BK going ahead with const. of snowmaking lake.
37 posts
13 users
4k+ views
Mountain Masher
July 14, 2005
Member since 03/13/2004
541 posts
Nearly 6 years after the land was cleared and bulldozed (many rare, old-growth altitude-stunted oaks were destroyed), Blue Knob appears to be moving ahead with the large snowmaking pond (or lake) located near the summit of the mountain. So far, a lot of digging and earth-moving have taken place. It does not appear that the lake will be as large as originally planned; however, it will be considerably larger than the 2 existing holding ponds for snowmaking. The following things are noteworthy concerning the snowmaking ponds at BK: 1) All 3 unsightly ponds are located on BK State Park land (land that was originally donated from the USPS to PA for the explicit purpose of preservation/conservation). 2) To my knowledge, there are no drawings or specifications currently available for the lake under construction. 3) No environmental impact study was done. 4) There is not enough water available in the area to support the 2 EXISTING snowmaking ponds, much less the new snowmaking lake. 5) The soil is far too porous for the lake to hold water for any length of time as evidenced by the 2 existing ponds. 6) Having 3 unsightly mud holes, all located on State Park land near the summit of the mountain, is one of MANY FACTORS that makes Blue Knob (in my opinion) the MOST environmentally destructive ski area in North America.

It should be noted that I will post pictures of this environmental nightmare in the near future.
Roger Z
July 14, 2005
Member since 01/16/2004
2,181 posts
Quote:

3) No environmental impact study was done. 4) There is not enough water available in the area to support the 2 EXISTING snowmaking ponds, much less the new snowmaking lake. 5) The soil is far too porous for the lake to hold water for any length of time as evidenced by the 2 existing ponds.




If no EIS was ever done, how can you possibly know if rare species were destroyed, the ground is too porous, or there isn't enough water available to support the new pond? Where do you get this information? And why haven't you responded to other folks' observations that BK does not seem to be in as bad of shape environmentally as you make it out to be?
Mountain Masher
July 14, 2005
Member since 03/13/2004
541 posts
Roger Z: 1) I know from several sources (including a Penn State Professor) that old-growth altitude-stunted oaks are rare in PA. Plus, altitude-stunted oaks generally grow at elevations above 3,000 ft; given that most of the mountains in PA are lower than 3,000 ft, such trees are rare. Furthermore, old-growth trees (older than 100 years) are very rare in Central PA. 2) The ground on top of Blue Knob is comprised of VERY porous ancient (BK is among the oldest mountains in the world) decaying sandstone and quartz; I got this information from PA State Parks. Plus, I live near the summit of BK and have a septic tank, which perks very well due to the porous soil. Furthermore, Whenever water is pumped up the mountain to the EXISTING holding ponds, they go dry very quickly due to the porous soil. 3) The only source of water for the soon-to-be 3 snowmaking ponds is Big Lick Branch at the bottom of the mountain; during a normal year, it simply doesn't have anywhere near the flow to provide enough water for the new snowmaking lake. Plus, a study was done on this issue (many years ago) for a previous owner of BK (I know the engineer who did the study, who's now retired). The conclusion was that the ONLY way enough water could be created for a large snowmaking pond would be to drill a deep municipal type well, which isn't being done and would require a special permit. 4) I HAVE responded to other folks observations who differ with my opinion that BK is in very bad environmental shape. Furthermore, I have posted (on webshots) over 50 pictures of BK, which I believe clearly support my position on the environmental condition of BK (the links to these pictures have been provided on this forum). In fact, many individuals have contacted me (after looking at the aforementioned pictures) to say that they were shocked at what bad shape BK appears to be in.
Tick
July 14, 2005
Member since 05/27/2005
41 posts
I don't know much about Blue Knob, but it appears to look (on paper at least, and on some recent photos posted on this site) like a pretty cool ski resort. The views are really nice, and thanks to Shearer for those photos, under "Resort Discussions".

Question - couldn't Blue knob use an underliner for the pond, similar to what most landfills use (to keep in leachate), to retain the water?

I would like to try that place this year, although it's a long ride from Christiansburg!
DCSki Sponsor: Massanutten Resort
snowsmith - DCSki Supporter
July 14, 2005
Member since 03/15/2004
1,287 posts
As a licensed civil engineer with 30 years experience, I can tell you that no one is going to construct a pond without engineered drawings, without hydrologic evaluation to determine how much surface water is draining to the pond, without a geotechnical evaluation on the insitu soils as well as the soils necessary to build the dam. The US Soil Conservation Service has a regulation (SCS 378) which defines Dam Safety and other construction parameters that must be followed. The fact that you live 'near' Blue Knob has absolutely nothing to do with the soil at the site. There are formulae which assess storing and maintaining a wet pool in a pond based on the drainage area, run-off factors, area rainfall and the water table elevation. You just don't dig a hole in the ground and then figure out where the water's going to come from. Additionally, I have been to Blue Knob and while there may be some minor erosion from logging access, I did not see the whole sale environmental damage that you speak of. Thus Mountain Masher, I have concluded that you have an axe to grind with Blue Knob and you don't really know what you are talking about. I'm sure you are well intentioned and you have some valid concerns, but you have overstated your case and no one is buying it.
tromano
July 14, 2005
Member since 12/19/2002
998 posts
MM,

I am sure that the environmental impacts are pretty bad. Bbut from shearer's pictures the ski slopes them selves appear, at least from the larger view, to be in good shape. I know there are rocks that stick out on trials here and there... but this is endemic in any natural snow trails in this region.

Your previous pictures of eroded ski slopes looking like "death valley" were all very close up images of rocky sections. Some of these may have been parts of the ubiquitous gravel roads that run up and down all slopes in the area for summer vehicles access.

So I guess my question is.. are the slopes basicly "ok" or what?
Mountain Masher
July 14, 2005
Member since 03/13/2004
541 posts
snowsmith, I know that you may find this very hard to believe, but the Commonwealth of PA IS allowing the ski area concessionaire at BK to construct a very large pond WITHOUT drawings, specifications or evaluations. And, as far as erosion goes, there IS major erosion at Blue Knob as a result of the logging operation that was conducted several years ago. There was no timber management plan and water-bars and seeding did not take place after the logging was completed. Even the conventional ski slopes at BK have few water-bars, which has resulted in major erosion. My pictures (links to which have been provided in previous posts on DCSki) back up what I'm saying.

And, as far as the porosity of the soil goes, believe me, I'm well aware of how porous the ground is in the area where the lake is being constructed. Also, the area is very exposed and prone to high winds, which will result in a high rate of evaporation.

I have a few questions: Did you know that summit based holding ponds are NOT necessary for snowmaking? Did you know that most ski areas in the US (where the summit is located on public land) are not allowed to have summit based holding ponds (or are limited to a SINGLE pond only)? Do you know of another ski area in the US (other than BK) that has 3 summit based holding ponds, all on PARK land and all ponds located within a small area? And finally, do you think that all of this is OK for the environment and other ski areas should do what BK is doing?

At any rate, it will be interesting to see how the new lake turns out. My best guess it that the entire situation will be a "zero sum game". That is, the new lake at BK will have water in it only at the expense of the other 2 ponds or vice versa. I don't think that you're ever going to see all 3 ponds brimming full of water at the same time.
Mountain Masher
July 15, 2005
Member since 03/13/2004
541 posts
Tromano, thanks for the comments, but I beg to differ with your statement that all of my pictures of the ski slopes at BK are close-ups. That's simply NOT TRUE! Although some of my pictures are close-ups, many are not! For example, one of my pictures shows nearly the entire length of the Run-out ski slope (looking uphill). In this picture you can see erosion and exposed rocks for nearly the entire length of the Run-out (and, there are many other examples).
SeaRide
July 15, 2005
Member since 03/11/2004
237 posts
Quote:


I have a few questions: Did you know that summit based holding ponds are NOT necessary for snowmaking? Did you know that most ski areas in the US (where the summit is located on public land) are not allowed to have summit based holding ponds (or are limited to a SINGLE pond only)? Do you know of another ski area in the US (other than BK) that has 3 summit based holding ponds, all on PARK land and all ponds located within a small area? And finally, do you think that all of this is OK for the environment and other ski areas should do what BK is doing?





Please cite the law or rules with a link saying anything about summit based pond on public land.

Yes, there are many US ski areas with summit based pond(s). I am not going to list them all here.
Just look around i.e. the one at Seven Springs (I think they called it Lake Tahoe) and another one at Wisp (right on top).

I don't know how porous the soil is around Blue Knob but by looking at pics posted by people who rides ATV at Blue Knob. It looks like a natural pond to me. Take a peek and judge for yourself.

http://community.webshots.com/album/340277637FUBYaj

If the natural pond has been developed naturally, then my opinion is that a man-made pond can be done nearby.

Evaporation? Spruce Knob is the highest point in WV with elevation of 4,861 ft. Guess what? There is a lake called Spruce Knob lake sitting at 4,000 ft not far from Spruce Knob (4,861ft).
Mountain Masher
July 15, 2005
Member since 03/13/2004
541 posts
First of all, the summit based ponds at 7-Springs and Wisp are both on private land and each resort has a single pond (that is, a pond of any size) not 3 ponds as BK will have. Second, there were NO natural ponds on top of BK prior to skiing there. The first snowmaking pond dates back to the early 1960s. The second pond (located just below the beginners slope) was constructed in the mid 1980's by the current owner of BK ski area. The 2 existing ponds hold water so poorly that they are either dry or have very little water in them during much of the year when water isn't being pumped to them continuously. It has been suggested (many times) that perhaps the owners of BK could place a liner in each of these ponds so that they would hold water better (rather than constructing a 3rd pond) but this hasn't happened, probably due to the cost.

I have been to Spruce Knob Lake many times. Although it's elevation is still high, it's located in a VALLEY well below Spruce Knob and other surrounding peaks. Because there is plenty of vertical between the summit of Spruce Knob and Spruce Knob Lake, the lake is well fed by a stream and several springs. If you want to compare Spruce Knob with BK, let me ask you this: How would you like to see 3 (THREE) ponds dug on top of Spruce Knob? And how well do you think that these ponds would hold water?
SeaRide
July 15, 2005
Member since 03/11/2004
237 posts
Quote:

First of all, the summit based ponds at 7-Springs and Wisp are both on private land and each resort has a single pond (that is, a pond of any size) not 3 ponds as BK will have.




Private or public .. who cares? Pipestem state park in WV was a private recreation land and it became a public state park with a man-made lake (Branch Lake) .. so what? It could happen either way.

Quote:


Second, there were NO natural ponds on top of BK prior to skiing there. The first snowmaking pond dates back to the early 1960s. The second pond (located just below the beginners slope) was constructed in the mid 1980's by the current owner of BK ski area. The 2 existing ponds hold water so poorly that they are either dry or have very little water in them during much of the year when water isn't being pumped to them continuously. It has been suggested (many times) that perhaps the owners of BK could place a liner in each of these ponds so that they would hold water better (rather than constructing a 3rd pond) but this hasn't happened, probably due to the cost.




Ok, your reading comprehension is not up to par. I didn't say natural pond on top of BK.. okay? so your point is moot.

Quote:


I have been to Spruce Knob Lake many times. Although it's elevation is still high, it's located in a VALLEY well below Spruce Knob and other surrounding peaks. Because there is plenty of vertical between the summit of Spruce Knob and Spruce Knob Lake, the lake is well fed by a stream and several springs. If you want to compare Spruce Knob with BK, let me ask you this: How would you like to see 3 (THREE) ponds dug on top of Spruce Knob? And how well do you think that these ponds would hold water?




Yes, very well.
I don't care if it's a concrete pond or water tower or water well or water tank buried underground but it will hold water VERY well. i.e. Watertank/water tower at top of the world at Snowshoe mtn.

johnfmh - DCSki Columnist
July 15, 2005
Member since 07/18/2001
1,914 posts
The Austrians, who are about the most environmentally obsessed people on the planet, authorized Hauser Kaibling to build mid-mountain holding lakes for water, and they are building more for next season. What's so bad about these lakes? They don't require as much energy to move the water to the guns (gravity does most of the work), and if the earth is porous, can't they be sealed in some way to prevent leakage? I must be missing something here because I don't understand what the big deal is? We're talking about small ponds, not mountain top removal.

BK needs the snowmaking to remain viable and that in my opinion should be our number one concern. We don't want this mountain, with its great terrain, to go down the tubes. If that happens, no one wins.
snowsmith - DCSki Supporter
July 15, 2005
Member since 03/15/2004
1,287 posts
John - you are correct. There are ways to seal the pond bottom and dam icluding PVC and Polyethylene liners and natural clay. Additionally, even in porous soils, as sediment enters the pond, the fine colloidal soils tend to clog the insitu soil pores thus eventually creating a natural liner. Now you tell me, what or how is the contractor building this pond without plans. How does he know what elevations to grade the pond, what elevation to build the spillway, etc. I think Mountain Masher needs a reality check. And yes, the place needs water for snow making. Even if they use treated sewage to fill the pond and make snow (as Wisp does) it will improve the icy conditions that seem happen at BK. This is a good thing that the MM is making a negative.
Roger Z
July 15, 2005
Member since 01/16/2004
2,181 posts
Good posts Snowsmith. Thanks for the engineering insight!
johnfmh - DCSki Columnist
July 15, 2005
Member since 07/18/2001
1,914 posts
Thanks for the insights and clarification Snowsmith. Although he has posted some interesting information in the past, this post by MM appears kind of off base. Maybe he'll offer a source for his information. That might help clarify things.
SeaRide
July 15, 2005
Member since 03/11/2004
237 posts
Snowsmith, what you said makes sense. Thanks.

Has anyone been to Holiday Valley ski resort in NY before? If yes, read below (excerpt from http://www.holidayvalley.com/news.cfm?story=123)

Quote:

"A 13 acre lake will be built above the Tannenbaum area over the next two summers. It will serve as a 62 million gallon reservoir for snowmaking, enabling our crews to make more snow in a shorter period of time when the weather is favorable. Initial plans provide for non-motorized summer recreation on the lake after completion. We're also designing a new chairlift that will begin at the bottom of Tannenbaum and terminate near the lake, with a few new trails serviced by the lift. .. "





I checked the ski trail map for Holiday Valley to find where Tannenbaum is. Looks interesting to see how they do that.
shearer519
July 15, 2005
Member since 07/12/2004
149 posts
To say that Seven Springs has only one snowmaking pond not accurate. Seven Springs probably has more then 50 ponds throughout all of its property. Most of these ponds are located in out of the way places where most people wouldn't see it. Lake Tahoe isn't even the only large mountain top pond they have. Just east of the Villages there is a second large pond called Lake Herman. By the skiing areas alone I can think of 5 mountain top ponds. So a third one at BK doesn't seam like a bad deal to me. As for the BK ponds holding water I was just up there and they seamed to be holding water fine to me. I would also have to think that BK has made some kind of plans for this pond. No one spends that much money on something without any plans.

I am really starting to have trouble believing that all the problems that you claim BK have actual exist. After going to the resort myself I can see that you have been making a mountain out of a molehill. In my trip to the area I could see that yes it is a little rockier then other places such as Seven Springs. But it was also apparent to me that this was not due to erosion but just how the soil natural was. It was also apparent that there was nothing on the ground that 4-8 inches of packed powder wouldn't cover up. Now I am sure people will occasional ski over some rocks on the slopes. With heavy machinery running up and down them everyday it's not an unlikely thing to see some rocks get brought up from the bottom of the snow pack. I've skied over rocks at many places myself including Seven Springs and Wisp.

Looking back on the pictures you have taken I can see that either they were actual of the roads going up and down some of the slopes but just really zoomed in or that things have obviously changed since your pictures were taken. As an example look at you picture of the Stembogen bowl and compare it to mine. It becomes obvious that things have changed since your picture was taken.

My Stembogen Pic

Mountain Mashers Stembogen Pic

Now I haven't been all over the mountain like you have but I tend to think that a lot of the problems you documented with the camera either have changed recently or were taken in such a way as to exaggerate the severity of the problem. My first hand experiences at BK make it hard for me to believe the statements you have been making about the damage there.
Mountain Masher
July 15, 2005
Member since 03/13/2004
541 posts
shearer519, keep in mind that I was referring to ponds on PUBLIC LAND at or near the summit of ski mountains. And, as far as there being erosion problems at BK, you have to look at the sum total of the earth disturbance and it's effects. Sure, some areas look worse than others and some areas don't look that bad. However, the communities directly below BK have had serious flooding damage several times (and a fatality) SINCE the logging was completed. Even Hurricane Agnes in the 70s, which dumped about 12 inches of rain on BK didn't create the problems that only 4.5 inches of rain did last Fall during Hurricane Francis. The watershed directly below BK was filled in with silt and logging debris so that the water had nowhere to go but over the streams banks. Want to see some hard core erosion? Look at the Ditch Glade ski slope (when snow is not on it); to create the Ditch Glade, the ski area clear-cut a very steep and deep ravine (please see my pictures of the Ditch Glade on webshots). Also, you might look at the Cliff Hanger Glade when you're at BK, it's another steep clear-cut gash located just past the Ditch Glade and please look at the Run-out (or my pictures of the Run-out on webshots). The fact that you would simply brush off much of this erosion as "roads" doesn't add up. By the way, I'll try to get some pictures posted of BK's ponds (including the large pond under construction) within the next few days. (One of the existing ponds is currently low and the other pond is nearly dry, but granted, it's been a dry Summer thus far.)
Mountain Masher
July 15, 2005
Member since 03/13/2004
541 posts
SeaRide, just to clarify. The 2 existing ponds at BK don't hold water very well, that's why management is attempting to build a 3rd pond. None of these ponds are likely to hold much water for any length of time so long as the base of these ponds is natural ground rather than a liner. To me, it would have made more sense to put liners in the 2 existing ponds instead of taking many more rare trees down to build a 3rd pond.
The Colonel - DCSki Supporter
July 15, 2005
Member since 03/5/2004
3,062 posts
The pictures of the "Blue Knob Ride" turn my stomach. After all the discussion about BK erosion, etc. these pictures show folks trashing a pond (good thing it did not have a liner) and doing gosh knows what else to the natural mountain. Who allows this sort of distruction, and do the riders have to clean up whatever erosion mess they make?
The Colonel
Mountain Masher
July 15, 2005
Member since 03/13/2004
541 posts
SeaRide, thanks for the ATV course pictures. The ATV course is near the village of Blue Knob, not Blue Knob mountain. The ATV couse, at it's closest point, sets about 5 1/2 miles away from BK ski area. The ATV course, which passes through natural ponds and streams (in fact, the course follows the stream-bed in places) has been very damaging to the environment. Many states won't even allow an ATV course to follow such a route.
Roy
July 16, 2005
Member since 01/11/2000
609 posts
Quote:

instead of taking many more rare trees down to build a 3rd pond.




What rare trees are on BK? By removing these trees, how would that affect the overall enviroment?
Mountain Masher
July 16, 2005
Member since 03/13/2004
541 posts
Roy, the top of Blue Knob and part of the ski slopes sets on PA State Park land. Like most states, there are policies on how State Park land is to be used. In PA, State Park land is not to be used for resource extraction such as logging. Also, when the aforementioned land at BK was deeded from the US Park Service to the Commonwealth of PA, it was deeded for the EXPLICIT purposes of preservation and conservation (and recreation so long as the manner in which recreational activities are conducted doesn't conflict with the goals of preservation and conservation). So, given the policies outlined above, rare trees should have been preserved to inspire and educate future generations (remember, we're talking about a PARK here).

The trees that were taken down were rare (at least in PA) for the following reasons: They were quite old by PA standards 90 to 120 years old. And, they were altitude-stunted; altitude-stunted hardwoods usually grow at or above 3,000 feet. Given that there are very few places in PA at or above 3,000 ft., this type of tree is rare.

As far as the 3 ponds impacting the environment in the area, the impact is not known beacuse PA did not conduct an environmental impact study.
Roger Z
July 16, 2005
Member since 01/16/2004
2,181 posts
Quote:

They were quite old by PA standards 90 to 120 years old. And, they were altitude-stunted; altitude-stunted hardwoods usually grow at or above 3,000 feet. Given that there are very few places in PA at or above 3,000 ft., this type of tree is rare.





So by that definition, every part of Blue Knob above 3000 feet is an environmental disaster. What do you think of Snowshoe chopping down spruce trees to build condos and new ski trails anyway?
Mountain Masher
July 16, 2005
Member since 03/13/2004
541 posts
Roger Z, first of all, the top of Snowshoe is on private land, not Park land. Second, the average age of the red spruce trees on top of snowshoe is very young because the top of the mountain was most likely logged twice since logging started in the area (about 1900). Furthermore, many acres of older red spruce (8O to 115 years old) near snowshoe are on public land and are being protected by the Federal Government and/or the WV Government.

Blue Knob is a different situation, the peaks surrounding BK have been subjected to highly destructive logging over the past 10 or 15 years. So, it would have been important to save and protect as many of the rare trees on top of BK as possible (within reason).

I did not say that every part of BK at or above 3,000 feet is an environmental disaster. However, given that the top of BK is only around 3,150, we're talking about a small area. You can still see a small area of altitude-stunted oaks on BK. Just take the trail to the Pavia Overlook, located on the South side of BK. The trail can be reached by hiking through the woods below the lower parking lot. As you get within a quarter mile of the overlook, you'll see the stunted oaks, they're really interesting becuse they grow in various twisted shapes. The Pavia overlook is slightly below 3,000 ft, but the oaks there are altitude stunted because this small area is so exposed to the wind and elements. Also, the view from the Pavia Overlook is incredible!
bawalker
July 16, 2005
Member since 12/1/2003
1,547 posts
Being the case with my family and neighbors down here in WV dealing with the situation of the NRCS working with the WV Soil Conservation trying to put in 5 watershed dams on tributaries of a river no more than knee deep (www.savelostriver.org), I have no doubt that it's quite possible that the people behind the BK construction COULD very well be doing that without an enviornmental impact statement or assement. I say that because on 2 or 3 of the dams that was 'forced' in in this area were completed without any adequate studies, any adequate proof showing they were needed, etc. Unfortunately the NRCS and Soil Conservation service were waiving their hands as gov agencies and the locals simply thought "oh if gov is doing it then they must be doing it the right way so we can't stop them..."

Well after our research in the ensuing lawsuits, there is more than AMPLE proof that the NRCS and WV Soil Conservation services have done nothing right like they should have and basically have walked their own path, marched to their own drum beat in push 3 dams through, and are trying for 2 more. Being that I've lived this and seen it for myself, it would NOT surprise me for one moment that that could very well be happening at BK.

Like others, MM, I would love to see more indepth pictures. Heck if you need room, I have a server that you could store them on if needed.

Brad
Roger Z
July 16, 2005
Member since 01/16/2004
2,181 posts
An EIS is usually not needed for a site that will take up less than 5 acres of land, and is often not done on sites that take more land use than that. The idea that a snowmaking pond- or the dams in your area- could be constructed without basic engineering analysis is not reasonable (as Snowsmith pointed out for BK). Think of it- you've got to at least study water pressures and flows and sedimentation to calculate the structure of the dam needed and its useful life expectancy. It's one thing to want to get around an EIS, it's another thing entirely to make an enormous investment and not do any analysis on it.
Mountain Masher
July 17, 2005
Member since 03/13/2004
541 posts
Roger Z, I totally agree with you. Although more than 12 acres were cleared for the new snowmaking pond at BK (this was done about 6 years ago). The final version of the pond looks to be about 2/3 that size (including the pond basin, earthen dam and rim). I had a long conversation with a BK Park official on Friday while taking a look at the project. He said that they still don't know where the water will come from or if the stream below BK can provide enough water for the new pond, plus the other 2 ponds. Of course, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me as one would think that the water supply issues would have been figured out a long time ago. It will be interesting to see if the new pond is pumped full before (or shortly after) the ski season starts.
snowsmith - DCSki Supporter
July 18, 2005
Member since 03/15/2004
1,287 posts
MM - you're trying to tell me that they said to some guy, "Here's a dozer and here's 12 acres cleared...go build us a pond". That is totally ridiculous. There is no way they could build a pond of this size without sone kind of plans. I have a very difficult time believing what you are saying, I am sorry. Who is the Contractor doing the work? Do you have his name. What is the drainage area to the pond? What is the spillway constructed of? What is the dam elevation is relation to the pond bottom?
jimmy
July 18, 2005
Member since 03/5/2004
2,650 posts
Well i finally persuaded Murphy to cough up some money (he's a millionaire, you know) for the EIS at Moonshine Mountain. I was doing some reaserch on the board to determine the most environmentally unfriendly way to procede when i came upon this old thread,

welcome to the pond

enjoy
snowsmith - DCSki Supporter
July 18, 2005
Member since 03/15/2004
1,287 posts
Jimmy - Thank you for the historical perspective. I wish the major media used this method to refresh evryones memories on what was said in the past. The old theads posted by "Siera Club skier" have a familiar ring to them, don't they?
Roger Z
July 18, 2005
Member since 01/16/2004
2,181 posts
Jimmy I was thinking we should just fill the snowmaking pond with untreated industrial sewer waste. It will take "don't eat the yellow snow" to a whole new level.
jimmy
July 19, 2005
Member since 03/5/2004
2,650 posts
, rogerZ, I don't think that'swhat snowsmith meant by "colloidal soil"? Here's the thing that bugs me about all this. BK is an environmental disaster, yeah?no?maybe so?
What're we talking about, 12 acres of trees, cut down six years ago, BK State Park encompases 5900 acres, if those are the only stunted oaks, they were rare indeed. The current owners will either make this mountain work w/improved snowmaking or go bankrupt. If they go bankrupt, either someone else will purchase/lease the area or it will end up on a list like NELSAP. If it ends up lost, the forest will take it back. I know what i'd like the outcome to be. How bout you Mtn. Masher?
gatkinso
July 19, 2005
Member since 01/25/2002
316 posts
Definately lots of logging damage and some irresponsible clear cutting. To say "environmental disaster is going a bit far.... check out

http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal/index.html

for some real environmental disaster coverage.

This isn't to say there is some shady and harmful forest management going on at BK - there is - just that the impact isn't nearly as horrendous as it could be.

PS I know nothing of this lake.
jimmy
July 19, 2005
Member since 03/5/2004
2,650 posts
Gat, that really adds some perspective to "disaster". Really is a destructive way to mine coal, i think.
snowsmith - DCSki Supporter
July 20, 2005
Member since 03/15/2004
1,287 posts
WOW! It's hard to believe something like mountain top mining is legal. It is disgraceful It looks like something that would be allowed in a 3rd world country, not the USA.
SeaRide
July 20, 2005
Member since 03/11/2004
237 posts
I have seen them before in Nevada, Utah and Montana. Mining for copper and such.
DCSki Sponsor: Massanutten Resort

Ski and Tell

Snowcat got your tongue?

Join the conversation by logging in.

Don't have an account? Create one here.

0.14 seconds