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.
This problem will flash back into the limelight once the Court hands down its decision and Leavell McCombs Joint Venture announces it's updated development plans for their high altitude luxury village on top of Alberta Park the hydrological heart of the Wolf Creek watershed.
===================================================
Wolf Creek Village Presentation from Colorado Wild -- Part 7
Ryan Bidwell - (7/9)
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
(Audience) Are you not saying thought that the legislation would be subject to the EIS?
Ryan: It’s subject to doing the EIS.
(Audience) subject to …
Ryan: It is.
(Audience) Okay, so the EIS must go through its process - it must come to a positive conclusion. If the legislation is subject to the EIS, it's got to come to a positive conclusion.
0:20
Ryan: It actually doesn’t. Because the Congress has already made the determination of what the public interest is.
(Audience) Okay, but Congress has said, it's subject to the EIS?
Ryan: Right. But, there’s no discretion left it to the agency to do the EIS. I get . . .
- ? -
Ryan: The EIS is just a process. It’s just it's just a document that says here's all the impacts. It doesn't make a - EIS doesn’t make decisions.
0:51
(Audience) … ah they pick and chose conclusions.
Ryan: No they don’t. When the Forest Service does a process they do an EIS, which is just a study, and then they issue a decision. They're actually separate. They won't even staple them together. Because they don't want to imply that they're the same document. Because they're really not. One’s an analysis, and then you have to make a decision and there's always trade offs, to make decisions.
1:16
And so, the decisions separate when Forest Service does the process. But in this (instance) if Congress makes the decision, then you just do the analysis.
The decision has already been made, and for that reason there's never been a case - and I’ve asked people all over this country in the last few months, and I know a women in Washington State just wrote a book where she looked at something like 75 Congressional land exchanges. There has never been a case in this country where that land exchange that was approved by Congress, ended up not happening, or changing substantially. If it’s done any EIS, that was done afterwards. Never once.
Western Lands Project: Janine Blaeloch Janine Blaeloch is Director of the Western Lands Project, an organization she founded in 1997. She earned a degree in Environmental Studies (B.A., University of Washington, 1989), with a self-designed program focusing on Public Lands Management and Policy. For eight years, Janine worked as an environmental planner in both the private and public sectors. Her work included preparation and analysis of numerous U.S. Forest Service environmental impact statements and planning documents.
Janine has been a forest activist since 1985. She is on the Board of Directors of Wilderness Watch. Western Lands Project, a 501c3 nonprofit organization, fights public land privatization in order to protect the environment and the public interest. Our mission is to scrutinize public land trades, sales, giveaways, and any project that would cede public land, and their impacts on habitat and wildlife, natural resources, land use, and communities. Our goal is to keep public land public. Learn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Janine Blaeloch
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Janine Blaeloch - Western Lands Project 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1:58
That's exactly why Clint Jones wants to do it this way. He gets certainty as soon as Congress passes the law, soon as President Obama signs it, they know their project’s going to happen, they know exactly what their projects going to look like.
Yeah they've got to write a check to somebody to do an analysis. But it has no bearing on what's going to happen on their part, with their project, they have certainty from day one that that Bill is signed, that their project is a go, before the analysis gets started. I can completely understand why they want that.
2:30
But, the question I pose to you, is given that there's an alternative route, that’s going to take the same amount of time. Because you got to do the study one way, or the other, you’ve gotta hem and haw over it. Congress isn’t going to make a decision overnight anyway. Given that there's an alternative process that gives us gives the public that information up front, before making a decision and then informs a decision by the Forest Service, what's the benefit to the public of the legislative route?
3:04
I understand the benefit to Mr. McCombs and Mr. Jones they get the certainty that they want from day one, that their project is going to go forward. Unhampered, unaffected by the analysis. But what’s the benefit to the School District in Archuleta County, what's the benefit to the public that has been involved in this project for years and has never gotten a straight answer from the developer about how much water they actually have. What's the benefit to skiers at Wolf Creek Ski Area who are concerned about the area being overcrowded and not wanting come here, because it's like Breckenridge.
What's the benefit to all of us that expect this developer to be treated pretty much fairly just like anybody else, any other developers, that might not have the ability to hire the most expensive Democratic lobbyist in the state of Colorado, to be able to influence our Congressmen, to be able to turn around a bill. I think that's something that we're not considering.
4:05
Because I really feel like there may be benefits to the Land Exchange Process. But Mr. McCombs owes it to all of us, to go through the process that anybody else would have to go through. And tell us what the impacts of his project, good or bad are going to be. Before we have to make a decision about it.
He's never done that, in fact, (McCombs) has spent, probably by our estimates, 12 million dollars trying to circumvent that responsibility over the last 11 years now (That was, as of, Oct. 2009! ).
(Audience) Are you saying the legislative process they are not actually going to ask for information and maybe look into some of these questions themselves, and that they're just going to blindly sign something?
4:49
No I’m not saying - that they’re going to blindly sign up something -
(Audience) I’m pretty much on your side on that one.
5:00
Ryan: Congress has a tendency to act before it thinks things through as much as we might like them too.
(Audience) Well, what you’re saying too, is that instead of a Congressman from Texas, who doesn't know about the impacts here in Colorado. Congressman in Washington we don't know about the impacts in Archuleta County. Mineral County (Commissioners) will make the decision for us.
5:25
Ryan: Exactly and they’re going to do that without really good information. Because we don't have that information, we've never developed that information.
I feel much more comfortable, although it certainly not perfect, it wasn't perfect in 1986, but I feel a whole lot more comfortable with Forest Service staff in Monte Vista making that decision. After they've gone through a year-long process to invite all the local governments and local citizens and other regulatory agencies to weigh in on the project.
(Audience) But, you weren't comfortable with their decision on the Easement.
Ryan: No, but the public had a right of recourse. They could say, hey this process didn't look good. It sure looks us that the developer had an inappropriate influence on this.
We brought that to the Court, and the Court agreed with us. If the Court had said, no this process is legitimate, it's bomb, you guys are making this stuff up. Then the project would have moved forward.
6:18
But it preserves a level of openness and transparency that I think, I would hope that people, regardless whether you think the projects a good thing or a bad thing, you know we all want it to be relatively fair. I don't think it’s appropriate to offer favors to any particular individual, over what another person would be forced to go through.
6:42
(Audience) So far as the two different paths the Forest Service and the legislative, the way you described it to me, it sounds more like, this is simplifying it, what I hear in my head is, it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.
6:57
Ryan: That’s a great analogy. Yeah, Mr. Jones is trying to, you know, they’ve scaled back their project a little bit. He's employed a very different character than his predecessor Mr. Honts. (Clint Jones) is a nice guy, he's very respectful, he listens to people. Those are all changes. He's got a different project, he's trying to make something that's a little bit more appropriately scaled to the ski area. That makes sense, and so there’s reason to go, hey maybe this is all different proposal and a whole different kind of approach than what we saw last time. He's trying to take that and nail it down and get approval from day one for this project.
I think that's a little premature, I'm enthused by Clint's approach and that he’s interested in talking to communities and addressing some of the concerns that have never been addressed before. But, I don't necessarily think we should trust him from day one and give him approval to do this project, that he's cooked up in the last couple months, and maybe looks a little better on the surface than the last project.
But only because the last project was horrendous. Hey let's go down this road and think it through thoroughly before we commit one way or the other.
(Audience) Are you gonna give us any assistance in communicating with their legislative people to avoid this.
8:29
Ryan: Yeah I can do that, although you guys actually have a whole lot more power than I do. You know Congressman Salazar listen to local governments, and when he’s dealing with controversial issues. That’s sort of his -
(Audience) But, he was here last week, he has a whole different outlet, than what he had before, so -
Ryan: But, he’s waiting to hear from Archuleta County, and this City Council here, or rather the Town Council here at Pagosa Springs, and from organizations like this, From the organizations like the Chamber Commerce. He’s looking for that sort of feedback from local communities about whether or not he should take McCombs up on the offer to do the legislative land exchange, or whether or not he’s going to said no thanks.
The land exchange looks like it might be a good thing, but I think you should go through the Forest Service process and jump through those hoops and make sure that this process project is actually a good deal for the public, before it gets approved.
9:27
That's what we're encouraging Congressman Salazar to do. It’s not to pass judgment on whether or not that my own exchanges good or bad right now. But, to send it down the road through that process, and let that assessment be based on once and for all some good information.
===================================================
Wolf Creek Village Presentation from Colorado Wild -- Part 8
Ryan Bidwell - (8/9)
0:00
(Audience) (?) last week or two weeks ago, was to contact our local government to get our local government to tell Salazar to do the deal.
Ryan: Yeah, that’s, that's the approach, … Salazar has asked the local governments what they think. As you all know Archuleta County expressing concerns in a letter to Congressman Salazar, as far as I know the town council has not taking a position, one way or the other. So I would encourage you to do the same thing, to weigh in with your local elected officials. I think, yeah it’s clear that a different approach is more appropriate, than the legislative land exchange, because
(Audience) Are there other recommendations you guys offer, as a group? That if they follow them you guys will be behind them?
0:55
Ryan: I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean.
(Audience) Have you guys (Colorado Wild), instead of just pointing out what they've done wrong, maybe you can give them some solutions, say what if you guys would do this, and this, and this, we'd like to get behind you and be in partnership with you, because
Ryan: We actually have sat down with Clinton and said, if you guys go down the road of the Forest Service process, the public process, we’d be happy to sit down with you and try to negotiate some something that we can all live with. We've had a bunch of conversations with him, so he understands our concerns and how to avoid them and so on and so forth.
1:27
We've had much more open conversations with him. But, we're just one organization, we’re not the Fire Department here, and we’re not the County Commissioners in Rio Grande County, so I don't think it’s appropriate for Colorado Wild to cut a deal with the developer and cut the public out of it.
Just as I don't think it's appropriate for Congress to cut a deal with the developer and cut the public out of it. I think the developer owes it to everybody to go through a legitimate process and hear everybody out and try to address everybody’s concerns. And so, that’s why we've been pushing them to go down the Forest Service administrative process.
(Audience) And in that process decide whether a land exchange is good or bad.
Ryan: Exactly.
(Audience) You just keep the same or go over a little bit, because that's better. Look at the whole process.
Ryan: Exactly just look at the time maybe it's a little bigger maybe it's a little smaller maybe there's some money that gets put in the fund for Wildlife Crossings or for School Districts or for Wetlands or for who knows what.
(Audience) But only certainly as you know really. Most of us are Realtors or business people here uh you know we look to something like that as a economic boost for our economy.
Ryan: Absolutely.
(Audience) And so we were we're looking kind of down the road that that might be a good thing for Pagosa and so forth. But you know at the same time most of us I think live here because you know at heart you know I think we’re all a little bit environmentalists that's right because that's why we live here.
Ryan: yeah exactly.
(Audience) Yeah, and we don't want it screw something up.
yeah
(Audience) for a fast buck so I think we want to see a balance where okay it'd be nice to have a little village up there. That brought some economic boost to Pagosa Springs, but we don't want to screw up the world by having something up there that’s going to really be a bad thing.
Ryan: Exactly and I'd like to think that the village could be a good thing for Pagosa Springs, economically.
3:40
(Audience) well we think it would be economically good.
Ryan: It could be, if it was done right, it was the right scale, if it didn't overwhelm the ski area and swamp it with people, so nobody else wanted to go there. I think that that potential exists. But, I don't think it automatically is the case that building a village up there is automatically going to pick up Pagosa Springs.
4:08
I base that opinion on conversations I've had with a lot of local business owners that are really concerned that the competition that they'll see from a village up there is really going to impact their businesses, that are established here. I'll don’t know if that’s hotels and motels or chops and things of that nature. So yeah those are the kind of issues that that I think really need some careful consideration of what the right scale of the village is, how much commercial goes up there, versus just residential, what types of commercial makes sense there that complement what's already available here. Yeah what percentage of time share, versus rental pool, versus single family, versus town home that's a compliment to the existing real estate opportunities and businesses here, and in the existing communities.
I'd rather have that conversation up front, rather than try to do it on the tail end after McCombs already’s got the momentum of Congress's approval and we're going forward.
5:17
(Audience) You mentioned that you had estimated that McCombs had spent around 12 million so far. How much does Colorado Wild spend?
Ryan: Colorado Wild has been an organization since 1998 and we just we just spent our millionth dollar as an organization, but uh, on the Wolf Creek project itself,
5:41
I believe it's probably been, I'm estimating here, you know $200,000 and you know when we spend money, it's really just staff time. It’s my time to come over here and talk to you know to a group like this.
We’ve had the benefit of having some attorneys that have helped us out on a pro bono basis we haven't had to spend money on attorneys fees over the years and yeah. It’s putting information on our website, it’s spending time digging through, you know what was some 40,000 pages of documents on the last EIS process to dig up the information that made it clear to us that EIS wasn't really being done in the Public's interest. But you know it's been a big initiative for us.
So I don't know if you guys have other questions I'm sure I forgot some stuff on here.
But yeah, I guess I'll just leave you with that question of thinking through, what makes the most sense for the public, in terms of these two land exchange processes.
Thanks a lot, and I really feel like whether you like The Village or don't like the village, regardless of the administrative process is really a preferable.
===================================================
Wolf Creek Village Presentation from Colorado Wild -- Part 9
Ryan Bidwell - (9/9)
0:00
(Audience) (The Administrative Process) is the best plan, that's the road we need to go down, however we sort this out. But in development through a county process and that's why I was taking you to the Board of County Commissioners where it ends up. You can acquire, say you can make a land swap, you can do anything else, but that plan whether or not you actually end up with that development is going to depend on a checklist that you must accomplish this this this and this, one of those would be an EIS and if that EIS comes back and says i'm sorry that you traded for this land, so you're not going to be able to do this. Okay that is a very very much a possibility, I totally disagree that once Congress says it's done it's a done deal and boy he's going to build this big city.
Ryan: No, the land is exchanged, is what’s done. The land is swapped. Okay, he may not know what happened on it, I agree. That's a continuing conversation.
(Audience) but he's got to take this risk that if he makes this exchange and the EIS says it doesn't work he's really at risk absolutely because he may end up with 200 acres that he can only put a couple of trailers on.
1:13
Yeah, and he takes that risk one way or the other. He's got a piece of land and he doesn't know what he's going to be able to put on it.
But what we’re talking about is giving him given Mr. McCombs public land, which is clearly more developable than what he’s got right now. There’s no question though, uh so why are we giving it to him? Well there ought to be something in it for the public, if the public is given him land. That's that has developable value. We ought to get something in return.
(Audience) Aren’t we're getting the land, that’s water, that seems valuable. I mean I consider myself a conservationist and that seems more valuable to me to leave that undisturbed alone and let him have something that doesn't have wetlands on it to me.
1:57
Ryan: I disagree with you because he can’t develop the wetlands anyway.
(Audience) well it's still valuable but he’s backing off of it, if you can develop right up to the wetlands, or he's backing away, and you get some room around it, it's more valuable to the public.
Ryan: That's why I'm not totally opposed to a land exchange. I agree with you, it might make a whole lot of sense. But I don't think we have the information right now in order to know exactly where the boundaries ought to be, in order to know whether Clint’s proposal for phase one makes a whole lot of sense, to know whether the values of the properties in question really are equal. Environmental values
(Audience) that's not that that's also not an issue, because it's going to have to be equal or something happens. Right.
Ryan: Well yes and no.
(Audience) There'll be an independent appraisal done so it'll have to be equal, on a number, so that's really a non-issue, it's not going to happen without it being equal, if it's not equal, it'll have to make it right.
Ryan: Congress doesn't have to disclose the appraisals until after they make a decision. This is actually another difference between the legislative approach and the Administrative approach. Forest Service has to make the appraisals are publicly accessible.
3:03
(Audience) Yeah so folks the public gets a lot more input
Ryan: The public gets a lot more input and it happens at the local level,
(Audience) at the local level and then in Washington DC, exactly, so do we want Washington, or do we want to make the decision
Ryan: Where do we feel like folks like yourselves, where do you feel like you have greater influence, in Washington DC, or here locally?
I work for a tiny organization, I don't have a whole heck of a lot of pull in Washington DC, I can call my Congressman, just like anybody else can. And you know, we can certainly call other Congress people too. But we can't afford to hire a team of lobbyists that have relationships with Congress people. Go out and have drinks with them after work. I suspect most of you all can’t do that either. So it's just a different playing field that Mr. McCombs has the ability to play. If we allow him to do so.
4:26
(Audience) There’s a Town and County Commissioner's meeting, both this week, so I encourage everybody to show up for both of those. Like I said whether you're for it or against it. (?) I have a concern growing up here that I get a sense that since it's not in our county, we do not get any of the tax benefits from it. You know I have a concern for our schools, our electric, our water, our EMS, our sheriffs are you know all that's going to impact us and I think we have to have an answer to that. You know to see what's and I and I sell real estate. I mean I'd love to have you know be able to make a better living than I did this year, that's for sure, and and uh but I just I've just got to know that we're not going to pay for that, out of our economic situation we've got going here. It's not going to impact us negatively
(Audience) and all this money goes to the other county
(Audience) yeah and where the money goes are we going to go to Mineral County and say okay we're going to have to have money extra money for our sheriffs and our emergency medical service, you know if La Plata Electric has to come through, to build a bigger station down here to supply them, you know I mean there's a lot of questions. I think we need to go to these meetings to see how the town's feeling and seeing how the commissioners are doing
(Audience) so it looks makes a lot more sense to do the research on the front end, instead of on the back end.
5:48
Ryan: I really believe so and McCombs has been working for 12 years now to avoid doing that. I think there's an honest reason why.
I think he knows that, yeah when all the facts are on the table that, certainly I think the last proposal when all the facts are on the table, there's no way that project would have made sense.
I question whether Clint’s proposal really would, I mean the pros would come out ahead of the cons, if we put all the information on the table.
But ultimately that's not my (call), I don’t think that's my decision to make, but I'd love for that decision to be made with good information, rather than based on Clint Jones's promises.
Okay thank you all, feel free to give me a call anytime.
Ryan Bidwell - Colorado Wild
======================
Friends of Wolf Creek.org - Current Status
On February 27, 2019, Rio Grande National Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas signed a Final Record of Decision that could result in an easement to facilitate construction of the massive “Village.” The Friends of Wolf Creek Coalition pushed back and filed a legal complaint against the Forest Serve on May 28, 2019.
On October 20, 2022, Federal District Court Judge Christine Arguello once again ruled that the Forest Service acted unlawfully when issuing the access decision for the Village at Wolf Creek. The Court also found that the Fish and Wildlife Service violated the Endangered Species Act when analyzing the impacts of this decision on the Federally listed Canada lynx. Both the Forest Service and the Developer, the Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture, appealed Judge Arguello’s decision to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
On July 21, 2023, the Friends of Wolf Creek filed a Response Brief defending both Judge Matsch and Judge Arguello’s Orders and reiterating all the reasons why the Agencies actions were unlawful.
Please continue to follow this activity on our website or sign up for our action alerts to be notified when actions are available.
==================================
=======================================================
=============================================
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I'm a big fan of the scientific method, with its curiosity and dedication to gathering facts and weighting evidence. So it's natural for me to gather up this collection of news article and documents to help supplement Ryan Bidwell’s 2009 Village At Wolf Creek discussion in Pagosa Springs.
Alberta Park (~10,300’)
Landswap option ended a couple years ago.
For more of those details view: Case 1:15-cv-01342-RPM Document 67 Filed 05/19/17 USDistrictCourt Colorado, Page 1 of 40 -
The Forest Service prepared an environmental assessment (EA) of the proposed land exchange pursuant to NEPA.3 Initially, on February 20, 1986, the Forest Service issued a Decision Notice determining not to undertake the land exchange. Decision Notice, W01362. That decision noted that the exchange “would create an isolated, developed non-Federal parcel in a large area of solid Federal ownership,” and was based on the assessment that “subsequent environmental, social, and economic impacts resulting from development are not at all clear,” that “many decisions concerning the management of the National Forest System are irreversible,” that “such grave irreversible actions require clear benefits.” Id., W01363-64.
Two weeks later, on March 6, 1986, the Forest Service reversed itself and issued a new Decision Notice approving the land exchange. Decision Notice, W01366-69. The new decision acknowledged that the February decision was based on “the fact that development of the Federal tract could be in derogation of the Wolf Creek Ski Area and other adjacent National Forest System lands,” but concluded that LMJV‟s agreement in principle to certain mitigation measures would “alleviate this concern.” Id., W01368. It also noted that Mineral County would regulate “components of development that are subject to County ordinances and regulation,” and that “other local, state and federal agencies will have review and approval authority for many components of any development plans that are proposed.” Id.4 (page 3 & 4 and so on.)
MARCH 8, 2012 at NO-VWC.blogspot
The Red McCombs’ Alberta Park Real Estate Poker Game
MAY 6, 2012 at NO-VWC.blogspot
FOIA RESULTS = USDA Forest Service: Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact {3/6/86}
OCTOBER 2, 2015 at NO-VWC.blogspot
Details of the VWC Land Exchange EIS FOIA Federal Court decision
OCTOBER 5, 2012 at NO-VWC.blogspot
Freedom to inform refused by the USDA Forest Service [updated!]
From LMJV’s, Village at Wolf Creek’s promotional website
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 185/Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 75/Tuesday, April 19, 2011
ORDER SETTING ASIDE AGENCY ACTION (May 19, 2017)
USDA-RGNF Media Briefing announcement - 2020
Rio Grande National Forest Plan Revision - 2020
USDA-RGNF Record of Decision
Village at Wolf Creek Access Project Final EIS, Feb. 2019
2002 McCombs hired a number of lobbyists that encouraged then Congressman Tom Delay from Texas to introduce riders on unrelated legislation energy bills
Wolf Creek Village Presentation from Colorado Wild -- Part 2
Ski village lawsuit was last resort
Erin Smith, Oct 21, 2006 - Pueblo Chieftain
"It is alarming that the public's nearly 3,000 comments seem to have fallen on deaf ears; yet when the developer asks for a favor, federal officials go out of their way to respond.”
01-18-06_LEGAL_JointNoticeOfAppeal.pdf
07-13-06_LEGAL_ResponseToAppeal.pdf
11-13-06_LEGAL_SpecialUsePermitCoverLetter.pdf
11-13-06_LEGAL_SpecialUsePermitToBuildAtWolfCreek.pdf
Mineral County Conceals Collusion with Wolf Creek Developer
Published by Chris Talbot-Heindl - January 18, 2006
LAWSUIT CHALLENGES WOLF CREEK VILLAGE ACCESS ROADS
SAM Magazine--Wolf Creek, Colo., October 20, 2006--Colorado Wild and the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council have filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Forest Service's decision to allow two access roads accessing the proposed Wolf Creek Village to be built. Both groups contend that the roads, which would cross public lands, are only two dominos in the controversial development which would bring substantial growth the southern Colorado resort.
At issue is the Forest Service's April 3rd Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision.
Lawsuit Challenges Forest Service Decision, Ongoing Improprieties
Published by Chris Talbot-Heindl on October 21, 2006
Friends of Wolf Creek groups filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday October 20th challenging the Forest Service’s April 3rd Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision authorizing two separate roads across public land to access the proposed “Village” at Wolf Creek. The lawsuit filed by Colorado Wild and the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council also challenges recent Forest Service actions modifying their earlier decision to make it easier for the developer to begin construction
Friends of Wolf Creek Update - November 22, 2006
Court Suspends “Village” Construction – Another Wild Winter at Wolf Creek
Wolf Creek development tangled with political ties
Mike Soraghan - Feb 3, 2006 - Denver Post
Ex-forest official disputes OK of Wolf Creek roads
Electa Draper, April 5, 2006 - Denver Post
Inspector: Access roads properly approved
Denver Post Newsroom, Sept 9, 2006
Finishing with:
“However, the retired official, Ed Ryberg, said Friday that he stands by comments made in an April story in The Denver Post, which accurately portrayed his concerns.
He said the environmental review that resulted in authorization of two access roads for the project was fundamentally flawed. He further said that Rey’s deputy, Tenny, involved himself with McCombs’ access problems to a degree Ryberg found unusual and that Tenny made efforts to help McCombs.
“Ryberg said he could not say he had direct knowledge of the actual impact and result of Tenny’s efforts on other Forest Service officials who made the key decisions regarding the project.”
E-mails link Wolf Creek developer and (Tetra Tech Inc)
Fort Collins Coloradoan, Judith Kohler - March 4, 2006
Magistrate recommends extension of injunction in Wolf Creek case
June 6, 2007, AP, Denver Post
Scale back oversized plans for pristine area
December 17, 2007, Denver Post Newsroom
Feds agree to redo environmental review of proposed ski village
Feb 19, 2008, AP, Denver Post
Wolf Creek development stalled by court settlement
Feb 19, 2008, Matt Hildner, Pueblo Chieftain
Wolf Creek Village Presentation from Colorado Wild -- Part 4
“… 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, …
Wolf Creek Village Presentation from Colorado Wild -- Part 5
Feasibility Analysis - Village at Wolf Creek Land Exchange Proposal - USDA-USNF - January 18, 2011
Wolf Creek Village Presentation from Colorado Wild -- Part 6
Wetlands and ‘old-growth’ fens heat up Wolf Creek debate.
by Adam Howell, Durango Telegraph
normal 404 wetlands permitting process
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 …”
Alberta Park, South San Juan Wilderness, to the Weminuche Wilderness.
Wolf Creek Village Presentation from Colorado Wild -- Part 7
When the Forest Service does a process they do an EIS, which is just a study, and then they issue a decision. They're actually separate.
Western Lands Project: Janine Blaeloch
Western Lands Project: Janine Blaeloch Janine Blaeloch is Director of the Western Lands Project, an organization she founded in 1997. She earned a degree in Environmental Studies (B.A., University of Washington, 1989), with a self-designed program focusing on Public Lands Management and Policy. For eight years, Janine worked as an environmental planner in both the private and public sectors. Her work included preparation and analysis of numerous U.S. Forest Service environmental impact statements and planning documents.
Janine has been a forest activist since 1985. She is on the Board of Directors of Wilderness Watch. Western Lands Project, a 501c3 nonprofit organization, fights public land privatization in order to protect the environment and the public interest. Our mission is to scrutinize public land trades, sales, giveaways, and any project that would cede public land, and their impacts on habitat and wildlife, natural resources, land use, and communities. Our goal is to keep public land public. Learn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Relevancy of Wilderness –Janine Blaeloch - 2014
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Western Lands Update - summer 2009
Janine Blaeloch
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Carving Up the Commons: Congress & Our Public Lands
Janine Blaeloch - Western Lands Project 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's exactly why Clint Jones wants to do it this way.
=============================================
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