Friday, August 31, 2012

VWC-DEIS, Page 2-46/47 - Employment Status

{updated 9/2/12}

It’s interesting when it comes to Climate Change already creating drought conditions with numerous government sponsored studies warning us to prepare for worse... the VWC-DEIS tells us: 
“{...}Conversely, while climate change has been projected to have incremental impacts on various aspects of human activities at some unknown point in the future, there are no methodologies available at this point to predict any impacts on the project being analyzed here.”
VWC-DEIS - Page 4-56   Chapter 4. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


But when they want to paint a rosy developer friendly impression, they can do it with confidence going out to the 2040s.  

That’s what has turned this whole VWC-DEIS drama into such a fascinating, though brutally depressing, exercise in watching willful self-delusion in action.  Does anyone who seriously studies Earth Sciences believe that our physical environment in 2040 will resemble the world we have come to love these past decades of our lives?  

Drive over Wolf Creek Pass for a taste of future shock. . .
And it’s not local!  Different, but similar, disruptions to age old eco-systems are occurring all over this nation and the planet. Why do Red McCombs, his employees and the DEIS writers pretend these cascading consequences aren't going to seriously impact all aspects of our lives and economy?

We are on the threshold of a tough brave new world but Republicans everywhere want to continue believing that the average between 1990 and 2010 is what we can count on from here to eternity.  So rather than facing the harsh reality professionals who study these things are warning us about, we chose to believe salesmen who get’s paid to promise us what we want the most:  jobs and money.  Promises come so easy, but delivery is so difficult!

And, what's the cost of a failed project? 
Why doesn't the Environmental Impact examine that potential?   The Rio Grande River needs Alberta Park to remain an unmolested key component of the Wolf Creek watershed.  Not a plowed up mess left by another developer with big pipedreams, but cash bust and gone home just the same.


VWC-DEIS, Page 2-46/47  -  Employment Status

Page 2-46/47 -  Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Village at Wolf Creek Access Project

Alternative 3 Maximum Density Development Concept
Employment Status.  As with the Alternative 2 Moderate Density Development Concept, it is apparent that the creation of a significant number of new FTEs under this development concept would offer new employment opportunities for unemployed Analysis Area residents.  During the nine-year phase in period, the Alternative 3 Moderate Density Development Concept would generate a cumulative total of 3,667 construction FTEs, or an average of 407 construction FTEs in each year.
{...}
Individual Prosperity.  As with the Alternative 2 Moderate Density Development Concept, the Alternative 3 Moderate Density Development Concept would generate significant labor income, both during the nine year construction period and on an ongoing/operations basis, both during the phase-up and following completion of the project.
{...}
Alternative 3 Maximum Density Development Concept  
Employment Status.  As with the Alternative 2 Maximum Density Development Concept, the longer term impact of this development concept would likely be a reduction in the ongoing unemployment rate, although this would depend on other cycles in the regional/national economy.  During the 30- year phase in period, the Maximum Density Development Concept of Alternative 3 would generate a cumulative total of over 9,723 construction FTEs, or an average of 324 construction related FTEs in each year.  Upon completion in year 2044, ongoing Village operations would generate a total of 2,271 annual FTEs – these FTEs would continue into the future for as long as the Village maintains operations.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~



How can the VWC-DEIS authors make the above claims?  While at the same time ignoring what Earth Scientists are warning us to expect for the future.  Namely, less water and a very ugly massive forest die off to deal with.  How do the EIS authors manage to feel comfortable with that lapse?


How will facilitating the destruction of an integral part of a precious wetlands, you know source waters for the Rio Grande River Basin, help our kids who depend on a healthy Rio Grande River as much as we depend on jobs?  

Why not entertain how to get Mr. McCombs to consider returning that parcel back to RGNF or into a nature conservancy?


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  

Dear Friends of Alberta Park and Wolf Creek, 
we have this one moment to tell the Rio Grande Forest Service and the US Department of Agriculture's powers-that-be what a destructive boondoggle this luxury Village at 10,500± elevation would be.


But, they'll never listen to you, if you don't contact them!
Here's where to do that, but you need to do it now, September:


Commenting on This Project
The Forest Service values public input. Comments received, including respondents’ names and addresses, will become part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the agency with the ability to provide you with project updates. The Forest Service wishes to provide you with as many opportunities as possible to learn about our activities.

Official Deadline for comments: 9/30/2012. (or is that Friday the 28th, or Monday the 1st?)

FOIA request for VWC-DEIS Land Appraisal documents


Here's one of the reasons I keep doing all this.  No else seems to be!  And this is the one month it makes a difference.  Or if they are doing something they're keeping it secret.  Why?  When these days and weeks right now is the time for the public to be made aware.

Incidentally, I'm no real estate person, I don't have the knowledge to look at these documents with an intelligent eye.  So I'll be making these documents public when they arrive and I hope that someone will be able to make some use of them.

[email: citizenschallenge{at}gmail]


We only have September to file official comments regarding the VWC-DEIS . . .

Thursday, August 30, 2012

INDEX for my comments VWC-DEIS #35945




Reviewing the VWC-DEIS you'll notice a number of points worth a closer look. Below is an incomplete list of problems with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement #35945.


To facilitate understanding the document I have organized my objections into single issue threads. I'm hoping this will help give folks a jump-start in learning about the VWC-DEIS

Each post begins with USDA Forest Service - Village at Wolf Creek Access Project - Draft Environmental Impact Statement section quoted.


Tuesday, August 28, 2012

VWC-DEIS 1.7.3 Validity of 1986 Land Exchange



Reviewing the VWC-DEIS you'll notice a number of points worth a closer look. To facilitate that I will use this blog for my study notes, organized into single issue threads. Each will quote the USDA Forest Service - Village at Wolf Creek Access Project - Draft Environmental Impact Statement section in question.
 

{For clarity I have added breaks between sentences and highlights where appropriate.  Wording has not been altered.}
~ ~ ~
Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Village at Wolf Creek Access Project
Page 1-13   Chapter 1.  Purpose and Need for Action 

1.7.3 Validity of 1986 Land Exchange

Several commenters questioned the validity of the original 1986 land exchange that resulted in the current private inholding. 

It is not the function of this EIS to evaluate the past Federal actions that allowed the land exchange.     VWC-DEIS
Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Village at Wolf Creek Access Project

 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Can’t fault the Rio Grande National Forest officials for taking this stance.  It was a long time ago and actually RGNF made a somewhat sweet deal {in a faustian sort of way}.  The parcels Mr. McCombs traded were nice {I’ve been there, I’ve looked at the land}.

More importantly to this question, Rio Grande National Forest officials were trading with the understanding that Leavell McCombs Joint Venture was intending to build a small exclusive get-away with a couple hundred cabins maybe.

But then it all went sour.  Before anyone knew it ~ there was nothing but fast talking then BAM it was pie in the sky and a luxury village for ten thousand rich folks come hell or low water. 


This in Alberta Park 10,300' the heart of the headwaters of the Rio Grande River Basin?

I bring this up because there is a lot of talk about Mr. McCombs' Private Property Rights - But, there is also an American tradition of Integrity and Sticking To One’s Word.  Mr. McCombs did not do that. 

Protect it with all the lawyers he wants ~ the bottom line is LMJV was not true to its own assurances and promises that were made
to the RGNF and our community {in order to secure the deal}, when this whole real estate adventure started.   

Decades have rolled by and his deceit has brought Mr. McCombs nothing but grief in these parts.  The dream that may have made sense
back in the 80s/90s, is like the lost soul who’s train has departed the station; never to return.  But life goes on!  We need to move on. 

When will the powers-that-be facilitate an end to this charade?


Mr. McCombs please allow this land to return to it's fold
protected within the Rio Grande National Forest. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Friends of Alberta Park and Wolf Creek, 
we have this one moment to tell the Rio Grande Forest Service and the US Department of Agriculture powers-that-be what a destructive boondoggle this luxury Village at 10,500± elevation would be.

But, they'll never listen to you if you don't contact them!
Here's where to do that, but you need to do it now, September:

Commenting on This Project
The Forest Service values public input. Comments received, including respondents’ names and addresses, will become part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the agency with the ability to provide you with project updates. The Forest Service wishes to provide you with as many opportunities as possible to learn about our activities.

Deadline for comments is officially 9/30/2012. (or is that Friday the 28th, or Monday the 1st?)


Monday, August 27, 2012

Memory Lane... Alberta Park Field Trip, Democratic State Convention


Looking at old posts I found four more worth bringing up:

Sunday, April 15, 2012


Colorado State Democratic Convention ~ The Memes Courier 4/14/12 (side one) 

In honor of the Colorado State Democratic Convention I put together a two sided flier on legal size paper resembling a single-sheet newspaper publication of old.  It’s the culmination of years of attention to this issue and a distillation of previous posts here at NO-VillageAtWolfCreek.blogspot, along with news. . . 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Colorado State Democratic Convention ~ (side two) The Memes Courier

The Memes Courier, April 14th, side two . . .

Red McCombs’ Alberta Park Poker Game, Texas Style
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 


Wolf Creek development tangled with political ties
By Mike Soraghan
Denver Post Staff Writer

Posted:   02/05/2006
Updated:   06/02/2010

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_3474870

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Alberta Park Openhouse ~ Recalling the RGNF Sept. 20th, 2011 Field Trip


September 20th, 2011 the Rio Grande National Forest sponsored a 
four hour field trip/hike through Alberta Park, 
site of the proposed VWC development. 
Led by District Ranger Tom Malecek the tour was intended 
to inform the interested public about the project.  
Below is a report I filed with the Four Corners Free Press on the event.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Printed in the Four Corners Free Press 
November 2011 issue
page 28
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 


"Moving The Village


It appears Billy Joe “Red” McCombs’ longtime dream of constructing a luxury resort town in the middle of Alberta Park (elevation: 10,300 feet), nestled against the Continental Divide on Wolf Creek Pass Colorado and coincidentally home to some forty feet of annual snowfall, burns hot as ever.

After having over a decade's worth of development preparations thwarted McCombs dumped Bob Honts, his developer, regrouped his Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture and has hired a new developer, Clint Jones, to spearhead a new plan of attack. . .

Agencies clash over mapping of ‘old-growth’ fens


Speaking of protecting the wetlands.
I think it's a good time to reprint this Durango Telegraph article from 2005.  While this article is out of date regarding the legal details - when it comes to describing the complexity of the situation up there
{... that is wetlands threats; protection; to say nothing of all the agency cooperate that's needed}
this remains as informative as they get.

I'm sharing this because it highlights a few more hurdle$ this project will have to clear.   Thus shedding more light on the impracticality of this speculator's pipedream.  
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

I'm contending that the "impracticality of the VWC project" is a central issue needing official examination.

Given that: so far the USDA and the USFS and the RGNF seem to be doing everything within their vested powers to facilitate a development at Alberta Park... and in the process side stepping countless contra-indicators... contra-indicators that spell financial disaster.  Who's going to be left to clean up the mess?

We the People should be able to raise the question of the project's viability. 
Particularly since any development will cause irreparable harm to the health of the headwaters of the Rio Grande River Basin wetland; and that such destruction of a needed biological productive area needs to be justified to our youngsters.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

 

Wetlands and ‘old-growth’ fens heat up Wolf Creek debate

Originally posted Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Sunday, August 26, 2012

VWC-DEIS 4.7.1 (Wetlands) Direct & Indirect Consequences


{updated 9/2/12}

Reviewing the VWC-DEIS you'll notice a number of points worth a closer look. To facilitate that I will use this blog for my study notes, organized into single issue threads. Each will quote the USDA Forest Service - Village at Wolf Creek Access Project - Draft Environmental Impact Statement section in question.
 

{For clarity I have added breaks between sentences and highlights where appropriate.  Wording has not been altered.}
~ ~ ~
Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Village at Wolf Creek Access Project 
Page 4-73 - Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences  

4.7 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.
4.7.1 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences

VWC-DEIS 1.7.1 Health & Human Safety at a High Altitude Resort


{updated 9/2/12}
{update 8/31/12 - see elevation ?}

Reviewing the VWC-DEIS you'll notice a number of points worth a closer look. To facilitate that I will use this blog for my study notes, organized into single issue threads. Each will quote the USDA Forest Service - Village at Wolf Creek Access Project - Draft Environmental Impact Statement section in question.
 
{For clarity I have added breaks between sentences and highlights where appropriate.  Wording has not been altered.}
~ ~ ~

Draft Environmental Impact Statement  Village at Wolf Creek Access Project 

Page 1-13   Chapter 1.  Purpose and Need for Action

1.7 Issues Not Analyzed in Detail 
Numerous additional issues as identified below were raised by the public during the scoping process.  The Rio Grande NF considered these, and dismissed them from further analysis in the DEIS

1.7.1 Health and Human Safety at a High Altitude Resort
Numerous commenters were concerned about the health and safety of people at a high altitude development.  Individuals are responsible for their own health, and living, working and recreating at high altitude is an individual choice and responsibility.

VWC-DEIS 3.7.5 Wetland Functions and Values


Reviewing the VWC-DEIS you'll notice a number of points worth a closer look. To facilitate that I will use this blog for my study notes, organized into single issue threads. Each will quote the USDA Forest Service - Village at Wolf Creek Access Project - Draft Environmental Impact Statement section in question.
 

{For clarity I have added breaks between sentences and highlights where appropriate.  Wording has not been altered.}
~ ~ ~
Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Village at Wolf Creek Access Project

Page 3-49  -  Chapter 3.  Affected Environment 

3.7.5 Wetland Functions and Values
Wetlands are often described in terms of their functions and values.  Functions refer to the ecological role or processes that a wetland performs.  Values refer to the importance of these functions to the environment or to humans. 

VWC-DEIS 1.10 ANILCA 1980 - road access rights


{updated 9/2/12}
Reviewing the VWC-DEIS you'll notice a number of points worth a closer look. To facilitate that I will use this blog for my study notes, organized into single issue threads. Each will quote the USDA Forest Service - Village at Wolf Creek Access Project - Draft Environmental Impact Statement section in question.
 

{For clarity I have added breaks between sentences and highlights where appropriate.  Wording has not been altered.}
~ ~ ~ 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Village at Wolf Creek Access Project

Page 1-15   Chapter 1.  Purpose and Need for Action

1.10 The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980


Section 3210(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA, Public Law 96-487) specifically addresses the right of access to privately owned inholdings within Forest Service lands.  Section 321 reads as follows:(3)

VWC-DEIS 3.7.6 Fens



{updated 9/2/12}

Reviewing the VWC-DEIS you'll notice a number of points worth a closer look. To facilitate that I will use this blog for my study notes, organized into single issue threads. Each will quote the USDA Forest Service - Village at Wolf Creek Access Project - Draft Environmental Impact Statement section in question.
 

{For clarity I have added breaks between sentences and highlights where appropriate.  Wording has not been altered.}
~ ~ ~

Draft Environmental Impact Statement  Village at Wolf Creek Access Project 
Chapter 3.  Affected Environment  Page 3-55

3.7.6 Fens
There are approximately 28.97 acres of fen wetlands within the Analysis Area (Table 3.7-6).  Fens are wetlands characterized by the accumulation of organic-rich soils and are primarily fed by groundwater sources.  Because the rate of accumulation of peat in fens is so slow, the Forest Service considers these ecosystems to be irreplaceable and makes every reasonable effort to design projects to avoid impacting them (USFS, 2006b). 

VWC-DEIS 3.4 Water Rights & Use


Reviewing the VWC-DEIS you'll notice a number of points worth a closer look. To facilitate that I will use this blog for my study notes, organized into single issue threads. Each will quote the USDA Forest Service - Village at Wolf Creek Access Project - Draft Environmental Impact Statement section in question.
 

{For clarity I have added breaks between sentences and highlights where appropriate.  Wording has not been altered.}
~ ~ ~
Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Village at Wolf Creek Access Project

Chapter 3.  Affected Environment - Page 3-25

3.4 Water Rights and Use
3.4.1 Scope of Analysis

Water rights within the State of Colorado are administered under the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation.  The Doctrine states that a water right decreed first in time is the most senior priority and has the first right to divert water ahead of subsequent users.  The “priority” of the water right is based on a combination of the first date of beneficial use and the date it was adjudicated. 

VWC-DEIS 3.1 Surface Water – Water Quality, Stream Health and Floodplains



Reviewing the VWC-DEIS you'll notice a number of points worth a closer look. To facilitate that I will use this blog for my study notes, organized into single issue threads. Each will quote the USDA Forest Service - Village at Wolf Creek Access Project - Draft Environmental Impact Statement section in question.
 

{For clarity I have added breaks between sentences and highlights where appropriate.  Wording has not been altered.}
~ ~ ~

Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Village at Wolf Creek Access Project
page 3-1 -  AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT - CHAPTER 3.

3.1 Surface Water – Water Quality, Stream Health and Floodplains
3.1.1 Scope of Analysis

Saturday, August 25, 2012

VWC-DEIS 1.6.5 Climate and Air Quality


{revised 9/2/12}
Reviewing the VWC-DEIS you'll notice a number of points worth a closer look. To facilitate that I will use this blog for my study notes, organized into single issue threads. Each will quote the USDA Forest Service - Village at Wolf Creek Access Project - Draft Environmental Impact Statement section in question.


{For clarity I have added breaks between sentences and highlights where appropriate.  Wording has not been altered.}
~ ~ ~

Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Village at Wolf Creek Access Project

United States Department of Agriculture

USDA Forest Service
Rocky Mountain Region
Rio Grande National Forest
Divide Ranger District
Mineral County, Colorado
1.6.5 Climate and Air Quality 

It Takes A Village: Proposed land swap reopens debate about Village at Wolf Creek


I thank Missy Votel 
for permission to post the full text of this informative article

{PS.  Congratulations Missy on ten wonderful (for us) years of 
publishing Durango's beloved weekly, 
Long live the Durango Telegraph!}

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

It Takes A Village - The Durango Telegraph

Volume XI, No. 34, Aug. 24, 2012
In its Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Forest Service examined six designs for the Village at Wolf Creek, three if an access road was built to the private property and three if the land swap occurred. The “Moderate Density Development” option for the access road alternative called for 523 units, including 244 condos, 168 townhomes and almost 50,000 square feet of commercial space.
This rendering was prepared by SE Group, a mountain planning and design firm, for the U.S. Forest Service in May 2012./Photo Illustration by SE Group

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Proposed land swap reopens debate about Village at Wolf Creek

by Tracy Chamberlin
(http://www.durangotelegraph.com/index.cfm/archives/2012/august-23-2012/news/it-takes-a-village/)

Like the flashing lights at the end of intermission, the publication of an environmental study signaled the start of Act II for the Village at Wolf Creek.

Friday, August 24, 2012

Wolf Creek Needs Friends Now!


I received the following Email from
Friends of Wolf Creek this evening.

Please pass it on. Action is needed immediately,
September, 2012 is all the time we have to comment on this
Village at Wolf Creek land swap -
with it's proposed speculative luxury resort village.

Here's the deal sitting on the public land swap block:
177.8 acres of Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture's 
turned nightmare to develop land for...
204.4 acres of Prime Grade "A" US Highway Access -  
{elevation 10,160 to 10,880 feet above sea level}
Rio Grande National Forest, real estate.
Sweet deal if we allow him to swing it.

We only have September to influence the Final Environmental Impact Statement!

Here's our challenge:

Why do you think developing Albert Park should be rejected outright?

Can you explain it in a thoughtful constructive manner?

Do you have a speciality giving you insights into an aspect of this question?

County finances and liabilities,
Real estate appraisal,
Urban planning,
Recreational,
Biological,  
Economic,
Scientific,
Medical,
ANILCA
Legal, 
Fens,
etc.
?


psst...
Latitude 37°28’20”N
Longitude 106°47’00”W

Elevation approximately 10,160 to 10,880 feet above sea level.
{Air pressure and available oxygen a touch under 70% of what it is at sea level.}



Can you list thoughtful reasons for why the VWC should not be attempted?


Now is the time to explain it!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Read the DEIS here:
http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=35945
             
Overview of the DEIS:
The proposed land exchange involves approximately 204 federal acres and 178 non-federal acres within the boundaries of the Rio Grande National Forest. Part of the federal land proposed for exchange would connect the private land to U.S. Highway 160, thus precluding the need for securing access across the national forest.  
 
There are three alternatives considered:
               --The NO ACTION alternative,
               --the land exchange briefly described below, and
               --The Forest Service building an (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act)  ANILCA-compliant road over their own property to provide legal access to the inholding.
 
The Forest Service believes it is not responsible for and cannot directly analyze development on private property, but they do acknowledge that the point of the proposed land exchange is to facilitate some level of residential/commercial development on private land.  Therefore, in order to be able to analyze the indirect impacts, the Forest Service considers three versions of possible development of the so-called “Village at Wolf Creek.”
 
The range of environmental and social/economic impacts analyzed in the DEIS gives a picture of how broad and far-reaching the effects of a 10,000 or even a 5,000 person city on top of a 10,000 foot mountain pass would be.  The DEIS finds measurable impacts from the Village on
    •    endangered lynx and other wildlife
    •    wetlands
    •    water quality and loss of soil
    •    greenhouse gas emissions
    •    long-term population trends in the surrounding region
    •    public safety and emergency services
    •    local schools

According to ColoradoWild:

Talking Points
    •    a large commercial development on top of Wolf Creek Pass is still a bad idea that doesn’t fit with the character of the local area, even if the Forest Service is required to analyze it
    •    The Forest Service is right to acknowledge that construction of a big commercial development with hotels, condos, and parking garages is the point of the land exchange to begin with
    •    The effects on a critical wildlife corridor—which provides essential linkage for endangered lynx as well as mule deer, elk, and other wildlife—could be serious
    •    Wolf Creek Pass is too important environmentally to be sacrificed to the ambitions of one absentee landowner, whose plan is out of step with the surrounding communities

 
Your voice is essential!
The Forest Service and elected officials will read a lot into the number of people who show up for the open house meetings and the kinds of questions they are asking about environmental impacts and whether a land exchange like this is in the public interest.  So please do 1) show up for one of the open house meetings if you can, and 2) send a written comment to the Forest Service by
 
Public Comments are to be emailed to: 
comments-rocky-mountain-rio-grande@fs.fed.us.
Please include “Village at Wolf Creek Access Project DEIS” in the subject line of the e-mail.     

Hardcopy comments should be addressed to:
Village at Wolf Creek Access Project
c/o Tom Malecek, Divide District Ranger
Rio Grande National Forest
13308 West Highway 160
Del Norte, CO  81132
 
Stay tuned for more information at:
    •    http://friendsofwolfcreek.org
    •    http://rockymountainwild.org
    •    http://slvec.org
    •    http://sanjuancitizens.org
It would also be good to send a copy of your comments to our Congressional delegation - let them know you object to this Land Swap Deal:


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  

Dear Friends of Alberta Park and Wolf Creek, 
we have this one moment to tell the Rio Grande Forest Service and the US Department of Agriculture's powers-that-be what a destructive boondoggle this luxury Village at 10,500± elevation would be.


But, they'll never listen to you, if you don't contact them!
Here's where to do that, but you need to do it now, September:


Commenting on This Project
The Forest Service values public input. Comments received, including respondents’ names and addresses, will become part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the agency with the ability to provide you with project updates. The Forest Service wishes to provide you with as many opportunities as possible to learn about our activities.

Official Deadline for comments: 9/30/2012. (or is that Friday the 28th, or Monday the 1st?)

Thursday, August 23, 2012

VWC - Alberta Park Needs Friends. Can you help?



Since the Rio Grande Forest Service seems mandated with being pro-development and turning a blind eye* to the cascading damages the proposed Village at Wolf Creek Speculative Development will inflict on this watershed and quite probably local governments and economy - it's up to citizens to use their one short window of opportunity - which closes at the end of September! - to convince the powers-that-be that this speculative luxury development is out of step with time and reality.


Without your help, this

US Forest Service Photo

Will become this - 

The Durango Telegraph

Except the pretty picture hides all the damage that bulldozing Albert Park will inflict.
(Please note the lower portion of this image is the existing Wolf Creek Ski Area and parking lot)
 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

For more on the story here are links to the recent news:


Village at Wolf Creek Land Exchange Proposal - official information


{Since the Rio Grande National Forest Service is mandated with being pro-development and turning a blind eye to the cascading damages the proposed Village at Wolf Creek Speculative Development will inflict on this watershed and local governments and economy - it's up to citizens to use their one short window of opportunity - which closes at the end of September! - to convince the powers-that-be that this speculative luxury development is out of step with time and reality.}



The “Moderate Density Development” option for the access road alternative called for 523 units, including 244 condos, 168 townhomes and almost 50,000 square feet of commercial space. This rendering was prepared by SE Group, a mountain planning and design firm, for the U.S. Forest Service in May 2012./Photo Illustration by SE Group

see their informative story at

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

The following is copied off of the Rio Grande National Forest's website:
http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=35945

Village at Wolf Creek Land Exchange Proposal

The Rio Grande National Forest is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement to analyze the effects of the proposed Village at Wolf Creek land exchange.

Village at Wolf Creek Access Project - Forest Service seeks comments

Contrary to assurances that I was on the mailing list I received no notice from the Rio Grande National Forest - and due to being out of state I'm out of the loop.  I'm glad my curiosity about the continued delay got the better of me this morning.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/riogrande/news-events/?cid=STELPRDB5386742

Forest Service seeks comments on Village at Wolf Creek Access Project

Release Date: Aug 17, 2012   

Monte Vista, Colo., August 16, 2012 –TheRio Grande National Forest (RGNF) is seeking comments on the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) during a 45-day public comment period upon publication in the Federal Register on Friday, August 17.  The analysis was initiated as a result of a land exchange application submitted by Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture (LMJV).