Showing posts with label Chris Talbot-Heindl. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chris Talbot-Heindl. Show all posts

Friday, September 28, 2018

Village at Wolf Creek Objection Review Period EXTENDED to November 21st

I received the following today: 'Village at Wolf Creek Objection Review Period' has been extended to November 21, 2018.  It would be interesting to know the back story to this, but hey the important part is that citizens have additional time to voice their objections.

click on image for clearer view
=========================================================

FOR MORE INFORMATION LINK TO,


Submit your objection to the Village at Wolf Creek Pass 
Road Access Project to,

Saturday, July 28, 2018

Friends of Wolf Creek, Call to Action! Submit Comments to RGNF/USDA

I received the following email today and am sharing it as a public service announcement.

Submit your objection to the Village at Wolf Creek Pass 
Road Access Project to,

The Forest Service intends to give the Village of Wolf Creek road access. The Rio Grande National Forest announced its intention on July 19 to circumvent a federal court ruling that invalidated prior approvals for the controversial Village at Wolf Creek real estate development. 

As you know, a Colorado federal district court set aside the Forest Service's approval of a land exchange to facilitate the development in May of last year. "The Forest Service cannot abdicate its responsibility to protect the forest by making an attempt at an artful dodge," the court declared. Now, the Forest Service hopes to use the same artfully dodged analysis, previously deemed in violation of multiple federal laws, to approve a different means of providing the developers access.

The Forest Service is also trying to severely limit who can comment on this acton by limiting objections to those who "previously submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed project during scoping or comments on the draft EIS" in 2012.

We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to comment on changes to their public lands. We encourage everyone to submit their objections.
Please email Friends of Wolf Creek with a copy of your comments, so that we have a record of what the Forest Service is receiving (this is obviously not a requirement for objections, we would just really appreciate it!).

Objection requirements, how to submit your objection, talking points, and how to write comments that stick can be found on our website.
Submit your comments before the September 5 deadline.

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

July 2016 Update - Village at Wolf Creek lawsuit



The short version, the wheels of justice grind ever so slowly, but on they grind.  I'll let Chris Talbot-Heindl fill you in on the details:


By: Chris Talbot-Heindl, Communications & Membership Manager, Rocky Mountain Wild
July 12, 2016

Last Friday, during a motions hearing on the Wolf Creek case, Friends of Wolf Creek asked Federal Judge Richard Matsch to compel the Forest Service to obtain and disclose records and billing statements from the contractors who prepared the environmental analysis. Friends of Wolf Creek also requested the confidential settlement agreement between the Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture and the Wolf Creek Ski Area, which involved the challenged land exchange.

One of our lawyers for the case, Travis Stills, explained that the documents “we’ve received piece meal over the last two years paint an incomplete picture and our hope is that the requested documents would fill in the gaps.”

While Judge Matsch denied parts of the Motion to Compel dealing with the contractor records and billing statements, he stated that the contractor records could still be obtained through our ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case. The Judge added that if our FOIA case did result in the release of the contractor records, those documents could be added to the merits case at a later time.

“We believe the contractor records contain a missing piece to this puzzle and are hopeful we will have the opportunity to review that information through our ongoing FOIA litigation” stated Matt Sandler, Staff Attorney for Rocky Mountain Wild, “that said, we already have strong evidence to support our case and look forward to presenting that to the Court.”

Judge Matsch was particularly interested in the content of the confidential settlement agreement. The lawyer representing the Ski Area stated that the information contained in the settlement agreement is sensitive but did not provide insight into the relevancy to the litigation. Judge Matsch ordered the Department of Justice attorney for the Forest Service to review the document and determine the relevance of the information and report back to the Court.

Regarding the timeline of the merits case, Judge Matsch ordered that all parties should work together to complete the Administrative Record and determine a timeline for addressing the merits of the case. He ordered that the case start with the record as it stands now, supplemented with relevant parts of the secret settlement agreement and other documents that have already been identified. “Get the guts of the case before me,” he said.


The merits case asserts numerous violations of federal environmental laws, including the claims that the Forest Service unnecessarily limited the scope of its environmental analysis on a land exchange with the Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture to avoid fully analyzing the impacts that the proposed development of a 8,000 person “village” would have on the Rio Grande National Forest and sensitive wildlife, including the Canada lynx.



____________________________________________________________________

http://friendsofwolfcreek.org

In March 2016, we filed a motion in the U.S. District Court to have records in the possession of the contractors that the Forest Service hired to prepare the environmental analysis of the land exchange disclosed and potentially added to the Administrative Record. While these records legally belong to the Forest Service, they have refused to ask the contractors to supply all of them. The attorneys for the Forest Service and the Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture responded to the court arguing that the Administrative Record was complete without these additional records. In the first week of May, we filed a 23-page Reply brief, and now we are awaiting the Court's decision. Full copies of our Brief, the defendant's Responses, and our Reply brief can be found here: