ANILCA - Village at Wolf Creek's Trump Card.

A message for concerned citizens:

“... Regardless of any legal action, the Wolf Creek Village plan will require many more years of planning, with the developer needing a permit from the Colorado Department of Transportation to access U.S. 160 and permits from Mineral County. 

“There are a lot of opportunities for public participation on upcoming decisions that will probably stretch out for quite a long time,” Mark Pearson (with the San Juan Citizens Alliance) said. “There are enormous physical and structural limitations for a village up there. Is there enough water to support the city they are proposing to build? How are they going to get power up there? All this will require some significant planning and public scrutiny.”          ( reported by Jason Blevins )

This post is a collection of information regarding ANILCA (the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act,), and it will be updated as new information becomes available.  

It’s important because a controversial section of that Act has become LMJV’s trump card in forcing the USDA-USFS into supporting their development wishes, rather than pursuing a strategy of ecological caution and getting Alberta Park returned to the RGNF.

As for ANILCA §3210(a), basically when vast tracks of Alaska lands became part of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, this provision was added to the follow up ANILCA Act of 1980.  The intention was to guarantee private land owners (that now found themselves landlocked within the newly established federally owned lands) road access.

Whereas at Alberta Park, RGNF, is a situation where the parcel of land was torn away from the Rio Grande National Forest by some heavy handed '80 style Washington DC political wheeling and dealing, that had USDA rejecting their own Rocky Mtn. Region USDA-USFS experts' considered facts and reversing their decision to reject Red McComb original devious land swap offer.  

The Alberta Park parcel, in the middle of Wolf Creek watershed should never have been removed from the Rio Grande National Forest to begin with.  It was and is a mistake that I believe deserves being reversed in light of contemporary Rio Grande River Basin water issues, and ecological common sense.

ANILCA §3210. Access by owner to nonfederally owned land

VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses #11, #12 #13

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2018

Index of VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses. 33 issues addressed 

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

My post of the "Index of the VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses" has been amazingly well visited.  Ironically, I also put together a series of posts of highlights from those 33 responses.  Then I ran out of steam and it didn't seem important, and other matters were, and I was gone, now I'm thinking perhaps it's more important than I thought and that it would be good to post them after all.

___________________________________________________________________

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 

November 2018 

Contents 

Issue 11: New information and stale (dated) analysis requires new NEPA process

Issue 12: ANILCA as preferred alternative is not compared to other alternatives

Issue 13: The consideration of connected actions and indirect and cumulative impacts in the DEIS is inadequate

Village at Wolf Creek Final Record of Decision Alternative 3 ANILCA

From: Guy E. Blackwolf, B.S. Wildlife Science; B.S. Rangeland Resources, NEPA Planner
February 27, 2019

Dear Interested Public:

Good Afternoon, you are receiving this email as an outreach to inform you as a participant in the comment and or objection process that the Final Record of Decision (ROD) regarding the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, Alternative 3 ANILCA is now signed and published for public access on the Rio Grande National Forest webpage. The signature date is February 27, 2019.

The two attachments above are the public notice letter and the ROD. Please see information below for alternative access information if more copies or reference are needed regarding the project in the future.

The direct link to the decision document on our public website is at https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/78763_FSPLT3_4624849.pdf

The main link to the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project is in the attached letter and restated here in the email for ease of access: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=35945. Upon reaching the webpage please click on the Decision tab; the list in the decision section has a + sign for expandable links.

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,

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. )

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?

VWC-DEIS 1.10 ANILCA 1980 - road access rights

{updated 9/2/12}
Reviewing the VWC-DEIS you'll notice a number of points worth a closer look. To facilitate that I will use this blog for my study notes, organized into single issue threads. Each will quote the USDA Forest Service - Village at Wolf Creek Access Project - Draft Environmental Impact Statement section in question.
 

{For clarity I have added breaks between sentences and highlights where appropriate.  Wording has not been altered.}

~ ~ ~ 

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)