Monday, July 23, 2018

RGNF Supervisor responds to questions.

Rio Grand National Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas, did me the courtesy of a prompt and thorough response to the email I shared in the previous post.  Here I share his email which I have reformatted for clarity without altering any of his words, beyond bolding some of them.  It's food for thought and creates a sort of baseline to work with, or argue against, as the case may be. 
___________________________________________
Village at Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Statement and draft Record Of Decision 
are available on-line at: 

Comments are to be sent to before September 4th: 
Reviewing Officer, Tammy Whittington, Deputy Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, Region 2, 1617 Cole Blvd., Building 17, Lakewood, Colorado 80401 or email r02admin_review@fs.fed.us. 
______________________________________________________ 
With that I'll give the stage to Dan Dallas and will save further commentary for future posts.
______________________________________________________________

Subject: Why are comments on VWC recent Draft Decent being limited.
Response received Monday, 1:46PM, July 23, 2018
Dallas, Dan -FS

Peter, good questions, I will answer below within your letter below, highlighted in yellow using direct quotes from documents available on our website.  

So to be absolutely clear, let me provide instructions for navigating the website I reference here.  I’m the first to admit this navigation can be opaque, I’m not always a fan of the linkage protocols 
{I am familiar with the page and have been linking to and reading some documents - so I’ve moved this useful section to the end of his email.} 
These will be the documents I take direct quotes out of.

Open letter of inquiry to RGNF/USDA

Dear RGNF Supervisor Dallas,

I was surprised to see that comments to RGNF/USDA’s most recent Draft Decision (in favor of access to facilitate the blindly destructive development of LMJV Alberta Park parcel, that extremely biologically productive wetlands areas - which happens to be among the source waters for the critically important Rio Grande River.*) are being restricted to people who commented on a previous altogether different Draft Decision?

I respectfully ask if you could explain the rational and justification for that limitation on who can comment?

Let me answer your question as directly and succinctly as possible for clarity, and then provide more context with quotes from the above documents for clarity on the process followed here.  In short, following National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, you (or any other participant from the public sector) comment on the analysis (EIS in this case) and object to the decision (if you don’t agree with it).   

The real issue, which is mischaracterized broadly in the media and in quotes from the opponents to the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, is who has Standing to object to this new decision.

In this case, we have based the new decision (Alternative 3 – ANILCA in the EIS) on the analysis in the 2014 EIS (found at https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/78763_FSPLT3_2387249.pdf).  The reason for this comes from the work done on the Supplemental Information Report (SIR) in advance of deciding how to respond to the court decision rendered on the first decision on this issue ( which was Alternative 2 – Land Exchange).   Quoting directly from the SIR (posted in Navigation Instructions above):

Based upon the findings and rationale presented in this SIR, I have determined that a supplement of the EIS is not necessary and a new decision based on the November 2014 FEIS can occur contingent on an updated biological assessment, re-consultation with USFWS, and the unwinding of the land exchange. 

 The 2014 FEIS still presents an accurate description of likely environmental impacts of the alternatives and the public comments are still applicable for the responsible official to consider in making a new decision.

So based on the findings of the SIR quoted above, the new decision announced last week was twofold:  
1)base the new decision on the original analysis; and 
2)issue the decision based on Alternative 3 analyzed in the EIS for purposes of meeting the FS baseline commitment for following the relevant law we must follow in this case.  

I also am fully aware that the average folks on the street can wonder why this was done given the first decision was overturned in court.
  
Contrary to popular opinion, the court ruled on 3 matters associated with the previous land exchange decision which is outlined and disclosed in the SIR.  Quoting from the SIR again:

In May 2015 a Record of Decision (ROD) was issued by Dan Dallas, Forest Supervisor of the Rio Grande National Forest and the responsible official for the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project. 

Forest Supervisor Dallas selected Alternative 2, the Land Exchange alternative in the 2015 ROD. 

In June 2015 Rocky Mountain Wild and others filed a lawsuit in the federal district court in Colorado. 

In May 2017 the district court found the Forest Service failed to consider deed restrictions to control the private development and the agency failed to provide adequate conservation measures for the Canada lynx (lynx) to meet Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements. 

The district court set aside the 2015 decision.

So finally, there is no limitation on who can comment, this is a mischaracterization of the process that we’ve tried our best to clearly describe.  

I would add we’ve already gotten a large number of comments already (in regards to the new decision) and just as last time, my staff and I will read every one of them as they come in. 

What is limited is who has standing to file an objection of the decision because it (decision) is based on an existing EIS which has already been commented on.  Quoting from the legal notice for this decision (posted in Navigation Instructions above):

This project is subject to the objection process pursuant to Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 218 (36 CFR 218), Subparts A and B.

Objections will only be accepted from those who have previously submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed project during scoping (2011) or comments on the draft EIS (2012). 

Issues raised in objections must be based on previously submitted, timely, specific written comments regarding the proposed project unless based on new information arising after designated comment opportunities.

Next I wonder if you can share some clarifying thoughts regarding the Rio Grande National Forest administration’s thinking when it comes to balancing between protecting irreparable landscapes of outstanding biological and wildlife habitat value with facilitating development that will inevitable cause profound damages to this landscape, that some argue is a national treasure and a resource that will only increase in societal importance as our real physical world continues warming and drying and radially altering before our eyes?

For the answer to this question, I will stop in your sentence structure above at the RGNF administration’s thinking.  Our, my, thinking is simple and limits the jurisdiction and discretion that the opponents seem to think I have but do not.  

I do not have discretion in regards to following the law, I only have jurisdiction to allow the necessary access and limited discretion in describing under what conditions.  That’s what this is all about. {Yes it is!}  

Quoting from the Draft Record of Decision (ROD) pages 7 and 8 (posted in Navigation Instructions above):

LMJV has a present right of access under ANILCA and I sought to recognize that right by selecting the land exchange alternative in 2015, which would have eliminated the federal right-of-way access need due to direct access from LMJV’s private land to Hwy 160. 

The district court has set aside my land exchange decision. However, the existing FEIS also took a hard look at the significant environmental effects of selecting the ANILCA right-of-way alternative which would allow LMJV to develop the existing parcel constrained, to the extent it is constrained, by the scenic easement.

Therefore, I am selecting Alternative 3 to allow ANILCA access to the LMJV inholding without eliminating the possibility of a future land exchange. 

My decision is contingent on the 2015 exchange of deeds (which transferred the federal exchange parcel to LMJV) being “unwound” either by agreement with LMJV or by court order.

Finally in closing, if this truly was a conversation about balancing interests and protecting a landscape and the values it provides, it would be a much different conversation, and likely not with you and folks with your interest.  

Unfortunately, I do not have the discretion to have that conversation.  Let me leave you with a quote from the News Release associated with this draft Decision Document (posted in Navigation Instructions above):

“This has been a long, complex project and I encourage folks to learn more about its status and review the new draft decision for themselves,” added Dallas.

Given the flurry of information, and misinformation, that has quickly surrounded this issue since last Thursday, I stand by this quote more than ever.  

See the navigation instructions above for the RGNF website.  Look for yourself in the black and white of documented records, don’t depend on second hand descriptions of the status of this decision.  

The jurisdiction to constrain or limit the development will reside with Mineral County during their County process to authorize building at a subsequent time.  The discretion to constrain or limit the development lies with the proponent, along with the philosophical discussion that almost everybody feels so passionately about, pro and con.

Thanks for your interest, hope this helps explain a complex subject on your blog.
____________________________________

ACCESSING VILLAGE AT WOLF CREEK  INFORMATION 

Peter, good questions, I will answer below within your letter belo
w, highlighted in yellow using direct quotes from documents available on our website.  

So to be absolutely clear, let me provide instructions for navigating the website I reference here.  I’m the first to admit this navigation can be opaque, I’m not always a fan of the linkage that are provided on the agency standard websites but on the other hand if everybody built their websites differently, it would be even more chaotic than it is now to find the appropriate posts that all FS offices make in regards to being transparent with public information.  (I agree, from my surfing it seems to me its doing a very good job at organizing tons of information.)

Go to RGNF WWW website, here’s the link:    https://www.fs.usda.gov/riogrande
Click on Village at Wolf Creek Access Project on right side of the main landing page
Click on Project Documents:  Decision in the middle of the page
Click on 20180719_VWC_Alt3.  It will open that folder which then shows the following documents:
§  07-19-2018
§  07-19-2018
§  07-19-2018
§  07-19-2018
20180719_VWC_Alt3_SIR (PDF 4084kb)



 https://www.fs.fed.us/objections/objections_related.php
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is our basic charter for protection of the environment. It establishes policy, sets goals, and provides means for carrying out the policy. NEPA procedures provide the direction to help public officials make decisions that are based on the understanding of environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment. NEPA procedures also require that environmental information is available to citizens before decisions are made and actions are taken that may affect the human environment. The decision documents related to plans and projects result from compliance with NEPA. 


Read about Proposed Actions

The Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) is published in January, April, July, and October. It contains a list of proposed actions that will soon begin or are currently undergoing environmental analysis and documentation. It provides information so that you can become aware of and indicate your interest in specific proposals before decisions are made. We encourage your early and ongoing involvement in any proposals of interest to you. Please click here to view the SOPA for a particular National Forest, Grassland, Scenic Area, Recreation Area, or Tall Grass Prairie.
_______________________________________________________

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)