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

Final Environmental Impact Statement Rio de los Pinos Vegetation Management Project
of treatment options which accomplish the purpose and need while addressing Key Issues and
comply with NEPA direction.
Forest Service Response to Comment 2-2:
The DEIS does not discuss risk of blowdown near the Continental Divide Trail because no
harvesting is proposed near the trail. The CDT is approximately ½ mile upslope and to the west
of proposed harvest activities. The trail closest to the project is the 736 “Los Pinos” trail, which
starts at the northern tip of Unit 1. The trailhead is the only trail feature within proximity of the
harvest area; the trail tracks away from the project. Forest Plan standards are also met for
retaining wildlife trees within each unit.
Forest Service Response to Comment 2-3:
Effects to Canada Lynx have been fully disclosed in the Biological Assessment and Specialist
Report for Threatened and Endangered Species prepared for this project. There are no
designated lynx linkage zones within this Analysis Area. Effects upon other species are
addressed in the Wildlife Biological Evaluation and Specialist Report for Sensitive Species under
each individual species’ heading. Wildlife corridors were considered in the effects analyses as
appropriate, and (for some species) no-cut Water Influence Zones are expected to provide a longterm
contribution to the existence of these corridors within the project area (FEIS section 3.8),
and between the project area and adjacent areas. Harvest boundaries are approximately 2000’
below timberline, which provides additional corridors for wildlife travel. Additionally, the
Forest Service believes that buffers are not needed along no-cut areas (Wilderness areas,
Roadless areas, Backcountry, WIZ, etc.). These management prescriptions and resource
protections provide adequate habitat for wildlife within the respective analysis areas, as
determined in the FEIS.
Forest Service Response to Comment 2-4:
The effects of all alternatives on wildlife habitat were considered for Threatened & Endangered
Species, Region 2 Sensitive Species, Forest Management Indicator Species, and other wildlife
species (FEIS section 3.8 to 3.9). Changes in habitat for many species would occur under all
alternatives, including the no action alternative. Project design criteria have been included for
both action alternatives to help conserve important habitat attributes.
Forest Service Response to Comment 2-5:
The Forest Service already protects wildlife corridors and linkage areas for wildlife passage. See
response to comment 2-3. The San Luis Valley Public Lands Center has already begun working
with the states of Colorado and New Mexico regarding this M.O.U., and intends to continue
involvement as this effort progresses.
Forest Service Response to Comment 2-6:
The Forest Service disagrees with this comment. As calculated from Table 2.3.2-1 and Table
2.3.3-1 (DEIS) and compared to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 decreases road maintenance by
16.8%, decreases combined road reconstruction by 19.8%, totally eliminates temporary road
construction, and reduces the length of old road to be temporarily re-opened by 24.2%. The
comment also fails to acknowledge the No Action alternative, which proposes no road
reconstruction, temporary road construction, or old road re-opening. Road costs are absorbed by
Chapter 6 -- Response to Comments Page 6-9