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

Albert Park meadow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you,

Peter

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

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

July 2016 Update - Village at Wolf Creek lawsuit

The short version, the wheels of justice grind ever so slowly, but on they grind.  I'll let Chris Talbot-Heindl fill you in on the details:

Federal Judge Matsch: “Get the guts of the case before me.”

By: Chris Talbot-Heindl, Communications & Membership Manager, Rocky Mountain Wild

July 12, 2016

Last Friday, during a motions hearing on the Wolf Creek case, Friends of Wolf Creek asked Federal Judge Richard Matsch to compel the Forest Service to obtain and disclose records and billing statements from the contractors who prepared the environmental analysis. Friends of Wolf Creek also requested the confidential settlement agreement between the Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture and the Wolf Creek Ski Area, which involved the challenged land exchange.

One of our lawyers for the case, Travis Stills, explained that the documents “we’ve received piece meal over the last two years paint an incomplete picture and our hope is that the requested documents would fill in the gaps.”

While Judge Matsch denied parts of the Motion to Compel dealing with the contractor records and billing statements, he stated that the contractor records could still be obtained through our ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case. The Judge added that if our FOIA case did result in the release of the contractor records, those documents could be added to the merits case at a later time.

“We believe the contractor records contain a missing piece to this puzzle and are hopeful we will have the opportunity to review that information through our ongoing FOIA litigation” stated Matt Sandler, Staff Attorney for Rocky Mountain Wild, “that said, we already have strong evidence to support our case and look forward to presenting that to the Court.”

Judge Matsch was particularly interested in the content of the confidential settlement agreement. The lawyer representing the Ski Area stated that the information contained in the settlement agreement is sensitive but did not provide insight into the relevancy to the litigation. Judge Matsch ordered the Department of Justice attorney for the Forest Service to review the document and determine the relevance of the information and report back to the Court.

Regarding the timeline of the merits case, Judge Matsch ordered that all parties should work together to complete the Administrative Record and determine a timeline for addressing the merits of the case. He ordered that the case start with the record as it stands now, supplemented with relevant parts of the secret settlement agreement and other documents that have already been identified. “Get the guts of the case before me,” he said.

The merits case asserts numerous violations of federal environmental laws, including the claims that the Forest Service unnecessarily limited the scope of its environmental analysis on a land exchange with the Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture to avoid fully analyzing the impacts that the proposed development of a 8,000 person “village” would have on the Rio Grande National Forest and sensitive wildlife, including the Canada lynx.

http://friendsofwolfcreek.org/federal-judge-matsch-get-the-guts-of-the-case-before-me/

____________________________________________________________________

http://friendsofwolfcreek.org

In March 2016, we filed a motion in the U.S. District Court to have records in the possession of the contractors that the Forest Service hired to prepare the environmental analysis of the land exchange disclosed and potentially added to the Administrative Record. While these records legally belong to the Forest Service, they have refused to ask the contractors to supply all of them. The attorneys for the Forest Service and the Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture responded to the court arguing that the Administrative Record was complete without these additional records. In the first week of May, we filed a 23-page Reply brief, and now we are awaiting the Court's decision. Full copies of our Brief, the defendant's Responses, and our Reply brief can be found here:

March 11, 2016 Our Motion
• April 11, 2016 Forest Service Response
• April 11, 2016 Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture Response
• May 3, 2016 Our Reply Brief

Details of the VWC Land Exchange EIS FOIA Federal Court decision

For the interested here is a selection of key quotes from the recent US District Court decision in the Rocky Mountain Wild vs. USFS (and the Village at Wolf Creek Land Exchange Environmental Impact Statement process.).  

Of course, this is a my cherry picked presentation since there was a lot of legalese, background, and Judge Wiley Daniel detailing why he decided as he did - all worth getting acquainted with, but too much to be posting over here.  I thank Rocky Mountain Wild for making the full decision available.

ROCKY MOUNTAIN WILD Plaintiff, v. USFS/VWC/EIS

Case 1:14-cv-02496-WYD-KMT Document 31 Filed 09/30/15 USDC Colorado 

http://rockymountainwild.org/_site/wp-content/uploads/Doc-31-Order-on-SJ.pdf

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-2496-WYD-KMT
ROCKY MOUNTAIN WILD, INC., a Colorado non-profit corporation,

Plaintiff, v.

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, a federal agency;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, a federal agency,

Defendants.

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
This case arises out of a request by the Plaintiff on February 27, 2014, to

Defendant United States Forest Service (“Forest Service”) for certain agency records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, pertaining to the development and construction of the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project (“Wolf Creek Project”) in the Rio Grande National Forest (“RGNF”) of Colorado, a project undertaken by RGNF under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”).