Upload
dangcong
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Whit
e M
ounta
in N
ati
onal Fore
st
United States Department of Agriculture
Forest
Service
Eastern
Region
Waterville Valley Ski Resort
Green Peak Expansion Project (Supplement)
Town of Waterville Valley GraftonCounty, NH
Supplemental Environmental
Assessment
30 Day Comment Report
Prepared by the White Mountain National Forest
November 2014
For Information Contact: Susan Mathison
White Mountain National Forest
71 White Mountain Drive
Campton, NH 03223
Phone: 603 536-6245
Fax: 603 536-3685
www.fs.usda.gov/whitemountain
Fax: 603-536-3685; Attn: Susan Mathison
http://www.fs.usda.gov/whitemountain/landmanagement/projects
Green Peak Expansion Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment
3
This document is available in large print.
Contact the White Mountain National
Forest
603-536-6100
Fedrelay 11
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and
activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs,
sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information
(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600
(voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W,
Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-
5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Printed on Recycled Paper
Green Peak Expansion Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment
4
Contents
Chapter 1 – Background and the Need for Action ........................................................................................ 8
Background ............................................................................................................................................... 8
Summary of the Proposed Action ........................................................................................................... 10
Purpose and Need for Action .................................................................................................................. 11
Connection to the Forest Plan ................................................................................................................ 11
Public Involvement ................................................................................................................................. 12
Issues ....................................................................................................................................................... 13
Chapter 2 - Alternatives .............................................................................................................................. 13
Alternative 1 – No Action ........................................................................................................................ 13
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ............................................................................................................. 14
Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................................... 16
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Study ................................................................. 18
Chapter 3 – Effects Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 18
Affected Environment ............................................................................................................................. 18
Effects Analysis........................................................................................................................................ 19
Green Peak Expansion Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment
5
Map 1: Vicinty map for Revised Proposal for Green Peak Expansion.
Green Peak Expansion Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment
6
Map 2: Location of Existing World Cup Fixed Grip Triple Chairlift and Location of Approved Route for Green Peak High Speed Detachable Quad
Green Peak Expansion Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment
8
Chapter 1 – Background and the Need for Action
The White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) originally analyzed the Green
Peak Explansion Project in 2011-2013. A Decision Notice and Finding of No
Significant Impact, which approved the Green Peak Expansion project as
proposed, was signed on June 21, 2013. Since then, Waterville Valley Ski Resort
has reconsidered its planned construction of the high speed detachable quad
chairlift that had been approved and has submitted a revised proposal which
would re-locate the existing 1985 World Cup fixed grip triple chair to the
approved alignment.
The revised proposal was presented to the Forest on October 17, 2014 and revised
again on October 22. The new proposal includes the removal of the World Cup
triple chair from its current location, rehabilitation of the site, transport and
staging of lift components, the addition of several lift towers and a new cable,
and re-construction of the triple chair in the previously-approved alignment. As
a related action, unchanged from the original decision, the Black and Blue Trail
Smashers Ski Club (BBTS) building will be demolished for the location of the
triple chair bottom terminal and a new BBTS building constructed in the
specified and approved location.
The removal and relocation of the triple chair was not considered or analyzed in
the Green Peak Environmental Assessment. This new proposal requires analysis
of effects of the removal and reconstruction of the triple chair. The new proposal
and its potential effects will be analyzed and disclosed as part of this
supplemental environmental analysis. Information from the 2013 project and
decision is available here:
http://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/projects/whitemountain/landmana
gement/projects?sortby=1&archive=1
Background
The original Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project decision
approved the following projects:
Green Peak Expansion Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment
9
A. create a network of skiing and snowboarding trails in the Green Peak
area. Approximately 8 new trails totaling about 44 acres would be
constructed, offering a variety of terrain ability levels;
B. create approximately 7 acres of glades;
C. install a detachable quad chairlift to provide access to the new terrain.
This 4,000 ft lift would have an hourly capacity of 2,800 skiers and
riders and a vertical rise of ~1,000 feet;
D. remove the Black and Blue Trail Smashers (BBTS) Competition
building (Old Valley Run lift building) to accommodate the lower
terminal of the new chairlift. A new BBTS Competition building
would be constructed at the lower end of the tree island that separates
the trails Lower Periphery and The Pasture. The new structure would
be two stories, approximately 40’ X 60’ at the base, thus containing
about 4,800 sq. ft. The clearing for the new building would be
approximately 0.1 acres;
E. expand the on-mountain snowmaking system to provide coverage for
each new trail. Existing water supply sources (Mad River, Corcoran’s
Pond) would supply water for snowmaking on Green Peak. All water
withdrawals (inclusive of the needs of existing and proposed trails)
would meet currently established minimum flow requirements of 0.5
cubic feet per second per square mile (csm) of watershed.
F. amend the Forest Plan (see EA for amendment wording) to approve a
minor reduction in designated, but marginally suitable, Canada lynx
habitat.
Following the decision to approve the implementation of these projects,
Waterville Valley Ski Resort determined that it would not construct the approved
high speed detachable quad, but would propose to utilize the existing World
Cup triple chair (see Map 2). The proposal would relocate the triple chair to the
alignment on Green Peak that had been approved for the high speed quad chair.
This revised proposal was not proposed nor analyzed in the original assessment
and, therefore, requires additional analysis by the interdisciplinary team (IDT) of
resource specialists and public comment.
Green Peak Expansion Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment
10
All other projects approved by the Green Peak Decision Notice, above, remain
unaffected by the new proposal.
Summary of the Proposed Action
Waterville Valley Ski Resort submitted a proposal to relocate the existing World
Cup triple chairlift to the location previous approved for the Green Peak high
speed detachable quad chairlift. The proposed action would:
Dismantle the World Cup triple in its existing location. Chairs would be
removed and the cable spooled and staged in Waterville parking lots #7
and 8 during Spring 2015.
Lift towers would be disconnected from their bases and flown by
helicopter to and staged in Waterville parking lots #7 and 8 in early
Summer 2015.
Towers would be spot-sanded and painted in the parking lots.
Concrete tower bases would be broken up with an excacator and hammer
attachment and removed to the level of the surrounding ground surface;
the below-ground concrete will remain in place to minimize ground
disturbance. No blasting would be required.
Native soil from immediately adjacent to the site would be used to cover
the remaining concrete surfaces. The new surfaces would be seeded and
mulched.
The upper and lower lift terminal buildings would be dismantled and
removed via existing work roads.
The existing lift corridor would be retained as skiable terrain.
In late Summer and Fall 2015, the triple chair would be re-installed in the
location previously approved in the Green Peak Decision Notice.
As was necessary for the high speed quad, installation of the lower lift
terminal for the Triple Chair would require the demolition of the existing
BBTS building; Waterville Valley intends to construct a new building for
BBTS as described and approved in the Green Peak Decision Notice.
Additional towers as well as a longer cable are anticipated to be added to
existing triple chairlift according to final engineering specifications.
The are no plans to replace the World Cup triple chair in its current
location.
Green Peak Expansion Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment
11
Purpose and Need for Action
Waterville Valley submitted the purpose and need for its modified proposal:
“The repurposing of the existing World Cup Triple will allow the resort to
make better, more efficient use of their current lift inventory. Waterville
Valley Resort current has 11 lifts serving about 220 acres of skiable terrain.
This is a fairly high lift‐to‐skiable acre ratio for a resort of this size. Adding
more lifts to the current configuration simply does not make sense given the
most recent three years of skier visit data and usage reports. Currently The
World Cup Triple Lift only runs about 10 days out of the year and primarily
services the ski area’s local racing team. Given its proximity to the main
White Peak’s Quad Lift, it has become redundant and receives almost no
general public use. Typically the racers already use any number of other lifts
to access their terrain with limited impact to the general public. By removing
the World Cup Triple, Waterville Valley Resort will be able to restore the
current lift line back to its original, more natural state, and allow for a
minimal net gain in disturbed terrain after the lift is reinstalled at Green Peak.
Cost saving anticipated from this repurposing of the triple lift will be
significant, thereby making the entire project more feasible and successful for
the recreation users.”
Connection to the Forest Plan
This project tiers to the White Mountain National Forest’s Land and Resource
Management Plan, also known as the Forest Plan. The Plan is a programmatic
framework that documents the desired balance of multiple uses to meet society’s
needs while protecting, restoring, and enhancing our natural resources.
This supplemental environmental assessment (EA) is tiered (40 CFR 1508.28) to
the Record of Decision (ROD) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
for the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005a, 2005b, 2005c). Information and
analysis in those programmatic documents that applies to this project-level
analysis were incorporated by reference in the original Green Peak EA and in this
Supplement, in order to focus on site-specific issues.
Green Peak Expansion Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment
12
Public Involvement
Section 1.7 of the original Green Peak EA explains the public involvement
process. A Scoping Report for the Waterville Valley Green Peak Expansion
Project was posted on the WMNF website and mailed to interested and/or
potentially affected members of the public on December 23, 2011. An
informational open house was held on Wednesday, January 18, 2012. The
scoping comment period was open from December 23, 2011 to February 3, 2012.
Forty comments were received. A Scoping Content Analysis was prepared which
recognizes all of the comments received and provides more information on
specific comments and how they were categorized and addressed in the EA. This
document is part of the Project file.
The 30 Day Comment Report was distributed to the public and noticed in the
New Hampshire Union Leader on April 23, 2013. The 30-day comment period
ended on May 23, 2013. Three comments were received on the 30 Day Comment
Report, two of which were in support and one of which expressed concerns.
Responses to these comments are contained in Appendix A of the original Green
Peak EA.
This project was continually published in the White Mountain National Forest
(WMNF) Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) from October 1, 2011 until the
Decision Notice was signed in June, 2013. No appeals were received and the
projects, as approved, were available for implementation 45 days after the
Decision Notice was signed on June 21, 2014.
This Supplemental Environmental Assessment is being sent to all individuals
and groups who commented or expressed interest during the 30-day comment
period on the original Green Peak EA.. This Supplemental EA is being made
available for a 30 Day comment period. Once public input has been taken into
account and the Supplement EA is finalized, a Draft Decision Notice and Finding
of No Significant Impact will be issued (if effects indicate it is appropriate). to
start a 45-day objection period under 36 CFR 218.
This Supplemental EA is listed on the quarterly White Mountain National Forest
Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA), and will remain on the SOPA until after a
decision is signed.
Green Peak Expansion Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment
13
Issues
An issue is a point of debate, dispute, or disagreement regarding anticipated
effects of implementing the proposed action, in this case, the amended proposed
action. Issues are usually identified by the interdisciplinary team based on
comments from the public or other agencies. Occasionally issues arise within the
interdisciplinary team if the concerns of all resources cannot be addressed in a
proposal.
All resource concerns were addressed in the proposed action and addressed with
appropriate mitigations, therefore no issues were identified.
Chapter 2 - Alternatives
This section describes the various ways of meeting some or all of the purpose
and need that were considered by the interdisciplinary team and responsible
official. Two of these alternatives (taking no action and implementing the
proposed action) are analyzed in detail in Chapter 3.
Alternative 1: No Action; Implement the construction of a high speed detachable
quad as part of the Green Peak Expansion as Approved in the June, 2013
Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact.
Alternative 2: Proposed Action; Relocate the World Cup Triple Chairlift, rather
than the high speed detachable quad chairlift, to the same location as approved
for the Green Peak high speed quad chairlift in the Green Peak Expansion June,
2013 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact.
Alternative 1 – No Action
Under this alternative, the proposed relocation of the World Cup triple chair
would not be approved for implementation; the construction of the high speed
quad, as originally analyzed, would remain as a viable and approved alternative
for implementation by Waterville Valley Ski Area. All other actions approved in
the June, 2013 Decision Notice would similarly be unaffected by this No Action
Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, Waterville Valley could
Green Peak Expansion Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment
14
implement all of the activities and projects as approved in the June, 2013 Decision
Notice, including the construction of the high speed quad chairlift.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
The proposed action is to relocate the World Cup fixed grip triple chair from its
current location to the alignment previously analyzed and approved for the
Green Peak High Speed quad chairlift.
Figure 1: Base Terminal of World Cup Fixed Grip triple Chairlift in its current location.
The Proposed Action would:
Dismantle the World Cup fixed grip triple chairlift in its existing location.
The chairs would be removed and the cable spooled and staged in
Waterville parking lots #7 and 8 during Spring 2015. This work would
begin during winter season operations and continue into the late spring.
Public safety would be insured via fencing and signing of the
deconstruction area.
In late Spring/early Summer 2015, the existing cross arms and lift towers
would be disconnected from their bases and flown by helicopter to and
Green Peak Expansion Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment
15
staged in Waterville parking lots #7 and 8.
During de-construction and based on digital surveying and on-the-
ground review, lift engineers would specify modifications to the triple
chair that would be required for its new location on Green Peak. This
would likely include several new towers and a longer cable.
The triple chair towers would be spot-sanded and painted while staged in
the parking lots #7 and 8. Site protection would be in place to prevent
sanding debris from entering soil or water courses. Painting would be
done with ground protection in place. Primer would be applied with
paint rollers and brushes; paint would be sprayed during low wind
conditions.
Tower bases would be broken up and removed to the level of the
surrounding ground surface. No blasting would be required.
Native soil would be used to cover the remaining concrete surfaces. The
new surfaces would be seeded and mulched.
The Lift Terminal buildings would be dismantled and removed via
existing work roads.
The existing lift corridor would be retained as skiable terrain.
In late Summer and Fall 2015, the triple chair would be re-installed in the
location previously approved in the June, 2013 Green Peak Decision
Notice. Installation of the Triple Chair would require the demolition of
the existing BBTS building; Waterville Valley intends to construct a new
building for BBTS as described and approved in the June, 2013 Green
Peak Decision Notice.
There are no plans to replace the World Cup triple chair in its current
location.
The high speed quad would have had a capacity of 2,800 skiers per hour;
the relocated triple chair would have a capacity of approximately 1,630
skiers per hour.
Green Peak Expansion Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment
16
A comparison of the existing lift specifications and the proposed
specifications is displayed below:
Table 1: Comparison of Lift Specification for World Cup Triple, Current Location vs. Proposed Location
Mitigation Measures
In addition to Forest Plan Standards and Guides, all Ski Area Best Management
Practices would be implemented throughout this project. Additional mitigation
measures would include:
Ensure public safety throughout implementation. During the winter
operating season, all work areas would be fenced and/or signed to
preclude public access.
All heavy equipment would be visibly free of seeds and plant parts prior
to entering the project area. Cleaning should take place off-Forest unless
an on-Forest cleaning site has been approved by a Forest Officer in
advance.
Soil or fill would come from weed-free sources. The Forest Service would
be available to identify local gravel sources that containweed-free borrow
material in their pits.
If any new cultural sites are found during project implementation, all
activity in the area would stop, and WMNF archaeologists would be
informed so that they can be assessed and protected.
World Cup Triple Chairlift
Current Specifications
(before mod/relocation)
Proposed Specifications (after
mod/relocation)
Slope Length (ft): 3974 4380
Vertical (ft): 1073 1011
Speed (ft/min): 475 475
Capacity (pph): 1800 1630
Rope Diameter (in/mm): 1 ½”xxips 1 ½”xxips
Number of Carriers: 169 169
Number of Towers: 15 17
Drive Location (top/bottom): Bottom Bottom
Tension Location (top/bottom): Bottom Bottom
Green Peak Expansion Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment
17
Temporary erosion control measures such as silt fence, hay bales, straw
wattles or other appropriate materials would be in place to protect water
bodies from ground disturbance until site is permanently stabilized. All
applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and all ski area Best
Management Practices would be implemented.
Disturbed soil within 100 feet of surface water, on stream crossing
approaches, on steep slopes draining into surface waters, and where soil
erosion potential exists would be seeded with a native seed mix and
mulched to provide temporary stabilization.
All sanding and welding debris would be contained and removed from
the site. Painting would be completed only during no/very low wind
conditions.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for spill prevention and containment
would be used when transporting or using potentially hazardous
substances such as fuel.
Forest Service personnel would approve in writing the color and
reflectivity of all paint and finish materials.
Helicopters would not fly over Bicknell’s thrush habitat during nesting
season, May 1 to August 15.
Off-road vehicle access and tower foundation removal would be
conducted according to an approved erosion control plan, and under
sufficiently dry ground conditions to prevent erosion and sedimentation.
Mineral soil disturbance related to these activities would be mitigated
with temporary erosion control until permanent measures such as
revegetation have become fully effective.
Tower base debris removal would occur in dry conditions.
Site rehabilitation and stabilization would be established, seeded and
mulched prior to September 15 in order to assure germination prior to
winter season.
Green Peak Expansion Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment
18
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Study
In developing this Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the revised
proposed action, the interdisciplinary team and responsible official discussed the
project and determined that there were no additional alternatives that addressed
the Purpose and Need for the relocation of the triple chair
Chapter 3 – Effects Analysis
This is a supplemental analysis which tiers to the original environmental
assessmentcompleted in 2013, as referenced in the Background section of this.
Consequently, the analysis completed in the original document is not repeated
here in detail.
The Interdisciplinary Team for this supplemental analysis consisted of specialists
in recreation, soil and water, lift engineering, wildlife, botany and heritage
resources. Those specialists reviewed the project and considered the best
available information to evaluate potential impacts from the two alternatives on
their resources. Input from each specialist is available in the project record.
This section describes the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on resources
that would result from implementation of Alternatives 1 and 2.
Affected Environment
Each section below describes the affected environment for each resource and
discuss effects in more detail. The rationale for identified analysis areas and
timeframes, and all literature cited also are located in the project record.
Direct and indirect effects are those impacts that result from implementation of
the project. Cumulative effects are the combined impacts of the direct and
indirect effects with impacts from past, ongoing, and known future actions in the
identified timeframe and analysis area. All past, ongoing, and future actions
Green Peak Expansion Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment
19
within the various analysis areas used by specialists are listed in the project
record.
Effects Analysis
3.1 Water Resources
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative 1: No Action;
The direct and indirect effects are identical to those analyzed under Alternative
1 in the original Green Peak Expansion Project Environmental Assessment
(original EA).
Alternative 2
With the implementation of Mitigation Measures, above, Forest Plan Standard
and Guides and Best Management Practices, the relocation of the World Cup
Triple would have no effects to Water Resources.
Cummulative Effects
Alternative 1
Cummulative effects would be identical to those analyzed in the original Green
Peak Expansion Project Environmental Assessment (original EA).
Alternative 2
With the implementation of Mitigation Measures, above, Forest Plan Standard
and Guidelines and Best Management Practices, the relocation of the World Cup
Triple will have no cumulative effects to Water Resources.
3.2 Soil Resources
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative 1: No Action;
The direct and indirect effects are identical to those analyzed under Alternative
1 in the original Green Peak Expansion Project Environmental Assessment
(original EA).
Green Peak Expansion Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment
20
Alternative 2
With the implementation of Mitigation Measures, above, Forest Plan Standard
and Guidelines and Best Management Practices, the relocation of the World Cup
Triple will have no adverse direct or indirect effects to Soil Resources.
Cummulative Effects
Alternative 1
Cummulative effects would be identical to those analyzed in the original Green
Peak Expansion Project Environmental Assessment (original EA).
Alternative 2
With the implementation of Mitigation Measures, above, Forest Plan Standards
and Guidelines and Best Management Practices, the relocation of the World Cup
Triple will have no cumulative effects to Soil Resources.
3.3 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative 1: No Action;
The direct and indirect effects are identical to those analyzed under Alternative
1 in the original original EA.
Alternative 2
With the implementation of Mitigation Measures, above, Forest Plan Standards
and Guidelines and Best Management Practices, the relocation of the World Cup
Triple would have no effects to Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.
Cummulative Effects
Alternative 1
Green Peak Expansion Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment
21
Cummulative effects would be identical to those analyzed in the original EA.
Alternative 2
With the implementation of Mitigation Measures, above, Forest Plan Standards
and Guidelines and Best Management Practices, the relocation of the World Cup
Triple will have no cumulative effects to Fisheries and Resources.
3.4 Vegetation Resources and Non-Native Invasive Species
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative 1: No Action;
The direct and indirect effects are identical to those analyzed under Alternative
1 in the original EA.
Alternative 2
With the implementation of Mitigation Measures, above, Forest Plan Standards
and Guidelines and Best Management Practices, the relocation of the World Cup
Triple will have no adverse effects to VegetationResources; mitigation measures
will be used to limit any spread of non-native invasive species.
Cummulative Effects
Alternative 1
Cummulative effects would be identical to those analyzed in the original EA.
Alternative 2
With the implementation of Mitigation Measures, above, Forest Plan Standards
and Guidelines and Best Management Practices, the relocation of the World Cup
Triple will have no adverse cumulative effects to Vegetation Resources;
mitigation measures will be used to limit any spread of non-native invasive
species.
Green Peak Expansion Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment
22
3.5 Wildlife Resources
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative 1: No Action;
The direct and indirect effects on wildlife and their habitat from activities
associated with relocation of the World Cup triple chair lift would be similar to
the effects analyzed under Alternative 1 in the original EA.
Alternative 2
Dismanteling, relocating, and reconstructing the World Cup triple chair lift
would affect more wildife habitat area then the amount that was originally
analyzed. However, the direct and indirect effects on wildife and their habitat
from relocation of the World Cup triple chair lift does not introduce any new
effects beyond what was already analyzed in Alternative 2 of the original EA.
Cummulative Effects
Alternative 1 and 2
There would be no additional cummulative effects beyond those analyzed in the
original EA.
3.6 Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species and
Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative 1: No Action;
The direct and indirect effects would be the same as those analyzed under
Alternative 1 in the original BE and disclosed in the EA.
Alternative 2
Bicknell’s Thrush (Catharus bicknelli):
The original Green Peak Expansion Project Biological Evaluation (BE)
determined that the proposed Project Area was located outside of Bicknell’s
thrush habitat (defined as dense thickets of stunted red spruce, balsam fir, birch,
Green Peak Expansion Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment
23
and krummholz communities of high elevation > 2,900 feet at Waterville Valley).
Based on the following mitigation measure, the activities associated with
relocation of the World Cup triple chair lift would not change the determination
of “no probability of occurrence of Bicknell’s thrush”, and therefore would cause
“no impact” to the population or species of Bicknell’s thrush. Alternative 2
would be consistent with the WMNF Forest Plan standard of no net decrease in
Bicknell’s thrush habitat.
Helicopters would not fly over Bicknell’s thrush habitat during the
breeding/nesting season, May 1 to August 15.
Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis):
The activities accociated with relocation of the World Cup triple chair lift would
not change the determination of “no effect” on Canada lynx (see the USFWS
concurrence letter for the original BE in the Project file).
Northern Long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), and Other Woodland Bats:
Since completion of the original BE, the Northern long-eared bat became
Federally-listed proposed endangered. The change in listing status did not
introduce any new effects beyond what was already analyzed in the original BE.
Pending the final outcome of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listing
process, Alternative 2 will comply with all applicable USFWS terms and
conditions and/or conservation measures for the Northern long-eared bat. The
activities associated with relocation of the World Cup triple chair lift would not
change the determinations for the other Regional Forester listed Sensitive Species
of woodland bats considered in the original BE (little brown myotis, tri-colored
bat, Eastern small-footed myotis).
Cummulative Effects
Alternative 1 and 2
There would be no additional cummulative effects beyond those analyzed in the
original BE.
Green Peak Expansion Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment
24
Cummulative Effects
Alternative 1 and 2
Cummulative effects would be identical to those analyzed in the original EA.
3.7 Visuals
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative 1
Direct and indirect effects of the construction of the high speed quad chairlift
would be identical to those analyzed in the original EA.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 would not construct the high speed quad lift; but instead would
relocate the triple chair, resulting in a net reduction in approved lifts. Alternative
2 would have incremental positive visual effects at Waterville Valley because it
would result in reducing the total number of lifts approved within the ski area
boundary.
Cummulative Effects
Alternative 1
Cummulative effects would be identical to those analyzed in the original EA.
Alternative 2
There would be no additional or cumulative effects on Visual Resources
from the implementation of Alternative 2.
3.8 Winter Recreation Resources
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative 1
Green Peak Expansion Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment
25
Direct and indirect effects of the construction of the high speed quad chairlift
would be identical to those analyzed in the original EA.
Alternative 2
The Proposed Action would allow Waterville Valley to install the triple chair lift
on Green Peak. Moving the Triple Chair would facilitate the ski area’s operations
by re-purposing a lift that had limited use, yet required routine maintenance,
inspection, and staffing.
Cummulative Effects
Alternative 1
If the quad was constructed as originally proposed, recreation cumulative effects
would be identical to those analyzed in the original Green Peak Expansion
Project Environmental Assessment (original EA).
Waterville Valley does not intend to construct a high speed detachable quad on
Green Peak in the foreseeable future. Cumulative effects on Recreation would be
the indefinite delay of the Green Peak Expansion.
Alternative 2
The relocation of the triple chair would allow Waterville Valley to construct two
to three trails, and associated snowmaking systems, in Summer 2015 and two to
three trails in each of the following two summer construction seasons (2016 and
2017).
3.9 Heritage Resources
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative 1
Direct and indirect effects would be identical to those analyzed in the original
Green Peak Expansion Project Environmental Assessment (original EA).
Alternative 2
Green Peak Expansion Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment
26
Since the lift is less than 50 years old, ground disturbance is minimal, and
previous surveys have determined that the project area is not archaeologically
sensitive, this alternative has no potential to affect cultural resources.
Cummulative Effects
Alternative 1
Cummulative effects would be identical to those analyzed in the original original
EA.
Alternative 2
There would be no additional or cumulative effectson Heritage Resources
expected from the implementation of Alternative 2.