[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