RGNF asks for patience, wait for the judge to judge.

Mike Blakeman (Public Affairs Specialist RGNF) whom I have great respect for, responded to my email.  He didn't have much to share considering this is an active court case.  He did make a request:

 "I would ask that you look at my quotes in the Durango Herald article and really think about it."

Here is what he and Dan Dallas, had to say in the Durango Herald article, followed by a few thoughts in response.

_________________________________________________

"When asked about Malecek’s “swimming with sharks” email that claims Dallas was concerned about potentially damaging information and the need to hide correspondences from FOIA, he said: 

“It’s an unfortunate use of words, certainly, but there is no, again, I was asking folks to be disciplined about working out internal questions between each other.

“I’m not interested in throwing employees under the bus, but Malecek said what he said, and that wasn’t my intent. There is no cover-up.”

Mike Blakeman, public affairs specialist for the Rio Grande National Forest, said the local Forest Service is frustrated because it is easy to pull out emails and develop stories around them.

“You have groups that want to present a particular view that supports them, so they will obviously provide emails that prove that,” Blakeman said. “And I feel like that’s what’s occurring here.”

Both men contend any claims of a cover-up or collusions with McCombs will be proved false once hearings start for the Friends of Wolf Creek’s legal complaint against the Forest Service about the most recent EIS.  

Appreciating Wolf Creek's ‘old-growth’ fens. Part one

Here is a Durango Telegraph article from December 2005, written by Adam Howell, it examines an interagency conflict that was triggered by the Army Corps of Engineers interfering with the Environmental Protection Agency's mandate to survey the Alberta Park wetlands, site of the proposed Village at Wolf Creek.

I share it because it highlights the conflicts between blindly pro-development where everything is viewed through the Land Developer's Lens - while those who are trying to assess landscapes for their own intrinsic values are rejected as valueless and ignored despite their own statutory mandates.

Though the article is ten years old, nothing has changed about the value of that wetlands, just as it is, nor about the inevitability of any development in Alberta Park at ±10,300' causing irreparable damage who's cascading consequences will negatively impact the entire watershed and the interstate international Rio Grande River plus it's stakeholders!

The fact that LMJV is moving the project a few hundred yards and slightly uphill and closer to the highway will not mitigate the unavoidable destruction.

Think before digging!

Reprinted with permission from The Durango Telegraph 
and posted here to information the interested.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Durango Telegraph

» December-29-2005 » Wetlands heat up Wolf Creek debate more at: http://no-villageatwolfcreek.blogspot.com/2012/05/durango-telegraph-village-at-wolf-creek.html Wetlands heat up Wolf Creek debate Agencies clash over mapping of ‘old-growth’ fens Skiers and snowboarders meander through the base area of Wolf Creek on Monday.  The Village at Wolf Creek, proposed not far from the current base area, is continuing  to stir up controversy. The Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental  Protection agency are currently at odds over wetlands regulation. /Photo by Todd Newcomer.  by Adam Howell   Wetlands are currently boiling with controversy in the vicinity of Wolf Creek Ski Area. According to recently obtained e-mails, two agencies are throwing jabs in a recent bout over the regulation of wetlands as they relate to the proposed Village at Wolf Creek. According to the exchange, the Army Corps of Engineers’ Albuquerque District has prevented the Environmental Protection Agency from verifying the locations of wetlands at the site of the proposed developed.