Thursday, October 1, 2015

Judge rules agency inexplicably withheld information from public

Here's breaking news regarding one of the lawsuits that objects to the way the RGNF/USDA conducted their Environmental Impact Study for the Village at Wolf Creek Access Land Exchange which they seem to feel obligated to accommodate, which in turn would accommodate a fanciful 1980s speculative real estate adventure and the destruction of that productive wetlands.  

Perhaps somewhere in all this drawn out haggling it will occur to the powers-that-be, it's now 2015 and it's time to put to rest Red's pipe dream and start thinking about protecting that biological productive wetlands tapestry which is doing just fine as is, thank you very much.  

Considering our undeniable water challenges, Rio Grande River stakeholders would also appreciate it.

For more pictures of Alberta Park at Wolf Creek Pass, Colorado see:

Judge rules agency inexplicably withheld information from public
By Peter Marcus Herald staff writer

Published: - Last modified: October 01. 2015 
A Colorado U.S. District Court on Wednesday found that the Forest Service violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to conduct an adequate search of documents and did not properly explain its decision to withhold thousands of pages of documents from the public. 
Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel stopped short of ordering immediate disclosure of the documents but gave the Forest Service until Oct. 30 to conduct a new, more complete search. ... 
“The court has verified what we have been saying throughout this decision-making process,” said Matt Sandler, staff attorney for Rocky Mountain Wild.
“The Forest Service has failed to be transparent, has withheld documents and has committed resources to approving this irresponsible development while failing to keep the public informed.”

... in its 20-page ruling – (the court) found that the Forest Service inappropriately limited its search and redacted documents without a valid explanation. 
Officials had claimed an attorney-client privilege exemption. But for many of the documents, the court found that the “justification does not offer sufficient detail as to the contents of the documents and why the attorney/client privilege should be applied in such a broad manner.” 
... But additional lawsuits have again slowed progress. At least two lawsuits remain in limbo. 
Environmental interests and the developers behind the proposed development signed an agreement in July to prohibit construction until the legal hurdles are crossed. That agreement remains in place.
written by:

No comments:

Post a Comment