| HOME | SEARCH | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | HELP | ||
 |
 |
|
|
| Montana Administrative Register Notice 12-588 | No. 18 09/23/2022 | |
|
||
| Prev | Next | ||
|
BEFORE THE fish and wildlife commission OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
TO: All Concerned Persons
1. On July 8, 2022, the Fish and Wildlife Commission (commission) published MAR Notice No. 12-588 pertaining to the public hearing on the proposed amendment of the above-stated rule at page 1141 of the 2022 Montana Administrative Register, Issue Number 13.
2. The commission has amended the above-stated rule as proposed.
3. The commission has thoroughly considered the comments and testimony received. A summary of the comments received, and the commission's responses are as follows:
COMMENT #1: The commission received comments that expressed general opposition to extending implementation of the commercial use cap but did not provide a reason for the opposition.
RESPONSE #1: The commission considered this opposition as part of making its decision.
COMMENT #2: The commission received a comment expressing the opposition to extending implementation of the commercial use cap was based on a concern that there is already too much commercial use on the river, that the use is having detrimental impacts on the user experience (guided and non-guided), and/or impacts on the fisheries, that the amount of use will continue to grow exponentially, and that action needs to occur now. These comments came from commercial and non-commercial users of the river.
RESPONSE #2: The commission noted that the department has not documented impacts to the fisheries from current use levels, but the commission concurs with the importance of ensuring that the resources are protected from overuse. The commission is also interested in the commercial and non-commercial users' experience on the Madison River. The decision to delay implementation of the cap is based on a desire to ensure the public has an additional opportunity to provide input on the work group's recommendations given the importance of the decisions on how best to manage commercial and non-commercial use on the river.
COMMENT #3: The commission received comments opposing the delay to implementation of the cap due to concern that a future commission could eliminate the cap all together.
RESPONSE #3: The commission noted this comment and noted that there is not a proposal to eliminate the cap.
COMMENT #4: The commission received one comment that observed implementing the cap now would help to inform what is an appropriate carrying capacity for the river.
RESPONSE #4: The commission noted that delaying implementation of the cap should not eliminate the opportunity to learn more about the carrying capacity of the river at such time the cap does go into effect.
COMMENT #5: The commission received general comments in support of delaying implementation of the cap until after additional public comment opportunities take place.
RESPONSE #5: The primary purpose for delaying implementation of the cap was to provide additional opportunity for the public to provide input on the work group's recommendations.
COMMENT #6: The commission received comments that were in support of delaying implementation of the cap until such time there is a method for allocating commercial use trips or a comprehensive recreation management plan in place.
RESPONSE #6: The primary purpose for delaying implementation of the cap was to provide additional opportunity for the public to provide input on the work group's recommendations. The commission anticipates that the public comments will help to inform the adoption of an allocation system for commercial use trips and/or a comprehensive recreation management plan.
COMMENT #7: The commission received comments expressing opposition to capping commercial use at all due to the volume of non-commercial use on the river and concern that a cap on commercial use would negatively impact the local economy.
RESPONSE #7: The commission noted that the additional public comment opportunity will help to inform how best to manage non-commercial use on the river and to consider the interests of local businesses.
COMMENT #8: The commission received a comment in support of implementing the cap and work group recommendations but delaying the implementation date until 2024 for the reason that there needs to be additional opportunity for the public to review the recommendations before a final decision is made, and that implementation part way through the 2023 season would be problematic for the outfitting industry.
RESPONSE #8: The commission noted this concern about potential impacts if the cap was implemented during the middle of the season versus at the start of a season.
COMMENT #9: The commission received a comment that expressed opposition to delaying implementation of the cap based on the amount of time spent by the work group in developing its recommendations and that these recommendations were thoroughly thought through and supported by the outfitting industry, the Fishing Outfitters Association of Montana, the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association, the community of Ennis, and numerous other user groups.
RESPONSE #9: The commission recognized the amount of work done by the work group and the support for its recommendations from various groups. The decision to delay implementation of the cap was based on a desire to ensure the public has opportunity to comment specifically on the work group's recommendations before decisions are made that affect commercial and non-commercial use on the river.
COMMENT #10: The commission received a comment supporting the delay in implementation of the cap for the reason that more consideration of the lower river is needed (downstream from the Greycliff access site), that the non-angling commercial use interests are not represented in the work group's recommendations and should be considered given the low number of non-angling commercial use trips that occur on the lower river.
RESPONSE #10: The commission noted that the additional public comment opportunity enables people to provide input on the work group recommendations as they pertain to the lower section of the river.
COMMENT #11: The commission received a few comments that expressed concern that the proposed rule amendment would eliminate the cap all together.
RESPONSE #11: The commission's decision did not eliminate the cap. The decision was to delay implementation of the cap.
COMMENT #12: The commission received some comments in support of delaying implementation of the cap due to concern that the cap would harm the public who seeks the services of an outfitter, and that capping commercial use could have a negative impact on the local economy.
RESPONSE #12: The commission noted that the additional public comment opportunity will enable people to express input on how the cap might affect people seeking the services of outfitters and potential impacts on the local economy.
COMMENT #13: The commission received comments from the members of the Madison River Work Group that expressed frustration over delaying implementation of the cap but understood the commission's desire to seek additional public input to get this decision right.
RESPONSE #13: The commission noted appreciation for the work group's efforts and their support for seeking additional public input given the importance of decisions affecting commercial and non-commercial use of the river.
COMMENT #14: The commission received a comment expressing concern that a delay in implementation of the cap could result in litigation based on the amount of time that has passed since the historical use days were calculated.
RESPONSE #14: The commission noted this concern but did not see this as a reason for implementing the cap at this time without the benefit of having additional public input on the work group's recommendations.
COMMENT #15: The commission received a comment that expressed support of delaying implementation of the cap was for the reason that more time is needed to consider the impacts on, and interests of, smaller outfitting businesses and those seeking to start a business on the Madison, that the cap could put some smaller outfitters out of business, and that the current proposed system favors the larger outfitting businesses.
RESPONSE #15: The commission noted that the additional public comment opportunity enables people to express input on how the cap might affect smaller outfitting businesses and new outfitters seeking to conduct commercial use on the river.
/s/ Zach Zipfel /s/ Lesley Robinson Zach Zipfel Lesley Robinson Rule Reviewer Chair Fish and Wildlife Commission
Certified to the Secretary of State September 13, 2022.
|
A directory of state agencies is available online at http://www.mt.gov/govt/agencylisting.asp.
For questions about the organization of the ARM or this web site, contact sosarm@mt.gov.
