Snoqualmie Master Develop. Plan-Feb.21 deadline

Two new lifts at Alpental.... Map of Alpental: www.summitatsnoqualmie.com/sasassets/files/winter/MDP_map2.jpg

Total Overview:http://www.summitatsnoqualmie.com/info/winter/mdp.asp?j=3723917&e=kuharicm@gmail.com&l=814867_HTML&u=51002485&mid=12421


What's their plan for global melting?

According to UW's Climate Impacts Group: Climate Change Impacts on the PNW Ski Industry

For ski areas at moderate elevation, the CIG has found that even modest increases in PNW temperature and precipitation as a result of climate change could significantly decrease revenues by shortening the length of the ski season and reducing patronage due to undesirable ski conditions (as a result of increased winter rain). Snow model simulations show that average ski conditions at Snoqualmie Pass (Washington) ski area, whose base elevation is about 3000 ft, could change dramatically by 2025. The simulations suggest that the likelihood of opening by Dec. 1 could decline by 50%, average season length could decline by 28%, and the likelihood of rain when the ski area is open could increase by 25%. The changes in snow conditions by 2025 are less pronounced for Stevens Pass (Washington), whose base is at about 4050 ft. The simulations for Stevens Pass suggest that the likelihood of opening by Dec. 1 could decline by 25%, average season length could decline by 14%, and the likelihood of rain when the ski area is open could increase by 50%.

Reminder: Deadline to comment on this proposed development is February 21st. Whether you support (Bandit) or oppose this development, the decisionmaking process inevitably goes more smoothly when the decisionmakers have more information. <br><br>Also, notice that part of the plan calls for turning the upper parking lot into some kind of staging area. For anyone who tours, snowshoes, hikes, etc in the Source Lake valley, this could really suck.

Two new lifts at Alpental.... <br><br>According to UW's Climate Impacts Group: Climate Change Impacts on the PNW Ski Industry<br><br>For ski areas at moderate elevation, the CIG has found that even modest increases in PNW temperature and precipitation as a result of climate change could significantly decrease revenues by shortening the length of the ski season and reducing patronage due to undesirable ski conditions (as a result of increased winter rain). Snow model simulations show that average ski conditions at Snoqualmie Pass (Washington) ski area, whose base elevation is about 3000 ft, could change dramatically by 2025. The simulations suggest that the likelihood of opening by Dec. 1 could decline by 50%, average season length could decline by 28%, and the likelihood of rain when the ski area is open could increase by 25%. The changes in snow conditions by 2025 are less pronounced for Stevens Pass (Washington), whose base is at about 4050 ft. The simulations for Stevens Pass suggest that the likelihood of opening by Dec. 1 could decline by 25%, average season length could decline by 14%, and the likelihood of rain when the ski area is open could increase by 50%.<br>

<br><br>FWIW, in 1990 or 91 I read an article about global warming and it suggested that by the year 2010 skiing as we know it on Snoqualmie Pass will not exist. Well, its 2006 and as I see it snow is still falling and I don't see any big change coming in the next 4 years. <br><br>Don't worry, the sky is not falling........and by 2025 there will still be sky and we will still be skiing on Snoqulamie Pass. Predictions w/o facts to back them up are not worth the effort to read about.<br><br>

I've consolidated two similar threads.<br><br>jasonsalvo - I added the deadline date to this thread's title and deleted your other post - thanks for getting that date posted.

With the previous extensive discussion of the proposed plans for Alpental, I had kind of assumed that there wasn't much planned for elsewhere at "The Summit", but yesterday I found out that I was mistaken. I looked at the Master Development Plan ( index of pdf downloads ) for the non-Alpental part of the ski area and discovered that new lifts (2) and runs are proposed for the area between East and Central (the new "Summit Southeast"?). These are contained in the ski area's preferred Alternative 2.<br><br>From a skier's and boarder's point of view I can see that these new lifts, Creek Run and Rampart, and runs would be attractive. Their addition would basically make the Summit ski area continuous across the north side of the ridge from East all the way to West (with the Mountaineers lodge/ski area occupying a little chunk along the way).<br><br>Maps (pdf):<br> Alternative 1 - no change (eg. current situation) <br> Alternative 2 - ski area's preferred <br> Alternative 4 - no new lifts/runs in section 16 old growth <br><br>I think what concerns me most about the ski area's preferred plan (Alternative 2) is that the two new lifts and their runs would go into old growth forest in section 16, which seems to be the only significant size chunk of old growth left on the whole north side of the ski area ridge. Silver Fir has old growth but it is cut into strips by the runs, and maybe there is a small area of big trees over near the Mountaineers area?<br><br>It sounds like the first part of the historic nordic skiing Mountaineers Route to Nordic Pass would be pretty strongly affected by this development, in the area between the parking and the ridge top (XC trails), but I don't see any plans for development in the section of old growth directly leading to Nordic Pass (in the angle between the ridge of Mt. Catherine and Radio Ridge).<br><br>The Sierra Club's objections to Alternative 2 with regards to the new lifts: "The proposed expansion of the ski area at Snoqualmie Pass would result in cutting old-growth forests, degrading a critical wildlife corridor. The Sierra Club has criticized this and other parts of the proposal for new runs and ski lifts at Snoqualmie Pass...Skiing has been a fixture of the Pass for decades. Through time, this type of development has resulted in forests being cut, wetlands filled and wildlife corridors blocked. To get a new permit, the facilities should be required to meet current environmental standards, and that means protecting wildlife habitat, wildlands and water quality. While many aspects of the ski areaÕs proposal are not controversial, the cutting of old growth forests in a key wildlife corridor would have a major impact...The Forest Service proposal would construct 2 new chair lifts and a road in the forests near Hyak Creek, plus cut new downhill runs through that forest Ð some up to 200Õ wide. This will eliminate crucial habitat in an area that is already substantially constricted. It will also fragment the habitat and reduce its usefulness as a wildlife corridor across the I-90 divide. Without it, there is almost no connection between the forests south and north of the ski areas. As one of the few forested connections in this part of the Cascades, this forestland provides a crucial pathway for wildlife. The Club questions the necessity of carving new, steeper snowboard trails to connect Summit East (Hyak) with the Summit Central resort area. Not only do skiers already have crossover runs, but poor snow conditions in recent years have seriously limited operations at Summit East, and the situation may worsen with global warmingÑmaking these crossover runs unnecessary. The ski area already provides a shuttle between the summit and Alpental, which could easily be extended to Summit East on the few days during the season that it is open for business. Wildlife are already at risk in this area due to other development projects near Summit East and Gold Creek, and the additional impacts of the ski area expansion into these forests near Summit East would have a detrimental cumulative effect. These other development projects increase the Forest ServiceÕs obligation to protect and restore their habitat. The Forest Service should require a complete study of habitat, wildlife use and impacts of new ski and other facilities at the Pass. This should be ready before the next planning cycle." The Sierra Club is pushing for a modified Alternative 4 - see link above.<br><br>Submitting comments:<br>The comment deadline has been extended, and all comments must now be received by Tuesday, February 21, 2006. Submit comments by email: ldonovan@fs.fed.usÊ

Contact:
Larry Donovan, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF: (425) 744-3403
or
Dan Brewster, Summit at Snoqualmie: (425) 434-6751
or
Sierra Club Cascade Chapter: (206) 388-1114Ê

That is pretty interesting that the Sierra Club used Global Warming in its rationale to keep Section 16 from being developed.<br><br>It is interesting that some people in the climate research community are thinking that PNW climate may indeed becoming more "El Nino-like" (i.e. like last season); this would clearly be a disaster for the Summit.<br><br>Regarding climate change and its discussions on this forum, I have posted a powerpoint presentation discussing the science of climate change used in outreach talks by some members of UW's Program on Climate Change (which I participate somewhat in). Feel free to comment.<br><br>I sometimes tire of the debate, so don't know how much I might respond.<br><br> students.washington.edu/kuharicm/Climate_change_talk.ppt <br><br>-Matt<br>