BHROWS (Big Game Habitat Restoration on a Watershed Scale) Project; Clearwater National Forest, Clearwater County, ID

[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55226-55228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-26464]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


BHROWS (Big Game Habitat Restoration on a Watershed Scale) 
Project; Clearwater National Forest, Clearwater County, ID

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. As lead agency for this project, the 
Forest Service, with assistance from the Idaho State Department of Fish 
and Game, will cooperate with other Federal agencies, as well as 
County, State, and tribal governments who display an interest in the 
project, and who require assessment and concurrence.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement 
(EIS)

[[Page 55227]]

for the improvement of the elk habitat situation within North Fork 
Clearwater River subbasin.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact 
statement (EIS), titled BHROWS: Middle-Black, to disclose the 
environmental effects of vegetative management proposals aimed at 
improving the elk habitat situation within the Middle North Fork and 
Upper North Fork (Black Canyon) watersheds of the North Fork Clearwater 
River subbasin.
    Both watersheds, totaling approximately 156,000 acres, are entirely 
on National Forest lands within the North Fork Ranger District of the 
Clearwater National Forest, Townships 38-41 North, Ranges 7-11 East, 
Boise Meridian, Clearwater County, Idaho.
    The BHROWS project is a part of the Clearwater Basin Elk Habitat 
Initiative, a coalition of many diverse groups sharing a common 
interest in the future and management of elk and elk habitat in the 
Clearwater River basin.
    While elk concerns provide the impetus for the BHROWS project, elk 
are only part of a much larger ecosystem picture. Thus, this analysis 
is based on the philosophy of ecosystem management, featuring 
observation and replication of natural disturbance processes, such as 
wildfire. In so doing, this analysis will look beyond elk at the major 
processes that shape the North Fork ecosystem.
    The proposal and subsequent effects analysis will meet the intent 
of the Clearwater Forest Plan, using an ecosystem management approach 
for the analysis area. Management Areas within the analysis area 
include: A3, emphasizing dispersed recreation; B2, emphasizing proposed 
wilderness; C3, emphasizing big-game winter range; C4, emphasizing big-
game winter range and timber production; C8S, emphasizing big-game 
summer range and timber production; E1, emphasizing growth and yield of 
timber; M1, emphasizing research natural areas; M2, emphasizing 
riparian management; and US, emphasizing lands unsuitable for timber 
production.

Proposed Action

    An assessment, titled BHROWS Assessment 8/16/99, was completed for 
the entire North Fork Clearwater River subbasin (840,000 acres). The 
results indicate that the following current vegetative species and age 
class distributions would not have occurred under natural conditions: 
(1) Western white pine, once the dominant cover type, has been replaced 
by dense, young stands of Douglas-fir and grand fir which are shorter 
lived and less resistant to many insects and diseases; (2) lodgepole 
pine cover types have nearly doubled and are approaching the end of 
their life cycle, putting them at risk from mountain pine beetle attack 
and large-scale, stand replacing fires; and (3) early successional 
stages, which provide forage habitat for big game, now occupy less than 
one-third of their historical range. These shifts in vegetative 
conditions have resulted in the loss of elk habitat and have 
contributed in part towards the decline of elk populations within the 
analysis area.
    The proposed action is designed to restore vegetative patterns 
across the analysis area to a more natural condition than what 
currently exists, and by so doing, restore populations of native 
wildlife species, such as elk, to near-normal distribution and 
abundance. It includes treating up to 28,700 acres of uniform stands of 
trees (primarily mid-successional stages), located mostly on the 
breaklands and colluvial midslopes. This portion of the landscape would 
be changed from a uniform cover of trees to a more natural mosaic of 
tree cover and openings. Also treated would be approximately 1,850 
acres of lodgepole pine stands in the higher elevations, with most of 
these stands being converted to early successional stages. Portions of 
4,600 acres of recently acquired lands in the northeast corner of the 
analysis area would be planted with blister rust resistant white pine 
and larch. Some of the area proposed for planting is currently covered 
with thick brush and/or logging slash and would have to be cleared 
prior to planting. Also within the analysis area are approximately 
10,000 acres of brushfields, some of which are too old or too tall to 
provide needed forage for elk and other wildlife. This project will 
consider rejuvenating selected brushfields, primarily those that are no 
longer providing suitable forage for elk, and are on deep soils and 
near a tree seed source.
    Methods of treatment for the above activities would mimic natural 
disturbance patterns and patch sizes and would probably consist of 
prescribed fire, slashing (hand or mechanical), timber harvest 
(primarily helicopter yarding), or combinations thereof. Most of the 
areas treated would be planted with seral species of trees (primarily 
white pine and larch) and/or shrubs (redstem ceanothus, willow, and 
maple). Other areas treated would rely on natural tree regeneration and 
the resprouting of existing shrub species. At this time, road 
activities needed for treatment access are expected to be minimal, 
consisting of the reconstruction of existing roads and the possible 
construction of temporary roads for skyline yarder access or helicopter 
landings.
    For the purpose of protecting the natural condition and 
biodiversity of the area, an integrated pest management approach to 
noxious weed control would be proposed on selected sites along area 
roads, trails, and disturbed sites. This approach would consider the 
use of physical/mechanical, chemical, and/or biological management 
techniques, depending on specific sites and weed species. Since dormant 
seeds in existing weed populations can germinate several years after 
treatment, follow-up treatments would be proposed, as would the 
treatment of new infestations, provided such treatment fits within the 
scope of this analysis.
    Because some streams in the area are not meeting desired instream 
conditions for cobble embeddedness, some of the erosion sources in the 
watershed would be corrected by obliterating up to 150 miles of roads 
in the Coyote/Game/Lick Creek areas. Depending on future access needs, 
some of these roads may be proposed for long-term intermittent status, 
rather than full obliteration. Such roads would be closed to motorized 
traffic and placed in a condition to assure they do not require active 
maintenance.
    Preliminary issues identified by the interdisciplinary team include 
the effects of the proposed action on roadless areas, old growth 
habitat, water quality, fish habitat, air quality, threatened/
endangered/proposed/sensitive species, scenic resources, recreation, 
forest health, tribal treaty rights, and heritage resources. Mitigation 
measures, project design features, and alternatives to the proposed 
action will be analyzed to address these issues and others that may 
surface during public scoping.

Public Involvement

    Public participation will be an important part of this analysis. 
Issues which emerge from public scoping will be used to develop 
additional alternatives to this proposal. Methods being used to solicit 
public comment include news releases, weekly radio interviews, 
newsletters, and monthly meetings with the Clearwater Elk Recovery 
Team, a self-organized group of private citizens. A mailing list of 
interested public will be maintained, and a web page for this project 
and the Clearwater Basin Elk Habitat Initiative can be accessed by 
logging on to:

[[Page 55228]]

www.fs.fed.us/rl/clearwater/cei/ceihome.htm.
    Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received in 
writing within 30 days from publication of this notice. Send written 
comments to Douglas Gober, District Ranger, 12370 B Highway 12, 
Orofino, ID 83544.

Date: The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review in November 
1999. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement 
will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency 
publishes the notice of availability of the draft EIS in the Federal 
Register. The final EIS is scheduled to be completed by March 2000.
    The Forest Service believes, 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 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 proposed 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 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 and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer 
to the Council on Environmental Regulations for implementing the 
procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 
CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
    Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names 
and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the 
public record on this proposed action and will be available for public 
inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and 
considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have 
standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR Parts 215 or 
217.

Deciding Official

    The responsible official for decisions regarding this analysis is 
James Caswell, Clearwater National Forest Supervisor. His address is 
12730 Highway 12, Orofino, ID 83544. He will decide whether or not to 
select an action or mix of actions to improve the ecological condition 
of the analysis area and best meet the habitat needs of elk and other 
wildlife species.
    Point of Contact: Further information about this project can be 
obtained by contacting George Harbaugh, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, 
at the above address or by calling (208) 476-4541.

    Dated: September 28, 1999.
Deanna M. Riebe,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 99-26464 Filed 10-8-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M