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. oth 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.
0 Comments
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. 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). |
Archives
May 2023
Categories
All
|