in 2007. The 500 tonnes per day mill would be the first new uranium mill to be built in the USA in over a quarter of a century. Energy Fuels president and CEO George Glassier said he was confident that the “thorough and accurate” license application would meet all CDPHE’s regulations. “In progressing to this final stage of approvals, Energy Fuels is clearly moving forward on its plan to construct the first new uranium mill in the US in more than 25 years,” he said.

Energy Fuels Resources Corp is part of Toronto-based Energy Fuels Inc, which has a portfolio of uranium and vanadium properties in Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Idaho and New Mexico, as well as Canadian exploration properties in Saskatchewan’s Athabasca Basin. The company has been working to refurbish and reopen some of its formerly producing mines, including former uranium-vanadium mines in the Urania mineral belt in western Colorado. Energy Fuels has near-term uranium projects at Whirlwind and Tenderfoot Mesa in Colorado and also at nearby Energy Queen in Utah. Although permitted to restart, the company placed the Whirlwind project on standby in late 2008 as part of a “capital preservation strategy”, although the company said at the time it would be maintained in a state of readiness to ramp up to full production at 30 days’ notice.

Powertech queries groundwater rules

Meanwhile, another would-be Colorado uranium producer has queried the legality of proposed state rules on groundwater protection. According to press reports, Power-tech USA says that proposed rules on groundwater quality and reclamation forming part of legislation on  leach mining are currently too broad. A specific issue of concern is the proposed requirement for a “baseline” for water quality, defined before mining began, which would become the standard for future reclamation, with no scope to revise the requirements at a later date.The Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety is due to hold a public meeting on the rules in early December.