FY 2000 Commercial Thinnings 
SWIFTWATER FIELD OFFICE 
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) 
The Swiftwater Field Office, Roseburg District, Bureau of Land Management, has analyzed a proposal called the 
FY 2000 Commercial Thinnings. In the proposed action commercial thinning harvest of young growth timber 
would occur in the Upper Coast Fork of the Williamette River, Elk Creek and Little River Watersheds located in 
Sections 23 and 27, T21S R4W; and Section 7, T27S R2W; W.M. 
The EnvironmentalAssessment (EA),  OR-104-00-07, contains a description and analysis of the proposed action. 
A summary of the analysis contained in the EA shows: 
1). Approximately 650 acres were analyzed for potential harvest activity. 
2).  The project would not be expected to impact any special status plants (EA, page 9) or cultural 
resources (EA, page 15). 
4).  The EA (pg. 15) anticipated a “may effect, not likely to adversely affect” for the spotted owl and 
murrelet.  Formal consultation with the US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) has since been completed. The 
Biological Opinion (May 31, 2001) concluded that the actionis ". . .  not likely to adversely affect spotted 
owls, murrelets and their critical habitat”. 
5). The EA (pg. 15) anticipated a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect" for the Oregon Coast coho 
salmonand the OregonCoast steelhead trout.  Judge Hogan of the US District Court (District of Oregon) 
ruled in Alsea Valley Alliance v. NMFS that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) decision to 
list the coho salmonwas arbitraryand unlawful.  As a result of the September 10, 2001 ruling, consultation 
with NMFS is no longer required because no listed species are affected. 
This proposal is in conformance with the "Final - Roseburg District Proposed Resource Management Plan / 
Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/EIS) dated October 1994 and its associated Roseburg District 
Record of Decision and Resources Management Plan (RMP) dated June 2, 1995.  This proposal is located on 
lands within the Matrix and Little River Adaptive Management Area Land Use Allocations.  The RMP permits ". . . 
timber harvest and other silvicultural activities in that portion of the matrix with suitable forest lands, according to 
management actions/directions . . ." (RMP, pg. 33). This proposal would also help to provide ". . . a sustainable 
supply of timber and other forest products that will help maintain the stability of local and regional economies . . ." 
(RMP pg. 3). Two alternatives were analyzed: the "no action" and the proposed action alternative. 
1 
Finding of No Significant Impacts:  I have reviewed the tests ofsignificance as described in40 CFR 1508.27 (see 
attached). Based on the site specific analysis summarized in the EA and noted above, it is my determination that 
the proposed actiondoes not constitute a major federal action with significant impacts to the quality of the human 
environment therefore an Environmental Impact Statement does not need to be prepared.  I further find that the 
proposed activity is consistent with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives and meets or does not prevent 
attainment of these objectives.
 ____________________________________  ____________________ 
Jay K. Carlson  Date
 Swiftwater Field Manager 
2 
FY 2000 Commercial Thinning 
Test for Significant Impacts.  (516 DM 2 Appendix 2) 
1. 	Has significant adverse impacts on public health or safety? ( ) Yes (T) No 
Remarks: Considering the remoteness of the project to local population centers, and the design features 
governing the proposal, the likelihood of the project affecting public health and safetyis remote and speculative. 
2. Adversely effects suchunique geographic characteristics as historic or cultural resources, park, recreation or refuge 
lands, wilderness areas, wild or scenic rivers, sole or principal drinking water aquifers, prime farmlands, wetlands, 
floodplains or ecologically significant or critical areas including those listed on the Department's National Register of 
Natural Landmarks? ( ) Yes (T) No 
Remarks: Reviews (Cultural, Recreation, Wildlife, Hydrology and Fisheries) does not showthat the proposed 
action would affect any of the above characteristics (EA, pg. 19). 
3. 	Has highly controversial effects? ( ) Yes (T) No 
Remarks:  No controversial effects are noted as a result of environmental analysis or public review. 
4.  Has highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects or involves unique or unknown environmental 
risks?	 ( ) Yes ( T) No 
Remarks:  The analysis does not indicate that this action would involve unique or unknown risks. 
5.  Establishes a precedent for future action or represents a decision in principle about future actions with potentially 
significant environmental effects?	 ( ) Yes (T ) No 
Remarks: The advertisement, auction, and award of a timber sale contract allowing the harvest of trees is a 
well-established practice and does not establish a precedent for future actions. 
6.  Is directly related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant environmental effects? 
( ) Yes ( T) No 
Remarks:  We find that this action would not have a cumulatively significant impact on the environment beyond 
that already identified in the EIS. 
7. Has adverse effects on properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places? 
( ) Yes ( T) No 
Remarks:  The Cultural Report does not indicate that this action would not adversely affect any sites, 
structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 
8.  Has adverse effects on species listed or proposed for listing on the List of Endangered or Threatened Species or have 
adverse effects on designated Critical Habitat for these species? 
Aquatic Species ( ) Yes (T) No 
Botanical Species ( ) Yes (T) No 
Terrestrial Species ( ) Yes (T) No 
Remarks:. Consultation with NMFS is not required as a result of the Hoganruling (Sept. 10, 2001). 
Botanical surveys do not indicate the presence of any T&E plants.  Consultation by FWS did not result 
in a "jeopardy" call for T&E species. 
3 
9. Requires compliance with Executive Order 11988 (Floodplains Management), Executive Order 11990 (Protection 
of Wetlands), or the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act?	 ( ) Yes ( T) No 
Remarks: Area is not within a floodplain.  “The selected alternative complies with Executive Order 11990 
. . .” (ROD, pg. 51). Project has been coordinated with FWS. 
10. Threatens to violate Federal, State, local, or tribal law or requirement imposed for the protectionof the environment. 
( )Yes (T ) No 
Remarks:  We find that this actionwould not threatena violationofFederal, State, local or tribal law imposed 
for the protection of the environment. 
4