INDEX of VWC-EIS ...

Contents 

Issue 1: The village proposal expands impacts of the federally permitted ski area development

Issue 2: Judicial orders preclude reliance on FEIS

Issue 3: The Forest Service has never made Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture’s proposal (ANILCA alternative) available for review by the public or other local, State, and Federal agencies with jurisdiction and control over the Wolf Creek Ski Area complex 

Issue 4: The purpose and need and designation of the NEPA “Federal Action” are invalid

Issue 5: The FEIS perpetuates the same structural flaws addressed by the previous injunction and settlement

Issue 6: The range of alternatives considered is inappropriately narrow

Issue 7: Alternatives involving mitigation measures and ANILCA terms and conditions were not analyzed

Issue 8: The no-action alternative is inappropriately dismissed

Issue 9: The Forest Service failed to incorporate the input of several key cooperating agencies

Issue 10: ANILCA and existing Forest Service regulations do not require enhanced road access be provided to the federally encumbered Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture parcels

Issue 11: New information and stale (dated) analysis requires new NEPA process

Issue 12: ANILCA as preferred alternative is not compared to other alternatives

Issue 13: The consideration of connected actions and indirect and cumulative impacts in the DEIS is inadequate

Issue 14: The property appraisal confirms adequate access and comparable properties exist

Issue 15: The effects on wetlands are inadequately analyzed

Issue 16: The ANILCA alternative would lead to a loss of Canada lynx habitat and reduced functioning of an important Canada lynx linkage

Issue 17: The proposed decision would violate standards, guidelines, and objectives for lynx conservation

Issue 18: Spruce bark beetle impacts on lynx habitat requires additional analysis

Issue 19: The proposed conservation measures would not be effective in reducing impacts to lynx nor promoting recovery to a full, viable population

Issue 20: The Lynx Conservation Strategy was developed without any public involvement, in violation of NEPA

Issue 21: Application of any conservation measures is at best uncertain

Issue 22: The action alternatives would harm other wildlife

Issue 23: The action alternatives would reduce water quality

Issue 24: Lack of mitigation measures

Issue 25: Water supply for either action alternative may not be sufficient or reliable

Issue 26: In violation of NEPA, the FEIS fails to analyze the feasibility of, and the possible impacts from, a grade separated interchange at the village access road with Highway 160

Issue 27: The FEIS fails to analyze the comparative impacts of expanding federal control via the scenic easement

Issue 28: Failure to reinitiate consultation for the yellow-billed cuckoo pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

Issue 29: Bias and proponent control of the third party NEPA contractor was built into the contract

Issue 30: Failure to consider new information

Issue 31: Failure to consider the best available scienceIssue 32: Failure to adhere to NEPA’s public involvement mandates

Issue 33: Reasonable use and enjoyment that minimizes environmental effects requires an analysis of the visual effects to the congressionally designated Continental Divide National Scenic Trail

VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses. 

November 15, 2018

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

VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses #1, #2

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service
Rocky Mountain Regional Office 

Response to Objections on the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, Rio Grande National Forest 

November 2018 

Village at Wolf Creek Access Project Draft 11/15/18
Objection Issues and Responses 

Contents 

Issue 1: The village proposal expands impacts of the federally permitted ski area development

Issue 2: Judicial orders preclude reliance on FEIS

VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses #3, #4, #5, #6

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2018

Index of VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses. 33 issues addressed 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Regional Office 

Response to Objections on the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, Rio Grande National Forest

My post of the "Index of the VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses" has been amazingly well visited.  Ironically, I also put together a series of posts of highlights from those 33 responses.  Then I ran out of steam and it didn't seem important, and other matters were, and I was gone, now I'm thinking perhaps it's more important than I thought and that it would be good to post them after all.

___________________________________________________________________

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Regional Office 

Response to Objections on the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, Rio Grande National Forest 

November 2018 

Village at Wolf Creek Access Project Draft 11/15/18
Objection Issues and Responses 

Contents 

Issue 3: The Forest Service has never made Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture’s proposal (ANILCA alternative) available for review by the public or other local, State, and Federal agencies with jurisdiction and control over the Wolf Creek Ski Area complex

Issue 4: The purpose and need and designation of the NEPA “Federal Action” are invalid

Issue 5: The FEIS perpetuates the same structural flaws addressed by the previous injunction and settlement

Issue 6: The range of alternatives considered is inappropriately narrow

VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses #7, #8, #9 #10

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2018

Index of VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses. 33 issues addressed 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Regional Office 

Response to Objections on the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, Rio Grande National Forest

My post of the "Index of the VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses" has been amazingly well visited.  Ironically, I also put together a series of posts of highlights from those 33 responses.  Then I ran out of steam and it didn't seem important, and other matters were, and I was gone, now I'm thinking perhaps it's more important than I thought and that it would be good to post them after all.

___________________________________________________________________

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Regional Office 

Response to Objections on the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, Rio Grande National Forest 

November 2018 Village at Wolf Creek Access Project Draft 11/15/18

Objection Issues and Responses 

Contents 

Issue 7: Alternatives involving mitigation measures and ANILCA terms and conditions were not analyzed

Issue 8: The no-action alternative is inappropriately dismissed

Issue 9: The Forest Service failed to incorporate the input of several key cooperating agencies

Issue 10: ANILCA and existing Forest Service regulations do not require enhanced road access be provided to the federally encumbered Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture parcels

VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses #11, #12 #13

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2018

Index of VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses. 33 issues addressed 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Regional Office 

Response to Objections on the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, Rio Grande National Forest

My post of the "Index of the VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses" has been amazingly well visited.  Ironically, I also put together a series of posts of highlights from those 33 responses.  Then I ran out of steam and it didn't seem important, and other matters were, and I was gone, now I'm thinking perhaps it's more important than I thought and that it would be good to post them after all.

___________________________________________________________________

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Regional Office 

Response to Objections on the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, Rio Grande National Forest 

November 2018 

Contents 

Issue 11: New information and stale (dated) analysis requires new NEPA process

Issue 12: ANILCA as preferred alternative is not compared to other alternatives

Issue 13: The consideration of connected actions and indirect and cumulative impacts in the DEIS is inadequate

VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses #14, #15, #16

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2018

Index of VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses. 33 issues addressed 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Regional Office 

Response to Objections on the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, Rio Grande National Forest

My post of the "Index of the VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses" has been amazingly well visited.  Ironically, I also put together a series of posts of highlights from those 33 responses.  Then I ran out of steam and it didn't seem important, and other matters were, and I was gone, now I'm thinking perhaps it's more important than I thought and that it would be good to post them after all.

___________________________________________________________________

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Regional Office 

Response to Objections on the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, Rio Grande National Forest 

November 2018 

Village at Wolf Creek Access Project Draft 11/15/18
Objection Issues and Responses 

Contents 

Issue 14: The property appraisal confirms adequate access and comparable properties exist

Issue 15: The effects on wetlands are inadequately analyzed

Issue 16: The ANILCA alternative would lead to a loss of Canada lynx habitat and reduced functioning of an important Canada lynx linkage

VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses #17, #18, #19

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2018

Index of VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses. 33 issues addressed 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Regional Office 

Response to Objections on the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, Rio Grande National Forest

My post of the "Index of the VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses" has been amazingly well visited.  Ironically, I also put together a series of posts of highlights from those 33 responses.  Then I ran out of steam and it didn't seem important, and other matters were, and I was gone, now I'm thinking perhaps it's more important than I thought and that it would be good to post them after all.

___________________________________________________________________

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Regional Office 

Response to Objections on the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, Rio Grande National Forest 

November 2018  

Village at Wolf Creek Access Project Draft 11/15/18
Objection Issues and Responses 

Contents 

Issue 17: The proposed decision would violate standards, guidelines, and objectives for lynx conservation

Issue 18: Spruce bark beetle impacts on lynx habitat requires additional analysis

Issue 19: The proposed conservation measures would not be effective in reducing impacts to lynx nor promoting recovery to a full, viable population

VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses #20, #21, #22

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2018

Index of VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses. 33 issues addressed 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Regional Office 

Response to Objections on the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, Rio Grande National Forest

My post of the "Index of the VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses" has been amazingly well visited.  Ironically, I also put together a series of posts of highlights from those 33 responses.  Then I ran out of steam and it didn't seem important, and other matters were, and I was gone, now I'm thinking perhaps it's more important than I thought and that it would be good to post them after all.

___________________________________________________________________

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Regional Office 

Response to Objections on the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, Rio Grande National Forest 

November 2018 

Village at Wolf Creek Access Project Draft 11/15/18
Objection Issues and Responses 

Contents 

Issue 20: The Lynx Conservation Strategy was developed without any public involvement, in violation of NEPA

Issue 21: Application of any conservation measures is at best uncertain

Issue 22: The action alternatives would harm other wildlife

_______________________________________________________________

Issue 20: The Lynx Conservation Strategy was developed without any public involvement, in violation of NEPA 

VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses #23, #24, #25

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2018

Index of VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses. 33 issues addressed 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Regional Office 

Response to Objections on the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, Rio Grande National Forest

My post of the "Index of the VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses" has been amazingly well visited.  Ironically, I also put together a series of posts of highlights from those 33 responses.  Then I ran out of steam and it didn't seem important, and other matters were, and I was gone, now I'm thinking perhaps it's more important than I thought and that it would be good to post them after all.

___________________________________________________________________

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Regional Office 

Response to Objections on the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, Rio Grande National Forest 

November 2018 

Village at Wolf Creek Access Project Draft 11/15/18
Objection Issues and Responses 

Contents 

Issue 23: The action alternatives would reduce water quality

Issue 24: Lack of mitigation measures

Issue 25: Water supply for either action alternative may not be sufficient or reliable

VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses #26, #27, #28

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2018

Index of VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses. 33 issues addressed 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Regional Office 

Response to Objections on the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, Rio Grande National Forest

My post of the "Index of the VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses" has been amazingly well visited.  Ironically, I also put together a series of posts of highlights from those 33 responses.  Then I ran out of steam and it didn't seem important, and other matters were, and I was gone, now I'm thinking perhaps it's more important than I thought and that it would be good to post them after all.

___________________________________________________________________

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Regional Office 

Response to Objections on the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, Rio Grande National Forest 

November 2018 

Village at Wolf Creek Access Project Draft 11/15/18
Objection Issues and Responses 

Contents 

Issue 26: In violation of NEPA, the FEIS fails to analyze the feasibility of, and the possible impacts from, a grade separated interchange at the village access road with Highway 160

Issue 27: The FEIS fails to analyze the comparative impacts of expanding federal control via the scenic easement

Issue 28: Failure to reinitiate consultation for the yellow-billed cuckoo pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses #29, #30, #31, #32, #33

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2018

Index of VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses. 33 issues addressed 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Regional Office 

Response to Objections on the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, Rio Grande National Forest

My post of the "Index of the VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses" has been amazingly well visited.  Ironically, I also put together a series of posts of highlights from those 33 responses.  Then I ran out of steam and it didn't seem important, and other matters were, and I was gone, now I'm thinking perhaps it's more important than I thought and that it would be good to post them after all.

___________________________________________________________________

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Regional Office 

Response to Objections on the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, Rio Grande National Forest 

November 2018 

Village at Wolf Creek Access Project Draft 11/15/18

Objection Issues and Responses 

Contents 

Issue 29: Bias and proponent control of the third party NEPA contractor was built into the contract

Issue 30: Failure to consider new information

Issue 31: Failure to consider the best available science

Issue 32: Failure to adhere to NEPA’s public involvement mandates

Issue 33: Reasonable use and enjoyment that minimizes environmental effects requires an analysis of the visual effects to the congressionally designated Continental Divide National Scenic Trail

Red’s a billionaire and We Are The People. Down to brass tacks.

NO Village at Wolf Creek.

     

Durango Herald's, Jonathan Romeo wrote a story March 7th 2019 about the latest court twist in the Village at Wolf Creek saga:  "A Freedom of Information Act was filed nearly eight months ago by a coalition of environmental groups to obtain select U.S. Forest Service documents related to the controversial Village at Wolf Creek development atop Wolf Creek Pass. Two-hundred-and-thirty days later, and well past the Forest Service’s 20-day deadline, not a single file has been released.

But that should change Thursday after a U.S. magistrate judge ordered the Forest Service to start releasing documents asked for in the FOIA request. The order came in response to a lawsuit filed by opponents of the proposed housing and commercial development." ... "

(click on image for better reading)

After posting quotes from yesterday's Durango Herald article, I was reading the comments.  

Dennis points to ANILCA and cries foul on behalf of Mr. McCombs, 

“There is a law that says the USFS has to grant access to inholdings.”  

Is that a fact?  There’s another side to this story that's worth listening to, particularly if you want to understand the unrelenting opposition to the notion of bulldozing a Village at Wolf Creek into Alberta Park.

Among many other things, in 1980 ANILCA was created for property owners who suddenly found themselves in a landlocked ‘inholding’ because of a newly created National Park or other federal designated areas.  Alberta Park was legally designated integral to Rio Grande National Forest since its creation in 1908.

Groups says, Federal Agency Tried to Hide Information

I try very hard to give the Rio Grande National Forest Service the benefit of the doubt, but they sure make it difficult to trust sometimes.

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

Judge orders Forest Service to release Village at Wolf Creek documents

Environmental groups say federal agency tried to hide information

By Jonathan Romeo County and environment reporter, Durango Herald

Thursday, March 7, 2019 12:16 PM

A Freedom of Information Act was filed nearly eight months ago by a coalition of environmental groups to obtain select U.S. Forest Service documents related to the controversial Village at Wolf Creek development atop Wolf Creek Pass. Two-hundred-and-thirty days later, and well past the Forest Service’s 20-day deadline, not a single file has been released.

But that should change Thursday after a U.S. magistrate judge ordered the Forest Service to start releasing documents asked for in the FOIA request. The order came in response to a lawsuit filed by opponents of the proposed housing and commercial development.

“The purpose of FOIA is to let the public know what the government is up to,” said Travis Stills, an attorney who represents a coalition of environmental groups known as the Friends of Wolf Creek. “And this agency (Forest Service) has been trying to be secretive all the way through.” ...

Village at Wolf Creek Final Record of Decision Alternative 3 ANILCA

From: Guy E. Blackwolf, B.S. Wildlife Science; B.S. Rangeland Resources, NEPA Planner
February 27, 2019

Dear Interested Public:

Good Afternoon, you are receiving this email as an outreach to inform you as a participant in the comment and or objection process that the Final Record of Decision (ROD) regarding the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, Alternative 3 ANILCA is now signed and published for public access on the Rio Grande National Forest webpage. The signature date is February 27, 2019.

The two attachments above are the public notice letter and the ROD. Please see information below for alternative access information if more copies or reference are needed regarding the project in the future.

The direct link to the decision document on our public website is at https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/78763_FSPLT3_4624849.pdf

The main link to the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project is in the attached letter and restated here in the email for ease of access: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=35945. Upon reaching the webpage please click on the Decision tab; the list in the decision section has a + sign for expandable links.

Index of VWC-EIS, Objection Issues and Responses.

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service
Rocky Mountain Regional Office 

Response to Objections on the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, Rio Grande National Forest

33 issues addressed 

Village at Wolf Creek Access Project Draft 11/15/18
Objection Issues and Responses 

Contents 

Issue 1: The village proposal expands impacts of the federally permitted ski area development

Issue 2: Judicial orders preclude reliance on FEIS

Issue 3: The Forest Service has never made Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture’s proposal (ANILCA alternative) available for review by the public or other local, State, and Federal agencies with jurisdiction and control over the Wolf Creek Ski Area complex 

Issue 4: The purpose and need and designation of the NEPA “Federal Action” are invalid

Issue 5: The FEIS perpetuates the same structural flaws addressed by the previous injunction and settlement

Dear Village Wolf Creek Objectors: It's full speed ahead. USFS-USDA

The US Forest Service-USDA sent out a letter to ‘objectors' of the Village at Wolf Creek EIS announcing that they’ve granted road access to the Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture's inholding.  It lays out their rationale for opening the door for Red’s destructive 1980s pipe-dream speculative venture, known as the Village At Wolf Creek.  

What's to say except that the action will be shifting over to Mineral County Commissioners and their Land Use Office.  After the Dear Objector letter, I share contact information for Mineral County. 

I don't imagine they are looking forward to the controversy heading their way.  There's a lot of hostility, tension, hopelessness out there these days, still we are a community, lets be respectful, polite and willing to explain ourselves by speaking directly to each others concerns, rather than past each other.  Lordie knows hostility will only spiral into more hostility, something this country definitely doesn't need any more of.

RGNF responses to July 31st challenge.

I shared my previous post, which presented the FriendsofWolfCreek.org's challenges to the RGNF/USDA interpretation of their conflicting legal mandates and how it's playing out with the Alberta Park Parcel, with the RGNF Supervisor's office and received the following response from Public Affairs Specialist Mike Blakeman.  I have added a few paragraph breaks for clarity, but haven't altered anything else.  Nor do I have any comments to add. I hope you find the information useful.

Forest Service

Rio Grande National Forest, Supervisor's Office

Hi Peter, 

I read your blog and maybe the following from the Draft Record of Decision will help add a little clarity.

In June 2015, a lawsuit was filed challenging my 2015 ROD but the land exchange was completed subject to a stipulation that would allow “unwinding” the exchange in the event of an adverse ruling.

On May 19, 2017, the district court held that the Forest Service abdicated its duty to consider imposing deed restrictions on the federal land to be exchanged, that the power to impose deed restrictions demonstrated “actual power to control” the private development and this failure led the Forest Service to unlawfully limit its NEPA analysis. 

Questioning RGNF/USDA's Village at Wolf Creek response.

Recently I asked Dan Dallas a couple questions which he kindly answered.   I reprinted Supervisor Dallas's complete response July 23rd.  Today I was able to review Rocky Mountain Wilds' writeup at http://www.friendsofwolfcreek.org/background/ and I must say the information contradicts the supervisor's simple response and the Friends of Wolf Creek produced the supporting quotes from Judge Matsch's decision which I share in this post.  

I understand that officials do follow 'The letter of the law' - but what's left unsaid is, which letters of the law have they chosen to follow.  I don't have the answers, that's for the lawyers to spend yet more months and years haggling over.  

In the end, for me, all I know is down to Earth physical reality, and if you take that into account everything screams for Red McCombs' 80s Pipe Dream to once and for all be laid to rest. Leave Alberta Park alone!

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

A Detailed Recent History VWC

Village at Wolf Creek Poker update: USDA/USFS Folds, Red Holds.

With a tip of my hat to Jimbo Buickerood, at the San Juan Citizens Alliance, for alerting me to Jonathan Romeo's report in the May 10th Durango Herald on the latest Village at Wolf Creek development.  Namely, as the time limit ran out the USFS appears to have decided not to appeal Judge Matsch's decision of last May.  

Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture's Attorney Bill Leone defiantly announced that it doesn't matter to them what the USFS does.  They have gone ahead on their own and filed an appeal on Wednesday, arguing that "the environmental review was done according to the law and the land swap should be approved."

May 14th Update - USDA/USAF filed an "Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Appeal by Appellant United States"

But Judge Matsch sets this lawyerly 'misrepresentation' straight, when he clearly explained in his decision:

(Page 21 of 40)

ANALYSIS

The following aspects of the Record of Decision and the Biological Opinion that forms part of the basis for the ROD require relief under the APA. Defendants 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 law.

(Page 39 of 40) 

The 900 public comments in the record show this heightened public awareness of the effects of human disruption of the native environment. The Rio Grande National Forest has two designated wilderness areas near the area involved in this action. It has unique features. 

Notably, responses to the public comments were prepared by the contractors who did the work. 

They would not be expected to find that work to be flawed.

What NEPA requires is that before taking any major action a federal agency must stop and take a careful look to determine the environmental impact of that decision, and listen to the public before taking action. The Forest Service failed to do that in the Record of Decision. The duty of this Court is to set it aside.

VII. ORDER

Where an agency action is found to be arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,

(Page 40 of 40)

the Court must “hold [it] unlawful and set [it] aside.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). The Court finds and concludes that Defendants‟ actions violated the APA in the respects specified in this decision.