NOTICE OF DECISION USDA - FOREST SERVICE Bridger

Transcription

NOTICE OF DECISION
USDA - FOREST SERVICE
Bridger-Teton National Forest
Jackson Wyoming
Jackson District Ranger Nancy Hall has decided to implement Alternative 3, as described in the
Jackson South Avalanche Mitigation Environmental Assessment and the associated Decision
Notice. The project area is on U.S. Forest Service lands adjacent to U.S. Highway 89/191 just
south of the Town of Jackson, Wyoming, at milepost 151, located within Northwest 'l'4, Section
8, Township 40 North, Range 116 West. Under this action, the Wyoming Department of
Transportation (WYDOT) will be issued a Special Use Permit allowing for the seasonal
deployment of 60 snow sails.
This decision is effective as of October 29, 2001 and is subject to appeal under 36 CFR 215. To
initiate an appeal, a written notice must be postmarked and submitted within 45 days of the date
ofthe publication of this legal notice. (Appeals must be postmarked by December 20, 2001).
Appeals are to be sent to:
Regional Forester,
USDA Forest Service, Intetmountain Region.
324 25 1h Street
Ogden UT 84401
This decision can not be implemented until 5 business days from the close of the appeal filing
period if no appeals are filed, or 15 days at the soonest if appeals are filed.
Any appeal must include at a minimum: (36 CFR 215.14)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
State that the document is an appeal filed pursuant to 36 CFR 215;
The name and address of the appellant, and if possible, the telephone number;
Identification ofthe decision document by title and subject, date of decision and name and
title of the deciding officer;
Identification of the specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant wants seeks or
portion of the decision to which the appellant objects;
State how the Deciding OfJicer's decision fails to consider comments previously provided,
and if applicable, how the appellant believes the decision violates law regulation or policy.
Copies of the Decision Notice and Finding ofNo Significant Impact are available for review at the
Bridger-Teton National Forest, Jackson District Office, 25 Rosencranz, Jackson Wyoming. For
more information or to request a copy of the documents, please contact Nancy Hall, Jackson
District Ranger, at 307-739-5400.
Jackson South Avalanche Mitigation
Decision Notice
USDA Forest Service
Jackson Ranger District
Teton County, Wyoming
Decision Notice
Table of Contents
1. Decision
2. Introduction and Background
3. Alternatives
4. Reason for the Decision
5. Mitigation Measures and Conditions
5.1 Vegetation
5.2 Wildlife
5.3 Historic and Archaeological
Preservation
5.4 Visual Resources
6. Public Involvement
7. Finding of no Significant Impaet
(FONSI)
7.1 Context
7.2 Intensity
8. Public Notification and Appeal Process
Appendix A
Response to Comments and Questions on
theEA
Appendix B
Public Notices and Articles
Appendix C
Comment Letters and Public Hearing
Transcript
Page 2
Page 2-3
Page 3-4
Pages 4-5
Page 5
Page 5
Page 6
Page 6
Page 6
Pages 6-7
Page 7
Page 7
Page 7-9
Page 9-10
Pages 12-26
1
Decision Notice
1. DECISION
Based upon the analysis documented in the Environmental Assessment, public comments, and all
applicable laws, regulations and policies, I am authorizing, under the terms of a special use permit, the
Wyoming Department of Transportation to implement Alternative 3: seasonal deployment of up to 60
snow sails at the Highway 89/191 milepost 151 avalanche site. These sails will be a dark green color that
resembles the color of the conifers adjacent to the site and actions associated with the annual deployment,
removal, and maintenance of the sails will comply with the terms of the Jackson Ranger District Winter
Range Closure Order (Special Order# 04-03-162).
2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Upon request from the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT), the Bridger-Teton National
Forest has analyzed authorizing the deployment of approximately 60 snow sails on National Forest
System lands adjacent to US Highway 891191 just south of the Town of Jackson, Wyoming, at milepost
151. The Purpose and Need for this proposed action is to improve the mitigation of milepost 151
avalanche slide path in a manner that improves public safety and reduces disturbance to wintering wildlife
associated with current avalanche mitigation actions while avoiding significant impacts to other resource
values. Snow sails are a technology that has been used for over 50 years in Europe to mitigate avalanche
hazards by disrupting the wind loading of snow in avalanche slide zones. The milepost 151 area is at high
risk for snow slide and avalanche activity. Wind loading of snow is a significant factor in creating the
conditions leading to an avalanche at the milepost 151 site. The proposed snow sails are an avalanche
mitigation technique that WYDOT believes will lessen the risk posed to the traveling public and reduce
the required snow clearance maintenance and costs incurred annually by the Wyoming Department of
Transportation while minimizing resource impacts on National Forest System lands. The proposed
project is located in Teton County, 1.1 miles (1.77 kilometers) south of Jackson, Wyoming, at milepost
151, roughly 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers) south of Jackson High School Road. The project study area is
located in Section 8 of Township 40 North, Range 116 West, on USFS lands administered by the BridgerTeton National Forest.
The decision to be made was whether, and under what conditions, to implement the Proposed Action
(Alternative 3) or an alternative to such action. A decision could have allowed the proposed project to be
implemented but may have required the design or some aspect of the proposed project to be adjusted in
order to avoid an identified impact. The decision could also have been made to meet the purpose and
need for action through some other combination of activities, or to defer any action at this time.
Alternatives analyzed in detail included: Alternative 1 -no action, Alternative 2 - implementing yearround deployment of the snow sails, and Alternative 3, the preferred alternative- implementing seasonal
deployment of the snow sails. Other alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed analysis
included permanently installed supporting snow rakes and snow sheds. The decision is subject to appeal
pursuant to Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 215.7.
The Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts
associated with the installation of approximately 60 snow sails along US Highway 89 and 191.
Additionally the EA identified and analyzed other alternatives that would meet the objective of mitigating
the avalanche risks at this site. The EA disclosed potential impacts and provided sufficient environmental
analysis to support a Decision Notic~: (DN) and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the
implementation of the Proposed Action, Alternative 3.
2
Decision Notice
As a part of the implementation of Alternative 3, a special use permit will be issued authorizing WYDOT
to deploy the snow sails. This permit, through its terms, conditions, and operating plan will enforce the
mitigations and requirements identified in the EA and FONSI and will ensure that the permit is
administered consistent with other relevant rules and regulations. Examples of these mitigations and
requirements include: season of deployment, color of sails, and monitoring of effects on wildlife. The
Forest Service is authorized to approve certain uses to National Forest System lands to accomplish its
multiple use mission under the terms of special use permits (SUPs) (16 U.S.C. 497). SUPs are commonly
issued and administered for uses that serve the public, promote public health and safety, and protect the
environment.
3. ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatives Considered
Alternative 1
Alternative 1: No Action, was developed to serve as a baseline for effects analysis and to allow
consideration and disclosure of the effects of taking no action. I did not select Alternative 1 because it
does not meet the Purpose and Need for the project. I find that an action alternative can be implemented
to meet the management objectives within the Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and applicable laws
and regulations.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2: Year-round Deployment involves setting up approximately 60 snow sails at the milepost
151 avalanche site on US 89/191 and leaving them continually in place through out the changes in
seasons. This alternative would reduce the winter dangers of avalanches spilling on to US 89/191. The
Bridger-Teton National Forest has determined that the Year-round Deployment of 60 snow sails will not
meet the Forest Plan standards for visual quality. Thus, this alternative would require amendment of the
Forest Plan and was not pursued.
ALTERNATIVE 3: Preferred Alternative
The Preferred Alternative - Alternative 3 entails deploying the 60 sails in the autumn and removal in the
spring subject to the terms of the Bridger-Teton National Forest Teton Division Winter Travel Plan and
Order Number 04-03-162, which establishes the winter range closure regulations for the Jackson
Ranger District. Seasonal deployment of the snow sails will limit any visual impact from this form of
avalanche defense to the portion of the year, when the avalanche mitigation is needed.
The permanent snow sail infrastructure in the milepost 151 avalanche starting zone will be limited to hand
driven footing piles and cable staying anchor rods. These fixtures will be flush with the existing slope
grade. During the summer months, when the snow sail panels and masts are removed, this permanent
infrastructure will not be visible from the valley floor. The permanent structure would not pose any threat
to wildlife in this area of the Bridger-Teton National Forest.
Initial on-site construction and installation, as well as the seasonal chores of removing, re-installing, and
maintaing the snow sails will be sch{:duled to preclude human presence in this critical wildlife habitat in
compliance with the winter range closure.
3
Decision Notice
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS
Snow Supporting Rakes
Snow supporting rakes in the avalanche starting zone preclude the onset of the avalanche process by
holding the snow in place. It is an effective technology that is used extensively in Europe and Asia.
Snow supporting rakes have large initial capital costs, and substantial environmental impact associated
with construction and post installation visual impact. Snow supporting rakes must resist the weight, as
well as the creep and glide loads of the snowpack, and hence have substantial foundation systems with
attendant high costs and site excavation requirements. These snow supporting structures have high visual
impacts.
Snow rakes are not seasonally deployable and must remain in place year round. The foundation system of
snow supporting rakes are not damage tolerant and their deployment precludes the use of active explosive
control measures.
This alternative was not considered for further analysis due to the extreme cost (estimated at $800,000),
high construction impacts and severe visual impact to the surrounding community. Also, the rakes would
limit necessary bombing under severe avalanche conditions.
Snow Sheds
Snow avalanche sheds are constructed facilities located at the roadway, which allow the avalanche to pass
over the road. Snow avalanche sheds do not limit the onset of an avalanche, but mitigate the hazardous
consequences of the avalanche at the road. They have very large initial capital costs.
These structures are massive, covering the entire span of roadway. A snow shed would not integrate into
the character of the surrounding area. Construction costs are estimated at $12.75 million dollars. It
should also be noted that for the milepost 151 site specifically, a snow avalanche shed at the road will not
protect, and may exacerbate the avalanche hazard to other facilities. Specifically, there are high voltage
power supply lines located and low voltage/communication lines located in the runout of the 151
avalanche zone.
This alternative was not considered for further analysis due to the high cost, visual impact and the
potential to impact the power supply and communication lines at the run out of the milepost 151 avalanche
zone.
4. REASON FOR THE DECISION
Once I determined that there were no significant impacts, I chose Alternative 3 based on the following
options, reservations and restrictions.
•
I determined that it best met the eriteria used to select the type of avalanche mitigation for this
location as stated by the Purpose and Need (found on pages 1-1 through 1-4 in the Environmental
Assessment) to mitigate the avalanche hazard at milepost 151 in a cost effective manner that
improves public safety and reduces travel delays in a manner that has a minimum of impacts on
National Forest System lands.
4
Decision Notice
•
The authorized project is consistent with the standards and guidelines of the Bridger-Teton National
Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 1989.
•
The decision protects wildlife, plants and visual resources. The decision provides a means of meeting
the purpose and need described in the EA without causing significant impacts to the biotic, physical
and cultural environment.
•
I determined that Alternative 3 was the action alternative that was most consistent with Bridger-Teton
National Forest Visual Quality Objectives (VQO).
•
I find that mitigating the avalanche danger at milepost 151 by using the snow sails will result in a net
reduction in human disturbance to wintering big game animals using the area by reducing the need to
haze big game animals out of the slide area prior to controlling the slide with bombs.
•
I determined that the decision addresses the safety improvements for the traveling public by reducing
the avalanche threat.
•
I find the action is consistent with the Wyoming Centennial Scenic Byway Management Plan and the
Jackson/Teton County Comprehensive Plan.
•
Any future changes would require additional evaluation and approval by the Bridger-Teton National
Forest, Jackson District Ranger, Forest Supervisor.
5. MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONDITIONS
My decision is predicated on the acceptance of WYDOT to implement the specific considerations and
mitigation measures listed in this Decision Notice and in the Environmental Assessment. The mitigation
measures committed to in the EA are listed below. The intended purpose and the party .responsible for the
measure and condition are also noted., where applicable.
5.1 Vegetation
•
It is not anticipated that deploying the snowsails will have any lasting impacts to the site's plant
community. Mitigation of any impacts to the plant community at the site will come from successful
reclamation of disturbed areas as needed following construction. Plants that may be impacted at the
site are common forbs and grasses with large geographic ranges.
•
While it is not anticipated that any surface disturbance will occur, in the event that reclamation
actions are deemed necessary by the Jackson District Ranger, WYDOT will reclaim the site using a
seed mix of native species and te,;hniques as specified by the Jackson District Ranger.
•
Ifre-vegetation is required, an appropriate native seed mix will be selected which matches the
existing plant community.
•
Efforts will be made to avoid trampling a "trail" during the deployment of the snow sails. In addition
to re-vegetation, erosion controls such as rock waterbars will be used as necessary.
5
Decision Notice
5.2 Wildlife
•
Potential impacts to big game and raptors would be minimized through implementation of several
mitigation measures. The winter range closure period from December 1 to April30 will be observed
in a manner consistent with the special order creating the Jackson Ranger District's winter range
closure. The snow sails would be deployed and removed and construction and maintenance activities
will comply with the terms of the winter range closure order. In the event that WYDOT wishes to
enter the snowsail area for emergency maintenance during the closed winter range season, permission
may or may not be granted on a case by case basis. This decision will be based on public safety risks,
the proposed maintenance activity's potential disturbance to wildlife and will incorporate input from
Forest Service and Wyoming Game and Fish Department biologists.
•
The snow sails should be constructed of a material that is visible to birds in order to prevent collisions
by raptors and other avifauna. The snow sails will be constructed of an opaque vinylized nylon that
will be visible to wildlife and raptors.
5.3 Historic and Archaeological Preservation
•
Should cultural materials of any kind be uncovered during construction activities, all work in the
vicinity of the discovery would cease and WYDOT would contact the appropriate state and federal
agencies immediately.
5.4 Visual Resources
•
The Preferred Alternative's impact to the Jackson Hole and Teton views as seen from the highway
passing under the sails will be minimal. Travelers going in both directions will be able to see the
snow sails located to the east of the highway. Northbound travelers will have a more direct view of
the sails. However, the impact of the Preferred Alternative to the associated scenic values along this
section of the State Scenic Byway will be minimal due to the elevation of the sails and the focus on
views of the valley and mountains to the west. Neither the State Byway standards nor the viewing
experience from the byway will be substantially altered. The Preferred Alternative will not
compromise the standards set by the Scenic Byway designation The Preferred Alternative complies
with visual standards for this area as defined by the Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan.
•
Although the visual impacts of this alternative would be minimal to those traveling along the
highway, impacts to those residing in the Rafter J subdivision would be more significant. The direct
line of view and the duration of view, make this the critical viewpoint to mitigate. Visual impacts
will be minimized in two ways. First, by deploying the sails seasonally the time frames the sails are
present will be minimized. Sinct:: the earth anchors will be driven flush into ground, once the sails are
removed, no visual impacts are anticipated during the season when the sails are removed. Secondly,
by utilizing a dark conifer green •;;olor for the sails, the sails will match the color of the conifer trees
growing near this site.
6. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Public involvement began in October 1999. A scoping notice was mailed to fifty-six people on the
project mailing list. A scoping notice describing the project was placed in the Casper Star Tribune on
Sunday, October 24, 1999 and the Jackson Hole News on Wednesday, October 27, 1999. A 30-day
6
Decision Notice
comment period was advertised from the end of October 1999 to November 29, 1999. On August 17,
1999, a presentation was made by WYDOT and the USFS to the Rafter J Homeowners Association. A
snow sail was erected outside of the meeting location for participants to view. Comments received from
the public included the seasonality of the snow sail deployment and potential impacts to elk. Articles
appeared in the August 21,1999 Casper Star Tribune, the August 25, Jackson Hole News and the October
27, 1999 Jackson Hole News and Jackson Hole Guide. Comments on the draft EA were received from
reviewing agencies. The legal notice announcing the beginning of the EA comment period was published
on August 23, in the Casper Star Tribune. On September 14, 2000, approximately 10 people attended a
public meeting following the release of the Final EA. Eight comments were received by September 22,
2000 and were considered in my decision.
A brief summary of the issues and their influence on the decision include:
Wildlife concerns which influenced seasons of set-up and take-down of the sails, a desire to minimize
the need to control the slide with explosives, and were accommodated with the sails positioning and
spacing so as to not block big game movements.
•
Visual concerns which heavily inf1uenced the decision to authorize a seasonal as opposed to a yearround deployment of the sails and the color of the sails which has been specifically chosen and
custom ordered to match the conifers in that site-specific setting.
Please reference Appendix A for detailed responses to public comments.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The Environmental Assessment disclosed environmental effects regarding the proposed decision. I have
determined that Alternative 3 will not have a significant effect on the biological, physical or human
environment considering context and intensity of impacts as follows (40 CFR 1508.27):
A.
Context
According to the Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 1989 the area in
which the snow sails will be deployed falls within the USFS Desired Future Condition (DFC) 12. The
USFS DFC 12 designation means the emphasis for the area is on providing important habitat for big game
as winter range, feeding grounds, calving areas, and wildlife security areas. The area is managed for high
quality wildlife habitat and escape cover, big game hunting activities, and dispersed recreation activities.
The Forest Plan has been reviewed and a determination made that this decision is consistent with the
Forest Plan. Implementation of this decision is consistent with designated Desired Future Conditions, the
goals and objectives of the Forest Plan, and Forest-wide standards and guidelines. This decision
complies with all other applicable laws and regulations.
B.
Intensity
The finding of no significant impact based upon the intensity of impacts of the preferred alternative is
clearly applicable to the resources analyzed in the EA. The impacts to land use, socioeconomic,
recreation, water resources, vegetation, wildlife, visual resources and cultural resources are disclosed in
the EA as either non-existing, very small or within Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The rationale
for these conclusions is shown in the EA. I have reviewed the EA concerning these issues, and I agree
with the intensity of the impacts disclosed in the EA.
7
Decision Notice
1.
I find there are no known effects on public health and safety. There are positive benefits to public
health and safety by implementation of the avalanche mitigating snow sails.
2.
I find that there are no significant effects on unique characteristics such land use, parklands, prime
farmlands, wetlands, Scenic B)"vays, or wild and scenic rivers.
3.
I find that the action will not affect any water resources.
4.
Concerning visual impacts, as described on page 3-14 of the EA, it is estimated that the proposed
snow sails will not meet the retention standard since some of the snow sails will be visible to the
residents in the Rafter J development. To minimize the potential visual impacts, the sails will be
seasonally deployed, being erected in the autumn and dismantled in the spring. In addition, a conifer
green color specified to resemble the color of the trees on site will be used to blend with the
surrounding environment, both in the winter and spring/fall months. For these reasons, I find that the
impact upon the visual environment is not significant.
5.
Concerning big game issues, the EA discloses that these impacts would be mitigated by strictly
complying with the Jackson Ranger District winter range closure restrictions. The snow sails would
be seasonally deployed, maintained, and removed in compliance with these winter range closure
regulations. For these reasons, I find that the impact upon the winter range resources is not
significant.
6.
I find that the effects on the human environment are not highly uncertain, are very unlikely to
involve unique or unknown risks, and are not likely to be highly controversial. Specified
management direction, constraints, considerations and mitigation measures will limit the physical
and biological effects within and adjacent to the project area. Standards and Guidelines of the Forest
Service Plan will be met.
7.
I find that the action is not likely to establish precedent for future actions with significant effects.
8.
The action is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Wyoming Centennial Scenic Byway
Management Plan and the Jackson/Teton County Comprehensive Plan.
9.
The action does not threaten Federal, State and local laws and requirements for the protection of the
environment.
10. I find that implementation of the decision, individually or cumulatively with other past and present
actions, will not result in any significant impacts.
11. I find that implementation of the decision will not adversely affect any known cultural or historic
sites. The Wyoming SHPO concurrence of no adverse effects to cultural resources is included in
Appendix B of the EA.
12. I find that the action will have no effect on any federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened
species or Forest Service listed sensitive species or their critical habitat. A Biological Assessment
and Biological Evaluation has betm prepared in accordance with the Endangered Species Act, the
National Environmental Policy Act, and direction from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S.
Department of Agriculture-Forest Service.
8
Decision Notice
13. Beneficial and adverse effects have been taken into consideration when making this determination of
insignificance. However, beneficial effects were not given disproportionate weight.
14. The proposed action meets the Purpose and Need as articulated in the Environmental Assessment
and complies with all requirements and standards of the Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan.
15. I find that there will be no known significant or secondary effects to other resource values not
specifically mentioned above.
8. Public Notification and Appeal Process
Legal notice of this decision will appear in the Casper Star Tribune newspaper. Appeals must be
postmarked or received no later than 45 days after the publication of the legal notice in the Casper Star
Tribune as specified in 36 CFR 215.13. The District Ranger shall promptly mail the decision document
to those who request this specific document and to those who submitted comments on the proposed action
either before or during the draft EA comment period. Copies of the EA will be provided upon request.
My decision is subject to administrative review pursuant to 36 CFR 215. Any appeal of my decision must
be fully consistent with 36 CFR 215.14, Content of an Appeal, and must meet the following requirements:
1.
State that the document is an appeal filed pursuant to 36 CFR 215;
2.
The name and address ofthe appellant, and if possible, a telephone number;
3.
Identification of the decision document by title and subject, date of the decision, and name and title
of the deciding official;
4.
Identification of the specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks or portion of the
decision to which the appellant objects; and
5.
State how the deciding official fails to consider comments previously provided, and if applicable,
how the appellant believes the decision violates the law, regulation or policy.
Appeals must be filed with the Appeal Deciding Officer:
Regional Forester,
USDA Forest Service
Intermountain Region
324 25 1h Street
Ogden, Utah 84401
A concurrent copy must be sent to me:
Nancy Hall
Jackson District Ranger
United States Forest Service
P.O. Box 1689
25 Rosencran Lane
Jackson, WY 82001
9
Decision Notice
Phone: 307-739-5400
Fax: 307-739-5450
For additional information about this project, the appeal process, or to receive a copy of the
Environmental Assessment, contact:
Mr. Dave Cunningham
U.S. Forest Service
Bridger Teton National Forest
P.O. Box 1689
Jackson. WY 82001
Fax: 307-739-5450
Phone: 307-739-5423 E--mail: dcunninghamOl @fs.fed.us
Implementation of Decision
Jf no appeal i.s received. implementation of this decision m.ay occur on, but not before. 5 business days
from the closure of the appeal filing period. If an appeal is received, implementation may not occw- for
15 days followtng the date of the appeal dh;position.
·
10
Decision Notice
EEO STATEMENT
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on
the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, 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 communications of program information (Braille, large
print, audio tape, etc.) should contact USDADs 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, 141h and Independence Avenue, SW Washington DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice
or TOO). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
11
Decision Notice
APPENDIX A
Responses to Comments and Questions on the EA
12
Decision Notice
Nine written comments were received and responses are provided below.
Comment Letter 1 (from Jon Shick)
Comment 1-A: It appears that all of the alternatives have some negative impacts but the snow sail
project may be the least offensive with minimal impact on wildlife. The visual impact seems to be the
maJor concern.
Response 1-A: Visual impacts will be mitigated by first deploying the sails seasonally
minimizing the time frames the sails are present. Second, by utilizing conifer green sails, the sails
will blend into the landscape both in the winter and during the shoulder seasons when there is no
snow on the ground. Since the earth anchors will be driven flush into ground, once the sails are
deployed, no visual impacts are anticipated.
Comment 1-B: I question whether the seasonal removal ofthe sails is really cost effective. I am
perhaps even more in favor of the construction of permanent snow fences. They would probably be more
effective, are less offensive if constructed of natural materials, and are a fixture on many Wyoming
highways. Would you even be considering the sail alternative if this wasn't in Jackson?
Response 1-B: A snow fence system does not address the unique avalanche conditions and
mitigation needs in the 151 avalanche zone. Snow fences are designed to keep large quantities of
snow from entering a roadway. The snow sails actually break up the wind pattern to prevent snow
slab formation and thus preventing the release of a slide. Additionally, snow fences are permanent
structures and were deemed much more visually intrusive. Snow rakes, another form of permanent
structure applicable for this type of avalanche condition, were considered but not selected for
implementation due to high cost and visual intrusion. WYDOT worked in conjunction with the
USFS to identify a method that best addressed the unique conditions at the 151 avalanche site.
Comment 1-C: The weakest part ofWYDOT's avalanche program has always been in their
forecasting. The effectiveness of the various methods used in avalanche control starts with a good
avalanche forecast.
Response 1-C: Please see response to Comment 5-A.
Comment Letter 2 (from Galen Richards)
Comment 2-A: I think the Snow Sail project has merit. However, I feel the proposed number of sails is
far too many. I suggest a conservative start of maybe 20 sails, with a couple below the grove of trees as
well. Last winter, a below average year, the only slide to run at milepost 151 started below the trees.
Evaluations could be conducted each spring, and adjustments of additional sails or moving existing sails
to a more effective location could be made.
Response 2-A: Sixty sails are recommended based on a standard European guideline. The
guidelines recommends that the gap between each sail should be between one and one point five
sail widths. A snow sail width is ten feet. Based on a sail every twenty-five feet using a one point
five gap and the distance required to cover the 151 avalanche site, the recommendation equals sixty
snow sails. The placement ofth•;;) snow sails on the 151 avalanche site is not random. The snow
drift which produces the avalan,~he has been researched over several winter seasons and the snow
sail sites have been staked where the drift defines itself, that is where the source region ends and
13
Decision Notice
the deposition zone begins. This has been examined with some conservative effort to identify the
most effective placement of the snow sails.
Comment 2-B: One person at the public meeting said she wants the sails taken down each year. I
disagree. Taking the sails down each May could do serious damage to vegetation on the ridge. And
deploying them again in the fall could pack the vegetation down, or establish a barren trail on what would
be prime winter habitat. Again, with a fewer number of sails, it would be less of a visual impact on
people, and generate less wildlife disturbing activities in the area.
Response 2-B: Deploying and dismantling the sails each season is the Preferred Alternative. It
was determined that vegetation in the area would not be disturbed enough to prevent seasonal
deployment. The plant community consists of common grasses and forbs with a large geographic
range which should recover easily if disturbed. If revegetation is necessary, a native seed mixture
will be used.
Comment 2-C: I also have some concerns that snow displacement might load the slide area just north
of mi Iepost 151. It is a much lower velocity slide but worthy of consideration. As for the color of the
sails, my vote is for tan.
Response 2-C: Field studies into the zone of disrupted and redistributed snow downwind of the
sails have shown that the zone of influence of the individual test sails during the 1999/2000 winter
season extended approximately sixty feet downwind of the sails. After the distance, the snow
depositional pattern was similar to what would be expected if there were not any sails on the site.
At a distance of sixty feet north from the south boundary of the 151 avalanche starting zone, one is
still within the 151 avalanche zone proper.
Comment Letter 3 (from Mark Davenport)
Comment 3-A: I have looked at the Snow Sails for the demonstration project since their installation.
They look like a drive-in theatre screen on a natural hillside, very unpleasant to the eye.
Response 3-A: Please refer to Response 1-A for measures being taken to minimize visual
impacts.
Comment 3-B: The article in the newspaper states that "the state agency 'feels' that using the sails as a
primary avalanche tool rather than explosives will be less damaging to the area known for its crucial
winter habitat for moose, deer and elk." Do you have information other than a "feeling" that this is true?
I have not seen game in the area oftht: snow sails since they were placed there.
Response 3-B: Initial deployment of the snow sails could spook big game but both mule deer
and elk are good at acclimating themselves to consistent, unnatural structures in their environment.
Big game have been known to set-off and cause avalanches and snow slides, resulting in injury or
mortality. Additionally, explosive-related activities can cause big game to be displaced into
marginal habitats and may predispose the animals to higher winter mortality rates. Deployment of
the snow sails will lessen the need for explosives by approximately 85 percent, lessening impacts
to big game.
Comment 3-C: If you decide that snow sails must be installed in the area, please use as few ofthem as
is necessary and design the installation so that they can be easily removed at the first opportunity.
Response 3-C: Sixty sails will be required, see Response 2-A. The winter range closure period
(December I to April 3) will be strictly observed for deploying and dismantling the sails.
14
Decision Notice
Comment Letter 4 (from Page McNeill, Conservation Chairperson, Wyoming Chapter of the
Sierra Club)
Comment 4-A: Two of the four test snow sails "failed" structurally during the test period. Can you
imagine 30 failed snow sails? What assurances do we have the design "bugs" will be gone?
Response 4-A: One sail suffered a structural failure due to high wind and the basic design was
subsequently modified. The new sails incorporate structural design modifications and have
effectively redistributed the snow patterns as anticipated.
Comment 4-B: The B-TNF's Preferred Alternative now proposes the snow sails be a rather bright (and
un-treelike) color of green, in an attempt to somehow mimic odd shaped shrubs or trees. The test sails
were beige and white. Rand Decker, the project's main engineer, recommended the beige sail color at the
open house. He based his recommendation on the snow scour that occurred this past winter of low
snowfall in the area, allowing dried grass cover to be exposed. He also suggested informally that a line of
60 green snow sails would look very artificial, and suggested some mixing of beige and green if the BTNF continues backing green sails.
Response 4-B: The preferred color scheme will utilize conifer green sails so that the sails will
blend into the landscape both in the winter and during the shoulder seasons when there is no snow
on the ground. Please refer to Response 1-A for a description of measures to minimize visual
impacts.
Comment 4-C: If the Project goes forward, WCSC suggests another test year, using structurally
strengthened snow sails in the two colors, green and beige. It is the visual impact of 60 snow sails that
will be the most noticed by area residents and visitors, so it is only fitting the snow sails be retested in this
new form.
Response 4-C: The 2000/2001 winter season allows for another test season.
Comment 4-D: WCSC understands the highway safety and maintenance concerns for the area. The
reduction in the size of the catch basin at the foot of the avalanche area is an unfortunate legacy of the
recent highway widening project. Was this loss of avalanche "control" area considered when that area of
the highway was redesigned? It should have been. Perhaps the highway could have been extended
further to the west, instead of intruding into a necessary avalanche catch basin. Now we are asked to
consider this proposal which will still only partially counter the threat of avalanches there.
Response 4-D: Preliminary plans for the recent widening did align the highway more to the
west preserving the catch basin. However, the proposed design would have impacted wetlands
west of the highway. Federal regulations that require avoidance of wetlands wherever practicable
were a prime factor in the decision to shift the highway alignment in towards the hillside during
final design resulting in reduced size of the catch basin.
Comment 4-E: "WYDOT expects that the snow sails will significantly reduce the need for detonating
explosives," (EA 2-3). Yet WYDOT still anticipates the need for detonating some explosives for
avalanche control. This was estimated to be up to three times per season and perhaps more by WYDOT
personnel at the public hearing (although this figure and the data supporting are not to be found in the
EA). This will entail personnel hiking up into closed winter range to dig rest pits and gauge avalanche
danger. It will entail helicopter dropping of 25- to 50-pound bombs into the area, or hand placing the
explosives. It will entail the locating, clearing or exploding of any "duds". It will entail highway closure
and plowing of avalanche runouts onto the highway.
Response 4-E: Although WYDOT still anticipates the need for detonating some explosives, the
proposed snow sails best meet the purpose and need to mitigate the avalanche hazard in a cost
effective manner that improves public safety and reduces travel delays while minimizing impacts
15
Decision Notice
on National Forest System Lands. The snow sails will reduce the need to detonate explosives by
approximately 85% (see response 5-A). Snow rakes and snow sheds fully preclude the use of
explosives but were demised from further consideration due to high cost and high visual impacts,
as more fully described under the Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Study
section ofthis decision notice.
Comment 4-F: Right now, WYDOT is having a difficulty signing a local contract for helicopter
assistance, so we are looking at the more dangerous hand placement of explosives. Helicopter detonation
missions were estimated at the public hearing to cost up to $2,000. If a Salt Lake City helicopter operator
is used, as it was recently, we can expect each mission to cost $6,000. These cost figures were not
included in the EA. All this in addition to the cost of manufacturing the snow sails and their erection,
maintenance and disassembly and storage.
Response 4-F: This statement is true. However, the use of the snow sails will reduce need for
helicopter and hand-charge missions to control the slide path. In addition, this alternative is
preferred from a wildlife and public safety standpoint.
Comment 4-G: Table 2-1, Alternatives Comparison (EA 2-7) is incorrect and incomplete. The
$50,000 figure for forecasting and control was deemed too high by one meteorologist attending the public
hearing. He said a local site forecaster/monitor could come in with a lower figure. This should be
explored. I am unclear how attendant WYDOT costs, like snow removal from the site after any
detonation missions, would fit in here. The $95,000 plus $10,000 figure per year for maintenance is also
suspect. The $95,000 figure was explained as a capitalization (manufacturing) cost by Mr. Decker at the
public hearing. The $10,000 for maintenance is explained in the EA as an annual maintenance cost for 60
snow sails. Table 2-1 is missing the following figures given in the EA (2-5): Take down and reassembly
per year at $20,000, a one-time $3,000 cost for storage racks, and a potential future cost for onsite
storage. It is necessary to include all the costs in an easily understandable form to truly facilitate
companson.
Response 4-G: Table 2.1 does not as fully describe the costs associated with the snow sails as
does the supporting text on page 2-5. Table 2.1 would better describe the full cost of the snow sails
and match the text if it reflected the cost for the snow sails with year round deployment as $95K
plus $1 OK/year maintenance, and the cost for the snow sails with seasonal set-up as $95K plus
$1 OK/year maintenance plus $3K for storage rack plus $1 OK/year to deploy and strike the sails.
Comment 4-H: It appears this proposal still needs a complete risk assessment done by qualified
professionals. The guesses and estimates offered at the public hearing (and not included within the EA)
on the number of avalanches per year over the last decade, the number and costs of avalanche control
efforts at the site over the last decade, projections of future avalanche run outs onto the highway with the
loss of the catch basin, and projections of avalanche control that will still be needed with snow sails and
all their attendance costs are unacceptable.
Response 4-H: The risk posed to the traveling public has been assessed by traffic safety
professionals at the Wyoming Department of Transportation (licensed professional engineers) and
supplemented by independent consultant, Dr Rand Decker (specialist in avalanche mitigation). This
assessment of risk lead to the n:quest of the Bridger-Teton National Forest Service to allow
deployment of the snow sails. It is clear that the milepost 151 avalanche zone is an active
avalanche path that spills out on to U.S. Highway 89/191. The environmental assessment (Safety
Information, page 1-4) disclosed that vehicles on the highway were engulfed with avalanche debris
at this location on three separat•:! occasions during the 1990s. The risk to motorist is clearly
evidenced by these incidents in the last decade. The environmental assessment (Traffic Volumes,
page 1-3) further disclosed that traffic volumes are projected to continue to increase, increasing the
16
Decision Notice
risk that a vehicle will be present on the road in the avalanche path when an avalanche is released.
The snow sails will reduce the risk posed to the traveling public by reducing the occurrence of
avalanches at the milepost 151 avalanche zone. This an adequate risk assessment, in consideration
of the other factors disclosed in the Reason for the Decision section of this notice, to base the
decision to proceed with deployment of the snow sails.
Comment 4-1: Concerns remain for wildlife in the project area. With detonation and its attendance
activities still called for even with snow sails, I am not convinced this project's version of the "cure" is
that much better than leaving well enough alone. WYDOT could monitor the site for a few seasons by
hiring local site forecaster/monitor at a reduced cost than that quoted in the EA. Costs and risk
assessment could be analyzed. The redesigned snow sails could be set up in both green and beige for
another year, then be reassessed.
Response 4-1: The USPS and WYDOT shared the responder's concern for the effects of the
project on wildlife. However, we believe that deploying the snow sails will have less impact on
wintering deer and elk than the No-Action Alternative which would continue to rely solely on
forecasting and controlling with explosive charges. The project's consultant, Rand Decker,
projects an 85 percent reduction in the need to have wildlife from the area and control with
explosives. Additional information related to this comment can be found in the response to
comment 5.
Comment Letter 5 (from Lloyd Dorsey, Field Office Director, Wyoming Wildlife Federation)
Comment 5-A: The WWF submitted scoping comments on this proposed action to WYDOT last
November 17th. In those comments, we asked the cooperating agencies and departments to facilitate a
risk assessment to be done by qualified professionals on this matter. After reading the EA it appears an
adequate risk assessment was not done. A portion of a professionally formulated risk assessment would
address the likelihood of avalanches occurring under different but plausible conditions. On page 2-1 of
the EA it states that," ... avalanche forecasting practice at milepost 151 is based on experience
extrapolation of data from similar sites and intuition." Later in the same paragraph it states that such
forecasting is done by WYDOT employees. Much of the hazard, danger, likelihood of injury or fatality,
and risk that this proposed action mentions and is supposed to alleviate is stipulated to by WYDOT. But
where is any of this quantified?
Merely listing the 3 slides that resulted in auto accidents over the past years (EA p. 1-4) and saying that
the snow sail deployment would, " ... reduce the need for detonating explosives (for avalanche control) by
approximately 85 percent" (EA p. 2- J; parenthesis added) is not an adequate assessment of risk, nor does
it offer the public adequate information to formulate an opinion of this proposal to undertake a significant
action on their public lands, and that may affect human health, wildlife and visual resources.
A true risk assessment is done by professionals who take into account a comprehensive history of
comparative data. For instance on page 2-3 in the EA, it mentions " ... 17 out of 20 avalanches are due to
wind slab formation." Over how many years was this data gathered? What were the causes of the other
avalanches? Is the public to assume that deployment of snow sails would not alleviate the conditions or
impetus for the remaining 3 of 20 avalanches?
The same page of the EA says that deployment of snow sails, " ... would not preclude, especially under
very severe storm conditions, the possibility of an avalanche. In such a case WYDOT would need to
augment the use of snow sails by detonating explosives." Did the preparers of this EA research
meteorological data from the past decades which would give indications of frequency ofvery severe
storm conditions which would prompt helicopter and explosive action by WYDOT? If, for instance,
"very severe storm conditions" occur twice every winter season, and since the EA admits that the snow
sail deployment would not eliminate the need for traditional avalanche control, would it then be a safe
17
Decision Notice
assumption that traditional avalanch(! control would be needed an average of twice per winter season
averaged over 5 years no matter the snow sail deployment? How would this compare to the number of
times helicoptering and bombing has occurred in the past 3 decades?
This EA leaves out key information about risk and need when it offers statements such as, " ... 17 out of20
avalanches ... ", " ... reducing the need .... by approximately 85 percent.". And when it predicates this
proposal on 3 avalanches that resulted in auto accidents over the past 8 years and the alleged ability to
decrease such accidents in the future. By admission, WYDOT has used inadequate "intuition" to forecast
avalanches in the past (WYDOT obviously missed at least 3). Having WYDOT contribute further
guesses does not engender confidence from the public. Clearly, if helicoptering and bombing has
occurred twice a season in past years, and if it would still occur twice a season based on severe storm
occurrences (regardless of snow sail deployment), nothing has been gained by implementation of this
proposal, and indeed the public would have been mislead by statements and assumptions contained in this
EA.
There are many other variables and statistics that would be included in an appropriate risk assessment.
Some of these would deal with avalanche occurrence under varied temperature and snow conditions at
different times of the day or night and timing of auto trips across the avalanche path.
Response 5-A: See response 4-H for discussion of risk assessment.
It is primarily "wind slab" avalanches that occur at the milepost 151 avalanche zone. During
periods of heavy snow, coupled with strong winds, snow is transported into the 151 avalanche
starting zone. When the resulting wind slabs become unstable they may then avalanche. As noted,
17 out 20 avalanches at the milepost 151 starting zone are due to wind slab formation. Yes, it
should be assumed that the deployment of snow sails will not alleviate the conditions for the
remaining 3 out of 20 avalanches. Continued avalanche forecasting and some explosive detonation
will be required with the deployment of the snow sails.
The snow sails function by modifying the dispersal of snow that is carried by the prevailing
southwesterly winds into the avalanche starting zone. Obviously the snow sails will not function to
prevent avalanches if the sufficient snow comes straight down to load the avalanche zone to the
point of instability or if sufficient snow was to be blown from winds that blow opposite to the
prevailing direction and the placement of the snow sails so as to load the avalanche starting zone.
The weather patterns that produce those conditions are relatively rare. Dr Rand Decker
conservatively estimated that weather conditions where the snow sails would not function could be
expected to occur with about 15% of the storms based on examination of historical weather
patterns. Therefore it is estimated that the snow sails can be expected to lead to 85% reduction in
avalanches at this site
Although the snow sails will not completely eliminate avalanche conditions at the milepost 151
avalanche zone, they will greatly reduce the occurrence of avalanche conditions and as noted in
Response 4-H, this will reduce the risk posed to the traveling public. Furthermore the snow sails
will reduce the amount of explosive detonation required in the big game winter range. Reduced
bombing also reduces the times the highway must be closed and traffic is delayed while detoured
on to roads ill equipped to handle the increased traffic volumes. As noted is Response 4-E, Snow
rakes and snow sheds fully preclude the use of explosives but were demised from further
consideration due to high cost and high visual impacts.
Comment 5-B: The public maintains great interest in the welfare of wildlife and habitat. During the
planning process and formulation of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Bridger-Teton
Forest, the public and wildlife professionals determined that it serves the public's interest to protect
18
Decision Notice
winter range for various wildlife species. This proposed project to deploy snow sails occurs in crucial
wildlife range for mule deer and elk, and habitat for a host of other wildlife species.
Despite marginal mitigation efforts (anchoring of sails to decrease flapping; pre- and post-winter human
construction activity; and the assumption of decreasing use ofhelos and explosives) the bottom line of
this proposal is loss of wildlife winter range on an undetermined level.
Even though the EA at page 3-12 states this project, " ... might reduce wildlife mortality by decreasing
animal-induced snow slides", this is a weak attempt to paint this project with a pro-wildlife brush. Little
data is offered to support this possibility.
Response 5-B: The snow sails will be deployed in crucial wildlife winter range, but the
deployment will result in reduced discharge of explosives in crucial wildlife winter range. The
explosions, and the associated human activity, can cause big game to be displaced into marginal
habitats. This results in increased energy expenditures by big game animals during winter to avoid
and/or escape the disturbance, which in tum may predispose the animals to higher winter mortality
rates. It is believed that the animals will become desensitized to the snow sails presence in the
winter range over time, just as they have become habituated to other human-made features such as
microwave towers and snow fences. Big game will be able to move above or below or choose a
route among the spaces between the sails. (See also response 7-A). Forest Service wildlife habitat
managers consider the additional bombing required under the no action alternative to be very
stressful and more detrimental to the wildlife than the installation of the snow sails
Comment 5-C: As stated in the EA (p. 3-21), "U.S. 89/191 is a designated Scenic Byway in the
Bridger-Teton Forest Management Plan". The route is also designated as such by the State of Wyoming.
The Teton County Comprehensive Plan also talks about maintaining the open views from this route (EA
p. 3-22). Yet, given these clear mandates from local and regional community planning efforts this EA
arrives at an astounding illogical conc:lusion (EA p. 3-26): Overall, the sails are secondary to the
landscape. People who travel the corridor regularly are accustomed to the corridor and its "utility"
nature." The Wyoming Wildlife Federation strongly disagrees with the expressed and implied message of
this statement by the preparers of this document. If the people of Jackson Hole and Wyoming, either
directly or by representation, participated in the designation of this travel route as "scenic" how can the
preparers stipulate that intrusion of scores of huge artificial billboard-like canvas panels would not be
perceived as intrusions on what was originally valued by the citizens and travelers? This assumption
defies logic.
The EA on page 3-26 further declares that impacts from snow sails to the view along this corridor would
"minimal" because travelers usually look west rather than east and uphill. And yet at page 1-4 of this EA
it admits that the west side of the highway at this location is planned for intensive residential and
commercial development. Wouldn't the view east become even more valued by the public if the west
side of the highway loses its current bucolic pastoral character?
We would remind the agencies and departments involved in this EA that some of the best wildlife
viewing for travelers going south from the Town of Jackson, especially in the winter are indeed east and
uphill from the highway. Table 3-3, figures 3-1,3-2 and text in the EA at page 3-7 detail some ofthe
wildlife resources visible along this route. And in the summertime, and even in a moderate winter, there
is frequent raptor activity on these uplands. The EA is wrong to stipulate that the view east is less
valuable to the traveling public than the view west. It offers different values.
It is stating the obvious that residents within sight of the proposed project area would be adversely
impacted by having their view of previously pristine hillsides cluttered by scores of snowsails. There is
no other conclusion to draw.
19
Decision Notice
It is apparent that the preparers of this analysis have not done, or contracted for, an adequate risk
assessment that would help clarify the necessity of this project. Nor have the cooperators done a good job
of offering the public a clear picture of comparisons for costs of this project and other avalanche
mitigation procedures. And it would appear that, since the loss of the "catch basin" (EA pp. 1-3, 1-4)
along the highway was the result of actions taken by WYDOT, that the same department needs to
construct another such basin if at all possible.
Since the EA at page 2-3 states that conventional helicopter and bombing actions will still need to be
taken, although it does not offer any estimate as to frequency, this project is an example of the proposed
"cure" being more deleterious on many levels than the problem it allegedly was intended to alleviate. The
Wyoming wildlife Federation recommends that this project be denied by the Bridger-Teton National
Forest.
Response 5-C: WTDOT and the USPS acknowledge the visual impacts and reiterate the
considerable efforts made to minimize the visual impacts as described in Response 1-A. The
Forest Service landscape architect has been involved in the project coordination and decisionmaking to select appropriate colors with the least impact. In addition, alternatives requiring
permanent structures have been eliminated from consideration.
Comment Letter 6 (from Julie Hamilton, Planning Consultant, State of Wyoming Office of
Federal Land Policy)
Comment 6-A: On behalf of the State of Wyoming, this office has reviewed the referenced document.
We also provided the information to all affected State agencies for their review, in accordance with the
State Clearinghouse procedures. State agency comments are specific to their respective agency missions.
While the State defers to their respective technical expertise in developing a unified State position, the
responsibility to ultimately articulate the official state policies and position lies with the Governor or the
Office of Federal Land Policy. Having said that, provided the concerns of the Game and Fish Department
(Comment Letter #7) are given adequate consideration as this project moves forward, the State of
Wyoming has no objections at this time.
Response 6-A: WYDOT appreciates the agency coordination. Please see Response 7-A.
Comment Letter 7 (from Bill Wichers, Deputy Director, Wyoming Game and Fish Department)
Comment 7-A: The area of the proposed pilot project is designated crucial winter range for the Sublette
mule deer herd, Fall Creek elk herd, Jackson bighorn sheep herd, and Sublette moose herd. During the
last five years, approximately 50 to 125 deer, 30 to 60 elk, three to six moose and one to four bighorn
sheep were known to have spent the winter in the general vicinity of the active avalanche area.
Response 7-A: This information has been considered in the analysis and in the selection of the
Preferred Alternative. The mikpost 151 area's importance for wintering wildlife is one ofthe
driving issues in seeking an alternative to the current practice of hazing wildlife from the area and
controlling potential slides with explosives. The Forest Service and WYDOT officials believe the
decision to seasonally deploy snow sails is the best alternative to improve public safety while
minimizing disturbance to wintering wildlife.
Comment 7-8: Potential impacts to wintering big game include restriction of movement along the
slope, distribution changes ofbig game, injuries due to guy wires, and temporary displacement of animals
during seasonal deployment/removal of sails.
Response 7-8: WYDOT considered this information in the design and layout of the snow sails
and their deployment. Animals will be able to move past the snow sails both above and below the
snow sail area. Additionally, the snow sails will be separated by a gap of I 0 to 15 feet that will
facilitate animals moving through the area of the snow sails. The times when the snow sails will be
20
Decision Notice
set up and taken down are outside of the season when the area is used by wintering wildlife, and
will comply with the winter range closure seasons which were largely based on Wyoming Game
and Fish Department's recommendation.
See also pages 3-10 and 3-11 of the EA for additional information.
Comment 7-C: It is not known if the snow sails will be a substantial barrier to big game movement
along the slope during the winter. The sails would be located on the upper third of the slope, and big
game could move both above and below the sails or choose a route between the sails if they become
habituated to their presence. Migration routes and daily movement routes for both mule deer and elk
cross the slopes. It may aid animal movements if the spacing between individual snow sails was at least
15 feet in order to provide a potential avenue of travel between the sails for game animals. Animal
responses will not be known until the project is implemented. If the project is successful, it will likely be
proposed for other areas in the region. We encourage the Wyoming Department of Transportation
(WYDOT) to monitor the animals' responses to the project so that impacts can be identified and
mitigated, and future projects can benefit from that information.
Response 7-C: WYDOT acknowledges the value of monitoring the impact to wildlife.
WYDOT believes that monitoring would be best conducted by the Wyoming Game and Fish
Department and the US Forest Service because both agencies have expertise in wildlife
management. WYDOT is wilhng to take the lead in pulling together the necessary Forest Service
and Wyoming Game and Fish staff to develop a monitoring plan.
Comment 7-D: If it becomes necessary to use explosives in conjunction with snow sails during winters
with heavy snow accumulation, total negative impacts to big game would be increased. This increased
level of disturbance could cause big game to be displaced into marginal habitats and may predispose the
animals to higher winter mortality rates. Before discharge of explosives to clear avalanche dangers is
implemented, we request that Department personnel in the Jackson Regional Office be notified. We
would like to work with WYDOT to c:nsure that the potential path of the avalanche is cleared of wildlife
by hazing with the helicopter that delivers the explosives prior to detonation of the charges.
Response 7-D: Although th{: use of explosives will be reduced, bombing may still be necessary
at times in conjunction with the snow sails. If this instance occurs, WYDOT will contact
Wyoming Game and Fish Department to allow for helicopter hazing.
Comment 7-E: Each sail would have four guy wires that meet a single point on the windward side of
the snow sail. There is potential for big game to become entangled in the wires and for big game or
raptors to be injured or killed by collisions with the wires. Monitoring of these incidents should be
formalized so that information on the extent of these incidents can be made available for possible
mitigation measures, if necessary, and as information for future similar projects.
Response 7-E: This information has been considered in the snow sail design and the selection
of the Preferred Alternative. Pages 36 to 40 of the Public Hearing transcript discuss this issue in
more detail (attached in Appendix A).
Comment 7-F: We request WYDOT coordinate with the Department's Jackson Regional Office on the
location of the storage shed, in order to pick a location that would minimize disturbance of big game
animals during times of human activity at the shed. Finally, vegetation removed from the project area
during construction activities should be replaced by reseeding with native species.
Response 7-F: This decision does not authorize a permanent shed and there are currently no
plans to authorize a storage shed on Forest land.
Comment Letter 8 (from Jim Woodmencey, Meteorologist, Mountain Weather)
21
Decision Notice
Comment 8-A: It seems to me your cost estimates for other alternatives are extremely inflated.
$50,000 per year for forecast and control of this one slide path at Milepost 151 is way overdone. Control
alone via helicopter for that path (if needed at all in some years) could be done for less than $6,000 per
year, using a local operator and storing explosives at WYDOT's bunker in Jackson. An avalanche
forecaster for WYDOT could be hired for approximately $10,000 per winter (an offer I made a year ago),
and certainly should be attainable for no more than $20,000 for the winter. And that forecaster would
also be providing forecast services for all of the avalanche areas in the district, not just Milepost 151. To
hire an avalanche forecaster to only keep track of the Mile post 151 path would be attainable for
considerably less. The bottom line here is that to forecast and control for that one path (Milepost 151)
could very likely be done for less than the annual maintenance cost of the snow sails.
Response 8-A: Forecasting and securing a helicopter and explosives are several factors in the
costs. Other costs include the equipment (a blower and loader) required to remove the snow once
the slide is released, operators for the equipment and flag people. Equaling about $14,000 ($2,000
more to secure a helicopter from Utah) for each event at three times per season, the cost is
estimated at $50,000. WYDOT has not committed to hiring an avalanche forecaster.
Comment 8-B: The Environmental Statement (EA) states that snow sails will "reduce the need for
detonating explosives by approximately 85 percent". That means that there is still going to be a need for
explosive control work for the remaining 15 percent of the time. That would imply that WYDOT would
still need a forecaster to assist in the decision of when that work should be done. I would note that these
costs were not included in the estimated costs of the snow sail project. In order to assure complete public
safety below the Milepost 151 path some forecasting and control will have to be included. Otherwise,
you are giving the impression that Milepost 151 will only be "approximately 85 percent" safe.
Response 8-8: WYDOT has made considerable efforts to improve the training levels of its
employees to evaluate and respond to avalanche threats. WYDOT will work with Forest Service
and Wyoming Game and Fish Department staff to develop an acceptable procedure for controlling
avalanches with explosives.
Correct, Table 2-1 should be amended to include costs for forecast and control. However, this does
not affect the selection of the Preferred Alternative. See revised Table 2-1.
22
Decision Notice
Table 2-1
Alternatives Comparison
Avalanehe
·Possible
Costs at
Mp.151
Forecast and Control
(No-Action)
Yes
$50Kiyr.
Snow sails, year-round
Greatly
Reduced
$95K plus
$20Kiyr.*
Snow sails, Seasonal
Set-up (Preferred
Alternative)
Greatly
Reduced
Snow rakes
No
$95K and
$3K for
storage racks
and
$20Kiyear
maintenance
plus
$20Kiyr.*
$800K
Snow shed
Yes
$1:2.75M
Traffic
Delays
Moderate
Construction .
Impact
V"asuar·
Impact':
...Wildlife:
.Jmpaet.
Noise
Impact
None
None
Extreme
Extreme
Low
Low
Depende
nt on
Color of
Sail
Low
None
Low
Low
Low
Low
None
None
High
Low
None
None
High at Road
High
Moderate
at Road
None
None
*Please note that forecast and control measures may st1ll be requ1red 1n conJunction w1th the snow sa1ls. However, the forecast and
control cost is less than the annual cost of $50K because the need for detonating explosives would be necessary only in certain
types of situation.
Comment 8-C: On page 1-3, the EA states that, "When WYDOT attempts to release an avalanche by
detonation of explosives, they enlist the services of an avalanche forecaster". This is like putting the cart
before the horse. An avalanche forecaster's services should be enlisted well before any hazard from
accumulating snow even exists. I found the above statement in the EA to be deceiving, if not completely
false. I have no knowledge that WYDOT has ever enlisted the services of any qualified or experienced
local avalanche forecaster prior to detonating explosives on the Milepost 151 path or any other avalanche
path in the area. I would ask, who was that avalanche forecaster?
Response 8-C: As mentioned in the Response to Comment 8-B, WYDOT has made a
considerable efforts to improve training levels of its employees to evaluate and respond to
avalanche. WYDOT staff, based on years of professional experience and intuition, in conjunction
with monitoring equipment serve in the capacity as avalanche forecaster. In addition, WYDOT
uses the forecast put out by the Bridger-Teton National Forest avalanche laboratory located at the
Jackson Hole Mountain Resort, and WYDOT can tie into a Forest Service sponsored avalanche
forecast for additional information.
Comment Letter 9(from Sandy Shuptrine, Teton County Commissioner))
Comment 9-A: I prefer the Preferred Alternative (green sail, seasonally deployed) or the forecast and
control but am less interested in the forecast and control after conversations with the resource people.
Response 9-A: The Preferred Alternative is the selected alternative by this Finding ofNo
Significant Impact document.
Comment 9-B: As a County Commissioner, I appreciate consideration of our natural assets (scenic
corridors, peaceful settings, wildlife) which are fundamental to the visitor economy, which is also
23
Decision Notice
important to the State's economy. Economics of avalanche mitigation should be part of the project
(widened highway) planning. Eventually replacing the sails with vegetation sounds like a good idea.
Response 9-B: WYDOT appreciates the comments and notes that vegetative enhancements will
be pursued if feasible.
24
Decision Notice
APPENDIXB
Public Notices and Articles
Jackson Hole Guide, A9
~
---···--·-····''"~1&.-.-A,:..
.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Snow Sail Environmental Assessment
Wyoming Department of Transport~tion
Invitation for Comments
The Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) in conjunction with the Federal ·
Highway Administration and the United States Forest Service, has prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine the impacts of a proposed avalanche control ,
project. The proposed action includes installing approximately 60 snow sails on BridgerTeton National Forest land to reduce the winter danger of avalanches spilling onto US 26,
89, 189, 191, at milepost 151 south of Jackson. The 10-foot wide by 14-foot high n!ctailgular sails function by disturbing the wind patterns that deposit snow that may eventually
break loose and cause an avalanche to spill onto US 89/191. A final decision document will
be issued after the public comment period, once all comments are reviewed. Public comments on the document are requested.
Copies of the Environmental Assessment are available for public review at the following
locations beginning Wednesday, August 23, 2000:
Teton County Public Library
125 Virginian Lane
Jackson, WY 83001
(307) 733-2164
WYDOT Environmental Services
5300 Bishop Blvd.
Cheyenne, WY 82009-3340
(307) 777-3997
Jackson Planning Office
150 E. Pearl Avenue
Jackson, WY 83001
(307) 733-0440
Bridger-Teton National Forest, Jackson Ranger
District Office
25 Rosencrans Lane
Jackson, WY 83001
(307) 749-5400
'
wYDOT
Jac.kson Shop
1040 Evans Road
Jackson, WY :BOO!
(307) 733-3665
Written comments can be submitted to:
Timothy L. Stark, PE
Wyoming Department of Transportation
Environmental Services Engineer
P.O. Box 1708
Cheyenne, VV)' 82003-1708
Fax: (307) 777-4193
Email: tstark@missc.state.wy.us
The Public Cmnment Period ends 30 days from the Notice of Availability. Comments must
be postmarked no later than Friday, September 22, 2000.
A public open house meeting will be held: Thursday, September 14, 2000 at the Teton·
County Commissioners Room, 200 S. Willow Street, Jackson, Wyoming between 4:30 and
7:00p.m.
Interested parties may attend any time, at their convenience, during these scheduled hours.
WYDOT pers01mel and others involved with the project will be available to discuss the proj·ect with individuals and answer questions. Public comments will be accepted at the meeting. All interested parties are invited to attend the open house. Individuals with a handicap or a disability that would prevent their attendance or participation may contact Mr. Stark
at the above address prior to .the meeting so that accommodations to participate can be
arranged.
16B. JACKSON HOLE NEWS, Wednesday, August 23, 2000
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOD in conjunction with the Federal
Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine the impacts of a proposed avalanche control
project. The proposed action includes installing approximately 60 snow sails on Bridger Teton National Forest iland to reduce the winter danger of avalanches spilling onto US 26,
89, 189, 191, at milepost 151 south of Jackson. The 10-foot wide by 14-foot high rectangular sails function by disturbing the wind patterns that deposit snow that may eventually
break loose and cause an avalanche to spill onto US 89/191. A final decision document will
be issued after the public comment period, once all comments are reviewed. Public comments on the document are requested.
Copies of the Environmental Assessment are available for public review at the following
locations beginning Wednesday, August 23, 2000:
125 Virginian Lape
Jackson, WY 83001
(307) 733-2164
5300 Bishop Blvd.
(307) 777-3997
Jackson Planning OffiCI!
150 E. Pearl Avenue
Jackson, WY 83001
(307) 733-0440
District Office
25 Rosencrans Lane
Jackson, WY 83001
(307) 749-5400
WYDOT Jackson Shop
1040 Evans Road
Jackson, WY 83001
(307) 733-3665
P.O. Box 1708
Fax: (307) 777-4193
Email: tstark@missc.state. wy.us
The Public Comment Pedod ends 30 days from the Notice of Availability. Comments must
be postmarked no later than Friday, September 22, 2000.
A public open house meeting will be held: Thursday, September 14, 2000 at the Teton
County Commissioners Room, 200 S. Willow Street, Jackson, Wyoming between 4:30 and
7:00p.m.
WYDOT personnel and others involved with the project will be available to discuss the project with individuals and answer questions. Public comments will be accepted at the meeting. All interested parties are invited to attend the open house. Individuals with a handicap or a disability that would prevent their attendance or participation may contact Mr. Stark
at the above address prior to the meeting so that accommodations to participate can be
arranged.
I
C6
Wednesday, August 23, 2000
Casper Star-Tribune
,,,~ ·•m,..._-,..,.,_,n,7-W'<'~"_.....,_...._,
••
"~
· ., .. , .. ·•
•···-··~-A""A·•·-w···•--•.>H/..;M->.••.?/Y/•~'1';' .~,-r"'
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Wyoming Department ofTransportation (WYDOT) in conjunction with the Federal
Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine the impacts of a proposed avalanche control project. The proposed action includes installing approximately 60 snow sails on
Bridger- Teton National Forest land to reduce the winter danger of avalanches spilling
onto US 26, 89, 189, 191, at milepost 151 south of Jackson. The 10-foot wide by 14foot high rectangular sails function by disturbing the wind patterns that deposit snow that
may eventually break loose and cause an avalanche to spill onto US 891191. A final decision document will be issued after the public comment period, once all comments are
reviewed. Public comments on the document are requested.
Copies of the Environmental Assessment are available for public review at the following locations beginning Wednesday, Augus!23, 2000:
125 Virginian Lane
Jackson, WY 83001
(307) 733-2164
wiDOT Environmental Services
S3{jJ Bishop Blvd.
Ch~enne, WY 82009-3340
(3ol) 777-3997
Ranger l5C E. Pearl Avenue
Jackson, WY 83001
(307) 733-0440
Br
D'
25
Jac
(30
•
ger-Teton National Forest, Jackson
ict Office
osencrans Lane
on, WY 83001
749-5400
WYDOT Ja,:kson Shop
1040 Evans Road
Jackson, WY 83001
(307) 733-3665
Written comments can be submitted to: -~_;_
·
Wyoming Dt:partment ofTransportation
P.O. Box 1708
Fax: (307) 777-4193
The Public Comment Period ends 30 days from the Notice of Availability. Comments
must be pos1marked no later than Friday, September 22, 2000.
A public op,:n house meeting will be held: Thursday, September 14, 2000 at the Teton
County Commissioners Room, 200 S. WilloW Street, Jackson, Wyoming between 4:30
and 7:00 p.r1.
Interested parties may attend any time, at their convenience, during these scheduled
hours. WYDOT personnel and others involved with the project will be available to discuss the pro. ect with individuals and answer questions. Public comments will be accepted at the me,:ting. All interested parties are invited to attend the open house. Individuals
with a handicap or a disability that would prevent their attendance or participation may
contact Mr. Stark at the above address prior to the meeting so that accommodations to
participate can be arranged.
JACKSON HOLE NEWS, Wednesday, September 13, 2000- 9B
PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE
The Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) in conjunction with the Federal
Highway Administration and the United States Forest Service, has prepared an Environmental
Assessment (EA) to determine the impacts of a proposed avalanche control project.· The proposed action includes im;taJling approximately 60 snow sails on Bridger- Teton National Forest
land to reduce the winter danger of avalanches spilling onto US 26, 89, 189, 191, at milepost
151 south of Jackson. The tO-foot wide by 14-foot high rectangular sails function by disturbing the wind patterns that deposit snow that may eventually break loose and cause an avalanche
to spill onto US 89/191. A final decision document will be issued after the public comment period, once all comments are reviewed. Public comments on the document are requested.
A public open house meeting will be held: Thursday, September 14, 2000 at the Teton County
Commissioners Room, 200 S. Willow Street, Jackson, Wyoming between 4:30 and 7:00pm. A
short presentation will be made at 6:00 pm.
WYDOT personnel and others involved with the project will be available to discuss the project
with individuals and answer questions. Public comments will be accepted at the meeting. All
interested parties are invited to attend the open house. Individuals with a handicap or a disability that would prevent their attendance or participation may contact Mr. Stark at the above
address prior to the meeting so that accommodations to participate can be arranged.
Copies of the Environmental Assessment are available for public review at the following locations:
Teton County Public Ubrary
125 Virginian Lane
Jackson, WY 83001
(307) 733-2164
5300 Bishop Blvd.
(307) 777-3997
150 E. Pearl Avenue
Jackson, WY 83001
(307) 733-0440
District Office
25 Rosencrans Lane
Jackson, WY 83001
(307) 749-5400
WYDOT Jackson Shop
I 040 Evans Road
Jackson, WY 83001
(307) 733-3665
P.O. Box 1708
Cheyenne, WY 82003- J 708
Fax: (307) 717-4193
Comments must be postmarked no later than Friday, September 22, 2000.
PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE
The Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) in conjunction with the Federal
Highway Administration and the United States Forest Service, has prepared an Environmental
Assessment (EA) to determine the impacts of a proposed avalanche controi' project. The proposed action includes installing approximately 60 snow sails on Bridger- Teton National Forest
land to reduce the winter danger of avalanches spilling onto US 26, 89, 189, 191, at milepost
151 south of Jackson. The 10-foot wide by 14-foot high rectangular sails function by disturbing the wind patterns that deposit snow that may eventually break loose and cause an avalanche
to spill onto US 89/191. A final decision document will be issued after the public comment period, once all comments are reviewed. Public comments on the document are requested.
A public open house meeting will be held: Thursday, September 14, 2000 at the Teton County
Commissioners Room, 200 S. Willow Street, Jackson, Wyoming between 4:30 and 7:00pm. A
short presentation will be made at 6:00 pro.
WYDOT pt:rsonnel and others involved with the project will be available to discuss the proJect
with individuals and answer questions. Public comments will be accepted at the meeting. All
interested parties are invited to attend the open house. Individuals with a handicap or a disability that would prevent their attendance or"participation may contact Mr. Stark at the above
address prior to the meeting so that accommodations to participate can be arranged.
Copies of the Environmental Assessment are available for public review at the following locations:
125 Virginian Lane
Jackson, WY 83001
(307) 733-2164
WYDOT Environmental Services ..,
5300 Bishop Blvd.
(307) 777-3997
150 E. Pearl Avenue
Jackson, VV\'83001
(307) 733-0440
District Office
25 Rosencrans Lane
Jackson, WY 83001
(307) 749-5400
WYDOT Jackson Shop
I 040 Evans Road
Jackson, WY 83001
(307) 733-3665
P.O. Box 170~
Fax: (307) 777-4193
Email: tstark@missc.state. wy;us
:,
Y. l
;;;;;
~'$
liu Jfk
9/t/o-o
rJN'
A-6
State seeks comments
about anti-slide 'sails'
The sails, expcct~d to work about
85 percent of the time, would be the
The Wyoming Department of first to be permanently installed in
Transportation wants the public to North America. The device was
comment on a proposal that would invented and used first in l'~uropc.
r~duce the threat of avalanches on
Last year, the transportation departHighway 89 near Rafter J.
ment installed four test sails on the
Sixty of the state-of-the-art ava- slide to examine their workability.
lanche control devices, dubbed "snow
Avalanches around the valley arc
sails, would be placed on the slope now managed with explosives. Trans·
in the ~ridger-Teton National Forest portation officials hopa the snow sails
to the east of the subdivision. The will prevent the need for c"p)osivc
snow sails would be installed beside avalanche control because the stnrt·
a slid~ path on the eastern side of ing zone for the slide path is in crit.ical
the highway, a half-mile past High winter wildlife habitat. Using cxploSchool Road along U.S. 89-191 just si\•es scares deer and elk at a time
south of Jackson.
when they need every ounce of energy
The 14-foot-high rectangular cloth to survive, officials have said.
panels would be positioned near the
Transportation officials say some
starting zone of an avalanche path explosivos would be necessary during
known as the Gravel Pit Slide, official- severe storms.
ly marked at highway milepost 151.
The department has released a
In recent years, avalanches on the plan for public review and now wants
slide path caused two serious acci- comments. Comments must be postdents when tons of snow crushed cars marked by Sept 22.
traveling on the busy highway.
The department also is holding a
If installed, the snow sails would public forum between 4:30 and 7 p.m.
interrupt the wind that causes blow- Sept. 14 in the commissioners meeting snow to accumulate and pack into ing room at the Teton County Adminunstable, avalanche-prone slabs. istration Building at 200 S. Willow St.
Some of the tan and white devices The proposal is available at the Teton
were erected to allow residents to County Library at 125 Virginian Lane
iudge how visible they would be.
and other locations.
By Melanie Harrice
b
SEP 07 '00 15:56
-.r..:.
....;
4A ·JACKSON HOLE NEWS, Wednesday, September 27, 2000.
.\ll [ ''' nnlliir_._
EDITORIAL
Snow sails make
sense for ·Wildlife
J
;
I
'
Novel avalanche <Jevices pr;oposed above a busy
highway south of Jackson apt>ear to be more of a
help to wildlife than the threat to animals that
some regard them. The devices are called snow
sails and they are designed to flap in the wind and
break up the air flow that creates dangerous slabs
of snow that are prone to slide. Proposed on the
upwind side of a gully above Highway 89 jus.t..south
of Jackson, the busiest primary highway in the
s~ate, the snow sails are designed to reduce slide
danger in the Pit Slid~, ao avalanche path that has
caused two serious accidents in recent years.
An environmental group recently questioned
whether the snow sails -there will be 60 of them,
each 14 feet high- will harm wildlife. The hillside is winter range for elk and deer. There's no
question that continued development around
Jackson Hole is detrimental to wildlife habitat.
~ut the project appears to bt~ designed to do
wildlife more good than harm.
,
Without the snow sails, the Wyoming Department of Transportation said it would have to
reduce the hazard of avalanches by using explosives. Such activities, it would appear, would do
far more to disrupt wildlife and chase them from
the slopes than 60 snow sails. If the snow sails do
their job - this wiH be the first place they are used
in the U.S. -they also would make the slopes
safer for deer and elk In at least one of the recent
avalanches, deer or elk hair was found on the vehi·
cle that was smashed by the slide. It is likely that
wildlife set off avalanches in such situations.
The snow sails would be an intrusion, but likely one to which wildlife would adapt. Animals are
smart enough to learn when things are a danger
to them and when they are not.
Winter START route
SEP 28 '00 09:38
LETTERS
No.butts ...
I was late in responding to an
article in your Sept. 13 issue but st
the time I was sure someone else
would do so, but no one did.
I am writing regarding a headline
in the sports section on the outcome
of a soccer team of 11 year old boys
who were competing against a team
from another community. 'l'he
headline read something like "Soccer Team Kicks Butt" in describing
the team's victory by some overwhelming margin.
Since I do not wjsh to bore you
with the litany of reasons this is
wrong, nor appear overly moralistic,_ let me just say Mr. Sdlett
Onesi
Over tt
llole Neu.
which acti
the state
Progy-am.
allcmpt tc
in either c;
into tho 1
materials
regarding
offort to p1
is adisscr
Be caw
lams that
the Cold
created t
gram in:
itor activ
our char
finding.!:
stAndflbl·
,,,.,- ...
Jackson Hole Guide
Daily edition of Sept. 5
WyDOT proposes snow
sails near Rafter J
By Matt Hansen
Jackson Hole Guide
A plan to install up to 60 snow sails on a mountainside just south of
Jackson is out for public review, and the agencies involved in the project
are asking for public comment.
Each snow sail, a device developed and regularly used in Europe, is
rectangular and measures 10 feet wide and 14 feet high. They function by
changing wind patterns so that wind slabs - which can cause dangerous
avalanches- do not form in the snow.
In this case, the snow sails will be used to prevent avalanches from sliding
down onto Hwy. 26-89-189-191 at milepost 151. This spot is located across
the highway from the Rafter J subdivision.
A demonstration project was done last winter with four snow sails in the
area where avalanche slabs have formed in the past. The avalanche path has
been the site of two serious accidents in recent years which were caused by
sliding snow, according to Wyoming Department of Transportation officials.
The plan for 60 snow sails has been outlined in an environmental assessment
that was prepared by WyDOT, the Federal Highway Administration and the U.S.
Forest Service.
WyDOT now detonates 25-pound explosives on the mountainside to break loose
avalanches when there are not motorists on the road below. The state agency
believes that using the sails as the primary avalanche-prevention tool
rather than explosives will be less damaging to an area known to be crucial
winter habitat for moose, deer and elk, WyDOT officials have said.
In Jackson, copies of the assessment are available at the Teton County
Library, the Town of Jackson Planning Office, the Bridger-Teton National
Forest's Jackson Ranger District, and at WyDOT's Jackson office at 1040
Evans Road.
A public open house will be held from 4:30p.m. to 7 p.m. on Thursday, Sept.
14, at the Teton County Administration Building, located at 200 S. Willow.
Those interested in the project can attend the open house at any time during
the scheduled hours. WyDOT officials and others involved in the project will
be on hand to answer questions and to gather public comment.
Written comments can be submitted to: Timothy Stark, PE, Wyoming Department
ofTransportation, Environmental Services Engineer, Box 1708, Cheyenne, WY
82003-1708.
The comment period ends Friday, Sept. 2.2. A fmal decision will be made
after the comment period ends.
Decision Notice
.APPENDIXC
Comment Letters and
Public Hearing Transcript
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Jon Shick" <heli-ski®wyoming.com>
<tstark®missc.Btate.wy.us>
9/15/00 4:53pm
Jackson Snow Sail Project
Sept. 15, 2000
Wyoming Department of Transfortation
5300 Bishop Boulevard
Dear Mr. Stark,
I attended the public meeting and presentation on the Snow Sail Project in
Jackson last night and would like to submit the following comments.
It appears that all of the alternatives have some negative impacts but the
snow sail project may be the least offensive with minimal impact on
wildlife. The visual impact seems to be the major concern.
I question whether the seasonal removal of the sails is really cost
effective.
I am perhaps even more in favor of the construction of permanent
snow fences.
They would probably be more effective, are less offensive if
constructed of natural materials, and are a fixture on many Wyoming
highways.
Would you even be considering the sail alternative if this wasn't
in Jackson?
The weakest part of WYDOT's avalanche program has always been in their
forecasting.
The effectiveness of the various methods used in avalanche
control starts with a good avalanche forecast.
Sincerely,
Jon Shick
P.O. Box 1366
Jackson, WY 83001
Mr. Tim Stark
Cheyenne, Wyoming
September 15, 2000
Re: Public Comment on Snow Sails
Though I work for WYDOT, this letter represents my comments on the Snow Sail project as an
average citizen. It should carry no more, or no less influence than any other letter you might
recetve.
I think the Snow Sail project has merit. However, I feel the proposed number of sails is far too
many. I suggest a conservative start of maybe 20 sails, with a couple below the grove of trees as
well. Last winter, a below average year, the only slide to run at milepost 151 started below the
trees. Evaluations could be conduc:ted each spring, and adjustments of additional sails or
moving existing sails to a more effective location could be made.
One person at the public meeting said she wants the sails taken down each year. I disagree.
Taking the sails down each May could do serious damage to vegetation on the ridge. And
deploying them again in the fall could pack the vegetation down, or establish a barren trail on
what would be prime winter habitat. Again, with a fewer number of sails, it would be less of a
visual impact on people, and generate less wildlife disturbing activities in the area.
I also have some concerns that snow displacement might load the slide area just north of
milepost 151. It is a much lower velocity slide but worthy of consideration. As for the color of
the sails, my vote is for tan.
Thank you
Galen Richards
1250 E. Elk Dr.
Jackson, Wyoming 83001
horsebroke@compuserve.com
Timothy Stark (PE)
Box 1708
Sept. 20, 2000
Dear Sir:
I am writing about the proposed Snow Sail installation Across from
Rafter J. I have looked at the Snow Sails for the demonstration project since
their installation. They look like a Drive-in Theater Screen on a natural
hillside, very unpleasant to the eye. Why were they not removed when
there was no longer a need for them? There has not been a chance of an
avalanche since they were accessible after the snow melted.
The article in the news paper states that "the state agency " Feels "
that using the sails as a primary avalanche tool rather than explosives will be
less damaging to the area known for it's crucial winter habitat for moose,
deer and elk." Do you have information other than "a Feeling" that this is
true? I have not seen game in the area of the snow sails since they were
placed there.
If you decide that Snow Sails must be Installed in the area, Please use
as few of them as is necessary and design the installation so that they can be
easily removed at the ftrst opportunity.
Sincerely
Mark Daj9lport ~---
fi/~U~
1965 South Fork Rd.
Jackson Hole WY. 83001
:
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"John F. Spahr, Jr." <PMcNeill@compuserve.com>
Tim Stark <tstark®missc.state.wy.us>
9/21/00 3:08pm
Snow Sail EA
Wyoming Chapter of the Sierra Club
P.O. Box 263
Jackson, WY 83001
P.O. Box 1708
email: tstark®missc.state.wy.us
September 20, 2000
RE: Snow Sail EA
Mr. Stark:
Please accept these comments on behalf of the Wyoming Chapter of the Sierra
Club (WCSC) .
I attended the Jackson public hearing on September 14th, and
was able to have many questions answered at that time. I find I still have
several problems with this proposal.
Two of the four test snow sails "failed" structurally during the test
period. Can you imagine 30 failed snow sails? What assurances do we have
the design "bugs" will be go:ne?
The B-TNF's Preferred Alternative now proposes the snow sails be a rather
bright (and un-treelike) color of green, in an attempt to somehow mimic odd
shaped shrubs or trees. The 1:est sails were beige and white. Rand Decker,
the project's main engineer, recommended the beige sail color at the open
house. He based his recommendation on the snow scour that occurred this
past winter of low snowfall :Ln the area, allowing dried grass cover to be
exposed. He also suggested informally that a line of 60 green snow sails
would look very artificial, and suggested some mixing of beige and green,
if the B-TNF continues backing green sails.
If the Project goes forward, WCSC suggests another test year, using
structurally strengthened snow sails in the two colors, green and beige. It
is the visual impact of 60 snow sails that will be the most noticed by area
residents and visitors, so it. is only fitting the snow sails be re-tested
in this new form.
WCSC understands the highway safety and maintenance concerns for the area.
The reduction in the size of the catch basin at the foot of the avalanche
area is an unfortunate legacy of the recent highway widening project. Was
this loss of avalanche "control" area considered when that area of the
highway was redesigned? It should have been. Perhaps the highway could have
been extended further to the west, instead of intruding into a necessary
.•
avalanche catch basin. Now ·~e are asked to consider this proposal which
will still only partially counter the threat of avalanches there.
WYDOT "expects that the snm., sails will significantly reduce the need for
detonating explosives,"
(El\. 2-3). Yet
WYDOT still anticipates the need
for detonating some explosi,res for avalanche control. This was estimated to
be up to 3 times per season and perhaps more by WYDOT personnel at the
public hearing (although thJ.s figure and the data supporting are not to be
found in the EA) . This will entail personnel hiking up into closed winter
range to dig test pits and Hauge avalanche danger. It will entail
helicopter dropping of 25-50 pound bombs into the area, or hand placing the
explosives. It will entail t~he locating, clearing or exploding of any
"duds." It will entail highv.ray closure and plowing of avalanche runouts
onto the highway.
Right now, WYDOT is having difficulty signing a local contract for
helicopter assistance, so we are looking at the more dangerous hand
placement of explosives. Helicopter detonation missions were estimated at
the public hearing to cost up to $2,000. If a Salt Lake City helicopter
operator is used, as it was recently, we can expect each mission to cost
$6,000. These cost figures were not included in the EA. All this IN
ADDITION to the cost of manufacturing the snow sails and their erection,
maintenance and disassembly and storage.
Table 2-1 Alternatives Comparison (EA, 2-7) is incorrect and incomplete.
The $50,000 figure for forecasting and control was deemed too high by one
meteorologist attending the public hearing. He said a local site
forecaster/monitor could come in with a lower figure. This should be
explored. I'm unclear how attendant WYDOT costs, like snow removal from the
site after any detonation missions, would fit in here. The $95,000 plus
$10,000 figure per year for maintenance is also suspect. The $95K figure
was explained as a capitalization (manufacturing) cost by Mr. Decker at the
public hearing. The $10K for maintenance is explained in the EA as an
annual maintenance cost for 60 snow sails. Table 2-1 is missing the
following. figures given in the EA (2-5): Take down and reassembly per year
@ $10K, a one time $3K cost for storage racks, and a potential future cost
for on site storage. It is necessary to include all the costs in an easily
understandable form to truly facilitate Alternative comparison.
It appears this proposal still needs a complete risk assessment done by
qualified professionals. The GUESSES AND ESTIMATES offered at the public
hearing (and not included wit:hin the EA) on the number of avalanches per
year over the last decade, the number and costs of avalanche control
efforts at the site over the last decade, projections of future avalanche
runouts onto the highway with the loss of the catch basin and projections
of avalanche control that will still be needed with snow sails and all
their attendant costs are unacceptable.
Concerns remain for wildlife in the project area. With detonation and its
attendant activities still called for even with snow sails, I'm not
convinced this Project's version of the "cure" is that much better than
leaving well enough alone. WYDOT could monitor the site for a few seasons
by hiring a local site forecaster/monitor at a reduced cost than that
quoted in the EA. Costs and risk assessment could be analyzed. The
redesigned snow sails could be set up in both green and beige for another
year, then be reassessed.
Please keep me informed if this Project moves forward.
Sincerely,
Page McNeill
Conservation Chairperson
ph: 307-734-0441
email: pmcneill®Compuserve.com
p.s. There is a typo on Page 3-13, 2nd line of the EA: "opage'"? opaque?
CC:
Page McNeill <pmcneill®compuserve.com>
'·
Working Today for Wildlife/s Tomorrow!
September 20, 2000
Tim Stark
WYOOT
Cheyenne,VVyonting
Mr. Stark:
Please accept these comments on the Environmental Assessment on the request
from VVYDOT to gain permission from the Bridger-Teton Forest to deploy "snow
sails" on USFS lands adjacent to US Hwy 191 south of the Town of Jackson to
control avalanche activity.
The VVyonting VVildlife Federation (VVVVF) represents approximately 6,000 wildlife
enthusiasts and their families who have sought protection for wildlife habitat and
wildlands for over 63 years.
"-.,.
Need and Risk
The VVVVF submitted scoping comments on this proposed action to WYDOT last
November 17th. In those comments we asked the cooperating agencies and
departments to facilitate a risk assessment to be done by qualified professionals
on this matter. After reading the EA it appears an adequate risk assessment was
not done. A portion of a professionally formulated risk assessment would address
the likelihood of avalanches occurring under different but plausible conditions.
On page 2-1 of the EA it states that, ".... avalanche forecasting practice at milepost
151 is based on experience, extrapolation of data from similar sites and intuition."
Later in the same paragraph it states that such forecasting is done by WYDOT
employees. Much of the "hazard", ''danger", "likelihood of injury or fatality", and
"risk" that this proposed action mentions and is supposed to alleviate is stipulated
to by WYDOT. But where is any of this quantified?
Merely listing the 3 slides that resulted in auto accidents over the past 8 years
(EA p. 1-4) and saying that the snow sail deployment would," ... reduce the need
for detonating explosives (for avalanche control) by approximately 85 percent"
(EA p. 2-3; parenthesis added) is not an adequate assessment of risk, nor does it
P.O. Box 106 • Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003 • Phone 307-637-5433 • Fax 307-637-6629
Wyoming Aftlliate of the National Wildlife Federation
Working Today for Wildlife's Tomorrow!
2
offer the public adequate information to formulate an opinion of this proposal to
undertake a significant action on their public lands, and that may affect human
health, wildlife, and visual resources.
A true risk assessment is done by professionals who take into account a
comprehensive history of COMPARATNE DATA. For instance on page 2-3 in the
EA, it mentions " ... 17 out of 20 avalanches are due to wind slab formation." Over
how many years was this data gathered? What were the causes of the other
avalanches? Is the public to assume that deployment of snow sails would Nar
alleviate the conditions or impetus for the remaining 3 of 20 avalanches?
The same page of the EA says that deployment of snow sails, "..... would not
preclude, especially under very severe storm conditions, the possibility of an
avalanche. In such a case WYDOT would need to augment the use of snow sails by
detonating explosives." Did the preparers of this EA research meteorological data
from the past decades which would give indications of frequency of "very severe
storm conditions" which would prompt helicopter and explosive action by
WYDOT? If, for instance, "very severe storm conditions" occur twice every winter
season, and since the EA admits that the snow sail deployment would Nar
eliminate the need for traditional avalanche control, would it then be a safe
assumption that traditional avalanche control would be needed an average of
twice per winter season averaged over 5 years no matter the snow sail
deployment? How would this compare to the number of times helicoptering and
bombing has occurred in the past 3 decades?
This EA leaves out key information about risk and need when it offers statements
such as, ".. 17 out of 20 avalanches .. ", "...reducing the need.... by approximately 85
percent.", and when it predicates this proposal on 3 avalanches that resulted in
auto accidents over the past 8 years and the alleged ability to decrease such
accidents in the future. By ad1nission, WYDOT has used inadequate "intuition" to
forecast avalanches in the past (WYDOT obviously missed at least 3). Having
WYDOT contribute further guesses does not engender confidence from the public.
Clearly, if helicoptering and bornbing has occurred twice a season in past years,
P.O. Box 106 • Cheyenne, Wy::Jming 82003 • Phone 307-637-5433 • Fax 307-637-6629
Wvomin,t; Af.'iliate o( the National Wildlife Federation
Working Today for Wildlife 1S Tomorrow!
3
and if it would STILL occur twice a season based on severe storm occurrences
(regardless of snow sail deployment), nothing has been gained by implementation
of this proposal, and indeed the public would have been mislead by statements
and assumptions contained in this EA.
There are many other variables and statistics that would be included in an
appropriate risk assessment.
Some of these would deal with avalanche
occurrence under varied temperature and snow conditions at different times of
the day or night and timing of auto trips across the avalanche path.
Wildlife
The public maintains great interest in the welfare of wildlife and habitat. During
the planning process and formulation of the Land and Resource Management Plan
for the Bridger-Teton Forest, the public and wildlife professionals determined
that it serves the public's interest to protect winter range for various wildlife
species. This proposed project to deploy snow sails occurs in crucial wildlife
range for mule deer and elk, and habitat for a host of other wildlife species.
Despite marginal mitigation efforts (anchoring of sails to decrease flapping; preand post- winter human construction activity; and the assumption of decreasing
use of helo's and explosives) the bottom line of this proposal is loss of wildlife
winter range on an undetermined level.
And even though the EA at page 3-12 states this project, " .. might reduce wildlife
mortality by decreasing animal induced snow slides.", this is a weak attempt to
paint this project with a pro-wildlife brush. Little data is offered to support this
possibility.
Visual/Scenic
As stated in the EA (p. 3-21), "US 89/191 is a designated Scenic Byway in the
Bridger-Teton Forest Management Plan." The route is also designated as such by
the State of Wyoming. The Teton County Comprehensive Plan also talks about
Wyoming Aftiliate of the National Wildlife Federation
Working Today for Wildlife/s Tomorrow!
4
maintaining the open views from this route (EA p. 3-22). Yet, given these clear
mandates from local and regional community planning efforts this EA arrives at
an astounding illogical conclusion (EA p. 3-26): "Overall, the sails are secondary to
the landscape. People who travel the corridor regularly are accustomed to the
corridor and its "utility" nature." The Wyoming Wildlife Federation strongly
disagrees with the expressed and implied message of this statement by the
preparers of this document. If the people of Jackson Hole and Wyoming, either
directly or by representation, participated in the designation of this travel route
as "scenic" how can the preparers stipulate that intrusion of scores of huge
artificial billboard-like canvas panels would not be perceived as intrusions on
what was originally valued by the citizens and travelers? This assumption defies
logic.
The EA on page 3-26 further declares that impacts from snow sails to the view
along this corridor would "be nlinimal" because travelers usually look west rather
than east and uphill. And yet at page 1-4 of this EA it admits that the west side
of the highway at this location is planned for intensive residential and commercial
development. Wouldn't the view east become even more valued by the public if
the west side of the highway loses its current bucolic pastoral character?
We would remind the agencies and departments involved in this EA that some of
the best wildlife viewing for travelers going south from the Town .of Jackson,
especially in the winter are indeed east and uphill from the highway. Table 3-3,
figures 3-1, 3-2 and text in the EA at page 3-7 detail some of the wildlife
resources visible along this route. And in the summertime, and even in a
moderate winter, there is frequent raptor activity on these uplands. The EA is
wrong to stipulate that the view east is less valuable to the traveling public than
the view west. It offers different values.
It is stating the obvious that residents within sight of the proposed project area
would be adversely impacted by having their view of previously pristine hillsides
cluttered by scores of snowsails. There is no other conclusion to draw.
Wyoming AfFiliate of the National Wildlife Federation
Working Today for Wildlife's Tomorrow!
5
Conclusion and Recommendation
It is apparent that the preparers of this analysis have not done, or contracted for,
an adequate risk assessment that would help clarify the necessity of this project.
Nor have the cooperators done a good job of offering the public a clear picture of
comparisons for costs of this project and other avalanche mitigating procedures.
And, it would appear that, since the loss of the "catch basin" (EA p. 1-3, 1-4) along
the highway was the result of actions taken by WYDOT, that that same
department needs to construct another such basin if at all possible.
Since the EA at page 2-3 states that conventional helicopter and bombing actions
will still need to be taken, although it does not offer any estimate as to frequency
(see comments above), this project is an example of the proposed "cure" being
more deleterious on many levels than the problem it allegedly was intended to
alleviate.
The Wyoming Wildlife Federation recommends that this project be DENIED by the
Bridger-Teton Forest.
Please keep us advised of any actions on this proposal.
oming Wildlife Federation Field Office Director
Wyoming Affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation
State Of Wyoming
Office o.f Federal Land Policy
ART REESE
DIRECTOR
JIM GERINGER
GOVERNOR
September 22, 2000
Timothy L. Stark
Wy. Department ofTransportation
P.O. Box 1708
Re:
Dave Cunningham
Jackson Ranger District
P.O. Box 1689
Jackson, WY 83001
Environmental Assessment, Snow Sail, Jackson South Avalanche Mitigation
Dear Mr. Stark and Mr. Cunningham:
On behalfofthe State ofWyoming, this Office has reviewed the referenced document.
We also provided the information to all affected State agencies for their review, in accordance
with State Clearinghouse procedures. Enclosed you will find a letter from the Wyoming Game
and Fish Department which resulted from their review.
State agency comments are specific to their respective agency missions. While the State
defers to their respective technical expertise in developing a unified State position, the
responsibility to ultimately articulate the official state policies and positions lies with the
Governor or the Office of Federal Land Policy.
Having said that, provided the concerns of the Game and Fish Department are given
adequate consideration as this project moves forward, the State of Wyoming has no objections at
this time.
Please provide this office with four copies of future information and documents for
continued distribution and review. We appreciate the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Enclosure (1)
Herschler Building I W + 122 W. 25th Street+ Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002-0060
Phone (307) 777-7331 + Fax (307) 777-3524
WYOMING
GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT
Jim Geringer, Gov8mor
"Conservilrg Wildlife -Serving People"
September 13,2000
WER9565
Federal Highway Administration
FHWA-WY-EA-00-0 1
PREB: ONI0-04(061)
Environmental Assessment
Snow Sail-Jackson South Avalanche Mitigation
State Identifier Number: 99-142
Teton County
Art Reese, Director
Office of Federal Land Policy
Herschler Building, 1W
122 W. 25th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002
Dear Mr. Reese:
These comments regarding the Environmental Assessment for the Snow Sail, Jackson
South Avalanche Mitigation have been approved by the Director and are specific to this agency's
statutory mission within State government which is "Conserving Wildlife, Serving People". In
that regard these comments are meant to, in association with all other agency comments, assist in
defining the Official State Position. These comments defer to and are subordinate to the Official
State Position.
The area ofthe proposed pilot project is designated crucial winter range for the Sublette
mule deer herd, Fall Creek elk herd, Jackson bighorn sheep herd, and Sublette moose herd.
During the last five years, approximately 50-125 deer, 30-60 elk, 3-6 moose and 1-4 bighorn
sheep were known to have spent the winter in the general vicinity of the active avalanche area.
Potential impacts to wintering big game include restriction of movement along the slope,
distribution changes of big game, injuries due to guy wires, and temporary displacement of
animals during seasonal deployment/removal of sails.
These comments are reflective of a specific agency mission only. These comments defer to and
are subordinate to the Official State Position.
Headquarters: 5400 Bishop Boulevard, Cheyenne, WY 82006-0001
Fax: (30/') 777-4610 Web Site: http://gf.state.wy.us
Mr. Art Reese
September 13, 2000
Page 2 - WER 9565
It is not known ifthe snow sails will be a substantial barrier to big game movement along
the slope during the winter. The sails would be located on the upper third of the slope, and big
game could move both above and below the sails or choose a route between the sails if they
become habituated to their presence. Migration routes and daily movement routes for both mule
deer and elk cross the slopes. It may aid animal movements if the spacing between individual
snow sails was at least 15 feet in order to provide a potential avenue of travel between the sails
for big game animals. Animal responses will not be known until the project is implemented. If
the project is successful, it will likely be proposed for other areas in the region. We encourage
the Wyoming Department ofTransportation(WYDOT) to monitor the animals' responses to the
project so that impacts can be identified and mitigated, and future projects can benefit from that
information.
Currently, to bring down avalanches, WYDOT detonates 25-pound explosive charges in
the Milepost 151 avalanche-starting zone. WYDOT expects that the snow sails will significant! y
reduce the need for detonating explosives, which likely have a greater negative impact than the
sails would have on the deer, elk, moose, and mountain sheep using the area as crucial winter
range.
However, if it becomes necessary to use explosives in conjunction with snow sails during
winters with heavy snow accumulation, total negative impacts to big game would be increased.
This increased level of disturbance could cause big game to be displaced into marginal habitats
and may predispose the animals to higher winter mortality rates. Before discharge of explosives
to clear avalanche dangers is implemented, we request that Department personnel in the Jackson
Regional Office be notified. We would like to work with WYDOT to ensure that the potential
path of the avalanche is cleared of wildlife by hazing with the helicopter that delivers the
explosives prior to detonation ofthe charges.
Each sail would have four guy wires that meet at a single point on the windward side of
the snow sail. There is a potential for big game to become entangled in the wires and for big
game or raptors to be injured or killed by collisions with the wires. Monitoring of these incidents
should be formalized so that information on the extent of these incidents can be made available
for possible mitigation measures, if necessary, and as information for future similar projects.
Potential impacts to big game and raptors would be minimized through implementation
of several mitigation measures. The winter range closure period from December 1 to April 30,
with the construction and snow sail deployment and removal outside that time period, would
minimize disturbance to big game species. Constructing the guy wires of a material that is
visible to birds would help prevent collisions by raptors and other birds.
Mr. Art Reese
September 13, 2000
Page 3 - WER 9565
We request WYDOT coordinate with the Department's Jackson Regional Office on the
location of the storage shed, in order to pick a location that would minimize disturbance of big
game animals during times ofhum<m activity at the shed. Finally, vegetation removed from the
project area during construction activities should be replaced by reseeding with native species.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
l3tittd~
BILL WICHERS
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
BW:TC:as
I Catherine Cox- SNOWSAIL.DOC
Page 1
MountainWeather ™
www.mountainweather.com
Jim Woodmencey, Meteorologist
P.O. Box 2221 *Jackson, WY $ 83001
Phone & Fax: (307) 739-9282
e-mail: iwoodmen@wvoming.com
September 22, 2000
Timothy Stark
Wyoming Dept. of Transportation
P.O. Box 1708
Cheyenne, WY 82003
RE: Additional Comments on Snow Sail Project
Mr. Stark,
I attended the Public meeting on the Snow Sail Project on Sept. 14,2000 and made a few
comments there, however, I still have a few additional comments I will outline here.
1) It seems to me your cost estimates for other alternatives are extremely inflated. $50,000
per year for forecast and control of this one slide path at Milepost 151 is way
overdone. Control alone via helicopter for that path (if needed at all in some years)
could be done for less than $6,000 per year, using a local operator and storing
explosives at WYDOT's bunker in Jackson. An avalanche forecaster for WYDOT
could be hired for approximately $10,000 per winter (an offer I made a year ago), and
certainly should be attainable for no more than $20,000 for the winter. And that
forecaster would also be providing forecast services for all of the avalanche areas in
the district, not just 151. To hire an avalanche forecaster to only keep track of the 151
path would be attainable fi)r considerably less. The bottom-line here is that forecast
and control for that one path ( 151) could very likely be done for less than the annual
maintenance cost of the Snow Sails.
2) That brings me to point number 2. The report states that Snow Sails will "reduce the need
for detonating explosives by approximately 85 percent". That means that there is still
going to be a need for explosive control work for the remaining 15 percent of the
time. That would imply that WYDOT would still need a forecaster to assist in the
decision of when that work should be done. I would note that these costs were not
included in the estimated costs of the Snow Sail Project. In order to assure complete
public safety below the 151 path some forecasting and control will have to be
included. Otherwise, you are giving the impression that 151 will only be
~erine Cox- SNOWSAIL.DOC
"approximately 85 percent" safe.
3) Which brings me to point number 3, on page 1-3 the report states that, "When WYDOT
attempts to release an avalanche by detonation of explosives, they enlist the
services of an avalancht~ forecaster". This is like putting the cart before the horse.
An avalanche forecaster's services should be enlisted well before any hazard from
accumulating snow even exists.
4) Additionally, I found the above statement in the report to be deceiving, if not completely
false. I have no knowledge that WYDOT has ever enlisted the services of any
qualified or experienced local avalanche forecaster prior to detonating explosives on
the 151 path or any other avalanche path in the area. I would ask, who was that
avalanche forecaster?
Thank you for considering these additional comments .
Sincerely,
Jim Woodmencey
Page 2J
SNOW SAIL
)
ENVIRONME!\TTAL
AssEssMEm
'
~
COMMENT SHEET
Comments Due by September 22, 2000
I have the following comments or concerns about the Snow Sail Environmental Assessment
project:
Date:
Address:
Phone:
'l)#m
Snowsail Environmental Assessment
9/14/2000
1
2
3
4
SNOW SAIL
5
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
6
PUBLIC HEARING
7
8
9
10
Thursday, September 14, 2000
4:00 to 7:40p.m.
11
12
200 South Willow Street
13
Administrative Building
14
County Commissioners Room
15
Jackson Hole, Wyoming
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Eagle Rock Reporting Service
www.eaglerockreporting.com
P.O. Box 51905
Idaho Falls, ID 83405
Ph.: (208) 552-9509
Fax: (208) 529-0629
9114/2000
Page 4
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
RAND DECKER: So you're representing
l
2 the paper?
MELANIE HARRIS: Oh, yeah. After the
3
4 kind of meetings I've done, I wouldn't be at a
5 meeting tonight ifl didn't have to be.
RAND DECKER: So everybody gets an
6
7 opportunity to benefit from the presence of
8 others, maybe the other people <;an introduce
9 themselves.
JOHN SCHICK: My name's John Schick,
10
11 I'm just representing myself as an individual.
12 I'm interested in the project.
NAN REPPEN: I'm Nan Reppen; I'm also
13
14 interested in alternative forms of avalanche
15 control.
DAVE CUNNINGHAM: Dave Cunningham, I'm
16
17 the Bridger Teton liaison to see what projects
18 should be implemented on national forest land.
ERNIE POTTER: Ernie Potter, WYDOT
19
20 maintenance.
GALEN RICHARDS: Galen Richards, WYDOT
21
22 maintenance.
TED WELLS: Ted Wells, I'm with WYDOT,
23
24 I'm the maintenance engineer in District Three.
CATHERINE COX: I'm Catherine Cox with
25
Public Hearing for the
Environmental Assessment of Snow Sail project of
Mile Post !51 on Highway 89/191, Jackson Hole,
Wyoming, commencing on Thursday, the 14th day of
September, 2000, at the hour of 4:00 o'clock
p.m., and continuing to 7:40 o'clock p.m.
PRESENTERS
University of Utah
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Mr. Rand Decker, Ph.D.
160 South Central Campus Drive Room 104
Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0561
Mr. Kevin Powell
5300 Bishop Boulevard
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Carter & Burgess, Inc.
Ms. Catherine Cox
216 16th Street Mall Suite 1700
Denver, CO 80202
PROCEEDINGS
6:10p.m.
September 14, 2000
Public Hearing
RAND DECKER: What would really help
me at this point is if you took a moment to tell
me who you are so I know a little bit about my
audience. I know a lot of you characters but I
don't know all of you. Actually, you.
PAGE McNEILL: I'm Page McNeill, I
represent the Wyoming chapter of the Sierra Club.
JEFF WEINSTEIN: I'm Jeff Weinstein,
I'm the environmental coordinator on the Snake
River Canyon with WYDOT.
RAND DECKER: Are you stationed at the
Jackson facility?
MR. WEINSTEIN: No, from Cheyenne.
MELANIE HARRIS: Melanie Harris, I'm a
reporter from the Jackson Hole News.
RAND DECKER: Oh, the media's here.
Are you -- do you plan to publish -MELANIE HARRIS: Yeah.
RAND DECKER: --any of the
proceedings here?
MELANIE HARRIS: Absolutely.
I
Page 5
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Carter and Burgess and I worked with Kevin and
Rand to develop this.
KEVIN POWELL: And once again, I'm
Kevin Powell but I'm with the environmental
services section ofWYDOT, out of Cheyenne.
RAND DECKER: If you have three or
four minutes, I got a couple hundred slides to
run through. The goal in my presentation is to
try to provide you with some background on
avalanche hazards to highways and the
technologies available to address them. And
these initial slides establish the consequence of
vehicle avalanche interaction. For these people,
it's actually fairly benign. They've been thrown
from the roadway into the adjacent borrow pit
without suffering a lot of structural damage to
their vehicle.
But conversely, the vehicle and
avalanches can mix in ways that's potentially
really hazardous to the occupants. Other
transportation facilities besides just vehicles
are at risk from snow avalanching, also. For
those of you that know this site, this is the
Teton-- this is the Glory Hole bridge on Teton
Pass, back when it was still a bridge but it was
2 (Pages 2 to 5)
P.O. Box 51905
Ph.: (208) 552-9509
Fax: (208) 529-0629
Snowsai1 Environmental Assessment
9/14/2000
Page 8
Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
damaged prior to completion. (indicating photo)
Other more mundane annual issues with respect to
the impact and cost of avalanches on
transportation systems.
Sort of as a starting point, I'd like
to define avalanche hazard as the mixture of the
process, natural process, and people and or
property. Avalanches without people or property
being affected are not hazardous, they're just
avalanches. And there's two principal ways that
you can address this hazard. You can either try
to control the natural process by reducing or
eliminating the possibility of interaction
between people, property and avalanches or you
can allow the avalanches to run, as a matter of
fact, you can even force them to run and
temporally control the human and property access
into the site. So there's two ways to control
avalanches. We're going to find out the snow
sail is one.
The one that we're most familiar with,
the latter one that I talked about is controlling
human presence during the time of avalanching and
that's done by forecasting avalanches and then
bringing them down while the transportation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
warn people of imminent avalanching. This is not
snow sails but this is another method to control
people and property exposure to the natural
process and it happens to be deployed right here
in your own Hoback Canyon. It's one of the few
intelligent transportation system deployments for
avalanche hazard warning. The goal here then is
to control human and property exposure by warning
them of the onset of imminent avalanche. In the
case of the Hoback Canyon, the avalanche sets off
a set of sensors which then warn either highway
maintenance workers or the public of avalanching.
So again, it's a methodology of control hazard by
controlling the human/property exposure.
I make the point here that there's a
lot of hazards, not just avalanche hazards.
There's a lot of Winter motoring hazards that can
be addressed by automated systems to control
people's access into those corridors. For
example, when Teton Pass closes just because of
the horrendous snows, you may or may not be kept
out of there by virtue of the avalanche hazard,
you may just be kept out of there by virtue of
the fact that the motoring hazard is unacceptable
at that time.
Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
system's temporarily closed. This is the
embodiment of what will occur at the 151 without
any other action being taken. This is presently
practiced by the Wyoming DOT and will continue to
be practiced; and it has some very obvious
downsides as an overall avalanche hazard
reduction technology for transportation.
Primarily, the road has to be closed
to conduct these activities. Secondarily but
still very important is there's a lot of expense
associated with cleaning up something that you
caused. And probably wouldn't be conducting this
very expensive clean up activity if you hadn't
proactively, and as an act of your own hand,
created the mess on the road in the first place.
So those are some of the real downsides to active
avalanche forecast and control for transportation
systems. You can make the argument that when you
create an avalanche in a ski area, the mess that
you create really doesn't impact additional cost
centers within the ski area to deal with the mess
you make, you just ski all over it. But here
you've got to clean it up.
(indicating photo) This is an
additional method, a novel method to control and
1:
Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Now we switch gears and talk about
methods of controlling avalanche hazard by virtue
of controlling the avalanche process itself or
the natural process. Here (indicating photo),
human and property activities occur pretty much
undisturbed while we mitigate or reduce the
hazard by systems that -- like these snow rakes,
these are snow starting zone -- avalanche
starting zone snow supporting structures. And
the goal here is to simply hold the snow in
place, to prevent the avalanche at all, so the
human and property activities can occur
uninterrupted underneath what otherwise would be
a hazard if these rakes weren't there.
Within the same vein, trying to allow
human activity to occur unimpeded while
controlling the natural process, this (indicating
photo) is a system to allow the avalanche, once
it's occurred, to pass harmlessly over the
roadway without disturbing the activities that
are occurring in the roadway. Again, a way of
reducing hazard by addressing the natural
process.
(indicating photo) Here's a novel
system for reducing the hazard by addressing the
3 (Pages 6 to 9)
P.O. Box 51905
Ph.: (208) 552-9509
Fax: (208) 529-0629
9/14/2000
Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
natural process. This is a Japanese system of
avalanche breaks. The concept is that the
avalanche flows into these porous structures and
dissipates a lot of this motion against it. You
can imagine putting these across a creek or
river, the water would pile up behind it. The
goal is to slow them down by virtue of passmg
through these man made structures. Because the
avalanche runout distance is dependent on its
velocity at any given point, if you slow them
down at this point they won't make it into the
farmlands on the valley floor. That was a
hundred forty million dollars in eighty-nine
dollars for seven farmlands in Japan.
PAGE McNEILL: How's it working?
RAND DECKER: It's designed for a
return cycle which has not yet occurred. It's
designed for a very big avalanche that hasn't
come back yet. But it killed in eighty-three,
before the construction of this.
(indicating photo) Now we get a
little closer to home. This is a snow sail
deployed in the 151 avalanche starting zone on
89/191, south ofJackson. As with the previous
concepts, the goal here is to control the hazard
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
by controlling or reducing the potential for
avalanching. You're addressing the natural
process and allowing human activity to occur
relatively unimpeded below.
Questions, if they come up, I'd be
happy to field them.
PAGE McNEILL: That's the guide wire
system you're going to use?
RAND DECKER: Yes, those are guide as
per -- those are guide as they would be
constructed, those four tests. These sails
(indicating slide) went up last Summer, not this
-- not what we're undergoing right now. As a
Winter engineer, I would like to make a point
that the Winter of2000-2001 has already started
and when I talk about last Summer, it's the one
that just occurred, the Summer of 2000. These
were deployed two summers ago, the Summer of 1999
and flew through the Winter of 1999-2000, at this
site.
The purpose of this trial deployment
was at least three-fold. First, we wanted to
determine if the fabric sail panels and the
structural system designed to carry them was
sufficient for the full scale deployment
,,
environment. So this was a full scale field test
of this technology in component; that is to say,
we didn't have all sixty of them put up, we put
up a portion or a fraction or the sixty. We put
up a component of the system to test it.
The second sail from the left, the
white sail, was Unit One and it didn't have the
little cabling tepee on the summit, which takes
up some of the loads out of that top boom and so
it bowed. The consequence of that bow is that
the frame mass system failed. As a matter of
fact, we anticipated it would fail and it did.
But we had that one up before we finished
installing units two, three and four and the
frame modification came from that first lesson
learned. And I make the point that that's the
basis by which engineering design occurs in the
field. Instead of doing the whole system once
and correcting all the mistakes that arise, you
do it in components and you watch for
unanticipated but expectable failures and correct
them as they come up.
The second purpose, not to mean in any
given order, but one of the other elements of the
pilot test was to test the visual impact of these
I
Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
two different color schemes for the sail panel.
If you were to remove the sails, it should become
fairly clear that the aluminum framing doesn't
constitute a very big visual footprint; you don't
really see it at all from roadway distances. But
the sails do constitute a dramatic visual
element. What we have over here in addition to
the white and the taupe, are the third potential
fabric color for the site there, which is this
conifer green.
I would encourage you, as you're
making comments here, one of the decision
criteria was the public's response to at least
these two different colors. To me, I found the
white to be dramatic against the prairie color of
that hillside. If you go out there today, the
hillside is pretty near the color of that tan
panel. And because of the fact that the panels
--one of the goals of these sails and we'll talk
about that in a minute -- is to erode the snow
out from under them. When they erode the snow
out from under them in the Winter, the bare spot
becomes tan and they blend in pretty well, both
Winter and Summer. I had this sort of ideal that
there would enough snow on the hillside that they
I
4 (Pages 10 to 13)
P.O. Box 51905
Ph.: (208) 552-9509
Fax: (208) 529-0629
9/14/2000
Page 14
Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
would blend in against the white background; but
there's not. It's -- the ground stays pretty
bare underneath and to the south.
PAGE McNEILL: I'm confused. I
thought the idea was they were to come dovm in
the Spring and up in the Fall. Is that not
correct?
RAND DECKER: That's one of the
potential alternatives.
PAGE McNEILL: It's in the preferred
alternative.
RAND DECKER: And then thirdly, and
13 more for technical consumption, was that this was
14 to be a pilot test of the impact that these four
15 sails -- and again, only three flew for the full
16 Winter -- that these sails had individually on
17 the wind snow climate on that site and if they
18 would perform individually as designed. Which is
19 to say, individually, did they scour snow
20 directly under them and redistribute it in kind
21 of a roughened way downwind of the sails, into
22 that 151 starting zone.
Working from the supposition that they
23
24 performed nominally as individual sails, the
25 system, when deployed, will have a positive
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
these sails do, they create little scoured holes
right to ground underneath them so that the
avalanche fracture can't really keep growing.
(indicating slide) These were photo renditions of
the drift as of April of ninety-eight. This was
the April drift of ninety-eight.
Trying to inject some humor, my
brother told me that one ofthesecrets of being
really innovative is the skill with which you are
able to hide your sources. The idea of snow
sails isn't mine and I can't claim it. They were
deployed in Europe in the period immediately
after World War II to reduce wind slab avalanche
formation in the passes of the European Alps.
And the attention in those passes at that time
was that they were typically frontiers between
countries; in many cases, countries which had
been warring. So each country often had large
garrisons of troops stationed up there with
little or nothing to do most of the Summer other
than look at each other. So they set about these
public works projects to help improve mobility
and safety through these passes. So this was in
part a public works project and in part sort of a
military style CCC project, a make-work project.
Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
impact on the snow slab environment of thi:; site.
The corollary to that is that four sails is
insufficient to control or reduce the hazard to
the site. It's strictly a pilot test to
determine their individual performance.
The construction techniques included
aircraft grade aluminum and aluminum fabrication
and cabling systems designed to twelve hundred
pounds in the full sail, which is what you get at
a Zion wind speed of ninety miles an hour at that
site. The premise is that if they were deployed
in a full system, up to sixty sails, the
individual scouring of the sails and the
individual redistribution of snow downwind of the
sails, would sufficiently rcughen the wind silab
formation area that it would be very difficult
for a wind slab fracture to propagate the whole
distance of the starting zone and produce the
size avalanche required to make it onto the road.
In many ways this concept with respect
to reducing the fracture potential of the slab,
the homogeneity (phonetic) of the slab, it's like
drilling out something that's cracking. You put
a hole or a roughening into it, the cracking will
go to that hole and stop. That's sort of what
Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
They were trying to improve mobility in these
passes. And this is one of the last passes
remaining here and ifl was you, I'd have
questions as to why it's one of the last passes.
This is one of the last passes with the existing
operation of deployment of sails, which is
probably about fifty years old. It's in this
little community called Livigno.
Livigno is called the Zone of Franco
and it was -- it's completely surrounded by Italy
to the south and Switzerland to the north. The
drainages ofLivigno flow north into Switzerland
and eventually into the Isar River; it's pretty
strange that a portion of Italy would be north
flowing. It's called the Zone of Franco because
it was Austrian, part of the Austria/Hungary
empire during World War I and this is part of the
region where there was the famous six thousand,
seven thousand fatalities due to avalanching
during the war occurred. It's where they first
discovered how to bring avalanches down with
artillery. At that time the goal was to bring
them down on people when they were under them.
It was lost from Austria to the
Italians in the first World War. In the second
5 (Pages 14 to 17)
P.O. Box 51905
Ph.: (208) 552-9509
Fax: (208) 529-0629
9/14/2000
Page 20
Page 18
1 World War, it was lost from the Italians to the
2 French. In other words, the French military
3 occupied this north flowing basin in Switzerland
4 at the end of World War II but because it made no
5 sense to make it part of France because it was
6 completely surrounded by Italy and Switzerland,
7 it was ceded back to Italy.
But it's a fiercely independent little
8
9 place. It's kind of the-- it's kind of the
10 Dollywood of Europe. They have all these no
11 interest and no tariff liquor and perfume
12 shopping. Guys with guns in the pass still.
13 In Italy, if you rent a car from Hertz, you get a
14 hot rod Alpha Romeo.
15
This is what you see as you drive into
16 Pass Foscagno, between Italy and Livigno, you see
17 these snow sails deployed to reduce avalanche
18 hazards from these slopes, these relatively
19 moderate slopes, which threaten this very windy
20 pass as you come in from Italy, from the south.
21 These were constructed in the pass about fifty
22 years ago and have served their purpose
23 sufficiently. They were constructed oflocal
24 materials, primarily hand construction.
25
So this is the source of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I'm going to jump to a few overheads, but in
closing out the slides, I wanted to make a point
to those who aren't closely involved with snow
avalanching on a regular basis. I wanted to
impress upon you the scale of these processes.
(indicating slide) This is a facility in Utah
which is a six-meter tall steel pylon, which has
been installed in an avalanche slope. And the
scale of this process is not modest and though
they may not have a frequency as common as say,
sliding off slippery roads or getting caught on
roads that are snow choked, it's a process that
has to be addressed with respect to
transportation systems.
We took this concept that we've been
developing whereby our snow sails that we've been
working on for this site -- we took it back to
the Europeans this Spring at a conference in
Innsbruck, where, by the way, their technology is
called Kolktalfen, which translates literally
into eddy table. So they recognized long ago
that the purpose of these structures was to
create an eddying that would disrupt snow pack
powder.
And this was presented at the
Page 21
Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
inspiration for the shape and the concept that
snow avalanches could be reduced by changing the
wind snow deposition environment. They're
surprisingly rugged. It's all hand construction
and was done by military corps of engineers about
the end of-- oh, in the first few years after
the end of World War II.
They have been superseded -- this is
the point I want to make. Snow sails in Europe
have been superseded by a more effective
technology with respect to mitigating any
residual risk of snow avalanche. That is to ~.ay,
to deploy snow rakes, which go from snow sails
which reduce the risk by pocking up the snow
surface to snow supporting structures which just
hold it in place. And once these are on, you
reduce the residual almost to zero, also.
You can see how sort of the snow
supporting structures have superseded the older
snow sail technology. And also, this site has
undergone the replanting, both the shrubby brush
as well as the small conifers; you can see
there's one on the skyline. Those are hand
planted, they're not natural.
I'm going to close out the slides and
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
International Glaciological Society meeting on
snow avalanche hazard reduction technology in
Innsbruck last May. These are the things we went
through for the Europeans. They were interested
in why we would reinvent an old European
technology when surely, snow supporting
structures in the starting zone would work.
That's the technology that they've implemented to
supersede snow sails.
They don't enjoy-- or suffer -depending on your perspective, the opportunity
for public participation in these public works
processes to the extent that we do, domestically
and so they were very interested in understanding
more about the NEPA process and how it gives us
an opportunity to participate in -- for the
public to participate in these public works
processes and how things like visual attributes
are weighted in some kind of quantitative
assessment of the impacts of these. And I
thought that -- and I guess I would just pull up
short at this point in saying I'm really pleased
to have been involved in the NEPA process. This
is my first NEPA project ever, that I've ever
worked through as an engineer, that had a NEP A
6 (Pages 18 to 21)
P.O. Box 51905
Ph.: (208) 552-9509
Fax: (208) 529-0629
9/14/2000
Page 24
Page 22
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I
requirement. And I'm really proud that we
maintained this commitment, this freedom to have
the public participate in our how our public
works processes impact our original environment.
One of the consequences of the fact
that they don't have a NEPA process is in Europe
or Japan, for example, is that there are snow
supporting structures everywhere. And the only
driver was safety; either habitable safety-safety in habitation or safety on transportation
corridors.
When I first imagined these, I went to
some sail builders, people who build split sails
for small boats, told them what I wanted and they
all just went, yeah, whatever. But I went to
these truck tarp manufacturers and they're the
ones that actually successfully assisted in
developing the fabric panel and a method for
applying them on a mass boom structure. lbey
ended up being a really good partner in this.
They're very skilled at working with materials
that have to be out in the sun and buffeting
winds and building seams that withstand these
loads.
What I'm going to do here is talk
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
collapsed one sail. There's one that's broken in
this fashion but it's still flying and I think
the third one is still operating normally.
This is what we're seeking in terms of
wind snow environment performance from the
individual sails. We seek to see this well
eroded divot immediately under the sail and this
roughened redistribution of snow in the lee.
There's not more or less snow there than there
would have been if the sails hadn't been there,
it's just redistributed in a very uneven,
inhomogeneous fashion. And as I discussed
earlier, that makes it very hard for a fracture
to run cleanly through this material. Keeping in
mind, these fractures don't run slowly, they
occur over a split second so they need a very
homogeneous material to propagate a fracture
through.
There's been some thought into where
the sails have to be with respect to the drift
and starting zone in the 151. If they're too far
out on the starting zone, they won't successfully
drill this hole underneath themselves.
Conversely, if they're too far back to windward,
they'll be in the zone of transport with snows in
Page 25
Page 23
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mostly about what we learned in the third el.ement
of the pilot project last Winter with respect to
the individual performance of the sails. These
are the -- these are from European guidelines for
the deployment of these facilities for avalanche
hazard reduction and they come in a lot of
different shapes and sizes that were tested over
time, in Europe, before the technology was
superseded by snow rakes. You've seen what we've
done and you know where our deployment site is
over the 151 on 89/191.
Just briefly, before I jump into the
wind snow results, I want to talk briefly about
another lesson learned with respect to the boom
mass system. This is a structure failure that we .
noticed starting to occur, this is in the course
of breaking, this one's already broken as early
as January, but these continue to fly because of
redundancy and the way that the system's hdd up
throughout the course of the Winter.
But if you note now, the three that
flew last Winter, one is now down and it's a
taupe one and I think it's a consequence of sort
of the continuing failure that started with this
initial failure. So this process has finally
'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
motion from the south to the north end of the
starting zone and they just won't work by virtue
of the fact they're not in the snow deposition
area. So based on the performance of the
individual sails with respect to the ability to
roughen and redistribute snow, it's my conclusion
that if we put these up in their full systematic
deployment at the 151, they'll roughen the entire
151 avalanche starting zone sufficient to reduce
the amount of wind slab avalanching that comes
out of there.
The reason that snow sails are a
viable technology of the 151, is that it is
predominantly a wind slab avalanche site, by
virtue of the wind transporting snow into its
starting zone; as opposed to other kinds of
avalanching that occur around here, where it's
just a lot of snow falling in a basin, that has
the propensity to fracture a slide out.
PAGE McNEILL: How does this snow slab
avalanche site differ from the Hoback Canyon
site, which has the signage that you're entering
an avalanche zone; how is that avalanche site
different from this snow slab site and why
couldn't that be used?
1:
7 (Pages 22 to 25)
P.O. Box 51905
Ph.: (208) 552-9509
Fax: (208) 529-0629
9114/2000
Page 28
Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RAND DECKER: That's a good point.
There is a generic difference between the kinds
of avalanches that come out of Hoback Canyon -that site is called Cow in the Woods-- that come
out of the Cow as opposed to come out ofhere.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Cow should
avalanche under heavy snow with modest wind
whereas the 151 probably won't. These all have
these just distributed answers, you can't give
black and white answers in these gray areas. But
the 151 usually won't avalanche unless there's
snow with strong wind from the south. Except in
those -- I don't know, were you here for
Valentine's day in eighty-three, when everything
was avalanching everywhere, that was just a
ruthless storm that just -PAGE McNEILL: Just stay home.
RAND DECKER: Oh yeah, I agree with
you, on those days you do just stay home. But
the point I want to make is there are times when
everything's going on, regardless of wind or not,
including the 151. Then there's sites that go
off predominantly under wind effect, which is
typical of the 151, and there's sites that go off
with or without wind and just precip and that's
PAGE McNEILL: This is to everybody,
questions?
RAND DECKER: Uh-huh.
PAGE McNEILL: Let's see. Is there a
question about the sixty snow sails, whether the
number will be pushed up or pushed down, because
you said something, if the full set of sixty
sails is deployed; and that makes you wonder,
okay, are you going to sixty, are you going to go
above sixty, what if you go for a season and
you're seeing either a certain amount of failure
that's not good, you know, the slab isn't being
controlled the way you want it; so it's a numbers
thing, it's a placement thing. You said if
they're placed incorrectly, you might still get
slab falling where you don't want it. So is
there a question with this particular EIS and we
get into the process if we go there and we're
fmding it's not working the way we want it to
work or you want it to work, then what?
MR. CUNNINGHAM: Well, let me take a
real short whack at it from the Forest Service
perspective and then Rand can probably best
address it from the actual mitigation. You know,
we're analyzing and disclosing the effects in
Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
indicative of the Cow and also other sites. I
don't know, how much wind does Teton Pass need to
go off when it's had just a lot of snow?
GALEN RICHARDS: It would go pretty
fast, with wind.
RAND DECKER: But I don't think I
answered your question, which is could you put up
an avalanche detection and warning system at this
site and the answer is potentially, yes. To be
fair, one should explain that the primary client
for the avalanche detection for the Cow in the
Woods is highway maintainers, not the public
because it's a site which produces multiple
avalanching into the same channel. So they're
working underneath it after the first avalanche
has arrived and they get about twelve seconds if
that audio alarm box goes off, to get themselves
out of there. It still pipes the sign to the
public, which may or may not be of benefit 1:0 the
person who arrives as the sign starts flashing or
arrives to the sign just as they go off. They
may end up passing into that zone of danger
anyway. But maybe the next rig that comes along
might get stopped before they hit the debris.
Any other-- I guess we're in the question phase.
;
I
Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this environmental assessment of this -- of the
project that has this footprint visually and
impact to wildlife. If-- and we're analyzing
for sixty sails, which Rand has determined would
be adequate. If you were to come back and say
hey, you know what, we really only need forty
instead of sixty. Probably, moving in that
direction, probably no one's going to have a
problem if we get the same safety benefit. If he
came back and said we need sixty-five or seventy,
at that point, we would have to go ahead and get
some folks together, Lis Novak and look at
ourselves, a little bit.
If the request came, we're almost
there but we need to go sixty-five or seventy, I
think at that point, we would have to do,
internally, a check and say, would there be any
substantive change with amending the permit to go
to sixty-five or seventy and if there would be,
there'd need to be some form of formal analysis
to follow on. And that's a judgment call in that
area. If you came back and say we need a hundred
and twenty, I think everybody would agree that
that's a big change and we'd have another formal
analysis.
8 (Pages 26 to 29)
P.O. Box 51905
Ph.: (208) 552-9509
Fax: (208) 529-0629
9114/2000
Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
PAGE McNEILL: Do you expect to 5.ee -you know, when you said that iffy stuff, that
raised my little antenna; like you're not real
sure about the placement, you tried it for the
season. But we're talking about installation
isn't that a concrete base pad to set the
structure?
RAND DECKER: Let me back up and
answer your first question first. The number
sixty is not random. The number sixty is based
on the European guideline that the gap between
individual sails should be between one and one
point five sail widths. A sail width is ten
feet. So based on a sail every twenty-five feet
using a one point five gap and the distance which
we have to cover to address that portion of the
151 which produces source material for
avalanching, it comes out to sixty. So the
number's not random, it's generated based on
European guideline.
Two, the placement of the sails is not
random, either. We have spent-- we have
examined the drift which produces the avalanche
over several Winter seasons and the snow sml
sites have been staked not in the -- not
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
then the bolts are taken out from the cable guide
which are anchored to the earth that looks -they're called earth anchors but we call them
cables. They're fundamentally a giant iron tent
stake but they're engineered and designed in the
numbers that are deployed and the cabling designs
to hold twelve hundred pounds of wind bow into
the sail which occurs under ninety miles an hour
conditions. We have an anemometer wind speed
direction instrumentation on site. We wanted to
examine those conditions in which we had
structural failures, if they're associated with
peak wind amounts and we've enjoyed three seconds
of staying gusts up there in the fifty mile an
hour range without loss of structural integrity
due to the wind event. The other components that
are failing are due to the continuous buffeting
of the wind; they're called fretting. And
they're the loads that occur in structures,
they're not the big push that comes in a peak
wind event, they're the continuous little
motions.
PAGE McNEILL: Like a saillufting
kind of thing.
RAND DECKER: Yeah.
Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
necessarily in September when the drift wasn't
there, when we were just sort of guessing where
we ought to be, we went up there in April when
the drift defmes itself very well where the
source region ends and the deposition zone
begins. That's been done with some conservative
effort to find the direct point to put them.
Third, within that same context, there
is a certain amount of latitudes, in other words,
if you misplace it by two to seven feet, you're
not going to miss it. The exactitude with which
you have to locate them with respect to the
source area, to the accumulation area, isn't so
highly constrained that we can't have a little
room for uncertainty in our estimates. Did I get
it?
PAGE McNEILL: Yeah.
TED WELLS: You might also want to
talk about the anchoring system and what it sits
on.
RAND DECKER: Okay. By design, these
structures are cable stayed down and they're set
on a one-inch steel pin; there's a hollow element
in the bottom. So the mast is gimble; if you
took away the cable guide, it would tip over. And
Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PAGE McNEILL: Obviously, we're
concerned about wildlife impacts and the document
does have -- Game and Fish endorses it, for some
reason, but I'm still concerned about wildlife
because this area's getting impacted by the road
widening construction, we're talking about moving
two thousand homes into Porter Estates, how many
more down here; I just feel like they're getting
-- you know, they're not going to be able to
cross the road. And then the document says, well
they probably won't want to go across there
anyway. But don't I recall that people are
blaming the deer for setting off the avalanches?
That's what I've read.
GALEN RICHARDS: It's true.
PAGE McNEILL: So now -- I mean, just
keeping the animals away and build the -MR. CUNNINGHAM: You know, I'd like to
address that because I feel really passionately
about this because I feel the preferred
alternative is by far and away the best
alternative from a wildlife standpoint. I really
do.
PAGE McNEILL: As opposed to the
detonation?
9 (Pages 30 to 33)
P.O. Box 51905
Ph.: (208) 552-9509
Fax: (208) 529-0629
9/14/2000
Page 36
Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. CUNNINGHAM: As to controlling,
forecasting and controlling with detonation,
hazing with helicopters. Also, with the widening
of the highway-- with the increased level of
traffic and people commuting here and with the
significant reduction in the size of that little
catch basin that used to be there, I think you're
going to see an increased need to control and
that might involve people walking in and digging
pits to do some good on-site forecasting.
I think the cumulative effect of that
disturbance in that Winter range is going to
outweigh -- frrst off, I don't think this will
drive animals away, I really don't and I think
they'll be able to move through there. Think of
the way animals acclimate to predictable -specifically we're talking mule deer and elk.
Both species are pretty good at acclimating
themselves to predictable, consistent, unnatural
structures in their environment. When you see an
abandoned homestead or something, the animals
just walk freely around it. You look and see how
those animals behave in Yellowstone Park around
people and cars. And as long as there is a
distance that they can develop a sense of
goes on, what we are doing now versus this and
the detonation you would expect to continue with
the snow sail project in place.
TED WELLS: About two years ago, three
years ago started -GALEN RICHARDS: Yeah, dropping
twenty-five pound charges from helicopters and
Game and Fish would have us go up and haze all
the animals off the mountain as best we could,
and the highway was closed for a long time. And
people get really angry and -- when you have
roads closed; it's a big drawn out deal. It's
not really a practical solution, in my opinion.
TED WELLS: And the other thing is
losing that catch basin underneath there, that
would usually take the frrst one or two slides
before it struck the roadway. And now you've got
a four lane underneath there, we've reduced the
catch basin; we don't have the area to catch some
of that slide. The other thing I think you'd see
the weight of the bomb go up probably from
twenty-five to a fifty pound bomb so that when
we're up there, we'd be ensuring ourselves of
getting an avalanche to the road or getting the
snow. The twenty-five is a minimum right now.
Page 35
comfort, as long as that distance is maintaim:d,
they adapt to it, to a large degree.
I think additionally, this Winter, you
would see some deer kind of-- and elk kind of,
what's that, and maybe some initial avoidance.
Over a period of time, I think you'll see them
move in some cases in between the sails and in
some cases above it or below it. I don't think
that you'll see a significant displacement out of
10 the Winter range. I think if we are-- if the
11 Game and Fish thought that that would be the
12 case, that would be a fatal flaw in this project,
13 in my mind.
PAGE McNEILL: I've just seen
14
15 cumulative impacts -- we always say considered
16 cumulative and you've got all these huge amount
17 of homes that are going to be in down there, w
18 push them around some more -MR. CUNNINGHAM: I hope this is an
19
20 improvement and I believe this is an improvement
21 over the cumulative effects of the forecasting
22 control. That would be my opinion as a biologist
23 and my personal opinion, also.
PAGE McNEILL: I'd like to know a
24
25 little bit more about the detonation stuff that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In most areas, when they bomb are bombing fifty
pound bombs.
PAGE McNEILL: And what was the
frequency that you've had over the last ten
years, say per year, how many times would you
have to do such a thing?
GALEN RICHARDS: Probably twice
would be an average.
TED WELLS: That's with that
catch basin there, too.
GALEN RICHARDS: Yeah, we don't have
that cushion anymore. We don't have that comfort
of the catch basin. That's always going to
handle the frrst one, if it's not real big. But
if it builds up big, we're going to have
troubles. I'd like to say something about the
wildlife issue you were talking about. Rand had
me watching the slope last Winter and I would do
-- every time I'm by there, do the observation.
But it -- the snow sails would actually scour
out, clear to the ground, probably fifty feet out
beyond the sail and there'd be this nice swath of
grass showing and there's a lot more grass in
that little basin there than there is on the
ridges, and the elk got all that grazed down by
10 (Pages 34 to 37)
P.O. Box 51905
Ph.: (208) 552-9509
Fax: (208) 529-0629
9/14/2000
Page 40
Page 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Winter. But now them snow sails, they've
made a nice swath there of real nice grass for
the animals to eat. I think it's actually a
positive deal for the wildlife, myself.
RAND DECKER: A fmding from the
deployment of the snow fencing along I-80, which
the goal there was something different, was to
keep the snow from moving further. But once the
animals became habitualized to the snow fences
they spent a lot of time there because it's a
comfortable place with respect to the wind, it's
kind of a loafmg shed effect to the animals. We
can't verify that that would occur at this time,
that's unverified, but the benefits of wind snow
disruption systems to wildlife has been shown.
PAGE McNEILL: Well, this past Winter
was a low snow Winter.
JOHN SCHICK: Seems to me like if
these sails work as proposed, that it would be
beneficial to the wildlife because they won't get
themselves caught in avalanches and end up down
on the highway.
GALEN RICHARDS: Good point.
RAND DECKER: I guess we might follow
up on a point too, since we talked about bombs
strategies vary year to year, snow fall to snow
fall and you'd have this big range of tools and
which tool you use would be based on what was
necessary, what was efficient, what was economic.
But the end result was going to be impact in that
Winter range area. And as you know, I mean,
that's really -- our mule deer Winter range
around here and elk, particularly in a heavy snow
year, that gets more heavily used by elk, it's -I mean, it's a real resource of concern.
PAGE McNEILL: Obviously, a lot of
people, even though they're not here tonight, are
concerned about the visual effects; and from
driving up the highway from south of town,
really, there's just this one little spot where
if you know where to look, you see them. That's
fme, it doesn't bother me. But what about the
folks that are out further in Rafter J or even
across the valley and out further, you can see it
from there. They're not here to tell you what
they think so I can't speak for them.
TED WELLS: We've talked to people out
at Rafter J before we put up the first sails. We
took it out and showed it to them.
MR. CUNNINGHAM: We went down to the
Page 39
1 and alternative to continue bombing. A
2 twenty-five, let alone fifty pound bomb on the
3 151 will shake your coffee cup at the breakfast
4 table in the Rafter J. The frequency of twice a
5 year is modest and probably could be expected to
6 grow at that site as traffic volumes increase and
7 the frequency of six to twelve controlled
8 missions a year on a roadway are not at all
9 uncommon on places that use active control for
10 roadway avalanche hazard reduction.
II
MR. CUNNINGHAM: In talking with Dale
12 Dawson, our avalanche person, two years ago, he
13 also discussed -- I think maybe Galen, he was
14 talking to you some at that point, but in looking
15 at how this could be controlled, that even if 1:he
16 need for the twenty-five to fifty pound charges
17 went up only slightly, something that he sa~
18 being one possibility was going to be a
19 significant increase in humans going in, digging
20 snow pits, monitoring conditions on site,
21 possibly throwing hand charges like they do some
22 control work at ski areas.
23
And you know, the actual strategies,
24 as I understand it, and I'm one of the least
25 knowledgeable people here, but the actual
Page 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
annual meeting in August of ninety-nine, Rand set
up a sail outside. And we said, okay, in the
next couple of weeks you're going to see these
trial sails pop up. The Rafter J homeowners and
the Cottonwood, both were sent copies of the EA
and were encouraged to come here. A few people
commented on the visuals of the white and
actually the preferred alternative, which has the
forest green, that idea came from conifer -- from
a resident of Rafter J.
If you look at those prospectives, I
don't know if you had a chance, on the wall, but
you'll see visual simulations that the WYDOT
folks, Kevin and Catherine as the contractor,
working with Lis Novak, put together prairie
beige and the white color and then the conifer
green. And that's actually -- the comment from
scoping helped us think about the green. And
based upon the simulation of the analysis, that's
the preferred color, partly because of the
shoulder seasons, when you don't have heavy snow
covering up these things, under the preferred
alternative would be put up in November, prior to
Winter range closure and would be taken down in
May after the Winter range closures go off.
11 (Pages 38 to 41)
P.O. Box 51905
Ph.: (208) 552-9509
Fax: (208) 529-0629
9/14/2000
Page 44
Page 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PAGE McNEILL: I want to go back to
the detonation thing again. I can't tell from a
quick read of the EA that the detonation costs
that you might project without snow sails versus
snow sails and detonation. What's it cost to do
that, I when, we're talking snow pit tests and
all that, too. We're going to still have the
snow sails but what do you see without snow
sails? Two costs.
GALEN RICHARDS: I would say if we use
helicopter bombings, helicopter runs, say a
thousand dollars an hour, and then you'd have
probably three, four hundred dollars worth of
explosives and personnel time. We could do it
with a Howitzer but that would be a real risky
shot and I sure don't want to do it too bad. We
could do it with hand charges but that puts
people into a closed area. And I mean, we could
do it that way and if we don't get enough snow
sails, we will have to control it, if there's the
snow deposited this Winter, we're going to have
to do something. We can't let people drive tmder
that when it's going to slide.
PAGE McNEILL: Would you foresee doing
which type of detonation?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
where there were just relentless heavy snows.
Everything came down.
PAGE McNEILL: I still didn't hear a
cost. Is there a cost, do we have a figure for
what it costs to run a detonation? I mean, you
gave me a figure for the -- it's a thousand for
-- so we're still seeing if we do a helicopter
detonation with that, it's still going to cost us
fourteen hundred bucks.
GALEN RICHARDS: That's probably pretty
close.
TED WELLS: Yeah, it's pretty close.
Our bill, the last time we did it was -- we
probably had -- there's five thousand that one,
another two thousand in the next bill; but that
also included the Cow in the Woods. We went down
in there and dropped a couple in there too. So a
year, you're probably looking at fourteen, easy.
PAGE McNEILL: Okay.
TED WELLS: The other problem you have
with the helicopter bombing or any charging with
explosives is duds, duds retrieval. With the
number of people that travel underneath that, we
can't afford it. We've got the problem already
in the Glory, with our shells up there and people
Page 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
GALEN RICHARDS: With the snow sails,
I don't expect any.
PAGE McNEILL: Well, it's written up
as if it could.
TED WELLS: If you get a heavy
snowfall out and loads up, yeah, we'll have to
control it. Probably control it with a
helicopter. If we can't fly, then we go in it
and do hand charges.
DAVE CUNNINGHAM: And Rand, you
predict about twenty-five percent of the events
set up this path to slide are driven by wind and
would be mitigated by the sails; is that correct.
RAND DECKER: Yes. But I don't want
to use the word mitigated, I'd like to use the
word reduced. Where we came up with eighty-five
percent -- well, mitigate means no residual risks
means the risk has gone to zero. We can't say
that; there's a region of gray. But the number
eighty-five percent came about from the estimate
about every -- out of maybe a suite of twenty
avalanches out at that site that people observed
over the years, only two or three of them weren't
directly attributable to the wind slab formation.
There were things like the eighty-three stomiS
Page 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
backpacking them down.
PAGE McNEILL: So you guys go up and
look where you dropped them is that what you're
saying?
TED WELLS: Yeah, we had one dud or
two duds up there, the hand charging and one you
dropped out of the helicopter.
GALEN RICHARDS: Yeah. We took care
of them both.
TED WELLS: And we actually had -some guy walked out on that slide area to try to
fmd the one that they hand charged. The other
one, they brought the helicopter in after sitting
there for an hour and a half, I think, is
standard practice. Came back up and dropped a
charge down the hole and blew it up that way.
JOHN SCHICK: I got a question. The
snow sails, I mean, are set up for the prevailing
winds from the southwesterlies. You get the odd
storm where it comes in from a different
direction, loads the slide path up differently,
then of course you -- the snow sails are
ineffective because they're in a fixed position.
And so you go in and control the slide and what's
the possibility of taking out a good portion of
12 (Pages 42 to 45)
P.O. Box 51905
Ph.: (208) 552-9509
Fax: (208) 529-0629
9/14/2000
Page 48
Page 46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
your snow sails because they didn't work for that
particular snow cycle?
RAND DECKER: That's a really good
question. The position of the snow sails -- hey,
Jim. This is Jim Woodmencey.
JIM WOODMENCEY: Hi, Rand.
RAND DECKER: The snow sails are
positioned at the seam, between source region of
material which is transported in from the south
by southwest winds and the depositional zone,
which fractures. So the bulk of the sails are in
that transition zone, pretty near where the crack
itself will open up.
And you know, as an avalanche
professional, you can be on one side of that line
by a few feet and be fine and you can be on the
other side of the line by a few feet and if, you
know, if you were guided down with metal wires,
that snow would just crack out and away from you
and you'd be gone. If you were further out into
it, you're still in the starting zone, where the
velocities are slow and the avalanche is just
starting to take off.
I'm thinking of a system designed for
twelve hundred pounds; and with a fairly narrow
that relates to the table two one, that's on page
two seven, and it's the cost at mile post 151
where it says, the preferred alternative would be
ninety-five thousand plus ten thousand per year
maintenance. And then earlier in the document it
talks about ten thousand per year maintenance
plus ten thousand per year set up, take down; is
that right? So I'm just curious, what's the
other money for the ninety-five K?
RAND DECKER: Initial capitalization.
PAGE McNEILL: Then it's just not set
up in here. Because it's under a setup that says
-- I thought, looks like plus -- oh, okay, I'm
adding that to that. I was thinking per year.
And actually, this thing should say ten thousand
per year maintenance plus ten thousand per year
set up, take down, I think.
RAND DECKER: I think one of the
intentions there was the argument that if you
maintain them in place it's more expensive than
if you take them down to a fairly comfortable
area to work on them and perform that maintenance
in the yard, after having flown them down. The
principal cost to maintaining the plates is
getting personnel up there to work on them.
Page 49
Page 47
1 profile against the snow moving against it
2 because the snow shouldn't -- at the point of
3 initial fracture and break up, it shouldn't be
4 boiling yet. It shouldn't be of the same scale
5 of the sail height. It ought to just move out
6 away from it.
JOHN SCHICK: So basically, none of
7
8 the sails are placed within the slab region.
RAND DECKER: I think I'd like,
9
10 especially for the top, I'd like to get a second
11 rung in there, as per this design. They are in
12 the slab region and I do expect a certain amount
13 of them will suffer some damage. The conifer
14 trees, which are down in the lower part of the
15 track, by the mid-track, they kind of offer the
16 same resistance as a sail would and they sun·ive
17 impact even that far down the track, after a f:tir
18 amount of velocity has been generated. But they,
19 too, also suffer damage. So the answer's yeah, I
20 would expect under certain conditions, that tb.ere
21 could be some damage to the sails, bendings of
22 the mast, breaking of the -- pulling out of the
23 earth pins. But they're a damage tolerant
24 structure. We can go up and reset them.
25
PAGE McNEILL: I've got a question
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PAGE McNEILL: So that number's kind
of iffy because we haven't decided, if this goes
forward, if you'll do the shed thing and work on
them there or bring them back to the shop. But
you're still going to have this -- that's going
to be a job, setting them up and taking them
down. I mean, I want you to do that, if we go
forward; I don't want them up all year. It's
going to be hard work.
MR. CUNNINGHAM: The alternatives on
how to actually make that work would range from
everything attached, all sixty come down in the
Spring and is slung up to a helicopter in the
Fall to the possibility of caching masts or some
portion of the materials on-site. And the EA
references that possibility, that if there's a-there probably is a way but if it was deemed
beneficial in terms of the efficiency of
operation that we looked to find places where
some of the materials could be cached on-site,
reducing the need for the number of trips up and
down, the helicopter time. My guess is just the
snow sail material, being what it is and it's
also pretty light, relatively, that that material
would be more likely to come down. That's just
13 (Pages 46 to 49)
P.O. Box 51905
Ph.: (208) 552-9509
Fax: (208) 529-0629
9/14/2000
Page 52
Page 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
my guess. It would be up to WYDOT to decide.
But that is one possible part of this project, is
to allow -- designate one, two, three, four,
cache sites for some materials to be left up
there.
PAGE McNEILL: But a cache site
doesn't equate into a shed?
MR. CUNNINGHAM: No. The shed that
was referenced at the EA is back at the Hog
Island WYDOT site.
PAGE McNEILL: Is it correct that the
11
12 fabric that would be used is a new fabric and has
13 not been used elsewhere in anything else like
14 this?
TED WELLS: No, it's basically a truck
15
16 tarp.
RAND DECKER: It's a commercial truck
17
18 tarpaulin grade vinylized nylon.
PAGE McNEILL: It has been created but
19
20 it's never been used as a snow sail?
RAND DECKER: Never been used as a
21
22 snow sail.
PAGE McNEILL: So we don't really know
23
24 -- obviously, wind and sun are to a certain
25 extent the same but there are differences.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
GALEN RICHARDS: Yeah, they're brand
new, wide ones.
MR. CUNNINGHAM: And I stand
corrected. I was thinking of the standpoint of
different agencies here, people walking into the
area, and I was going to say none, because the
area's closed in the Winter. But from the
highway standpoint, right.
PAGE McNEILL: That's about all I had.
Jim, help us out.
JIM WOODMENCEY: I had some comments
that I think are already in here, in the back.
One thing, you have under costs for forecast and
control, fifty thousand dollars a year. I guess
that number kind of surprised me; it seems a
little inflated. Is that for that one slide path
or for all ofWYDOT.
TED WELLS: It's basically an estimate.
JIM WOODMENCEY: Based on?
TED WELLS: What we've done on the
Glory.
JIM WOODMENCEY: On Glory.
TED WELLS: Yeah, and -JIM WOODMENCEY: Gas X or Gun?
TED WELLS: Both. Forecasting what
Page 51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RAND DECKER: But keeping in mind that
the material is designed for wind and element
exposed application.
PAGE McNEILL: Sure, sure.
RAND DECKER: And we've now had sails
flying for a year; the panels are the strongest
part. They are stronger than the aluminum frame.
They are not the technical weakness of the
structure. You could go as far as to say this is
the first time fabric has ever been used for snow
sail anywhere in the world.
PAGE McNEILL: Everything you showed
us -- what signage is up there right now that
lets people know they're going into an avalanche
area?
MR. CUNNINGHAM: None.
TED WELLS: Recently there have been
some signs put up along the roadway, stating that
you're in an avalanche site, not to park along
the edge of the road.
PAGE McNEILL: Is that on both sides or
is it just the north?
GALEN RICHARDS: Both sides.
PAGE McNEILL: I go there every day.
Did I notice?
Page 53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we've done on there.
RAND DECKER: Well, Jim, what could
you forecast and control the 151 for?
JIM WOODMENCEY: Considerably less
than that. I guess I figured when we'd gone
there to throw bombs, I think the most we've ever
done is three trips a year there, and I think the
costs for helicopter and personnel for just that
site would run you two thousand dollars or just a
little under, per mission. So that would be, at
the most, six thousand dollars a year just for
the helicopter and explosive crew.
Wydot's never really had a full time
avalanche forecaster on their staff, that I know
of. I know Galen or somebody is -- somebody's in
charge of making the calls. I think, you know,
certainly, for -- between ten and twenty thousand
dollars a year, you could hire a full time
employee to cover just forecasting in the Winter.
But you know, that's a whole other ball game
you're talking about. I'm just looking at the
costs and saying that seems artificially inflated
for that one site.
Yeah, for -- if you include Glory Bowl
(sic) and the Hoback Canyon and Snake River
14 (Pages 50 to 53)
P.O. Box 51905
Ph.: (208) 552-9509
Fax: (208) 529-0629
9/14/2000
Page 56
Page 54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Canyon and everything else, maybe you spend that
much, you know for a helicopter, bombing
operations, for a whole Winter. But this sik,
you're looking at zero to three missions a year.
Some years it doesn't load enough to produce an
avalanche.
KEVIN POWELL: Correct me if I'm wrong
but another factor to consider in the cost is
that where you do in fact have the situation
where the snow sails are functioning to where we
don't have the release of the snow versus when
you come in and bomb, not only the cost of the
forecasting, the cost of the bombing but also the
cost associated with the transportation
department, man hours of closing the road, burden
to traffic, moving the snow off the rode.
JIM WOODMENCEY: If you throw all
those things in there, yeah, you're probably
going to add up, but I don't think it would add
up to fifty K a year. The other thing is that m
your report, it's estimate to reduce the need for
detonating explosives by eighty-five percent. I
guess the question, where do you come up with
that number; is it something you'd pull out of
the hat?
to take the liability.
JIM WOODMENCEY: Right.
TED WELLS: So the helicopter bombing,
right at this point in time, is out of the
question until we come up with something other
thah to bring them up from Utah. That was
expensive, especially last year. It was up in
the range of probably six thousand dollars a
mission, fly them all the way up here.
JIM WOODMENCEY: So how do you plan on
handling that fifteen percent of the time the
sails don't do -TED WELLS: We will probably hire
somebody to walk up there and do it by hand. We
are still looking at a helicopter. We'll
probably put out another bid this year to try to
find somebody to do it for us.
JIM WOODMENCEY: Because you still
have the Hoback.
TED WELLS: The Hoback we can now hit
with the Howitzer.
TIM WOODMENCEY: Really?
TED WELLS: We went down there and
brought it down last week with the Howitzer.
RAND DECKER: You had another
Page 57
Page 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
RAND DECKER: Well, if you'd been here
on time-JIM WOODMENCEY: I missed this.
RAND DECKER: So you're saying if
WYDOT went to privatization of the forecast and
control on this site, just the forecasting and
the explosives delivery, without the clean up of
the road, they could expect bids from local
vendors in the neighborhood of twenty-five K per
10 year?
JIM WOODMENCEY: Maybe, if you hired a
11
12 forecaster and controller.
RAND DECKER: Right.
13
14
JIM WOODMENCEY: But the forecaster
15 could be utilized for all the other sites.
16 Considerably less to just forecast that site.
TED WELLS: Another problem we're
17
18 having, Jim, and I'm sure you know about it, is
19 we can't get a bombing helicopter anymore due to
20 some insurance problems. We've tried. The only
21 one we could get was out of Utah. And we bid it
22 out last year, we didn't work it because the cue
23 here, we believe we can't do it because of some
24 insurance problems between him and us, wnkh he
25 wants to us take the liability and we don't want
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
question, Jim?
JIM WOODMENCEY: I do?
RAND DECKER: Didn't you?
PAGE McNEILL: I have something to
relate to what he just said. In our earlier
question and answer, you guys told me you still
preferred the helicopter.
TED WELLS: Yeah, I would prefer -PAGE McNEILL: But if you couldn't do
it, why didn't you tell us then?
TED WELLS: Because I honestly didn't
think about it. I'm hearing -- if we're talking
helicopter, we'd love to do it with the
helicopter.
PAGE McNEILL: But in reality, you're
going to be hand charging, it sounds like.
TED WELLS: Right now, we would like
to fmd somebody to do the helicopter for us and
we will put out the bid package again, to try to
come up with the helicopter. We're looking and
talking with lawyers and all this, talking about
how to get around the insurance form. One way is
we might have to put our own person in the
helicopter and throw the bomb out ourselves.
They're still not sure on the -- who has to take
15 (Pages 54 to 57)
P.O. Box 51905
Ph.: (208) 552-9509
Fax: (208) 529-0629
9/14/2000
Page 58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the liability on that. Right now, it's a fight
between lawyers. You know how that goes.
Helicopter would be the preferred
method of getting the explosives up there. It
still is. Hand charging, you gotta walk up
there, you're limited to the amount of explosives
you can carry and then you try to slide it down
there on a sled or throw it over there and get
it, hopefully get it where you want it placed.
Helicopter bombings, you can come over and pretty
much-JOHN SCHICK: Well, the other
thing is that it would require the highway to be
closed for a lot longer period of time.
TED WELLS: Right.
JIM WOODMENCEY: If you're hiking-TED WELLS: Right. We had, that one
year, we had close to a week we couldn't get a
helicopter up there.
GALEN RICHARDS: No, it wasn't.
TED WELLS: How long was it?
GALEN RICHARDS: I think it was
overnight when we routed traffic around South
Park.
TED WELLS: We had it closed for a
how often do you make the call to bomb it and how
are you going to do it?
GALEN RICHARDS: I've got a pretty
good database, based on the study on our west
side and watched the total inches of
precipitation throughout the Winter; and we've
got it down to where watching with our SSI, which
records wind speed from the top of Teton Pass,
which I know doesn't have anything it do with
151, but there is a correlation there that you
can use a lot of times. And I got a guy that
lives in Cottonwood Park that's on the crew. And
he said man, the wind was blowing at my house
last night, you better take a look at it. And
everybody I work with, my wife goes to work under
that chute every morning and I don't want a slide
and we're watching.
MR. CUNNINGHAM: Isn't there also some
remote sensing equipment on this?
TED WELLS: There is. We haven't
accessed it yet. Rand has it -RAND DECKER: They will have available
to them, stating this Winter, anemometry from the
151 transport zone.
MR. CUNNINGHAM: I thought--
Page 59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
long time, and then we actually did do some hand
chargings, too.
PAGE McNEILL: Jim, we had some
discussions earlier about, because of the loss of
the catch basin -JIM WOODMENCEY: Oh, at the bottom?
PAGE McNEILL: -- the frequency where
your letter was saying maybe three times a year
is what Jim was thinking it might be, the
discussion earlier was over the past ten years
it's been a frequency of maybe two times a year
they have had to go in and now they're talking
about possibly more because of this smaller or
deficient catch basin. So you might want to put
that in your thinking; frequency stuff, too.
JIM WOODMENCEY: I have no doubt that
the snow sails will help reduce the hazard, I
just -- my biggest concern is that they don't
just think that it's going to make the hazard go
away completely.
TED WELLS: We're not saying the
hazard's going to go away.
JIM WOODMENCEY: I'm wondering whether
your forecast program will entail evaluating that
particular slope with the snow sails in place :md
Page 61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JIM WOODMENCEY: What kind of an
instrument is that?
RAND DECKER: It's a Campbell with
modem capabilities that -JIM WOODMENCEY: With a heated
anemometer?
RAND DECKER: No. Arm Young
propeller.
JIM WOODMENCEY: Arm Young
propeller?
RAND DECKER: Yeah. We never got
riming collapse last year, so they will have
access to wind data there.
JIM WOODMENCEY: So that instrument's
in place and it's operational. It was
operational last Winter?
RAND DECKER: Yeah. It's operational
year round.
KEVIN POWELL: That's a wrap. Thanks
for coming out; thanks for your questions.
(Whereupon the Snow Sail Environmental
Assessment Public Hearing was
concluded at 7:40 o'clock p.m.,
Thursday, September 14, 2000)
I
16 (Pages 58 to 61)
P.O. Box 51905
Ph.: (208) 552-9509
Fax: (208) 529-0629

NOTICE OF DECISION USDA - FOREST SERVICE Bridger

Transcription

Similar documents

1983 O`Day DaySailer II for Sale

Monitoring Forest Carnivores Via Snow Track Surveys in the

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

864-3083 annelore@mts.net www.bluelagoonorganics Happy

DN Iceboat brochure - North Sails

Snow Tubing Night A Benefit Fundraiser for Home Base Ride the

Sunday May 22nd Ellouise Schoettler

AGATHE SNOW`S “COYOTE UGLY” AT ALBERTZ BENDA

What`s In Your Pack?

Windjammer Cruises - Liberty Fleet of Tall Ships