Silverton Update: Doubling the numbers

**CaddyDaddy77** · 11-24-2003, 10:35 AM

Silverton Ski Area doubles capacity

By Dale Rodebaugh
Herald Staff Writer

A Silverton entrepreneur has been allowed to double the number of skiers he can guide over avalanche-crossed slopes six miles north of the former mining center.

Eighty skiers a day up from 40 a day last year can recreate under the eye of a guide on 1,300 Bureau of Land Management acres adjacent to 344 acres owned by Aaron Brill.

Brill operates the Silverton Outdoor Learning and Recreation Center. In the summer he offers mountain biking, educational classes and scenic chairlift rides.

Brill, operating under an annual permit for the past three years, has asked the Bureau of Land Management for a 40-year permit to allow up to 475 skiers a day unrestricted use of BLM land except in areas his snow-safety experts say are too dangerous.

The agency hopes to have a decision by January, Richard Speegle, with the Bureau of Land Management, said Friday. Meanwhile, Brill can host up to 80 visitors a day under certain conditions.

"There must be an 8-to-1 client-to-guide ratio, all tours must be guided, and he must have four full-time safety personnel," Speegle said.

Other options examined in an Environmental Impact Statement on Brill's proposal include:

• No action, which would end Brill's annual contract.

• Allow only guided skiing.

• Allow guided and unguided skiing, the option preferred by the agency.

"We're in the response-to-public-comment phase," Speegle said.

The Environmental Impact Statement being done on Brill's proposal will determine whether to grant him a multi-year permit. The document also will recommend how many skiers can use the slopes each day and whether guided, unguided or a combination of the two will be allowed, Speegle said.

Safety is a critical issue, he said. Safety personnel must monitor weather, make sure avalanche areas are safe and, if necessary, set off explosive charges to trigger an avalanche so skiers won't be threatened later.

Business owners in the Silverton area say a successful operation by Brill could keep open shops, restaurants, and bed and breakfasts that now close in winter for lack of trade.

Critics say skiing in an avalanche-prone area is too risky. Others don't like the idea of giving Brill access to an area historically visited by independent snowmobilers and snowshoers. Still others say a 40-year permit is too long and that the operation is bound to scar the landscape.

Ron Wenker, the Bureau of Land Management director for Colorado in Denver, will decide what conditions to impose on Brill.

Reach Staff Writer Dale Rodebaugh at daler@durangoherald.com .

Afew pics from Saturday morning, Molas Pass and in town. Cold as hell, and to windy to run the lift.

http://www.biglines.com/photos/blpic15583.jpg http://www.biglines.com/photos/blpic15584.jpg http://www.biglines.com/photos/blpic15586.jpg

**shamrockpow** · 11-24-2003, 11:54 AM

Mmmmmm, good news for Brill on the way to his permit. Now I just gotta scrounge up $99 some time...

**shera** · 11-24-2003, 12:15 PM

Snowmobiling? Huh? They can't get snowmobiles up there...

**Buster Highmen** · 11-24-2003, 12:20 PM

Well hooray and congrats to Aaron and Jen! 80 people is just about the right max number for that hill. I hope the BLM gives them the 40 year permit soon.

The operation is bound to score the landscape? Poorly wrought, shallow comedy when compared to mining activity and the freshly repermitted leach mining that will be occurring right there. Duh, nimbys.

**Pinner** · 11-24-2003, 12:41 PM

I http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/heart.gif Silverton.

**Buster Highmen** · 11-24-2003, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by SheRa
Snowmobiling? Huh? They can't get snowmobiles up there...

Likely reefering to the access road up into Velocity that we ski down to the mine.

**JH Hank** · 11-24-2003, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Buster Highmen
80 people is just about the right max number for that hill. ...

What a ridiculous thing to say.

**Buster Highmen** · 11-24-2003, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by JH Hank
What a ridiculous thing to say.

Thankya...thankya verrah much....

**JH Hank** · 11-24-2003, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Buster Highmen
Likely reefering to the access road up into Velocity that we ski down to the mine.

Which is a county road, with public access predating the "ski area."

**Buster Highmen** · 11-24-2003, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by JH Hank
Which is a county road, with public access predating the "ski area."

Public access predates every ski area on BLM or FS land.

**Foggy_Goggles** · 11-24-2003, 01:44 PM

Does this mean that they will be doubling the capacity on the hill this year or simply that 80 are permitted?

I think that increased skier traffic combined with the tremendous boot packing efforts will help Silverton hugely. In the past, IMO they have had trouble opening terrain because of the lack of skier traffic. It's a fine line, but I think Silverton could stand to be a little less backcountry like.

**Juan Valdez** · 11-24-2003, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by CaddyDaddy77
"We're in the response-to-public-comment phase," Speegle said.

]

If the public comment phase isn't over, then I urge all maggots with opinions to send comments over to the CO BLM or Silverton. While I checked out their site I didn't see a direct link, so I assume that you would send it to Info AT silvertonmountain dot com

Please trust me when I say that public comment is an extremely important part/process of the permitting process and that a majority of positive or negative comments will help/hinder the plan.

Of course here in Colombia when we put up a new coffee plantation we use this information to track down the dissidents to allow our "Gentle Relocation Plan"

Viva La Serfdom!

**iceman** · 11-24-2003, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by JH Hank
What a ridiculous thing to say.

Are you saying it's too many or too few? And either way, why do you say that?

**JH Hank** · 11-24-2003, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by iceman
Are you saying it's too many or too few? And either way, why do you say that?

The avanache hazard at Silverton Mountain can be effectively mitigated given the right personel and program, which they have. Limiting the area to 80 paying guests as Buster has suggested is just wrong, but is a typical opinion held by those who either:
1. do not have an active knowledge of modern snow safety; and/or
2. want to keep things "small and exclusive" (read: expensive). Classic Nimby-type 'tude.

**CaddyDaddy77** · 11-24-2003, 02:14 PM

Anddddd go!!!

**Foggy_Goggles** · 11-24-2003, 02:20 PM

Compaction is King!

**iceman** · 11-24-2003, 02:20 PM

I've never been to Silverton and I'm no snow-safety expert. I'll assume you're correct on that point.

But at what level of use do you move from "lift-serviced backcountry" to "just another ski area on a slow day"? And if people are willing to pay extra for the backcountry feel (and they appear to be) what is wrong with a lower number of users each paying a higher price?

**Buster Highmen** · 11-24-2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by JH Hank
The avanache hazard at Silverton Mountain can be effectively mitigated given the right personel and program, which they have. Limiting the area to 80 paying guests as Buster has suggested is just wrong, but is a typical opinion held by those who either:
1. do not have an active knowledge of modern snow safety; and/or
2. want to keep things "small and exclusive" (read: expensive). Classic Nimby-type 'tude.

All I meant to infer was:
If Aaron and Jen want to have guided skiing, that 80 people is better than 40. More than 80 will make the place into a bumpfest. Given that the avie hazard is high during heavy snow months, it's a good idea that the skiing be guided.

As far as who knows what about modern hoohaw, none of our blitherings here really amount to much more than hot air. It's Aaron and Jen who are doing the work and running the business. They have the sweat investment. They make the decisions.

As far as making a coherent argument, I don't quite understand the assertion that the program is right if guiding is part of the program and the guides should be paid.

As far as making silly sniping name calling, I'll let JH and Nicole be one up on me.

**CaddyDaddy77** · 11-24-2003, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by JH Hank
The avanache hazard at Silverton Mountain can be effectively mitigated given the right personel and program, which they have. Limiting the area to 80 paying guests as Buster has suggested is just wrong, but is a typical opinion held by those who either:
1. do not have an active knowledge of modern snow safety; and/or
2. want to keep things "small and exclusive" (read: expensive). Classic Nimby-type 'tude.

Couple of questions

What's your experience with the area?
Why is it "just wrong" limiting it to 80 guests?

So if you would, kindly;
1. Educate me

2.Tell me of my nimby-tude

**Foggy_Goggles** · 11-24-2003, 02:36 PM

I not an expert on this subject but my feelings are as follows:

When I go BC, I fully understand that mother nature could kick me in the nuts causing bascially zero good skiing in a day. My past experiences at Silverton include, bushwaking jungle all day in order to aviod high avi danger areas. I didn't get my $99 worth. If more skier traffic (or bootpacking) hit those high avi areas, I think they'd be skiable more frequently.

It can seem "busy" on a 40 skier day when everyone is hitting the same lines. If 10X the skiers = 10X the safely skiable terrain (I don't know if this is true) then the freshies/rider is the same.

I think Jenny and Aaron do a great job and I wish them (and spend $ down their to help) success. They've put their lives on the line for something they beleive in. Many people go to the grave without being able to say that. I think they'd be the first to admit that they have not found the perfect model yet. More skiers does not neccessarily equal less soul.