The current president has been hell bent on forcing America into a renewable energy waste bin, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is more than happy to participate. But the rush is on because the solar energy plan must be accomplished by 2035.
BLM land has been littered with solar panels since 2012. Because of this current president and his plan to "transition" America to renewable energy, the BLM has been working on updating its 2012 Solar Energy Development plan that involved six states. Now, along with four other states, Idaho is getting sucked into the mix. All of the documents pertaining to this agenda, which BLM has obviously been working on for months, can be found here. Graciously, the BLM has offered the opportunity to go through thousands of pages of information to understand how Idaho will be impacted along with the other four added states. Idahoans have been blessed by the BLM with the opportunity to "Provide input on the 5 action alternatives – including elements from all alternatives to be adopted in a Final Plan" by April 18th. There doesn't appear to be a "no action" alternative. Aside from the gobbledygook in all of the documents, the amount of reading required to go through all of the documents far exceeds what is reasonable. It is insulting how the BLM presents this for input. Cliff notes on the alternatives can be found here, and overall updates here, The Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement can be found here, all 538 pages. For those who really have a desire to go to sleep, there is the agonizing redundancy on Areas of Special Concern with only 760 pages, where one can wade through page after page to find something specific to Idaho. These are the proposed alternative areas to litter with solar panels in Idaho. All of the documents can be found on the National NEPA Register page, Input can be provided via the green Participate Now buttons, or on this page. Be patient, it takes a minute to load. It is bad enough the way in which the BLM abuses its power by tossing this out to Idahoans with no chance of receiving adequate input. Governor Little is no better, his cronies and corporate sponsors at the Western Governors Association (WGA) have supported this endeavor for years. Did he let Idahoans know? It is only going to get worse with the WGA decarbonization agenda. Since the BLM obviously doesn't have the skill set to place solar panels, just only providing the land, which corporation will they choose to cozy up to, and financially benefit from, to get the job done? Perhaps one it is already friends with? As a signatory to the International Solar Alliance (ISA) "to accelerate global adoption of solar energy", the United States receives support from the ISA "by helping to expedite solar deployment." Sounds like a military exercise. Yes, the U.S. is eager to be part of "Green Grids Initiative (GGI) One Sun One World One Grid’ operating in the U.S., thanks to its National Grid Partners. And it will benefit Brandon's friends as well. Returning to the BLM, just understand this expansion of solar panels on public land is being driven by the dark side of the government that everyone now lives under, corporatism. and also achieves the goal of reducing the amount of land that Idahoans will have access to for beneficial use. Idahoans should feel lucky the BLM has chosen to once again use the lawful process to placate the masses.
0 Comments
On June 20, 2023 Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Interior regarding Opposition to Proposed Rule “Conservation and Landscape Health. The Bunderville incident occurred in 2014 where citizens gathered to support Cliven Bundy and his stand against the removal of his cattle by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). It ended up with BLM law enforcement agents pointing guns at those citizens and some of those citizens pointing guns back. Luckily, it was the county Sheriff who diffused the situation but many of those citizens were arrested and incarcerated.
It was due to one courageous BLM employee who stood up to the agency and exposed the truth that resulted in the release of some citizens. Larry Wooten was the assigned Case Agent/Lead Investigator on behalf of the BLM Bunkerville incident. His investigation "revealed widespread conduct, ethical and professional issues as well as potential crimes, policy violations and “cover-ups" by the BLM. It was through his leaked email, called the Wooten I document, that U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro declared a mistrial in December 2017, as the memo contained allegations that BLM employees were unprofessional, withheld exculpatory evidence, and the BLM did not follow the law. Efforts to follow BLM policy and bring this information to upper level management by Mr. Wooten during his investigation received no response. The Wooten II document, which contains far more specific allegations and details about the BLM, was entered into a court of law and released. It is a lengthy and at times difficult document to read as it contains information about the inner workings of the BLM with interspersed information about the Bunkerville incident, and is often repetitive. What makes it so valuable is that it exposes the corruption and unethical contamination of a federal agency. Following are some highlights specific to Bunkerville. One word of caution, this document does contain vulgar language and sexual material used by the BLM, and religious harassment. Again, these are allegations by Mr. Wooten. Mr. Wooten alleged that the Bunkerville incident was led by a “BLM Special Agent-in-Charge”, referring to Dan Love, and as a result, “involved officers and protestors were themselves pawns”. All of this information was overlooked by higher authorities, and was not provided to the prosecution team. He also cited Cliven Bundy as a responsible party in this event (pg 2). During the time of the investigation, Mr. Wooten was subjected to “Whistleblowing Discouragement, Retaliation, and Intimidation.” BLM management fully participated in this misconduct (pg 3) which included extremely vulgar language and unprofessional behavior by employees. The report also includes the accusation that illegal monitoring of jail calls was instituted (pgs 4-6). It appears this information was not turned over to the U.S. Attorney’s Office as required (pg 7). It was also in this memo that Mr. Wooten alleged the U.S. Attorney’s Office Prosecution Team adopted a “policy of preferred ignorance in regard to the likely gross misconduct on the part of senior management from the BLM Office of Law Enforcement…” and that evidence of exculpatory material be withheld (pg 9). On page 11 Mr. Wooten identifies the parties involved in this massive cover-up, the “lack of character” by those who had the ability to stop these crimes, and that his original notes had been seized. Also, on pages 11-12 he cited multiple policy violations by BLM leadership, and "potential Constitutional issues". On October 13, 2016 Mr. Wooten once again reported the unprofessional behaviors on a telephone conference with an Assistant US Attorney, and FBI Special Agent, describing altered images of defendants, sexually explicit emails, and a “kill book” to get defendants to kill themselves. This was met with a response that those activities were funny and “not a big deal” (pgs 18-19) Clear instructions on how the BLM SAC should respond in the Bunkerville incident were outlined by the U.S. Attorney’s Office on March 26, 1014. These directives included no initial use of force, the BLM was to stand down and step back where possible, and that “any arrests must be approved by an AUSA prior to the arrest”. This was met with a response from “a BLM SAC” that a show of force would not be a first play and awareness of consequences for abuse of authority (pgs 23-24). However, that agent then stated, “Although a passive approach may have the desired effect, it may also be considered a sign of weakness…which may embolden one or more members of those we are confronting”. Around the same time an order was issued to impound Bundy’s cattle where a BLM SAC said “something like “we’re going to go out there and kick Cliven Bundy in the teeth “or mouth” and take his cows.” An iPad was also taken from Dave Bundy who was arrested while filming these impound operations (pgs 23-24). Other intimidating statements are on these pages. Notations were made by Mr. Wooten in November, 2014 that the seized iPad had “likely unacceptable indication of unprofessionalism and potential evidence of excessive physical force” (pg 29). It was also during this time he received accolades for his work on the Bunkerville case (pg 30). Around September, 2015 Mr. Wooten noted that a lead prosecutor mentioned the theory that Bundy’s cattle were sickly and in bad shape. He countered this with the fact that the cattle were in good physical shape (pg 35). He also speaks to a pin-up at the BLM Southern Nevada District Office that made comparisons of the Bundy’s to Ted Bundy and others, and an unflattering posting of Cliven Bundy. Even though the “over use and unjustifiable use of cost codes” infers “misconduct”, one agent bragged about a fly rod and reel being “purchased with authorized investigation overtime money”. Also referenced was the BLM Deputy Director at the time stating “when Democrats win elections, public service jobs are safer…and funded better”. It was also noted that the lead prosecutor intended to “charge the subjects with the maximum possible charges” rather than the recommended lesser charges (pgs 36-37). Upon the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge takeover in Burns, Oregon, Mr. Wooten alleges the “office narrative” was “there needs to be an officer involved shooting to make these types of people get the message” (pg 38). In January, 2016 an email was sent around that contained a link to a derogatory article in Rolling Stones about the Bundys. The email was also shared with a “potential trial witness”. Along with this several other derogatory emails were sent out about the Bundys that included “sexually explicit material and profane language” (pg 41). An overall lack of concern for the death of LaVoy Finicum was noted. Mr. Wooten also documented plain clothes operations were conducted at this time without case documentation. Another reference to a derogatory email about Ammon Bundy was also made on page 42. Congratulatory remarks were made by BLM officials via emails upon the arrest of Cliven Bundy which led to Mr. Wooten being concerned about it having a negative effect on the investigation (pgs 43-44). On pages 45-47 Mr. Wooten gave clear indications that BLM staff were pleased with their efforts in doing their job with the Bunkerville arrests, again creating demeaning pictures to pass around as well as posting them in areas where civilians could see them. On the same pages, Mr. Wooten exposes a severe disregard for and violation of the law by the BLM. As part of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA), 43 USC 1733(c) (1) states that contracts with local law enforcement shall be offered to assist with enforcement of laws and regulations on federal land which was not done at Bunkerville. Even the BLM website states it has a partnership with the Western States Sheriff's Association and is under FLPMA, so why wasn't this law followed? A discussion about the illegally recorded phone conversations on the detainees while in jail can be found on page 48. The lead prosecutor advised them to stop this activity. Also mentioned was the use of equipment for “covert monitoring” in the field and around campsites which Mr. Wooten advised was not legal. Mr. Wooten disclosed the BLM held a "parabolic microphone covert/spy listening device and bionic ear booster and amplifier" in storage. Further derogatory emails and texts being sent out were discussed through page 49 and may have been “unlawfully deleted”. In June, 2016 there was discussion about putting BLM SAC, Dan Love, in charge of a Threat Mitigation Unit (TMU) to "hide him" (pg 52). TMU's began in the 1990's by the LA police department, and are comprised of a "team that provides criminal and behavioral analysis and risk assessments in an attempt to review, and ultimately mitigate, the potential for violence with an emphasis on prevention." These "threat assessments" are now part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including Idaho. The BLM has a link to the DHS as part of its Emergency Management Program. DHS now has a full blown program on terrorism and threats, including "domestic terrorism". Mr. Wooten expressed concern that this "threat analysis and mitigation strategies" for personnel, facilities, resources, visitors, and partners would be perceived as "mission creep", meaning "intelligence gathering on Constitutionally protected activities" (pg 52). Also on this page was a clear mockery of the Constitution by a Senior BLM Supervisory Law Enforcement Officer. Mr. Wooten was informed that an Assistant Special Agent in Charge stated to an audience, “What XXXXXXX is trying to say is that we are going to go out there and kick Cliven Bundy in the teeth (or mouth) and take his cows” (pg 55) with more inappropriate behavior by the BLM SAC through page 56. Continued on pages 56-66, Mr. Wooten numerically outlines concerns, about how the Bunkerville incident involved multiple abuses of power such as destruction of documents, failure to follow directives, abuse of authority, unprofessional conduct, false statements, illegal monitoring of conversations, failure of upper administration to respond to raised concerns, confidentiality violations, and other allegations. A discussion about the dismissal of exculpatory evidence is highlighted on page 74. Efforts to contribute to a fair trial were clearly ignored. In spite of the BLM denying the use of snipers, the types of weapons used by the BLM and the disclosure of their use of snipers can be found on pages 62 and 93. Mr. Wooten again reiterated BLM's failure to follow 43 USC 1733(c) (1) on pages 83-89. While it is referenced in this document that this law does not apply to Idaho, that is inaccurate. In spite of multiple attempts by Mr. Wooten to follow the 1981 BLM policy on reporting misconduct with upper management, he was released from this case on Feb 17, 2017 and his files seized (pgs 96-99). Dan Love, BLM Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of the Bunkerville incident was promoted for his failures, then exited the BLM in 2017. The BLM does have a public site where misconduct can be reported. It appears that no lessons were learned by the BLM as they continue to ignore the law and engage with crony corporate partners that monetarily benefits them, and will continue to remove the use of the land by citizens, including the right of cattle ranchers to grazing. This is one federal agency that needs to be eliminated. However, it really is a testament to just how far the government has exceeded its enumerated powers and ballooned into an overpowering and tyrannical regime. If one man, Mr. Wooten, has the courage to bring this truth forward at the expense of his own livelihood, what is every other man and woman doing to be as courageous standing in the defense of the Constitution? More documents on this investigation can be found here. It is often difficult to explain something that doesn't make sense in a way that it does make sense. Starting with the foundation of the insanity may be the place to start. It was previously revealed that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) adheres to international standards for conservation. Although "fragmentation" and "habitat" are frequently referenced in the Upper Snake East Travel Management Plan Draft Environmental Assessment in relation to multiple different types of species, the word connectivity isn't really prominent. One purpose of moving and decreasing the number of these trails is to repair fragmentation and restore land for connectivity. Habitat connectivity is the insane notion that because of human activity, roads, and development, habitat becomes fragmented. In other words, the land that maintains connectivity, corridors and stepping stones, is disrupted. In the graphic below, it is conceived that there must be a connection between patches in order to maintain connectivity. This habitat includes all ecological elements, including vegetation and wildlife. If damaged, that area must be restored in order to re-establish connectivity. Maintaining connectivity protects biodiversity, or so they say. The 2021 White House America the Beautiful initiative, which outlined its conservation goals, includes its 30x30 agenda, a plan to conserve 30% of land by 2030. Other than declaring more national monuments for banned use, it has taken two years until now to get going on this. However, it now appears the aggressive move is on for placing land into conservation. It is clear that using habitat connectivity is at the core of meeting the 30x30 goal.
In March 2023, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) put out a memo that outlined the new requirement that all public land use planning must include connectivity. Maybe the Chair should have checked with the BLM, as it had already instituted this policy in November, 2022. Somehow, the BLM sees "“wildlife and fish” as one of the resources expressly included in the definition of “multiple use” (Section 103(c)" in the Federal Land Management & Policy Act (FLPMA), and justifying its use for connectivity. BLM land must now be evaluated to determine "if existing land use plan decisions are (or are not) restoring, maintaining, improving, and/or conserving areas of habitat connectivity" and "incorporate areas of habitat connectivity". From that, the land use will be planned around habitat connectivity, which plays into where and why trails are being moved and reduced, as this policy includes "Travel management implementation". The Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC) and Network for Landscape Conservation (NLC) are two organizations ready to jump on this as connectivity is their heart. As the name implies, the NLC is a network of environmental groups as well as government agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service. In February, 2023 it held a webinar that discussed "Insights into the new Global Biodiversity Framework" (GBF) that came out of COP 15, held in December, 2022. Also attending COP 15 were officials from the Biden, State, and USAID departments. Even though the U.S. is not a signatory of the Convention on Biological Diversity, it is an "observer" to support the GBF, its outcomes in America, and its 30x30 agenda. The CEQ Chair, the one who can't keep dates straight, was also present, lending her support and commitment to the GBF. The GBF also meets the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Along with CLLC celebrating this framework, both of these two organizations have had direct influence on government policies on integrating habitat and wildlife connectivity into federal planning and decisions. The White House Council on Environmental Quality issued guidelines that "incorporate the objectives in this guidance into agency actions". Travel Management Plans are one area where this connectivity agenda is being used. There are four GBF goals. Goal A focuses on "the integrity, connectivity and resilience of all ecosystems are maintained, enhanced, or restored". Within these 4 goals are 23 targets to be met by 2030. This is the core of 30x30, using biodiversity to take land for conservation as outlined in Target 2. The America the Beautiful 30x30 agenda originates from Target 3 which ensures the conservation of 30% of the land and inland waters. Target 4 calls for "management actions to halt human induced extinction of known threatened species and for the recovery and conservation of species". Target 14 ensures "the full integration of biodiversity and its multiple values into policies, regulations, planning and development processes" which are being implemented through the BLM. Following COP 15 in March 2023, the White House Council on Environmental Quality issued guidelines "for ecological connectivity and wildlife corridors" that "incorporate the objectives in this guidance into agency actions". Travel Management Plans are not the only area where this connectivity agenda will be used. In a NLC webinar, as attendees to COP 15, it was discussed how the GBF is part of the America the Beautiful 30x30 agenda, and as a U.S. observer, it will help to implement GBF objectives. Indigenous rights were also heavily emphasized. Not surprisingly, it was also revealed that about 2,000 corporations were present at COP 15 to develop markets for this agenda, Nature Action 100 being one of them. Like the proposed conservation leasing, public land is being monetized, not for our right to use the land, but to conserve it for the purposes of making money for the government. The Department of Interior (DOI) also held its own little party in March of this year, celebrating its conservation agenda, even with Biden in attendance, who gave kudos to Rep. Mike Simpson "to bring healthy and abundant salmon runs back to the Colorado [Columbia] River system." (This is in reference to Simpson wanting to remove dams. Parenthesis is to fix Biden's gaffe. His remarks begin at the 37" mark in the video). Nice to know we have an Idaho representative enmeshed with a president and not the people. Biden even referenced running roughshod over private land for this agenda. In the video of the DOI event, there were multiple Native American speakers and again, a very heavy emphasis on Indigenous rights. At the 11:25 mark, CEQ Chair Brenda Mallory, a COP 15 attendee, spoke. She mentioned the same, connecting habitat across private land, infusing equity and justice into the use of land, and was excited the president could do all of this by just using his pen. So, the upshot is that public land agencies will be integrating connectivity into all land planning, resulting in a reduction of land use for the protection of biodiversity, as outlined by organizations in which these agencies have made international agreements. Also on the horizon, these agencies are looking to monetize this work, making the land a money-making machine for them. Who then will control how the land is used? Be on the lookout for GBF implementation on BLM and other public land in your area. Land use planning is now about connectivity and eliminating the use of land. Understand your enemy. Watch the videos. These directives are not based on the law. It is nearly impossible to find any government agency that is not tied in with corporations, foreign governments, environmental and other radical non-profit groups, and despotic organizations such as the UN. The U.S. has not followed the Constitution for decades. Until this is realized by all, and choose to do something about it, we will fail in getting our country back. While this information is about southeast Idaho, the issue is relevant for all Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land throughout Idaho. In March 2023, the BLM released its Upper Snake East Travel Management Plan Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) that affects Fremont, Teton, Bonneville, Madison, Jefferson, Bingham, Power, and Clark Counties. The plan "proposes a network of designated routes and trails for managing travel" in these areas that includes "highway vehicles (low-7 clearance sedans and trucks), off-highway vehicles (OHVs), motorcycles, utility terrain vehicles (UTVs), all terrain vehicles (ATVs), snowmobiles, bicycles, e-bikes, equestrian, and foot travel." What it really means is that these modes of transportation are being targeted for a reduction, and in some cases, full elimination, for use on public land. The basic gist of this BLM plan is to take current trails, remove them from use for restorative work, and then build new trails that will be reduced in number, or have more restricted use.
Yes, it is back to the old adage that humans are destroying the environment and need to be banned from using it. Environmental damage claims include loss of biodiversity from compacted trails, wildlife "harassment", excessive noise, and watershed disturbance. In the four alternatives, the description of OHV use is broken down into Open, Limited, and Closed (pg 16). A breakdown of alternatives in Appendix F (pgs F7-F13) includes A, which is continued use with no changes; Alternative B, which is closed to all activity; Alternative C, which is limited use; and Alternative D, which is Open, meaning year round use. Alternatives have also been classified with an Emphasis, covered on pages 108-109. These are all compared to Alternative A, which is no change, regarding reduction in use. Alternative B has a Natural Resource Emphasis (pg 37) which, as an example, includes decommissioning trails for reclamation, then constructing new trails that have no motorized use. Multiple Use Emphasis is Alternative C (pg 39), which ironically goes on to describe the reduction of use. Alternative D is an Access Emphasis (pg 41), which similarly describes how much reduction there would be for use. Throughout the document, there are multiple charts detailing the impact of how the land is damaged and can be improved, what species are affected, and how this plan with its different alternatives will protect everything. This information contained here is only a very limited summary of the plan. Bottom line, this is nothing more than an attack against OHV and non-OHV use (pg 112) on public lands, and that is clearly blatant as outlined in Appendix C. And just where does the BLM get its authority to do any of this? As responsible, accountable government employees, all of their authority and right to make these changes are listed in the plan itself. But the truth is, there is no law for what the BLM is doing, and (c)"Authorization means any...determination, or other administrative decision issued by an agency that is required or authorized under Federal law in order to implement a proposed action." Starting with Appendix D(D-1), Policies, Statutes, and Guidance, the first policy cited is 43 CFR Part 8340: Off-Road Vehicles. CFR stands for Code of Federal Regulations, the government rules published in the Federal Register that are supposed to reflect the intent of laws passed by Congress. So the BLM is basically saying its own rules gives it authority to do what it is doing in the plan, because there is no law to cite. Going back to 43 CFR Part 8340, it states one authority for this rule is E.O. 11644. Well, this E.O. (Executive Order) was created in 1972 by President Nixon, it was never a law. He created this to "establish policies and provide for procedures that will ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed", and in "furtherance of the purpose and policy of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321)". The second cited authority is E.O. 11989 by President Carter in 1977, which basically excluded the military and law enforcement from these rules, but also dictated that OHV use causing "considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat or cultural or historic resources of particular areas or trails of the public lands, immediately close such areas or trails to the type of off-road vehicle". So Mr. Dictator Carter made up his own law to close areas that the BLM is using in part to justify its actions while modifying NEPA. "The United States Constitution permits federal agencies to promulgate rules to enable Congress’ legislation", not executive orders. “The President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker,” Justice Hugo Black said in the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer case with regard to executive orders. Clearly, the E.O.s by Nixon and Carter were creating laws regarding OHV use on public land. Several legitimate laws are cited as the authority for 43 CFR Part 8340, that is laws that support the rule, including the Federal Land Policy & Management Act (FLPMA), but none of those laws address OHV use. FLPMA instead states that lands (8) "will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use". The draconian OHV rules in the plan clearly violate (7) "goals and objectives be established by law" because there is no law on OHV use, but there is for the establishment of trails. Does the BLM even understand there is no OHV law to follow for this plan? While 16 U.S. Code § 1531 is also cited as an authority in the CFR, nowhere does it state that public use can be limited or banned. Take note of (a)(4), which states "the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community" and to "maintain conservation programs which meet national and international standards is a key to meeting the Nation’s international commitments". More to come on that. 16 U.S. Code § 1281 is worth reading, and 16 U.S.C. 1241 says to "encourage and assist volunteer citizen involvement in the planning, development, maintenance, and management, where appropriate, of trails", Were any OHV or non-OHV users, or any county citizens for that matter, involved in the development of this plan? Appendix A, References (A1-A5), primarily uses only government data, which may be a violation of the Data Quality Act. Has the BLM looked beyond its own data for other studies? For example, the plan states, "It is highly likely that recreation visitor numbers in the TMA would continue to increase in the future. A travel route network that provides for a wide variety of structured motorized and non-motorized opportunities and experiences is more apt to reduce user inclination to travel off-route. This can provide for increased user compliance with route designations which helps to minimize OHV use-related damage to unique and sensitive natural and cultural resources. A travel network that closes and reclaims more routes to year-round OHV use would provide for higher quality recreation experiences for non-motorized users than a network that designates more routes as open to OHV use (pg 113)". Just how does the BLM know this, did they do a study that proves any of these opinions? Is the BLM clairvoyant or does it have a crystal ball? Even its own 2007 report on OHV use said research was lacking (pg 56). Know the law, it can be your best friend. Now, this plan isn't just a sudden development to take land use away, it has been in the works for awhile as it has been on hold since 2016. On March 23, 2023, the White House announced its intent to dump $2.1 billion into land conservation. Specifically, Strengthening the Stewardship of America’s Public Lands was assigned to the BLM to seek input on a new rule to "modernize" strategies for managing the land. Amazing how this plan and the announcement came out at the exact same time. So how did anyone know to be working on this? Well... In November 2021, the Department of the Interior joined land managers from around the globe and endorsed a Protected and Conserved Areas Joint Statement on Climate Change and Biodiversity Crisis, which was submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP26 and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP15. Along with the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), signers included the BLM, National Park Service, US Bureau of Reclamation, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and US Forest Service. All of their signatures can be seen here, on pages 5-7, along with the other foreigners. So even though the law states the U.S. is a sovereign state, the traitors at the head of these agencies are committed to meeting "international commitments". No surprise given the current incompetent person running the Department of Interior. This land protection scam is only going to get worse, every species in existence on God's green earth will eventually be scooped up. The global standard for management is already in place (Criterion 3.1) with "an indication of the activities that are allowed or prohibited" and "Where use and access are permitted" (Criterion 3.6). And they are all in on the 30x30 agenda, which is well understood by California OHV users. So, it's okay to tear up the land for wind turbines that create noise that harasses wildlife and kills avian life, and solar panels that prevent vegetation growth and habitat, but not okay to use a trail. Maybe linking this plan to an international plot is a stretch. However, most Americans probably understand there are forces greater than their voice ruling everything. About 85 years ago, there were many who turned their souls over to a dictator and government, blindly following every dictate that was delivered to them. It seems the BLM has been drifting in a similar direction for some time. Maybe it is time to bring the BLM back into reality by confronting them with the laws they are not following and to whom they are accountable. For recreational areas like Island Park this plan would have a devastating economic impact. Maybe the BLM needs to go back to the drawing board and involve OHV groups to develop a plan, at least that is what the law requires. Comments on this plan can be made at this link, click on the green Participate Now link on the left, and choose Alternative A. The comment period ends on July 10, 2023. Sometimes the agendas come so rapidly it is difficult to keep them apart because at the core they all serve the same purpose.
Since the federal government no longer operates as three separate branches with the legislative branch assigned to creating laws, the Executive Branch and unconstitutional administrative rulemaking process now create laws that Americans are subjected to without any congressional involvement. Quite notorious are rules that are written under the Department of Interior (DOI). Given that the federal government now operates in bed with corporations and non-government organizations (NGO), many of the rules are created for the benefit of those groups and not us. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and its buddy corporations and environmental groups have been busy creating a new "rule" that will economically benefit the BLM, serve the ideology of environmental groups, and help the corporate world advance renewable energy projects. Not only are the Executive Branch and DOI handing over "public" land to corporations for renewable energy projects, but with BLM's full participation, this proposed rule also advances the White House 30x30 agenda, a goal of conserving 30% of land by 2030. It is the rewriting of a regulatory framework that will put public land under the 30x30 classification for land conservation. 30x30 isn't even a federal law passed by Congress, it is a dictate from the White House that meets an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) goal, a United Nations participant. That alone should negate any participation in 30x30, or through illegal rulings by the BLM. However, the DOI is an IUCN member through several of its agencies, so the same ideology is probably applied to the BLM. The DOI announced its "Plan to Guide the Balanced Management of Public Lands" in March, putting "conservation on equal footing with other uses". Other highlights include identifying "areas in need of restoration or conservation", and building "on...clean energy deployment". Its three-pronged justification is to "protect intact landscapes, restore degraded habitat, and make wise management decisions based on science and data” while incorporating "land health assessments" in BLM decisions on land use. This proposed rule was released in the Federal Register on April 3, and folks are urging a rapid deployment before a possible flip in Congress in 2024. Now, if this were such a wonderful idea, why are they scared? Just a quick summary of this rule provides the fluff. "Manage the land for multiple use and sustained yield by prioritizing the health and resilience of ecosystems"; "protect intact landscapes, restore degraded habitat"; "apply land health standards" (now there's a scary thought); "clarify that conservation is a “use” within the FLPMA’s multiple-use framework"; and "revise existing regulations to better meet FLPMA’s requirement that the BLM prioritize designating and protecting Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)." By "clarifying" conservation as a use, the BLM is changing the law without Congressional involvement. The Federal Land and Policy Management Act, as amended in 2021, does not address the classification of land for conservation leasing, instead emphasizing that land is used for its resources. Page 2(c) defines multiple use. Effect on existing rights, page 79(a), makes it clear that nothing can terminate the rights to use the land. Pretending that leasing land for conservation serves the purpose of multiple use is only a distorted fantasy. Through the DOI, the White House is revising the FLPMA law without any congressional involvement. Once again, the rule of law is ignored by the White House. Buried deep in this rhetoric is a plan that should raise the hair on the back of the neck, "conservation leasing". DOI's definition of this is a "time-limited lease" allowing "interested organizations conduct restoration or mitigation activities...to facilitate development projects". It will also "prioritize the identification, evaluation and designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) through land use planning." All of this means non-use. PERC probably describes it best, "creating markets for conservation". With this rule, the DOI is advancing public land as a commodity. The BLM will make an unknown amount of money because corporations can pay "to restore a degraded ecosystems" to "offset environmentally harmful activities". Same with NGOs. Through NatureVest, the Nature Conservancy already has the program to exploit conservation for profit. Opposite of what the DOI claims, that multi-use will continue in spite of this conservation, if a wealthy environmental group or corporation dumps their money into one of these leases, use can be denied, as either will hold the ability to "preclude the parcel from...grazing during the extendable 10-year term. The leases might also block future leasing for uses deemed incompatible with the conservation work." It might become a mad bidding war between corporations and environmental groups to see who can buy up the most "leasing". However, perhaps unbeknownst to some, it has always been illegal for environmental groups to lease public land. This proposed rule removes that problem for them and really opens the door to their bank vault, tying up land across America. No wonder they love it. Perhaps quid pro quo? Companies have also been "requesting conservation leases". No doubt, the DOI is serving its NGO and corporate constituents well. To offset the damage from a renewable energy project, corporations will use the excuse to lease land either surrounding the project or in another area to offset that damage by restoring the leased land. In some instances, it is called "carbon offsetting", which really appears to be more of a money game than making a real difference. The insane idea behind this is that leased land would be saved for more public use because it would somehow be healthier. As the BLM goes about making its "health assessments" of the land, there is fairly good potential that more land will be identified as unhealthy and needing repair, then sucked up for conservation and non-use. With powerful and wealthy corporations and their rich NGO pals, the whole BLM landscape could be sucked up in restoration and mitigation projects through leasing. "Science" will surely be used to justify the land's need for restoration. If NGOs love it, it has to be bad. Temporary restrictions on use are part of the rule for restoration of degraded land. Keeping the land available for multiple use through this proposed rule is a lie. Temporary restrictions while degraded land is restored can extend up to ten years. How long does land take to restore itself, or is that up to some bureaucratic technocrat? The rule also states it "would not override valid existing rights or preclude other, subsequent authorizations so long as those subsequent authorizations are compatible with the conservation use.” So cattle grazing would have to fit this new narrative or else, and with the hatred of cattle, no compatibility would probably ever be recognized. So in between all of the malarkey of how wonderful this is to improve the land and make it available for everyone's great-great grandkids, it is really a twisted way of taking land away from public use and making money off corporations and NGOs. For corporations, the excuse can be to offset greenhouse gas emissions they create, or "funding renewable energy projects" can be considered a carbon offset. How handy is that for renewable energy corporations? The regulation calls for an assessment of all public land, its state of degradation, and need for restoration, which includes grazing land. For now, grazing is spared from this rule until the land can be assessed, but it is still a threat to the cattle industry and is in the 30x30 crosshairs for conservation leasing. At least U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) and U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND) understand this rule violates the law and will kill multiple use as land that is leased out for conservation will not be available for use under the Multiple Use & Sustained Yield Act (MUSY). He, along with Senator Jim Risch, have introduced a bill to stop this proposed BLM rule. Of note, comments are being made by individuals who don't even live in states where BLM land exists, many of whom live in eastern states. They think the idea of the BLM conserving the land is great without really understanding the full impact of this proposed rule, let alone understanding it is a violation of the Congressional role to create laws. This is borne out by the significant numbers of canned support letters the NGOs tell them to use, just accepting what is spoon fed to them without taking the time to understand the issue. It seems most of these comments originate from The Wilderness Society. This is the ignorance we are up against and the herd mentality. Because the sheep are following orders, most of the comments support this rule. All comments can be browsed here. Comments on this proposed rule can be made on this link and submitted by June 20, 2023. To review the proposed rule, go to this link. Let the BLM know that this rule is illegal, that it only serves its corporate and NGO buddies, and will destroy the purpose of FLPMA for multiple-use. County Commissioners hold more authority than they realize. Our Republic was built on a foundation of strength at a local level, where citizens can be engaged with those they elect to represent them. From that, citizens also have the responsibility for holding those elected officials to account for their actions. As already known, the federal government far exceeds it enumerated powers assigned by the Constitution. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is just one example of an infringement of the Constitution. Now, the BLM is attempting to exercise that blatant lack of authority in Idaho by cutting backroom deals with a corporation for money to build unwanted wind turbines on land that is protected by law for public use. The deal has a real pretentious name, the Lava Ridge Wind Project. All "public" land "managed" by the federal government lies in counties within a state. In the case of Lava Ridge, this project lies within Jerome, Lincoln, and Minidoka counties. Without going into the ongoing donnybrook about the federal government not "owning" public land that should be turned over to the states, or how the land is significantly mismanaged, or how the land has been incrementally taken away from public use, the focus should really be on the fact that whatever land is defined as public land, it sits in a state county. Along with Coordination, commissioners also have other available tools at their disposal to ban Lava Ridge. County commissioners have the authority to create and pass laws under local ordinances. In one Idaho county, Washington, the commissioners appropriately took note of the fact that public land sat in their county and, using federal law, chose to create ordinances that strongly reflect their authority to govern that land. Ordinance 88 defined that "the ranchers own the grass and the water rights on their allotments in Washington County" and "with any other private property rights, these rights on split estate land administered by the Federal Government are protected in the constitution." The Organic Act of 1897 ensured the "pasturing of livestock on public lands" would not be interfered with. The Lava Ridge project significantly interferes with grazing allotments. The Ordinance also references the Taylor Grazing Act that protects the grazing rights of ranchers, and is strengthened by Idaho Code 25-903 that anyone interfering with these rights is guilty of a misdemeanor. Another federal law, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) that protects the public's right to use the land, is referenced. It also gives the Washington county Sheriff the authority to protect these rights and a court to impose fines and other punishments to those who violate them. In Ordinance 87, the requirement for the federal government to Coordinate with the local authority is mentioned right off the bat. Also, mentioned again is the Organic Act of 1897 that "provides for State and Local Jurisdiction of Federal Lands". Specifically, #6 of the Organic Act states, "the intent and meaning of this provision being that the State wherein any such reservation is situated shall not, by reason of the establishment thereof, lose its jurisdiction, nor the inhabitants thereof their rights and privileges as citizens". That means the county holds the jurisdiction over the land, not the BLM. But the BLM doesn't want you to know this. Any BLM activity that interferes with the rights and privileges of citizens within a county must be held accountable to the local jurisdictional authority. The Ordinance also states, "The Sheriff has the authority under this ordinance", which again means jurisdictional authority. "Federal law enforcement officers operate under the Sheriff’s authority and shall not enforce any laws upon the citizens of the county without permission of the Sheriff." This is true for other actions by federal authorities, the permission of the local Sheriff is required. But the federal government has bullied and intimidated local governments and citizens into believing it holds supreme authority. It is time that stops. The federal government has been abusing its own laws, often against citizens. There are other documents that support these Ordinances. The BLM Mitigation Handbook states, "If siting compensatory mitigation on split estate lands, the BLM will ensure that the willing landowner consents..." (page 2-18). Has any rancher consented to the Lava Ridge DEIS mitigation measures? The BLM cannot move forward with this project without their consent.
The BLM is exploiting land for profit while abusing the lawful rights of those who use the land. It is time that the protection of these rights is exercised by county officials, and citizens of these counties should contact their respective commissioners and ask that these ordinances are put into place. It is also time that citizens, and local officials, stop being intimidated by the federal government and use the laws that have been established for their protection. The comment period on the Lava Ridge project ended April 20, but there is no reason to let that deter anyone from commenting. Voices still need to be heard. Let the BLM know that it is expected that they follow the law, first by the mandate that they Coordinate with the local county officials and second, that this project cannot go forward until the law is followed. Idahoans probably remember the 2014 standoff that occurred between Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) at Bunkerville, Nevada, and also involved Americans from across the U.S. coming to support Bundy. The press described the scene as a law-breaking rancher and inappropriately labeled supporters “domestic terrorists” and other derogatory names. These "terrorists" were blamed for causing problems with horrifically distorted news on the matter that really didn't expose what it was about. In spite of what BLM spokesman Craig Leff claimed, that there is "no connection" between the impoundment of Bundy’s cattle and solar energy development in Nevada", evidence points to a different conclusion. Former Senator Harry Reid, and his son Rory, had been working with the Chinese ENN Energy Group for solar projects on federal land, spurred on by the Reids as early as 2011, and LS Power since 2010. Over 50 million acres of public land, or 70% of Nevada, had already been designated for solar development in 2010, 5,717 acres in Clark County alone. In 2010, Reid was even able to get a pre-approved LS Power line stretched into Idaho. As part of the Dry Lake Solar mitigation plan, the Bundy grazing range was identified as an area that could be used for protection of the desert tortoise, but the cattle were in the way, in spite of the fact that cattle and tortoises benefit from existing together. The BLM called it "Cattle Trespass Impacts" that interfered with the project. Non-governmental organizations (NGO) also supported the notion that these trespass cattle were in the way for the tortoise. So began the BLM round up of the cattle, and the beginning of the standoff. However, eventually the cattle had to be moved anyway. "The BLM wanted Cliven Bundy out of the 600,000-acre Gold Butte area so the agency could use the land for future solar projects". Over the course of several weeks, the BLM, through its law enforcement program, implemented a series of steps that only encouraged an escalation of the situation. As supporters gathered, the BLM closed access to the public land and cordoned them off into a 1st Amendment area, which only inflamed the situation, and the BLM surely knew it would. Next, when citizens began to leave that designated area, the BLM chose to bring in more back-up with weapons and dogs in a show of force, again adding to the escalation. But that wasn't enough for the BLM, the next step they took was destroying private property including cattle, assaulting citizens, and even slamming a woman to the ground. This only caused both sides to become more agitated, inviting more citizens to lend support and bring weapons for their own protection. The last insult was a false report that the land was being opened back up and the BLM was leaving, with the BLM refusing to acknowledge the local Sheriff's authority in requesting them to leave. When it was discovered that was not the case, protesters gathered in a dry wash underneath an I-15 overpass. As a result, the BLM felt it was necessary to take up firing positions behind vehicles and on hilltops, with those rifles pointed at the protesters. By this time, it was clear the BLM had no problem overstepping its authority and increase the threat to American lives. But blame was placed on citizens for this escalation. It was finally the county Sheriff's office that was able to use its role to negotiate an end to the standoff with the BLM director, even though the BLM claimed it was the primary arbitrator. Now, ENN dropped its pursuit of this project in June, 2013, before the Bundy incident, claiming lack of buyers. The standoff began in April, 2014 so it appears the two had nothing to do with each other. However, "In May 2012, the United States filed a Complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for Cliven Bundy’s trespass grazing within the Gold Butte area outside the Bunkerville Allotment." The Center for Biological Diversity even put the heat on the BLM in 2012 with "a notice of intent to sue the bureau for canceling a planned roundup of Bundy's cattle". The tortoise mitigation plan and removing cattle was being discussed during this time, before ENN dropped the project. Then, "On July 9, 2013, U.S. District Court of Nevada Judge Lloyd George permanently enjoined Cliven Bundy’s trespass grazing and ordered Cliven Bundy to remove his trespass cattle from public land outside the former Bunkerville Allotment within 45 days, stating that the United States is authorized to seize and impound any cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days." Because of the tortoise mitigation measures within the Gold Butte area for renewable energy projects, that land was still needed, without cattle. Sen. Reid and the BLM recognized that advancing this solar power agenda would eventually return to the same issue because of the SWIP line. So, it would make sense to move ahead with the removal of the cattle as "public land in Clark County’s Dry Lake Valley has been zoned for solar energy development. For any projects to proceed, developers would have to balance the damage by conserving tortoise habitat elsewhere." The 2012 Western Solar Plan, Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments/Record of Decision (ROD) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, continued this problem for Nevada. The BLM also determined that continued cattle grazing would interfere with the Bureau’s plans to use the land as an environmental mitigation area for desert tortoise disruption caused by the solar facility, again even though cattle and tortoises do well together. Did "Environmental mitigation necessary for a planned solar power project" motivate, or serve as an excuse for the BLM to launch a "military style" enforcement action? It is rumored that ENN didn't want to pay for a tortoise reserve, and also saw the cattle as an issue. But it didn't matter, Sen. Reid had his hands in everything since 2010, using tax dollars to achieve his goals. Eventually, Reid ensured that federal legislation moved other solar projects forward by bringing in NV Energy and LS Power. The rehash of this standoff in 2014 serves as a reminder of the potential dangers with the Lava Ridge project. With this project, there will be a major impact on cattle and other resources, and a repeat of what happened in Nevada should be at the back of everyone's mind. There is high opposition to this project, and the potential for protests. LS Power and the BLM have literally zoned out the Magic Valley area for both solar and wind projects, just as in the Nevada case. If this project does move forward, Nevada should serve as a reminder to the BLM that citizens have the right to protest and there should be no interference with a staged and confined area for them to go in order to protest. Restricted areas are not within the First Amendment. The BLM should also acknowledge, recognize, and not mock the authority of the local Sheriff's office. Should Lava Ridge become a protest issue, the BLM needs to be reminded that a local Sheriff is elected to protect citizen rights. In Nevada, it was the county Sheriff's office that brought the situation to a peaceful end. Sheriff’s take an oath to uphold both the U.S. and state Constitutions, and is the first line of defense in preserving citizen rights. According to the Constitutional Sheriffs & Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), “law enforcement powers held by the sheriff supersede those of any agent, officer, elected official or employee from any level of government when in the jurisdiction of the county.” No less complicit is the media, framing the narrative as a cattle rancher conflict in order to disguise the involvement of corporate and federal deals. Journalists should follow their own Code of Ethics by not assigning negative labels to citizens or categorizing them into groups, embellishing stories, or printing exaggerated narratives. Journalists should be held responsible, and accountable, for reporting all facts. Both Bunkerville and Lava Ridge have to do with corporate powers that are in bed with the federal government along with powerful environmental groups, the money that can be made on both sides, and who or what can be bought. While there are some perspectives that the rancher won because he was released and continues to graze his cattle, in truth, nobody won because the same core problem exists. A federal government that is corrupt and out of control, engaging in corporatism, far exceeding its enumerated powers, and continuing to threaten the lives of citizens. It's just part of the World Economic Forum agenda, in which the BLM participates via the Department of Interior (DOI). In 2014, LS Power Chairman, Mike Segal, and former Senator Harry Reid, were working together to bring solar power to Nevada through the Great Basin Transmission South line, an LS Power “affiliate” and co-owner of One Nevada Transmission Line. This is part of the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP), which also ties into Lava Ridge. Through all of these deals with the BLM, LS Power laid plans to build wind turbines, transmission lines, and other projects for a profit that have now reached Idaho, all the while not appearing to care much about what is in its way or how it clutters Idaho land. Because of these deals across “public land”, the BLM is more than complicit in this agenda, forgetting its role as stewards of land and as public servants. Magic Valley now faces the dilemma of stopping a wind turbine project from interfering with the cattle industry, a historical site, recreation, and use of airspace.
The Lava Ridge project is a threat that needs to be solved through legal means, there are laws that protect both ranchers and citizens, they just need to be used. Not that it's recognized anyway, the BLM is not within the enumerated powers defined by the Constitution. Elected officials at a state and national level should use their authority to legally intervene. County officials have the authority through Coordination to force the federal government to the table and resolve inconsistencies in land use plans, and it should be used. Final comments for the Lava Ridge Project will end April 20. From there, the BLM will make a decision on whether this wind turbine project can move forward. At this point it should be Alternative A, No Action (page 2-1). We really just don't want those turbines falling on cows. What’s it going to be BLM? Before one step further is taken, deny this project. Go back to the laws that prohibit the degradation of the land and the violation of ranchers and their grazing rights and public use of the land. As public servants that is your duty. Grazing Coordination Plan This is long, but more importantly, the need to get the information out exceeds the length of the article. In Part 1, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Lava Ridge Wind Project was reviewed for potential violations by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regarding grazing laws. Contained within the DEIS documents is the Draft Appendix S: Grazing Coordination Plan (GCP), which details how much impact, and disruption, would occur to the cattle industry. Questions about federal grazing laws being violated by the BLM continue with the GCP. The GCP was developed by Magic Valley Energy (MVE), a front name for LS Power. Although not identified in the GCP, it is known that Jack Alexander, founder of Synergy Resource Solutions, was involved in the creation of this document. Why the secrecy MVE? Synergy Resource Solutions has some interesting connections. Mr. Alexander is a past president of the Society for Range Management, which supports the United Nations International Year of Rangelands. As a Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control, International Erosion Control Association (IECA), he has some connections to the corporate world. While Mr. Alexander has many degrees, it is unclear how much time he has spent on a range herding cattle. It appears MVE engaged this person, or business, for the purposes of creating a grazing plan that suspiciously buys opinions on what LS Power wants, or needs, to build its project. There is no investment in the cattle, the ranchers, or what is ethically right. Apparently, LS Power thinks it is no big deal to shuffle cattle around while having the ranchers do the work. Ask any rancher how difficult it is to herd cattle to a new area for food and water, it isn't that easy. In Appendix S, page S-1 of the GCP, it states "MVE is committed to working with the local grazing permittees (ranchers)", yet the plan does not appear to have been developed with those ranchers. If MVE's "objective has been and will continue to be close coordination with the grazing permittees", then why do ranchers oppose this project? In MVE's FAQ, "What happens to the grazing/ranching operations during construction and once the project is in operation?" And the provided answer, "The range improvements installed by MVE will benefit the long-term management of the grazing allotments." There doesn't appear to be any range improvements in the GCP that will benefit grazing allotments now or in the long term. In fact, as stated in the DEIS, page 3-285, "BLM grazing allotments (the land permitted to be used for grazing) would be subject to long-term reductions in allotment acreage...some areas could remain permanently unavailable". Also on page 3-278, the project involves "altering forage conditions, altering the forage availability for livestock grazing, and altering existing range improvements." This clearly describes alterations that will result in reductions and/or permanent removal, not improvements. Page S-1 also states grazing permittees identified impacts from this project as the death of cattle, activities affecting range improvements, reduced permittee AUM, and livestock health being affected. Yet, the stated GCP purpose is to outline "how the Project will coexist with the grazing operations". Coexisting is an interesting term, as its perception of coexistence is really about shuffling cattle around at the convenience of project needs, disrupting the lives of cattle ranchers, placing the burden on them to do the work, and destroying productive use of the land for years. Page S-3 - "temporary fencing" will create "isolated “sub-pastures” and "gaps for access to water" that will be solved by bringing in up to 50 water troughs for the cattle. The expectation for ranchers herding cattle to these areas will be an ongoing burden, and it is doubtful cattle will have a positive response to their water source being moved. Plus, 40 CFR 1508.27(b)(7) states, "Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts." With the ongoing construction and removal of temporary fencing, creating small areas of disruption one at a time, the overall significant impact of these mitigation measures cannot be lessened. "For AUMs (the amount of forage needed for one cow over one month) that are unavailable during the construction and reclamation periods, MVE is committed to providing an equivalent feed source to affected grazing permittees. This may take the form of range forage at other locations, private ground forage operations, feedlot space, or other commercial arrangements that MVE may agree to" with ranchers (page S-3). This is more disruption and burden for the rancher. Is this just during construction, or is it also during decommissioning? Is this provision of feed an attempt to buy off ranchers? This is also not good for the cattle, changing a cow's diet can produce problems. "Cattle are creatures of habit and disruptions in their routine can lead to disruptions in feed intake" (pages 2-3 Bunk Management). This is just one reason the ranchers are concerned about the cattle's health. Listed on pages S-3 through S-10 is the impact on those allotments. There is also the plan to have the cattle share their range with sheep (page S-5-6), but putting cattle with sheep can be more complicated because of the differences in grazing habits. Are sheep ranchers okay with this? Do grazing permits include provisions for sheep? Two "preferred" alternatives have been chosen by the BLM, C and E. Below is a graph of the percentage of allotment that would be unavailable in Alternatives C and E (page 3-280). Maps showing how allotments would be affected in the alternatives are on page 3-275 in the DEIS. On the same page this chart shows the number of AUMs that would be unavailable in Alternative C and E. The DEIS has other charts showing the percentages of loss from 3-277 to 3-285, and even references "when Combined with Other Reasonably Foreseeable Renewable Energy Projects." Yes, the BLM has already mapped out its plan for massive areas of Idaho to be degraded. Pages S-9 through S-10 have charts on the number of AUMs affected on just one allotment.
There are laws that protect grazing and the public. 43 CFR § 4100.0-2 - to establish efficient and effective administration of grazing of public rangelands; and to provide for the sustainability of the western livestock industry and communities that are dependent upon productive, healthy public rangelands. (b) These objectives will be realized in a manner consistent with land use plans, multiple use, sustained yield, environmental values, economic and other objectives stated in the Taylor Grazing Act of June 28, 1934, as amended (43 U.S.C. 315, 315a); 43 U.S. Code § 1701 - "The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that, the public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of...scenic, historical, ecological, environmental...values...will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for...domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use (a8); the public lands be managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources of...food...from the public lands (a12)." Not only are those qualities not protected in this project, but outdoor recreation is also affected. The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901(b)(2)) requires rangelands are managed and improved to be as productive as possible. The Lava Ridge project does neither. It doesn't appear that ranchers were given opportunity to participate in any plan formulation for grazing (f). Rather, a consulting firm appears to have been paid by MVE to develop the plan, in its favor. 43 CFR § 4130.2(e)(1) - "The lands for which the permit or lease is issued remain available for domestic livestock grazing". Clearly, the land will not be available for grazing with temporary fencing that results in allotment reductions and eventual permanent damage. Section 102 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701) (FLPMA) states, "(7) goals and objectives be established by law as guidelines for public land use planning, and that management be on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield (MUSY) unless otherwise specified by law". Not only does the project itself violate multiple use principles, but by intersecting allotments and reducing AUMs, sustained yield by the cattle industry cannot be achieved. The Lava Ridge project falls under the mandates of FLPMA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (16 U.S. Code § 824p(h)(6)(D)(iv)(v)). 43 USE 1712(c)(9) - "(9) to the extent consistent with the laws governing the administration of the public lands, coordinate the land use inventory, planning, and management activities of or for such lands with the land use planning and management programs of other Federal departments and agencies and of the States and local governments within which the lands are located, assist in resolving, to the extent practical, inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal Government plans, and shall provide for meaningful public involvement of State and local government officials, both elected and appointed, in the development of land use programs, land use regulations, and land use decisions for public lands, including early public notice of proposed decisions which may have a significant impact on non-Federal lands. Land use plans of the Secretary under this section shall be consistent with State and local plans to the maximum extent he finds consistent with Federal law and the purposes of this Act." The BLM failed to initiate Coordination (42 U.S.C. 4331(b)), so it is up to the affected counties to start this process. The BLM is required to follow both the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4331(b)), and the FLPMA (43 U.S. Code § 1712(9)) mandates for Coordination. Coordination is defined "as a government-to-government communication process, seeking consistency, in which local government has an equal negotiating position with the federal agencies. This government-to-government communication negotiating process allows local government to participate on an equal basis in all phases of planning and management of land, water and wildlife resources. Such consistency will allow local governments to once again protect the local tax base, sustain a viable and stable local economy, and protect the public health and safety. Clear direction exists for local governments to use coordination to fairly represent citizens in bringing back local control from runaway big governments." Coordination is NOT consulting, collaborating, or cooperating with local governments, nor is it a "subcommittee" that is nothing more than a spectacle of collaboration to placate and divert from the legal mandate to Coordinate. 40 CFR 1508.7 states, "Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time." With the current and stated future solar and wind projects by BLM, there will be massive, collectively significant, and cumulative impacts on Idaho land, including the ongoing temporary fencing disruptions. There is also CFR 43 4110.4-2(b) that states "when BLM land is devoted to a public purpose", in this case wind turbines, livestock grazing is precluded from any decrease in land acreage, which invalidates the GCP as it is written. In 2005, the BLM developed the Wind Energy Development Program. This required the BLM to create a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) that evaluated potential land use impacts from wind projects. In its Record of Decision (ROD), there are protections for the cattle industry. "The BLM will not issue ROW (right of way) authorizations for wind energy development on lands on which wind energy development is incompatible with specific resource values...Additional areas of land may be excluded from wind energy development on the basis of findings of resource impacts that cannot be mitigated and/or conflict with existing and planned multiple-use activities or land use plans. To the extent possible, wind energy projects shall be developed in a manner that will not prevent other land uses, including...livestock grazing, recreational use, and other ROW uses" (page A-2). In the BLM Mitigation Handbook, it states the BLM might deny a project if the action would violate a law, or not conform to a land use plan. Or it can be denied if there are "legal, regulatory, land use plan, or policy protections that limit or prevent certain types of impacts" even after mitigation, or "result in unnecessary or undue degradation" to the land (FLPMA § 302(b), 43 USC § 1732(b)) (page 2-15). There is strong evidence that this project qualifies for a denial decision. And besides, how do you mitigate a livelihood? According to its own Wind Energy Program Policies and Best Management Practices (BMPS), BLM wind energy projects "shall be developed in a manner that will not prevent other land uses, including minerals extraction, livestock grazing, recreational use, and other ROW uses (1-1)." Removal of allotments and AUMs prevents land use, along with recreational use, for years. Has the BLM adequately addressed all grazing laws or complied with them? It is time to challenge the BLM on these laws, and encourage county commissioners to invoke Coordination. Much opposition exists, this project is not wanted anywhere in Idaho. For Idahoans who live outside the area, help Magic Valley with this opposition, challenge the BLM on these laws, and if there is data opposing BLM data, send it in. No Idahoan is safe from this energy transition agenda. Comments can be submitted here, just click on the green "Participate Now" button on the left, or comments can be emailed to [email protected]. Tell the BLM that the proposed mitigation measures for cattle are unacceptable and appear to violate federal law. The only option is to deny this project and select Alternative A, No Action (page 2-1). The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lava Ridge project is part of a clean energy agenda between government and corporate partnerships that will degrade Idaho land. Idaho is caught up in this agenda through LS Power which plans to bring wind turbines to the Magic Valley. When Magic Valley Energy (MVE) is mentioned, it is really LS Power talking, MVE is just its front name.
Several impact areas are addressed with this project, but there are two documents on the grazing issue: the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Livestock Grazing, Section 3.9 (page 3-273), and the Draft Appendix S: Grazing Coordination Plan (GCP) that will be covered in Part 2. Part 1 will look first at the DEIS analysis in Section 9, page 3-273, where it was determined that the impacts on livestock management would occur during "construction through decommissioning (34 years) plus time for livestock forage to reestablish after final reclamation (estimated to be up to 5 years...)." Thirty-nine years of disruption to the cattle industry over Jerome, Lincoln, and Minidoka Counties, with land destruction taking years to heal. What is the economic impact of that? Page 3-278 states, "future development in the analysis area is likely to include construction of the SWIP-North transmission line and construction of the Gateway West transmission line...These projects would add more roads, fences, transmission lines, and human activity to the analysis area. The Invenergy Gem Vale solar facility would be just north of the Midpoint Substation on approximately 3,500 acres. Two Longroad Energy solar facilities would cover 3,200 acres each just east of U.S. 93 and south of (connecting to) the Midpoint Substation. All the solar facilities would have fencing surrounding the facilities...These trends and activities could cause changes in forage conditions, altering the forage availability for livestock grazing and altering existing range improvements." This would be in addition to the proposed Salmon Falls Wind Project and Taurus Wind Project. So the BLM is letting it be known that there is clear intent for future projects that would irretrievably affect not only the cattle industry, but ravage the Idaho landscape. In addition, it will take away multiple use that is required by law. When does the BLM plan to engage with ranchers, or even citizens, before they proceed with these future projects? On page 3-273 it states grazing permits would not be modified during this analysis, "If part of the action alternatives would require modifications to grazing permits, this would be addressed in a subsequent NEPA analysis and permit actions." That is illogical as those permits involve allotments and AUMs, and essentially the current DEIS proposes modifications to grazing permits in this project. Allotments are parcels of land in grazing permits, and AUM stands for Animal Unit Months, the term used to describe "amount of forage needed by an “animal unit” (AU) grazing for one month." Is the BLM and MVE saying in the NEPA analysis that grazing permits are under threat of permanent modification? Unacceptable because federal law protects grazing permits and rights. 43 USC 315b states holders of grazing permits "are entitled to participate in the use of the range". MVE is suggesting that those entitlements granted in permits can be altered or removed, and as will be seen, are being modified, which appears to be violating this law. Are MVE and the BLM also implying that future permit renewals and new permits will not be granted? 43 US Code 315o-1 outlines the requirement for an "advisory board of local stockmen in each such district" and offer advice on "any other matters affecting the administration of this subchapter within the district." Both BLM and MVE have a clear obligation to engage these local advisory boards if they exist, and ranchers, on any projects, current or future, and the impact it will have on grazing districts and permits. A few select individuals were placed on a subcommittee by the BLM to accomplish this task and who have recommended denial of this project. Federal law, 43 USC 315b, clearly states that "grazing privileges recognized and acknowledged shall be adequately safeguarded". In the DEIS, the safeguarding of these grazing privileges appears to be compromised. Fishing and hunting rights on grazing land will also be impacted as stated under the FAQ "Can we still recreate and hunt in those areas?" The answer, "Public lands will remain open for recreation and hunting after construction is complete". Does that include during decommissioning? By law, these rights cannot be interfered with. On page 3-285 it reiterates, "An irretrievable commitment of grazing resources and effects to the local grazing economy would occur over the 34-year life of the project, plus time for livestock forage to reestablish after final reclamation (estimated to be up to 5 years). Grazing permittees would experience both temporary...and long-term...AUM reductions." "BLM grazing allotments would be subject to long-term reductions in allotment acreage...some areas could remain permanently unavailable". This is a direct threat to the cattle industry in Magic Valley. It is no wonder since the cattle industry is already under attack, one reason being climate change. Maybe ranchers should just put masks on their cattle. Under the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA), MVE does not have the authority to reduce allotment acreage for its project, whether temporary or permanent. The TGA establishes "grazing districts", permits to improve rangeland conditions, and provides that grazing land will be protected and improved. There is nothing in the DEIS that shows protection of grazing lands, or improvement. TGA lands cannot be phased out of livestock grazing by reducing AUMs, that authority falls under the purview of the TGA law. Is the BLM in agreement with these reductions? Page 3-277 in the DEIS states, "The project would intersect up to nine BLM public land grazing allotments depending on the action alternative." Intersecting these allotments means the cattle will be cut off from grazing and water in the allotment. Permits, allotments, and AMUs are written into federal law for protection. Does this violate the following laws? 43 CFR § 4130.2(e)(1) - "The lands for which the permit or lease is issued remain available for domestic livestock grazing"; clearly the land will not be available for grazing in this project. 43 CFR § 4130.3-2(f) - "Provision for livestock grazing temporarily to be delayed" can be done for various reasons but wind projects are not listed as a reason, and 39 years isn't really temporary. 43 USC 315b - "grazing privileges recognized and acknowledged shall be adequately safeguarded". Grazing privileges that are part of permits are not being safeguarded in this proposed project. Reduction of allotments and AMUs prevent the full attainment of grazing privileges. 43 U.S. Code § 315a - The Secretary of Interior shall "preserve the land and its resources from destruction or unnecessary injury, to provide for the orderly use". Is the Lava Ridge project causing destruction and unnecessary injury? The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901(b)(2)) will "manage, maintain and improve the condition of the public rangelands so that they become as productive as feasible for all rangeland values in accordance with management objectives and the land use planning process established pursuant to section 1712 of this title." Were ranchers given "adequate notice and opportunity to comment upon and participate in the formulation of plans and programs relating to the management of the public lands" they use for grazing (f)? Or was a consulting firm paid by MVE for the formulation of a plan? MVE was incorporated in 2019. Were ranchers notified then about the future threats to their grazing rights with the rangeland being degraded? This project does not improve any rangeland it impacts. 40 CFR 1508.27(b)(7) "Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts." With the ongoing construction and removal of temporary fencing, creating smaller areas of disruption one at a time, the overall significant impact of these mitigation measures cannot be lessened. The burden is on BLM to demonstrate what allows them to violate these laws, and should be challenged on these potential violations. There should be no compromises between MVE and the ranchers on these issues. Even more stunning, why did the BLM even let this impact on grazing rights get so far? To listen to the BLM Resource Advisory Council Subcommittee comments on the grazing impacts go to the 1'43" mark in this video. The BLM is violating other federal laws that mandate Coordination, and are circumventing these laws by placing county commissioners and some ranchers on a subcommittee when it should be initiating Coordination. But the BLM knows this and instead are distracting from the law by concocting an appearance of collaborating with local governments. Coordination is not consulting or collaborating, and will be covered further in Part 2. Part 2 will scrutinize the Grazing Coordination Plan for its possible violations of federal law on grazing rights, which is not the same as Coordination mentioned above. Share this information with cattle ranchers for their thoughts. Here is the link to give comments, just press the green "Participate Now" button on the left, or email [email protected] by April 20, 2023. Demand that the BLM select Alternative A, No Action (page 2-1). Stand with the ranchers in Magic Valley and do it for all of Idaho. |
Concerned Idahoans:This website is non-partisan and is solely dedicated to removing the harmful controls placed on our state and nation through associated programs of Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and the Great Reset. We invite all Idahoans to join us in this fight for freedom! Categories
All
Archives
March 2024
|