Sign Up for Free | Sign In

Backcountry Skiing blogs, videos, photos, and a whole lotta stoke.

Ski Area Expansion: How much is enough? | Breckenridge Peak 6, CO United States | 04/17/09, by Swiss Miss

Breckenridge Ski Area announced plans to expand the mega-resort to a fifth peak: a mountain currently regarded as great side-country skiing (Peak 6). Resort officials claim that the purpose of expanding the ski area is to spread out the skiers and make up for the lack of beginner and intermediate terrain. Breckenridge currently has about half the skiable terrain as Vail with more skiers per season. It's true that the number of expert runs outnumber the beginner runs, with over 25 green runs, 26 blues, 37 blacks, and over 35 expert only runs. However it's hard to believe that the area is not big enough, with 33 lifts spread over four peaks. Is it really driven by the lack of space, or is it money?

Peak 6 is a popular backcountry destination because of its ease of access. Many Colorado backcountry ski destinations require a long tour for good turns. One post on TelemarkTips.com states: "Losing Peak 6 as a backcountry area would be huge. This is a really popular ski peak for area residents and front range bc skiers. The cool thing is it doesn't take a huge commitment slogging in to finally get some turns." On the other hand, Manny G., splitboarder and Breckenridge local explains: "Peak 6 is a nice sidecountry area, but if I'm going to go backcountry skiing, there are other good places to go that I don't have to buy a lift ticket to access."� Are we being selfish trying to keep the powder turns on Peak 6 all to ourselves without sharing it with those too lazy to hike? Unfortunately, the loss of backcountry skiing terrain is likely one of the least of the negative implications to Breckenridge.

Expanding to Peak 6 would have many negative implications on the town and the environment. Breckenridge's motto is "Perfect Mountain. Perfect Mountain Town." Perfect for whom?� For those who can afford the multi-million dollar mansions and condos on the slope? Breckenridge has grown from a town of less than 600 people in the sixties to one of over 36,000 today.� Such tremendous growth has caused traffic jams and a severe lack of affordable housing for residents and workers. With expansion of the ski area comes the need for more employees, and those employees need to live somewhere. Last I checked, the average ski bum can't afford those slopeside mansions.


It may not seem like ski areas do much damage to the environment, but in reality, they do. Cutting runs and space for ski lifts damages old-growth forest, adding to the loss of evergreen forests from beetle-kill in most of Colorado's Front Range. Slope cuts also cause habitat fragmentation for important species in the area such as lynx and marten. Installing a base lodge and sewer system could contaminate the important wetlands of Cucumber Gulch. In 2008, the Ski Area Citizens Coalition gave Breckenridge an "F" on their environmental report card, which takes into account the impact on roadless areas, old growth forests, purchase of wind energy, use of cleaner burning biodiesel, energy efficient upgrades, and more. Is it smart to allow a huge resort like this to expand on their already poor policies?

Breckenridge isn't the only ski resort that is expanding. Crested Butte announced plans to expand onto Snodgrass Mountain. Telluride just opened a lift on Revelation Bowl and is researching the feasability of another in Upper Bear Creek. Several others resorts are also in the planning stages.

What's going on in your area?� How much is enough?