Throne Traverse Construction Project

Anyway this is all hypothetical as its never going to happen as I've just reported to the Forest Service that I saw several cougars on the ridge and it's gonna be endangered species habitat.
( I just was selective and didn't tell them the cougars where wearing one piece ski suits. ;D)

Anyway this is all hypothetical as its never going to happen as I've just reported to the Forest Service that I saw several cougars on the ridge and it's gonna be endangered species habitat.
( I just was selective and didn't tell them the cougars where wearing one piece ski suits. ;D)

Note to self -- ski with Scotsman more.

Who cares if the traverses send more traffic in on weekend powder days? It just means more people will get to ski the scraped up left overs...because the terrain can only support so many sets of fresh tracks. Weekdays are the best time for Crystal anyway. Had a few smashing powder (week)days there last year.

I haven't skiied Crystal very much, a dozen times in a few years. Like most big resorts, weekends in-bounds appear to be a total s***show. Last year I was forced to hold my elbow out to prevent an out-of-control skier from seriously injuring myself and my mother inside a lift corral area. Think his nose might have been broken...it sure bled a lot.

There is plenty of backcountry nearby, and I seriously doubt you'll see more resort skiers in Crystal Lake basin, Cement Basin, or over into Union Creek.

Improving the Throne traverse doesn't bother me much. It will increase the traffic somewhat, but from my perspective Crystal already gets tracked up really fast, and it won't change my experience much. I won't miss the rocky traverse. I don't think it will make a big difference in the number of people who hike to the southback.

Gosh, I like the sketchy traverse just the way it is! There's nothing better than trying to straight line that damn thing, strapped to your shred--stick, wind howling, foggier than fishersmans-dwarf, trying to avoid said bolder near the end off the catwalk with a mandatory 8' bail to your backside (regular stance). Then the glorious staircase, and off to enchantment! Leave it be!

It anyone out there who hasn't already ridden SB wants to ride SB, then you'll have to learn the traverse! My goofy-footed buddies have to do it SWITCH... SWITCH, I tell ya'... SWITCH!!! Try that on for size!

Vote no on initiative fanny-bandit.

The protests will be heard more if you find out who the ones that were opposed to the road (wrote letters before the deadline) and team up with them to have your concerns voiced. In my previous experience with this process the one's who are fighting the ROD will be heard if they pursue it further to take it to mediation between the FS and Crystal. Or in our case a friendly understanding, just choose your battles wisely and don't piss off the hand that feeds you.

Crystal has been trying for years to get a decent platform to run a small dozer that they have or used to have stored at the top of the chair 6 lift shack.
My understanding was that their goal was to clear the snow away from the upper chairs and bullwheel area. Another poster had mentioned that the snow loads up pretty good there, which is the truth. Lowering the dropoff point makes good sense, since that is the main reason for delays after big dumps. Early season is the most problematic with rocks, so most the whining about rock damage that I am reading is reactive to early or late season. Normally mid season it is the drifted wind roll whoop-de-doos that really take the toll on my back, not rack avoidance.

Putting the access road makes some sense. But it would be ironic if the road was busted in to make it easier to traverse without rocks on the ridge, but to create a level grade they have to dump the rocks somewhere and usually they get dumped on the downhill side to build it up.
So the ski off the road to the runs could potentially become really rockier than the origional traverse!

Another irony is that the park service has really been digging their heels in and threatening to close the back traverse behind the Throne to the King. Using it as a blackmail threat to force Crystal to eventually permanently close their access from the ski area into the park. Crystal has done a great job of keeping the ropelines open, but it gets tiresome for management to always have to deal with the Parks endless shenanigans that they invent to try to force Crystal to close it's open access policy. Kudos to Crystal for always fighting the man. Increased traffic to the South will create more heat on that stove.
I had a dream that Crystal sold the resort and the Park ravens (Management) swooped in and their first act was to force the new ownership to close the gates to the Park. Let's hope that dream never comes true. But the reality is there is nothing more than the park would like to have happen is to close access from Crystal. Whole nother thread....

People used to ski the whole mountain,bumps,groomers,trees.Now it's only powder...if you want to save your southback pow,build a huge park,tables ,rails,ect........this entire site is geared to telling people where that powder is.fortunately there is tons of the stuff it just gets a little further away

Next they will putt a pole at the top of Hamburger and winch groom the bowl , no more pesky bumps.

Another irony is that the park service has really been digging their heels in and threatening to close the back traverse behind the Throne to the King. .... Increased traffic to the South will create more heat on that stove.

Wise words there!
Don't for a minute think the NPS have given up on their desire to close access to the SB via the Throne traverse........Now that may not be important to all you BC TAYers who only ski Crystal 12 days a year and prefer the BC anyway... but to us lift sluts it's a really important issue.
This is the LIFT SKIING SECTION so  to those that keep telling us that its not important and we should all be touring in the BC rather than getting our knickers twisted over silly ski area issues , spare me your proselytizing regarding how there is so much good pow in the BC. We know that as well.

Well said brother.

Who was it in the Garmont Adrenalines, Older K2s and Freerides who clicked out and then walked all the way from the offload ramp to the saddle on Saturday?

Was that "earning his turns"?

Well said brother.
Who was it in the Garmont Adrenalines, Older K2s and Freerides who clicked out and then walked all the way from the offload ramp to the saddle on Saturday?
Was that "earning his turns"?

Thanks, it just gets so old when you re trying to have a discussion about lift skiing issues in the lift skiing section and all you get is some people using it to tell you how" superior" they feel because they think lift skiing is somehow selling out or something and we should all be in the BC being "soulful" and "earning our turns". I like to do both, sometimes both on the same day. I certainly don't feel superior to those that ONLY lift ski or ONLY tour but obviously some on this site do.
Just like the TGR website that the some TAY'ers are always deriding, this website has it's own prejudices and dogma and idiot quota. ;D

We should start pointing out that the often awful skiing technique demonstrated in the BC TRs would probably be corrected with several seasons of hard lift skiing.

;D

We should start pointing out that the often awful skiing technique demonstrated in the BC TRs would probably be corrected with several seasons of hard lift skiing.

;D

Right on! So True!

Another irony is that the park service has really been digging their heels in and threatening to close the back traverse behind the Throne to the King.
[...]
Kudos to Crystal for always fighting the man. Increased traffic to the South will create more heat on that stove.

This is the most compelling argument I've seen in this thread. But surely Crystal Management has thought about this and thinks that the benefits of the new cat-track outweigh the risks with respect to the park. The southback is a golden goose and they're not going to jeopardize it. So I doubt that this argument will have any weight with Crystal, since they must have already considered it in their plans.

I haven't seen an argument here that would sway Crystal Management. Arguments that boil down to "I want the southback for me and my friends" don't have legs.

---
Edited:

I should add that I think it would be a really bad idea to pit the National Park against Crystal Mountain as a way to stop the cat-track project. I don't know if anybody has tried to do this.

"but to us lift sluts it's a really important issue."

I'm not only a BC Slut, I'm also a Lift Slut, and several other kinds of Slut as well.  

Reductions in weekday powder would concern me more than reductions in weekend powder - weekend powder at Crystal already seems to have an extremely short shelf-life.

seems

now we're back at the whole 12 days business.

Well good points Lowell but my experience with private business and government agencies is that they have different timescales when it comes to strategic planning.
Assuming that Crystal has considered that increase SB travel as a result of the traverse and that it won't affect the SB access may be optimistic ?

From my perspective Crystal has definitely upped their game in courting the local, season pass skier...... lifts opening earlier, more aggressive terrain openings... I feel the change of emphasis and I like it. Their desire to improve this traverse may be a good faith attempt to clean up what they feel was a problem area for the skiers frequenting this area but without thinking about the long term. Not saying that's what happened , just a scenario.

However, the NPS MAY be taking a more longer term view to achieve their ultimate goal along the lines of " we'll work with the Forest Service to support this...... continue counting MRNP access with our paid counter.....wait  a few years until we can prove SB access and hence MRNP intrusion has been significantly increased.... and then force the boundary issue on Crystal... with the caveat ... "well Crystal it was you guys that wanted the improved traverse... sorry."

Wish a Crystal exec would put our fears at bay and tell us their thinking.

I should add that I think it would be a really bad idea to pit the National Park against Crystal Mountain as a way to stop the cat-track project. I don't know if anybody has tried to do this.

Agreed, I can tell you with no uncertainty that Crystal does not need another battle with the Park.
The Park will be regulating the work done on the new cat track so it won't become a visual scar from Sunrise, as if anyone sees it anyway.

Their desire to improve this traverse may be a good faith attempt to clean up what they feel was a problem area for the skiers frequenting this area but without thinking about the long term. Not saying that's what happened , just a scenario.

However, the NPS MAY be taking a more longer term view to achieve their ultimate goal along the lines of " we'll work with the Forest Service to support this...... continue counting MRNP access with our paid counter.....wait  a few years until we can prove SB access and hence MRNP intrusion has been significantly increased.... and then force the boundary issue on Crystal... with the caveat ... "well Crystal it was you guys that wanted the improved traverse... sorry."

I think another reason for the traverse is that if the plan is to put in a 4 person chair to the top, you need a way to get people out of the way quickly. it's already a cluster up there with a two person chair.
I share Scotsman's outlook about the NPS's Plan, they spend way to many tax dollars thinking this one out. Trying to balance the vendor access to the park, not to develop special interest in one area, so they are forced to give out permits in other areas if it goes to court and Crystal's business model is used as a case scenario of the park being used for recreation without any compensation.
The real kicker is that IF the park threatens more and wants to close the door on the back traverse, Crystal can pull out the Ace of Spades and reapply to put a chair in to the top of the King since they have already done their research on that matter. Like Lowell says, "It's the Golden Egg." and they can't be denied that gem. This puts the Park on the defense, what would they prefer? A bunch of hikers traversing a short section of MRNP or a zillion more people on the edge of the Park?

Lots of good comments and what nots going on here. Scotty is right, I think. It's inbounds skiing and slack skiing we are talking about and I make no apologies for using the lifts, I have earned my RIDE up the hill. If this cut to the Throne is what I think it will be, it's all good. Whatever it takes to get the photo guys and gals off the off load platform and on their way. I think it will cut 5 min off of my traverse to the gate and that is a good thing.
If you wanted to run a ski hill, get your wallet out and by the way, keep it out and start flipping those bills out. I think CM has done a good job of getting things done that will improve skiing for all. OK maybe not all, the true powder hounds and free heelers, maybe they will hike in from 410 and skin in from the road to get the King, no crowd there. Walk your talk or just get on the lift and traverse out.
Think Snow and Thank you Ullr for the good start, can we have some more, please?

If you wanted to run a ski hill, get your wallet out and by the way, keep it out and start flipping those bills out..

[url=http://www.lfc.com/property.asp?propID=498&sp=[www.lfc.com/property.asp?propID=498&sp=]If you pulled out your wallet, put it away. Elk Mountain Ski Resort in Beaver, UT was auctioned off last month...[/url]

I think Joe is correct, ultimately this is going to be about a chair up the King or the threat of a chair up the king.

I think Joe is correct, ultimately this is going to be about a chair up the King or the threat of a chair up the king.

Well if that happens, Sourdough gap becomes the new SB! We'll adapt

I think Joe is correct, ultimately this is going to be about a chair up the King or the threat of a chair up the king.

If it comes to that, I'll oppose a chair up the King. I wrote a letter about that a few years ago, as did many others. They scrapped that plan at the time. But I don't have a problem with improving the Throne cat-track.

I think Joe is correct, ultimately this is going to be about a chair up the King or the threat of a chair up the king

Here is why they rejected the idea. I would think that these are issues that would continue to be valid in the future. Doesn't look like it was treated as much of a possibility by the forest service.  From the Crystal Mountain MDP

CRYSTAL MOUNTAIN MDP-EIS Appendix A
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE CRYSTAL MOUNTAIN MDP
1.1.5 RELOCATED SILVER KING CHAIRLIFT
In an effort to minimize potential impacts to Elizabeth Lake (i.e. litter dropped from the chairlift), the IDT investigated potential alternatives for the lower terminal of the proposed C-5 (Silver King) chairlift. One scenario analyzed locating the lower terminal approximately 200 feet west of the location presented in the Proposed Action. The IDT concluded that this alternative location would impose greater environmental impacts, as the lower terminal would be located in a stream and additional clearing of vegetation would be required within Riparian Reserves. Another scenario analyzed locating the lower terminal approximately 200 feet east of the location presented in the Proposed Action. This alternative location would also require extensive grading and vegetation removal within Riparian Reserves. As such, the relocation of the proposed Silver King chairlift was eliminated from further analysis.

The comments tendered to the forest service can be viewed here.

There were both pro and con comments but as indicated above, a moot point and reflected in the FS response to comments: "The Silver King lift is eliminated from Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 (the Forest Service's identified preferred alternative) to address these and other issues" [concerning the proposed c-5 Silver King Lift].

I'm well aware of that decision and the history surrounding it. Including the well founded suggestion that backing off the King lift helped to seal the permitting of Northway.

But a NPS closure of the boundary that effectively closed SB to lift skiers would probably reshape the game completely.

Then Xtal would be able to go back to the FS and and point out that it's permit terrain had been reduced and that it was faced with a significant increase in Pugetopolis population and skier numbers. Ultimately there comes a point where you can't (and shouldn't protect all riparian reserves or miniscule streams)

Ultimately I suppose we just need more or bigger ski areas in WA. I think the former a better solution than the later. Even though it's considerably less likely to happen.

This is kinda off topic but looking for some help.

The contours are in 5 foot increments. Where does one get 5 foot incremental contours maps?
www.fs.fed.us/r6/mbs/projects/GrubstakeA...e3ThroneTraverse.pdf

The guv-mint, I bet. Can you imagine how big that map would need to be to carry a useful sized area for touring? Still, it'd be great for hunting out the details of a route.

This is kinda off topic but looking for some help.

The contours are in 5 foot increments.  Where does one get 5 foot incremental contours maps?
www.fs.fed.us/r6/mbs/projects/GrubstakeA...e3ThroneTraverse.pdf

Those are actually 1ft contour intervals with the index every 5ft and they created them from their own survey elevations (assuming since the maps look AutoCAD based). If not survey based then they were created from a DEM (Digital Elevation Model).

What a great thread, kudos to Kieth for bringing this to our attention and to all the viewpoints expressed. I feel truly fortunate to frequent a mountain with so many ardent fans. With all of the conspiracy and counter conspiracy theories I did do some due diligence. The decision to apply for the Throne Traverse improvement was simply that. Improve skier safety and access to what is currently inbounds. CM has received comments from guests as well as staff on the sometimes ugly conditions and has responded appropriately. The terrain in question is not sacrosanct backcountry. It is skier and boarder lift accessed territory. The improvements center around filling the low spots, removing the whoops if you will and hopefully allowing natural vegetation to hold the snowpack in place. I might be convinced to agree with Scottsman and others that there maybe some Darwinonian element to holding Chair 6 skiers to a higher standard than say your Queens skiers, however i am reminded that the quality of our lives depends on the decisions we make.That said I will take umbrage with anyone who tries to justify endangering my safety whilst i am choosing an appropriate route based on upon their supposed advanced skill set. The ski slope is not the place to chest thump about ones testosterone level (or perhaps lack thereof). please feel free to sign up for the Mountain Challenge comps here at Crystal as well as Snowbird etc to let the world note your prowess.
I remain your faithful scribe, old and slow.

You weren't slow today!
I was getting getting pulled along in your slipstream you were skiing so fast( when I could get close enough). Great skiing with ya. ;D