Final Environmental Impact Statement

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Alternative 2 would produce approximately 85,750 hundred cubic feet (CCF) of commercial sawlog volume (42.875 MMBF) and approximately 33,054 cunits of POL as a byproduct of the mechanical treatments. Table 7 (page 32) summarizes Alternative 2 treatments. There are approximately 125 miles of Forest Service system roads in the project area. Of these roads, 48 miles are closed yearlong, 35 miles are open seasonally (May 15 to December 15), and 42 miles are open yearlong. In addition to Forest Service system roads, there are approximately 28 miles of County roads. The 2010 Forest Travel Management decision and associated Motorized Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) administratively closed all unauthorized roads in the project area (approximately 39 miles) and prohibited all off-road motorized travel. The proposed action includes the following modifications to the transportation system in the project area: 0.6 miles of unauthorized road is needed for access and would be converted to system road then closed following use; 0.1 mile of new road construction is required to avoid private property; and 0.9 miles of system road would be closed to protect resources either with physical closures or gates (Map 8, Appendix A). The law generally prohibits the harvest of even-aged stands before they reach their maximum growth rate [National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 16 U.S.C. 1604(m)]. Exceptions in the law allow the harvest of individual trees, or even parts or whole stands of trees, before this time to thin and improve timber stands, and salvage damaged stands of trees (part m1 of the law). Further exceptions are allowed in order to achieve multiple-use objectives other than timber management (part m2). The proposed action would harvest some trees before the maximum potential growth rate of some stands in the project area have been reached. These harvest treatments are consistent with the exceptions provided in part m2 of the law, and include the following: precommercial thinning, commercial thinning, hardwood conversion or fuelbreak treatments. These treatments are proposed to meet the Forest Plan multiple-use objectives stated earlier in this analysis. Appendix E contains silviculture findings. Design Criteria Design criteria include Forest Plan standards and guidelines, USFS Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices (WCPs), Best Management Practices, and site specific design to avoid resource impacts. They are applicable and to be implemented as a matter of standard operating procedure for the proposed action. Design criteria are applied to protect resources and forest users. All activities proposed in this project, including any post-sale activities or monitoring, must implement these design criteria. A list of project design criteria is available in Appendix B. Monitoring The Hell Canyon Ranger District is responsible for monitoring results and effects of the selected actions. The District would ensure that EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) direction including design criteria and any necessary mitigation measures are applied and carried out appropriately. Project and contract administrators would perform much of the project monitoring during project implementation. Other resource specialists would 24
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 monitor specific progress including application of design criteria and mitigation measures related to their resource of concern (See Appendix C). Alternatives Not Considered in Detail Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and to briefly discuss reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). The HFRA Sec. 104(c)(1)(C)(i)(ii) specifies consideration of additional alternative(s) meets the purpose and need of the project. Public comments received in response to the proposed action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of the project, duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or determined to be components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. Therefore, the following alternatives were considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized below. • An alternative that includes a ½ mile portion of FSR 284.1E to be eliminated and a new road be constructed to connect FSR 284 to FSR 284.1E (within T3S, R3E, Sec 12). - The existing FSR 284.1E provides adequate access for project implementation and other access needs. There is an existing Right-Of- Way (ROW) granted to the Forest Service on FSR 284.1E. Therefore it is not necessary to construct a new road and abandon the ROW to achieve project objectives and to provide access. This alternative would not contribute toward meeting the purpose and need for action. • An alternative that includes Free Selection treatment that retains an overall basal area that would be no higher than 60 BA. Including ‘islands’ within the sites that would be cut to no less than an 80 BA. Also, Sanitation treatments would occur in these ‘islands’ to treat MPB infested trees on an annual basis or until the current epidemic ends. - The Free Selection treatment is only proposed on approximately 4% of all treated pine stands in the project area. Other proposed treatments would reduce pine stand densities to 60 BA or less. Sanitation is included within sites proposed for Free Selection and other commercial treatments. Sanitation may occur for up to 5 years. Sites where Free Selection is proposed are those which have particular wildlife habitat elements. The proposed action reduces MPB risk to low on 87% of the project area. This landscape reduction of risk is expected to provide some protection to more dense stands identified as important to wildlife which are therefore, expected to withstand the MPB epidemic. • An alternative that treats sites 030303-01 & 030303-04 with Sanitation only. These sites are adjacent to Calamity Peak, a well-known landmark which holds high value for hiking and climbing. - The value of Calamity Peak as a hiking and climbing area is well known. The 2 noted sites are fairly large in size and occur on or adjacent to this Peak. Site 030303-04 is proposed as a Commercial Thin and site 030303- 25
Page 1 and 2: VESTAL PROJECT United States Depart
Page 3 and 4: Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
Page 17: OHV Off Highway Vehicle POL Product
Page 45: Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
Page 97 and 98:
Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
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 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
show all

Final Environmental Impact Statement

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

Delete template?

Save as template?