Friends of Wolf Creek

A Coalition to Defend Wolf Creek Pass from a Proposed "Village" of 10,000 People

The Latest Plan | "Village" Myths | FOWC Archive | Get Involved | Donate

Site of the porposed "Village" Wolf Creek Pass needs your help to remain the beautiful area that you and millions of others know and love. Out-of-state developers continue to pursue plans for a "Village" at Wolf Creek, a city of 8,000-10,000 people at the top of the Pass. This intense development plan in an otherwise undeveloped area entirely surrounded by National Forest would dramatically impact the entire region. Impacts of the proposed development threaten local businesses in nearby Archuleta and Rio Grande Counties, unspoiled backcountry recreation opportunities along the Continental Divide, water supply and water quality for downstream communities, rare and ecologically valuable fen wetlands, and one of the most critical wildlife corridors in the Southern Rocky Mountains. For more history on Friends of Wolf Creek's successes in stopping previous illegal Village development plans, visit our Archive.

Developer Red McCombs has spent more than 20 years attempting to circumvent legitimate public review of his proposed "Village." McCombs has thusfar been unwilling to trust his project to any traditional process of public analysis, disclosure, and decision-making, and recently attempted to circumvent this review process yet again through a legislative land exchange to gain not only access, but also additional developable property. Finally, McCombs appears willing (or is being forced) to submit his project to an open and transparent review by the Forest Service and the public.

While the idea that the Forest Service would trade McCombs undevelopable wetlands for developable land with highway access is concerning, Friends of Wolf Creek continues to believe that the fair, open, and transparent review process is critical to promoting an informed conversation about the future of the Wolf Creek area.

McCombs Applies for Land Exchange to Facilitate "Village"

June 22, 2010

Mr. McCombs has taken the advice of Congressman Salazar and many of you, and has applied for a land exchange from the Rio Grande National Forest through the Forest Service administrative review process. The Durango Herald ran a story Wolf Creek Village makes new bid: Developers seek environmental review of proposed land trade to build resort on Friday June 18th. To read the Durango Herald article click here.

In coming months, the Forest Service will be conducting a feasibility study on the Land Exchange proposal recently submitted by Mr. McCombs. This will be an internal 3-Part process. First, the Forest Service will be reviewing legalities, then there will be an analysis of Merits and if it is evaluated to move forward, the NEPA will be engaged.

Given that the Forest Service has indicated that it has concerns that the land exchange proposal is "not in the public interest," we expect that the legalities and analysis of merits will most likely be a back and forth discussion of potential modifications to the original proposal. In the end though, the Forest Service is under no obligation to accept the original proposal in its entirety or any part thereof.

Based on what we have seen so far, we continue to have concerns that McCombs' land exchange proposal is significantly out of balance, and unfair to the public. We look forward to the Forest Service taking a careful look at the proposal, and determining whether it is appropriate to carry the idea forward into an in depth analysis, modify it, or deny it outright.

Colorado Wild and San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council (SLVEC) will be following this process closely and will keep you up to speed on the latest developments as they occur. We will be asking for your assistance in the near future to help assure that this process moves forward in a fair and unbiased manner, and that the results are thoroughly scrutinized.

If the Forest Service determines that the proposal is worth considering in detail, we continue to believe that the U.S. Forest Service's administrative review process is the best venue for the public to see its questions and concerns addressed and for a transparent and informed decision to be rendered regarding the proposed land exchange and any associated development.

Without your help, this "look before you leap" process would not have been possible, and Mr. McCombs might be well on his way toward Congressional approval of his land exchange proposal. Thank you for your interest, participation, and stamina in this long-term fight.

After more than 25 years of controversy, the proposed Village at Wolf Creek project has never received the fair, transparent, and honest appraisal that the public deserves. Approving this land exchange legislatively would have continued this unfortunate legacy. That is why we are encouraged that Mr. McCombs has applied to the Rio Grande National Forest to have his proposal reviewed through the Administrative Process.

If you have not already done so, please take a minute to thank Congressman Salazar yourself for supporting a complete and fair assessment of the proposal's impacts through an administrative process that we can all participate in.

Contact:
You can contact Congressman Salazar’s offices locally at:

813 Main Ave, Ste 300, Durango, CO 81301, 970-259-1012
609 Main Street, #6, Alamosa, CO 81101, 719-587-51

Contact Links: US Congress
Representative Salazar: DC 202-225-4761
Durango office John Whitney 259-1012
http://www.house.gov/salazar
326 Cannon House Office Building
District of Columbia 20515-0603

No Legislative Land Exchange - At Least For Now

April 30, 2010

Colorado Wild recently sent the last of your 1,856 petition signatures to Congressman Salazar regarding the proposed legislative land exchange. Thankfully, after hearing from many of you, and after holding his own meeting in Alamosa to discuss the issue with key stakeholders, Congressman Salazar is encouraging Mr. McCombs to undertake a thorough Environmental Impact Statement through the U.S. Forest Service.

Without your help, this would not have been possible, and Mr. McCombs might be well on his way toward Congressional approval of his land exchange proposal. A proposal that the U.S. Forest Service believes is "not in the public interest." Thank you for your interest, participation, and stamina in this long-term fight.

Colorado Wild continues to believe that the U.S. Forest Service's administrative review process is the appropriate venue for the public to see its questions and concerns addressed and for an informed decision to be rendered regarding the proposed land exchange and any associated development.

Despite more than 25 years of controversy, the proposed Village at Wolf Creek project has never received the fair, transparent, and honest appraisal that the public deserves. This land exchange proposal, and in particular, any effort to approve or facilitate it via legislation, would have continued this unfortunate legacy. That is why we are encouraged that Congressman Salazar is forgoing legislative involvement in this land exchange at this time.

Please take a minute to thank Congressman Salazar yourself for opting not to support a legislative land exchange despite significant pressure from Mr. McCombs and his lobbyists.

Village Myths, Misconceptions, and Issues Needing Consideration

November 2009

It is either Plan A (original plan) or Plan B (legislative land exchange plan), so why not go with Plan B.

Fact: The original land use plan was found illegal, and any re-approval is complicated by new easements. The old plan can NEVER be built, and is not a fall back plan.
Fact: Most land exchanges are conducted through a Forest Service Administrative process that involves public input and assessment of pros and cons BEFORE a decision is reached on the exchange. This fall back preserves the public’s right to be involved. Legislative exchanges are normally reserved for unique circumstances involving multiple agencies or other complications.

The Legislative Land Exchange would require and EIS so it is the same in effect as the Forest Service Land Exchange process.

Fact: An EIS is just an assessment of impacts and a process of gathering public and other agency input. EISs are only useful if the analysis developed is used to inform a decision. Doing an EIS after a decision has already been reached merely documents what the decision did, it can’t inform a better decision
Fact: The Forest Service land exchange process is designed to determine whether an exchange is in the public’s interest. The Forest Service can deny or modify an exchange proposal if insight developed through the EIS process suggests a better alternative.

The land exchange would “save” the wetlands on McCombs property.

Fact: All wetlands are protected by federal law, whether they are on public or private land. McCombs’ wetlands are a unique type, and are not subject to traditional impact/mitigation standards. No impacts are allowed under federal law regardless of whether McCombs owns them or they are returned to the Forest Service.

McCombs property is private land, he has the right to develop it is he sees fit.

Fact: The public owns an easement on McCombs property that goes back to the original land exchange. Any development of McCombs land must meet certain criteria, can’t include industrial facilities, and must be authorized by the Forest Service. Thus it is appropriate for the public to have an active role in determining the future of the Village.

Wolf Creek Ski Area can sustain another 1,500+ visitors per day.

Question: Where do Clint Jones’ back-of-the-envelope numbers come from? The Forest Service does not permit ski areas to operate at their Comfortable Carrying Capacity every day of the season. What would peak days look like? What about projected population growth in Archuleta County and Rio Grande County? How long of lift lines are acceptable to area residents/visitors?

Pagosa and Archuleta County would have more leverage on a legislative land exchange.

Questions: Would you rather negotiate over fiscal impacts to your community’s schools, police, and EMS with a thorough assessment of the impacts to these services in hand, or before such an analysis was completed? Why would McCombs be more willing to make concessions before Congress’s decision than he would before the Forest Service’s decision on a land exchange?

The legislative land exchange will be faster and provide a quicker boost to the economy.

Question: If McCombs is willing to do an EIS either way, why is the legislative approach so much faster? If McCombs get certainty out of the legislative approach, then the public gives up its ability to say no, even if the EIS suggests it’s a bad deal. Why should we give up that choice?

Become a Friend of Wolf Creek

Join the growing chorus of businesses, skiers, hikers, anglers, hunters, conservation groups, and others opposed to ill-considered development in the wildlest corner of Colorado. For more information, contact:

Ryan Bidwell, Colorado Wild
970-385-9833
ryan@coloradowild.org

Paul Joyce , Colorado Wild
970-385-9833
paul@coloradowild.org

Stay abreast of the latest developments with the Village at Wolf Creek. Learn about other ways to stay involved. Join our email alert list:

Name:
E-mail:
Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Fields in red are required