Photo by Ruth Heide Clint Jones, representative for Village at Wolf Creek owner Red McCombs, points to a wooded area being considered for a trade in exchange for wetlands. The trade would draw development from around the wetlands areas to an area behind the grove of trees.

Land exchange is key



By RUTH HEIDE

WOLF CREEK — The Village at Wolf Creek developer is considering an alternate plan that would involve exchanging wetlands in the currently proposed development area with potentially less environmentally sensitive areas in the Rio Grande National Forest near the Wolf Creek Ski Area.

Other features of the alternate to the Village’s original plan include: scaled-back development; development in phases to coincide with Wolf Creek Ski Area growth; a closer working relationship with the ski area (for example, ski runs from the ski area into the development); a development that is less visible, particularly from the ski area; and access directly off Highway 160 below the ski area involving a graded separate interchange that would not impede Highway 160 traffic.

Motorists entering the Village from the San Luis Valley side would take an off ramp that would go underneath the highway, and those from the Pagosa Springs side would turn onto deceleration lanes

Clint Jones, representative for Village at Wolf Creek owner Red McCombs, announced details of the alternate plan on Thursday at the proposed Village site. He said he has been working for 10 months to try to resolve some of the issues and concerns with the original Village proposal and has prepared an alternative he hopes will be more acceptable to the local communities.

“What we are proposing now is night and day different,” Jones said. “We are proposing something tied to the growth of the ski area, something that is more away from the ski area and something that gets out of more sensitive areas.”

One of the biggest advantages of the land exchange alternative, he said, is moving development out of the fen and wetlands areas.

He said McCombs will have to decide whether he will pursue the original plan approved by Mineral County Commissioners or pursue the land exchange and alternate plan.

Jones stressed in his Thursday press conference that the developer has not backed away from the Village.

“Red is committed to this project,” Jones said.

Jones asked for input on the alternate plan. He has already met with some of the officials on the western side of the pass as well as representatives from Colorado Wild, SLV Ecosystem Council and the San Luis Valley Wetlands Focus Area Committee.

“Everyone that I have met with agrees that the land exchange is a good thing. I haven’t had anyone raise objections to the land exchange itself,” Jones said.

Jones has also been working with Wolf Creek Ski Area Owner Davey Pitcher who initially recommended to Jones a land exchange.

Pitcher made a statement supporting a land trade “that values our community’s precious natural and recreational resources, as well as our skiing heritage, and which returns those resources back into public ownership.” Pitcher called the alternate plan “a vast improvement over the prior proposal in terms of wetland protection and less interference with skiing.”

Jones said, “No doubt there are other groups that would prefer us not to have any development here, and that is not an option.”

Jones said the two options before the developer at this point are:

1) go forward with the plan that has already been approved and continue working with the Forest Service on environmental impact analyses required for access over Forest Service property. The original plan called for 2,172 units (116 single family; 360 hotel units totaling 1,080 rooms; and 1,696 multi family.) Jones estimated the environmental assessment would take about a year, but court battles could extend the execution of that plan a few years.

2) pursue an alternate plan involving a 207-acre acre-for-acre land exchange legislatively through Congress and administratively through the Forest Service. This would be a longer process, Jones said. Jones said if the developer takes this route he would probably pursue both avenues of land exchange simultaneously. The developer would likely seek Congressman John Salazar’s support in the U.S. House of Representatives, Jones said. Without his support the developer would probably not pursue the land exchange option, Jones said.

He added both would likely involve a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) full environmental review process.

“We intend to go through the full blown process,” Jones said.

He estimated the process would take 2-4 years.

He said he did not know McCombs’ timeline but believed he would like to move forward in one direction or another soon.

“I would like to get started before snowfall whichever way we are going.”

He said he believed McCombs has been very patient and gracious to allow time for another proposal.

Jones said surveys and reports are already underway to determine boundaries of proposed land exchange acreages and environmental impacts.

“We have already prepared for the most part the application to go in to the Forest Service for the land exchange,” Jones said.

Jones said the land exchange alternative would involve a potential density reduction of 25 percent, or from nearly 2,200 units to 1,700 units at full build out.

He added this option would phase development to coincide with the ski area’s growth. Phase I would be built to coincide with the capacity the ski area could handle now, and Phase II would not be constructed until the ski area’s capacity increased, Jones explained.

The full build out might never occur, he added. He said the first phase alone would be financially viable for the developer, however.

Jones and his consultants have designed a 492-unit Phase I development he described as a “quaint pedestrian style village” with a commercial building, hotel, condos and single-family residences.

Architectural style would incorporate natural elements such as timber and rock, Jones said.

He stressed that this scaled-back phased-in development was tied to the land exchange alternative.

Dusty Hicks, South Fork resident who supports the Village, said he believes the Village will be a good project for the area.

“I personally like the new plan,” he said. “If it can be done, I very much like the new concept.”