Update on Heavenly Master Plan

Quote:

---

From: Blaise Carrig
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 1:41 PM
To: All-Heavenly
Cc: Bill Jensen; Robert Katz
Subject: FW: Update on Heavenly Master Plan


I wanted to let you all know that the TRPA Governing Board approved the 2006 Heavenly Master Plan Amendment including Alternative 4 to replace the Olympic and North Bowl lifts with one direct, high-speed, detachable quad. The alternative also allows for the glading of trails S9 and S10, and doesn't allow for any trees over 24" dbh to be taken from S10.

The Governing Board went back-and-forth on the alternatives, but ultimately went with the recommendation of TRPA staff and the USDA Forest Service, as well as the unanimous endorsement of the TRPA Advisory Planning Committee. It was the right decision, with the greatest positive impact for the environment as well as for our skiers and riders.

We're very proud of the work we've done over the last five years to collaborate with the regulatory agencies and come up with an incredibly strong environmental document and a sound Master Plan. This plan will carry Heavenly into the upper echelon of destination resorts while protecting and enhancing the environment.

Please let me know if you have any questions; I'd be happy to go into more detail on the particulars of the plan.

Blaise Carrig
COO / Senior Vice President
Heavenly Mountain Resort

---

They rejected both options that would have minimal impact... 2 high speeds to replace the existing lifts or a kinky lift, but he's so proud of himself! he makes me throw up just a little in my mouth.

The fact that the TRPA actually approved something makes this news interesting to me.

Quote:

---

[W]ith the greatest positive impact for the environment as well as for our skiers and riders.

---

well if that's true, it sounds great!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skier666

The fact that the TRPA actually approved something makes this news interesting to me.

---

probably goes much faster if you have a bit more money....

putting a shed in your backyard would probably take longer to get approved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by komo

well if that's true, it sounds great!

---

total BS. there were 2 more environmentally sound alternatives... one where they would just replace 2 slow lifts w/ high speeds. or where they would use the existing lift lines to put in a kinked lift.

this allows them to put in 1 new high speed and "glade out" north bowl trees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amydalayna

total BS. there were 2 more environmentally sound alternatives... one where they would just replace 2 slow lifts w/ high speeds. or where they would use the existing lift lines to put in a kinked lift.

this allows them to put in 1 new high speed and "glade out" north bowl trees.

---

it seems like he meant "best overall balance between low environmental impact and positive effect for skiers". maybe that wasn't misleading enough?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by komo

it seems like maybe he meant "best overall balance between low environmental impact and positive effect for skiers". maybe that wasn't misleading enough?

---

what i'm most confused about is how chopping down trees in one of the better in-bounds tree runs on the mtn has a postive effect for skiers.

which skiers? the local ones who fought to keep the area as it is... or the ones coming in for their quarter shares at the marriot?

sucks. so this would 'glade out' the run called nevada woods on the trail map?

buh. looking at the map reminded me what a bitch skiing heavenly can be

$ometime$ the U$f$ and the local government agencie$ reaping the monetary benefit$ of $uch project$ $eem to overlook the$e $eemingly $imple thing$, $ir.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by komo

sucks. so this would 'glade out' the run called nevada woods on the trail map?

buh. looking at the map reminded me what a bitch skiing heavenly can be

---

they are putting 2 new runs accessed by their new high speed lift. that last time i was riding through north bowl trees i saw alot of them flagged. i imagine those are the ones coming down... but i dunno.

this whole north bowl trees thing leaves me with the same crummy feeling in my belly as what has been going on w/ the dumbing down of all of the mountain bike trails in this town.

why can't they leave me with the small things that make me smile. oh why oh why.

Might as well cut some trees down. Won't be long before a big forest fire wipes them all out anyway.

naming that stuff over there on the map was the first step towards this trim job! Not great news ...anything about mott getting a diff chair? One of the excess Hand me downs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3snowboards

...anything about mott getting a diff chair? One of the excess Hand me downs?

---

In phase III Mott gets replaced with a fixed grip quad that goes from the current base terminal to the top of Dipper. Don't expect to see that happen for about 10 years or so.

The theory, I'm sure, is to make Boulder base real estate more attractive.

But according to the topo map, the new lift will go RIGHT UP THE RIDGE, meaning it'll go on wind hold even more than the North Bowl lift does already. (North Bowl is almost completely sheltered, but there is one place it crests a ridge, next to the shack, and that's what shuts it down.)

It's the Gondola all over again. Proving once again that whoever makes lift construction and routing decisions at Heavenly is a retard. Let's go through the history:

-Spend millions to put in a new Gunbarrel high speed quad, but don't spend a few thousand to shovel some dirt under the top terminal so it would be actually *downhill* to Powderbowl instead of making everyone pole and slog on the flat for 50 yards.
-Spend many more millions on the Gondola, but don't spend the extra few hundred thousand to make it a dual-cable Funitel -- so it goes on wind hold all the time, splitting the two sides of the mountain and screwing everyone who stays at hotels in town.
-Make sure it's a 50 yard uphill hike in ski boots from the Gondola to every other lift. This is great when you're a family with little kids.
-Make sure the only lift that gets you out of the Gondola (Tamarack) goes right up a ridge and is on wind hold even more than the Gondola.
-Make sure that there's only one lift (Sky) that can get you from California to Nevada, and make sure it goes on wind and weather hold all the time. You could solve this with a drag lift from the top of Canyon to the top of Sky. Don't ever do this...make people take a half-hour bus ride at the end of the day if weather moves in.

Spats, don't forget about randomly removing certain routes from service stranding you and making you hike 10 miles to stagecoach

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spats

The theory, I'm sure, is to make Boulder base real estate more attractive.

---

Exactly. Increase uphill traffic and disburse the same skiers as they have now "more effectively" across their available terrain. Make it "efficient" and more feasible/attractive for day users and vacationers to ski what is currently a large, relatively low-use area of the resort - thereby, creating (and "statistically" justifying) false demand for services and amenities.

(Read: more/newer base lodges at boulder, starbucks kiosks, paid parking, ATM machines, retail space, lodging> REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, etc.)

Same shit, different resort.

As someone who grew up near the base of Heavenly from the 1950's and seen the price of a lift ticket go from $1.50 to almost $80.00. I have not seen a whole lot of improvement. Yes they opened up the Nevada side in 1965 and expanded. But over all it's not much better. TRPA is probably the reason Killibrew slammed his plane into Echo Summit. They drove him nuts!

Man, there is just no excuse for cutting any old growth in the world any more, period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spats

-Spend millions to put in a new Gunbarrel high speed quad, but don't spend a few thousand to shovel some dirt under the top terminal so it would be actually *downhill* to Powderbowl instead of making everyone pole and slog on the flat for 50 yards.
-Spend many more millions on the Gondola, but don't spend the extra few hundred thousand to make it a dual-cable Funitel -- so it goes on wind hold all the time, splitting the two sides of the mountain and screwing everyone who stays at hotels in town.
-Make sure it's a 50 yard uphill hike in ski boots from the Gondola to every other lift. This is great when you're a family with little kids.
-Make sure the only lift that gets you out of the Gondola (Tamarack) goes right up a ridge and is on wind hold even more than the Gondola.
-Make sure that there's only one lift (Sky) that can get you from California to Nevada, and make sure it goes on wind and weather hold all the time. You could solve this with a drag lift from the top of Canyon to the top of Sky. Don't ever do this...make people take a half-hour bus ride at the end of the day if weather moves in.

---

thank you for putting specifics to my vague idea. what a clusterfuck

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by komo

what a bitch skiing heavenly can be

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stupendous man

Man, there is just no excuse for cutting any old growth in the world any more, period.

---

especially because south lake tahoe does not have too much of it either

----
from the article in yesterday's tribune:

Quote:

---

"The TRPA has essentially abandoned its role as an environmental protector and assigned itself the task of promoting the economic development of the basin," said Rochelle Nason, executive director for the League to Save Lake Tahoe.

---

yep.

Huh.......wierd.


I read it three times and it still doesn't say anything about a bike park.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amydalayna

what i'm most confused about is how chopping down trees in one of the better in-bounds tree runs on the mtn has a postive effect for skiers.

---

http://perso.orange.fr/ivy/sonny-cher.jpg
"I got yew, babe..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ja_surf

Hey amydalayna they totally made X-mas valley better! you can ride up it now which is so cool, plus I don't get hurt anymore on the way down :the_finge

---

right. and now EVERYONE can enjoy it. Like moms who want to push their strollers up it and everything.

i felt insulted the first time i rode down the 'new and improved' version of the trail.

i was a bit confused when i read the EIR and the comments. One side said that there were old growth trees to be cut, and the other side said that the trees being cut were not old growth. Don't we have a specific definition of what an old growth tree is that is easily testable? Did TRPA/USFS come to the conclusion that the trees are not 'old growth' or did they decide that cutting the old growth trees was OK?

Old growth is not and should not be defined by the age of the trees. Species composition, horizontal and vertical distribution, size, quality, density, etc all come into play. Old, big trees do not necessarily make an old growth stand.

I seriously doubt that removing a liftline worth of trees from a place like Heavenly is going to have much, if any effect on the already degraded and fragmented environment there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skier666

The fact that the TRPA actually approved something makes this news interesting to me.

---

very true, comes to show how when you're a huge corporate giant (VAIL), with money you can have everything in your back pocket. I have heard of resorts battling for years to even replace old lifts with new ones, replacing! building a new lift all together, out of the question.

an update in today's paper...

Quote:

---

Facing the possibility of litigation, the alignment of a proposed high speed quad chair lift in Heavenly's North Bowl may receive further scrutiny by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency's Governing Board if a recent request by several board members is headed.

Board members Norma Santiago, Jerome Waldie, and Mara J. Bresnick sent a letter to TRPA's Executive Director John Singlaub on Wednesday that requested the reconsideration of the board's Feb. 28 dismissal of Alternative 4A in Heavenly's Master Plan amendment.

While the Sierra Nevada Alliance hopes that litigation will not be the necessary to overturn the board's choice of alternative 4, "nothing is off the table," said Autumn Bernstein, land use coordinator for the Sierra Nevada Alliance.

4A has been favored by basin environmental groups because of its inclusion of an angled mid-station lift that would avoid bisecting a stand of large red fir trees estimated to be between 200 to 500 years old.

Numerous requests by Santiago's El Dorado County constituents, the lack of full board participation in the last vote, difficulties experienced by board members participating in the meeting by phone and a desire to again compare the environmental impacts of Alternatives 4, 4A, and 5 were the reasons cited in the letter for the request.

Waldie also felt that Heavenly's bottom line was too much a part of the discussion leading up to the approval of alternative 4.

"I thought there was too much attention paid to the desire of Heavenly to save costs by going through a grove of ancient trees," said Waldie. "Obviously, it would be my hope that we would reverse the vote that was taken."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ja_surf

Hey amydalayna they totally made X-mas valley better! you can ride up it now which is so cool, plus I don't get hurt anymore on the way down :the_finge

---

BLASPHEMY!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimpy

BLASPHEMY!!!!

---

i KNOW!

i shed a little tear the first time i rode down and there were no more stairs.

Ok, sorry to play devil's advocate.

I don't see how you can lament the loss of Xmas valley, and then criticize Heavenly for environmental factors. Believe me, I'm right with you guys on Xmas valley. It was my favorite mountain bike trail; yes even over Toad's Porcupine Rim, etc. I really, really miss it. But the reason for killing it was the erosion into the streambed. That still doesn't excuse the way they cut the reroute, but still I guess something had to be done.

There's also one issue that people are forgetting about the new lift. Power. It's scarce up here, brownouts and surges are common. Putting one new lift in saves energy over the other two options. Two lifts will obviously use more power than one, but even a kinked lift will require more energy. Take the new Collins chair at Alta as an example. At the kink, the chairs drop off the high speed line, run slow through the mid station, and then pick up on the high speed line. I'm sure Heavenly would have used a similar setup. So you basically have an extra fully operational terminal in the middle.

Which brings up another point that's not necessarily related to this discussion. I have no idea how Heavenly is running on 100% wind power. I have yet to see any windmills even remotely close to the area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arty50

Which brings up another point that's not necessarily related to this discussion. I have no idea how Heavenly is running on 100% wind power. I have yet to see any windmills even remotely close to the area.

---

Maybe they bought out the Altamont pass? :confused:

Heavenly most likely purchases wind power offsets, either through purchasing renewable energy credits or directly investing with wind energy operations. The power is bought and used elsewhere, the idea being that it negates or mitigates Heavenly's use.

I'm with you guys on a lot of these issues, but this particular comment:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spats

Proving once again that whoever makes lift construction and routing decisions at Heavenly is a retard.

---

IS NOT TRUE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arty50

Ok, sorry to play devil's advocate.

I don't see how you can lament the loss of Xmas valley, and then criticize Heavenly for environmental factors. Believe me, I'm right with you guys on Xmas valley. It was my favorite mountain bike trail; yes even over Toad's Porcupine Rim, etc. I really, really miss it. But the reason for killing it was the erosion into the streambed. That still doesn't excuse the way they cut the reroute, but still I guess something had to be done.

---

losing xmas valley and losing north bowl trees aren't in the same category. they just are both special to me and not having them makes me sad.

About the wind power issue stupendous man is correct. Vail resorts purchases wind power offsets for all of it's holdings in Colorado too, and then claims that they are 100% wind powered. Kind of misleading, but I guess better than nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ja_surf

Do you really think environmental issues are at stake with Heavenly's desire to do this? I kinda doubt it.

---

Oh no, that's not what I was saying at all. They undoubtedly want the easiest, cheapest route. Otherwise, they'd find a way to use the existing lift routes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sierra Cement

I'm with you guys on a lot of these issues, but this particular comment:

IS NOT TRUE.

---

Fair enough, I'll restate: the lift routing decisions are retarded. It's possible for non-retarded people to make retarded decisions.

Do you have any insight into why things ended up the way they have?