BOISE FOREST COALITION MEETING—BOGUS BASIN UPDATE

Idaho Department of Fish and Game600 S. Walnut, Boise, Idaho

Trophy Room

September 3, 2015

2014 FARM BILL AND CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS

Randall Hayman, Forest Planner on the Boise National Forest, introduced himself and distributed three handouts: a description of the Agriculture Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill); a letter from Thomas Tidwell, Chief of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter regarding the designation of landscape-scale areas on national forests in Idaho to address insect or disease threats under Section 602 of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA); and excerpts from a letter from Governor Butch Otter to the U.S. Forest Service of proposed treatment areas. Copies of the entire Governor’s landscape package are located on the Boise National Forest project website under the Williams Creek Project. The 2014 Farm Bill amended HFRA to address qualifying insect and disease infestations on National Forest System (NFS) lands.

A categorical exclusion (CE) removes much of the administrative process by allowing federal agencies to exclude from documentation in an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) categories of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. An EA or EIS may take 12 months to 3 years, depending on the issues; CEs take 6–8 months, depending on project complexity. The 2014 Farm Bill approved a new category exclusively for areas designated as part of an insect and disease treatment program. To qualify under a CE category, the project must be focused and have a single purpose.

Randy highlighted the limitations for a project to be included under this CE category:

May not exceed 3,000 treated acres Must maximize old growth and large trees to the extent that trees promote stands that are resilient to

insect and disease threats Must consider the best available science Must be developed through a collaborative process that includes diverse interests Must be located in a wildland-urban interface (WUI) or in a Fire Regime Group 1, 2, or 3. (The Bogus

Basin project is located in the WUI and within Fire Regime Group 1, Condition Class 3.) May not establish permanent roads; existing roads can be maintained and temporary roads can be build

providing they are decommissioned or obliterated within 3 years after completion of the project Cannot be located in a Congressionally designated Wilderness or Wilderness study area, areas where

removing vegetation is restricted or prohibited by statue or Presidential proclamation, or where the activities would be inconsistent with the Land and Resource Management Plan

This project has a forest health emphasis within a developed recreation site and targets trees that are a public hazard and/or are at risk of insect and disease caused mortality. To meet the recreation purpose of public safety, these hazard trees need to be addressed.

Attached to the letter Randy distributed to the group were a series of maps which included NFS lands in Idaho designated under Section 602 of HFRA. The blue areas on the maps are designated landscapes within NFS lands that were proposed by the State of Idaho. The maps included in the Governor’s letter indicate the Bogus Basin project area is at high risk for tree mortality from insect and disease and fire.

Bogus Basin Update 1

BOGUS BASIN FOREST HEALTH PROJECT PROPOSAL

Scott Wagner provided a PowerPoint presentation of Bogus Basin Forest Health Project (Attachment A). The 3,289-acre project area is located within the Clear-Robie Analysis Area, northeast of Boise, Idaho. Landownership includes NFS lands surrounding 640 acres owned by the Bogus Basin Resort. NFS lands around the resort are used by the resort under a special use permit. Groomed, Alpine and Nordic skiing routes and ski lifts occur within the proposed project area.

The project area falls within Management Prescription Categories (MPCs) 4.2 and 5.11. MPC 5.1 emphasizes restoration of forested landscapes. All of the proposed treatments fall within those guidelines.

A broad-scale analysis using vegetation inventory data and databases indicates the project area includes four major Potential Vegetation Groups (PVGs): 1, 2, 3, and 4. PVG 1 is the least abundant; PVG 2 the most common. Few acres of PVG 3 occur in the area in the middle elevations. Most of the downhill skiing occurs in PVG 4.

PVG classifications are based on understory and overstory vegetation. PVG 1 is dry ponderosa pine/xeric Douglas-fir and contains mostly ponderosa pine overstory with grass and sage or bitterbrush understory. PVG 2 contains much more Douglas-fir and the understory changes to ceonothus, snowberry and other species. Plant vegetation in PVG 2 is more varied than in PVG 1. Douglas-fir dominates PVG 4 and the understory is sparse. Brush is short in this PVG because it is limited by snowpack and a shorter growing season. PVG 3 contains a nearly equal mix of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. Some of the most diverse plant associations occur in PVG 3.

A need exists to cut and remove hazard trees and dwarf mistletoe-infected trees for public safety and to restore forest health. Scott displayed several examples of trees infected with dwarf mistletoe, which makes these trees susceptible to bark beetle infestations. Dead trees will remain standing for 2–10 years, but trees killed by bark beetle will decay more rapidly and can become a public safety issue.

Hazardous trees are likely to cause property damage or personal injury from tree failure. Tree failure includes part of the tree falling or the entire tree falling over. Scott displayed several photos of hazard trees, which have the potential for failure and to cause serious damage, along trails, roads and facilities. The Forest Service would use a scoring system to determine if a tree needs to be removed for public safety. Photos from a distance clearly illustrate pockets of bark beetle-infected and dead trees.

A need exists to promote alternative species in dwarf mistletoe-infected Douglas-fir stands to interrupt the disease cycle and maintain a healthy forest cover within the forested strips between the ski runs. Healthy trees are important for protecting snow cover and preventing it from being blown off the mountain. Removing this cover significantly changes the character and quality of skiing.

Removing infected trees is the only way to remove the infection and protect the remaining healthy trees since dwarf mistletoe grows under the bark. One option is to under plant ponderosa pine to break the cycle of dwarf mistletoe infections since dwarf mistletoe is specific to its host (i.e., one variety infects Douglas-fir and another infects ponderosa pine). Once the infection cycle has been broken, Douglas-fir could again be planted. The proposal will be to remove the most severely damaged trees first.

Protecting young seedlings and saplings from skier damage is another concern.

A need exists to thin ponderosa pine stands to reduce dwarf mistletoe infection, lower stand densities, promote pine over Douglas-fir, and reduce ladder and crown fuels. Thinning ponderosa pine stands would also reduce the risk of western bark beetle, which is the primary beetle of concern in this area attacking ponderosa pine.

1 Forest Service. 2010. Boise National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Boise National Forest.

Bogus Basin Update 2

The Boise Ridge TSI project was completed in 2014. The purpose was to reduce fire risk by treating 820 acres with a noncommercial understory thinning. Many of the treated stands remain at high density and are infected with dwarf mistletoe. Most of the residual overstory Douglas-fir trees have dwarf mistletoe. For this project, no trees were cut within a 15 to 50 foot buffer of mountain bike and Nordic trails. The buffer was adopted to meet visual quality objectives and for public safety, allowing the thinning to occur without having to close the trails.

Proposed treatments for the Bogus Basin project include commercial thin on 609 acres, hazard tree mitigation on 683 acres, and sanitation salvage on 775 acres for a total of 2,067 treated acres. Most commercial thinning would occur in ponderosa pine stands. Hazard tree mitigation would be scattered throughout the project area, primarily on inaccessible terrain or where a few scattered trees occur, and would focus on falling hazard trees. If hazard trees are located near a road, they could be removed as part of a timber sale. However, in most cases, hazard trees will be piled and burned or chipped. Larger boles would be left on the ground; some could be used to protect seedlings from skiers. Sanitation salvage would occur in areas with high infection rates of Douglas-fir. These infected trees would be removed, as would dead trees, to stop the infection cycle.

Approximately 270 acres area also proposed for follow-up planting, usually with an alternative species, if possible. Lodgepole pine may need to be planted as a temporary replacement species in the higher elevations. Aspen tend to occur on the wetter sides of the project area but do not occur on the higher slopes above 6,000 feet. Aspen regeneration could be appropriate in certain areas. It doesn’t get very large but provides temporary tree cover. Subalpine fir is also an option for planting even though no subalpine fir occurs in the project area, even above 6,000 feet. The lack of subalpine fir could be due to higher average summer temperatures. Lodgepole pine would be easier to establish in these areas since it grows in direct sun and can tolerate heat and drought better.

Follow-up burning of piles and broadcast burning (primarily in the PVG2 stands) will also be proposed to reduce surface fuels and raise crown base heights.

Any treatments proposed in riparian conservation areas, defined as 300 feet from perennial streams and 150 feet from intermittent streams, must be done to promote the function of the RCA. The Forest Service is not completely limited by what treatments can occur in RCAs.

Following Scott’s presentation, the following points were made:

If a large tree component is present in the RCA and back burning is used, the roots may end up being scorched, which would attract bark beetles as the trees become stressed.

Trees severely infected with dwarf mistletoe don’t produce as many cones; and the cones they do produce likely don’t contain as many viable seed. However, over the long term, this project would improve cone production, thus benefiting small wildlife.

If ponderosa pine is planted in existing Douglas-fir stands, habitats would be shifted to those used by species preferring ponderosa pine.

Several haul routes are available, including driving toward Horsehoe Bend. Most routes would need some maintenance.

This site is primarily a recreation site where the Forest Service would have different authorities for selling timber; this may not be a standard commercial sale.

The Forest Service can spend 75% of the stumpage rates in the area if the timber is sold with a stewardship contract; money from the timber sale could be used for hazard tree removal. Additionally, if the project is designated as a “stewardship project”, stewardship credits (surplus sales receipts from other stewardship projects) could be used as well.

Ada County Highway District (ACHD) should be consulted and informed of intentions to haul down Bogus Basin Road, Harrison Boulevard.

Bogus Basin Update 3

Residents of Boise need to understand the purpose of this project; ultimately, this project would try to maintain a healthy forest cover at the ski resort.

TIMELINE Randy presented a proposed schedule. Some work on this project will be done by a third-party contractor and will be contracted out in two phases, as long as funding is available. The contractor will be functioning as the interdisciplinary team (IDT) with Forest Service oversight. The Forest has chosen to contract this work because they don’t have the staff to keep up with all of the projects on the schedule. Phase 2 would start in mid-to-late winter. If this project remains under the CE category, the Decision would be issued in July.

Phase 1 includes the following tasks:

1. Develop purpose and need

2. Develop proposed action—Contractor will begin working on this in mid-September

3. Complete forest plan consistency

4. Complete scoping documentation and begin scoping on November 6

5. Complete comment analysis in January to determine if unresolvable conflicts prevent this project from remaining under the CE category

6. Develop project record

CONSENSUS

Boise Forest Coalition members decided to meet in October to develop recommendations. The Boise National Forest was invited to attend that meeting and present their project proposal. Randy reminded the Coalition that the full Proposed Action would not be developed by October 15 but the Coalition could contribute in October to what will become the final proposed action to be presented at the November meeting.

The Boise Forest Coalition reviewed their objectives and how this project meets those objectives:

Restore forests and ecological health—The primary purpose of this project Reduce forest fuels hazards—Again, one of the primary goals of this project Create economic opportunities—The ski area is an economic opportunity. If a fire affects this area, the ski

hill will lose economic value. The Forest Service clarified that this project does not have to pay for itself through the sale of timber. Money for the project can be allocated from the Forest Service budget or moved from other timber projects using their Stewardship Authority. Economic opportunities also include creating jobs to harvest the timber and improving the health of the landscape, which promotes recreation.

Produce forest products to the extent feasible—Forest products include firewood, which could also be generated by this project.

Provide a variety of trail-related recreational pursuit and improve management of recreational uses to better address impacts on natural resources—Preserving trees will preserve a unique Ridge-to-Rivers opportunity.

Provide dispersed camping and wildlife-related opportunities—Wildlife issues cannot be part of the CE project since a CE must be focused. Benefits to wildlife can be an indirect effect and many of the treatments will promote limited wildlife habitat, including large trees and snags.

Protect designated Idaho Roadless Areas—This project would not be in a roadless area. Enhance bull trout habitat and connectivity—Bull trout would not be located in the project area. Maintain and enhance fish and wildlife habitat—Improved elk habitat would be an indirect effect from

this project

Bogus Basin Update 4

Coordinate with adjacent landowners in accomplishing objectives—This project coordinates with adjacent landowners, including the ski hill

The Boise Forest Coalition agreed on the following concerns: Haul routes Economics associated with haul routes Good public communications—manage the message Public safety on any of the haul routes What routes will be decommissioned Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs)

o Don’t use a program that will set those up to be fire routeso Need to be treated if there are dead/dying trees in this areao Manage for conservation by incorporating design features to protect the RCA while still treating in the area. Buffers can be 300 feet or the Forest Service can collect data to determine the site potential tree height in the area. o Forest Plan direction for RCAs would have to be followed, including how treatments would occur in those areas

Season of use for haul routes Time of day for use of haul routes Impacts to trails

While the Coalition agreed the Forest Service presenting the objectives well, they did not have enough information at this time to provide feedback.

CLOSING

The next meeting will be held on October 15 at 10:00 am.

The meeting adjourned at 3:00 P.M.

Bogus Basin Update 5

ATTACHMENT A—

Bogus Basin Update 6

Bogus Basin Update 7

*

Bogus Basin Update 8

Bogus Basin Update 9

Bogus Basin Update 10

Bogus Basin Update 11

Bogus Basin Update 12

Bogus Basin Update 13

Bogus Basin Update 14

Bogus Basin Update 15

Bogus Basin Update 16

Bogus Basin Update 17

Bogus Basin Update 18