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

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