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).
0 Comments
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. Idaho has a crisis brewing in the Magic Valley area and every Idahoan in the state needs to pay attention. Lava Ridge is a proposed project on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land that would build up to 400 wind turbines, 7 substations, 248 miles of collector lines, 19 miles of transmission lines, 486 miles of new roads, and several other land damaging installations. The turbines may have a maximum height of 740 feet. This will eventually expand to include the Salmon Falls Wind Project and the Taurus Wind Turbine Project. This is long but it goes deep.
All of these projects are for "energy in the west", meaning any state has access to the energy that is produced. There is no benefit to Idaho with this project and it is critical that all Idahoans boot it out. In 2017, the federal government removed over 10 million acres of Sage Grouse habitat protections for energy development. It is ironic that, with others, Governor Little expressed concerns about this project when he was the one who rearranged those sage grouse protections in 2022 so the land could be used for energy projects, including Lava Ridge. It is also interesting that some LS Power "individual" donated money to Rep. Simpson in 2022. The BLM Idaho Resource Advisory Council, in 2021, created a subcommittee with several interests represented, "to compile information and conduct research regarding the proposed Lava Ridge Wind Project" for recommendations to the Council on the project, its last meeting being held March 9, 2023. The BLM completed its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in January, 2023, the comment period being extended to April 20. Information on how to comment can be found here or here. All DEIS documents can be found here. Magic Valley Energy (MVE) was incorporated as a Foreign Limited Liability Company in 2019. The last filed annual report in 2022 indicates it was signed by Paul Thessen, President, LS Power Development. Luke Papez, who introduced the project under the guise of MVE, is really the Project Manager for LS Power. In essence, MVE is really just a front name for what is actually LS Power, not an affiliate as stated on its website. MVE's Development Plan doesn't include the damage it will bring to the Magic Valley area or the disruption it will cause. In its "Purpose and Need" statement, this project will "have the ability to serve multiple power markets in the western United States, including those accessible through use of the Southwest Intertie Project transmission corridor" that runs through Nevada, part of the financing program Transmission Infrastructure Program (TIP). This is MVE's insulting response to the Idaho Delegation and Local Legislator’s Letter Regarding the Lava Ridge Wind Project, and to the Twin Falls County Commissioner's resolution. MVE also has a blog raving about the positives of what they are doing. The plan suggests "The need for the Project arises from regulatory, utility, and consumer driven objectives to incorporate increasing amounts of renewable/carbon free energy sources into energy supply portfolios." It lists the states with those needs as Idaho, Nevada, California, Arizona, Utah, Oregon, Washington, Montana, New Mexico, and the City of Los Angeles. This is not the full truth. For one, it is not consumer driven by Idahoans. LS Power, a multibillion dollar multinational corporation, was founded by Mikhail (Mike) Segal in 1990. He began his career by receiving his education at the Kharkiv Polytech Institute in Ukraine, then immigrating to the U.S. from the former Soviet Union in 1978, having obtained his U.S. citizenship somewhere along the way. His work history includes working for the Department of Energy (DOE) in the former Soviet Union; serving on the Center on Global Energy Policy Advisory Board, and holding other positions in companies such as Dynegy, among others. Mr. Segal serves as the Chairman of LS Power, with his son, Paul Segal, serving as its CEO. LS Power "is a development, investment and operating company focused on the power and energy infrastructure sector." In more simple terms, it is a private company that invests, develops, and operates power generation and electric transmission infrastructure in the United States. Paul Segal is an Advisory Board member of the Institute for Policy Integrity, "a non-partisan think tank dedicated to improving the quality of governmental decisionmaking", primarily focusing on climate and energy policy. Its collaborators are environmental groups. In 2019, he was selected to serve as an Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA) Chair. Apparently, LS Power made much of its fortune on gas powered plants, but since 2020 its focus has turned to "renewable" energy. This corporation became so wealthy, it needs no funding from other sources for projects, it funds its own. Mr. Segal does have moments of reality, so he continues to invest in natural gas. He understands renewable energy cannot meet energy needs but, "Our fleet is well-positioned to help accelerate the clean energy transition by managing the intermittency of renewables."...and "keeping the lights on when renewable resources are unavailable due to weather conditions or when extreme weather events destabilize the grid," After all, "maintenance of sufficient fossil-fuel infrastructure" is needed "to ensure continued energy security, affordability and reliability," However a buck needs to be made. Paul Segal has a Paul and Jenna Segal Family Foundation. Paul's wife, Jenna Segal, is a Broadway Producer with quite an extensive involvement in several progressive projects and philanthropy, including the establishment of a fund for scholars in Ukraine following the outbreak of war. Along with his father Mike, Paul and his wife have made donations to the same organizations. They have three children and live in New York. They seem like a nice family, but live a life that is a far cry from Magic Valley lifestyles, having no problem coming to Idaho for a profit. Maybe in New York they aren't bothered by a skyline of buildings, lights, and noise, but it isn't wanted in Idaho. As for LS Power, it has really amassed quite a portfolio. Most recently in November, 2022, it was set to complete a deal to buy 42 run-of-river hydro facilities across 11 states, fortunately none in Idaho. This deal adds to its already large portfolio that includes corporations it has bought or formed such as EVgo, Endurant Energy, REV Renewables, Rise Light & Power, CPower Energy Management, and Primary Renewable Fuels, LLC. The corporation has also had its hand in battery projects. All of these LS Power owned outfits have been used to build grids that generate and transmit power across the United States with additional projects in the works. South Korea is helping by investing in this corporation to "accelerate the expansion of REV's portfolio of renewable power and energy storage projects". They know where money can be made. LS Power also uses the Environment, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics for its work, which they probably think makes them a responsible corporation. Nothing in that report comes close to recognizing the environmental and social damage they bring with the Lava Ridge project. While it claims to meet the needs of communities, protect the environment, and most laughable, "work with local communities" to bring "sustainable energy" to the area, which nobody asked for in the first place and in which massive local opposition exists, perhaps LS Power and Mr. Segal should rethink what his corporation is really proposing in reality. While Governor Little and Congressional leaders have expressed concern about the project, it is interesting that Rep. Simpson received money from an individual(s) at LS Power in 2022. Apparently, LS Power has ruffled feathers in Idaho before. In 2010 it wanted to erect a a high-transmission line that would have bisected the Minidoka National Historic Site (NHS), but it was successfully lobbied to have it relocated outside of the NHS (pg 10). So LS Power has known about this area for quite some time, and it looks like they have lawyered up for this project already. Power grids built by LS Power are located across the United States, in California (CAISO), Texas, (ERCOT), the midwest (MISO), midwestern to eastern states (PJM), and New York (NYISO). Its utilities include Republic Transmission, SilverRun Electric, Cross Texas Transmission, DesertLink Transmission, and One Nevada. Idaho has three major power grids, will LS Power share its grids with those? It appears in this article Mr. Segal is complaining that regulations prevent him from expanding even further. This corporation trots across the United States and builds "clean" energy projects and grids with the help of the White House. With all of its wealth why the incentive to continue doing it? Well, maybe because its pockets go just a little deeper, and with those pockets comes more power and control, just part of the global corporate takeover of our world. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is well known for its education and research. One of its initiatives is called MITei, or the MIT Energy Initiative to "transform the world's energy systems" and "develop low- and no-carbon solutions". This is right up the alley of LS Power, so it is a member of the initiative. Among the other corporate MITei members, are World Economic Forum (WEF) members Chevron, Equinor, ExxonMobil, and Shell, and MIT itself, to name just a few. LS Power is sitting right there in the middle along with the many other top dogs. Poppy Allonby, a WEF Young Global Leader, sits on the external advisory board for MITei, works for BlackRock, and is head of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) enablement for T. Rowe Price. Martha Broad, MITei Executive Director, is another female devoted to the WEF. MITei has created its Future Energy Systems Center (FESC), in which LS Power is a member, to "reshape the landscape of energy supply and demand." LS Power is doing its part with building wind power and transmission lines. Since its inception, MITei has been spreading its destructive agenda across the world, these over-educated, pompous elitists who have decided how the masses will obtain energy, regardless of the destruction to the land with turbines, solar panels, and batteries. It does not bother these elitists to tear up land, disrupt people's lives, or dictate how others should live, none of it is in their vocabulary. They really believe they know best. There is no greater population who loves their land more than Idahoans, and what these people are doing is irresponsible and unacceptable. But it doesn't stop there. WEF partners with the International Energy Agency (IEA), in which the United States participates, and whose goal is to work "with governments and industry to shape a secure and sustainable energy future for all." This group also works to create "sustainable energy systems". It is all part of the WEF energy transition plan to implement Sustainable Development Goal #7.A, "promote investment in energy infrastructure and clean energy technology", and #7.B, "expand infrastructure and upgrade technology for supplying modern and sustainable energy services for all". Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of WEF, talks about this energy transition at the 3:25 mark. Paul Segal can see this future, the wealth to be made, and probably why he has a portfolio that includes most of these systems. Idaho is an easy target for him to make his money. How much money does one have to make before it is enough? These projects will have a negative impact on the area, some of which may be long term. This claim for clean energy comes with its own set of negative aspects as well such as killing birds, and dumping turbine waste. If those who live outside this area think this information isn't relevant to them, think again. With Idaho's vast uninhabited, and federally owned land, the government and corporations have already studied where they can lay their projects down, the agenda is clean energy and no area in Idaho is safe from its intrusion. More information on this project can be found in an article written by the Magic Valley Liberty Alliance (MVLA) including resources to express opposition to these projects. There is also a Facebook page, Stop Lava Ridge, and website. Capital Clarity gave a presentation on this project. This link has information on FAQs with contacts for other questions, and on page 8 the best way in which to provide a comment. This February 24, 2023 video by the BLM provides an explanation of the DEIS, including the alternatives. At the 1:2:04 mark, it was stated that energy produced by Lava Ridge would be traded to purchasers on western markets, depending on where the transmission lines are capable of sending it. Purchasers could obtain a power purchase agreement that would require an approved authorization, which needs to be completed prior to the BLM giving a notice to proceed on the project. Out of state money will be put into a system that damages Idaho land and livelihoods. This transformation to clean energy is an agenda that has been set by the government in partnership with global corporations, who are marching over Idaho with lofty ideas on how they think we should be living, with no representation by citizens. It is the Great Reset being implemented in real time. The time to become engaged is now. If LS Power gets their foot in the door there will be no deterrent to them trying again, or others coming into the state to do the same. Now is the time to say No. Help Magic Valley stop LS Power from ruining the area and our state before April 20. Include comments about scientific studies that show the damage turbines cause to the environment, kill birds, create more waste that is hard to dispose of such as the blades and batteries, and the negative effect they have on the human environment. The Network for Landscape Conservation (NLC) held a webinar called Landscape Conservation in Action. Outlined in this webinar were actions that could be taken to achieve the American the Beautiful plan and achieve the goal of conserving 30% of land by 2030, also called the 30x30 plan. One key factor in this goal is enticing private property owners to give up their property rights for conservation.
Breece Robertson was one of the speakers and is the National Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Director for The Trust for Public Land. She began her talk by verifying that private landowners will be key in meeting the 2030 and 2050 goals. The 2050 goal is protecting 50% of land by 2050. This is a Center for Biological Diversity goal, "to save species and the creation of new national monuments and parks, wildlife refuges and marine sanctuaries". Protection means either restricted or banned use, not conserved. Even though a definition of what is conservation has not been clarified in the 30x30 plan, according to Ms. Robertson the Outdoor Alliance Paths to 30x30 allegedly defines the difference between conservation and preservation. Ms. Robertson outlined the need for conservation easements. The Western Wildways, where GIS mapping is used to identify areas for conservation, shows the critical path of linkage for protection of areas between areas that are already protected. Western Wildways is an identified area for protection by the Wildlands Network. This mapping also includes urban areas for "green" school yards. Another way GIS mapping is being used is conservation groups purchasing oil & gas leases to forever ban any extraction of resources in Wyoming. According to Ms. Robertson, previous engagement with landowners has been "restrictive", and not all members of a community were reached. That is an understatement. Community land owners have been deliberately left out because of opposition to these agendas. To correct his, she talks about having "speak outs", that is being at different events to show maps and gather information from community members, but to learn more one would need to purchase her book. Ms. Robertson took full advantage in this webinar to promote sales of her new book. What she failed to mention was the deliberate tactic of finding out what community members thought to strategize a way in which to frame a message for promotion of the same agenda. She brought up the NatureServe Map of Biodiversity Importance (MOBI), that includes "data for a taxonomically and ecologically diverse set of species, including vascular plants, aquatic invertebrates, and pollinating insects—as well as vertebrates." That includes birds, mammals, fishes, lampreys, amphibians, and reptiles to us non-science people. The MOBI map also helps with "local planning". Not your local elected officials, planning and zoning, or other representation within your county. Again, these plans are for the purposes of connectivity that drives conservation strategies, and especially for wildlife corridors. While she claims the Center for Large Landscape Conservation is "working" to identify these corridors, the truth is they have already completed much of that work, but may be lacking on the smaller species like ants and spiders. The Nature Conservancy Resilient Land Mapping Tool was also mentioned. Its purpose is described as "Resilient lands and waters shown on this map may be conserved by a wide range of measures from good land stewardship, to other forms of private land conservation, to outright fee or easement acquisition by various levels of government." Yep, that's right, more acquisition of land by the government. There is even a mapping tool for the world. Another method for conservation is "other effective area-based conservation measures’ (OECMs). These are a conservation designations for areas that are achieving the effective in-situ conservation of biodiversity outside of protected areas. OCEMs are straight out of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). But all of this is out of the IUCN. Even though the definition of conservation is not definite, Ms. Robertson brought up the point that lots of private land was for sale and ends up being sold for development which she and all of these groups are really trying to achieve, banning all development. So they use these maps and other methods like public records to identify landowners for conservation easements, then conduct outreach to them, and work with donors to pay the up front costs of conservation easements. This is the same scam that has always been run. Engaging property owners in mapping strategies is somehow suppose to entice private property owners into drinking the kool-aid. Apparently this was done in Idaho by engaging networks such as through ranches, farmers, and the Cattlemen's Association. So keep an eye out for this tactic. Bet you can't wait to run out and get her book. You put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig, or at least the saying goes. Such is the case with this newly renamed federal agenda. First a brief background. America's Great Outdoors Initiative (AGOI) was created in 2010 via a memo by the Obama administration. Its purpose was advancing land conservation, expanding recreation, and creating jobs. Per the memo directive, across the United States landscape conservation cooperatives (LCC) were created by the Department of Interior, and an LCC network was organized. LCC's were non-governmental organizations (NGO) intertwined with federal and state governments to advance these objectives. After being given millions of dollars their trough dried up with President Trump and only a few carried on. 30 x 30 was part of Biden’s Executive Order (EO) 14008 dictating 30% of America's land should be placed in conservation by 2030. According to this article, "18%, or 437 million additional acres, would need to be protected in order to reach the 30x30 goal." The goal of both the memo and the EO is taking land for permanent non-use and giving it back to the wild. Basically, through this EO, federal agencies created the Conserving and Restoring America the Beautiful report. This preliminary report, a regurgitation of AGOI, was presented to the newly formed National Climate Task Force in May. This is the beginning implementation of 30 x 30. While vague in several aspects, including there not being any clear definition of what is meant by conservation, the report does have some identifiable recommendations. Interestingly, a special note is made that conservation is separated out from the concept of “protection” or “preservation". Hmm, that isn't the dictionary definition. Ah heck, let's just make this up as we go along. The report also indicated guidelines will be proposed to determine "whether lands and waters qualify for conservation". Does that mean if the federal government decides land in Idaho qualifies for conservation Idaho will be obligated to conserve it? Curiously, reference was made to the accomplishments of previous conservation measures. Prairie Potholes, which is permanently protected wetlands for non-use, and Crown of the Continent which is an example of "Landscape-scale protection". Both obliterate the boundary between Canada and the United States with decisions being made by the government and NGOs. Following several diatribes about America being oppressive, discriminatory, unjust, and unequal in opportunity the report claims to have received input from several diverse groups, primarily NGOs, government agencies, and businesses, and included the claim that often input validated the initiative's direction. A new special emphasis was placed on "private property rights being honored and respected." Other recommendations include creating more parks, expanding and conserving wildlife migration corridors, expanding marine sanctuaries, unlocking access to inaccessible public land, and the intent to "support outdoor recreation, including appropriate designations to improve conservation". The question is, how is outdoor recreation supported when land is in conservation? It has to mean either no use to protect it, or, use is dictated and controlled. And of course all of this will create jobs, that is union jobs. One special recommendation is the creation of an American Conservation and Stewardship Atlas which would allow the collection of data on how much land is conserved, including private land, even though other government agencies collect this type of information. The Atlas will be generated by federal agencies. The Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC) is drooling over and celebrating this new agenda and has already created a "roadmap" for its implementation and success. Its "Build Back a Better National Landscape Conservation Framework" roadmap reestablishes LCCs, but now renamed landscape conservation collaboratives rather than cooperatives. Another pig with lipstick. These collaboratives would create a national network, with your tax dollar funding them of course. Bear in mind, these NGOs have no acknowledgement of, nor respect for, jurisdictional boundaries, or recognition of our Republic, elected representation, or laws. That includes no recognition of transboundary borders as well. For them it is a free for all because wildlife and ecosystems don't recognize boundaries. A prime example of no recognition of laws, the roadmap calls for an EO that directs federal agencies to bring science and people together through these collaboratives. From these collaboratives, create a network and council for policy and projects to integrate conservation and national climate adaptation science. Not by sovereign states, nationally. The plan is basically a blanket of their grandiose schemes to dictate and control land use under the guise of conservation at a national level, not fully achieved by the LCC Network before its funding dried up. While the CLLC claims a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) review of LCC's was glowing, that wasn't exactly the case. The review concluded "...that it would require the LCCs to develop a process that can account and track how their planning efforts result in the implementation of on-the-ground conservation." In other words, for the amount of money given the LCCs did not deliver on conservation promises. A letter stating this conclusion by Rep. Bishop has been removed from the Natural Resource Committee website but can partially be read here. If anything, the roadmap attempts to integrate some of the NAS report criticisms such as adding new voices to the mix and sucking in private property owners. But the drawbacks in this roadmap also include the return of the ominous corridors and connectivity agenda. Its recommendation to create a National Landscape Conservation Council replicates the LCC cooperatives entanglement with federal and state agencies, Tribes, and NGOs, only now expanded to include a mix of backgrounds and ethnicities. Somehow, being no different than cooperatives, this would allow better collaboration on projects crossing multiple jurisdictions. In reality, the LCC Network already tried this, just another pig with lipstick. Sources for funding, funding, funding were spread throughout this roadmap. While it may seem the CLLC created this roadmap it also included input from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Congressional staff, other NGOs, and the Salish Kootenai Tribes. For private property owners, keep an eye on your local planning and zoning decisions and comprehensive plans, this is where conservation principles are inserted. This Jackson, Wyoming document provides an idea on conservation regulations. If your local friendly NGO member comes knocking at your door, be aware of their intent to educate you about conservation on your land or convincing you to put your land into a conservation easement.
Neither report is very long and although somewhat repetitive and full of feel good language, it is clearly a rehash of NGOs becoming extended arms of the government in which once again tax dollars will pay for an agenda that will be used against taxpayers. But this pig's lipstick also has a very nasty color, and that is one of a nationally dictated plan over land use, which essentially will continue to erode state sovereignty over land issues. Idaho, with the majority of land being managed by the federal government, will be a primary target for this agenda. The Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC), an organization that includes non-governmental, university, government, and global partners, although it doesn't identify those government partners, it most likely includes U.S. federal agencies, and states. At least now CLLC is owning up to its partnership with the United Nations, more specifically the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). CLLC also admitted it "contributed to the UN Convention on Migratory Species adopting definitions of ecological connectivity" in its Annual 2020 report. For the IUCN, CLLC has the role of "Secretariat of the IUCN WCPA Connectivity Conservation Specialist Group. In its continued march towards globalism, the goal here is to promote global 'Guidelines for Connectivity Conservation". How about that, some boxed/canned version of rules that are applied the same in Idaho as they are in Brazil, as if the two had any similarities at all.
Who gave permission to these dudes to have the authority to make these decisions in the first place? Have they not heard of Constitutional laws that govern the U.S. as well as Idaho state laws? CLLC has also gained some allies in their agenda with U.S. Tribes, which makes sense as Tribes are held in federal trust, which basically is a relationship with the federal government. To capture all groups, CLLC has a fiscally-sponsored project called The Network for Landscape Conservation (NLC), which is an organization that more specifically identifies all involved partners. Heck, they are all one in the same, why bother with the different names. Now, somehow CLLC has decided conservation efforts are needed to prevent pandemics and locking up land for corridors and non-use will help economies. Thinking it is some sort of Star Wars descendant, CLLC has also created an internal JEDI Dialogue Group. While no specific information on this group could be found, the Washington Retail Association outlines the principles, Justice, Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion (JEDI). Must be the latest fad of collective thinking. Lastly, CLLC leader Gary Tabor, is plotting "guidance on integrating local stakeholder participation and social data into collaborative landscape conservation (CLC) planning", a funded project through the Human Dimensions Branch of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service via the U.S. Geological Survey under Cooperative Agreement No. G15AC00325, OMB Control Number 1018-0170. In other words, taxpayer dollars. While this project claims to be Inclusive, Fair, Transparent, and Legitimate, all prior experiences with this and other groups has shown nothing more than deceit. Don't be fooled, this is going to end badly for citizens. Only people who hold the same ideology will be allowed to participate, all other voices will be silenced. So on it goes, zealots with ideologies for the world. In 2018, then Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary, Ryan Zinke, issued Secretarial Order (SO) 3362 which, among other things, called for states to begin the process of identifying wildlife migration corridors "on federal lands" and "harmonize State fish and game management and Federal land management of big-game winter range and corridors." Several states such as Wyoming and Oregon have moved forward with supporting this SO, Idaho has been fairly quiet, until now. It seems there has been some typical behind the scenes activity between the federal government and Idaho Fish & Game (IDFG). In April, 2019, the DOI sent a letter to IDFG Director, Ed Schriever, soliciting a second version of Idaho's Action Plan identifying priority migration corridors in Idaho while providing thousands of dollars for research and mapping. Even though SO 3362 specifically stated federal land, this letter makes no mention of it, even providing thousands of dollars for conservation on "private land". Obviously, neither the IDFG Director, nor the DOI contact has any clue that IDFG is a state agency. Where does the DOI get off dictating how a state agency is managed? Did any of this go through the legislature for approval? Were Idaho citizens or their representatives ever advised of this DOI directive? No. However, as usual, the environmental groups, such as Center for Large Landscape Conservation were given the opportunity to provide their input. So, what brilliant plan has IDFG developed to meet DOI demands? What was a "federal lands" issue has now become a "cross-jurisdictional conservation", private land owner "collaboration" effort "to inform land management and habitat conservation actions". At the same time, other DOI agencies must be brought in to "partner" with IDFG to improve "migration corridors on DOI-managed federal lands in a manner that recognizes state authority to conserve and manage big game species and respects private property rights." Are they out of their minds? Improve corridors on "DOI-managed" land with state authority on private lands? DOI land has nothing to do with private land let alone state authority over private land. How does a state "conserve" big game and respect private property rights on DOI land? In reality, this is a very clandestine maneuver to hide the fact that the DOI plans to create fake corridors on DOI land while knowing full well wildlife crosses over private property. That is the intention, sucking private property into their fake corridor. What is not being divulged in this scheme is that this corridor scam is about land use regulations and restrictions and is part of their connectivity agenda. Once a corridor is established, a mandate will be issued to "protect" that corridor, everything in its path will be dramatically changed with local land use management authority diminished. The IDFG document itself even speaks to limiting wildlife disturbance (i.e. no recreation) and avoiding development. In its October, 2019 V2.0 Action Plan, IDFG had no problem gathering input from "regulatory agencies (e.g., BLM, USFS, IDL, ITD, and IDWR)", and coordinating with the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). Nowhere to be found is any effort to talk with the legislature, local jurisdictional authority, or Idaho citizens about this DOI mandate. Maybe citizens just don't have the money to bribe IDFG like the DOI because it is already being taken as tax dollars for the DOI to use against them. Page 8 in the document lists all priority corridor areas in red with no distinction of land ownership, in fact exceeding beyond federal land. Following that page is each targeted area in Idaho, described in detail. The identified migration routes extend across large areas of land, each with different ownership. Those potential migration corridor areas will require the type of land use restrictions mentioned previously. Federal land, protecting habitats, or identifying corridors has nothing to do with this. It is about redesigning all land to dictate where and what type of development can occur and requirements over how private property owners can use their land. It is the federal government behind this agenda and IDFG along with other state agencies being complicit with that agenda. As we are being distracted by the many horrific issues that are tearing our nation apart, the federal government is continuing on its path of tyranny. Collaboration, consultation, and partnering were never written into our Constitution. Our government was designed through representation, starting at the most local level. That representation includes jurisdictional boundaries and specific enumerated powers of the federal government. It is the local counties that have authority over the land. The DOI is coming into our state with a fake corridor scam and successfully using IDFG to execute their intent to rule over land, including private property. While stated as voluntary participation at this point, it will eventually become a mandate. A Secretarial Order is not a law. There is no law that supports IDFG adhering to DOI demands.
Until everyone understands that the government, both at a federal and state level, has become a tyrannical machine this activity will not end. This is highlighted by Governor Little making unilateral decisions to shut our state down, how to spend millions of dollars, and using that money as a bribery to overlook his behavior by placating citizens with property tax relief. What a joke. Heads up Idaho, none of this tyranny will stop until we take necessary actions to stop it. Michael Whitfield, former High Divide Collaborative (HDC) Executive Director, recently wrote a white paper for the Lincoln Institute for Land Policy (LILP) titled, Toward Holistic Landscape Conservation in the 21st Century. It is the meanderings of a retired person, wishing for a collective, let's all get along, kum ba yah moment for all. The standard themes of overpopulation destroying the earth, people starving and having nowhere to live, the environment having no political boundaries, and severe fragmentation are repetitively spread throughout the document. There are also some exaggerated claims of cooperation, shared values, and other achievements in the High Divide area. The upshot of this document is nothing more than a rehash of the same old language, with an insertion of more involvement with other "stakeholders" which means those who do not hold the same ideology as Mr. Whitfield, and "building trust" with those individuals. Mr. Whitfield is unable to understand that those who do not hold the same ideology and beliefs as him will never acquiesce to his beliefs.
One suggestion Mr. Whitfield, given your grave concern about the environment being destroyed, starving people without anywhere to live, perhaps you should give consideration to turning your property over to the wild, moving to a densely packed area and dividing your financial well-being up to those who are in most need. In June, 2019, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon appointed eight Wyoming residents to form the Migration Corridor Advisory Group (MCAG), tasked with creating recommendations for state policy related to big game migration on land that is also used for mineral development. Surprisingly, there were no non-governmental organization (NGO) members on this group. In September, 2019, MCAG issued its recommendations to the Governor for an executive order (EO). Recommendations included development outside of corridors as a first priority, ensuring health inside of corridors, and changes on how a corridor is designated. Perhaps the most important recommendation was actively engaging landowners prior to designation and development of local working groups for designated corridors. All documentation regarding this issue can be found here. In December, 2019, Governor Gordon released the first draft of his EO for migration corridors, open to comment.
While a search on the Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) website does not bring up anything about migration corridors, Kim Trotter, Y2Y U.S. Program Director, continues to work behind the scenes to be involved in this issue. In this January 17, 2020 letter to the Governor, Ms. Trotter provides comments on the EO. Starting with some rather extensive praise of Wyoming, Ms. Trotter proceeds to recommend an extension beyond just ungulates to include many other species, that "state-issued permits will only be permitted when activities maintain the continued functionality of corridors", and that any unused permits should be retired. This means the corridor remains supreme over any other use, beginning the restricted use. While the role of Wyoming Game & Fish (WGF) was diminished in this EO, Ms. Trotter wants that role returned. Of course she recommends this, the idea that local land owners have control over land use is unacceptable, especially since Y2Y in general is heavily involved with state game agencies as has been identified with Idaho Fish & Game. Y2Y also believes only state agencies are capable of creating the science for their agenda. Ms. Trotter also does not think that local working groups are capable of making appropriate decisions in corridor designation and immediately talks about how members should be assigned to those local groups. Her concern most likely is to ensure many NGO individuals are part of those groups, and similar in other "collaborative" groups Y2Y partners have been involved in, make sure those groups are stacked with NGO individuals who don't even live in the area. She also wants the EO expanded beyond industry to include other NGO objective language. Extra funding is recommended for corridor studies, and once again Ms. Trotter identifies WGF as the only organization that has the capability of doing studies correctly. There is also a suggestion that local land owners receive money for inserting conservation objectives into their land practices. It's all about money, isn't it. But the true intention is finally listed at the end. Ms. Trotter recommends, "...temporary designations or protections be in place during the three years of research, the time to analyze data, and the time that it will take to go through the process of designation". Not even being able to wait until all the information comes in, Ms. Trotter jumps to the true end goal on what corridor designation is really about, land use restrictions and protection. The migration corridor issue is hot and being pursued aggressively. The Western Governors Association recently reiterated their support for migratory corridor designations. Legislation has been reintroduced requiring states to create wildlife corridors. It is a continued fulfillment of NGO objectives to turn western land over to wildlife. This is not something that will go away and citizens need to be aware of the authority local government has in preventing any of this from intruding into their lives. According to the Wildlands Network (WN) 2016 990 tax form, the description is "The Wild Earth Society, Incorporated, d/b/a Wildlands Network, is a Vermont corporation with its headquarters located in Seattle, Washington." WN was also formally known as the Wildlands Project. It's purpose is using collaboratives to provide enough "Room to Roam" for wildlife, including passage over private land, highway over and underpasses for wildlife vehicle reduction, conservation easements and purchase of land, reintroducing species, and reducing land fragmentation. Founded by Michael Soule and David Foreman, WN was incorporated in 1991, seeing themselves as the "original voice for landscape connectivity", with non-governmental organizations (NGO) and governments adopting their approach to conservation.
Odd, the WN website states its headquarters is in Salt Lake City, Utah. WN does not provide a list of their partners but can often be found on NGO websites as a partner such as Y2Y. There is also involvement with the state and federal governments, drafting and supporting legislation that implements their agenda. For Idaho, one individual is a threat, Susan Holmes. She covers the Western Wildway and her job is coordinating the Connectivity Policy Coalition, promoting wildlife corridors and core habitat connectivity policy, and protection. She is also works to secure national monument designations in the Western Wildway, enhance protections for keystone carnivores, and incorporate wildlife connectivity into federal climate strategies. Perhaps she has already been working on this in Island Park with the recent resurfacing of a national monument designation at Mesa Falls. The current WN Executive Director is Gregory Costello, an attorney to Connectivity Policy Coalition (CPC). In 2018 Mr. Costello received $114,788 in compensation for his work. His job includes working with Congress for national legislation; Department of Interior for corridors and connectivity; influencing federal protection of land; integrating connectivity into US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management plans; ensuring US Fish & Wildlife protects grizzlies and wolves; and working with environmental groups, with Y2Y being one of those groups. Looks like elected officials may be listening to him more than their constituents. A new WN accomplishment listed in the 2018 990 tax form was "dispelling myths about the negative Impacts of wolves to other animals, such as deer". Lots of private property owners would argue with that statement. From 2014 to 2018 the WN has continued to build its stash of money, with assets now over six million dollars. Yep, just another NGO that is a threat to Idaho. |
Archives
May 2023
Categories
All
|