Perisher Blue Expansion Plan

Perisher Range Resorts
Kosciuszko National Park

May 2002
Perisher Blue
Ski Resort
Ski Slope
Master Plan
PERISHER BLUE SKI RESORT
SKI SLOPE MASTER PLAN
Perisher Range Resorts
Kosciuszko National Park
May 2002
ISBN 0-9581048-1-6
Cover design by Cori Isele, Perisher Blue Pty Limited, with the Mountain Pygmy-possum image
reproduced with the permission of the Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment
and the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service.
Perisher Blue Pty Limited, ACN 061 232 488
Perisher Centre, Perisher Valley, NSW 2624
PO Box 42, Perisher Valley, NSW 2624
This work is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this
publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by means
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of
Perisher Blue Pty Limited. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be
addressed to the Administration Manager, Perisher Blue Ski Resort, PO Box 42, Perisher Valley NSW
2624. Telephone (02) 6459 4495, facsimile (02) 6457 5485.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Perisher Blue Ski Resort Ski Slope Master Plan took seven years to complete from
commencement to its adoption by the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service in May
2002 under the provisions of the Kosciuszko National Park Plan of Management. The Ski Slope
Master Plan is the adopted version following earlier drafts that include the Draft Mountain Master
Plan, July 1997, and the Perisher Blue Ski Slope Plan, April 2000.
Perisher Blue Pty Limited and David Hogg Pty Limited jointly received the 2001 Royal Australian
Planning Institute (RAPI) Award for Excellence in Environmental Planning for the April 2000 Perisher
Blue Ski Slope Plan. The Ski Slope Master Plan builds upon this foundation of planning excellence
and reflects the hard work and dedication of all that have been involved in its development.
In the preparation and the development of the Ski Slope Master Plan, many people were involved and
significant resources given to the project. Perisher Blue Pty Limited extends its sincere and deep
appreciation for the work carried out by its principal consultant Dr David Hogg, of David Hogg Pty
Limited, who brought a great deal of skill and scientific rigour to the project. Our appreciation is also
extended to our earliest consultant Design Workshop Inc., especially Bill Kane and Mark Hershberger,
who helped our staff and David Hogg to apply mountain and village planning principles and concepts,
many of which are embodied in the Ski Slope Master Plan. Appreciation is also extended to Joe
VanderKelen, of Snow Machines Inc., and SMIs Australian agent Rob Grant, of Sno-Quip Australia
Pty Ltd, for their assistance with those parts dealing with snowmaking; and to Hermann Frhstck of
Doppelmayr Seilbahn and Bruce Turner, of Doppelmayr Australia Pty Ltd, for their assistance
concerning those parts dealing with ski lifts. Valuable information was also provided by the Snowy
Mountains Hydro-electric Authority and Great Southern Energy (now Country Energy). As part of the
adoption process, the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service provided comments on
the April 2000 plan, for which, Perisher Blue expresses its acknowledgment and appreciation.
Important elements of the Ski Slope Master Plan are the result of other consultants' work for which we
express appreciation. The consultants were SMEC Australia Pty Ltd, Navin Officer Heritage
Consultants and Simon Holloway and Dr Will Osborne of the University of Canberra.
Many of the staff of Perisher Blue have contributed greatly, particularly Bob Jack, General Manager,
Operations; Graham Weston, Denis Plummer, Greg Isele, Phil Granger and Barry Turel, present and
former Area Managers; John Palmer, Snowmaking Manager; Michael Fearnside, Mountain Manager;
Richard Shankster, former Ski Area Electrical Manager; Steve Field, former Workshops Manager; and
Don McInnes, Ski and Snowboard School Director. Special mention also needs to be made to various
other managers and staff too numerous, unfortunately, to list. Thanks also go to Cori Isele for the
design of Plans cover sheet.
Appreciation and acknowledgement is also given to the staff of David Hogg who have produced very
many working papers over the years including the Perisher Blue Ski Slope Plan, April 2000, that has
culminated in the Ski Slope Master Plan as presented. They are Frances Russo, Libby Warren, Andy
Hogg and David Shepherd.
Finally, acknowledgement is also due to Dr Linda Broome, New South Wales National Parks and
Wildlife Service, and Dr Ian Mansergh, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria,
for permission to reproduce the image of the Mountain Pygmy-possum on the cover sheet.
Ashley Blondel
Chief Executive Officer
Perisher Blue Pty Limited
May 2002
The Perisher Range ski resorts, situated in Kosciuszko National Park, contain outstanding natural, cultural and
social values. The area contains a diverse and complex range of ecosystems and is of national and international
significance in terms of flora conservation and genetic resource preservation. The park has been previously
recognised by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature as one of six Australian sites of plant
biodiversity and one of 167 throughout the world. In addition, the surviving archaeological resource within the
study area is a culturally significant component of the alpine and sub-alpine Aboriginal cultural landscape.
The Perisher Range resorts also provide for significant recreational opportunities and economic benefits to local,
regional and state economies attracting over 16,000 visitors on a peak day in winter. The social and economic
well being of regional towns is markedly influenced by tourism (particularly skiing) generated by the natural
attributes and recreational activities in the resort areas.
The objectives of the National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974 aim to ensure that these values are protected for
present and future generations. The challenge for the ski resort operator, Perisher Blue Pty Limited, and the
NSW government is to ensure the development of a resort that is ecologically sustainable through sound
planning, scientific research, best practice environmental management and monitoring.
This Ski Slope Master Plan for the Perisher Range resorts has been prepared by Perisher Blue Pty Limited and
contains proposals for the ski slope areas of Perisher, Smiggin Holes, Blue Cow, Guthega and the Link
Management Unit of Kosciuszko National Park. The plan is required by the Kosciuszko National Park Plan of
Management, which sets out the contents of a ski slope plan and the process for it to be adopted.
The Ski Slope Master Plan serves as a valuable guide for managing mountain development and associated
impacts. More specifically the Ski Slope Master Plan provides the opportunity for:
! an improved understanding between resort operators, government and the community on the operational
requirements and future development of the resort;
! a strategic program of upgrading mountain facilities and services that will culminate in a high quality
experience for winter visitors;
! a broader understanding of the environmental, economic and social context in which the ski resort operates;
! an improved level of community involvement in the development of a vision and decisions for future use of a
public resource;
! an increased level of certainty for investors on the long term viability of the resort;
! improved linkages between mountain, village and service infrastructure planning and development;
! a framework for developing responsive scientific research programs and environmental performance
monitoring; and
! a framework for sharing information and environmental solutions between government and private industry.
Implementation of the proposals contained in the Ski Slope Master Plan will be subject to further environmental
assessment, in the first instance by Perisher Blue, followed by a review and determination by the appropriate
NSW government agency. Specific proposals will comply with the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974,
Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995, Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 and other
relevant legislation.
Ski slope development proposals are currently assessed by NPWS under the provisions of Part 5 of the NSW
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. Upon commencement of the State Environmental Planning
Policy (SEPP) for ski resort areas, the NSW Department of Planning will complete the review and determination
of proposals in the Ski Slope Master Plan under Part 4 of the same Act. The SEPP identifies a Masterplan - Ski
Slopes as a matter for consideration by the Department of Planning in determining a development application.
NSW National Parks and Wildlife
Service Foreword
The NPWS has considered the appropriateness of the proposals contained within the Ski Slope Master Plan
according to the National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974, the Kosciuszko National Park Plan of Management, and
other relevant government policies. NPWS has, where appropriate, consulted scientific experts and current
research documents in formulating its response to the information presented in the Ski Slope Master Plan.
The plan includes a number of proposals that fall outside the resort management unit boundaries of the
Kosciuszko Plan of Management. The specific proposals include projects 9.1 and 9.4 in Precinct 9 (Mount Piper
North) contained in Table 14.1 and projects 12.1 and 12.2 in Precinct 12 (Blue Cow North) contained in Table
17.2 of the Ski Slope Master Plan. These proposals have not been adopted by the NPWS. They have been
included in the Ski Slope Master Plan so the lessee can transparently articulate the vision for the future
development of the resort in that area. The use of these areas will be considered by the NPWS as part of the
review of the Kosciuszko National Park Plan of Management according to the requirements of Section 75 of the
National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974.
To ensure that the objectives of sustainable development as set out in the Ski Slope Master Plan are realised,
Perisher Blue will implement a comprehensive environmental monitoring program generally consistent with
ISO14000 and the Perisher Range Resorts Environmental Management System. This program will be integrated
with the implementation of the Ski Slope Master Plan which will, amongst other things:
! provide the resort and NPWS a context to benchmark and evaluate trends in the condition of the area;
! provide an evaluation of the status and trends in ecological processes as they effect the condition and
sustainability of the environmental attributes that the ski slope plan seeks to protect;
! evaluate probable causes of changing ecological conditions and identify threats to the sustainability of
valued environmental attributes referred to in the ski slope plan; and
! assist in the formulation of management options to reduce risks of ecological process impairment and to
promote sustainability as outlined in the vision for the resort;
Perisher Blue has identified that the conservation of Aboriginal sites within the resort area is a continuing priority
and consultation with the aboriginal community will occur as the plan is implemented.
NPWS considers that the vision, principles and objectives for the development of the ski slopes in the Perisher
Range resorts as articulated in the Ski Slope Master Plan are acceptable. NPWS has therefore adopted the Ski
Slope Master Plan, excluding those sections outlined above, under the provisions of the Kosciuszko National
Park Plan of Management.
Perisher Blue and relevant government authorities will review the Ski Slope Master Plan every five years to
reflect new information, changes in market forces, environmental conditions and government policy.
Director General
SSMP MAY 2002
CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Scope of the Ski Slope Plan 1-1
1.2 Plan of Management Objectives 1-1
1.3 Environmental Planning and Assessment 1-2
2. GROWTH OF WINTER VISITATION 2-1
2.1 History of Skiing Development in the Perisher Range 2-1
2.2 Analysis of the Visitor Market in Relation to Ski Slope Planning 2-2
2.3 Visitor Numbers 2-4
2.4 Recent Trends in Visitation 2-5
2.5 Future Trends in Visitation 2-5
2.6 Effects of Global Warming on Visitation 2-6
3. A VISION FOR THE RESORT 3-1
3.1 Vision Statement 3-1
3.2 Interpretation of the Vision 3-1
3.3 Realising the Vision 3-3
4. OVERVIEW OF FUTURE SKI SLOPE REQUIREMENTS 4-1
4.1 Planning Goals 4-1
4.2 Requirements of the Ski Slope Plan 4-1
5. STRATEGIC PLANNING 5-1
5.1 Identification of Precincts 5-1
5.2 Ski Lifts 5-2
5.3 Snowmaking 5-4
5.4 Skier Circulation 5-6
5.5 Ski School 5-9
5.6 Mountain Restaurants 5-10
5.7 Competition Skiing Facilities 5-11
5.8 Mountain Workshops 5-12
5.9 Oversnow Routes 5-13
5.10 Summer Access 5-13
5.11 Municipal Services 5-15
5.12 Ecological Management 5-16
6. PRECINCT 1: PERISHER VALLEY 6-1
6.1 General Description 6-1
6.2 Environmental Characteristics 6-1
6.3 Existing Developments and Operation 6-2
6.4 Future Development Proposals 6-6
6.4.1 Lift upgrading Front Valley and Centre Valley 6-6
6.4.2 Extension of snowmaking 6-7
6.4.3 Extent of summer grooming 6-7
6.4.4 Telemark lift capacity and vehicle conflict 6-8
6.4.5 Use of childrens and events area 6-9
6.4.6 Front Valley operation in general 6-10
6.4.7 Summer access to Centre Valley 6-10
6.4.8 Other proposals 6-11
6.4.9 Summary of proposals 6-11
6.5 Operational Evaluation 6-12
6.5.1 Skiing capacity 6-12
6.5.2 Skier circulation 6-12
6.5.3 Other matters 6-12
SSMP MAY 2002
7, PRECINCT 2: BACK PERISHER 7-1
7.4.1 Slope grooming uphill of Perisher Express midstation 7-3
7.4.2 Happy Valley 7-5
7.4.3 Pretty Valley 7-5
7.4.4 Circulation between Perisher and Blue Cow 7-5
7.4.5 Snowmaking and associated trails 7-6
8. PRECINCT 3: MOUNT PERISHER 8-1
8.4.1 Upgrading of lifts 8-3
8.4.2 Visitor facilities 8-4
8.4.3 Summer access tracks 8-4
8.4.4 Provision for less experienced skiers 8-5
8.4.5 Snowmaking 8-5
8.4.6 Workshop facilities 8-5
9. PRECINCT 4: NORTH PERISHER 9-1
9.4.1 Skier access to Interceptor base station 9-3
9.4.2 Skier access to top of North Perisher T-bar 9-3
9.4.3 Slope grooming 9-3
9.4.5 Oversnow route 9-4
9.4.6 Summer access to top of North Perisher T-bar 9-4
9.4.7 Other works 9-4
10. PRECINCT 5: SMIGGIN HOLES 10-1
10.4.1 Role as an entry point 10-3
10.4.2 Improved reliability for beginners 10-3
10.4.3 Extension of snowmaking 10-3
10.4.4 Snowmaking reservoir 10-4
10.4.5 Relocation of oversnow route 10-4
SSMP MAY 2002
10.4.6 Summer access 10-4
11. PRECINCT 6: MOUNT PIPER SOUTH 11-1
11.4.1 Learn to Ski Centre and snowplay area 11-2
11.4.3 Oversnow route 11-4
11.4.4 Mountain workshop 11-4
12. PRECINCT 7: PLEASANT VALLEY 12-1
12.4.1 Increased security of lifting system 12-3
12.4.3 Protection of wet areas and water quality 12-5
12.4.4 Pleasant Valley mountain restaurant 12-5
12.4.5 Ski School at Blue Cow 12-6
13. PRECINCT 8: BLUE COW MOUNTAIN 13-1
13.4.1 Protection of Burramys population 13-3
13.4.2 Skier access to Blue Cow Terminal 13-5
13.4.3 Upgrading of Ridge Quad Chairlift 13-5
13.4.5 Upgrading of competition and training facilities 13-6
13.4.6 Facilities at the base of the Ridge Chairlift 13-6
13.5 Operation Evaluation 13-7
14. PRECINCT 9: MOUNT PIPER NORTH 14-1
SSMP MAY 2002
14.4.1 Formalisation of Plan of Management provisions 14-2
14.4.2 Formalisation of access trails 14-3
14.4.3 Future role of the Link Road 14-3
15. PRECINCT 10: GUTHEGA 15-1
15.4.1 Increased lifting capacity 15-3
15.4.2 Improved vehicle access 15-4
15.4.3 Restaurant and skier facilities 15-4
15.4.5 Protection of Burramys habitat 15-5
16. PRECINCT 11: LINK UNIT 16-1
16.4.1 Quad chairlift to Perisher 16-2
16.4.2 T-bar to Blue Cow 16-2
17. PRECINCT 12: BLUE COW NORTH 17-1
17.4.1 Formalisation of snowboarding and skiing use 17-2
17.4.2 Access to Blue Cow race course 17-2
18. OPERATIONAL EVALUATION 18-1
18.1 Summary of Proposed Developments 18-1
18.2 Skiing Capacity 18-3
18.2.1 Operation under optimum conditions 18-3
18.2.2 Operation under constraint conditions 18-4
18.3 Strategic Requirements 18-8
18.3.1 Introduction 18-8
18.3.2 Interface with base areas 18-8
SSMP MAY 2002
18.3.3 Access to the resort 18-8
18.3.5 Ski School accessibility 18-9
18.3.6 Mountain restaurants and related facilities 18-9
18.3.7 Snowmaking expansion 18-9
18.3.8 Snow fences 18-11
18.3.9 Separation of skiers and oversnow vehicles 18-11
18.3.10 Workshops 18-11
18.3.11 Summer access 18-12
18.3.12 Competition facilities 18-12
18.3.13 Snowboarding needs 18-13
18.3.14 Snowplay needs 18-13
18.4 Conclusions 18-13
REFERENCES AND INFORMATION SOURCES Ref-1
APPENDICES
A. ENVIRONMENTAL BEST PRACTICE MANUAL
B. MAPPING OF PRECINCTS
C. SKIING CAPACITY
FIGURES
Page
(* = follows page)
1.1 Area covered by the Ski Slope Plan *1-2
2.1 Historical development of Perisher Blue Ski Resort *2-2
2.2 Types of winter visitors 2-3
2.3 Distribution of skier skill levels 2-3
2.4 Snowboard use at Perisher Blue 2-3
2.5 Daily skier numbers 1999 *2-4
2.6 Annual skier visitation *2-6
2.7 Annual skier visitation showing trend line *2-6
2.8 Potential growth in design day visitation *2-6
5.1 Precincts in relation to management units *5-2
5.2 Lift system *5-4
5.3 Snowmaking *5-4
5.4 Skier circulation *5-6
5.5 Ski School *5-10
5.6 Mountain restaurants *5-10
5.7 Competition skiing facilities *5-12
5.8 Mountain workshops and oversnow routes *5-12
5.9 Summer access *5-14
5.10 Proposed electricity upgrading *5-14
5.11 Animal movement corridors *5-18
6.1 Precinct 1: Perisher Valley. Existing conditions *6-2
6.2 Precinct 1: Perisher Valley. Vegetation *6-2
6.3 Precinct 1: Perisher Valley. Other environmental factors *6-2
6.4 Precinct 1: Perisher Valley. Slope use and grooming *6-4
6.5 Precinct 1: Perisher Valley . Ski slope proposals *6-6
7.1 Precinct 2: Back Perisher. Existing conditions *7-2
7.2 Precinct 2: Back Perisher. Vegetation *7-2
7.3 Precinct 2: Back Perisher. Other environmental factors *7-2
7.4 Precinct 2: Back Perisher. Slope use and grooming *7-4
7.5 Precinct 2: Back Perisher. Ski slope proposals *7-4
8.1 Precinct 3: Mount Perisher. Existing conditions *8-2
8.2 Precinct 3: Mount Perisher. Vegetation *8-2
SSMP MAY 2002
8.3 Precinct 3: Mount Perisher. Other environmental factors *8-2
8.4 Precinct 3: Mount Perisher. Slope use and grooming *8-2
8.5 Precinct 3: Mount Perisher. Ski slope proposals *8-4
9.1 Precinct 4: North Perisher. Existing conditions *9-2
9.2 Precinct 4: North Perisher. Vegetation *9-2
9.3 Precinct 4: North Perisher. Other environmental factors *9-2
9.4 Precinct 4: North Perisher. Slope use and grooming *9-2
9.5 Precinct 4: North Perisher. Ski slope proposals *9-4
10.1 Precinct 5: Smiggin Holes. Existing conditions *10-2
10.2 Precinct 5: Smiggin Holes. Vegetation *10-2
10.3 Precinct 5: Smiggin Holes. Other environmental factors *10-2
10.4 Precinct 5: Smiggin Holes. Slope use and grooming *10-4
10.5 Precinct 5: Smiggin Holes. Ski slope proposals *10-4
11.1 Precinct 6: Mount Piper South. Existing conditions *11-2
11.2 Precinct 6: Mount Piper South. Vegetation *11-2
11.3 Precinct 6: Mount Piper South. Other environmental factors *11-2
11.4 Precinct 6: Mount Piper South. Slope use and grooming *11-2
11.5 Precinct 6: Mount Piper South. Ski slope proposals *11-2
12.1 Precinct 7: Pleasant Valley. Existing conditions *12-2
12.2 Precinct 7: Pleasant Valley. Vegetation *12-2
12.3 Precinct 7: Pleasant Valley. Other environmental factors *12-2
12.4 Precinct 7: Pleasant Valley. Slope use and grooming *12-4
12.5 Precinct 7: Pleasant Valley. Ski slope proposals *12-4
13.1 Precinct 8: Blue Cow Mountain. Existing conditions *13-2
13.2 Precinct 8: Blue Cow Mountain. Vegetation *13-2
13.3 Precinct 8: Blue Cow Mountain. Other environmental factors *13-2
13.4 Precinct 8: Blue Cow Mountain. Slope use and grooming *13-4
13.5 Precinct 8: Blue Cow Mountain. Ski slope proposals *13-4
14.1 Precinct 9: Mount Piper North. Existing conditions *14-2
14.2 Precinct 9: Mount Piper North. Vegetation *14-2
14.3 Precinct 9: Mount Piper North. Other environmental factors *14-2
14.4 Precinct 9: Mount Piper North. Ski slope proposals *14-2
15.1 Precinct 10: Guthega. Existing conditions *15-2
15.2 Precinct 10: Guthega. Vegetation *15-2
15.3 Precinct 10: Guthega. Other environmental factors *15-2
15.4 Precinct 10: Guthega. Slope use and grooming *15-2
15.5 Precinct 10: Guthega. Ski slope proposals *15-4
16.1 Precinct 11: Link Unit. Existing conditions *16-2
16.2 Precinct 11: Link Unit. Vegetation *16-2
16.3 Precinct 11: Link Unit. Other environmental factors *16-2
16.4 Precinct 11: Link Unit. Slope use and grooming *16-2
16.5 Precinct 11: Link Unit. Ski slope proposals *16-2
17.1 Precinct 12: Blue Cow North. Existing conditions *17-2
17.2 Precinct 12: Blue Cow North. Vegetation *17-2
17.3 Precinct 12: Blue Cow North. Other environmental factors *17-2
17.4 Precinct 12: Blue Cow North. Ski slope proposals *17-2
TABLES
Page
2.1 Peak day and design day skier numbers 2-5
5.1 Relationship between precincts, resort operational areas and management units 5-2
5.2 Skier circulation routes 5-7
5.3 Requirements for municipal services 5-14
6.1 Precinct 1 existing skiing capacity 6-5
6.2 Summary of proposed developments in Precinct 1 6-11
6.3 Existing and proposed skiing capacity in Precinct 1 under optimum conditions 6-13
6.4 Skiing capacity in Precinct 1 under various operating conditions 6-14
7.3 Existing and proposed skiing capacity in Precinct 2 7-7
SSMP MAY 2002
18.1 Numbers of projects identified in the Ski Slope Plan 18-2
18.2 Skiing capacity summary under optimum conditions 18-3
18.3 Skiing capacity summary under marginal snow conditions based on early season
snowmaking 18-4
18.4 Skiing capacity summary under marginal snow conditions late in the season with
Mount Perisher and Smiggin Holes operating 18-5
Mount Perisher but not Smiggin Holes operating 18-5
Smiggin Holes but not Mount Perisher operating 18-6
neither Mount Perisher nor Smiggin Holes operating 18-6
18.8 Skiing capacity summary under high wind 18-7
18.9 Skiing capacity summary under high wind and marginal snow conditions based on
early season snowmaking 18-7
18.10 Improvements in skier circulation 18-10
18.11 Improvements to competition facilities 18-12
SSMP MAY 2002 1-1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Scope of the Ski Slope Master Plan
The Ski Slope Master Plan ('SSMP') for the Perisher
Blue Ski Resort outlines the intentions of Perisher
Blue Pty. Limited ('Perisher Blue'), which is
responsible for the operation of alpine skiing at
Perisher Valley, Smiggin Holes, Blue Cow and
Guthega, with respect to the provision and
management of facilities on the ski slopes of these
resorts for the foreseeable future (10 to 15 years).
The SSMP covers four of the seven management
units identified for alpine skiing in the Plan of
Management for Kosciuszko National Park ('PoM')
(Ref. 1) prepared by the National Parks and Wildlife
Service ('NPWS') (see Figure 1.1). These are the
Perisher Valley Smiggin Holes Management Unit
(J3), the Guthega Management Unit (J4), the Blue
Cow Management Unit (J6) and the Link
Management Unit (J7). As discussed in Section 2.1,
the historical basis for delineating these units is no
longer applicable, and there is a need to review their
boundaries in the context of the SSMP. This SSMP
therefore has not been confined strictly to the existing
unit boundaries, and includes some additional areas
between these units and the roads connecting
Guthega and Smiggin Holes.
The application of the SSMP starts from the point at
which alpine skiers leave their mode of transport or
accommodation in the resort centres and enter the
ski slopes for a day's skiing. It addresses the
provision of ski lifts and trails, buildings on the slopes
(e.g. mountain restaurants, toilets), slope grooming
operations including snowmaking and supporting
infrastructure such as power, communications and
hydraulic services. It also addresses the
environmental management of the ski slopes, having
regard to both winter and summer periods.
The development and management of the ski slopes
are interdependent with that which occurs in the
resort base areas, ensuri ng that access,
accommodation and services complement skier
numbers. It is necessary also to take account of the
significant number of winter visitors who do not
participate in alpine skiing but who utilise the resort
base area facilities as well as, generally, the lower
parts of the slopes.
The planning of accommodation, access, community
service infrastructure and cross-country skiing
facilities do not fall within the scope of the SSMP.
The planning of accommodation, access and
community services infrastructure has been
addressed through the Village Master Plan, which
was released for public comment in the form of an
environmental impact statement (EIS) (Ref. 2). This
plan has since been the subject of a Commission of
Inquiry (Ref. 3) and subsequent approval by the
Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning.
The Perisher Range Resorts Master Plan (Ref. 4)
provides a planning framework and direction for
future development within the resorts areas on the
Perisher Range. The Plan responds to the 1999
Ministerial approval for the EIS requiring preparation
of a revised Master Plan for the Perisher Range
Resort areas, including the proposed new Village
Centre in Perisher Valley. The Master Plan
envisages use of Perisher Range as a summer and
winter resort, and emphasises the need for a close
integration of the village areas with adjacent ski
slopes.
At the same time as the EIS was on public exhibition,
the SSMP proposals were exhibited in the form of a
draft Mountain Master Plan (Ref. 5). The comments
received on the draft Mountain Master Plan are
reflected in amendments to the SSMP.
The provision of cross-country skiing facilities has
been addressed through the Cross-country Ski
Development Plan (Ref. 6) which was also exhibited
in draft form.
There are also some developments associated with
the resort which may fall outside the scope of the
above three component plans, for example, the
Smiggin Holes stockpile area. It is assumed that
these are being addressed through separate plans.
1.2 Plan of Management Objectives
The Kosciuszko National Park Plan of Management,
which is a statutory instrument adopted under
Section 72 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act
1974, sets out the objectives, policies and
prescriptions for the management of all activities
within the Park, of which skiing development is just
one.
The PoM sets out two series of objectives which are
relevant directly or indirectly to the SSMP. The
objectives for the management of alpine skiing in
Kosciuszko National Park are set out in Section 7.3.1
as follows:
to encourage the provision of facilities and
services in alpine skiing management units for
alpine skiing;
to ensure that resort area planning and services
are of a high standard appropriate to winter
visitors and to a park of Kosciuszko' s
environmental quality and international stature;
1-2 SSMP MAY 2002
to foster the development of a range of alpine
skiing opportunities;
to ensure that facilities are provided for non-skiing
visitors within the ski resorts;
to permit accommodation for essential servicing
staff and visitors to prescribed levels;
to ensure that ski resorts function well;
to ensure visitor safety in the operation of services
and facilities;
to monitor visitor growth patterns and visitor
responses to ski resorts and services;
to ensure that cross-country skiing facilities are
provided within and adjacent to resorts;
to ensure satisfactory design standards for all new
structures and works;
to ensure community services are provided to
meet visitor growth and statutory standards;
to protect important features including landscape
and environmentally sensitive areas;
to maintain liaison with local shires, Department of
Planning, Environment Protection Authority, local
tourist associations and other community groups
and appropriate authorities concerning ski resort
development policy and practice and winter tourist
growth indicators;
to have regard to the effects of development on
areas surrounding the Park.
The PoM also embraces responsible environmental
planning and management as an integral component.
Section 8 of the PoM sets out relevant procedures
and practices which apply throughout the Park
including the ski resorts. The management
objectives for environmental planning (PoM Section
8.1.1) are as follows:
to ensure that development and works proposals
are consistent with the plan of management;
to avoid unnecessary environmental disturbance;
to minimise the environmental impact of any
approved devel opments, works or other
operations that are to take place within the Park;
to ensure that the environmental effects of any
operation do not exceed acceptable limits,
consistent with the status of the land as national
park; and
to ensure that all development is completed in
accordance with the Service building regulations.
These objectives do not preclude further skiing
development within the management units identified
in the PoM for alpine skiing. They do, however,
emphasise the need for an environmentally sensitive
and sustainable approach for ongoing development
and management of the ski slopes. As discussed
throughout the report, the SSMP seeks not only to
minimise future disturbance but also to rectify
environmental problems that have arisen over time.
1.3 Environmental Planning and Assessment
The integration of environmental considerations into
the planning and development process takes place at
several stages throughout this process. The
formulation of the SSMP has involved an
envi ronmental pl anni ng approach i n whi ch
environmental considerations have been given at
least equal status alongside development or
operational considerations in driving the decision-
making process from the start. Perisher Blue has
also undertaken a broad environmental review of the
cumulative effects of all of the elements of the SSMP,
which provides a context for more detailed
environmental assessment of individual projects prior
to their implementation.
All proposals identified in the SSMP will be subject to
further environmental assessment, in the first
instance by Perisher Blue, followed by review by the
NPWS and other relevant New South Wales
Government agencies, as appropriate. Relevantly,
ski slope development proposals are currently
assessed under the provisions of Part 5 of the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
NSW (EPA Act). Upon commencement of the State
Environmental Planning Policy Kosciuszko Ski
Resorts (SEPP), assessment will be completed under
Part 4 of the same Act.
For the majority of proposals identified in the SSMP,
this is expected to take the form of a Statement of
Environmental Effects (SEE). A SEE describes the
proposal in detail, including its justification and
objectives, identifies the environmental best practices
that would be used in implementing the proposal,
assesses the environmental impacts of undertaking
the works, identifies any specific environmental
safeguards that may be warranted for reducing such
impacts and, if appropriate, identifies and evaluates
alternatives to the proposal or elements of it.
Any proposal which is likely to have a significant
impact on the environment is subject to the
preparation and public review of an environmental
impact statement (EIS). The specific requirements
for the preparation and review of an EIS are set out in
regulations under the EPA Act. If a proposal is likely
to significantly affect threatened species, populations
or ecological communities or their habitat, it is subject
to the preparation of a species impact statement
(SIS).
There are, on the other hand, numerous works
undertaken on the ski slopes, particularly those of a
maintenance nature or which would have minimal
impact if implemented appropriately, which do not
warrant formal environmental review. It is still
SSMP MAY 2002 1-3
important to undertake such works in an
environmentally responsible manner. To this end,
the SSMP contains an Environmental Best Practice
Manual in Appendix A, which sets out best practice
guidelines for a range of development or
maintenance activities in various situations on the ski
slopes. This manual is used also as an important
background reference in the preparation of SEEs.
This manual includes more specific guidelines for
environmental assessment of proposals identified in
the SSMP.
It is possible that, following more detailed
environmental assessment, certain proposals
identified in the SSMP may be found to involve an
unacceptable level of environmental impact, even
with the implementation of environmental best
practices and other environmental safeguards. In
this event, such proposals may be modified or
deleted from the SSMP. It is inappropriate to make
this judgement, however, until such detailed
assessment has been undertaken.
SSMP MAY 2002 2-1
2. GROWTH OF WINTER VISITATION
2.1 History of Skiing Development in the
Perisher Range
The four alpine skiing areas in the Perisher Range
(Perisher, Smiggin Holes, Guthega and Blue Cow)
were established initially as separate resorts, but
have been progressively integrated over the years to
form the Perisher Blue Ski Resort (see Figure 2.1).
This integration, coupled with the beneficial impact of
the Skitube on access to Perisher, have significantly
changed the operation of the original resorts with
respect to both the village centres and the ski slopes.
Three of the original resorts, Perisher Valley, Smiggin
Holes and Guthega, were established in the 1950s
when improved access to the mountains associated
with the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Scheme,
coupled with the influx of European migrants with
skiing experience to work on this scheme, stimulated
the growth of skiing in New South Wales. Smiggin
Holes and Perisher Valley both lay on the route
between the Hotel Kosciusko and the Charlotte Pass
Chalet, while Guthega was established on the site of
the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority
workcamp for Guthega Dam.
During the 1960s and 1970s, Perisher Valley and
Smiggin Holes evolved as dispersed resorts with a
high component of club lodges, with Murray
Publishers Pty Ltd and associated companies being
granted the lease and franchise rights for ski lifts and
associated developments for these two resorts.
Smiggin Holes, being lower down the road with
easier access and moderate slopes, tended to
become the beginner skier area and the focus for
group tour operators, while the more experienced
skiers were concentrated at Perisher.
In addition to the overnight visitors, who were
predominantly club members and guests, Perisher
and Smiggin Holes attracted an increasing number of
day visitors, many of whom were accommodated in
Jindabyne. Day visitor use was totally reliant on
good access along the Kosciuszko Road and
adequate parking at the resorts. This led to the
construction prior to the 1974 ski season of the
existing large surface carpark at Perisher Valley with
this carpark being constructed by and leased to
Murray Publishers.
In contrast to Perisher and Smiggin Holes, Guthega
remained a separate small resort, operated by
Guthega Development Pty Ltd with only a handful of
lodges, few lifts and limited patronage from day
skiers who had to contend with more difficult road
conditions than those to Smiggin Holes or Perisher
Valley. Access onto the slopes was not easy, with
both day and overnight visitors having to walk some
distance uphill to the upper end of the village in order
to reach the bottom lift. This problem was overcome
in 1982 by the installation of a chairlift from the lower
end of the village to Blue Calf Saddle. At the same
time the carpark was sealed with a view to making
the resort more attractive to day visitors.
In the mid 1980s two major new but related
developments significantly changed the pattern of
skiing on the Perisher Range. One was the
construction of the Skitube which was initially
conceived primarily as a means of overcoming the
growing access problem to Perisher. The other was
the development of the Blue Cow Ski Resort, which
became feasible in access terms only because of the
opportunity to extend the Skitube to Blue Cow, thus
integrating these two developments.
The Skitube has been successful in appealing to
winter visitors who are prepared to pay the Skitube
fare in order to avoid the cost or difficulties of driving
up the Kosciuszko Road, particularly in adverse
weather conditions. Others, including many lodge
guests who stay for an extended period, find the
access much easier when bringing into the resorts
much luggage and provisions. Some day visitors
make Blue Cow their destination while others leave
the Skitube at Perisher Valley. For the latter group,
the original situation at Perisher Smiggin Holes,
whereby Smiggin Holes was the 'arrival point' for less
experienced skiers, has now been reversed. A
disproportionately large number of less experienced
skiers now arrive at Perisher, rather than at Smiggin
Holes where the more suitable slopes tend to be
located. This has been one of the most critical
effects of the Skitube on the resort's operation.
In 1991, Guthega was purchased by the then
operator of the Blue Cow Resort. This led to the
operation of the two resorts becoming integrated in
1992 under the management of the Alpine Australia
Group, thus providing day access into Guthega via
the Skitube to Blue Cow.
The most significant step in the integration of the
Perisher Range resorts took place in 1995 with the
merger of the Perisher Smiggin Holes and Blue
Cow Guthega resorts. This merger has had major
benefits for alpine skiing, with the creation of an
integrated ski circuit covering all four resorts, as
mooted in the Plan of Management as early as 1974.
As well as being very popular with skiers, the
integrated circuit has substantially increased the
slope area accessible to skiers and has also
indirectly increased the ski slope capacity because
skiers spend a higher proportion of their time
circulating between different parts of the resort, as
opposed to repeat skiing using the lifts.
2-2 SSMP MAY 2002
A key component of the integrated operation of the
resort is the effective utilisation of the Link
Management Unit. When it was identified in the 1982
Plan of Management, this was an area of 'no man's
land' squeezed between three separate resort areas
at that time: Perisher Smiggin Holes, Blue Cow and
Guthega. Its function as an essential link started to
become evident with the amalgamation of Blue Cow
and Guthega. This function has now become critical
with the total integration of all four resorts.
One implication of the integration of the four resorts is
that the delineation of the separate management
units, J3, J4, J6 and J7, in the PoM is no longer
meaningful in relation to the ski slopes, as ski trails,
slope grooming activities and skier circulation
management transcend the boundaries between
these units. This is an issue which needs to be
addressed in a review of the PoM.
The other critical issue in the SSMP which has
emerged as a result of historical change is the need
to address the operation of the resort based on
access from several different points. Since the arrival
pattern at the resort has been 'turned inside out' by
the Skitube, there has been no substantial structural
changes to the design of the village centres and their
interfaces with the ski slopes to reflect these
changes. This issue has major implications for both
the SSMP and the future development of the villages.
2.2 Analysis of the Visitor Market in Relation to
Ski Slope Planning
The remainder of this chapter reviews the potential
growth of skiing and other winter activities at Perisher
Blue Ski Resort, taking particular account of the type
of skiers using the resort and the pattern of skiing
within the season.
In estimating and planning for skiing growth it is
necessary that a balance be maintained between the
various factors that can promote or constrain such
growth. In particular, the number of skiers using the
ski slopes can grow only to the extent facilitated
either by access to the resort or the provision of
additional accommodation for overnight visitors.
Conversely, increases in access or accommodation
can be justified only if the slopes have the capacity to
handle additional skiers at an acceptable standard of
service.
For the purposes of this chapter, it is assumed that
slope capacity will not be a constraint on skiing
growth within the life of the current SSMP. This is
consistent with the conclusions of the Ski Slope
Capacity Study undertaken for the NPWS by Ecosign
Mountain Recreation Planners Ltd (Ref. 7), and is
supported by the precinct analysis in Chapters 6 to
17 of the SSMP.
The types of persons requiring access to or
accommodation at resorts in winter are identified on a
hierarchical basis in Figure 2.2. The significance of
this hierarchy in ski slope planning is explained
further as follows:
The access/accommodation capacity needs to
provide for both resort visitors of various types
and resort workers. The latter are assumed not to
place significant demands on ski slope capacity,
even though some may ski for part of the day.
Resort visitors are subdivided into those who
make use of the ski slopes (alpine skiers and
snowboarders) and those who do not (cross-
country skiers, snow players, sightseers and
holiday makers). Some of the latter group still
need to be accommodated within the SSMP in
terms of access trails or activity areas, but these
are restricted in location and have a minor impact
on the overall SSMP.
Alpine skiers and snowboarders can each be
subdivided according to ability. This is important
particularly in determining the balance of slopes of
differing gradients and difficulty and, at least with
respect to beginners, proximity to the resort
centre, ski school and other base area facilities.
There i s overl ap between ski i ng and
snowboarding use, although certain slopes may
be particularly suited to one or other of those
activities. Specialist activities such as freestyle
skiing or ski racing could be added to this
classification, but are more appropriately
addressed separately in the SSMP.
At the intermediate or advanced level, some
skiers or snowboarders enjoy slopes which are
not groomed and have a natural pattern of trees
and rocks to add interest to the terrain, while the
majority prefer the less difficult, intensively
groomed slopes. The SSMP needs to cater for
both preferences.
The important quantitative information required for ski
slope planning includes the total skier numbers at a
given time together with their distribution according to
ability level.
The distribution in skier ability level has been
assessed by Ecosign (Ref. 7) as follows:
Level 1. Beginner 5%
Level 2. Novice 10%
Level 3. Low intermediate 20%
Level 4. Intermediate 30%
Level 5. High intermediate 20%
Level 6. Advanced 10%
Level 7. Expert 5%
These figures have been found in several surveys to
be valid for New South Wales resorts (see Figure
SSMP MAY 2002 2-3
Persons requiring access
or accommodation
Resort visitors Resort workers
Ski slope users Other visitors
Alpine skiers Snowboarders Cross-country Snow players Sightseers/
skiers holiday makers
Beginner Intermediate Advanced Beginner Intermediate Advanced
On-piste Off-piste On-piste Off-piste On-piste Off-piste On-piste Off-piste
skiers skiers skiers skiers (hard boot) (soft boot) (hard boot) (soft boot)
boarders boarders boarders boarders
Figure 2.2 Types of winter visitors
Figure 2.3 Distribution of skier skill levels
Source: Ecosign (Ref. 7)
Figure 2.4 Snowboard use at Perisher Blue
Source: Ref. 8
2.3) and are adopted for purposes of the SSMP.
While the assessment is based on skiers, not
snowboarders, for planning purposes it is assumed
that snowboarders would follow a similar distribution.
Overall, about 30.5 percent of ski slope users at
Perisher Blue are currently estimated to be
snowboarders (Ref. 8), and this figure has been
rising each year (see Figure 2.4). For purposes of
quantitative analysis for provision of lifts and other
amenities, no distinction is made between these
groups, although the increase in snowboarder
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1996 1997 1998 1999
%

s
n
o
w
b
o
a
r
d
e
r
s
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Skier skill level
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

s
k
i
e
r
s
Typical (Ecosign)
Average NSW surveys
Typical (Ecosign)
Average NSW surveys
Skier skill level
2-4 SSMP MAY 2002
numbers has implications for preparing specific
terrain areas.
With respect to on-piste and off-piste skiers and
snowboarders, the percentages in the off-piste
groups are considered to be relatively small and are
ignored for purposes of quantitative analysis. The
needs of these groups, however, are still recognised
qualitatively in the SSMP.
2.3 Visitor Numbers
The number of daily visitors to Perisher Blue Ski
Resort varies during the season according to snow
and weather conditions and the established social
patterns for snow activities. Traditionally the ski
season starts on the Queen's Birthday long weekend
in June and finishes on the NSW/ACT Labour Day
long weekend in October, with the peak typically in
August.
Until 1987 this natural peak coincided with school
holidays, a significant social determinant of when
families take their skiing holidays. The change from
a three-term to a four-term school year resulted in
school holidays occurring in late June early July
and late September early October, both falling
within the shoulder periods of the ski season.
The change in holiday timing has had a significant
effect in attracting more family skiers to the
snowfields in late June early July. Snow reliability
early in the season has been improved in recent
years due to the availability of artificial snowmaking
on selected slopes. Snowmaking is particularly
successful during the earlier part of winter when
night-time temperatures and relative humidity are
low, enabling the resort to open earlier than may
sometimes be feasible with natural snowfalls.
Although experiencing a smaller peak, the
September October school holiday period has
nonetheless generally been a relatively quiet period
for skiers, even in seasons when suitable snow
conditions have persisted well past the long
weekend, as has occurred several times in recent
years. The factor determining the end of the skiing
season in some of these years appears to have been
lack of patronage rather than lack of snow.
The pattern of estimated skier visitation in 1999
*
is
illustrated in Figure 2.5. This shows the peaks and
troughs which are typical of visitation each year.
From a ski slope planning viewpoint, the critical
periods are those when skier numbers are highest.
Visitation also varies widely during the week, the

*
*The quantitative analysis of visitor numbers is based on records
up to and including the 1999 winter season, which immediately
preceded the preparation of the SSP by Perisher Blue Pty Limited.
Allowing for seasonal fluctuations, the visitor pattern is unlikely to
have changed significantly since then.
pattern varying at different times of the season.
During the peak period of August, the number of
skiers is highest on weekend days, but during the
school holidays the numbers of skiers on weekdays
are similar to or higher than those at weekends (see
Figure 2.5). The peak day in 1999 (22 August)
resulted in an estimated 13,500 skiers on the slopes.
However, while it is not practical or economical to
'build the church for Easter Sunday', neither is it
practical or economical to size all ski area facilities for
the peak day. Instead, the resort is planned to
operate according to a 'design day' or comfortable
capacity, this corresponding with the tenth most
popular day of a season. This planning approach is
generally adopted in North American resorts.
Accordingly, on a design basis, there would be nine
days of a season when queue times may be longer
and restaurants and other facilities may be busier
than would be considered acceptable according to
the normal standards for the resort. Based on
records from 1996 to 1999, the peak day of each
season can experience between 20 and 38 percent
more skiers than the tenth busiest day (see Table
2.1).
There will also be variations in activity during the day,
with peak numbers on the slopes occurring during
mid-morning and mid-afternoon, and peak demand
for restaurants and other facilities occurring around
lunchtime when slope numbers drop. For planning
purposes, the design day number is based on these
peak ski slope periods.
From a financial viewpoint, an important figure is the
total number of skier-days at the resort over the
whole season, which is based directly on lift ticket
sales. There is no direct relationship between the
annual number of skier days and the number of
skiers on the design day, as total visitation is
determined by both daily numbers and the length of
the season. Total visitation can also be influenced by
the extent to which good snow and weather
conditions coincide with the days when people are
available to go skiing (e.g. at weekends rather than
weekdays or during certain weeks of the season).
In theory, the number of visitor-days can be
increased by achieving more efficient utilisation of the
ski slopes on off-peak days, both during the
'shoulders' of the season and mid-week at other
times. Marketing to this end is actively pursued by
Perisher Blue for the obvious reason that it increases
the number of visitors to the resort without the need
for providing additional infrastructure. Despite the
marketi ng efforts, experi ence to date has
demonstrated that the Australian skiing public is fairly
set in its ways with respect to visiting resorts. Any
change in visitation distribution over the season is
likely to have only a marginal impact in relieving
MAY 2002 Figure 2.5 Daily skier numbers - 1999
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
7
/
6
/
9
9
1
4
/
6
/
9
9
2
1
/
6
/
9
9
2
8
/
6
/
9
9
5
/
7
/
9
9
1
2
/
7
/
9
9
1
9
/
7
/
9
9
2
6
/
7
/
9
9
2
/
8
/
9
9
9
/
8
/
9
9
1
6
/
8
/
9
9
2
3
/
8
/
9
9
3
0
/
8
/
9
9
6
/
9
/
9
9
1
3
/
9
/
9
9
2
0
/
9
/
9
9
2
7
/
9
/
9
9
4
/
1
0
/
9
9
1
1
/
1
0
/
9
9
S
k
i
e
r
s
SSMP MAY 2002 2-5
demand for new facilities during the foreseeable
period of skifield growth.
2.4 Recent Trends in Visitation
The total number of skier-days in recent years at
Perisher Blue are indicated in Figure 2.6. Plotted on
a single-year basis, these show considerable
variation which reflects the impact of snow conditions
on the duration of the season and the quality of skiing
at various times during the season.
The annual fluctuations can be smoothed by
analysing the data in terms of multi-year moving
averages (say three or five years), as also plotted in
Figure 2.6. These averages, however, can also be
distorted by exceptionally high or low years, as
occurred for example in 1995 following the resort
merger, when the novelty of the ski circuit stimulated
interest in the resort.
Alternatively, the results can be analysed by fitting a
trend line, as in Figure 2.7. This line indicates a
recent growth trend of the order of 1% per year at
Perisher Blue.
As indicated in Table 2.1, the skier numbers on the
peak day and the design day vary widely from year to
year. There are insufficient data on these
parameters to deduce a meaningful trend. The mean
design day skier number in recent years is 10,000
skiers with a peak of the order of 13,000 skiers.
These figures are subject to annual fluctuations of the
order of 8%. A design day figure of 10,000 skiers
for present visitation has been adopted for future
planning purposes.
2.5 Future Trends in Visitation
A study undertaken for the NPWS by Travers Morgan
(Ref. 9) estimated the growth in skier days in New
South Wales from 1990 to 2005 to be within the
range of 2.0 to 4.6 percent per annum, with a
medium forecast of 3.4 percent. A separate forecast
by Access Economics (Ref. 10) estimated growth of
2.5 to 3 percent to 1995 rising to as much as 3.5
percent later. Both these studies were undertaken in
1990 and their predictions have not been reflected in
actual New South Wales visitor numbers which have
tended to fluctuate around a typical figure of about
one mi l l i on ski er-days duri ng the 1990s.
Extrapolation of recent trends would suggest at most
a slow growth rate of less than 2 percent. However,
in assessing potential growth rates in relation to the
SSMP, there are several other factors which should
be considered.
The overall growth rates may not occur uniformly
throughout the skifields with respect to location or
type of skier. They relate to total skier days and, as
discussed in Section 2.3, it does not necessarily
follow that skier numbers on peak days or design
days, or other parameters for quantifying skiing
participation, will change in the same proportions.
In the long term it is probable that advances in the
extent and efficiency of artificial snowmaking may
enable the resort to offer snow cover with a high
degree of certainty so that skiers are prepared to
commit themselves to spreading their visits more
uniformly over the season. The technological
advances in snowmaking are indeed proving
promising but the rate of change in visitor attitudes is
less certain. Within the timeframe of the present
SSMP, it is prudent not to assume any significant
change from the present distribution.
Table 2.1 Peak day and design day skier numbers
Skier numbers Percentage
Year Peak day date Peak day Design day difference (a)
1996 24 August 13,928 10,076 38%
1997 30 August 11,204 9,186 22%
1998 9 August 12,925 10,770 20%
1999 22 August 13,506 9,911 36%
Mean 12,891 9,986 29%
(a) Difference between peak day numbers and design day numbers expressed as a percentage of design day
numbers.
2-6 SSMP MAY 2002
An additional factor that may influence the present
distribution in visitation is the targeting of the South-
east Asian and Asian markets. There is scope to
significantly enhance the shoulder periods of the ski
season with effective marketing.
A potential factor which could influence the growth in
skiing at Perisher Blue, which was brought out in the
Village Master Plan Commission of Inquiry, is the
effect in recent years of the lack of on-snow
accommodation artificially reducing the market share
in New South Wales compared with Victoria (Ref. 3).
This appears to be particularly the case in relation to
family groups. The recommendation by the
Commissioners to increase on-snow accommodation
with an emphasis on apartments could lead to a
surge in visitation, as facilities to satisfy the latent
accommodation demand become available. This
could significantly alter the very modest growth
pattern that has been observed in recent years.
For planning purposes, it is assumed that the number
of skiers on the design day (estimated to be
approximately 10,000 in 1999 see Section 2.4) will
increase at an average rate of between 2.0 and 4.6
percent per year (see Figure 2.8). The SSMP, when
fully implemented, provides for a design day capacity
of about 15,750 skiers (see Section 18.2.1). At a low
rate of 2.0 percent per year, this design day would be
reached in about 2021 (i.e. over 22 years). At the
high rate of 4.6 percent, this figure would be reached
by 2009 (i.e. over 10 years). At a medium rate of 3.0
percent, this figure would be reached by 2014 (i.e.
over 15 years). If the average growth rate proves to
be less than 2.0 percent, the time to achieve the
design day capacity will be even longer.
Whether the design day capacity is reached by 2009,
by 2021 or at some other time is not necessarily a
determinant of planning decisions. While the rate of
implementation of the SSMP will be influenced partly
by the rate of skiing growth, by generating both the
need for new facilities and the income to fund their
development, there are many elements of the SSMP
which are required for safety or quality reasons rather
than capacity reasons and would be implemented
irrespective of the growth rate.
It is assumed that access or accommodation capacity
will increase in accordance with skifield capacity. If
these are constrained, the full implementation of the
SSMP may not be realised.
Based on recent data, the peak day of the season
typically experiences about 25 percent more skiers
than the design day (i.e. the tenth busiest day). If this
relationship continues into the future, the number of
skiers on the peak day within the timeframe of the
SSMP could be as high as approximately 19,400
which is nearly twice the present design day capacity.
It is on this day that access and accommodation
capacities will be most critical. Should access or
accommodation capacity constrain visitor numbers to
less than the projected peak figure, however, this
would not influence the analysis underpinning the
SSMP, which is based on the design day.
2.6 Effects of Global Warming on Visitation
There is a common perception that global warming or
the 'greenhouse effect' will impact adversely on the
Australian ski industry and may even lead to the end
of skiing as it currently exists. While this scenario is
of concern to both resort operators and skiers,
predictions of the degree of future climate change
involve a high level of uncertainty.
A 1996 survey of skier perceptions of greenhouse
impacts found that 78 percent of respondents saw the
greenhouse effect as a threat to Australian skiing
(Ref. 11). Of these, 9 percent anticipated such an
impact before 2000, 62 percent before 2030 and 80
percent before 2060. The remaining 20 percent
believed that the most severe effects would occur
between 2060 and 2100.
When asked how they would respond if the next five
winters were to have little natural snow, the majority
(56 percent) indicated that they would keep on skiing
in Australia, although 31 percent would ski less often.
More than a third (38 percent), however, would ski
overseas, while 6 percent would give up skiing.
These responses indicate that, even if extent and
quality of natural snow cover declines in time, there
will still be a significant market for skiing at the resort.
Furthermore, as concluded in the Village Master Plan
COI (Ref. 3, p. 124), assuming that demand for skiing
continues in the face of adverse climate change,
there is likely to be an increase in demand to ski at
Perisher Blue because of its relatively high altitude
compared with most other Australian resorts.
The predictions of possible impacts of global warming
typically extend over periods of 30 to 70 years, which
is a longer timeframe than that of the current SSMP
or the economic life of many of the facilities that
would be provided under the SSMP. It is therefore
suggested that any adverse impacts of global
warming on winter visitation to Perisher Blue would
be minor compared with other social and economic
factors that influence the overall visitation trends.
MAY 2002
Figure 2.6 Annual skier visitation
The total numbers of skier-days in each year are from ticket sales for Perisher, Smiggin Holes, Blue
Cow and Guthega.
Figure 2.7 Annual skier visitation showing trend line
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
S
k
i
e
r
-
d
a
y
s

(
'
0
0
0
)
1 year
3 year av.
5 year av.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
S
k
i
e
r
-
d
a
y
s

(
'
0
0
0
)
MAY 2002
Figure 2.8 Potential growth in design day visitation
The above curves assume average growth rates of 2.0%, 3.0% and 4.6% respectively.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
1999 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024
Year
S
k
i
e
r
s

(
d
e
s
i
g
n

d
a
y
)
4.6%
3.0%
2.0%
SSMP MAY 2002 3-1
3. A VISION FOR THE RESORT
3.1 Vision Statement
It is important to consider the SSMP as one of the
key components of an integrated plan for a four-
season destination mountain resort, and not to lose
sight of the 'big picture' of how the resort as a whole
may operate in the future. This is consistent with the
approach adopted in the PoM for viewing all resort
activities within the scope of a Ski Resort
Development Plan.
The vision statement of Perisher Blue Pty Limited for
the resort is as follows:
Perisher Blue will be the pre-eminent four-season
destination mountain resort in Australia,
providing international class facilities, based on
ecologically sustainable principles.
This is very similar to the stated vision of the NPWS
in the Perisher Range Resorts Master Plan which
addresses the village areas of Perisher Blue (Ref. 4):
The Perisher Range will be the pre-eminent all-year-
round destination mountain resort in Australia,
providing international-class facilities based on
The chapter explains what Perisher Blue sees in its
vision statement for the resort as a whole, and how
the SSMP supports this vision.
3.2 Interpretation of the Vision
The vision statement of Perisher Blue encompasses
many unstated yet essential qualities and aspirations.
It is about the redefinition, remaking and repositioning
of ski resorts in Australia into the next millennium. It
i s about the envi ronmental l y harmoni ous
devel opment of a worl d-cl ass, four-season
destination resort.
A resort is a place where people often go, customarily
or generally, for rest or recreation, as on holiday. A
destination resort is one which is sufficiently
appealing such that people will travel to it and stay at
least one day and one night. The journey may be a
few kilometres or many thousand, but the visitor to
the resort makes active use of its facilities, its
amenities and of the environment in which it is
situated. The vision will create a place where nature
and experiences come together to provide personal
adventure and fulfilment.
The redefinition and remaking of the resort are being
driven by demands for a higher quality experience
through state of the art conveniences and comfort-
driven technologies, as well as by expectations for
more amenities, better facilities both on the mountain
and in the base areas, exceptional service and
innovative programs. And all of this, in a manner
which will be seen to be, and which will be, in
harmony with the resorts natural surroundings. The
opportunity presents itself to set a standard of
excellence in alpine environmental resort planning,
operation and management.
The vision not only redefines and remakes Perisher
Blue within Australia; it repositions the resort
internationally. With projected growth to at least one
million skier days, it will be amongst the most popular
alpine destination resorts in the world. Part of that
growth will be to target inbound tourism, especially
from Asia, with Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia
and India being prime target markets. There is the
potential also to target the Japanese market which
has a reasonable presence in New Zealand.
The absence of young mountains with steep and long
verticals is not an inhibiting factor. Technology is
levelling the playing field among ski areas.
Geography no longer dictates the skier experience as
much as the quality of snowmaking and grooming
equipment of any resort. The ability to package up
an Australian alpine resort holiday with time also in
Sydney, Central Australia, the Great Barrier Reef or
Kakadu, for example, presents unique opportunities,
even for North American visitors.
The focus is on upgrading facilities to meet world
class standards, to ensure natural systems, features
and biodiversity are protected and enhanced, to
ensure environmental best practice guidelines are set
and implemented, and to provide an unsurpassed
visitor experience in a true win-win situation. Rather
than being beset with 'either/or' choices, the vision
will work for the benefit of all for skiers, for non-
skiers, for visitors, for the local community and, most
importantly, for the environment.
Taking the vision and transforming it into reality is an
imposing task. It requires skill, perseverance and,
above all, a great deal of faith. The vision challenges
all to look beyond perceived or conventional wisdom
beyond the comfort zones of our own experiences.
To do this requires a more fulsome Vision Statement
which should form the core guide for those who will
come in contact with the project over the years it will
take to build out the resort. The ultimate goal of the
Vision Statement is to provide resort visitors with a
'seamless experience', which makes operational
considerations so transparent that the visitor remains
oblivious to the many machinations of running a
world-class facility.
Because visitor demand for a first-rate, unique
experience requires capital intensive technology that
is considerably more expensive than previous
3-2 SSMP MAY 2002
generations of hardware and technology in terms of
both mountain and base area development, today's,
and tomorrow's, successful resort requires a heart
a mountain village to accommodate destination skiers
and other visitors, and to provide a diverse range of
entertainment and activities when they come down
from the mountain, or to otherwise provide for that
special, one-of-a-kind experience. These activities
must be designed for active, semi-active and passive
visitors activities that reflect a balance of
recreational, educational, retail and entertainment
opportunities. By doing so, visitors are provided with
a 'whole' experience through the purposeful creation
of a range of pleasurable activities both on the
mountain and in the village throughout the year.
Village development significantly helps define the
substance, style and character of a resort, giving the
resort its own unique presence, becoming a large
part of the reason why holiday makers return to the
resort year after year. The design and functionality of
the village must be such that a long term ambience, a
quality of experience and an ease of operation is
realised, so that it retains visitor appeal and remains
financially viable for generations.
The vision starts with access, as it is the first
impression that determines visitor experience. The
village must be capable of easy and comfortable
access which must then continue throughout the
village, onto the mountain and throughout the ski
slopes. Access infrastructure must be designed to
accommodate planned visitation levels, be able to do
so under adverse conditions, and be of a standard
that complements the world class facilities in the
village and on the mountain. Drop-off zones and
parking, for both day and destination visitors, must be
close to the village core, and within comfortable
walking distance of the major ski lifting facilities.
Separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic must be
assured. Departure experience must be as good as
arrival in order to firmly establish positive visitor
experience and to encourage repeat visitation.
On entering the resort by road, the sense of arrival
must first be evident at the entrance to Kosciuszko
National Park. The first substantial sense of arrival
occurs at Smiggin Holes. Here a sensitive gateway
statement will be made through a combination of
landscaping and well designed signage which
articulate the entrances to Smiggin Holes and
Perisher Valley.
Passing through Pipers Gap, the visitor will see
international class nordic facilities to the left, and to
the right, international class alpine facilities. A snow
play area will also be seen to the right.
The primary sense of arrival will be straight ahead.
The perspective will be of the village's architecture
varied in proportions, in uses, in design, in style, in
detail and in colour all in keeping and sympathy
with the natural surroundings. Behind this mosaic of
built form will be the timeless setting of the
mountains. The snow-covered slopes of Mount
Perisher, Mount Wheatley and Mount Back Perisher
will inform arrival and lead the visitor into the village
core.
From the ease and comfort of undercover parking,
visitors will be able to access lodging, village
commercial facilities and skier staging areas directly
above. At podium level, the visitor will experience the
vibrancy of the shops, restaurants, cafes and the
village square, the ever-changing natural spectacle of
light and form glimpsed through the arcades and
plazas to the mountains beyond, and the animation
which comes from the ways people move and are
moved through the village and the resort.
Expectations will be rewarded with discovery.
Above the podium level commercial space will be
lodging. The existing Perisher Valley Hotel may
become a five-star international class facility with the
village lodging catering for a range of accommodation
from backpacker style to family style apartments. All
of this will complement the range of existing
accommodation spread throughout the resort.
The Perisher Centre will remain the central day
facility immediately adjacent to the principal mountain
staging point on Front Valley. It will contain
enhanced guest services and food hall style facilities
together with bars.
Ski School and hire facilities will be relocated to the
northern perimeter of the village to be immediately
adjacent to a new specially designed 'Learn to Ski
and Snowboard' area on the gentle slopes of Mount
Piper. These facilities will be linked by a major
pedestrian mall from the Skitube terminal. At the
terminal end will be the village square, and at the
other, the 'Learn to Ski' forecourt opening onto the
slopes of Mount Piper, with its beginner skier and
snowplay facilities.
More experienced skiers will be drawn by views of
Front Valley to the main gateway to the ski slopes,
with a high-capacity eight-seater chairlift for those
wishing to ski close to the village and the Perisher
Express Quad Chairlift taking skiers to the further
slopes of Perisher and towards Blue Cow and
Guthega. A network of lifts and trails will enable
skiers to travel readily throughout the resort for a
diversity of skiing experiences unmatched anywhere
else in Australia. This network will also connect the
smaller villages of Smiggin Holes and Guthega, as
well as the Blue Cow Skitube Terminal, enabling
visitors staying anywhere within the resort to
experience its full range of slopes.
Extension of the snowmaking system will maintain
many of these movement options even if the natural
snow is lacking. Additional mountain restaurants will
3-3 SSMP MAY 2002
avoid the need for skiers to return to the base areas
for meals and toilet facilities, as well as providing
shelter and improving safety on the slopes.
Access to the cross-country trail head will flow from
the south-eastern perimeter of the village. Here will
be located the cross-country retail, hire and ski
school facility.
In summer, visitors will be able to use the resort
access tracks, in combination with the Skitube and
selected chairlifts, to access various parts of the
resort and move further afield to surrounding areas of
Kosciuszko National Park. Selected walks will be
developed with interpretive signs to explain features
of natural or cultural interest.
To provide a quality resort experience in both
summer and winter driving return visitation it will be
necessary to have a diverse range of activities in
addition to skiing, walking and sightseeing. Passive,
semi-active and active visitors will need to be catered
for. Facilities and activities could include:
a cinema;
a swimming pool;
a gymnasium;
a skating area (both ice and in-line);
indoor climbing walls;
a children's games area;
drama or cultural facilities such as an indoor stage
area which may also double as a community
centre;
an interactive museum of the high country
including environmental interpretation, skiing
history, Snowy Scheme and cattlemen;
tennis/basketball courts;
a sports medicine and elite athlete training facility;
retail shopping, restaurants and cafes; and
facilities such as newsagents, banks and
pharmacies.
Infrastructure, utility services, building design and
mountain upgrading will be state-of-the-art, meeting
best practice guidelines and in being energy and
resource efficient and environmentally sensitive.
Where the vegetation of the resort has been modified
by the establishment of introduced plants, this will
progressively be returned to a more natural condition
which is consistent with the ongoing use of the area.
Even where the vegetation remains in a modified
state due to removal of trees and heath, or drainage
of wet areas, the vegetation community will still be
dominated by indigenous grasses and forbs, and will
not appear out of place in the subalpine landscape.
Future landscape alterations will be sympathetic to
and harmonise with the natural surroundings and,
wherever possible, be used to enhance existing
natural features and processes. The vision will
ensure the environmental legacy of yesteryear and
today is repaired and turned into a legacy of
excellence for future generations.
3.3 Realising the Vision
The capital expenditure needed to realise the above
vision is substantial. In order to maintain profitability,
ski resorts must increase visitor numbers as well as
per capita spending whilst also increasing the use of
available capacity during non-peak periods. This
means that the resort must be capable of operating
12 months of the year. The vision of a four-season
destination resort provides the means to do so.
North American ski resort experience shows that
destination skiers contribute up to four times as much
non-lift ticket revenue as the daily skier. Destination
skiers spend more at resorts and also fill mid-week
capacity.
The case for increasing overnight accommodation to
enhance both the economic and environmental
sustainability of the resort was recognised in the COI
recommendations (Ref. 3) to increase bed numbers
at the resort beyond those sought by the NPWS (Ref.
2) and to ensure that the nature of village
development does not preclude further expansion,
should this be warranted in the longer term.
A similar bold approach is necessary also with
respect to the SSMP. While some of the measures
proposed in the SSMP may appear radical in their
own right, when viewed in the wider sense of the
whole resort and with regard to other major Australian
ski resort developments they can provide major
benefits for a relatively low level of incremental
impact.
There is mounting evidence in many sectors of
industry that the more financially successful an
organisation is, the more likely it is to approach an
ecologically sustainable operation and to contribute
positively to the enhancement of environmental
values. The converse of this is that the more the
efficient operation of the resort is constrained, the
weaker it will be to employ discretionary human and
financial resources for the benefit of the environment.
With respect to the role of the SSMP in contributing
towards the vision for the Perisher Blue Ski Resort, it
is vital to adopt a positive approach towards its
implementation. While some elements will require
fine tuning during the implementation phase to
optimise its environmental performance, the 'big
picture' is one which offers sound environmental
returns in terms of mountain resort development in
Australia. This in itself is a key element of the vision.
SSMP MAY 2002 4-1
4. OVERVIEW OF FUTURE SKI SLOPE
REQUIREMENTS
4.1 Planning Goals
The development of the SSMP has been driven by
five main goals which reflect both operational goals
and environmental considerations:
Integration: the efficient integration of what were
originally four separate resorts.
Modernisation: replacement of outdated lifts and
equipment and the upgrading of other facilities to
meet current expectations of safety and
convenience.
Expansion: provision of additional lifts, trails and
other facilities to make efficient use of the areas
identified in the PoM for alpine skiing and provide
skiers of all skill levels with a range of
opportunities.
Enhancement of the visitor experience:
creating a safe and attractive environment in all
seasons.
Environmental sustainability: implementation
of skiing improvements in a way which maintains
or enhances the essential natural processes
within the environment of the resort.
Factors affecting the quality of the visitor experience
include:
ease of access into and out of the resort;
ease and efficiency of circulation within the resort
for pedestrians and skiers;
number, capacity and diversity of lifts and trail
systems;
extent and quality of snow;
adequacy of public facilities;
public safety;
pricing regime; and
ambience and character of the resort.
Ease and efficiency of circulation, adequacy of public
facilities, lift and trail capacity and public safety are
largely determined by the SSMP, which can also
significantly influence the ambience and character of
the resort.
4.2 Requirements of the Ski Slope Master Plan
The main future operational requirements with
respect to the SSMP are as follows:
The SSMP must interface effectively with the
planning of the base areas at Perisher Valley,
Smiggin Holes and Guthega and, conversely, the
planning of these areas must take account of the
SSMP. The base area proposals are basically set
out in the Perisher Range Resorts Village Master
Plan EIS (Ref. 2) although some aspects of these
proposals have been subsequently modified as a
result of the Commission of Inquiry (COI) (Ref. 3),
the recommendations of which have been
adopted by the New South Wales Government.
Access to the resort is assumed to remain
essentially as at present, i.e. via the Kosciuszko
Road and Skitube, but with the possible future
opening of the Link Road. The planning of
facilities has been formulated on this basis.
Efficient skier circulation is needed between
Perisher, Smiggin Holes, Blue Cow and Guthega.
Circulation patterns should involve as few lifts as
possible, with alternative routes to provide for
situations of partial lift closure due to
environmental conditions such as high wind. The
capacity of key access lifts should be sufficient to
accommodate the peak demands at the beginning
and end of the day when skiers are leaving or
returning to the village centres.
The lift capacity should be sufficient to provide an
acceptable level of service to skiers under 'design
day' conditions. The 'design day' is taken as the
tenth most popular day of the season, with a level
of service provided which would result in a
maximum queue time of 10 minutes at most lifts.
Within each of the precincts, lift capacity should
be appropriate to the volume and experience of
skier use. Those slopes close to the base areas
are likely to experience relatively high use levels,
particularly by inexperienced skiers. Hence the
intensity of development and of environmental
impacts can be expected to be greater in these
areas than on the more remote slopes.
Ski lift capacity and slope capacity should be in
balance to the extent that there should be
sufficient slope capacity to at least match the
capacity of the lifts. This will necessitate some
trail clearing on slopes where new lifts are
proposed, for example, in the Link Management
Unit, but in most parts of the resort lift capacity
can be increased without the need for opening
new trails.
The lift and trail system should also be capable of
functioning adequately during conditions when
use of the slopes is constrained by limited snow
cover, extreme weather conditions or local
operational failures.
4-2 SSMP MAY 2002
The Ski School needs to operate from locations
which are readily accessible from the main access
points to the resort, and to have good access to
novice and beginner slopes. Perisher will be the
main centre for Ski School operations. Provision
for, amongst other things, the Perisher Ski School
is linked closely with the future design of the
village and with visitor movement from the Skitube
terminal to the slopes, a point emphasised in the
Village Master Plan COI (Ref. 3).
Because of the very large size of the resort,
restaurants and other visitor facilities are required
at strategic points in several ski slope precincts,
as well as in the base areas. These facilities need
reliable winter and summer access for servicing
and maintenance. The infrastructure provided to
such facilities (water supply, sewerage, electricity,
telephone) will have environmental impacts
beyond the site of the facility and needs to be
planned for in the context of other works, such as
access tracks to lift stations or snowmaking
reticulation, in order to minimise the overall
impact.
The improvement of snowmaking technology has
the potential to greatly improve the reliability of
snow cover at the resort which is beneficial for
both operational and environmental reasons. In
the long term, it could also improve the efficiency
of resort use as visitor patterns adapt to longer or
more rel i abl e snow seasons. Effi ci ent
snowmaking, however, requires a high standard of
summer slope grooming, particularly in terms of
the height of vegetation cover and the quality of
drainage. In order to limit the environmental
impacts of such works, as well as the capital and
operating costs of snowmaking, the provision for
future snowmaking is restricted to areas of highest
priority for strategic movement or repeat skiing,
and is strongly influenced by environmental
considerations with respect to natural snow
accumulation and the natural or modified
character of the vegetation. The expansion of
snowmaking will require additional water storage
and reticulation of water, compressed air and
electricity.
Snow fences have proved to be an extremely
efficient means of promoting snow accumulation
in sites where this is naturally poor due to wind
exposure. The placement of further snow fences
in strategic locations is proposed within several of
the precincts, although this is not detailed in the
SSMP.
Oversnow routes which do not conflict significantly
with skier movements are essential between the
resort centres and to provide access to mountain
facilities. In the base areas, these routes are
likely to be influenced by the planning for those
areas.
The provi si on of workshops and other
management facilities is essential to both the
winter and summer operation of the resort. In
particular, a new central workshop is required in a
location which does not conflict with skier
movement or residential amenity of the base
areas, and which offers reliable winter and
summer access. Smaller satellite workshops also
need to be maintained for lift and machine
maintenance throughout the resort.
It is necessary to have reliable summer access to
lift stations, mountain facilities and other locations
on the slopes. Access tracks will therefore be
required throughout the life of the facility and it is
desirable to construct them to a standard which
will avoid ongoing environmental problems, such
as erosion, as well as high maintenance
requirements. These tracks can then be used as
walking tracks by summer visitors if the surface is
of a suitable standard.
The resort requires a selection of homologated
competition race courses with a high degree of
snow reliability (natural or artificial) in order to
provide the flexibility for planning and conducting
competitions under different seasonal conditions.
The specialist requirements of snowboarders
need to be accommodated within the slopes.
The SSMP should provide for the needs of
snowplayers and other non-skiing visitors.
Underlying these future requirements is the objective
of presenting the resort as an area where
recreational skiing activities are able to be satisfied in
a way which maintains its essentially natural
qualities. It is clearly impossible to disguise the
presence of ski lifts, buildings, snow fences and other
structures, but it is nonetheless feasible to maintain
the natural ecological communities and species on a
sustainable basis throughout the majority of the
resort, to achieve acceptable environmental
standards with respect to air, water, noise and other
factors, and to mitigate some of the environmental
impacts of the past caused either by ski slope
development directly or by the actions of other
organisations.
The identification and addressing of specific
environmental protection needs within the slopes of
the resort is an integral component of the SSMP. In
particular it needs to demonstrate how essential
ecological processes will be maintained or enhanced
in parallel with the proposed development on the ski
slopes.
SSMP MAY 2002 5-1
5. STRATEGIC PLANNING
5.1 Identification of Precincts
Within a strategic planning context, different parts of
the resort can be analysed, planned and managed by
treating those parts as a series of units which are
separate although sometimes overlapping to some
degree. Each unit is described as a precinct, which
forms the basis for the detailed analysis and planning
presented in the later chapters.
Twelve precincts have been identified within the area
covered by the SSMP (see Figure 5.1). These have
been identified primarily according to environmental
criteria, rather than operational areas within the resort
(which are based primarily on lifts) or management
unit boundaries designated in the Kosciuszko
National Park Plan of Management (PoM, Ref. 1).
The relationship between these different areas is
indicated in Table 5.1 and in Figure 5.1.
The basis for defining the precincts is as follows:
Precinct 1 (Perisher Valley). This covers the lower
south-easterly slopes of Mount Back Perisher that
directly overlook the resort, including most of the
village area to the north and west of Perisher Creek.
Precinct 2 (Back Perisher). This extends from
Precinct 1 to include the remaining southern and
eastern slopes of Mount Back Perisher to a line
running roughly east from the summit. This line
along the northern edge of the precinct does not
follow a well defined physical boundary. The
southern boundary of the precinct, which follows the
low point of a valley, separates the Olympic T-bar
from the Sun Valley T-bar, to which it is related in
operational terms.
Precinct 3 (Mount Perisher). This covers the
slopes of Mount Perisher that are located within the
resort area.
Precinct 4 (North Perisher). This extends from
Precinct 2 to the northern limit of the Perisher skiing
area, and includes parts of the trails linking Blue Cow
and Perisher.
Precinct 5 (Smiggin Holes). This follows the well-
defined rim of the Smiggin Holes ski bowl.
Precinct 6 (Mount Piper South). This covers the
remaining slopes of Mount Piper that are located
south of a line running roughly west from the summit.
The location of this line is somewhat arbitrary, and it
does not follow a well-defined physical feature.
Precinct 7 (Pleasant Valley). This covers the
southern part of the former Blue Cow resort,
extending north as far as the line of the valley running
from Blue Cow Saddle to the base of the Ridge
Chairlift.
Precinct 8 (Blue Cow Mountain). This covers the
remainder of the former Blue Cow resort, which
consists of the eastern and southern slopes of Blue
Cow Mountain. Also included on the southern slopes
is a narrow projection of the Link Unit, which is
located between the Blue Cow and Guthega
Management Units and relates more to these areas
than the remainder of the Link Unit.
Precinct 9 (Mount Piper North). This covers the
remainder of Mount Piper between Precincts 5 and 6
and the Smiggin Holes Guthega Link Road. Most
of this is outside the existing ski area management
units and franchise area but, from an environmental,
safety and operational perspective, falls logically into
the resort area as it now operates.
Precinct 10 (Guthega). This covers all of the
Guthega ski slopes and approximately follows the
boundary of the Guthega Management Unit.
Precinct 11 (Link Unit). This consists of the north-
facing slopes of the Link Management Unit between
Blue Cow and Guthega, but excludes the projections
onto the slopes of Blue Cow Mountain and between
the Blue Cow and Perisher Valley Smiggin Holes
Management Units.
Precinct 12 (Blue Cow North). This covers most of
the northern slopes of Blue Cow Mountain. Like
Precinct 9, it is not currently within the ski area
management units, but from an environmental, safety
and operati onal vi ewpoi nt, woul d l ogi cal l y
complement the formal resort area in terms of
planning and operation.
The proposals indicated to occur outside existing
resort management unit boundaries in Precincts 9
(Mount Piper North) and 12 (Blue Cow North) will be
considered by the NPWS as part of the review of the
Kosciuszko National Park Plan of Management
according to the requirements of Section 75 of the
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and do not form
a part of this adopted Ski Slope Master Plan.
The nature of development and management
proposed for each precinct depends on its location
with respect to the base areas and skier circulation,
the types of skiers likely to use the area, the
environmental characteristics of the area, and the
existing and potential problems from an operational
perspective. These are among the issues analysed
with respect to each precinct in Chaptes 6 to 17
respectively.
5-2 SSMP MAY 2002
Table 5.1 Relationship between precincts, resort operational areas and management units
Precinct Resort operational area Management Unit
1. Perisher Valley Front Valley (between Sturt and
Telemark)
Centre Valley (between
Leichhardt and Perisher
Express)
Perisher Valley Smiggin Holes
(J3) (part)
2. Back Perisher Centre Valley (Pretty Valley,
upper part of Perisher Express)
Mount Perisher (Olympic,
Happy Valley)
(J3) (part)
3. Mount Perisher Mount Perisher (except for
Olympic and Happy Valley)
(J3) (part)
4. North Perisher Front Valley (Interceptor, North
Perisher T-bar)
(J3) (part)
5. Smiggin Holes Smiggin Holes Perisher Valley Smiggin Holes
(J3) (part)
6. Mount Piper South Front Valley (Piper T-bar) Perisher Valley Smiggin Holes
(J3) (part)
7. Pleasant Valley Blue Cow Blue Cow (J6) (part)
8. Blue Cow Mountain Blue Cow Blue Cow (J6) (part)
Link (J7) (small part)
9. Mount Piper North Associated with Smiggin Holes
for Ski Patrol operations
Pipers Creek (H1) (small part)
10. Guthega Blue Cow Guthega (J4)
11. Link Unit Blue Cow Link (J7) (part)
12. Blue Cow North Associated with Blue Cow for
Ski Patrol operations
Sawpit Creek (F4) (small part)
In the planning for the twelve precincts identified
above, there is an underlying strategic requirement
that these precincts must interact to allow the efficient
functioning of the resort as a whole. This is
particularly important with respect to skier circulation,
snowmaking, oversnow routes and summer access,
where the use of one precinct may depend on
movement through adjacent precincts.
A strategic approach is required also in the planning
of the total lift system for repeat skiing and of other
visitor facilities, such as mountain restaurants, Ski
School, ski patrol facilities and competition facilities,
as well as operational facilities such as mountain
workshops. There are interactions between precincts
also in terms of environmental processes operating
within the resort, for example, in relation to wildlife
movement corridors, and these need to be
considered in the context of the whole resort and
surrounding areas.
The remainder of this chapter presents a summary of
the main proposals throughout the resort which are
important for its future strategic operation as an
integrated resort. Further details of the proposals
within each precinct are given in Chapters 6 to 17.
5.2 Ski Lifts
At Perisher Blue, the capacity of the ski lifts is a
critical factor determining the number of people that
can enjoy skiing or snowboarding at the resort at a
SSMP MAY 2002 5-3
given time. The location of lifts determines the
opportunities for skiers to move around the resort, as
discussed further in Section 5.4. The upgrading of
the lift system at the resort is concerned primarily
with increasing the lift capacity on existing slopes,
opening up new slopes to repeat skiing and
facilitating the movement of skiers around the resort.
In addition some operational problems with existing
lifts are addressed by upgrading, modifying or
relocating them.
The proposed lift system is shown in Figure 5.2. The
new or upgraded lifts are as follows:
Precinct 1
Front Valley eight-seater chairlift (detachable). To
replace the Bass Flinders duplex T-bar and greatly
increase the lift capacity of Front Valley.
Telemark quad chairlift (fixed grip). To replace the
existing T-bar, in a different alignment increasing its
capacity and allowing operation under limited snow
cover.
Lawson quad chairlift (fixed grip). To replace the
existing T-bar in a different alignment.
Leichhardt quad chairlift (fixed grip). To replace
the existing T-bar in the same alignment.
Home T-bar. To replace the existing rope tow in a
different alignment.
Halfpipe T-bar or platter lift. To improve access to
the aerial site in Front Valley and possibly the
snowboarding halfpipe.
Chairlift from Piper Ski School to Front Valley. To
facilitate access from the Ski School onto the Front
Valley slopes.
Precinct 2
Pretty Valley quad chairlift (fixed grip). To replace
the existing double chair in a different alignment,
increasing its capacity and skiable area.
Happy Valley quad chairlift (fixed grip). To
significantly increase lift capacity in Happy Valley.
Precinct 3
Mount Perisher six-seater chairlift (detachable).
To replace the existing triple and double chairs on the
alignment of the double chair.
Duplication of Eyre T-bar. To increase the lift
capacity of this slope.
Precinct 5
Kaaten quad chairlift (fixed grip). To replace the
existing triple chairlift on the existing alignment.
Skier conveyors. To replace the existing beginner
rope tows.
Precinct 6
New T-bar on western slopes of Mount Piper. To
improve access between North Perisher/ Blue Cow
and Smiggin Holes.
New beginner lifts. Probably one quad chairlift, one
T-bar, two platter lifts and three skier conveyors in
the Learn to Ski area on the lower southern slopes of
Mount Piper.
Precinct 7
New Terminal quad chairlift (fixed grip). To
replace the existing terminal chairlift in a more
sheltered location, and also replace Brumby T-bar.
Pony Ride T-bar. To replace the existing rope tow
on the same alignment.
New T-bar from Pleasant Valley to the top of
Interceptor Chairlift. To facilitate the return of
skiers from Blue Cow to Perisher when Pleasant
Valley Quad Chairlift if closed.
Skier conveyors. To replace the Ski School rope
tow.
Precinct 8
New T-bar. To provide access to the racecourse on
the south slopes of Blue Cow Mountain, thus
avoiding the need for skiers to traverse key mountain
pygmy possum habitat areas.
Precinct 10
New fixed grip quad chairlift from Blue Cow
Creek to the top of Blue Cow T-bar. To facilitate
skiing on the south slopes of the Blue Cow Mountain
ridge and to increase lifting capacity in Guthega
generally.
Precinct 11
New fixed grip quad chairlift from Blue Cow
Creek to the top of Pleasant Valley. To enable
skiers to move directly from Guthega to Perisher and
open up repeat skiing on the northern slopes of
Mount Back Perisher. New T-bar from Blue Cow
Creek to Blue Cow Terminal. To enable skiers to
return directly from Guthega to Blue Cow Terminal.
5-4 SSMP MAY 2002
Minor modifications to lifts would include:
Mitchell T-bar (Precinct 1). Shortening to permit
Telemark quad chairlift construction.
Link T-bar (Precinct 5). Extension to the base of
the slope.
Ridge quad chairlift (Precinct 8). Upgrading of
capacity.
Apart from the lifts mentioned above which would be
replaced or relocated, the Blaxland Wentworth
duplex T-bar would be removed (Precinct 1).
The total lift capacity of the resort for repeat skiing
with full development of the proposed lifts is
estimated to be 15,500 skiers under design day
conditions and normal resort operation (see Chapter
18 for further discussion).
5.3 Snowmaking
A major extension of snowmaking throughout the
resort is critical for its future operation. The
additional snowmaking is required for two main
purposes:
to improve the reliability of skier circulation along
trails or on surface lift tracks; and
to provide additional areas for repeat skiing during
marginal snow conditions.
Figure 5.3 shows the locations where snowmaking
exists or is proposed. The scale of some of the
snowmaking corridors on this map have been
exaggerated to improve legibility. The proposed new
snowmaking areas are numbered and the reasons for
snowmaking and the extent of cover provided are
summarised below.
1. Towers Run, Mount Perisher. To provide
repeat skiing associated with the Mount Perisher
Chairlift across a width of 50 metres (1A),
together with access to this lift (1B).
2. Happy Valley to bottom of Mount Perisher
chairlift. To provide repeat skiing in Happy
Valley across a width of 40 metres (2A, 2C), in
addition to providing access to the bottom of the
Mount Perisher Chairlift from the Perisher
Express midstation (2B). Snowmaking would be
provided initially along the existing T-bar (2A),
with a connection from the Perisher Express
midstation and ultimately along the run serving
the proposed quad chairlift (2C). Drainage of
wet areas to improve snowholding capacity
would be desirable. This area also suffers from
wind scour but artificial snow would pack down
and last longer than natural snow.
3. Bottom of Happy Valley to bottom of
Leichhardt. Part of a repeat skiing route based
on the Leichhardt chairlift. This section of
snowmaking would also link with that going from
the bottom of Happy Valley to the base of the
Mount Perisher chairlift. In doing so, it would
provide a critical link for skiers returning from
Mount Perisher to Front Valley. The proposed
Leichhardt Quad Chairlift would provide the
necessary high capacity mode of egress to Front
Valley. The snowmaking corridor would be 20
metres wide, and would require a deep cover of
snow in places to cover heath.
4. Top of Leichhardt to Happy Valley. The upper
part of the above repeat skiing loop, also
providing access from the Perisher Express
midstation to Happy Valley and Mount Perisher.
A 30 metre wide corridor is proposed along a
wide existing trail.
5. Perisher Express. Repeat skiing in a corridor
approximately 50 metres wide from top to
bottom of the Perisher Express, and also
forming part of the Perisher Home Trail, a critical
circulation route between Blue Cow and
Perisher. Snowmaking below midstation (5A)
would be provided initially, with snowmaking
above midstation (5B) at a later stage.
6. Yabby Flat to top of Front Valley. A narrow
corridor, 15 to 20 metres wide, forming part of
the Perisher Home Trail.
7. Top of Front Valley to bottom of Pretty
Valley. To provide access into Pretty Valley; 20
metres wide.
8. Bottom of Pretty Valley to bottom of
Telemark. To provide access back to Telemark,
with the proposed chairlift providing return to
Front Valley from both Pleasant Valley and
Pretty Valley; 20 metres wide.
9. Mount Piper Ski School and snowplay area.
To provide reliable snow for repeat skiing in the
Learn to Ski Centre and for the snowplay area,
with access to the base of Piper T-bar and
Telemark Chairlift. Varying in width but at least
80 metres wide in the area of the Learn to Ski
Centre.
10. Piper T-bar. To provide access up and down
the Piper T-bar including grooming machine
access to and from the proposed new workshop
site; 20 metres wide.
11. Interceptor below midstation. To extend use
of the lower part of lift at the end of the season;
30 metres wide.
SSMP MAY 2002 5-5
12. Smiggin Holes ski area. To extend the existing
snowmaking to cover most lifts and groomed
trails within the Smiggin Holes ski bowl with
connections to and from the Piper T-bar;
variable in width between 20 and 75 metres.
Snowmaking would be extended progressively
to serve the J-bars, Hume T-bar and Kaaten
chairlift (12A), duplex T-bar (12B), Link T-bar
(12C) and Low Traverse (12D).
13. Perisher Express to Pleasant Valley
traverses. Snowmaking in this area over a
width of 20 metres to ensure the viability of the
Blue Cow Expressway and the Perisher Home
Trail for access in marginal snow conditions, but
may not be feasible because of environmental
constraints. This area therefore has low priority
in terms of staging and will be subject to further
monitoring to assess the need for such works.
14. New T-bar from lower part of Pleasant Valley
to near Interceptor. Because of the northerly
aspect of this T-bar, snowmaking is expected to
be required to increase its reliability for access in
marginal snow conditions. A minimum width of
20 metres is required, but it would be desirable
to increase this to 40 metres if practicable to
allow safe downhill movement beside the T-bar.
The route of this T-bar is subject to further
investigation, with two possible options indicated
in Figure 5.3.
15. Pleasant Valley. Repeat skiing in a corridor up
to 50 metres wide in Pleasant Valley (15A), and
also providing access to the base of the Ridge
Chairlift and the quad chairlift that would replace
the Terminal Quad Chair. Access into Pleasant
Valley would be provided from the Blue Cow Ski
School area (15B).
16. Roller Coaster. To provide access from the
base of Pleasant Valley to the base of the Ridge
Chairlift and the new quad chair at the
intersection of Roller Coaster and the Blue Cow
Road, with potential also for repeat and circuit
skiing using the Ridge Chairlift, 30 metres wide.
The upper part (16B) would relate to Pleasant
Valley while the lower part (16A) would also be
used by skiers coming down the Blue Cow
Road.
17. Blue Cow Road to base of new Terminal
Chairlift. A 10 to 20 metre wide access corridor
following the Blue Cow summer road from the
Summit Chairlift base area to Roller Coaster.
This would support repeat and circuit skiing in
association with the new quad chairlift or the
Ridge Quad Chairlift, and would ensure safe
skier egress from the Summit and Ridge chairlift
areas back to the Blue Cow terminal building.
18. Blue Cow Home Trail. To provide access and
repeat skiing from Pleasant Valley to the Blue
Cow terminal and would also serve as an
oversnow route; a minimum of 20 metres wide
and up to 50 metres wide where it would provide
repeat skiing in Pleasant Valley.
19. New T-bar in Link Unit. This would enable the
T-bar to maintain access during marginal snow
conditions along a 20 metre corridor.
20. Middle traverse from Blue Cow to Guthega.
To provide access from Blue Cow to Guthega
along a 20 metre corridor which would partly
follow the services corridor.
21. Top part of Excelerator. To provide a 40 metre
corridor for repeat skiing which would complete
the trail from the top to the bottom of the Ridge
Quad Chairlift. Would also improve the run for
competition use.
22. Cow Pastures J-bar. To provide repeat skiing
associated with the Cow Pastures J-bar at
Guthega; variable width.
23. Blue Calf T-bar. To provide repeat skiing
associated with the Blue Calf T-bar; typically 30
metres wide but variable in width.
24. Blue Cow T-bar. To provide repeat skiing on
Bloody Mary Run beside the Blue Cow T-bar; 50
metres wide.
25. Parachute Run. To provide repeat skiing
associated with the Blue Cow T-bar and the Car
Park Double Chair; 30 metres wide. Would also
improve the run for competition use.
26. Guthega Saddle to Blue Calf T-bar. T o
provide access to Blue Calf T-bar and Guthega
Village; 20 metres wide.
27. Lift 69 to Lift 70. To provide access within the
Link Unit from the new T-bar (Lift 69) to new
chairlift (Lift 70) for skier movement between
Guthega and Perisher; 20 metres wide.
28. Middle traverse to new T-bar. To provide
access from the Middle Traverse to the new T-
bar (Lift 69) in the Link Unit for skier movement
between Guthega and Blue Cow or Perisher; 20
metres wide.
29. Blue Cow T-bar to Middle Traverse. Required
for skiers to move from Guthega to Blue Cow or
Perisher. Together with 27 and 29, this could
also be used for repeat skiing in association with
the proposed Guthega Quad Chairlift; 30 metres
wide.
5-6 SSMP MAY 2002
The water for snowmaking throughout the resort
would be obtained mainly from the Pipers Creek
Aqueduct, which is the current water supply for Blue
Cow snowmaking. Because the flow rate in the
aqueduct is not sufficiently reliable to supply the peak
demand, water would be pumped to a storage
reservoir at Smiggin Holes, from which it would be
drawn as required to supplement real-time flow.
Some water would continue to be drawn from the
existing supply on Perisher Creek, but it would be
necessary to limit use of this supply if flow in the
creek was low.
A new trunk reticulation system for water would be
installed from the Pipers Creek Aqueduct to the
existing snowmaking buildings at Perisher and Blue
Cow, which would be upgraded, and to a new
snowmaking building at Smiggin Holes. These
buildings would house compressors, pumps and
other central plant supplying water and compressed
air throughout the slopes, generally following the
snowmaking corridors shown in Figure 5.3.
The snowmaking proposals would increase the area
at the resort covered by artificial snow from 29
hectares to between 95 and 110 hectares, more than
a threefold increase. The increase would take the
percentage of skiable terrain covered by snowmaking
from 2.3 percent to potentially 9 percent. This
remains significantly less than the percentages in
most other major resorts in Australia, and is
comparable with or less than the percentages
generally found in North American resorts which are
the size of Perisher Blue.
The amount of water required annually to maintain an
adequate depth of artificial snow (0.5 to 1 metre
depending on the situation) is about 745 megalitres.
By drawing most of this water from the Pipers Creek
Aqueduct which flows into Guthega Pondage, it
would effectively be borrowed from the Snowy
Mountains Hydro-electric Scheme and ultimately
returned to Guthega Pondage, into which all of the
resort's catchments drain. The water in this aqueduct
is of a suitable quality for snowmaking, in contrast to
water in Guthega Pondage, which receives treated
sewage effluent from the Perisher Blue and Charlotte
Pass ski resorts and is thus considered unsuitable for
snowmaking for public health reasons.
5.4 Skier Circulation
The strategic operation of the resort depends largely
on its system of lifts and trails to circulate skiers
around the resort, together with the system's
interface with the main points of access onto the ski
slopes. The proposed lift and trail system to facilitate
the circulation of skiers around the resort is illustrated
in Figure 5.4 and summarised in Table 5.2. This
system not only increases the choice and efficiency
of skier circulation under optimum conditions, but
also provides a greater level of security and safety
under extreme conditions when the lift system may
not be not fully operational. The extension of
snowmaking is important for the optimum operation
of some parts of the circulation system.
The most critical link in this system is from Perisher
to Blue Cow via the Perisher Express quad chairlift
and the Blue Cow Expressway traverse. This link,
which already exists, enables skiers to disperse in
the morning from Perisher to Blue Cow and Guthega
(as well as other areas within Perisher), thus opening
up most of the resort from the primary arrival point.
The afternoon return journey is equally important.
To avoid the use of multiple lifts, including the
Pleasant Valley Chairlift, which is relatively prone to
wind closure, the proposed quad chairlift from Blue
Cow Creek at Guthega to the top of Pleasant Valley
(Lift 70), which crosses the Link Unit, is a key
element in this strategy. This would enable skiers to
return from Guthega to Perisher with the use of a
single lift. The Perisher Home Trail from the top of
Pleasant Valley to Front Valley is also critical for this
movement.
Also important in assisting the return of skiers from
Guthega and Blue Cow to Perisher are the proposed
T-bar within the Link Unit from Guthega to Blue Cow
terminal (Lift 69), and the proposed T-bar from the
lower part of Pleasant Valley to near the top of
Interceptor (Lift 66). These offer security of access in
the event of wind closure of the new Link Unit
chairlift, the Early Starter Chairlift and the Pleasant
Valley Chairlift. The Skitube would remain as an
alternative means of travel between Blue Cow and
Perisher if extreme conditions forced closure of all
these lifts, an event which is considered remote.
The proposed Guthega Quad chairlift would provide
an alternative means of assisting skiers to return from
Guthega to Blue Cow, being more efficient than the
existing surface lift system to the same point.
The other main strategic link is between Smiggin
Holes and the other parts of the resort. The existing
link to Perisher via the Link T-bar and Telemark T-
bar, and returning via the Piper T-bar, would be
upgraded by replacing the Telemark T-bar with the
relocated Terminal Quad Chairlift.
Direct movement from Smiggin Holes to Blue Cow
using the Link T-bar and Interceptor quad chairlift
would remain as existing, while the return journey
would be facilitated by the T-bar from the lower part
of Pleasant Valley mentioned above (Lift 66) and by a
second T-bar on the western slopes of Mount Piper.
Additional trail development on the western slopes of
Mount Piper would facilitate movement to Interceptor
Chairlift and the North Perisher T-bar from the top of
the Burke and Wills duplex T-bar. The new bridges
across Perisher Creek and new snowmaking along
the Piper T-bar and the connecting trails to the Link
SSMP MAY 2002 5-7
Table 5.2 Skier circulation routes
Movement Options available under SSMP Comparisons with existing
situation
Potential limitations
Perisher to Blue Cow 1. Perisher Express Blue Cow
Expressway
Similar, but possible improvement if
snowmaking proves feasible in the
long term.
Not available during early season low snow
conditions.

Medium risk of chair closure by wind.
2. Interceptor Link Run Pleasant
Valley chairlift (or new Terminal
Quad chairlift)
Similar, may be improved by
snowmaking in Pleasant Valley in the
long term.
Option of using new Terminal chair
would increase flexibility especially if
Pleasant Valley chairlift is closed.
conditions or if there is snow loss in Pleasant Valley
later in the season.
Medium risk of chair closure by wind for Interceptor
and Terminal chairlifts. High risk of closure for
Pleasant Valley chairlift.
3. Skitube Similar
Blue Cow to Perisher 1. Pleasant Valley Chairlift
Perisher Home Trail.
Similar, but possible improvement if
snowmaking proves feasible in the
long term.
conditions.
High risk of chair closure by wind.
2. New Pleasant Valley T-bar
Interceptor slope
New, more reliable in high wind than
conditions.
May be limited in late season by snow loss, until
snowmaking becomes feasible in Pleasant Valley.
3. Skitube Similar
Perisher to Smiggin
Holes
1. Piper T-bar Low Traverse Improved reliability due to
snowmaking
Not a high priority area for snowmaking early in the
season.
Piper T-bar is subject to early snow loss late in the
season.
2. New Mount Piper T-bar
Smiggin Holes slopes
New Not available during low snow conditions at various
times during the season.
3. Shuttle bus Similar Not available if road is closed by extreme weather.
Smiggin Holes to
Perisher
1. Link T-bar Piper T-bar slopes
Telemark quad chair (or
Interceptor)
Improved by:
extension of Link T-bar
snowmaking along Piper T-bar
upgrading of Murphys Crossing
upgrading of Telemark to a
quad chair
Piper T-bar slopes not a high priority for
snowmaking early in the season and subject to
early snow loss late in the season.
2. Duplex T-bar Mount Piper
slopes Interceptor
Improved by slope grooming, snow
fences and trail marking.
Not available during low snow conditions at various
3. Shuttle bus Similar Not available if road is closed by extreme weather.
Smiggin Holes to Blue
Cow
1. Duplex T-bar Mount Piper
slopes Interceptor Link Run
Pleasant Valley chairlift (or new
Terminal Quad chairlift)
Improved by slope grooming, snow
fences and trail marking on Mount
Piper. May be improved by
snowmaking in Pleasant Valley in the
long term. Option of using new
Terminal chair would increase
flexibility, especially if Pleasant Valley
chairlift is closed.
Not available during low snow conditions on Mount
Piper and/or Pleasant Valley at various times during
the season.
and Terminal chairlifts. High risk of closure for
2. Hume T-bar Mount Piper
northern slopes base of Ridge
chairlift
Improved by:
trail grooming and marking
bridge across Perisher Creek
formalisation of ski area with Ski
Patrol operation to increase
safety
Not available during low snow conditions on
northern slopes of Mount Piper at various times
during the season.
5-8 SSMP MAY 2002
Table 5.2 Skier circulation routes (contd)
situation
3. Potential access by road to base
of Ridge chairlift
New Subject to snowclearing, which would preferably
require the road to be sealed. Snowclearing would
have lower priority than on Kosciuszko Road.
Dependent on shuttle bus.
Blue Cow to Smiggin
Holes
1. New Pleasant Valley T-bar
Interceptor slopes new Mount
Piper T-bar Smiggin Holes
slopes
New Not available during low snow conditions at various
times during the season, particularly on Mount
Piper.
2. Other existing combinations for
Blue Cow Perisher and
Perisher Smiggin Holes, without
direct connections
Similar See above.
3. Potential access by Link Road
from base of Ridge chairlift
New Subject to snowclearing, which would preferably
require the road to be sealed.
Dependent on shuttle bus.
Blue Cow to Guthega 1. Low traverse along Blue Cow
Creek Cow Pastures J-bar (or
Blue Calf T-bar
Similar with minor improvement to
trail north of Blue Cow Creek.
Not available during low snow conditions early in
the season.
2. Middle Traverse to Guthega
Saddle
Improved by snowmaking along
Middle Traverse.
Not a high priority area for snowmaking early in the
season.
3. Blue Cow Mountain Blue Cow
T-bar upper slopes
Similar, but formalisation of skiing on
the northern slopes of Blue Cow
Mountain would improve safety on
this route.
Not available during low snow conditions at various
Skiing movements on the southern slopes of the
mountain should be managed with regard to
Burramys habitat.
Guthega to Blue Cow 1. Blue Cow T-bar Blue Cow
Road Terminal chairlift
Reliability of Terminal Chairlift
improved by relocating it, although
skiing distance to base would be
increased.
the season.
2. Blue Cow T-bar Mother-in-law
new Link Unit T-bar
New Not available during low snow conditions early in
the season, when snowmaking between top of Blue
Cow T-bar and base of Link Unit lifts would have
low priority.
3. New Link Unit Quad chairlift
Blue Cow Home Trail
New As for 2
Perisher to Guthega 1. Perisher Express Blue Cow
Expressway Blue Cow Home
Trail (part) Pleasant View Trail
Cow Pastures J-bar (or Blue
Calf T-bar)
Similar Not available during low snow conditions early in
season, or during the season if there is snow loss
on Pleasant View trail.
2. As for 1 but utilising all of Blue
Cow Home Trail plus Low
Traverse or Middle Traverse
Similar, but improved by snowmaking
on Middle Traverse and possibly Blue
Cow Home Trail and Blue Cow
Expressway in the long term.
the season, when snowmaking along this route
would have low priority.
3. Interceptor Link Run Pleasant
Valley chairlift (or new Terminal
chairlift) Middle Traverse or
Low Traverse
Similar, but improved by snowmaking
on Middle Traverse and in Pleasant
Valley in the long term.
Option of using new Terminal Chair
would increase flexibility if Pleasant
Valley chairlift is closed.
conditions or if there is snow loss in Pleasant Valley
late in the season.
Low priority for snowmaking in these areas.
and Terminal chairlifts. High risk of closure of
SSMP MAY 2002 5-9
Table 5.2 Skier circulation routes (contd)
situation
Guthega to Perisher 1. As for Guthega Blue Cow and
Blue Cow Perisher (several
options)
Increased choice of options would
improve reliability, especially during
high wind.
season.
2, New Link Unit chairlift Perisher
Home Trail
New, enables skiers to return to
Perisher with use of a single lift.
season, when access to chairlift would have low
priority for snowmaking.
T-bar would facilitate skier movement in both
directions.
Alternative access from Smiggin Holes to Blue Cow
would be provided by marking the trail from the top of
the Hume T-bar and the Burke and Wills T-bars to
the bottom of the Ridge Chairlift, and by providing a
safe bridge crossing over Perisher Creek.
The more established route to the base of the Ridge
Chairlift is via Pleasant Valley and the Roller Coaster
Trail. The snowmaking proposed in these areas is
aimed primarily at improving the reliability of this
access. Snowmaking is important strategically also
in providing more reliable circulation along several
other routes including:
from Perisher Express midstation to the top of
Front Valley and from there to Pretty Valley;
below Happy Valley and to the base of the
proposed Mount Perisher six-seater chairlift;
along the Blue Cow Home Trail from the top of
Pleasant Valley to the Blue Cow terminal, with a
spur down to the base of Pleasant Valley at the
start of the Roller Coaster Trail;
along the Middle Traverse from Blue Cow to
Guthega;
from the top of the Blue Cow T-bar to the new lifts
in the Link Unit; and
along the proposed new T-bar routes discussed
above.
Efficient skier movement between the northern and
southern parts of the resort is dependent on
adequate snow cover along the Blue Cow
Expressway and the Perisher Home Trail between
the Perisher Express and Pleasant Valley. The
traverses along these routes have been established
with only a minor level of summer grooming to date,
relying on the sheltered easterly aspect to maintain
good snow cover throughout the season. If this
proves to be unreliable in the long term, further
summer grooming of the traverses together with the
provision of snowmaking would be of high priority for
the strategic functioning of the resort. Ongoing
monitoring of these traverses will be undertaken to
determine whether further works may be warranted.
The return of skiers from Mount Perisher to Front
Valley would be significantly improved with the
upgrading of the Leichhardt T-bar to a quad chairlift
with a higher capacity, and by the upgrading of the
Home Rope Tow to a T-bar in an improved location.
5.5 Ski School
It is proposed to rationalise and improve the
operation of the Ski School to provide skiers of each
skill level with the optimum learning experience (see
Figure 5.5).
Beginner skiers arriving individually at the resort ('free
independent travellers') arrive mainly at Perisher
Valley, either by Skitube or by car. The Learn to Ski
Centre catering for these beginners would be located
where it is prominent, easy to access and close to
uncongested gentle slopes. This would be based
adjacent to the carpark on the southern slopes of
Mount Piper, with new short lifts on these gentle
slopes.
A new building just north of the edge of the carpark
would house the Ski School administration, some
limited facilities for instructors, the Junior Ski School,
creche and children's lunch and recreation areas,
which are currently located in the Perisher Centre
and the Perisher Skitube terminal. The children's ski
area which is currently based at the north-eastern
end of Front Valley would be integrated with the
Learn to Ski Centre on Mount Piper.
This area would offer a full gradation of terrain and
facilities for beginners as follows:
flat terrain providing a walk-around area;
slightly pitched terrain with skier conveyors;
probably two platter lifts of different lengths and on
slopes of varying pitch
5-10 SSMP MAY 2002
a T-bar to take skiers to a higher point in the
Learn to Ski area; and
a quad chairlift to take skiers to the highest point
and which will allow transition from the new
Telemark Chairlift or to Pipers T-bar.
The intermediate/advanced component of the Ski
School for Perisher Valley skiers will continue to
operate from near the Perisher Centre in Front
Valley. Access to that location from the new Ski
School facility would be by three possible ways:
1. By walking from that facility back through the
Perisher Centre via a proposed new northern
entrance.
2. By riding a proposed new access quad chairlift
which would have its top station just north of the
unload station of the existing Tom Thumb Platter.
3. By riding the main beginners' lift on Mount Piper
then skiing down to the base of the Telemark lift
which would provide access to Front Valley.
Return skier movement from Front Valley to the
Learn to Ski Centre will be via the lower section of
the Sundeck Road, which will be provided with
snowmaking.
The instruction for intermediate and advanced skiers
will be based essentially in the same areas that are
used at present, with these groups benefiting from
the upgrading of lifts and trails generally in this part of
the resort.
Smiggin Holes will remain a major centre for ski
school operations, particularly for group bookings and
for beginners arriving at the resort by bus. The
operation of this ski school, which will continue to
cater for all skill levels, will not change significantly,
although improvement of facilities in the base area is
proposed through the reconstructi on of a
newproposed to significantly improve beginner
facilities by replacing the existing rope tows with skier
conveyors.
The Ski School at Blue Cow will operate as a satellite
ski school, catering for intermediate and advanced
skiers. While beginner instruction will be provided at
Blue Cow, it will not generally be promoted because
of the exposed nature of the only accessible slopes
that are gentle enough for beginners. Instead,
beginners arriving at the resort by Skitube, which is
their only means of access to Blue Cow, will be
encouraged to go to Mount Piper.
As at present, there will be no regular Ski School
operating at Guthega because of the small size of the
Guthega-based skier population which results in the
low demand for such a service. Intermediate and
advanced skiers from Guthega can ski to Blue Cow
for lessons or alternatively lessons can be conducted
at Guthega by special arrangement, especially for
beginners. Depending on demand, a skier conveyor
could be installed for this purpose at Guthega Saddle
adjacent to the proposed restaurant.
The arrangements for snowboard instruction will be
the same as for skiing.
5.6 Mountain Restaurants
Additional mountain restaurants, together with other
visitor facilities, are required for three main reasons:
1. The growth in visitor numbers at the resort
generates a corresponding growth in the facilities
required to service them.
2. There is a trend in visitor expectation for a higher
quality of facilities, for example, more visitors
prefer to eat indoors in comfort rather than buying
take-away food or bringing their own food, and
eating it outdoors. This leads to an increased
floorspace demand for such facilities.
3. The dispersed nature of the resort and the mobility
of skiers throughout the resort generates a need
for facilities to be provided at a larger range of
accessible locations, rather than just in the base
areas. A lack of dispersed mountain facilities
increases congestion on key circulation lifts and
trails due to skiers returning to the base areas
during the day, and on the slopes close to the
base areas. This reduces the time that skiers are
able to spend on preferred slopes, making it more
difficult to spread skiers throughout the resort and
thereby not realising the optimum use of the lift
and trail system in capacity terms and prejudicing
guest experience.
A greater range of serviced buildings throughout the
slopes also has the benefits of offering better shelter
and facilities for the ski patrol as well as for
participants and spectators in competitions, in
addition to increasing the safety and comfort for
visitors in general.
The proposed locations of mountain restaurants are
indicated in Figure 5.6. In addition to established
facilities at Perisher Valley and Smiggin Holes, which
are likely to be expanded as these base areas grow,
and at the Blue Cow terminal and Perisher Express
midstation, the following sites are identified for
mountain restaurants:
Mount Perisher, where one restaurant and two
kiosks/cafes are proposed. The restaurant at the
base of the Chairlift could serve Happy Valley and
the western end of Centre Valley, as well as
Mount Perisher.
Top of Pleasant Valley. This would be
accessible also from the Link Unit.
SSMP MAY 2002 5-11
Guthega Saddle. This would replace the existing
Burning Log restaurant at the base of the Blue
Calf T-bar.
Base of the Ridge Chairlift. The scale of this
facility would depend on the future level of access
to this point. Currently, a kiosk is planned but in
the event of the Smiggin Holes Guthega Link
Road being upgraded for winter access, the
demand for this facility would be increased and
may warrant upgrading it to restaurant standard.
It is envisaged that the existing kiosks at the bottom
of Pretty Valley, in Centre Valley and in Happy Valley
would remain, at least for the foreseeable future.
The Pleasant Valley and Blue Calf Saddle
restaurants would be designed to incorporate Ski
Patrol facilities, as would the cafe on top of Mount
Perisher. This facility would be integrated with the
top station of the new chairlift. In the case of Mount
Perisher, the existing bump station at the top of
International T-bar would be removed. Incorporation
within the lift and cafe building would improve the
occupational health and safety standards for Ski
Patrol members. Each of the proposed restaurant or
kiosk/cafe buildings would incorporate toilet facilities.
5.7 Competition Skiing Facilities
In order to provide flexibility for downhill skiing
competition and training, it is proposed to maintain
the existing FIS homologated runs for racing, and to
seek fresh homologation of the International Run
subject to further improvements. This would leave
the resort with the following runs homologated for
downhill skiing:
Homologated for:
Run Slalom Giant Slalom Super Giant
Slalom
Runs with current homologation
Schnaxl x
Zali's x
Excelerator x x (women only)
Runs with further works proposed prior to seeking homologation
Towers x x
International/Hypertrail x x
Homologation issues to be resolved, possible future homologation
Parachute x x
The value of some of these runs for competition and
training would be increased by proposals in the
SSMP as follows:
Parachute. Snowmaking would improve the
reliability of snow cover.
Schnaxl. The Guthega Quad Chairlift would improve
access.
Excelerator. Snowmaking in the upper part of its run
would improve the reliability of snow cover. The
kiosk and toilets at the base of the run would improve
amenity for competitors and spectators. Upgrading
of the Ridge Quad Chairlift would increase its
reliability.
Towers. Due to the restriction that use of the run for
racing would place on recreational skiing access to
Mount Perisher, this run would be used only for the
highest standards of international competition (e.g.
World or Continental Cup). This would require re-
homologation of the run and installation of
snowmaking. Upgrading of the chairlift and of the
visitor facilities at the top and bottom of the lift would
benefit its use for major competitions.
International. It is proposed to remove some
selected trees at the base of the run to improve its
safety for racing. These improvements are required
for FIS homologation for Slalom. While it could also
be homologated for Giant Slalom, these races could
not be conducted without conflict with recreational
use of the top and bottom of the Hypertrail. As an
alternative, it is proposed to seek Giant Slalom
homologation for the Hypertrail, as use of the
Hypertrail for Giant Slalom would not preclude
recreational use of the International Run.
The existing designated race courses would continue
to be used with the benefit of slope improvements as
follows:
Mother-in-law. Improved access via the Guthega
Quad Chairlift.
Blue Cow (previously the Australia Fresh).
Improved access via the new T-bar west of the Blue
Cow summit. Benched access from the Summit
Chairlift would no longer be provided because of
possible impacts on Mountain Pygmy-possum
habitat, although access around the northern side of
Blue Cow Mountain summit would be possible under
good snow conditions.
Upper Roller Coaster. Improved access and likely
increased usage will occur via the proposed new
Terminal Quad Chairlift. Access to facilities will
remain the same.
Ski Star. Various measures to reduce congestion in
Front Valley would facilitate the operation of this race
course north of the Sturt T-bar.
Smiggins Race Track. Extension of snowmaking at
Smiggin Holes.
Other non-homologated runs used occasionally for
racing or training include Fun Run, Woodpecker,
Wombat ' s Lament, Li ndner Run and C o w
Pastures at Guthega, Outer Limits at Blue Cow,
beside the Mitchell and Bass T-bars in Front Valley
and beside Leichhardt T-bar in Centre Valley. The
Downhill Course from near the top of the Perisher
5-12 SSMP MAY 2002
Express Quad Chairlift to the bottom of Pretty Valley
is also used for recreational racing. These would
continue to be used as at present. In addition there
is the prospect of the Out er Limits Trai l being
improved for training use as an alternative to
Excelerator, leaving Excelerator free for recreational
use and improving safety by locating race training in
a part of the slope which would not be crossed by
recreational skiers. The improvement of Out er
Limits would require clearing a corridor about 30
metres wide through dense snowgum woodland on
the lower eastern slopes of Blue Cow Mountain.
It is proposed also to seek homologation of freestyle
competition facilities at the resort. The surface profile
of the aerial jump site in Front Valley would be
modified for this purpose, and a new surface lift may
be provided (see Section 5.2).
The existing moguls course on Showboat at the
base of the Ridge Chairlift would be relocated further
to the south to reduce congestion on the slope and
take advantage of a more uniform gradient. The
course would be lengthened in order to satisfy
homologation requirements. Relocation of the course
would involve removal of trees and rocks throughout
the run, and some tall heath in its lower part.
It is intended also to have a halfpipe homologated
for snowboarding. This would require it to be of an
adequate length and gradient with guaranteed
snowcover, the latter requiring snowmaking. The
existing halfpipe at Front Valley is not steep or long
enough to meet homologation requirements and
modification of this site is unlikely to be practicable.
Modification would also conflict with return trail skiing
from Front Valley to the Learn to Ski Centre at Mount
Piper.
An additional halfpipe is therefore proposed either at
Smiggin Holes south of the duplex T-bars or at Front
Valley adjacent to the Mitchell T-bar. Both sites
would require earthworks to achieve a uniform
gradient and reduce the amount of snow required to
construct the halfpipe. The Front Valley site is
preferred because of superior lift access and
proximity to the main base area of the resort and to
existing media facilities.
The existing and proposed competition skiing
facilities are shown in Figure 5.7.
5.8 Mountain Workshops
It is proposed to make significant changes to the
current system of mountain workshops servicing the
resort. This arises from the need to make more
effective use for visitors of the limited space within
the base areas, as well as to locate workshop
facilities where they can serve the integrated resort
more efficiently.
The most significant change is the relocation of the
main workshop, including the electrical workshop and
buildings workshop, from Smiggin Holes to the
saddle on the oversnow route between Smiggin
Holes and Perisher Valley. Good oversnow access is
important for the winter operation of the workshops,
and their location with respect to oversnow routes is
shown in Figure 5.8. The proposed site for the main
workshop must also have good all-weather access
from the Kosciuszko Road.
Other satellite workshops for local lift and machinery
maintenance are all located at existing sites. Some
of these would be upgraded to provide additional
space and, where necessary, to comply with current
environmental best practice and occupational health
and safety standards. These are located as follows:
Smiggin Holes. A small workshop for basic lift
maintenance would remain at Smiggin Holes, but
would be moved from its present location which is
within the lease boundary of the Smiggins Hotel. It
could possibly be incorporated into the new main
workshop or the drive station at the bottom of the
upgraded Kaaten Quad Chairlift, or alternatively be
located elsewhere in the Smiggin Holes base area.
Front Valley. The Front Valley lift workshop,
currently located within the Perisher Centre, would be
relocated to the top station of the proposed Front
Valley eight-seater chairlift, freeing up space in the
Perisher Centre for other uses and being proximally
more efficient.
Centre Valley. The small lift workshop on the slopes
of Centre Valley would be removed, and replaced
with a new workshop incorporated into the base of
the Perisher Express quad chairlift.
Mount Perisher. The workshop at the base of the
Mount Perisher Double Chairlift would be upgraded
in association with the lift redevelopment. Ideally,
this workshop would also incorporate the functions of
the nearby vehicle workshop, located below the
Kosciuszko Road, enabling this workshop to be
removed.
Blue Cow. It is proposed to expand the existing
workshop in the bottom level of the terminal building.
Guthega. The existing Guthega lift workshop would
be relocated from the Burning Log building to the
vehicle workshop site. The Burning Log building may
be converted to staff or other accommodation or
removed.
Each of the snowmaking buildings at Perisher,
Smiggin Holes and Blue Cow would incorporate its
own workshop for undertaking routine work
associated with snowmaking operation.
SSMP MAY 2002 5-13
It is possible that some summer workshop functions
(e.g. vehicle maintenance) may be relocated outside
the resort (e.g. in Jindabyne) in order to make
optimum use of the mountain workshops for functions
that are essential to be carried out on site.
As an all-weather access road would be provided to
the new main workshop near Smiggin Holes, this
would provide the opportunity for housing
snowclearing equipment and vehicles at that site.
These are currently kept at a separate workshop at
Smiggin Holes, at the northern end of the carpark.
There would also be scope for incorporating NPWS
workshop facilities into this complex. The concept of
a combined main workshop and maintenance facility
should be implemented if practical and cost efficient.
5.9 Oversnow Routes
The main oversnow routes proposed in the SSMP
are shown in Figure 5.8. These consist of routes
which are available for general access by oversnow
vehicles registered for use in the resort, and routes
which are available only for use by Perisher Blue
vehicles and other specified management vehicles.
The proposals for routes used for general access are
as follows:
Perisher to Smiggin Holes. This route would be
changed at the Perisher end to avoid conflict with
beginner skier and snowplay use of the southern
slope of Mount Piper. It would pass between the
Learn to Ski area and the Piper T-bar, following the
south-western ridge of Mount Piper, which is unlikely
to be heavily used for skiing, and meet the existing
route near the proposed mountain workshop site in
the saddle above Smiggin Holes. From here it is
proposed to avoid the existing conflict with skiers by
relocating the route through woodland to the south of
the ski slopes while these slopes are in use. It would
rejoin the existing route to the north-west of the
lodges. At nighttime the oversnow route would follow
the existing route near Smiggin Holes to minimise
noise disturbance to lodges.
Perisher Centre to North Perisher. The proposed
route from the Perisher Centre to North Perisher
would initially follow the Blue Cow concrete summer
road along Perisher Creek then follow a new route
among the lodges to the south of the existing
Telemark T-bar to join the high road near the
Sundeck Hotel. It would then follow this road
underneath the proposed Telemark Chairlift through
to North Perisher. This road would also provide
access to the Sundeck Hotel and nearby lodges.
This route would reduce conflict with skiers at the
north-eastern end of Front Valley and in the Telemark
area. At the North Perisher T-bar it is proposed to
relocate the oversnow route below the base station to
avoid conflict with skiers.
Top of Mount Perisher Chairlift. The mountain
cafe at the top of the Mount Perisher Chairlift may
require oversnow access. This would probably follow
the route of the proposed summer access road (see
Section 5.10), which would be required in any case
for access to the top station of the lift.
North Perisher to Blue Cow. The existing route
along the summer road would be maintained and
would be improved by snowmaking along its north-
facing sections between the area known as Boot Hill
(Tower 2 of the Terminal Chairlift) and the
intersection with the Roller Coaster Trail.
Blue Cow Terminal to Pleasant Valley. The
existing route would be improved by snowmaking
throughout its length.
Blue Cow to Guthega. The existing oversnow route
would be improved in places by upgrading of the
access track along the services corridor, and by the
provision of snowmaking. The oversnow route along
the Norwegian Road would be maintained as at
present.
Link Road. The Link Road from Smiggin Holes to
the base of the Ridge Chairlift would be established
as a regular oversnow route, unless it is upgraded to
permit winter access for wheeled vehicles. With
improved facilities at the base of the lift, the role of
this route would be increased beyond its present
emergency role.
In summary, the future strategy for oversnow vehicle
movement basically reinforces the existing situation,
but with modification of the routes in the intensively
used Front Valley Telemark Mount Piper area
and between Perisher Valley and Smiggin Holes. In
some areas of marginal snow cover, the reliability of
oversnow movement would be enhanced by
snowmaking, while in other locations, summer works
are proposed to provide a more stable or better
drained base to the route.
5.10 Summer Access
The proposed system of summer access routes for
resort management is shown in Figure 5.9. This
system is designed to enable access by four-wheel-
drive vehicles to the top and bottom stations of most
existing and proposed lifts to enable summer
maintenance to be carried out efficiently. In the case
of new lifts, such access is normally required also for
construction. It is not necessary, however, to have
vehicle access to all tower sites, as a helicopter could
be used in situations where access is difficult or
sensitive. It may be feasible to use a helicopter also
for transporting lift station components for surface
lifts.
5-14 SSMP MAY 2002
Most of the summer access system is already in
place in the form of roads or access tracks of various
standards of construction. Additional summer access
routes which are proposed or which would be
upgraded are as follows (refer to numbers on Figure
5.9):
Permanent access roads
1. A new road south of Telemark T-bar with closure
of the existing lower Sundeck Hill Road.
2. An access road from the Kosciuszko Road near
the Perisher View Lodge site to the new
mountain workshop near Smiggin Holes.
Permanent access tracks
3. An access track along Perisher Creek from Front
Valley to the Lawson and Leichhardt Chairlifts.
This would require a special form of construction
to traverse a wet area at the western end of the
route without interfering unduly with the natural
groundwater levels either side of the track (see
Appendix A, Section 7.2 for further discussion).
4. An access track across Pretty Valley from the
top of the existing double chair to the top of the
proposed quad chair.
5. An access track to the top of the Mount Perisher
chairlifts based on upgrading of an existing track
up the Sun Valley T-bar.
6. An access track from the top of the Interceptor
Chairlift to the top of the North Perisher T-bar,
with rehabilitation of the existing North Perisher
T-bar track.
7. Access tracks from the Blue Cow Road to the
base of the proposed Telemark Quad Chairlift
and Piper T-bar.
8. An access track from the main workshop in the
saddle above Smiggin Holes to the upper slopes
of Mount Piper to provide access to the top
stations of the Piper T-bar, the proposed new T-
bar on Mount Piper, the Link T-bar and the
Smiggin Holes duplex. This would partly utilise
some existing access routes.
9. Upgrading and stabilisation of the currently
closed track along the services corridor between
Blue Cow and Guthega.
10. An access track from the Blue Cow to Guthega
services easement corridor to the base of the
new T-bar and the new quad chairlift in the Link
Unit.
11. An access track to the bottom of the new
Guthega quad chairlift. Three options exist for
this track, namely:
from Guthega Saddle via the Cow Pastures
area;
an extension of the track to the base of the
new Link Unit Chairlift; or
along the south side of Blue Cow Creek from
the track to the Guthega water supply.
The latter track would also need to be upgraded
if the third option is chosen. These options are
shown as broken lines in Figure 5.9.
12. Upgraded access to the top of the proposed
Guthega Quad Chairlift and the existing Blue
Cow T-bar, possibly on an alignment away from
the T-bar lift track.
Other access tracks that are still in use are planned
to remain in their present locations but would be
upgraded where necessary to stabilise them.
5.11 Municipal Services
Most of the lifts, buildings and other major facilities on
the ski slopes need to be connected to municipal
services, such as electricity, water supply, sewerage
and telephone. The types of services normally
required or desirable for various facilities are
indicated in Table 5.3. The ease with which these
services can be supplied influences the development
cost and environmental impact of a proposal.
The upgrading of services at the resort will be
affected also by further development in the villages,
hence the ski slope requirements cannot be
considered in isolation. The main implications of the
SSMP for municipal services are summarised below.
Electricity. Increased electricity demand at the
resort will result particularly from extension of
snowmaking, new accommodation and other building
development in the villages and new lifts. The
existing 33 kV supply system, which consists of a
single line up the Skitube tunnel from Bullocks and
twin lines from Munyang, has the capacity to cope
with the increased load. Duplication of the 33 kV line
up the tunnel is desirable for security reasons,
however, in the event of interruption to the supply
from Munyang.
It will be necessary to install a third 33/11kV
transformer in the Perisher Zone substation to handle
the increased distribution needs within the resort, but
this would not involve external works. The other
main electricity supply upgrading works resulting at
least partly from the SSMP relate to the 11 kV
distribution within the resort. These works are as
follows (see Figure 5.10):
SSMP MAY 2002 5-15
Table 5.3 Requirements for municipal services
Services required
Water supply
Facilities Electricity Domestic Other (a) Sewerage Telephone
Mountain restaurants ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
Kiosks/cafes ++ ++ ++ +
Workshops (including
snowmaking buildings)
++ ++ ++ ++ ++
Snowmaking ++ ++
Ski Patrol bump stations + + + +
Ski lifts ++ ++
++ = essential
+ = desirable
= not required
a. e.g. firefighting, snowmaking water
A second 11 kV catenary cable from the Perisher
Zone Substation up the Skitube tunnel to Blue
Cow.
An additional 11 kV line from the Perisher Zone
Substation to the Perisher View Substation.
A new 11 kV line from the Perisher Zone
Substation to the Perisher snowmaking building.
A new 11 kV line from the Perisher snowmaking
building to the Perisher Express midstation.
A new 11 kV line from the bottom to the top of the
proposed Mount Perisher Eight-seater Chairlift.
A second 11 kV line from the Blue Cow Terminal
to Snowmaking Pump Station 3.
An 11 kV supply from the village to the Learn to
Ski Centre on Mount Piper.
An 11 kV line from the base of the Smiggin Holes
slopes to the Smiggin Holes snowmaking building.
A new 11 kV underground cable from Blue Cow
Terminal to the top of Pleasant Valley.
A possible 11 kV underground cable from the Blue
Cow Guthega services easement to the bottom
of the proposed Link Unit Chairlift, depending on
the location of the drive stations for the Link Unit
lifts.
In order to increase the security of the supply, it is
also desirable to provide the following:
A second 11 kV line along the services easement
from Blue Cow Pump Station 3 substation to
Guthega.
An 11 kV link from the top of Leichhardt to Happy
Valley substation via the snowmaking corridor.
New substations would be provided as follows:
In the proposed snowmaking building at Smiggin
Holes.
At the new central workshop south-west of
Smiggin Holes.
At the top of the proposed Front Valley Eight-
seater Chairlift.
At the top of the proposed Lawson and Leichhardt
Quad Chairlifts.
At the top of the proposed Mount Perisher Six-
seater Chairlift.
At the bottom of the International T-bar.
At the top of Pleasant Valley.
On the Blue Cow Guthega services easement
Possibly at the bottom of the Link Unit Quad
Chairlift
At Guthega Saddle.
The existing substations in the Perisher snowmaking
building, at the base of the Mount Perisher Chairlift
and at the base of the Interceptor Chairlift would be
upgraded.
In addition, there would be underground 415 V lines
to the various buildings, lifts and snowmaking works,
the details of which would be addressed in relation to
the individual projects.
Water supply. Water supply to the ski slopes
includes both domestic supply for restaurants etc.
and other water for snowmaking and firefighting. The
greatest water demand will arise from snowmaking,
5-16 SSMP MAY 2002
which will have its own independent supply based on
the Pipers Creek Aqueduct. The reticulation and
pumping system for snowmaking is summarised in
Section 5.3.
The domestic supply would be obtained from the
reservoirs on Rock Creek, Pipers Creek, Pleasant
Valley Creek and Farm Creek which serve the
respective base areas of the resort. The capacity
requirements of these supplies are determined
according to the number of day and overnight visitors
and staff in the resort, and would not be affected
significantly by whether the water is used in the base
areas or on the slopes. The main implications for the
SSMP are the additional reticulation required and the
need for special pumping if the water is required
above the level of existing supply zones.
The latter would apply particularly to the proposed
mountain restaurant at the top of Pleasant Valley and
that at the top of the Mount Perisher Six-seater
Chairlift. It is anticipated that the water supply mains
would generally follow existing or proposed access
tracks, lifts or snowmaking corridors.
In addition to supplying new facilities, it is proposed
to supply town water to existing kiosks in Happy
Valley and Centre Valley which currently rely on their
own local supplies. This should result in a more
reliable quality of supply from a public health
viewpoint, which may become important once
snowmaking is extended into their catchments.
The supply of water for firefighting at mountain
buildings may be integrated with the snowmaking
water supply, as this would not require water of
potable quality.
Sewerage. All buildings connected to the domestic
water supply would also be expected to be connected
to the resort sewerage system. Ski slope
developments would not be likely to significantly
affect the total capacity of the sewerage system,
which is centralised through the North Perisher
sewage treatment plant. They would, however,
require their own reticulation and, in some cases,
additional pumping to get sewage to a point from
which it could gravitate to the existing system. This
would apply particularly to facilities at the base of the
Ridge Chairlift, and potentially to some other facilities
where sewage may need to be pumped over a local
high point.
Telecommunications. In association with the
installation of the snowmaking reticulation, it is
proposed to install an optic fibre telecommunications
network throughout the resort. This will form the
trunk system for telephone connections between all
lifts and buildings throughout the resort and will also
be used for data transmission from field monitoring
stations.
Integration of services. All the above services
would be installed in underground trenches. It is
intended that, wherever practicable, all services to a
particular part of the ski slopes would be installed in a
single, integrated operation. This would have the
advantages of:
avoiding repeated disturbance to the ground and
facilitating effective rehabilitation;
reducing the risk of damage to existing services
through subsequent excavation; and
reducing the costs associated with excavating and
rehabilitating trenches.
It may result in some premature, and occasionally
unnecessary, expenditure on pipes or cables,
although the SSMP provides a basis for determining
future needs and timing with a reasonable level of
confidence. In some situations, it may be preferable
to install conduit through which a cable can be fed at
some stage in the future.
The details of locating and integrating municipal
services are generally beyond the scope of the
SSMP.
5.12 Ecological Management
In responding to the planning objective of maintaining
or enhancing the essential natural processes within
the environment of the resort, the SSMP has
developed a strategy for protecting and enhancing
natural habitat where practicable and for identifying
and maintaining wildlife movement corridors, and for
generally maintaining the important ecological
processes within the resort.
Vegetation communities. The majority of the area
covered by the SSMP (88 percent) is in an essentially
natural condition, with the remaining 12 percent
having been subject to past surface disturbance as a
result of ski slope development and summer
grooming. The latter figure would increase to 13
percent as a result of implementation of the SSMP.
A significant proportion of the areas which have been
extensively modified in the past is now showing signs
of natural regeneration. It is proposed to encourage
such regeneration, particularly with respect to native
grasses and forbs, and also with respect to low heath
in situations where this would not conflict with skier
safety or other operational considerations.
For future development proposals, a range of best
practice techniques will be employed aimed at
maintaining or restoring the existing surface
vegetation characteristics of the site, insofar as this is
consistent with the primary purpose of the proposal.
Such techniques include sod removal and
replacement along trenchlines and incorporation of
native seed into seed mixes used for rehabilitation. If
SSMP MAY 2002 5-17
site characteristics affecting vegetation are altered as
a result of development (e.g. drainage of wet areas),
the area would be rehabilitated using native species
which would suit the modified environment.
Additional seeding and planting in previously
disturbed areas with a view to restoring more natural
vegetation characteristics generally throughout the
ski slopes will be carried out as the opportunity arises
and where this does not conflict with operational
requirements.
Terrestrial animal movement. Animal movement
around the resort can follow several different
patterns:
Movement along a strictly defined corridor such as
a watercourse.
Movement along a preferred broad corridor
between habitat areas.
General movement throughout the resort, subject
to the terrain displaying suitable habitat
characteristics.
The Mountain Pygmy-possum (Burramys parvus) is
the only animal which has been subject to detailed
study of its movement patterns within the resort (Ref.
12). Its known or assumed movement corridors are
shown in Figure 5.11.
The di stri buti on of the Broad-toothed Rat
(Mastacomys fuscus) has been assessed on the
basis of scat distribution (Ref. 13). This species
appears to disperse widely throughout the resort,
particularly during winter when it can move through
passages beneath the snow, however, there is no
direct evidence to demonstrate specific movement
corridors. From general knowledge of its habitat
preferences, it appears likely to move particularly
through dense, diverse dry heath or wet heath during
summer, this habitat tending to be relatively cool with
an abundant food supply. Evidence of its distribution
in winter suggests that it may disperse through a
wide range of habitats during that period.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is
assumed that other small species which are not
restricted to specialised habitats, such as bogs or
pools, can move generally within suitable habitat
throughout the resort. The movement of many small
animals is inhibited, although not necessarily
prevented, by a lack of low vegetation cover, fallen
timber or boulder fields, which offer some protection
against predators. It is therefore likely that
intensively groomed ski slopes, such as in Front
Valley, paved areas or even roads and tracks, tend to
be avoided by some species or, if they are used,
expose the animals to an increased risk of predation.
On the other hand, it is possible to facilitate safe
movement across such areas by the provision of
artificial animal crossings, which simulate strips of
natural habitat, as have been constructed for
Burramys on the Side Saddle and Zali's runs on Blue
Cow Mountain, and for Mastacomys on the Towers
Run on Mount Perisher.
The SSMP identifies potential wildlife movement
corridors where it is proposed to maintain natural
habitat conditions as far as practicable or, where
there is an unavoidable conflict with skiing
development, to design new works and remediate
existing works with measures that aim to provide
protected movement for all relevant native species.
These physical measures would be based on a
program of ongoing research, in consultation with the
NPWS, to identify the important wildlife movement
corridors within the resort, and assess the
effectiveness of measures for maintaining animal
movement across disturbed areas.
Some corridors which appear likely to be the most
important for small animal movement in general are
shown in Figure 5.11. These are based mainly on
vegetation mapping and are generalised as a
strategic indication of areas where consideration of
wildlife movement is of highest priority. There are
disturbed areas within these corridors which are not
indicated. It is not intended to imply that areas which
are not shaded do not necessarily contribute to
animal movement.
Some corridors of particular note are as follows:
Up Pretty Valley through the Wineglass then
through Centre Valley to the foot of Mount
Perisher. This corridor is likely to be important
because of the intensive slope grooming which
has taken place in Front Valley and the general
disturbance caused by roads and buildings in the
lodges area to the north of Front Valley, where the
main movement corridor was probably originally
located.
Up the broad valleys on the eastern and northern
slopes of Mount Back Perisher. The areas within
or along the edges of the heath complexes in
these valleys may provide favoured routes for
many species to disperse through much of the
resort.
Along Blue Cow Creek on the southern edge of
the Guthega Precinct and across Blue Cow
Saddle to connect with habitat in the valley
between the Ridge Chairlift and the Roller Coaster
Run.
These corridors connect with other secondary habitat
corridors and general dispersal routes which have the
potential to facilitate animal movement to the upper
slopes of the resort (see Figure 5.11).
The corridors used by Burramys, also shown in
Figure 5.11, tend to be in higher parts of the resort,
which have not been identified as important general
5-18 SSMP MAY 2002
corridors. This is consistent with the view that the
survival of Burramys is dependent on its ability to
utilise an environment which is too extreme for its
potential natural competitors.
Aquatic movement corridors. The SSMP also
recognises the importance of maintaining aquatic
movement corridors, of which Perisher Creek is the
most important. Other minor creeks in the area
covered by the Plan which would be managed as
aquatic movement corridors include (see Figure
5.11):
the tributary of Perisher Creek that flows past the
base of the Sun Valley T-bar;
the creek in Pretty Valley;
the creek near the midstation area of the
Interceptor Quad Chairlift;
the creek down Pleasant Valley;
the creek from the base of the existing Terminal
Chairlift to the base of the Ridge Chairlift;
Blue Cow Creek and its continuation as Farm
Creek; and
the main creek in the Link Unit, which is a tributary
of Blue Cow Creek.
Smiggin Creek, which is a steep tributary of Pipers
Creek at Smiggin Holes, has been modified by piping
beneath the Kosciuszko Road and workshop area,
and again at the base of the ski bowl, where it has
resulted in safety and operational problems. In terms
of priority as an aquatic movement corridor, it rates
relatively low compared with numerous similar creeks
at Perisher, Blue Cow, Guthega and the Link Unit
and is not proposed for deliberate management as a
wildlife movement corridor.
In identifying these creeks as aquatic movement
corridors, this does not preclude sections of the creek
from being covered by bridges or culverts where this
is essential for access, safety or other reasonable
operational needs. Rather, the design of such
structures would aim to protect aquatic and riparian
movement as far as practicable (see Appendix A,
Chapter 8 for further details).
Predator prey relationships. The SSMP does not
in itself embrace direct measures for dealing with
introduced predators such as foxes or cats, or prey,
such as rabbits, as this requires a comprehensive
approach which extends beyond both the ski slopes
and the resort. In principle, Perisher Blue supports
efforts in directly controlling numbers of introduced
predator species in the first instance, followed by
control of introduced prey species if their numbers
then increase as a result of reduced predation.
Controlling secondary effects. The types of
development or operational activities which may have
secondary effects on the ecology of the ski slopes
include the following:
Changes to soil profiles as a result of
development activities.
Modification of surface or groundwater flow, for
example, to reduce snowmelt.
Modification of snow deposition patterns by snow
fences or winter grooming.
Compaction of snow by grooming machinery and
skiing.
Effects of noise and vibration on animal
behaviour.
Damage to vegetation as a result of winter
grooming.
The SSMP responds to possible secondary effects by
weighing the evidence for known or likely effects
against the operational risks or problems if the
respective actions were not taken, and adopting
appropriate practices as a result. The above types of
issues will continue to be monitored as part of the
ongoing process of review of the SSMP and the
environmental best practices which form part of it.
Management of the Mountain Pygmy-possum.
The Mountain Pygmy-possum (Burramys parvus) is
listed as a an Endangered Species on Schedule 1 of
the Threatened Species Conservation Act. The
Perisher Blue Ski Resort, and specifically the
southern slopes of Blue Cow Mountain, provides
habitat for the largest known population of Burramys
in Kosciuszko National Park. From an ecological
viewpoint, management of this population to ensure
its long-term survival has very high priority with
respect to both the local population and the species
as a whole.
The measures in the SSMP aimed at maintaining this
population, while still utilising the Blue Cow Mountain
slopes for skiing, include the following:
A precautionary approach in limiting the extent of
winter grooming above boulderfield habitat which
may be used by Burramys for hibernation during
winter, and closing the area between Side Saddle
and Zalis to active recreational use.
Avoiding winter grooming of the trail from the top
of the Summit Chairlift across the primary
boulderfield habitat south of the Blue Cow
Mountain summit to the Blue Cow race course.
As an alternative, a trail around the northern side
of the summit, which avoids Burramys habitat, will
be groomed in winter, subject to adequate snow.
In the longer term, construction of a T-bar
adjacent to the Blue Cow race course, which
would not encroach on any Burramys habitat or
dispersal routes.
SSMP MAY 2002 5-19
Provision of small animal crossings, which could
be used by Burramys, underneath the upgraded
track along the services easement corridor
between Blue Cow and Guthega.
Location of the access track to the proposed T-bar
and chairlift in the Link Unit to avoid known and
possible Burramys habitat in the Blue Cow Creek
valley.
Location of the bottom station of the Link Unit
Chairlift to avoid traversing possible Burramys
habitat on a tributary of Blue Cow Creek, and also
locating future ski trails to avoid this area.
Construction of underground crossings at one or
more locations under the Summit Chairlift base
station area, the Boot Hill Run, the Blue Cow
Road and the access track to the Ridge Chairlift
midstation to facilitate movement between
Burramys habitat areas.
Encouragement of natural regeneration of heath
on part of the Yarrandoo Run to improve a
Burramys dispersal route.
Avoiding any summer grooming across dispersal
routes on the northern side of Blue Cow Mountain.
Management of other threatened species. Other
animal species listed on schedules of the Threatened
Species Conservation Act and which are present or
have previously been recorded within the resort are
the Broad-toothed Rat (Mastacomys fuscus) and the
Sout hern Corroboree Frog (Pseudophryne
corroboree).
Mastacomys is relatively common within the resort
and would benefit from the measures discussed
above for maintaining habitat corridors for animal
movement and controlling introduced predators,
particularly foxes. Implementation of other best
practices detailed in Appendix A (Chapter 14) would
also benefit Mastacomys.
Existing evidence indicates that the Southern
Corroboree Frog, which has experienced major
decline in recent years due to factors unrelated to ski
resort development, is currently absent from the
resort. The SSMP nevertheless protects its potential
habitat (ponds within Sphagnum bog areas), so that it
could be conserved within the resort if its populations
recover in the future.
With respect to threatened plant species, the
approach adopted in the SSMP is to protect their
habitat from permanent modification as far as
practicable.
SSMP MAY 2002 6-1
6. PRECINCT 1: PERISHER VALLEY
6.1 General Description
The Perisher Valley Precinct includes the areas
known as Front Valley and Centre Valley and
extends also to the area containing the Telemark T-
bar which is managed as part of the Front Valley area
(see Figure 6.1).
The southern and eastern boundaries of the precinct
are formed by the Kosciuszko Road, the carpark and
Perisher Creek. The northern and western
boundaries are formed by the lower part of a
prominent ridge running down from Mount Back
Perisher. This ridge branches, separating the
precinct from Pretty Valley to the north and Happy
Valley to the west.
The Front Valley area within the precinct is one of the
most intensively developed parts of the resort in
terms of tree clearing, slope drainage and lift
construction, and is the 'gateway' onto the slopes for
most resort visitors. Development of the area has
taken place incrementally over many years, and
much of the lift infrastructure is old and due for
replacement or upgrading. Centre Valley is less
intensively developed but is still a popular area with
high development potential because of its proximity
to the village.
The bottom station of the Perisher Express Quad
Chairlift, which is the most important strategic lift in
dispersing skiers through the resort, is located in
Front Valley. Front Valley is also the main centre for
ski school operations at Perisher Blue.
6.2 Environmental Characteristics
The precinct is located predominantly on south-east-
facing slopes, at elevations between about 1720 and
1850 metres. The aspect is favourable for holding
snow, although the relatively low elevation means
that natural snow deposition is not as high as in most
of the resort and artificial snowmaking is of high
priority to ensure that the slopes are operational early
in the season. The area is generally well sheltered
from the prevailing north-westerly winds.
These slopes contain numerous small springs giving
rise to shallow watercourses and areas of high
groundwater level, the latter being commonly
associated with terraces. High groundwater levels
are present also in the flat valley along Perisher
Creek with the creek following a highly sinuous
channel in places.
The groundwater characteristics are a major factor
influencing the vegetation pattern of the area, which
has been heavily modified in places by past ski slope
development. Along the creek and for some distance
on either side, the area is naturally treeless due to
high groundwater and cold air drainage. On the
slopes, natural tree cover is scattered through areas
which are well drained, but is generally absent from
the wetter sites. In Front Valley, the tree cover,
groundwater characteristics and surface vegetation
have all been profoundly altered by slope grooming
over a long period.
The vegetation patterns are shown in detail in Figure
6.2. These reflect the topography, aspect and
groundwater characteristics of the area and are
mapped according to the vegetation classes
described in Appendix B.
Along the valley of Perisher Creek, where the
groundwater level is high and cold air drainage has a
strong influence on the microclimate, there is a
complex pattern of 'wet' communities including bog,
fen, wet grassland, transitional heath and wet heath.
In some places, close to the centre of the village,
these areas have been drained or otherwise
disturbed and, where not covered with buildings or
carparks, have been replaced with introduced
grasses.
The natural vegetation pattern of the slopes above
the valley is most evident at the Centre Valley end of
the precinct where the degree of disturbance is least.
The understorey generally consists of some form of
heath, with Phebalium-Prostanthera dominant, 'dense
and diverse' heath on the lower slopes and a more
open dry heath with areas of grassland on the upper
slopes. Wet heath (mainly Richea-dominated) tends
to occur in patches on terraces where there is a
localised high water table or along some of the
numerous minor watercourses on the slope.
Snowgums (E. pauciflora) occur in scattered stands
throughout the slopes, generally avoiding the wetter
areas. Some of these are climax stands or at least
consist of very mature trees. Their scattered
distribution is partly natural but also reflects past
clearing, which has not been extensive at the Centre
Valley end but has left few trees on the main slopes
of Front Valley.
The topography, groundwater and remnant
vegetation in the Front Valley area suggests an
original vegetation pattern similar to that in Centre
Valley, which tends to be steeper but has a similar
aspect. The Front Valley slopes have been
extensively modified by drainage works and slope
stabilisation with introduced grasses in order to
maximise their slope capacity for skiing. To this end,
most of the granodiorite boulders and outcrops have
been removed from Front Valley, but these still
remain in much of the Centre Valley area.
6-2 SSMP MAY 2002
In the lodge area north of Front Valley, much of the
original tree cover is still present with some mature
stands, and the natural heath cover similar to that in
Centre Valley still persists in a patchy distribution.
The development of lodges, roads, the Telemark T-
bar and other facilities over several decades,
however, has resulted in many patches of introduced
grasses and weeds.
The approximate percentage distribution within the
precinct of broad vegetation types as described in
Appendix B is as follows:
Snowgum woodland 8%
Dry heath/grassland communities 27%
Wet communities (wet heath, transitional
heath, bog etc.) 28%
Exotic ground cover 30%
Buildings, hard-standing areas 7%
The modification of Front Valley has reduced the
value of this area as fauna habitat. In particular, the
lack of heath and rock cover would inhibit small
mammal movement across the area, although
observations on the distribution of the Broad-toothed
Rat (Mastacomys fuscus) indicates that limited
movement still occurs (Ref. 13). While movements
across the slope of the precinct are inhibited, there
are alternative movement corridors outside the
precinct (e.g. in Pretty Valley).
Despite some disturbance in the centre of the village,
the valley along Perisher Creek also remains as a
potential corridor for those species that can tolerate
the wetter conditions. The valley also has habitat
value on a permanent or seasonal basis for
waterbirds, fish and amphibians.
The areas of highest ecological significance within
the precinct are of three types:
1. The valley bog wet grassland transitional
heath along the valley of Perisher Creek. The
continuity of this system has been interrupted in
the vicinity of the Perisher carpark by filling, creek
modification and exotic plant growth. It
neverthel ess functi ons as a conti nuous
hydrological system, which is prone to flooding,
particularly when heavy falls of spring rain hasten
snowmelt.
The plant communities along the valley contain a
number of uncommon species (e.g. Ranunculus
dissectifolius). Particularly where wet heath or
transitional heath cover is well developed, the
area is utilised by the Broad-toothed Rat (Ref. 2),
although it is likely to be too wet to provide
breeding habitat for this species.
The scattered fens along the valley have been
observed to be used by Latham's Snipe. There is
also potential Corroboree Frog habitat within the
area, but there are no recent records of this
species.
2. The complex of diverse heath and wet heath
communities on the less disturbed south-east to
east facing slopes. These areas appear to be
heavily utilised as summer habitat for the Broad-
toothed Rat and potentially for other small
mammals, and are best developed in the Centre
Valley area. The continuity of these areas has
been broken by a band of land, typically 300 to
350 metres wide, of intensively groomed ski
slopes in the Front Valley area. This may be
circumvented for animal movement by alternative
routes along the Perisher Creek Valley or through
the upper slopes of Pretty Valley. Some remnant
areas of diverse heath are still present among the
lodges north of Front Valley.
3. Climax or mature snowgum stands scattered
mainly throughout Centre Valley, along the top of
Front Valley and north of the Telemark T-bar.
Similar stands were probably once present in
Front Valley but have been removed in the course
of slope grooming. The stands are relatively small
and some are within or adjacent to the diverse
heath/wet heath area.
The wet heath/bog areas on the slopes of Centre
Valley are naturally continuous with those in the
valley, but have been partly disturbed ecologically as
a result of machinery movement and other activities
along the toe of the slope. While its hydrological
behaviour may not have been altered significantly,
this disturbed strip is rated as being of lower
ecological significance than the other areas.
No f eat ur es of speci al geol ogi cal or
geomorphological significance have been identified
within the precinct (Ref. 16).
Areas assessed as being of high archaeological
sensitivity (Ref. 14) are located along the ridge
forming the top of the Front Valley slopes and on a
low rise near Perisher Creek (see Figure 6.3). A site
containing twelve quartz artefacts (mainly flakes or
flake portions) has been recorded near the top of the
Lawson T-bar (Ref. 15) (see Figure 6.3). The
lowlying area along Perisher Creek is assessed as
having potential for deep subsurface archaeological
deposits (Ref. 14).
There are no permanent scientific sites within the
precinct.
6.3 Existing Developments and Operation
Front Valley is the 'gateway' to the ski slopes for most
Perisher Blue visitors, and accommodates the largest
section of the resort's Ski School. Immediately
adjacent in Centre Valley is the bottom station of the
Perisher Express Quad Chairlift, which is the most
SSMP MAY 2002 6-3
important strategic lift in dispersing skiers throughout
the resort.
Front Valley is one of the most intensively developed
parts of the resort in terms of tree clearing, slope
drainage and lift construction. Because of its central
location and its strategic importance in the overall
operation of the resort, it has received high priority in
the devel opment of snowmaki ng faci l i ti es.
Snowmaking opportunities are favourable in this area
because of the protection from wind and sun offered
by the south-easterly aspect, and the intensively
groomed slopes. It is common to have Front Valley
operating for skiing on artificial snow before there is
enough natural snow in other higher parts of the
resort. Front Valley is also used for night skiing
under lights on selected nights of the week.
Centre Valley has an excellent variety of terrain,
ranging from advanced to low intermediate. It is less
intensively developed than Front Valley but is still a
popular area with high development potential
because of its proximity to the village. On days of
high visitation, advanced skiers, in particular, often
use the trails associated with Leichhardt and Lawson
T-bars. In addition, the proximity of advanced terrain
to the base area at the Perisher Centre, results in
that terrain being heavily used for one hour private
ski school lessons. On days of high wind and/or poor
visibility Centre Valley is heavily used because of its
proximity to the village. Under such adverse
conditions the visibility of trees and rocks helps to
define the trails and makes poor weather skiing a
more enjoyable experience.
Despite some slope grooming, Centre Valley still
retains a high component of natural vegetation and is
likely to be important ecologically as a broad wildlife
movement corridor in both summer and winter,
linking habitat in the North Perisher Pretty Valley
area with that on the lower slopes of Mount Perisher.
Because of the popularity of Centre Valley, there is a
need to increase its capacity through additional
summer and winter grooming. This, however, should
be achieved in a way which does not detract
significantly from its likely value as a wildlife
movement corridor.
Development of the Perisher Valley Precinct has
taken place incrementally over many years. Much of
the lift infrastructure is due for replacement or
upgrading in order to meet the expectation of skiers
as it nears the end of its economic life. The large
number of T-bars in Front Valley break up the slope,
significantly reducing the area of skiable terrain in
one of the most intensively used parts of the resort.
More efficient use could be made of the slope by
replacing selected T-bars with a high capacity
chairlift.
The slopes of Front Valley and Centre Valley become
very congested on days of high wind and/or poor
visibility because of the sheltered skiing they offer
close to the village. The base of Front Valley,
particularly the resort's major milling area outside the
Perisher Centre, is very congested even on the
quieter days due to the large number of people in a
heavily restricted area of flatter terrain. This is
exacerbated by the current operation of the Ski
School in this area, particularly for beginner classes.
The Ski School principally operates from outside the
Perisher Centre and provides every Ski School
program and service from that point. Group lessons,
private lessons, special programs and childrens
programs are all conducted from the Centre and
commence and finish at the base of Front Valley.
Programs for 3 to 5 year-old children are conducted
exclusively on Front Valley. On peak days up to 900
people participate in Ski School programs based at
Front Valley. This milling occurs twice a day.
The north-eastern end of Front Valley also contains a
halfpipe, which is formed from artificial snow, and an
aerial jump site. It is also the events area for the Wild
Winter Weekend Splash for Cash and other Big Air
competitions.
As in Front Valley, the surface lifts in Centre Valley
constrain the amount of skiable terrain. In addition,
the level of use of the area as a whole is well below
its full potential, partly because of the limited summer
grooming that has taken place to date. Its
environmental characteristics, however, make further
major grooming difficult without conflicting with its
likely value as a wildlife movement corridor.
A high water table poses problems particularly at the
bottom of the slope, where it is necessary to have a
reliable summer access track to the bottom stations
of the Centre Valley lifts for maintenance. This track
functions also as an oversnow route in winter.
Most of the existing lifts in Centre Valley have
specific problems with respect to their operation. The
Leichhardt T-bar lift track is difficult to groom and can
be difficult to ride. The lift drive is diesel-powered
which is environmentally undesirable because of
noise, fumes and the risk of spillages. The bottom
station of the lift is located in a wet area.
Leichhardt T-bar serves as the principal egress lift
from Mount Perisher back to Front Valley. On peak
days, queues of more than 30 minutes can be
experienced. Its significant over-capacity use is
compounded by a high percentage of snowboarders
since the lift accesses the terrain park. Many
snowboarders ride the T-bar as a single and,
because of its steepness, many fall off causing
greater delays, congestion, over-capacity use and,
occasionally, injuries.
The Lawson T-bar is old and also has grooming
problems along its track. Its bottom station is in a wet
6-4 SSMP MAY 2002
area which loses snow rapidly. The T-bar track and
towers are located in the best natural fall-line skiing
section of this part of Centre Valley, i.e. within natural
clearings between rocks and trees, thus reducing the
trail capacity of the area.
The alignment of the Home Rope Tow is poor. The
track is in a wet area and it occupies terrain that
could otherwise be used for repeat skiing. Its
alignment also makes it difficult to use as it has a
camber across the track. The thin wire rope and its
length also make the tow difficult to ride. Its unload
area is too small, being constrained by trees, and is
too low on the slope requiring skiers, to skate or push
themselves some distance to the Lawson T-bar.
The Blaxland and Wentworth duplex is too steep at
the top, and the tracks are crossed by skier traffic
returning via the Goats Gully area to the Perisher
Centre. At present the fall line of Goats Gully is
heavily compromised by several traverse tracks
formed by lower level skiers trying to access Front
Valley. Consequently, it is an area of high
congestion with an attendant high collision rate. The
crossing of the duplex by the Perisher Express
Chairlift constrains the options for upgrading the
duplex as well as complicating evacuation
procedures. The Wentworth T-bar is diesel-powered
which is undesirable for environmental reasons.
Congestion is a local problem at the bottom of the
Perisher Express where the queue at peak periods
conflicts with the load area and queue for the Sturt T-
bar. Other problems with the operation of the
Perisher Express relate mainly to its top section, and
are discussed in relation to the Back Perisher
precinct. In terms of its value in providing repeat
skiing in the Perisher Valley precinct, this would be
enhanced through the ability to run chairs on the
lower half of the lift only in high wind situations.
At the north-eastern end of the precinct, the Telemark
T-bar experiences a significant over-capacity problem
at the end of the day, with long queues of up to 45
minutes, when skiers use it to return from North
Perisher, Interceptor, Pleasant Valley (egressing Blue
Cow) and Pretty Valley to Front Valley. The bottom
station has problems with snowholding, being located
in sensitive terrain with a high water table close to the
creek. Access across Murphy's Crossing to the Piper
T-bar at the bottom of the Telemark T-bar is difficult
due to the low elevation of the bridge across Perisher
Creek.
The top of the lift is close to the Mitchell T-bar,
presenting milling area congestion, as well as
requiring skiers to cross the Mitchell T-bar lift line,
presenting safety concerns with a high potential for
collision. The route from the top of Telemark is not
suitable for beginners, being too steep and variable,
and is further constrained by the position of Cronulla
Lodge.
There is a serious conflict between the Telemark T-
bar and the oversnow routes which cross the lift line
near the top and near the bottom. This is highly
undesirable. Vehicle and skier traffic need to be
separated. At certain times during the season, four-
wheel-drive vehicles may use the routes, which are
also summer access roads. Skier and oversnow
traffic conflicts occur also near Orana Ski Lodge,
where there have been collisions between vehicles
and skiers returning from Pretty Valley.
The Sundeck Hill Road, which currently is a summer
access road as well as the oversnow route in winter,
traverses the north-eastern end of Front Valley. In
winter this area is used for a dedicated children's ski
school area (which covers part of the summer road)
as well as the halfpipe and events area. The dirt
road creates increased snow melt problems and the
oversnow route creates skier, pedestrian and
vehicular conflicts, seriously detracting from skiing
activities in this high use area and raising significant
risk management issues.
The current use of Precinct 1 for skiing and the extent
of winter grooming are indicated in Figure 6.4. The
skiing capacity of Precinct 1 in terms of both lift
capacity and slope capacity is summarised in Table
6.1 in relation to the pods identified in Figure 6.4. In
all parts of the precinct, with the exception of the
children's ski area (Pod 2), the existing slope capacity
is generally well in excess of lift capacity. In other
words, there is potential for upgrading the lift system
without congesting the slopes to an unacceptable
level.
The current slope capacity per unit area of pod is
relatively low for the slopes associated with the
Lawson and Leichhardt T-bars. This reflects the fact
that relatively little of these areas is currently
groomed in winter because of minor slope constraints
(e.g. rocks, saplings). The lower slopes of Pod
Sectors 4B and 5A between the Blaxland
Wentworth duplex T-bars and the Lawson T-bar can
be groomed under good snow conditions but not at
other times because of the presence of rocks.
Limited summer grooming of parts of Centre Valley
would enable more extensive winter grooming and
increase its slope capacity significantly with relatively
little physical or ecological disturbance.
The one part of the slope which, on the basis of
Table 6.1, appears to have lift capacity in excess of
slope capacity, is the children's ski area. There are
several beginner lifts here, but most of these are
used intermittently according to demand, which
depends on the nature of Junior Ski School classes
which are in progress at any one time. In practice,
not all lifts would normally be in active use at the
same time, hence the full lift capacity is not utilised.
The potential problem of overcrowding on the slope,
however, emphasises the need for a more extensive
and better located Learn to Ski Centre at Perisher.
SSMP MAY 2002 6-5
Table 6.1 Precinct 1 existing skiing capacity
Slope Lift capacity Slope capacity
Pod
area (ha)
Lift SAOT Pod sector SAOT Notes
1 5.3 Telemark T-bar 87 1A 253
1B 21
1C 66
Total 87 340
2 0.5 Tom Thumb J-bar 42 2A 62 a
Rope tows/skier conveyor 90
Total 132 62
3 11.7 Mitchell T-bar 149 3A 874
Bass T-bar 129 3B 19
Flinders T-bar 133 3C 13
Sturt T-bar 115
Total 526 906
4 12.3 Perisher Express Quad chair 440 4A 205 b
below midstation 4B 152
Blaxland T-bar 119 4C 15
Wentworth T-bar 119 4D 301
Total 678 673
5 7.6 Lawson T-bar 127 5A 64
5B 107
5C 25
Total 127 196
6 13.4 Leichhardt T-bar 185 6A 40
6B 68
6C 74
6D 22
6E 53
6F 183
Total 185 440
Total Precinct 1 1735 2617
Notes
a. The lift capacity estimates for the rope tows and skier conveyor are nominal only. These lifts operate on demand,
according to classes currently in progress in the Children's Ski Area, and would generally not all be in use
simultaneously.
b. Part of the area used for repeat skiing based on the lower part of the Perisher Express Quad Chairlift is located in
Precinct 2, but is included in Precinct 1 for purposes of slope capacity analysis. The total capacity of this lift for
repeat skiing has been estimated to be 880 SAOT. This has been distributed arbitrarily between Precincts 1 and 2
on an equal basis, i.e. 440 SAOT below midstation. In practice, the capacity would be lower because of use of the
lift for circulation, although this effect would probably be most significant early in the day before the peak demand
for repeat skiing is reached.
The main issues associated with the Perisher Valley
Precinct are as follows:
The replacement of lifts to increase their total
capacity, reduce constraints on slope use for
skiing and improve the technology in both
functional and environmental terms, while still
maintaining an acceptable degree of service in
high wind situations.
The need to extend snowmaking, particularly to
make more efficient use of the high capacity
Perisher Express Quad Chairlift and potentially
other high capacity lifts which are proposed to be
installed progressively.
The extent to which additional summer grooming,
including slope drainage, should be undertaken,
particularly in Centre Valley to enable this
strategically located area to increase its potential
for repeat skiing, while still maintaining its likely
role as a wildlife movement corridor.
Improvement of the capacity of the Telemark lift,
of snow retention on trails leading to the lift, and of
the ease of skiing the associated trails, as well as
reduction of conflicts with vehicles.
6-6 SSMP MAY 2002
Improvement of the north-eastern end of Front
Valley to optimise its use for skiing and to reduce
pedestrian/skier and vehicle conflicts.
The most efficient use of the limited area at the
base of the slopes of Front Valley, particularly in
the context of the future operation of the Ski
School.
The need for a summer access track and an
oversnow route along the bottom of the slopes
through Centre Valley to Leichhardt Lift while
maintaining the hydrological regime of this area.
6.4 Future Development Proposals
(see Figure 6.5)
6.4.1 Lift upgrading Front Valley and Centre
Valley
In order to achieve more efficient use in Front Valley
and Centre Valley, major upgrading of lifts is
proposed throughout the area. The highest priority is
on the slopes of Front Valley, where it is proposed to
replace the Bass Flinders duplex T-bar with an
eight-seater detachable chairlift. This lift will be
particularly important to provide a better balance
between lift capacity and slope capacity within this
broad, intensively groomed area which has first
priority for early season snowmaking. The slope
capacity would be increased by removing the
constraint of the duplex T-bar from the skiable terrain.
Being located within an existing lift track, the
environmental impacts of this lift would be minor
except possibly at the top station where some
additional clearing of trees, heath and rocks would be
required in order to locate the drive station and
parking bay for detached chairs. The bottom station
would occupy the flat area downhill of the existing
bottom station of the duplex. This area is currently
used as the main teaching area for beginner Ski
School classes, reinforcing the need for them to be
based in a more suitable location.
The Lawson T-bar is intended to be replaced with a
fixed grip quad chairlift, which would be located
further to the north to open up the good skiing terrain
along the current T-bar route. This additional terrain
would increase the slope capacity but, to take full
advantage of the increased capacity of the new lift, it
would be desirable to undertake further summer and
winter grooming, as discussed in Section 6.4.3. The
relocation of the lift would necessitate some tree
removal but it would generally be unnecessary to
disturb the heath understorey along the new
alignment for either the lift or associated summer
grooming.
Once these new chairlifts are constructed, this will
increase the total lift capacity to a point where the
Blaxland and Wentworth T-bars would no longer be
necessary. These would be removed to provide
additional slope capacity throughout their existing
routes, and reduce the specific conflict on the steeper
slopes of Goats Gully below the top station of the
duplex. It would also eliminate the potential
operational problems associated with having the
Perisher Express Quad Chairlift crossing the duplex
T-bar.
The Leichhardt T-bar is intended to be replaced with
a fixed grip quad chairlift, in this case following the
existing T-bar route. The substantial increase in lift
capacity would not only benefit repeat skiers and
provide easier access for snowboarders using the
terrain park, but will also significantly improve the
main egress route from Mount Perisher (Precinct 3)
back to Front Valley. Because the chairlift would
follow the existing T-bar route, the environmental
disturbance would be minor, and there may be
potential for some regeneration of heath across the
currently groomed lift track.
The Home Rope Tow is intended to be relocated to
the east and upgraded to a T-bar to make it easier to
ride. It would have less crossfall than the existing
rope tow track and a more open, higher unload point,
providing better milling space and transition to the
Lawson Chairlift area. The relocation would open up
additional skiing terrain on the lower slopes served by
the Leichhardt lift. Its new location would be in an
area which is less sensitive environmentally and free
of existing trees.
The lift upgrading would leave the main repeat skiing
area of Front Valley and Centre Valley with three
chairlifts (one eight-seater and two quads) and three
T-bars, Sturt and Mitchell plus the Home T-bar, which
would be used primarily for access rather than repeat
skiing. This compares with the present situation of
eight T-bars. These figures do not include the
Perisher Express Quad Chairlift. It is possible that,
once the eight-seater chairlift has been installed and
its operation monitored over time, at least one of the
remaining Front Valley surface lifts, Sturt T-bar,
would be removed, thus further increasing the slope
capacity slightly.
It is also possible that the other surface lift, Mitchell
T-bar, would be removed, but, in any case, it is
intended to lower the elevation of the top station and
bullwheel of Mitchell T-bar to a point below the
unload platform of the proposed Telemark Quad
Chairlift. This will reduce conflict between skiers
moving off the chairlift downhill into Front Valley with
those riding the Mitchell T-bar uphill. The unload
stations of both Mitchell T-bar and the Telemark
Chairlift will be high enough to service existing
lodges.
It is proposed to install a dedicated surface lift
between the aerial jump site and the halfpipe to serve
both these facilities, replacing the existing rope tow.
SSMP MAY 2002 6-7
With the relocation of the children's ski school to the
proposed Learn to Ski Centre at the base of Mount
Piper, the Tom Thumb platter lift, skier conveyor and
the rope tows would be removed from Front Valley.
6.4.2 Extension of snowmaking
Front Valley has the highest priority for snowmaking
within the resort. In order to make more efficient use
of the existing snowmaking, it is proposed to extend
this up a broad corridor along the Perisher Express
Quad Chairlift, initially to the midstation (within
Precinct 2), thus enabling use of this high capacity lift
in association with early season snowmaking.
In order to enable less experienced skiers to return to
Front Valley along a route which is not too difficult for
them, snowmaking would also be provided along the
Bullwheel Run at the same time.
Following the installation of the Front Valley eight-
seater chairlift, which would also greatly enhance the
efficiency of use of snowmaking, the constraint on
skier movement resulting from the existing duplex
would no longer exist and it would be desirable to
review the hydrant layout in Front Valley and the
events area to optimise snowmaking on these slopes.
The Front Valley snowmaking would also be
extended along the lower section of the Sundeck
Road to link with that at the Learn to Ski Centre at the
base of Mount Piper (Precinct 6).
Other new snowmaking areas proposed within
Precinct 1 would be associated with the proposed
Leichhardt Quad Chairlift and with access from Pretty
Valley. The former would run from the top of the lift
down the eastern edge of Happy Valley and back to
the base of both lifts via the Crossroads. As well as
opening this area to repeat skiing on artificial snow,
this snowmaking would be important also for skier
circulation to and from snowmaking areas in Happy
Valley and on Mount Perisher. As snowmaking
would not be provided along the Leichhardt liftline,
this snowmaking area would not be functional for
repeat skiing until the lift was upgraded from a T-bar
to a chairlift.
The snowmaking from Pretty Valley would follow the
ski trail back to the base of Telemark. This would be
integrated in part with the proposed snowmaking fill
line to Smiggin Holes reservoir (see below).
The Perisher snowmaking building will continue to
have a central function for snowmaking throughout
the Perisher area and would be enlarged to
accommodate additional compressors, pumps and
other equipment serving the extended snowmaking
system in this part of the resort. A new fill main,
originating from the Pipers Creek Aqueduct, would be
laid, following a route up the slope from Orana
Lodge. A trunk main would be installed from the
building to the Perisher Express midstation (in
Precinct 2), where a booster pump station to serve
the upper Perisher slopes would be located. The
existing snowmaking system based on pumping
water from Perisher Creek would continue to operate,
subject to sufficient environmental flows being
maintained in the creek, which would be subject to
real-time monitoring.
A section of the fill line to Smiggin Holes reservoir,
and the local snowmaking main from Pretty Valley to
Telemark and Piper T-bars would also be located
within the precinct. A new 11 kV underground
electricity cable between the Perisher Zone
Substation and the Perisher snowmaking building
would be laid up the Front Valley slopes.
6.4.3 Extent of summer grooming
From an operational viewpoint, its proximity to the
base area, its sheltered location and its consequent
popularity with skiers of a wide range of abilities all
make maximising the skiing opportunities in Precinct
1 a key objective. From an environmental
perspective, however, the extensive disturbance that
has taken place in the past in Front Valley and the
base area increases the importance of maintaining
ecological processes within the majority of the
remaining less disturbed area, particularly Centre
Valley, which has been identified as a likely wildlife
movement corridor of some importance.
There are three pods identified in the Centre Valley
area (see Table 6.1 and Figure 6.4). At present the
slope capacity of Pod 4 is in balance with the lift
capacity. Following the removal of the Blaxland
Wentworth duplex T-bars which constrain skier
movement, the slope capacity would be increased
slightly while the lift capacity would be reduced. This
would leave this pod with a slope capacity of about
1.5 times its lift capacity.
The upgrading of the Lawson T-bar to a quad chairlift
would increase the lift capacity of Pod 5 to well above
the existing slope capacity which would be increased,
but only slightly, due to removal of the surface lift.
Increased slope capacity in this pod is therefore
desirable.
An effective way of achieving increased capacity
without significant environmental impact is to winter-
groom a larger proportion of the slopes. To be able
to do this, without risk of damage to grooming
machines and, at the same time increasing skier
safety, would require the removal of some scattered
trees and rocks within the groomed areas. This could
be achieved without significantly affecting the heath,
which is important as summer habitat for
Mast acomys and for protected small animal
movement in general. Such summer and winter
grooming of about 60 percent of Pod Sector 5B
would increase the slope capacity of Pod 5 to about
6-8 SSMP MAY 2002
57 SAOT, which would still be well below the
proposed lift capacity.
Additional grooming, which would involve an
increased amount of tree removal, could increase the
slope capacity further. An alternative approach,
which is preferred, is to locate the top station of the
Lawson Quad Chairlift further north than the existing
T-bar top station with a view to encouraging skiers to
ski to the left into the area currently utilised by the
Blaxland Wentworth duplex (particularly Pod sector
4B). If this sector is effectively transferred to Pod 5,
this would increase the capacity of Pod 5 to about
574 SAOT which, within the limits of accuracy of this
assessment, would bring lift capacity and slope
capacity into balance for that pod, and still leave Pod
4 with a slope capacity of 550, which is 25 percent
above its assessed lift capacity.
The upgrading of the Leichhardt T-bar to a quad chair
would significantly increase lift capacity in Pod 6, and
slightly increase slope capacity due to removal of the
surface lift. These effects would leave slope capacity
at about 80 percent of lift capacity, but additional
slope capacity could again be achieved by increasing
the area of winter grooming, which in turn would
entail some selective tree and rock removal to permit
the safe use of grooming machines. With such
grooming in parts of Sectors 6A and 6C, plus
extension of Sector 6A to the south (as Sector 6G)
due to relocation of the Home rope-tow and
upgrading to a T-bar, the total slope capacity could
be increased to a level which is approximately in
balance with the lift capacity.
The slope grooming proposed in Centre Valley would
involve relatively little disturbance compared with that
which has been undertaken previously in this
precinct, and represents the minimum level of
grooming required for the lift and trail system to
operate in balance in this part of the resort. It is also
the only location in the precinct where summer
grooming would be undertaken specifically with a
view to increasing slope capacity. While some
grooming is proposed in other locations, this is
primarily for safety reasons. This includes some
removal of rocks adjacent to Mitchell T-bar. Further
earthworks are required on or adjacent to the aerial
jump site, which requires modification of the transition
slope and runout slope in order to meet FIS
homologation standards.
Some further summer grooming may also be required
in relation to proposed snowmaking, for example,
minor widening of the Bullwheel Run. The lower part
of the proposed Leichhardt snowmaking trail passes
through a heath area of high habitat value. While
grooming to a high standard would be desirable from
the viewpoint of preparing the trail for snowmaking,
because of the habitat importance of this area, it is
proposed instead to manage this area by retaining
the heath and increasing the depth of artificial snow.
While proposed slope grooming and other works
would have a minor impact on some of the remnant
vegetation within the precinct, it is proposed to offset
this by encouraging natural regeneration or
undertaking active rehabilitation in selected areas
where this does not conflict unduly with operational
objectives. It is proposed to investigate the scope for
undertaking rehabilitation of heath communities in
selected locations to strengthen the wildlife
movement corridor through the precinct. Such
locations could include the top of the Blaxland
Wentworth duplex T-bar, the lower part of Goats
Gully and sections of the Lawson and Leichhardt T-
bar tracks. In the case of the T-bar tracks, these lifts
would need to be replaced with the proposed
chairlifts before this work could be undertaken.
There may also be scope for re-establishing
protected movement routes in selected locations
across the cleared slopes of Front Valley, for
example, by establishing low heath along cross-
drains or at breaks in slope, or by installing rock
tunnels. These measures will be subject to further
investigation with respect to their potential ecological
effectiveness and the ability to incorporate them
without unduly conflicting with the skiing value of the
area and, in particular, compromising skier safety.
For the majority of Front Valley, the long-term
rehabilitation plan is to promote the growth of native
grasses and forbs through encouragement of natural
regeneration and selective seeding or planting.
6.4.4 Telemark lift capacity and vehicle conflict
It is proposed to upgrade the Telemark T-bar to a
fixed quad chairlift primarily to increase its capacity
as a circulation lift in bringing skiers to Front Valley
from Smiggin Holes, Pretty Valley, North Perisher
and lodges in that area. The lift capacity of the
Telemark slope (Pod 1) would be increased to 562
SAOT which is well above the slope capacity, and
which would increase slightly from 340 to 403 due to
the removal of the surface lift. It is not proposed,
however, to increase the slope capacity by further
grooming. Indeed, it is not practicable to match the
lift capacity, nor is it necessary as much of the use of
the lift would be for circulation, not for repeat skiing.
To make the lift work safely and efficiently with the
increased numbers, it is necessary to move the top
station so that alighting skiers would not cross the lift
track of Mitchell T-bar. This would necessitate:
locating the top station of the new chairlift on the
crest of the spur where the top station of Mitchell
T-bar is currently located;
locating the lift line on the northern side of
Cronulla Lodge; and
shortening the Mitchell T-bar by moving its top
station down the slope towards the snowmaking
building.
SSMP MAY 2002 6-9
The other existing problem with Telemark T-bar is the
conflict with winter vehicle movement, which occurs
at the two points where the T-bar crosses roads.
Conflict at the upper crossing in particular would be
reduced by the change from a surface lift to an aerial
lift. To eliminate the conflict at the bottom of the lift, it
is proposed to realign the lower summer access road
to North Perisher and Blue Cow, which doubles as an
oversnow route in winter. At the end of the current
concrete surfaced section, the road would turn uphill,
passing Telemark Lodge to link up with the existing
access road serving Illabunda Lodge. That road
would then join the existing Sundeck Hill summer
access road and oversnow route.
These roads also conflict with the movement of skiers
travelling downhill to return to the base of the
Telemark lift or to travel through to the Mount Piper
T-bar. The proposed road realignment would remove
altogether the most critical current skier/vehicular
conflict area near the base of the Telemark T-bar and
Murphy's Crossing. Skier/vehicular conflict would still
continue on the upper road/oversnow route, however,
this conflict being generally in the area where it
currently occurs, i.e. between Kandahar Lodge and
Cronulla Lodge. Nonetheless, better controls can be
implemented which, together with the aerial lift, would
greatly reduce the problem.
Another major area of vehicle-skier conflict is near
Orana Lodge, where skiers return to the base of
Telemark from Pretty Valley. With the road/oversnow
route realignment, all vehicles would cross this ski
trail near Fjellheim Lodge. Sightlines for both skiers
and vehicle drivers are much better on this upper
route which, together with mandatory stopping and
skier chicanes, would reduce potential conflicts.
Should the lower road realignment not occur, it would
be necessary to remove rocks and trees adjacent to
Orana Lodge as well as widening the lower road at
that section.
Problems of snow loss due to wet areas between
Orana Lodge and the bottom of Telemark would be
addressed by the installation of additional snow
fences to accumulate a greater depth of snow. This
is considered preferable for environmental reasons to
the alternative of undertaking drainage works in this
area.
To overcome the problems that the low elevation of
the bridge at Murphy's Crossing between the
Telemark and Piper lifts currently presents, a new
bridge is proposed across Perisher Creek at this
location. This bridge would be wider and longer than
the existing one, its anchor points being on higher
ground, in order to ensure satisfactory transition
between the lifts.
To improve the snow holding capability of the area
near the base of Telemark, which suffers from water
accumulation, it is proposed to carry out drainage
works. The summer slope grooming here would also
require some heath and rock removal.
To improve access along other parts of the route
back to Telemark from Pretty Valley, it is proposed to:
raise the bridge over Pretty Valley Creek (in
Precinct 2, see Section 7.4.5);
widen the trail from the bridge to the high summer
road/oversnow route, especially near the route to
increase sightlines for both skiers and vehicle
drivers; and
improve the drainage along the section from near
Orana Lodge to the base of Telemark, following
re-routing of the summer road.
6.4.5 Use of children's and events area
The planning for the Ski School involves the removal
of the children's ski area to the new Learn to Ski
Centre at the base of Mount Piper (see Section
11.4.1), leaving this area free for other purposes.
These include improving access into Front Valley via
a proposed access chairlift from the base area near
the Learn to Ski Centre as well as via direct
movement from the lodges north of and uphill of this
area.
The main future role of this part of the slope,
however, is for staging events which attract
spectators. Such events which are currently
conducted regularly include:
snowboarding competitions using the halfpipe;
freestyle skiing and snowboard jump competitions
using the aerial site; and
the annual 'Splash for Cash' event, which requires
digging a large pit or hole in the snow by machine,
lining it and filling it with water.
Factors which make this site particularly suitable for
such events include the following:
It is very accessible to the base area, making it
relatively easy to get spectators (including non-
skiers), officials, media and equipment to the site
without conflicting with the main skier circulation
system.
It is accessible by oversnow vehicle without
conflicting significantly with ski slopes.
Being at the edge of a skiing area, it does not split
the recreational ski slope or create conflicts with
recreational repeat skiing.
The area already has snowmaking, which is
essential for building some of the event facilities
such as the halfpipe and the 'Splash for Cash'
pool.
6-10 SSMP MAY 2002
It is relatively well sheltered, enabling events to be
staged safely under most weather conditions.
It is very accessible to the existing media centre,
improving broadcasting and other reporting of
events, and to food and beverages, as well as
toilet facilities in the Perisher Centre for
spectators, competitors, media and others.
To improve the role of this area for events, the
following changes are proposed:
It is highly desirable to eliminate through traffic in
both winter and summer, by closing the section of
the Sundeck Hill Road downhill of Celmisia
Cottage. Summer access would still need to be
provided to the volunteer ski patrol headquarters
as well as the All Denomination Church. This
could be achieved from either the lower part of the
existing road where the entry point to those
buildings would be relocated, or from a turning
circle near Celmisia Cottage and Ku-ring-gai
Lodge. Access to the Sundeck Hotel and the
other buildings which currently use this road would
be provided via the relocated road and oversnow
route near the Telemark lift, described in Section
6.4.4.
The aerial jump site would require additional
earthworks in order to have it homologated by the
FIS. This might be achieved by dragging soil off
the landing zone and filling the slope of the run-in.
A new high speed surface lift (T-bar) would be
installed between the jump site and the existing
half pipe. This would generally be used only
during competitions.
In order to supply the snow required for building
the halfpipe and 'Splash for Cash' pool, as well as
to maintain the area generally, snowmaking to the
area would be extended.
All of the above facilities (aerial site, surface lift,
halfpipe, and 'Splash' site) would be located so as not
to interfere with the unload point of the access chair
from the Learn to Ski Centre at the base of Mount
Piper.
One limitation of the halfpipe in this location is that
the gradient of the slope is not steep enough to
satisfy FIS homologation requirements without
undertaking major earthworks (Ref. 17). While the
halfpipe will be adequate for local competitions and
recreational use, it is proposed in the long term to
develop a further halfpipe which would meet FIS
homologation requirements. One of the sites under
consideration for this is adjacent to the Mitchell T-bar,
where the gradient is steeper. This site would be
suitable in terms of all of the factors for event
locations listed above. It would slightly reduce the
slope capacity of Front Valley for general skiing and
snowboarding, but not to the point of making it out of
balance with lift capacity.
6.4.6 Front Valley operation in general
Front Valley is the most heavily congested area of
the ski slopes by virtue of its key strategic location.
While the size of the bottom station of the proposed
eight-seater detachable chairlift would be kept to a
minimum by locating the drive station and chair
parking at the top of the lift, this lift would still reduce
the available space at the bottom of Front Valley,
although the congestion will be partly offset by
reduced queue lengths under most conditions.
It is desirable, however, to take all practicable
measures to remove sources of congestion from the
base of Front Valley. This includes relocation of the
Ski School to the base of Mount Piper (in Precinct 6)
with beginner instruction in the Learn to Ski Centre
on the southern slopes of Mount Piper (see Section
11.4.1). Location of the beginner instruction area is
essential because the flat area which is currently
used for this purpose would be occupied by the base
station and queueing area for the eight-seater
chairlift.
Intermediate and advanced Ski School classes also
use the base of Front Valley as a meeting place, but
this is less of a congestion problem as they disperse
to other parts of the slopes for their lessons.
Because they require ready access to the main lifts at
the start of their lessons, they would continue to meet
in Front Valley.
For skiers and instructors who need to move between
Front Valley and the Ski School at Mount Piper, there
would be direct access to Front Valley via a new
access quad chairlift, which would have its top station
near the bullwheel of the existing Tom Thumb Poma,
but further to the north. From Front Valley they would
return by skiing down the bottom section of the
Sundeck Hill Road, with snowmaking being extended
along this route to enable this movement during early
season low snow conditions.
6.4.7 Summer access to Centre Valley
Reliable summer access to the bottom stations of the
proposed Lawson and Leichhardt quad chairlifts will
be essential, initially for construction of these lifts and
then for ongoing maintenance. There is an existing
summer access track which crosses a poorly drained
area at the base of the slopes, but this requires
upgrading to be serviceable on a long-term basis. To
avoid the need for subsurface drainage works, which
could affect the local hydrology and vegetation
beyond the immediate area of the track, it is
proposed to utilise a form of track construction which
will allow vehicle passage while still maintaining the
natural groundwater regime (see Appendix A, Section
7.2).
While there are alternative routes to the base of the
Centre Valley lifts, these would also involve crossing
SSMP MAY 2002 6-11
poorly drained areas, generally with a lower degree
of past disturbance, and would be less desirable in
environmental terms.
The summer access road would also provide the
basis for a winter oversnow route.
6.4.8 Other proposals
Other proposals for Precinct 1 include the following:
Relocation of Front Valley lift workshop. It is
proposed to relocate the Front Valley lift workshop,
currently located in the basement of the Perisher
Centre, to the top station of the proposed Front
Valley eight-seater chairlift. This would free up space
in the Perisher Centre which will become increasingly
necessary as the village centre develops, and would
locate the workshop where it has good access to the
ski slopes.
Relocation of Centre Valley lift workshop. The
Centre Valley workshop, which is currently located in
a small, substandard building on the Centre Valley
slopes, would be relocated to the base of the
Perisher Express Quad Chairlift and incorporated into
the bottom station building.
Services to Centre Valley kiosk. Upgrading of
electricity, water supply, sewerage and telephone will
be required to Centre Valley kiosk from the village
systems.
Minor slope grooming. Other minor slope grooming
works are likely to be required from time to time but
have not been identified specifically at the current
level of planning.
6.4.9 Summary of proposals
The development proposed to be undertaken in
Precinct 1 are summarised in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2 Summary of proposed developments in Precinct 1
Project
no.
Proposed works
1.1 Front Valley eight-seater detachable chairlift and
removal of Bass Flinders duplex T-bars
1.2 Lawson Quad Chairlift and removal of Lawson T-bar
1.3 Replacement of Leichhardt T-bar with a quad
chairlift
1.4 Removal of Blaxland and Wentworth duplex T-bars
1.5 Relocation of Home Rope tow and upgrading to a T-
bar
1.6 Shortening of Mitchell T-bar
1.7 Removal of childrens ski school lifts
1.8 Events area T-bar
1.9 Telemark Quad Chairlift and removal of Telemark T-
bar
1.10 Extension of snowmaking to Perisher Express
midstation including Bullwheel Run (partly Precinct
2)
1.11 Review of hydrant layout in Front Valley and events
area
1.12 Extension of snowmaking along lower Sundeck
Road to Learn to Ski Centre
1.13 Snowmaking associated with proposed Leichhardt
Quad Chairlift
1.14 Snowmaking from Pretty Valley to Telemark
1.15 Extension of snowmaking building
1.16 New snowmaking fill line to Perisher and Smiggin
Holes
Project
no.
Proposed works
1.17 11 kV electricity supply to snowmaking building
1.18 Centre Valley slope grooming tree and rock
removal
1.19 Rock removal adjacent to Mitchell T-bar
1.20 Natural regeneration or selective rehabilitation of ski
slopes
1.21 Relocation of summer access road near Telemark
Lodge and closure of Sundeck Hill Road
1.22 Raising of bridge at Murphys Crossing
1.23 Drainage works near base of Telemark lift
1.24 Additional snow fence between Orana Lodge and
Telemark lift
1.25 New access quad chairlift from Learn to Ski Centre
to Front Valley
1.26 Homologation of aerial jump site
1.27 Possible future halfpipe adjacent to Mitchell T-bar
1.28 Relocation of Ski School from Front Valley to Mount
Piper
1.29 Summer access track to Centre Valley
1.30 Relocation of Front Valley lift workshop to top
station of Front Valley eight-seater chairlift
1.31 Relocation of Centre Valley lift workshop to Perisher
Express bottom station
1.32 Services to Centre Valley kiosk
1.33 Minor slope grooming (as required, details to be
determined)
6-12 SSMP MAY 2002
6.5 Operational Evaluation
6.5.1 Skiing capacity
The existing and proposed skiing capacities of
Precinct 1 under optimum conditions are compared
by pods in Table 6.3, taking account of modifications
to the existing pod structure. The total lift capacity of
the precinct would be almost doubled, although the
slope capacity would be increased by only 21
percent. This would leave the total lift capacity of the
precinct slightly above the slope capacity, although
this excess lift capacity is due primarily to the
upgrading of the Telemark lift to increase skier
circulation to Front Valley. In all the other pods, lift
capacity and slope capacity would be approximately
in balance under optimum conditions.
The future skiing capacities under other operating
conditions is summarised in Table 6.4. With the full
proposed extension of snowmaking in the precinct,
the combined lift capacity in the Front Valley
Perisher Express area (Pods 3 and 4) would be
slightly in excess of slope capacity when the resort
was operating solely on artificial snow. In Pod 6
under these conditions slope capacity would be much
less than lift capacity due to the relatively narrow
corridor of artificial snow available for repeat skiing
using the proposed Leichhardt Quad Chairlift. Some
of the excess lift capacity, however, would be
required at times for skier circulation. Under artificial
snow conditions, the proposed Telemark quad
chairlift would operate only to assist skier circulation
and not for repeat skiing.
Marginal snow conditions late in the season are not
likely to have a major effect on the operation of this
precinct. The Telemark Chairlift would cease to
function while, in other areas, local snow loss would
cause some reduction in slope capacity, bringing it
below lift capacity, but most pods would continue to
function adequately.
Because of its sheltered location, the precinct is
relatively resilient to high winds, with the Perisher
Express being the only lift likely to close under typical
high wind conditions. This would lead to a 15 to 25
percent reduction in lift capacity in the precinct
compared with normal wind conditions. Some of the
excess slope capacity that would result could be
utilised from other lifts which were still operating in
adjacent pods.
6.5.2 Skier circulation
The SSMP would achieve major improvements in
skier circulation, particularly in assisting skiers to
return to Front Valley at the end of the day via the
proposed Telemark and Leichhardt Quad Chairlifts,
both of which currently face major delays due to
capacity constraints on the existing lifts.
There would not, however, be any significant change
to circulation movements out of Front Valley in the
morning.
6.5.3 Other matters
The reduction in Ski School activity in Front Valley
would be generally beneficial in reducing congestion
in this area enabling Front Valley to better serve its
role as the 'gateway' to the slopes and as an events
area. This would also be assisted by the changes in
road and oversnow vehicle access.
The road changes and other improvements in area
associated with the Telemark lift would reduce
movement conflicts and improve skier safety and ski
slope operation generally.
The upgrading of the access track to the base of the
Centre Valley lifts would complete an adequate
summer access system within the precinct.
SSMP MAY 2002 6-13
Table 6.3 Existing and proposed skiing capacity in Precinct 1 under optimum conditions
Lift capacity Slope capacity
SAOT SAOT
Pod Lift Existing Proposed Pod
sector
Existing Proposed Notes
1 Telemark T-bar 87
1A to
1C
340 403
Telemark Quad Chairlift 562
Total 87 562 340 403
2 Tom Thumb J-bar 42 2A 62
Rope tows/skier conveyor 90 a
Total 132 62
3 Mitchell T-bar 149 149 3A 874 927
Bass T-bar 129 3B 19 20
Flinders T-bar 133 3C 13 82
Sturt T-bar 115 115 2A 62 a
Front Valley 8-seater Chairlift 865
Total 526 1129 906 1091
4
Perisher Express Quad chair below
midstation
440 440 4A 205 228
4B 152 b
Blaxland T-bar 119 4C 15 21
Wentworth T-bar 119 4D 301 301
Total 678 440 673 550
5 Lawson T-bar 127 5A 64 82
Lawson Quad Chairlift 590 5B 107 250
5C 25 25
4B 217 b
Total 127 590 196 574
6 Leichhardt T-bar 185 6A 40 56
Leichhardt Quad Chairlift 579 6B 68 68
6C 74 137
6D 22 22
6E 53 53
6F 183 183
6G 29
Total 185 579 440 548
Total Precinct 1 1735 3300 2617 3166
Notes
a. With the removal of the Tom Thumb J-bar, rope tows and skier conveyor, Pod 2 would become part of the general
Front Valley skiing area and is combined with Pod 3.
b. With the removal of the Blaxland Wentworth duplex and the relocation of the Lawson Chairlift to the north, most of
the Pod sector 4B would be included in Pod 5.
6-14 SSMP MAY 2002
Table 6.4 Skiing capacity in Precinct 1 under various operating conditions
Capacity by pod (SAOT)
Pod 1 Pod 2 Pod 3 Pod 4 Pod 5 Pod 6 Total
Telemark
Childrens
area
Sturt to
Mitchell
CV duplex
P Express
Lawson Leichhardt
Situation Lift Slope Lift Slope Lift Slope Lift Slope Lift Slope Lift Slope Lift Slope
Existing resort 87 340 132 62 526 906 678 673 127 196 185 461 1735 2618
Full
development
Optimum
conditions
562 403 With Pod 3 1129 1091 440 550
(a)
590 574
(a)
579 548 3300 3166
Marginal snow
with
snowmaking
(early in
season)
(c) With Pod 3 1129 1074
(b)
440 297
(b)
579 106 2148 1477
Marginal snow
late in season
With Pod 3 1129 1091
(d)
440 550
(a,d)
590 574
(a,d)
579 540
(d)
2738 2485
(d)
High wind 562 403 With Pod 3 1129 1091 550
(a)
590 574
(a)
579 540 2860 3166
High wind with
snowmaking
(c) With Pod 3 1129 1074
(b)
297
(b)
579 106 1708 1477
Notes:
a. Pod sector 4B is included in Pod 5 following removal of the Blaxland Wentworth duplex (see Table 6.3 and
accompanying text).
b. The distinction between Pods 3 and 4 under snowmaking conditions is nominal only.
c. The Telemark Quad Chairlift would operate for skier circulation but not for repeat skiing under these conditions.
d. Slope capacity may be reduced slightly due to localised snow loss.
SSMP MAY 2002 7-1
7. PRECINCT 2: BACK PERISHER
The Back Perisher Precinct includes the south-
eastern slopes of Mount Back Perisher that are not
covered by the Perisher Valley Precinct (see Figure
7.1). These include the steep upper slopes of the
mountain and the bowls formed by Happy Valley to
the south and Pretty Valley to the east.
The northern boundary of the precinct is formed
notionally by a ridge running east from the summit to
just north of the bottom of the Pretty Valley Chairlift,
but this boundary is not well defined in physical
terms. The southern boundary is formed by the floor
of the valley between Mount Back Perisher and
Mount Perisher. In the west the precinct extends to
the management unit boundary and in the east it is
contiguous with the Perisher Valley Precinct.
The Back Perisher Precinct has a close functional
relationship with the Perisher Valley precinct, being
largely an uphill extension of that precinct. The
Perisher Express Quad Chairlift runs from Centre
Valley to the upper slopes of Mount Back Perisher.
Trails served by this lift lead down into Front Valley
and Centre Valley, as well as into Pretty Valley and
Happy Valley which adjoin the Perisher Valley
Precinct. The main skiing routes between Perisher
and Blue Cow pass around the eastern slopes of
Mount Back Perisher, hence this precinct is critical in
the strategic circulation of skiers around the resort.
It is also related functionally to the Mount Perisher
Precinct (Precinct 3), with parts of it falling into the
Mount Perisher operational area and with repeat
skiing from the Olympic T-bar being dependent also
on operation of the Sun Valley T-bar in Precinct 3.
The Olympic T-bar can be accessed also from the T-
bars and chairlifts on Mount Perisher.
The Back Perisher Precinct offers a wide variety of
terrain for repeat skiing. Happy Valley is a popular
area for novice skiers while the runs served by the
Olympic T-bar are among the most difficult in the
resort.
Relatively little summer slope grooming has been
undertaken within the precinct, with much of it being
naturally open. The restaurant near the Perisher
Express mid-station provides the main centre of
activity within the precinct. There is also a small
kiosk at the bottom of Happy Valley, which is readily
accessible also from the adjoining Mount Perisher
Precinct, and another at the bottom of Pretty Valley.
The slopes of the precinct have a predominantly
southerly to easterly aspect, although some slopes in
Pretty Valley face the north. The top station of the
Perisher Express Chairlift is at an elevation of 1970
metres but the slopes of Mount Back Perisher rise to
about 2015 metres. The lowest elevations within the
precinct are at about 1725 metres in Pretty Valley
and about 1750 metres in Happy Valley.
The aspect is generally favourable for holding snow,
with some deep drifts forming in gullies on the
eastern side of the mountain. The Happy Valley
area, however, is strongly wind-affected, which acts
against snow accumulation in places. To promote
snow accumulation in windy sites, several sections of
snow fence have recently been constructed in Happy
Valley.
Surface water is a further problem affecting snow
retention, particularly in Happy Valley. Despite some
drainage works, the lower parts of the valley are wet
with extensive areas of bog. As shown in the
vegetation map in Figure 7.2, wet heath and bog
communities are very extensive also in Pretty Valley,
which also gives rise to surface water problems in the
valley.
Snowgum woodland tends to be located mainly on
the ridges and upper slopes with a high component of
mature trees in places. The lower slopes above the
valley floors are commonly covered with dense
Phebalium-Prostanthera heath, with a mixture of
more open heath and grassland developing as the
elevation increases.
The eastern and southern upper slopes of Mount
Back Perisher are very rocky in places with large
areas of snow patch communities and more localised
patches of short alpine herbfield at the base of the
snowpatch areas.
Along the ridge running south from the summit and to
the west of this ridge is low heath in a mosaic of
various species compositions. This vegetation is
strongly wind-affected due to the exposure of the site,
and includes a few small patches of Podocarpus
boulder heath. These are probably too small, too
isolated, too shallow and too exposed to be suitable
as Burramys habitat.
Vegetation disturbance and introduction of exotic
ground cover has been confined mainly to the lift
lines and access tracks and other development areas
(e.g. around the restaurant). Elsewhere slope
grooming has focused mainly on the removal of
individual rocks and trees.
7-2 SSMP MAY 2002
The approximate percentage distribution of broad
vegetation types within the precinct is as follows:
Snowgum woodland 17%
Dry heath/grassland communities
(including low windswept heath) 60%
Wet communities (wet heath,
transitional heath, bog, etc.) 18%
Buildings, hardstanding areas 0.15%
The overall extent of habitat modification within the
precinct has been minor, the main changes affecting
wet areas in the lower part of Happy Valley. While
there are minor interruptions caused by access tracks
and ski lifts, the opportunities for natural animal
movement within the precinct appear to be
essentially intact.
Of the uncommon plants occurring within the resort,
Oreomyrrhis brevipes (Rock carroway, a ROTAP
species) has been noted, sometimes in large
numbers, at numerous locations on the upper slopes
of Mount Back Perisher (Ref. 18) as well as in some
exposed sites in the upper part of Happy Valley (Ref.
19).
There are several locations within the precinct which
have been identified as being of geomorphological
significance (see Figure 7.3, Ref. 16). These include
the steep rock formations on the eastern face of
Mount Back Perisher, the periglacial area containing
Sun Valley (partly in the Mount Perisher precinct) and
the southern edge of another periglacial area south of
Blue Calf Pass (mainly in the North Perisher
precinct).
Areas assessed of being of high or low to moderate
archaeological sensitivity (Ref. 14) are located along
the ridges leading to the summit of Mount Back
Perisher, particularly on the more gently sloping
sections of these ridges (see Figure 7.3). The saddle
between Mount Back Perisher and Mount Perisher
has been assessed as a site of low to moderate
archaeological sensitivity.
Two archaeological sites have been recorded in the
precinct (Ref. 15). These are both on the ridgeline
shoulder to the west of the Perisher Express
midstation (see Figure 7.3). Further subsurface
testing of this area has been recommended prior to
any further development or slope grooming (Ref. 15).
The Back Perisher Precinct is critical in the strategic
circulation of skiers around the resort. The Perisher
Express Quad Chairlift, which provides the primary
access into the precinct, enables skiers to gain
access from Front Valley into Pretty Valley, Centre
Valley, Happy Valley and across to the foot of Mount
Perisher. The main skiing route between Perisher
and Blue Cow is via the Blue Cow Expressway
traverse around the eastern slopes of Mount Back
Perisher. The Perisher Home Trail, which is the
other key strategic trail linking Perisher and Blue
Cow, brings skiers from the top of Pleasant Valley
(Precinct 7) into the Back Perisher Precinct, providing
access to Pretty, Centre and Front Valleys.
The Back Perisher Precinct offers a wide variety of
terrain for repeat skiing. Happy Valley is a popular
area for novice and low intermediate skiers with a
high level of Ski School use, while the runs served by
the Olympic T-bar are among the most difficult in the
resort, and include a homologated Slalom course.
The Olympic T-bar, while located on Mount Back
Perisher, relates functionally to the Mount Perisher
Precinct (Precinct 3).
The successful operation of the Back Perisher
Precinct depends particularly on effective skier
circulation through the precinct. Summer slope
grooming works undertaken along the Blue Cow
Expressway in the summers of 1995-96 and 1996-97
has enabled the safe grooming, subject to sufficient
snow, of a winter traverse to enable skiers to move
from the Perisher Express to Blue Cow. These works
are subject to continued monitoring to determine
whether they are likely to be adequate in the longer
term.
For skiers returning via the Perisher Home Trail, the
current access to Centre and Front Valleys has
several uphill grades, hollows and narrow sections,
lined by rocks, particularly in the area just uphill of the
Perisher Express midstation and near the top of
Happy Valley. This area is also heavily used by
skiers moving between different slopes within the
Perisher area.
The constraints in this area lead to congestion and
collisions. Intermediate and lower skill level skiers
find themselves having to push themselves uphill or
side-step up the grade. At narrow uphill points,
snowboarders in particular, will often stop, sit down
on the trail and undo a binding in order to negotiate
the grade. This further restricts the trail and often
results in injuries. To reduce the congestion and to
improve skier safety in this area it is desirable to
open up parts of the slope.
Happy Valley suffers disadvantages from an
operational viewpoint due to wind and water. The
area is very exposed to the prevailing winds, and
much of it is wet, particularly along and either side of
the T-bar, creating problems with snowholding.
While artificial drainage offers a technical solution to
the latter problem, the bogs are environmentally
important and sensitive to disturbance.
Because of the popularity of Happy Valley with Ski
School, novices and low intermediates, the T-bar
often experiences over-capacity use. These lower
SSMP MAY 2002 7-3
skill level skiers further contribute to this problem
since many are often slow to get into a position to
take the T-bar and may often fall off. In addition,
because of the steepness of Leichhardt T-bar, or
queuing at this lift, many skiers will elect to use
Happy Valley late in the afternoon as the lifts in the
Mount Perisher Precinct close, which compounds the
congestion and over-capacity use.
There is difficulty gaining access to Happy Valley
from the western (Sun Valley) direction. The location
of the base station of Happy Valley T-bar requires
skiers to build up considerable speed when coming
from the base of Sun Valley or the Olympic T-bar
since it is generally some 8 metres uphill from the
transition slope. This situation leads to collisions
between skiers seeking access to Happy Valley and
those traversing across the slope seeking access to
the base of Mount Perisher. Because of the
significant uphill grade, lower skill level snowboarders
can be forced to stop thereby blocking the trail and
increasing the risk of collisions.
Pretty Valley also has large areas of bog and wet
heath in the floor of the valley, but these pose less of
a problem than those in Happy Valley due to better
snow accumulation. As with Happy Valley, the
general slope gradient of Pretty Valley, coupled with
its protection from wind, makes it very popular with
families, Ski School, novices and low intermediates.
It is a slow skiing zone. Its popularity is enhanced by
the kiosk and toilet facility at the base of the chairlift.
Less experienced skiers using Pretty Valley,
however, experience some difficulty returning to
Telemark T-bar due to the short, steep, narrow drop
to the existing bridge over Pretty Valley Creek. Lack
of confidence in negotiating the bridge leads to
congestion in this area and increases the accident
risk for all skiers.
The existing Pretty Valley Double Chairlift is currently
used to over-capacity, this being exacerbated by
skiers returning from Blue Cow in the afternoons.
Queues can exceed 30 minutes on peak days,
particularly around lift closure time.
Another limitation of the existing chairlift is that, being
located in the floor of the valley, it does not easily
access all of the available skiable terrain. An
alternative alignment to a higher point will increase
the terrain area and trail length. This advantage,
however, would need to be balanced against the
possible increased risk of wind closure of the lift and
the additional environmental impacts of a new lift
alignment.
all parts of the precinct, the slope capacity is well in
excess of the lift capacity, supporting the need for
additional or upgraded lifts, particularly in Happy
Valley and Pretty Valley.
The use of the precinct early in the season is often
limited by the lack of snow. Because of the value of
some areas, such as Happy Valley, for inexperienced
skiers, it has a relatively high priority for the extension
of snowmaking. Snowmaking would also assist in
reducing problems of midseason snow loss in the
wetter parts of Happy Valley.
Snowmaking within the precinct will become
necessary also for enabling skiers to move during low
snow conditions between Front Valley and Mount
Perisher, the latter area also having high priority for
extension of snowmaking.
Summer vehicle access within the precinct is
generally good, except to the Olympic T-bar. There
are old faint tracks which are in poor condition and
are eroded in places going to the bottom of this lift
from Sun Valley and Mount Perisher but these are
not suitable for regular summer access by
conventional four-wheel-drive vehicles. It is normally
feasible, however, to undertake routine maintenance
of this lift by oversnow vehicle at the end of winter,
thus avoiding the need for regular summer access.
The main issues associated with the Back Perisher
Precinct are summarised as follows:
The need to overcome existing congestion and
skier safety concerns in the area uphill of Perisher
Express midstation.
The achievement of more effective use of Happy
Valley while maintaining the natural hydrological
and ecological processes of the bogs which
currently give rise to water problems. Improved
protection from wind is also a significant
consideration, as are lift capacity and access.
Upgrading of lift capacity and more effective
utilisation of terrain in Pretty Valley.
Provision of reliable high capacity access for
circulation between Perisher and Blue Cow via the
Blue Cow Expressway and the Perisher Home
Trail.
Provision of snowmaking to increase the reliability
of skiing within the precinct and to connect Mount
Perisher with Front Valley.
(see Figure 7.5)
7.4.1 Slope grooming uphill of Perisher Express
midstation
The selective removal of trees and rocks, as well as
some minor earthworks, are proposed in order to
7-4 SSMP MAY 2002
Pod
area (ha)
7 20.3 Pretty Valley double chair 373 7A 476
7B 37
7C 75
7D 70
7E 171
7F 112
Total 373 941
8 16.3 Perisher Express above midstation 440 8A 331 a
8B 66
8C 209
8D 111
8E 39
8F 15
Total 440 771
8* 51.3 Perisher Express/Blue Cow Expressway
NA 8G 685 b
8H 432
8I 259
8J 258
8K 192
8L 171
Total NA 1997
9 8.8 Happy Valley T-bar 155 9A 118
9B 237
9C 168
Total 155 523
10 13.1 Olympic T-bar 71 10A 99 c
10B 157
10C 39
Total 71 295
Notes
a. The total capacity for repeat skiing of the Perisher Express Quad Chairlift is estimated to be 880 SAOT. This is
distributed arbitrarily between Precincts 1 and 2 on an equal basis i.e. 440 SAOT above midstation. In practice, the
capacity would be lower because of the use of the lift for circulation, although this effect would probably be most
significant early in the day before the peak demand for repeat skiing is reached.
b. Pod sectors 8G to 8L, which are shown as Pod 8*, are principally accessible by traversing some distance along the
Blue Cow Expressway. Most of these sectors are actually located within Precinct 4. They are used by skiers who
use multiple lifts (e.g. Pretty Valley double chair plus upper part of Perisher Express, or Telemark plus Perisher
Express). The slope capacities are therefore not compared with the lift capacities of any specific lift, but these
sectors contribute to the total slope capacity of the precinct.
c. Use of the pod serviced by the Olympic T-bar for repeat skiing is dependent also on use of the Sun Valley T-bar in
Precinct 3 (Pod 11) but this is ignored for purposes of the present assessment.
open up the slope at this strategically critical and
heavily congested location. The area affected
extends from near the top of the Pretty Valley chairlift
to just below the midstation. The removal of
obstacles, widening of the trail and easing of difficult
grades are necessary to allow skiers of all skill levels
to move through the area safely, efficiently and
confidently.
This slope grooming is complicated by the presence
in the area of two recorded archaeological sites (see
Section 7.2, Ref. 15) plus the likelihood of further
subsurface evidence of past Aboriginal presence.
The latter evidence could be revealed only by
archaeological excavation which, in itself, is a
destructive process.
Because archaeological sites are rare at or above
this elevation (c. 1880 m), this site may be of
SSMP MAY 2002 7-5
particular scientific interest. It may also be of interest
to people of Aboriginal descent who feel that they
have a cultural association with the area.
It is anticipated that the slope grooming undertaken
for the area would need to be undertaken in a way
which addresses the objectives of:
providing a safe and efficient ski slope;
maintaining as much as possible of the natural
vegetation cover;
satisfying the scientific interest in the Aboriginal
history of the site; and
addressing the interests of people with a cultural
association with the site.
These issues would be addressed at a further level of
detail beyond the SSMP.
7.4.2 Happy Valley
A new fixed grip quad chairlift is proposed in Happy
Valley, with a view to achieving the following
objectives:
To significantly increase the lift capacity of the
area, avoiding the over-capacity problem
associated with the Happy Valley T-bar and more
fully utilising the available slope capacity of Happy
Valley.
To enable skiers to access additional terrain,
including some steeper terrain on the slopes of
Mount Back Perisher. This terrain is generally
well drained and largely avoids the wet heath/bog
areas that create snowholding problems along
and either side of the Happy Valley T-bar.
To provide easy access to the base station of the
lift from the Sun Valley direction, avoiding the flat
to uphill route involved in reaching the bottom of
the Happy Valley T-bar.
Construction of the lift would involve some tree
removal but, being an aerial lift, would not
significantly disturb the existing heath cover. There
are existing access tracks at both ends of the lift.
The chairlift is likely to be more subject to wind
closure than the existing T-bar. This makes it
desirable to retain the T-bar, which also offers easier
grades for less experienced skiers, at least until the
performance of the chairlift has been fully assessed.
To keep the T-bar operating reliably, it is proposed to
install snowmaking along the lift and either side of it
(see below). Much of the area where snowmaking is
proposed is affected by poor drainage, which will
increase the volume of artificial snow required to
maintain an adequate cover. Implementation of
artificial drainage and intensive grooming, as has
been undertaken in Front Valley would be considered
only if other means of maintaining an adequate snow
cover prove to be impracticable.
Drainage may be required in the Crossroads area
downhill of Happy Valley on the edge of Precinct 3.
7.4.3 Pretty Valley
The existing double chairlift in Pretty Valley has a
limited capacity compared with the slope capacity
and, as it follows the floor of the valley, precludes
skier access to the higher, skiable slopes to the
north.
To increase both the lift and slope capacity of this
area, a new fixed grip quad chairlift is proposed on
the northern side of Pretty Valley. This would have
its top station on the ridge which forms the boundary
of the upper part of the valley, enabling skiers to
access the higher, steeper terrain that cannot be
reached from the existing double chair, and also
enabling them to ski to the north into a broad bowl
which forms a second branch of the valley.
Relocating the top station further to the north and
removing the existing lift would also make the
existing skiing terrain in the floor of the valley less
congested.
It would be necessary to provide a new access track
to the top station of the quad chairlift. This is likely to
be constructed as an extension of the track to the top
of the existing lift.
To improve the trails serving both the proposed quad
chairlift and the existing double chairlift, it is proposed
to construct a skier bridge across Pretty Valley Creek
just north-east of Tower 4 of the existing lift.
7.4.4 Circulation between Perisher and Blue Cow
The ideal solution from an operational viewpoint in
providing reliable skier circulation between the top of
the Perisher Express and Blue Cow would be to
excavate well-graded benches along the routes of the
Blue Cow Expressway and the Perisher Home Trail
and install snowmaking along these benches. This is
the type of slope works that would commonly be
undertaken in this situation in other large ski resorts.
It would also be beneficial to summer visitors in
providing a good walking route between the two
resorts.
Such a construction, however, could have a major
impact, both physically and visually, on the slopes,
which include a number of sensitive areas. For this
reason, it is not proposed as part of the current
SSMP. Instead, it is intended at this stage to
continue to bench the trail only in winter, based on
sufficient natural snowfall and the limited summer
grooming that has already been undertaken along the
routes.
7-6 SSMP MAY 2002
It is intended to undertake ongoing monitoring of
these routes and, if the present trails prove to be
unreliable with respect to snow cover, it may be
necessary in the longer term to undertake additional
grooming and/or snowmaking. This is relevant also
to Precinct 4 and Precinct 7.
7.4.5 Snowmaking and associated trails
Snowmaking within the precinct would be initially
undertaken as an extension to the snowmaking in
Precinct 1, extending up the Perisher Quad Chairlift
to the midstation and along the Bullwheel Run from
Yabby Flat back to Front Valley (see Section 6.4.2).
It would also continue to the top of the Perisher
Express. In addition to the slope grooming discussed
in Section 7.4.1, snowmaking development would
entail some relatively minor slope grooming works
such as selective rock removal and heath slashing
and removal of a few trees to widen the Bullwheel
Run.
In Happy Valley, snowmaking is proposed along the
T-bar, along a corridor from the Perisher Express
midstation to the T-bar and, following construction of
the proposed chairlift, from its top station into Happy
Valley. The last trail is likely to be less affected by
drainage problems than the area associated with the
T-bar. There is also provision in Happy Valley for a
snowmaking corridor on the edge of Precinct 1 from
the top of the Leichhardt lift to the lower half of the
Happy Valley T-bar then back to the bottom of
Leichhardt (see Section 6.4.2), and for a connection
to Mount Perisher.
Improved access from Front Valley to the Interceptor
base station in Precinct 4 passes through Precinct 2.
From the top of the proposed eight-seater chairlift in
Front Valley, snowmaking with minor trail grooming is
proposed to the bridge over Pretty Valley Creek.
This bridge would be widened and lengthened to
improve its safety and eliminate the climb to the flat
milling area beside the Pretty Valley Chairlift.
The snowmaking and grooming would continue from
the base of Pretty Valley towards Telemark T-bar,
with the second bridge over Pretty Valley Creek also
being raised, again to eliminate the uphill climb and
congestion (see also Section 6.4.4).
As part of the snowmaking development, a booster
pump station will be installed near the Perisher
Express midstation. This will be required to supply
water at sufficient pressure to the upper snowmaking
areas in the Perisher part of the resort.
Minor slope grooming. Other minor slope grooming
works are likely to be required from time to time but
have not been identified specifically at the current
level of planning.
The development proposals to be undertaken in
Table 7.2. Summary of proposed developments in
Precinct 2.
Project
no.
Proposed works
2.1 Pretty Valley Quad Chairlift
2.2 Happy Valley Quad Chairlift
2.3 Snowmaking along Perisher Express
2.4 Snowmaking along Happy Valley T-bar
2.5 Snowmaking along Happy Valley Chairlift
2.6 Snowmaking from Happy Valley to Mount Perisher
2.7 Snowmaking from Front Valley to Pretty Valley
2.8 Snowmaking booster pump station at Perisher
Express midstation
2.9 Slope grooming uphill of Perisher Express
midstation
2.10 Happy Valley drainage
2.11 Crossroads drainage
2.12 Raising of bridges over Pretty Valley Creek at base
of slope
2.13 Pretty Valley Chairlift access track
2.14 Monitoring of circulation between Perisher Express
and Blue Cow
2.15 Bridge over Pretty Valley Creek near Tower 4
determined)
by pods in Table 7.3. There will be major increases
in Pods 7 and 9 as a result of the new quad chairlifts,
but lift capacity will remain well within the slope
capacity, particularly in Pod 7 which would be
enlarged considerably as a result of relocation of the
lift.
The future skiing capacity under other operating
conditions is summarised in Table 7.4. With the
resort operating only on artificial snow, use of the
precinct would be limited to Happy Valley and the
Perisher Express area. Slope capacity would be the
SSMP MAY 2002 7-7
Table 7.3 Existing and proposed skiing capacity in Precinct 2
SAOT SAOT
Pod Lift Existing Proposed Pod
sector
Existing Proposed Notes
7 Pretty Valley Double Chairlift 373 7A to 7F 941 941 a
Pretty Valley Quad Chairlift 701 8G 781 b
8H 494 b
Total 373 701 941 2216
8 Perisher Express (upper) 440 440 8A 331 414 c
8B 66 66
8C & 8D 320 63 d
8E 39 d
8F 15 15
Total 440 440 771 558
8* Perisher Express/Blue Cow
Expressway
8G & 8H 1117 112 b
8I to 8L 880 880
Total 1997 992
9 Happy Valley T-bar 155 155 9A to 9C 523 523
Happy Valley Quad Chairlift 354 8C & 8D 294 d
8E 44
Total 155 509 523 861
6F
10 Olympic T-bar 71 71
10A to
10C
295 295 e
Total Precinct 2 1039 1721 4527 4922
Notes
a. It is assumed that all of the existing Pod 7 would remain accessible to the relocated lift although in Pod sectors 7C
and 7F may become less attractive to most skiers.
b. It is assumed that 90% of Pod sectors 8G and 8H, which are currently accessible principally via the Blue Cow
Expressway, would become accessible for the proposed Pretty Valley Quad Chairlift. The extra slope capacity
included in Pod 7 has been removed from Pod 8, which retains 10% of the capacity of these sectors.
c. Proposed slope grooming undertaken for safety reasons would also result in a slight increase in slope capacity.
d. It is assumed that 80% of Pod sectors 8C and 8D, which are currently accessible only from the top of the Perisher
Express, would become used primarily by the proposed Happy Valley Quad Chairlift. The extra slope capacity
included in Pod 9 has been removed from Pod 8, which retains 20% of the capacity of these sectors. All of Sector
8E is transferred to Pod 9. The future capacity of Sector 8D may be slightly higher due to winter grooming.
e. Use of the pod serviced by the Olympic T-bar for repeat skiing is dependent also on use of the Sun Valley T-bar in
Precinct 3 (Pod 11) but this is ignored for purposes of the present assessment.
limiting factor, being approximately half the available
lift capacity. With marginal snow late in the season,
there would be some reduction in slope capacity,
which is difficult to quantify, but all lifts would
continue to operate. Because of the large surplus in
slope capacity, it is unlikely that the reduction in slope
capacity would significantly affect the overall
operation of the precinct, providing that there were no
critical areas where snow could not be maintained
through snow fences and winter snow management.
Under high wind the Perisher Express and Happy
Valley Chairlifts are likely to stop operating, but it is
anticipated that the new Pretty Valley Quad Chairlift
would be less susceptible to wind closure, and could
7-8 SSMP MAY 2002
Situation
Pod 7
Pretty Valley
Pod 8
Perisher
Express
Pod 8*
P. Ex. + Blue
Cow Exway
Pod 9
Happy Valley
Pod 10
Olympic
Total
Lift Slope Lift Slope Lift Slope Lift Slope Lift Slope Lift Slope
Existing 373 941 440 771 1998 155 523 71 295 1039 4527
Full development
Optimum conditions 701 2216 440 558 992 509 861 71 295 1721 4922
Marginal snow with
snowmaking (early in
season)
440 198 509 268 949 466
Marginal snow late in
season
701 <2216
(a)
440 <558
(a)
992 509 <861
(a)
71 295 1721 <4922
High wind 701 2216 155 861 856 3077
Hi gh wi nd wi t h
snowmaking
115 268 155 268
Notes:
a. Slope capacity in these pods is likely to be reduced due to localised snow loss but it is not feasible to estimate this
accurately.
continue to operate under typical high wind
conditions. Because of its exposed location, the
Olympic T-bar would also close during high wind.
This would leave the precinct with only two lifts
operating, approximately halving its lift capacity, but
the slope capacity would be more than adequate.
Under high wind in combination with restriction to
artificial snow, the only lift that could operate would
be the Happy Valley T-bar, severely limiting use of
the precinct. Further, this would be dependent on
gaining access by operating the Perisher Express to
the midstation only, which is less exposed.
The main skier circulation routes through the
precinct, namely between the Perisher Express and
Blue Cow, would not be changed by the current
SSMP. It is intended, however, to monitor the
effectiveness of this circulation with a view to
reviewing the need for upgrading of these routes in
the future, if this appears warranted. The slope
grooming proposed along the Perisher Home Trail
generally uphill of the
Perisher Express midstation will significantly improve
safety on the return journey to Perisher.
Skier circulation to Happy Valley and Mount Perisher
during early season conditions would be significantly
enhanced as a result of snowmaking. The new
Happy Valley Quad Chairlift will provide an
alternative means of moving from Mount Perisher to
Pretty Valley and will be most beneficial if the Happy
Valley T-bar was closed because of poor snow cover
Snowmaking will also improve the skier circulation
from Front Valley to Pretty Valley and back to the
Telemark lift, the latter route being located mainly in
Precinct 1.
In providing access to a wider range of terrain, the
new Pretty Valley Quad Chairlift will also enable
skiing via a high traverse from its top station to the
upper part of the Interceptor Quad Chairlift, although
this is likely to be of most benefit only if access to the
Interceptor bottom station was closed by lack of snow
or by the opening up of the ski trail at the bottom
station due to vehicles using the roadway.
SSMP MAY 2002 8-1
8. PRECINCT 3: MOUNT PERISHER
The Mount Perisher Precinct is clearly defined,
consisting of those parts of the slopes of Mount
Perisher which are within the Perisher Smiggin
Holes Management Unit (see Figure 8.1).
The north-eastern boundary of the precinct is formed
by the floor of the valley between Mount Perisher and
Mount Back Perisher, with the precinct adjoining the
Back Perisher Precinct along most of this boundary.
The south-eastern boundary is formed by the
Kosciuszko Road, while to the north-west and south-
west, the boundary follows that of the management
unit. The south-western boundary is rather artificial
as, in practice, skiers can traverse from the top of
Eyre T-bar well beyond the boundary of the precinct
(and the management unit) and back to the base of
the lift.
With five lifts servicing the mountain, there has been
a moderate amount of development and slope
grooming within the precinct, including some major
rock removal, surface disturbance and rehabilitation
using introduced grasses on the upper slopes.
While located at the south-western extremity of the
resort, it is a popular area for intermediate to
advanced skiers, who can access it by skiing down
from the Perisher Express or by working their way
across through Front Valley and Centre Valley.
The precinct occupies the eastern half of Mount
Perisher with the predominant aspect ranging from
north-easterly through easterly to south-easterly.
Most of the skiing activity is on a south-easterly
aspect; which is favourable for snow retention and
wind protection. The elevation ranges from about
1730 metres in the Perisher Creek valley to 2054
metres at the summit, with the top station of the
highest lift at 2034 metres.
The ski slopes served by the lifts are generally well
drained with only localised areas of poor drainage on
terraces or minor drainage lines. Granodiorite
boulders and outcrops are common throughout the
upper slopes, with many of these having been
removed in the course of slope grooming.
There are few trees on the upper slopes and, even
on the lower slopes, the tree cover tends to be
scattered with few mature snowgums (see Figure
8.2). Dense diverse heath (prime Mast acomys
habitat) covers much of the lower slopes above the
wet heath/bog/wet grassland communities along the
valley at the headwaters of Perisher Creek. Above
about 1825 metres, the heath tends to become more
open, giving way to a cover of predominantly alpine
herbfield on the upper slopes of the mountain.
Particularly on the upper slopes, and also along the
corridor between the two chairlifts, previous summer
grooming has necessitated rehabilitation using
introduced grasses. In other places, selective tree
and rock removal has been undertaken.
The approximate percentages of broad vegetation
types within the precinct are as follows:
Snowgum woodland 6%
Dry heath/grassland communities
(including low windswept heath) 67%
Wet communities (wet heath,
transitional heath, bog, etc.) 17%
Exotic groundcover 10%
Buildings, hardstanding areas < 0.1%
The fauna habitat value of the precinct is greatest on
the lower slopes, particularly in areas of wet heath or
dense diverse heath. These lower slopes probably
form part of a broad wildlife movement corridor from
Centre Valley and Happy Valley in adjoining precincts
through to areas outside the management unit,
including the southern slopes of the Paralyser. The
cleared, rehabilitated area on the Towers Run
between the two chairlifts may interrupt the continuity
of this corridor, although an underground rock tunnel
was installed across the run in summer 1997-98.
Ecological interest in the herbfield areas on the upper
slopes is enhanced by the presence of numerous
specimens of the threatened Anemone Buttercup
(Ranunculus anemoneus), which is scattered through
the south-easterly slopes. Denser patches of this
plant have previously been acknowledged as a
constraint on slope grooming (Ref. 20).
The Sun Valley area on the northern edge of the
preci nct has been assessed as bei ng of
geomorphological significance because of its
periglacial characteristics (see Figure 8.3, Ref. 16).
This extends also into the Back Perisher Precinct.
There is also a geological site on the north side of
Mount Perisher summit (see Figure 8.3) which has
been assessed as potentially sensitive to disturbance
(Ref. 16).
There are some limited areas assessed as being of
high or low to moderate archaeological sensitivity
(Ref. 14) around the summit of Mount Perisher, on
flatter sections of ridges leading to the summit and in
the saddle between Mount Perisher and Mount Back
Perisher (see Figure 8.3). Some areas in the valley
of the headwaters of Perisher Creek are assessed as
having potential for deep subsurface archaeological
deposits.
8-2 SSMP MAY 2002
An archaeological site below the saddle at Perisher
Gap south of the Kosciuszko Road and just outside
the precinct has previously been recorded (NPWS
Site #61-3-8) and collected (Refs. 21, 22). Artefacts
found at this site included two backed blades, two
scrapers, a ground edge axe, cones and flakes. No
other archaeological sites are known to have been
recorded within the precinct.
There is a permanent scientific site at an elevation of
2040 m near the top of Mount Perisher recorded in
the NPWS site database, which was used for treeline
studies of Eucalyptus pauciflora during the 1970s and
1980s (see Figure 8.3).
The precinct is one of the most popular in the resort
with a diversity of terrain. Sun Valley is heavily used
by intermediate and low intermediate skills because
of its sheltered, north-east facing bowl. Eyre T-bar
provides wide bowl terrain while the Mount Perisher
chairlifts and International T-bar provide fall-line
skiing.
With good snow accumulation and a relatively sparse
tree cover, particularly on the upper slopes, the
precinct offers a large area of skiable terrain without
the need for large-scale intensive summer grooming
of the slopes. There have nevertheless been major
slopeworks undertaken in some locations to remove
large rocks for safety or operational reasons. On the
lower slopes, there is a dense heath cover of
relatively high habitat value which is generally
undisturbed, except along the lifts, and which packs
down under the snow which probably provides a
wildlife movement corridor in winter.
The five lifts on the mountain are relatively old but
provide access to some of the best skiing in the
resort. It is a popular area with intermediate to
advanced skiers who reach it by skiing down from the
Perisher Express or working their way across through
Front Valley and Centre Valley to either Sun Valley T-
bar or the chairlifts at the base of Mount Perisher.
The precinct also provides access to the Olympic T-
bar in Precinct 2, which is used often by advanced
skiers in conjunction with the Sun Valley T-bar.
With the exception of International T-bar, lifting within
the precinct is often used at over-capacity. Queues
of up to 40 minutes can occur on Mount Perisher
Double Chair and Eyre T-bar. Queues of up to 30
minutes can occur on the Mount Perisher Triple Chair
and the Sun Valley T-bar. Sun Valley T-bar provides
the only access to this precinct when the chairlifts are
closed due to wind. On these occasions, its usage
can be over capacity.
The main deficiency of the precinct is its lack of
visitor facilities. Only a small, open deck kiosk exists
at Eyre T-bar, the most remote lift. While toilets and
restaurant facilities are provided at the base of the
Mount Perisher Double Chairlift, the size of the those
facilities is small for the number of skiers using the
precinct. Siting of those facilities at the base of this
chairlift contributes to the queue times and over-
capacity use on busy days.
Provision of a more substantial restaurant facility,
including toilets, is desirable at the base of Eyre T-
bar, which will involve the provision of underground
services (sewerage, water, telephone) to link with
those to the base of the Mount Perisher Double
Chairlift.
Partly due to the intensive use of the base of Mount
Perisher, the ability to hold snow under some
conditions can pose problems. This occurs
particularly on the Towers Run, located between and
either side of the two chairlifts. The problem arises
partly from the access track which criss-crosses the
trail. The surface of this track loses snow at several
points towards the end of the season because the
soil absorbs and retains solar energy more readily
than the adjacent vegetation. Relocation of the
permanent access track away from this run, coupled
with rehabilitation of the existing track, would reduce
this problem.
Another problem at Mount Perisher is that
inexperienced skiers find themselves at the summit
with no easy way down. It is highly desirable to
develop a winter trail with a gentle gradient for these
skiers. While this is primarily a winter management
issue, this would be facilitated if it were integrated
with the permanent access track.
Because of the high standard of grooming on the
Towers Run, it has good potential for efficient
snowmaking early in the season if natural snow
conditions are marginal.
The existing satellite workshop and refuelling site at
the base of the Mount Perisher Double Chairlift
requires upgrading to address improved summer and
winter access as well as undesirable, potential
problems associated with noise, fumes and spillages.
all parts of the precinct, the slope capacity is
comfortably in excess of the lift capacity. There is
thus potential for upgrading the lift system without
congesting the slopes to an unacceptable level.
The main issues associated with the Mount Perisher
SSMP MAY 2002 8-3
Pod
area (ha)
11 13.9 Sun Valley T-bar 133 11A 100 a
11B 103
11C 55
11D 144
Total 133 401
12 30.7 Mt Perisher Triple chairlift 408 12A 304
Mt Perisher Double chairlift 206 12B 149
12C 75
12D 103
12E 108
12F 57
12G 72
12H 46
12I 31
Total 614 945
13 17.0 International T-bar 313 13A 283
13B 102
13C 5
13D 22
13E 26
13F 18
13G 2
13H 51
Total 313 509
14 21.1 Eyre T-bar 292 14A 508 b
14B 15
14C 14
14D 2
14E 2
14F 92
14G 39
Total 292 672
Notes
a. The Sun Valley T-bar is used also for access to the slopes serviced by the Olympic T-bar in Precinct 2 (Pod 10),
but this is ignored for purposes of the present assessment.
b. The slope capacity assessed for the Eyre T-bar excludes a large skiable area outside the formal resort boundary
(Come Back Again) which is used at a low intensity by some skiers.
The need to replace and increase the capacity of
at least some of the lifts within the precinct.
The need for better visitor facilities (restaurant,
toilets etc.) within the precinct and the selection of
appropriate sites for these in environmental and
functional terms.
The upgrading and rationalisation of summer
access, with tracks constructed in a stable form in
locations where they will not conflict with snow
retention, and rehabilitation of redundant tracks
and other sites of past disturbance.
Provision of trails which enable the precinct to be
used safely by less experienced skiers.
The provision of snowmaking on slopes which are
suitably groomed for this purpose to enable some
use of the area in marginal natural snow
conditions.
Upgrading of workshop facilities to meet future
operational needs and environmental standards.
(see Figure 8.5)
8.4.1 Upgrading of lifts
The combined capacity of the two existing chairlifts
located on either side of the Towers Run is less than
that of a single modern chairlift. It is proposed to
replace this with a single detachable six-seater
chairlift, located along the route of the existing double
chairlift. This would have over 40 percent more lifting
design capacity than the two existing chairlifts
8-4 SSMP MAY 2002
combined (2,600 skiers/hr compared with 1,815
skiers/hr). By reducing the number of lifts from two to
one, the Towers Run would be opened up for less
constrained and safer skiing.
Being a large detachable chairlift, it would require a
chair storage area, which will be located at the base
of the lift, together with the drive station, in order to
minimise the bulk of the top station. This would
involve a larger building footprint than the existing
double chairlift. It is proposed also to upgrade the
mountain restaurant and the workshop associated
with the existing lift (see below). All of these
proposals will be integrated into the design of the lift.
A limitation of the six-seater chairlift, which is
experienced also with the existing chairlifts, is that it
would be prone to closure during high wind although
to a lesser extent for two main reasons. First, the
chairs are heavier, thereby resisting wind loads
better. Second, by being a detaching lift, chairs can
be removed and the rope speed lowered, allowing
operations in high wind situations. Consequently the
three T-bars would remain to ensure alternative lifting
on high wind days when the chairlift may be closed.
The lift capacity of the Eyre T-bar is less than half its
associated available slope capacity (see Table 8.1).
To make more efficient use of this slope, it is
proposed to upgrade this T-bar to a duplex, which
would involve widening of the lift track. Some
additional grooming in the form of selected rock and
tree removal on both sides of the lift line, primarily in
the middle to lower section of the lift, is proposed to
improve the opportunity for fall-line skiing beside the
lift, to improve access to the base of the lift without
the need to cross the lift line, and to generally
improve safety.
8.4.2 Visitor facilities
Visitor facilities including restaurants and toilets are
proposed at three locations within the precinct,
namely:
a restaurant at the base area of the Mount
Perisher six-seater chairlift;
a cafe at the top of the proposed six-seater
chairlift; and
an enlarged kiosk at the base of the Eyre T-bar.
The facilities in the base area of the six-seater
chairlift would represent an upgrading of the existing
facilities at the base of the double chairlift. This
location has the advantage of being closest to the
village from the viewpoint of providing trunk services,
which in fact are already present at this site. It is
close to the Kosciuszko Road with good access for
construction. From a skiing viewpoint, it is at the
lowest point within the precinct and is also readily
accessible from Happy and Sun Valleys, as well as
the south-western end of Centre Valley.
The top of the chairlift provides a unique opportunity
for both winter and summer visitors in that the
location would be the highest site for such a building
in Australia. The topography of the area east of the
summit is such that a building could be designed to
offer spectacular winter and summer views over a
large area of the Park without itself being intrusive. It
would be screened by the summit of Mount Perisher
from the direction of the Main Range. It will
incorporate the top station of the proposed six-seater
chairlift and the existing ski patrol bump station. The
latter will have appropriate services, enabling
occupational health and safety issues to be
adequately addressed.
The visitor facilities will be designed with a view to
providing summer access for people who, as a result
of age or physical disabilities, are incapable of
walking to the top of any of the peaks in the
Kosciuszko area. The top station structure will,
however, be subsidiary in size, scale and use to that
located at the base station.
The proposal to provide visitor facilities at this
location recognises:
the need to provide an underground services
corridor to the foot of the mountain, although this
would be integrated with the snowmaking trench
up the Towers Run (see below);
the need to transport construction materials to the
top of the mountain, either via a new access road,
which is required in any case for lift construction
(see below) or by helicopter; and
potentially unreliable access under extreme
conditions, although this is not unusual in any
alpine region in the world.
The requirement for an enlarged kiosk at the base of
the Eyre T-bar stems from the fact that the T-bar and
the slopes that it services are amongst the most
popular within the resort. They are also at the most
remote location within the precinct, increasing the
importance of providing shelter with toilets and food
and beverage facilities. Its remoteness makes it
relatively difficult to service in winter, although it has
good road access for construction and servicing.
Underground services will need to be extended for
nearly a kilometre along the road from the base of the
chairlifts.
8.4.3 Summer access tracks
Summer access is required to the top and bottom
stations of all lifts and particularly the proposed six-
seater chairlift. The bottom stations of the chairlift
and International and Eyre T-bars all have good
access off the Kosciuszko Road, and this will
SSMP MAY 2002 8-5
continue to be used. The existing access track to the
bottom of Sun Valley T-bar is also adequate.
The main issue is access to the top of Mount
Perisher. As all lift top stations within the precinct are
close together, access to the top of all existing and
proposed lifts can be achieved via a single track.
The preferred option from an environmental viewpoint
is to upgrade the existing substandard track up the
Sun Valley T-bar for most of the way up this lift, then
to follow the existing track up the Towers Run for the
remainder of the climb.
Most of the existing track up the Towers Run would
be rehabilitated, as would the remnants of other old
tracks in the Sun Valley Olympic area and up the
Eyre T-bar. The rehabilitation of tracks on the upper
slopes near the Olympic T-bar is likely to be difficult
to achieve because of the extreme exposure of these
slopes and the consequent slow plant growth rates.
Because of conflicts with lift operation and heavy use
of the Kosciuszko Road by cross-country skiers and
Charlotte Pass traffic, oversnow access to parts of
Mount Perisher is likely to be independent of the
summer access routes. Access to the base of the
International and Eyre T-bars from the base of the
chairlift will continue to be along the existing route on
the northern side of Perisher Creek. At one section
of this route north-east of the International T-bar, it is
proposed to undertake earthworks to create a
permanent bench. This is required to avoid an
existing hazard which can result in oversnow vehicles
sliding sideways downhill into the creek at this point.
8.4.4 Provision for less experienced skiers
The integration of an easy skiing route off Mount
Perisher with a summer access track, as discussed in
Section 8.3, is highly desirable from an operational
and safety viewpoint, but would substantially increase
the physical and visual impacts of upgrading access
to the top of the mountain and is not proposed for this
reason. Instead, such a ski trail would be formed by
winter grooming on the east-facing slopes of the
precinct to the north of the existing chairlifts. Some
minor summer grooming (e.g. localised rock removal)
may be required, subject to further investigation.
8.4.5 Snowmaking
Snowmaking is proposed along the Towers Run
which is already groomed to a suitable standard for
this purpose. A corridor up to 50 metres wide would
be served by snowmaking from bottom to top to
enable use of the proposed six-seater chairlift under
marginal snow conditions. The trench used for laying
snowmaking services up the corridor will probably
also be used for services to the visitor and ski patrol
facility at the top of the chairlift.
To provide access to the base of the lift, a corridor of
artificial snow will be maintained also from the bottom
of Happy Valley, with another corridor taking skiers
back to the Crossroads area.
8.4.6 Workshop facilities
The workshop facilities at the base of Mount Perisher
will be completely redeveloped in association with the
upgrading of lifting and restaurant facilities. It is
proposed to demolish the existing double chairlift
base station and to demolish and rehabilitate the
refuelling facility containing the petrol and diesel
pumps and the old workshop/store adjacent to the
Kosciuszko Road. New workshop facilities would be
included in the base station for the six-seater chairlift.
This building would incorporate:
housing for chairs, when detached;
restaurant and toilet facilities;
workshop facilities, principally for the maintenance
and repair of lifting in the precinct, but also
capable of emergency repair of grooming
machinery;
fuel storage; and
external hardstand areas for parking of two to
three grooming machines.
Further slope grooming is proposed in various parts
of the precinct including:
Burnum Burnum (north of the chairlifts);
Si dewi nder (between the chai rl i fts and
International T-bar);
base of International to enable re-homologation of
the run for major alpine competitions; and
top of Sun Valley T-bar.
This slope grooming will consist mainly of selected
rock and tree removal.
Some drainage works are proposed between the
base of Sun Valley and the Crossroads, and in the
lower part of the Towers Run.
Other minor slope grooming works would be
identified as the need arises.
8-6 SSMP MAY 2002
Table 8.2 Summary of proposed developments in
Precinct 3
Project
no.
Proposed works
3.1 Mount Perisher six-seater chairlift and removal of
existing chairlifts
3.2 Duplication of Eyre T-bar and associated slope
grooming
3.4 Snowmaking Towers Run
3.5 Snowmaking Mount Perisher to Happy Valley
(Crossroads)
3.6 Slope grooming on Burnum Burnum
3.7 Slope grooming on Sidewinder
3.8 Slope grooming on International racecourse
3.9 Slope grooming at top of Sun Valley T-bar
3.10 Drainage works between Sun Valley and
Crossroads
3.11 Drainage on Towers Run
3.12 Easy skiing route off Mount Perisher
3.13 Chairlift base station restaurant and visitor facilities
3.14 Chairlift top station visitor facilities
3.15 Eyre kiosk
3.16 Access track to top of Mount Perisher
3.17 Benching of oversnow route north-east of
International T-bar
3.18 Rehabilitation of access track up Towers Run
3.19 Rehabilitation of old access tracks between Towers
Run and Olympic T-bar
3.20 Rehabilitation of Eyre T-bar access track
3.21 Redevelopment of Mount Perisher workshop
3.22 Demolition and rehabilitation of refuelling facility
determined)
The existing and proposed skiing capacities in
by pods in Table 8.3. There would be significant
increases in lift capacity in the areas currently served
by the chairlifts and Eyre T-bar, but minimal
increases in slope capacity. Throughout the precinct,
the slope capacity would remain comfortably above
lift capacity, providing an ideal operational situation
and utilising the skiing resources of Mount Perisher
as efficiently as is practicable within the limits of the
alpine skiing management unit.
Future skiing capacity under other operating
conditions is summarised in Table 8.4. Extension of
snowmaking to Mount Perisher will be limited to the
Towers Run with the slope capacity based solely on
artificial snow being less than half of the future lift
capacity. This snowmaking, however, would
nevertheless be valuable in providing a slope that is
longer and steeper than those available in Front
Valley, Happy Valley or Smiggin Holes, thus
enhancing the opportunities for early season skiing in
the Perisher area for more advanced skiers.
Under marginal snow conditions late in the season,
Mount Perisher can sometimes become unavailable
for skiing altogether, due to snow loss in critical parts
of the area causing lifts to close prematurely, even
though there may still be adequate snow cover on the
sheltered south-easterly slopes. The extent to which
this is a problem obviously varies from season to
season.
Under very high wind conditions, the six-seater
chairlift may be closed, but the surface lifts would
remain operational, retaining about 56 percent of the
total future lift capacity and more than adequate
slope capacity to match. None of the surface lifts,
however, could operate using artificial snow. Hence,
in the event of a high wind day at a time when the
resort was wholly dependent on snowmaking, Mount
Perisher Precinct could not be used for skiing.
As Mount Perisher is at one extreme of the resort, the
precinct does not play a significant role in skier
circulation. Circulation within the precinct will be
essentially unchanged, although the improvement of
a trail for less experienced skiers would be beneficial
in assisting these skiers to move back safely to other
parts of the resort.
8.5.3 Other matters
The upgrading of restaurants and other visitor
facilities within the precinct will address an existing
major shortcoming. This is likely to attract greater
use of the precinct, particularly by intermediate and
advanced skiers, easing congestion on the slopes
closer to the Perisher base area and resulting in
more balanced use of the resort as a whole.
The facility at the top of the six-seater chairlift will
also provide an important focus for the future summer
operation of the resort, with significant benefits for
summer visitors.
The upgrading and integration of the workshop and
refuelling facility will benefit both winter and summer
operations, as well as achieving improved
SSMP MAY 2002 8-7
environmental and occupational health and safety
standards.
SAOT SAOT
Pod Lift Existing Proposed Pod sector Existing Proposed Notes
11 Sun Valley T-bar 133 133 11A to 11D 401 401
Total 133 133 401 401
12 Mount Perisher Triple
Chairlift
408 12A 304 304
Mount Perisher Double
Chairlift
206 12B 149 171
Mount Perisher 6-seater
Chairlift
790 12C to 12I 492 492
Total 614 790 945 967
13 International T-bar 313 313 13A to 13D 412 412
13E 26 29
13F to 13H 71 71
Total 313 313 509 512
14 Eyre T-bar 292 292 14A to 14G 672 672
Duplicate Eyre T-bar 292
Total 292 584 672 672
Total Precinct 3 1352 1820 2527 2552
Situation
Pod 11
Sun Valley
Pod 12
Chairlifts
Pod 13
International
Pod 14
Eyre
Total
Lift Slope Lift Slope Lift Slope Lift Slope Lift Slope
Existing 133 401 614 945 313 509 292 672 1352 2527
Full development
Optimum conditions 133 401 790 967 313 512 584 672 1820 2552
Marginal snow with snowmaking
(early in season)
790 362 790 362
Marginal snow late in season
(a)

High wind 133 401 313 509 584 672 1030 1582
High wind with snowmaking
Notes:
a. This assumes that Mount Perisher is significantly affected, which is not always the case (see Appendix C)
SSMP MAY 2002 9-1
9. PRECINCT 4: NORTH PERISHER
The North Perisher Precinct occupies the area
between Pretty Valley and the Pleasant Valley area
of Blue Cow (see Figure 9.1). It includes two broad
valleys accessible from the top of the Interceptor
Chairlift and some steeper slopes to the north of the
North Perisher T-bar. These areas provide skiing
terrain suitable for a wide range of abilities.
The northern/western boundary of the precinct is
formed by the ridge which runs north-east to east
from the Back Perisher summit. This boundary goes
over Rocky Knob then follows a broad flat ridge to the
north-east before dropping steeply down to the North
Perisher sewage treatment plant. This boundary
approximates that between the Perisher Smiggin
Holes and the Blue Cow management units.
The southern boundary is formed by the low ridge to
the north of Pretty Valley, where this precinct adjoins
the Back Perisher Precinct. Perisher Creek defines
the eastern boundary.
Until the construction of the Interceptor Chairlift in
early 1995, most of this precinct was not readily
accessible for skiing. Consequently the extent of
slope grooming to date has been low. The lower
slopes contain a few lodges along or uphill of the
North Perisher Road. The Perisher sewage
treatment plant is located downhill of the road in the
north-eastern corner of the precinct. The storage
tanks for the North Perisher water supply are located
near the midstation of the Interceptor Chairlift.
Because of the presence of the Interceptor Chairlift,
the precinct lies on the direct route for skiers
circulating from Smiggin Holes to Blue Cow. The
Blue Cow Expressway and the Perisher Home Trail
which connect the Perisher Express and Pleasant
Valley pass through the upper part of the precinct.
These trails also provide access into the upper part of
the valley south of Rocky Knob, with long runs back
to the base of the Pretty Valley chairlift in Precinct 2.
The precinct has a predominantly easterly to
southerly aspect, which is favourable for holding
snow and offers reasonable wind protection. The
elevation varies from about 1715 metres to 2015
metres, although the top 40 metres or so are not
accessible on skis.
As in Pretty Valley to the south, there are extensive
poorly drained areas on the valley floors, particularly
in the broad bowl in the south of the precinct, as well
as along Perisher Creek. The creek continues the
flat profile and sinuous course that is evident also in
its upper reaches, with the valley floor being naturally
treeless. The upper slopes of the precinct are
generally well drained except for occasional terraces
where groundwater accumulates.
The vegetation is shown in detail in Figure 9.2. In the
southern part of the precinct, the tree cover is sparse
for the first 20 to 25 metres of elevation above the
valley then a more continuous cover of mainly
medium aged snowgum woodland is present for a
further 100 metres of elevation, before the slopes
become more open again. The ridge around the top
of the precinct is covered with a more scattered
woodland of stunted snowgums, which are strongly
wind-affected in places. On the steeper slopes in the
north of the precinct, the tree cover is much sparser
with the slopes being covered mainly with dry heath.
The wet areas in the broad valleys support a mosaic
of wet heath, bog, transitional heath and occasionally
dry heath.
With little development within the precinct, the
majority of the vegetation cover is natural with
introduced ground cover being confined mainly to
areas around the lodges and other buildings on the
lower slopes or around structures along the liftlines.
Wet communities (wet heath, transitional
heath, bog, etc.) 15%
In terms of its value as fauna habitat, the area has
experienced minimal impact as a result of
development, except around the lodges and sewage
treatment plant. The pond at the plant provides
artificial open water habitat for waterbirds. Animal
movement is generally not impeded and there are
some heath corridors which are likely to have high
potential for Mastacomys movement.
Perisher Creek has experienced little direct physical
disturbance within this precinct, although there is
some bank erosion which could conceivably be linked
with increased runoff peaks in the catchment. Water
flow and quality in the creek, however, are strongly
influenced by two activities within the precinct. One
is the abstraction of water for snowmaking from a
point just north of the North Perisher T-bar. The
other is the discharge of treated sewage effluent into
the creek about 350 metres further downstream.
9-2 SSMP MAY 2002
A large periglacial area south of Blue Calf Pass has
been identified as being of geomorphological
significance (see Figure 9.3, Ref. 16). There is also a
section of Perisher Creek on the eastern boundary of
the precinct which displays unusual channel
characteristics and has some 'penitent rocks' nearby
which are of geological interest (see Figure 9.3, Ref.
16).
There are extensive areas along the Rocky Knob
ridge at the top of this precinct and on the upper
slopes of Mount Back Perisher which have been
assessed as being of high or low to moderate
archaeological sensitivity (see Figure 9.3, Ref. 14).
The lowlying areas in the valley of Perisher Creek are
assessed as having potential for deep subsurface
archaeological deposits. No features of Aboriginal
cultural significance have been recorded within the
precinct.
There are no permanent scientific sites known within
the precinct.
Historically, use of the North Perisher Precinct has
been low, due to the difficulty of accessing it for
skiing from other precincts. Use of the area
increased dramatically in 1995 with the opening of
the Interceptor Quad Chairlift, and increased further
following the opening up in 1997 of the terrain to the
north of the North Perisher T-bar known as the
Devil's Playground.
Access from the Perisher Valley Precinct to the
Interceptor Quad Chair, which in turn provides
access to the North Perisher T-bar, is presently
difficult, especially for intermediate and lower skill
level skiers. There are uphill grades, flat spots and a
major summer access road (to North Perisher) which
also serves as an authorised oversnow route in
winter. The uphill grades (located also in Precinct 2)
lead to congestion as skiers lose speed. The flat
spots cause snowboarders to stop altogether to
release a binding in order to skate. The
road/oversnow route gives rise to skier/vehicular
conflict as both lift base stations are below the
road/route. In addition, vehicular use leads to snow
decomposition, especially towards the end of the
season, although this can also occur at the start of
the season when wheeled and track vehicles are
used.
Improved skier access is needed also from the top of
Interceptor to the top of the North Perisher T-bar to
reach the excellent fall-line skiing associated with this
T-bar, as well as the Devil's Playground. The slopes
and lift track associated with the North Perisher T-bar
would benefit from some summer grooming, which
has been minimal in the past due to poor access.
Some further summer grooming, both for skier use
and to facilitate the safe movement of winter
grooming machinery, is required also on the slopes
served by the Interceptor Quad Chairlift. This chairlift
was originally constructed with minimal grooming
only, with a view to extending this grooming if
necessary following winter monitoring of the area's
operation (Ref. 23).
Use of the bottom section of Interceptor is often
curtailed late in the season due to snow loss. While
the lift can still operate from the midstation, it is
obviously preferable to use the whole lift for as long
as possible. Use of the lower section could be
extended by using snowmaking earlier in the season
to accumulate a greater depth of snow over this
section.
Summer access to the top of the North Perisher T-
bar is currently available only via a narrow track
which is severely eroded in its upper sections. This
track is in need of rehabilitation. An alternative
access route with a gentler grade is desirable, for
example, along the top of the ridge from the
Interceptor access track.
While there is currently no snowmaking within the
precinct, the existing snowmaking water supply and
pump station for Perisher is located on Perisher
Creek just north of the North Perisher T-bar. This
collects water from the creek and pumps it via a main
located to the east of the North Perisher Road which
runs to near Orana Lodge, then up the slope to the
snowmaking building.
skiing capacity of the precinct in terms of both lift
9.1 in relation to the pods identified in Figure 9.4.
The capacity analysis excludes a large area in the
south of the precinct which is accessible mainly from
the Blue Cow Expressway or the top of Pleasant
Valley, and which has been treated as part of
Precinct 2 for purposes of slope capacity analysis.
With only two lifts in the precinct, the slope capacity
associated with each of the lifts is comfortably more
than the respective lift capacity. In addition, there is
a large excess of lift capacity in the south of the
precinct in the area which does not contain any lifts at
present but receives regular use through skier
movement from other precincts (see Section 7.3).
There is therefore no need to consider further slope
grooming for purposes of utilising the capacity of the
existing lifts, although there would be potential for
additional lifts if the demand warranted it. This is not
a priority in the SSMP, however.
SSMP MAY 2002 9-3
Pod
area (ha)
Lift SAOT Pod
sector
SAOT Notes
15 31.7 Interceptor Quad chairlift 616 15A 250
15B 73
15C 15
15D 10
15E 31
15F 29
15G 45
15H 59
15I 57
15J 167
15K 101
Total 616 837
16 18.9 North Perisher T-bar 169 16A 101
16B 83
16C 145
Total 169 329
The main issues associated with the North Perisher
precinct are as follows:
The need to upgrade skier access to the base
station of the Interceptor Quad Chairlift from the
Perisher Valley Precinct.
The need to upgrade skier access to the top of the
North Perisher T-bar from the top of the
Interceptor Quad Chairlift.
The need for summer grooming of the trails
associated with the Interceptor Quad Chairlift and
the North Perisher T-bar.
Extension of late season snow cover on the lower
part of the Interceptor Run.
Rationalisation of the oversnow routes within the
precinct, including the type and number of
vehicles using the North Perisher Road and
oversnow route.
Improvement of summer access to the top of the
North Perisher T-bar, and rehabilitation of the
existing eroded track.
(see Figure 9.5)
9.4.1 Skier access to Interceptor base station
Access from Front Valley to the Interceptor base
station will be improved through snowmaking and trail
improvement from Front Valley to Pretty Valley as
described in Section 9.4.5. From the base of Pretty
Valley to the base of the Interceptor Chairlift, there
would be minor upgrading of the trail, removing a
couple of slightly uphill gradients at the end nearest
the Interceptor.
9.4.2 Skier access to top of North Perisher T-bar
Two developments have led to the need to upgrade
the access from the top of the Interceptor Chairlift to
the top of North Perisher T-bar. First, the installation
of the Interceptor Chairlift for season 1995 enabled
greater use, especially by high intermediate to
advanced skiers, of the North Perisher ski slopes.
Access to that area was previously quite difficult,
being from the top of the Perisher Express Chairlift.
Access was very difficult for snowboarders due to the
long traverse. Second, the terrain to the north of the
T-bar known as the 'Devil's Playground' was opened
up for season 1997.
Upgrading is proposed to be confined to relatively
minor grooming involving widening of the existing
access trail by selective rock and tree removal.
While this would necessitate a small amount of
climbing by skiers, it is a more direct and easier route
than traversing around the lower slopes, which may
also involve more extensive vegetation removal to
establish a trail.
9.4.3 Slope grooming
The improved access from Interceptor to the North
Perisher T-bar and the opening up of the Devil's
Playground will significantly increase use of the North
Perisher area, which offers some of the best
consistent fall-line skiing in the resort. Because of its
poor access and low use in the past, this area has
received very little summer grooming. While further
slope grooming is not warranted on capacity grounds,
clearing of heath and rocks from two or three trails on
the North Perisher slope is desirable to improve the
quality of the skiing experience and the safety of
skiers. Further grooming of the North Perisher T-bar
track is also required.
9-4 SSMP MAY 2002
The trails serving the Interceptor Chairlift, which were
established with the minimum practicable level of
grooming pending further monitoring, warrant further
tree removal, particularly in the Hidden Valley area.
It is also desirable to construct a bridge 30 to 40
metres long across the creek adjacent to the
midstation to facilitate access to this point during
marginal snow conditions when only the top part of
the slope is skiable.
9.4.4 Snowmaking
Snowmaking is proposed between the midstation and
bottom station of the Interceptor Chairlift to extend
the use of the lower part of this lift late in the season.
Because of its isolation from the main Perisher
snowmaking area and its proximity to the fill line from
Perisher Creek to the Perisher snowmaking building,
snowmaking water will be supplied directly from this
line, using a small pump at the base of Interceptor.
Fan guns would be used to avoid the need for a
compressed air line from the snowmaking building.
The snowmaking fill line from Pipers Creek Aqueduct
to Perisher and Smiggin Holes will follow the North
Perisher Road through this precinct, but is not directly
linked with snowmaking within the precinct.
9.4.5 Oversnow route
The oversnow route to North Perisher will continue to
follow the North Perisher summer road, deviating
around the base of the Interceptor Chairlift. It would
be modified so that it also deviated around the base
of the North Perisher T-bar, in order to avoid conflict
with use of this lift. This would involve constructing a
new access road around the bottom station of the T-
bar in the same way that this was done at the base of
the Interceptor Chairlift.
9.4.6 Summer access to top of North Perisher T-
bar
A summer access track is proposed on a route which
leaves the existing access track to the top of the
Interceptor Quad Chairlift near the top of the ridge,
then follows clearings through the flat terrain near the
crest of the ridge to the top of the North Perisher T-
bar. This route would be integrated with the skier
access to the top of the T-bar.
Constructing the new track is considered to result in
fewer long term environmental problems than
attempting to maintain or upgrade the existing track.
The existing track would be rehabilitated, with priority
given to the upper section which is seriously eroded
in places. When rehabilitated, this track would
terminate at Trissana Lodge.
9.4.7 Other works
Other remedial works required in the precinct include
the removal of the derelict water tank remains in the
valley north of the Interceptor Chairlift. This work
would be the responsibility of the NPWS.
Other grooming works of a minor nature are expected
to be required from time to time, but have not been
identified specifically at the current level of planning.
Precinct 4
Project
no.
Proposed works
4.1 Snowmaking at base of Interceptor
4.2 Snowmaking fill main from Pipers Creek Aqueduct
to Perisher and Smiggin Holes
4.3 Pretty Valley to Interceptor trail improvements
4.4 Skier access to top of North Perisher T-bar
4.5 Slope grooming Devils Playground
4.6 Slope grooming Hidden Valley/ Interceptor
4.7 Bridge across creek near Interceptor midstation
4.8 Summer access track to North Perisher T-bar
4.9 Rehabilitation of existing North Perisher T-bar
access track
4.10 Deviation of oversnow route around North
Perisher T-bar
4.11 Removal of derelict water tank remains and
rehabilitation of site (NPWS)
determined)
by pods in Table 9.3. In summary, neither lift
capacity nor slope capacity of the precinct would be
altered as a result of the SSMP.
conditions is summarised in Table 9.4. Because of
the limited amount of snowmaking within the precinct,
which is intended primarily to extend skiing at the end
of the season, the precinct would not operate at all
SSMP MAY 2002 9-5
SAOT SAOT
15
Interceptor Quad
Chairlift
616 616 15A to 15K 838 838
Total 616 616 838 838
16 North Perisher T-bar 169 169 16A to 16C 329 329
Total 169 169 329 329
Total Precinct 4 785 785 1167 1167
Situation
Pod 15
Interceptor
Pod 16
North Perisher T-bar
Total
Lift Slope Lift Slope Lift Slope
Existing 616 837 169 329 785 1167
Full development
Optimum conditions 616 837 169 329 785 1167
(early in season)

Marginal snow late in season 616 837
(a)
616 837
High wind 616 837 169 329 785 1167
High wind with snowmaking
Notes:
a. Slope capacity may be reduced slightly due to localised snow loss.
under artificial snow conditions early in the season.
however, this snowmaking should enable the
Interceptor Chairlift and associated runs to continue
to operate at close to full capacity, although the North
Perisher T-bar is likely to close.
The Interceptor Chairlift, being sheltered by Rocky
Knob and orientated in an east-west direction, can
usually continue to operate during high wind. The
precinct would thus remain fully operational under
such conditions. If extreme winds forced the closure
of Interceptor, the precinct could still operate using
North Perisher T-bar, although access to this T-bar
would become more difficult.
The important role of the Interceptor Chairlift in
enabling skiers to move from Smiggin Holes or North
Perisher to Blue Cow will continue. Improved skier
access from Pretty Valley to Interceptor would be of
minor benefit but, in general, skier circulation would
not be affected by the SSMP.
9.5.3 Other matters
The separation of oversnow traffic from skiers at the
base of the North Perisher T-bar will be beneficial
from an operational viewpoint, as well as reducing
the hazard to skiers.
The new access track to the top of the North Perisher
T-bar will improve summer access for maintenance
purposes.
SSMP MAY 2002 10-1
10. PRECINCT 5: SMIGGIN HOLES
The Smiggin Holes Precinct consists of the bowl on
Mount Piper which overlooks the Smiggin Holes
carpark (see Figure 10.1). It is bounded on three
sides by the summit ridge of Mount Piper and by
ridges that swing east at the northern and southern
ends of the summit ridge. The eastern boundary is
formed by the Smiggin Holes carpark, the Link Road
to Guthega and the Kosciuszko Road to Perisher.
Smiggin Holes provides an ideal safe bowl for
beginner and intermediate skiing. Prior to the
opening of the Skitube, it was a major point of arrival
for all visitors to the Perisher Smiggins resort,
catering particularly for bus groups and learner
skiers. This role is now diminished with many of
these visitors arriving by the Skitube, although it still
has a major ski school, which is focused particularly
on bus groups.
For car-based visitors, Smiggin Holes has the
advantage of avoiding the drive over Pipers Gap
during difficult road conditions. From Smiggin Holes
there are several options for skiing from Smiggin
Holes to other parts of the resort (see Section 10.3).
Shuttle buses along the Kosciuszko Road also
operate to transport skiers from Smiggin Holes to
Perisher.
The intensive use of the Smiggin Holes Precinct in
the past has resulted in a high degree of slope
grooming, particularly on the lower slopes. With the
precinct including part of the Smiggin Holes village
area, it is the most highly developed part of the resort
after Front Valley.
The past disturbance of the area is not just a
consequence of skiing development. It was
previously an area of concentrated grazing activity
and indeed that is how the area got its name. Past
grazing practices are understood to have modified
the wet areas and to have contributed to tree
dieback.
Associated with the village area at Smiggin Holes are
the main workshop for the Perisher Blue Ski Resort
and a separate workshop used by the road clearing
contractor. The Perisher Blue workshop is located at
the entrance to the village, while the snowclearing
workshop is at the upper northern end of the village,
outside the boundary defined for Precinct 5.
With a predominantly easterly to south-easterly
aspect, the Smiggin Holes precinct is well protected
from wind, and is favourably aligned for retaining
snow. Natural snow deposition, however, is
prejudiced by its relatively low elevation (from about
1690 metres at the carpark to about 1830 metres on
much of the Mount Piper ridge), while snow holding,
particularly on the lower slopes, is reduced by the
wetness of much of this area.
The vegetation pattern (see Figure 10.2) has been
influenced by past development. Upslope of the bog
areas in the valley, parts of which have been drained,
the natural tree cover on the slopes has been
obviously modified by the clearing of lift tracks and
ski trails, with some quite extensive areas being
surface-groomed and sown with introduced grasses.
There are extensive areas of wet heath and bog also
on the slopes.
At the northern end of the Mount Piper summit ridge
there are many stands of climax snowgum
communities. Further south on the ridge, the tree
cover is much more sparse. There are many dead
snowgums in the Smiggin Holes area, these being
the result of attack by the Cossid Moth in combination
with other environmental stresses such as grazing
and burning over several decades (Ref. 24).
Wet communities (wet heath, bog, etc.) 11%
Buildings, hardstanding areas 5%
The Smiggin Holes area has been reported to be a
major site for the Broad-toothed Rat (Mastacomys
fuscus) although the main study site for this species
is south of the Kosciuszko Road, outside the precinct
(see Figure 10.3, Ref. 16). There is ample evidence
of its presence in the area, despite the clearing which
is likely to have interfered with its natural movement
pattern.
The upper slopes of the precinct (see Figure 10.3)
have been assessed as being of geomorphological
significance because of the superficial resemblance
to a glacial cirque (Ref. 16). Because of its large and
robust form, however, it is not regarded as sensitive
to disturbance.
Areas assessed as being of high archaeological
sensitivity (Ref. 14) extend along the summit ridge of
Mount Piper and along the flatter sections of
secondary ridges leading to the summit (see Figure
10.3). Limited areas along Smiggin Creek and on
Pipers Creek, just outside the precinct, have been
assessed as having potential for deep subsurface
archaeological deposits (Ref. 14).
10-2 SSMP MAY 2002
An archaeological site consisting of two quartz flakes
has been recorded in a disturbed area near the top of
the J-bars at the north of the ski bowl and an isolated
find (a small quartz flake) has been recorded on the
Low Traverse (see Figure 10.3, Ref. 15).
A series of plots was established in 1982 along the
oversnow route at the southern edge of the precinct
to determine the susceptibilities of plant species and
communities to vehicle trampling (Ref. 16), although
it is understood that this is no longer in use for
research.
Smiggin Holes is an alternative entry point to the
resort, and is important particularly when the Perisher
carpark is filled to capacity. It also has the advantage
of allowing visitors to avoid the drive over Pipers Gap
during difficult road conditions.
There are several factors, however, which currently
detract from the role of Smiggin Holes as an entry
point to the resort.
One is the inappropriateness of having a large
mountain workshop at the entrance to Smiggin Holes.
This is partly an issue associated with village
planning, and has been addressed in the Village
Master Plan EIS (Ref. 2) and the associated
Commission of Inquiry (COI) (Ref. 3). It is
nevertheless also an important issue with respect to
the SSMP as the workshop is crucial to ski slope
operation and the preferred alternative site, as well
as most other site options, are located within ski
slope areas.
A second factor is the quality of the interface between
the base area and the ski slopes, an issue which was
also addressed in the Village Master Plan EIS (Ref.
2) and the COI (Ref. 3). Base area facilities
associated with the ski slope interface are currently
limited, with the Ski School being based in the
Smiggins Hotel. Snow cover at the base of the slope
for those wishing to ski at Smiggin Holes (especially
beginners) is often limited by the poor snow holding
characteristics of the area due to its relatively low
elevation and poor drainage. This problem is
addressed by snowmaking but the current
snowmaking system at Smiggin Holes, which is
supplied from an underground storage tank at the
base of the slope, does not have the capacity to
make sufficient snow to maintain a reliable cover.
Consequently, the length and viability of the season
in this part of the resort is sometimes reduced.
For those using Smiggin Holes as an entry point to
the other parts of the resort, there are several options
for skiing from from the top of the Smiggin Holes
Precinct, namely via the Telemark T-bar to Perisher,
via the Interceptor Chairlift to Pleasant Valley at Blue
Cow and directly to the bottom of the Ridge Lift at
Blue Cow. The dispersal of skiers from Smiggin
Holes and their return at the end of the day is a
significant consideration in the planning of the resort,
which will become more important, should there be
any increase in the proportion of day parking at
Smiggin Holes.
The most important lift in skier dispersal is the Link T-
bar, which provides access to Perisher and Blue
Cow. This T-bar is difficult to access, however,
because its base station is located some distance up
the slope. Other dispersal routes based on the Hume
T-bar and the Burke and Wills duplex T-bars are also
likely to become increasingly important in the future.
Smi ggi n Hol es i s an excel l ent area for
beginner/novice skiers by virtue of the large flat area
adjacent to the carpark with a range of slopes and
lifts which enable those skiers to develop their skills
progressively under appropriate slope conditions.
Use of the area by beginners, however, is often
limited by inadequate snow cover, as discussed
above. This is important because of the timing of the
school holidays which, since the advent of the four-
term year, has seen family holidays occurring mainly
at the more marginal times of the season.
The limited capacity of the snowmaking system at
Smiggin Holes has resulted in snowmaking being
confined to a limited area on the beginner slopes. All
of the main slopes associated with the T-bars and the
Kaaten Triple Chairlift operate only under natural
snow, which can limit their availability, particularly at
the beginning or end of the season. There is a need
to extend snowmaking to increase the reliability of
these slopes.
At the southern edge of the skiing bowl, the oversnow
route from Perisher comes into Smiggin Holes. This
route is also used by skiers, which can lead to conflict
between skiers and oversnow vehicles. To avoid
this, it would be preferable to have a dedicated
oversnow route which did not encroach on the ski
slopes.
The upgrading of snowmaking facilities at Smiggin
Holes is not just a local issue. Smiggin Holes is the
proposed site for a major reservoir for storing
snowmaking water for the whole resort. The
provision of this reservoir and associated
infrastructure needs to be reflected in the planning for
the precinct as a whole.
An existing problem at Smiggin Holes which has
environmental implications is the lack of permanent
summer vehicle access to the tops of some of the
lifts. As a consequence, summer maintenance
activities result in an ongoing cycle of surface
disturbance due to the need to drive on steep,
grassed slopes followed by rehabilitation of disturbed
areas using introduced grasses. Apart from being
wasteful of resources, this results in a situation in
SSMP MAY 2002 10-3
which the areas used for access are unlikely to ever
regenerate with native species. A permanent,
properly constructed access track system is desirable
in the interests of long-term environmental stability.
In all parts of the precinct, the slope capacity is
comfortably above the existing lift capacity. There is
therefore no need to undertake further summer
grooming at Smiggin Holes to increase the slope
capacity in relation to existing lifts.
The main issues associated with the Smiggin Holes
Enhancement of its role as an entry point to the
resort, dispersing skiers to the North Perisher and
Blue Cow Precincts without the need to pass
through Perisher Valley, including improvement of
the interface between the base area facilities and
the ski slopes.
Improvement of its reliability as an accessible
beginner area.
Extension of snowmaking throughout the slopes.
Separation of skiers from the oversnow route from
Perisher Valley, which is located at the southern
edge of the ski slopes.
Construction of a major reservoir for storage of
snowmaking water.
Improvement of summer access to lift top stations.
(see Figure 10.5)
10.4.1 Role as an entry point
The most important action proposed to improve the
role of Smiggin Holes as an entry point to the resort
is to relocate the existing mountain workshop from
the entrance to Smiggin Holes to a new site in a
saddle south-west of Smiggin Holes, just outside the
precinct. Further details of the workshop and its
access road are given in relation to Precinct 6 (see
Section 11.4.4). The future use of the existing
workshop site needs to be addressed as part of the
Village Master Plan for Smiggin Holes.
The Village Master Plan is also expected to address
the issue of possible increased parking at Smiggin
Holes, particularly in the context of offsetting any
reduction in parking that might result at Perisher
Valley as a result of village development. Any
increase in parking would reinforce the role of
Smiggin Holes as an entry point for car-based
visitors.
The role as an entry point will be further enhanced by
improving snow reliability at the base of the slopes
through increased snowmaking (see Section 10.4.2)
and by extending the Link T-bar and possibly the
Burke and Wills duplex T-bars further down the slope
to bring them closer to the carpark. For these
measures to be most effective during marginal snow
conditions, it is proposed to undertake further slope
drainage works at the base of the slopes.
As part of the village development, it is proposed to
upgrade the Wattle Lodge building on the edge of the
carpark and, amongst other things, relocate the
Smiggin Holes Ski School operations into this
building from the present location in the Smiggins
Hotel.
10.4.2 Improved reliability for beginners
A key consideration in enhancing the reliability of
Smiggin Holes as a beginner area is to ensure the
availability of adequate snow during marginal
conditions. To this end it is proposed to significantly
increase the area served by snowmaking to include
most of the groomed slopes associated with the lifts
in the precinct (see Section 10.4.3). In order for
snowmaking to be most effective, it is proposed to
undertake further slope drainage across the whole of
the Smiggin Holes base area between the Link T-bar
and the J-bars at the northern end of the bowl.
To improve access for beginners onto the slopes, it is
proposed to upgrade the Kaaten triple chair to a quad
chairlift on the same alignment. In addition, a new
platter lift is proposed near the northern end of the
carpark in the area which is currently used for
tobogganing. The four existing rope tows, which are
used primarily for the Ski School, would be removed
and be replaced by skier conveyors.
Formal provision for tobogganing at Smiggin Holes
would cease, but improved snowplay facilities would
be provided instead on the southern slopes of Mount
Piper (see Section 11.4.1). Snowplay activities at
Smiggin Holes will continue in the future but would be
informal only.
10.4.3 Extension of snowmaking
It is proposed to extend snowmaking throughout
much of the slopes at Smiggin Holes. In particular,
this will increase the repeat skiing opportunities under
marginal snow conditions associated with the Burke
and Wills duplex T-bars, the Hume T-bar, the Kaaten
chairlift and the J-bars. The Link T-bar would also
have some snowmaking provided, although this
would be primarily to facilitate circulation to and from
Perisher, rather than for repeat skiing. Increased
snowmaking at the base of the slope would improve
the reliability of snow cover for all skiers crossing this
area, in addition to beginners, as discussed in
Section 10.4.2.
10-4 SSMP MAY 2002
Pod
area (ha)
17 3.8 Scott J-bar 67 17A 270
Captain Cook J-bar 58
Black Diamond rope tow 35
Total 130 270
18 10.3 Hume T-bar 115 18A 501
Kaaten Triple chairlift 327 18B 47
Total 442 548
19 13.3 Burke T-bar 174 19A 578
Wills T-bar 174 19B 81
19C 95
Total 348 754
20 11.1 Link T-bar 117 20A 227
20B 122
20C 34
Total 117 383
21 1.1 Harrys rope tow 34 21A 139
Hermans rope tow 34
Zappys rope tow 35
Total 104 139
10.4.4 Snowmaking reservoir
The main limiting factor to the extension of
snowmaking at Smiggin Holes is the availability of an
adequate water supply. This problem is not just
confined to Smiggin Holes, but relates also to the
extension of snowmaking in other parts of the resort,
particularly Perisher.
In order to provide a water supply with sufficient
capacity and reliability to serve the long term needs
of the resort, a storage reservoir of approximately
60ML capacity is required somewhere within the
resort. The optimum location for this reservoir based
on environmental and operational considerations is
on the broad flat ridge at the northern end of the
Smiggin Holes ski bowl.
As well as providing the main snowmaking storage
for the whole resort, this reservoir will also supply
snowmaking water directly to Smiggin Holes. The
pumps, compressors and other plant for this purpose
will be located in a snowmaking building adjacent to
the reservoir. This building will also contain pumps
for distributing stored water to other parts of the
resort. The water flowing to and from the reservoir
will pass through trunk mains following a route via the
base of the slopes, the Low Traverse/existing
oversnow route and the Piper T-bar (Precinct 6).
The construction of the reservoir would require
shortening of the Captain Cook J-bar at its upper end
and minor slopeworks to accommodate a new unload
area. Relocation of the twin 33 kV underground
subtransmission lines from Munyang will also be
required where these cross the reservoir site.
10.4.5 Relocation of oversnow route
In order to separate skiers from the main oversnow
traffic between Smiggin Holes and Perisher, it is
proposed to relocate the oversnow route through an
area of woodland to the south, linking a series of
clearings and selectively removing a number of trees
along the route. This would rejoin the existing route
to the north-west of the lodges, avoiding the need to
pass through the lodge area. The route near the
lodges is different from that shown in the earlier draft
Mountain Master Plan (Ref. 5) which raised concerns
among a number of Smiggin Holes respondents
during the earlier public consultation process.
At nighttime, when the slopes are not in use for
skiing, the oversnow route would follow the existing
route on the edge of the ski slope to minimise noise
disturbance at the lodges.
10.4.6 Summer access
The opportunities for providing permanent summer
access routes to the tops of some of the lifts at
Smiggin Holes without associated environmental
problems are restricted by the extensive areas of
poor drainage on the eastern slopes of Mount Piper.
A number of old access routes have sections passing
through areas of wet heath or bog which have been
SSMP MAY 2002 10-5
disturbed in the past but are now regenerating
naturally. It is desirable not to disturb these further.
Instead, a new track to the top of the Link T-bar
would run from the proposed workshop site south-
west of Smiggin Holes along the route of the Low
Traverse towards the top of the Mount Piper T-bar,
then along the route of the High Traverse to the top
of the Link T-bar, much of this route being within
Precinct 6. This section of the track would also
provide access to the top of the proposed new T-bar
on the western slopes of Mount Piper. From the top
of the Link T-bar, it would follow an old track to the
top of the Burke and Wills duplex T-bar. The route of
this track is well-drained and on moderate slopes.
If permanent access to the top of the Hume T-bar is
warranted in the future, this would be provided by
extending the existing track to the top of the Kaaten
Chairlift up the slope for about 150 metres. This is a
relatively steep slope, however, and would require
careful design to minimise physical impacts.
In addition to the access track, some summer slope
grooming, including rock removal, would be
undertaken along the High Traverse from the top of
the Link T-bar to the top of the Piper T-bar (mainly in
Precinct 6) and along the track and south side of the
Link T-bar. These groomed areas are within the area
that would be serviced by new snowmaking.
Other minor slope grooming works are likely to be
required from time to time, but have not been
identified specifically at the current level of planning.
A location south of the duplex T-bar has been
identified as a possible site for a permanent FIS-
homologated snowboarding halfpipe, although a site
in Front Valley (Precinct 1) is the preferred location
for this facility.
The Smiggin Holes lift workshop, which is located
partly within the lease boundary of the Smiggins
Hotel, would be relocated, either within the new
central workshop or to another operational building
such as the drive station at the bottom of the
upgraded Kaaten Quad Chairlift.
Precinct 5
Project
no.
Proposed works
5.1 Upgrading of Kaaten Chairlift to a quad chairlift
5.2 New platter lift
5.3 Replacement of rope tows with skier conveyors
5.4 Extension of Link T-bar
5.5 Shortening of Captain Cook J-bar
5.6 Possible extension of Burke Wills duplex T-
bars
5.7 Extension of snowmaking throughout precinct
5.8 Snowmaking reservoir and building
5.9 Snowmaking fill line
5.10 Relocation of twin 33 kV underground
subtransmission lines at reservoir site
5.11 Slope drainage works at base of slopes
5.12 Slope grooming along High Traverse
5.13 Slope grooming along Link T-bar
5.14 Possible snowboarding halfpipe
5.15 Upgrading of Wattle Lodge
5.16 Relocation of Ski School operations from
Smiggin Hotel to Wattle Lodge
5.17 Relocation of oversnow route
5.18 Summer access track to Link and duplex T-bars
5.19 Summer access track to top of Hume T-bar
5.20 Relocation of main workshop
5.21 Relocation of lift workshop
determined)
by pods in Table 10.3. The main increase in lift
capacity would be associated with the upgrading of
the Kaaten Chairlift. This increase is due partly to the
increased operating capacity of the lift itself, and
partly to the assumption that an increased proportion
of future lift users would be beginner or novice skiers.
These skiers place relatively low demands on lift and
slope use, hence can be safely accommodated in
higher numbers with the same lifts and slope area
than intermediate or advanced skiers.
As a result of the Kaaten Chairlift upgrading, the
future lift capacity within Pod 18 is likely to exceed
the slope capacity. There is, however, some scope
for skiing associated with the Pod 18 lifts to overlap
into Pods 17 and 19, where slope capacity is well in
10-6 SSMP MAY 2002
SAOT SAOT
17 Scott J-bar 67 67 17A 270 230 a
Captain Cook J-bar 58 58 17B 173 b
Smiggins Ski School Rope
tow
35 17C 18 b
New platter lift (snowplay
area)
73
Total 160 198 270 421
18 Hume T-bar 115 115 18A 501 523 c
Kaaten Triple Chairlift 327 18B 47 47
Kaaten Quad Chairlift 631
Total 442 746 548 570
19 Burke T-bar 174 174 19A to 19C 754 754
Wills T-bar 174 174
Total 348 348 754 754
20 Link T-bar 117 117 20A to 20C 383 383
Total 177 117 383 383
21 Rope Tows 104 21A 139 139
Skier conveyors 104 d
Total 104 104 139 139
Total Precinct 5 1171 1513 2094 2267
Notes
a. The capacity of Pod 17A is estimated to be reduced by 20% due to the construction of the snowmaking reservoir
and shortening of the Captain Cook J-bar.
b. The proposed platter lift within the existing snowplay area would provide additional slope capacity directly
associated with the platter lift (Sector 17B) and potentially allow use of the slope uphill of it towards the top of the
Scott J-bar (Sector 17C).
c. The slight increase in slope capacity is due to an increased proportion of beginner skiers assumed to be using the
Kaaten Quad Chairlift in the future.
d. The lift capacity of the skier conveyors is assumed to be equivalent to that of the existing ropetows.
excess of lift capacity. There is also the prospect of
increasing slope capacity within Pod 18 but
undertaking limited additional summer grooming,
although this is not proposed in the current SSMP.
The new platter lift in Pod 17 provides some
additional lift and slope capacity in this area, mainly
for beginners and novices. The capacity of the main
beginner area at the base of the slopes (Pod 21) is
assumed to be unchanged as a result of the
replacement of the rope tows with skier conveyors.
The capacities of Pods 19 and 20 would also remain
unchanged under optimum operating conditions.
the proposed extension of snowmaking, it would be
possible for most of the precinct to remain
operational at a reasonable capacity even if it were
totally dependent on artificial snow. The main
limitation would be in Pod 20, where snowmaking
would enable the Link T-bar to operate for skier
circulation but not for repeat skiing.
If Smiggin Holes was severely affected by snow loss
late in the season, the whole precinct would cease to
operate. While snowmaking would reduce the extent
of this problem, it would not prevent it under severe
snow loss conditions.
Most of Smiggin Holes would remain relatively
unaffected by high wind, due to its protected south-
easterly aspect and its high proportion of surface lifts.
As at present, however, the Kaaten Chairlift would be
prone to wind closure, which would reduce the total
SSMP MAY 2002 10-7
Situation
Pod 17
J-bars
Pod 18
Hume/Kaaten
Pod 19
Duplex
Pod 20
Link
Pod 21
Rope tows
Total
Existing 160 270 442 548 348 754 117 383 104 139 1171 2094
Full development
Optimum conditions 198 421 746 570 348 754 117 383 104 139 1513 2267
Marginal snow with
season)
125 230 746 427 348 424 117 (b) 104 139 1440 1220
season (a)

High wind 198 421 115 570 348 754 117 383 104 139 882 2267
High wind with
snowmaking
125 230 115 427 348 424 117 (b) 104 139 809 1220
Notes:
a. This assumes that Smiggin Holes is significantly affected, which is not always the case (see Appendix C).
b. Snowmaking for skier circulation only, not repeat skiing.
lift capacity by about 40 percent under such
conditions.
Skier circulation between Smiggin Holes and other
parts of the resort would remain essentially as at
present but would be made easier and more
convenient by the extension of the Link T-bar (and
possibly the Burke Wills duplex) down the slope,
the separation of the oversnow route from the Low
Traverse and the provision of snowmaking along the
Link T-bar and the traverses to and from the Piper T-
bar. Other improvements to skier circulation are
discussed in relation to Precinct 6 (Chapter 11) and
Precinct 9 (Chapter 14).
All of these improvements would reinforce the role of
Smiggin Holes as an entry point to the resort.
10.5.3 Other matters
The important role of Smiggin Holes as a beginner
area would be enhanced by the improvements to
various lifts which can be used by beginners (skier
conveyors, new platter lift, Kaaten Quad Chairlift), the
extension of snowmaking, further drainage works in
the base area and relocation of Ski School operations
to an upgraded Wattle Lodge.
Workshop operation in the Smiggin Holes area and
for the resort as a whole would be improved by
relocating the workshop to a new site. The upgrading
of the access track system would benefit summer lift
maintenance without the ongoing distraction of
having to rehabilitate surfaces disturbed by off-track
movement.
The relocation of the oversnow route will improve
skier safety, as well as provide a less congested
route for oversnow operators. In terms of ski slope
management, the latter is particularly important
during the period prior to relocation of the main
workshop, where most slope grooming machinery
would be based and serviced.
SSMP MAY 2002 11-1
11. PRECINCT 6: MOUNT PIPER SOUTH
The Mount Piper South Precinct includes the area
between Smiggin Holes and Perisher which is used
by skiers mainly as access between those two parts
of the resort (see Figure 11.1). The southern slopes
of Mount Piper are also currently used as an informal
snowplay and tobogganing area.
The Mount Piper ridge forms the eastern boundary of
the precinct, the Kosciuszko Road and Perisher
carpark form the southern boundary and Perisher
Creek forms the western boundary. The northern
boundary is rather arbitrary, but is shown roughly
level with the summit of Mount Piper, taking in the
route from the top of the Link T-bar to the foot of the
Interceptor Chairlift.
The amount of ski slope development within the
precinct is very low, being confined to the Piper T-bar
and various snow fences and trails. The precinct
also contains the Perisher View Lodge at Piper Gap,
and associated services. This lodge, which is no
longer operational, is the only Perisher lodge that is
not within the village precincts of Perisher Valley.
The Plan of Management (Section 7.3.5) proposes
removing this facility and redeveloping it at an
alternative site within the village accommodation
zone (Ref. 1).
The oversnow route between Perisher and Smiggin
Holes passes through the precinct.
The majority of this precinct has a westerly aspect,
exposing it to the afternoon sun and the prevailing
wind, which reduce its snow-holding capability. The
south-facing slopes facing the Kosciuszko Road,
however, are sheltered from the sun and wind and
hold snow much better. The elevation of the precinct
ranges from 1720 to 1845 metres, although skier
access is feasible only to about 1825 metres.
On the ridge either side of the Piper T-bar, there is a
moderate cover of snowgum woodland, much of
which is climax community (see Figure 11.2). Further
north, and on the top of Mount Piper, there are few
live trees, although there are many large dead trees
on the upper slopes.
Throughout the slopes there are scattered areas of
wet heath or bog, with open dry heath/grassland
being the predominant understorey, both within and
beyond the snowgum stands. More extensive areas
of wet communities, including transitional heath, wet
grassland, wet heath, bog and fen are present on the
gently sloping land beside Perisher Creek, and in the
broad valley running north-east from the Perisher
carpark to Perisher View and across the flat area
beyond Perisher View.
With the limited development in the precinct, there
has been relatively little disturbance to the natural
vegetation or introduction of exotic ground cover.
Disturbed areas are confined mainly to the environs
of Perisher View (including a nearby borrow pit
beside the road), the Piper T-bar and the oversnow
and underground services routes between Smiggin
Holes and Perisher.
Snowgum communities 12%
Wet communities 38%
Building, hardstanding areas <0.1%
The main animal habitat values of the precinct are
probably associated with the wet areas, the dry heath
communities tending to be less diverse than in the
other precincts within Perisher and Smiggin Holes.
The wet areas include one side of the Perisher Creek
corridor.
There are numerous foliated granodiorite outcrops on
the western slopes of Mount Piper (see Figure 11.3)
which have been assessed as being of local
geomorphological significance (Ref. 16). The valley
of Perisher Creek, identified as being of
geomorphological significance in relation to the North
Perisher Precinct, is also on the boundary of the
Mount Piper South Precinct.
The summit ridge of Mount Piper, the lower flatter
sections of the ridge running south-west from the
summit towards the Perisher Valley carpark, and the
broad flat saddle area west of Smiggin Holes have
been assessed as being of high archaeological
sensitivity with a potential for subsurface deposits
(Refs. 14, 15, see Figure 11.3). Subsurface testing
has located Aboriginal artefacts at two locations
along the south-west ridge of Mount Piper (Ref. 14).
The lowlying land along Perisher Creek and in a
broad valley between Mount Piper and the
Kosciuszko Road is assessed as having potential for
deep subsurface archaeological deposits.
The series of plots identified in the Smiggin Holes
Precinct for monitoring the effects of oversnow
vehicle movement (Ref. 16) overlaps slightly with the
Mount Piper South Precinct.
11-2 SSMP MAY 2002
Because of its westerly aspect, most of the precinct
tends to lose snow relatively early at the end of the
season and for this reason has not received high
priority as a repeat skiing area. During good snow
and weather conditions, however, it is well suited to
intermediate skiers.
The precinct has an increasingly important role in the
return of skiers from Perisher and Blue Cow to
Smiggin Holes. In this respect it depends on the
operation of the Piper T-bar, which has had snow
fences constructed along its route to improve its
reliability.
Piper T-bar suffers from access problems to and from
the Perisher Valley Precinct. Current access is via a
bridge over Perisher Creek known as Murphy's
Crossing. The bridge is the lowest transition point
between the base stations of Telemark and Piper T-
bars which causes skiers to push or walk uphill to
these lifts. The transition to Piper T-bar from the
Telemark side is the worse.
The precinct also provides access from Smiggin
Holes to North Perisher, with a bridge across
Perisher Creek near the base of the Interceptor
Chairlift. There is no lift to facilitate movement from
this point back to Smiggin Holes, however.
With the anticipated increase in the use of Smiggin
Holes for day visitor parking, there is likely to be a
need for further lift capacity on the slope. The likely
need for further capacity also arises in the context of
providing lifting back to Smiggin Holes for skiers
returning from Blue Cow and Guthega via Pretty
Valley. The lifting would provide an alternative to
using the Pretty Valley to Telemark trail then skiing
across to Piper T-bar. As an alternative route, from
Pretty Valley direct, it would lessen congestion on the
Pretty Valley to Telemark trail. Additional lifting,
however, needs to take account of the environmental
sensitivity of the area along Perisher Creek which is a
mosaic of bog, wet heath and other sensitive wet
vegetation communities, as well as its exposure to
high winds.
The south-facing slopes of Mount Piper facing the
Kosciuszko Road are sheltered from the sun and
wind and hold snow much better than the west-facing
slopes. They are currently not used for skiing, with
their moderate slopes and short vertical drop even
though good access from the carpark makes them
suitable for novice and beginner skiers. The
development of the southern and south-eastern toe
of Mount Piper for skiing and snowplay activities
needs to take account of possible conflicts with
oversnow transport. The latter currently uses a route
along the southern foot of Mount Piper on the edge of
the extensive bog area between Mount Piper and the
Kosciuszko Road.
of winter grooming are indicated in Figure 11.4. It
can be seen that the skiing capacity of the precinct is
currently underutilised. The existing lift and slope
capacity of the pods related to the Piper T-bar (see
Figure 11.4) are stated in Table 11.1. The slope
capacity is well in excess of the lift capacity. The
potential skiing capacity is much greater, particularly
on the south-facing slopes but is dependent on
additional lifts.
The potential use of this precinct, however, is not
limited to skiing activities. The relocation of the main
workshop from Smiggin Holes depends on finding an
alternative location for such a facility. The best
location within the resort based on both operational
and environmental criteria is in the broad flat saddle
south-west of Smiggin Holes and north of Pipers
Gap. The planning for the workshop in this location
is a key consideration for Precincts 5 and 6.
The main issues associated with the Mount Piper
South Precinct are as follows:
Greater utilisation of the precinct for a dedicated
Learn to Ski Centre and snowplay activities,
having regard to the limited snowholding capacity
and wind exposure of the western slopes and the
sensitive wet vegetation communities on its lower
slopes.
The importance of the precinct for skier circulation
between Smiggin Holes and Perisher and Blue
Cow.
Accommodation of the oversnow route between
Perisher Valley and Smiggin Holes without
conflicting with skiing and snowplay activities.
Relocation of the main mountain workshop from
Smiggin Holes to the saddle north of Pipers Gap
and provision of an all-weather access road to the
workshop.
(see Figure 11.5)
11.4.1 Learn to Ski Centre and snowplay area
As discussed in relation to Precinct 1, the
establishment at Perisher Valley of an accessible
area with adequate gentle slopes for teaching
beginners is a high priority within the SSMP. The
southern slopes of Mount Piper adjacent to the
carpark provide the best available area for this
purpose. It is proposed to establish a Learn to Ski
Centre on these slopes, and to relocate the base for
the Perisher Ski School to this area.
The Learn to Ski Centre is intended to be used by the
Ski School only, not for general beginner use. It is
proposed to have the following lifts:
SSMP MAY 2002 11-3
Pod
area (ha)
22 10.4 Piper T-bar 150 22A 449 a
22B 37
22C 85
Total 150 571
Notes:
a. The slope capacity could be increased significantly by skiing more widely beyond the area assessed.
Two or three skier conveyors for transporting
beginners up gentle slopes.
One T-bar and two platter lifts of different length
and on slopes of varying pitch.
One quad chairlift taking skiers to the highest
point within the Learn to Ski Area, on the ridge of
Mount Piper.
There would also be a flat, walk-around area not
served by lifts.
The interface between the village area and the
beginner slope requires careful design with respect to
environmental conditions. The key issues in this
respect are as follows:
The Learn to Ski Centre must be readily visible
and accessible from the main arrival points at the
resort, a point emphasised in the base area
planning by the COI (Ref. 3).
There should be a gentle transition in slope from
the village area to the ski slope, enabling
beginners to ski slowly down into a flat area and
progress from there onto increasingly steep
grades up to about 12 percent on Mount Piper.
Earthworks would be required to achieve the
optimum grades.
The existing watercourse which crosses the flat
area must be covered for safety reasons to take
the flow from an extensive bog area located at the
foot of Mount Piper to the east of the carpark. The
design of this area needs to take account of the
flows in the creek and the potential value of the
creek as a wildlife movement corridor.
To provide protection to the lower slopes from the
prevailing wind, the Ski School building would be
located immediately abutting the existing North
Perisher concrete road, where it commences at
the bridge, with an earthern berm and possibly
with snow fences between the end of the building
and a suitable point on Mount Piper on top of the
berm. In combination with other base area
buildings, this arrangement would form an artificial
bowl which would encourage snow deposition
from natural snowfalls.
The lifts will be located on the southern slopes of the
Mount Piper ridge which is relatively sheltered and
experiences good snow accumulation. There will be
a skier access trail from the highest lifted point to the
base of the Piper T-bar, which would enable use of
the western slopes of Mount Piper and provide
access to Smiggin Holes. The trail would also lead to
the base of the Telemark lift for access to Front
Valley, and to the base of the Interceptor lift for
access to Blue Cow. A quad chairlift from the base of
the slope would provide direct access to Front Valley
in Precinct 1 (see Section 6.4.6).
To ensure snow reliability at the start of the season, it
is proposed to install snowmaking throughout the
entire Learn to Ski Centre and the adjoining snowplay
area.
The snowplay area would be located further along
the slope to the north-east of the Learn to Ski Centre.
This location has good access from the village and
from the extended parking area along the road to
Pipers Gap, where many snowplayers tend to park.
In the snowplay area, it is proposed to install lifted
inner tube rides. The lift is small, being a rope tow
with special handles fixed to the rope which is
attached to a lead from the tube. Tracks of varying
length and shape are built by snow grooming
machines. These tracks prevent the tube riders from
running off course and take them back to the lifting
point.
Both the Learn to Ski Centre and the snowplay areas
would be concentrated on the slopes of the ridge,
uphill of the wet heath/bog areas which have
problems with snowholding during the marginal times
of the season.
11-4 SSMP MAY 2002
The main skier circulation route between Smiggin
Holes and Perisher utilises the Piper T-bar and its
associated slopes. It is proposed to increase the
reliability of this route during marginal snow
conditions by providing snowmaking along the lift
corridor and extending this to the top of the Link T-
bar and the Low Traverse to Smiggin Holes, to
connect with snowmaking in the Smiggin Holes
Precinct. A new, higher-level bridge across Perisher
Creek, linking the Piper T-bar and the Telemark Lift,
is proposed to facilitate crossing the low point over
the creek (see also Section 6.4.4).
It is proposed also to improve access between
Smiggin Holes and North Perisher/Blue Cow by
providing a T-bar from near the base of the
Interceptor Quad Chairlift to the top of the Mount
Piper Ridge and establishing additional trails from the
top of the Burke Wills duplex T-bar to the base
station of Interceptor Chairlift and North Perisher T-
bar.
Snow fences would be required along the route of the
new T-bar and may be desirable also along the trails.
A new bridge would be required across Perisher
Creek at the base of the T-bar. There are existing
bridges across the creek in suitable locations for the
trails to the Interceptor Chairlift and the North
Perisher T-bar.
11.4.3 Oversnow route
The development of the Learn to Ski Centre together
with village development in the carpark area will
necessitate changes to the route of the oversnow
route between Perisher and Smiggin Holes. It is
proposed to relocate this route further up onto the
Mount Piper ridge to the south of the Piper T-bar,
then around the southern slopes, where there is good
snow accumulation, and past the site proposed for
the new mountain workshop. It would be separated
from the Low Traverse which takes skiers from the
top of the Piper T-bar to Smiggin Holes.
From the workshop site, it would follow a new route
down to Smiggin Holes as described in Section
10.4.5.
11.4.4 Mountain workshop
The proposed mountain workshop in the saddle north
of Pipers Gap would be a major new development
within the precinct in an area which receives little use
for skiing. While this is currently an undisturbed area
which would be substantially changed by the
workshop, there is no practicable alternative which
would not have an equivalent or greater impact on
the natural environment, or would cause major
problems within one of the village areas.
The workshop would require an all-weather summer
access road for which an indicative route has been
identified from the Kosciuszko Road at Pipers Gap.
This route has been selected with a view to limiting
impacts on the extensive wet heath/ bog areas in this
vicinity and establishing a route which would not
accumulate snow excessively during winter.
11.4.5 Other works
The trunk main supplying water from the Pipers
Creek Aqueduct to the Smiggin Holes reservoir and
connecting back to Perisher will pass through this
precinct, following the Piper T-bar and the low
traverse to Smiggin Holes. Local snowmaking mains
along this route will be installed at the same time.
Minor slope grooming works are likely to be required
from time to time but have not been identified
specifically at the current level of planning.
Precinct 6
Project
no.
Proposed works
6.1 Mount Piper Ski School/ Learn to Ski Centre
(includes lifts, buildings, snowmaking, snow
fences, slope grooming and covering of creek)
6.2 Snowplay area
6.3 New T-bar on western slopes
6.4 Snow fences on western slopes
6.5 New bridge at North Perisher
6.6 Snowmaking along Piper T-bar and Low Traverse
6.7 Snowmaking fill line between Perisher and
Smiggin Holes
6.8 Relocation of oversnow route
6.9 Mountain workshop
6.10 Access road to mountain workshop
determined)
Note: Raising of the bridge at Murphys Crossing is
discussed in relation to Precinct 1 (see Table 6.2,
Project 1.22)
SSMP MAY 2002 11-5
SAOT SAOT
22 Piper T-bar 150 150 22A to 22C 571 571
Total 150 150 571 571
37 New Piper T-bar 201 37A to 37C 730
Total 201 730
38
Ski School platter lifts
(x 2)
98 38A 206
Ski School T-bar 132
Ski School quad
chairlift
226
Total 456 206
Total Precinct 6 150 807 571 1507
Note: Skier conveyors are excluded from the above lift capacity figures.
Situation
Pod 22
Piper T-bar
Pod 37
New Piper T-bar
Pod 38
Ski School
Total
Lift Slope Lift Slope Lift Slope Lift Slope
Existing 150 571 150 571
Full development
Optimum conditions 150 571 201 730 456 206 807 1507
Marginal snow with
season)
456 206 456 206
season
456 206
(a)
456 206
High wind 230 206 230 206
High wind with snowmaking 230 206 230 206
Notes:
a. Slope capacity may be reduced slightly due to local snow loss.
Skiing capacity is not a major issue with respect to
Precinct 6. As indicated in Table 11.3, the lift and
slope capacities would be increased as a result of the
SSMP, with slope capacity remaining well in excess
of lift capacity on the western slopes of Mount
Piper.The Learn to Ski Centre, on the other hand,
would have a lift capacity well above that of the slope
capacity, but actual lift use of this area will be
primarily for instructional purposes and would be
relatively low, with different lifts being used at
different times, depending on the ability of the
classes. Slope capacity is a more important
consideration in this area, with a potential capacity of
over 200 beginner or novice skiers. This is
significantly greater than the combined capacity of
the children's ski area at Front Valley and the small
flat area at the base of the Front Valley slopes which
is currently used for beginner instruction.
11-6 SSMP MAY 2002
the poor snowholding capability of the western slopes
of Mount Piper, its exposure to wind which makes
even T-bar operation unreliable in high wind
conditions, and the lack of snowmaking on the repeat
skiing slopes, the majority of the precinct would not
operate under any of the constraint conditions
identified.
The Learn to Ski Centre, however, is in a more
sheltered location with good accumulation of natural
snow and snowmaking to ensure early season
operation. While the Ski School quad chairlift would
be closed by high wind, this would not seriously affect
the operation of the Centre, which could continue to
operate under all conditions with adequate lift
capacity to match the slope capacity.
Skier circulation through the precinct would be
i mproved si gni fi cantl y by the provi si on of
snowmaking along the Piper T-bar and Low Traverse
and by the additional T-bar and associated snow
fences on the western slopes of Mount Piper. Also
beneficial for circulation would be the new bridges
across Perisher Creek and additional trails from the
top of the Burke Wills duplex T-bars, which would
provide greater flexibility for skiers moving through
the resort from Smiggin Holes.
Proposed developments within Precinct 6 will be of
critical importance to the future of the resort, both the
ski slopes and the villages, in two respects.
First, apart from its increased slope capacity, the
Learn to Ski Centre will be the key element in the
efficient functioning of the Ski School at Perisher
Valley, and will be a major factor influencing the
efficient design of the village.
Second, the relocation of the workshop would place
this facility in an improved location from an
operational perspective, at the same time removing a
major constraint on the operation and design of the
Smiggin Holes village area.
SSMP MAY 2002 12-1
12. PRECINCT 7: PLEASANT VALLEY
The Pleasant Valley Precinct embraces the southern
part of the original Blue Cow resort, covering the
northern and north-eastern slopes of Mount Back
Perisher (see Figure 12.1). It includes the Blue Cow
terminal building, which is the point of arrival at Blue
Cow by Skitube and the main skiing centre in the
northern half of the Perisher Blue Resort.
The precinct can be considered in three parts the
Pleasant Valley ski bowl, the slopes and lifts radiating
out from the terminal building, and the lower slopes
from the bottom of these two areas down to near the
foot of the Ridge Lift. The last of these areas is
related functionally also to Precinct 8 (Blue Cow
Mountain) as the only means of return from the
bottom is via the Ridge Quad Chairlift within the Blue
Cow Mountain Precinct.
The southern boundary of the Pleasant Valley
Precinct is the ridge running north-east from Mount
Back Perisher that forms the northern boundary of
the North Perisher Precinct. The western boundary
is a flat ridge running north from Mount Back Perisher
to the saddle below the Blue Cow Terminal. The
northern boundary follows the valley east from that
saddle down to the bottom of the Ridge lift, while
Perisher Creek forms the eastern boundary.
The upper slopes of this precinct offer the easiest
skiing within the Blue Cow part of the resort, with
Pleasant Valley itself offering excellent long runs for
novice to low intermediate skiers. The broad ridge
from the top of Pleasant Valley provides part of the
route for Perisher skiers to reach the Blue Cow
terminal, and the return route to Perisher also passes
through Pleasant Valley. The precinct also contains
a major linking trail, Roller Coaster to the base of the
Ridge Quad Chairlift. Access to Roller Coaster can
be gained from Perisher via the Perisher Express
Quad Chairlift, the Blue Cow Expressway and
Pleasant Valley, or from Smiggin Holes and North
Perisher via the Interceptor Quad Chairlift and
Pleasant Valley. The precinct is therefore important
strategically in the circulation of skiers between the
northern and southern parts of the Perisher Blue
Resort.
Some parts of the precinct, particularly areas close to
the terminal building, have been intensively
developed for skiing, with modification to the natural
environment being comparable with that in Front
Valley. Elsewhere within the precinct, the degree of
modification varies widely, with some heavily used
areas retained in their natural condition and others
being modified through rock and tree removal,
earthworks and rehabilitation.
The precinct covers a wide range of elevation from
1600 metres (the lowest skiable point in the resort) to
about 2010 metres, although skier access is feasible
only to about 1940 metres. The aspect within the
precinct is predominantly northerly to north-easterly,
with some east-facing slopes. These characteristics
are not ideal for holding snow, and the upper parts of
the precinct are very exposed to the prevailing wind.
Snow holding in Pleasant Valley is also affected by
the extensive area of wet heath and bog in the floor
of the valley which also extends up parts of the
southern slopes. A smaller wet area north of the
terminal building has been progressively drained
during the life of the resort, and there are further wet
areas lower down the valley that forms the northern
boundary of the precinct.
The vegetation patterns as shown in Figure 12.2
indicate the locations of these wet areas. On the
drier slopes, those with a northerly aspect tend to
have a cover of woodland which becomes taller and
denser with decreasing elevation. The tree cover on
the western ridge and on the east-facing slopes is
more sparse. The trees at higher elevations,
particularly along the ridges, tend to be strongly wind-
affected.
Introduced ground cover has been established in
much of the area close to the terminal building, and in
other scattered locations throughout the slope where
rock removal and surface disturbance has been
undertaken in the course of summer grooming. The
majority of the precinct, however, is still in an
essentially natural condition. On parts of the Roller
Coaster Run in the lower part of the precinct,
rehabilitation using native species has been
undertaken with a reasonable degree of success.
Wet communities 19%
The complex wet area in the lower part of Pleasant
Valley has particularly high habitat potential for the
Sout hern Corroboree Frog (Pseudophryne
corroboree), although the populations of this species
have declined dramatically in the Park in recent years
and it now appears to be absent from this area.
Another species of interest, the Alpine Water Skink
(Eulamprus kosciuskoi), is likely to be present in this
area.
12-2 SSMP MAY 2002
While the Broad-toothed Rat (Mastacomys fuscus)
has been recorded throughout the precinct (Ref. 13),
the quality of habitat for this species is not as high as
on the south-easterly slopes at Perisher and Smiggin
Holes. The valley forming the northern boundary of
the precinct is at the edge of boulder field habitat
known to be used by Burramys. This is discussed in
the context of the Blue Cow Mountain Precinct (see
Section 13.2). Except in the vicinity of the terminal
building and the slope to the north of it, the continuity
of habitat has generally been maintained within the
precinct for purposes of animal movement.
Water quality is an issue in this precinct in that the
heavily skied area of Pleasant Valley is also the
water catchment for the Blue Cow terminal domestic
water supply. The water supply weir and intake are
located just downstream of the bottom station of the
Pleasant Valley Chairlift. Notwithstanding the human
use of the catchment, the water is of acceptable
quality for domestic use following ultraviolet radiation
treatment.
There are two areas of string bogs, which are of
geomorphological interest on the flat ridge between
Blue Calf Pass and the terminal (see Figure 10.3,
Ref. 25).
Most of the better-drained areas along the ridges
between the Blue Cow Terminal, the top of Pleasant
Valley and Rocky Knob have been assessed as
being of high archaeological sensitivity (Ref. 14). A
few of the more gently sloping areas of ridge on the
lower slopes are assessed as being of low to
moderate archaeological sensitivity. Artefacts have
been found in subsurface testing at one location
between Blue Cow Terminal and Pleasant Valley, as
well as at Blue Cow Saddle on the northern edge of
the precinct (Ref. 14).
Demonstration trials for monitoring comparative
rehabilitation using native and introduced species are
located on the upper part of the Roller Coaster Run
north of the Brumby T-bar and on the lower part of
the run, uphill and downhill of the Blue Cow Road
(see Figure 12.3).
Parts of the precinct face significant environmental
constraints in terms of ski slope development and
operation. The upper part of Pleasant Valley is very
exposed to the prevailing wind with the result that the
Pleasant Valley chairlift experiences a relatively high
frequency of wind closure (typically 14 to 17 days per
season). The lower slopes contain extensive areas
of bog and other wet vegetation communities,
including potential Corroboree Frog habitat. This
area experiences snowholding problems due to water
accumulation, and is too significant and sensitive in
ecological terms to undergo extensive modification.
Pleasant Valley drains into the weir which is part of
the domestic water supply for the Blue Cow terminal.
At Towers 2 and 3 of the Pleasant Valley Quad
Chairlift, the run converges creating a steep, narrow
section at the last dropoff immediately uphill of the
base station. While this lift was originally planned to
cater primarily for novice and low intermediate skiers,
travelling at moderate speeds, the merger between
the former Blue Cow and Perisher Smiggin Holes
resorts has resulted in large numbers of higher skill
level Perisher skiers using Pleasant Valley to access
the Roller Coaster Trail and the bottom of the Ridge
Quad Chairlift. The mix of skiers with widely varying
skills travelling through this congested point in large
numbers leads to collisions and higher congestion
rates. Slope works are required to widen the section
and to lessen the gradient.
The ski slope north of the Blue Cow Terminal is in a
strategically critical location because of its proximity
to the terminal and its association with the Early
Starter Chairlift. Much of this area was originally wet
heath but, in contrast to Pleasant Valley where the
heath has been protected, has been progressively
modified over the years in order to overcome
drainage problems which caused serious snow loss
from the slope, creating hazards for skiers. The
drainage works undertaken have been partially
effective, but require upgrading to improve the long-
term safety of this slope.
The Terminal Quad Chairlift, located to the north-east
of the Blue Cow Terminal, experiences problems with
wind exposure and is not well located with respect to
access by skiers. This lift was installed at a time
when wind patterns at the resort and skier movement
patterns were difficult to anticipate. Because of the
location of the terminal building, the lift was sited to
take advantage of snowmaking down to the base of
the lift allowing a wide mix of skier levels to use the
slopes and ride the lift back to the terminal. Some of
the towers near the top station have been modified
over the years in an attempt to decrease the
problems associated with high winds. An alternative
lift location with a bottom station at a lower elevation
within the precinct would be more effective in these
respects, particularly in enabling inexperienced skiers
to return from Pleasant Valley to the terminal
following wind closure of the Pleasant Valley Chairlift,
rather than attempting to ride the Brumby T-bar.
On the occasions when the Terminal Quad Chairlift
closes, the conditions often also result in closure of
the Early Starter Double Chairlift. When this occurs,
skiers using the Summit and/or Ridge Quad Chairlifts
have no lifting to take them back to the Blue Cow
Termi nal . Evacuati on of ski ers i n those
circumstances presently requires shuttling in or
behind oversnow vehicles or, more commonly, using
the Brumby T-bar to lift them back to the terminal
building.
SSMP MAY 2002 12-3
The Roller Coaster trail is north-facing and hence has
the propensity to lose snow quality and coverage in
marginal conditions. This significantly reduces its
reliability in providing a link to the base of the Ridge
Quad Chairlift. Similar problems can arise also along
the Blue Cow Home Trail from the top of Pleasant
Valley.
The Ski School at Blue Cow operates from the broad
saddle south of the terminal building. While this site
offers gentle slopes served by rope tows which are
suitable for beginners, the area is very exposed.
Even on days which are only moderately windy, the
wind chill factor can make the experience for learners
very unsatisfactory. The elevation of the area also
makes it subject to low cloud, which restricts visibility.
The main function of one of the rope tows is to
ensure skier circulation from Pleasant Valley and
Perisher to the Blue Cow terminal. On busy days,
the tow is at over-capacity use.
Circulation through the precinct in the reverse
direction is also important, particularly in returning
skiers from Blue Cow to Perisher. This is currently a
problem under high wind conditions when the
Pleasant Valley chairlift cannot operate. To
overcome this problem, it is desirable to have an
alternative more reliable lift to take skiers to a
suitable point from which it is possible to ski down to
Perisher and Smiggin Holes.
The level of use of Pleasant Valley and its distance
from other facilities are such that there is a need for
restaurant, toilet and ski patrol facilities at the top of
Pleasant Valley. These are required particularly for
safety reasons and also to ensure maximum
protection of water quality in the catchment which
provides the domestic water supply for the Blue Cow
terminal.
In all parts of the precinct with the exception of the
Terminal Chairlift, the slope capacity is comfortably
above the existing lift capacity. The Terminal
Chairlift, however, partly serves the Roller Coaster
Trail, as well as having a skier circulation function.
Taking these factors into account, its slope capacity
would also exceed its lift capacity. There is therefore
no need to undertake further summer grooming in the
precinct to increase slope capacity in relation to
existing lifts.
The main issues associated with the Pleasant Valley
Relocation and upgrading of the lifting system to
provide increased security against wind closure,
particularly for skier circulation to Perisher, and to
provide alternative means of movement for skiers
between Pleasant Valley, Blue Cow Mountain and
the Blue Cow terminal.
The need for improved reliability of snow cover
along the Blue Cow Home Trail and the Roller
Coaster Trail.
Protection of the extensive wet areas in the lower
part of Pleasant Valley and the quality of water in
the Blue Cow water supply.
Provision of restaurant, toilet and ski patrol
facilities in the Pleasant Valley area.
The future needs of the Ski School at Blue Cow in
the context of overall Ski School planning within
the resort.
(Figure 12.5)
12.4.1 Increased security of lifting system
To significantly reduce the existing problems for skier
circulation caused by wind closure of major lifts in the
precinct, two new lifts are proposed.
One of these lifts is a T-bar running from the lower
part of Pleasant Valley to the top of the ridge at North
Perisher. Being a surface lift orientated nearly
parallel to the direction of the prevailing wind, this lift
would generally be able to operate on days when the
Pleasant Valley Chairlift was closed by wind. The
primary purpose of the lift would be to provide skier
egress from the Blue Cow side of the resort when
conditions forced the closure of the Pleasant Valley
Chairlift. It would also provide more direct access
from Blue Cow to Smiggin Holes than skiing via the
Pleasant Valley Chairlift and the Perisher Home Trail.
To provide greater security of operation during
marginal snow conditions, it is proposed to install
snowmaking along the route of the T-bar. This would
assist in prolonging the snow cover late in the
season, thus offsetting the effect of sun exposure
resulting from the north-westerly aspect of the slope.
There are various options for the location of this lift.
One is to locate its base station near the base station
of the Pleasant Valley Quad Chairlift and its top
station at a point about midway between the
Interceptor Chair and the North Perisher T-bar. The
installation of the lift in this location would require a
wide bridge across the creek and clearing of trees
along much of the length of the lift. Because it would
be a surface lift, the ground surface would need to be
groomed to a relatively high standard (at least Level
B). The width of the clearing would need to be about
30 to 40 metres, with about 12 metres for the lift track
and the remainder to enable skiers who may fall off
the T-bar to ski back to the load station.
The alternative of providing a low profile chairlift
would avoid the need for surface grooming but would
still require a clearing through the trees, generally
about 22 metres wide. While not as exposed to the
prevailing wind to the same extent as the Pleasant
12-4 SSMP MAY 2002
Pod
area (ha)
23 24.4 Pleasant Valley Quad Chairlift 914 23A 1090
23B 295
23C 36
23D 66
23E 106
Total 914 1592
24 10.9 Brumby T-bar 151 24A 108
24B 147
24C 133
24D 61
Total 151 449
25 2.8 Pony Ride rope tow 43 25A 240 a
Blue Cow Ski School rope tow 39 25B 103
Total 82 343
26 3.0 (Roller Coaster Trail) 26A 67 b
26B 158
Total 225
27 6.4 Terminal Quad Chairlift 547 27A 117
27B 258
Total 547 375
28 1.6 Early Starter Double Chairlift 116 28A 155
Total 116 155
Notes
a. Use of this area also includes beginner skiers who are not using the lifts.
b. Use of the Roller Coaster Trail for repeat skiing depends on use of the Ridge Chairlift (Precinct 8) and the Terminal
Chairlift. Their capacities are assessed in relation to Pods 30 (see Table 13.1) and 27 respectively.
Valley Chairlift, because of its more favourable
orientation, a chairlift in this location would still face a
greater risk of wind closure than a T-bar.
Another option is located further west along the ridge,
with the top station nearer the Interceptor top station
and the base station near Tower 8 of the Pleasant
Valley Quad Chairlift. The tree cover along this route
is much less extensive but there is a cover of wet
heath on the lower slopes, which would probably
need to be cleared to establish a surface lift. Other
options are possible at various locations between
those described. The comparative ecological
impacts of a range of route options would be
investigated in detail in determining the optimum lift
location.
The other proposed lift is a fixed grip quad chairlift
running from the point where the Roller Coaster Trail
crosses the Blue Cow summer access road to a point
near the water reservoir south-east of the Blue Cow
terminal. The primary purpose for the new chairlift is
twofold.
First, it is intended to enhance repeat skiing in the
precinct by significantly reducing the relatively high
frequency of wind closure experienced by the existing
Terminal Chairlift. While it would still be subject to
some risk of wind closure, this risk is expected to be
much lower than for the Terminal Chairlift due to
better shielding by topography and vegetation, and a
slightly more favourable alignment with respect to the
prevailing wind.
Second, it would enable the return circulation of
skiers from the Ridge and Summit Chairlifts in
Precinct 8 at times when these lifts are able to
operate but the Early Starter and the existing
Terminal Chairlifts were closed by wind. This skier
circulation pattern would obviate the unsatisfactory
method of evacuating skiers from the base of the
Early Starter Chairlift by towing behind oversnow
vehicles, although it is now more common for skiers
to ski around the slope to the bottom of the Brumby
T-bar and use this for access back to the terminal
building.
The new base station location will also enable less
experienced skiers using Pleasant Valley to ski
downhill along the Roller Coaster to the new base
station, in order to be lifted back to the terminal
building when Pleasant Valley is placed on wind hold.
SSMP MAY 2002 12-5
This would be easier for them than riding the Brumby
T-bar, as they are forced to do at present.
The existing Terminal Chairlift would become
redundant and would be removed, with its corridor
rehabilitated as far as practicable. It is proposed to
relocate this chairlift to Telemark in Precinct 1. The
Brumby T-bar, which would be crossed by the new
chairlift, would also be removed to avoid conflict
between the two lifts. The proposed new alignment
of the Terminal Quad Chairlift is expected to have a
much higher degree of wind tolerance than the
existing chairlift and will replace the Brumby T-bar as
the mode of return access to the terminal building.
To provide more reliable access to the base of the
new chairlift, snowmaking will be extended down the
Blue Cow access road. It is desirable for safety
reasons to widen this relatively narrow trail through
selective tree removal and earthworks. As discussed
below, snowmaking will be extended also down the
Roller Coaster Trail, passing the lift base station.
12.4.2 Snowmaking
It is proposed ultimately to provide snowmaking along
a continuous trail from the top of Pleasant Valley to
the bottom of the Ridge Quad Chairlift in the adjacent
Blue Cow Mountain Precinct. This will assist skier
circulation from Perisher to Blue Cow Mountain, as
well as improving repeat skiing in Pleasant Valley
during marginal snow conditions.
Further snowmaking throughout the resort will be
installed progressively with the most environmentally
sensitive section, namely Pleasant Valley, coming
relatively late in the snowmaking staging program.
However, the section on the lower part of Roller
Coaster would be installed early in association with
the fill main from Pipers Creek Aqueduct to Perisher
and Smiggin Holes. This main would also follow the
Blue Cow Road towards North Perisher, with a
branch up this road to Blue Cow Pump Station 3,
where snowmaking would also be provided, probably
with some selective tree removal to create a wider,
safer trail.
The route for the snowmaking corridor in Pleasant
Valley has been selected to avoid the sensitive wet
areas in the floor of the valley as far as practicable.
Disturbance to the wet areas could be avoided by
having discontinuous mains, with water and
compressed air being supplied both down from the
top of Pleasant Valley and up Roller Coaster. The
Roller Coaster Trail from the bottom of Pleasant
Valley to the bottom of the Ridge Chairlift has already
been summer-groomed to a high standard, making it
suitable for snowmaking.
In the upper part of Pleasant Valley, the snowmaking
corridor will follow the route of the Blue Cow Home
Trail. It will continue along this route back to the Blue
Cow terminal, with a spur linking the existing
snowmaking and the base of Pleasant Valley.
12.4.3 Protection of wet areas and water quality
The extensive wet areas within Pleasant Valley are
acknowledged in the SSMP as a constraint on ski
slope development by virtue of their ecological
importance, including provision of potential habitat for
the endangered Southern Corroboree Frog. The
eastern option for the proposed T-bar up the ridge to
North Perisher avoids these areas, and the western
option, while passing through some wet heath, would
not affect any pools providing Corroboree Frog
habitat. The proposed snowmaking corridor has
been sited to avoid crossing wet areas as far as
practicable.
The wet areas and, in particular, the open pools can
nevertheless cause problems with premature
snowmel t, creati ng hazards to ski ers and
necessitating monitoring and marking of these
hazards. In order to reduce these problems, it is
proposed to investigate and develop methods of
combating snow loss in a way which does not
adversely affect the habitat values of these areas.
While this is a particular concern in Pleasant Valley,
such measures, if successful, would also have
application in other areas of the resort.
The protection of water quality is of particular concern
in Pleasant Valley because of the use of the area as
the domestic water supply catchment for Blue Cow.
Water collected downstream of the base station of
the chairlift is disinfected by ultraviolet radiation prior
to use, but it is desirable also to maintain the highest
practicable quality of water within the catchment,
consistent with its ongoing use for skiing. This is of
concern with respect to the snowmaking water
supply, precluding Guthega Pondage or the lower
part of Perisher Creek as potential supply sources
because they receive treated sewage effluent. The
Pipers Creek Aqueduct, which is proposed as the
main snowmaking water supply for the resort, is not
affected by effluent.
The provision of public toilets as part of the proposed
mountain restaurant in Pleasant Valley is a further
measure to assist in maintaining a high standard of
water quality in the catchment.
12.4.4 Pleasant Valley mountain restaurant
A restaurant at the top of Pleasant Valley would have
the important advantage of being on the main
circulation route between Perisher and Blue Cow.
Once the proposed chairlift in the Link Unit was
constructed (see Chapter 16), it would also lie on the
direct route back to Perisher from Guthega.
This is important not only from the convenience
aspect of offering a food and beverage service and
12-6 SSMP MAY 2002
toilets, but also from a safety viewpoint in providing
shelter in extreme weather conditions and a base for
ski patrol operations in this part of the resort.
Because of its elevation, particular attention would be
paid to its siting and design to avoid it becoming
obtrusive in views from the Main Range. The design
of the building would take account of the scope for
integrating it with the top station of the Pleasant
Valley Chairlift and potentially with that of the Link
Unit Chairlift. Underground services for the
restaurant are expected to follow the route of the
access track to the Blue Cow terminal. A sewage
pump station may be required at the bottom of the
Pony Ride lift.
12.4.5 Ski School at Blue Cow
Beginner Ski School classes at Blue Cow cannot
operate as efficiently or effectively as required
because of the high degree of exposure in the only
location where it is otherwise feasible to conduct
these lessons. For this reason, beginners will be
encouraged to use the Ski School at Mount Piper or
Smiggin Holes in preference to Blue Cow, although
beginner classes will remain available at Blue Cow.
The Ski School is the main user of the Ski School
rope tow at Blue Cow. This rope tow would
eventually be replaced with skier conveyors. The
Pony Ride rope tow, which is designed primarily to
assist skier circulation, would be upgraded to a T-bar,
or possibly a duplex to reduce queue wait times.
There are many areas within the precinct where
further localised summer grooming is required.
These include the following:
Rearrangement of the run at the base of the
Pleasant Valley Quad Chair to improve safety.
This is required to reduce the conflict between
novice and low intermediate skiers using the run
for repeat skiing and more experienced skiers
passing through the precinct to the bottom of the
Ridge Chairlift, as discussed in Section 12.3. This
would involve tree and rock removal and
earthworks.
Rock removal in the upper part of Pleasant Valley.
This work is required primarily for safety reasons
associated with winter grooming and skier use of
this area. A large number of scattered rocks
make it difficult to groom a safe trail through this
area (see Ref. 26 for further details).
Widening of the lower part of Roller Coaster Run,
in association with the proposed snowmaking.
This is required to enable the trail to relate more
effectively to the shape of the hill.
Other minor slope grooming works are likely to be
required from time to time but have not been
identified at the current level of planning.
Other works proposed to be undertaken within the
precinct are as follows:
Upgrading of the crossing of the Blue Cow Road
over Pleasant Valley Creek. The existing road
crossing does not have the capacity to handle a 1
in 10 year flood event, with the risk of overtopping
washing out the road and damaging underground
services. It is desirable also for the crossing to be
designed with a view to accommodating the
heaviest equipment likely to use the road in the
future. This work would not directly affect any
areas used for skiing.
Extension to the Blue Cow Workshop. A minor
extension to the Blue Cow Workshop at the
western end of the terminal building is proposed to
enable oversnow vehicles to enter the workshop
without conflicting with skier milling on the east
side of the building.
Burramys crossings under Blue Cow Road. As
part of the management plan for the Mountain
Pygmy-possum (Burramys parvus), it is proposed
to install about three protected crossings
underneath the Blue Cow Road near and downhill
of the existing Terminal Chairlift. These would
provide access to known habitat south of the road
from the main habitat areas on Blue Cow
Mountain.
by pods in Table 12.3. The proposed changes to
lifting in the precinct, in particular, the relocation of
the Terminal Chairlift, would result in major changes
to the pod structure of the precinct, with the existing
Pod 24 containing the Brumby T-bar being enlarged
and Pod 27 based on the existing Terminal Chairlift
no longer functioning as such. The new T-bar in
Pleasant Valley would function primarily for
circulation and is excluded from capacity estimations,
although it could provide additional capacity under
good snow conditions or in peak visitation periods.
As a result of the changes to lifts, the lift capacity and
the slope capacity would increase only slightly, with
slope capacity in all pods being at least comfortably
in excess of lift capacity.
SSMP MAY 2002 12-7
Precinct 7
Project
no.
Proposed works
7.1 Relocation of Terminal Chairlift with removal of
existing lift and Brumby T-bar and rehabilitation
of lift corridor.
7.2 Pleasant Valley T-bar
7.3 Pony Ride T-bar (or duplex)
7.4 Replacement of Ski School rope tow with skier
conveyors
7.5 Snowmaking fill line to Perisher and Blue Cow
7.6 Pleasant Valley snowmaking, including
connection from Ski School area
7.7 Blue Cow Home Trail snowmaking
7.8 Blue Cow Road snowmaking to New Terminal
Chairlift
7.9 Roller Coaster snowmaking
7.10 Pleasant Valley T-bar snowmaking
7.11 Snowmaking along start of Middle Traverse
7.12 Rearrangement of run at base of Pleasant Valley
7.13 Widening of trail along Blue Cow Road
7.14 Upper Pleasant Valley rock removal
7.17 Widening of Roller Coaster run
7.18 Pleasant Valley restaurant
7.19 Extension of Blue Cow workshop
7.20 Upgrading of Blue Cow Road crossing over
Pleasant Valley Creek
7.21 Burramys crossings under Blue Cow Road
determined)
conditions is summarised in Table 12.4. Under
marginal snow conditions, the lift capacity would not
be affected but slope capacity would be limited, at
least early in the season, if the resort was dependent
on snowmaking. In particular, the slope capacity
associated with the Pleasant Valley and New
Terminal Quad Chairlifts would be well below lift
capacity, with repeat skiing based on the latter lift
being feasible only along the Blue Cow Road.
Under high wind conditions, the lift capacity of the
precinct would be reduced to less than half its full
capacity. This assumes that under those conditions
the new Terminal Chairlift would continue to operate
and that the Ridge Chairlift would also operate,
enabling Roller Coaster to be used for repeat skiing.
With high wind and dependence on artificial snow,
slope capacity rather than lift capacity would be the
main limiting factor.
The proposed developments in Precinct 7 would
significantly improve skier circulation within the
resort, particularly with respect to the following
movements:
From Blue Cow to Perisher. The Pleasant Valley
T-bar with snowmaking would greatly increase the
reliability of this movement, due to its ability to
operate under most high wind conditions.
From Perisher to Blue Cow Terminal.
Snowmaking along the Blue Cow Home Trail would
improve the reliability of this movement under
From Perisher to the base of the Ridge Chairlift.
Snowmaking in Pleasant Valley and on Roller
Coaster would improve the reliability of this
movement under marginal snow conditions.
Modifications to the slope at the bottom of Pleasant
Valley would improve the safety of this movement.
The restaurant and associated facilities at the top of
Pleasant Valley would enhance the safety and
amenity for skier circulation generally through this
area.
As well as being of benefit to circulating skiers, the
Pleasant Valley restaurant will significantly improve
the operation of Pleasant Valley, avoiding the need
for repeat skiers to return to the Blue Cow Terminal
for amenities and providing a local ski patrol base.
Extension of the Blue Cow workshop in the basement
of the terminal building will improve workshop
operation and eliminate conflict with the skier milling
to the east of the building.
12-8 SSMP MAY 2002
SAOT SAOT
23 Pleasant Valley Quad Chairlift 914 914 23A to 23E 1593 1593
Total 914 914 1593 1593
24 Brumby T-bar 151 24A 108 108
New Terminal Quad Chairlift 768 24B 147 168
24C 133 133
24D 61 82
24E 70
24F 50 b
26A 73 a
27B 234 b
Total 151 768 449 918
25 Pony Ride rope tow 43 25A & 25B 343 343 c
Blue Cow Ski School rope tow 39
Pony Ride T-bars (duplex) 90
Skier conveyors 77
Total 82 167 343 343
26 (Roller Coaster) 26A 67 a
26B 158 158
Total 225 158
27 Terminal Quad Chairlift 547 27A 117
27B 258 b
Total 547 375
28 Early Starter Double Chairlift 116 116 28A 155 155
Total 116 116 155 155
Total Precinct 7 1810 1965 3140 3167
Notes
a. Relocation of the Terminal Chairlift would result in part of the Roller Coaster Run (26A) falling into Pod 24.
b. It is assumed that some less experienced skiers would use the Road Run (27B and 24F) as a more gently graded
route for repeat skiing based on the new Terminal Chairlift.
c. The Pony Ride rope tow or T-bars, while intended primarily for access, would also be used by the Ski School.
SSMP MAY 2002 12-9
Situation
Pod 23
Pleasant
Valley
Pod 24
Brumby/New
Terminal Chair
Pod 25
Ski School
Pod 26
Roller Coaster
Pod 27
Existing
Terminal Chair
Pod 28
Early Starter
Total
Lift Slope Lift Slope Lift Slope Lift Slope Lift Slope Lift Slope Lift Slope
Existing 914 1593 151 449 82 343 225 547 375 116 155 1810 3140
Full development
Optimum conditions 914 1592 768 918 167 343 158 116 155 1965 3167
Marginal snow with
snowmaking (early
in season)
914 569 768 284 167 343 132 116 155 1965 1483
Marginal snow late
in season
914 1592
(a)
768 918
(a)
167 343 116 155
(a)
1965 3009
High wind _ _ 768 918 167 343 158 935 1419
High wind with
snowmaking
768 284 167 343 132
(b)
935 759
Notes:
a. Slope capacity in these pods is likely to be reduced due to local snow loss but it is not feasible to estimate this
accurately.
b. Assumes that the Ridge Quad Chairlift (Precinct 8) would not be closed by wind.
SSMP MAY 2002 13-1
13. PRECINCT 8: BLUE COW MOUNTAIN
The Blue Cow Mountain Precinct includes the
southern and eastern slopes of Blue Cow Mountain
within the Blue Cow and Link Management Units (see
Figure 13.1).
The north-western boundary of the precinct is formed
by the summit ridge of Blue Cow Mountain which
continues in a northerly direction to the Guthega
Road. To the south it adjoins the Pleasant Valley
Precinct with the southern boundary formed by the
floor of the valley. The Smiggin Holes Guthega
Link Road forms most of the eastern boundary.
While the northern limit is mapped as extending to
the Guthega Road (see Figure 13.1), the practical
limits of the precinct are dictated by the distance that
skiers can move north from the top of the mountain,
and still return to the bottom of the Ridge Chairlift.
The detailed maps of the precinct are confined to this
accessible area. The western boundary is also
notional but is located to the east of the western limit
of a section of the Link Management Unit where it
extends onto the slopes of Blue Cow Mountain.
The Blue Cow Mountain Precinct offers the most
difficult skiing available within the Blue Cow part of
the resort, and has been subject to intensive summer
grooming in places to provide usable runs. It is also
the part of the resort which is most important as
habitat for the Mountain Pygmy-possum (Burramys
parvus). The management of this precinct is strongly
influenced by the need to address potential conflicts
between protection of Burramys habitat and ski slope
development.
The western part of the precinct includes the High
Traverse which skiers must currently use to move
from Guthega to Blue Cow, by skiing down from the
top of the Blue Cow T-bar at Guthega.
The elevation range within the precinct extends from
below 1550 metres on Perisher Creek to 1980 metres
at the summit of Blue Cow Mountain. In practice,
however, the skiable elevation range is dictated by
the lift locations, and ranges from 1600 metres at the
bottom of the Ridge Chairlift to 1955 metres at the
top of the Summit Chairlift.
The aspect is southerly to easterly, being favourable
for snow retention. Some of the slopes on the south-
east side of the mountain are formed by huge rock
slabs and are amongst the steepest in the resort.
Particularly to the south of the summit there are
extensive areas of boulderfield, with some large
boulders. These areas are some of the most
important Burramys habitat in New South Wales (Ref.
12).
There are some extensive wet areas on the southern
slopes of the mountain leading down to the
headwaters of Blue Cow Creek. The main valley that
leads down to Perisher Creek on the southern
boundary of the precinct also contains many wet
areas, as well as further areas of boulderfield which
also contribute to the Burramys habitat within the
resort.
The vegetation patterns are shown in Figure 13.2.
Below an elevation of about 1750 metres, there is a
generally dense cover of E. pauciflora woodland or
forest, with an understorey that is also quite dense
compared with other parts of the resort. The ground
surface is also very rough and rocky in many places,
particularly in the main valley leading down to
Perisher Creek. To provide skiing through this area it
has been necessary to undertake clearing of trees
and shrubs. Most of the runs have also involved
surface disturbance and rehabilitation with the result
that they contrast strongly in both visual and
ecological terms with the natural vegetation.
Above about 1750 metres, the vegetation is much
more open and less tree clearing has been
necessary to provide good skiing opportunities,
although there has been much surface disturbance
on the runs near the Summit Chairlift. The scattered
snowgum woodland on the south-facing slopes west
of the Summit Chairlift are fairly typical of much of the
resort. North of the Ridge Chairlift, the terrain is
much more open. The area between these lifts
contains the steep rock slabs mentioned above.
Introduced groundcover is present on the intensively
groomed runs on both sides of the precinct, as well
as around the lift stations and along service corridors
within the precinct. The latter include part of the
service corridor between Blue Cow and Guthega, and
the snowmaking line between the bottom of the
Summit Chairlift and the mid-station of the Ridge
Chairlift.
Mapping of vegetation within the precinct has been
restricted mainly to the area accessible on skis as
shown in Figure 13.2 as the remainder of the area
within the precinct is essentially undisturbed. Within
the ski accessible area, the approximate percentage
distribution of broad vegetation types is as follows:
Snowgum woodland/forest 35%
Wet communities 11%
Buildings, hardstanding areas < 0.1%
13-2 SSMP MAY 2002
The Blue Cow Mountain Precinct is considered the
most important precinct within the resort in terms of
its value as animal habitat. This is due to the
presence of the prime Burramys habitat among the
boulderfields on the south side of the mountain which
is linked with secondary habitat and dispersal
corridors within the Guthega, Link Unit and Blue Cow
North precincts.
The area east of the saddle north of the Blue Cow
t er mi nal , cont ai ns sever al f eat ur es of
geomorphological interest (see Figure 13.3, Ref. 25).
These include a series of transverse benches, an
extensive blockfield and a nivation hollow, all of
which are the result of periglacial processes.
Other sites of geological or geomorphological interest
include a boulderfield and benched slope on the
southern flank of Blue Cow Mountain and a
pegmatite dyke in a shallow valley running south from
the main ridge (Ref. 27).
The flatter sections of ridges leading to the summit of
Blue Cow Mountain have been assessed as being of
high archaeological sensitivity (see Figure 13.3, Ref.
14). A few gently sloping areas on the lower slopes
have been assessed as being of low to moderate
archaeological sensitivity. A limited area along
Perisher Creek has been assessed as having
potential for deep subsurface archaeological deposits
(Ref. 14).
The boulder fields on Blue Cow Mountain are likely to
have been of interest to Aborigines as aestivation
sites for bogong moths. No specific sites of cultural
heritage significance have been recorded within this
precinct to date.
Within the various areas of Burramys habitat, there
are several sites which are used for ongoing scientific
studies of this species (Ref. 12). These are
predominantly in boulderfield areas.
The southern and eastern slopes of Blue Cow
Mountain are favourable for snow accumulation and
retention and are relatively steep, offering the most
difficult skiing available within the Blue Cow part of
the resort. The Excelerator Run beside the Ridge
Chairlift is homologated for racing (Giant Slalom and
Super Giant Slalom) and a freestyle moguls course is
present on Showboat near the lower part of this lift.
Zali's Run east of the Summit Chairlift is homologated
for Slalom racing, and the Blue Cow race course is
located to the west of this lift.
Use of Blue Cow Mountain for skiing is constrained
by the Burramys habitat which occurs particularly
among boulderfields on the southern slopes of the
mountain but extends down past the bottom of the
Summit Chairlift into the main valley leading down to
Perisher Creek. This valley has not been developed
for skiing.
The potential conflict between protecting the habitat
and movement corridors of the Mountain Pygmy-
possum and developing the slope for skiing has been
recognised throughout the history of the resort. Past
slope development has involved the construction of
artificial crossings across groomed ski runs. Ongoing
monitoring and research have been partly funded by
the resort to assist in assessing the impacts of
skifield development on the local population of the
species, with a view to developing best practice
guidelines for skiing management in relevant habitat
areas. This has led to changes in slope management
practices within the precinct and further measures
may be implemented as knowledge of this species
increases. These include considering new
infrastructure in areas that are not sensitive for
Burramys in order to reduce skiing pressure in prime
habitat areas.
It is important also to take into account the movement
of Burramys between the prime habitat and other
habitat areas within the resort. Movement may be
inhibited by fragmentation of habitat resulting, for
example, from roads or cleared ski runs, although
these effects may be mitigated through the provision
of subsurface animal crossings to provide protected
movement. The management of skiing without
significant adverse impact on Burramys is the main
issue addressed by the SSMP in this precinct, and
has implications for the use or otherwise of the valley
leading to Perisher Creek, the extent of winter
grooming either side of the Summit Chairlift, access
to the Blue Cow race course on the slopes west of
the Blue Cow Mountain summit and the high traverse
from Blue Cow Mountain to Guthega.
The planning of Precinct 8 needs to take account
also of the provisions within Precinct 7 for circulating
from Precinct 8 back to the Blue Cow terminal, as
discussed in Section 12.4.1. Since the resort merger
of 1995, the Ridge Quad Chairlift has significantly
increased in popularity, with queues of up to 30
minutes experienced on peak days. Problems with
this lift can arise due to limitations in the power of the
evacuation engine which seriously compromise its
operating reliability and the ability to load the lift in
situations when the main drive is out of service.
While the Ridge Chairlift is designed with a
midstation, it is currently not feasible to operate this
routinely to enable either skiing of the upper slopes
only when the lower slopes have insufficient snow
cover, or to utilise the sheltered lower slopes when
wind conditions are extreme on the upper slopes or
for the benefit of skiers using the Showboat moguls
course. This limits the efficiency and flexibility of the
operation of the lift.
SSMP MAY 2002 13-3
Snowmaking has been installed on the lower parts of
some trails associated with the Ridge Quad Chairlift,
primarily to overcome the problem of poor deposition
due to the relatively low elevation of this part of the
resort. The upper part of the Excelerator Trail, which
is an important trail for ski racing, can also
experience loss of snow during the season due to its
north- to east-facing aspect.
The use of Excelerator for racing and training can at
times conflict with recreational skiing access to the
Outer Limits Trail, which is further north on the
eastern slopes of Blue Cow Mountain. Training
normally commences at about 7.30 am and can
continue until about 10.30 am, after which the gates
on the course are removed, with the result that the
slopes may not be open for recreational skiing before
11 am.
The Showboat moguls course, which is located on
the lower part of the area originally cleared for the
Excelerator Run, is used for competitions but is too
short to be homologated to FIS standards. It is highly
desirable for the resort to have a moguls course of a
standard suitable for international competition. The
existing location of the moguls course constrains
simultaneous use of the lower part of Excelerator for
recreational skiing imposing artificially high
congestion at this point and giving rise to safety
issues.
The base of the Ridge Chairlift is at one extreme of
the resort with no direct access back to the facilities
at the Blue Cow terminal. The increasing use of the
Ridge and Summit chair areas for recreational and
elite racing means larger numbers of spectators.
Shelter is also required for racers. The possibility of
the Link Road being sealed (see Section 14.4.3) may
result in shuttle services and/or limited parking space.
It would also serve as an alternative emergency
evacuation access for injured skiers. Other skiers
could also be evacuated from this point if the
relocated Terminal Quad Chairlift was closed due to
wind. All of these factors lead to a need to provide
shelter, food and toilet facilities at the base of the
Ridge Chairlift and to optimise the capacity of the
area to accommodate skiers. In the latter respect,
the creek near the base of the lift provides a
constraint and a potential hazard in the milling area
around the base station. With increasing use of the
area, it is desirable to improve its safety and amenity
in all respects.
The slope capacity is well in excess of lift capacity
throughout the precinct, particularly on the southern
slopes served by the Summit Chairlift. This offers a
high degree of flexibility in being able to locate and
limit winter grooming to largely avoid Bur r amys
habitat. The most constrained area within the
precinct in terms of slope capacity is on the lower
eastern slopes where, in contrast to most of the
resort, skiing is confined to cleared trails through the
dense woodland and it is not feasible to ski off the
groomed slopes.
The main issues associated with the Blue Cow
Mountain Precinct are as follows:
Provision of skiing facilities in a way which does
not have a significant adverse impact on the long-
term survival of the Burramys population on Blue
Cow Mountain.
The need for skiers using the precinct to have
reliable access back to the Blue Cow terminal
under most conditions, with provision for
emergency evacuation in extreme situations
(relevant also to Precincts 7 and 9).
Improvement of the operating reliability and
flexibility of the Ridge Quad Chairlift.
Improved reliability of snow on runs associated
with the Ridge Quad Chairlift.
Improvement of competition and training facilities,
with better separation from recreational skiing.
Improvement of the area at the base of the Ridge
Quad Chairlift to reflect its potential role as an
entry point to Blue Cow and as a venue for ski
racing, including safety improvements in the
milling area.
(see Figure 13.5)
13.4.1 Protection of Burramys population
The background of the protection of Burramys as a
component of the SSMP is presented in the
Recovery Plan for Burramys co-ordinated by the
NPWS (Ref. 12). Much of this information has been
compiled since the Blue Cow Ski Resort opened in
1987 and as a result of ongoing investigations partly
funded by the resort.
Having regard to this knowledge, a number of
measures can be implemented to reduce possible
impacts on Bur r amys and its habitat while still
maintaining the important skiing functions of the
precinct. The implementation of these measures is
proposed not because adverse effects on Burramys
have been conclusively demonstrated, but rather
because of uncertainty about possible impacts which
appear plausible, requiring further investigation to
either confirm or disprove. The measures resulting
from the precautionary approach adopted by the
SSMP with respect to Burramys will be reviewed
progressively in the light of further information, to
assess whether such measures need to be
13-4 SSMP MAY 2002
Pod
area (ha)
29 39.9 Summit Quad Chairlift 669 29A 144
29B 184
29C 303
29D 105
29E 16
29F 104
29G 31
29H 111
29I 127
29J 15
29K 76
29L 57
Total 669 1273
30 34.8 Ridge Quad Chairlift 605 30A 85 a, b
30B 42
30C 76
30D 122
30E 91
30F 162
30G 27
30H 73
30I 5
30J 4
30K 93
30L 33
30M 14
Total 605 827
Notes
a. Part of the lift capacity of the Ridge Quad Chairlift is required to enable repeat skiing on the Roller Coaster Trail
(Precinct 7).
b. Because of design limitations of the Ridge Quad Chairlift, the calculation of lift capacity is based on a design
capacity of 1800 skiers/hr compared with 2400 skiers/hr for most other quad chairlifts in the resort (Ref. 28).
maintained or strengthened, or whether they prove to
be unnecessary.
While many areas on Blue Cow Mountain are used
by Burramys, these are not all equivalent in terms of
their need for protection. The most critical areas are
the large, deep boulder-fields where the animals rest
and hibernate during winter. There is concern that
the noise and vibration caused by slope grooming
machinery operating in these areas with insufficient
snow depth would possibly disrupt the natural
hibernation of Burramys, and affect its chances of
survival over winter (Ref. 12).
One of the most important areas in this respect lies
south of the summit (see Figure 13.2) where a
traverse route was established early in the history of
the resort to provide skier access from the top of the
Summit Quad Chairlift to the top of the race course
west of the summit. The traverse route was built
using grooming machinery each season between
1987 and 1995, when the practice ceased due to
concern about the possible effects on Burramys.
Informal skier access is still possible across this area,
but, in order to reduce the need to use this route, an
alternative route around the northern side of Blue
Cow Mountain to the start of the race course was
formalised in 1999 by way of a license from the
NPWS. This route, which is for skiers and
snowmobiles only, and is not subject to normal
grooming, has been used informally by skiers over a
longer period (see Section 17.3). This route is more
prone to snow loss than the previous traverse
because of its northerly aspect, and hence cannot be
used under all conditions when the race course is
skiable.
To provide more reliable alternative access to the
race course, it is proposed to construct a new T-bar
in an area which is not considered to be used as
Burramys habitat or would not impinge significantly
on a major Burramys movement corridor. Such a lift
would provide attractive access to skiers using the
race course and would greatly reduce the tendency
for skiers to traverse across the primary habitat area.
There are other areas of primary habitat between the
Side Saddle Run and the Summit Chairlift, to the east
SSMP MAY 2002 13-5
of Zali's Run, in the bowl at the lower part of Side
Saddle, in the valley downhill of the Summit Chairlift
base station and in two side-gullies of the valley
downhill of the track to the Ridge Chairlift midstation
(see Figure 13.2). The measures proposed in the
SSMP for protecting or enhancing the habitat values
of these areas are as follows:
Winter grooming of the major trails associated
with the Summit Chairlift would be principally
confined to the summer groomed slopes, avoiding
the use of machinery over the Burramys habitat
areas as far as practicable. This would avoid
disturbance to the primary habitat areas between
Side Saddle and the lift, as well as to the east of
Zali's.
It is not feasible to completely avoid grooming
above habitat on the lower part of Side Saddle as
this lies directly on the route for skiers returning to
the base station of the Summit Chairlift.
Grooming, however, would be confined to a run of
no more than 30 metres width in marginal or low
snow conditions, and would be planned to cross
the habitat in locations where the winter habitat
value is likely to be relatively low with most habitat
not being affected by the movement of grooming
machinery. It is proposed to develop a system for
monitoring snow depth over habitat areas as a
basis for determining when the grooming corridor
could be widened in situations when the snow is
deep enough to provide protection against the
possible impacts of machinery movement. Best
practice measures based on snow depth would be
employed to avoid damage to vegetation across
groomed areas.
Pending the results of research into the effects of
noise and vibration resulting from skier and
snowboarder movement on the hibernation
pattern of Burramys, it is proposed to close the
area between Side Saddle and Zalis to active
recreational use as a precautionary measure (see
Figure 13.5). The area would be roped off during
winter with signs erected at the bottom of the
Summit Chairlift and on the slopes. This closure
would also prevent damage by skis and
snowboards to vegetation which may protrude
through the snow during periods of limited snow
cover. While the risk of impacts is likely to be
lower in summer, the signs indicating closure of
the area would remain in place to reinforce their
message and assist visitors in appreciating the
nature of the affected habitat.
The habitat area downhill of the Summit Chairlift
base station, which is linked to other habitat
further down the valley, appears to be isolated
from the habitat on the lower part of Side Saddle
by the open flat area around the base station. It is
proposed to provide artificial movement corridors
to connect these two habitat areas. This work
would be undertaken in association with other
measures to stabilise the base station area to
control soil loss.
No summer grooming of trails is proposed in the
habitat areas downhill of the base station and the
access track to the Ridge Chairlift midstation. It is
desirable, however, to remove a few trees to
provide an 'escape route' which can be used by
winter grooming machines operating in this area
when they are unable to return along the
established ski trails. This route would be located
to avoid Burramys habitat.
Burramys movement occurs between the upper
slopes east of Zali's Run and habitat areas along
the watercourses in the valley below the access
track to the Ridge Chairlift midstation. To facilitate
movement between these areas, it is proposed to
install animal crossings at several points along
this access track. It is proposed also to
encourage natural regeneration of heath in the
middle section of Yarrandoo Run to restore a
protected movement corridor to the east of the
mountain.
There is also a Burramys dispersal route which
crosses the services corridor between Blue Cow and
Guthega either side of the western boundary of this
precinct. As part of the proposed upgrading of the
track along this corridor, it is planned to incorporate
small mammal crossings suitable for Burramys use
underneath the track in several locations. Some of
these would be in Precinct 10.
13.4.2 Skier access to Blue Cow Terminal
The provision of skier access back to Blue Cow
terminal depends primarily on the measures identified
for Precinct 7 to replace the Terminal Chairlift with a
new quad chairlift in a more protected location (see
Section 12.4.1) and to provide snowmaking along the
road to improve skier access to that lift under
marginal conditions (see Section 12.4.2).
In extreme wind situations when even the proposed
new lift or the Ridge Chairlift is unable to operate, it is
nevertheless necessary to be able to evacuate skiers
from the base of the Ridge Chairlift. As discussed in
relation to Precinct 9, it is proposed to maintain an
oversnow route along the Smiggin Holes Guthega
Link Road or possibly to open this road during winter
to conventional vehicles (see Section 14.4.3).
13.4.3 Upgrading of Ridge Quad Chairlift
The upgrading of the Ridge Quad Chairlift relates to
its backup evacuation engine which is required to
operate when the main drive fails, for example, due
to electricity breakdown. This engine, which operates
by emergency diesel power, is barely able to operate
the lift under load, and then only at a reduced
efficiency with chairs not being filled to capacity.
Upgrading of this backup engine would not affect the
13-6 SSMP MAY 2002
capacity of the lift under normal operating conditions.
The upgrading of the lift to a detachable chairlift is a
longer term possibility. Such future upgrading of the
whole lift could increase its capacity by about one
third because the existing lift has a relatively low
capacity compared with other fixed quad chairlifts in
the resorts.
To enable the lift to operate more flexibly, it is
proposed to modify the midstation so that the trails
uphill and downhill of the midstation could be skied
independently, depending on wind and snow
conditions. When there is poor snow cover on the
lower slopes, skiers could load at the midstation.
When the upper slopes were exposed to extreme
wind they could ski the lower part of Excelerator only.
Being able to alight at the midstation would also
benefit skiers using the Showboat moguls course
irrespective of prevailing weather and snow
conditions.
As well as modifying the midstation itself, it would be
necessary to improve entry to and egress from the
midstation by removing some rocks and stumps, and
trimming some trees.
13.4.4 Snowmaking
To improve the reliability of the Excelerator Trail
which is the main trail associated with the Ridge
Quad Chairlift, it is proposed to extend snowmaking
to the top of the lift. This would be concentrated on
the northern side of the lift where the slopes tend to
be north- to east-facing.
This snowmaking could be extended from the
existing Blue Cow snowmaking system, which draws
water directly from the Pipers Creek Aqueduct, and
could then be undertaken in advance of construction
of the Smiggin Holes snowmaking reservoir.
The offtake from the Pipers Creek Aqueduct to Pump
Station 1 and the snowmaking fill line to Smiggin
Holes reservoir, Perisher and Blue Cow are located
at the bottom (eastern edge) of the precinct.
Installation of the fill line would involve trenching
along the Perisher Creek valley, generally following
the existing access track to near the base of the
Ridge Chairlift, then following the lower part of the
Roller Coaster before entering Precinct 7 (see
Section 12.4.2). With upgrading of the pumping
capacity in Pump Station 1, Pump Station 2 is no
longer used for pumping snowmaking water, but is
still used for supplying electricity to the Ridge Chairlift
and for other operational purposes.
13.4.5 Upgrading of competition and training
facilities
It is proposed to upgrade the Showboat moguls
course to meet FIS homologation standards. This
would involve relocating it further to the south to
utilise a more even gradient and avoid conflict and
congestion with use of the Excelerator Run. While
the proposed course is based largely on an existing
clearing, its establishment would require removal of
some rocks and trees throughout the run. A route to
the top of the course from the midstation of the Ridge
Chairlift would also require some limited clearing.
There is the prospect also of developing the Outer
Limits Trail as a training course, as an alternative to
the Excelerator Run. This would overcome the
existing problem of training use of Excelerator
restricting recreational access to Outer Limits. For
safety and racing needs, however, the bottom half of
this run would need to be widened and straightened
in parts by removal of trees to continue the fall line.
From its new base, there would be a relatively flat,
but downhill, traverse to the base of the Ridge Chair.
13.4.6 Facilities at the base of the Ridge Chairlift
To improve the amenity at the base of the Ridge
Chairlift for recreational skiers, competition skiers and
spectators, it is proposed to provide a kiosk with
toilets. This may be upgraded to a restaurant if the
Link Road to this point is opened to vehicle access in
winter.
Being at the lowest point in the resort, it would be
necessary to pump sewage back to North Perisher
via the Blue Cow Road. Electricity is already on site
and water could be supplied from Blue Cow. The
provision of new services to the site is likely to be
integrated with the provision of snowmaking down the
Roller Coaster Run in Precinct 7, although other
options may be available.
To improve the safety of the milling area near the
base station, it is proposed to cover a section of the
creek that runs parallel to Roller Coaster. This may
be designed to enable the creek to be partly exposed
during summer, as has been done with some other
bridges in the resort (Refs. 29, 30).
In the future, it may be desirable also to provide
limited parking in this area, but this depends on
decisions with respect to the Smiggin Holes
Guthega Link Road (see Section 14.4.3). Because of
the limited area available, any parking is unlikely to
be available for general visitor use, but may be used,
for example, to provide outdoor broadcast facilities
associated with major competition events and for
drop-off and pick up shuttle services.
13.4.7 Other works
It is proposed to upgrade and stabilise the track that
follows the services easement corridor between Blue
Cow and Guthega. This upgrading would also affect
skiing development in Precincts 10 (Guthega) and 11
(Link Unit) and is necessary for the following reasons
(Ref. 31):
SSMP MAY 2002 13-7
To provide access for construction and
maintenance to proposed lifts in Precinct 8 (race
course T-bar) and Precinct 11 (Link Unit T-bar and
Link Unit Quad Chairlift).
To provide emergency and maintenance access
to the services (sewer, electricity and telephone)
within the corridor.
To facilitate general management access, mainly
by four-wheel-drive motorbike, between Blue Cow
and Guthega.
It is one of the most important tracks identified in the
summer access strategy for the resort.
In the course of upgrading the track, provision would
be made for small animal crossings at strategic
locations. These would be designed particularly to
facilitate the movement of Burramys from Blue Cow
Mountain to the boulderfields along Blue Cow Creek.
Further slope grooming in the form of selected tree
and rock removal with some local drainage works
and earthworks is required in locations on Zali's,
Excelerator and Yarrandoo Runs. On Yarrandoo
Run, some regeneration of dry heath would be
encouraged in a previously cleared area which
appears to form part of a Burramys movement
corridor. This would not significantly conflict with the
use of the run due to good snow accumulation at this
point. There may be other locations within the
precinct where minor slope grooming works are
required.
At the bottom of Yarrandoo, it is proposed to build a
bridge over the creek. This would be designed to
enable the creek to be partly exposed during summer
to maintain its ecological continuity.
by pods in Table 13.3. The establishment of the Blue
Cow race course T-bar would bring the lift capacity
closer to the slope capacity, which would change only
marginally, but there will still be a comfortable excess
in slope capacity throughout the precinct as a whole.
The measures to prevent or discourage skier
movement through Burramys hibernation areas
would significantly reduce the capacity of the slopes
associated with the Summit Chairlift. As a result the
lift capacity of the chairlift would be approximately in
Precinct 8
Project
no.
Proposed works
8.1 Blue Cow Race course T-bar
8.2 Upgrading of Ridge Chairlift midstation and
associated slope grooming
8.3 Upgrading of evacuation engine of Ridge Chairlift
8.4 Snowmaking on Excelerator
8.5 Snowmaking fill line from aqueduct offtake to
Ridge Chairlift
8.6 Snowmaking main along Blue Cow Guthega
services corridor (Middle Traverse)
8.7 New Showboat moguls course
8.8 Outer Limits training course
8.9 Tree removal in valley below Ridge Chairlift
midstation access track and Blue Cow Road
8.10 Slope grooming Zalis Run
8.11 Slope grooming Excelerator
8.12 Slope grooming Yarrandoo
8.13 Heath regeneration Yarrandoo
8.14 Bridge at bottom of Yarrandoo
8.15 Covering of creek near Ridge Chairlift base
station
8.16 Winter grooming of Blue Cow Mountain in
accordance with Burramys management
8.17 Ridge Chairlift kiosk and toilets
8.18 Possible Ridge Chairlift parking area
8.19 Blue Cow Guthega services easement corridor
track
8.20 Burramys crossing base of Summit Chairlift
8.21 Burramys crossings track to Ridge Chairlift
midstation
8.22 Burramys crossings Blue Cow Guthega
services easement corridor track
8.23 Signage and winter fencing to close slope
between Side Saddle and Zalis
determined)
Note: The traverse to the Blue Cow Race course around
the northern side of Blue Cow Mountain is
discussed in relation to Precinct 12 (Chapter 15).
The possible upgrading of the Link Road to the
base of the Ridge Chairlift is discussed in relation
to Precinct 9 (Chapter 14).
13-8 SSMP MAY 2002
balance with the remaining slope capacity, with Side
Saddle and Zalis Runs being used to capacity when
the lift was in full use.
conditions is summarised in Table 13.4. With the
extension of snowmaking to the full length of the
Excelerator Run, both the Summit and Ridge
Chairlifts could operate on artificial snow, serving the
needs of advanced skiers, although the slope
capacity would be well below the lift capacity on both
lifts.
With marginal snow late in the season, it is likely that
the slopes at the top of the Ridge Chairlift would be
closed due to their easterly to north-easterly
exposure but the lift would still operate on the south-
east facing slopes below the midstation. The slope
capacity and lift capacity would be approximately in
balance overall in this situation, although the slope
capacity on the Ridge Chairlift would be much less
than the lift capacity. Skiing on the southern slopes
of the mountain would be reduced slightly in this
situation, with the slope capacity being less than the
lift capacity.
With high wind the Summit Chairlift would be closed
but the Ridge Chairlift would usually be able to
operate, although skiers may tend to keep to the
lower slopes below the midstation, effectively
reducing the slope capacity. The Blue Cow race
course T-bar would continue to operate with the
result that over half the skiing capacity of the precinct
would be retained during high wind conditions.
With high wind in association with artificial snow, only
the Excelerator Run would be available, provided that
conditions were not so extreme as to prevent the
operation of the Ridge Chairlift.
While proposed developments in Precinct 7 and 9
would facilitate skier circulation to Precinct 8, the
proposals for Precinct 8 would not greatly affect its
own role in skier circulation. The main benefit would
result from the upgrading of the Ridge Chairlift which
would increase its operating reliability. This could
reduce queue times for skiers returning from the
precinct or travelling to Blue Cow directly from
Smiggin Holes via Precinct 9.
The increased circulation of skiers through the area
at the bottom of the Ridge Chairlift will place greater
reliance on this lift in the overall strategy for the ski
slopes, in a way which was not anticipated when the
Blue Cow Resort was originally developed and the lift
was designed and constructed. This is particularly
important because there is currently no practicable
alternative means for large numbers of skiers to
leave the area in the event of lift failure.
The future operation of this area and of the Ridge
Chairlift will be carefully monitored with a view to
considering further upgrading of the capacity and
reliability of the lift in the future if the demand
warrants it.
The proposed kiosk and other facilities at the base of
the Ridge Chairlift would enhance repeat skiing
opportunities in what is a relatively remote part of
resort and greatly increase suitability for competition
skiing. The latter would also be influenced by
improved winter access along the Link Road as
discussed in Chapter 14.
The proposals for future winter grooming on the
southern slopes of Blue Cow Mountain provide the
basis for a rational grooming approach aimed at
protecting the biological processes associated with
Bur r amys when this is most critical, without
constraining skiing opportunities at other times. This
process will require further investigation and
refinement in order to optimise it with respect to ESD
principles.
The upgrading of access along the Blue Cow
Guthega services easement corridor would greatly
enhance the efficient operation of the resort and
integrate Guthega more effectively with the rest of the
resort from the perspective of summer operations.
This would benefit not only Perisher Blue but also the
NPWS and other service providers operating in the
resort.
SSMP MAY 2002 13-9
SAOT SAOT
29 Summit Quad Chairlift 669 669 29A to 29E 752 510 a
29F to 29I 373 b
29J to 29L 148 148 c
Total 669 669 1273 658
29*
Blue Cow race course
T-bar
185 29F to 29I 357 b
Total 185 357
30 Ridge Quad Chairlift 605 599 30A to 30L 813 813 c
30M 14 18
30N 20
Total 605 599 827 851
Total Precinct 8 1274 1453 2100 1866
Notes
a. It is estimated that closure of the Burramys habitat area between Side Saddle and Zalis would reduce the slope
capacity of Pod sector 29C by 80 percent (i.e. by 242 SAOT).
b. With the establishment of the Blue Cow race course T-bar, Pod sectors 29F to 29I would fall into a separate pod
based around that T-bar. Depending on the location of the T-bar, the shape and size of these sectors is likely to
change slightly but this has been ignored for purposes of the present assessment.
c. The proposed lift capacity of the Ridge Quad Chairlift could be increased to 798 SAOT if the lift were upgraded to
the same design capacity as other quad chairlifts in the resort (i.e. from 1800 skiers/hr to 2400 skiers/hr). While
this is not currently proposed in the SSMP, it remains a future possibility if demand justifies it.
Situation
Pod 29
Summit
Pod 29*
Blue Cow Race
course
Pod 30
Ridge
Total
Lift Slope Lift Slope Lift Slope Lift Slope
Existing 669 1273 605 827 1274 2100
Full development
Optimum conditions 669 658 185 357 599 851 1453 1866
(early in season)
669 142 599 242 1268 384
Marginal snow late in season 669 515
(a)
185 357 518
(b)
141 (c) 1372 1023
High wind 185 357 599 851 (d) 784 1208
High wind with snowmaking 599 242 599 242
Notes:
a. Pod sectors 29K and 29L would not be used due to inability of skiers to return via the Ridge Chairlift.
b. Lift capacity is reduced slightly on the assumption that the lift would operate for skiing only below the midstation.
c. Slope capacity for repeat skiing would be limited to Pod sectors 30B, 30C, 30I, 30J and 30M, plus the proposed
moguls course (30N).
d. In practice, slope capacity may be reduced if skiers prefer to keep to the lower slopes to avoid the wind.
SSMP MAY 2002 14-1
14. PRECINCT 9: MOUNT PIPER NORTH
The Mount Piper North Precinct is partly outside the
existing management units for alpine skiing as
identified in the Kosciusko National Park Plan of
Management (see Figure 14.1). The proposals in
this precinct indicated to occur outside existing resort
management unit boundaries will be considered by
the NPWS as part of the review of the Kosciuszko
National Park Plan of Management according to the
requirements of Section 75 of the National Parks and
Wildlife Act 1974 and do not form a part of this
adopted Ski Slope Master Plan.
Precinct 9 is located partly within the Pipers Creek
Management Unit (H1) of the PoM which is
managed, amongst other things, to provide facilities
for cross-country skiing. In the days when the Blue
Cow and Perisher Smiggin Holes resorts operated
independently it had no obvious role with respect to
alpine skiing. With the resort merger, however, it
now lies on the direct route from Smiggin Holes to the
bottom of the Ridge Chairlift at Blue Cow. This route
is already being used by skiers when snow conditions
are suitable.
The precinct is defined by the Smiggin Holes
Guthega Link Road on the north, by Perisher Creek
on the west and by ridges from the summit of Mount
Piper on the south and south-east, where it adjoins
the Smiggin Holes and Mount Piper South precincts.
The Link Road is included within the precinct.
In the context of the SSMP, this precinct is not seen
as a development area. The need to recognise it as
part of the resort and plan for it accordingly results
from its role in future skier circulation, which should
desirably be formalised in the interests of facilitating
an adequate level of management from a safety
viewpoint.
The precinct is located between elevations of
between 1600 and 1830 metres, with predominantly
northerly or westerly aspects. These features are
unfavourable in terms of snow retention and wind
protection.
While there are some localised areas of poor
drainage, mainly in gullies, the slopes are generally
well drained, hence snow loss due to wetness is
unlikely to be a problem in maintaining access trails.
The section of Perisher Creek that forms the western
boundary of the precinct is different in character from
the section upstream of the North Perisher sewage
treatment works. It initially drops steeply along a
rocky channel, then assumes a more gentle profile a
short distance upstream of the bottom of the Ridge
Chairlift. While bridged by snow during periods of
good cover, it is unsafe for skiers to cross at other
times, hence construction of a safe crossing would be
necessary for a reliable access route.
The vegetation pattern is shown in Figure 14.2. The
north-facing slopes of the precinct contain scattered
areas of snowgum woodland, including some climax
stands on the upper slopes of Mount Piper. There
are some areas of wet heath but the understorey is
predominantly open dry heath. A similar pattern of
understorey extends to the west-facing slopes, where
the tree density is lower. There is very little
disturbance to the natural vegetation or introduction
of exotic ground cover, except in a few places along
the Link Road and the nearby electricity
subtransmission line.
Wet communities 13%
Exotic ground cover 0.5%
Except for the wet heath areas, there are few sites of
particular interest as animal habitat. Because of the
low level of disturbance, it is likely that natural
patterns of wildlife movement within the precinct
would be fully maintained.
There is the prospect of modification of water quality
in Perisher Creek due to the presence of the sewage
treatment works immediately upstream of the
precinct. This would have no direct implications for
use of the precinct for skiing, however.
Some shallow depressions, tentatively identified as
weakly developed string bogs, are present north of
Mount Piper (see Figure 14.3) and have been
identified as being of local geomorphological
significance (Ref. 16).
Some large flat areas on the ridge running north-west
from Mount Piper have been assessed as being of
high archaeological sensitivity (see Figure 14.3, Ref.
14), while several other gently sloping areas within
the precinct have been assessed as being of low to
moderate archaeological sensitivity. No specific
features of Aboriginal cultural significance have been
recorded within the precinct.
The area is of interest from a European cultural
perspective, however, in that the saltlicks, which gave
rise to the name of Smiggin Holes, were placed in a
flat area on the upper north-western slopes of Mount
Piper.
14-2 SSMP MAY 2002
precinct.
There is no ski slope development within the precinct
apart from a few poles which mark a cross-country
skiing trail from Smiggin Holes to the western slopes
of Mount Piper. This, however, does not prevent use
of the precinct by alpine skiers who use the Hume T-
bar at Smiggin Holes to access the summit ridge of
Mount Piper, then find their own way down to the
bottom of the Ridge Chairlift at Blue Cow. With the
slopes being relatively open, the choice of route is
relatively unconstrained, although the most uniform
grade involves skiing down to the Link Road then
following this to a point overlooking the Ridge Chairlift
base station, from which it is a short drop down to
Perisher Creek and the lift.
This is a relatively safe route in that it generally
avoids steep slopes, has the snow-covered road and
associated electricity line as a navigational aid and
crosses the creek at a point where the creek is on a
flat grade and is not deeply incised into the terrain.
Other more direct routes are possible which are
flatter at the start but steeper towards the end.
These involve the risk of skiers being drawn down to
Perisher Creek where the gully is steep and more
difficult to cross on skis. While skiers currently use
the precinct without the benefit of defined trails, there
is a risk of them getting lost, finding themselves in
difficult situations and being injured in areas remote
from other skiers. It is therefore important for safety
reasons to formalise the skiing use of the area, both
in administrative terms through the PoM and in a
physical sense through signage and grooming.
A particular concern is at Perisher Creek where the
only means of crossing on skis is via natural snow
bridges which form along the creek during winter.
These bridges are not always present and at risk of
collapsing when the snow cover is relatively thin,
although this may not be apparent to a skier about to
cross the bridge. A stable crossing is therefore an
important element of providing safe movement along
this access route.
The Link Road, which forms the northern boundary of
the precinct is important as a potential route for
oversnow ambulance use in the event of accidents in
the lower parts of Precinct 7 and 8, and for
emergency evacuation of other skiers if the lifts in
those precincts are forced to close because of high
winds or mechanical breakdown.
As discussed in relation to Precinct 8, there is the
possibility of the Link Road being sealed to provide
vehicle access close to the bottom of the Ridge Quad
Chairlift. This road would then clearly define the
northern boundary of the precinct in winter and,
depending on the extent to which vehicle parking
and/or shuttle services were provided near the base
of the lift, could influence the demand for skiers
movement through the precinct.
With no lifts existing or proposed in the precinct and
an extensive area available for the limited skier
movement that would occur, the consideration of
skiing capacity is not relevant to the planning of
Precinct 9.
The main issues associated with the Mount Piper
North Precinct are as follows:
Formalisation of the Plan of Management
provisions to enable the management of alpine
skiing access.
Formalisation of the access trail to the base of the
Ridge Quad Chairlift, including determination of
signage and grooming needs and provision of a
bridge across Perisher Creek.
Determination of the future role of the Link Road
in winter.
(see Figure 14.4)
14.4.1 Formalisation of Plan of Management
provisions
The objectives in the PoM (Section 7.1.3, Ref. 1) for
management of the Pipers Creek Management Unit
include 'to maintain an area free from alpine skiing
infrastructure ... north of Smiggin Holes'. This
provision is considered most relevant to the area of
the cross-country loops north to north-east of the
village, which is the most popular cross-country
skiing area at Smiggin Holes. The existing provisions
do not preclude alpine skiing infrastructure in all parts
of the management unit, which covers 1720 ha, with
only about 58 ha located within Precinct 9.
There is an existing cross-country ski trail through the
precinct linking Smiggin Holes and North Perisher,
which is located partly within a lightly used part of the
Perisher Valley Smiggin Holes Management Unit.
The PoM (Section 7.1.3, Ref. 1) refers also to
establishing cross-country trails linking to the Blue
Cow Management Unit, although it is not clear where
such trails would be located in relation to the ski
slopes. These provisions indicate that, at least in
lightly used parts of the resort, alpine skiing and
cross-country skiing are not mutually exclusive, and
that use of a small part of the Pipers Creek
Management Unit for alpine skiing circulation would
not conflict unduly with its value for cross-country
skiing.
With respect to alpine skiing infrastructure, such
development within Precinct 9 would be minor in
most respects, being confined principally to
directional signs on ski trails. Summer trail grooming
SSMP MAY 2002 14-3
and trail marking are permitted within the precinct for
cross-country skiing and the situation should be no
different for alpine skiing access trails. As discussed
in Section 14.4.2, skier bridges across Perisher
Creek would be located within the Blue Cow
Management Unit.
The most substantial and most important item of
alpine skiing infrastructure in the precinct would be
the proposed Smiggin Holes snowmaking reservoir,
which would be located partly within Precinct 9 and
partly within Precinct 5. The reservoir would also
straddle the boundary of the Smiggin Holes franchise
area although, based on current design intentions, it
is likely to be contained within the Perisher Valley
Smiggin Holes Management Unit, the boundary of
which is located about 90 metres north of the
franchise area and precinct boundaries. There is the
possibility, however, that an alternative design for the
reservoir or works associated with the reservoir (e.g.
upgrading of access track) may extend slightly
outside the Perisher Valley Smiggin Holes
Management Unit. Because of the vital role of this
reservoir in the future development of the resort, it is
essential for the PoM to have the flexibility to
accommodate it in such a situation.
A further consideration is the future winter use of the
Link Road in relation to alpine skiing operation,
although the present PoM provisions do not appear
to limit the range of likely future uses of this road as
presently contemplated.
There are two broad approaches which could be
considered to amend the PoM in order to reflect the
intentions of the SSMP. One is to extend the
boundary of one of the adjoining alpine skiing
management units to encompass all of Precinct 9.
Based on precedents at North Perisher and the Link
Unit, this would not preclude its development and use
also for cross-country skiing.
The other approach is to amend the provisions for the
Pipers Creek Management Unit to enable appropriate
types of alpine skiing infrastructure as indicated in the
SSMP within the area south of the Link Road.
Appropriate amendments to the PoM would
recognise the existing alpine skiing use of the
precinct and the proposed snowmaking reservoir,
and enable the precinct to be managed responsibly in
the interests of skier safety and skier circulation
resulting from integration of the resorts in 1995.
14.4.2 Formalisation of access trails
It is proposed to mark access trails from the top
stations of the Hume T-bar and the Burke Wills
duplex T-bar to the base of the Ridge Quad Chairlift
in Precinct 8. While one of these trails may follow the
approximate route of the Link Road and electricity
line for some of its distance, it would be located south
of the road in order to avoid conflict with oversnow
vehicles. In the event of the Link Road being sealed
and opened in winter, it would be essential for this
trail to have a separate route.
If necessary, some summer grooming may be
undertaken along the trail to improve its surface for
the movement of winter grooming machinery and
skiers, but the extent of this is expected to be minor,
given the relatively open terrain. To facilitate skier
access onto the trails, the unloads for the duplex T-
bars would be located further uphill near the
bullwheels.
The trails would converge to the east of Perisher
Creek, where it is proposed to construct a bridge
across the creek for skiers and slope grooming
machinery. This would be located just south of the
Ridge Chairlift base station where the terrain is most
suitable.
The top of the Burke Wills duplex T-bar would also
provide the starting point for new trails to the base of
the Interceptor Chairlift and the North Perisher T-bar.
Most of these trails would be located in Precinct 6
(see Section 11.4.2).
14.4.3 Future role of the Link Road
The future role of the Link Road depends
substantially on matters which are beyond the scope
of the SSMP. From the viewpoint of resort operation,
it is proposed that, as a minimum:
during winter, the road from Smiggin Holes to the
base of the Ridge Chairlift be maintained as an
oversnow route for management access to the
base of the lift, and for the emergency evacuation
of skiers following accidents or in extreme
conditions when the lift is closed; and
during summer, the whole length of the Link Road
be maintained in a safe condition for two-wheel-
drive access to allow free movement of staff and
visitors between Perisher/Smiggin Holes and
Guthega.
The PoM (Section 7.3.2, Ref. 1) permits Perisher
Blue to investigate sealing the Link and Guthega
roads and associated road verges to allow for winter
access for the general public, with sealing being
required if the road is to be snowcleared in winter.
Perisher Blue would support the upgrading of the
road to enable it to be used for conventional vehicle
access during winter, although it is proposed that
such access would be restricted, for example, to
allow media coverage of major skiing competitions
using the Interceptor or Showboat courses or to
provide a shuttle service from Smiggin Holes to Blue
Cow when skiing access through the precinct is not
feasible.
While the road is located at the edge of Precinct 9, it
does not form part of the ski slopes and the
14-4 SSMP MAY 2002
responsibility for upgrading and maintaining it rests
with government agencies.
Precinct 9
Project
no.
Proposed works
9.1 Grooming and signage of trails to base of Ridge
Chairlift
9.2 Bridge over Perisher Creek near base of Ridge
Chairlift
9.3 Movement of Burke Wills duplex T-bar unloads
closer to bullwheels
9.4 Possible sealing of Link Road (by NSW
Government agencies)
Because the precinct would be used only for skier
circulation from Smiggin Holes to Blue Cow by a
small proportion of resort visitors, and would not be
used for repeat skiing, the skiing capacity of the
precinct is not an important planning consideration
and has not been assessed in detail.
The proposals to formalise skier movement through
the precinct, both administratively and in terms of
improved trails and signage, would be of significant
benefit with respect to skier circulation. Apart from
enhancing the safety and reliability of movement to
the base of the Ridge Chairlift, it would reduce
demand for use of the Perisher Express, Telemark
and Interceptor chairlifts, particularly during the
morning peak.
If the Link Road were sealed, snowcleared and
opened to shuttle buses, this would facilitate the
transport of visitors, including skiers and spectators
attending skiing competitions, in both directions
between Smiggin Holes and the base of the Ridge
Chairlift under all snow conditions.
Improved winter access via the Link Road would
facilitate the organisation of skiing competitions using
the Excelerator and Showboat courses.
The bridge across Perisher Creek at the bottom of
the Ridge Chairlift would be useful in enabling slope
grooming machines to return from Blue Cow to the
Smiggin Holes workshop via the trails in Precinct 9.
SSMP MAY 2002 15-1
15. PRECINCT 10: GUTHEGA
The Guthega Precinct includes all of the original
Guthega Ski Resort. It is located at the western end
of Blue Cow Mountain, and its boundaries are
essentially those of the Guthega Management Unit in
the Plan of Management (see Figure 15.1).
To the north-west, the boundary runs along the steep
slopes overlooking the Snowy River. To the west it
follows the edge of Guthega Dam. To the south it
follows Blue Cow Creek, while the eastern boundary
approximately follows the fall line down the slopes
north and south of the knoll on the western end of the
summit ridge of Blue Cow Mountain.
Historically Guthega has been a small, self-contained
resort, consisting of a small hotel and nine ski club
lodges, and a lift system designed primarily to serve
these lodges. Its integration with Blue Cow in the first
instance then with Perisher Smiggin Holes has left
it as an outpost within a much larger resort. These
changes have dramatically altered the skiing pattern
of Guthega skiers, who can now move through the
whole resort, and have also attracted large numbers
of skiers from Blue Cow and Perisher, particularly to
use the sheltered runs on the south-facing slopes of
the Blue Cow Mountain ridge.
Parts of the Guthega slopes, including the village,
have a north-westerly aspect which can make them
obvious in views from the Main Range, for example,
from Mount Tate, Mount Twynam and Mount
Kosciuszko. In this respect, Guthega differs from
most other developed parts of the resort which are
predominantly oriented away from the Main Range.
This is an important environmental consideration in
the siting and design of new developments within the
precinct.
The Guthega Precinct ranges in elevation from 1600
to 1935 metres although it is skiable only to the
bottom of the chairlift which is located at about 1640
metres. Its aspect is variable with slopes facing the
north, west and south, thus varying widely in terms of
wind exposure and snow accumulation.
The slopes of the resort are generally well drained
except in places to the north of Blue Cow Creek and
in other localised wet heath areas (see Figure 15.2).
The cover of snowgum woodland within the resort is
strongly influenced by the pattern of these wet areas,
particularly on the lower slopes. It has also been
modified by the clearing of ski trails, with many
narrow trails being formed through the trees on the
more popular lower slopes.
On the upper slopes, the tree cover is more sparse
with the trees along the main ridge being strongly
wind-affected. The upper slopes are also very rocky,
continuing the characteristics of the rest of Blue Cow
Mountain which is located to the east.
Much of the trail clearing at Guthega has involved at
least minor surface disturbance, followed by
rehabilitation of the site with introduced grasses. As
a consequence, many parts of the precinct contain
introduced grass cover, although this is not as
extensive as in Front Valley, Smiggin Holes or some
parts of Blue Cow. Some modified areas, particularly
below the road through the village are a
consequence of Snowy Mountains Authority works
associated with the construction of Guthega Dam,
rather than with skifield development.
Wet communities (wet heath, bog etc.) 11%
Buildings, hard-standing areas 0.7%
Being an extension of Blue Cow Mountain, the
Guthega Precinct relates ecologically to Precinct 8 in
complementing the Burramys habitat present near
the summit of Blue Cow Mountain, with regular
movement of animals between these two areas (Ref.
12). In particular, there are boulder heath areas to
the east of the Carpark Chairlift, which have been
assessed as primary Burramys habitat (Ref. 12), with
Burramys moving between these areas and the
primary habitat south of the Blue Cow summit. The
protected movement of Burramys by retaining heath
cover as far as practicable is a consideration with
respect to slope grooming and other works along the
movement corridor.
There is also an area of high habitat value on the
lower slopes along the northern side of Blue Cow
Creek on the southern edge of the precinct. This
area contains sites considered as potential habitat for
Burramys and for the Corroboree Frog, although
these species have not yet been recorded here
despite some limited trapping for Burramys (Ref. 32).
Habitat continuity with respect to these areas may be
important in relation to any new works in this area or
nearby parts of the Link Unit (Precinct 11).
In common with the other southern slopes of Blue
Cow Mountain, the slopes between Blue Cow Creek
and the Blue Cow T-bar contain large numbers of the
threatened Anemone Buttercup (Ranunculus
anemoneus).
15-2 SSMP MAY 2002
No systematic mapping of features of special
geological or geomorphological significance has been
undertaken within the precinct, although an unusual
area of shingle (continuous cover of small loose rock)
has been noted on the slope above Farm Creek (see
Figure 15.3). This is assumed to be of periglacial
origin (Ref. 32).
As shown in Figure 15.3, several localised areas
including the western end of the Blue Cow Mountain
ridge and the rise west of Guthega Saddle have been
assessed as being of high archaeological sensitivity
(Ref. 14), while Guthega Saddle and a gentle spur
below the Guthega Village road have been assessed
as being of low to moderate archaeological
sensitivity. At the last of these sites, subsurface
Aboriginal artefacts have been found (Ref. 14). An
isolated find (a quartz flake) has been recorded near
Tower 4 of the Carpark Chairlift (Ref. 15).
precinct.
The ski slope layout of the Guthega Precinct was
developed during the period when Guthega was a
self-contained resort. Before the merger of the
resorts in 1995, the only changes were the removal
of a small beginners lift downslope of the village and
the relocation of one of the Blue Calf T-bars to Blue
Cow to become the Brumby T-bar. The link between
Guthega and the rest of the resort in terms of skier
access depends entirely on the old Blue Cow T-bar,
which is critical in dispersing skiers from the small
number of lodges that make up Guthega Village. In
order to integrate Guthega more effectively with the
rest of the resort, it requires connecting lifts and trails
which are more direct and have a greater capacity
and reliability than the existing system.
The lifts and trails at Guthega are spread around the
end of the Blue Cow Mountain ridge, with aspects
ranging from north through west to south. The more
northerly slopes experience problems with snow
retention, while the southerly slopes are sheltered
and accumulate deep snow which lasts well
throughout the season, providing the most reliable
natural snow holding area in the northern part of the
resort. The quality of fall-line skiing is also very high.
The variety of terrain, tree-lined trails and superb
views to the Main Range draw skiers to the area, and
Guthega is becoming increasingly popular. A greater
lifting capacity is desirable to make better use of the
southern slopes of the Blue Cow Mountain ridge,
which are currently underutilised.
Skier access to Guthega from the adjoining Pleasant
Valley Precinct (Precinct 7) is available via the Low
Traverse which largely follows the route of Blue Cow
Creek, which has its origins in that precinct. The
flatter terrain in the floor of the valley contains many
wet areas which dramatically affect snow retention
and, thereby, access to and from Guthega. This is
especially so during the marginal periods of a season
and in poor natural snow years. Skier movement
also occurs via the Middle Traverse which partly
follows the underground services easement corridor
between Blue Cow and Guthega.
The high quality of fall-line skiing on the south-facing
slopes makes them particularly suitable for both
recreational and elite racing and training. The
Schnaxl Run is homologated for Slalom racing. The
current limited lifting access and absence of
adequate shelter, however, are major drawbacks to
efficient and effective use for racing and training.
Shelter is also needed to satisfy occupational health
and safety requirements for staff setting up and
conducting events.
The Parachute Run on the northern slopes of the
ridge has previously been homologated for Slalom
and Giant Slalom although its homologation has
lapsed. Because it is primarily north-facing, it loses
snow quality rapidly rendering reliability difficult.
Solar access to almost all of the intensively groomed
slopes in the precinct reduces snow reliability
generally but, at the same time, provides an
excellent, quality experience when adequate snow
conditions prevail.
The changing pattern of skier access into Guthega
over several years has resulted in the food service,
originally located at the Guthega Centre, which was
the only entry point onto the slopes, now being in the
least accessible part of the village. The Burning Log
Restaurant is at the base of the Blue Calf T-bar which
is the only lift providing access from it to the rest of
the resort. Improved restaurant facilities in a more
accessible location is highly desirable, particularly for
skiers who travel to Guthega from Perisher, Smiggin
Holes and Blue Cow.
Guthega's remote location within the resort makes it
important to have efficient vehicle access to and from
other parts of the resort during both winter and
summer. The logical route is along the services
easement corridor between Blue Cow and Guthega,
where a formed track already exists, although
summer use of this access is currently non-existent
due to NPWS directives.
The current use of Precinct 10 for skiing and the
extent of winter grooming are indicated in Figure
15.4. The skiing capacity of the precinct in terms of
both lift capacity and slope capacity are summarised
in Table 15.1 in relation to the pods identified in
Figure 15.4. These figures demonstrate the large
area of underutilised slopes within the precinct or,
conversely, and more appropriately the severe
undersupply of lift capacity in all pods.
SSMP MAY 2002 15-3
Pod
area (ha)
31 47.6 Blue Cow T-bar 209 31A 223 a,b
Desert Park rope tow 76 31B 28
31C 27
31D 364
31E 7
31F 170
31G 12
31H 17
31I 70
31J 81
31K 127
31L 275
31M 50
31N 95
31O 44
31P 38
31Q 22
31R 84
Total 285 1734
32 3.0 Cow Pastures J-bar 93 32A 176 b
32B 52
Total 93 228
33 24.9 Blue Calf T-bar 127 33A 371
33B 9
33C 110
33D 149
33E 172
Total 127 811
34 5.8 Carpark Double Chairlift 205 34A 268 a
34B 61
34C 45
35D 24
Total 205 398
Notes:
a. Use of several of the runs to the north of the Blue Cow T-bar depend on both the Blue Cow T-bar and the Carpark
Double Chairlift but are included mainly with the former.
b. Use of most of the runs to the south of the Blue Cow T-bar depend on both the Blue Cow T-bar and the Cow
Pastures J-bar, but are included mainly with the former.
In summary the main issues relevant to the Guthega
Increased lifting capacity for both skier circulation
and repeat skiing.
Improved vehicular access for resort management
purposes in both winter and summer.
Improved restaurant and other skier facilities on
the slopes.
Use of snowmaking to improve snow reliability on
groomed trails.
Protection of Burramys habitat and movement
corridors in the future development and
management of the precinct.
(see Figure 15.5)
15.4.1 Increased lifting capacity
To better utilise the good slopes with reliable snow
cover on the southern slopes of the Blue Cow
Mountain ridge, a new fixed grip quad chairlift is
proposed to run from Blue Cow Creek east of the
bottom of the Cow Pastures platter lift to the top of
the ridge next to the top of the Blue Cow T-bar. This
would greatly enhance use of the area for both
general ski i ng and raci ng purposes. An
environmental assessment of lift options has
previously been undertaken (Ref. 33) but this was
done when Guthega was a separate resort and the
15-4 SSMP MAY 2002
options will be reviewed in the context of the current
SSMP.
Access to the lift would be by both repeat skiers
using the south-facing slopes, as well as skiers
circulating from Blue Cow and Perisher. The bottom
station of the lift is expected to be located on the
south side of Blue Cow Creek, where the terrain is
less sensitive to disturbance than on the north side.
To reach this station, a bridge for skier use is
proposed across Blue Cow Creek near the bottom
station.
Construction of the quad chairlift would require a new
access track to the bottom station. This may be
integrated with access to proposed new lifts in the
Link Unit as discussed further in Section 16.4.
15.4.2 Improved vehicle access
Improved vehicle access within parts of the precinct
is required for the following functions:
Construction of the proposed quad chairlift as
identified in Section 15.4.1.
Construction of two proposed lifts in the Link Unit
(Precinct 11) (see Section 16.4).
Maintenance and emergency access along the
services easement corridor between Blue Cow
and Guthega.
Maintenance access to the top of the Blue Cow T-
bar.
Facilitation of summer vehicle movement between
Blue Cow and Guthega.
Each of these functions would involve upgrading the
track along at least part of the existing services
easement corridor between the Norwegian Road at
Blue Calf Saddle and the Blue Cow Road at the Blue
Cow sewage transfer station. An improved access
track in this location is therefore a basic requirement
for further development within the precinct.
From this access track, it is proposed to extend an
access road down an open spur to Blue Cow Creek
near the base of the proposed T-bar to Blue Cow
Terminal (see Section 16.4.2). This access track
would then continue down the south side of the creek
in Precinct 11 to the base of the proposed Link Unit
Quad Chairlift (see Section 16.4.1). A further
extension from this point is one option for providing
access to the base of the proposed Guthega quad
chairlift. This would require the skier bridge across
Blue Cow Creek to be designed to take all vehicles.
Another option for a track to the Guthega Quad
Chairlift bottom station is from Guthega Saddle, with
the last 70 metres of this track crossing the
ecologically sensitive area (wet heath/bog/boulder
field) in the floor of the Blue Cow Creek valley, where
special construction techniques would be required to
minimise its impact. A further option would be from
the access track to the Guthega water supply,
following the south bank of Blue Cow Creek, which is
less sensitive. Upgrading of the existing access track
from Guthega Vi l l age, i ncl udi ng drai nage
improvements in one section, would be required in
this case. These options will be subject to further
investigation.
For construction of the top station of the Guthega
Quad Chairlift, as well as for ongoing maintenance of
this lift and the Blue Cow T-bar, it is proposed to
upgrade, relocate and extend the track to the top of
the T-bar. This would be located off the T-bar track
and would avoid Burramys habitat on the upper
slopes.
15.4.3 Restaurant and skier facilities
In order to provide visitor facilities which are more
central within the Guthega ski slopes, a new
restaurant with toilets is proposed at Guthega
Saddle. This would replace the existing Burning Log
restaurant at the bottom of the Blue Calf T-bar. The
Burning Log building may be converted to staff
accommodation, or could possibly be demolished if it
is not required for that purpose. This decision would
be influenced by the future use of the Ski Centre
building at the carpark or as a result of other village
planning.
In addition to visitor facilities, the new restaurant
building would also accommodate Ski Patrol and
would have sufficient space for storage for the Race
Department's poles, timers, gates etc., given the high
level of racing and training that occurs at Guthega. It
is likely that, with implementation of the SSMP,
Guthega will have its own area manager and staff
(currently combined with Blue Cow). Although staff
locker rooms and the like would remain at Blue Cow
Terminal, an area manager's and supervisor's office
space with limited storage, as well as a crib room for
lift staff, would be provided in the restaurant building.
Those services to the restaurant which are not
already on site would probably be installed along the
corridor of the Blue Calf T-bar from the Burning Log
restaurant. The existing storage tanks for the
Guthega Village water supply are located at a lower
elevation than the saddle, hence it would be
necessary to install a header tank on the slopes uphill
of the restaurant, supplied by a pump at the existing
tanks. An alternative approach would be to install a
water main from Blue Cow in association with the
upgrading of the track and the installation of
snowmaking in the Blue Cow Guthega services
corridor. This is not favoured, however, because of
the greater length of pipe required and the need to
regulate excess head pressure in the supply.
SSMP MAY 2002 15-5
15.4.4 Snowmaking
To improve utilisation of the existing lifts during
marginal snow conditions, it is proposed to install
snowmaking along a selection of the groomed trails,
which have surface characteristics suitable for
efficient snowmaking. The trails proposed for
snowmaking are Parachute, Bloody Mary (Blue Cow
T-bar), Dorfer (Blue Calf T-bar) and Milk Run (Cow
Pastures J-bar), as well as the tracks of the Blue Calf
and Blue Cow T-bars and the Cow Pastures J-bar
and a route from Guthega Saddle to Blue Calf T-bar.
Access into Guthega from Blue Cow under marginal
conditions would be facilitated by snowmaking along
the Middle Traverse and from Guthega Saddle to the
Blue Calf T-bar. This is a relatively gentle traverse
which would be suitable for most skiers.
The return route from Guthega to Blue Cow based on
artificial snow would be more difficult. This would
depend on using the Link Unit T-bar to Blue Cow
Terminal or alternatively the Link Unit Quad Chairlift
to the top of Pleasant Valley. To reach the base of
these lifts, snowmaking would be provided down the
access track to these lifts from the Blue Cow
Guthega services corridor (i.e. the Middle Traverse).
This is preferable to installing snowmaking from the
Cow Pastures J-bar through the sensitive habitat in
the valley of Blue Cow Creek. The difficult
component is how to reach the start of this access
track on artificial snow.
There is a direct route from the top of the Blue Cow
T-bar down the Mother-in-law Run, but this is a steep
and difficult run to ski, particularly with snow confined
to a narrow corridor. It is therefore proposed to make
snow in a wide arc to skiers' right from the top of
Mother-in-law, curving back to join the snowmaking
along the access track where it leaves the Middle
Traverse.
The snowmaking at Guthega would operate as an
extension of the Blue Cow snowmaking system. This
means that snowmaking could not be supplied to
Guthega until:
(a) the snowmaking to Blue Cow has been
upgraded with a sufficient capacity in pumps
and compressors to supply Guthega, as well
as the extended snowmaking areas at Blue
Cow; and
(b) a snowmaking main to Guthega has been laid
along the Middle Traverse in association with
an upgraded access track along the Blue Cow
Guthega services easement corridor.
These requirements mean that the supply of
snowmaking to Guthega is unlikely to occur until a
relatively late stage in the overall snowmaking
development program.
The snowmaking facilities at the bottom of the Blue
Calf T-bar would also be used to supplement snow
along the road to Guthega workshop to assist
oversnow vehicles in accessing the workshop during
poor snow conditions.
15.4.5 Protection of Burramys habitat
There are some small patches of primary Burramys
habitat on the lower western slopes of Blue Cow
Mountain to the east of the Carpark Double Chairlift,
and some larger areas of secondary habitat at
locations in the upper part of Blue Cow Creek and the
western ridge of Blue Cow Mountain in the eastern
part of the precinct (Ref. 12). These are linked by
proven or assumed movement corridors.
While the upper part of the proposed Guthega Quad
Chairlift is close to some of the secondary habitat
areas, there are several possible alignments for this
lift, which would be located with a view to minimising
the ecological impacts. The main Bur r amy s
movement corridor crosses the Blue Cow Guthega
services corridor where it is proposed to incorporate
small mammal crossings into the upgrading of the
track.
15.4.6 Other works
Minor slope grooming or run widening for safety
reasons is proposed on many of the groomed runs
wi thi n the preci nct, i ncl udi ng Parachute,
Woodpecker, Home Run, Timber Trail, Bloody Mary,
Dorfer, Cow Pastures, Fun Run, Schnaxl and Mother-
in-law.
Reshaping of the ground surface under the Cow
Pastures lift line and replacing the bridge over the
creek with pipes are proposed. It is also planned to
provide a skier protection structure at the unload to
prevent unloaded platters from hitting skiers crossing
the lift line above the unload platform.
It would be desirable to fill to the level of the Guthega
Road the deep depression at the bottom of the
Parachute Run.
The trail on skiers' right of Blue Cow Creek to take
skiers back to the base of the Cow Pastures J-bar
and the proposed chairlift is to be improved through
the trimming or removal of selected trees.
The Desert Park rope tow above Guthega Saddle
would probably be replaced with a skier conveyor for
beginner skier use.
It is proposed to extend the Guthega vehicle
workshop to also accommodate the Guthega lift
workshop, which would be relocated from the Burning
Log building.
15-6 SSMP MAY 2002
Precinct 10
Project
no.
Proposed works
10.1 Guthega Quad Chairlift
10.2 Replacement of Desert Park rope tow with skier
conveyor
10.3 Snowmaking along Middle Traverse
10.4 Snowmaking along Blue Cow T-bar
10.5 Snowmaking along Blue Calf T-bar
10.6 Snowmaking along Cow Pastures J-bar and on
nearby slopes
10.7 Snowmaking between Guthega Saddle and Blue
Calf T-bar
10.8 Snowmaking down Parachute Run
10.9 Snowmaking from Blue Cow T-bar to Middle
Traverse
10.10 Snowmaking from Middle Traverse to proposed
Link Unit lifts
10.11 Improvement of trail north of Blue Cow Creek
10.12 Filling of depression at bottom of Parachute Run
10.13 Minor slope grooming on several runs (see
Section 15.4.6)
10.14 Guthega Saddle restaurant
10.15 Restaurant water supply
10.16 Conversion of Burning Log building to staff
accommodation (or possible demolition)
10.17 Blue Cow Guthega services easement corridor
access track
10.18 Track to bottom of Link Unit T-bar
10.19 Track to top of Blue Cow T-bar
10.20 Relocation of lift workshop from Burning Log
building to main Guthega workshop
by pods in Table 15.3. The proposed developments
would not affect the slope capacity but would almost
double the lift capacity, due to the installation of the
new quad chairlift. This chairlift would service a large
proportion of the slopes which currently depend on
the Blue Cow T-bar for skier access. The slope
capacity of the area serviced by the chairlift would
exceed the lift capacity, and the slope capacity of the
precinct generally would remain well in excess of its
total lift capacity.
conditions is summarised in Table 15.4. The
extension of snowmaking to Guthega would be of
benefit mainly in relation to the surface lifts, as
snowmaking for return skiing is not planned in
association with the proposed quad chairlift. The
slope capacity with snowmaking would be
comfortably in excess of the lift capacity of the
surface lifts, as well as the Carpark Double Chairlift,
which would be required in association with
snowmaking on the Parachute Run.
most of the surface lifts would cease to operate due
to their westerly aspects, although the Cow Pastures
J-bar may still continue. The Parachute Run would
also be closed. Under these conditions, the deep
snow on the south-facing slopes would enable the
quad chairlift to operate, and this would supply most
of the lift and slope capacity for the precinct.
The Guthega lifts would not be seriously affected
under most high wind conditions, as those most
exposed to the prevailing winds are T-bars which
tend to run in roughly the same direction as the wind.
Except in extreme wind conditions, the chairlifts,
which are in relatively sheltered locations, would
generally continue to operate, although the Guthega
Chairlift would probably have a higher rate of closure
than the Carpark Chair. The precinct could therefore
operate at full capacity during high wind conditions. If
the precinct was operating only on artificial snow
during high wind, the extent of snowmaking rather
than the effect of wind would be the limiting factor.
Being at one end of the resort, skier circulation is
important in enabling Guthega visitors to move to
other parts of the resort and in enabling skiers from
elsewhere to move to and from Guthega. There is no
movement of skiers through the precinct to other
areas. While skier movement to and from Guthega is
influenced to some degree by developments within
the precinct, it is more affected by what happens
outside it, particularly in the Link Unit (Precinct 11).
Skiing to Guthega under good snow conditions from
Blue Cow or Perisher is relatively easy, with direct
downhill runs from the ridge between Blue Cow
Mountain and Mount Back Perisher. Minor
improvements proposed to the trail north of Blue Cow
Creek would make some of these movements a little
easier. When the resort was dependent on
SSMP MAY 2002 15-7
SAOT SAOT
31 Blue Cow T-bar 209 209 31A to 31H 848 848
Desert Park rope tow 76 31I to 31P 780 a
Skier conveyor 76 31Q 22 22
31R 84 a
Total 285 285 1734 870
31* Guthega Quad Chairlift 752 31I to 31P 780 a
31R 84 a
Total 752 864
32 Cow Pastures J-bar 93 93 32A & 32B 228 228
Total 93 93 228 228
33 Blue Calf T-bar 127 127 33A to 33E 811 811
Total 127 127 811 811
34 Carpark Double Chairlift 205 205 34A to 35D 398 398
Total 205 205 398 398
Total Precinct 10 710 1462 3171 3171
Notes
a. With the installation of the Guthega Quad Chairlift, most of the south-facing slope associated with the Blue Cow T-
bar would fall into a new pod associated with the chairlift.
snowmaking, artificial snow along the Middle
Traverse would be essential in providing the only way
into Guthega on skis.
The Link Unit Chairlift in Precinct 11 is likely to be the
lift of choice for most skiers egressing Guthega (see
Section 16.4.1). This is likely to be so even if they
are accessing or returning to Blue Cow rather than
Perisher or Smiggin Holes.
Movement out of Guthega will also be facilitated but
to a more limited degree by the Guthega Quad
Chairlift, which could handle large numbers of skiers
more effectively than the Blue Cow T-bar. Under
artificial snow conditions, the corridor up the Blue
Cow T-bar, down the trail to the west of Mother-in-
law, then down the access track to the Link Unit T-
bar or Quad Chairlift would be the only route for
leaving Guthega. It is not ideal, however, as the
slopes from the top of the Blue Cow T-bar would still
be relatively steep. This limitation is accepted in
preference to installing snowmaking through the
ecologically sensitive terrain in the floor of the Blue
Cow Creek Valley.
The establishment of a restaurant at Guthega Saddle
will emphasise the role of this location as the centre
of activity for skiing at Guthega. As well as benefiting
visitors, it will also significantly enhance the general
operation of Guthega for both general skiing and
racing.
The improved vehicle access between Guthega and
Blue Cow and to the stations of the proposed
chairlifts within this precinct and Precinct 11 will be
essential for the efficient summer operation of the
resort.
15-8 SSMP MAY 2002
Situation
Pod 31
Blue Cow T-
bar
Pod 31*
Guthega Quad
Pod 32
Cow Pastures
Pod 33
Blue Calf T-
bar
Pod 34
Carpark
Double
Total
Existing 285 1734 93 228 127 811 205 398 710 3171
Full development
Optimum conditions 285 870 752 864 93 228 127 811 205 398 1462 3171
Marginal snow with
season)
285 414 93 180 127 166 (a) 505 760
season
752 864
(b)
93 228
(b)
(a) 875 1092
High wind 285 870 752 864 93 228 127 811 205 398 1462 3171
Hi gh wi nd wi t h
snowmaking
285 414 93 180 127 166 (a) 505 760
Notes:
a. Available only for access from the carpark, not for repeat skiing except via the Parachute.
b. Slope capacity may be reduced slightly due to localised snow loss.
SSMP MAY 2002 16-1
16. PRECINCT 11: LINK UNIT
The Link Unit Precinct occupies a triangular area
between the Guthega Precinct and the Pleasant
Valley Precinct (see Figure 16.1). It includes the
majority of the Link Management Unit identified in the
Plan of Management, although some parts of this
irregularly-shaped management unit fit more logically
into other precincts.
The northern boundary of the precinct is formed by
Blue Cow Creek, the eastern boundary by the broad
ridge running from Mount Back Perisher towards Blue
Cow Mountain, and the south-western boundary by
another ridge running north-west from the summit of
Mount Back Perisher. Most of the unit is thus a
broad valley system running roughly north from the
Back Perisher summit. The main creek draining the
precinct flows in a northerly direction to join Blue Cow
Creek.
The precinct is not developed with any lifts for alpine
skiing but an access trail from Blue Cow is groomed
through the area. The ungroomed slopes are also
used by more adventurous skiers, including a steep
slope known as 'Double Trouble' on the eastern side
of a hill on the western edge of the precinct. The
precinct has also been used traditionally for cross-
country skiing, with a loop trail groomed on the lower
slopes.
The PoM provides for the Link Management Unit to
support the planning and development of a ski circuit
integrating Guthega, Blue Cow and Perisher Valley.
It is used for this purpose to a limited extent at
present, but this function is currently limited by the
absence of lifts and the limited range of trails. Since
the late 1980s the NPWS has provided an annual
licence to the relevant resort operators for use of the
Link Unit. Perisher Blue has been issued with this
licence since the 1995 merger.
The Link Unit Precinct has a northerly aspect, which
is unfavourable in terms of snow holding, and is also
exposed to wind in places, particularly at higher
elevations where there is no shelter provided by the
topography or tree cover. The top of the precinct is
the summit area of Mount Back Perisher at an
elevation of 2010 metres while the lowest point on
Blue Cow Creek is at about 1685 metres.
A major creek draining the area drops steeply
through a boulder field at one point, but many of the
other drainage lines are broad seepage areas. There
are steep slopes on the hill in the western corner of
the precinct but slopes within the main bowl are more
moderate.
Most of the precinct has a cover of scattered
snowgums with relatively little shrub understorey (see
Figure 16.2). Among the trees there is mainly a
cover of open dry heath or grassland, with wet heath
or bog along the wetter drainage lines. The relatively
open tree spacing means that skiing through the area
is feasible with relatively little tree removal, in
contrast to the lower eastern slopes of Blue Cow
Mountain, for example. In the upper parts of the
precinct, the trees are strongly wind affected and
stunted.
With no development in the precinct, no areas of
exotic groundcover have been introduced as a result
of rehabilitation works except near the lookout at the
Blue Cow Terminal.
Wet communities 22%
Exotic ground cover 0.3%
The lack of past disturbance means also that the
fauna habitat of the precinct is in a natural condition.
There are no known areas of special habitat
significance although some boulder heath areas are
present on the main creek draining the precinct which
could be potential Burramys habitat, but have not
been investigated to date.
Sites of geological or geomorphological significance
within the precinct includes wind-scoured pavements
on a ridge north-west of the Back Perisher summit,
the bowl at the head of Blue Cow Creek (partly in the
Blue Cow Mountain precinct), and white quartz
boulders on a ridge south of Blue Cow Creek (see
Figure 16.3, Ref. 27).
Several locations on the ridges enclosing this
precinct and on other flatter sites have been
assessed as being of high archaeological sensitivity
(see Figure 16.3, Ref. 14). No features of cultural
significance are known within the precinct, however.
There are no permanent scientific sites known within
the precinct.
The value of Precinct 11 for skiing lies not so much in
its existing use but in its potential use with
appropriate development and management. Despite
its northerly aspect and exposure of its upper slopes
to wind, this precinct is seen as being important
particularly in providing direct access each way
16-2 SSMP MAY 2002
between Guthega and Perisher during good snow
and weather conditions. This would enable more
effective use of the Guthega slopes by Perisher-
based skiers, and also allow Guthega skiers to travel
more readily to Perisher and Pleasant Valley.
The scattered tree cover within the precinct with
many large well-defined clearings offers the prospect
of providing a high trail capacity within the precinct
with a minimal amount of tree removal. The
character of skiing through the trees has a more
natural feeling than on the more obviously groomed
slopes in other parts of the resort.
Monitoring of snow deposition and quality in recent
years has revealed good snowpack depth and
generally good snow quality despite the northerly
aspect. Much of this is due to its relatively high
degree of tree cover. At the same time, the northerly
aspect provides excellent solar access and superb
views to ensure a high quality repeat skiing
experience.
The area's popularity has increased with the
formalised opening of terrain known as Double
Trouble in 1997. The traverse leading to that area
closely follows the south-west boundary of the unit
from the top of Pleasant Valley Quad Chairlift before
dropping down the northerly face of the peak near the
western corner of the unit. Skiers are then taken on
existing trails into Guthega. The area has been used
irregularly by local skiers for many years and has
been opened without any slope grooming works
being carried out.
Circulation of skiers from Guthega to the Blue Cow
Terminal and to Perisher is currently quite difficult,
relying upon a relatively narrow trail from the top of
Blue Cow T-bar which has a long flat section
approaching the base station of the Early Starter
Double Chairlift. The Link Unit offers the opportunity
to provide lifting, operational under the most adverse
conditions, for access from Guthega to Perisher and
the Blue Cow Terminal.
With its current level of grooming, the existing slope
capacity of the precinct, based on the terrain
indicated in Pod 35 and Pod sector 36A in Figure
16.4, is estimated to be 679 SAOT (see also Table
16.1). This is more than adequate for its current
access role. The provision of lifts in the precinct,
however, would enable it to be used also for repeat
skiing. Increased winter grooming, particularly in Pod
sectors 35B and 36A, would enable the slope
capacity to be increased significantly with relatively
little summer grooming.
The main issue with respect to the Link Unit is how
best to utilise it for skier circulation and repeat skiing
while maintaining its existing environmental
character. This includes its character as seen from
outside the resort, bearing in mind that parts of the
precinct are visible from locations along the Main
Range. This is addressed particularly in terms of the
need for two new lifts providing access to Perisher
and Blue Cow respectively.
(see Figure 16.5)
16.4.1 Quad chairlift to Perisher
A fixed grip quad chairlift is proposed to run from
Blue Cow Creek, just east of the base station of the
proposed Guthega Quad Chairlift, to the top of
Pleasant Valley. This will enable skiers to move from
Guthega to Perisher with the use of just one lift, and
from Guthega to Smiggin Holes with two lifts. It
would be an important element in the strategic
circulation of skiers around the resort. A number of
trails of different standards would be marked from the
top to the bottom of the lift, enabling the area to be
used also for repeat skiing. Snowmaking would be
provided from Guthega to the base of the lift along
the summer access track described below. Facilities
for those using the lift for repeat skiing would be
provided in the proposed restaurant at the top of
Pleasant Valley.
This lift was previously planned (Ref. 5) to be tucked
into a valley about 100 metres west of the location
indicated, but further investigation has indicated that
to reach the bottom of the lift in this terrain would
involve difficult skiing and a moderate amount of tree
removal through an area which is steep and rocky in
places. The revised location would enable trails to be
groomed with little tree removal on moderate slopes
covered with relatively open woodland with numerous
clearings. While slightly more exposed than the
earlier route, the lift would still be largely concealed in
views from the west by the ridge which forms the
western boundary of the precinct.
Summer access to the base of the lift would be from
the Guthega Precinct via the base station of the T-bar
discussed below. This track may be extended to
provide access also to the base of the proposed
Guthega Quad Chairlift in Precinct 10 (see Section
15.4.1). The top of the lift would be reached via the
track to the top of Pleasant Valley.
16.4.2 T-bar to Blue Cow
A T-bar is proposed to run from Blue Cow Creek,
about 240 metres upstream of the chairlift base
station, to the top of the ridge just south of the Blue
Cow terminal The primary reason for this surface lift
is to ensure egress to the Blue Cow terminal (then to
Perisher and Smiggin Holes if required, using the
other proposed new T-bar in Pleasant Valley) in the
event of wind closure of the new Link Unit quad chair,
the Early Starter Double Chair and the existing
Terminal Chairlift. In order to increase its reliability in
SSMP MAY 2002 16-3
Slope
Lift capacity
Slope capacity
Pod
area (ha)
35 46.96 35A 135 a
35B 267
35C 81
35D 43
Total 526
36 8.27 36A 153 a
Total 153
Total Precinct 11 679
Notes
a. Currently available only for access based on lifts at Blue Cow or Perisher.
marginal snow conditions, snowmaking and snow
fences are proposed along the route of the lift.
This lift is also intended to be used for repeat skiing,
at least on high visitation days, with the relatively
open terrain enabling trails to be established with little
tree clearing.
Summer access to the bottom station would be
provided from the Guthega Precinct, a new track
connecting it to the track that follows the Blue Cow
Guthega services corridor.
Some minor grooming of trails which cross the north-
eastern corner of the precinct, providing access from
Blue Cow to Guthega, is proposed. This would
involve selective rock and tree removal.
As indicated in Table 16.3, under optimum conditions
with the extent of slope grooming proposed, the slope
capacity associated with the proposed quad chairlift
should be approximately in balance with the lift
capacity. The slope capacity for the proposed T-bar
would be well in excess of lift capacity.
conditions is summarised in Table 16.4. When the
resort was operating only on artificial snow, the Link
Precinct 11
Project
no.
Proposed works
11.1 Link Unit Quad Chairlift
11.2 Link Unit T-bar
11.3 Snowmaking to base of quad chairlift
11.4 Snowmaking along T-bar
11.5 Clearing and grooming of ski trails associated
with Link Quad chairlift
11.6 Clearing and grooming of ski trails associated
with Link T-bar
11.7 Slope grooming of trails from Blue Cow to
Guthega
11.8 Access track from Link T-bar to Link Quad
Chairlift
Unit lifts would be available only for skier circulation,
not for repeat skiing, due to the limited snowmaking
proposed in the precinct. Being a north-facing slope,
the precinct would lose snow relatively early towards
the end of the season, and may not operate under
Under high wind conditions, the top of the chairlift
would be exposed and this lift would not operate.
The T-bar, however, will be orientated in the direction
of the prevailing wind. Being a surface lift, it will
normally continue to operate under high wind
conditions, although only for circulation when it was
dependent on snowmaking.
16-4 SSMP MAY 2002
SAOT SAOT
35 Link Unit Quad Chairlift 799 35A 135 135
35B 267 181
35C 81 81
35D 43 43
35E 341 a
Total 799 526 781
36 Link Unit T-bar 128 36A 153 100
36B 31
36C 195 a
Total 128 153 326
Total Precinct 11 927 679 1107
Notes:
a. Pod sectors 35E and 36C consist of additional groomed trails within the respective pods. Sector 35E is assumed to
consist of two trails each 30 metres wide and 1200 metres long. Sector 36C is assumed to consist of two trails
each 30 metres wide and 550 metres long. The area of other pod sectors has been reduced accordingly. The
locations of these trails have still to be determined but each trail would connect the top and bottom stations of the
relevant lift.
Situation
Pod 35
Quad Chairlift
Pod 36
T-bar
Total
Lift Slope Lift Slope Lift Slope
Existing 526 153 679
Full development
Optimum conditions 799 781 128 326 927 1107
(early in season)
(a) (a)
Marginal snow late in season
(a)

High wind 128 326 128 326
High wind with snowmaking (a)
Notes:
a. Snowmaking to the base of the chairlift and along the route of the T-bar would enable these lifts to operate for
circulation but not for repeat skiing.
SSMP MAY 2002 16-5
A primary purpose of the lifts is for skier circulation as
proposed in the PoM. They would be particularly
effective in moving skiers from Guthega to other parts
of the resort except during marginal conditions that
may occur late in the season.
They would have complementary functions, the quad
chairlift providing high capacity movement back to
Perisher under normal operating conditions, with the
T-bar providing direct access to Blue Cow Terminal
and providing a backup for high wind days when the
chairlift was closed. It is therefore important to have
both lifts installed.
The existing access from Guthega to Blue Cow via
the High Traverse would continue to provide a further
means of movement between Guthega and Blue Cow
under some conditions when both Link Unit lifts were
closed (e.g. due to late season snow loss).
SSMP MAY 2002 17-1
17. PRECINCT 12: BLUE COW NORTH
The Blue Cow North Precinct is located on Blue Cow
Mountain outside the management units designated
for alpine skiing in the PoM, filling a gap between the
Guthega and Blue Cow Mountain Precincts and
extending down to the Guthega Road (see Figure
17.1). The proposals in this precinct indicated to
occur outside existing resort management unit
boundaries will be considered by the NPWS as part
of the review of the Kosciuszko National Park Plan of
Management according to the requirements of
Section 75 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act
1974 and do not form a part of this adopted Ski Slope
Master Plan.
Increasingly this precinct is receiving use by
advanced snowboarders in particular, as well as
skiers, and has the potential to fill a small specialised
niche within the skiing market without the need to
undertake any significant development or slope
grooming. For this reason it has been included in the
SSMP, although the PoM locates it within the Sawpit
Creek Management Unit (F4).
The precinct offers the opportunity for higher skilled
and more adventurous skiers and snowboarders to
go from the top of the Summit and Ridge Quad
Chairlifts at Blue Cow, or the Blue Cow T-bar at
Guthega, down through ungroomed, relatively open
terrain to the Guthega Road, then walk back up the
road to the Car Park Double Chairlift. With this level
of effort, it is unlikely to attract a large number of
skiers or snowboarders, but the experience it offers
cannot be gained anywhere else on the groomed
slopes of the resort.
The whole precinct faces the north-west, which is the
least favourable aspect for holding snow. This limits
the period when it can be used for skiing, particularly
as the elevation drops to about 1630 metres at the
road.
The hydrology and associated vegetation pattern on
the slopes is unusual (see Figure 17.2). Particularly
towards the north-eastern end of the precinct, there
are extensive areas of wet heath with associated
areas of dead trees. The dead trees suggest an
environmental change within the area sometime
during the last 50 years or so (e.g. fire, insect attack).
Whether the loss of live trees has contributed to a
raised groundwater regime, or may be partly a result
of the wetness of the site is not clear, although it is
uncharacteristic to have had snowgums growing in
such a wet area. The wet heath is not typical of that
found elsewhere in the resort, having a high
component of Callistemon pityoides. (This may be
related to the northwesterly aspect).
At the south-western end of the precinct, the trees
are generally in good health and there are extensive
areas of wet heath. On the upper slopes towards the
ridge of Blue Cow Mountain, the trees are more
stunted or wind-affected due to exposure.
Away from the wet areas, there is a mixture of
predominantly dry heath and some grassland
throughout most of the precinct. This becomes more
open on the upper slopes, while close to the road, the
heath tends to be very dense, both among and
outside the treed areas, with a high component of
Bossiaea foliosa.
There has been minimal disturbance within the
precinct, past developments being limited to an
electricity line above the road and some old access
tracks put in during the Snowy Scheme construction
period. Sections of these access tracks are still
obvious in places. The extent of exotic ground cover
development within the precinct is negligible.
The lack of disturbance means that the habitat values
of the precinct have been fully maintained. These
include some boulder heath areas which have been
confirmed as Burramys habitat, related functionally to
the habitat areas on the southern side of Blue Cow
Mountain. These areas are important also as
scientific sites in this context.
The area has not been systematically assessed for
sites of geological or geomorphological significance,
although there are some massive rock formations
which may be of at least local interest (see Figure
17.3). The old SMA tracks (see Figure 17.3) may be
considered to be of some historic interest, but are
unlikely to be of sufficient cultural significance to
warrant special recognition in this respect.
The archaeological sensitivity of this precinct has not
been assessed comprehensively although there are
areas on the summit ridge of Blue Cow Mountain
which have been assessed as being of high
archaeological sensitivity (see Figure 17.3, Ref. 14).
There is no existing skifield development within the
precinct, which receives a low but increasing level of
use from mainly experienced snowboarders and
skiers seeking challenges away from the groomed
trails. As with the Mount Piper North Precinct, an
important reason for including this precinct in the
SSMP is to enable Perisher Blue to address the issue
of skier safety in the context of the whole resort. It is
neither feasible nor warranted to prevent skiers and
17-2 SSMP MAY 2002
snowboarders from entering this area from the resort
and, in the event of an incident, the Perisher Blue Ski
Patrol are expected to render assistance. Its
capability for doing so is enhanced if the area is
managed as part of the resort, even if developments
within it are nil or minimal.
While there have been only a few instances of rescue
and evacuation in this precinct to date, being mainly
associated with the area to the north of Parachute
Run, it is highly probable that this will increase.
Evidence of this can be seen by the increasing
number of rescues and evacuations over the years in
the area outside the western boundary of the resort
between Mount Perisher summit and Guthega, which
is also used by more adventurous skiers and
snowboarders.
Occupational heath and safety issues require
Perisher Blue to have careful regard to the safety and
welfare of its staff as well as guests. Because it is
not integrated into the overall resort operation, the
area comprising the Blue Cow North Precinct
currently presents significant management concerns
in this respect.
A small section of the precinct just north of the Blue
Cow Mountain summit is used as a traverse to
provide access from the top of the Summit Chairlift to
the Blue Cow race course to the west of the summit
(see Section 17.4.1). Both these developments are
located within Precinct 10. This route, which is used
by skiers and snowmobiles, has been formalised by
way of a licence from the NPWS, and is used, subject
to sufficient snow cover, to direct skiers away from
the primary Burramys habitat on the southern slopes
of the mountain.
There are several factors which prejudice any formal
development of the Blue Cow North Precinct beyond
a minimal level of trail marking for access and safety.
It is a north-facing slope, extending to a relatively low
elevation and containing numerous wet areas. It
therefore supports skiable snow cover only during the
better parts of the season generally insufficient to
make investment in skiing infrastructure worthwhile.
Furthermore, its visibility from the Main Range would
make any significant structures or major slope
grooming undesirable on aesthetic grounds, and it
also contains some habitat for the Mountain Pygmy-
possum.
The consideration of this precinct as part of the
SSMP therefore depends very much on a minimalist
approach aimed at improving the safety of existing
slope uses, and reducing skier movements across
Burramys habitat areas.
Because of the low level of use of the area, skiing
capacity is not a relevant planning consideration.
The main issues associated with the Blue Cow North
Formalisation of existing informal snowboarding
and skiing use in order to enable Perisher Blue to
manage this area with regard to the safety of
users and its own staff.
Maintenance of skiing and snowmobile access
from the top of the Summit Chairlift around the
northern slopes of Blue Cow Mountain to the Blue
Cow race course.
(see Figure 17.4)
17.4.1 Formalisation of snowboarding and skiing
use
In order to improve safety management within the
precinct, it is proposed to undertake a minimal level
of directional trail marking based only on existing
clearings to guide skiers and snowboarders into safe
areas and assist them in returning to the base of the
Carpark Chairlift at Guthega.
As this precinct is outside the existing management
unit boundaries for alpine skiing, it is proposed that
the PoM should be amended to extend the alpine
skiing management area to at least the Guthega
Road which, in addition, would form a logical and
identifiable management boundary.
17.4.2 Access to Blue Cow race course
It is proposed to maintain the skiing route from the
top of the Summit Chairlift around the northern slopes
of Blue Cow Mountain to the race course, subject to
adequate snow cover (see Section 13.4.1). The
need for this access is likely to be reduced when the
T-bar serving the race course is constructed (see
Section 13.4.1).
Precinct 12
Project
no. Proposed works
12.1 Directional signage along snowboarding/skiing
routes
12.2 Maintenance of traverse to Blue Cow race course
(winter grooming only)
SSMP MAY 2002 17-3
Because of the absence of lifts or snowmaking, and
the low level of use of this precinct, its capacity would
be more than adequate. In practice, it is likely to be
used for a relatively small proportion of the season,
compared with most other precincts.
The precinct would have a negligible role in skier
circulation, its main function in this respect being to
provide the skiing route to the top of the race course
which, in turn is dictated by the desire to direct skiers
away from prime Burramys habitat.
More adventurous skiers and snowboarders will also
use its upper slopes to traverse from the top of Blue
Cow Mountain to Guthega when snow conditions are
suitable. It is not intended, however, to promote use
of such a trail.
The formalisation of skiing use within the precinct will
require it to be monitored by the Ski Patrol during
periods of adequate snow cover. Presently, ski patrol
responds only on reported incidents in the precinct.
This, together with the increased number of skiers
and snowboarders likely to use the area, would
increase the level of safety associated with use of the
precinct.
SSMP MAY 2002 18-1
18. OPERATIONAL EVALUATION
18.1 Summary of Proposed Developments
The tables that summarise the projects within each
precinct for purposes of the environmental evaluation
in the preceding chapters list a total of 194 projects.
The nature of these projects is summarised in Table
18.1, with the majority of them (over 80 percent)
involving lifts, snowmaking, slope grooming or
access.
The significance of these projects to the SSMP can
be viewed according to a seven-category hierarchy,
with these categories being described as follows:
Category 1. Projects which are essential for long
term operation of resort, irrespective of how other
components of the SSMP are implemented.
Category 2. Key strategic projects which are
essential for the effective overall implementation of
the SSMP or other aspects of resort operation (e.g.
village development).
Category 3. Projects which are very important in
enhancing the capacity or quality of skiing at the
resort, at least at the precinct level, but may not be
critical to the SSMP at a strategic level.
Category 4. Other projects which are of high
priority at the precinct level in improving the efficiency
or safety of resort operation.
Category 5. Projects which would be beneficial in
improving the quality or safety of skiing, but are of
medium to low priority. Also projects which are not
directly required for ski slope development but would
not adversely affect it.
Category 6. Projects required within the ski
slopes for purposes other than ski slope development
which would detract to a minor extent from ski slope
operation.
Category 7. Projects required within the ski
slopes for purposes other than ski slope development
which would preclude skiing or detract from it to a
major extent.
The value of this hierarchy is twofold. First, it assists
Perisher Blue in determining its priorities for the
staged implementation of the SSMP, although there
are other factors which will also influence this.
Second, if there are situations in which there is a
seri ous confl i ct between operati onal and
environmental objectives, it assists in viewing the
importance of the project from an operational
perspective in an holistic context. This can contribute
to the key process of objective decision-making.
The assessment of projects on the above basis is
intended to be pursued by Perisher Blue as part of
the implementation process for the SSMP, and will be
subject to periodic review to reflect possible changing
circumstances and priorities. At the present stage of
planning, the following priorities can be confidently
identified:
Category 1 projects. The group of projects falling
into this category are those which are central to the
further development of snowmaking within the resort.
In particular, these include:
upgrading of the offtake from the Pipers Creek
Aqueduct;
the pumping system and mains to supply the
snowmaking systems at Perisher, Smiggin Holes
and Blue Cow;
the Smiggin Holes storage reservoir;
upgrading of the existing snowmaking buildings at
Perisher and Blue Cow, plus a new building at
Smiggin Holes; and
snowmaking reticulation to the most critical and
accessible areas of the resort, e.g. Perisher
Express, Smiggin Holes slopes.
This development is critical in achieving an adequate
level of reliability of snow cover throughout the
season. Without this, the vision and objectives of the
resort as stated in the SSMP, the Village Master Plan
and the PoM will be impossible to achieve.
Category 2 projects. The projects which fall into this
category include:
the Mount Piper Learn to Ski Centre;
relocation of the mountain workshop from Smiggin
Holes to the saddle, together with its access road;
the new lifts in the Link Unit (Precinct 11);
the Front Valley and Centre Valley lift upgrades;
and
further extension of snowmaking areas.
Without these projects some fundamental aspects of
the strategy of the SSMP, and the Village Master
Plan would be seriously threatened or compromised.
Category 3 projects. Projects falling into this
category include many of the other new high capacity
lifts which are important for increasing lift capacity,
improving skier circulation or enabling the
Snowmaking Master Plan to operate effectively.
They would also include some of the more critical
slope grooming projects, e.g. in Centre Valley and
above the Perisher Express midstation.
18-2 SSMP MAY 2002
Table 18.1 Numbers of projects identified in the Ski Slope Master Plan
Number of projects according to category
Precinct Lifts
(a)
Snowmaking
(b)
Major
slope
grooming
(c)
Special
facilities
(d)
Access
tracks/oversnow
routes (e)
Workshops
(f)
Minor
grooming
(g)
Sundry
(h)
Total
1 10 8 7 1 3 2 1 1 33
2 2 6 3 3 1 1 16
3 2 2 6 3 5 2 1 1 22
4 2 4 4 1 1 12
5 6 3 4 2 3 2 1 1 22
6 1 2 2 (i) 3 1 1 1 11
7 4 7 4 1 1 1 1 1 20
8 3 3 7 2 3 1 5 24
9 1 1 2 4
10 2 8 3 2 3 1 1 20
11 2 2 3 8
12 1 2 2
Total 33 43 43 13 31 9 8 14 194
Notes:
a. Includes new lifts, upgrading and removal.
b. Includes mains, buildings, and other developments related to snowmaking.
c. Includes earthworks, drainage works and moderate levels of tree or rock removal, as well as rehabilitation and
promotion of natural regeneration.
d. Includes mountain restaurants, Ski School, carparks.
e. Includes construction and removal/rehabilitation of access tracks and roads, summer works to improve oversnow
routes and bridges for vehicles or skiers.
f. Includes new or relocated workshops and modifications.
g. Limited grooming not specifically described. There will be many such projects which have not been identified at the
present level of planning.
h. Includes non structural works, winter grooming, animal crossings, municipal/trunk services, snow fences (generally
not identified at the present level of planning), directional signage (generally not identified).
i. Includes lifts, buildings, slope grooming and snowmaking as an integrated project.
Category 4 projects. These would include projects
such as the replacement of rope tows with moving
walkways and the upgrading of access tracks in
various parts of the resort, and new or improved
competition facilities (e.g. Showboat moguls course).
Category 5 projects. Many of the minor slope
grooming projects would fall into this category,
together with some of the ecologically-driven projects
which do not affect skiing operations, such as small
animal crossings.
Category 6 projects. These include some projects
undertaken to address existing or possible ecological
concerns which could have a minor but acceptable
i mpact on ski sl ope management , e. g.
encouragement of natural regeneration of selected
areas on ski slopes, restriction of winter grooming or
access over prime Burramys habitat.
Category 7 projects. There are no such projects
identified in the SSMP but they could potentially arise
in relation to other developments. An example is the
proposal in the Village Master Plan EIS (Ref. 2) to
establish a landscaped corridor along Smiggin Creek
at the base of the Smiggin Holes ski slope, which
was rejected by the COI (Ref. 3) because of its
adverse effect on skiing operations.
The critical evaluation of the significance of projects
to the SSMP against the ecological significance of
the area which may be affected by those projects will
be considered in the further development of those
proposals. This consideration will determine the
nature of environmental safeguards to be
incorporated and the extent to which some
developments may be constrained. This process is
beyond the scope of the present level of planning in
the SSMP.
SSMP MAY 2002 18-3
Table 18.2 Skiing capacity summary under optimum conditions
Existing capacity (SAOT) Proposed capacity (SAOT) % of existing capacity
Precinct Lift Slope Lift Slope Lift Slope
1 1735 2617 3300 3166 190 121
2 1039 4527 1721 4922 166 109
3 1352 2527 1820 2552 135 101
4 785 1167 785 1167 100 100
5 1171 2094 1513 2267 129 108
6 150 571 807 1507 538 264
7 1810 3140 1965 3167 108 101
8 1274 2100 1453 1866 114 89
10 710 3171 1462 3171 206 100
11 679 927 1107 NA 163
Total 9958 22,592 15,753 24,891 158 110
It is expected that, in general, the higher the level of
significance to the SSMP, the less those projects
would be constrained by environmental conditions,
while the higher the ecological significance, the more
attention would be given to limiting the extent of
projects and implementing safeguards to maintain
environmental processes. The SSMP facilitates the
scope for reducing conflict between these two
principles by endeavouring to avoid proposals,
particularly those of strategic importance, within
areas of high ecological significance as far as
practicable.
To achieve this, however, is not always possible and
there are some key projects in areas of high
ecological significance, such as the Pleasant Valley
T-bar and snowmaking to the base of the Leichhardt
Chairlift, where there is a conflict between operational
and environmental objectives. The resolution of such
conflicts will lie in the detailed planning and design of
these projects which will be pursued at a later stage
of the planning process. The SSMP serves to
identify those situations where such conflicts may
arise. At the same time, it meets the vital
environmental and operational planning criteria of
adequately demonstrating the likely development
over the foreseeable future, thus enabling an
assessment to be made of cumulative impacts as
well as commercial sustainability.
18.2 Skiing Capacity
18.2.1 Operation under optimum conditions
Table 18.2 summarises by precinct the existing lift
and slope capacities of the resort, and the proposed
capacities under optimum conditions based on full
implementation of the SSMP. It also identifies the
percentage increases in capacity as a result of
proposed development.
In percentage terms, the greatest increases in both
lift and slope capacity would be experienced in
Precincts 6 and 11, due to the low level of existing
capacity in these precincts. All of the remaining
precincts would experience at most only a minor
increase in slope capacity, the most significant
increase being in Precinct 1 where utilisation of
Centre Valley would be increased significantly.
Precinct 8 would experience a reduction in slope
capacity due to the closure of Burramys habitat areas
to recreational use.
Rather, the priority in several of these precincts,
particularly Precincts 1, 2, 3 and 10, is to increase lift
capacity to make more efficient use of slopes which
are currently underutilised. In all precincts except
Precinct 1, however, the slope capacity would remain
comfortably more than lift capacity under optimum
conditions. In Precinct 1, the capacities would be
approximately in balance, reflecting the more
intensive use of this precinct because of its proximity
to the Perisher village area.
18-4 SSMP MAY 2002
Table 18.3 Skiing capacity summary under marginal snow conditions based on early season snowmaking
Proposed capacity Percentage of optimum capacity (a)
(SAOT)
Full development Existing resort
1 2148 1477 65 47 124 56
2 949 466 55 9 91 10
3 790 362 43 14 58 14
4
5 1440 1220 95 54 123 58
6 456 206 57 14 304 36
7 1965 1483 100 47 108 47
8 1268 384 87 18 100 18
10 505 760 36 24 71 24
11
Total 9521 6358 60 25 96 28
Notes:
a. Compared with capacities in Table 18.2.
The total lift capacity of the resort for repeat skiing
with full development of the proposed lifts is
estimated to be approximately 15,750 skiers under
design day conditions.
18.2.2 Operation under constraint conditions
Tables 18.3 to 18.9 summarise the present and
future capacities under a range of constraint
conditions. These capacities are expressed as
SAOT and also as percentages of the capacity under
optimum conditions with full SSMP development and
for the existing resort.
Marginal snow cover early in the season. With the
resort operating under artificial snow early in the
season (Table 18.3), the main factor limiting skiing
capacity overall would be slope capacity rather than
lift capacity. This would be limited to approximately
50 percent of the future capacity under optimum
conditions in the precincts closest to the Perisher and
Smiggin Holes base areas or Blue Cow Terminal,
and to a much lower level (typically about 10 to 20
percent) in other precincts where some skiing is
feasible on artificial snow. While lift capacities would
be affected to a lesser extent, it would not be feasible
to utilise the operating lifts to their full capacities
without congestion on the slopes.
The available lift capacity when the resort was
operating on artificial snow would generally be higher
than that of the existing resort operating under
optimum conditions. Slope capacity would still
remain the major constraint on overall skiing
capacity. This situation emphasises the critical
importance of snowmaking for resort operation,
particularly in the early part of the season, which
justifies its ranking as a Category 1 project in the
discussion in Section 18.1. It furthermore
demonstrates that the extent of snowmaking
development proposed in the SSMP falls well short of
the ideal, but is a realistic compromise taking into
account environmental and operational constraints.
Marginal snow cover late in the season. For
operation under marginal snow conditions late in the
season, four situations are considered depending on
whether Mount Perisher, Smiggin Holes, neither or
both are affected by significant early snow loss
(Tables 18.4 to 18.7). Under these various
scenarios, lift capacity would be reduced to between
62 and 83 percent of the total future capacity under
optimum conditions, some precincts being unaffected
and others becoming unusable. A similar picture
emerges with respect to slope capacity, this being
reduced to between 56 and 76 percent of the total
future capacity under optimum conditions.
Compared with the existing resort, however, future lift
capacities under marginal snow conditions would
generally be similar to or higher than under existing
optimum conditions. While slope capacities would be
SSMP MAY 2002 18-5
Table 18.4 Skiing capacity summary under marginal snow conditions late in the season with Mount
Perisher and Smiggin Holes operating
(SAOT) Full development Existing resort
Precinct Lift Slope (b) Lift Slope (b) Lift Slope (b)
1 2738 2485 83 78 158 95
2 1721 4922 100 100 166 109
3 1820 2552 100 100 135 101
4 616 837 78 72 78 72
5 1513 2267 100 100 129 108
6 456 206 57 14 304 36
7 1965 3008 100 95 108 96
8 1372 1435 94 77 108 68
10 875 1092 63 34 123 34
11
Total 13,044 18,804 83 76 131 83
Notes:
b. Slope capacity would be reduced in most precincts due to localised snow loss, but the extent of this will vary
between precincts and is difficult to estimate. The slope capacity figures and percentages are maximum figures.
Table 18.5 Skiing capacity summary under marginal snow conditions late in the season with Mount
Perisher but not Smiggin Holes operating.
1 2738 2485 83 78 158 95
2 1721 4922 100 100 166 109
3 1820 2552 100 100 135 101
4 616 837 78 72 78 72
5
6 456 206 57 14 304 36
7 1965 3008 100 95 108 96
8 1372 1435 94 77 108 68
10 875 1092 63 34 123 34
11
Total 11,531 16,537 73 66 116 73
Notes:
b. Slope capacity would be reduced in most precincts due to localised snow loss, but the extent of this will vary between
precincts and is difficult to estimate. The slope capacity figures and percentages are maximum figures.
18-6 SSMP MAY 2002
Table 18.6 Skiing capacity summary under marginal snow conditions late in the season with Smiggin Holes
but not Mount Perisher operating.
1 2738 2485 83 78 158 95
2 1721 4922 100 100 166 109
3
4 616 837 78 72 78 72
5 1513 2267 100 100 129 108
6 456 206 57 14 304 36
7 1965 3008 100 95 108 96
8 1372 1435 94 77 108 68
10 875 1092 63 34 123 34
11
Total 11,224 16,252 71 65 113 72
Notes:
Table 18.7 Skiing capacity summary under marginal snow conditions late in the season with neither Mount
Perisher nor Smiggin Holes operating.
1 2738 2485 83 78 158 95
2 1721 4922 100 100 166 109
3
4 616 837 78 72 78 72
5
6 456 206 57 14 304 36
7 1965 3008 100 95 108 96
8 1372 1435 94 77 108 68
10 875 1092 63 34 123 34
11
Total 9711 13,985 62 56 98 62
Notes:
SSMP MAY 2002 18-7
Table 18.8 Skiing capacity summary under high wind
1 2860 3166 87 100 165 121
2 856 3077 50 63 82 68
3 1030 1582 57 62 76 63
4 785 1167 100 100 100 100
5 882 2267 58 100 75 108
6 230 206 29 14 153 36
7 935 1419 48 45 52 45
8 784 1208 54 57 62 58
10 1462 3171 100 100 206 100
11 128 326 NA 29 NA 48
Total 9952 17,589 63 70 100 78
Notes:
Table 18.9 Skiing capacity summary under high wind and marginal snow conditions based on early season
snowmaking.
1 1708 1477 52 47 98 56
2 155 268 9 5 15 6
3
4
5 809 1220 53 54 69 58
6 230 206 29 14 153 36
7 935 759 48 24 52 24
8 599 242 41 11 47 12
10 505 760 36 24 71 24
11
Total 4941 4932 31 20 50 22
Notes:
18-8 SSMP MAY 2002
lower than existing optimum slope capacities, they
would still exceed lift capacity in most of the
operating precincts, and would not limit skiing
capacity overall. Thus the resort would still be able to
operate under late season marginal snow conditions
with at least a similar capacity to that of its existing
unconstrained operation.
High wind. Under typical, but not extreme, high wind
conditions (Table 18.8), the lift capacity of some
precincts would be significantly reduced below the
optimum, although some other precincts would not be
affected. Depending on which lifts are affected, slope
capacity would also be reduced in some precincts,
but generally would remain above lift capacity.
Overall, the constraints on lift operation would reduce
the skiing capacity of the resort to just under two
thirds of its operation under optimum conditions.
The overall lift capacity under high wind, however,
would still be approximately equal to that of the
existing resort under unconstrained conditions.
Some precincts, especially Precinct 7, would be
significantly affected, but this would be offset by the
increased lifting capacity in other more sheltered
areas such as Precinct 1 and Precinct 10.
High wind with snowmaking. If high winds were
experienced at a time when the resort was
dependent on artificial snow (Table 18.9), the effects
would be much more extreme due to the lack of
snowmaking in some of the more protected slopes
(e.g. Precinct 4) and the high level of exposure of
some of the prime snowmaking areas (e.g. Precincts
2 and 3). Under these conditions, the lift capacity
would be reduced to less than one third of its
maximum, or about half of the current capacity under
optimum conditions. In some precincts, especially
those at Blue Cow, the overall skiing capacity would
be reduced even further due to slope capacity
constraints.
18.3 Strategic Requirements
18.3.1 Introduction
This section evaluates the SSMP against the
remaining operational requirements, other than lift
and slope capacity, identified in Section 4.2. It
compares the SSMP with the existing situation to
demonstrate the improvements that would result from
full implementation of the SSMP. It also identifies
any remaining shortcomings compared with what
might be regarded as an ideal situation.
The ideal situation, however, can be regarded as
hypothetical to the extent that there will be
constraints resulting from the physical environment,
the pattern of past development and the need to have
regard to other environmental values which will
preclude the achievement of operational ideals. The
SSMP is thus a compromise between a range of
different objectives and should therefore be
evaluated according to how successful it is in
achieving a reasonable balance between these
competing objectives.
18.3.2 Interface with base areas
This issue relates more to the design of the base
areas than to the SSMP itself, although there are
some aspects of the SSMP which are specifically
directed to improve this interface, and which need to
be reflected in base area planning.
The most important location in this respect is
Perisher Valley where the whole interface will change
as a result of future village development. A critical
element in terms of the SSMP is good physical and
visual access to the Learn to Ski Centre and
snowplay area on Mount Piper, for which the SSMP
provides. The proposed chairlift from the Learn to
Ski Centre to Front Valley will provide an effective
link to the main 'gateway' to the slopes.
Other access to Front Valley especially from the
Skitube terminal will remain essentially as at present
but with some improvements resulting from the
village development. An important consideration with
respect to the latter, which was emphasised in the
Village Master Plan EIS COI (Ref. 3), is the need to
maintain visual access to the slopes from the key
arrival and milling points in the resort.
At Smiggin Holes, the interface between the base
area and the slopes, which provides good physical
and visual access, will remain essentially as at
present. Building development and landscaping
works which were proposed in the Village Master
Plan EIS (Ref. 2) would have significantly weakened
this interface, but these proposals were rejected by
the COI (Ref. 3). The extension of some lifts further
downslope will facilitate better access from the
carpark to the slopes.
The existing interface between the village and the ski
slopes at Guthega would not be altered by the
SSMP. At Blue Cow, access from the Terminal to the
slopes would also remain essentially as existing,
although returning to the Terminal would be
facilitated by the relocation of the Terminal Chairlift,
the upgrading of the Pony Ride rope tow to a T-bar
and the new Link Unit T-bar from Blue Cow Creek.
18.3.3 Access to the resort
Access to the resort is generally beyond the scope of
the SSMP, but the measures in the SSMP provide
increased flexibility to respond to future access
scenarios. With the likelihood of greater than existing
carparking being based at Smiggin Holes, the
provision of improved lifting and circulation trails
SSMP MAY 2002 18-9
between Smiggin Holes and Perisher, with
snowmaking along the main trail, would largely offset
any problems relating to this change. Formalisation
and improvement of the direct skiing route from
Smiggin Holes to the base of the Ridge Chairlift
would also assist in this respect, as would the
possible opening of the Link Road to the base of the
Ridge Chairlift.
Although some changes may occur in relation to day
carparking within the villages, and assuming
increased use of the Skitube and increased
accommodation at the resort in accordance with the
PoM (Ref. 1), the total number of skiers accessing
the resort under design day conditions would be
satisfactorily catered for with full implementation of
the SSMP. On peak visitor days, however, the level
of service (e.g. lift queues) is likely to be below the
desirable standards, reflecting a conscious planning
decision.
The improvements in skier circulation with full
implementation of the SSMP and the resort fully
operational are summarised in Table 18.10. Six of
the ten movements listed would benefit from having
an increased range of options. In most of these
cases, the additional options would offer movement
by T-bar only, with reduced risk of circulation being
curtailed by lift closure during high winds. This would
be particularly important for skiers returning to
Perisher and Smiggin Holes from Blue Cow.
In general, the SSMP would not reduce the minimum
of lifts required for movement between base areas,
the notable exception being the movement from
Guthega to Perisher using a single chairlift instead of
the current combination of three lifts. Movement from
Guthega to other parts of the resort would also
benefit significantly from a greater choice of options
and easier routes for less experienced skiers.
Snowmaking has the potential to improve the
reliability of circulation on all of the routes, although
movement between Blue Cow/Guthega on the one
hand and Perisher/Smiggin Holes on the other is
dependent on developing an environmentally
acceptable means of providing snowmaking in
Pleasant Valley and potentially along the Blue Cow
Expressway and Perisher Home Trail. The benefits
of snowmaking along the circulation trails would be
realised mainly in the later part of the season, as
these trails would have low priority compared with
repeat skiing areas for early season snowmaking.
There are non-skiing movements possible for most of
the movements between base areas, except to and
from Guthega, but these are inferior to oversnow
skier movement from an operational viewpoint. The
possible opening of the Link Road in winter would
facilitate access to Blue Cow and, if extended to
Guthega, would enable more direct movement by
private vehicle between Guthega and Smiggin
Holes/Perisher when oversnow movement is not
possible or is restricted.
18.3.5 Ski School accessibility
One of the most important features of the SSMP is
the enhanced accessibility for beginners of the
Perisher Ski School, with its Learn to Ski Centre on
Mount Piper, adjacent to the existing carpark and
future village development. In addition to utilising
slopes which are much better suited to beginner
skiing than on Front Valley, this location has the
potential to be obvious to skiers arriving at the resort,
provided that the village centre is designed in
sympathy with this objective. The importance of this
as a design constraint was emphasised in the COI
report (Ref. 3).
The other components of the Ski School would
remain essentially as at present, with Smiggin Holes
being the most accessible venue for bus and day
visitors and Blue Cow being focused particularly on
Skitube visitors. The SSMP does not offer any
solution to the problem of exposure at the Blue Cow
Ski School beginner area, other than to encourage
beginners towards the Perisher or Smiggin Holes Ski
Schools.
18.3.6 Mountain restaurants and related facilities
The SSMP retains mountain restaurants or kiosks in
all the existing locations, with the exception of the
Burning Log at Guthega which would be replaced in a
more central location by a new restaurant at Guthega
Saddle. Some existing facilities (base of Eyre Lift,
base of Mount Perisher chairlifts) would be upgraded,
and additional restaurants or kiosks are proposed at
some of the more remote points of the resort (base of
Ridge chairlift, top of Pleasant Valley chairlift, top of
Mount Perisher chairlift). As well as increasing the
total floor space for visitor facilities, the new facilities
would reduce the number of visitors returning to the
base areas during the day, thus lowering the demand
for use and reducing queue times on some of the key
circulation lifts.
The proposed village development would also lead to
an increase in these facilities within the Perisher and
Smiggin Holes base areas, although this is beyond
the scope of the SSMP.
18.3.7 Snowmaking expansion
The expansion of snowmaking at Perisher Blue,
represents the largest and most important component
of the SSMP. By increasing the percentage of the
resort serviced by snowmaking from about 2.3
percent to potentially 9 percent, the SSMP would
achieve the level of snowmaking required for
Perisher Blue to be considered a pre-eminent resort
18-10 SSMP MAY 2002
Table 18.10 Improvements in skier circulation
Movement
No. of
options
Min. no. of
lifts (a)
Non-skiing
alternative
T-bar only
option
Snowmaking
available
Perisher to Blue Cow
Existing 2 2 Skitube No No
Proposed 2 2 Skitube No Long-term?
Blue Cow to Perisher
Existing 1 1 Skitube No No
Proposed 2 1 Skitube Yes Long-term?
Perisher to Smiggin Holes
Existing 1 1 Shuttle bus Yes No
Proposed 2 1 Shuttle bus Yes Yes
Smiggin Holes to Perisher
Existing 2 1 Shuttle bus Yes No
Proposed 2 1 Shuttle bus Yes Yes
Smiggin Holes to Blue Cow
Existing 1 (b) 3 None direct (c) No (b) No
Proposed 2 3 Possible shuttle bus
(c, d)
Yes Long-term?
Blue Cow to Smiggin Holes
Existing 1 2 None direct (c) No No
Proposed 2 2 Possible shuttle bus
(c)
Yes Long-term?
Blue Cow to Guthega
Existing 3 1 None Yes No
Proposed 3 1 None Yes Yes
Guthega to Blue Cow
Existing 1 2 None No No
Proposed 3 2 None Yes Yes
Perisher to Guthega
Existing 2 (e) 2 None (f) No No
Proposed 2 (e) 2 None (f, g) No Long-term?
Guthega to Perisher
Existing 1 3 None (f) No No
Proposed 3 (h) 1 None (f, g) Yes Long-term?
Notes:
a. The minimum number of lifts is specified for movement between Perisher and Smiggin Holes base areas, Blue Cow
Terminal and Guthega Saddle. In some cases, parts of the slopes at the destination are accessible using fewer lifts.
b. The direct route from the top of Hume T-bar to the base of the Ridge chairlift, while used by some skiers, is not included
as an existing route as it is not marked and the crossing of Perisher Creek is unreliable and potentially dangerous.
c. Non-skiing access is possible via a combination of shuttle bus and Skitube.
d. Use of the shuttle bus to the base of the Ridge chairlift would also require use of lifts to reach Blue Cow Terminal.
e. Other variations on the route from Perisher to Guthega are available between Blue Cow and Guthega.
f. While road access between Perisher and Guthega is possible, this service is not provided by Perisher Blue.
g. There is the long-term possibility of the Link Road being opened in winter, providing more direct road access for private
vehicles between Guthega and Perisher/Smiggin Holes.
h. Other variations on the route from Guthega to Perisher are possible between Blue Cow and Perisher.
SSMP MAY 2002 18-11
by international standards and to ensure an
appropriate and reasonable level of circulation and
repeat skiing opportunities.
Full implementation of the snowmaking proposals
would permit circulation to all precincts within the
resort with the exception of Precincts 4 (North
Perisher), 9 (Mount Piper North) and 12 (Blue Cow
North). The latter two precincts would not contain
any lifts or other facilities. Some lifts, which would
not be usable for repeat skiing under these
conditions, would still be effective for skier circulation,
for example, Telemark Chairlift and the Link Unit
Chairlift, although others, such as the Interceptor
Chairlift and the new T-bar on the western slopes of
Mount Piper, would be closed. In the latter situations,
alternative circulation routes would still be available,
and access would be maintained to most mountain
restaurants and for purposes of oversnow vehicle
movement.
The benefits of snowmaking for skier circulation,
however, would arise mainly in the middle and later
parts of the season, as circulation trails would have
low priority for snowmaking early in the season
compared with repeat skiing areas.
With the resort totally dependent on snowmaking, the
number of repeat ski ers who coul d be
accommodated on the lift system under design day
conditions (i.e. 10-minute maximum lift queues)
would be reduced to about 60 percent of the capacity
when the fully developed resort was completely
operational (see Table 18.3). The loss of capacity
would be due mainly to repeat skiing opportunities
being precluded or severely reduced in Precincts 3
(Mount Perisher), 4 (North Perisher), 10 (Guthega)
and 11 (Link Unit). Elsewhere the trail capacity
would be reduced and skiing would be more
crowded, due to the limited area of skiable snow.
The lift capacity of the future, fully developed resort
under these conditions, however, would be only
about 4 percent lower than its current capacity under
optimum conditions, due to the extension of
snowmaking in association with new high capacity
lifts.
With total reliance on snowmaking, however, the
slope capacity of the resort would be much less than
under natural snow and would be more critical than
lift capacity in some areas. The slope capacity under
snowmaking would approximately match or exceed
lift capacity at Front Valley, parts of Smiggin Holes,
Early Starter, Blue Cow Ski School and parts of
Guthega, but elsewhere would be less than lift
capacity. The actual skiing capacity taking account
of both lift capacity and slope capacity (i.e. adopting
the lower figure of the two as shown in Table 18.3)
would be about 6,100 SAOT. This is equivalent to 39
percent of the optimum ski slope capacity with full
development or 61 percent of the existing capacity
under optimum conditions.
In addition to permitting skiing throughout much of
the resort in the absence of natural snow, and
enhanci ng sl ope capaci ty and ci rcul ati on
opportunities at other times, the snowmaking
improvements could potentially increase the length of
the skiing season.
18.3.8 Snow fences
Snow fences are generally not considered in detail at
the present level of planning, but the current snow
fence program which has operated successfully in
recent years is planned to continue as required.
Snow fences will continue to be an energy-efficient
means of accumulating snow for enhancing coverage
adjacent to the fences or at nearby locations.
18.3.9 Separation of skiers and oversnow
vehicles
The proposals in the SSMP for new ski trails and
oversnow routes increases the opportunities for
separating skiers and oversnow vehicles. In
particular, the proposed relocation of the oversnow
route between Perisher and Smiggin Holes would
take vehicles away from ski trails at the Smiggin
Holes end and from the snowplay area and proposed
Learn to Ski Centre at Mount Piper, as well as
providing a route which has improved snow
coverage. The realignment of the oversnow route to
North Perisher would reduce conflict with skiers
returning from Pretty Valley to Telemark.
Most other oversnow routes would remain essentially
as at present although some would be improved with
respect to safety, which would benefit skiers, as well
as oversnow drivers.
18.3.10 Workshops
The relocation of the main resort workshop from the
Smiggin Holes entrance, as proposed by the Village
Master Plan EIS (Ref. 2) and the COI (Ref. 3), would
be of major benefit not only in making this site
available for more appropriate village related
development but also in providing the opportunity to
construct a new workshop to modern environmental
and occupational health and safety standards in an
location which does not conflict with the residential
amenity of the base areas. The proposed location in
the saddle south-west of Smiggin Holes is well
situated with respect to both winter and summer
access, and would not conflict significantly with skier
movement.
The provision or upgrading of other satellite
workshops, particularly for lift maintenance, is
capable of being integrated with other existing or
proposed facilities, enabling the removal of existing
18-12 SSMP MAY 2002
workshops which are inconveniently located or are
constraining other village uses.
Overall, the rationalisation of workshops would
improve both the efficient use of village areas and the
functioning of the ski slopes.
18.3.11 Summer access
The rationalisation of summer access tracks would
involve improving them, where necessary, to a well
constructed and stable condition or rehabilitating
them, where they are no longer required, as well as
by constructing new tracks where these are essential
for construction or ongoing maintenance. This would
benefit the resort in both operational and
environmental terms. The track improvements would
not only make access safer and easier for resort
staff, NPWS staff and others who may require access
at times, but would also produce a track surface
which is more stable from an environmental
viewpoint. A permanent access track system should
avoid the need for off-track vehicle use on slopes
which then require ongoing rehabilitation works to
maintain their stability.
The proposed summer access track system would
provide appropriate access to the top and bottom
stations of all permanent lifts, with the exception of
the Olympic T-bar, which can be normally maintained
by using oversnow vehicles in winter, or on foot or by
helicopter in summer in exceptional situations.
Upgrading of access along the services corridor
between Guthega and Blue Cow would prove to be a
major benefit for summer operation in these areas,
and would be required in any case for access to the
base of the Link Unit lifts and for laying snowmaking
infrastructure along the Middle Traverse from Blue
Cow to Guthega.
The tracks along lift lines are also likely to prove an
asset in the management of summer walkers, whose
numbers are increasing at the resort.
18.3.12 Competition facilities
As listed in Table 18.11, there will be improvements
to almost all of the existing competition facilities at
the resort, mainly as a result of snowmaking or
improved access due to new lifts. In some cases,
existing facilities would be upgraded to meet FIS
homologation standards.
The upgrading of facilities will increase the profile of
the resort internationally by attracting more
international and major national skiing and
snowboarding competitions.
Table 18.11 Improvements to competition facilities
Run Nature of improvement
FIS homologated runs (existing)
Parachute Snowmaking
Schnaxl Access (Guthega Quad Chairlift)
Zali's
Towers Snowmaking, access (Mount Perisher Six-seater Chairlift)
Excelerator Snowmaking, access (upgrading of Ridge Quad Chairlift), visitor facilities at base
International Safety (selected tree removal)
Olympic
Other existing or proposed facilities
Mother-in-law Snowmaking, access (Guthega Quad Chairlift)
Blue Cow race course Access (new T-bar)
Ski Star
Smiggins Race Track Snowmaking
Outer Limits Possible upgrading for training
Showboat Moguls Course Relocation and upgrading to FIS homologation standards, visitor facilities at base
Aerial jump site Upgrading to FIS homologation standards, extension of snowmaking, access (new
surface lift)
Front Valley halfpipe Extension of snowmaking, access (new surface lift)
Proposed halfpipe (Perisher Valley
preferred, alternatively Smiggin Holes)
New facility to FIS homologation standards with snowmaking
SSMP MAY 2002 18-13
18.3.13 Snowboarding needs
The needs of snowboarders are addressed mainly
through the upgrading of facilities in general. The
upgrading of some T-bars to chairlifts is the principal
benefit making it easier and safer for snowboarders
to access most slopes.
The Mount Piper Learn to Ski Centre would benefit
beginner snowboarders, while the proposed preferred
site FIS homologated halfpipe at Perisher Valley will
serve experienced snowboarders including halfpipe
competitors. Recent technological and design
changes to ski equipment has also led to a rising
demand on halfpipe use by skiers. The formalisation
of off-piste snowboarding, in particular, on the north
side of Blue Cow Mountain would improve safety for
those who prefer this style of the sport. Similarly,
newer ski technology is leading more skiers into off-
piste, highly variable terrain.
18.3.14 Snowplay Needs
The proposal to formalise snowplay at Mount Piper
would provide new opportunities for those visitors
through utilisation of the proposed 'tube park', which
would be significantly safer and easier to manage
than tobogganing. As with the Ski School, it will be
important to plan the village to facilitate access
18.4 Conclusions
In summary, every operational aspect of the resort
would be significantly improved as a result of
implementation of the SSMP. Some aspects of ski
slope development, however, depend also on its
successful integration with development of the
Perisher and Smiggin Holes base areas.
All of the 194 projects identified in the SSMP will be
subject to further environmental planning and
assessment with a view implementing them in a
manner which is environmentally sustainable and in
accordance with environmental best practices as set
out in Appendix A.
APPENDICES
MAY 2002
CONTENTS APPENDIX A
Page
1. INTRODUCTION AppA1-1
1.1 Context: Ecologically Sustainable Development AppA1-1
1.2 Structure of the Manual AppA1-2
1.3 Application of the Manual AppA1-3
1.4 Overlap with Other Manuals AppA1-3
1.5 Overview of the Diversity of the Ski Slope Environment AppA1-4
1.6 Best Practice Principles in Using the Manual AppA1-5
2. SUMMER MOVEMENT OF VEHICLES AND MACHINERY AppA2-1
2.1 Movement on Tracks AppA2-1
A. Type of vehicles used AppA2-1
A.1 Sealed roads AppA2-1
A.2 Unsealed roads other than Blue Cow Road AppA2-1
A.3 Blue Cow Road AppA2-1
A.4 Stable access tracks AppA2-2
A.5 Unstable access tracks AppA2-2
B. Monitoring of use AppA2-2
B.1 Unstable tracks AppA2-2
B.2 Other tracks and roads AppA2-2
C. Advance warning of use AppA2-2
C.1 Blue Cow Road AppA2-2
C.2 Other tracks AppA2-2
D. Travel speeds AppA2-2
D.1 Public roads AppA2-2
D.2 Access tracks AppA2-2
E. Control of unauthorised access AppA2-2
E.1 All access tracks AppA2-2
E.2 Unstable access tracks AppA2-2
F. Track closure AppA2-2
F.1 Seasonal conditions AppA2-2
F.2 Recently stabilised tracks AppA2-2
2.2 Movement off Tracks AppA2-2
A. Type of vehicles used AppA2-4
A.1 Exotic ground cover, moderate, well-drained slope AppA2-4
A.2 Exotic ground cover, steep or sensitive slope AppA2-4
A.3 Herbfield, dry grassland, open dry heath AppA2-4
A.4 Wet grassland, transitional heath AppA2-4
A.5 All other vegetation types AppA2-4
B. Marking of routes AppA2-4
B.1 Route to follow an obvious linear feature AppA2-4
B.2 Route to follow a specified line without an obvious linear feature AppA2-4
B.3 Route to be varied within a broad corridor AppA2-4
C. Monitoring of impacts AppA2-4
C.1 All situations AppA2-4
D. Oversnow transport of materials AppA2-5
D.1 All situations where off-track movement in summer is
impracticable or very undesirable AppA2-5
2.3 Helicopter Movement AppA2-5
A. Situations justifying helicopter use AppA2-5
A.1 General AppA2-5
A.2 Non-structural work AppA2-5
B. Base location AppA2-5
B.1 General AppA2-5
C. Safety AppA2-6
C.1 Staff AppA2-6
C.2 General public AppA2-6
MAY 2002
D. Planning efficiency AppA2-6
D.1 General AppA2-6
3. HANDLING OF DANGEROUS MATERIALS AppA3-1
3.1 Fuel, Oil and Related Hydrocarbons AppA3-1
A. Design of fuel handling areas AppA3-1
A.1 Mountain workshops AppA3-1
A.2 Ski lifts AppA3-1
A.3 Field construction sites AppA3-1
B. Storage, transport and refuelling procedures AppA3-1
B.1 Mountain workshops AppA3-1
B.2 Skilift storage tanks full lift operation, road access available AppA3-1
B.3 Skilift storage tanks full lift operation, no road access AppA3-2
B.4 Skilift storage tanks Olympic T-bar AppA3-2
B.5 Skilift storage tanks backup or emergency operation AppA3-2
B.6 Mobile equipment AppA3-2
C. Handling of spillages AppA3-2
C.1 Mountain workshops AppA3-2
C.2 In the field AppA3-2
D. Disposal of waste oil AppA3-2
D.1 Recycling or reuse general AppA3-2
D.2 Workshops with permanent waste and storage facilities AppA3-2
D.3 Workshops without permanent waste oil storage facilities AppA3-2
3.2 Herbicides and other Hazardous Chemicals AppA3-2
A. Storage AppA3-3
A.1 Central storage AppA3-3
A.2 Storage on site AppA3-3
B. Transport AppA3-3
B.1 General AppA3-3
C. Handling and use AppA3-3
C.1 General AppA3-3
C.2 Herbicides AppA3-3
C.3 Paints and solvents AppA3-3
D. Disposal AppA3-3
4. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AppA4-1
4.1 Planning and Design of Erosion and Sediment Control Works AppA4-1
A. Overall design of erosion and sediment control works AppA4-1
A.1 Large development sites AppA4-1
A.2 Medium to small development sites AppA4-2
A.3 Isolated works AppA4-2
4.2 Erosion Control AppA4-3
A. Diversion drains AppA4-3
A.1 General AppA4-3
B. Cross-drains AppA4-3
B.1 General AppA4-3
4.3 Sediment Control AppA4-3
A. General installation AppA4-5
A.1 Haybale barriers AppA4-5
A.2 Geotextile fences AppA4-5
A.3 Silt traps AppA4-5
A.4 Filtration by natural vegetation AppA4-5
A.5 Chemical dosing AppA4-6
B. Type and location of sediment control measures AppA4-6
B.1 Previously disturbed area AppA4-6
B.2 Undisturbed grassland or other dense ground cover with
an even surface AppA4-6
B.3 Undisturbed grassland, open heath or other dense ground
cover with an irregular surface AppA4-6
B.4 Undisturbed dense heath with dense grass cover (prime
Mastacomys habitat) AppA4-6
B.5 Undisturbed dense heath with little ground cover AppA4-6
MAY 2002
B.6 Within the immediate catchment of an existing sediment trap AppA4-6
C. Monitoring and maintenance of sediment control works AppA4-6
C.1 Temporary sediment traps AppA4-6
C.2 Permanent sediment traps AppA4-6
5. CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES GENERAL AppA5-1
5.1 Rock Removal AppA5-1
A. General guidelines relating to blasting AppA5-2
A.1 All situations AppA5-2
A.2 Close to buildings etc. where blasting is essential
(e.g. massive rock) AppA5-2
B. Rock removal in sensitive locations AppA5-2
B.1 Close to buildings AppA5-2
B.2 In significant species habitat (e.g. boulder fields, wet heath,
Mastacomys habitat) AppA5-2
5.2 Trench construction AppA5-2
A. Design and construction AppA5-3
A.1 Trenches down slopes general AppA5-3
A.2 Trenches across slopes AppA5-4
A.3 Areas with dense groundcover AppA5-4
A.4 Areas with high water table AppA5-4
A.5 Creek crossings AppA5-4
A.6 Heath AppA5-4
A.7 Snowgum woodland AppA5-5
A.8 Rocky areas AppA5-5
A.9 Previously disturbed areas AppA5-5
A.10 Along roads and tracks AppA5-5
A.11 Across roads and tracks AppA5-5
A.12 Underboring in sensitive situations AppA5-5
B. Marking and recording of trenches AppA5-5
B.1 Cable detector AppA5-5
B.2 Ground survey AppA5-5
C. Protection of underground services AppA5-5
C.1 General AppA5-5
5.3 Topsoil Management AppA5-6
A. Sod removal and replacement AppA5-6
A.1 General AppA5-6
B. Bulk topsoil removal and replacement AppA5-6
B.1 General AppA5-6
C. Disposal of surplus topsoil AppA5-7
C.1 Building developments AppA5-7
5.4 Stockpile Management AppA5-7
A. Handling of soil AppA5-7
A.1 Previously undisturbed area AppA5-7
A.2 Previously disturbed and rehabilitated area AppA5-7
A.3 Previously disturbed area which has not been rehabilitated AppA5-7
A.4 Varying degrees of past disturbance AppA5-7
B. Siting of stockpiles AppA5-8
B.1 All situations AppA5-8
C. Protection of stockpiles from erosion and sedimentation AppA5-8
C.1 Soil to be replaced immediately AppA5-8
C.2 Stockpiles retained for several days or weeks AppA5-8
C.3 Stockpiles retained for several months AppA5-8
5.5 Disposal of Surplus Soil and Rock AppA5-8
A. Transport of spoil AppA5-9
A.1 Areas remote from good access tracks AppA5-9
A.2 Areas close to good access roads or tracks AppA5-9
B. Use of spoil AppA5-9
B.1 Use within the resort AppA5-9
B.2 Use outside the resort AppA5-9
B.3 Stockpiling for future use AppA5-9
5.6 Importing of Soil, Rock and Other Fill AppA5-9
MAY 2002
A. Importing of materials AppA5-9
A.1 Topsoil AppA5-9
A.2 Subsoil/weathered rock/general fill AppA5-9
A.3 Building stone AppA5-9
5.7 Stabilisation of Steep Slopes AppA5-9
A. Batter design AppA5-10
A.1 Batters along access tracks AppA5-10
A.2 Areas of high water table AppA5-10
A.3 High earth batters AppA5-10
A.4 Batters in woodland areas AppA5-10
5.8 Fencing and Protection of Sensitive Areas AppA5-10
A. Fence design and construction AppA5-10
A.1 Open areas AppA5-10
A.2 Treed areas AppA5-11
5.9 Protection of Trees AppA5-11
A. Tree protection measures general AppA5-11
A.1 Protection from machinery movement AppA5-11
A.2 Protection from blasting AppA5-11
B. Protection of root systems AppA5-11
B.1 Limiting ground disturbance AppA5-11
B.2 Removal of damaged trees AppA5-11
5.10 Disposal of Cut Timber AppA5-11
A. General AppA5-11
A.1 Sites with good summer access AppA5-11
A.2 Sites with poor summer access AppA5-11
5.11 Washing of Construction Equipment AppA5-12
A. Washing of construction equipment general AppA5-12
A.1 General AppA5-12
6. REVEGETATION OF DISTURBED AREAS AppA6-1
6.1 Choice of Plant Species for Revegetation AppA6-1
A. General AppA6-2
A.1 Previously disturbed and rehabilitated site AppA6-2
A.2 On the edge of a previously disturbed and rehabilitated site AppA6-2
A.3 Large areas within previously undisturbed slopes AppA6-2
A.4 Small areas within previously undisturbed slopes AppA6-2
A.5 Wet areas AppA6-2
A.6 Steep slopes AppA6-2
B. Seed from native species AppA6-2
6.2 Rehabilitation of Well-drained Areas AppA6-2
A. Rehabilitation using Chewings fescue AppA6-2
B. Rehabilitation using native seed (or native/Chewings fescue mix) AppA6-3
6.3 Rehabilitation of Wet Areas AppA6-3
6.4 Rehabilitation of Special Environments AppA6-3
6.5 Heath re-establishment AppA6-3
A. Plant selection and propagation AppA6-3
A.1 General AppA6-3
A.2 Suitable species for sites AppA6-3
B. Hardening of seedlings before planting out AppA6-3
B.1 General AppA6-3
C. Site preparation and planting AppA6-3
C.1 General AppA6-3
C.2 Planting along cross drains AppA6-3
6.6 Tree Planting AppA6-4
6.7 Natural Regeneration AppA6-4
A. Soil protection AppA6-4
A.1 General AppA6-4
A.2 Regeneration based on native herbs AppA6-4
A.2 Regeneration based on heath AppA6-4
6.8 Monitoring AppA6-4
A. General monitoring AppA6-4
B. Scientific monitoring AppA6-5
MAY 2002
7. ROADS AND TRACKS AppA7-1
7.1 Introduction AppA7-1
7.2 Permanent Roads and Vehicle Tracks AppA7-1
A. Track design and construction AppA7-2
A.1 Well drained terrain AppA7-2
A.2 Dry heath AppA7-2
A.3 Snowgum woodland AppA7-3
A.5 Perched bogs AppA7-4
A.6 Low heath and snowpatch areas AppA7-4
B. Track maintenance AppA7-4
B.1 General all situations AppA7-4
B.2 Wet areas AppA7-4
B.3 Following major works AppA7-4
7.3 Temporary Access AppA7-4
A. Provision of access AppA7-5
A.1 Stable, well drained open areas AppA7-5
A.3 Heath AppA7-5
A.4 Helicopter access to difficult areas AppA7-5
A.5 Oversnow access AppA7-5
B. Rehabilitation and monitoring AppA7-5
B.1 Stable, well drained open areas AppA7-5
B.3 Heath AppA7-6
B.4 Monitoring AppA7-6
7.4 Walking Tracks AppA7-6
A. Use of existing tracks and roads AppA7-6
A.1 General AppA7-6
B. Construction of new tracks AppA7-6
B.1 Justification AppA7-6
B.2 Location AppA7-6
B.3 Design general AppA7-6
B.4 Design for users with disabilities AppA7-7
8. WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS AppA8-1
8.2 Bridges AppA8-1
A. Bridge design AppA8-2
A.1 Bridge primarily for summer vehicle use on a track AppA8-2
A.2 Bridge for year-round vehicle use on a track AppA8-2
A.3 Bridge for winter use only AppA8-2
A.4 Bridge for summer vehicle use and winter oversnow use AppA8-2
A.5 Pedestrian use in winter AppA8-2
A.6 Pedestrian use in summer AppA8-2
B. Maintenance AppA8-2
B.1 Bridges with removable decking AppA8-2
B.2 General AppA8-3
B.3 Removal of redundant bridges AppA8-3
8.3 Culverts and pipes AppA8-3
A. Culvert or pipe design AppA8-3
A.1 Disturbed areas/modified watercourses AppA8-3
A.2 Crossing of animal habitat/movement corridor AppA8-3
A.3 Waterlogged ground AppA8-3
A.4 Steep slopes AppA8-3
B. Maintenance AppA8-4
B.1 General AppA8-4
9. SKI LIFTS AppA9-1
9.2 Siting and Design AppA9-1
MAY 2002
A. Siting and Design AppA9-2
A.1 Aerial lifts determination of alignment AppA9-2
A.2 Surface lifts determination of alignment AppA9-2
A.3 Top stations in prominent locations AppA9-2
A.4 Bottom stations in wet areas AppA9-3
A.5 Conversion of diesel lifts to electrical operation AppA9-3
A.6 Backup operation AppA9-3
9.3 Survey of Lift Line AppA9-3
A. Survey general AppA9-3
A.1 Undisturbed areas AppA9-3
A.2 Cleared ski slopes AppA9-3
B. Access for survey AppA9-3
B.1 Undisturbed areas AppA9-3
B.2 Cleared ski slopes AppA9-3
9.4 Construction AppA9-4
A. Site access AppA9-4
A.1 Structures on roads and tracks AppA9-4
A.2 Open areas off tracks AppA9-4
A.3 Other areas AppA9-4
B. Erection of towers AppA9-4
B.1 General AppA9-4
B.2 Sites with good vehicle access AppA9-4
B.3 Sites with limited vehicle access AppA9-4
B.4 Sites with no vehicle access AppA9-4
C. Construction of stations AppA9-4
C.1 General AppA9-4
C.2 Wet areas AppA9-5
D. Hanging of lift cable AppA9-5
D.1 Access track along lift AppA9-5
D.2 No vehicle access along lift AppA9-5
E. Communication cable AppA9-5
E.1 Reasonable access along lift line AppA9-5
E.2 Difficult access along lift line in sheltered terrain AppA9-5
E.3 Difficult access along lift line in exposed terrain AppA9-5
F. Electricity cable AppA9-5
F.1 General AppA9-5
G. Lightning protection AppA9-5
G.1 Reasonable access along lift line AppA9-5
G.2 Difficult access along lift line AppA9-5
9.5 Maintenance AppA9-5
A. Timing of access for general maintenance AppA9-5
A.1 Timing of access AppA9-5
A.2 Olympic T-bar AppA9-6
B. Type of vehicles used AppA9-6
C. Storage of removable chairs and T-bar boxes AppA9-6
C.1 Storage site AppA9-6
D. Cable replacement AppA9-6
D.1 General AppA9-6
E. Major repair or maintenance works AppA9-6
E.1 Planning AppA9-6
10. BUILDINGS AND MAJOR STRUCTURES AppA10-1
10.2 Siting and design AppA10-1
A. Site selection AppA10-1
A.1 General sensitive sites AppA10-1
A.2 Buildings on ridges in view of the Main Range AppA10-1
A.3 Buildings on lower slopes facing the Main Range AppA10-1
A.4 Buildings within view of villages centres or Kosciuszko Road AppA10-1
B. Building design AppA10-2
B.1 General sensitive sites AppA10-2
B.2 Visually prominent buildings AppA10-2
MAY 2002
B.3 Energy conservation AppA10-2
C. Retention of snowgums AppA10-2
C.1 Trees on the downhill side of the building AppA10-2
C.2 Trees on other sides of the building AppA10-2
C.3 Shading of windows AppA10-2
A. Site preparation AppA10-2
A.1 Sites with natural vegetation and soil profile AppA10-2
A.2 Sites in disturbed areas AppA10-2
A.3 Building where surface vegetation is retained AppA10-2
B. Erosion and sediment control AppA10-3
C. Access and transport of materials AppA10-3
C.1 General AppA10-3
D. Storage of materials AppA10-3
D.1 Undisturbed areas AppA10-3
D.2 Previously disturbed areas AppA10-3
E. Pouring of concrete footings AppA10-3
E.1 Timing AppA10-3
F. Erection of building AppA10-3
F.1 Undisturbed areas AppA10-3
F.2 Previously disturbed areas AppA10-3
G. Removal of waste materials AppA10-3
G.1 General AppA10-3
11. SNOW FENCES AppA11-1
11.2 Design AppA11-1
A. Demountability AppA11-1
A.1 Location prominent from the Main Range AppA11-1
A.2 Locations prominent within the resort and in the vicinity
of other development AppA11-1
A.3 Locations prominent within the resort but isolated from
other developments AppA11-2
B. Colour AppA11-2
B.1 General AppA11-2
C. Safety AppA11-2
C.1 End protection AppA11-2
C.2 Shielding of braces AppA11-2
D. Tree planting AppA11-2
D.1 General AppA11-2
A. Access and transport of materials AppA11-2
B. Storage of materials AppA11-2
B.1 Undisturbed areas AppA11-2
B.2 Previously disturbed areas AppA11-2
C. Erection of fences AppA11-2
C.1 Sensitive areas AppA11-2
C.2 Areas remote from tracks AppA11-2
C.3 Fire protection AppA11-3
11.4 Operation and maintenance AppA11-3
A. Summer maintenance AppA11-3
A.1 Demountable fences AppA11-3
A.2 General maintenance AppA11-3
B. Monitoring of fence sites AppA11-3
B.1 Ecological changes AppA11-3
B.2 Snowgum plantings AppA11-3
12. SUMMER SLOPE GROOMING AppA12-1
12.2 Tree Removal AppA12-2
A. Tree removal in general AppA12-3
A.1 Dense woodland AppA12-3
MAY 2002
A.2 Open woodland AppA12-3
A.3 Scattered trees AppA12-3
B. Disposal of cut timber AppA12-3
B.1 Sites with moderate to dense heath cover AppA12-3
B.2 Sites lacking in heath with good summer access AppA12-3
B.3 Sites lacking in heath with poor summer access AppA12-3
B.4 Disposal by burning AppA12-4
B.5 General comments AppA12-4
C. Stump removal AppA12-4
C.1 Level A grooming AppA12-4
C.2 Level B grooming AppA12-4
C.3 Level D grooming AppA12-4
D. Use of poisons AppA12-4
E. Trimming of overhanging branches AppA12-4
E.1 General AppA12-4
F. Marking trees AppA12-4
F.1 General AppA12-4
G. Maintenance of cut trees AppA12-4
G.1 General AppA12-4
12.3 Heath Slashing AppA12-4
A. Priority for heath protection AppA12-5
A.1 General AppA12-5
B. Retention of animal movement corridors AppA12-5
C. Periodic maintenance slashing AppA12-5
C.1 Level A or C grooming AppA12-5
12.4 Rock Removal AppA12-5
A. General standard of rock removal AppA12-6
A.1 Level A grooming AppA12-6
A.2 Level B grooming AppA12-6
A.3 Level C grooming AppA12-6
A.4 Level D grooming AppA12-6
A.5 Level E grooming AppA12-6
B. Splitting of rocks AppA12-6
B.1 Rocks in unconstrained locations AppA12-6
B.2 Rocks in sensitive ecological areas AppA12-6
B.3 Rocks close to manmade structures AppA12-6
C. Disposal of rock fragments AppA12-6
C.1 Level A grooming AppA12-6
C.2 Sites with good vehicle access AppA12-6
C.3 Rocky areas AppA12-7
C.4 Heath areas AppA12-7
D. Marking of rocks for removal AppA12-7
E. Choice of equipment for handling rocks AppA12-7
E.1 Stable, accessible areas AppA12-7
E.2 Small sensitive areas AppA12-7
E.3 Large sensitive areas AppA12-7
12.5 Slope Drainage and Dewatering AppA12-7
A. Drainage design AppA12-8
A.1 Defined drainage lines in flat areas AppA12-8
A.2 Extensive areas of water accumulation AppA12-8
A.3 Open water channels AppA12-8
A.4 Defined drainage lines on slopes AppA12-8
A.5 Cross drainage for erosion control AppA12-8
A.6 Crossdrains on ski slopes general guidelines AppA12-8
B. Construction AppA12-8
B.1 Sensitive wet areas AppA12-8
B.2 Cross drains on slopes AppA12-9
C. Monitoring and maintenance AppA12-9
C.1 Wet areas AppA12-9
12.6 Surface Modification AppA12-9
MAY 2002
A. General practices AppA12-9
A.1 Level A grooming broadscale disturbance AppA12-9
A.2 Level B grooming local disturbance only AppA12-10
12.7 Litter Control AppA12-10
A. Preventing of littering AppA12-10
A.1 Provision of garbage bins AppA12-10
A.2 Public education AppA12-10
A.3 Staff education AppA12-10
B. Litter collection AppA12-10
B.1 Systematic collection AppA12-10
B.2 Collection of scattered items AppA12-10
13. WINTER OPERATION AppA13-1
13.2 Slope Grooming AppA13-2
A. Start of grooming operations AppA13-2
A.1 Snowmaking areas AppA13-2
A.2 Areas with natural snowfall AppA13-2
A.3 Blue Cow Mountain Burramys habitat AppA13-2
B. Grooming operations general AppA13-2
C. Movement of grooming machines AppA13-2
D. Operating hours AppA13-2
D.2 Grooming near lodges AppA13-2
13.3 Snowmaking AppA13-2
A. General operation AppA13-3
A.1 Meteorological conditions AppA13-3
A.2 Use of additives AppA13-3
B. Snowmaking near lodges AppA13-3
B.1 Type of equipment AppA13-3
B.2 Operating hours AppA13-3
13.4 Snow Farming AppA13-3
A. Priorities for snow farming activities AppA13-3
A.1 Snow fence deposits AppA13-3
A.2 Snowpatch short alpine herbfield areas AppA13-3
A.3 Other natural snow deposition areas AppA13-3
B. Snow farming plans AppA13-3
C. Snow farming practices AppA13-3
C.1 Vegetation protection AppA13-3
C.2 Public safety AppA13-4
13.5 Skilift Operation AppA13-4
A. Opening of lifts during limited snow cover AppA13-4
A.1 Surface lifts AppA13-4
A.2 Aerial lifts AppA13-4
B. Lift closure during high wind AppA13-4
B.1 Aerial lifts AppA13-4
B.2 Surface lifts AppA13-4
C. Lift closure during electrical storms AppA13-4
C.1 Aerial lifts AppA13-4
C.2 Surface lifts AppA13-4
13.6 Ski Trail Operation AppA13-4
13.7 Oversnow Vehicle Use AppA13-5
A. Use during good snow cover AppA13-5
A.1 Safe driving practices AppA13-5
A.2 Protection of groomed runs and trails AppA13-5
A.3 Protection of lift tracks AppA13-5
A.4 Noise control AppA13-5
A.5 Environmentally sensitive areas AppA13-6
MAY 2002
A.6 Access to hazardous areas AppA13-6
B. Use during poor snow cover AppA13-6
B.1 Designated route where there is an alternative snow
free route AppA13-6
B.2 Designated route where there is no alternative access AppA13-6
B.3 Designated route not used by skiers AppA13-6
B.4 Slopes away from designated routes AppA13-6
14. REHABILITATION OF PAST DISTURBANCE AppA14-1
14.2 Stabilisation of Exposed Soil AppA14-1
A. Monitoring arrangements AppA14-1
A.1 Recent rehabilitation works AppA14-1
A.2 General slope monitoring AppA14-1
B. Revegetation AppA14-1
B.1 Priority for rehabilitation works AppA14-1
B.2 Use of sods or topsoil from other sites AppA14-1
14.3 Re-establishment of Native Vegetation General Considerations AppA14-2
14.4 Re-establishment of Native Groundcover AppA14-3
A. Natural regeneration AppA14-3
A.1 Areas stabilised with Chewings fescue AppA14-3
A.2 Areas stabilised with alpine mix AppA14-3
B. Active revegetation AppA14-3
B.1 Areas stabilised with Chewings fescue AppA14-3
B.2 Areas stabilised with alpine mix AppA14-3
B.3 Areas with high component of weeds AppA14-3
14.5 Re-establishment of Heath AppA14-3
A.1 Areas stabilised with Chewings fescue AppA14-3
A.2 Areas stabilised with alpine mix AppA14-3
B.1 General slope revegetation AppA14-3
B.2 Specific locations AppA14-3
14.6 Re-establishment of Trees AppA14-3
A.1 Living tree stumps AppA14-3
14.7 Provision of Animal Crossings AppA14-3
A. Short underground crossings AppA14-5
A.1 Location AppA14-5
A.2 On drainage lines AppA14-5
A.3 In dry situations AppA14-5
A.4 Mountain Pygmy-possum (Burramys parvus) AppA14-5
A.5 Broad-toothed Rat (Mastacomys fuscus) AppA14-5
A.6 Reptiles AppA14-5
B. Extended underground crossings AppA14-5
B.1 Location AppA14-5
B.2 Design general AppA14-5
B.3 Mountain Pygmy-possum (Burramys parvus) AppA14-5
B.4 Broad-toothed Rat (Mastacomys fuscus) AppA14-5
B.5 Reptiles AppA14-6
C. Surface corridors AppA14-6
C.1 Heath corridors AppA14-6
C.2 Rock corridors AppA14-6
D. Corridors for winter movement AppA14-6
D.1 Along cross drains AppA14-6
D.2 Based on cut timber AppA14-6
D.3 Based on rock fragments AppA14-6
E. Monitoring of animal movements AppA14-6
E.1 General AppA14-6
F. Monitoring of crossing condition AppA14-6
MAY 2002
F.1 Short pipes and culverts AppA14-6
F.2 Extended pipes or culverts AppA14-6
14.8 Removal of Redundant Structures AppA14-6
A. General AppA14-6
A.1 Assessment of need for removal AppA14-6
A.2 Access AppA14-6
A.3 Site rehabilitation AppA14-6
14.9 Removal of Old Waste Materials AppA14-7
A. General AppA14-7
A.1 Assessment of need for removal AppA14-7
A.2 Access AppA14-7
A.3 Site rehabilitation AppA14-7
B. Cut timber AppA14-7
C. Rock fragments AppA14-7
D. Rehabilitation of disturbed watercourses AppA14-7
14.10 Integration of Remedial Works with Other Projects AppA14-7
15. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS AppA15-1
16. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AppA16-1
16.2 General Operation AppA16-2
A. General AppA16-2
A.1 Review of environmental implications AppA16-2
A.2 Use of Best Practices Manual AppA16-2
A.3 Public awareness AppA16-2
16.3 Environmental Review Processes AppA16-2
A. General AppA16-2
A.1 Independent review AppA16-2
A.2 Specialist advice AppA16-2
A.3 Documentation AppA16-2
B. Review of environmental factors AppA16-2
B.1 Scope and content of the report AppA16-2
B.2 Field assessment AppA16-3
B.3 Application AppA16-3
C. Environmental impact statement AppA16-3
C.1 Scope and content of the report AppA16-3
D. Other environmental reports AppA16-3
D.1 Evaluation of other report formats AppA16-3
REFERENCES AND INFORMATION SOURCES AppARef-1
ATTACHMENT A. NATIVE PLANTS SPECIES FOR USE IN REVEGETATION Att.A-1
FIGURES
Page
(* = follows page)
4.1 Erosion and sediment controls for large sites AppA4-2
14.1 Animal crossings on drainage lines * AppA14-6
14.2 Ideal design for Burramys crossing * AppA14-6
MAY 2002 AppA1-1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Context: Ecol ogi cal l y Sustai nabl e
Development
The mission statement of the Perisher Blue Ski
Resort is:
To become Australia's pre-eminent four season
destination mountain resort, providing international
class facilities, based on ecologically sustainable
principles.
The vision statement for the Perisher Range resorts
prepared by the National Parks and Wildlife Service
(Ref. 1) is very similar:
The Perisher Range will be the pre-eminent all-year-
round destination mountain resort in Australia,
providing international-class facilities based on
These statements are very close in intent. Both
statements recognise the need for year round or four
season international class facilities. The key
common words are pre-eminent destination mountain
resort and ecologically sustainable principles. What
do these terms really mean in the context of
environmental best practice?
Firstly, the term pre-eminent destination mountain
resort embodies the acceptance of a high priority for
development and management of all season resort
facilities within the defined boundaries of the resort.
High priority for skiing has had NSW Government
support throughout most of the twentieth century and
particularly since the 1950s when the Perisher,
Smi ggi n Hol es and Guthega resorts were
established. It is reflected in every edition of the Plan
of Management that has been prepared for the Park
and is consistent with the IUCN statement of primary
uses for national parks and the Biosphere Reserve
status of the Park (Ref. 2).
A pre-eminent destination mountain resort, however,
would be expected to maintain high standards of
envi ronmental qual i ty throughout the year,
particularly if it is to serve this role in all seasons.
The environment in this context must be interpreted
in the broadest sense as stated in the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979, including such
issues as visitor enjoyment and safety and
occupational health and safety, as well as the more
traditional perspectives on environment such as flora
and fauna protection, control of pollution and scenic
quality. The best practice guidelines are framed in
this broad context.
With respect to ecologically sustainable principles, it
must be appreciated that an open system such as a
ski resort (or an urban area) can never be totally self
sustaining because of the need to import materials
and services and to export waste products. Some
elements or processes may appear sustainable on a
short term basis, but not on the basis of a whole-of-
life-cycle assessment. A commitment to ecologically
sustainable principles is a step in the right direction
towards ecologically sustainable development (ESD).
ESD is a compromise between ecological ideals and
other human needs and has been defined by the
Commonwealth Government as:
'using, conserving and enhancing the community's
resources so that ecological processes, on which life
depends, are maintained, and the total quality of life,
now and in the future, can be increased' (Ref. 3).
The principles embodied in ESD can be expressed in
different ways (e.g. Refs. 3, 4). Four of these
principles are stated in Schedule 2 of the NSW
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation
2000 and are discussed as follows in the context of
this manual:
(a) The precautionary principle namely, that if there
are threats of seri ous or i rreversi bl e
environmental damage, lack of full scientific
certainty should not be used as a reason for
postponing measures to prevent environmental
degradation. The wording of this principle can be
open to a wide range of interpretation and
requires a high degree of commonsense in its
application. Most environmental disturbance is
irreversible to some degree. Full scientific
certainty (i.e. 100 percent reliability) in the
prediction of environmental impacts rarely exists.
Even when circumstances suggest the need to
apply the principle, its application is not
necessarily to preclude development actions but
to ensure that, if they proceed, there are
appropriate controls to adequately address
matters of uncertainty which may have adverse
effects. The practices in this manual reflect a
precautionary approach in those situations where
there is a significant degree of uncertainty.
(b) Inter-generational equity namely, that the
present generation should ensure that the health,
diversity and productivity of the environment are
maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future
generations. This can be interpreted as meaning
that proposed developments maintain or enhance
the long term value of the area both for skiing
and for its other human values within the Park
context.
(c) Conservation of biological diversity and
ecological integrity namely, that conservation of
biological diversity and ecological integrity should
AppA1-2 MAY 2002
be a fundamental consideration. This issue is
given high priority in the practices discussed in
this manual, particularly in the recognition that
different types of practices may be optimum in
different ecological situations. This principle
does not, however, preclude some limited
modifications to ecosystems or their components,
as has already occurred within alpine skiing
management units of the Park.
(d) Improved valuation, pricing and incentive
mechanisms namely, that environmental
factors should be included in the valuation of
assets and services. One interpretation of this
principle is that limited resources should not be
squandered in the interests of short term gain. At
the planning level, this means that those limited
areas identified for alpine skiing in the PoM
should be developed for this purpose as
efficiently as possible, thus optimising the skifield
capacity without unacceptable degradation of the
resource. At the operational level, this principle
has implications for reuse and recycling of
resources such as topsoil, rock and cut timber, as
well as for energy conservation, and is reflected
in several of the practices discussed.
In applying the above principles, it must be
recognised that a principle is a guideline but not an
absolute rule (Ref. 4). Furthermore, the principles
embodied in NSW legislation do not reflect the full
picture of ESD and it is sometimes useful to return to
the more comprehensive Commonwealth definition.
There is an emphasis in the Commonwealth
definition of ESD on maintaining ecological or
environmental processes, which in turn, involves
limiting the extent of impacts which are adverse from
certain perspectives. However, even in a national
park context, it does not mean protecting every tree,
every plant or every animal from the impacts of
development, or preventing any changes to the soil,
water or viewscape. To do so would adversely affect
quality of life in other ways, which may be at odds
with ESD principles. The need to achieve a sensible
balance between conflicting environmental objectives
is widely accepted in environmental policy and
practice at the international, national and state levels,
and is embodied in the following best practice
guidelines.
In applying the ESD concept to development and
management guidelines, it is necessary first to
identify which processes have the potential to be
affected by the respective actions, and how these
effects occur. This requires an understanding of the
dynamics of the environment, as opposed to a purely
descriptive approach.
It is necessary also to recognise that even within the
relatively limited area of Perisher Blue Ski Resort, the
nature of the environment varies widely in terms of
soils, vegetation, aspect, microclimate, proximity to
development and other factors, and that the best
practice in one situation may not be the best in
another. This manual differs from most other similar
manuals in presenting a range of practices and
evaluating their merits and problems in various
situations. In general, it is not prescriptive with
respect to a specific method.
In order to apply the manual, it is therefore necessary
to first assess the situation and then apply
commonsense in interpreting the guidelines in the
manual to determine the best environmental solution
in a broad sense.
The manual makes frequent reference to the Alpine
Rehabilitation Manual prepared by the Australian
Alps Liaison Committee. That document is
particularly valuable in providing a wider context of
the Australian alpine area but, because it serves a
larger area, does not focus at the same level of detail
as does this manual. Furthermore, its main focus is
on the rehabilitation of disturbed areas, which is
important in the context of major construction projects
where such disturbance is inevitable, while this
manual is directed mainly at more limited ski slope
developments, with an emphasis on minimal initial
impact, so that rehabilitation requirements are limited.
The two manual s shoul d be vi ewed as
complementary with some degree of overlap. Other
useful publications are referred to where appropriate
throughout this manual.
1.2 Structure of the Manual
The rest of the manual is structured under the
following topics:
General operation (Chapters 2 to 4). These
chapters deal with activities that may be common to
several other topics in the manual such as vehicle
and machinery movement, handling of fuel, oil and
hazardous substances, and sediment control. These
may be relevant to both new works and ongoing
operations and maintenance in summer and winter.
General practices in relation to new development
works (Chapters 5 and 6). These include both
construction methods and site rehabilitation
undertaken in association with development projects.
Specific types of development projects (Chapters
7 to 12). These chapters address all types of new
works, whether or not they are subject to an activity
application and/or review of environmental factors.
They include roads, access tracks, watercourse
crossings, ski lifts, buildings and other major
structures, snow fences and ongoing maintenance
and monitoring are discussed.
Winter operation (Chapter 13). This chapter
addresses all of the activities required for the
MAY 2002 AppA1-3
maintenance and operation of the ski slopes during
winter.
Rehabilitation of past disturbance (Chapter 14). It
is recognised that some of the past development of
the resort, generally undertaken with the concurrence
of the NPWS, has had unnecessary and possibly
significant impacts on some natural processes.
There is scope for progressively implementing
measures which will assist in restoring these
processes without conflicting with the winter
recreational values of the resort. These are
discussed in this chapter.
Emergency situations (Chapter 15). This chapter
addresses the extent to which normal best practice
may need to be relaxed in emergency situations such
as a rescue, a fire or damage to underground
services.
Environmental planning and assessment
(Chapter 16). This chapter sets out principles and
ethics for environmental planning and assessment
which are consistent with those promoted by the
Environment Institute of Australia. The preparation
and review of environmental impact statements,
statements of environmental effects and other similar
documents is expected to be consistent with these
principles.
The manual includes a bibliography of other best
practice manuals and related material, which can be
used as a source of further information.
Each of the main chapters or sections of the Manual
is presented as follows:
An introductory section, which includes a brief
description of the activity and identifies the
environmental processes which may be affected
by that activity and the main issues relating to
those processes.
Guidelines for the alternative approaches for
undertaking the activity in relation to the various
environmental situations that exist in the resort.
These guidelines can be referenced by report
section and guideline number (e.g. 2.2/A.1).
Sources of further information.
1.3 Application of the Manual
The manual has been prepared primarily for the use
of Perisher Blue staff as well as consultants and
contractors engaged by Perisher Blue. It is also
intended to apply to all other persons engaged in
development or management activities in areas
covered by the SSMP including:
staff and agents of the NPWS and Planning
NSW;
other government or private organisations
undertaking development or management works
on the ski slopes with NPWS or Planning NSW
approval; and
persons undertaking research or educational
activities on the ski slopes with NPWS approval.
As Perisher Blue is not empowered to regulate the
activities of the latter persons, such application
assumes the co-operation and support of the NPWS
in this respect.
The manual was prepared originally to reflect a
situation in which the NPWS has been responsible
for planning and development approvals within the
ski slope area. With this responsibility passing to
Planning NSW, at least some of the practices in the
manual which relate to NPWS approval or
consultation may be amended to reflect a similar role
for Planning NSW. In relation to some other
practices, interaction with NPWS in its management
role will still be appropriate.
A specific beneficial application of this manual lies in
streamlining the process of environmental review of
development projects within the resort. In
documenting the statement of environmental effects
(SEE) for each development project, the relevant
methods in the manual could be identified by code
number and descriptive heading only, without the
need to go into detailed descriptions, except where it
is necessary to relate the method to specific locations
or site features (e.g. in the positioning of sediment
traps). The advantages of this are as follows:
Reference to the manual should ensure that all
alternative methods are considered, rather than
applying a standard method to all situations.
There should be savings in time and cost of SEE
preparation which can be directed into other
environmental projects.
1.4 Overlap with Other Manuals
As discussed in Section 1.1, there is some overlap
with the Alpine Rehabilitation Manual prepared by the
Australian Alps Liaison Committee (Ref. 5), although
the scope of the two manuals is largely
complementary.
Some issues relating particularly to worker and visitor
safety are covered, generally in greater detail, in
other Perisher Blue manuals. These include:
Risk Management Manual (Ref. 6)
Snowgroomers Operations Manual (Ref. 7)
Professional Ski Patrol Operations Manual (Ref.
8)
AppA1-4 MAY 2002
They may also be subject to legal requirements, for
example, under the Construction Safety Act 1912, or
specific contractors' agreements.
Several other manuals, which are less likely to be
accessible to people working at Perisher Blue, are
used as supporting documents, but the key
information is covered in this manual.
1.5 Overview of the Diversity of the Ski Slope
Environment
The value of presenting best practices as a suite of
alternatives arises because the environment of the
ski slopes shows considerable diversity. It is
misleading to talk about the alpine or subalpine
environment as a specific entity except in the
broadest terms. Such terms are of little value at the
level of detail required for an effective ski slope plan.
Two fundamental determinants of environmental
characteristics within the ski slope areas are
elevation and aspect. In particular these affect
microclimate which, together with geomorphology
and soils, dictates the pattern of vegetation
communities and animal habitat throughout the
slopes. They also have a major influence on the
quality of the area as a ski resort, influencing snow
deposition and exposure to sun and wind.
The upper slopes, particularly the ridges and the
north-west facing slopes, are the most exposed to
winds which limit snow accumulation, create an icy
surface and are often unpleasant for skiing. The
same conditions create an environment which is not
conducive to plant growth, resulting in low heath and
tree cover which can be easily damaged and difficult
to rehabilitate. Any development in these areas
needs to be approached with a high level of caution.
On the south-eastern slopes, where snow tends to
accumulate, the most sensitive areas include those
where the snow lies deepest and lasts longest. The
need for works in these areas, particularly summer
slope grooming, tends to be low because the snow
covers the irregularities in the landscape. However, if
these areas are disturbed, rehabilitation is again slow
because the prolonged snow cover limits the growing
season. These areas i ncl ude snowpatch
communities and short alpine herbfield, the latter
being sensitive because it is maintained in a wet
condition by the melting snowdrifts.
Areas with wet soil in general tend to be sensitive to
disturbance, with the wettest areas (fens and bogs)
being the most sensitive, followed by wet heath, then
the seasonally wet transitional heath and wet
grassland. The plant communities that occur on
better drained sites (dry heath of various
compositions and densities, herbfield, grassland and
snowgum woodland) tend to be the most resilient in
the subalpine context, and are also the more
widespread of the plant communities.
In the case of snowgum woodland, the greatest
concern is with respect to the 'mature' snowgums.
This is in practical terms as much an aesthetic issue
as an ecological one, as about 8 percent of the ski
slopes are covered with snowgums progressing
towards maturity. A much more restricted 'mature'
vegetation community is Podocarpus boulder heath
which is significant both because of the very slow
growth rate of the Podocarpus and because of its
special habitat value for the threatened Mountain
Pygmy-possum.
Some types of dry heath are also considered to
provide special summer habitat for the Broad-toothed
Rat, also listed as a threatened species, although it
moves widely throughout most of the resort, at least
in winter. The animal species under most threat
which has suitable habitat within the boundaries of
the resort is the Southern Corroboree Frog which can
utilise pools within bog areas. This species has
declined significantly throughout the Park in recent
years and has not actually been recorded within the
resort for several years. The habitat within the resort,
however, is still of high value in the event of recovery
of the species and, in any case, is still significant for
other ecological reasons.
The more significant and sensitive the vegetation
communities are, the more important it is to attempt
to avoid disturbing them in ski slope development
and management. Fortuitously, as a general rule, the
significant and sensitive vegetation communities tend
to occur in areas where the extent of physical
disturbance is low, even though those areas may be
used for skiing. This is not universally the case,
however, and there may be situations where some
disturbance to such areas is unavoidable.
The best practice in such a situation is likely to
involve greater care, effort and cost than in a 'typical'
ski slope situation, first in undertaking works to cause
a low level of impact, and second in the effort
required to rehabilitate any damage. While the same
extreme care may also produce a better result in
other situations, the marginal benefits do not justify
the extra cost or human resources involved which, in
the 'big picture' would be better directed at other
environmental initiatives. In some cases, the
extreme care approach developed for sensitive areas
may even be less effective in some other
environments.
Vegetation, which reflects the combined influence of
a number of environmental attributes, is a useful
determinant to which to relate best practice
alternatives because it has been systematically
mapped for the whole of the resort. There are other
factors, however, which are superimposed and which
also need to be considered. These include:
MAY 2002 AppA1-5
slope gradients;
geotechnical constraints;
archaeological significance;
features of geomorphological significance;
proximity to other development; and
legal requirements (e.g. occupational health and
safety).
This manual addresses best practices by relating
them to appropriate environmental factors, thus
aiming to achieve the most efficient and sustainable
outcome for the achievement of the resort's mission
statement.
1.6 Best Practice Principles in Using the
Manual
The following principles should be applied to use of
this manual.
1. All of the advice in this manual should be treated
as guidelines, not as rules. It is impossible to
prescribe practices which will always be the best
in every situation. The success of using this
manual depends on a flexible approach based on
commonsense and past experience.
2. The advice given in this manual is not intended to
be followed blindly. Thi nki ng about the
principles underlying the practices and the
environmental processes which are affected, and
confirming the practice that appears to be the
best is almost always the best when all factors
are considered.
3. Do not decide on a particular approach without:
(a) being personally familiar with the specific site
that is affected (this will usually necessitate a
field inspection); and
(b) having a good understanding of any practical
difficulties in implementing the job, for
example, by discussion with the person
responsible for carrying out or overseeing the
job.
4. Critically consider any possible adverse impacts
that may result from implementing environmental
safeguards. Sometimes the 'cure' can be worse
than the 'disease'. Again, commonsense is the
operative word.
5. Be prepared for some situations that may not be
adequately covered by the manual. Use the
manual as guidance but be innovative or even
experimental if necessary.
6. Do not appl y excessi ve envi ronmental
safeguards where they are not likely to improve
the outcome significantly. The money and
human resources that can be saved can be used
more productively for environmental benefits in
other situations. Again, use commonsense.
7. Treat the manual as a 'living document' which will
be periodically amended in the light of
experience, and as new techniques become
available. Monitor the effectiveness of the
suggested practices, noting any problems from
either an environmental or an operational
viewpoint, and provide feedback. In this way the
practices can be subject to continuing
improvement.
MAY 2002 AppA2-1
2. SUMMER MOVEMENT OF VEHICLES AND
MACHINERY
2.1 Movement on Tracks
The types of vehicles and machinery moving around
the resort in summer include:
conventional two-wheel-drive vehicles;
four-wheel-drive vehicles (light- to medium-
weight, e.g. Landcruiser and Suzuki tray tops);
four-wheel-drive motorbikes;
heavy wheeled vehicles (i.e. trucks etc.); and
tracked vehicles (e.g. excavators, heavy duty
(HD) carriers).
These move on sealed or unsealed roads, or on
access tracks of various standards. The guidelines in
this chapter relate to the types of vehicles that may
be used on various tracks and roads, and the ways in
which they should be driven.
It is the intention of Perisher Blue to progressively
upgrade all permanent access tracks to a stable
condition which is suitable under all normal summer
conditions for a medium-weight four-wheel-drive
vehicle driven responsibly. Tracks which are not
required would be rehabilitated and closed to vehicle
use (including mountain bikes). The long-term plans
for summer access are summarised in Section 5.10
of the SSMP.
The main issues with respect to the summer use of
roads and tracks are:
protection of the road or track surface from
damage;
control of sedimentation resulting from erosion of
unsealed surfaces (this relates partly to design
see Chapter 7);
promotion of high personal safety standards, and
protection of other road/ track users (including
pedestrians) from irresponsible driving behaviour;
and
efficient use of fuel energy.
With well-formed stable tracks, the impacts on the
track surfaces resulting from responsible use should
be minor, but it is necessary to face the reality that it
will take several years to upgrade all permanent
tracks to this standard. In the interim, guidelines are
required for the use of substandard tracks.
The impacts on track surfaces can be reduced by
choice of vehicle. The lighter the vehicle and the
higher the number of wheels sharing the motive
force, the less concentrated will be the impact. A
tracked vehicle has a low ground pressure due to its
weight being spread over the area of its tracks and
hence has a low impact when driven in a straight line.
However, it can have a much greater impact due to
skidding of its tracks when turning a corner. When
carrying a large load, a single traverse by a heavy
vehicle may have less impact than multiple traverses
by smaller vehicles.
Small vehicles are more fuel-efficient if carrying a
single person, but a larger multi-passenger vehicle
may be more efficient if it is full. The choice of
vehicle is sometimes also constrained by the type of
load to be carried, by the need to transport
passengers, or simply by what vehicle is available at
the time. Guidelines on vehicle use therefore need to
have some flexibility to cater for different
circumstances.
Safety on narrow tracks i s an i mportant
consideration, particularly where the quality of the
surface encourages relatively high speeds or there is
limited visibility. Perisher Blue staff can communicate
by internal radio to warn each other when they are
using a track but other users (e.g. NPWS, other
government agencies) who have occasion to use the
tracks do not have this option. Unauthorised use by
members of the public is a particular concern in this
respect.
Guidelines
A. Type of vehicles used
A.1 Sealed roads
This applies mainly to movement on sealed roads
and carparks en route to works, as roads within the
ski slopes are generally unsealed. Any type of
vehicle may be used with the exception of tracked
vehicles which are transported by low loader over
sealed roads to protect the pavement from damage
by tracks. Alternatively, pavement protection against
tracked vehicles can be achieved by placing rubber
mats, old tyres or timber under the tracks
progressively as the vehicles are moved slowly.
A.2 Unsealed roads other than Blue Cow Road
Any type of vehicle may be used, subject to length
and width constraints in the case of heavy vehicles.
A.3 Blue Cow Road
Normally only four-wheel-drive vehicles (including
motorbikes) or tracked vehicles are used, but
exceptions may be made for approved drivers of two-
wheel-drive vehicles. Suitable heavy vehicles are
used for essential transport .
AppA2-2 MAY 2002
A.4 Stable access tracks
Four-wheel-drive motorbikes are used for routine
activities, with more limited use of medium-weight
four-wheel-drive vehicles.
Tracked vehicles may be used for specific projects,
with the number of passages kept to a minimum.
Tracked vehicle operators should perform multiple-
point turns on sharp bends to reduce damage to the
track surface. Suitable heavy vehicles are used only
in exceptional situations, e.g. when essential for
delivery of materials or for undertaking earthworks.
A.5 Unstable access tracks
Motorbikes only are permitted on these tracks, with
the number of passages kept to a minimum. Under
unfavourable conditions (e.g. track very wet in
places), access may be on foot only. When essential
for a project, a tracked vehicle may be 'walked' along
the track with a single passage in each direction.
B. Monitoring of use
B.1 Unstable tracks
The condition of an unstable track used for a
development or maintenance activity should be
assessed at the conclusion of that activity, with
remedial works undertaken to repair track damage if
necessary (see Chapter 7). Where track stabilisation
is required, this should be the final component of a
construction project, so that the track is not disturbed
by vehicle use while it is being stabilised (see also
Guideline F.2).
B.2 Other tracks and roads
The condition of all tracks and roads should be
observed on a regular basis with any problems
reported to the Mountain Manager for appropriate
action (or referral to NPWS if it is responsible for the
road).
C. Advance warning of use
C.1 Blue Cow Road
Perisher Blue staff about to travel along the road
must advise other staff via the internal radio network.
Other persons about to use the road should advise
the Perisher Blue Mountain Office by telephone, or
provide advice via a staff member in the field. All
vehicles should travel at speeds appropriate to the
conditions and drivers should anticipate use of the
road by other vehicles.
C.2 Other tracks
All vehicles should travel at speeds appropriate to the
conditions and drivers should anticipate use of the
track by other vehicles. At times when a track is
carrying an abnormally high level of traffic (e.g. for a
construction project), radio warnings should be used
as in C.1.
D. Travel speeds
See also Risk Management Manual Motorised
Transport (Ref. 5).
D.1 Public roads
Maximum travel speeds must be in accordance with
legal limits or lower as conditions dictate.
D.2 Access tracks
Travel speeds must be limited to the point that:
the driver is in total control of the vehicle at all
times;
a safe stopping distance is maintained,
particularly in sections of restricted visibility:
the safety and comfort of pedestrians or cyclists
using the track is maintained; and
excessive wear on the track is avoided.
E. Control of unauthorised access
E.1 All access tracks
Where practicable, entry to the access track should
be controlled by a locked barrier or chain with a sign
indicating no public vehicular access. If it is not
practicable to maintain a barrier or chain because of
frequent use, a prominent sign should be displayed.
E.2 Unstable access tracks
In addition to the provisions of E.1, the sign should
indicate that the track is closed to mountain bike
access.
F. Track closure
F.1 Seasonal conditions
In situations where tracks are affected by extreme
wetness, unseasonal snowfalls or residual snowdrifts
at the end of the season, a more stringent application
of the guidelines may be required in the interests of
personal safety and avoiding track damage. The
tracks may be closed to all vehicles until conditions
are suitable to allow their use without significant risk
of damage.
F.2 Recently stabilised tracks
Tracks which have been stabilised following
disturbance (e.g. for construction works) should be
closed to all traffic for a sufficient period to allow the
stabilisation works to become effective.
2.2 Movement off Tracks
It is often necessary to obtain vehicle access to sites
which are not on existing tracks but can be reached
by driving over stable ground (e.g. for construction of
snow fences or for localised summer grooming). The
range of vehicles used in such situations is more
limited than on tracks, and greater care is required in
avoiding incidental damage and overuse.
MAY 2002 AppA2-3
The main issue in this situation is minimising damage
to the vegetation and soil in the area traversed. In
this respect, the important considerations are the
type of traction of the vehicle (tracked vs wheeled)
and the ground pressure (rather than the weight) of
the vehicle. For example, in a situation where it was
essential to obtain vehicle access across a bog or
similarly sensitive wet area, a tracked vehicle driven
in a straight line would have less impact than a
medium-weight four-wheel-drive vehicle, due to its
weight being spread over the area of its tracks
instead of on four tyres. Similarly, a large excavator
with wide tracks may have less impact than a small
excavator with its weight more concentrated over
narrow tracks. For example, 30-tonne Caterpillar
excavator Model 330BL fitted with 850mm wide
tracks ('shoes') has a ground pressure of 45.0 kPa,
while the corresponding 15-tonne Model 315 fitted
with 500mm-wide tracks has a ground pressure of
47.1 kPa (Ref. 14). Four-wheel-drive motorbikes,
with their light weight spread over relatively large
wheels, are ideal in sensitive situations, although
they are limited in the amount of weight that they can
carry. The ground pressure of one of these bikes
would be less than a person on foot, although the
person on foot has the advantage of being able to
step between points of solid ground and avoid softer
areas in between, if this is practicable.
Tracked vehicles, however, can cause more damage
when turning, due to the nature of their steering
which causes braking of one track and consequent
skidding of tracks moving at different speeds and with
different radii. Their overall performance must take
this into account.
The extent of impact from off-road movement is
influenced by the repetition of such movement. In the
most sensitive alpine environments (e.g. on top of the
Main Range), it has been reported that a single
vehicle passage can leave a track which lasts for
decades. At the lower elevations of the ski slopes,
the environment is less sensitive, but may still be
impacted significantly by repeated movements.
The question arises of whether it is better to disperse
movements or to concentrate them along a single
route which can later be rehabilitated. From a
precautionary basis, it is generally preferable to
utilise a single path as the need for subsequent
rehabilitation would then be confined to a narrow
corridor. While dispersed movement may appear to
have less impact where low levels of access are
involved, there is the risk that the ultimate amount of
vehicle movement will prove greater than anticipated,
and the impacts will be both more intense and more
widespread.
The direction of movement on a steep slope can also
be important. Carefully controlled downhill
movement is likely to cause less surface damage
than uphill movement so, if practicable, it may be
desirable to bring vehicles in from a track above the
site and take them out to another track below. This,
however, depends also on the nature of the
intervening terrain.
Seasonal groundwater conditions or weather on the
day will also influence the suitability of most areas for
off-track access, due to the soil being more readily
damaged when it is wet.
In all situations it is desirable to define movement
routes precisely in advance and to constrain or mark
these so that vehicles do not move into more
sensitive areas.
Based solely on vegetation type, the suitability of
different parts of the resort for off-track vehicle
movement is ranked as follows:
1. (most suitable). Exotic ground cover generally
well-drained and stable and easiest to rehabilitate
if damaged.
2. Herbfield, open dry heath supports limited
movement of wheeled or tracked vehicles without
obvious impact.
3. Wet grassland, transitional heath subject to
impact early in the summer when the ground is
wet, more robust later.
4. Wet heath (Ri chea dominated) may be
traversed with care by tracked but not wheeled
vehicles.
5. Bog, short alpine herbfield/snowpatch may be
traversed with extreme care by tracked vehicles
but not wheeled vehicles. (Note: Snowpatch
tend to occur on steep, rocky slopes, however,
which may not be negotiable by vehicle).
6. Dry heath, diverse heath, wet heath (Baeckea- or
Callistemon-dominated) likely to be damaged
by vehicle movement but would recover over
time.
7. Low heath likely to be damaged by vehicle
movement and very slow to regenerate or
rehabilitate due to exposed situation.
8. Fen, boulder heath generally impossible to
traverse and/or subject to major damage.
Depending on the density of trees and understorey,
snowgum woodland could fall into categories 2, 6 or
8.
This ranking generally does not take into account
constraints such as steepness of slope or rockiness
of the ground surface. The presence of specific
constraints (e.g. watercourses, presence of localised
AppA2-4 MAY 2002
patches of rare plants) may introduce further
considerations into how access is handled.
In situations where ground transport of heavy
materials is essential but cannot be achieved without
a high risk of damage to sensitive vegetation, it may
be practicable to transport such materials by
oversnow vehicle during winter, e.g. delivery of snow
fence or bridge timber, removal of felled trees.
Guidelines for such winter access are also discussed.
In some situations, it may be necessary to restrict
access to suitable weather/ground moisture
conditions, and to have a contingency plan for worker
access on foot if conditions are unsuitable for
vehicles.
Guidelines
A. Type of vehicles used
A.1 Exotic ground cover, moderate, well-
drained slope
Access may be by light- or medium-weight four-
wheel-drive vehicle, four-wheel-drive motorbike or
tracked vehicle. The amount of traffic should be kept
as low as practicable, with motorbikes preferred for
personal access. Unnecessary turning of tracked
vehicles should be avoided. If the number of
movements is low enough, the movement paths
should be varied to avoid concentrating impacts. If
these movements woul d cause si gni fi cant
disturbance over a wide area, however, it is
preferable to concentrate traffic along a single route
and to rehabilitate the route at the conclusion of the
works.
A.2 Exotic ground cover, steep or sensitive
slope
Access should be generally by motorbike or tracked
vehicle only, with light-weight four-wheel-drive vehicle
used only in exceptional circumstances. The amount
of traffic should be kept as low as practicable, with a
single, carefully controlled trip in each direction for
tracked vehicles, such as excavators used on site. If
the situation allows it, the direction of entry
movement should be downhill from an access track
above the site with exit movement continuing
downhill to a track below the site. It is preferable to
concentrate traffic along a single route and to
rehabilitate the route at the conclusion of the works.
A.3 Herbfield, dry grassland, open dry heath
Access should be by motorbike, tracked vehicle or,
subject to suitable gradient, light-weight four-wheel-
drive vehicle. The amount of traffic should be kept as
low as practicable, with motorbikes preferred for
personal access. Unnecessary turning of tracked
vehicles should be avoided. The total volume of
traffic should be limited to avoid creating a situation
requiring rehabilitation. If rehabilitation is required, it
should be undertaken using native species.
A.4 Wet grassland, transitional heath
The provisions of A.3 apply but with the additional
qualification that access should be limited to periods
when the ground is sufficiently dry to avoid being
disturbed by the volume of traffic anticipated.
A.5 All other vegetation types
Off-track movement should normally be avoided but,
if absolutely essential, a specific access plan shall be
prepared on a case-by-case basis, and shall be
observed. The plan should specify the types of
vehicles to be used, their routes and directions,
restrictions imposed by weather and ground
conditions, and monitoring and rehabilitation
requirements. The total equipment needs should be
planned with a view to minimising the number of
vehicle passes.
B. Marking of routes
B.1 Route to follow an obvious linear feature
If the access is to follow an obvious physical feature
(e.g. a ski lift, edge of a well defined tree stand) the
proposed route including its relative location to the
feature should be shown in any relevant
documentation for the project and should be advised
to all persons responsible for taking vehicles to the
site. No further marking of the route is required.
B.2 Route to follow a specified line without an
obvious linear feature
Where there is no obvious linear feature to follow, the
access route should be defined in the terrain by
marking with coloured tape, with different colours
used either side of the route. The colours used
should be distinctly different and should be obvious
within the local environment (i.e. avoid colours which
are similar to that of the vegetation). Tapes should
be attached to trees or prominent shrubs if available,
or otherwise to stakes or star pickets. All tapes,
stakes etc. should be removed at completion of the
works.
B.3 Route to be varied within a broad corridor.
If the extent of the corridor is not obvious from terrain
features (e.g. edges of a clearing), the limits of the
corridor should be marked with coloured tape as in
B.2.
C. Monitoring of impacts
C.1 All situations
At the conclusion of a project or maintenance task,
the condition of all areas used for off-track access
should be monitored for evidence of disturbance. If
any significant disturbance has occurred, this shall be
rehabilitated as soon as practicable in accordance
with Chapter 6 of these guidelines.
MAY 2002 AppA2-5
D. Oversnow transport of materials
D.1 All situations where off-track movement in
summer i s i mpracti cabl e or very
undesirable.
Materials may be transported into or out of a site by
oversnow vehicle when there is sufficient snow cover
to prevent damage to underlying vegetation. As far
as practicable, such transport should be along routes
which are used by grooming machines, or other open
corridors where oversnow vehicles can move without
damaging vegetation. Where material is brought into
a site, a suitable location for depositing it shall be
identified and marked in the terrain and/or in relation
to accurate landmarks on a map during the preceding
summer. This location should be close to the project
site and should not conflict with winter activities.
2.3 Helicopter Movement
The use of a helicopter can significantly reduce the
access impacts in some types of projects, particularly
in steep or rough terrain. A helicopter is useful also
for aerial inspections and photography.
Helicopter use, however, is limited by the following
factors:
There is a limit to the load that can be carried,
particularly at high altitudes. While a helicopter
may be suited to transporting lift tower
components, which are bulky but relatively light,
most helicopters are not capable of carrying
heavier components such as drive motors or
bullwheels.
Helicopter availability can be limited, particularly
for more powerful machines capable of lifting
heavier loads.
Helicopter use can be affected by weather, in
particular strong winds or low cloud which make
flying dangerous. This limits the times when
helicopters can operate, and when they can be
brought to the resort.
The main environmental disadvantage of helicopters
is that they are very inefficient for transporting
material compared with ground transport. For
example, a Bell Iriquois four-blade, twin-motor
helicopter (similar to the Southcare helicopter)
operating at 2000 metres elevation can lift 2 tonnes
and consumes about 450 litres of fuel per hour. A
30-tonne excavator consumes 30 to 35 litres per
hour, a D5 dozer 15 to 20 litres per hour and an HD
carrier 5 to 10 litres per hour. The relative energy
use is reflected also in operating costs.
For the above reasons, the use of helicopters in
resort development and maintenance should be
reserved for exceptional situations where ground
transportation of materials would result in excessive
environmental impacts, which could be avoided
through helicopter use.
Guidelines
A. Situations justifying helicopter use
A.1 General
A helicopter should be used for the transport of
materials to sites on the ski slopes when the following
conditions apply:
There is no requirement for a permanent access
track to the site, and the formation of a temporary
access track would result in otherwise
unnecessary disturbance over a long distance,
would affect sensitive or significant area and/or
would be difficult to rehabilitate to its existing
condition. Sites where helicopter access is likely
to be appropriate include but are not necessarily
limited to those which are within and surrounded
by:
steep slopes;
boulder fields and other localised features of
geomorphological significance;
snowpatch;
short alpine herbfield;
wet heath/bog;
dense, diverse heath (prime Mastacomys
habitat); and
mature snowgum woodland where a large
number of trees would need to be removed to
provide ground access.
The weight of loads to be carried can be
managed safely by the type of helicopter readily
available at the elevation of the resort, but is too
great to be taken to the site on foot or by any
small, low impact vehicle (e.g. four-wheel-drive
motorbike) for which access is environmentally
acceptable.
Use of a helicopter can facilitate the erection of
structures (e.g. lift towers) which would otherwise
require heavy ground equipment.
The site of the works is safe for helicopter use,
i.e. not constrained by other structures or natural
features.
A.2 Non-structural work
Helicopters may be used as required for aerial site
inspections, photography, monitoring and similar
activities which are not directly associated with
development or maintenance.
B. Base location
B.1 General
Helicopters used in the resort should operate from a
base which is accessible by road for the delivery or
AppA2-6 MAY 2002
removal of transported materials, which can be
cordoned off from public access, and where
operation of the helicopter would not cause a
significant noise problem to resort visitors. To
conserve the use of fuel energy, the base should be
as close as practicable to the work site, both in
horizontal distance and elevation.
C. Safety
C.1 Staff
Staff working with helicopters, for example, in slinging
loads to helicopters, must have relevant accreditation
as helicopter dogmen. Safe procedures for
approaching helicopters to attach or detach loads
must be agreed with the pilot prior to the work
session.
C.2 General public
To minimise risks to the public during helicopter
operations, the loading and unloading sites must be
cordoned off from public access. Warning signs
should be erected and the site must be manned by
security staff to control public access.
D. Planning efficiency
D.1 General
As helicopters need to travel some distance to the
resort, it is in the interests of energy conservation to
co-ordi nate devel opment, mai ntenance and
inspection activities with a view to minimise the
number of helicopter visits.
Further Information
Perisher Blue Pty. Limited. Risk Management
Manual, February 1999.
Motorised transport
MAY 2002 AppA3-1
3. HANDLING OF DANGEROUS MATERIALS
3.1 Fuel, Oil and Related Hydrocarbons
A wide range of fuel, oils and related liquid
hydrocarbons are used on the ski slopes for the
operation of vehicles, grooming and construction
machinery and ski lifts. These materials include
petrol, diesel fuel, motor vehicle lubricant, rock drill
oil, compressor oil, hydraulic oils and coolant (glycol).
These materials can adversely affect the properties
of soil, retard the growth of vegetation and, if they
find their way into waterways, can harm aquatic flora
and fauna. Spilt fuel and oil can also detract from the
aesthetics of the landscape.
Whi l e hydrocarbon fuel s are theoreti cal l y
biodegradable through bacterial action, this is a slow
process, particularly in alpine areas. Handling of
these fuels is therefore based on the principle of total
containment wherever practicable, both to prevent
long-term cumulative effects and major accidental
spillages.
Bulk storage and handling of these materials takes
place at mountain workshops, where it is desirable, if
practicable, to return vehicles and equipment for
refuelling and servicing. In some situations, however,
it is clearly preferable to refuel equipment in the field
rather than returning it to a mountain workshop, for
example, if it is desirable to minimise the number of
movements by an excavator across the terrain to
avoid disturbing soil or vegetation, or if there are
significant time and energy costs in returning to the
workshop. Fuel tanks for ski lifts also need to be
refuelled in the field. These include emergency back-
up tanks on electrically-powered lifts, as well as
major storage tanks on diesel-powered lifts, which
are progressively being phased out.
The environmental concerns with respect to fuel and
oil are potentially more critical in the field than at a
mountain workshop because of the more natural
state of the environment. Long-term cumulative
effects of very minor spillages are not an issue at
sites which are not used for repeated refuelling, but
are relevant at fuel tanks for diesel-powered lifts. It is
still important to avoid any spillage while refuelling
and particularly any accidental spillage of bulk
containers during transport and handling.
Guidelines
Responsible management of oil extends also to the
disposal of waste oil. Considerations in the disposal
of waste oil are firstly to prevent any environmental
contami nati on and secondl y to reuse the
hydrocarbon resource in a responsible manner.
A. Design of fuel handling areas
A.1 Mountain workshops
Storage and refuelling is permitted only at designated
mountain workshops which are specifically designed
with adequate traps and clean up facilities in
accordance with WorkCover and EPA requirements
which reflect Australian Standard AS 1940-1993 (Ref.
15). These include concrete bunding or equipment
oil trap provisions with a capacity for trapping 110
percent of the maximum volume of fuel or oil stored.
A.2 Ski lifts
Fuel storage tanks associated with ski lifts should be
located above ground so that any spillages or
leakages can be detected readily and treated. Each
tank should be protected against leakage or spillage
with a bund capable of holding 110 percent of the
capacity of the tank. In principle, diesel operation for
lifts should be confined to the backup or emergency
power supply. Some existing lifts which have been
designed for diesel operation should be converted to
electrical power as soon as practicable (see Chapter
9).
A.3 Field construction sites
In general, fuel should not be stored in the field but
should be brought in on a daily basis or as required.
If it is essential to maintain a field store for
operational reasons, this should be located in an
impermeable bunded area with a capacity of 110
percent of the volume stored, in accordance with
WorkCover and EPA requirements (Ref. 15).
B. Storage, transport and refuelling
procedures
B.1 Mountain workshops
Fuel and oil should be stored and handled within
those areas designated for this purpose. Safety
procedures should be followed in accordance with
the Perisher Blue Risk Management Manual (Ref. 6).
B.2 Ski lift storage tanks full lift operation,
road access available
The main storage tank (year tank) should be filled in
summer by pumping from a multiaxle truck with a
long hose. It should be refilled during winter as
required using a specialist oversnow trailer, equipped
with tracks, breakaway brakes, fire extinguishers,
spill kits, emergency phones and identification of
hazardous material carried. Filling of the tank must
be undertaken with a hose with an automatic cutout,
and must not be left unattended.
Fuel should be pumped from the year tank to the day
tank twice per day using a closed-system hand
pump, with provision for diverting any overflow back
to the year tank. The operator must be vigilant to
avoid overfilling and the risk of minor spillages.
AppA3-2 MAY 2002
Tanks should be maintained sufficiently full
throughout the year to avoid problems of water
condensation which can cause freezing in the fuel
line in winter, stopping the lift motor. On the other
hand, it is important not to overfill tanks as expansion
of fuel in summer could result in spillages.
B.3 Ski lift storage tanks full lift operation, no
road access
This situation applies to the Lawson and Leichhardt
T-bars. As there is no road access to the drive
stations of these lifts, the year tanks must be filled in
winter by specialist oversnow trailer as described in
B.2. Other provisions apply as in B.2.
B.4 Ski lift storage tanks Olympic T-bar
Because of the difficult access to the Olympic T-bar,
even in winter, fuel should be taken in on a daily
basis in 20 litre drums, if practicable in a skidoo
basket or by snowgrooming machine early in the
morning before skiers are on the slope. Pumping
should be done carefully to avoid overfilling.
B.5 Ski lift storage tanks backup or
emergency operation
The tank should be filled in summer by pumping from
a truck. This would normally provide sufficient fuel to
handle electricity failures and other emergencies
during winter. Should winter refuelling be required,
this should be undertaken from either the specialist
oversnow trailer (see B.2) or by pumping from a drum
secured on a grooming machine. Pumping must be
done carefully to avoid overfilling.
B.6 Mobile equipment
If it is not practicable to return mobile equipment to a
workshop for refuelling, it should be refuelled from a
truck fitted with a small tank (e.g. 600 litres) and a
hand pump. Pumping must be done carefully to
avoid overfilling.
C. Handling of spillages
C.1 Mountain workshops
Any spillages in the workshop area would be
contained within the oil trap system designed into the
workshop. Each workshop must be equipped with
clean-up equipment and instructions for handling
internal spillages. These instructions are beyond the
scope of this manual.
C.2 In the field
All vehicles involved with handling of fuel in the field
should carry a clean-up kit with instructions to deal
with minor spillages (up to 20 litres).
Major spillages should be handled by calling the
Clean-up Response Team based at the main
workshop or, if necessary, the Fire Brigade, which
has Hazchem kits. The details of handling fuel
spillages in the field are beyond the scope of this
manual, but are described in the Oiltrac manuals
used by Perisher Blue (Refs. 16, 17).
D. Disposal of waste oil
D.1 Recycling or reuse general
All waste oil should be collected for recycling or for
reuse as fuel oil. Reuse may occur within the resort
(e.g. for heating at Guthega Workshop) subject to
appropriate environmental standards for handling the
fuel, or through sales to outside contractors.
D.2 Workshops with permanent waste oil
storage facilities
The waste oil storage should be contained within the
oil trap system for the workshop and should
preferably be above ground in order to monitor
possible leakages. The storage tank should be
emptied periodically by a waste oil contractor, or the
oil reused within the resort.
D.3 Workshops without permanent waste oil
storage facilities
Waste oil should be collected in drums within the oil
trap system and transported periodically to either a
permanent storage at another workshop or directly to
a commercial recycling facility.
3.2 Herbicides and other Hazardous Chemicals
There are two main considerations in the handling of
herbicides and other hazardous chemicals. One is to
protect the environment from unintended impacts; the
other is to protect the people handling these
materials. The latter is discussed in the Perisher
Blue Risk Management Manual and is referred to
only briefly in this manual.
The range of hazardous chemicals used on the ski
slopes is quite diverse and includes herbicides,
paints, solvents and degreasers. These chemicals
can have a wide range of adverse environmental
effects including damage to flora and fauna,
alteration to soil properties and contamination of
surface or ground water, as well as presenting health
hazards to workers and other people.
They must be stored and transported in a way which
prevents any escape into the environment, with
potential risks to environmental processes or human
health and safety. Their use must be carefully
controlled to ensure that they are used only for their
intended purpose, and in accordance with the correct
procedures.
Chemicals which are not consumed (e.g. waste
solvents, old paint) must be disposed of in a
responsible manner. Considerations in the disposal
of waste chemicals are prevention of any
environmental contamination, recycling where
feasible and avoidance of hazards through
interactions between chemicals.
MAY 2002 AppA3-3
Guidelines
A. Storage
A.1 Central storage
All hazardous chemicals must be stored in a
designated safe and secure area, access to which is
restricted to authorised personnel. For most
hazardous non-flammable materials, this area is a
locked cage located at Front Valley. Flammable
materials must be stored in a Hazmat cabinet to
protect them against flames or sparks.
All chemicals must be stored in suitable containers
which are correctly labelled. It is strictly prohibited to
use containers which originally contained food or
beverage for any other purpose.
Material safety data sheets (MSDS) must be
available for all stored chemicals.
A.2 Storage on site
Chemicals should be stored on site during
development and maintenance works only in
sufficient quantities for daily needs. They should be
protected against exposure to sun, wind, rain and
surface runoff, and kept in a situation which
minimises the risk of accidental spillage by human
activity, vehicle movement or animals. If the site is
left unattended, they should either be secured in a
locked facility (e.g. lift operator's hut) or returned to
the central storage.
B. Transport
B.1 General
The transportation of hazardous chemicals either on
foot or by vehicle should be done in a manner that
minimises the risk of spillage or leakage. Materials
should be transported on a daily basis involving the
minimum amount required for each day. They should
be transported in small, suitably designed containers.
When transported by vehicle, the containers must be
secured to minimise the risk of spillage during
transport, and the vehicle should carry a kit for
handling accidental spillages in the vehicle.
C. Handling and use
C.1 General
Hazardous chemicals must be handled only by
authorised personnel who are familiar with the advice
in the MSDS and the manufacturer's instructions.
The appropriate personal protective clothing and
equipment (e.g. gloves, masks, eye protectors) must
be worn. Chemicals must not be mixed unless
strictly in accordance with the manufacturers'
instructions. After use, the container must be sealed
securely.
C.2 Herbicides
The only herbicides which may be used at the
Perisher Blue Ski Resort are those nominated by the
NPWS. These include the following, in accordance
with the use procedures indicated:
Glyphosphate (Roundup). For snowgum regrowth
control, applied by painting onto regrowth stumps.
Banvi l . For control of broad-leafed weeds,
particularly milfoil. Applied by spraying after
flowering has started (to facilitate identification of
plants) but before the plants have set seed. This is
usually in January or February but depends on
seasonal conditions.
C.3 Paints and solvents
Paints and solvents must be handled in accordance
with the relevant MSDS. Flammable materials must
be stored in a Hazmat cabinet when not in use.
D. Disposal
Waste materials must be disposed of in accordance
with manufacturers' instructions or specific guidelines
as advised by the NPWS, EPA or other responsible
authority. They must not be disposed of via the
resort's sewerage or stormwater system, or
poured onto the ground.
Waste materials awaiting disposal must be stored in
the same way as is required for fresh material (e.g.
waste flammable solvents must be stored in a
Hazmat cabinet), and must be clearly marked to
distinguish them as wastes.
Where practicable, recycling of waste materials
should be encouraged.
Further Information
Perisher Blue Pty Limited. Risk Management Manual,
February 1999
Dangerous goods
Labelling of containers
Manual handling
Oiltrac. Inland oil spills response (combat) reference
manual. 2nd edition.
Oiltrac. Inland oil spills response team field manual.
AS 1940-1993. Australian Standard. The storage
and handling of combustible liquids.
N.S.W. Dangerous Goods Act 1975.
N.S.W. Dangerous Goods Regulation 1978 (soon to be
repealed and replaced with Dangerous Goods
(General) Regulation 1999).
N.S.W. Road and Rail Transport (Dangerous Goods)
Act 1997.
Various material safety data sheets.
Various manufacturers' instructions.
MAY 2002 AppA4-1
4. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
4.1 Planning and Design of Erosion and
Sediment Control Works
The topic of erosion and sediment control is
extensively documented in other best practice
manuals (Refs. 5, 9-12), most of which have been
prepared for application in urban areas or for other
types of broadscale disturbance. While some of the
details in these manuals are not appropriate to the
Perisher Blue Ski Resort, the same principles can be
applied.
A major difference between the urban situation and
the ski resort is that urban development involves
almost total modification of the landscape, while in
the ski resort the current aim is to limit disturbance to
the minimum area necessary to achieve the
objectives of the proposal. This approach limits the
application of some of the broadscale sediment
control techniques that produce the best results in an
extended urban development area. In interpreting
the detailed advice in urban sediment controls, the
techniques described should be critically evaluated
and modified where necessary to eliminate features
which may increase the impacts of sediment control
works without providing significant benefits in the ski
resort situation.
Erosion and sediment control measures should be
based on the recognition that soil takes a long time to
develop and is most valuable as an environmental
asset if it is retained in its natural location. Once it
leaves that location, it can become an environmental
liability, particularly if it is deposited on other land or
in waterways.
The first priority should be erosion control, i.e.
preventing the soil from leaving its natural position. If
this is done effectively, the need for sedi ment
control, i.e. trapping the sediment once it has been
mobilised, can be reduced or eliminated.
Soil erosion is a natural process but can be
dramatically accelerated when the land is disturbed.
Accelerated erosion can be controlled by:
limiting the area of disturbed soil surface;
protecting the site against erosive agents (e.g.
water, wind);
leaving the soil surface exposed for the minimum
practicable time;
avoiding exposure of soil during periods of high
erosion risk; and
rehabilitating disturbed areas as effectively and
as quickly as possible.
Even with the strongest commitment and the best
techniques, however, it cannot be guaranteed that
these measures will be fully effective. As a further
safeguard, it is usually necessary to employ sediment
control measures in order to trap eroded sediment
before it causes adverse effects elsewhere in the
environment. Sediment control should be viewed as
complementing but not substituting for erosion
control.
Sediment control may also be required for trapping
sediment washed off other unconsolidated sources
such as temporary stockpiles.
The mechanisms for trapping eroded sediment
downstream of the site are based on two principles:
1. Direct filtration of runoff, for example, by natural
vegetation, haybale barriers or geotextile filters.
2. Reduction of flow energy which promotes settling
of suspended particles, by gradient reduction or
sediment ponds.
These two processes commonly occur together in
that filter mechanisms also tend to slow the flow
velocity and dissipate flow energy.
In all situations where control of runoff is warranted,
the project should be planned comprehensively to
incorporate both erosion control and sediment control
in an integrated manner.
Guidelines
A. Overall design of erosion and sediment
control works
A.1 Large development sites
The following principles apply to situations where the
area of disturbance is relatively large compared with
the area required to implement erosion and sediment
controls, e.g. reshaping of large areas of ski slope or
major buildings. The area affected is large enough to
justify the combination of management measures
illustrated in Figure 4.1.
These works require a specific erosion and sediment
control plan to be prepared as part of the REF or
design documentation. This should include:
provision for diverting runoff away from the site
(diversion drain) and dispersing it in a way that
does not cause an erosion problem (e.g. through
a level spreader);
provision for collecting all site runoff at one point
(or preferably more) for treatment;
AppA4-2 MAY 2002
Figure 4.1 Erosion and sediment controls for large sites
Source: SPCC (Ref. 10).
a system for reducing the sediment load in runoff
through filtration or reduction of flow velocity
(may be a sediment pond, or a haybale or
geotextile barrier);
if necessary, similar provisions for the collection
and treatment of runoff from the access roads or
track;
provisions for discharging treated water from the
site to avoid concentrating flows in potentially
unstable areas; and
consideration of use of surface vegetation as a
natural secondary filter between the site and the
nearest watercourse.
Any structural works should be incorporated into the
overall site design in a way which attempts to
minimise any additional area of disturbance resulting
from these works.
If existing sediment control works can be utilised for
the project without significantly conflicting with their
original purpose, these works should be used, if only
as a secondary measure. If, however, the project
would overload these works, an independent
sediment control process should be developed.
A.2 Medium to small development sites
For medium to small development sites (e.g. small
area of fill on a ski slope, small building) which can
be completed relatively quickly, controls such as a
diversion drain or major silt trap may have an
environmental impact comparable with the project
itself. In this situation, sediment control should be
limited to minor diversion works, if inflow is
significant, and/or temporary trapping techniques
such as haybale or geotextile barriers, and greater
emphasis placed on non-structural approaches such
as rapid execution of the project and immediate
rehabilitation of the affected area.
A.3 Isolated works
This includes removal of single boulders or tree
stumps, small stockpiles and other activities where
disturbance is limited to only a few square metres. In
the first instance the extent and duration should be
assessed in the context of the surrounding
environment to determine whether any sediment
control works at all are warranted. Even the
installation of a haybale barrier by digging it into the
ground surface may cause as much disturbance to
the surface vegetation as the activity itself.
In many situations, natural filtration by groundcover
may provide sufficient protection for sensitive areas
downhill of the site. If some form of active sediment
MAY 2002 AppA4-3
control is considered warranted, this should be
designed to cause minimum incidental impacts (see
Section 4.3).
4.2 Erosion Control
Erosion control involves minimising the loss of soil
from the site. This can be achieved through a range
of physical and operational measures including:
exposing only small areas to disturbance at any
one time;
having the soil exposed for as short as period as
possible;
rehabilitating disturbed areas quickly and
effectively, including retaining and using topsoil
for this purpose;
preventing water erosion by diverting overland
flow around the site; and
designing site drainage to manage stormwater
flow within the site at a non-erosive velocity.
Effective erosion control is primarily a function of
good site planning and design and efficient operation
in implementing a project. The details of designing
erosion control works are beyond the scope of this
manual, but useful information can be obtained from
other publications (e.g. Refs 9-12). The types of
works most relevant to the Perisher Blue Ski Resort
include diversion drains to direct water away from
disturbed sites and cross-drains for managing runoff
within the site. The need for these depends on the
area and gradient of the disturbed site, rather than its
natural vegetation characteristics, which are likely to
have been modified in the course of development.
The following guidelines therefore discuss these
works in general terms only, rather than on a site-
specific basis.
Guidelines
A. Diversion drains
A.1 General
A diversion drain is useful as an erosion control
device if (and only if) there is a significant inflow of
surface water onto the site. Diversion drains are
designed to protect slopes by intercepting surface
drainage and diverting it to a stable outlet at a non-
erosive velocity. The normal design is a channel
constructed across the slope at a shallow gradient
with a small bank on the lower side.
The diversion drain should itself be stabilised against
scour and channel erosion. In the ski slope situation,
the most practicable method is likely to be with jute
mesh, at least if the drain is temporary. For a
permanent drain, stabilisation with grass (probably
Chewings fescue) or stone pitching would be
appropriate.
For small temporary diversion works, a haybale bank
may be constructed as discussed below (see Ref. 12
for further details).
A diversion drain may discharge to an existing
watercourse or by sheet flow across the slope at a
site away from the works area. Discharge into a
watercourse should occur only if the watercourse is
considered to be adequate in capacity and stability to
accept the additional concentrated flow without
adverse impact.
Otherwise discharge should be via a level spreader,
which is an excavated outlet constructed at zero
grade to convert the concentrated channel flow into
sheet flow for discharge at a non-erosive velocity
onto an undisturbed area stabilised by vegetation.
B. Cross-drains
B.1 General
The purpose of cross-drains is to collect runoff
flowing down a steep, disturbed slope, and direct it
across the slope at a much reduced velocity which is
non-erosive and allows the deposition of sediment
that is already being transported.
Cross-drains should be constructed immediately after
vegetation clearing and completion of surface
disturbance. The general design criteria for cross-
drains are as follows:
The gradient should be in the range 3 to 5%
depending on the characteristics of the site.
The spacing of drains should relate to slope
gradient as follows:
5 - 10% 15 - 20 m
10 - 15% 10 - 15 m
15 - 25% 8 - 10 m
Steeper than 25% 5 - 8 m
The drains should extend beyond the disturbed
area and should discharge into a stable
vegetation surface.
4.3 Sediment Control
Sediment control should be viewed as the second
line of defence and is intended to trap material which
has been eroded from the site despite the erosion
control measures. It is also relevant to soil stockpiles
and other temporary unconsolidated sources.
The following techniques are relevant to the control of
sediment in runoff:
Natural filtration
Haybale barriers
Geotextile fence
Gradient reduction
Sediment ponds.
AppA4-4 MAY 2002
Natural filtration can be effective in areas of dense
and continuous groundcover, such as Poa grassland,
dense introduced grasses or roperush (Empodisma
minus). It is unlikely to be effective in areas of dense
dry heath where shading or competition by the heath
largely precludes the development of ground cover.
The groundcover slows the flow velocity and may
also physically trap coarse sediment.
A risk in relying on this form of sediment trapping is
that heavy sediment loads may bury the
groundcover, and reduce its effectiveness. While the
plants are likely to grow back through the sediment in
due course, this level of sedimentation would
generally be considered excessive in terms of its
impacts. The accumulated sediment may also
become an attractive substrate for the growth of
weeds. Natural filtration, where it is practicable, is
therefore appropriate only to relatively small levels of
disturbance.
Haybale barriers work by creating a low permeable
structure which traps water behind it and promotes
settling of sediment. While some water can seep
through the haybales, becoming filtered in the
process, during moderate to high flows water will
back up behind the haybales until it reaches a level at
which it can flow over or around them. For haybale
barriers to work properly, the following points need to
be considered:
The barrier must not leak significantly. In the
Perisher Blue situation, it has been found that an
adequate seal can be achieved by packing
haybales tightly over an even, grassed surface.
If the ground surface is uneven, however, it may
be necessary to sink the bales into the ground,
packing them tightly against each other and
stabilising them with stakes or star pickets.
If it is necessary to sink haybales into the ground
to achieve an effective barrier, surface vegetation
and topsoil will be disturbed, possibly also with
damage to the roots of adjacent shrubs. These
are potential adverse impacts of this technique.
The point where water overtops or flows around
the barrier should act as a stable spillway,
otherwise the concentrated flow may actually
increase erosion. A poorly placed haybale in an
earth drain could lead to undermining of the
sidewall of the drain or erosion of the drain.
A haybale barrier will be effective only to the
elevation of its lowest point. A barrier which
varies significantly in elevation is a waste of
haybales and can unnecessarily increase the
extent of disturbance.
Hay is biodegradable, which can be an
advantage in situations where they are required
for a limited period only. In particular, the hay
can be used for mulching when the site is being
stabilised and grassed, thus reducing the need to
bring further hay in at that stage. The twine
which binds the bales, however, does not
degrade as quickly and is a potential source of
litter on the slopes requiring it to be removed. If
stakes or star pickets are used to secure
haybales these may become a hazard in due
course and need to be removed when the
haybales have fulfilled their purpose.
Geotextile fences act primarily as filters and may be
simpler than haybale barriers to install along the edge
of a large disturbed area. They can be used also in
conj uncti on wi th haybal es to i mprove the
effectiveness of the latter. To prevent them from
leaking, they need to be dug into the ground,
although this can be done with less disturbance than
with haybales. Damage may still be caused to the
roots of plants, however. Because water can flow
through the fabric, they do not need to incorporate a
stable spillway arrangement. There is a limit,
however, to the slope length (or area) that can be
satisfactorily controlled by each fence. A series of
fences is required to cover more extensive slopes.
A reduction in gradient will reduce the flow velocity
and allow coarse sediment to settle out. This is a
consideration, for example, in determining the
gradient of cross-drains, but is limited in terms of
sediment control in its own right.
To be effective, the geotextile needs to be reinforced,
e.g. with cord. Geotextile fences do not have the
same physical strength as haybales in holding silt,
and can be overtopped easily. It is necessary to
remove the fabric and star pickets at the end of the
job when the site is stabilised.
A sediment trap which combines the stability of the
haybales with the filtration properties of the geotextile
can be constructed by covering a haybale barrier with
a geotextile curtain. All types of filter fence require
regular inspection and maintenance to remove
accumulated silt, otherwise they will overtop and
become ineffective.
A more effective form of gradient reduction is
achieved through incorporating sediment ponds,
which can be designed in a variety of ways, ranging
from haybale/geotextile construction to concrete
dams. These would normally be required only for
major projects or for long-term sediment control, and
may have extensive impacts in their own right. They
should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
There are some circumstances, however, where an
existing sediment trap may be an effective form of
control without the need for additional on-site
measures. It is important, however, that these traps
are regularly maintained in terms of removal of
sediment and, if relevant, replacement of haybales
and/or geotextile when they start to deteriorate.
MAY 2002 AppA4-5
As a general principle, sediment controls should be
placed as close as possible to the disturbed area.
However, there will frequently be situations where
this may not be the optimum approach, for example,
due to the need to minimise impacts on native
vegetation or steep terrain, or because of other
difficulties in finding a suitable site. The following
guidelines therefore should be interpreted liberally in
relation to terrain constraints.
Guidelines
A. General installation
A.1 Haybale barriers
Haybale barriers are an effective temporary measure
for trapping sediment, provided that they are installed
correctly. The method of installing them will depend
on the nature of the ground surface. If the ground
surface and vegetation cover is fairly even, the
vegetation should be tamped down and the haybales
placed firmly and tightly on the ground surface. If the
ground surface is irregular, they should be set in a
shallow (100 mm) trench. If there is concern about
the stability of the barrier (e.g. in a watercourse or on
a steep slope), the haybales should be secured by
stakes. It is preferred to locate haybale barriers on
flatter slopes for stability and to reduce the impacts of
installing them.
If placed in a drain or watercourse, the haybales
should be offset if necessary to ensure that the whole
channel is blocked and flow is not concentrated
around one end of the barrier.
Along the length of a channel, multiple haybale
barriers should be provided. The spacing of barriers
should be determined according to the gradient, the
location on the slope and the anticipated inflow
volume.
A.2 Geotextile fences
A geotextile fence performs a similar function to a
haybale barrier, but can be installed with less
disturbance. It is necessary to bury the lower-edge of
the fabric to prevent undercutting, preferably to a
depth of about 200 mm . This can be done by
forming a slit uphill of the fence. The geotextile
should be reinforced, for example, by wire mesh
attached to stakes on the downstream side, or by
strong cord threaded through the top of the fabric.
Along the length of a channel, multiple fences should
be provided. The spacing should be determined by
the manufacturer's specifications and the site
characteristics.
A.3 Silt traps
Silt traps can be constructed from a wide range of
materials and can be designed to various levels of
sophistication. On the ski slopes, silt traps, if
required at all, are likely to have a short life and be
constructed of simple materials, such as haybales
and geotextile. In the ski slope situation, silt traps
which rely on ponding of water to trap sediment can
be a significant hazard to skiers, particularly during
marginal snow conditions. If used for construction
works during summer, they should be dismantled or
fenced off during winter.
In the village areas, where there is ongoing
movement of sediment from unsealed roads and
parking areas, it is necessary to maintain silt traps on
an ongoing basis. A more permanent type of pond
may be justified in this situation.
A basic silt trap can be formed from haybales and
geotextile. The principles discussed above in
Guidelines A.1 and A.2 apply together in this
situation.
More permanent and more sophisticated silt traps
may be provided in exceptional situations. These
would be subject to individual evaluation and design.
A.4 Filtration by natural vegetation
Several of the vegetation communities at Perisher
Blue have a dense groundcover which is likely to be
very effective at filtering limited amounts of sediment
without adverse effect. These include herbfield, dry
and wet grassland, bog and dense diverse heath and
open heath, both of which have a grassy
groundcover. These may form effective buffer strips
in situations of minor sediment loss, particularly
where there is effective erosion control, or to
complement other sediment control measures further
upslope.
The effectiveness of vegetation in trapping silt
depends on the gradient of the slope. The steeper
the slope, the wider should be the buffer strip as
indicated in Table 4.1. These figures should be
treated as indicative only and should be interpreted
also in relation to the density of the groundcover
vegetation.
Table 4.1 Width of vegetative buffer strip in relation
to slope
Slope (%) Width of buffer strip (m)
2 15
4 20
6 30
8 40
10 50
12 60
14 70
Source: Environment ACT (Ref. 12)
AppA4-6 MAY 2002
A.5 Chemical dosing
The effectiveness of silt traps can be enhanced by
chemical dosing of the water, e.g. using alum. This
process is relevant only where large volumes of
contaminated runoff are being handled and is unlikely
to be applicable in the ski slope situation.
B. Type and location of sediment control
measures
B.1 Previously disturbed area
A haybale and/or geotextile barrier should be
constructed as close as practicable to the works, and
should be maintained until the area is satisfactorily
rehabilitated. If necessary, the area of the barrier
should itself be rehabilitated after the barrier is
removed.
B.2 Undisturbed grassland or other dense
ground cover with an even surface
If the area of disturbance is small, the natural
vegetation can be used to trap sediment. For larger
areas, a haybale barrier should be installed by
tamping down the vegetation surface (e.g. with an
excavator bucket) and placing the haybales tightly
and evenly on the ground, without digging them into
the surface. If not utilised for rehabilitation works, the
haybales should be removed following rehabilitation
of the site.
B.3 Undisturbed grassland, open heath or other
dense ground cover with an irregular
surface
If the area of disturbance is small, the natural
vegetation can be used to trap sediment. For larger
areas, a geotextile fence should be installed,
securing the fence beneath the ground surface. The
fence should be removed carefully following
rehabilitation of the site.
B.4 Undisturbed dense heath with dense grass
cover (prime Mastacomys habitat)
Such areas should be left undisturbed if possible.
Where disturbance is unavoidable, this is likely to be
limited in extent and the natural grass cover should
be used for sediment control to avoid damage to the
heath.
B.5 Undisturbed dense heath with little ground
cover
If the area of disturbance is extensive and the period
of disturbance is prolonged, it may be necessary to
extend the disturbance slightly by placing a haybale
or geotextile barrier within the heath, which is likely to
be damaged in the process. If the disturbance is of
limited extent or short duration, it may be preferable
not to implement sediment controls at the site. This
situation should be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis, taking account of the characteristics of the
terrain downslope of the heath.
B.6 Within the immediate catchment of an
existing sediment trap
Particularly if the area to be disturbed is relatively
small compared with the total disturbed area
commanded by the existing sediment trap, it may be
appropriate to rely on this as the primary means of
sediment control. Other site characteristics,
however, should also be taken into account.
C. Monitoring and maintenance of sediment
control works
C.1 Temporary sediment traps
Temporary sediment traps (e.g. haybale barriers,
geotextile fences) should be inspected periodically
during the period of erosion risk to ensure that they
are functioning effectively. If necessary, accumulated
silt should be removed and repairs and replacement
carried out. Once the site is stable and the traps are
no longer required, the materials used to construct
the traps should be removed with the possible
exception of hay remnants which may remain as a
mulch if the area disturbed by a haybale barrier is
being left to regenerate naturally.
C.2 Permanent sediment traps
Permanent sediment traps should be inspected
periodically and accumulated silt should be removed.
In particular, they should be checked at the start and
finish of any projects in which they are used as the
primary means of sediment control. If these traps
have a truly permanent function, they should be
designed to avoid long-term deterioration. In
practice, however, many of these 'permanent' traps
are constructed of materials which have a limited life
and require periodic replacement.
Further Information
Hunt, J.S. (ed.). Urban erosion and sediment control.
Revised edition 1992. Department of Conservation
and Land Management.
National Capital Development Commission. Design
manual for urban erosion and sediment control.
Prepared by Scott and Furphy Pty Ltd, July 1988.
Environment ACT. Erosion sediment control during
land development. 1988.
State Pollution Control Commission. Pollution control
manual for urban stormwater. 1989.
National Parks and Wildlife Service and Kosciusko
Thredbo Pty Ltd. Manual of rehabilitation and
revegetation of alpine and subalpine areas. 1986.
Parr-Smith, G. and Polley, V. Alpine rehabilitation
manual for alpine and sub-alpine environments in the
Australian Alps. (Working draft). Prepared for
Australian Alps Liaison Committee, December 1998.
Lynch, L. and Clarke, A. (eds). Preparing soil and
water management plans for urban, industrial and
resort developments. Lake Illawarra Total Catchment
Management Committee, 1990.
MAY 2002 AppA5-1
5. CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES GENERAL
5.1 Rock Removal
The need to remove rocks on the ski slope commonly
arises in two situations. One is where protruding
surface rocks present an obstacle or hazard to skiers
and slope grooming machinery. The other is where
subsurface rock is encountered during excavation
and it is necessary to employ special techniques to
remove the rock so that the excavation can proceed
by conventional means.
Virtually all the rock at the Perisher Blue Ski Resort is
granodiorite, an acid volcanic rock which is irregular
in distribution, commonly forming large boulders or
outcrops, and is too hard to be ripped by mechanical
means. Except for small boulders which can be
removed intact by excavator, it is necessary to break
the rock into smaller fragments for removal.
There are two techniques which are available for
breaking up rocks. The most common is by blasting
with explosives. This first requires drilling of the rock
to provide holes in which to pack the explosive, as
well as to create a plane of weakness by creating a
series of parallel holes along the line where it is
intended that the rock should shatter.
Drilling is normally done with an air-driven rock drill
which can either be mounted on tracked vehicle or,
for less accessible sites, held in the hands and
transported by truck. In both cases, the drill is
powered by a compressor which is either towed
behind the tracked vehicle or transported separately.
The track-mounted drill is capable of drilling larger
diameter holes and operates faster than the hand
drill. It is capable of negotiating rough terrain and,
with a long hose, can operate some distance from the
compressor. By using an extendable boom it can drill
up to 1.8 metres from the tracks, enabling drilling to
be undertaken in sensitive areas without the tracks
impacting on those areas.
In situations where compressor access is not
practicable and the amount of drilling is limited, a
smaller portable petrol-driven drill ('Cobra') can be
brought on site by motorbike.
The blasting process itself is complex and the details
are beyond the scope of this manual. It must be
undertaken by a certificated blaster (WorkCover
Authority NSW) in accordance with WorkCover
procedures (Ref. 18). The blast is designed
according to the size and characteristics of the rock,
the size of fragments and environmental constraints.
By using techniques such as pre-splitting with low
power blasts, time delays between components of a
blast and drill hole angulation to control heave and
the direction of rock fragments, a high degree of
control can be exercised over the impact of a blast,
which is important in sensitive situations. There are
Australian Standard procedures relating to the
technical and safety aspects of blasting (Refs. 19-
21).
The blasting of rocks has a number of potential
environmental impacts including:
noise disturbance to people and animals;
vibration which can damage building foundations;
overpressure which can damage buildings;
potentially harmful overpressure effects on
wildlife;
hazards to people, which are managed by
restricting access to the area surrounding the
blast; and
risk of flyrock damaging buildings, other structures
and vegetation.
Those impacts which are potentially damaging to
people and property are addressed through the
appropriate design of the blasting operation in
accordance with the relevant guidelines and
standards (Refs. 18-21). These standards, however,
do not specifically address potential impacts on
native flora and fauna.
An alternative method of shattering rocks is through
the use of a device known as a Boulder Buster
TM
.
This is a non-detonating device utilising propellant
technology. A pressure impulse is generated in the
tool by a cartridge filled with propellant. The pressure
impulse is directed via a barrel into an incompressible
fluid column (water or gel) placed in a pre-drilled hole
in the rock. The rapidly developing pressure wave
transmitted by the fluid column starts the propagation
of the fractures in the direction of stress
concentrations and the nearest free face. The static
pressure developed by the propellant causes further
mechanical stress on the rock, resulting in the tensile
fracturing of the rock. The direction of breaking can
be controlled by the drilling pattern or by presplitting
(alternative loading of holes).
By operating through an incompressible fluid, the
technique avoids the explosive force associated with
blasting and can be operated from a safe distance of
7 metres. It is thus ideal in sensitive locations near
buildings, other structures or significant habitat, does
not require evacuation of the immediate area, does
not cause significant noise or vibration and does not
require a certificated blaster.
It is not as powerful as conventional blasting and is
more expensive. It is suitable only for solid rock
which does not allow leakage of the fluid, and does
AppA5-2 MAY 2002
not work in constrained situations, such as trenches,
where there is no room for the fragments to move.
These considerations limit the situations where it is
appropriate to use it. It is not essential as an
alternative to conventional blasting in sensitive
situations, as such situations can be managed
adequately through an appropriately designed
blasting operation managed by a certificated blaster.
The more sensitive the situation, the greater will be
the skill, time and cost requirements to design and
implement a successful blasting operation.
Guidelines
A. General guidelines relating to blasting
The following guidelines, based on Australian
Standards, apply to situations where conventional
blasting is the only practicable method or is
considered the most appropriate method.
A.1 All situations
Blasting with explosives must be undertaken only by
a certificated blaster working in accordance with the
WorkCover Authority guide (Ref. 18) and relevant
Australian Standards (Refs. 19-21). As a precaution
against the risk of starting a fire as a result of a blast,
a knapsack spray filled with water and wet hessian
bags must be kept on hand throughout the blasting
operation.
A.2 Close to buildings, lifts etc. where blasting
is essential (e.g. massive rock)
A record, including photographs if relevant, should be
made of the structural condition of buildings prior to
blasting, in particular recording any existing cracks or
other apparent deficiencies. The angulation and
powder factors should be designed to minimise the
risk of damage. Blasting mats must be used to
protect buildings and structures from flyrock. A
further inspection should be undertaken following the
blast to identify whether any damage has occurred
which may be attributed to the blast.
B. Rock removal in sensitive locations
B.1 Close to buildings
If rock removal involves only exposed boulders which
can be removed satisfactorily with the Boulder
Buster
TM
, this technique should be used. More
extensive rock removal operations which necessitate
blasting should be undertaken in accordance with
Guideline A.2.
B.2 In significant species habitat (e.g. boulder
fields, wet heath, Mastacomys habitat)
The Boulder Buster
TM
should be used if practicable in
these situations to minimise any adverse effects on
wildlife. The method of disposal of rock fragments
should be specifically determined according to nature
of the site in terms of accessibility and ecological
attributes.
Further Information
WorkCover Authority of NSW. A guide for
powdermen. 1992.
N.S.W. Construction Safety Act 1912 and Regulations.
Australian Standards 2187 Part 1 Storage and Land
Transport of Explosives.
Australian Standards 2187 Part 2 Use of Explosives.
Australian Standards 2188 Part 2 Magazines for the
Storage of Explosives.
Australian Standards 2189 Part 2 Glossary of
Terms used in Connection with Explosives.
N.S.W. Dangerous Goods Act 1975 and Regulations.
5.2 Trench Construction
Trenches on the ski slopes fall into two categories.
One consists of temporary trenches which are dug for
the installation of various services including:
water, air and electricity lines for snowmaking;
electricity and communications cables for lifts;
ski racing timing cables;
water, sewerage, electricity and telephone to and
from mountain buildings; and
trunk or municipal (i.e. village) services which
traverse ski slopes.
These trenches are refilled as soon as the services
are laid, but may need to be reopened on future
occasions for repairs or maintenance. The other
category consists of permanent trenches which are
installed to promote the drainage of wet areas or for
purposes of creating small animal crossings beneath
roads or groomed ski slopes. The following
discussion is concerned primarily with temporary
trenches.
Some trenches by necessity must run directly up the
slope (e.g. below a ski lift). Others can be
conveniently located along or beneath a track, which
may have implications for the design of the track.
Other trenches may follow a route directly across an
area which is otherwise undisturbed and requires full
rehabilitation. The issues faced in each of these
cases may be quite different.
An important consideration is that most trenches
contain services which may require repairs and
maintenance on an occasional basis, possibly during
an acute emergency. The need to preserve future
access in both summer and winter along trenches
may therefore be an important consideration from an
operational viewpoint. Trench location needs to be
MAY 2002 AppA5-3
integrated with access track location and design to
provide for future servicing.
From an environmental viewpoint, trenches have the
potential to interrupt natural processes such as
groundwater flow. For example, if a trench cuts
obliquely across a poorly drained soil lens on a slope
and is backfilled with porous material (e.g. coarse
sand or aggregate), this is likely to have the effect of
draining that area of the slope and diverting water
from the area directly downhill of it. There are some
situations on the ski slopes where this has been done
deliberately, precisely for that reason (see Section
12.5 for further discussion). In this situation where
the objective may be to improve the safety and
quality of the ski slope, best practice may involve
deliberate drainage along a trench. However, there
will be other situations where this could occur as an
unwanted side-effect of some other works, if
practices are not followed which avoid this.
When a trench is dug, soil is removed and replaced.
The break in continuity in soil conditions will be
minimised if soil components are replaced in a way
which approximates their natural relationship. The
use of bedding sand, which facilitates the smooth
laying of cables and pipes can work against this
principle, although the coarse granitic subsoil, which
is loosely textured, may sometimes be adequate for
bedding purposes, provided that it is of an even
grade, free of rocks and free-draining. The use of
natural subsoil as bedding material also has the
advantage of not having to import sand or export
surplus spoil.
On the other hand, there are sometimes situations
where the removal of rock from a trench generates a
requirement for additional filling, in which case
bedding sand can also satisfy this purpose. The
presence of bedding sand also serves as a
secondary warning device, in addition to warning
tape in the event of future excavation of the trench.
The specific requirements for electrical cables may
make bedding sand essential.
A trench line running down the slope forms a
potential route for surface water flow and erosion,
particularly during the construction process. It is
important to minimise the risk of erosion through
design and construction practices. The rapid and
effective rehabilitation of trench surfaces is a
significant factor in this respect.
It is possible to achieve rehabilitation that is so
effective that there is no surface evidence of the
location of the trench after a few years. This can
create a potential problem if it becomes necessary to
relocate and re-open the trench at some future stage
for repairs or maintenance. To avoid the need for
future exploratory digging within a corridor in order to
locate buried services, a reliable means is required
for identifying the precise location of the original
trench.
This is important also in order to protect underground
services from accidental damage in the course of
other slope works. It is desirable also to have
protection such as warning tape installed above
underground services and, where bedding sand has
been used in the laying of services, this can also
serve as a warning mechanism.
The variables which must be considered in the
design and construction of trenches include:
slope gradient;
alignment with respect to slope;
soil and vegetation conditions;
presence of natural obstacles (e.g. watercourses);
and
other works such as access tracks.
It is not feasible to consider separately the numerous
combinations of these variables from the viewpoint of
identifying specific best practices for every
conceivable situation. Instead, those elements which
j usti fy speci al consi derati on are di scussed
individually and the separate provisions relating to
these should be interpreted as appropriate in the total
context.
Guidelines
A. Design and construction
A.1 Trenches down slopes general
Where a trench runs steeply down a slope, it can
easily form a watercourse and potential erosion
channel. The risks associated with this can be
minimised by the following practices:
The trench should be opened in short sections at
a time if practicable, completing each section as
quickly as possible.
If the trench is left exposed for an extended
period, haybales should be placed at intervals
along the trench to slow the rate of flow. These
must be firmly secured (e.g. by stakes) and be
placed so that they completely block the trench
and do not allow flow to be channelled around
them in a concentrated flow which could
undermine the walls of the trench.
It may be desirable to construct diversion works to
prevent overland flow or watercourses from
entering the trench. Such works should be
critically evaluated on a case-by-case basis to
ensure that their impacts do not outweigh their
benefits.
AppA5-4 MAY 2002
Specific engineering works may be required to
stabilise works (e.g. pipelines) laid in trenches on
steep slopes. These would normally be
addressed in the engineering design of the
project.
The trench should be overfilled forming a crown to
prevent a depression forming through settlement
over a period of time after the trench is backfilled.
A.2 Trenches across slopes
Where a trench cuts across a slope, there is the
potential to interrupt normal groundwater flow. This
impact can be minimised by replacing the different
layers of soil in their original position as closely as
possible. This in turn requires removing the soil to
segregated stockpiles when the trench is excavated
(see Section 5.4). Segregation can be achieved by
separating the different soil components on opposite
sides of the trench.
A.3 Areas with dense groundcover
In areas with dense groundcover and little or no
heath vegetation (e.g. herbfield/dry grassland, wet
grassland, bog, open patches within open heath or
transitional heath), rehabilitation of trenches is
facilitated by removing the groundcover in intact sods
and replacing the sods in their original positions after
the trench is backfilled (see Section 5.3).
A.4 Areas with high water table
Wet areas such as wet heath, bog and short alpine
herbfield should be avoided as far as practicable, but
there are situations where this is not possible. In
trenching through wet areas, the following practices
should be applied (assuming that it is not intended to
deliberately de-water the area):
Work should be undertaken as quickly as possible
to prevent the surrounding area from being
drained and drying out.
If introduced bedding material is required, washed
sand should be used, as it is easy to profile and
trim, and achieves full compaction when
saturated.
Because of difficulties in rehabilitating wet sites,
the sod removal and replacement technique (see
A.3 above) should be used if possible.
If it is necessary to pump water from the trench
during the works, this should be done using a light
flex-drive pump with a PVC lay-flat discharge hose
to disperse the outflow. If there is silt or mud in
the water, it should be discharged into a sediment
trap (e.g. haybale/geotextile barrier or sediment
pond), before returning to the creek further
downstream.
A.5 Creek crossings
Where a trench contains services that need to cross
a creek, there are two options for approaching this.
1. Bring the services to the surface and take them
across the creek attached to an existing bridge or
a special structure built for that purpose.
2. Continue the trench beneath the bed of the creek.
The following comments apply to the latter option.
If the creek is not permanent, the work should be
undertaken during a period while it is not flowing, and
there is a low risk of rainfall while the work is in
progress. Specific measures should be implemented
to stabilise the bed and banks of the creek, which
should be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
If the creek is permanent, the flow should be
temporarily diverted during the trenching operation by
placing a sandbag (or equivalent) barrier upstream of
the crossing and piping the flow by gravity or
pumping to a point downstream of the crossing. If
the gradient of the creek is very flat, a sandbag
barrier may be required also on the downstream side
of the works to prevent backflow.
A.6 Heath
Trenching through most types of heath is likely to
result in a corridor of disturbance which can extend
well beyond the width of the trench itself due to the
need to:
bring machinery along the trench; and
stockpile soil beside the trench.
These problems do not arise to the same degree in a
more open area.
Where a route through heath cannot be avoided, the
impacts can be minimised by:
using as small a machine as possible (Note: A
chain trencher (e.g. 'Ditchwitch') is generally not
feasible at Perisher Blue because of buried rock);
pruning heath bushes beside the trench above the
base, rather than removing them completely, so
that they can reshoot when the work is completed;
stockpiling soil in openings in the heath vegetation
rather than continuously along the trench; and
mulching the filled trench with cut heath material
which may provide a source of native seed as well
as protecting the soil. (This needs to be
interpreted in the context of the overall
rehabilitation plan for the project).
Low heath, which occurs on exposed upper slopes
and ridges is particularly sensitive to disturbance
because the extreme conditions where it occurs
makes rehabilitation very difficult. The above
practices may not be appropriate in these areas,
which should be subject to special assessment.
MAY 2002 AppA5-5
A.7 Snowgum woodland
It is assumed that a trench through snowgum
woodland would be aligned to avoid the base of
established trees. There would still be a likelihood of
having to cut through tree roots, which typically
extend to about the same distance as the tree
canopy.
Damage to tree roots can be minimised by siting
trenches at the optimum distance between trees and
reducing the depth of trenches where this is not
critical for safety reasons. In some instances, it may
be possible to dig by hand beneath large tree roots,
but this would only work if the services being laid in
the trench are in short sections (e.g. pipes) which can
be passed underneath the root. It would not be
feasible in the laying of a continuous cable from a
drum.
A.8 Rocky areas
Trenching through rocky areas is likely to be difficult
to achieve without major impact. It may be preferable
to consider alternative techniques such as encasing
in concrete above the ground surface. As the
Boulder Buster
TM
is generally unsuitable for use in
trenches (see Section 5.1), any rock removal is likely
to require blasting, which could be a major operation
in the case of extensive outcrop. These situations
will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
A.9 Previously disturbed areas
In situations which have been previously disturbed
and stabilised with introduced groundcover and
where the natural soil structure has been disturbed,
the value of maintaining the existing soil profile is
reduced. Topsoil should be separated if this contains
a reasonable amount of organic material or living
plant matter. Because it is relatively easy to re-
establish the introduced ground cover, sod retention
is generally not of high priority, except possibly in the
case of steep slopes.
A.10 Along roads and tracks
Trenching along roads and tracks should be
considered in the context of conservation of the road
or track as well as stabilisation of the trench. As a
general principle, it is preferable to locate the trench
beside the track rather than within it, as much work is
required to establish a well-constructed, stable track
(see Chapter 7) and it is desirable not to have to
disturb this.
The track also provides stable access for vehicle
movement along the trench during construction and,
if wide enough, may also be used for stockpiling soil
or laying out items to be placed in the trench (e.g.
pipes).
Whether it is preferable for trenches to be located on
the high or low side of a track will be influenced by
the specific situation (e.g. nature of vegetation/
habitat, presence of rock outcrops). A trench below
the track would be positioned to trap runoff from the
track or from stockpiles located between it and the
trench. A trench above the track would require
stockpiles to be placed on the far side of the trench in
order for it to achieve this function.
A.11 Across roads and tracks
Where a trench crosses a road or track, the surface
and foundations of the road or track should be
reconstructed to its original condition in the course of
filling the trench. Alternatively, it may be feasible to
bore under the road or track (see A.12).
A.12 Underboring in sensitive situations
Underboring can be an effective means of avoiding
surface disturbance in some sensitive situations, but
can also have a number of problems, as follows:
While the surface impact in the area of
underboring is avoided, additional excavation at
either end is required to position the boring
equipment.
Underboring may make the laying of services
more difficult, particularly in the case of a
continuous cable.
The unpredictable pattern of rock floaters in many
parts of the ski slopes can create conditions which
are unreliable for underboring.
While it may be feasible in specific situations,
underboring is not recommended for general
application on the ski slopes.
B. Marking and recording of trenches
B.1 Cable detector
Where a trench contains a continuous metal cable or
metal pipe, use of a cable detector is an adequate
means of following the route of the trench after it is
completed. Accurate records should be kept to
indicate the relative layout horizontally and vertically
of any services within the trench.
B.2 Ground survey
If the route of a trench cannot be followed using a
cable detector, it should be accurately surveyed with
respect to permanent landmarks at the time of
construction. If necessary, permanent survey
markers should be positioned at key points (e.g.
bends) in the course of this survey.
C. Protection of underground services
C.1 General
Underground services should be protected against
accidental disturbance by laying a continuous
warning tape at a higher level in the trench. This is
mandatory for underground electricity cables. High
voltage (11 kV) cables require one tape on top of the
bedding sand about 100 mm above the cable and a
second tape 100 to 150 mm below the ground
AppA5-6 MAY 2002
surface. For cables for low voltage electricity (415
V), telephone and lift communications, a single
warning tape is sufficient. A warning tape is
advisable also for hydraulic engineering services,
including snowmaking reticulation.
5.3 Topsoil Management
Topsoil displays a complex range of physical,
chemical and biological properties which are critical
in maintaining the integrity of the alpine and
subalpine ecosystem. The native plants that colonise
the soil are adapted to the physical structure and
chemical composition of the topsoil, which are quite
different from the underlying subsoil and cannot be
replicated effectively by artificial means. If these
properties are changed, a situation can be created
which favours introduced weeds over the native
species, as evidenced by the infestation of weeds
such as milfoil in disturbed areas within the Park.
Topsoil also has special biological properties with
respect to micro-organisms and fungi within the soil,
and its suitability as habitat for insects and other
invertebrates, many of which contribute to soil
processes. It also contains a supply of plant seeds
and vegetative material which assist in natural
regeneration.
Topsoil is the most valuable resource in the
rehabilitation of both recently disturbed areas
and areas of past disturbance. Every effort
should be made to conserve it and maintain its
quality and integrity.
The integrity of the topsoil and the vegetation and
fauna that it supports can best be maintained by
removing the topsoil as an intact sod and replacing it
in its original position if practicable or alternatively
using it for rehabilitation work elsewhere. This is
feasible only if the sod is exposed for a relatively
short period, during which it is protected against
damage and drying out.
The next best approach is to remove and conserve
the topsoil as stockpiles for later replacement. This
may result in loss of established plant material and
some fauna, but seeds, remnants of vegetative
material and micro-organisms can still be preserved
to assist in later rehabilitation.
The following guidelines relate specifically to the
management of topsoil and should be read in
conj uncti on wi th Secti on 5.4 (S t o c k p i l e
Management).
Guidelines
A. Sod removal and replacement
A.1 General
The removal and replacement of sods should be
considered only in situations where there is a
reasonable opportunity for maintaining the soil and
vegetation intact while the sods are out of the ground.
This is applicable particularly to areas with dense
groundcover (e.g. herbfield/dry grassland, wet
grassland, bog, open patches within open heath or
transitional heath). Soil which has a high stone
content, little groundcover vegetation or deep-rooted
heath is difficult to remove as intact sods.
Points to be noted in the removal and replacement of
sods include the following:
Removal of sods in sensitive areas (e.g. bogs)
should be done by hand using a square shovel. In
some other situations, it may be feasible to
remove sods by excavator bucket, with careful
depth control by the operator. The bucket should
cut the soil just below the root level of the sod.
The sod is put to one side, and the remainder of
the topsoil can then be removed.
Sods will survive best if they are moist when they
are removed. This may influence the timing of
projects involving sod removal (e.g. early in the
summer while the ground is still moist).
A sod thickness of about 200 mm is generally
found to be satisfactory in the Perisher Blue
environment.
Sods should be stored so that they are protected
from drying out, particularly if stored for longer
periods. This may involve protection with hessian
and/or watering, although such measures can be
avoided if they are replaced quickly.
Sods should be replaced in their original positions
and orientations where possible.
The filled surface beneath the sods and the lower
surfaces of the sods should be prepared to
eliminate air spaces beneath the sods. Any gaps
between sods should be filled with topsoil, and the
sods tamped down with an excavator bucket or
shovel.
On very steep slopes (e.g. steeper than 1.5 in 1),
sods should be secured by covering with the
lightest grade of coconut fibre or plastic net, which
should be pinned.
B. Bulk topsoil removal and replacement
B.1 General
Topsoil should be stockpiled separately from other
excavated material (see Section 5.4) in a location
where it will not be disturbed by other construction
works.
MAY 2002 AppA5-7
Where the volume of material is small and the soil is
to be replaced immediately, wastage of topsoil can
be avoided by stockpiling it on the back of a truck or
HD carrier.
Topsoil stockpiles should be protected against
erosion as discussed in Section 5.4. Stabilisation of
topsoil stockpiles by sowing with grass should be
considered in situations where the topsoil is stored
for an extended period (several months) and the
rehabilitation is likely to involve sowing with
introduced species. If it is desirable to base the
rehabilitation on the use of native species, sowing of
stockpiles with introduced species should be avoided.
C. Disposal of surplus topsoil
C.1 Building developments
In the case of building developments where the
building would occupy an area with a cover of natural
topsoil, this topsoil should be stripped from the site
and conserved for use elsewhere in the resort (e.g.
rehabilitation areas of ski slope where the original
topsoil has been lost). Use of the topsoil should
follow as soon as possible after it is removed,
necessitating an integrated approach to future
development and rehabilitation within the ski slopes
(see also Section 14.2).
Further Information
Alpine Rehabilitation Manual (Working Draft
December 1998). Section 6.8 (Sodding).
5.4 Stockpile Management
Stockpiles are generated by a wide range of activities
in the ski slopes, ranging from new development
works to repair and maintenance activities, including
emergencies. Stockpiled material may be replaced in
excavations, used for rehabilitating disturbed areas or
used for filling in other nearby sites.
There are some important principles to be recognised
in the responsible use of stockpiled materials:
1. The physical, chemical and biological properties of
material which has been excavated and stockpiled
vary significantly with depth of the soil profile. The
top soil layer contains seed and vegetative
material which assists in natural regeneration.
The subsoil contains nutrients which are available
to the plants through their roots. Beneath this is
weathered rock (decomposed granodiorite), which
has not experienced the physical, chemical and
biological processes involved in the formation of
soil.
This process of soil formation takes place over a
very long period and can be negated in a few
minutes if an area is disturbed. In order to
maintain a semblance of the natural soil profile
when the site is rehabilitated (or if soil is used
elsewhere for rehabilitation purposes), it is
necessary to separate the stored extracted
material so that it can be replaced in its natural
position in the soil profile.
2. Stockpiled material should be protected from the
risks of erosion so that material is not wasted and
downstream sedimentation is avoided. This
includes erosion by wind, rain and flowing water.
Guidelines
A. Handling of soil
A.1 Previously undisturbed area
Where excavation of a previously undisturbed area is
undertaken, the excavated material should be
segregated into two or more piles according to
position in the soil profile. In particular, the topsoil,
which contains stored seeds, vegetative plant
material and organic nutrients should be carefully
conserved for subsequent rehabilitation.
Depending on the nature of the soil profile, the
remaining excavated material may be segregated
into subsoil and underlying weathered rock, which
differ in chemical composition and physical
characteristics. When the soil is replaced, either at
that site or if used for rehabilitation elsewhere, this is
done in the reverse order to removal in order to re-
create a natural soil profile as far as practicable.
A.2 Previously disturbed and rehabilitated area
An area which has been previously disturbed and
rehabilitated is unlikely to display a properly
developed natural profile, particularly if the
disturbance took place some time ago when today's
environmental practices were not widely applied.
The topsoil, however, is still likely to contain plant
material and some organic nutrients, and should be
conserved as in A.1. (It may contain weeds,
however). The remainder of the profile is likely to
have the subsoil mixed with weathered rock, and
further segregation may not be warranted.
A.3 Previously disturbed area which has not
been rehabilitated
If there is no topsoil and the soil profile has been
destroyed, there is no point in attempting to
segregate excavated soil. It may be necessary to
import topsoil from a suitable location (see Sections
5.3 and 14.2).
A.4 Varying degrees of past disturbance
If the soil characteristics vary throughout a site, either
because of natural processes (e.g. poorly drained
versus well drained soils) or partial disturbance (i.e.
partly natural, partly disturbed and rehabilitated), the
soil should be segregated according to its location on
the site, as well as its position in the soil profile. Thus
the topsoil from a previously disturbed and
AppA5-8 MAY 2002
rehabilitated area should be kept separate from the
topsoil from a natural area. As well as maintaining
the soil integrity, this will also help to prevent plants
from being spread into unnatural situations.
If only a limited amount of good topsoil is available, it
is possible to blend some of this with decomposed
granite subsoil to produce an even soil mixture, free
of rock. This can then be used to achieve a wider
coverage or greater depth of soil. Some of the prime
topsoil may be retained for covering the surface.
B. Siting of stockpiles
B.1 All situations
Stockpiles should always be located in areas which
are away from natural drainage lines to reduce the
risk of soil loss by erosion. If stockpiles are retained
for an extended period in a flood-prone area (e.g.
along Perisher Creek), they should be located above
the typical flood level.
Stockpiles should be placed on areas where damage
to vegetation is minimised, and where stockpiles can
be recovered by machinery with minimum wastage,
e.g. on bare ground or rock, or on areas covered with
grass rather than heath.
C. Protection of stockpiles from erosion and
sedimentation
C.1 Soil to be replaced immediately
If soil is to be replaced immediately (e.g. that day or
the following day) and there is a low risk of rain, no
special measures to protect stockpiles are necessary.
Alternatively, if there is a likelihood of rain, small jobs
should be deferred to a more suitable date if
practicable.
C.2 Stockpiles retained for several days or
weeks
Stockpiles should be protected against soil loss by a
haybale barrier or geotextile fence on the downslope
side (or around the whole stockpile if on a flat area).
(See Section 4.3 for further details). While covering
of stockpiles is desirable in theory, thus preventing
erosion rather than just trapping erodible sediment, it
is generally not practicable on the ski slopes because
of the risk of high winds.
C.3 Stockpiles retained for several months
Particularly where stockpiled material is from a
disturbed site, it may be worth stabilising it by sowing
a suitable grass. This is likely to be effective only
with introduced grasses, however, due to the slow
establishment rate of native grasses (see Section
6.1). This situation is likely to arise only with large
projects which should be reviewed on a case-by-case
basis, particularly if it is intended to rehabilitate the
area using native plants.
Further Information
Alpine Rehabilitation Manual (Working Draft,
December 1998).
Technique sheet on Erosion and sediment control.
5.5 Disposal of Surplus Soil and Rock
All soil and rock generated by construction projects in
the resort is a potentially valuable resource.
Fragments of granodiorite are used extensively in the
Park as building stone, and have been required to be
used under the Interim NPWS Building Code for
facing the lower level of most buildings. This
requirement has been omitted from Policy E1 (NPWS
Building Code) in the draft Environmental Planning
and Assessment Manual 1999 but, irrespective of the
Building Code, it is likely that the demand for building
stone in the Park will continue.
In the past plentiful supplies of such rock have been
available as tunnel spoil generated by the Snowy
Mountains Hydro-electric Scheme and, more
recently, the Skitube tunnel, but these sources are
now becoming more limited. In the interests of
efficient use of resources and energy conservation, it
is desirable to conserve any significant supplies of
rock from slope works, building excavations etc., and
maintain these as a stockpile in a location which is
relatively convenient to the resorts. While supplies of
suitable stone could be imported from outside the
Park, this would involve greater transportation energy
usage and may result in additional environmental
impacts in quarrying such material.
Not all rock fragments are suitable for building stone
but those which are not can be crushed and
screened for use as aggregate in trenches, as road
base or for other applications. Surplus rock and
subsoil which is unsuitable for other applications can
be used also as general filling material, which is likely
to be preferable to importing such material from
outside the Park or unnecessarily disturbing other
sites within the resort.
Topsoil is the most valuable resource in rehabilitating
both recently disturbed areas and areas of past
disturbance. Surplus topsoil for rehabilitation works
is a scarce resource within the resort. In situations
where it is produced (e.g. through stripping of a new
building site), it should be carefully conserved for
future applications.
Considerations in the responsible use of surplus
material include the following:
The impacts on tracks or untracked areas of
transporting it from it source.
The energy costs of transporting it to a centralised
stockpile (e.g. at Smiggin Holes or Waste Point).
MAY 2002 AppA5-9
The opportunities for using the materials
productively within the resort.
Guidelines
A. Transport of spoil
A.1 Areas remote from good access tracks
In areas remote from good access tracks it is
desirable to avoid damage to the slopes or minor
access tracks as a result of heavy vehicle movement.
Spoil should therefore be disposed of on site,
according to the most environmentally desirable
method for that situation. The method of rock
disposal should be detailed in the environmental
documentation of the proposal. Refer to Section 12.4
for further discussion.
A.2 Areas close to good access roads or tracks
If there is good road or track access to the site,
surplus material should be removed to a designated
stockpile or another current development site for
reuse.
B. Use of spoil
B.1 Use within the resort
The first priority for use of spoil should be within the
resort, subject to a genuine opportunity for use of
such spoil being available.
B.2 Use outside the resort
An alternative use for spoil may be in rehabilitation
works within the Park but outside the resort. Such
use would be subject to the material having suitable
physical and biological characteristics for use in the
alternative location.
B.3 Stockpiling for future use
Surplus material may be stockpiled for future use at a
suitable site either within or outside the resort.
Material stockpiled for this purpose should be sorted
and stockpiled according to the following categories:
Topsoil
Building stone
Rock suitable for crushing as aggregate
General fill material.
5.6 Importing of Soil, Rock and Other Fill
Material imported into the resort for use as fill is likely
to be different geologically and biologically from local
material. In particular, where topsoil is imported, this
may contain seeds or vegetative material from plants
which are alien to the resort.
Guidelines
A. Importing of materials
A.1 Topsoil
As a general principle, topsoil should not be imported
into the resort unless it is from an area with similar
botanical characteristics.
A.2 Subsoil/weathered rock/general fill
Subsoil, weathered rock or general fill imported into
the resort should be similar in nature to the local
material (i.e. decomposed granodiorite) so that it
behaves similarly in terms of drainage. It should be
free of plant material. Such material should be
covered with locally obtained topsoil if possible.
A.3 Building stone
The importing of building stone should be in
accordance with NPWS Building Code requirements.
5.7 Stabilisation of Steep Slopes
The need to stabilise steep slopes on the ski slopes
arises occasionally in relation to batters along access
tracks or cuttings required for safe access or
clearance at the bottom of some chairlifts (e.g.
Pleasant Valley, Guthega Carpark) or around the foot
of mountain buildings.
Batters cut into the slope have the potential to:
modify groundwater flow;
create barriers to animal movement;
if not well stabilised, become a source of erosion
and instability;
present a hazard to skiers and other visitors; and
detract from the scenic quality of the landscape.
Best practices should be aimed at avoiding or
minimising these potential impacts.
The issue of batter slope stabilisation is discussed in
a technique sheet in the Alpine Rehabilitation Manual
(Ref. 5) and in more detail in other documents (e.g.
Ref. 9). Key points are:
the need to adapt the batter design to the specific
environment; and
to incorporate the design and construction of the
batter into the design and construction of the total
project, and not treat it as an afterthought.
As a general principle, most of the impacts of the
batters can be minimised by shaping them to a
moderate slope and stabilising them using
rehabilitation techniques which achieve a dense
cover of groundcover and possibly understorey
vegetation, as described in Chapter 6. Where this is
AppA5-10 MAY 2002
not fully achievable due to the height or steepness of
the slope, occasional flatter sections (e.g. associated
with drainage lines) can provide the necessary
breaks for the slope to be negotiated by animals or
people.
In some situations, the area of disturbance that would
result from shaping a batter of moderate slope would
be so great that it is preferable instead to construct
an artificial wall using gabions, dry rock work, treated
timber, crib block or similar materials.
Guidelines
A. Batter design
A.1 Batters along access tracks
Within most areas of the ski slopes, access tracks
should be sited and designed so that they do not give
rise to sudden drops, which can be a hazard to
skiers. Batters should be low enough to enable them
to be shaped back within a limited area and be
stabilised with grass and forbs (introduced or native)
as discussed in Chapter 6.
A.2 Areas of high water table
Where an area of high water is intercepted by a steep
slope, it is desirable to stabilise the slope in a way
which maintains the natural flow regime. This means
allowing the flow to continue but not at a rate which
dries out the slope uphill of the batter. It is also
important to ensure that concentrated groundwater
flow does not discharge onto an exposed batter,
eroding it. This type of situation should be evaluated
on a case-by-case basis.
In general any artificial stabilisation measures such
as rock walls must be designed for groundwater
drainage to prevent a situation where groundwater
could accumulate, thus changing the soil water
regime and affecting vegetation, and creating a
situation which may be potentially geologically
unstable.
A.3 High earth batters
High earth batters face a potential erosion risk due to
flow down a steep, relatively unstable slope.
Techniques for reducing this erosion risk include the
following:
A cutoff drain across the top of the batter with its
flow discharged to a stable watercourse or
dispersed over a stable slope.
Use of stepped batters with vegetated steps.
Stabilisation of the batter face (see Ref. 5,
Technique sheet Batter slope stabilisation).
A.4 Batters in woodland areas
Batters in snowgum woodland areas face a specific
risk if it is attempted to retain trees close to the top of
the batter without adequate stabilisation. A tree close
to the top of a batter is likely to have suffered some
root damage on the downhill side. This, in
combination with the steepened slope, is likely to
increase the risk of it falling downhill at some future
stage. This risk will be influenced by the exposure of
the site and the orientation of the slope in relation to
strong winds.
The situation can be exacerbated if the soil
characteristics of the slope (e.g. erodible B horizon)
results in erosion below the top of the batter, leaving
only an overhanging lip to support the tree. The
impacts of an uncontrolled collapse of the slope
would probably be greater than if the tree was
removed in the first place.
The design of batters in treed areas should therefore
be based on their long-term stability. If protection of
trees is important, this may require the use of steeper
batters which protect more of the tree root zone and
are artificially stabilised.
Further Information
Alpine Rehabilitation Manual (Working Draft,
December 1998), pp. 65-67 and Technique Sheet on
Batter slope stabilisation.
5.8 Fencing and Protection of Sensitive Areas
Fencing of sensitive areas to protect them against
inadvertent damage is worthwhile particularly in
situations where people working on a job may not be
personally familiar with the environmental constraints
or if the area to be protected is not obvious to the
untrained observer (e.g. a patch of grassland
containing a high concentration of ROTAP species).
As fencing of an area involves additional cost and
effort and, in some cases, the risk of further minor
environmental impacts, it should be undertaken if the
benefits of reducing the risk of disturbance are
considered to outweigh any adverse effects. This
needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
The purpose of protective fencing is to avoid errors
and misunderstandings. To do this, the important
consideration is for the fencing to be highly visible,
rather than necessarily robust. It nevertheless needs
to be strong enough to withstand the extreme
environmental considerations of the ski slopes,
especially strong winds.
Guidelines
A. Fence design and construction
A.1 Open areas
Fences should be constructed from star pickets with
a loosely strung single strand of rope with short
lengths of brightly coloured warning tape attached at
intervals. Warning tape on its own is not a suitable
alternative to wire due to the risk of wind damage and
MAY 2002 AppA5-11
consequent littering problems. The fence is erected
at the start of the work and is removed when it is
completed.
A.2 Treed areas
If an adequate density of trees is present, the
boundary of the sensitive area may be indicated by
strips of warning tape attached to trees. The tapes
are placed at the start of the work and are removed
when it is completed.
5.9 Protection of Trees
Native snowgums are not easy to establish in the
subalpine environment and grow slowly, hence any
established tree is an environmental asset within the
resort. While it is essential to remove some trees for
safety or operational reasons (see Section 12.2), it is
desirable to limit this to essential removal and to
prevent any accidental removal or damage during
development activities.
Guidelines
A. Tree protection measures general
A.1 Protection from machinery movement
Trees, including overhanging branches, should be
protected against accidental damage by machinery
movement, by fencing the area surrounding the tree
and attaching warning tape to the fence. If fencing is
not practicable because of the need to work close to
the trees, machinery movements should be carefully
planned and controlled to minimise the risk of tree
damage.
A.2 Protection from blasting
If blasting is undertaken close to trees, the trunks of
the trees should be protected from flyrock by
wrapping blasting mats around them. This is
additional to the use of blasting mats over the blast
site.
B. Protection of root systems
B.1 Limiting ground disturbance
Excavations should be undertaken with a view to
avoiding disturbance to tree roots as far as
practicable. As a general guide, ground disturbance
should be avoided within the dripline of trees.
Hand digging around tree roots may be undertaken in
exceptional situations, but there is still a likelihood
that this would affect the health of the tree.
B.2 Removal of damaged trees
If the roots of a tree are substantially damaged during
excavation, the tree should be removed. Replanting
should be considered if there are no existing younger
trees to replace it already established on site.
5.10 Disposal of Cut Timber
The wood of trees removed in the course of ski slope
development is a potential source of firewood for use
in the resort. While the extent of future tree removal
is likely to be relatively small compared with what has
taken place already, there are some places within the
slopes where old cut timber has accumulated and
detracts from the quality of the resort, at least in
aesthetic terms.
At the same time, large volumes of firewood are
transported into the resort each year from low
elevation woodland areas. This wood comes from
ecosystems which are under much greater threats
through various land use pressures then subalpine
woodland, and any reasonable measures which
would lessen the pressure on those woodland areas,
albeit marginally, are desirable from an ecological
sustainability viewpoint.
There would thus be environmental benefits both
within the resort and in areas remote from it if cut
timber can be recycled in due course to reduce the
demand for imported firewood. Such resource
conservation would be viable and justified only if:
(a) cut timber can be collected by a means which
is efficient in operational terms and does not in
i tsel f cause si gni fi cant envi ronmental
problems; and
(b) an efficient recycling mechanism can operate
for the stockpiling, seasoning and collection of
cut timber.
The details of the latter condition are beyond the
scope of this manual.
Guidelines
A. General
A.1 Sites with good summer access
Cut timber should be removed from the site by truck
to a suitable stockpile site for seasoning, with a view
to it being used later as firewood within the resort.
A.2 Sites with poor summer access
The optimum means of disposing of cut timber will
depend on the nature and scale of the development
proposal, the scope for removing timber by oversnow
vehicle in winter and whether the timber is freshly cut
or accumulated from past development.
The disposal of cut timber following new slope
grooming is discussed in Section 12.2. The removal
of old cut timber is discussed in Section 14.9. For
other situations where tree removal is involved, the
method of disposal should be assessed on a case-
by-case basis, with a view to removing cut timber if
AppA5-12 MAY 2002
this is operationally feasible without undue
environmental impact.
5.11 Washing of Construction Equipment
Construction equipment brought into Perisher Blue
from outside areas is a potential source of soil
containing foreign seeds, pathogens etc. To reduce
the risk of spread of such biological material,
equipment should be washed free of mud and soil
before it is brought into the resort. This includes both
the equipment of external contractors and Perisher
Blue's own equipment which is in use away from the
resort.
Guidelines
A. Washing of construction equipment
general
A.1 General
Equipment being brought into the Park must be
washed outside the Park, preferably at the
contractor's base. Caked soil should be removed
with a shovel and remaining material removed by
pressure-washing. After washing, the equipment
should be checked for oil leaks, which should be
repaired.
MAY 2002 AppA6-1
6. REVEGETATION OF DISTURBED AREAS
6.1 Choice of Plant Species for Revegetation
There are two key questions to be addressed with
respect to the vegetation of disturbed areas. Firstly,
what level of revegetation is desirable, given that at
least some of the former vegetation has probably
been removed to consciously improve skier safety
and enjoyment, and it is pointless to negate these
efforts? Secondly, should revegetation be based on
use of native species, introduced species or a
combination of both?
With regard to the first question, from a skiing
perspective it is desirable for the vegetation to be
limited to a dense cover of grasses and forbs, which
can be covered to a skiable condition with a relatively
small amount of natural or artificial snow. This,
however, is less than optimal from an ecological
perspective as, with this type of vegetation cover,
coupled with regular skier use, with or without winter
slope grooming, the development of subnivean space
for small animal movement is likely to be retarded,
particularly if there is a smooth ground surface which
is not broken up by patches of native tussock-forming
grasses. The natural vegetation diversity is reduced
also by the absence of heath species, which are
largely responsible for maintaining the subnivean
space.
In practice, however, the absence of heath species is
usually relatively temporary and, even on slopes
within the resort established by introduced grasses,
the native heath species re-establish themselves
over time. This raises the question of whether they
should be left to grow freely, as opposed to mowing
them periodically, recognising that this may reduce
the period when the slope is serviceable for skiing, or
alternatively may increase snowmaking demands.
On the other hand, if heavily groomed slopes can
tolerate a moderate level of heath development
without becoming unserviceable, should such heath
be encouraged by seeding, planting or natural
regeneration?
There are no simple answers to these questions. In
operational and ecological terms, they need to be
viewed in the context of the whole resort to determine
the importance of different options.
With respect to the second question, this is an issue
on which values have changed dramatically over the
past couple of decades. The early work on
rehabilitation in alpine areas was driven primarily by
soil conservationists on the principle that the
overriding priority is to keep the soil if the soil is
lost, it becomes much more difficult to re-establish
the vegetation. This led to the widespread use of
alpine mix, which contains some relatively aggressive
grasses, particularly Highland bent, which, once
established, is virtually impossible to eradicate.
Concern about the long-term ecological effects of
these species led to the use of one of the alpine mix
components, Chewings fescue, on its own for
rehabilitating disturbed areas. While this species
grows and survives well, it is not as aggressive in
retarding the growth of native grasses, forbs and
heath. Over an extended period, the natives become
increasingly dominant and may eventually displace
the fescue entirely.
More recently, increased emphasis has been placed
on the use of native species (Poa and selected forbs)
for rehabilitation use. The advantage of this is in
returning much faster to a native vegetation cover.
The disadvantages are limited availability of seed
and/or higher costs of cultivating or collecting it, and
a higher risk of failure with loss of soil and
consequently, much longer delays and much higher
costs in eventually restoring the slope to a stable
condition.
These risks in particular need to be weighed against
the ecological and aesthetic advantages of the native
approach, the balance between these varying in
different situations. A further consideration is that the
currently limited supply of native Poa seed should be
used in situations where it is likely to be most
worthwhile, for example, in avoiding the need to
introduce small pockets of introduced grasses into an
area which is totally native. This contrasts with
situations where the surrounding area has been
previously stabilised with alpine mix which is likely of
its own accord to out-compete native species sown in
a disturbed site. In this situation it is preferable to
settle for the less aggressive Chewings fescue.
A compromise in the native vs introduced debate is to
use Chewings fescue containing a component of
native seed. This may result in an introduced ground
cover initially, but expedites the introduction of native
seed which can develop within the protection of the
fescue.
There are some situations of limited disturbance
where it may be preferable not to undertake any
active revegetation at all, but to leave the site in a
condition which encourages native regeneration, e.g.
through use of native mulches.
A further consideration is the type of fertiliser used to
encourage growth from seed. The 1986 Manual of
Rehabilitation and Revegetation (Ref. 22) describes
only the use of inorganic fertiliser for use in disturbed
areas on the basis that alpine mix would be used.
Native species, however, may be adversely affected
by high inorganic nutrient concentrations and there is
AppA6-2 MAY 2002
also the risk of inorganic nutrients causing
eutrophication of streams if they are washed or
leached from the site of application. For these
reasons, organic fertiliser ('Dynamic Lifter'), which
releases nutrients more slowly, is the current
preference.
In summary, the opti ons for groundcover
rehabilitation are basically as follows:
1. Chewings fescue.
2. Chewings fescue containing some native seed.
3. Native seed mix (Poa plus selected forbs).
The forbs used may vary according to availability, as
well as to the nature of the site (see further
discussion below).
There is also the option of relying on assisted natural
regeneration.
Guidelines
A. General
A.1 Previously disturbed and rehabilitated site
If the site has previously been disturbed and
rehabilitated with either Chewings fescue or alpine
mix, Chewings fescue, preferably containing some
native seed, should be used for rehabilitation.
A.2 On the edge of a previously disturbed and
rehabilitated site
There are several variables to consider in this
situation. If the disturbed area is on the downhill side
of an area previously stabilised with alpine mix, it is
likely that some alpine mix species will spread
downhill. In this situation, Chewings fescue is the
most practicable option, possibly with some native
seed, as the re-establishment of a purely native
ground cover is likely to be difficult.
If the previous stabilisation has been based on
Chewings fescue and/or the disturbed site is at the
same level or uphill of the previously rehabilitated
area, use of Chewings fescue containing native seed
is recommended. Native seed alone may be
effective if the disturbed area is not too large, but is
not of high priority.
A.3 Large areas within previously undisturbed
slopes
Because of the risks of extensive soil loss if native
seed alone is used and is not successful, Chewings
fescue containing native seed is recommended.
A.4 Small areas within previously undisturbed
slopes
Because the risks of extensive soil loss are less
where the area of disturbance is small, native seed
alone is recommended. If the area does not have a
natural grass cover (e.g. dry heath), it may be
preferable to rely on natural regeneration assisted by
mulching with cut heath or spreading of native heath
seed if available.
A.5 Wet areas
The native seed currently available is from species
which grow naturally on dry sites. it is not
appropriate to use this seed in wet areas. Natural
colonisation of disturbed wet areas commonly seems
to occur with Carex sp. Empodisma minus is also a
common groundcover in wet areas. These may be
propagated from sods or cuttings (Ref. 22).
A.6 Steep slopes
On steep slopes where rapid growth is needed to
achieve stabilisation of the soil as quickly as possible,
the use of Chewings fescue, with or without native
seed, is recommended.
B. Seed from native species
Ideally native seed used for rehabilitation should be
collected from the area being rehabilitated or from a
site with similar environmental characteristics in order
to have the least impact on the natural patterns of
species distribution and genetic diversity within the
slopes.
It is desirable also for the species to have a
reasonable success rate in growing from stored seed
without the need for special treatment of the seed,
although such treatment can be undertaken if
desired. Suitable species for collection are given in
Attachment A.
6.2 Rehabilitation of Well-drained Areas
Even if Chewings fescue is used as the most
effective means of rapidly stabilising a disturbed
area, every opportunity should be taken to encourage
the growth of native plants. This includes the
responsible management of topsoil to make best use
of any native seed or vegetative material present in
the soil (see Section 5.3).
Guidelines
A. Rehabilitation using Chewings fescue
A.1 General
The sowing of seed for rehabilitation should be
undertaken as soon as possible after development
works are complete and topsoil has been respread
on the site. If the site has been compacted the
surface should be loosened to a depth of at least 50
mm prior to spreading the topsoil, which should be
spread over the loosened surface to a depth of
between 50 and 100 mm (Ref. 22).
Chewings fescue and Dynamic Lifter fertiliser should
be handcast over the area at the following application
rates for a typical site:
MAY 2002 AppA6-3
Dynamic lifter 1 kg per 5 sq m
Seed 1 kg per 40 sq m
Higher application rates are used to increase the
strike rate on steeper slopes or where the aspect or
soil conditions are unfavourable.
Hay should be spread over the site at an application
rate of about 1 bale per 15 sq m for wet hay or 1 bale
per 25 sq m for dry hay. These application rates
should be increased on steep slopes. The hay is
then sprayed with anionic emulsion to stabilise the
hay cover. The heat from the emulsion also assists
in seed germination.
The site should be monitored regularly during the
summer with a repeat application if necessary.
Following the first winter it should be inspected for
damage by wind or grooming machinery.
B. Rehabilitation using native seed (or
native/Chewings fescue mix)
B.1 General
The procedure for sowing with native seed is
basically the same as for Chewings fescue.
6.3 Rehabilitation of Wet Areas
The rehabilitation of wet areas should be based on
the introduction of suitable ground cover such as
sedges (e.g. Carex ssp.) or roperush (Empodisma
minus). These require the use of cuttings or sods to
propagate them successfully (Ref. 22). Rehabilitation
measures should be developed with specialist
assistance.
6.4 Rehabilitation of Special Environments
There are other types of environments which may
require rehabilitation methods different from those
discussed above. These should be developed with
specialist assistance to reflect both the natural
environment of the site and the future operational
requirements.
6.5 Heath re-establishment
Ski slope grooming commonly involves removing
heath and replacing it with herbaceous ground cover
which requires less snow cover and is easier to
groom in winter. There are situations, however,
where, following initial disturbance, it is desirable for
ecological reasons (e.g. small animal movement) to
undertake selective re-establishment of heath and
this may be achievable in ways which do not conflict
unduly with operational objectives (e.g. see Section
14.5).
Some heath species tend to regenerate naturally
quite readily, and can be promoted using cut heath
material as mulch or by artificial seeding. The fastest
and most reliable means of getting the desired
species in the right place, however, is by planting
seedlings which have been cultivated from seeds or
cuttings.
Guidelines
A. Plant selection and propagation
A.1 General
Plant selection should be site-specific with cuttings or
seed collected from the site or a nearby location
several years prior to when they are required. This
requires long-term planning, but the Ski Slope Master
Plan provides a basis for doing this.
Propagation would normally be undertaken by a
specialist nursery, using seeds or cuttings collected
from an appropriate site which should ideally be close
to the site being rehabilitated and have similar
elevation, aspect and soil characteristics. There
should be procedures established for certifying the
origin of the propagation material.
Planting should be undertaken in early spring or late
autumn to reduce the risk of summer drought.
A.2 Suitable species for sites
In situations where it has not been feasible to collect
local plant material, or the site characteristics have
been altered by development, Attachment A provides
an indication of suitable heath species for a range of
circumstances.
B. Hardening of seedlings before planting out
B.1 General
Plants propagated at lower altitudes should be
moved to Perisher for at least 3 to 4 weeks before
planting out, so the seedlings can adapt to the colder
conditions. These should be stored in successively
harsher environments during this period to
acclimatise them to ambient conditions.
C. Site preparation and planting
C.1 General
The detailed techniques for preparing the site and the
plant material for planting are documented in other
publications, e.g. ARM, pp. 56-59, MRR, pp. 28-31.
C.2 Planting along cross drains
The planting of heath seedlings along cross drains as
discussed in Section 14.7 should be undertaken in a
way which does not affect the stability or function of
these drains, or expose the seedlings to damage by
grooming machines or other oversnow vehicles. Low
heath species with flexible stems (e.g. Hovea) are
preferred in this situation.
AppA6-4 MAY 2002
6.6 Tree Planting
In the ski slope situation the need for planting new
snowgums (Eucalyptus pauciflora) does not often
arise for the following reasons:
Areas used for skiing are generally selected
because of their lack of trees and, where trees
are present, the tendency is to remove them.
If trees are not present and there is no evidence
of past trees (e.g. stumps, apparent slope
clearing), it is likely that some aspect of the site's
environment (e.g. soil, microclimate) makes it
unsuitable for snowgums, hence it is working
against nature to try to establish them.
The growth rate of new trees is so slow that it
would take a period well beyond the foreseeable
future for the trees to become established and to
perform any useful function such as shelter or
landscaping.
There are situations, however, where selective
planting of snowgums is of potential long-term benefit
in enhancing parts of the resort aesthetically, if not
ecologically, in reducing the visual impacts of ski
slope developments (e.g. snow fences), or in
offsetting the impacts of tree removal in the course of
ski slope grooming.
It must be appreciated that Eucalyptus pauciflora
displays considerable genetic diversity, enabling it to
adapt to a wide range of environments from the
subalpine treeline through the lower subalpine and
montane zones to the tablelands. For tree planting
within the resort, it is important for the stock to be
grown from seed collected from an appropriate
environment, preferably from within the resort at a
location similar to the intended planting site. This
preserves the genetic integrity of the local tree
population, and would be expected to maximise the
chances of successful tree establishment.
Guidelines
The guidelines discussed in Section 6.5 for heath
propagation are generally applicable also to
snowgums. These cover plant selection and
propagation, hardening of seedlings and site
preparation and planting.
Snowgums, however, would not be planted along
cutoff drains or in other situations traversed by skiers
or oversnow vehicles, as the saplings do not pack
down under snow and older trees would constitute a
hazard, and would need to be removed.
6.7 Natural Regeneration
Natural regeneration can be used in areas which are
relatively small and can be protected from surface
flow which could remove soil, and where the natural
topsoil has been retained. Natural regeneration
relies on a supply of native seed or vegetative
material in the topsoil which can develop on its own
over time. It is necessary, however, to ensure that
the soil surface is protected during the regeneration
period.
Guidelines
A. Soil protection
A.1 General
If necessary, a small diversion drain or haybale
barrier should be formed at the top of the site to
divert runoff. The soil surface within the site should
be roughened to promote absorption rather than
runoff of any rainfall, as well as to catch additional
seed. Limited application of organic fertiliser, such as
Dynamic Lifter, may promote faster growth of native
species. The site should be protected by mulching,
as discussed below.
A.2 Regeneration based on native herbs
If it is intended to promote regeneration of native
herbs, the site should be mulched with weed-free
hay, by a certified supplier approved by NPWS.
A.3 Regeneration based on heath
If it is intended to promote regeneration of heath,
mulching using cut heath, if available, may provide an
additional seed source. In this case, it is necessary
to time the work so that the heath is cut at the time
when seed has developed. Alternatively, hay mulch
may be used, relying on heath seed being present in
the soil.
6.8 Monitoring
All rehabilitated sites or plantings should be
monitored periodically until they have reached the
point of being fully stabilised with the plants well
established. If problems arise, further rehabilitation
should be undertaken as discussed in the preceding
sections.
Guidelines
A. General monitoring
Monitoring of rehabilitation should be undertaken as
follows:
During the summer of rehabilitation works once
per summer month or after every abnormal natural
event (e.g. heavy rain, storm, extreme winds or
severe dry period). In addition, inspections should be
carried out as a matter of course if working in the
area.
Following the first winter to check on wind or
groomer damage.
MAY 2002 AppA6-5
During the following summer to identify areas
where rehabilitation has not been satisfactory
following the first spring growth period and additional
work is required.
Subsequent summer periods to identify any
further problem areas requiring remedial works.
B. Scientific monitoring
Scientific monitoring of selected sites may be
undertaken, for example, to assess the extent of
natural regeneration using different rehabilitation
techniques. This monitoring should be designed
according to accepted scientific methods, and in
consultation with the NPWS. The details of such
monitoring are beyond the scope of this manual.
Further reading
Alpine Rehabilitation Manual (Working Draft
December 1998). Chapter 6 and technique sheets,
Mulching and Plant Propagation.
Manual of rehabilitation and revegetation of alpine
and subalpine areas. Chapters 5 and 6. Note: Some
information in this manual is no longer considered to
be best practice, e.g. use of alpine mix for
revegetation.
Alpine rehabilitation course. Perisher Blue Ski Resort.
Course notes. Presented by Department of
Conversation and Natural Resources and School of
Agriculture, La Trobe University. 7-8 March 1996.
MAY 2002 AppA7-1
7. ROADS AND TRACKS
7.1 Introduction
Summer access to ski lifts, mountain buildings and
other facilities is essential for the safe and efficient
operation of a modern ski resort. In order to provide
access on an ecologically sustainable basis, it is
important for access routes to be planned, designed,
constructed and maintained in a stable condition
which does not unduly interfere with natural
processes.
The optimum design for access tracks varies
according to the situation and according to the
anticipated level and duration of use of the track. For
a track which is required for permanent maintenance
use, a high standard of construction will in principle
result in fewer environmental problems than a poorly
formed track or ad hoc access. A temporary track
which is rehabilitated after use may be more
appropriate for a site where access is required only
for construction and not for ongoing maintenance.
The standard of tracks relates in part to the types of
vehicle that routinely use them (see Section 2.1). By
restricting access to certain types of vehicle, it may
be possible to reduce the impacts of track
construction. It is not practicable, however, to have
inflexible rules on the types of vehicles permitted on
specific tracks, as there will be occasional
circumstances, including emergencies, when it would
be necessary for any such rules to be broken. It is
better to design the track to cater for all reasonable
situations in the first place. This applies particularly
to the need to design bridges and culverts to carry
heavy equipment vehicles, for example, that transport
components for constructing or upgrading ski lifts.
The planning of access tracks should take account of
their potential use by summer visitors, particularly
walkers and also mountain bike riders. These visitors
are appearing in increasing numbers in the resort
during summer and need to be catered for proactively
in order to manage their impacts in the alpine and
subalpine parts of the Park. Particularly in the case
of walkers this may involve the construction of tracks
along popular routes to avoid the problems that can
result from ad hoc foot tracks. This is consistent with
Perisher Blue's mission to become Australia's 'pre-
eminent four season destination mountain resort'.
7.2 Permanent Roads and Vehicle Tracks
Within the ski slope area, permanent roads and
tracks are required for ongoing summer maintenance
and for occasional construction activities. Roads are
required to facilities such as workshops, snowmaking
buildings and other locations which experience
regular traffic for operational and construction
purposes. Some of these roads also have public
access functions, while others are intended only for
Perisher Blue use. They are engineered to withstand
regular use by heavy traffic.
Permanent access tracks are constructed to
withstand regular use by light traffic gaining access
generally throughout the ski slopes. They are not
open to public motor vehicles and hence need to be
constructed only to a standard suitable for Perisher
Blue mountain vehicles and equipment, as identified
in Section 2.1.
If practicable, access should be provided to the top
and bottom stations of all ski lifts, but do not need to
follow the lift line. In most cases, this can be
achieved by traversing terrain which is generally
stable and well-drained. There are some situations,
however, where it is impossible to avoid crossing
poorly drained areas and watercourses. Special
design measures are needed to minimise impacts on
natural processes.
The important issues to be considered in the planning
and design of access tracks are as follows:
Maintenance of natural surface and groundwater
flows. These can be modified if the track is cut
into the slope, especially in wet areas, and surface
or groundwater flow moving in a broad band down
the slope is diverted and concentrated into a
channel.
Maintenance of animal movement corridors.
Continuous heath or rock cover provides
protection against predators in summer, and
facilitates the creation of subnivean space during
winter. A track can create a break in this
continuity.
Maintenance of a stable ground surface as
protection against soil erosion. This is not easy in
a situation where vehicle movement is periodically
disturbing the soil/vegetation surface, and is
practicable only for light- to medium-weight
vehicles. Where repeated heavy vehicle use is
required for a major construction or maintenance
job, it may be necessary to rebuild the track at the
conclusion of the job. The impacts of this are less
than upgrading the design of the track to a road
capable of handling regular heavy traffic, as
occurs in some ski resorts elsewhere.
Avoiding visual impacts, particularly from popular
viewing points outside the resort, such as the
Main Range.
Avoiding discontinuities in the snow cover during
winter, for example, due to a break in slope
caused by a steep batter or premature snowmelt
promoted by absorption of sunlight by the track
surface.
AppA7-2 MAY 2002
Contribution to a useful and safe recreational track
network for summer use.
The majority of the permanent access tracks at
Perisher Blue are on slopes with an easterly to
southerly aspect. This is a direct consequence of the
fact that most ski lifts are located on these aspects.
Advantages resulting from this situation are as
follows:
The tracks are generally not visible from the Main
Range.
Deep snow drifts cover the track in winter,
eliminating discontinuities in the terrain and
countering premature snowmelt.
A disadvantage is that the easterly to southerly
slopes tend to contain a relatively high proportion of
poorly drained areas and other sensitive or significant
areas. This increases the difficulty of siting and
designing tracks without affecting natural processes.
The following guidelines identify the preferred
principles of access track design and use in a range
of situations. Specific details of creek crossings etc.
are discussed in Section 3.4. The provision of small
animal crossings is discussed in Chapter 8.
Guidelines
A. Track design and construction
A.1 Well drained terrain
The guidelines relate to the following situations:
Dry herbfield/grassland
Various types of dry heath, once the heath is
removed (see also A.2)
Snowgum woodland, once the trees and heath are
removed (see also A.3)
The track is constructed using the following
procedure:
1. The topsoil is stripped from the area of the track
and stockpiled at suitable locations along the
track.
2. The stripped area is filled with a mixture of rocks
and soil to the level of the adjacent surface.
3. The topsoil is replaced over the track surface,
and covered with 40 mm coarse aggregate. This
is compacted with an excavator or small (approx.
3 tonne) bulldozer.
4. The new track surface is sown with Chewings
fescue, fertilised with Dynamic Lifter, mulched
and sprayed with tar.
5. The track is closed to vehicle use until the seed
in the soil has given rise to plants which bind the
soil and rock, stabilising the track.
The track surface is laid to approximate the position
of the natural ground surface as closely as possible,
and is outsloped. Shallow crossdrains approximately
500 mm wide and 300 mm deep with 5% crossfall are
provided at intervals according to the gradient of the
track (see Section 4.2 for further details).
The track works on the principle that the rock takes
most of the impact of passing traffic, thus protecting
the vegetation from damage. The vegetation in
conjunction with the cross drains in turn stabilises the
soil between the rocks against erosion, providing a
well packed surface which reduces the risk of rocks
moving under the impact of vehicles.
The track surface is permeable to water so that there
is little interference with groundwater flow and the
amount of runoff from the track surface is also
reduced, together with the risk of erosion. The grass
cover reduces the visual impact of the track in both
near and distant views, particularly if native species
are able to regenerate.
This type of track is still liable to damage as a result
of tracked vehicle movement, particularly on the
corners, even if the operators perform multiple-point
turns (see Guideline 2.1/A.4). Rebuilding of the track
surface may be required following a major
construction or maintenance project. This would
involve raking back the surface gravel, rebuilding the
rollovers and revegetating with seed, straw and tar.
If underground services are laid beneath the track,
this method of track construction has a disadvantage
in that it is more difficult to excavate the services for
repairs or maintenance. Rehabilitation of the track
following such work is also more difficult. Despite
these disadvantages, it is still the preferred method
for creating a stable, low impact track in most well
drained situations.
A.2 Dry heath
In siting tracks in dry areas, it is preferable to avoid
areas of heath but, if heath disturbance is
unavoidable, the following priorities should apply:
1. Herbfield/grassland (most preferred)
2. Open heath
3. Dry heath
4. Dense, diverse heath
5. Low heath (see also A.5)
The technique of track construction through dry heath
areas is similar to that described in A.1, but with the
following additional considerations:
MAY 2002 AppA7-3
Heath should be retained as close to the track as
possible to minimise the width of breaks in animal
movement corridors.
Topsoil stripped from the track may require
sorting to remove large roots which may inhibit
the effective packing of the soil with the
aggregate.
Soil under some types of heath may not contain
suitable grass and forb seed for natural
regeneration. Surplus topsoil from open areas, if
available, may be preferred.
Regeneration of native heath species in the road
surface, while not necessarily undesirable, may
become an ongoing maintenance problem (see
Guidelines Part B).
Depending on the location, it may be desirable to
install occasional small animal crossings
underneath the track (see Section 14.7).
A.3 Snowgum woodland
It is preferable to avoid snowgum woodland if
practicable, unless the trees are widely spaced.
Where it is essential to go through woodland, the
technique of track construction described in A.1
would apply, as would the considerations applying to
dry heath if it is present as understorey.
In addition the following points should be considered:
If it is necessary to remove some trees, priority
should be given to retaining mature, healthy
specimens, in preference to young trees or old
trees in poor condition.
The potential impacts on tree roots should be
considered, particularly with larger trees with
spreading root systems.
Summer access tracks are sometimes used by
slope grooming machines in winter, when the
cover of snow on the track can lift the grooming
machines to a level where they conflict with
overhanging branches which cause no problems
in summer. This factor needs to be considered in
the siting and clearing of tracks.
Snowgum seedlings may regenerate in the track
surface and would require periodic maintenance
to remove them.
A.4 Wet areas
In principle, tracks should avoid wet areas but in
practice this is not always possible, particularly near
the bottom stations of some lifts which are located in
areas of disturbed bog/wet heath. In building tracks
through wet areas, it is particularly desirable to allow
the groundwater to flow in a broad band. Retarding
or channelling groundwater flow is likely to change
the vegetation on the downhill side of the track, due
to partial drying out of the site.
The soils are so wet in these areas that the track
construction method as described for dry areas will
not be satisfactory as the soil does not have the
strength to support a shallow layer of coarse
aggregate, which would soon become churned into
the soil. A modified approach is therefore required as
follows:
1. If practicable, the surface vegetation (e.g.
Sphagnum, Empodisma, Carex) is removed as
sods and stockpiled.
2. Large rock fragments (300 to 500 mm) are
placed over the surface and rolled into the soil.
The larger rocks should be used first. This
process is repeated until the rock has achieved a
stable equilibrium position level with the bottom
of the sods. Surplus soil is removed as required.
3. The sods are replaced over the rock fill.
4. Coarse aggregate is rolled into the surface of the
sods.
The result is a track similar to that in the dry areas
but with a rock foundation and with native bog/wet
heath species stabilising its surface. This is similar to
the natural situation existing in some places in the
resort where a blockstream in the valley floor has
become buried over time and has developed wet
heath or bog vegetation on top. Groundwater would
be able to seep through the track at all levels below
the surface. If wet heath is present in the original
surface vegetation, this would probably need to be
removed.
While the above method may work in areas of short
alpine herbfield from an operational perspective,
these areas are relatively small and uncommon, are
highly sensitive and significant and should be
avoided if at all possible.
One of the difficulties of building a track in a wet area
is working out the logistics of vehicle and machinery
movement so that:
(a) the track can be built with minimum incidental
impacts on adjacent wet areas; and
(b) the movement of heavy equipment does not
damage the track itself.
The optimum procedure will depend on the situation
(e.g. whether it is a through track or a dead end
track), and should be determined as part of the
project design.
An alternative method for traversing wet areas is
corded track construction. This involves supporting
sleepers on steel cables, and is in use on the access
track at the top of Pleasant Valley. The sleepers are
clamped to the cable and should ideally be placed
AppA7-4 MAY 2002
50-75 mm apart to allow comfortable vehicle
movement. Pleasant Valley has 100 mm gaps, which
result in a rather rough ride. Alternatively, the
sleepers may be placed further apart with the gaps
infilled with aggregate. Apart from creating a more
even surface, the aggregate stabilises the sleepers
against movement and consequent damage.
The main disadvantages of corded track construction
are the cost of the sleepers and their limited life in the
wet environment (possibly 15 to 20 years).
A.5 Perched bogs
Perched bogs commonly occur on the east- to south-
facing slopes at Perisher and Smiggin Holes as well
as in other locations around the resort, where a
subsurface rock shelf causes local groundwater
accumulation. Characteristically there is wet heath or
Sphagnum bog in the wet area, with a line of
snowgums across the slope at its lower edge.
From experience on the Interceptor track (Ref. 23) it
appears that the optimum location for a track in this
situation is along the lower edge of the wet area, just
uphill of the snowgums. In this situation, the track
can be constructed using the 'dry area' technique
(A.1), with minimal adverse effects on both the wet
area and the snowgums.
A.6 Low heath and snowpatch areas
While these areas are dry, they occur in
environmental extremes which are not conducive to
plant growth (see Section 1.5). For this reason, a
track which relies on groundcover growth to stabilise
it is unlikely to be successful.
Snowpatch areas generally occur on steep rocky
slopes, which tend to be unsuitable for tracks. They
should be avoided if possible or, if traversed, should
be subject to special design assessment on a case-
by-case basis.
Low heath commonly occurs on flat exposed ridges.
It may be desirable to traverse these areas, for
example, to connect the top stations of two lifts, in
preference to having separate access tracks up each
lift (e.g. Interceptor/North Perisher T-bar).
In this situation, the preferred approach is to keep the
track gradient as flat as possible and to protect the
surface with crushed rock (40-50 mm), preferably
local granodiorite.
B. Track maintenance
B.1 General all situations
Tracks should be regularly inspected and maintained
to ensure that they remain in a good, serviceable
condition, to remove excessive growth of heath and
snowgum regeneration, to remove accumulated
sediment from crossdrains and rebuild crossdrains if
necessary and to remove fallen or partly fallen
timber.
B.2 Wet areas
Tracks through wet areas should be inspected in
particular for subsidence of the track surface and for
changes to the natural wet vegetation on the downhill
side. If these effects are observed, it may be
necessary to take remedial action on a case-by-case
basis.
B.3 Following major works
Following major development or maintenance
projects during which a track has been subject to
repeated movement of heavy vehicles, the track
should be inspected and, if necessary, repaired to
restore it to its original condition, using the
appropriate technique as discussed earlier in this
chapter. While the track foundation may still be
serviceable, it may be necessary to rebuild the
surface, reconstruct rollovers and other drainage
works and revegetate the track through seeding and
mulching. This should be the last stage in the project
with the track surface closed to vehicle and
pedestrian access until it is stabilised.
7.3 Temporary Access
Temporary access is appropriate in situations where,
once the initial construction work has been
undertaken, it is unlikely that further vehicle access to
the site would be required or, if required, would be
very infrequent and could be achieved with minimal
impact on the terrain. Projects where temporary
access may be appropriate include:
erection of lift towers;
summer slope grooming;
erection of snow fences; and
construction of bridges for oversnow access.
These options should be considered in situations
where the provision of temporary surface access is
difficult or would result in major impacts.
A key consideration in the provision of temporary
access is the ability to achieve this with minimal
impact, or, alternatively, to rehabilitate the disturbed
area to its original condition. The less the access
route is modified (e.g. through drainage works or
surface stabilisation), the easier it will be to return it
to its original condition.
The provision of temporary access should be
interpreted in relation to the movement of vehicles off
tracks as discussed in Section 2.2.
MAY 2002 AppA7-5
Guidelines
A. Provision of access
A.1 Stable, well drained open areas
This applies to previously disturbed areas
rehabi l i t at ed wi t h i nt roduced grass, dry
herbfield/grassland, open heath and possibly wet
grassland during the drier times of the year.
It is assumed that the volume of traffic is sufficient to
justify concentrating the traffic along a single route,
rather than dispersing the movement over a broad
area. In this situation an identifiable track will be
formed, if only through wear on surface vegetation
and compaction of soil. The important consideration
in this situation is that the wheel tracks must not be
allowed to develop into drainage lines, which would
erode the topsoil from the slopes and impede
subsequent rehabilitation. It is therefore necessary to
construct temporary crossdrains at intervals based on
the slope gradient.
These should be constructed by stripping topsoil
along the drain and stockpiling it beside the track,
leaving a ditch but no mound. By not building a
mound below the ditch, the natural soil surface would
be retained, facilitating rehabilitation. A haybale
barrier should be installed at the downstream end of
the drain and around the topsoil stockpile to trap silt.
A.2 Wet areas
Temporary access tracks should avoid traversing wet
areas if possible. If this is not possible, the project
should be planned so that access across these areas
takes place when it is relatively dry, with vehicles with
low ground pressures (e.g. tracked vehicles, four-
wheel-drive motorbikes) being used if practicable.
Temporary decking to cross wet areas should not be
used as decking is likely to be forced into the soil and
the damage resulting from removing it is likely to
exceed that caused by direct vehicle access.
If the distance to be traversed is short (e.g. across a
watercourse or narrow strip of bog), a temporary
bridge may be constructed.
A.3 Heath
Temporary access tracks should avoid traversing
areas of heath if possible. If it is necessary to go
through heath, the heath vegetation should be
pruned back to the maximum height at which it is
trafficable so that subsequent regeneration if
facilitated.
A.4 Helicopter access to difficult areas
There are some situations where it is not feasible to
provide an environmentally acceptable means of
temporary surface access during summer. Such
areas include extensive wet or heath areas, very
steep slopes, exposed areas of low heath, areas of
snowpatch and short alpine herbfield and very rocky
areas. In these situations, the only means of summer
access for transporting heavy materials is by
helicopter. The use of helicopters for summer
transport is discussed in Section 2.3.
Unloading of the helicopter is sometimes integrated
with construction work, e.g. in erecting lift towers. If
material transported by helicopter is stored for later
use, it is necessary to have an environmentally
suitable storage area identified on the ground at the
worksite.
A.5 Oversnow access
Another access alternative in difficult situations is
oversnow access during winter, when almost the
whole of the resort area is accessible without causing
significant adverse impacts. Such access is
appropriate for the following situations:
Construction materials transported to a site for
work during the following summer (e.g. snow
fences, bridges).
Waste material (e.g. cut timber, redundant
structures) from the previous summer transported
from the site.
Minor construction works which can be
undertaken during winter.
Regular maintenance of lifts and other facilities
which are difficult to access during summer (e.g.
Olympic T-bar).
The provisions covering oversnow access for this
purpose are essentially the same as for oversnow
movement generally (see Section 13.7). In addition,
if material is being transported during winter for use
next summer, it is necessary to identify a suitable site
where it can be deposited on the snow, which will
melt before the material is used. This site should be
flat, stable, free from sensitive vegetation and habitat
and readily identifiable from nearby landmarks in
winter. It should not conflict with winter use of the
slopes by skiers or with the movement of slope
grooming machinery and other oversnow vehicles.
B. Rehabilitation and monitoring
B.1 Stable, well drained open areas
These sites should be actively rehabilitated once the
track is no longer required. This may be undertaken
as a two-stage process as follows:
Stage 1. With the crossdrains still in place, the
surface of the disturbed, compacted sections of the
track is loosened and sown with seed (native or
introduced) as appropriate to the site (see Section
6.1). The topsoil in this situation will have been
compacted but not removed.
AppA7-6 MAY 2002
Stage 2. Once the Stage 1 areas are stable, the
crossdrain areas would be filled with stockpiled
topsoil and accumulated silt and also sown with seed
as in Stage 1.
The rehabilitation should be the last stage in the
project, with the route of the track closed to vehicle
and pedestrian access until it is stabilised.
B.2 Wet areas
The surviving remnants of the underlying native
vegetation should be allowed to regenerate naturally
in the first instance. If this regeneration does not
occur satisfactorily, supplementary seeding or
planting may be required, but techniques for re-
establishment of wet alpine communities are
currently not well developed. Observation of some
projects within the resort indicate that wet areas tend
to regenerate naturally more readily than dry areas.
B.3 Heath
If necessary, rehabilitation as for B.1 should be
undertaken, otherwise the heath should be left to
regenerate from cut plants on its own accord.
B.4 Monitoring
All temporary access tracks undergoing rehabilitation
should be monitored periodically. Additional
rehabilitation measures should be implemented if
necessary.
7.4 Walking Tracks
Observations of summer visitor behaviour indicate
that the amount of summer walking within the
Perisher Blue Ski Resort has increased significantly
in recent years, and it is likely that this trend will
continue. Much of this walking takes place along
vehicle access tracks, but there are some places
which walkers want to access where there are no
established routes (e.g. between Mount Back
Perisher, Pleasant Valley and Rocky Knob, from
Guthega to the top of Blue Cow Mountain). In this
situation they will find their own routes and, as these
routes become more popular, they will develop as
worn tracks.
Experience has shown that track formation through
this process is not the optimum from an
environmental viewpoint. Walkers tend to take steep,
direct routes and do not feel constrained in crossing
sensitive areas such as bogs or short alpine herbfill if
these happen to fall on their 'desire lines'. In the
interests of responsible summer management of the
resort, it is necessary to recognise where the
emerging demand for summer walking is occurring,
and to provide for this in an environmentally
responsible manner.
As with vehicle tracks, if the volume of movement is
sufficiently high and sufficiently concentrated, the
impacts of forming a permanent track to an adequate
standard will be less than having a substandard track
which is subject to ongoing damage and erosion. It is
unlikely, however, in the Perisher situation that
walker numbers will increase in the foreseeable
future to the point of warranting track design to the
standard of the track between Thredbo and Mount
Kosciuszko.
An alternative is the minimal impact bushwalking
approach of encouraging walkers to disperse over a
broad area. This may be successful in the short term
measure but has its limitations in that once a track
starts to form, particularly in dense heath vegetation,
most people will follow it.
Guidelines
A. Use of existing tracks and roads
A.1 General
As a general principle, the walking track system
within the ski slopes should be designed to utilise
existing vehicle tracks and roads, thus avoiding the
need to construct and maintain dedicated walking
tracks, provided that the volume and speed of traffic
on these tracks does not constitute a significant
hazard to walkers.
B. Construction of new tracks
B.1 Justification
New walking tracks may be constructed within the ski
slopes if one of the following conditions apply:
(a) Informal use of a route by walkers is resulting in
uncontrolled and accelerating environmental
impacts on the vegetation or soil. Such walking
use may include access for resort management
purposes as well as for recreational use.
(b) There is a demonstrated case that construction of
a walking track would enhance the quality of the
experience for a significant number of summer
visitors to the resort.
(c) Construction of a walking track for use by resort
staff would significantly facilitate summer
management of the resort or reduce the
requirements for vehicle access.
B.2 Location
In locating any new walking tracks, consideration
should be given as to whether the track may facilitate
ski slope management in summer or winter, and the
optimum location should be determined accordingly.
B.3 Design general
Design of walking tracks should be in accordance
with the NPWS Walking track construction guidelines
(Ref. 24), or may be based on the design guidelines
for permanent vehicle tracks described in Section 7.2
for different types of terrain within the resort. Where
practicable, local materials (e.g. crushed granodiorite,
MAY 2002 AppA7-7
granodiorite stonework) should be used in preference
to imported materials. The design guidelines
described in Chapter 8 should be considered where
relevant in relation to watercourse crossings, but
simpler solutions (e.g. stepping stones across narrow
creeks or bogs) should be applied where appropriate.
As a general principle, walking tracks on the ski
slopes should be designed to the minimum standard
required for them to be safe and stable.
B.4 Design for users with disabilities
Walking tracks which have potential for use for
people with physical disabilities should be designed
in accordance with Appendix A of the NPWS Walking
track construction guidelines (Ref. 24). This is likely
to result in a higher standard of construction than
would otherwise be warranted.
Further information
Alpine Rehabilitation Manual. (Working Draft,
December 1988). Sections 5.2 Road and track design
and 5.4 Walking tracks. Some of the information in
this manual relates to more substantial tracks than
are warranted within the Perisher Blue ski slopes,
but the principles may still be applicable.
Gorrell, S. Walking track construction guidelines.
National Parks and Wildlife Service.
MAY 2002 AppA8-1
8. WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS
8.1 Introduction
Watercourse crossings are required on the ski slopes
in association with:
vehicle access tracks (permanent or temporary);
oversnow vehicle routes;
ski trails;
skier milling areas; and
pedestrian walkways.
In some cases the crossings are required for year-
round use and in others are for primarily either winter
or summer use only. The size of watercourses can
vary from perennial streams such as Perisher Creek,
which are commonly exposed, even during heavy
snow conditions, through smaller creeks which are
snow-covered during the peak of winter but are
exposed at other times, to minor drainage lines which
present no real obstacle to vehicles but require
protection where they cross tracks to prevent them
from being eroded by vehicle movement.
The issues relating to the design and construction of
watercourse crossings include the following:
Flow maintenance. It is desirable not to affect the
natural flow of watercourses, either during typical
conditions or during floods. Constriction of flood
flows can exacerbate flooding problems further
upstream and increase flow velocities and erosion at
the point of constriction, but this can be countered
through appropriate design.
Ecosystem continuity. In order to allow free
movement of aquatic fauna up and down a stream, it
is desirable to avoid creating barriers which could
retard such movement. This applies particularly to
physical barriers such as weirs. The possible
shading effect of pipes, culverts and bridges should
also be considered in this context.
Riparian vegetation. Construction of a watercourse
crossing can affect the vegetation along the banks
through both direct physical impacts and as a result
of shading.
Streambed protection. If properly constructed
crossings are not provided on an access track, any
use of this track by vehicle will have an impact on the
streambed which could over time be considerably
greater than the impacts of a well constructed
crossing. This principle applies also to minor drains
across tracks.
Safety. Public or occupational safety is commonly
the overriding reason for constructing watercourse
crossings, particularly in situations where there is
seasonal coverage of a watercourse by snow, with
the risk of collapse following partial melting. This
applies to the movement of skiers, snowgrooming
machines and other oversnow vehicles.
Watercourse crossings can be addressed in two
ways, by building a bridge from bank to bank across
the watercourse or by placing a pipe or culvert within
the watercourse and filling around it. For larger
streams with a high level of ecological integrity, the
bridge is usually the preferred option as it can be
designed to minimise impacts on stream processes
and stream banks.
For minor watercourses and drains, particularly in
disturbed areas such as along existing tracks,
culverts or pipes are more practicable and may be
more effective in maintaining the long term stability of
the watercourse.
8.2 Bridges
A key consideration in the design of bridges is the
type of use it is intended to receive, for example:
people or vehicles;
summer, winter or year-round;
oversnow or off-snow.
A bridge which is required for oversnow movement in
winter must have a solid deck which can support
snow but, if it is not also required for summer use, at
least by vehicles, it can be designed so that the deck
can be opened up in summer to reduce shading. A
bridge designed primarily for pedestrian use in winter
(not on skis) should be designed not to hold snow. A
bridge on a summer access track must have a deck
which is suitable for safe use by wheeled and
probably also tracked vehicles. If the bridge is
intended for public vehicular use, it must be designed
to meet appropriate structural standards, although
bridges within the ski slopes are unlikely to have
public vehicular access.
The details of bridge design will be site-specific,
influenced by the characteristics of the creek channel
and banks at the site, and the alignment of the
approach route. The following guidelines set out
general principles which should be interpreted in the
context of site constraints.
AppA8-2 MAY 2002
Guidelines
A. Bridge design
A.1 Bridge primarily for summer vehicle use on
a track
The bridge should have a solid decking (preferably
timber) which can withstand the impacts of regular
wheeled traffic and occasional crossings by tracked
vehicles. Because the decking will shade vegetation
beneath it, it is desirable to have the bridge elevated
as high and as narrow as practicable to reduce any
shading effects. Also, the higher the bridge, the
lower is the risk of flooding or interference with high
flows.
If the bridge will be prone to flooding, it is desirable to
minimise its cross-sectional area perpendicular to the
creek to reduce backing up of floodwater and flood
loadings on the bridge.
Bridges with steel mesh decking, as provided for
pedestrian use at Perisher Valley, offer good light
penetration but are not strong enough for vehicular
use unless they are substantially reinforced with span
timbers or girders.
In most situations within the ski slope, the impacts of
a bridge on the creek bank can be minimised by
using pier and beam construction, with the piers and
beam timbers set well back beyond the edges of the
banks. A span of up to 8 metres can be achieved
using this technique.
For longer spans, it is necessary to place piers with
abutments on the banks and to fill behind the
abutments, or to upgrade the span members to steel
or reinforced concrete, rather than timber. Stronger
span members are likely to require the use of heavier
equipment for bridge construction.
A.2 Bridge for year-round vehicle use on a
track
This would be a rare situation on the ski slopes. The
decking would need to be able to withstand regular
snowclearing. This would make timber decking
impracticable, requiring a concrete deck supported by
a more substantial culvert structure, as discussed in
Section 8.3.
A.3 Bridge for winter use only
A bridge required for winter use only (e.g. by skiers,
slopegrooming machines and/or oversnow vehicles)
should be designed with a deck which is solid in
winter in order to support snow, but can be opened
up in summer to reduce shading of the creek and
riparian vegetation. This can be done by having
removable deck slats which can be stacked on the
bridge during summer. Sufficient bridge decking
remains during summer for it to be safely used by
pedestrians.
The practice of stacking the decking on the bridge is
not appropriate in a flood prone situation. If the
stacking was secured to the bridge, it would increase
flood loadings on the bridge. If not secured, it would
risk being washed away. This bridge design is
therefore not appropriate to large creeks such as
Perisher Creek, which can flood during the spring
thaw.
During heavy snowcover, it is possible for the creek
to be completely covered with snow and to be
crossable over much of its length without a bridge.
As the snow melts, crossing away from the bridge
becomes hazardous. It is therefore important to
identify the bridge location with temporary or
permanent poles when it is not otherwise obvious.
This is particularly important during periods of poor
visibility, including nighttime when snowgrooming
machines are crossing the bridge.
If a bridge is on a ski trail, it should be elevated as
high as practicable to avoid dips in the trail which
cannot be safely negotiated at speed by lower
standard skiers or snowboarders. Such dips can
result in stopping or falling, leading to congestion and
increased risk of collision with other skiers.
A.4 Bridge for summer vehicle use and winter
oversnow use
The requirements of A.1 and A.3 would both apply,
with the option of removable deck slats being
implemented if warranted for ecological reasons.
A.5 Pedestrian use in winter
For bridges used by pedestrians (i.e. not wearing
skis) in winter, it is desirable for safety reasons to
keep the surface snow-free. Decking of open steel
mesh is the most effective means of achieving this.
A.6 Pedestrian use in summer
Open steel decking is suitable also for summer use
and has the advantage that it eliminates shading
problems. Otherwise a timber bridge built on the
principles of A.1 but narrower to reflect pedestrian
use and with small gaps in the decking to reduce
shading is suitable.
Walkers are more versatile in crossing streams than
vehicles or skiers so options other than a constructed
bridge are suitable or even preferable in some
situations (see Section 7.4 Walking Tracks).
B. Maintenance
B.1 Bridges with removable decking
Where decking is designed to be removed, this
should be done as soon as practicable after the snow
has melted and the ski season has ended to enable
normal spring responses from plants.
APRIL 2002 AppA8-3
B.2 General
All bridges should be inspected periodically for any
signs of deterioration or blocking of the channel
beneath the bridge, with remedial action taken as
appropriate.
B.3 Removal of redundant bridges
Any bridge which has deteriorated to the point of
becoming unserviceable or is no longer required
should be removed and the site rehabilitated if
necessary. This is subject to an assessment of its
possible heritage significance and, if appropriate, to
recording and photographing the site before the
bridge is dismantled. If a redundant bridge is
considered worthy of preservation, this shall be
subject to a conservation plan prepared in
consultation with the NPWS.
8.3 Culverts and pipes
Depending on the situation, culverts and pipes can
range in cross-sectional dimensions from a metre or
more to a few centimetres. They all have the
common effect, however, of creating an artificial
channel which interrupts the natural continuity of the
watercourse. In this respect, they are less desirable
than bridges, which can be designed to retain the
watercourse essentially intact.
Because culverts and pipes change the dimensions
of the watercourse, they can also alter its flow
behaviour. The constriction effect at the inlet can
cause water to back up or be channelled around the
opening of the culvert or pipe, with a risk of erosion.
To prevent this, a headwall should be provided at the
inlet.
At the outlet, water can be discharged a velocity in
excess of the natural stream velocity, with risk of
erosion. If the gradient or streambed characteristics
indicate a risk of this happening, it is necessary to
modify the outlet to either dissipate the stream
energy or protect the stream bed against erosion. If
the stream velocity is suddenly reduced at the outlet,
this is likely to result in deposition of bedload carried
by the stream, which may require removal
periodically.
The impact of a culvert or pipe in interrupting the
natural continuity of the watercourse can be
minimised by keeping its floor flush with the bed of
the stream. This means that a square culvert will
generally be preferable to a round one, assuming that
the bed of the stream will be approximately flat
across the width of the culvert. Continuity of the
streambed surface should assist aquatic fauna such
as fish and macroinvertebrates in moving upstream
and downstream under all conditions where the
stream is flowing.
Inhibition of the movement of terrestrial fauna along
the creek corridor in this situation may be avoided by
incorporating a second pipe at a higher elevation, so
that it remains dry when the main pipe is flowing.
Alternatively the culvert or pipe may be designed with
a dry crossing (see Section 14.7, Provision of animal
crossings, for further discussion).
As a general principle, if the watercourse carries a
regular flow and functions as a continuous aquatic
and/or terrestrial ecosystem, a bridge should be
constructed in preference to a culvert. The following
guidelines apply to situations where the watercourse
is already disturbed, does not maintain a regular flow
or is in a situation where commonsense dictates that
bridge construction is impracticable or unwarranted.
Guidelines
A. Culvert or pipe design
A.1 Disturbed areas/modified watercourses
The culvert or pipe should be flush with the bed of the
watercourse with a headwall or equivalent protection
provided at the inlet and adequate streambed
protection at the outlet. The capacity of the pipe
would depend on the situation. While a 1 in 10 year
flow capacity would generally be optimum, there are
some more critical situations where it should be
increased to 1 in 20 year or more, and other
situations where 1 in 5 year would be adequate.
Special provision for animal crossings is not
warranted.
A.2 Crossing of animal habitat/movement
corridor
If the watercourse has potential to be used as a
movement corridor for small animals (e.g. continuous
dry or wet heath, or boulder field), provision should
be made for a dry animal crossing, either as a
separate pipe or through modification of the main
culvert. Further details of its design are given in
Section 14.7. Continuous heath or rock cover should
be maintained to either end of the crossing. The
provisions of A.1 with respect to inlet and outlet
protection should be incorporated.
A.3 Waterlogged ground
Where permanently or seasonally waterlogged
ground is located upstream and downstream of the
crossing, a series of small pipes which maintain
dispersed flow should be provided in preference to
channelling all the flow to a single point, which would
change the flow characteristics downhill of the
crossing.
This assumes that the standard of crossing required
precludes the system of track construction described
in Guideline 7.2/A.4 (Permanent access tracks wet
areas).
A.4 Steep slopes
On steep slopes it is likely that protection to dissipate
stream energy and reduce erosion will be required
AppA8-4 MAY 2002
below the outlets of culverts and pipes. While these
can be constructed from concrete, it is desirable from
an aesthetic viewpoint to incorporate local
granodiorite if it is available. The design of such
protection may be integrated with the protection of
small animal movements through the pipe beneath
the track to provide a more natural overall
appearance (e.g. a small boulder field).
B. Maintenance
B.1 General
All culverts and pipes should be inspected
periodically to check for damage or deterioration,
blockage, erosion and problems with animal
crossings, if provided, with remedial action taken as
necessary.
MAY 2002 AppA9-1
9. SKI LIFTS
9.1 Introduction
Ski lifts are of two basic types, surface lifts and aerial
lifts, each of which has specific advantages and
disadvantages in both operational and environmental
terms. Aerial lifts have higher capacities and are
easier to ride, especially for snowboarders, but are
most subject to closure during extreme conditions,
particularly high winds. While they require larger
structures, particularly at the top and bottom stations,
which can be more prominent visually, their
construction generally involves a lower level of
environmental disturbance than surface lifts, as this
disturbance is limited mainly to the vicinity of the
stations and lift towers. In contrast, surface lifts
require a high standard of summer grooming along
the whole of the lift track.
All lifts require a communication cable between the
top and bottom stations and, for security from ice
buildup, it is desirable for this to be buried in the
ground if practicable. While some lifts have an
overhead communications cable (e.g. Interceptor),
this needs to be supported on a catenary cable and
frequent de-icing is required, which creates an
additional manual operational task and can cause
structural damage to the cable. The risk of
deterioration of the cable casing due to ultra-violet
light is increased. An overhead cable is feasible only
on lifts in a relatively protected situation. In exposed
locations, the cable is likely to be damaged by wind
and ice buildup.
It is necessary also to have an earth cable for
lightning protection associated with each tower. This
cable normally extends for the full length of the lift
and is buried if possible. In difficult terrain, it may be
left lying on the ground surface.
Alternatively an earth grid of bross pegs connected
by copper wire can be provided at each lift tower
underneath to tower footing.
9.2 Siting and Design
The alignment of ski lifts is influenced by many
environmental factors including exposure to wind,
snow accumulation, terrain constraints and
avoi dance of sensi t i ve ecol ogi cal or
geomorphological areas. Once the line is
determined, however, there is limited flexibility with
respect to the number, siting and height of towers. If
there are sensitive areas along the route, these
should be addressed in determining the alignment
rather than at the design stage.
One consequence of lift construction, which is
unavoidable, is the need to remove trees within the
corridor of the lift. There are strict OH&S standards
applying to this which are beyond the control of
Perisher Blue or the NPWS. Unless a new lift is
located in an essentially treeless area, it is inevitable
that some trees will need to be removed and others
will need to be trimmed. It is also highly likely that
some of these will be of a sufficient age to be
regarded as 'old-age mature snowgums', even
though it is difficult to establish a precise definition for
such trees.
It is totally impracticable, and also inconsistent with
the principles of both ecologically sustainable
development and a 'pre-eminent ski resort' to suggest
that mature snowgums should be fully protected
against disturbance. Rather, the process of
identifying an alignment for a new lift should give high
priority to the protection of such trees, at the same
t i me acknowl edgi ng t he numerous ot her
environmental and operational constraints that
influence the alignment. The best environmental
solution is one which responds in a balanced way to
all constraints, including those which are not of an
ecological nature.
While it may be technically possible for a ski lift to
bend in order to avoid important ecological
constraints, this would add significantly to the capital
cost, maintenance requirements and operational
difficulties. The lift corridor at a bend is relatively
wide, and this can significantly increase the overall
environmental impacts of the lift. For these reasons,
it is an option which would be considered in only the
most extreme circumstances. There do not appear to
be any environmental constraints in areas within the
Perisher Blue Ski Resort where new lifts are
proposed which would justify going to this extreme.
For planning purposes, all new lift options would be
regarded as having straight alignments.
A more important practical consideration with respect
to lifts is in the siting and design of the top station. It
is logical for a lift to terminate on or close to the top of
a ridge for several reasons:
The terrain is relatively flat making it easy for
skiers to unload and move away from the lifts.
The vertical distance for skiing is maximised.
If the lift is used for circulation around the resort
(e.g. Interceptor), it is relatively easy to ski to the
far side of the ridge.
Construction is easier and tends to have less
impact on gentler slopes.
Potential disadvantages of such top station locations
are:
AppA9-2 MAY 2002
exposure to strong winds, which can increase the
incidence of lift closure; and
visual prominence from areas outside the resort,
especially the Main Range.
Minimising the bulk of the top station by locating the
lift drive and chair parking (if relevant) at the bottom
station is one way of reducing its visual impacts (see
further discussion below). However, the constraints
associated with the bottom station also need to be
considered, particularly if it is located in a congested
or sensitive area. Many decisions associated with ski
lift planning and design can be made only in the
relevant context.
A common problem which arises with bottom stations
is that they are often located in wet areas (bog, wet
heath, wet grassland or transitional heath). This is a
consequence of the fact that it is desirable for the
queuing and milling areas at the bottom stations to be
relatively flat, and the only flat areas at the base of
slopes tend to be wet areas adjacent to creeks.
The environmental problems arising from this are
threefold. First, the construction of the bottom station
results in disturbance of the area. Second, the
impacts of intense skier utilisation may affect the area
over an extended period. Third, being a wet area, it
does not hold snow well, which means that the
underlying vegetation can become exposed to
damage while the remainder of the slope is still
skiable. This can be addressed by artificially
maintaining snow cover through snowmaking,
snowfarming and other machine work.
Lifts require a power supply, the normal supply for
new lifts being by underground electricity cable, the
laying of which is a further impact of lift development.
Some of the older lifts are diesel-powered, which is
inferior in environmental terms because of the risks of
spillage or leakage of diesel fuel and the smell of
diesel fumes. These lifts are progressively being
upgraded to electrical operation, with removal of the
redundant tanks.
While diesel power is being phased out as the
primary source of power on lifts, there is a mandatory
WorkCover requirement for each lift to have a backup
motor to provide an alternative power source for
normal lift operation in the event of electricity failure
and also to have an independent evacuation motor
which can be used to unload the lift in an emergency.
For these secondary power supplies, the options are
diesel or LPG.
Diesel is the preferred fuel for environmental and
safety reasons as, in the event of leakage, there is no
risk of explosion and it can be readily observed,
tracked and recovered. It is also considered a more
reliable fuel at low temperatures. With LPG, there is
the risk of explosion if exposed to naked flames or
sparks and, if a large volume escapes, it can flow en
masse to lower parts of the resort without the ability
to monitor its progress accurately or to trap it.
Guidelines
A. Siting and Design
A.1 Aerial lifts determination of alignment
The optimum alignment from a new lift should be
assessed from consideration of a number of straight-
line options connecting suitable top station and
bottom station sites. In the first instance alignments
should be assessed on the basis of the 1:5000 series
of vegetation maps prepared fro the resort, but
promising options should be subject to further field
inspection to verify the accuracy of the information on
these maps and identify more specific constraints
such as individual mature snowgums. Prior to final
adoption, the preferred alignment should be subject
to accurate survey to establish and match the
centreline of the lift, the approximate tower locations
and the extent of tree clearing required.
The alignment should be chosen with a view to
avoiding towers in sensitive sites as far as
practicable. Such sites include bog, wet heath,
dense diverse heath, snowpatch, short alpine
herbfield, boulder heath and other rocky areas.
A.2 Surface lifts determination of alignment
The principles for determining the optimum alignment
of surface lifts are similar to those for aerial lifts, but
with the added consideration that the impacts of the
lift track must also be taken into account, particularly
in relation to the clearing of heath and rocks.
This means that, with the possible exception of
hollows which accumulate snow, it is desirable to
align the lift so that it avoids areas of wet heath,
transitional heath and dense, diverse heath as far as
practicable, and also dry heath and open heath as a
second priority. (Low heath is unlikely to interfere
with the lift under normal snow cover and is also
unlikely to occur in areas suitable for such lifts).
A.3 Top stations in prominent locations
If possible, lifts should be sited so that the towers and
particularly the top station are not prominent in views
from sensitive areas, such as the Main Range.
There are sometimes operational constraints which
preclude this, however. It then becomes necessary
to look to sensitive design as a means of minimising
visual impacts. This can include measures such as:
avoiding skylining of towers and the top station;
minimising the bulk of the top station by locating
the lift drive and chair parking (if relevant) at the
bottom station;
MAY 2002 AppA9-3
constructing the exterior of the station from
suitably coloured and non-reflective materials
which do not stand out against the natural
backdrop in the view; or
where there is a risk of reflection (e.g. from
essential windows), mounting these at an angle
which does not reflect at the level of sensitive
viewing sites, or concentrating windows on the
side of the building away from the sun.
A.4 Bottom stations in wet areas
If possible, bottom stations should be sited to avoid
wet areas or other sensitive areas that occur in the
valley floor. If this is not practicable, the impacts on
these areas should be limited by:
restricting the impacts, for example, by locating
the lift drive at the top station if practicable and
developing the bottom station within a tight
footprint;
using sod removal and replacement (see
Guideline 5.3/A.1) where it is necessary to install
underground services;
constructing any permanent access tracks in
accordance with the guidelines for wet area
areas (see Guideline 7.2/A.4);
utilising snowmaking to build up a sufficient bank
of snow to protect against early snow loss; and
carefully restricting any off-track movement
during summer maintenance activities.
A.5 Conversion of diesel lifts to electrical
operation
The conversion of existing diesel lifts to electrical
operation should be undertaken as the opportunity
arises. Electricity would be supplied in an
underground line, laid in accordance with the
principles for trench construction described in Section
5.2.
The diesel fuel tank should be drained of fuel and
removed from the ground for disposal outside the
Park. The hole should be filled with soil or rock, if
possible placing this material with a view to
approximately reconstructing the original soil profile,
i.e. weathered or broken rock on the bottom, then
covered with subsoil and topsoil. This, however, will
depend on what material is available at the time.
A.6 Backup operation
Each chairlift must have a backup motor which can
enable it to operate if the main motor or power supply
fails, plus a separate low-power motor for emergency
evacuation. These motors should operate by diesel
power with diesel fuel tank installed above ground
with bunding to protect it against the risk of leakages
or spillages.
9.3 Survey of Lift Line
Accurate survey of the lift line is an important
component of the engineering design process for the
lift. It can involve a moderate level of disturbance
along the lift route, particularly as it is sometimes
necessary to cut down trees to obtain a clear
sighting. Such trees would be removed in due
course as part of the lift construction, but it is
desirable to avoid such disturbance unless it is
certain that the lift is to proceed in that location. This
in turn would require early environmental review
without the benefit of the detailed engineering design.
Thi s approach i s consi stent wi th current
environmental practice.
Guidelines
A. Survey general
A.1 Undisturbed areas
Surveys of lift lines in undisturbed areas where tree
removal or pruning is likely to be required in order to
undertake the survey should not be carried out until
the alignment of the lift has been approved in
principle by NPWS. This in turn requires the NPWS
to make a firm commitment to approval on the basis
of a preliminary alignment analysis without the benefit
of accurate engineering survey and to be prepared to
accept minor changes to alignment and design that
may be necessitated as a result of the survey.
Where survey is undertaken, any tree clearing or
trimming should be limited to the minimum required
to undertake the survey, so that should the survey
result to changes being made to the alignment, the
trees that may no longer need to be removed would
have the opportunity to regenerate.
A.2 Cleared ski slopes
In situations where the ski slope has previously been
cleared or the alignment is naturally free of trees, the
survey should have no major impacts on vegetation
and could be undertaken at any time when it suits the
planning and decision-making process.
B. Access for survey
B.1 Undisturbed areas
Access into undisturbed areas should be in
accordance with the Guidelines in Section 2.2. In
some cases, this may mean that access is on foot
only, particularly in areas which are steep, wet, rocky
or otherwise sensitive.
B.2 Cleared ski slopes
Vehicle access is permissible in accordance with the
guidelines in Section 2.2.
AppA9-4 MAY 2002
9.4 Construction
New ski lifts are commonly constructed in areas with
limited opportunities for vehicle access. While it is
important to maintain reliable vehicle access to the lift
stations, it is not necessary for this to follow the route
of the lift or to have vehicle access to individual lift
towers on an ongoing basis. In order to avoid
possible disturbance to sensitive sites during the
construction process, techniques can be employed
which are not dependent on access by ground
vehicle.
Such techniques, however, can be relatively
expensive in terms of fuel energy, human labour and
financial cost, hence it is desirable to limit them to
situations where they will be of real environmental
benefit. The circumstances will vary with each lift.
Guidelines
A. Site access
A.1 Structures on roads and tracks
Construction of permanent tracks to lift stations, if not
already existing, should be undertaken well in
advance of the lift construction (at least one year) to
allow time for the track to consolidate before it is
subject to the regular movement of construction
equipment. This track may also provide access to
some towers that it passes en route. Use of the track
should be in accordance with the guidelines in
Section 2.1.
Because of the impacts of heavy vehicle movement
associated with lift construction, it will usually be
necessary to rebuild the track at the conclusion of the
project.
A.2 Open areas off tracks
Where access to tower sites is feasible by traversing
dry open areas such as exotic ground cover,
herbfield, grassland and open heath, this should be in
accordance with the guidelines in Section 2.2. This
means that access would be limited to four-wheel-
drive motorbikes, tracked vehicles (with care) and,
subject to suitable gradient and cross-slope, medium-
weight four-wheel drive vehicles and a four-wheel-
drive crane for erecting the towers.
A.3 Other areas
Areas on steep slopes or with dense of sensitive
vegetation would be accessed only on foot, with a
helicopter used for transporting heavy materials,
including concrete and lift towers (see Section 2.3).
B. Erection of towers
B.1 General
Irrespective of the equipment used, the following
approach should apply to the erection of lift towers:
1. Tree or heath vegetation is removed from the site
by hand.
2. Topsoil or sods are stripped from the site and
stockpiled.
3. Wooden formwork is placed for the tower
foundation.
4. The concrete foundation is poured, the formwork
removed and the hole around the footing is filled
with appropriate stockpiled material. The
concrete is then allowed to cure.
5. When the concrete is cured, the tower is attached
to the foundation.
B.2 Sites with good vehicle access
If there is adequate vehicle access to the tower sites,
the hole would be dug with an excavator, the
concrete would be transported by conventional
concrete truck , and the tower would be transported
by truck and erected using a mobile crane. Drilling of
rocks for blasting, if required, would be done using a
compressor towed to the site or transported by truck.
Other heavy materials would also be transported by
truck.
B.3 Sites with limited vehicle access
If there is limited vehicle access to the site (e.g.
tracked or four-wheel-drive vehicles only), the hole
would be dug with an excavator but the pouring of the
footing and erection of the tower would be done by
helicopter. Drilling of rocks for blasting, if required,
would be done using a compressor transported by
HD carrier. Other heavy materials would also be
transported by HD carrier, which would also be used
to remove surplus spoil.
B.4 Sites with no vehicle access
If there is no vehicle access to the site, the hole
would be dug by hand, using a portable petrol drill if
blasting of rock is necessary. All heavy equipment
would be transported by helicopter, which would be
used also for pouring the concrete, erecting the tower
and removing surplus spoil, if necessary.
If a helicopter is required for the erection of most
towers, it is likely to be used for this purpose
throughout the project, rather than having a separate
arrangement at the occasional more accessible site.
C. Construction of stations
C.1 General
The top station, bottom station and midstation (if
provided) should all be accessible by a permanent
access track. This would enable the transport of all
materials by four-wheel-drive truck, as well as crane
access if required.
The construction of the stations will vary with each
lift, but as a general principle, the area of disturbance
should be kept to a minimum. In situations where the
MAY 2002 AppA9-5
station is formed from an elevated steel and timber
structure above the ground, the natural ground
surface should be retained intact where possible.
C.2 Wet areas
Construction of bottom stations in wet areas should
be undertaken under conditions when the ground is
relatively dry (i.e. normally later summer) to reduce
the impacts of disturbance. It is particularly important
to contain the movement of vehicles around the site.
It may be necessary to undertake some rock filling of
the wet area to provide a stable area around the
station. If so, this area should be kept as small as
necessary for the construction and subsequent
operation of the station.
D. Hanging of lift cable
D.1 Access track along lift
A winching cable should be rolled out along the
length of the lift by vehicle and lifted onto each tower.
This is then spliced into the end of the main hauling
cable, which is winched onto the lift.
D.2 No vehicle access along lift
A winching cable is pulled along the length of the lift
on foot. It may be necessary to use a gradation of
cables of increasing weights before attaching the
winching cable to load the main hauling cable.
E. Communication cable
E.1 Reasonable access along lift line
If there is reasonable access along the lift line, the
communication cable should be buried in a trench,
which is prepared and stabilised according to the
guidelines in Section 5.2. An underground location
for the cable offers the greatest security, provided
that the slope is stable. On a previously cleared ski
slope, the trench may be dug by machine, but in less
disturbed situations hand digging may be desirable.
E.2 Difficult access along lift line in sheltered
terrain
Where access is difficult because of sensitive, steep
or rocky terrain, making it difficult to dig and/or
rehabilitate a trench satisfactorily, and the lift is in a
suitably sheltered location, the communication cable
should be attached overhead to a catenary cable
between the lift towers.
E.3 Difficult access along lift line in exposed
terrain
If exposure to wind and ice formation precludes an
overhead communications cable, the cable should be
laid in or on the ground using appropriate techniques
to minimise environmental disturbance and provide
adequate protection to the cable. It may be
necessary to deviate from the lift line to achieve an
acceptable route. A detailed investigation of the
cable route should be undertaken prior to its laying to
determine the optimum techniques.
F. Electricity cable
F.1 General
The electricity cable to the lift drive station should be
located in an underground trench in accordance with
the guidelines in Section 5.2. The difficulty of
trenching is a factor which should be considered in
determining whether the drive station should be at
the top or bottom of the lift, although there are other
considerations which are likely to carry more weight
in making this decision.
G. Lightning protection
G.1 Reasonable access along lift line
If there is reasonable access along the lift line, the
lightning protection cable should be buried in a trench
as in Guideline E.1.
G.2 Difficult access along lift line
Where access is difficult because of sensitive, steep
or rocky terrain, making it difficult to dig and/or
rehabilitate a trench satisfactorily, the lightning
protection cable may be left partly on the ground
surface, or an alternative form of lightning protection
may be incorporated into the design of the lift. The
design of the lightning protection system should be
speci fi cal l y addressed i n the desi gn and
environmental review of the lift.
9.5 Maintenance
Maintenance of ski lifts is a major summer activity at
the resort and is of high priority in terms of the safe
and reliable operation of the lifts during the following
winter. The timing of access for this work will be
influenced by the duration of snow cover and the
effects of snowmelt and summer rain on the condition
of tracks.
Where major repair or maintenance works are
undertaken, which involve taking heavy equipment to
a lift station, this may result in access track damage
necessitating subsequent repair, rehabilitation and
temporary closure of the track. Such works need to
be planned in the context of total summer operation
of the resort, taking account of other possible
requirements for use of that access track during the
summer and appropriate timing of rehabilitation
works.
Guidelines
A. Timing of access for general maintenance
A.1 Timing of access
Vehicle access to lift stations for maintenance
activities should be restricted to periods when the
AppA9-6 MAY 2002
access track is in a relatively dry and stable
condition, and is free of snow, unless otherwise
specified.
A.2 Olympic T-bar
Because of the lack of a permanent access track to
Olympic T-bar, and the environmental problems in
constructing permanent access in such an exposed
and sensitive area, maintenance of this lift should be
undertaken by oversnow vehicle at the end of winter
unless summer access is unavoidable (e.g. for OH&S
reasons).
B. Type of vehicles used
Refer to Sections 2.1 and 2.2.
C. Storage of removable chairs and T-bar
boxes
C.1 Storage site
Chairs removed from a lift during summer should be
stored on ground which preferably has an artificial
surface or, if vegetated, is covered with introduced
vegetation rather than native vegetation.
D. Cable replacement
D.1 General
To avoid the need for access along lift lines, cables
should be replaced by splicing the new cable into the
existing cable and winching it along the lift from the
end.
E. Major repair or maintenance works
E.1 Planning
Major repair or maintenance works involving the
access of heavy equipment to the lift should be
planned with a view to timing this access when its
impacts would be relatively low and avoiding conflicts
with other summer maintenance activities at the
resort. The latter should take account of the possible
need to rehabilitate and temporarily close the access
track.
MAY 2002 AppA10-1
10. BUILDINGS AND MAJOR STRUCTURES
10.1 Introduction
Apart from lift stations, buildings on the ski slopes
may include mountain restaurants and kiosks,
snowmaking plant buildings or pump stations,
mountain workshops, ski patrol bump stations and
communications huts. Other major structures include
snowmaking tanks and reservoirs and other water
storage tanks, for example, to serve mountain
restaurants.
The siting, design and operation of these buildings
and structures would normally be subject to detailed
environmental review on a case-by-case basis, which
would identify specific best practices in each case.
There are a number of common considerations which
would be relevant in most cases. These include the
following:
General site disturbance. Most of these buildings
and structures would involve clearing the site of
vegetation and soil, some of which would be used in
subsequent rehabilitation. The need to conserve
vegetation and soil resources is discussed in Chapter
5. The protection of the exposed site from erosion
and sediment loss is discussed in Chapter 4.
Smaller buildings such as bump stations and kiosks
may be capable of being constructed above ground
level with only minor disturbance of the surface
vegetation. This is desirable if it does not
compromise the function or security of the building.
Except in this situation, building construction may
affect animal habitat and possibly movement
corridors. Measures to mitigate such effects should
be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Visual impacts. Buildings and other structures can
have a significant visual impact on the landscape in
both summer and winter. These impacts may be
experienced within and outside the resort and, where
lighting is involved, at night as well as during the
daytime. Such impacts can be addressed by
sensitive siting of the building and through aspects of
its design including the type and colour of materials
used and the angle of glass, metal and other
reflective surfaces.
Access and services. Most buildings and structures
require permanent access for maintenance, as well
as underground services. The practices relating to
these are discussed in Sections 7.2 and 5.2
respectively.
Architectural design. The NPWS Building Code
sets out architectural design standards for buildings
within the resort, including the ski slopes. Any
departure from this code, e.g. for reasons of
practicality or to reduce environmental impacts is
subject to NPWS agreement.
10.2 Siting and design
Siting and design are interdependent in that a
building which is sited in an ecologically or visually
sensitive situation will require greater attention to its
design in order to reduce adverse impacts. An
important consideration in the snowfield situation is
energy conservation, particularly in reducing heating
energy. The principles of energy efficient design of
buildings are well documented elsewhere, but some
of these principles need to be interpreted in relation
to specific environmental characteristics of the resort,
such as snow accumulation and wind exposure.
There may also be conflict between energy
conservat i on obj ect i ves and some ot her
environmental objectives (e.g. reduction of visual
impacts) in some situations.
Guidelines
A. Site selection
A.1 General sensitive sites
The siting of buildings should endeavour to avoid
sensitive or significant sites as far as practicable.
Such sites include permanent of seasonably wet
areas (e.g. bog, wet heath, transitional heath, wet
grassland), important habitat areas (e.g. dense,
diverse heath, boulder heath, critical movement
corridors), snowpatch/short alpine herbfield, mature
snowgum stands and very steep slopes.
A.2 Buildings on ridges in view of the Main
Range
Buildings and structures which need to be close to
the top of ridges in view of the Main Range should be
sited with respect to the following principles:
If possible, the building should be on the fall of
the ridge away from the Main Range.
Use should be made of natural topography, rock
outcrops and permanent vegetation for total or
partial screening where practicable.
A.3 Buildings on lower slopes facing the Main
Range
Buildings should be sited to make use of natural
topography, rock outcrop and permanent vegetation
for at least partial screening.
A.4 Buildings within view of village centres or
Kosciuszko Road
Buildings should be located if possible to avoid being
skylined on ridges, i.e. the topography or vegetation
should be used as a backdrop to the building.
AppA10-2 MAY 2002
B. Building design
B.1 General sensitive sites
Where it is unavoidable for buildings to intrude onto
sensitive or significant sites as identified in A.1, the
following measures may reduce the impacts on those
sites:
Desi gni ng outdoor areas wi thout sol i d
foundations and with open decking to allow light
penetration.
Using lightweight but strong building materials
which can be handled on site without extensive
use of machinery, thus reducing incidental
impacts.
Prefabrication of building components which can
then be flown in by helicopter.
Avoiding the use of rockwork and the need to
transport rocks to the site.
B.2 Visually prominent buildings
The visual prominence of buildings which can be
seen from critical locations can be reduced by the
following measures:
Designing the building to blend in with the
surrounding environment though the choice of
materials and colours, in particular minimising the
use of non-reflective materials.
Mounting essential reflective materials (e.g.
windows) at an angle which does not reflect
towards sensitive viewing sites, or concentrating
windows on the side of the building away from
the sun.
B.3 Energy conservation
Buildings requiring heating should be designed to be
energy efficient through measures such as:
good solar access through siting, orientation and
position of windows, and avoiding winter shading
by trees;
insulation and double-glazing;
elimination of open underfloor areas if
practicable;
protection from excessive wind exposure;
airlocks at entry points;
energy-efficient heating systems; and
provision of internal fittings which improve heat
retention.
C. Retention of snowgums
C.1 Trees on the downhill side of the building
Where snowgums on the downhill side of a building
are deliberately retained as part of the design, these
sometimes die in due course, possibly because of
interruption of the natural groundwater flow to their
root systems. The risk of this occurring can be
reduced by avoiding major basement excavation in
the building design. Younger trees in this situation
may be better able to adapt to the changed
groundwater regime and should not be sacrificed in
order to retain mature trees.
C.2 Trees on other sides of the building
The above risk does not appear to be as significant
where trees are located on the same level or uphill of
the building. It is still necessary, however, to take
account of the potential for root damage, with
consequent effects on tree health and stability, if
excavation is undertaken within the natural dripline of
the tree.
C.3 Shading of windows
In buildings where energy conservation is important,
shading of windows by trees in winter should be
avoided as far as practicable. This should be
achieved through building siting and design, rather
than by removal or pruning of trees.
10.3 Construction
The practices relating to the construction of buildings
will be influenced particularly by the accessibility of
the site and the extent of disturbance in the
surrounding area. As a general rule, buildings which
are located in the more remote parts of the ski
slopes, which tend to be less disturbed and more
difficult to access will require a more sensitive
approach towards their construction.
Guidelines
A. Site preparation
A.1 Sites with natural vegetation and soil
profile
Unless it is feasible to retain the surface vegetation
beneath the building (e.g. lift operator's huts), the site
should be cleared of any tree or heath vegetation and
the topsoil stripped and stockpiled for use in
subsequent rehabilitation or, if not required at the
site, for use elsewhere within the resort. See
Sections 5.3 and 14.2 for further details.
A.2 Sites in disturbed areas
If the site has previously been disturbed without
conservation and respreading of the topsoil, the value
of the top layer of the soil may be limited, in which
case stockpiling for rehabilitation may not be
warranted.
A.3 Building where surface vegetation is
retained
If a building (or part of the building) is elevated above
the natural ground surface so that groundcover and
possibly low heath can be retained beneath the floor,
construction should be undertaken in a way which
MAY 2002 AppA10-3
endeavours to limit incidental disturbance to this
vegetation.
B. Erosion and sediment control
The relevant provisions of Chapter 4 should be
applied according to the nature of the site and the
scale of building development.
C. Access and transport of materials
C.1 General
The relevant provisions of Chapter 2 apply. For
construction of small buildings in remote locations, it
may be appropriate to transport materials by
helicopter. The use of an aerial ski lift with a
specially designed carrier may be an option for
transporting construction materials for a small
building located close to the top of the lift.
D. Storage of materials
D.1 Undisturbed areas
In situations where the vegetation is generally not
disturbed, the impacts of construction caused by the
storage of materials should be limited by not storing
them on site for any longer than is necessary for the
efficient erection of the building. Materials should be
stored on surfaces which are not readily damaged by
temporary compression (e.g. bare rock or grassland
rather than heath) or that can recover relatively
quickly. Materials should be unloaded carefully to
avoid unnecessary surface damage.
D.2 Previously disturbed areas
The constraints on storage sites may not apply in
previously disturbed areas, however, care should still
be taken to avoid unnecessary disturbance in
unloading and storage, as such disturbance would
require subsequent rehabilitation.
E. Pouring of concrete footings
E.1 Timing
Concrete footings should be poured when the
weather conditions are suitable for setting and curing
of the concrete. If footings are poured on hot days,
provision should be made for keeping them moist
until they are set. Periods when they are subject to
frost should be avoided, or measures incorporated to
protect against frost damage.
F. Erection of building
F.1 Undisturbed areas
In erecting the building, the disturbed working area
outside the building envelope should be kept to the
minimum necessary for safe and efficient erection of
the building. If there are areas of particular
sensitivity, these should be fenced or marked as
described in Section 5.8.
F.2 Previously disturbed areas
While the site has been previously disturbed, the
need to contain construction activities is less critical.
Rather, emphasis should be placed on avoiding
disturbance to any remnants of natural vegetation in
the vicinity of the site, with marking or fencing as
appropriate (see Section 5.8).
G. Removal of waste materials
G.1 General
All waste materials, including cut vegetation, surplus
spoil, building waste and litter should be removed
from the site progressively during construction.
Access for removing waste material should be
subject to the same considerations as bringing
material into the site. In some situations where the
removal of natural materials (e.g. cut vegetation, soil)
may cause excessive impacts, it may be preferable to
dispose of the materials on site. This should be
assessed on a case-by-case basis. Provision should
be made for the reuse or recycling of waste materials
where this is impracticable.
Further Information
NPWS Building Code. Policy E1 in Environmental
Planning and Assessment Manual. Kosciuszko
National Park (draft, October 1999).
Building Regulation Australia. Part G4 Construction
in alpine areas. Butterworths.
North Sydney Council. Development Control Plan No.
1 (Amendments). Energy efficiency controls. (Note:
This contains some useful information compiled from
other sources, available from the NSW Energy
Information Centre).
MAY 2002 AppA11-1
11. SNOW FENCES
11.1 Introduction
The use of snow fences as a means of enhancing
snow cover in exposed locations is strongly
consistent with ESD principles. It is a passive means
of snow accumulation, requiring no commitment of
energy or material resources beyond those required
for the initial construction of the fence. This contrasts
with the alternative approach of snow making. The
process of wind reduction, which leads to the initial
accumulation of snow, also protects the site against
wind scour, which may be an ongoing problem if
alternative methods of snow enhancement were
used.
The impacts of snow fence construction are readily
reversible, as fences can be removed, requiring only
the filling of the postholes to return the site to a
natural condition.
The main disadvantage associated with snow fences
is their appearance in the landscape, particularly in
exposed areas. In principle, the visual impacts in
summer can be reduced by designing the fences to
be partly or wholly demountable, removing them at
the end of winter and replacing them before the next
winter. In practice, however, this is labour-intensive.
The aesthetic benefits of seasonal fences need to be
weighted against the potential benefits of using such
labour for other optional environmental enhancement
works within the resort, as well as the environmental
impacts that can arise from the annual erection and
removal of the fences. These impacts are associated
particularly with the transport of timber to and from
the site or, alternatively, the storage of timber on site
during summer.
There is little flexibility in determining the optimum
siting for snow fences. They are required at specific
points on ski trails or along surface lifts which are
dictated by the local topography and its relationship
to the prevailing winds. The alignment of fences is
determined largely by wind direction but is
constrained also by operational and safety needs so
that fences do not become obstacles or hazards to
skiers and grooming machinery. The best practices
therefore do not include siting of fences but are
limited to their design, construction and operation.
As snowfences significantly change the microclimate
on their downwind side in terms of influencing snow
deposition, it is possible that they may also cause
microclimatic changes to vegetation species and
morphology, particularly in very exposed areas where
high wind is a key influence over the vegetation
community. While such effects have not been
documented, they could be clarified through long-
term monitoring at selected snow fence sites. The
results of such monitoring could influence practices
for the design and operation of snow fences.
11.2 Design
The design of snow fences is fairly standard, with
steel driven uprights and diagonal steel bracing being
essential to withstand the wind and ice loadings on
the fences. The main scope for varying the design is
with respect to whether the timber slats are
permanently fixed, or are removed at the end of
winter and replaced before the start of the next ski
season. This decision is influenced by weighing the
visual prominence of the fence against the impacts of
seasonal removal.
There is currently no standard design for
demountable fences, and a number of fences in
locations where a demountable fence would be
appropriate have been constructed as permanent
fences. The construction of fences of a functional,
demountabl e desi gn i s subj ect to further
investigation.
The following guidelines relating to demountability
are subject to successful testing of a practicable
design. In the long term, it may then be desirable to
modify some existing permanent fences to
demountable design.
While they may be desirable from a visual viewpoint,
demountable fences have some environmental and
operational disadvantages, for example:
They would require regular access to
dismantle and reassemble each year, which
may have access impacts.
The commitment of staff resource to dismantle
and reassemble fences may reduce their
availability for other environmental projects.
For these reasons, the use of demountable fences
should be restricted to situations where their
environmental benefits are significant.
Guidelines
A. Demountability
A.1 Locations prominent from the Main Range
The fence is designed to be demounted with
provision for summer storage of timber slats just
above ground level.
A.2 Locations prominent within the resort and
in the vicinity of other development
Where the fence is part of a generally developed
area within the resort (e.g. Front Valley, Smiggin
AppA11-2 MAY 2002
Holes bowl), snow fences would be considered by
most people not to appear incongruous and should
be of permanent construction.
A.3 Locations prominent within the resort but
isolated from other developments
Where the snow fence is the only prominent structure
on the slope, it should be designed to be
demountable.
B. Colour
B.1 General
Snow fences should be left unpainted and be allowed
to weather naturally. This has been found by
experience to be effective in limiting their visual
prominence in the subalpine environment.
C. Safety
C.1 End protection
The exposed ends of snow fences should be padded
with end protectors to make them more obvious to
skiers and reduce the risk of injury.
C.2 Shielding of braces
Where practicable, diagonal braces should be
located on the side of the fence which is not exposed
to skiers, to prevent skiers potentially catching their
skis in the braces. In situations where this is not
practicable, short wings perpendicular to the fence
should be built on the same side of the braces to
keep skiers at a safe distance from the fence.
Alternatively, low profile welded braces may be used,
possibly on both sides of the fence.
D. Tree planting
D.1 General
In situations with suitable soil, vegetation and
operational characteristics, snowgums should be
planted beside the snow fence with a view to
reducing its long term visual impact and improving its
function in snow deposition. Snowgums should not
be planted, however, in situations where they are
likely to cause future operational problems with lifts or
trails, or in environments where they do not occur
naturally, e.g. wet areas, locations above the natural
treeline. Trees must be planted on the windward side
to avoid the risk of damage by snowgrooming
machinery. Even when fully grown, or at least to a
height where the underside of the canopy is at the
same or higher height than the top of the snow fence,
the need for the snow fence remains. This is
because at that stage of growth, the wind under the
canopy acts as a scour.
11.3 Construction
The main impacts of snow fence construction are
associated with access and the storage of materials
on site, with special provisions for snow fences
constructed in remote or sensitive locations. Areas of
low heath are of particular concern as these tend to
be very subject to wind scour, making them prime
sites for snow fences, but are also easily damaged
and very slow to recover.
Guidelines
A. Access and transport of materials
The relevant provisions of Chapter 2 apply. For
access to remote locations where there is no
permanent track and the vegetation is unsuitable for
off-track movement, the most appropriate means of
transport may be by oversnow vehicle at the end of
winter. In this situation particular attention should be
paid to the storage of materials as discussed below.
B. Storage of materials
B.1 Undisturbed areas
In situations where the vegetation is generally not
disturbed, the impacts of construction caused by the
storage of materials should be limited by not storing
them on site for any longer than is necessary for the
efficient erection of the snow fence. Materials should
be stored on surfaces which are not readily damaged
by temporary compression (e.g. bare rock or
grassland rather than heath) or can recover relatively
quickly. Materials should be unloaded carefully to
avoid unnecessary surface damage.
If materials are transported to the site by oversnow
vehicle during winter, a suitable storage site should
be determined and located accurately during the
preceding summer. As well as avoiding sensitive
vegetation, this also needs to be located to avoid the
stored material being a hazard to skiers or to
oversnow machinery.
B.2 Previously disturbed areas
The constraints on storage sites may not apply in
previously disturbed areas, however, care should still
be taken to avoid unnecessary disturbance in
unloading and storage, as such disturbance would
require subsequent rehabilitation.
C. Erection of fences
C.1 Sensitive areas
Where it is necessary to erect fences in sensitive
areas such as low heath, wet heath or bog, this
should be done in a way that minimises the amount
of activity within the sensitive area. In practice,
materials should be stored outside the area, cutting
of timber, and other preparatory work should take
place outside the area and access into the area
should be on foot only.
C.2 Areas remote from tracks
Where snow fences are erected in areas remote from
tracks, heavy materials should be transported to the
MAY 2002 AppA11-3
site by oversnow vehicle during winter (see Guideline
2.2/D.1).
C.3 Fire protection
To reduce the risk of fire starting as a result of
welding undertaken in the construction of snow
fences, a knapsack spray filled with water and wet
hessian bags must be kept on site during welding
operations.
11.4 Operation and maintenance
Guidelines
A. Summer maintenance
A.1 Demountable fences
The timber slats should be removed from
demountable fences as soon as practicable after the
close of the ski season, subject to suitable access
conditions and the availability of human resources.
The important period in terms of summer viewing is
during the Christmas school holidays, when there are
large numbers of visitors to the Main Range and
within the resort. If it is impracticable to dismantle the
fences by the end of January, there is little point in
doing it thereafter.
The argument for demountable fences is based
primarily on aesthetics (at this stage), and should
take second priority to considerations of physical
impacts caused by dismantling and reassembling the
fences under unsuitable environmental conditions or
diverting resources away from work which is more
directly associated with maintaining or enhancing
ecological processes in the resort.
A.2 General maintenance
Snow fences should be inspected in summer and
periodically during the winter season, especially after
strong winds. Straightening of fences, rewelding of
braces and repair of other damage should be
undertaken as required and as soon as possible.
B. Monitoring of fence sites
B.1 Ecological changes
Fence sites, particularly those in very exposed
locations, should be monitored periodically to check
for any changes in the special composition or
morphology of vegetation which may result from
alteration of the microclimate downwind of the fence.
In the event of any changes being apparent, it may
be necessary to modify the design and operation of
the snow fence, at least during non-skiing periods.
B.2 Snowgum plantings
Snowgums planted beside snow fences should be
checked each summer until they are well established
and replaced if necessary. Repeated failure of trees
to survive, however, may indicate unsuitable site
conditions, in which case the planting requirement
may be reviewed.
Records of the degree of planting success should be
maintained as a guide for future planting work.
MAY 2002 AppA12-1
12. SUMMER SLOPE GROOMING
12.1 Introduction
Summer slope grooming is the activity which has the
potential to cause the most significant changes to
ecological processes within the ski slopes, depending
on the intensity at which it is carried out.
As discussed below, however, the intensity and
impacts of grooming vary widely, and much summer
grooming can be undertaken with minimal effect
beyond the direct changes which the grooming is
intended to achieve.
Best practice grooming is a process which involves a
compromise between maintaining ecological
processes and looking after the safety and enjoyment
of resort visitors and staff. It is not possible to
discuss best practice grooming without an
appreciation of both of these aspects.
Summer slope grooming is a practice which has
evolved progressively throughout the history of
resort. It is the first instance it involved clearing trees
in order to create an open corridor down which to ski.
It has progressively extended to clearing heath and
rocks, which allows skiing with a shallower depth of
snow, draining wet areas to eliminate accumulated or
flowing water which causes premature snowmelt, and
altering the ground surface of the slope to eliminate
unwanted humps and depressions.
The purpose of clearing new runs is usually to
improve skier circulation or increase slope capacity,
often in association with the installation of a new lift.
On established runs, however, further summer slope
grooming is concerned mainly with the improvement
of safety or comfort for skiers, or to improve the
working safety for grooming machine operators in
winter. This is the reason for most proposed summer
grooming at the Perisher Blue Resort.
The development of winter grooming has led to
increased demands for summer grooming due to the
need for grooming machines to operate under
conditions where protruding rocks do not pose a
hazard to the machines and their operators and
physical conflict with underlying vegetation is
avoided.
Summer grooming also has implications for the
efficiency and environmental costs of snowmaking
as, the more highly groomed the slope, the less
energy and water are required to make it serviceable
for skiing on artificial snow.
While all of the above measures enhance the
enjoyment of skiing and the ease of winter grooming,
in recent years these considerations have been
overtaken by the issues of public and occupational
safety. The legal obligations of the resort operator
and the NPWS to take reasonable measures to
maintain safe ski slopes and a safe work environment
is paramount in any ski resort and particularly in a
pre-eminent resort. In a resort as large as Perisher
Blue, however, there is a practical limit to the extent
to which this can be achieved and, through the
SSMP, this determines the extent of groomed trails
provided within the resort.
The fact that most of the resort area is not specifically
groomed for skiing does not preclude skiers and
snowboarders from leaving the trails and indeed
many prefer to do so. In this situation, they bear the
additional risks associated with natural hazards on
the ungroomed slopes.
From the operational viewpoint of the ski slope
manager, it is incumbent to identify those areas
which are intended for regular skiing or snowboarding
and to take all reasonable measures through summer
and winter grooming to prepare these areas to an
adequate and safe condition, even if this conflicts
with certain ecological processes.
From an ecological perspective, it follows that
responsible ski slope management will have some
adverse impacts at the local scale. In terms of
sustaining ecological processes, it is necessary to
view the ski slopes holistically and in the broader
context of the Park to determine how widely such
impacts are felt.
Possible impacts of summer grooming on natural
conditions and processes include the following:
Direct disturbance to vegetation with loss of
individual plants and areas of animal habitat.
Disruption to summer wildlife movement corridors
through loss of protective vegetation.
Disruption to winter wildlife movement corridors
though loss of subnivean space due to removal
of protective heath cover and/or, in some
situations, compression of snow by skier
movement and slope grooming machines.
Reduced access into and out of subnivean space
due to removal of trees and rocks which create
'popholes' through warming by solar radiation.
Increased risk of predation of animals where their
protection by vegetation or snow is reduced as a
result of the above changes.
Disturbance to the natural soil profile due to
surface disturbance.
Compaction of soil by vehicle movement.
Alteration to the natural groundwater flow due to
deliberate drainage or as a secondary
AppA12-2 MAY 2002
consequence of surface disturbance, soil impacts
or vegetation removal.
Increased erosion and siltation as a result of
surface disturbance or flow modification.
Introduction of exotic groundcover as a result of
rehabilitation works.
Increased incidence of feral animals as a result of
establishment of exotic vegetation or opening up
the native vegetation to make access easier.
Loss of individual specimens of ROTAP species,
mature snowgums and other plants which may
be considered to be of special significance.
Indirect impacts on significant animal species as
a consequence of other effects discussed above.
There is little doubt that all of the above impacts have
occurred to some degree in the development of the
ski slopes to date and will continue to occur,
irrespective of any reasonable measures to control
them. Best practice summer grooming is based on
the following general principles:
The first priority in slope grooming is to achieve
the safety and operational objective of the
proposal in a way which avoids any significant
'big picture' impacts, such as interference with
strategic animal movement corridors.
Disturbance at the local level in terms of width of
clearing, extent of rock or heath removal etc.
should be limited to the minimum necessary for
safe and reliable skiing and winter grooming,
having regard to the extent of natural and artificial
snow deposition and observed skier behaviour.
In doubtful situations, partial grooming is
undertaken in the first instance followed by winter
monitoring to determine the need for extending
the grooming (the incremental approach). This
principle is varied only if there are significant
environmental disadvantages in undertaking the
grooming in stages, e.g. repeated disturbance of
sensitive areas.
Significance or sensitivity of plant communities
and animal habitat have high priority in
comparing alternative grooming proposals but
are not absolute constraints, particularly where
safety issues are of concern.
A distinction should be recognised between
intentional impacts (e.g. deliberate removal of
heath or drainage of a wet area) as opposed to
incidental impacts, which the best practices aim
to minimise. In the case of intentional impacts, it
is desirable to incorporate other measures (e.g.
small animal crossing, restoration of normal flow
further downstream) so that the wider impacts on
ecological processes are mitigated.
The SSMP recognises the following levels of summer
grooming:
A. Surface grooming to achieve an even, well-
drained and lightly vegetated slope.
B. Heavy slashing, involving removal of heath but
no disturbance to the surface vegetation or soil
except possibly where rock removal is required.
C. Corridor grooming, where selected corridors (e.g.
down ridges) are groomed to a high standard (A
or B) with intervening areas (e.g. gullies) left as
natural corridors for animal movement.
D. Tree and rock removal only, with no slashing of
heath (i.e. minimal clearing of hazards only).
E. No clearing at all but may be used for skiing off-
piste.
F. No clearing and alpine skiing/snowboarding use
i s acti vel y di scouraged for safety or
environmental reasons.
All of these levels of grooming have occurred at the
resort in the past, although Levels E and F involve no
physical disturbance. The level of past grooming can
be an important factor influencing the condition of the
current environment and the potential impacts of
further grooming, should it be required from time to
time. These levels are therefore used in part as a
framework for identifying best practices in summer
grooming.
12.2 Tree Removal
Trees constitute significant obstacles on ski slopes as
they cannot be buried by snow and can become even
more of an obstacle under heavy snow cover when
the snow surface is raised in relation to overhanging
branches and the clearance for skiers and
snowgrooming machines is reduced.
The need for future tree removal can be minimised by
making the most efficient use of existing ski slopes
which have already been cleared or are naturally
open, by upgrading lifting and snowmaking facilities,
and this is done in the SSMP. There are, however,
areas where full implementation of the SSMP
depends on establishing new corridors for lifts and
trails to achieve the objectives for skier circulation
and upgrade the competition skiing facilities for the
resort. In addition, there are localised problems with
congestion and inefficient repeat skiing use which
can be rectified through the removal of a relatively
small number of trees. The guidelines below relate
particularly to these situations.
One issue which frequently arises with respect to tree
removal is disposal of cut timber. In situations where
there is a moderate to dense cover of heath on the
ski run, there appear to be benefits in leaving the cut
branches on the ground among the heath in order to
promote the formation of subnivean space corridors
when the heath is compressed under the weight of
snow during winter (see also Section 13.1). In other
MAY 2002 AppA12-3
situations, it may be preferable to remove the cut
timber from the slope, or otherwise dispose of it.
Guidelines
A. Tree removal in general
A.1 Dense woodland
The need for further clearing of dense woodland (e.g.
as for the lower parts of Parachute, Excelerator or
Outer Limits Runs) is likely to be minimal as no new
lifts or trails are proposed in these such areas, which
constitute a relatively small proportion of the resort.
In the hypothetical situation of such new trails being
developed, tree clearing should be undertaken
incrementally, clearing to a minimum safe width
initially and leaving stumps in the ground until the
long-term need for the trail and its optimum alignment
have been confirmed.
It is sometimes difficult to predict how popular a new
trail will be and how well it will retain snow once it is
cleared. If a trail proves not to be worth maintaining
in the long term or requires some realignment after
initial use, regeneration of unwanted sections will be
facilitated if the stumps are left in the ground.
Once the trail has proven itself over several varied
seasons, additional stump removal to establish it for
long term use may then be undertaken.
A feature of trails cleared through dense woodland is
that they tend to be visually prominent because of the
obvious break in the tree canopy. If the trail is
designed for fall-line repeat skiing, there is little that
can be done about this. If, however, it is intended for
skier circulation or for circuit skiing' at a more
leisurely pace, a pattern of tree clearing which cuts
obliquely across the slope can provide a trail with
much less visual impact.
In clearing trails through dense woodland, it is
desirable to make use of any natural clearings that
may be present and to avoid healthy, mature trees as
far as practicable.
A.2 Open woodland
Clearing of trails through open woodland (e.g. in the
Link Unit) should be based on linking natural
clearings as much as possible, thus minimising the
number of trees to be removed. Removal of healthy,
mature trees should be avoided as far as practicable.
The potential routes for new trails should be
thoroughly assessed for snowholding during winter to
confirm their snowholding characteristics before any
tree removal is undertaken.
A.3 Scattered trees
In situations where there are relatively few trees on
the slope, either by virtue of their natural distribution
or due to past clearing, any further tree removal
should aim to maintain as even a spacing as
possible, rather than concentrating all remnant trees
into a limited area. The reasons for this are as
follows:
The value of popholes beside trees as refuges for
small mammals during winter is likely to be
increased if the minimum distance between trees
is reduced by a dispersed pattern.
In the possible long term event of the area no
longer being used for skiing, the scope for natural
regeneration of snowgums will be enhanced if
seed-bearing trees are spread throughout the
slope.
In terms of visual impacts, the effects of tree
removal are likely to be perceived as being less if
there is still a scatter of trees throughout the
whole slope.
While the need to remove individual trees is often
dictated by safety or operational considerations, there
are sometimes more than one option for achieving
the same objective, in which case the above principle
should be applied.
B. Disposal of cut timber
B.1 Sites with moderate to dense heath cover
Provided that they are not too large or irregular in
shape, lengths of cut timber should be laid across the
slope among the heath with a view to provide solid
bases which can support heath under the weight of
snow, and create subnivean corridors across the run.
The timber should be laid to provide continuous
corridors, and may be linked with other surface
irregularities such as rocks or hollows, which would
contribute to the corridors.
Large or irregular pieces of timber which may create
a hazard on the ski run should be disposed of in a
similar way in nearby areas which are not used for
skiing. Cut timber should not be placed in
watercourses or other places where it would interfere
with natural drainage.
B.2 Sites lacking in heath with good summer
access
Cut timber should be removed from the site to a
suitable stockpile site for seasoning, with a view to it
being used later as firewood within the resort.
B.3 Sites lacking in heath with poor summer
access
In summer, cut timber should be cut into short
lengths and placed on rocks in a 'teepee' formation
so that it would protrude above the winter snow level.
In winter it should be removed by a snowcat and
oversnow trailer. If it is feasible to get a portable
mulcher to the site, the timber may be mulched and
spread around the site.
AppA12-4 MAY 2002
B.4 Disposal by burning
Disposal by burning is likely to be warranted only in
situations where a very high number of trees are
cleared in a situation with difficult access.
In this situation, it would be necessary to maintain a
bulldozer or excavator on site for progressively
reshaping the fire heap as well as for fire control.
Such a slope grooming operation should be subject
to a detailed slope grooming plan which would
embrace the issue of timber disposal.
B.5 General comments
Under no circumstances should cut timber be placed
in drainage lines or in significant or sensitive
vegetation areas (e.g. wet heath, bog). Cut timber
should not be stacked in a way which can provide
habitat for rabbits or other feral animals.
While snowgum may not be ideal in quality as a
firewood species, its use as a means of reducing
imports of firewood from the tablelands assists in the
conservation of low elevation woodland where threats
to the habitat of many plant and animal species and
woodland communities in general are much greater
than in subalpine areas. Such utilisation of cut timber
which might otherwise be a liability on the ski slopes
is consistent with ESD principles.
C. Stump removal
C.1 Level A grooming
As general surface disturbance is involved, removal
of stumps is likely to be necessary to maintain and
rehabilitate an even surface. Stumps should be
removed by excavator and either stockpiled and
carted off site or buried. If stumps are buried, they
should first be broken up to avoid settlement
problems. The ground surface should then be
rehabilitated (see Chapter 6).
C.2 Level B grooming
Stumps would normally be left in the ground with
regeneration removed periodically as part of remedial
heath slashing. An exception may be made in
situations where the stump protruded excessively
and was a hazard to skiers or grooming machinery.
The stump should preferably be removed from the
site or alternatively be buried, along with any rock
fragments.
C.3 Level D grooming
Stumps would be left in the ground with regrowth
removed periodically.
D. Use of poisons
Where stumps do not need to be removed, they may
be poisoned to control regrowth by painting with
undiluted glyphosphate ('Roundup').
E. Trimming of overhanging branches
E.1 General
As a general principle, trimming of overhanging
branches is a preferable alternative to removal of the
whole tree. For both safety and aesthetic reasons,
branches should be removed in their entirety, rather
than leaving a protruding stub with no foliage.
In assessing the need for trimming overhead
branches, it is necessary to take account of the
raised surface due to snow deposition, and to
consider the movement of grooming machinery as
well as skiers. For high branches it may be easier to
undertake trimming in winter from on top of an
oversnow vehicle.
F. Marking trees
F.1 General
Trees or branches to be removed should be taped for
inspection prior to removal. In the case of a multi-
trunk tree which is to be only partly removed, each
trunk to be removed should be individually taped.
Where branches are removed, the tops should be
placed a short distance above the branching point
where the cut is to be made.
G. Maintenance of cut trees
G.1 General
Where the live stumps of cut trees have been left in
the ground, these should be inspected periodically
and any regrowth trimmed back to below normal
snow level. In contrast to most subalpine shrubs,
snowgum regrowth tends not to pack down under the
snow, and can be a hazard to skiers.
12.3 Heath Slashing
Heath slashing (as opposed to total removal of heath)
is relevant to Levels B and C of slope grooming. It is
undertaken using a slasher (flail mower) mounted on
the back of a wheeled tractor. Compared to
complete surface grooming (Level A) it has the
ecological advantage that the root system of the
heath is not disturbed and it can grow back over time
if the slope is not longer used for skiing, or can be
used with reduced summer grooming requirements.
This mowing method also leaves the ground cover
essentially undisturbed. The slashing of the heath
nevertheless reduces its short term habitat value in
both summer and winter and is undesirable
aesthetically.
An alternative to slashing is to increase snow cover
on the slope by snowmaking (if available on site) or
snow farming. These have additional energy costs,
however. There is hence a conflict between different
environmental objectives.
MAY 2002 AppA12-5
Guidelines
A. Priority for heath protection
A.1 General
The decision on slashing heath in different situations
should be guided by its significance and sensitivity in
establishing priorities for protection. In particular
slashing of Podocarpus boulder heath should be
avoided because it is particularly slow-growing.
Dense, diverse heath, which provides summer
habitat for the Broad-toothed Rat, and the various
types of wet heath also warrant a high level of
protection, although they are likely to recover from
slashing if it is essential in specific situations (e.g.
laying underground services through the area). The
priority attached to dry heath, which may include
some coloniser species, is generally lower, as these
are more widespread and appear to have good
regeneration potential.
Slashing is generally not an issue with respect to low
heath or transitional heath as this does not grow to a
sufficient height to cause a problem under
reasonable snow cover.
B. Retention of animal movement corridors
B.1 General
If heath slashing is undertaken over an extensive
area, selected unslashed corridors should be
maintained in situations where the snow tends to be
deeper, e.g. in hollows at the base of slopes, in order
to provide for protection of small animal movement in
both summer and winter.
C. Periodic maintenance slashing
C.1 Level A or C grooming
On slopes which have been groomed to these
standards, periodic slashing of vegetation, including
heath, may be undertaken. The areas subject to this
practice, however, should be continually reviewed to
determine whether such slashing remains necessary,
or whether it should be undertaken more selectively
(e.g. as in Guideline B.1) with a view to providing
animal movement corridors at appropriate locations
(e.g. in hollows subject to good snow accumulation).
Maintenance slashing of heath should not be
undertaken until late in the summer when annual
plants have gone to seed, so a seed store is
maintained in the topsoil.
Note: At Perisher Blue it is current practice to slash
heath only on slopes where heath is regenerating
through introduced ground cover, i.e. areas of Level
A grooming or equivalent corridors within Level C
grooming. In areas previously groomed to Level B,
the heath is generally being allowed to regenerate
although the extent of regeneration is generally low.
12.4 Rock removal
Rock removal is an important element of slope
grooming from the viewpoint of skier and worker
safety. A rock which may be scarcely visible above
the snow can catch the edge of a ski or snowboard,
causing a fall. Larger rocks occasionally contribute to
serious accidents, particularly in congested situations
where skiers may be distracted or in conditions of
poor visibility. Rocks can also interfere with the safe
movement of grooming machines, catching the
tracks, or implements (e.g. tillers, compactor bars) as
is commonly evidenced by scratch marks on the rock
and resulting in the leakage of hydraulic fluid into the
environment.
A further problem on ski slopes is that under a
shallow snow cover they absorb solar radiation,
causing melting of the overlying snow and becoming
exposed, which compounds the above problems.
Rocks can also contributed positively to the
environmental processes on the ski slopes. The fact
that they promote snowmelting is beneficial to small
animals in that they create openings in the snow
which connect with the subnivean space. This
facilitates animal movement during winter and makes
it easier for small mammals to escape from
predators. Overhangs beneath rocks also form part
of the subnivean space.
Rocks on slopes in some situations may also act as
silt traps on their upper faces, causing a pattern of
sediment buildup with soil characteristics which are
not typical of the surrounding slope. This may create
a microhabitat which favours particular plant species
and which could be altered if the rock was totally
removed.
Conversely, the breaking of a large boulder into
smaller fragments which are left in a pile on the slope
where they will not affect skier safety may enhance
the habitat of the slope for some species (e.g.
lizards). The boulder fragments may also provide an
uneven surface which can assist in creating
subnivean corridors by preventing heath from being
flattened to ground level under the weight of snow,
winter grooming equipment and skiers.
Also to be considered is the aesthetic value of rocks,
particularly large ones, which can be prominent
landmarks in some situations. Rocks which have
been damaged by blasting are likely to be considered
by most people as less attractive than rounded,
lichen-covered granodiorite boulders and outcrops.
Despite the ecological and aesthetic values of rocks,
there is a moral, if not legal, obligation in a skier
resort to take all reasonable measures to remove
from groomed ski slopes any rocks which are likely to
constitute a hazard under the normal range of skiing
conditions. This is the starting point for determining
environmental best practice for rock removal.
AppA12-6 MAY 2002
The need to undertake rock removal may be just as
critical in sensitive areas (e.g. wet heath, bog) which
are otherwise untouched by summer grooming as in
the more robust areas of the slope. The methods
used, however, need to be quite different. A
sensitive approach is also needed in situations close
to other developments such as buildings, skilifts or
underground services. As an alternative to blasting
as a means of reducing rocks to fragments of
moveable size, a new propellant technology known
as the Boulder Buster has recently become
available. This causes minimal noise, vibration and
overpressure, does not require the operator to be
specially certified and can be applied safely to
smaller rocks in sensitive situations. It is not suitable
for large volumes of rock, however, or for use in
confined situations (see Section 5.1).
The optimum method for disposal of rock fragments
also varies with the situation, including the extent of
associated surface grooming and the access for
removing rock from the site. The options for rock
disposal include:
burial, possibly in association with other surface
modifications;
scattering rock fragments around the slope;
leaving the fragments as splits;
forming artificial rock piles in suitable locations;
and
removal from the site for potential reuse.
Because there are so many variables influencing the
optimum method of rock disposal, it is not possible to
be prescriptive in this respect, but the examples
di scussed provi de some i ndi cati on of the
circumstances in which particular methods may be
appropriate.
Guidelines
A. General standard of rock removal
A.1 Level A grooming
Where a high standard of surface grooming is
required, this indicates that the slope is intended to
be used under minimal snow cover (natural or
artificial). In this situation any remnants of surface
rock are likely to promote localised melting and
should therefore be eliminated. The ecological
values of rocks in this situation would be minimal as
there would be no subnivean space for animal
movement. It is therefore appropriate to remove
rocks to below ground level and cover the remnants
with soil and surface vegetation.
A.2 Level B grooming
In this situation the rock would normally be removed
only to ground level to avoid the need for surface
disturbance. There may be occasional situations
(e.g. on crests with poor snow cover) where removal
below ground surface and reinstatement of the
surface is justified.
A.3 Level C grooming
Within the groomed corridors, rock removal may be
undertaken as for A.1 or A.2 as appropriate.
Between the corridors, only large protruding rocks
should be removed, and they should be removed to a
level between the ground surface and the top of the
heath when packed under snow.
A.4 Level D grooming
Rocks may be removed to a level between the
ground surface and the top of the heath when packed
under snow.
A.5 Level E grooming
As these slopes are not intended for winter grooming,
it should not be necessary to remove rocks. If a
problem develops as a result of regular off-piste
used, this should be addressed through the
placement of warning poles. If this proves to be
unworkable, the slope may be upgraded to Level D
grooming.
B. Splitting of rocks
B.1 Rocks in unconstrained locations
Rocks should be split by conventional blasting in
accordance with the practices described in Section
5.1.
B.2 Rocks in sensitive ecological areas
These areas include wet heath, bog, dense, diverse
heath (i.e. Mastacomys summer habitat), boulder
heath, short alpine herbfield and areas with a high
ROTAP concentration. Rocks should be split using
the Boulder Buster if practicable. If blasting is
essential, this should be undertaken as a series of
low energy blasts, rather than a single more powerful
blast (see also Section 5.1).
B.3 Rocks close to manmade structures
These structures include buildings, skilifts, reservoirs
and underground services. Rocks should be split
using the Boulder Buster if practicable. If blasting
is essential, the blasting method should be
specifically designed for the situation, with monitoring
of the condition of the structures before and after
blasting (see also Section 5.1).
C. Disposal of rock fragments
C.1 Level A grooming
Rock fragments may be buried as part of the surface
modification.
C.2 Sites with good vehicle access
Unless specifically required on site, large rock
fragments should be removed to a designated
MAY 2002 AppA12-7
stockpile for recycling as building stone, aggregate
for drains or trackworks or general fill.
C.3 Rocky areas
Where only a few protruding rocks are removed from
areas with a high concentration of rock, the
fragments should be stacked in suitable locations on
site, e.g. on the downhill side of remaining rocks, to
provide additional boulder field habitat. The details of
this procedure should be developed on a case-by-
case basis, having regard to the following points:
Areas of sensitive or significant vegetation should
be avoided, e.g. short alpine herbfield, bog, high
ROTAP concentrations.
Scientific study sites should be avoided.
Care should be taken not to block obvious small
mammal runways or nest sites. Placement of
rocks to provide a protected passage over
runways would still be acceptable if it was done
carefully.
Rocks should not be placed in watercourses.
If possible, rock fragments with a rounded,
weathered surface should be placed on top of the
pile for aesthetic reasons.
The rock pile should be stable enough for people
to walk across it safely.
In some such situations, leaving the rocks as blasted
may be an appropriate means of disposal, subject to
the pile being stabilised.
C.4 Heath areas
In areas of heath, particularly dry heath, wet heath
and dense, diverse heath, the least damaging and
least obvious means of rock disposal may be to
scatter the rock fragments among the heath.
Fragments should be placed on the ground surface
beneath the heath, not on top of the heath, preferably
with the rounded, weathered side uppermost, where
relevant.
D. Marking of rocks for removal
D.1 General
Rocks to be removed should be identified for
inspection with a dot of paint. This should be of a
colour which is not likely to be confused with natural
colours (e.g. lichen) on the rock.
E. Choice of equipment for handling rocks
E.1 Stable, accessible areas
In the interests of efficiency and worker safety, it is
preferable to handle rock fragment using an
excavator, provided that this can be done without
undue disturbance to sensitive areas and that
excavator access into the area is feasible.
E.2 Small sensitive areas
In small sensitive areas, it may be possible to use an
excavator to handle the rocks without the machine
actually having to move into the area itself. The
scope for this will be increased if a large excavator
with a long reach is used, in preference to a smaller
machine.
E.3 Large sensitive areas
In large sensitive areas where rocks are beyond the
reach of an excavator parked on the edge, it is
necessary to move rock fragments by hand. In
splitting the rocks, it is therefore necessary to ensure
that the fragments are small enough to be handled
manually.
12.5 Slope Drainage and Dewatering
Apart from rocks and trees, the other common hazard
on the ski slopes is water. Water accumulation
causes premature melting of the snow, resulting in
bare patches which are not skiable and under some
circumstances can be dangerous. Where wet bare
patches are not too extensive, movement of skiers
and oversnow vehicles through these areas can still
occur, resulting in damage to the underlying
vegetation and soil. As wet areas tend also to be
ecologically significant and/or sensitive, this is a
further matter of environmental concern.
From an operational viewpoint, the preferred solution
to the problem of wet areas is to undertake artificial
drainage, as has been done in intensively groomed
areas such as Front Valley, Smiggin Holes and Early
Starter. This approach can totally change the
vegetation characteristics of the area, with the loss of
some significant or sensitive communities. Such
disturbance in the past has been essential in
establishing a viable ski resort, but would not be
repeated on a comparable scale under the current
Ski Slope Master Plan. There may, however, be
other localised areas which require drainage, and
remedial works required in areas which have already
been disturbed. The guidelines below apply to these
situations.
In determining best practice guidelines for slope
drainage works, the important consideration is how to
achieve the operation objective of the proposal with
the least adverse impact outside the area to be
drained. In particular, it is desirable to minimise
hydrological changes (more or less water) in areas
that are not part of the ski slope, and to ensure that
more efficient drainage does not increase
downstream stream flows to the point of accelerating
channel erosion. These issues will usually need to
be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
The objective of slope drainage works is to ensure
that reliable snow cover can be provided on the
currently wet parts of the slope for as long as the rest
of the slope remains skiable. An alternative means of
AppA12-8 MAY 2002
achieving this objective is by making sufficient snow
artificially to counter the snow loss resulting from the
poor drainage. In terms of avoiding ecological
disturbance, this is likely to be the preferred solution,
although it involves ongoing energy costs, and is not
viable in all situations.
At the planning level it is therefore necessary to
consider slope drainage in the context of future
snowmaking proposals and energy requirements. As
well as subsurface drainage, there may also be a
need to provide surface drainage to reduce local
water accumulation or to assist in stabilising the
slope following Level A grooming.
Guidelines
A. Drainage design
A.1 Defined drainage lines in flat areas
Where the water accumulation problem is
concentrated particularly along defined drainage lines
in flat areas, this can be addressed by improving
water movement along the drainage line by installing
a vertical strip drain (e.g. Megaflow with a
geotextile sock). This drain provides a stable surface
for supporting snow and is likely to have only a minor
effect in drying out the soil below the surface of the
adjacent wet area, which would be subject to ongoing
recharge.
Agricultural pipe is not considered suitable in this
situation due to the tendency for its pores to become
clogged with soil and vegetative matter over time.
A.2 Extensive areas of water accumulation
The basic drainage should be handled with a vertical
strip drain as for A.1. In the lower parts of the works,
more formally engineered drainage works involving
pipes, pits and discharge structures may be required
to cope with the increased flows.
A.3 Open water channels
Areas of open water are likely to require pipes,
culverts or bridges, as discussed in Chapter 10.
Where a pipe or culvert is located through a poorly
drained area, the trench should be backfilled with
coarse aggregate to carry any flow tracking down the
pipe from groundwater seepage or minor tributaries.
Where vertical strip drains connect onto the pipe, this
should be done via an appropriate manufacturer's
fitting.
A.4 Defined drainage lines on slopes
Where a drainage line or seepage area flows down a
slope, this may be handled by a rubble drain as in
A.1.
Alternatively, it may be possible to overcome local
water accumulation problems by constructing one or
more efficient crossdrains to intercept the flow. See
Guideline A.6 for further discussion.
A.5 Cross drainage for erosion control
On slopes subject to Level A grooming, a series of
crossdrains should be constructed as part of the
rehabilitation process. These should have a crossfall
of 3 to 5 percent, and should be spaced according to
the gradient of the slope (see Section 4.2). See
Guideline A.6 for further discussion.
A.6 Crossdrains on ski slopes general
guidelines
Crossdrains should be designed and constructed to
withstand the impacts of regular flow. The
recommended approach is by lining with jute mesh
and sowing with seed to provide a permanent surface
cover of vegetation, native or introduced according to
the situation (see Chapter 6).
The primary function of crossdrains on ski slopes is in
diverting surface water and/or controlling erosion.
Their environmental value may be enhanced in at
least some situations by establishing a cover of low
heath species (e.g. Hovea) along the upper edge of
the drain. In winter, this would pack down under
snow, separating the snow from water flowing down
the drain and reducing the rate of snow loss by water
movement. It would also provide a subnivean tunnel
for wildlife movement, subject to the water level in the
drain. In summer it may also provide some
protection for animal movement.
The situations where such drains could be provided
include areas of Level A grooming where there is
likely to be a minimal amount of remnant vegetation
left on the slope. These limited vegetation corridors
could be quite significant in that context.
Where crossdrains are provided, they should
preferably discharge at a non-erosive velocity into an
area which is naturally capable of withstanding and
diffusing increased flow (e.g. wet heath, bog, wet
grassland) and which is part of the same catchment
or subcatchment as the original natural flow. Options
for diffusing discharge include natural vegetation if it
is dense enough or a rock apron, either loose or set
in concrete. Armco fluming should not be used as it
is easily damaged in the ski slope situation. It is
preferable not to discharge into a subsurface drain
going directly down the slope but, if this is
unavoidable, the drain should be designed with
suitable devices for dissipating flow energy.
B. Construction
B.1 Sensitive wet areas
The drainage methods in Guidelines A.1, A.2 and A.3
can be implemented in wet areas with least incidental
damage by using a small excavator and confining its
movement to a single track along the trench.
MAY 2002 AppA12-9
Because of the reach of the excavator, disturbance
along the last 5 to 6 metres of trench can be avoided.
Digging by hand can also limit the extent of impact,
but trampling can cause more extensive disturbance
than the movement of the excavator tracks.
In wet areas, it is necessary to remove the excavated
material off the site or place it on the back of a
vehicle (e.g. HD carrier), as it is difficult to recover if
stockpiled beside the trench.
B.2 Cross drains on slopes
Cross drains should be surveyed and marked with
pegs at either end before commencing construction
in order to ensure the correct fall. They should be
dug with an excavator, sowing with seed (Chewings
fescue or fescue-native mix) with organic fertiliser
('Dynamic Lifter') and lined with coconut fibre, which
is pinned. A heavy grade of fibre should be avoided
as this precludes sunlight and inhibits seedling
growth. The fibre rots after about 2 years.
C. Monitoring and maintenance
C.1 Wet areas
Drains in wet areas should be inspected periodically
to ensure that they are functioning effectively. If they
are, it is to be expected that there may be some
change to the natural vegetation, at least in areas
close to the drain. This may result in a process of
gradual replacement by other native species, which
are better adapted to the drier site. Alternatively, if
the vegetation is drying off with no apparent
replacement, it may be necessary to undertake
sowing or planting to stabilise the soil. This situation
should be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
The stabilised drain should be inspected regularly,
with remedial maintenance undertaken by hand if
necessary. If rocks roll down the slope and block the
drain, these should be removed.
12.6 Surface Modification
Surface modification on a broad scale for Level A
grooming and may also be required on a limited scale
in some cases of Level B or C grooming.
The very process of surface modification implies
disruption to the natural vegetation and soil
characteristics and at least minor changes to the
shape of the land surface. While in theory, this
process may be at least partly reversible, in practice
to restore the original landscape at some future stage
would involve a process as disruptive as the original
work, and is unlikely to be justified even if the slope
ceased to be used for skiing at some future time. In
undertaking slope modification, it is therefore more
sensible to aim for a form of rehabilitation which is
basically natural in appearance and maintains the
original environmental character and processes as
far as is compatible with the operational objectives in
undertaking the work.
This principle entails, as far as practicable:
maintaining the natural soil profile;
maintaining a cover of native vegetation, but
preferably not heath;
preventing soil erosion; and
maintaining the natural flow pattern;
in addition to meeting the operational objectives of
the slope grooming. Some of these aims may prove
to be partially incompatible in practice, but
nevertheless form the basis for arriving at the
following best practice guidelines.
Guidelines
A. General practices
A.1 Level A grooming broadscale disturbance
Surface disturbance on a broad scale is usually
justified only if:
there are extensive problems with the topography
or hydrology of a slope;
the extent of rock or tree removal is so great that
virtually the whole area is disturbed; or
it is necessary to remove a large amount of heath
in order to be able to use the slope with a
minimal cover of snow.
Projects of this scale should have a detailed plan
outlining the strategy for undertaking the work, with
the following guidelines applied as appropriate.
The slope should initially be cleared of heath with a
slasher (flail mower) and, unless it is intended to
eliminate heath from the slope, the cut heath should
be retained for mulching and as a potential seed
source to assist in natural regeneration of heath
species.
Trees and rocks should be removed in accordance
with the relevant guidelines in Section 12.2 and 12.4.
If the opportunity is available and the vegetation
characteristics are suitable, sods should be removed
and replaced in similar sites on a progressive basis,
in accordance with the guidelines in Section 5.3.
This will be practicable only if the work is undertaken
on a staged basis, or if the site is relatively small, so
that sods can be relaid before they have time to dry
out.
Alternatively topsoil should be stripped from the site
and stockpiled in accordance with the guidelines in
AppA12-10 MAY 2002
Section 5.3. Any subsoil that is removed should be
stockpiled separately.
As the work is completed, preferably on a
progressive basis to avoid too much unprotected
area being exposed at the one time, the sods or
topsoil should be replaced and the site rehabilitated.
Works of this magnitude are likely to require
comprehensive erosion and sediment control
measures as discussed in Chapter 4, which should
be specifically designed for each site.
A.2 Level B grooming local disturbance only
Where the surface disturbance is limited in extent, for
example, to eliminate an isolated hump or hollow,
possibly in association with rock disposal, the
principles outlined in A.1 should be followed but the
detail may be different.
For example, with works of this scale, sod removal
and replacement should normally be feasible, subject
to suitable vegetation characteristics, and is
preferable to topsoil stripping and replacement. This
would simplify the rehabilitation process and reduce
the needs for erosion and sediment control.
12.7 Litter Control
The environmental quality of the ski slopes in
summer can be adversely affected by the presence
of litter which accumulates in winter as a result of
deliberate or accidental actions of visitors and staff.
In addition to typical packaging material (e.g. cans,
bottles, plastic bags, other food containers), this
includes lost or discarded skiing equipment and
clothing and broken warning poles. Some of this
material also accumulates during summer.
Some types of litter (e.g. plastic rings, plastic bags,
empty drink cans) can accidentally harm wildlife, as a
result of animals becoming caught in such items.
The main adverse effect of litter is aesthetic,
however. In the interests of promoting Perisher Blue
as a pre-eminent all-season resort, it is desirable to
keep accumulated litter to a minimum.
The primary means of addressing this problem is
through public education (see Section 8.2). In
addition, it is desirable to take remedial action where
practicable during summer to deal with the litter that
has accumulated.
Guidelines
A. Preventing of littering
A.1 Provision of garbage bins
Garbage bins should be provided at places where
visitors tend to congregate and from which garbage
can readily be removed (e.g. at lift stations and
mountain kiosks or restaurants).
A.2 Public education
Visitors should be encouraged to place litter in bins
through signage and printed advice where the
opportunity presents itself.
A.3 Staff education
All staff should be briefed with respect to litter
awareness on the ski sl opes, and thei r
responsibilities in preventing littering.
B. Litter collection
B.1 Systematic collection
Accessible areas with high volumes of litter should be
subject to systematic collection of litter each summer.
B.2 Collection of scattered items
Items of litter found on the slope should be collected
by staff as an incidental activity to other work, where
this can be done without interfering with other work.
MAY 2002 AppA13-1
13. WINTER OPERATION
13.1 Introduction
The potential environmental effects of winter
operation are often not evident because the terrain
and vegetation is covered with snow, which
dominates the environment and is itself in a highly
dynamic state. From an ecological perspective, the
winter operation should be viewed in relation to the
ecosystem which exists below the snow (Ref. 25), as
well as in terms of how winter activities can affect the
summer condition of vegetation.
The snow is affected in the following ways by the
winter operation of the resort:
It is compacted by the movement of skiers,
snowboarders, slope grooming machinery and
other oversnow vehicles. This results in a higher
snow density which may reduce the rate of gas
movement (particularly oxygen and carbon
dioxide) through the snow, with potential effects
on biochemical and physiological processes
taking place in plants and animals beneath the
snow. The additional loading on the snow may
also compress and, in some situations, eliminate
the subnivean space through which animals
move and gas movement also occurs freely.
An analysis of relative ground pressures
suggests the snow groomed by machinery is not
necessarily compacted at the surface any more
than snow which is subject to regular skiing.
Observations indicate that on a first pack, skiers
or snowboarders compact surface snow more
effectively than a single or double pass with a
grooming machine due to higher ground
pressures.
The ground pressures, however, spread with
increasing depth through the snow pack, with the
result that at greater depths, the weight of a
grooming machine is likely to become more
critical in reducing subnivean space than the
weight of skiers. This is supported by the results
of a preliminary investigation of snow profiles in
groomed and ungroomed areas undertaken
during the 1999 ski season. The investigation
indicated that the presence of surface
irregularities, which support a dense mat of heath
compressed under the weight of snow, is more
important than avoiding grooming, in maintaining
subnivean spaces.
Snowgrooming machinery is a source of
repeated noise on a slope. Depending on the
depth of snow cover, this may be audible or even
disturbing to animals beneath the snow. The
significance of this would depend on the extent to
which the noise may disrupt their normal winter
behaviour. For example, in relation to the
Mountain Pygmy-possum (Burramys), it has been
suggested that it may disrupt their normal winter
hibernation and metabolism, which could
conceivably affect their survival (Ref. 26).
On the basis that Burramys is a threatened
(endangered) species, it can be reasonably
argued that a precautionary approach as
appropriate should be adopted, given that the
impacts are uncertain and the potential long-term
impacts could be significant (Ref. 26).
Snowmaking may change the natural pattern of
snow deposition within a season in terms of:
. the time when the ground first becomes
snow-covered;
. the relative distribution of snow cover early in
the season;
. the density and wetness of the early snow,
which may affect the way in which it is
supported by vegetation;
. the duration of the snow season; and
. the presence of snowmaking additives.
With the exception of the relative distribution of
snow and the presence of additives, these effects
are probably within the natural variability of snow
patterns within or between seasons. The
unnatural distribution of snow early in the season
is probably unlikely to have significant effects,
particularly as most of the affected slopes have
already been modified significantly by summer
grooming. Current information on snowmaking
additives indicates that they have no adverse
ecological effects (Refs. 27, 28). Snowmaking
can be beneficial in protecting underlying
vegetation from physical damage by skis or
oversnow vehicles.
Snow farming, including the trapping of snow by
snow fences, alters the relative depth and
duration of snow deposition on the slope. This
could conceivably alter the vegetation patterns in
the long term, although not necessarily
adversely. It is beneficial in protecting underlying
vegetation in exposed sites from physical
damage.
Any possible adverse effects resulting from
manipulating the snow environment must be weighed
against the very significant benefits in terms of skier
safety and convenience. There is an expectation by
most skiers in any modern ski resort that trails will be
groomed regularly during winter and that they will be
safe and free of hazards. These are key
considerations in developing best practices for winter
groomi ng and the associ ated acti vi ti es of
snowmaking and snow farming.
AppA13-2 MAY 2002
When it becomes impracticable to maintain an
adequate snow cover through grooming, snowmaking
and snow farming, it is necessary to close or restrict
the use of trails, surface lifts and oversnow vehicle
routes, both to protect the vegetation and soil surface
and for safety reasons.
13.2 Slope Grooming
From an operational viewpoint, the important
consideration with respect to slope grooming is to
maintain sufficient slope capacity on safe, well
groomed trails to at least balance lift capacity. At
Perisher Blue the groomed trail capacity is generally
well in excess of lift capacity (see SSMP, Chapter
18), but is a relatively small proportion of the total ski
slope area of the resort.
While the groomed slopes provide relatively easy
skiing conditions on defined routes, which is the
preference of most skiers, there is also ample
opportunity for those who choose to go skiing and
snowboarding off-piste, where the snow conditions
are more variable due to the lack of regular
grooming. The guidelines are not intended to apply
to this situation.
Guidelines
A. Start of grooming operations
A.1 Snowmaking areas
Winter grooming should generally not commence
until there is a snow cover of at least 300 mm on
slopes subject to Level A, B or C (corridors only)
summer grooming, or 500 mm on slopes subject to
Level D grooming.
A.2 Areas with natural snowfall
The snowdepths in Guideline A.1 apply, but with
deeper drifts in places.
A.3 Blue Cow Mountain Burramys habitat
Because of the presence of Burramys habitat, and
the possibility of snowgrooming machines disturbing
hibernation patterns, winter grooming of the Side
Saddle Run should generally not commence until
there is between 0.5 and 1 m of snow on this run.
This snow depth may be achieved by winching snow
onto the run from the lower part of the slope.
B. Grooming operations general
B.1 General
Snow grooming should be undertaken in accordance
with the Perisher Blue Snowgroomers Operation
Manual (Ref. 7). Techniques to improve the
efficiency of snow collection include the following:
Snow windrowing. Formation of a berm
perpendicular to the wind which traps snow in a
similar manner to snow fencing.
Track packing. Packing the snow by running over it
with grooming machine tracks, but not finishing the
surface so that snow accumulates on the rough
surface.
Winching. Using a grooming machine attached by
cable to a stable object further upslope (which may
be a second grooming machine) to collect snow
which has accumulated at the base of the slope
(sometimes due to the effects of skiing in pushing
snow downhill) and winching it to the upper parts of
the slope where snow has been lost.
B.2 Wet areas
Wet areas (e.g. bogs with pools, creek lines) should
not be groomed until there is sufficient bridging snow
cover, either from natural snowfalls or by pushing up
snow, to support the weight of a grooming machine.
When this is formed by pushing snow, it should be
allowed to freeze overnight before being driven on.
In grooming over creek lines, machines should
approach in a direction perpendicular to the line of
the creek, not along the creek.
C. Movement of grooming machines
C.1 General
The movement of grooming machines between
snowmaking areas should take place along dedicated
oversnow routes. If there is insufficient snow on the
route, the machines should be trucked between
operating areas.
D. Operating hours
D.1 General
Snow grooming should take place throughout the
overnight period between lift closure and lift opening.
Groomers should normally operate in two 8 to 10
hour shifts.
D.2 Grooming near lodges
Grooming near lodges and other accommodation
buildings should be undertaken outside normal
sleeping hours as far as practicable.
13.3 Snowmaking
The environmental benefits of snowmaking result
from improving the duration and uniformity of snow
cover for the benefits of skiers, at the same time
protecting underlying vegetation from the risks of
damage by skis and oversnow vehicles. The main
environmental cost of snowmaking results from its
energy use.
There is also an effect in modifying the pattern of
water flow out of the catchment, although the net
water loss is minimal. While this impact may be
negative in terms of the efficiency of water use for
power generation, this is essentially an economic
MAY 2002 AppA13-3
cost and the overall environmental effect is not
necessarily adverse.
In terms of overall strategy, environmental best
practice with respect to snowmaking depends on
optimising pumping energy use and impacts on
streams by abstracting water from as high in the
catchment as possible at times when the streams are
carrying high volumes and storing as much of this
water as possible. This has major implications for the
planning and design of the snowmaking system and
is beyond the scope of the operational measures
discussed in this report.
From an operational perspective, best practice
means making as much snow as possible to achieve
the environmental benefits of snowmaking under
conditions when the efficiency of snowmaking is
highest (i.e. cold, calm nights with low humidity).
Under these conditions a higher volume of snow can
be produced per unit volume of water, thus reducing
the amount of water pumped and the associated
energy demands. In practice, the current demand for
artificial snow is such that this means operating the
existing plant to the maximum extent that
meteorological conditions will allow.
Guidelines
A. General operation
A.1 Meteorological conditions
Snowmaking should be attempted only under suitable
meteorological conditions, with priority given to
maximising snowmaking when conditions are
optimum.
A.2 Use of additives
Snowmaking additives (e.g. Snowmax
!
) may be used
to improve the efficiency of the snowmaking process.
Such additives must be used in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions.
B. Snowmaking near lodges
B.1 Type of equipment
Where it is necessary to make snow near lodges and
other residential buildings, fans should be used in
preference to air-water guns, due to their lower noise
levels.
B.2 Operating hours
If operating schedules permit, snowmaking near
lodges should be undertaken to minimise noise
disturbance during normal sleeping hours. In
practice, however, meteorological conditions and
operating logistics will often make this impracticable.
13.4 Snow Farming
Snow farming involves redistributing snow from areas
where it accumulates deeply, either naturally or as a
result of snow fences, to other areas where the snow
cover is shallow. This could conceivably have some
long term effects on natural processes by reducing
the length of snow cover in the deposition areas and
prolonging it where it is built up. Some deposition
areas could include snowpatch short alpine
herbfield communities, where prolonged snow cover
is a key factor determining their ecological
characteristics.
While the variation in snow cover resulting from snow
farming is likely to be within the normal range of
annual variation, it may nevertheless be preferable to
collect snow where it is deposited through the effects
of snow fences, so that these two artificial processes
effectively cancel each other out.
The effects on the area where the snow is placed are
likely to be less significant, as this area is still likely to
lose snow relatively rapidly once snow farming
ceases late in the season.
Guidelines
A. Priorities for snow farming activities
A.1 Snow fence deposits
Snow should be removed from snow fence deposits
where practicable, subject to maintaining an
adequate cover at the site for other purposes.
A.2 Snowpatch short alpine herbfield areas
Snow should not be farmed from these areas. While
they cannot be identified under snow, their positions
can be worked out from the 1:5000 vegetation maps,
and can be related to ski trails and other features.
A.3 Other natural snow deposition areas
Snow may be farmed, subject to maintaining an
adequate cover over vegetation and ensuring that
vegetation is not damaged in the course of snow
removal.
B. Snow farming plans
B.1 General
In regular snow farming areas, plans should be
prepared showing where snow farming is acceptable.
These plans should show any natural obstacles (e.g.
buried rocks) within the snow farming areas.
C. Snow farming practices
C.1 Vegetation protection
In order to protect underlying vegetation during snow
movement, snow should be transported from the rear
of the farmed area to the run before removing snow
from the front. This results in the machine always
AppA13-4 MAY 2002
working on top of an area where the vegetation is
protected by good snow cover.
C.2 Public safety
In snow farming areas accessible to the public,
removal of snow should not result in cut banks being
left. Such banks should be battered off for safety.
Snow farming areas should be reported to the Ski
Patrol for assessment as possible hazards, and
warning poles should be erected if necessary.
13.5 Ski Lift Operation
The opening and closing of ski lifts, whether on a
seasonal basis or a daily basis, is determined by both
operational and environmental considerations. The
primary concern influencing lift opening and closing
on a seasonal basis is whether there is enough snow
at the lift stations, on the track of surface lifts and on
the trails served by the lifts to allow safe skiing. Local
deficiencies in snow cover can be addressed by
snowmaking (if available on site and subject to
weather conditions) or by snow farming.
If there is sufficient snow for safe operation, this snow
cover should be adequate for protecting the
underlying vegetation against ski or snowboard
damage. The safety practices thus act as surrogate
environmental practices in this situation.
On a daily basis, wind can be a significant factor
limiting chairlift operation in exposed sites and less
commonly affects surface lifts. This is primarily a
safety consideration, and depends on both wind
speed and direction. Commonly, only one section of
the lift may be affected, usually towards the top
station, but the risks over this section still necessitate
closure of the lift.
Lifts may also be closed in the event of an electrical
storm. In this situation, it is desirable for skiers not
only to be off the lift, but also away from its towers or
from isolated trees, which can attract lightning, and
not to be in other exposed locations on the slope.
The lift closure procedures also need to take these
considerations into account.
Lift closure due to icing does not normally occur at
Perisher Blue, as de-icing procedures are
implemented as required provided that it is otherwise
safe to operate the lift.
Guidelines
A. Opening of lifts during limited snow cover
A.1 Surface lifts
A surface lift should not be open unless there is
sufficient snow along the lift track and associated ski
trails for safe skiing and snowboarding. The
understorey vegetation or ground surface should not
be exposed along the lift track. The snow may
accumulate naturally or be provided in the relevant
areas by snowmaking or snow farming.
A.2 Aerial lifts
An aerial lift should not be open unless there is
sufficient snow at the lift stations and along
associ ated ski trai l s for safe ski i ng and
snowboarding. The understorey vegetation or
ground surface should not be exposed in loading and
unloading areas. In the case of lifts with a midstation,
this need extend over only one part of the lift. The
snow may accumulate naturally or may be provided
in the relevant areas by snowmaking or snow
farming.
B. Lift closure during high wind
B.1 Aerial lifts
Operation of an aerial lift must be discontinued when
wind conditions become hazardous through
excessive chair swing (more than 15 degrees) or
abnormal cable bounce up and down. The extent of
the hazard at a given wind speed vary from lift to lift
according to exposure and orientation. In closing a
lift, the bottom station must be closed and the lift
allowed to run until all passengers have unloaded at
the top station.
B.2 Surface lifts
While surface lifts can operate at higher wind speeds
than aerial lifts, operation of a surface lift must be
discontinued if wind conditions become hazardous.
These conditions will vary from lift to lift according to
exposure and orientation. After closing the bottom
station, the lift should normally be allowed to run until
all riders have unloaded at the top station, although in
an extreme situation this is not essential as the riders
are already on the ground.
C. Lift closure during electrical storms
C.1 Aerial lifts
Because of the risk of lifts attracting lightning strikes,
aerial lifts should be closed prior to an electrical
storm reaching the area of the slope. Lifts which are
important for skier circulation however, should not be
closed too early, as this may result in skiers being
stranded in an exposed situation on the slope.
C.2 Surface lifts
Surface lifts should be closed when the electrical
storm is overhead, or preferably earlier to allow skiers
to move off the slope before the storm arrives.
13.6 Ski Trail Operation
Ski trail operation is managed with public safety as
the primary concern. The relevant measures include:
permanent marking of ski patrol boundaries;
erection of warning ('slow') signs at locations
where ski trails intersect or cross oversnow
routes;
MAY 2002 AppA13-5
closure of ski trails during the season when snow
conditions are unsafe for skiing;
erection of 'caution' signs, temporary fencing or
danger poles at hazards on the ski slope,
including protruding rocks and vegetation,
manmade objects, sink holes, wind scours,
cornices and cliff areas; and
implementation of daily sweep procedures by ski
patrollers to clear skiers from the slopes prior to
the closure of lifts.
The details of these measures are described in the
Perisher Blue Professional Ski Patrol Operations
Manual (Ref. 8). Their environmental implications
relate essentially to the issue of public safety, and
they do not have any direct implications for other
environmental processes. These measures are not
discussed further in this manual.
13.7 Oversnow Vehicle Use
Oversnow vehicles are used extensively for
snowgrooming and other management purposes, as
well as for general access around the villages where
they overlap with the ski slopes. The use of
grooming machines is discussed in Section 13.2.
The following guidelines relate to the use of skidoos
and other oversnow vehicles used for the transport of
people or materials.
As tracked vehicles, oversnow vehicles have
relatively little impact on the snow when driven in a
straight line, but turning movements can erode the
snow and expose underlying vegetation and soil,
which in turn is at risk of damage by these vehicles.
For this reason it is desirable to control where
oversnow vehicles are driven and how they are
driven, as well as to manage oversnow routes with a
view to maintaining snowcover.
Movement along oversnow routes is the only
practicable means of vehicle transport within most of
the resort when there is a full cover of snow. When
there is little or no snow, however, most of these
routes (or alternative routes between the same
points) can be traversed by conventional vehicles.
The main problems arise during transitional periods
when there is too much snow for conventional vehicle
access but incomplete snow cover along the route.
There are several approaches for addressing this
situation:
1. Artificially enhance the snow cover by snow
making (if available) or snow farming.
2. Remove residual snow to open the route to
conventional vehicles.
3. Impose more stringent conditions on oversnow
vehicle movement in order to minimise
environmental damage or exposed sections of
the route.
4. Limit access to wide-tracked vehicles with a
relatively low ground pressure.
5. Close the route to oversnow access.
Another issue with respect to oversnow vehicle use is
safety, particularly in situations where their routes
follow or cross ski trails or cross skilift corridors.
Designated oversnow routes are identified in the
SSMP (Section 5.9) with a view to concentrating
most oversnow vehicle movements in areas where
conflict with skiers, snowboarders and pedestrians is
minimised. Vehicle noise can also be of concern,
particularly when they operate close to residential
buildings at night.
Particularly for ski slope management, however, it is
necessary for certain oversnow vehicles (e.g. skidoos
operated by Perisher Blue and NPWS staff) to
operate in other parts of the slopes. The following
guidelines address vehicle use both on and off
designated oversnow routes.
More detai l ed procedures for the use of
snowgrooming machines and skidoos are given in
the Perisher Blue Snowgroomers Operations Manual
(Ref. 7) and its Skidooing Rules and Guidelines (Ref.
29).
Guidelines
A. Use during good snow cover
A.1 Safe driving practices
As skidoos and other oversnow vehicles are
registered vehicles, drivers must obey all road rules,
including speed limits, stop signs, parking conditions
and driving under the influence of alcohol. Further
advice on safe driving practices is given in the
Skidooing Rules and Guidelines (Ref. 34).
A.2 Protection of groomed runs and trails
Oversnow vehicles should travel to the side of freshly
groomed runs and trails and to the outside of traverse
tracks to protect the snow surface for skiers.
A.3 Protection of lift tracks
Lift tracks should be avoided, particularly in icy or
A.4 Noise control
When driving near lodges and other residential
buildings during normal sleeping hours, vehicles
should be driven in a way which avoids excessive
noise. They should move quickly and quietly through
the area and should not be left idling if stationary.
AppA13-6 MAY 2002
A.5 Environmentally sensitive areas
Oversnow vehicle use should be avoided or limited to
certai n snow depth condi ti ons i n certai n
environmentally sensitive areas such as Burramys
hibernation habitat.
A.6 Access to hazardous areas
Skidoos and other oversnow vehicles should not be
driven on steep slopes, close to creek lines or in
other potentially hazardous situations without the
operator being first familiarised with such areas by a
suitably experienced operator.
B. Use during poor snow cover
B.1 Designated route where there is an
alternative, snow free route
Where an alternative snow free route exists (e.g.
between Perisher and Smiggin Holes via the
Kosciuszko Road), the oversnow route should be
closed during conditions when full snow cover cannot
be maintained. In this situation, conventional
vehicles should be used for access and oversnow
tracked vehicles should be transported by truck.
B.2 Designated route where there is no
alternative access
Oversnow movement should be maintained with
artificial enhancement of the snow cover where this is
practicable, particularly if the route also forms part of
a ski trail or is crossed by skiers.
B.3 Designated route not used by skiers
If the route does not form part of a ski trail or is not
crossed by skiers, it may be cleared of snow
completely and closed to oversnow vehicles.
B.4 Slopes away from designated routes
Where it is not possible to avoid traversing an area of
poor snow cover by oversnow vehicle, this should be
done with minimum risk of disturbing the exposed
vegetation or soil. In particular, the vehicle should be
driven through this area at a very slow speed on as
straight a route as practicable. Any skidoo
passengers should alight and walk through the
exposed areas to minimise the weight on the vehicle.
The number of vehicles movements should be
minimised. This may mean leaving the vehicle and
walking to inspection sites.
Further Information
Perisher Blue Pty Limited. Professional Ski Patrol
Operations Manual. 1998.
Perisher Blue Pty Limited. Snowgroomers Operations
Manual. 1998.
Perisher Blue Pty Limited. Ski dooi ng rules and
guidelines. 1999.
Doppelmayr. Various sheets on lift operations.
MAY 2002 AppA14-1
14. REHABILITATION OF PAST DISTURBANCE
14.1 Introduction
There are some locations within the ski slopes where
disturbance which has taken place some time ago
has not been fully rehabilitated and the site is still
potentially unstable. Such sites should be properly
rehabilitated as soon as practicable.
There are other locations where the rehabilitation has
successfully stabilised the environment but not in the
optimum form for maintaining ecological processes,
such as small animal movement. In these cases, it is
desirable as a long term objective to further modify
the existing environment with a view to restoring or
facilitating these processes, provided that this can be
done in a way which does not significantly conflict
with operational and safety objectives. The solutions
in this situation may have a 'natural' basis, for
example, re-establishment of heath corridors in
suitable situations, or an artificial basis such as
buri ed, rock-fi l l ed ani mal crossi ngs. The
encouragement of native vegetation species,
particularly in the ground cover, is desirable generally
in this context.
It may also be desirable to remove redundant
structures, such as the remains of old buildings or
skilift footings, to remove other remnants from past
works on the slopes (e.g. cut timber and rock
fragments), and to rehabilitate disused tracks. Such
work, which may be warranted more for aesthetic
reasons than for environmental reasons, and may
best be undertaken in association with other
development or maintenance projects taking place in
the same area. This reduces the need for special
vehicle access, with its associated impacts, and can
reduce the human resource requirements and costs
involved in undertaking the remedial work.
14.2 Stabilisation of Exposed Soil
Exposed soil is present in some sites where attempts
at rehabilitation after slope grooming or other works
have not been fully successful. These areas require
further rehabilitation efforts, using whatever method
is appropriate to restore the site to a stable and
preferably natural condition. The revegetation
guidelines described in Chapter 6 are generally
applicable but, in the case of old disturbance, there is
unlikely to be an available source of sods or topsoil
on the site, and allowance will usually need to be
made for this. Rehabilitation under such conditions
may require more complex techniques than when it is
undertaken as an integral part of the project.
Where it is possible to utilise surplus sods or topsoil
from another development site with similar
characteristics, this would enhance the quality of
rehabilitation but is likely to be the exception rather
than the rule. The efficient use of surplus sods and
topsoil would be promoted by maintaining an
accurate inventory of sites requiring remedial action.
Monitoring of site conditions, including identification
of areas of exposed soil, is desirable both to assess
the success of recent rehabilitation works and to
identify the condition of the ski slopes in general.
Guidelines
A. Monitoring arrangements
A.1 Recent rehabilitation works
Recent rehabilitation works should be monitored
periodically until it can be concluded that the site is
satisfactorily rehabilitated or alternatively that further
remedial work is required and has been undertaken.
Monitoring need be by general observation only, but
a system should be maintained for recording
progress of revegetation in map form and/or
descriptive form. The frequency of monitoring will
depend on the circumstances but should extend to at
least two assessments during summer, one at the
beginning of summer (say November, subject to the
site being snowfree) and one towards the end (say
April).
A.2 General slope monitoring
Monitoring of the condition of the slope in general
should be undertaken on an ongoing basis as part of
the overall ski slope planning and development
project. Areas considered to require remedial work to
stabilise the soil should be recorded on a map
register maintained as part of the Ski Slope Master
Plan, with an assessment of the priority for action.
B. Revegetation
B.1 Priority for rehabilitation works
Sites with high erosion risks or instability problems
should be stabilised as soon as practicable, the work
being undertaken as a specific project in its own right.
Stabilisation of sites with moderate to low erosion
risks may be integrated with other development
works on nearby parts of the slope, possibly reducing
the need for special vehicle access and/or being able
to take advantage of surplus topsoil or sods for use in
the rehabilitation work. If this is not practicable in the
short term for sites with moderate erosion risk, such
sites should continue to be monitored to ensure that
the situation does not deteriorate significantly.
B.2 Use of sods or topsoil from other sites
Sods or topsoil from other sites may be used for
rehabilitation provided that:
AppA14-2 MAY 2002
it is surplus to requirements at the original site;
the soil and vegetation characteristics of the two
sites are similar; and
it can be transported between the two sites
without causing significant impacts.
The transfer of topsoil between sites should be
undertaken as soon as possible after the soil is
removed (see also Section 5.3).
14.3 Re-establishment of Native Vegetation
General Considerations
Maintenance of native vegetation on the ski slopes is
desirable for both ecological and aesthetic reasons,
but must also be compatible with the safe use of the
slopes for skiing. What may appear to be an
apparent conflict between these two objectives can
be resolved if the following points are recognised:
There are many different native vegetation
communities within the ski slopes. The
characteristics of some of these communities fits
in well with their use for skiing when snow-
covered. In particular, areas of grassland/
herbfield and low or open heath, which do not
accumulate water and have vegetation which
packs down well under a light covering of snow
are the most suitable. Areas of woodland are the
least suitable.
The process of summer grooming sometimes
changes one vegetation community to a different
community, for example, woodland with a heath
understorey to dry heath, or heath to grassland.
Where subsurface drainage works are involved,
an area of wet heath or bog may evolve to an
area of dry grassland or open heath over an
extended period.
While the original environmental processes of the
area are modified, the area can still function as a
natural subalpine ecosystem with ecological values
that exceed those of a site which has been stabilised
using solely exotic vegetation.
In the present context, the rehabilitation is aimed at
taking an area where the original native vegetation
has been removed and replaced with exotic
vegetation (e.g. Chewings fescue or alpine mix) and
returning it towards a condition which is more similar
to one or more of the vegetation communities that
occurs naturally at the resort. These communities
are not necessarily the same as those existing
originally on the site, hence the process cannot be
described as restoration, which indicates a return to
the original condition.
Rather a more appropriate term is native
rehabilitation, which indicates return of the site to a
stable form based on native species. Another term
which has a similar meaning is c r e a t i v e
conservation. This is more commonly applied in an
urban or rural context where the native ecosystem
has been largely obliterated on a wide scale over an
extended period, significantly diminishing its
ecological value. Parts of this area are subsequently
revegetated or otherwise modified (e.g. by formation
of pools or rocky areas) to create new habitat which
may or may not be similar to the original habitat, but
is nevertheless effective in its value for native
species. A typical feature of the creative
conservation concept is that it establishes new
islands of biodiversity in areas where this has long
been deficient, and the features so created tend to
have relatively high ecological values compared with
their surroundings.
Because of its short history of disturbance and the
relatively small areas that have been modified on the
ski slopes, the creative conservation concept does
not have the same value or priority here as in other
situations. The areas thus rehabilitated are still likely
to be lower in ecological value than their natural
surroundings. However, the principles applying to
creative conservation may still be relevant. The
following guidelines incorporate some of these
principles.
Another consideration is that most people in a
national park situation prefer native vegetation for its
aesthetic values, providing that this does not detract
from the enjoyment of the visitor experience. This is
not a relevant consideration in winter in the resort, as
most of the vegetation is buried beneath the snow. In
summer, however, where people are walking around
the slopes, it is likely that, in areas where there are
no tracks, most typical park visitors would prefer:
(a) to walk through areas of native grasses and
flowers in preference to introduced grasses and
weeds; and
(b) to walk through areas which are relatively open
than to push their way through dense heath or
snowgum thickets.
In considering the promotion of native regeneration, it
is desirable to take account also of the potential
positive and negative effects that this could have on
the quality of summer recreation.
The conditions that summer walkers enjoy, however,
are not the optimum for native animals, which depend
on heath cover for safety of movement. Furthermore,
it appears that feral animals (e.g. foxes, rabbits) also
tend to migrate more freely through open areas in
preference to the natural heath, which may increase
the threat to native species through predation and
competition. The significance of such threats in
relation to a particular site can be judged only in the
context of the surrounding area.
MAY 2002 AppA14-3
14.4 Re-establishment of Native Groundcover
Where areas have been stabilised with exotic
groundcover, the desirable objective is to replace this
with native grasses and forbs in a way which does
not destabilise the soil. This can occur through
natural regeneration in some situations, while other
situations may require more active measures.
Guidelines
A. Natural regeneration
A.1 Areas stabilised with Chewings fescue
These areas can be left to regenerate naturally, and
are likely to be colonised gradually by native grasses
and forbs, as well as heath, from surrounding areas,
provided that suitable seed sources are present.
A.2 Areas stabilised with alpine mix
Natural regeneration is likely to be slow in these
areas due to the more aggressive characteristics of
alpine mix. In the event of further disturbance in
these areas they should be stabilised with a
Chewings fescue native species seed mix, but the
alpine mix species are still likely to persist to some
extent.
B. Active revegetation
B.1 Areas stabilised with Chewings fescue
The topsoil should be ploughed to a shallow depth,
sown with suitable native seed and mulched.
Alternatively, selective hand planting or sowing of
native species may be undertaken without disturbing
the majority of the area.
B.2 Areas stabilised with alpine mix
The area may be treated as in Guideline B.1,
although the alpine mix would be likely to persist to
some extent. If elimination of the alpine mix is
desired, this would entail a specially designed
operation, with a probable need to replace the
topsoil.
B.3 Areas with high component of weeds
Treatment of these areas may involve a combination
of spraying, hand removal, topsoil replacement and
native sowing or planting. The procedure for each
site should be designed specifically, depending on
the nature of the soil and vegetation.
14.5 Re-establishment of Heath
In a previously groomed or disturbed area, the re-
establishment of heath could be promoted on a
general basis or in relation to specific animal
movement corridors. In both situations, the extent to
which this is desirable will be influenced by
operational objectives for the slope.
Guidelines
A.1 Areas stabilised with Chewings fescue
There areas are likely to regenerate naturally with
heath provided that this is native to the site and a
suitable seed source is available in nearby areas.
A.2 Areas stabilised with alpine mix
Native regeneration is likely to be slow in these areas
due to the more aggressive characteristics of alpine
mix.
B.1 General slope revegetation
The area should be treated as in Guideline 14.4/B.1,
using suitable heath seed, or alternatively tubestock if
selective planting is preferred.
B.2 Specific locations
Where heath development in specific locations is
desired, this can most effectively be achieved
through planting of tubestock (see Section 6.5).
14.6 Re-establishment of Trees
While tree planting on the ski slopes is generally
unlikely to be effective in terms of short-term benefits,
there may be situations where it is desirable as a
long-term investment in enhancing landscape quality.
More rapid results can be expected if there are still
living tree stumps in the ground which can regenerate
if left alone.
Guidelines
A.1 Living tree stumps
Stumps should be allowed to regenerate naturally,
with fencing if necessary to prevent accidental
damage to new shoots.
B.1 General
Trees should be planted as tubestock, as described
in Section 6.6.
14.7 Provision of Animal Crossings
Some of the past summer slope grooming has left
wide ski runs where most of the heath has been
removed. These runs inhibit the movement of small
animals and can expose them to increased risks of
predation. The same effects can result along
narrower corridors such as access tracks.
AppA14-4 MAY 2002
While there is no evidence that these barrier effects
actually prevent the movement of small animals
around the resort, there are various ways in which
they could adversely affect some species. Adopting
a precautionary approach, there is scope for
offsetting these adverse effects by artificially creating
protected movement corridors in such exposed
areas, for example, the Burramys crossing on the
trails on Blue Cow Mountain.
Such corridors may be formed from pipes, rock
tunnels or bands of heath. In providing such
corridors, it is important to locate and design them so
that they can be used safely by the species for which
they are designed. Corridors which concentrate
animal movement rather than dispersing it can
increase predation risks by those predators which
have the intelligence to work out that this is a good
place for an easy meal. This can be countered by
having multiple corridors or by providing very good
protection where the ends of the corridor connect to
the surrounding habitat.
It is important also to ensure that the crossings would
actually be used by the animals on a long-term basis.
They should not be subject to water accumulation or
sediment buildup, and should be narrow enough to
exclude large predators. The design of the crossing
may be influenced by which species it is intended to
protect.
Underground animal crossings are basically of two
types, short crossings and extended crossings.
Short crossings are designed particularly to provide
animal movement paths beneath tracks and roads.
They may run directly down the slope, possibly
following a drain or culvert, or obliquely across the
slope, depending on the alignment of the track or
road.
Extended crossings are intended to provide animals
movement paths over much longer distances across
broad cleared areas such as ski runs groomed to
Level A or Level B standards. They would generally
be independent of drainage lines. As ski runs
generally run straight down a slope, these crossings
are likely to run across the slope. Because they cut
across the slope, there is the possibility that they
could function as subsurface cutoff drains which may
affect slope drainage and vegetation further
downslope, and also interfere with their own primary
function through collecting water and possibly
causing subsurface erosion and siltation. These are
important design considerations.
Surface corridors for animal movement can be
formed from heath, rocks or a combination of the two.
Crossings of this type are feasible only in situations
where they would not create hazards to skiers or
operational problems, especially if rocks are used. A
suitable location may be at a break in slope which
accumulates a deep drift of snow.
As the ends of buried crossings will sometimes be
some distance from the nearest protected habitat, it
is desirable to improve their security from predators
and to encourage their use by extending protected
habitat in the form of a surface corridor of heath
and/or rock piles.
If significant resources are to be devoted to
measures designed to facilitate animal movement, it
is desirable to be able to assess the effectiveness of
these measures. If they are found to be effective,
this provides a basis for progressively extending
them to other areas to offset possible effects of past
or current slope grooming in inhibiting movement. If
they are not effective, this could either point to a need
to modify the design of crossings, or alternatively
indicate that such measures are a waste of effort.
Monitoring may be undertaken directly by recording
movement through the crossing or indirectly by
looking for evidence of the relevant species on both
sides of the cleared corridor. In the latter case, it
would usually not be possible to distinguish whether
animals are actually using the crossing or whether
they are crossing the corridor without it.
The crossings should be checked periodically to
confirm that they are still potentially functional with
respect to animal movement. Possible problems
could include water accumulation, siltation, collapse
of the tunnel structure (particularly if geotextile is
used), and damage to protective mesh at the ends of
crossings.
Underground crossings designed for summer use
may function also as subnivean corridors in winter for
those animals that move under the snow, provided
that they can obtain access to the ends of the
crossings. There are also other means of
encouraging the formation of subnivean corridors by
promoting surface irregularities on the slopes under
the heath collapsed by the weight of snow.
The following guidelines for animal crossings are
generally relevant also to situations where they are
provided as part of a development project, rather
than to rectify an existing concern. The design of
crossings for safe and effective animal movement is
still very much at the experimental stage. The
guidelines may therefore be subject to future
refinement in the light of experience and monitoring.
Experimentation with alternative designs which have
a rational theoretical basis is encouraged.
MAY 2002 AppA14-5
Guidelines
A. Short underground crossings
A.1 Location
Crossings should be located so that they facilitate
movement between natural habitat areas for the
relevant species, and can be connected with these
areas at either end.
A.2 On drainage lines
If the crossing coincides with a drainage line, such as
a creek following a gully or a cross drain under a
track, the animal crossing can be laid with the pipe
but should be designed so that it is normally dry.
Some possible designs are as follows (see Figure
14.1):
pipe at higher level than main drain;
platform inside top of pipe;
culvert containing rocks.
If the crossing is incorporated into the drainage
structure, it is necessary to ensure that an adequate
drainage capacity is maintained and that excessive
sedimentation does not occur within the crossing,
due to reduction in flow velocity.
A.3 In dry situations
A pipe aligned with an upward slope away from any
drainage paths, so that it does not collect water, may
be a simple and effective way of providing a dry
crossing. This design lends itself to multiple
crossings within an area.
A.4 Mountai n Pygmy-possum (Burramys
parvus)
Burramys crossings should be located in areas which
are known or reasonably likely to be used as
movement corridors by this species. If possible, it is
desirable to locate the ends near existing
boulderfields or other protective features.
The ideal design for a Burramys crossing is shown in
Figure 14.2. Whether it is feasible to implement this
fully, however, will depend on site conditions
including the possible presence of underground
services beneath the track. A more modest crossing
based on similar principles will be necessary in some
situations.
A.5 Broad-toothed Rat (Mastacomys fuscus)
Crossings intended for use by Mastacomys or small
mammals in general should be located if possible in
relation to areas of protective heath or rocks, and to
established runways in the grass or heath if these are
evident.
A suitable design for a small mammal crossing can
be based on 100 to 150 mm reinforced concrete or
PVC pipe, subject to this not conflicting with
underground services along the track. Specific
details of the pipe location and end treatment should
be determined according to site conditions.
A.6 Reptiles
Based on the known behaviour of reptiles, which tend
to be attracted to exposed surfaces in order to
receive warmth from the sun, it is unlikely that
protected underground crossings would be effective
for these species. No specific measures are
recommended for reptiles in this situation.
B. Extended underground crossings
B.1 Location
Crossings should be located so that they facilitate
movement between natural habitat areas for the
relevant species, and can be connected with these
areas at either end.
B.2 Design general
Crossings should be designed to function primarily
for animal movement rather than being aligned with
drainage works. They should be designed to be free-
draining and not to attract surface water inflow. This
can be achieved by having a high point in the middle
of the crossing, dropping away at either end.
Options for design of the crossing include a solid pipe
or culvert or rocks wrapped in geotextile. A solid pipe
is likely to last longer and would not be subject to
water inflow, but is more likely to interfere with
groundwater movement down the slope. A pipe
would also be easier to maintain and to lay. Collars
along the pipe at intervals would stabilise it if
necessary and more importantly would intercept
groundwater flow along the outside of the pipe.
Small diameter (100-150 mm) PVC pipe may be
adequate for the species of concern, but NPWS
views should be sought. Multiple crossings would be
desirable to disperse animals at either end and to
provide security in case of blockage.
B.3 Mountai n Pygmy-possum (Burramys
parvus)
The design described in Guideline A.4 is ideal, but
may not be practicable over extended distances due
to general environmental disturbance, interference
with groundwater movement and cost. A more
modest design may be appropriate.
B.4 Broad-toothed Rat (Mastacomys fuscus)
A pipe of diameter 100 to 150 mm is likely to be an
effective design, provided that it is free-draining, does
not collect water and would be used by Mastacomys
and other small mammals over this distance.
Alternatively, there is evidence that Mastacomys will
move under the protection of a steel grid (K. Green,
pers. comm.). Provided that this can be installed
without conflict with skier safety or damage by
grooming machinery, this may be preferable in terms
AppA14-6 MAY 2002
of reducing disturbance. It may be feasible to
integrate such a grid with a crossdrain.
B.5 Reptiles
Protected movement of reptiles over extended
distances can be provided by retaining a reasonable
cover of low heath or tall grass. Reptiles are unlikely
to use underground crossings for movement over
extended distances.
C. Surface corridors
C.1 Heath corridors
Heath species should be used which are indigenous
to the site, taking account of any local variations in
wetness. Species which are relatively 'stiff' and
support the development of subnivean space are
preferred for facilitating winter movement (see also
Guidelines D below).
Planting from tubestock should be undertaken, as the
area to be covered is relatively small and specific.
C.2 Rock corridors
Rock corridors should be established only in
situations where it is feasible to either bring rocks to
the site without excessive transport impacts, or to
obtain them locally (e.g. from another project) without
disrupting natural rock habitat.
It is desirable generally to reinforce rock corridors by
planting with heath among or beside the rocks.
D. Corridors for winter movement
D.1 Along cross drains
By planting low heath along the upper edge of cross
drains, the depression along the drain can provide a
subnivean corridor when the heath collapses under
the weight of snow. The effectiveness of this corridor
may be influenced by the amount of water flowing in
the drain during winter.
D.2 Based on cut timber
Cut timber placed in heath across a ski run (see
Guidelines 12.2/B.1) can support heath which is
flattened under the weight of snow, creating a
subnivean corridor beside the timber.
D.3 Based on rock fragments
A similar effect can be achieved through the
placement of rock fragments, together with the use of
low residual outcrops of rocks. A combination of
rocks and timber to create a base for subnivean
corridors can be used in some situations.
E. Monitoring of animals movements
E.1 General
Monitoring of animal movements through crossings
should be undertaken by someone with appropriate
professional experience, using methods such as
trapping or hair tubes.
F. Monitoring of crossing condition
F.1 Short pipes and culverts
Monitoring may be by visual inspection.
F.2 Extended pipes or culverts
Monitoring of the continuity of crossings which cannot
be assessed visually may be undertaken using
smoke flares, by someone who is experienced in the
use of this technique.
14.8 Removal of Redundant Structures
There are a number of structures on the slopes
resulting from early skifield development which no
longer form any useful function and, in some cases,
may present a hazard or detract aesthetically from
the environmental quality of the resort.
Unless these are of significant cultural heritage value,
the ski slope would be better off without them. A
decision to proceed with their removal, however,
should take account of whether this could result in
any adverse effects, such as access impacts or
destabilisation of the site.
Guidelines
A. General
A.1 Assessment of need for removal
The following factors should be considered in
assessing whether a redundant structure should be
removed and, if so, its priority for removal:
Whether the structure is of possible cultural
heritage value.
Whether it presents a significant hazard to skiers
or grooming machinery.
Whether it is visually intrusive or otherwise
aesthetically undesirable and likely to be seen by
many resort visitors in summer or winter.
Ease of access to the site.
Current level of disturbance at the site.
A.2 Access
The guidelines in Chapter 2 apply. If creation of a
temporary track would be necessary to remove the
structure in summer, it would be preferable to
dismantle it in summer and remove it by oversnow
vehicle in winter or, if this is not practicable, to leave
it in place.
A.3 Site rehabilitation
The guidelines in Chapter 6 apply.
MAY 2002 AppA14-7
14.9 Removal of Old Waste Materials
Past slope grooming has sometimes resulted in the
waste materials such as cut timber and rock
fragments being left in or beside the ski run in
locations which are visible in summer. This material
tends to be unsightly and, in the interests of
enhancing the quality of the resort during summer,
may be worth removing.
In terms of effects on ecological processes,
accumulation of this material may be adverse (e.g. by
blocking streams and promoting erosion or by
creating habitat for feral animals), neutral or
beneficial (e.g. by creating additional habitat for
native animals). In some situations, the material
may have been in place for so long that a new stable
environment has developed around it, and removal of
the material may lead to destabilisation of the site.
Guidelines
A. General
A.1 Assessment of need for removal
The following factors should be considered in
assessing whether old waste materials should be
removed and, if so, their priority for removal:
Whether the material is having beneficial or
adverse effects on any ecological processes.
Whether it represents a significant hazard to
skiers or grooming machinery.
Whether it is visually intrusive or otherwise
aesthetically undesirable and likely to be seen by
many resort visitors in summer or winter.
Ease of access to the site.
Current level of disturbance at the site.
A.2 Access
The guidelines in Chapter 2 apply. If creation of a
temporary track would be necessary to remove the
material in summer, it would be preferable to stack it
for removal by oversnow vehicle in winter or, if this is
not practicable, to leave it in place.
A.3 Site rehabilitation
If site rehabilitation is likely to be required, it would
generally be preferable to leave the material in place.
Otherwise the guidelines in Chapter 6 would apply.
B. Cut timber
B.1 General
As discussed in Section 5.10, cut timber has potential
for use as firewood within the resort, with
environmental benefits for the conservation of low
elevation woodland. Wood which has been lying for
several years on dry slopes would be more suitable
than freshly cut material, having had the opportunity
to dry out, provided that it has not decomposed to the
point of being unstable, in which case it would be
preferable to allow the natural decomposition process
to continue.
It is desirable to have a mechanism for delivering
such material directly to users or alternatively to a
suitably located stockpile.
C. Rock fragments
C.1 General
As discussed in Section 5.5, fragments of local
granodiorite are a valuable source of building stone,
which has been plentiful in the past but is becoming
more scarce. If it is decided to remove rock
fragments from the slopes, it is desirable for these to
be stockpiled for use when required.
D. Rehabilitation of disturbed watercourses
D.1 General
Where waste material has been placed in natural
watercourses in a way which is promoting erosion or
otherwise interfering with natural processes in the
watercourse, it may be desirable to remove this
material and, if necessary, rehabilitate the
watercourse. Such exercises should be accessed on
a case-by-case basis, in particular to determine
whether there is a risk of remedial works actually
destabilising the watercourse.
14.10 Integration of Remedial Works with Other
Projects
There are two main reasons for integrating remedial
works with other development or maintenance
projects. First, integration with other projects is likely
to reduce any impacts of the work, particularly in
terms of vehicle movements in untracked areas and
also if the remedial work can be done in a way which
enhances the main project, for example, if surplus
material from one site can be used beneficially at the
other.
Second, more efficient use can be made of human
resources, reducing costs and enabling more
remedial works to be undertaken in the long term with
the same resources.
These considerations will affect the staging of such
works within the overall implementation program for
the SSMP.
MAY 2002 AppA15-1
15. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
Emergency situations arise occasionally at the resort
which affect human health and safety, protection of
buildings and other property and security of municipal
services.
Examples of emergency situations that may
reasonably be expected on the ski slopes include:
accidents or acute illness involving skiers,
snowboarders and other winter visitors;
accidents or acute illness, involving walkers and
other visitors;
accidents to management staff working for
Perisher Blue or other organisations in summer
and winter;
breakdown of ski lifts, especially aerial lifts;
sudden severe changes in weather affecting
skiers, lifts and/or vehicle movements;
building fires;
bushfires (there have been none in the resort
area since 1939);
landslips (there have been none in the resort
area in living memory);
failures in the services provided for electricity,
tel ephone, water suppl y (domesti c or
snowmaking) and sewerage, all of which extend
into areas covered by the Ski Slope Master Plan.
In an emergency situation, the priority for protection
of human life and property may override that for the
protection of ecological processes. Some emergency
situations in themselves may threaten the natural
environment in ways which can be countered only
through extreme action (e.g. in fighting a bushfire). In
such situations, some guidelines set out in this
manual may need to be relaxed.
The range of possible events is extremely diverse
and their risks are generally too low for
documentation of specific procedures for all
situations to be feasible. In any case, in a genuine
emergency, people will act quickly by commonsense
and will not take time to consult a manual.
An appreciation of the best practices in general,
which is developed through ongoing operations at the
resort, should provide a sufficient context for
determining the environmental priorities in a
particular emergency, weighing these against any
overriding priorities for action and responding
appropriately.
Once the emergency has passed, it is important
to return to normal management conditions as
quickly as possible. The guidelines in this manual
should be interpreted as appropriate for each
situation to determine what course of action should
follow.
MAY 2002 AppA16-1
16. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
16.1 Introduction
All activities on the ski slopes which have a risk of
causing some change to the physical or social
environment should in principle be subject to a form
of environmental assessment by whoever is
responsible for undertaking that activity. This
responsibility falls not only on Perisher Blue staff and
contractors but also on the staff of NPWS and other
authorities operating on the ski slopes, on people
undertaking scientific or educational work in the area,
and on the general public. It reflects an ethic which is
relevant throughout contemporary society.
It applies to actions as trivial as discarding litter or a
broken ski stock, walking across a naturally sensitive
or recently rehabilitated area or driving a skidoo
noisily past a lodge in the middle of the night. People
need to be always asking themselves questions such
as:
How is what I am about to do likely to affect the
environment or the values of other people?
Do I really need to do it?
Is there a better way?
These principles applying to daily personal activities
are essentially the same as those applying to
environmental assessment of major development
projects, and are relevant also to all other
development and management activities taking place
in the resort.
In its simplest form, it involves people simply being
sensible and sensitive in the way in which they carry
out daily activities, for example, using a formed
access track to drive up the slope to carry out skilift
maintenance, rather than driving straight up a
grassed ski slope. The guidelines in this manual
generally cover a wide range of such situations and
can be extrapolated to other situations which may not
be specifically covered.
At the next level are development and maintenance
activities which require specific attention to the details
of how they are implemented. In the past, this
process has commonly involved consultation with the
NPWS but with the change of planning responsibility
identified in Section 1.3 of the SSMP, this role is
expected to be assumed by Planning NSW. The
manual generally sets out relevant guidelines and,
apart from some site-specific decisions, no formal
assessment is warranted.
The next level of assessment relates to development
projects which are significant enough to warrant the
preparation of a comprehensive environmental
review document. In the past this has taken the form
of a review of environmental factors (REF) but, with
the change in development approval procedures (see
Section 1.3 of the main document), the relevant
document is now a statement of environmental
effects (SEE). The following practices have been
prepared to reflect the future situation.
The formal purpose of a SEE is to inform Planning
NSW of the proposal, in accordance with NSW
environmental legislation, but in practice its greatest
value lies in providing Perisher Blue with a structured
discipline for examining and documenting its
proposals so that they are implemented in
accordance with best practice. It essentially takes
the principles from this manual and applies them in a
way which best achieves the objectives of the
proposal on an ecologically sustainable basis. The
process of preparing and presenting a SEE should
be approached on this basis if it is to be most
effective in promoting ESD, particularly in producing
a report which is informative and focused for the use
of the people who are responsible for applying it.
This is a more important consideration in
environmental terms than satisfying administrative
procedures.
The highest level of environmental assessment under
most circumstances is the environmental impact
statement (EIS). In terms of technical analysis, this is
basically the same as a statement of environmental
effects, but is quite different in terms of presentation.
Whereas a SEE is intended primarily for people who
are involved in the ongoing management of the ski
slopes, in either an operational or a review capacity,
an EIS is intended for wider readership among the
general public and government authorities with more
peripheral interests in the area. To be effective in
this role, it needs to be presented in a reader-friendly
style which focuses particularly on the key issues and
rationale for the decisions to which it relates. If it is
too long, too technical or too boring it can become
self-defeating in its intended purpose.
An EIS is prepared in accordance with NSW
legislation which sets out specific requirements for its
minimum content and for procedures to be followed
in its preparation and review. The constraints
imposed under the legislation are intended for
general application covering a wide range of
circumstances and are not necessarily the optimum
for achieving good environmental planning and
assessment in the specialised situation applying to
the SSMP. In some situations, a more effective
means of presenting environmental issues to the
community may be achieved by working outside the
formal legislation. This applies particularly to
situations of a broad planning nature which are not
based on a specific development application, such as
AppA16-2 MAY 2002
the environmental review of the Mountain Master
Plan.
16.2 General Operation
This section applies to all development and
operational activities within the resort.
Guidelines
A. General
A.1 Review of environmental implications
Before undertaking any activities on the ski slopes,
Perisher Blue staff and others should review it in their
own mi nds wi th respect to any possi bl e
environmental problems, and work out the best way
of doing it, having regard to possible environmental
concerns.
A.2 Use of Best Practices Manual
Perisher Blue staff and others undertaking work on
the ski slopes should be broadly familiar with the
scope of the Best Practices Manual, and should
consult it as required for advice relevant to specific
situations.
A.3 Public awareness
Perisher Blue and the NPWS should promote public
awareness of environmental best practice with
respect to matters which are relevant to public
activities within the ski slopes. These may include:
Restriction of public use of management tracks
(Section 2.1/E).
Travel speeds on public roads (Section 2.1/D.1).
Walking off tracks (particularly in relation to
sensitive areas and revegetation sites).
Litter control (Section 12.7).
Responsible oversnow vehicle use (Section
13.7).
16.3 Environmental Review Processes
The following guidelines apply to all development
projects requiring a formal development application
and to major rehabilitation projects.
Guidelines
A. General
A.1 Independent review
All projects should be subject to independent review
by a suitably qualified environmental practitioner.
This person may be a consultant, a staff member
who is not directly associated with the proposal, or a
representative of Planning NSW or other relevant
government authority. Commonly two or more
persons with different professional affiliations may be
involved in this process.
A.2 Specialist advice
In some situations it may be necessary also to seek
specialist advice from consultants, Planning NSW or
NPWS staff or other government authorities. In
applying specialist advice, it should be recognised
that such advice is commonly provided from a limited
perspective and any recommendations should be
reviewed accordingly. All specialist advice should be
subject to objective review in a full environmental
context by a competent general environmental
practitioner.
A.3 Documentation
If the nature of the proposal is considered not to
warrant a formal SEE (see Guidelines B) or EIS (see
Guidelines C), any important matters relating to the
proposal should be recorded in writing. As a
minimum, this should include:
a record on the relevant 1:5000 precinct map of
the location of the proposal;
listing from the Manual of the reference numbers
of the relevant best practices;
a statement of any deviations from these
practices or additional practices to be followed
which are specific to the proposal; and
if appropriate, a statement of the timing and
nature of any follow-up monitoring to be
undertaken.
B. Statement of environmental effects
B.1 Scope and content of the report
A SEE report has two main functions. The first is to
inform Planning NSW about the proposal. The
second is to guide Perisher Blue or its contractors
with respect to how the project is carried out. In this
sense it functions as an environmental management
plan.
From a practical perspective, the second function is
the more important. It is therefore important for the
SEE to give specific indications of Perisher Blue's
intentions in implementing the proposal and to
highlight any problems or special measures which
should be implemented. The more focused and
concentrated the text with respect to the key issues,
the more likely it is that these will be reflected in the
implementation of the proposal. This relates to both
explaining the issues and presenting the best
solutions to any problems.
In order to maximise the value of a SEE the main
body of the report should focus on:
MAY 2002 AppA16-3
a detailed discussion of the background and
justification for the proposal, including a clear
statement of objectives;
a detailed description of the proposal, including
discussion of specific environmental safeguards
embodied in the proposal;
assessment of the key environmental issues
relating to decisions on the proposal, including
environmental safeguards; and
a listing of other relevant environmental best
practices through reference to this manual.
The SEE should include maps, diagrams and
photographs where these are useful in explaining
specific points.
If Planning NSW requires comments on other matters
which are irrelevant or of minor importance in
decisions with respect to the proposal, these should
be presented in a separate section of the SEE , in a
way that does not unduly congest the report or draw
attention away from its important components.
The Best Practices Manual should be used as a
complementary document to provide additional
details on best practices which could not be
presented in the SEE without turning it into an
unwieldy and ineffective document.
B.2 Field assessment
A SEE must be based on field inspection of the site.
In some situations, this may require inspection in
winter as well as in summer.
B.3 Application
The SEE , together with any amendments to it which
are agreed between Perisher Blue and Planning
NSW, should be used as an ongoing reference
throughout the execution of the project to ensure that
the environmental principles and practices proposed
in the SEE are followed as closely as possible.
C. Environmental impact statements
C.1 Scope and content of the report
An EIS can have similar functions to a SEE but in
addition is important in providing for public comment
on proposals before decisions are made. Because of
this public consultation role, it is particularly important
for the EIS to be presented in a form which makes it
relatively easy for the lay reader to assimilate and
appreciate the key issues affecting decisions. It is
also useful sometimes if the EIS is presented in a
way that enables readers to follow the logic of the
decision-making process, rather than a series of
standard headings compiled in an abstract context.
At the same time, it is necessary to comply with
statutory requirements for an EIS, but these relate to
minimum content rather than to a specific
presentation format. A similar comment applies to
the specific requirements of the Director-General of
Planning NSW and the requests of other government
authorities.
The preparation of an EIS should therefore be
approached on a flexible basis with a view to
presenting a document that is easy to read, which
focuses on the important issues and which assists
public appreciation of the decisions to which the EIS
relates, at the same time complying with any
statutory or administrative requirements. If the
technical detail of the body of the report is too
voluminous, this should be presented in appendices
or in separate reports which are publicly accessible.
D. Other environmental reports
D.1 Evaluation of other report formats
In situations where Perisher Blue wishes to present
environmental issues for public information and
comment, and these issues do not lend themselves
to an EIS format or procedure, other forms of public
consultation reporting should be considered. The
scope and content of these would be determined on
a case-by-case basis, generally in consultation with
Planning NSW.
MAY 2002 AppARef-1
REFERENCES AND INFORMATION SOURCES
1. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.
Perisher Range Resorts Master Plan.
November 2001.
2. Simpson, W. and Train, W. Proposed Perisher
Range Resort Area Village Centre Master Plan.
Report to the Hon. Craig Knowles, Minister for
Urban Affairs and Planning and Minister for
Housing. Office of the Commissioners of
Inquiry for Environmental Planning. November
1998.
3. Commonwealth of Australia. National strategy
for ecologically sustainable development.
December 1992.
4. Harding, R. Sustainability principles to
practice. Interpretation of the principles.
Background paper for the Fenner Conference
on the Environment, October 1994.
5. Parr-Smith, G. and Polley, V. Al p i n e
rehabilitation manual for alpine and sub-alpine
environments in the Australian Alps. (Working
draft). Prepared for Australian Alps Liaison
Committee, December 1998.
6. Perisher Blue Pty Limited. Risk Management
Manual, February 1999.
7. Perisher Blue Pty Limited. Snowgroomers
Operations Manual. 1998.
8. Perisher Blue Pty Limited. Professional Ski
Patrol Operations Manual. 1998.
9. Hunt, J.S. (ed.). Urban erosion and sediment
control. Revised edition 1992. Department of
Conservation and Land Management.
10. State Pollution Control Commission. Pollution
control manual for urban stormwater. 1989.
11. National Capital Development Commission.
Design manual for urban erosion and sediment
control. Prepared by Scott and Furphy Pty
Ltd., July 1988.
12. Environment ACT. Erosion sediment control
during land development. 1988.
13. Envi ronment Austral i a. Best practice
environmental management in mining. Booklet
series dating from June 1995 and ongoing.
14. Caterpillar Inc. Caterpillar performance
handbook. Edition 27, October 1996.
15. AS 1940-1993. Australian Standard. The
storage and handling of combustible liquids.
16. Oiltrac. Inland oil spills response (combat)
reference manual. 2nd edition.
17. Oiltrac. Inland oil spills response team field
manual.
18. WorkCover Authority of NSW. A guide for
powdermen. 1992.
19. Australian Standard 2187 Part 1 Storage and
Land Transport of Explosives.
20. Australian Standard 2187 Part 2 Use of
Explosives.
21. Australian Standard 2188 Part 2 Magazines
for the Storage of Explosives.
22. National Parks and Wildlife Service and
Kosciusko Thredbo Pty Ltd. Manual of
rehabilitation and revegetation of alpine and
subalpine areas. 1986.
23. Hogg, D.McC. Rocky Knob Chairlift and
associated works. Review of environmental
factors Part 2. Report prepared on behalf of
Perisher Ski Resort for National Parks and
Wildlife Service by David Hogg Pty Ltd.,
December 1994.
24. Gorrell, S. Wal ki ng track constructi on
guidelines. National Parks and Wildlife
Service.
25. Green, K. (ed). Snow. A natural history: an
uncertain future. 1998 Australian Alps Liaison
Committee, Canberra.
26. Several papers on Burramys monitoring and
research within the resort have been prepared
by Dr Linda Broome or are currently in
preparation. The main findings of these are
expected to be summarised in the Burramys
Recovery Plan which is currently being
prepared.
27. Cole, F.M. and Hallam, N.D. Snomax and its
influence on the Kosciusko alpine environment.
Report of a scientific study conducted at
Thredbo Alpine Resort in Kosciusko National
Park, NSW, during winter 1991 to summer
1992.
28. Cole, F.M., Hallam, N.D., and Keage, P.L. The
effect of bacterial ice nucleated manufactured
snow on the soil and water microflora and
vegetation of Falls Creek, Vic. Australian
Biotechnology Vol. 2, p. 111 (April 1992).
29. Perisher Blue Pty Limited. Skidooing rules and
guidelines. 1999.
AppARef-2 MAY 2002
30. Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources and School of Agriculture, La Trobe
University. Alpine rehabilitation course.
Perisher Blue Ski Resort. Course notes. 7-8
March 1996.
MAY 2002 Att.A-1
ATTACHMENT A. NATIVE PLANT SPECIES FOR
USE IN REVEGETATION
The tables in this appendix list native plant species
which are suitable for use in revegetation works at
Perisher Blue Ski Resort where it is desirable to
establish a significant native component in the
rehabilitation of recently disturbed areas or to
enhance the native component in areas which have
previously been disturbed and rehabilitated using
introduced grasses.
The use of native species does not necessarily
preclude the sowing of certain introduced grasses
(e.g. Chewings fescue) where this practice is
considered desirable to ensure the short term
stabilisation of the soil. This appendix should not be
read in isolation but should be applied in the context
of the best practices for revegetation of disturbed
areas and rehabilitation of past disturbance
discussed in Chapters 6 and 14 respectively.
The current lists are generally limited to those
species which have been found from past experience
to be successful for revegetation at Perisher Blue
Resort or in other similar situations within the Park.
They represent only a small proportion of the native
species present in the area. It is intended that the list
should be progressively updated in the light of further
experience.
The specific situations addressed are those
commonly existing at Perisher Blue Resort where
potential revegetation work is proposed in the SSP or
which are likely to require rehabilitation as a result of
proposed development. They do not necessarily
cover all situations where native revegetation may be
required, as there may be some areas with special
envi ronment al charact eri st i cs or unusual
environmental problems which require specialist input
into the investigation and design of rehabilitation
works.
In selecting native plant species for use in different
situations, it is necessary to take account of the
following factors:
The physical attributes of the site (e.g. aspect,
elevation, soils, groundwater), both in its natural
condition and as a result of past or proposed
disturbance.
The potential for future use to impact on
vegetation.
The potential for vegetation to conflict with future
use.
The types of physical characteristics considered are
as follows:
Dry areas general. Includes disturbed dry heath
or dry grassland areas, irrespective of aspect or
elevation.
Dry areas south-easterly slopes. There are
some species which tend to occur specifically on
sheltered, southerly to easterly aspects, presumably
due to the reduced exposure to sun or wind.
Seasonally wet areas. Particularly transitional heath
and wet grassland.
Permanently wet areas. Includes disturbed areas of
wet heath, bog and fen. Short alpine herbfield is not
included as it is not expected to be disturbed and, if it
were, would require special rehabilitation techniques.
Exposed areas. These include slopes and low
ridges which are particularly exposed to wind, but not
windswept feldmark or low heath, which would
require special rehabilitation techniques if disturbed.
Snowpatch areas. These areas have a naturally
sparse vegetation cover due to their limited growing
season and may require specialist advice with
respect to rehabilitation.
Low elevation. This relates specifically to the lower
eastern slopes of Blue Cow Mountain.
The main future uses which are likely to impact on
vegetation are as follows:
Mown slopes. Intensively used slopes (e.g. Front
Valley, part of Smiggin Holes) which are mown
periodically to facilitate early snow coverage are
unlikely to be suitable for most heath species.
Access tracks. The use of vegetation to stabilise
the surfaces of access tracks will be limited mainly to
grasses and forbs which can be grown from seed in
situ.
Conflict with future uses is likely to arise mainly in
relation to vegetation growth affecting grooming and
skiing during limited snow cover. This will arise
primarily with heath species, particularly those which
are relatively tall and/or which have stiff stems which
do not pack down well under snow cover. The
following classes of snow cover are identified from an
operational viewpoint:
Low snow cover. Slopes which are required to
operate with a minimum amount of snow, e.g. highly
groomed slopes in Front Valley or slopes in exposed
areas where snow does not accumulate.
Att.A-2 MAY 2002
Moderate snow cover. Slopes which rely on
sufficient snow to pack down low heath.
High snow cover. Slopes which accumulate deep
areas of snow and are not affected by the height or
stiffness of the heath under normal winter conditions.
Table A.1 lists species which are considered suitable
for growing from tubestock under various conditions.
Table A.2 lists local species which are considered to
have potential for inclusion in seed mixes. In both
cases, the species listed are selective only, based
mainly on suggestions provided in notes for an alpine
rehabilitation course conducted at the resort (Ref.
30), with some additional species from the NPWS
Manual of Rehabilitation and Revegetation (Ref. 22).
There are many other species which could be added
to these lists.
The site characteristics assessed as being suitable
for each species are indicative only with species
which are particularly suited to each type of site being
ticked. The lack of a tick does not necessarily mean
that the species will not be suitable in that type of site
under some circumstances. It is intended to extend
these tables in the light of future experience.
Species Notes
Dry - Dry - Seas. Perm. Snow Low Steep Mown Access
general SE slopes wet wet Exp. patch elev. slopes slopes tracks Low Mod High
Heath species
Grevillea australis ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Olearia phlogopappa ! ! ! !
var. flavescens
Prostanthera cuneata ! ! ! !
Ozothamnus alpinus ! ! ! !
Hovea purpurea ! ! ! ! ! !
Phebalium ovatifolium ! ! ! ! !
Kunzea muelleri ! ! !
Orites lancifolia ! ! ! ! !
Tasmannia xerophila ! ! !
Callistemon pityoides ! a
Ozothamnus secundiflorus ! ! !
Richea continentis ? ! ! ! !
Baeckea gunniana ! ! !
Groundcover species
Helichrysum rutidolepis ! ! ! ! ! !
Podolepis robusta ! ! ! ! !
Carex spp.
! ! ! !
Notes
a. Lower northerly and easterly slopes on Blue Cow Mountain. Unsuitable in areas to be used for skiing.
Table A.1 Species suitable for planting as tubestock
Note: Most of the species listed for use in seed mixes in Table A.2 could alternatively be planted as tubestock
Physical characteristics Management/use Snow cover
Species Notes
Dry - Dry - Seas. Perm. Snow Low Steep Mown Access
general SE slopes wet wet Exp. patch elev. slopes slopes tracks Low Mod High
Helichrysum acuminatum ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Senecio lautus ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Senecio gunnii ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Stylidium graminifolium ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Acaena novae-zelandiae ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Craspedia spp. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! a
Celmisia spp. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! a
Oremyrrhis eriopoda ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Ranunculus graniticola ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Ranunculus anemoneus ! ! ! ! ! ! ! b
Poa ensiformus ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Poa fawcettiae ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Poa costiniana ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Notes
b. Threatened species (Vulnerable) listed in Schedule 2 of Threatened Species Conservation Act .
a. Suitable species vary with site conditions.
Table A.2 Species suitable for inclusion in native seed mix
Physical characteristics Management/use Snow cover
SSMP MAY 2002 AppB-1
APPENDIX B. MAPPING OF PRECINCTS
1. General Mapping
The information compiled in the precinct analysis is
presented on a series of maps prepared specifically
for the SSP.
The maps are designed to be reproduced at A3 size
at a scale of 1:5000 or A4 size at a scale of
approximately 1:7500 or slightly smaller.
The base maps were prepared from very detailed
1:5000 scale photogrammetry from the 1988 series of
ski resort aerial photographs (the most recent
photography available when the map preparation
commenced) and have been intensively field
surveyed to map the vegetation in detail, confirm the
accuracy of other features and update the map for
changes that have taken place since the aerial
photographs were taken.
The maps have been drawn by computer using a
Swiss cartographic program, OCAD, which was
developed primarily for the preparation of
orienteering maps. This program is designed for fine
cartographic work and is not a geographic
information system (GIS). It does, however, offer
considerable flexibility for extracting information from
the maps, and for varying the scale, size and
orientation for specific planning purposes.
Because of space limitations, there is no
comprehensive legend on the map sheets
themselves. A general legend covering topographic
and planimetric information and vegetation types at a
scale of 1:7500 is presented in Figure 1. On maps
reproduced at a larger or smaller scale, the size of
symbols varies accordingly. There are also few place
names on most of the maps to avoid obliterating
other important information.
The maps generally present the following topographic
and planimetric information.
Contours. These are at an interval of 5 metres and
are much more detailed than any previous contour
maps of the resort. In some cases the contours
describe the shape of large rock outcrops. This
needs to be taken into account when interpreting the
maps. In a few flatter areas, 2.5 metre auxiliary
contours (broken lines) have been added to give
further detail of the shape of the terrain.
Water features. Creeks and open water ponds have
been included where these were detectable from
aerial photographs. Minor creeks through bogs,
heath or forest areas which are overshadowed by
vegetation are generally not mapped.
Rock features. Rock features are shown only on
some maps, being omitted from others for the sake of
clarity. Where used, the mapping of rock features is
selective, largely determined by visibility in the aerial
photographs. Thus boulders (mapped in varying
sizes) are more likely to be shown in treeless areas
than in woodland. Some obvious rock features have
been added during the field survey, but no attempt
has been made to do this comprehensively. Cliffs or
steep rock faces are sometimes marked but in other
situations are indicated only by the close spacing of
contours. Bare rock may include both extensive rock
slabs or large areas of unvegetated boulder field.
The latter may alternatively be indicated by numerous
black dots.
Roads and tracks. The hierarchy of roads and
tracks includes:
sealed roads;
unsealed roads (traffickable by two-wheel-drive
vehicles in summer);
vehicle tracks (designed for four-wheel-drive
access only);
minor tracks (not properly formed) or walking
tracks; and
disused tracks often old tracks or routes worn by
vehicle use (summer or oversnow) without being
properly formed. Most of these need either
upgrading to a stable condition or rehabilitation.
Some of these have been plotted directly from the
photogrammetry and may have become
revegetated naturally or through rehabilitation
works since the photographs were taken. Their
locations may still be identified on the ground,
however.
Carparks are also shown, with no distinction between
sealed and unsealed carparks.
Bridges marked individually are those intended for
skier or oversnow vehicle use away from formal
tracks.
Ski lifts. Chairlifts, T-bars and J-bars have their
tower locations marked and numbered. Rope tows
are also shown.
Powerlines. Powerlines (and other overhead lines)
are similar in appearance to ski lifts but are
represented by thinner lines. Some overhead lines
close to roads or tracks have been omitted to avoid
congesting the map.
Snow fences. Snow fences are shown with their
numbers. Some other fences or barriers which are
AppB-2 SSMP MAY 2002
not designed as snow fences may also be shown
with the same symbol. Some recently erected snow
fences may not be shown.
Buildings. Open decks attached to buildings are
shown with a white outline. Very small buildings (e.g.
lift operators' huts) may not be represented to scale.
Other features. Other features include reservoirs,
radio masts and weather stations.
Precinct boundaries. The boundaries between
precincts should be treated as indicative only. Where
they are intended to follow a well-defined geographic
feature (e.g. Perisher Creek), they have been drawn
slightly offset from the feature for clarity.
2 Mapping of Vegetation Communities
2.1 Introduction
Vegetation is generally the most useful indicator of
environmental significance or sensitivity, reflecting
factors such as past soil disturbance, groundwater,
wind exposure and snow accumulation, as well as
being important in its own right. Using the base
maps, comprehensive vegetation mapping was
undertaken of the whole of the area covered by the
SSP. The vegetation maps are more accurate, more
detailed and more comprehensive than any previous
vegetation mapping undertaken at this scale within
the resort and supersedes all previous mapping (e.g.
Refs. 1 to 5, see Ref. 6 for further discussion).
The vegetation classes adopted (see Figure 1) were
selected primarily because of their usefulness for ski
slope planning, rather than any strict botanical
classification but, in most cases, correlate with
classes used in previous vegetation mapping studies
in ski resorts and other alpine areas (see Section 2.6
for further discussion).
As is common in vegetation mapping, the classes
selected represent a continuum in ecological
characteristics and often do not display sharp
physical boundaries. This continuum in ecological
characteristics is shown notionally in Figure 2. The
classification system and the mapping must be
interpreted with these limitations in mind, but is
nevertheless valuable in indicating the broad physical
and ecological constraints that need to be considered
in ski slope planning.
Individual trees have commonly been mapped,
particularly where they were large enough to be
detected in the photogrammetric plot. There are
some areas, however, where small, sparsely
scattered trees are not shown (e.g. upper western
slopes of Mount Piper, upper northern slopes of
Mount Back Perisher, upper eastern slopes of Blue
Cow Mountain).
There will be other minor inaccuracies in the
vegetation mapping, particularly in areas which are
not developed or used intensively for skiing. These
will generally not be critical for ski slope planning
purposes, and can be corrected progressively as
required.
The main divisions of vegetation classes are as
follows:
Snowgum communities trees are a potential
constraint on ski slope development.
Dry heath/herbfield communities few constraints
on skiing during good snow cover, heath removal
may be necessary to achieve a high standard of
winter grooming under marginal snow conditions
or if artificial snowmaking is used.
Wet communities generally sensitive to
disturbance in hydrological and ecological terms,
minimal constraints on skiing during good snow
cover but potential problems with water
accumulation during marginal snow conditions or
if snowmaking is used.
Specialised communities relatively restricted in
distribution, may provide physical and/or
ecological constraints on development, although
generally not on skiing use during reasonable
snow cover.
Within these divisions, the following vegetation
classes have been identified:
2.2 Snowgum communities
Climax snowgum community (Type 1). The
majority of trees are very old, and the heath
understorey is relatively open. This is believed to
reflect the original snowgum woodland characteristics
of the Park prior to disturbance by grazing and
associated burning and before the major bushfires of
1939. Because of the extreme age of the trees, the
associated ecological and aesthetic values, and the
relatively small proportion of this type of snowgum
community within the Park, these tree stands are
rated more highly for protection than most other
snowgum communities. The trees are often well
spaced, permitting informal skiing between them on
ungroomed trails.
Mature snowgums (Type 2). This differs from Type
1 mainly in that the understorey has a high
component of dry heath, which may partly reflect
local site conditions but also the fact that the area is
still undergoing ecological succession towards a
climax state. Because of the age of the trees, they
have relatively high conservation value. Due to the
dense heath cover, informal skiing between the trees
tends to be constrained.
Medium-aged snowgums (Type 3). This class
typifies the majority of the snowgum stands within the
resort, probably reflecting a partial recovery from past
disturbance, including the January 1939 bushfire
which burnt through part of the resort area. The
understorey density is variable, but generally consists
of moderate to dense dry heath. The tree density is
generally too high to permit skiing without some
clearing of trails.
Young snowgums (Type 4). These range from
young regrowth to saplings a few metres high, with a
variable understorey. In some cases, they may
represent regeneration from past ski slope clearing.
Dead snowgums (Type 5). This classification is
used for stands where most of the trees are dead or
in poor health as a result of disease, insect attack,
fire or old age. While dead trees can have ecological
value (e.g. in providing nesting hollows), this is less
relevant in subalpine areas than in lowland woodland
communities, and the dead tree stands are generally
less of a constraint than living tree communities.
Tree-line snowgums (Type 6). These trees grow at
the limit of altitudinal conditions which will support
tree growth. The severe environment stunts growth,
with the result that tree size is not a reliable indication
of age and relatively small trees may have high
conservation value (comparable with Types 1 and 2)
on this basis. The tree density within these
communities is often low, making skiing between
trees feasible except on major trails.
Wind-affected snowgums (Type 7). This class
overlaps with Type 6, with such trees commonly
occurring in tree-line situations. They are identified
as a separate class, however, because they indicate
a high frequency of extreme wind conditions which
can result in poor snow accumulation, unpleasant
conditions for skiers and poor operating reliability for
chairlifts. The shape of the trees generally indicates
wind direction (wind vaning), which may be relevant
in determining the optimum alignment of lifts.
2.3 Dry heath/herbfield communities
Dry heath. This is an almost continuous cover of
common dry heath species such as Phebal i um
ovalifolium, Prostanthera cuneata, Orites lancifolia,
Ozothamnus secundiflorus, Ozothamnus alpinus,
Olearia phl ogopappa var. f l avescens, Olearia
phlogopappa var. subrepanda and Hovea purpurea.
Grasses and forbs tend to be suppressed beneath
the dense heath canopy, but can develop if the heath
is removed. It is of moderately high habitat value for
common species, providing cover from predators
during summer, as well as allowing animal movement
below the snow cover in winter. In favourable snow
situations it collapses under the weight of the snow to
form a good base, but in more exposed situations
where snow cover is often marginal or on intensively
groomed trails, it is often desirable from a skiing
viewpoint to clear the heath.
Open heath. This is similar botanically to the dry
heath class but is more variable in terms of heath
densi t y, wi t h a mosai c of heat h and
grassland/herbfield, which is too complex to map at
the present scale. The classification used covers a
wide continuum of community mixes, ranging from
dry heath with small open patches to predominantly
herbfield with some areas of heath. The comments
with respect to grooming of dry heath areas are
applicable also to this class.
Diverse heath. This is a type of dry heath occurring
particularly on lower, more sheltered slopes. It is
domi nated by Phebal i um ovalifolium and
Prostanthera cuneata, but has a high diversity of
other heath species and a herbaceous understorey
containing grasses and often the sedge, Empodisma
mi nus. It appears to reflect a relatively cool and
moist (but not wet) environment which has been
considered to be particularly favourable as habitat for
the Broad-toothed Rat (Mastacomys fuscus). The
slope grooming characteristics are similar to those for
dry heath although, being lower on the slopes, it is
generally located favourably with respect to snow
accumulation.
Low heath. This occurs in very exposed sites,
particularly on the tops or windward sides of ridges.
A common species is Kunzea muelleri, but many
other heath species, often in a stunted form, occur in
these areas. It is a slow-growing community,
relatively sensitive to disturbance because of the
difficulty of recovering in its extreme environment.
The areas where it occurs, however, tend to be
unfavourable for skiing because of wind exposure
and poor snow accumulation, with an icy surface.
For this reason it is generally unlikely to be affected
by ski slope development.
Herbfield. There is relatively little pure herbfield
within the Perisher Blue Resort, this community
generally occurring as a mosaic with dry heath and
being mapped as a component of open heath.
Where it does occur, it is ideal for skiing, being
suitable for unconstrained use with no summer
grooming other than possibly rock removal. Because
it is so open, however, it does not constrain summer
vehicle movement but is very sensitive to damage by
vehicles, necessitating strict control over vehicle
movement in these areas. It is a common habitat for
the threatened plant, Ranunculus anemoneus, which
is relatively common in many parts of the resort.
Exotic groundcover. This classification covers
areas which have been disturbed by previous
development works on the ski slopes, in the villages
or as part of the Snowy Mountains Scheme, and
which have been rehabilitated using introduced
grasses and clovers. In many of these areas, a high
component of introduced weeds has developed.
Because their natural ecological quality is low, these
areas would be favoured for further development,
subject to other environmental attributes being
suitable (e.g. not on steep or unstable slopes). Some
areas of exotic groundcover are gradually reverting to
native herbs and heath, the rate of this process being
related inversely to the vigour of the introduced
species. These areas are also important in that they
have the potential for active native revegetation
measures in a way that does not unduly compromise
their skiing values as part of the long term strategy of
the Ski Slope Master Plan.
2.4 Wet communities
Wet heath. This is the most common of the wet
communities within the resort, consisting of several
different botanical associations. One type,
characterised particularly by Richea continentis and
the sedge, Empodisma minus, commonly occurs on
poorly drained terraces on the slopes. Another
common situation for wet heath, particularly
containing Baeckea gunniana, is along watercourses
or other shallow drainage lines. Wet heath
containing the above species and also Epacris
paludosa is common also on flat valley floors, and
there are other poorly drained situations throughout
the ski slopes where the community is present. A
third type of wet heath, dominated by Callistemon
pityoides, occurs in the planning area mainly on the
northern slopes of Blue Cow Mountain (Precincts 10
and 12), where development is minimal, and on the
lower eastern slopes of Precinct 8, above Perisher
Creek. These three types of wet heath are not
distinguished in the mapping, although the details are
partly recorded in supplementary notes.
The significance of wet heath in ski slope planning is
twofold. First, it may indicate difficult ground
conditions for development, particularly if excavation
or track construction is required, as well as indicating
the potential for surface water accumulation which
reduces snowholding. Second, wet heath areas are
considered to have relatively high ecological values
compared wi th the other common heath
communities, including habitat for some uncommon
plant and animal species. For both these reasons, it
is desirable to avoid encroaching on wet heath areas
as far as practicable or to implement special
safeguards where such encroachment i s
unavoidable.
Bog. Bog, characterised by the presence of
Sphagnum moss, commonly occurs in association
with wet heath, often as a mosaic of the two
communities. Some bogs have developed areas of
Carex fen (see below) along drainage lines or in
depressions. The constraints and ecological
significance of bog areas are similar to those
associated with wet heath, but are probably more
critical. Bog containing pools of open water is prime
habitat for the Corroboree Frog (Pseudophryne
corroboree) and the Alpine Water Skink (Eulamprus
kosci uskoi ), both of which are species of high
conservation significance within the Park. Several
rare or threatened plant species commonly grow in
bogs.
Fen and other open water. Fen consists of pools
and watercourses dominated by Carex sedges,
commonly C. gaudichaudiana. Most of these are too
small to be mapped at the scale used but there are
some exceptions. Not all the Carex vegetation
occurs in fens, as Carex appears to be an early
coloniser of disturbed wet areas, which can
regenerate eventually to Sphagnum bogs.
Fens and other open water are relatively uncommon
within the resort but, where they occur, can be critical
as a constraint or even a hazard in ski slope
development. The desirability of removing open
water from the ski slopes is often tempered by the
habitat value of such areas in association with
adjacent vegetation communities (e.g. pools within
bogs).
Transitional heath. Characterised particularly by
Epacris petrophila, this community occurs in a
mosaic with other wet communities along the broad
valley of Perisher Creek and in other similar
situations within the resort. The commonly used term
'transitional', is perhaps misleading as it is a distinct
community in its own right, rather than representing a
transition between other heath types. (In the latter
context, there are situations where a combination of
common wet heath and dry heath species occurs,
which is more 'transitional' in a literal sense, but
these have been mapped as one of the other heath
types). The ecological values and constraints of
transitional heath are similar in nature to those
associated with wet heath, with these areas providing
habitat for some threatened plant species and an
incipient groundwater problem for development
involving excavation. Transitional heath areas,
however, tend to be better drained than those
containing wet heath.
Wet grassland. Wet grassland commonly occurs in
a valley situation as a mosaic with transitional heath
or bog. It is also present in some poorly drained sites
on the upper slopes. It is less of a constraint than the
other wet communities, but is nevertheless a
planning consideration for similar reasons.
2.5 Specialised communities
Snowpatch. Snowpatch areas occur on sheltered
slopes where the snow cover survives relatively late
into the spring (or even summer) with the result that
the growing season for plants in this area is limited,
and the vegetation cover is relatively sparse.
Because of good snow accumulation, these areas
generally do not require summer grooming, other
than to remove major protruding rock outcrops.
Because they form in hollows on the slope, they tend
not to be in locations favoured for lift towers. Where
they are disturbed by development, however,
recovery from disturbance is likely to be slow.
Short alpine herbfield. This is a wet community,
occurring at the base of a snowpatch, where it can be
fed well into the summer season by the melting
snowdrift. It provides habitat for some rare or
threatened plant species and is particularly sensitive
to disturbance (e.g. by passage of vehicles or regular
trampling). Because such areas are relatively few
and limited in extent, their conservation value is
considered to be high. Their physical location with
good snow cover means that they are unlikely to be
directly affected by slope grooming or other ski slope
development. It is important, however, to ensure that
they are not used as hollows for the disposal of rock
outcrops removed from the surrounding slopes.
Boulder heath. Boulder heath is an accumulation of
boulders overgrown with (mainly) dry heath species,
in particular the Mountain Plum Pine (Podocarpus
lawrencii). This species is of particular interest in its
own right as an extremely slow-growing species, and
also because of its key role in contributing to the
prime boulder heath habitat of the Mountain Pygmy-
possum (Burramys parvus). The Mountain Pygmy-
possum is one of the most critical species in terms of
ecological management within the alpine and
subalpine areas, hence protection of its prime habitat
has high priority in ski slope development. Many of
the boulder heath areas within the resort are
established as scientific sites for monitoring
Burramys. Apart from its ecological values, boulder
heath is one of the most difficult areas in which to
undertake effective summer grooming of ski trails.
Bare rock. There is a considerable amount of bare
rock within the resort, most of which occurs as
outcrops, cliffs and boulders which are too small and
too numerous to map comprehensively. The more
extensive areas are shown on the maps. Some of
these support limited areas of other vegetation
communities in bands between the main rock
exposures.
3. Archaeological Assessment
The assessment of archaeological sensitivity is taken
from an Aboriginal cultural heritage study undertaken
for the NPWS by Navin Officer Heritage Consultants
(Ref. 7). This study was completed subsequent to
the initial preparation and release of the SSP in April
2000, and superseded an earlier archaeological
survey undertaken for Perisher Blue (Ref. 8). The
latter study was confined to those areas of high
archaeological sensitivity within the resort which were
likely to be physically affected by SSP developments.
The basis for mapping areas according to level of
archaeological sensitivity for Aboriginal artefacts is as
follows (Ref. 7):
Zone containing areas of high archaeological
sensitivity. Areas of potential in this zone include
relatively flat, well drained, locally elevated, sheltered
ground, especially in the lee of boulders and within
woodland or scattered woodlands without a
predominant heath understorey.
Areas which fall within this zone but which are not
considered to have archaeological potential are those
which are:
steeply graded, poorly drained and low lying;
unsheltered and exposed to the prevailing
weather;
or which have a predominantly heathy understorey.
Zone containing areas of low to moderate
archaeological sensitivity. Areas of potential in this
zone include:
relatively flat, well-drained, locally elevated
ground in less sheltered or relatively open
contexts, and/or occur within areas of cold air
drainage;
some areas classified as heathland which
otherwise may be classed as having potential;
areas which have reduced potential due to
development related ground disturbance; and
smaller areas of potential not situated on major
ridge or spurline contexts.
Areas which fall within this zone but which are not
considered to have archaeological potential are those
which are:
steeply graded, poorly drained and low-lying, or
fully exposed to the prevailing weather.
Zone containing areas with potential for deep
subsurface archaeological deposits. This zone is
not considered to include archaeologically sensitive
deposits within the existing upper soil profile or
ground surface. This zone identifies the limited
potenital for archaeological deposits to occur within
undisturbed palaeosols (fossils soils) which may
survive at depth within quaternary valley floor infill
sedimentary deposits.
Zone with no or negligible archaeological
potential. This zone consists of all remaining
topographies following the exclusion of the above
categories.
Within the margin of error resulting from the
assumptions and diagnostic constraints of the
present project, this zone is not considered to include
topographies with potential to contain stone artefact
occurrences.
The zone classification relates to stone artefact
occurrences, but not to scarred trees, and rock
shelters which are very rare site types within the
alpine and subalpine region.
References
1. Mallen, P.J., Osborne, W.S. and Rosengren,
N.J. The natural environment of the Perisher
Valley Smiggin Holes franchise area, with
particular reference to environmentally
sensitive and significant features. Prepared for
Kosciusko Alpine Resorts Pty Ltd, May 1985.
2. National Parks and Wildlife Service. Proposed
Blue Cow Ski Resort environmental impact
statement. March 1985.
3. Hooy, T., Matthews, P.B. and Green, K. The
Blue Cow Mountain resource analysis. Report
to National Parks and Wildlife Service, June
1981.
4. David Hogg Pty Ltd and Osborne, W.S.
Guthega Ski Resort ski slope plan. Prepared
for Guthega Development Pty Ltd, August
1987.
5. Rosengren, N.J. , McDougall, K.L. and
Monsergh, I.M. Environmentally sensitive
areas and significant natural features. The Link
Management Unit, Kosciusko National Park.
Prepared by N & J Geo-graphic Services for
National Parks and Wildlife Service. May 1989.
6. Hogg, D. Perisher Blue ski slope planning map
series. Explanatory notes. Perisher Blue
internal working paper. 22 June 1998; revised
17 February 2000.
7. Navin Officer Heritage Consultants. Perisher
Range Resorts Area. Aboriginal cultural
heritage study. Report to Cornell Wagner Pty
Ltd for the NSW NPWS. October 2000.
8. Navin Officer Heritage Consultants. Perisher
Blue Ski Slope Plan. Selective archaeological
survey. Report to David Hogg Pty Ltd (on
behalf of Perisher Blue Pty Limited), August
1999.
SSMP MAY 2002 AppC-1
APPENDIX C. SKIING CAPACITY
1. Introduction
To assess the operational benefits of increasing lift
capacity and undertaking further slope grooming, two
skiing capacity models have been developed for
application to the SSMP. Both of these predict the
theoretical number of 'skiers at one time' (SAOT)
achievable on the slope, one based on the available
lift capacity and the other on the area of skiable snow
(slope capacity or trail capacity). The SAOT figure,
also known as the 'comfortable carrying capacity'
represents the number of skiers that can be safely
and comfortably supported by the resort's lift and trail
system while providing a quality experience to each
skier ability level. It is a design day figure which is
determined through an interpretation of lift and terrain
capacities to accommodate peak attendance given
certain quality objectives. These relate principally to
lift queue times, trail densities, slope gradients, skier
skill classifications and the need to provide the skier
with a minimum number of vertical transport metres
per day (VTM or total vertical drop experienced by
each skier).
Lift capacity and slope capacity in the various parts of
the resort were previously assessed for the NPWS by
Ecosign Mountain Recreation Planners Ltd in 1990
(Ref. 1). These estimates, however, are not
considered sufficiently detailed for the present stage
of ski slope planning. More detailed models have
been developed based on similar principles to the
Ecosign analysis but which reflect more detailed
analysis of environmental characteristics, skier ability
and winter grooming operations.
2. Lift capacity
The lift capacity model assesses the capacity to take
skiers up the slope based on design day criteria for
queue times, which are set at a maximum of 10
minutes for most lifts and 15 minutes for the Perisher
Express Quad Chairlift. This model takes account of
skier ability mix, which is reflected in downhill skiing
times, and the minimum VTM typically skied by
persons of different abilities.
The minimum VTM will differ widely with skill level as
indicated as follows, based on data from the Ecosign
report (Ref. 1):
Skill level VTM

Level 1 560 metres
Level 2 1,360 metres

For the purposes of the SSMP, a method has been
developed (Ref. 2) for calculating a SAOT figure for
each lift which takes into account:
uphill ride time, based on field measurements;
downhill descent time for different skier ability
levels, based on field measurements or
extrapolation;
queue times (maximum set for each lift as
above);
minimum VTM for different skier ability levels;
percentages of different skier ability levels
using the lift, based on field observations and
cross-checked with the known overall
distribution of skill level throughout the whole
resort (see Figure 2.3 of text);
average hours skied per day by skiers of
different ability levels (assumed figures); and
lift design capacity, based on theoretical
capacity adjusted to take account of known
inefficiencies due to use of the lift by
inexperienced riders or for skier circulation
rather than repeat skiing.
It does not include 'inactive skiers', i.e. skiers who are
present in the resort but who elect not to ski that day.
The method developed in the SSMP for calculating
SAOT based on lift capacity is more sensitive than
those commonly used for ski slope planning in that it
has the flexibility to take account of the varying
demands and abilities of skiers of different skill levels
using the same lift/trail system.
3. Slope Capacity
A figure for potential SAOT can be derived also from
a consideration of slope capacity, taking account of
the proportion of skiers who would be inactive at any
one time (Ref. 3). This figure should ideally be
greater than the SAOT figure derived from lift
capacity as above. If it is less, this indicates that the
slope area is insufficient to safely and comfortably
handle the number of skiers being transported by the
lifts. Such a situation is unlikely at Perisher Blue
except at times when the slope area is constrained
by the availability of artificial snow.
The slope capacity model used in the SSMP is based
on measuring the total area of skiable terrain within
each 'pod' (or skiing area served by a lift or group of
lifts), and estimating slope capacity based on the
extent of grooming, the presence of tree cover and
other constraints as well as the mix of skier ability
(see Ref. 3 for further details). The areas on which
AppC-2 SSMP MAY 2002
slope capacity is based are confined to those used
for repeat skiing, and do not include trails used solely
for skier circulation. In some cases, use of a run may
depend on more than one lift, and the areas may be
allocated for convenience just to one lift or spread
over the different lifts. Areas containing dense tree
cover may be excluded from the measured areas for
purposes of calculating slope capacity.
A comparison is made between lift capacity and
slope capacity to check that there is an appropriate
relationship between them. With normal operations
under optimum snow and wind conditions, the slope
capacity at Perisher Blue would be well in excess of
lift capacity in most areas because of the large area
of terrain.
4. Capacity under Constraint Conditions
The achievement of the full estimated lift or slope
capacity is constrained at times by the extent of snow
cover or by wind conditions. The capacity of the
resort has been assessed under a series of
constraint conditions as follows:
Marginal snow with snowmaking (early in
season). This is based on having insufficient natural
snow for skiing but having artificial snow made on all
the repeat skiing runs and circulation trails proposed
at full snowmaking development, with the possible
exception of the Blue Cow Expressway and Perisher
Home Trail between the Perisher Express and
Pleasant Valley, which do not affect repeat skiing
capacity under these condition. However, not all of
these snowmaking areas would be operational during
the first few weeks of the season. Hence the slope
and lift capacity at the start of the season may be
less than the figures quoted, but would increase
gradually as the artificial snow cover is extended.
Marginal snow late in season. The pattern of snow
loss across the resort can vary from year to year. For
example, in some years snow may be lost from
Smiggin Holes while a good cover is retained on
Mount Perisher. Less commonly, localised snow
losses in critical places on Mount Perisher may force
it to close while Smiggin Holes remains operational.
The assessment for each precinct is based on a
typical worst case situation for that precinct under
conditions when late season snow loss is affecting
the resort as a whole. In some areas, localised snow
loss may marginally reduce slope capacity while most
of the area remains skiable, but such minor
reductions have been ignored.
High wind. This reflects the situation experienced
on several occasions during a typical season when
the most exposed lifts (mainly aerial lifts) are closed
for safety reasons but other similar lifts in more
protected locations continue to operate. Under the
most extreme wind conditions or if the wind is not
from the usual direction, some of the latter lifts may
also be affected.
High wind with snowmaking. This reflects the
situation early in the season when the resort is
operating on artificial snow and experiences high
wind conditions.
5. Limitations of the Models
It is important to appreciate that, as with any
mathematical model, these models are only
approximations for the real world and incorporate a
number of assumptions and generalisations. Despite
such limitations, they are considered to be sufficiently
accurate for the SSMP and are considered superior
to previous methods. While lift and slope capacities
are generally quoted to the nearest whole number for
convenience, it is not meaningful to apply them to this
level of accuracy.
Skiing capacity is most critical during the peak
periods of the day for repeat skiing, namely mid-
morning and mid-afternoon, when most people are
likely to be actively skiing. Even at this time,
however, there would be a small number of skiers
who would not be using the slopes (including lifts and
queues) plus a small number of beginners who have
not advanced to the stage of using lifts. The total
number of active skiers that could be accommodated
at the resort under design day conditions would
therefore be slightly more than estimated in the
SAOT figures. No accurate estimate has been
obtained of this factor under the conditions modelled,
but it is anticipated to be of the order of 5 to 10
percent.
References
1. Ecosign Mountain Recreation Planners Ltd.
Kosciusko National Park ski slope capacity study.
Report to NPWS, April 1990.
2. Hogg, D. Perisher Blue Ski Resort ski slope
capacity model. Perisher Blue internal working
paper. June 1997.
3. Hogg, D. Calculation of slope capacity. Perisher
Blue internal working paper. January 2000.

Perisher Blue Expansion Plan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perisher Blue Expansion Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perisher Range Resorts

Kosciuszko National Park

You might also like