|
|
What is |
We recently submitted a land exchange proposal to the United States Forest Service (USFS). The new proposal seeks to exchange 177 acres of wetlands and skiable terrain we currently own for 177 acres of USFS property closer to Highway 160. The proposal also asks the USFS to grant us road access to the property we currently own under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) in the event the land exchange proposal is rejected. |
what is a |
A land exchange is a real estate transaction where a private land owner exchanges its land for land owned by the federal government. The tracts being exchanged must have equal monetary value and must serve the public interest. The federal government conducts an independent appraisal of the lands to be exchanged and, if they are not of equal value, the difference is made up by the party receiving the lower-valued land. |
how does |
A land exchange can be done legislatively, through the passage of a bill in Congress, and/or administratively, though the Forest Service. We are presently seeking an administrative land exchange.
|
What is the process and will the public be involved? |
Once the land exchange proposal is submitted to the USFS, the USFS does its own internal feasibility review of the proposal to determine, among other things, whether it is in the public’s best interest. If the USFS determines the land exchange is in the public’s best interest, the USFS will accept the proposal and commence the formal evaluation under “NEPA”. The NEPA process involves conducting an Environmental Impact Study (EIS), which includes public scoping meetings and periods for public comment on the proposal, as well as an appraisal of the lands to be exchanged. |
What if the USFS rejects the land exchange proposal? |
We have included in our proposal a request for the USFS to give us road access under ANILCA if they reject the land exchange proposal. ANILCA is a federal statute that guarantees private landowners reasonable access for their intended use of their property. If the land exchange does not occur, we have submitted two different development models on the land that we currently own, one of which we will proceed with once we obtain our ANILCA access. |
What are the benefits to the public with the land exchange as opposed to the other two options under ANILCA? |
There are many factors that weigh in the public’s favor with respect to the land exchange. From an environmental standpoint, the land we would exchange with the USFS would contain large areas of sensitive wetlands. From a skier’s standpoint, we would exchange land half-way up Alberta Peak that might otherwise be developed near existing ski runs. Further, the density of the Village is lower in our land exchange proposal than the density of the other two Village options, and with the land exchange proposal we would agree to develop the Village in phases tied to the ski area’s capacity. |
Why not |
Administrative land exchanges alone often take years to complete due to restraints on Forest Service personnel, lack of priority, or obstructions by third-party groups. We are proposing both exchange processes to avoid some of these delays. The legislative land exchange helps to ensure that the exchange moves forward by setting deadlines and making the exchange a priority for the Forest Service to complete the NEPA process in a timely manner. |
Which proposal does the ski area ownership prefer? |
Of the proposals submitted, the ski area prefers the land exchange proposal. |
If you support |
If you support the land exchange proposal as compared to our ANILCA access proposals, please contact the USFS Regional Office for the Rio Grande National Forest and express your support. We also invite you to express your opinions on all of the proposed options during the review process, and to also share those opinions with your local, state and national elected officials, many of whom are listed below. Mineral County Commissioners Rio Grande County Commissioners Archuleta County Commissioner – District 1 Archuleta County Commissioner – District 2 Archuleta County Commissioner – District 3
Town of Pagosa Springs
U.S. Representative John Salazar: Aides to Congressman Salazar: John Whitney
U.S. Senator Mark Udall: Aide to Senator Udall:
U.S. Senator Michael Bennet: Aide to Senator Bennet: |