Cannon/Mittersill Land Exchange; White Mountain National Forest, Grafton County, NH

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