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.
0 Comments
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. It seems regardless of how much opposition exists to the federal government agenda, it still just marches on.
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) introduced S.884 - Improving Digital Identity Act of 2023, in March of this year, "To establish a Government-wide approach to improving digital identity." Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wy) is her partner in crime. This is another beginning stage of destroying all freedom and right to privacy, in spite of this act's reasoning that "solutions are needed that improve security, privacy, equity, and accessibility." Now that Idaho has pushed access to the internet for everyone, the stage will be ready for a digital identity to be forced on everyone when interacting with the government. Since this bill involves a corporatist public-private partnership implementation, corporations will eventually have the ability to force everyone to use a digital identity for services. This is identified in the bill itself, “digital identity verification” means a process to verify the identity or an identity attribute of an individual accessing a service online or through another electronic means" and will be interoperable between systems. That means your data will be shared, in this case, between government agencies. In order to create a digital identity verification system, "digital versions" of driver's licenses, in which states are encouraged to play a role, social security records, and birth certificates will be created. Yeah, they plan to build a digital file on everyone. It will be the realized dream of the World Economic Forum and has already received praise from the Global Government Forum in which the U.S. participates. Multiple federal agencies will be involved and will have the ability to track anyone with a digital identity. Left out of this list is the Department of Defense and Homeland Security but with both of these, plus others like the FBI likely being added later on, it will all be under the guise for our safety and security. (A) The Secretary. (B) The Secretary of the Treasury. (C) The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. (D) The Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. (E) The Commissioner of Social Security. (F) The Secretary of State. (G) The Administrator of General Services. (H) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget. (I) The Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service. (J) The National Cyber Director. (K) The Attorney General. (L) The heads of other Federal agencies or offices as the President may designate or invite, as appropriate. Later in the Act, the Department of Education is listed as a consultant to the task force, so this does include children. Other federal agencies as outlined in (L) above will also be consultants so just figure it is the all-encompassing federal government. Once that digital identity is in place, access to government benefits can be cut off without one, such as social security benefits and Medicare. Everyone will be forced into identifying themselves and what they are doing. Non-compliance with those jabs will be tracked by health records and receiving that social security check just might be cut off until compliance is achieved. Is this what Idahoans want? What can the state legislature do to protect Idahoans from this? This is a really good video about creating a local county ordinance, similar to what was done in Florida, that protects citizens from vaccine mandates and interference from WHO and any other third party entity wanting to force its vaccine agenda onto citizens.
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). This is one of the most appalling and vile videos by the World Economic Forum (WEF), held as part of Davos 2023, Mastering New Energy Economics | Davos 2023. In this video they are discussing the urgent need to transform the world to renewable energy and how the United States is being used to make it happen. Some of the topics include: the need to speed up transition to renewable energy because of Russia; there is a lot of money to be made in doing this; the United States needs to borrow and spend a lot to make it happen; it is proven that with higher energy prices people will consume less; how important it is to use "demand management" via smart technology, or in other words them having the ability to automatically cut off energy supplies during peak times; using the United States Inflation Reduction Act so foreign countries can use the subsidies as incentives for investments in clean energy; and other eye popping statements. 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
May 2024
|