[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18543-18544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10359]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
