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/

Questioning ANILCA and Village at Wolf Creek

Since I want to help a new generation become familiar with what's happening up at Wolf Creek Pass regarding the LMJV land swap with the Rio Grande National Forest - and to question certain assumptions they based their decision on, I'm sharing a few paragraphs Joe Hanel of the Durango Herald wrote in his February 15, 2014 article "Delayed but not derailed."  It deals with how ANILCA (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980) has been interpreted to create a legal right to access... even for a heavy traffic.

Delayed but not derailed 

Joe Hanel, Durango Herald, February 15, 2014  

http://durangoherald.com/article/20140215/NEWS01/140219691/Delayed-but-not-derailed  

(...) Roadblocks 

"… McCombs obtained his property in a 1986 land swap with the Forest Service. Its only access is a dirt road that doubles as a ski trail in the winter.The lack of road access has kept the Village at Wolf Creek stalled for the past decade.  

Forest Service officials say they are bound by law to give McCombs access to his land one way or another. A 1980 law called the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act contains a provision that requires owners of inholdings to be given reasonable access to their property. The Forest Service has interpreted that to mean year-round access to accommodate McCombs’ development plans.  

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

For immediate release from the Rocky Mountain Regional Office. 

Please direct objection response questions to Lawrence Lujan.

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

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

Forest Service Responds to Village at Wolf Creek Access Project Objectors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate Change and the Forests of the West (Keeling Lecture)

The Keeling Lecture

Dr. Steve Running

Climate Change and the Forests of the West   

UCTV - Perspectives on Ocean Science

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLL7t3tF7z8

University of California Television (UCTV)

Uploaded on Jun 10, 2010

Dr. Steve Running, a Regents Professor in the College of Forestry and Conservation at the University of Montana, discusses the paradox of why forests in the West are growing faster while simultaneously suffering from higher die-off rates. 

Running was the IPCC lead author on a 2007 WG1 report analyzing North America's contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide and its impacts on the global climate. 
Series: "Perspectives on Ocean Science" [6/2010] [Science] [Show ID: 18197]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

introduction to the "Keeling Curve" and CO2 observations…
and how that ties into understanding global growth patterns

11:40  Image of our thin atmosphere against the Earth's horizon

28:30  Great satellite view of ten years worth of the whole Earth's seasons unfurling.

32:20  two week longer growing season in Northern US
33:50  April snow pack (snow water equivalent) 1950 - 2000

34:30  Tim Barnett, et al. 2008 paper, Western States spring snowpack 1950 - 2006

(Montana March temps are up 7°F )

38:00  Wild fire - Westerling, et al. 2006 - fire season 78 days longer - increased fires above 6500ft

43:00  Bark Beetles and warming winters

45:30  Montana absolute low temps have warmed 15°F in past 15 years!

48:40  Raffa, et al. - bark beetle study

49:00  Van Mantgem, et al 2009 - Background mortality rates Western forests

51:00  Stability of natural carbon sinks?

… Carbon Monitoring

53:30  Planetary Boundaries

http://www.post2015hlp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Rockstroem-Sachs-Oehman-Schmidt-Traub_Sustainable-Development-and-Planetary-Boundaries.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries

55:00   A thank you to David Keeling.

Southwest Faces Looming Threats From Climate Change

I was at a meeting a few days ago where an old timer talked about dealing with our extended drought and hanging on until "normal" rain patterns return.  I couldn't let that pass and stood up to point out that our planet has entered a new climate regime and using past experience to plan for the future is a recipe for disaster.  

Agencies clash over mapping of ‘old-growth’ fens

Speaking of protecting the wetlands.

I think it's a good time to reprint this Durango Telegraph article from 2005.  While this article is out of date regarding the legal details - when it comes to describing the complexity of the situation up there

{... that is wetlands threats; protection; to say nothing of all the agency cooperate that's needed}

this remains as informative as they get.

I'm sharing this because it highlights a few more hurdle$ this project will have to clear.   Thus shedding more light on the impracticality of this speculator's pipedream.  

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

I'm contending that the "impracticality of the VWC project" is a central issue needing official examination.

Given that: so far the USDA and the USFS and the RGNF seem to be doing everything within their vested powers to facilitate a development at Alberta Park... and in the process side stepping countless contra-indicators... contra-indicators that spell financial disaster.  Who's going to be left to clean up the mess?

We the People should be able to raise the question of the project's viability. 
Particularly since any development will cause irreparable harm to the health of the headwaters of the Rio Grande River Basin wetland; and that such destruction of a needed biological productive area needs to be justified to our youngsters.

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

 

Wetlands and ‘old-growth’ fens heat up Wolf Creek debate

Originally posted Tuesday, May 15, 2012

It Takes A Village: Proposed land swap reopens debate about Village at Wolf Creek

I thank Missy Votel 

for permission to post the full text of this informative article

{PS.  Congratulations Missy on ten wonderful (for us) years of 

publishing Durango's beloved weekly, 

Long live the Durango Telegraph!}

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

It Takes A Village - The Durango Telegraph

Volume XI, No. 34, Aug. 24, 2012

In its Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Forest Service examined six designs for the Village at Wolf Creek, three if an access road was built to the private property and three if the land swap occurred. The “Moderate Density Development” option for the access road alternative called for 523 units, including 244 condos, 168 townhomes and almost 50,000 square feet of commercial space.

This rendering was prepared by SE Group, a mountain planning and design firm, for the U.S. Forest Service in May 2012./Photo Illustration by SE Group

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

Proposed land swap reopens debate about Village at Wolf Creek

by Tracy Chamberlin
(http://www.durangotelegraph.com/index.cfm/archives/2012/august-23-2012/news/it-takes-a-village/)

Like the flashing lights at the end of intermission, the publication of an environmental study signaled the start of Act II for the Village at Wolf Creek.

Wolf Creek Needs Friends Now!

I received the following Email from
Friends of Wolf Creek this evening.

Please pass it on. Action is needed immediately,
September, 2012 is all the time we have to comment on this
Village at Wolf Creek land swap -
with it's proposed speculative luxury resort village.

Here's the deal sitting on the public land swap block:
177.8 acres of Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture's 
turned nightmare to develop land for...
204.4 acres of Prime Grade "A" US Highway Access -  
{elevation 10,160 to 10,880 feet above sea level}
Rio Grande National Forest, real estate.
Sweet deal if we allow him to swing it.

We only have September to influence the Final Environmental Impact Statement!

Here's our challenge:

Why do you think developing Albert Park should be rejected outright?

Can you explain it in a thoughtful constructive manner?

Do you have a speciality giving you insights into an aspect of this question?

County finances and liabilities,
Real estate appraisal,
Urban planning,
Recreational,
Biological,  
Economic,
Scientific,
Medical,
ANILCA
Legal, 
Fens,
etc.
?


psst...
Latitude 37°28’20”N
Longitude 106°47’00”W

Elevation approximately 10,160 to 10,880 feet above sea level.
{Air pressure and available oxygen a touch under 70% of what it is at sea level.}

Can you list thoughtful reasons for why the VWC should not be attempted?


Now is the time to explain it!

link here

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


Read the DEIS here:

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=35945
             
Overview of the DEIS:
The proposed land exchange involves approximately 204 federal acres and 178 non-federal acres within the boundaries of the Rio Grande National Forest. Part of the federal land proposed for exchange would connect the private land to U.S. Highway 160, thus precluding the need for securing access across the national forest.  
 
There are three alternatives considered:
               --The NO ACTION alternative,
               --the land exchange briefly described below, and
               --The Forest Service building an (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act)  ANILCA-compliant road over their own property to provide legal access to the inholding.
 
The Forest Service believes it is not responsible for and cannot directly analyze development on private property, but they do acknowledge that the point of the proposed land exchange is to facilitate some level of residential/commercial development on private land.  Therefore, in order to be able to analyze the indirect impacts, the Forest Service considers three versions of possible development of the so-called “Village at Wolf Creek.”
 
The range of environmental and social/economic impacts analyzed in the DEIS gives a picture of how broad and far-reaching the effects of a 10,000 or even a 5,000 person city on top of a 10,000 foot mountain pass would be.  The DEIS finds measurable impacts from the Village on
    •    endangered lynx and other wildlife
    •    wetlands
    •    water quality and loss of soil
    •    greenhouse gas emissions
    •    long-term population trends in the surrounding region
    •    public safety and emergency services
    •    local schools

According to ColoradoWild:


Talking Points
    •    a large commercial development on top of Wolf Creek Pass is still a bad idea that doesn’t fit with the character of the local area, even if the Forest Service is required to analyze it
    •    The Forest Service is right to acknowledge that construction of a big commercial development with hotels, condos, and parking garages is the point of the land exchange to begin with
    •    The effects on a critical wildlife corridor—which provides essential linkage for endangered lynx as well as mule deer, elk, and other wildlife—could be serious
    •    Wolf Creek Pass is too important environmentally to be sacrificed to the ambitions of one absentee landowner, whose plan is out of step with the surrounding communities

 
Your voice is essential!
The Forest Service and elected officials will read a lot into the number of people who show up for the open house meetings and the kinds of questions they are asking about environmental impacts and whether a land exchange like this is in the public interest.  So please do 1) show up for one of the open house meetings if you can, and 2) send a written comment to the Forest Service by
 
Public Comments are to be emailed to: 

comments-rocky-mountain-rio-grande@fs.fed.us.
Please include “Village at Wolf Creek Access Project DEIS” in the subject line of the e-mail.     

Hardcopy comments should be addressed to:
Village at Wolf Creek Access Project
c/o Tom Malecek, Divide District Ranger
Rio Grande National Forest
13308 West Highway 160
Del Norte, CO  81132
 
Stay tuned for more information at:
    •    http://friendsofwolfcreek.org
    •    http://rockymountainwild.org
    •    http://slvec.org
    •    http://sanjuancitizens.org

It would also be good to send a copy of your comments to our Congressional delegation - let them know you object to this Land Swap Deal:

Wanda_Cason@MarkUdall.Senate.gov
John_Whitney@bennet.senate.gov
Adam.Eckman@mail.house.gov
Scott.Streit@mail.house.gov

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

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

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

Dear Friends of Alberta Park and Wolf Creek, 
we have this one moment to tell the Rio Grande Forest Service and the US Department of Agriculture's powers-that-be what a destructive boondoggle this luxury Village at 10,500± elevation would be.


But, they'll never listen to you, if you don't contact them!

Here's where to do that, but you need to do it now, September:

Village at Wolf Creek Land Exchange Proposal #35945

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

Commenting on This Project
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.

Official Deadline for comments: 9/30/2012. (or is that Friday the 28th, or Monday the 1st?)

VWC - Alberta Park Needs Friends. Can you help?

Since the Rio Grande Forest Service seems mandated with being pro-development and turning a blind eye* to the cascading damages the proposed Village at Wolf Creek Speculative Development will inflict on this watershed and quite probably local governments and economy - it's up to citizens to use their one short window of opportunity - which closes at the end of September! - to convince the powers-that-be that this speculative luxury development is out of step with time and reality.

Without your help, this

US Forest Service Photo

Will become this - 

The Durango Telegraph

Except the pretty picture hides all the damage that bulldozing Albert Park will inflict.
(Please note the lower portion of this image is the existing Wolf Creek Ski Area and parking lot)

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

For more on the story here are links to the recent news:

Village at Wolf Creek Land Exchange Proposal - official information

{Since the Rio Grande National Forest Service is mandated with being pro-development and turning a blind eye to the cascading damages the proposed Village at Wolf Creek Speculative Development will inflict on this watershed and local governments and economy - it's up to citizens to use their one short window of opportunity - which closes at the end of September! - to convince the powers-that-be that this speculative luxury development is out of step with time and reality.}

The “Moderate Density Development” option for the access road alternative called for 523 units, including 244 condos, 168 townhomes and almost 50,000 square feet of commercial space. This rendering was prepared by SE Group, a mountain planning and design firm, for the U.S. Forest Service in May 2012./Photo Illustration by SE Group

Courtesy of The Durango Telegraph

see their informative story at

http://www.durangotelegraph.com/index.cfm/news/it-takes-a-village/

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

The following is copied off of the Rio Grande National Forest's website:
http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=35945

Village at Wolf Creek Land Exchange Proposal

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

Village at Wolf Creek Access Project - Forest Service seeks comments

Contrary to assurances that I was on the mailing list I received no notice from the Rio Grande National Forest - and due to being out of state I'm out of the loop.  I'm glad my curiosity about the continued delay got the better of me this morning. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/riogrande/news-events/?cid=STELPRDB5386742 Forest Service seeks comments on Village at Wolf Creek Access Project Release Date: Aug 17, 2012    Monte Vista, Colo., August 16, 2012 –TheRio Grande National Forest (RGNF) is seeking comments on the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) during a 45-day public comment period upon publication in the Federal Register on Friday, August 17.  The analysis was initiated as a result of a land exchange application submitted by Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture (LMJV).