Breckenridge Expansion

Your Letters Needed!

Already the second largest ski resort in Colorado , Breckenridge has proposed to expand to the north, onto Peak 6. The expansion would:  destroy an excellent backcountry skiing area, as well as fragment habitat for lynx and other species, invade an area considered to have outstanding ecological values, and exacerbate existing traffic and affordable housing shortage problems. There is simply no justification for the proposed expansion.

BACKGROUND

Breckenridge opened as a ski area in 1960 on Peak 8. Since then, it has expanded to peaks 9, 10, and 7, in that order, and now covers a large area. A major expansion onto Peak 7 was approved in 2000. In 2005, the Forest Service approved installation of a controversial new lift almost to the summit of Peak 8, allowing lift riders to use terrain that was formerly accessible only after an hour or more of hiking.

When the White River National Forest first issued a draft revised forest plan in the late 1990s, it proposed to confine Breckenridge and other resorts to the existing areas then allotted for ski area development. But in the final plan, Breckenridge got a huge gift – a possible expansion area well to the north of the existing resort. The plan did not, however, approve any specific expansion.

THE PROPOSED EXPANSION

The ski area now seeks to expand onto Peak 6, to the north of the existing resort. The top lift terminal would be at about 12,300 feet elevation. There would be runs above timberline, and runs would be cut though the forest further down. The base terminal, at about 10,750 feet, would also have a large restaurant. Access for construction would be provided by former timber roads that are now used by backcountry skiers.

PROBLEMS WITH THE PROPOSED EXPANSION

Most of the area of the proposed expansion sees little human use, especially in summer, thus it is excellent wildlife habitat. Cutting runs and installing an underground power line would destroy old growth spruce-fir forests and fragment habitat for wildlife species such as lynx and marten. The impacts from the runs and the base area, and from a septic system for sewage disposal, could cause pollution of the wetlands of Cucumber Gulch, which has a population of boreal toads and has been identified as an ecological resource of national importance.

Cutting live spruce and fir trees is particularly problematic, given that mountain pine beetles are killing most of the area’s lodgepole pine trees. These live trees are important for wildlife habitat and watershed stability.

The expansion would require additional employees, yet Breckenridge already has a shortage of employees due to the lack of affordable housing in Summit County .

Crowding is cited as a need for the proposed expansion. If it even exists, it has been caused to by the refusal of Breckenridge to upgrade existing facilities and infrastructure as already approved by the Forest Service, and issuance of low-priced season passes for Colorado residents. Installing a new lift on the edge of the resort’s permit boundary would not relieve crowding at the Peak 8 and Peak 9 bases. Any problems with long lift lines or poor skier dispersion could much more easily be solved by improvements of existing lifts and trails.

Construction and maintenance access to the base terminal would destroy access to excellent backcountry ski terrain, terrain that will be easily accessible by lift and thus less desirable for people who hike to this terrain rather than riding a lift.

Breckenridge also erroneously claims that the proposed expansion will address a lack of beginner, intermediate, and advanced-intermediate terrain at the resort. Already the second largest ski area in the state, there currently is ample supply of all terrain types. Furthermore, the proposed expansion would offer primarily advanced-intermediate and expert terrain, and is therefore inconsistent with Breckenridge’s alleged shortcomings. Finally, much of the proposed new ski terrain would be above timberline, meaning it would be unusable much of the season to due poor visibility and very windy conditions.

Rather than an absence of terrain, it appears the real driver of the proposed expansion is a desire to increase the value of Vail Resorts’ future real estate development plans at and near the Peak 7 base area. 

WHAT YOU CAN DO

We need to mobilize a large mass of opposition to defeat the unjustified expansion. Write to:  Maribeth Gustafson, Forest Supervisor, White River National Forest, 900 Grand Ave., P. O. Box 948, Glenwood Springs, CO 81602-0948 . Or fax comments to: 970 945-3266. Or e-mail comments to:  wrnf_scoping_comments@fs.fed.us (the spaces have underscores) and put “BSR Peak 6 Proposal” in the subject line. Regardless of how you submit your letter, be sure to include your full name and full postal mailing address. Comments should be submitted by February 17 to best ensure consideration, but later comments will be accepted.

Oppose the proposed expansion by making some or all of the following points in your letter:

  • State that there is no demonstrated need for expansion of Breckenridge Ski Area, as it is already the second largest ski area in Colorado . Any skier dispersion or circulation problems can be addressed via improvements of existing lifts and trails, some of which have already been approved but not yet installed.
  • State that the cutting of runs and construction of a lift and base area would likely destroy high quality old growth forest and fragment wildlife habitat by invading a mostly pristine area that has limited winter use and almost no summer use.
  • State that logging for ski and base construction and the proposed septic system could harm the nationally important wetlands in Cucumber Gulch.
  • Request that the Forest Service disclose the impacts of this expansion on Vail Resorts’ nearby real estate development, and on affordable housing, traffic, and quality of life in Summit County .\
  • Protest the loss of excellent backcountry skiing and snowboarding terrain.

For further information, call Brian Holcombe at 303.494.5266.