Short history of the Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture - Village at Wolf Creek. part two

Ryan Bidwell, then Executive Director of Colorado Wild reviews the Village at Wolf Creek's first Environmental Impact Study - 2009

Ryan Bidwell, Executive Director of Colorado Wild, provides his group's position on the proposed Village at Wolf Creek.  The talk was at the Riverwalk Cafe, in downtown Pagosa Springs, during business hours, so please excuse the side noise and cell phones.  Fortunately Ryan is a good speaker so he's easy to follow.

These videos were filmed and uploaded onto YouTube by D. West Davies, http://www.dwestdavies.com  Oct 22, 2009

I tip of my hat to West for his efforts and for his encouragement.

I have added rough notes to give an outline of what each segment contains.

If you're new to the Village at Wolf Creek preservation struggle and trying to figure out just what's going on this talk offers some valuable background.  It was given not long after LMJV's unveiled his nifty new land swap offer that would get him right next to the highway. 

___________________________________________________

Wolf Creek Village Presentation 

by Ryan Bidwell from Colorado Wild, 2009 - Part 1/9 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpfNGqVY9hI

D. West Davies

Short history of the Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture - Village at Wolf Creek. part one

I'll begin with Christine Canaly of the San Luis Valley Ecosystems Counsel responding to some questions I asked her. Followed by a timeline of highlights going back to 1986 and the original land trade.  Followed by the first segment of a history lesson Ryan Bidwell gave back in 2009.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Could you describe the Friends of Wolf Creek's position on development at Alberta Park?

Why are these environmental organizations joining forces to sue the USDA Forest Service?

What are they asking for?

Can you shed light on rumors of other land-trade offers being floated?  Namely offering Mr. McCombs and LMJV a comparable parcel of developable land at lower elevation and closer to existing infrastructure?

In terms of your questions: 

1. The lawsuits we have filed and the one we are preparing for is based on NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act). 

NEPA analysis is based on process analysis, that is our strongest leverage at this time, because we believe that "the process" has been violated. 

Having said that, we are taking this to Federal District Court so we need substantive arguments regarding policy, law CEQ's etc., being violated during the NEPA process. 

2. The one question we have not had answered and the Forest Service has avoided it, is how many units can that area actually handle?
What size of development, if any, is the "appropriate size" for that area? 

THAT ANALYSIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE. 

3. Not only has the question never been answered, but the Forest Service (FS) continues to take the stand that "this is not within our scope of analysis." 

Within Forest Service scope of analysis, which they purposely narrowed to "road access" to avoid having to do real analysis of impacts, FS is basically side stepping this big question by saying "this is a private property rights issue and needs to be settled though the PUD process in Mineral County". 

4. So, you see what keeps happening, the developers pressure the Forest Service to maintain the narrow scope of analysis because the developers don't want to know what the proper number of units would be, if any. I'm sure they see it as "not good" for marketing this "VWC" vision, in their opinion. 

5. To answer your question about the Environmental organizations and our position, the reality is, "since there has never been proper analysis done on impacts to determine what that area could possibly handle, we have to take the position that we don't know the answer, since that analysis has not been done." 

Clean Water Rules highlight increased need to protect Alberta Park

   
Looks like friends of Wolf Creek and Alberta Park may have another tool to bring to bear in the long standing struggle to protect Alberta Park watershed from destructive development and hopefully convince Mr. Red McCombs and his LMJV to abandon their 10,500' elevation village in the sky dreams and look at more down to Earth and realistic offers of a land parcel further down the mountain and closer to existing infrastructure where development would be more appropriate.

The bottom-line regarding Alberta Park Watershed is that it's a precious national resource just as is, a highly productive, complex living organism above and below ground.  It's integral to the Rio Grande River's good health.  Not to mention that it's also a key wildlife corridor.  That habitat is worth saving.  As is.

{ h/t to Gail at the Four Corners Free Press }

_______________________________________________________

EPA News Release May 27, 2015

Clean Water Rule Protects Streams and Wetlands Critical to Public Health, Communities, and Economy

Release Date: 05/27/2015

Contact Information: Robert Daguillard, daguillard.robert@epa.gov

Washington – In an historic step for the protection of clean water, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army finalized the Clean Water Rule today to clearly protect from pollution and degradation the streams and wetlands that form the foundation of the nation’s water resources.

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

_________________________________________

The proposed Village at Wolf Creek revisited

March, 2012
The proposed Village at Wolf Creek revisited

Given that the Rio Grande National Forest will be releasing their preliminary draft EIS for the Red McCombs Land Swap Offer in another couple months - and considering people will have a short moment of opportunity when sharing their thoughts will actually matter - an update is called for.

ALERT! The sleeping Grizzly has awoken ~ Remains focused on devouring Alberta Park...

March 2011 Update...
The following has been pilfered from Friends of Wolf Creek.org but contains an important update and I'm hoping they won't mind.


Forest Service to Process Wolf Creek Land Exchange Proposal

March 8, 2011
The Rio Grande National Forest has published a feasibility analysis for the proposed Village at Wolf Creek Land Exchange and has entered into an agreement with Mr. McCombs to process the land exchange proposal.

August first 2010 Update

{Thank you www.lutheransource.net/WolfCreek.htm for the image of Alberta Park}

UPDATE:

From the Durango Herald

June 18, 2010
Wolf Creek Village Makes New Bid -
Developers seek environmental review of proposed land trade to build resort
by Joe Hanel - Herald Denver Bureau

"The June 7 proposal to the Forest Service formally starts an environmental review that could take 18 months or more. Officials at Rio Grande National Forest said Thursday they are doing an initial review of the plan to decide whether it is complete enough to even accept. If they do accept it, that will trigger a long process that includes public involvement..."


July 30, 2010
"Wolf Creek Village Redefines Project -
Minor boundary adjustments proposed for resort land swap"
by Shane Benjamin - Herald Staff Writer

"Developers of the Village at Wolf Creek have modified plans for a proposed land swap near the top of Wolf Creek Pass, where a resort town with ski-in and ski-out access is envisioned.

"The amended plan is similar to one submitted earlier this year by developers, but it makes slight boundary adjustments to accommodate the realignment of a ski lift that would link the village and Wolf Creek Ski Area. It also includes two alternate plans should the U.S. Forest Service reject the land swap..."

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

Letter to the Durango Herald

Dear Editor,
Clint Jones, Village at Wolf Creek project leader from Austin, Texas (elevation 500’), says his reminted land exchange offer “is in the best interest of all parties, including the public.” How does he justify this conclusion when he won’t even acknowledge, let alone discuss, the many problems with the VWC concept both environmental and financial; problems that tweaking boundaries won’t fix?

The Back Story ~ Village at Wolf Creek ~ presented by Ryan Bidwell

.

{Thank you www.lutheransource.net/WolfCreek.htm for the image of Alberta Park}
~ ~ ~

Ryan Bidwell, Executive Director of Colorado Wild describes the Village at Wolf Creek history and current status.

Colorado Wild Village at Wolf Creek Presentation ~

West Davies on YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpfNGqVY9hI&list=PL63BD9DC3F3BE822E

A nine part series by

West Davies

Filmed - October, 2009

Interestingly, the next day Mr. Clint Jones, the VWC developer, was giving his 'Village at Wolf Creek sales pitch' at the same venue, but Mr. Jones refused to allow West Davies to record his presentation.

Sounds like the developer of the Village at Wolf Creek isn’t willing to stand behind his words, by allowing them to be recorded.

More cause for healthy skepticism!

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

For more background there's a very interesting Denver Post expose' by Mike Soraghan, February 5, 2006 - Section: 1A Page: A-01.

The Wolf Creek Development Tangled With Political Ties
Mike Soraghan, Denver Post Staff Writer

...................................................................................................................

* Congressman Salazar, Question the VWC proposal

Saturday, February 17, 2010

Open letter to
Congressman Salazar’s VWC Discussion Panel on future approaches to the proposed development of the Alberta Park area.
Adam State College, Alamosa, Colorado ~ 2-17-10
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


{Thank you www.lutheransource.net/WolfCreek.htm for the image of Alberta Park}
~ ~ ~

Honorable Congressman Salazar and panel members,
I respectfully submit the following list of issues & questions deserving to be addressed.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

It must be noted this parcel of land was originally set aside, within the protective fold of the Rio Grande National Forest, for the benefit of all Americans by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1911.

Then, on February 20, 1986, in a back room of the US Department of Agriculture, a Washington DC insider countermanded the Rio Grande National Forest’s land exchange process which had rejected Mr. McCombs’ lopsided land swap proposal.

> In essence this parcel was victim to an illegitimate hostile take over. . .

The People do have the right to hope for its return to the American land trust.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Beyond that, there’s the actual biological productivity of that land to consider.
Alberta Park is a “keystone parcel” within an integral carpet of land that is the Wolf Creek watershed, source waters to the interstate, international Rio Grande River.

~ ~ ~
Wildlife corridors and living space for a large variety of animals.
The pristine fens area is biologically productive on a grand scale.
The area is a massive water filter, purifier and reservoir.
Simply leaving it as it stands has multiple economic benefits.

> These aspects get downplayed > yet deserve to reign center stage.

~ ~ ~
Plow a development into the middle of it and that sweet water will turn into reused gray water and the wildlife sanctuary, fens, watershed will suffer cascading losses.
> Given current global trends, clean water resources are among our most precious commodities... isn’t protecting this unique resource an imperative concern ?

~ ~ ~
Why complicate local life with the legal Water Rights court battles that will ensue any actual diversion of massive amounts of water shares into that speculative village?

~ ~ ~
Question the project’s realism:

Considering current financial world realities - where will the people come from for this luxury get-away at 10,000'? Or put another way...
How does one justify such 1990s developer dreams in the face of the obviously leaner, meaner 2010s we are heading into?

Wishing the good old days back doesn’t justify gambling away this world class pristine irreplaceable watershed resource for a questionable,
nay, doomed pipedream.

~ ~ ~
The public health challenge:

In particular the health risks associated with lowlanders sleeping at 10,000’ elevation.

Who will deal with the Altitude Sickness of varying degrees that will become chronic health incidents for residents at that altitude?

Will prospective buyers be forewarned of the health risk?
How many actual buyers would, in the end, opt for healthier accommodations at lower elevations?

After all, at 10,000’ our lungs absorb a third less oxygen than near sea level.

~ ~ ~
Responsibility:

Who will be responsible for developing and financing an Emergence Medical System and medical clinic?
Will the VWC medical clinic include a High Altitude Health Research Station, considering the pioneering 10,000’ elevation of these overnight accommodations?

~ ~ ~
Then, there’s Police protection to consider, plan, finance, develop.
Who will be responsible for that?

~ ~ ~
Then, there’s Fire protection to consider, plan, finance, develop.
Who will be responsible for that?

~ ~ ~
Then, there’s snow clearing and street maintenance to consider, plan, finance, develop. (see Larry Calloway's article "VWC, Salesmanship Trumps Meteorology" )

Who will be responsible for that?

~ ~ ~
How much thought has gone into developing the sewage treatment plant for this high altitude environment that experiences freezing temperatures eight months of the year?
(Plus intense solar radiation... plus microbial efficiency is temperature & O2 dependent.) VWC will present unique water treatment engineering challenges and include inevitable breakdowns and high operating costs.

Who’s paying for it?

~ ~ ~
The list goes on, electrical distribution, LP gas, phones, IT . . .
Who will be financially responsible for ensuring all this necessary infrastructure?

~ ~ ~
The Business Plan:

A business venture is about high return on an investment.
To think the above can be accomplished within the budget of a speculative VWC for profit real estate venture seems fantastical.

The VWC is impossible without massive outside support... and that will turn out to be governmental support... tax payer support.
But, our governments are already stretched to bursting with obligations, why are we considering creating yet more?

And for what? A destructive white elephant in the making.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Honorable Congressman Salazar,
American’s have a right, if not duty, to attempt wrestling McCombs’ Albert Park speculative development parcel (although I would call it a priceless biological gem), back into the protective fold of the Rio Grande National Forest, America’s land trust.

Congressman Salazar will you do your part?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mr. McCombs & family, Why not return it?

“The B.J. Red McCombs Sweet Water Biological Preserve”
~ ~ dedicated to all down stream children yet to be born ~ ~

........................................................................................................................

Open Letter to the Archuleta Board of County Commissioners

Monday, December 7, 2009



Here we go again. On one side we have “Red” McCombs who back in 1986 through shrewd manipulation of the golden rule wrestled Alberta Park away from the Rio Grande National Forest. Visit Friends Of Wolf Creek.org to view their whitepaper for documentation. Also Mike Soraghan’s Denver Post article: “Wolf Creek develop-ment tangled with political ties” (2-5-6)

Now nearing 2010 McCombs wants to wrestle another more “advantageous” parcel away from the Forest Service > and environmental oversight toboot. For this plan to work he must enlist the Archuleta Board of County Commissioners as accomplices. It’s easy to understand what’s in it for the developer. But, why would Archuleta Commissioners stand behind and support such a boondoggle in the making? The potential for harm, to the Alberta Park watershed and to future county finances far outweigh the flimsy potential for a viable luxury village up at Wolf Creek Pass.

We are dealing with a man’s dream of taking that pristine high mountain watershed resource ~ part of the headwaters to the Rio Grande River ~ and turning it into a chunk of Real Estate and a Backlot for some fanciful Luxury Resort Village for eight or ten thousand wealthy vacationers. But, how many would actually want to live there year around?

This is at ten thousand feet elevation, just to the lee side of the Continental Divide at 11-12 thousand foot elevation? In an average winter thirty-six feet of snow will fall, with wind blown drifts that can bury homes. They can expect freezing temperatures eight months out of the year. The average wind speed is 11 mph, stormy weather brings 50 mph winds and when things get intense it’s a gale topping a hundred miles per hour. Is this an appropriate setting for a successful luxury town?

The Village at Wolf Creek is a dream born during the heady Reagan years when America convinced itself there were no limits on our expectation for ever greater luxuries. Haven’t we learned better? I sincerely wish Red McCombs and those of like mind would STOP and seriously look at how their blind compulsive grasping for ever more consumption is robbing our children’s future.

Look around at our economy, our commitments, and the flow of events. The dream of a Luxury Village of eight or ten thousand wealthy vacationers enjoying cold alpine weather conditions, belongs in a Hollywood movie... > Not perched on the edge of the Colorado Great Divide.

What about the vast operational expense$ and the infrastructure that must be maintained whether the homes are sold or not, lived in or empty? The town at ten thousand elevation will need well planned, faithfully executed civic infrastructure: police, medical facilities & personnel, schools(?), communications & IT infrastructure, providing & maintaining power utilities, street maintenance, water supply & sewer system maintenance through a long winter and deep blanket of snow. Oh and snow removal, just where will they put all that snow they need to scrap off the roads and roofs? Are they planning streets a hundred feet wide like in Silverton? The list goes on. Who will be picking up the tab?

What part of this plan is feasible? A developer’s smooth sales pitch and lubricating gold should not be enough to convince civic leaders to fall for such a chimera! Look at the lower elevation areas around Wolf Creek Pass, Colorado ~ they have a frightening saturation of unsold vacation homes, as documented in a Pagosa Sun article by James Robinson (7-8-9). Why add to the glut? Also see Mark Pearson’s (3-5-9) Durango Herald: “(Luxury) Resorts morph into “toxic” real estate assets.”

How is this going to work given the current economic prospects? Especially since the only purpose for this alpine Village at Wolf Creek is satisfying the dream fulfillment of rich people with too much money. Considering what’s happening in the financial world, even rich folks don’t have the loose change they used to. “If you build it, they will come” sounds great in the movies and ad campaigns but in the real world of flowing seasons and the 2010’s it rings mighty flat.

McCombs finds himself on the side of American thought that proclaims ‘Too Much Is Never Enough.’ This faith is coupled with an outlook that demands a ‘Full Speed Ahead With Eyes Glued To The Rear View Mirror’ mindset. This project is all about such 80/90’s thinking. We have seen time and again how this free wheeling self-certain focus on development at all costs, has saddled communities with precious resource, money, energy & time robbing obligations. Why allow this community to be led right into another such trap? Why invite an expensive destructive White Elephant into our community?

So, what about the other side? It represents a conservative perspective. It looks beyond grand fancies and short term profits and believes such irreplaceable biological gems as Alberta Park with it’s surrounding meadow and forest land is a precious biological resource and part of the national endowment that belongs to our younger generations. Akin to a national treasure or even a National Security Water Resource Area. It believes Red McCombs should do a truly patriotic thing and grant that land back to the American trust through some sort of conservation easement arrangement: “The Billy Joe ‘Red’ McCombs Fresh Water Biological Preserve” dedicated to all down stream kids yet to be born !

As representatives you have been entrusted with looking toward the future and the greater good. Truth be told in general representatives have too often failed we the people, in carrying out that mandate due to the golden rule.

Therefore, we the people stand before you powerless ~ yet, pleading for your better judgment to out shine your faith in economic notions that are proving to fail us when we need them most. Protect that productive natural resource up there at Alberta Park. Reject Red McCombs fanciful and dangerous notion of a new land grab. Reject the pipedream of bulldozing a luxury vacation town into the middle of that pristine biologically productive high mountain alpine watershed.
Please vote in favor of Leaving It Alone.

Sincerely, Peter Miesler ~ Durango, Colorado ~ http://citizenschallenge.us

{For the record I am unaffiliated with FWC or any other entity involved in this matter.
My allegiance is with Alberta Park... and that fantastic gem of a watershed. pm 12-7-9}
.........................................................................................................................

Village at Wolf Creek: Why not a Nature Preserve resolution?

Saturday, September 5, 2009


{Thank you www.lutheransource.net/WolfCreek.htm for the image of Alberta Park}
~ ~ ~

Last week the Durango Herald was filled with news about the reawakened push for the Village at Wolf Creek speculative development. First Red McCombs hires Michael Dino a heavy weight Democratic lobbyist. His mission - bring in the money cannons. Dino knows where to aim them for greatest effect in developing political channels for side stepping public review.

As the week unfurled we learned the new plan was hinged on a new land swap effectively moving the development a few hundred yards. Also, ‘Hal Jones Development’ is now proposing a resort merely three-quarters the size of the original ten thousand person conception.

The key ingredient to this new strategy would be Congressman Salazar sponsoring a land-swap bill. As Clint Jones, of HJD, says John Salazar is the only one who could credibly carry the land-exchange act through Congress. This may be true, but credibility is hard won and easily lost.

It seems difficult to believe Congressman Salazar could be swayed into compromising his credibility to join this speculative real estate scheme. Should you oppose the idea of developing Wolf Creek, now would be a good time to drop Congressman Salazar a line at http://www.house.gov/salazar/contact.shtml. or (202) 225-4761 or (970)-245-7107 or (719)-543-8200.

In another article US Senator Bennet speaks of “serious concerns about the potential impacts” and “We need to keep a close eye on the matter and get answers to a number of questions...”

Here are some starter questions: How viable is this eighties pipedream of building a small village at 10,000 elevation to begin with? Look at today’s economic reality and outlook. Consider the under appreciated future ripple effects our continuing rising chronic unemployment will have.

Look at the lower elevation areas around Wolf Creek Pass, Colorado ~ they have a frightening saturation of unsold vacation homes, as documented in a Pagosa Sun article by James Robinson (7-8-9). Why add to the glut?
Also see Mark Pearson's March 5, 2009 Durango Herald's story "(Luxury) Resorts morph into "toxic" real estate assets."

Why risk that high value fresh water resource?

Remember we are talking about source waters to the Rio Grande River. Any digging and construction will disrupt, even destroy portions of an exquisitely tuned biological super-organism, one that produces any number of priceless services for all down stream inhabitants. Moving the project a few hundred yards one way or another doesn’t change that.

There is also the matter of the original “dirty land swap.” Documented in Mike Soraghan’s 2-5-6, Denver Post article:
“Wolf Creek development tangled with political ties.”

B.J. Red McCombs may hold legal title but, he does not possess ethical or moral title to that land. Therefore some of us continue to beg Mr. McCombs, and now his daughter, to please revert that land to some Nature Conservancy status, protecting that irreplaceable resource for the greater national good.

The solution really is that simple. Leave that parcel alone to remain an unmolested portion of an important biological super-organism.

It would be a fitting gesture for someone who recently received the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars award for “corporate citizenship.”

If you agree, please encourage Red McCombs to reconsider his priorities. He can be reached through
http://www.koontzmccombs.com/main/contact_us.php

Sincerely, Peter Miesler
Durango, Colorado

PS. Mr. McCombs doesn’t “The Billy Joe “Red” McCombs Fresh Water Biological Preserve” ~ dedicated to all down stream children yet to be born, have a nice ring to it?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For more information visit Friends of Wolf Creek at http://www.friendsofwolfcreek.org/
.......................................................................................................................