Red McCombs, Can You Hear Us Now?... NO Village at Wolf Creek! (update 10/25/22)

 

The Wolf Creek Village speculator loses third legal fight for access road atop Wolf Creek Pass.                                        Update:  Jason Blevins, The Colorado Sun

It's an essential watershed !

     

LEAVE IT ALONE !

Texas billionaire Red McCombs has spent 36 years vying for access to an inholding where he plans a resort village for 10,000 residents in the middle of this Rio Grande watershed.

Monday, Oct 24, 2022

Excerpts Via the Durango Herald

“Judge Arguello on Thursday ruled that the Forest Service should not have relied on its “flawed” and “legally deficient” 2015 environmental review of Wolf Creek Village to make its 2019 access decision. She ruled both the 2019 right of way decision by the Forest Service, just like the agency’s 2015 approval of the land exchange, was “arbitrary and capricious.”

“… confirmed an earlier ruling that the Forest Service “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 the law. …”

“We’ve never seen an honest evaluation of the environmental impacts of constructing a city of 8,000 people at over 10,000 feet atop one of snowiest locations in Colorado, probably because the impacts if revealed would be staggering,” Mark Pearson, executive director at San Juan Citizens Alliance, said in a statement.

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.