These are the last communications on the YFYF project January through June, 2019. The full document can be found here. Beginning on page 2 is a discussion by Ms. Townley on how to revamp the website, and continue it with a focus of "helping and regions that are starting forest planning." After all of the communication about citizens being left out of the process and inappropriate relationship with SVS, Ms. Townley is moving forward with the same citizen exclusion. It appears there are some problems with Ms. Townley's position on page 5, it was advertised incorrectly the first time and she could not be reassigned to the WO (Washington Office) until it was re-advertised. Was it because previously she just arbitrarily renamed her position on her own? Knowing that federal funding for the website would end, a search for new funding sources begin on page 7, beginning with the National Forest Foundation. On page 8 is what appears to be an inquiry into the whole process behind the YFYF project. An interview was conducted with Mark Bethke, forest service Director Planning & Budget, and whose name appears in numerous emails throughout the document. Mr. Bethke pointed to Ms. Townley as having the responsibility to obtain approval for the website and its contents. In the very next statement, it is revealed that using third party websites to host forest service materials is "against policy". This whole arrangement between the forest service and SVS to create a website was against forest service policy. How did it advance so far without anyone questioning that? Although Mr. Bethke stated the forest service logo was removed from the website, it was only after multiple complaints from citizens had been made about it being on there. The person in the WO Office of Communications who allegedly approved this website is never identified. There is a rather cantankerous response by Mr. Bethke when asked if he followed his supervisor's requests to remove items from the website on page 9. In the previous post it was clearly documented that Mr. Bethke's supervisor wanted all material removed from the website and only approved material be posted from there out, something that should be remembered by him. Page 12 outlines funding of the project during the transition to the WO. The upshot of the whole deal is that this project was being elevated to a national level. As of August 30, 2018 it went national, page 18. On the last page, page 20, is a letter from Toni Ruth expressing her concern over a letter to the editor by a local citizen, a records request, and questions about an investigation into the project. Does she not understand that if she is in an agreement with the forest service that all interactions are subject to public scrutiny? Does she not understand that our form of government allows citizens to know what government is doing, or spending? If she had not participated in any wrong doing, then why the concern? Perhaps if she had been forthright from the beginning, advising citizens of this agreement as written in the original agreement, it would not be a concern, but she did not let citizens know. From these records it seems that the idea for this project was the result of a friendships between the forest service and non-profit staff. As a result, without following proper procedure, their idea came to fruition at the cost of almost one million dollars when the forest employee salary is included. This project was also aligned in its mission to promote only one side of how our forests should be used and intended to influence the public on that perspective, all the while excluding citizen input on their perspectives. One could also conjecture that this was all discussed within the High Divide Collaborative, in which the forest service and SVS were members, and then planned for execution during the time of the plan revision. What a perfect time to make an attempt to influence citizens without understanding citizens were not going to follow along with the hatched plan. In spite of how improperly this project was created, and its bias, it is now at a national level, with your tax dollar used for its creation. The YFYF website has been removed and is redirected to the More Than Just Parks website. But everything that was created with your tax dollar is still being used and the videos produced by SVS are available on Vimeo with the YFYF logo. How much is SVS profiting from this? This is how our government works now, it is not based on citizen representation, it is a business oriented, product producing organization that is a result of government relationships with private organizations, the essence of "public-private-partnerships". As seen by this partnership, it is the promotion of philosophy by an entity, not citizen representation. That is how decisions are made, predetermined with planned execution times. Unless all of us start addressing this corruption within our government, this new form of government will continue to be in command.
1 Comment
Part 3 covers July, 2018 to December, 2018. The full document can be found here. Part 2 finished up with the questioning of whether or not proper procedure had been followed for the creation of the YFYF website. The document below starts with trying to clean up the mess with disclaimers, followed by the SVS invoice for the second quarter of 2018. Starting on page 5 are results from observer impressions of the Salmon Challis forest planning meetings. One observer noted the forest plan efforts were being "picked on" by a small vocal group, Custer-Lemhi Resource Advisory Council, which is a citizen group with whom the forest service is supposed to be collaborating with. It is also noted the forest service is "working well" with the Central Idaho Public Lands Collaborative (CIPLC). But this would be expected since the CIPLC was created by SVS and is comprised primarily of non-governmental organizations, forest service members, and others, with little citizen involvement. It is a group that primarily includes individuals who hold the same perspectives on how forest planning should be done. Not what citizens want, but what these groups want. In an effort to placate the Advisory Council a special three hour meeting was held with them without forest service personnel. Why did the forest service create a group through SVS and not with citizens? The upshot of the impression was that forest service planning personnel had concerns over the attention the Advisory Council was getting. If this issue was about having citizen involvement why would they be concerned over this? Perhaps because those citizen concerns did not align with the mission the forest service, with their SVS partnership, had already decided upon. Of course SVS thinks they are being inclusive, even though citizens have complained that their voice is being shut down or ignored in meetings. The next observer's impression was more accurate, "Communication between all three groups seems to be a major problem", and that "lines of communication are seriously broken". Some of his recommendations included bringing in an outside facilitator, insist that SVS be more inclusive, and help the Advisory Group be more positive. Perhaps the third observer had them most accurate impression, the concern over "the obvious close relationship between the paid staff of Salmon Valley Stewardship and out FS collaboration specialist who worked as the executive director of the organization prior to accepting the FS position." This observer captured the true essence of the problem, the embedded relationship between the forest service and the non-profit SVS. He suggested suspending the revision until the entire community could be engaged. Yes, this alliance between the forest service and a non-governmental organization should end. These alliances are the problem with our government. Decisions are already made by this collusion and why citizens have no voice. By August, page 12, a new agreement was being drafted between the forest service and SVS due to some procedural changes in the forest service, with notice that Ms. Townley would be transferring to the WO (Washington Office) on page 13. By September, page 14, the decision for Region 4 to get out of SVS by 2019 was made and removal from funding by December 31, 2018 on page 15. The third quarter invoice of SVS is on page 16. What better solution to fix this problem than to move the website to another forest service office and create a new forest service advisory council, page 18. Do they realize reinventing this mess with another place and group does not absolve them of the inappropriate handling of it from the start? A detailed meeting note between the forest service and a citizen begins on page 21 describing all of the biases in the forest revision planning process. The forest service should take a hint at this, all of the issues raised point out how the revision planning process is contaminated by federal and non-governmental partnerships. From these communications it is apparent the forest revision process between the forest service and SVS has been a concern, enough to the point that the whole project is being moved out of Region 4. Part 4 will cover communications from 2019. The next period of time covered from the records request is January, 2018 to June, 2018. In the document below, there are periodic references to page numbers of the complete document found here. Page 1 is the SVS invoice for the end of 2017, and first quarter of 2018 on page 6.. There is an odd statement by Colleen O'Brien, USFS on page 4, "How can communication on forest plan revision be optimized and managed internally and externally for the rest of FY 2018?" What does that mean? Because of reduction in travel funding on page 14, some salaries were increased. On page 15 the agreement funding was decreased by $70,000, but on page 17 it shows a funding increase of $238,081.80! By June, page 19, questions started to arise about proper channels being followed for this project, with Elizabeth Townley, USFS confirming authorization on page 20. So began the talk about expanding this project beyond the region on page 21. Questions of ownership of the website arose on page 22, with a statement that it was "not a forest service website", " even though the forest service "owned the content". That statement is in direct conflict with the agreement, that SVS was authorized to sell what was developed. By June, page 23, it was discovered that the "videos and website...have not been vetted and approved by the WO (Washington Office)", with a request to pull all information from the website, and consideration of cancelling the agreement. This was from David Rosenkrance, Deputy Regional Forester. Because of a USFS employee questioning if the proper procedure had been followed for approval of this website, it was discovered that the procedure had not been followed. Part 3 will cover July, 2018 to December, 2018. Information from a records request was recently obtained regarding the partnership between the U.S. Forest Service and Salmon Valley Stewardship (SVS). The essence of the partnership was to create a website called Your Forests Your Future (YFYF). Because the document is well over 800 pages, is not in chronological order, and contains repetitive information, it has been broken down into four time frames. This will be a four part series on some highlighted information that was obtained from the period of January, 2017 through June, 2019. The complete document can be viewed here. On page 132 in the complete document, it states, "The Salmon Valley Stewardship Board of Directors has identified forest plan revision as a key opportunity to align Salmon Valley Stewardship mission to ongoing planning process over the next 10-15 years". Seems pretty clear this website, paid by tax dollars, was intended to promote the SVS mission for land protection. while leaving citizen involvement out. Much of the financial graphics are not listed in these posted documents but can be found in the complete document. From January to June, 2017 a series of emails between Elizabeth Townley, USFS, Toni Ruth, SVS, and Mindy Crowell, SVS, provide the backdrop to the creation of the YFYF website with other USFS employees involved in the communications. Amazingly, none of the forests covered on the website included the Salmon-Challis National Forest. Ms. Ruth has been, and continues to be on the coordinating committee of the High Divide Collaborative, which has included other non-governmental organizations, USFS, land trusts, and US Fish & Wildlife Service. Perhaps the collaboration and discussion for this website began on this committee for purposes of being created during the forest revision plan. Below, on page 1 from the 2017 summary, is part of the agreement between the USFS and SVS. F clearly states that permission to use the USFS insignia must be obtained from the USFS Office of Communications. Citizen complaints about the use of this logo on the YFYF website was an issue never really addressed, nor was there any communication that approval was obtained from Ms. Townley to Ms. Ruth. Page 2, U, indicates SVS was encouraged to give public notice of this agreement, this also not being done. On page 3, GG, SVS was given permission to "sell" any publication developed from this agreement, which means your tax dollar to create "products" for a website could be used for the monetary benefit of a non-profit. Early on, page 19, there was outreach to More Than Just Parks, a multimedia organization to help produce videos and podcasts for the website, and outreach to Pew Charitable Trusts on page 22. While there were several modifications in funding during the full time period, on page 23 an additional $128,040 was requested by SVS. Invoices submitted by SVS are on page 20 and 40. A brief description of the website's purpose is on page 26, stating it "was started by the USFS to engage diverse voices to conversations surrounding public lands, specifically public lands planning". One of the concerns expressed about this website was the bias towards protection and non-use. From page 27-30, federal agencies and employees were notified about the launch of the website. And on page 31, Ms. Townley apparently changed her title to Wilderness Specialist and YFYF Coordinator, admitted to by Ms. Townley on page 32. More specifics are given about partnering with Pew Trusts on page 44 followed by possible partnering with Patagonia and REI on page 45. In Part 2, January to June, 2018 will be covered. The Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC) began with an Obama memorandum in 2010 that directed the Department of Interior (DOI) to create Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC) across the United States, there was no Congressional legislation. LCCs were partnerships between federal and state agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGO), land trusts, Tribes, and other entities, even Canada. The LCC mission was to "coordinate, facilitate, promote...large landscape conservation". Funding has now ended for LCCs.
One NGO member in the GNLCC was the Heart of the Rockies Initiative (HOTRI), a partnership of 22 land trusts including Canada, one goal being conservation planning. HOTRI focuses its work in central Idaho that extends into Montana through the High Divide Collaborative (HDC). Participants in the HDC include Salmon Valley Stewardship (SVS), Lemhi Regional Land Trust (LRLT), Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), and the US Forest Service (USFS) along with many other NGOS and state agencies. Merrill Beyeler, former Idaho Representative; Toni Ruth, current SVS Executive Director, Kristin Troy, LRLT Executive Director in 2014-2015, and Jim Tucker USFS have served on the HDC Coordinating Committee, right along the side of Kim Trotter, Y2Y. At the GNLCC Steering Committee Meeting, held Oct 15-16, 2014, Gina Knudson, SVS Executive Director at the time, Kristen Troy LRLT, and Merrill Beyeler were part of a panel discussion on Community Based Conservation at the Landscape Scale in the High Divide, Idaho and Montana. According to the DOI, community based conservation is "Collaborative and community-based approaches to natural resources management are... manifested in the increasing numbers of partnerships, consensus groups, community-based collaboratives, watershed councils, and similar groups ...collaborative conservation draws upon theories of democracy, international development, and alternative dispute resolution." Hey DOI, we are not a democracy and clearly have no intention to develop the SCNF for international purposes. By all appearances, this approach has been implemented through the SCNF revision plan, and is really about stacking these groups with NGO members and others who hold the same ideology and agendas. A total of $307,100 was given to the HORI to accomplish this goal in 2015-2016. Michelle Tucker, SVS, Breann Westfall (Green), Tom McFarland, and Bob Russell from LRLT, Amy Baumer USFS, and Dave Schmid USFS also attended this workshop. The overall focus of the meeting was on the "High Divide, shared landscape outcomes, and landscape conservation design (LCD)" and "Utility of Landscape Conservation Design for an Ecologically Connected Landscape". LCD in the High Divide "...seeks support to identify and evaluate future landscape configurations that address the needs of local communities while conserving the High Divides unique landscape resources. In this landscape we emphasize wildlife connectivity between large protected core areas." Michelle Tucker was also a panel member in a 2014 National Forest Foundation workshop to discuss "developing and implementing projects in a way that allows collaborative productivity to persist" along with the USFS, Nature Conservancy, and Wilderness Society. Collaboration among these groups seems to be fine as long as it only includes their own. While this LCD document outlines recommended practices for designing a landscape for conservation, page 19 specifically addresses the High Divide. It states the reason for creating the HDC was because of resident and community leader mistrust of outside organizations and governments, so they set out "...to develop a broadly collaborative assessment of conservation priorities, and LCD became our framework." For all of their claims to collaborate with all "stakeholders" for perspectives, to this day they remain only locked into their own ideologically compatible groups. They also identified "the geographic boundaries for our area of interest" and then "develop science to inform the current status of conservation targets." When has the HDC or any other similarly aligned group included anyone with a different perspective than theirs in their group discussions? LCD is nothing more than a methodology of designing landscapes into different types of conservation, ignoring all jurisdictional boundaries and authority, and private property owners. An HD workshop, held March 15-16, 2016, described the High Divide as "...the center of connectivity between the Greater Yellowstone, Crown of the Continent and Central Idaho." Members of the Wildlife Conservation Society, Center for Landscape Conservation, and multiple federal agencies were at this meeting. One presentation was just on wildlife connectivity. Gina Knudson, SVS, and Jim Tucker, Salmon-Challis National Forest gave presentations on Communities and Wildfire and discussed the dichotomy between "environmental groups want less cutting, communities want fire protection", deciding to reframe their message to issues of "personal safety" in order to be "be more proactive and move forward" (pg 14). Another conclusion was "We need more fire on the land"! Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC), Wildlands Network, and Y2Y authored the Importance of Connectivity - 2012 Forest Planning Rule - Best Practices for Connectivity Planning in 2015. This document gives recommendations for how to include connectivity in forest planning. CLLC took credit for "persuading the United States Forest Service (USFS) to incorporate wildlife corridors and ecological connectivity into its newly minted Forest Planning Rule." SVS has attended workshops with CLLC. Seven HDC goals were listed at this workshop. Goals included conserving: working ranch lands; ecological linkage between protected core areas to conserve...elk, antelope, and wolverine; nationally important dispersed recreation lands and waterways; national trails; restored headwaters; crucial core and migratory sage grouse habitats; open land in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) to protect life and property; and reduce community fire-fighting costs. In the 2015 Great Northern LCC Connectivity Pilot Project Preliminary Report, the strategies for the HD are on page 12, much of it centered around conservation projects. In spite of the heavy involvement in the GNLCC, SVS has no mention of it on their website, nor does LRLT. However, in the Summer 2011 Newsletter, there is a piece on Beyeler, Knudson, and Troy going to Washington, D.C. for "sharing our place-based experiences with policy makers." In their 2017 tax form, SVS net assets were at $217,718 compared to $120, 924 in 2014. LRLT has fared much better, they grew in assets of $370,523 in 2012 to $2,091,313 on their 2017 tax form. It seems conservation is certainly a lucrative business. All of these SVS, LRLT, and USFS individuals have actively engaged in hidden agendas for conservation, planning for connectivity scenarios with the federal and state governments, and side by side with NGOs. Now they have a heavy influence over the SCNF plan revision process. If anything leaves the communities voice out of the decisions, this certainly does. |