Thursday, May 28, 2015

Honor Wolf Creek, Celebrate Alberta Park, June 20, 2015


Notice: I'm only a friend of Wolf Creek - for the real Friends of Wolf Creek website - visit,
http://friendsofwolfcreek.org/forest-service-issues-final-decision-granting-wolf-creek-land-exchange/
___________________________________


Art for the Endangered Landscape: 
Honoring Wolf Creek 

Friends of Wolf Creek is planning an informative and inspiring art opportunity this summer, honoring Wolf Creek Pass. Artists of all disciplines will converge at the Wolf Creek Ski Area on Saturday June 20, 2015 to spend the day in the creative process. 

Then, a traveling art show and sale featuring art works, interpetation and music inspired from Wolf Creek will run in Pagosa 9/26 to 10/26 and Alamosa 10/30-11/29. Durango and Denver dates TBA!

______________________________________________


Hee'z baaack, and still hell bent on tearing the heart out of Alberta Park, Wolf Creek, Colorado. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Up in the San Juan Mountains of Colorado, below Wolf Creek Pass, an epic wetlands-preservation struggle has been going on.

The smoldering mess was reignited in May when the Rio Grande National Forest released its final decision regarding the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project. This decision allows the exchange of 205 acres of prime Rio Grande National Forest, including some 1500 feet of highway frontage, for 177 acres of difficult-to-develop and landlocked property owned by the Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture. Talk about a smooth poker play.

You may wonder, what's going on here? Well, it's the good old story: Money don't talk, it screams. At the heart of this battle is a Texan billionaire with a love for the real-estate poker game and a sick obsession with creating a fairytale Village at Wolf Creek. This so-called “village” would include condos, luxury-goods stores, and upscale restaurants – 10,000 people at 10,000 feet, it’s been dubbed. Sadly, his imagination is too filled with fantasies of thousands of rich and eager buyers flocking to the Colorado hinterlands to realize what he's holding in his hand.

Just uphill we have the family-run Wolf Creek Ski Area, which is nestled in a great sweeping bowl up against USA's Great Divide.  Here you'll find some of the deepest powder skiing in Colorado.  The land also happens to collect a vast quantity of source waters for the interstate and international Rio Grande River. The owners of the ski area have been on-again, off-again players doing their best to minimize exposure, while remaining savvy to opportunities.

Opposing Mr. McCombs and his sacred mantra of “Development Trumps All” are Colorado grassroots groups such as the Friends of Wolf CreekSan Juan Citizens Alliance and San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, among others - all of whom have put up a spirited defense on behalf of the wetlands that have no voice. 

This struggle has been going on for nearly three decades now.

To understand the opposition, you must understand that the targeted "parcel" is in Alberta Park. And Alberta Park happens to be the keystone of this great Wolf Creek Pass watershed

It's where the land levels out and water seeps down deep on its short journey to the head waters of the Rio Grande. Alberta Park is an intricate wetlands of complex subsurface hydrology with thousand-year-old Fens (peat-moss landscape) laced throughout. This community  performs a myriad of biological functions while storing and filtering the water upon which the Rio Grande stakeholders depend.

Yet our developers' attitude towards this natural resource is one of disinterested contempt as they explain how drainage ditches and a small-scale water-treatment plant will compensate for the destruction of this natural water-purification complex and the wildlife habitat that comes with it.

In defense of Rio Grande National Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas and his decision, it must be pointed out that his options were severely restricted by statutory requirements and also by being forced to abide by an odd interpretation of the "Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act" of 1980.  (Not to say there aren't serious questions and objections being raised regarding this most recent EIS process.)

Alaska wilderness 1970-80s, Colorado in the 2010s – what’s the connection? What's the reasoning here? Go fish... try finding a justification for that interpretation.

Why should ANILCA have standing in this particular Colorado situation? I believe a misuse of the law deserves being questioned. After all, the parcel was already landlocked within the long-established RGNF. The law was created to protect private lands within newly created Federal Land entities, thus I believe citizens have a right, if not a duty, to object to that interpretation.

In any event, now that the RGNF has decided to swap "parcels" and legal title goes to LMJV, the poker game moves on to the Mineral County Commissioners, located in Creede (population <500), the county's only town, and a comfortable 40 miles and across the mountains from this ground zero.

Hopefully it'll be different this time, because a decade or so ago, sorry to say, they were pushovers for the slick Texan with deep pockets.

Now it starts again and it's going to take a lot of informed and active citizens to oppose the power of those deep pockets as LMJV continues their single-minded pursuit of their atrocious Village at Wolf Creek pipe dream.

On Saturday June 20, there will be a celebration at Wolf Creek Ski Area called "Honor Wolf Creek" and it will focus on appreciating this wonderland through art, poetry and music. For details check out PlanetExperts.com, hosts of the event.

I believe the event will help people from all over the state get acquainted and exchange ideas and perhaps come up with strategies on how to convince LMJV of the foolishness of their destructive development plan.


The ultimate goal is to return this priceless parcel back into the Rio Grande National Forest from whence it was torn. Can you help?
______________________________________

Following are a few links dedicated to raising awareness and sharing information plus further links to various players and more information:

WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2015
Celebrating Alberta Park and Honoring Wolf Creek

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2015
Rejecting the Village At Wolf Creek, list of go-to info and resources

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2015
Final decision released for Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, May 21, 2015

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2015
Questioning ANILCA and Village at Wolf Creek
http://no-villageatwolfcreek.blogspot.com/2015/05/questioning-anilca-vwc.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

SATURDAY, JANUARY 3, 2015

What is "Reasonable Use" of Alberta Park at Wolf Creek, Colorado?


~ ~ ~ ~ ~

SATURDAY, JANUARY 3, 2015


(NO-VillageatWolfCreek.blogspot is my own website, 
I like to think of it as a kiosk of information for those wanting to 
understand why Alberta Park should remain unmolested by destructive development)

___________________________________________

THE GO-TO ORGANIZATIONS IF YOU WANTED TO GET INVOLVED:

Friends of Wolf Creek
___________________________________________
San Juan Citizens Alliance
___________________________________________
San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council 
___________________________________________
Saturday, June 20th, 2015 Honoring Wolf Creek at Wolf Creek Ski Area
 and Celebrating Alberta Park
___________________________________________

A closer look at some of the real world details:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Assessment of Wetland Condition on the Rio Grande National Forest

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Inventory of Fens in a Large Landscape of West-Central Colorado

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Hydrology Of The Wolf Creek Pass Area,  November 7, 2014

The Village At Wolf Creek: Salesmanship Trumps Meteorology

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Rio Grande National Forest: Village at Wolf Creek Access Project
The Rio Grande National Forest is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement to analyze the effects of the proposed Village at Wolf Creek land exchange.
Location Summary
The federal and non-federal parcels to be considered are entirely within Mineral County, Colorado
District: Divide Ranger District

Project Documents
Date Published
  1. Scoping
    1. Scoping Letter for the Village at Wolf Creek Land Exchange Proposal
    1. Figure showing the current private parcel surrounded by the Rio Grande National Forest
    1. Fig2 (PDF 1007kb)
    1. Figure showing the proposed land exchange Federal and non-Federal parcels
    1. Figure showing potential access location from U.S. Highway 160
    1. Notice of Intent to prepare and Environmental Impact Statement for the Village at Wolf Creek Land Exchange Proposal

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Village at Wolf Creek RGNF's EIS Administrative Objection(1/7/15)

{For the record I am not thee "Friends of Wolf Creek" I am only a friend of Alberta Park - I bootlegged their name for reasons best left to the original posting of this blogspot.
  
IF YOU WANT TO GET INVOLVED PLEASE LINK TO THEIR WEBSITE:  http://friendsofwolfcreek.org  }

For your information here's the introduction to the Objection filed against the Rio Grande National Forest's decision to go ahead with the LMJV land swap proposal. It was filed by a coalition of: 

Rocky Mountain Wild, 
San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, 
San Juan Citizens Alliance, 
Defenders of Wildlife, 
Wilderness Workshop, 
Colorado Mountain Club, 
EcoFlight, 
Great Old Broads for Wilderness, and 
Rocky Mountain Recreation Initiative. 

Pre-Decisional Administrative Objection
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project and Draft Record of Decision

http://friendsofwolfcreek.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Wolf-Creek-Access-Project-Administrative-Objection.pdf
{I've added the highlights}

Introduction

This objection is submitted by Rocky Mountain Wild, San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Defenders of Wildlife, Wilderness Workshop, Colorado Mountain Club, EcoFlight, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, and Rocky Mountain Recreation Initiative.

Objectors request that the Forest Service Reviewing Officer invalidate the Environmental Impact Statement and, if the project is to proceed, issue a new scoping notice to begin anew the National Environmental Policy Act Process based on consideration of the full project proposed by Levell-McCombs Joint Venture’s (LMJV)
construction of a resort city known as the Village at Wolf Creek at the top of Wolf Creek Pass. An independent reviewing officer must be carefully chosen to handle this matter, as LMJV and its agents have conducted extensive lobbying efforts over the past thirty years at all levels of the Forest Service and within the USDA, particularly previous leadership and staff within the office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and the Environment and current staff within the USDA Office of General Counsel.

The LMJV project is within the National Forest System on a federally encumbered inholding created “to allow for the development of the lands by the proponent for uses compatible to the existing Wolf Creek Ski Area.” Draft ROD at 9. This Objection addresses issues raised by these organizations and their members, and in some instances, issues that have emerged through events occurring after the DEIS was issued or revealed through the limited subset of agency records released by the Forest Service in ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Objectors reserve the right to supplement these objections based on agency records unlawfully withheld by the Forest Service in pending FOIA requests.

The Wolf Creek Ski Area (WCSA) sits in the middle of a unique and important natural area of the National Forest System and next to the Wolf Creek Ski Area (WCSA). Although WCSA does have impacts to the Forest Service lands subject to a special use permit, the limited development associated with the developed recreational use allows the ski area to coexist with the wildlife, scenery, unique recreation, and important values of the area. 

An 1171-unit city of 10,000 people will upset the fragile balance the Forest Service has struck in managing the WCSA. In 1986, the Forest Service correctly concluded that transfer of public land with limited access to support a much smaller development was not in the public interest. The current project proposal, construction of a small city known as the Village at Wolf Creek that will require a grade-separated interchange to access U.S. Highway 160, does not serve the public interest in maintaining the status quo of the relatively undeveloped and natural character of the WCSA and surrounding National Forest.

These objections address the failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) purposes that are implemented by specific procedures designed to minimize and eliminate environmental impacts.
The centerpiece of environmental regulation in the United States, NEPA requires federal agencies to pause before committing resources to a project and consider the likely environmental impacts of the preferred course of action as well as reasonable alternatives. See 42 U.S.C. § 4331(b) (congressional declaration of national environmental policy).
N.M. ex rel. Richardson v. BLM, 565 F.3d 683, 703 (10th Cir. 2009). The real project here is LMJV’s plan to construct and operate the proposed Village at Wolf Creek. The question of access to U.S. Highway 160 via federal land is a mere segment of the real project proposal.

The objections set forth the reasons the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is deficient and why the Forest Service cannot adopt the Draft Record of Decision (DROD) that would grant access and other interest in federal lands to support construction of a project involving a small city of part time resort dwellings. Contrary to the LMJV-influenced NEPA document, the proposed project subject to NEPA analysis remains the same as it was in March 1986: “development of the lands by the proponent for uses compatible to the existing Wolf Creek Ski Area.” Draft ROD at 9. 

The FEIS wrongly excludes the LMJV development from rigorous analysis, a legal error that narrows the scope of analysis and taints the entire NEPA process. Extensive and direct LMJV influence over the NEPA analysis has led to the repetition of the same issues that plagued the last NEPA analysis, with the same difficult questions being swept under the rug without full disclosure and consideration. Colorado Wild, Inc. v. United States Forest Service, 523 F. Supp. 2d 1213, (D. Colo. 2007).

By limiting the scope of issues and alternatives under the review, the FEIS presents the public and decision makers with a seemingly foregone conclusion on the land exchange proposal. Where the FEIS minimizes the true scope of federal control and authority over all aspects of the Village at Wolf Creek, the public and relevant agency officials are presented with the false impression that the private developer can go forward with development without full NEPA analysis of the federally encumbered private lands. The attempt to manipulate the parcels and eliminate a federal nexus and NEPA review of the development via a land exchange is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.

As set out below, and in the partial record the Forest Service has disclosed to Objectors, NEPA requires that the Forest Service begin anew by conducting scoping on a new EIS that analyzes the entire development proposal, alternatives, impacts, and mitigation measures in a single EIS. NEPA requires that an EIS must be prepared before committing resources to the LMJV proposal in the form of expanded access, easements, and approvals that ignore and sometimes eliminate important and valuable federal interests in the private lands. 

Then it get's into the details: http://friendsofwolfcreek.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Wolf-Creek-Access-Project-Administrative-Objection.pdf

Matt Sandler, Attorney, Rocky Mountain Wild, 
matt@rockymountainwild.org303-579-5162 

Christine Canaly. Director SLVEC 
slvwater@fairpoint.net, 719-589-1518

Jimbo Buickerood, San Juan Citizens Alliance 
jimbo@sanjuancitizens.org970-560-1111 


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Then there's this...


Regional Policy on the Protection of Fens, resource category 1 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 6 | Amended January 20, 1999  
From page two:  
"Because of their uniqueness and importance, Region 6 decided that all its functioning fens, which were identified on U.S. Geological Survey, National Wetlands Inventory, ... fall within Resource Category 1 of the Service's "Mitigation Policy" (Federal Register Vol.16, No.15, February4, 1981).   
The mitigation goal for Resource Category 1 is no loss of existing habitat value.  In other words, because of the irreplaceability of the type habitat, every reasonable effort should be made to avoid impacting that habitat type." 

http://no-villageatwolfcreek.blogspot.com/2015/01/fens-resource-category-1-usfws.html

VillageWolfCreek Landswap Update (1/6/15)

{For the record I am not thee "Friends of Wolf Creek" I am only a friend of Alberta Park - I bootlegged their name for reasons best left to the original posting of this blogspot.
  
IF YOU WANT TO GET INVOLVED PLEASE LINK TO THEIR WEBSITE:  http://friendsofwolfcreek.org  }


Given the well timed release of the over two years in the making VWC Landswap EIS, (which I can well believe was not the RGNF's Superintendent's doing, but instead imagine it to be more of a bureaucratic set up, where power moves with more stealth) it took quite an effort for the big folks to put together their substantial objection and get it filed before Monday's deadline.

With gratitude I congratulate Matt Sandler, Christine Canaly, Jimbo Buickerood and their team for pulling off this difficult challenge.

Let the games continue.


For Immediate Release:
January 6, 2015
{I added the highlights}

Matt Sandler, Attorney, Rocky Mountain Wild, 
matt@rockymountainwild.org303-579-5162 

Christine Canaly. Director SLVEC 
slvwater@fairpoint.net, 719-589-1518

Jimbo Buickerood, San Juan Citizens Alliance 

jimbo@sanjuancitizens.org
970-560-1111

Objection Filed on Proposed Land Exchange At Wolf Creek Pass

Monte Vista, CO - Today a coalition of conservation organizations announce the filing of a 96-page Objection with the Forest Service concerning a proposed land exchange near Wolf Creek Pass. The land exchange would allow construction of a city in a high-altitude location that receives an average of 428 inches of snow annually, and is an important wildlife corridor for many species. The development, called the Village at Wolf Creek, has been at the center of controversy since 1986.

The Forest Service proposal 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 is also paying Texas Billionaire Red McComb $70,000 as a “cash equalization payment.” The land exchange would connect the private land to U.S. Highway 160, thus securing the ability for a larger population to access to the developer’s private inholding.

"Our Objection makes clear that the Forest Service has added insult to injury by proposing to give away more land with valuable resources to a rich private interest", said Matt Sandler, staff attorney for Rocky Mountain Wild who led the preparation of the Objection. "Instead, the agency should consider protecting a biologically rich and important portion of the National Forest and represent the best interests of the American public.", stated Sandler.

Thursday, August 30, 2012

INDEX - VWC Draft Environmental Impact Statement #35945



Reviewing the VWC-DEIS you'll notice a number of points worth a closer look. Below is an incomplete list of problems with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement #35945.


To facilitate understanding the document I have organized my objections into single issue threads. I'm hoping this will help give folks a jump-start in learning about the VWC-DEIS

Each post begins will USDA Forest Service - Village at Wolf Creek Access Project - Draft Environmental Impact Statement section quoted.




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


    •    VWC-DEIS 1.6.5 Climate and Air Quality
 

    •    VWC-DEIS 1.7.3 Validity of 1986 Land Exchange
 

    •    VWC-DEIS 1.7.1 Health & Human Safety at a High Altitude
 

    •    VWC-DEIS 1.10 ANILCA 1980 - Road Access Rights

    •    VWC-DEIS Chap. 2 Page 46/47 - Employment Status
 
    •    VWC-DEIS 3.4 Water Rights & Use

    •    VWC-DEIS 3.1 Surface Water – Water Quality, Stream Health and Floodplains
 

    •    VWC-DEIS 3.7.5 Wetland Functions and Values
 

    •    VWC-DEIS 3.7.6 Fens
 

    •    VWC-DEIS 4.7.1 (Wetlands) Direct & Indirect Consequences


    •    Wolf Creek Needs Friends Now!


    •    Memory Lane... Alberta Park Field Trip, Democratic State Convention

    •    Agencies clash over mapping of ‘old-growth’ fens


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






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

For the official information see the following links:

USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region, Rio Grande National Forest:
VWC-DEIS Project Documents

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.

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

Wolf Creek Needs Friends Now

If you've stumbled onto this site because you were looking for  
Friends of Wolf Creek.org and information about the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project - Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
I'm sad to report that Friends of Wolf Creek.Org seems to be AWOL, even if they finally managed to post a notice about the Rio Grand Forest Service open houses {now that they are here and soon to be history.}

The problem is that the official comment period on the  Village at Wolf Creek Land Exchange Proposal #35945 will be over in a matter of weeks.  September is all the time we have for raising objections to the plan of giving Mr. McCombs and LMJV prime real estate next to US Route 160. 

I've heard people voice the conviction "the fix is in" there's nothing we can do.

And if the anemic turn out at last evening's Pagosa Springs Rio Grande National Forest VWC-DEIS open house is any indication, we'll make sure that's a self-fulfilling prophesy.  

But, the fact is we do have one month, September, to officially offer our thoughtful objections directly to the USDA Forest Service powers-that-be.  These comments received this month must be read and answered.  We'll never know if we could have fixed that disappointing VWC-DEIS #35945 before being finalized,  if we don't stand up in large numbers and write those comments and objections.

If you're looking for a study guide the the Draft Environmental Impact Statement please visit  
NO-VillageAtWolfCreek.blogspot.com 
where many, but not all!, are listed.

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

For the official information see the following links:

USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region, Rio Grande National Forest:
VWC-DEIS Project Documents

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.

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

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: