Agency OKs access at Wolf Creek
Forest Service approval of roads to village likely to be challenged
April 4, 2006
By Joe Hanel | Herald Denver Bureau
DENVER - The U.S. Forest Service has approved two roads to the Village at Wolf Creek, a proposed development that has churned in controversy for 20 years.
Peter Clark, supervisor of Rio Grande National Forest, said he had no choice.
"The Forest Service is required by law to grant access to public inholdings, including the Village at Wolf Creek. It was never an option of mine to consider not doing this," Clark said.
Monday's action was a crucial scene in the epic drama of development at Wolf Creek, but by no means the climax.
"It's something we've expected for a very long time," said Ryan Demmy Bidwell, executive director of Colorado Wild, which opposes the development. "Today's decision is a slap in the face of the public, which almost unanimously spoke in opposition to the development."
Bob Honts, president of the Village at Wolf Creek, was happy to have cleared the hurdle.
"We're appreciative that the village can go ahead," he said.
Wolf Creek Ski Area officials had not received a full copy of the Environmental Impact Statement yet, said spokeswoman Michelle Ames.
"The Forest Service emphasized the importance of cooperation between the ski area and the developer for the good of public safety and public enjoyment. It's our hope at the ski area that the developer takes that to heart and works with us going forward," Ames said in a written statement.
The village has already caused lawsuits in state and federal court, and Colorado Wild is prepared to go to court again after it appeals through the Forest Service.
Foresters will start a 45-day appeal period as soon as next week, said Bob Dalrymple, Rio Grande forest planner. The regional forester in Lakewood has an additional 45 days to rule on any appeal.
Bidwell said Colorado Wild's appeal will include charges that the developers improperly or illegally influenced the Forest Service and its parent agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture - a charge Clark denies.
"I am the decision-maker on this project, and I have had absolutely no discussions with anyone in the Washington office or the USDA regarding this project. I have had no attempts from the outside to influence this project," Clark said.
Colorado Wild obtained Forest Service e-mails and faxes that appear to show a lobbyist for the developers crafting the policy that created the narrow scope of Monday's decision.
The decision, in the form of an Environmental Impact Statement, considered only the effects of roads leading to the development, not the development itself.
"The Forest Service really never analyzed the full effects of the village," Bidwell said.
Clark said the use of the private land was up to Mineral County commissioners to decide.
If the appeal fails, Bidwell said Colorado Wild would sue the Forest Service and ask a judge for an injunction to stop construction.
Specifically, the EIS gave approval to a new road - called Snowshed Road - that will attach to U.S. Highway 160, and a 250-foot extension of the existing Tranquility Road. The main access to the village will be from Snowshed Road, and Tranquility Road will be restricted to shuttle buses and emergency vehicles during the ski season.
"This decision is not what we asked for," Honts said. "We asked for a single road, a 250-foot extension. What we got was a $9 million additional road, which we didn't ask for at all."
The tab for the road will be fought out in a federal lawsuit between the village and Wolf Creek Ski Area. Honts said he would ask the judge to make the ski area pay. Ames said the ski area will pay for the Tranquility Road extension, but Snowshed Road is not its problem.
Now that the road has been approved, developers still have to get the OK from the Colorado Department of Transportation to build an intersection with Highway 160.
"They have to issue permits to the highway. There's no question about that," Honts said.
In a news release Monday, U.S. Rep. John Salazar, D-Manassa, said he was extremely disappointed that the Forest Service chose to focus solely on access.
"This is more than a matter of road access - this is a matter of the well-being of our communities," he said.
Salazar said he will work to ensure that an analysis of the project's potential impact on local drinking water is conducted.
Plans call for 10,000 people to inhabit the village at peak occupancy.
"I think that's optimistic, but that's what the proponent claims," Clark said.
Developer B.J. "Red" McCombs acquired the 287.5 acres for his proposed village in a 1986 land exchange.
"That probably would have been the better time to analyze the effects (of the village), but it wasn't done," Clark said.
McCombs and Honts still have to get a road-building permit from the Forest Service, and the Forest Service will monitor the village's effects on traffic, wildlife and water quality.
The scenic easement in the original land exchange also gives the Forest Service authority over the height and architectural style of the village's buildings, Clark said.
But Bidwell said the Forest Service has "routinely ignored" the power the scenic easement gives the government over the village.
Last October, a judge partially agreed with Colorado Wild and revoked Mineral County's approval of the development, saying it should not have been approved without highway access.
Monday's decision will undo part of Colorado Wild's case, Bidwell said, but developers still need CDOT approval.
Proponents and opponents have both appealed parts of the judge's decision to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
jhanel@durangoherald.com
