Showing posts with label Village at Wolf Creek Lawsuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Village at Wolf Creek Lawsuit. Show all posts

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:

Friday, October 2, 2015

Details of the VWC Land Exchange EIS FOIA Federal Court decision


For the interested here is a selection of key quotes from the recent US District Court decision in the Rocky Mountain Wild vs. USFS (and the Village at Wolf Creek Land Exchange Environmental Impact Statement process.).  

Of course, this is a my cherry picked presentation since there was a lot of legalese, background, and Judge Wiley Daniel detailing why he decided as he did - all worth getting acquainted with, but too much to be posting over here.  I thank Rocky Mountain Wild for making the full decision available.

ROCKY MOUNTAIN WILD Plaintiff, v. USFS/VWC/EIS
Case 1:14-cv-02496-WYD-KMT Document 31 Filed 09/30/15 USDC Colorado 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-2496-WYD-KMT
ROCKY MOUNTAIN WILD, INC., a Colorado non-profit corporation,
Plaintiff, v.
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, a federal agency;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, a federal agency,
Defendants.
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
This case arises out of a request by the Plaintiff on February 27, 2014, to
Defendant United States Forest Service (“Forest Service”) for certain agency records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, pertaining to the development and construction of the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project (“Wolf Creek Project”) in the Rio Grande National Forest (“RGNF”) of Colorado, a project undertaken by RGNF under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”).

Friends of Wolf Creek News Release 10/1/2015


Media Contacts: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 10/1/15
Matt Sandler, Attorney, Rocky Mountain Wild
Travis Stills, Attorney, Energy and Conservation Law
 

Court Orders Forest Service to Disclose Documents on Wolf Creek Pass Decision 
Denver, CO — The United States District Court of Colorado has ordered the U.S. Forest Service to fully disclose documents pertaining to its decision to approve a controversial land exchange on Wolf Creek Pass in southwestern Colorado. The Court ruled that the Forest Service did not search for public records, including emails and other communications between the agency’s Regional and Washington Offices and the developers. The 20-page ruling also confirmed the Forest Service failed to justify its decision to withhold thousands of pages from public scrutiny. 
The court order came in response to a lawsuit filed by Denver-based conservation group Rocky Mountain Wild. That suit claimed that the Forest Service had unlawfully withheld public records and communications requested through a February 27, 2014 Freedom of Information Act request. The Court’s order gives the U.S. Forest Service until October 30, 2015 to conduct a search and to fully disclose documents pertaining to its decision. 
“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.” 
The land exchange at the center of this controversy was approved by Rio Grande Forest Supervisor, Dan Dallas, in May of this year, and would trade 205 federal acres for 177 acres of private land within the boundaries of the Rio Grande National Forest. The exchange gives highway access to the private land, making it possible for the owner/developer to construct a proposed “village” for 8,000 tourists. Conservation organizations and local communities oppose this development, siting the environmental and economic ramifications for downstream communities, and the direct impacts to wildlife in the area. 
Opposition to the development has steadily grown, attracting local businesses, skiers, ranchers, local landowners, downstream water users, hunters, anglers, and conservationists. An online petition started this summer has garnered over 79,000 signatures urging the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, Tom Tidwell, to protect the pass.
To sign the petition link to: https://www.change.org/p/tom-tidwell-chief-usda-forest-service-stop-the-destruction-of-wolf-creek-pass-in-sw-colorado

#######
Friends of Wolf Creek is a coalition of conservation organizations fighting to keep Wolf Creek Pass wild. The coalition includes: Rocky Mountain Wild, San Juan Citizens Alliance, and San Luis Valley EcosystemCouncil. More information can be found at www.friendsofwolfcreek.org

(I added the highlights and I tip of my hat to Jimbo Buickerood at the San Juan Citizens Alliance for sharing this timely news with me.) 

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.”