Index of VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses.

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service
Rocky Mountain Regional Office 

Response to Objections on the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, Rio Grande National Forest

33 issues addressed 

Village at Wolf Creek Access Project Draft 11/15/18
Objection Issues and Responses 

Contents 

Issue 1: The village proposal expands impacts of the federally permitted ski area development

Issue 2: Judicial orders preclude reliance on FEIS

Issue 3: The Forest Service has never made Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture’s proposal (ANILCA alternative) available for review by the public or other local, State, and Federal agencies with jurisdiction and control over the Wolf Creek Ski Area complex 

Issue 4: The purpose and need and designation of the NEPA “Federal Action” are invalid

Issue 5: The FEIS perpetuates the same structural flaws addressed by the previous injunction and settlement

Dear Village Wolf Creek Objectors: It's full speed ahead. USFS-USDA

The US Forest Service-USDA sent out a letter to ‘objectors' of the Village at Wolf Creek EIS announcing that they’ve granted road access to the Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture's inholding.  It lays out their rationale for opening the door for Red’s destructive 1980s pipe-dream speculative venture, known as the Village At Wolf Creek.  

What's to say except that the action will be shifting over to Mineral County Commissioners and their Land Use Office.  After the Dear Objector letter, I share contact information for Mineral County. 

I don't imagine they are looking forward to the controversy heading their way.  There's a lot of hostility, tension, hopelessness out there these days, still we are a community, lets be respectful, polite and willing to explain ourselves by speaking directly to each others concerns, rather than past each other.  Lordie knows hostility will only spiral into more hostility, something this country definitely doesn't need any more of.

Village at Wolf Creek Objection Review Period EXTENDED to November 21st

I received the following today: 'Village at Wolf Creek Objection Review Period' has been extended to November 21, 2018.  It would be interesting to know the back story to this, but hey the important part is that citizens have additional time to voice their objections.

click on image for clearer view

=========================================================

FOR MORE INFORMATION LINK TO,

http://rockymountainwild.org/submitting_objection

Submit your objection to the Village at Wolf Creek Pass 

Road Access Project to,

https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=35945

for more information
https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=35945. 

RGNF responses to July 31st challenge.

I shared my previous post, which presented the FriendsofWolfCreek.org's challenges to the RGNF/USDA interpretation of their conflicting legal mandates and how it's playing out with the Alberta Park Parcel, with the RGNF Supervisor's office and received the following response from Public Affairs Specialist Mike Blakeman.  I have added a few paragraph breaks for clarity, but haven't altered anything else.  Nor do I have any comments to add. I hope you find the information useful.

Forest Service

Rio Grande National Forest, Supervisor's Office

Hi Peter, 

I read your blog and maybe the following from the Draft Record of Decision will help add a little clarity.

In June 2015, a lawsuit was filed challenging my 2015 ROD but the land exchange was completed subject to a stipulation that would allow “unwinding” the exchange in the event of an adverse ruling.

On May 19, 2017, the district court held that the Forest Service abdicated its duty to consider imposing deed restrictions on the federal land to be exchanged, that the power to impose deed restrictions demonstrated “actual power to control” the private development and this failure led the Forest Service to unlawfully limit its NEPA analysis. 

Questioning RGNF/USDA's Village at Wolf Creek response.

Recently I asked Dan Dallas a couple questions which he kindly answered.   I reprinted Supervisor Dallas's complete response July 23rd.  Today I was able to review Rocky Mountain Wilds' writeup at http://www.friendsofwolfcreek.org/background/ and I must say the information contradicts the supervisor's simple response and the Friends of Wolf Creek produced the supporting quotes from Judge Matsch's decision which I share in this post.  

I understand that officials do follow 'The letter of the law' - but what's left unsaid is, which letters of the law have they chosen to follow.  I don't have the answers, that's for the lawyers to spend yet more months and years haggling over.  

In the end, for me, all I know is down to Earth physical reality, and if you take that into account everything screams for Red McCombs' 80s Pipe Dream to once and for all be laid to rest. Leave Alberta Park alone!

http://www.friendsofwolfcreek.org/background/

A Detailed Recent History VWC

Petition: Keep Wolf Creek Wild - Change.org - Rocky Mtn Wild

Judge Matsch responded: “I understand the public interest but there is also the natural environment’s interest, which is what this is all about.”

Photo courtesy of: Alex Pullen

I’m a bit embarrassed that I didn’t know about this petition until today, but its a crowded life and there’s only so much bandwidth.  That’s why networking is important - and why I believe there needs to be more communication between like-minded folks if we hope to have real impact.  But I reckon that’s a different story.

Rocky Mountain Wild started this petition to 

Rio Grande National Forest Service Supervisor Dan Dallas

For 30 years conservation groups, outdoor enthusiasts, and local residents have fought to protect Wolf Creek Pass in southwestern Colorado. 

At over 10,000 feet in elevation, the pass connects two wilderness areas and is a hot spot for biodiversity. Wildlife, including black bear, elk, and the rare Canada lynx use this area to move between large undeveloped swaths of forest. Irreplaceable fen wetlands are the home to hundreds of plant and bird species. And, the deep winter snowpack provides much-needed water to downstream communities and agriculture.

The pass is also the home of Wolf Creek Pass Ski Area, one of Colorado's last remaining family-owned ski areas. Wolf Creek is cherished for providing a nostalgic ski experience. Free from traffic, long lines, condos, nightclubs and chain restaurants, skiers at Wolf Creek are treated to deep powder at affordable prices.

Unfortunately, a questionable land exchange in 1987 gave Texas billionaire B.J. "Red" McCombs a private parcel at the base of the ski area. Mr. McCombs and his business partners have repeatedly tried to develop a massive "village" for 10,000 people on this site. They have been stopped by the Courts, who have consistently found that the developers have not conducted a complete environmental analysis of their scheme.

Now, however, hidden from public view and input, the developers are attempting to brush Federal Court decisions and environmental laws aside and pressure local Forest Service staff into granting them increased access to their parcel. Their goal is to start construction this summer.

You can help us keep Wolf Creek Pass wild! Please sign the petition urging Rio Grande National Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas to uphold Federal Court decisions and stand up to back channel pressures. Together, we can stop the bulldozers on Wolf Creek Pass.

Sign at https://www.change.org/p/dan-dallas-keep-wolf-creek-wild

_________________________________________________

Some important background information can be found at:

http://www.friendsofwolfcreek.org/background/

Friends of Wolf Creek, Call to Action! Submit Comments to RGNF/USDA

I received the following email today and am sharing it as a public service announcement.

http://rockymountainwild.org/submitting_objection

Submit your objection to the Village at Wolf Creek Pass 

Road Access Project to,

https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=35945

for more information
https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=35945. 

The Forest Service intends to give the Village of Wolf Creek road access. The Rio Grande National Forest announced its intention on July 19 to circumvent a federal court ruling that invalidated prior approvals for the controversial Village at Wolf Creek real estate development. 

As you know, a Colorado federal district court set aside the Forest Service's approval of a land exchange to facilitate the development in May of last year. "The Forest Service cannot abdicate its responsibility to protect the forest by making an attempt at an artful dodge," the court declared. Now, the Forest Service hopes to use the same artfully dodged analysis, previously deemed in violation of multiple federal laws, to approve a different means of providing the developers access.

The Forest Service is also trying to severely limit who can comment on this acton by limiting objections to those who "previously submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed project during scoping or comments on the draft EIS" in 2012.

We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to comment on changes to their public lands. We encourage everyone to submit their objections.

Please email Friends of Wolf Creek with a copy of your comments, so that we have a record of what the Forest Service is receiving (this is obviously not a requirement for objections, we would just really appreciate it!).

Objection requirements, how to submit your objection, talking points, and how to write comments that stick can be found on our website.

Submit your comments before the September 5 deadline.

RGNF Supervisor responds to questions.

Rio Grand National Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas, did me the courtesy of a prompt and thorough response to the email I shared in the previous post.  Here I share his email which I have reformatted for clarity without altering any of his words, beyond bolding some of them.  It's food for thought and creates a sort of baseline to work with, or argue against, as the case may be. 

___________________________________________

Village at Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Statement and draft Record Of Decision 

are available on-line at: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=35945.  

Comments are to be sent to before September 4th: 

Reviewing Officer, Tammy Whittington, Deputy Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, Region 2, 1617 Cole Blvd., Building 17, Lakewood, Colorado 80401 or email r02admin_review@fs.fed.us. 

______________________________________________________ 

With that I'll give the stage to Dan Dallas and will save further commentary for future posts.

______________________________________________________________

Subject: Why are comments on VWC recent Draft Decent being limited.

Response received Monday, 1:46PM, July 23, 2018

Dallas, Dan -FS

Peter, good questions, I will answer below within your letter below, highlighted in yellow using direct quotes from documents available on our website.  

Correction! Does RGNF restrict comments on Village at Wolf Creek Draft Decision?

I'll leave my letter as it was and simply add Dan Dallas' clarification.

Open letter of inquiry to RGNF/USDA

Dan Dallas clarifies, "There is no limitation on who can comment, this is a mischaracterization of the process that we’ve tried our best to clearly describe 

What is limited is who has standing to file an objection of the decision because it (decision) is based on an existing EIS which has already been commented on. ..."   (7/23/18)

_______________________________________________________
Village at Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Statement and draft Record Of Decision 
are available on-line at: 
https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=35945. 

Comments are to be sent to before September 4th: 

Reviewing Officer, Tammy Whittington, Deputy Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, Region 2, 1617 Cole Blvd., Building 17, Lakewood, Colorado 80401 or email r02admin_review@fs.fed.us. 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

Dear RGNF Supervisor Dallas,

Jonathan Romeo reports 7/19/2018 Village at Wolf Creek road access

Here's a look at what others are writing:

______________

July 19, 2018, by Jonathan Romeo county and environment reporter, Durango Herald

Forest Service gives Village at Wolf Creek road access

Development atop Wolf Creek Pass gets path forward

https://durangoherald.com/articles/232567-forest-service-gives-village-at-wolf-creek-road-access

In a bombshell decision, the U.S. Forest Service on Thursday gave the Village at Wolf Creek its long-desired road access to U.S. Highway 160, essentially paving the way for the proposed massive resort atop Wolf Creek Pass.

“The reason is we still have a legal requirement to provide access to landlocked parcels,” Rio Grande Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas told The Durango Herald late Thursday.

The news came as a shock to a coalition of environmental groups that for three decades have opposed what would essentially amount to a new town in a remote part of Southwest Colorado, adjacent to the relatively small Wolf Creek Ski Area.

The decision was especially jarring for environmentalists because a federal judge in May 2017 ruled the Forest Service skirted its responsibilities to protect public lands when it approved a land swap that also sought to give the Village at Wolf Creek road access to U.S. Highway 160. …

____________________

Village at Wolf Creek Access Project: New draft decision grants access to land-locked private property

By Mike Blakeman, Special to The Pagosa SUN, July 19, 2018

http://www.pagosasun.com/village-at-wolf-creek-access-project-new-draft-decision-grants-access-to-land-locked-private-property-and/

… “This has been a long, complex project and I encourage folks to learn more about its status and review the new draft decision for themselves,” added Dallas. “It’s also important to know that the land exchange option, as the selected alternative, remains on the table pending resolution of the legal process.”

The draft Record of Decision is now available for public review during a formal 45-day objection period. The objection period will run through Tuesday, Sept. 4, 2018. 

To learn more about the project, read previous comments, or to object, please visit 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=35945.  

A final decision is expected in the autumn of 2018.

________________________

Forest Service Plans to Grant Access to Wolf Creek Complex

July 19, 2018, AP

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/colorado/articles/2018-07-19/forest-service-plans-to-grant-access-to-wolf-creek-complex

… The would-be developers, a joint venture spearheaded by Texas billionaire B.J. "Red" McCombs, have sought since the 1980s to build the complex called the Village at Wolf Creek, but the property has always been cut off from U.S. Highway 160. …

… But the decision was especially jarring for the development's opponents, who thought Matsch's decision closed the book on the development.

"I've never seen anything this egregious in its disregard for the law," said Travis Stills, an attorney who represents the environmental groups opposed to the plan. "In normal times, people lose their jobs over things like this. But these are not normal times.”

The proposed road would be about 1,610 feet (491 meters) long (at the elevation of). Any proposal for the actual development would have to be approved by Mineral County officials.

The public can comment for the next 45 days on the Forest Service's proposal to grant road access. The agency is expected to announce its final decision this fall.

__________________________

The draft Record of Decision is now available for public review during a formal 45-day objection period. The objection period will run through Sept. 4. To learn more about the project, read previous comments, or to object, please visit https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=35945.  A final decision is expected in the autumn of 2018.

Draft Decision Grants Access for Village at Wolf Creek - LMJV

So it goes, obsession is obsession.  Still times they are a changing and the future isn't the jack pot it used to be, http://climate.colostate.edu/~drought/

___________________________________________

New draft decision grants access 

to land-locked private property

MONTE VISTA, Colo., – Near the top of Wolf Creek Pass in southern Colorado, a parcel of private property sits landlocked by federal lands. A new draft record of decision from the Rio Grande National Forest is designed to provide reasonable access to the 288 acre parcel via a new road corridor. The proposed road would be approximately 1,610 feet in length and would be within a 100-foot corridor with a total area of about 3.7 acres.

“This new draft decision provides the access that is legally required for private inholdings” said Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas. “Furthermore, this access option was fully analyzed in 2014, so no new analysis is needed.”
      

(45 day review and respond period ends September 4, 2018 - learn more at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=35945. )

Mr. McCombs and Ms Shields, please reconsider your intentions, VillageWolfCreek speculation. (an open letter)

Today I was doing some clean up and came across an open letter I'd sent by US Post to both Red McCombs and his daughter Marsha M. Shields along with posting it here.  What shocked me is that in a few days it'll be year since I sent it.  Never did get a response, still it list issues and reasons that can't be ignored and it's as timely today as it was a year ago and it's also worth posting again. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

I believe it is appropriate to personally petition Mr. McCombs and his daughter Marsha M. Shields, asking them to completely reconsider their out of date plans for a mountain village at Alberta Park. I encourage others to send their own thoughtful and constructive petitions on behalf of yourself, Alberta Park and all the wildlife and biology going on that can’t speak for itself.  

Open letter to Mr. McCombs and family, 

written while visiting Alberta Park mid June 2017.

____________________________________________________

Dear Mr. McCombs and Marsha Shields,

We’ve met a couple times. Once was in Creede, at your 2005 Village at Wolf Creek presentation. I was passing out my No-VWC pamphlet and though we never got close, we did share a couple eye-to-eyes during the many speeches. Then at Congressman Salazar’s 2010 (Adam's State College) roundtable in Alamosa.  You walked up to me and accepted my flier, then you surprised me by extending your hand.

I was honored to shake it. Not much was said, just two guys sizing each other up and walking away. I honestly cherish the memory since it made you a real person to me and not some distant cartoon. 

Given Judge Matsch’s decision and the Village at Wolf Creek land trade being nullified, I feel it’s a good time to personally explain why I’ve been dogging your project and to ask that you and your daughter stop to consider Alberta Park as the irreplaceable biological treasure that it is.

Village at Wolf Creek Poker update: USDA/USFS Folds, Red Holds.

With a tip of my hat to Jimbo Buickerood, at the San Juan Citizens Alliance, for alerting me to Jonathan Romeo's report in the May 10th Durango Herald on the latest Village at Wolf Creek development.  Namely, as the time limit ran out the USFS appears to have decided not to appeal Judge Matsch's decision of last May.  

Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture's Attorney Bill Leone defiantly announced that it doesn't matter to them what the USFS does.  They have gone ahead on their own and filed an appeal on Wednesday, arguing that "the environmental review was done according to the law and the land swap should be approved."

May 14th Update - USDA/USAF filed an "Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Appeal by Appellant United States"

But Judge Matsch sets this lawyerly 'misrepresentation' straight, when he clearly explained in his decision:

(Page 21 of 40)

ANALYSIS

The following aspects of the Record of Decision and the Biological Opinion that forms part of the basis for the ROD require relief under the APA. Defendants failed to consider important aspects of the issues before them, offered an explanation for their decision that runs counter to the evidence, failed to base their decision on consideration of the relevant factors, and based their decision on an analysis that is contrary to law.

(Page 39 of 40) 

The 900 public comments in the record show this heightened public awareness of the effects of human disruption of the native environment. The Rio Grande National Forest has two designated wilderness areas near the area involved in this action. It has unique features. 

Notably, responses to the public comments were prepared by the contractors who did the work. 

They would not be expected to find that work to be flawed.

What NEPA requires is that before taking any major action a federal agency must stop and take a careful look to determine the environmental impact of that decision, and listen to the public before taking action. The Forest Service failed to do that in the Record of Decision. The duty of this Court is to set it aside.

VII. ORDER

Where an agency action is found to be arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,

(Page 40 of 40)

the Court must “hold [it] unlawful and set [it] aside.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). The Court finds and concludes that Defendants‟ actions violated the APA in the respects specified in this decision.  

News Release: Forest Service Declines to Appeal Decision Nullifying Wolf Creek Land Exchange

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 10, 2018

   

Forest Service Declines to Appeal Decision 

Nullifying Wolf Creek Land Exchange

Denver, CO – The United States Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service has declined to appeal an Order issued last May by Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch setting aside decisions approving a land exchange that would provide necessary road access for the long-sought Village at Wolf Creek development. The agency failed to file the required appeal brief by the May 9th deadline despite having originally notified the court last November of its intent to appeal.