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. 

Same as it ever was, Red's saga continues.

    

{edited 1/19/16, 2:45 PM - I wrote this after an already long day and made a mess of some of dates.  My apologies, think I've finally gotten the tangled mess properly straightened out. }

This was originally posted March 21, 2012.  Considering today's news I thought it would be appropriate to dust it off a bit, update it a bunch and share.

_____________________________________________ 

The Village at Wolf Creek, It’s A Scandal  (March 21, 2012)

Let me tell you a story about a man called Red, a gambling man with a plan.  He was going to buy into Colorado's high mountain Real Estate game during those booming 1980s.  The plan, buy up a few scattered private parcels that were besmirching the lower Saguache Ranger District of the Rio Grande National Forest. It was nice land; land the Rio Grande Forest Service had been eyeing in order to consolidate ownership of that range land and clean up their map.  Red had it all figured out.

With those chips in hand Red saddled up to the public lands real estate table, proposing to trade his coveted Saguache District chips for an incredible jackpot smack in the middle of the high country, near US Highway 160 just shy of Wolf Creek Pass and the ski area smack in a beautiful productive watershed, headwaters to the Rio Grande River don't you know.  

In 1986 after due process Red’s proposal was rejected by RGNF officials because the Albert Park parcel was too precious to lose, consolidated Saguache District map be damned.

Petitioning Chief of USDA Forest Service, Tom Tidwell: Protect Alberta Park

       

Stop the destruction of Wolf Creek Pass, an irreplaceable Colorado treasure

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.

https://www.change.org/p/tom-tidwell-chief-usda-forest-service-stop-the-destruction-of-wolf-creek-pass-in-sw-colorado

www.change.org and Friends of Wolf Creek

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

Letter to: 

Chief, USDA Forest Service, Tom Tidwell

Dear Chief Tidwell, 
Recent actions by the Rio Grande National Forest have set into motion a plan that will destroy one of our nation’s most important wildlife movement corridors – Wolf Creek Pass.  

A national coalition of conservation and climate modeling experts has identified Wolf Creek Pass as one of the top ten landscapes that should receive immediate and lasting protection as part of a national climate change strategy.  

Protection of the area will: 
1) sequester carbon and advance climate change mitigation objectives; 
2) safeguard streams and aquifer sources that provide clean water for communities; and 
3) conserve vital high altitude wildlife habitat that will preserve species biodiversity in the face of climate change. 

Alberta Park (Wolf Creek) Construction Moratorium July 15, 2015

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

http://www.gocolorado.com/cry-wolf-creek-fanatic-following-at-colorados-snowiest-spot/

______________________________________________________________________

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.

Update: Lawsuit filed to Stop Wolf Creek Land Swap

Here's another slightly overdue update.

Lawsuit Filed to Stop Wolf Creek Land Swap

By Erika Brown | San Juan Citizens Alliance
June 24, 2015

We’ve been telling you that the process the Forest Service used to approve the land exchange, which paves the way for the Pillage at Wolf Creek, was highly flawed and illegal.  After sifting through tens of thousands of documents released through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), our lawyers have put together a compelling legal case.  And today we filed the lawsuit with our partners.

Meanwhile, our delegation is in Washington meeting with members of Congress and agency officials. We are educating them about why the process was so flawed, why Wolf Creek Pass deserves protection and asking for their help.

The public has been amplifying our message all along the way.  If you haven’t already, please make your voice heard.

Here is the press release regarding the lawsuit:

For Immediate Release: June 24, 2015
Media Contacts
Matt Sandler, Attorney, Rocky Mountain Wild, matt@rockymountainwild.org
Christine Canaly, Director, San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, slvwater@fairpoint.net
Dan Olson, Executive Director, San Juan Citizens Alliance danolson@sanjuancitizens.org

Conservation Organizations File Lawsuit to Stop Controversial Land Swap at Wolf Creek Pass

Denver, CO – A coalition of conservation organizations filed a lawsuit today in Federal Court to stop a controversial land exchange that would pave the way for the development of a tourist “village” to accommodate 8,000 people at the top of Wolf Creek Pass in southwestern Colorado. The land exchange, which was approved by Rio Grande Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas last month, would trade approximately 205 federal acres for 177 acres of private land within the boundaries of the Rio Grande National Forest. As a part of this exchange, the U.S. 

Government will also pay Texas billionaire Red McCombs $70,000 as a “cash equalization payment.” The land exchange connects McCombs’ private land to U.S. Highway 160, thus securing the ability for a larger population to access the developer’s private inholding.

“This land exchange was completed without the full and transparent analysis of the impacts that is required by law,” states Matt Sandler, lead attorney for Rocky Mountain Wild. “These laws are in place to protect the public interest; this Forest Service decision protects the interests of big business and billionaires.” The lawsuit asserts that the Forest Service unnecessarily limited the scope of its environmental analysis to avoid fully analyzing the impacts that the development would have on Forest Service land. 

Additionally, the suit exposes a biased and conflicted review process within the Service. “Regional Director Maribeth Gustafson, the Forest Service employee who reviewed and dismissed public objections to this land exchange, was directly involved in developing the land exchange decision – which is contrary to stated Forest Service policy. She came to the table with her mind made up,” explains Sandler.

The coalition filing the suit has also sent a delegation to Washington D.C. to meet with elected representatives, as well as members of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Our goal is to convince the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, Tom Tidwell, to take a hard look at this development, and to immediately stop any real estate transactions,” explains Jimbo Buickerood, Public Land Coordinator for the San Juan Citizens Alliance. 

“The public has been speaking out against the Pillage for almost 30 years, and we are confident that a truly independent review of this project will show that it is not in the public interest. We will not stop until our voices are heard.”

Opposition to the development has been growing, and includes local businesses, skiers, ranchers, local land owners, downstream water uses, hunters, anglers, and conservationists. “The groundswell of support to save Wolf Creek is very heartening, “ says Christine Canaly, Executive Director of the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council. “This area is so important to the health of our local environment and economy. Over 2000 people from around the state, and nation, have sent letters and messages just last week to the Forest Service in an attempt to save this special place.”

Wolf Creek pass has been nationally recognized as one of the top priority wildlife corridors for protecting biodiversity in the face of climate change. Its high elevation and deep snowpack make it prime habitat for snow dependent species like the Canada lynx and wolverine. It is also the headwaters for the Rio Grande and San Juan Rivers, which are a major water source for many downstream communities.

The lawsuit against the U.S. Forest Service was brought by: Rocky Mountain Wild, San Juan Citizens Alliance, San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, and Wilderness Workshop.

Stay updated with information at:
• http://friendsofwolfcreek.org
• http://rockymountainwild.org 
• http://slvec.org
• http://sanjuancitizens.org

____________________________________________

For a more detailed look at Mr. McCombs, you'll want to read this:

Best: Wolf Creek impasse

June 17, 2015

By Allen Best
The Denver Post
6/13/2015

In late May, Texas businessman B.J. “Red” McCombs got a land exchange with the U.S. government in southern Colorado, and it looks a lot like what he originally proposed 30 years ago. Whether it was a good thing then, or now, is another matter.

McCombs, who owned the Denver Nuggets from 1978 to 1985, has wanted to build a real estate development adjacent to the Wolf Creek Ski Area. No private land existed next to the ski area. In 1986, with partners that included the owners of the ski area, the McCombs-Leavell Joint Partnership got an island of 300 acres of land in exchange for private lands elsewhere that were added to the national forest.

The Pitcher family, owners of the ski area, at the time thought lodging at the base would be good. Many ski areas have such lodging, but not all.

But this land exchange 29 years ago was flawed at birth. At 10,000 feet in elevation, the area gets an average 485 inches of snowfall per year. There were wetlands, never a good thing if you’re planning to build a real-estate complex of more than 2,011 units, as originally proposed.

That parcel was also isolated from U.S. Highway 160, except for a seasonal gravel road that goes through the ski area. In announcing his recent approval of a reconfigured parcel of 325 acres, Dan Dallas, supervisor of the Rio Grande National Forest, said he believes he was mandated by federal law to provide a direct link to the highway. In a sense, he was fixing somebody’s past mistake.

McCombs, who was worth $1.85 billion as of December, according to Forbes magazine, is now 87. Even if he lives to be a much riper age, he still needs a permit from the state highway department and, depending upon his final development plans, a wetlands permit from the federal government and a revised development permit from Mineral County.

The Forest Service assumed 500 units. Environmental groups in Colorado have vowed to challenge the legality of the new land exchange . . .

continue at:

http://friendsofwolfcreek.org/best-wolf-creek-impasse/

June 4, 2015 - Wolf Creek Land Exchange - Inside Durango TV

Updated 6/6/2015
Supervisor Dallas responds to my questions 

June 4, 2015 - Wolf Creek Land Exchange

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncluLQFcOUM
InsideDurangoTV

Published on Jun 3, 2015

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. 

 ________________________________________________________________________

For the official documents visit; fs.usda.gov/riogrande

Also visit: http://sanjuancitizens.org/?s=village+Wolf+Creek and

http://friendsofwolfcreek.org
________________________________________________________________________

fyi:  Forest Service responds to objections to proposed Village at Wolf Creek
Hannah Grover, Daily Times | April 3, 2015
http://www.daily-times.com/four_corners-news/ci_27845626/forest-service-responds-objections-proposed-village-at-wolf

UPDATE 3/26/2015 - Looks like a done deal.

For immediate release from the Rocky Mountain Regional Office. 

Please direct objection response questions to Lawrence Lujan.

Regional Office Contact: Lawrence Lujan, 303-275-5356

Rio Grande National Forest Contact: Mike Blakeman, 719-852-6212 

Forest Service Responds to Village at Wolf Creek Access Project Objectors

GOLDEN, Colo. – The Rocky Mountain Region has completed the review of objections received on the proposed Village at Wolf Creek Access Project. 

Reviewing Officer Deputy Regional Forester Maribeth Gustafson has affirmed the original decision and offered instruction to the Rio Grande National Forest on how to proceed.

Objections were reviewed from individuals and organizations who had previously submitted specific written comments on the proposed project during scoping or other designated public comment opportunities.

Last November, a decision approved the land exchange to meet the legal obligation of the U.S. Forest Service to provide access to private property owned by Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture. 

Upon addressing the Reviewer’s instructions, the forest can sign a final Record of Decision and the land exchange can occur.

Project information, including the objection letters and responses can be found online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=35945.

USDA Forest Service News Release Feb 12, 2015

NEWS RELEASE

Village at Wolf Creek Access Project objection resolution period extended

February 12, 2015

USDA Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Region

www.fs.usda.gov/r2

740 Simms Street   Golden, CO  80401

Regional Office Contact: Mike Stearly, 303-275-5359

Rio Grande National Forest Contact: Mike Blakeman, 719-852-6212 

                            

GOLDEN, Colo. – Deputy Regional Forester Maribeth Gustafson is extending the objection resolution period an additional 30 days, as allowed under Forest Service regulations, for the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project. The current 45-day resolution period was due to end February 17.

“Due to the high volume and complexity of the objections, I have made the decision to extend the resolution period an additional 30 days,” said Gustafson. “This additional time period will allow for a thorough analysis of the objections enabling me to provide solid guidance to the Rio Grande National Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas regarding the project’s final environmental impact statement and draft decision.”

Village at Wolf Creek EIS Administrative Objection

For your information here's the introduction to the Objection filed against the Rio Grande National Forest's decision to go ahead with the LMJV land swap proposal. It was filed by a coalition of: 

Rocky Mountain Wild, 
San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, 
San Juan Citizens Alliance, 
Defenders of Wildlife, 
Wilderness Workshop, 
Colorado Mountain Club, 
EcoFlight, 
Great Old Broads for Wilderness, and 
Rocky Mountain Recreation Initiative. 

Pre-Decisional Administrative Objection
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project and Draft Record of Decision

http://friendsofwolfcreek.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Wolf-Creek-Access-Project-Administrative-Objection.pdf
{I've added the highlights}

Introduction

This objection is submitted by Rocky Mountain Wild, San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Defenders of Wildlife, Wilderness Workshop, Colorado Mountain Club, EcoFlight, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, and Rocky Mountain Recreation Initiative.

Objectors request that the Forest Service Reviewing Officer invalidate the Environmental Impact Statement and, if the project is to proceed, issue a new scoping notice to begin anew the National Environmental Policy Act Process based on consideration of the full project proposed by Levell-McCombs Joint Venture’s (LMJV): 

construction of a resort city known as the Village at Wolf Creek at the top of Wolf Creek Pass. An independent reviewing officer must be carefully chosen to handle this matter, as LMJV and its agents have conducted extensive lobbying efforts over the past thirty years at all levels of the Forest Service and within the USDA, particularly previous leadership and staff within the office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and the Environment and current staff within the USDA Office of General Counsel.

The LMJV project is within the National Forest System on a federally encumbered inholding created “to allow for the development of the lands by the proponent for uses compatible to the existing Wolf Creek Ski Area.” Draft ROD at 9. This Objection addresses issues raised by these organizations and their members, and in some instances, issues that have emerged through events occurring after the DEIS was issued or revealed through the limited subset of agency records released by the Forest Service in ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Objectors reserve the right to supplement these objections based on agency records unlawfully withheld by the Forest Service in pending FOIA requests.

The Wolf Creek Ski Area (WCSA) sits in the middle of a unique and important natural area of the National Forest System and next to the Wolf Creek Ski Area (WCSA). Although WCSA does have impacts to the Forest Service lands subject to a special use permit, the limited development associated with the developed recreational use allows the ski area to coexist with the wildlife, scenery, unique recreation, and important values of the area. 

An 1171-unit city of 10,000 people will upset the fragile balance the Forest Service has struck in managing the WCSA. In 1986, the Forest Service correctly concluded that transfer of public land with limited access to support a much smaller development was not in the public interest. The current project proposal, construction of a small city known as the Village at Wolf Creek that will require a grade-separated interchange to access U.S. Highway 160, does not serve the public interest in maintaining the status quo of the relatively undeveloped and natural character of the WCSA and surrounding National Forest.

These objections address the failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) purposes that are implemented by specific procedures designed to minimize and eliminate environmental impacts.

The centerpiece of environmental regulation in the United States, NEPA requires federal agencies to pause before committing resources to a project and consider the likely environmental impacts of the preferred course of action as well as reasonable alternatives. See 42 U.S.C. § 4331(b) (congressional declaration of national environmental policy).

N.M. ex rel. Richardson v. BLM, 565 F.3d 683, 703 (10th Cir. 2009). The real project here is LMJV’s plan to construct and operate the proposed Village at Wolf Creek. The question of access to U.S. Highway 160 via federal land is a mere segment of the real project proposal.

The objections set forth the reasons the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is deficient and why the Forest Service cannot adopt the Draft Record of Decision (DROD) that would grant access and other interest in federal lands to support construction of a project involving a small city of part time resort dwellings. Contrary to the LMJV-influenced NEPA document, the proposed project subject to NEPA analysis remains the same as it was in March 1986: “development of the lands by the proponent for uses compatible to the existing Wolf Creek Ski Area.” Draft ROD at 9. 

The FEIS wrongly excludes the LMJV development from rigorous analysis, a legal error that narrows the scope of analysis and taints the entire NEPA process. Extensive and direct LMJV influence over the NEPA analysis has led to the repetition of the same issues that plagued the last NEPA analysis, with the same difficult questions being swept under the rug without full disclosure and consideration. Colorado Wild, Inc. v. United States Forest Service, 523 F. Supp. 2d 1213, (D. Colo. 2007).

By limiting the scope of issues and alternatives under the review, the FEIS presents the public and decision makers with a seemingly foregone conclusion on the land exchange proposal. Where the FEIS minimizes the true scope of federal control and authority over all aspects of the Village at Wolf Creek, the public and relevant agency officials are presented with the false impression that the private developer can go forward with development without full NEPA analysis of the federally encumbered private lands. The attempt to manipulate the parcels and eliminate a federal nexus and NEPA review of the development via a land exchange is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.

As set out below, and in the partial record the Forest Service has disclosed to Objectors, NEPA requires that the Forest Service begin anew by conducting scoping on a new EIS that analyzes the entire development proposal, alternatives, impacts, and mitigation measures in a single EIS. NEPA requires that an EIS must be prepared before committing resources to the LMJV proposal in the form of expanded access, easements, and approvals that ignore and sometimes eliminate important and valuable federal interests in the private lands. 

Then it get's into the details: http://friendsofwolfcreek.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Wolf-Creek-Access-Project-Administrative-Objection.pdf

Matt Sandler, Attorney, Rocky Mountain Wild, 
matt@rockymountainwild.org, 303-579-5162 

Christine Canaly. Director SLVEC 
slvwater@fairpoint.net, 719-589-1518

Jimbo Buickerood, San Juan Citizens Alliance 
jimbo@sanjuancitizens.org, 970-560-1111 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Then there's this...

Regional Policy on the Protection of Fens, resource category 1 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 6 | Amended January 20, 1999  

From page two:  

"Because of their uniqueness and importance, Region 6 decided that all its functioning fens, which were identified on U.S. Geological Survey, National Wetlands Inventory, ... fall within Resource Category 1 of the Service's "Mitigation Policy" (Federal Register Vol.16, No.15, February4, 1981).   

The mitigation goal for Resource Category 1 is no loss of existing habitat value.  In other words, because of the irreplaceability of the type habitat, every reasonable effort should be made to avoid impacting that habitat type." 

http://no-villageatwolfcreek.blogspot.com/2015/01/fens-resource-category-1-usfws.html

Objection Filed on VWC Proposed Land Exchange At Wolf Creek Pass

Given the well timed release of the over two years in the making VWC Landswap EIS, (which I can well believe was not the RGNF's Superintendent's doing, but instead imagine it to be more of a bureaucratic set up, where power moves with more stealth) it took quite an effort for the big folks to put together their substantial objection and get it filed before Monday's deadline.

With gratitude I congratulate Matt Sandler, Christine Canaly, Jimbo Buickerood and their team for pulling off this difficult challenge.

Let the games continue.


For Immediate Release:
January 6, 2015
{I added the highlights}

Matt Sandler, Attorney, Rocky Mountain Wild, matt@rockymountainwild.org, 
303-579-5162 
Christine Canaly. Director SLVEC slvwater@fairpoint.net, 719-589-1518
Jimbo Buickerood, San Juan Citizens Alliance jimbo@sanjuancitizens.org, 
970-560-1111

Objection Filed on Proposed Land Exchange At Wolf Creek Pass

Monte Vista, CO - Today a coalition of conservation organizations announce the filing of a 96-page Objection with the Forest Service concerning a proposed land exchange near Wolf Creek Pass. The land exchange would allow construction of a city in a high-altitude location that receives an average of 428 inches of snow annually, and is an important wildlife corridor for many species. The development, called the Village at Wolf Creek, has been at the center of controversy since 1986.

The Forest Service proposal would trade approximately 205 federal acres for 177 acres of private land within the boundaries of the Rio Grande National Forest. As a part of this exchange, the U.S. Government is also paying Texas Billionaire Red McComb $70,000 as a “cash equalization payment.” The land exchange would connect the private land to U.S. Highway 160, thus securing the ability for a larger population to access to the developer’s private inholding.

"Our Objection makes clear that the Forest Service has added insult to injury by proposing to give away more land with valuable resources to a rich private interest", said Matt Sandler, staff attorney for Rocky Mountain Wild who led the preparation of the Objection. "Instead, the agency should consider protecting a biologically rich and important portion of the National Forest and represent the best interests of the American public.", stated Sandler.

RGNF Village at Wolf Creek Access Project

Although the RGNF-EIS comment period ends today, this issue isn't going away, it's just changing venue - and since information is important I thought it would be good to copy the Rio Grande National Forest's VWC-Access Project webpage over here, to save folks the searching.  I figure some of the comments will be applicable to future phases of this seemingly never-ending struggle to save the Alberta Park watershed from destructive development.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Village at Wolf Creek Access Project 

The Rio Grande National Forest is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement to analyze the effects of the proposed Village at Wolf Creek land exchange.

Location Summary

The federal and non-federal parcels to be considered are entirely within Mineral County, Colorado

District: Divide Ranger District

Project Documents

1. Analysis

1. August 2012 DEIS Village at Wolf Creek Access Project -Bookmark Version (PDF 24943kb)
2. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is now available for comment.
3. FEIS VWC Access Project_FEIS_Vol_1 (PDF 28335kb)
4. FEIS VWC Access Project_FEIS_Vol_2 (PDF 8661kb) 
5. COMMENTS PROCESS   p.51
   Comments Summaries and Responses   p.69
   Agency and Public Official Comments   p.191

FENS Resource Category 1 USFWS "Mitigation Policy"

In support of my previous claims I submit

Regional Policy on the Protection of Fens, resource category 1, as amended

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 6 

January 20, 1999 

From page two: 

"Because of their uniqueness and importance, Region 6 decided that all its functioning fens, which were identified on U.S. Geological Survey, National Wetlands Inventory, ... fall within Resource Category 1 of the Service's "Mitigation Policy" (Federal Register Vol.16, No.15, February4, 1981).  

The mitigation goal for Resource Category 1 is no loss of existing habitat value.  In other words, because of the irreplaceability of the type habitat, every reasonable effort should be made to avoid impacting that habitat type."

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

I appreciate that at this point it's beyond the US Forest Service's hands, still I request these thoughts to made part of the record.

Going ahead with this Village at Wolf Creek development, or any mini-me, cannot avoid mutilating a thousands year old wetlands, with it's nearly pristine highland, shrubs, woods, wetlands, meadows and Fens, peat bogs, snow storage, water filtration.  It's serving a vitally important community function as the biological keystone for that side of the mountain, with it's waters flowing into the Rio Grande River.  Alberta park is best able to serve its keystone function by being left alone.  It really is that simple.

Think about the bulldozing, trenching, moving dirt and making piles.  The roads, first the cutting and dirt moving, compressing, then the weight of the road, then the traffic, trash and oil and disregard seeping through that entire area.  Then the buildings and homes with there deep footings and foundations.  Save a slice of the bogs and meadows a few hundred yards away and it's still robbed of huge chunks of it's circulatory system and indeed body.  Add to that all the people who are going to want to walk out into and around it, bringing along all their stuff, disrupting and impacting what's left out there.

It's important for our local, state, national representatives, regulatory and other involved agencies, plus the various monied interests chomping at the bite for one last roll of the dice, one more bonanza just like the good old days, to stop for a moment and consider the destruction they are willing to inflict, win or loss financially. 

It's not the good old days anymore, we need to change our priorities.  

Here and now is as good a place to start as any.

Learning about the complexity of wetlands and fens being good place to start.

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

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 6
Peatland Mitigation Policy Considerations
Ecology Offices
Colorado Field Office
Lakewood, Colorado
December 1997
Revised January 1999

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

{I have quoted some key sections and added the bold highlights.}  

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/fen/FWSRegion6FenPolicy1999.pdf

Memorandum

To:     Project Leaders for Ecological Services, Refuges and Wildlife, and Fish and Wildlife