|
|
|
|
|
|
Turns All Year Trip Reports
(1) Viewing these pages constitutes your acceptance of the Terms of Use.
(2) Disclaimer: the accuracy of information here is unknown, use at your own risk.
(3) Trip Report monthly boards: only actual trip report starts a new thread.
(4) Keep it civil and constructive - that is the norm here. |
|
|
|
|
Author
|
Topic: New Bullion Basin lift, upgrade to High Campbell.. (Read 7854 times)
|
Keith_Henson
Member
Offline
Posts: 511
WWW
|
from the TNT today: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/01/07/1492953/ski-area-gets-approval-for-new.html
New Bullion Basin lift, upgrade to High Campbell lift approved at Crystal Mountain
Posted By Craig Hill on January 7, 2011 at 1:53 pm
New terrain and an upgraded High Campbell chairlift are on the way at Crystal Mountain after the Forest Service approved the projects Friday.
The approval of the environmental document, the final step in the National Environmental Policy Act process, also paves the way for a new wastewater treatment plant at the ski area.
The upgrades are part of Crystal’s 2004 master development plan. The ski area has not established a timeframe for installing the new lifts, said Crystal spokeswoman Tiana Enger.
The new Bullion Basin lift will add about 250 acres of new intermediate terrain to the ski area that at 2,300 acres is already the largest in the state.
The new High Campbell lift will replace a 31-year-old lift with two-seat chairs that Enger describes as “well past its prime.” The new lift will likely have three-seat chairs, will move slightly faster and will be capable of operating in higher winds.
The High Campbell lift only accesses expert terrain.
The ski area has eliminated its plans to build a skier bridge over Crystal Mountain Boulevard.
“We are excited that this is done,” said Specialist Sean Wetterberg, of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. “This will improve the skiing experience at Crystal Mountain.”
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Keith A Henson, Puyallup AAC "Let's go! That powder's not going to ski itself." www.KeithHenson.net |
|
|
oftpiste
Member
Offline
Posts: 799
|
Not even sure what to say, except that maybe Scotsman's son will now have more room to practice his tele turns.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
BRING BACK PNW BRIT!!!!
BRING BACK PNW BRIT!!!!
BRING BACK PNW BRIT!!!!
BRING BACK PNW BRIT!!!!
|
|
|
Markeyz
5Member
Offline
Posts: 78
|
A little more info from Crystal's site here:
http://www.skicrystal.com/News/1152/Forest-Service-Approves-Ammendment-to-MDP
Not sure what skier bridge they're talking about but improvements to the waste water treatment facilities would be a welcome improvement. Of course, considering that they can't even fix a drinking fountain...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Proud owner of a five year taay streak (turns almost all year)
|
|
|
bc_skier
5Member
Offline
Posts: 92
WWW
|
I wonder how the new Bullion lift - which will be on the lower slopes - will affect the access to the upper Bullion Basin for backcountry skiing?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Keith_Henson
Member
Offline
Posts: 511
WWW
|
The old plan was to use the Millicent Chair from Brighton which was replaced by a high speed chair as the chair up to Bullion.
Many early Crystal skiers tell me that the skiing up there was not particularly good and that is why the former chair was removed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Keith A Henson, Puyallup AAC "Let's go! That powder's not going to ski itself." www.KeithHenson.net |
|
|
Randy
Member
Offline
Posts: 837
|
Here is a link to a map of the Bullion lift -- it looks like the new lift will top out in the same location as the old bullion lift -- the amendment to the master development plan was to shorten the bottom end. They had planned on having the loading station at the bottom of "lot B" -- now it will be across the road in "lot C"
http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/61920_FSPLT1_017991.pdf
I suspect the purpose of the lift has more to do with improving the prospects for real estate development on the hillside above lots D and E than it is about adding intermediate ski terrain.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CMSkier
Member
Offline
Posts: 214
WWW
|
My only hope is they fix what they got first. Like Rex, C6, C4 aka Quicksilver, and C1 (miner's basin).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Kkz
|
|
|
Lowell_Skoog
Member
Online
Posts: 1618
WWW
|
I wonder how the new Bullion lift - which will be on the lower slopes - will affect the access to the upper Bullion Basin for backcountry skiing?
It will depend on the ski area policy. Looking at the map posted by Randy, it seems that the footprint of the new lift and its runs is similar to the old footprint.
I remember skiing the old Bullion Basin lift in the 1980s when I was ski instructing. The snow was often poor because the area is low in elevation, catches afternoon sun, and they didn't groom it much in those days. I would take a ski class up there, and we'd usually decide not to go back. With regular grooming, things may be better.
I'm concerned about backcountry access because the runs look pretty narrow. Having backcountry skiers climbing those runs while the lifts are operating could be dangerous. I don't know what the ski area policy will be. From the map it looks like the north edge of run 15G will be the safest up-track.
I skied East Peak in the 1980s, sometimes by riding the old Bullion Basin lift and skinning up from there. Usually it was something I would do in the morning or afternoon during a day of lift skiing. I would have East Peak entirely to myself--there were virtually no other backcountry skiers. The new chairlift is going to bring a new set of issues because backcountry skiing has grown dramatically since the old chair went out of business.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 01/08/11, 09:36 PM by Lowell_Skoog »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
bc_skier
5Member
Offline
Posts: 92
WWW
|
Thanks Lowell for your comments.
Addressing this issue early with the Crystal Mountain management might be a good idea, I would hope there will be a solution to keep access and all of us bc skiers happy.
Is'nt there a road (unplowed) lower down the access road that accesses East Peak? Might not be as direct but it could be an option.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lowell_Skoog
Member
Online
Posts: 1618
WWW
|
Is'nt there a road (unplowed) lower down the access road that accesses East Peak? Might not be as direct but it could be an option.
Here's a diagram based on a Google Earth image. Comparing this image to the map Randy posted, it's apparent that the new footprint and the old footprint are VERY similar.
I've marked the road that climbs the lower part of the slope and heads out of the picture (left) to the Gold Hills lift. The road doesn't climb very high. When the new lift is running, I don't think backcountry skiers will want to use that road, because it will probably be used by lift skiers.
About half way up the chairlift, a summer hiking trail leaves the Gold Hills road and zig-zags up toward Bullion Basin. I've marked the upper part of this trail, where it is most visible in the picture. This trail would probably be usable by backcountry skiers only at and above the spot where I've marked it. Below this point, the trail crosses ski runs, so it should be avoided.
I've marked the most logical backcountry access route in orange. This route follows the climbers-left edge of the northern-most ski run, so it avoids crossing ski runs. The safest route is to leave this ski run and follow the hiking trail as soon as possible (the lower arrow). But with fresh snow, backcountry skiers will be tempted to stay on the groomed ski run and catch the hiking trail higher (at the second arrow) to avoid breaking trail. It's just human nature. The ski area will probably not like that, and justifiably so.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 01/09/11, 11:02 AM by Lowell_Skoog »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ron j
Moderator
Offline
Posts: 2459
|
Anothr option would be to expand the current "one-ride-lift-ticket" policy they now have (or at least used to have) for the Quicksilver lift to include the BB lift as well. There's a couple of decent ways to get into Bullion Basin from the top of the BB lift area.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"When I stop having fun I'm turnin' around"
“Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future.” - Niels Bohr
"If a given person makes it a priority not to die in an avalanche, he or she stands a very good chance of living a long, happy life in the mountains." - Jill Fredston
|
|
|
altasnob
Member
Offline
Posts: 259
|
I second the one ride ticket idea. This should be required if they are going to string a lift up the only backcountry area in the Crystal Valley that you do not need to go through the ski area to access. The lift served skiing terrain from this new lift will be mostly awful, just like Gold Hills, but it will get you to the top of East Peak faster (but who wants to shell out $70 or buy a seasons pass to do that).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lowell_Skoog
Member
Online
Posts: 1618
WWW
|
In the Google Earth diagram that I posted above, you may notice that the words "Backcountry Access Route" overlay a significant avalanche path. This path ran sometime in the 1990s, taking out old timber. (The old Bullion Basin lift was already gone by that time.)
If I'm reading the maps right, a designated ski run (and my suggested backcountry route) crosses this avalanche path. I wonder what Crystal Mountain is planning for avalanche control here. Given the location of the starting zone, I think artillery would be the safest way to control it. Sending avalanche control people up there on foot would be really dangerous.
This path doesn't slide often, but it has gone big during the history of the ski area, so I suppose they'll have to manage it. Maybe they'll just close that run when they're concerned about it. Who knows?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Stefan
5Member
Offline
Posts: 78
|
excuse me for ignorance ahead of time.
Is this lift a beginning for Crystal to put in another lift sometime in the LONG LONG TERM future to the top of Bullion Basin and Union Creek Drainage? Not saying Bullion Basin is a dream place for them...but maybe the Union Creek Drainage/Cement Basin area is. I have never skiied in that area... just thinking long term for the place and what you all are thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ddk
Member
Offline
Posts: 496
|
In the original master plan Crystal wanted to put a lift to the top of East Peak...but the scenic Pacific Crest trail would have been impacted...damaging the wilderness experience of the through hikers...unlike through the I-90 area which is much more natural and the south cascade clear cuts....I like backpacking and being in the woods, but sometimes....anyway last I heard the upper lift had been dropped…kinda like the King chair – which was fine with me…and probably most TAY folks
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ddk
Member
Offline
Posts: 496
|
Another point I should have made was that the BB lift was supposed to haul folks out of the B and C lots and the second base area (with the skier bridge over the blvd for access back)...but guess that concept has been canceled (at least the bridge part)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Kyle Miller
Member
Offline
Posts: 531
WWW
|
Hey DDK
Where is the daily Crystal conditions report?
I feel lost without it 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
SISU
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3169
|
I second the one ride ticket idea. This should be required if they are going to string a lift up the only backcountry area in the Crystal Valley that you do not need to go through the ski area to access. The lift served skiing terrain from this new lift will be mostly awful, just like Gold Hills, but it will get you to the top of East Peak faster (but who wants to shell out $70 or buy a seasons pass to do that).
I understand your perspective Altasnob but others may feel differently and I'm one of them.
As a BC skier who intends to buy a Crystal season pass every year my perspective is different. The new BB chairlift is great, it will offer new opportunities to easily access East peak, Cement Basin etc etc and help spread people out on the mountain. Since I will have a season pass, riding the lifts to get access will not cost me anymore. Additionally, to be honest I hope they don't offer a one trip ticket for several reasons. The first is I don't want the additional BC skiers that will attracted( easier access if the cost was nominal would encourage people up East Peak and Bullion Basin) and second I don't think it fair that people who contribute little to Crystal's economic well being should have the virtually free use( if the fee was nominal) of their facilities ( Many BC skiers use their toilets and plowed parking areas and benefit from their road plowing along the boulevard). If they do offer a one way ticket I think it should be considerably higher than $10 and more like a parking fee, say $25 to pay for the fair use of their facilities and the parking spaces they will be taking up that could be used by full paying guests.
The third reason is that BC skiers use Crystal ski Area for access while many of the same complain about the commercial aspect of Crystal Mountain. Maybe if this was denied them they would divert their attention to getting better all year access to the opportunities that exist in the Chinook , White River Campground and Sunrise areas of MRNP.
If the road to White River Campground was plowed during the winter it would give access to some of the finest BC skiing on the continent as evidenced by Kyle's recent foray and I'm sure it could be done on a reasonable budget. Why don't you Crystal haters divert your attention there. You would be unsullied by the proximity to resort skiers or hybrids ( Resort/BC) like myself.
Or else maybe you can all go to Paradise or the opportunities offered in the Hywy 2 and I90- passes.
I do hope they implement strict anti-skinning rules to prevent BC skinners from accessing the area through the runs and agree with Lowell that if allowed it would be dangerous.
Great news and I hope that sometime in the future a ski lift to the top of East Peak does become a reality.
Good work Crystal Management and USFS. Bravo.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 01/11/11, 09:21 PM by Scotsman »
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
Joedabaker
Member
Offline
Posts: 1748
|
Great news and I hope that sometime in the future a ski lift to the top of East Peak does become a reality.
Good work Crystal Management and USFS. Bravo.
There is a possibility that it could still happen. Myself and another friend (who operates a backcountry tour club) submitted appeal letters in the open remark period pending approval of the ROD by the USDA. We both supported the chair to East Peak, though it had resistance from a small coalition called the CCC.
Without dragging in a 5 page letter, In a nutshell, for the Johnny Come Lately's here it is... My contention is that there is very minor expansion of the actual terrain in Crystal's main area, but there will be increased skier traffic, so we need to spread the area out some.
The USDA needed to respond to each persons request and we were told, and I pull out the USDA letter sent back to me dated 11/14/2004.
2. (Our contention) The decision not to develop East Peak is based on insufficient information to determine potential impacts to USFS wilderness.
USDA response:
The decision not to develop East Peak was NOT based on wilderness impacts. In his decision the Forest Supervisor specifically stated that he could not make a decision based on wilderness values. ROD at p.27
The Forest Supervisor states that he decided not to propose development in the South County and East Peak areas because he was not convinced that ski lift access to this terrain would improve terrain distribution. He was also not convinced that there is public demand for additional, lift-served expert terrain at Crystal Mountain. ROD at p. 21
So there it is...
We placed the question and it was responded in such a manor by the Forest Supervisor.
So in the future, If Crystal can prove that there is a need or public demand for additional lift served expert terrain at Crystal then the East Peak lift can be placed back on the plan.
Those who are in favor of the East Peak chair should buy me lunch for life and those who oppose it, well please don't burn down my house...it's not good for global warming.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If it's called common sense, why isn't it more common?
|
|
|
Markeyz
5Member
Offline
Posts: 78
|
It seems a little silly to install a new lift when they don't run the ones they've already got (Gold Hills and Quicksilver midweek).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Proud owner of a five year taay streak (turns almost all year)
|
|
|
rippy
5Member
Offline
Posts: 75
|
I also skiied the old lift into B.B. for several seasons. It was not a good idea then but somehow, seems to have a new life behind it. Skier density and need of a larger "footprint" is the present rationale? On the few days each year Crystal "busts at the seams" and turns vehicles away, yeah, Id buy that. The rest of the season, Hhmmm?. If uphill access to one of the last bastions of semi-seclusion, big and varied backcountry terrain is compromised by downhill traffic and increased risk, may only a matter of time before "no lift ticket - no access" occurs. Marginal terrain, poor exposure / orientation, a questionable need for expansion, and maybe an eventual loss of self-powered access without a taking a detour make this controversial. Strategically speaking, not well thought out. Thumbs down from me.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3169
|
"no lift ticket - no access" occurs.
Bingo! Yeah baby yeah!
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
Micah
Member
Offline
Posts: 113
|
Scotsman,
I appreciate your post above. I would like to present an alternative perspective. I understand that users and supporters of ski resorts are frustrated with the difficulty associated with expansion. But I would point out that ski areas enjoy the privilege of operating a private business on (desirable, prime) public land. The ski area operation drastically changes the permit area year round, hoarding a small part of the public treasure for the enjoyment of the wealthy and the private gain of a small population. This fact admittedly prejudices my views -- my default reaction is to oppose ANY expansion/construction/improvement of ski areas. I would be far more supportive of expansion of a coop or publicly owned/managed operation. To me the ski areas are those prime winter-accesible areas of public land which are too good to leave for the common man and instead are cordoned off for those who can afford the privilege of skiing there. I feel that the forest service has been overly generous in the granting of permits for ski areas (but what do you expect from the US govt.). It would be different if you built a ski resort on your own land.
I accept the reality of ski areas, and I try to foster good will with their users, who are surely not to blame for the situation. And, in my experience, lift skiers have been a pretty nice and fun bunch of people even if I find myself in constant and extreme culture clash with them. I also think lift skiing is amazingly fun. But I think the ability to ski from the same (or equivalent, nearby) access without paying is important to me in the same way that the right to buy a glock is important to gun nuts. I feel like the aristocrats should not be able to push me out, and the typical, authoritarian tone taken by ski areas certainly does not help.
I don't think it fair that people who contribute little to Crystal's economic well being should have the virtually free use( if the fee was nominal) of their facilities ( Many BC skiers use their toilets and plowed parking areas and benefit from their road plowing along the boulevard).
Well I understand that, but I don't think it's fair that Crystal has been allowed to build permanent buildings and lifts in the forest when everybody else is prohibited even from leaving caches of gear/food or staying in one place for more than 14 days. I'm also sure that Crystal can remain profitable even with a bunch of free-loading hippies using their bathrooms.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3169
|
Micah, Thank you for your perspective. I don't agree with it but I enjoyed reading your POV .
BTW as you say , those nuts buying the glocks same as used in the AZ shooting.... only in America but don't get me started on your incomprehensible guns laws... 
But a few points.
1) I am a BC skier as well and I do not think all BC skiers are freeloading hippies, but I'm sure a small minority are and not that there is anything wrong with being a hippie but there is with freeloading.
2)There are private buildings at the bottom of Crystal Boulevard that are private structures( homes) built on public land , rented by the owners who did the capital improvements. I think if you extended your logic and tried to use their toilet and park in their driveways they would rightly call the police. Just because it is rented public land does not give you the right to use it. If you have a problem with that concept you should talk to the USFS not CM. There is no difference between the two examples I give you only the fact that you insist ( because applying logic gives an answer you don't want to accept) in your belief otherwise.
3) It is not a question as to wether Crystal will remain profitable despite freeloaders, ticker poachers and parking spot freeloaders. It is a question of fairness. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. It's like a story I head a long time ago when a gas station put up the wrong price by a factor of ten. People e-mailed each other and went and got gas there knowing it was a mistake. They did nothing illegal but IMHO it was wrong. I would have pointed out the correction to the gas station owner and paid the proper price. But that's me. Corporations have rights as well and should be treated fairly unless they themselves are corrupt.
4) Things change and prime winter access to Bullion may be compromised. Such is life. We may lose heli skiing in the NC if the ALPS project gets approved. Such is life. Again why not try an improve the winter access opportunities by getting the MRNP to plow to White River in Winter. A smaller but very successful project was adopted at Hurricane Ridge for all week access.
5) If you use Crystal Mountain Facilities to access the BC you should pay for them . I do.. why shouldn't you. Are you more special than me???
6) The most important thing is that people with similar views to me on CM ski area expansion are winning the battle and that all this hot air we all produce on skiing websites and the angst and hand wringing by people with views similar to yourse are losing because you whine and wallow in righteous indignation but do nothing. You are losing winter access from many scources...wilderness initiatives, conservationalists, private corportations, Park expansion projects, and the list grows and the access gets more restricted. Good luck, history shows you're losing the battle.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 01/12/11, 03:00 PM by Scotsman »
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
oftpiste
Member
Offline
Posts: 799
|
. ....Are you more special than me???
That's not saying much Scottie. Please don't insult Micah like that.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
BRING BACK PNW BRIT!!!!
BRING BACK PNW BRIT!!!!
BRING BACK PNW BRIT!!!!
BRING BACK PNW BRIT!!!!
|
|
|
|
Thank you to our sponsors!
|
Contact turns-all-year.com
Turns All Year Trip Reports ©2001-2010 Turns All Year LLC. All Rights Reserved
The opinions expressed in posts are those of the poster and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Trip Reports administrators or Turns All Year LLC
|
Turns All Year Trip Reports | Powered by SMF 1.0.6.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.
|
Page created in 0.388 seconds with 20 queries.
|
two-thumbs-up.jpg
