03 / Accountability

CPW refuses to publicly own the plan.

A possibility described after publication is not a permit condition. If CPW intends to use seasonal closures, refuge boundaries and its raptor guidance at Sweetwater, those project-specific commitments should appear in the Proposed Action, decision and permit.

CPW won't answer · Aug. 17, 2026 request

CPW was directly asked whether the Proposed Action reflects its true plan.

The Working Group's letter to CPW Resource Stewardship Program Manager Jeff Thompson asked whether Alternative 2 is CPW's intended plan if CPW is selected. If not, it requested the precise facility, use, closure and management changes CPW would seek before the Final EIS and permit.

The letter also asked CPW to identify the exact Draft EIS, resource-protection measure or permit provision that adopts each 2021 and 2024 site-specific recommendation—or state when, by whom and on what technical basis CPW withdrew or modified it. It requested a response by August 31. The Working Group reports that no response was received by that date.

Letter to Jeff ThompsonAug. 17, 2026 · View PDF Jeff Thompson's prior responseJuly 15, 2026 · View PDF Complete CARA attachment packetZIP · letters, memos and supporting records

View the official CARA entry View CARA submission cover note

Consultant relationship

SE Group identifies DNR and CPW on its Sweetwater EIS portfolio page.

SE Group's own site lists “Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Colorado Parks and Wildlife” beneath the Sweetwater Lake Recreation Improvements EIS project title. It says SE Group is managing the NEPA process and published the Draft EIS and 13 technical reports.

That disclosure does not by itself determine whether the analysis is adequate. It does make transparent methods, independent scrutiny and precise disclosure of CPW's commitments especially important.

View SE Group's page

July 16, 2026 · after the Draft EIS

CPW described measures it might use—and planning it would do later.

At the CPW Commission meeting, Director Laura Clellan said that if CPW becomes manager, its standards include raptor measures “such as implementing seasonal closures or wildlife refuge boundaries.” She invited participation in a future management-planning process. Minutes later, Commissioner Dallas May asked about a plan that would be developed if CPW receives management authority.

If those measures are intended for Sweetwater, the public should be able to review them now as commitments, not examples of future discretion.

Watch at 2:36:02 Follow-up at 2:42:26 Official meeting page

An unanswered public-record question

Which agency's raptor protections would actually apply?

The Post Independent reported Forest Supervisor Brian Glaspell's statement that Forest Service or CPW protections would apply depending on the manager, followed by: “Either way, they're pretty strict standards.”

On July 29, Maria Summerlin and Roaring Fork Audubon Society, Colorado Wild, Save the World's Rivers, Arkansas Valley Audubon Society, Audubon Colorado Council, Hawk Migration Association, Wilderness Workshop and Eagle Summit Wilderness Alliance asked Glaspell to confirm whether CPW's 2020 raptor guidelines would be incorporated into the decision and permit. As of August 30, the linked CARA entry publishes the request and signatories but no answer from Glaspell or CPW.

Signed clarification requestJuly 29, 2026 · View PDF Official CARA entryForest Service public reading room

Read Glaspell's reported statement

Same standards, different expectation

CPW says private development should follow its raptor buffers.

Local reporting on a proposed 98-home development west of Glenwood Springs reports that Yamashita said the private developer should follow CPW's raptor buffers. The Working Group's question is straightforward: why are comparable, project-specific buffer and seasonal-closure commitments not clearly stated in the Sweetwater Proposed Action?

The projects are different and the Forest Service controls the Sweetwater EIS decision. The point is accountability: when CPW invokes its raptor guidance for private development, the public should be able to see whether CPW is asking for the same concrete protections in the plan it helped develop for Sweetwater.

Read the reporting on the 98-home proposal

Fishers Peak double standard

At Fishers Peak, CPW makes the Peregrine Falcon buffer enforceable.

CPW's Fishers Peak regulations require all visitors to remain outside a posted one-half-mile Peregrine Falcon nest buffer from March 15 through July 31. CPW's park page separately states that the Stone Guard, Peak Approach and Summit Loop trails close annually for Peregrine nesting during that period.

Recent reporting describes the practical result: the summit approach stays closed through the nesting season and reopens only after CPW biologists confirm the young have fledged and reached independence. The Working Group is not claiming the two parks are biologically identical. The comparison asks a narrower question: why does CPW make a site-specific buffer and closure enforceable at Fishers Peak while the Sweetwater Proposed Action does not clearly commit to comparable, project-specific raptor protections?

Read CPW's Fishers Peak regulation Read CPW's current closure notice KKTV: summit trail reopens after closure Colorado Outdoors: annual closure and new trails

Public-record note: The Working Group's statement about no response is limited to the August 17 letter and the August 31 response date it set. The site does not claim knowledge of any nonpublic communication. The raptor-buffer comparison does not treat the two projects as identical or assert that CPW is the Sweetwater decision-maker.

The permit test

Say exactly what will happen before asking the public to accept it.

Name the controlling raptor standard.
Map the buffers and seasonal restrictions.
Apply them to construction and operations.
Put them in the decision and permit.

The public record is open

Ask for proof before approval.

Request a route-specific evacuation analysis and enforceable, project-specific wildlife protections in the decision and permit.

Comment on the Draft EIS Sign the petition