Knowledge of the land is one of the unassailable privileges that comes with being a local. We all have our powder stashes—deep within a glade, just beyond boundaries or a short trek from the chairlift. These places ensure fresh tracks and respite from the rat race. For some Breckenridge locals, Peak 6 is one such place.
“From the Independence Chair, it’s an hour and a half skin to the summit,” says longtime Breckenridge resident Ellen Hollinshead. “Peak 6 is one of the few places that doesn’t see nasty weather, and it’s mostly avalanche safe.” Because it’s unknown to many even in Breckenridge, Hollinshead says Peak 6 is a quiet place; a haven from the crowds lured over the Front Range each weekend. It’s a haven for wildlife, too, with healthy forests that offer ideal habitat for the endangered Canada lynx. But all that is threatened, and not just by the Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic.
![Breckenridge Ski Resort and the proposed Peak 6 expansion. [Source] Breckenridge Ski Resort](images/stories/features/peak6/breckenridge-ski-resort-co-peak-6-expansion-map.jpg)
In 2008, Breckenridge Ski Resort (BSR) proposed an expansion to Peak 6. The expansion would add 450 acres of terrain. A new high-speed six-person chairlift would move up to 3,000 skiers per hour 1,670 vertical feet to an ultimate elevation of 12,293 feet. The current proposal includes no base development, and a Memorandum of Understanding with the town of Breckenridge affirms it would stay that way.
Currently, the White River National Forest is working on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposal. The draft is due out this spring and once published, it will be available for public comment. These comments will be considered in the National Forest’s Final Environmental Impact Statement. That document must disclose the environmental effects of the action, enumerate the factors considered in making a decision on the proposal and identify alternatives. It will provide a way forward, determining at once the future of BSR’s crowded trails and the fate of a precious piece of backcountry terrain.
The Ten Mile Range towers over Breckenridge, a community that bills itself as the “Perfect Mountain Town.” Its charm lies in its authenticity—Breckenridge isn’t just some manufactured ski town thrown up by resort planners in the age of mass tourism. Rather, it’s an authentic Colorado gold rush town, founded in 1859 by miners who likely saw its snowfalls as little more than a barrier between them and the precious mineral.
In 1961, a new game came to town, one that brought with it dramatic change. Breckenridge Ski Resort was founded on Peak 8, and has since grown across the town’s Rocky Mountain backdrop to Peaks 7, 9 and 10. Continued expansion has carved the idyllic scene with 155 trails, and 31 chairlifts effortlessly whisk 1.5 million skiers up Breckenridge’s slopes each year.
Measuring 2,300 skiable acres, BSR is among the largest ski areas in Colorado. In 1999-2000, it became the most visited in America, a title it has swapped with neighbor and parent company, Vail, ever since.
“The crowding problem is real,” says Hollinshead. “Our mountain is packed. Peaks 7 and 8 are crazy; there’s not even room to put your skis on; you’re walking all over people.”
It isn’t surprising. While skier numbers are comparable to those of Vail, BSR is significantly smaller. 3,000 acres smaller, to be precise.
BSR proposed the Peak 6 expansion to resolve the issue of crowding, says resort spokesperson Kristen Petitt. “It’s not intended to increase visitation,” Petitt continues. “It adds terrain and basic facilities, but doesn’t contemplate any base area development.”
In theory, expansion resolves crowding—a new lift and added terrain means more space for visitors to spread out. But the plan also concedes that with development, at current visitor numbers, Breckenridge would regularly be at 125% of comfortable carrying capacity. And yet it seems unlikely that skier numbers would remain unchanged.
In Downhill Slide, a 2002 critique of corporate ski resort development, Hal Clifford notes that the number of skiers in the U.S. has remained flat for decades. He asserts that resorts are engaged in what he terms an “arms race” to gain a slice of a stagnant, but lucrative, pie. And expansions—like the one proposed for Peak 6—are marketing devices in that arms race. Sexy new lifts and fresh terrain draw skiers. They come, they stay, they shop, they ski. BSR makes money. Vail Resorts makes money. Big money.
The numbers speak for themselves. In 2006, publicly traded Vail Resorts rode BSR’s record high 1.67 million skier visits to unprecedented profits. Revenues from Vail Resorts’ on-mountain operations alone, which include lift ticket sales, increased by $79.5 million, totaling $620.4 million.
Colorado saw great snow in the 2005-06 season, which couldn’t have been bad for business. But according to Ski Area Management magazine, Rob Katz, CEO of Vail Resorts, explained the windfall to shareholders as follows: “We believe these results are primarily due to the many improvements we have made to our resorts.” The big improvement at BSR that winter? The Imperial Express chairlift and 400 acres of new terrain.
Like Colorado’s other ski resorts, BSR is operated on public land; every inch of its terrain falls within the White River National Forest. With its Peak 6 proposal, BSR isn’t asking to develop its own land; it is asking to develop land that belongs to all Americans.
While protected, National Forest land isn’t designated purely for conservation purposes, but to provide natural resources. Even so, users aren’t absolved of their responsibility of stewardship in accordance with the Forest Service’s mission to “sustain the health of the nation’s forests to meet the needs of future generations.”
On land it has developed, Breckenridge Ski Resort hasn’t always been a good steward.
The Ski Area Citizen’s Coalition—a joint project of environmental organizations including Colorado Wild and the Sierra Nevada Alliance—grades ski resorts on criteria such as wildlife habitat protection, carbon emissions and impact on wetlands. Their 2011 Ski Area Report Card examined ski resorts throughout the western U.S. BSR ranked among the lowest, performing poorly across the board and scoring no higher than a C in any category. It received its lowest grade—32.7%, an F—for habitat protection.
Paul Joyce, a conservation associate with Durango-based NGO, Colorado Wild, believes BSR’s environmental track record is cause to oppose expansion. “It tells us that these guys aren’t going to take good care of the resource,” Joyce says. “They haven’t proven themselves to be good stewards in the past. Why should we trust them now?”
For its part, BSR has faith in the National Environmental Policy Act process. If the resort has proposed too much for the environment to bear, the act will theoretically limit the expansion. “The Forest Service takes [public] comments into consideration,” says Petitt, adding simply that the process will provide alternatives.
However, the expectation—even the certainty—of negative environmental impacts doesn’t necessarily mean that a project will be halted. With more than 40,000 lift-serviced skiable acres in Colorado, such expansions have rarely been stopped.
Still, when last summer the Gunnison National Forest rejected Crested Butte Mountain Resort’s proposed development of Snodgrass Mountain, it gave some opponents of the Peak 6 expansion hope. “It was the first time they ever said no to the ski industry,” says Joyce. “We’ve got some guys who’ve been around Colorado Wild for a long time. It was the first time they’d seen the Forest Service feel empowered to say no.”
Beyond the resort and the backcountry, many see the town of Breckenridge at a tipping point. “Enough is enough,” says Ellen Hollinshead. “Traffic is terrible. The whole experience is miserable, and it’s getting worse.” For many, the town is growing unlivable.
If the market for multi-million dollar ski chalets took a hit during the subprime mortgage crisis, you wouldn’t know it with the elaborate properties currently on offer through local realtors. Summit County is home to some of the priciest real estate in America—the average house in Breckenridge costs $900,000; higher than in Manhattan. According to Hollinshead, many homes stand empty most of the time. “We could use more people who live here Monday through Friday,” she adds.
When asked how expansion would impact local real estate, Kristen Petitt only noted BSR’s continued generosity to local charities. “The ongoing operation of Breckenridge Ski Resort is a key to our mutual success,” she says.
Paul Joyce and Colorado Wild don’t oppose resort development in principle, but do express worries about community effects. “Folks feast off people coming up I-70,” Joyce says. “Just about everyone in town is working for Vail Resorts in some way or another.” Despite depending on the resort industry for employment, many can’t even live in the community because of the cost of living—commuting from Leadville, over an hour away on winding mountain roads is not unusual. Increased visitation that would result from development will likely displace even more of the community’s workforce.
Last December, BSR and the town of Breckenridge agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding that seeks to mitigate some socio-economic impacts of expansion. The resort plans to construct additional resort-owned employee housing and vows to continue to work with local charities to ensure they aren’t burdened by additional resort employees. As far as BSR is concerned, the agreement addresses the socio-economic impact of the expansion. Others aren’t as sure if it addresses the underlying problems.
For BSR, the situation is undoubtedly difficult. The ski area is legitimately crowded, and, as Pettit notes, “the crowding detracts from skier experience.” Few would deny that—nobody likes lift lines.
In the latest version of the proposal, BSR has made some concessions, but even agreeing to forego base-area development isn’t likely to satisfy the project’s fiercest critics. If the project goes forward, those locals who can still afford to live in Breckenridge expect to see their quality of life reduced. The grandeur of the landscape that draws people there in the first place will be affected, and with that, the backcountry will be less accessible. Not only will one more lift whisk even more skiers into Colorado’s alpine, but one of the state’s best introductions to backcountry skiing will be gone forever.
Stay on top of the latest developments in Breckenridge at the “Save Peak 6” Facebook page.
Once the Forest Service has issued the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the public may provide feedback on the findings. Join Colorado Wild’s email list at www.coloradowild.org to stay updated on the Forest Service’s process.
Sources: Summit Daily News, U.S. National Forest Service, Ellen Hollinshead, Paul Joyce, Kristen Petitt.