Background

Texas billionaire and developer Red McCombs has spent more than 25 years attempting to circumvent legitimate public review of his proposed “Village.”  His efforts have included attaching riders to unrelated legislation, lobbying for federal staff appointments favorable to his plans, and even writing local land use codes that would guide the development.  A 2006 lawsuit lead by Friends of Wolf Creek coalition partner Colorado Wild (now Rocky Mountain Wild), forced the Forest Service to throw out an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) on the development.  Senior Federal Judge John Kane found evidence that the EIS process was illegally influenced by the developer, and issued an injunction preventing the Forest Service from using the EIS. The lawsuit was resolved by the Forest Service agreeing to scrap the EIS and promising to prepare a new transparent and unbiased EIS to be conducted before access would be granted to the proposed development.  In press reports, Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas refused to acknowledge any problems with the EIS.   Shortly thereafter, the Forest Service began preparation of a new EIS.

2014

On November 21, 2014 the Forest Service completed the second EIS and issued its Draft Record of Decision.  Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas opted to grant a land exchange that would trade approximately 205 acres of federal land for 177 acres of private land.  As part of this exchange the U.S. Government is also paying Texas Billionaire Red McCombs $70,000 as a “cash equalization payment.”  This land exchange would connect the private land to U.S. Highway 160, allowing for greater development of the private inholding.

2015

On January 6, 2015, Friends of Wolf Creek filed a 96-page Objection with the Forest Service concerning the proposed land exchange. This Objection addressed the failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act by unlawfully narrowing the scope of analysis and failing to adequately analyze many important issues.  These issues relate to energy and water use, wildlife impacts, wetlands and drainage concerns, infrastructure development, economic determinations, and other direct and indirect impacts.

On March 23, 2015 the US Forest Service responded to our Objection on the decision to approve the land exchange at Wolf Creek Pass. The Service largely ignored the issues raised in our Objection, but has sent the decision back to the Forest Supervisor, Dan Dallas, to explain why he didn’t follow existing Lynx protections in his decision to approve the land exchange. Once those changes are made the final Record of Decision will be issued, and we we will announce our next steps in this fight to protect Wolf Creek Pass.

On May 21, 2015 Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas issued his Final Record of Decision, approving the land exchange that will pave the way for the development.  The process for how this decision was made is the subject of two separate Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests submitted by Rocky Mountain Wild.  The Forest Service has gone to great lengths to conceal communications and documents that were used to justify its decision, forcing us to file suits to obtain the records. Not surprisingly the records we have obtained show a continued pattern of secrecy and conflict of interest that plagued the 2006 EIS.

On June 24, 2015 the Friends of Wolf Creek coalition filed a lawsuit to stop the land exchange that paves the way for the construction of the “village.” Click here to read the press release.

You can read our full complaint here: RMW v Dallas Complaint 6.24.15

This lawsuit is in response to the Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas’ Final Record of Decision that was issued in May 2015. That decision would trade 205 federal acres for 177 acres of private land within the boundaries of the Rio Grande National Forest. The exchange will connect the private land to U.S. Highway 160, thus securing access to the developer’s private inholding.

The process for how this decision was made is the subject of two separate Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests submitted by Rocky Mountain Wild. The Forest Service has gone to great lengths to conceal communications and documents that were used to justify its decision, forcing us to file suits to obtain the records. Not surprisingly the records we have obtained show a continued pattern of secrecy and conflict of interest that plagued the 2006 EIS.

On July 14, 2015 the Friends of Wolf Creek coalition, U.S. Forest Service, and the Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture signed an agreement that will stop all construction and development of the “village” until our case is heard in Federal Court. Click here to read the press release.

September 30, 2015, a Colorado U.S. District Court found that the Forest Service violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to conduct and make available to the pubic a full search of documents pertaining to the proposed “village.” Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel gave the Forest Service until October 30th to produce the documents for public scrutiny. On October 27th, the Forest Service requested and was granted 30 more days to produce the documents. While we wait for all of the documents, our lawyers have begun reading the thousands of pages of documents we have received. We are confident that our efforts will show that the developer pressured the Forest Service into this decision – and that the decision will be reversed.

On December 10, 2015, Friends of Wolf Creek coalition member, San Juan Citizens Alliance created this beautiful video that explains the fight against the “village” at Wolf Creek:

2016

In January 2016, a federal judge ruled that the Forest Service needed to do a more thorough search of the records in response to Friend’s of Wolf Creek’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, including high-level employees’ records and previously withheld documents. For the complete story, check out the article by The Durango Herald.

Our lawsuit challenging the current land exchange, which gives the developers year-round access to the highway, is scheduled to be heard this spring.

In March 2016, we filed a motion in the U.S. District Court to have records in the possession of the contractors that the Forest Service hired to prepare the environmental analysis of the land exchange disclosed and potentially added to the Administrative Record. While these records legally belong to the Forest Service, they have refused to ask the contractors to supply all of them. The attorneys for the Forest Service and the Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture responded to the court arguing that the Administrative Record was complete without these additional records. In the first week of May, we filed a 23-page Reply brief, and now we are awaiting the Court’s decision. Full copies of our Brief, the defendant’s Responses, and our Reply brief can be found here:

2017

At the start of February 2017, Rocky Mountain Wild submitted the Reply brief for the Wolf Creek case. Now we wait on Judge Matsch to make a decision. If we are successful, the lawsuit would reverse the 2015 decision by the Forest Service to approve a land exchange providing critical road access needed for the 8,000 person “village” on Wolf Creek Pass.

This case details how the Forest Service unlawfully limited the scope of the environmental analysis and used the process to benefit a private business over the good of the public. Despite the site of the proposed development being located in crucial habitat for the endangered Canada lynx, a wildlife corridor linking two major Wilderness areas, and containing rare fen wetlands, the Forest Service did not properly analyze protections or demand mitigation as part of the land transfer.

In a related Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case, Judge Martinez ruled that the Forest Service did not have to collect and disclose records in the possession of the contractors who prepared the environmental analysis underlying the Forest Service’s land transfer decision. Although we already succeeded in obtaining thousands of government records in this case, the Court’s decision on this issue insulated the private contractor records leaving unanswered questions as to whether or not the developer exerted undue influence over the private contractors and what information was before the contractors that didn’t make it into analysis provided to the public. While the denial is troubling, we believe the merits case is still strong.

Additional information:
Press Release: “Final Arguments, Filings Against Massive Development at Wolf Creek in Judge’s Hands”
Article in The Durango Herald: “Future of Village at Wolf Creek awaits judge’s decision”
Blog post about ski area character: “Glitz and Glamour at Wolf Creek?”
Blog post about Canada lynx: “The “Village” at Wolf Creek Pass – a disaster for the Endangered Species Act listed Canada lynx”

The Friends of Wolf Creek coalition is busy preparing for the next steps in our epic challenge to this ill-conceived development, and monument to one man’s ego. We thank all of our friends for your continued support, and urge you to help us continue the fight.  Together we can stop the bulldozers.  Please see our How You Can Help page.

Read a fact sheet about Wolf Creek Pass

Administrative Record

The administrative record is the paper trail that documents an agency’s decision-making process and the basis for the agency’s decision. Here is a link to the administrative record provided by the Forest Service on their decision to approve the land exchange with Red McCombs.

More Background

For more than 25 years, Red McCombs has been trying to circumvent the public will and continues to pursue a plan to construct a "Village" atop Wolf Creek Pass. We have put together a Brief History of the twists and turns in this long-fought battle dating back to 1986.

Want to learn more about why we work so hard to protect Wolf Creek Pass? Take a look at this video that describes what modern ski "villages" do to our local mountain communities.

Resorting To Madness: Taking Back Our Mountain Communities from Coldstream Creative on Vimeo.

Here is a short video Wolf Creek Ski Area on their expansion plans from 2011. According to the owner Wolf Creek "is not a real estate development, it's a ski area." Let's keep it that way.