mud slinger commercial thinning and density … thinning and density management. ... mud slinger...

Preparation Date: June 21, 2011

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Roseburg BLM District, Oregon

Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management

Decision Document

SECTION 1 – THE DECISION

Decision

It is my decision to authorize the Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management portion of

the Proposed Action Alternative as described in the Mud Den Commercial Thinning Environmental

Assessment (EA) in Chapters 1 and 2 (NEPA#: DOI-BLM-OR-R040-2010-003-EA; pgs. 5-15) and as

updated in the Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DOI-BLM-OR-R040-2011-005-DNA) and below (q.v.

pgs. 1-4). The Project Design Features that will be implemented as part of Mud Slinger Commercial

Thinning and Density Management are described on pages 6-15 of the Mud Den Commercial Thinning

EA. These project design features have been developed into contract stipulations and will be

implemented as part of the timber sale contract. Sub-alternatives A, B, and C, analyzed in the EA, will

not be implemented as part of this decision.

Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management will occur on four units (approximately 127

acres) of second-growth forest approximately 34-54 years old located in the Upper Umpqua River, Deer

Creek-South Umpqua River, and South Fork Coos River watersheds in Sections 31, 32, and 33 of T. 26

S., R. 7 W., Willamette Meridian (Figure 1). In addition, approximately 2 acres will be removed for the

development of spur roads and rights-of-ways.

This project is within the Timber Management Area (TMA) and Late-Successional Management Area

(LSMA) Land Use Allocations under the 2008 Roseburg District Record of Decision and Resource

Management Plan (2008 ROD/RMP). Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management will

provide approximately 2,366 thousand board feet (2,366 MBF) of timber available for auction.

Updated Information

The updated information, described below, has been considered, but does not alter the conclusions of the

analysis.

1) Unit Configuration:

Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management will thin approximately 18 acres within

the TMA and 109 acres within the LSMA land use allocation (Table 1, Figure 2). In addition,

approximately 2 acres within TMA and LSMA will be removed for the development of spur roads

and rights-of-ways (Table 1).

Approximately 236 acres will be excluded (net difference) from the final unit configuration of Mud

Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management as compared to what was described in the

EA (363 acres; pgs. 1, 7) for the following reasons:

Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management 1 Decision Document

Approximately 88 acres will be excluded from thinning because they are within areas that

have poor stocking and low volume and are not currently considered suitable for thinning.

Approximately 22 acres will be excluded from Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and

Density Management because the BLM does not have access rights across adjacent lands at

this time.

Approximately 52 acres will be excluded from thinning because the irregular topography (i.e.

cliffs and large boulders) is not conducive to conventional yarding and helicopter yarding

would not be economical at this time.

Approximately 5 acres will be excluded from thinning because it is within a “no-harvest”

stream buffer (60 feet [EA, pg. 39]) established to protect water pipes and structures

associated with a surface water right to protect the water diversion from harvest activities.

Approximately 32 acres will be excluded from thinning because it is within “no-harvest”

stream buffers (i.e. 35 or 60 feet [EA, pgs. 7-8]) or in blind areas created by the convergence

of these stream buffers.

Approximately 36 acres will be excluded from Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and

Density Management because there is suitable marble murrelet habitat intermingled in the

stand.

Approximately 1 acre will be excluded from harvest (net subtraction) as a result of

refinements and adjustments in map accuracy from GPS locations of unit boundaries.

Table 1. Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management Land Use Allocations.

Land Use Allocation Roads/Rights-of-Way

(acres) (acres)

Unit EA Unit1 Township-Range-

Section

Unit

Acres TMA

Riparian

Management

Area

LSMA TMA

Riparian

Management

Area

LSMA

Private

Land

1 33A (in part) T26S-R07W-Sec. 33 82 0 0 82 0 0 0.3 0

2 32A T26S-R07W-Sec. 32 15 0 0 15 0 0 1.0 0.2

3 33A (in part) T26S-R07W-Sec. 33 12 0 0 12 0 0 0.3 0

4 31D T26S-R07W-Sec. 31 18 18 0 0 0.3 0 0 0.2

Total 127 18 0 109 0.3 0 1.6 0.4 1 Units 29A, 31A, 31B, 31C, and portions of Unit 33A as proposed in the EA (pgs. 7 & 92) will not be included as part of

the Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management.

Within Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management, there will be approximately 48

acres of ground-based yarding and approximately 79 acres of cable yarding. Formerly, approximately

37 acres were proposed for ground-based yarding, 8 acres were proposed for cable yarding, and 318

acres were proposed as a combination of ground-based and/or cable-yarding in the EA (pg. 7) with a

sub-alternative that considered helicopter yarding 62 acres (EA, pg. 15). In addition, the 2 acres

removed for the development of spur roads and rights-of-ways will be ground-based yarded (formerly

5 acres were proposed for right-of-ways or roads in the EA, pg. 1).

2) Roads & Spurs:

The spur roads in Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management have been re-

numbered as shown in Table 2: Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management Roads

& Spurs. There will be approximately 3,360 feet of spur roads constructed (formerly 8,385 feet were

proposed in the EA, pg. 12).


No existing roads will be renovated as part of the Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density

Management decision (formerly 27,575 feet were proposed in the EA, pg. 12) but 27,826 feet will be

maintained (formerly 27,100 feet were proposed in the EA, pg. 12). The 26-7-31.0, 26-7-29.2, and

26-8-27.0 roads were proposed to be renovated in the EA but will not be used as part of the Mud

Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management project. The 26-7-31.1 and 26-7-33.0 roads

that were formerly proposed for renovation under the EA will be maintained instead and they account

for the additional length of road to be maintained under this decision. Maintenance of existing roads

will include the placement of road rock where rock surfacing already exists, blading of the driving

surface, and brushing of road shoulders.

Approximately 3,360 feet of spurs will be decommissioned in Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and

Density Management (formerly 8,385 feet were proposed in the EA, pg. 12). There will be less

decommissioning (i.e. net difference of 5,025 feet) authorized in this decision than proposed in the

EA because there will be 5,025 feet (net difference) less road construction than identified in the EA

(pg. 12). Decommissioning will include water-barring, mulching the road surface with logging slash

or straw, and blocking with a trench barrier on 980 feet of spurs after harvest operations are complete

(Table 2; EA, pg. 12). An additional 2,380 feet of spurs will be decommissioned by subsoiling, as

well as, water-barring, mulching the road surface with logging slash, and blocking with a trench

barrier after harvest operations are complete (Table 2; EA, pg. 12). It is my decision that mulching of

roads on BLM-administered lands will be done with logging slash, and not with straw, since logging

slash serves to discourage unauthorized use of the decommissioned spur roads as well as providing

erosion control.

In addition, upon completion of logging operations, approximately 4,450 feet of pre-existing skid

trails and landings that have heavy residual soil impacts will be subsoiled, waterbarred, and mulched

with logging slash. These skid trails and landings will be subsoiled to prevent erosion, improve soil

productivity, and are not expected to be needed for timber management in the near future.

3) Marbled Murrelet Restrictions:

Portions of Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management Unit 1 and Spurs 2 and 3

are within 100 yards (the disruption distance for marbled murrelets) of the occupied marbled murrelet

site. Therefore, thinning activities within Unit 1 and spur road construction, use, and

decommissioning will have the seasonal restrictions and daily operating restrictions that were

described in the EA (pg. 14). These restrictions are designed to avoid disruption to nesting marbled

murrelets. Prescribed burning within 440 yards of unsurveyed suitable marbled murrelet habitat or

the occupied marbled murrelet site will be seasonally restricted from April 1 through August 5 in

order to avoid disrupting marbled murrelets that may be nesting (EA, pg. 14).

There is unsurveyed suitable marbled murrelet habitat adjacent to the northwest corner of Unit 4.

Therefore, Daily Operating Restrictions from April 1 to August 5 will apply to all harvest activities

(e.g. falling, bucking, and yarding of timber) within 100 yards of the unsurveyed suitable habitat.

Under Daily Operating Restrictions, operations may occur from two hours after sunrise until two

hours before sunset.

4) Peregrine Falcon Seasonal Restrictions:

The seasonal restrictions within the one mile protection buffer for the Peregrine Falcon as proposed in

the EA (pg. 15) will not apply to Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management. Mud

Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management is not within the protection buffer for the

peregrine falcon nest and therefore seasonal restrictions are not necessary.


Table 2. Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management Roads & Spurs1

Road/Spur #

New

Temporary

Construction

Renovation Surfacing Decommissioning

(in the EA)2 (in Decision) (feet) (feet) Existing Proposed (feet) How Decommissioned

Spur MS7 26-7-31.1 620 0 None Native 405 Water-bar, mulch, block

215 Water-bar, straw mulch, block

Spur MS10 Spur 1 180 0 None Native 180 Subsoil, water-bar, mulch, block


Spur 3+ 125 0 None Native 125 Subsoil, water-bar, mulch, block




Spur MS16 26-7-32.2 450 0 None Native 368 Subsoil, water-bar, mulch, block


Spur 7+ 870 0 None Native 870 Subsoil, water-bar, mulch, block

Spur MS17 27-7-5.1 437 0 None Native 159 Subsoil, water-bar, mulch, block


Unnamed road in

T26S, R7W,

Section 31

26-7-31.1 Maintenance

only Native Native none

26-7-33.0 Maintenance

only Rock Rock none

TOTAL 3,360 0 3,360

1Approximately 27,827 feet of existing roads would be maintained for Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management in

addition to the roads and spurs described in the table. 2Spurs MS1, MS2, MS4, MS5, MS6, and MS13 as proposed in the EA (pgs. 10-12, 92) will not be constructed as part of the Mud Slinger

Commercial Thinning and Density Management; roads 26-7-29.2, 26-7-31.0, 26-7-31.1, 26-7-33.0, and 26-8-27.0 will not be renovated as

proposed in the EA (pgs. 10-12, 92) as part of Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management.

+Roads or Spurs not specifically analyzed within the Mud Den Commercial Thinning Environmental Assessment were analyzed in the

Determination of NEPA Adequacy DOI-BLM-OR-R040-2011-005-DNA that tiers to the Mud Den Commercial Thinning EA (DOI-BLM-

OR-R040-2010-003-EA).

5) Consultation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:

Consultation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) has been completed for the northern

spotted owl and marbled murrelet for Actions Proposed by the Roseburg District BLM for Fiscal

Years 2011-2013. A Biological Opinion was received from the USFWS (Roseburg District BLM

Fiscal Year 2011-2013 Program of Activities [Tails#: 13420-2011-F-0012]) dated December 28,

2010. The Biological Opinion stated (pgs. 64-65) that thinning of dispersal habitat is likely to

adversely affect northern spotted owls by negatively affecting forage species (e.g. flying squirrels)

that the northern spotted owl may feed upon. However, the USFWS concluded in their Biological

Opinion (pg. 82, Ref. No. 13420-2011-F-0012) that the Roseburg District’s timber sale program

(which included the Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management project) are not

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the northern spotted owl because thinning is not likely

to completely eliminate mammalian prey species and the network of reserved land use allocations

would maintain a sufficient amount of dispersal habitat. The USFWS concluded that the proposed

commercial thinning and density management will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival

or recovery of the northern spotted owl or marbled murrelet.


Compliance and Monitoring

Compliance with this decision will be ensured by frequent on-the-ground inspections by the Contracting

Officer’s Representative. Monitoring will be conducted as indicated in the EA (pg. 1).

SECTION 2 – THE DECISION RATIONALE

The Project Design Features described in the Mud Den Commercial Thinning EA (pgs. 6-15) will

minimize soil compaction, limit erosion, and protect slope stability, wildlife habitat, fish habitat, air and

water quality, as well as other identified resource values. I have reviewed the resource information

contained in the EA and the updated information presented in this decision.

Conformance

The Roseburg District initiated planning and design for this project to conform and be consistent with the

Roseburg District’s 1995 ROD/RMP. Following the March 31, 2011 decision by the United States

District Court for the District of Columbia in Douglas Timber Operators et al. v. Salazar, which vacated

and remanded the administrative withdrawal of the Roseburg District’s 2008 ROD/RMP, we evaluated

this project for consistency with both the 1995 ROD/RMP and the 2008 ROD/RMP. Based upon this

review, the selected alternative contains some design features not mentioned specifically in the 2008

ROD/RMP.

The thinning prescription for Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management was designed

and trees were marked using General Forest Management Area (GFMA), Late-Successional Reserve

(LSR), and Riparian Reserve management direction under the 1995 ROD/RMP. Mud Slinger

Commercial Thinning and Density Management is in TMA and LSMA under the 2008 ROD/RMP. In a

broad sense, the project design (i.e. thinning prescription) is consistent with either the 1995 ROD/RMP or

2008 ROD/RMP. However, the width of the Riparian Management Area (RMA) under the 2008

ROD/RMP is half (or less) the width of the Riparian Reserve under the 1995 ROD/RMP. The

prescription within the Riparian Reserve was designed to promote increased diameter growth, improved

stem and root strength, cessation of crown recession, release of understory vegetation and increased

potential for new tree and shrub understory regeneration (EA, pg. 19). Therefore, Unit 4, which is in

TMA under the 2008 ROD/RMP, will have narrow strips (e.g. ~90 feet) where the residual stand will

have less than full site occupancy. Implementation of this Riparian Reserve based marking prescription

on less than 1 acre of Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management would not conform to

the management direction for the TMA to "Maintain stand densities through commercial thinning at

levels above that needed to occupy the site, but below densities that will result in loss of stand vigor and

health" (2008 ROD/RMP, pg. 38). Following thinning the site will not be fully occupied by conifers (e.g.

Relative Density > 0.35) due to the release of the understory vegetation and shrub regeneration (EA, pg.

19); however, thinning will maintain or increase growth rates of retained species and promote stem

quality and tree vigor (EA, pg. 19). Essentially the Riparian Reserve marking prescription conforms to

the 2008 ROD/RMP because the resulting stand density on less than 1 acre dispersed within the unit

would not be discernible on the ground.

The 2008 ROD/RMP did not preclude use of these design features, and the use of these design features is

clearly consistent with the goals and objectives in the 2008 ROD/RMP. Accordingly, this project is

consistent with the Roseburg District’s 1995 ROD/RMP and the 2008 ROD/RMP.

The implementation of this project will not have significant environmental effects beyond those already

identified in the 2008 Final EIS/Proposed RMP. Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density

Management does not constitute a major federal action having significant effects on the human

environment; therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared.


Chapter 2 of the EA describes two alternatives: a "No Action" alternative and a "Proposed Action"

alternative and three sub-alternatives of the Proposed Action Alternative. The No Action alternative was

not selected because it did not meet the stated need and purpose of the Mud Den Commercial Thinning

project (EA, pg. 1) to reduce stand densities through thinning prescriptions to maintain stand vigor and

improve wildlife habitat. In addition, the No Action alternative was not selected because it did not meet

the following objectives in the Mud Den Commercial Thinning EA (pgs. 2-3):

Comply with Section 1 of the O&C Act (43 USC § 1181a) which stipulates that O & C Lands be

managed “… for permanent forest production, and the timber thereon shall be sold, cut, and

removed in conformity with the principal of sustained yield for the purpose of providing a

permanent source of timber supply, protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow, and

contributing to the economic stability of local communities and industries, and providing

recreational facilities…”

Select logging systems based on the suitability and economic efficiency of each system for the

successful implementation of the silvicultural prescription, for the protection of soil and water

quality, and for meeting other land use objectives. Also, provide a harvest plan flexible enough

to facilitate harvesting within a three year timber sale contract.

Seek a balance between reducing the risk of wildfire and a fuel profile that supports land

allocation objectives.

Perform commercial thinning on forest stands less than 80 years of age. Design commercial

thinning to assure high levels of volume productivity.

Apply silvicultural treatments to restore large conifers and perform density management to help

forest stands develop late-successional characteristics.

Apply silvicultural treatments that would be beneficial to the creation of late-successional forest

conditions and would put stands on a developmental pathway that would reduce the risk of stand

loss to maintain long-term habitat viability.

Sub-alternative A proposed in the EA (pg. 15) offered an alternative of helicopter yarding 14 acres of

Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management Unit 29A and 48 acres of Mud Slinger

Commercial Thinning and Density Management Unit 33A instead of cable-yarding those acres. Sub-

alternative A was not selected for implementation under Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density

Management because helicopter yarding is not considered an economical method of timber harvesting at

this time. Typical expenses for helicopter yarding are approximately $350 per 1,000 board feet (1MBF)

in contrast to the cost for ground-based yarding ($33 per 1MBF) and cable-yarding systems ($96 per

1MBF). Based on these expenses and the current value of logs that would typically be produced by a

thinning operation such as those in Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management,

extensive use of helicopter yarding would not produce an economically viable timbersale.

Sub-alternatives B and C (EA, pg. 16) focused on how to renovate and decommission the 26-7-29.0 road

and the 26-7-32.0 road. The portion of sub-alternatives B and C involving the 26-7-29.0 road is not

pertinent to this Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management Decision and is not part of

the action to be implemented under this decision. The 26-7-32.0 road is in the vicinity of Mud Slinger

Commercial Thinning and Density Management; however, it will not be used by the timber sale.

Therefore, the 26-7-32.0 road will not be renovated nor decommissioned as part of Mud Slinger

Commercial Thinning and Density Management. The BLM would consider this road when developing

the Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Plan (CTTMP).


Survey & Manage

The Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management project is consistent with Court Orders

relating to the Survey and Manage mitigation measure of the Northwest Forest Plan, as incorporated into

the Roseburg District’s 1995 ROD/RMP.

On December 17, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an Order in

Conservation Northwest, et al. v. Rey, et al., No. 08-1067 (W.D. Wash.) (Judge Coughenour), granting

Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and finding a variety of NEPA violations in the BLM

and USFS 2007 Record of Decision eliminating the Survey and Manage mitigation measure. Previously,

in 2006, the District Court (Judge Pechman) had invalidated the agencies’ 2004 RODs eliminating Survey

and Manage due to NEPA violations. Following the District Court’s 2006 ruling, parties to the litigation

had entered into a stipulation exempting certain categories of activities from the Survey and Manage

standard (hereinafter referred to as “Pechman Exemptions”).

Judge Pechman's Order from October 11, 2006 directs: "Defendants shall not authorize, allow, or permit

to continue any logging or other ground-disturbing activities on projects to which the 2004 ROD applied

unless such activities are in compliance with the 2001 ROD (as the 2001 ROD was amended or modified

as of March 21, 2004), except that this order will not apply to:

(a) Thinning projects in stands younger than 80 years old (emphasis added);

(b) Replacing culverts on roads that are in use and part of the road system, and removing culverts if

the road is temporary or to be decommissioned;

(c) Riparian and stream improvement projects where the riparian work is riparian planting, obtaining

material for placing in-stream, and road or trail decommissioning; and where the stream

improvement work is the placement large wood, channel and floodplain reconstruction, or

removal of channel diversions; and

(d) The portions of project involving hazardous fuel treatments where prescribed fire is applied. Any

portion of a hazardous fuel treatment project involving commercial logging will remain subject to

the survey and management requirements except for thinning of stands younger than 80 years old

under subparagraph (a) of this paragraph.”

Following the Court’s December 17, 2009 ruling, the Pechman exemptions are still in place. Judge

Coughenour deferred issuing a remedy in his December 17, 2009 order until further proceedings and did

not enjoin the BLM from proceeding with projects. Nevertheless, I have reviewed the Mud Slinger

Commercial Thinning and Density Management project in consideration of both the December 17, 2009

and October 11, 2006 Orders. Because the Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management

project entails no regeneration harvest and entails thinning only in stands 34-54 years old, I have made the

determination that this project meets exemption “a” of the Pechman Exemptions (October 11, 2006

Order) and therefore may still proceed to be offered for sale even if the District Court sets aside or

otherwise enjoins use of the 2007 Survey and Manage Record of Decision since the Pechman Exemptions

would remain valid in such case. The first notice for sale will appear in The News-Review, Roseburg,

Oregon on June 28, 2011.

SECTION 3 – PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The BLM solicited comments from affected tribal governments, adjacent landowners, affected State and

local government agencies, and the general public on the Mud Den Commercial Thinning EA, which

included the Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management project, during a 30-day public

comment period (June 8, – July 8, 2010). Fifteen sets of comments were received as a result of the public

comment period.


Upon reviewing the comments, the following topics warrant additional clarification that is pertinent to the

Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management project: 1) Roads 2) OHV Use &

Enforcement 3) Seasonal Restrictions for Marbled Murrelets 4) Species & Structural Diversity of Forest

Stands 5) Carbon Storage and 6) South Fork Coos River Watershed Analysis.

1) Roads

Comments were received that claimed the amount of road and spur construction proposed in the

EA was excessive (particularly in Riparian Reserves) and inquired about the permanence of

“temporary” roads.

As stated in the Updated Information previously, considerably less road construction and

renovation (32,600 feet less) will be authorized for Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and

Density Management under this decision than was proposed in the EA and there will be no road

construction or renovation within Riparian Reserves. There will be 3,360 feet of spur roads

constructed and no roads renovated in Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density

Management (Table 2), while 8,385 feet of spur road construction and 27,575 feet of renovation

were proposed in the EA (Table 3c, pg. 12). As indicated previously (Table 2) and in the EA (pg.

12), 980 feet of spur roads will be decommissioned by water-barring, mulching the road surface

with logging slash or straw, and by blocking with a trench barrier on spurs after harvest

operations are complete. An additional 2,380 feet of spurs will be decommissioned by

subsoiling, as well as, water-barring, mulching the road surface with logging slash, and by

blocking with a trench barrier after harvest operations are complete (Table 2; EA, pg. 12).

Roads being decommissioned under this Decision and the method of decommissioning were

described previously in Table 2: Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management

Roads & Spurs (pg. 3). Based on 1995 ROD/RMP guidance (pg. 133), temporary roads (i.e.

those not needed for continued resource management) will be left in an “erosion-resistant”

condition to minimize drainage problems and sediment delivery to streams by using methods,

such as blocking, ripping, seeding, mulching, fertilizing, and water-barring.

2) OHV Use & Enforcement

Comments were received that newly constructed roads would allow and promote uncontrolled

and unmonitored motorized recreation (e.g. off-high way vehicles [OHVs]).

This decision does not authorize additional OHV use; spurs will be built to provide access to

thinning units for the singular purpose of thinning and removing the timber from those units and

then these spurs will be decommissioned. Decommissioning of 980 feet of spurs will include

water-barring, mulching the road surface with logging slash or straw, and by blocking with a

trench barrier after harvest operations are complete (q.v., pg. 3; Table 2). Additionally 2,380 feet

of spurs will be decommissioned by subsoiling, as well as, water-barring, mulching the road

surface with logging slash, and by blocking with a trench barrier after harvest operations are

complete. In the opinion of interdisciplinary team members, logging slash is effective in

discouraging unauthorized use of decommissioned spur roads.

The Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management project will be monitored as

indicated in the EA (pg. 1) and law enforcement will continue to investigate reports of illegal

activities as they have done historically. Monitoring will be ensured by on-the-ground


inspections by the Contracting Officer’s Representative. From January 2009 through November

2010, BLM rangers and Douglas County law enforcement officers contracted by the BLM issued

22 citations, 233 warnings, and made 10 arrests in connection with OHV-related infractions (pers.

comm., J. Szympruch, BLM District Ranger, 2010). Law enforcement officers will continue to

patrol popular OHV use areas as they have done historically and citations, warnings, and arrests

are expected to continue at approximately these historical rates.

3) Seasonal Restrictions for Marbled Murrelets

Comments were received that suggested the BLM implement seasonal restrictions prohibiting

OHV use within the unmapped Late-Successional Reserve designated as a result of the recently

discovered occupied marbled murrelet site.

This decision does not authorize the construction of OHV trails or additional OHV use. The spurs being constructed on BLM-administered land in the vicinity of the occupied marbled murrelet nest site are being decommissioned by subsoiling, mulching with logging slash, and blocking with trench barriers to discourage motorized use. In the opinion of the interdisciplinary team members, logging slash is effective in discouraging unauthorized use of decommissioned spur roads.

4) Species & Structural Diversity of Forest Stands

Comments were received that encouraged the BLM to introduce more diversity into the forest

stands both in terms of species-mix and structure by: increasing the variability and providing a

mosaic of thinned and unthinned areas of varying residual tree densities, and providing more

recruitment of snags and down woody debris.

Within Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management, a variable marking

prescription was used. The TMA portions of the units (i.e. 18 acres) will be thinned to a basal

area of 120 square feet per acre and the LSMA (i.e. 109 acres) will be variably thinned to 70-80

square feet per acre (EA, pg. 6). In addition, 236 acres will be excluded from the final unit design

of Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management (as described previously under

Unit Configuration) and will remain unthinned at a basal area of 150-250 square feet per acre.

Minor conifer and hardwood species would be favored to maintain stand diversity. Thinning will

reduce the canopy closure, allowing sunlight to reach the forest floor to encourage establishment

and/or further development of an understory and vertical stratification of canopy layers (EA, pg.

19).

In all land use allocations, conifer and hardwood snags would be reserved from cutting unless

they are a safety concern. Snags felled for safety reasons in the LSMA will be retained on site as

coarse woody debris. Existing coarse woody debris in decay classes 3, 4, and 5 will be retained

in the TMA and all coarse woody debris will be retained in the LSMA. In addition, the 236 acres

of Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management that will be excluded from the

final unit design (as described previously under Unit Configuration) will have increased

suppression mortality that will result in additional snags and coarse woody debris (EA, pg. 19).

The residual stands within the thinning units following harvest will provide a pool of candidate

trees for future snag and coarse woody debris recruitment (EA, pg. 7). Additional coarse woody

debris and snags may be created incidentally through the harvest operations (e.g. damage leading


to broken tops or individual tree mortality) or through weather damage (e.g. wind and snow

break; EA, pg. 7). Though fewer snags will develop in the thinned portions of the harvest units,

the snags that will develop post-thinning will be larger with more resiliency and more limb

structure than snags that develop under a more competitive stand condition (such as in the

unthinned areas; EA, pg. 20).

Together these different components of the marking prescription and unit configuration will

create a mosaic of forest structural conditions that will introduce more diversity into the forest

stands.

5) Carbon Storage

Comments were received regarding the Carbon Storage analysis presented in the EA that

questioned: (a) the cause and effect relationship between greenhouse gases and climate change,

and (b) the individual components that were used to estimate carbon release, sequestration, and

net balance over time.

(a) As cited in the EA (pg. 51), Forster, et al. 2007 (pgs. 129-234), reviewed scientific

information on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change and concluded that human-

caused increases in greenhouse gas emissions are extremely likely to have exerted a

substantial warming effect on global climate. In addition, the EA further cites a U.S.

Geological Survey memorandum (USDI USGS, 2008) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

that summarized the latest science on greenhouse gas emissions and concluded that it is

currently beyond the scope of existing science to identify a specific source of greenhouse gas

emissions or sequestration and designate it as the cause of specific climate impacts at a

specific location. Given this uncertainty, the analysis in the EA focused on calculating

greenhouse gas emissions and carbon storage, in the context of carbon release and

sequestration.

(b) The methodology used in the calculations to estimate the net carbon balance was described in

the Mud Den Commercial Thinning EA (pgs. 82-87) under Appendix E: Carbon

Storage/Release Analytical Methodology. As part of the assumptions for the Carbon Storage

analysis, it was recognized there is considerable variety available in the scientific literature

regarding the quantitative measures and additional factors that may be used in calculating

carbon storage that can influence the outcome of this analysis (EA, pg. 82). However, the

methodology described in Appendix E provides a consistent means to compare the relative

effects of the alternatives considered in the Mud Den Commercial Thinning EA and not

necessarily the absolute amount of carbon that would be stored or released under the

alternatives. The sources of carbon release and/or sequestration that were considered and

presented for the Mud Den Carbon Storage analysis are explicitly detailed in Appendix E.

6) South Fork Coos River Watershed Analysis

One comment was received that stated new roads in the South Fork Coos River Watershed

portion of the Mud Den Commercial Thinning proposal must be eliminated because a watershed

analysis was not completed and that a watershed analysis is required before constructing new

roads in Riparian Reserves. This decision is being issued under the 2008 ROD/RMP so the land

use allocations within Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management (i.e. LSMA

and TMA) are those under the 2008 ROD/RMP (q.v. pgs. 1-2; Table 1) and therefore, does not

include any Riparian Reserves, which was a land use allocation under the 1995 ROD/RMP.


Under the 2008 RODIRMP there is no requirement to conduct watershed analysis. Also, basedon final configurations there are no activities within Riparian Management Areas for Mud SlingerCommercial Thinning and Density Management.

Under the 1995 ROD/RMP there would have been no road construction within Riparian Reserveswithin the South Fork Coos River Watershed based ~n final configurations. However, althoughthe EA did not mention it, the Coos Bay BLM District completed a watershed analysis for theSouth Fork Coos River Watershed on July 15, 1999, which would mean activities could beconducted within Riparian Reserves in this watershed.

The remaining comments did not raise substantive issues that would influence my selection of theProposed Action Alternative for the Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning and Density Management portion

of the Mud Den Commercial Thinning EA, as updated above.

SECTION 4-PROTEST PROCEDURES

The decision described in this document is a forest management decision and is subject to protest by thepublic. In accordance with Forest Management Regulations at 43 CFR Subpart 5003 AdministrativeRemedies, protests of this decision may be filed with the authorized officer (Max Yager) within 15 daysof the first publication date of the notice of decision notice/timber sale advertisement in The News-Review, Roseburg, Oregon on June 28, 2011.

43 CFR § 5003.3 subsection (b) states: "Protests shall be filed with the authorized officer and shallcontain a written statement of reasons for protesting the decision." This precludes the acceptance ofelectronic mail (email) or facsimile (fax) protests. Only written and signed hard copies of protests that aredelivered to the Roseburg District office will be accepted. The protest must clearly and concisely state

which portion or element of the decision is being protested and the reasons why the decision is believed to

be in error.

43 CFR § 5003.3 subsection (c) states: "Protests received more than 15 days after the publication of thenotice of decision or the notice of sale are not timely filed and shall not be considered." Upon timelyfiling of a protest, the authorized officer shall reconsider the project decision to be implemented in light ofthe statement of reasons for the protest and other pertinent information available to him. The authorizedofficer shall, at the conclusion of the review, serve the protest decision in writing to the protestingparty(ies). Upon denial of a protest, the authorized officer may proceed with the implementation of thedecision as permitted by regulations at 5003.3(t).

If no protest is received by the close of business (4:30 P.M.; Pacific Time Zone) within 15 days after firstpublication of the decision notice on June 28, 2011, this decision will become final. If a timely protest isreceived, the project decision will be reconsidered in light of the statement of reasons for the protest andother pertinent information available, and the Swiftwater Field Office will issue a protest decision.

For further information, contact Max Yager, Field Manager, Swiftwater Field Office, Roseburg District,Bureau of Land Management, 777 NW Garden Valley Blvd; Roseburg, OR 97471, (541) 440-4930.

:r t4.NC- ~ a ~, 2.0 J I

Date

Mud Slinger Commercial 77Iinning and Density Management

Decision Document11

27-

EY

S pu r 3

26-7-

32.2

S pur 4

Spu r 5

S p ur 1

S pur 2

27-7-5.1

26-7-31.1

Spur 6Spur 7

7-4

W

CO 90

00

26-7-

33

267-3227

7-4

-6

EYCO 5349

27-7-4

CNTY

174

27-7-

5

26-7-7

Unit 4 Unit 1

Unit 3Unit 2

30

33

32

29

31

28

06 05 04

Fivem

ile

Creek

Panther Creek

Doerner Creek

Lost C

reek

Hubb

a rdC r

eek

Willow Creek

Deer Creek-SouthUmpqua River

Upper Umpqua River

South ForkCoos River

T26S-R07W

T27S-R07W

and Density Management

R7W

T26S

T27S

1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000Feet Legend1:17,000 Units Streams

Roads Township and RangeNew Road Constructionµ Section LinesRoads to be Subsoiled Administered Lands

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use Haul Routes BLMwith other data. Original data were compiled from various sources and maybe updated without notification. OtherFifth Field Watershed

0

27-7

26-7-29W

26-7 -

29.2

26-7-31

Figure 1. Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning

27-

EY

and Density Management

Land Use Allocations Within Harvest Units R7W

T26S

T27S

1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000Feet Legend1:17,000 TMA Streams

LSMA Township and RangeRoads Section Linesµ New Road Construction Administered Lands

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use Haul Routes BLMwith other data. Original data were compiled from various sources and maybe updated without notification. OtherFifth Field Watershed

Spur 3

26-7-

32.2

S pur 4

Spur 5

S pu r 1

S pur 2

27-7-5.1

26-7-31. 1

Spur 6Spur 7

7-4

W

CO 90

00

26-7-

33

267-3227-

7-4

-6

EYCO 5349

27-7-4

CNTY

174

27-7-

5

26-7-7

Unit 4 Unit 1

Unit 3Unit 2

T26S-R07W

T27S-R07W Deer Creek-South

Umpqua River

UpperUmpqua River

South ForkCoos River

30

33

32

29

31

28

06 05 04

Fivem

ile

Creek

Panther Creek

Doerner Creek

LostC

reek

H ubb

ardC r

eek

Willow Creek

0

27-7

W

26-7-31

Figure 2. Mud Slinger Commercial Thinning

mud slinger commercial thinning and density … thinning and density management. ... mud slinger...

Documents