Summit Daily News Feature

A Citizen’s Look at Expansion in Breckenridge

By Janice Kurbjun, Summit Daily News, Guest Writer, 6-28-11

	Some of those opposed to the Breckenridge Peak 6 expansion regret the anticipated removal of some of the old-growth trees in the area, seen here. Photo by Ellen Hollinshead.

When Jane Hendrix thinks about the impact of Breckenridge Ski Resort’s Peak 6 development on her Peak 7 residence, she’s worried about congestion at the base.

Though there’s no plan to develop the Peak 6 base area, there may be impact on the residential streets below, Hendrix said. Already, she sees crowding at the Peaks Trail parking area and on nearby residential streets from downhill skiers looking to access the lifts in a less lengthy and costly manner than parking at the gondola parking lot. Hendrix said it’s at the price of pushing out cross-country skiers and those snowshoeing wanting to trek the Peaks Trail, adding that she has counted 83 cars spilling over from the 12-space trailhead lot onto residential streets.

She wonders what will happen to those streets if Peak 6 is developed and either more skiers show up on that side of the mountain or more skiers come to Breckenridge overall.

It was a comment White River National Forest supervisor Scott Fitzwilliams said he appreciated. On Thursday, Fitzwilliams held a Peak 6 open house in the “belly of the beast” in Breckenridge, Breckenridge Town Councilman Jeffrey Bergeron said.

The balancing act of meeting the needs of Breckenridge Ski Resort while maintaining national forest resources and public interest came to a head last week as about 100 people sat in the Beaver Run Ballroom to hear about the proposed Peak 6 expansion project — and voice their concerns.

Fitzwilliams presented the project and its three possibilities for moving forward — a no-action alternative as well as a light version of the project and the full version of the project.

The Peak 6 proposal is currently in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement stage, which Fitzwilliams said is “halfway there.” Receiving public comment on the approximately 600-page evaluation is a “vital part of the process.”

Fitzwilliams has announced that his preferred alternative is the second one, which includes a six-person chair to the top of the mountain, a slope-side restaurant and several clear-cut, intermediate trails. The third alternative is a lighter version of the expansion.

“Alternative 3 meets some of that need,” Fitzwilliams said, referring to the resort’s need for, among other things, intermediate terrain and less congestion at the lift lines. “But when I look at it as a collective of purpose and need statements, I prefer Alternative 2.

“Breckenridge is a very busy ski area. One of the busiest in the nation,” he added. This project is meant to help accommodate a predicted 2 percent annual increase in skier visits and to expand the mountain’s comfortable carrying capacity by 8 percent.

Another person concerned with the impact of Peak 6 development on the mountain’s existing base areas was Jeff Cospolich, who makes his livelihood on vacation rentals at the base of Peak 9.

“I’m concerned about Vail Resorts pulling energies of the resort further to the north each year,” he said, suggesting instead an increase in terrain between Peaks 8 and 9 instead of horizontal development.

But Breckenridge Ski Resort spokeswoman Kristen Petitt said $18 million was invested in the Village at Breckenridge project last year, which included improvements to Peak 9 buildings and installing snow melt systems as well as improved lighting.

She added that an agreement between the resort, the town and the county states that Breckenridge Ski Resort is committing to no further expansion and no development at the base of Peak 6, unless approached by the town and county officials to do so. The agreement will be signed if the Peak 6 proposal is approved.

Facilitating traffic
The meeting lasted its allotted three hours, with various topics surfacing, including another comment Fitzwilliams said he’d think about — resident Devon O’Neil wondered if the two alternatives could be combined in a way that maximizes improvements to best handle traffic concerns.

“If the goal is to facilitate traffic, why not upgrade the old lifts?” O’Neil asked, pointing out that Alternative 3 doesn’t develop as much of Peak 6, but asks the resort to upgrade existing lifts and cut new trails within current operational boundaries.

After a moment of thought, Fitzwilliams said, “I don’t have an answer. I’ll think about that.”

“We believe expanded terrain within our special use permit boundary is absolutely the most effective way of spreading out large crowds and alleviating long lift lines versus only making improvements to handle increased numbers within our existing operating area,” Petitt said.

Resident Carl Scofield added another thought to the comments about maximizing efficiencies: Why not make the Peak 6 chair mid-station an unload station as well as a load station?

“The majority of intermediate skiers will have no interest in skiing the upper areas to get to lower terrain” when visibility is low above treeline, he said. “I’m not sure this addresses the needs the percentage of the time you’re looking for.”

Which was mainly Bergeron’s point, beyond thanking Fitzwilliams for coming to Summit County to meet the project’s stakeholders face to face.

Bergeron said a lift to the top of the mountain will likely close as often as Imperial Express, which means traffic congestion at the base of the mountain, as usual.

“We’ll be in the same boat,” he said, asking that Fitzwilliams and contracted firm SE Group amend the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to better reflect impacts in various weather situations.

It’s not about backcountry skiing
Bergeron also said that the push back from environmentally-minded community members has nothing to do with backcountry skiing.

“It has to do with the forest,” he said. “If you say you’ll never develop Peak 6, we’ll never ski there again. There are more of us who are more concerned with the state of the forest.”

Fitzwilliams said he’s heard many complaints about skiers losing prime backcountry skiing with the proposed development.

And it’s true — skiers love the place, including Breckenridge Open Space and Trails commissioner Ellen Hollinshead, who said she fell in love with the area by dropping through gates off the mountain.

But she, too, said, “I’d give up skiing there just to save it. I’ll probably not go there again. It’s one of the best backcountry experiences in the upper Blue and we’re losing that.”

Should Breck be rewarded for poor stewardship scores?
Some of the interested public wondered where the ski area development would stop — if it would continue down the Tenmile Range to Frisco.

“There is a limit. We know that,” Fitzwilliams said, referencing the forest management plan, which outlines boundaries for ski areas’ special use permits. Master development plans operate within those boundaries.

Others questioned the Forest Service granting permission for the resort to expand, given its low score on the Ski Area Citizen’s Coalition survey. Last year, Breckenridge was ranked last among the ski areas. The survey puts the most weight on development and habitat protection, then focuses on protecting watersheds, addressing global climate change as well as the ski area’s environmental policies and practices.

“I think it’s appropriate we look at stewardship of the land,” resident Pat Tjaden said. “If Vail Resorts is a bad steward of the land, I think it’s appropriate to take that into consideration when making decisions.”

Fitzwilliams said ski resorts are held to certain standards as they develop, though Tjaden wondered if the standard is high enough. Fitzwilliams said he wouldn’t sign off on them if he didn’t think they were adequate.

“Obviously, not having a ski area there is better for wildlife habitat. No kidding,” he said, adding that the Forest Service has carved out about 4,500 acres out of 2.5 million, or far less than 1 percent, in the White River National Forest for ski areas. That’s compared to 62 percent wilderness and roadless areas. It’s a balanced approach for an agency that manages land for multiple uses, he said.

Janice Kurbjun writes for Summit Daily, a content partner of New West, where this story originally appeared.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.