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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Final Environmental Impact Statement Rio de los Pinos Vegetation Management Project Forest Service Response to Comment 2-11: Please see Forest Service Response 2-3 concerning wildlife corridors, Response 2-4 concerning consideration of impacts to wildlife habitat, and Response 2-10 concerning impacts specific to the boreal owl. Forest Service Response to Comment 2-12: Effects of this project on Birds of Conservation Concern were analyzed in the Migratory Bird Report and Biological Evaluation prepared for this project. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and Migratory bird habitat will change regardless of whether or not this area is harvested, due to the large beetle infestation. Project Design Criteria (for Alternatives 2 and 3) are in place (Table 2.5-1 in the FEIS) to protect and/or reduce potential impacts to migratory birds. Forest Service Response to Comment 2-13: Determinations and rationale for impacts to viability of R2 Sensitive Species as a result of this project have been documented in the Biological Evaluation. Project design criteria (conservation measures, see Table 2.5-1 in the FEIS) and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines will reduce impacts to species and help ensure their continued viability. These measures would also help protect bird Species of Concern, which have been analyzed in the Migratory Bird report. Forest Service Response to Comment 2-14: This area is not part of the South San Juan Wilderness; no harvesting is permitted or proposed in wilderness areas. The analysis does take in consideration past, present, and future actions in determining cumulative impacts to lynx (FEIS section 3.8). See also Forest Service Response 2- 3 concerning linkage and corridors. The Biological Assessment provides a detailed analysis of the anticipated impacts of this project upon Canada Lynx. This project meets the Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines in the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment, which provides current direction for the conservation of lynx in this area. Forest Service Response to Comment 2-15: The removal of timber, the temporary opening of roads, and the increased opportunity for human interaction are all considered in section 3.8 of the FEIS, as well as in the Biological Assessment. The proposed activities are allowed under the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment (SRLA) to the Forest Plan and are measured against thresholds established within it. The SRLA is a lynx conservation plan focused on lynx recovery. Impacts to Region 2 Sensitive Species and associated conservation measures were analyzed in the Biological Evaluation for this project. Forest Service Response to Comment 2-16: Thank you for your comments. These concerns are addressed within the Final Environmental Impact Statement, as well as the preceding responses. Forest Service Response to Comment 3-1 thru 3-3: Thank you for your comments concerning the scope, clarity, and subsequent rating of this analysis. Chapter 6 -- Response to Comments Page 6-11
Page 1 and 2:
United States Department of Agricul
Page 3 and 4:
Final Environmental Impact Statemen
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104: Final Environmental Impact Statemen
Page 153: Final Environmental Impact Statemen
Page 157: Final Environmental Impact Statemen
Page 161: µ Unit 3 Unit 4 Rio de los Pinos -
Page 175 and 176: Jack Lewis Conejos Peak RD 15571 CR
Page 177 and 178: Colorado Wild Page 3 Under alternat
Page 179 and 180: Colorado Wild Page 5 to help provid
Page 181 and 182: Colorado Wild Page 7 it is difficul
Page 183 and 184: Colorado Wild Page 9 be avoided to
Page 185: Colorado Wild Page 11 USDA Forest S
Page 188 and 189: 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6
Page 190 and 191: 2-7 2-8
Page 192 and 193: 2-10 2-11
Page 194 and 195: 2-12 2-13 2-14
Page 196 and 197: 2-15
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?