DENVER (AP) - With a federal environmental review pending, a contentious proposal for a large resort at the base of one of Colorado's most rustic and remote ski areas faces the more immediate challenge of defending its building permits.

Lawsuits by two environmental groups and the operators of the Wolf Creek ski area near South Fork in southwestern Colorado accuse Mineral County of being a rubber stamp for Texas billionaire developer Billy Joe "Red" McCombs. They claim the county violated state laws and its own rules by neither taking public comment nor giving public notice of meetings on the Village at Wolf Creek, which is proposed on nearly 300 acres of private land that's surrounded by national forest.

Colorado Wild and the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council will make those arguments during a state district court hearing Tuesday in Creede, an historic mining town and seat of Mineral County. They and Davey Pitcher, president of Wolf Creek Ski Corp., believe the county commissioners caved in to McCombs when they agreed to the $1 billion project that includes 222,100 square feet of commercial space, hotels and homes for up to 10,500 people.

"They didn't even read the materials or the applications given to them by their attorney," Jeff Berman, executive director of Colorado Wild said of the commissioners. "They just took the word of their county attorney. That is irresponsible government at its worst."

John Wilder, the county attorney for 30 years, takes exception to that claim. He said he has been dealing with the proposed ski village since the late 1980s and during that time, all the commissioners have wanted to see the resort built.

"My job as an attorney, if it was going to happen, was to make it happen in a way that would protect the citizens and taxpayers of Mineral County and also protect the people who would buy into this development," Wilder said.

He said both the county's preliminary and final agreements with developers were 35 pages long.

"That's not rolling over, not even remotely," Wilder said.

He added that he believes the county followed all the laws requiring public notices and hearings. The room was overflowing "mostly with angry opponents" during many of the meetings, Wilder said.

The project has many critics who fear the impacts on wetlands, wildlife, including the endangered lynx, traffic, water and the ski area, which has an 11,900-foot-high summit in the San Juan Mountains and an annual snowfall of 40 feet. They warn of huge strains on schools, police and fire agencies and other services in a county with only 932 full-time residents.

The village also has several supporters, many of them eager for the big boost in jobs and revenue projected by the developers. The latest labor statistics show unemployment ranging from 3.9 percent to 7.6 percent in the immediate three-county area.

Once a supporter and partner in the venture, the Pitcher family is fighting McCombs' plan. The family says Kingsbury Pitcher, who preceded his son as head of the ski company, signed on for what he thought was a much smaller development.

Texas developer Bob Honts, president and chief executive of the company building the project, has said that Kingsbury Pitcher knew from the start how big the development would be. Honts said proper procedures were followed and he believes the project will eventually go through.

Davey Pitcher, though, said his father objected when, after years of hearing nothing, he realized that McCombs planned to build nearly 2,200 housing units. His father felt McCombs was trying to dodge environmental laws when he tried to get federal lawmakers to attach approval of the development to unrelated bills.

Now, the Pitchers are suing to clarify their obligations to McCombs, who accused the family of reneging on an agreement to help him win government approval of a key access road across forest land. McCombs claims damages of $20 million for having to go through a full-blown environmental review.

The U.S. Forest Service said while it is assessing the proposed project's effects on the environment, its role is limited to approval of a road connecting the private land to the highway. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wants more time to consult with the Forest Service, which means the final environmental impact statement might not be released in September as expected.