Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture, the developers behind the Village at Wolf Creek, are looking to build a village that could accommodate 8,000 people near the base of Wolf Creek Ski Area. Plans include luxury homes, hotels, condos, townhomes, restaurants, shops and more./Courtesy Photo

Paper trail

Court’s decision pushes for full disclosure on Village at Wolf Creek

by Tracy Chamberlin

After three decades of debate, the U.S. Forest Service handed down a decision earlier this year that made it seem like the time had come to break out the shovels. But, the battle for the Village at Wolf Creek is far from over.

“I don’t think the village is inevitable,” said Matt Sandler, staff attorney for Rocky Mountain Wild, an environmental group opposed to the development that could bring 8,000 people to the top of Wolf Creek Pass.

The battle over the village essentially began in 1986 when the Forest Service approved a land swap with Texas-based developer B.J. “Red” McCombs. In exchange for property he owned in Saguache County, McCombs received 300 acres of national forest land just outside Wolf Creek Ski Area – the same acreage at the center of the current dispute.

This property is surrounded by public lands and called an in-holding. It can be reached in the summer months on a Forest Service road off Highway 160, but the road closes and the property becomes unreachable in winter.

Under federal law, if private property is surrounded by conservation lands, like national forest, the landowners must be granted access. It’s up to the Forest Service to determine the best way to go about it – either allowing for access roads over federal land or approving another land swap.

Opponents of the village, though, think there’s a third option. “There’s always the hope the landowner would come to the realization this isn’t something the people want,” Sandler said.

Silverton Mountain’s heli-skiing plans put on hold This summer the owners of Silverton Mountain asked the Bureau of Land Management if they could switch out some of the terrain they use for heli-skiing in the high country with spots located at lower elevations, which they consider less prone to avalanche dangers and bad weather, and safer overall. Aaron and Jen Brill, the husband and wife team behind Silverton Mountain and its accompanying heli-skiing operations, Silverton Guides, were hoping to work within an environmental assessment from 2008, which looked at possible impacts to the terrain, or pods, they’re currently using as well as the ones they’d like to use. This would’ve allowed them to have a decision ahead of the upcoming ski season. But that hope has been dashed. The BLM’s Tres Rios Field Office announced last week it will be conducting a new environmental assessment, putting the potential pod swap on hold for the winter. Some area residents have expressed concerns with the exchange because they fear it could limit access to popular backcountry skiing spots surrounding Silverton. Aaron has stated in the past that they are not interested in pods near Minnehaha Creek and Prospect Gulch, both close to Silverton Mountain’s boundaries. Prospect and Minnehaha are the easiest to access from Highway 110, which typically stays open year-round, making them very popular and a point of contention in the conversation. The bulk of the pods the Brills have requested are southeast of Howardsville, along County Road 2. They encompass Minnie and Maggie gulches, and Cunningham and Arrastra creeks. Another pod is located just north of Silverton along Highway 110, near Hancock Gulch. BLM officials took public comment on the Brill’s request during a scoping process in July and August. The decision to revisit the environmental assessment followed. The next steps are to complete the assessment, publish possible courses of action and allow for public comment. To view the Brills’ request letter or an updated map of the terrain pods, visit https://eplanning.blm.gov. To comment on the proposed exchange, contact Jeff Christenson at jchristenson@blm.gov or call 970-882-6811. – Tracy Chamberlin

After years of environmental assessments and analysis, the Forest Service said a land swap was the preferred option. Rio Grande Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas approved an exchange in May, trading 205 acres of federal land that sits right next to Highway 160 for 177 acres of private land a little farther in.

It was a major victory for the village’s developers, who plan to build hotels, condos, houses, restaurants and shops near the base of Wolf Creek Ski Area.

However, opponents of the project filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit following that decision. They wanted the Forest Service to release all the communications and documents related to its decision, one they felt literally paved the way to the village.

“We’re hoping to get some insight into what influenced (the decision),” Sandler said.

Although, the Forest Service has released thousands of documents already, some think those haven’t fully explained what prompted the decision to allow the land swap. Sandler cited inadequate analysis of the project and inadequate protections for the lynx population living in the area.

In the mid-2000s, when the Forest Service was   looking  at the potential environmental impacts related to the access road, the courts found the agency was inappropriately involved with the proponents of the project. According to some, history could be repeating itself.

“The court has verified what we have been saying throughout this decision-making process,” Sandler said in a statement. “The Forest Service has failed to be transparent, has withheld documents, and has committed resources to approving this irresponsible development while failing to keep the public informed.”

One reason the Forest Service claimed some documents could not be released was they were protected by attorney-client privilege. The judge stated in his decision that when it comes to the Freedom of Information Act, the burden of proof is on the defendant. The court always favors disclosure.

Sandler said it’s unknown how many documents will be released and what they could reveal about the Forest Service’s decision to allow the land swap. Any guess is speculation.

Sandler said the big issue is that the Forest Service did not have a good system for storing its documents.

Instead of having one database where employees store all related documents and communications, the Forest Service was forced to contact individuals who worked on the project and request they search notes, emails and computers for the information.

“It feels a little sloppy when we’re dealing with a decision of this magnitude,” he said.

Some of those individuals were never actually contacted. Whether they moved onto different jobs at the agency or sat in offices far from the Rio Grande National Forest, they were not asked to present information related to the project.

Now the court is requiring them to do just that.

The U.S. District Court in Colorado announced its decision Sept. 28. By the end of the month, the Forest Service needs to either come up with all the documents related to the analysis and decision-making process or prove why it’s protected.

Jimbo Buickerood, public lands coordinator for the San Juan Citizens Alliance, a Durango-based environmental group and member of the Friends of Wolf Creek, is optimistic the fight is far from over. “It’s more than a small victory – it’s a significant victory.”