Letter: Absolutely no to Berlaimont
As the U.S. Forest Service moves toward its final decision to permit the access road to the Berliamont luxury home development inholding above Edwards, there are guidelines coming directly from the Forsest Service website which the USFS is clearly not following. Noting some key points follow.
Mission: “… to sustain health, diversity, productivity … to meet the needs of present and future generations.” Present and future generations of people/animals/ habitat are not considered allowing the road. Only a few people are considered.
Motto: “… listening to the people and responding to their diverse needs in making decisions.” More than 4,000 respondents were against the road. Can this be ignored?
Vision: “The American people can count on the USFS to perform.” Perform decimation to elk/deer/other beings with a road?
Guiding principles: 1. “We use the best scientific knowledge in making decisions and select the most appropriate technologies in the management of the resources.” Scientists and wildlife biologists Bill Andree and Bill Heicher, both with decades of Colorado Parks and Wildlife experience, have studied the area for 30 years. There are detailed assessments regarding the elk, deer and other wildlife that live in the area. A road will decimate the herds and do irreversible damage to the habitat and other beings.
Support Local Journalism
According to Andree, the herds can not move, “they will just die.” The Forest Service is blatantly ignoring this knowledge. We do not want to sterilize the entire area for a monstrosity of a road to the development of little-used mansions. The present road is adequate, but not for said development. There is no fire road planned. Also, to help insure herd sustainability, the present road is closed from November to May.
2. “We promote grassroots participation in our decisions and our activities.”
Again, how can you ignore 4,000 negative response letters?
There is mention of a parallel to a decision to an inholding in Alaska. There is no parallel. It was for mining claims, not housing.
In order for the Forest Service to remain within its own guidelines as stated on its website, it has the responsibility to return the response of “no response.” Other responses or choices for a different response are simply not acceptable.