[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 74 (Monday, April 19, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19120-19122]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-9665]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Cannon/Mittersill Land Exchange; White Mountain National Forest,
Grafton County, NH
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USDA--Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact
statement (EIS) for a proposed land exchange between the State of New
Hampshire and the Forest Service. The State would acquire approximately
190 acres of National Forest System land near the top of the former
Mittersill Ski Area. In exchange, the State would give to the Forest
Service a portion of the Second Presidential Tract, located about 5
miles south of Cannon Mountain in the town of Lincoln. In addition, the
State desires a Special Use Permit for the operation and maintenance of
the Tucker Brook Trail, within its existing footprint. No additional
access or ski lifts are proposed for this trail.
The Mittersill parcel proposed for exchange is composed largely of
land designated by the Forest Service as Management Areas (MAs) 7.1 and
9.2 (approximately 52 and 132 acres, respectively). MA 7.1 is managed
for the development of alpine ski terrain and associated year-round
recreation while MA 9.2 is land that is reserved for future ski area
expansion. Both management areas have been used for skiing since the
early 1930's. Approximately 6 acres of the proposed Mittersill exchange
parcel is designated as MA 6.2, which is managed for semi-primitive,
non-motorized recreation. This small piece of MA 6.2 is included in the
proposed exchange to fulfill a Forest Plan land adjustment objective of
achieving ``more efficient land ownership patterns''.
The Second Presidential Tract was acquired by the State of New
Hampshire Department of Transportation to facilitate the extension of
I-93 through Franconia Notch. The original acquisition contained about
1,665 acres and was part of a much larger tract, the rest of which
(4,565 acres) was previously transferred to the United States of
America for addition to the WMNF. Approximately 346 acres of the
northern portion of the Second Presidential Tract was transferred to
the Department of Resources and Economic Development and incorporated
into Franconia Notch State Park to compensate for land taken from the
park for construction of the Franconia Notch Parkway. An additional 159
acres was utilized by the Department of Transportation for the I-93
right-of-way. The remaining 1,160 acres are available for consideration
in the land exchange.
Portions of the state-owned Second Presidential Tract were
recommended for possible Forest Service acquisition in the 1986 WMNF
Plan. This tract contains significant natural resources including
Georgiana Falls, several significant wetlands and relatively mature
hard- and softwood forests. The parcel also serves as the visual
foreground for the Blue Ridge-Mount Kinsman Area of the Forest which
includes a significant portion of the Appalachian Trial. Although owned
by the State of New Hampshire, the Second
[[Page 19121]]
Presidential Tract remains under the administrative jurisdiction of the
New Hampshire Department of Transportation.
The State of New Hampshire proposes to exchange a portion of the
Second Presidential Tract with the Forest Service for 190 acres at the
top of the Mittersill Ski Area. It is further proposed that the
exchange parcel be taken from the northern end of the Tract (bounded by
Franconia State Park to the north and the WMNF to the west) in an
amount that may equal up to 125% of the value of the Mittersill parcel.
The exchange parcel would likely contain Georgiana Falls. Values of the
exchange parcels would be determined by appraisers acceptable to both
the State of New Hampshire and the Forest Service.
DATES: The agency must receive comments on or before May 19, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and suggestions concerning the scope
of the analysis to Anne Archie, District Ranger; White Mountain
National Forest; Ammonoosuc/Pemigewasset Ranger District; RFD 3, Box
15, Route 175; Plymouth, New Hampshire 03264.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding the proposed
action, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and/or the
forthcoming EIS should be directed to Anne Davy, NEPA Coordinator;
White Mountain National Forest; Ammonoosuc/Pemigewasset Ranger
District; FRD 3, Box 15, Route 175; Plymouth, New Hampshire 03264.
Phone: 603-536-1315; fax: 603-536-3281; e-mail: adavy/
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose and Need for the Proposal
The New Hampshire State Legislature recently mandated that a new
Master Development Plan (MDP) be prepared for Cannon. The new MDP has
been completed and accepted by the Cannon Mountain Advisory Commission,
the Department of Parks and Recreation (which operates Cannon), the
Capitol Budget Overview Committee, and the Governor and Executive
Council. This MDP recommended three phases of development, all of which
involve upgrading lifts, expanding and improving existing terrain and
up-grading service facilities, consistent with the development
philosophy for Cannon.
Phase III involves the restoration and reopening of the Mittersill
Ski Area. Because expansion opportunities are limited on the Cannon
portion of the resort, redevelopment of Mittersill is part of the plan
to offer new and exciting terrain to the skiing public. Optimal
development of Mittersill would require use of National Forest System
lands. Although it would be possible to redevelop the Mittersill area
entirely on State lands, it is not desirable for the following reasons:
1. The historic ski trails on National Forest System lands are
not maintained for public use. For example, the Taft Trail, which
was one of the first ski racing trails in North America and provides
an upper mountain connection between Cannon and Mittersill, is
highly desirable to reestablish and maintain.
2. Redevelopment of Mittersill entirely on State lands would
reduce the amount of new terrain that could be created to about 60%
of what is presented in the new MDP.
3. Cannon is deficient in intermediate terrain at present and
development of more of this terrain is needed to meet the skiing and
riding needs of the public. The Mittersill area offers the greatest
potential for intermediate terrain development, but only by
utilizing National Forest System land. If National Forest System
lands can not be used, the redeveloped Mittersill area on State land
would be for advanced and expert skiers only. Cannon Mountain would
remain deficient in intermediate terrain.
With respect to the Tucker Brook Trail, the Forest Service does not
currently operate or maintain this trail and has no plans to do so in
the future. The State believes this trail has historic significance,
and for this reason, proposes to assume control of the trail. Since
this trail is within the National Forest and is not part of the
proposed land exchange, a Special Use Permit is needed.
Consistency With National Forest Policy/White Mountain National
Forest Plan
Land exchanges have played an important role in facilitating land
acquisitions in National Forests since passage of the General Exchange
Act of 1922. Other pieces of important enabling Federal legislation
include the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the
National Forest Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Land Exchange
Facilitation Act of 1988. The purpose of the 1988 legislation was to
``facilitate and expedite land exchanges pursuant to the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 and other laws applicable to
exchanges involving lands managed by the Departments of Interior and
Agriculture''. Among other things, this act's findings include a
declaration from Congress that ``land exchanges are a very important
tool for Federal and State land managers and private landowners to
consolidate Federal, State and private holdings of land or interests in
land for purposes of more efficient management and to secure important
objectives including the protection of fish and wildlife habitat and
aesthetic values; the enhancement of recreation opportunities; the
consolidation of mineral and timber holdings for more logical and
efficient development; the expansion of communities; the promotion of
multiple-use values; and fulfillment of public needs''. This act
further recognized that the ``needs for land ownership adjustments and
consolidation consistently outplace available funding for land
purchases by the Federal Government and thereby make land exchanges an
increasingly important method of land acquisition and consolidation for
both Federal and State land managers and private landowners''.
The Forest Plan for the WMNF also recognizes land adjustments,
either by purchase or exchange, as important tools for achieving
management goals for the National Forest. The plan states that ``Land
adjustments (purchase or exchange) will satisfy one or more of the
following purposes:
To accomplish objectives of public law or regulation;
To meet demand for National Forest System resources;
To achieve more efficient land ownership patterns;
To achieve lower resource management costs; and
To obtain needed access to National Forest System
lands.''
In short, Federal legislation gives the Forest Service broad
discretionary power to pursue land exchanges while the Forest Plan
specifies the criteria to be satisfied when considering land
acquisition. The Forest Service believes that the proposed land
exchange between the State of New Hampshire and the Forest Service
meets all five criteria cited above. Therefore, the Forest Service has
concluded that it is in the public interest to pursue the proposed
project.
NEPA Process
The Forest Service has adopted a rigorous process of environmental
review and analysis, pursuant to NEPA regulations, for all activities
on National Forest System lands that have potential environmental
impact. This process includes extensive public involvement, beginning
with scoping early in the process and concluding with public review of
final environmental documents and Forest Service decisions. Public
participation is an important part of the analysis, commencing with the
initial scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7), which will
[[Page 19122]]
occur upon publication of this notification. The Forest Service will be
seeking information, comments and assistance from Federal, State and
local agencies and other individuals or organizations that may be
interested in or affected by the proposed action. The proposed project
will be presented at an Open House in the local area, where
representatives from the WMNF and the State of New Hampshire will be
available to discuss the project and provide additional information. In
addition, interested parties are encouraged to visit with Forest
Service officials at any time during the analysis and prior to the
decision.
Comments from the public and other agencies will be used in
preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Please
note that comments will be regarded as public information. The scoping
process will be used to:
1. Identify potential issues.
2. Identify major issues to be analyzed in depth.
3. Eliminate minor issues or those which have been covered by a
relevant previous environmental analysis, such as the Forest Plan
EIS for the WMNF.
4. Identify alternatives to the proposed action.
5. Identify potential environmental effects of the proposed
action and it's alternatives, including direct, indirect and
cumulative effects.
6. Determine potential cooperating agencies and task
assignments.
No significant issues associated with the proposed land exchange or
the Special Use Permit for the Tucker Brook Trail have been identified
to date. Issues commonly associated with land exchanges of public lands
are usually specific to the lands involved but often include methods of
determining appropriate values of the parcels involved and potential
impacts to threatened, endangered or sensitive species.
In preparing the DEIS, the Forest Service will consider a range of
alternatives to meet the objectives of this proposal. One of these will
be the ``no action'' alternative, in which none of the proposed
activities would be implemented. Additional alternatives may involve
issuance of a Special Use Permit instead of a land exchange and/or
evaluation of parcels of land other than that already identified that
might better meet the management objectives for the WMNF.
The DEIS will analyze the direct, indirect and cumulative
environmental effects of the alternatives. Past present and foreseeable
future activities on private, State and National Forest System lands
will be considered. The DEIS will also discuss site-specific mitigation
measures, if necessary, that may be required to implement the project
and their anticipated effectiveness.
It is expected at this time that the DEIS will be filed with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and made available for public
review in December 1999. At that time, the EPA will publish a Notice of
Availability of the DEIS in the Federal Register. The comment period on
the DEIS will be 45 days from the date the EPA's notice of availability
appears in the Federal Register. It is very important that those
interested in management of the WMNF and Cannon Mountain participate
during this review and comment period. To be most helpful, comments on
the DEIS should be as specific as possible. The Final EIS (FEIS) is
expected to be released in March of 2000.
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, that it is
important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to
public participation in the environmental review process. First,
reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their
participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is
meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and
contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources
Defense Council, 435 US 519, 558 (1978). Also, environmental objections
that could be raised at the draft environmental impact stage but that
are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact
statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v.
Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages,
Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of
these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this
proposed action participate by the close of the scoping and 45-day DEIS
comment periods so that substantive comments and objections are made
available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully
consider them and respond to them in developing issues and
alternatives.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues
on the proposed action, comments should be as specific as possible.
Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality
Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Dated: April 13, 1999.
Donna Hepp,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 99-9665 Filed 4-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M