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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Final Environmental Impact Statement Rio de los Pinos Vegetation Management Project Existing vegetation on cut and fill slopes would be retained as much as possible to limit sediment movement away from road. New road locations have been carefully planned to minimize potential for sediment input to stream courses. Approximately 0.2 miles of new temporary road would need to be built. Locations have been chosen to minimize stream crossings and where one does occur it is at a right angle. Several segments of existing system road to be reopened are within the WIZ (within 100 feet) of small perennial streams. These areas will be the focus of inspections by hydrology or soils specialists or their designees to ensure sediment sources are disconnected from the stream channels. Hardening, filter fence, timber slash windrows, and straw wattles will be used as appropriate where drainage cannot be directed to adequate buffer strips along these reaches. Following timber and reforestation operations, new temporary roads constructed for this project would be closed and obliterated. Several spur roads off Forest Road118 would be closed and rehabilitated. This would further reduce long-term sediment sources that could find their way into stream channels. In addition, 0.8 miles of Forest Road 118.2 will be closed, decommissioned, and converted to a hiking trail while a separate 0.4 miles of FSR 118.2 would also be decommissioned. Closing and decommissioning these road segments that runs parallel to the main stem of the Rio de Los Pinos would reduce sediment impacts from travel and associated activities along the road. As described in the existing condition section and shown in Tables 3.6-1 and 3.6-2, disturbance levels within the small 7 th level watershed of concern within the Rio del los Pinos watershed would increase under all action alternatives. Stream health was carefully assessed in 2003, 2004, and 2008. As described in the current condition section, stream health was determined to be robust and has recovered well from past disturbance. Forest Plan standards and guidelines and additional project design criteria would ensure impacts to stream health in this small watershed are minimal. Monitoring of stream channels within and adjacent to harvest areas would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 to verify project design criteria effectiveness. Alternative 2 would cause more surface disturbance than alternative 3 because more area would be accessed with harvesting equipment. Impacts resulting from this alternative would be considered acceptable as long as standards and guidelines and the project design criteria are followed. Deteriorated stream health would not be expected. Alternative 3 – Reduced Salvage Harvest Impacts from timber harvest and road work would be similar to impacts described for Alternative 2. However, amount of old road reopened would be less, 2.5 miles as compared to 3.3 miles. No new temporary road construction would occur under Alternative 3. Conversion of 0.8 miles of Forest Road 118.2 into a trail would also occur under this alternative, as well as the additional 0.4 mile of road decommissioning. Less surface disturbance would occur in the watershed with most activity occurring in the south and central portion of the project area (Table 3.6-2). The risk of direct impacts to watershed and stream health would still be within acceptable limits as Chapter 3 – Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences Page 3-26
Final Environmental Impact Statement Rio de los Pinos Vegetation Management Project current standards and guidelines and project design criteria are implemented. Similar to alternative 2, project design criteria, including remedial work, should correct watershed concernss from the past and allow stream health to improve over time. Table 3.6-2. Watershed Disturbance Levels Alternative 3. 6 th Level 7 th Level 7 th Level Watershed of Concern 130100050501 13010005050102 13010005050101 Total Acres Acres of 11,420 7,111 1,064 previous watershed disturbance 1,294 --11.3% 379.3 --5.3% 149.2 --14.0% Total +Salvage 49.8 +Salvage 39.1 +Salvage 10.7 acres* Disturbance acres* acres* including +Recent Timber Sales: 24.9* acreage of Rio +Recent Timber +Road +Road const/Reopen: 0.65 acres de los Pinos Sales: 24.9* const/Reopen 1.85 Salvage, acres recent timber + Road sales, and new const/Reopen 3.7 temporary and system road acres TOTAL % 12.0 TOTAL % 5.9 TOTAL % 17.4 * Total equivalent disturbance acreage (as related to road disturbance) within a timber harvest project is calculated as 10% of the total harvest unit area. This is disturbance within a land unit that results from skid trail spacing of 100 feet. Table 3.6-3 summarizes the direct and indirect effects of the proposed project disturbances on a watershed analysis scale. No alternatives would change chemical quality of water. Table 3.6-3. Effects checklist. Alt 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS Physical: Sediment No effect Minor effect Minor effect Bed/bank stability No effect Minor effect Minor effect Flow regimes No effect Minor effect Minor effect Chemical: Temperature No effect Minor effect Minor effect Water Purity No effect Minor effect Minor effect Biological: Aquatic life No effect Minor effect Minor effect SPECIAL AREAS Riparian ecosystems No effect Minor effect Minor effect Wetlands No effect Minor effect Minor effect Floodplains No effect Minor effect Minor effect CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Aquatic ecosystems Major effect* Minor effect Minor effect Riparian ecosystems Major effect* Minor effect Minor effect NOTE: This checklist ensures that all required effects are analyzed, gives a snapshot of all effects, and identifies items to dismiss from rigorous analysis. Effects shown assume full implementation of protection measures. * Major effect determination is based on: 1) the likelihood of a more intense and severe fire if one should occur. Chapter 3 – Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences Page 3-27
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: Final Environmental Impact Statemen
Page 61: Final Environmental Impact Statemen
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157:
Page 161:
µ Unit 3 Unit 4 Rio de los Pinos -
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
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?