Report by Alpentech, Inc. - Catskill Heritage Alliance

Bealleayre Mountain Ski Center
Draft Unit Management Plan
Review and Recommendations
Prepared for
by
Catskill Heritage
Alliance
PO Box 88,
Shandaken
NY 12480
July 17, 2013
Alpentech, Inc.
2871 S 2870 E
Salt Lake City
Utah 84109
Belleayre Draft Unit Management Plan Review by Alpentech
Submitted to New York State DEC and ORDA for consideration, July, 17, 2013
Executive Summary
Our review of the draft Unit Management Plan (UMP) for Belleayre Mountain Ski Center (BMSC)
raises questions about the overall redesign of the Ski Center, proposed alternatives, and
technical specifics. The main report and comprehensive ski area map review these in detail. The
Executive Summary emphasizes four main areas of concern.
1. Proposed mountain layout and skier safety. The proposal to establish a "base area" by
expanding the Discovery Lodge and adding a high speed summit lift creates bottlenecks in skier
traffic flow and increases the likelihood of skier collisions. The current layout of Belleayre allows
beginner skiers to learn on terrain at the base of the mountain and be served by the Discovery
Lodge while more advanced skiers stay on the upper mountain, with the Overlook and Summit
Lodges serving them. The new design would encourage all skiers to begin and end their day at
the base Discovery Lodge area and return there for services throughout the day and to use the
high- speed summit lift. This arrangement allows for a traffic pattern to develop that would
combine beginners with advanced skiers on the novice terrain, which would no longer be a safe,
dedicated learning environment but would become a crowded descent path to the base area
lodge. This mixing of skiers of disparate abilities and an increase in skier volume on the beginner
trails would result in a higher likelihood of collisions.
The proposed West Side and Highmount trail system would add to skier congestion by funneling
skiers to the base area from the western slopes, which would be the easiest route to a lodge. The
Overlook and Summit lodges would be more difficult for western slope skiers to access. The
western trail network would create additional safety concerns with numerous trail intersections,
short run outs on steep runs, and tight staging areas at base lift terminals.
The proposed Tubing Hill terrain is too steep and raises safety concerns.
The current trail layout of BMSC respects the topography of the mountain and creates a
harmonious arrangement where beginners have their own area on the lower mountain and more
advanced skiers can spend the day on the upper mountain. The proposed base lodge area
concept would disrupt this balance. By adding an unloading/loading station to the proposed high
speed summit lift at mid-mountain, though, advanced skiers could be moved onto the upper
mountain in the morning and still use the new high-speed lift throughout the day to access the
upper mountain. This arrangement as well as continued operation of the Overlook Lodge would
help maintain the existing well-designed trail network of Belleayre.
The base lodge area concept also introduces several energy issues: the amount of energy
expended to move advanced skiers uphill past terrain they would rather not ski and the greater
fuel requirements for maintenance activities as a result of moving the maintenance building from
mid-mountain to the base of the mountain.
2. East Side alternative. An East Side trail network is mentioned in the UMP but not described
and analyzed. We have described an alternative that includes both winter and all season
recreation and urge the DEC to consider it: a trail network served by one lift on the upper
mountain to the east of the existing Cathedral Brook trail and a Zip Line on the lower mountain,
1
Belleayre Draft Unit Management Plan Review by Alpentech
Submitted to New York State DEC and ORDA for consideration, July, 17, 2013
beginning near the mid-mountain snowmaking reservoir, traveling through the Cathedral Brook
ravine, and ending above the snowmaking reservoir by the railroad bed. Access to the Zip Line
from the hamlet of Pine Hill would be by an existing hiking trail and a proposed Pulse gondola,
which would also allow access to the mid-mountain in the winter.
The East Side has several comparative advantages over West Side and Highmount trail network
as a way of expanding the amount of advanced terrain at Belleayre. Although the Highmount
trails are steeper overall, the East Side trails have 271 greater vertical feet and are 1290 feet
longer. The East Side is already within the Forest Preserve and in BMSC’s intensive use
footprint. It requires no purchase. It could be incorporated more smoothly into the existing trail
network and would allow advanced skiers to stay on the upper mountain all day with easy access
to the Overlook and Summit lodges. Its location close to existing snowmaking reservoirs would
require water to be transported less distance. With one lift and roughly half the acreage, it would
be cheaper to operate on an annual basis than the western trail network.
3. West Side and Highmount trail network. In addition to the skier safety issues described in point
1, above, there are several unresolved questions about this proposed trail network. Foremost is
the requirement that former Highmount ski area be purchased from Crossroads Ventures and
classified for inclusion in the Forest Preserve. The UMP also does not describe how this western
area would connect to and be incorporated with the proposed Belleayre Resort complex, which
borders it, to allow skiers to access the Ski Center without creating undesirable skier traffic
problems or complicated and energy inefficient shuttle transfers of skiers. Snowmaking noise
mitigation measures as described in the UMP may make it difficult, in marginal winters, to open
the bottom of the Highmount trails in a timely fashion. Our preliminary cost estimates (using
industry standards) to operate the western system shows it is 46% more expensive to operate
than the East Side; snowmaking system installation would cost about 47% more than that of the
East Side. Because the western slopes end right above Route 49A, storm water run off would
flow directly into the ditch/culvert system of the highway, which was not engineered to
accommodate ski area storm water runoff, only runoff from undeveloped forested hillsides.
4. Finally, the Full Build Out alternative is given a price tag of $74 million, but no cost breakdowns
by alternative are given, nor are cost-benefit analyses offered, and no rationale beyond historical
skier growth given to show how BMSC will double its annual skier visits.
2
Belleayre Draft Unit Management Plan Review by Alpentech
Submitted to New York State DEC and ORDA for consideration, July, 17, 2013
Unit Management Plan (UMP) Review
The Catskill Heritage Alliance asked Alpentech to evaluate the current Draft Unit Management
Plan for the Belleayre Mountain Ski Center (BMSC) with a particular emphasis on the overall
design of the expansion and the costs associated with various alternatives. The preliminary costs
that we project are for comparative purposes. Undertaking any particular alternative would require
specific costing of systems, components, energy consumption, and labor.
Alpentech was also asked to explore the feasibility of an East Side system of lifts and trails, as
this alternative was described as “conceptual” in the UMP, with no detail. Our report reviews
issues associated with the “Full Build Out” of the UMP such as safety, climate change, skier
circulation patterns, storm water management, and cost. Findings are detailed in the following
sections.
Overview
Focus of study area
Depending on how Ski Center Boundaries are drawn on maps and what features are excluded
from the maps largely determines how the public’s attention will be focused. In the current UMP,
the interface with the West Side development is not very clear and the eastern part of the BMSC
footprint is nearly absent, whereas previously in the early 2000’s the East side of Belleayre was
under active consideration for trail and lift development as part of the UMP past supervisor Tony
Lanza was preparing. Although it is within the Forest Preserve, the East Side is relegated to
“conceptual” status, with no analysis offered in the UMP. The former Highmount Ski Center, on
the other hand, while not in the Forest Preserve and requiring purchase before it can be
developed, gets full analysis. In mid-1990’s, when Highmount closed and no private buyers made
offers to reopen it, the DEC rejected this parcel for both purchase and development.
It would perhaps be more accurate to describe the Highmount alternative as conceptual, since it
is not possible without a 100-acre land purchase—an unknown negotiation—and the East Side
alternative as “possible,” only lacking the comparatively easier task of undertaking an analysis.
Although priorities and needs may change over time, it is critical that the full footprint be
considered, both east and west, to allow the public to make informed comments to encourage
wise decisions on public investment.
The hamlet of Pine Hill, although lying between the Pine Hill Lake Day Use Area and the Ski
Center, is not considered in the benefits of Ski Center expansion, except in an abstract way.
Although a prior proposal to install a lift down to Pine Hill in the late 1980’s and convert parts of
upper Bonnieview Ave. to parking was met with community objection, other, less intensive ways
of ingress to and from the Ski Center to the hamlet may be quite acceptable. Not offering any
ideas for discussion effectively cuts Pine Hill out of potential benefits that public investment in the
3
Belleayre Draft Unit Management Plan Review by Alpentech
Submitted to New York State DEC and ORDA for consideration, July, 17, 2013
Ski Center could bring this community. Belleayre Mountain Ski Center was established in part to
stimulate the local tourism economy. By offering new ideas about how this might be done with
sensitivity to the environment and community desires would be an opportunity for the state to
model Main Street revitalization and ecotourism in a sustainable way.
Instead, renovation and expansion are oriented to the western slopes of Belleayre, which would
logically benefit the hypothetical resort “community” of the proposed Belleayre Resort. This
planning imbalance should be corrected to give all options fair consideration.
An alternative Comprehensive Belleayre Mountain Master Plan has been drawn and is referred to
as Map-1 below.
Public benefit of Belleayre
In the push to modernize Belleayre, first by transferring it to the Olympic Regional Development
Authority (ORDA) and second by upgrading facilities and expanding ski terrain, the historic
purpose of Belleayre as a public ski area in the Forest Preserve risks being compromised. With
its abundance of moderate terrain, Belleayre has always been the perfect place to learn to ski
and advance to more difficult slopes. Its relatively lower cost, in comparison to nearby private
areas, has made it affordable to families, students, and less affluent state residents. Both
features, educational role and affordability, have served to introduce skiing to thousands over the
years, not only bringing new skiers into the skiing population but also helping to keep them there.
This has been a critical role for the sport, and today, with declining skier numbers in the northeast
(including New York), it is so evermore important.
Yet higher lift ticket prices threaten the ability of families, students, and less affluent people to go
skiing. Higher prices may be necessary to cover the increased costs of operating a larger Ski
Center and to partially cover new capital costs. As skiing becomes more costly, it changes the
composition of the skiing public. What was previously a middle class population changes to an
affluent one. This trend could accelerate if the proposed Belleayre Resort gets developed, since
the target audience for the Resort is the upper middle class to upper class, and this population
would not only be able to afford higher prices but also demand services and facilities that are
more expensive and high end. Families and people on a low income could not afford this type of
ski area.
This situation, the remaking of Belleayre to cater to a more affluent cliental, would overturn
Belleayre’s historic role as an affordable ski area for the general public. It would be a grave policy
mistake to allow a simple, rustic family-oriented public ski area to become indistinguishable from
the exclusive private ski areas that are increasingly the dominant fare in the ski market
Mountain topography
Historically the Belleayre Ski Center has been designed to best take advantage of the topography
of the mountain. This has resulted in a harmonious blend of beginner, intermediate, and more
advanced terrain laid out in a way that isolates the beginner skiers on the lower half of the
mountain while intermediate and more advanced skiers can remain on the upper mountain. This
arrangement provides a safe, protective environment for new skiers and minimizes traffic from
advanced skiers returning to lifts to ride to the top. It also acknowledges the topographic
possibilities of Belleayre: abundant novice and intermediate terrain with trails on the upper
4
Belleayre Draft Unit Management Plan Review by Alpentech
Submitted to New York State DEC and ORDA for consideration, July, 17, 2013
mountain where the grade on the face reaches advanced level for 200 to 300 vertical feet (See
UMP Table 1.5-2, Existing Alpine Ski Trails). Advanced trails are also created by not grooming
the trails and allowing moguls and ice to grow. On such trails, new artificial or natural snow
improves the surface temporarily, making the trails easier to ski for a day until the new snow is
skied off, but the structure of slope features is not cut down or groomed.
Topography and skier demand
In the current draft UMP the attempt to satisfy two demands, more advanced terrain and
expanded lodge capacity, threatens to upset the prior harmonious layout of Belleayre and
introduce skier traffic problems and safety issues.
The “demand” for more advanced terrain is based on a marketing model for national ski areas
(See UMP Table 3.2-7, Existing Terrain Distribution vs. Market Demand), yet Belleayre is not a
“national” ski area in the sense that Jackson Hole, Aspen, or Alta is, for example. An attempt to
fulfill the requirements of a model that better applies to larger mountains distorts what Belleayre
excels at: novice and low intermediate to intermediate terrain.
The UMP uses a market feasibility study that was conducted for Mount Sunapee in New
Hampshire, not for Belleayre. The Mount Sunapee study uses northeastern skier distribution
numbers from the NSAA Kottke research. Belleayre is located in an entirely different market of
the northeast than Mount Sunapee (southeastern New York) and therefore should not be
compared to any national and/or other northeastern standards.
Further, the perception of demand for advanced terrain is not based on demographic surveys at
Belleayre, or more general studies of the New York state skier population (over 80% of Belleayre
skiers are from New York). Are current Belleayre skiers asking for more advanced terrain? Are
some skiers saying they would ski at Belleayre only if more advanced terrain is added? Have
large numbers exited Belleayre because of lack of steep terrain? For accurate planning, the
Belleayre Ski Center needs a basic market feasibility study of its skiers and riders’ needs and
numbers.
A simple counting of the number of skiers per hour skiing the steepest terrain at Belleayre on a
peak weekend could determine what percentage of the skiing population at Belleayre actually
skies difficult terrain. From that figure we could calculate the need to expand difficult terrain given
the overall growth, or decline, of the northeast or middle Atlantic skier market.
UMP Table 3.2-1, Acceptable Terrain Gradient, defines low-intermediate trails as having an
average slope of 26% to 30% (35% max) and intermediate trails as having a 31% to 40%
average slope (40% max). Only two trails barely break into the advanced intermediate class:
Chippewa and Upper Tongora have 40.5% average slopes. Of the proposed Highmount and
West trails, six would rank intermediate classification, with short pitches of advanced terrain—
basically a few quick turns.
The majority of skiers (60%) are low intermediate (25%) and intermediate (35%), according to
UMP Table 3.2-2, Market Ability Level Breakdown. Beginner and novice skiers fill 20% of the
market, as do advanced and expert skiers. Because Belleayre’s terrain attracts an abundance of
5
Belleayre Draft Unit Management Plan Review by Alpentech
Submitted to New York State DEC and ORDA for consideration, July, 17, 2013
novice to intermediate skiers, one would suspect that at Belleayre there are probably more
novices than advanced skiers.
UMP Table 3.2-7 identifies a deficit of both intermediate and advanced terrain at Belleayre.
Although Belleayre’s topography doesn’t include advanced terrain, expect for very short pitches, it
does offer a wealth of novice to low intermediate and intermediate terrain—terrain key to
attracting new populations of skiers and growing a sport with declining numbers (for both
demographic and climatic reasons).
Belleayre’s topography is not well suited to enter the competition for advanced and expert skiers,
who can almost always chose bigger mountains with sustained long runs of advanced terrain but
also with beginner areas for less experienced family members and companions.
Since very little true advanced terrain exists on Belleayre, the question isn’t how much more
advanced terrain can we carve out of the mountain, but how can we maximize the mountain for
beginner to intermediate skiers? Fortunately, the UMP offers improvements that will accomplish
this: a new novice ski lift, expanded rental and ski school facilities, and an attractive base lodge
adjacent to the lower mountain learning area. Yet, there are also inherent problems with making
the focus of the mountain a base lodge area and adding ski trails on the west side.
Circulation and safety problems
The skier circulation, as presented in the UMP, needs to be overhauled. By building the
expensive detachable Discovery lift, the skier circulation problems will likely never be fixed. The
principal identification with teaching should be stressed and attention given to the connectivity
between the current infrastructure nodes, the Base and Mid Mountain. Placing a detachable lift
(identified as Express Lift on the Comprehensive Map-1) from the Discovery Lodge to summit,
with unloading and loading at mid-mountain, is money well spent and will allow for retirement of
the antique, slow, unpleasant double-double novice lifts. This antique lift connection between
base and mid-mountain is forcing a much too expensive reorganization of Maintenance and
Discovery Lodge buildings. Both may be necessary to renovate at some time, but skier numbers,
even at current peak levels with a slight increase over time, don’t justify a 9,000 person capacity
base lodge.
With the entire Maintenance Shop area proposed for the base of the mountain, the carbon
footprint of winter operations will be seriously affected: all groomers would have to mobilize from
the base instead of the current mid-mountain elevation maintenance center. Thus many hours of
driving time (and fuel) will be wasted on trips up and down the mountain to carry out routine
maintenance activities. Also, with climate change, it will be harder to maintain snow cover on the
lower mountain. This would make it more difficult for groomers to travel to the upper mountain to
do their work. If the Maintenance Shop were kept at mid-mountain, this problem could be
avoided.
Efficiencies derived from continued mid-mountain operation must be a strong point in the
analysis, and return of investment on new summer opportunities is needed (See section below on
the summer Zip Line.).
Unfortunately, funneling skiers from the upper mountain to the Discovery Lodge creates traffic
patterns in the area where ski area managers least want them: the novice area. More
6
Belleayre Draft Unit Management Plan Review by Alpentech
Submitted to New York State DEC and ORDA for consideration, July, 17, 2013
accomplished skiers are known to speed through flatter terrain as fast as they can. This not only
creates dangerous congestion and increases the risk of skier collisions but also takes away
important beginner terrain to mitigate the high flow of skiers descending to the base lodge for
snack breaks, lunch, and end-of-the-day exit from the Ski Center.
These skier traffic problems and impacts on beginner terrain are apparent by studying the flow
patterns and number of trail intersections on the UMP’s comprehensive ski center map. The
proposed base to summit Discovery Lift contributes to base lodge congestion by offering a new,
fast lift that advanced skiers will end up taking when upper mountain lift lines are crowded. How
will they access the lift? Through the novice learning area.
Energy inefficiencies are created by the need to haul all upper mountain skiers through the lower
mountain. It is a simple as this: potential energy, vertical feet times the weight, is lost due to
inefficient staging. The suggested vertical movement of the West Side skier population, down and
back up, through the Discovery Lodge is taxing in this sense.
A way to avoid skier congestion would be to run either a short lift to the Tomahawk lift, where
skiers bound for the upper mountain could unload. This would remove the incentive to return to
the base lodge to ascend to the summit. Or the Express detachable lift proposed on Map-1 to an
Overlook lodge mid-station unloading and then extension to the summit would also accomplish
this goal. This latter option would allow one lift to service both novice skiers using the lower
mountain and more advanced skiers using the upper mountain. A separate Novice Quad chair
would not be required.
The siting of new ski terrain at the former Highmount Ski Center, or West Side area, would
unfortunately contribute to the skier traffic and congestion at the base lodge. Skiers on the
western slopes would be funneled over the Tomahawk skier bridge to return to parking lots or the
base lodge for lunch or breaks. It would be inconvenient for them to travel to the Overlook or
Summit lodge from the western areas. The proposed Tomahawk Lodge would not be large
enough to accommodate more than a small proportion of the western skiers.
To summarize, the new Discovery Lodge and expanded parking areas may solve comfortable
carrying capacity problems in one way, but the imperative for skiers to return to the new base
area for services and a summit lift creates circulation and safety problems. The West and
Highmount areas add to these skier flow and safety concerns by funneling an increased number
of skiers down the west side to the base lodge. This is not a desirable, user-friendly circulation
plan.
We have already noted above that a different lift arrangement for moving skiers from the
Discovery Lodge to the upper mountain would partially mitigate the circulation problems inherent
in the base area plans. Expanding new intermediate terrain on the East Side of the mountain
would also improve skier flow on the mountain and offer several other benefits over developing
the western slopes.
Trail and lift terminal design details
Design details provided in the Draft Unit Management Plan are of interest to review for overall
suitability of the proposed construction sites. The Highmount lift bottom terminal location provides
a very tight staging area. The same is the case at the bottom terminal of the proposed Belleayre
7
Belleayre Draft Unit Management Plan Review by Alpentech
Submitted to New York State DEC and ORDA for consideration, July, 17, 2013
West lift; both locations are not particularly suitable. Despite substantial excavation in both
locations, these lifts will not have a satisfactory staging area. It is regrettable that the site
transformation for accommodating the Bellearye West detachable lift will be a harsh visual
impact. All skiers will funnel back to the Belleayre West lift on a narrow trail with a minimal
congregation area. This seems to be a problematic new terminal location, requiring mandatory
slow skiing. A more modest, less costly fixed grip lift installed on the same alignment as the
detachable lift would require far less terrain modification. The Belleayre West lift would also be
subject to closure from high winds, thus resulting in an unreliable transfer from West Side to the
central ski area.
One could ask if the lift transfer from Wildacres to the Discovery Lodge center has been given
enough attention. It appears that a lower level lift would be desirable to provide a link to the
Bellearye base, particularly during inclement weather conditions. Further study on how to
minimize shuttle bus traffic between Wildacres and the Belleayre base would reduce the Ski
Center’s carbon footprint. We propose a LINK Lift running from the area just east of the midmountain road intersection to the Tomahawk lift bottom terminal. This is an affordable,
multifunction lift serving the Wildacres for parking return, transfer to the Discovery Lodge base
and upper mountain staging via the popular Tomahawk lift that is justified to be upgraded to a
detachable lift. A teaching hill could be established, returning from the LINK top terminal back to
Wildacres via the skiers’ bridge. Teaching slopes for the high-end guests would be isolated from
other traffic. See Map-1.
The ease of return skiing to the Discovery bottom terminal is not given enough attention in the
draft UMP. Once the massive Discovery Lodge is completed and the teaching is moved largely
to the upper level facing the mountain, there is no room for returning skier circulation;
congregation will have to be shared with first time beginner skiers. The location of the Discovery
Lift is neither well planned for return skiers nor for summer sightseeing view rides nor mountain
ingress.
Many questions are unanswered about how the Wildacres resort will ultimately be integrated in
the UMP. Once the Discovery Lodge is built as proposed, the use pattern at mid-mountain cannot
be recovered. The state will incur a large investment to replace the maintenance area and
parking, which the UMP suggests is supposedly in the wrong location. This situation is not clear,
and a number of questions arise, such as:
1)
How will the Discovery Lodge and the Overlook Lodge be connected? It would make sense
to route the new proposed lift from the base to the top via the Overlook. See Express Lift on
Map-1. The large, most expensive proposed lift from base to top bypasses the infrastructure
that exists and will have mid-day loading gaps when most skiers that have graduated from
beginner will congregate at the existing slopes served by the Tomahawk, Triple and Super
Chief lifts.
2)
How will intermediates skiers effectively ski to and from Wildacres resort? Is the intent to
close the road during winter to mid mountain? The mid-mountain access road could become
a convenient ski trail. Is the Wildacres skier depending on drop off /pick up service at the
Discovery Lodge? Is the new upper parking lot opposite the Wildacres resort entry supposed
to be for Wildacres guests? Neither skier egress nor ingress is obvious from the proposed
plan.
3)
How will the proposed lift system become user-friendly and efficient, considering established
winter use patterns, increased summer use, and existing infrastructure? The proposed West
8
Belleayre Draft Unit Management Plan Review by Alpentech
Submitted to New York State DEC and ORDA for consideration, July, 17, 2013
Side lift appears to serve the most popular Belleayre trails poorly. The lift is wind exposed
and visible and out of sync with the general skier demand. Lower intermediates would ride to
the top where they don’t naturally belong.
4)
How can the lower slopes be optimally served with one lift? No doubt, the best revenue
comes from teaching Beginner skiers, and they have long deserved the ease of detachable
loading/ unloading. Perhaps this should be the highest priority lift construction for Belleayre.
Careful design of the terminals is critical for this lift, and the top terminal design sketches
provided by Alpentech in 2003 may be useful which has addressed the skier traffic on both
sides of the Overlook Lodge.
We believe the skier circulation and capacity study at the Overlook Lodge of 2003 was not given
enough attention. The above sketch shows a preliminary layout resulting from the study. The
premise had been, to bring Beginner unloading from Lift and create a direct skiers passage on
the skiers Left, shown above.
By landing a detachable lift A onto the current turn around area, in close proximity to a bottom
terminal of a similar lift B is proposed. Design of a single lift with a midway terminal is possible.
Circulation is a critical element for the final lift layout l allowing good flow for skiers as well as
serving pedestrians arriving by the same lift to ski and to attend summer concerts on the plaza.
While this resulted in a loss of parking stalls, more stalls were planned nearby, located South of
the existing Maintenance building. The plan required a pedestrian underpass and two bridges, to
accommodate service destinations interfacing the day lodge buildings from below. Generally, day
lodges with skiing interface on all but the lower side are more desirable than the Belleayre
Overlook Lodge, having a dry pedestrian entry on the upper side of the building. We liked the
9
Belleayre Draft Unit Management Plan Review by Alpentech
Submitted to New York State DEC and ORDA for consideration, July, 17, 2013
result: (a) ample skier capacity, (b) better on-level circulation and congregation space around the
lodges, (c) some additional nearby parking, (d) landing all users all year long on the Discovery
Plaza, and (e) creation of green space uphill of the Discovery Lodge.!
5)
How will the popular summer gatherings at the Overlook Lodge be staged? The obvious
location for a modern lift solution deserves to be of highest priority. Given the Discovery
Lodge and parking expansion, concerts and all other summer uses that are being proposed
will be able to utilize the same lift as the beginner skiers and it is possible to merge gondolas
onto the chair lift if this is desirable in the future.
6)
How can Pine Hill participate in the all season programs that are possible to take place? We
have merely focused on one summer use concept, the zip line and ropes courses. The
introduction of an all season access and summer view ride offer an additional, diversifying
profit center for Belleayre and Pine Hill that deserves attention. See Map-1.
7) Although of little significance
overall, Tubing is re-introduced in
the Belleayre UMP. A very serious
tubing accident took place in
almost the same location in the
1990’s. Similar accidents will reoccur when a tubing hill is
installed at an 18% fall line slope.
The Bellearye operators seem to
have forgotten the lesson that
without a very generously
dimensioned near-level runout
zone, tubing slopes are
dangerous. The proposed Tubing
Hill, shown opposite as a black
hatched area, is not drawn in a
suitable location.
Snowmaking
Snowmaking is essential to survive in today’s market. Yet snowmaking systems are costly to install
and even more to operate. In the UMP we did not see which type of system the new and improved
snowmaking system will be running on, whether it is an entirely automated, semi-automated, or a
true manual system. Snowmaking operating cost should not be more than 25% of operating costs,
regardless. The new additional area of snowmaking is around 53 acres, which translates into a
$1,060,000 investment of pipes, hydrants and snow makers and an additional $106,000 - $212,000
in annual operating cost. Even under the new system that the UMP proposes, the operating cost is
still higher than many other resorts. (See Belleayre Basic Operating Cost Comparison table, below.)
In the UMP significant factors were not addressed. One example is the dependency on fan guns at
Belleayre, with currently over 12% of the system being fan guns--the most expensive option for
snowmaking guns. Yet the new plan doesn’t improve this situation: it asks for more fan guns.
Belleayre needs to reduce its dependence on fan guns and install more stick guns where it can. It
10
Belleayre Draft Unit Management Plan Review by Alpentech
Submitted to New York State DEC and ORDA for consideration, July, 17, 2013
also needs to replace all of its internal mixing air and water ground guns with low E towers.
Alternative, more sustainable systems have not been proposed to lower and/or eliminate energy
costs, such as cooling the discharge temperature of the compressed air systems; water cooling
systems; lower-friction piping systems; and airless stick gun systems.
The snowmaking system currently proposed under the UMP does not have much extra capacity for
adjustment if needed and is based on an older, more simply engineered snowmaking system. The
current engineering drawings do not show a basis for clever water and air management or
continuous energy control. Today's snowmaking systems work best under more pressure;
therefore, the Belleayre system needs some booster pumps as well.
The Core plans have a good water storing system, whereas the Highmount alternative has no
water depository system. It may not matter under normal working circumstances, but when water
becomes short of supply, the entire system will work more often under high demand (electric). This
is a day-to-day issue and therefore operationally undesirable.
Another problem we see is with the snowmaking water reservoir. Since a 20” pipe is proposed from
the Pine Hill drainage to a new reservoir, enabling around 6,000 gallons per minute, a large quantity
will be pumped to the Highmount area for snowmaking and therefore into another watershed where
there will be limited recovery from snow-melt. If the water from the reservoir would be used for the
East side and Core area, the recovery would be at the Pine Hill Lake.
We know storage ponds help store as much water as possible during the winter and beginning of
the season. Typically, the month leading into the winter months has little precipitation. On the other
hand, the more pumps that are used in the system, the more energy is consumed. There is an
optimal balance between storage and pumping, which might be saving initial and/or operational
costs. Resizing, or elimination of the proposed storage reservoir, is likely a good change.
Furthermore, with all the expansion, more snow groomers are needed, which will increase costs.
One new fleet snow groomer costs around $220,000, and a terrain park groomer can cost up to
$260,000. A resort’s operating cost can become very high very quickly. After analyzing the UMP,
we believe the UMP has not fully disclosed all the hidden operating costs of its planned expansion
and/or the costs are not known. From a pure operating cost/benefit perspective, much of the UMP
has not received a solid cost/benefit analysis and consequently the revenue will not offset the
ongoing operating costs on an affordable ticket price. Since one of the goals of the UMP, and a
stated reason from transferring Belleayre from DEC management to ORDA, was for revenue to
cover operating costs, this is a major deficit in the UMP. Before any of the expansion alternatives
should be considered, a cost/benefit analysis against true skier demand and annual visitation is
recommended. All commercial ski areas would undertake this fundamental exercise before making
capital investment.
The UMP states "In order to mitigate the noise impact of the phase 5 operation at the residences
across Rt. 49A, the five lowest snow guns on the Highmount Trails should not be operated past 10
p.m." (section 4.10, page 27). The SDEIS for the proposed Belleayre Resort also mentions this
mitigation measure in section 3.7, beginning on page 3-64. Page 3-66 identifies the snow guns as
the "six north-most snowmakers on the west slope." Appendix 20, Noise Assessment, in the SDEIS,
locates the noise problem as snowmaking along the two trails adjacent to the Highmount access
road. The suggested mitigation measurement is to not allow snowmaking on these trails from 10 pm
11
Belleayre Draft Unit Management Plan Review by Alpentech
Submitted to New York State DEC and ORDA for consideration, July, 17, 2013
to 7 am, or 9 hours per night.
This measure raises the question of whether given the UMP's selected snowmaking machine
(standard PoleCat) for these lower trail sections there would be adequate time to open and maintain
these Highmount trails in a marginal season. As climate change from global warming increases, this
would be a greater concern.
Historic weather data in the Snowmaking Engineering Report (appendix B, pages 11-17) state that
a minimum snowmaking temperature scenario in December (a hypothetical opening time for the
Christmas holiday, for example) is 150 hours; an average temperature scenario is 389 hours (see
page 16). The noise mitigation measure would restrict snowmaking 9 hours per night, 63 hours per
week, or 270 hours per month.
Opening a slope within 72 hours (3 days) is common in the East and possible especially since the
bottom part of each slope is flat. Our concern is with only two PoleCats (fan guns) on each slope it
will be a challenge to cover 100 feet in length and 25 feet in width in the time frame outlined.
In a normal setting we look at 75 feet between snowmakers. One hundred feet might also be
acceptable, but fan guns (PoleCat) do not have the capacity of a regular stick gun. Opening the
trails in three days is possible if the snowmaking crews use ground guns almost every 30 feet. This
can be done, but the system capacity might be about 200 guns at any given time. Ground guns use
more compressed air than any other guns on the market and therefore are not cheap to run. In
general a fan gun uses 15 gallons per minute and a tower gun uses 30 gallons a minute. The more
you put into a gun the more you get out, especially in the opening phase of a mountain. The
production is on the tower guns. In Belleayre's case (with two fan guns 100 feet apart) it would take
5 days (120 hours) to open the slope in question.
In realty, a mountain crew will use many air gosling ground guns for the opening stage to build a
base. The distance of 100-feet makes no sense for grooming, dusting and the opening phase of a
slope at Belleayre. If they cannot make any snow during the nighttime, then the northern slopes will
have a later opening date.
Temperature is only one ingredient in snowmaking. Humidity is another factor -- wet-bulp is the real
number we look at for snowmaking. The air is, for most part, dry in the winter, but in early
season we see a higher humidity percentage in early day (7am) and a lower humidity in late day (7
pm). Therefore, 7 pm until 4 am is usually an ideal time frame to make snow in the East.
There are more factors included in this determination, such as evaporation, drift losses and snow
type. You can make any type of snow, such as dry, medium, or wet. They all have a different snow
density (Lb/Ft^3). The ground also has to be frozen.
All season recreational activities
As far as recreational activities, the UMP is mostly a single season plan. Ski areas all over the world
are embracing two or three-season opportunities to make use of existing infrastructure as the skiing
season shortens (from climate change), the public gives up on skiing (from changing demographics
and high cost), and higher operating costs force ski areas to plan creatively to stay in business.
12
Belleayre Draft Unit Management Plan Review by Alpentech
Submitted to New York State DEC and ORDA for consideration, July, 17, 2013
Comparison of Alternatives
In the following paragraphs we compare the West Side/Highmount alternative with an East Side
alternative that includes ski trails and a lift and the Cathedral Brook Zip Line, which would offer
needed summer recreational opportunities to the public. The Zip Line would be accessible from
both the Ski Center and the hamlet of Pine Hill. In addition, we will suggest a way for a short ski lift
to offer ingress from Pine Hill to the mid mountain. A new Comprehensive Revised Concept Map
(Map-1) shows all of these features, including contiguous land uses of the proposed Belleayre
Resort and ingress from Pine Hill.
Highmount Alternative
The former Highmount Ski Center offers the benefit of old ski trails that would require less forest
clearing. The three proposed trails, which while perhaps satisfying the desire for steeper terrain,
however, lack variety. They are essentially one fall-line trail separated by bands of trees. Only the
switch-backing intermediate trail on the right (as you face the mountain) offers a different layout.
There are other problems with the Highmount alternative. One of the most significant ones is the
requirement that the state buy the land from developer Crossroads Ventures before any ski trail
expansion could take place. This in itself could be a lengthy process of appraising the land,
negotiating a fair price, finding state funding sources for the land, bringing it into the Forest
Preserve, classifying it for Intensive Use, clearing the acreage of old ski lift infrastructure, and
working out the legal framework to share the public area with the developer’s proposed Wilderness
Activity Center and retail outlets. The timeframe for all of this legal and administrative work cannot
be predicted with any certainty, which could delay the public’s use of this alternative for years.
As ski terrain, Highmount offers a vertical drop of 850 feet (from ski lift loading platform to unloading
platform) and a horizontal length of 2525 feet along the lift line. This results in an average slope
grade of 33.7%. This is what Highmount has to offer in general terms if someone skied the entire
hill from top to bottom along the lift line.
13
Belleayre Draft Unit Management Plan Review by Alpentech
Submitted to New York State DEC and ORDA for consideration, July, 17, 2013
According to UMP Table 3.2-13, Proposed Trail Conditions, the UMP offers two trails that parallel
the lift line but by shortening the vertical drop and horizontal length gains some steepness: HMT4/HMT-5 is 794 feet vertical drop; 2228 feet horizontal length; 35.6% average grade. HMT-7/HM-7
is 767 feet vertical drop; 2142 feet horizontal length; 35.8% average grade. HMT-1/HMT-2 is 810
feet vertical drop; 2641 feet horizontal length; 30.7% average grade. This trail, because it is the
14
Belleayre Draft Unit Management Plan Review by Alpentech
Submitted to New York State DEC and ORDA for consideration, July, 17, 2013
longest of the three top to bottom trails, generally represents the true average grade of the
topography on Highmount.
The Highmount trails have safety concerns: the run out area at the base is small for today’s safe
run out standards, which need to accommodate snowboarders and their often different style of
descent. Four intersections with the proposed HMT-3 trail could cause collisions.
Steeper trails require more snowmaking to open and maintain and present greater grooming
difficulties, perhaps requiring a winch system at the top for safety and efficiency. The more western
exposure of Highmount also means that as the season progresses, it will receive more solar
radiation, which would speed melting and result in more melt/freeze cycles and thus icy conditions.
Highmount, because it is the farthest from BMSC’s snowmaking reservoirs, would require water to
be pumped over a distance greater than it would need to be for other areas on the mountain. This
would be costly. See the cost comparison table, below.
The slopes of Highmount present storm water runoff problems. This would occur in two forms: melt
out of the snow pack and runoff during extreme rain storms. Ski slopes that have been cleared and
reshaped with bulldozing or blasting lose their water-absorbing capacity; those that are cleared and
maintained as grass have residual absorbency but less so than forested land. Snow covered
slopes, especially the icy packed slopes that result from snowmaking, approach hard surfaces in
their capacity to direct water downhill. It is important to note that neighboring Ski Windham suffered
damage to its slopes, lodge, and parking lot from runoff during Hurricane Irene, at a time when
there was no snow on the slopes.
At Highmount the bottom of the slopes is right above Route 49A. There is no buffering forested land
before water from the ski slopes reaches a system of drainage ditch and culverts along the
roadside. During melt out and rain storms, water would rush directly into a runoff system not
designed to accommodate such extra runoff. This could result in road flooding, or flooding of
properties on the downhill side of Route 49A.
Although Highmount is not solid forest, its old slopes have had about 20 years to reforest
themselves. This would have to be recut, and one trail on the left (as you look up the mountain),
HM1/HM2, would have to be clear cut, as would the connector trail back to the Tomahawk snow
bridge through the West Side trails (if this area is developed).
East Side Alternative
It is highly unusual in a public comment period during a regulatory hearing to introduce an
alternative but not offer any analysis of it. For this reason, we have designed a preliminary Revised
Concept East Side in an effort to allow the East Side to be considered equally to the
West/Highmount alternative, which currently (HM portion) is on land that the DEC doesn’t own. The
Revised Concept East Side is wholly within the BMSC footprint on Intensive Use land.
The overall main advantage of the East Side is that it resides within the Ski Center’s footprint and
does not require the negotiation of purchase and incorporation into and classification in the Forest
Preserve. This alone is a large cost savings.
15
Belleayre Draft Unit Management Plan Review by Alpentech
Submitted to New York State DEC and ORDA for consideration, July, 17, 2013
The Revised Concept consists of two main elements, a lift (Pine Ridge lift) with three ski trails on
the upper mountain and a three-season Zip Line through the Cathedral Brook ravine on the lower
mountain. There is also ingress to Pine Hill through existing hiking trails and a proposed Pulse
gondola lift from below the existing snowmaking reservoir to mid-mountain.
This plan is very modular and cost conscious, with an eye toward recycling an old lift, upgrading an
already-cut ski trail (Cathedral Brook) with snowmaking, and adding a low-impact three-season
mountain adventure Zip Line that is in keeping with the purpose of the Forest Preserve ski centers
to offer environmentally sensitive recreational activities to the general public. In all, these features
would help Belleayre to balance its operating costs with revenue while providing the public with
four-season recreation.
The Comprehensive Map (M-1) shows the location of the East Side. It is on the ridge that rises to
the east summit of Belleayre. It begins east and uphill of the terminus of lower Cathedral Brook. The
ski terrain has these general features: a vertical drop of 1100 feet (loading to unloading lift platform,
horizontal length of 3652 feet (lift line), and an average slope grade of 30.1%. We have noted
maximum grades of individual trails; the steep sections would be similar to the other faces of upper
Bellearye Mountain—basically a few turns of advanced to expert terrain. Although in general the
average grade is less steep than the terrain at Highmount, the longest ski run is 1490 feet longer.
The longest Highmount trail is 2500 feet; the longest on the East Side trail is 3990. The longest in
the West Area is 2380 feet. (See the comparative table above for a break down of trail statistics.)
It is a question for the public and DEC to decide: which is better, a longer more moderate trail with a
few steep sections or a shorter but overall steeper trail? If you are trying to cultivate and retain a
learning population and give skiers a sense of a “big mountain” experience with long sustained
intermediate terrain, the East Side is the way to go. Remember, 60% of skiers are low intermediate
to intermediate, which is the target population for the East Side. The shorter, steeper runs (likely to
be icy and mogul filled) of Highmount would appeal to a smaller group of more advanced skiers. In
this equation, too, is the question, should the learners and intermediate skiers subsidize, through
higher lift tickets and diversion of investment capital, terrain that appeals to fewer skiers?
In our estimation, the three long trails descending the ridge on the East Side are more desirable
than the terrain on the Highmount side. The proposed 1,000-foot vertical Pine Ridge lift would
disperse skiing on the mountain quite well and will be a very exciting addition to Belleayre.
The summit portion of Cathedral Brook trail would not be accessible directly from the East Lift. We
believe that this terrain is too steep to maintain cost efficiently with snowmaking and grooming for
the number of skiers able to ski it. It would be reserved as a “side-country” trail, open when there is
enough natural snow, which expert skiers could hike to from Super Chief or descend along the
ridge or through the woods from the Pine Ridge Lift.
The connection between the East Side and the main mountain would be through the existing
cutover from Cathedral Brook to Roaring Brook.
As mentioned above, a recycled lift from the lower mountain could service the East Side. Trees
could be cleared flush to the ground to retain their root systems. Trails could be designed to avoid
blasting and bulldozing (except for laying of snowmaking pipes). These practices could mitigate
runoff from snow melt and rain storms. Unlike Highmount, runoff would be absorbed over several
16
Belleayre Draft Unit Management Plan Review by Alpentech
Submitted to New York State DEC and ORDA for consideration, July, 17, 2013
hundred feet of vertical forested slopes before entering the tributaries feeding Cathedral Brook. In
general, the upper East Side is dry and lacking in water features.
The average grade of slope and the true north orientation would make the East Side easier to make
snow on, groom, and retain snow pack. Its closer proximity to the mid-mountain maintenance
building would reduce the distance groomers would need to travel.
The East Side is already known to many skiers as a side-country area. This quality would be
preserved and extended with the ski lift, which could also facilitate advanced skiers’ forays into the
new 1,200-acre Big Indian Plateau. The East Side would also make it easier to do side-country
descents into Pine Hill, as skiers occasionally now make when natural snow is adequate.
Snowmaking connections with the main mountain would be more efficient compared with those
needed for Highmount. The East Side is closer to the mid-mountain water storage pond and the
pump house. Water and air wouldn’t need to travel as far as they would for Highmount. Pipes could
be run off the Roaring Brook connections.
As mentioned earlier in this report, the new Discovery Lodge would increase skier traffic through the
learning area. The West Side trails, if both Highmount and the West Side were built, would add to
this on the western descent. The East Side, on the other hand, would give skiers a greater option in
their descent. They could stop at the Overlook Lodge for lunch and breaks or ride the #7 Lift to the
Summit Lodge. Or explore the Tomahawk lift area. The overall ski area flow would be better with
greater flexibility for skiing and breaks at the lodges before the end of the day descent to the
parking areas near Discovery Lodge. The East Side would also encourage advanced skiers to stay
on the upper mountain and not descend through beginner terrain to the Discovery base area for
summit lift access and services. This would help preserve the existing separation of beginners from
advanced skiers on the mountain, thus reducing the possibility of collisions between these two skier
groups.
Zip Line
The Zip Line through the Cathedral Brook ravine on the lower East Side would satisfy a needed
feature that ski areas are increasingly relying on, to maintain revenue as the skiing population
declines and winters warm up. This three-season adventure activity could begin operation when
there is still snow on the slopes in the spring and continue throughout summer into fall. The
investment is low, as is the impact. It offers a safe, guided experience for individuals, families, and
small groups. At maximum capacity it could probably cycle close to 100 people a day at $70 to
$110/person (perhaps less for groups). The Zip Line would allow for not only zipping but also
rappelling down to the ground to explore natural features, hear interpretative talks about watershed
recharge and ecology, watch for birds, study the tree canopy, and perhaps a rope challenge to
return to a Zip Line platform in the canopy.
The Comprehensive Map M-1 shows a general plan for a Zip Line. The start at a platform at the
mid-mountain snowmaking pond would be accessible by lift from the Discovery learning area or
directly by foot from the Overlook Lodge. Of note, at the end of the Zip Line, “zippers” would return
over a hanging bridge to the cross-country trail system that would take them back to the Discovery
Lodge.
17
Belleayre Draft Unit Management Plan Review by Alpentech
Submitted to New York State DEC and ORDA for consideration, July, 17, 2013
Access from Pine Hill would also occur in two ways, by foot from the rail bed and Cathedral Brook
hiking trail up to the hanging bridge or by short lift up to the Discovery Lodge learning area. Hikers
could also access the start completely by trail, if they so wished. A group gondola with open carriers
(Cabriolet pulse lift) would allow both ascent and descent between Pine Hill and the Overlook
Lodge. Recognizing that lift access from Pine Hill may not be desired (by the citizens of Pine Hill) or
may be cost prohibitive, it is presented as an optional feature. The Zip Line would function fully
without it.
We would stress that the Zip Line is a very cost-effective operation. The capital investment is low;
return on investment is typically one to two years in commercial operations. To keep the price low,
this return could be stretched over three years or more, as desired. A Zip install for such a
project can cost around $1,500,000 (a high number). For our analysis we used a $70 and a $110
ticket cost per person and a conservative peak number of clients/day at 72. See the following table:
Canopy Tour [Zip Line] Calculation of profitability
Assumption
Season (in months)
Season (in days)
Maintenance days: closed
Rainy days; closed
Sunny days; open
Excellent operating days at 72 visits
5%
15%
80%
25%
Normal operating days at 48 visits
60%
Poor operating days at 16 visits
%
absolute
6
175
8.75
26.25
140
2520
4032
15%
336
Estimated annual visitors = 6888
Financial Info
Low Price
High Price
$70
$110
$482,160
$757,680
$80,290
$80,290
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
3.7 years
2.2 years
A three Hour Tour
Cost per person
Annual Income
Labor
Install Cost
ROI (return on investment)
18
Belleayre Draft Unit Management Plan Review by Alpentech
Submitted to New York State DEC and ORDA for consideration, July, 17, 2013
East Side versus West Side expansion comparison
East Side
No purchase required; DEC owns; no delay to
develop
Safer, wider trail layout; fewer junctions,
better skier flow to summit, mid-mountain
lodges
Storm water runoff absorbed in forest
ORDA controls adjacent retail
4 trails, 32 acres, 1 lift, 3.06 trail miles,
improved access to Cathedral Brook trail
Steepest trail (29.4% average) with
greatest vertical drop (780 feet) is 1290
feet longer than HM
Clear cutting of 32 acres
Summer Zip Line with hiker connection to
Pine Hill hamlet
West Side/Highmount
Purchase & classification needed for HM to
bring into Forest Preserve
Safety issues; skier collisions from trail
junctions, poor run outs at bottom of steep
terrain, long traverse to base lodge,
complicated access to summit and midmountain lodges
Storm water runoff goes directly into
highway system, already at capacity from
existing runoff
Private HM resort controls adjacent retail
HM (2.88 miles) + WS (2.05 miles) = 4.93
miles; 2 lifts
Steepest trail (36.6% average) has vertical
drop of 509 feet but only 1390 feet long
HM & WS clear cutting of 39.7 acres; recutting of 19.9 acres (total 59.6 acres)
No publicly developed summer season
recreation plans
46% more expensive to operate
East side versus West side operating cost comparisons
The bottom line is that the Core and West Side/Highmount alternatives cost 15% more to operate
per season compared to the Core and East Side alternatives (preliminary cost estimates). When the
West Side and East Side alone are compared, the West Side would be 46% more expensive to
operate. Snowmaking installation would similarly be more expensive for the West Side, 47%, as
well.
Currently, the existing Belleayre “core” gets around 146,449 skier visits (average of 2,050,288 visits
over the 14 seasons from 1997-98 to 2010-11, Table 1.6-1 in UMP). Our preliminary projections for
skier visits based on NSAA data and resorts of similar size to Belleayre are no more than
210,000 skier visits for any scenario (See http://www.nsaa.org/press/press-releases/us-skiindustry-tallies-51-million-visits-in-201112-season/ and the included pdf file,
historical_visits.pdf). On a busy day you might get 6,000 skier visits, but many of those skiers are
beginners to low intermediates. You always plan for your fifth busiest day--2,500 to 3,000 skiers.
With the current situation in the market we do not believe that Belleayre can top 210,000 skier
visits. Beginners and low intermediates (families) are the bread and butter when it comes to higher
skier visits. Also, terrain parks (Playgrounds) will attract good numbers of skiers and riders, but we
see no plans to increase visits in that area. Merely adding more terrain is no longer a formula for
19
Belleayre Draft Unit Management Plan Review by Alpentech
Submitted to New York State DEC and ORDA for consideration, July, 17, 2013
success anymore, unlike in previous eras. In our opinion Belleayre needs to create the right formula
to increase a higher skier visit number if that is the goal. With the current situation in the skiing
industry and the UMP’s offering, we do not see the market reacting according to the planners’
expectations.
The following table outlines preliminary comparative cost projections for operating the Core along
with either the West Side/Highmount or the East Side.
Preliminary*Belleayre*Basic*Operating*Cost*Comparison*
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
*Based!on!North!East!Average!NSAA!Economic!Analysis!
**!Based!on!a!100!skier!days!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
Cost*
Acres!
WS/HM**
TOTAL*
**
!!
ES***
TOTAL*
155!
60!
215!
Labor&
&$155,000&&
&$93,000&&
&$248,000&& &&
!$49,600!!
!$204,600!!
Power&
&$135,625&&
&$81,375&&
&$217,000&& &&
!$43,400!!
!$179,025!!
Other&
&$93,000&&
&$55,800&&
&$148,800&& &&
!$29,760!!
!$122,760!!
!$383,625!!
!$230,175!!
*$613,800** **
!$122,760!!
*$506,385**
!$77,500!!
!$30,000!!
*$107,500** **
!$16,000!!
*$93,500**
!$234,000!!
!$93,600!!
*$327,600** **
!$46,800!!
*$280,800**
!$38,070!!
!$12,690!!
*$50,760** **
!$12,690!!
*$50,760**
!!!!!!!!!!!$366,465!
*$1,099,660** **
!!!!!!!$198,250!
*$931,445**
Snowmaking!Total!Operating!Cost!
Grooming!Cost!
Chair!Lift!Operating!Cost!
Surface!lift/Carpet!Operating!Cost!
TOTAL*OPERATING*COST*
Core*Bellearye*
!!
New!Snowmaking!Install!Cost!
!$250,000!!
!$1,200,000!!
32!
*$1,450,000** **
187!
!$640,000!!
*$890,000**
*West!Side/Highmount!
!
!
!
!
!
!
**East!Side!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
Note:!The!operating!cost!could!be!higher!since!we!used!NSAA!and!industry!norm!members.!!We!used!averages!and!did!not!look!at!
special!grooming!needs!such!as!terrain!park,!ramp,!etc.!!80%!to!90%!of!snowmaking!at!ski!areas!outside!of!the!USA!is!automated!–!these!
operators!make!snow!for!a!fraction!of!our!cost.!For!chairlift!cost!we!used!a!.10!cent!a!Kwh!and!used!a!9!hours!operating!time,!opening!
and!closing!procedures!included.!New!snowmaking!cost!is!without!water!pond!and!pumps.!The!Core!&!ES!might!not!need!another!pond.!!
Instead!they!need!newer!pipes!and!higher!capacity!pumps.!Resorts!utilizing!more!than!70%!of!the!water!plant!capacity!are!doing!a!great!
job!of!maximizing!existing!assets.!The!Core!&!WS/HM!operating!cost!is!around!15%!higher!then!the!Core!&!ES!costs.!Repair,!
maintenance,!and!inspection!costs!are!not!included,!but!consider!that!the!more!chairlifts!there!are,!the!higher!these!costs!are.!The!West!
Side!versus!East!Side!alone!shows!the!West!Side!would!be!46%!more!expensive!to!operate.!
20
Belleayre Draft Unit Management Plan Review by Alpentech
Submitted to New York State DEC and ORDA for consideration, July, 17, 2013
Conclusions and recommendations
In considering the overall desire to renovate Belleayre to preserve the state’s investment in
infrastructure and to meet future demands for operating a public ski area in southeastern New York,
we would make the following recommendations:
1) Complete a demographic survey of Bellearye skiers to determine their needs. Augment this
survey with skier visit trends at Belleayre, and in New York and the northeast (NSAA Kotte
data sets).
2) Formulate renovation and expansion plans on these up-to-date figures (Note: the UMP
stops what analysis it offers with 2007/08 data, which no longer presents an accurate picture
of the ski industry.) as well as current forecasts for the effects of climate change on the
southeastern New York ski industry.
3) Start renovations and expansion from the existing infrastructure outward, maintaining the
integrity of the original skier flow patterns on the mountain that respect and appreciate the
importance of beginner/novice skiers in the public mission of Belleayre as well as to the
effort to cultivate new skiers. In this effort, a program that appeals to families and beginners
could grow the skier numbers at Belleayre and within the northeast generally.
4) Give the East Side alternative as much formal analysis as the West and Highmount plans.
5) Don’t create circulation and safety problems when adding lifts and trails. It is entirely
possible to expand terrain on the East Side, if needed, without causing such problems.
6) Develop new terrain only if there is strong current demand data to support the investment.
“Build it and they will come” is not sound financial management.
7) Don’t undertake renovations and expansions without a strict cost/benefit analysis and an
insistence on the most sustainable plan from an energy conservation perspective.
Remember, Belleayre relies on public money for improvement. Taxpayer dollars should not
be needlessly spent when the horizon for viable skiing in southeastern New York is finite,
perhaps 20 to 30 years, owing to climate change.
8) Above all, create a master plan in harmony with the constitutional intent for using land that
NY state set aside a long time ago for the public to enjoy. We recommend that the UMP be
sensitive and user friendly, which today are the keys to sustaining a business, and take into
consideration the aesthetics of the current layout of Belleayre.
21
Belleayre Draft Unit Management Plan Review by Alpentech
Submitted to New York State DEC and ORDA for consideration, July, 17, 2013
CREDENTIALS
Alpentech, Inc, Salt Lake City, Utah and Mürren, Switzerland
Alpentech Inc. is an innovative planning and engineering firm specializing in
mountain recreation and resort planning, civil /environmental engineering,
landscape integration, natural resource evaluation and modeling. Specialization
of the firm led to international assignments in Argentina, Canada, China,
France, Korea, New Zealand, Spain and Switzerland with the bulk of projects in
the U.S. National and State awards for design excellence have been received.
Third party economic feasibility reports and advisory roles to government agencies are
performed by Alpentech,
Alpentech developed unique modeling techniques most useful for mountain resort layout and
planning. Already in 1982 combined terrain and wind modeling was provided to the French
government and led to our trademarked SmartmapsTM. For example, Smartmaps have been
produced for the Alaska Department of Natural Resources to assess both feasibility and
environmental impact. Smartmaps were applied to 23 sites in Korea for selection of the best site for
development. The reliable technique helped to re-arrange Las Leñas in Argentina so that it will have
economic viability in the future. More recently, assignments in Asia were relying on quick initial
suitability assessments.
Alpentech also applies state of art tools during field work. Laser/ GPS tools get jobs
done more efficiently. Where permitted drones have been used for field mapping. Our
experience and specialization, commitment of senior staff to all field and office work
resulted in International recognition of Alpentech.
Products and services are summarized on our web site www.alpentech.net,
Alpentech has been incorporate in 1978 by Beat von Allmen, the current principal of the
firm.
Beat von Allmen, 2012 Intermountain Hall of Fame, Induction Text
Beat von Allmen
(1941)
Blending the demands of recreation with the delicacies of nature is a monumental task. To
the delight of skiers worldwide, Swiss-born ski racer-turned-ski coach-turned
civil/mechanical/environmental engineer, Beat von Allmen is equal to the task. His uncanny
mountain resort design talents are enshrined at ski areas throughout the world, including
numerous venues in the Intermountain West.
As a member of the Swiss National Ski Team 1963-67, including its Olympic team in 1964,
Beat strived for perfection. This trait transcended his ski coaching career with the Snowbird
Race Team, started in 1971, and later his ski area design consulting firm Alpentech in Salt Lake
City. His penchant for designing balance among often-divergent forces has brought him
international acclaim and won him the Ski Area Design Award from the National Ski Areas
Association for his work with Utah’s Solitude Ski Area and left his mark on many trail designs in
Utah ski areas.
In 1988, Beat was elected chairman of the Recreation Planning Committee of the American
Society of Civil Engineers Planning and Development Division. He has delivered papers from
22
Belleayre Draft Unit Management Plan Review by Alpentech
Submitted to New York State DEC and ORDA for consideration, July, 17, 2013
slippery ski garment, ski slope crowding, terrain suitability to transportation system selection and
life-cycle costing and sustainability.
He continues to create touring maps, for the Wasatch and contribute to committees seeking
appropriate mountain transportation systems serving the local population and resorts, such as
found in the Swiss Alps.
In the annals of planning, designing, expanding or connecting safe mountain recreation in
sensitive natural areas, Beat von Allen epitomizes the balance between development and
nature.
Iwan Fuchs
Ski Industry Consultant
GENERAL
Iwan has pursued career objectives that complement Alpentech. His personal and professional
experience is anchored in the mountain recreation industry where he has proven management and
leadership skills. His unusual involvement with strategic planning and operation of summer
activities complements his international coaching and teaching snow sports. With this specific
practical experience and motivation he has demonstrated that successful project management and
customer relations on education and hands-on experience. To guide a resort to growth is an
achievement, possible with wise financial management based on cost-benefit, result-oriented and
creative energy. These are the skills that characterize Iwan’s talent and achievements. Iwan is
fluent in German, English and Italian.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Seven Springs Mountain Resort – Director of Mountain Operations/ Snowsports School, 09-2007
ongoing
Senior level planning and project implementation (SPA/ hotel, restaurant, ski lodge, rental shop, zip
line , tubing and sporting clays); oversee and manage 8 departments (Snowsports School, Ski
Patrol, Lift Operation and Maintenance, Snowmaking, Grooming, Terrain Park and Water
Recovery); project management customer relationship, team building, budgeting and leadership in
resort diversification.
Ski Academy of Switzerland, Saas Fee – Senior Coach, 2008 ongoing
Hidden Valley Four Seasons Resort – Assistant Mountain Manger, Ski School Director, 2003-05
Intradetect LLC, Zurich, Switzerland / Wexford, PA – CEO Network Security Consulting Firm, 200305
Fuchs Sandstrahlwerk GmbH, Villmergen, Switzerland – V.P. Operations, 2006-07, 1991-94,
EDUCATION
International MBA, Point Park University, Pittsburg, PA; 4-2002
Swiss Army Motor Park apprenticeship, Otmarsingen, Switzerland 8-19911 to 8-1994
Swiss Mechanic Diploma, Wohlen, Switzerland, 3-1993 to 8-1994
MEMBERSHIP AND CERTIFICATION
Swiss Snowsports Instructor Certificate (ski, board and telemark)
Ski Inudstry: PSIA & AASI, PSAA memberships
ACCT membership
American Heart Association CPR & AED certified
23
KOTTKE NATIONAL END OF SEASON SURVEY 2011/12
FINAL REPORT
Table 6
Estimated U.S. Skier Visits by Region, 1978/79 – 2011/12 (in millions)
(Extrapolated Data*)
SEASON
Northeast
Southeast
Midwest
Rocky Mtn.
Pacific
Southwest
Pacific
Northwest
Pacific West
(total)
Total
Index
(1978/79 = 100)
2011/12
2010/11
2009/10
2008/09
2007/08
2006/07
2005/06
2004/05
2003/04
2002/03
2001/02
2000/01
1999/00
1998/99
1997/98
1996/97
1995/96
1994/95
1993/94
1992/93
1991/92
1990/91
1989/90
1988/89
1987/88
1986/87
1985/86
1984/85
1983/84
1982/83
1981/82
1980/81
1979/80
1978/79
11.021
13.887
13.411
13.730
14.261
11.801
12.505
13.661
12.892
13.991
12.188
13.697
12.025
12.299
12.712
12.407
13.825
11.265
13.718
13.217
12.252
11.157
13.299
12.741
14.421
14.745
12.836
11.083
12.087
9.523
11.467
8.953
8.655
11.294
4.405
5.789
6.016
5.664
5.204
4.888
5.839
5.504
5.588
5.833
4.994
5.458
5.191
4.261
4.343
4.231
5.693
4.746
5.808
4.660
4.425
4.257
4.447
5.424
5.885
5.816
5.218
4.394
5.175
4.256
5.064
4.172
4.230
3.763
6.382
7.811
7.718
7.247
8.099
7.200
7.787
7.533
7.773
8.129
6.980
7.580
6.422
6.005
6.707
7.137
7.284
6.907
7.364
6.978
6.535
6.486
6.915
7.013
6.783
6.944
7.201
6.899
6.961
6.213
7.846
7.688
8.682
9.743
19.130
20.900
20.378
19.974
21.324
20.849
20.717
19.606
18.868
18.728
18.123
19.324
18.109
18.440
19.191
18.904
18.148
18.412
17.503
18.602
17.687
16.706
16.048
16.601
16.564
16.680
16.869
17.626
16.801
14.808
15.337
10.486
17.160
15.837
6.066
8.111
8.411
7.091
7.617
6.536
7.916
8.888
8.033
7.885
7.947
7.836
6.651
7.485
7.918
6.359
6.012
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
3.962
4.042
3.853
3.647
3.998
3.794
4.133
1.690
3.912
3.027
4.179
3.442
3.800
3.599
3.251
3.482
3.022
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
Not avail.
10.028
12.153
12.264
10.738
11.615
10.330
12.049
10.579
11.946
10.913
12.126
11.278
10.451
11.084
11.169
9.841
9.034
11.346
10.244
10.575
9.936
8.115
9.311
11.556
10.255
9.564
9.797
11.352
9.606
12.061
11.004
8.401
9.473
9.560
50.966
60.540
59.787
57.354
60.502
55.068
58.897
56.882
57.067
57.594
54.411
57.337
52.198
52.089
54.122
52.520
53.983
52.677
54.637
54.032
50.835
46.722
50.020
53.335
53.908
53.749
51.921
51.354
50.630
46.861
50.718
39.700
48.200
50.197
102
121
119
114
121
110
117
113
114
115
108
114
104
104
108
105
108
105
109
108
101
93
100
106
107
107
103
102
101
93
101
79
96
100
Northeast: CT, MA, ME, NH, NY, VT, RI
Southeast: AL, GA, KY, MD, NC, NJ, PA, TN, VA, WV
Midwest: IA, IL, IN, MI, MN, MO, ND, NE, OH, SD, WI
Rocky Mountain: CO, ID, MT, NM, UT, WY
Pacific Southwest: AZ, CA, NV
Pacific Northwest: AK, OR, WA
Note: Pacific West visits are segmented by subregion (Pacific Southwest and Pacific Northwest) from 1995/96 – 2011/12. Pacific West visits are
reported in aggregate total for 1978/79 – 1994/95 (subregional breakouts unavailable).
* Users of the regional data in this table are cautioned that prior to 1982 no estimate of industry-wide skier visits was made for the “End of Season”
studies. Therefore, for 1978/79 to 1980/81 the estimates were derived by applying the NSAA Members’ Skier Visit Index. Since 1982, the estimates
have been obtained by applying a statistical extrapolation procedure using regional mathematical equations derived from the NSAA survey
respondent data. The procedure is reported in “An Estimate of the U.S. Ski Industry Business Volume and Lift Capacity for 1981/82,” unpublished
NSAA report (November 1982), by Marvin Kottke.
RRC ASSOCIATES
16