The Glory of Southwest Colorado

Developers discuss Wolf Creek resort

2007-02-18T10:39:00.001-05:00

Developers discuss Wolf Creek resort

A crowd of 200 seeks answers to many questions about the massive proposed development.

By ERIN SMITH
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

ALAMOSA - The more than 200 people attending a meeting on the proposed Village at Wolf Creek at the Inn of the Rio Grande Friday night appeared divided in their support of the project.

After the announcement of the plan by developers Bob Honts and B.J. “Red” McCombs, Karla Willschau, a certified public accountant with the Alamosa accounting firm of Wall, Smith, Bateman, presented her analysis of what the village would do for Mineral County. She said the project could be worth $237 million in revenue to Mineral County over 20 years.

Honts also announced that he and his partner are closing Monday on Twin Pines Ranch in Rio Grande County and will be buying the more than 1,700-acre Flying W Ranch in the spring.

When asked later what is being proposed for the two properties, Honts replied, “We have no plans but to farm, fish and walk around.” That could change though, he admitted.

He called reports of the possible development and construction of employee housing on the property “Rumors. Rumors can be very dangerous. They approach slander.”

The Village at Wolf Creek, to the east of the Wolf Creek Ski Area, is designed as a self-contained village resort that could house up to 12,000 people, but that would be if every bed was filled, Honts told the standing-room-only crowd.

At full build-out, it could contain up to 1,200 hotel rooms, 222,000 square-feet of commercial space, 129 lots for single family units, and 1,643 multi-family units, 2,172 units in all.

Environmentalist Rio de la Vista, who expressed concern for the wetlands and suggested third-party monitoring of the development near the Continental Divide in Mineral County, asked for a show of hands of those for and against the project. There seemed to be a slight edge of those for it; however, much of the audience did not move.

While few actually verbalized why they were in favor of the development, those opposed were vocal.

Concerns were raised over water, wetlands, the burden of services to counties, the ability of the ski area to support a major increase in skiers on any given day, wastewater treatment and effluent, and altitude sickness.

Project supporters Jon Boyd and Dusty Hicks said there is enough water allotted to the project by the water court to support 12,000 residents. And, Hicks added, 12,000 residents would use only that amount of water it takes to irrigate an acre of alfalfa in a season.

However, a question from the audience about where the water for the subdivision came from went unanswered.

Honts said water from snowmelt would be held in underground tanks and released over a 12-month period into the river to replenish what the development uses, but that is not the water to be used in the village.

“It’s a big rip-off for the (San Luis) Valley,” retired physician Joel Kaufman shouted.

Area potato farmer Bill Ellithorpe expressed concern over wetlands.

“It’s our commitment. We will not harm wetlands,” Honts said.

Alamosa resident Don Thompson asked about the burden of services on neighboring counties. “Growth has never paid its way in Colorado,” he insisted.

Honts replied that the developers would be responsible for all the infrastructure and services at the development. It would not cost taxpayers anything.

Pointing to Willschau’s analysis, Honts referred to the estimated millions in revenues anticipated over a 20-year period for Mineral County.

Frequent skiers at Wolf Creek Ski Area questioned the potential for more skiers sharing their slopes. Honts said the area only runs at 50 percent or more capacity eight days a year. Filling the chairs will be good business. The response brought a moan from some in the audience who said that was what was so wonderful about the ski area - the lack of skiers.

Many in the audience seemed unconvinced after Honts remarked that developers want more stringent standards for their wastewater treatment system and effluent.

“You have a lot less to fear from the Village at Wolf Creek than (from) cities,” Honts said.

Kaufman, an emergency room physician in Alamosa for many years, cited a prestigious medical journal and asked if consideration had been given to travelers from low altitudes going to an elevation of 10,500 feet above sea level.

Honts replied that a study he had received showed altitude sickness abated after a few days.

McCombs, a former owner of the Denver Nuggets, said that altitude gave his team home-court advantage as visitors “were gassed out.”

Wolf Creek: Some reasons why locals oppose Red McCombs' Village

2006-11-25T22:40:00.000-05:00

Pagosa Springs, Colorado
Wolf Creek: Some reasons why locals oppose Red McCombs' Village

by Ian Vance

With all of the controversy surrounding the development of the Village at Wolf Creek, people may have difficulty in discerning the underlying reasons why there is so much resistance among locals on the Pagosa Springs side towards this project. The potential negative effect on businesses in Archuleta County is in itself enough to cause worry and opposition from those that depend on tourism as a financial foundation. More importantly, people are concerned about the environmental and psychological damage the advent of a resort such as the proposed Village is likely to cause.

Wolf Creek is a relative anomaly when compared to the rest of the ski industry of Colorado. Sheltered against an imposing mountain ridge that makes up part of the Continental Divide, Wolf Creek on average receives major snowfall accumulation, year after year; so much so that it proudly touts the moniker “The Most Snow in Colorado.” Local skiers and snowboarders – and the tourist hordes arriving from Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona – find that Wolf Creek’s lack of infrastructure actually affords one the rare pleasure of untracked powder; it is sometimes possible to find ‘fresh tracks’ days and even weeks after the last major storm. Compare this to a mountain resort like Steamboat Springs, which has heavy traffic by way of its gondola, and the morning after a hard snow-dump, becomes tracked out within hours. By ten o’clock in the morning, finding a fresh line in Steamboat’s renowned aspen groves is essentially a futile pursuit.

Part of Wolf Creek’s charm lies in its rustic appearance, its lack of a highly developed commerce center and time-consuming lift lines, its propensity for ‘secret stashes’ and undiscovered glades. For many locals, Wolf Creek’s low-key aspect is a direct contrast from the clockwork complexity and efficiency of major corporation ski resorts such as Vail and Breckenridge, and a welcome one at that. Thus, the arrival of the Village and its desired developments are seen as an irreversible change to what makes Wolf Creek so special in the first place. Many new lifts would be needed, as would a complete overhaul of the current infrastructure at the ski-area base. ‘Our’ Wolf Creek, as it is known today, would cease to exist. The proposals by McCombs et al threaten the current ski area’s atmosphere of low-key hospitality, the warmth and human contact that a family-run business can easily provide, the communication and charm that the corporation often fails to fully comprehend – for although a façade of such can be erected, these necessary illusions are quickly belied by the sheer size and mechanical aspect of a profit-first oriented community.

Change cannot be prevented: growth is an inevitable result of this world’s expanding population. Archuleta County and its surrounding environs have experienced a massive surge of growth within the last ten years; it is a reflection of the continual extension of our surrounding world. However, there is a very large difference between controlled growth – by those who appreciate what makes this area special in the first place – and unregulated growth, by those who desire first and foremost the monetary rewards and ego-enhancement endemic to ‘empire building.’

The representative of Red McCombs, empire-builder extraordinaire, has already alienated a large segment of this area’s population with his grandstanding and heedless arrogance, fundamentally depicting the lack of concern the corporate entity has for the ‘little man.’ The questionable court decisions in Mineral County, the suspicious lack of concern for potential environmental repercussions, and overall the desperate speed these developers have worked at in order to erect the Village has sparked much of the current resistance. By displaying all of the dangerous attitudes of unregulated growth and doing very little to placate the worries of the surrounding communities, Bob Honts and Co. have caused much concern as to the intentions of Red McCombs.

Long term residents, such as myself (30 years), do not wish for this isolated part of the Rocky Mountains to turn into another Summit County, or worse an Aspen, with the subsequent rise in the standard of economics to such a point that we can no longer afford to live in the area we like to call home. By attempting to work with the surrounding communities, and respecting the living conditions and needs of those who chose to live here, The Village might have found its construction unhindered by multiple lawsuits and public outcry. Elderly ‘empire-builders,’ by nature, are in a rush to complete their vision as quickly as possible, and they like to display their proposed empire to the fullest extent; perhaps if Mr. Honts / McCombs had started smaller, with the concept of future growth on the back-burner, they wouldn’t have estranged potential support from this community. By ignoring these repercussions, be it out of greed or ego, they have instead caused the very quagmire they now find themselves struggling to escape from.

History is rife with similar examples of hubris and folly – and, as the famous proverb goes, those that do not learn from history are forced to repeat it, time and time again.

Planned Village Threatens to Block Wildlife Movement

2006-11-24T13:11:00.000-05:00

Planned Village Threatens to Block Wildlife Movement

The Wolf Creek Pass Wildlife Linkage spans the Continental Divide at 10,857 feet and lies almost entirely within National Forest lands. The San Juan National Forest encompasses the west side of the Divide, while the Rio Grand National Forest lies on the east side. The Wiminuche Wilderness and the South San Juan Wilderness are “held together” by the Wolf Creek linkage. Despite this critical interconnectedness, a major development scheme to build a city of up to 10,000 people just below the Continental Divide is now being planned. This development would decimate the biological significance of this linkage. The planned Village at Wolf Creek threatens critical wildlife habitat, watersheds, and wetlands and would impair the San Juan core area and the designated Wolf Creek Pass Lynx Linkage that are vital to the recovery of the southern Rockies Lynx population. In addition to Lynx, a variety of wildlife is known to move through the area including mountain lion, black bear, bobcat, pine marten, elk, mule deer and bighorn sheep. Many birds, amphibians, other small mammals and plants depend on this rich habitat for year round use and migration as well.

The Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project (SREP) has been actively working to protect corridors and linkages in Colorado and the Southern Rockies. Fighting the monsoon weather that has dominated Colorado this summer, EcoFlight teamed up with SREP for a day of very successful flights, flying State Senator Isgar and staff from Senator Salazar’s office, along with reporters and photographers over this remote and threatened wilderness region. As often happens, the experience of flying this region brought this issue into sharp focus, allowing participants and the public, through press reports, a closer view of the great impact the Village project could impart upon this important wildlife linkage area. Following the flight Senator Salazar issued a press release stating, "At the end of the day, I just don't see how a project of this scope can continue. I've met with the involved parties and asked questions. With the Forest Service's latest answers, it has become even clearer the proposal would require many special concessions without the promise of any real gain for the greater community. Instead, the development brings the threat of dangerous roads, contaminated water and harm to the very wildlife and landscape that makes this area so unique. I will not support a project that hurts the community I represent."

Linkages and Corridors: Critical Connectivity

From the air it quickly becomes clear that sizable habitat for wildlife is rapidly disappearing. To prevent wildlands from becoming islands unable to sustain long-term ecosystem functions, scientists propose the use of corridors and linkages. A corridor implies animal migration travel routes; a linkage refers to a broad area of habitat where dependant species can find food, shelter and security and provide connectivity between larger habitat blocks.

Wolf Creek Ski 2006-2007

2006-11-23T13:13:00.000-05:00

Pagosa Springs Colorado
Wolf Creek Ski 2006-2007

ELEVATION: Base: 10,300 Ft. Vertical Rise: 1,604 Ft. Summit: 11,904 Ft.

SEASON: Early November through Early April

TOTAL TRAIL MILEAGE: 42

Raven Lift - New for 2006 – 2007 Ski Season at Wolf Creek!

The new Raven Lift, a Doppelmayr - Ctec detachable quad, is replacing the 34 year old Dickey double chairlift. The Raven will have approximately the same location and initial capacity (1,200 skiers/hour) of the Dickey Lift. While the USFS has approved the uphill capacity of Raven at 1,200 skiers per hour; Wolf Creek has applied for approval for the maximum uphill capacity of 2,400 skiers per hour.

Raven lift is an exciting new improvement for Wolf Creek as that it adds flexibility to the beginners’ terrain and needs. With a downhill capacity of 300-600 skiers, the beginner teaching area can move uphill to the wide open location of Bunny Hop, this will free up the congestion of the base area during holiday periods. New skiers and boarders will have the option to ski or download on the detachable. This will become invaluable on years of low snow to reroute beginner and intermediate traffic from sparsely covered snow packed trails to download on the Raven Lift.
Improvements

Two modern water-free restrooms facilities have been given final approval by the USFS. These environmentally friendly restrooms are water-free, composting and certified with a zero discharge. The restrooms will be 800 square feet in size, heated and located at the tops of the Treasure Chairlift and the Raven Lift.

The ski patrol’s “Summit Building” is being upgraded into the 21st Century by being replaced this summer with a new summit building to provide for quick emergency response and continuing snow safety programs. Wolf Creek’s professional ski patrol is there to provide the highest level of care with fully certified EMT patrollers.

Wolf Creek’s forest, like most in the state of Colorado, is infested with the spruce beetle. As an expense to Wolf Creek and in an active role as steward to the forest, many of these infested trees are removed by helicopter to control beetle spread and devastation. These infested trees are air lifted away giving the rest of the forest a better chance of survival with far less impacts on the ground.

Festivities

To celebrate 30 years of cross country skiing in the Alberta Park area, Wolf Creek will host a series of fun cross country events including races, games, prizes, clinics, and demonstrations of equipment and technique for adults and children!

The location will be in Alberta Park near the bottom terminal of the Alberta Lift at Wolf Creek. The dates and times of the events will coincide with a few of the Local Appreciation Days and will be available on posters and listed on the web-site.
Environment and Proposals

This will be the ski area’s first season to run the lifts using wind-power! Wolf Creek Ski Area sees the importance of using renewable energy sources and feels that businesses should be setting an example in this area. For this reason, Wolf Creek is purchasing 100 percent of its usage of power from a green power energy supplier, Tri-State Generation and Transmission, who in turn supplies the SLVREC, the local power company for Wolf Creek. This green power comes from two wind farms located near Medicine Bow, Wyoming. Although this energy is currently more expensive, Wolf Creek is making a substantial commitment in showing the need for sustainable business practices. The average monthly usage for Wolf Creek is 145,900k.

Along with supporting renewable energy sources, customers and employees of the Wolf Creek Ski Area are encouraged to car pool on the commute up Wolf Creek Pass during the ski season especially over holiday periods.

Wolf Creek has also applied for approval from the USFS for a 14,000 sq/ft two story multi-use building which would be located in the base area below the Raven lift between the 4X4 and upper parking areas. This building would include ski and board rentals, lift ticket sales, restrooms and warming/seating areas. A higher level of service for all guests would be provided; congestion over peak periods in the base area lodges and rental would be significantly reduced.

In cooperation with the USFS, Wolf Creek is seeking approval to provide uphill transportation with a shuttle bus for easier backcountry accessibility along the western boundary run-out of the Wolf Creek Ski Area Special Use Permit. The shuttle bus service would be free of charge for outdoor enthusiasts who are recreating in the vicinity of Wolf Creek’s western boundary. Backcountry skiers, boarders, cross country skiers, snowshoers and snowmobilers would be able to pick up the shuttle a few miles west of the Wolf Creek Pass Summit at several locations returning to the summit or Wolf Creek’s base area.

Summary of 2005-2006

Despite the slow start of the 2005 – 2006 season, skiers were encouraged to come out early providing the invaluable snow compaction, which the mountain requires on low snow years. This process kept the mountain in relatively good shape and made conditions excellent when Mother Nature finally divvied out Wolf Creek’s share.

A record breaking skier count for the month of March was set as a result of established excellent mountain conditions and the rerouting of many of New Mexico’s visitors to Wolf Creek. This threw attendance over the top for a record spring break day of 6,340 skiers. Although skimpy at the start, total snowfall for the season was recorded at 354 inches with a skier count at 197,052. Down by 8.7 percent from the previous year of 215,821 skiers but still a good outcome from a rocky start. Wolf Creek is looking forward to an exciting agenda with the initiation of the Raven quad to the mountain profile.

More detailed information about Wolf Creek Ski Area can be found by calling 970-264-5639 or visiting Wolf Creek’s web-site at www.wolfcreekski.com.

Click on map to view larger.

Wolf Creek's Website can be visited at www.wolfcreekski.com.

Friends of Wolf Creek Update

2006-11-22T17:22:00.001-05:00

Friends of Wolf Creek Update
November 22, 2006
Court Suspends “Village” Construction – Another Wild Winter at Wolf Creek

Hello Friends,

I’m writing to share great news. In response to the lawsuit we filed in October, US Federal District Judge Kane issued a 10 day Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) last Thursday ceasing road construction and other activities related to the proposed Village at Wolf Creek. After negotiating with the other parties, we reached an agreement this week converting this Order into a Preliminary Injunction (PI) prohibiting construction and permitting activities from going forward until the Court can rule on our case sometime next spring.

This is a huge victory for our efforts, ensuring that the Village is essentially held at a standstill until our concerns are heard by the court. As a result, we’ll all enjoy another winter at Wolf Creek without any Village activities.

Specifically, the agreement bars road construction, application for highway access permits from CDOT, or any other ground disturbing activities. The Forest Service had refused to delay road construction for even a few days, so we were forced to seek the court's intervention. Thankfully, you and I can now rest assured that the developer and the Forest Service can't continue to rush this project forward.

Meanwhile, thanks to our successful lawsuit last year which overturned Mineral County’s approval of the Village development plan, McCombs can’t go back to the County for approval until after receiving a permit for access from CDOT. Thanks to our injunction, that won’t happen anytime soon.

Once the court takes a close look at the Forest Service's flawed decision, we believe that the agency will have to go back and consider all of the impacts associated with its decision to allow access from US Highway 160 to the proposed Village site, not just those arising from the footprint of the access roads themselves. Beyond the substantial delay, we believe that this would result in major changes to the access granted, and the proposed Village itself.

As 2006 draws to a close, McCombs still needs permits from CDOT, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, Mineral County, and others before he can legally begin construction of the Village. With your help, ongoing FOWC efforts will scrutinize and, if necessary, challenge every one of these processes to ensure that the project remains at a standstill until all of the government agencies involved take a hard look at the project and its thus far unregulated impacts.

Thanks again for making all of this possible. Together, we are well poised to make 2007 a victorious year for Wolf Creek, and for everyone that has done so much to see it protected.

Ryan

Moonlight on the San Juan

2006-11-09T20:50:00.000-05:00

From pagosadailypost.com/

Airport Receives Pilot Association Award

2006-11-06T13:16:00.000-05:00

Airport Receives Pilot Association Award

Colorado Pilots Association at its annual meeting on November 4 gave airport recognition awards to Stevens Field in Pagosa Springs and Harriet Alexander Field in Salida. The awards are part of a recognition program in which members of the organization, based on their flying experiences, identify and make recommendations of those Colorado airports that have gone out of their way to provide exceptional services and facilities for General Aviation. Separate awards are typically presented annually to a Commercial Service and a General Aviation airport. This year both awards were given to airports in the general aviation category in consideration of the extraordinary effort and contribution to growth of aviation in Colorado.

The award to Stevens Field was given in recognition of efforts over the last three years to revitalize the airport through a major construction program that converted the airport into one of the most outstanding facilities serving Colorado mountain recreational areas. One of our members wrote, “The new general manager Bob Gobitz has brought new energy and enthusiasm to the operation and has created a new atmosphere of professionalism and friendliness that is welcomed by local pilots and serves as an enticement for visitors to the area.” Unfavorable soil conditions at the airport caused serious pavement failures and severely limited types of aicraft that could operate there. With the current improvements the facility now has capability of accommodating aircraft of weights up to 75,000 pounds gross weight. Willingness to undertake the development demonstrates a recognition of the value of air access to Pagosa Springs and gives further testimony to this community's support for General Aviation.

The Harriet Alexander Field award was given in recognition of its contribution to General Aviation by airport management and staff that truly care about the welfare of visiting aircraft as demonstrated by outstanding efforts in accommodating the needs of visitors. As one member wrote, "Airport manager Carl Hasselrink greets arriving pilots with a smile and helpful information related to flight planning as well as information about local restaurants and accommodations. On hot days he provides bottled water to the cockpit as soon as the aircraft taxies to parking. There are numerous tie downs and three courtesy cars available for arriving pilots and passengers. In the event that all three of the city cars are being used, Carl offers the use of his personal vehicle. If anyone in Colorado deserves this award, Carl should be at the top of the list.” This airport is one of the rare exceptions to business as usual and a delightful stop for General Aviation travelers.

Colorado Pilots Association is a statewide organization of over 700 members dedicated to making Colorado a better, safer, and more desirable place to fly. Objectives of the organization are to promote General Aviation, flying safety, protect the rights of the flying community, and to provide information and assistance to the general public in aviation matters. For more information about the association, visit their web site: www.ColoradoPilots.org

Pagosa Springs Daily News: Airport Receives Pilot Association Award

Coal Methane Wealth from the HD Mountains? Part Two

2006-11-03T12:52:00.000-05:00

Coal Methane Wealth from the HD Mountains? Part Two

Bruce Andersen | 11/3/06

The numbers seemed to go right through me.

“Could you repeat that, please?” Unfamiliar jargon nearly glazed my eyes over. “So, let me see if I understand, …” And, how does that change if Ballot Issue 1A passes, or doesn’t pass?

“It depends,” seemed the answer to most of my questions.

So it went at a Halloween Day meeting with Archuleta County Finance Director Bob Burchett and Special Projects Manager Sheila Berger.

After some careful research for Part One of this story, I came to understand the basic environmental tradeoffs of drilling for methane gas in the coal beds of the HD Mountains in western Archuleta County. I felt the need to understand the financial aspects of drilling in order to truly comprehend the depth of the issue and how it may affect me and things and people I care about.

Sheila had warned me, when we set up the interview appointment, that she may not look normal since she would be in costume for Halloween. When I arrived, the “witch” welcomed me in and led me to the “warden’s office.” It seemed an odd setting to talk about money, lots of money.

Bob led off, having changed out of his warden uniform and into accountant garb, “They plan to drill about 300 coal bed methane wells in area of the HD Mountains. Roughly half of those will be in Archuleta County and half in La Plata County. The production value of the gas over the 40-year life of the project is around $200 million.” I tried to imagine what 200 million dollars looked like, or what it could buy.

“So, how much is really gonna come to Archuleta County?” he mused. “It depends.”

The short answer is $2.5 million over the life of the gas drilling project. But, twice that or five million dollars if the de-Brucing, or de-Taboring, ballot issue passes. More on that in a minute.

There are two sources of tax revenue tied to pumping oil, or methane gas, in our county. The first and much larger portion comes from property taxes on the gas produced from under the ground. The second is the personal property tax on the equipment used to extract the gas. We’ll focus on the former.

Since this project could continue for up to 40 years, simple calculations like “$5 million worth of gas in one year times 40 years of operation equals the total value, $200 million, of gas over 40 years” don’t work. There are variables like inflation, productivity of wells, percentage of wells pumping, how much they’re pumping, etc. But, for our discussion’s sake and in not boggling my simple mind, Bob simplified the math. “The total estimated production after calculating for a straight-line 4% inflation over the 40 years is $247 in today’s dollars. Amortized over 40 years, that’s $6.175 million actual valuation of the gas produced annually.”

I asked one of my many clarification questions and realized this is the value of the gas produced not the money coming to our county. The money man continued, “At 85% assessed value, that translates to $5.2 million of assessed valuation. And, that translates to $100,000 of property tax revenue, in today’s dollars.” And now I need a translation!

“In Year 1, which would be assessed in 2007 and available in 2008, the estimate is $2.5 million of gas production value in Archuleta County. At 85% assessed value, that’s $2.24 million in taxable property. Currently, our mill levy is 18.233 mills, which equals $40,000 in tax revenue.” I was starting to understand.

“Let’s look at the 40-year straight line amortization of $6.175 million of gas production value a year. At 85% assessed value, that’s $5.2 million [on which to apply the mill levy]. At 18.322 mills, that’s about $100,000 in revenue a year, or $4 million over 40 years. It could be as much as $5 million, and that’s the number we’re using, $5 million generated property tax revenue.”

All of this assumes Ballot Issue 1A (aka de-Brucing, de-Taboring, exempting the County temporarily from TABOR — the "Taxpayer Bill of Rights") passes. TABOR, passed by Colorado voters in 1992, limits the amount of tax that can be collected by the County based on a specific formula tied to the amount of tax collected last year, local growth and specific Denver area statistics. The money the county doesn’t get is called a “temporary tax credit.” It’s money that could be collected if not restricted by TABOR.

“Should A1 not pass,” Bob continued, “What would be the tax credit issued back to the oil companies? About $725,000 for ’07 collections and $2 million in ’08, including the HD gas revenue.” Now, I’m really getting it. Should 1A not pass, the $5 million in potential tax revenue would be limited to about half that — $2.5 million.

When I asked Bob how that new revenue might be spent, whether it’s $5 million or $2.5 million, he directed me to the Board of County Commissioners Letter of Commitment to the residents of Archuleta county signed in September, 2006 that laid out priorities for these additional revenues should the Property Tax Rate Stabilization ballot issue 1A pass: 40% roads, 20% staff training and technology, 20% parks and recreation, and 20% planning a new jail and sheriff’s facilities.

I kinda felt like I got handed a Get Out of Jail Free card when I headed out of the “Warden’s Office” and headed downstairs to do my early voting. I encourage everyone to get out and vote.

Read Part One

Pagosa Springs Daily News: Coal Methane Wealth from the HD Mountains? Part Two

Environmental groups file 'Village' lawsuits

2006-11-02T11:28:00.000-05:00

Environmental groups file 'Village' lawsuits

By James Robinson

Staff Writer - http://www.pagosasun.com

Two area environmental groups filed a lawsuit in federal court Oct. 19 challenging the United States Forest Service's environmental impact statement (EIS) and record of decision (ROD) regarding the proposed Village at Wolf Creek.

Ryan Demmy Bidwell, executive director of Colorado Wild, a group that filed the suit jointly with the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, said the thrust of the lawsuit is twofold. First, the lawsuit alleges the entire EIS and record of decision is illegal and inadequate because the Forest Service failed to address the impacts of the village as a whole. And secondly, the suit alleges Forest Supervisor Peter Clark unlawfully modified the record of decision "making it easier for the developer to begin construction."

The Forest Service released the EIS and record of decision in March, and the documents authorize two access roads across public land to the 287.5-acre parcel located atop Wolf Creek Pass and adjacent to the Wolf Creek Ski Area.

The proposed Village at Wolf Creek has been described, at final build-out, as a small city capable of housing 10,000 inhabitants with more than 200,000 square feet of commercial space and 2,000 single family homes, all at an elevation of 10,000 feet on one of the snowiest passes in Colorado. The village parcel is a private property inholding within the Rio Grande National Forest.

Despite the scope and scale of the project, the EIS looks solely at the impacts of constructing two access roads across public land into the inholding, and the tack has drawn the ire of Colorado Wild, the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, and hundreds of private citizens. The roads will connect the inholding to U.S. 160.

On a recent visit to Pagosa Springs, U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar leveled a similar complaint.

"The construction of a road is not the development that will cause the environmental impact. The EIS should address the impact of the Village itself," said Salazar.

The Forest Service has long argued their primary charge, as outlined in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA), is to provide access across Forest Service land to the inholding, and that Mineral County is the governing body for land use on the parcel, hence the focus of the EIS.

The Mineral County Board of County Commissioners approved the developer's proposed build-out of the village parcel in October 2004, however 12th Judicial District Judge O. John Kuenhold overturned their ruling in October 2005, stating Forest Service Road (FSR) 391 (Tranquility Road) did not provide reasonable year-round access to the development. In court documents, FSR 391 is described as a single-lane seasonally-closed road unsuitable to accommodate "the kind of services that are required in a development of this size and scope - even for its first phase."

Mineral County Attorney John Wilder described FSR 391 as a "miserable little road."

In addition, Kuenhold ruled that once the developer - Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture, fronted by Billy Joe "Red" McCombs and Bob Honts - obtains adequate year-round access and secures the necessary Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) permit or permits to access U.S. 160, the developer may request Mineral County approval of their development plan.

In focusing solely on the two access roads, Bidwell said the Forest Service "ignored thousands of comments from citizens and various government agencies who demanded the agency take a hard look at the broad implications of its decision."

The second facet of the lawsuit, that Clark unlawfully modified the record of decision for the final EIS, is built from documents obtained by Colorado Wild via a Freedom of Information Act request.

Chronology of events

On March 15, 2006, Rio Grande National Forest Supervisor Peter Clark issued his decision concerning the final EIS entitled, "Application for Transportation and Utility Systems and Facilities for the Village at Wolf Creek." In the decision, Clark identifies Alternative 4 - also called the Dual Access Road Alternative - as the Selected Alternative. The selected alternative provides for two access roads to the private property - a 250-foot extension of FSR 391, or Tranquility Road; and a new road, to be constructed, called Snowshed Road.

According to Clark's selected alternative described on page six of the Record of Decision, "The Applicant will be authorized to construct, use, and maintain both the Snowshed Road and Tranquility access roads as all-season, year-round roads as shown in Figure ROD-1. I am requiring the applicant to construct both roads to provide for increased public safety and operational compatibility with the Wolf Creek Ski Area."

In the final EIS, chapter 4 page 201, the document describes the public safety concerns linked to using Tranquility Road as the sole access point.

The document states, "The single access road to the private property would not provide emergency evacuation options and would allow only one source for traffic ingress/egress. This Alternative represents a high probability of increased public safety issues in the event of mass evacuation using one access road for ingress and egress."

On May 30, 2006, attorneys for the village developer appealed Clark's decision.

According to the appeal, the developer asked the Forest Service to change its decision in one of three ways.

First, the developer asked the Forest Service to amend the record of decision to identify the Proposed Alternative (Alternative 2) as the Selected Alternative.

According to the record of decision, the developer proposed Alternative 2 and the alternative would authorize access to the inholding via one road - Tranquility Road (FSR 391).

The alternative proposes a 250-foot extension to Tranquility Road in order to reach the inholding.

As a second request, the developer asked for a modified version of the Selected Alternative, with Tranquility Road identified as the primary access route and to condition the development of a second access road - Snowshed Road - "based on specific traffic thresholds tied to actual safety and engineering concerns."

At a minimum, the developer requested year-round use of Tranquility Road until it completes design, approval and construction of Snowshed Road.

According to Clark's decision, the developer will only be authorized full use of Tranquility Road during times outside the Wolf Creek Ski Area's operating season in order to mitigate Village and ski area traffic conflicts.

On July 13, 2006, after reviewing the developer's appeal request, Deputy Regional Forester Greg Griffith, and Appeal Reviewing Officer Brad Exton upheld Clark's decision and denied the developer's request.

In a letter to Steven P. Quarles, attorney for the developer, Exton establishes the rationale for mandating two access points.

On page 12 of the 14 page document Exton writes, "During all seasons of the year it is imperative that there be two roads for access to and egress from the property. Colorado is a state known for wildfires in the summertime. The Wolf Creek Area is one of the snowiest locations in the State in the winter. One access route does not provide sufficient emergency access, and this is true whether the property is in the construction stage or construction has been completed. Delaying the construction of Snow Shed Road will not serve to meet the emergency egress routes that public safety requires ..." In conclusion Exton writes, "I recommend the decision of the Forest Supervisor be affirmed in whole and the Appellant's request for relief be denied."

In Griffith's correspondence, he uses similar language and adds, "I am also issuing an instruction that Supervisor Clark not issue the authorization to construct or use the Snowshed or Tranquility Roads until the Applicant obtains the necessary highway access permit(s) from the Colorado Department of Transportation.

"My decision constitutes the final administrative determination of the Department of Agriculture."

On Aug. 3, 2006, Richard J. Cook of the United States Department of Agriculture responds to Quarles' request for a discretionary review of the appeal decision made by Exton and Griffith.

The lawsuit alleges that a developer lobbyist in Washington D.C. hand-delivered the discretionary review request to Mark Rey, the under secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) who oversees the Forest Service.

Cook writes, "Thank you for your letter of July 28, 2006, to Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, Under Secretary Mark Rey and Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth requesting a discretionary review ..."

In the letter Cook states Johanns asked him to respond to Quarles' request and Cook writes, "As noted in the last sentence of ADO Griffith's decision on your appeal, the regulation at 36 CFR 215.18(c) directs that '[t]he Appeal Deciding Officer's appeal disposition constitutes the final administrative determination of the Department of Agriculture.' Therefore, there is no statutory provision for a higher-level official to conduct the discretionary review you have requested."

Cook concludes by denying Quarles' request.

On Aug. 28, 2006, Clark wrote a letter to a second village attorney David Ross. Both Ross and Quarles are part of the firm Crowell and Moring LLP representing Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture in their appeal of Clark's decision.

Clark writes, "Recently, I was made aware that you requested a discretionary review of my March 2006 decision ...I believe I may be able to address most of your concerns about my decision, as identified in your request."

Clark continues, "The decision authorizes the building of two routes of access to the VWC (Village at Wolf Creek) from State Highway 160, the Tranquility Road and the Snowshed Road. Your client may elect to build the Snowshed Road first, build both roads simultaneously, or build the shorter road - the approximate 250-foot extension of the Tranquility Road - to provide for access to the VWC property from State Highway 160, and at a future date, build the longer access route, the Snowshed Road."

Later in the letter Clark writes, "Your client may want to construct the Tranquility Road as the first means of access to the VWC property."

In the letter Clark offers to consider realigning Snowshed Road and to work as a middleman on negotiations between the developer and the ski area should the developer choose to use Tranquility Road for access when the ski area is in operation.

Due to the litigation between the Forest Service, Colorado Wild and the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, Clark declined to comment for this story.

Bidwell said Clark's letter constitutes an illegal modification to the record of decision "by eliminating the requirement that the developer 'construct, use and maintain' both roads simultaneously in order to provide 'sufficient emergency access.'" And Bidwell said Clark's statements in the letter run contrary to the mandates of the final EIS and record of decision.

E-mails between Gloria Manning, associate deputy chief of the National Forest System, Dave Tenny, USDA resources and environment deputy undersecretary, Thomas Millet, assistant general counsel for the USDA Office of General Counsel, and Randy Karstaedt, director of physical resources for the Rocky Mountain Region of the Forest Service, detail a discussion over the appropriate language for Clark's letter.

On Aug. 22, 2006, Manning wrote to Millet and Karstaedt, "Randy, I talked to Dave and we did not get the next to last paragraph correct. It should read: ..."

In the same e-mail, Manning continues, "I think this is it but for finding out the person to whom we should address the letter ... Let me know if there is heartburn with the wording of the letter."

The e-mail was also sent to Rick Cables and Richard Stem.

On Aug. 23, 2006, Manning wrote to Tenny and Millet, "Here is the Region's counterproposal to our language. They felt a strong need to acknowledge the necessity of having CDOT engaged to alleviate any problems with the intersection of the roads. Are we comfortably (sic) with letting them go with this rendition?"

Regarding the e-mails and Clark's letter to Ross, Bidwell said, "USDA officials apparently have a short memory, as documents show USDA officials and lawyers drafted Peter Clark's letter less than three weeks after they determined that they had no authority to do so."

Bidwell alleges early drafts may have been ghost written by the developer's lobbyist, but said the Forest Service has refused to release documents that illuminate the origin of Clark's letter.

Bidwell said Clark's letter and modification of the record of decision smacks of developer collusion and casts doubts on USDA Inspector General Phyllis Fong's finding of no improprieties, improper conduct or undue political pressure wielded by the developer in regard to Forest Service decisions related to the Wolf Creek Project.

Fong released her findings in September 2006 following a request by Sen. Salazar for an inspector general's investigation into allegations of collusion between the developer and high ranking Forest Service officials.

Bidwell said Clark's letter marks a change from the record of decision, and therefore the public should have been privy to the process.

"It is alarming that the public's nearly 3,000 comments seem to have fallen on deaf ears, yet when the developer asks for a favor, federal officials go out of their way to respond," said Christine Canaly of the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council. "The courts are unfortunately the only venue where the public seems to get a fair hearing on this matter."

Geoff Hickox an attorney from the Western Environmental Law Center who prepared the lawsuit said, "We sincerely hope that the Forest Service will immediately cease implementation of their decision until the Court reviews this matter. If they refuse, we'll be forced to ask the court to stop the agency from moving forward."

Coal Methane Wealth from the HD Mountains?

2006-11-02T06:56:00.000-05:00

Coal Methane Wealth from the HD Mountains?

Pagosa Springs Daily News: Coal Methane Wealth from the HD Mountains? Part One

Part One Bruce Andersen | 11/2/06

The HD Mountains lie comfortably isolated between the towns of Pagosa Springs, Bayfield, Ignacio and Arboles. The HDs, named for a 19th century cattle brand, have remained relatively unaltered for the past 150 years and contain some of the last old growth ponderosa pine forests left in the southern Rockies, according the the US Forest Service. Groves of trees 200-300 years old are commonplace there with some ancients pushing the 500-year mark. But this will all change if oil companies have their way and a federal plan to open the HD Mountains to coal methane development goes through. A final decision was due out last month.

Archuleta County Commissioner John Egan became the designated local point man for the complex issue when he brought the issue of drafting a resolution on the matter to the Board of County Commissioners in early September. I visited with him recently at his home in Pagosa Springs. John and his family live in a town house, which up until recently in downtown Pagosa meant simply a house in town. This old house has some history, it seems, with real wood siding, pastel paint and a full-length enclosed back porch rimmed with houseplants that serves as the main entrance. A friendly voice from within calls me in. The screen door slams as Labrador pup Luke heads out for a jaunt, cold drinks are served and we sit at a large dining room table in this airy sunroom. I elbow some official-looking papers aside and settled in. John spent a recent Sunday in the HD Mountains, along with Congressman John Salazar, Bayfield Mayor James Harrmann, Forest Service Supervisor Mark Stiles and local landowners Bill and Beth Vance who farm on the outcrop of the Fruitland Coal Formation.

Egan is concerned, “The area is ripe for all kinds of problems. It’s a fragile area with catastrophic potential problems including spontaneous combustion and underground fires, forest fires and water contamination.” The county’s resolution identified these problems, especially as they relate to drilling near the Fruitland Outcrop, a particularly sensitive area where the coal seam reaches near the surface. The San Juan Citizens Alliance is very active on oil and gas issues as well as other environmental issues around the region. Saving the HD Mountains is one of their priorities. According to their reports (see http://www.sanjuancitizens.org/hd_mtns/hd_mtns.shtml) extracting gas up the well pipes will result in ground water above and near those wells to be depleted. Water essentially fills the void left by the harvested gas by seeping down the natural fractures and porous soils and is extracted along with coal methane gas during pumping. The result is a lowering of the water table, drying up wetlands and domestic and irrigation wells. And contamination of near surface wells. With the water gone, voids are left near the surface and air can seep down to fill the void. If the right amount oxygen meets warming temperatures of the voids, pyrites in the coal can spontaneously combust into an underground coal fire.

San Juan Citizens Alliance and independent consultant reports identify the hazards that directly affect those living and working on or near the Fruitland Formation. John sums it up this way, “There are four underground coal fires burning out of control right now in La Plata County and another in New Mexico. Ground water is being contaminated. We need to protect the Fruitland Formation and a 1 ½ mile buffer around it; that’s what our resolution states. Most of the outcrop is in Archuleta County. Without that protection, people’s lives would be impacted drastically. There have been several occasions where oil companies had to buy homes because methane problems made the homes uninhabitable. They could close US Highway 160 for an indeterminate amount of time if something bad happens.”

And, these are just the concerns if something goes wrong. If things go right, the mostly roadless 35,000-acre area will become webbed with some 60 miles of new roads and nearly 200 gas wells, 48 within the 1 ½ mile buffer around the Outcrop. Egan recommended that the Commission enlist the services of the San Juan Citizens Alliance to monitor drilling on the HDs. “They’ve already done the homework. They know the problem, the location and the science. For us, it would require new staff and a steep learning curve. Why reinvent the wheel? We should use that knowledge.” State Representative Mark Larson, in a quick rain-drenched speech last Saturday in Pagosa’s Town Park urged the soggy crowd to keep an eye on the HD Mountains and reminded us that the Fruitland Outcrop and the 1 ½ mile buffer needs protection.

These concerns, voiced by many, led the Board of County Commissioners to pass a resolution in early September outlining their concerns about developing coal bed methane within 1.5 miles of the Fruitland Formation Outcrop. In that resolution, these and other concerns were spelled out and steps to ensure Archuleta doesn’t follow La Plata County down the same problem-laden road were detailed. Congressman Salazar is taking this very seriously, also, John told me. He’s asked for Forest Service to carefully monitor the area and conduct further studies of the hydrology in and near the formation. Part Two tomorrow...

Wolf Creek Snow Report -- November 1, 2006

2006-11-01T10:06:00.000-05:00

Ski Patroller : Scott Kay
Office Reporter : Kat

Report Date : 11/1/2006
Report Time : 7:22:07 AM

Current Snowfall

Summit Base Depth : 25 Inches
Last 24 Hours : 0 Inches
Last 48 Hours : 0 Inches
Last 72 Hours : 0 Inches

Midway Base Depth : 18 Inches
Last 7 Days : 8 Inches
Latest Storm : 8 Inches
Year to Date : 65 inches

Current Weather

Temperature : 26°	Skies : Clear
Yesterdays High : 40°	Forecast : Motly sunny with a high near 34°

Last Nights Low : 18°

Road Conditions : Dry

Mountain Conditions

Surface Conditions : Powder/Packed Powder/Hard Packed/Early Season Conditions & Obstacles
Percentage Open : 25%
Skiable Acres : 400
Number of Lifts : Bonanza, Treasure and Nova
Water Fall Area : Closed
Alberta Peak Area : 8:30 AM - 3:00 PM
Knife Ridge : Closed
Horseshoe Bowl Area : Closed
Pick of the Hill : Divide Trail

Events & Comments

•Lift tickets are $25.00 for Adults; $15.00 for Senior and Children until further notice! •Forest Service Road 391 is now groomed for Cross-Country skiing from the end of the Alberta Parking lot to the Alberta Lake Dam. Wolf Creek is excited about celebrating 30 Years of free Cross Country skiing this 2006 – 2007 season with a special schedule of festivities planned for the occasion! Come on up and enjoy the snow at Wolf Creek!!

Opening Day at Wolf Creek!

2006-10-31T06:50:00.000-05:00

Rosanne Haidorfer-Pitcher

Rosanne Haidorfer-Pitcher

Rosanne Haidorfer-Pitcher

Rosanne Haidorfer-Pitcher

Pagosa Springs in the Fall

2006-10-30T21:30:00.000-05:00

Is there such a place as Heaven on Earth....I think this comes close!

From www.planetpagosa.com

Welcome to the Southwest Colorado Blog

2006-10-30T20:11:00.000-05:00

This blog will bring you all kinds of news, pictures, weather, gossip, facts and stuff I just plain make up about the best part of Colorado - Southwest Colorado.

Stories about the towns of Cortez, Durango, Pagosa Springs, Mancos, Telluride and others will appear here as by magic!

Enjoy!

The Glory of Southwest Colorado

Developers discuss Wolf Creek resort

Developers discuss Wolf Creek resort

A crowd of 200 seeks answers to many questions about the massive proposed development.

By ERIN SMITHTHE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

Wolf Creek: Some reasons why locals oppose Red McCombs' Village

Planned Village Threatens to Block Wildlife Movement

Wolf Creek Ski 2006-2007

Friends of Wolf Creek Update

Moonlight on the San Juan

Airport Receives Pilot Association Award

Coal Methane Wealth from the HD Mountains? Part Two

Environmental groups file 'Village' lawsuits

Coal Methane Wealth from the HD Mountains?

Wolf Creek Snow Report -- November 1, 2006

Current Snowfall

Current Weather

Mountain Conditions

Events & Comments

Opening Day at Wolf Creek!

Pagosa Springs in the Fall

Welcome to the Southwest Colorado Blog

By ERIN SMITH
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN