Saturday, February 13, 2010

My Official Public Comments on the "Forest Service Planning NOI / Notice of Intent"



My Official Public Comments on the "Forest Service Planning NOI / Notice of Intent"


February 14, 2010


To:
fspr@contentanalysisgroup.com Forest Service Planning NOI, C/O Bear West Company, 172 E 500 S, Bountiful, UT 84010


From: Miss Julie Kay Smithson, researcher, author, writer, editor, and consummate born-and-bred American woman, 213 Thorn Locust Lane, London, Ohio 43140.
propertyrights@earthlink.net


Although my Official Public Comments are being sent to a very effective and highly paid shredder, the "Content Analysis Group," which is under federal contract to do what it does best, emasculate public comments, I go on record as directing the "Content Analysis Group" to keep my comments whole and unsullied by any "content analysis process," knowing that such a "process" will effectively render my comments sterile, unrecognizable, and totally without any ability to make a difference in this "Forest Service Planning NOI."

Page 16 of this 17-page document:
http://www.fs.fed.us/news/2009/releases/12/2009-12-15-noi-prepublication.pdf asks of "the public:" "Specific questions we would like the public to address include: How can the planning rule support the creation of a shared vision for each planning area through the planning process? Local and regional differences will have an impact on desired conditions and on the successful creation and implementation of a shared vision for any given planning area. Given that different areas will have different needs, should the planning rule allow a choice of planning processes? How could the planning rule create different process choices, and how could they be presented in the rule? What kinds of provisions would need to be included to guide and evaluate a process choice? Much discussion has been centered on how land management plans should be viewed; are they strategic documents that lay the foundation for specific future actions to help meet unit goals? Or, should land management plans also make project or activity decisions? Based on your response to the question above, what is the range of options for fully complying with NEPA during land management plan development, amendment, or revision? Should the new planning rule require standards and guidelines that are required for all plans? How can the agency analyze and describe the environmental effects of a planning rule in the environmental impact statement?"

I have made red the above questions, due in total to their professional employment of language deception. I caution those receiving these comments that I am not only fully aware of the extent and strategic purpose of said language deception, but that I am also making every attempt to ensure that others are aware of this "smoke and mirrors" Trojan horse standing at the gates of the owners of our national forests: Americans.

I shall begin with providing the following nine definitions, which some or all, the Forest Service and its partners seem loathe to admit exist, or their often convoluted, faulty and junk science language deception contents. The sole exception is the Forest Service Original Intent and Purpose, which today's Forest Service and its partners would steamroll in their headlong rush to close every square inch of federal land and the natural resources on and under said federal land.

Acquisition, in this case, would appear to mean the acquisition of Americans' independence, self-reliance, pursuit of property/happiness, and freedom. "Future generations" rings hollow when good, honest Americans learn just whose "future generations" are planned to be "allowed" to partake in the future "envisioned" nirvana. It darned sure isn't planned to be us Regular Joes!

Content Analysis Process (CAP) – Public responses on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are documented and analyzed using a process called content analysis. This is a systematic process of compiling and categorizing all public viewpoints and concerns submitted on a plan or project. Content analysis is intended to help decision makers clarify or adjust the next phase of the project. Information from public meetings, letters, emails, faxes, and other sources are all included in this analysis. In the content analysis process, each response is assigned a unique number. This number allows analysts to link specific comments to original responses. All respondents’ names and addresses are entered into a project-specific database program, enabling creation of a complete list of all respondents. Analysts read and code responses using the coding structure. Each comment is coded by subject and verified by a second analyst for accuracy and consistency. Then all coded comments are entered verbatim into a comment database. Database reports track all input and allow analysts to identify public concerns and to analyze the relationships among them. The final analysis document includes an executive summary, which discusses respondents’ main areas of concern, and a formal list of public concern statements. Each public concern statement is accompanied by one or more sample excerpts from original responses. This process and the resulting document do not replace responses in their original form. Rather, they provide a map to the responses and other input on file at the office of the Content Analysis Team (CAT) … Interested parties are encouraged to read public comment firsthand. It is important to recognize that the consideration of public comment is not a vote-counting process in which the outcome is determined by the majority opinion. Relative depth of feeling and interest among the public can serve to provide a general context for decisionmaking. However, it is the appropriateness, specificity, and factual accuracy of comment content that serves to provide the basis for modifications to planning documents and decisions. Further, because respondents are self-selected, they do not constitute a random or representative public sample. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) encourages all interested parties to submit comment as often as they wish regardless of age, citizenship, or eligibility to vote. Respondents may therefore include businesses, people from other countries, children, and people who submit multiple responses. Therefore, caution should be used when interpreting comparative terms in the summary document. Every substantive comment and suggestion has value, whether expressed by one respondent or many. All input is read and evaluated and the analysis team attempts to capture all relevant public concerns in the analysis process.
http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/xcsumm/Appendices053102.pdf (Note: To see what the Content Analysis Process does to a public comment, visit: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/mbr/projects/rec/adobepdf/winter_rec_public_involvement.pdf, click Edit, then Find, and type 464 in the search box. See Page 1 of this 65-page document to see how the eight-step dissection was performed. My original public comment has been destroyed, replaced with eleven bits and totally unrecognizable as mine. In fact, the only place my name appears is initially, on Page 6, coupled with the number 464. Eleven sanitized portions of my comments appear, herded with other numbers, in eleven places, each part utterly separated from the whole. This “process” effectively guts public comments, their tone and meaning.)

Forest – An ecosystem that is characterized by stands of trees varying in characteristics such as species composition, structure, age class, and associated processes, and commonly including meadows, streams, fish, and wildlife. – Draft Environmental Impact Statement [DEIS] for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western Oregon Bureau of Land Management Districts, Volume II [of 3 Volumes, plus maps] End Pages
http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/deis/files/vol%202/chapter%205/WOPR_DEIS_Glossary.pdf – 385 / 1 of 12 pages or Pages 387/857 – 396/866, if viewing the CD; 1.34 MB. Entire document’s Table of Contents: http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/deis/ 2. The land use designation for land on which the primary vegetation are trees or other woody plants (climax, natural, or introduced plant community) and use may be for the production of wood products. – Part 502 – Terms and Abbreviations Common to All Programs, Subpart A – Common Terms – M.440.502.A.00 – 502.00 – M.440.502.A.00 Amendment 30 – August 2005. Definitions, NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) eDirectives (electronic directives system), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/viewDirective.aspx?id=1638 (50 unnumbered pages)

Forest Service (Original Intent and Purpose): "And now, first and foremost, you can never afford to forget for a moment what is the object of our forest policy. That object is not to preserve forests because they are beautiful, though that is good in itself; nor because they are refuges for the wild creatures of the wilderness, though that, too, is good in itself; but the primary object of our forest policy, as of the land policy of the United States, is the making of prosperous homes. It is part of the traditional policy of home making in our country. Every other consideration comes as secondary. You yourselves have got to keep this practical object before your minds: to remember that a forest which contributes nothing to the wealth, progress, or safety of the country is of no interest to the Government, and should be of little interest to the forester. Your attention must be directed to the preservation of forests, not as an end in itself, but as the means of preserving and increasing the prosperity of the nation." - President Teddy Roosevelt, speaking to the Society of American Foresters in 1903. (emphasis added) Sources:
http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/forestfrms.htm and http://tongass-fpadjust.net/Documents/Appeals/Kootznoowoo/Kootznoowoo%20Attachment%202.pdf

Rehabilitation – Actions undertaken to return an injured resource to its baseline condition, as measured in terms of the injured resource’s physical, chemical, or biological properties or the services it previously provided. – DOI/USFWS
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:w7JhnVb3hxwJ:www.fws.gov/midwest/nepa/FoxRiverNEPA/documents/AppendixA2.pdf+glossary+restoration+%22to+return+an+injured+resource+to+its+baseline+condition.%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&lr=lang_en 2. The activities necessary to repair damage or disturbance caused by wildland fires or the fire suppression activity. – KIPZ – Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle National Forests http://www.fs.fed.us/kipz/documents/reference/glossary.shtml 3. Actions taken to restore or reclaim site productivity, water quality or other values. – Appendix H (Biological Assessment and Evaluation for Revised Land and Resource Management Plans and Associated Oil and Gas Leasing Decisions) http://www.fs.fed.us/ngp/final/pdf_feis/Appendix_H.pdf 4. The upgrading of a building previously in a dilapidated or substandard condition. – City of Scottsdale, Arizona, Planning, Building and Zoning Reference Guide Glossary. http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/generalplan/Glossary.asp 5. Improvements to a natural resource that return it to a good condition but not the condition prior to disturbance. Also, ”replacing selected original attributes of particular value to humans... or putting a natural resource to a new or greatly-altered use to serve human purposes." (Cairns, John, Jr. 1991. "The status of the theoretical and applied science of restoration ecology". The Environmental Professional 13 (3) p 187.) Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) http://www.itrcweb.org/Documents/ECO-2.pdf (page 104/B-1 of 154 pages) 6. Actions undertaken to return an injured resource to its baseline condition, or to a close approximation, as measured in terms of the injured resource’s physical, chemical or biological properties or the services it previously provided. – Draft Conceptual Restoration Plan for Whitewood Creek and the Belle Fourche and Cheyenne River Watersheds, South Dakota, September 29, 2004, prepared by: South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources; United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management; and United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Draft Plan. http://www.fws.gov/southdakotafieldoffice/CONCEPTUAL%20NATURAL%20RESOURCE%20RESTORATION%209-15-2004%20backup.pdf (Page 91/83 of 111 pages; 1.05 MB) 7. Altering a degraded habitat in order to improve ecological function. http://www.nps.gov/plants/restore/library/glossary.htm See also: Restoration

Restoration – (excuse for land acquisition) Holistic actions taken to modify an ecosystem to achieve desired, healthy, and functioning conditions and processes. Generally refers to the process of enabling the system to resume its resiliency to disturbances. – Appendix H (Biological Assessment and Evaluation for Revised Land and Resource Management Plans and Associated Oil and Gas Leasing Decisions)
http://www.fs.fed.us/ngp/final/pdf_feis/Appendix_H.pdf 2. Measures undertaken to return a degraded ecosystem's functions and values, including its hydrology, plant and animal communities, and/or portions thereof, to a less degraded ecological condition. – Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Glossary (USGS, United Nations) http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/educatnl/glossary/index.cfm 3…[R]estoration means the return of an ecosystem or habitat toward: its original structure, natural complement of species, and natural functions or ecological processes. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/2000/November/Day-09/i28509.htm B. Definition of Restoration and Compensation A. The Plan’s use of the word “restoration” is confusing and contradicts its use in Alternative 2.B. It does not make sense to “restore” lands that were not injured or damaged. Response: A. The Draft Plan (Conceptual Restoration and Compensation Plan for Whitewood Creek and the Belle Fourche and Cheyenne River Watersheds, South Dakota, January 2005) frequently uses the word “restoration” within the Plan’s title and throughout the document, including the various action alternatives. We acknowledge and apologize that our use of the word was confusing to some readers since the general understanding of the definition of restoration is “to make something better or bring it back to its original condition.” However, we employed CERCLA’s [Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (Superfund)] definition of restoration, which is broad, in order to best compensate the public. CERCLA defines restoration as “includes, but is not limited to, on-site restoration, off-site enhancement, replacement of similar local resources via management practices, habitat reconstruction, rehabilitation, acquisition, replacement or other techniques.” To better describe Alternative 2, we have replaced the word “restoration” with “reclamation” as a result of this comment. Further, we have added the word “compensation” to the Plan’s title. B. It does seem odd that the Plan would propose to “restore” lands that are not injured or damaged. However, as explained above, the Plan employs CERCLA’s definition of “restoration.” Where applicable, the Plan also will use the word “compensate.” No other changes were made to the Plan as a result of this comment. Page 125: http://southdakotafieldoffice.fws.gov/Final%20Conceptual%20Restoration%20Plan.pdf 4. Bringing back a forest ecosystem to a prior, less-disturbed state (prior to the settlement of Anglo-Europeans). http://www.nps.gov/grca/compliance/pdf/forest-EA.pdf 5. As noted in Section V.B.3, supra, the GMA/SMA [Growth Management Act/Shoreline Management Act] total statutory scheme contains a substantive duty to “preserve, protect, enhance, and restore” the ecosystems of shorelines of statewide significance. The City has defined the term “restoration” as follows: Return of an ecosystem to a close approximation of its previously existing condition (modified from NRC 1992). For example, building a wetland on a non-upland site where a wetland previously existed would be considered restoration. SEWIP [The Snohomish Estuary Wetland Integration Plan http://www.everettwa.org/default.aspx?ID=978 ], Glossary page 7. The term “restoration” has been defined by Ecology as follows: “Restoration” or “ecological restoration” means the significant reestablishment or upgrading of ecological shoreline functions through measures such as revegetation, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not necessarily imply returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre-European settlement conditions.” WAC [Washington Administrative Code] 173-26. Supp. Ex. No. 1, at 9. Everett’s SMP adopts a series of goals, policies, objectives and regulations addressed to “restoration.” Among these are: [Goal 2] To promote and enhance the public interest by protecting, enhancing, restoring, and preserving ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes, while allowing development in Everett’s Urban Growth Boundary. http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/central/decisions/2003/2309c_Corrected_ESC_FDO.htm 8. Return of an ecosystem to a close approximation of its condition prior to disturbance. Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) http://www.itrcweb.org/Documents/ECO-2.pdf (page 104/B-1 of 154 pages) 9. Specific actions taken to improve or restore habitat or associated ecosystems to potential natural conditions. – USFWS, Conservation Agreement and Conservation Strategy, Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana Luteiventris) Toiyabe Great Basin Subpopulation Nevada, September 2003. http://www.fws.gov/nevada/protected_species/amphibians/documents/csf/frog_toiyabenomaps.pdf (page 5/iv; 307 KB) 10. Includes, but is not limited to, on-site restoration, off-site enhancement, replacement of similar local resources via management practices, habitat reconstruction, rehabilitation, mitigation, acquisition, replacement or other techniques. – Draft Conceptual Restoration Plan for Whitewood Creek and the Belle Fourche and Cheyenne River Watersheds, South Dakota, September 29, 2004, prepared by: South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources; United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management; and United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Draft Plan. http://www.fws.gov/southdakotafieldoffice/CONCEPTUAL%20NATURAL%20RESOURCE%20RESTORATION%209-15-2004%20backup.pdf (Page 91/83 of 111 pages; 1.05 MB) 11. Altering an area in such a way as to reestablish an ecosystem’s structure and function, usually bringing it back to its original (pre-disturbance) state or to a healthy state close to the original. http://www.nps.gov/plants/restore/library/glossary.htm See also Rehabilitation

Restoration (cultural) – (excuse for land acquisition) The act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of an existing historic structure, landscape, or object as it appeared at a particular period of time, by removing modern additions and replacing lost portions of historic fabric, paint, or other elements. – National Park Service, Yosemite Valley Plan SEIS (Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement), Volume IB Part 2, Glossary
http://www.nps.gov/yose/planning/yvp/seis/vol_Ib_p2/gloss_1.html

Restoration (natural) – (excuse for land acquisition) Work conducted to remove impacts to natural resources and restore natural processes, and to return a site to natural conditions. – National Park Service, Yosemite Valley Plan SEIS (Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement), Volume IB Part 2, Glossary
http://www.nps.gov/yose/planning/yvp/seis/vol_Ib_p2/gloss_1.html

Restoration or Rehabilitation – (excuse for land acquisition) Actions to be taken to return an injured resource to its baseline condition. – DOI/USFWS
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/FoxRiverNEPA/documents/AppendixA.pdf

Restoration/revegetation – (excuse for land acquisition) Re-establishing a habitat or plant community in an area that historically supported it. – U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Glossary
http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/eis/navajo/pdfs/deis_glossary.pdf

~~~~~ end of nine definitions ~~~~~

With the proven track record of both this agency and its policy and definition writers for changing, skewing, and making definitions that are impossible to discern -- due in great probability to the fact that they were never meant to embue clarity -- intelligent comment on any "notice of intent" or "plan" is not possible. Coupled with the fact that "content analysis process" will be exercised on all comments -- the equivalent of running comments through the shredder -- there will actually be no comments. No matter what the blind men may say, the Emperor is still "nekked." No matter what immediate past, present or future heads of this agency may say, the Forest Service is broken, those responsible for its maimed and bleeding carcass pretending to be "part of the process" which is ostensibly to fix what's wrong.

Let me be crystal-clear: A bull in a china shop is not synonymous with one that repairs broken china.

A friend and fellow seeker of truth relating to our (his and mine, being Americans) natural resources and federal, some say "public," lands, is Randy Shipman of Rock Springs, Wyoming, in the southwest corner of that great state. Randy is a thoughtful man, a devoted husband and father, and an American of unquenchable thirst for truth.

Like him, I would die of thirst if it were left up to the Forest Service to provide a drink of truth in the twenty-first century.

Borrowing Randy's words:

'"The Forest Service raises a number of noteworthy concepts in the scoping document (Federal Register - December 18, 2009), foremost being the concept of "restoration," which is heavily stressed but never defined. Nor does the document examine how making "restoration" a priority would affect recreation or other land uses. Rather, the agency asks the public to provide comment on what "restoration" ought to mean. However, last August, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack stated publicly, "Restoration means managing forest lands first and foremost to protect our water resources, while making our forests more resilient to climate change."'"

I close with this reminder to all that I am not flummoxed, but remain more dedicated than ever to alerting, educating and empowering others to tear aside that veil of language deception with which this agency has cloaked itself and its "plans." The Emperor is buck "nekked."

Forest Service (Original Intent and Purpose): "And now, first and foremost, you can never afford to forget for a moment what is the object of our forest policy. That object is not to preserve forests because they are beautiful, though that is good in itself; nor because they are refuges for the wild creatures of the wilderness, though that, too, is good in itself; but the primary object of our forest policy, as of the land policy of the United States, is the making of prosperous homes. It is part of the traditional policy of home making in our country. Every other consideration comes as secondary. You yourselves have got to keep this practical object before your minds: to remember that a forest which contributes nothing to the wealth, progress, or safety of the country is of no interest to the Government, and should be of little interest to the forester. Your attention must be directed to the preservation of forests, not as an end in itself, but as the means of preserving and increasing the prosperity of the nation." - President Teddy Roosevelt, speaking to the Society of American Foresters in 1903. (emphasis added) Sources:
http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/forestfrms.htm and http://tongass-fpadjust.net/Documents/Appeals/Kootznoowoo/Kootznoowoo%20Attachment%202.pdf


Miss Julie Kay Smithson, researcher, author, writer, editor, and consummate born-and-bred American woman

213 Thorn Locust Lane

London, Ohio 43140

propertyrights@earthlink.net

3,363 words.

No comments:

Post a Comment