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

 

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

It's an essential watershed !

     

LEAVE IT ALONE !

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

Monday, Oct 24, 2022

Excerpts Via the Durango Herald

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

“… confirmed an earlier ruling that the Forest Service “failed to consider important aspects of the issues before them, offered an explanation for their decision that runs counter to the evidence, failed to base their decision on consideration of the relevant factors, and based their decision on an analysis that is contrary to the law. …”

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

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 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.  

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 

When is enough, enough - Rio Grande Nat'l Forest and Red McCombs?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 17, 2016

Forest Service Actively Concealed And Destroyed Information Concerning Planned Development On Wolf Creek Pass

Advocacy groups push for release of records from senior officials

DURANGO, CO – After waiting a year and a half for documents relating to a 2015 Forest Service decision that will enable development of the controversial “Village at Wolf Creek,” the Friends of Wolf Creek coalition has discovered evidence that the Forest Service has been concealing and destroying records and being improperly influenced by the would-be developer, Texas billionaire Red McCombs.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is designed to give the public access to documentation such as emails, reports, and phone records associated with the decisions officials make on the public’s behalf. When the Forest Service failed to comply with two FOIA requests in 2014, coalition member Rocky Mountain Wild took the issue to court to gain access to the documents.

Examination of the 69,701 pages released to date is beginning to finally shed light on the unlawful practices that resulted in the Forest Service approving a critical land exchange with the developer.
The Forest Service actively concealed and destroyed public information. Forest Service communications confirm that employees intentionally destroyed and concealed documents from FOIA requests. Practices included deleting emails, sending a document “hardcopy so it would not be subject to FOIA,” and cc’ing attorneys so that documents would “remain attorney-client privilege and not subject to FOIA.” ...

July 2nd, IDTV report - Wolf Creek Opponents File Lawsuit

Wolf Creek Opponents File Law Suit 

July 2, 2015

The battle against the village at Wolf Creek, 

escalates into a full blown law suit.

http://www.durangotv.com/video-detail.php?ID=449

InsideDurangoTV

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/

Rejecting the Village At Wolf Creek, list of go-to info and resources

Now that the Rio Grande National Forest and USDA seems to have given LMJV a green light for their grandiose speculative venture, it's time for We The People to take up the slack.

The challenge is to convince the powers-that-be, both political/regulatory and McCombs' LMJV principles, that bulldozing Alberta Park watershed is akin to a crime against present and future Rio Grande River stakeholders  -  and that frankly, it's unacceptable in this day and age of decreasing water availability.

The Alberta Park watershed is in need of concerned citizens who will speak up to defend and explain the wisdom in allowing it to remain the unmolested biologically productive natural resource that it is.

Here are introductions to the three organizations who have steadfastly defended the interests of Alberta Park's biological community, literally a keystone of the Wolf Creek watershed, source waters for the interstate international Rio Grande river. 

http://friendsofwolfcreek.org
http://sanjuancitizens.org
http://www.slvec.org

_________________________________________

Changing Climate impending impacts on water availability

Here at NO-VillageAtWolfCreek the post with the most visits, by far, is from September 26th 2012 titled:  The Impact of Climate Change on Ski Resort Operations and Development: Opportunities and Threat.  Obviously, many people understand climate change is an increasingly important issue that needs to be taken into account.

Since I'm an advocate, I know that anything I say about global warming and its impact on the near future will be brushed off by boosters of this speculative venture.  That's why I like pointing to evidence based studies by genuinely knowledgeable people.

Here I want to share a recent assessment that focuses on Colorado's water resources. It's a sobering look at the near future and the challenges that we will be facing.  My point being, the time to squander precious natural resources on a developer's crap shot has passed.

The new dream is that someone in a position of authority will stick their neck out and declare the intact biologically productive wetland, and fens of the entire Alberta Park area an irreplaceable resource worth the protecting.

In any event, I encourage you to take the time to view the entire report, it's only 18 pages long and well written, and there's a lot to learn about.

The Rocky Mountain Climate Organization

http://rockymountainclimate.org/statements_1.htm

RMCO's Recent Statements and News Releases

Alberta Park Openhouse ~ Recalling the RGNF Sept. 20th, 2011 Field Trip

Since I seem to be getting some regular visitors, and we're stuck waiting on the Village at Wolf Creek Land Swap Environmental Impact Study, I'm thinking it would be a good time to bring forward some old stories to reacquaint folks with the threat and the struggle to protect a nearly pristine watershed at the headwaters of the interstate, international Rio Grand River.

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

THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2012

Alberta Park Openhouse ~ Recalling the RGNF Sept. 20th, 2011 Field Trip

September 20th, 2011 the Rio Grande National Forest sponsored a 
four hour field trip/hike through Alberta Park, 
site of the proposed VWC development. 

Led by District Ranger Tom Malecek the tour was intended 
to inform the interested public about the project.  
Below is a report I filed with the Four Corners Free Press on the event.

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

Printed in the Four Corners Free Press 

November 2011 issue

page 28

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

"Moving The Village" 

One Year and counting. . .

Regarding the Village at Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Statement

No word yet.

At least not from my listening post out here in the hinterlands.

It has been a year since the "comment period" deadline passed.

It is fun to entertain thoughts that perhaps this long count is a good sign,
but considering the state of power politics these days, who can tell?

Freedom to inform refused by the USDA Forest Service [updated!]

There it is.  

The Gag Order stands firm and I may not share excerpts from the revealing pages 50 and 51 "Highest and Best Use Analysis" section.

Read on for The Rest Of The Story. . .

The Impact of Climate Change on Ski Resort Operations and Development: Opportunities and Threats

To support my claim in yesterday's VWC-DEIS Comment, namely, that the future bodes ill for such grand speculations as Mr. McCombs dream of bulldozing the Alberta Park Watershed into a luxury vacation village.   I submit a few highlights from the following report, but encourage you to view the entire study at:

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/42018/226339450.pdf?sequence=1

The Impact of Climate Change on Ski Resort Operations and Development: Opportunities and Threats
By  Daniel D. D. McGill
B.S., Human and Organizational Development, 
1999 Vanderbilt University
Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Real Estate Development at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology September 2007
© Daniel D. D. McGill All Rights Reserved.

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

The Impact of Climate Change on Ski Resort Operations and Development: Opportunities and Threats

By Daniel D. D. McGill
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
September 2007

ABSTRACT
This thesis serves as a pedagogical guide to the ski resort industry, and presents a broad overview of the unique issues that accompany climate change. {...}

With few exceptions, existing literature on this topic has neglected to consider what opportunities might emerge as a result of climate change. While the field of climatology is an ever evolving science, the ski industry would be wise to take note as global warming is likely to prove one of those tectonic forces that gradually – but powerfully – changes the economic landscape in which they operate.

Shared Comment - VWC-DEIA 35945 - 4.7.1 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences

Submitted at: https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/CommentInput?Project=35945

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

Regarding the description given at:

4.7.1 Direct and Indirect Environmental ConsequencesPage 4-73 - Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences - Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Village at Wolf Creek Access Project   4.7.1 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences

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

I believe the take away message is that any digging and development in Alberta Park ~ whether on LMJV's current holding or slightly uphill and conveniently snuggled up against the highway ~ will cause irreparable harm to that biologically productive portion of the headwaters of the Rio Grande River Basin.  After all, it isn’t like there isn’t still plenty of wetlands and fens located on the desired parcel, or that uphill development won’t impact the watershed below it.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I know we love to think tomorrow will be better and with more opportunities than today so that any dream is achievable.  But, please look around at the 2010s world - why won’t the EIS authors acknowledge the unrealistic nature of this 1980s Dream Development in a time when economic, water and environmental issues are expected to become most challenging indeed?  

It occurs to me thinking about the inevitable and not all too distant future, when the spruce forest in and around Alberta Park is dead - those unmolested fens and other wetland features are going to be needed more than ever.

Why were you writers of the VWC-DEIS turning a blind eye to those down to earth challenges the future holds for us and our kids.  Why let yourselves be mesmerized by a salesmen’s fast talk?  

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

How will facilitating the destruction of an integral part of a precious wetlands, you know source waters for the Rio Grande River Basin, help our kids who depend on a healthy Rio Grande River as much as we depend on jobs?  

Help RGNF find a way to finally lay Red McCombs' pipedream to rest?  In order to secure the biological, ecological health of this headwaters of the Rio Grande River Basin for the future generations that depend on a healthy Rio Grande River, even more than they depend on a few hundred temporary jobs?

Why not entertain how to get Mr. McCombs to consider returning that parcel back to RGNF or into a nature conservancy?

Shared Comment - VWC-DEIS 35945 - 1.10 The ANILCA act of 1980

Submitted at: https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/CommentInput?Project=35945

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

1.10 The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980
Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Village at Wolf Creek Access Project
Page 1-15   Chapter 1.  Purpose and Need for Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Village at Wolf Creek Access Project

Page 1-15   Chapter 1.  Purpose and Need for Action

1.10 The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980

Section 3210(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA, Public Law 96-487) specifically addresses the right of access to privately owned inholdings within Forest Service lands.  Section 321 reads as follows:(3)

etc.,etc..

It seems to me, this whole land swapping is because the Rio Grande National Forest officials don’t want Forest Service Road 391 turned into a high traffic road... and with the ski area parking lot and all that mess, it’s just a nightmare for them to think about.  That’s as it should be.  But that’s what Mr. McCombs bought into with his original 1986 landswap.  The one where he promised officials and regular folks that he would build a nice exclusive private getaway for wealthy folks.  He was talking a couple hundred cabins or so.  FSR391 could probably have been modified to accommodate that without too much pain.

But what happened, after Mr. McCombs acquired this special piece of land is he’s the one that did a total flip on everyone and decided he NEEDED a village ten times the size of his stated plan.  

Why does the USDA-USFS feel an obligation to Mr. McCombs?  Particularly since he is the one that went back on his assurances made during the original land swapping!  Why is he being afforded so much leverage in these current landswap dealings?

Wasn’t ANILCA intended for folks who suddenly found themselves surrounded by Federal Lands?  Why would it apply to a speculator who traded into a special landlocked piece of National Forest Land?  Under false pretense at that!  

Why doesn’t the USDA-USFS-RGNF fight to regain and protect that headwaters watershed to the Rio Grande River Basin?

I hear there are an assortment of offers, possibilities for LMJV to trade that land for something more realistic at lower elevations.  Also, rumor has it there are various land conservancy organizations waiting for that call from Clint Jones or Red McCombs.  

Why doesn’t the USDA-FS pro-actively encourage that sort of a resolution to this impasse?

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

My question for EIS authors would be:

Can it be argued that ANILCA’s previsions regarding road access were passed because of the massive amount of Federal acquisitions in Alaska at the time - so that the many people who suddenly found themselves surrounded by USDA Forest Service and other Federal Lands would have a legal right to gain road access to their land?

Therefore could it be argued that it is inappropriate for speculators, such as LMJV, who knowingly swapped/purchased a prime parcel of landlocked US Forest Service real estate within the boundaries of the established Rio Grande US National Forest - to claim that ANILCA gives him a legal standing to demand access for a high traffic road to said parcel?

Shared Comment VWC-DEIS 35945 - 3.4 Water Rights and Use

Submitted at: https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/CommentInput?Project=35945

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

Your DEIS 34945 presented an unacceptably optimistic developer’s appraisal, rather than a sober examination of the looming water crisis in the south west.  And gave the following piece of key information short shrift.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Village at Wolf Creek Access Project
Chapter 3.  Affected Environment - Page 3-25
3.4 Water Rights and Use
3.4.1 Scope of Analysis
“However, these (LMJV) water rights are relatively junior in priority and could be placed on call by downstream senior water rights.” 

Given that the water situation is becoming more restricted, how are junior water rights going help fill those two years worth of storage capacity for a village?

Shouldn’t the final Environmental Impact Statement include some science including the important information within the links listed below:

According to United States Global Change Research Group

(Integrating federal research on global change and climate change)  

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/regional-climate-change-impacts/southwest  

We have these key issues to face and prepare for:

1. Water supplies will become increasingly scarce, calling for trade-offs among competing uses, and potentially leading to conflict.

1. Increasing temperature, drought, wildfire, and invasive species will accelerate transformation of the landscape.

1. Increased frequency and altered timing of flooding will increase risks to people, ecosystems, and infrastructure.

1. Unique tourism and recreation opportunities are likely to suffer.

1. Cities and agriculture face increasing risks from a changing climate.

~ ~ ~ ~

Here are a few more informative links that provide the information needed to make the final EIS more complete that the draft EIS.

NOAA: Extreme Weather 2011 - Factoids

http://www.noaa.gov/extreme2011/factoids.html 

IPCC Special Report on Extreme Weather 

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/ 

Political leaders play key role in public understanding of climate change

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/climthreat.htm

Shared Comment VWC-DEIS 35945 -1.7.1 Health and Human Safety at a High Altitude Resort

Submitted at: https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/CommentInput?Project=35945

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

It’s interesting, all this money spent on studying and discussing a land trade clearly meant to facilitate a speculator’s dream of attempting to develop a grand luxury resort at ±10,500’ elevation.

A dream hatched in the go-go 80s, when nothing was too big to grab for.  But, this is the 2010s and our kids will be forced to deal with a much different world than the one we got to know.  I know Republicans love to believe they can ignore what Earth Scientists are learning and what all of us, who are interested, can observe.  But, you members of the EIS team should show the science more respect than you did in the DEIS.

How about weighing the viability of Red McCombs’ 80/90s pipedream?

As a business plan for a luxury village, why set oneself up for financial disaster by ignoring that this “village” will be put where folks breath 70% of the oxygen they would at sea level?  How does that impact the dream's viability?

===========

Here is an example of how the VWC-DEIS resolves such lynchpins to success:

1.7.1 Health and Human Safety at a High Altitude Resort Numerous commenters were concerned about the health and safety of people at a high altitude development.  Individuals are responsible for their own health, and living, working and recreating at high altitude is an individual choice and responsibility.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On the one hand, I can understand USDA and RGNF wanting to stay away from this touchy issue.  But we have a real health and business issue just the same: Very Thin Air! Yes, it is a personal choice.  But it is also an undeniable medical reality at Alberta Park - reflecting on the chances of this Village at Wolf Creek becoming an economic bust; which brings up the question: why destroy that wetlands area to begin with?

  

From a sales perspective, how does a speculative development succeed when it already eliminates a major portion of the target demographic from it’s potential buyer base for health reasons? 

Are there plans for building a high altitude medical center as in Telluride?  Who’s paying for it?

Considering the irreparable damage digging and building will inflict on this headwaters of the Rio Grande River Basin it seems irresponsible to ignore factors that so negatively reflect on the prospects for such an ambitious project at ±10,500’.  

Shouldn't these realities cause some hesitation among the powers-that-be in their headlong drive to facilitate this high stakes gamble?

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

And what’s the deal with hiding the elevation of the land (10,160’ - 10,880’) deep in the small print.

Seems like some were trying to hide that important factor.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

3.6 Vegetation Resources 3.6.1 Scope of Analysis The Analysis Area for vegetation resources is located east of the Continental Divide in the Rio Grande River Drainage Basin and encompasses the Federal and non-Federal exchange parcels and that portion of the private land parcel not exchanged. The total area is ±504.3 acres and ranges in elevation from approximately 10,160 to 10,880 feet.  ~  

Page 3-34   Chapter 3. Affected Environment

Will your FEIS make a point of including that info up front?  A factor that certainly will impact the business viability of a luxury residential village?

This leads to another question:  Why does the USDA-RGNF always accept the speculator/developers interpretation of what's important?  Can we please think this through before facilitating tearing up this important wetlands?  

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

How will facilitating the destruction of an integral part of a precious wetlands, you know source waters for the Rio Grande River Basin, help our kids who depend on a healthy Rio Grande River as much as we depend on jobs?  

Why no attempts to get Mr. McCombs to consider returning that parcel back to RGNF or into a nature conservancy?