INDEX of VWC-EIS ...

Contents 

Issue 1: The village proposal expands impacts of the federally permitted ski area development

Issue 2: Judicial orders preclude reliance on FEIS

Issue 3: The Forest Service has never made Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture’s proposal (ANILCA alternative) available for review by the public or other local, State, and Federal agencies with jurisdiction and control over the Wolf Creek Ski Area complex 

Issue 4: The purpose and need and designation of the NEPA “Federal Action” are invalid

Issue 5: The FEIS perpetuates the same structural flaws addressed by the previous injunction and settlement

Issue 6: The range of alternatives considered is inappropriately narrow

Issue 7: Alternatives involving mitigation measures and ANILCA terms and conditions were not analyzed

Issue 8: The no-action alternative is inappropriately dismissed

Issue 9: The Forest Service failed to incorporate the input of several key cooperating agencies

Issue 10: ANILCA and existing Forest Service regulations do not require enhanced road access be provided to the federally encumbered Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture parcels

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

Issue 14: The property appraisal confirms adequate access and comparable properties exist

Issue 15: The effects on wetlands are inadequately analyzed

Issue 16: The ANILCA alternative would lead to a loss of Canada lynx habitat and reduced functioning of an important Canada lynx linkage

Issue 17: The proposed decision would violate standards, guidelines, and objectives for lynx conservation

Issue 18: Spruce bark beetle impacts on lynx habitat requires additional analysis

Issue 19: The proposed conservation measures would not be effective in reducing impacts to lynx nor promoting recovery to a full, viable population

Issue 20: The Lynx Conservation Strategy was developed without any public involvement, in violation of NEPA

Issue 21: Application of any conservation measures is at best uncertain

Issue 22: The action alternatives would harm other wildlife

Issue 23: The action alternatives would reduce water quality

Issue 24: Lack of mitigation measures

Issue 25: Water supply for either action alternative may not be sufficient or reliable

Issue 26: In violation of NEPA, the FEIS fails to analyze the feasibility of, and the possible impacts from, a grade separated interchange at the village access road with Highway 160

Issue 27: The FEIS fails to analyze the comparative impacts of expanding federal control via the scenic easement

Issue 28: Failure to reinitiate consultation for the yellow-billed cuckoo pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

Issue 29: Bias and proponent control of the third party NEPA contractor was built into the contract

Issue 30: Failure to consider new information

Issue 31: Failure to consider the best available scienceIssue 32: Failure to adhere to NEPA’s public involvement mandates

Issue 33: Reasonable use and enjoyment that minimizes environmental effects requires an analysis of the visual effects to the congressionally designated Continental Divide National Scenic Trail

VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses. 

November 15, 2018

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=35945

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.

Index of VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses.

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

33 issues addressed 

Village at Wolf Creek Access Project Draft 11/15/18
Objection Issues and Responses 

Contents 

Issue 1: The village proposal expands impacts of the federally permitted ski area development

Issue 2: Judicial orders preclude reliance on FEIS

Issue 3: The Forest Service has never made Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture’s proposal (ANILCA alternative) available for review by the public or other local, State, and Federal agencies with jurisdiction and control over the Wolf Creek Ski Area complex 

Issue 4: The purpose and need and designation of the NEPA “Federal Action” are invalid

Issue 5: The FEIS perpetuates the same structural flaws addressed by the previous injunction and settlement

Dear Village Wolf Creek Objectors: It's full speed ahead. USFS-USDA

The US Forest Service-USDA sent out a letter to ‘objectors' of the Village at Wolf Creek EIS announcing that they’ve granted road access to the Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture's inholding.  It lays out their rationale for opening the door for Red’s destructive 1980s pipe-dream speculative venture, known as the Village At Wolf Creek.  

What's to say except that the action will be shifting over to Mineral County Commissioners and their Land Use Office.  After the Dear Objector letter, I share contact information for Mineral County. 

I don't imagine they are looking forward to the controversy heading their way.  There's a lot of hostility, tension, hopelessness out there these days, still we are a community, lets be respectful, polite and willing to explain ourselves by speaking directly to each others concerns, rather than past each other.  Lordie knows hostility will only spiral into more hostility, something this country definitely doesn't need any more of.

RGNF responses to July 31st challenge.

I shared my previous post, which presented the FriendsofWolfCreek.org's challenges to the RGNF/USDA interpretation of their conflicting legal mandates and how it's playing out with the Alberta Park Parcel, with the RGNF Supervisor's office and received the following response from Public Affairs Specialist Mike Blakeman.  I have added a few paragraph breaks for clarity, but haven't altered anything else.  Nor do I have any comments to add. I hope you find the information useful.

Forest Service

Rio Grande National Forest, Supervisor's Office

Hi Peter, 

I read your blog and maybe the following from the Draft Record of Decision will help add a little clarity.

In June 2015, a lawsuit was filed challenging my 2015 ROD but the land exchange was completed subject to a stipulation that would allow “unwinding” the exchange in the event of an adverse ruling.

On May 19, 2017, the district court held that the Forest Service abdicated its duty to consider imposing deed restrictions on the federal land to be exchanged, that the power to impose deed restrictions demonstrated “actual power to control” the private development and this failure led the Forest Service to unlawfully limit its NEPA analysis. 

Questioning RGNF/USDA's Village at Wolf Creek response.

Recently I asked Dan Dallas a couple questions which he kindly answered.   I reprinted Supervisor Dallas's complete response July 23rd.  Today I was able to review Rocky Mountain Wilds' writeup at http://www.friendsofwolfcreek.org/background/ and I must say the information contradicts the supervisor's simple response and the Friends of Wolf Creek produced the supporting quotes from Judge Matsch's decision which I share in this post.  

I understand that officials do follow 'The letter of the law' - but what's left unsaid is, which letters of the law have they chosen to follow.  I don't have the answers, that's for the lawyers to spend yet more months and years haggling over.  

In the end, for me, all I know is down to Earth physical reality, and if you take that into account everything screams for Red McCombs' 80s Pipe Dream to once and for all be laid to rest. Leave Alberta Park alone!

http://www.friendsofwolfcreek.org/background/

A Detailed Recent History VWC

Canada lynx factor in lawsuits over Village at Wolf Creek

On account of the Village at Wolf Creek development once again being engulf in a legal quagmire, (where the process grinds along at a glacial pace), it seems nothing has been happening.  

But, as Gail Binkly, editor of the Four Corners Free Press, reports in their October issue some significant things are happening.  

Since she's done such a clear job of explaining, I asked permission to reprint her article and she said sure.  I've added the highlights.  Not much to add, except for thank you Gail.

___________________________________________

Cat fight: 

The threatened Canada lynx is a factor in lawsuits over the Village at Wolf Creek

Gail Binkly, October 10, 2016, FourCornersFreePress.com

The future of a seldom-seen feline and the fate of a luxury development on Wolf Creek Pass, seemingly distinct issues, are inextricably entangled.

The status of the shy, snow-loving Canada lynx, listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, influences discussions about the proposed resort, while the final decision about the project – whenever it comes – will certainly impact the animal.

The lynx, a threatened species,
is a factor in discussions about the controversial 

Village at Wolf Creek proposal in Colorado’s southern San Juan Mountains.

photo credit: Colorado Parks and Wildlife

A recent court decision has complicated the picture. On Sept. 7, a U.S. District Court in Montana ruled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had wrongly decided not to include southern Colorado when it designated critical habitat for the rare animal. 

In a lawsuit brought by five environmental nonprofits including WildEarth Guardians, Chief District Judge Dana L. Christensen ordered the service to reconsider its “final rule” regarding lynx habitat, issued two years previously.

Court proceedings are also a big part of the picture regarding the “Village at Wolf Creek,” a Texas billionaire’s proposed development high on the snowy pass, south of U.S. Highway 160.