Ryan Bidwell’s informative VWC backstory, given in Pagosa Springs back in 2009, at about the end of the first LMJV epoch, and the beginning of Red McCombs' land swap epoch, which ended a couple years ago. I've transcribed the talk and added some important links where appropriate.
What follows is part two of a three part series and it's intended to help inform a younger generation about this decades old unresolved issue. A problem that will come back into the public limelight once the Court hands down its decision regarding the access road in the next months.
===================================================
Wolf Creek Village Presentation from Colorado Wild -- Part 4
Ryan Bidwell - (4/9)
Oct 22, 2009: Ryan Bidwell, Executive Director of Colorado Wild, provides his group's position on the proposed Village at Wolf Creek.
Filmed by D. West Davies (AllThingsPagosa.com/), and of Jim Smith Realty at the Riverwalk Cafe in downtown Pagosa Springs.
Colorado Wild joined with the Center for Native Ecosystems and are now
0:00
(Audience) Isn’t this really up to, I mean, we're dealing with is private property, you're dealing with a Forest Service land for an easement to gain access to and from that property. That the Forest Service focus should be on the easement itself and that being the other part of the process should be really up to the Mineral County or County Commissioners and Planning Committee to decide whether or not, what they’re proposing is actually sustainable.
Power and everything else, they are going to have to show that, yes we have the power, yes we have the water, yes we have CDOT approval, all of those agencies come into play for any kind of a development like this takes place and there are a lot of different agencies but really isn't that, I mean, if you have a function to be before the Board of Commissioners of Mineral County and they really make their final decision?
1:05
Ryan: Well, yes and no, Mineral County did give final approval for development for this project in 2003. It included none of those things that you just said it should include. It included no sign off from CDOT or any other state agency.
(Audience) How are they going to building access without CDOT
(Another voice cuts in) In the end it has to happen.
1:30
Ryan: Right all of those decisions were postponed. They approved it -
(Audience) subject to those of the things. I mean we do that here all the time. Fine, we’ll approve what you want for your development, as long as you get this, and this, and this, and this, there’s always conditions, if you get CDOT to approval, you can have your energy lines put in, if it don’t, it doesn’t fly.
1:44
Ryan: Yeah but the issue here was really one of sequencing.
Where the developer tried very deliberately to try to use the approval they received in Mineral County, in concept form, to say to the Forest Service, you have to give us access to our inholding because we got approval from the county government. Then conversely in county government, he argued, you don't need to look at any of the impacts to all these other agencies because the Forest Service is wanting to do that.
2:20
So what we ended up with was with both the county approval and the Forest Service approval tiering to the other and both looking to the other jurisdiction to resolve all of these clear contradictions and problems with the development plan. For example Mineral County said the Forest Service is going to decide whether or not the development has enough water, and the Forest Service said no it's not our responsibility its Mineral County’s responsibility to decide if the development has enough water.
“… On June 14, 2004, Village developers submitted an application for final approval to Mineral County. A key component of that application was a March 11, 2004 letter from the Forest Service establishing the developer’s limited, seasonal use access. That letter was ghost written for the Forest Service by the developers’ own attorney and lobbyist Steve Quarles, with Crowell Moring in Washington DC. Through June 12, 2003, numerous emails and facsimiles – many of which the Forest Service continues to withhold the content of – show additional collusion on the policy.
“These are public lands that the Forest Service’s March 11, 2004 access determination directly and adversely affects. Yet Colorado Wild, the public, even the ski area, had no input – indeed weren’t even aware that such decisions were being made. This breach of public trust by Forest Service officials in Washington and Denver insult the public, diminish the role of dedicated local Forest Service employees, and undermine our democracy. This is insider politics at its worst” stated Berman.
Under the FOIA lawsuit overseen by U.S. Federal Magistrate David West in Durango, the Forest Service agreed to release all documents and provide a list of withheld documents by October 7, 2005. …”
US Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 199/Friday, October 15, 2004
Margie Wood, April 10, 2005, Pueblo Chieftain
Judge's order latest turn in Wolf Creek battle
Margie Wood, November 5, 2005, Pueblo Chieftain
Interesting Information Regarding the Wolf Creek Development
Jeff Herman, Colorado Wild - September 15, 2005 - TetonGravityResearch
Rep. Salazar pans village slated atop Wolf Creek Pass
Julie Dunn, November 23, 2005 - The Denver Post
Mineral County Conceals Collusion with Wolf Creek Developer
Chris Talbot-Heindl, January 18, 2006, Friends of Wolf Creek
Mike Soraghan, May 16, 2006 - The Denver Post
A resident responds to a plaintive question from Wolf Creek developer Red McCombs
Ken Wright, July 24, 2006, High Country News
“All my life, I have always wondered why there is antagonism toward developers,” said billionaire developer B.J. “Red” McCombs recently during a forum on his proposed resort atop remote Wolf Creek Pass, in southwestern Colorado. I can answer Mr. McCombs, …
(Audience) I would agree that.
2:55
Ryan: I would agree with that too, what's different about this piece of property though, that places a higher level standard on what the Forest Service responsibility is, is because of the fact that the Forest Service owns a Scenic Easement on that specific property, and that easement specifically gives the Forest Service the responsibility to approve what occurs, land use.
(Audience) What type of easement?
Ryan: It's a Scene Easement. But, it includes restrictions on industrial facilities restrictions on storage of certain types of materials, as well as specific authorization, a requirement, that the Forestry Service approve any and all land use plans as well as architectural styling before it can be approved. The Forest Service never did that.
3:40
They didn't do it as part of the GIS process, they didn't do it beforehand, and it hasn’t done it since. So the Forest Service in this case has additional responsibilities, or at least certainly additional opportunity, to be involved in what takes place on this piece of property that, that's unique.
It's unlike perhaps any other property than I’m aware in this area, and that dates back to where this property came from -
(Audience) indecipherable … on an exchange, with what the use before the Forest Service saying it really does not violate any of those issues?
4:16
Ryan: It's possible but they never did that. You know, have they gone through and said you don’t think this is a problem? For all these reasons, sure. But, from my perspective a liquefied natural gas power plant is an industrial facility that involves the storage of material that's listed as a hazardous material. Neither of those things is legal under the Scenic Easement, which the Forest Service never chose to consider.
Those are the kinds of issues that somebody ought to look at, whether it's Mineral County, or the Forest Service. Somebody had the responsibility to look into it.
You had a question back here, and then I’ll come back to you.
(Audience) 4:58 - It probably good because the Forest Service issues one that I've always been curious about. We hear a lot of hearsay about Forest Service on this issue because my understanding was Forest Service would normally be the biggest hurdle for him to overcome in that situation. But hearsay and comments I've read is that he has some powerful relationship with somebody out of, on high in the district, in a department or whatever you call it yeah and is that true or false?
Ryan: Yeah, it was very true in under the last political administration, Bob Honts was actually caught bragging to the press about how he got his buddy Mark Gray appointed to the head of the Forest Service, huh, not really wise thing to go and do.
But anyway, they did have strong connections within the agency under the last administration, there’s a whole new group of people there now. I don't really extend to the relationship between new people and Mr. McCombs, I do now Mr. McCombs has hired a number of Democratic lobbyists now here in the state of Colorado, because of the shift politically. One of those guys is named Michael Dino and worked on John Hickenlooper's mayor campaign as, well as Senator Udall’s campaign, so you know well connected guy in Denver and he’s been working on this project with Clint Jones since they'd started down this kind of new …
===================================================
Wolf Creek Village Presentation from Colorado Wild - Part 5
Ryan Bidwell - (5/9)
You know, well-connected guy in Denver, that's been working on this project with Clint Jones since they've started down this kind of new path. So I don't know the answer to your question.
Feasibility Analysis - Village at Wolf Creek Land Exchange Proposal - USDA-USNF - January 18, 2011
0:13
The Forest Service process is a really interesting one, for the access. I don't want to spend too much time here. Because really where Clint's going now is in a different direction in this land exchange proposal I think we should talk a lot about that, but it’s important to recognize that Clint keeps saying, you know we can always go back to the old plan. We can always go back to the old access process, we'll do our EIS, we'll get access, and we'll do the old plan. He's been really dishonest when he says that, and I think it's important for everyone to understand that.
Because (Clint Jones) is trying to say you can have the old plan, or you can have a new plan. That's not true, the old plan can never happen and I'll tell you why, they could go back to the Forest Service and request access, that's absolutely true and they would likely get authorization of some sort of access. The Forest Service is required to grant access sufficient for reasonable use and enjoyment of a piece of private land. I'm sure you guys deal with this all the time in development.
1:15
What is reasonable use and enjoyment has been interpreted very differently from one place to the next, by the Forest Service by different courts it's an open question. So we don't know what McCombs would get if he went back through that process but he’d get something. It might be a horse trail it might be a six-lane highway but he'd get something. Whether or not it would be sufficient to build their village we won't know unless they go down that road.
Even if they got a six-lane highway to their project they couldn't build the old plan though, because a year ago when they settled the lawsuit with Wolf Creek Ski Area. The developer and the skier have been suing each other over contract disputes that went back quite some time.
None of us know the entire outcome of that lawsuit. The one piece that came out of the settlement of that lawsuit was a bunch of new easements that were recorded on the property last summer. Basically taking - for those of you that have skied the Wolf Creek ski area Mr McCombs owns a bunch of the property on the hill right above the base of the Alberta Lift - it's kind of there's a bunch of ski runs that go through it. It’s part of the ski area for all intents and purposes and they reserved that entire area for skiing, there's no housing to be authorized there. The original land use plan
(Audience) excuse me is that the top,
Ryan: No, it’s at the bottom, the first couple hundred feet above the base of the upper lift
(Audience) … now I’m with ya… cross country terrain…
2:50
Ryan: Yeah it's kind of a flat terrain that we all glide through our way back to the base of the lift. Flat, relatively flat, compared to the upper part of the mountain. All that in the original land use plan was dense town home development, for over 600 units. On that portion of the property that’s no longer possible for development. So that the old land use plan can't work anymore, it's outdated, it doesn't match an agreement that McCombs signed off on when they settled their lawsuit.
(Audience) so how many acres does that easement encompass, of what they had?
Ryan: It's about 100 acres, currently they own about 287.5 acres, because they sold actual lift alignments to the ski area back in the 90s. So McCombs owns 287.5.
3:35
But then there's easements, both ski easements, as well as utilities, and various other things that the ski area needed to be able to continue to operate their business. That occupy about 100 acres. There's also about 70 acres of wetlands, so you start with 287, you take off 100 for easements you take off 70 for wetlands and you're left with about 100 acres to work with.
I'm sure there's cities of 10 000 people built on 100 acres, but it gets a little tricky.
(Audience) Are these easements across 100 acres, I mean, I can't imagine the entire 100 acres being taken up by an easement?
4:10
Ryan: Yeah, they are. Because that’s a ski area. That’s basically saying McCombs owns the property but you can't build anything here that prohibits it from being a ski area. There are areas reserved for skiing there's no building permitted there. There's other linear easements that are for utilities and things like that, that are underground.
4:35
We can't go back to the old plan, they could go back to the old process. Go through the Forest Service access process get some sort of access, build a new development plan based on whatever kind of access they get and whatever property they’ve got left. But the old plan is off the table. So that kind of sets us up for where do we go from here? I want to answer your question first.
(Audience) I think what you're trying to say is that if the EIS process, which is a federal process, is done correctly, they may or may not be able to build something up there.
5:08
Ryan: They may not be able to build something, … they may, or may not, be able to build what they proposed today.
(Audience) Right, I think a little historical note is in 1986 when this original deal happened, Reagan was the president. In 1986 I worked for HUD and we were under extreme pressure to approve a deal in Utah which the staff didn't want to approve and the Regional Administrator kept having meetings. But nobody had the courage to override the GS13s and 12s that were in charge of …, and actually in EIS and some other stuff.
So, I can see why the original trade took place. Then on in 1999 Clinton was the president in 2000 from 2001 to 2008 we were dealing with a different Administration, but I think what you're trying to say again is they didn't go through the proper EIS. If you do the environmental impact then you know what you actually could do.
6:22
Ryan: Exactly, and you can take steps to fix the problems. You know, if you say, hey, this is going to create a huge burden on Archuleta County for providing housing and schooling children, (for parents) that are going to work at this facility and providing Social Services for these families that are not particularly high paying jobs. Then if you identify that as a problem in the EIS process, you can try to fix it. You can say okay Mr McCombs we need a revenue stream to come to Archuleta County to deal with these problems, to provide for schooling for these kids, to provide other social services.
But if you don’t know what the problems are up front, it’s really hard to negotiate a solution to them.
===================================================
Wolf Creek Village Presentation from Colorado Wild -- Part 6
Ryan Bidwell - (6/9)
(Fens Wetlands)
0:00
(Audience) One other thing on your flier, you say that the wetlands? Which would be part of the EIS study on this property, you say it’s unique and it's not subject to impact or mitigation. What does that mean?
0:15
Yeah, there's a lot of protected wetlands. The wetlands on McCombs property are what's called a fen’s wetland.
Wetlands and ‘old-growth’ fens heat up Wolf Creek debate.
by Adam Howell, Durango Telegraph
They’re not fed by surface water, which is the way traditional, and most wetlands that we all deal with on a day-to-day basis are. They're actually fed by ground water and because of that they have different chemistry, because of the water that feeds through the soil and ends up really acidic. (Something that makes “fens” unique is that they don’t actually contain soil as such, it mainly decomposing organics, beyond a little transported sand and minerals, it’s all decomposing organic material) They support a whole bunch of different types of plants that are kind of rare and unique.
So there's a different set of standards from the normal 404 wetlands permitting process that applies to fens wetlands. You can't go out and fill a wetland and then recreate one on a 2 / 1 basis, as is the case with traditional wetlands permit. The standard for fens wetlands, is no loss of wetland value which essentially means you can't impact one, legally.
FENS Resource Category 1 USFWS "Mitigation Policy”
Appreciating Fens Part 2. USFWS Category 1 Resource (highest protection rating)
What is a Fen? U.S. FOREST SERVICE
“Fens are an important and unique wetland type. Fens are peat-forming wetlands that rely on groundwater input and require thousands of years to develop and cannot easily be restored once destroyed. Fens are also hotspots of biodiversity. They often are home to rare plants, insects, and small mammals …”
1:10
One of Clint’s arguments as to why the land exchange proposal is a really good idea is that it puts the wetlands back in federal ownership and thus saves the wetlands. Our argument all along, is that legally the wetlands have to be saved, one or the other, whoever owns them, the law requires that they be protected. I don't care whether the Forest Service owns them or Mr. McCombs owns them. I care that somebody's looking out for them and following the law and making sure that they get protected because they're kind of because they're interesting and they’re a unique biological resource.
(Audience) Didn’t you guys recommend a land exchange?
Ryan: No, we did, Colorado Wild did not, well that's not true. We did recommend land exchange to give Mr. McComb - to take this property put it back in public ownership. Giving Mr. McCombs a property that we see as something that makes a lot more sense, from a development perspective.
2:00
You know, this is a piece of (Alberta Park) property in an entirely undeveloped area Wolf Creek Pass. It is one of them one of the biggest wildlife corridor in the state of Colorado for deer and elk and bobcat, cougar and lynx. It’s really a pretty special place. So from an environmental perspective we really have some questions about whether it makes the most sense as a location of a development.
So we did propose a sort of conceptual term. Hey, let's fix the error that was made in1986, give this property back to the Forest Service that owned it, and give Mr. McComb something that's down closer to a community where there's existing infrastructure existing roads, we're not building a city up at 10,300 feet.
2:40
And yeah and he can support existing, he can build a development that supports existing businesses, rather than competes with them, so on and so forth. Mr. McCombs hasn't been really interested in that.
(Audience) As far as the current land exchange that they're proposing, what do you determine to be more valuable for wildlife and from an environmental area the wetlands - or the land against the highway?
3:03
Ryan: You know, from an environmental perspective, yeah I guess the wetlands might be a little bit more valuable.
(Audience) A little bit more valuable, very special, they're very unique.
3:12
Ryan: Right, but the law requires that they get protected either way. So, there’s not a lot of public benefit, when it comes from putting them in public ownership, when they're already protected by Federal Law. So one way or the other, whomever own ends up owning them. Somebody's going to have to make sure that.
(Audience) That reduces the commercial value of the 270 acres?
3:38
Ryan: Exactly, on its face, I think, the land exchange raises real questions. We’re talking about giving up 100 acres of land that has easements on it that they can't build anything on and 70 acres of wetlands and couple extra spare acres to add up to that 207.
Today we're talking about giving 207 acres of land that's really not developable back to the Forest Service, and in return we want 270 acres of land that is developable. Flat and dry and just happen to have highway access.
(Audience) but if you look at it… from the perspective, if you look
Ryan: But, the law requires that the values be equal.
(Audience) right, right, but you're looking at only from an economic value let's look at the, compare the land as a value to wildlife, right is it a more, it’s completely the other way.
Ryan: It’s actually not the other way, but
(Audience) Probably not a lot of wildlife on that land against the highway wouldn’t that be farther off more towards wetlands?
Ryan: Yes and no, the best value of Wolf Creek Pass from a life perspective, you're right wildlife doesn’t spend a ton of time in that area, nor a long time right in the ski area.
4:43
But they do pass through that whole area, as they move from the south San Juan Wilderness, to the Weminuche Wilderness. It’s a corridor it's a connecting spot. So, whether you build a city it right next to highway, or 350 or 1,000 feet from a highway, you’re still building a city in the middle of that wildlife corridor.
4:56
So for a wildlife perspective it doesn't really have a huge impact. The bigger impact from wildlife perspective, biggest impact is actually traffic. It's a number of cars on highway. Yeah vehicle collisions are the biggest threat to wildlife period. So if you put 10,000 people up there, is doesn't really matter where you put them. How they get to it, that ends up having a big impact.
5:33
The Forest Service process for land exchange does require the economic values to the people. They’re not wildlife …
(Audience) It doesn’t require all the value?
5:45
Ryan: It requires the sale value of the property.
If you or I, based on comparable properties in the region to the people. You all know as well as I do that appraisal processes, well, yeah there's some subjectivity there.
(Audience) But the appraisal has to be done by the Forest Service independently of the developers, and make up any difference, by other inholding, or trade out, make it even…
6:10
What I think is really important to understand, is there are two paths to get to a land exchange. There is the path that Mr. McCombs is currently pursuing, which is a legislative land exchange. Which is asking Congress in this case Congressman Salazar to sponsor a bill that would perform this land exchange. First, on condition that they do an EIS second; or there is a Forest Service land exchange process that involves an EIS first, to inform whether or not a land exchange makes sense.
6:44
That's the administrative route. You know, I personally think there's some benefit that might come out of the land exchange process. But I had some real concerns about the legislative process. The reason is this - I’m sure Clint explained to you that regardless of which way he goes, you’re gonna have to do an EIS. So what's the difference right.
7:08
To me there's a striking difference. When the Forest Service does a land exchange as it's going on over in La Plata county right now. If you've been reading the Durango Herald there's a controversial land exchange up near the Glacier Club. Now they do an EIS they let the public weight in, and they let other government agencies weight in, and then flush out all the issues up front. They figure out the pros and the cons and you know let everybody, you know, argue over things and then the Forest Service makes a decision as to whether, or not, the land exchange is in the public interest.
7:42
This is the process that they went through 1986 for the Wolf Creek property. It’s not perfect process by any stretch. But it does allow, it would allow for the first time ever, for a legitimate consideration all of these issues that have never been looking never been looked at. How are the impacts on Archuleta County economically. Whether or not, you know, a thousand timeshare units at Wolf Creek Pass is going to have a positive impact on, you know, sales tax and vacancy rates in Pagosa Springs, or whether it will have a negative impact?
8:20
What the impact of crowding is going to be on the ski area? How many more can you actually fit on the ski area, before it loses the character that draws people to it currently, and that supports the existing tourism base. Again what are the impacts to the public safety, to all the various services, and then, you know, obviously these other issues of water, and wildlife, and environmental concerns. So we can do all that stuff up front get some good information and then decide whether the land exchange makes sense. Or if so, under what specific conditions we might place on that land exchange, to say, you have to do X, Y and Z, or we can take the approach that Clint Jones is advocating for right now.
9:01
Which is have Congress authorize the land exchange up front and then after the fact do an EIS that doesn't inform the decision. It just tells us whether or not we made a good, or a bad one.
It documents the decision that was already made so we know after the fact. You know, oh, we didn't think about the impact to wetlands this way. Because we didn't know that they were there. Or, oh we didn’t think about the impacts to the EMS squad in Archuleta County, you know we didn't realize that this was going to be a big impact.
We can do that after the fact, and then we'll know whether we made a good decision or bad decision, but won't have any ability to change it.
===================================================
=============================================
PS. For what it's worth, If you want to help, please be sure to contact one of the organizations that have been doing all the heavy lifting.
No comments:
Post a Comment