Waterville Valley Ski Area Ltd. Snowmaking Ponds

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Waterville Valley Ski Area Ltd. Snowmaking Ponds

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact

statement for Waterville Valley Ski Area Ltd.'s proposal to construct

snowmaking impoundments on the Pemigewasset Ranger District, White

Mountain National Forest, Grafton County, New Hampshire. The New

Hampshire Department of Environmental Services has been asked to

participate as a cooperating agency. The U.S. Corps of Engineers the

Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior and the Town of

Waterville Valley have been asked to provide assistance. The agency

invites written comments and suggestions on the scope of the analysis.

In addition, the agency gives notice of the full environmental analysis

and decision-making process that will occur on the proposal so that

interested and affected people are aware of how they may participate

and contribute to the final decision.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received

by June 10, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and suggestions concerning the scope

of the analysis to Donna Hepp, Forest Supervisor, White Mountain

National Forest, 719 Main St., Laconia, New Hampshire 03246.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct questions about the proposed action and environmental impact

statement to Fred Kacprzynski, Waterville Valley Snowmaking

Impoundments Coordinator, White Mountain National Forest, 719 Main

Street, Laconia, New Hampshire 03246, phone: 603-528-8721.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Skiing is an important component of the

recreational opportunities offered by the National Forests. The

enabling authorities of the USDA-Forest Service are contained in many

laws enacted by Congress and the regulations and administrative

directives that implement these laws. The major laws include, the

Organic Administrative Act of 1897, the Weeks Act of 1911, the

Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the Forest and Rangeland

Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, the National Forest

Management Act of 1976 and the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of

1986. Ski area operations are consistent with the recreation objectives

of the National Forests.

It is the policy of the Forest Service to meet downhill skiing

demand on National Forest Lands by partnering with the private sector.

The National Recreation Strategy (USDA-Forest Service 1988a) details

the Forest Service role in increasing outdoor recreation on National

Forests through partnerships such as those with the ski industry.

The intent of ski areas as noted in the White Mountain National

Forest plan is to, ``Broaden the range of recreation opportunities by

recognizing the potential for year-round recreation facilities at

alpine ski areas managed by the private sector.'' In addition, the

Forest Plan states that, ``The Forest will not consider developing any

completely new alpine ski areas.'' Indicating a direction to emphasize

the continued operation of current ski areas. Skiing on the White

Mountain National Forest accounted for about 17 percent of the total

recreational use on the Forest, and uses about 3,500 acres or 0.4

percent of the Forest, and use about 3,500 acres or 0.4 percent of the

Forest. Waterville Valley Ski Area is an integral part of the Forest

partnership in providing these recreation opportunities.

Snowmaking is essential to a quality downhill skiing experience,

and as such, important in maintaining the economic viability of the

area and the partnership. Waterville Valley currently withdraws water

directly from the Mad River, which has historically been an extremely

unreliable source of water. The intent of Waterville Valley Ski Area is

to provide enough water to fully cover the existing trail system three

times during the winter,while increasing the minimum flow of the Mad

River from the currently permitted minimum flow of 0.50 csm to the

calculated February Median Flow (FMF) of 0.75 csm. Utilizing the

current system (without snowmaking impoundments), with a direct

withdrawal at 0.75 csm, Waterville Valley could only provide full

coverage 9 percent of the time. The goal of the ski area is to provide

coverage 95 percent the time.

As a result, Waterville Valley Ski Area Ltd, has proposed to

construct water storage impoundments to augment water withdrawal from

the Mad River in order to provide a reliable and sufficient source of

water to meet this goal. Their proposal is a combination of four to

five sites with a total capacity of 130 million gallons in concert with

the 100 million gallons available directly from the Mad River.

Impoundment locations are near the existing Ski Area permit, they are

in Management Areas 2.1 and/or 3.1. Proposed locations have been

reviewed by the proponent based on screening factors including,

operating costs, land availability, pond volume and environmental

impact.

Tentative issues which have been identified include, (1) changing

water withdrawal limits from the current approved .50 csm to the FMF of

.75 csm., (2) visual, (3) safety of the dams,

[[Page 18544]]

(4) continued implementation of the Forest Plan and (5) economics. In

preparing the environmental impact statement, the Forest Service will

consider the proposal against a range of reasonable alternatives to

address issues identified through scoping. Alternatives may be other

combinations of potential sites, on demand sources of supply, (direct

withdrawal, wells) and the required No Action Alternative.

Permtis and licenses to implement the proposed action may include a

Wetlands Permit, State of New Hampshire dam permits and Alteration of

Terrain permit. The issuing authority will be a term special use permit

under the Term Permit Act of March 4, 1915 as amended (16 U.S.C. 497).

Donna Hepp, Forest Supervisor, White Mountain National Forest, 719

Main Street, Laconia, New Hampshire, is the responsible official.

Public participation will be important at several points during the

analysis. The first point is during the scoping process (40 CFR

1501.7). The Forest Service will be seeking information and comments

from Federal, State, and local agencies and other individuals or

organizations who may be interested in or affected by the proposed

action. This input will be used in preparation of the draft

environmental impact statement (DEIS). The scoping process 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 effect

and connected actions).

6. Determining potential cooperating agencies and task assignments.

The State of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services has

been invited to participate as a cooperating agency. The Fish and

Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, the U.S. Corps of

Engineers and the Town of Waterville Valley have been informed and will

be assisting in the analysis.

Public scoping meetings will be held in the Spring of 1996. Meeting

dates will be advertised in the media.

The draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) is expected to be

filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be

available for public review in Summer, 1996. 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 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency's notice

of availability appears in the Federal Register.

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, 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 statement. 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 1996. 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 on the Record of Decision. The decision will be subject to

appeal under 36 CFR 217 and 36 CFR 251.

Dated: April 22, 1996.

[FR Doc. 96-10359 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M