VTKilarney
Well-known member
Didn't Continental once offer non-stop flights from EWR to YTM (Mont Tremblant)? If they did, I am sure it was a very small fraction of the number of skiers flying from New York to points west.
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Balsams Grand Resort teams up with ski industry legend Les Otten
- Thread starter bobbutts
- Start date
machski
Well-known member
Yes, and on the GA side, the local FBO is very swank, as nice if not nicer than Aspen's.
Jully
Active member
http://www.newenglandskiindustry.com/viewstory.php?storyid=246
The bill passed the senate. Goes to the house now, but Otten apparently says that he wants $43 million in public funding now.
Projected phase 1 opening is 2016/2017 season.
The bill passed the senate. Goes to the house now, but Otten apparently says that he wants $43 million in public funding now.
Projected phase 1 opening is 2016/2017 season.
ThinkSnow
Member
http://nhpr.org/post/company-says-t...nowmaking-would-hurt-hydroelectric-facilities
More news, not very promising unfortunately.
More news, not very promising unfortunately.
Mapnut
New member
The letter says that they would accept the water withdrawals as long as Dixville negotiates an agreement with them about either timing the withdrawals or compensating them for lost revenue. The fellow who comments that the water's going to flow back into the river anyway, doesn't allow for part of the ski area draining to the west (out of the Androscoggin basin), or that the runoff would occur in high-flow season when the hydro plants are likely to be spilling water.
I was looking at the area on Google Earth and saw that some of the slopes in the southeast part of the proposed ski area have huge clearcuts. I wonder how a ski area would work that into its trail plan. Unfortunately the largest clearcut has southern exposure.
I was looking at the area on Google Earth and saw that some of the slopes in the southeast part of the proposed ski area have huge clearcuts. I wonder how a ski area would work that into its trail plan. Unfortunately the largest clearcut has southern exposure.
ThinkSnow
Member
The property is large enough, they should just create another Lake Gloriette, which is a man made lake that draws water down from higher elevations. Created when the resort was built.
machski
Well-known member
We're talking about Les Otten here. After all, he is the one who expanded snowmaking at Sugarbush without passing off all the environmental types and drawing off the Mad River. This is not a big hurdle to clear IMHO.
ThinkSnow
Member
When Otten expanded the snowmaking at Sugarbush, I don't believe he was asking the state for $25 million to pay for it, nor did/does the Mad River power any hydroelectric dams. I really hope you are correct, but this could look bad in the eyes of the decision makers.
mbedle
Well-known member
I've got a couple of issues with the letter sent by Brookfield. They seem to contradict themselves in the letter. In the first paragraph they state that the withdrawal "would adversely affect" and the second paragraph they state that the withdrawal is "projected to potentially displace"... In addition, there is no documentation provided to support their claim that the withdrawal would have a negative impact on the 15 plants they operate. Understanding that this is just a comment letter sent to the NHDES, I would not expect them to include any contingencies within the permit until GLHA can document the facts they have stated.
Plus, I'm not sure that during the initial build out of the resort they are going to need the full 2.94 MCF of water for snow making. Thats 21,991,000 million gallons a day. To put that in perspective, Stowe uses approximately 230,000,000 gallons per season for snowmaking. With that said, a valid option would be to cut the withdrawal back to something a little more reasonable.
Plus, I'm not sure that during the initial build out of the resort they are going to need the full 2.94 MCF of water for snow making. Thats 21,991,000 million gallons a day. To put that in perspective, Stowe uses approximately 230,000,000 gallons per season for snowmaking. With that said, a valid option would be to cut the withdrawal back to something a little more reasonable.
AdironRider
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2005
- Messages
- 3,573
- Points
- 83
The MRV is also filled with plenty of rich transplants and retirees looking for craft beard oil and heirloom tomatoes.
Northern NH on the other hand is hurting pretty hard.
So in terms of government funding assistance, its not really a direct comparison to compare a NELSAP area in one of the most economically challenged areas of New England, with Mascara Mountain.
Newpylong
Well-known member
There is a hydro dam less than 15 miles from Sugarbush South in Moretown on the Mad River.
How about building a more local snowmaking reservoir to be back filled from the Androscoggin when it is amicable to the Hydro co?
machski
Well-known member
Kind of my point and exactly what Otten did at Sugarbush. The Mad River was not a big issue with the Hydro, it was an environmental issue with river min flow levels and the fish.
doublediamond
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2013
- Messages
- 519
- Points
- 43
They may never need 15,300 gpm to make snow. It's not about what they need on a day-in-day-out basis. You want to be able to draw at a high capacity so that you only need to take water from the river at it's high flows.
And you want to plan for the future. For example, Sunday River is permitted to take 50,000 gpm from the Sunday River. Their current capacity from the river is 8,100 gpm and 9,000 gpm up the mountain. According to their website, their medium-term plans are to double their pumping capacity. Think about how much faster you can open or recover with an unlimited supply of water both temporal and season long.
2.94 MCF per 24 hrs is a drop in the bucket. That equates to 34.0 cfs (or 15,300 gpm). The Androscoggin at Errol has 111 years of data. The day with the minimum median flow is November 3. That flow? 1540 cfs.
Generally, environmentalists have used 1.0 or 1.5 cfs per sq. mi. as a minimum flow requirement for a river. 2,940,000 cubic ft. over 24 hrs is 34.0 cfs. If we use 1.0, that means the flow would have to be 1080 cfs for the Balsams to draw at full power. That can be done every day unless we're in a major drought. A minimum of 1.5 would mean the Balsams can draw at full power at 1603 cfs. In a median year, that is every day November 6 and on.
The Androscoggin is huge. There is plenty of water to go around.
freeski
New member
I agree the Androscoggin is a huge river. I hope the hydro guys just want to make their interests known. As mentioned, there will be environmental restrictions which will also protect the dams. The hydro interests shouldn't get a dime from the ski area and I hope they don't try to tie up a project northern NH desperately needs with red tape.
ThinkSnow
Member
billski
Active member
"Balsams Grand Resort teams up with ski industry legend " ..... TO GO DOWN IN FLAMES!
There is at least one hydroelectric dam on the Mad River. It's right on Route 100B between Waterbury and Moretown.
Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone
ThinkSnow
Member
You are correct, just past the Ward swimming hole. That far up I always think the dam is on the Winooski River. Nevertheless, it is still only one dam.
ThinkSnow
Member
from_the_NEK
Active member
NH legislature takes a step toward getting state money easier for the Balsams....
http://caledonianrecord.com/main.asp?SectionID=180&SubSectionID=778&ArticleID=130075
http://caledonianrecord.com/main.asp?SectionID=180&SubSectionID=778&ArticleID=130075
Similar threads
