Why start this 2024 No-Village at Wolf Creek series?

Albert Park meadow

Here we are in 2024 and the epic struggle to save Alberta Park, in the hydrological heart of the Rio Grande National Forest, and the Wolf Creek watershed, which feeds into the Rio Grande river, slogs on.  

Since Ryan Bidwell’s 2009 presentation, LMJV continued pursuing their land trade strategy, but friends of Wolf Creek went to court again and again, ultimately their  land-trade proposal was rejected by the courts.  Nevertheless, the RGNF rushed an approval of the developer’s access road.  Which various Friends of Wolf Creek also successfully challenged.  

In October 2022 a federal judge invalidated the Forest Service’s approval. The Forest Service appealed that decision in April 2023, with Rocky Mountain Wild filing a response brief.  In January of this year oral arguments were heard, and a ruling is expected sometime this year.

When that decision comes down, the smoldering Alberta Park issue will reignite as LMJV start warming up their bulldozers in anticipation, and it will be time, once again, for the far flung Friends of Wolf Creek to remember: 

NO Pillage of a Village at Alberta Park, Wolf Creek, Rio Grande National Forest.  

But what to do?  Especially those of us without money or connections, can we make a difference?  If you consider yourself a “Friend of Wolf Creek” how can you make a stand that matters?

I’ve been thinking about the possibility of a good old fashioned mass letter writing campaign of persuasion.  Individuals reaching out with their own unique rational reasoning and bold requests.  

We could begin with questioning why the Rio Grande National Forest powers-that-be have so consistently avoided facing the reality of the environmental concerns, and the many unavoidable damaging impacts this project would guarantee.  An attitude that is reflected in USDA-RGNF’s decidedly pro-development decisions over these past decades?

A campaign of persuasion that reaches out to all relevant stakeholders, governmental representatives and agencies, along with private entities including the McCombs’ family itself.  (somewhere near the end of this series, I intend to post a list of relevant recipients) 

What message?  Perhaps something along the lines of . . .

1. Please recognize that Alberta Park is a near pristine, biologically productive, irreplaceable landscape - and the hydrological heart of that Wolf Creek watershed.
2. This snowshed and its melt-waters feed into the already stressed Rio Grande River and deserve to be considered a treasured natural resource.
3. Ask for help in proactively pushing for a resolution to this land speculators’ threat to the health of this precious wetlands, ancient fens resource, wildlife habitat and key migration corridor across the Great Divide.
4. Regarding Leavell McCombs Joint Venture’s pipe dream.  Demand that USDA-RGFS reverse its decidedly pro-development blind-sidedness - towards the irreversible damages this development promises for that landscape. 
5. Enlighten RGNF & people in general on the impracticality of a for-profit development scheme, being able to provide the large array of expensive municipal services that a viable small town requires.  For instance, who’s going to pay for and staff a high elevation medical clinic, considering the 10,300 foot elevation of this particular dream town of thousands?
6. Ask USDA-RGFS to redirect their focus on efforts towards accommodating a way of returning the control and protection of Alberta Park, to the Rio Grande National Forest (from whence it was snatched back in 1986.).
7. This started as a go-go 1986 strategic speculators' land-trade scheme that went bust because of greed and rampant dishonesty - Can we please strive to finish with another land-trade, one that allows LMJV to repair a grievous wrong against the National Public Trust, by returning Alberta Park in exchange for another more realistic parcel.  There’s nothing but bruised egos standing in the way of such a resolution.

I believe that We The People have a right to assert our claim upon this Alberta Park parcel of land.  Land that was underhandedly ripped away from the Rio Grande National Forest in 1986.  It deserves to be returned to the protection of the Rio Grande National Forest and our American legacy.  Let it continue being the pristine constructive biologically productive member of the RGNF and the Rio Grande River source waters landscape, that it has always been.  

For my part, I’m hoping to spend the next couple months, supporting my above assertions with a series of posts that will bring together the factual details and hopefully help inform some curious Friends of Wolf Creek, along with newbies to this issue.

Thank you,

Peter

PS. Please understand I am simply an individual off in rural Colorado, doing my thing and hoping it might be a constructive part of this effort to save Alberta Park, and ultimately get it back under protection.  If you want do something, please be sure to contact one of the organizations that have been doing all the heavy lifting.

• Friends of Wolf Creek
• 
  
• Rocky Mountain Wild
• 
  
• San Juan Citizens Alliance
• 
  
• San Luis Valley Ecosystem 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.” ...

Petition: Keep Wolf Creek Wild - Change.org - Rocky Mtn Wild

Judge Matsch responded: “I understand the public interest but there is also the natural environment’s interest, which is what this is all about.”

Photo courtesy of: Alex Pullen

I’m a bit embarrassed that I didn’t know about this petition until today, but its a crowded life and there’s only so much bandwidth.  That’s why networking is important - and why I believe there needs to be more communication between like-minded folks if we hope to have real impact.  But I reckon that’s a different story.

Rocky Mountain Wild started this petition to 

Rio Grande National Forest Service Supervisor Dan Dallas

For 30 years conservation groups, outdoor enthusiasts, and local residents have fought to protect Wolf Creek Pass in southwestern Colorado. 

At over 10,000 feet in elevation, the pass connects two wilderness areas and is a hot spot for biodiversity. Wildlife, including black bear, elk, and the rare Canada lynx use this area to move between large undeveloped swaths of forest. Irreplaceable fen wetlands are the home to hundreds of plant and bird species. And, the deep winter snowpack provides much-needed water to downstream communities and agriculture.

The pass is also the home of Wolf Creek Pass Ski Area, one of Colorado's last remaining family-owned ski areas. Wolf Creek is cherished for providing a nostalgic ski experience. Free from traffic, long lines, condos, nightclubs and chain restaurants, skiers at Wolf Creek are treated to deep powder at affordable prices.

Unfortunately, a questionable land exchange in 1987 gave Texas billionaire B.J. "Red" McCombs a private parcel at the base of the ski area. Mr. McCombs and his business partners have repeatedly tried to develop a massive "village" for 10,000 people on this site. They have been stopped by the Courts, who have consistently found that the developers have not conducted a complete environmental analysis of their scheme.

Now, however, hidden from public view and input, the developers are attempting to brush Federal Court decisions and environmental laws aside and pressure local Forest Service staff into granting them increased access to their parcel. Their goal is to start construction this summer.

You can help us keep Wolf Creek Pass wild! Please sign the petition urging Rio Grande National Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas to uphold Federal Court decisions and stand up to back channel pressures. Together, we can stop the bulldozers on Wolf Creek Pass.

Sign at https://www.change.org/p/dan-dallas-keep-wolf-creek-wild

_________________________________________________

Some important background information can be found at:

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

RGNF Supervisor responds to questions.

Rio Grand National Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas, did me the courtesy of a prompt and thorough response to the email I shared in the previous post.  Here I share his email which I have reformatted for clarity without altering any of his words, beyond bolding some of them.  It's food for thought and creates a sort of baseline to work with, or argue against, as the case may be. 

___________________________________________

Village at Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Statement and draft Record Of Decision 

are available on-line at: 

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

Comments are to be sent to before September 4th: 

Reviewing Officer, Tammy Whittington, Deputy Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, Region 2, 1617 Cole Blvd., Building 17, Lakewood, Colorado 80401 or email r02admin_review@fs.fed.us. 

______________________________________________________ 

With that I'll give the stage to Dan Dallas and will save further commentary for future posts.

______________________________________________________________

Subject: Why are comments on VWC recent Draft Decent being limited.

Response received Monday, 1:46PM, July 23, 2018

Dallas, Dan -FS

Peter, good questions, I will answer below within your letter below, highlighted in yellow using direct quotes from documents available on our website.  

Correction! Does RGNF restrict comments on Village at Wolf Creek Draft Decision?

I'll leave my letter as it was and simply add Dan Dallas' clarification.

Open letter of inquiry to RGNF/USDA

Dan Dallas clarifies, "There is no limitation on who can comment, this is a mischaracterization of the process that we’ve tried our best to clearly describe 

What is limited is who has standing to file an objection of the decision because it (decision) is based on an existing EIS which has already been commented on. ..."   (7/23/18)

_______________________________________________________
Village at Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Statement and draft Record Of Decision 
are available on-line at: 
https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=35945. 

Comments are to be sent to before September 4th: 

Reviewing Officer, Tammy Whittington, Deputy Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, Region 2, 1617 Cole Blvd., Building 17, Lakewood, Colorado 80401 or email r02admin_review@fs.fed.us. 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

Dear RGNF Supervisor Dallas,

Draft Decision Grants Access for Village at Wolf Creek - LMJV

So it goes, obsession is obsession.  Still times they are a changing and the future isn't the jack pot it used to be, http://climate.colostate.edu/~drought/

___________________________________________

New draft decision grants access 

to land-locked private property

MONTE VISTA, Colo., – Near the top of Wolf Creek Pass in southern Colorado, a parcel of private property sits landlocked by federal lands. A new draft record of decision from the Rio Grande National Forest is designed to provide reasonable access to the 288 acre parcel via a new road corridor. The proposed road would be approximately 1,610 feet in length and would be within a 100-foot corridor with a total area of about 3.7 acres.

“This new draft decision provides the access that is legally required for private inholdings” said Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas. “Furthermore, this access option was fully analyzed in 2014, so no new analysis is needed.”
      

(45 day review and respond period ends September 4, 2018 - learn more at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=35945. )

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. 

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.  

Index of Posts - NO-Village at Wolf Creek - Rio Grande National Forest

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.

McCombs' political arm-twisting, the ugly details start coming out

I so want to believe in the integrity of the Rio Grande National Forest administrators and their Environmental Impact Study staff, but the more information comes forward the harder it gets.  

Wish I could ask Rio Grande National Forest's District Ranger Dan Dallas, when will the public's best interest receive an objective hearing?

Development of what is rightfully a part of the Rio Grande National Forest, namely Alberta Park (the virtually pristine biologically productive wetlands/watershed for the interstate, international Rio Grande River) is not some god given right for a pushy, self-interest blinded billionaire!

For further information see the Durango Herald article

Group says collusion apparent in Village at Wolf Creek development project 

Documents suggest Forest Service concealed and deleted information, allowed undue influence 

By Jonathan Romeo  

http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20160116/NEWS01/160119656&source=RSS

Highlights, from a release by the Friends of Wolf Creek coalition.

I added the shaded highlighting.

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

Forest Service “Village at Wolf Creek” Records Confirm Active Document Concealment/Destruction and Improper Influence

Documents obtained by Friends of Wolf Creek organizations (Rocky Mountain Wild, San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, San Juan Citizens Alliance and outside legal counsel Energy and Conservation Law) confirm that Forest Service personnel in the Rio Grande National Forest, Denver Regional Office, and Washington D.C. have:

1. Actively concealed and destroyed information involving the Village at Wolf Creek proposal 
2. Allowed Red McCombs to threaten Forest Service staff and influence the analysis 
3. Refused to conduct a search for relevant documents that should be available for public scrutiny unless and until compelled by a Court order