Final Environmental Impact Statement Rio de los Pinos Vegetation ...

Final Environmental Impact Statement Rio de los Pinos Vegetation Management Project
Forest Service Response to Comments 1-46 thru 1-47
The project design criteria proposed to protect regeneration from livestock damage (cattle) is
built on an adaptive management principle. This means that if the starting rangeland
management tools proposed (FEIS Table 2.5-2) do not work, other tools will be implemented.
The starting point rangeland management tools are the most reasonable, cost efficient, and least
intrusive management tools for keeping livestock from damaging regeneration in the analysis
area.
Following are reasons why these tools are expected to be sufficient in protecting regeneration
from livestock damage:
• One of the tools proposed is to maintain a pasture rotation. This has been normal practice
for many years. A pasture rotation results in the cattle only being in the pasture which
contains the analysis area for more or less 25 days a year, along with varying the time of
year it is grazed. The pasture is large enough that all of the cattle are unlikely to be in the
analysis area at the same time.
• Past timber sales adjacent to the analysis area have large amounts of tree regeneration.
Few, if any, attempts were made to keep livestock out of those areas after harvest. This
indicates that cattle-grazing has not been a major factor in adversely affecting tree
regeneration within the area. Therefore, starting with drastic measures is not needed.
• Current rangeland management is even better than past management on this grazing
allotment, so response time to correct or makes changes can occur quickly.
Additionally, the analysis area is a small portion of the entire grazing pasture. The forage within
the analysis area is not the primary forage for the grazing allotment nor is it used in determining
the grazing capacity (i.e. the grazing operation is not dependent on the transitory forage that will
become available after timber harvest). The Forest Service believes the project design criteria
provide adequate protection for forest regeneration establishment.
Forest Service Response to Comment 1-48:
Thank you for the comment. The number on page 1-3 has been corrected.
Forest Service Response to Comment 1-48a:
Thank you for the comment. The text has been corrected.
Forest Service Response to Comment 1-49:
These concerns are addressed within the Environmental Impact Statement, as well as the
preceding responses.
Forest Service Response to Comment 2-1:
An adequate range of alternatives was analyzed to meet the purpose and need of this project and
address the Key Issues. Natural processes, such as beetle infestation, were considered as part of
the No Action alternative. Undeveloped alternatives were also considered in this process and are
discussed in Section 2.7 of the FEIS. The process used to develop and analyze reasonable
alternatives is discussed in Section 2.2. How each alternative addresses the purpose and need and
Key Issues is discussed in Section 2.3-2.4. The action alternatives developed give a full spectrum
Chapter 6 -- Response to Comments Page 6-8