An information source for conservationists wanting to become proactive in the struggle to protect Alberta Park from development. ~ ~ ~
This is a collection of essays and information sources arguing for Mr. B.J. “Red” McCombs to retract his ill considered development plans and return his Alberta Park parcel back to its rightful fold within the Rio Grande National Forest ~ ~ ~
Leavell Properties requested 420 acres of U.S. Forest Service (USFS) land on the east flank of Wolf Creek Pass in exchange for 1,631 acres of degraded rangeland they owned in Saguache County. Their aim was to develop 200 residential units adjacent to the Wolf Creek Ski Area. Colorado’s then Congressman Hank Brown interfered with this process. The USFS denied the exchange due to concerns surrounding “a decrease in public values;” but two weeks later, the USFS withdrew the denial decision and, without providing a valid reason, approved the transfer of 300 acres to Leavell.
1986 - Forest Service Environmental Assessment anticipated 200 residential units
* Deemed “Not in the Public Interest”, denied Feb. 20, 1986
* Opposite decision issued March 6, 1986
Scenic Easement attached to the property as condition of exchange
Ryan Bidwell’s informative VWC backstory, given in Pagosa Springs back in 2009, at about the end of the first LMJV epoch, and the beginning of Red McCombs' land swap epoch, which ended a couple years ago. I've transcribed the talk and added some important links where appropriate.
This problem will flash back into the limelight once the Court hands down its decision and Leavell McCombs Joint Venture announces it's updated development plans for their high altitude luxury village on top of Alberta Park the hydrological heart of the Wolf Creek watershed.
Ryan Bidwell’s informative VWC backstory, given in Pagosa Springs back in 2009, at about the end of the first LMJV epoch, and the beginning of Red McCombs' land swap epoch, which ended a couple years ago. I've transcribed the talk and added some important links where appropriate.
What follows is part two of a three part series and it's intended to help inform a younger generation about this decades old unresolved issue. A problem that will come back into the public limelight once the Court hands down its decision regarding the access road in the next months.
I intend to produce a series of informative write-ups dedicated to explaining why allowing LMJV to bulldoze a luxury "Village at Wolf Creek" into Alberta Park (~10,300’),- the hydrological heart of the Wolf Creek watershed in the Rio Grande National Forest - is inviting irreparable environmental damage, along with their own business failure, resulting in region wide unintended financial burdens.
The evidence will argue that it’s in everyone’s best interest (including potential naive investors) to preserve this high elevation hydrological heart of the Wolf Creek watershed, which flows into the much beleaguered Rio Grande River, to leave it alone.
I recognize I’m a life long unabashed tree-hugger, so it’s self-evident to me. That’s why I’m going to make a point to minimize my own opining, and to allow the efforts of various authorities and experts to do the explaining.
Since I've long been impressed with Ryan Bidwell’s informative 2009 backstory, given in Pagosa Springs, at about the end of the first LMJV epoch, and the beginning of Red McCombs' land swap epoch, which itself ended a couple years back - I've transcribed the talk.
What follows is a three part series, each featuring three (10ish minute) segments and a transcription that I annotated with links to further details where appropriate.
We filed suit on Tuesday to challenge the US Forest Service's approval to grant increased road access to the Village at Wolf Creek
As you may remember, last year, the Rio Grande National Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas signed a Final Record of Decision that provided expanded access across National Forest System lands to the private parcel created during the controversial 1986 land exchange. That private parcel, proposed home to the "Village" at Wolf Creek, is in the middle of a critical widllife corridor between two wilderness areas vital to threatened Canada lynx and home to rare fen wetlands and the headwaters of the Rio Grande.
The decision was based on the same environmental analysis that the late Judge Matsch deemed "an artful dodge" and ruled was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law on Endangered Species Day in 2017. In fact, Courts have repeatedly blocked attempts to fast track approvals and skimp on environmental analysis and public input.
We had called for the Forest Service to conduct a new environmental impact statement that fully considered the impact to species like the Canada lynx, but the Forest Service decided instead to give the developers increased road access.
Well, on Tuesday, we, along with our partners, once again filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate that Final Record of Decision.
A coalition of environmental groups Tuesday filed a challenge of the U.S. Forest Service’s approval last year to grant road access to the Village at Wolf Creek, a decision that ultimately paves the way for the proposed massive development atop Wolf Creek Pass.
“Once again, it falls to the public to demand protection of Wolf Creek Pass, a place long cherished by generations of visitors and residents alike,” said Jimbo Buickerood, lands program manager at San Juan Citizens Alliance, in a prepared statement. “Though the Forest Service might be inclined to renege on its stewardship responsibilities, we are ready to insist on compliance with the law and the public’s will.” …
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.
Denver, CO – The United States Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service has declined to appeal an Order issued last May by Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch setting aside decisions approving a land exchange that would provide necessary road access for the long-sought Village at Wolf Creek development. The agency failed to file the required appeal brief by the May 9th deadline despite having originally notified the court last November of its intent to appeal.
Federal Judge Sets Aside Forest Service Wolf Creek Land Exchange
Any future Village Proposal Must Address Development Impacts on the National Forest and Lynx
Denver, CO — The Honorable Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch issued an Order today affirming 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 law.” This Order concludes another chapter in this decades long saga to protect Wolf Creek pass from a large scale residential and commercial development that could accommodate 8,000 to 10,000 visitors.
“This ruling is an incredible victory for the flora and fauna that rely on Wolf Creek pass for their survival,” stated Tehri Parker, Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Wild. “This order specifically recognizes the ‘unique’ environmental qualities of this region, and the role that it plays as a wildlife movement corridor between the Weminuche and South San Juan Wilderness areas. We couldn’t be happier with this outcome and getting this great news on Endangered Species Day!”
I like to think of this blog as a sort of an information kiosk for concerned citizens, feel free to copy and share. Please remember to include the original sources where appropriate.
Wolf Creek Pass in southwestern Colorado forms the pristine headwaters of the Rio Grande and San Juan Rivers. Bridging the South San Juan and Weminuche Wilderness Areas, the pass is beloved for stunning vistas and ample opportunities for backcountry recreation along the Continental Divide.
It is also one of the most biologically-important areas in the Southern Rockies, providing habitat and migration pathways for elk, deer, black bear and the threatened Canada lynx. In fact, Wolf Creek Pass hosts some of the best remaining, critical and high-functioning lynx habitat in the state.
Recently, the U.S. Forest Service approved a land exchange with a private developer, which will set the stage for a large scale development – 8,000 year round residents in over 1,700 units -- in some of the most important wildlife habitat in the heart of West.
Impacts of the proposed development threaten local businesses in nearby Archuleta and Rio Grande Counties, unspoiled backcountry recreation opportunities along the Continental Divide, water supply and water quality for downstream communities, rare and ecologically valuable fen wetlands, one of the most critical wildlife corridors in the Southern Rocky Mountains, and the scenic beauty of our Colorado wild spaces.
Please tell USDA Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell to stop the destruction of Wolf Creek Pass, an irreplaceable Colorado treasure.
Dec 7, 2015 — In October, we won a major victory when the courts ruled that the US Forest Service had withheld thousands of pages of documents from public scrutiny related to a controversial land exchange on the pass. This ruling forces the Service to fully disclose documents pertaining to this decision.
While this was a great victory, we still have a lot of work to do. Over the next few months, we will be facing off against attorneys for the Forest Service and Red McCombs. If we prevail, the "village" will be stopped in its tracks while the Forest Service is forced to conduct a thorough and transparent study of the environmental impacts of the development. We know that a real study of these impacts will give us the ammunition we need to stop this development forever.
Edited Saturday evening 6/18/2015 I've been out of state traveling untethered from the internet, so it was a nice homecoming surprise to read the Durango Herald's July 15th story by Peter Marcus reporting on a new VWC development, pun intended. Leavell McCombs Joint Venture agrees not to conduct any on-site construction activity until after the current lawsuit is settled. The lawsuit objects to various failures in the EIS process along with its unjustifiably narrow scope of review. It seems to me the best way to describe the problem is that the Rio Grande National Forest (USDA) has restricted their entire line of inquiry and regulatory hurdles on the a priori assumption that construction of a resort must happen up at Alberta Park. A judgment call many vehemently object to since it totally ignores the value of the current biologically productive landscape that is the Alberta Park "parcel." A keystone of the entire Wolf Creek basin!
Towards Alberta Park including Alberta Park Reservoir
Another reason it matters is that this is source-waters for the interstate, international Rio Grande River.
Image from "Cry Wolf Creek: fanatic following at Colorado's snowiest spot" June 28, 2010
From under Elma's chairlift towards Alberta Park and a pond.
The following is the official press release giving further details.
_____________________________________
For Immediate Release: July 14, 2015 No Construction on Wolf Creek Pass until Lawsuit is Decided
Denver, CO – Conservation organizations, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Leavell-McCombs Joint
Venture signed an agreement today that will halt all construction and development on two disputed
land parcels at the top of Wolf Creek Pass in southwestern Colorado. The agreement will maintain
the physical status quo on Forest Service and private land while a lawsuit filed by the conservation
organizations works its way through Federal Court.
Opponents of the proposed Village at Wolf Creek have vowed to continue their fight against the controversial development after Rio Grande Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas last month issued a final decision to approve a land exchange between the Forest Service and Texas Billionaire Red McCombs. IDTV
_________________________________________
I send Rio Grande National Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas the following questions and he was kind enough to respond:
3:00 Forest Service slow to comply with court order to turn over documents
Supervisor Dallas: From what I have been told by those who are more directly involved, the FS is complying with a schedule for providing documents to the court.
3:15 The brewing illegal conflict of interest scandal of Deputy Forester Gustafson.
She developed content for the Environmental Impact Statement, then served as the reviewing officer of her own handy work when objections to the EIS were filed.
Supervisor Dallas:I can say definitively she (Maribeth Gustafson) did NOT develop content for the EIS.
CC: Not surprisingly she dismissed all objections. - {the project must move a head, eh} but wait.
4:30 Dan Dallas says Deputy Forester Gustafson was not involved in the "work of the day to day analysis process" which RGNF Supervisor Dallas was in charge of.
CC: Hmmm, so what exactly does that mean?
Supervisor Dallas:See above. To summarize, the analysis process took place at the Forest Level. The Regional Office was contacted as necessary for technical advice to the Forest associated with the analysis but this generally was with technical experts such as realty specialists, recreation specialists, wildlife biologists, and others for example, not regional line officers such as Deputy Regional Foresters.
CC: What did Gustafson have to do with producing this Village at Wolf Creek Access Environmental Impact study?
Supervisor Dallas:Lands and Land Adjustments is in her portfolio (basically a division of labor between the two Deputy Regional Foresters) so the regional oversight of the project was her responsibility. The actual responsibility for her was to at a broad, regional level, through interactions with the Director of Lands in the Regional Office, keep track of the project so she could brief the Regional Forester on any issues associated with the conduct and progress of the analysis process if necessary.
CC: Why was she chosen to do the review of objections?
Supervisor Dallas:Explained above. She was the person responsible for reviewing the objections.
One last comment. Your use of the term “brewing” conflict of interest scandal should be very telling to the readers of your blog. Region 2 of the Forest Service encompasses 5 states, 11 National Forests and 8 National Grasslands. At any point in time there are multiple complex and controversial EIS analyses processes going on that often create intense controversy when the decision is rendered by a local Forest Service line officer.
In addition, there are many multiple more National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) actions called Environmental Assessments (EA’s) and Categorical Exclusions (CE’s) in various stages going on also on every Forest and Grassland. The Wolf Creek project is no different in regards to controversy unfortunately. A person in the Deputy Regional Forester position, whether it’s DRF Gustafson or any other person in this position simply does not have time to delve into the specifics of a local project and certainly not develop content as implied by accusations that are being made now in the response from the objectors to my decision.
This so called scandal is indeed being brewed I’ll grant you, but is it from actual heat or rapid stirring? Your readers can decide that. Thanks again for your interest and contact for the other side to the story.
I thank Rio Grande National Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas for his interest and taking the time to explain. Regarding Forester Gustafson I was simply asking, I did not, and I do not imply wrong doing, that would be for others who have way more information and insight than I do to judge.
I do want to make clear that the glaring scandal that I see is allowing Alberta Park to be written off with such casual disregard for what will be lost to the America people and the Rio Grande National Forest. Shifting that speculative development a couple hundred yards over isn't going to mitigate cascading damages worth a fig.
Update June 9th.
I received an email from Mike Blakeman Public Affairs Specialist for the RGNF, he has been out on personal leave and was catching up with me. He included one comment I feel honor bound to share:
I’m dealing with flooding concerns and a fire at the moment (yep, both), so don’t have time to dig deeply into the Village controversy at the moment, except to say that to the best of my knowledge there have been no conflict of interest boundaries breached. One part I have not seen mentioned is that a regional objection review team (composed of people from other forests and the regional office who had nothing to do with the Village project) reviewed the objections and then provided their recommendations to Maribeth Gustafson.
