Half-pipe location switch draws WMAC fire
By Phyllis Booth JOURNAL CORRESPONDENT

Wachusett Mountain Advisory Council members want to know why the half-pipe at the ski area isn't where the expansion plan, and the subsequent expansion approval from the state, specified that it would be.

At their Oct. 24 meeting, WMAC member Susan Manero said she walked down the mountain recently and caught sight of the area where a half-pipe has been erected.

"There was a tree island at the base of the mountain to the left of the Nor'Easter chair lift that split the Look Ma and Hitchcock trails," she said. "We have boards in place and we do our best, but how did we miss this?" she asked.

Manero said she was taken aback when she saw the cleared and excavated area for a half-pipe course at the ski area, but not where the expansion plan said it would be.

"It's of particular concern to me," said Council member Heidi Ricci. "For 10 years we talked about expansion and putting the half-pipe somewhere else. We originally proposed putting it in this location and were told by Wachusett Mountain Associates it wouldn't work there. We went through years of lawsuits to put the half-pipe in the other location, and here we are today with the half-pipe where they said they [WMA] couldn't do it."

The ski area expansion was tied up in litigation from 1999 to 2003 when the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of the WMA's expansion proposal, which included clearing 12.5 acres for new ski/snowboard trails and widening existing trails for the Alpine Park where the half-pipe was proposed to be constructed. The court agreed with WMA that "there were no reasonable alternatives outside the old growth forest and inside the existing trail footprint within the ski area large enough to contain two new ski trails other than the proposed Alpine Park area."

Immediately after the decision, the Sierra Club challenged the ruling that allowed the cutting of more than 2,000 mature trees for the Alpine Park.

In August of 2003 two environmentalists from EarthFirst protested the cutting of mature red oaks by climbing into trees and staying for more than a month.

In September, the SJC denied the Sierra Club's petition for a rehearing on the issue, giving WMA the ability to proceed with plans to clear eight acres for two new ski trails and approximately 4.5 acres to widen existing trails.

The initial expansion plan went through the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act and a court process. The state certificate and the Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Report for the project allowed for construction/excavation of a half-pipe terrain park feature in the Vickery Bowl area.

At the Advisory Council meeting in July 2006, council members questioned whether changing the location of the half-pipe area would require a review by Mass Historic and a notice of project change to MEPA.

WMA representative Don Stoddard said permission was granted in 2005 to remove rocks and boulders from the area.

In May 2006, Wachusett Mountain Associates President Jeff Crowley said the halfpipe was being moved to the lower portions of trails 3 and 4 because half-pipe areas are now required to be wider.

"When we put in trails 5A and 5B we had to narrow them down to keep away from a nearby brook," Crowley said at the time. "By the time it was shrunk down to accommodate the various requirements, we weren't able to use it as a half-pipe location."

Installing half-pipe on the lower portions of trails 3 and 4 was on the list of 2006 maintenance projects at the ski area. In July 2006, Advisory Board and Monitoring Board members expressed concern about WMA's proposal to install a half-pipe there. At the time, Monitoring Board member David Getman questioned the project because it was in a wetland buffer zone.

State Reservation Supervisor Dwayne Ericson said he recalled that rocks would be moved, but didn't remember anything about earth being moved. "I recall last year they wanted to take out the top part to create soil berms to make a half-pipe and it was denied," Ericson said.

"What disturbs me is we went through many years with the expansion and the revised expansion and many meetings about building the half-pipe on one of the two trails that were approved," said Manero. "When it was approved we accepted the decision and moved forward. Then why did we clear more than 12 acres to then have someone say it won't work?"

"Where is the half-pipe going to be longterm?" asked Ricci. "The trails were cleared for that purpose. It disturbs me they've now done what they said was impossible through the whole process."

Donna Brownell, president of Watchdogs for an Environmentally Safe Town, said that if the half-pipe was going to be in a different location than approved it should go through a MEPA Notice of Project Change.

"I want to see [Department of Conservation and Recreation] work with MEPA regarding a project change and explain why this happened and what are they going to do about it," said Ricci.

"From the ski area prospective it [halfpipe] works very well where it is," said Stoddard. "We'll be discussing with DCR what the appropriate direction to go is."

"From the information I have, if the half-pipe was installed on Trail 5A, that because of a number of factors, including a stream that comes along the edge of the trail, it would mean the trail would have to be narrower than proposed," said Stoddard. "When people came down the trail they'd get trapped down there, so it became an operational issue. That's one of the reasons it was moved. I think the ski area has determined it works very well where it is now.

"We'll work with DCR. But before there's a lot of other comments from people that haven't seen it, I'd like the opportunity to have them come up and look at it and then we can have a discussion," said Stoddard

DCR attorney Nicholas Vontzalides said the council is asking "legitimate questions" about the half-pipe's location. "There's no question that in the MEPA process it was approved [that] the half-pipe was proposed to go on trail 5A," he said. "I need to have some discussion with WMA because it does involves processes."

Brownell insisted the switch in locations was intentional.

"My contention is now, after all is said and done, they did it all for [enhanced] capacity [at the ski area]," said Brownell. "They knew exactly what they were doing. We're right back to square one it seems."