[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3266-3268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-1476]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service


Permitting Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) Huts and Pinkham Notch 
Visitor Center (PNVC) in the White Mountain National Forest

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:

    Proposed Federal Action.--The proposed Federal action is to 
authorize AMC under a 30-year term special use permit (38 Stat., 11.01, 
as amended) to continue to occupy National Forest System (NFS) land in 
order to operate, maintain, and reconstruct its facilities to provide 
public recreation and information services as defined in the White 
Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest 
Plan) and to provide other services as outlined in the AMC's Master 
Development Plan (MDP), consistent with the White Mountain National 
Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and Special Use 
Permit Authority.
    Based on Forest Plan goals, the primary purposes of the Huts and 
Pinkham Notch Visitor Center (PNVC) are to provide recreation 
opportunities and information services. Other uses proposed in AMC's 
master plan are not essential to these two purposes; however, they are 
not in conflict. Therefore, uses at the huts within the proposed action 
include: Food and lodging (seasonally); information services; education 
programs; support for research, trails, and search and rescue; and 
retail sales. Uses at PNVC include: Food and lodging; visitor 
information services; educational programs; administration of programs; 
public meeting space; a support center for search and rescue; employee 
housing; visitor center store; and other public facilities (parking, 
showers). The specific activities within the authorized uses will be 
reviewed through the annual Operating Plan, and subject to 
environmental review as necessary. For example, we propose to authorize 
Pinkham Notch Visitor Center as an administrative center for research. 
Specific research proposals will be addressed on a case by case basis.
    The facilities on National Forest System lands are Pinkham Notch 
Visitor Center, Greenleaf Hut, Galehead Hut, Zealand Hut, Mizpah Hut, 
Lakes of the Clouds Hut, Carter Notch Hut, and the area around Madison 
Spring Hut (the Hut itself is on one acre of private land). There is no 
proposed change to the overnight capacity at PNVC or the Huts. There 
are also no proposed changes to the facilities, except for the 
reconstruction of Galehead Hut and the PNVC parking lot.
    The proposal to reconstruction Galehead Hut includes adding 430 
square feet to the existing footprint and rotating the Hut southward 33 
degrees. In addition, the septic system (gray water and grease trap) 
would be moved to the north of the Hut away from the viewshed of the 
Pemigewasset Wilderness.
    The proposed redesign and reconstruction of the parking lot at PNVC 
will occur within the existing footprint. The proposal includes: Paving 
and marking the lot to maximize utilization of available parking space; 
improving vegetation barriers between the lot and highway; parking and 
access for persons with disabilities; a minimum 3-foot grass perimeter 
for snow loading and filtering runoff; and recycling pavement where 
removed. The existing parking lot lighting will be retained.
    This proposed action includes monitoring impacts of solid and 
sanitary waste disposal on water quality, and the effects of soil 
compaction on surrounding vegetation within the permitted area of the 
huts.
    Responsible Official.--The responsible official is Donna Hepp, 
Forest Supervisor, White Mountain National Forest, 719 Main Street, 
Laconia, New Hampshire.
    Decision to be Made.--The decision is whether or not to authorize 
AMC under a 30 year term special use permit to continue to occupy 
National Forest System (NFS) land in order to operate, maintain, and 
reconstruct its facilities to provide public recreation and information 
services as defined in the White Mountain National Forest Land and 
Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and to provide other services as 
outlined in the AMC's MDP, consistent with the White Mountain National 
Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and Special Use 
Permit Authority. The decision includes the Forest Supervisor's 
approval of site specific mitigation and/or monitoring requirements.
    Issuing authority--The issuing authority will be a term special use 
permit under the Term Permit Act of March 4, 1915 (38 Stat., 11.01, as 
amended). The length of permit depends on the level of investment on 
National Forest System lands. The value of PNVC and the Huts indicates 
a term of 30 years.
    Alternatives--In preparing the environmental impact statement the 
Forest Service will consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the 
proposed action, including a ``no action'' alternative. The no action 
alternative will be the continuation of operations under the terms and 
conditions of the permit issued to the AMC in 1965, as amended up 
through October 29, 1995. The no action alternative is the baseline 
against which the effects of other alternatives are

[[Page 3267]]

compared, and represents the present course until the action is 
changed.
    Response to AMC's proposed Master Development Plan demonstrated 
interest by some people to consider removal of the huts from the alpine 
zone. This, as well as other alternatives based on public comment, may 
be analyzed. Suggestions on alternatives that meet the purpose and need 
for action are welcome.
    Issues--Tentative physical, biological and socio-economic issues 
that have been identified related specifically to the AMC Hut and PNVC 
proposal are: (1) Impacts on the alpine zone; (2) impacts on Threatened 
and Endangered (T&E) species; (3) impacts on native plants and animals; 
(4) impacts on water resources; (5) impacts on soil; (6) impacts on the 
quality of the recreation experience; (7) impacts on the amount of 
recreation use at the Huts and PNVC; (8) maintenance of recreation 
opportunities represented by these facilities as part of the 
implementation of the Forest Plan; (9) impacts on the visual resource; 
(10) impacts on Wilderness; (11) impacts on Appalachian Trail users; 
(12) impacts on the quality of life in local communities and (13) 
impacts on the economy. Other comments were received during the review 
of the Master Development Plan. Many comments related to administration 
of the permit, concerns about community relations, advocacy, etc. Since 
these are not environmental issues they will not be resolved in the 
EIS. They will be considered through permit administration and other 
measures.
    Assisting Agencies--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the New Hampshire Department of 
Resources and Economic Development, Natural Heritage Inventory and New 
Hampshire Department of Fish and Game have been asked to provide 
assistance.
    For further information--Direct questions about the proposed action 
and environmental impact statement to AMC Permit Project Coordinator, 
White Mountain National Forest, 719 Main Street, Laconia, New Hampshire 
03246, ATT: R. Oreskes, or phone Rebecca Oreskes at 603-466-2713 Ext 
212.

SCOPING: The initial scoping period begins January 21, 1997 and ends 
March 7, 1997. The DEIS is expected to be completed in the fall of 
1997.
    The Forest Service is inviting written comments and suggestions on 
the scope of the analysis. A scoping letter will be sent to interested 
and affected individuals and organizations. In addition, the agency 
gives notice of the full environmental analysis and decision-making 
process that will occur on the proposal so interested and affected 
people are aware of how they may participate and contribute to the 
final decision.
    Public participation has been and will continue to be important 
throughout this process. Before this official scoping began the Forest 
Service asked for comment on AMC's proposed Master Development Plan. 
The Forest held three public listening sessions and received several 
thousand comments, letters, cards and phone calls on AMC's operation in 
the Forest. These comments are still valid and will be used in the 
scoping process and environmental analysis.
    All the input received to date as well as the input from this 
scoping will be used as part of the formal scoping process which 
includes:
    1. Identifying potential issues.
    2. Identifying issues to be analyzed in depth.
    3. Eliminating insignificant issues or those which have been 
covered by a relevant previous environmental analysis.
    4. Exploring additional alternatives.
    5. Identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed 
action and alternatives (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative 
effects).
    6. Determining potential cooperating agencies and task assignments.
    Submit additional written comments and suggestions concerning the 
scope of the analysis to AMC Permit Team, White Mountain National 
Forest, 719 Main St., Laconia, New Hampshire 03246. Comments beyond 
those already on hand must be received by March 7, 1997.
    The second stage of formal public involvement is on the Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The DEIS is expected to be filed 
with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for 
public review in Fall 1997. At that time EPA will publish a notice of 
availability of the DEIS in the Federal Register. The comment period on 
the draft environmental impact statement will be 60 days from the date 
the Environmental Protection Agency's notice of availability appears in 
the Federal Register.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The White Mountain National Forest will 
begin the process of Forest Plan revision in 1997 and plans to issue a 
Notice of Intent in 1998. To date we believe three Forest Plan level 
issues have been raised in the context of the AMC permit. We will 
carefully separate those comments applicable to the Forest Plan 
revision from those in the site specific analysis. These three issues 
are: (1) Appalachian Trail management, (2) the types of recreation use 
on public lands and (3) the intensity of recreation use on the Forest.

Appalachian Trail Management

    PNVC and some of the Huts predate the Appalachian Trail and the 
Appalachian Trail was routed to take advantage of these existing 
facilities. There are two types of issues relating to the Appalachian 
Trail: (1) Forest Plan Standards and Guides and (2) the site specific 
effects on Appalachian Trail users. We will not address the first issue 
in this analysis since it relates to a larger Management Area issue 
than just the AMC Huts; nothing in the AMC Hut or PNVC permitting 
analysis will compromise the ability to resolve the greater Appalachian 
Trail/Forest Plan Standards and Guides issue. We will address the site 
specific Appalachian Trail experience in the EIS.

Types of Recreation Use on Public Lands

    The current Forest Plan defines a mix of recreation uses. Neither 
our monitoring nor public comment has shown user conflicts relevant to 
the AMC permits that cannot be resolved on a site specific basis.

Intensity of Recreation Use

    This concerns the level of recreation use on the Forest. This is a 
Forest-wide issue and will continue to be addressed in Forest planning. 
There are specific aspects of this issue which we will look at in this 
analysis. We will analyze the site specific direct, indirect, and 
cumulative effects of the Huts and PNVC and major access trails in the 
EIS.
    In all cases the Land and Resource Management Plan takes primacy 
over special use permits. Changes in the Forest Land and Resource 
Management Plan may lead to changes to special use permits.

Importance of Timely Response

    The Forest Service believes that, at this early stage, 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. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 
553 (1978). Also,

[[Page 3268]]

environmental objections that could be raised at the draft 
environmental impact stage 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 responding 
to the DEIS by the close of the 45 day comment period 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 the final environmental impact statement.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft 
environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is 
also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the 
draft statements. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft 
environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives 
formulated or discussed in the statement. 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.
    After the comment period ends on the DEIS, the comments will be 
analyzed and considered by the Forest Service in preparing the final 
environmental impact statement (FEIS). The FEIS is scheduled to be 
completed by the Fall of 1997. In the FEIS the Forest Service is 
required to respond to the comments received (40 CFR 1503.4). The 
responsible official will consider the comments, responses, 
environmental consequences discussed in the FEIS, and applicable laws, 
regulations, and policies in making a decision regarding this proposal. 
The responsible official will document the decision and reasons for the 
decision in the Record of Decision. The decision will be subject to 
appeal under 36 CFR part 217 and 36 CFR part 251.

    Dated: January 14, 1997.
Donna Hepp,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 97-1476 Filed 1-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M