Originally, Mount Snow planned to withdraw water for West Lake from the North Branch of the Deerfield River at a location across from their Howe Farm property, and was granted a permit by the DRB for the project. Now Mount Snow plans to withdraw water from a location on Cold Brook that is closer to the location of the proposed snowmaking pond. The move has eliminated much of the pipeline, reduced costs, and will reduce energy use. Mount Snow says the new plan will have less impact on the surrounding area.
Abutters express concern over Cold Brook water withdrawal at DRB
Mount Snow plans to use a Parshall flume for flow measurement, an inflatable rubber dam to control water levels, a pump house, and a retaining pond that will hold 120 million gallons of water.
Jeff Nelson, Mount Snow consultant and director of environmental services at VHB Pioneer, said Mount Snow will construct one pump house 73’ by 24’ by 16-feet-high and it will be situated near the water withdrawal site. Water will be pumped through the Coldbrook/Handle Road right of way and connect to the existing water supply system at the Mount Snow base area. Mount Snow will construct another pump station at the South Bowl and Drop ski trails to collect the water from the pipelines. The pump house will stand 70’ by 50’ by 30-feet-high.
Nelson said the Cold Brook option will allow Mount Snow to obtain the water they need in order to comply with state snowmaking standards. Every ski area in the state of Vermont needs one million gallons of water for every skiable acre. Mount Snow uses approximately 230 million gallons of water, which is well below the state standards.
The DRB allowed time for public comments. Abutting property owner Barbara Sherman asked for an estimated time frame for construction. Ed Floyd, president of Technicon Environmental Consulting Services, is assisting with Mount Snow’s construction efforts and he estimated that construction would take place next year between the months of July and October.
“That’s leaf-peeping time,” Sherman said. “That’s not good.”
Catherine Goodell attended the meeting on behalf of Elliot and Gladys Boyd. The Boyds live on Coldbrook Road and abut the proposed West Lake project. Goodell asked about the noise levels and whether they will be a disturbance.
Dave Moulton, Mount Snow director of operations, said they will use 300-horsepower pumps and the noise can only be heard within a 30- to 40-foot radius from the pump house. “The noise sounds just like a car running. Not a Harley running, but a car running,” said Moulton. “The only other noise you’ll hear is the ventilation and that from within a 40- to 60-foot radius (from the pump station) before you realize they’re running.”
Goodell also asked about the safety of the inflatable dam. Floyd said the dam is three feet high and contains enough air pressure to hold water back. When the water levels are too high, the dam deflates itself “so it is not holding back the water that needs to go downstream.” The deflatable dam under consideration is favored by the state for snowmaking purposes. “This is the same one they use at the holding pond at Stratton,” said Floyd. “It’s made of thick rubber and over 15 years, they have seen no damage and had no need to replace it.”
Mary Goetsch, an abutting property owner, questioned the project’s time frame and its impact on wildlife. Goetsch said there will be “chainsawing in November, December, and January” and her property is in the vicinity of “deer, bear, and bobcat migration areas.” Potential development may compromise the wildlife habitat and she hopes there will be no unintended consequences if the project is approved. “I’m also concerned about my property value,” said Goetsch.
The DRB will make a decision on Mount Snow’s water withdrawal plan in 45 days.
Mount Snow says water plan complies with state
On Tuesday, Mount Snow met with the the Agency of Natural Resources Water Quality Division. An ANR Water Quality Division representative was on hand to hear Mount Snow’s request to withdraw water from Cold Brook. According to Nelson, Mount Snow consultant and director of environmental services at VHB Pioneer, he believes Mount Snow is in compliance with the state’s rules and regulations for water withdrawal.
Nelson said every ski area in the state of Vermont needs one million gallons of water for every skiable acre to meet state snowmaking standards. Mount Snow currently uses approximately 230 million, which is much less than their competitors (Stratton and Okemo) who can access up to 500 million to 600 million gallons. Nelson said Cold Brook is now the best option for Mount Snow to be able to meet the state’s snowmaking standards.
Nelson said Mount Snow’s plan would discontinue Snow Lake and reconfigure Carinthia Pond so that natural flows would be maintained at all times and meet federal and state standards for water flow. Water will be efficiently used for snowmaking purposes and the retaining pond will operate as Mount Snow’s back-up plan. “The snowmaking pond isn’t something that would be used every year. It would be unusual if it were drawn down; it’s like an insurance policy,” said Nelson. “The pond is not expected to be used every year. When water flows are low, that is when the pond will be critical.”
David Deen, the Vermont and New Hampshire river steward for the Connecticut River Watershed Council, attended the ANR hearing and questioned Nelson about brook trout levels in the Deerfield River. Deen said he did not see any fish studies for West Lake and asked if there were any available.
Nelson said Mount Snow consulted a biologist who conducted fish surveys. The biologist collected data from three different areas. Two were in the vicinity of the project and one was upstream from the intake area. The presence of brook trout was confirmed. Deen asked why the study wasn’t circulated and Nelson responded that they “wanted to identify the target species first.”
Deen also asked if there was a decommissioning process if the West Lake project is abandoned or no longer in use. Nelson said Mount Snow will be obligated to remove the structures at Cold Brook. “Mount Snow will agree to a permit condition that would require them to remove the in-stream infrastructure if it is no longer used for snowmaking. No other ski area in Vermont has been required to do so,” said Nelson. “Mount Snow recognizes that they cannot have all this unnecessary stuff in the stream channel. That is the evolution of our thinking.”
The ANR hopes to issue a decision on the West Lake project within a month.
Progress made on Act 250, but more hearings await
On Wednesday, Mount Snow pitched their case to the Environmental District Commission. Much of Mount Snow’s Act 250 application remains unchanged from their previous hearing, with the exception of the Cold Brook water withdrawal plan. But since it was the first time that the West Lake project revisions were formally introduced to the Environmental District Commission, the commission said it will not reach a decision on whether to grant Mount Snow its Act 250 permit any time soon. Instead, it will evaluate their new proposal and additional information that was provided by a river steward and abutting landowners at Wednesday’s hearing.
Nelson walked the Environmental District Commission through Act 250’s 10 criteria. The first criterion examined undue water and air pollution with regard to headwaters. Edie Mas, an abutting property owner to the West Lake project said there are two brooks near the vicinity of the proposed project, Iron Brook and Jack’s Brook. Mas said “they are iron seep areas” and she requested that Mount Snow adhere to the seep prevention guidelines put forth by the state.
Nelson said Mount Snow has an iron seep prevention plan as part of their Act 250 application. “This is an effective law that ski areas across Vermont have upheld,” said Nelson.
Under the criterion of streams, Deen questioned whether the water intake from the Deerfield River would affect stream stability. He asked if that aspect was incorporated in Mount Snow’s plan. Nelson addressed Deen’s concern. “The withdrawal structure is at the southernmost point and the intent on placing it there was to get stream stability,” said Nelson.
Deen also asked whether the flow would negatively impact brook trout spawning and fish passage. Elizabeth Lord, ANR legal counsel, said the ANR concurred with the biologist’s report that Mount Snow met the Act 250 guidelines.
Deen agreed that brook trout can make it through the channel safely, but his main concern was the river’s flow rate. “What is not talked about is the flow rate and the impact on the stream’s velocity toward the withdraw openings which are an issue. It may prevent entrainment,” said Deen.
Nelson assured Deen that there will be routine inspections during and after the construction of the holding pond.
Criterion four examined whether the project “will not cause unreasonable soil erosion or affect the capacity of land to hold water.” Cornelia Rea is an abutter to Cold Brook and she registered her concern about the proposed placement of the water supply pipelines. Rea said she walks the Valley Trail and “there have been signs of seepage from the old pipeline” causing visible erosion. She wanted some reassurance that the new pipes won’t contribute to the problem.
Bernhardt said Rea’s comments would be included in a new recess memo.
Mas also question why Mount Snow will not remove the eroding pipeline when it replaces it with new ones. Nelson said some segments will be taken out, but Mount Snow is leaving it in the ground because “it would result in greater earth disturbance.”
Criterion 8-A examined whether the project “will not imperil necessary wildlife habitat or endangered species in the area.” Nelson said Mount Snow is working with the ANR to develop a memorandum of understanding to protect wildlife habitat. Lord said the ANR reviewed Mount Snow’s wildlife and habitat conservation plans and they concluded that “the project will not have a direct impact on bear habitat guidelines.”
Lord’s comments prompted a response from Bernhardt. “It sounds like we have very willing partners who are willing to work together. It saves us the headaches.”
The District Environmental Commission did not provide a date when the recess memo will be released.
Post a Comment
