Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest; Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion, Jackson County, OR, 11511-11512 [2010-5021]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Notices
Æ Information on the life history,
threats, habitat needs and population
trends of a number of terrestrial and
aquatic species contained in the forest
planning records for ecosystem and
species diversity assessments will
continue to be used as a reference in the
planning process as appropriate to meet
the requirements of the 1982 planning
rule. This is scientific information and
is not affected by the change of the
planning rule. This information will be
updated with any new available
information.
Æ Public comments previously
submitted in writing, or recorded at past
public meetings, related to the revision
of the Uwharrie’s Forest Plan since 2005
will be used to help identify issues and
concerns and to help develop
alternatives to address these issues and
concerns.
I. Documents Available for Review
The proposed action, background
reports, assessments, datasets, and
public comments are posted on the
Forest’s Web site at: https://
www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/uwharrie_plan/
index.htm. As necessary or appropriate,
this material will be further adjusted as
part of the planning process using the
provisions of the 1982 planning rule.
(Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1600–1614; 36 CFR
219.35 [74 FR 67073–67074]).
Dated March 3, 2010.
Marisue Hilliard,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2010–5101 Filed 3–10–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–ES–M
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest;
Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion,
Jackson County, OR
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:35 Mar 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11511
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 RiverSiskiyou 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
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
11512
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Notices
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
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Foreign Agricultural Service
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Consultative Group to Eliminate the
Use of Child Labor and Forced Labor
in Imported Agricultural Products.
AGENCY: Foreign Agricultural Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) will be holding a public
meeting of the Consultative Group to
Eliminate the Use of Child Labor and
Forced Labor in Imported Agricultural
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:35 Mar 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
Products (Consultative Group) on March
29, 2010. The sole purpose of the
meeting is to solicit input from the
public regarding the Consultative
Group’s statutory mandate to develop
recommendations relating to a standard
set of practices for independent, thirdparty monitoring and verification for the
production, processing, and distribution
of agricultural products or commodities
to reduce the likelihood that agricultural
products or commodities imported into
the United States are produced with the
use of forced labor or child labor. The
notice sets forth the process for
requesting to appear at the meeting, and
for submitting written statements. On
June 18, 2008, the President signed into
law the Food, Conservation, and Energy
Act of 2008 (the Act), also known as the
2008 Farm Bill. The Act provides for the
creation of the Consultative Group.
DATES: March 18, 2010—Due date for
submission of requests to make an oral
statement at the public meeting. (See
Requirement for Submissions and
Meeting Procedures below.)
March 22, 2010—Due date to notify
intention to attend the public meeting
without making a statement or to
request special accommodations.
March 29, 2010—Public meeting for
the Consultative Group to Eliminate the
Use of Child Labor and Forced Labor in
Imported Agricultural Products, Room
104–A, Jamie L. Whitten Building, 12th
and Jefferson Drive, SW., Washington,
DC 20250, beginning at 9:30 a.m.
April 30, 2010—Final date for
submission of written statements.
ADDRESSES: You may make written
submissions by any of the following
methods: by mail to the Office of
Negotiations and Agreements, Foreign
Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Stop 1040, 1400
Independence Ave., SW., Washington,
DC 20250; or by hand (including DHL,
FedEx, UPS, etc.) to the Office of
Negotiations and Agreements, Foreign
Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Room 4133–S, 1400
Independence Ave., SW., Washington,
DC 20250; or by e-mail to:
Steffon.Brown@fas.usda.gov; or by fax to
(202) 720–0340.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
Office of Negotiations and Agreements
by phone on (202) 720–6219; by e-mail
addressed to
Steffon.Brown@fas.usda.gov; or by mail
addressed to the Office of Negotiations
and Agreements, Foreign Agricultural
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Stop 1040, 1400 Independence Ave.,
SW., Washington, DC 20250.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In written
submissions and statements to the
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Consultative Group as part of this public
meeting, parties are asked to provide
information or comment on the
following issues:
(a) Examples of identification,
monitoring, verification, and/or
certification systems, or other models,
that have been successful in reducing
child labor and/or forced labor in the
global supply chains within the
agricultural sector or other industries;
(b) The roles and responsibilities that
may be appropriate for the business
sector and other stakeholders
(governments, unions, nongovernmental organizations, and others)
in establishing independent, third-party
monitoring and verification systems for
the production, processing, and
distribution of agricultural products or
commodities;
(c) Other information that would be
useful to the Consultative Group in
meeting its mandate to develop
recommendations relating to a standard
set of practices for independent, thirdparty monitoring and verification for the
production, processing, and distribution
of agricultural products or commodities
to reduce the likelihood that agricultural
products or commodities imported into
the United States are produced with the
use of forced labor or child labor.
Section 3205 of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
(Farm Bill, Pub. L. 110–246) created the
Consultative Group to Eliminate the Use
of Child Labor and Forced Labor in
Imported Agricultural Products to
develop recommendations relating to a
standard set of practices for
independent, third-party monitoring
and verification for the production,
processing, and distribution of
agricultural products or commodities to
reduce the likelihood that agricultural
products or commodities imported into
the United States are produced with the
use of forced labor or child labor.
Recommendations developed by the
Consultative Group are to be submitted
to the Secretary of Agriculture by June
18, 2010. By June 18, 2011, the
Secretary is required to release
guidelines for a voluntary initiative to
enable entities to address issues raised
by the Trafficking Victims Protection
Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.). The
guidelines must be published in the
Federal Register and made available for
public comment for a period of 90 days.
The Consultative Group will terminate
on December 31, 2012.
On September 23, 2009, Secretary of
Agriculture Thomas J. Vilsack
appointed 13 members to the
Consultative Group. The group consists
of both government and nongovernment members, including
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 47 (Thursday, March 11, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11511-11512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5021]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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