Since the 1980s, Texas billionaire B.J. “Red” McCombs has been trying to build the Village at Wolf Creek, a proposed resort community that could accommodate 8,000 people with luxury homes, hotels, condos, townhomes, restaurants, shops and more./File photo

Page turner

Incriminating emails released in ongoing suit over Village at Wolf Creek

by Tracy Chamberlin

The first ones arrived in late November – boxes and boxes filled with roughly 70,000 pages of emails and other documents. Eventually, an additional 30,000 came to the offices of attorneys working with a coalition of conservation groups who oppose the development of the Village at Wolf Creek.

Some of those pages might even be duplicates, but there was no way of knowing which ones. Not without reading each and every page.

The piles of paper came from employees of the U.S. Forest Service. They were the result of a judge’s decision to encourage full disclosure in a lawsuit still pending before the courts, one of several cases between the Forest Service and the coalition.

Among those piles was an email chain between several Forest Service employees.

In it, they discussed whether or not Rio Grande Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas, who was the individual tasked with making the final decision on a land swap between the Forest Service and Texas-billionaire B.J. “Red” McCombs, could also be the one who enforces that decision. The land swap would essentially pave the way for McCombs to build the village, a proposed resort community that could accommodate 8,000 people with luxury homes, hotels, condos, townhomes, restaurants, shops and more.

At the end of the exchange, Tom Malecek, Rio Grande National Forest district ranger, writes “… Dan (Dallas’) main concern wasn’t the letter, but the emails around the letter that might be a little damaging in the event they are not all deleted in case we get a (Freedom of Information Act request) … remember we are swimming with sharks and need to keep emails from even the remote appearance of whatever, so make sure you burn this once read!”

Of course, the email wasn’t burned.

Matt Sandler, staff attorney with Rocky Mountain Wild, a member of the coalition “Friends of Wolf Creek,” said he was surprised the email slipped through the cracks and ended up on his desk. He wasn’t surprised, though, that it existed in the first place.

Sandler said these emails, and others like them, show a pattern of Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, violations by the Forest Service and a conspiracy to keep documents from the public view.

The Forest Service, contacted Tuesday, said it can’t comment on the emails or the Village at Wolf Creek. “As a matter of policy, we can’t comment any further because of pending litigation,” explained Lawrence Lujan, acting press officer for the Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Region in Golden.

Part of the issue for Sandler is that if there is an effort to delete emails and hide the review process from public, there’s no way of knowing what really happened.

“It strikes as cover-up,” said Jimbo Buickerood, public lands coordinator for the San Juan Citizens Alliance, another member of Friends of Wolf Creek. “If it’s not,” he continued, “then tell us what we’re missing here.”

The battle over the village essentially began in 1986 when the Forest Service approved a land swap with 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 in the winter and the property becomes unreachable.

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 swap.

After years of environmental assessments and analysis, the Forest Service said another land swap was the preferred option. Dallas approved that swap in May 2015, trading 205 acres of federal land that sits right next to Highway 160 for 177 acres of McCombs’ land a little farther in.

Members of the coalition have said they felt the decision was harmful to the wildlife, plant life and the ecological systems that currently call those lands home. They certainly oppose the development, but at the very least wanted to understand the Forest Service’s decision to allow for it.

The official reports, including an Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision, didn’t give them those explanations.

When asked why the Forest Service doesn’t just turn over the documents related to the village, Jeff Dorschner, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s office, explained that although he’s uncertain as to the Forest Service’s policy, the Department of Justice doesn’t generally gather up documentation until there’s a Freedom of Information Act request because of the sheer number of hours needed to do so.

“We require a request,” he explained. “That’s our standard.”

Full disclosure isn’t the only concern, though. Another email chain discovered in the mountain of documents discussed McCombs and his influence on the process.

In one email, Maribeth Gustafson, acting regional forester for the Rocky Mountain Region, writes, “It is commonly understood that Mr. McCombs brought political pressure to bear to realize his dream to develop the ski area.”

Other Forest Service employees wrote that “McCombs is rattling cages” and “‘Red will do what Red will do’ in terms of political contacts.” One employee explains “Red McCombs is getting ‘frustrated’ and may ‘begin making calls to his friends in Washington.’”

According to the coalition, these are examples of how the Forest Service was improperly influenced by McCombs.

It’s not the first time Forest Service employees have been accused of improper involvement with the developers.

In the mid-2000s, the Forest Service first examined the potential environmental impacts related to the access road and land swap. It was later discovered by the courts that the agency was inappropriately involved with proponents of the project.

A judge ruled there had been improper contact, and the Environmental Impact Statement released at that time was considered void, and the process started all over again.

Members of the coalition believe history is repeating itself, and these latest emails show that’s the case.

“They seem to have no problem with ongoing communication with the developer,” Buickerood said.

The emails, along with many others, have been filed as exhibits in cases currently pending, and the next legal step is a filing deadline in February for one of the cases. They are just a couple of examples uncovered while sifting through the boxes. And, according to Sandler, they’re still digging.

It’s uncertain what the courts might do with the emails, if anything. One option would be to declare this latest environmental review and Forest Service decision invalid, hitting the reset button for a second time. Even if that happens, though, there’s no guarantee it will be open to the public, Buickerood said, and the same cast of Forest Service employees might be tapped to head up the project for a third time.

“There’s a lack of transparency,” he said. “That’s at least a crying shame.”