VWC Land Trade is Dead - Rio Grande Nat'l Forest, Dec 16, 2021

Texan billionaire and land speculator, Red McCombs, is back to first base and his original parcel of land in the heart of Alberta Park at upper Wolf Creek, Rio Grande National Forest, in southern Colorado.  With it's access issues, not to mention the pristine watershed they'll need to bulldoze in order to realize the developer's dreams.  

STOP the Pillage - NO Village at Wolf Creek! 

Save Alberta Park's watershed and wildlife corridor.

Link to my Open letter to Mr. McCombs and family, 

written while visiting Alberta Park mid June 2017.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Judge ends ‘Village at Wolf Creek’ land exchange

By Aedan Hannon, Durango Herald Staff Writer - December 16, 2021

… District of Colorado Judge John L. Kane officially unwound the 2015* land exchange between Rio Grande National Forest and Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture this week, ending one of the paths forward for the development of the “Village at Wolf Creek.”

The ruling confirms a major victory for environmental groups in Southwest Colorado that have fought to stop the 1,700-unit development that would have served 8,000 to 10,000 people adjacent to the remote Wolf Creek Ski Area.

“It really just ties up the bow,” said Jimbo Buickerood, the lands and forest protection program manager with the nonprofit San Juan Citizens Alliance. …

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As a friend of Wolf Creek and Alberta Park I know that special thanks goes to San Juan Citizens Alliance & San Luis Valley Ecosystems Council :

Red’s a billionaire and We Are The People. Down to brass tacks.

NO Village at Wolf Creek.

     

Durango Herald's, Jonathan Romeo wrote a story March 7th 2019 about the latest court twist in the Village at Wolf Creek saga:  "A Freedom of Information Act was filed nearly eight months ago by a coalition of environmental groups to obtain select U.S. Forest Service documents related to the controversial Village at Wolf Creek development atop Wolf Creek Pass. Two-hundred-and-thirty days later, and well past the Forest Service’s 20-day deadline, not a single file has been released.

But that should change Thursday after a U.S. magistrate judge ordered the Forest Service to start releasing documents asked for in the FOIA request. The order came in response to a lawsuit filed by opponents of the proposed housing and commercial development." ... "

(click on image for better reading)

After posting quotes from yesterday's Durango Herald article, I was reading the comments.  

Dennis points to ANILCA and cries foul on behalf of Mr. McCombs, 

“There is a law that says the USFS has to grant access to inholdings.”  

Is that a fact?  There’s another side to this story that's worth listening to, particularly if you want to understand the unrelenting opposition to the notion of bulldozing a Village at Wolf Creek into Alberta Park.

Among many other things, in 1980 ANILCA was created for property owners who suddenly found themselves in a landlocked ‘inholding’ because of a newly created National Park or other federal designated areas.  Alberta Park was legally designated integral to Rio Grande National Forest since its creation in 1908.

Groups says, Federal Agency Tried to Hide Information

I try very hard to give the Rio Grande National Forest Service the benefit of the doubt, but they sure make it difficult to trust sometimes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Judge orders Forest Service to release Village at Wolf Creek documents

Environmental groups say federal agency tried to hide information

By Jonathan Romeo County and environment reporter, Durango Herald

Thursday, March 7, 2019 12:16 PM

A Freedom of Information Act was filed nearly eight months ago by a coalition of environmental groups to obtain select U.S. Forest Service documents related to the controversial Village at Wolf Creek development atop Wolf Creek Pass. Two-hundred-and-thirty days later, and well past the Forest Service’s 20-day deadline, not a single file has been released.

But that should change Thursday after a U.S. magistrate judge ordered the Forest Service to start releasing documents asked for in the FOIA request. The order came in response to a lawsuit filed by opponents of the proposed housing and commercial development.

“The purpose of FOIA is to let the public know what the government is up to,” said Travis Stills, an attorney who represents a coalition of environmental groups known as the Friends of Wolf Creek. “And this agency (Forest Service) has been trying to be secretive all the way through.” ...

Jonathan Romeo reports 7/19/2018 Village at Wolf Creek road access

Here's a look at what others are writing:

______________

July 19, 2018, by Jonathan Romeo county and environment reporter, Durango Herald

Forest Service gives Village at Wolf Creek road access

Development atop Wolf Creek Pass gets path forward

https://durangoherald.com/articles/232567-forest-service-gives-village-at-wolf-creek-road-access

In a bombshell decision, the U.S. Forest Service on Thursday gave the Village at Wolf Creek its long-desired road access to U.S. Highway 160, essentially paving the way for the proposed massive resort atop Wolf Creek Pass.

“The reason is we still have a legal requirement to provide access to landlocked parcels,” Rio Grande Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas told The Durango Herald late Thursday.

The news came as a shock to a coalition of environmental groups that for three decades have opposed what would essentially amount to a new town in a remote part of Southwest Colorado, adjacent to the relatively small Wolf Creek Ski Area.

The decision was especially jarring for environmentalists because a federal judge in May 2017 ruled the Forest Service skirted its responsibilities to protect public lands when it approved a land swap that also sought to give the Village at Wolf Creek road access to U.S. Highway 160. …

____________________

Village at Wolf Creek Access Project: New draft decision grants access to land-locked private property

By Mike Blakeman, Special to The Pagosa SUN, July 19, 2018

http://www.pagosasun.com/village-at-wolf-creek-access-project-new-draft-decision-grants-access-to-land-locked-private-property-and/

… “This has been a long, complex project and I encourage folks to learn more about its status and review the new draft decision for themselves,” added Dallas. “It’s also important to know that the land exchange option, as the selected alternative, remains on the table pending resolution of the legal process.”

The draft Record of Decision is now available for public review during a formal 45-day objection period. The objection period will run through Tuesday, Sept. 4, 2018. 

To learn more about the project, read previous comments, or to object, please visit 

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

A final decision is expected in the autumn of 2018.

________________________

Forest Service Plans to Grant Access to Wolf Creek Complex

July 19, 2018, AP

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/colorado/articles/2018-07-19/forest-service-plans-to-grant-access-to-wolf-creek-complex

… The would-be developers, a joint venture spearheaded by Texas billionaire B.J. "Red" McCombs, have sought since the 1980s to build the complex called the Village at Wolf Creek, but the property has always been cut off from U.S. Highway 160. …

… But the decision was especially jarring for the development's opponents, who thought Matsch's decision closed the book on the development.

"I've never seen anything this egregious in its disregard for the law," said Travis Stills, an attorney who represents the environmental groups opposed to the plan. "In normal times, people lose their jobs over things like this. But these are not normal times.”

The proposed road would be about 1,610 feet (491 meters) long (at the elevation of). Any proposal for the actual development would have to be approved by Mineral County officials.

The public can comment for the next 45 days on the Forest Service's proposal to grant road access. The agency is expected to announce its final decision this fall.

__________________________

The draft Record of Decision is now available for public review during a formal 45-day objection period. The objection period will run through Sept. 4. To learn more about the project, read previous comments, or to object, please visit https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=35945.  A final decision is expected in the autumn of 2018.

Village at Wolf Creek Poker update: USDA/USFS Folds, Red Holds.

With a tip of my hat to Jimbo Buickerood, at the San Juan Citizens Alliance, for alerting me to Jonathan Romeo's report in the May 10th Durango Herald on the latest Village at Wolf Creek development.  Namely, as the time limit ran out the USFS appears to have decided not to appeal Judge Matsch's decision of last May.  

Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture's Attorney Bill Leone defiantly announced that it doesn't matter to them what the USFS does.  They have gone ahead on their own and filed an appeal on Wednesday, arguing that "the environmental review was done according to the law and the land swap should be approved."

May 14th Update - USDA/USAF filed an "Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Appeal by Appellant United States"

But Judge Matsch sets this lawyerly 'misrepresentation' straight, when he clearly explained in his decision:

(Page 21 of 40)

ANALYSIS

The following aspects of the Record of Decision and the Biological Opinion that forms part of the basis for the ROD require relief under the APA. Defendants failed to consider important aspects of the issues before them, offered an explanation for their decision that runs counter to the evidence, failed to base their decision on consideration of the relevant factors, and based their decision on an analysis that is contrary to law.

(Page 39 of 40) 

The 900 public comments in the record show this heightened public awareness of the effects of human disruption of the native environment. The Rio Grande National Forest has two designated wilderness areas near the area involved in this action. It has unique features. 

Notably, responses to the public comments were prepared by the contractors who did the work. 

They would not be expected to find that work to be flawed.

What NEPA requires is that before taking any major action a federal agency must stop and take a careful look to determine the environmental impact of that decision, and listen to the public before taking action. The Forest Service failed to do that in the Record of Decision. The duty of this Court is to set it aside.

VII. ORDER

Where an agency action is found to be arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,

(Page 40 of 40)

the Court must “hold [it] unlawful and set [it] aside.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). The Court finds and concludes that Defendants‟ actions violated the APA in the respects specified in this decision.  

UPDATE Oct18th, they're baaack. Red appeals Judge Matsch's VWC decision.

So sad, nothing is ever learned.  

The McCombs have turned a deft ear to all the reasoned arguments.  Facts don’t seem to matter.  Objectively speaking, considering the community, the Rio Grande River, the Alberta Park watershed, all would best be served by that Alberta Park parcel being left alone to continue fulfilling it’s biological and hydrological services as the keystone to the Wolf Creek watershed and wilderness and an integral part of the Rio Grande National Forest from which it was absconded through a 1980s game of shady land grab poker.

Only obsessive greed and some bizarre need to despoil land for the sake of proving one’s own mastery can explain such obsession.  Here we go again.  

For a look at Senior Judge Matsch’s Order May 21, 2017 see the end of this post.

_____________________________________________________________

Village at Wolf Creek appeals decision blocking access

Opponents say Forest Service skirted its duties

By Jonathan Romeo Herald staff writer, the DURANGO HERALD, October. 16, 2017

Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture – spearheaded by Texas billionaire B.J. “Red” McCombs – has filed an appeal with the next tier of the federal court system, challenging a previous federal judge’s decision that the massive development atop Wolf Creek Pass was approved “contrary to law.”

“The Joint-Venture believes strongly the project is a good project and the Forest Service did everything it needed to do to study the environmental impacts of that project,” said Bill Leone, an attorney representing the developers. The appeal was filed Friday.  …

In May, Judge Richard P. Matsch, a senior U.S. district judge for the District of Colorado, in no uncertain terms, agreed.

“What NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) requires is that before taking any major action, a federal agency must stop and take a careful look to determine the environmental impact of that decision, and listen to the public before taking action,” Matsch wrote in his decision. “The Forest Service failed to do that.”

In September, Matsch denied a request from Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture to reconsider the May decision.

“The Forest Service cannot abdicate its responsibility to protect the forest by making an attempt at an artful dodge,” Matsch wrote in that decision. …

Judge rules agency inexplicably withheld information from public

Here's breaking news regarding one of the lawsuits that objects to the way the RGNF/USDA conducted their Environmental Impact Study for the Village at Wolf Creek Access Land Exchange which they seem to feel obligated to accommodate, which in turn would accommodate a fanciful 1980s speculative real estate adventure and the destruction of that productive wetlands.  

Perhaps somewhere in all this drawn out haggling it will occur to the powers-that-be, it's now 2015 and it's time to put to rest Red's pipe dream and start thinking about protecting that biological productive wetlands tapestry which is doing just fine as is, thank you very much.  

Considering our undeniable water challenges, Rio Grande River stakeholders would also appreciate it.

For more pictures of Alberta Park at Wolf Creek Pass, Colorado see:

http://no-villageatwolfcreek.blogspot.com/2015/06/pictures-albertapark-wolfcreekpass.html

_____________________________________________________________________________

Court slams Forest Service over Wolf Creek Village

Judge rules agency inexplicably withheld information from public

By Peter Marcus Herald staff writer

Published: - Last modified: October 01. 2015 

A Colorado U.S. District Court on Wednesday found that the Forest Service violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to conduct an adequate search of documents and did not properly explain its decision to withhold thousands of pages of documents from the public. 

Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel stopped short of ordering immediate disclosure of the documents but gave the Forest Service until Oct. 30 to conduct a new, more complete search. ... 

“The court has verified what we have been saying throughout this decision-making process,” said Matt Sandler, staff attorney for Rocky Mountain Wild.

“The Forest Service has failed to be transparent, has withheld documents and has committed resources to approving this irresponsible development while failing to keep the public informed.”

Update 6/26/15 - citizens task force visits Washington D.C.

Village at Wolf Creek faces hurdle

http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20150624/NEWS01/150629803//article/20150624/NEWS01/150629803/Village-at-Wolf-Creek-faces-hurdle-

By Peter Marcus  | June 24, 2015 |  Herald Denver Bureau

… A coalition of conservation groups filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday after the U.S. Forest Service gave the land swap the go-ahead in May. Developers would offer 177 acres of private land to the Forest Service in the Rio Grande National Forest in exchange for about 205 acres of federal land.

...

The nearly 30-year effort has been overshadowed by several previous lawsuits, all of which sought to stop the ambitious development. Developers crossed a major hurdle last month, but they fully expected additional roadblocks. That delay was realized Wednesday.

“This land exchange was completed without the full and transparent analysis of the impacts that is required by law,” said Matt Sandler, an attorney for Rocky Mountain Wild, who filed the lawsuit. “These laws are in place to protect the public interest; this Forest Service decision protects the interests of big business and billionaires.”

...

They considered a 1980 law called the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which contains a provision that requires owners of in-holdings to be given reasonable access to their property. That means year-round access for developers, officials say.

Concerns have revolved around wildlife – such as migration routes for lynx – and maintaining the integrity of the scenic treasure that surrounds Wolf Creek.

Opponents recently organized a coalition to travel to Washington, D.C., to speak with lawmakers and federal officials about the matter. ...

______________________________________________________________________

Report From Our Wolf Creek Trip To DC
By Jimbo Buickerood  |  June 26, 2015
http://sanjuancitizens.org/report-from-our-wolf-creek-trip-to-dc/

Last Friday night I camped on our national forest lands to the east and just below Wolf Creek Pass. Before snuggling into my sleeping bag, I bid a goodnight to the couple dozen elk grazing amongst the ponds and wetland fens nearby. The next morning I roamed the meadows, streamsides and forest while appreciating the thrush’s song harmonizing with the morning light.

On Monday night my pre-bedtime walk switched to bidding a stone-faced George Washington (on horse, not elk) goodnight before climbing into my bed in a Washington, DC inn. My morning walk the next day was a strident and timely effort to hop onto the Metro’s redline to arrive in time for our first meeting of the day in the Ford House Office Building – no time to listen for a bird’s song. Later that day we entered the headquarters of the Department of Agriculture – there were no elk to comfort me, but the wildlife photos on the walls assured me the agency had some interest in backcountry habitat.

There were five of us on our team – a diverse collection of conservations from Colorado and beyond who journeyed to Washington to Stop the Pillage.

Our objective was to inform administration officials and members of the Colorado federal delegation of the current status to develop (and profit from) a private inholding set amidst our public lands on the east side of Wolf Creek Pass – the one owned by that out-of-state billionaire. We were also there to listen to the experts on possible avenues to save the Wolf Creek Pass fens, forest and their resident creatures from the developers.

Most of the high level managers and elected officials (and their staff) we talked with were to some degree aware of the long and twisted history of the effort (conspiracy?) to airdrop a city of 8,000 people on the east side of Wolf Creek pass at the foot of the ski area. All were interested in an update of the situation that includes the recent signing of the Record of Decision (ROD) by Rio Grande National Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas to approve the proposed land exchange. 

You probably already know that the land exchange would give the developer direct access to Highway 160 for the first time since the private inholding “miraculously” appeared in the middle of our national forest in 1986, enabling vehicles to fill the envisioned 4,000+ parking spaces. Just thinking (and digressing) about 4,000 parking spaces in a location with an average of more than 400 inches of snow per year – perhaps “Shoveling at Wolf Creek” is the envisioned tagline for the development…..

Meanwhile, back in Washington – we emphasized our observations that the approved Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was flawed to the core as we had noted in our official 96-page Objection to the FEIS and is detailed again in the legal complaint we filed this week in federal court. If you derived two lists from the FEIS, one listing “Important Issues Analyzed” and the other “Important Issues Ignored”, the second list would be longer – much longer. The so-called scope of the FEIS was very narrow, basically it looked at the exchange of real estate parcels while ignoring the proposal of airdropping in that 8,000-person “village.” Yes, that would include those 4,000+ parking spaces where those elk were grazing, the thrush was singing and the marshmarigolds were beginning to bloom.

Our meeting hosts asked a wide range of questions regarding community interests, wildlife habitat, the environmental analysis process, involvement of various agencies, concerns of nearby landowners, specifics of the project history, and more. There was one question they did not ask, as they seemed to already know – our mettle was strong as ever and our intentions were clear, Stop the Pillage.

While making the rounds of the Capitol and departmental offices we were buoyed by the tremendous amount of support being shown by supporters of a wild Wolf Creek Pass with the thousands of letters, postcards, phone calls and petition signers weighing in as we walked the marble and granite halls and told our story. It was evident by the words and expressions of many that we met with that we were not standing alone in our nation’s capitol – they knew, we knew – that we had all of you with us.

The multi-decade effort to Stop the Pillage has been long, convoluted, strange and demanding and we would certainly would have received our Patience and Persistence badges had been this a scouting achievement effort. With the incredible public support, a wide array of committed partners, a strong Stop the Pillage strategy, and certainly the knowledge that these lands deserve to be wild (not asphalt) I feel as confident as ever we will prevail.

Together we will – Stop the Pillage!

______________________________________

Durango Herald: Village at Wolf Creek, Delayed But Not Derailed - 2/15/2014

OK, here we go.

Durango Herald headline February 15, 2014:

"Delayed but not derailed" 

Even as beetles ravage forest, the scale of Red McCombs’ plans to build a mountaintop village hinge on land swap 

By Joe Hanel Herald staff writer | 2/15/2014  

http://durangoherald.com/article/20140215/NEWS01/140219691/Delayed-but-not-derailed-

"A turning point in the three-decade battle over Wolf Creek Pass is expected next month, when the U.S. Forest Service will declare its preference on a land exchange with a Texas developer who wants to build a resort village.

"B.J. “Red” McCombs has been trying since 1986 to build the Village at Wolf Creek at the base of Wolf Creek Ski Area. His latest proposal – now five years in the making – is to swap his private land in a large meadow below the ski area for Forest Service land abutting U.S. Highway 160. 

"Rio Grande National Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas expects to make a decision on the land swap in early to mid-March. 

"Much has changed on Wolf Creek Pass since McCombs offered the land trade in 2009. … "

Courtesy of San Juan Citizens Alliance

In summer 2007, the trees of Wolf Creek Pass were still green, 

before a spruce beetle outbreak ravaged the forest.

{read the entire article at the Durango Herald}

Double play at the Village at Wolf Creek

Recently there was a must read article in the Durango Herald.

I'm trying to stay within Fair Use guidelines so I'm posting a chopped up version of the most important points.  I recommend reading the entire article at:

http://durangoherald.com/article/20121010/COLUMNISTS37/121019986/0/SEARCH/Double-play-at-the-Village-at-Wolf-Creek

The Durango Herald

Double play at the Village at Wolf Creek

by Dan Randolph

October 10, 2012

[...] 

[...] 

[...] 

To proceed with the swap, the Forest Service had an appraisal done to establish the value of the now public land parcel... The value of five single-family home sites is clearly less than the value of the proposed Village. 

[...] 

However, the appraisal that is being used to establish the value of the public land that would be traded used five single-family homes sites as the proposed use. 

The Forest Service and McCombs... can’t have it both ways. If the proposal is for the Village, then the land must be appraised for that use. Alternatively, the EIS could match the appraisal and should consider only five homes. 

[...] 

The Forest Service argues in the EIS that the agency must allow year-round highway access, of the type needed for the Village, to allow for the “reasonable use and enjoyment” of the current private land parcel. The question becomes whether “reasonable use and enjoyment” necessitates the Village. 

There are thousands of private in-holdings... Do they all have the right to the access necessary for 1,700 units?... The whole EIS is predicated on this absurd notion... The appraisal is based on the “highest and best use” of the parcel – five homes – rather than the dreams of the McCombs family. 

Before the analysis goes any farther, the public has the right to understand why the Forest Service appears willing to trade the value of five home sites to facilitate a development of more than 1,700 units. 

[...]

Dan Randolph is executive director of the San Juan Citizens Alliance.