slogan3

Guess Who Funds Us? You Do!

$50.00 - Senior or Student
$75.00 - Individual
$100.00 - Supporter
$150.00 - Family
$250.00 - Sustainer
$500.00 - Primo Partner
$

Sign Up for Alerts

Contact Us

Address:
537 Main Street
P.O. Box 223
Alamosa, Colorado 81101
Phone: (719) 589-1518
E-mail:

info@slvec.org

Village at Wolf Creek

stelprdb5281563

 Village at Wolf Creek:
FOR THE LATEST NEWS AND DEVELOPMENTS ON THE VILLAGE please go to the Friends of Wolf Creek web site 
click here to go to Friends of Wolf Creek

We are awaiting the release of the EIS on the Village at Wolf Creek. Here are the comments that SLVEC submitted in response to the draft EIS

Click here to read this comprehensive response.

News Release--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE—August 17, 2012

Forest Service seeks comments on Village at Wolf Creek Access Project

 

The Rio 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).

“A lot of hard work has gone into the analysis for this DEIS,” said Rio Grande National Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas. “I encourage the public, special interest groups and our partner agencies to carefully review the DEIS and provide comments that will help further improve our analysis.”

The Forest held three open house meetings to provide the public an opportunity to learn more about the analysis and provide comments.

The DEIS includes analyses of the land exchange as the proposed action, an access alternative, and a no-action alternative.  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.

The primary benefits of the land exchange proposal over the previous easement access proposal include scaled down development on the private land, relocation of most of the proposed private land development to an area farther away from the ski area, and a net gain to the Forest Service via acquisition of wetlands and perennial stream habitat for wildlife.

LMJV previously sought a right-of-way access across RGNF from U.S. Highway 160 to their private land.  Since their private land is surrounded by National Forest System land, LMJV is entitled by federal statute to have granted to them by the Forest Service a right-of-way for access commensurate with the reasonable use and enjoyment of their property.

Comments should be submitted within 45 days of the publication of the DEIS notice in the Federal Register on August 17.  Comments may be emailed to: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . 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

For more information about the proposed Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, visit the Rio Grande National Forest website at www.fs.usda.gov/riogrande.
Please call me for more information.
Thank you!

Mike Blakeman

Public Affairs Specialist

SLV Public Lands Center

719-852-6212

Prior to  August 2012

For over a dozen years SLVEC has worked to protect sensitive habitat threatened by a massive development with 2,172 housing units on Wolf Creek Pass just below the Continental Divide at 10,800 feet in altitude. The 288 acre tract adjoining the family owned and operated Wolf Creek Ski Area was acquired by Texas billionaire “Red” McCombs in 1986 through a questionable land exchange transaction.

Following a court decision (filed by Colorado Wild and SLVEC) in 2008 the ruling judge declared that the Rio Grande National Forest Service must do another EIS without outsourcing the assassment work as was originally done.

In the fall of 2009, the developer was back with a new, scaled down version of the Village. The McCombs group are now requesting another 207-acre land exchange next to the current in-holding, wanting to transfer their current wetlands property for 207 acres of magnificent spruce trees with highway frontage. This new proposal includes 1,711 units to be constructed in 8 phases, beginning with 492 units. This new piece of property,directly adjacent to Highway 160, would remove the obstacle of highway access.

            In Spring 2011, the Rio Grande National Forest (RGNF) began a NEPA public review scoping process which initiated a feasibility study which officially proposes this “Village at Wolf Creek” land exchange. This process will determine the scope of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that will be prepared by anenvironmental consultant and due to come out in July 2012, managed by the RGNF and paid for by Red McCombs. Mr. McCombs is asking for the RGNF to exchange 178 of his wetland acres for 204 old growth spruce acres that belong to the USFS. SLVEC, with partners Rocky Mountain Wild and Citizens for Responsible Development have organized citizens on both sides of Wolf Creek Pass through this NEPA scoping process. Outstanding issues highlighted include water and utility availability, highway safety, wetland protection, wildlife corridor protection, and protection of the Rio Grande late season flow.

            Considering that Mr. McCombs current property has easements that restrict his developments and that he has no legal access to his property for this development, his property is “valueless” as a proposed site for a village of 8,000-10,000 people. The property he wants to trade for has highway access and is not necessarily restricted by easements. It is stated in the feasibility study that Mr. McCombs could make up the difference in the values of the two properties with cash (this is the policy with regards to land exchanges if the value of the two properties are seen to be a difference of 25% or less).

            The RGNF has decided that one of the alternatives in the EIS will be access granted to Mr. McCombs original property, so that it’s possible that he can “go back to plan A”. The RGNF has said that whatever alternative is chosen, the end goal, being the proposed village, must be a consideration. How they analyze the Village in either a land exchange or granting road access for Plan A is where we will be focusing all of our efforts. The big question is “Will this be in the public’s interest?”

            Even at the abbreviated phase one build-out, 491 units, it would have a serious impact on resources. Should it go through as presently proposed, it would impact the ecological values that currently exist. The development would have serious impacts on wildlife, as it sits directly in the middle of an important wildlife migration corridor between the South San Juan and Weminuche Wilderness Areas. In 2004, a joint study involving state patrol, a car rental company and Center for Native Ecosystems found this section of Highway 160 to be one of a dozen major Wildlife Linkage/Migration Corridors in the state. Highway 160, at this point, is a narrow, curving road with cliffs on either side. The increased traffic on this stretch of highway would surely result in a much higher percentage of animal-auto accidents. The area is home to a number of threatened and endangered species, including the recently re-introduced Canadian Lynx.

            The developers have identified nearby Pass Creek as the major water source for the project, and their previous plan committed to storing water in 7 tanks (diameter of 200 ft., 26 ft tall) holding 6 million gallons each. Pass Creek is at the headwaters of the Rio Grande; what affects Pass Creek affects this major river system. At present, no clear plan is in place for sewerage disposal or containment of run-off.

Plan, Goals, and Objectives: SLVEC will mobilize citizens to respond to the Feasibility Study decision, and advocate against the land exchange at the proposed location. A site visit at Wolf Creek planned by the Forest Service took place in September 2011 and over 125 citizens, resource personnel, developer advocates and media participated. The citizens and media were very informed and asked excellent questions. The public inquired about impacts to Pass Creek and the surrounding watershed. SLVEC plans to advocate for a thorough EIS analysis of the water delivery system, research of prior-appropriation and other case law applied to the area, the sewerage disposal plan, and the impacts to downstream wildlife and water users, as well as impacts on the Rio Grande main-stem.

            SLVEC and Rocky Mountain Wild met with the Colorado State Engineer’s office to understand the consumptive use of Pass Creek, and the adequacy of McComb’s plans to meet the needs of his proposed development as well as wildlife needs and the rights of downstream water users. The Forest Service and the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) have in-stream flow rights above and below Pass Creek. SLVEC will direct the Forest Service and state to develop in-stream flow protection plans through the EIS, include research of peak demand to ensurethat requirements of their water decree are met.

Evaluation: SLVEC still advocates for a public buy out, returning this property back into public lands. The Forest Service is also receptive to this option pending Joint Venture response to the Land Exchange analysis. An exchange for land at a lower elevation closer to public services and without the extreme impacts to wildlife would also be an acceptable outcome. Discussions with Rocky Mountain Wild have also contained the possibility of analyzing the original RGNF 1986 Environmental Assessment recommendation which proposed a maximum 110 units, but we are presently nowhere near this type of analysis or negotiation.

Previous Posts about the Village at Wolf Creek

Click here for the Feasibility Analysis Report

The Rio Grande National Forest is proposing one of two actions, either one of which at full build-out would allow a city of up to 8,000 people ("Wolf Creek Village") to be built on a private inholding adjacent to the Wolf Creek Pass Ski Area. Wildlife-including Canadian Lynx, water quality and quantity, scenery, impacts to recreation experiences associated with Wolf Creek Ski Area, the surrounding USFS lands, Weminuche Wilderness, wetland impacts and Rio Grande cutthroat trout would be significantly degraded by the proposed Village.
 
This time Mr. McCombs is asking for the RGNF to exchange 178 of his acres for 204 acres that belong to the USFS, adjacent to Hwy 160. Considering that Mr. McCombs property has easements that restrict his developments and that he has no legal access to his property for this development, his property is not suitable as a proposed site for a village of 8,000 people. Remember, the property he wants to trade for has highway access and is not necessarily restricted by easements. In the feasibility analysis (attached) it was stated that Mr. McCombs could make up the difference in the values of the two properties with cash! (This is the policy with regards to land exchanges if the difference in appraised value of the two properties differs by no more than 25%).

The RGNF has decided that another one of the alternatives in this EIS will be to grant access across national forest land to Mr. McCombs property so that he can “go back to plan A”, his original plan!

The RGNF has said that whatever alternative is chosen, the end goal, being the proposed village, must be a consideration. How much they consider the Village in either a land exchange or granting road access for Plan A is a very important consideration.
 
After more than 25 years of controversy, the proposed Village at Wolf Creek project has never received the fair, transparent, and honest analysis regarding impacts that the public deserves. We believe that an honest evaluation would cause fair-minded people to conclude that the huge development is most inappropriate for Wolf Creek Pass, and ultimately, the Forest Service needs to be encouraged to get McCombs’ property back into public ownership via purchase or exchange.

Consider making some or all of the following points when you write your letter to public officials:

  • Describe your use of the Wolf Creek Pass area and your relationship to the region and its resources. 
  • Describe how the development of a city of up to 8,000 people at Wolf Creek Pass would adversely affect your interests (aesthetic, recreational, economic, health, etc.)
  • Ask the Forest Service to consider a full range of alternatives in the EIS including returning the property to the public via a land exchange or buyout. 
  • Request that the Forest Service enforce the scenic easement that the public owns on McCombs’ property which restricts industrial facilities, prevents storage of hazardous materials, and allows the Forest Service to review and approve (or deny) land use proposals for the property.
  • Request that the Forest Service complete a thorough analysis of all of the projects’ impacts including, but not limited to:  water quality, water quantity, wildlife-Endangered Species, wetlands, traffic, air quality, socio-economic impacts, public safety, emergency services, utilities and more.
  • Remember, the "no action" alternative is always a consideration!

 



More Background

Since 1999, Colorado Wild/SLVEC's Friends of Wolf Creek campaign has fought to preserve a critical wildlife corridor, threatened species, wetlands, air quality, scenic and recreational resources on the Continental Divide, and the integrity of nearby Wilderness areas in the Southern Rockies from a massive development proposal at Wolf Creek Pass. Squeezed between the South San Juan Wilderness Area – the Southern Rocky Mountains’ wildest – and the Weminuche Wilderness Area – Colorado’s largest – the habitat along Wolf Creek Pass forms the headwaters of both the Rio Grande and San Juan Rivers and serves as a critical ecological and recreational linkage. Yet out-of-state developers with little knowledge of high altitude conditions and values are proposing the “Village” at Wolf Creek, a city of up to 8,000 people at the top of the Pass. This intense development in an otherwise undeveloped area entirely surrounded by National Forest would dramatically impact the entire region.

After years of foiled attempts to circumvent the public process, and millions spent on politically manipulated approvals, the Friends of Wolf Creek have successfully overturned every permit thus far acquired by the developer. This saga to protect one of Colorado’s prized landscapes continues to be made possible thanks to the dedication and generosity of thousands of committed citizens. For More information, see: www.friendsofwolfcreek.org

2. TAKE ACTION: Write a Letter to the Editor

We need to continue to spread the word about the “Pillage” at Wolf Creek, and expand our network of concerned activists. Consider writing a Letter to the Editor (usually under 300 words), or call your local paper and ask if you can submit a full editorial (usually around 700 words). Either is a great way to reach out to the public and share your concerns. Feel free to contact us at Colorado Wild if you want any help with your letter.

3. TAKE ACTION: Contact Your Elected Officials

Friends of Wolf Creek have had outstanding support from elected officials at the local, state and federal level. As the Forest Service initiates a new EIS process, it is critical that we re-engage our elected officials, and ask for their help. Beginning with Colorado’s Congressional Delegation, we encourage you to contact:

  • Congressman Scott Tipton, Cortez, CO
    Phone: 970.565.7383
    Tipton website 
    Alamosa:  719-587-5105
  • Senator Mark Udall, Durango, CO 
    phone: 970-247-1047
    Udall website
    Alamosa: 719-589-2101
  • Senator Michael Bennet, Durango, CO
    phone: (970) 259-1710
    Bennet website
    Alamosa: 719-587-0096

Ask each for their continued leadership on this issue. Specifically, request that they:

  1. Request that the Forest Service conduct public hearings, not just “open house” meetings, to solicit public comments.
  2. Request that the Forest Service complete a thorough analysis of all of the project’s impacts including, but not limited to water quality, water quantity, wildlife, wetlands, traffic, air quality, socio-economic impacts, public safety, and more.
  3. Request that the Forest Service consider a full range of alternatives in the EIS including return of the property to public ownership.

 Please also contact your local and state elected officials. You can find their contact information

Mineral County Commissioners contact page

Rio Grande County Commissioners

Archuleta County Commissioners contact page

http://www.votesmart.org/index.htm

Colorado Wild/SLVEC/CRD

For more info contact Paul Joyce @ 970-385-9833 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ", Christine Canaly @ (719) 589-1518 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. " or www.slvec.org

Jim Turnbull, Citizens for Responsible Development (Creede) (719) 658-2410 or visit friendsofwolfcreek.org also www.fs.usda.gov/riogrande

Documents

Analysis of Access to Village at Wolf Creek Stopped

Forest official updates status of Wolf Creek Access EIS
Judge Protects Rio Grande National Forest Halts road construction to proposed “Village at Wolf Creek”
Colorado Court of Appeals rejects appeal by Wolf Creek developers
March 22, 2007 - Village at Wolf Creek (VWC) Update