The federal government has increasingly been engaging in public-private partnerships (P3) as a way in which to fund projects. A huge portion of these partnerships involves conservation and land use, but not to the advantage of Idahoans. Rep. Simpson was previously involved in the Boulder-White Clouds designation as a wilderness and actively engaged with the Idaho Conservation League to get that accomplished. Aside from his alliance with non-governmental organizations (NGO), who they themselves are heavily financed by foundations, he is now taking a direct turn to corporate troughs for their endless pit of money, money that is often used to suck up land for non-use, known as syndicated conservation easements.
Sen. Risch and Idaho Fish & Game have also turned to corporate money to fund conservation. It seems Rep. Simpson has adopted that approach. Along with Rep. Kilmer (D-WA), Rep. Simpson introduced the Land and National Park Deferred Maintenance (LAND) Act. Federal "investment" using corporate profits? Using energy revenues, this bill would "...permanently reauthorize LWCF and create new dedicated funding to address the maintenance backlog at National Parks and other public lands.". The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was allowed to expire September 30, 2018, and for good reason. As Rep. Bishop points out, the original LWCF intent was to “preserve, develop and ensure access to outdoor recreation facilities" splitting money between state funding and federal land acquisition, with 60 percent going to states. Because of intense lobbying by environmental groups, the majority of that money now goes to the federal government for land acquisition, having added another 5 million acres of land under federal control.
Corporatism over our lands advanced after Bass Pro founder John L. Morris, with other corporate and NGO friends, created the Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP) in 2014 to fund State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP), which targets species and habitats for conservation, for 1.3 billion. The same 1.3 billion dollars keeps popping up in other legislation. Restore Our Parks and Public Lands Act, introduced in 2018, also addresses the same maintenance backlog of parks, with the same 1.3 billion, in addition to Rep. Simpson's and Sen. Risch's bills. President Trump even previously budgeted Department of Interior money from sales of energy resources on public land for park maintenance backlog in 2018, and again this year. A full accounting of the Department of Interior 2019 budget can be found here. If corporate money is used for these activities, who has control over the land and how it is used? Will our national parks become corporate dens? Environmental groups are thrilled to potentially have their trough restored, regardless of which bill succeeds or where the money comes from.
It should be no surprise that P3 "investments" are increasing. Throughout Agenda 21 are references to creating P3's for Sustainable Development (SD) implementation. NGOs such as Yellowstone to Yukon are heavily funded by foundations and governments, admit to corporate funding, and are even allowed to accept foreign funding for SD. If energy revenues are used for maintenance backlog, what will be the payoff for the corporation in advertising and product distribution? Concern about corporate involvement from corporate donations has already been raised, just how much corporate control will there be through the influence of a P3? What concerns will there be with large sums of money that rebuild infrastructure? Who will get the sweetest deal? How much advertising will be allowed with slogans like, "This eco-restroom was proudly restored by Shell"? We have already seen our sports stadiums being renamed in the honor of some corporation, will this become the direction for our parks? National Parks have a permitting process for commercial activities with requirements on allowed activities. What constraints will be created for corporate financing though a P3?
Below is a short video on Agenda 21 P3. Or a slightly longer version is here.
Agenda 2030 is no exception for P3, if anything it is an advancement. Keeping in mind that the United Nations (UN) has partnerships with major corporations to implement SD, a.k.a. Agenda 21/2030, it is the natural course for them to use these partnerships as an avenue to integrate their agenda into governments with P3. Because of the SD goals for changing our infrastructure, corporate funding becomes necessary, at least according to the UN, even holding conferences on it. This is a natural way in which to fund and advance their agenda, the caveat for money acquisition is corporate SD requirements, and so very sadly, our elected officials fall for it. Or do they know about it and agree? With P3s, the UN is directing us into corporatism, where our country will be run by corporations through our government, and they have a plan just for that, Vision 2050, it is all laid out on what the world will look like with corporate governance.
Why, Why, Why do we continually fail to remove traitors of our Constitution from elected office? Why are we not able to come together enough for a force that will end this continued destruction of our sovereignty? We cannot continue to haplessly stand by and allow this to happen. President Trump says America will never be a socialist country, yet everything now continues to lead us that way, and in some cases we are already there. P3s are just another way in which it is being done.
Contact Rep. Simpson and let him know you vehemently oppose his bill that destroys our sovereignty, that we do not want corporations funding our public lands, that the LWCF should not be renewed due to its use as a government trough for accruing more land, and if he chooses to not listen to his constituents every effort will be made to remove him from office at the next election, or sooner by recall. Pass this on to everyone you know, have them pass it on. It doesn't just affect Idahoans, it will affect every citizen in America.
Once again a bill has been introduced in Congress to withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations (UN). Alabama Rep. Mike Rogers introduced H.R. 204, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2019, to the House on 1/3/19, which has been referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Fellow Rep. Thomas Massie from Kentucky has been a regular co-sponsor. Rep. Rogers has attempted this before without success. However, his home state of Alabama was the first to create a law banning participation in Agenda 21. Another supporter is Sen. Rand Paul whose father, Rep. Ron Paul, introduced previous versions in 1997 and 2009.
President Trump has already provided direction on withdrawal from the UN. One UN organization he withdrew the U.S. from is the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) which has been the driving force behind the change in our educational system. Other activities he pulled the U.S. out of include the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), UN Migration Compact, and the Paris Climate Agreement.
Not only is there grave concern about UN anti-Semitism, there is also the outrageous amount of money the U.S. gives to the UN, more than any other country. H.R. 204 would end that cost. This Act would also repeal various federal statutes that authorize U.S. involvement in the UN, prohibit the use of U.S. troops by the UN, close the U.S. Mission to the UN, remove the UN headquarters from U.S. soil, and formally repeal U.S. participation in UNESCO, the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), and World Health Organization (WHO), while ending involvement in conventions and agreements and all participation in any UN organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body.
Contact your Congressional representatives and ask them to co-sponsor this bill and vote in favor of its passage.
As the accolades come in for this former president, what a kind and patriotic man he was, a war hero, it will forever be embedded in history that he was the one who sold the United States of America down the drain by signing a document, known as Agenda 21, that has forever stripped us of our sovereignty, and our freedom. This treasonous act was completed without any authorization from Congress, an agreement with an organization of despots which holds no allegiance to the foundation of our government.
None of what he did to us by signing this document is being brought forth as a major accomplishment during his tenure, it must still be kept hidden. He alone made the most violent of decisions to act as a traitor to our country with his love of the United Nations and his notion of a new world order, but this will not be recognized as part of his presidential accomplishments, perhaps because it is so evil.
As a former UN ambassador himself, and UN admirer, it is no wonder his most sorrowful mourner is Barrack Hussein Obama, who as a senator, wrote a bill that would have further relinquished our country over to UN dictates. Obviously, this is neither a Republican or Democrat issue, it is a treason issue, and both served as traitors. Yet, in spite of this, he is lovingly remembered, and BHO continues to be idolized.
One can only hope that now GHWB has to face his God, explain why he turned his back on his country, aligned with the most evil of the world, rejected the principles of our government, and ultimately set the stage for furthering our decline. Yes, others are guilty for advancing this agenda with the UN, and in turn will have to face the burden of meeting with their God upon their deaths, but what would have come to pass if GHWB had not signed that paper.
While this post may seem disrespectful, it isn't how we remember those who have passed, any person who acted in such a way as to commit treason against our country does not deserve a respectful goodbye. The only justice is that he must now face his God and answer for what he did to a country whose very foundation begins with the doctrine laid out by God. R.I.P. GHWB.
While conservation initiatives and non-governmental organizations (NGO) have been busy targeting land for conservation, it seems they aren't too busy to now target hunters and bring them into their nest.
The most explicit example is from the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP). As the title suggests, this is a group for conservation which typically means conserving land for non-use. A couple of things to note about this group. First, it is a partner with Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), which is the largest conservation initiative in the west, working to protect habitat and put all land into conservation for restricted use from Yellowstone Park to the Yukon. Secondly, they are putting on a show of support for hunting and opening access to "landlocked public lands". This new tactic includes partnerships with corporations, NGOs, international organizations, land trusts, and government associations, all with similar conservation objectives. TRCP's call for increasing the number of hunters is "...because the implications for conservation are dire...".
Starting with their article, onX and TRCP Partner for Landlocked Public Access, these two groups begin with the premise that they will help increase access for hunters on public land. However, instead of meeting with true hunters they chose to meet with "outdoor media, conservation experts and industry leaders". These are the individuals who will be solving the hunter's problem of access? Their "report" will be taken to Washington D.C. for lobbying on your behalf. However, before they let you read that report they want information on you, so to spare the reader from this, here is the report, which is nothing more than a lobbying campaign for re-authorizing the LWCF. For those not familiar with the Land and Water Conservation Fund, it is a Department of Interior (DOI) funding program for conservation and conservation groups, such as TRCP, who are frightened at the prospect they may lose this money for implementing their conservation goals. While the fund was originally intended for recreational access, it has become a money trough for federal acquisition of land and NGO conservation objectives, even Rep. Bishop recognizes this. What better way to correct this injustice than to initiate a Madison avenue advertising campaign that lures hunter support with a veiled ruse of supporting access to hunting. The LWCF is due to sunset at the end of September this year which is why this rubbish is being pursued so aggressively.
In the article there is reference to a "checkerboard" of land ownership and that statement is significant for the plans being laid on how you will be allowed to hunt. Among other groups, Y2Y, Western Governor's Association (WGA), and Sec. Zinke are all in on the push to create wildlife corridors, which are often designated as protected land. In order to pursue their corridor objectives they must first resolve the checkerboard of land ownership which means, as much as possible, purchasing private land for conservation easements, which, as Rep. Bishop states, often ends up in federal hands. Corridors are used for linkage between protected areas such as national parks, forests, or wilderness areas for "connectivity". One egregious example in Idaho was the Stimpson Lumber conservation easement purchase, Clagstone Meadows. This land, in which Y2Y was involved, was purchased for linkage between protected areas and is now state owned land.
TRCP defines "landlocked" land as "...federally managed lands that cannot be accessed directly from a public road (direct access) and cannot be accessed via adjoining public land by way of a public road (indirect access)." That means in their checkerboard scenario private land is the barrier. Case in point, the article states after analyzing public land data, they determined that access to public land is often inaccessible due to private land as a case in Montana was mentioned. It states they viewed "...a large swath of public land that, due to a strip of private land along the road, is wholly inaccessible to the public." In their scheme, if that private land could be placed into a conservation easement the public land would then be accessible. At least they were honest in identifying who would unlock that land, "...conservation groups and public land management agencies...". They are giving a dubious impression that suddenly there would be access to public land by conservation easements on private land.
The Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network (LCCN) states their work is "...to identify the best places to target conservation and land protection proposals to provide recreational access for hunters, anglers, and outdoor enthusiasts." How does conserved or protected land provide access? In reality it doesn't. Other conservation groups such as the High Divide Collaborative are vested in wildlife conservation with "landscape conservation design" methods, and it isn't for hunting access. It is about conserving land for more controlled, restricted, or banned use and any hunter can testify to the fact their access to hunting is being dramatically reduced and more difficult to access. Hopefully this explains why.
According to the National Conservation Easement Database (click on Idaho), the majority of easements are held by the state, federal government, and NGOs with over 50% having closed access.
Representation by elected officials was the way in which hunting used to be managed through legislation and statutes that determined how state agencies operated. Now those agencies are driven by special interest groups and corporations with no representation of Idaho hunters.
While there is a plethora of other information regarding this issue, the message here is hunters beware. This media blitz by TRCP is nothing more than a covert way in which to make you believe they are advocating for you to increase access on public lands, but is really about using you to support their soon to end, taxpayer funded money stream for their conservation objectives which includes more land placed into conservation and turned over to federal and state hands. None of this increases access but rather contributes and accelerates continued limitations for hunting.
The level of hypocrisy coming from Sec. Zinke could not be more unbelievable. In a recent interview on Brietbart he blasted "...environmental terrorist groups that have not allowed public access..." to public land, not allowed timber harvesting or grazing, then claimed that "...public lands belong to everybody, not just the special interest groups." Have these terrorists not been backed by federal and state laws, including executive and secretarial orders, which have forbidden access and reduced logging and grazing? Do those laws not validate that public land use has been turned over to special interest groups? Doesn't environmentalist objectives include influencing public policy? It isn't environmentalist "policies" causing these problems as he claims, it is the federal government implementing those polices. Who is he trying to fool?
Not only that, Sec. Zinke himself has contributed to environmental causes with his secretarial orders (SO) starting with his Conservation & Big Game Migration Corridors SO 3362. This order gave the green light to environmental groups for continuing their pursuit in creating migration corridors which they want designated as protected conservation land, meaning those areas would be off limits for recreation and hunting in order to limit wildlife disturbance, and avoiding and minimizing development, all of which are specifically stated in that order. Sec. Zinke is starting his crusade for migration corridors in southwest Wyoming, claiming there can be a balance between development and conservation. The environmentalists don't think so and are fighting that very issue in Casper. You can't have it both ways Sec. Zinke.
Does this not continue limiting access which he so loudly objects to in the interview? Environmental groups such as Backcountry Hunters (BHA) and Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC) understand how their goals are being supported by Sec. Zinke with this SO. The Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC), which these environmentalists belong to, supports the identification of "...priority corridors for conservation..." and holds webinars on how migration corridors are being threatened by humans.
Sec. Zinke, in spite of revoking the activities of the GNLCC and its federal partnerships with environmental groups in SO 3349, immediately turned around and reinstated their activity with the same SO 3362. The GNLCC and all of its partners, including Idaho Fish & Game (IDFG), have very specific goals for corridor designation in their connectivity agenda.
According to Sec. Zinke, these environmentalists conduct "...fund raising on hype...". The truth is, these environmental organizations take advantage of Department of Interior (DOI) funding under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which is used for conservation objectives that align with the environmentalists. Also, the GNLCC was created by the DOI, implemented by the DOI agency U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), and funds environmental groups such as Yellowstone to Yukon. Maybe Sec. Zinke should check with his accounting department. Senators Crapo and Risch, along with Rep. Simpson, are working to make the LWCF fund permanent rather than let it expire at the end of September this year. Environmentalist groups must be thrilled to once again see favor from our elected representatives, and more of your tax dollars going to their objectives.
While Agenda 21, Chapter 15 , called for conservation of land and "biodiversity", Agenda 2030 has taken this conservation agenda to new heights. Goal 15 outlines its plan in target 15.4, "Ensure the conservation of mountain ecosystems, including their biodiversity...", and Indicator 15.4.1, "Coverage by protected areas of important sites for mountain biodiversity...". The creation of corridors by Sec. Zinke for conservation moves us towards more protected areas, exactly what these environmental terrorists want.
Under Agenda 2030 Biodiversity, #197, it is very clear Sec. Zinke is on the path to accomplish what is outlined, the "...importance of the conservation of biodiversity, enhancing habitat connectivity..." and #212 calling for "...greater efforts towards the conservation of mountain ecosystems, including their biodiversity." And why wouldn't he given the DOI is a member of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which contributes to United Nations goals for protection of the environment, promotes international environmental law, and uses corridors for conservation. Through his actions it is clear he supports these non-American groups over American citizens while trying to hide his indiscretions by calling environmentalists names.
As a former Navy Seal, which Sec. Zinke so proudly reminds us, perhaps he should be reminded of the oath he took.
He swore to defend the Constitution against all foreign and domestic enemies. It was he who labeled environmentalists what they are, terrorists. By definition, a terrorist is a "...person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." While these environmental terrorists do not engage in violence towards civilians, they do exert violence over our environment, destroying it as Sec. Zinke seems to understand and points out in his interview. That is terrorism. Should Sec. Zinke, since he chose to use this language, instead change his direction towards opposing these domestic environmental terrorists as he swore to do, rather than supporting their activity behind the scenes?
It is just unbelievable.
Sen. Risch proudly announced he is sponsoring a bill with two Democrats that will provide funding for conservation across the U.S.. The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (S. 3223) will use money from energy development on federal land and water to fund the Wildlife Conservation Program, to the tune of $1.3 billion annually. What he does not include in his announcement is the back door agenda with that 1.3 billion dollars.
In 2014, the Blue Ribbon Panel (updated brochure) on Sustaining America’s Diverse Fish and Wildlife Resources was created by Bass Pro shop founder John Morris, and former Wyoming governor Dave Freudenthal, now known as the Alliance for America's Fish & Wildlife (AAFW) partnership. “The Blue Ribbon Panel includes 26 business and conservation leaders", and “...was convened to evaluate and recommend a more sustainable funding approach to avert a fish and wildlife conservation crisis.” Panel members represent "...the outdoor recreation, retail and manufacturing sector, the energy and automotive industries, private landowners, educational institutions, conservation organizations, sportsmen’s groups and state and federal fish and wildlife agencies.", and their goal is conservation. Other goals include, “...recommendations and policy options on the most sustainable and equitable model to fund conservation of the full array of fish and wildlife species.”, and “...recommending a new funding mechanism to support state fish and wildlife conservation to ensure the sustainability of all fish and wildlife for current and future generations.” BRP is the one who recommended 1.3 billion dollars towards conservation. A conglomerate of corporations, non-governmental organizations (NGO), and government agencies who have decided for you that conservation is what you want. Interestingly, Canada also included 1.3 billion in their budget for species of greatest risk conservation and land protection, how coincidental is that? What corporate entities besides Shell and Toyota are behind this funding? And why?
At the time, BRP also recommended funding State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP) which identifies species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) and conservation efforts to protect them, providing necessary resources for implementing SWAP plans, and proposing oil and mineral extraction companies should turn over part of their proceeds for this endeavor.
The Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC) is most likely drooling at this opportunity for funding to integrate their conservation goals into Idaho SWAP plans. The GNLCC is an organization of NGOs, conservation initiatives, land trusts, federal and state government agencies, Canadian governments, and of which Idaho Fish & Game is a member, that was never authorized by Congress, but rather by a memorandum from the Obama Administration. GNLCC's goal is placing as much land as possible into conservation and using linkage zones between protected areas for connectivity. With his bill, Sen. Risch is opening the door for funding to implement SWAP plans in which the GNLCC will then integrate their conservation objectives, without any Idaho citizen involvement. As species and habitat are identified for conservation, so will the land they inhabit require conservation. More land will be declared as needing protection for the sake of the species and with that, more land taken away from Idahoans for use.
Sen. Risch is not a friend to Idahoans, but rather with NGOs and conservation initiatives as seen with the Friends of Scotchman Peaks Wilderness (FSPW) issue. FSPW has been funded by and is also a partner with Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), another GNLCC member, whose interest in Scotchman Peaks is for linkage between the Bitterroot Mountains with their Cabinet-Purcell collaborative project that extends into Canada. With Y2Y's help, FSPW sought wilderness protection for that area in Idaho's panhandle and in 2016 Sen. Risch introduced the Scotchman Peaks Wilderness Act (S.3531) just for that purpose. Essentially, Sen. Risch was supporting the Y2Y agenda with his bill. With the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act he is giving full support to all initiatives and NGOs through their GNLCC partnerships.
No thanks, Sen. Risch. Idahoans expect you to represent those who elected you, not unlawfully created groups whose goals over our land is to erase jurisdictional boundaries and place land into conservation for their connectivity goals. Using corporate money to justify more conservation over land that rightfully belongs to us is very suspicious, just who are you working for? Is there not some conflict of interest here, corporate-government alliances? Perhaps when it comes time for Idahoans to consider who represents them they should consider who you represent.
Some time has passed since exposing the Great Northern Large Landscape Cooperative (GNLCC) and with new events it is time to take another look at just how pervasive, diabolical, and advanced this agenda has become.
As a reminder, in 2010 the Obama administration, via a memorandum, directed the US Department of Interior (DOI) to create large landscape cooperatives. Twenty two cooperatives were created in the US without any congressional authorization. What was not previously revealed is that the Canadian government was included in these cooperatives. As seen in the map below, the GNLCC stretches from Colorado into British Columbia and western Alberta, where the same aggressive methods are being used in both countries, by the same groups and individuals, that puts land into large landscape conservation, including restricted use, for connectivity.
These cooperatives are a "regional" approach to landscape conservation that ignore the boundary between our countries and jurisdictional authority. Meant to be an "international network", the GNLCC covers 300 million acres, a network of U.S. federal agencies, Canadian provincial and federal governments, and conservation initiatives. GNLCC members include Canadian and U.S. land trusts, Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative (Y2YI), Heart of the Rockies (HOR), Crown of the Continent (COC), government agencies such as the Alberta Government, Environment Canada, British Columbia, and our own USFS, USFWS, and USGS. These LCCs were initiated without our knowledge, involvement or consent, or congressional approval and give tremendous authority to conservation initiatives. Concealed from both countries, this is the primary force behind our land being taken from us for our use, and why conservation initiatives have more influence over our governments than us.
Sec. Zinke supports these LCCs. The LCCs were originally created under Secretarial Order (SO) 3289 by Sec. Salazar, then advanced by Sec. Jewell with SO 3330. In 2017, President Trump directed the DOI to revoke "agency actions" by the Obama administration. Sec. Zinke responded with SO 3349 which did revoke SO 3330, stopping all LCC activity. But Sec. Zinke then immediately issued SO 3362, reinstating and expanding LCC activity that he just revoked, omitting citizen involvement except to put fencing up, and allowing conservation initiatives to continue their work with our governments for large landscape conservation, including the creation of corridors. Since that time the conservation initiatives have upped their game, becoming more aggressive with attempts for land use restrictions, hiring more staff to target areas in both countries, expanding their media assault in Canada, and even advertising Idaho Fish & Game jobs. Sec. Zinke even wants to plant his staff into our states with his reorganization to further the conservation agenda.
Basically, GNLCC believes land is "fragmented" by development, impeding the movement of wildlife. Protected areas such as national parks and wilderness areas are "isolated" from each other, meaning the land in between must be placed into conservation so that there is a "link" between the protected areas for "connectivity". Unprotected areas are targeted for linkage using wildlife, habitat, aquatic, riparian, and ecological as the ruse. As an example, the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Idaho Fish & Game, Idaho Transportation Department, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), and Nature Conservancy participated together in a study to identify linkage areas in 2012. As a GNLCC partner, Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) also works to identify linkage zones. Here is a short video explaining connectivity.
To eliminate fragmentation the GNLCC and its partners target unprotected land with conservation easements, banning use such as for OHV and snowmobile users, and putting land into various categories of corridors such as for wildlife and habitat. If an area can be declared a corridor (pg 11), it is then used as a basis for wildlife movement protection, or what they call a migratory corridor. With that protection comes restricted or banned use, with justification for restrictive land use policies nearby, including how a private property owner can use their land. According to Y2Y, "Areas which are identified as core and connectivity habitat, are the focus of restrictive management practices on public lands, and are the focus of land acquisition and conservation easements on private lands." Once a corridor is designated the next objective by GNLCC partners is extending the corridor to adjacent land, including private property, or procuring a conservation easement, expanding their restrictive land use policies. Anything goes for linkage.
The players are all the same, Harvey Locke, Gary Tabor, Kim Trotter, Candace Batycki, Stephen Lagault, and others from both countries, all work towards achieving GNLCC goals. In this document you will see GNLCC objectives for both countries including obtaining land for protective status, interfering with local land use policies, and restricting energy development. The Government of Alberta - Environment and Sustainable Resource Development is an active participant with the COC which extends from Montana into western Alberta and British Columbia. Targeted areas for connectivity are also mapped out.
Crown Managers Partnership (CMP) members include Alberta Environment and Parks, Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). Canadian and U.S. government employees sit on the CMP leadership team and the GNLCC funds them. The CMP has a "Transboundary Conservation Initiative" that does not include involvement by Canadians or Americans.
Both of our governments are working on targeting species at risk, or species of greatest conservation need. The species and their habitat will be used as justification for conservation, taking more land use away from us, and affecting private land owners.
As a partner to the UN participant, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the USFWS, Canadian government, Y2Y, Harvey Locke, and Gary Tabor bring IUCN objectives and ideology back to our countries, one of which is addressing "threats' to wildlife, habitats, wetlands, etc., while advocating for special land protections for different categories and connectivity.
On September 2-3, 2015 the GNLCC held a meeting on their connectivity initiative laying out the larger picture for restricted use and banned access as seen in the box below.
The Cabinet-Purcell Mountain Corridor (CPMC) will be used as a transboundary link connecting wildlife between British Columbia and Idaho. Here are all GNLCC focal areas.
Both Canadians and Americans need to be aware of this GNLCC agenda, coming straight out of the UN, that includes unauthorized partnerships between our governments and conservation initiatives. We have lost all representation by our elected officials, including Sec. Zinke. Our governments are partnering with groups that have specific UN goals to take our land from us, restrict or ban the use of our land, and eventually dictate how we will be allowed to use our land. It is time all of this is exposed for both Canadians and Americans and action taken to confront and stop it.
Nampa citizens recently passed a bond that will pay for upgrades to its wastewater system. The bond authorizes funding up to $165 million dollars with an average sewer rate increase of 16.75% each year over the next 7 years, with "... totals of $279.2M in capital investments between 2018 and 2040.", a fact that was not brought forth to the public. This upgrade requirement is from the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) which descends from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As with all other issues going on now, the federal government forces their policies into state policies, in this case it is called state "primacy", by developing "statutes and regulations that are at least as stringent as the federal acts and regulations." which IDEQ did. On June 5, 2018 the EPA officially turned water pollution regulation over to Idaho. This agenda for phosphorous reduction is being implemented in many Idaho cities.
The alleged "threat" is all that dang phosphorous being released into Indian Creek from the Nampa Wastewater Treatment Plant (NWWTP), and concurrent increased temperature from the waste. The EPA is demanding these same upgrades are made in cities across the U.S. based on the Clean Water Act (CWA). IDEQ claims that Indian Creek qualifies for such action because it is a natural stream, therefore falling under the category of a navigable water, which allows them to require the upgraded plant. However, that may not be true.
According to this 2015 document, A History of the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, in 1915 Reclamation Service engineers were contracted to "... construct a system of 11 deep surface drains...", one of which included Indian Creek. The construction was on "...ephemeral creeks..." which means they were intermittent, filling with water after the snow melt, then becoming dry (pg 7, 10). Because of this man made construction, the water in Indian Creek is artificially manipulated into a drain. Most of the Indian Creek channel is a natural watershed drainage that has developed over a long period of time, and is actually an agricultural drain. If Indian Creek was reverted back to its original state from being a drain, it would once again become ephemeral, and not a stream as IDEQ claims.
One of the benefits from NWWTP releasing the treated wastewater into Indian Creek is the phosphorus. As an element of an irrigation system, Indian Creek provides irrigation to our local farmers. Plants thrive on phosphorous. By the end of the irrigation season, all of that phosphorous has been used by agriculture and none of it ends up in the Boise river, as IDEQ claims. This "reuse" of wastewater thus complies with IDEQ promotion of reusing wastewater for other benefits.
Ron Harriman wrote an excellent article that explains the dynamics of Indian Creek and why it should be classified as an agricultural drain, not a stream, and more details about the issue.
Larry Olmsted wrote an interesting report which explains the phosphorous issue in more detail.
In order to circumvent this phosphate reduction requirement, the city of Boise created the Dixie Drain Water Treatment Facility in Canyon County, at $100 million less than the cost of improving their sewage treatment plants for phosphorous removal. The Dixie Drain was established to clean the drain water before it enters the Boise river to offset the phosphorous that Boise is discharging into the Boise river, leaving high levels of phosphorous in the Boise River above the drain.
Discharge from the NWWTP contains phosphorous, an agricultural nutrient, and flows into Indian Creek. The last irrigation district is Riverside, which utilizes all the water from Indian creek during the 7-8 month irrigation season, leaving 4-8 CFS (rate of flow) of phosphorous-free water draining into the Snake River. In the remaining 5 winter months the water flows into the Boise River but is still in compliance for temperature and phosphorous. Water flow continues on to the Brownlee Reservoir which is protected from phosphorus by its removal during passage of water through the Riverside irrigation system.
At issue also is the water temperature which IDEQ claims should be 55.4F with a maximum of 71.6 for healthy salmonoid spawning. However, it has been shown that the primary cause of the rise in water temperature is from solar heating, not from the NWWTP. Spawning begins in March when the water is coolest, which is unrelated to the NWWTP, however IDEQ believes spawning is affected by the water discharge temperature. Water from the Wilson Drain is at 59 F year around, and the seepage is from 52-56 F. making the overall temperature somewhere in the middle. Further details can be found in the Harriman report.
Another aspect of this project is restoration. IDEQ is required to "restore" degraded waters as found under the Clean Water Act (CWA). How can an agricultural drain be restored to something it never was? The reason for constructing Indian Creek into a drainage system was damage caused from spring runoffs and previously built irrigation systems. As irrigation systems expanded in the early 1900's, stagnant pools of swamp water from water continually being applied to farmlands ruined thousands of acres of farm land (Pg 7). Alkali also invaded the seeped lands destroying plant life. To solve the problem engineers designed "... a drainage system that would dig deeper into the land’s natural depressions to relieve these excess flows and direct them back to the Boise River." Water was diverted for the purposes of drainage. Since Indian Creek was never a water body that supported aquatic life, there is nothing to restore other than reverting it back to a field of stagnant water. IDAPA 58.01.02.200.06 states, "“Surface waters of the state shall be free from excess nutrients that can cause visible slime growths or other nuisance aquatic growths impairing designated beneficial uses”. Clearly Indian Creek would violate this regulation if restored to its beginning.
There are several points why the NWWTP upgrades should not occur:
Nampa citizens are being asked to fund a project that should not go forward. Many issues have not been addressed regarding Indian Creek and it is the responsibility of the Nampa Council and Mayor to fully address them. IDEQ is also accountable to Nampa citizens and should immediately require further investigation into the origins of Indian Creek for reclassification. An Environmental Information Document (EID) is being created by the contracted construction company, Brown & Caldwell. The EID is a basic assessment of potential impacts on a project similar to an Environmental Assessment. There are significant impacts with this project including the long term costs to citizens, phosphorous reduction impacts on agriculture, and money being used to restore a stream that never existed. Contact the Mayor and IDEQ, let them know you want these issues addressed before any further action is taken on this project. For more technical details read the Harriman and Olmsted reports.
This whole agenda originates with United Nations (UN) Agenda 21/2030 through their partnership with the EPA, being enforced upon cities across the U.S., and is part of their sustainable development platform. The longer term UN goal is to save phosphorous for other uses which will implement six of the Agenda 2030 sustainable development goals, and the NWWTP is just beginning the first stages for this. Not only is the UN figuring out how wastewater can be cleaned for reuse, they are also targeting how the phosphorus can be collected. Nampa has been hearing the Mayor speak to the importance of reuse, she has obviously been led to believe it. But the truth is, we are already reusing the water for the benefit of agriculture. For the future, what to anticipate next, just follow the UN, it always explains what they are going to do to us next.
In addition to reinstating large conservation cooperatives (LCC) after revoking them through his Secretarial Order 3349, Sec. Zinke now has grand plans to reorganize the Department of Interior (DOI) which will further erode state sovereignty.
The essence of reorganizing is redrawing "regional" boundaries and moving employees out of D.C. into those regions for closer "collaboration" with states for streamlining DOI efficiency. There have been some accusations that he is gutting the DOI.
DOI regional boundaries as of December 22, 2017 are outlined in the map below.
Sec. Zinke initially reorganized departmental regions based on watersheds and ecosystems, reducing 40 regions down to 13. The first revised regional map based on that concept is below. Montana had specific issues with the state being cut in half by these boundaries.
The Western Governors Association (WGA) objected to the watershed, ecosystem idea for boundaries, writing a letter to him requesting regional boundaries were based instead on state boundaries. Given one of his initial reasoning for reorganization was partly based on working more closely with states, it is ironic that he failed in the first step to create these boundaries with WGA involvement. What does that tell you? WGA also commended him on "...your addition of the goal of improving coordination among federal, state and local agencies...". That is an interesting statement as federal law has specific coordination requirements for local governments which is different from federal and state coordination. Multiple other associations joined with the WGA and signed the letter to Zinke. Oddly enough, as a result, Sec. Zinke decided to refine his regional boundaries more closely along state lines as seen below. The WGA was "gratified" with the new map.
Many questions have arisen with the new DOI plan. Sec. Zinke's plan is to assign an Interior Regional Director (IRD) in each region, whose responsibility will include coordination of missions and administrative functions between bureaus within the region. While special consultation with Tribes is mentioned, there is no mention of consultation with local governments or citizens.
Drawing boundaries along watersheds was the original intent, however the new state boundary alignment does not necessarily change that intent, "...new regional watershed-based boundaries are often adjusted to line up with the nearest state boundaries."
As Sec. Zinke explains in this video, his thoughts about placing land into federal protection as did Theodore Roosevelt, and John Wesley Powell's notion of land preservation and conservation, should give a clear picture of what he intends to do. Sec. Zinke adds to this with his intent to create wildlife corridors which would also cross state boundaries.
The problem with reorganizing along ecosystems and watersheds is that there is no defined boundary between federal, state, and private land. Unlike a specific tree line or boundary that can be drawn on land as it is now, an ecosystem often has no clear boundaries due to it flowing into another ecosystem, therefore an ecosystem must be managed as it has an ever flowing connection with everything. As seen in the map below, there is no clearly defined boundary between the ecosystem elements and watersheds, they are continuous and connected. Disrupting one part affects the rest. Ecotone is a term used to describe transitions between different ecosystems but is not necessarily a boundary.
According to environmentalists, no boundaries exist in landscapes because of connectivity, and boundaries such as county and state lines that define us become irrelevant. That is essentially what Sec. Zinke is planning, creating large regional ecosystems that includes connectivity between them, providing ecosystem management, and crossing over all jurisdictional boundaries. If an ecosystem needs restoration, flowing into another over state or private land, how will Sec. Zinke manage that? If consulting and collaborating with states, it seems that the IRD will possibly need to interfere with state sovereignty for ecosystem restoration and protection.
As noted in Secretarial Order 3362, Sec. Zinke wants to "...harmonize State fish and game management and Federal land management of big game winter range and corridors.", and establish "...a clear direction forward with each State...". He wants to plant federal agents in each state to help bind us further together with the federal government. Where did he formulate the idea that the DOI determines the forward direction of our state? Our Founding Fathers must be turning over in their graves.
As a International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) member, Sec. Zinke will most likely bind us to their notion of ecosystems and managing them through DOI agencies. The IUCN already has a Red List of Ecosystems with categories and criteria for micromanagement on restoration and protection.
As yet, this reorganization has not been approved by Congress. If you would like to provide feedback on this reorganization, you can contact the DOI here. Let Sec. Zinke know that we have sovereignty and do not want the federal government coming to our state for harmonization between state and federal policies, and that Idahoans will decide how our land is managed.
It is understood that all conservation initiatives and non-governmental organizations (NGO) are attached to Washington D.C., they hob nob together, make their devious plans in partnership, and leave us out.
With the exposure of activity behind the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC), Yellowstone 2 Yukon (Y2Y), High Divide (HD), Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC), and others behind their conservation and connectivity agenda, Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary Ryan Zinke has now incorporated them into the DOI workforce. Created by DOI Secretarial Order 3289 and implemented by the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), these initiatives partner through the GNLCC, and it is a distinct probability that the DOI was advised of this exposure and investigated it. What better way to solve this exposure problem than to wave a magic wand and create a Secretarial Order (SO) that gives the GNLCC de facto authority to continue operating. Even the Greater Yellowstone Coalition understands this.
On February 9, 2018, while attending the Western Conservation and Hunting Expo in Salt Lake City, Utah, Sec. Zinke announced his SO 3362, which is meant to "...improve habitat quality and western big game winter range and migration corridors for antelope, elk, and mule deer."..."...expand opportunities for big-game hunting by improving priority habitats...", foster "...collaboration with states and private landowners and...ensure that robust big game populations continue to exist."...and "...help establish better migration corridors...". What a bunch of crock. In spite of all the lauding of his accomplishments on the DOI site, Sec. Zinke just pulverized anything positive for Idahoans with this SO. This SO isn't about access to hunting, it is about putting land into conservation which leads to control over land use.
As "partners", the DOI agencies USFWS and National Park Service (NPS) give conservation initiatives authority in the GNLCC. Primary objectives of the GNLCC are conservation of large landscapes and creation of corridors for connectivity. Essentially, Zinke just gave full authority to the GNLCC to continue in spite of the fact he revoked LCCs with SO 3349, which were created by SO 3289, and then advanced with SO 3330. SO 3362 essentially reinstates and expands what he just revoked as a directive that still has no legislative authority.
There are several key sections of the SO 3362 that require scrutiny.
Sec. 1 Purpose. This Order directs appropriate bureaus within the Department of the Interior (Department) to work in close partnership with the states of...Idaho...to enhance and improve the quality of...migration corridor habitat on Federal lands...that recognizes state authority to conserve and manage big-game species and respects private property rights.
Our Republic does not include federal partnerships with states, states are sovereign. Nowhere does this SO state that citizens or local governments are involved in these decisions, or those who would be the most impacted by land use changes. Private property is a right and protected by the Fifth Amendment and Idaho law, it is not something that can just be "respected" by a federal agency. If the DOI truly recognizes state authority then why the "partnering"?
Page two states, "...it is crucial that the Department take action to harmonize State fish and game management and Federal land management of big-game winter range and corridors...if landowners are interested and willing, conservation may occur through voluntary agreements."
Translated this means federal policy will become state policy, "harmonize". As a DOI program, the GNLCC is also being used to incorporate their objectives into State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP), and while landowners may be duped into "voluntary" agreements for conservation, initiatives work to get those conservation land use policies into local comprehensive plans, which will eventually become mandatory.
3c "Within 180 days, develop a proposed categorical exclusion for proposed projects that utilize common practices solely intended to enhance or restore habitat for species such as sage grouse and/or mule deer...". This essentially gives authority to maneuver around NEPA requirements, one of which is public participation.
Sec. 4.a.(1) ...identify an individual to serve as the “Coordinator” for the Department. The Coordinator will work closely with appropriate States, Federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and/or associations to identify active programs focused on...migration corridors.
Again there is no citizen or local government involvement and the "and/or associations" is clearly referencing the DOI created GNLCC. This SO cements their authority and now drags in state agencies whose role up to this time has been fairly hidden in the GNLCC. Idaho Fish & Game (IDFG) will more than likely be playing a larger role in the federal agenda for placing land into conservation.
4.b.(1) With respect to activities at the State level...identify one person...to serve as the Liaison...will schedule a meeting with the respective State fish and wildlife agency...work in close partnership with the State on...migration corridor conservation.
Take note of that "conservation" wording. This is a Freudian slip by Zinke, the SO is really targeting land conservation, not improving big game hunting. IDFG already has a wildlife conservation program, one for "landowners", and a Habitat Improvement Program for private land owners. Now a federal "Liaison" will be interfering in these state programs.
4.b.(4) Assess State wildlife agency data regarding wildlife migrations early in the planning process for land use plans and significant project-level actions that bureaus develop.... As previously stated, the goal will be harmonizing federal planning with state planning, we will be living under federal policy "that bureaus develop".
4.b.5(iii) working cooperatively with private landowners and State highway departments to achieve permissive fencing measures, including potentially modifying (via smooth wire), removing (if no longer necessary), or seasonally adapting (seasonal lay down) fencing if proven to impede movement of big game through migration corridors;
Zinke just gave the GNLCC and conservation initiatives the authority to continue their camaraderie with the Idaho Transportation Department for integration of wildlife overpasses and fencing, forcing wildlife into different migratory paths, both which lead to the creation of a wildlife corridor and ultimate land use control.
4.b.5(iv) avoiding development in the most crucial winter range or migration corridors during sensitive seasons;
4.b.5(v) minimizing development that would fragment winter range and primary migration corridors;.
There it is, the truth, the goal is restricting use or banning land development within or adjacent to a migratory corridor.
4.d.(3) Consult with State wildlife agencies and bureaus to ensure land use plans are consistent...to one another along the entire wildlife corridor...where...migration corridors span jurisdictional boundaries.
Zinke is referring to local comprehensive or land use plans, and jurisdictional boundaries includes private property. It is critical that citizens engage with elected officials on comprehensive plans, ensuring no reference is made to corridor protection or conservation. If local land use plans do not reference these then federal policy for corridors and conservation will be inconsistent with local policy and the feds will have more difficulty proceeding with conservation policies until consistency is reached. Coordination is in federal law, written into USFS, BLM, and FHA (23 CFR 774.5) laws, that coordination shall occur between the federal and local governments to ensure consistency between land use policies. It is not consulting, cooperating, or collaborating because coordination puts the local government on an equal footing with the feds, not subordinate. The feds do not like this law, they would like to just mow over local governments and us with their plans, without coordination, The 10th Amendment guarantees this protection for states and its citizens and recently the Idaho Senate addressed the coordination requirement in SJM103.
4.b.5(i) Habitat management goals and associated actions as they are associated with big game winter range and migration corridors;
This statement references the creation of other corridors which can include riparian, biodiversity, or ecosystems, potentially expanding federal control over land use because these habitat types extend from public land into state and private land. An example is his reference to "sagebrush ecosystems...other ecotypes...and sagebrush landscapes". Migration corridors require other types of corridors that support wildlife. A habitat management example is the Sage Grouse, of which sage brush protection was needed for its habitat. Translated, "Habitat Management" means conservation or protection. Not only will SWAP plans be used as they identify species and habitat of greatest conservation need, but Zinke also plans to use the Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (CHAT) as a mapping tool for land use (4.c.).
The subject of the SO is "Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big Game Winter Range and Migration Corridors". In that title where does it indicate the SO will "...expand opportunities for big-game hunting by improving priority habitats...". Priority habitats are those typically protected for a game species as in the Sage Grouse example. What is meant by "improved" priority habitats? Corralling wildlife with fencing and forcing them into different migratory paths? Moving all humans and development out of the way? Creating pseudo corridors that already exist and which already cross private property without any problems?
The Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network (LCCN), of which the GNLCC is a member, is actively involved with the UN NGO, International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN), bringing IUCN ideology back to us. Gary Tabor is a partner with the GNLCC through his Center For Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC) and works as Specialist Group Leader for the IUCN. Rob Ament is also a IUCN member and contributes IUCN ideology to the GNLCC.
Below are two short videos from the IUCN website, part of a series of modules on Protected Area Law (PAL). In the first video you will find the similarities (voluntary conservation, creating corridors, protect migration routes) between the SO and how it advances IUCN objectives for connectivity. When referencing protected areas, an example is the agenda currently underway to connect Island Park to Yellowstone National Park for an extension of protected land, using wildlife overpasses as the basis for a corridor. Sec. Zinke is using an SO to achieve IUCN objectives. And why wouldn't he, the DOI and USFWS partner with the IUCN, gives your tax dollar to them, while assisting with the implementation of Agenda 21.
Starting at minute marker 5:22 is Yellowstone 2 Yukon promoting IUCN ideology for connectivity.
This West Is Our West has an excellent article, written by Clifford C. Nichols, Is Zinke 'Migration Corridors' order the Endangered Species Act on Steroids? His article brings out some other pertinent points on the SO.
Sec. Zinke isn't fooling anyone. His goal is conservation and control over land use. It is appalling that all of this activity is hidden from us, stripping us of our "consent of the governed" role. Without any federal law he is sanctioning an expanded, behind the scenes, directive that further erodes our right to local representation and state sovereignty. Sec. Zinke, Idahoans have not given consent to your SO 3362.
This website is non-partisan and is solely dedicated to removing the harmful controls placed on our state and nation through Agenda 21 and its associated programs. We invite all Idahoans to join us in this fight for freedom!