[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