Shared Comment - VWC-DEIS 35945 - 1.10 The ANILCA act of 1980

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

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

1.10 The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980
Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Village at Wolf Creek Access Project
Page 1-15   Chapter 1.  Purpose and Need for Action

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)

etc.,etc..

It seems to me, this whole land swapping is because the Rio Grande National Forest officials don’t want Forest Service Road 391 turned into a high traffic road... and with the ski area parking lot and all that mess, it’s just a nightmare for them to think about.  That’s as it should be.  But that’s what Mr. McCombs bought into with his original 1986 landswap.  The one where he promised officials and regular folks that he would build a nice exclusive private getaway for wealthy folks.  He was talking a couple hundred cabins or so.  FSR391 could probably have been modified to accommodate that without too much pain.

But what happened, after Mr. McCombs acquired this special piece of land is he’s the one that did a total flip on everyone and decided he NEEDED a village ten times the size of his stated plan.  

Why does the USDA-USFS feel an obligation to Mr. McCombs?  Particularly since he is the one that went back on his assurances made during the original land swapping!  Why is he being afforded so much leverage in these current landswap dealings?

Wasn’t ANILCA intended for folks who suddenly found themselves surrounded by Federal Lands?  Why would it apply to a speculator who traded into a special landlocked piece of National Forest Land?  Under false pretense at that!  

Why doesn’t the USDA-USFS-RGNF fight to regain and protect that headwaters watershed to the Rio Grande River Basin?

I hear there are an assortment of offers, possibilities for LMJV to trade that land for something more realistic at lower elevations.  Also, rumor has it there are various land conservancy organizations waiting for that call from Clint Jones or Red McCombs.  

Why doesn’t the USDA-FS pro-actively encourage that sort of a resolution to this impasse?

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

My question for EIS authors would be:

Can it be argued that ANILCA’s previsions regarding road access were passed because of the massive amount of Federal acquisitions in Alaska at the time - so that the many people who suddenly found themselves surrounded by USDA Forest Service and other Federal Lands would have a legal right to gain road access to their land?

Therefore could it be argued that it is inappropriate for speculators, such as LMJV, who knowingly swapped/purchased a prime parcel of landlocked US Forest Service real estate within the boundaries of the established Rio Grande US National Forest - to claim that ANILCA gives him a legal standing to demand access for a high traffic road to said parcel?