What has not been covered on the Great Northern Large Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (GNLCC) is the fact that without any congressional approval the Department of Interior (DOI) engaged the Canadian government into the same cooperatives. Canadians are experiencing the same difficulty as us with regard to their land use being restricted or banned, and it is the same non-governmental organizations (NGO) with front groups that are implementing the GNLCC agenda for connectivity. This article is intended to educate Canadians on the GNLCC, the involvement by their provincial government agencies, and also educate U.S. citizens that our government is participating in this activity with a foreign country without any congressional approval or citizen involvement. Under the Library tab, at the bottom left corner, Alberta is listed as a category with information for your area.
This article is the first in a series to alert Canadians to a scam that also involves the United States, a plot involving both our governments to place our land into large landscape conservation and take our right to use our land away from us. Sound unbelievable? Read on.
In 2010 the Obama administration, via a memorandum, directed the US Department of Interior (DOI) to create large landscape cooperatives. Twenty two cooperatives were created in the US. For purposes of this article, the focus will be on the Great Northern Large Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC) and Alberta. As seen in the map below, the GNLCC stretches from Colorado into British Columbia, including western Alberta, where many aggressive land use restrictions are being sought and other agendas for connectivity.
These cooperatives are a "regional" approach to landscape conservation that ignore the boundary between our countries and jurisdictional authority. Both of our countries are under attack by the GNLCC. Meant to be an "international network", the GNLCC covers 300 million acres, a network of US federal agencies, Canadian provincial and federal governments, and conservation initiatives. Just naming a few, GNLCC members include Alberta Land Trust Alliance, Land Trust Alliance of British Columbia, Y2Y Initiative, Alberta Prairie Conservation Forum, Canadian Wildlife Service, and Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Foundation. These LCCs were initiated without our knowledge, involvement, or consent and give tremendous authority to conservation initiatives. Concealed from us, this is the primary force behind our land being taken from us for use and why conservation initiatives have such influence over our governments, including Alberta. The Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC (PPPLCC) covers the southeast portion of Alberta. These partnerships are listed on the Alberta Environment and Parks website, but they don't tell you about them or what they are doing.
The players are all the same, Harvey Locke, Gary Tabor, Kim Trotter, Candace Batycki, Stephen Lagault, and others all work towards achieving GNLCC goals. In this document you will see the Government of Alberta, Environment Canada, and British Columbia are members of the GNLCC. There is also a map of the Crown of the Continent (COC) that includes the western portion of Alberta, but primarily engulfs British Columbia, and a map of connectivity targets. The Government of Alberta - Environment and Sustainable Resource Development is an active participant with the COC but when GNLCC and COC is searched on their website there is no information. They hide it from you.
Crown Managers Partnership (CMP) members include Alberta Environment and Parks, Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, US federal agencies, and ENGOs. Brad Jones, Robert Sissions, and Megan Evans represent various Canadian government agencies on the COC leadership team, and the GNLCC has funded them. They have a "Transboundary Conservation Initiative" that does not include involvement by Canadians or Americans. Alberta is in the crosshairs for their Strategic Conservation Framework. This is just one hidden group Canadians are fighting.
Basically, GNLCC believes land is "fragmented" by development, impeding the movement of wildlife. Protected areas such as national parks and wilderness areas are "isolated" from each other, meaning the land in between must be placed into forms of conservation so that there is a "link" between the protected areas for "connectivity". Unprotected areas are targeted for linkage using wildlife, habitat, aquatic, riparian, and ecological as the ruse. The British Columbia Ministry of Environment participated in a study to identify linkage areas in 2012 and 2015. As a partner, Y2Y also works to identify linkage zones. This short video explains connectivity.
To eliminate fragmentation the GNLCC and its partners target unprotected land with conservation easements, banning use such as for OHV and snowmobile users, and wildlife overpasses. They work to put land into various categories of corridors such as for wildlife and habitat. If an area can be declared a corridor (pg 11), it is then used as a basis for protection for wildlife movement. With that protection comes restrictive or banned use, and also justification for restrictive land use policies, including how a private property owner can use their land. According to Y2Y, "Areas which are identified as core and connectivity habitat, are the focus of restrictive management practices on public lands, and are the focus of land acquisition and conservation easements on private lands." While this article is about the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem the same concepts apply to all GNLCC land for restrictive land use policies. Once a corridor is designated the next objective by GNLCC partners is requiring restrictive land use practices on adjacent land, including private property, attempting to extend the corridor, or procure a conservation easement. Anything goes for linkage.
Both of our governments are working on targeting species at risk, or species of greatest conservation need. The species and their habitat will be used as justification for conservation, taking more land use away from us, and affecting private land owners.
There are many initiatives working with the GNLCC which will be discussed later. But all of the objectives are the same. While distracting our attention with local issues that involve taking away our land use, behind the scenes they are diabolically plotting an agenda to put large landscapes into conservation that will take our land away from us and our ability to use it, and redesigning how we are allowed to use it, called landscape conservation design.
The SIPWO website has conducted research on this problem for a couple of years. It is time for Canada to join hands with the U.S. to fight and expose this corrupt governmental takeover of our land that erases our boundaries and sovereignty, strips us of our right to use our land, obliterates our right to representation, and in essence has created a shadow government that is in collusion with conservation initiatives. This is where the fight lies for both of us.
Much folly has been made towards those who speak about the eventual restrictive and regulatory control over private lands, or that corridors will lead to regulated land use. Here is the validation that this is the Yellowstone to Yukon agenda.
"Using appropriate techniques, computer habitat suitability model results can be an effective first step to identify core and connectivity habitats in order to direct land development, highway construction, and mitigation so that wildlife are protected as they move across the landscape to meet their daily, seasonal, and lifetime needs."
"Areas which are identified as core and connectivity habitat, are the focus of restrictive management practices on public lands, and are the focus of land acquisition and conservation easements on private lands."
Targhee Pass is an identified area with connectivity habitat, the Elk. Once they gain this objective with overpasses, a migratory Elk corridor designation will follow, and regulatory land use requirements over that area will be pursued for implementation, including all private land in and adjacent to that corridor. The facts are in their own words.
Sign the petition that you do not want wildlife overpasses in Island Park.
This is wildlife overpass construction East of Wells, Nevada. Note the environmental destruction that it takes to create these monstrosities. Also, these particular overpasses are being built in a barren, flat, uninhabited area unlike the Targhee Pass terrain that does have residential areas and businesses. Picture in your mind how much of Targhee Pass would be destroyed forever with this type of land destruction. How would this construction affect the wetlands in the area? Is that what you want?
A couple of weeks ago Patsy and I took a long (3000 miles) road trip to Denver, Colorado and then to San Ramon, California. Much of the drive was on Interstate 80. East of Wells, Nevada we encountered three wildlife overpasses and miles of tall mesh fencing. All of these crossed Interstate 80 and were in the middle of nowhere in the high desert. There were no homes in the area. The first was in a very large sage brush covered valley and was very noticeable because there was nothing else there. The second was just a few miles away in a rock canyon. This overpass certainly disturbed the view scape. The third was also just a few miles from the first and second overpasses. It was under construction. The pre-stressed concrete arches had already been placed and there was a large track hoe on the side of it moving soil around. This was causing allot of blowing dust and dirt. The wind blows in Nevada. However, the thing that stuck me most was the large staging area at each end of the overpass. These areas were being used by heavy equipment. Dump trucks were delivering soil to each end of the overpass. The natural environment was totally destroyed for well over 100 feet on each side. There were no wet lands in the area that could be destroyed or a creek that could be damaged with sediment. This is not the case at Targhee Pass on US 20 in Island Park. The potential for damage is very great, especially with heavy rains like we have encounter on the past few weeks. It could be an environmental disaster.
We encounter the last three overpasses, on the return trip, North of Wells on US 93. Again, they were in the middle of nowhere, a few miles apart, no homes present in the area, and miles of tall, mesh, wildlife fencing. Part of this area gave me an appreciation for Joe Sielinsky’s comments about the wildlife fencing in the Banff area of Canada. Where the tall fencing was close to the road, you felt like you were in prison. I hated it. It was very confining and not welcoming.
There are probably appropriate locations for wildlife overpasses, but US 20 in Island Park is not one of them. The people of Island Park should fight the desecration on our beautiful and inviting recreation area. Island Park is not a high desert, in the middle of nowhere, with no homes present. Quite the contrary.
Reprinted with permission from the IP News June 28, 2018 issue
On June 26, 2018, the Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy, and Environment held a hearing on Access to Public Lands: The Effects of Forest Service Road Closures. The purpose was "To examine how Forest Service policies affect access to public lands, as well as the impacts of road closures on nearby communities." They were also investigating "The trend towards road closures and restricting access to Forest Service lands impacts local governments, small-town economies, and the way of life for many Americans who live near Forest Service land." This hearing was a direct attack on the environmentalist agenda to restrict and ban all access to public land via corridors, conservation easements, OHV trail closures, and other means all leading to the death of forests. The USFS requirement for Coordination with local governments, and the failure to follow this federal requirement was also discussed. This video is over an hour but gives a factual account of how environmentalists, NGOs, and conservation initiatives such as Yellowstone to Yukon are massively contributing to the destruction of our forests.
Kim Trotter, Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) Program Director, recently announced the hiring of two new employees for the purposes of advancing the Y2Y agenda in Montana and Idaho.
Nick Clarke was hired as the High Divide Project Coordinator. His duties will include:
This is the exact same agenda they pushed for in Island Park. Wildlife overpasses are the ruse for wildlife corridors, and connectivity to other protected areas. The map below covers the area Clarke has been assigned to, the High Divide Salmon-Selway-Bitterroot area. Residents in Salmon, Challis, McCall, Riggins, and Grangeville need to be ready, especially Salmon and Challis.
The second hire, Jessie Grossman, will be the Cabinet Purcell Mountain Corridor Project Coordinator. Her coverage area can be seen in the map below.
Ms. Grossman's duties will be the same as Clarke, using the bear as the excuse for connectivity. One huge threat of this agenda is the trans-boundary aspect, fully ignoring the Canadian-US border. Y2Y wants bears and other wildlife to have freedom to "roam" wherever it wants between countries, and remove whatever they think are barriers such as people, development, roads, private property, and land use. "Connecting" the Cabinet-Purcell mountains is the Y2Y objective, not understanding that this land and wildlife are already connected. The folks in Bonners Ferry, Sandpoint, and Ponderay need to be alert to this agenda coming their way.
For both areas, look for transportation projects that propose incorporation of wildlife overpasses, out of the blue "new" local groups that support overpasses, more aggressive pushes for placing land into conservation easements, and public meetings and outreach that intend to influence your thinking that overpasses are the only solution. Don't be afraid to confront them with the real agenda, the truth behind overpasses which is corridor designation and connectivity agendas. Alert your neighbors to the same and educate them. Do not let Y2Y implement their agenda in your area.
Our friends just north of Idaho in Alberta, Canada are fighting off the same Yellowstone 2 Yukon (Y2Y agendas. Perhaps more frustrating for them is that Y2Y funding in Canada is provided by U.S. foundations and corporations!
Just as the Brainerd and Wilburforce foundations fund Y2Y activities here, they also fund the same in Canada, along with the Idaho Wolverine Foundation. Fortunately Canadians who are in the fight the same as us understand that we are against this as well. The Cabinet-Purcell mountains are the transborder target between our countries. Y2Y would love to see our border erased, our land just designated as a place where all wildlife can roam freely while forbidding our use and ability to live in those areas. No respect for sovereignty. This is another atrocious aspect to Y2Y.
Coordination is federal law that requires "federal agencies to resolve policy conflicts with State and local plans, policies, and programs for the purpose of reaching consistency." This means, before any federal activity can proceed, the agency is obligated to meet with local government representatives such as county commissioners, and ensure that whatever activity they are planning must be "consistent" with local land use policies. If not, then the activity must be revised until consistency is reached between policies. Coordination is a "government to government" relationship and these federal laws protect local authority, placing the local government on an equal, not subordinate, position with the federal government. Collaboration, cooperation, consultation, or partnering, words the federal government likes to use to give the appearance of working with local governments, is not Coordination.
Funding for the Hwy 20 road project comes from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Concerns have already been expressed regarding the lack of engagement with the public and county government on the Targhee Pass road project, including the full Hwy 20 transportation corridor. But under federal law, the FHWA, along with the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), should have engaged Fremont County in coordination at the very beginning of the project.
While terms such as cooperation and consultation are used, federal law also includes explicit information on Coordination such as with the BLM (43 CFR 1610.3-1, 43 CFR 1610.3-2). The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) states in 43 US Code 1712, "...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...local governments within which the lands are located...", and "...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...".
23 CFR 771.111 - Early Coordination, Public Involvement, and Project Development, applies to the FHWA. In section 771.107, the following three definitions apply to the Targhee Pass project:
(b) Action - A highway or transit project proposed for FHWA...funding.
(c) Administration action - The approval by FHWA...of the applicant's request for Federal funds for construction (In our case ITD applied for and received funding from FHWA).
(d) Administration - FHWA...is the designated lead agency for the proposed action (FHWA is the designated lead agency).
Aside from very clear requirements for public involvement, it also states under (h)(v)(A) that a state agency should hold a public hearing and explain, "The project's purpose, need, and consistency with the goals and objectives of any local urban planning." This was never done by ITD, nor did FHWA engage with Fremont County Commissioners for coordination on land use policies to ensure consistency of those plans with the Hwy 20 transportation project.
An example of how coordination was used in transportation is the Trans Texas Corridor transportation project, which was a plan to build a transportation network, or "supercorridor", from Mexico, through the U.S., into Canada. While this project exceeds the size of Targhee Pass, was further into the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements, and involved significant private property rights, coordination was successfully used to discontinue it.
In the Trans Texas Corridor case NEPA law, 42 USC 4331 (NEPA Section 101) was cited. It partly states, "...it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to improve and ‘coordinate’ Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources...". This was not done by the FHWA and five Texas mayors, along with school districts, joined together to "...require the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) to coordinate the project with the Commission." The attorney who worked on this case was Fred Kelly Grant, who recently created the Coordination Institute. The history and an explanation of coordination is on his site.
Mr. Grant recently completed a series of five videos on coordination. Below is Video #1. Video #2, #3, #4, and #5 are each about 15 minutes. These videos give insight into his previous cases and how coordination works.
From the beginning of the studies conducted on the Hwy 20 corridor in Island Park to present, no coordination on the project has occurred between the FHWA and local governments. They too, must start over and ensure this project is consistent with land use policies of Fremont County.
There is some confusion that coordination mandates federal actions must adhere to local government land use policies, that county policies must be integrated into federal actions, or that federal actions must be integrated into county land use policies. That is not what coordination requires. Coordination requires that the federal government "shall" achieve "consistency" between federal actions and local policies.
The Targhee Pass transportation project, in its 5 alternatives, involves land and private property, with the most extensive land changes being proposed by wildlife overpasses. FHWA must come to the table with Fremont County Commissioners on coordination before proceeding any further with the Targhee Pass project.
One of the issues brought up in the scoping report comments was the relationship of the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC) to the Targhee Pass transportation project. In the updated, 2018 Targhee Pass EA Scoping Report, on page 14, there is a basic summary of Department of Interior (DOI) secretarial orders (SO) that are pertinent to the existence of landscape conservation cooperatives, which includes the GNLCC. The report states, "...land use planning and landscape scale conservation/mitigation are beyond the scope of ITD’s mission...", and those SOs are "...are not germane to Federal Highway Administration procedures."
That is interesting. In a 2013 GNLCC newsletter it specifically states, "...MAP-21 is the first national transportation law to weave throughout its programs authority for state, federal and tribal managers, and researchers to reduce the number of motorist collisions with wildlife and improve connectivity among habitats disrupted by roads." The Center For Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC) even provided further clarification on this federal highway law.
Another factor that needs consideration is the relationship Idaho Fish & Game (IDFG) has with the GNLCC. The EA report also states, "The Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s (IDFG) interest in collaborating with ITD as described in the MOU stems from IDFG’s mission to preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the fish and wildlife populations of the state." There are actually two MOUs between ITD and IDFG, one in 2015, and the second in 2017. What the report left out was the MOUs state in the 2015 report that IDFG would be responsible for "...increasing wildlife linkage/connectivity/corridors...", and reiterated in the 2017 report, "...provide for wildlife connectivity...", "...facilitate...migration corridors for wildlife...", and "...develop...site specific information...on wildlife crossings...wildlife connectivity and wildlife crossing designs."
This is relevant because IDFG is involved with the GNLCC and its objectives for overpasses. Not only does IDFG partner with GNLCC partner Yellowstone 2 Yukon (Y2Y), IDFG has also received funding from the GNLCC for a Decision Support System project, and other projects. One project was even led by GNLCC member and IDFG employee, Gregg Servheen, the Transboundary Decision Support System to Guide and Implement Conservation, Land Use, Energy, Transportation, and Climate Change Management and Monitoring, which included connectivity.
In summary, IDFG is involved with the GNLCC, there are federal laws that require transportation projects to include wildlife mitigation, the ITD MOUs state the IDFG role is for corridors and connectivity, the GNLCC objectives include wildlife corridors and connectivity, all which makes the GNLCC very "germane" to the Targhee Pass Project.
On September 2-3, 2015 the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC) held a meeting on their connectivity initiative. The intent at this time was to address invasive species and connectivity across the GNLCC, working across jurisdictional boundaries, and share data. This "framework" also included conservation targets for ecosystems, habitat, and species. The map below is difficult to read but there is a definite focal target in the Island Park area.
Their "conservation outcomes" included conservation easements for key habitats and connectivity zones, road ecology (over & underpasses and fencing), fish passage for connectivity, and wildlife corridors. The wildlife corridor target includes Island Park.
While all of this is pretty clear about their intent to build on connectivity via conservation targets, they also laid out the larger picture for restricted use and banned access.
It is obvious that the longer term goal for overpasses, conservation easements, and wildlife corridors is to restrict use by people. It may sound fluffy and nice to build overpasses for vehicle collision reduction, but if overpasses are built a wildlife corridor declaration will be pursued next, followed by insistence on conservation of that corridor, with eventual full blown banned use.
As described by the GNLCC itself, this is what will happen if any overpasses are built in Island Park.
It is understood that all conservation initiatives and non-governmental organizations (NGO) are attached to Washington D.C., they hob nob together, make their devious plans in partnership, and leave us out.
With the exposure of activity behind the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC), Yellowstone 2 Yukon (Y2Y), Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC), and others behind the effort to get wildlife overpasses built in Targhee Pass, Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary Ryan Zinke has now incorporated them into the DOI workforce. The US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and these initiatives partner through the GNLCC, and it is a distinct probability that the DOI was advised of this exposure and investigated it. What better way to solve this exposure problem than to wave a magic wand and create a Secretarial Order (SO) that gives the GNLCC de facto authority to proceed. Even the Greater Yellowstone Coalition understands this.
On February 9, 2018, while attending the Western Conservation and Hunting Expo in Salt Lake City, Utah, Sec. Zinke announced his SO 3362, which is meant to "...improve habitat quality and western big game winter range and migration corridors for antelope, elk, and mule deer."...foster "... collaboration with states and private landowners and facilitates all parties using the best available science to inform development of guidelines that helps ensure that robust big game populations continue to exist."...and "...help establish better migration corridors...". What a bunch of crock. In spite of all the lauding of his accomplishments on the DOI site, Sec. Zinke just pulverized anything positive for Idahoans with this SO.
DOI agencies, USFWS and National Park Service (NPS), give conservation initiatives authority in the GNLCC. One of the primary GNLCC objectives is migration corridors for connectivity. Essentially, Zinke just gave full authority to the GNLCC to continue in spite of the fact he revoked LCCs with SO 3349, which were created by SO 3289, and then advanced with SO 3330. SO 3362 essentially reinstates and expands what he just revoked with SO 3349.
There are several key sections of the SO 3362 that require scrutiny.
Sec. 1 Purpose. This Order directs appropriate bureaus within the Department of the Interior (Department) to work in close partnership with the states of...Idaho...to enhance and improve the quality of...migration corridor habitat on Federal lands...that recognizes state authority to conserve and manage big-game species and respects private property rights.
Our Republic does not include federal partnerships with states, states are sovereign. Nowhere does this SO state that citizens or local governments are involved in these decisions, or those who would be the most impacted by land use changes. Private property is a right and protected by the Fifth Amendment and Idaho law, it is not something that can just be "respected" by a federal agency.
Page two states, "...it is crucial that the Department take action to harmonize State fish and game management and Federal land management of big-game winter range and corridors...if landowners are interested and willing, conservation may occur through voluntary agreements." Translated this means federal policy will become state policy, "harmonize". As a DOI program, the GNLCC is also being used to incorporate their objectives into State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP), and while landowners may be duped into "voluntary" agreements for conservation, initiatives work to get those conservation land use policies into local comprehensive plans, which will eventually become mandatory.
3c "Within 180 days, develop a proposed categorical exclusion for proposed projects that utilize common practices solely intended to enhance or restore habitat for species such as sage grouse and/or mule deer...". This essentially gives authority to maneuver around NEPA requirements, one of which is public participation.
Sec. 4.a.(1) ...identify an individual to serve as the “Coordinator” for the Department. The Coordinator will work closely with appropriate States, Federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and/or associations to identify active programs focused on...migration corridors. Again there is no citizen or local government involvement and the "and/or associations" is clearly referencing the DOI created GNLCC. This SO cements their authority and now drags in state agencies whose role up to this time has been fairly hidden in the GNLCC.
4.b.(1) With respect to activities at the State level...identify one person...to serve as the Liaison...will schedule a meeting with the respective State fish and wildlife agency...work in close partnership with the State on...migration corridor conservation.
Take note of that "conservation" wording. This is a slip by Zinke, the SO is really targeting land conservation, not improving big game hunting. Idaho Fish & Game (IDFG) already has a wildlife conservation program, one for "landowners", and a Habitat Improvement Program for private land owners. Now a federal "Liaison" will be interfering with these state programs.
4.b.(4) Assess State wildlife agency data regarding wildlife migrations early in the planning process for land use plans and significant project-level actions that bureaus develop.... As previously stated, the goal will be harmonizing federal planning with state planning, we will be living under a federal policy.
4.b.5(iii) working cooperatively with private landowners and State highway departments to achieve permissive fencing measures, including potentially modifying (via smooth wire), removing (if no longer necessary), or seasonally adapting (seasonal lay down) fencing if proven to impede movement of big game through migration corridors;
Zinke just gave the GNLCC and conservation initiatives the authority to continue their camaraderie with ITD for integration of overpasses and fencing, forcing wildlife into different migratory paths, leading to the creation of a corridor.
4.b.5(iv) avoiding development in the most crucial winter range or migration corridors during sensitive seasons;
4.b.5(v) minimizing development that would fragment winter range and primary migration corridors;.
There it is, the truth, the goal is restricting use or banning land development within or adjacent to a migratory corridor.
4.d.(3) Consult with State wildlife agencies and bureaus to ensure land use plans are consistent...to one another along the entire wildlife corridor...where...migration corridors span jurisdictional boundaries.
Zinke is referring to local comprehensive or land use plans, and jurisdictional boundaries includes private property. It is critical that citizens engage with elected officials on comprehensive plans, ensuring no reference is made to corridor protection or conservation. If local land use plans do not reference these then federal policy for corridors and conservation will be inconsistent with local policy and the feds will have more difficulty proceeding with conservation policies until consistency is reached. Coordination is in federal law, written into USFS, BLM, and FHA (23 CFR 774.5) laws, that coordination shall occur between the federal and local governments to ensure consistency between land use policies. It is not consulting, cooperating, or collaborating because coordination puts the local government on an equal footing with the feds, not subordinate. The feds do not like this law, they would like to just mow over local governments and us with their plans, without coordination, The 10th Amendment guarantees this protection for states and its citizens and recently the Idaho Senate addressed the coordination requirement in SJM103.
4.b.5(i) Habitat management goals and associated actions as they are associated with big game winter range and migration corridors;
This statement references the creation of other corridors which can include riparian, biodiversity, or ecosystems, potentially expanding federal control over land use because these habitat types extend from public land into state and private land. An example is his reference to "sagebrush ecosystems...other ecotypes...and sagebrush landscapes". A migration corridor will require other types of corridors to support wildlife. A habitat management example is the Sage Grouse, of which sage brush protection was needed for its habitat. Translated, "Habitat Management" means conservation or protection. Not only will SWAP plans be used as they identify species and habitat of greatest conservation need, but Zinke also plans to use the Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (CHAT) as a mapping tool for land use (4.c.).
The subject of the SO is "Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big Game Winter Range and Migration Corridors". In that title, where does it indicate the SO will "...expand opportunities for big-game hunting by improving priority habitats...". Priority habitats are those typically protected for a game species as in the Sage Grouse example. What is meant by "improved" priority habitats? Corralling wildlife with fencing? Moving all humans and development out of the way? Creating pseudo corridors that already exist and which already cross private property without any problems?
This West Is Our West has an excellent article, written by Clifford C. Nichols, Is Zinke 'Migration Corridors' order the Endangered Species Act on Steroids? His article brings out some other pertinent points on the SO.
Sec. Zinke isn't fooling anyone. His goal is conservation and control over land use. It is appalling that all of this activity is hidden from us and strips us of our "consent of the governed" role. Without any federal law he is sanctioning an expanded, behind the scenes, directive that further erodes our right to local representation and state sovereignty. Sec. Zinke, Idahoans have not given consent to your SO 3362.