Village at Wolf Creek… 1980s pipe dreams over reality, Rio Grande river losses
Posted: 20 May 2015 10:00 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6516
Joined  2010-08-15

… this round.  :smirk:

Well the buzz in this neighborhood is that Rio Grande National Forest is about to release the final final Environmental Impact Statement,
which once again rolls over for Clear Channel co-founder and Texas car dealer bazillionaire Red McCombs’ obsession with tearing
up a keystone “parcel” to the Wolf Creek watershed, source waters for interstate international Rio Grande River.

This is only an introduction to the main act, which will follow in a day or two.   :) 

Celebrating Alberta Park and Honoring Wolf Creek
http://no-villageatwolfcreek.blogspot.com/2015/05/honoring-wolf-creek.html

Rejecting the Village At Wolf Creek, list of go to info and resources
http://no-villageatwolfcreek.blogspot.com/2015/05/rejecting-villageat-wolfcreek.html

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 May 2015 10:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6516
Joined  2010-08-15

http://www.planetexperts.com/art-for-the-endangered-landscape-honoring-wolf-creek/

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!

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2015 06:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6516
Joined  2010-08-15

That’s funny, was going to fix that title, yeah, yeah, yeah “loses” not losses.
But, it won’t let me without removing the links, ain’t gonna do it, the links stay, the typo stays.

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 May 2017 11:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2327
Joined  2016-12-24

UPDATE - VWC-RGNF deal tossed out! Judge Rejects Flawed Process - RockyMtnWild Press Release
no-villageatwolfcreek{dot}blogspot{dot}com /2017/05/vwc-rgnf-deal-tossed-out{dot}html

Any future Village Proposal Must Address Development Impacts on the National Forest and Lynx

Denver, CO — The Honorable Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch issued an Order today affirming that the Forest Service “failed to consider important aspects of the issues before them, offered an explanation for their decision that runs counter to the evidence, failed to base their decision on consideration of the relevant factors, and based their decision on an analysis that is contrary to law.” This Order concludes another chapter in this decades long saga to protect Wolf Creek pass from a large scale residential and commercial development that could accommodate 8,000 to 10,000 visitors.
“This ruling is an incredible victory for the flora and fauna that rely on Wolf Creek pass for their survival,” stated Tehri Parker, Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Wild. “This order specifically recognizes the ‘unique’ environmental qualities of this region, and the role that it plays as a wildlife movement corridor between the Weminuche and South San Juan Wilderness areas. We couldn’t be happier with this outcome and getting this great news on Endangered Species Day!”

The Court rejected the Forest Service’s conclusion that it lacked any control over the use of the private parcel. The Court explained that “there is no legal or logical basis for Defendants” position in the FEIS and ROD that the Forest Service had no power or jurisdiction to limit or regulate development on the federal lands being conveyed to LMJV in the present exchange.” The Court was troubled by the fact that the Forest Service previously conditioned use of the original parcel created in 1986 “with a scenic easement that limited development.”
Judge Matsch was also concerned with the fact that “development resulting from the Forest Service’s approval of the land exchange will adversely impact an endangered species, yet fails to comply with the statutory requirements for the protection of that species.” The species the Court was referring to is the federally listed Canada lynx which would have been harmed had the Village construction and operation commenced.

Profile