Figure 3.6-1. Vegetation Type Map, page 8-23
These maps show the wetlands areas.
Red McComb's faustian bargain with the RGNF is that by removing the southwest expanse of wetlands and giving LMJV the uphill section north of his current parcel that somehow the watershed won't be impacted as much. Seems to me either option will severely disrupt the hydrology of Alberta Park and adversely impact this headwaters to the Rio Grande River.
Also on a more personal note, I've had a couple locals tell me that one of those small lakes has been sanctified by virtue of being where the ashes of a number of loved ones have been spread over the years. Such considerations hardly stand in the way of developers, still it's another heart ache tearing up this watershed will inflict.
Figure 2.4-8. Alternative 3. ANILCA Road Access, Moderate Density Development Concept, page 8-16
Figure 2.4-6. Alternative 2. Land Exchange Maximum Density Development Concept, page 8-14
Figure 3.1-1. Surface Water Features and Watersheds, page 8-18
we have this one moment (September) 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!
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.