Attachment 3 - SCBR Supplemental Information Report.pdf

Caring for the Land and Serving People

Logo Department Name Agency Organization Organization Address Information

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Boise National Forest 1249 South Vinnell Way, Suite 200 Boise, ID 83709 208-373-4100

TDD: 800-877-8339

File Code: 1950 Date: August 3, 2023

Subject: Supplemental Information Report

To: Sinker Creek – Boise Ridge Forest Health Project Record and Bogus Basin Forest Health Project Record

In 2016, the Boise National Forest Supervisor signed the Decision Memorandum for the Bogus Basin Forest Health Project, and in 2022, the Boise National Forest Supervisor signed the Decision Notice for the Sinker Creek – Boise Ridge (SCBR) Forest Health Project. Since signing these decisions, some of the design features have proven unnecessary to protect resources and have caused delays in implementation of the project. Additionally, a temporary culvert and road have been identified as needed on the Deer Point sale to facilitate access and haul. Lastly, tethered logging, a harvest system that was unavailable during the original analysis, can now be feasibly implemented; and is being proposed for use. These proposed changes to the projects have made it necessary to conduct a reappraisal of the original analyses.

Pursuant to Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 18.1, the Mountain Home District Ranger directed resource specialists to review the SCBR EA/FONSI and Decision Notice and the Bogus Basin CE/DM in light of these proposed changes. Each resource was asked to assess the findings in the project records to see if the original impact findings remain valid.

Policy for New Information or Changed Circumstances

CEQ NEPA requirements (40 CFR 1502.9(c)) and Forest Service NEPA implementing procedures (FSH 1909. 15, Section 18) require that if new information or changed circumstances relating to the environmental impacts of a proposed action come to the attention of the Responsible Official after a decision has been made and prior to completion of the approved program or project, the Responsible Official should review new information carefully to determine its importance. In this review, consideration would be given to whether or not the new information or changed circumstances are within the scope and range of effects considered in the original analysis.

If, after an interdisciplinary review and consideration of new information, the Responsible Official determines that it falls within the scope and range of effects considered in the original analysis, then a correction, supplement, or revision to an environmental document is not necessary and implementation would continue. Conversely, a supplement or revision to an analysis would be needed if the interdisciplinary review of new information or changed circumstances indicates that changes in the analysis are needed to address environmental concerns not previously disclosed that have a bearing on the action or its impacts. If it is determined that a supplement or revision to the EA and/or Decision Notice/FONSI are required

(or to the CE and/or DM), project implementation would cease until the supplementation process is completed.

This SIR is not a NEPA document and therefore cannot be used to fulfill the requirements for a revised or supplemental EA. This SIR simply documents the interdisciplinary review and the Responsible Official’s determination as to whether corrections, supplements, or revisions of environmental documents are necessary. This SIR will serve as documentation of the results of the interdisciplinary review and the Responsible Official’s determination.

Design Features

Since the original analysis and subsequent decision, removal/modification of specific design features have been proposed. Changes to the design features have been documented in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Rationale for Changes to Design Features

Old Design Feature Change to Design Feature

Rationale for Change

SCBR Design Feature RE-6 and Bogus Basin Design Feature TH-3:

Prohibit log haul on weekends (all day Saturday and Sunday); all major holidays (Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day and Thanksgiving and the day following Thanksgiving); and the opening day of deer and elk general hunting seasons.

Prohibit log haul on weekends (all day Saturday and Sunday); all major holidays (Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day and Thanksgiving and the day following Thanksgiving).

No Forest Plan Direction, law, policy, or directive prohibits log haul on the opening day of deer and elk season. The project area is not highly used for hunting. Outside the project area there are numerous other locations on the Forest suitable for deer and elk hunting.

SCBR Design Feature RE-8:

Within the foreground (0-300 feet) of NFS 297, flush cut stumps where they would be visible to the casual observer (typically on slopes above the road and other areas of high visibility).

Remove design feature

The 300-foot flush cut stumps along Bogus Basin Road was put in place to document compliance with Forest Plan direction SCGU02 and SCGU03 for visuals. However, the rec/visuals analysis documented that the no-action by comparison would over time see a more degraded scenic environment.

Additionally, flush-cutting stumps would end up making more of the stump visible to viewers higher up on the roadway.

New Temporary Road and Culvert

To facilitate implementation of the Deer Point timber sale a temporary culvert and additional temporary road are being proposed. The culvert would be installed on Sinker Creek where the Eastside Trail crosses the creek. No culvert is currently in place. The culvert would be removed post-harvest and the impacted section of the Eastside Trail would be returned to trail width and single-track design.

The temporary road would be constructed on both existing and new template. Approximately

0.40 miles would be a widening of the Eastside Trail which is single-track. The remaining 0.65 miles would be new construction to connect the trail segment to a previously approved temporary road on the ridge. In total, this connection is approximately 1.05 miles long from culvert to ridgetop.

Tethered Logging

Tethered logging is being proposed as a harvest system. Tethered logging is a combination of both ground based and cable yarding methods. The operator uses a cable system to lower a cut-to-length (CTL) system down through the unit. CTL leaves the limbs and tops of trees at the harvest site rather than a central landing. They utilize the slash under the rubber tires and or tracks to reduce soil impacts. The machines compact the slash mat down under the required 36” height for lop and scatter in most places. This harvest method is overall less impactful than traditional ground based and cable harvesting.

Assessment of Effects

Resource specialists, including the District Wildlife Biologist, Hydrologist, Archeologist, Road Engineer, Lands and Special Uses Program Manager, Environmental Coordinator, and Recreation Specialist reviewed the changes and determined that the original analysis remains valid.

Findings by Responsible Official Based On Consideration of New Information

I have reviewed the new information and have considered this information within the overall context of the project analysis and decision. This analysis complies with 40 CFR 1502.9 (c), and the Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 18.1, “Review and Documentation of New Information Received after a Decision Has Been Made.” I find the new information and its effects to be within the context of the project’s environmental analysis and decision, based on the following rationale: The specialists reviewing the analysis determined that design features originally incorporated into the analysis and supplemented with this report are adequately responsive to the changed conditions and activities authorized under these environmental analyses would cause no adverse effect on their respective resources.

Considering the above rationale, the analysis in the SCBR EA/FONSI/DM and the Bogus Basin CE and Decision Memo adequately displayed the effects of the proposed action on the environment.

None of the new information demonstrates that the project will affect the quality of the human environment in a significant manner or to a significant extent that is not already considered in the underlying documents. I find that the new information and its effects would be within the context of the project’s Decision. Therefore, I find no need to correct, supplement, or revise either analyses. Implementation of the project may proceed. All other elements of the original analysis remain in effect and unchanged. The findings in this Supplemental Information Report (SIR) are not appealable under the Forest Service appeal regulations.

This SIR, when signed, is to be retained in the project record.

Sincerely, BRANT PETERSEN

Forest Supervisor