I am an investor in a Pennsylvania and was looking to recreate your success.  

Its the part of the industry I started my sales career in.. in those days you could have a 100 lot subdivision with maybe 4 homes in it.. fast foreword to today and maybe that development is now 70 to 90% built out and smack dab in the middle of high danger fire areas.Oregon is lucky in a way with the land use. you simply cant urbanize the forests.. so yes a lot of forest land has burnt down and a few of the old logging towns.. but if the land development had followed what happened in CA and the forest had many more recreational subdivisions it would have been far worse in the loss of homes category. 

Now they've moved here and are impacting city governments that end up recreating the same problems they left.

You made it with this one, you're trying to recreate the same thing but you're going to build competition within itself as it does not monopolize.

Are there concerns for the water rights, i.e. is it possible the lake drains or becomes so low lake recreation isn't possible?

You could offset some of the purchase price through a selective harvest that won't destroy the recreational value you seek from the property. 

It starts by looking at the existing items (roofs, fences, railings, common areas, pools, recreation buildings, parking lots, you name it) and how much life those items have left before they need to be replaced.

I would like to try and analyze this as a vacation rental, given the location, and recreational opportunities, and see if the place is more valuable as a vacation rental than a traditional rental.

Anybody know if there are some examples out there so as to not recreate the wheel?

Of that 50M, 25M was allocated for the construction of a new recreational faculty that has since been completed.