[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 238 (Monday, December 13, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69474-69476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-32155]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Loon Mountain Ski Resort Development and Expansion Project

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) rather than a Supplement to the Loon Mountain Ski Area 
South Mountain Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 
(FEIS) to disclose the environmental effects of Loon Mountain 
Recreation Corporation's (LMRC) proposal to develop and expand 
recreational facilities at Loon Mountain Ski Resort. The Forest Service 
has decided that the environmental analysis should be documented and 
disclosed in an EIS rather than a Supplement to the FEIS based on 
changes to the original purpose and need for the Proposed Action since 
the FEIS was prepared. The project area is located on the Pemigewasset 
Ranger District of the White Mountain National Forest, Grafton County, 
New Hamsphire. The agency invites written comments concerning the 
Proposed Action as described in proposal letters submitted to the 
Forest Service on January 26, and May 14, 1998; and reaffirmed and 
clarified on December 2, 1999.

DATES: Written comments concerning the Proposed Action should be 
received on or before January 12, 2000. No public scoping meetings are 
planned at this time. The Draft EIS is scheduled to be completed by 
June 2000, and the final EIS is scheduled to be completed by November 
2000. The Forest Service will seek comments on the Draft EIS for a 
period of at least 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection 
agency publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. 
Public meeting dates and venues during the public comment public for 
the Draft EIS will be advertised in the media.
    Resposible Official: Donna Hepp, Forest Supervisor, White Mountain 
National Forest, Federal Building, 719 Main Street, Laconia, New 
Hampshire, 03246 is the Responsible Official for the EIS.

[[Page 69475]]

    Written Comments: Send written comments to Beth LeClair, Eastern 
Region Winter Sports Team Leader, US Forest Service, 99 Ranger Road, 
Rochester, Vermont, 05767; or E-mail to erwst/[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay Strand, Project Coordinator, US 
Forest Service, 99 Ranger Road, Rochester, Vermont, 05767; TTY phone 
(802) 767-4261; voice phone (802) 767-4261 ext. 522; FAX (802) 767-
4777; or E-mail, jstrand/[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Loon Mountain Recreation Corporation (LMRC) operates Loon Mountain 
Ski Resort, a portion of which is under a Special Use Permit (SUP) 
issued and administered by the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF). 
In 1986, LMRC submitted a proposal to develop and expand the existing 
ski area to meet the demand for additional skiing on the WMNF, and to 
meet the demand for more capacity at Loon Mountain Ski Area. The 
environmental effects of the proposal and five alternatives were 
disclosed and documented at the Loon Mountain Ski Area South Mountain 
Expansion Project FEIS which was completed in late 1992. The Record of 
Decision (ROD) was issued on March 1, 1993 and authorized the 
implementation of Alternative 6 to meet the stated purpose and need. 
The 1993 ROD was litigated and the subsequent court ruling found that 
parts of the analysis were inadequate. A May 5, 1997 Court Order 
invalidated the 1993 ROD and prohibited any further activities related 
to Alternative 6 pending the outcome of a new analysis and ROD that 
addresses the identified FEIS inadequacies. On January 26, 1998 and May 
14, 1998, LMRC submitted proposal letters to modify Alternative 6 to 
reflect changed conditions. Based on the acceptance of LMRC's proposal, 
the Forest Service issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) dated August 4, 1998 
to prepare a Supplement to the FEIS that would address the May 5, 1997 
Court Order, update the analysis with new information, and disclose the 
environmental effects of the proposal as submitted by LMRC. On March 
31, 1999 the Forest Service issued a public newsletter that modified 
the Proposed Action. The modifications included the addition of the 
construction and operation of a 16-inch snowmaking pipeline to provide 
instantaneous snowmaking capacity to the ski terrain within the 
existing SUP area. Although the Proposed Action has not changed since 
the August 1998 NOI and March 31, 1999 Newsletter, the Forest Service 
has decided that the environmental analysis should be documented and 
disclosed in an EIS rather than a Supplement to the FEIS. This decision 
is based on changes to the original purpose and need for the Proposed 
Action since the FEIS was prepared.

Purpose of and Need for Action

    The purpose of LMRC's proposal is to ensure a continued high-
quality winter recreation experience for existing and future skiers and 
snowboarders at Loon Mountain Ski Resort through the following means: 
(1) Improving the variety, diversity, and amount of terrain by adding 
new trails with different characteristics; (2) improving skier 
distribution and convenience by adding and upgrading lifts; (3) 
improving skier and snowboarder access and egress by developing a 
second portal; (4) increasing the quality and capacity of base-area and 
on-mountain facilities; (5) improving snow conditions by increasing the 
total and instantaneous snowmaking coverage; and (6) adding parking 
facilities. The need for the proposal is to: (1) To respond to a 
proposal by LMRC which has the potential for offering more effective 
recreation utilization of National Forest System lands; (2) address 
shortcomings in the existing design, operations, and facilities of Loon 
Mountain, respond to guest preferences to Loon Mountain Ski Resort, and 
stay abreast of evolving ski market trends; (3) fulfill the WMNF Forest 
Plan management goals and objectives for Management Area 7.1 and 9.2; 
(4) ensure that LMRC remains a viable operation so that high-quality 
public recreation opportunities continue to be offered over the long 
term at Loon Mountain Ski Resort; and (5) respond to court orders 
directing the Forest Service to address the inadequacies of the 1992 
FEIS, and disclose the effects of the 16-inch pipeline.

Description of Proposed Action and Tentative Alternatives

    The Proposed Action as resubmitted by LMRC in a letter dated 
December 2, 1999 and accepted by the Forest Service includes ten 
categories: (1) expansion of the SUP area by 581 acres for a total of 
1,366 acres; (2) construction of six new ski trails and a free style 
jump (30.9 acres), widening of many existing ski trails (20.1 acres), 
reconfiguration of the Lower Speakeasy trail system within the existing 
SUP area, and construction of six new trails (73.2 acres) within the 
expanded SUP area; (3) construction of one new J-bar lift on private 
land, realignment of two existing lifts, and upgrade of all existing 
lifts within the existing SUP area, and the construction of two new 
chairlifts within the expanded SUP area; (4) expansion of existing 
buildings on private land and within the existing SUP area, and 
construction of a base area and lodge for the expanded SUP area on 
private land; (5) expansion of existing parking lots and construction 
of new parking facilities on private land; (6) provision to meet 100% 
of a 449.7 million gallon snowmaking water demand target in 85% of the 
years for complete coverage for 382.3 acres of ski terrain on both the 
existing and expanded SUP areas; (7) provision to continue water 
withdrawals within levels currently authorized from the East Branch of 
the Pemigewasset River (East Branch) and Boyle Brook for snowmaking 
needs, and elimination of snowmaking water withdrawals from Loon Pond 
once adequate snowmaking water storage facilities are in place and 
operational; (8) installation of a 16-inch diameter pipeline and 
associated facilities to serve the existing SUP area, installation of a 
20-inch diameter pipeline and associated facilities to serve the 
expanded SUP area, and installation of pipelines and associated 
facilities from water storage ponds on private land to provide complete 
snowmaking coverage of the entire Loon Mountain ski terrain; (9) 
construction of multiple water storage ponds with a total capacity of 
160 million gallons on private land for snowmaking water needs; and 
(10) increase the existing skier comfortable carrying capacity from 
5,800 to 9,000.
    The EIS analysis will include the Proposed Action and the No Action 
Alternative. Tentative alternatives may include: (1) Pre-1993 
conditions with the 16-inch pipeline and snowmaking water storage 
facilities only; (2) Existing condition (includes trails and 
infrastructure constructed and in use within the existing SUP area 
since 1993); (3) Development within the existing SUP area only; and (4) 
various options for target water demand needs and water storage 
facilities and requirements. Additional alternatives that meet the 
purpose and need of the Proposed Action may be developed to address 
issues based on public comments received in response to this NOI.

Tentative Issues

    Tentative issues that have been identified from public and agency 
comments to the Supplemental EIS Proposed Action include: (1) Skier 
comfortable carrying capacity is too high; (2) snowmaking water demand 
target is too high; (3) consider the Main Stem of the Pemigewasset 
River as a

[[Page 69476]]

snowmaking water source; (4) February median flow should be the minimum 
for water withdrawals from the East Branch, and a minimum flow for 
water withdrawals should be set for Boyle Brook; (5) a full range of 
water storage options should be considered for snowmaking needs; (6) 
visual impacts; (7) impacts to private residences at the base of Loon 
Mountain from parking facilities and associated traffic; (8) not enough 
opportunity for glade and tree skiing; (9) include cross-over trails 
between South Mountain and the existing ski area; (10) maintain natural 
snow only ski trails; (11) the purpose and need for the Proposed Action 
is questionable; (12) wetland impacts from water storage pond 
construction; (13) impacts to various resources (i.e., soils, water 
quality, wildlife and aquatic habitat, threatened, endangered, and 
sensitive plants and animals, and cultural sites); and (14) 
socioeconomic impacts to the local community (i.e., dependent 
businesses, traffic congestion, and infrastructure demands).

Decision To Be Made

    The site-specific environmental analysis provided by the EIS will 
assist the Responsible Official in determining whether the Proposed 
Action, or an alternative to the Proposed Action, best meets the 
purpose and need of the Proposed Action while addressing public 
concerns and issues. In preparing the EIS, the Forest Service will 
consider the Proposed Action against a range of feasible and 
practicable alternatives including the No Action Alternative. The 
Responsible Official will consider the comments, responses, and 
environmental consequences discussed in the Final EIS, and applicable 
laws, regulations, and policies when 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 217 and 36 CFR 251.

Public Participation

    Public participation will be incorporated into the preparation of 
the EIS under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. 
The Forest Service solicited comments for 42 days after the August 4, 
1998 Notice of Intent, 37 days after the March 31, 1999 Newsletter, and 
accepted comments at three public meetings. Information and written 
comments received from the public and agencies during the August 1998 
and March 31, 1999 Newsletter scoping periods for the Supplement to the 
FEIS will be considered as part of the analysis for the EIS, and will 
be used in preparation of the Draft EIS and Final EIS. Written comments 
responding to this NOI should be submitted to the Forest Service within 
30 days from the date of publication of this NOI in the Federal 
Register. Please note that comments in response to this NOI and in 
response to the Draft EIS will be regarded as public information 
including names and addresses.
    The Forest Service believes at this early stage it is important to 
give reviewers notice of 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, 
environmental objections that could be raised at the Draft EIS stage 
but that are not raised until after completion of the FEIS may be 
waived or dismissed by the Courts [City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F2d 
1015, 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 45-day comment period so that 
substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest 
Service at a time when they can meaningfully consider them and respond 
to them in the Final EIS.

Cooperating and Participating Agencies

    The State of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, 
New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 
and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency were cooperating agencies in 
preparing the Supplement to the FEIS and will continue to be 
cooperating agencies in preparing the new EIS. The U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service will continue as a participating agency. The New 
Hampshire Department of Transportation, New Hampshire Department of 
Resources and Economic Development, and the Towns of Lincoln and 
Woodstock, New Hampshire will continue to assist in the analysis 
process.

Potential Permits

    Potential permits required to implement the Proposed Action may 
include the following: (1) Special Use Permit from the Forest Service; 
(2) Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; (3) 
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit and Stormwater 
Permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and (4) 
Significant Alteration of Terrain Permit, Section 401 Permit, Dam 
Permit, and Stormwater Permit from the New Hampshire Department of 
Environmental Services. Any additional permits needed from Local, 
State, and Federal agencies will be identified during the analysis 
process. In addition, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service for compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 
and any assistance and cooperation from other agencies will be 
conducted as needed.

    Dated: December 7, 1999.
Anne Archie,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 99-32155 Filed 12-10-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M