8 thoughts on “USFS NEPA Podcast”

  1. I think Christine did a terrific job in this podcast. It’s not easy talking about this complex topic (all the different aspects of NEPA) at this level.

  2. Really? All 9 minutes of standard captured agency-speak (in the era of Trump no less) is that laudable ?

    No wonder then, that you two will likely find nothing wrong with why Christine Dawe was assigned to a quick little R10 timber contract coverup job on the Tongass.

    You’ll just love how she happily fixed the facts around a messy little multimillion dollar fraud!

    After all, she’s so expertly qualified in contract law too!

  3. David, could you be more specific about this, (was there press around this?). Plus I don’t know when you use the term “fraud” exactly what you mean. People (not necessarily you) use words in all kinds of different ways.

    • The tragic irony Sharon, is that this is all about NEPA fraud too. And it demonstrates with Shakespearean plotlines why the agency/industry agenda in the era of Trump needs your heroine of NEPA “efficiencies” to propagandize to a collaborating press the need for the intent of NEPA to be eviscerated. (It’s good for collaborative CON$ervation-based extractivism!)

      And THAT explains precisely why this hasn’t been touched by most of “the press” and what little coverage was given was served up as an incuriously parroted agency propaganda piece. Just another exercise in collaboration and coverup through lies of omission.

      I personally found information lacking in that little one-sided puff piece Steve posted.

      It, and your shared awe of Dawe’s performance celebrates the infantilization of public discourse.

      Fortunately, there are tens of thousands of other Americans who know precisely what the agency is up to. Many work for the USFS, and even the Press, (but they have to make a living too), while the rest find, “It’s hard to understand something when your salary depends upon your not understanding it.” (Upton Sinclair)

      So don’t hold your breath in hearing about it in the press (as if it were to conform to journalistic ethics.) The press utterly blew this one already and you’ll just have to wait for the truth to see the light of day.

      Btw, the truths i cite arise from information provided by the agency itself through FOIA.

  4. I would have liked to hear her talk about public participation, but the questions were not very informed. I think it’s disingenuous to say the only the reason for these changes as “it’s been a long time since we’ve done this and we’ve learned a lot,” when a big part of it is “we’ve been told to do more, faster with less and we need to cut some corners, especially the public role” (both my quotes).

    It was interesting that she was asked about “condition-based management.” I don’t agree with her interpretation of NEPA to allow decisions to be made “without looking at every single acre” (her quote). The question is about when and how they need to disclose the site-specific environmental impacts they find. They’ll have to use some kind of reliable survey method for ESA in any case, and they can’t ignore that information in the NEPA process.


Leave a Comment