RGNF Supervisor responds to questions.

Rio Grand National Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas, did me the courtesy of a prompt and thorough response to the email I shared in the previous post.  Here I share his email which I have reformatted for clarity without altering any of his words, beyond bolding some of them.  It's food for thought and creates a sort of baseline to work with, or argue against, as the case may be. 

___________________________________________

Village at Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Statement and draft Record Of Decision 

are available on-line at: 

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

Comments are to be sent to before September 4th: 

Reviewing Officer, Tammy Whittington, Deputy Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, Region 2, 1617 Cole Blvd., Building 17, Lakewood, Colorado 80401 or email r02admin_review@fs.fed.us. 

______________________________________________________ 

With that I'll give the stage to Dan Dallas and will save further commentary for future posts.

______________________________________________________________

Subject: Why are comments on VWC recent Draft Decent being limited.

Response received Monday, 1:46PM, July 23, 2018

Dallas, Dan -FS

Peter, good questions, I will answer below within your letter below, highlighted in yellow using direct quotes from documents available on our website.  

Correction! Does RGNF restrict comments on Village at Wolf Creek Draft Decision?

I'll leave my letter as it was and simply add Dan Dallas' clarification.

Open letter of inquiry to RGNF/USDA

Dan Dallas clarifies, "There is no limitation on who can comment, this is a mischaracterization of the process that we’ve tried our best to clearly describe 

What is limited is who has standing to file an objection of the decision because it (decision) is based on an existing EIS which has already been commented on. ..."   (7/23/18)

_______________________________________________________
Village at Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Statement and draft Record Of Decision 
are available on-line at: 
https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=35945. 

Comments are to be sent to before September 4th: 

Reviewing Officer, Tammy Whittington, Deputy Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, Region 2, 1617 Cole Blvd., Building 17, Lakewood, Colorado 80401 or email r02admin_review@fs.fed.us. 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

Dear RGNF Supervisor Dallas,

Concise History of the Village at Wolf Creek - San Juan Citizens Alliance

San Juan Citizens Alliance

Does a great many things.  I'll admit I'm most familiar with their 30 years worth of efforts to protect Alberta Park from thoughtless destruction and now they have revamped their webpage and it's become an even better resource.  I encourage you to check it out:

http://www.sanjuancitizens.org/the-village-at-wolf-creek/

They have put together this one page summary that's a must for finishing up this series of posts:

A Concise History of the Village at Wolf Creek
http://www.sanjuancitizens.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/History-More-Document.pdf

1986: Land Exchange #1
Leavell Properties requested 420 acres of U.S. Forest Service (USFS) land on the east flank of Wolf Creek Pass in exchange for 1,631 acres of degraded rangeland they owned in Saguache County. Their aim was to develop 200 residential units adjacent to the Wolf Creek Ski Area. Colorado’s then Congressman Hank Brown interfered with this process. The USFS denied the exchange due to concerns surrounding “a decrease in public values;” but two weeks later, the USFS withdrew the denial decision and, without providing a valid reason, approved the transfer of 300 acres to Leavell.

Same as it ever was, Red's saga continues.

    

{edited 1/19/16, 2:45 PM - I wrote this after an already long day and made a mess of some of dates.  My apologies, think I've finally gotten the tangled mess properly straightened out. }

This was originally posted March 21, 2012.  Considering today's news I thought it would be appropriate to dust it off a bit, update it a bunch and share.

_____________________________________________ 

The Village at Wolf Creek, It’s A Scandal  (March 21, 2012)

Let me tell you a story about a man called Red, a gambling man with a plan.  He was going to buy into Colorado's high mountain Real Estate game during those booming 1980s.  The plan, buy up a few scattered private parcels that were besmirching the lower Saguache Ranger District of the Rio Grande National Forest. It was nice land; land the Rio Grande Forest Service had been eyeing in order to consolidate ownership of that range land and clean up their map.  Red had it all figured out.

With those chips in hand Red saddled up to the public lands real estate table, proposing to trade his coveted Saguache District chips for an incredible jackpot smack in the middle of the high country, near US Highway 160 just shy of Wolf Creek Pass and the ski area smack in a beautiful productive watershed, headwaters to the Rio Grande River don't you know.  

In 1986 after due process Red’s proposal was rejected by RGNF officials because the Albert Park parcel was too precious to lose, consolidated Saguache District map be damned.

Appreciating Wolf Creek's ‘old-growth’ fens. Part one

Here is a Durango Telegraph article from December 2005, written by Adam Howell, it examines an interagency conflict that was triggered by the Army Corps of Engineers interfering with the Environmental Protection Agency's mandate to survey the Alberta Park wetlands, site of the proposed Village at Wolf Creek.

I share it because it highlights the conflicts between blindly pro-development where everything is viewed through the Land Developer's Lens - while those who are trying to assess landscapes for their own intrinsic values are rejected as valueless and ignored despite their own statutory mandates.

Though the article is ten years old, nothing has changed about the value of that wetlands, just as it is, nor about the inevitability of any development in Alberta Park at ±10,300' causing irreparable damage who's cascading consequences will negatively impact the entire watershed and the interstate international Rio Grande River plus it's stakeholders!

The fact that LMJV is moving the project a few hundred yards and slightly uphill and closer to the highway will not mitigate the unavoidable destruction.

Think before digging!

Reprinted with permission from The Durango Telegraph 
and posted here to information the interested.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Durango Telegraph

» December-29-2005 » Wetlands heat up Wolf Creek debate more at: http://no-villageatwolfcreek.blogspot.com/2012/05/durango-telegraph-village-at-wolf-creek.html Wetlands heat up Wolf Creek debate Agencies clash over mapping of ‘old-growth’ fens Skiers and snowboarders meander through the base area of Wolf Creek on Monday.  The Village at Wolf Creek, proposed not far from the current base area, is continuing  to stir up controversy. The Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental  Protection agency are currently at odds over wetlands regulation. /Photo by Todd Newcomer.  by Adam Howell   Wetlands are currently boiling with controversy in the vicinity of Wolf Creek Ski Area. According to recently obtained e-mails, two agencies are throwing jabs in a recent bout over the regulation of wetlands as they relate to the proposed Village at Wolf Creek. According to the exchange, the Army Corps of Engineers’ Albuquerque District has prevented the Environmental Protection Agency from verifying the locations of wetlands at the site of the proposed developed.

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.

Climate Change's broader effects cause more worry

I would like to offer some more background supporting my claim that VWC-DEIS authors - and in fact, Mr. McCombs and his developer Clint Jones - need to start paying attention to the complex realities that climate disruption will be forcing on us.  

Whether you want to admit it, or deny it, we are entering a brave new world where global warming driven changes are going to overwhelm those who choose to continue ignoring it!

Destroying the integrity of the Albert Park Watershed for an unfeasible speculative scheme is not in the best interests of anyone.