San Juan Citizens Alliance org
1986: Land Exchange #1
Leavell Properties requested 420 acres of U.S. Forest Service (USFS) land on the east flank of Wolf Creek Pass in exchange for 1,631 acres of degraded rangeland they owned in Saguache County. Their aim was to develop 200 residential units adjacent to the Wolf Creek Ski Area. Colorado’s then Congressman Hank Brown interfered with this process. The USFS denied the exchange due to concerns surrounding “a decrease in public values;” but two weeks later, the USFS withdrew the denial decision and, without providing a valid reason, approved the transfer of 300 acres to Leavell.
1986 - Forest Service Environmental Assessment anticipated 200 residential units
* Deemed “Not in the Public Interest”, denied Feb. 20, 1986
* Opposite decision issued March 6, 1986
- Scenic Easement attached to the property as condition of exchange
1999 – Wolf Creek Ski Area Alberta Lift and Parking Lot Approval
* Lift and parking lot approved by Forest Service in 1999
* Decision subject to administrative appeal by Colorado Wild summer 1999
* Appeal settlement agreement: EIS required prior to “commercial” access
2000: Mineral County Preliminary Approval
The Leavell and (Red) McCombs Joint Venture (LMJV) submitted an application to Mineral County to build the “Village at Wolf Creek” - a development containing 2,172 units, 222,000 square feet of commercial space, 4,267 parking spaces, 12 restaurants, and several hotels. The county preliminarily approved the project, despite serious environmental and economic concerns.
2000 – Mineral County Preliminary Approval
* 2,172 units, 222k sq.ft. commercial, 4267 parking spaces, 12 restaurants, hotels, etc.
* Massive project proposal raises serious concerns: water quality, water quantity, wetlands,
traffic, wildlife, economic impacts to existing businesses, employee housing, emergency
services, fiscal impacts to Rio Grande and Archuleta County governments, etc.
2001 & 2002: LMJV Attempts to Circumvent Public Review Requirements to Obtain Highway Access
The parcel that LMJV obtained during the 1986 land swap lacked road access to US Highway 160, preventing it from being developed. A dispute between Wolf Creek Ski Area and Colorado Wild (now Rocky Mountain Wild or RMW) was settled with a legal agreement that no improved highway access would be allowed without a thorough USFS Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). LMJV attempted to circumvent this requirement by lobbying Texas Congressman Tom Delay to introduce legislation that would grant them highway access without the necessary EIS. This legislation was not successful.
2001 & 2002 – Attempts to Circumvent Public Review Requirements to Obtain Access
* Lobbied to have Mark Rey appointed to head US Forest Service.
* Riders to unrelated legislation introduced by Congressman Tom Delay to grant access to Village without public review or scrutiny of project’s impacts.
2004: Mineral County Final Approval
Mineral County approved the “Village at Wolf Creek” despite the lack of highway access and the fact that the Planning Commission was given one day to review the planning documents. It was later revealed that McCombs was unethically involved in developing the county’s land use code. The State District Court, backed up by the State Court of Appeals, denied the approval because the parcel lacked the necessary highway access for a huge, four-season resort.
2004 – Mineral County Final Approval
* Documents show McCombs was writing Mineral County Land Use Code
2004 – 2006: Illegal EIS Process #1
LMJV finally drafted an EIS to obtain highway access; however, documents showed that LMJV influenced the USFS and was unlawfully involved in authoring USFS road access policies. Despite this unlawful process and thousands of public comments in opposition, the USFS granted McCombs’ highway access. Colorado Wild and the SLV Ecosystem Council sued the USFS for this “bogus” EIS and won. The lawsuit settled with an agreement that a new EIS would be required for any further development plan.
* Oct 2005 – State District Judge Kuenhold throws out Mineral County’s development approval.
* Sept 2006 – State Court of Appeals affirms Kuenhold, Village Plan illegal for lack of access.
2004 - 2006 – McCombs Undertakes Illegal EIS Process
* 90%+ of 3,000 Public Comments Opposed to Village Access
* Sept 2005 – Documents show developer/Forest Service collusion, including developer authoring Forest Service access policies
* March 2006 – Colorado Wild uncovers developer’s influence over Forest Service EIS contractor
* April 2006 – Forest Service Grants Access based on “Bogus” EIS
* September 2006 – Colorado Wild sues Forest Service over faulty EIS
* February 2008 – Colorado Wild, Forest Service, McCombs settle lawsuit and agree to conduct new and complete EIS before granting access.
2008 – New Easements on McCombs Property Undermine 2000/2004 Land Use Approval
* Easements apparently stem from Wolf Creek Ski Area/McCombs lawsuit settlement
2008 – Forest Service begins, and then stops new EIS process based on original plan.
2009 - 2012: Pursuit of Land Exchange #2, and Illegal EIS Process #2
Undeterred, LMJV tried a different approach. They proposed another land exchange and, following Congressman John Salazar’s advice, initiated a new USFS EIS in pursuit of the exchange. The proposed deal would swap 178 acres from the southern edge of the original (1986) 300-acre parcel for 204 acres of USFS land on the north side of his parcel. The swap would provide LMJV with the previously unobtainable Highway 160 access they required, and more acreage, while passing 40 acres of undevelopable wetlands back to the USFS. The Draft EIS, released in 2012 was inappropriately narrow, analyzing the environmental impacts of the highway access, not the impacts of building a 8,000-person village on the land, as if it was the “Highway Access to Nowhere.”
2009 – McCombs hires democratic lobbyist Michael Dino, Clint Jones to pursue legislative land exchange.
2010—Representative Salazar encourages Mr. McCombs to undertake a thorough Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) through the U.S. Forest Service.
* Mr. McCombs takes the advice of Congressman Salazar and applies for a land exchange from the Rio Grande National Forest through the Forest Service administrative review process.
www.friendsofwolfcreek.org
2012—US Forest Service releases Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) analyzing the Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture (LMJV) land exchange, which seeks to provide access for building the “Village at Wolf Creek” project.
* Public comments were accepted on the DEIS through October 16; more than 900 comments received.
2013—US Forest Service is now in the process of reviewing public comments and is expected to issue a final decision in late 2013 or early 2014.
2014: Final EIS Process #2 Approved by USFS, and USFS Denies Public Access to EIS Documents
Despite its flawed structure, content, and extensive public objections, Rio Grande National Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas approved the EIS #2, allowing the land exchange. During the process, the Friends of Wolf Creek, or FOWC (RMW, San Juan Citizens Alliance, San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council) filed two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to explore the possibility of collusion as was found in EIS Process #1. The USFS failed to adequately fulfill the FOIA request, necessitating RMW to file two lawsuits. The federal court ruled on the first suit, ordering the Forest Service to properly fulfill their legal obligations under FOIA by providing the requested documents.
2015: Friends of Wolf Creek Sues USFS, Again
FOWC filed a formal Objection with Region 2 of the USFS asking them to withdraw the Final EIS and restart the process. The Region 2 office denied this Objection, approving the land exchange. In response, FOWC filed a legal complaint to force a court-ordered new EIS and the termination of the approval. FOWC’s (joined by Wilderness Workshop) complaint explains that the EIS process was unlawfully narrow in its analysis of the development and failed to independently review the formal Objections to the EIS. After filing, FOWC legal staff and attorneys for the USFS and LMJV agreed to suspend all construction until the court case is resolved by Federal District Court.
2017: Judge Rules in Favor of Friends of Wolf Creek
On May 19th, Judge Richard P. Matsch issued an Order in the 2015 case against the Forest Service, nullifying the land exchange that would have provided needed road access for the development to be built. The judge affirmed that the Forest Service “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 contract to law.”
2019: The Forest Service Issues Another Decision
In February 2019 the Forest Service approved yet another scheme to give McCombs carte blanche for development. After losing its effort to grant McCombs access via land exchange, the 2019 decision simply hands over a paved access road to McCombs using precisely the same flawed environmental analysis used to justify the land exchange decision that was invalidated by the court in 2017. After fighting public transparency for 8 months, the Forest Service finally started to hand over the documents behind its decision in March 2019 under court supervision following another FOIA lawsuit.
_________________________________________________________________
San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council - Village at Wolf Creek
Updated: March 15, 2021 - SLVEC.org
Friends of Wolf Creek Respond to Merits Brief Counter Arguments
After LMJV and governmental agencies responded to the merits brief, Friends of Wolf Creek address their counter arguments in the document below.
Download - 11.20.20.Doc 63 Merits Reply Conserv.pdf
_________________________________________________________________
Updated: Dec 17, 2021 - SLVEC.org
Will the Court, for the Fourth Time, Set Aside Village at Wolf Creek Approvals?
By Zaylah Pearson-Good
After over 30 years of legal battles, *Friends of Wolf Creek await the judge’s verdict. The outcome of this ruling will either grant or decline Wolf Creek Pass developers access to US Forest Service lands that connect the project site to HWY 160. Without approved access, development cannot continue. *Rocky Mountain Wild, San Juan Citizens Alliance, San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council and supporting organizations combine to form the Friends of Wolf Creek (FWC) coalition.
Backstory
At over 10,000 feet elevation along Wolf Creek Pass, sits a highly contentious piece of property. Nestled between the South San Juan and Weminuche Wilderness Areas, this 300-acre plot offers uninterrupted and safe passage to a variety of Colorado wildlife, including the threatened Canadian lynx. The property is also in proximity to the southern headwaters of the Rio Grande and contains highly productive and rare fen wetland ecosystems. …
_________________________________________________________________
Updated: Jan 14, 2022 - SLVEC.org
"The Results Could Come Any Day Now..."
By SLVEC Director Christine Canaly
On December 13th, 2021 in Colorado’s US District Court, Senior Judge John Kane, ordered annulling the Wolf Creek land exchange land patent and also verifying “the unwinding of the land exchange” that the Forest Service had officially proposed, and put into motion, through their final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Record of Decision, back in 2014.
This current Order was necessary, because it removes ambiguity and pretty much formalizes the result of Judge John Matsch’s decision back in 2017, that set aside the land exchange, which Leavell McCombs Joint Venture (LMJV), had filed to dismiss. This second proposed land exchange would have connected the developers inholding to HWY 160.
Unfortunately, several rounds of briefings and additional actions were required to force the Forest Service and LMJV to clarify/document/confirm actual compliance with Judge Matsch's orders.
Judge Kane’s ruling confirms a major decision sought by San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council (SLVEC) and our Friends of Wolf Creek (FWC) partners, who have focused efforts to protect Wolf Creek Pass, including the south fork of the Rio Grande headwaters. …
_________________________________________________________________
Travis Stills (Energy and Conservation Law) and Matt Sandler (Rocky Mountain Wild), attorneys representing "Friends of Wolf Creek" (FWC) provided oral testimony before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, CO on January 16th. This Appeal was filed by "Village at Wolf Creek" Developers and the Forest Service in December, 2022.
Their Appeal has sought to challenge Judge Christine Arguello's October 2022 decision, which vacated Forest Service (road) access approval. The three Circuit Court Judges asked 30 minutes of questions, directed at Travis, who provided oral testimony on our (FWC) behalf. The Judges focused on Section 7 and section 10 consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and whether the Forest Service did its due diligence in that regard. [Both Section 7 and Section 10 allow for incidental take-(regarding the Canadian Lynx), and how that was addressed in the 2012 Forest Service Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The major difference between Section 7 and Section 10 is who is involved - federal agencies vs. private, state and local landowners - and the process of how incidental take is dealt with].
The Judge’s also directed questions regarding the relevancy of the 2012 EIS as it applied to the Forest Service’s 2nd choice of "range of alternatives” …
_________________________________________________________________
Friends of Wolf Creek.org - The Issues
Friends of Wolf Creek works to protect the incredible natural resources of Wolf Creek Pass from the development of a 10,000 person “village” of hotels, condos, retail shops, and parking lots. Here are just some of the issues with building in this important wildlife movement corridor:
W Water – Wolf Creek Pass is a unique ecosystem formed by plentiful snowfall, high elevation, and steep slopes, which make it the location of irreplaceable fen wetlands and an essential water resource for downstream communities. With this development, millions of gallons of water would be pulled from the South Fork headwaters of the Rio Grande River, depriving those communities and agriculture of the essential water resources. The average person uses 80-100 gallons of water per day.1 At full-capacity, the “village” could use up to 1 million gallons of water per day, just for residential use! The existing water rights acquired by the “village” are inadequate to meet the needs of the development and the issue of how and where the additional water supply would be stored on the project site has not been adequately analyzed. In drought years, downstream water rights would be called upon, leaving the development with an insufficient water supply. The fen wetlands would become hydrologically isolated due to the building of on-site infrastructure and water quality deterioration would burden the health of downstream fisheries.
O Oxygen (or lack thereof) – At 10,400 feet in elevation, the “village” would be the second-highest city in Colorado. 75% of people visiting this altitude would suffer some type of altitude sickness2, including headaches, nausea, and shortness of breath. Some would be afflicted with severe life-threatening forms of altitude sickness that would require immediate medical attention and evacuation to lower elevations.
L Lynx – Wolf Creek Pass, with its deep snowpack, provides one of the best remaining habitats for the threatened Canada lynx in the lower 48 states. Lynx have been reintroduced to this region and visitors sometimes even catch a glimpse of them. The increased traffic, outdoor lighting, noise, and human use of the forest for the “village” will fragment this habitat and stress existing lynx populations.
F Fire – Fires are a cyclical element of forest ecosystems and often should be left to burn in unpopulated areas. There are countless ecological benefits to periodic fires, including clearing out dead organic material, increasing soil fertility, and ridding an ecosystem of invasive species that have not adapted to these natural cycles.3 When we build structures and situate people in previously unpopulated forested zones, we create conditions where fire suppression and emergency rescue are both necessary and daunting. Colorado is experiencing more intense and frequent wildfires. In 2020, we experienced three of the largest fires in our history. A year-round “village” at Wolf Creek Pass increases the likelihood of wildfires in the area and stresses the limited resources available to protect structures and human lives.
C Climate Change – Currently, a wild Wolf Creek Pass contributes to carbon sequestration (the long-term removal of carbon dioxide to slow or reverse atmospheric CO2 pollution and mitigate or reverse climate change). Because of its remote location, the “village” would require complex infrastructure and various forms of energy to build and operate. The planned large-scale development would release considerable amounts of carbon, shifting this area from combatting climate change to a climate change contributor.
R Roads – The road to Wolf Creek Pass is winding and steep and often snow-packed and icy in the winter. Hairpin curves, steep drop-offs, traffic, and frequency of accidents make this road one of the most dangerous in Colorado.4 The “village” could add an estimated 5,150 cars a day (a 260% increase)5, many driven by people inexperienced with mountain travel conditions.
E Emergencies – Altitude sickness, vehicle accidents, fires, avalanches, and other emergency situations will require an immediate response from emergency personnel. The closest hospital, fire department, and other emergency services are located in Pagosa Springs, which is 25 miles (40 minutes) distant.
E Economy – The tourism industry makes up a significant portion of the local economies of communities like South Fork and Pagosa Springs. Pagosa Springs, for example, is a town of 2,057 residents that attracts 375,000 tourists each year. These communities provide these tourists with hotel rooms, restaurants, groceries, fuel, and other services. The development of the “village” and its commercial center would concentrate those services at the top of the Pass. Family-owned businesses in these communities would suffer, while corporate chains fill the storefronts at the top of the Divide. Additionally, tax dollars and volunteer services from neighboring counties (Rio Grande and Archuleta) would support the emergency services for the development, while the tax income from the development would be conveyed to Mineral County.
K Kills – Wolf Creek Pass is a vibrant landscape with thriving biodiversity. In 2015, Friends of Wolf Creek led a bioblitz to survey and record the impressive array of species there. Our volunteers recorded hundreds of plant and animal species, including four bear cubs, numerous American pikas, and the call of a Canada lynx!6 The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) released by the Forest Service acknowledges there would be increased vehicle-wildlife collisions, especially in such a remote, dangerous mountain terrain. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Colorado Parks and Wildlife has already identified Highway 160 (which crosses the Pass) as a high-risk highway for vehicle-wildlife impacts in Colorado.7 In fact, according to CDOT, Highway 160 has twice the regional average of vehicle-wildlife collisions and almost five times the statewide average of roadkill.
US District Court finds* District court was wrong to vacate agency authorizations* Federal Alaska conservation act (ANILCA) supports access to parcel
"The Tenth Circuit on Friday overruled a lower court and reinstated federal agencies' authorizations for a right-of-way easement to develop a ski resort village in Colorado.
III. CONCLUSION
"We VACATE the district court’s order and AFFIRM the 2018 BiOp (Biological Opinion) and 2019 ROD (Record of Decision)."
No comments:
Post a Comment