Hope that got your attention.
Actually I am looking for a good lawyer and man am I in a hurry
(the Draft Environmental Impact Statement comment period for the speculative Wolf Creek Village (10,300’) at Wolf Creek Pass, Colorado Land swap -comment period cut off is end of September! )
Specifically a lawyer experienced in USA Public Lands Laws. ~ perhaps even from Alaska
In particular the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act ANILCA
In compliance with its statutory obligations under Section 1323(a) of the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA, discussed in detail in Section 1.10, below), the Rio Grande NF
had determined that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was required to analyze the request
for access to the private inholding.
{let me try that again… I have sort of a three ring circus going on right now.}
My question specifically would be to verify what a lawyerly guy told me:
Can it be argued that ANILCA’s previsions regarding road access were passed because of the massive amount of Federal acquisitions - so that the many people who suddenly found themselves surrounded by US Forest Service had legal recourse to road access to their land.
Therefore it could be argued that it is inappropriate for a speculator who knowingly swapped/purchased a prime parcel of landlocked US Forest Service real estate within the boundaries of an established (Rio Grande) US National Forest - to claim that ANILCA gives him a legal right to demand access for a high traffic road to said parcel?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980
http://www.npca.org/news/media-center/fact-sheets/anilca.html
See: Wolf Creek needs Friends now!
If anyone should know someone, but don’t want to broadcast, please consider a PM to me or simply forward this to them.
Thanks.
