Index of VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses.

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service
Rocky Mountain Regional Office 

Response to Objections on the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, Rio Grande National Forest

33 issues addressed 

Village at Wolf Creek Access Project Draft 11/15/18
Objection Issues and Responses 

Contents 

Issue 1: The village proposal expands impacts of the federally permitted ski area development

Issue 2: Judicial orders preclude reliance on FEIS

Issue 3: The Forest Service has never made Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture’s proposal (ANILCA alternative) available for review by the public or other local, State, and Federal agencies with jurisdiction and control over the Wolf Creek Ski Area complex 

Issue 4: The purpose and need and designation of the NEPA “Federal Action” are invalid

Issue 5: The FEIS perpetuates the same structural flaws addressed by the previous injunction and settlement

Issue 6: The range of alternatives considered is inappropriately narrow

Issue 7: Alternatives involving mitigation measures and ANILCA terms and conditions were not analyzed

Issue 8: The no-action alternative is inappropriately dismissed

Issue 9: The Forest Service failed to incorporate the input of several key cooperating agencies

Issue 10: ANILCA and existing Forest Service regulations do not require enhanced road access be provided to the federally encumbered Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture parcels

Issue 11: New information and stale (dated) analysis requires new NEPA process

Issue 12: ANILCA as preferred alternative is not compared to other alternatives

Issue 13: The consideration of connected actions and indirect and cumulative impacts in the DEIS is inadequate

Issue 14: The property appraisal confirms adequate access and comparable properties exist

Issue 15: The effects on wetlands are inadequately analyzed

Issue 16: The ANILCA alternative would lead to a loss of Canada lynx habitat and reduced functioning of an important Canada lynx linkage

Issue 17: The proposed decision would violate standards, guidelines, and objectives for lynx conservation

Issue 18: Spruce bark beetle impacts on lynx habitat requires additional analysis

Issue 19: The proposed conservation measures would not be effective in reducing impacts to lynx nor promoting recovery to a full, viable population

Issue 20: The Lynx Conservation Strategy was developed without any public involvement, in violation of NEPA

Issue 21: Application of any conservation measures is at best uncertain

Issue 22: The action alternatives would harm other wildlife

Issue 23: The action alternatives would reduce water quality

Issue 24: Lack of mitigation measures

Issue 25: Water supply for either action alternative may not be sufficient or reliable

Issue 26: In violation of NEPA, the FEIS fails to analyze the feasibility of, and the possible impacts from, a grade separated interchange at the village access road with Highway 160

Issue 27: The FEIS fails to analyze the comparative impacts of expanding federal control via the scenic easement

Issue 28: Failure to reinitiate consultation for the yellow-billed cuckoo pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

Issue 29: Bias and proponent control of the third party NEPA contractor was built into the contract

Issue 30: Failure to consider new information

Issue 31: Failure to consider the best available scienceIssue 32: Failure to adhere to NEPA’s public involvement mandates

Issue 33: Reasonable use and enjoyment that minimizes environmental effects requires an analysis of the visual effects to the congressionally designated Continental Divide National Scenic Trail

________________________________________________________

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=35945

_____________________________________________________

Here's a good resource for those who want to dig deeper.

Forest Service Pre-Decisional Objection Responses

This site contains information about the Forest Service’s pre-decisional objections.  An opportunity for administrative review of unresolved public concerns over a proposed decision, termed an objection process, is available for land management plan amendments and revisions, and for projects and activities that implement land management plans and are documented with an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement . In such instances, individuals or organizations may file written objections after an environmental analysis document is completed and before a decision document has been signed. Those concerns raised in objections are then considered and responded to by a Forest Service official at the agency’s organizational level above that of the individual who made the proposal.

"A Pre-Decisional Objection is a formal request to an agency higher authority for review of an environmental planning (NEPA) decision. The public's rights to file an objection are defined in specific objection regulations. Usually, all administrative processes must be exhausted before a person can bring a court action (litigation) against with a NEPA decision. This usually includes the filing of a formal objection.

Questions and comments regarding objections listed below should be directed to the Objection Deciding Officer, whose information is included in the objection response letter (included as a hyperlink)."

Objection Responses for R2 - Rocky Mt. Region All Units - 2015

Link to the list:  https://www.fs.fed.us/objections/objections_list.php?d=4&r=110200