Village at Wolf Creek Poker update: USDA/USFS Folds, Red Holds.

With a tip of my hat to Jimbo Buickerood, at the San Juan Citizens Alliance, for alerting me to Jonathan Romeo's report in the May 10th Durango Herald on the latest Village at Wolf Creek development.  Namely, as the time limit ran out the USFS appears to have decided not to appeal Judge Matsch's decision of last May.  

Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture's Attorney Bill Leone defiantly announced that it doesn't matter to them what the USFS does.  They have gone ahead on their own and filed an appeal on Wednesday, arguing that "the environmental review was done according to the law and the land swap should be approved."

May 14th Update - USDA/USAF filed an "Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Appeal by Appellant United States"

But Judge Matsch sets this lawyerly 'misrepresentation' straight, when he clearly explained in his decision:

(Page 21 of 40)

ANALYSIS

The following aspects of the Record of Decision and the Biological Opinion that forms part of the basis for the ROD require relief under the APA. Defendants failed to consider important aspects of the issues before them, offered an explanation for their decision that runs counter to the evidence, failed to base their decision on consideration of the relevant factors, and based their decision on an analysis that is contrary to law.

(Page 39 of 40) 

The 900 public comments in the record show this heightened public awareness of the effects of human disruption of the native environment. The Rio Grande National Forest has two designated wilderness areas near the area involved in this action. It has unique features. 

Notably, responses to the public comments were prepared by the contractors who did the work. 

They would not be expected to find that work to be flawed.

What NEPA requires is that before taking any major action a federal agency must stop and take a careful look to determine the environmental impact of that decision, and listen to the public before taking action. The Forest Service failed to do that in the Record of Decision. The duty of this Court is to set it aside.

VII. ORDER

Where an agency action is found to be arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,

(Page 40 of 40)

the Court must “hold [it] unlawful and set [it] aside.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). The Court finds and concludes that Defendants‟ actions violated the APA in the respects specified in this decision.  

News Release: Forest Service Declines to Appeal Decision Nullifying Wolf Creek Land Exchange

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 10, 2018

   

Forest Service Declines to Appeal Decision 

Nullifying Wolf Creek Land Exchange

Denver, CO – The United States Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service has declined to appeal an Order issued last May by Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch setting aside decisions approving a land exchange that would provide necessary road access for the long-sought Village at Wolf Creek development. The agency failed to file the required appeal brief by the May 9th deadline despite having originally notified the court last November of its intent to appeal.