[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
