Further research on the Targhee Pass Environmental Assessment (EA) report has revealed a very interesting piece of information. In Section B, comments from 29-55, a total of 27, are all the same, copies of each other. It seems this was generated at the request of Kim Trotter with Yellowstone 2 Yukon (Y2Y), even requesting a copy of submissions be sent to her. There is no date when this was posted, however it was prior to January 30 as she requested comments be submitted to the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) prior to that date. What is she tracking? Here is the link to the Y2Y website with the request. The sample comment listed on the Y2Y website are the same as those 27 comments in the EA scoping report. In case Y2Y decides to remove the web page, here is copy of it that confirms those comments came from Y2Y. This is why ITD only considers them as 1 comment, it came from one source, in this case Y2Y. There were occasional variations of the lead sentence, however ITD did count comments that contained this duplicated form terminology as ‘unique’ and proponents are now using those added comment totals toward their positive comment tallies.
It is unfortunate Y2Y incorporated their biased work into a comment form for ITD. Idahoans should have all information regarding overpasses in order for them to make an informed decision.
0 Comments
Re-published with permission from the IP News
In studying the scoping report, I have found in each comment period a lengthy guidance/suggestion comment submitted jointly by The Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. At this time, I will not address the majority content, it is very comprehensive. I would like, however, to address a single sentence found in the first comment they submitted. “A separate letter was submitted regarding both Targhee Pass and other statewide ITIP projects by GYC, Y2Y, and other partners throughout the state and region, which also requested funding to implement wildlife passage mitigations.” Citation #11 reads: Weskamp, David, (The Nature Conservancy), Laatsch, Jamie, (Henry’s Fork Foundation), Rinaldi, Kathy, (Greater Yellowstone Coalition), Trotter, Kim, (Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative), VanFleet, Mary and Parmer (various affiliations), Seidler, Renee, (Wildlife Conservation Society), and Reynolds Ph.D., Timothy (wildlife biologist). Letter to Idaho Transportation Department, Attn. Adam Rush, Comments on Idaho Transportation Department 2017-2021 Idaho Transportation Investment Program. 29 July, 2016. Please note the date on that letter: 7-29-16 This is 6 months before ITD ever came to Island Park to talk about a project on US 20, and it would not be until the end of July 2017 that ITD would tell Fremont County and IP that wildlife overpasses were included in the alternatives. The advocates promoting wildlife overpass alternatives at Targhee Pass are represented in citation #11. From that July 2016 date, you can conclude that these ‘special interests’ had an entire year to seek other agency and non-governmental organizations support for the overpasses. Since they had partnered with ITD in HWY 20 analysis, they also were aware of the ITIP planning effort and potential HWY 20 projects. They all knew. They were all collaborating far in advance. The community of Island Park and Fremont County did not. We have not been involved, informed or coordinated with in this process. Island Park and Fremont County should request and be given a copy of that letter. Leanne Yancey This midyear, 2017 Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC) newsletter exposes the truth about the intent of conservation initiatives to use transportation projects for overpasses for their connectivity goals.
Acknowledging the fact that the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is behind the global effort to "create a new protected area designation for wildlife corridors around the world. ", the CLLC is more than willing to comply. The new scam is now called, "conservation area designation – Areas of Connectivity Conservation (ACC) – that will serve to link protected areas...", coming straight out of the IUCN. CLLC Senior Conservationist, Rob Ament, will participate in this agenda by co-chairing the Transport Working Group (TWG) "to develop global policy that addresses transportation infrastructure and development with regard to roads and rails within the ACCs." This effort will develop a coalition of individuals and NGOs by building resources to help them "...develop expertise in mitigating roads and rails for wildlife and connectivity." This means they are building their army, with the intent to force us into surrendering to their notion of conservation, using Tribes as part of their efforts. The CLLC uses their "connectivity policy" to transform "local landscape protection in places identified by science as critical linkage areas." Their influence over our government has also "...been driving policy creation and helping craft new legislative language at the federal, regional and state levels, as well as participate in a limited number of local, on-the-ground efforts. This includes activities such as commenting on and shaping federal land management plans- which ...included...National Forests. We are also focusing on state wildlife plans and state-based wildlife corridor legislation, county plans...", and "...influence federal administrative policies, state-based initiatives and provide wildlife corridor information for legislation across the country." They openly admit to manipulating our government for their objectives. Another CLLC project is advocating "for reducing the impacts that roads have on wildlife by working to secure wildlife crossing structures...", specifically focusing on Hwy 20 at Targhee Pass. If they have been focusing on Targhee Pass, where has their name been disclosed? Does this mean all of their work has been in secret? Are they laundering their intentions behind other groups such as Yellowstone 2 Yukon, Henry's Fork Legacy Project, and perhaps even the Master Naturalists? Who are the front groups for the CLLC? Bottom line, this newsletter openly exposes everything that has been published about these groups. The have full intention to use transportation projects for their corridor and connectivity objectives. If they are not stopped now, they will only advance those objectives until Island Park is taken over by them, placed into some form of conservation per their desire, and eventually controlling how Island Park is used. Do Not let that happen. Sign the petition and join others in stopping all efforts to put wildlife overpasses in Island Park and ending their conservation objectives. Re-published with permission from the IP News
This is the Highway 20, Targhee Pass Project Scoping Report, first joint comment submission noting Citation #12 by Yellowstone to Yukon and The Greater Yellowstone Coalition. For a researcher, rarely do you find a definitive document that is full of multiple validations. Usually it takes months of dogged discovery of bits and pieces of information that you find in multiple sources, and it requires the researcher to pull it all together in one place. The Center for Large Landscape Conservation did that for us in the 2017 Newsletter and past articles Ken Watts has written for this paper have broke down that document. Further validation of the Center for Large Landscape Conservation’s role in the Targhee Pass Project can be found in the scoping report. Last week, I reported about citation #11, found in the first joint comment submitted by The Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. This week I will follow with citation #12 of the same comment submission. The subject of both citations are about two letters, submitted to ITD concerning future funding and projects coming available. These letters speak to intimate knowledge about the upcoming project at Targhee Pass in the first place, and how wildlife passages were introduced into what was originally a scheduled highway upgrade on a segment whose life-cycle requires it. Citation #12 "A separate letter was submitted regarding both Targhee Pass and other statewide ITIP projects by GYC, Y2Y, and other partners throughout the state and region, which also requested funding to implement wildlife passage mitigation.” Citation #12 credits: Callahan, Renee (Center for Large Landscape Conservation), Domenech, Elizabeth (Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative), McClure, Meredith, (Center for Large Landscape Conservation), Paul, Kylie (Defenders of Wildlife), Robinson, Lacy (Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative), Trotter, Kim (Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative). Letter to Idaho Transportation Department, Attn: Adam Rush, Comments on Idaho Transportation Department 2017-2021 Idaho. When ITD credited this community for the requests that they had received asking for wildlife overpasses to be introduced into this project, they were in fact misleading this community. Those requests did not come from us, they came from the largest and most influential conservation/environmentalist NGOs operating in our 5-western state region. IP Guest Research Leanne Yancey Re-published with permission from the IP News
Island Park and Fremont County, I have spent the last week doing a forensic analysis of the ITD Targhee Pass Project scoping report public comments. This forensic attempts to determine true/unique submissions and gauge impact population support or opposition to wildlife overpass alternatives. The document is 217 pages, claims 496 total comments. At least 243 were a form letter or ‘canned pre-prepared’ comments. ITD has expressed that such comments would only count as 1, therefore, in three comment periods those comments should only count as 3. I have not considered the non-governmental organizations or agency comments in this analysis. It is very critical to know that NO COMMENTS are DATED, therefore it cannot be determined if the comments were provided during the legal comment periods. It is also critical to know that the scoping document did not reveal any names or addresses. Public agencies are required to inform people providing comments that their names and address may be released to the public, they should be, it is the only verifiable control in the process. Island Park and Fremont County also need to know that ITD’s conservation partners on this project were given a project number to submit comments to at least 6 months before they ever came to Island Park to talk about the HWY 20 Targhee Pass Project. The Island Park Safe Wildlife Passage initiative has been running an active campaign since at least July 2016, and those same wildlife advocacy partners came with ITD to that first December blizzard ‘workshop'. At that sparsely attended event, wildlife overpasses were not offered as alternatives being considered. During the first comment period, which the report verifies lasted 6 months, December 15, 2016 to July 27, 2017, ITD had not yet publicly revealed that wildlife overpasses were being considered in the alternatives. The public was also instructed that the comment period ended January 30, 2017. Some people had guessed about the wildlife overpasses. Many asked repeatedly for this to be confirmed or denied, and were told that we had to wait until an alternatives ‘workshop’ could be held. that would not happen until the end of July 2017. Positives during this comment period should be suspect, the public did not know. How can the public trust that the positive 61 comments received during this time are valid, or know if the comments come from local , in-state, or out of state residents. The public was informed of a 45 day comment window, the study team accepted comment for at least 6 months after that. This comment segment is improper on many levels. The last two comment periods, 60 days, there are 18 more positives than negatives. ・Allowing for all of the serious failures of proper process not being followed during this scoping period and resulting report, and lack of full and transparent disclosure of information to the public; ・there have been years of failure to coordinate with, and involve and inform Island Park and Fremont County in the studies leading up to overpass recommendations; ・Allowing that the wildlife overpass advocates that are involved with this project now, have had intimate collaboration with those years of study leading up to these alternatives: ・and that this scoping period has generated hundreds of form submissions that are not dated; ・Discovering that the Island Park Safe Wildlife Passage Campaign had at least 6 months to front-load comments, and an additional 6 months to do so after the public was told the comment period had ended: ・and knowing that they are working as partners with ITD in TP project development ・knowing the public was not informed about the overpass alternatives until the final 2 /30-day comment periods; ・and finally that within the comments in this report residency, names and dates of submission cannot be verified; *an 18 comment advantage does not illustrate over-whelming local, county and true impact population and stakeholder support for wildlife overpasses. Leanne Yancey |