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

Final Environmental Impact Statement Rio de los Pinos Vegetation Management Project
timber sales, and most road drainage issues which currently affect the watershed cannot be fixed
without this revenue.
Forest Service Response to Comment 2-7:
The number and location of reopened roads have been carefully chosen to minimize impacts to
stream and watershed health. The reopened old road segment and new temporary road segment
in the 7 th level watershed of concern are on dry ridge areas and do not lie within the water
influence zone. As discussed in the DEIS on page 3-19, a “watershed of concern” designation
does not preclude new land disturbance within the watershed but does require specific watershed
analysis prior to any new land-disturbing activities (Dobson, 1996). This EIS provides that
specific analysis. See also Forest Service Response 1-8 concerning allowed disturbance levels.
As stated previously, locations of roads to be reopened have been chosen to minimize impacts to
watershed resources. In addition, strict design criteria regarding roads will further reduce
sedimentation impacts at stream crossings (FEIS Tables 2.5-5 and 2.5-6).
Alternative 3 varies from Alternative 2 in that it avoids areas with higher drainage density in the
southwest portion of the 7 th level watershed of concern and reduces harvest are by 40%. No
steep slope areas are harvested in this watershed. Overall, Alternative 3 does reduce harvest
acreage on steep slopes by about 50% in units to the north.
Forest Service Response to Comment 2-8:
Patch cuts were incorporated in the action alternatives to meet scenic integrity objectives (FEIS
section 1.3; table 2.5-8; section 3.5). The affects of these patch cuts on wildlife species were
fully considered in the analysis (FEIS sections 3.8 to 3.9). Although patch cuts would be
expected to help improve overall habitat diversity, these particular patch cuts would be very
similar to the rest of the harvest areas, since trees under 8”dbh would remain uncut.
Forest Service Response to Comment 2-9:
The project meets Forest Plan standards and complies with NFMA direction concerning wildlife
habitat.
Forest Service Response to Comment 2-9a:
Please see Forest Service Responses 2-3 and 2-4 concerning wildlife habitat analysis. Various
wildlife species, including the Boreal Owl, were analyzed for this project (see Biological
Evaluation).
Forest Service Response to Comment 2-10:
The affects of the action alternatives on boreal owls and boreal owl habitat were considered in
the Biological Evaluation prepared for this analysis, in addition to sections 3.8 and 3.9 of the
FEIS. All alternatives, including the no action, are anticipated to impact boreal owls due to
habitat loss to the ongoing beetle infestation. However, the anticipated cumulative effect on the
species is “May impact individuals, but would not likely contribute to a loss of species viability”
for all alternatives (FEIS section 3.8).
Chapter 6 -- Response to Comments Page 6-10