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!

______________________________________

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 

What is "Reasonable Use" of Alberta Park at Wolf Creek, Colorado?

I do appreciate that Rio Grande National Forest Administrators must work within narrowly defined legal guidelines.  I imagine Dan Dallas has dutifully carrying out his mission, no more, no less.  Considering his hands were tied, I can't even "object" to his decision, though I will certainly complain about it.

My "objections" are reserved for that singled-minded developer's obsession with ripping up that watershed for his silly, doomed, luxury village, who's construction will destroy yet another chunk of the resources our children are depending on for their increasingly tough future.

In reading through the "Record of Decision VWC Access Project Final" I noticed the term "reasonable use" was employed 28 times.  The bottom-line comes down to this: "Hey, the dude swapped/bought Alberta Park to develop it.  He couldn't develop the parcel he bought, but since the RGNF owes it to him to facilitate him developing land, they must now swap parcels of land to accommodate the guy's wild (disconnected even) 1980s pipe-dream.  

What can be more "reasonable" than that?  Develop he can; develop he must; no matter how destructive or unrealistic the speculation is!  It's his American Right, if not duty.

What I find unreasonable about the RGNF VWC Decision, is that Alberta Park and its biologically vibrant and productive wetlands barely makes it into the discussion. It's just another one of those unmentionable externalities we've become so adept at side-stepping. 

http://friendsofwolfcreek.org

Still, the fact remains Alberta Park is a pretty near pristine complex hydrologic system, supporting folds within folds of unseen but productive organic complexity, along with the plants and wildlife that depend on such healthy systems... bulldozing will destroy that.  

You can't purchase a better water filtering system.  You can only degrade its current biologic productivity.

Speaking of 'current', another thing I find unreasonable about this RGNF VWC Decision is how deftly it avoids the realities of the times we are living in.  

Ignore it all you want, global warming is producing increasing and disruptive climate change.  Ignoring it, as too many do, will not make it go away no matter how hard you believe. [check out the footnotes]

I sit here, wondering what good is all this fixation on the Rear View Mirror and moldy pipe-dreams of endlessly increasing profits, when we know damned well that serious, hard changes are coming at us? When are we going to start protecting the natural resources we and especially our children depend on?

With that preamble I want to share excerpts from a 2012 study of Rio Grande National Forest's wetlands.  Being a private inholding, LMVJ's parcel was not delineated.  But, the study does convey the value of such land - just as it is!  A first step in becoming aware of this valuable, irreplaceable  "externality" called the Alberta Park watershed.

Assessment of Wetland Condition 

on the Rio Grande National Forest

http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/documents/2012/RGNFWetlandAssessmentReportFINAL.pdf

VWC Access Project "Final Environmental Impact Statement" index

"The publication of the draft record of decision in the 

Valley Courier starts a 45-day objection period. 

The final decision will be signed if no objections are received." RGNF

{By my math that makes it Sunday January 4th - excellent timing for the release I must say}

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

Text of Draft index; and introduction; and background. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Draft
Record of Decision
Village at Wolf Creek Access Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Rio Grande National Forest Divide Ranger District Mineral County, Colorado 
http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/78763_FSPLT3_2387251.pdf

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

1.0 Introduction ...................... 1 2.0 
Background and Location....... 1 3.0 
Purpose and Need................... 2
4.0 Decision............................ 2 4.1 
The Decision........................... 2 4.2 
Selected Alternative................ 2

4.2.1 Non-Federal Lands to be Conveyed to the United States….. 3 4.2.2 
Federal Land to be Conveyed to the Non-Federal Party .............. 3 4.2.3 
Best Management Practices......................................................... 3 4.2.4 
Encumbrances........................................................................…… 4 4.2.5 Monitoring................................................................................... 4 4.2.6 
Lynx Conservation Measures ...................................................…. 5 4.2.7 
Permits, Licenses, Entitlements and/or Consultation ...............…… 6

5.0 Decision Rationale .........................................................……. 6
6.0 Public Involvement............................................................…. 26

7.0 Alternatives Considered ...29 
7.1 Alternatives Considered 
but Eliminated from Detailed Study ...29 7.2 
Alternative 1 - No Action ... 30 7.3 
Alternative 2 - Land Exchange (Proposed Action) ... 30 7.4 
Alternative 3 – ANILCA Road Access … 30

8.0 Environmentally Preferable Alternative.... 31 9.0 
Findings Required by Other Laws, Regulations and Agency Policy .... 31 10.0 
Pre-Decisional Administrative Objection Process ... 31 11.0 
Contact Person ... 32 12.0 
Signature and Date ... 32

VillageWolfCreek Breaking News - RGNF Favors Developing Alberta Park, Wolf Creek!

"The publication of the draft record of decision in the 

Valley Courier starts a 45-day objection period. 

The final decision will be signed if no objections are received." RGNF

{By my math that makes it Sunday January 4th - excellent timing for the release I must say}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Apparently the developers still believe we are living in the 1980s.

For the decision see:

http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/78763_FSPLT3_2387251.pdf

News Release

--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE—

{I've added the highlights}

November 20, 2014

Draft decision released for Village at Wolf Creek Access Project

MONTE VISTA, Colo. – The Rio Grande National Forest has completed the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project analysis and draft record of decision. Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas selected Alternative 2, the proposed land exchange between the United States and Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture (LMJV). The land exchange will provide the opportunity for LMJV to develop year-round access to their property.

“After a thorough review of the final environmental impact statement and public comments, I have decided to approve Alternative 2, the land exchange,” said Dallas. “I believe this is the best decision for the land and the public while providing the access to which the proponent is legally entitled.”

Alternative 2 conveys approximately 177 acres of privately held land to the Rio Grande National Forest in exchange for approximately 205 acres of National Forest System land managed by the RGNF.  The land exchange would create a private land parcel of approximately 325 acres extending to U.S. Highway 160 and will accommodate year-round vehicular access.

The existing Tranquility Road would be extended east across NFS land to the private land. This road would provide restricted seasonal access between Wolf Creek Ski Area and the private land.

The primary benefits of the land exchange proposal over the previous right-of-way proposal include relocation of most of the proposed private land development to an area farther away from the ski area and Forest Service acquisition of wetlands and a perennial stream.

{I wonder how RGNF finesses the fact the Red McCombs knew dang well that land was landlocked before his purchase! - Or does the RGNF ignore that detail - we shall see?}

LMJV previously sought a right-of-way access across RGNF from U.S. Highway 160 to their private land.  Since their private land is surrounded by National Forest System land, LMJV is entitled by federal statute to have granted to them by the Forest Service a right-of-way for access commensurate with the reasonable use and enjoyment of their property. 

The publication of the draft record of decision in the Valley Courier starts a 45-day objection period. The final decision will be signed if no objections are received. A 45-day resolution period ensues if objections are submitted by individuals who previously provided comments. The resolution period may be extended an additional 30 days for a total of 75 days. The final decision is signed following this resolution period.

For more information about the proposed Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, visit the Rio Grande National Forest website at www.fs.usda.gov/riogrande.

###

Public Affairs Specialist

Rio Grande National Forest

719-852-6212 (o)

Village at Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Study Issues

All remains quiet regarding the upcoming release of the VWC-DEIS.

While we continue waiting on the long over due Village at Wolf Creek Landswap Environmental Impact Statement to be released - I figure it's a good time to share this index to a series of comments I submitted to the VWC-DEIS team.  It will be interesting to see how they deal with the various important outstanding issues that have been raised by many people.

Feel free to copy and share any of the posts here at 

NO - Village at Wolf Creek .blogspot.com 

Where third party references are used, please be sure to include an acknowledgement of those third parties including their links.  

=======================

    •    VWC-DEIS 1.6.5 Climate and Air Quality

    •   VWC-DEIS 1.7.1 Health and Human Safety at a High Altitude

    •    VWC-DEIS 1.7.3 Validity of 1986 Land Exchange  

    •    VWC-DEIS 1.10 ANILCA 1980 - Road Access Rights

    •    VWC-DEIS Chap. 2 Page 46/47 - Employment Status 

    •    VWC-DEIS 3.4 Water Rights and Use

    •    VWC-DEIS 3.1 Surface Water – Water Quality, Stream Health and Floodplains

    •    VWC-DEIS 3.7.5 Wetland Functions and Values

    •    VWC-DEIS 3.7.6 Fens

    •    VWC-DEIS 4.7.1 (Wetlands) Direct and Indirect Consequences

• VWC-DEIS 35945 - Why no Impact Study of the costs of a failed VWC development?

• VWC-DEIS - MAPS and such

• FOIA request for VWC-DEIS Land Appraisal documents

• Agencies clash over mapping of ‘old-growth’ fens

• An essay concerning Red McCombs' long and winding road

Link to the Rio Grande National Forest official information page

Happy New Years - lets start with some cautionary tales

• 
  Happy New Years one and all.

  
  

  Next week I'll contact the Rio Grande National Forest to check in and see if there are any updates on the Village at Wolf Creek Village, Land Swap Environmental Impact Statement release.  

  
  

  For now, I thought it would be appropriate to start the new year with a few cautionary tales of big dreams gone bust, leaving others to pick up the pieces.  Developers and investors always have the best of intentions, but details are glossed over, reality and budgets happen, and those 'over-looked' details come back to bite. 
  

  
  

VWC Land Exchange Real Estate Appraisal - p50 - Local Market Conditions

Open letter to the authors of the Village at Wolf Creek Land Exchange - Environmental Impact Study.

Earlier this month I made a Freedom of Information request for a copy of the Village at Wolf Creek land exchange Appraisal Report.  I received it this past Tuesday (9/25/12) along with a cover letter that is pretty much a Gag Order.  Considering the late date I actually set it aside.  But now that the comment period has been extended by ten days I felt an obligation to at least open it up and try to wade through the two volume, 200 some page report. 

So, I’m reading along in the “VWC LEX - Non-Federal Parcel volume underlining a provocative paragraph here and there, but moving along just the same, considering I’m under a gag order.

But, then I came to page 50: ”Local Market Conditions,” and "The Village at Wolf Creek."  I’m sorry but it hit me like a slap in the face and makes me want to scream: “I told you so!”  

Come on, even the appraiser, who clearly believes that development is the “highest and best use” of this land - admits that the project is not financially feasible in the current market... and does anyone actually believe the market will be improving?

What in the world is the point of facilitating this out-of-reality scheme of a billionaire - {who builds a Formula One race track for fun and thinks it’s a civic improvement} - in the face of the economic reality of our area - as spelled out on page 50?  Keep in mind we are talking about source waters to the Rio Grande River Basin.  

For one, please consider the creeping impacts of the global warming, you authors so glibly wrote off.  After all the crop failures and other economic losses from this summer’s heat waves and drought will have far reaching economic impact.  Furthermore, the physics of global warming guarantee that this is just the beginning of the pain our economy will be feeling - at all levels.

Can we get real?  The happy dreamy days of the 80s, when this obsession was born are over, never to return.   

The details of the Village at Wolf Creek Proposed Land Exchange Real Estate Appraisal Review’s “non-federal” volume, page 50, regarding our local conditions is chilling to the bone.  But, I’m not allowed to share any of the details with others.  However, you authors of the EIS can read every word of it... please don’t ignore it, {the way you’ve tried ignoring the cascading consequences of our planet’s climate situation}, in your deliberations.

It is time to turn this McCombs’ Village at Wolf Creek versus Alberta Park Watershed discussion around and find some way to convince Mr. McCombs that it is in the best interest of everyone involved, including the empire he will be leaving his daughter, to find some way to return his current holding to the USDA Forest Service, or a nature conservancy arraignment.

[ “Dear EIS authors imagine my surprise, and relief, this morning when I pulled out the “second” volume of the VWC LEX Appraisal only to discover that I was sent two copies of the same report.  I wonder if that means the second was given to me for sharing?  In any event, I stand corrected, the Appraisal appears to be one volume of about a hundred pages.” ~ ~ ~ 

Nope wrong again.  Rereading my cover letter, I see that yes indeed Mr. McClure did indicate there should be two separate reports.  So since I have two copies of the volume marked “non-federal” I wonder if someone is looking at two copies of “federal” or whatever the other report was titled. ]

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

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

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

Dear Friends of Wolf Creek, the United States Forest Service will never listen to you, if you don't contact them!

Here's where to do that, but you need to do it before Thursday, October 11th

Village at Wolf Creek Land Exchange Proposal #35945
https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/CommentInput?Project=35945 

The Forest Service values public input. Comments received, including respondents’ names and addresses, will become part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the agency with the ability to provide you with project updates. The Forest Service wishes to provide you with as many opportunities as possible to learn about our activities.