On the Salmon Valley Stewardship (SVS) website, it doesn't provide a clear picture of how the organization was started, other than it began with "assistance" and "funding" by the Sonoran Institute in 2004 with the hiring of their first full time staff. Adrienne Blauser was a Sonoran staff member at that time into 2005, and eventually became the SVS Coordinator. Sonoran credits itself for establishing SVS (pg 9). In 2005 Ms. Blauser attended a White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation (pg 3), along with multiple other non-governmental organizations (NGO). This conference followed an executive order that "directed federal agencies to promote cooperative conservation in partnership with states local governments, tribes and individuals". It was nothing more than giving power to NGOs. The SVS website states Sonoran, a proponent of "collaborative conservation", provided two years of seed money for what was then called the Salmon River Mountains Working Group. The arrangement ended in July 2006, with SVS no longer receiving funding from Sonoran. In October, 2004, Robert Cope, Lemhi County Commissioner at the time, a BLM staff, Tom McFarland, rancher, and Jay Townsend from Salmon were the Executive Committee, and Ms. Blauser the Coordinator. However, along with Sonoran, other participants in the creation of SVS included the Nature Conservancy and Brainerd Foundation. SVS filed for non-profit status on 11/14/05. Sonoran was a recipient of funding from the Brainerd Foundation up to 2008. While SVS states no further funding was received from Sonoran, funding was merely shifted from Sonoran to Brainerd in 2006 once SVS was created. Over the years Brainerd grantees have been actively "investing" in the High Divide (HD) region on conservation efforts. The Wilburforce Foundation also contributes to SVS, having funded SVS $115,000 from 2017-2019 for the Yellowstone to Yukon program area. Gina Knudson, with SVS since 2006, became the SVS Executive Director (ED) in 2007, leaving that position in 2016 to become the Salmon-Challis National Forest (SCNF) Collaboration specialist. Ms. Knudson has been involved in several organizations that have landscape conservation objectives. At a 2014 Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC) steering committee meeting, Ms. Knudson, along with Merrill Beyeler, running for state representative, participated in a panel discussion on Community Based Conservation at the Landscape Scale in the High Divide. The now defunct GNLCC, created by Obama via a memorandum in 2010, was a partnership between federal and state agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGO), land trusts, Tribes, and even Canada, to conduct science for the purposes of designing landscapes for conservation. No citizen involvement or recognition of jurisdictional boundaries. Other SVS participants have included NGOs, foundations, and federal, state, and local agencies. Ms. Knudson was involved in other concerning activities via her SVS role such as the Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition (RVCC) as part of the Leadership Team, and the National Forest Foundation (NFF), participating in an NFF Collaborative Project Design session in 2009, and speaking at a 2016 NFF workshop on socio-economic monitoring plans (pg 70). Perhaps the most disturbing activity Ms. Knudson participated in as the SVS ED is the Heart of the Rockies Initiative (HOTRI), with its participating NGOs, and facilitated group, the High Divide Collaborative (HDC). SVS is considered a HOTRI "collaborative partner", along with the government, foundations, and land trusts. The HDC has multiple NGO and land trust participants, along with state and federal agencies. The only collaboration going on is between these groups. In 2010, the HOTRI developed a plan for cooperative conservation. Page 11 gives a complete explanation of their intent for using the High Divide as a linkage area, while page 13 shows the map that includes Lemhi and Custer counties. Their intent, "develop and implement a collective strategy to ensure that, by working with willing private land owners, the most significant private lands in the High Divide are conserved in perpetuity." SVS is listed on page 88 as a participant in the High Divide Focal Area Workshops. Pages 108-116 are specific to focus areas for conservation in Salmon-Lemhi, with the Sonoran Institute, Nature Conservancy, USFS, BLM, IDFG, HOTRI, Lemhi Regional Land Trust, American Wildlands (which promotes connectivity), and Ms. Knudson as participants in the workshop, held in August, 2009. While SVS claims a separate and independent status from Sonoran, involvement with Sonoran has continued. In 2011 SVS also participated in a Sonoran survey, providing information about the Salmon area. Starting on page 22, Ms. Knudson gives an alarming account of who all is involved, their objectives, and collaboration doesn't necessarily involve citizens. SVS also participated in an Idaho Land Use Analysis in 2010 with Idaho Smart Growth. In 2016, Ms. Knudson, along with other NGOs and government agencies, attended an HDC workshop to discuss "their vision for the desired future condition of the High Divide Landscape", "build trust and credibility within the collaborative and among stakeholders", "express their vision for the desired future condition of the High Divide Landscape", and various conservation strategies. Ms. Knudson spoke on wildfire threats, stating more fire was needed on the land, and logging operations were not feasible. Stakeholders do not include citizens, it is an arrangement between NGOs with the government. Everything you want to know about their plans can be found in this workshop. Federal and state governments are at the table with every NGO making these plans. Ms. Knudson, while serving in her new role as Collaboration Specialist, also attended the HD workshop in 2017, and discussed the beginning stages of the SCNF plan revision collaboration while "Alex Dunn, the Environmental/NEPA Coordinator for Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest then talked about examples of stakeholder led collaboratives that can lead to all lands conservation at large scale.", page 13. One question asked was "How can we advance achievement of our collaborative conservation goals?" Aptly stated, "our conservation planning for the High Divide landscape" is what the HOTRI and HDC is all about, planning nothing but conservation for the area, to be brought to citizens for acceptance. Connectivity was an often discussed issue at this workshop and SVS held a workshop on connectivity at the same time. The plan to involve themselves in forest plan updates and collaboratives was also discussed at this meeting, page 30. Toni Ruth became the SVS ED in 2016, having previously worked for IDFG seasonally, and as High Divide Coordinator for Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, a known partner with Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y). Not mentioned on her SVS bio is her being a coordinating committee member on the HOTRI facilitated HDC, or serving on the RVCC Leadership Team. She also attended the HD workshop in 2017, participated as a panel member on the 2018 HD workshop agenda, provided "gifts" to HOTRI, and plans to attend the HD celebration this month, hosted by the HDC, with Kim Trotter, Y2Y U.S. Program Director, by her side, even though the SVS website states it is not a participant in Y2Y. Ms. Ruth was also an HDC member during the same time SVS facilitated the Central Idaho Public Lands Collaborative (CIPLC) that would be providing input to the SCNF plan revision. In October, 2018 Ms. Ruth gave a talk on Rural Values and Multiple Use Insights from a Community Based Organization in Central Idaho. Those involved in the collaboratives set up by SVS will need to make their own decision on whether or not Ms. Ruth captured the true essence of those collaboratives, but she does reveal her thoughts on how Lemhi county has a true collaborative spirit, while Custer county is "challenging", have a "bitter taste", noting the 'angry villager" bumper stickers, with citizens showing up to "point fingers" and not "listen". Unclear as to her dismay over the angry villager stickers, it was her predecessor Gina Knudson that called Lemhi County residents "angry villagers" at a public forest plan revision meeting. Being non-defensive, citizens just took it on. Ms. Ruth also spoke at the Aspen Institute Community Strategies Group meeting in June, 2019, Tension as Catalyst: Land Stewardship and Development Align for a Better Rural West was the subject. She was asked to be part of the panel as an Innovator. At the 40", 51:23", 59:42", and 1:06:05 marks, Ms. Ruth discussed a variety of subjects about the local economy, jobs, SVS work, and the formation of the Lemhi Forest Restoration Group (LFRG). It wasn't until the 1:10:50" mark that she revealed SVS funding from federal partners, grants, and individual donations, but never mentions funding from foundations, but does finally admit to involvement with the HDC, minimizing what that collaborative is really about. Nor does Ms. Ruth mention the Forest Service funding SVS for the "Your Forests Your Future" partnership that exceeded $938,000. Ms. Ruth has even partnered with the BLM, IDFG, and SCNF to host an Aspen Workshop. On the SVS Board of Directors there is a USFS employee and others who have worked for the federal government, how enmeshed is that. The Central Idaho Public Lands Collaborative (CIPLC) is another SVS front group, created in 2015, promoting the USFS "landscape scale conservation" agenda. Starting in 2016, the initial group was comprised of almost half NGO, state, and federal individuals and included many of the 2016 HDC workshop objectives. CIPLC has now created their own "forest vision". CIPLC is nothing more than another group to promote the false pretense that citizens are involved, use it as a means of promoting a phony narrative of consensus, overpower citizen input by forcing them to work through the collaborative, and implement federal government and NGO objectives. It should be no surprise Ms. Knudson was selected as "Collaboration Specialist", the USFS has been working with her for years on the same objectives, in the same groups. Creating a "diverse group of citizens" really means diverse federal and NGO members. Sustainable Northwest (SN), based in Oregon, created the RVCC program in 2000. LFRG, with its SN, NGO, and government partners, has been "coordinated" by RVCC partner SVS since 2006. Other conservation initiatives focusing on the High Divide are the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), Y2Y, and previously the GNLCC. As part of their objective to prioritize routes for grizzlies and wolverines, they intend to secure "protection of those routes from development" including purchasing private land, establishing conservation easements, preclude development such as timber harvest, oil and gas development, mineral extraction, and road building, limiting hunting, guiding land development with regulations, educating the public and children on connectivity", and the list goes on. SVS has participated with these groups for the same objectives, and very prominently with government agencies. These objectives will continue to destroy the economic viability of the Salmon-Challis area. Two new front groups, born out of the HDC, are being funded, the Forestry and Fire Working Group, and Wildlife Connectivity Working Group. Since the 2005 White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation, decisions are being made between federal and state governments with NGOs. Collaboration is between them, a lie, a deceitful way in which the federal government uses NGOs to implement their agenda for our land. Like a cancer cell replicating itself, these NGOs continue to grow themselves with new front groups in partnership with the government. It is one way the government has grown itself and the agenda is controlling land use. NGOs call it "capacity building". SVS is a Sonoran created front group for Brainerd that only collaborates with other NGOs, the "stakeholders" for the same conservation objectives, bringing those objectives to the table for citizens to swallow, then can't understand why citizens reject them. Even more objectionable is the fact that SVS and the others are planning all of this with our governments. Every one of these groups that SVS engages with are also involved with the government. Shame on them and shame on our government. All of these NGOs have only one goal in mind, conservation of land, mapping out and planning how they think the land should be managed and used. Using money from foundations and your tax dollar, their goal is taking land for permanent protection, using wildlife and other environmental aspects to create corridors, targeting private property and unprotected land for linkage areas between protected areas for connectivity, and interfering in local land use plans to insert conservation regulations. Those foundations should be giving all of that money to citizens, let citizens use it for restoration projects without all of the agenda ridden objectives. Same with the government, give our tax dollar back to us so we can use it for the benefit of where we live, quit laundering it through NGOs for your and their objectives to take and control more land. For all of these NGO leaders who don't understand, let us put it in simple terms to help you understand. Our Republic does not operate on collaboration and consensus, decisions are made by local government jurisdictions and citizens, not "stakeholders", according to law. Representatives are elected by citizens at the local level, and it is their job to listen to how those citizens want their jurisdiction and land managed. Those decisions do not belong with individuals or groups outside of the area, who are used as a money laundering scheme for foundations and government entities, especially with contrived plans on how they think land should be "visioned". You and the government are buddies, admit it. Jurisdictional planning does not include regional decisions. For the confusion about trust, it is really very simple. SVS and other NGOs operate without full disclosure. Behind the scenes planning and decisions are being made by NGOs and the government for citizens, without their involvement, and with massive amounts of funding in support of those hidden objectives. If it is truly the intent to listen to citizens, be inclusive, and acknowledge other perspectives as SVS claims, then why is Ms. Ruth so mystified about the reaction of Custer county citizens? Is it because citizens are not buying into the pre-laid plans made by the HOTRI, HDC, NGOs, and the government, instead choosing to advocate for their right to determine how their land is managed? Is that the source of frustration for you Ms. Ruth? Given your and others lack of transparency about what you are really doing, perhaps those fingers being pointed at you are justified, and citizens are tired of listening to your rhetoric. Those citizens have had the courage to speak up about their shunned perspectives, the nefarious relationship between SVS and the USFS, and the unwillingness of the USFS and SVS to give consideration to anything they have to say. "Stakeholders" is a word really meant only for the relationship between NGOs and other cronies, and a slick way to hide the lack of citizen involvement and input. It is an empty word, citizens are not being given any legitimate place in the conversation, behind the scenes activities, or at the "collaborative" table. This is a statewide problem, it is the exact same dynamic that NGOs and the governments play elsewhere. As for the solution, the foundation of our Republican form of government should be reinstituted. The USFS is a public servant, responsible to citizens, and should only be working with those who live in the forest plan revision area. This should also include citizen elected local representatives, and it is citizen perspectives that should be given priority, not from some group created "consensus", which dilutes citizen voices. The collaboratives set up by SVS should be dismantled. New groups should be formed with only Custer and Lemhi county citizens, local representatives, and USFS employees. It is time this long game is ended. There is no shared stewardship, the Republic does not operate that way, authority lies with the people in the local jurisdiction. SVS is a front group of the HOTRI and HDC, with full government support and backing, created for the sole purpose of targeting the Salmon-Challis area, and strengthened by the White House "cooperative conservation" conference, there is nothing community based about it. SVS and their NGO partners should disclose what they are really doing, the work they have engaged in for years with the GNLCC, HOTRI, and HDC, having their planned landscape conservation design to be executed on local communities. Let them come forward with their vision of conservation for the whole area that does not recognize jurisdictional boundaries, and the connectivity objectives they are planning with corridors, linkage areas, use of conservation easements, and land purchases to accomplish this objective. It should also be brought forth their interfering with local land use plans that include regulatory restrictions on land use such as Ms. Knudson did with the Lemhi comprehensive plan in 2012, and NGO intent to insert themselves into forest revision plans. Speak to those issues SVS because those are the facts. The responsibility for local growth, the economy, and jobs was never assigned to you. In fact, it has been the work of NGOs to prohibit logging and proper forest management, both which have lead to catastrophic fires, that has contributed to the economic difficulties. You own that. You and your NGO and government counterparts are responsible for destroying the economic base and are just continuing the same agenda with your conservation objectives. With all of their little "collaboration" groups, it is responsibility of SVS to get citizens to accept the fixed objectives and plans for conservation by them, HOTRI, HDC, and the government. This will no longer be the case. To SVS and their NGO and government pals, don't underestimate the intelligence of citizens, or their ability to recognize when they are being manipulated or dismissed. It is time for citizens to take the narrative back and exercise their authority.
0 Comments
Below is a report on the High Divide workshop, with funding by foundations and the US Fish & Wildlife service, held in April, 2017. It is relevant because it identifies participants and the strategy for the Salmon area. The framework was Landscape Conservation Design which is designing a large area in a way conservationists think it should look, what should be protected, designing areas for wildlife and other corridors, all laid out for connectivity. Some of the participants included Gina Knudson, Collaboration Specialist and previously from Salmon Valley Stewardship, Merrill Beyeler, Kristin Troy, Executive Director at the Lemhi Regional Land Trust, and others mentioned including Josh Milligan, Toni Ruth, and Kim Trotter. Regarding forests on page 30, they saw opportunity to "Be involved in Forest Plan updates", "Analyze stakeholders and what power they have to influence change", and "Use our High Divide platform to influence policy changes for stewardship contracting...include some preference to local contractors" that would "...help tamp down the anti-federal sentiment." Bear in mind several federal agencies participated in this workshop as well as Idaho Fish & Game. Opportunity was also seen to "put fire back in the landscape". Two years ago these groups and individuals were laying out their strategy on how they planned to execute their goals. The current collaborations are nothing more than a front to impose their objectives on citizens, the decision has already been made for you in the revision. All of this is supported by their weighing down the groups with their ideological friends and partners. A concerned citizen submitted this financial information regarding the Your Forest Your Future agreement between the US Forest Service and Salmon Valley Stewardship.
Written and submitted by Evalyn Bennett This article summarizes results from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request I filed about the Forest Service-Salmon Valley Stewardship (SVS) partnership called Your Forests Your Future (YFYF). The complete set of FOIA documents can be accessed at this link. This article focuses on financial information contained on pages 220-243 of the FOIA records. Invoices submitted by the SVS Director to the Region 4 Forest Service office from January 31, 2017 (beginning of the partnership) to Sept. 30, 2018 total $927,502. When the salary costs of various Forest Service (FS) Intermountain Region and Washington, D.C. office staff that facilitated the partnership are factored in, the partnership easily tops $1 million for that time frame. (Salary information from the FOIA record and Open the Books.) Forest Service and other funds in addition to these invoiced amounts were almost certainly provided for this partnership. The FOIA records did not include SVS invoices from October 1, 2018 to present (the time the partnership was administered by the FS Washington, D.C. office). I also did not request financial records pertaining to the second cooperator in the agreement, More Than Just Parks. Finally, the YFYF web site refers to corporate and special interest group sponsors and supporters, but there are no records of those contributions in the FOIA documents. In 2017, while the YFYF partnership's local personnel were busy supposedly promoting diverse public input about Forest plan revision (but actually having very limited contact with the general public in the local planning area), three Salmon-Challis National Forest (SCNF) staff were doing the same public outreach. Taxpayers footed the $436,269 bill for YFYF's 2017 media campaign AND paid a total of $167,362 in salaries for three SCNF employees to engage local citizens in the SCNF plan revision process. (Salary information from Open the Books) Similar Forest Service expenses related to public participation were being incurred throughout the Intermountain Region wherever Forest plan revisions are underway. If each National Forest has at least three personnel to engage the public in Forest Plan Revision, was the YFYF partnership necessary? If it wasn't, the FS wasted over a million in federal tax dollars. But someone benefited from this agreement. The YFYF partnership enabled transfer of significant public funds to SVS to provide the non-profit with "indirect costs" funding, staff, equipment, copyright and right of sale to products, publicity, and national recognition. The cash cost share match from SVS was ZERO. Yet the agreement awarded SVS the copyright and right of sale to the products of the partnership! The YFYF web site, paid for by tax dollars, also has a copyright. Salmon Valley Stewardship's 2017 non-profit status (501c3) Form 990 describes SVS as an "Organization which receives a substantial part of its funding from a government unit or the general public" (emphasis added). The "government unit" is pretty obvious. (See 2017 SVS 990 tax form). What did the public get for this expenditure of public funds? Duplication of services the FS is already providing via the agency's own personnel (some specifically hired for plan revision). No local public awareness of the YFYF partnership and limited contact with local Forest users. Promotion of a narrow agenda (outdoor recreation and wilderness/wild and scenic rivers designations) that is inconsistent with the full range of multiple uses defined in the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960. Products that are of limited (or no) specific value in the planning process (some products are actually tourism films with no narrative content). This partnership cost over $1 million and substantially benefited Salmon Valley Stewardship, yet yielded virtually no benefits to the local plan revision process. Fortunately the Forest Service has made a decision to terminate the agreement by October 1, 2019. The Network for Landscape Conservation (NLC) just announced the winners of their Catalyst Fund grants, the funding coming from foundations such as the Hewitt Foundation. Once again, the High Divide is a target.
A grant award of $25,000 over a two year period will be given to expand the High Divide Collaborative (HDC) "capacity", meaning bringing more people on board, by "transitioning a part-time Coordinator position to full time". This will be done to "advance all core functions including a regular meeting schedule of the Coordinating Committee", improve communications, and holding two meetings per year. They are ramping up their plotting strategy. Apparently, it is also necessary to start new groups, the Forestry and Fire Working Group, and a Wildlife Connectivity Working Group. It will be this Coordinator's responsibility to get these implemented and launched. Instead of this just being a "collective vision", it will now become "collective action". Notice this collectivism is the antithesis of our Republic which is based on the rule of law, and most assuredly does not include those whose perspective does not align with them. It should be remembered that the HDC Coordinating Committee has previously included the US Forest Service, Lemhi Regional Land Trust, Yellowstone to Yukon, Nature Conservancy, Idaho Fish & Game, Salmon Valley Stewardship, and out of state players, with many other participants. It might be that since their relationships have been exposed through the USFS and SVS partnership, they have chosen to hide the federal affiliation in a more updated committee member list. No doubt, this upcoming meeting in September will include discussion of new strategies to convince area citizens that they have the right solutions for the land. Citizens are warned to not fall for it, especially the wildlife connectivity. Connectivity is only for the sole purpose of redesigning the land with corridors and associated land use restrictions. There is nothing community based or grounded in these efforts. Their ploy will be "listening" to you in order to "build trust" and lead you to believe you both "share" the same priorities, but in reality their real plan is never revealed in those discussions. Looking at the Heart of the Rockies website gives a true picture of their intentions to tell you how you should be living. Be on the alert for this, don't fall for or engage in it. This is a major threat to those who live in the High Divide area. 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. 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. Your Forests Your Future (YFYF) is a partnership between the US Forest Service (USFS) and Salmon Valley Stewardship (SVS), even though it is a "national campaign" that is comprised of a media company for the purpose of "shaping the future of our national forests". This partnership intends to "engage" "diverse voices" in forest planning and management through multimedia tools. Liz Townley, USFS employee, is the project coordinator, with partners that include National Geographic, Yahoo, and the Weather Channel. Videos on national forests include Bridger Teton, Dixie, Black Hills, Flathead, Chugach, and Podcasts are also available on the Custer Gallatin forest planning. Using these technological avenues, they want to "tell a story" about forests. If all they wanted to do is tell a story, why the SVS partnership, why not just create this solely by the USFS? As it turns out, the background information on this endeavor has been made available, a 865 page document that contains communications between the USFS and SVS. It is too large to post here but can be accessed on this link. The document identifies who was involved and the funding, accomplished with no public involvement. Several other USFS employees were involved in this project besides Ms. Townley and Toni Ruth from SVS signed the agreement in January, 2017 ( pg 146). The original agreement can be found on page 131. Page 156 lists $497,570 as the amount of funding for this project, however there were several funding modifications found throughout the document. SVS was required to show a 20% match of cash, non-cash, and in-kind contributions (pg 34). Why was SVS selected? The answer might be in the agreement on page 132, SVS has "...identified forest plan revisions as a key opportunity to align the SVS mission to ongoing planning process over next 10-15 years", "Align the SVS mission"? Since when does the SVS mission have anything to do with the responsibility of the USFS to serve, and listen to, citizens? SVS even had access to USFS facilities and computers! Another responsibility was increasing collaboration with the community, but as everyone is aware, this meant stacking collaboratives with non-governmental organization individuals, and collaboration on this YFYF project with the community never occurred. Even more fascinating, SVS is located in the Salmon-Challis forest area, but the YFYF website is about other forests! Page 270 describes the project as being "consistent with the Regional Forest Planning Strategy", and Ms. Townley was to engage "a broad and diverse audience in forest planning". A different version is on page 77, stating the effort came out of wilderness planning in R4, wanting a planning process consistent across the region and with the 2012 planning rule, how to conduct wilderness inventory and evaluation, and the goal "....to have a robust engagement process for getting the public involved in planning, a "diverse audience with a planning tool to get new ideas and people to the table". This YFYF website is their interpretation of bringing citizens to the table? The total project "value" of $400,033 is listed on page 280. Even more abhorrent is that SVS was "granted sole and exclusive right to copyright any publications developed as a result of this agreement", and given authorization to "sell any publication developed as a result of this agreement", page 144-145. "Marketing Outlandish", a media "product", was referenced on page 430 by Gina Knudson, Collaboration Specialist for the Salmon-Challis National Forest. Taxpayers are funding SVS prosperity. While there are many items of interest in this document about USFS and SVS activities, it is too exhaustive to list all of them here. However, there is one that needs to be reviewed. As seen below, it appears, as a result of citizens questioning this project, David Rosenkrance, USDA Deputy Regional Forester, was given a copy of an interview (pg 178) by James Melonas, Forest Supervisor of the Santa Fe National Forest, with Mark Bethke, USFS Director, Planning & Financial Resources, who was involved in the project in May, 2019. This whole project may have violated forest service policy. It also appears the project was removed from Region 4 and turned over to the Washington office, expanding SVS involvement to a national level. Future posts will highlight other sections of this large document with a timeline. Nowhere in the document does it state that citizens were involved in any decisions about this project, its development, or its existence, but was rather shared among select individuals. Because of multiple amendments to the funding throughout the document it is difficult to determine what the end cost was. These people live in their own little world, having a heyday with their projects instead of their responsibility to work with local citizens whose tax dollars seem to be a bottomless pit for their whims, congratulating themselves on their work and for winning awards, while in reality, they do not even come close to how Idahoans feel about their right to use their own forests. How much of this money could have been spent on preventing forest fires?
If we do not get control over our federal agencies, none of this will stop. It is time to demand that these NGO partnerships with the federal government are either eliminated or significantly diminished. The federal government is accountable for its responsibility to the citizens who pay for their existence, and that time is now. Money is flowing into environmental groups for the connectivity agenda in the High Divide (HD) area. Just alone in 2016, Wilburforce gave $553,750.00 to various groups for assistance with their HD objectives. Some of those groups are local such as Salmon Valley Stewardship, Heart of the Rockies Initiative, and Lemhi Regional Land Trust. As usual, there were also donations to organizations with specific objectives in the High Divide such as the Idaho Conservation League, Wildlife Society, Wildlife Conservation Society, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, and Center for Large Landscape Conservation. There were also a couple of obscure groups that were given money for their HD objectives, Ecoflight and People & Carnivores. Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and Future West also received money for their HD objectives. Interestingly, the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) was given money for "State Wildlife Agency Reform". Senator Risch seemed to support the NWF in their objectives for a Collaborative Wildlife Conservation bill, which died in a previous session, but is now sponsoring a new bill for the same called the Recovering America's Wildlife Act, S. 3223. Never doubt who Sen. Risch represents. All of these donations begin on page 27 in the PDF below. |