HB 737: Conflating Species Protection with Resource Development (2026)
Summary: Would merge Idaho’s Office of Species Conservation and Office of Energy, Minerals and Resources under a single administrator, consolidating species protection and resource development authority in a way that creates inherent conflicts of interest and concentrates political influence over conservation policy.
ICL’s Position: Oppose
Current Bill Status: House Floor
Issue Areas: Wildlife, Species Conservation, Mining, Energy
House Bill 737, introduced by Rep. Judy Boyle (R-District 9), would amend Idaho code to combine structure, management, programs and oversight responsibilities of the Office of Species Conservation (OSC) and the Office of Energy, Minerals and Resources (OEMR) in order “to improve coordination, policy alignment, and operational efficiency.” The two entities do not have agency-level status, but instead, were each created by executive order. Their administrators are appointed by the Governor.
OSC coordinates state-based conservation efforts for nearly 30 ESA-listed plants and animals and interfaces with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) on nearly 300 species listed as Species of Greatest Conservation Need in the State Wildlife Action Plan. OSC engages on federal recovery plans and Biological Opinions on species like anadromous fish; it develops conservation strategies for rare, declining and candidate species to potentially avoid ESA listing decisions; it submits recommendations to the Idaho legislature and coordinates with other state agencies.
As the administrator overseeing the policy and coordination of energy and mineral planning, permitting processes, the OEMR leader wears a very different hat. The Office “works to ensure that Idaho’s energy and mineral resources are developed and utilized in an efficient, effective, and responsible manner that sustains the quality of life for its residents and enhances the economy” as described by the Governor’s Office.
ICL opposes this bill, primarily because of the enormous conflicts of interest a merger of the two Offices would create. HB737 would institutionalize the natural tensions that these two distinct and separate entities already encounter. A single administrator attempting to carry out the mandate of these two very different bodies would have too many responsibilities, too much power, and potentially be even more subject to political and business influences.
By merging OSC and OEMR, this bill could also jeopardize precious contributions made to Idaho’s Species Conservation Fund by private, federal and other public agencies at a time when the state could least afford that loss. It could also complicate work of ad-hoc species delisting advisory teams, historically convened by IDFG and OSC, by adding disproportionate influences from energy and minerals interests.
