VWC Access Project "Final Environmental Impact Statement" index

"The publication of the draft record of decision in the 

Valley Courier starts a 45-day objection period. 

The final decision will be signed if no objections are received." RGNF

{By my math that makes it Sunday January 4th - excellent timing for the release I must say}

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

Text of Draft index; and introduction; and background. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Draft
Record of Decision
Village at Wolf Creek Access Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Rio Grande National Forest Divide Ranger District Mineral County, Colorado 
http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/78763_FSPLT3_2387251.pdf

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

1.0 Introduction ...................... 1 2.0 
Background and Location....... 1 3.0 
Purpose and Need................... 2
4.0 Decision............................ 2 4.1 
The Decision........................... 2 4.2 
Selected Alternative................ 2

4.2.1 Non-Federal Lands to be Conveyed to the United States….. 3 4.2.2 
Federal Land to be Conveyed to the Non-Federal Party .............. 3 4.2.3 
Best Management Practices......................................................... 3 4.2.4 
Encumbrances........................................................................…… 4 4.2.5 Monitoring................................................................................... 4 4.2.6 
Lynx Conservation Measures ...................................................…. 5 4.2.7 
Permits, Licenses, Entitlements and/or Consultation ...............…… 6

5.0 Decision Rationale .........................................................……. 6
6.0 Public Involvement............................................................…. 26

7.0 Alternatives Considered ...29 
7.1 Alternatives Considered 
but Eliminated from Detailed Study ...29 7.2 
Alternative 1 - No Action ... 30 7.3 
Alternative 2 - Land Exchange (Proposed Action) ... 30 7.4 
Alternative 3 – ANILCA Road Access … 30

8.0 Environmentally Preferable Alternative.... 31 9.0 
Findings Required by Other Laws, Regulations and Agency Policy .... 31 10.0 
Pre-Decisional Administrative Objection Process ... 31 11.0 
Contact Person ... 32 12.0 
Signature and Date ... 32

List of Tables

Table 1.10-1 
Inholdings (Non-Federal Lands) on the Divide Ranger District Granted Access 
across NFS Lands ...... 13
Table 1.10-2 
Inholdings (Non-Federal Lands) in Close Proximity to an Existing Ski Area in Colorado ...... 15
Table 1.10-3 
Inholdings (Non-Federal Lands) in Close Proximity to an Existing Ski Area in Utah ...... 20 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

1.0 Introduction
This Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision and rationale for the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project. A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been completed for this project. The FEIS documents the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of two Action Alternatives as well as the No Action alternative and documents the ability of the alternatives to meet the purpose and need for the project.

2.0 Background and Location
Acquisition of, and proposed access to, private lands in the project area has been accompanied by a complicated procedural and legal history over almost 30 years.
I
n 1986, a Decision Notice was signed for the Proposed Wolf Creek Land Exchange. The 1986 Decision Notice approved the conveyance of approximately 300 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands managed by the Rio Grande National Forest (Rio Grande NF) adjacent to the Wolf Creek Ski Area (WCSA) in exchange for non-Federal lands located in Saguache County, Colorado. 

The 1986 Decision Notice created a private inholding surrounded by the Rio Grande NF. The inholding, which is entirely within the WCSA Special Use Permit (SUP) boundary, is owned by the Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture (LMJV). The National Forest System (NFS) lands surrounding the inholding are managed by the Rio Grande NF under Management Area Prescription 8.22 – Ski Based Resorts (FEIS Figure 1.9-1). National Forest System Road (NFSR) 391, which connects with U.S. Highway 160 (Hwy 160) and passes through a WCSA parking lot, crosses the private inholding and provides vehicular access to Alberta Park Reservoir. NFSR 391 provides vehicular access to the private inholding during the summer months. During the winter months this road is under a public motorized closure order and serves as a ski trail for the WCSA.

In June 2001, the LMJV applied to the Rio Grande NF for rights-of-way (ROW) across NFS lands between Hwy 160 and the private inholding. The LMJV requested that the Forest Service provide permanent, year-round vehicular access to the property through extension of the Tranquility parking lot at WCSA. The proposal was to create the “Tranquility Road” by extending a road through, and beyond, the Tranquility parking lot by approximately 250 feet across NFS lands, thereby connecting to the private land inholding.

In compliance with its statutory obligations under Section 1323(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), the Rio Grande NF determined that an EIS was required to analyze the request for access to the private inholding. The EIS analyzed four alternatives in detail:

• Alternative 1: No Action
  
• Alternative 2: The Proposed Action (request for a single additional access to the property
  via an extension of Tranquility Road);
  
• Alternative 3: Snow Shed – East Village Access Alternative (a single access alternative using a new road, referred to as the “Snow Shed Road”); and
  
• Alternative 4: Dual Access Road (a dual access alternative requiring construction and use of both the Snow Shed Road and the extended Tranquility Road).
  In March 2006, a ROD was signed by Rio Grande NF Supervisor Peter Clark. The decision was a combination of Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 which authorized the construction of the “Snow Shed Road” and the “Tranquility Road”. Four separate appeals of the ROD were received between
  

1

April and May 2006. In July 2006, Deputy Regional Forester Greg Griffith denied the appeals (thereby upholding the decision in the ROD).

In October 2006, a suit was filed against the Forest Service, alleging that, among other things, the FEIS and ROD were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1968, as amended (NEPA). In November 2006, a temporary restraining order was granted which prohibited the Forest Service from: 1) authorizing any ground disturbing construction activity; 2) submitting applications or entering into agreements with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT); or 3) taking any other action implementing the FEIS and ROD. In October 2007, Judge John Kane granted the plaintiff’s request for continued preliminary injunctive relief.

In February 2008, the U.S. Forest Service negotiated a settlement with the plaintiff in order to bring a more prompt closure to the litigation and allow for the initiation of a new analysis. The settlement recognized that the Forest Service did not concede the decision making process violated any laws.
In July 2010, the LMJV submitted a land exchange proposal to the Rio Grande NF. In addition to a land exchange, the LMJV requested an access road across NFS lands be analyzed (citing the Forest Service’s obligations to provide adequate access to the private inholding under ANILCA). An Agreement to Initiate was signed between Rio Grande NF and the LMJV in January 2011, and a Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on April 19, 2011.