[Federal Register: March 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 47)]
[Notices]
[Page 11511-11512]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11mr10-27]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest; Mt. Ashland Ski Area
Expansion, Jackson County, OR
ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement to analyze and correct NFMA and NEPA violations found by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in CV-05-03004-PA,
to conditionally authorize expansion of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In September 2004, the Forest Service issued a Record of
Decision (ROD) for the Mt. Ashland Ski Area (MASA) expansion, selecting
Alternative 2 with some modifications adopted from Alternative 6. The
Forest Service received twenty-eight notices of appeal to the ROD. In
December 2004, the Forest Service denied all administrative appeals to
the ROD. In January 2005, Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC) filed
suit against the Forest Service and Regional Forester Linda Goodman
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the grounds that the MASA
expansion project violated both the NEPA and the NFMA. On February 9,
2007, after considering cross motions for summary judgment, a United
States District Court entered summary judgment against ONRC. ONRC filed
a timely notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Upon
review, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court
and instructed it to promptly enjoin the MASA expansion project
contemplated in the 2004 ROD until the Forest Service corrected the
NFMA and NEPA violations found in Opinion CV-05-03004-PA.
DATES: Under 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(4), there is no formal scoping period for
this action. The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(SEIS) is expected March 2010 and the Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement is expected May 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Johnson, Siskiyou Mountains
Ranger District, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, 645 Washington
Street, Ashland, Oregon, 97520, Telephone (541) 552-2900; FAX (541)
552-2922.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Court of Appeals identified several NFMA
and NEPA claims, including failure to conduct a proper Biological
Evaluation for the Pacific fisher that addresses the five steps
referenced in the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). The Court
of Appeals found it necessary to understand the type of habitat the
Pacific fisher requires for food, shelter and reproduction. A link
between mapping of habitat and habitat needs must be made in order to
use habitat as a proxy for population census. Potential impacts of
displacing fisher and damaging habitat in the corridor between the
Siskiyous and Southern cascades must be understood. Cumulative effects
of foreseeable future projects on fisher habitat must be understood.
The Court of Appeals also found failure to appropriately designate
Riparian Reserve and Restricted Watershed land allocations and to
properly analyze against LRMP standards and guidelines for soils.
Landslide Hazard Zone 2 should have been designated as Riparian
Reserve.
Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose and need for this supplemental document is to analyze
and correct specific violations identified by the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals which will allow a determination on whether and to what
extent analysis of supplemental information might alter the decision to
allow ski area expansion. This action is needed to address the
appropriateness of the previous decision and to be responsive to the
Court of Appeals Opinion and district court injunction.
Responsible Official
The Rogue River-Siskiyou and Klamath National Forests are jointly
responsible for public land management of the Special Use Permit area.
The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest has been authorized to make
decisions regarding implementation of ski area expansion activities at
Mt. Ashland under the terms of a February 4, 2004 Intra Agency
Agreement (No. 03-IA-11061002-005), between the Klamath National Forest
and the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest and renewed on May 12,
2009 Intra Agency Agreement (09-IA-11061001-003).
Decision Framework
The Forest Service will use the results of supplemental analysis to
determine if and how the violations identified by the Ninth Circuit
will affect the 2004 decision. The Forest Service will decide whether
to withdraw the 2004 decision, or issue a new or supplemental decision.
If a new or supplemental decision is issued following preparation of
the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, that decision
will be subject to appeal in accordance with 36 CFR 215.
Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review
A Draft SEIS will be prepared for comment. Comments received on the
Draft SEIS will be considered in the preparation of the Final SEIS. The
Draft SEIS is now expected to be filed with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review in March
2010. The comment period on the Draft SEIS will be 45-days from the
date EPA publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register.
At the end of the comment period on the Draft SETS, comments will be
analyzed and considered by the Forest Service in preparing the Final
SEIS. The Final SETS is scheduled to be completed by May 2010. The
Forest Service believes 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
[[Page 11512]]
meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewers 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 statement 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 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
it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the Final
SETS. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering
issues and concerns, comments on the Draft SEIS 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 and 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. Comments
received, including the names and address of those who comment, will be
considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be
available for public inspection.
Authority: 40 CFR 508.22; 36 CFR 220.5.
Dated: March 1, 2010.
Scott D. Conroy,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2010-5021 Filed 3-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M