What is the hurry with Peak 6?

You hear it in bars, on the street, in lift lines: "I'm not thrilled about Peak 6, but it's going to happen, so why bother getting involved?"

The reason ski area expansions always get carte blanche approval, is because too many of us DON'T get involved.

Every land manager I've spoken to advises, "The public needs to start talking. Write a letter."

Many of you know me as an avid backcountry skier and assume that is my main concern for saving Peak 6. There is no denying that Peak 6 is a rare gem for backcountry skiers and riders, but please believe me when I say my motivation is not selfish, and goes far beyond the needs of a few hundred backcountry enthusiasts.

First, to my skiing buddies who look over at Peak 6 and wish you were there, well, it isn't nearly as steep as it looks. Intermediate at best.

For the steeper skiing, plan on a boot pack to the top and then an up-and-down walk along a windy ridge ... for a dozen turns.

Yes there will be plenty of lower gentle runs through our future dead forest. And on poor visibility days, the intermediate skier, whom Breckenridge is trying to court, will probably steer clear of this above tree-line lift.

It is my contention that Vail Resorts hasn't confessed to the Forest Service all of their motives. Their contention is that the expansion will shorten lift lines and disperse skiers.

If lift lines are too long, mostly on weekends, why not first follow through with past promises of upgrading 6 chair, C chair, 5 and A chair instead of expanding into not one, but two beautiful basins and summits? (This proposal actually extends from Peak 6 1Ú2 to 5 1Ú2.)

It breaks my heart knowing that this expansion will destroy some of the last remaining unspoiled and healthy forest in our crowded Tenmile Range .

Consider this: Every trailhead from Hoosier Pass to Spruce Creek sees heavy year-round use. There are residential homes close to tree line, trails and jeep roads climb to 12,000 feet and higher. Then you have the ski area, complete with hundreds of cut runs and people, which spans four peaks and drainages. Finally we have relief with Peaks 6 and 5. No trails, no roads, no people. That could all change.

The reason an elk herd lives here in the summer is because, unlike the rest of this range, there are few human visitors. The reason you see ptarmigan, mountain lion, hares and moose here is precisely because it isn't a ski area. This is prime lynx habitat due to living spruce and fir. Siberian Loop will become motorized, adding more stress to wildlife.

We have squeezed our wildlife into these basins and now we're going to take it away?

The Pine Beetle Epidemic has not hit Peak 6 extensively yet. But rather than wait to do an environmental analysis after the blight has run its course, Breckenridge wants to move forward as soon as possible. We still don't know how this epidemic will affect our water, our forest, our aesthetics. Why cut lodgepoles before we know which few will survive?

And what about our living trees - the Engelmann spruce and sub-alpine fir, unusually dense in Peak 6? The Colorado Natural Heritage Program ranks Peak 6 and 5 collectively as one of the few places left in our state with "Outstanding Biodiversity Significance." Hundreds of these living trees will have to be cut for their intermediate runs. Imagine the visual scar of all our trees dead. Imagine the visual impact of a lift high above tree line. When my European friends visit, they love our mountains because they don't see lifts in every direction.

Let's not forget that this is a community as well as a resort.

Skiers, put your creative hat on, see all those lodgepoles as dead, and do you see what I see? So many new terrain options! Next to the Mach... north side of Peak 10...Instead of thinning spruce and fir on Peak 6, why not instead thin below the Ballroom...the Doors...below 6 chair? Let's ask for a lift that would service the already impacted Twin Chutes and some of the connecting out of bounds terrain.

What is also hard to swallow is that we know that Peak 6 has much more to do with what Breckenridge hasn't mentioned: to market the real estate and promote their new bed base at Peak 8 and 7. I don't have a problem with that, but just like all other developments that go through planning processes, you have to mitigate the consequences. And with the massive size of this project, doesn't it make sense to put Peak 6 on hold and first see if our town can handle the capacity issues?

This proposal will raise skier visits by a 1000, but no new parking is suggested. No mention either of affordable housing for the numerous minimal wage employees this expansion will require, and this is before we even know the demands from 7 and 8.

Before we begin the formal planning process for Peak 6, shouldn't we first see how much of a strain Peak 7 and 8 will have on our infrastructure - health care services, traffic congestion, parking, transportation, snow removal? And as a town business owner, wouldn't you rather see more attention on how to get skiers back to Peak 9 and closer to the town core, than out to Peak 6?

There's so much more, but I've said enough. If you agree with so many of us who feel this way, please write. It will help.

For more information on the project go to: www.backcountryalliance.org or email summit@backcountryalliance.org

Send your letter, due Feb 17th ( late comments accepted), to: Maribeth Gustafson White River National Forest, 900 Grand Ave. P.O. Box 948, Glenwood Springs, CO 81602-0948 or email: wrnf_scoping_comments@fs.fed.us