Peaked interest
Silverton Mtn. heli expansion open for comment til Dec. 12

When word first came last summer that Silverton Mountain was looking to use some popular backcountry spots for its heli-skiing operation, local residents and other backcountry users were quick to speak out.

In fact, hundreds of people spoke out during the first round of public comment on the issue.

Many of the commenters in round one voiced concerns that if the mountain’s heli-skiing arm, Silverton Guides, was given permission to trade out some of its high-elevation terrain for lower-elevation acreage other users could lose access to some of the region’s prime backcountry.

But, the potential for conflicts among backcountry users isn’t the only point of contention on the table. Some concerns involved local wildlife, like the lynx. Still others focused on the boundaries of the proposed areas, which cross over into designated Wilderness Study Areas. On the other side are those who pointed out that allowing Silverton Mountain access to public lands does not mean they are no longer open to the public. Supporters also cited the impacts Silverton Mountain, both its lift-served and heli- skiing operations, has on the local economy.

“It’s hard for people who live outside Silverton to understand the importance of what Silverton Mountain means to the winter economy,” the mountain’s owner Aaron Brill explained Tuesday.

Brill, along with his wife and co-owner, Jen, opened Silverton Mountain ski area in 2002. They bought the heli-skiing side of the business from Telluride-based Helitrax in 2009.

The town operations work hand-in-hand with the heli-skiing. In fact, Brill said, it’s critical to the lift service.

In the past several years, as the Southwest has endured drought conditions, the high-elevation lands where Silverton Mountain operates have become more avalanche-prone and dangerous, Brill explained in an earlier interview.

With this in mind, the Brills asked the Bureau of Land Management, the federal agency charged with managing much of the public land surrounding Silverton, to exchange some of the areas above the treeline they’re currently permitted to use with other areas at a lower elevation, which they say would be safer.

Although Silverton Mountain would give up five pods, or areas, in exchange for four, they would actually gain more than 10,000 acres in available terrain.

Three of the pods under consideration are located south- east of Howardsville, along County Road 2. They encompass Minnie and Maggie gulches, and Cunningham and Arrastra creeks. These areas were also looked at in 2008, The reasons given back then were concerns over noise, conflict among other backcountry users and the crossover of some Wilderness Study areas.

Again, much of those same areas are under consideration.

The fourth pod, called Illinois/Hancock, is just north of Silverton, along Highway 110. It sits near Hancock Gulch between the ski area and the town.

There are four other permit holders who also use those public lands. One of them is Josh Kling, owner and lead guide for Kling Mountain Guides, which offers guided rock, ice and alpine climbing, as well as backcountry skiing and mountaineering.

Kling said he’s uncertain exactly how the proposed expansion would affect his business if approved, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t commented on the proposition.

The addition of the Illinois/Hancock pod to Silverton Mountain’s offerings is something Kling supports because it’s adjacent to the ski area. His concerns are with the other pods.

One of those concerns is about training.

“Silverton Mountain is phenomenal at what they do in their area,” Kling said. “However, if they expand into public lands, they should be held to the same standards as other guides in the U.S.”

As a part of his permit, Kling is certified with the American Mountain Guides Association, or AMGA, as well as other external professional development organizations.

Training as a guide with groups like AMGA or being associated with industry nonprofits like Heli-Ski US isn’t a requirement for Silverton Mountain.

Brill said those requirements aren’t neccessary because the in-house training required for the guides at Silverton Mountain is much stricter than other organizations. “There’s no- body that has a higher level of training,” he explained.

Since the Brills first made their request for a pod exchange last summer, one of the biggest changes to the process has been among the decision-makers.

The BLM changed the boundaries for each of its regional offices across Colorado. The area around Silverton, which includes the Animas River headwaters, used to be under the umbrella of the BLM’s Tres Rios Field Office in Dolores. It is now under the management of the Gunnison Field Office.

The field manager, who will ultimately make the final decision, the recreation manager and all the other BLM players are different. In fact, this is one of the first issues the Gunnison office will oversee in its new territory.

Their final decision on whether or not the swap is a go, and what guidelines could be attached to it, could come as early as this winter. The most recent step was the draft Environmental Assessment, released Nov. 10, on which public comment is open until Dec. 12. The next steps would be to respond to comments, make any changes, and release a final EA and decision.

In the draft EA, two options are addressed – no action, which would mean the expansion or exchange is denied, and a proposed action, which would essentially be an approval.

Although the BLM is the lead agency, it did not author the draft EA. It was prepared by a third-party called SE Group and paid for by the ones making the request – Silverton Mountain. It’s not unprecedented for the company making a re- quest with a federal agency like the BLM to foot the bill for the required environmental studies.

But, the finished product released Nov. 10 isn’t enough for some.

“The EA does not provide enough information or analysis,” said Jimbo Buickerood, public lands coordinator for the San Juan Citizens Alliance.

Buickerood said, for one, it doesn’t address the hundreds of thoughtful and educated comments offered during the first public scoping period. Other concerns involve the lack of specifics like the potential affects to local wildlife and wilderness areas, details on helicopter landing sites, possible road closures along County Road 2, and the lack of input from avalanche-control experts.

“There’s a whole bunch of information and people really care,” Buickerood explained. “For those to be brushed aside ... it’s a disservice to the public.”