Abstract: The USDA Forest Service is preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for 

the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project. The Tollgate Project proposes surface and canopy 

hazardous fuels reduction activities to modify potential wildfire behavior within portions of 

the Tollgate project planning area on Walla Walla Ranger District. Three Alternatives are 

analyzed, including the No Action Alternative (Alternative A). Alternative B, the Proposed 

Action and Preferred Alternative, includes forest thinning activities across 4,330 acres. 

Alternative C includes forest thinning activities across approximately 4,010 acres. Both 

action Alternatives include road maintenance and re-alignment activities to support removal 

of timber and other merchantable biomass products. A Forest Plan amendment is proposed to 

allow for mechanical fuels reduction activities to occur within selected Pacfish Riparian 

Habitat Conservation Areas of high strategic importance for wildfire hazard mitigation. 

Internet web address: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=28356

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT STATEMENT

Forest Service Pacific 

Northwest Region

December 2012

TOLLGATE FUELS

REDUCTION PROJECT

Umatilla National Forest 

Walla Walla Ranger District

Umatilla and Union Counties, Oregon

Lead Agency:

Responsible Official:

For Information Contact:

USDA Forest Service 

John Laurence – Forest Supervisor

Umatilla National Forest

72510 Coyote Rd

Pendleton, Oregon 97801

Kimpton Cooper

Walla Walla Ranger District

1415 West Rose

Walla Walla, WA 99362

(509) 522-6009

kmcooper@fs.fed.us
USDA Nondiscrimination Statement

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual 

orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, 

Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-

5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Publication F14-WW-02-13 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project 

i 

SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

The Forest Service has prepared this draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Tollgate Fuels 

Reduction project. The Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project is conducted as a Healthy Forest Restoration Act 

(HFRA) authorized fuels reduction project. The Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project occurs within the Upper 

204/Tollgate Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) identified in the Umatilla County Community Wildfire 

Protection Plan (CWPP) as amended. The Tollgate project began with the initial objective to reduce fuels 

and provide protection to private property and vital infrastructure that occurs within the area. The Forest 

Service utilized a collaborative process to help further define the objectives of the project and begin 

formulating the types of activities which would be used to achieve those objectives. 

Additional analysis identified a need to amend the Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (LRMP, also known as Forest Plan) to allow treatment activities to occur within 

selected Pacfish Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) in a manner that may not be consistent 

with the Riparian Management Objectives originally defined in Pacfish . On September 6, 2011, a second 

Notice of Intent appeared in the Federal Register that reintroduced the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project 

and included identification that an amendment to the Forest Plan would be prepared in conjunction with 

this action. Additionally, public input on the revised Tollgate proposal was solicited by a second round of 

mailings to interested parties. 

LOCATION AND AREA

The Tollgate project planning area is approximately 46,000 acres in size and is located on Walla Walla 

Ranger District mainly in Umatilla County, Oregon with a small portion in Union County, Oregon 

(Appendix A, Map A1). Portions of the Lookingglass inventoried Roadless area (IRA), Walla Walla 

River IRA and North Fork Umatilla Wilderness occur within the Tollgate project planning area. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

The Tollgate community is situated on a high plateau between the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness and 

South Fork of the Walla Walla River. The Tollgate plateau is surrounded on all sides by very steep, and 

deep, inaccessible canyons (Appendix A, MapA2). The plateau is generally characterized by mixed to 

high-severity fire regimes. Private lands and inholdings are adjacent to, and interspersed with, National 

Forest System (NFS) lands. 

In many cases on other NFS lands, Wilderness and Roadless areas occur at higher elevations and are well 

removed from communities. The Tollgate plateau, however, sits above large tracts of both Roadless and 

Wilderness areas. Preliminary analysis indicates that wildfires may initiate in these remote places, gain 

uncontrollable intensity, and ultimately emerge onto the plateau with firebrand spotting distances of up to 

1 or 2 miles into the Tollgate WUI. During most fire seasons, the geographic positioning of the Tollgate 

WUI relative to large tracts of remote and inaccessible Roadless and Wilderness areas places it at 

considerable risk of high-severity, high-intensity wildfires moving into and through the area. These 

wildfire risks threaten many important values identified in the Umatilla County CWPP: 

1. Residences- There are approximately 370 residences within the Upper 204/Tollgate WUI. There 

are 43 privately owned cabins under Forest Service special use permit and the Spout Springs Ski 

Resort is also within the project planning area (Appendix A, MapA2). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project 

ii

2. Local and Regional Infrastructure: There is infrastructure that occurs throughout the area that 

holds both local and regional importance to various surrounding communities. There are fiber 

optic lines, telephone lines, power transmission lines, power distribution lines, communications 

equipment and scientific sampling devices (Appendix A, MapA2). The Tollgate community is 

bisected by Oregon State Highway 204. This highway serves as a major transportation route for 

shipping commercial goods and people. The highway connects the communities of Elgin, OR in 

the south to Milton-Freewater, OR and in the north, Pendleton, OR (Appendix A, Map A1). 

3. Forest Service infrastructure: There are 4 Forest Service campgrounds, 6 trailheads, 4 snowparks 

and other Forest Service facilities (such as the Tollgate Work Center and Tollgate Visitor Center). 

4. Public Health and Safety: Given the high amount of recreational use seen by the area, a wildland 

fire event would likely cause serious threat to human life (both residents and wildland fire 

responders) as well as property. In such an event, fire managers expect that a large number of 

resources (personnel and financial) would be expended in fire suppression operations in the area. 

Given the areas current vegetative conditions this would constitute increased risk due to the 

amount of personnel hours spent on suppression activities. 

Consistent with the Umatilla County CWPP and Umatilla Forest Plan, the desired condition for the 

Tollgate planning area is a WUI area generally characterized by fuel profiles with a low likelihood of 

active crown fire, and which are thereby suitable for: 

Direct wildfire control and suppression under all but the most extreme circumstances 

Safe ingress and egress within the Tollgate WUI during wildfire events 

Protection (by firefighters and firefighting resources) of identified Values at Risk from wildfirecaused injury, loss of life, property damage, or destruction 

Existing fuel loading in the Tollgate WUI are not consistent with these desired conditions. Throughout 

most areas in the Tollgate vicinity, fuel loading, arrangement, and continuity are not suitable for direct 

wildfire attack and suppression under typical fire weather and fuel moisture conditions. Safe ingress and 

egress would not be possible during wildfire events where crown fire is likely to occur—which is 

presently along most travel routes within the Tollgate WUI. Finally, crown fire is expected in many areas 

(including most areas surrounding private property and other infrastructure) throughout the majority of 

the normal fire season. 

The need for action in the Tollgate area is based upon difference between existing and desired conditions 

with respect to fuel levels, associated potential wildfire behavior, and related risks to the values identified 

above. The purpose of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project is to address the needs identified above, by 

implementing actions that reduce the probability and potential extent of active crown fire within the 

Tollgate WUI. The project would reduce the amount and continuity of surface and canopy fuel loading, 

and in so doing, enhance and expand opportunities for protection of identified values at risk from wildfire 

damage or destruction. 

PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

In response to the purpose and need described above, the Walla Walla Ranger District proposes surface 

and canopy fuels reduction activities to improve protection to adjacent private lands and public/private 

infrastructure, change potential fire behavior within Tollgate WUI, and lower fire hazard to reduce the 

risk of potential adverse wildland fire effects on values at risk within the Tollgate planning area. 

Consistent with basic principles recommended by Agee and Skinner (2005), Tollgate Fuel reduction 

activities would reduce surface fuels, increase the height to live tree crowns, decrease crown density, and 

retain large trees of fire-resistant species. Thinning and removal of surface fuels can be a useful tool to 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project 

iii 

achieve these objectives (Agee and Skinner 2005). Proposed thinning activities include the removal, 

mastication (grinding or mulching), and/or burning of both commercially valuable trees (trees with stem 

sizes greater than or equal to 9 inches in diameter at breast height) and smaller trees without commercial 

value. The removal and/or mastication of standing dead and dead/down material is also prescribed to help 

meet the objectives described above. 

Activity Locations of High Interest 

Design objectives of proposed activities are to break-up fuel continuity on the landscape, so that when a 

wildfire does occur it could be contained to a smaller size and be of low intensity to allow for safe and 

effective fire suppression efforts. During the development of the proposed action the Interdisciplinary 

Team (IDT) identified several locations and/or proposed treatment types or areas of elevated interest and 

possible controversy, and highlighted them during public involvement. These highlighted areas are briefly 

discussed below: 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) 

In order to facilitate fuels reduction activities within strategically important (with respect to the project 

Purpose and Need) RHCAs occurring in the project planning area (units 19, 38, 66, and 75; Appendix A, 

Map A3), the Umatilla Forest Plan would be amended to allow commercial and non-commercial thinning 

activities and associated vegetation removal within Pacfish RHCA stream buffers. This site specific 

amendment would remain in effect until the completion of Tollgate Fuels Reduction project activities. 

Additional details regarding this amendment are located in Chapter 2. 

The proposed activities would occur within Pacfish RHCA buffers, but would not occur directly adjacent 

to, or cross the wetted stream channel itself. Only those RHCAs identified above are proposed for 

treatment. All other RHCAs occurring within the project planning area would utilize a Pacfish RHCA 

buffer, within which no treatment activities would occur. RHCAs located within units 19, 38, 66, and 75 

are proposed for fuels reduction activities. These RHCAs would be treated by mechanical means such as 

timber harvest. Logging systems would be designed so that no harvest or skidding would cross the stream 

channel. All applicable Forest Plan standards would be met. 

Lookingglass Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) 

The Lookingglass IRA is approximately 5,000 acres in size and is located south of Forest Road 6400 and 

east of State Highway 204. The Lookingglass IRA shares a common boundary with two privately owned 

forest inholdings both occurring along the IRAs northern face. 

Fuels reduction activities are proposed within the Lookingglass IRA. The proposed activities include 

commercial thinning, ladder fuel reduction, removal of dead/down material. The activities are proposed 

on approximately 205 acres within the Lookingglass IRA boundary and are strategically located along 

property boundary with private inholdings to serve as strategic fuel breaks. Units 26, 38, and a portion of 

75 occur within the IRA boundary (Appendix A, Map A3). 

No proposed project activities would occur in the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness. No commercial 

timber harvest, road construction and reconstruction, or actions associated with these activities would 

occur in the Walla Walla River IRA. 

Areas with trees 21 inches diameter-at-breast height or greater 

In order to best meet the project Purpose and Need it may be necessary to remove some trees 21 inches 

and greater. There are areas within the project planning area were large trees are closely clustered and 

have interlocking crowns. As a result to meet the objective to reduce horizontal continuity of fuels some 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project 

iv

trees equal to or greater than 21 inches DBH are proposed for removal. Vegetative analysis shows that the 

Tollgate planning area (46,000 acres) is within the Historic Range of Variability (HRV) for the moist 

forest plant biophysical environment and thus proposed removal of trees greater than or equal to 21 inches 

DBH or greater does not require a Forest Plan amendment. More discussion concerning HRV analysis can 

be found in Chapter 3. 

The proposal identifies trees equal to or greater than 21 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) may be 

removed to meet fuel objectives across the planning area when operating within a moist forest type. The 

proposed removal would occur within units 45, 83, 84 and 95 (Appendix A, Map A3). Additionally, 

where necessary, for safety and/or logging corridors, incidental trees equal to or greater than 21 inches 

may be commercially removed. 

Areas along Oregon State Highway 204 

Oregon State Highway 204 has been identified as an important evacuation route for the area. It is also an 

important commerce transportation route. The project proposes activities on both sides of Hwy. 204. 

These activities reduce surface fuels, increase the height to live tree crowns, decrease crown density, and 

retain large trees of fire-resistant species, and are thus designed to make Hwy. 204 a more defensible 

travel corridor, should a wildfire occur in the area. The following units are located along Hwy. 204 

corridor: 18, 19, 20, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, and 73 (Appendix A, Map A3). Highway 204 is a visually 

sensitive area. An analysis of visual effects of the proposed actions can be found in Chapter 3 of this 

DEIS. 

Timing of activities 

Tollgate project activities are anticipated to begin in 2013. The anticipated time frame for completion of 

all components of the Tollgate project would be five (5) to ten (10) years, depending on market conditions 

and Forest Service staff and funding capacity. Activities would occur during the normal operating season 

as weather and soil conditions permit—typically between the months of May and November. 

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES FOR ANALYSIS

There is no set of standard issues applicable to every proposal, so consideration is paid by the responsible 

official to a variety of laws, regulations, executive orders and input, with the help of the interdisciplinary 

team (IDT). The responsible official approved the issues to be analyzed in depth by the IDT in the 

environmental analysis. In the case of Tollgate, issues were grouped according to common resources. 

 Fuels reduction and wildfire behavior: Proposed activities would likely alter potential fire 

behavior, improve capacity to protect values at risk, and improve opportunities for safe ingress/egress 

during fire events. 

 RHCA Activities: Proposed tree cutting and related activities in RHCAs may impair water quality 

values and wildlife habitat. 

 Old forests: Proposed tree cutting activities may reduce the quality, quantity, and/or connectivity of 

important habitat for wildlife, such as old forest, snags, and down woody debris. 

 Roadless Area Characteristics and potential Wilderness suitability: Proposed tree-cutting 

activities may impair identified Roadless Characteristics, Wilderness Area Values, and the suitability 

of Potential Wilderness Areas for Wilderness designation. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project 

v

 Visual Resources: Proposed tree cutting activities may impair the visual characteristics of the 6400 

road and Highway 204 corridor. 

Of these issue groups above, scoping comments suggested that the RHCA Activities, Old forests, 

Roadless Area Characteristics and potential Wilderness suitability issue groups constituted areas of 

possible controversy. The IDT identified and eliminated from detailed study the issues which are not 

significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (1506.3), narrowing the discussion 

of these issues in the statement to a brief presentation of why they would not have a significant effect on 

the human environment or providing a reference to their coverage elsewhere. (40 CFR 1501.7(a)(3)) 

The ID team recommended, and the responsible official approved significant environmental issues 

deserving of detailed study. Significant issues used for analysis of environmental effects of each 

Alternative analyzed in detail are identified below in Table A. Issues were considered deserving of 

detailed study when they serve, for each Alternative, as a basis for determination of consistency with all 

applicable laws, rules, and regulations, as well as the relative ability to meet the project Purpose and 

Need. Additionally, some issues were used to evaluate the relative extent to which an Alternative meets in 

the Purpose and Need in a manner that minimizes or avoids adverse effects, and addresses unresolved 

conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources as provided by section 102(2)(E) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Issues utilized in this manner are identified as such in Table A 

below. 

Table A —Issue groups and Issues for the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project. 

Issue group Issues for analysis 

The proposed activities, in whole or in part, may:

Old forest habitat

Reduce the amount of snags available for wildlife species and large down wood recruitment

Alter the characteristics of old forest wildlife habitat

Reduce the connectivity of old forest wildlife habitat

Reduce the abundance of trees >21” DBH

Affect the habitat and populations of MIS species

Affect the habitat and populations of Sensitive wildlife species

Affect the habitat and populations of the northern goshawk

Affect the habitat and/or populations of other Priority birds / Landbirds / Neotropical migrants

Visual resources

Reduce scenic integrity of areas seen from Forest Road 6400, Road 6401, and Hwy. 204

Reduce scenic stability of areas seen from Forest Road 6400, Road 6401, and Hwy. 204

Roadless Areas and 

potential Wilderness

Alter Roadless Area characteristics

Eliminate suitability of areas Potential Wilderness

RHCA activities / 

hydrology

Impair water quality 

Alter hydrologic function and condition

Affect water yield

Fuels reduction and 

potential fire 

behavior

Alter potential fire behavior (surface, active crown, passive crown, etc.) within the Tollgate WUI

Alter fire travel times within the Tollgate WUI

Reduce spotting distances within the Tollgate WUI

Allow protection of adjacent and nearby private property in the Tollgate WUI

Reduce potential surface fire intensity

Enable safe ingress/egress when impacted by wildfire at or under 90% weather/fuel moisture conditions
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project 

vi

Proposed Forest Plan Amendment 

Umatilla Forest Plan amendment #10, commonly referred to as Pacfish, is interim direction designed to 

“arrest the degradation and begin the restoration of aquatic habitat and riparian areas on lands 

administered by the Forest Service and BLM; it applies to watersheds outside the range of the northern 

spotted owl that provide habitat for Pacific salmon, steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat trout.” 

Pacfish uses a buffer concept to establish riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCA) along both sides of 

streams, rivers, lakes and other wetlands. RHCA widths extend from the edge of the active stream 

channel and they vary with stream class and whether a stream is fish bearing or not. RHCAs can be 

established using specified feet of slope distance (such as 300 feet on either side of perennial, fish-bearing 

streams) or in numbers of “site-potential tree heights” (such as 2 site-potential tree heights for perennial, 

fish-bearing streams). The interim RHCA widths established by the Pacfish environmental assessment 

can be adjusted during watershed analysis or after site-specific analysis presenting a rationale for RHCA 

modifications. 

Timber harvest activities are prohibited by the Pacfish amendment except in the following situations (see 

timber management standards, page C-9, in USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land 

Management 1994): 

1. For catastrophic events such as fire, flooding, volcanic, wind or insect damage that result in 

degraded riparian conditions, and where present and future wood y debris needs are met, where 

cutting would not retard or prevent attainment of other Riparian Management Objectives, and 

adverse effects on listed anadromous fish can be avoided, or 

2. When applying silvicultural practices for RHCAs to acquire desired vegetation characteristics 

where needed to attain Riparian Management Objectives. Apply silvicultural practices in a 

manner that does not retard attainment of Riparian Management Objectives and that avoids 

adverse effects on listed anadromous fish. 

The activities included under Alternative B and occurring within Pacfish RHCAs are intended to reduce 

surface and canopy fuel loading, and not to acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain 

Riparian Management Objectives. Furthermore, no catastrophic events or disturbance-caused damage has 

resulted in degraded riparian conditions. Therefore, the proposed activities in RHCAs do not fall under 

these situations and are thus not exempt from Pacfish prohibitions on commercial timber cutting within 

the RHCA. 

In order to meet the project purpose and need, Alternative B would include a site and project-specific 

Forest Plan amendment which would allow for the proposed fuels activities within Pacfish Riparian 

Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) of units 19, 38, 66, and 75. Specifically, the amendment would 

modify applicable Pacfish standards and guides regarding activities within RHCAs in the units identified 

Fisheries Impair fish habitat

Soil

Increase the degree and extent of Detrimental Soil Condition

Decrease the amount of effective ground cover

Decrease the amount of coarse and fine woody debris

TES Plant species Alter the distribution of TES plant species

Economic value May affect timber values and associated economic activity

Recreation

May impact developed and dispersed camping

May impact access to and/or opportunities for dispersed recreation activities

My impact the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

My impact the “sense of place” in the Tollgate area
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project 

vii 

above, to allow previously prohibited activities to occur. The amendment is site specific to the Tollgate 

Fuels Reduction project and would remain valid only during implementation of this project. 

The Forest Plan amendment would have two parts (TM-1c and FM-1a) and allow the use of timber 

harvest for hazardous fuels reduction from Category 2 RHCAs which occur within units 19, 38, 66 and 

75. This amendment would allow silvicultural practices to improve public and firefighter safety and allow 

the use of various fuel treatment practices to manage for desired fire behavior that would allow safe and 

effective suppression efforts. The amendment applies only to the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project. 

Currently, Pacfish timber management standards and guidelines include one item (TM-1): the prohibition 

of timber harvest within RHCAs. The two exceptions to this prohibition are described above and listed 

under TM-1 as TM-1a and TM-1b. The following proposed amendment (TM-1c) to Pacfish standards 

and guidelines would be added as an additional exception to the prohibitions described in TM-1, and 

would apply to the RHCAs within activity units 19, 38, 66, and 75. TM-1c would read as follows: 

Apply silvicultural practices for Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas(RHCAs) that occur on 

Category 2 streams (permanently flowing non-fish bearing streams) within units 19, 38, 66, and 75 of 

the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project, to acquire desired vegetation characteristics where needed to 

achieve project specific fuels reduction objectives. Apply silvicultural practices in a manner that 

avoids adverse effects on ESA-listed anadromous fish. This is a project and site-specific Forest Plan 

Amendment that applies only to the RHCAs within units discussed above, for the Tollgate Fuels 

Reduction project. 

Pacfish also requires that fuels management strategies, practices, and actions do not prevent attainment of 

Riparian Management Objectives, and minimize disturbance of riparian ground cover and vegetation 

(Pacfish standards and guidelines, item FM-1). To the extent that this requirement prohibits mechanical 

removal of surface and canopy fuels within the RHCAs in units 19, 38, 66, and 75, a Forest Plan 

amendment is also needed to allow these activities to occur. Thus, in order to meet the project purpose 

and need as described in Chapter 1, the Tollgate project includes an amendment to the Pacfish standards 

and guidelines with respect to fuels management. 

The amendment would both modify and supplement item FM-1. The first sentence of FM-1 would be 

modified to read: “Design fuel treatment and fire suppression strategies, practices, and actions so as not to 

prevent attainment of Riparian Management Objectives, and to minimize disturbance of riparian ground 

cover and vegetation, except as described below in FM-1a.” The supplement to FM-1 would be listed as 

FM-1a, and would read: 

Design fuel treatment and fire suppression strategies, practices, and actions within the riparian 

conservation areas (RHCAs) of Category 2 streams (permanently flowing non-fish bearing 

streams) found within units 19, 38, 66 and 75 of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project so as to 

maintain channel stability and prevent adverse effects to riparian and aquatic habitat conditions.

ISSUE RESOLUTION AND DECISION ALTERNATIVES

The issues identified above are analyzed in detail within this document, and resolved by disclosing: 

How each Alternative is consistent with applicable Laws, Rules, and Regulations 

The extent to which each Alternative meet the stated Purpose and Need 

Whether there any adverse effects requiring monitoring and/or mitigation, and show such effects 

may be mitigated through activity design criteria. 

The expected Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of the activities included in Action 

Alternatives B and C on the quality of the human environment. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project 

viii 

The extent to which each Alternative addresses unresolved conflicts concerning the alternative 

use of available resources. 

Alternatives for this project were designed to address areas of unresolved conflict over alternative uses of 

existing resources in a manner that meets the project purpose and need. The ID team developed the range 

of alternatives, project design features, and mitigation measures presented in this chapter based on 

scoping responses and the purpose and need for action described in Chapter 1 of this document. In total, 

ten alternatives were considered, seven were eliminated from detailed study and three were analyzed in 

detail. The IDT recommended and the responsible official approved two action alternatives in addition to 

a no action alternative. 

Under the HFRA, for an authorized hazardous fuel reduction project that is proposed to be conducted in 

the wildland-urban interface (such as the Tollgate project), the Forest Service is not required to study, 

develop, or describe more than the proposed agency action and 1 action alternative in the environmental 

impact statement prepared pursuant to section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)) Nevertheless, in an effort to address any potential unresolved conflicts over 

alternative uses of available resources, the IDT considered one additional action alternative that was 

based on comments proposed during scoping and meets the purpose and need of the project. 

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS

Both Action Alternatives B and C were are each found to be consistent with all applicable 

Laws, Rules, and Regulations, as described in Chapters 1 and 4. 

Analysis of the extent to which Alternatives A, B, and C would meet the Purpose and Need of the 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Purpose includes the extent to which each Alternative 1) reduced 

the extent of areas within the WUI of active crown fire potential, 2) reduced potential wildfire travel 

time, 3) reduced potential wildfire intensity, and 4) reduced potential wildfire spotting distance. 

Defined as such, Alternative A was found to be the most deficient in meeting the Purpose and 

Need. Alternative B (the Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative) was found to be most 

suitable for meeting the Purposed and Need, and Alternative C slightly less so. 

Potential adverse effects to the quality of the human environment were identified as a possible 

consequence of surface and canopy fuel reduction and associated activities included in Action 

Alternatives B or C. These include possible adverse effects to water quality and quantity, fish habitat, 

air quality, soil productivity, exotic plant invasion, cultural heritage sites, wildlife habitat, recreation 

quality and access, residual trees, and sensitive plant species. Mitigation measures were identified 

to be implemented along with the activities described as part of Alternatives B and/or C, and 

area described in Chapter 2. The expected effectiveness of these measures in mitigating possible 

adverse effects was included within the analysis contained in Chapter 4 and summarized below. 

The expected Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of the activities included in Action Alternatives 

B and C on the quality of the human environment are summarized as follows: 

o All alternatives would be consistent with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for achieving soil 

quality maintenance objectives, including detrimental soil condition and effective ground cover. 

o Effects of proposed actions would not adversely or measurably affect water temperature. Short 

term measurable turbidity effects could occur at the culvert sites during replacement of 2 culverts. 

o The proposed project is in compliance with the Clean Water Act, and meets or exceeds all Forest 

Plan Standards and Guidelines for Direct, Indirect, or Cumulative Effects to vegetation, wildlife, 

cultural, recreation, and Wilderness resources. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project 

ix

o Depending on the organism species and location, the activities would have no effect or may 

affect, but are not likely to adversely affect all applicable and/or affected Threatened, 

Endangered, Protected, and Sensitive wildlife and fish species. 

o Within the Tollgate fuels project boundary, the primary difference in effects to invasive plant 

species from the three project alternatives is shown by the differing numbers of acres that are 

placed at high risk of noxious weed spread. Alternative B creates the most acreage at high 

vulnerability for weed infestation, due to the slightly larger amount of ground disturbing activities 

proposed. The smaller area of ground disturbance in Alternative C results in slightly fewer acres 

at high risk. There is potential for a increase in noxious weed infestation within the planning area 

due to existing conditions and the types of activities analyzed. 

o Proposed harvest activities would create short term effects which could potentially alter the 

recreation setting. However, the proposed activities do not alter the setting enough to measurably 

affect the recreation experience. 

o Alternative B was found to be economically viable, but has a lower present net value (PNV) than 

alternative C because it has slightly higher logging costs. 

o It is expected that all of the activities proposed in all of the action Alternatives would meet the 

visual quality objectives of the Forest Plan. The impacts would not exceed the limits of visual 

impacts defined by modification and partial retention. Characteristics of scenic integrity 

and stability are expected to be maintained or enhanced. 

o No project activities are proposed in the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness and, therefore, would 

have no direct and indirect effects on wilderness qualities of untrammeled, natural, and 

undeveloped character. There would be no effects to solitude from timber harvest, mechanical 

fuel activities or road construction because those actions are not proposed for this area. The 

sounds, air quality, and possible sighting of mechanical activities and fuel treatment activities 

occurring in areas adjacent to the Wilderness would reduce a sense of solitude and remoteness in 

the short-term, during project activity. Other sights and sounds of ongoing and previously 

approved activities in areas adjacent to the boundary of the wilderness would continue to have 

short-term effects on opportunities of solitude and remoteness. In the long-term there would be 

no change to the availability of solitude or primitive recreation. 

o For Potential Wilderness Areas (PWAs) directly overlapping with activities proposed under 

Alternatives B and/or C, scenic quality and natural appearance would be reduced. These acres 

would no longer meet PWA inventory criteria found in Forest Service handbook, due to the 

presence of stumps, skid trails, slash, changes in stand density and appearance of individual trees 

that were limbed. For PWAs adjacent to or near activities proposed under Alternatives B and/or 

C, The smells, sounds and possible sighting of mechanical activities and fuel treatment activities 

occurring in areas adjacent to the PWAs would reduce a sense of solitude and remoteness in the 

short-term, during project activity. Activities adjacent to PWAs would not preclude the PWAs 

from being retained in the PWA inventory. 

o In alternatives B and C there would be no direct effects to the Walla Walla River Inventoried 

Roadless Area (IRA) because no activities are proposed within the boundaries of the IRA. The 

IRA would retain its current degree of natural integrity. There would be no management changes 

or improvements to the ecological function within the IRA. Biological and ecosystem functions 

would likely continue as they are in the present condition Potential indirect effects may occur 

from project activities outside the Walla Walla IRA. The sounds, air quality, and possible 

sighting of mechanical activities and fuel treatment activities occurring in areas adjacent to the 

IRA would reduce a sense of solitude and remoteness in the short-term, during project activity. 

Other sights and sounds of ongoing and previously approved activities in areas adjacent to the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project 

x

boundary of the wilderness would continue to have short-term effects on opportunities of solitude 

and remoteness. In the long-term there would be no change to the availability of solitude or 

primitive recreation. 

o Within the portions of the Lookingglass IRA, the 4% of the IRA that would be directly affected 

by the proposed activities are confined to its outer edges, on flatter areas above the topographic 

break, generally adjacent to roads, private land and areas with evidence of past human activity. 

The vast core of the IRA (96%) below the canyon rims would remain undisturbed and retain the 

existing degree of Roadless characteristics. Within portion of the Lookingglass IRA directly 

overlapping activities planned under Alternative B, the natural appearance of the landscape would 

be reduced following treatment activities. Stumps, skid trails and slash would be evident where 

commercial thinning and ladder fuel reduction occurs. Tree density would be reduced which 

would result in more open stands compared with neighboring untreated areas. The stands would 

not likely be opened to the point that the skyline of the forest canopy appears highly manipulated 

to the casual observer. In strategic areas, typically nearer roads, trees would be limbed to about 

six feet to reduce fuel ladders. These trees would no longer appear natural. Overall, scenic 

quality and natural appearance would be reduced. 

o Proposed fuel activities in Other Undeveloped Lands would create stumps which would reduce 

the size of polygons mapped as Other Undeveloped Lands. The lands would appear relatively 

managed and developed. The sights, sounds, and changes in vegetation from activities and use 

would further decrease the natural integrity and sense of naturalness within treatment units and 

along roads. All treated units would remain forested after harvest although skid trails, stumps, 

and landings could be evident. Stand structure would change, therefore, diversity of plant and 

animal communities may shift from current patterns but ecological diversity would remain 

(Chapter 3, Vegetation section). Impacts to natural integrity and sense of naturalness would 

likely be evident until stumps and vegetation canopies are no longer substantially recognizable 

(about 75 to 100 years). The sounds of machinery from active units would reduce a sense of 

naturalness and solitude during project operations but would not persist in the long term. Other 

impacts, such as tree marking paint and logging slash would be visible in the short term (about 5 

to 10 years). Impacts such as skid trails and tree stumps would be evident for a longer period. 

The increased numbers of stumps and the open nature of the forest stand would likely be the most 

apparent visual change resulting from implementation. 

Alternative C was developed and analyzed to address (or partially address) unresolved conflicts 

concerning the potential alternative uses of available resources. This includes the uses of Riparian 

Habitat Conservation Areas for stream shade and channel stability, as well as the uses of areas with 

proposed activities included within the Lookingglass IRA for Roadless Characteristics. Finally, 

Alternative C was also developed and analyzed to address unresolved conflicts over the potential 

alternative uses of trees >21” in stem diameter at breast height (DBH) as habitat for wildlife species. 

Because Alternative C precludes activities occurring within the Lookingglass IRA and the cutting of 

trees >21” DBH, it fully addresses these conflicts over the alternative uses of these available 

resources; however, because this Alternative still includes fuels reduction activities within one RHCA 

(within unit 19), it partially, but does not fully address conflicts over alternative uses of RHCA 

resources. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project 

xi 

Table of Contents 

Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ i

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ i

Location and Area ...................................................................................................................................... i

Purpose and Need for Action ..................................................................................................................... i

Proposed Activities ................................................................................................................................... ii

Areas of Controversy and Issues for Analysis ......................................................................................... iv

Issue Resolution and Decision Alternatives ............................................................................................. vi

Major Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. viii

Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need 

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1-1

Location and Area .................................................................................................................................. 1-2

Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................................. 1-3

Proposed Activities ................................................................................................................................ 1-4

Tiering and INcorporation By Reference ............................................................................................... 1-9

Management Direction ......................................................................................................................... 1-11

Applicable Laws and Regulations........................................................................................................ 1-13

Project Record ...................................................................................................................................... 1-14

Treaty Rights ........................................................................................................................................ 1-15

Public Involvement .............................................................................................................................. 1-16

Issue Identification ............................................................................................................................... 1-16

Decisions To Be Made ......................................................................................................................... 1-25

Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2-1

Range of Alternatives ............................................................................................................................ 2-1

Alternative A – No Action Alternative .................................................................................................. 2-1

Activity Descriptions ............................................................................................................................. 2-2

Alternative Comparison ......................................................................................................................... 2-6

Activities Specific to Alternative B ....................................................................................................... 2-7

Activities specific to Alternative C ...................................................................................................... 2-11

Design Features / Monitoring Common to Action Alternatives B and C ............................................ 2-13

Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed Study ............................................................ 2-22

Chapter 3 - Affected Environment 

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3-1

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions .............................................................................. 3-1

Soils ....................................................................................................................................................... 3-5

Hydrology .............................................................................................................................................. 3-7

Fisheries ............................................................................................................................................... 3-16

Forest Vegetation - Silviculture ........................................................................................................... 3-44

Fuels ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-52
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project 

xii 

Threatened, Endangered, and/or Sensitive Plants ................................................................................ 3-58

Invasive Plants ..................................................................................................................................... 3-62

Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................ 3-63

Recreation ............................................................................................................................................ 3-80

Visual Resources (Scenery) ................................................................................................................. 3-84

Wilderness and Undeveloped Lands .................................................................................................... 3-90

Economic Activity ............................................................................................................................. 3-109

Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences 

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4-1

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ................................................................... 4-1

Soils ....................................................................................................................................................... 4-1

Hydrology .............................................................................................................................................. 4-6

Fisheries ............................................................................................................................................... 4-17

Forest Vegetation - Silviculture ........................................................................................................... 4-26

Fuels ..................................................................................................................................................... 4-60

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants .................................................................................... 4-66

Invasive Plants ..................................................................................................................................... 4-68

Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................ 4-72

Recreation ............................................................................................................................................ 4-89

Visual Resources (Scenery) ................................................................................................................. 4-91

North Fork Umatilla Wilderness .......................................................................................................... 4-99

Potential Wilderness Areas (PWAs) .................................................................................................... 4-99

Inventoried Roadless Areas ............................................................................................................... 4-109

Other Undeveloped Lands ................................................................................................................. 4-113

Economic Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 4-117

Specifically Required Disclosures ..................................................................................................... 4-119

Other Resource Concerns and Opportunities ..................................................................................... 4-124

Chapter 5 – Agencies, Organizations, Persons Consulted, and List of Preparers 

Glossary 

Index of Terms Used 

Bibliography
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project 

xiii 

List of Figures 

Figure 1-1 -- Photograph of 2005 Burnt Cabin Fire effects taken from location near Target 

Meadows Campground ....................................................................................................... 1-4

Figure 1-2 -- Photographs taken from within Unit 19. Recreation Residences can be seen in 

background .......................................................................................................................... 1-7

Figure 1-3 -- Photograph of vegetative structure within Lookingglass IRA taken from Forest 

Road 6400 ........................................................................................................................... 1-8

Figure 2-1 – Examples of thinning in a mixed-conifer forest, with fuels and vegetation effects 

similar to those expected for most areas included in Alternative B or C in the 

Tollgate Project. Top-right panel is from Powell (1999). ................................................... 2-3

Figure 3-1— Project area subwatersheds ................................................................................................... 3-9

Figure 3-2 — FR 3718155 - Rutting ........................................................................................................ 3-10

Figure 3-3 — Streams in and near the Tollgate Fuels Project area ......................................................... 3-19

Figure 3-4 — Timber harvest history in Tollgate Fuels project area subwatersheds .............................. 3-40

Figure 3-5 — Locations of Past Fires by Decade in Tollgate project area subwatersheds ...................... 3-41

Figure 3-6 — Upland forest potential vegetation groups for the Tollgate planning area. ....................... 3-47

Figure 3-7 — Photograph of Fuel Model 10 ............................................................................................ 3-57

Figure 3-8 — Distribution of Snags > 10 Inches DBH in Moist Upland Forest...................................... 3-72

Figure 3-9 — Distribution of Snags > 20 Inches DBH in Moist Upland Forest...................................... 3-72

Figure 4-1 — Example stand conditions of an Old Forest Single Stratum (OFSS) moist upland 

forest site, to which many Old Forest Multi Stratum structures would be converted 

as a result of implementing the activities proposed under Alternatives B and C. ............. 4-30

Figure 4-2 — Map depicting the current pattern of structural stages for the entire Tollgate Project 

Planning Area (app. 37,566 acres). .................................................................................. 4-49

Figure 4-3 — Comparison of Rates of Spread ......................................................................................... 4-63
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project 

xiv 

List of Tables 

Table 1-1 — Forest Plan Management Areas within the Tollgate project planning area ........................ 1-11

Table 1-2 — Issue groups, Issues, and Issue analysis roles for the Tollgate Fuels Reduction 

Project. ............................................................................................................................. 1-17

Table 1-3 — Measures and Indicators for Significant Issues identified for detailed study ..................... 1-20

Table 2-1 - Summary of Transportation Activities .................................................................................... 2-5

Table 2-2 — Activity summary for Alternatives A, B, and C ................................................................... 2-7

Table 2-3 — Units containing RHCAs that would be treated in Alternative B ....................................... 2-10

Table 2-4 — Units within Lookingglass IRA that would be treated by Alternative B ............................ 2-11

Table 2-5 — Units where removal of trees greater than 21 inches are proposed to occur ...................... 2-11

Table 2-6 — Units containing RHCAs that would be treated in Alternative C ....................................... 2-13

Table 2-7 — Design Features and Management Requirements common to all Action Alternatives ...... 2-14

Table 3-1 — Timber Harvest by decade .................................................................................................... 3-1

Table 3-2 — Existing Detrimental Soil Condition, Proposed Units .......................................................... 3-6

Table 3-3— Road Density and Road Stream Interaction on NFS Lands................................................. 3-11

Table 3-4 — Water Temperatures Records for affected waterways ........................................................ 3-12

Table 3-5 — 7-day Moving Average Water Temperatures in Streams in Tollgate Fuels Reduction 

Project Area ..................................................................................................................... 3-12

Table 3-6 — Equivalent Treatment Area Percentages in 2011 ................................................................ 3-14

Table 3-7 — Categories of Beneficial Uses for Streams within the Grande Ronde, Walla Walla, 

and Umatilla Subbasins ................................................................................................... 3-15

Table 3-8 — ESA Listed and R6 Sensitive Fish Species on the Umatilla National Forest Known 

or Expected in the Tollgate Fuels Project area ................................................................ 3-20

Table 3-9 — Miles of Stream by Stream Class in the Tollgate Project Subwatersheds .......................... 3-25

Table 3-10 — Tollgate Fuels Project Watersheds Stream Substrate Conditions ..................................... 3-28

Table 3-11 — Woody Debris Frequency ................................................................................................. 3-29

Table 3-12 — Stream Classification by Width and Gradient and Pool Frequency in the Tollgate 

Project Area ..................................................................................................................... 3-31

Table 3-13 — Estimated3 Wetted Width/Maximum Depth Ratios for Pools in Streams in the 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Analysis Area ............................................................. 3-34

Table 3-14 — Tollgate Fuels Project Subwatersheds Disturbance History as Equivalent Clear-cut 

Acres ................................................................................................................................ 3-35

Table 3-15 — Tollgate Fuels Project Analysis Area Increase in Drainage Network Length Due to 

Road and Stream Crossings ............................................................................................. 3-36

Table 3-16 — Road Density on National Forest Lands by Subwatershed1,5 ........................................... 3-37

Table 3-17 — Wildfire acreages by Subwatershed and Decade for Tollgate Project Area 

Subwatersheds1 ................................................................................................................ 3-38

Table 3-18 — Road Density and Road Stream Interaction on NFS Lands.............................................. 3-42

Table 3-19 — Summary of Functional Condition1, 2 of Aquatic Habitat Parameters for the 

Tollgate Fuels project area in Lookingglass, Walla Walla, Umatilla Watersheds 

Following USFWS and NOAA Fisheries Criteria for ESA Listed Fish Species ............ 3-43

Table 3-20 — Potential vegetation groups for the Project Planning Area ............................................... 3-46

Table 3-21 — Cover types for the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Area ............................................. 3-46
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project 

xv 

Table 3-22 — HRV analysis of species composition .............................................................................. 3-48

Table 3-23 — Forest structural stages ..................................................................................................... 3-49

Table 3-24 — HRV analysis of forest structural stages for the Affected Environment .......................... 3-49

Table 3-25 — Tree density classes .......................................................................................................... 3-50

Table 3-26 — HRV analysis of tree density classes ................................................................................ 3-50

Table 3-27 — Descriptions of Fire Regimes ........................................................................................... 3-53

Table 3-28 — Descriptions of Fire Regime Condition Class .................................................................. 3-54

Table 3-29 — Tollgate Planning Area Fire Regime/Condition Class Summary ..................................... 3-55

Table 3-30 — Fuel Models acres by Alternatives in Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project .......................... 3-57

Table 3-31 — TES vascular plants in the Tollgate project planning area ............................................... 3-59

Table 3-32 — TES nonvascular taxa in the project area ......................................................................... 3-60

Table 3-33 — Dedicated Old Growth Areas (MA-C1) in the Project Planning Area ............................. 3-64

Table 3-34 — Wildlife Management Indicator Species for the Umatilla National Forest (Forest 

Plan page 2-9) .................................................................................................................. 3-65

Table 3-35 — Forest Plan standards and existing condition of the Tollgate elk analysis area (all 

FS land within 1 mile of proposed activities) .................................................................. 3-66

Table 3-36 — Forest Plan standards and existing conditions for snag density in Tollgate Snag 

Analysis Area .................................................................................................................. 3-70

Table 3-37 — Priority Habitat Features and Associated Landbird Species for Conservation in the 

Northern Rocky Mountain Landbird Conservation Region of Oregon and 

Washington (Altman 2000) ............................................................................................. 3-74

Table 3-38 — Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Sensitive Wildlife and Invertebrate Species 

and their Potential to Occur within the Tollgate Project Area ......................................... 3-77

Table 3-39 — Tollgate Treatment Acres by ROS Classification ............................................................ 3-81

Table 3-40 — Visual Quality Objective and their interpretations ........................................................... 3-85

Table 3-41 — Existing Fire Regime Condition Class Acreages .............................................................. 3-87

Table 3-42 — Travel Route Sensitivity Levels........................................................................................ 3-89

Table 3-43 — Scenic Class, Visual Quality Objective and Scenic Integrity Level ................................. 3-90

Table 3-44 — Contextual Display of Wilderness and Roadless Areas in PNW Region, Umatilla 

NF, Walla Walla RD and Tollgate Fuels Reduction project planning area ..................... 3-91

Table 3-45 — Lookingglass IRA by Umatilla Forest Plan Management Area Allocations .................... 3-98

Table 3-46 — W alla Walla River IRA by Umatilla Forest Plan Management Areas .......................... 3-100

Table 3-47 — Lookingglass PWA by Umatilla Forest Plan Management Areas .................................. 3-104

Table 3-48 — Walla Walla River PWA by Umatilla Forest Plan Management Areas ......................... 3-105

Table 3-49 — Potential Wilderness Area Inventory Summary ............................................................. 3-105

Table 3-50 — Size Class and Acres of Other Undeveloped Lands in the Project Planning Area ......... 3-107

Table 3-51 — Other Undeveloped Lands by Umatilla Forest Plan Management Areas ....................... 3-107

Table 4-1 — Equivalent Treatment Acre Percent in 2011 ....................................................................... 4-12

Table 4-2 — Calculated Equivalent Treatment Areas for Tollgate Fuels Project Alternatives ............... 4-12

Table 4-3 — Average Buffer Width by Stream Category( School Fire Salvage Sales) .......................... 4-15

Table 4-4 — Summary of Potential Effects1 of Alternative B of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction 

Project by Habitat Parameter and Subwatershed ............................................................. 4-21

Table 4-5 — Potential vegetation group acreage for the Affected Environment and by Alternative ...... 4-26
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project 

xvi 

Table 4-6 — Species composition for the portion of the forest vegetation Affected Environment 

included in Alternative B ................................................................................................. 4-28

Table 4-7 — Forest structural stages for the portion of the forest vegetation Affected 

Environment included in Alternative B ........................................................................... 4-29

Table 4-8 — Tree density classes for the portion of the forest vegetation Affected Environment 

included in Alternative B ................................................................................................. 4-30

Table 4-9 — Species composition for the entire forest vegetation Affected Environment, 

reflecting direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative B ..................................... 4-31

Table 4-10 — HRV analysis of species composition for the entire forest vegetation Affected 

Environment, reflecting direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative B .............. 4-32

Table 4-11 — Forest structural stages for the entire forest vegetation Affected Environment, 

reflecting direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative B ..................................... 4-32

Table 4-12 — HRV analysis of forest structural stages for the entire forest vegetation Affected 

Environment, reflecting direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative B .............. 4-33

Table 4-13 — Tree density classes for the entire forest vegetation Affected Environment, 

reflecting direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative B ..................................... 4-34

Table 4-14 — HRV analysis of tree density classes for the entire forest vegetation Affected 

Environment, reflecting direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative B .............. 4-34

Table 4-15 — Species composition for the portion of the forest vegetation Affected Environment 

included in Alternative C ................................................................................................. 4-39

Table 4-16 — Forest structural stages for the portion of the forest vegetation Affected 

Environment included in Alternative C ........................................................................... 4-39

Table 4-17 — Tree density classes for the portion of the forest vegetation Affected Environment 

included in Alternative C ................................................................................................. 4-40

Table 4-18 — HRV analysis of species composition for the entire forest vegetation Affected 

Environment, reflecting direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative C .............. 4-40

Table 4-19 — Forest structural stages for the entire forest vegetation Affected Environment, 

reflecting direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative C ..................................... 4-41

Table 4-20 — HRV analysis of forest structural stages for the entire forest vegetation Affected 

Environment, reflecting direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative C .............. 4-42

Table 4-21 — Tree density classes for the entire forest vegetation Affected Environment, 

reflecting direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative C ..................................... 4-43

Table 4-22 — HRV analysis of tree density classes for the entire forest vegetation Affected 

Environment, reflecting direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative C .............. 4-43

Table 4-23 — Compatibility of silvicultural activities and climate change adaptation strategies ........... 4-54

Table 4-24 — Crown Fire Potential in the Tollgate Project Area ........................................................... 4-61

Table 4-25 — Fire Travel Time (Emerging fire from N.F. Umatilla wilderness moving toward 

Tollgate) .......................................................................................................................... 4-62

Table 4-26 — Fire Intensity as Represented by Flame Length by Alternative Tollgate Project 

Area ................................................................................................................................. 4-63

Table 4-27 — Spotting Distance by Alternative ...................................................................................... 4-64

Table 4-28 — Treatment Acreage within 1⁄4 mile of Private Land Tollgate Project Area ....................... 4-64

Table 4-29 — Past Actions with effects and cumulative effects to Alternatives Band C of the 

proposed project. ............................................................................................................. 4-65

Table 4-30 -- Approximate amount of acres for areas at low, medium, and high levels of risk to 

noxious weed invasion for action Alternative A ............................................................. 4-69
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project 

xvii 

Table 4-31 — Amount of acres for areas at low, medium, and high levels of risk to noxious weed 

invasion for action Alternatives B and C......................................................................... 4-70

Table 4-32 — Acres of commercial and non-commercial thinning in old forest structure ..................... 4-73

Table 4-33 — Forest Plan standards and comparison of alternatives in the Tollgate elk analysis 

area (all FS land within 1 mile of proposed activities) .................................................... 4-75

Table 4-34 — Summary of effects for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive wildlife and 

invertebrate species (Biological Determinations) ............................................................ 4-87

Table 4-35 — Alternative B Unit Treatment, Visual Quality, and Forest Plan Compliance ................... 4-92

Table 4-36 — Alternative C Unit Treatment, Visual Quality, and Forest Plan Compliance ................... 4-96

Table 4-37 — Alternative B units intersecting PWA polygons that are contiguous with the NF 

Umatilla Wilderness ...................................................................................................... 4-102

Table 4-38 — Alternative C units intersecting PWA polygons that are contiguous with NF 

Umatilla Wilderness ...................................................................................................... 4-103

Table 4-39 — Change in acres of PWA adjacent to NF Umatilla Wilderness by Alternative .............. 4-104

Table 4-40 — Alternative B Units intersecting with Lookingglass PWA ............................................. 4-105

Table 4-41 — Alternative C Units intersecting Lookingglass PWA ..................................................... 4-106

Table 4-42 — Change in acres of Lookingglass PWA inventory by Alternative .................................. 4-107

Table 4-43 — Alternative B units intersecting Lookingglass IRA ........................................................ 4-111

Table 4-44 — Interaction between treatment units (Alternative B & C) and Other Undeveloped 

Lands ............................................................................................................................. 4-114

Table 4-45 — Proposed Activities in Other Undeveloped Lands by Action Alternative ...................... 4-115

Table 4-46 — Changes in Acres of Other Undeveloped Lands by Alternative ..................................... 4-116

Table 4-47 — Financial Summary by Alternative ................................................................................. 4-118

Table 4-48 — Trees per acre (TPA) of stem diameter size (inches diameter at breast height, 

DBH) classes for forest areas with tree cutting, sale, or removal activities included 

under Alternative B of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project occurring within the 

Lookingglass Inventoried Roadless Area. Each row represents one mapped 

vegetation polygon. ....................................................................................................... 4-123
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project 

xviii 

Appendices

 Appendix A – Maps 

 Appendix B – Planned Activities by Unit and Alternative 

 Appendix C – Roads Inventory 

 Appendix D –Selected National Best Management Practices 

 Appendix E – Expected Impacts to Soils 

 Appendix F – Consistency with Eastside Screens Amendment 

 Appendix G – Responses to comments (blank for DEIS) 

 Appendix H – Potential Wilderness Inventory 
CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED

 

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

1-1 

INTRODUCTION

The Forest Service has prepared this draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Tollgate Fuels 

Reduction project. Planning and analysis of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project are being conducted 

under authorizations of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA). The Tollgate Fuels Reduction 

Project occurs within the Upper 204/Tollgate Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) identified in the Umatilla 

County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) as amended. The Tollgate project began with the 

initial objective to reduce fuels and provide protection to private property and vital infrastructure that 

occurs within the area. The Forest Service—in close partnership and consultation with interested citizens, 

local government officials, and state agencies—worked in a collaborative manner to refine project 

objectives and begin formulating the types of activities which would be used to achieve those objectives. 

These collaborative efforts resulted in the development of the proposed action which was submitted for 

public review and initiated public scoping in October 2010 by the publication of a Notice of Intent in the 

Federal Register. Several responses were received from public scoping which were used in the 

development of the refinement of the proposed action and the development of action alternative(s). 

Additional analysis and scoping efforts revealed a need to amend the Umatilla National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan (LRMP, also known as Forest Plan) to allow treatment activities to occur 

within selected Pacfish Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) in a manner that may not be 

consistent with the Riparian Management Objectives originally defined in Pacfish . On September 6, 

2011, a second Notice of Intent appeared in the Federal Register that reintroduced the Tollgate Fuels 

Reduction Project and included identification that an amendment to the Forest Plan would be prepared in 

conjunction with this action. Additionally, public input on the revised Tollgate proposal was solicited by a 

second round of mailings to interested parties. 

Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 

In 2003, the Health Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) was enacted by Congress and President George W. 

Bush. The legislation provides unique tools and authorities to “reduce risks of damage to communities, 

municipal water supplies and other at-risk Federal land through a collaborative process of planning, 

prioritizing, and implementing hazardous fuels reduction projects.... “(HR 1904- section 2- ‘Purposes’ 

page 2) 

The HFRA encourages communities to designate their Wildland Urban Interfaces (WUIs) through the 

development of Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs). The CWPPs were developed with public 

input and with technical guidance from public land managers (both state and federal). 

The HFRA sets forth special procedures when agencies prepare environmental analysis for authorized 

hazardous fuels reduction projects. These authorizations include streamlined processes for the 

development of an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and for the 

administrative and judicial review of such projects. 

Umatilla County Community Wildfire Protection Plans 

Umatilla County completed its Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) in June 2005. The CWPP 

identified thirteen (13) Wildland-Urban Interfaces (WUIs). The Upper 204/Tollgate WUI (Tollgate WUI) 

is identified in this CWPP. In 2008, Umatilla County in collaboration with the Oregon Department of 

Forestry expanded the Tollgate WUI to include a private inholding (T4N., R38E., Section 36). The WUI 

boundary was adjusted to provide protection to the residence of this private inholding. All of the proposed 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

1-2 

activities for the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project would occur on National Forest System lands within 

the Tollgate WUI. 

Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

The Umatilla NF Forest Plan guides all natural resource management activities and establishes 

management standards and guidelines for the Umatilla National Forest. It describes resource 

management practices, levels of resource production and management, and the availability and suitability 

of lands for resource management. The Umatilla National Forest Plan was prepared and is maintained at 

the Umatilla National Forest Headquarters in Pendleton, Oregon. 

This project responds to the following Forest Plan goals (FP pages 4-1 to 4-3): 

To provide land and resource management that achieves a more healthy and productive forest and 

assists in supplying lands, resources, uses, and values which meet local, regional, and national 

social and economic needs. 

Provide for production and sustained yield of wood fiber and insofar as possible meet projected 

production levels consistent with various resource objectives, standards and guidelines, and cost 

efficiency. 

To provide and execute a fire protection and fire use program that is cost-efficient and responsive 

to land and resource management goals and objectives. 

Promote human resources, civil rights, and community development within the zone of influence of the 

Forest. Promote cooperation and coordination with individuals, groups, landowners, Forest users, Native 

American tribes, and state and Federal agencies in forest management, and community and economic 

development. 

LOCATION AND AREA

The Tollgate project planning area is approximately 46,000 acres in size and is located on Walla Walla 

Ranger District mainly in Umatilla County, Oregon with a small portion in Union County, Oregon 

(Appendix A, Map A1). It is located within portions of T. 2 N. R. 38 E section 5; T. 3 N. R. 37 E. 

sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26; T. 3 N. R. 38 E. sections 1, 

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, and 35; 

T. 3 N. R. 39 E. sections 6 and 7; T. 4 N. R. 37 E. sections 34, 35, and 36; T. 4 N. R. 38 E. sections 1, 2, 

7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 

and 36. T. 4 N. R. 39 E. sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 29, 30, 31, and 32. The project occurs 

within the Upper Umatilla, Upper Walla Walla River, and Lookingglass Creek watersheds. 

The Tollgate project planning area is bounded by private property to the northwest, the Walla Walla River 

drainage to the northeast, Lookingglass drainage to the southeast, North Fork Umatilla Wilderness to the 

southwest and is bi-sected by Oregon Highway 204 (Appendix A, Maps A1 and A2). Elevations above 

sea level range from 2400 to 5200 feet. The area is one of the most utilized recreational areas on the 

Umatilla National Forest. The area provides access to numerous campgrounds (including Jubilee Lake), 

the Spout Springs Summer Homes, and the Spout Springs Ski Area. The town of Elgin, Oregon is 

approximately 10 miles to the southeast. Portions of the Lookingglass inventoried Roadless area (IRA), 

Walla Walla River IRA and North Fork Umatilla Wilderness occur within the Tollgate project planning 

area. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

1-3 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

The Tollgate community is situated on a high plateau between the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness and 

South Fork of the Walla Walla River. The Tollgate plateau is surrounded on all sides by very steep, and 

deep, inaccessible canyons (Appendix A, MapA2, and Figure 1-1). The plateau is generally characterized 

by mixed to high-severity fire regimes. Private lands and inholdings are adjacent to, and interspersed 

with, National Forest System (NFS) lands. 

In many cases on other NFS lands, Wilderness and Roadless areas occur at higher elevations and are well 

removed from communities. In contrast, the Tollgate plateau sits above large tracts of both Roadless and 

Wilderness areas. Potential fire behavior analysis—and recent wildfire behavior—indicates that wildfires 

will likely initiate in these remote places, gain uncontrollable intensity, and ultimately emerge onto the 

plateau with firebrand spotting distances of up to 1 or 2 miles into the Tollgate WUI (Figure 1-1). During 

most fire seasons, the geographic positioning of the Tollgate WUI relative to large tracts of remote and 

inaccessible Roadless and Wilderness areas places it at considerable risk of high-severity, high-intensity 

wildfires moving into and through the area (Figure 1-1). These wildfire risks threaten many important 

values identified in the Umatilla County CWPP: 

1. Residences- There are approximately 370 residences within the Upper 204/Tollgate WUI. There 

are 43 privately owned cabins under Forest Service special use permit and the Spout Springs Ski 

Resort is also within the project planning area (Appendix A, MapA2). 

2. Local and Regional Infrastructure: There is infrastructure that occurs throughout the area that 

holds both local and regional importance to various surrounding communities. There are fiber 

optic lines, telephone lines, power transmission lines, power distribution lines, communications 

equipment and scientific sampling devices (Appendix A, MapA2). The Tollgate community is 

bisected by Oregon State Highway 204. This highway serves as a major transportation route for 

shipping commercial goods and people. The highway connects the communities of Elgin, OR in 

the south to Milton-Freewater, OR and in the north, Pendleton, OR (Appendix A, Map A1). 

3. Forest Service infrastructure: There are 4 Forest Service campgrounds, 6 trailheads, 4 snowparks 

and other Forest Service facilities (such as the Tollgate Work Center and Tollgate Visitor Center). 

4. Public Health and Safety: Given the high amount of recreational use seen by the area, a wildland 

fire event would likely cause serious threat to human life (both residents and wildland fire 

responders) as well as property. In such an event, fire managers expect that a large number of 

resources (personnel and financial) would be expended in fire suppression operations in the area. 

Given the areas current vegetative conditions this would constitute increased risk due to the 

amount of personnel hours spent on suppression activities. 

Consistent with the Umatilla County CWPP and Umatilla Forest Plan, the desired condition for the 

Tollgate planning area is a WUI area generally characterized by fuel profiles with a low likelihood of 

active crown fire, and which are thereby suitable for: 

Direct wildfire control and suppression under all but the most extreme circumstances in 

accessible areas widely distributed within the Tollgate WUI 

Safe ingress and egress within the Tollgate WUI during wildfire events 

Protection (by firefighters and firefighting resources) of identified Values at Risk from wildfirecaused injury, loss of life, property damage, or destruction 

Existing levels of hazardous fuels in the Tollgate WUI are not consistent with these desired 

conditions. Throughout most areas in the Tollgate vicinity, fuel loading, arrangement, and continuity are 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

1-4 

not suitable for direct wildfire attack and suppression under typical fire weather and fuel moisture 

conditions. Safe ingress and egress would not be possible during wildfire events where crown fire is 

likely to occur—which is presently along most travel routes within the Tollgate WUI. Finally, crown fire 

is expected in many areas (including most areas surrounding private property and other infrastructure) 

throughout the majority of the normal fire season. 

The need for action in the Tollgate area is based upon difference between existing and desired conditions 

with respect to fuel levels, associated potential wildfire behavior, and related risks to the values identified 

above. The purpose of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project is to address the needs identified above, by 

implementing actions that reduce the probability and potential extent of active crown fire within the 

Tollgate WUI. The project would reduce the amount and continuity of surface and canopy fuel loading, 

and in so doing, enhance and expand opportunities for protection of identified values at risk from wildfire 

damage or destruction. 

Figure 1-1 -- Photograph of 2005 Burnt Cabin Fire effects taken from location near Target 

Meadows Campground

PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

In response to the purpose and need described above, the Walla Walla Ranger District proposes surface 

and canopy fuels reduction activities to improve protection to adjacent private lands and public/private 

infrastructure, change potential fire behavior within Tollgate WUI, and lower fire hazard to reduce the 

risk of potential adverse wildland fire effects on values at risk within the Tollgate planning area. 

Consistent with basic hazardous fuels reduction principles recommended by Agee and Skinner (2005), 

Tollgate Fuel reduction activities would reduce surface fuels, increase the height to live tree crowns, 

decrease crown density, and retain large trees of fire-resistant species. Thinning and removal of surface 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

1-5 

fuels can be a useful tool to achieve these objectives (Agee and Skinner 2005). Proposed thinning 

activities include the removal, mastication (grinding or mulching), and/or burning of commercially 

valuable trees (trees with stem sizes greater than or equal to 9 inches in diameter at breast height), as well 

as smaller trees without commercial value. The removal and/or mastication of standing dead and 

dead/down material is also prescribed to help meet the objectives described above. 

Following are brief descriptions of activities proposed for implementation, along with associated 

activities that would occur concurrently. More detailed descriptions of proposed actions can be found in 

Chapter 2 of this document. 

Surface and Canopy Fuels Reduction 

Reduction of forest canopy bulk density (while retaining a fully stocked stand) by removing specified 

crowns, where canopy bulk density is the weight of the available canopy fuel. By reducing the total 

available fuel in the crowns and providing space between the crowns, this treatment reduces stand 

potential to produce or sustain crown fire. 

The post-treatment residual overstory density would vary depending upon the species composition and 

individual tree characteristics of the site, but would always exceed 80 ft2/ac of basal area. In general, 

residual tree density would be increase along with site productivity. In other words, the forest thinning 

activities are not intended to regenerate new trees, although this is expected to occur in the more 

productive sites. Activities would tend to favor early seral tree species such as ponderosa pine and 

western larch, and favor larger, more fire-resistant tree for retention. Fuels reduction activities include 

Commercial thinning (CT), Non-Commercial Thinning (NCT), Ladder Fuel Reduction (LFR), and 

Dead and Down Woody Debris Removal (DDR). These activities are described in detail in Chapter 2 

and Appendix A, Maps A3 and A4. 

Activities Supporting Fuels Reduction and Public Safety

Road Management 

In order to accomplish proposed activities, approximately 30 miles of open system roads and about 16 

miles of closed1system roads would be used. Approximately 5 miles of Oregon State Highway 204 exist 

within the project planning area. Closed system roads used for project activities would not be opened to 

the public and would be closed following project activities. All system roads would remain the same after 

project implementation; open roads would remain opened, closed roads would continue to be closed, and 

seasonally open roads would continue with that designation. 

Approximately 2.6 miles of temporary road construction would occur and would be decommissioned after 

project activity use. Normal routine road maintenance activities (such as road blading, roadside brushing, 

ditch clearing, etc.) would occur. Non-functional culverts would be cleaned and/or replaced, and water 

source ponds would be cleaned as needed. 

Approximately 0.35 miles of forest road 3718155 is inside an RHCA and would be moved to an upland 

site which occurs outside of the RHCA. The road is inside the RHCA of a perennial non-fish bearing 

stream and has a native surface (soil). The road is adjacent to a spring and the roadbed is saturated for 

 

1 Closed Road: These roads are not available for motorized vehicle travel for everyday access and are gated or 

closed by barricades. These roads can be opened for access for resource management activities or fire suppression. 

Snowmobile use is allowed except where specifically prohibited. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

1-6 

much of the year in that location. The existing segment of road would be decommissioned and 

rehabilitated. Forest Road 3718155 is listed as a closed road by the Walla Walla RD Access and Travel 

Management Plan. This realignment activity would not change its Access and Travel Management status. 

Following the completion of fuels reduction activities, Forest Road 3718155 would be gated and would 

retain its current status as a closed road. 

Danger Tree Removal 

“Danger trees” (trees which are, within the next 0-10 years, likely to fall in an uncontrolled manner in 

proximity to unprotected persons and property, and/or limit effective ingress/egress, and thereby pose a 

substantial risk to human life or property) would be felled and removed along all haul routes used for 

timber sale activity, as well as both open and closed system roads. If considered economically feasible, 

these trees would be sold as part of a timber sale. 

Activity Locations of High Interest 

Design objectives of proposed activities are to break-up fuel continuity on the landscape, so that when a 

wildfire does occur it could be contained to a smaller size and be of low intensity to allow for safe and 

effective fire suppression efforts. During the development of the proposed action the Interdisciplinary 

Team (IDT) identified several locations and/or proposed treatment types or areas of high interest and 

highlighted them during public involvement. These highlighted areas are briefly discussed below: 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas 

During project development the IDT identified several areas that held strategic importance for protection 

of values at risk and providing for firefighter/public safety during a wildfire event. These strategic points 

were identified based on potential fire travel path modeling which identified several likely areas where 

active crown fires would emerge up from the Lookingglass and South Fork Walla Walla Roadless Areas, 

and North Fork Umatilla Wilderness (Figure 1-1) via corridors of high-density forests—some of which 

are also Pacfish Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs, USDA Forest Service 1995) (Figure 1-2). 

Areas of strategic importance for fire protection in the Tollgate WUI often coincide with RHCAs because 

the topography and fuel profiles associated with stream drainages (emerging from these Wilderness and 

Roadless areas) are in many cases conducive to active crown fire spread into the Tollgate WUI. 

As a result, the IDT proposed fuels reduction treatment within four Pacfish Riparian Habitat 

Conservation Areas (RHCAs) of particular strategic importance, given their location, potential fire 

behavior, and proximity to values at risk (described above). Protection of residential or other structures 

during a normal wildfire event would only be possible after surface and canopy fuel reduction within the 

RHCA. 

The proposed activities would occur within the Pacfish RHCA buffer, but would not occur directly 

adjacent to, or cross the wetted stream channel itself. Only those RHCAs identified above are proposed 

for treatment. All other RHCAs occurring within the project planning area would utilize a Pacfish RHCA 

buffer, within which no treatment activities would occur. RHCAs located within units 19, 38, 66, and 75 

are proposed for fuels reduction activities. These RHCAs would be treated by mechanical means such as 

timber harvest. Logging systems would be designed so that no harvest or skidding would cross the stream 

channel. All applicable Forest Plan standards would be met. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

1-7 

 

Figure 1-2 – Hazardous fuels adjacent to recreation residences within Unit 19. 

In order to facilitate fuels reduction activities within strategically important (with respect to the project 

Purpose and Need) RHCAs occurring in the project planning area (units 19, 38, 66, and 75; Appendix A, 

Map A3, Figure 1-2), the Umatilla Forest Plan would be amended to allow commercial and noncommercial thinning activities and associated vegetation removal within Pacfish RHCA stream buffers. 

This site specific amendment would remain in effect until the completion of Tollgate Fuels Reduction 

project activities. Additional details regarding this amendment are located in Chapter 2. 

Lookingglass Inventoried Roadless Area 

The Lookingglass Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) is approximately 5,000 acres in size and is located 

south of Forest Road 6400 and east of State Highway 204. The Lookingglass IRA shares a common 

boundary with two privately owned forest inholdings both occurring along the IRAs northern face. Much 

of the forest area within the IRA and adjacent to the private land are characterized by dense forest and 

high loads of surface and canopy fuels (Figure 1-3).

Fuels reduction activities are proposed within the Lookingglass IRA. The proposed activities include 

commercial thinning, ladder fuel reduction, removal of dead/down material. The activities are proposed 

on approximately 205 acres within the Lookingglass IRA boundary and are strategically located along 

property boundary with private inholdings to serve as strategic fuel breaks. Units 26, 38, and a portion of 

75 occur within the IRA boundary (Appendix A, Map A3). 

No proposed project activities would occur in the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness. No commercial 

timber harvest, road construction and reconstruction, or actions associated with these activities would 

occur in the Walla Walla River IRA. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

1-8 

Figure 1-3 -- Representative vegetation density, structure, and fuel loading within Lookingglass 

IRA, taken from Forest Road 6400 

Areas with trees 21 inches diameter-at-breast height (DBH) or greater

In order to best meet the project Purpose and Need it may be necessary to remove some trees 21 inches 

and greater. There are areas within the project planning area were large trees are closely clustered and 

have interlocking crowns. As a result to meet the objective to reduce horizontal continuity of fuels some 

trees equal to or greater than 21 inches DBH are proposed for removal. Vegetative analysis shows that the 

Tollgate planning area (46,000 acres) is within the Historic Range of Variability (HRV) for the moist 

forest plant biophysical environment and thus proposed removal of trees greater than or equal to 21 inches 

DBH or greater does not require a Forest Plan amendment. More discussion concerning HRV analysis can 

be found in Chapter 3. 

The proposal identifies trees equal to or greater than 21 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) may be 

removed to meet fuel objectives across the planning area when operating within a moist forest type. The 

proposed removal would occur within units 45, 83, 84 and 95 (Appendix A, Map A3). Additionally, 

where necessary, for safety and/or logging corridors, incidental trees equal to or greater than 21 inches 

may be commercially removed. 

Areas along Oregon State Highway 204 

Oregon State Highway 204 has been identified as an important evacuation route for the area. It is also an 

important commerce transportation route. The project proposes activities on both sides of Hwy. 204. 

These activities reduce surface fuels, increase the height to live tree crowns, decrease crown density, and 

retain large trees of fire-resistant species, and are thus designed to make Hwy. 204 a more defensible 

travel corridor, should a wildfire occur in the area. The following units are located along Hwy. 204 

corridor: 18, 19, 20, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, and 73 (Appendix A, Map A3). Highway 204 is a visually 

sensitive area. An analysis of visual effects of the proposed actions can be found in Chapter 3 of this 

DEIS. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

1-9 

Timing of activities 

Tollgate project activities are anticipated to begin in 2013. The anticipated time frame for completion of 

all components of the Tollgate project would be five (5) to ten (10) years, depending on market conditions 

and Forest Service staff and funding capacity. Activities would occur during the normal operating season 

as weather and soil conditions permit—typically between the months of May and November. 

TIERING AND INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE

In order to reduce repetition and focus on site-specific analysis, this DEIS is tiered to the following 

documents as permitted by 40 CFR 1502.20: 

The FEIS for the Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and Record of 

Decision (ROD) dated June 11, 1990 and all subsequent NEPA analysis for amendments. The 

Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan FEIS analyzed the environmental 

effects of different options of management for the Umatilla National Forest. The FEIS analyzed eight 

(8) alternatives in detail. Ultimately, Alternative F/M was selected for implementation. This selected 

alternative is the foundation of the Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(LRMP), also known as the “Forest Plan.” 

Umatilla National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), 

decision dated July 2010. Authorizes treatment of invasive plant species over a 5-15 year period 

using manual, mechanical, biological, herbicide, and cultural activities. 

This DEIS also incorporates by reference the following documents: 

Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) as amended (Forest 

Plan). The Forest Plan guides all natural resource management activities and establishes 

management standards and guidelines for the Umatilla National Forest. It describes resource 

management practices, levels of resource production and management, and the availability and 

suitability of lands for resource management. 

The Biological Opinion for the Implementation of Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous 

Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California 

(Pacfish ) from National Marine Fisheries Service dated January 23, 1995. Pacfish itself does not 

propose any ground-disturbing actions, but sets in place certain riparian management goals and 

management direction with the intent of arresting the degradation and beginning the restoration of 

riparian and stream habitats. 

The Biological Opinion on the Land and Resource Management Plans for the Boise, Challis, Nez 

Perce, Payette, Sawtooth, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests from National Marine 

Fisheries Service, dated March 1, 1995. National Marine Fisheries has identified a set of goals, 

objectives, and guidelines that apply to watershed and site-specific consultations until Land and 

Resource Management Plans are amended. Conformance with the provisions of this Opinion, in 

combination with implementation of PACFISH , should provide reasonable certainty that site-specific 

actions would not result in jeopardy to listed salmon or adverse modification of critical habitat. 

The Biological Opinion for the Effects to Bull Trout from Continued Implementation of Land and 

Resource Management Plans and Resource Management Plans as Amended by the Interim 

Strategy for Managing Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

1-10 

Western Montana, and Portions of Nevada (INFISH), and the Interim Strategy for Managing 

Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions 

of California (PACFISH ) from National Marine Fisheries Service, dated August 14, 1998. This BO 

addresses the effects of continued implementation of LRMPs as amended by PACFISH standards 

and guidelines where listed distinct population segments of bull trout occur in Idaho, Montana, 

Oregon, and Washington. 

The Biological Opinion - Land and Resource Management Plans for National Forests and Bureau 

of Land and Management Resource Areas in the Upper Columbia River Basin and Snake River 

Basin Evolutionarily Significant Units by National Marine Fisheries Service dated June 22, 1998. 

This BO addresses the effects of continued implementation of the 18 LRMPs as amended by 

PACFISH standards and guidelines on Snake River salmon and steelhead. 

USDA Forest Service, Region 6, 2000, "Memorandum of Agreement between the USDA Forest 

Service Region 6 and the State of Oregon Water Resources Department for Meeting Responsibilities 

under Federal and State Water Quality Laws." 

Annual Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Reports from 1991 to 2004. The main focus of the 

Umatilla's monitoring strategy is to ensure consistency in implementing the Forest Plan. 

Walla Walla Ranger District Motorized Access and Travel Management Plan Environmental 

Assessment (EA), Walla Walla Ranger District, July 1993. A comprehensive program resulting in a 

transportation system which provides for a broad mix of both motorized and non-motorized recreation 

opportunities while moving toward Forest Plan desired future conditions. 

Analysis of Umatilla National Forest Road System, dated March, 2004. Forest-scale analysis in 

determining the minimum road system needed to meet resource and other management objectives. 

The Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia Basin 

released 1996. Links landscape, aquatic, terrestrial, social, and economic characterizations to 

described biophysical and social systems. 

Updated Blue Mountain Project Design Criteria (PDC) – Programmatic Informal Section 7 

Consultation (13420-2007-I-0154). Letter of concurrence dated June 4, 2007 from U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service for informal consultation and accompanying updated Blue 

Mountain Province Expedited Process Instrument for Programmatic Informal Section 7 Consultation 

(April 25, 2007). 

 Implementing Streamlined Consultation Procedures for Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act –

ICS Memo #2 May 27, 2003. Memo on streamlined consultation procedures by an Interagency 

Coordination Subgroup (ICS). 

Umatilla National Forest Interim Snag Guidance Letter dated April, 1993, which provides direction 

on the number and distribution of snags to retain in harvest units. 

National Fire Plan (August 2000) developed with the intent of responding to severe wildland fires 

and their impacts to communities while addressing five key points: Firefighting, Rehabilitation, 

Hazardous Fuels Reduction, Community Assistance, and Accountability. 

Region 6 Protocol for Assessment and Management of Soil Quality Conditions dated January 2002. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

1-11 

Established consistency in soil assessment methods on the Umatilla National Forest and other Blue 

Mountain forests, and ensures compliance with Forest Plan and NEPA condition assessment needs. 

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

As previously noted, the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990) provides most of the management 

direction for Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project. The Forest Plan made land allocations using management 

areas (MA), each of which emphasizes a particular desired future condition (DFC). Forest Plan standards 

and guidelines provide direction for achieving DFCs. 

Additional management direction is provided by Forest Plan amendments approved since 1990, including 

three amendments in particular: 

 “Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem, and Wildlife Standards for 

Timber Sales” (USDA Forest Service 1995; also known as Eastside Screens); and 

 “Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-Producing Watersheds on Federal Lands in 

Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho and Portions of California” (USDA Forest Service and 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994; also known as Pacfish ).

 The Pacific Northwest Region Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Invasive Plant 

Program, 2005, hereby referred to as the R6 2005 FEIS. The R6 2005 FEIS culminated in a 

Record of Decision (R6 2005 ROD) that amended the Umatilla National Forest Plan. 

The Eastside Screens (FP amendment #11; approved 6/12/1995) focuses on potential impacts of timber 

sales on riparian habitat, historical vegetation patterns, and wildlife fragmentation and connectivity 

(USDA Forest Service 1995). 

Pacfish (FP amendment #10; approved 2/24/1995) establishes management direction designed to arrest 

and reverse declines in anadromous fish habitat (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land 

Management 1994). 

The R6 2005 FEIS (approved 10/11/2005) amended the Forest Plan by adding management direction 

relative to invasive plants. 

The Forest Plan allocates management areas as the way to characterize the landscape for the type and 

intensity of management activities that may occur on Umatilla National Forest. Management areas within 

the project planning area are shown in Table 1-1. 

Table 1-1 — Forest Plan Management Areas within the Tollgate project planning area 

Forest Plan Management 

Areas

Management Area 

Acres within 

Planning Area

Acres proposed for 

treatment by 

Management Area

Percentage of affected 

Management Areas 

proposed for 

treatment

A2- Dispersed Recreation 3, 104 83 3%

A3- Viewshed 1 6,419 1,306 20%

A4- Viewshed 2 257 22 9%

A5- Roaded Natural 561 0 0%

A6- Developed Recreation 1,487 132 9%
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

1-12 

A9- Special Interest Area 228 38 17%

B1- Wilderness 12,571 0 0%

C1- Dedicated Old Growth 1,845 0 0%

C4- Wildlife Habitat 2,441 0 0%

C5- Riparian and Wildlife 

Habitat

272 11 4%

E2- Timber and Big Game 10,722 2,819 26%

F4- Walla Walla River 5,430 0 0%

P- Private Property 1,116 0 0%

Totals 46,453 4,462 10%

See appendix A (map A-1) for a visual representation of management areas within Tollgate area. 

The following goals are associated with each Forest Plan management area allocation located within the 

Tollgate project planning area. Detailed descriptions for each area can be found in the Forest Plan. 

A2 – Dispersed Recreation – Goal: Provide motorized recreation in s predominately natural or 

natural appearing environment with a moderate degree of isolation from sights and sounds of 

human activity. 

A3 – Viewshed 1 – Goal: Manage the area seen from a travel route, use area, or water body, 

where forest visitors have a major concern for the scenic qualities (sensitivity level 1) as a 

natural appearing landscape.

A4 – Viewshed 2 – Goal: Manage the area seen from a travel route, use area, or water body, 

where forest visitors have a major concern for the scenic qualities as a natural appearing to 

slightly altered landscape. 

A5 – Roaded Natural – Goal: Provide dispersed recreation opportunities in an area 

characterized by a predominantly natural to near natural appearing environment with moderate 

evidences of the sights and sounds of man. Such evidences usually harmonize with the natural 

environment.

A6 – Developed Recreation – Goal: Provide recreation opportunities that are dependent on the 

development of structural facilities for user conveniences where interaction between users and 

evidence of others is prevalent.

A9 – Special Interest Area – Goal: Manage, preserve, and interpret areas of significant 

cultural, historical, geological, botanical, or other special characteristics for educational, 

scientific, and public enjoyment purposes. Viewpoints (Bald Mountain overlooking Lookingglass 

canyon)- sites affording opportunities for viewing forest activities and landscape settings.

B1 – Wilderness – Goal: Manage to preserve, protect, and improve the resources and values of 

the forest wilderness, as directed by the Wilderness Act of 1964.

C1 – Dedicated Old Growth – Goal: Provide and protect sufficient suitable habitat for wildlife 

species dependent upon mature and/or overmature forest stands, and promote a diversity of 

vegetative conditions for such species. 

C4 - Wildlife Habitat; Goal: Manage Forest Lands to provide high levels of potential habitat 

effectiveness for big game and other wildlife species with emphases on size and distribution of 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

1-13 

habitat components (forage and cover areas for elk, snags and dead and down materials for all 

cavity users) unique wildlife habitats and key use areas would be retained or protected.

C5 – Riparian (Fish and Wildlife) – Goal: Maintain or enhance water quality, and produce a 

high level of potential habitat capability for all species of fish and wildlife within the designated 

riparian habitat areas while providing for a high level of habitat effectiveness for big game.

E2 - Timber and Big Game; Goal: Manage Forest Lands to emphasize production of wood 

fiber (timber), encourage forage production, and maintain a moderate level of big game and 

other wildlife habitat.

F4 – Walla Walla River Watershed – Goal: Provide high quantity and quality of water and elk 

habitat effectiveness while sustaining or enhancing other resource values. Management activities 

would not substantially change the level of water discharge from the National Forest during the 

May 1 through September 30 period. 

APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS

National Statutes 

Analysis and documentation has been done according to direction contained in the National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on 

Environmental Quality Regulations (CEQ), the Clean Water Act (CWA), Clean Air Act (CAA), 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) and the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), Forest Service NEPA regulation (36 CFR 220), and all other applicable 

laws, regulations and policies. 

Federal Rules and Regulations 

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 

The Forest Service Manual contains legal authorities, objectives, policies, responsibilities, instructions, 

and guidance needed on a continuing basis by Forest Service line officers and primary staff in more than 

one unit to plan and execute assigned programs and activities. The Forest Service Manual was prepared 

and is maintained at the Forest Service National Headquarters located in Washington, DC.

Forest Service Handbooks (FSH) 

Forest Service Handbooks are the principal source of specialized guidance and instruction for carrying out 

the direction issued in the Forest Service Manual. Specialists and technicians are the primary audience of 

Handbook direction. Handbooks may also incorporate external directives with related USDA and Forest 

Service directive supplements. The Forest Service Handbook was prepared and is maintained at the 

Forest Service National Headquarters located in Washington, DC.

2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule 

The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR §294.11) includes regulations that provide longterm management direction to Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), and only applies to areas identified and 

mapped as IRAs in the Forest Service Roadless Conservation FEIS Volume 2, dated November 2000. 

Some activities proposed under Alternative B of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project would occur within 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

1-14 

portions of the Lookingglass IRA. There is one prohibition listed in the Rule pertinent to the Tollgate 

Project that prohibits timber cutting, sale, or removal in Inventoried Roadless Areas (36 CFR § 294.13). 

Trees would be removed within units 26, 38, and a portion of unit 75 which occurs within the boundary of 

the Lookingglass IRA (Appendix A, Map A3). Additionally, danger trees with an imminent potential of 

failure would be cut and removed along haul routes that may coincide with the IRA. The prohibition 

includes exceptions if the Responsible Official determines that certain circumstances exist. 

The exception in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”) to the prohibition on 

timber cutting, sale, or removal states: timber may be cut, sold, or removed in IRAs if the Responsible 

Official determines that one of the following circumstances exists. The cutting, sale, or removal of timber 

is these areas is expected to be infrequent (36 CFR § 294.13).

1. The cutting, sale, or removal of generally small diameter timber is needed for one of the 

following purposes and will maintain or improve one or more of the Roadless area 

characteristics as defined in §294.11 

i. To improve threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive species habitat, or 

ii. To maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and 

structure, such as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, within 

the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural 

disturbance regimes of the current climatic period; 

2. The cutting, sale, or removal of timber is incidental to the implementation of a management 

activity not otherwise prohibited by this subpart; 

3. The cutting, sale, or removal of timber is needed and appropriate for personal or administrative 

use, as provided for in 36 CFR part 223; or 

4. Roadless characteristics have been substantially altered in a portion of an IRA due to the 

construction of a classified road and subsequent timber harvest. Both the road construction and 

subsequent timber harvest must have occurred after the area was designated an IRA and prior to 

January 12, 2001. Timber may be cut, sold, or removed only in the substantially altered portion 

of the IRA. 

In order to comply with the Roadless Area, the activities proposed under any action Alternative may only 

occur within an IRA if one of the circumstances (1(i), 1(ii,), 2, 3 or 4) outlined in 36 CFR § 294.13 exist. 

The consistency of the proposed activities with the Roadless Rule will be disclosed in the Specifically 

Required Disclosures section of Chapter 4 of this document. 

PROJECT RECORD

A project record (40 CFR 1502.21) is being maintained at the Walla Walla Ranger District for this Draft 

EIS. This project record may be reviewed by appointment, at the Walla Walla Ranger District, 1415 W. 

Rose, Walla Walla, Washington 99362. This Draft EIS hereby incorporates by reference the entire project 

record for this Draft EIS. 

The project record contains resource specialist reports, addendums to specialist reports, literature 

citations, and other technical documentation used to support the analysis and conclusions in this Draft 

EIS. Specialists reports are included for the following: soil, water quality, fish, vegetation, historical 

range of variability (HRV), noxious weeds, visuals, fuels, air quality, climate change, recreation, visuals, 

transportation system (roads), heritage, economics, wild and scenic rivers, wilderness, Inventoried 

Roadless Areas, areas inventoried for wilderness potential, undeveloped lands, terrestrial wildlife species 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

1-15 

and habitats, management indicator species, migratory birds, biological evaluations and assessments for 

threatened, endangered and sensitive (TE&S) aquatic, terrestrial, and plant species, and deadwood habitat 

(DecAID analysis). Other sources of information, documents, published studies, and books referred to in 

the project file and this document are also included. 

Relying on specialists reports and the project record helps implement the CEQ's regulation provision that 

agencies should reduce NEPA paperwork (40 CFR 1500.4), that environmental documents shall be 

analytic rather than encyclopedic, and that EISs/EAs shall be kept concise and no longer than absolutely 

necessary (40 CFR 1502.2). The objective is to furnish enough site-specific information to demonstrate a 

reasoned consideration of the environmental effects of the alternatives and how these effects can be 

mitigated if needed, without repeating detailed analysis and background information available elsewhere. 

Additional documentation and analyses of project area resources are located in the project file for 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft EIS at Walla Walla Ranger District, Walla Walla, Washington. 

TREATY RIGHTS

The Forest Service, through the Secretary of Agriculture, is vested with statutory authority and 

responsibility for managing resources of the National Forests. No sharing of administrative or 

management decision-making power is held with any other entity. However, commensurate with the 

authority and responsibility to manage is the obligation to consult, cooperate, and coordinate with Indian 

Tribes in developing and planning management decisions regarding resources on National Forest system 

land that may affect tribal rights. 

Locally, Tollgate project planning area lies within the area ceded to the United States government by the 

Nez Perce Indians, and the area ceded to the Unites States by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla 

Indians (CTUIR) as a result of the Treaties of 1855. 

Elements of respective Indian cultures, such as tribal welfare, land, and resources were entrusted to the 

United States government as a result of the treaties. Trust responsibilities resulting from the treaties 

dictate, in part, that the United States government facilitate the execution of treaty rights and traditional 

cultural practices of the CTUIR and Nez Perce Indians by working with them on a government to 

government basis in a manner that attempts a reasonable accommodation of their needs, without 

compromising the legal positions of the respective tribes or the federal government. 

Specific treaty rights applicable to that land base managed by the Umatilla National Forest area generally 

articulated in Article I of the CTUIR Treaty of 1855 and Article III of the 1855 Nez Perce Treaty, include: 

“The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams where running through or bordering said reservation 

is further secured to said Indians; as also the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places in 

common with citizens of the Territory; and of erecting temporary buildings for curing, together with the 

privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and 

unclaimed land.”

Although the 1855 Treaties do not specifically mandate the federal government to manage habitats, there 

is an implied assumption that an adequate reserve of water be available for executing treaty related 

hunting and fishing activities. 

General concerns received from the tribes on previous projects reflect the following: 

Potential effects to archeological and traditional properties 

Potential effects to water quality 

Potential effects to fish habitat, including salmonid species federally listed as threatened or 

endangered under ESA. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

1-16 

Potential effects to economic recovery 

Because tribal trust activities often occur in common with the public, Umatilla National Forest will strive 

to manage tribal ceded land to enable the execution of tribal rights, as far as practicable, while still 

providing goods and services to all people. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The Forest Service encourages public involvement in the identification of issues and development of 

alternatives through a process called scoping. Public involvement for this project began when a 

description of the project was listed in the quarterly 2008 Winter edition of the Umatilla National Forest’s 

Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA). On October 19, 2010, letters describing the project were sent on 

to representatives of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) and Nez Perce 

Tribe and to approximately 115 interested organizations, individuals, and other agencies that have 

indicated an interest in this type of project. The public was invited to comment on this proposed action 

and any potential conflicts posed by this proposed action. A notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was published in the Federal Register on October 19, 2010. 

Five comment letters were received in response to our initial scoping. All comments were reviewed. 

These comments were then used to assist in the identification of issues, creation of alternatives to the 

proposed action, and to determine the extent of environmental analysis necessary for making an informed 

decision. 

After the initial scoping period it was determined that the Forest Plan required amendment in order to 

implement proposed fuels reduction activities within strategically selected RHCAs. In recognition of this 

fact and in order to allow interested publics to provide comment, an additional scoping period began in 

September 2011. Approximately 84 interested individuals, organizations, agencies as well as Tribal 

governments were notified of this additional scoping period. A second NOI appeared in the Federal 

Register on September 6, 2011. 

A 45-day public comment period will be held on this Draft EIS. The Draft EIS has been posted to the 

Umatilla’s project web site. 

ISSUE IDENTIFICATION

Issues serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the proposed action and 

alternatives, giving opportunities during the analysis to explore alternative ways to meet the purpose and 

need for the proposal, while reducing adverse effects and compare trade-offs for the decision maker and 

public to understand. 

An issue should be phrased as a cause-effect statement relating actions under consideration to effects. An 

issue statement should describe a specific action and the environmental effect(s) expected to result from 

that action. Cause-effect statements provide a way to understand and focus on the issues relevant to a 

particular decision. 

There is no set of standard issues applicable to every proposal, so consideration is paid by the responsible 

official to a variety of laws, regulations, executive orders and input, with the help of the interdisciplinary 

team (IDT). The responsible official approved the issues to be analyzed in depth by the IDT in the 

environmental analysis. In the case of Tollgate, issues were grouped according to common resources, 

which include: 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

1-17 

 Fuels reduction and wildfire behavior: Proposed activities would likely alter potential fire 

behavior, improve capacity to protect values at risk, and improve opportunities for safe ingress/egress 

during fire events. 

 RHCA Activities: Proposed tree cutting and related activities in RHCAs may impair water quality 

values and wildlife habitat. 

 Old forests: Proposed tree cutting activities may reduce the quality, quantity, and/or connectivity of 

important habitat for wildlife, such as old forest, snags, and down woody debris. 

 Roadless Area Characteristics and potential Wilderness suitability: Proposed tree-cutting 

activities may impair identified Roadless Characteristics, Wilderness Area Values, and the suitability 

of Potential Wilderness Areas for Wilderness designation. 

 Visual Resources: Proposed tree cutting activities may impair the visual characteristics of the 6400 

road and Highway 204 corridor. 

Additionally, the IDT identified and eliminated from detailed study the issues which are not significant or 

which have been covered by prior environmental review (1506.3), narrowing the discussion of these 

issues in the statement to a brief presentation of why they will not have a significant effect on the human 

environment or providing a reference to their coverage elsewhere. (40 CFR 1501.7(a)(3)) 

The ID team recommended, and the responsible official approved, significant environmental issues, 

measures, and indicators deserving of detailed study. Significant issues used for analysis of 

environmental effects of each Alternative analyzed in detail are discussed below. Significant issues 

analyzed in this document (table 1-2), as well as measures and indicators for each (table 1-3), are listed 

below. Issues were considered deserving of detailed study when they serve, for each Alternative, as a 

basis for determination of consistency with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, as well as the 

relative ability to meet the project Purpose and Need. Additionally, some issues were used to evaluate the 

relative extent to which an Alternative meets in the Purpose and Need in a manner that minimizes or 

avoids adverse effects, and addresses unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available 

resources as provided by section 102(2)(E) of the National Environmental Policy Act. Issues utilized in 

this manner are also identified in Table 1-2, and are phrased as cause-effect relationships by combining the 

causal phrase (italics font in first row of column of Table 1-2) with the effects phrases below.

Table 1-2 — Issue groups, Issues, and Issue analysis roles for the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project. 

Issue group

Issue 

(FSH 1909.15, 12.4)

Proposed activities, in whole 

or in part, may:

Issue role in project analysis

Indicates 

consistency with

applicable laws, 

regulations/policy

or opportunities to 

reduce adverse 

effects

Enables 

evaluation of 

Alternatives with 

respect to the

project Purpose 

and Need

Enables evaluation of 

Alternatives with respect to 

addressing unresolved 

conflicts of alternative 

uses of available resources

Old forest habitat

Reduce the amount of snags 

available for wildlife species 

and large down wood 

recruitment

X X

Alter the characteristics of old 

forest wildlife habitat X X
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

1-18 

Reduce the connectivity of old 

forest wildlife habitat X X

Reduce the abundance of 

trees >21” DBH X X

Affect the habitat and 

populations of MIS species X

Affect the habitat and 

populations of Sensitive 

wildlife species

X

Affect the habitat and 

populations of the northern 

goshawk

X

Affect the habitat and/or 

populations of other Priority 

birds / Landbirds / Neotropical 

migrants

X

Visual resources

Reduce scenic integrity of 

areas seen from Forest Road 

6400, Road 6401, and Hwy. 

204

X X

Reduce scenic stability of 

areas seen from Forest Road 

6400, Road 6401, and Hwy. 

204

X X

Roadless Areas and 

potential Wilderness

Alter Roadless Area 

characteristics X X

Eliminate suitability of areas 

Potential Wilderness X

RHCA activities / 

hydrology

Impair water quality X

Alter hydrologic function and 

condition X

Affect water yield X

Fuels reduction and 

potential fire 

behavior

Alter potential fire behavior

(surface, active crown, 

passive crown, etc.) within the 

Tollgate WUI

X X

Alter fire travel times within 

the Tollgate WUI X

Reduce spotting distances 

within the Tollgate WUI X

Allow protection of adjacent 

and nearby private property in 

the Tollgate WUI

X X

Reduce potential surface fire 

intensity X

Enable safe ingress/egress

when impacted by wildfire at 

or under 90% weather/fuel

moisture conditions

X

Fisheries Impair fish habitat X

Soil Increase the degree and 

extent of Detrimental Soil X
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

1-19 

Condition

Decrease the amount of 

effective ground cover X

Decrease the amount of 

coarse and fine woody debris X

TES Plant species Alter the distribution of TES 

plant species X

Economic value May affect timber values and 

associated economic activity X

Recreation

May impact developed and 

dispersed camping X

May impact access to and/or 

opportunities for dispersed 

recreation activities

X

My impact the Recreation

Opportunity Spectrum X

My impact the “sense of 

place” in the Tollgate area X
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

1-20

Table 1-3 — Measures and Indicators for Significant Issues identified for detailed study 

Issue 

Group

Issue

Proposed activities, in 

whole or in part, may:

Measures / Indicators

Magnitude

(amount of change of a value)

Spatial 

Extent

Temporal 

Extent / 

Duration

Likelihood Speed

Old forests2 / wildlife

Reduce the amount of snags available for wildlife species and large down wood recruitment

Snag per acre by diameter class (10” DBH

and 20” DBH)

Snag Analysis 

Area

Short (1-10 yrs.)Mid-term (10-50 yrs.)Long-term (>50 yrs.)

Near-certain / Likely / Not likely / Highly unlikely

Immediately following implementation, which is expected to occur over the next 1-5 years

Reduce the amount of old forest wildlife habitat

Acres of Old Forest Multi-story (OFMS) or 

Old Forest Single-story (OFSS), and as % of Tollgate Project Planning Area

Tollgate Project 

Planning Area

Reduce the connectivity of old forest wildlife habitat

Acres of old forest connective corridors or 

adjacent old forest stands

Reduce the abundance of large-tree (>21” DBH) habitat

Acres of large-tree (>21” DBH) habitat

Affect the habitat and/or populations of MIS species

1. % of area Rocky Mountain elk habitat

a. Satisfactory coverb. Total coverc. Habitat Effectiveness Index (HEI)

2. Acres of well-distributed pine marten 

habitat

3. Pileated woodpecker4. Northern three-toed woodpecker5. Primary cavity excavators

Elk habitat – within activity units and up to 1-mile buffer outside of unitsAll other habitat – Tollgate Project Planning Area

No effect; May effect; Likely/Not likely to adversely effect

2 “Old Forest” is considered by the Umatilla National Forest to contain multi-story or single-story structure classes with 10 or more live conifer trees per acre greater than or equal to 21 inches in stem Diameter at Breast Height (DBH). 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

1-21

Affect the habitat and/or populations of Sensitive wildlife species

1. Canada lynx2. Gray wolf3. California wolverine4. Townsend’s big-eared bat5. Bald eagle (Sensitive)6. White-headed woodpecker (Sensitive)7. Lewis’ woodpecker (Sensitive)8. Columbia spotted frog – Great Basin DPS 

(Sensitive)

9. Rocky Mountain tailed frog (Sensitive) Tollgate Project Planning Area No impact / may impact

Immediately following implementation, which is expected to occur over the next 1-5 years Affect the habitat and/or 

populations of the northern goshawk

Acres of potential nesting habitat

Affect the habitat and/or populations of other Priority birds / Landbirds / Neotropical migrants

Acres of suitable habitat types for each species

Visual resources

Reduce scenic integrity of areas seen from Forest Road 6400, Road 6401, and Hwy. 204

Degree of visible alteration Areas visible from 

Forest Roads 

6400, 6401, and 

Hwy. 204 within 

the Tollgate 

Project Planning 

Area

Number of years or 

decades

Near-certain / Likely / Not likely / Highly unlikely

Immediately following implementation, which is expected to occur over the next 1-5 years Reduce scenic stability of 

areas seen from Forest Road 6400, Road 6401, and Hwy. 204

Degree to which scenic character (here, the vegetation attribute) can be sustained through time and ecological progression.

RoadlessAreas and potential Wilderness

Alter Roadless Area characteristics

Roadless characteristics:

1. High quality or undisturbed soil, water, 

and air

2. Sources of public drinking water3. Diversity of plant and animal 

communities

4. Habitat for threatened, endangered, 

proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land

5. Primitive, semi-primitive, non-motorized 

and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation

6. Reference landscapes

Boundaries of 

Inventoried 

Roadless Areas

which are partially 

or completely 

contained by the 

Tollgate Project 

Planning Area

Number of years or decades

Near-certain / Likely / Not likely / Highly unlikely

Immediately following implementation, which is expected to occur over the next 1-5 years
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

1-22

7. Natural appearing landscapes with high 

scenic quality

8. Traditional cultural properties and 

sacred sites and 

9. Other locally identified unique 

characteristics

Alter Wilderness and Potential Wilderness characteristics

Change of “untrammeled, Undeveloped, and Natural” characteristicsChange of “outstanding opportunities for solitude and remoteness”

Roadless characteristics (described above)

Spatial extent of 

the North Fork 

Umatilla 

Wilderness and 

PWAs within the 

Tollgate Project 

Planning Area Near-certain / Likely / 

Not likely / Highly unlikely

Immediately following implementation, which is expected to occur over the next 1-5 years

Alter social and biophysical characteristics of Non-Inventoried Roadless Area (Non-IRAs; “Other UndevelopedLands”)

Change in biophysical resourcesChange in social values (apparent naturalness, solitude, remoteness)

Areas identified as “Other UndevelopedLands”

Immediately following implementation, which is expected to occur over the next 1-5 years

RHCA activities / hydrology

Impair water quality 

1. Water temperature: 10 yr. avg. of 7-day 

max. avg.

2. Sediment (minor/major 

increases/decreases)

Code 6 Subwatersheds that contain the Tollgate Project Planning Area: middle reach of the South fork Walla Walla River, North Fork Umatilla River, and Upper LookingglassCreek. Hydrologic Unit 

Number of runoff seasons Near-certain / Likely / 

Not likely / Highly unlikely

Within one runoff season 

following implementation, 

which is expected to occur 

over the next 1-5 years

Alter hydrologic function and condition

1. RHCA Condition2. Road interaction with drainage 

network: a) road miles in RHCAs, b) road miles/stream miles ratio, and c) number of stream and road intersections

3. Road density: open and close road 

miles per square mile

Affect water yield Equivalent Treatment Acre model acres as % of HUC 6 watershed Number of years or decades

Fuels reduction and potential fire behavior

Alter potential fire behavior (surface, active crown, passive crown, etc.) within the Tollgate WUI/Analysis area

Acres within Tollgate Project Planning Area

of crown fire behavior types under 90th- percentile weather and fuel moisture 

conditions3

Tollgate Project 

Planning Area

Number of years or decades

Near-certain / Likely / Not likely / Highly unlikely

Immediately following implementation, which is expected to occur over the next 1-5 years

Alter fire travel times Number of potential miles traveled per 

3 90th-percentile weather and fuel moisture conditions are represented by 5% 1-hour fuel moistures, 60% live fuel moisture, and 15 mph 20-foot wind speeds. Put differently, 10% of weather days are represented by these fuel/weather conditions, or drier. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

1-23

within the Tollgate WUI number of hours (e.g., 1.5 miles traveled per 

8 hours) during 90%-percentile weather 

conditions.

Reduce spotting distances within the Tollgate WUI

Potential spotting distance (miles) during 

90%-percentile weather conditions.

Allow protection of adjacent and nearby private property in the Tollgate WUI

Number of acres within 1⁄4 mile of private 

land with potential surface fire behavior

during 90%-percentile weather conditions.

Reduce potential surfacefire intensity

Potential surface fire flame length (ft.) during 90%-percentile weather conditions.

Fisheries Harm fishes and/or their habitat

“No Effect / Effect / Adversely affect” based on changes in:

1. Water quality2. Temperature3. Chemical contaminants/Nutrients4. Habitat access (barriers)5. Habitat elements:

a. Sediment and substrateb. Large woody debrisc. Pool frequencyd. Large poolse. Off-channel habitat

6. Channel condition and dynamics

a. Wetted width/Max 

with/depth ratio

b. Streambank conditionc. Floodplain connectivity

7. Flow/hydrology

a. Change in peak flow/base 

flows (Equivalent Treatment Acre model acres as % of HUC 6 watershed)

8. Watershed conditions

a. Road density and locationb. Disturbance historyc. RHCAs

d. Disturbance regime

Hydrologic Unit 

Code 6 

Subwatersheds 

that contain the 

Tollgate Project 

Planning Area: 

middle reach of 

the South fork 

Walla Walla River, 

North Fork 

Umatilla River, 

and Upper 

Lookingglass

Creek. 

Number of runoff 

seasons/years

No effect; May effect; 

Likely/Not likely to 

adversely effect

Soils Increase the degree and 

extent of Detrimental Soil 

Existing DSC as percent of individual 

treatment units and associated temp roads

Activity units and 

associated temp 

Number of years or 

decades

Near-certain / Likely / Not likely / Highly 

Within one runoff season following implementation, 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

1-24 

Condition roads unlikely which is expected to occur 

over the next 1-5 years

Decrease the amount of effective ground cover

Effective ground cover as a percent of individual activity units

Activity units and associated temp roads

Decrease the amount of coarse and fine woody debris (CWD)

Change in tons/acre of CWD

Activity units and associated temp roads

Economic value

May affect timber values and associated economic activity

Present Net Value (PNV) in 2012 dollars Tollgate project Analysis Area Number of years Likely/unlikely

Within one operating season following implementation, which is expected to occur over the next 1-5 years

TES Plant species

Alter the distribution of TES plant species Acres Tollgate project Analysis Area Number of growing seasons/years No effect; May effect; Likely/Not likely to adversely effect Within one growing season following implementation, which is expected to occur over the next 1-5 years

Recreation

May impact developed

and dispersed camping

Recreation experience and availability (qualitative values)

Tollgate project Analysis Area Number of years

Near-certain / Likely / Not likely / Highly unlikely

Immediately following implementation, which is expected to occur over the next 1-5 years

May impact access to 

and/or opportunities for 

dispersed recreation 

activities

Travel access, safety, and desired use 

(qualitative values)

My impact the Recreation

Opportunity Spectrum ROS level of development and settings

My impact the “sense of 

place” in the Tollgate area

Consistency with characteristics defined in 

the Recreation Niche Statement
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

1-25 

DECISIONS TO BE MADE

This DEIS documents the results of environmental analysis conducted for the proposed action and its 

alternatives. If a Forest Plan amendment is documented in a decision, the Forest Supervisor of the 

Umatilla National Forest will be the responsible official. If an amendment is not documented in a 

decision, the District Ranger will be the responsible official. Decisions to be made include: 

1. Whether a Forest Plan amendment should occur at this time? 

2. Whether tree-cutting and associated road-related activities should occur as described in this 

document, and if so, how much and where? 

3. What monitoring and/or mitigation measures should be taken or needed? 

CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES

INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 

 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, including the proposed action

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

2-1 

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 2 describes and shows a comparison of three alternatives selected to be developed in detail, 

including the proposed action and a no-action alternative. The interdisciplinary team (IDT) developed 

these alternatives to be within the framework of the Forest Plan and applicable federal and state laws. 

The alternatives developed in detail were designed to address or resolve issues identified through public 

involvement and cause and effect analysis. Maps showing activity areas of alternatives considered in 

detail are located in Appendix A (Maps A3 and A4). 

The Chapter begins with a description of the range of Alternatives considered for detailed study, followed 

by detailed narrative description of the activities included in both action Alternatives. This detailed 

description is concluded by a summary and comparison of the activities included in each Action 

Alternative. Following this comparison, monitoring and mitigation measures common to both Action 

Alternatives are described, followed by description of other Alternatives considered, but not analyzed in 

detail. 

RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives for this project were designed to address areas of unresolved conflict over alternative uses of 

existing resources in a manner that meets the project purpose and need. The ID team developed the range 

of alternatives, project design features, and mitigation measures presented in this chapter based on 

scoping responses and the purpose and need for action described in Chapter 1 of this document. In total, 

ten alternatives were considered, seven were eliminated from detailed study and three were analyzed in 

detail. The IDT recommended and the responsible official approved two action alternatives in addition to 

a no action alternative. 

Under the HFRA, for an authorized hazardous fuel reduction project that is proposed to be conducted in 

the wildland-urban interface (such as the Tollgate project), the Forest Service is not required to study, 

develop, or describe more than the proposed agency action and 1 action alternative in the environmental 

impact statement prepared pursuant to section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)) Nevertheless, in an effort to address any potential unresolved conflicts over 

alternative uses of available resources, the IDT considered one additional action alternative that was 

based on comments proposed during scoping and meets the purpose and need of the project. 

ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The no action alternative functions as an environmental reference to which the action alternatives 

will be compared. 

Introduction: 

This alternative serves as the environmental baseline. No fuels reduction activities would occur under 

this alternative. The no action alternative would result in the continuation of natural processes and trends 

within the planning area. These existing trends include increasing canopy bulk densities and 

accumulations of surface fuels over time. Understory would continue to grow and establish itself as a 

well-defined and pronounced vegetative layer within the planning area. Forest stands would remain 

highly stocked, and ladder fuels would continue to fill-in and crowd the understory. Accumulation of 

forest debris would continue to increase natural fuel loadings. 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, including the proposed action

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

2-2 

As stands continue to grow in close proximity, competition for limited resources would increase leading 

to decreased vigor, and stressed vegetation. This would result in increased susceptibility to insects, 

disease, wind throw, and decadence. Natural fuel loadings would increase accordingly. 

Tollgate is home to both permanent and seasonal residences as well as a popular recreational use area. It 

is expected that the existing public uses of the area would continue and likely would increase over-time. 

This would have the result of increasing the numbers of values at risk in the event of a wildland fire 

situation. 

ACTIVITY DESCRIPTIONS 

Surface and Canopy Fuel Reduction Activities 

The activities of Alternatives B and C would reduce forest canopy bulk density (while retaining a fully 

stocked stand) by removing specified crowns, where canopy bulk density is the weight of the available 

canopy fuel. By reducing the total available fuel in the crowns and providing space between the crowns, 

this treatment reduces stand potential to produce or sustain crown fire. 

The post-treatment residual overstory density would vary depending upon the species composition and 

individual tree characteristics of the site, but would always exceed 80 ft2/ac of basal area. In general, 

residual tree density would be increase along with site productivity. In other words, the forest thinning 

activities are not intended to regenerate new trees, although this is expected to occur in the more 

productive sites. Activities would tend to favor early-seral tree species such as ponderosa pine and 

western larch, and favor larger, more fire-resistant trees for retention. Fuels reduction activities would 

include Commercial thinning (CT), Non-Commercial Thinning (NCT), Ladder Fuel Reduction 

(LFR), and Dead and Down Woody Debris Removal (DDR). These activities are described in detail 

below and Appendix A, Maps A3 and A4. As an intermediate stand treatment, forest thinning has been 

used to describe practices ranging from light removal of small understory trees to moderate removal of 

large overstory trees; with respect to the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project, any mention of thinning is 

assumed to be “understory thinning” or “thinning from below” because it involves cutting the smallerdiameter trees and retaining the larger-diameter trees (Figure 2-1).

Commercial thinning (CT) 

Commercial thinning activities would be a silvicultural treatment to remove trees in the canopy until a 

desired residual density is attained. Larger and more fire-tolerant trees would generally receive priority 

for retention. The size of trees to be removed would be greater than 9 inches in stem diameter at breast 

height (DBH). Harvest methods would include conventional ground-based4 logging and using a 

harvester/forwarder5. 

 

4 Conventional ground based logging system: This is tractor or skidder yarding on trails spaced approximately 

100 feet apart. Skidding equipment would be required to remain on the trails and logs dragged to the landings with 

one end suspended. Mechanical felling equipment would be used to fall and bunch logs near the trail and be 

allowed a single pass between skid trails to reduce compaction concerns. 

5 Harvester/forwarder logging system: This is a ground-based system using a mechanical feller to cut and 

manufacture logs, placing them adjacent to the forwarder routes. Limbs are left on the forwarder route to aid in soil 

protection. The forwarder would pick up logs, place them in bunks and carry them to a landing for decking. This is 

a total log suspension logging system. Forwarder route spacing would be based on the reach of the felling 

equipment, 40 to 50 feet. 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, including the proposed action

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

2-3 

Figure 2-1 – Examples of thinning in a mixed-conifer forest, with fuels and vegetation effects 

similar to those expected for most areas included in Alternative B or C in the Tollgate Project. Topright panel is from Powell (1999). 

Non-Commercial Thinning (NCT) 

Thinning of young, even-aged plantation stands in order to reduce the probability of active crown fire 

activity. This is accomplished by thinning so that remaining tree stems are approximately 20 feet apart, 

and selecting fire resistant species to retain. Trees less than approximately 9” DBH would be removed, 

and early-seral, fire-tolerant species would be prioritized for retention. 

Ladder Fuel Reduction (LFR) 

Removal of understory trees, generally 4-9” in size, away from larger overstory trees. Smaller trees 

growing beneath larger trees provide a path, or ladder, for fire to climb from the ground into the canopy. 

By removing these smaller trees, this treatment results in an elimination of the pathway by which a fire 

would enter the canopy. As long as it is economically feasible, these trees would be removed as a woody 

biomass product (chips, biochar, pulpwood, or other product). If it is not economically feasible for 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, including the proposed action

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

2-4 

removal, natural and activity fuel (slash) activities in these units would rely on mastication, grapple 

piling, hand-piling, pile burning, and/or broadcast “jackpot” burning of ground fuel concentrations. Hand 

piling would be used in portions of units where visual quality is a concern, mainly along Oregon State 

Highway 204 and Forest Road (FR) 64. This activity is typically associated with commercial thinning 

activities. 

Dead and Down Woody Debris Removal 

In some units, standing dead and down material would be removed to meet fuel reduction objectives. This 

material would be removed from the stand either as a commercial product (biomass/pulp), shredded and 

distributed using mastication equipment, or piled and burned at harvest landings. 

Slash Treatments 

Slash Piling and Pile Burning 

Burning of piles created either mechanically or by hand piling. Burning would occur when the threat of 

fire spreading from the pile location would be low. A portion of the piles may be covered to aid in the 

burning the piles in moist conditions. Piles would be lit by hand using drip torches. 

Mastication 

Treatment would be comparable to a non-commercial thinning, and would be used to cut trees, as well as 

grind and distribute activity fuels. The treatment refers to the cutting of trees ranging in diameter breast 

height (DBH) from 1-5 inches. The focus of the thinning is to reduce competition, remove ladder fuels, 

and/or create breaks in the continuous canopy of small diameter trees. Where the species are fire 

sensitive, machine mastication would be used and the resulting chips would be allowed to decompose 

naturally. Hand felling may be used when machine access is limited by terrain or sensitive resource areas. 

Logging Systems

Conventional Ground-Based (“Tractor”) (whole-tree yarding) 

Trees are severed at the stump using mechanized harvesters that hold and cut trees. Trees are laid in 

bunches. Trees (limbs, tops and boles) are transported to log landings using tract or rubber tired tractors 

(skidders). Trees are processed at the landing were a de-limber removes branches, tree tops and bucks the 

trees into logs. Landings are typically larger than other skidder systems to accommodate the large volume 

of limbs and tops. Soil compaction is typically less than the tractor skidder system. Since trees can be 

manipulated after severing from the stump, bunches can be staged/bunched thus reducing the number of 

trips by skidders. In addition, trees ride along the tops reducing soil displacement. 

Forwarder (cut-to-length) 

A cut-to-length system would be used to harvest trees down to 5 inches DBH. Landings would be located 

where the forwarder route meets the road. Forwarder landings would not be constructed; logs would be 

decked without removing vegetation. Fuel for the equipment would be carried to the site daily. Trees are 

cut, manufactured into logs, and stacked along the routes by a mechanical harvester. The limbing of trees 

occurs in the forwarder route to allow both machines used for harvesting and removal to operate over a 

slash mat. The forwarder places the logs into bunks and carries them to the landing. This is a full 

suspension, ground based logging system. 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, including the proposed action

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

2-5 

Hand Thinning 

Hand thinning involves tree felling utilizing chainsaws. This type of system is typically utilized for the 

non-commercial thinning (NCT) and ladder fuel reduction (LFR) activities described above. 

Transportation and Access Management 

Table 2-1 summarizes proposed road-related improvements or actions common to both action 

alternatives, and supporting the fuels reduction activities described above. To accomplish the proposed 

timber harvest, and fuel reduction, approximately 46 miles of roads would be used. From the Access and 

Travel Management Plan, 16.6 miles are closed system roads and all the roads needed for management 

activities are seasonally open roads, providing for winter recreation activities. 

Table 2-1 - Summary of Transportation Activities 

Activity Amount

Maintenance:

Standard Maintenance 46.4 miles

Surface rock replacement 3.5 miles

Heavy brushing 10 miles

Rock Sources 3

Water Sources 3 ponds, 2 cleanouts

Closed System Roads needing to be opened 16.6 miles

Road Maintenance 

Road maintenance is needed to protect water quality and aquatic resources, to meet access needs, and to 

provide safe and efficient road operations. Road maintenance consists of a variety of activity components 

including surface rock replacement, spot surfacing, roadside brushing, erosion control, logging out, road 

surface blading, ditch cleanout, slide removal, dust abatement, culvert cleaning or replacement, danger 

tree removal, and other items that contribute to the preservation of the existing road and its safe use. Dust 

abatement may be accomplished by a dust palliative or water, on account of volumes to be hauled on 

roads with mixed used. Snow plowing would be allowed for activities until the winter recreation season 

begins on December 1. 

Material Sources 

These sources are existing and would not need any further expansion. 

Water Sources and Pond Cleanout 

Three ponds would be utilized for water sources: FDR 3715030, Swamp Creek Pond at FDR 6400, Hwy. 

204 and FDR 3728. Two ponds would be maintained: The Swamp Creek pond off Forest road 6400 near 

FDR 6406 junction, and the pond off Forest Road 3715030. Several ponds on the Walla Walla Ranger 

District have lost capacity over time on account of siltation (see design criteria in table 2-7). These ponds 

are used for road maintenance activities and fire suppression. The availability of water for these activities 

is essential and often limited at the times of need. By excavating and removing the accumulated silt, the 

ponds would again provide a water source for forest road and fire management activities, as well as water 

for wildlife. Pond cleanout would occur during normal instream work windows (Table 2-7).
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, including the proposed action

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

2-6 

Danger Tree Removal/cutting 

“Danger trees” (trees which are, within the next 0-10 years, likely to fall in an uncontrolled manner in 

proximity to unprotected persons and property, and/or limit effective ingress/egress, and thereby pose a 

substantial risk to human life or property) would be felled and removed along all haul routes used for 

timber sale activity, as well as both open and closed system roads. If considered economically feasible, 

these trees would be sold as part of a timber sale. Danger trees that occur within the Riparian Habitat 

Conservation Areas of units 19, 38, 66 and 75 will be felled and removed. All other danger trees 

occurring within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) outside of the units described above 

would not be removed, but instead cut and left to provide additional coarse woody debris. 

Temporary Road Construction 

Approximately 2.6 miles of temporary road would be constructed to facilitate fuels reduction activities 

that take the form of timber harvest. Temporary roads would be decommissioned and rehabilitated 

following treatment activities. 

Road Realignment 

Approximately 0.35 miles of Forest Road 3718155 would be realigned. Approximately 0.35 miles of 

Forest Road 3718155 occurs inside the RHCA of a perennial non-fish-bearing stream and has a native 

surface (soil). This segment of road would be moved to an upland site, outside of the RHCA. The 

realignment activities would require the removal of several trees (some greater than 21 inches DBH) to 

create the road template. 

The existing segment of road would be decommissioned and rehabilitated. Forest Road 3718155 is listed 

as a closed road by the Walla Walla RD Access and Travel Management Plan. Following the completion 

of fuels reduction activities, Forest Road (FR) 3718155 would be gated and would retain its current status 

as a closed road. 

Culvert replacement 

Three culverts have been identified in need of repair or replacement. The locations are along Forest Roads 

3715030, 3700040 and 6400100. The culvert on 3715030 has a wildlife pond below the outlet so 

replacement can occur during the normal operating season. After the installation the pond would be drawn 

down below the outflow and deepened to provide adequate water for wildlife, grazing, fire suppression 

and road maintenance. All culverts would be removed with an excavator; the old culverts would be 

disposed properly off lands managed by the National Forest System. All the culverts would be sized to 

match the drainage area above the installation. All culverts would be bedded in native material, installed 

on grade; there would be no water diversion during removal or installation. Culvert replacement would 

occur during normal instream work windows (Table 2-7)

ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON

A summary of activities occurring as a result of adopting any Alternative, including the No-Action 

Alternative, are described below in Table 2-2. Please note that acreage values are approximate due to 

rounding errors and environmental factors occurring prior to and during activity implementation. 

Environmental factors include, but are not limited to blowdown, rain events, insect outbreaks, animal 

damage, wildfire, etc. A map showing the locations of activities occurring under Alternatives B and C is 

included in Appendix A (Maps A3 and A4) 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, including the proposed action

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

2-7 

Table 2-2 — Activity summary for Alternatives A, B, and C 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Reduction of Amount and Continuity of Surface and Canopy Fuels

Commercial thinning of live and dead trees (CT) 0 acres 3,445 acres 3,285 acres

Non-commercial thinning of live and dead trees in even-aged 

plantations (NCT) and the forest understory (LFR) 0 acres 885 acres 725 acres

Down and Dead woody debris Removal (DDR) 0 acres 300 acres 280 acres

Mastication 0 acres 1,200 acres 1,015 acres

Hand-pile burning 0 acres 500 acres 330 acres

Total area affected60 acres 4,330 acres 4,010 acres

Tree Cutting and Yarding Systems

Conventional ground-based (“tractor”) 0 acres 2,660 acres 2,520 acres

Harvester-forwarder 0 acres 785 acres 770 acres

Hand thinning only 0 acres 885 acres 720 acres

Roads Used for Project Activities

Open Roads used for timber and/or biomass hauling 0 miles 30 miles 30 miles 

Gated closed system roads used then re-closed 0 miles 16 miles 16 miles 

Temporary roads constructed (de-commissioned after use) 0 miles 2.6 miles 2.6 miles

Road realignment 0 miles 0.35 miles 0.35 miles

Activity Topics of High Interest

Removal of trees allowed equal to or greater than 21 inches DBH

other than for safety or operational needs 0 acres 338 acres 0 acres

RHCA activities No Yes (Table 2-3) Yes (Table 2-3)

Danger Tree Removal along Haul Routes No Yes Yes

IRA activities 0 acres 243 acres 0 acres

Forest Plan Amendment No Yes Yes

ACTIVITIES SPECIFIC TO ALTERNATIVE B

Alternative B is the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative, and is 

summarized above in Table 2-2 . Based on public scoping comments and Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) 

discussions several modifications were made to the Tollgate Fuels Reduction proposed action7. These 

changes are reflected in Alternative B. A map showing the locations of activities occurring under 

Alternative B is included in Appendix A (Map A3) 

 

6

 DDR, Mastication, and/or hand-pile burning occur concurrently within the same locations as CT, NCT, and/or 

LFR activities, and are not included in the Total Area Affected acres. 

7

 The Proposed Action for the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project was developed through a collaborative process with 

interested members of the local community. This collaboration took the form of several meetings during 2008-2009. 

The resulting proposed action was used for the Forest Service’s public scoping efforts and can be found on the 

Umatilla National Forest website (http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=28356).
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, including the proposed action

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

2-8 

Design and Rationale 

In response to the purpose and need described in Chapter 1, the Walla Walla Ranger District proposes 

surface and canopy fuels reduction activities to improve protection to adjacent private lands and 

public/private infrastructure, change potential fire behavior within Tollgate WUI, and lower fire hazard to 

reduce the risk of potential adverse wildland fire effects on values at risk within the Tollgate planning 

area. Consistent with basic principles recommended by Agee and Skinner (2005), Tollgate Fuel reduction 

activities would reduce surface fuels, increase the height to live tree crowns, decrease crown density, and 

retain large trees of fire-resistant species. Thinning and removal of surface fuels can be a useful tool to 

achieve these objectives (Agee and Skinner 2005). 

Alternative B was designed to move forest active crown fire susceptibility from high to moderate using 

basal area as the quantifying metric (moderate crown fire susceptibility is defined as basal areas of 43-

120). Typical target basal area’s assigned in the prescriptions are 80-120 (the high end of moderate 

crown fire susceptibility, but adequate given stand dynamics, and fire behavior modeling). Unit 

placements within the proposed action were based on two qualifying criteria: proximity to private land 

and structures (within 1⁄4 mile), and at strategic locations at the interface of the plateau and surrounding 

canyon lands (modeling of major fire travel paths informed the placement of these units along the “rim”). 

These activities serve a twofold protection strategy. The first of these strategies is the direct protection of 

private property and structures by placing activities directly adjacent to, and extending out 1⁄4 mile of these 

values. The second strategy addresses the need to reduce the severity of future fire events, provide for 

safe ingress/egress, and reduce fire duration on the area as a whole with the placement of activities in 

strategic locations. These activities are not linked to specific values rather they are designed as a proactive 

attempt to provide for firefighter and public safety and reduce the costs of future fire occurrences. 

Proposed Forest Plan Amendment 

Umatilla Forest Plan amendment #10, commonly referred to as Pacfish, is interim direction designed to 

“arrest the degradation and begin the restoration of aquatic habitat and riparian areas on lands 

administered by the Forest Service and BLM; it applies to watersheds outside the range of the northern 

spotted owl that provide habitat for Pacific salmon, steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat trout.” 

Pacfish uses a buffer concept to establish riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCA) along both sides of 

streams, rivers, lakes and other wetlands. RHCA widths extend from the edge of the active stream 

channel and they vary with stream class and whether a stream is fish bearing or not. RHCAs can be 

established using specified feet of slope distance (such as 300 feet on either side of perennial, fish-bearing 

streams) or in numbers of “site-potential tree heights” (such as 2 site-potential tree heights for perennial, 

fish-bearing streams). The interim RHCA widths established by the Pacfish environmental assessment 

can be adjusted during watershed analysis or after site-specific analysis presenting a rationale for RHCA 

modifications. 

Timber harvest activities are prohibited by the Pacfish amendment except in the following situations (see 

timber management standards, page C-9, in USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land 

Management 1994): 

3. For catastrophic events such as fire, flooding, volcanic, wind or insect damage that result in 

degraded riparian conditions, and where present and future wood y debris needs are met, where 

cutting would not retard or prevent attainment of other Riparian Management Objectives, and 

adverse effects on listed anadromous fish can be avoided, or 

4. When applying silvicultural practices for RHCAs to acquire desired vegetation characteristics 

where needed to attain Riparian Management Objectives. Apply silvicultural practices in a 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, including the proposed action

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

2-9 

manner that does not retard attainment of Riparian Management Objectives and that avoids 

adverse effects on listed anadromous fish. 

The activities included under Alternative B and occurring within Pacfish RHCAs are intended to reduce 

surface and canopy fuel loading, and not to acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain 

Riparian Management Objectives. Furthermore, no catastrophic events or disturbance-caused damage has 

resulted in degraded riparian conditions. Therefore, the proposed activities in RHCAs do not fall under 

these situations and are thus not exempt from Pacfish prohibitions on commercial timber cutting within 

the RHCA. 

In order to meet the project purpose and need, Alternative B would include a site and project-specific 

Forest Plan amendment which would allow for the proposed fuels activities within Pacfish Riparian 

Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) of units 19, 38, 66, and 75. Specifically, the amendment would 

modify applicable Pacfish standards and guides regarding activities within RHCAs in the units identified 

above, to allow previously prohibited activities to occur. The amendment is site specific to the Tollgate 

Fuels Reduction project and would remain valid only during implementation of this project. 

The Forest Plan amendment would have two parts (TM-1c and FM-1a) and allow the use of timber 

harvest for hazardous fuels reduction from Category 2 RHCAs which occur within units 19, 38, 66 and 

75. This amendment would allow silvicultural practices to improve public and firefighter safety and allow 

the use of various fuel treatment practices to manage for desired fire behavior that would allow safe and 

effective suppression efforts. The amendment applies only to the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project. 

Currently, Pacfish timber management standards and guidelines include one item (TM-1), which prohibits 

timber harvest within RHCAs. The two exceptions to this prohibition are described above and listed 

under TM-1 as TM-1a and TM-1b. The following proposed amendment (TM-1c) to Pacfish standards 

and guidelines would be added as an additional exception to the prohibitions described in TM-1, and 

would apply to the RHCAs within activity units 19, 38, 66, and 75. TM-1c would read as follows: 

Apply silvicultural practices for Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas(RHCAs) that occur on 

Category 2 streams (permanently flowing non-fish bearing streams) within units 19, 38, 66, and 75 of 

the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project, to acquire desired vegetation characteristics where needed to 

achieve project specific fuels reduction objectives. Apply silvicultural practices in a manner that 

avoids adverse effects on ESA-listed anadromous fish. This is a project and site-specific Forest Plan 

Amendment that applies only to the RHCAs within units discussed above, for the Tollgate Fuels 

Reduction project. 

Pacfish also requires that fuels management strategies, practices, and actions do not prevent attainment of 

Riparian Management Objectives, and minimize disturbance of riparian ground cover and vegetation 

(Pacfish standards and guidelines, item FM-1). To the extent that this requirement prohibits mechanical 

removal of surface and canopy fuels within the RHCAs in units 19, 38, 66, and 75, a Forest Plan 

amendment is also needed to allow these activities to occur. Thus, in order to meet the project purpose 

and need as described in Chapter 1, the Tollgate project includes an amendment to the Pacfish standards 

and guidelines with respect to fuels management. 

The amendment would both modify and supplement item FM-1. The first sentence of FM-1 would be 

modified to read: “Design fuel treatment and fire suppression strategies, practices, and actions so as not to 

prevent attainment of Riparian Management Objectives, and to minimize disturbance of riparian ground 

cover and vegetation, except as described below in FM-1a.” The supplement to FM-1 would be listed as 

FM-1a, and would read: 

Design fuel treatment and fire suppression strategies, practices, and actions within the riparian 

conservation areas (RHCAs) of Category 2 streams (permanently flowing non-fish bearing 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, including the proposed action

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

2-10

streams) found within units 19, 38, 66 and 75 of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project so as to 

maintain channel stability and prevent adverse effects to riparian and aquatic habitat conditions.

Activities within RHCAs 

Alternative B would treat Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) that hold strategic importance 

within the analysis area. RHCAs located within units 19, 38, 66, and 75 would be affected by fuels 

reduction activities. A buffer with no fuels reduction activities will be retained 30-100 feet beyond each 

side of the stream channel (Table 2-3). These RHCAs would be treated with mechanical means such as 

timber harvest. Logging systems would be designed so that no harvest or skidding would cross active 

stream channels. Only RHCAs within the units identified above would receive treatment, all other 

RHCAs would receive the standard Pacfish buffers. 

Lookingglass Inventoried Roadless Area Activities 

The project proposes fuels reduction activities within the Lookingglass Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA), 

summarized below in Table 2-4. 

Alternative B would treat approximately 206 acres within the IRA. All of the treatment acreage occurs 

adjacent to private property and/or Forest Road 6400. The following units are located entirely or have 

portions within the IRA boundary: 26, 38 and 75. 

Units 38 and 75 would be treated with commercial timber harvest, while unit 26 is a non-commercial 

thinning unit. 

Table 2-3 — Units containing RHCAs that would be treated in Alternative B 

Existing Condition Post-Treatment 

Condition

Unit

Acres

RHCA Area 

Treated

Basal AreaTrees/Acre

Canopy 

Cover

Basal AreaTrees/Acre

Canopy 

Cover

Distance to ESA fish

No-cutting 

Stream 

buffer

Channel 

Length 

Treated

SteelheadBull Trout

19 17 4 

acres

180 170 50% 120-

140

109 40% 11⁄2 miles 11⁄2 miles 50 ft. 600 ft.

38 87 8 

acres

240 250 80% 80-

100

170 50% 1⁄2 mile 1⁄2 mile Minimum 

50 ft./up to 

100 ft. 

1200 ft.

66 40 8 

acres

280 250 80% 100-

120

170 50% 1 mile 1 mile Minimum 

30 ft./up to 

50 ft.

1200 ft.

75 52 5 

acres

200 250 80% 140-

160

170 50% 1⁄4 mile 1⁄4 mile Minimum 

50 ft./up to 

100 ft.

600 ft.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, including the proposed action

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

2-11

Table 2-4 — Units within Lookingglass IRA that would be treated by Alternative B 

Unit Unit Acres Activities

26 104 LFR

38 87 CT, LFR

75 52* CT, LFR, DDR

 *Approximately 15 acres (29%) of total unit occurs within the IRA boundary. 

No activities would occur within the Walla Walla River IRA or North Fork Umatilla Wilderness. 

Removal of 21 in. and greater trees 

Approximately 340 acres would receive thinning that would include some 21 inch or greater trees, 

summarized below in Table 2-5. The removal would generally occur within units 45, 83, 84 and 95. 

These units primarily occur adjacent to the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness. Additionally, where 

necessary, for safety and/or logging corridors, incidental trees greater than 21 inches may be removed. 

Table 2-5 — Units where removal of trees greater than 21 inches are proposed to occur 

Unit Acres* Activities

45 104 CT, LFR

83 102 CT, LFR

84 85 CT, LFR

95 47 CT, LFR

As needed through planning area 

for safety.

N/A Dependent on prescription of 

unit where tree occurs.

*Acreage Represents total acres for the unit and not the number of acres that will have trees 

greater than 21 inches removed. In general, trees >21” DBH occur in isolated groups/patches 

which are much smaller than the larger activity units. 

ACTIVITIES SPECIFIC TO ALTERNATIVE C 

This alternative was developed to be responsive to significant issues for the Tollgate Fuels Reduction 

project raised during the scoping process, and attempts to address unresolved conflicts over the alternative 

uses of available resources, while being consistent with the Purpose and Need for action described in 

Chapter 1. A map showing the locations of activities occurring under Alternative C is included in 

Appendix A (Map A4) 

Design and Rationale 

During the development of Alternative C, some the significant issues identified for the Tollgate Fuels 

Reduction project that suggested the possibility of unresolved conflicts over alternative uses of available 

resources. Specifically, scoping comments suggested the potential for unresolved conflicts around the 

topics of Roadless Areas, Potential Wilderness Areas (PWAs), RHCAs, and trees greater than or equal to 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, including the proposed action

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

2-12

21” inches DBH. A design for Alternative C was formulated to attempt to address potential areas of 

unresolved conflict as well as the project Purpose and Need (described in Chapter 1) by: 

Avoiding entering Roadless Areas, or by modifying Roadless activities to minimize impacts 

Avoiding the removal of trees greater than 21” DBH

Avoiding tree cutting within PWA’s 

Avoiding activities within all RHCAs except those immediately adjacent to vulnerable structures 

The IDT reviewed the initial intent for project design for the proposed action. Unit placements within the 

proposed action were based on two qualifying criteria: proximity to private land and structures (within 1⁄4 

mile), and at strategic locations within likely wildfire travel paths at the interface of the plateau and 

surrounding canyon lands. Based on this review, and given the existence of potentially unresolved 

conflicts identified above, the IDT found that the importance of those activities designed to directly 

protect private property and structures (the first prong of the twofold treatment strategy) is the highest 

priority. To reiterate, these activities are located within 1⁄4 mile of structures and private property, and 

designed to provide protection to these values from fires as they approach or emerge in the area 

(specifically, these activities significantly reduce spotting distance, crown fire potential, and crown fire 

travel times). These activities are considered critical to meeting project objectives. As such, activities 

which occurred within this category (which includes activities within the RCHA of Unit 19) were not 

modified from Alternative B. 

The areas of potential unresolved conflict over alternative uses of available resources (listed above) were 

considered in light of the critical elements of the Purpose and Need identified above, and informed the 

design of Alternative C. Alternative C addresses the project Purpose and Need (although perhaps not to 

the extent of Alternative B), and is responsive to significant issues and potential areas of unresolved 

conflict in the following ways: 

Activities within Lookingglass IRA and other Potential Wilderness Areas: 

o No activities would occur within the Lookingglass IRA or any areas on the Potential 

Wilderness inventory. 

Activities within Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA): 

o Under Alternative C, only the RHCA within unit 19 would be treated. Unit 19 would receive 

treatment as a result of its direct adjacency to private infrastructure, its topographic 

orientation to the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness, and fire behavior modeling of potential 

fire travel paths. 

Removal of trees greater than 21 inches DBH: 

o Under Alternative C, no trees greater than 21 inches DBH would be removed except in the 

following circumstances: 

 Trees greater than 21 inches DBH may be removed for incidental purposes such as 

being necessitated by safety concerns and/or operational needs. 

Alternative C is summarized above in Table 2-2 . Design features and management requirements common 

to all action alternatives are described in Table 2-7, with the exception of items pertaining to activities 

within RHCAs, in which case would apply to only unit 19 for Alternative C (Table 2-6). 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, including the proposed action

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

2-13

Proposed Forest Plan Amendment 

For identical reasons as discussed earlier with respect to the Forest Plan amendment proposed under 

Alternative B, a Forest Plan amendment would be required to allow timber harvest within Pacfish RCHAs 

for units included under Alternative C. As a result of the process described above in the Design and 

Rationale section for Alternative C, only the RHCA in Unit 19 was selected for fuels reduction activities. 

The Forest Plan amendments for Alternative C would be identical in wording to those described above 

under Alternative B, except that they would pertain to unit 19 only. Similarly, the amendment would be 

specific over time and space to the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project only. 

RHCA Activities 

Alternative C would treat the Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA) within unit 19. This RHCA 

would be treated with mechanical means such as timber harvest. Logging systems would be designed so 

that no harvest or skidding would cross active stream channels. 

Only the above mentioned RHCAs within the unit identified above would receive treatment under 

Alternative C. All other RHCAs within the Tollgate Project Planning Area would receive the interim 

Pacfish buffers. 

Table 2-6 — Units containing RHCAs that would be treated in Alternative C 

Existing Condition Post-Treatment 

Condition

Unit Acres RHCA 

Area 

Treated

Basal 

Area

Trees/

Acre

Canopy 

Cover

Basal 

Area

Trees

/Acre

Canopy 

Cover

Distance to ESA fish No 

Treatment 

Buffer

Channel 

Length 

Treated

Steelhead Bull Trout

19 17 4 acres 180 170 50% 120-

140

109 40% 11⁄2 miles 11⁄2 miles 50 ft. 600 ft.

Lookingglass Inventoried Roadless Area Activities 

No treatment activities will occur within the Lookingglass IRA boundary under Alternative C. 

Removal of 21 in. and greater trees 

No trees greater than or equal to 21 inches DBH would be removed under Alternative C, unless they pose 

a safety concern or are needed for operational corridors. 

DESIGN FEATURES / MONITORING COMMON TO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVES B AND C 

Design Features 

Design features and management requirements common to all action alternatives are described in Table 

2-7. 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, including the proposed action

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

2-14

Table 2-7 — Design Features and Management Requirements common to all Action Alternatives 

Objective

Task Time

-line

HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY

Pacfish

Protection of 

Riparian 

Habitat 

Conservation 

Areas (RHCAs)

1. Stream and riparian protection is based on the Forest Plan as amended by 

Pacfish . Pacfish standards and guidelines related to timber harvest, roads, 

and fire apply to this project and are incorporated by reference into this 

document. No harvest would take place in RHCAs, with exception of RHCAs 

occurring within units 19, 38, 66, and 75 for Alternative B, or unit 19 for 

Alternative C. No other RHCAs would have harvest activity and are described 

below as they apply to this project.

Category 1 - Fish-bearing streams: RHCAs consist of the stream and the area on 

either side of the stream extending 300 feet slope distance from the edges of the 

active stream channel. 

Category 2 - Perennial non-fish-bearing streams: RHCAs consist of the stream 

and the area on either side of the stream extending 150 feet slope distance from the 

edges of the active stream channel.

Category 3 - Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 1 acre: RHCAs 

consist of the body of water or wetland and the area to the outer edges of the 

riparian vegetation, or the extent of the seasonally saturated soil, or 150 feet slope 

distance from the edge of the maximum pool elevation of constructed ponds and 

reservoirs or from the edge of the wetland, pond or lake, whichever is greatest.

Category 4 - Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, wetlands less than 1 acre, 

landslides, and landslide-prone areas: This category includes features with high 

variability in size and site-specific characteristics. At a minimum the RHCAs must 

include: the area from the edges of the stream channel, wetland, landslide, or landslide prone area to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 100 

feet, whichever is larger. 

Prior to 

and 

during 

activity

Activities within 

RHCAs of Units 

19, 38, 66 and 

75

2. Do not cross channels or operate within the inner gorge of channels with 

heavy equipment.

3. Standing trees and down wood will not be cut or removed from within 

prescribed buffers (Tables 2-3 and 2-6).

4. Equipment will not operate on wet soils.

5. No material will be removed from wet areas.

6. RHCA mineral soil exposure will be limited to 10% or less

7. lash will be hauled into the unit to mulch any soil exposed within RHCAs.

During 

Activit

y

Pond Cleanout 

Activity

8. Pond clean out will occur during the instream work window for the Swamp 

creek pond (July 1 through August 15) and other in-channel ponds. Offchannel pond cleanout activity may occur throughout the operating season. 

9. Ponds will be pumped prior to clean out so that outflow from the pond does 

not occur during cleanout

10. Material will be hauled out of the RHCA and deposited in designated waste 

sites.

11. Pond outlets will be maintained in a stable condition and in-stream channel 

dams will not be enlarged.

During 

and 

post 

activity
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, including the proposed action

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

2-15

Objective

Task Time

-line

Protection of 

water quality

(Clean Water

Act)

12. Implement and monitor Design Criteria and Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) and incorporate findings into project implementation (See Appendix 

D for a listing of National Core BMPs selected for project).

13. FR3715030 and 6400100 culvert replacements will be replaced with correctly 

sized culverts, bedded in native material, and placed on natural stream grades. 

Replacements will take place during the Oregon State instream work window 

(see fish/aquatic habitat section below) or if not perennial, during dry 

conditions. 

14. Danger trees located in RHCAs will be specially marked for felling and not 

removed from the RHCA.

15. Ground based equipment will cross ephemeral draws and channels at sites preapproved by the responsible Forest official, and crossings will be minimized.

Logging systems will be designed to minimize crossing ephemeral draws. 

Ephemeral draws will not be crossed where equipment will cause bank 

breakdown.

Mechanical fuels treatments will use existing trails created by logging 

operations when crossing ephemeral draws and channels.

In ephemeral draws, 25 feet each side of the channel centerline and 1000 

linear feet of channel, retain all wood embedded in the soil and maintain a 

number of down woody debris pieces equal to or exceeding the number and 

size of pieces specified for snag retention below.

16. Ephemeral draws and stream channels will not be used as forwarder trails, 

landing sites, slash or fuels pile locations, or as road locations. 

17. Commercial use of National Forest roads shall be suspended when commercial 

contract or permit operations create a continuous discharge of sediment into 

live streams that result in an increase on turbidity. This may be from pumping 

of saturated fines creating sediment-laden water on and/or from the road 

surface. Visual evidence of this may be identified by the increase in turbidity 

in live running streams evident at points downstream from the outflows of 

culverts, ditch-lines, or fords (Umatilla NF Road Use Rules).

18. Timber sale purchaser will prepare a spill containment plan that will ensure 

that spilled fuel will not leave the site. Fuel will not be stored within any 

RHCA. 

19. Rock surfacing will be used on haul routes that cross or otherwise enter 

RHCAs.

20. Where the proposed haul routes encounter wet areas, new drainage structures 

and surface rock will be installed. 

21. Unit 61 will be accessed directly from State Highway 204, no streams will be 

crossed.

Prior 

to, 

during, 

and 

post 

activity

FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT

Protection of 

fish habitat

22. State of Oregon in-stream work window (from July 1 to September 15) will be 

used to replace culverts in stream channels with perennial flows. 

23. When water drafting, sources will be monitored for reduced flows. When and 

if low flow (less than 5 CFS) conditions are identified, spring-fed ponds will 

be used as sources prior to the use of stream sources whenever feasible. When 

Prior 

to, 

during, 

and 

post 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, including the proposed action

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

2-16

Objective

Task Time

-line

spring-fed ponds are not feasible, stream sources can be used but pumping 

rates must not reduce flows to less than 5 CFS. If the stream has less than 10 

CFS, stream flow cannot be reduced more than 1/10th of the existing stream 

flow and will discontinue drafting if this amount is exceeded.

24. During road maintenance and snow plowing side casting of materials will not 

occur where these materials could be directly or indirectly introduced into a 

stream, or where the placement of these materials could contribute to the 

destabilization of the slope.

25. Slough and waste materials removed during road maintenance activities, 

including ditch and culvert cleaning, will be deposited in approved disposal 

areas outside of RHCAs. For erosion control and stabilization the disposal site 

will be seeded with native seed. 

26. When masticating equipment is used to remove brush at stream crossings it 

will be used in such a way as to not cause ground disturbance and to prevent 

sediment delivery to a live stream. Brush and other standing vegetation that 

provides shade to streams will be maintained except where public safety is an 

issue. 

27. Ditches will only be maintained where the water captured by the ditch is not 

able to be transported to the adjacent drainage structure that carries the water 

across the road. 

28. Refueling, repair, and maintenance of equipment will be done at landings or 

on forest roads outside of RHCAs. 

activity

AIR QUALITY

Protection of 

air quality

(Clean Air Act)

29. Oregon State Smoke Management Plan regulations will be followed to protect 

air quality and avoid smoke intrusion into sensitive areas. During 

activity

SOILS

Protection of 

soil during 

burning

30. Retain as much duff as possible, while meeting fuel reduction objectives to 

control erosion and provide organic matter. 

31. With jackpot or underburning, soil exposure will be limited to 20 percent or 

less of the area on steep slopes.

During, 

and 

post 

activity

Erosion control 

on fire lines

32. Fireline construction will only occur where necessary. Any fireline 

constructed will be to minimal standard. Locations will be evaluated postharvest. All firelines will be waterbarred and seeded at project completion, as 

needed.

Prior 

to, 

during 

and 

post 

activity

Soil 

protection/erosi

on control

33. Logging and hauling of logs will occur only on dry or frozen ground.

34. Maximize use of existing skid trails, landings, and temporary roads or closed 

roads. 

35. Mastication equipment will work over slash matts to the extent possible, 

working from the interior of units.

36. Units 1, 3, 10, 25, 29, 46, 55, 61, 67, 68, 73, 76, 90, 101, 105 will have 

designated skid trails pre-flagged to minimize new Detrimental Soil 

Prior to 

and 

during 

activity
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, including the proposed action

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

2-17

Objective

Task Time

-line

Conditions (DSC)

37. At least one acre (or more) of unit 3 will need to be rehabilitated to bring the 

unit within Forest S&Gs.

38. Create drain dips or water bars where water has potential to erode the skid trail 

or roadbed post-harvest as per the road maintenance and reconstruction plan. 

Placement of harvest slash on road surface alone will not be considered 

satisfactory.

39. Protect fragile soils associated with seeps located in unit 66with a 100-foot no 

equipment buffer.

40. No commercial harvest or ground based activities will take place were land 

slumps or high potential for mass wasting occur (deep-seated soil and rock 

movement) within units 1, 3, 4, 53, 67, 69, 70, 87, and 89 ( approximately 89 

acres). 

41. Fully restore temporary road compaction by scarification of compaction or 

subsoiling to an appropriate depth; followed by reseeding upon completion of 

project. Seed with native seed mix as prescribed by botanist. Place slash, 

adjacent woody debris or duff over disturbed ground to resist rain splash 

erosion, provide a ready seed source and detour use. Existing templates used 

as temporary roads will be restored to this level.

42. Subsoiling is to be implemented in units with post-project levels exceeding 

20% of the unit area. Recommendation for the amount and location of 

subsoiling will be made by the Forest Soil Scientist and will be based on site 

and soil characteristics.

43. For maintaining soil productivity the upper limit of the following ranges for 

coarse woody debris materials should be retained to levels specified below:

5 to 20 tons per acre for warm dry ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir 

ecotypes

10 to 30 tons per acre for cool Douglas-fir ecotypes

44. All logging systems will provide at least one-end suspension.

45. Yarding will be spaced for optimum efficiency and minimum soil disturbance. 

Forwarder trails will average 50 feet apart, except where converging. 

Conventional system trail spacing will average 100 feet. Skyline system 

corridors will average 150 feet apart. All trails will be approved prior to use.

46. Use existing trail system as much as possible. Ground based equipment will 

operate when soil conditions are dry enough to support machinery adequately. 

47. No ground-based equipment will operate on sustained slopes greater than 35% 

in order to reduce the potential for soil movement.

48. Minimize exposure of soils and keep erosion control current. 

49. Landings will be designed to minimize size and constructed to minimize 

adverse effects and provide for safe operations. 

50. During and upon completion of harvest activities erosion control measures 

will occur on forwarder trails and landings. 

51. Seed all soil exposed by operation using native seed. Waterbar and mulch as 

necessary to prevent erosion. 

52. Post-activity exposed mineral soil will be treated as necessary to reduce soil 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, including the proposed action

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

2-18

Objective

Task Time

-line

erosion and compaction. This may include seeding, installation of waterbars, 

mulching with native material, or subsoiling. Where possible and needed, skid

trails will be subsoiled and/or have logging slash and large wood left. 

53. Temporary roads - install drainage if roads remain over-winter, after use 

subsoil, pull berms into roadbed, re-vegetate with native seed, mulch with 

existing slash, and camouflage entrance to discourage use.

INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES

Control and 

prevention of 

invasive plants 

(noxious weeds)

54. Noxious weed sites will be treated consistent with Umatilla National Forest’s 

Invasive Plants Treatment Project (EIS), decision dated July 2010 and 

consistent with the 2005 Region 6 Invasive Plant ROD that amended the 

Umatilla Forest plan in March 2006.

55. All gravel, fill, sand stockpiles, quarry sites, and borrow material will be 

inspected for the presence of invasive plants before use and transport. Use 

only gravel, fill, sand, and rock that are judged to be weed seed free by District 

or Forest weed specialist.

56. Road blading, brushing and ditch cleaning in areas with high concentrations of 

invasive plants will be conducted in consultation with District or Forest-level 

invasive plant specialists. Invasive plant treatment and prevention practices 

will be incorporated as appropriate. This may include minimizing soil 

disturbance, but will not preclude it.

57. Project or contract maps will show currently inventoried high priority noxious 

weed infestations as a means of aiding in avoidance and/or monitoring.

58. Prior to moving onto the Forest, reasonable measures will be taken to insure 

that all off-road equipment is free of soil, seeds, vegetative matter, or other 

debris that could contain or hold seeds. In addition, prior to moving off-road 

equipment from a cutting unit known to be infested with invasive species to 

any other unit that is believed to be free of noxious weeds, reasonable 

measures will again be taken to make sure equipment is free of soil, seeds, 

vegetative matter, or other debris that could contain or hold seeds (timber sale 

contract provision B/BT 6.35 or equivalent provision).

59. Noxious weed-free straw and mulch for all projects conducted or authorized 

by the Forest Service on National Forest System Lands. If state certified straw 

and/or mulch is not available, individual forests should require sources 

certified to be weed free using the North American Weed Free Forage 

Program standards, or a similar certification process

60. All soils disturbed by project activities will be re-vegetated with certified 

weed free native seed.

61. Logging system design will consider the objectives of maintaining ground 

cover and minimizing ground disturbance. Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines for ground and soil disturbance will be followed. 

62. Helicopter landings and parking areas will not be located in known areas of 

invasive plants.

Prior 

to, 

during, 

and

post 

activity

CULTURAL RESOURCE

Preservation 63. Cultural resource surveys have been conducted within the project area. Prior 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, including the proposed action

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

2-19

Objective

Task Time

-line

and protection 

of 

archaeological 

sites

Cultural/historic sites will be protected by avoiding them. 

64. Since some project activities will be implemented over multiple years, project 

leaders will contact the assistant Forest Archaeologist prior to project 

implementation for monitoring and avoidance purposes.

to, and 

during 

activity

WILDLIFE

Maintain dead 

wood habitat 

(timber harvest)

65. Snag Retention – Maintain dead wood habitat and green replacement trees at 

or beyond levels identified in the table below. All snags retained will be 

greater than 20-inch diameter at breast height, but if there are not enough 

snags of this size, all large snags will be left and some smaller snags will be 

retained to make up the difference. Tree species and soundness at the base 

will also be considered. The tree species most preferred are ponderosa pine, 

western larch, and Douglas-fir. See the following table.

Snag and down wood retention per acre by plant association group

Ponderosa

pine

Mixed 

conifer

Grand 

fir

Lodgepole 

pine

Subalpine 

zone

Snags > 20 in DBH (per acre) 3 3 2 2 2

Green Tree Replacements 

(per acre) 16 16 9 14 19

Down Wood Pieces (per acre) 3 - 6 15 - 20 15 - 20

Diameter at the small end > 12 

inches > 12 inches > 8 inches

Length per piece > 6 feet > 20 feet > 8 feet

Total length per acre > 20 feet > 100 feet > 120 feet

Prior 

to, 

during, 

and 

post 

activity

Maintain snags 

when burning

66. Slash will not be piled against large trees or snags to prevent loss from 

prescribed burning. 

Prior to 

and 

during 

activity

Maintain snags 

for bat roosting

67. Hollow or partially hollow, broken top snags greater than 15 inches DBH will 

be left to provide roost habitat for bats. Dead grand fir most commonly 

provides hollow tree habitat.

Prior to 

and 

during 

activity

Protection of 

unique wildlife 

habitat

68. Unique wildlife habitat such as, seeps, springs, bogs, wallows, cliffs, talus, and 

caves will be protected by minimizing ground disturbance one and one half 

tree lengths from the area. (FP 4-57, 4-160)

Prior to 

and 

during 

activity

Protection of 

scab flats and 

meadows

69. Lithosol (scab flats) and meadows will not be used for landings and skid trails 

unless no other location is practical. If use is necessary disturbance will be 

kept to a minimum amount of the area, preferably at the edges. 

Prior to 

and 

during 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, including the proposed action

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

2-20

Objective

Task Time

-line

activity

Meet ESA 

requirements

70. If any federally listed species are found in the project area, the appropriate 

resource specialist will be contacted immediately. The Contracting Officer 

will take appropriate action to insure species are protected. Timber sale 

contract provision BT6.24 will apply. Protection measure for known federally 

listed species will be listed in provision BT6.24.

Prior 

to, and 

during

activity

Protection of 

Goshawk 

Habitat

71. Protect goshawk nests from disturbance if any are located during project 

activities. No nest sites are currently identified. Defer harvest on 30 acres of 

the most suitable nesting habitat around nest sites. Retain late and old 

structure forest in a 400-acre post-fledging area (PFA) as determined by the 

district biologist. Defer activities in active PFAs from April through August. 

(Forest Plan – Eastside Screens)

Prior to 

and 

during 

activity

Protection of 

Raptor Nests

72. Protect known or discovered raptor nest sites from management and human 

disturbances until fledging has been completed. Level of protection will vary 

by species and will be recommended by the District wildlife biologist (FP 4-

57, 4-160).

Prior 

to, and 

during 

activity

RECREATION

Protection of 

recreational 

access

73. Ensure that roads are closed during logging and prescribed fire activities and 

are re-opened as soon as possible after work is completed, especially during 

hunting season.

Prior to 

and 

during 

activity

Transportation 

management

74. During project activity alternative snowmobile routes will be designated in 

order to avoid conflict between winter logging operations and snowmobile 

activity.

Prior to 

and 

during 

activity

Protection of 

dispersed 

camping sites

75. Areas around dispersed hunter camps will be retained with a Partial Retention 

Visual Quality Objective (VQO).

During, 

and 

post 

activity

PUBLIC SAFETY

Public safety 

during project 

implementation

76. Warning or informational signs will be placed along major travel routes during 

project operations to alert and inform the public. Current information will be 

posted on portal entry kiosks.

77. Public access may be restricted in some areas during active haul of 

merchantable material for public and operational safety. 

78. If treatment activities occur around an inventoried hunter camp, identified 

danger trees will be felled and removed.

Prior to 

and 

during 

activity

FUELS AND PRESCRIBED FIRE
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, including the proposed action

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

2-21

Objective

Task Time

-line

Protection of 

resources 

during fuels and 

prescribed fire 

activities

79. Hand piling of fuels in units where visual quality is a concern

80. Mop-up/suppression activities will be conducted for fires that cause mortality 

of trees at unacceptable levels within activity fuel units. 

81. Fireline construction - blackline: Backlines are pre-burned areas that are used 

as firelines. Often times they are associated with natural barriers or roads 

using to widen the defensible area. Black lining can provide a wide fireline 

without the disturbance that occurs with other methods. 

82. Handline: Hand firelines will be used only when burn conditions indicate the 

need to control the creep of fire in the duff. There is the potential that fall 

burning will require the use of more handlines than spring burning because of 

lower fuel moisture and the higher risk of fire creeping into unwanted areas. 

Burning will occur during times (season and time of day) of relatively higher 

humidity to reduce the need of handline in riparian. Chainsaws will be used to 

cut overhanging brush and large logs. Line construction will remove the duff 

the layer to mineral soil no more than 18 inches wide. Any line constructed 

will be rehabbed and water barred.

83. Ignition: The burning of piles and construction of blacklines will be done by 

hand ignition. No mixing or preparing of slash fuels will occur in the planning 

area. Slash fuel needed for hand ignitions will be mixed prior to reaching the 

area. 

Prior 

to, 

during, 

and 

post 

activity

VEGETATION

Protection from 

insects and 

disease

84. Treat grand fir and subalpine fir stumps with borax to reduce the risk of root 

disease spreading to remaining sites. Post 

activity

Protection of 

residual trees

85. Protect desirable advanced regeneration and mature trees in residual stands of 

all harvest and fuel treatment units.

During 

activity

TES PLANTS

Protection of 

sensitive plant 

species

86. The population of mountain moonwort proximal (within 0.1 mile) to unit 49 

will be designated as a ‘no activity zone’ during project implementation. The 

Forest Botanist will provide a map of the population location for contract 

avoidance of the area and will flag this site on the ground for avoidance prior 

to implementation. Trees will be felled away from the ‘no activity zone’; no 

staging of equipment and no ground disturbance will be allowed in this zone.

Prior to 

and 

during 

activity

Monitoring Framework 

Monitoring for both implementation (whether the project was implemented as planned) and effectiveness 

(whether overall management objectives were met) would occur. Forest Service personnel would conduct 

monitoring in areas that have the highest probability of showing effects. 

BMPs have been identified for the proposed action (Table 2-7 and Appendix D). Activities may be 

selected for implementation and effectiveness monitoring as part of the Forest-wide annual BMP 

monitoring program. 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, including the proposed action

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

2-22

The Forest Service contract representative or other staff will monitor during and after activities to ensure 

sediment and soil disturbance objectives are met. If objectives are not met, Forest Service personnel 

would identify and implement corrective action and document modifications to be used in future projects. 

The District noxious weed coordinator or crew would conduct noxious weed species surveys prior to 

initiation of harvest or other ground disturbing activities within the project area. 

Forest Service personnel would spot-check activities during implementation to determine whether 

noxious weed mitigation measures are implemented. Deviations would be corrected immediately. 

Dependent on available funding and resources, the District noxious weed coordinator or crew would 

inventory portions of the project area determined to be at risk for weed spread due to project 

implementation for up to five years as needed. 

Anticipated effectiveness of each monitoring element for the Tollgate project is considered to be high. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED, BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED 

STUDY

The following alternatives were considered and eliminated from detailed study by the Responsible 

Official for reasons identified below: 

Forest Health Treatments 

During project development the potential to merge general forest health objectives with fuel reduction 

objectives was considered. This alternative would have treated other stands within the project planning 

area which were not specifically identified as fuel reduction locations, but did have signs of concern from 

a forest health perspective (such as insect and disease). 

This alternative was eliminated from detailed study based on IDT recommendation, based on current 

understanding that under HFRA, projects must focus specifically on stands identified as being strategic 

for fuels reduction needs. This approach would help focus the project goals and focus the analysis on 

stands and treatments directly related to fuels reduction work. 

The Responsible Official accepted the IDTs recommendation and eliminated the alternative from detail 

study, while recognizing that some stands with forest health concerns would be treated in order to meet 

fuels reduction objectives. Additionally, the exclusion of such treatments as part of this project does not 

preclude the potential for a future project that focuses on forest health objectives. 

Structure protection treatments only 

During public involvement it was suggested that treatments focus around structures only. 

The suggestion was eliminated from being a stand alone alternative because the vegetation types in the 

area lend themselves to succeptibility for crown fire. Modelling showed that crown initiation in the 

project area would result in large spotting distances which would likely through fire brands and aerial 

spotting, resulting in secondary ignitions. Furthermore, most of the structures within the Tollgate WUI 

are privately owned. 

Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) has been working with local landowners throughout the Tollgate 

WUI for several years to help design projects and secure grant money to implement fire proofing 

activities on private properties. 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, including the proposed action

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

2-23

Additionally, structure protection was incorporated into the proposed action because in conjunction with 

other larger shaded fuel breaks, the treatment would be more effective. Therefore acres around structures 

were factored into treatment locations. 

Landscape Prescribed Fire 

This alternative would have called for the use of landscape prescribed fire to accomplish fuel reduction 

objectives within the Tollgate project planning area. The alternative was eliminated from detailed study 

because of the vegetation types within the Tollgate project as well as the close proximity of treatment 

areas to values of interest 

Additionally, the time of year when landscape fire would be most effective is also the time of year that 

holds the greatest potential for wildfire. This would result in a high risk operation for alternative 

implementation should it have been selected. 

Furthermore, landscape fire would likely prove ineffective or at least inefficient at limiting fuels at 

strategic “pinch points.” Fire managers determined that landscape fire, given these circumstances, was not 

proper for this project. 

Non-Commercial Thinning Only 

Comments received during public scoping suggested that fuels reduction activities focus only on noncommercial methods be used to treat small diameter material. This alternative was eliminated because the 

removal of only non-commercial sized material would not account for larger material in the understory 

that would act as a fire ladder into the upper canopy. Additionally, without reducing canopy bulk density 

the area would still be susceptible, to a large degree, to the ignition of a crown fire due to radiant heat 

which would push ahead of a potential fire as it moves up onto the plateau. 

Development of large fuel breaks 

Early scoping comments suggested the development of large fuel breaks around the Tollgate plateau. 

These fuel breaks would be similar to dozer line and be more or less void of vegetation for a 100-300 foot 

swath. This alternative was eliminated because fire managers felt that a shaded fuel break would be 

effective, and would better allow for the continued various recreational and aesthetic qualities valued in 

the Tollgate area. The shaded fuel break would have alternating levels of intensity of treatment in various 

areas with some area have lighter prescriptions while others would have higher impacts. 

Recreation area improvements 

During the collaborative process, a suggestion was brought forth that the project should include activities 

designed to increase recreation opportunities and/or improve existing opportunities within the Tollgate 

project planning area. 

This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because recreational improvements are not an 

authorized action under the HFRA authorities and thus not appropriate for this project. The suggested 

recreational opportunities and ideas were noted and may help inform future recreation projects within the 

Tollgate area. 

More Acres of Treatment within the Project Planning Area 

Some public comments expressed a desire for more acres to be treated within the project planning areas 

identified boundary. Comments pointed out that Forest Service is only proposing to treat approximately 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, including the proposed action

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

2-24

10% of a 46,000 acre planning area and expressed a belief that this was not enough treatment across the 

landscape. These comments resulted in consideration of potentially increasing the footprint of proposed 

treatments. 

The vast majority of acres within the planning area are not available for treatment for a number of 

different reasons, including other ownership, land allocation, previous treatments, Wilderness, and IRA. 

Upon further consideration it was determined that this alternative would be eliminated from detailed study 

because the prescribed treatments (identified in the proposed action) were strategically placed to provide 

fuels treatments while also balancing other resource needs in the area. Furthermore, given the statement 

above, the addition of other acres more likely would deal with forest health type treatments which are 

discussed in item 1 above. 
CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-1 

INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions as well as the affected 

environments of area resources. 

PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE ACTIONS

The temporal and spatial scale of analysis is variable depending on the resource concern being evaluated, 

particularly when considering the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. During the 

interdisciplinary process the team followed guidance presented in CEQ’s letter dated June 24, 2005 

regarding past actions. Using this guidance the following summary of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions within and adjacent to Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project planning area was developed. 

These actions were considered, where relevant, when addressing the cumulative effects for various 

resources. 

“Cumulative impact” (or effects) is defined in the CEQ regulations as the impact on the environment 

which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such 

other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions 

taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). The effects are disclosed in Chapter 4. 

Past Activities 

Past actions include timber harvest. The residual effects of these activities are displayed on the landscape 

and contribute to the description of the current condition (affected environment). Past actions are 

maintained as a layer in the District’s GIS database and they are used to calculate Equivalent Treatment 

Acres for watershed conditions, elk habitat effectiveness index (HEI), and cover values for big game, 

historical range of variability (HRV), and soil conditions. Table 3-1 describes brief summaries of past 

actions that occurred in the project planning area: 

Table 3-1 — Timber Harvest by decade 

Years Acres Silviculture Prescriptions 

1955-1959

420

32

7

156

25

16

Sanitation (salvage)

Stand Clearcut

Patch Clearcut

Partial Removal

Shelterwood Establishment Cut

Strip Clearcutting

1960-1969

620

306

1,449

1274

363

31

76

378

91

30

203

Salvage Cut

Shelterwood Removal Cut

Commercial Thin

Sanitation (salvage)

Stand Clearcut

Seed-tree Seed Cut

Single-tree Selection Cut

Shelterwood Establishment Cut

Patch Clearcut

Group Selection Cut

Strip Clearcutting

1970-1979 382 Stand Clearcut
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-2 

Years Acres Silviculture Prescriptions 

229

1807

189

203

310

120

52

Sanitation (salvage)

Commercial Thin

Shelterwood Establishment Cut

Strip clearcutting

Single-tree Selection Cut

Seed-tree Seed Cut

Group Selection Cut

1980-1989

2160

1168

3

1166

229

411

2154

38

250

5

Sanitation (salvage)

Stand Clearcut

Overstory Removal Cut

Stand Clearcut

Group Selection Cut

Shelterwood Removal Cut

Commercial Thin

Salvage Cut

Shelterwood Establishment Cut

Patch Clearcut

1990-1999

2735

2070

1595

33

147

15

123

73

802

38

Commercial Thin

Sanitation (Salvage)

Stand Clearcut

Seed-tree Seed Cut

Shelterwood Establishment Cut

Salvage Cut

Shelterwood

Single-tree Selection Cut

Patch Clearcut

Group Selection Cut

2000-Present 

(last entry 2008)

637

1886

6

82

19

Sanitation (salvage)

Salvage Cut

Group Selection Cut

Stand Clearcut

Overstory Removal Cut

Wildfire

Historical fire information dating back to the 1800s includes two (2) fires greater than 5,000 acres that 

burned large portions of the Tollgate plateau. One fire occurred prior to 1900 and the other in 1910. 

Additionally, three (3) other fires ranging in size between 300 and 1,000 acres occurred on the plateau 

between the 1800s and 1910. From the 1990’s to the present, approximately 63 wildland fires occurred 

within the project planning area. More recently the Burnt Cabin Fire (2005) burned approximately 2,000 

acres and threatened the plateau. As a result of these ignitions, fire suppression tactics were employed 

across the landscape. These tactics include, but are not limited to; fireline construction, vegetation 

removal, water drafting, and aerial applications of fire retardant. 

Roads

There are approximately 156 miles of roads within the project planning area. Roads have been 

constructed throughout the planning area. The construction of these roads and their maintenance over 

time has resulted in the removal of vegetation for the initial construction of the travel way. Additionally, 

future maintenance activities continued the pattern of vegetation removal along travel corridors. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

 3-3 

Grazing 

The North End Sheep and Goat Allotment partially occurs within the planning area.. Domestic sheep and 

goat grazing has occurred within the planning area since the late 1800s. The allotment covers 132,000 

acres. 

Recreation 

The Tollgate area is home to several Forest Service campgrounds and trailheads. Additionally, downhill

skiing has occurred in the area since the 1930s. The Spout Springs Ski Area was previously known as the 

Lookingglass Ski Bowl. Cross-country skiing is a frequent activity in the area as is hunting, hiking, OHV 

use, mountain biking and other aesthetic recreational uses. 

Wilderness Establishment

In 1984, Congress established the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness. Portions of the North Fork Umatilla is 

within the Tollgate project planning area and covers two counties in Oregon. The establishment of the 

wilderness resulted in the 20,144 acres being left to natural processes which includes vegetation growth 

and fuels accumulation over time. 

Development of Adjacent Private Property 

As with much of the nation, privately owned property is continuing to be developed by landowners for a

myriad of uses including residential development, recreational development, and harvest of private forest 

lands. These development activities continue to result in expansion of the wildland-urban interface 

(WUI). 

Non-Commercial Thinning 

Approximately 1558 acres of non-commercial thinning has occurred within the project planning area 

since 1990. 

Present (ongoing) Activities 

Recreation 

Ongoing use of dispersed camping, hunting, sightseeing that occurs year-round. Public firewood 

gathering and snowmobile use are expected to continue to occur. Continued use of Spout Springs Ski 

Area is expected to occur along within other winter recreation activities. Established campsites within the 

project planning area will continue to be used by the public as will trailheads. 

Grazing: North End Sheep & Goat Allotment 

Grazing activities will continue into the future within the allotment which covers portions of the Tollgate 

project planning area. 

Road Maintenance 

Roads within the project planning area are maintained in order to provide for user safety and to alleviate 

the potential for road related effects to other resources. Road maintenance activities include but are not 

limited to, blading, surface rock replacement, brushing, removal of vegetation from roadway, removal of 

dangers from roadside and winter snow plowing. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-4 

Special Forest Products Gathering 

Personal and Commercial use gathering of firewood, mushrooms, post and poles, and other products is 

ongoing throughout the planning area. 

Communication Site Operations 

The communications site, which is operated under special use permit(s) within the footprint of the Spout 

Springs complex, will continue to have maintenance activities associated with its proper function by the 

various permittees which operate within the site. 

Wilderness Management 

Ongoing management of wilderness, in accordance, with Wilderness standards will continue into the 

foreseeable future. 

Development of Adjacent Private Property 

As with much of the nation, privately owned property is continuing to be developed by landowners for a 

myriad of uses including residential development, recreational development, and harvest of private forest 

lands. These development activities continue to result in expansion of the wildland-urban interface 

(WUI). 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities 

Actions are considered ‘reasonably foreseeable’ if there has been any public notice or planning regarding 

an activity, or if future activity can be projected based on ongoing or historical activity in the area with 

enough specificity to analyze effects. In general, reasonably foreseeable projects are expected to prior to 

approximately 2020. 

Non-Commercial Thinning 

No acres are proposed for non-commercial thinning. 

Grazing

North End Sheep & Goat Allotment- Grazing activities will continue into the future within the allotment 

which covers portions of the Tollgate project planning area. 

Road Maintenance 

Roads within the project planning area are maintained in order to provide for user safety and to alleviate 

the potential for road related effects to other resources. Road maintenance activities include but are not 

limited to, blading, surface rock replacement, brushing, removal of vegetation from roadway, removal of 

dangers from roadside and winter snow plowing. 

Recreation 

Ongoing use of dispersed camping, hunting, sightseeing that occurs year-round. Public firewood 

gathering and snowmobile use will continue to occur. Continued use of Spout Springs Ski Area will occur 

along within other winter recreation activities. Established campsites within the project planning area will 

continue to be used by the public as will trailheads. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-5 

Communication Site Operation 

The communications site, which is operated under special use permit(s) within the footprint of the Spout 

Springs complex, will continue to have maintenance activities associated with its proper function by the 

various permittees which operate within the site. 

Wilderness Management 

Ongoing management of wilderness, in accordance, with Wilderness standards will continue into the 

foreseeable future. 

Swamp Creek Commercial Thin 

This activity is scheduled to occur within the footprint of the Tollgate project. It is several Tollgate units. 

This project calls for commercial thinning within a 1960s era plantation. The project is targeted at 

improving stand condition within the 51 acre unit. 

SOILS

Scale of Analysis 

The scale of analysis for soils resources is primarily the areas proposed for actions- typically referred to 

as activity units- where ground-disturbing operations would occur. Associated system roads and 

temporary roads are included in assessments. Ecological setting refers to the entire analysis area. 

Project mitigations and design criteria have been proposed to assure current Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines of minimizing detrimental soil conditions to less than 20 percent of the activity area would be 

met (See Chapter 2,Table 2-7).

Soils outside the proposed project are not expected to be directly affected by the proposed action with the 

exception of the use of forest service and county roads. Roads used for hauling commercial material 

would be maintained before and/or after haul. 

Affected Environment 

GIS records indicate that each of the proposed activity units within the Tollgate Project Planning Area 

(Appendix A, Maps A1 and A2) has had some amount historic ground based commercial and noncommercial timber harvest activities. The exception to this is proposed unit 33 where timber was group 

selection cut and yarded by skyline. Most of the proposed units have had up to 3 to 5 entries, with several 

proposed having up to 6 entries between the years 1959 through 2004. Units 12, 41, 42 and 85, have had 

just one historic harvest activity. Although, multiple historic entries did occur in the same proposed unit, 

they may or may not have overlapped each other. The type, extent and intensity of harvest, and the 

associated soil impacts are variable, and tend to be related to the date implemented. The majority of stand 

clear cut, patch clear cut and group selection clear cut activities generally took place from 1959 to the late 

1960’s. Selection-type harvests where individual trees or groups of trees were chosen and removed 

(commercial thin, sanitation/salvage, single tree selection), and shelterwood and seed tree cut activities 

tended to occur post 1970’s. 

Field visits to conduct Level I soil surveys to assess existing detrimental soil conditions (DSCs) of 

proposed activity units occurred in the summer and fall of 2009. Surveys indicated that scattered skid trail 

systems are still evident in many of the stands. As indicated in Table 3-2, historic DSCs are generally low 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-6 

and tend to be limited to 0 to less than 6 percent of any one activity unit. Survey results indicated that 

proposed activity units 1, 3, 5, 25, 36, 70, 73, 76, 77 have moderate to high amounts of DSCs (ranging 

from approximate 8 to 23 percent). Only proposed unit 3 currently exceeds Forest Service guidelines with 

the amount of DSC estimated at 23 percent of the unit area. Total amount of DSC for each unit is 

assumed to include the percent DSCs from existing roads. Table E-1 in Appendix E lists the total existing 

detrimental soil conditions (Classes 2 and 3), non-detrimental soil impacts (Classes 0 and 1) and site 

specific comments for each proposed activity unit. To limit further DSC in proposed units; designating 

skid trails may be the most economical means to maintain site productivity (Froehlich and. McNab 1983). 

Table 3-2 — Existing Detrimental Soil Condition, Proposed Units 

UNIT1,2 DESCRIPTIVE EXISTING 

DISTURBANCE LEVEL3

DETRIMENTAL 

SOIL CONDITION 

(DSC) %

TOTAL 

ACRES 

DSC

4, 9, 12, 15, 19, 20, 21, 23, 

26, 27, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 

37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 

48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 

62, 69, 71, 72, 75, 78, 79, 

81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 89,

94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 

102, 105

Low 0% 0

1, 5, 10, 18, 31, 36, 46, 47, 

52, 56, 61, 64, 66, 67, 68, 

70, 76, 84, 90, 101, 103, 

104

Low 2-10% 63

25, 36, 73, 77, Moderate to High 10-20%

19

3 High >20 (23%)

4

Total Acres DSC’s 86

Units 31, 67, 104 and 105 were either not surveyed or had incomplete survey data. The amount of DSC’s 

was extrapolated from data available for proposed units adjacent to these units without data. Surveys for 

proposed units surrounding unit 67 indicated a range of 0-5% DSC’s. The value of 5% was used to reduce 

the margin of error for in estimating DSC for unit 67. Unit 31 has had a minimum of 7 historic harvest 

activities within its boundaries (including stand and patch clear cuts). Surveyed units surrounding unit 31 

indicated 0% DSC’s. However, a value of 5% was given to unit 31 to account for the high amount of 

historic activities in that unit. Unit 81 boundaries were re-drawn to include a portion of unit 36 with 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-7 

harvestable trees. This was done after soil condition surveys were conducted in 2009. Survey data 

indicated 0% DSC’s for unit 81, and 8% DSC’s for unit 31. DSC % for 81 was adjusted to 5% to account 

this boundary change. 

3The descriptors (Low, Moderate and High) are based on terms as used in the “Umatilla NF Protocol for 

Assessment and Management of Soil Quality Conditions” (USDA FS, 2002). Descriptions are based on 

field observation and data assessments by District personnel and the Forest Soil Scientist. 

The Class 2 DSCs are areas with rut depth greater than 6 inches, and are generally associated with old 

skid trails and landings. Surveyed areas with Class 2 DSC tend to be well-vegetated and stable with 

recovering surface duff layers and understory vegetation. A few skid trails, two-track roads and FS 

system roads showed evidence of minor erosion (units, 42, 52, 100). No chronic erosion or other 

problems were observed. To reduce the amount of new detrimental soil impacts it is recommended to 

maximize use of existing skid trails, haul roads, and landings. Roads used for hauling commercial 

material would be maintained before and/or after haul. Maintenance would include grading road surfaces, 

cleaning culverts and brushing. There may be opportunity to reduce the amount of historic detrimental 

soil conditions by subsoiling to fracture compacted soil layers, improve infiltration of water, and 

accelerate the physical processes that break down soil compaction. 

Class 1 soil conditions are described as rutting depth less than 6 inches and considered to be nondetrimental. Survey results indicated moderate to high amounts of legacy, class 1 soil impacts from 

historic harvest activities in most proposed activity units. The amount of class 1 soil impacts generally 

ranged from 0 to 59% of the unit area (average range was 10 to 25%). The highest amount of class 1 soil 

impacts was observed in units 34, 36, 73, 77 (ranging from 40 to 59%). Units with high amounts of Class 

2 soil damage tend to correspond with greater than 8 % class 2 DSCs. Survey results for units 6, 38, 44, 

57, 58, 61, 66, 67, 85, 89 indicated less than 5% Class 1 soil impacts. Units with low amounts of Class 1 

soil damage tend to correspond with less than 5% class 2 DSCs. Level 1 soils survey does not measure 

soil bulk density or require a shovel test to qualitatively describe soil structure that may benefit from 

subsoiling. 

HYDROLOGY

Treatment alternatives were evaluated based on their effect to hydrologic function and condition, water 

quality, and water yield. Indicators used to analyze effects of proposed actions are described in Chapter 

1, Table 1-3. 

Geographic scale of analysis 

The hydrologic system and the hydrologic effects of proposed actions were analyzed for National Forest 

System (NFS) lands by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 6 Subwatershed (SWS). Cumulative effect 

indicators including Equivalent Treatment Acres (ETA) are reported by HUC 6 SWS. Subwatersheds 

that include proposed activities will be referred to as the Tollgate Project Planning Area. 

The mapped project boundary includes parts of five subwatersheds (Hydrologic Unit Code 6th fields) 

(Figure 3-1):

1. Little Lookingglass Creek(HUC 170601041002), 

2. Upper Lookingglass Creek (HUC 170601041001), 

3. Middle South Fork Walla Walla River (HUC 170701020102), 

4. North Fork Umatilla River(HUC 170701030104), and 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-8 

5. Bear Creek – which includes the mainstem Umatilla River downstream of the Forth Fork of the 

Umatilla River (HUC 170701030106). 

Temporal scale of analysis 

Cumulative effects for water quality will be analyzed for short term 1 day to 1 week and for long term, up 

to one runoff season. These time scales were chosen to display short term concentrated effects, and 

longer term seasonal effects that are sometimes seen during spring runoff. 

Cumulative effects for water yield are estimated using records of timber harvest activity dating to the 

1960s. The Equivalent Treatment Acre (ETA) model has a 33 year time-frame for the slowest sites to 

recover hydrologically (collection, storage, and release of precipitation). Although vegetation 

management proposed in the project may occur over a number of years, the calculation is done as if it all 

occurs in 1 year, and therefore shows the maximum effect that could be expected. Hydrology and 

Topography Overview 

Tollgate Project Planning Area has a mixed maritime-continental climate with seasonal extremes of 

temperature and precipitation. Most precipitation comes as winter rain or snow between November and 

May. Annual precipitation increases with elevation from lows of 32-36” in the major western drainages 

of the analysis area; North Fork Umatilla and South Fork Walla Walla River. Highest precipitation 

amounts, 52-56”, per year are found on ridges from Horseshoe Prairie in the south through Bald 

Mountain in the center of the analysis area and above Mottet Creek in the northeastern corner of the 

analysis area. Flow is generally dominated by snowmelt with peaks in the spring and low flow in August 

and September. Regional rain-on-snow events in 1964 and 1996 caused large scale flooding. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-9 

Figure 3-1— Project area subwatersheds 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-10

Hydrologic Function

RHCA Condition 

The Umatilla NF Land and Resource Management Plan was amended by PACFISH in the mid-1990s. 

Prior to that time timber harvest units often extended to the creek bottoms. Harvest history information 

and geographic information system (GIS) stream layers were used to estimate RHCA harvest for the 

analysis area. From the mid-1960s to the implementation of PACFISH about 8% of the linear distance of 

RHCAs had harvest entries. 

Miles of road inside RHCAs relative to miles of streams is very low in the analysis area (Table 3-3) 

reflecting the plateau-canyon topography of the area. The RHCAs of the analysis area are largely intact 

and subject to natural disturbance factors; insect and disease, flood, fire. 

Roads 

Road density is used as an indicator of potential for affects to hydrologic function (extension of the 

stream network) and water quality (sediment delivery to surface waters). Road density is high in the 

Upper Lookingglass Creek SWS, reflecting past harvest history and is low in the other SWS of the 

analysis area (Table 3-3). 

Stream crossings are used as an indicator of the degree of connectivity between the road system and the 

drainage network. To the degree that roads are connected to the drainage network the risk of road 

sediments reaching surface waters is increased, the drainage network is lengthened and the potential for 

precipitation to drain more quickly, with less residence time in the watershed is increased. 

Stream crossings and road locations inside RHCAs are relatively low within the analysis area due to 

topography (Table 3-3). 

The road systems on McDougal and Coyote Ridge, west of State Highway 204 have several areas of wet 

soils and seeps in and near roads. Approximately 0.35 miles of FR 3718155 is inside the RHCA of a 

perennial non-fishbearing stream and has a native surface (soil). The road is adjacent to a spring and the 

roadbed is saturated for much of the year in that location. Private landowners continue to use the road, 

resulting in extensive road surface rutting (Figure 3-2), and maintenance activities have pushed sediment 

into the spring. 

Figure 3-2 — FR 3718155 - Rutting 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-11

Several culverts and roads have damage causing erosion and sedimentation and increased risk to surface 

waters. These areas are identified below: 

FR3715030 the culvert feeds a pond used by the North End Sheep Allotment and has caused a 

hole in the road 

FR3700040 culvert below the snowmobile trail is more than half filled with sediment 

FR 6400100 where a culvert on a perennial stream has washed out. 

An old and abandoned road below Unit 75 crosses the creek at the east side of the unit. The 

culvert is plugged and water is eroding the road bed. 

Table 3-3— Road Density and Road Stream Interaction on NFS Lands 

Subwatershed SWS Name

Road Density 

Open & 

Closed miles 

per square 

mile

Road 

Miles w/in 

RHCAs

Miles of 

road per 

mile of 

Stream

Stream & Road 

Intersections

170601041001

Upper 

Lookingglass

Creek

3.6 3.7 .06 36 (class 3 & 4)

170701020102

Middle South 

Fork Walla Walla 

River

1.0 2 .02 25 (class 3 & 4)

170701030104 North Fork 

Umatilla River 1.6 2.8 .03 4 (fish)25 (class 3 & 4)

170701030106 Bear Creek 0.5 1.2 .02 5 (fish mainstem)

5 (class 4)

Water quality 

Water temperature 

Topography of the analysis area is characterized by uplifted basalt plateaus and deeply dissected canyons 

with steep side slopes. The headwaters of the streams of the analysis area are in the low gradient upland 

plateau and flow to the Grande Ronde River, the Umatilla River, and the Walla Walla River through steep 

canyons. The high gradient portions of these streams are generally inaccessible and have received little or 

no management disturbance. Fish are present in lower reaches of these streams near confluences with the 

larger creek and river systems. The NFS program of stream survey for aquatic habitat has evaluated most 

of these areas. Evaluation of several instream habitat and channel condition parameters may be found in 

the Biological Evaluation and Specialist’s Report prepared for this project by District fish biologist David 

Crabtree. 

Water temperature data has been collected for many years on streams in three (3) of the subwatersheds of 

the analysis area (Table 3-4). No water temperature data has been collected on Bear Creek. Water 

temperatures leaving the analysis area are generally cool. Past harvests occurring within RHCAs may 

have resulted in increases of stream temperature, but the extent to which this is the case is unclear. 

Ultimately, the cumulative effects of past vegetation management activities are reflected in existing 

temperature patterns. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-12

Table 3-4 — Water Temperatures Records for affected waterways 

Location 10 year average of 7-day Max 

Ave Water Temps

Lookingglass above the springs 60 ̊ F

Lookingglass below the springs 52 ̊ F

North Fork Umatilla River 59 ̊ F

South Fork Walla Walla River 54 ̊ F

Lookingglass Creek has a somewhat unusual temperature regime in that in midsummer, downstream 

reaches (downstream of Lost Creek) average six to ten degrees Fahrenheit cooler than the upstream 

reaches. This is because several very large springs between the mouths of Lost and Summer Creeks 

account for the majority of the flow below Lost Creek. In nineteen years of monitoring at a point about 

two miles downstream of these springs, the stream temperature has never been recorded above 

53 degrees Fahrenheit (7-day moving average max - Table 3-5). At the site of the springs, maximum 

water temperature was recorded as 46 F consistently over a period of three years. 

Table 3-5 — 7-day Moving Average Water Temperatures in Streams in Tollgate Fuels Reduction 

Project Area 

Year

1992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010

Upper Lookingglass Creek, above springs

F 57 62 62 63 60 62 57 61 59

Lookingglass Creek above Eagle Creek 

F 53 51 52 53 52 51 52 53 52 52 53 52 52 52 53 52 51 52 52

South Fork Walla Walla River at the National Forest Boundary

F 54 54 53 55 53 50 52 55 55 54 54 56 55

North Fork Umatilla River near mouth

F 60 58 59 57 59 60 58 59 59 59 59 59 59 60 59 57 59 57

Umatilla River at Corporation Guard Station

F 65 63 63 64 63 64 64 64 64 65 65 64 64 65 61 64 62

South Fork Umatilla above Buck Creek

F 69 68 70 66 67 67 69 66 67 68 67 68 68 68 68 70 63 69 68
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-13

The South Fork of the Walla Walla River is also a very cool stream. In 13 years of monitoring at the 

National Forest boundary, the highest temperature recorded (7-day moving average max) has been 55 

degrees Fahrenheit. The North Fork of the Umatilla River is somewhat warmer, with the highest 

temperature on record (7-day moving average max) being 60 degrees Fahrenheit at the mouth on the 

South Fork of the Umatilla River. Temperature recording stations on both the North Fork of the Umatilla 

River and the South Fork of the Walla Walla River are at 2400 feet of elevation, however the recording 

site on Lookingglass Creek is at 3060 feet, so it has both the springs and elevation favoring cooler 

temperatures. The North Fork Umatilla would be expected to be cooler farther upstream, while for 

Lookingglass that principle would hold only to about a half-mile above Summer Creek. 

The Bear Creek watershed contains about 11 miles of the Mainstem Umatilla River. It includes a number 

of very small, mostly intermittent tributary streams. Bear Creek is the largest of these tributary streams, 

but is tiny (<1 CFS on August 17, 2011, DMC, pers. obs.) in comparison to the flow of the Umatilla at the 

confluence. There are no temperature records available for Bear Creek. Out of 17 years of record, water 

temperatures in the Mainstem Umatilla in this subwatershed were consistently too high to meet the NMFS 

criteria for properly functioning, but met criteria for functioning at risk in all but three years, and 

averaged over all that time, the summer maximum temperature was 63.8 F. 

Sediment 

Existing conditions with respect to sediment are described above in the roads section. Additionally, 

timber harvest and road construction in the analysis area has been limited to upland locations due to 

topography, with minor exceptions within RHCAs as described above. Most road miles in the planning 

area are not connected to the hydrologic system, that is, they do not cross channels and runoff from them 

does not enter surface waters. Roads which are hydrologically connected are a risk to water quality. 

Roads inside RHCAs and with culvert problems are the most likely to contribute sediment to surface 

waters currently. The ability of these streams to move sediment far downstream is limited by low flow 

volumes and by channel roughness which traps sediment. To an uncertain degree, sediment levels in the 

analysis area are likely elevated over pre-management due to the existing road system, harvest history, 

and other actions. 

Water Yield 

The relationship between created openings in forested landscapes and changes in water yield and peak 

flows has been documented by numerous studies. Changes in these parameters would be of concern for 

aquatic habitat and biota, downstream water users, and for channel morphology. Recent reviews of 

literature demonstrate that the relationship is highly variable (Stednick 1995, and Scherer 2001). 

Generally effects are not seen below 15-20 percent equivalent clearcut or treatment acres (ECA or ETA) 

and in a local study; effects were not seen below 50 percent ECA (Helvey 1995). Grant et al. (2008) 

suggests that increased peak flows could occur at > 20% “ECA” and that the potential for effects to 

channel morphology is in the 5-10 year recurrence interval flow ranges. Umatilla National Forest 

Equivalent Treatment Area (ETA) model (Ager and Clifton 2005) was used to evaluate the cumulative 

effects of harvest through time in this analysis area and to see what change the proposed alternatives 

would make to this indicator (Table 3-6). 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-14

Table 3-6 — Equivalent Treatment Area Percentages in 2011 

Subwatershed8 Existing 

Condition

LOOKINGGLASS CREEK WATERSHED

170601041001 Upper Lookingglass Creek 2.0%

UPPER WALLA WALLA RIVER WATERSHED

170701020102 Middle South Fork Walla Walla River 0.5%

10.5%9

UPPER UMATILLA RIVER WATERSHED

170701030104 North Fork Umatilla River 1.3%

170701030106 Bear Creek 0.5%

Clean Water Act 

Congress has designated the State of Oregon as having responsibility to implement the Clean Water Act 

(CWA). The Clean Water Act requires that water quality standards be developed to protect beneficial 

uses and a list be developed of water quality impaired streams (303d list). When water quality standards 

are not met the CWA further requires development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) for the 

pollutants; calculated pollutant amounts that a water body can receive and still meet Oregon water quality 

standards. Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) are developed during the TMDL process to 

identify measures to improve water quality. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) has identified Use Designations and has recently 

revised its water quality standards based on life stages of fishes. Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project is 

located in three subbasins; Upper Grande Ronde, Walla Walla, and Umatilla. Beneficial use designations 

and water quality standards can be found in the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR). Categories of 

Beneficial Uses are described below in Table 3-7. 

Grande Ronde Basin OAR 340-41-151 tables and maps 

Umatilla Basin OAR 340-41-310 tables and maps 

Walla Walla Basin OAR 340-41-330 tables and maps 

 

8

 Data limitations prevent modeling all subwatersheds within the three (3) watersheds affected by the Tollgate 

project. All subwatersheds (SWS), including those not modeled have ETA percentages substantially lower than 

15%. 

9

 Includes estimated conifer mortality caused by the Burnt Cabin Fire (2005) located in the Middle South Fork 

Walla Walla Subwatershed. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-15

The Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project proposes hauling logs on roads that cross and drain to surface 

waters and potential exists for stormwater discharges from those roads. There is existing uncertainty 

regarding whether a Clean Water Act National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 

may be required for stormwater discharges from logging roads. This uncertainty arises from a recent 

court decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and its application to the Forest Service by the 

Federal District Court for the District of Montana. 

During scoping for the Tollgate project, comments were solicited from the appropriate Federal, 

State, or local agencies that are authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards these 

agencies are described in Chapter 5 of this document. Specifically, since the proposed project 

would involve hauling logs over roads, and there potentially could be stormwater discharges 

from those roads, the Forest Service invited comments from, and consulted with the 

Environmental Protection Agency—the agency in the state of Oregon (where the Tollgate project 

occurs) that issues NPDES permits. 

Table 3-7 — Categories of Beneficial Uses for Streams within the Grande Ronde, Walla Walla, and 

Umatilla Subbasins 

Aquatic Life Uses bull trout, salmon and trout spawning and rearing, migration

Recreation Uses Fishing, Boating, Water Contact Recreation

Water Supply Uses Domestic, Industrial, and Agricultural

Miscellaneous Uses Wildlife & Hunting, Hydro Power, Aesthetic Quality

 http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/uses.htm

Water Quality Standards 

Water Temperature standards are based on life stages of fishes and measured with 7-day-average 

maximums. In the Tollgate Project Planning Area the following standards apply. 

Lookingglass Creek, South Fork Walla Walla River, North Fork Umatilla River, and Bear Creek: 

Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing; may not exceed 12.0 degrees Celsius (53.6 degrees 

Fahrenheit). 

Natural Conditions Criteria; where the department determines that the natural thermal potential of 

all or a portion of a water body exceeds the biologically-based criteria the natural thermal 

potential temperatures supersede the biologically-based criteria, and are deemed to be the 

applicable temperature criteria for that water body. 

Narrative sedimentation standard; the formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the 

formation of any organic or inorganic deposits deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious 

to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed 

Water Quality Standards may be found at the following site which is the property of and maintained by 

the State of Oregon: http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_300/oar_340/340_041.html
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-16

Total Maximum Daily Load 

The State of Oregon has completed TMDLs for the Upper Grande Ronde River Subbasin (May 2000), the 

Umatilla River Subbasin (May 2001), and the Walla Walla Subbasin (September 2005). EPA approval of 

these TMDLs moved water temperature and sediment impairments off of Category 5 lists to other 

categories. 

Some new listings have occurred since then. The most recent water quality assessment in Oregon was 

made in 2004/2006 (State of Oregon, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality 

Assessment and 303(d) List, 2006). 

Current 303d listed water quality impairments may be found at: 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt0406/search.asp 

Water Quality Management Plans 

Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP) covering US Forest Service lands are in place in the Upper 

Grande Ronde Sub-Basin and the Umatilla River Basin. The WQMP for the Walla Walla Subbasin is in 

draft. 

Forestry WQMPs rely on current laws, management plans, and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to 

provide the basis for improving water quality in the forested landscape. All federal land management 

activities must follow standards and guidelines (S&Gs) found in the Umatilla National Forest Plan, as 

amended by Pacfish (USDA and USDI 1995), and BMPs as defined in the Implementation Plan for 208 

(Water Pollution Control Act, PL 92-500, as amended). Pacfish provides management direction in the 

form of interim Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) and Standards and Guides for Key 

Watersheds. 

WQMPs for these basins expect current policies, regulations, BMPs, and adaptive management 

techniques to minimize unwanted pollutants from forestry related activities. Habitat conditions are 

expected to be improved through implementation of BMPs developed for the temperature TMDLs which 

promote riparian conditions that improve channel stability and reduce erosion and promote the protection 

and recovery of channel morphology to the most stable forms. 

The Forest Service’s responsibilities under the Clean Water Act are defined in a Memorandum of 

Understanding between Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the Forest Service completed 

in 2002 and updated in 2007 (USDA and ODEQ 2007). The MOU designates the Forest Service as the 

management agency responsible for meeting the Clean Water Act on NFS lands and recognizes best 

management practices (BMPs) as the primary mechanism to control nonpoint source pollution on NFS 

lands. There is further recognition that BMPs are developed by the Forest Service as part of the planning 

process and includes a commitment by the US Forest Service to meet or exceed standards. 

FISHERIES 

Geographic Boundary 

The geographic boundary of analysis for fisheries resources potentially affected by the activities included 

in the Tollgate project is identical to that for water resources described in the hydrology section above. 

Streams in or near the Tollgate planning area are described in Error! Reference source not found..

Tollgate Project Planning Area has a mixed maritime-continental climate with seasonal extremes of 

temperature and precipitation. Most precipitation comes as winter rain or snow between November and 

May. Annual precipitation increases with elevation from lows of 32-36” in the major western drainages 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-17

of the analysis area; North Fork Umatilla and South Fork Walla Walla River. Highest precipitation 

amounts, 52-56”, per year are found on ridges from Horseshoe Prairie in the south through Bald 

Mountain in the center of the analysis area and above Mottet Creek in the northeastern corner of the 

analysis area. Flow is generally dominated by snowmelt with peaks in the spring and low flow in August 

and September. Regional rain-on-snow events in 1964 and 1996 caused large scale flooding. 

Topography of the analysis area is characterized by uplifted basalt plateaus and deeply dissected canyons 

with steep side slopes. The headwaters of the streams of the analysis area are in the low gradient upland 

plateau and flow to the Grande Ronde River, the Umatilla River, and the Walla Walla River through steep 

canyons. The high gradient portions of these streams are generally inaccessible and have received little or 

no management disturbance. Fish are present in lower reaches of these streams near confluences with the 

larger creek and river systems. The NFS program of stream survey for aquatic habitat has evaluated most 

of these areas. Evaluation of several instream habitat and channel condition parameters may be found in 

the Biological Evaluation and Specialist’s Report prepared for this project by District fish biologist David 

Crabtree. 

Although the project analysis area boundary includes part of the Little Lookingglass subwatershed, 

Activity units originally proposed in the Little Lookingglass subwatershed have been dropped from the 

project. Since no activities are proposed for that part of the analysis area, there would be no reason to 

evaluate baseline conditions or project effects in the Little Lookingglass subwatershed. Additionally 

there is a tiny amount of activity proposed for the Lower South Fork Walla Walla subwatershed (HUC 

170701020103), but that work would be right on the ridge top, is a very small area (<10 acres), distant 

from all stream channels, and has no potential to produce any affect to any fish or aquatic habitat, so it 

will also be excluded from further analysis. 

Since there is no potential for effects to fish or their habitat in either the Little Lookingglass or the Lower 

South Fork Walla Walla subwatersheds, neither would there be any possibility of contribution to 

cumulative effects there, so these subwatersheds will be excluded from the cumulative effects analysis as 

well. 

As is explained in more detail later in this document, effects of project activities to aquatic habitat, if any, 

would be limited to small, non-fish bearing, headwater streams, and are very unlikely to be detectable in 

fish habitat at all, and certainly would not be detectable beyond the point where fish bearing streams exit 

the project area subwatersheds. Therefore the physical boundaries for the cumulative effects component 

of this analysis will be the boundaries of those three subwatersheds with substantial amounts of project 

activities; Upper Lookingglass Creek, North Fork Umatilla River, and Bear Creek. 

Temporal Boundary 

Since the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project includes a timber sale component, the time scale of the 

analysis would include the time to complete the timber sale harvest plus the time needed to complete 

treatment of the fuels (slash) created by the timber sale (activity fuels) plus the time for recovery from 

effects to soils or other affected resources. Timber sales contracts normally allow up to five years for 

completing the harvest and finishing other contract activities. After the timber sale is completed the 

Forest Service would treat the accumulated activity fuels with prescribed fire. In the Tollgate project 

area, this would be done within two years, giving up to seven years total of project activities 

The duration of effects from this type of project is closely tied to time for recovery of soil surface 

protection, primarily from vegetation regrowth and accumulation of duff and debris. Project design 

criteria and Best Management Practices (BMPs) keep bare soil surface exposure to a very small amount. 

Judging from personal observations of similar projects in this area soil surface protection would be 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-18

expected to be back to natural levels within two to three years after cessation of disturbance. Therefore 

the maximum time frame for expected effects from project activities would be 10 years. 

During that time, effects, if any, from other management activities in the area would also be contributing 

to cumulative effects. Parts of two other timber sale projects, the Lower Sheep and Loon projects, have 

been implemented in this same area. The timber sale components of both of these are now completed and 

project activities are winding down. Depending on weather, there is expected to be some prescribed fire 

for activity fuels treatments in the Loon project for two years. Depending on the timing of the 

implementation of the Tollgate project the last part of the Loon project fuels treatment might overlap the 

beginning of the Tollgate project by one or two years. 

Since we are unaware of any other projects proposed or planned for these subwatersheds at this time, the 

time frame for consideration of cumulative effects from the Tollgate fuels reduction project would be 10 

years after the timber sale contract is issued. 

Fish species known or expected in the area or the area potentially 

affected by the project 

This part of the report meets the requirements of the Forest Service manual 2672.42 - Standards 

for Biological Evaluations. 

“Biological Evaluations shall include the following,” 

“1. An identification of all listed, proposed, and sensitive species known or expected to be 

in the project area or that the project potentially affects. Contact the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as part of the informal 

consultation process for a list of endangered, threatened, or proposed species that may be 

present in the project area.” 

Table 3-8 presents ESA listed and U.S. Forest Service Region 6 sensitive species known or 

expected in streams on the Umatilla National Forest. 

Of these, four ESA Threatened fish stocks and two R6 Sensitive species occupy streams 

in project watersheds (Table 3-8), and so are in locations where they may potentially be 

affected by project activities ().

Steelhead and redband trout (both O. mykiss) are also Management Indicator Species (MIS) for the 

Umatilla National Forest. 

In addition native dace, suckers, and whitefish are also found in streams in project area 

subwatersheds. 

Species status: Columbia River bull trout, ESA Threatened 

Columbia River bull trout occupy all three subbasins with Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project activities. 

They spawn and rear in the South Fork of the Walla Walla River, the North Fork of the Umatilla River, 

and Lookingglass Creek. The Bear Creek Subwatershed, which includes part of the mainstem Umatilla 

River, probably serves only as migratory and perhaps overwintering habitat for bull trout. Bear Creek 

itself is a very small and intermittent stream, and bull trout have never been reported there 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-19

Figure 3-3 — Streams in and near the Tollgate Fuels Project area 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-20

Table 3-8 — ESA Listed and R6 Sensitive Fish Species on the Umatilla National Forest Known or 

Expected in the Tollgate Fuels Project area 

Stock Classification

Presence by Watershed Potentially affected 

by the Tollgate Fuels 

Project?

Umatilla 

Watershed

Lookingglass

Watershed

Columbia River bull 

trout ESA Threatened Yes Yes Yes

Snake River 

spring/summer Chinook 

salmon

ESA Threatened No Yes Yes

Snake River Fall 

Chinook Salmon ESA threatened No No No

Snake River steelhead ESA Threatened No Yes Yes

Mid-Columbia steelhead ESA Threatened Yes No Yes

Redband trout R6 Sensitive and 

Umatilla N.F. MIS Yes Yes Yes

Margined Sculpin R6 Sensitive Yes Probably Yes

West slope cutthroat 

trout R6 Sensitive No No No

Mid-Columbia River 

Spring-run Chinook 

Salmon R6 Sensitive No No No

Lookingglass Creek 

Judging from spawning ground survey results, bull trout in Lookingglass Creek probably number a little 

over 100 adults. However, Lookingglass Creek habitat is accessible at least seasonally to the bull trout 

populations in the Wenaha River (no physical barriers), which is believed to be a strong population 

probably consisting of several sub-populations10. Both the Wenaha and Lookingglass sub-populations 

include the migratory form. There are additional sub-populations upstream in tributaries of the Grande 

Ronde River as well. Bull trout tagged in Lookingglass have been found far upstream in the Grande 

Ronde River so these populations are almost certainly connected 

South Fork Walla Walla River 

Judging from spawning ground survey results, bull trout in the South Fork of the Walla Walla River 

probably number between 500 and 1000 adults. This population is seasonally linked to Mill Creek, which 

also has a fairly strong population. The migratory route between Mill Creek and the Walla Walla River 

includes a long stretch of concrete lined channel through the city of Walla Walla which makes upstream 

movement into upper Mill creek difficult for fish. A third (and perhaps fourth) sub-population inhabits 

the Touchet River system. All three sub-populations include the migratory form. 

 

10 Informal consensus of local state and federal fisheries biologists. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-21

North Fork Umatilla River 

Bull trout in the North Fork of the Umatilla River are a very small and isolated population, probably 

numbering less than 100 adult individuals with no easy connection to any other bull trout population, but 

the migratory form is present. 

Bear Creek subwatershed 

The Bear Creek subwatershed contains a part of the mainstem of the Umatilla River which may be used 

as overwintering habitat and a migratory corridor by bull trout from the North Fork of the Umatilla River. 

It becomes too warm in late summer for year-round occupancy by bull trout. Bear Creek itself is a very 

small, intermittent stream that is not known to have ever contained bull trout. 

Species Status: Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). ESA Threatened, 1992 

By definition, Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon occupy only streams and watersheds in the 

Snake River basin. Therefore the South Fork Walla Walla River, the North Fork Umatilla River and Bear 

Creek subwatersheds are not habitat for Snake River spring/summer Chinook Salmon. 

Lookingglass Creek 

Spring Chinook salmon migrate into Lookingglass Creek and other Grande Ronde tributaries in this area 

on the high flows of spring runoff. They seek cool water refuges where they hold until spawning in midAugust or early September. The cool water of Lookingglass Creek provides attractive holding habitat for 

Chinook over the summer.. 

Spring Chinook salmon historically spawned in the Lookingglass system. In August of 1953, 308 

Chinook salmon redds were counted in mainstem Lookingglass Creek3. This came to an average of 36 

redds per mile over the area surveyed. Based on redd counts and numbers of fish actually observed, the 

Chinook run that year was estimated to be approximately 1500 fish11. 

That run was extirpated or nearly extirpated by management of the weir at the fish hatchery by Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 

Presently, ODFW controls fish access to Lookingglass Creek and its tributaries upstream of the 

Lookingglass Fish Hatchery with a weir at the hatchery. For most of the time that the hatchery has been 

in place, Chinook have not been allowed to pass the weir. Beginning in 1992, though, some spring 

Chinook have been allowed to pass the weir in most years.12 Those fish were all of Rapid River stock 

and so were not considered as a listed species under ESA. Beginning 2006, the Confederated Tribes of 

the Umatilla Indian Reservation seeded Lookingglass Creek with excess returning brood stock from 

Catherine Creek, which is also a tributary of the Grande Ronde River. These fish have been observed 

spawning in mainstem Lookingglass, mostly downstream of Summer Creek. 

 

11 From an old, yellowed typewritten report on file at the Walla Walla Ranger District. Author not identified, but 

appears to have been written by an Oregon State biologist. 

12 Source: Lookingglass Fish Hatchery Records, supplied by Debbie Eddy, ODFW, 2004. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-22

Those fish are part of the Grande Ronde River stock. That is to say, they are native Snake River Chinook 

salmon. They have reproduced successfully and are now considered as part of the ESA-Threatened Snake 

River stock (Rebecca Dittmann, pers. com. 2011). 

Snake River Chinook also spawn and rear in the Wenaha River just north of the project area. 

Species Status: Snake river Fall Chinook Salmon 

By definition, Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon occupy only streams and watersheds in the Snake River 

basin. Therefore the South Fork Walla Walla River, the North Fork Umatilla River and Bear Creek 

subwatersheds are not habitat for Snake River Chinook salmon. 

Fall Chinook salmon have never been recorded in Lookingglass Creek or any other streams potentially 

affected by the proposed project activities. 

Species Status: Snake River steelhead trout (anadromous 

Onchorhynchus mykiss, ESA Threatened, 1997, Umatilla National 

Forest Management Indicator Species) 

By definition, Snake River steelhead trout occupy only streams and watersheds in the Snake River basin. 

Therefore the South Fork Walla Walla River, the North Fork Umatilla River and Bear Creek 

subwatersheds are not habitat for Snake River steelhead trout. 

Lookingglass Creek 

Adult Snake River steelhead trout typically leave the ocean as 3- to 6- year olds and begin their upriver 

migration in June of each year passing Bonneville by July. The steelhead trout spawning in the Grande 

Ronde subbasin enter the Grande Ronde River in two distinct migrations, one peaking in September and 

the other in March and April. Adults arriving in September hold in the Grande Ronde through the winter. 

Steelhead spawn here from March through May with the peak spawning activity occurring throughout the 

subbasin in late April and May. 

Recent Spawning Ground surveys in the Lookingglass system, (Steve Boe, CTUIR, pers. comm., 2004) 

have found steelhead spawning in greatest number in main Lookingglass Creek and Little Lookingglass 

Creek. A few redds have also been found in Eagle Creek and Mottet Creek, and adult steelhead have 

been observed in Summer Creek (USDA Forest Service, 1992 stream survey). Steelhead are not believed 

to use Jarboe Creek, because there is little or no suitable spawning habitat downstream of the barrier 

waterfall (Pat Keniry, pers comm., 2004). Steelhead that spawn in upper Lookingglass Creek and its 

tributaries must migrate past the Lookingglass fish hatchery, where ODFW controls access to upstream 

reaches with a weir. 

Adult steelhead may be present in streams of the project area anytime from September till June. Eggs 

remain in the gravel from one to two months, depending on water temperature, and fry emerge from May 

to June. Juvenile steelhead typically rear in their natal streams for up to 2 years, although depending on 

timing of emergence and spring runoff flows, fry may be washed some distance downstream, and rear in 

habitat some miles from their origin. They typically begin their downstream migration to the ocean with 

high spring flows in March through May two years after emergence. Therefore, juvenile steelhead would 

be present in most of these streams year-round. 

In the Lookingglass watershed, O. mykiss occupy the most upstream reaches of the system, occurring 

even farther upstream than bull trout. This is undoubtedly because large springs downstream of the Lost 

Creek confluence supply the majority of the stream flow, so that in summer, stream reaches upstream of 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-23

the Lost Creek confluence are actually warmer than the downstream reaches. This makes habitat in the 

warmer, upstream reaches more favorable for O. mykiss than for bull trout. Incomplete records from the 

Lookingglass fish hatchery document a wide range of steelhead released past the weir, from eight in 1996 

to 118 in 2001. 

Species status: Mid-Columbia Steelhead, (Oncorhynchus mykiss, ESA 

Threatened, Umatilla National Forest Management Indicator Species) 

By definition, Mid-Columbia steelhead trout occupy only streams and watersheds in the Mid-Columbia 

area. Therefore the North Fork Umatilla River and Bear Creek subwatersheds are habitat for midColumbia River steelhead trout, but Lookingglass Creek is not. 

O. mykiss are the most common and widely distributed salmonid species in the Walla Walla & Umatilla 

sub basins. O. mykiss are found in all fish-bearing portions of the Umatilla and Walla Walla River 

systems. Their upstream range approximates that of bull trout except that they regularly occupy reaches 

farther downstream than bull trout and occupy streams where bull trout have not been documented. Their 

Life history pattern approximates that of the Snake River steelhead described above. Juvenile steelhead 

are not distinguishable from rainbow/redband trout in the field. 

Species Proposed for listing under ESA 

There are currently no fish species proposed for ESA listing in the Tollgate Project analysis area. 

Rainbow/Redband Trout and Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss, USFS 

Region 6 Sensitive, Umatilla National Forest Management Indicator 

Species) 

Inland forms of O. mykiss, that is, those in the Columbia basin east of the Cascades are considered by 

some authorities to all be redband trout, including those sympatric with steelhead. Inland forms of O 

mykiss are genetically and phenotypically distinct from coastal forms (Wydoski and Whitney, 2003). 

Inland rainbow and redband trout are the same species as steelhead (O. mykiss) and juveniles cannot be 

distinguished phenotypically. Moreover, in at least some cases – where they are sympatric – they 

interbreed (Pearsons et al., 2007; Heath et al., 2008). 

Because of the intrusive nature of the work, direct census of redband trout is potentially harmful to the 

fish and so has not been attempted in this area. Indirect census, through spawning ground surveys is 

difficult and costly and inherently imprecise because of the timing of spawning of this species, which 

takes place in early spring during high stream flows with reduced visibility of channel substrate. 

Estimates of the status of redbands in this area is therefore based on observations during aquatic habitat 

inventories, or other visits to the stream by biologists, which confirms their presence, but gives little in 

the way of numeric estimates. Because much of the aquatic habitat in these watersheds is in Designated 

Roadless Areas or Congressionally Designated Wilderness with little or no active management, the 

redband trout population would be expected to be at or near potential. 

Margined Sculpin (Cottus marginatus, USFS Region 6 Sensitive) 

The Page and Burr (1991) list the range of the Region 6 “Sensitive” margined sculpin (Cottus marginatus) 

as the Columbia River drainage from the Walla Walla River to the Umatilla River. Wydoski and Whitney 

(2003) extend that range to the Touchet and Tucannon Rivers. They are not known to occur in any of the 

streams of the Grande Ronde River drainage and so would not be expected in the Lookingglass 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-24

watershed. The reason that they are listed as Sensitive is probably due primarily to their presumed 

restricted range. 

Westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi). R6 Sensitive 

Westslope cutthroat trout appears on the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list as documented present 

on the Umatilla National Forest. This documented occurrence is a disjunct population in the John Day 

River system. Cutthroat trout, including the west slope form of cutthroat trout, do not presently or 

historically occur within or near to project area streams. 

Pacific Lamprey (Lampetra tridentata).

Pacific lamprey is an anadromous fish species historically common in most cool water streams of the 

Pacific Northwest. Large numbers of adult lamprey used to ascend the Columbia and Snake Rivers to 

spawn in tributary streams, including the Grande Ronde River. Lamprey were extirpated from the Grande 

Ronde, Walla Walla and Umatilla Rivers by water withdrawals in the early 1900’s and later construction 

of Columbia River dams in which fish ladders generally did not facilitate passage of lamprey. 

Wydoski and Whitney (2003) give the present range of Pacific Lamprey as including the Snake River as 

far upstream as Hells Canyon Dam. The Grande Ronde River would therefore be accessible to them, but 

there are no recent reports of Pacific lamprey in the Grande Ronde system. 

Lamprey adult run timing is slightly later than that of spring Chinook salmon. Although Pacific 

lamprey have been considered a pest species by Euro-Americans because they parasitize 

commercial and game fish species, American Indians harvested lamprey for food and the 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation are in the process of re-introducing 

lamprey into the Walla Walla and Umatilla River systems. 

Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Extirpated

Coho salmon historically used the Grande Ronde River and some of its tributaries in the vicinity of the 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction project for migration and spawning (Cramer and Witty 1998). Coho have not 

been observed in the Grande Ronde since 1977, and large runs have not been observed since the early 

1900’s. All coho observed after 1966 were probably of hatchery origin. 

The confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation have re-introduced coho into the Walla Walla 

and Umatilla River systems. Because they are not from a stock native to these watersheds, they are not 

listed under the Endangered Species Act. 

Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Extirpated 

Sockeye salmon used the Grande Ronde River adjacent to the project area as a migration corridor en route 

to Wallowa Lake to spawn, and of course for juveniles migrating to the ocean as well. Sockeye were 

extirpated from the Grande Ronde Basin by 1904 (Cramer and Witty 1998). 

Habitat Identification and description 

Occupied 

There are 33.43 miles of occupied anadromous fish habitat and 28.19 miles of occupied resident fish 

habitat, for a total of 61.62 miles of occupied fish habitat in the four project area subwatersheds (Table 

3-9). Bull trout, Chinook salmon, steelhead and redband trout use all four of the project area 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-25

subwatersheds. Chinook salmon, steelhead, and redband trout use them for migration, rearing and 

spawning. Bull trout spawn in Lookingglass and North Fork Umatilla, but not in the Bear Creek 

subwatershed. Coho salmon probably used the Grande Ronde River in the vicinity of the mouth of 

Lookingglass Creek, but we have been unable to find records of them using Lookingglass Creek. They 

were extirpated from the Grande Ronde River system by 1977. 

Table 3-9 — Miles of Stream by Stream Class in the Tollgate Project Subwatersheds 

Stream

Stream Class1

1 2 3 4 Totals

Bear Creek 11.62 5.17 34.99 92.23 144.01

Middle South Fork Walla Walla 7.31 6.86 38.32 62.84 115.33

North Fork Umatilla 8.07 7.53 28.29 64.6 108.49

Upper Lookingglass 5.43 6.63 12.34 37.43 61.83

33.43 28.19 116.94 261.1 429.66

1Class 1 streams are anadromous fish habitat, class 2 streams are habitat of resident fish only, class 3 streams 

are perennial, non-fish bearing streams, and class 4 streams are seasonally intermittent.

Unoccupied, but essential for recovery 

With the possible exception of coho salmon, all known, historically occupied habitat of ESA listed or 

Region 6 Sensitive fish species in the four project subwatersheds is presently occupied. That is there is 

no known unoccupied fish habitat that is essential for recovery in any of the project area subwatersheds. 

Unoccupied, but essential to meet Forest Service objectives for 

sensitive species 

Likewise, there is no known unoccupied fish habitat that is essential to meet Forest Service objectives for 

sensitive fish species. 

Existing conditions of habitat components 

In order to evaluate the quality of the existing aquatic habitat, some standard for comparison must be 

identified. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have developed sets of 

criteria which have proven useful for meeting requirements of the Endangered Species Act and they have 

been adapted for use here in order to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Protection Act. 

Water Quality 

The components of water quality most likely to affect fish in streams of the Tollgate Fuels project area are 

temperature, sediment, and chemical contamination. 

Water Temperature 

The Tollgate project affected environment is characterized in terms of water temperature in the hydrology 

section earlier in this chapter. Additional information on water temperature with respect to fisheries 

resources is included here. 

The lower mile and mouth of bear Creek are on private land. The rest of the stream (upstream) is on 

National Forest. There are no records of fish of any species from Bear Creek but because there is no fish 

passage barrier at the mouth it is likely that small fish use the lowest, most downstream reaches (probably 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-26

only a few hundred feet, as the gradient quickly becomes very steep farther upstream). At less than one 

CFS flow in mid-summer, the creek is so small that only very small fish could use it. Because of the 

cooling influence of the North Fork Umatilla River, the water temperatures in the mainstem Umatilla in 

this subwatershed are cooler than they are farther upstream in the South Fork. 

Lookingglass Creek and the South Fork of the Walla Walla River are both near the center of designated 

Roadless areas, and the North Fork of the Umatilla River is in a congressionally designated wilderness, so 

all three are almost certainly at their natural potential temperatures, and so should therefore considered as

Properly Functioning regarding water temperature. There has been a good deal more active management 

in the Bear Creek subwatershed (roads, timber harvest, livestock and homes on private land), and because 

water temperatures in the Umatilla River there are in the NMFS “At Risk” category, that watershed would 

be evaluated as Functioning At Risk for water temperature. Because of its elevation, aspect and natural 

vegetation, this stream has probably always been too warm to serve as prime bull trout spawning or 

rearing habitat. 

Chemical Contaminants/Nutrients 

We know of no source of chemical contamination for streams on National Forest lands except occasional 

potential, accidental introduction of fire retardants during fire suppression work or a fuel spill related to 

other management activities. The Forest Service takes special pains to ensure that this does not happen, 

so that past and present Forest Service management activities do not increase levels of chemical 

contaminants in Lookingglass Creek, the South Fork of the Walla Walla River, the North Fork of the 

Umatilla River or the Bear Creek watershed. We know of no other source of chemical contaminants to 

these streams in the National Forest. Downstream and downslope from the National Forest, urban and 

agricultural runoff inevitably introduce some chemical contamination, so that in fact, the streams flowing 

from the National Forest would have a diluting effect to contaminant levels downstream. Streams in all 

three watersheds on National Forest lands in the analysis area should be considered Properly Functioning

for chemical contaminants and nutrients. 

Habitat Access:

Physical Barriers 

The weir at the Lookingglass fish hatchery, several miles downstream of the Forest boundary can restrict 

access to all streams in the Lookingglass system except Jarboe Creek. ODFW personnel working at the 

hatchery control access to habitat upstream of the weir. However in recent years, they have been 

allowing some migratory fish to pass. 

A natural waterfall in upper Lookingglass Creek, about two miles below the Langdon Lake headwaters 

area, limits access for migratory fish, but the stream is quite small here, and in the summer it is 

substantially warmer than the downstream reaches (see the water quality section of this report), so this 

part of the stream is not used by bull trout or Chinook salmon. This waterfall would be a migration 

impediment only to steelhead, but it is a longstanding natural barrier, so the stream should be considered 

as Properly Functioning regarding physical barriers. 

There are no man-made impediments to fish passage in the North Fork of the Umatilla River or in the 

South Fork of the Walla Walla River. There is a very large, longstanding log jam below Reeser Creek in 

the upper South Fork Walla Walla, but this developed naturally. It has continued to accumulate debris. 

In 2010 it appeared to have become a fish passage barrier; however, in the fall of 2011, large, presumably 

migratory fish, have been observed spawning upstream of this log jam (Bill Duke, ODFW, pers. comm.. 

2011), so it appears that fish had been able to find ways over, under, around, or through this log jam. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-27

The Umatilla River Road crosses Bear Creek a few feet upstream of its confluence with the Umatilla 

River. The crossing is over a large culvert which is backwatered, and has a natural appearing substrate 

(cobble and gravel) inside the culvert so this culvert is not a fish passage barrier. There may be other 

natural barriers upstream and the gradient itself may be a barrier. 

Since the only impediments to passage in these watersheds on National Forest Lands are natural, these 

streams should also be considered as Properly Functioning regarding physical barriers. 

Habitat Elements

Sediment and Substrate 

The Tollgate project affected environment is characterized in terms of sediment in the hydrology section 

earlier in this chapter. Additional information on water temperature with respect to fisheries resources is 

included here. 

At different times and different places, Field biologists and hydrologists have evaluated substrate quality 

on Walla Walla Ranger District streams in different ways. Beginning about 1989, surveyors recorded 

visual estimates of cobble embeddedness and dominant and subdominant substrate particle size. The 1997 

and later protocols (USDA Forest Service 1997) did not require collection of either, but provided for 

categorical collection of substrate particle size data as a Forest option. The later protocol and forms made 

no provision for collection of embeddedness data, so if such data were collected, they had to be done as a 

locally managed parameter. The 1997 and later protocols used Wollman Pebble counts (USDA Forest 

Service 1997) to characterize stream substrate. Table 3-10 presents the available data for these 

parameters. 

To be categorized as Properly Functioning, NMFS criteria specify that the dominant substrate particle 

size be cobble or gravel, or that embeddedness be < 20%. USFWS does not include the particle size 

criteria, but uses the same 20% criteria for embeddedness. Visual estimates of embeddedness can be 

imprecise (Wang et. al, 1996; Sylte and Fischenich 2003; Whitman et al. 2003), and so must be used 

cautiously, but all of the instances of embeddedness are in streams in designated Roadless or wilderness 

areas, and so are most certainly a natural condition. The only available data for a stream draining any part 

of the project that is not from a designated Roadless or wilderness area is that for them mainstem Umatilla 

River, and it was reported as 15% embedded with cobble as the dominant substrate particle size. 

Wollman pebble counts seem less subjective. The Wollman values reported in Table 3-10 are for the 

percent of substrate particles smaller than 5.7 mm (or in some cases less than 6mm, depending on the 

protocol in the year the data was collected). The numbers in the table are in most cases an average of two 

transects and generally show what would be expected for these streams in a natural condition. The high 

values are usually depositional reaches where higher proportions of fine sediment would be expected. 

The wide range of values for different reaches and occasional apparent conflict between the different 

methods of substrate characterization make assigning a functional category difficult, but since cobble or 

gravel is the dominant particle size for most of the surveyed reaches, together with the generally low 

values for cobble embeddedness, and the fact that most of the streams evaluated are in Roadless or 

wilderness areas suggests that these watersheds should be considered Properly Functioning. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-28

Table 3-10 — Tollgate Fuels Project Watersheds Stream Substrate Conditions 

Stream

First Survey Second Survey

% 

Embeddedness

Dominant/

Subdominant

Particle size

Year Surveyed

Dominant/

Subdominant

Particle size

% 

Embeddedness

Wollman

% < 5.7 mm an,

Year Surveyed

South Fork Walla Walla River

South Fork Walla Walla River, Reach 1324 co/gr 1995

South Fork Walla Walla River, Reach 24

co/gr 1995

South Fork Walla Walla River, Reach 34

co/sb 1995

South Fork Walla Walla River, Reach 44co/gr 1995

South Fork Walla Walla River, Reach 54co/gr 1995

Burnt Cabin Gulch Creek 13 co/gr 1995 4612008

Umatilla River

 Umatilla River below forks 15 co/gr 1992 na 17 1997

 North Fork Umatilla River Reach 1 8 co/gr 1993 gr/sa 2009

 North Fork Umatilla River Reach 2 13.5 co/sb 1993 gr/sa 2009

 North Fork Umatilla River Reach 3 42 co/gr 1993 gr/sa 2009

 North Fork Umatilla River Reach 4 32 co/sb 1993

 Coyote Creek 3 co/gr 1993

 West Fork Coyote Creek 2 gr/sb 1993

 Johnson Creek 16 co/sb 1995

 Woodward Creek 15.3 sb/co 1994

Lookingglass Creek

 Lookingglass Reach 1 19 co/gr 1992 7

 Lookingglass Reach 2 19 co/gr 1992 7

 Lookingglass Reach 3 18 gr/gr 1992 9

 Lookingglass Reach 4 36 gr/co 1992 17.5

 Lost Creek, Reach 1 30 co/sb 1992

 Lost Creek, Reach 2 28 co/sb 1992 13

 Swamp Creek, Reach 1 25 gr/co 1992 15.5

 Swamp Creek, Reach 2 35 sa/gr 1992

 East Fork Swamp Creek na sa/co 1992 8.5

 Summer Creek, Reach 1 19 co/gr 1992 47.5 2000

 Summer Creek, Reach 2 35 gr/gr 1992

1

Survey was done following the burnt cabin fire and after a winter and spring which produced some large debris flows in this 

canyon, which introduced large amounts of hillslope sediments into the stream channel. This is almost certainly the explanation 

for the large difference between the 1995 and 2008 values for embeddedness.

Large Woody Debris 

Woody debris frequency in the Tollgate Project Planning Area was recorded during aquatic habitat 

inventories beginning in 1992 (Table 3-11). Some of these streams were later resurveyed. The values for 

large woody debris frequency vary widely between these two data sets. This discrepancy is due, at least 

in part, to a change in aquatic habitat inventory protocol between the 1990-91 and 1997 and later surveys. 

In the first group of surveys, trees and snags outside of the bank full stream channel were counted if they 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-29

leaned over the bank full width area or were suspended above it (USDA Forest Service 1990). For the 

1997 and later inventories, surveyors counted only trees, snags, and woody debris within the bank full 

channel (USDA Forest Service 1997). That is, in the 1997 and later surveys, only woody debris that 

could actually interact with the stream at bank full flows was counted. In heavily forested areas, many 

trees outside of the bank full channel would lean over the channel, and this would inflate the earlier count, 

yielding the much higher numbers seen in the first surveys (Table 3-11). Burnt Cabin Creek is an 

exception to the 

Table 3-11 — Woody Debris Frequency 

First Survey Second Survey

Stream and Reach pieces/mile1

Year 

Surveyed pieces/mile1

Year 

Surveyed

South Fork Walla Walla River

 South Fork Walla Walla River, Reach 1332.1 1995

 South Fork Walla Walla River, Reach 2 30 1995

 South Fork Walla Walla River, Reach 3 34.7 1995

 South Fork Walla Walla River, Reach 4 25.0 1995

 South Fork Walla Walla River, Reach 5 22.2 1995

 Burnt Cabin Gulch Creek 23.3 1997 48 2008

Umatilla River

 Umatilla River below forks 6.4 1992 6.4 1997

 North Fork Umatilla River Reach 1 36.7 1993 12.1 2009

 North Fork Umatilla River Reach 2 49.1 1994 25.1 2009

 North Fork Umatilla River Reach 3 111.8 1995 13.5 2009

 North Fork Umatilla River Reach 4 45.3 1995

 Coyote Creek 40.1 1993

 West Fork Coyote Creek 56 1993

 Johnson Creek 25 1995

 Woodward Creek 41.6 1994

Lookingglass Creek

 Lookingglass Reach 1 47.2 1992

 Lookingglass Reach 2 56.2 1992

 Lookingglass Reach 3 30.4 1992

 Lookingglass Reach 4 84.3 1992

 Lost Creek, Reach 1 83.8 1992

 Lost Creek, Reach 2 88.6 1992

 Swamp Creek, Reach 1 152.8 1992

 Swamp Creek, Reach 2 101.5 1992

 Summer Creek, Reach 1 77.8 1992 54.3 2000

 Summer Creek, Reach 2 131.9 1992 67 2000

1Count of pieces > 35 ft. long and >12” diameter at a point 35 ft. from the butt.

pattern of lower values for the second survey. This is almost certainly because a wildfire burned much of 

the Burnt Cabin canyon between the times of the first and second surveys, which resulted on many more 

trees being dropped into the stream channel. 

Values derived from the later protocol are much more useful for evaluating actual condition of aquatic 

habitat. The earlier protocol might suggest a potential future condition, but it is not informative of 

existing habitat condition. Therefore this evaluation will rely primarily on habitat inventories taken in 

1997 and later for woody debris values. Using data from the most recent protocol for the seven stream 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-30

reaches using that protocol, four reaches would meet Pacfish RMO’s as well as NOAA Fisheries and 

USFWS criteria for Properly Functioning. 

There has been no timber harvest inside the RHCAs of the stream reaches surveyed, however, the 

Mainstem Umatilla River in the Bear Creek watershed has a road in the valley bottom, adjacent to much 

of the stream and the presence and management of this road reduces potential for development of 

instream woody debris. 

The other two reaches with low woody debris frequency are in the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness, so 

the low woody debris frequency there is a primarily natural condition. One management activity, fire 

suppression, could delay woody debris input to stream. However, as has been evidenced by the situation 

in Burnt Cabin Canyon Creek, that wood eventually enters the stream, only the timing having been 

altered. All streams in the project area subwatersheds except the Mainstem Umatilla River should be 

considered Properly Functioning for large woody debris frequency. The Mainstem Umatilla River (Bear 

Creek subwatershed) should be considered as Not Properly Functioning for large woody debris 

frequency. 

Pool Frequency 

Reported pool frequencies for streams in the project area vary widely (Table 3-12). This is likely due at 

least in part to differing inventory protocols. U.S. Forest Service Region 6 changed the inventory 

protocol between 1990-92 surveys and the 1997 and later ones. In the earlier protocol, all habitat units 

(pools, riffles, glides) had to be longer than wide in order to be counted as a separate unit. Plunge pools 

created by woody debris are commonly wider than long, and so would not be counted separately. 

Following the earlier protocol, such pools would be counted as part of the previous unit (most often a 

downstream riffle). For the 1997 and later protocol, channel spanning plunge pools would be counted as 

a separate habitat unit, even if they were wider than long. This would be expected to produce higher pool 

frequency values, especially in streams with substantial quantities of woody debris, and may account for 

the generally higher pool frequencies reported for the second survey. 

NOAA Fisheries and USFWS differ in their standards for Properly Functioning Condition for this 

parameter. National Marine Fisheries Service, (1996) references the Section 7 Fish Habitat Monitoring 

Protocol for the Upper Columbia River Basin (USDA Forest Service, 1994) for its pool frequency 

standards, and for monitoring protocol for determining pool frequency. This protocol requires tally of 

only pools greater than 1 meter (~three feet) deep in low gradient (1%, or in some cases 2%), Rosgen 

(1996) C-type channels. None of the stream reaches in the project area fit the criteria for gradient (Table 

3-12), and so the pool frequency indicator of properly functioning condition as given by NMFS would not 

be applicable. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service referenced a paper by Overton et al. (1995) for natural conditions in 

the Salmon River Basin, which takes into account such factors such as channel type and geology, and 

does not include the depth criterion. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service used a summary of all streams 

from the paper by Overton et al. for pool frequency standards in their Matrix of Pathways and Indicators 

(USFWS 1998). However, as Overton et al. state in their report; 

“When using variables to assess the conditions of project streams, the user should select numeric 

values from stream reaches that are most similar in geology, vegetation, geomorphology, and 

climate.” 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-31

Table 3-12 — Stream Classification by Width and Gradient and Pool Frequency in the Tollgate 

Project Area 

Stream and Reach

Wetted width

Gradient

Rosgen Class

Corresponding 

pool Frequency 

from Overton for 

Volcanic (V) or 

all Geologic (A) 

types

3

Actual Pools/mile 

Variation from 

Mean (± )

South Fork Walla Walla River

South Fork Walla Walla River, Reach 11

33.5 2 B 14.8 ± 3.57 (V, n=4) 4.01 >2

South Fork Walla Walla River, Reach 22

27.8 3 B 20.9 ± 4.4 (V, n=6)) 9.29 >2

South Fork Walla Walla River, Reach 32

24.7 3 B 21.76 ± 2.18 (V, n=11) 24.28 <

South Fork Walla Walla River, Reach 42

17.1 7 A 24.42 ± 7.92 (A, n=8) 25.01 <

South Fork Walla Walla River, Reach 52

10.9 2 B 50.26 ± 10.93 (V, n=4) 44.62 <

Burnt Cabin Gulch Creek1

9.8 11 A 10.8 ± 4.9 (A, n=6)) 19.9 <

Umatilla River

 Umatilla River below forks 47.7 2 B 7.76 ± 1.07 (A, n=13) 16.7 <

 North Fork Umatilla River Reach 11

29.6 2 B 20.9 ± 4.4 (V, n=6) 9.44 >2

 North Fork Umatilla River Reach 21

16.0 4 B 30.8 ± 1.08 (V, n=6) 26.27 >2

 North Fork Umatilla River Reach 31

17.1 8 A 24.42 ± 7.92 (A, n=8) 15.64 >

 North Fork Umatilla River Reach 41

11.1 10 A 33.84 ± 8.7 (A, n=12 ) 17.23 >

 Coyote Creek1

8.9 5 A 10.81 ± 4.9 (A, n=6) 15.1 <

 West Fork Coyote Creek1

8.5 10 A 10.81 ± 4.9 (A, n=6 ) 16.84 <

 Johnson Creek2

8.3 9 A 10.81 ± 4.9 (A, n=6) 56 <

 Woodward Creek1

5 15 A 10.81 ± 4.9 (A, n=6) 41.6 <

Lookingglass Creek

 Lookingglass Reach 11

27.2 2 B 20.95 ± 4.4 (V, n=6) 2.99 >2

 Lookingglass Reach 21

13.1 4 B 59.26 ± 10.93 (V, n=4) 9.07 >2

 Lookingglass Reach 31

18.1 5 B 30.82 ± 1.08 (V, n=6) 6.40 >2

 Lookingglass Reach 41

9.7 6 A 10.81 ± 4.9 (A, n=6) 8.65 <

 Lost Creek, Reach 115.3 14 A 10.81 ± 4.9 (A, n=6) 13.8 <

 Lost Creek, Reach 214.7 16 A 18.2 (A, n=2) 8.6 >2

 Swamp Creek, Reach 117.5 8 A 10.81 ± 4.9 (A, n=6) 5.81 <

 Swamp Creek, Reach 215.1 13 A 10.81 ± 4.9 (A, n=6) 8.90 <

 Summer Creek, Reach 1115.6 4 B 30.8 ± 1.08 (V, n=6) 27.8 >2

 Summer Creek, Reach 218.0 7 A 10.81 ± 4.9 (A, n=6) 44.1 <

1 Reach or drainage area within, partly within, or downstream of project area. Could potentially be affected by project activities.

2

Same watershed, but outside and upstream of project area. Would not be directly affected by project activities. Included as a reference for 

conditions in the watershed.

3Geology of the area is volcanic, so wherever Overton’s sample size was > 4, values for volcanic geology were used. When Overton’s reported 

sample size was <4, values for all geologic types in that slope category were used.

Since Overton et al. report pool frequencies by both Geology and Rosgen Channel type, it seems more 

reasonable to use those values whenever feasible. For this analysis, wherever possible, the more specific 

values from Overton et al. are used (Table 3-12). However, even Overton’s values vary widely for 

similar sized streams and in some cases, the sample size is quite small and ultimately it probably makes 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-32

more sense to temper pool frequency values with judgments of natural pool-forming processes. That is, if 

natural pool-forming processes appear to be functioning normally, then the pool frequency parameter 

should be considered as Properly Functioning. 

Initially, for this analysis, pool frequencies within one standard error ( ) of Overton’s mean for streams of 

the same width and gradient category were considered as Properly Functioning (PF) for the pool 

frequency parameter. Stream reaches with pool frequencies more than one standard error below the mean 

were initially considered At Risk (AR), and streams more than two standard errors below the mean were 

considered Not Properly Functioning (NPF) for pool frequency. 

Following that convention, 15 of 25 stream reaches in the Project subwatersheds would have been 

considered Properly Functioning for pool frequency, two would be considered At Risk, and nine would be 

considered Not Properly Functioning (Table 3-12). However, other factors really should be taken into 

account in making such judgments. For example some of the pools in these systems are created by 

instream woody debris. Woody debris input to these streams tends to be episodic following fires, insect 

or disease outbreaks, or windstorms, and pool frequencies would to some extent, follow the events that 

introduce woody debris into the streams. Variations in stream flow such as those produced by unusual 

winter storms, or exceptionally high spring runoff can fill or create pools as well. It would be well to be 

cautious in use of values such as presented by Overton et al. until a much larger sample size is available, 

and even then to take into account some of the other variables that can affect pool frequency. At the 

present time, it seems that a more defensible approach would be to consider whether natural processes are 

functioning normally in the watersheds and streams in question, and if they are, to presume that pool 

frequencies are normal as well. 

In this case, and excepting the mainstem Umatilla River (Bear Creek watershed), all of the stream reaches 

reported here are in either large Roadless areas or congressionally designated wilderness, and are mostly 

distant from active management activities. 

In other words, natural processes here are functioning essentially unimpeded so pool frequencies here are 

almost certainly at or near their natural potential and therefore should be considered Properly Functioning

for the Lookingglass, South Fork Walla Walla and North fork Umatilla subwatersheds. In the Bear 

Creek subwatershed, pool frequencies are within one of Overton’s mean (actually > the mean) and 

would be considered Properly Functioning for pool frequency on that basis alone. 

Large Pools 

Pools greater than one meter deep are very rare in all of these streams. As explained in the previous 

section for pool frequency, this criterion for pool quality (> 1 meter deep, in Rosgen C-type channels) is 

almost certainly not appropriate for these streams because they are mostly not C-type channels. Those 

few pools deeper than one meter are likely to be at the base of impassable waterfalls. Because the 

numeric criterion for large pools is not appropriate to these streams (many large pools would not be 

expected), all six subwatersheds were judged as Properly Functioning for this parameter. 

Off-Channel Habitat 

Most of the streams in the analysis area are relatively high gradient, Rosgen type A or B streams that 

would not naturally develop many ponds, oxbows or side channels, and so absence of these features does 

not necessarily indicate degraded habitat. The exceptions are parts of mainstem Lookingglass Creek and 

the South Fork of the Walla Walla River where beaver activity and accumulations of large woody debris 

have created side channels and sections of braided channel. Both bull trout and Chinook salmon seem to 

favor these sections for spawning (DMC personal observation). The Mainstem Umatilla River in the 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-33

Bear Creek subwatershed is a lower gradient reach where side channels might be expected to develop, but 

valley bottom roads and other development have restricted the development of side channels here. 

This criterion is not very useful for evaluating the condition of the aquatic habitat in the rest of these 

streams, since because of their gradient this standard is meaningless. All three wilderness /Roadless 

subwatersheds are therefore judged to be Properly Functioning for off-channel habitat. The Bear Creek 

watershed would be Not Properly Functioning. 

Channel Condition and Dynamics: 

Wetted Width/Maximum Depth Ratio 

Wetted width/depth ratios vary with stream stage and channel type. The USFWS Matrix criteria are 

stated as average wetted width/max depth in scour pools. These values are not reported with USFS 

standard aquatic habitat inventory results, but can be estimated by using the average wetted width and 

residual pool depth, which are part of the standard habitat inventory report. To estimate actual pool depth 

at the reported wetted width, it is necessary to add back the depth at the pool tail crest. In small streams 

such as Summer Creek, this probably averages between 0.1 and 0.2 ft. In larger streams such as 

Lookingglass Creek it may be as much as 0.5ft. (DMC personal observation). I have chosen 25 stream 

reaches to evaluate this parameter (Table 3-13), 20 of them from drainages (small portions of a 

subwatershed) with project activities, and 5 additional in the same subwatersheds just to provide a more 

complete picture of watershed conditions. Of those 25 stream reaches 14 had a width/depth ratio of less 

than ten the first time they were surveyed. Twelve of these reaches were later surveyed a second time, 

and four of those previously reported as having a width/depth < 10 were now reported as width/depth > 

10, while one that had been previously > 10 now was <10. 

This would seem to suggest that habitat conditions in these streams have been deteriorating. However, 

during that time, the Forest Service has not undertaken any activities in these watersheds of a nature and 

at a level that are known to cause an increase in channel width/depth ratios. Several possible 

explanations come to mind: 

1) The precision of measurements of stream width and depth is low. Forest Service Region 6 

protocol directs surveyors to visually estimate width. This visual estimation technique leaves 

open the possibility of considerable variability in reported values. 

2) Different personnel surveyed these streams the second time. Although these estimates are 

calibrated by measuring a subset of the habitat units, different surveyors may not select the same 

sites for estimation and measuring the stream width. Selection of different locations to estimate 

wetted stream width would not be accounted for in the calibration, and could contribute to 

variability in the final value. 

3) The stream flow may have been higher or lower at the time of the second survey. This also 

would almost certainly have produced a different value for width/depth. 

4) The stream channel has changed in most, if not all, of the streams. In Lookingglass Creek for 

example, landslides and trees falling into the creek have altered the channel substantially over 

short distances. 

Excepting the mainstem Umatilla River, all of the stream reaches reported here are in either large 

Roadless areas or congressionally designated wilderness, and are mostly distant from active management 

activities, so the conditions here are probably natural or at least within the natural range of variation of 

streams in these settings and so the width depth ratios there are most likely a natural condition, they 

should be considered Properly Functioning for all four subwatersheds. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-34

Table 3-13 — Estimated3 Wetted Width/Maximum Depth Ratios for Pools in Streams in the 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Analysis Area 

First Survey Second Survey

Stream & Reach

Wetted 

Width/-

Maximum 

Depth

Year 

surveyed

Wetted 

Width/-

Maximum 

Depth

Year 

surveyed

South Fork Walla Walla River

South Fork Walla Walla River, Reach 1112.8 1995

South Fork Walla Walla River, Reach 2213.9 1995

South Fork Walla Walla River, Reach 3210.7 1995

South Fork Walla Walla River, Reach 4213.2 1995

South Fork Walla Walla River, Reach 529.9 1995

Burnt Cabin Gulch Creek17.5 1995 7.7 2008

Umatilla River

 Umatilla River below forks110.4 1997

 North Fork Umatilla River Reach 1119.7 1993 13.2 2009

 North Fork Umatilla River Reach 2111.4 1993 8.3 2009

 North Fork Umatilla River Reach 3111.4 1993 10.1 2009

 North Fork Umatilla River Reach 417.9 1993

 Coyote Creek111.9 1993

 West Fork Coyote Creek17.1 1993

 Johnson Creek27.5 1995

 Woodward Creek13.8 1994

Lookingglass Creek

 Lookingglass Reach 1121.0 1992 14.3 1999

 Lookingglass Reach 218.5 1992 9.3 1999

 Lookingglass Reach 317.1 1992 10.9 1999

 Lookingglass Reach 417.2 1992 10.2 1999

 Lost Creek, Reach 11

 Lost Creek, Reach 214.7 1992

 Swamp Creek, Reach 117.3 1999 9.7 1999

 Swamp Creek, Reach 214.0 1999 9.4 1999

 Summer Creek, Reach 117.3 1992 12.3 2000

 Summer Creek, Reach 214.5 1992 10.7 2000

1

Reach or drainage area within, partly within, or downstream of project area. Could potentially be affected by project activities.

2

Same watershed, but outside and upstream of project area. Would not be directly affected by project activities.

3 Estimated from average wetted widths and average residual pool depths reported from USFS aquatic habitat inventories.

Streambank Condition 

Actively eroding stream banks above bank full height are rare (probably < 10%, DMC, personal 

observations) in these subwatersheds. For example, there are several short sections with unstable banks 

in Lookingglass Creek between the Forest boundary and Summer Creek that are the result of natural 

channel evulsion following high spring flows. In one case the channel moved to the opposite side of the 

valley bottom and appears to have actually improved fish habitat by adding woody debris to the channel, 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-35

increasing habitat complexity, and sorting substrate, producing accumulations of gravel used by Chinook 

salmon and bull trout for spawning (DMC, pers. obs.). 

In another instance, farther upstream, beaver activity has moved the channel, also producing some short 

distances of raw banks. These are completely natural situations, and although they have resulted in 

addition of sediment to the stream, overall, they have maintained or improved aquatic habitat, and so 

these streams and subwatersheds are Properly Functioning regarding streambank conditions. 

Floodplain Connectivity 

The mainstem of The South Fork Walla Walla River, Lookingglass Creek, and the North Fork of the 

Umatilla River all have natural access to their floodplains. These streams are not entrenched except for 

occasional very short sections. Sections of some of the streams in these subwatersheds are confined by 

topography, especially the upper reaches of some of the tributary streams. These are high gradient 

Rosgen A and B type streams where this is a natural condition. 

Parts of the Mainstem Umatilla River (Bear Creek Watershed) have a road, rip rap revetment, and gabions 

along the stream, which constrains the stream, and reducing its access to the floodplain in some places. 

The South Fork of the Walla Walla River, the North Fork of the Umatilla, and Lookingglass Creek 

watersheds are all Properly Functioning with regard to floodplain connectivity, and the Umatilla River in 

the Bear Creek watershed is Functioning At Risk. 

Flow/Hydrology 

Water Yield and Changes in Peak/Base Flows 

Table 3-14 in the hydrology section above displays the results of this model for conditions in 2011. 

Subwatersheds in the analysis area are below any threshold of concern that has been identified. 

Management caused changes in water yield, timing of flow, or peak flow are negligible. ETA’s are 

substantially below levels where there might be effects to water yield or peak flow (Table 3-14). 

Therefore, these four subwatersheds should be considered as Properly Functioning for peak and base 

flows. 

Table 3-14 — Tollgate Fuels Project Subwatersheds Disturbance History as Equivalent Clear-cut 

Acres 

Subwatershed Name (HUC)

Watershed

Area (acres)

Umatilla N.F. 

Acres in 

Subwatershed

ECA/ETA

1 as of 

September 2011, 

% of National 

Forest acres

Upper Lookingglass (HUC 170601041001) 15486 13969 2.0

Middle South Fork Walla Walla River (HUC 170701020102) 17474 13915 10.5

North Fork Umatilla River (HUC 170701030104) 17478 19823 1.3

Bear Creek (Umatilla River below forks – HUC 

170701030106) 20042 8726 0.5

1

For National Forest lands only. ECA values (% of subwatershed) supplied by 

Stacia Peterson, Umatilla N.F. North End Hydrologist
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-36

Drainage Network Increase 

Criteria presented by both NOAA Fisheries and USFWS are not numerically specific regarding standards 

for this parameter. NOAA Fisheries suggests that about 5% increase would be considered “moderate.” 

ESA consultation teams in this area have been using a convention of 200 feet of drainage network 

increase for every road – stream crossing. There seems to be little in the way of studies or data to back 

this up, but in the absence of some better method of evaluating this parameter this is presently accepted. 

So, assuming a 200 foot increase in drainage network length for every road-stream crossing, all of the 

watersheds would be well below the 5% increase suggested as “moderate by NOAA Fisheries (Table 

3-15). These subwatersheds should all be considered as properly functioning regarding drainage network 

increase. 

Table 3-15 — Tollgate Fuels Project Analysis Area Increase in Drainage Network Length Due to 

Road and Stream Crossings 

Subwatershed (HUC)

Total Road-Stream 

Crossings

2

Total NF stream 

channel miles in 

watershed

Road Crossings per 

mile of stream

Percent increase in 

drainage network 

length due to roads1, 

2

Functional 

categorization for 

ESA Consultation

3

Upper Lookingglass

(HUC 170601041001) 36 61.83 0.58 2.21% PF

Middle South Fork Walla Walla River (HUC 

170701020102) 25 115.33 0.22 0.82 PF

North Fork Umatilla River 

(HUC 170701030104) 29 108.49 0.27 1.01 PF

Bear Creek (Umatilla River below forks – HUC 

170701030106) 10 144.01 0.069 0.26 PF

1Based on an assumed 200 feet increase in stream network length for each road x stream crossing.

2On National Forest lands.

3

PF = functioning appropriately/properly functioning, AR = functioning at risk/at risk, NPF = functioning at unacceptable 

risk/not properly functioning.

4Values for road x stream crossings were produced in GIS by intersecting road and stream layers. Because of mapping 

imprecision in the case of the Phillips Creek watershed, several roads that closely parallel streams appear incorrectly in GIS 

as crossing multiple times. So accurate numbers for this parameter in the Phillips Creek Watershed are not presently 

available, but casual observation (DMC) suggests that road x stream crossings in the Phillips Creek watershed are at least as

common as in Little Lookingglass or Gordon Creeks. 

Watershed Conditions 

Road Density and Location 

The Tollgate project affected environment is characterized in terms of road density and associated effects 

on water quality in the hydrology section earlier in this chapter. Additional information on water 

temperature with respect to fisheries resources is included here. 

NOAA Fisheries and USFWS criteria for road density do not distinguish between closed and open roads. 

USFWS criteria are tougher, requiring < 1 mile/mile2

for a functioning appropriately category. Only the 

North Fork Umatilla River and Bear Creek subwatersheds would qualify as properly functioning under 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-37

that criterion (Table 3-16). However, even the Bear Creek subwatershed has a valley bottom roads and so 

would not qualify as properly functioning. 

In summary, regarding road density, the Upper Lookingglass watershed falls into the Not Properly 

Functioning category and the other three fall into the Functioning At Risk categories. However, it should 

Table 3-16 — Road Density on National Forest Lands by Subwatershed1,5

Subwatershed (HUC) All Roads 

(mi/mi2)

Miles of 

Roads 

Within 

RHCA’s

Miles of 

road/mile

of stream 

USFWS 

Functional 

Condition3, 4 

NOAA 

Fisheries 

Functional 

Condition3, 4

Upper Lookingglass

(HUC 170601041001) 3.6 3.7 0.06 FAUR NPF

Middle South Fork Walla Walla River

(HUC 170701020102) 1.0 2 0.02 FAR AR

North Fork Umatilla River 

(HUC 170701030104) 1.6 2.8 0.03 FAR AR

Bear Creek (Umatilla River below forks 

– HUC 170701030106)5 0.5 1.2 0.02 FAR AR

1

Source: Stacia Peterson, District Hydrologist.

2

For purposes of this analysis, roads inside of RHCAs are considered valley bottom roads.

3USFWS: FA = functioning appropriately, FAR = functioning at risk, FAUR = functioning at unacceptable risk. For NMFS: 

PF= Properly Functioning, AR= At Risk, NPF= not properly functioning.

4

For USFWS, FA = <1 mi/mi2, no valley bottom roads; FAR= 1 – 2.4 mi/mi2, some valley bottom roads; FAUR= >2.4 mi/mi2, 

many valley bottom roads; For NMFS, PF= <2 mi/mi2

, no valley bottom roads; AR= 2 – 3 mi/mi2, some valley bottom roads; 

NPF= >3 mi/mi2, many valley bottom roads.

5Values in this table are for land within National Forest boundaries only.

be pointed out that substantial portions of the Middle South Fork Walla Walla, Upper Lookingglass, and 

North Fork Umatilla subwatersheds are either wilderness or designated Roadless areas, and so the roads 

are mostly concentrated high in the watersheds, mostly on ridge tops, and well away from fish-bearing 

streams. Numbers alone can be deceiving, as the Bear Creek subwatershed has a major road running up 

the bottom of the subwatershed, right along the Umatilla River, so that effects of roads in this 

subwatershed are much more pronounced than in the other three, which are actually in a much better 

situation than these numbers alone would indicate. 

Disturbance History 

Historically, natural disturbances in these watersheds would have included floods, landslides, and fires 

(Figure 3-5). Vigorous firefighting efforts by the Forest Service have reduced the role of fire as a 

disturbance agent in recent years, as most fires have been contained at very few acres (Table 3-17). 

Comparing the total percent of the subwatershed in an ETA condition (Table 3-14) to the percent burned 

over the past 40 years (Table 3-17), it is clear that the majority of the disturbance has been from roads and 

timber harvest. These calculations do not account for some other possible disturbances, such as floods or 

landslides, but landslides are infrequent in the geology/landforms in this area. There have been channel 

re-arrangements following high spring runoff flows, but these seemed to have actually improved the 

aquatic habitat in most cases. 

For this analysis, disturbance history is evaluated as Equivalent Treatment Acres (ETA), which is 

functionally equivalent to Equivalent Clear-cut Acres (ECA). This evaluation takes into account timber 

harvest, fire, road, and vegetative recovery from these disturbances. Table 3-14 gives these values for 

subwatersheds in the project area. Timber harvest data was not available for lands outside of the Forest 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-38

boundary. Within the National Forest, all subwatersheds had less than 15% equivalent clear-cut acres. 

Historically, all of these subwatersheds have had some harvest inside of Pacfish RHCA’s. Most of the 

harvest has been in the headwaters areas (Figure 3-4). Some such disturbance was years ago (Figure 3-4) 

and harvest units are in various stages of hydrologic recovery. Since ETA values are less than 15% for all 

four subwatersheds, they would be classified as Properly Functioning. 

Table 3-17 — Wildfire acreages by Subwatershed and Decade for Tollgate Project Area 

Subwatersheds1

Subwatershed (HUC) 1972-1981 1982-1991 1992-2001 2002-present Acres Burned % % of Sub- watershed Acres Burned % of Sub- watershed Acres Burned % of Sub- watershed Acres Burned % of Sub- watershed

Upper Lookingglass

(HUC 170601041001) 1.8 .012 26.4 .17 36.2 .24 2 .013

Middle South Fork Walla Walla River

(HUC 170701020102) .6 .003 2.1 .012 .7 .004 2130 12

North Fork Umatilla River 

(HUC 170701030104) .7 .003 2.3.012 2.4 .012 .5 .003

Bear Creek (Umatilla River below forks 

– HUC 170701030106)5 1.1 .005 32.3 .16 1.8 .009 .1 .0005

1Within National Forest boundaries

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas 

In the past, timber has been harvested from inside of RHCAs in all project area subwatersheds. Most, 

but not all, of this harvest was over intermittent, non-fish-bearing headwater streams. Timber has not 

been harvested inside of RHCAs in Tollgate project subwatersheds since the effective date of the Pacfish 

Decision Notice in February of 1995. 

The mainstem portions of the South Fork Walla Walla River, the North Fork of the Umatilla River, and 

Upper Lookingglass Creek are in designated Roadless and Wilderness areas and so their Riparian 

Reserves or Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas are protected and intact. Some of the headwaters and 

tributaries of these streams have adjacent roads and timber harvest from management activities prior to 

1995, although even in these cases the older sites have partially or completely recovered. In any case, 

because of the topography of this area, most of the roads and management activities have been on the 

ridge tops and upper slopes and have left the streams and riparian areas mostly unmanaged. Best 

estimates by persons familiar with the project area put the riparian areas here at more than 90% intact, 

which would be considered Properly Functioning. 

Mainstem Umatilla River in the Bear Creek Watershed has a valley bottom road which is inside of the 

RHCA and in some places closely approaches the stream, and so has had some effects such as reducing 

shade and woody debris recruitment. The RHCA area in this subwatershed should be considered as 

functioning At Risk. 

The Umatilla NF Land and Resource Management Plan was amended by Pacfish in 1995. Prior to that 

time, some timber harvest units extended to some streams. Harvest history information and geographic 

information system (GIS) stream layers were used to estimate RHCA harvest for the analysis area. From 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-39

the mid-1960s to the implementation of Pacfish , about 8% of the linear distance of RHCAs had harvest 

entries. 

There are few roads within RCHAs relative to total miles of streams in the analysis area (Table 3-18) 

because past management activities were concentrated in accessible plateaus and not within steep canyon 

bottoms. The RHCAs of the analysis area are largely intact and subject to natural disturbance factors; 

insect and disease, flood, fire. 

Disturbance Regime 

Not many natural disturbances to streams in the project subwatersheds have been documented. Those that 

have been observed (e.g., landslides and channel migration in Lookingglass Creek which added large 

wood to the stream and increased habitat complexity) have been short lived, and mostly beneficial. 

Excepting the Middle South Fork Walla Walla, the dominant documented disturbances in these 

subwatersheds have been timber harvest and road building. The Burnt Cabin Fire in 2005 burned 

1882acres in the Middle South Fork Walla Walla Subwatershed, and this dwarfed all other recent 

disturbances there. Without fire suppression, the natural fire regime would be mixed to high severity 

wildfires with long return intervals. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-40

Figure 3-4 — Timber harvest history in Tollgate Fuels project area subwatersheds 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-41

Figure 3-5 — Locations of Past Fires by Decade in Tollgate project area subwatersheds 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-42

Table 3-18 — Road Density and Road Stream Interaction on NFS Lands 

Subwatershed 

(SWS) # SWS Name

Road 

Density 

Open & 

Closed 

Mi/mi. sq.

Road 

Miles w/in 

RHCAs

Miles of 

road per 

mile of 

Stream

Stream & Road 

Intersections 

(number of 

intersections)

170601041001

Upper 

Lookingglass

Creek 3.6 3.7 .06 36 (Category 2 & 4)

170701020102

Middle South 

Fork Walla 

Walla River 1.0 2 .02 25 (Cat. 2 & 4)

170701030104

North Fork 

Umatilla River 1.6 2.8 .03

4 (Cat. 1) 

25 (Cat. 2 & 4)

170701030106 Bear Creek 0.5 1.2 .02

5 (Cat. 1)

5 (Cat. 4)

Clearly, fire suppression over many years in this area has altered the natural disturbance regime. Most 

fire starts in project area subwatersheds have been suppressed at a very small size, and show on maps as 

mere points (Figure 3-5). Thus fire is the natural disturbance process which deviates most from historic 

cycles. 

Although extensive past timber harvest in parts of this area (Figure 3-4) may partially mimic wildfire, the 

effects are not the same (Rieman and Clayton 1997). Because roads are now long-term features of the 

landscape and timber management in the upper, cool-moist elevations are ongoing long-term operations, 

that maintain the vegetative environment in a somewhat non-natural condition, it would not be correct to 

state that environmental disturbances are short lived. However, the hydrograph is predictable, there is 

high quality aquatic habitat, watershed complexities provide refuge and rearing space for all life stages 

and multiple life history forms. Because conditions in these subwatersheds meet some, but not all of the 

criteria for properly functioning, all four of the project subwatersheds should be evaluated as functioning 

at risk for the disturbance regime parameter. 

Summary of Species and Habitat Conditions 

Four ESA listed “Threatened” stocks of fish are found within the project’s fisheries analysis area (Table 

3-8). Their status as ESA Threatened identifies these stocks as at some risk of extinction, or at least 

extirpation from their range. The risk that these species may face is highlighted by the observation that 

two species of anadromous fish that formerly occupied nearby streams, coho and sockeye salmon, have 

been extirpated from the Grande Ronde River system within the last 100 years. 

The major factors driving the extirpation of both sockeye and coho were over harvest, unscreened 

irrigation diversions, and misguided attempts at fish culture (Cramer and Witty, 1998), in which fish 

racks placed in the Wenaha and Grande Ronde Rivers a very short distance above the town of Troy, 

Oregon were used to capture all or nearly all Coho and sockeye attempting to ascend the river, in order to 

spawn them artificially. 

The salmon, steelhead, and bull trout presently using the project area watersheds must also overcome a 

variety of challenges, both downstream of the project area and within the analysis area subwatersheds. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-43

Downstream obstacles include dams, water withdrawals, high summer water temperatures, water 

contamination, and commercial, tribal, and sport fishing. The Lookingglass bull trout population also 

contains a migratory component, and migratory bull trout encounter some of the same stresses as do 

migrating anadromous fish. Most migrating fish arriving at the analysis area would have already 

encountered considerable stress, and it is important for their survival and successful reproduction, that 

conditions on National Forest provide habitat as free of non-natural stresses as feasible. 

Conditions of the habitat in the analysis area subwatersheds have already been evaluated in this 

document, but the conclusions are summarized by habitat parameter in Table 3-19. 

Table 3-19 — Summary of Functional Condition1, 2 of Aquatic Habitat Parameters for the Tollgate 

Fuels project area in Lookingglass, Walla Walla, Umatilla Watersheds Following USFWS and 

NOAA Fisheries Criteria for ESA Listed Fish Species 

Parameter

Subwatersheds

Upper 

Lookingglass

(HUC 

170601041001)

North Fork 

Umatilla River

(HUC 

170701030104)

Middle South 

Fork Walla Walla 

River (HUC 

170701020102)

Bear Creek 

(Umatilla River 

below forks –

HUC 

170701030106)

Water temperature PF PF PF AR

Suspended Sediment PF PF PF PF

Chemical contamination and 

nutrients PF PF PF PF

Physical barriers PF PF PF PF

Substrate PF PF PF PF

Large woody debris PF PF PF NPF

Pool frequency PF PF PF PF

Large pools PF PF PF PF

Off-channel habitat PF PF PF NPF

Refugia AR AR AR AR

Wetted width/depth PF PF PF PF

Streambank conditions PF PF PF PF

Floodplain connectivity PF PF PF AR

Change in peak or base flows PF PF PF PF

Increase in drainage network PF PF PF PF

Road density and location3 NPF AR AR AR

Disturbance history AR AR AR AR

RHCA’s PF PF PF AR

Disturbance regime AR AR AR AR

1

PF = functioning appropriately/properly functioning, AR = functioning at risk/at risk, NPF = functioning at unacceptable 

risk/not properly functioning, MS = Meets Oregon State Standards and is not occupied by ESA listed fish, Blank space = 

insufficient data.

2Where data for multiple years or sites are available, interpretations or averages applying best professional judgment were used. 

Rating may vary from year to year and between sites. See text. 

3Based on limited data and/or cursory, personal observations.

Most habitat parameters in most subwatersheds were evaluated as Properly Functioning. 

Some of the NPF conclusions are clearly the result of management activities, though. The high road 

density & location and disturbance regime are in this category. It will be important to pay special 

attention to effects of project activities on these parameters. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-44

FOREST VEGETATION - SILVICULTURE

Scale of Analysis 

Geographic Boundary 

The geographic context for estimating effects includes all lands located within the Tollgate planning area 

expected to be directly, indirectly, and/or cumulatively affected by implementation of an Alternative 

and/or other past, present or foreseeable future human activity. Silvicultural activities included in 

Alternative B would directly affect approximately 4,330 acres of the project planning area; silvicultural 

activities included in Alternative C would directly affect approximately 4,010 acres of the forest Affected 

Environment. Indirect and cumulative effects are expected to occur across the entire project planning area 

(approximately 37,566 acres). 

Temporal Boundary 

The effects analysis is bounded in time by considering the present time, and how far into the past and 

future to consider human actions which have effects that would overlap in time with the proposed 

Tollgate project. The temporal context for evaluating effects includes past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions in the planning area, as described below. 

Past actions had an influence on existing (2011) conditions, which are described by a vegetation database 

developed for the planning area by using Most Similar Neighbor imputation procedures (Justice 2011), 

field reconnaissance, aerial photo interpretation, and analysis of stand examination data. Database 

information was validated by completing field reviews during 2008-2011. In addition to nonanthropogenic disturbances, existing conditions reflect vegetation changes resulting from fire suppression, 

timber harvest, fuelwood collection, tree planting and noncommercial thinning. The temporal bounding of 

past effects is the era when vegetation management and fire suppression began in the area. 

Present (ongoing) actions were considered when evaluating effects. The main present action affecting 

forest vegetation conditions is the regular collection of firewood along designated road corridors, fire 

suppression activities, the occasional removal of dead hazard trees from developed recreation sites at 

Jubilee Lake Campground, Spout Springs Ski Area, and the Tollgate USFS administrative facilities. 

Reasonably foreseeable actions were included in the effects analysis. Although the vegetation effects of 

implementing activities included under Alternatives B or C could persist for several years or even many 

decades, no other activities with direct or indirect effects occurring within the Tollgate forest Affected 

Environment are reasonably foreseeable beyond approximately five years in the future. In other words, a 

five-year timeframe was utilized to identify which future actions are reasonably expected to occur and 

have effects that overlap in space and time with the effects of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project. This 

is based the Umatilla National Forest utilization of a five-year timber action plan which identifies areas 

where the Forest is considering future vegetation management projects. Any activities that might occur at 

some future time beyond this planning timeframe are highly speculative and not included in this analysis. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-45

Affected Environment 

This section describes how the entire planning area was pared down to just the portion considered for 

implementation of silvicultural activities, which is referred to as the “forest vegetation Affected 

Environment.”13 The process used to identify a forest vegetation Affected Environment considered 

biophysical factors, legal and administrative requirements such as the Forest Plan, and Forest Service 

directives and related policy (such as the Forest Service Manual and Handbook system, and official policy 

memoranda signed by a Forest Service line officer). 

Four indicators are used to characterize the Affected Environment: potential vegetation, species 

composition, forest structural stages, and tree density. When estimating the environmental consequences 

of implementing the action Alternatives, only three of the indicators are used (species composition, forest 

structural stages, and tree density) because the fourth indicator (potential vegetation) is not modified by 

Alternative implementation (i.e., potential vegetation is not changed by implementing silvicultural 

activities). One of the indicators (potential vegetation) is also used for stratification purposes because 

potential vegetation is used to establish biophysical environments, biophysical environments are used 

when conducting historical range of variability (HRV) analyses, and HRV is used when analyzing the 

composition, structure, and density indicators. 

In addition to the indicators described above, the Affected Environment and predicted Environmental 

Consequences are also characterized in general terms of forest susceptibility to insect and disease 

disturbances. Furthermore, historical natural ecological analogs, vegetation conditions, disturbance 

regimes, and ecological consequences to the proposed action were are described in a 2008 site visit report 

by the USDA Forest service Region 6 Ecologist, included in Appendix D. 

Potential Vegetation

The potential vegetation of the forest vegetation Affected Environment is characterized using potential 

vegetation groups (PVG), a higher-level taxonomic unit in a hierarchy of potential vegetation types 

(Powell et al. 2007). PVGs are named for a predominant or controlling temperature or moisture 

relationship. 

Forest understory species include a diverse mix of forbs and shrubs. Other common understory species 

include big huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum), honeysuckle (Lonicera involucrata), prince’s pine 

(Chimaphila umbellata), trailplant (Adenocaulon bicolor), sitka valerian (Valeriana sitchensis), Jacob’s 

ladder (Polemonium pulcherrimum), golden pea (Thermopsis montana), starry false Solomon’s seal 

(Smilacina stellata), and many others. Present understory species thrive in this environment of abundant 

moisture, deep well-aerated soils, and partial shade. 

Table 3-20 summarizes and Figure 3-6 shows the PVG composition of the forest vegetation Affected 

Environment (comprising 37,566 acres in total). It shows that the predominant PVG is moist upland forest 

(95%), followed by dry upland forest (4%). Very little of the forest vegetation Affected Environment 

consists of the cold upland forest PVG (less than 1%). 

 

13 Acreage figures reported in this section (and elsewhere in this report) are rounded to the nearest 1 acre, and 

considered approximate as a result of occasional calculation rounding errors. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-46

Table 3-20 — Potential vegetation groups for the Project Planning Area 

PVG

Code

Potential Vegetation

Group Description Acres Percentof Total

Cold UF Cold Upland Forest 277 <1

Dry UF Dry Upland Forest 1,574 4

Moist UF Moist Upland Forest 35,715 95

Sources/Notes: Summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (forested NFS lands only). 

Species Composition 

Table 3-21 summarizes existing species composition (forest cover types) for the forest vegetation 

environment. It shows that the predominant forest cover type is grand fir (28%), followed by spruce-fir 

(26%) and Douglas-fir (26%), and lodgepole pine (9%). 

An HRV analysis was completed for species composition of the forest vegetation. Because species 

composition varies by biophysical environment, the HRV analysis was stratified by potential vegetation 

group: dry upland forest and moist upland forest. The cold upland forest PVG was not included because it 

has too few acres (277 acres) for a credible HRV analysis. Species composition HRV results are 

presented in Table 3-22. 

Table 3-21 — Cover types for the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Area 

Code Cover Type Description Acres

% of 

Total

% of 

Forested

Non-vegetated Non-forest cover types (rocky, water, administrative sites, 

etc.) lacking extensive vegetation cover. 301 <1

Herb-shrub Non-forest cover types dominated by herbaceous and shrub 

species 8591 18

Ponderosa pine Forest with ponderosa pine as the majority or plurality 

species 2465 5 7

Douglas-fir Forest with Douglas-fir as the majority or plurality species 9885 21 26

Western larch Forest with western larch as the majority or plurality species 1045 2 3

Lodgepole pine Forest with lodgepole pine as the majority or plurality 

species 3269 7 9

Hardwoods Forest with various hardwoods the majority or plurality 

species 578 1 2
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-47

Grand fir Forest with grand fir as the majority or plurality species 10416 22 28

Subalpine firEngelmann spruceForest with subalpine fir and/or Engelmann spruce as the 

majority or plurality species 9907 21 26

Sources/Notes: Summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (NFS lands only). The subalpine firEngelmann spruce cover type contains either a majority or plurality of either species, alone or in 

combination. 

Figure 3-6 — Upland forest potential vegetation groups for the Tollgate planning area. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-48

Table 3-22 — HRV analysis of species composition 

Cover Type

Dry Upland Forest PVG Moist Upland Forest PVG

Historical Range Current 

Amount Historical Range Current Amount

% Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres

Western juniper 0-5 0-1786 0 0

Ponderosa pine 50-80 787-1259 51 800 5-15 1786-5357 5 1665

Douglas-fir 5-20 79-315 21 326 15-30 5357-

10715

27 9559

Western larch 1-10 16-157 0 0 10-30 3572-

10715

3 1045

Lodgepole pine 25-45 8929-

16072

9 3196

Broadleaved trees 

/ hardwoods 0-5 0-79 0 0 1-10 357-3572 2 578

Grand fir 1-10 16-157 28 448 15-30 5357-

10715

28 9968

Subalpine firEngelmann spruce 1-10 357-3572 27 9704

Sources/Notes: Current amounts are summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (forested NFS lands only). Gray shading 

indicates cover types that are either above or below the historical range of variability. Historical ranges were adapted by the 

author of this report from Morgan and Parsons (2001); they are based on multiple 1200-year simulations representing landscapes 

in a “dynamic equilibrium” with their disturbance regimes and summarized by Martin (2010) and Powell (2010b). 

The information presented in Table 3-22 suggests that dry forestland currently supports too much of the 

grand fir and Douglas-fir forest cover types, and too little of the western larch forest cover type. Moist 

forestland supports too much of the subalpine fir-Engelmann spruce forest cover types, and too little of 

the western larch and lodgepole pine forest cover types. 

Forest Structural Stages

Table 3-23 summarizes existing forest structural stages for the forest vegetation Affected Environment. It 

shows that the predominant forest structural stage is Old Forest Single Stratum (34% of the Affected 

Environment, OFSS), followed by Old Forest Multi Strata (31%, OFMS), Stand Initiation (21%, SI), 

Stem Exclusion (8%, SE), and Understory Reinitiation (6%, UR). OF structure classes, by definition, 

contain 10 or more live conifer trees per acre greater than or equal to 21” diameter at breast height 

(DBH).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-49

Table 3-23 — Forest structural stages 

Code Forest Structural Stage Name Acres Percent

of Total

Percent

of 

Forested

SI Stand Initiation 2176 17 21

SE Stem Exclusion 3184 7 8

UR Understory Reinitiation 7746 5 6

OFMS Old Forest Multi Strata 11600 25 31

OFSS Old Forest Single Stratum 12859 28 34

NF Non-forest 8892 20

Sources/Notes: Summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (forested NFS lands only). Forest structural 

stages are described in O’Hara et al. (1996). 

An HRV analysis was completed for forest structural stages of the existing condition of forest vegetation. 

Because forest structure varies by biophysical environment, the HRV analysis was stratified by potential 

vegetation group: dry upland forest and moist upland forest. Note that the cold upland forest PVG is not 

included because it has too few acres (277 acres) for a credible HRV analysis. Forest structural stage 

HRV results are presented in Table 3-24. 

The information presented in Table 3-24 suggests that the SE and OFMS structural stages are outside of 

their historical ranges for the dry upland forest PVG, and that all structural stages are outside of respective 

historical ranges for the moist upland forest PVG. 

Table 3-24 — HRV analysis of forest structural stages for the Affected Environment 

Structural

Stage

Dry Upland Forest PVG Moist Upland Forest PVG

Historical Range Current 

Amount Historical Range Current Amount

% Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres

SI 15-25 236-394 17 260 20-30 7143-

10715

5 1894

SE 10-20 157-315 <1 7 20-30 7143-

10715

9 3177

UR 5-10 79-157 9 141 10-20 3572-7143 21 7477

OFMS 5-15 79-236 31 487 15-20 5357-7143 31 11095
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-50

OFSS 40-60 630-944 43 678 10-20 3572-7143 34 12072

Sources/Notes: Summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (forested NFS lands only). Gray shading 

indicates structural stages that are above or below the historical range of variability. Historical percentages (H%) 

were derived from Hall (1993), Johnson (1993), and USDA Forest Service (1995), as summarized in Martin (2010) 

and Powell (2010b). 

Tree Density 

Table 3-25 summarizes existing tree density classes for the project planning area. It shows that the 

predominant tree density class is High (76%), followed Moderate (15%) and then by Low (9%). 

Table 3-25 — Tree density classes 

Tree Density Category Acres Percent

of Forested

Low 3356 9

Moderate 5548 15

High 28662 76

Sources/Notes: Summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (forested NFS lands only). Criteria for assigning 

polygons to tree density classes are provided in Powell (2009c). 

An HRV analysis was completed for tree density classes. Tree density HRV results are presented in Table 

3-26. 

The information presented in Table 3-26 suggests that the dry upland forest PVG has too little of the Low 

density class and too much of the High density condition. For the Moist upland forest all three density 

classes are outside their historical ranges of variability. 

Table 3-26 — HRV analysis of tree density classes 

Tree

Density

Class

Dry Upland Forest PVG Moist Upland Forest PVG

Historical Range Current Amount Historical Range Current Amount

% Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres

Low 40-85 630-1338 5 83 20-40 7143-14286 9 3221

Moderate 15-30 236-472 30 466 25-60 8929-21429 14 5077

High 5-15 79-236 65 1025 15-30 5357-10715 77 27417

Sources/Notes: Summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (forested NFS lands only). Gray shading 

indicates tree density classes that are above or below the historical range of variability. Historical ranges 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-51

were taken from Schmitt and Powell (2008). Tree density classes are defined as: Low, <45% crown closure; 

Moderate, 45-55% crown closure, and; High, >55% crown closure. 

Risk/Susceptibility to Insect and Disease Disturbances 

Disturbance processes influence forest composition, structure and density (Perera et al. 2004). Although 

many different disturbance processes have influenced vegetation conditions in the Tollgate area to 

varying degrees in the recent past, forest insects have been important as disturbance agents. 

Information provided by the Pacific Northwest Region’s aerial survey program was used to partially 

assess recent impacts from forest insects. Aerial detection sketch maps for a 5-year period (2006-2010) 

were used to summarize the annual spatial extent of recent activity for bark beetles, the balsam wooly 

adelgid, larch casebearer, and larch needle cast. 

Damage from Douglas-fir bark beetles was somewhat widespread across portions of the Tollgate planning 

area since 2006, but no damage was observed in 2010. Very small pockets of damage caused by the 

mountain pine beetle in ponderosa pine were noted at minor, endemic levels in 2010 only. Similarly, 

incidental fir engraver effects were noted at minor, endemic levels in two isolated polygons in 2010. 

Unsurprisingly, balsam wooly adelgid effects were consistently observed across large, patchy portions of 

the planning area throughout the 2006-2010 time period, reflecting the ubiquitous, significant, yet slowacting mortality caused by this insect among subalpine fir. Larch casebearer damage was observed every 

year across significant portions of the planning area, but by 2010 was only noted in two relatively small, 

isolated polygons. Larch needle cast was noted only in 2010, occurring in eight isolated pockets. But in 

the late 1940s and early 1950s, and then again in the 1980s, western spruce budworm was defoliating 

substantial acreages of mixed-conifer forest throughout the Blue Mountains, and we can expect another 

widespread outbreak of this forest insect in the near future. 

Susceptibility is defined as a set of conditions that make a forest stand vulnerable to substantial injury by 

insects or diseases. Susceptibility assessments do not predict when insects and diseases might reach 

damaging levels; rather, they indicate whether stand conditions are conducive to declining forest health 

and increasing levels of tree mortality caused by insect and disease organisms. Drought, ecological site 

potential (potential vegetation type), species composition and abundance, tree size, forest structure 

(canopy layering; structure class), stocking (tree density), intra-stand variability (clumpiness), and other 

biophysical factors influence susceptibility and vulnerability to insect and disease disturbances (Hessburg 

et al. 1999b, Lehmkuhl et al. 1994, Schmitt and Powell 2005). 

Within the context of forest insect disturbances, the term “risk” is often used to indicate the likelihood or 

probability that an event (in this case, insect damage) will occur, and the probable damage severity. Risk 

depends on both stand susceptibility (“hazard”) and insect population densities. Given the localized 

and/or low-severity levels of recent insect activity, overall vulnerability/risk to significant insect damage 

across the planning area is not as high as it has been at other times in the past; however, stand 

susceptibility to various damage agents is generally elevated as a result of high stand densities and other 

factors (particularly canopy layering), and there is little reason to doubt that past insect epidemics 

occurring historically in the Blue Mountains would not be repeated in the Tollgate area. 

In October of 2011, a staff from the USDA Forest Service Blue Mountains Pest Management Service 

Center walked through portions of three stands in the proposed project area, with the objective to: 

determine historic and current insect and disease activity, and causal agents of disturbance; determine the 

risk of future disturbance, and the probable effect of deferred treatment. 

General levels of susceptibility to root disease can be assessed using vegetation structure and composition 

data (Schmitt and Powell 2005). Across the Tollgate forest Affected Environment approximately 80 % of 

the forested cover types are dominated by either grand fir, Douglas-fir, or a spruce-subalpine fir mix, 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-52

usually distributed among two or more canopy layers. Average stem diameter for the dominant overstory 

exceeds 9” DBH across large portions of the planning area. As a result, approximately 50-75% of the 

planning area is estimated to be rated as having high potential for root disease. 

FUELS

Scale of Analysis 

Indicators used to summarize the affected environment are tree stand densities and canopy biomass levels 

represented by crown fire potential, surface fire, spotting potential, and fire travel times. 

Project activities, in conjunction with past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable activities have effects on 

fuels and fuel continuity; therefore, the project area is sufficient to display effects on the landscape. 

Analysis Methodology and Sources of Information 

Vegetation and Past Disturbance

Stand exam data, Landfire data, and Most Similar Neighbor (MSN) vegetation data was used to model 

stand and landscape vegetation conditions. Historical fire occurrence data was obtained from written 

records on file with Dave Powell, Forest Silviculturist, and Umatilla National Forest geographic 

information system (GIS) database. 

Fire Regimes and Condition Class 

Fire regimes and condition class were derived from Countryman (2006); fire regimes described therein 

were mapped at the Forest level using potential vegetation groups (PVG) and ecoclass. Condition class 

was mapped using biophysical settings. Departure values at 30 percent or greater for condition class 1 

were classified as condition class 2 for this analysis. 

Crown Fire Potential

Stand examination survey information was summarized using the Blue Mountain variant of the Forest 

Vegetation Simulator (FVS). FVS provided estimates for after-treatment canopy fuel conditions (i.e. 

crown base height and canopy bulk density) in forest stands within the project. Post treatment canopy 

cover was estimated and informed by FVS. Surface fire behavior and pre-treatment canopy conditions 

were derived from LANDFIRE National data for the original standard 13 fire behavior prediction system 

fuel models. The Changes in canopy and surface fuels were applied to LANDFIRE data using the 

landscape calculator in the FARSITE fire behavior software. 

Weather used to estimate fire behavior was taken from Case RAWS. Approximated 90th percentile 

conditions14 were used for modeling. Gridded winds generated using Wind Ninja were used in modeling. 

The wind conditions modeled were 15 mph winds out of the southwest. Topography in the simulations 

was a 30-meter digital elevation model (DEM). All of this information was prepared for analysis of 

untreated and treated conditions in a landscape file prepared for use in FlamMap. 

 

14 90th percentile weather conditions are represented by 5% 1 hour fuel moistures, 60% live fuel moistures, and 15 

mph 20 ft. windspeeds. 10% of fire-season weather days are represented by these weather conditions or drier. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-53

Limitations

All assumptions previously published regarding the Behave fire spread model (Rothermel 1972) apply to 

these simulations because it is the model used to estimate surface fire spread parameters for each pixel in 

the landscape file grid. Calculation methods for crown fire initiation and spread rates are published in a 

scientific paper by Scott and Reinhardt in 2001. The minimum travel time algorithm was developed and 

published by Mark Finney in 2002. All simulation excludes the influence of fire suppression operations. 

Site specific impacts such as probability that a structure on private property would or would not be 

damaged in an actual wildfire incident are not estimated. Data on current fuel loadings was not always 

available. Fuel loadings predicted by the model generally underestimated current conditions. Where the 

existing fuel model deviated from a fuel model 8, it was assumed that it would become a fuel model 8 

after treatment. 

This analysis addresses the effects of implementing the proposed alternatives for the Tollgate project area 

in relation to “Modify fire Behavior” within the wildland urban interface. Modified fire behavior was 

analyzed in terms of fire behavior potential. 

The key indicators used to compare the alternatives were: 

1. Crown fire potential – quantified as either surface fire, passive crown fire, or active crown 

fire. 

2. Fire travel time – quantified as elapsed time for fire to travel a given distance. 

3. Fire Intensity – quantified in Flame Length 

4. Spotting Distance – quantified in probabilistic distance for spots to occur from a given fire 

source 

5. Treatment adjacency to private land – quantified as treatment acreage within 1⁄4 of private 

land and infrastructure. 

Affected Environment 

Fire Regimes

A fire regime is a classification of the historical role fire would play across a landscape, and describes the 

historical fire conditions under which vegetative communities evolved and are maintained (Agee 1993). 

Coarse scale definitions for historical fire regimes have been developed by Hardy et al. (2001) and 

Schmidt et al. (2002). Fire regimes are classified based on the average number of years between fires 

combined with the severity of the fire (Table 3-27). Four historical fire regimes commonly occur in the 

Blue Mountains (Powell 2005). Fire Regimes I, II, III, and IV are represented in the Tollgate project 

planning area and are described in Table 3-27 below. 

Table 3-27 — Descriptions of Fire Regimes 

Fire Regime

Group

Vegetation Types Frequency (Fire 

Return Interval)

Severity

1 All ponderosa pine types; DryDouglas fir/pine grass; and 

grand fir/grass

0-35 years Low severity

2 True grasslands 0-35 years Stand replacing

3 3a - Mixed Conifer, dry 

Douglas fir, dry grand fir

3a - <50 years Mixed Severity
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-54

3b – Warm, mesic grand fir

3c – Mesic grand fir and 

Douglas fir

3b – 50-100 years

3c – 100-200 years

4 4a – Lodgepole pine

4b – Subalpine fir

4c – Spruce fir; western larch; 

western white pine.

4a – 35-100+ years

4b – 100+ years

4c – 100-200 years

4a – stand replacing

4b – stand replacing, 

patchy arrangement

4c – stand replacing

5 Mountain hemlock Greater than 200 years Stand replacing

Condition Class (CC)

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) is a descriptor used to characterize an areas departure from 

historical fire regimes (Powell 2002). There are three condition classes for each fire regime and they are 

based on the degree of departure from the historical regimes. This departure results in changes to 

vegetation characteristics such as species composition (structural stages, stand age, and canopy closure), 

fuel composition, fire frequency and severity, and other disturbances such as insect and disease. 

Condition class 1, low departure, is considered to be within the historical range, while moderate condition 

class 2, and high, condition class 3, are outside the historical range (see Table 3-28).

Table 3-28 — Descriptions of Fire Regime Condition Class 

Condition Class Description Species Composition and 

Structure

1

Within the historical range of 

variability of the vegetation 

characteristics; fuel composition; 

fire frequency, severity and 

pattern

Species composition and 

structure are functioning within 

their historical range.

2

Fire regimes have been 

moderately altered from 

historical range. Fire frequencies 

by one or more return intervals. 

The result is moderate changes to 

one or more of the following; fire 

size, intensity and severity, and 

landscape patterns.

Species composition and 

structure have been moderately 

altered. For example:

Grassland – moderate 

encroachment of shrubs and trees 

or invasive exotic species.

Forestland - Moderate increase 

in density, encroachment of 

shade tolerant tree species.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-55

3

Fire regimes have been 

substantially altered from their 

historical range. Fire frequencies 

have departed from natural 

frequencies by multiple return 

intervals. Dramatic changes 

occur to one or more of the 

following: fire size, intensity

and severity, and landscape 

patterns.

Species composition and 

structure have been substantially 

altered from their historical 

range. For example:

Grassland – High encroachment 

and establishment of shrubs, 

trees, or invasive exotic species.

Forestland – High increases in 

density, encroachment of shade 

tolerant tree species, or high loss 

of fire tolerant tree species.

High mortality of defoliation 

from disease and insect.

Fire Regime Condition Class Summary 

The analysis and review of Fire Regime Condition Class for the Tollgate planning area illuminates some 

important features of the project as follows, and as described in Table 3-29: 

Table 3-29 — Tollgate Planning Area Fire Regime/Condition Class Summary 

Biophysical Setting Fire 

Regime

Condition 

Class 1 

(Acres)

Condition 

Class 2 

(Acres)

Condition 

Class 3 

(Acres)

Total Acres

Mixed Conifer-Eastside 

Dry

I 82 231 1,047 1,360

Idaho Fescue 

Grasslands

II 0 8,612 0 8,612

Mixed Conifer-Eastside 

Mesic

III 3,427 21,050 0 24,447

Spruce-Fir IV 1,088 3,264 6,527 10,879

Total Acres 4,596 33,157 7,574 45,328

Fire Regime one and two are present in the planning area, but are located in the inaccessible 

canyons surrounding the plateau. As such, activities would not occur within these fire regimes. 

Areas defined as Fire Regime one, Condition Class three would not receive treatment as the 

inaccessible locations of these areas makes entry prohibitive. Typically, fuels activities are 

targeted at these areas, as the best available science demonstrates that activities within these 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-56

severely departed stands would result in beneficial ecological restoration; furthermore, upon 

initial entries into these ecotypes, maintenance can be efficiently and cost-effectively achieved 

through the application of low intensity prescribed fire. Given the project objective of protecting 

values on the plateau, treatment in these stands (while ecologically beneficial) would not occur as 

it does not meet the purpose and need. 

Atop the plateau where activities would occur within the planning area, existing vegetation is 

largely defined as Fire Regime four, Condition Classes two and three. Small areas of Fire 

Regime three, Condition Class two are also present within some treatment areas. 

Fire Regime four and mesic Fire Regime three typically have long fire return intervals and historically 

would have burned with mixed to high severity. The stands proposed for treatment (all Fire Regimes four 

and three) are largely moderately, to severely departed from historic structural values. 

Existing Fire Hazard and Fire Behavior

Surface Fuel Loading 

Surface fuel loadings vary throughout the project area. Fuel models contained within the proposed areas 

are described by Anderson (1982). The difference in fire behavior among fuel models is related to the 

fuel load and its distribution among the fuel particle size classes (Anderson 1982). Fuel load and depth 

are significant fuel properties for predicting whether a fire will be ignited, rate of spread and intensity 

(Anderson 1982). Fuel models do not indicate potential for uncharacteristic wildfire behavior and effects, 

fire regime condition class, or departure from historical conditions. However, the combination of an 

indicator of departure from historical conditions, along with fuel models, can be of considerable value in 

determining if wildfire behavior and effects have departed from natural conditions (Hahn and Strohm 

2003). Intensity and duration of surface fires depend on the availability and condition of surface fuels 

(Graham 2004). In terms of fuels and fire potential, a majority of the closed stands proposed for 

commercial harvest treatment have fuel loads that are best represented as fuel model 10. 

A brief introduction to fuel models is located below and summarized in Table 3-30: 

Fire Behavior for Fuel Model 1(Short Grass): Fire spread is driven by fine, continuous herbaceous 

fuels. Fires in this model tend to be surface fires that move rapidly through cured grass. 

Fire Behavior for Fuel Model 2 (Short Grass): Fire spread is primarily through the fine herbaceous 

fuels, either curing or dead. These are the surface fires where the herbaceous material, in addition to litter 

and dead-down stemwood from the open shrub or timber overstory, contribute to the fire intensity. Open 

shrub lands and pine stands or scrub oak stands that cover one-third to two-thirds of the area may 

generally fit this model; such stands may include clumps of fuels that generate higher intensities and that 

may produce firebrands. 

Fire Behavior for Fuel Model 5 (Low Brush): Fire is generally carried in the surface fuels that are made 

up of litter cast by the shrubs and the grasses or forbs in the understory. The fires are generally less 

intense because surface fuel loads are light. Surface fuel loading, less than 3 inches in diameter, averages 

3.5 tons per acre. Surface fuel bed depth averages 2 feet. 

Fire Behavior for Fuel Model 8 (Timber, Closed Timber Litter): Fire characteristics in this model 

tends to be slow-burning ground fires in compact litter with low flame lengths that may encounter an 

occasional heavy fuel concentration that can flare up. Only under severe weather conditions (i.e. high 

temperatures, low humidities, high winds) do these fuels generally become fire hazards. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-57

Fire Behavior for Fuel Model 9 (Timber, Open Timber Litter): Fires run through the surface litter 

faster than model 8 and have longer flame height. Both long-needle conifer stands and hardwood stands, 

especially the oak-hickory types, are typical. Closed stands of long-needled pine like ponderosa, Jeffrey, 

and red pines or southern pine plantations are grouped in this model. Concentrations of dead-down 

woody material would contribute to possible torching out of trees, spotting, and crowning. 

Fire Behavior for Fuel Model 10 (Timber, Litter and Understory, Figure 3-7): Heavy concentrations 

of dead down fuels result in fires that burn with greater intensities than other timber/litter fuel models. 

Distinctive fire characteristics include passive crown fire, active crown fire, and spotting thus leading to 

potential fire control difficulties. Any forest type may be considered for this fuel model if heavy down 

material is present. 

Figure 3-7 — Photograph of Fuel Model 10 

Table 3-30 — Fuel Models acres by Alternatives in Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project 

Fuel Model Alternative B Acres Alternative C Acres

1 27 25

2 367 347

5 3 3

8 425 385

9 1 0.4

10 3418 3159

91 (Non-forest, roads, structures) 74 74

93 (Agricultural) 14 14
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-58

As illustrated in Table 3-30, treatment units are primarily located in fuel model 10 and would be 

converted to fuel model 8 upon treatment. Some fuel model 8 and fuel model 2 exist within treatment 

units, and fuelbed conversion would not occur in these as a result of treatment. Fuel models 2 and 8 do 

not pose undue fire risk to values on the plateau, and thus are not targeted for treatment based on fuel 

model classification. Areas described as fuel models 2 and 8 are receiving treatment either based on 

canopy characteristics, or are small interior portions of a larger area classified as fuel model 10. 

Crown Fire Potential 

The spatial continuity and density of tree canopies in combination with wind and physical setting provide 

the conditions for crown fires (Graham 2004). Canopy base height, canopy bulk density, and canopy 

continuity are key characteristics of forest structure that affect the initiation and propagation of crown fire 

(Albini 1976, Rothermel 1991). Canopy base height is important because it effects crown fire initiation 

and canopy continuity influences the spread of fire (Graham 2004). 

Ladder fuels, as they relate to canopy base height, provide avenues for fire to move from the ground to 

the tree crowns. Stands with low canopy base height are more susceptible to crown fires. Crown fires are 

high intensity wildfires that advance through forest canopy and can exhibit extreme fire behavior that is 

difficult and dangerous to suppress, and cause economic damage (Keyes and O’Hara, 2002). They occur 

when surface fires create enough energy to preheat and combust live fuels well above the ground or when 

ladder fuels, in the form of small seedlings, saplings and young trees with low hanging branches, carry 

fire into the upper canopy. There are two stages of crown fires: the initiation of crown fire activity, 

referred to as “torching” (also known as passive crown fire), and the process of active crown fire spread, 

where fire moves from tree crown to tree crown (Agee, 2005). Torching commences when the surface 

flame length exceeds a critical threshold, defined by Van Wagner (1977) as a function of the moisture 

content of overstory foliage and the vertical distance to live crown, known as canopy base height (CBH). 

Once in the crowns, fire must maintain a minimum rate of spread to become an active crown fire and is 

primarily determined by topography and weather conditions. The spread rate required to keep fire in the 

crowns hinges on the density of fuels in the canopy, called canopy bulk density (CBD) (Keyes and 

O’Hara, 2002). Torching and crowning also create firebrands that can spread fire well beyond their 

source, increasing fire spread to adjacent stands. Crowning significantly limits fire suppression options, 

requiring suppression personnel to rely on aerial resources or implement other indirect attack techniques. 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND/OR SENSITIVE PLANTS

Scale of Analysis 

The scale of analysis for threatened, endangered and sensitive (TES) plant species is the Tollgate Fuels 

Reduction planning area within the Upper Umatilla, Upper Walla Walla River, and Lookingglass Creek 

watersheds. 

Geographic Boundary 

The geographic scale of analysis for cumulative effects to Region 6 listed TES species is the Tollgate 

Fuels Reduction planning area. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-59

Temporal Boundary 

The temporal scale begins with the first European settlers in the area and in this case begins with the 

history of grazing beginning in the mid 1800’s. The other end of the temporal scale is approximately 10 

years into the future or 2021, based on the knowledge of proposed projects. See Chapter 3 in the Tollgate 

Fuels Reduction EIS for a complete listing of all ‘past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions’. 

Affected Environment 

Federally listed plant species: Spalding’s catchfly

Silene spaldingii, Spalding’s catchfly, is federally listed as threatened and known to occur on the Umatilla 

and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. This plant occurs primarily in open grasslands with deep 

Palousian soils and is located approximately 40 aerial miles north and east of the Tollgate Fuels 

Reduction planning area. There are no documented occurrences of this plant in the project area and there 

is no habitat for this plant species in the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project area. 

A pre-field review of Forest data in the Natural Resource Inventory System Threatened Endangered 

Sensitive Proposed/Invasive Plant (NRIS TESP/IP) database, both survey data and sensitive plant location 

data, as well as the sensitive plant list for the Umatilla National Forest in Oregon state both documented 

and suspected, revealed a list of 8 sensitive and 4 strategic taxa existing in the Tollgate Fuels Reduction 

project area. These species, both vascular and nonvascular, are listed below in Table 3-31 and Table 

3-32. 

Strategic, is a new category of species established on May 3, 2007, and strategic species are not 

considered ‘sensitive’ species under Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670. They include species that have 

information gaps (i.e. distribution, habitat, threats) resulting in status or taxonomic uncertainties. The 

management requirement for this group of species is to record survey and location information in the 

NRIS TESP/IP database. Management of known sites located during surveys is not required for any 

Strategic species; however management of sites found for species that are Strategic only because they 

were suspected on FS or BLM land is recommended since they will be listed as Sensitive in the next list 

update. This direction is found in the official release letter from the Regional Forester dated January 31, 

2008 which accompanied the latest iteration of the RFSSL. Western moonwort and the three strategic 

nonvascular taxa all strategic in Oregon, will not be managed for and will not be included in effects 

analysis for the Tollgate Project. 

Table 3-31 — TES vascular plants in the Tollgate project planning area 

Scientific name Plant code Common name Status

Botrychium minganense BOMI gray moonwort OR - S

Botrychium montanum BOMO mountain grape-fern OR - S 

Botrychium paradoxum BOPA two-spiked moonwort S

Botrychium

pendunculosum

BOPE stalked moonwort S
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-60

Carex cordillerana CACO81 cordilleran sedge OR - S

Salix farriae SAFA Farr’s willow OR - S

*OR - S = RFSSL listed as sensitive in Oregon state; S = RFSSL listed as sensitive in both Oregon and Washington. 

Table 3-32 — TES nonvascular taxa in the project area 

Scientific name Plant code Common name Status

Chaenotheca subroscida CHSU14 needle lichen S

Rhizomnium nudum RHNU naked rhizomnium moss OR – S

*OR - S = RFSSL listed as sensitive in Oregon state; S = RFFSL listed as sensitive in both Oregon and 

Washington. 

Prior to 2010, eighty-six botanical inventory surveys intersecting with the Tollgate project area were 

completed and are recorded in the NRIS TESP/IP database. These surveys date back to 1990, with more 

recent surveys in 2006 and 2009. After reviewing the surveys already documented in the project area; 

additional complete inventory botanical surveys were implemented west of Target Meadows and south of 

Langdon Lake in 2010. 

Botrychium species 

The four R6 listed sensitive Botrychium species (minganense, montanum, paradoxum and pedunculosum) 

documented in the Tollgate project area are listed in Table 3-31 above. The following information about 

their life history and habitat is summarized from the Conservation Assessment for 13 Species of 

Moonworts (Ahlenslager and Potash, 2007). The information is enhanced with local knowledge of 

botanists sharing their observations in the Blue Mountains on the Umatilla National Forest. 

Botrychiums, also known as moonworts or as grapeferns (due to the clusters of fruiting structures at the 

top of their stalks), are small, primitive plants closely related to ferns. They reproduce by spores, and are 

known to be mycorrhizal, though many details of their life history and growth requirements are still 

unknown. Although green and apparently photosynthetic, the species considered here are all capable of 

surviving for years with only sporadic above-ground growth, apparently drawing reserves from the host 

plants with which they have mycorrhizal connections. As a result, populations of these moonworts 

appear to fluctuate from year to year, depending on how many plants produce visible leaves and/or 

fruiting bodies. The factors determining yearly growth are not yet understood. 

Preferred habitat of these species is perennially moist ground at the edges of small streams, wet meadows, 

springs, and seepy openings in forest. The plants often favor shade from an overstory of conifers and/or 

riparian shrubs such as alder and red-osier dogwood, but also occur in openings or meadows with only 

grasses and forbs providing shade. Wet meadow edges with encroaching lodgepole pine are prime 

grapefern sites, as are the mossy openings around springs in mixed conifer forest that includes subalpine 

fir and Engelmann spruce. On the Umatilla NF, several Botrychium species are found under young spruce 

in moist tree plantations that are 20 to 40 years old..

With the exception of Botrychium montanum, these four species of moonworts appear to be "seral" 

species favored by one-time ground disturbance, tending to appear 10 years or more after such 

disturbance occurs. It is possible that they die out eventually, as forest succession shades out understory 

plants. A mosaic of forest habitats that shift over time, providing new openings as old ones fill in, may 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-61

best ensure the long-term survival of Botrychiums. However, until this is definitively known and the 

needs of these moonworts are better understood, it is important to preserve existing populations. Since 

most of the plants are quite small and are difficult to find, they may be easily overlooked except in 

intensive surveys. Their habitat, on the other hand, is readily identified and protected or avoided during 

management activities. 

In the Tollgate project area, there are fifteen historically documented sites of Botrychium minganense

with only one site (original documentation is a 2 acre polygon containing two other moonwort species no 

longer listed as sensitive on the RFSSL) that intersects with proposed treatment unit 73. Numerous 

historically documented moonwort sites on the Umatilla National Forest in NRIS TESP/IP are 

documented as large polygons and contain numerous species of moonworts. 

There are three historically documented occurrences of RFSSL listed Oregon sensitive mountain 

moonwort (Botrychium montanum) in the project area, with one site documented in a large polygon that 

intersects with Tollgate proposed treatment unit 49. This mountain moonwort population was 

successfully relocated in July 2010 and it is northof the proposed treatment unit 49 but within 0.1 miles of 

the unit. The other two sites of mountain moonwort are documented in the headwaters of Swamp Creek 

with the nearest proposed Tollgate unit 53 about 0.5 mile to the south. 

Carex cordillerana (cordilleran sedge) 

Cordilleran sedge (recently split from Carex backii), is the rare Pacific Northwest representative of a 

complex of sedges occurring in upland forests. Populations are few and small and it grows in the shade of 

trees where it receives bright indirect sunlight (Wilson, et. al 2008). The sites on the Umatilla are mostly 

in riparian settings. Its broad palatable leaves attract grazers, which can easily pull up the shallow-rooted 

plant. There are three documented occurrences in the Tollgate project area, two on the North Fork of the 

Umatilla River and one on the South Fork of the Walla Walla River. These three populations are not in 

the vicinity of any proposed Tollgate treatment units. The nearest proposed treatment unit to the site on 

South Fork Walla Walla River is over 1 mile to the south (unit 42) and the nearest proposed treatment 

unit to the two sites on North Fork Umatilla River is greater than 1 mile to the north (unit 89). 

Salix farriae (Farr’s willow)

Farr’s willow, a diminutive subalpine/alpine clonal willow species, is a cordilleran species ranging from 

Wyoming to central British Columbia with disjunct occurrences in northwest British Columbia, western 

Northwest Territories and southern Yukon (Flora of North America 1993+, vol.7). Known from 5 locales 

in Oregon, this documented site on the Umatilla occurs in a few small patches directly across Oregon 

State highway 204 from the snopark lot at Andies Prairie. The population is located at the source of the 

waters that feed the North Fork of the Umatilla River. The nearest proposed Tollgate unit (61) is over 0.5 

mile to the north and east on the other side of highway 204. 

Nonvascular sensitive species 

Chaenotheca subroscida (needle lichen) 

The needle lichen is a tiny pin lichen that grows on moist conifer bark in old growth settings and requires 

microscopic examination for identification. One occurrence in the Tollgate project area is on the bole of a 

large grand fir along the North Fork Umatilla River trail. This occurrence is near the cordilleran sedge 

populations discussed above and the nearest proposed Tollgate treatment unit is greater than 1 mile to the 

north (unit 89). 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-62

Rhizomnium nudum (naked rhizomnium moss) 

Rhizomnium nudum is an Oregon sensitive moss (1-5 cm tall) that grows in damp shady sites on moist 

organic soil, humus and rotten logs on the forest floor in moist depressions, occasionally among boulders 

and talus and sometimes along streams mostly in mid to high elevation forests. The occurrence of 

Rhizomnium nudum in the Tollgate project area is along a small inlet stream on the west side of Jubilee 

Lake; it is growing on a vertical microsite of the upper stream embankment in filtered light on humus soil. 

The nearest proposed Tollgate unit is over 2 miles away to the south and west. 

INVASIVE PLANTS

Scale of Analysis 

The geographic scale of this analysis is the Tollgate EIS planning area. Measurement of the relative 

effects of the Tollgate Fuels Management Project on noxious weeds is based on the number of acres of 

previously mapped invasive plant sites and the 2010 EIS sites within proposed planning areas and along 

timber haul routes, and on the amount of ground disturbance anticipated from the proposed activities. 

Information currently in the forest-wide noxious weed inventory database shows 16 invasive species 

occurring singly or in combination at 95 sites on Forest Service lands within the planning area, for a total 

of 2,370 gross infested acres (Table_). 

The temporal scale is bounded in the past by the earliest known period in which activities would have 

affected invasive plant establishment and distribution in ways that persist today, and which have the 

potential to overlap in space and time with the direct and indirect effects of the activities included in 

Alternatives B or C. It is unclear which activities would have contributed to present conditions and when 

such activities occurred; however, this may be of little consequence. The cumulative effects of past 

activities with effects that overlap in space and time with the direct and indirect effects of the activities 

proposed under Alternatives B or C are reflected in the existing condition. The temporal scale is bounded 

in the future by the occurrence of the most distant reasonably foreseeable future activities with direct and 

indirect effects that overlap in time with the direct and indirect effects of the activities proposed under 

Alternatives B or C. Because out-year planning efforts typically include a 5-year timespan, and harvest 

activities are expected to last 3 or more years, the temporal boundary of this analysis would also be 

approximately 8 years in the future (year 2020). 

Affected Environment 

Weed infestations planned for treatment in the Umatilla National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment Project 

EIS and ROD (July 2010) the and currently documented in the national Natural Resource Inventory 

System (NRIS) database include 16 species occurring separately or in combination at 95 sites on Forest 

Service land within the Tollgate planning area, covering approximately 2,370 acres (Table 3-33). 

Table 3-33 - Extent (acres) and species of invasive plants known to occur within the Tollgate 

planning area 

USDA Plant Code Common name Infested acres

ARMI2 Lesser burdock 3.6

CEBI2 Spotted knapweed 121.8

CEDI3 Diffuse knapweed 213.5

CERE6 Russian knapweed 3.1
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-63

CIAR4 Canada thistle 792.2

CIVU Bull thistle 509.7

CYOF Hounds tongue 120.8

EUES Leafy spurge 0.5

HICA10 Meadow hawkweed 1.6

HYPE St. Johnswort 288.0

LIVU2 Butter and eggs 1.5

ONAC Scotch thistle 4.3

PORE5 Sulphur cinquefoil 0.4

SEJA Stinking willie 53.7

TAVU Common tansy 0.3

VETH Common mullein 255

Total 2370

WILDLIFE

Scale of Analysis 

The quantity and quality of wildlife habitat was primarily assessed using a Geographic Information 

System (GIS), district records, and field reviews. The best available science (Literature Cited) was used to 

determine effects to wildlife species in a manner appropriate for the circumstances. Vegetation 

information used in habitat evaluation was obtained from the project Silviculturist and Fuels Specialist, or 

from GIS databases, and field visits. 

The scale of analysis for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to wildlife is the Tollgate project planning 

area (46,460 acres), as identified on the project planning area map (Appendix A, Maps A1 and A2), with 

two exceptions: 1) Snags and down wood are assessed at the watershed scale and 2) Elk habitat is 

assessed using a 1 mile buffer around all proposed activities. 

Time frames considered for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to wildlife are short-term (within 10 

years), mid-term (10-50 years) and long-term (more than 50 years). These spatial and temporal scales 

are appropriate given the parameters of the proposed activities and the duration of potential effects to all 

wildlife species addressed in this document. 

Proposed harvest activities would change forest stand structure and composition on up to 9% (4,300 acres 

of the 46,460 acre planning area) of the project planning area. In general, these actions would directly and 

indirectly affect wildlife habitat parameters. Some wildlife species would benefit from these changes 

while others while others may not. Overall, affects to wildlife habitat is not expected to result in 

measureable affects to wildlife populations, and may result in increased wildlife habitat diversity in the 

project area. 

The following categories of wildlife or habitats are discussed: old forest habitat; management indicator 

species; threatened, endangered and sensitive (TES) species; northern goshawk; and priority bird habitats. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-64

Affected Environment 

Old Forest Habitat

Dedicated Old Growth 

The Forest Plan allocated specific areas as Management Area (MA) C1-Dedicated Old Growth or C2- 

Managed Old Growth to provide old growth forest habitat across the Forest. Dedicated old growth areas 

were initially classified as suitable and/or capable habitat for selected management indicator species. 

Stand size and distribution are variable and depend on the vegetation type and target management 

indicator species (USFS 1990). 

Nine Dedicated Old Growth (MA-C1) areas are within the project planning area (Table 3-34). One stand 

is in wilderness (MA-B1), and three are within the Walla Walla River Watershed (MA-F4). 

Table 3-34 — Dedicated Old Growth Areas (MA-C1) in the Project Planning Area 

Old Forest Structure 

Umatilla National Forest Plan Amendment #11 established interim riparian, ecosystem, and wildlife 

ID No. MA-C1 

Acres General Area MIS Notes

0623 156 Middle South Fork Walla Walla River marten within MA-F4

0631 565 Lower South Fork Walla Walla River pileated 

woodpecker within MA-F4

0643 240 Lower South Fork Walla Walla River marten within MA-F4

0653 172 Bald Mountain marten

0665 337 Upper Summer Creek

pileated 

woodpecker 

and marten

0673 21 Jubilee Lake marten remainder outside of project 

planning area boundary

0733 150 Lower Summer Creek marten

0753 190 Upper Coyote Creek marten

0775 14 Upper North Fork Umatilla River

pileated 

woodpecker 

and marten

Overlapped by wilderness MA-B1

1845 Total MA-C1
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

 3-65 

standards for timber sales (the Eastside Screens) (USFS 1995). It requires that certain categories of

timber sales be screened to evaluate their potential impact on riparian habitat, historical vegetation

patterns, and wildlife habitat fragmentation and connectivity. The amount of old forest is evaluated to 

determine if it is within, above, or below the historical range. 

The Umatilla Forest uses the silvicultural terms Old Forest Multi Strata (OFMS), and Old Forest Single

Stratum (OFSS) structural stages to assess the amount and distribution of old forest and large tree habitat. 

OF structure classes, by definition, contain 10 or more live conifer trees per acre greater than or equal to 

21” diameter at breast height (DBH). 

Currently the amount of dry old forest multi strata (dry OFMS), moist multi strata (moist OFMS), and 

moist single strata (moist OFSS) are over-represented in the project planning area (Silviculture Specialist 

Report). Dry old forest single strata (dry OFSS) is within the historical range of variability. 

Ninety-five percent of the forest in this planning area is Moist Upland Forest. The small amount of dry 

forest mainly consists of dry grand fir, and a very small component of Douglas-fir, western larch, and

ponderosa pine. Old forest is present on about 24,500 acres, or about 65 percent of the forested acres. 

Large contiguous stands of old forest occur in the North Fork Umatilla River Wilderness, the Walla Walla 

River IRA, and the Lookingglass IRA. Old forest structure is well distributed and connected within the 

entire project planning area. 

Management Indicator Species 

Wildlife Management Indicator Species for the Umatilla National Forest are shown in Table 3-35. 

Table 3-35 — Wildlife Management Indicator Species for the Umatilla National Forest (Forest Plan 

page 2-9) 

Habitat to support these species is present in the Tollgate project planning area 

Rocky Mountain elk and elk habitat cover 

Rocky Mountain elk was selected as a management indicator species in the Forest Plan to represent 

general forest habitat and winter ranges for big game. Most of the project planning area is summer range 

for elk, but winter range is found on the lower North Fork Umatilla River and the South Fork Walla Walla 

Species Habitat Types 

Rocky Mountain elk general forest habitat and winter ranges 

pine marten mature and old growth stands at high elevations 

pileated woodpecker dead/down tree habitat (mixed conifer) in mature and old growth stands 

northern three-toed woodpecker dead/down tree habitat (lodgepole pine) in mature and old growth stands

primary cavity excavators dead/down tree (snag) habitat 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-66

River. 

The project planning area is dissected by a mix of multiple forest plan management areas, most of which 

do not have standards for elk. The only management area with forest plan standards for elk affected by 

proposed activities is MA-E2 (Timber and Big Game). Although MA-E2 occurs over 10,000 acres of the 

planning area, it is scattered into 10 separate areas. About 1/3 of the acres with proposed activities would 

not be reflected in the effects analysis of MA-E2. Therefore an additional scale was utilized, which is all 

FS land within 1 mile of proposed activities regardless of forest plan management area. This scale area 

allows for a more comprehensive and biologically appropriate assessment of potential effects to elk. 

No activities are proposed in elk wintering areas. 

The forest plan standards used to evaluate effects of management actions on elk habitat include percent 

tree cover, open road density, and an index value from the Habitat Effectiveness Index (HEI) model. 

Cover 

The Forest Plan defines satisfactory cover as a stand of trees at least 40 feet tall and providing 70 percent 

or more canopy closure. Marginal cover is defined as a stand of trees > 10 feet tall and providing 40 

percent or more canopy closure. Both types should have sufficient understory structure to obscure 90 

percent of a standing elk at a distance of 200 feet. Marginal cover provides hiding and escape cover, but 

the tree canopy may be less dense and often provides less security. There is no forest plan standard for 

marginal cover; rather it is added to satisfactory cover for the total cover standard. 

Currently, satisfactory elk cover occurs on 5,000 acres, or 17 percent of the 28,500 acre elk analysis area. 

in the project planning area, which exceeds desired conditions. Total cover occurs on 16,500 acres, or 56 

percent of the 28,500 acre elk analysis area (Table 3-36).

Habitat Effectiveness Index 

The elk habitat effectiveness index model is used to predict the influence of forest management activities 

on elk and other big game species. This model uses the distribution of cover and forage areas, cover 

quality, and road factors to help indicate how effective an area will be in supporting big game (Thomas et 

al. 1988). It is intended to be a relative measure of habitat, and does not consider many other factors 

such as topography, forage quality, weather, predation, and hunting. The HEI model provides an index 

rating from 0 to 1, with 0 indicating the least effective elk habitat and 1 indicating optimal effective 

habitat. The index number is multiplied by 100 to get a whole number for comparison purposes. 

The HEI index value for the elk analysis area is 63, which is above the minimum forest plan standard of 

45 (Table 3-36). 

Table 3-36 — Forest Plan standards and existing condition of the Tollgate elk analysis area (all FS 

land within 1 mile of proposed activities) 

Scale Measure Forest Plan 

Desired

Forest Plan 

Standard

Existing 

Condition

Elk Analysis 

Area with 1-mile 

buffer

Satisfactory

Cover

15-20 % 10 % 17 %

Total Cover NA 30 % 56 %
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-67

Scale Measure Forest Plan 

Desired

Forest Plan 

Standard

Existing 

Condition

(28,500 acres)

HEI NA 45 63

Roads 

Roads remove vegetation, reduce the effectiveness of cover, and increase disturbance to elk and other 

wildlife. Elk have been found to select habitats preferentially based on increasing distance from open 

roads (Rowland et al. 2000). Vulnerability and hunting mortality have been found to be higher in forested 

stands with greater road densities and less hiding cover (Weber et al. 2000). 

The open road densityis is 1.2 mi/mi2 within the elk analysis area. This is within the desired condition of 

an average of 2 miles per square mile or less, forest-wide (Forest Plan p. 4-11). 

American Marten (pine marten) 

The American marten (Martes americanus) was selected as a Management Indicator Species in the Forest 

Plan to represent mature and old growth stands at high elevations (Table 3-35). 

American marten are found throughout Canada and Alaska, south through the Rockies, Sierra Nevada, 

northern Great Lakes Region, and northern New England. In Oregon, they occur in the southern Oregon 

Coast Range, Siskiyou Mountains, Cascade Mountains, and Blue Mountains (Marcot et al. 2003). The 

global conservation status of marten is considered ‘widespread, abundant, and secure’ (NatureServe 

2010). 

American marten are typically associated with late-seral coniferous forests with closed canopies, large 

trees, and abundant snags and down wood (Zielinski et al. 2001). Wisdom et al. (2000) lists subalpine 

and montane forests in old multi- and single-story, and unmanaged young multi-story structural stages as 

providing source habitat for American marten in the Columbia Basin. A study in northeastern Oregon 

showed that martens selected for areas with denser canopy, more canopy layers, larger diameter live and 

dead trees, larger down logs, and closer proximity to water as compared to what was available in the area 

(Bull et al. 2005). 

Marten use a variety of structures for rest and den sites, such as tree cavities, mistletoe brooms, and 

accumulations of down logs (Bull and Heater 2000). Bull et al. (2005) found density of potential rest 

sites was significantly higher in marten home ranges than in unoccupied areas. 

In addition to providing rest and den sites, down wood is an important component of marten habitat 

because the primary prey of martens is small mammals associated with down wood. These small 

mammals include voles, snowshoe hares and squirrels in northeast Oregon (Bull and Blumton 1999). In 

the winter, they forage beneath the snow in downed wood for prey. 

In a comparison of historical versus current conditions in the Blue Mountains, marten habitat appears to 

be strongly increasing (Wisdom et al. 2000). Suitable environments for marten are broadly distributed 

and of high abundance on the Umatilla National Forest, and there has been little change from historical to 

current conditions (Wales et al. 2011). The Umatilla National Forest provides roughly 100,000 acres of 

marten source habitat. Source habitat is defined as those habitats contributing to long-term population 

persistence (Widsom et al. 2000). 

In 1990, the forest plan set aside about 1,800 acres of Dedicated Old Growth (MA-C1) for marten in the 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-68

project planning area (Table 3-34). Recent vegetation data was used to determine the current amount and 

distribution of marten habitat in the project planning area. The project planning area provides about 

10,000 acres of well-distributed marten habitat. Prime habitat is found in the wilderness and roadless 

portions of the project planning area where extensive, well developed riparian habitat is available. 

It is possible that the Tollgate project planning area could support several reproductive pairs. Of 19 radiocollared marten in Eastern Oregon, the average home range size for males was about 6,700 acres, and the 

average for females was about 3,500 acres (Bull and Heater 2001). Home ranges typically include both 

source habitat as well as foraging areas and nonhabitat. The authors suggest that a marten reproductive 

pair would likely have higher success where an average of 6,700 acres are available for foraging and 

denning. 

Marten are an elusive species, rarely observed, and difficult to detect. No marten observations have been 

reported in the project planning area, but they may be present. 

Pileated woodpecker 

Pileated woodpecker (Dryocupus pileatus) was selected as a management indicator species in the Forest 

Plan to represent dead and down tree habitat in mature and old growth mixed conifer stands (Table 3-35). 

Pileated woodpeckers are important because the large cavities that pileated woodpeckers create in trees 

provide nests for many of the larger secondary cavity nesters. 

Pileated woodpecker are widely distributed in forested areas of eastern North America, westward across a 

large swath of forest in Canada, and then southward into Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and 

California (Nature Serve 2010). 

Pileated woodpeckers tend to prefer large blocks of grand fir and mixed conifer stands in multi strata 

forest with large diameter snags and down wood (Bull and Holthausen 1993). Approximately 90 percent 

of the diet of these birds consists of carpenter ants, which are associated with large standing and downed 

wood. Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir and western larch were preferred species for foraging substrate (Bull 

and Holthausen 1993). 

Pileated woodpeckers typically nest in tall, large diameter snags with broken tops and little remaining 

bark (Bull 1987). Within mixed conifer forest, pileated woodpeckers nested preferentially in ponderosa 

pine and western larch in northeast Oregon (Bull 1987, Nielsen-Pincus and Garton 2007). The majority 

of roost trees were hollow grand fir infected with Indian paint fungus and large ponderosa pine snags 

(Bull et al. 1992). Densities of nesting pairs of pileated woodpeckers were positively associated with the 

amount of late structural stage forest (Bull et al. 2007). 

Two Dedicated Old Growth areas (C1) set aside for pileated woodpecker fall within the Tollgate project 

planning area. In general, Dedicated Old Growth areas are providing good habitat for pileated 

woodpecker. In 1992, biologists surveyed 100 Dedicated Old Growth areas in the Blue Mountains, 

including 20 on the Umatilla National Forest (NF). All of the old growth areas surveyed on the Umatilla 

NF (100%) were occupied by pileated woodpecker at that time (Bull and Carter 1993). In more recent 

years, pileated woodpeckers have been incidentally observed in the Tollgate planning area. 

The pileated woodpecker is ranked as ‘widespread, abundant, and secure’ globally; more specifically in 

Oregon it is ranked as ‘apparently secure’ (Nature Serve 2010). The state of Oregon lists pileated 

woodpecker as ‘vulnerable’. The PIF database (Partners in Flight 2011) indicates an increasing 

population and expect future ongoing stability. 

Suitable environments for pileated woodpecker have declined slightly, but are broadly distributed and of 

high abundance on the Umatilla National Forest (Wales et al. 2011). The Umatilla National Forest 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-69

provides roughly 200,000 acres of pileated woodpecker source habitat. Source habitat is defined as those 

habitats contributing to long-term population persistence (Widsom et al. 2000). Overall there is little risk 

to pileated woodpecker viability (Wales et al. 2011). 

Pileated woodpecker habitat in the Tollgate project planning area is primarily mature grand fir forest. A 

query of the vegetation data resulted in about 19,300 acres of pileated woodpecker foraging habitat, 

distributed throughout the project planning area. About half of that (10,200 acres) has large enough trees 

to support pileated woodpecker reproduction. 

Mean home range size for paired birds in northeastern Oregon was 1,180 acres (Bull and Holthausen 

1993), which would include both reproductive and foraging habitat. The Tollgate project planning area 

could reasonably support 5 to 8 pair of pileated woodpeckers. 

The density of large snags (>20 inches DBH) was the best predictor of density of pileated woodpeckers 

(Bull and Holthausen 1993). An average of 8 snags per acre > 20 inches DBH were present at pileated 

woodpecker nest and roost sites in Eastside Mixed Conifer at the 50 percent tolerance level (Decaid Table 

EMC_S/L.sp-22 (Mellen-McLean et al. 2009)). Snags used for foraging, roosting, and nesting averaged 

20, 28 and 30 inches DBH, respectively (Decaid Tables EMC_L.sp-17, 18, 19, & 25 (Mellen-McLean et 

al. 2009)). 

This density of large snags (4 to 12 per acre) occurs on about 11,000 acres or 31 percent of the forest snag 

analysis area (see snag section below, Figure 3-9). Areas of lower snag densities (greater than zero but 

less than 4 per acre) would likely be used as foraging areas (Figure 3-9). 

Most of the CVS snag data was collected in the 1990’s in this area. Since that time, activity by Douglasfir beetle, fir engraver, and other insects has been noted in the area (Silviculture Report in project record), 

and has likely resulted in additional snags. 

American Three-toed Woodpecker 

American three-toed woodpecker (Picoides dorsalis) (formerly known as the northern three-toed 

woodpecker) was selected as a management indicator species in the Forest Plan to represent dead and 

down tree habitat in mature and old growth lodgepole pine stands (Table 3-35). They primarily eat the 

larvae of mountain pine beetles in lodgepole pine and tend to prefer recently dead trees (Imbeau and 

Desrochers 2002). 

The three-toed woodpecker is a year-round resident throughout forested regions of Canada and Alaska, 

south into the northern New England states, Minnesota and Michigan, and south into Washington, 

Oregon, Idaho, and Montana, the Black Hills of South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, eastern 

Nevada, central Arizona, and southern New Mexico (Nature Serve 2010). 

The global status of three-toed woodpecker is ‘secure’ due to it’s wide distribution, but considered 

‘vulnerable’ in Oregon and Washington (Nature Serve 2010). The Umatilla forest has very few records 

for three-toed woodpeckers, and none in the Tollgate project planning area. 

Three-toed woodpecker distribution can be patchy and may change frequently as they follow in the path 

of insects outbreaks, making it very difficult to determine population trends. North American Breeding 

Bird Survey (BBS) data for 1980–1998 indicate a significant annual decrease in populations across the 

species’ range in North America, however, this data should be viewed with caution given the low number 

of routes and low abundance of three-toed woodpeckers per route (Leonard 2001). 

Potential habitat for three-toed woodpeckers in the Tollgate project planning area was identified by 

querying the vegetation database for dense, moist mixed conifer, spruce, subalpine fir, and lodgepole 

pine. Query results indicate that there are about 20,700 acres of potential foraging habitat for three-toed 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-70

woodpeckers in the project planning area. Habitat is well-distributed and well-connected throughout the 

planning area. 

Current estimates indicate there are 170,000 acres of three-toed woodpecker habitat on the forest (Wales, 

personal communication). Tollgate project planning area contributes about 12 percent to the forest-wide 

habitat for three-toed woodpeckers. 

Three-toed woodpecker nests are preferentially created in mature trees with heart rot (Goggans et al. 

1988), and it is suggested that 500 acres of mature/overmature lodgepole pine may be needed per pair of 

birds. Most of the possible three-toed woodpecker nesting habitat in the Tollgate project planning area is 

in grand fir and spruce cover types, with about 1,800 in lodgepole pine. Only 400 acres are old growth 

lodgepole pine. With about 15,000 acres of old forest in spruce, fir and lodgepole pine in the project 

planning area, a rough estimate based on the above factors is that there may be enough nesting habitat for 

3 to 5 pair of three-toed woodpeckers. 

Primary Cavity Excavators (Snag Habitat) 

Primary cavity excavators as a group were selected to represent dead/down tree (snag) habitat that a vast 

array of vertebrate species depend on for reproduction and/or foraging (Table 3-35). Primary cavity 

excavators create holes for nesting or roosting in live, dead or decaying trees. Secondary cavity users 

such as owls, bluebirds, and flying squirrels may use these cavities later for denning, roosting, and 

nesting. 

Habitat for primary cavity excavators includes coniferous and hardwood stands in a variety of structural 

stages and the availability of dead trees in various size and decay classes (Thomas 1979). Primary habitat 

generally contains snags greater than 15 inches DBH, while smaller sizes provide secondary habitat. 

Snag habitat in the Tollgate project planning area is variable with most available in areas of light or no 

management activities, and less in areas of intensive management. Areas with low snag densities are 

primarily due to past clearcut harvest that took place in the 1950’s to 1960’s. In other areas, insect and 

disease activity, drought, and overstory mortality due to high stand densities have created new snags and 

down wood. 

Forest-wide, snag densities are similar to reference values (Mason and Countryman 2010). This would 

indicate that overall available snag habitat is contributing to viable populations of primary cavity 

excavators. 

A snag analysis is used to evaluate habitat for primary cavity excavators in the affected watersheds. Snag 

habitat was assessed using the Current Vegetation Survey (CVS) data collected in the Lookingglass, 

South Fork Umatilla, and South Walla Walla River watersheds. CVS inventories (Brown 2003) are 

permanent plots on a 1.7-mile grid that sample the vegetative condition on Forest Service land. The 

historical range of variability in the Tollgate project planning area (Silviculture Report, pp. 34-37) is also 

used as a frame of reference. 

While a wide range of snag densities are present in the project area and the snag analysis area, the average 

snag densities in the affected watersheds far exceed Forest Plan minimum standards (Table 3-37). This 

would indicate that the snag analysis area contains adequate structural habitat features desired by a 

number of primary cavity excavating species and other wildlife. 

Cold upland forest is not represented in the data because it makes up less than one percent of the analysis 

area. 

Table 3-37 — Forest Plan standards and existing conditions for snag density in Tollgate Snag 

Analysis Area 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-71

 Umatilla Forest Plan Standards Existing Condition, Tollgate Snag Analysis Area

Working Group Diameter Class 

(inches DBH)

Average

Snag Density 

(#/acre)

Potential 

Vegetation Group

Diameter Class 

(inches DBH)

Average 

Snag Density 

(#/acre)

Ponderosa Pine

> 10 2.25 Dry Upland 

Forest

> 10 8.1

> 20 0.14 > 20 2.4

Mixed Conifer 

(South Associated)

> 10 2.25 Moist Upland 

Forest

> 10 21.6

> 20 0.14 > 20 4.9

Lodgepole Pine /

Subalpine Zone

> 10 1.80 Cold Upland 

Forest

> 10 no data

> 20 No standard > 20 no data

The Forest Plan established minimum standards for snag density based on the population requirements of 

species associated with snags (Table 3-37). Based on new science, these biological potential models are 

considered an outdated technique for determining snag retention needs (Rose et al. 2001). In light of 

this, the Tollgate project would leave more snags in treatment units than required in the Forest Plan. 

The Forest Plan minimum standard is 0.14 snags > 20 inches DBH per acre, with additional smaller DBH

snags to total 2.25 per acre. In this project, at least 3 large snags (> 20 inches DBH) per acre would be 

retained in all units where they occur. In addition, all functioning snag habitat (broken top, signs of 

excavation, etc.) would be retained wherever possible. Because the aim of the Tollgate project is to 

reduce ladder fuels and crown fire potential, minimal impacts to snags are expected. 

The Decayed Wood Advisor (DecAID) Mellen-McLean et al. (2009) is a synthesis of published scientific 

literature, research data, wildlife databases, forest vegetation databases, and expert judgment and 

experience. DecAID is not a mathematical model or wildlife/wood-decay simulator, and does not suggest 

snag retention levels for individual harvest units. 

DecAID was used to compare dead wood availability in the Tollgate snag analysis area to a reference 

condition. The reference condition is derived from snag data in DecAID that was collected from 

unharvested areas over the entire Blue Mountains. Although the data from unharvested areas may not 

accurately reflect “pre-settlement” or “natural” conditions in eastside forests due to years of fire exclusion 

(Mellen et al. 2006), it is comparable to other estimates of historical dead wood densities (Harrod et al. 

1998, Agee 2002, Ohmann and Waddell 2002). 

The following figures represent a comparison of snag distributions in the Tollgate Snag Analysis Area to 

these reference conditions. While there are many assumptions and limitations to this data, it provides a 

general picture of the numbers of snags in the area. 

In dry forest, snags are relatively abundant in the overall snag analysis area. The data and charts for dry 

forest are available in the Wildlife Analysis file, but not displayed here because only about 100 acres of 

dry forest is affected, which is less than one percent (.0027) of the forest in the project planning area. 

These dry areas are intermixed with moist forest. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-72

Figure 3-8 — Distribution of Snags > 10 Inches DBH in Moist Upland Forest 

Figure 3-9 — Distribution of Snags > 20 Inches DBH in Moist Upland Forest 

About 10 percent of the moist upland forest has fewer snags than would be expected under natural 

(unharvested) conditions (Figure 3-8 and Figure 3-9). The amount of area with 0 snags per acre greater 

than 20 inches DBH is about 18 percent more than reference conditions, which indicates there is more 

area without snags than typically seen in unmanaged areas of the Blue Mountains. This is likely due to 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 1-12 12-24 24-36 36-48 > 48

Percent of Area

Snags/Acre

DecAid - Eastside Mixed Conifer Forest (unharvested, small/medium)

Tollgate (Lookingglass, Upper Umatilla, and Upper Walla Walla

Watersheds, harvested and unharvested)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 0-4 4-8 8-12 12-16 > 16

Percent of Area

Snags/Acre

DecAid - Eastside Mixed Conifer Forest (unharvested, small/medium)

Tollgate (Lookingglass, Upper Umatilla, and Upper Walla Walla

Watersheds, harvested and unharvested)
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-73

past clearcut harvesting and salvage of bug and disease killed trees over the past 60 years. 

Insect and disease continues to be prevalent in the area (Silviculture Specialist Report), creating new 

snags all the time. 

Northern Goshawk

The northern goshawk is not a Management Indicator Species in the Forest Plan, and is not listed as 

Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive. However, the Forest Plan as amended (Regional Forester’s 

Eastside Forest Plan Amendment 2) provides for specific protections for goshawk nesting territories 

(USFS 1995). Northern goshawk is considered ‘sensitive-critical’ by the state of Oregon. 

The northern goshawk is considered a habitat generalist at large spatial scales, however it typically nests 

in a narrow range of structural conditions (Squires and Kennedy 2006). Goshawks prefer mature forest 

with large trees, and relatively closed canopy with an open understory for nesting. Nests are frequently 

found near the lower portion of moderate slopes and near water. 

A study in the Blue Mountains found that structural stage, tree basal area, and low topographic position 

reliably discriminated between nests and random sites. Positive correlations were found between fledging 

rate and tree basal area within 1 ha of the nest (McGrath, et al. 2003). 

A query of vegetation data for areas with at least 50 percent tree cover and the presence of large diamter 

trees resulted in approximately 18,000 acres of potential goshawk nesting habitat. These stands are well 

distributed throughout most of the planning area. Prime habitat is found in the wilderness and roadless 

areas where large areas of contiguous habitat exist along well developed riparian corridors. Quality 

nesting habitat would typically be within one-quarter (1/4) mile of water, in the lower portion of the 

slope, and often on the north facing slope. 

Goshawk surveys have not yet been conducted, but would be targed in potential nesting habitat that could 

be affected by proposed project activites. If active nests are found at any time, they would be protected as 

specified in the project design criteria (Table 2-7).

Landbirds

Neotropical migratory birds are those that breed in the United States and winter south of the border in 

Central and South America. Continental and local declines in population trends for migratory and 

resident landbirds have developed into an international concern. Roughly one half of all birds occurring 

on the Umatilla Forest are Neotropical migrants. Many of these species are associated with old forest, 

riparian areas, or unique features such as aspen, shrubs, and meadows. 

Partners in Flight (PIF) led an effort to complete a series of Bird Conservation Plans for the entire 

continental United States to address declining population trends in migratory landbirds. These plans are 

used to address the requirements contained in Executive Order (EO) 13186 (January 10, 2001), 

Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. 

The Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Northern Rocky Mountains of Eastern Oregon and 

Washington (Altman 2000) identifies the following priority habitat types: Dry Forest, Late Successional 

Mesic Mixed Conifer, Riparian Woodland and Shrub, and several “unique” habitats (Table 3-38). 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-74

Table 3-38 — Priority Habitat Features and Associated Landbird Species for Conservation in the 

Northern Rocky Mountain Landbird Conservation Region of Oregon and Washington (Altman 

2000) 

Dry Forest Habitat 

The dry forest habitat type includes coniferous forest composed exclusively of ponderosa pine, or dry 

stands co-dominated by ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir or grand fir (Altman 2000). Bird species 

associated with dry forest have shown the greatest population declines and range retractions in the 

Habitat Type Habitat Feature/Conservation Focus Focal Species

Dry Forest

Large patches of old forest with large trees and snags White-headed woodpecker

Old forest with large trees & snags interspersed with 

grassy openings and dense thickets Flammulated owl

Open understory with regenerating pines Chipping sparrow

Patches of burned old forest Lewis’ woodpecker

Mesic Mixed Conifer

Large snags Vaux’s swift

Overstory canopy closure Townsend’s warbler

Structurally diverse; multi-layered Varied thrush

Dense shrub layer in the forest understory or forested 

openings MacGillivray’s warbler

Edges and openings created by wildfire Olive-sided flycatcher

Riparian

Large snags in riparian woodland Lewis’ woodpecker

Riparian woodland canopy foliage and structure Red-eyed vireo

Riparian woodland understory foliage and structure Veery

Shrub density Willow/alder shrub patches Willow flycatcher

Unique (special) 

Habitats

Subalpine Forest Hermit thrush

Montane meadow Upland sandpiper

Steppe shrubland Vesper sparrow

Aspen Red-naped sapsucker

Alpine Gray-crowned rosy finch
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-75

northern Rocky Mountain province (Altman 2000). In particular, bird species highly associated with 

snags and old-forest conditions have declined. These species include white-headed woodpecker, 

flammulated owl, white-breasted nuthatch, pygmy nuthatch, Williamson's sapsucker, and Lewis' 

woodpecker. 

Habitat for focal species such as white-headed woodpecker, flammulated owl, and Lewis’ woodpecker is 

very limited here, because the Tollgate project planning area is predominantly a cool moist forest. 

Currently there are only about 330 acres of single strata, large diameter ponderosa pine stands in the 

project planning area. There are about 800 acres of the dry, ponderosa pine cover type, so the capacity is 

there for more. Dry old forest single strata (dry OFSS) is within the historical range of variability 

(Silviculture Specialist Report). 

Mesic Mixed Conifer Habitat 

Mesic mixed conifer habitats are primarily cool Douglas-fir, grand fir sites and larch sites. The desired 

condition is a multi-layered old forest with a diversity of structural elements. Conservation focal species 

and habitat conditions include: Vaux’s swift for large snags; Townsend’s warbler for overstory canopy 

closure, varied thrush for structural diversity and multiple layers; MacGillivray’s warbler for a dense 

shrub layer in forest openings or understory; and olive-sided flycatcher for edges and openings created by 

fire. 

Mesic mixed conifer habita is abundant in the project planning area. There are about 10,000 acres of 

Douglas-fir, grand fir sites and larch sites with multiple layers and large trees in the project planning area. 

Dense shrub layers occur in patches but are uncommon, and there are no openings created by fire. 

Riparian Woodland and Shrub Habitat 

Riparian vegetation is particularly important to Neotropical migratory songbirds (Sallabanks et al. 

2001:217). This habitat type includes riparian communities dominated by shrubs (willow, alder, etc.) that 

occur along bodies of water or in association with wet meadows and wetlands (Altman 2000). The desired 

condition is a structurally diverse vegetative community of native species that occur in natural patterns 

relative to hydrological influences. Focal species and habitat conditions include: Lewis’ woodpecker for 

large snags; red-eyed vireo for canopy foliage and structure; veery for understory foliage and structure; 

and willow flycatcher for willow/alder shrub patches. Riparian hardwood habitat is available along 

numerous streams in the area, including Summer Creek, Lookingglass Creek, and the North Fork 

Umatilla River. 

Subalpine Forest 

This habitat type is the coolest and wettest forest zone, dominated by subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, 

lodgepole pine, and huckleberry. Important features of the subalpine forest are a multi-layered structure 

and dense understory of shrubs (Altman 2000), and the focal species is the hermit thrush. Multi-layered 

subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, and lodgepole pine is common in the Tollgate project planning area, 

totalling 10,300 acres. 

Montane Meadow 

This habitat type includes wet and dry meadows dominated by herbaceous vegetation and grass at 

moderate and high elevations. These meadows are generally associated with streams and springs. The 

upland sandpiper is the focal species, but is not known to occur in the planning area. Other species that 

benefit from conservation of this habitat are sandhill crane, long-billed curlew, Wilson’s phalarope, 

common snipe, and savanna sparrow. There are about 70 acres of meadow; the largest being Target 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-76

Meadow at 40 acres. 

Steppe-Shrubland 

Steppe-shrublands occur in a wide range of habitat types, including grassland, sagebrush, montane 

meadows, fallow fields, juniper-steppe, and dry open woodlands and openings in forested habitats 

(Altman 2000). Habitat criteria (objectives) for the steppe-shrubland habitat type include maintaining a 

mosaic of steppe and shrubland habitats with < 10 percent tree cover. Associated bird species include 

vesper sparrow, lark sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, and long-billed curlew. 

A large amount of grassland and shrub habitat is available in the project planning are, totalling 8,500 

acres. The largest grass areas are on the south facing slopes along the North Fork Umatilla River. 

Aspen 

Bird species associated with aspen include the red-naped sapsucker, Williamson sapsucker, tree swallow, 

northern pygmy owl, western screech owl, and others. Aspen stands have declined throughout the Blue 

Mountains, due to a combination of factors including fire suppression, competition with invading shadetolerant species, overgrazing (livestock and wild ungulates), and drought. 

There are 16 known aspen sites in the project planning area. Most are small (less than 1 acre) and 

scattered throughout the planning area. Many of these aspen stands are being actively restored using 

methods such as fencing, conifer removal, and planting. 

Affected Environment – Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive 

Wildlife and Invertebrate Species 

An endangered species is an animal or plant species listed under the Endangered Species Act that is in 

danger of extinction throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range. A threatened species is an animal 

or plant species listed under the Endangered Species Act that is likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of, its range. 

A species list was obtained from the US Fish and Wildlife Service in order to identify which endangered, 

threatened, de-listed, candidate, and proposed species, if any, may be present in the project area. The list 

indicated that there are no threatened, endangered, or proposed wildlife species expected to occur in 

Umatilla County. One candidate species, the Columbia spotted frog is addressed as a sensitive species 

below. The northern bald eagle and the American peregrine falcon were identified as delisted species. 

These species are also addressed as sensitive species below. 

A sensitive species is an animal or plant species identified by the Forest Service Regional Forester for 

which species viability is a concern either a) because of significant current or predicted downward trend 

in population numbers or density, or b) because of significant current or predicted downward trends in 

habitat capability that would reduce a species existing distribution. 

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species addressed on the Umatilla National Forest include those 

that have been documented (D - valid, recorded observation) or are suspected (S - likely to occur based on 

available habitat to support breeding pairs/groups) to occur within or adjacent to the Umatilla National 

Forest boundary. Whether these species may occur in the Tollgate project analysis area is determined by 

observation records, vegetative and wildlife species inventory and monitoring, published literature on the 

distribution and habitat utilization of wildlife species, information provided by the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and the experience and professional judgment of wildlife biologists on the Umatilla National 

Forest (Table 3-39).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-77

Table 3-39 — Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Sensitive Wildlife and Invertebrate Species 

and their Potential to Occur within the Tollgate Project Area 

Species Status Umatilla Forest

Tollgate project 

planning area 

Canada lynx

Lynx canadensis

Threatened Documented no

Gray wolf

Canis lupus

Sensitive Documented Documented

Wolverine

Gulo gulo

Sensitive Suspected Possible

Townsend’s big-eared bat

Corynorhinus townsendii

Sensitive Documented Possible

Bald eagle

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Sensitive Documented Documented

Peregrine falcon

Falco peregrinus

Sensitive Suspected no

White-headed woodpecker

Picoides albolarvatus

Sensitive Documented Possible

Lewis’ woodpecker

Melanerpes lewis

Sensitive Documented Possible

Upland sandpiper

Bartramia longicauda

Sensitive Suspected no

Painted turtle

Chrysemys picta

Sensitive Suspected no

Columbia spotted frog

Rana luteiventris

Sensitive Documented Documented

Rocky Mountain tailed frog

Ascaphus montanus

Sensitive Documented Documented
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-78

Fir pinwheel

Radiodiscus abietum Sensitive Documented Possible

Western ridged mussel

Gonidea angulata Sensitive Documented Possible

Johnson’s hairstreak

Callophrys johnsoni Documented Suspected Possible

Therefore, species that are addressed in this section are: Canada lynx, gray wolf, wolverine, 

Townsend’s big-eared bat, bald eagle, Lewis’ woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, Columbia 

spotted frog, Rocky Mountain tailed frog, fir pinwheel, Western ridged mussel, and Johnson’s 

hairstreak. 

Because there is no indication that they may occur in the project analysis area, the following 

wildlife species will not be discussed further: peregrine falcon, upland sandpiper, and painted 

turtle. 

Because there is no indication that they may occur in the project analysis area, the following 

invertebrate species will not be discussed further: Columbia clubtail, shortface lanx, Hells canyon 

land snail, Yuma skipper, and Intermountain sulphur. 

Canada lynx (Threatened) 

Historical records indicate that Canada lynx was present on the forest at one time, but currently the 

Umatilla Forest is considered unoccupied (USFS 2006). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded 

that lynx may occur on the forest as dispersers that have never maintained resident populations. This is 

based on the lack of reproduction records, limited verified records of lynx, low frequency of occurrences, 

and correlations with cyclic highs with populations in Canada (USFWS 2003). 

Gray wolf (Sensitive) 

The project planning area is within the Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of 

the gray wolf, which was recently removed from the Endangered Species List (USFWS 2011, USFWS 

2009). However, the state of Oregon will continue to manage gray wolf as a state endangered species 

until more packs are established (ODFW 2010). 

The gray wolf is a habitat generalist inhabiting a variety of plant communities typically containing a mix 

of forested and open areas with a variety of topographic features. Three wolf packs have been identified 

that utilize areas of the Walla Walla Ranger District. Individual wolves have been occasionally observed 

in the Tollgate project planning area, but no denning or rendezvous sites have been found. 

Wolverine (Sensitive) 

Wolverines have not been documented in this area, but may pass through undetected and/or stay for short 

periods. They typically inhabit high elevation conifer forest where sufficient food is available and human 

activity is low. Denning habitat is usually open rocky talus slopes where snow depths remain over 3 feet 

into spring. They tend to forage over large areas and travel long distances. The majority of the project 

planning area is suitable for wolverine foraging, but no potential denning areas are known or suspected. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-79

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Sensitive) 

The big-eared bat is strongly associated with spacious cavern-like structures for roosting during all stages 

of its life cycle (Gruver and Keinath 2006). Typically, they use caves and mines, but have been noted 

roosting in attics and abandoned buildings, large hollows of redwood trees, in lava tubes and under 

bridges (Gruver and Keinath 2006). These sites are highly sensitive to disturbance and human 

interference. A big-eared bat roost is present in a collection of old buildings a few miles outside of the 

project planning area. 

Individuals or small groups of bats may also day roost in hollow and creviced trees and snags near water 

for a limited time, but tend to stay within a few miles of colonial roosts (Perkins and Schommer 1992). 

Therefore they are not expected to be present near the proposed activities. 

Bald eagle (Sensitive) 

Bald eagles occasionally travel through the project planning area. They have been seen at both Langdon 

and Jubilee Lakes, but no roost or nest sites are known in the project planning area. The nearest 

documented nest is on the Grande Ronde River, but has not been used for several years. A small number 

of bald eagles winter along the lower Umatilla River, outside of the project planning area. 

White–headed woodpecker (Sensitive) 

White-headed woodpecker habitat is typically open ponderosa pine with large trees and snags. This 

species relies almost exclusively upon the seeds from large ponderosa pine cones for its foraging needs. 

This species will also utilize insects that are gleaned off ponderosa pine trees. Large ponderosa pine 

snags are utilized for nesting purposes. This type of habitat is scarce in the project planning area. One 

large stand is found along Woodward Creek and another along Summer Creek, but the rest are small 

scattered stands totalling 540 acres. All of these stands are dry grand fir forest with a large pine 

component. The district has no records of white-headed woodpecker occurring in the project planning 

area. 

In addition to evaluating white-headed woodpecker habitat in the project planning area, snag habitat is 

evaluated at the watershed scale in the Management Indicator Species, primary cavity excavator section 

of this chapter. 

Lewis’ woodpecker (Sensitive) 

Lewis’ woodpecker may occur, but there are no records for this part of the district. Lewis woodpeckers 

tend to use open ponderosa pine forest, open riparian woodland dominated by cottonwood, and burned 

pine forest (Tobalske 1997). This type of habitat is scarce in the project planning area. One large stand is 

found along Woodward Creek and another along Summer Creek, but the rest are small scattered stands 

totalling 540 acres. In addition, cottonwood trees are present along the north and south forks of the 

Umatilla River. There is no burned pine forest available. 

In addition to evaluating Lewis’ woodpecker habitat in the project planning area, snag habitat is evaluated 

at the watershed scale in the Management Indicator Species, primary cavity excavator section of this 

chapter. 

Columbia spotted frog - Great Basin DPS (Sensitive) 

Spotted frogs have been observed in the project planning area. The species has been found in streams, 

ponds, and marshy areas with abundant aquatic vegetation throughout the Umatilla Forest. Columbia 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-80

spotted frogs are highly aquatic and rarely found far from permanent water, but they can also utilize 

intermittent streams and meadows in the spring. They seasonally move between hibernacula 

(overwintering sites), breeding habitat, and wet meadow /riparian foraging areas (Bull and Hayes 2002). 

Rocky Mountain tailed frog (Sensitive) 

Tailed frogs have also been observed in the project planning area. Tailed frogs inhabit cold, high gradient, 

boulder and cobble dominated streams for breeding. Streams with dense overstory shade are preferred. 

Froglets and adults are closely associated with the streams, often hiding in gravel and cobble substrates. 

Tadpoles cling to boulders and cobbles; full development of this species requires as many as 5 years to 

complete. 

Fir pinwheel 

Fir pinwheel are snails typically found near perennial water near talus or under down logs. They have 

been found on the western portions of the district, but no surveys have been done within the Tollgate 

Project Planning Area. 

Western ridged mussel 

Western ridged mussel is a bivalve mollusk that is found in areas of shallow, constant flow with well 

oxygenated substrates; areas with sand and gravel bars; and available fish for glochidia to attach to. It is 

possible that the larger creeks in the analysis area may provide these elements. No western ridged mussel 

records are known within the analysis area, but they have been documented nearby, in the Umatilla River 

drainage. 

Johnson’s hairstreak 

Johnson’s hairstreak is a butterfly that lives on dwarf mistletoe in the tree canopy. It is widely distributed 

in Oregon, but considered to be very localized and scarce with few “big” years. In western Oregon it is 

associated with grand fir dwarf mistletoe, which is not present here. In northeastern Oregon it has been 

found feeding on western dwarf mistletoe specific to ponderosa pine. 

RECREATION

Scale of Analysis 

The Tollgate Fuels Reduction project planning area is located on Umatilla Ranger District and is 

approximately 46,464 acres in size. It is primarily situated in Umatilla County and partially in Union 

County. Its boundary crosses the Upper Umatilla, Upper Walla Walla River and Lookingglass Creek 

watersheds. The recreation analysis considered the area within the project area boundary, unless 

otherwise noted. 

Measures and Indicators 

The indicators that are used to measure effects to recreation resources are the following: 

Developed and Dispersed Camping: Recreation experience and availability (See recreation goals A2, 

and A6) 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-81

Access and Dispersed Recreation Activities: Travel Access, Safety, and Desired Use (See recreation 

goal A2) 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: Level of development and settings (See ROS definitions and map) 

Sense of Place: Characteristics consistent with Recreation Niche Statement 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 

“The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum offers a framework within which to explicitly vary situation 

attributes (access, density, etc.) to produce different recreation settings”. (Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum, p. 7) The classification primarily considers vehicular travel mode, and the type of facilities 

provided within an area. 

The ROS classes found in this project area include: Semi-Primitive Motorized, Roaded Natural, and 

Roaded Modified. 

Semi-Primitive Motorized- Area is characterized by a predominantly natural or natural appearing 

environment of moderate to large size’, with a low concentration of users, motorized recreation use 

permitted only on unmade local primitive roads, and the area managed to have subtle minimum on‐site 

controls and restrictions. 

Roaded Natural- Area is characterized by predominantly natural appearing environments with moderate 

evidence of the sights and sounds of humans. Such evidence usually harmonizes with the natural 

environment. Interaction between users may be moderate to high with evidence of other users prevalent. 

Resource modification and utilization practices are evident but harmonize with the natural environment. 

Conventional motorized use is allowed and incorporated into construction standards and design of 

facilities. 

Roaded Modified- Area is characterized by a natural environment that has been substantially modified by 

development of structures and vegetative manipulation. Sights and sounds of humans are readily evident, 

and the interaction between users is often moderate to high. Facilities are often provided for special 

activities. Moderate user densities are present away from developed sites. Facilities for intensified 

motorized use and parking are available. (USDA Forest Service 1990) 

The project area ROS acres are shown in Table 3-40. 

Table 3-40 — Tollgate Treatment Acres by ROS Classification 

ROS Classification Acreage

Roaded Modified 1094

Roaded Natural 2889

Semi-Primitive Motorized 24

Sense of Place 

Sense of place is addressed to display how the area is perceived by the public, and to display the physical 

setting in which the project area lies. The Umatilla NF uses the Sense of Place definition: “The identity of 

a place created by people’s social meanings and attachments, including valued scenery and recreation 

settings, cultural and spiritual values, economic, social and biophysical characteristics.” Managers using 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-82

the concept of sense of place must define a specific framework for the definition and use of sense of 

place. 

The Forest Service has developed the Recreation NICHE process for recreation facilities analysis. This 

process was developed to define the particular recreation niche the forest could provide for the public. 

The Forest defined spatial units that had particular characteristics which could support a defined set of 

recreational experiences. The Umatilla National Forest conducted a recreation facilities analysis which 

characterized the forest and defined spaces in terms of use and sense of place. The Tollgate project area 

lies primarily within the Blue Mountains. The characterization of this area is as follows: 

Emphasis Statement: This scenic country rests on the northern edge of the John Day Valley to the 

Palouse where solitude and tradition are a way of life. For centuries this wild landscape has 

provided sustenance for Native Americans, early settlers, miners and modern day explorers 

creating a human connection with the land that cannot be denied. The Umatilla National Forest is 

known nationally for its quality big game viewing and hunting. With growing cities and small 

communities surrounding the forest, it’s a place to teach and maintain traditional values and 

recreation activities (hunting, fishing, horseback riding, hiking, gathering, viewing, and winter 

sports). The forest emphasizes ways for non-traditional visitors to enjoy these activities. Rustic 

facilities showcasing a rich heritage capture the traditional spirit and connect new and old 

generations to this timeless landscape. 

Forest-wide Settings, Special Places, and Values: The forest is a vast landscape that spans the 

Blue Mountains of southeast Washington and northeast Oregon. From rugged mountain ridges 

and forested hills to sage brush plains, this forest is home to over 300 different wildlife species 

including one of the largest elk herds in the nation. Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness Areas 

and other undeveloped areas form the core of this wild landscape. Ranching, logging and 

grazing are an integral part of this place and have shaped the culture and the land. Freedom, 

solitude and scenery abound contributing to a quality of life that draws people to this place. Easy 

access and well located facilities provide incredible settings on this broad landscape. 

Concentrated Recreation – Key high recreation use corridors on the forest where more developed 

facilities would be concentrated. Opportunities exist to connect new visitors to the land and for 

use to be dispersed out to more remote settings. 

Hunting/Dispersed – General forest areas where more rustic facilities support hunting and other 

traditional recreation activities such as OHV riding, horseback riding and hiking. 

Wilderness/Backcountry – Designated Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers and other 

undeveloped areas that are remote and provide a high degree of solitude with an emphasis on selfreliance. 

Forest-wide Activities/Opportunities/Experiences: The Forest offers a mix of day-use and 

overnight facilities in support of traditional activities including hunting, fishing, winter sports, 

gathering and viewing. Exceptional hunting is the major recreation draw for the forest. Overnight 

facilities are common, small, and rustic supporting day-use activities. The Area’s rich history is 

showcased as an integral part of the recreation program to further the connection to the land with 

new visitors. 

Concentrated Recreation – Focus higher developed recreation in this setting with key activities on 

viewing, hiking, picnicking and camping. Work with local communities to define the new/nontraditional visitor demands and focus the outcome in this setting. 

Hunting/Dispersed - Focus hunting opportunities in this setting with other traditional activities: 

OHV riding, horseback riding, backcountry skiing, snowmobiling, gathering and viewing. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-83

Wilderness/Backcountry - Focus on opportunities requiring more self-reliance including, hunting, 

fishing, horseback riding, hiking and backpacking. 

The Tollgate project area use is primarily as a hunting/dispersed and winter recreation area as well as a 

recreation residence area. The area is used for dispersed camping, huckleberry and mushroom picking, 

snowmobiling and hunting. There are some concentrated use areas around the lakes. The sense of place 

is derived from the setting of a mountain plateau above steep canyon drainages. 

Spatial and Temporal Boundary 

The spatial boundary for cumulative effects for recreation includes the project boundary. Recreation 

should not be significantly affected beyond this area; people recreating outside of the project boundary 

would not likely be impacted by this Project. 

The temporal boundary for cumulative effects for recreation is the project implementation timeframe. 

The recreation opportunities are not expected to be effected after the implementation period is complete

Affected Environment 

The existing condition for recreation resources is considered in terms of facilities, travel and access, 

recreation opportunity spectrum and sense of place. 

Target Meadows Campground is located 2 miles north of Tollgate off Forest Service Road 204, on 

Forest Service Road 6401. Target Meadows is a nice spot around a meadow with access to South Fork 

Walla Walla River Trail. Amenities include tent camping, picnic tables, toilets, drinking water, and 

parking. The campground is open from July 4th to Labor Day weekend. 

Woodland Campground is located on the edge of Langdon Lake on Hwy 204. Amenities provided 

include tent camping, picnic tables, toilets, drinking water, and parking. The campground is open from 

July 4th to Labor Day weekend. 

Woodland Campground is a nice, green spot to picnic or camp, with both shady and sunny areas 

available. It's a handy place to set up camp for the night, located just off Hwy 204. The amenities 

provided include tent camping, picnic tables, toilets, drinking water, and parking. The campground is 

open from July 4th to Labor Day weekend. 

Jubilee Lake Campground is a developed campground along the southern edge of Jubilee Lake on FS 

RD 64. The largest and most popular campground on the Umatilla National Forest, Jubilee Lake is 

nestled among the trees. The lake provides a beautiful setting for day-use as well as camping. This 

campground provides many amenities including: boat ramp, tent camping, picnic tables, toilets, drinking 

water, and parking. The campground is open from July 4th to Labor Day weekend.

There is no inventory of dispersed campsites in the project area; however there are a number of traditional 

dispersed campsites scattered throughout. 

A generic description of a dispersed campsite consists of a user-made area that is generally adjacent to a 

developed road. The site often has a meat pole in the trees, a rock fire ring and a hardened 

parking/camping surface for one to three families. Dispersed camping has traditionally been a popular 

activity in the area, particularly during big game hunting season. People currently disperse camp in or 

near past harvest treatment areas where vegetation activities are more noticeable. 

There are a number of popular recreation activities in the area besides camping that occur year around 

including; hiking, horseback riding, All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) riding. mushroom and berry picking, 

hunting, sight seeing, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-84

Travel/Access 

During the spring summer and fall months, there are 156 miles of roads that provide access for hiking, 

ATV riding, hunting, berry picking and sightseeing. The Walla Walla District Access and Travel 

Management Plan designates 67 miles as open, and 81 miles as closed. All roads in the planning area are 

seasonal roads for the purposes of winter recreation. Open roads of Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5 are 

available and maintained for passenger vehicles; other roads, Maintenance Level 1 and 2 require high 

clearance vehicles. 

Snowmobiling is a popular winter activity across the Walla Walla Ranger District. There are 53 miles of 

groomed routes within the project area. The Morning Creek Sno-Park is located at the eastern edge of the 

project area at the forest boundary on Highway 204. This sno-park is the primary staging facility on the 

east side of the Walla Walla Ranger District. 

VISUAL RESOURCES (SCENERY) 

Scale of Analysis 

Scenic Integrity

The scale of analysis for scenic integrity determined by the visible areas from the routes determined to be 

sensitive to viewers in the Forest Plan. The visible area from a sensitive route is known as a viewshed. 

The scenery resource analysis will focus on the units that are within these viewsheds. 

Scenic Stability 

The scale of analysis for scenic stability is determined by the project area boundary that is proposed to 

treat the area to improve the resiliency of the area vegetation and thus improve safety for recreationists 

and residents. 

Geographic Boundary 

The geographic area or spatial bounds for the cumulative effects to scenery resources is determined by 

typical experience of the viewers. There are local viewers who utilize the Tollgate Mountain area for 

various recreation experiences and there are travelers who experience the Tollgate Mountain area as they 

travel through via Hwy 204. The visual experience is the forested setting of Tollgate Mountain from the 

western edge near Weston Pond to the eastern edge near the junction of the Summerville road. The 

southern and northern edges are the breaks of the three major drainages that surround the area: 

Lookingglass Creek, South Fork Walla Walla River, and the North Fork Umatilla River. This geographic 

boundary is determined by the viewing distance to which activities can be visually discerned and the 

setting in which the project is within. 

Temporal Boundary 

The temporal bounds are related to the longevity of visual impacts of the reasonable and foreseeable 

activities in the geographic boundary. Visual impacts that can be discerned from a middleground to 

background viewing distance are of such scale that the effects could overlap spatially therefore these are 

the visual impacts to be considered. Timber harvest that creates unnaturally shaped or sized opening via 

clearcutting or textural contrasts that are not in keeping with the historical range of variability are 

generally used as examples of harvest effects that may temporally overlap. Once an opening has 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-85

revegetated and reached a height of 20 feet, the visual impact has been mitigated or restored. Within this 

area the height of 20 feet can be reached within 20 to 30 years depending on the topography, aspect and 

climate. Therefore, 30 years is the temporal bounds for the cumulative analysis of effects. 

Affected Environment 

Scenic Integrity 

Scenic Integrity is measured on the Umatilla National Forest through Visual Quality Objective levels 

defined by the USFS Visual Management System’s Chapter 1 USDA Handbook # 462. These levels 

and descriptors of how people perceive them are shown below in Table 3-41. 

Table 3-41 — Visual Quality Objective and their interpretations 

Visual Quality Objectives Scenic Integrity as people 

perceive it

Preservation Unaltered , visually complete or 

intact

Retention Unnoticeably altered

Partial Retention Slightly altered

Modification Moderately altered

Maximum Modification Heavily altered

Unacceptable Modification Unacceptably altered

Sensitive Routes and Areas 

The routes identified in the Forest Plan as sensitive level 1 for visual concerns are Hwy 204, and the 6400 

Rd. The 6401 Rd is identified in the Forest Plan as a sensitivity level 2. 

Hwy 204 

The views from Hwy 204 are primarily foreground views of a timbered landscape. Some views into the 

Umatilla River drainage are afforded where the highway traverses the edge of the head of the draw. 

Langdon Lake is visible from the highway. The shores are lined with homes. The lodge and facilities of 

the Spout Spring Ski Resort are within the foreground view of Hwy 204. Much of the route has a “tunnel 

effect” that is created by consistently dense foreground vegetation that limits views beyond the roads 

edge. There are very few opportunities for views of beyond the edge of the road. 

Forest Road 6400 

Forest Rd 6400 departs from Hwy 204 at Langdon Lake, heading to the east to access Jubilee Lake, and 

Target Meadows Campground. The views from this road are initially timbered, and then open up to 

overlook the steep drainages of the Walla Walla River. The slopes are patterned with grasslands and 

timbered draws. Distant views of the Wallowa Mountains are available from the Bald Mountain 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-86

Viewpoint. The panoramic view from this viewpoint is comprised of the timbered head of Looking 

Glass Creek that becomes increasingly steep with grasslands and timbered stringers in the bottom of the 

draw. There is some evidence of past management activity along this road, as well as views of the 

powerline which includes a large linear clearing the entire length of the route. These visual evidences are 

not the dominant element of the views along this road, however at some locations dominate elements 

exist. 

Forest Road 6401 

The 6401 Rd is located within a timbered landscape that affords primarily foreground views of mixed 

conifer. The road provides access to the Target Meadows Campground and Burnt Cabin Trailhead. The 

campground lies around a wet meadow amidst timbered stands. The road is crossed by the powerline, 

and some management activity is evident. 

Spout Springs Recreation Residence Area 

The residential area along Hwy 204 sits amidst the timbered ridge that divides the Umatilla and Walla 

Walla river drainages. Many of the residents enjoy views across the drainages that are comprised of 

timbered draws and grassy slopes. In the Walla Walla drainage there are instances of horizontal basalt 

rim. 

Langdon Lake Recreation Residence Area 

Langdon Lake is a bounded and managed by the Langdon Lake Homeowner’s association. Residences at 

the lake enjoy shoreline views of the lake. This viewshed is equally dominated by the lake, and the houses 

that line the shore. Views to the exterior of the built perimeter are dominated the timber stands, and the 

highway that runs adjacent to the homes on the north side of the lake. 

Tollgate Recreation Residence Area 

Residences in the Tollgate Recreation Residence area are located along Hwy 204 within a timbered 

landscape that is limited primarily to foreground views except were residences sit at the head of Elbow 

Creek and Couse Creek. The timbered surrounding are densely vegetated which is visually restrictive, 

but yet provides screening and privacy. 

Umatilla Breaks Viewpoint 

This viewpoint is not well developed and is rarely utilized, but the view from this vantage point is a 

dramatic scene from the head of the North Fork of the Umatilla River of steep drainages with grassland 

slopes and timbered north aspects and stringers. 

Scenic Stability 

A new scenery indicator has been developed for use within the USFS Scenery Management System 

(applied in this analysis according to procedures described in the 9/20/06 Draft Appendix J of the SMS 

Handbook #701). Scenic stability is the degree to which the desired scenic character can be sustained 

through time and ecological progression. For the Tollgate project area, the existing scenic stability 

analysis focuses on the single major scenery attribute of vegetation, addressing its ecosystem conditions 

identified by field observation stand data. Ecosystem changes to other minor scenery attributes such as 

landform, rock outcrops, and winter snowfall are not as critical to the project area’s scenic character as its 

vegetation, since these changes are relatively stable over time regardless of fire behavior and human 

activities. 

Evaluating scenic stability is done by considering conditions necessary to sustain desired scenic character 

of stands within the natural and historic range of the landscape. Appropriate stand density, species 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-87

composition, and fuel loads are necessary for stands to maintain the inherent characteristics through their 

lifecycle. When trends such as increasing stand density, encroachment of less resilient species, increasing 

fuel loads, and high levels of mortality exist, the expected consequences are change in the scenic 

character that are beyond the historic scale. Examples of these consequences are large canopy openings 

from intense wildfires, large stands of dead and dying timber, and loss of distinctive characteristic such as 

open, large tree character pine stands, lodgepole stand mosaics and multi-layered mixed species stands. 

Gradual trends over time have altered the species composition, stand structure, and age classes of the 

forest vegetation. In some cases where public safety is a concern, stand resiliency may require more 

aggressive measures to maintain defensible ingress and egress for both the public and firefighters. 

Scenic Stability Level Definitions 

Very High Stability—All dominant and minor scenery attributes of the valued scenic character 

are present and are likely to be sustained. 

High Stability—All dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are present and are 

likely to be sustained. However, there may be scenery attribute conditions and ecosystem 

stressors that present a low risk to the sustainability of the dominant scenery attributes. 

Moderate Stability—Most dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are present 

and are likely to be sustained. A few may have been lost or are in serious decline. 

Low Stability—Some dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are present and 

are likely to be sustained. Known scenery attribute conditions and ecosystem stressors may 

seriously threaten or have already eliminated the others. 

Very Low Stability—Most dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are 

seriously threatened or absent due to their conditions and ecosystem stressors and are not likely to 

be sustained. The few that remain may be moderately threatened but are likely to be sustained. 

No Stability—All dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are absent or 

seriously threatened by their conditions and ecosystem stressors. None are likely to be sustained, 

except relatively permanent attributes such as landforms. 

For the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project area, the existing Scenic Stability analysis focuses on the single 

major scenery attribute of vegetation, addressing its ecosystem conditions and stresses identified by field 

observation and stand data. 

The greatest hazard to scenery resources and public safety in this area are large stand replacement fires 

that would burn much more intensely due to the stocking levels, species compositions, ladder fuels and 

canopy closure that have developed over time. 

Table 3-42 shows the number of acres within each fire regime, and what condition those acres are in 

based on the stand density, species composition and fuel loads. 

Table 3-42 — Existing Fire Regime Condition Class Acreages 

Fire Regime Condition 

Class 1

Condition 

Class 2

Condition 

Class 3

Fire Regime

Total Acres

I 82 231 1047 1360

II 3427 21050 0 24477
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-88

III 0 8612 0 8612

IV 1088 3264 6527 10879

Condition Class 

Total Acres 4596 33157 7574 45328

The FRCC I (Low) corresponds to the definitions for “High” and “Very High” Scenic Stability levels 

described above. They both should have scenery attribute conditions that are within the range of natural 

or historic variability. 

FRCC II (Moderate) corresponds to the definitions for “Moderate and Low” scenic stability. They both 

include conditions outside the range of natural or historic variability. 

FRCC III (High) corresponds to the definitions for “Very Low” and “No” Scenic Stability. They are far 

beyond the range of natural or historic variability. (Appendix J, pg. 12) 

Scenic Stability Summary 

These conditions are rated at low to moderate scenic stability because known scenery attributes such as 

the open stands of ponderosa pine, and larch are threatened by uncharacteristic fire and insects and 

disease due to these conditions. Conditions that currently exist in this topographic location where fires 

can run up the drainages and onto the plateau pose a moderate to high risk of large stand replacement fire 

that is more severe than the historical range. 

Desired Scenic Character 

Broad landscape 

The Blue Mountains provide a mosaic of coniferous timber and grasslands. The steep grassland slopes 

are vertically punctuated by the timbered stringers. The broad upper plateaus are a timbered mosaic with 

openings in the form of meadows and bald escarpments. The mixed conifer stands provide multi-layered 

characteristics and small openings create a mosaic across the timbered landscape. The Tollgate area 

scenery is heavily influenced heavily by the steeply incised canyons. The basalt rock formations provide 

strong vertical features on the steep slopes. The deciduous vegetation in the riparian areas provides fall 

color and textual diversity, as well as shade for recreation sites. The major scenic attributes are the 

timbered vegetation that is diverse and viable, the streams and the riparian deciduous vegetation, and the 

steep mountainous terrain. The minor scenic attributes are the rock outcrop formations. 

Scenic Character Context 

The Blue Mountains section is the western most section of the Middle Rocky Mountain Steppe. The 

terrain has been formed by metamorphic and volcanic activity which developed mountainous landforms. 

Today, the mountains are dissected by glacial and fluvial erosion processes. The project area is dissected 

most prominently by the North Fork Umatilla river drainage, and Looking Glass Creek. Coniferous 

vegetation spreads across the broad ridge tops, down the drainages and across north facing slopes. South 

and west facing terrain is often open grassy slopes. Riparian vegetation along streams is deciduous 

poplar, alder and willow. Basalt rock outcrops accentuate the steep faces of the stream corridors. 

Culturally, the area has been utilized by Native American tribes which utilized burning practices to 

improve the production of berries, big game forage, and to drive game. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-89

Scenic Attractiveness 

“Scenic attractiveness is the primary indicator of the intrinsic scenic beauty of a landscape and of the 

positive response it evokes in people.”18 Based on commonly held perceptions of the beauty of landform, 

vegetation pattern, composition, surface water characteristics, and land use patterns and cultural features, 

the scenery is rated on a three point scale: 

Class A – Distinctive, where landform, vegetation patterns, water characteristics and cultural 

features combine to provide unusual, unique or outstanding scenic quality. 

Class B – Typical, where landform, vegetation patterns, water characteristics and cultural features 

combine to provide ordinary or common scenic quality. 

Class C – Indistinctive, where the landscape does not have characteristics that add to the variety, 

unity, vividness, mystery, intactness, order, harmony or uniqueness of the scenery. 

The Tollgate project area has areas of Class B and Class C scenic attractiveness. The scenic 

attractiveness rating is applied to the process of evaluating the value of the area’s scenery resource. 

Landscape Visibility

The area roads provide varying degrees of visibility of the project units (Table 3-43). These roads are 

assigned sensitivity levels in the Forest Plan. These concern levels are the measure of the degree of 

public importance placed on landscapes viewed from travel ways and use areas. Levels are attributed by 

use levels, viewer interest in scenery and duration of view.” The sensitivity levels are used to determine 

the appropriate visual quality objective for areas visible from the particular road or use area. 

Table 3-43 — Travel Route Sensitivity Levels 

This project is located in a steeply dissected landscape. Therefore the visibility is variable. The steep 

slopes of the Lookingglass Creek, the South Fork Walla Walla and North Fork Umatilla drainage are only 

visible where Hwy 204 crosses the very head of the drainage and openings in the foreground timber 

occur. Most units that are beyond the foreground of the open roads have very little visibility. The timber 

along these roads limits visibility, and project units would be seen for short durations as one traverses the 

road. The following table displays the sensitivity level of each road identified in the Forest Plan. 

Visibility from campgrounds and the recreation residences around Langdon Lake, the Spout Springs 

Summer homes and the clusters of cabins located within private in-holdings is also a consideration. These 

views are of longer durations and are often repeat viewings. 

Views from Bald Mountain Viewpoint are dominated by the Looking Glass drainage in the fore and mid 

ground views. The plateau across the drainage is visible at a very oblique view. 

Road Sensitivity Level

Hwy 204 1

FS RD 6400 1

FS RD 6401 2
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-90

Scenic Classes 

Scenic classes are derived from the scenic attractiveness, visibility and sensitivity levels (Table 3-44). 

The scenic classes are a system of classification describing the importance or value of a particular 

landscape or portions of the landscape. Scenic classes range from class 1 being of very high value, to 

Class 7 being of low value. The forest has inventoried and classified the forest lands, and assigned visual 

quality objectives by scenic class. Class 1 was given a VQO of Preservation. 

Table 3-44 — Scenic Class, Visual Quality Objective and Scenic Integrity Level 

Scenic Class Visual Quality Objective Scenic Integrity Level

1 Preservation Very High

2 Retention High

3 Partial Retention Moderate

4 Modification Low

5 Maximum Modification Very Low

6 Unacceptable Modification Unacceptably Low

Scenic Integrity 

The desired scenic integrity is a low degree of human caused disturbance that detracts from the scenic 

character, where the natural beauty of the area is the dominant visual image. 

Scenic Stability 

The desired scenic stability is a condition in which the scenery resources are resilient to uncharacteristic 

occurrences that reduce or eliminate the scenic attributes of the area. The vegetation stand density and 

species composition are with historical range. The fuel loads are minimal, not posing a risk of high flame 

lengths that would result in large spread crown fires. This scenic stability rating would be moderate to 

high. 

WILDERNESS AND UNDEVELOPED LANDS

Introduction and Background 

This section of the EIS discloses the affected environment and environmental consequences for North 

Fork Umatilla Wilderness; Lookingglass and Walla River Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs); potential 

wilderness areas (PWAs); and remaining other undeveloped lands. These four resource topics are 

grouped and discussed together because they share a complicated set of terminology and interrelated 

history. The following paragraphs of this section are included to help the reader understand the context of 

this analysis. Appendix H of this EIS discloses additional narrative and maps in support of this topic. 

Wilderness and Roadless Areas in PNW Region, Umatilla NF, Walla Walla RD and Tollgate Fuels 

Reduction project planning area are summarized below in Table 3-45

The USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6) covers approximately 27.2 million acres 

within the states of Oregon and Washington. This represents approximately 27% of the total acreage of 

both states combined. These 27.2 million acres are allocated and managed based on the land allocations 

designated within the respective National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. However, two 

types of land designations are overriding and common among all units within the region (indeed the 

nation), these are the management of Wilderness areas and the management of Inventoried Roadless 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-91

Area. In Region 6, there are approximately 4 million acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas (15%) and 

approximately 5 million acres of Wilderness (18%). 

The Umatilla National Forest is one of 16 administrative units that manages the National Forest System 

lands within the Pacific Northwest Region. The Umatilla NF covers approximately 1.4 million acres and 

is situated in the northeastern corner of Oregon and southeastern corner of Washington State. The 

Umatilla National Forest contains 303,000 acres of wilderness (21%) and 282,000 acres of Inventoried 

Roadless Areas (20%). The Forest consists of four Ranger Districts one of which is the Walla Walla 

Ranger District. 

The Walla Walla Ranger District is about 360,000 acres in size and contains 20,300 acres of Wilderness 

(6%) and 133,190 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas (37%). The Tollgate Fuels Reduction project area 

occurs in the central portion of the Walla Walla District and the southern portion of the project area abuts 

the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness. Portions of the Walla Walla River and Lookingglass IRAs occur 

within the project planning area. The site specific analysis for the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project 

identified an additional 8,455 acres of lands that had no history of development and were subsequently 

classified using the criteria discussed later in this section. 

Table 3-45 — Contextual Display of Wilderness and Roadless Areas in PNW Region, Umatilla NF, 

Walla Walla RD and Tollgate Fuels Reduction project planning area 

Unit Acres Percentage

Pacific Northwest Region 27.2 million 27%15

Wilderness 5 million 18%

Inventoried 

Roadless Area

4 million 15%

Umatilla National Forest 1.4 million 5%16

Wilderness 303,000 21%

Inventoried 

Roadless Area

282,000 20%

Walla Walla Ranger District 360,000 26%17

Wilderness 20,300 6%

Inventoried 133,190 37%

 

15 Percentage represents the portion (acres) of both Oregon and Washington that are National Forest System lands. 

16 Percentage represents the portion (acres) of US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region that is managed by 

Umatilla National Forest. 

17 Represents the portion (acres) of Umatilla National Forest that is managed by the Walla Walla Ranger District 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-92

Roadless Area

Tollgate Fuels Reduction 

Project Planning Area

46,464 13%18

Wilderness 12,571 27%19

Inventoried 

Roadless Area

10,695 23%

Other lands that 

have undeveloped 

character

8,45520 18%

During public involvement for this project, and in past similar projects, a wide range of terms have been 

used by respondents, the courts, and the Forest Service when referring to these topics such as Roadless, 

unroaded, uninventoried Roadless, undeveloped areas, and Roadless expanse. 

From the mid-1970s through 2001 the Forest Service maintained a Roadless area inventory of 

undeveloped lands that we used and updated for RARE, RARE II, and in support of Land and Resource 

Management Planning completed in 1990 for Umatilla National Forest. All during that time we called 

these polygons “Roadless areas” or “Inventoried Roadless Areas” (IRAs). With completion of the 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) in 2001 these lands ceased being just an inventory, and IRAs 

became more of a designation, with fixed boundaries and prohibitions set by Forest Service regulation (36 

CFR 294). Confusion ensued because two Forest Service maps used the same name; IRA. One map had 

fixed boundaries set by the RACR and another map had changeable boundaries based on inventory 

criteria. 

To address this situation, the Forest Service created a new term for their inventory of undeveloped lands 

called “potential wilderness areas” (PWAs) to make a clear distinction between the IRA term used by the 

2001 RACR. This terminology addition was made policy by changing the 2006 handbook for wilderness 

evaluation (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 70) and is also reflected in the 2008 Forest Service NEPA regulations 

(36 CFR 220). In the regulations, potential effects to “Inventoried Roadless Areas” and “potential 

wilderness areas” are factors in determining whether a CE, EA, or EIS is the appropriate NEPA document 

for a particular project. The term “other undeveloped lands” is presented and used in this document to 

provide a consideration for the balance of those remaining lands that did not meet the inventory criteria 

for a PWA, were not designated an IRA under the RACR, and do not contain roads and evidence of 

timber harvest (see definitions below). 

 

18 Represents the portion (acres) of the Walla Walla Ranger District that occurs within the boundary of the Tollgate 

Fuels Reduction project planning area. 

19 Represents the portion of The North Fork Umatilla Wilderness that occurs within the Tollgate Fuels Reduction 

project planning area, however, no fuels activities are proposed in the Wilderness. 

20 This number reflects the Potential Wilderness Areas (PWAs) acreages and other undeveloped lands, minus the 

IRA/PWA acreage. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-93

To resolve this confusion the Forest Service uses its discretion to rely on agency policy, agency 

definitions of terms, and agency procedures for the inventory of resources and facilities. Inventory 

criteria and procedures for potential wilderness areas are found in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, 

Chapter 71. 

The terms and definitions as stated below will be used in this site-specific analysis. The four resource 

topics are based on current law, regulation, agency policy, and Umatilla Land and Resource Management 

Plan (Forest Plan), as amended 

1. Wilderness: A wilderness area is designated by congressional action under the Wilderness Act 

of 1964 and other wilderness acts. Wilderness is undeveloped Federal land retaining primeval 

character and influence without permanent improvements or human habitation (Umatilla Forest 

Plan, page GL-45). 

2. Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA): These areas were identified in the 2001 Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule in a set of inventoried Roadless area maps, contained in Forest Service 

Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 

2000, which are held at the National headquarters office of the Forest Service, or any subsequent 

update or revision of those maps (36 CFR 294.11). These areas were set aside through 

administrative rulemaking and have provisions, within the context of multiple use management, 

for the protection of Inventoried Roadless Areas. Most IRA boundaries are substantially identical 

to those identified as “Roadless Areas” referred to in the 1982 planning rule (36 CFR 219.17) and 

identified by the Forest Plan, FEIS, Appendix C; however some localized, minor differences in 

boundaries may exist. 

All Roadless area acres were allocated to various management area strategies as disclosed in the 

Umatilla Forest Plan FEIS, Appendix C and described in the Record of Decision (page 6-9) for 

the FEIS. Some management area strategies were intended to retain the undeveloped Roadless 

character of the Roadless area and some management area strategies were intended to develop the 

lands with timber harvest and road building activities; thus forgoing Roadless character. 

3. Potential Wilderness Area (PWA): Areas of potential wilderness identified using inventory 

procedures found in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12, Chapter 71 are called potential 

wilderness areas. The inventory is conducted by the Forest Service with the purpose of 

identifying potential wilderness areas in the National Forest System. The National Forest System 

Land and Resource Management Planning Rule (currently the 1982 Rule, 36 CFR §219.17) 

directs that Roadless areas be evaluated and considered for wilderness recommendation during 

the forest planning process. 

Potential wilderness areas (PWAs) are not a land designation decision, they do not imply or 

impart any particular level of management direction or protection, they are not an evaluation of 

potential wilderness (FSH 1909.12,Chapter 72), and lastly, they are not preliminary 

administrative recommendations for wilderness designation (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 73). The 

inventory of PWAs does not change the administrative boundary of any inventoried Roadless 

area (IRA) or any congressionally designated wilderness. 

Typically, PWAs substantially overlap, and/or are contiguous with Inventoried Roadless Areas. 

PWAs may also be contiguous with designated wilderness. Some newly inventoried PWAs may 

be stand-alone areas that were not identified as “Roadless areas” in Appendix C of the 1990 

Umatilla Forest Plan and “Inventoried Roadless Areas” as identified in a set of maps in the 2001 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR). PWAs overlap Inventoried Roadless Areas only 

where those acres of land are consistent with the inventory criteria (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 71) 

and may extend beyond IRA and wilderness boundaries consistent with inventory criteria. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-94

4. Other undeveloped lands: These acres of land have no history of harvest activity, do not 

contain forest roads21 and are not designated as a wilderness area or inventoried as a potential 

wilderness area. 

Appendix H of this document describes the methodology and rationale used to inventory and identify 

PWAs within the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project planning area (46,464 acres) and PWA analysis area 

(52,284 acres). Maps included in Appendix H (maps H-2 to H-5) show a visual progression of the 

inventory process, final results, and proposed project activity, if any, that would occur in these areas. 

The effects to wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), potential wilderness areas (PWAs), and 

other undeveloped lands were based on maps and polygons 22created using agency inventory procedures 

(Appendix H) and are considered and disclosed below in this chapter of the EIS. There are some PWAs 

that are contiguous to the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness and effects to these acres are analyzed with the 

wilderness section. Effects to the Lookingglass and Walla Walla River IRAs are analyzed within the IRA 

section. PWAs, which include the Lookingglass and Walla Walla River IRAs and PWAs contiguous to 

the IRAs, are analyzed in the Lookingglass and Walla Walla River PWA section. 

An outcome of the PWA inventory process was the identification of isolated polygons of other 

undeveloped lands (Table H-1B). All but one of these polygons did not meet inventory criteria as PWAs 

and they are not Inventoried Roadless Areas or a designated wilderness area. Each individual polygon of 

isolated land has no history of harvest activity and does not contain forest roads. They are stand-alone 

polygons of varying acreages all less than 4,999 acres within the project planning area. All polygons less 

than one (1) acre were considered in the inventory process but dropped from detailed study because 

individual polygons this small cannot be preserved due to physical terrain and natural conditions and they 

do not have self-contained ecosystems, such as an island. Detailed information regarding the inventory 

process and methodology used for the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project analysis, along with maps and 

tables is located in Appendix H of this document. 

See Appendix I of this report for consideration of an inventory map submitted by Hells Canyon 

Preservation Council. These maps were submitted as comments on the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project 

proposal. 

North Fork Umatilla Wilderness and contiguous Potential Wilderness 

Areas (PWAs) 

Background 

A wilderness area is designated by congressional action under the Wilderness Act of 1964 and other 

wilderness acts. The North Fork Umatilla Wilderness was added to the National Wilderness Preservation 

System, June 26, 1984, through enactment of Congress of Public Law 98-328, The Oregon Wilderness 

 

21 Forest road – A road wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the National Forest System that the Forest 

Service determines is necessary for the protection, administration, and utilization of the National Forest System and 

the use and development of its resources. Road – A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and 

managed as a trail (36CFR §212.1) 

22 Polygon – On a map or in a geographic information system (GIS), a series of line segments defined by x and y 

geographical coordinates (vectors) that completely enclose an area. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-95

Act of 1984. The Forest Plan management area allocation for the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness is B1-

Wilderness (timber harvest and road building are not allowed). 

Areas of potential wilderness are identified using inventory procedures found in Forest Service Handbook 

(FSH) 1909.12, Chapter 71 are called potential wilderness areas. The PWA inventory is conducted with 

the express purpose of identifying all lands that meet the criteria for being evaluated for wilderness 

suitability and possible recommendation to Congress for wilderness study or designation. The PWA 

inventory for the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project includes a review of all acres within and adjacent to 

the project planning area. Areas of past harvest where logging is evident and locations of forest roads 

were identified using GIS data and local knowledge and professional judgment. All polygons less than 

one (1) acre were considered in the inventory process but dropped from detailed study because individual 

polygons this small cannot be preserved due to physical terrain and natural conditions and they do not 

have self-contained ecosystems, such as an island. As mentioned in the introduction to this section, 

detailed information regarding the inventory process and methodology used for the Tollgate Fuels 

Reduction project analysis, along with maps and tables is located in Appendix H of this document. 

Scale of Analysis

North Fork Umatilla Wilderness and contiguous potential wilderness areas (PWAs) within the Tollgate 

Fuels Reduction project planning area. 

Indictors for comparison purposes between alternatives are: 

The Definition of Wilderness from Section 2(c) of the 1964 Wilderness Act was used to identify four 

qualities of wilderness related to wilderness character that will be used to compare alternatives. 

Wilderness indicators are as follows: 

Untrammeled, Undeveloped, and Natural – The Wilderness Act states that wilderness is “an 

area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without 

permanent improvements of human habitation; and generally appears to have been affected 

primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.” 

Outstanding opportunities for solitude and remoteness – The Wilderness Act states that 

wilderness has “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation.” 

Indicators for PWAs: 

Roadless characteristics (features that are often present in and characterize Inventoried 

Roadless Areas) as identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR 

§294.11) 

o High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air 

o Sources of public drinking water 

o Diversity of plant and animal communities 

o Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive 

species and for those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land 

o Primitive, semi-primitive, non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized 

classes of dispersed recreation 

o Reference landscapes 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-96

o Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality 

o Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites and 

o Other locally identified unique characteristics 

Change in acres of inventoried PWAs 

Affected Environment

North Fork Umatilla Wilderness is located on the Walla Walla Ranger District and encompasses 

approximately 20,256 acres within the state of Oregon. Approximately 12,571 acres are within the 

project planning area. No project activities are proposed to occur in the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness 

(See maps in Appendix H).

Within the project planning area there are 1,151 acres of inventoried potential wilderness areas (PWAs) 

that are contiguous with the designated North Fork Umatilla Wilderness. Project activities are proposed 

in some of the associated inventoried PWAs contiguous to the wilderness under Alternative B. 

Lookingglass Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) and Walla Walla River 

IRA

Background 

The Lookingglass and Walla Walla River Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) are identified and mapped 

in Appendix C of the Umatilla Forest Plan and are also identified in the set of maps for Inventoried 

Roadless Areas (IRAs) in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation FEIS, Volume 2, and dated 

November 2000. There is no meaningful difference between the boundary of the Roadless areas 

identified in Appendix C of the Forest Plan and the 2001 IRA boundaries; therefore, impacts to these two 

topics will be discussed together. 

Overall resource management covered by Umatilla Forest Plan is comprised of management goals, 

objectives, Forest-wide standards and guidelines, and management area allocations (FP p. 4-1). The 

Roadless area issue is primarily addressed in the Forest Plan through management area allocations (FP p. 

3-5). 

Scale of Analysis

The scale of analysis is the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project planning area, and the entire Lookingglass 

and Walla Walla IRAs (part of each extends beyond the project planning boundary). Maps depicting the 

IRA’s can be found in appendix H. 

Indicators for comparison purposes between alternatives are: 

Roadless characteristics (features that are often present in and characterize Inventoried 

Roadless Areas) as identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR 

§294.11) 

o High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air 

o Sources of public drinking water 

o Diversity of plant and animal communities 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-97

o Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive 

species and for those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land 

o Primitive, semi-primitive, non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized 

classes of dispersed recreation 

o Reference landscapes 

o Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality 

o Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites and 

o Other locally identified unique characteristics

Affected Environment

Lookingglass IRA 

The Lookingglass IRA is approximately 4,859 acres in size. Approximately 73% of the Lookingglass 

IRA is within the project planning area (3,555 acres). 

The Looking glass IRA is situated northeast of the Spout Springs Ski Area and includes nearly the entire 

Lookingglass Creek canyon. The area is accessed from the northwest from Forest Road 64 and northeast 

by Forest Road 63; the southeast by Forest Road 3701; and from the southwest by State Highway 204. A 

two mile trail section of trail #3232 is the only maintained trail in the IRA. The North Fork Umatilla 

Wilderness lies less than one mile to the west across highway 204. Ownership of the area east of the 

forest boundary is private land. A pacific Power and Light Company transmission line forms 2.5 miles of 

boundary on the northeast side. Private land forms part of the boundary on the north side as well. 

The Landscape is typical for the northern Blue Mountains. Elevation ranges from 3,000 feet where 

Lookingglass leaves the forest to 5,200 feet on the northeast edge of the area at Bald Mountain. A little 

more than half of the area is composed of slopes greater than 60%, while about 11% has slopes less than 

30%. 

White fir, grass and subalpine fir comprise the predominant ecosystems, which has a mean annual 

precipitation of 45-55 inches. North facing slopes are primarily timbered with white fir and mixed 

conifer at lower elevations and subalpine fir at higher elevations. Higher elevation south facing slopes are 

marked by timbered stringer draws and grasslands. Riparian areas along the Lookingglass and Eagle 

creeks contain stands of ponderosa pine and mixed conifer. 

There are no primary attractions within the Lookingglass area. An attribute is its location adjacent to the 

Spout Springs Ski Area and Lugar Springs campground. 

Forest Plan: Approximately 65 percent of the Lookingglass IRA is allocated to Forest Plan management 

area A2-OHV Recreation. The goal for this management area is to provide motorized recreation in a 

predominately natural or natural appearing environment with a moderate degree of isolation from sights 

and sounds of human activity. The Desired Future Condition is for moderate to large naturally appearing 

areas to remain generally undeveloped (no logging but some constructed 4-wheel drive ways). 

Recreationists would be able to enjoy a variety of challenging off-highway vehicle (OHV) opportunities 

on trails or driveways, without standard developed roads or concentrations of people. Management 

Standards and Guides of recreation include managing the area to keep contacts between users low to 

moderate. Access would be mostly for remote motorcycle or ATVs and some walk-in activities. (FP p.4-

7). 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-98

Nearly 15 percent of the IRA is allocated to Forest Plan management area C4-Wildlife Management. The 

next largest Forest Plan management areas allocation is A3-Viewshed 1(approximately 5%) with less than 

5% allocation in each of the remaining acres in management areas, A5-Roaded Natural, A6-Developed 

Recreation, A9-Special Interest Area, C1-Dedicated Old Growth, C2-managed Old Growth, C5C5-

Riparian (Fish and Wildlife) and E2 Timber and Big Game. (FP pp 4-95 – 4-187). See Table 3-46. See 

Map H-9. 

Table 3-46 — Lookingglass IRA by Umatilla Forest Plan Management Area Allocations 

Management 

Area

Acres of IRA 

located in 

each MA

Percent of IRA in 

each MA*

A2 3,162 65.1%

A3 258 5.3%

A5 5 0.1%

A6 29 0.6%

A9 42 0.9%

C1 128 2.6%

C2 224 4.6%

C4 694 14.3%

C5 94 1.9%

E2 221 4.6%

Total 4,859 100%

Naturalness and Undeveloped Character: Human influences have had limited impact on the natural 

appearance and long-term ecological processes of the Lookingglass area. Natural balances, even where 

altered in the past, are intact and operating. While these intangible values may have been disrupted in the 

past by activities such as fire and grazing, the activities are minimal in both extent and duration. Fire has 

been, and most likely would continue to be, the factor with the potential to impact the naturalness of the 

area. However, fire has been the key to the long-term ecological changes and vegetative succession of the 

area. 

The spirit of adventure and awareness, serenity, and self-reliance exist within the area. However, private 

land, roads and timber harvest activities outside the IRA may present nonconforming sights and sounds to 

parts of the Roadless area. Encounters with motorbikes on the trails reduce the opportunity for solitude 

and a primitive experience. With the exception of motorcycles traveling Trails #3232, nonconforming 

sights and sounds are rare within the deep canyons. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-99

Recreation: Primitive recreation opportunities include cross-country hiking, motorcycle riding, 

mountain biking, horseback riding, and hunting. Hunting activity is minor for upland game birds and 

moderate for big game deer and elk. Some trout fishing occurs. Trail #3232 receives moderate use from 

hikers, motorcyclists, mountain bikers and horseback riders. No established campgrounds exist in the 

area, and there is no potential for developing any sites. Several dispersed campsites are located on the 

perimeter and on Lookingglass Creek near the trail bridge, which receives moderate use during the fall 

hunting season. The Roadless area is adjacent to the Spout Springs Ski Area. 

Wildlife: The area provides excellent summer range for big game, has extensive old-growth habitat, and 

contains high levels of dead and down woody habitat. 

Water and Fish: The Lookingglass area contains most of Lookingglass Creek within the Forest 

Boundary; from near the mouth of Eagle Creek upstream to near its headwaters at Langdon Lake. It 

includes the lower portions of Summer and Lost creeks as well as the area where the springs arise from 

the banks and streambed to increase stream flow forty-fold over a distance of a few hundred yards. Water 

temperature in this section of the creek stays in the mid-40s year-round. Lookingglass Creek has a 

cooling effect on the Grande Ronde River, decreasing the temperature by about 10 degrees at their 

confluence in mid-summer. 

ESA-listed (Threatened) Snake River steelhead, Snake River spring Chinook salmon, and Columbia 

River bull trout use this part of Lookingglass Creek. Most bull trout spawning happens in this part of 

Lookingglass Creek, which is also very important for spawning steelhead and Chinook salmon. The cold, 

clean water is also important for operation of the Lookingglass fish hatchery. Lookingglass Creek has 

been designated as Magnuson-Stevens Essential Fish Habitat. 

Range: About one third of the Lookingglass IRA is within the North End Sheep Allotment (1600 acres). 

Cultural: No known cultural resources have been inventoried. 

Land Use and Special Uses: None at this time. There are no mining claims or oil and gas leases. 

Private Lands: There are no intermingled private lands within the area. Two parcels of private land are 

located on the northern boundary. 

Walla Walla River IRA 

The Walla Walla River IRA includes most of the south and north forks of the Walla Walla River that are 

within the Forest boundary. The IRA is approximately 34,416 acres in size. About 7,140 acres (20%) are 

located within the project planning area. 

Several local roads provide access to the North Fork from the west, and Forest Road 65 accesses the 

North Fork from the north from Mill Creek off of County Road 582. County Road 600 provides access to 

the South Fork from the west. Forest Roads 64 runs north-south on the ridge separating the Walla Walla 

and Wenaha drainages and provides access to the upper reaches of both forks. Several trails access the 

interior of this unit, particularly Trail #3225, which runs from the Forest boundary for 16.5 miles along 

the South Fork Walla Walla River to Forest Road 65. 

The Landscape is typical for the northern Blue Mountains. Elevation varies from 2,400 feet to 5,780 feet. 

It is mountainous with steep slopes and deeply incised canyons. Over half of this area is composed of 

slopes greater than 60 percent. Mean annual precipitation varies from 45 to 60 inches. 

Predominant ecosystems are white fir and grass. Northern aspects are timbered with white fir and mixed 

conifer at lower elevations and subalpine fir at higher elevations. Southern aspects are predominantly 

timbered draws interspersed with grassland. Riparian areas contain stands of mixed conifer and 

ponderosa pine. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-100

Human influences have had limited impact on the natural appearance or long-term ecological processes of 

the area. Fire has been, and most likely would continue to be, the factor with the most potential to impact 

the naturalness of the area. The North Fork Umatilla Wilderness lies about 2.5 miles to southwest across 

State Highway 204. 

There are no key attractions in this area. 

Forest Plan: Approximately 75 percent of the Walla Walla River IRA located within the project 

planning area is allocated to management area F4-Walla Walla River Watershed. The goal for this MA is 

to provide high quantity and quality water and elk habitat. The Desired future condition is for the north 

and south forks of the Walla Walla watershed to remain as a large, natural appearing, primarily 

undeveloped area. The area is to continue to provide high quantities and quality of water, undisturbed big 

game and wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities featuring closeness to nature and self- reliance. 

Some additional logging and timber management would be evident but only in area where past harvest 

has occurred. Management Area Standards and Guidelines: Recreation access would be primarily for 

remote off-highway (OHV) and walk-in or horseback opportunities on the undeveloped and parts of the 

developed area. (FP p. 4-191). 

Approximately 13 percent of the IRA located within the project planning area is allocated to Forest Plan 

management area C1-Dedicated Old Growth. with remaining acres in management areas, A3-Viewshed 1, 

A9-Special Interest Area,C5-Riparian (Fish and Wildlife), and E2-Tiber and Big Game. (FP p. 4-95 – 4-

187). See Table 3-47. See Map H-9. 

Table 3-47 — W alla Walla River IRA by Umatilla Forest Plan Management Areas 

Management 

Area

Acres of IRA 

located in 

each MA

Percent of IRA in 

each MA*

A3 147 2%

A9 4 0.1%

C1 950 13.3%

C5 4 0.1%

E2 650 9.1%

F4 5,385 75.4%

Total 7,140 100%

Naturalness and Undeveloped Character: The opportunities for a feeling of solitude, the spirit of 

adventure and awareness, serenity, and self-reliance do exist within this area due to its size. However, 

roads and timber harvest activities to the north, west, and south may present nonconforming sights and 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-101

sounds to parts of the Roadless area. Encounters with motorbikes on the trails reduce the opportunity for 

solitude and a primitive experience. 

Recreation: Opportunities for dispersed recreation exist for horseback riding, motorcycle riding, 

mountain bike riding, camping, hiking, fishing, and hunting. These recreational activities, with the 

exception of hunting, are all closely associated with the trail system of 40 plus miles within this IRA. 

There are no developed campgrounds and no sites have been identified for campground development. 

There are numerous dispersed sites within this area, most of which are used during the hunting season. 

There is very limited potential for additional dispersed campsites because the desirable sites are already 

being used. 

Special Features: Sabin‟s lupine, which is classified as endangered in Washington, has been inventoried 

near Bear Creek, Tollgate, and Bald Mountain. One small population of the regionally sensitive plant 

species Mingan moonwort grows near the South Fork Walla Walla trail. 

Wildlife: Large stands of old growth habitat are well distributed. The South Fork Walla Walla River has 

been identified as vacant bighorn sheep habitat and may be the site of future transplants. Deer and elk 

winter at lower elevations and calve at the higher elevations. 

Water/Fish: The watershed is an important source of high-quality water for downstream fisheries and 

irrigation. The South Fork of the Walla Walla River supports healthy populations of redband/rainbow 

trout, bull trout, mountain whitefish, sculpins, and anadromous steelhead and re-introduced Chinook 

salmon. This is a strong flowing stream with excellent aquatic habitat and clear water, which remains 

very cool year-round. It is widely recognized as an important bull trout stream as evidenced by several 

studies currently under way and by its designation as critical habit by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Bull trout and steelhead have also been reported in at least four of its tributaries. 

The Steelhead and bull trout found in the South Fork of the Walla Walla River are both listed under ESA 

as Threatened. The South Fork of the Walla Walla River inside the National Forest provides excellent 

aquatic habitat for native fish species with woody debris, pools, spawning gravel, cover, and good 

quantities of cool, clean water. The South Fork of the Walla Walla River is also designated as MagnusonStevens Essential Fish Habitat. 

Previous withdrawals for irrigation reduced downstream flows and made the lower river uninhabitable to 

native salmonids. Recent agreements with irrigators have partially restored downstream summer flows, 

which have persisted through the past two summers. 

Private cabins at the Forest boundary are accessed by fording the river at 10 different locations, including 

driving up the riverbed 300 feet at two of the fords. The fords are all located downstream of the IRA. 

A recreational trail parallels the river for almost its full length, but its impacts on the aquatic habitat are 

insignificant. The trail does not ford the river and is not closely adjacent to the water for most of its 

length. Two bridges cross the river at connecting trails. 

The North Fork of the Walla Walla River is a much smaller stream, but it hosts redband/steelhead, 

sculpins, and perhaps occasionally, a few bull trout. The Walla Walla River has high-quality water, 

which has been maintained at potential by the current management strategy. The South Fork is spring-fed 

and maintains temperatures of less than 60 degrees throughout the year. 

Minerals: This area has no known locatable mineral potential, but is considered prospectively valuable 

for oil and gas (Smith 1976). 

Cultural: One unverified cultural resource site is known. The area was used by Indians for hunting and 

as a migration route so the potential for discovering other cultural sites is moderately good. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-102

Land use/Special Uses: None at this time. There are no mining claims or oil and gas leases. 

Private lands: None. 

Lookingglass and Walla Walla Potential Wilderness Areas (PWAs) 

Background 

An inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas has been conducted for the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project. 

Appendix H describes the process and rationale used to conduct the inventory. The inventory is based on, 

and consistent with criteria found at Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12 Ch. 71. The inventory is 

conducted with the express purpose of identifying all lands that meet the criteria for being evaluated for 

wilderness suitability. 

Each step of the inventory process is visually documented as a map. These maps are displayed in 

appendix H. The Forest Service used professional judgment and local knowledge regarding unique, sitespecific conditions of each area being considered for placement in the inventory of potential wilderness 

areas. 

Potential wilderness areas are not a land designation decision, they do not imply or impart any particular 

level of management direction or protection, they are not an evaluation of potential wilderness (FSH 

1909.12, Chapter 72), and lastly they are not preliminary administrative recommendations for wilderness 

designation (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 73). The inventory of potential wilderness does not change the 

administrative boundary of any Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), any congressionally established 

wilderness, or any forest plan management areas. 

Typically, PWAs substantially overlap and/or are contiguous with Inventoried Roadless Areas. PWAs 

may also be contiguous with designated wilderness. Some newly inventoried PWAs may be stand alone 

areas that were not identified as ‘Roadless areas’ in Appendix C of the 1990 Umatilla Forest Plan and 

‘Inventoried Roadless Areas’ as identified in a set of maps in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule 

(RACR). PWAs overlap Inventoried Roadless Areas only where those acres of land are consistent with 

the inventory criteria (FSH 1909.12 Chapter 71) and may extend beyond IRA and wilderness boundaries 

consistent with inventory criteria. 

The Lookingglass PWA is comprised of the entire Lookingglass IRA and PWAs contiguous with the 

IRA. 

The Wall Walla River PWA is comprised only of the Walla Walla River IRA and PWAs contiguous with 

the IRA that is located within the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project planning area. Note: A portion of the 

Walla Walla River IRA is located outside the project planning area and is not considered in the analysis 

because no project activities are proposed in or around that portion of the IRA. 

Other Isolated PWAs:

The PWA inventory identified only one PWA that was not contiguous to either of the IRAs or the North 

Fork Umatilla Wilderness. It is referred to as polygon 362 and is 1,087 acres in size. Polygon 362 is 

located northeast of the Lookingglass PWA separated by a high voltage powerline disturbance corridor. 

No project activities are proposed in or around polygon 362, therefore this area will not be analyzed any 

further. 

Forest Plan: Overall resource management covered by Umatilla Forest Plan is comprised of management 

goals, objectives, Forest-wide standards and guidelines, and management area allocations (FP p. 4-1). 

The Roadless area issue is primarily addressed in the Forest Plan through management area allocations 

(FP p. 3-5). 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-103

Scale of Analysis

The scale of analysis is the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project planning area, and the PWA analysis area. 

The PWA analysis area (52,284 acres) encompasses the entire project planning area (46,464 acres) and 

additional lands sufficient to ensure a complete PWA inventory around the entire Lookingglass IRA. 

This was needed to put in context any reduction in PWA associated with the Lookingglass IRA due to 

proposed activities. 

The PWA analysis area was not expanded to encompass all of the lands surrounding the Walla Walla 

River IRA because no project activities were proposed in any of the alternatives that affect the Walla 

Walla River IRA or contiguous PWAs identified within the project planning area. See maps in Appendix 

H.

Indicators for comparison purposes between alternatives are: 

Roadless characteristics (features that are often present in and characterize Inventoried 

Roadless Areas) as identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR 

§294.11) 

o High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air 

o Sources of public drinking water 

o Diversity of plant and animal communities 

o Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive 

species and for those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land 

o Primitive, semi-primitive, non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized 

classes of dispersed recreation 

o Reference landscapes 

o Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality 

o Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites and 

o Other locally identified unique characteristics 

Change in acres of inventoried PWAs 

Affected Environment

Lookingglass PWA 

The Lookingglass PWA is approximately 5,917 acres. It includes the Lookingglass IRA (4,859 acres) 

and PWAs that are contiguous to the Lookingglass IRA (1,058 acres). See Table H-1A. 

The Lookingglass PWA setting is the same as the Lookingglass IRA setting described in the previous 

section and will not be repeated here. 

Forest Plan: Approximately 54 percent of Lookingglass PWA is allocated to management area A2-OHV 

Recreation. The goal for this management area is to provide motorized recreation in a predominately 

natural or natural appearing environment with a moderate degree of isolation from sights and sounds of 

human activity. The Desired Future Condition is for moderate to large naturally appearing areas to 

remain generally undeveloped (no logging but some constructed 4-wheel drive ways). Recreationists 

would be able to enjoy a variety of challenging off-highway vehicle (OHV) opportunities on trails or 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-104

driveways, without standard developed roads or concentrations of people. Management Standards and 

Guides of recreation include managing the area to keep contacts between users low to moderate. Access 

would be mostly for remote motorcycle or ATVs and some walk-in activities. (FP p. 4-97). 

Approximately 19% of the PWA is allocated to C4-Wildlife habitat. The remaining acres of the 

Lookingglass PWA are allocated to; A1-Non-Motorized Dispersed Recreation, A5-Roaded Natural, A6-

Developed Recreation, A9-Special Interest Area,C1-Dedicated Old Growth, C2-Managed Old Growth, 

C5-Riparian (Fish and Wildlife), and E2-Timber and Big Game. (FP p. 4-95 – 4-187). See Table 3-48. 

See Map H-9. 

Table 3-48 — Lookingglass PWA by Umatilla Forest Plan Management Areas 

Management 

Area

Acres of PWA 

located in 

each MA

Percent of PWA in 

each MA*

A2 3,183 53.8%

A3 287 4.8%

A5 9 0.2%

A6 44 0.7%

A9 42 0.7%

C1 348 5.9%

C2 340 5.7%

C4 1,092 18.5%

C5 167 2.8%

E2 402 6.8%

Total 5,719 100%

Walla Walla River PWA 

The portion of the Walla Walla River PWA defined for this analysis is about 7,248 acres. It includes the 

portions of the Walla Walla River IRA located within the PWA analysis area (7,140 acres) and PWAs 

contiguous to the IRA that are within the PWA analysis area (108 acres). See Table H-1A. 

The Walla Walla River PWA setting is the same as the Walla Walla River IRA setting described in the 

previous section and will not be repeated here. 

Forest Plan: Approximately 75 percent of the Walla Walla River PWA located within the project 

planning area is allocated to management area F4-Walla Walla River Watershed. The goal for this MA is 

to provide high quantity and quality water and elk habitat. The Desired future condition is for the north 

and south forks of the Walla Walla watershed to remain as a large, natural appearing, primarily 

undeveloped area. The area is to continue to provide high quantities and quality of water, undisturbed big 

game and wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities featuring closeness to nature and self- reliance. 

Some additional logging and timber management would be evident but only in area where past harvest 

has occurred. Management Area Standards and Guidelines: Recreation access would be primarily for 

remote off-highway (OHV) and walk-in or horseback opportunities on the undeveloped and parts of the 

developed area. (FP p. 4-191). 

Approximately 13 percent of the IRA located within the project planning area is allocated to Forest Plan 

management area C1-Dedicated Old Growth. with remaining acres in management areas, A3-Viewshed 1, 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-105

A9-Special Interest Area,C5-Riparian (Fish and Wildlife), and E2-Tiber and Big Game. (FP p. 4-95 – 4-

187). See Table 3-49. See Map H-9. 

Table 3-49 — Walla Walla River PWA by Umatilla Forest Plan Management Areas 

Management 

Area

Acres of PWA 

located in 

each MA

Percent of PWA in 

each MA*

A3 147 2%

A9 4 0.1%

C1 960 13.2%

C5 4 0.1%

E2 722 10%

F4 5,411 74.7%

Total 7,248 100% 

Table 3-50 is a summary of all the acres evaluated in the PWA inventory process for this project. 

Information summarized for this table can be found in Appendix H, Tables H-1A, H-1B, H-1C and H1-D. 

Maps H-1, H-2, H-3, H-4 and H-5 are a visual representation of this inventory process. 

Table 3-50 — Potential Wilderness Area Inventory Summary 

Approximate Acres

Tollgate Project Planning Area

Approximate Acres

PWA Analysis Area

Map H-1; Total Acres Inventoried. 

Tollgate Project Planning area and PWA 

analysis area). 46,464 52,284

Map H-2; Acres Removed from 

inventory due to past harvest. 14,878 16,894 

Map H-3; Acres removed from 

inventory due to activities related to 

roads

10,364* 11,690*

Map H-4; Resulting lands that remain 

after past harvest and activities related to 

roads are removed from inventory. 

(undeveloped lands)

15,712** 19,110**

Map H-5; Acres of Potential Wilderness

Areas (PWAs) 13,129** 15,403**

Acres of undeveloped lands that did not 

meet PWA inventory criteria at FSH 

1909.12 Chapter 71.1 (other 

undeveloped lands)

2,584** 3,709**

Lookingglass PWA (consists of the 

Lookingglass IRA and PWA contiguous 

to the IRA)

3,660** 5,917 **

Walla Walla River PWA(consists of 7,248** 7,248**
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-106

The largest single PWA in this analysis is a portion of the Walla Walla River PWA at 7,248 acres 

followed by the Lookingglass PWA at 5,719 acres. Approximately 1,151 PWA acres are contiguous with 

the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness and there is one isolated PWA at 1,087 acres for a total of 15,403 

acres of PWA within the PWA analysis area (Appendix H – Map H-5). 

Other Undeveloped Lands 

Background 

An outcome of the PWA inventory process found at FSH 1909.12, Chapter 71 was the identification of 

isolated polygons of other undeveloped lands (see Appendix H, Map H-5, Table H-1B). These polygons 

did not meet inventory criteria as potential wilderness areas and they are not Inventoried Roadless Areas 

or a designated wilderness area. Each individual polygon of isolated land has no history of harvest 

activity and does not contain forest roads. They are stand-alone polygons of varying acreages all less than 

or equal to 4,999 acres within the project planning area (Table H1-B). The process used to identify 

undeveloped lands is described in Appendix H. 

There are no forest-wide or management area standards specific to other undeveloped lands in the 

Umatilla Forest Plan. All lands, including undeveloped lands, are managed consistent with forest-wide 

standards and guidelines and by designated Forest Plan management area allocations. 

Scale of Analysis

The scale of analysis is represented by the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project planning area. Other 

undeveloped lands have ecological and social values because they do not contain roads and evidence of 

past timber harvest. These values are used as indicators of comparison to display effects between 

alternatives. Values and features that often characterize an inventoried Roadless area (36 CRF 294) were 

specifically avoided as indicators of comparison to reduce confusion as described in the Introduction and 

Background. That is, other undeveloped lands are not Inventoried Roadless Areas or potential wilderness 

areas and therefore are described using different indicators of comparison. 

portions of the Walla Walla River IRA 

and PWA contiguous to the IRA)

PWA contiguous with North Fork 

Umatilla Wilderness 1,151** 1,151**

Isolated PWA (polygon 362)

1,070** 1,087**

Total PWA

13,129** 15,403**

*Some of these acres may overlap with acres of past harvest. 

** This number does not include polygons less than one acre in size.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-107

Measures and Indicators of comparison 

Intrinsic physical and biological resources (soils, water, wildlife, recreation, fisheries, etc.) 

Intrinsic social values (apparent naturalness, solitude, remoteness) 

Change in acres of other undeveloped lands 

The descriptions of environmental effects to the ‘intrinsic physical and social values’ disclosed in the 

section below for other undeveloped lands also applies to the acres in Hells Canyon Preservation Council 

(HCPC) map with their identified polygon in relation to other undeveloped lands. 

Affected Environment

Table 3-51 displays the acres of other undeveloped lands within the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project 

planning area along with references to maps in Appendix H for a visual representation. In the 46,464 acre 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction project planning area, approximately 2,584 acres (about 6 percent of the project 

planning area) have been identified as isolated polygons of other undeveloped lands that area at least one 

acre in size. Approximately 13,128 acres (about 28 percent of the project planning area) have been 

identified as potential wilderness areas (PWA), and the remaining 30,752 acres (about 66 percent) are 

developed and managed (contain evidence of past harvest and forest roads). Individual polygons of other 

undeveloped lands less than an acre were eliminated from further study because no special or unique 

resource values were identified and the description of effects to individual pieces of land less than one 

acre are better disclosed as part of the other resource effects section in this EIS. 

Table 3-52 displays the number, size class, and approximate acres of other undeveloped lands 

represented. Approximately 90 percent of the polygons are in the 1 to 99-acre size class and represent 

about 41% of the other undeveloped acres. For perspective, one square mile is about 640 acres, 

Lookingglass potential wilderness area is about 4,859 acres, the Walla Walla River IRA is 34,416 acres 

and the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness is about 20,300 acres. The residual shape of each undeveloped 

polygon is the result of boundaries created by past harvest and road building. The largest polygon of 

other undeveloped lands is approximately 515 acres or under one square mile. This polygon (number 295 

on map H-4) is located in the northeast corner of the project planning area several miles from the nearest 

treatment unit. It is a long linear area about 4 miles in gross length roughly 1/2 mile in width. 

Table 3-51 — Size Class and Acres of Other Undeveloped Lands in the Project Planning Area 

Number of Polygons Size Class Approximate Acres

73 1 to 99 acres 1,064

6 100 to 499 acres 1,004

1 500 to 999 acres 515

0 1,000 to 4,999 acres 0

0 5,000+ acres 0

80 Total 2,584

Table 3-52 — Other Undeveloped Lands by Umatilla Forest Plan Management Areas 

Management Area

Acres of Other 

Undeveloped

Lands located in 

each MA

Percent of Other 

Undeveloped Lands 

in each MA 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-108

A3-Viewshed 1 960 37.1%

A5- Roaded Natural 1 0.04%

A6-Developed Recreation 384 14.9%

A9-Special Interest Area 32 1.2%

C1-Dedicated Old Growth 18 0.7%

C4-Wildlife Habitat 488 18.9%

C5-Riparian 

(Fish and Wildlife) 60 2.3%

E2-Timber and Big Game 641 24.8%

Total 2,584 100% 

The majority of the 2,584 acres of other undeveloped lands are allocated to Forest Plan management areas 

A-3 Viewshed 1, C4-Wildlife Habitat, E2-Timber and Big Game (Table 3-52). Any areas with unique 

ecological values within Tollgate project planning area are currently maintained for those values with 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines for management area allocations. 

Other undeveloped lands include soils, water, fish and wildlife habitat etc. that have not been impacted 

directly by past harvest and road building. The current condition of soil; water quality; air quality; plant 

and animal communities; habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; noxious weeds; 

recreation; and cultural resources within the project planning area, including other undeveloped lands are 

described elsewhere in this chapter. 

No special or unique values in other undeveloped lands have been identified by project resource 

specialists in their environmental analysis for the implementation of any alternative analyzed in detail. 

Human influences have had limited impact to long-term ecological processes within the other 

undeveloped lands. Disturbance by insects and fire has been and most likely would continue to be the 

factors with the most potential to impact the area. Opportunities for primitive recreation are limited to 

hiking, and hunting. Ongoing firewood gathering and removal of danger trees along forest roads that 

border each polygon changes the vegetation, leaves stumps, and presents a managed appearance within a 

developed transportation corridor. 

Opportunities for a feeling of solitude, the spirit of adventure and awareness, serenity, and self-reliance 

are limited by the size and shape of each polygon. Distance and topographic screening are also factors. 

The optimum shape and location to retain solitude and a sense of isolation from noise and sights of other 

humans and their activities would be at the center of a circle. Areas greater than or equal to 5,000 acres 

or about 8 square miles may have sufficient size to offer a sense of solitude yet this may vary by 

individual. Long narrow shapes provide less distance from noise at their midpoint. Nearby, nonconforming sights and sounds of roads and timber harvest can be heard and often seen from within the 80 

polygons of other undeveloped lands because they are all less than one square mile in size and none are a 

perfect circle in shape. 

The descriptions of the affected environment for other undeveloped lands apply to acres of HCPC 

polygons that overlap with other undeveloped lands polygons displayed in Appendix I. The existing 

condition of all remaining 30,751 acres of land within and affected by the Tollgate Fuels Reduction 

project presents a landscape that has been managed and is generally developed in nature; these lands 

contain evidence of past harvest and forest roads. Past management actions and current conditions within 

the 30,751acres reflect the multiple-use intent and decisions made in the Forest Plan (1990 as amended), 

and reflects consistency with Forest Plan management area allocations. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3-109

The descriptions of the affected environment for the 30,751 acres remaining developed acres apply to 

acres HCPC polygons that do not overlap with IRA/PWAs or other undeveloped lands polygons 

displayed in Appendix H; map H-5 and Appendix I maps. 

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

This section incorporates by reference the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Economics Report contained 

in the project analysis file at the Walla Walla Ranger District. Specific information on the methodologies, 

assumptions, and limitations of analysis and other details are contained in the report. A summary of the 

current conditions of the affected environment and the predicted effects of the Proposed Action and its 

alternatives are discussed in this section. 

Scope of Analysis 

The direct revenue and costs are identified for each alternative measuring the value of wood products to 

determine the estimated value of each alternative and viability of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project 

with the alternatives identified. While there are other economic values in terms of revenues and costs that 

would be created from the implementation of this project to wildlife (terrestrial, aquatic), recreation, 

roads, soil, water and vegetation, the values are intangible and subject to individual personal judgment. 

Therefore given the inability to determine each person’s values for each resource respective of the 

alternatives those values are unavailable and cannot be used. 

This section deals with the economic viability of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project area timber sales. 

Economic viability is dependent on costs and revenues associated with a particular timber sale. Timber 

sales, non-commercial thinning, fuel activities, and associated resource work can generate employment 

and stimulate the local economy. 

Other environmental factors such as water quality, fish, wildlife, productivity, have value that can be 

expressed in economic or non-economic terms. However, these other environmental factors do not have 

financial benefits and cost that are identifiable and quantifiable with relationship to the activities proposed 

for the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project. Therefore, an analysis would not show any financial or 

economic difference in those factors between alternatives. Therefore, economic analysis of those other 

environmental factors will not be included in this report. 

Current Condition 

Present Net Value 

The affected area, or economic impact zone, for the Umatilla National Forest consists of Grant, Morrow, 

Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, and Wheeler counties in Oregon and Asotin, Garfield, Columbia, and Walla 

Walla counties in Washington. The Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project includes Union and Umatilla 

counties in Oregon. Economic profiles have been developed for Union and Umatilla counties and are 

available at the Walla Walla Ranger district. The profiles summarize demographic, employment, and 

income trends in those counties. Refer to the Umatilla National Forest, land and Resource Management 

Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B, for additional detail description of the main 

social and economic characteristics of the area (USDA 1990). 

CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES

 

Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-1 

INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the environmental consequences of implementing each alternative analyzed in 

detail, as described in Chapter 2. 

Effects are shown as being direct (occurring at the same time and place as the triggering action), indirect 

(separate in time and space from the action that caused them), or cumulative (incremental effect of the 

project when added to effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions). Each 

resource specialist considered and included activities relevant to the individual resource in the cumulative 

effects analysis. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are described in terms of increases, decreases, 

intensity, duration, and timing. The discussion of these effects also provides a comparison of the tradeoffs associated with each alternative. The scale of analysis may be different for each resource. This 

chapter ends with a discussion of compliance with environmental laws, and executive orders. 

The environmental effects for are disclosed in order identified in Chapter 3 (Affected Environmental). 

PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS

The temporal and spatial scale of analysis is variable depending on the resource concern being evaluated, 

particularly when considering the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. During the 

interdisciplinary process the team followed guidance presented in CEQ’s letter dated June 24, 2005 

regarding past actions. Using this guidance the summary of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions within and adjacent to Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project planning area, listed in Chapter 3, was 

developed. These actions were considered where relevant, when addressing the cumulative effects for 

various resources. The effects are disclosed in this chapter. 

SOILS

Ground-disturbing activities have the potential to create effects to soil resources related to productivity, 

hydrologic and biological function, and risk of accelerated erosion. 

Analysis of the effects concentrates on whether soil disturbance exceeds Forest Plan guidelines for 

detrimental soil condition, woody organic matter levels, and effects to effective ground cover (as 

surrogate measure of erosion hazard). Other relevant soils issues are briefly discussed. Analysis of effects 

of proposed actions relies heavily on professional experience with harvest, fuels activities, thinning and 

related activities, and comparison with those of the soil characteristics of the units in this area. 

Alternative A - No Action 

Direct/Indirect Effects

Detrimental Soil Condition (DSC) 

This alternative would produce no increase or decrease in detrimental soil disturbance (detrimental soil 

condition) from project activities. No rehabilitation and native species seeding of existing landings, skid 

trails, or unauthorized roads would occur. 

Effective Ground Cover 

Effective ground cover would remain on all acres at current rates, with no temporary reductions due to 

surface disturbance such as yarding of logs or burning of slash. As the prescribed burning of piled logging 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-2 

slash would not occur, the potential for high-severity burn sites from this activity would not occur. There 

would also be no relief from wildfire risk or the detrimental soil conditions created by a wildfire. 

Coarse and Fine Woody Debris 

Dead wood would remain at current levels. Total dead wood amounts would be within or above the range 

recommended (Brown et al. 2003) on units that would otherwise be treated in the action alternatives. The 

positive effects of higher wood amounts for soil productivity over the long-term would be accompanied 

by increased risk of high-severity fire, which can dramatically reduce downed wood amounts and 

volatilize nutrients, especially nitrogen (Brown et al. 2003). 

Cumulative Effects

There are no cumulative effects to detrimental soil condition (DSC) for this alternative. Additionally, unit 

3 will not have a chance to receive any soil rehabilitation and remain below forest S&Gs for DSC. There 

would be no additional land-disturbing activities. Fuel loadings would continue to build, increasing the 

risk of high-severity wildfire. Effective ground cover would not change in the short or long-term. 

Coarse and fine woody debris levels would not be changed in any area with this alternative. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives (B & C) 

Direct/Indirect Effects

Detrimental Soil Condition (DSC) 

Logging activities would create direct effects to soils due to disturbance from harvest and yarding 

machinery driving over the soil and dragging logs. The effects could be soil compaction, displacement of 

topsoil, and puddling (rutting in wet soil). Prescribed burning following harvest activities would create 

some areas of high-severity burn where fuel levels are concentrated and burn for a long time (residence 

time). An indirect effect would be an elevated erosion risk caused by the exposure of mineral soil due to 

machine traffic and dragging of logs, primarily with whole-tree tractor and skyline systems. This erosion 

risk may or may not be realized depending upon weather events. 

The intent of the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for detrimental soil impacts is to minimize the 

extent (area) of detrimental levels of soil disturbance. Specifically, the total area exceeding criteria for 

detrimental disturbance in any activity area (e.g. harvest unit) should be 20% or less. All of the proposed 

units currently are within S&Gs with the exception of unit 3. 

Different types of disturbances combine together to produce detrimental soil condition (DSC) (USDA FS 

2002). Not all soil disturbances affect ecological processes, reduce productivity, or create an erosion 

hazard. Effects can vary by degree, extent, duration, and distribution depending on the highly variable soil 

and site characteristics (Jurgensen et al. 1997). Thresholds for compaction, displacement, puddling, and 

severe burning are described in the Forest Plan (4-80) or Forest Service Manual, Pacific Northwest 

Region Supplement 2500.98-1. Compaction is typically measured using bulk density changes. In ash 

soils, which are common in this area, a 20% or greater increase in bulk density is considered to be 

exceeding detrimental thresholds. Displacement, puddling, and severe burn impacts have separate criteria 

for detrimental thresholds. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-3 

The Forest Soil Scientist23 was involved with the selection of design criteria with the objective of 

reducing the extent and degree of potential soil impacts. Contemporary harvest systems proposed for this 

project are capable of extracting timber with minimal detrimental effects on soil resources. It is common 

for harvest operations on the Umatilla NF to impact less than 6-12 percent of an activity area with 

ground-based systems (Farren 2006a and 2006b; Appendix B). Skyline and helicopter systems are 

typically under 5% (McIver and Starr 2001, Klepac and Reutebuch 2003, and Han 2007). Anticipated 

effects are based on current research and results monitored on previous harvest and fuel treatment areas 

on the Umatilla National Forest. 

Soil mycorrhizae populations can be affected by soil compaction, rutting or displacement, or slash 

burning of large piles (Esquilin et al. 2007), affecting roots (Dumroese et al. 2009). Design criteria, 

contractual controls, and overall limitation of disturbance are intended to minimize potential adverse 

effects to physical, chemical, and biological soil character and processes. Rehabilitation work before final 

completion of operations further reduces long-term effects to soil. Response of soils to past harvest 

activities with much greater disturbance levels than are proposed in this project indicates that ecotypes 

(soils and vegetation) in the area are resilient to disturbance. Tree growth and soil surface recovery is 

excellent in plantations in the area, providing indication of recovery of mycorrhizae populations. Positive 

mycorrhizae repopulation in highly disturbed sites was observed by Harvey and others (1997), indicating 

mycorrhizae recovery might occur over time. 

Tractor-yarding operations typically produce exposed mineral soil on skid trails where tree bundles are 

dragged to landing areas. The bulk of the soil effect is compaction from the machinery driving over the 

areas being harvested, with some displacement of surface soils in multiple-pass trails. Avoiding additional 

excessive detrimental soil effects by use of project design criteria serves to reduce the total area of soils 

that would otherwise be in a detrimentally-compacted condition (for example, skid trail spacing, use of 

existing skid trails and landings, operating over project generated slash and subsoiling). Trails average 80-

100 feet apart within average-sized units. The area within the trails that is detrimentally disturbed is 

highly variable (Han 2006, Dumroese et al. 2009). Downed wood and slash that is dropped in the trail and 

driven over by the skidders and harvesters distributes the weight of the machinery and reduces 

compaction levels (Han 2006). Slash loads of at least 1 ft. deep can also mitigate equipment caused 

compaction in some forwarding operations, where both tracks are riding on slash. Displacement of 

volcanic ash soils can occur when skidding operations can occur during the driest parts of year. Soil 

conditions are monitored to minimize dust production and loss of fine soil from this process. 

Mitigation by subsoiling areas with high degree and extent of compaction (landings and multiple use skid 

trails) and revegetating with native species (grasses and shrubs) serves to reduce the total area of preexisting and new detrimental soils within the project area (Craigg 2000 and Archuleta 2008). 

Thinning by hand has virtually no adverse impacts to soils. Thinning slash, whether left in place or handpiled, remains largely within the units. Burning, if prescribed, often occurs from 1 to 3 years later, 

allowing needles to fall from branches and reduce fire threat to residual trees. Piles in residual stands are 

normally small enough that fire intensity from pile burning rarely gets hot enough to produce severe 

impacts on the soil. 

Mechanical thinning and/or grapple-piling equipment is proposed in portions of the project, depending 

upon the alternative selected. Usually, grapple or mastication heads are mounted on small-body 

excavators with wide tracks. As such, they have relatively low ground-pressure and can work on top of 

downed logs and existing or harvest-created slash. Still, they can produce additional compaction and 

 

23 Michele Chapin, acting Forest Soil Scientist during search for new permanent Soil Scientist 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-4 

some displacement while turning. Operation on downed slash and other woody material and use of 

existing trails keeps additional compaction and displacement effects low. Monitoring of past grapplepiling and/or mechanized thinning operations on the Umatilla NF indicates detrimental soil impacts in the 

0-3% range. 

Effective Ground Cover 

Vegetation acts as a barrier and shields the soil from the impact of raindrops. In fact, any material on the 

surface helps protect the soil from the impacts of raindrops that displace the soil. Effective ground cover 

includes limbs, tree boles, vegetation or other material protecting soil from erosion. The Umatilla Forest 

Plan includes standards and guidelines for erosion hazard based on effective ground cover remaining after 

ground-disturbing activity. 

Operational design (systems), and design criteria such as retention of branches and downed wood in skid 

trails and landing areas has been effective in reducing potential erosion from these types of operations 

(Han 2006, Dumroese et al. 2009). Keeping erosion control measures (water bars, slash, etc.) working 

during and after operations is very effective in minimizing erosion hazard. Landings are easily treated for 

erosion control when use is completed. 

No combination of harvest operation system and site treatment or fuels treatment (which also would be in 

subsequent years) in any one unit would produce levels of bare ground (lack of effective ground cover) 

above Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Tree planting activity would not measurably decrease 

effective ground cover. 

Broadcast burning affects future stand structure and succession (Grifantini and others 1991). Burning can 

aid the establishment of planted conifers by reducing competing vegetation. Burning can also favor fireresistant plants such as grasses and some pioneering plants such as Ceanothus species, which add 

nutrients to the soil (Sexton 1994). 

In summary, operational design criteria, choice of operation systems, use of Best Management Practices 

(BMPs), and contractual control would be such that no unit would exceed effective ground cover 

standards and guidelines. 

Coarse & Fine Woody Debris 

Soil productivity is irreplaceable in human timescales and should be protected (Beschta et al. 1995). 

Organic matter in the soil surface horizon plays a role in the regulation of water availability, movement 

and storage, soil structure and soil stability. Alteration of organic resources has a great influence on both 

biotic and abiotic properties of any given site (Harvey et al. 1987). The interactive roles of wildfire, forest 

management practices, and organic matter decay are critical for forest productivity in this region. 

Extensive research and professional experience has shown that increased fuel loads can result in increased 

fire intensity and severity. Given the same weather and topographic conditions, areas with higher fuel 

loads burn hotter, have longer flame lengths, have greater potential to convert to crown fires, are more 

difficult to contain, pose greater risks to firefighters, kill more vegetation, and damage soils more severely 

than areas with lower fuel loads. The literature shows that when dead and live tree biomass increase, so 

does flame length and fireline intensity (Rothermal 1983), and while large woody fuels have little 

influence on the spread of the initiating fire, they can contribute to development of large fires and high 

fire intensity and severity (Brown et al. 2003), especially where fuel loads are continuous. 

Slash burning has the potential to cause limited nutrient loss to the extent that forest duff and vegetation is 

consumed. This effect would be greater where post-harvest underburn activities are proposed. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-5 

Coarse woody debris (CWD) enhances micro-site conditions and habitat, but is not in itself a great source 

of nutrients. Nutrients captured in coarse wood are brought to CWD habitat by animals and recycled by 

decomposers such as fungi. The environmental effects of log removal are primarily related to wildlife 

habitat alterations. 

Compared to No Action, the direct effects of the proposed project could be a reduction of levels of snags 

(largely for safety reasons) and coarse wood in harvest units. In terms of both short and long-term soil 

productivity, tree harvest represents some fundamental tradeoffs to the nutrient cycle that organic matter 

fosters. Tree bole removal would remove a long-term source of organic matter, while reducing the risk of 

localized severe fire effects by reducing fuel loading where amounts are considered excessive. 

Maintenance of adequate levels of soil and soil surface organic matter are key to mycorrhizae populations 

and healthy soils (Graham et al. 1994). The proposed actions would maintain coarse wood to levels 

recommended by Brown et al. 2003 and Graham et al. 1994 by ecological site type. 

Cumulative Effects 

Proposed actions are designed with a considered balance between potential site impacts and the feasibility 

of operations. Previous management activities disturbed soils to varying degrees and extent, with some 

impacts still exceeding levels considered detrimental as described in the Forest Plan and Regional Guides. 

Existing soil disturbance is scattered across the proposed activity areas and is concentrated on more level 

ground that is readily accessed. Soil disturbance is primarily in the form of old skid trails and access roads 

that were disturbed at the time of their use. This is often referred to as legacy disturbance, and is factored 

into assessments of cumulative effects when new management actions are proposed. 

A certain amount of overlap occurs when logging activity happens on units with existing detrimental soil 

condition as machinery reuses some trails and landing sites. This tends to reduce the amount of 

cumulative detrimental soil impacts. Due to the amounts of existing DSC and estimated DSC from the 

proposal, this analysis provides unit specific recommendations for skid trail overlap to reduce DSC 

(Appendix C). The overlap of DSC can be best achieved, by reuse of skid trails and landings, where 

appropriate. 

Tree planting activities would not contribute measurably to detrimental soil condition. DSC would be 

associated with proposed temporary roads. Proposed temporary roads are planned to reduce skidding 

distance within commercially harvested areas. 

With the exception of road surfaces, effective ground cover essentially recovers within 1 to 5 years after 

revegetation activities and cessation of soil-disturbing activities (Umatilla NF monitoring). Therefore, 

effects to soil within harvest units are assessed as short-term direct and indirect effects. Coarse and fine 

woody debris is discussed under Existing Condition and Direct and Indirect Effects. 

Consistency findings with Forest Plan and Other Laws and 

Regulations 

All alternatives would be consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines for achieving soil quality 

maintenance objectives, including detrimental soil condition and effective ground cover. Action 

alternatives have been designed to achieve project objectives with minimal soil disturbance to reduce 

added erosion hazard, while balancing operational feasibility considerations. Existing areas of detrimental 

soil disturbance (DSC) that would be re-used (example: old landings), and additional DSC from the 

proposed activities, would be mitigated with de-compaction activities as needed and native seeding, 

thereby ameliorating existing detrimentally disturbed area. This meets guidance included in the Forest 

Service Manual, Pacific Northwest Region 6 Supplement 2500.98-1.
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-6 

HYDROLOGY

Alternative A 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) condition would be maintained by natural processes 

including disturbance factors. There would be no change to the existing condition of the road system. 

Road improvements and culvert replacements in the analysis area would occur as they were identified in 

Forest prioritization processes. Few of the analysis area roads have regular maintenance. Problems 

identified in the existing condition section would remain and through time would worsen to some degree 

as weather and use degrade road drainage. 

Water temperatures would continue at their current near-potential levels. Natural disturbance events like 

fires and floods could affect temperature regimes over time. Continued lack of road maintenance would 

be the primary management related sources of accelerated erosion. This disturbance has low risk to 

downstream water quality due to the upland location of these sources and the low stream power available 

to transport sediment. Natural disturbance regimes like flood and fire would be the dominant sediment 

risks for the future. 

In subwatersheds with existing recent harvest, vegetative recovery through time would reduce ETA 

values. Current values of ETA suggest that there is no measurable difference between current conditions 

and those with no harvest. Additional growth of conifer stands into the future would not measurably 

change water yield or peak flows. 

Cumulative Effects

Alternative B 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Hydrologic Function 

RHCA thinning in 4 units would remove between 0 and 40 % of canopy cover in these units. Shade and 

erosion potential would be slightly affected (see water quality discussion below). Recruitment of large 

wood would be affected in some units but these low gradient very low flow streams have no capacity to 

transport large wood and effects would be confined to channel reaches inside these units. Channel 

stability would be maintained. 

Road maintenance on haul routes would clean culverts, maintain ditches as needed, blade and shape 

roads, and spot rock weak road beds. These activities would improve road drainage and reduce 

connectivity of the road system with the drainage network. Reduction in connectivity between the road 

system and the drainage network would reduce existing and potential effects to timing of runoff. 

Two culverts identified in the Affected Environment section (Chapter 3) would be replaced with correctly 

sized culverts, bedded in native material, and placed on natural stream grades. Timing of replacements 

would be identified by the fisheries biologist based on reducing adverse potential affects to fishes. These 

replacements would reduce risk of culvert failure and damage such as scour and bank destabilization, to 

the streams involved. Two culverts identified above are not on haul routes and would be included on 

restoration lists for removal as funding became available. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-7 

Approximately 0.35 miles of Forest Road (FR) 3718155 would be moved to an upland site outside of the 

RHCA, this would occur prior to project activities. The existing segment of road would be 

decommissioned and rehabilitated. Riparian condition would improve and the damage to the spring 

source would be ended by this project. Construction of 2.6 miles of temporary road would occur in 

Alternative B. Temporary road locations would be upslope of channel formation on relatively flat ground 

with no hydrologic connectivity. Cut and fill construction would be negligible. Decompaction, pulling of 

berms, recontouring, camouflage of entrance, and revegetation would be used to completely 

decommission these roads at the end of harvest. No effect to watershed function would occur. 

Water temperature 

The proposed action would thin trees and remove down wood from RHCAs of four units. The objective 

in units 19, 38, 66 and 75 is to reduce probability of crown fire initiation and disrupt crown continuity. 

This entry is designed to protect adjacent infrastructure or private property. Removal would occur on 

both sides of channels. No material, standing trees or downed wood would be removed from within the 

buffer widths described in Table 2-3. Thinning would remove between 0 and 40% of canopy cover 

outside of the buffer areas. These small headwater streams are perennial, except unit 38, where the 

channel transitions from intermittent to perennial within the unit. All streams with proposed RHCA 

activities are first order channels and have very low mid to late summer flows—much less than 1 cubic 

feet per second (cfs)—and are all upstream of fish habitat. 

Water temperature may be affected by changes in stream shade (Belt et al. 1992, Brown and Krygier 

1970, Brown 1991), stream flow, surface-groundwater interactions, or channel form (Brown 1991, Moore 

et al. 2005). Retaining streamside unharvested buffers can minimize changes in temperature (Brown and 

Binkley 1994); however, several studies have found that under some circumstances buffers narrower than 

those specified by Pacfish may be effective in protecting streams from temperature changes related to 

harvest activities (Beschta et al. 1997, Brown, 1991, Groom et al. 2011). In fact, buffer width may be 

less important than streamside canopy density (Brown and Binkley 1994) or other geomorphic or 

hydrologic factors (Moore et al. 2005). 

Many variables are involved in determining water temperature and the effect shade removal can have on 

water temperature. Different site conditions can lead to different effects, which are seen in the literature. 

A 2005 review of literature (Moore et al. 2005) discussed water temperature effects as a result of harvest 

near streams and found that they are primarily controlled by changes in the amount of insolation but also 

depend on stream hydrology and channel morphology. Increased water temperatures were observed both 

with unthinned and with partial retention buffers. Two studies cited below discuss the effect of harvest on 

small headwater stream temperatures and the downstream temperature effect to fish bearing reaches. 

These studies were selected for discussion because they focus on areas with similar characteristics to the 

proposed activities and address pertinent questions; very small first order headwater streams, large 

groundwater influence, and evaluation of water temperature effects on downstream larger streams. 

A 1991 study of water temperature effects of riparian harvest which left no buffers on small perennial 

headwater streams, which were tributary to larger fish bearing streams found very minimal influence on 

downstream water temperature. This was attributed primarily to the small relative volume of flow 

compared to downstream and the limited ability to store and transmit heat of these small headwater 

tributaries. Localized ground water influence was also identified as a contributor to stable stream 

temperatures. The study found that water temperature in small streams was responsive to localized 

conditions and quickly came into equilibrium with downstream conditions. Higher than expected shade 

levels were found in logged reaches, such as contributions from logging debris and understory brush in 

these western Washington streams (Caldwell et al. 1991). 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-8 

More recently, the water temperature effect of headwater riparian harvest was evaluated in a northern 

Idaho study. Two treatment types were evaluated; clearcut and partial cut (thinning) on 50% of the 

drainage. One clearcut site showed an increase in peak water temperature in the stream reach of the 

clearcut, the downstream effect was slight. Temperature effects in the partial cut watershed ranged from 

very slight to no change. Long term monitoring sites, which were located at the base of each treated 

catchment to assess cumulative downstream temperature effects, indicated a slight cooling trend and no 

post treatment increase in peak stream temperature. Natural variation or increased water yield postharvest could account for this result. The study did not detect change in the extent or timing of summer 

maximum water temperatures. Annual variation in precipitation, snow pack, and summer air 

temperatures, as well as ground water influence, and increased base flow contributed to these results 

(Gravelle et al. 2007). 

The streams in units 38, 66, and 75 are headwater tributaries to Lookingglass Creek, above the spring 

complex that controls water volume and temperature for much of the stream and essentially the entire 

summer time bull trout habitat. Water temperature data (Table 3-4 and Table 3-5) and estimates of flow 

volume above and below the springs are indicators of the influence of the springs on Lookingglass Creek. 

Summer base flows increase about 10 times from above the springs to downstream of the springs 

(personal communication Dave Crabtree) and there is an 8 ̊F decline in temperature. Canopy cover 

reductions of approximately 40% are proposed in these units. Groundwater dominates the streams in 

units 38 and 66, which are formed by local springs and seeps, buffering water temperature from proposed 

reductions in shade. In these units, measurable increases in water temperature leaving these units would 

not be expected because water temperature is controlled by groundwater, rather than shade. In Unit 75 

perennial wetlands are subsurface before or soon after leaving the unit. The north-west side of the RHCA 

of a perennial tributary (east boundary of Unit 75) would be thinned. The slope breaks into this stream is 

about `100’ from the channel and lined with seeps. The unit boundary would follow the edge of tractor 

ground. This would leave an untreated buffer width of about 100 feet or more. The orientation of the 

creek limits the importance of the shade from the treated portion of the RHCA and the width of the 

untreated inner portion of the RHCA would protect the shade that reaches the creek (FEMAT 1993). 

Thus, there would be no measurable increase in water temperature in the tributary from thinning the outer 

portion of the RHCA. The spring complex described above is downstream of the influence of these 

activities and provides assurance that no effect to water temperature would occur in summer time bull 

trout habitat. 

The streams in unit 19 are headwater tributaries to the North Fork Umatilla River. The small streams in 

unit 19 develop from local springs and are ground water dominated. No measurable reduction of canopy 

cover would occur. Alder provides the large majority of canopy over portions of the streams and very 

few conifers would be removed. No effect to water temperature downstream of the unit would be 

expected because no measureable shade would be removed and water temperature is controlled by local 

groundwater influence. 

No measureable affect to water temperature would be expected in the tributaries within or adjacent to 

treatment units 19, 38, and 66 because these streams originate from local springs and seeps and water 

temperature is controlled by ground water. Since shade related to canopy cover reductions does not 

control water temperature in these units, shade analysis and modeling was not used to evaluate effects. 

There would be no effect to water temperature in unit 75 from the proposed thinning because the width 

(ranges from 50 to 100 feet) of the untreated buffer and stream orientation adjacent to Unit 75 would 

protect stream shade. These small tributaries have very limited ability to transmit heat energy 

downstream. The combination of local ground water influence, limited removal of streamside shade, and 

low volume of flow would protect downstream water temperature from any effects of thinning in the 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-9 

RHCAs of these units. Ongoing water temperature monitoring would be continued and used to evaluate 

the effects of the RHCA treatment on water temperature. 

No other vegetation activities; proposed harvest activities or activity fuels activities would occur inside of 

interim Pacfish RHCAs. Proposed project activities, including timber harvest, slash busting/mastication, 

prescribed fire, and pre-commercial thinning, would not occur inside of interim Pacfish RHCAs of fish–

bearing streams. RHCA widths range from 1-2 tree heights depending on flow regime and the 

presence/absence of fish (Umatilla National Forest 1990). Shade is controlled by about 1 tree height 

(FEMAT 1993). There would be no effect to water temperature from these activities. 

Danger trees would be felled along all haul routes used in the proposed timber sales. They would be left 

on the ground inside RHCAs and commercially removed elsewhere. Most stream crossings on haul 

routes are ephemeral or intermittent with no or very low summer flows. Danger trees felled on haul 

routes within RHCAs of perennial streams would have negligible effect on shade density for affected 

streams. 

Sediment 

Several studies have found that under some conditions buffers much narrower than those specified by 

Pacfish may be effective in protecting streams from sedimentation related to harvest activities (Lakel et 

al. 2010; Rashin et al. 2006), provided that overland flow is not channelized (Belt et al. 1992; Belt and 

O/Laughlin 1994). Rashin et al. (2006) found buffer widths of 10 meters (approximately 33 feet) were 

effective in preventing 95% of harvest related sediment from reaching stream channels. With one 

exception in Unit 66 (discussed below), the low amount of ground disturbance in units 19 and 75, along 

with the retention of a no-activity buffer within 50 feet or more of the stream channel, would provide 

sufficient sediment filtering capability to prevent all but a small amount of sediment from entering stream 

channels. 

Although mechanized equipment would be used inside RHCAs in the thinning units discussed above, 

ground disturbance would be minimal. Systematic implementation monitoring of design criteria and Best 

Management Practices (BMP) was conducted on the Pomeroy and Walla Walla Ranger Districts during 

the 2001 field season. Twenty-four forwarder trails in 10 units of the Abla and Cliffhanger Timber Sales 

were evaluated for spacing, gradient, and percent bare soil. An average of 1% mineral soil exposure was 

measured. Grapple skidder and harvester/forwarder trails were monitored in 26 skid trails in 9 units of 

the Lick Timber Sale and averaged 4 % bare soil on trails. Monitoring found effective trail drainage in 

place greater than 90% of the time. Standards for trail spacing and gradient were met (Umatilla National 

Forest, 2001-2002) . These results likely continue to be valid, as the harvest equipment, operator skill, and 

terrain are essentially identical to that which existed at the time of initial BMP monitoring. 

Forwarder logging systems would be used in units 19, 66, and 75. These systems operate on a slash bed. 

In unit 66 forwarder trails would converge on FR 3700040 which curves in this area. Two culverts allow 

the road to cross perennial channels. The converging path of the trails and the corners that would be 

turned as forwarders left the unit onto the road would expose and disturb soils at the edge of the road and 

on the road bed very close to the culverts and to the channels themselves. It is likely that at least some 

sediment in these locations would enter the nearby streams. These channels have very low flows and so 

a limited ability to transport sediment. Substantial downstream roughness elements; down wood and 

riparian vegetation are expected to trap and filter a portion of the sediment which did enter the channel. 

No measurable sediment or turbidity would be expected below the unit boundary. Minimal ground 

disturbance in units 19 and 75, along with no activities within 50 feet or more of the stream channel, 

would provide some sediment filtering capability. As with unit 66, these channels have very limited 

ability to transport sediment, and contain sufficient roughness elements to trap and filter any sediment 

which did enter streams. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-10

Tractor systems would be used in unit 38. Standard design criteria for trail spacing and location and 

erosion control would control disturbance in these units. The channel would have a no-activity buffer 

between 50 and 100 feet wide on each side of the channel. The stream begins as a wide, wet swale and 

progresses to a small perennial stream before leaving the unit. It is very low flow, with a small drainage 

area and as with other units has a very limited ability to transport sediment and substantial roughness 

elements to trap and filter any sediment which did enter. 

With the exception of the RHCA activities described above, design criteria for these activities would 

include no-harvest RHCAs of Pacfish /Forest Plan interim widths. These design criteria would prevent 

damage that could contribute to erosion and sedimentation into channels and streams (Belt et al., 1992). 

Slope gradients would not exceed 35% for these ground based units. Conventional logging systems with 

tops attached to the last log would have the potential for soil disturbance. Average trail spacing would be 

100 feet, which helps to reduce the overall quantity of disturbance. Harvester-forwarders are low 

disturbance systems with average trail spacing about 50 feet apart and operating over a slash bed. Low 

psi equipment and the slash matt on trails reduce compaction compared to more conventional systems. 

Infiltration and mulching with logging slash and/or water bars would prevent surface erosion. 

Surrounding undisturbed vegetation and RHCA protection would prevent transport of any eroded 

sediment into surface waters. Systematic monitoring of exposed soil in harvester and skidder trails was 

conducted in 2001. 

No fuels treatment would occur in RHCAs. No ignition would occur in RHCAs during fuels activities 

though fire would be allowed to back into them where they are adjacent to pile burning. There would be 

very little effect to existing down material and vegetation density in near channel positions. The potential 

for sediment to reach channels from these activities is negligible. 

Danger tree would be felled but not removed from RHCAs. Sediment production would be negligible 

from this activity. 

Road maintenance would occur on 61 miles of system roads used by timber sales and would include 

blading, ditch relief culvert cleanout, and ditch cleanout as needed. Culvert cleanout would result in 

immediate reductions in the risk of culvert failure and resulting negative impacts on water quality. 

Necessary ditch cleanout would have the potential for short (less than one runoff season), localized 

sediment production, which would be fully or partially mitigated by undertaking measures described 

below. On the other hand, both immediately and over the long term, improvements in ditch function 

would reduce risks of ditch failure and resulting negative impacts to water quality from the road system. 

Closed roads would be left in a self-maintaining condition. In a study of sediment production from forest 

roads, newly cleaned ditches were found to have a sediment yield substantially more than blading of the 

road surface or traffic use (Luce and Black 2001). This is likely due to the disruption of armored or 

vegetated surfaces, leading to a larger supply of fine, erodible sediment in a feature that carries water 

during storms. Ditch clean out would be used only when ditch function was compromised and would 

minimize disturbance of existing vegetation and natural armoring, practices which are common on the 

Umatilla National Forest. Detrimental effects from ditch cleanout would be short term, less than one 

year. 

Erosion and sedimentation effects of log haul on forest roads have been the subject of numerous studies. 

Log haul has been demonstrated to increase sedimentation from hydrologically connected roads during 

precipitation events, with the effect decreasing as traffic is reduced or ends (Reid 1984). Dry season use 

of roads or restricting logging traffic during surface runoff from roads can reduce this effect by 

interrupting or reducing the road-stream connectivity. Road use restrictions and minimized ditch cleanout 

would reduce sediment production from road maintenance and use to the extent possible. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-11

Two perennial culverts would be replaced during summer low flows with correctly sized culverts, bedded 

in native material, and place on natural stream grades. The streams involved are very low flow headwater 

streams. Removal of the existing culverts and bedding new culverts would create short term (not longer 

than 1 run-off season) sediment production, transport, and deposition at this site. Short term downstream 

effects would be expected to be small since these small tributaries would not carry sediment far. First 

flush of sediments in fall rains or spring runoff would carry this sediment downstream. It is unlikely to be 

measurable downstream in fish habitat against the sediment loads of first flush flows and effects would 

not last for longer than one runoff season. These replacements would reduce ongoing erosion and risk to 

these streams of culvert failure and damage such as road fill failure, channel scour, and bank 

destabilization. Culvert replacements would have short term local effects and longer term, one runoff 

season, increased sedimentation. 

Approximately 0.35 miles of Forest Road 3718155 would be moved upslope to a site outside of the 

RHCA, this would occur prior to project activities. The existing segment of road would be 

decommissioned and rehabilitated. Realignment would reduce and eventually end ongoing sedimentation 

which is currently occurring from the RHCA segment of the road. Decommissioning by decompaction, 

removal of some small fill slopes, and closing to entry could cause short term minor sediment effects to 

the adjacent spring, but would allow recovery of riparian vegetation overtime. By creating another route 

and effectively closing this road segment ongoing disturbance from unauthorized use and blading would 

be prevented. 

Construction of 2.6 miles of temporary road would occur in this alternative. Road locations would be 

upslope of channel formation on relatively flat ground with no hydrologic connectivity. No sediment 

from these temporary roads would reach surface waters. 

Two existing in-channel ponds would be used as water sources for road work in this proposed project. 

Deposited sediments would be removed to regain capacity. Short term, not longer than one day, turbidity 

could occur as ponds refilled and began outflow. 

In summary project design criteria and Best Management Practices would prevent soil exposure near 

channels for most activities proposed in Alternative B. Road maintenance and use, has the potential to 

cause short term sediment effects from ditch clean out and road use during wet conditions. Thinning 

stands in RHCAs has potential to expose soils near surface waters. Log removal in RHCA unit 66 would 

likely lead to some sedimentation as forwarder trails converged on FR 3700040 and cross 2 culverts. The 

combined effect of very low volume of flow, many in-channel roughness elements, and design criteria 

that protect channel integrity and minimize soil disturbance would protect water quality and downstream 

habitat. No measurable effect to water quality would be expected from these activities. Replacement of 

2 culverts on perennial channels would lead to short-term (<1 run-off season) sediment production, 

transport, and deposition adjacent to the culvert replacement locations. Short term sediment effects would 

occur in these areas but would be unlikely to be transmitted downstream to fish habitat due to low stream 

power. Long term effects, one runoff season would not be measurable against background sediment loads 

of high flows. Pond cleanout would have localized short term (less than one day) effects to turbidity. 

There would be culvert and ditch work, and other maintenance on roads inside the RHCA of some small 

headwater tributary streams, but not near to fish-bearing reaches of any project area streams. In one case 

where an existing closed road (#3718-155) passes through a very wet area, and in fact cuts right through a 

headwater spring (harvest units 83& 84), that portion of the road would be decommissioned, and a new 

section of road constructed to avoid that wet area and spring before using the road for harvest activities. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-12

Water Yield and Peak Flows 

Effects of past harvest and road building and proposed harvest on water yield and peak flows were 

analyzed and assessed using with the Equivalent Treatment Acre (ETA) Model, described in the Affected 

Environment section in Chapter 3. Table 4-1 displays the results of the analysis. Harvest prescriptions 

have varying ETA coefficients depending on the post-harvest residual stand and activity fuel treatment. 

ETA percentages increase in the 4 subwatersheds of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Planning Area. The 

increases are below levels at which effects have been seen to water yield, peakflows, or timing of 

peakflows, as discussed in the Affected Environment. The proposed thinning would have no measurable 

effect to hydrologic functions; capture, storage, and release of water. 

Table 4-1 — Equivalent Treatment Acre Percent in 2011 

SWS * Alt A Alt B Alt C

LOOKINGGLASS CREEK 

WATERSHED

170601041001 Upper Lookingglass Creek 2.0% 4.9% 4.6%

UPPER WALLA WALLA RIVER 

WATERSHED

170701020102 Middle South Fork Walla Walla River** 10.5% 13.3% 13.1%

UPPER UMATILLA RIVER 

WATERSHED

170701030104 North Fork Umatilla River 1.3% 4.2% 4.0%

170701030106 Bear Creek 0.5% 2.0% 2.0%

* data limitations prevent modeling all subwatersheds within the 3 watersheds entered by the project. All SWS including those 

not modeled have ETA percentages substantially lower than 15%. 

** Includes estimated conifer mortality caused by the 2005 Burnt Canyon Fire in the Middle South Fork Walla Walla SWS. 

Potential for effects of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Alternatives B and C to stream flow volume 

and timing were evaluated by the District hydrologist, using the ETA/ECA model (Table 4-2 below, Ager 

and Clifton, 2005). 

Table 4-2 — Calculated Equivalent Treatment Areas for Tollgate Fuels Project Alternatives 

Subwatershed

Alternative

A B C

170601041001 (Upper Lookingglass Creek) 2.0% 4.9% 4.6%

170701020102 (Middle South Fork Walla Walla River) 10.5% 13.3% 13.1%

170701030104 (North Fork Umatilla River) 1.3% 4.2% 4.0%
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-13

170701030106 (Bear Creek) 0.5% 2.0% 2.0%

Recent reviews of literature demonstrate that the relationship between created openings and water yield or 

peak or base flows is highly variable (Stednick 1995, and Scherer 2001). Generally effects are not 

observed below 15-20 percent equivalent clearcut or equivalent treatment acres (ECA or ETA) and in a 

local study; effects were not seen below 50 percent ECA (Helvey 1995). Grant et al. (2008) suggests that 

increased peak flows could occur at ≥ 20% “ECA.” 

Cumulative Effects

The water temperature and sediment regimes of analysis area streams has likely been affected by past 

actions; logging history, road building, grazing, and development and management of special use and 

administrative sites, and road maintenance. Water temperature, as it is affected by shade has been 

protected by the Forest Plan (Pacfish ) since the mid-1990s and shade producing vegetation is recovering 

at natural rates. 

Certain ongoing actions including road maintenance, Swamp Creek road decommissioning, and 

administrative and special use site maintenance likely contribute to ongoing elevated sediment regimes. 

Substrate condition of the analysis areas streams suggests that the sediment load is not adversely affecting 

fish habitat (Fisheries Biologist Report). Thinning inside RHCAs, especially Unit 66, replacement of 

culverts on 3 perennial streams, and ditch cleaning would have short term effects to sedimentation near 

the sites of disturbance but would be unlikely to be transmitted downstream to fish habitat due to low 

stream power. Long term effects, one runoff season would not be measurable against background 

sediment loads of high flows. 

Harvest history in the analysis area is incorporated into the analysis with the ETA analysis, above, with 

the conclusion that there would be no effect to water yield or peak flows from the proposed project. 

The project area boundary for High Buck, a future vegetation management project, includes a portion of 

the North Fork Umatilla subwatershed. Analysis of the future project would include ETA effects of the 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project. In the unlikely event that cumulative ETA between Tollgate and 

proposed High Buck activities reached what are considered thresholds of potential effects, a more indepth analysis would be done. High Buck would be modified as needed to avoid damaging peak flow 

effects to channels or changes in water yield. 

Road and culvert maintenance would continue as in the past. This may loosen some soil and make it 

more available for transport to streams, but overall this would reduce the sediment yield from roads. Any 

sediment contribution from roads and culvert maintenance would be insignificant as compared to not 

maintaining the roads. The contribution of road and culvert maintenance to cumulative effects would 

therefore be to maintain channel substrate and water quality at a higher level than would exist without this 

activity. 

RHCA condition has been affected by past logging and roads as discussed in the Affected Environment 

section of this report, above. Since the mid-1990s implementation of Pacfish has protected RHCAs from 

logging and allowed recovery where needed. About 8% of streams in the analysis area have had harvest 

inside their RHCAs and this would have been concentrated in the headwater areas of the plateaus where 

these activities occurred. RHCA thinning proposed in this project would only minimally affect RHCAs 

and would not prevent the maintenance or attainment of Riparian Management Objectives. Past road 

building and decommissioning is incorporated into the analysis with road density and proximity of roads 

to channels described in the Affected Environment (Table 3-3). No permanent road building would occur 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-14

in this proposed project and there would be no net change in miles of road or road density. Hydrologic 

function would be maintained with a very slight improvement attributed to maintenance of road drainage 

features, especially replacement of 3 damaged culverts. Proximity of roads to channels would very 

slightly decrease with the realignment of 0.35 mile of FR 3718155 to a location outside of the RHCA. 

There is one livestock grazing allotment in the analysis area, the North end Transitory Sheep and Goat 

(North End S&G) allotment. This allotment covers approximately 122,310 acres and includes six grazing 

units (~pastures) used by four bands of sheep each year from June 1st through October 9th. A band of 

sheep consists of 1000 ewes with lambs. With four bands of sheep and six units, two units can be either 

rested or deferred each year. This allotment has not been stocked since 2001 by the choice of the 

permittee. The Annual Operating Plan sets the direction for grazing, the on and off dates and the amount 

of time spent in each unit. 

Alternative C 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction project alternative C differs from Alternative B primarily by reduction in the 

amount of some types of treatments. There would be less commercial thinning, less non-commercial 

thinning, fewer acres of all types of logging operations, fewer acres of slash treatment, fewer acres where 

trees larger than 28 inches DBH would be removed, Less treatment in Pacfish RHCA’s, and no entry at 

all into the Lookingglass Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). 

Under Alternative C, only Unit 19 would have RHCA entry. Affects to riparian condition and function 

would be less than those discussed in Alternative B and would be negligible for the headwater streams in 

Unit 19. Road maintenance and use, culvert replacement, road realignment and decommissioning, and 

temporary road construction would be the same as in Alternative B and the effects would be the same as 

those discussed for Alternative B. The small streams in the unit develop from local springs and are ground 

water dominated. Few conifers would be removed from the RHCA and no measureable reduction in 

canopy cover would occur. Alder provides hardwood canopy over portions of the streams. No effect to 

water temperature downstream of the unit would be expected because of the local groundwater influence 

and the limited entry into the RHCA. As in Alternative B, all other activities would protect RHCAs and 

there would be no or negligible effect to water temperature. 

Fewer acres would be thinned and have fuels activities in this alternative than in Alternative B. Only Unit 

19 would have RHCA thinning. Risks associated with RHCA thinning in Unit 66 would not occur 

because the unit would be dropped. Road maintenance and use, culvert replacement, road realignment 

and decommissioning, and temporary road construction would be the same as in Alternative B. 

Effects would be similar to those described in Alternative B. Project design criteria and Best 

Management Practices during implementation would prevent soil exposure near channels for most 

activities proposed in Alternative C. Road maintenance and use, has the potential to cause short term 

sediment effects from ditch clean out and road use during wet conditions. Replacement of 3 culverts on 

perennial channels would lead to short-term (<1-3 years), local sediment production, transport, and 

deposition adjacent to the culvert replacement locations. Short term sediment effects would occur in 

these areas but would be unlikely to be transmitted downstream to fish habitat due to low stream power. 

Longer term effects, one runoff season, would not be measurable against background sediment loads of 

high flows. 

Fewer acres of thinning would occur in Alternative C than in Alternative B. Table 4-1 displays the results 

of ETA analysis for the alternatives considered in detail. ETA values are somewhat lower for Alternative 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-15

C in three of four project subwatersheds. Both action alternatives have very low values and the effect to 

water yield and peakflows from these activities would be negligible. 

Fewer acres of thinning and fuels management are proposed in Alternative C than in Alternative B. 

RHCA thinning has been dropped in all but Unit 19. Road maintenance and use, culvert replacement, 

road realignment and decommissioning, and temporary road construction would be the same as in 

Alternative B. Cumulative effects would be similar to, but somewhat less than in Alternative B. 

Consistency Findings with respect to applicable laws and regulations 

(Alternatives B and C) 

Clean Water Act

The State of Oregon recognizes the Forest Service as the management agency responsible for meeting the 

Clean Water Act on NFS lands and recognizes best management practices (BMPs) as the primary 

mechanism to control nonpoint source pollution on NFS lands. There is further recognition that BMPs are 

developed by the Forest Service as part of the planning process and includes a commitment by the US 

Forest Service to meet or exceed standards 

The Umatilla National Forest incorporated protection of water quality as an important management goal 

and explicitly set ground disturbance and shade standards to protect it in the 1990 Land and Resource 

Management Plan. In the mid-1990s Pacfish amended the plan by adding Standards and Guides and 

RHCA protections designed for, among other objectives, maintenance and recovery of shade and 

morphology components (including sediment regime) of water temperature. Managing to these standards 

has protected ground cover and existing shade and allowed for recovery of those elements at near natural 

rates for almost 2 decades. Restoration work aimed at reducing sediment sources through road 

decommissioning has been ongoing, much of it occurring since the floods of 1996 and 1997. 

The Umatilla National Forest has a high rate of compliance with BMPs. School Fire Salvage EIS RHCAs 

were monitored in 2006 (Table 4-3). Buffers on 18 units, 23 percent of identified RHCA influence units, 

were monitored in July and August 2006. Results are displayed below. Average buffer widths exceeded 

standards for all stream categories. 

Table 4-3 — Average Buffer Width by Stream Category( School Fire Salvage Sales) 

Average 

(ft.)

Number of 

Measurements

Pacfish 

Standard

Fish Bearing Streams 325 32 300

Perennial Non Fish 

Bearing 187 59 150

Intermittent 150 87 100

Dissected Ephemeral 36 34

No standard 

BMP = 25'

RHCA effectiveness was also measured and reported in 2001 as follows: no cases of erosion or 

sedimentation were observed post-harvest in RHCAs. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-16

RHCA thinning activities would be unlikely to measurably affect water temperature in downstream 

locations due to the limited ability of the very small headwater tributaries to transmit heat. Water 

temperature monitoring on Lookingglass Creek and on North Fork Umatilla River would continue. 

Identification of BMPs for the proposed projects has occurred and any project which might occur in this 

planning area would be considered for monitoring in the Umatilla National Forest annual BMP 

monitoring plan. These activities would not detrimentally affect beneficial uses. Riparian and channel 

components that protect water quality would be maintained. Other design criteria and BMPs would 

control disturbance that could lead to erosion and sedimentation. Effects of proposed actions would not 

adversely or measurably affect water temperature. Short term measurable turbidity effects could occur at 

the culvert sites during replacement of 2 culverts. Best Management Practices have been incorporated 

into the project design criteria for the culvert replacement and would be monitored. The proposed project 

is in compliance with the Clean Water Act. 

Floodplains, Executive Order 11988 

Executive Order (EO) 11988 requires the Forest Service to avoid “to the extent possible the long and 

short term adverse impacts associated with the occupation or modification of floodplains...” The 

proposed alternatives would avoid all floodplains and affects to floodplains and is consistent with this 

EO. 

Wetlands, Executive Order 11990 

Executive Order (EO) 11990 requires the Forest Service to “avoid to the extent possible the long and 

short term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands.” The proposed 

alternatives would avoid all wetlands and affects to wetlands and is consistent with this EO. 

Safe Drinking Water Act Compliance

The North Fork of the Umatilla River was legislatively withdrawn from appropriation as a municipal 

water supply for the City of Pendleton by the state of Oregon in 1941. In 1984 the area was subsequently 

designated as a wilderness area and the city has since transferred its water intake to a point on the 

Umatilla River near the City of Pendleton. The City of Pendleton uses membrane filtration for water 

treatment. 

The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act require Federal agencies that manage lands which 

serve as drinking water sources to protect these source water areas. Source Water Area delineation has 

been completed and a source water assessment has been conducted for the City of Pendleton. High to 

moderate risks have been identified. On National Forest Lands in the assessment disturbances such as 

road building and use, and timber harvest were evaluated as: “Risk reduced to Lower because PCS 

(potential contaminant sources) in the upper reaches of the watershed represent a very low risk to the 

City’s source water.” http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/dwp/docs/swasummary/pws00613.pdf

The activities proposed in the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project are nearly 50 river miles upstream of the 

City of Pendleton. Design criteria and best management practices have been identified to prevent or 

minimize damage to soils and stream channels. Those and other BMPs identified for this project are 

discussed above. No effects to the surface water system of Pendleton would occur from proposed actions. 

Action alternatives in the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-17

Umatilla Forest Plan 

Implementation of design criteria and best management practices as described above, Umatilla National 

Forest Road Use Rules, as well as standard Umatilla NF timber sale contract specifications or the 

corresponding stewardship contract specifications would constitute compliance with the Umatilla 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan for hydrologic and water quality components. 

Pacfish (1995) stands as an amendment to the Umatilla National Forest Plan. Pacfish states: 

Prohibit timber harvest, including fuelwood cutting in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, except 

as described below... 

Where catastrophic events such as fire, flooding, volcanic, wind, or insect damage result in 

degraded riparian conditions, allow salvage and fuelwood cutting in Riparian Habitat Conservation 

Areas only where present and future woody debris needs are met, where cutting would not retard or 

prevent attainment of other Riparian Management Objectives, and where adverse effects on listed 

anadromous fish can be avoided. For watersheds with listed salmon or designated critical habitat, 

complete Watershed Analysis prior to salvage cutting in RHCAs. 

Alternative B of the Tollgate Fuels project work proposed inside RHCAs of several headwater tributaries 

is not salvage following a catastrophic event, and so does not qualify as an exception to the general 

prohibition against cutting inside of RHCA’s. 

FISHERIES

Alternative A: No Change in Management Activities 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative A of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project, the Forest Service would not change 

management in these watersheds, and therefore would not change direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to 

fish or their habitat. Alternative A of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project would tend to maintain the 

present condition of aquatic species and aquatic habitat in all project area streams and subwatersheds. 

Alternative A would therefore not reduce the viability of O. mykiss, O. tschawyscha, S. confluentis, or 

other aquatic species in project area watersheds. 

Alternative A is the No-Action alternative. There would be no timber harvest, no prescribed fire, no log 

haul, and no restoration activities proposed under the no-action alternative. There is therefore no 

mechanism for direct or indirect effects to ESA listed species of fish or to USFS R6 sensitive fish, or to 

their habitat (including hydrologic characteristics), and no contribution to cumulative effects to these fish 

or their environment. Therefore there would be no effect to Proposed, Endangered, Threatened or 

Sensitive Fish species from Alternative A. 

For the same reasons there would be no unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and no irreversible or 

irretrievable commitment of resources. 

Alternative B 

Direct and Indirect effects 

Direct and indirect effects analyzed for activities included within Alternative B include both effects on 

individual fishes and their occupied habitat, as well as any unoccupied habitat required for recovery. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-18

Although there would be project activities in RHCAs of some non-fish-bearing streams, there would be 

no project activities in fish-bearing portions of streams, or even in RHCAs of fish-bearing portions of 

streams, so there would be no direct effects to any aquatic species. Indirect effects, of the actions 

necessary to implement alternative B, if any, would be through effects to habitat. Effects to specific 

habitat components are be evaluated individually on the following pages. 

Water quality 

Direct and indirect effects of the activities included under Alternative B on water quality measures are 

discussed earlier in this chapter. The implications of effects on water quality on fisheries resources are 

discussed below. 

Water Temperature

None of the four units occurring within Pacfish RHCAs are near fish-bearing streams. Since trees that 

could affect stream water temperatures would not be harvested from fish-bearing streams and harvest in 

the RHCAs of upstream tributaries would not alter stream temperatures, under the Tollgate Fuels 

Reduction project, there would be no effect to water temperature from harvest treatments or associated 

activities. 

Sediment 

The sediment component of water quality is also a component of channel substrate. Sediment flux affects 

(and may be affected by) substrate habitat conditions, and so is addressed together with substrate in that 

section. 

Chemicals/contamination 

Potential sources of chemical contamination from the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project include spills of 

fuel, lubricants or hydraulic fluids from harvest machinery and spills of fire management chemicals (drip 

torch fuels, wetting agents). Since there would be no prescribed fire inside of RHCA’s, there is no 

mechanism for drip torch fuels or wetting agents to reach streams. Fueling and servicing of all equipment 

would be performed outside of RHCA’s, so spills of these substances would not reach streams. But 

machinery would be operating inside of RHCA’s, of two project subwatersheds and the possibility of an 

accident (e.g. burst hydraulic hose) although unlikely, cannot be completely eliminated. Therefore, 

chemical contamination of streams in those two project sub-watersheds is very unlikely. Since there are 

no known sources of chemical contaminants from project implementation activities, there would be no 

chemical contamination of streams the South fork Walla Walla and Bear Creek Subwatersheds. 

Habitat Access: 

Physical barriers: No project activities would be conducted in any fish-bearing streams, and so not 

would create physical barriers or in any way change habitat access 

Substrate

As described earlier in this chapter and in Chapter 2, there would also be two culvert replacements in 

access roads crossing very small, perennial, non-fish-bearing headwater tributaries of project area 

streams. Culvert replacements in perennial streams would be done during the in-water work window as 

designated by the Oregon State Department of Fish and Wildlife for that watershed or stream system. 

Because of the small size of these streams and their distance from fish-bearing waters, it is highly unlikely 

that detectable amounts of sediment from culvert and road work would reach fish-bearing stream reaches. 

Timber haul from Tollgate project units would be hauled over graveled and/or native surface roads mostly 

on ridge tops or otherwise high in the watershed to Oregon State highway 204, which is paved. No haul 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-19

over graveled or native surface roads near to fish-bearing streams is expected, so delivery of additional 

sediment produced by timber haul, to fish bearing streams is very unlikely. 

All timber harvest would be outside of Pacfish RHCAs of fish bearing streams. That is to say, it would 

be 300 feet or farther from fish bearing streams. There would be Four treatment units (#19, 38, 66, 75) 

with timber harvest inside of Pacfish RHCAs of perennial, non-fish bearing streams. In some of these, 

timber harvest would be implemented quite close to the stream channel, up to the edge of the inner gorge, 

which could be as close as 30 feet from the water’s edge. 

As described earlier in the hydrology section of this chapter, the combined effect of very low volume of 

flow, many in-channel roughness elements, and design criteria that protect channel integrity and minimize 

soil disturbance would protect downstream habitat. These activities would not be expected to prevent 

attainment or retard recovery of the sedimentation Riparian Management Objective (Pacfish 1995). 

Based on monitoring results from similar situations in the Northern Umatilla National Forest, the 

hydrologist for this project has concluded that project design criteria such as mulching exposed soil in 

RHCA’s, together with in-channel roughness elements and distance to fish bearing water, would protect 

water quality to the extent that there would be no measurable effect to water quality (see water quality 

discussion earlier in this chapter). And since the riparian unit stream channels are non-fish bearing, with 

fish-bearing waters 1/3 of a mile or more downstream, detectable effects there would be even less likely. 

Because some variables, weather in particular, are beyond the control of project managers, and could 

potentially interact with project activities in unexpected ways, and because of the proximity of project 

activities to stream channels increases risk in some harvest units; although adverse effects are very 

unlikely, the risk here cannot be completely eliminated. 

Large woody debris 

Except for the four riparian harvest units, all timber removal would be from sites outside of Pacfish 

RHCAs and so there would be no potential for changes in large woody debris frequency in fish bearing 

streams due to project implementation. 

In the four riparian harvest units, there would be some removal of trees that might otherwise have fallen 

into non-fish-bearing streams. However, since these are all small, non-fish-bearing headwater tributaries, 

there would be no change in frequency of large woody debris in fish-bearing reaches, and so no effect to 

large woody debris frequency in fish habitat. Effects, if any would be to non-listed amphibians or 

invertebrates in these small headwater streams and wetlands. The District Wildlife Biologist would 

evaluate effects to those organisms. 

Pool frequency 

No management activities are proposed in the RHCAs of fish bearing streams so there is no mechanism to 

change the number of pool forming structures there. Removal of trees from the RHCAs of several very 

small headwater streams (Harvest units 19, 38, 66, 75) could theoretically alter pool frequency there but 

these are tiny streams which don’t need large, tree-sized woody debris to develop adequate channel 

roughness, and in any case this would not affect the habitat of fish which is farther downstream. 

There would be insufficient change in flow or sediment flux to alter pool frequency in any streams in any 

project subwatersheds (see the sediment and flow sections of this document), so there would be no effect

to pool frequency. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-20

Off-channel habitat 

Because there would be no project activities in stream channels or within the RHCA of fish-bearing 

streams, and by the nature of the project other activities are not of a type that would alter off-channel 

habitat, there would be no effect to off-channel habitat. 

Wetted Width/Maximum Depth Ratios 

Wetted width/depth ratios can be affected by changes in flow or sediment regimes, or by direct alteration 

of the channel form by machinery or livestock use. No changes in flow or sediment regime are expected 

(see the discussions of those parameters in this chapter) and there would be nor direct alteration of 

channel form with the Tollgate Fuels project, so there would be no effect to wetted width/depth ratios. 

Stream Channel conditions 

Stream bank condition 

Stream bank conditions can be altered by changes in flow regime, by removal or other alteration of 

vegetation or through direct alteration by machinery or livestock use of the stream bank. Changes in the 

flow regime are not expected in this project and there would be no direct alteration of stream banks under 

the Tollgate Fuels project. Since there would be no project activities in fish-bearing stream reaches or in 

RHCAs of fish-bearing reaches of streams, there would be no effect to stream bank conditions there. 

Project work in the four riparian harvest units would be outside of the inner gorge of the streams in or 

bordering the units, and so there would be no effect to stream banks. 

Floodplain connectivity 

Floodplain connectivity would be decreased if stream channel entrenchment were increased. There are no 

mechanisms by which project activities would increase channel entrenchment or otherwise decrease 

floodplain connectivity, so there would be no effect to floodplain connectivity. 

Substrate 

Since detectable changes in erosion, sedimentation, or flow are unlikely, (see the respective sections of 

this document), effects to channel substrate are also very unlikely. 

Change in peak or base flows 

The harvest and prescribed fire proposed under the Tollgate Fuels project would not raise the %ECA of 

any subwatershed to a level that would produce detectable changes and so there would be no effect to 

peak or base flow. 

Increase in drainage network 

Since there would be only a very small amount of new road constructed, and none of that would cross any 

stream channels, and would have no other linkage to existing streams, the Tollgate Fuels project would 

have no effect on the drainage network of the project area subwatersheds. 

Road density and location 

Temporary roads, totaling 1.7 miles would be constructed in three of the project area subwatersheds 

(upper Lookingglass, Middle South Fork Walla Walla, North Fork Umatilla) for access to treatment units. 

The present road density computed for these three subwatersheds together is 2.01 miles/mile2. These 

access roads would temporarily increase road density over the three subwatersheds to 2.03 miles/mile2, an 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-21

increase in road density of 0.02 miles/mile2. This amount is actually below the mapping precision of 

current GIS data for the project area, so the temporary increase in road density is so small as to be 

effectively unmeasurable. These temporary roads would be entirely outside of Pacfish RHCAs and 

would be decommissioned and restored to vegetative productivity at the end of the project. 

The Umatilla National Forest hydrologist has determined that these “road locations would be upslope of 

channel formation on relatively flat ground with no hydrologic connectivity.” (Peterson 2011). So 

although upland road density would increase very slightly, there would be no effects to fish or other 

aquatic biota. 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas 

Four project treatment units include entry into Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas. Live trees, snags, 

and down wood would be removed from the RHCA in these units. These units are not adjacent to fishbearing streams, but treatments would decrease the amount of shade and woody debris above and around 

some small perennial, non-fish-bearing streams. So technically there would be a detrimental effect to a 

few hundred feet of RHCA’s, but it is highly unlikely that effects of these treatments would be detectable 

downstream in fish-bearing stream reaches. 

Summary of the implementation effects of the Tollgate Fuels project 

Alternative B to aquatic habitat for ESA listed and R6 Sensitive fish

The preceding discussion of the effects of the activities necessary to implement the Tollgate Fuels 

Reduction project are summarized in Table 4-4. Project activities would produce no effect whatsoever to 

most aquatic habitat parameters. For some other habitat components or watershed conditions, effects are 

highly unlikely, and are not expected, but risk cannot be entirely eliminated, so those are designated as 

not likely to be adversely affected. Overall, no adverse effects to fish or aquatic habitat are likely from 

implementation activities for Alternative B. 

Table 4-4 — Summary of Potential Effects1 of Alternative B of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction 

Project by Habitat Parameter and Subwatershed 

Parameter

Subwatersheds

Upper 

Lookingglass

(HUC 

170601041001)

North Fork 

Umatilla River

(HUC 

170701030104)

Middle South 

Fork Walla Walla 

River (HUC 

170701020102)

Bear Creek 

(Umatilla River 

below forks –

HUC 

170701030106)

Direct effects to fish species NE NE NE NE

Indirect effects through effects to habitat

Water temperature NE NE NE NE

Chemical contamination and 

nutrients NL NL NE NE

Physical barriers NE NE NE NE

Sediment & Substrate NL NL NL NL

Large woody debris NE NE NE NE

Pool Frequency NE NE NE NE

Off channel Habitat NE NE NE NE

Wetted width/Max depth NE NE NE NE

Streambank conditions NE NE NE NE

Floodplain connectivity NE NE NE NE
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-22

Change in peak or base flows NE NE NE NE

Increase in drainage network NE NE NE NE

Road density and location NE NE NE NE

RHCAsof fish bearing streams NL NL NL NL

1NE= no effect, no potential for effect, NL = Adverse effect unlikely, but possibility of an effect cannot be entirely discounted or 

eliminate, LA = likely to affect.

The preceding discussion deals with the immediate effects of the actions necessary to implement the 

Tollgate Fuels project. There is also a larger question to be addressed. The larger question is: If the 

Tollgate project is successful in changing the fire regime (frequency, size, and/or intensity) in this area, 

what effect if any, would that change have on aquatic organisms or their habitat? 

Large, high intensity fires, especially if they burn intensively in riparian areas, can produce extensive and 

severe effects to aquatic habitat and threaten fish populations that exist in remnant or compromised 

habitats. Effects can include loss of stream shade, hillslope and channel erosion, sediment deposition and 

channel evulsion, changes in water chemistry, and increases in water temperatures (Rhoades et al., 2011, 

Rieman 1997; Sestrich 2005). Fish populations in severely affected streams can be completely extirpated. 

In this context, mitigation of fire severity and its hydrologic effects could benefit fish populations and 

support their persistence (Rieman et al. 2010). 

On the other hand wildfire can be viewed as a natural process that can contribute nutrients, wood, and 

coarse substrates and thus help maintain or re-create productive habitats, whereas fuel management can 

be a disruptive process that further degrades habitat. Dunham et al. (2007) and Neville (2009) both 

concluded that wildfire alone was not so much a threat as are human influences that degrade aquatic habit, 

making the aquatic organisms less resilient in the face of large intense fires. 

Effects of wildfire may be initially severe, but are usually of a shorter term (acute) while effects of human 

management may initially be less severe, but much more persistent (chronic). A primary purpose of the 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction project is to change the disturbance regime at this location from the natural 

cycle of stand-replacing fires at long intervals (200 – 300 years) to a condition of smaller fires and 

reduced fire intensity, where fires that do happen would be small and manageable, at least in the area 

around the wildland-urban interface. Frequency of fires would probably not be much affected by 

implementation of the Tollgate project, as factors controlling fire starts (primarily lightning in this area) 

are mostly beyond the control of the Forest Service. Size and intensity of fires would be changed though, 

with post-project fires expected to be smaller, less intense (lower burn severity) and probably would burn 

in more of a mosiac pattern, with some areas burned severely and others burned lightly or not at all. 

So clearly, the disturbance regime would be altered by this project. Effects could be expected to carry 

over downstream in fish-bearing waters, where the natural cycle would have included intense episodes of 

habitat alteration following a high severity wildfire. Debris flows, sedimentation of some parts of the 

stream, scouring of other parts, introduction of more large woody debris, channel evulsion, pool filling 

and new pool creation would have all been part of the natural cycle here. 

Prior to European settlement in this area, it is likely that fish populations in some project area streams 

would have been extirpated as part of that natural cycle, but would have been re-established by migrants 

from neighboring streams. This highlights the critical status of connectivity among aquatic habitat 

patches. During the Tower Fire and subsequent landslides and hydrologic events in North Fork John Day 

watershed in Northeastern Oregon’s Blue Mountains, fish were eradicated from several streams tributary 

to the North John Day River. Within four years, though native fish species had recovered to pre-fire 

levels (Howell 2006). 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-23

Sestrich et al. (2011) concluded that connected native fish populations will usually be resilient to 

seemingly catastrophic high-severity wildfire disturbance and associated debris flows and are capable of 

rapid recovery even when in sympatry with nonnative fishes. The streams in these studies had nearby, 

ready sources of migrants to repopulate the defaunated reaches though. In the case of the Tollgate project 

area streams, connectivity varies considerably between the watersheds involved. 

In the case of the very vulnerable North Fork Umatilla River bull trout population, connectivity to other 

populations is nearly non-existent, primarily because of downstream (below the National Forest) 

conditions. A large, high-intensity fire in the North Fork Umatilla watershed could completely eradicate 

that bull trout population with little hope of re-establishment for a very long time. Because of the 

weakness of this population and lack of connectivity to potential re-founding bull trout populations, 

reducing the size and intensity of wildfire in the watershed would be protective of the species persistence 

here. 

The bull trout populations in the South Fork of the Walla Walla River and in Lookingglass Creek, both 

have connections to other, viable bull trout populations, the Wenaha River and other Grande Ronde River 

tributaries upstream in the case of Lookingglass Creek, and Mill Creek and the Touchet River system in 

the case of the South Fork of the Walla Walla River. Immigrants from neighboring watersheds would 

probably re-establish the bull trout populations in these watersheds fairly quickly after wildfire and 

related disruptions. Therefore the Tollgate fuels project would provide no overall advantage to bull trout 

in these two watersheds. 

Salmon and steelhead in all of these watersheds would be less at risk than bull trout because of their 

anadromous nature, which means that only a single year cohort would be completely eliminated, with 

returning adult fish available to repopulate the habitat almost immediately, so the Tollgate fuels project 

would not provide any important protection for these species in any of the project watersheds. 

In conclusion, to the extent that the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project is successful in altering the 

disturbance regime of the area, it may offer additional protection to the very vulnerable bull trout 

population in the North Fork of the Umatilla River, but would not benefit bull trout in any of the other 

watersheds, and would not benefit steelhead or Chinook salmon in any of the project area watersheds. 

Effects over the term of the natural fire cycle in the upper reaches of streams in these watersheds (200-

300 years) are necessarily speculative but adverse effects during foreseeable management periods are 

unlikely. 

Cumulative effects 

Timber harvest activities of the Lower Sheep and Loon timber sales have concluded in the Lookingglass 

Creek Watershed. Neither of those included harvest inside of the RHCAsof streams in the Upper 

Lookingglass, North Fork Umatilla, or Bear Creek subwatersheds. 

The Lower Sheep project had no harvest activities inside the RHCAs of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction 

project subwatersheds The only Lower Sheep Project activity that would have had potential to directly 

contribute to adverse cumulative effects with the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project would have been log 

haul over Forest Road 63 along Lookingglass and Little Lookingglass Creeks. All timber harvest and log 

haul has been completed for that project, so the Lower Sheep timber sale would produce no contribution 

to cumulative effects with the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project. As discussed in the hydrology section 

above, the cumulative effects on equivalent clearcut acreages for the project subwatersheds indicate that 

there would be no detectable effect to water yield or stream flow. 

Likewise for the Loon project, there was no harvest inside RHCAs of streams in Tollgate project area 

subwatersheds. Timber harvest and log haul are finished, so there is no opportunity for contribution to 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-24

effects cumulative with those activities, and calculations of clearcut acreages included in the hydrology 

section in this chapter show that there would be no detectable effect to water yield or flow. 

Loon project activity fuels treatments could continue for one or two more years, depending on weather 

and allowing two additional years of recovery of soil surface protection, there could be a maximum of 

four years (through 2016) of contribution to cumulative effects by the Loon project, which could produce 

up to three years of overlap if the Tollgate project were to begin implementation in 2013. However, as 

discussed elsewhere in this document, adverse effects to fish or their habitat are not expected and there 

would most likely be no detectable effects cumulative with effects of the tollgate project. 

In 1998, the National Marine Fisheries Service (now NOAA Fisheries) concurred with findings by the 

Umatilla National Forest that the North End S&G allotment was Not Likely to Adversely Affect Snake 

River steelhead in the Lookingglass Creek and Middle Grande Ronde River Watersheds (letter from 

William Stelle, Jr., to Jeff Blackwood, dated August 28, 1998). 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service likewise concurred that this livestock allotment were Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect bull trout in the Lookingglass watershed (letter from Russel D. Peterson to Jeff 

Blackwood, dated December 21, 1998) 

Grazing activities in these watersheds, as they are presently conducted would not contribute to effects 

cumulative with the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project. 

Development (other than roads) 

Langdon Lake

Langdon Lake forms the headwaters of Lookingglass Creek. Most of the shoreline of Langdon Lake is 

privately owned, and is thickly built up with the owners’ cabins. Until recently wastewaters from these 

cabins went into septic systems. There is now a wastewater treatment facility for these cabins. It seems 

likely that leaching from the septic systems could have made the lake and this part of Lookingglass Creek 

more eutrophic than natural. The new wastewater treatment facility is expected to reduce or eliminate 

that effect. In any case Tollgate project activities would not contribute any type of chemical 

contamination to any of the streams in project area subwatersheds, so there would be no effect cumulative 

with effects, if any, from the Langdon Lake cabin owners waste waters. 

Exotic brook trout have been stocked in Langdon Lake and pose a threat to ESA Threatened bull trout in 

Lookingglass Creek. Any activity that facilitated the spread of brook trout into Lookingglass Creek 

would increase stress on the bull trout population there. None of the Tollgate project activities would 

support the spread of brook trout, and so would make no contribution to this component of stress on bull 

trout. 

Spout Springs ski area 

The Spout Springs ski area is right on the watershed divide between the upper Lookingglass and North 

Fork Umatilla river watersheds and is far from fish-bearing streams. Operation of the ski area does not 

normally involve ground disturbing activities, and has no effect on fish habitat. 

Private inholdings (e.g. Lost Creek, introduced brook trout) 

Owners of private land inholdings in several subwatersheds in the analysis area have grazed their land and 

harvested timber. Detailed information about timber harvest, grazing, and other uses of private land are 

not available for this analysis. Brook trout may have been introduced to streams on some of these private 

lands as they have been found in Lost Creek downstream of a private land in-holding (DMC, personal 

observation, 1992). 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-25

Determinations of effect on the species and the process and rationale 

for the determination 

This project has been carefully designed to avoid adverse effects to fish and aquatic habitat but because 

the risk, although very small, cannot be entirely eliminated, alternative B of the Tollgate Fuels project 

May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Snake River steelhead, mid-Columbia Steelhead, 

Snake River Spring Chinook salmon, Snake River Fall Chinook salmon, or Columbia River bull trout or 

their designated critical habitat. 

For the same reasons, alternative B of the Tollgate Fuels project May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but 

would not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population 

or species of Region 6 Sensitive redband trout or margined sculpin. 

Since there would be no commitment of fisheries resources under Alternative B, or of resources essential 

to maintenance of listed fish or their habitat, neither would there be any irreversible or irretrievable 

commitment of fisheries resources. 

Determinations of effect to Management Indicator species 

The Management Indicator Species (MIS) concept assumes that the status on one species can indicate the 

status of other species and their habitats. Rainbow/redband trout and steelhead, both Oncorhynchus 

mykiss, are designated as management indicator species for the Umatilla National Forest. Their status 

would be taken as an indication of the condition of the status of bull trout and Chinook salmon and their 

habitat 

Rainbow/redband trout and steelhead are the most widespread salmonid species on the Umatilla National 

Forest, and also probably the hardiest. Therefore, the status of rainbow/steelhead trout does not tell us 

anything useful about the status of either bull trout or Chinook salmon and is not a satisfactory indicator 

of their habitat. Nevertheless, the effect of this project to O. mykiss as a management indicator species 

would be the same as effects to that species when evaluated as a R6 Sensitive species or an ESA 

Threatened species. That is to say that adverse effects or impacts are not expected. 

Determinations of effect to Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish 

Habitat 

For the same reasons given previously in the discussion of effects to habitat, the proposed Tollgate Fuels 

project May Affect, But Is Not Likely To Adversely Affect Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat 

of Snake River spring/summer salmon, Snake River fall Chinook salmon or coho salmon. 

Recommendations for removing, avoiding, or compensating for any 

adverse effects 

Adverse effects are not expected, so there are no recommendations for removing, avoiding or 

compensating for adverse effects of Tollgate Fuels project Alternative B. 

Alternative C 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

The hydrology section above describes the differences in direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on water 

quality, quantity, and watershed function—all of which are important components of fish habitat. Because 

the nature of the treatments are mostly the same as described above for Alternative B, the nature of 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-26

potential effects to fishes and their habitats would be the same as described under the other action 

Alternative. The risks to aquatic biota would be slightly less than under Alternative B because of the 

reduced amount of treatment, but here too, because the risks cannot be entirely eliminated, the overall 

effect conclusions would be that same as under Alternative B. Likewise, risks of adverse cumulative 

effects would be of the same nature but reduced probability as under alternative B. 

Consistency Findings with respect to applicable laws and regulations 

(Alternatives B and C) 

Umatilla Forest Plan 

The consistency findings of the Tollgate Project with respect to applicable sections of the Umatilla Forest 

Plan are based on elements of water quality, water quantity, and watershed function as well as fish 

abundance and distribution. Such findings are also described earlier in the hydrology section of this 

chapter. 

Two of the watersheds included in the project area, which have ESA listed fish, have not had watershed 

analyses prepared and so would be inconsistent with the Forest Plan/Pacfish in this regard. The other 

Watershed (Umatilla River) has had a watershed analyses and so would be consistent with the Forest 

Plan/Pacfish in that regard. A Forest Plan amendment which would make the Forest Plan consistent with 

the alternative B of the Tollgate Fuels project is included as part of the Alternative. 

FOREST VEGETATION - SILVICULTURE

Three indicators are used to characterize the environmental consequences of implementing the 

silvicultural activities proposed for each of the alternatives: species composition (forest cover types), 

forest structural stages, and tree density classes. Potential vegetation is not used as an indicator because it 

is not affected by silvicultural activity or management treatment; however, the amount of potential 

vegetation included in each alternative does vary, as shown in Table 4-5. 

Table 4-5 — Potential vegetation group acreage for the Affected Environment and by Alternative 

PVG Code Affected

Environment Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Cold UF 277 0 96 96

Dry UF 1574 0 141 102

Moist UF 35715 0 3980 3555

Total 37,566 0 4218 3753

Sources/Notes: Summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (forested NFS acres only). PVG codes 

are described in Powell et al. (2007) and Table F1 in Appendix F.

Alternative A 

Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, allows previously approved (on-going) activities to proceed, but 

none of the silvicultural activities included in the proposed action would be implemented under 

Alternative A. Under this Alternative ongoing disturbance and succession processes influencing 

vegetation conditions in the Tollgate planning area would continue as they have in the recent past. Since 

no new forest vegetation activities would occur under this Alternative, it would not provide an 

opportunity to address species composition, forest structure, or tree density conditions that are either overrepresented or under-represented with respect to HRV or fire and fuels management objectives in the 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-27

Tollgate WUI. Alternative A would not implement any of the silvicultural activities; thus, it is not 

expected to have any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the forest vegetation Affected 

Environment. 

Although no effects are expected resulting from any silvicultural activities implemented under Alternative 

A (because there are no activities), the environmental consequences of adopting Alternative A would 

nonetheless occur. In short, implementing Alternative A would allow successional and disturbances 

processes to occur without the influence of activities described under Alternatives B or C, and would 

thereby result in different characteristics of vegetation composition, structure, and density within the 

project area. These successional and disturbance processes, and the resulting patterns of species 

composition, density, and forest structure, have been broadly described for the forest ecosystems of the 

Blue Mountains in Powell (2000) and references therein. 

By reducing the occurrence of wildfire disturbance within the Tollgate project area, fire suppression and 

exclusion activities have had, and would have for the foreseeable future important effects on forest 

vegetation. These effects are well-understood and thoroughly described (Powell 2000 and references 

therein). And in combination with fire exclusion and suppression, allowing non-anthropogenic 

successional and disturbance processes to shape present and future vegetation conditions within the 

Tollgate forest Affected Environment would also have predictable consequences. These include: 

Transition toward (and further over-representation of) mid and late-seral species, and further 

reductions of early seral species abundance and distribution. 

Transition toward (and further over-representation of) understory reinitiation and old forest 

(particularly multi-story) structure types, and further reductions of under-represented stem 

exclusion and stand initiation forest structure types. 

Transition toward (and further over-representation of) high-density forests, at the expense of 

under-represented low and moderate-density forests. 

Increased susceptibility to (and tree damage/mortality resulting from) insect, dwarf mistletoe, and 

disease disturbances is expected to generally increase across the project area as sites increase in 

density, canopy layering, and the relative abundance of Douglas-fir, spruce, and true firs 

(Appendix C, Schmitt and Powell 2005, Hessburg et al. 1999a and 1999b, Powell 2000 and 

references therein). Indeed, as noted in Powell (2000): 

Plant succession in combination with human influence and extremes in weather are the 

primary ingredients of forest health declines; insect outbreaks and disease epidemics may 

be little more than symptoms of an underlying problem (Sloan 1998, Steele 1994). 

Alternative B 

Three indicators are used to present pre-treatment and post-treatment trends for vegetation conditions: 

species composition, forest structural stages, and tree density classes. These indicators will also be briefly 

summarized in terms of changes to insect, disease, and wildfire risk and susceptibility. 

Direct and Indirect effects

Species Composition 

Species composition, as represented using forest cover types, is expected to change only slightly in 

response to implementation of silvicultural activities proposed for Alternative B (Table 4-6). In most 

locations, improvement cutting and low thinning would focus on the removal of late-seral trees in 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-28

subordinate canopy positions, and leave a well-stocked stand of remaining trees composed predominantly 

of the original species characterizing the cover type. As a result, the direct effects of implementing the 

proposed activities on species composition within the treatment units would be relatively minor. For some 

stands, improvement cutting within the canopy focusing on retention of early or mid-seral species 

(western larch and Douglas-fir, respectively) and removal of late-seral species (true firs and Engelmann 

spruce) would result in the respective changes of these cover types indicated by Table 4-6. Across the 

areas of forest vegetation Affected Environment included in Alternative B, however, the relative 

magnitude of these changes would be small (less than 7 percent, Table 4-6). 

Over time, across the project treatment area, processes of ecological succession would continue to favor 

the dominance of late-seral, shade-tolerant tree species over early-seral, intolerant trees in the absence of 

wildfire events (Powell 2000, Agee 1996a). Insect, disease, and windthrow and other disturbances would 

also generally accelerate this trend, although windthrow disturbances are known to favor the development 

of western larch in some minor instances. Understory biodiversity would generally be maintained or even 

initially increase as a result of implementing the proposed activities, because the species typical of moist 

upland environments do well in partial shade produced by natural disease, insect, or blowdown 

disturbance. One exception to this effect on species richness may occur in units receiving mastication 

activities, which are discussed below. 

Table 4-6 — Species composition for the portion of the forest vegetation Affected Environment 

included in Alternative B 

Forest Cover Type

Pre- Implementation Post- Implementation Difference

Acres Percent Acres Percent (Acres)

Ponderosa pine 154 4 154 4 + 0

Douglas-fir 184 4 226 5 + 42

Western larch 149 4 318 8 + 169

Lodgepole pine 434 10 434 10 + 0

Grand fir 1251 30 1295 31 + 44

Broadleaved species 208 5 208 5 + 0

Spruce-fir 1837 44 1581 37 – 255

Sources/Notes: Summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (forested NFS lands on the 

portion of the forest vegetation Affected Environment included within Alternative B – 

approximately 4,218 acres). 

Forest Structure 

Forest structure, as represented using structural stages, is expected to change in response to 

implementation of silvicultural activities proposed for Alternative B (Table 4-7). Although some of the 

existing old-forest stands (OFMS and OFSS) would be affected by proposed silvicultural activities in 

these Alternatives, the overall amount of old forest is not expected to decrease after implementation 

because only improvement cutting is proposed for existing old-forest stands, and because the proposed 

improvement cutting would leave at least 10 trees per acre equal to or greater than 21 inches DBH, the 

post-treatment structural stage remains old forest after intermediate activities are implemented. Structural 

changes in old-forest stands would involve a shift from multi-story (OFMS) to single story structures 

(OFSS). Structural development of these stands could over time transition to any number of structure 

types, depending on future disturbances and climatic envelopes suitable for species regeneration. In the 

absence of fire disturbances, most structures in the moist upland forest biophysical environment would 

experience some level of natural regeneration following thinning, which would need periodic 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-29

maintenance to maintain desired canopy fuel characteristics. Alternatively, OFSS structures in areas with 

a big huckleberry shrub understory present and/or dominant would possibly be self-perpetuating over the 

course of many decades under a low or mixed-severity fire regime (Figure 4-1). The primary difference 

between the effects of removing trees >21” DBH in several units under Alternative B relative to 

Alternative C is that more sub-dominant trees in the canopy would be removed under Alternative B in 

order to attain final residual fuels and tree density objectives, but this would generally not affect the 

distribution of structural classifications described in this chapter. 

The stand initiation (SI) and understory Reinitiation (UR) structural stages decrease as a direct effect of 

implementing Alternative B (Table 4-7), because the proposed improvement cutting and low thinning 

silvicultural activities remove all or a part of the seedling and sapling-sized trees within the treated stands. 

These stands are generally converted to the stem exclusion (SE) stage, which increases as a result of 

implementing the proposed activities. In some locations without a strong shrub component, the structural 

changes resulting from the proposed activities would be only temporary as understory trees establish and 

grow. The characteristic structural shift for this process would be a conversion from SE stands back to UR 

stages. Conversely, in other areas where shrub species like big huckleberry dominate, tree regeneration 

could be significantly limited for many years or even decades. 

Table 4-7 — Forest structural stages for the portion of the forest vegetation Affected Environment 

included in Alternative B 

Structural Stage

Pre-Implementation Post- Implementation Difference

Acres Percent Acres Percent (Acres)

SI 177 4 79 2 – 98

SE 352 8 1143 27 + 792

UR 1085 26 391 9 – 695

OFMS 1262 30 235 28 – 1027

OFSS 1342 32 2368 37 + 1027

Sources/Notes: Summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (forested NFS lands on 

the portion of the forest vegetation Affected Environment included within Alternative B – 

approximately 4,218 acres). 

Tree Density 

Tree density classes are expected to change in response to implementation of silvicultural activities 

proposed for Alternative B ( Table 4-8 ). One direct effect of implementing the silvicultural activities is 

expected to be a consistent reduction in tree density for the treatment units; however, in some treatment 

unit the reduction would not be enough to cross break points between density classes. As a result, most, 

but not all treated units would drop from the High to Moderate, or Moderate to Low classes. At the same 

time, no units would increase in density, and no areas are expected to convert directly from the High to 

Low classes. The net effect would be an increase in the Low to Moderate density classes, at the expense 

of the High density class ( Table 4-8 ). In the absence of fire disturbances, most structures in the moist 

upland forest biophysical environment would experience some level of natural regeneration following 

thinning, which would need periodic maintenance to maintain desired canopy fuel and density 

characteristics. Because no differences exist in the prescribed residual tree density among the acres 

affected under Alternatives B or C, no differences would result from retaining all trees >21” DBH. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-30

Table 4-8 — Tree density classes for the portion of the forest vegetation Affected Environment 

included in Alternative B 

Tree Density Class

Pre-Implementation Post-Implementation Difference

Acres Percent Acres Percent (Acres)

Low 198 5 485 11 + 287

Moderate 430 10 3504 83 + 3074

High 3590 85 229 5 – 3,361

Sources/Notes: Summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (forested NFS lands on the portion of the forest 

vegetation Affected Environment included within Alternative B – approximately 4,218 acres). 

Figure 4-1 — Example stand conditions of an Old Forest Single Stratum (OFSS) moist upland 

forest site, to which many Old Forest Multi Stratum structures would be converted as a result of 

implementing the activities proposed under Alternatives B and C.24

 

24 These conditions may be self-perpetuating and limit recruitment of understory trees (seedlings and saplings less 

than 5-inches in diameter) on moist sites due to the dense cover of big huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum), a 

clonal species that reproduces primarily from deep-rooted rhizomes and by sprouting at the root collar (Simonin 

2000). On sites such as the one pictured here, big huckleberry is functioning as the dominant undergrowth species in 

stands considered to be the potential natural community (e.g., climax). In these climax plant communities, big 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-31

In most locations, improvement cutting and low thinning would focus on the removal of late-seral trees in 

subordinate canopy positions, and leave a well-stocked stand of remaining trees composed predominantly 

of the original species characterizing the cover type. As a result, the direct and indirect effects of 

implementing the proposed activities on species composition would be relatively minor. For some stands, 

improvement cutting within the canopy focusing on retention of early or mid-seral species (western larch 

and Douglas-fir, respectively) and removal of late-seral species (true firs and Engelmann spruce) would 

result in the minor respective increases and decreases of these cover types indicated by Table 4-6 and 

Table 4-9. 

Table 4-9 — Species composition for the entire forest vegetation Affected Environment, reflecting 

direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative B 

Pre-Implementation Post-Implementation Difference

Forest Cover Type Acres Percent Acres Percent (Acres)

Ponderosa pine 2465 7 2465 1 No change

Douglas-fir 9885 26 9927 26 + 42

Western larch 1045 3 1215 3 + 169

Lodgepole pine 3269 9 3269 9 No change

Grand fir 10416 28 10460 28 + 44

Broadleaved species 578 2 578 2 No change

Spruce-fir 9907 26 9653 26 – 255

Sources/Notes: Summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (including the entire forest 

vegetation Affected Environment – approximately 37,566 acres), and reflecting the 

direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative B (affecting approximately 4218 acres of 

the Affected Environment). 

Historic Range of Variability (HRV) 

An HRV analysis was completed for species composition, forest structure, and tree density of the forest 

vegetation as it would exist after implementation of Alternative B. Because they vary by biophysical 

environment, the HRV analysis was stratified by potential vegetation group: dry upland forest and moist 

upland forest. Cold upland forest PVG was not included because it has too few acres (277) for a credible 

HRV analysis. 

Species Composition 

Species composition HRV results are presented in Table 4-10. 

Silvicultural activities proposed for implementation in Alternative B would have minimal effect on HRV 

results regarding species composition: no cover types moved inside or outside their respective historic 

ranges of variability as a result of implementing the activities. 

 

huckleberry is able to capture a substantial amount of the growing space and thereby preclude tree seedling 

establishment (or establishment of other non-tree vascular plant species). Periodic fires on these mixed-severity (fire 

regime III) sites had the effect of top-killing the huckleberry plants and initiating a new huckleberry cohort from the 

extensive rhizome system. Sparse tree establishment occurs during the multi-decade post-fire recovery period 

between initiation of new huckleberry shoots and eventual development of mature huckleberry plants, at which point 

huckleberry is able to exclude other plants once again (Simonin 2000). [Photo source: image acquired by D.C. 

Powell on a moist upland forest PVG site.] 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-32

Table 4-10 — HRV analysis of species composition for the entire forest vegetation Affected 

Environment, reflecting direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative B 

Cover Type

DRY UPLAND FOREST PVG MOIST UPLAND FOREST PVG

Historical Range Post-treatment Historical Range Post-treatment 

Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres

Western juniper 0-5 0-1786 0 0 — —

Ponderosa pine 50-80 787-1259 51 800 5-15 1786-5357 5 1665

Douglas-fir 5-20 79-315 21 326 15-30 5357-10715 27 9601

Western larch 1-10 16-157 0 0 10-30 3572-10715 3 1215

Broadleaved trees 0-5 0-79 0 0 1-10 357-3572 2 578

Lodgepole pine 25-45 8929-16072 9 3196

Western white pine 0-5 0-79 0 0 0-5 0-1786 0 0

Grand fir 1-10 16-157 28 448 15-30 5357-10715 28 10012

Spruce-fir — 1-10 357-3572 26 9448

Sources/Notes: Current amounts are summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (including the entire forest 

vegetation Affected Environment – approximately 37,566 acres, except for 277 acres of cold upland forest not 

included in this analysis), and reflecting the direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative B (affecting 

approximately 4,218 acres of the Affected Environment). Gray shading indicates cover types that are either above 

or below the historical range of variability. Historical ranges were adapted by the author of this specialist report 

from Morgan and Parsons (2001); they are based on multiple 1200-year simulations representing landscapes in a 

“dynamic equilibrium” with their disturbance regimes. 

Forest Structure 

Table 4-11 shows that the direct effects of implementing silvicultural activities associated with 

Alternative B have has a minor, but noticeable cumulative effect on forest structure when spread across 

the entire forest vegetation. As a result of implementing Alternative B, the representation of five 

structural stages (SI, SE, UR, OFMS and OFSS) is expected to change, but not enough to modify their 

respective portions by more than 5%. The representation of the SI structural stage is expected to change 

by less than 1% (Table 4-11).

Table 4-11 — Forest structural stages for the entire forest vegetation Affected Environment, 

reflecting direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative B 

Pre-Implementation Post- Implementation Difference

Structural Stage Acres Percent Acres Percent (Acres)

SI 2176 6 2078 6 – 98

SE 3184 8 3989 11 + 805

UR 7746 21 7039 19 – 707

OFMS 11600 31 10573 28 – 1,027

OFSS 12859 34 13886 37 + 1,027

Sources/Notes: Summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (including the entire 

forest vegetation Affected Environment – approximately 37,566 acres), and reflecting the 

direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative B (affecting approximately 4,218 acres 

of the Affected Environment). 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-33

An HRV analysis was completed for forest structure as it would exist after implementation of Alternative 

B. Because the historic ranges of variability for forest structure varies by biophysical environment, the 

HRV analysis was stratified by potential vegetation group: dry upland forest and moist upland forest. 

Note that the cold upland forest PVG is not included because it has too few acres (277) for a credible 

HRV analysis. 

Forest structure HRV results are presented in Table 4-12.

Table 4-12 — HRV analysis of forest structural stages for the entire forest vegetation Affected 

Environment, reflecting direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative B

Structural

Stage

DRY UPLAND FOREST PVG MOIST UPLAND FOREST PVG

Historical Range Post-treatment Historical Range Post-treatment 

Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres

SI 15-25 236-394 17 260 20-30 7143-10715 5 1796

SE 10-20 157-315 2 25 20-30 7143-10715 11 3964

UR 5-10 79-157 8 123 10-20 3572-7143 19 6788

OFMS 5-15 79-236 29 451 15-20 5357-7143 28 10104

OFSS 40-60 630-944 45 714 10-20 3572-7143 37 13063

Sources/Notes: Summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (including the entire forest vegetation 

Affected Environment – approximately 37,566 acres, except for 277 acres of cold upland forest not 

included in this analysis), and reflecting the direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative B 

(affecting approximately 4,218 acres of the Affected Environment). Gray shading indicates structural 

stages that are above or below the historical range of variability. Historical percentages (H%) were 

derived from Hall (1993), Johnson (1993), and USDA Forest Service (1995), as summarized in Martin 

(2010). 

Having an ecologically appropriate representation of forest structural stages (with increased proportions 

of SE and OFSS structure types and decreased proportions of OFMS and UR structures) well-distributed 

throughout the Tollgate planning area, each of which exists within its historical range of variability, is a 

desired future condition for forest vegetation–particularly because such a representation are generally 

more conducive to project goals of fuel reduction and mitigation of wildfire hazard. 

The information presented in Table 4-12 suggests that the silvicultural activities proposed for 

implementation in Alternative B had a modest effect on structural stage status with respect historic ranges 

of variability. Before implementation, the Dry UF PVG had 2 structural stages that were outside of HRV 

and the Moist UF PVG had 5 structural stages that were outside of HRV (Table 3-24). After 

implementation, the Dry UF PVG still would 2 structural stages that are outside of HRV and the Moist 

UF PVG would have 4 structural stages that are outside of HRV (Table 4-12). With the exception of the 

SI and OFSS structural stages, for stages initially outside of HRV for both the moist and dry upland 

biophysical environments, activities proposed under Alternative B would move the stage distribution 

closer to historic ranges. For the Moist UF PVG, proposed activities resulted in the understory reinitiation 

structural stage reaching the historical range – UR was above the range at 21% of the pre-treatment 

Affected Environment (Table 3-24) and Alternative B implementation reduced it to 19%, which is within 

the historical range (Table 4-12). The proposed activities maintained all ecosystem characteristics 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-34

(structural classes) already within ranges of variability expected to occur under natural disturbance 

regimes. 

Tree Density 

Table 4-13 shows that the direct effect of implementing Alternative B has an impact on tree density. As a 

result of implementing Alternative B, the representation of all three tree density classes changes in one 

direction or another: the low density class increases from 9 to 10%, the moderate class increases from 15 

to 23%, and the high class decreases from 76 to 67%. In all cases, tree density decreased as a result of 

implementing the activities proposed under Alternative B; therefore, both the low and moderate density 

classes increased due to site conversions from the moderate to high classes, respectively. 

Table 4-13 — Tree density classes for the entire forest vegetation Affected Environment, reflecting 

direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative B 

Tree Density Class

Pre-Implementation Post-Implementation Difference

Acres Percent Acres Percent (Acres)

Low 3356 9 3643 10 + 287

Moderate 5548 15 8635 23 + 3087

High 28662 76 25288 67 – 3,374

Sources/Notes: Summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (including the entire 

forest vegetation Affected Environment – approximately 37,566 acres), and reflecting the 

direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative B (affecting approximately 4,218 acres 

of the Affected Environment). 

An HRV analysis was completed for tree density of the forest vegetation. Tree density HRV results are 

presented in Table 4-14. 

Having an ecologically appropriate representation of tree (stand) density classes well distributed 

throughout the Tollgate planning area, each of which exists within its historical range of variability, is a 

desired future condition for forest vegetation. The information presented in Table 4-14 suggests that 

implementing Alternative B would result in mixed outcomes regarding tree density, at least in the context 

of HRV. Before implementation, the Dry UF PVG had 2 tree density classes that were outside of HRV 

and the Moist UF PVG had 3 density classes that were outside of HRV (Table 3-26). After 

implementation, the Dry UF PVG would increase to 3 density classes outside of HRV and the Moist UF 

PVG would still have 3 density classes outside of HRV (Table 4-14). 

For the Moist UF PVG, proposed activities resulted in the low density class increasing from 9 to 10%, 

which results in this class remaining outside the historical range; the moderate density class increased 

from 14 to 22%, both of which are below the historical range; and the high density class was reduced 

from 77 to 68%, remaining above the historical range after Alternative implementation. 

Table 4-14 — HRV analysis of tree density classes for the entire forest vegetation Affected 

Environment, reflecting direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative B

Tree

DRY UPLAND FOREST PVG MOIST UPLAND FOREST PVG
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-35

Density

Class Historical Range Post-treatment Historical Range Post-treatment 

Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres

Low 40-85 630-1338 5 83 20-40 7143-14286 10 3508

Moderate 15-30 236-472 32 498 25-60 8929-21429 22 8035

High 5-15 79-236 63 993 15-30 5357-10715 68 24172

Sources/Notes: Summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (including the entire forest vegetation Affected 

Environment – approximately 37,566 acres, except for 277 acres of cold upland forest not included in this analysis), 

and reflecting the direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative B (affecting approximately 4,218 acres of the 

Affected Environment). Gray shading indicates tree density classes that are above or below the historical range of 

variability. Historical ranges were taken from Schmitt and Powell (1998). 

As expected, for the Dry UF PVG, proposed activities did not affect the low density class. For the 

moderate density class, proposed activities would move the class slightly outside the historical range 

(from 30 to 32%) as a result of conversions from the high density class, which would drop from 65 to 

63%. 

With the exception of the Moderate tree density class in the Dry UF PVG, the proposed activities 

maintained all ecosystem characteristics (structural classes) already within ranges of variability expected 

to occur under natural disturbance regimes. Why wouldn’t implementation of the silvicultural activities 

associated with Alternative B result in more moving within historical ranges for species composition, 

forest structure, and tree density? This outcome is generally related to two factors: 

1. A relatively low proportion of area (acreage) is being treated (Table 4-13), which limits the 

opportunity to change under- or over-represented forest cover types. 

2. Proposed silvicultural activity units cannot generally address every issue simultaneously. Very 

few individual units address all three of the primary forest vegetation issue categories 

(composition, structure, density) simultaneously, so certain activity units directed toward a 

specific issue (such as composition) may have a neutral or negative effect on another issue (such 

as structure or density), depending on a unit’s suitability for addressing issues and priority setting 

between units. In general, the treatment priority was to address issues of forest structure and 

density, and not species composition – although minor, favorable trends for composition with 

respect to historic ranges of variability are anticipated. 

Risk/Susceptibility to windthrow, insect and disease disturbances 

Not all insect and disease organisms are influenced by high levels of stand density, but research has 

shown that Armillaria root disease, Douglas-fir beetle, Douglas-fir tussock moth, fir engraver, Indian 

paint fungus, mountain pine beetle, spruce beetle, western pine beetle, and western spruce budworm do 

seem to respond positively to high tree density (Powell 1999, and the literature citations contained in that 

source). Trees with increased insect or disease susceptibility often occur in dense forests where they face 

greater competition for soil moisture, nutrients, and other resources. Ponderosa pines in high-density 

stands, for example, have lower xylem water potentials and rates of photosynthesis, indicating greater 

drought stress. These trees also have decreased resin production and foliar toughness, suggesting reduced 

resistance to insect and pathogen attack (Kolb et al. 1998). 

Post-treatment tree density levels reaching the “lower limit of the management zone” stocking value, as 

identified in Powell (1999), are expected to reduce insect and disease susceptibility to acceptable levels 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-36

for 15-20 years into the future. Residual tree density levels occurring at the mid-point of the management 

zone (defined as halfway between the upper and lower management zone levels), or above the mid-point 

but below the upper limit, would reduce insect and disease susceptibility to acceptable levels for no more 

than 5-10 years. 

Western conifer forests experience periodic drought in response to recurring climate cycles such as the 

Pacific Decadal Oscillation (Heyerdahl et al. 2001, 2002, 2008a, 2008b; Kitzberger et al. 2007), and trees 

growing in dense stands are thought to be especially vulnerable to insect or disease attack and mortality 

during dry periods such as drought (Smith et al. 2005). 

Bark beetles 

Research studies found that tree mortality caused by mountain pine beetle, a bark beetle species affecting 

mature lodgepole pines and second-growth (immature) ponderosa pines, was insignificant until a 

threshold stand density was reached, at which point mortality quickly became substantial (Cochran 1992, 

Cochran and Barrett 1993, Mitchell et al. 1983, Oliver 1995, and many other insect or disease literature 

citations contained in a Best Available Science review for a recent, nearby, similar project – see Powell 

2009a). 

Thinning a lodgepole pine stand increases tree vigor and resistance to mountain pine beetle (Mitchell et 

al. 1983); fewer trees are killed in heavily thinned stands as compared to lightly thinned or unthinned 

stands (Preisler and Mitchell 1993, Schmitz et al. 1989, Whitehead and Russo 2005). Waring and Pitman 

(1985) also noted that the risk of a mountain pine beetle outbreak “can be greatly reduced by periodic 

thinning,” and that improved bark-beetle resistance develops within three years of the thinning treatment. 

Once trees respond to a thinning (usually 3-5 years after treatment), their improved vigor promotes 

production of defensive chemical compounds enhancing beetle resistance (Christiansen et al. 1987, Franceschi et al. 2005, Kolb et al. 1998, Mitchell and Martin 1980, Shrimpton 1978). Thinning activities 

contributing to high tree vigor levels could help forestall development of “focus trees” that function as 

bark beetle attractant (Eckberg et al. 1994). 

Defoliators 

Stand density influences insects and diseases other than bark beetles, such as tree defoliators. Although 

changes in the abundance of susceptible host cover types are not expected to appreciably diminish as a 

result of implementing the activities proposed under Alternatives B and C, a reduction of canopy layering 

and overall host tree density are expected to have notable effects on overall susceptibility. Carlson and 

Wulf (1989) concluded that thinning provided short-term protection against western spruce budworm for 

treated stands, and that it would presumably contribute to long-term budworm resistance once landscapesize areas were treated. In general, reducing stand density, particularly by separating tree crowns, and 

reducing canopy layering reduces overall susceptibility to defoliating insects such as the Douglas-fir 

tussock moth and western spruce budworm (Heller and Sader 1980, Schmitt and Powell 2005, Steele et 

al. 1996 and references therein, Stosczek et al. 1981, Weatherby et al. 1993). For ponderosa pine infected 

with dwarf mistletoe, Barrett and Roth (1985) found that wide spacing after thinning allowed residual 

trees to develop full crowns and acceptable vigor levels, despite heavy infection levels. Similar results 

were obtained for Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe (Knutson and Tinnin 1986). 

Root diseases and dwarf mistletoes 

A tendency toward greater tree mortality has been observed for stands with high density (Filip et al. 

1989c). Thinning increases host vigor and resistance to Armillaria; it can also improve resistance by 

modifying the proportion of hosts to non-hosts in a stand (Schmitt 1999). In a study involving thinned, 

fertilized, and untreated stands, Armillaria infection rates were lowest in thinned stands, and highest in 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-37

fertilized stands; infected Douglas-fir stands should be thinned when trees are small rather than large 

(Entry et al. 1991). 

While thinning within the Tollgate area may slow disease and mistletoe spread, and prevent occurrence in 

many areas, it should not be expected to significantly lower existing rates of infection – particularly when 

root disease and mistletoe host species remain abundant and/or dominant within a stand (Appendix C). In 

fact, incidence and severity of Armillaria root disease is increased by soil compaction and displacement, 

which is often associated with sites having had multiple entries where ground-based skidding was done. 

Armillaria is also amplified by later successional and high-graded stand structure and composition where 

susceptible hosts are a dominant component (Appendix C). Thus, in many locations where Armillaria and 

other root diseases (Indian paint fungus, Annosus root disease, and laminated root rot) are currently 

present and actively killing trees, it should be expected that slow but steady mortality would continue to 

occur among all size classes of true firs and Engelmann spruce, and incidental amounts of pine and larch. 

Tree mortality would result in canopy gaps generally filled in by shade-tolerant true firs and spruce, with 

an overall trend of creating a multi-layered canopy dominated by shade-tolerant species over the course of 

several years or decades (Appendix C, Craig Schmitt, personal communication 2011). Initial activities to 

reduce ladder fuels and create a single canopy layer would require periodic, follow-up maintenance to 

thin regeneration (or perform regeneration harvests) created in canopy gaps. 

Windthrow 

Windthrow events are an intermittent occurrence on the upland plateau where the Tollgate project would 

occur. Known significant events affecting large areas occur perhaps once or twice per decade, but smaller, 

chronic events occur more frequently among susceptible stands such as those associated with the nearby 

Abla timber sale. Past damage in the area has been generally highest among recently and heavily thinned 

stands (generally with 50-70 ft2/ac of residual basal area or less), high points, ridge tops, plateau rims, 

and/or areas with shallow productive soils. Subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, and grand fir are considered 

most susceptible due to a shallow rooting habit, with lodgepole pine and western white pine associated 

with moderate susceptibility. Although structural, edaphic and topographic conditions may present 

windthrow risks to all species, western larch, Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine are generally known for a 

deep rooting habit which is considered relatively wind-firm (all species risk ratings found in Powell 2000, 

Appendix 2). 

Substantial variability of forest density exists across the areas affected by proposed actions, but highdensity forests are most abundant (Table 3-25). Dense stands with trees characterized by high 

height/diameter ratios which undergo a significant thinning may be at risk of windthrow damage. 

The activities proposed under Alternatives B are not expected to significantly increase susceptibility to 

windthrow, particularly if the overall objective is to increase crown spacing to only 5-15 feet among 

individual dominant trees and retain well-stocked stands of moderate or high density (80-140 ft2/ac). 

With care exercised by marking crews and attention to windthrow in susceptible locations (previously 

dense stands, high points, ridge tops, plateau rims, and/or areas with shallow productive soils), a balance 

can be struck to retain wind-firm clumps and/or minimize increases of canopy spacing, while still 

accomplishing fuels reduction objectives. 

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects include the direct and indirect effects of implementing Alternative B in combination 

with overlapping (in time and space) direct and indirect effects of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future activities on forest vegetation. These activities are briefly indicated in the Scale of 

Analysis section, and for the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project include fire suppression, fuelwood 

collection / roadside hazard tree removal, and hazard tree removal at administrative sites. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-38

For each activity, three indicators are used to examine pre-treatment and post-treatment trends for a 

cumulative effects analysis of forest vegetation conditions: 1) species composition (forest cover types), 2) 

forest structural stages, and 3) tree density classes. Analysis is also included of the extent to which 

cumulative effects represented by any of these indicators may also reflect changes in susceptibility to 

insect and disease disturbances. 

The direct and indirect effects of past actions on forest vegetation within the Tollgate project are 

represented by existing conditions as described in the Affected Environment section. The cumulative 

effects of past activities in combination with implementing activities proposed under Alternative B are 

thus described concurrently with the direct and indirect effects in the previous section. 

Fire suppression 

The activities proposed under Alternative B would, cumulatively, have mitigating effects on successional 

transitions of species composition, changes in forest structure and tree density toward stem exclusion and 

old forest multi-strata stands, and increases in tree density. These mitigating effects are described in the 

Direct/indirect effects analysis for Alternative B. The cumulative effect of activities proposed under both 

Alternative B would slightly reverse the changes to species composition, structure, and density expected 

to result from implementing a fire suppression program (described in the effects analysis for Alternative 

A). Similarly, the mitigating, or counter-acting nature of the direct and indirect effects of the activities 

proposed under Alternative B are such that these activities would slightly reverse the changes in 

susceptibility to insect and disease disturbances already described as an environmental consequence of 

adopting Alternative A. 

Special Forest Products Gathering 

The present and reasonably foreseeable special forest products program on the Walla Walla Ranger 

District involves the dispersed collection and removal of dead trees by members of the general public, as 

well as mushrooms, posts and poles, and other items. Because the program only allows the removal of 

dead trees along designated travel corridors, the cumulative effect of this program and the activities 

proposed under Alternative B on forest species composition, tree density, and forest structure are 

expected to be minimal and essentially imperceptible. Removal of dead trees for fuelwood collection 

removes some trees that would have otherwise been available for down woody debris and carbon and 

nitrogen cycling; however, dead trees which are too rotten and decomposed for fuelwood use are 

regularly bypassed by fuelwood collectors and thereby made available for nutrient cycling and other 

ecosystem processes. As a result, field reconnaissance across portions of the forest Affected Environment 

affected by fuelwood collection and the activities proposed under Alternative B indicates that existing and 

reasonably foreseeable levels currently and would continue to generally fall within ranges recommended 

by Graham et al. (1994) and Brown et al. (2003) to maintain site productivity for Dry and cold upland 

forests (5-10 tons of coarse woody debris per acre) and moist upland forests (10-25 tons per acre). 

To the limited extent they may exist, cumulative effects on forest species composition, structure, and tree 

density associated with the activities proposed under Alternative B along with the District fuelwood 

collection program are not expected to have appreciable effects on susceptibility to windthrow, insect, or 

disease disturbances. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of activities proposed under Alternative B, 

overlapping in space and time with District fuelwood collection activities, is expected, over the course of 

several decades, to include a very small increase in the incidence of Armillaria root disease above the 

levels discussed in the Direct/indirect effects section above for these Alternatives. This increase, however, 

is so minor as to be essentially imperceptible at the scale of individual forest stands and particularly the 

entire Tollgate project planning area. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-39

Alternative C 

Alternative C has similar effects to those disclosed above for Alternative B. The major difference between 

the action alternatives is the number of acres affected by each alternative. Since they are similar, the 

effects disclosed below are similar to those above.⸀⸀

Direct and indirect effects

Species Composition 

Species composition, as represented using forest cover types, is expected to change only slightly in 

response to implementation of silvicultural activities proposed for Alternative C (Table 4-15). As a result, 

just in alternative B, the direct and indirect effects of implementing the proposed activities on species 

composition would be relatively minor. For some stands, improvement cutting within the canopy focusing 

on retention of early or mid-seral species (western larch and Douglas-fir, respectively) and removal of 

late-seral species (true firs and Engelmann spruce) would result in the respective changes of these cover 

types indicated by Table 4-15. 

Table 4-15 — Species composition for the portion of the forest vegetation Affected Environment 

included in Alternative C 

Pre- Implementation Post- Implementation Difference

Forest Cover Type Acres Percent Acres Percent (Acres)

Ponderosa pine 144 4 144 4 + 0

Douglas-fir 100 3 161 4 + 61

Western larch 120 3 258 7 + 138

Lodgepole pine 431 11 431 11 + 0

Grand fir 1059 28 1126 30 + 67

Broadleaved species 115 3 115 3 + 0

Spruce-fir 1785 48 1519 40 – 265

Sources/Notes: Summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (including the entire forest 

vegetation Affected Environment – approximately 37,566 acres). 

Forest Structure 

Effects to forest structure for alternative C, is expected to be similar to Alternative B in that structural 

stages are expected to change in response to implementation of silvicultural activities (Table 4-16). 

The overall amount of old forest is not expected to decrease after implementation because only 

improvement cutting is proposed for existing old-forest stands, and because the proposed improvement 

cutting would leave at least 10 trees per acre equal to or greater than 21 inches DBH, the post-treatment 

structural stage remains old forest after intermediate activities are implemented. Structural changes in oldforest stands would involve a shift from multi-story (OFMS) to single story structures (OFSS). 

Table 4-16 — Forest structural stages for the portion of the forest vegetation Affected Environment 

included in Alternative C 

Pre-Implementation Post- Implementation Difference

Structural Stage Acres Percent Acres Percent (Acres)

SI 83 2 79 2 – 4

SE 348 9 1037 28 + 689

UR 1051 28 367 10 – 684
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-40

OFMS 1156 31 237 6 – 919

OFSS 1115 30 2034 54 + 919

Sources/Notes: Summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (forest vegetation 

Affected Environment included within Alternative C – approximately 3754 acres). 

The stand initiation (SI) and understory reinitiation (UR) structural stages decrease as a direct effect of 

implementing Alternative C (Table 4-16), because the proposed improvement cutting and low thinning 

silvicultural activities remove all or a part of the seedling and sapling-sized trees within the treated stands. 

The primary difference between the effects of removing trees >21” DBH in several units under 

Alternative B relative to Alternative C is that more sub-dominant trees in the canopy would be removed 

under Alternative B in order to attain final residual fuels and tree density objectives, but this would 

generally not affect the distribution of structural classifications described in this chapter. 

Tree Density 

Effects to tree density classes are expected to similar to Alterntaive B in that there is expected to be a 

consistent reduction in tree density for the treatment units; however, in some treatment units the reduction 

would not be enough to cross break points between density classes. As a result, most, but not all treated 

units would drop from the High to Moderate, or Moderate to Low classes. At the same time, no units 

would increase in density, and no areas are expected to convert directly from the High to Low classes. 

The net effect for the Affected Environment would be an increase in the Low to Moderate density classes, 

at the expense of the High density class (Table 4-17). Because no differences exist in the prescribed 

residual tree density among the acres affected under Alternatives B or C, no differences would result from 

retaining all trees >21” DBH. 

Table 4-17 — Tree density classes for the portion of the forest vegetation Affected Environment 

included in Alternative C 

Tree Density

Class

Pre-Implementation Post-Implementation Difference

Acres Percent Acres Percent (Acres)

Low 184 5 433 12 + 249

Moderate 360 10 3100 83 + 2740

High 3210 86 221 6 – 2989

Sources/Notes: Summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (forest vegetation Affected 

Environment included within Alternative C – approximately 3754 acres). 

Historic Range of Variability (HRV) 

An HRV analysis was completed for species composition, forest structure, and density of the forest 

vegetation as it would exist after implementation of Alternative C. Because these categories vary by 

biophysical environment, the HRV analysis was stratified by potential vegetation group: dry upland forest 

and moist upland forest. Cold upland forest PVG was not included because it has too few acres (277) for a 

credible HRV analysis. 

HRV-Species Composition 

Species composition HRV results are presented in Table 4-18. 

Table 4-18 — HRV analysis of species composition for the entire forest vegetation Affected 

Environment, reflecting direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative C 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-41

Cover Type

DRY UPLAND FOREST PVG MOIST UPLAND FOREST PVG

Historical Range Post-treatment Historical Range Post-treatment

Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres

Western juniper 0-5 0-1786 0 0 — —

Ponderosa pine 50-80 787-1259 51 800 5-15 1786-5357 5 1665

Douglas-fir 5-20 79-315 21 326 15-30 5357-10715 27 9620

Western larch 1-10 16-157 0 0 10-30 3572-10715 3 1183

Broadleaved trees 0-5 0-79 0 0 1-10 357-3572 2 578

Lodgepole pine 25-45 8929-16072 9 3197

Western white pine 0-5 0-79 0 0 0-5 0-1786 0 0

Grand fir 1-10 16-157 28 448 15-30 5357-10715 28 10032

Spruce-fir — 1-10 357-3572 26 9442

Sources/Notes: Current amounts are summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (including the entire forest 

vegetation Affected Environment – approximately 37,566 acres, except for 277 acres of cold upland forest not 

included in this analysis), and reflecting the direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative C (affecting 

approximately 3754 acres of the Affected Environment). Gray shading indicates cover types that are either above 

or below the historical range of variability. Historical ranges were adapted by the author of this specialist report 

from Morgan and Parsons (2001); they are based on multiple 1200-year simulations representing landscapes in a 

“dynamic equilibrium” with their disturbance regimes. 

The table suggests that the silvicultural activities proposed for implementation in Alternative C would 

have minimal effect on HRV results regarding species composition: no cover types moved inside or 

outside their respective historic ranges of variability as a result of implementing the activities. 

HRV- Forest Structure 

Table 4-19 shows that the direct effects of implementing silvicultural activities associated with 

Alternative C have a minor, but noticeable cumulative effect on forest structure when spread across the 

entire forest vegetation Affected Environment. As a result of implementing Alternative C, the 

representation of five structural stages (SI, SE, UR, OFMS and OFSS) is expected to change, but not 

enough to modify their respective portions of the Affected Environment by 5% or more. The 

representation of the SI structural stage is expected to change by less than 1% (Table 4-19).

Table 4-19 — Forest structural stages for the entire forest vegetation Affected Environment, 

reflecting direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative C 

Pre-Implementation Post- Implementation Difference

Structural Stage Acres Percent Acres Percent (Acres)

SI 2176 6 2172 6 – 4

SE 3184 8 3891 10 + 707

UR 7746 21 7044 19 – 702

OFMS 11600 31 10662 28 – 938

OFSS 12859 34 13797 37 + 938

Sources/Notes: Summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (including the entire 

forest vegetation Affected Environment – approximately 37,566 acres), and reflecting the 

direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative C (affecting approximately 3,900 acres 

of the Affected Environment). 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-42

Table 4-20 — HRV analysis of forest structural stages for the entire forest vegetation Affected 

Environment, reflecting direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative C

Structural

Stage

DRY UPLAND FOREST PVG MOIST UPLAND FOREST PVG

Historical Range Post-treatment Historical Range Post-treatment 

Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres

SI 15-25 236-394 17 260 20-30 7143-10715 5 1891

SE 10-20 157-315 2 25 20-30 7143-10715 11 3866

UR 5-10 79-157 8 123 10-20 3572-7143 19 6793

OFMS 5-15 79-236 29 451 15-20 5357-7143 29 10194

OFSS 40-60 630-944 45 714 10-20 3572-7143 36 12975

Sources/Notes: Summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (including the entire forest vegetation 

Affected Environment – approximately 37,566 acres, except for 277 acres of cold upland forest not 

included in this analysis), and reflecting the direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative C 

(affecting approximately 3754 acres of the Affected Environment). Gray shading indicates structural 

stages that are above or below the historical range of variability. Historical percentages (H%) were 

derived from Hall (1993), Johnson (1993), and USDA Forest Service (1995), as summarized in Martin 

(2010). 

The information presented in Table 4-20 suggests that the silvicultural activities proposed for 

implementation in Alternative C had a modest effect on structural stage status with respect historic ranges 

of variability. Before implementation, the Dry UF PVG had 2 structural stages that were outside of HRV 

and the Moist UF PVG had 5 structural stages that were outside of HRV. After implementation, the Dry 

UF PVG still would 2 structural stages that are outside of HRV and the Moist UF PVG would have 4 

structural stages that are outside of HRV (Table 4-20). 

With the exception of the SI structural stage, for stages initially outside of HRV for both the moist and 

dry upland biophysical environments, activities proposed under Alternative C would move the relative 

distribution closer to historic levels. For the Moist UF PVG, proposed activities resulted in the understory 

reinitiation structural stage reaching the historical range – UR was above the range at 21% of the pretreatment and Alternative C implementation reduced it to 19%, which is within the historical range (Table 

4-20).

HRV- Density 

Table 4-21 shows that the direct effect of implementing Alternative C has an obvious impact on tree 

density when spread across the entire forest vegetation. As a result of implementing Alternative C, the 

representation of all three tree density classes changes in one direction or another: the low density class 

increases from 9 to 10%, the moderate class increases from 15 to 22%, and the high class decreases from 

76 to 68%. In all cases, tree density decreased as a result of implementing the activities proposed under 

Alternative C; therefore, both the low and moderate density classes increased due to site conversions from 

the moderate to high classes, respectively. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-43

Table 4-21 — Tree density classes for the entire forest vegetation Affected Environment, reflecting 

direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative C 

Tree Density

Class

Pre-Implementation Post-Implementation Difference

Acres Percent Acres Percent (Acres)

Low 3356 9 3622 10 + 266

Moderate 5548 15 8382 22 + 2834

High 28662 76 25564 68 – 3098

Sources/Notes: Summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (including the entire 

forest vegetation Affected Environment – approximately 37,566 acres), and reflecting the 

direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative C (affecting approximately 3754 acres of 

the Affected Environment). Refer to Martin (2010) and Powell (2010b) for information 

about the tree density classes and how they were derived. 

Tree density HRV results are presented in Table 4-22. 

For the Moist UF PVG, proposed activities resulted in the low density class increasing from 9 to 10%, 

which results in this class remaining outside the historical range; the moderate density class increased 

from 14 to 22%, both of which are below the historical range; and the high density class was reduced 

from 77 to 68%, remaining well above the historical range after Alternative implementation. 

As expected, for the Dry UF PVG, proposed activities did not affect the low density class. For the 

moderate density class, proposed activities would move the class slightly outside the historical range 

(from 30 to 31%) as a result of conversions from the high density class, which would drop from 65 to 

64%. 

Table 4-22 — HRV analysis of tree density classes for the entire forest vegetation Affected 

Environment, reflecting direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative C

Tree

Density

Class

DRY UPLAND FOREST PVG MOIST UPLAND FOREST PVG

Historical Range Post-treatment Historical Range Post-treatment 

Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres

Low 40-85 630-1338 5 83 20-40 7143-14286 10 3486

Moderate 15-30 236-472 31 489 25-60 8929-21429 22 7791

High 5-15 79-236 64 1002 15-30 5357-10715 68 24439

Sources/Notes: Summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (including the entire forest vegetation 

Affected Environment – approximately 37,566 acres, except for 277 acres of cold upland forest not 

included in this analysis), and reflecting the direct/indirect effects of implementing Alternative C 

(affecting approximately 3,900 acres of the Affected Environment). Gray shading indicates tree density 

classes that are above or below the historical range of variability. Historical ranges were taken from 

Schmitt and Powell (1998). 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-44

Why wouldn’t implementation of the silvicultural activities associated with Alternatives C result in more 

of the forest structural stages moving within their historical ranges? This outcome is generally related to 

two factors: 

1. A relatively low proportion of area (acreage) is being treated (Table 4-21), which limits the 

opportunity to change under- or over-represented forest vegetation types. 

2. Proposed silvicultural activity units cannot generally address every issue simultaneously. Very 

few individual units address all three of the primary forest vegetation issue categories 

(composition, structure, density) simultaneously, so certain activity units directed toward a 

specific issue (such as composition) may have a neutral or negative effect on another issue (such 

as structure or density), depending on a unit’s suitability for addressing issues and priority setting 

between units. 

Risk/Susceptibility to windthrow, insect and disease disturbances / Slash 

Treatments 

The activities proposed under Alternative C are qualitatively similar to those proposed under Alternative 

B such that a general assessment of direct and indirect effects on vegetation susceptibility to windthrow, 

insects and diseases can be found in the direct/indirect effects section for Alternative B. Similarly, slash 

treatment effects on vegetation species composition, density, and forest structure for activities described 

under Alternative C are described in the direct/indirect effects section for Alternative B. Differences 

between the two Alternatives over time do not exist. Differences over space are indicated in Maps A3 and 

A4. 

Cumulative effects

The activities proposed under Alternative C are similar to those proposed under Alternative B, such that 

an analysis of cumulative effects of implementing the activities proposed under Alternative C overlapping 

in space and time with the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities can be 

found by reviewing the cumulative effects section for Alternative B. 

Consistency Findings with Forest Plan and Other Laws and 

Regulations 

Eastside Screens Forest Plan Amendment 

In March 1993, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) petitioned the U.S. Forest Service 

(Pacific Northwest Region) to halt all timber harvest activity in old growth forest occurring on national 

forest lands located east of the Cascade Mountain crest in Oregon and Washington (this geographical area 

is also known as the Eastside). 

A month later in April 1993, a group of university and U.S. Forest Service research scientists released an 

“Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment” in draft form; this assessment is known as the “Everett 

Report” because it was directed by Dr. Richard Everett, a scientist located at the Wenatchee Forestry 

Sciences Laboratory (Everett et al. 1994). 

In response to both the NRDC petition and the Everett report, the Pacific Northwest Region of the U.S. 

Forest Service issued interim direction in August 1993 requiring that timber sales prepared and offered by 

Eastside national forests be evaluated to determine their potential impact on riparian habitat, historical 

vegetation patterns, and wildlife fragmentation and connectivity. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-45

This interim direction, known as the Eastside Screens, was used to amend Eastside forest plans when 

Regional Forester John Lowe signed a Decision Notice on May 20, 1994 to implement Regional 

Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #1 (USDA Forest Service 1994). Regional Forester’s Forest Plan 

Amendment #1 is amendment #8 to the Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

A slightly revised version of the Eastside Screens was issued as Regional Forester’s Forest Plan 

Amendment #2 when Regional Forester John Lowe signed a Decision Notice on June 12, 1995 (USDA 

Forest Service 1995). Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2 is amendment #11 to the Umatilla 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

The Eastside Screens consist of six items: three general items (items 1 to 3), a riparian standard (item 4), 

an ecosystem standard (item 5), and a wildlife standard (item 6). This section describes how proposed 

silvicultural activities for the Tollgate Vegetation Management Project would comply with the Eastside 

Screens. 

General Standards (items 1-3 in FP Amendment #11) 

Item 1 defines the scope of the Eastside Screens to be timber sales only. 

Finding: The Proposed Action includes intermediate harvest silvicultural activities. In some portions of 

the planning area, these activities would be implemented using a commercial timber sale contract. Since 

item 1 defines the scope of the Eastside Screens to be timber sales only, and because a timber sale 

contract would be used to implement some of the silvicultural activities, this means that the Tollgate 

Vegetation Management Project must comply with the Eastside Screens. 

Item 2 exempts personal-use firewood sales, post and pole sales, sales to protect health and safety, and 

sales within recreation special use areas from the amendment. 

Finding: It is not anticipated that personal-use firewood sales, post and pole sales, sales to protect health 

and safety, or sales within recreation special use areas would be used to implement any of the thinning or 

regeneration cutting silvicultural activities, so item 2 does not apply to the Tollgate Vegetation 

Management Project. 

Item 3 exempts five categories of timber sales from the ecosystem standard (but not from the riparian and 

wildlife standards): 

Precommercial thinning; 

Material sold as fiber; 

Dead material less than 7 inches in diameter, with incidental green volume; 

Salvage sales located outside mapped old growth, with incidental green volume; and 

Commercial thinning and understory removal sales located outside mapped old growth. 

Finding: Both of the intermediate silvicultural activities (improvement cutting and low thinning) qualify 

for an exemption from the ecosystem standard because they are “commercial thinning and understory 

removal sales located outside mapped old growth” (the fifth category of timber sales included in item 3). 

“Mapped old growth” is defined to include both of the Forest Plan allocations for old growth (C1 and 

C2) and as depicted on published maps distributed with the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990), as 

amended. This definition for mapped old growth follows written guidance and direction from the Pacific 

Northwest Region “Eastside Screens Oversight Team” (Lowe 1995). 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-46

However, direction from the Pacific Northwest Regional Office states that it is not mandatory to exempt 

“commercial thinning and understory removal sales” from the ecosystem standard and it further notes that 

in some circumstances, it may be advantageous to project viability to not exempt them (Lowe 1995). 

The intermediate silvicultural activities described in the Proposed Action (improvement cutting, low 

thinning) are contained in the land base used for the historical range of variability (HRV) analysis for the 

Tollgate Vegetation Management Project, so there is no need to exempt them from the ecosystem 

standard, and an exemption is not claimed. 

Riparian Standard (item 4 in Forest Plan Amendment #11) 

Item 4 of the Eastside Screens directs that timber sales (green and salvage) will not be planned or located 

in riparian areas. 

Umatilla National Forest policy is that amendment #10 (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land 

Management 1994) to the Land and Resource Management Plan would be applied in lieu of the riparian 

standard from the Eastside Screens. 

Forest Plan amendment #10, commonly referred to as Pacfish, is interim direction designed to “arrest the 

degradation and begin the restoration of aquatic habitat and riparian areas on lands administered by the 

Forest Service and BLM; it applies to watersheds outside the range of the northern spotted owl that 

provide habitat for Pacific salmon, steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat trout.” This policy means that 

applying Pacfish also meets the Eastside Screens riparian standard. 

Pacfish uses a buffer concept to establish riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCA) along both sides of 

streams, rivers, lakes and other wetlands. RHCA widths extend from the edge of the active stream 

channel and they vary with stream class and whether a stream is fish bearing or not. RHCAs can be 

established using specified feet of slope distance (such as 300 feet on either side of perennial, fish-bearing 

streams) or in numbers of “site potential tree heights” (such as 2 site-potential tree heights for perennial, 

fish-bearing streams). The interim RHCA widths established by the Pacfish environmental assessment 

could be adjusted during watershed analysis or after site-specific analysis presenting a rationale for 

RHCA modifications. 

Timber harvest activities are prohibited by the Pacfish amendment except in the following situations (see 

timber management standards, page C-9, in USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land 

Management 1994): 

5. For catastrophic events such as fire, flooding, volcanic, wind or insect damage (when salvage harvest 

and fuelwood cutting is then allowed if compatible with riparian management objectives); and 

6. When applying silvicultural practices to control stocking, reestablish and culture stands, and acquire 

desired vegetation characteristics in a manner that also meets riparian management objectives. 

Finding: None of the proposed silvicultural activities would occur in any of the riparian habitat 

conservation areas established by Pacfish (FP amendment #10) not covered by exception authorities 

under item #2 above, and/or a Forest Plan amendment. The project would include a site specific Forest 

Plan amendment for the fuels treatments within RHCA of units 19, 38, 66, and 75 (unit 19 only, under 

Alternative C), described in Appendix B. The amendment would modify applicable Pacfish standards and 

guides regarding treatment within RHCAs. The amendment is site specific to the Tollgate Fuels 

Reduction project and would remain valid only during implementation of this project. The intention of the 

treatment is to control stocking by reducing stand density to within management zones recommended by 

Powell (1999, 2009c), and would result in desirable vegetation characteristics because post-treatment 

stands would be relatively resistant to passive or active crown fire, as described in the fire and fuels 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-47

specialist report in the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project record. The desired vegetation characteristics 

would also meet riparian management objectives by reducing future wildfire intensity and severity 

(references), maintaining high levels of canopy cover and stream shade, and maintain moderate to high 

levels of woody structure to maintain hydrologic form and function (refer to the hydrology and fisheries 

reports in the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project record for a description of sufficient riparian canopy cover 

and woody debris/structure) 

Ecosystem Standard (item 5 in Forest Plan Amendment #11) 

The ecosystem standard requires a landscape-level assessment of the historical range of variability (HRV) 

for structural stages, including a comparison of existing structural stage amounts with their historical 

ranges. 

Item 5 (a) requires that the Forest Service “characterize the proposed timber sale and its associated 

watershed for patterns of stand structure by biophysical environment and compare to the Historic Range 

of Variability (HRV).” 

Item 5 (c) requires that the Forest Service “characterize the difference in percent composition of structural 

stages between HRV and current conditions.” 

Finding: Structural stages for the planning area were determined and then compared with their historical 

ranges (e.g., HRV) by biophysical environment. Results of the analysis results are included in Table 3-24. 

Item 5(b) requires that the Forest Service (1) “describe the dominant historical disturbance regime, i.e. the 

disturbance types and their magnitudes and frequencies. (2) Characterize the landscape pattern and 

abundance of structural stages maintained by the disturbance regime. Consider biophysical environmental 

setting across the landscape to make this determination. (3) Describe spatial pattern and distribution of 

structural stages under the HRV disturbance regime, and (4) Map the current pattern of structural stages 

and calculate their abundance by biophysical environmental setting” (USDA Forest Service 1995). 

Finding: The analyses and map required by item 5(b) above are included within this analysis as follows: 

5(b)(1): Table F2 and associated references 

5(b)(2) and (3): Table 3-24 and F6a-c, and associated references 

5(b)(4): Figure F1 in Appendix F and Figure 4-2 here, as well as Table 3-24, and F6a-c, and 

associated references 

Item 5 (c) also requires that the Forest Service “identify structural conditions and biophysical 

environment combinations that are outside HRV conditions to determine potential treatment areas” 

(USDA Forest Service 1995). 

Finding: Results from the structural stage HRV analysis were used when determining potential treatment 

areas for the Tollgate Vegetation Management Project. However, HRV analyses were also completed for 

species composition and tree density in addition to structural stages, so potential treatment areas may 

reflect HRV results for more than one of these indicators: species composition, structural stage, and tree 

density. 

Wildlife Standard (item 6 in Forest Plan Amendment #11) 

Item 6 (a) states that the wildlife standard has two possible scenarios to follow as based on HRV results 

for late-old structural stages (LOS), and it defines LOS to be the “multi-stratum with large trees” and 

“single stratum with large trees” structural stages. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-48

Item 6 (b) directs that: 

1. Scenario A (item 6 d) is to be used whenever either one of the LOS stages is below HRV. If both 

LOS stages occur within a single biophysical environment and one is above HRV and one below, 

scenario A is to be used. 

2. Scenario B (item 6 e) is to be used only when both LOS stages for a particular biophysical 

environment are within or above HRV. 

Finding: Tables F6a-b in Appendix A show that both LOS stages are within or above HRV for both 

dry and the moist upland forest biophysical environments. According to item 6 (b) of the wildlife 

standard and the HRV results presented in Appendix Tables F6a-b, this means that forest vegetation 

silvicultural activities for the Tollgate Vegetation Management Project must comply with

Scenario B for the Dry and Moist Upland Forest biophysical environments. 

When performing analysis of vegetation Historic Ranges of Variability (HRVs), existing vegetation was 

stratified into PVGs (Martin 2010). Since the cold upland forest PVG included less than 1,000 acres 

within the Tollgate planning area, it was largely excluded during HRV analysis because a full 

complement of cover types, structural stages, or tree density classes would not be expected for such a 

small amount of acreage (Martin 2010 and Powell 2010b). 

Item 6(e), which is scenario B of the wildlife standard, has the four requirements described below. Since 

the Dry and Moist Upland Forest biophysical environments must comply with Scenario B, all findings 

will be reported in the context of these biophysical environments. 

1. Item 1 of scenario B establishes a priority for timber harvest activities, ranging from non-LOS 

stands (first priority) to smaller, isolated LOS stands (second priority) and finally to the interior of 

large LOS stands as a third priority (large LOS is defined as stands occupying 100 acres or more). 

Regeneration and group selection treatments are not allowed in the interior of large LOS stands 

(item 6(e)(1)(c)). 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-49

Figure 4-2 — Map depicting the current pattern of structural stages for the entire Tollgate Project 

Planning Area (app. 37,566 acres). 25

Finding: The underlying assumption of this item is that if timber sale activities were allowed to 

occur within LOS stands, they could cause significant reduction in LOS suitability, particularly if 

the silvicultural activities being applied involved regeneration cutting methods. 

Also, all silvicultural activity proposed for LOS stands involves intermediate (non-regeneration) 

silvicultural activities that would maintain LOS characteristics after treatment. Since intermediate 

harvest is the only harvest activity proposed for LOS stands, regardless of which biophysical 

environment activities occur in or which of the wildlife screen scenarios they fall under, there is 

no regeneration cutting proposed (including group selection) for any portion of the LOS stands, 

including their interiors. 

 

25 Structural stage names in the map legend correspond to the Eastside Screens names (see Table 9), and are 

synonymous with the old forest names or acronyms used for structural stages elsewhere in this report. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-50

2. Item 2 of scenario B requires that connectivity be maintained between LOS stands and Forest 

Plan-designated old-growth areas, and that fragmentation of existing LOS stands be avoided by 

limiting silvicultural treatments to non-regeneration and single-tree selection prescriptions (this 

requirement is derived from item 6(d)(3) of scenario A). 

Finding: Because only intermediate thinning treatments are included under Alternatives B and C 

(see Description of Alternatives section), connectivity would be maintained between LOS stands 

and Forest Plan-designated old-growth areas, and that fragmentation of existing LOS stands 

would be avoided by limiting silvicultural treatments to non-regeneration and single-tree 

selection prescriptions. 

3. Item 3 of scenario B is a non-fragmentation standard that limits silvicultural treatments within the 

interior of large LOS stands to “non-fragmenting prescriptions such as thinning, single-tree 

selection (UEAM), salvage, understory removal, and other non-regeneration activities.” Group 

selection is allowed when openings mimic the natural forest pattern and do not exceed 1⁄2 acre in 

size. 

Finding: As described above for item 1, all silvicultural activity proposed for LOS stands 

involves improvement cutting, an intermediate silvicultural activity (and a “non-fragmenting 

prescription”) that would maintain LOS characteristics after treatment. Since improvement 

cutting is the only activity proposed for LOS stands, regardless of the biophysical environment in 

which it occurs or which of the wildlife screen scenarios under which it falls, there are no 

proposals to use group selection or other regeneration cutting methods for LOS stands.

4. Item 4 of scenario B requires that the snag, green-tree replacement, and down log standards from 

scenario A be followed (this is item 6(d)(4)(a) of scenario A), and that the goshawk standards 

from scenario A also be met (this is item 6(d)(4)(b) of scenario A), although item 4 does modify 

certain aspects of the post-fledging goshawk requirement from scenario A. 

Finding: The project’s design features and management requirements stipulate that snags and 

replacement tree numbers would meet or exceed Forest Plan standards. For specific details about 

the snags, replacement trees, and down logs items, see the wildlife specialist report. According to 

the wildlife specialist report, there are no known goshawk nests in the Tollgate planning area. If a 

nest is discovered during project preparation or implementation, most-suitable nesting habitat and 

post-fledging area standards from portion 6(d) of the Wildlife Standard would be applied at that 

time. 

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) 

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA; Public Law 94-588; 16 U.S.C. 1600) requires specific 

findings to be made and documented when considering the implementation of certain management 

practices. The following is documentation of specific NFMA compliance findings for proposed 

silvicultural activities in the Tollgate planning area. Based on the analyses described in this report, and on 

proposed silvicultural prescriptions for the Tollgate project, the following findings pursuant to NFMA are 

made: 

Finding: As described in the Description of Alternatives section and Appendix B of this report, 

silvicultural activities proposed for implementation during the Tollgate project are fully consistent with 

the Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), as amended, and all of 

its relevant Forest Plan components (standards, guidelines, objectives, desired future conditions, etc.). 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-51

Finding: Selection of a silvicultural system (even-aged or uneven-aged cutting methods, including 

intermediate activities) was guided by eight criteria provided in a “Silvicultural Systems Selection” 

section of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990, pages 4-66 and 4-67). 

Suitability 

Finding: As described in the Affected Environment section of this report, all silvicultural activities would 

be implemented only on lands meeting the definition of forest land (16 U.S.C. 1604) and designated as 

suitable for timber production by the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990), as amended (including the 

1994 Pacfish amendment to the Forest Plan establishing Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, which are 

unsuitable for timber production), or implemented on unsuitable lands (riparian areas) under authorities 

granted by timber management standards, page C-9, in USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land 

Management (1994), or by a site-specific Forest Plan Amendment. 

Appropriateness of Even-aged Management 

Finding: All proposed even-aged management is considered an appropriate method to achieve the 

identified objectives and other Forest Plan components such as desired future conditions. All stands 

where regeneration harvests is prescribed under an even-aged management regime (there are none for the 

Tollgate fuels reduction project) have generally reached culmination of mean annual increment. 

Optimality of Clearcutting 

Finding: Clearcutting is not included among the activities proposed under the action Alternatives of the 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction project. 

Vegetation Manipulation 

Finding: Tree stand manipulation complies with requirements found in 16 U.S.C. 1604: 

1. The proposed silvicultural activities are well suited to the multiple-use goals and objectives 

established for the Tollgate Project Planning Area when considering the potential environmental 

impacts associated with their implementation. 

2. There is ample assurance that lands proposed for regeneration cutting (created openings in the 

context of the Forest Plan) would be adequately restocked within five years after final harvest 

(there are no such proposed lands for the Tollgate fuels reduction project). 

3. The proposed silvicultural prescriptions were not chosen primarily because they would give the 

greatest dollar return or the greatest output of timber, although these factors were considered 

when evaluating whether a proposed silvicultural activity was economically feasible. 

4. The potential implementation effects on residual trees and adjacent stands were considered when 

developing the silvicultural proposals. 

5. No permanent (e.g., irreversible) impairment of site productivity is expected as a result of the 

proposed silvicultural activities, and the project’s design features and management requirements 

ensure conservation of soil, slope, and other watershed conditions. 

6. As described in this report, Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) would be specifically 

designated on the ground in such a way as to exclude their full extent from any adjacent upland 

forest area selected for silvicultural treatment, or from activities not permitted under authorities 

granted by timber management standards, page C-9, in USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-52

of Land Management (1994). The provision of RHCAs is deemed to be a sufficient and 

appropriate measure for protecting streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other 

bodies of water from potentially adverse project effects on water conditions or fish habitat (16 

U.S.C. 1604(E)(iii)). 

7. The proposed silvicultural activities are expected to provide desired effects with respect to water 

quantity and quality, wildlife and fish habitat, regeneration of desirable tree species, forage 

production, recreation uses, aesthetic values, and other resource yields. 

8. The proposed silvicultural prescriptions are considered practical in terms of transportation and 

harvesting requirements, and total financial costs of project preparation, timber harvest, and sale 

administration. 

Climate Change and carbon cycling 

The context of this climate change and carbon cycle analysis is that the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project 

planning area is too small for a direct evaluation of potential climate change effects caused by the 

proposed actions. Current understanding of climate science suggests it is difficult, if not impossible, to 

establish a cause-and-effect relationship between silvicultural activities and climate change at a project 

scale. Therefore, climate change and carbon cycling were not used or evaluated as issues during the 

NEPA process, and no indicators were established for comparing climate change or carbon cycle effects 

between Alternatives. At the same time, large and increasing levels of interest among the general public 

in how large forest management projects interact with climate change and carbon cycling nonetheless 

suggest there is some value in disclosure of existing understanding, particularly to identify key areas of 

uncertainty and demonstrate consistency with national and international strategies and objectives. To that 

end, a science overview is provided in this section. 

The Proposed Actions under Alternatives B and C would affect National Forest System lands by 

implementing improvement cutting and low thinning silvicultural activities. The scope of the Proposed 

Action is minor relative to the planning area because silvicultural activities are proposed for less than 

10% of the total planning area acreage (Map A2). A project of this magnitude would contribute such 

minimal amounts of greenhouse gas that its impact on global or national climate change would be 

infinitesimal. Therefore, the Proposed Action’s direct and indirect contribution to greenhouse gasses and 

climate change would be utterly negligible in the context of long-term climate patterns. In addition, 

because the direct and indirect effects would be negligible, the Proposed Action’s contribution to 

Cumulative Effects on greenhouse gasses and climate change would also be negligible. The minor scope 

of the Proposed Action suggests it would be inappropriate to attempt to isolate climate change effects that 

are directly or indirectly attributable to implementation of the Tollgate project. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has summarized the contributions to climate 

change of global human activity sectors in its Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007). The top three 

anthropogenic (human-caused) contributors to greenhouse gas emissions (from 1970-2004) are: fossil fuel 

combustion (56.6% of global total), deforestation (17.3%), and agriculture/waste/energy (14.3%). IPCC 

subdivides the deforestation category into land use conversions, and large scale deforestation. 

Deforestation is defined as removal of all trees, most notably the conversion of forest and grassland into 

agricultural land or developed landscapes (IPCC 2000). The Tollgate Fuels Reduction project does not 

fall within any of these main contributors of greenhouse gas emissions. Forested land would not be 

converted into a developed or agricultural condition. In fact, forest stands are being retained and 

enhanced to maintain a vigorous forested condition that can continue to support trees and sequester 

carbon long-term. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-53

The 2007 IPCC report also summarizes recommended sector-specific key mitigation "technologies and 

practices". For the forestry sector, those available include afforestation, reforestation, forest management, 

reduced deforestation, harvested wood product management, and use of forestry products for bioenergy to 

replace fossil fuel use. The Tollgate Fuels Reduction project is consistent with these recommendations 

because it proposes management of the forest for resistance to disturbance and resiliency in the face of 

changing disturbances and disturbance regimes. Depending on market factors, some of the products may 

be used to produce bioenergy and potentially replace fossil fuel use. Land-use changes, specifically 

deforestation and regrowth, are by far the biggest factors on a global scale in forests’ role as sources or 

sinks of carbon dioxide, respectively (IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2000). 

Compatibility with climate change mitigation and adaptation 

Two general strategies are used to address climate change: mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation involves 

reducing greenhouse gas emissions now in order to minimize the current pace and magnitude of climate 

change. Adaptation accepts that climate change will occur (and already is occurring), so it involves 

making ecosystems more resistant and resilient to the predicted effects of future climate fluctuations. 

The silvicultural activities included in the Tollgate proposed action are considered to be compatible with a 

mitigation strategy (Baron et al. 2008, Nabuurs et al. 2007, Reyer et al. 2009, Salinger et al. 2005) – 

intermediate cutting (thinning and improvement cutting) contributes to a “maintain forest area” mitigation 

objective (i.e., ensure that lands currently supporting forest continue to support forest in the future) 

(Nabuurs et al. 2007). 

While mitigation is crucial, adaptation to climate change is increasingly viewed as a necessary and 

complementary strategy to mitigation (Joyce et al. 2009). Table 4-23 — Compatibility of silvicultural 

activities and climate change adaptation strategies includes a list of adaptation strategies proposed for the 

National Forest System as a whole, and pertaining to forest vegetation (these are shown in the left 

column). Certain principles and concepts of climate change, however, can be used to assess whether 

silvicultural activities included in the Tollgate proposed action would be expected to maintain or enhance 

forest adaptation to the predicted effects of climate change. Table 4-23 — Compatibility of silvicultural 

activities and climate change adaptation strategies also describes how silvicultural activities included in 

the Tollgate proposed action could be compatible with the adaptation strategies (shown in right column). 

Silvicultural proposed actions are expected to improve the “adaptive capacity” (Olsson et al. 2004) of 

forest stands in the Tollgate planning area, particularly by alleviating the chronic stress associated with 

high tree density levels. Improvements in adaptive capacity are important for helping forest vegetation 

deal with the direct effects of warming temperatures and reduced precipitation, as well as the indirect 

effects caused by climate-influenced disturbance processes. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded with high confidence (8 out of 10 

chance) that “disturbances such as wildfire and insect outbreaks are increasing and are likely to intensify 

in a warmer future with drier soils and longer growing seasons, and to interact with changing land use and 

development affecting the future of wildland ecosystems” (Parry et al. 2007, page 56). This IPCC 

conclusion demonstrates that climate change involves more than just the direct effects of warming 

temperatures and variable precipitation – it includes the indirect effects of climate change on wildfire, 

insect outbreaks, and other biotic and abiotic disturbance processes. 

The information in Table 4-23 — Compatibility of silvicultural activities and climate change adaptation 

strategies indicates that silvicultural activities addressing stand vulnerability to uncharacteristic levels of 

wildfire, along with other climate-related changes in disturbance regimes, could meet multiple goals of 

near-term mitigation and mid-term adaptation even as practices also reflect goals for other ecosystem 

services such as late-old structure and water quality (Joyce et al. 2009). 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-54

Table 4-23 — Compatibility of silvicultural activities and climate change adaptation strategies 

Climate Change Adaptation Strategies That 

Are Related to Forest Vegetation

Predicted Compatibility of Strategy with Tollgate 

Proposed Silvicultural Activities

Improve the capability of ecosystems to withstand 

uncharacteristically severe drought, wildfires and 

insect outbreaks at landscape scales.

Rationale for the silvicultural activity proposals is based 

largely on insect and disease susceptibility and the potential 

to reduce wildfire intensity and severity, particularly for dryforest sites. 

Facilitate natural (evolutionary) adaptation through 

silvicultural activities that shorten regeneration 

times and promote interspecific competition.

The activities proposed under Alternatives A, B, and C would 

have no appreciable facilitation effect on natural 

(evoluationary) adaptation through silvicultural activities that 

shorten regeneration times and promote interspecific 

competition. Therefore, the activities are neither compatible 

nor incompatible with this adaptation strategy. 

Where ecosystems will very likely become more 

water limited, manage for drought- and heattolerant species.

Specifications for how the silvicultural activities would be 

implemented account for species-specific life history traits 

influencing drought and heat resistance. Drought-tolerant 

species are preferentially retained during intermediate 

cutting.

Reduce homogeneity of stand structure and 

synchrony of disturbance patterns across broad 

landscapes by promoting diverse age classes and 

species mixes, stand diversities, and genetic 

diversity.

The activities proposed under Alternatives B, and C would 

promote more diverse age classes and species mixes, stand 

diversities, and genetic diversity.

Reset ecological trajectories to take advantage of 

early successional stages that are adaptive to 

present rather than past climates.

Where possible, intermediate activities will favor early seral 

species, particularly those that are more suited for warmer, 

drier climates. 

Use historical ecological information to identify 

environments buffered against climate change and 

which would be good candidates for conservation.

Low and moderate-density structures dominated by earlyseral tree species are likely to be more resilient to predicted 

climate change. Proposed silvicultural activities are directed 

toward conserving these structures and early-seral tree 

species where they currently exist, or restoring them if 

important biological legacies (such as large trees) are still 

present. Thinning will increase heterogeneity and create 

resilient tree density levels on all biophysical environments.

Encourage local industries that can adapt to or 

cope with variable types of forest products because 

of the uncertainty about which tree species will 

prosper in the future.

It is anticipated that some portion of the silvicultural activity 

involving timber harvest (intermediate and regeneration 

cutting) would be accomplished using stewardship authority 

or another Alternative that would not involve a standard 

timber-sale contract. Local stewardship or biofuel/bioenergy 

industries are capable of dealing with unconventional species 

or product types.

Reforestation after disturbance may require 

different species than were present before the 

disturbance to better match site-level changes 

No reforestation activities are proposed under Alternatives A, 

B, or C. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-55

Climate Change Adaptation Strategies That 

Are Related to Forest Vegetation

Predicted Compatibility of Strategy with Tollgate 

Proposed Silvicultural Activities

associated with climate change.

Plan for higher-elevation insect outbreaks, species 

mortality events, and altered fire regimes.

The silvicultural activities proposed for implementation on 

moist-forest sites anticipate accelerated mortality of subalpine 

fir (which is currently occurring at high levels due to an 

infestation of balsam woolly adelgid, an introduced, nonnative insect species), Engelmann spruce, and other species 

that are predicted to not fare well under future climate 

conditions (Rehfeldt et al. 2006).

Sources/Notes: the climate change adaptation strategies pertain to forest vegetation only and were derived from Joyce et al. 

(2008, 2009) and West et al. (2009). The predicted compatibility of each adaptation strategy with silvicultural activities 

included in the Tollgate proposed action was provided by the author of this specialist report. 

Forest managers will need options to choose from, even as they face uncertainty of future climate 

conditions in their regions. Although no single adaptation approach will fit all forest regions, in general, 

practices focused on forestalling climate change effects by building resistance and resilience into current 

ecosystems, and on managing for change by enabling plants, animals, and ecosystems to adapt to climate 

change. Better and more widespread implementation of already known practices that reduce the impact 

of existing stressors represents a strategy that can be used even while uncertainty about future conditions 

is high. Increased emphasis on current efforts to reduce the impact of existing stressors on National 

Forests represents a ‘‘no regrets’’ strategy. Efforts to mitigate existing stressors would address current 

management needs, and potentially reduce future interactions of these stressors with climate change. 

(Joyce et al. 2009). 

There is consensus that future forests will be different from those of the past, but different climate models 

result in a wide variety of possible outcomes, particularly at a local or regional scale. Such models cannot 

predict future conditions with the level of accuracy and precision needed for resource managers to make 

some management changes with certainty (Millar et al. 2007, Ryan et al. 2008).Many climate change 

scenarios include an increase in winter precipitation but increased temperatures and increased frequency 

of summer drought, which may result in more moisture stress in forest environments (Spittlehouse and 

Stewart 2003). This may cause reduced growth and decreased vigor of forest stands. Declines in vigor 

may make forests more susceptible to large-scale pest attacks and more frequent or severe fires. Existing 

plant species or genotypes may be poorly adapted to future climate conditions. Being relatively longlived, the forest trees living today will probably compose much of the forests of the next century. Longterm adaptation to climate changes will require healthy and productive forests in the short term (Millar et 

al. 2007) and silvicultural systems will need to increasingly take into account unique characteristics 

associated with declining and disturbed stands (Spittlehouse and Stewart 2003). Efforts to mitigate 

existing stressors would address current management needs, while potentially reducing future interactions 

of these stressors with climate change (Joyce et al. 2009). 

Intermediate cutting silvicultural activities are included in the Tollgate proposed action, and have 

considerable relevance to predicted changes in future temperature and precipitation for a large region 

containing the Tollgate planning area. Climate modeling suggests that drought conditions will be more 

common in the future because mid-summer temperatures are expected to be substantially higher than at 

present. Dense tree stands exist in a sort of perpetual physiological drought because there is not enough 

soil moisture to meet the water needs of all trees; intermediate cutting is used to alleviate this moisture 

stress and allow the residual trees to survive and continue growing. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-56

It is expected that future climate conditions would have demonstrably more impact on dense stands than 

is produced by the current climate. Therefore, the need for thinning and related intermediate activities is 

expected to be much greater in the future than at present because thinning improves physiological vigor, 

and trees with improved vigor produce more of the resins used to repel insect and disease attacks (Kolb et 

al. 1998, Mitchell et al. 1983, Pitman et al. 1982, Safranyik et al. 1998). Thinning also disrupts canopy 

fuel continuity, which could help address future crown-fire risk (Agee 1996, Powell 2010a, Scott 1998). 

Insect outbreaks and wildfire are both predicted to occur at significantly higher levels in a warmer and 

dryer future than at present (Canadell and Raupach 2008, Kurz et al. 2008a, Westerling et al. 2006). Thus, 

in light of predicted temperature and precipitation changes at a regional scale (the Pacific Northwest), the 

silvicultural activities included in the Proposed Action adequately anticipate future climate change, 

appropriately provide for future ecosystem resiliency and integrity, and reasonably realign existing 

conditions to be more sustainable under future climate conditions (Dale et al. 2001). 

Adaptive management is essential to managing for uncertainty. Although general principles will emerge, 

the best preparation is for managers and planners to remain informed both about emerging climate science 

as well as land-use changes in their region, and to use that knowledge to shape effective local solutions 

(Millar et al. 2007). Adaptive management can make use of new information, and this information may 

be useful for adjusting desired conditions and guidelines in the future. 

Climate Change and HRV

The historical range of variability (HRV) is defined as the range of conditions and processes likely to 

have occurred prior to settlement by Euro-American emigrants (Landres et al. 1999). HRV is an 

analytical process for evaluating inherent variation in vegetation composition, structure, and density, 

reflecting recent evolutionary history and the dynamic interplay of biotic and abiotic factors (Morgan et 

al. 1994). In the context of forest vegetation analyses for the Tollgate area, HRV was used extensively 

when evaluating the environmental effects of implementing alternatives (see previous sections of this 

chapter). HRV was used as a tool to help us understand present forests and why they respond as they do 

when exposed to silvicultural activities – it uses the past to help us understand the present, to understand 

which forces affect vegetation response, to gain insight into possible trajectories of future forests, and to 

integrate this information when proposing management alternatives (Millar and Woolfenden 1999). 

“Some feel that HRV may no longer be a viable concept for managing lands in the future because of 

expected climate warming and increasing human activities across the landscape. Today’s climates might 

change so rapidly and dramatically that future climates will no longer be similar to those climates that 

created past conditions. Climate warming is expected to trigger major changes in disturbance processes, 

plant and animal species dynamics, and hydrological responses to create new plant communities and alter 

landscapes that may be quite different from historical analogs” (Keane et al. 2009, pages 1033-1034). 

“At first glance, it may seem obvious that using historical references may no longer be reasonable in this 

rapidly changing world. However, a critical evaluation of possible alternatives may indicate that HRV, 

with all its faults and limitations, might be the most viable approach for the near-term because it has the 

least amount of uncertainty” (Keane et al. 2009, page 1034), particularly as compared to the uncertainty 

associated with the magnitude, timing, scale, and spatial extent of climate change impacts. 

“Given the uncertainties in predicting climatic responses to increasing CO2 and the ecological effects of 

this response, we feel that HRV time series derived from the past may have significantly lower 

uncertainty than any simulated predictions for the future. We suggest it may be prudent to wait until 

simulation technology has improved to include credible pattern and process interactions with regional 

climate dynamics and there has been significant model validation before we throw out the concept and 

application of HRV” (Keane et al. 2009, page 1034). 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-57

“In the meantime, it is doubtful that the use of HRV to guide management efforts will result in 

inappropriate activities considering the large genetic variation in most species and the robustness inherent 

in regional landscapes that display the broad range of conditions inherent in HRV projections” (Keane et 

al. 2009, page 1034). 

Carbon cycling 

Increasingly, land managers are being asked to consider the potential carbon consequences of forest 

management activities. This section discusses issues associated with carbon storage and sequestration, 

carbon stocks and fluxes, and possible interactions between activities that would be expected to cause 

short-term reductions in carbon stocks (such as thinning and prescribed fire) in order to avoid potentially 

large carbon emissions from wildfire and other stand-replacing disturbance processes in the future. 

Increased burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and its refined products including gasoline, and natural gas) 

since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has resulted in increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) 

in the atmosphere. As CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases accumulate, they contribute to a host of 

changes referred to as the greenhouse effect, global warming, or climate change. 

Terrestrial carbon (C) sequestration involves processes through which CO2 from the atmosphere is 

absorbed by trees, plants and crops through photosynthesis, and then stored as C in biomass (tree trunks, 

branches, foliage, and roots) and in soils. The term “sink” is also used to refer to forests, croplands, and 

rangelands and their ability to sequester C. Since agriculture and forestry activities can also release CO2

to the atmosphere, a C sink occurs when carbon sequestration is greater than carbon release over a given 

time period. When more CO2 is being released than sequestered, an activity or condition is considered to 

be a C source in contrast to a C sink (Fahey et al. 2009). Hudiburg found that the potential to store 

additional carbon in Pacific Northwest forests is among the highest in the world (Hudiburg et al. 2009). 

However, these levels (if reached) may be unstable in high-frequency fire regions, a factor that the study 

did not include in their calculations. 

Because old forests steadily accumulate biomass for centuries, they contain large amounts of C and 

function as a C sink (Rhemtulla et al. 2009). But the cumulative probability of disturbance is higher for 

stands with high aboveground biomass, so old forests tend to be less common than young or mid-age 

stands, even in unmanaged landscapes (Lesica 1996, Luyssaert et al. 2008). 

Forest ecosystems are an important part of the global C cycle since they are estimated to sequester about 

80 percent of the aboveground terrestrial C pool (Waring and Running 1998). For this reason, forests and 

their management are at the forefront of efforts and programs to address global climate change because 

they might provide one of the most efficient and effective options for offsetting CO2 emissions from 

fossil-fuel consumption (Bonan 2008, Canadell and Raupach 2008, Salinger et al. 2005, Winnett 1998). 

Wildfire and other disturbance processes (insect outbreaks, disease epidemics, windthrow episodes, 

avalanches and debris flows, etc.) can release a forest’s stored C as CO2 emissions, either directly by 

combusting the wood or indirectly by killing trees that are eventually decomposed by microbes, with CO2

emissions being produced during microbial decomposition of standing or down dead wood. 

Traditionally, it was believed that the main loss of C and other nutrients during a fire was in a gaseous 

form (as CO2, NO2, and H2O), but recent research shows that much of the loss occurs as particulate matter 

carried in the smoke plume (Bormann et al. 2008). The surprisingly large loss of soil nutrients from fire 

not only contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, but the research suggests it will lower productivity and 

C sequestration rates for a substantial period after burning (Bormann et al. 2008). 

Disturbance effects are often indirect – fire can change the albedo (absorption characteristics) of the soil 

surface, which then allows more solar energy to be absorbed and increased decomposition rates for 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-58

decades into the future (Running 2008). Since a young forest might get established after fire and develop 

for 100-300 years, eventually recapturing an equivalent amount of C to what was released by the fire, 

forests can be “carbon-neutral” when evaluated across long timeframes. If climate change or other factors 

alter these post-fire successional relationships, however, it is possible that forests could disappear 

altogether following wildfire (Adams et al. 2009), in which case the system would obviously not be C 

neutral. 

Other research indicates that fire causes accelerated decomposition rates after burning, perhaps related to 

soil warming from the albedo changes described above. Auclair and Carter (1993), for example, 

calculated that post-wildfire C release after a high-intensity fire, presumably related to microbial 

decomposition rates, was approximately three times greater than the direct release of CO2 during the fire 

itself. In a drier ponderosa pine ecosystem, direct C flux measurements found higher CO2 emissions from 

a high-intensity burn area than an adjacent unburned area, even ten years after the fire (Dore et al. 2008). 

Fire and C relationships are complex because fire has an important influence on the vegetation baseline 

against which climate change and C effects are measured. Climate plays an important role in determining 

fire patterns (particularly regarding temporal trends in the El Nino-Southern Oscillation and Pacific 

Decadal Oscillation climate patterns) and, in turn, fire influences the climate system via the release of 

greenhouse gases. Fires influence the natural cycle of primary production and respiration, and if climate 

and fire regimes equilibrate, then fire-induced atmospheric CO2 emissions are balanced over the long 

term by uptake from surviving vegetation or regeneration (Bond et al. 2005, Bowman et al. 2009, Kashian 

et al. 2006). 

Forests in the United States sequester about 10 percent of the annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions 

(Woodbury et al. 2007). Wildfires are increasing both in size and severity (Miller et al. 2009, Westerling 

et al. 2006) and they produce large direct CO2 emissions on the order of 4-6% of annual U.S. 

anthropogenic CO2 emissions (Spracklen et al. 2007, Wiedinmyer and Neff 2007). As the amount of 

burned acreage increases, fire suppression costs routinely exceed $1 billion a year and this is causing 

managers to consider a policy where some fires would be allowed to burn when doing so would provide 

ecosystem benefits (such as Wildland Fire Use) and reduced suppression costs (Donovan and Brown 

2005, 2007, 2008). 

Since wildfires represent a substantial potential source of future CO2 emissions, much of the recent forest 

management emphasis is directed at either reducing fire susceptibility or improving fire resistance 

(Sohngen and Haynes 1997). Mitchell et al. 2009 concluded that the application of fuel reduction 

activities may be essential for ecosystem restoration in forests with uncharacteristic levels of fuel buildup, as is often the case in xeric forest ecosystems east of the Cascades. One of the objectives of using 

mechanical thinning, prescribed fire, or a combination of both activities to reduce fuel loadings is to 

produce relatively small carbon releases now in an effort to preclude or minimize large CO2 wildfire 

emissions in the future (Canadell and Raupach 2008). And climate change research suggests that the area 

burned by wildfire could increase 78 percent by 2100, with much of the increase due to a 44% increase in 

lightning ignitions (Price and Rind 1994). 

A recent study found that significant increases in fire resistance can be achieved by removing only 

smaller ladder fuels (vegetation structure providing vertical fuel continuity between the forest floor and 

overstory tree crowns) and fire-sensitive intermediate trees without reducing the majority of the live-tree 

C pool associated with intermediate pines and large trees of all species. This study concluded that 

thinning and prescribed fire have a positive influence on forest development by redirecting tree growth 

resources and C storage into large-diameter trees, a more stable C stock, and large trees are more resistant 

to mortality and other potentially detrimental fire effects (Hurteau and North 2009, North et al. 2009). 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-59

Other research suggests that historic stands with a low density of large trees supported more biomass (and 

C) than contemporary, fully-stocked, fire-suppressed old growth forest (DeLuca and Aplet 2008). An 

explanation for this seemingly counterintuitive result is that on a proportional basis, one large tree has a 

higher C content than many small trees – according to Fellows and Goulden (2008), a single large tree (> 

90 cm) contains the same amount of C as 60 small (10-30 cm) trees. Another explanation is that large 

trees mostly use deep soil water (≥ 70 cm), whereas small trees and shrubs rely on shallow soil water (< 

50 cm) that is rapidly depleted during the growing season (Arkley 1981, North et al. 2009). A thick zone 

of weathered bedrock is particularly important for supplying the water needed by large trees on sites 

where the overlying soils are relatively thin (< 1 m), especially for summer-dry (Mediterranean) 

ecosystems (Witty et al. 2003). 

Similar C emission concerns exist for disturbance processes other than wildfire – climate mitigation 

through forestry also carries the risk that C stocks may return to the atmosphere after disturbances such as 

landscape-scale insect outbreaks (Breshears et al. 2005, Carroll et al. 2004, Fleming and Volney 1995, 

Logan et al. 2003, Macias Fauria and Johnson 2009, Morehouse et al. 2008, van Mantgem et al. 2009, 

Williams and Liebhold 1995). A recent and dramatic increase in areas affected by mountain pine beetle 

and other bark beetles has helped drive Canadian forests from a CO2 sink (before 2000) to a C source that 

is expected to continue for at least two or three more decades (Kurz et al. 2008a, 2008b). 

Recent research could perhaps be interpreted as suggesting that an unintended benefit of the successional 

changes spawned by fire suppression is an increase in forest biomass (Myneni et al. 1997), and that this 

biomass has sequestered C that might otherwise have contributed to climate change (Fellows and Goulden 

2008, Houghton et al. 2000, Hurtt et al. 2002). This interpretation is problematic in several respects, 

however, because fuel-loaded forests are susceptible to large carbon emissions when they eventually and 

inevitably burn in a stand-replacing wildfire (Hurteau et al. 2009). 

All fuels and vegetation activities create C emissions to some extent, but overall C emissions can be 

reduced and future C stocks increased by modifying activities to reduce surface fuels, small understory 

trees, and intermediate-sized, fire-sensitive species (North et al. 2009). With proper fuels treatment 

activities that appropriately consider C stocks and fluxes, it is possible to create favorable forest 

conditions for increasing large-tree growth. This strategy is based on the concept that by accepting 

repeated but small reductions in C stocks (associated with the activities), it is possible to create or 

maintain a substantial future C sink by sequestering C in relatively stable, long-lived forest structure in 

the form of large-diameter trees (Hurteau et al. 2008, North et al. 2009). 

The ecological rationale for a fuels treatment strategy on dry sites is that forests thinned to approach 

presettlement tree density and structure (as represented by HRV) contain substantially more C after 

wildfire than adjacent dense stands that have not been restored to a presettlement condition (Hurteau et al. 

2008). And because the Umatilla National Forest has no explicit objective to manage forests for C 

sequestration purposes (USDA Forest Service 1990), perhaps the most important benefit of completing 

proper fuels treatment activities is restoration of late-old structure and associated ecosystem function 

(USDA Forest Service 1995), particularly for dry forests where the historical composition, structure, and 

density were maintained by a short-interval, low-severity fire regime (Mutch et al. 1993). 

A life-cycle analysis for a second-growth forest in the Pacific Northwest indicates that allowing a 

harvested stand to grow and sequester C resulted in less emission of CO2 than resulted from harvest and 

storage in wood products; however, when the effect of substituting wood for concrete and steel was also 

considered, then the harvest scenarios resulted in less CO2 emission than were produced from the noharvest scenario (Perez-Garcia et al. 2005). The option of using wood as a construction material in place 

of concrete or steel, or as an energy source to replace fossil fuels, has consistently been shown to offer 

significant C benefits (Eriksson et al. 2007, Gustavsson et al. 2006). 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-60

The overall C budget for both durable products and wood-based energy depends on fossil fuel use 

associated with harvest, transport, and processing. Houses constructed primarily of wood have 20-50% 

lower emissions of greenhouse gases over their entire life cycle (typically assumed to be 80-100 years) 

than comparable dwellings whose aboveground walls were framed with concrete or steel (Miner and 

Perez-Garcia 2007). 

Using woody debris to produce energy has the potential to address two issues: (1) it reduces demand for 

coal, oil, natural gas and other fossil-fuel derivatives; and (2) if the wood comes from densely stocked, 

overgrown forests, its removal reduces the threat of wildfire and an associated emission of greenhouse 

gases (and wildfire typically emits more methane, a potent greenhouse gas, than would occur from a 

bioenergy facility). 

An expected outcome of adopting either Alternative B or C of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project is 

provision of timber that could then be converted into durable wood products for house construction, or 

utilized as an energy source. Both of the project’s proposed action alternatives (B and C) would respond 

to fire suppression effects and other forest vegetation issues (see Chapter 2) by using timber harvest and 

prescribed fire activities to remove varying amounts of woody biomass. Since about half the volume of 

woody biomass consists of C (Birdsey 1992, Jenkins et al. 2003, Smith et al. 2006), these activities are 

expected to reduce the amount of C stored in the treated stands. For the timber harvest proposals, a 

portion of the removed C would remain stored for a relatively long period of time in durable wood 

products, or in landfills. 

Intermediate cutting would initially reduce C storage in the treated stands, but it is unclear whether the 

reductions would be substantial enough to transform the activity units from a net carbon sink to a net 

carbon source. Whether or not units are transformed into long-term sinks or sources of atmospheric 

carbon depends in part on future disturbance regimes, and the extent to which treated fuels are masticated 

on site and/or utilized for short-lived forest products (which could result in units being sources of 

atmospheric carbon) or long-term forest products, which could result in the units being carbon neutral or 

becoming atmospheric carbon sinks (Finkral and Evans 2008). The enhanced growth (carbon 

sequestration) by remaining trees also partially compensates for the decomposition of stumps, 

belowground roots, and harvest residues (Harmon and Marks 2002, Waring and Running 1998 and 

references therein). Given this, the expected overall balance of accelerated tree growth, harvest residues, 

and utilization for short and long-term forests products for the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project suggests 

that the expected effects of the activities proposed under Alternatives B or C are very unclear and 

dependent on a host of unpredictable variables such as future climate and disturbance regimes, the fate of 

converted forest products, belowground carbon cycling processes, and the extent to which forest products 

substitute other more carbon-intensive products such as fossil fuels, concrete, steel, etc. 

FUELS

Alternative A – No Action Alternative 

Fuel reduction activities are not proposed in this alternative. The effect of no action would be increasing 

accumulations of surface fuels resulting in greater fire intensities, greater potential for spotting, greater 

resistance to control, greater chance of sustained crown fire, and greater risk to fire suppression resources. 

This gradual increase over time would be due to disease, decadence, and natural events such as wind and 

insect infestation. Continued growth of the understory would increase the likelihood that ignitions that do 

occur would have the potential to transition from a surface fire to the forest overstory. Resistance to 

control under this alternative would be greater than alternatives in which fuels are treated. Heavy down 

fuels would contribute to increased fire intensities, spotting potential, receptive fuels for firebrands, and 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-61

extreme fire behavior occurrence; all of which create potential unsafe firefighting conditions. Any fire 

start inside the project area or start outside and moving into the project area would likely be more 

expensive, difficult, and dangerous to suppress. The threat to private property, homes, public safety, and 

firefighter safety would be higher under the No Action alternative. 

Alternatives B and C 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Crown Fire Potential 

Proposed commercial harvest and subsequent fuels activities would reduce the crown fire potential by 

decreasing stem and crown densities and reducing surface fuel loadings. Ladder fuels are reduced 

through timber harvest and slashing (non-commercial thinning). Table 4-24 shows the crown fire 

potential before and after harvest activities are completed. 

Table 4-24 — Crown Fire Potential in the Tollgate Project Area

Existing After Harvest Activities

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Crown Fire Potential Acres Acres Acres Acres

Surface 1664 1664 2975 2775

Passive 1727 1727 1337 1488

Active 938 938 17 66

Silvicultural activities that target canopy closure have the potential to reduce the development of all types 

of crown fires (Cruz et al. 2002, Rothermel 1991, Scott and Reinhart 2001, van Wagner 1977) if surface 

fuels are concurrently treated. Thinning activities would be designed to leave the largest/healthiest trees 

on site to provide shading of surface fuels and reduced surface wind speeds. Smaller diameter tree 

densities would be reduced to minimize the potential for crown fire initiation. This partially shaded gap 

between the surface and crown fuels would again minimize potential crown fire. 

An important component when managing forest for wildfire is to provide treated areas or Defensible 

Fuels Profile Zones that disrupt or alter fire progression and or enhance suppression opportunities. As 

stated earlier, Defensible Fuels Profile Zones (DFPZs) are not designed to stop fires, but to allow 

suppression forces a higher probability of successfully attacking a wildfire. The primary reason for the 

DFPZs is to change the behavior of a wildfire entering the fuels-altered zone. DPFZs may be used as 

anchor points for indirect or direct attack on wildfires. 

To effectively conduct a burn operation (burn out) that minimizes the likelihood of fire control problems 

and spotting across control lines, firefighters prepare the control line. Prep work includes removing 

ladder fuels, removing or dispersing surface fuels, and removing low limbs from trees to prevent torching. 

When burn out is conducted where a fuel treatment has previously occurred, the prep work is already 

completed or greatly reduced minimizing exposure to firefighters and improving efficiency. 

Recent wildfires have demonstrated that DFPZs can reduce fire behavior and increase firefighter safety. 

Treated areas were utilized during suppression operations along several flanks of these fires for both 

direct attack with dozers and hand crews as well as indirect attack with burn out operations. When the 

main fire moved into these treated areas, it transitioned from crown fire to moderate intensity surface fire. 

This allowed firefighters to directly suppress the fire and safely apply burnout operations. 

Alternative B and C were developed and supported through fire modeling and professional experience. 

Activities pertaining to crown fire occurrence include “thinning from below” designed to alter fire 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-62

behavior by reducing canopy bulk density, increasing canopy base height, and changing species 

composition to lighter crowned and fire-adapted species (i.e., Western Larch) where appropriate. The 

following diagram shows a stand that has been thinned from below, leaving the larger trees to provide 

shade. 

Long range spotting potential decreases as crown fire potential decreases. Firefighter and public safety is 

thusly increased, and the potential of high intensity fire spreading onto private lands that contain homes 

and improvements is decreased. 

Treatment effectiveness would last for 20 to 30 years in terms of recommended stocking levels (ladder 

and crown fuels), and could be maintained through understory thinning. 

Fire Travel Times 

The combination of commercial harvest, non-commercial thinning, and reduction of surface fuels reduces 

fire travel times in the project area. Reduction of fire travel times allows for more effective suppression 

responses to wildfire incidents that occur in the area. 

Fire travel times were modeled in identified major fire travel paths for each alternative. A summary of 

these findings is given in Table 4-25. 

Table 4-25 — Fire Travel Time (Emerging fire from N.F. Umatilla wilderness moving toward 

Tollgate) 

Elapsed Time Distance Traveled

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

2 Hours 1 mile 1⁄2 mile 3⁄4 mile

4 Hours 2 miles 1 mile 1 1⁄4 miles

8 Hours 3 1⁄2 miles 1 1⁄2 miles 2 miles

Fire travel time simulations as displayed in Table 4-25 illustrate the effectiveness in reducing fire spread 

rates after proposed activities. Without treatment, fires initiating in the canyons and progressing toward 

the plateau would arrive at Langdon Lake and other Tollgate values within the first operational period 

(the first 16 hours after fire ignition). After the proposed activities in each alternative, the same fire 

would not arrive at Tollgate or Langdon Lake within the first operational period, and in fact would be 

well removed from the area until the middle of the following operational period on the subsequent day. 

This change in spread rate and travel time would provide space for fire suppression forces to mobilize, 

plan, and take action on a fire in advance of actual threats to private infrastructure or lands within the 

Tollgate area. The additional time and space provided by the activities and illustrated by Table 4-25

increases the likelihood that safe, effective, and less costly firefighting operations can occur; and 

ultimately that firefighting resources can use the DFPZ’s to directly engage and quickly contain fires that 

would otherwise threaten the Tollgate area without treatment. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-63

Figure 4-3 — Comparison of Rates of Spread 

The graph above (Figure 4-3) illustrates the change in predicted spread rates after treatment versus no 

treatment. Pre-treatment fuel conditions have the potential to spread rapidly as compared to posttreatment fuel conditions. This change in spread rate is the direct result of the change in fuel model that 

would occur as a result of proposed activities (pre-treatment stand conditions are currently best 

represented as fuel model 10, while post-treatment conditions can be expected to be best represented as 

fuel model 8). Importantly, the reduction in spread rates follows the reduction in fire travel times. 

Fire Intensity 

The intensity and duration of surface fires depend on the availability and condition of surface fuels 

(Graham 2004). Down woody fuel can greatly increase the energy released from the surface fires and in 

some cases increase flame lengths sufficiently to ignite ladder and /or canopy fuels (Graham 2004). 

Current high surface fuel loadings would be decreased through removal or rearrangement of down dead 

material. 

Flame lengths can be expected to be reduced to 1-3 feet on treated acres. Hand crews can use direct fire 

suppression tactics when flame lengths do not exceed four feet. Engines and dozers (where roads and 

terrain allow) can directly fight fire with 4-8 foot flame lengths. Having the opportunity to utilize direct 

suppression tactics decreases the potential fire size, the risk to public and firefighter safety, and private 

property (including homes). Table 4-26 illustrates the effects to fire intensity. 

Table 4-26 — Fire Intensity as Represented by Flame Length by Alternative Tollgate Project Area

Flame Length (ft.) Alternative A (acres) Alternative B (acres) Alternative C (acres)

< 4ft 1664 2975 2775

Comparison of Rates of Spread of Fire under No Action and Post Treatments

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Midflame Wind Speed mph Rates of Spread in Chains per Hour - 1 chain = 66 feet

Fuel Model 8 Alts. B and C Fuel Model 10 No Action
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-64

4-8 ft. 1727 1337 1488

 >8ft. 938 17 66

Surface fuels activities are expected to last 10-15 years. Maintenance would be required to ensure fuel 

loadings remain below levels of 10-15 tons per acre. 

Spotting Distance 

Long range spotting potential would decrease as crown fire potential decreases. Spotting would decrease 

in both occurrence and distance as thinned, less dense stands would possess less proclivity to spot than 

untreated stands. When spotting does occur in treated stands, spotting distances would decrease as group 

tree torching would be less frequent. Additionally, downwind fire starts would be less prevalent and fuel 

beds would be less receptive. Table 4-27 displays the effects to spotting distance in the project area. 

Table 4-27 — Spotting Distance by Alternative 

Tollgate Project Area 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Spotting Distance (miles) 1⁄2 mile 1⁄4 mile 1⁄4 mile

Spotting probability and distance can prove to be a key component to successfully containing a fire at a 

small size, and to protect critical values within the Wildland Urban Interface. In areas where there is 

extensive spotting, such as the western United States, fire brands are the main cause of home ignitions 

(Bar-Massada et al. 2011). As probability and distance of spotting increases, the probability of 

successfully and safely engaging a fire decreases; while inversely, decreasing both the probabilities and 

distances of spotting greatly increases the chances of protecting values and containing wildland fires at 

small sizes and of short durations. 

Treatment Adjacency to Private Land 

An objective of the Tollgate project is the protection of private land and values, as well as key 

infrastructure within the planning area. Many units are designed to modify fire behavior directly adjacent 

to private values and extending 1⁄4 mile out from these values (1/4 mile represents the expected potential 

spotting distance within treated stands). A comparison of the intensiveness with which activities occur 

adjacent to and extending 1⁄4 mile from these values is given below in Table 4-28 and is based on the 

acreage treated within the 1⁄4 mile “rind” around private land and values. 

Table 4-28 — Treatment Acreage within 1⁄4 mile of Private Land Tollgate Project Area

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Treatment Acres within 

1⁄4 mile of Private Land

0 757 680

Cumulative Effects for Alternatives B and C 

Activities considered for cumulative impacts are those that modify fire behavior and/or effect suppression 

capabilities in the analysis area. Specifically, crown fire potential, fire travel times, and fire intensity are 

the metrics used to quantify cumulative effects. The following past, present, and reasonable foreseeable 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-65

activities are recognized as having potential cumulative effects relating to fire and fuels within the 

cumulative effects analysis. These effects are also summarized in Table 4-29. 

The cumulative effect analysis area for fire and fuels is the Tollgate Wildland Urban Interface boundary. 

This area was chosen because it represents the area where activities would occur, and is the area where 

cumulative effects are important for determining the efficacy of the project. 

The time frames chosen for cumulative effects analysis are a “past” of 80 years and a “future” of 20-30 

years. The 80 year past time frame was chosen because that is when the Forest Service began fire 

suppression (every fire start was completely extinguished and the “10 a.m. policy” was instituted, which 

meant that suppression forces attempted to have all fires under control by 10 a.m. of the day following 

ignition). Past fire exclusion has led to forest conditions that are in many cases out of the historical range 

of variability for species composition and forest stand structural classes for many locations. The future 

time frame of 20-30 years was chosen because this is the approximate length of time that the proposed 

fuel activities can be expected to be effective without further maintenance. After 20-30 years, new 

seedlings and saplings would have emerged, adding new ladder fuel components and additional forest 

litter and downed wood would have collected on the forest floor resulting in increased ground fuel 

loading. 

Table 4-29 — Past Actions with effects and cumulative effects to Alternatives Band C of the 

proposed project. 

Past Actions 

(last 80 years)

Present Actions Future Actions 

(next 15 years)

Cumulative Effect

Timber 

Harvest

Change in species 

composition, change

in stand structure, 

temporary increase in 

ground fuel loading, 

increased crown 

base height, 

decreased crown 

bulk density

N/A N/A Increased fuel loading increases fire 

risk for a short time following harvest; 

however, most effects of harvest 

including change in stand structure, 

increased crown base height, 

decreased crown bulk density result in 

a decreased fire risk over a longer time 

period, 15-30 years.

Fire 

Suppression

Missed fire return 

intervals, increased 

ground fuel loading 

and ladder fuels, 

change in species 

composition to nonfire tolerant species, 

increased incidence 

of insect and 

disease, increased 

potential for large 

crown fire.

Missed fire return 

intervals, increased 

ground fuel loading 

and ladder fuels, 

change in species 

composition to nonfire tolerant species, 

increased incidence 

of insect and 

disease.

Missed fire return 

intervals, increased 

ground fuel loading 

and ladder fuels, 

change in species 

composition to nonfire tolerant species, 

increased incidence 

of insect and 

disease.

Historical fire suppression efforts 

would have contributed to the absence 

of large, low severity fires in the project 

area, missing two fire return intervals 

in fire regime I and one in fire regime 

III. Fire suppression still occurs much 

as it has over the past 80 years, but 

fuel activities (as “fire simulators”) 

have been strategically placed to 

provide fire breaks: places where fire 

would be less intense and smaller in 

size.

Noncommercial 

Thinning

(NCT)

Increased fine fuel

loading for 2-3 years 

following thinning 

decreased ladder 

fuels.

Increased fine fuel

loading for 2-3 years 

following thinning 

decreased ladder 

fuels.

Increased fine fuel

loading for 2-3 years 

following thinning 

decreased ladder 

fuels.

Fire risk is increased for 2-3 years 

following thinning; however, ladder 

fuels are decreased. If a fire were to 

occur during those years of increased

risk, it would remain on the ground and 

would have flame lengths that would 

allow for ground suppression. 

Personal Use 

Firewood 

Incidental increase in 

fine fuel loading 

following harvest, 

Incidental increase in 

fine fuel loading 

following harvest, 

Incidental increase in 

fine fuel loading 

following harvest, 

The increase in fine fuels is on such a 

small scale that it is considered 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-66

Harvest decrease in standing 

dead and thousand 

hour (8”-24”) ground 

fuel loading.

decrease in standing 

dead and thousand 

hour (8”-24”) ground 

fuel loading.

decrease in standing 

dead and thousand 

hour (8”-24”) ground 

fuel loading.

insignificant to cumulative effects.

Grazing

Very little grass to 

carry fires prior to the 

1930’s (when grazing 

regulation began) 

and for 10 to 20 

years following. 

Grazing occurs in the 

project area, but at a 

much smaller scale 

then it did historically 

and is closely 

regulated. Effects of 

grazing are 

negligible.

Grazing occurs in the 

project area, but at a 

much smaller scale 

then it did historically 

and is closely 

regulated. Effects of 

grazing are 

negligible.

Along with historical fire suppression 

efforts, grazing would have contributed 

to the absence of large, low severity

fires in the project area, missing two 

fire return intervals in fire regime I and 

one in fire regime III.

In terms of crown fire potential, the stands with high potential have several layers of vegetation with 

vertical continuity between them: i.e. heavy ground fuels, significant ladder fuels, and a dense overstory. 

Plantations in the Tollgate project area typically only contain one even-aged layer. Ground fuels were 

treated following the past harvests, smaller ladder fuels have not yet had the chance to establish in the 

understory, and there is no larger overstory. Once the stand has been thinned, there is a short time frame in 

which there is an increased likelihood of fire spread through the stand (in the event of a fire start) because 

of dried needles remaining on the cut trees for approximately 2 to 3 years. There would also be an 

increased resistance to control through that time period, since a fire occurring in this stand would have 

roughly 4-6 foot flame lengths. Even with this possibility of an intense fire with high flame lengths, the 

potential for crown fire is still low because the stand was just thinned with 16 to 20’ tree spacing. There 

would be no fuels between the ground and the widely spaced trees to carry the fire from ground to crown 

or from crown to crown. NCT activities would not occur in stands with high crown fire potential within 

the Tollgate project area and would therefore not contribute to the cumulative effects associated with the 

proposed project.

Consistency Findings with Forest Plan and Regulation/law 

Regulatory Consistency 

Implementation of Alternatives B or C would comply with the Forest Plan and desired condition for fire 

and fuels, meet direction provided in the National Fire Plan, and objectives of the Healthy Forest 

Restoration Act. 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE PLANTS

Alternative A No Action 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative A, none of the proposed fuels activities would be implemented. Alternative A, the ‘no 

action’ alternative, would have no impact, direct or indirect, on any currently listed Region 6 sensitive 

vascular and/or nonvascular plant species. 

Cumulative Effects 

Since there is no action proposed in Alternative A, there would be no cumulative impacts on sensitive 

plants. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-67

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

The proposed activities on Alternatives B and C include varying amounts of commercial and 

noncommercial thinning, dead and down wood removal, conventional ground based tractor logging, 

harvester forwarder logging, landing construction, pile burning, mastication, opening and closing of 

closed roads, temporary road construction, road realignment, heavy brushing, and danger tree removal 

along haul routes. These ground disturbing activities could have direct effects of uprooting, burying and/ 

or destroying Regional Forester Sensitive Species List (RFSSL) listed sensitive plant populations if the 

plants are growing where activities are proposed. Two proposed Tollgate units (73 and 49) have 

documented RFSSL sensitive plants present or nearby (Botrychium minganense and Botrychium 

montanum). Units 73 and 49 are proposed for commercial tractor logging in both Alternatives B and C. 

With implementation of the design criteria (Table 2-7) this potential destructive direct impact would be 

avoided. Creation of ‘no activity zones’ would ensure directional falling of trees away from the zone, no 

landing construction, no staging of equipment, no ground disturbing actions in the ‘zone.’ 

The other known TES plant populations in the project area are at least 0.5 mile from the nearest proposed 

treatment unit and none are in the vicinity of proposed construction of temporary roads/landings. There 

are no direct effects/impacts to these other TES plants listed in Table 3-31. 

An indirect effect/impact to sensitive plant populations in the Tollgate project area is the potential for 

resultant spread of invasive plants from ground disturbing activities. Invasive plants degrade native plant 

habitat (USDA 2005). Project design criteria to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive plant 

species can be found in Table 2-7. 

Another indirect effect/impact to moonwort species can be changes to site characteristics such as 

hydrology, microclimate, canopy coverage, or mycorrhizal associations on site as a result of timber 

harvest, landing construction, road realignment and/or road construction (Ahlenslager 2007). The 

majority of Botrychium sites discussed in chapter 3 affected environment, are greater than 0.5 mile from 

proposed project activities. The threat of indirect changes to their site characteristics is very small. There 

may be some indirect impacts to the gray moonwort site in unit 73 and to the mountain moonwort site 

near unit 49 under both action alternatives B and C. 

Cumulative Effects 

See Chapter 3 in the Tollgate Fuels Reduction EIS for a complete listing of all ‘past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions’. The degradation of native plant communities by the invasion of 

non-native plants is potentially exacerbated by the suite of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

activities including grazing, thinning, recreation, fire suppression, road construction, and road 

decommissioning in the analysis area. However, the Umatilla National Forest has an ongoing inventory 

process for invasive plant species, and the tool of Early Detection Rapid Response whereby newly 

discovered weed infestations can be analyzed and planned for treatment (USDA 2010). In addition, 

project design features to prevent the spread of weeds are in Chapter 2 in the Tollgate Fuels Reduction 

EIS and would be implemented as part of the Tollgate Project. With these preventive measures and 

control tools, the potential risk of degradation of native plant communities as a cumulative effect from 

implementation of this project would be reduced. 

Determination of effects to Threatened and Endangered plant species 

Silene spaldingii (Threatened) 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-68

As stated previously in the ‘Affected Environment’ section (Chapter 3), there are no occurrences of Silene 

spaldingii nor is there habitat for Silene spaldingii in the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project area. 

Therefore, the proposed Tollgate project would have no effect on Silene spaldingii. 

Determination of impacts to R6 sensitive vascular and nonvascular plant 

species 

There would be ‘no impact’ to Botrychium pedunculosum, Botrychium paradoxum, Carex cordillerana, 

Salix farriae, Chaenotheca subrosida, and Rhizomnium nudum as a result of implementing the Tollgate 

Fuels Reduction Project. Implementation of design criteria stated above for Botrychium minganense and 

Botrychium montanum would afford protection from direct physical disruption but the threat of indirect 

effects remains; the determination is May impact individuals or habitat but not likely to contribute to 

trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. 

Consistency Findings with Forest Plan and other Regulations/Law 

This project complies with present Federal regulations pertaining to the management of Threatened, 

Endangered, and Sensitive plant species. 

This project is consistent with the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Umatilla National Forest 

(1990). 

INVASIVE PLANTS

A series of assumptions is documented in this analysis that allows calculation of the number of acres at 

high risk of weed spread, depending on the activities and the location of activities in relation to existing 

weed populations. The underlying premise is that areas closest to existing infestations and undergoing the 

most soil disturbance will be at the highest risk of supporting future weed spread. To model this effect, 

“buffer” areas of high risk are calculated around known sites, and their widths are greater as the related 

activity increases in disturbance potential. Thus, a forwarder unit that includes an existing weed site is 

assumed to be at high risk for an area 1000 feet from the known weeds, whereas ground that burned at 

medium severity and has no management activities planned is considered at high risk for an area only 100 

feet from a known infestation. 

Because there is such uncertainty in predicting both location and timing of invasive species spread, this 

model is useful primarily in assessing the relative impacts of proposed levels of activity on future 

possible weed infestations. The purpose is not to predict the actual number of acres that may 

become infested, but is to show the comparative risk of the different activities and alternatives. Both 

of the action alternatives include activities that would increase suitable habitat for invasive plants. The 

potential for weed establishment within each alternative is relative to the amount of disturbance, 

especially the amount and type of fuels reduction systems proposed. The greater the area disturbed, the 

more suitable habitat is created for weeds, and the greater the risk of their establishment and spread. Both 

action alternatives also include design features to help minimize ground disturbance, limit introduction 

and transport of weed seed, avoid selected activities in known areas of infestation, reduce disturbance to 

existing native vegetation, and restore native ground cover as soon as possible after harvest activities are 

complete. 

Assumptions for calculating direct and indirect effects of Alternatives A, B, and C on the distribution of 

acres at Low, Moderate, or High risk include the following: 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-69

Acreage that is in the roadless area and more than 1000 feet from a known weed population is 

considered at low risk for weed spread if it supported forest vegetation before the fire. 

Acres at high risk for weed spread include those within 100 feet of an active road or of a known 

population of a noxious weed. 

Acreage at medium risk for weed spread includes any areas within the project perimeter that are 

not included in the high or low categories. 

Roads have been identified as a primary vector for weed invasion in the current published literature 

reviewed in the white paper on causal mechanisms of noxious weed spread (Kimberling et al. 2004). 

Forest-wide, the presence of roads is the primary factor predisposing a given area to weed infestation 

(UMA Road Analysis 2002). 

Roadside areas known to be at high risk for invasive plant spread are calculated as those within 100 feet 

of any system roads, and are included in direct and indirect effects calculations in Table 4-30. 

All values for acres at risk are rounded to the nearest 5 acres. 

Alternative A 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

The No Action alternative does not include any activities related to the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project. 

Other present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities as described in Chapter 3 of the Environmental 

Impact Statement would continue to occur within the Tollgate planning area. The spread of invasive 

plants from currently existing populations and off-Forest seed sources is not expected to be extensive, as 

existing populations, both on and off-Forest, are relatively small and isolated. Furthermore, existing 

native plant populations are healthy and thriving in the absence of recent wildfire or other disturbances. 

Table 4-30 -- Approximate amount of acres for areas at low, medium, and high levels of risk to 

noxious weed invasion for action Alternative A 

Risk Level Alternative A

Low 21472

Moderate 21421

High 3571

Alternatives B and C 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Inspecting activity areas and haul routes before and during activities is expected to reduce any increase in 

weed infestations caused by the spreading of new seed, even if prevention measures are not 100% 

effective. These prevention measures would not affect spread of any older seed that may be present in the 

soil seedbank in the vicinity of pre-existing populations. It is not possible to calculate exact acreage 

reductions resulting from these weed treatments. However, the reductions in areas at risk would be 

proportional for each action alternative. 

Invasion of an area by noxious weeds is known to be facilitated by ground disturbance, loss of plant 

cover, disruption of functioning native plant communities, and the presence of a weed seed source 

(Keeley 2004; R6 FEIS 2005). When addressing the spread of invasive plant species, it is impossible to 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-70

accurately predict spread rates or exact locations of expanding weed populations; however, it is more 

feasible assess the relative spread risk of various activities based on the degree of ground disturbance 

involved, and the proximity of existing weed populations that act as seed sources. 

Using the same risk assessment methodology described above for Alternative A, levels of noxious weed 

infestation risk expected to occur as a result of implementing the activities included within action 

Alternatives B or C were allocated across the Tollgate planning area (Table 4-31). Because Alternative B 

includes more areas of ground disturbance, the expected amounts of areas at medium and high risk of 

weed invasion were slightly higher than under Alternative C (approximately 130 and 49 acres, 

respectively), while the areas of low risk to weed invasion were slightly lower (approximately 178 acres). 

Table 4-31 — Amount of acres for areas at low, medium, and high levels of risk to noxious weed 

invasion for action Alternatives B and C 

Risk Level Alternative B Alternative C

Low 21294 21472

Moderate 20939 20809

High 4232 4183

Inclusion of a number of design criteria in project activities will help to reduce the risk of invasive species 

introduction and spread. The criteria are intended to minimize ground disturbance and the exposure of 

mineral soils, to reduce the introduction of weed seed into areas where ground disturbance is occurring, to 

minimize the moving of any weed seed that already exists in planning area soils, and to re-establish weedfree ground cover as quickly as possible after any ground-disturbing activities. The detailed design 

criteria common to all action alternatives are listed in Chapter 2. 

Cumulative Effects

This cumulative effects analysis considers the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

within and adjacent to the National Forest Lands on the Walla Walla Ranger District within the Tollgate 

Fuels Reduction planning area. Actions are considered ‘reasonably foreseeable’ if there has been any 

public notice or planning regarding an activity, or if future activity can be projected based on ongoing or 

historical activity in the area with enough specificity to analyze effects. 

Past road construction and maintenance, recreation, grazing, wildfire and related suppression activities, 

timber harvest, and other soil disturbances described in Chapter 3 have provided environments suitable 

for noxious weed species establishment, vectors for noxious weed dispersal, and infestations of noxious 

weeds for seed sources. The analysis methodology used for this report takes into account the direct and 

indirect effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities (as described in Chapter 3) on 

risk of noxious weed invasion, and thereby includes expected cumulative effects with respect to the 

activities included in Alternatives B and/or C. 

Existing infestations are a result of past ground disturbing activities with effects that overlap in space and 

time with the direct and indirect effects of the activities proposed under Alternatives B or C. Domestic 

livestock and wildlife can spread invasive plant seeds throughout the planning area. The project area is 

located within an active allotment (“North End Allotment”) with a season of use from June to October. As 

a result, sheep are within the planning area when seed maturity occurs and likely serve as a vector for 

seed spread. There will likely be some level of cumulative effects associated with sheep grazing and 

activities associated with this project. Those effects could include the spread of existing infestations and 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-71

the establishment of new invasive species. Though design criteria will reduce the cumulative effects, they 

would likely not be eliminated; however, grazing activities in the North End Allotment are effectively 

managed to reduce detrimental impacts on soils and native plant communities and minimize opportunities 

for invasive plant establishment outside of road corridors. As a result, grazing activities in the North End 

Allotment are not expected to expand areas of high risk above and beyond what is expected to occur as a 

result of implementing actions included under any of the Alternatives of the Tollgate project. 

The spread of invasive plants from currently existing populations and off-forest seed sources will 

continue at the current level. Animal and vehicle vectors will likely be the primary means of seed 

introduction into the planning area. The following past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

were considered, but, for the reasons cited, did not alter the calculations of acreages in the high and low 

risk categories for weed spread. 

No recent fuels treatments have been carried out within the project boundary in the vicinity of known 

weed populations, so do not contribute to acreage at high risk. Existing grazing in the area of sheep and/or 

cattle has not substantially inhibited the ability of native plants to out-compete noxious weeds (USDA 

Forest Service 2011). 

The following items may increase the potential for invasive plant species establishment and spread, but 

are not expected to cumulatively increase the amount of areas considered as high risk to invasive plant 

establishment because they occur along roadways, which are already classified as high risk. However, 

acreage placed at high risk from these activities is speculative, so are not evaluated numerically. 

Larger vehicles traveling away from roadbeds can actually increase potential weed habitat by 

disturbing and/or compacting soils, and by damaging and weakening existing vegetation. They 

can also carry and disperse weed seed wherever they go. While system roads are mapped, and can 

be efficiently patrolled for detection and treatment of associated weed populations, any 

infestations along unauthorized user-built roads are less likely to be rapidly found and treated. 

Acreage where this may be occurring is unknown. 

The use of OHVs away from designated roadbeds or trails raises concern for invasive species 

spread, but these activities are not expected to occur outside areas currently mapped as high risk 

to invasive plant establishment. While OHVs cause less ground disturbance than larger vehicles 

such as pick-ups, they can access more varied terrain. If used for unauthorized cross-country 

travel they can act as wide-ranging seed dispersal vectors, potentially introducing weed 

infestations into remote and seldom-frequented sites. The amount of unauthorized land use by 

vehicles is unknown, but it is apparent that at least some such use occurs in portions of the 

planning area, increasing the risk of spreading invasive species to remote spots where they are not 

easily detected or treated (Defenders of Wildlife 2002). 

Consistency Findings with Forest Plan and other Regulations/Law 

The proposed Tollgate Fuels Management Project Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is 

consistent with the Forest Plan, as amended, with respect to noxious weeds. This finding is based on the 

the above discussions of existing condition, the mechanisms of invasive species spread, and the inclusion 

of prevention measures (Table 2-7).
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-72

WILDLIFE

Old Forest Habitat 

Alternative A - No Action 

Direct/Indirect Effects

The No Action Alternative in this analysis is defined as not taking any of the proposed actions. 

Therefore, under NEPA, there are no direct or indirect effects of the No Action Alternative. This does not 

mean conditions on the ground would remain static, they would in fact, continue to change as disclosed 

below. 

The majority of the planning area is considered a Fire Regime III (24,500 acres) or Fire Regime IV 

(10,900 acres), which typically have long fire return intervals and burn with mixed to high severity (Fuels 

Specialist Report). The intent of proposed treatments is thus to moderate the Fire Regime and thereby 

increase the ability to control fires once they start, and limit damage to private property. 

Without treatments the Dedicated Old Growth (C1) and other old forest structure would likely remain in 

its current state in the short term. As long as fires do not occur in the planning area, there would be 

increasing amounts of old forest, stands with higher tree densities, mid and late seral species, and 

susceptibility to natural disturbances (Silviculture Specialist Report). Wildland fire under these 

conditions would exhibit extreme fire behavior and would be difficult to suppress (Fuels Specialist 

Report). Protection of homes and other structures in the area would be very difficult. 

Eventually a wildfire could take out large amounts of old forest. This is a normal and expected occurrence 

in Fire Regime IV areas (such as the Tollgate plateau), which has a 100-200 year fire cycle. Some 

wildlife species such as the black-backed woodpecker depend upon such fire events, but species that 

depend upon unburned old forest structure would be displaced if a large stand-replacing fire occurred. 

Cumulative effects 

No actions would be authorized, therefore based on the definition provided in the CEQ regulations, there 

would be no cumulative effects of the No Action Alternative. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives B and C

Dedicated Old Growth 

No actions are proposed within Dedicated Old Growth (MA C1) areas. The current composition, 

structure, and function of these areas would be maintained under all of the proposed alternatives in the 

short -term. In the mid and long -term, these dedicated areas may deteriorate to the point they no longer 

provide old growth habitat, or a wildland fire could alter these stands. These areas would likely become a 

rich source of large diameter snag habitat. 

Old Forest Structure and patch size 

About 60 percent of the acres proposed for treatment in both Alternatives B and C would affect old forest 

stands. However, no reduction in the amount of old forest would occur because improvement cutting 

would leave at least 10 trees per acre > 21” DBH. Most of the OFMS stands to be thinned would convert 

to OFSS structure, and existing OFSS to be thinned would remain OFSS. The majority of old forest 

thinning would occur in moist forest (Table 4-32). 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-73

At least 10 trees greater than or equal to 21 inches DBH would remain in old forest treatment units. The 

healthiest large trees and the soundest large snags would remain as the building blocks for present and 

future stand and wildlife habitat development. While down wood and dead trees would be removed to 

reduce fuels, all treatment units would maintain snags and down wood in excess of Forest Plan standards. 

Road maintenance, removal of danger trees along roads, and the construction and use of temporary roads 

would have a minimal impact to old forest. The total 2.6 miles of temporary road is comprised of many 

short spurs within harvest units and would be revegetated. These extensions would be closed to the 

public, and therefore access to old forest stands for activities such as firewood cutting would not increase. 

Table 4-32 — Acres of commercial and non-commercial thinning in old forest structure

Measure (acres)

Alternative

B C

Moist Old Forest commercially thinned 2050 1880

Moist OFSS 1000 900

Moist OFMS 1050 980

Dry Old Forest commercially thinned 100 70

Dry OFSS 70 50

Dry OFMS 30 20

Cold Old Forest commericially thinned - OFSS 95 95

Total Old Forest commercially thinned 2245 2045

Additional non-commerical thinning and/or 

dead down removal 370 220

Total Old Forest treated 2615 2265

Late seral, shade-tolerant tree species would continue to dominate the Tollgate project planning area 

landscape, and understory biodiversity would generally be maintained or increase (Silviculture Specialist 

Report). The amount of old forest in the Tollgate project planning area would remain within or above the 

historical range of variability in all classes of old forest (Silviculture Specialist Report). 

Both overstory and understory tree cover would decrease in extended areas along Highway 204 and 

nearby residential areas. These stands may be less useable by old growth associated species such as 

northern goshawk and American marten. The best old growth habitat is found in the surrounding 

Roadless and wilderness areas with their larger streams and abundant riparian habitat. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-74

Old Forest Connectivity 

In both action alternatives, tree canopy would be reduced in over 2,000 acres of old forest, but 

improvement cutting (thinning) would result in fully stocked stands conducive to movement of various 

wildlife species. Old forest structure would continue to be well distributed and connected within the entire 

project planning area. 

Direct/Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative B

Commercial thinning and fuels reduction activities would affect 2,615 acres of old forest, of which 

roughly half is currently multi strata and half is single stratum. Primary cover types affected are moist 

grand fir (1,100 acres), spruce and spruce-subalpine fir (1,100 acres) and the remainder in Douglas-fir, 

western larch, or ponderosa pine. 

Affected dry, old forest (100 acres) is primarily a dry grand fir cover type. Only 8 acres in the ponderosa 

pine cover type and 8 acres in the Douglas-fir cover type would be commercially thinned. 

About 370 acres of the above 2,615 would have non-commericial thinning, ladder fuel removal, and/or 

dead and down wood removal only. No trees greater than 9 inches DBH would be cut. 

Some trees greater than or equal to 21 inches DBH DBH would be removed where needed to reduce 

crown density in 4 units (45, 83, 84, and 95) which total 338 acres. From a wildlife habitat standpoint, 

there would be fewer large trees to become large snags and down wood in the future on these 338 acres. 

Because there would still be an average of 10 or more trees per acre over 21 inches DBH., this would be a 

minor effect. 

In general there would be abundant old forest, but it would appear more open near the highway and 

residential areas. Wildlife species that prefer dense multi layered forest would not utilize the treated 

stands in the short term, until regeneration grows back in. 

Direct/Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative C 

Commercial thinning and fuels reduction activities would affect about 2,265 acres of old forest, or 350 

acres less than Alternative B. 

About 220 acres of the above 2,265 would onlyhave non-commericial thinning, ladder fuel removal, 

and/or dead and down wood removal, where no trees greater than 9 inches DBH would be cut. 

In response to an issue raised during scoping, trees greater than or equal to 21 inches DBH would not be 

removed in Alternative C unless they pose a safety concern or are needed for operational corridors. There 

would likely be more than 10 trees per acre over 20 inches DBH, on average, which could provide large 

tree habitat and future large snags in four units (338 acres). 

Effects to old forest are relatively similar to Alternative B in terms of cover types and structure, except 

they would occur on 350 fewer acres. In general there would be abundant old forest, but it would appear 

more open near the highway and residential areas. Wildlife species that prefer dense multi layered forest 

would not utilize the treated stands until regeneration grows back in. 

Cumulative Effects - Alternatives B and C 

Cumulative effects are evaluated at the project planning area scale. Past timber harvest and roading is 

reflected in the existing condition. The amount of old forest in the Tollgate project planning area would 

remain within or above the historical range of variability in all classes of old forest (Silviculture Specialist 

Report). 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-75

Ongoing non-commercial thinning outside of timber harvest units would not affect old forest. 

Personal use firewood cutting may occasionally remove large snags (up to 24 inch stump diameter) within 

300 feet of open roads. Since open road density is low in this area, and cutting is restricted to 300 feet off 

of open roads, the effects to snag availability in old forest would be very minor. 

Ongoing recreational activities, sheep grazing, and weed treatment would not have cumulative effects to 

the old forest habitat in this analysis area. 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) 

Rocky Mountain Elk 

Alternative A - No Action 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Under NEPA, there are no direct or indirect effects of the No Action Alternative, which is defined as not 

taking any of the proposed actions. However, this does not mean conditions on the ground would remain 

static. 

The amount and distribution of cover and roads would not likely change in the short-term. Over the mid 

and long-term (beyond 20 years), some stands could grow into thicker hiding cover while others may 

deteriorate. New openings may be created where trees fall, which would allow pockets of foraging areas 

to develop. 

Cumulative Effects 

Taking no action would not add to any effects from past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. Based on the definition provided in the CEQ regulations, there would be no cumulative effects of 

the No Action Alternative. 

Alternatives B and/or C 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives B and C

Satisfactory cover and HEI values would remain within forest plan minimum standards (Table 4-33). 

Total cover would not change because Satisfactory cover within treatment areas would convert to 

Marginal cover. Satisfactory cover would be reduced by about 2 percent in both alternatives. 

Where cover decreases, elk forage quantity and quality would likely increase. Past efforts to control weed 

sites have been successful and monitoring and treatments would continue. Controls to reduce or eliminate 

potential weed spread from logging operations would be in place (Invasive Plants Specialist Report). Any 

new weed sites would be treated as coordinated through the forest invasive plants program. 

The HEI value would be reduced by one in both action alternatives versus the current existing condition. 

Table 4-33 — Forest Plan standards and comparison of alternatives in the Tollgate elk analysis 

area (all FS land within 1 mile of proposed activities) 

Scale Measure

Forest Plan 

Desired

Forest Plan 

Standard Alt. A Alt B Alt. C

Elk Analysis Area Satisfactory 15-20 % 10 % 17.8 % 15.5 % 15.9 %
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-76

Scale Measure

Forest Plan 

Desired

Forest Plan 

Standard Alt. A Alt B Alt. C

(28,500 acres)

Cover 

Total Cover NA 30 % 56 % 56 % 56 %

HEI NA 45 63 62 62

No changes in open road densities would occur. The project would utilize about 46 miles of existing road, 

of which approximately 16 miles are currently closed. The closed roads would not be open to the public 

during project activities and would remain closed after the project is completed. 

Road maintenance, removal of danger trees along roads, and the construction and use of temporary roads 

would have a minimal impact to elk. The total 2.6 miles of temporary road is comprised of many short 

spurs within harvest units and would be revegetated. These extensions would be closed to the public 

Motorized vehicles using roads that have been closed for many years may cause elk to temporarily avoid 

these areas during logging activities. Because activities would take place gradually over several years, and 

would be spread out spatially, no effects to the elk population would be caused by the use of roads. 

Direct/Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative B

Harvest and fuels treatments would take place on 3,500 acres. Because the treatments are intermediate 

thinning, low thinning, non-commercial thinning, and ladder fuel removal, all of the treated areas would 

retain enough trees to continue to provide marginal cover in the short and mid term. Satisfactory cover 

would be reduced by by 2.3 percent (650 acres) but the amount of total cover would not change (Table 

4-33).

Direct/Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative C

Harvest and fuels treatments would take place on 3,300 acres of total cover, about 200 acres less than 

Alternative B. Because the treatments are intermediate thinning, low thinning, non-commercial thinning, 

and ladder fuel removal, all of the treated areas would retain enough trees to continue to provide marginal 

cover in the short and mid term. Satisfactory cover would be reduced by 1.9 percent (520 acres) but the 

amount of total cover would not change (Table 4-33).

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives B and C

Cumulative effects are assessed at the Tollgate elk analysis area, which is Forest Service land within 1 

mile of all proposed activities. This scale is appropriate given the scale of proposed activities and the 

mixture of forest plan management areas. It is a large area (28,500 acres), that reduces any dilution of 

project effects that might occur if the entire 46,460 acre project planning area were used. 

Past timber harvest and roading is reflected in the existing condition. Ongoing activities in the area 

include non-commercial thinning, sheep grazing, weed treatment, recreation uses, and firewood 

collection. 

Ongoing non-commercial thinning and the proposed Swamp unit small sale would open up an additional 

150 acres, which cumulatively adds to the reduction of hiding cover for elk, but to a very small degree. 

Sheep grazing, weed treatments, firewood collection, and recreation uses would continue at existing 

levels. 

The addition of proposed activities would increase the amount of disturbance in the area but would not 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-77

negatively affect elk distribution or populations. Many other factors besides habitat influence elk 

numbers, such as weather, predation, and hunter success. In general, little change in elk and deer 

numbers would be expected with the current hunting strategies set forth by ODFW. 

Forest Plan Consistency 

The overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would result in a neutral habitat trend. Forest plan 

standards for elk habitat would be met, and no changes to the elk population are expected. The project is 

consistent with the forest plan and thus continued viability of Rocky Mountain elk is expected on the 

Umatilla National Forest. 

American marten 

Alternative A - No Action 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Under NEPA, an effect is the result of taking an action. The No Action alternative in this analysis is 

defined as not taking any of the proposed actions. Therefore, under NEPA, there are no direct or indirect 

effects of the No Action Alterntative. This does not mean conditions on the ground would remain static, 

they would in fact, continue to change as disclosed below. 

As long as fires do not occur in the planning area, existing marten habitat would remain in its current state 

in the short -term. In the long -term, some stands would develop into complex, mature stands, which 

would provide more marten habitat. Because marten utilize areas of high down wood densities, they 

would benefit from an increase in snags and down wood as stands mature. However, if a large fire 

occurred, large amounts of habitat would be eliminated for decades. This is a normal and expected 

occurrence in Fire Regime IV areas (such as the Tollgate plateau), which has a 100-200 year fire cycle. 

Cumulative Effects 

For the No Action alternative, the Tollgate project would not be authorizing any actions; therefore it 

would not be adding anything to the effects of past, present and reasonably forseeable future actions. 

Based on the definition provided in the CEQ regulations, there would be no cumulative effects of the No 

Action Alternative. 

Alternatives B and C 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Approximately 15 percent of available marten habitat in the planning area would be affected by thinning 

in Alternative B (1,500 acres) and 14 percent in Alternative C (1380 acres). A reduction of existing down 

wood and dense understory would make these areas less suitable for marten denning in the short and mid 

-term. Most of the affected habitat is around private land and along Highway 204, and there would be 

very little effect to the large blocks of marten habitat along the larger stream corridors. 

Marten habitat would remain abundant in the project planning area. Treated areas would ramain suitable 

for marten foraging, while the large blocks of habitat along Summer Creek, Lookingglass Creek, and the 

North Fork Umatilla River would likely be used for denning. Over 8,500 acres of marten habitat would 

not be affected by proposed activities. 

Temporary roads and danger tree removal would have very little or no effect to marten or their habitat. 

Cumulative Effects
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-78

Cumulative effects are assessed at the project planning area scale because it is a large area that potentially 

could provide habitat for one or more reproducing female marten. Proposed activities in combination 

with other past, ongoing, and potential future projects are not expected to cause cumulative effects to 

marten or their habitat. Past timber harvest and road construction has occurred throughout the project 

planning area, which is reflected in the existing condition. Ongoing non-commerical thinning projects 

and weed treatments generally do not affect marten habitat. The proposed Swamp unit small sale is not 

within marten habitat. Forest recreation activities such as hunting, hiking, sightseeing, and berry picking 

take place during the day time when marten are less active. Open road densities would remain low, which 

restricts the amount of human disturbance. 

Forest Plan Consistency 

The overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would result in a small negative habitat trend for 

marten. Because the project impacts less than 2 percent (.015) of the marten habitat on the forest, the the 

amount of effect from this project is too small to cause changes to the population. The Tollgate project is 

consistent with the forest plan and thus continued viability of marten is expected on the Umatilla National 

Forest. 

Pileated woodpecker

Alternative A - No Action 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Under NEPA, an effect is the result of taking an action. The No Action alternative in this analysis is 

defined as not taking any of the proposed actions. Therefore, under NEPA, there are no direct or indirect 

effects of the No Action Alterntative. This does not mean conditions on the ground would remain static. 

Existing pileated woodpecker habitat would remain in its current state in the short term. In the mid and 

long -term, more snags would be created as trees die. Stands that are not currently in an old forest 

condition could develop into mature stands, which would provide additional habitat. 

Cumulative Effects 

For the No Action alternative, the Tollgate project would not be authorizing any actions; therefore it 

would not be adding anything to the effects of past, present and reasonably forseeable future actions. 

Based on the definition provided in the CEQ regulations, there would be no cumulative effects of the No 

Action Alternative. 

Alternatives B and C 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Approximately 1,375 acres of existing pileated woodpecker habitat (7 percent of habitat in the project 

planning area) would be affected by tree thinning and fuels treatments in Alternative B. About 1,000 of 

these acres are potential nesting habitat. Approximately 1,100 acres of existing pileated woodpecker 

habitat (5.7 percent) would be affected by tree thinning and fuels treatments in Alternative C. About 800 

acres of these are potential nesting habitat.Therefore 10 percent of 10,200 acres of potential nesting 

habitat in the analysis area would convert to foraging habitat in Alternative B, and 8 percent in 

Alternative C. This is because there would be less canopy closure, fewer snags and down wood. 

At least 3 large snags per acre in dry forest and 2 large snags per acre in moist forest would remain in all 

thinning units. In addition, all functioning snag habitat (broken top, signs of excavation, etc) would be 

retained wherever possible. Most trees and snags > 21 inches DBH would be retained, as well as an 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-79

adequate number of replacement trees for future snag development. Some trees greater than or equal to 

21 inches DBH DBH would be removed where needed to reduce crown density in 4 units (45, 83, 84, and 

95) which total 338 acres. These stands would still be classified as old forest because improvement 

cutting would leave at least 10 trees per acre > 21” DBH. These units are included in the above 

reproductive habitat that would convert to foraging habitat. The remaining 9,200 acres of pileated 

woodpecker reproductive habitat in the project planning area would not be affected by commercial 

thinning. Other proposed activities such as non-commercial thinning, ladder fuel removal, and 

temporary roads would have no effect to pileated woodpeckers or their habitat. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects are assessed at the project planning area scale because it is a large area that potentially 

could provide habitat for 5-8 pair of reproducing pileated woodpeckers. Past logging in old growth forest 

has undoubtedly reduced the densityof large diameter snags in the project planning area. This is reflected 

in the existing condition. Personal firewood collection and roadside hazard tree removals would 

contribute to snag reductions, however the overall effects on pileated woodpecker habitat would be small 

because removal occurs only along roads. Firewood removal is limited to trees with less than 24 inches 

stump diameter. 

Ongoing activities such as grazing, non-commercial thinning and weed treatments would have no effect 

to pileated woodpeckers or their habitat and therefore would not cause cumulative effects in combination 

with the proposed projects. The proposed Swamp unit small sale is not within pileated woodpecker 

habitat.When the expected effects from proposed activities are combined with residual, present, and 

foreseeable future actions in the analysis area, they would all add to past reductions in snag densities. 

Commercial harvest would result in a minor incremental effect. 

Forest Plan Consistency 

The overall direct, indirect and cumulative effects would result in a very small negative habitat trend for 

pileated woodpecker. Because the project impacts less than 1 percent (.005) of the pileated woodpecker 

habitat on the forest, the amount of effect from this project is too small to cause changes to the 

population. The Tollgate Fuels Reduction project is consistent with the forest plan and thus continued 

viability of pileated woodpecker is expected on the Umatilla National Forest. 

Three-toed woodpecker 

Alternative A - No Action 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

The No Action alternative in this analysis is defined as not taking any of the proposed actions. Therefore, 

under NEPA, there are no direct or indirect effects of the No Action Alterntative. This does not mean 

conditions on the ground would remain static, they would in fact, continue to change as disclosed below. 

Existing three-toed woodpecker habitat would remain in its current state in the short -term. There may be 

increases in insect outbreaks, which would benefit three-toed woodpecker. Fire would create high-quality 

short term habitat. 

Cumulative Effects

For the No Action alternative, the Tollgate project would not be authorizing any actions; therefore it 

would not be adding anything to the effects of past, present and reasonably forseeable future actions. 

Based on the definition provided in the CEQ regulations, there would be no cumulative effects of the No 

Action Alternative. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-80

 Alternatives B and C 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

About 3,400 acres of three-toed woodpecker foraging habitat in Alternative B and 3,100 acres in 

Alternative C would be affected by proposed activities. About 85 acres of mature lodgepole pine stands 

that may provide prime nesting opportunities would be affected in both alternatives. Other areas with 

possible nest habitat in spruce and fir stands that would be affected include 2,200 acres in Alternative B, 

and 1,985 acres in Alternative C. Approximately 15 percent of possible nesting habitat in the planning 

area would be affected. 

Stand thinning and fuels treatments would reduce tree density, snag density, and down wood abundance. 

Treatments would likely result in less potential for insect disturbances that three-toed woodpeckers 

depend upon in the short and mid -term. Because thinning would be light, all old forest would remain old 

forest, and enough canopy cover would probably remain to allow three-toed woodpecker to continue to 

use these stands. Some trees greater than or equal to 21 inches DBH DBH would be removed where 

needed to reduce crown density in 4 units (45, 83, 84, and 95) which total 338 acres. These stands would 

still be classified as old forest because improvement cutting would leave at least 10 trees per acre > 21” 

DBH.

The remaining 17,300 acres of potential three-toed woodpecker foraging habitat would not be affected by 

tree thinning and fuels reduction, and would continue to provide foraging and nesting opportunities. 

Other proposed activities such as non-commercial thinning, and temporary roads would have no effect to 

three-toed woodpeckers or their habitat. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are assessed at the Tollgate project planning area scale because it is a large area that 

potentially could provide habitat for one or more pair of reproducing three-toed woodpeckers. Fire 

suppression and salvage logging in bug-killed lodgepole pine has undoubtedly reduced the amount of 

three-toed woodpecker habitat in the project planning area. Past timber harvest is reflected in the existing 

condition. 

Cumulatively the effects of proposed activities in combination with other past, ongoing, and potential 

future projects are not expected to have lasting negative impacts to three-toed woodpecker populations. 

There is very little old forest lodgepole pine nesting habitat in this area. Ongoing sheep grazing, noncommerical thinning projects, weed treatments, and recreation activities do not affect woodpecker habitat. 

The proposed Swamp unit small sale is within three-toed woodpecker foraging habitat, but would affect 

only 50 acres . 

Forest Plan Consistency 

The overall direct, indirect and cumulative effects would result in a very small negative habitat trend for 

three-toed woodpecker. Because the project impacts only 1 percent of the three-toed woodpecker nesting 

habitat on the forest, the amount of effect from this project is too small to cause changes to the 

population. The project is consistent with the forest plan and thus continued viability of three-toed 

woodpecker is expected on the Umatilla National Forest. 

Primay Cavity Excavators - Snag Habitat 

Alternative A - No Action 

Direct/Indirect Effects 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-81

Under NEPA, an effect is the result of taking an action. The No Action alternative in this analysis is 

defined as not taking any of the proposed actions. Therefore, under NEPA, there are no direct or indirect 

effects of the No Action Alternative. This does not mean conditions on the ground would remain static, 

they would in fact, continue to change as disclosed below. 

The area would continue to provide snags and large down wood for cavity dependent species. Additional 

snags and large down wood would be created as overstory mortality occurs and dead trees eventually fall, 

creating new foraging and nesting habitat. Cavity excavator populations would likely be maintained or 

increase. Ongoing and potential increases in disease and insect occurrence could improve habitat by 

creating foraging and nesting habitat (dead wood). 

If a stand replacing fire occurred, habitat would be reduced for many cavity-excavator speices, but others 

would respond positively. The black-backed woodpecker and Lewis’ woodpecker would benefit in the 

short and mid -term, due to their preference for burned stands. Most other woodpecker species would 

respond to fire by shifting their use to adjacent unburned or lightly burned stands. 

Cumulative Effects 

For the No Action alternative, the Tollgate project would not be authorizing any actions; therefore it 

would not be adding anything to the effects of past, present and reasonably forseeable future actions. 

Based on the definition provided in the CEQ regulations, there would be no cumulative effects of the No 

Action Alternative. 

Alternatives B and C 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Commercial thinning would take place on 3,445 acres in Alternative B and 3,285 acres in Alternative C. 

Both Alternatives affect about 9 percent of the forested stands in the planning area. 

Some dead trees and down wood may be removed in order to reduce excess fuels and crown fire 

potential. However, at least 3 large snags (> 20 inches DBH) per acre would be retained in all units 

where they occur. If large snags are not available, snags between 10 and 19 inches would be substituted. 

In addition, all functioning snag habitat (broken top, signs of excavation, etc) would be retained wherever 

possible. No prescribed burning is planned, therefore snags would not be burned in post-harvest 

treatment. 

A minimum of 3-6 down logs per acre (in the dry plant association) or 15-20 down logs per acre (in the 

moist plant association) would be retained to meet Forest Plan standards as amended. A minimum of 16 

green trees per acre would be left for future snag development. Most thinning units would exceed this 

number. 

Because the purpose of the Tollgate project is to reduce ladder fuels and crown fire potential, minimal 

long term impacts to snags are expected. Most trees and snags > 21 inches DBH would be retained, as 

well as an adequate number of replacement trees for future snag development. Dead trees > 9 inches are 

not targeted for removal in units where dead and down may be reduced. Tree thinning would reduce the 

density of green trees that might otherwise become future snags; however these stands would remain fully 

stocked after treatment and would meet long term snag replacement objectives. Recent insect related tree 

mortality is occurring in the area, creating additional snags. 

The average density of large snags (greater than 20 inches DBH) is 4.9 per acre (Table 3-37). At least 3 

per acre would remain in treated areas, and all existing snags outside of treated areas would remain unless 

they are a hazard to operations. In general, managing forests within or towards the historical range of 

variability should provide habitat for a wide range of cavity excavator species. Snags within harvest units 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-82

would be retained above the minimum levels required in the Forest Plan, especially in the larger size 

classes. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects are assessed at the snag analysis scale. Past fire suppression, salvage logging, and 

harvest in old growth forest has undoubtedly reduced the density of snags in the Tollgate project planning 

area. This is reflected in the existing condition. 

Recent insect related tree mortality is occurring in the area, creating additional snags. 

Personal firewood collection can contribute to snag reductions, however the overall effects on snag 

dependent wildlife would be small because removal typically occurs along open roads. Other ongoing 

and proposed activities would have no cumulative effect to dead wood habitat and woodpeckers. The 

Swamp small sale is in an old clearcut, where there are no existing snags, therefore there would be no 

cumulative effect to snags. 

When the expected effects from proposed activities are combined with residual, present, and foreseeable 

future actions in the analysis area, they would all add to past reductions in snag densities. Structural 

habitat for cavity excavating birds would be reduced at the stand scale, but watershed averages would 

remain relatively constant. 

Forest Plan Consistency 

The project would affect less than 1 percent (.005) of the forested land on the Umatilla National Forest. 

Large snags are not targeted for removal. The overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would result 

in a very small negative habitat trend for primary cavity excavators. The amount of effect from this 

project is too small to cause changes to cavity excavator populations. Therefore the project is consistent 

with the forest plan and continued viability of primary cavity excavators is expected on the Umatilla 

National Forest. 

Northern goshawk

Alternative A - No Action 

Direct/Indirect Effects

Under NEPA, an effect is the result of taking an action. The No Action alternative in this analysis is 

defined as not taking any of the proposed actions. Therefore, under NEPA, there are no direct or indirect 

effects of the No Action Alterntative. This does not mean conditions on the ground would remain static, 

they would in fact, continue to change as disclosed below. 

In the mid and -long term, some stands would continue to grow and develop multiple dense canopy 

layers. The availability of nesting habitat would increase in the long -term due to a greater abundance of 

large trees and dense multi-layered habitat, while foraging areas with open understory would be reduced. 

The susceptibility of stands to high severity wildfires and insect or disease outbreaks would likely 

increase and could lead to large losses of habitat long -term. 

Cumulative Effects

For the No Action alternative, the Tollgate project would not be authorizing any actions; therefore it 

would not be adding anything to the effects of past, present and reasonably forseeable future actions. 

Based on the definition provided in the CEQ regulations, there would be no cumulative effects of the No 

Action Alternative. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-83

Alternatives B and C 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Timber harvest and fuels treatments follow the Eastside Screens requirements (Forest Plan Amendment 

# 11) to maintain late old structure stands and connectivity corridors. The intent is to provide short term 

protections for species dependent on old forest such as northern goshawk. (See Appendix F-Consistency 

with Eastside Screens). 

Proposed activities in Alternative B would affect about 2,200 acres of the potential goshawk nesting 

habitat in the Tollgate project planning area, and about 1,900 acres in Alternative C (11 to 12 percent). 

Fuels treatments would reduce high down wood and snag densities to reduce fuel loading and make 

stands more resilient to wildfire. Because treatments in these stands would retain almost all of the larger 

trees, they may still be suitable for goshawk nesting. This would depend on other variables such as slope 

and distance to water. If active nests are found at any time, they would be protected as specified in the 

project design criteria (Table 2-7).

Approximately 15,775 acres of potential goshawk nesting habitat in the project planning area would not 

be affected by proposed activities. Proposed non-commercial thinning, ladder fuel reduction, and 

temporary roads would have very little or no effect to northern goshawk or their habitat. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects are assessed at the Tollgate project planning area scale because it is large enough to 

potentially support several goshawk nesting territories. Alteration of 1,900-2,200 acres of potential 

nesting habitat would add slightly to past changes in goshawk habitat, which is reflected in the existing 

condition. Reproductive habitat outside of harvest units (15,775 acres) would remain untouched and 

continue to provide large areas of contiguous forest. 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities in the area such as sheep grazing, non-commercial 

thinning, and recreational use in combination with proposed projects would not cause cumulative effects 

to northern goshawk. The proposed Swamp unit small sale is not within goshawk habitat. 

If active nests are found at any time, they would be protected as specified in the project design criteria

(Table 2-7).

Migratory Landbirds 

Alternative A - No Action 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Under NEPA, an effect is the result of taking an action. The No Action alternative in this analysis is 

defined as not taking any of the proposed actions. Therefore, under NEPA, there are no direct or indirect 

effects of the No Action Alternative. The current condition of habitats for birds in the planning area 

would not change in the short term. Snags would likely increase in number, benefiting many snag 

associated species. 

Cumulative Effects

For the No Action alternative, the Tollgate project would not be authorizing any actions; therefore it 

would not be adding anything to the effects of past, present and reasonably forseeable future actions. 

Based on the definition provided in the CEQ regulations, there would be no cumulative effects of the No 

Action Alternative. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-84

Alternatives B and C 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

The reduction of crown and ladder fuels would reduce habitat for some birds, but it would also reduce the 

chances that a large scale uncharacteristic wildfire would eliminate large areas of forest habitat. Some 

existing snag habitat would decrease within harvest and fuels reduction units, and removal of danger trees 

along haul routes. Snags would be left in units at levels identified in the design features and management 

requirements outlined in Table 2-7. The retention of trees > 21 inches DBH in most units would reduce 

the extent of effects to some birds of concern. 

Late seral, shade-tolerant tree species would continue to dominate the Tollgate project planning area 

landscape, and understory biodiversity would generally be maintained or increase (Silviculture Specialist 

Report). 

Dry Forest Habitat 

Only 8 acres in the ponderosa pine cover type would be commercially thinned. Post harvest, these 8 acres 

would consist of single story, old forest ponderosa pine. 

Mesic Mixed Conifer Habitat

Commercial thinning and fuels reduction activities would affect 600 acres of Douglas-fir, grand fir and 

larch sites in a multi-layered condition. Understory would be reduced in the short term, but would soon 

grow in. Late seral, shade-tolerant tree species would continue to dominate the Tollgate project planning 

area landscape, and understory biodiversity would generally be maintained or increase (Silviculture 

Specialist Report). 

Subalpine 

About 2,000 acres dominated by subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, lodgepole pine in a multi-layered 

condition would be thinned. This may allow a denser shrub understory to develop and become better 

suited for hermit thrush. 

Other Unique Habitats 

Aspen, montane meadow, riparian shrub, and steppe shrubland habitats would not be affected by 

proposed activities. 

Cumulative Effects

The scale of analysis for cumulative effects to birds is the project planning area. Past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable activities in the area in combination with proposed projects would not cause 

cumulative effects to bird species. Past activities such as timber harvest is reflected in the existing 

condition. Ongoing sheep grazing, non-commercial thinning, recreational uses, would not have a 

cumulative effect on birds of concern due to the limited duration, amount, intensity and location of these 

and proposed activities. 

Threatened, endangered, and sensitive wildlife and invertebrate 

species 

Alternative A - No Action 

Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Effects 

Under NEPA, an effect is the result of taking an action. The No Action alternative in this analysis is 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-85

defined as not taking any of the proposed actions. Therefore, under NEPA, there are no direct or indirect 

effects of the No Action Alterntative. 

The condition of habitats for listed and sensitive wildlife species would not change in the short -term. In 

the long term habitat would not change other than through natural processes. Growth in vegetation 

throughout would eventually result in an increase of foraging and security habitat for most species. No 

negative effects are predicted for any sensitive species. 

For the No Action alternative, the Tollgate project would not be authorizing any actions; therefore it 

would not be adding anything to the effects of past, present, and reasonably forseeable future actions. 

Based on the definition provided in the CEQ regulations, there would be no cumulative effects of the No 

Action Alternative. 

Alternatives B and C

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Because the Umatilla Forest is considered unoccupied, there would be no effect to Canada lynx. 

Because the project is at least partiallly within a wolf pack’s territory, and individual wolves could be 

affected by increased truck traffic and other activity, the proposed activities in combination with other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions may impact gray wolf, but would not likely 

cause a trend toward federal listing. 

The proposed activities would not disturb key wolf areas such as den sites, would not change prey 

availability, and would not increase public access in the area. If a den or rendezvous site is identified prior 

to or during project activities, the Forest Service would consult with ODFW personnel to determine if 

seasonal restrictions or other requirements are necessary. Because these sites are difficult to locate and 

can change yearly, this would need to be assessed on an ongoing basis throughout the life of the Tollgate 

project. 

Since proposed activities would not alter prey availability or potential use of the area by wolverine, this 

project would have no impact to wolverine. None of the treatment areas are near potential wolverine 

denning habitat, and it is highly unlikely that wolverine would be present during project activities. No 

confirmed observations of wolverine have occurred on the forst. 

Proposed activities would not affect caves, buildings, or mine adits that attract big-eared bats. The known 

building roost on private land is over 3 air miles from proposed activities at a very low elevation (2000 

feet). This species is not expected to occur where tree cutting activities are proposed on the Tollgate 

plateau, at a much higher elevation and forest type, and far from the known roost on private land. Since 

they are not expected to be present near the proposed activities, there would be no impact to big-eared 

bat. 

Bald eagle use of the area is incidental and there are no nearby nests. Since it is highly unlikely that 

individuals would be in close proximity during project activities, there would be no impact to bald eagle. 

No timber harvest would occur in existing white-headed woodpecker habitat, therefore there would be no 

impact to white-headed woodpecker. It is unlikely that white-headed woodpeckers would occur in this 

area except as possible wanderers, because there is very little ponderosa pine forest type. About 8 acres of 

single-story old ponderosa pine habitat would be created by thinning in both Alternatives B and C. Even 

in addition to existing habitat in the area, this is not large enough to support a pair of reproducing white-
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-86

headed woodpeckers. No existing nesting habitat would be affected and therefore no impacts to the 

population would be expected. 

No timber harvest would occur in existing Lewis’ woodpecker habitat, therefore there would be no 

impact to Lewis’ woodpecker. This type of habitat is scarce in the project planning area. The proposed 

activities would not occur in open ponderosa pine forest, open riparian woodland dominated by 

cottonwood, and burned pine forest, and it is unlikely that Lewis’ woodpeckers are present in the area 

except as occasional wanderers. 

Tree thinning in RHCAsmay impact spotted and tailed frogs, but would not likely cause a trend 

toward federal listing. These two species have not been documented in or near project units. 

There are 5 units that include treatment within riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCA). This project 

has been carefully designed to avoid adverse effects to fish and aquatic habitat. There would be no 

harvest or skidding across active stream channels, but treatment may affect areas 10-20 feet from the 

streams. 

Spotted and tailed frogs have not been observed in these specific areas, but could be present. If they are 

present during project work, adults can move away. Larvae are confined to the water and less mobile, but 

project work would not affect water and stream channels directly. Therefore any effects would be limited 

in time and space and no effects to populations are expected.. . 

Proposed activities within riparian areas have been carefully designed to avoid adverse effects to 

fish and aquatic habitat, but timber harvest would be implemented quite close to the stream 

channel, up to the edge of the inner gorge, which could be as close as 20 feet from the water’s 

edge. Because there is a small risk of effects, Alternatives B and C may impact fir pinwheel, 

but would not likely cause a loss of viability or a trend toward federal listing. 

All timber harvest would be outside riparian areas of fish bearing streams. Because western ridged mussel 

needs fish for glochidia to attach to, proposed activities near non-fishing bearing streams would have no 

impact to western ridge mussel. 

Because there is little known about Johnsons’ hairstreak and its relationship to mistletoe in the Blue 

Mountains, it is assumed that most any timber removal could have an effect on the species. Western 

dwarf mistletoe has not been reported in the ponderosa pines in the analysis area, and Johnson’s 

hairstreak has also not been documented. The Tollgate commercial thinning would affect only 8 acres in 

the ponderosa pine cover type, and no large pine trees would be removed. Because there is a very slight 

risk of effects, Alternatives B and C may impact Johnson’s hairstreak, but would not cause a loss of 

viability or trend toward federal listing. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects are evaluated at the project planning scale. Ongoing and proposed activities include 

the proposed Swamp small sale, sheep grazing, non-commercial thinning, firewood collection, and 

recreational activities. 

Sensitive species which may have direct or indirect effects include gray wolf, spotted frog, tailed frog, fir 

pinwheel, and Johnson’s hairstreak. 

Because none of the other ongoing or proposed activities would occur within riparian areas, therefore no 

cumulative effects are expected for spotted frog, tailed frog, and fir pinwheel. 

The proposed activities in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

may impact gray wolf, but would not likely cause a trend toward federal listing because key wolf areas 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-87

such as den sites would not be disturbed, prey availability is not expected to change, and public access in 

the area would not increase. 

The proposed activities in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

may impact Johnsons’ hairstreak, but would not likely cause a trend toward federal listing. Firewood 

cutting would not likely impact this species because it is believed to be associated with dwarf mistletoe in 

live ponderosa pine trees. Firewood cutting of live ponderosa pine is not allowed. Ongoing noncommerical thinning would also not affect Johnson’s hairstreak habitat. The Swamp small sale was 

evaluated for impacts to Johnson’s hairstreak, but potential effects were determined to be minor (50 acres) 

and unlikely (questionable habitat). Therefore minimal, if any cumulative effects are expected for this 

species. 

The following table lists the biological determinations for listed and sensitive species analyzed for this 

project (Table 4-34). 

Table 4-34 — Summary of effects for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive wildlife and 

invertebrate species (Biological Determinations) 

 Species Status Alternative

A B C

Canada lynx

Lynx canadensis Threatened NE NE NE

Gray wolf

Canis lupus Sensitive NI May Impact May Impact

California Wolverine

Gulo gulo Sensitive NI NI NI

Townsend’s big-eared bat

Corynorhinus townsendii Sensitive NI NI NI

Bald eagle

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Sensitive NI NI NI

Peregrine falcon 

Falco peregrinus Sensitive NI NI NI

White-headed woodpecker

Picoides albolarvatus Sensitive NI NI NI

Lewis’ woodpecker

Melanerpes lewis Sensitive NI NI NI

Upland sandpiper

Bartramia longicauda Sensitive NI NI NI

Painted turtle

Chrysemys picta Sensitive NI NI NI

Columbia spotted frog

Rana luteiventris Sensitive NI May Impact May Impact
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-88

Rocky Mountain tailed frog

Ascaphus montanus Sensitive NI May Impact May impact

Fir pinwheel

Radiodiscus abietum Sensitive NI May Impact May impact

Western ridged mussel

Gonidea angulata Sensitive NI NI NI

Johnson’s hairstreak

Callophrys johnsoni Sensitive NI May Impact May impact

NE No Effect on a proposed or listed species or critical habitat. 

NI No Impact to R6 sensitive species individuals, populations, or their habitat. 

MI May Impact sensitive species, but would not likely cause a trend toward federal listing. 

Consistency Findings with Forest Plan and Other Laws and 

Regulations 

Forest Plan

All alternatives would be consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines, because they would meet 

design criteria set for the project, meet standards and guidelines for affected land management allocations, 

and provide for viable populations of wildlife species. All alternatives would provide for diversity of 

plant and animal communities in the Tollgate project planning area, based on the suitability and capability 

of the project planning area. 

Endangered Species Act 

A biological evaluation (BE) was completed for federally listed and proposed endangered and threatened 

species, and for animal species currently listed as sensitive on the Regional Forester's Sensitive Species 

List. Determinations were made that none of the proposed project activities would adversely affect, 

contribute to a trend toward federal listing, nor cause a loss of viability to listed animal populations or 

species. 

With regards to threatened and endangered species, a determination has been made that the proposed 

actions would not result in irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that foreclose 

formulation or implementation of reasonable or prudent alternatives. Consultation for Canada lynx is not 

necessary since a determination has been made that the proposed activities would have no effect to this 

species. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

All action alternatives are consistent with the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Migratory 

Bird Executive Order 13186. The Conservation Strategy for Landbirds (Altman 2000) was reviewed for 

effects disclosures. Design features such as retention of adequate snags and down logs, retention of live 

trees, and avoidance of riparian areas proposed in this project would minimize take of migratory birds and 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-89

meet the intent of current management direction.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

All action alternatives comply with the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USFWS 2007) and 

the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Use of the area by eagles is sporadic, and no nesting or 

roosting habitat would be affected by the proposed activities. 

Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation Executive Order 

Action alternatives meet the intent of this order by proposing enhancements to elk winter range and 

bighorn sheep habitat, and by maintaining and restoring aspen habitat. 

RECREATION

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

The no action alternative would perpetuate the existing management of the setting, facilities and access. 

Developed and dispersed site campers and cabin renters would remain undisturbed by noise, smoke, or 

traffic. Dispersed campsite use patterns would remain the same. There would be no effect to travel and 

access, recreation opportunity spectrum, or sense of place under Alternative A. 

Alternatives B and C 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The action alternatives are designed to alter the characteristics of the timber stands in the project area. 

The alternatives do not directly address recreation facilities. Effects to the recreation resources are 

primarily related to the harvest and prescribed fire activities and the disturbance that these activities 

create. There are some effects related to the changes to the recreation setting, however none of the 

changes are substantial enough to alter the ROS classifications. The harvest activities would create short 

term effects to the timbered portion of the landscape which could potentially alter the recreation setting. 

However, the proposed activities are do not alter the setting enough to effect the recreation experience. 

For further description of these effects, see the scenery resource section of Chapter 4. 

Alternative B would carry out commercial thinning, removal of dead and down material, reduce ladder 

fuels and non-commercial thinning. This alternative utilizes roads for hauling and moving equipment. 

Landings would be created in areas that are screened from major recreation roads and sites. 

Alternative C limits the treatment activities proposed in Alternative B from the Lookingglass IRA, and 

other Potential Wilderness Areas and Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas other than one unit. Under 

alternative C, no trees greater than 21 inches DBH would be removed except it is necessary for safety 

concerns and/or operational needs. 

Developed and Dispersed Recreation 

In alternatives B and C the campgrounds, recreation residences and some dispersed campsites would 

experience an increase in dust and noise during harvest and thinning activities, and by an increase of stand 

treatment related traffic on haul routes. Alternative B proposes approximately 160 more acres of 

commercial thinning; therefore the number of loads would be potentially 7% higher for Alternative B. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-90

Woodland, Jubilee Lake and Target Meadows Campgrounds would remain available during and after 

stand activities. 

Some recreationists would be displaced from their desired dispersed campsite, but the effects would be 

limited to a small number of sites at one time and would cease as soon as treatment of the adjacent unit is 

complete (generally 1-2 weeks as work is occurring). Hunters may be displaced from their favorite 

dispersed camping site for one season during the prescribed burning window. Numerous alternative 

dispersed campsites would continue to be available. Alternative C limits harvest in the IRA and PWAs, 

therefore the number dispersed campsites that would be affected would not change. 

Travel and access 

In alternatives B and C there would be no changes to the existing travel system after treatment. Existing 

roads and trails that are open to the public would continue to be available. Road maintenance consists of 

a variety of activity components including surface rock replacement, spot surfacing, roadside brushing, 

erosion control, logging out, road surface blading, ditch cleanout, slide removal, dust abatement, culvert 

cleaning or replacement, danger tree removal, and other items that contribute to the preservation of the 

existing road and its safe use. 

In all action alternatives, activities associated with commercial thinning, mechanical fuels reduction, and 

burning could present temporary safety issues for the public. However, by restoring and maintaining a 

more sustainable species composition, high intensity fires would be less of a threat to the recreational use 

of the area, and a safer atmosphere would exist for the recreational user. Increased vehicle traffic during 

harvest and thinning activities may deter localized recreational user activities. 

Under all action alternatives some open roads or portions of open roads may temporarily closed during 

project activities and would be re-opened as soon as possible after work is completed, especially during 

hunting seasons. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

The alternatives do not propose actions that would alter effects to the recreation opportunity spectrum. 

No camping facilities or opportunities would be altered. These changes would not alter the opportunities 

to a degree that would change the ROS classifications. 

Sense of Place 

The project is not expected to make any significant effects that are inconsistent with the Forest niche 

statement that describes the desired sense of place. The usage and settings are expected to remain 

consistent. Thinning and clearing ladder fuels would help reduce the hazards of fire which could affect 

the sense of place by removing large portions of overstory vegetation. 

Cumulative Effects 

Developed and Dispersed Camping 

No cumulative effects of the project to developed camping are anticipated. All developed facilities that 

are currently available would continue to be available to the public after implementation. All 

opportunities for dispersed camping would be available once the project has been completed. 

No reasonably foreseeable future projects proposed in the project area are expected to alter the recreation 

opportunities of the area.
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-91

Travel and Access, Safety 

Under Alternatives B and C, there would be a 116 miles of road utilized for project use within the project. 

No long term cumulative effects of harvest and fuels activities to dispersed recreation are anticipated. No 

reasonably foreseeable future projects are proposed in the project area. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

There is expected to be no cumulative effects to the Recreation Opportunity provided by the Forest. The 

vegetation management project alternatives would not contribute cumulatively in any way to altering the 

recreation opportunity spectrum of the area. Once the project implementation period is complete all 

existing spectrums of recreation opportunities would continue to be available. 

Sense of Place 

No cumulative effects of harvest and fuels activities to the sense of place are anticipated. The setting and 

the opportunities would remain consistent. 

Consistency Findings with Forest Plan and other Regulations/Law 

Developed and Dispersed Recreation 

All action alternatives would be in compliance with the Forest Plan, forest wide standards and guidelines 

for recreation (p. 4-47). None of the alternatives would be counter to the standards and guidelines for 

recreation. There are no regulations or law related to developed or dispersed recreation that the 

alternatives would violate. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

The project alternatives are all consistent with the Forest Plan and other regulations and law related to the 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. 

Access 

The project alternatives are all consistent with the Forest Plan and other regulations and law regarding to 

the recreation related access. 

VISUAL RESOURCES (SCENERY) 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct/Indirect and Cumulative Effects (Alternative A)

The no action alternative would cause no direct or indirect effects. The existing visual quality would 

remain at modification to retention. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-92

Alternative B 

Direct/Indirect Effects

The units visible from the visually sensitive roads (as determined in the Forest Plan) are shown in the 

following Table 4-35: 

Table 4-35 — Alternative B Unit Treatment, Visual Quality, and Forest Plan Compliance 

Unit # Prescription

Existing 

Visual 

Quality

Expected 

Visual Quality 

after 

implementation 

of Alternative 

B

Forest Plan

Visual Quality 

Objective

In 

Compliance 

with Forest 

Plan?

18 NCT R R FG/R Yes

19 CT, LFR R R FG/R Yes

20 LFR R R FG/R Yes

21 LFR, DDR R R FG/R Yes

25 CT, LFR PR/R R MG/PR,FG/R Yes

37 NCT PR PR FG/PR Yes

38 CT, LFR PR PR FG/R/PR Yes

48 CT, LFR PR PR MG/PR,FG/R Yes

61 CT, LFR PR PR FG/PR Yes

62 CT, LFR R R FG/R Yes

64 CT, LFR R R FG/R Yes

66 CT, LFR R R FG/R Yes

68 CT, LFR R R FG/R Yes

71 CT, LFR R R FG/R Yes

72 CT, LFR R R FG/R Yes

73 CT, LFR R R FG/R Yes

76 CT, LFR PR PR MG,FG/PR Yes

86 LFR R R FG/R Yes

FG=Foreground, MG=Middleground, R-Retention, PR=Partial Retention 

Predicted effects by unit 

Unit 18 

Precommercial thinning with a masticator of 1-7 inch material are expected to reduce the “thicket” 

appearance and open up the understory creating a more open forest, which is generally preferred visually. 

The masticator chips show management that is also an acceptable visual effect that is associated with 

good forest management. (Bradley, pg 6) The chips would quickly fade and then be screened by forest 

floor vegetation. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-93

Unit 19 

Commercial thinning and harvest would increase the space between tree boles and reduce the thick 

massing that restricts visual viewing distances into the forest. This treatment would reduce the visual 

tunnel effect along Hwy 204. 

Reducing ladder fuels and dead and down material would open up the understory and clean up the forest 

floor creating a less chaotic visual scene which is a preferred appearance. The resulting visual 

appearance would meet retention. 

Unit 20 

Ladder fuel reduction would reduce the understory and midstory vegetation that restricts views into the 

forest. There are no expected negative visual impacts associated with this treatment. The resulting visual 

appearance would meet retention. 

Unit 21 

Ladder fuel reduction and removal of dead and down material would reduce the understory and midstory 

vegetation that restricts views into the forest. This treatment minimizes the chaotic visual appearance 

which is generally preferred. There are no expected negative visual impacts associated with this 

treatment. The resulting visual appearance would meet retention. 

Unit 25 

Commercial thinning and harvest would increase the space between tree boles and reduce the thick 

massing that restricts visual viewing distances into the forest. This treatment would reduce the visual 

tunnel effect along Hwy 204. This unit lies primarily above the road bank. Stumps and skid trails 

associated with activities are not expected to be visible from the road due to the viewing angle from the 

road. Ladder fuel reduction would reduce the understory and midstory vegetation that restricts views into 

the forest. There are no expected negative visual impacts associated with this treatment. The resulting 

visual appearance would meet retention. 

Unit 37 

Precommercial thinning would remove material of 1-7 inches in diameter thus reducing the understory 

thicket appearance and opening up the stand to greater viewing distances into the stand. 

Unit 38 

Unit 38 lies along the lower side of the road prism, sloping away from the viewer. This viewing angle 

obscures much of the ground level disturbance associated with timber harvest activities. Commercial 

thinning and harvest would increase the space between tree boles and reduce the thick massing that 

restricts visual viewing distances into the forest. Ladder fuel reduction and removal of dead and down 

material would reduce the understory and midstory vegetation that restricts views into the forest. 

Unit 48 

Only the immediate foreground area of this unit is visible from the road due to the topography sloping 

away from the viewer. The stumps in the immediate foreground are to be cut low to the ground and 

should be screened from view within a growing season. As noted above, commercial thinning and 

harvest would increase the space between tree boles and reduce the thick massing that restricts visual 

viewing distances into the forest. Ladder fuel reduction and removal of dead and down material would 

reduce the understory and midstory vegetation that restricts views into the forest. The resulting visual 

appearance would meet retention in the foreground, and partial retention in the middleground. 

Unit 61 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-94

The northwestern corner of Unit 61 is visible from Hwy 204. The unit is heavily timbered. The proposed 

prescriptions of commercial thinning and harvest would increase the space between tree boles and reduce 

the thick massing that restricts visual viewing distances into the forest. Ladder fuel reduction and 

removal of dead and down material would reduce the understory and midstory vegetation that restricts 

views into the forest. It is expected that forest floor vegetation would screen stumps and skid trails within 

one growing season. The treatment would meet retention. 

Unit 62 

Unit 62 lies adjacent to Hwy 204 on the eastern side of the road. Much of the unit lies above the cut bank 

which obscures ground level disturbances. Most of the treatment which includes commercial thinning, 

harvest, reduction of ladder fuel and dead and down material would not be noticeable to the travelling 

viewer. Where the unit is not obscured by the road bank, it is expected that the existing forest floor 

vegetation including huckleberry brush and alder would screen the low cut stumps and skid trails. The 

treatment would meet retention. 

Unit 64 

Unit 64 also lies adjacent to Hwy 204 across from Unit 62, on the lower side of the road prism. The 

topography slopes dramatically away from the travelling viewer for much of the unit. In some areas the 

road prism goes through a cut which leaves a raised bank on this side. In these areas the view is limited 

to the immediate foreground. This is a combination that obscures much of the 1.5 mile long unit. The 

existing forest floor vegetation would screen the low cut stumps and obscure much of the skid trails. 

Much of the commercial thinning and harvest would not be apparent in this unit due to the topography, 

however where the slope does not obscure the activities, again it would open up the tunnel effect to 

provide views into the adjacent canyon and to vistas beyond. The treatment would meet retention. 

Units visible from Bald Mtn. Viewpoint 

The units 67,69,70,71, 72, and 73 are visible from Bald Mtn Viewpoint at a middleground distance. The 

topography of the units provides an oblique angle to the viewer. At a middleground distance the form and 

texture area noticeable if they are out of scale or are geometric in form. It is expected that the activities 

proposed would not create any unnatural forms that are out of scale with the existing openings, nor would 

the texture be so different as to draw attention or dominate the view. Therefore, the activities are 

expected to meet middleground retention as viewed from this viewer platform. 

Unit 68 

Unit 68 lies along Hwy 204 on the eastern side, sloping gently away from the road prism. The road prism 

is just below a cut bank along approximately half of the .7 mile long unit. This topographic orientation 

obscures much of the unit. Only the immediate foreground is visible to the travelling viewer. Stumps 

and skid trails in the immediate foreground are expected to be screened by existing forest floor 

vegetation. The proposed treatment of commercial thinning, harvest, reduction of ladder fuel and dead 

and down material would open up the forest views that are currently very thick and often a continuous 

wall of tree boles. The predicted views would be preferable to the existing condition. The treatment is 

expected to meet retention. 

Unit 71 

This unit lies behind an opening that is heavily vegetated by alder. The timbered unit is a backdrop to this 

foreground shrubbery. The unit slopes gently away from the viewing platform. This topographic 

orientation makes only the edge of the unit visible to the travelling viewer. There are no visual impacts 

expected to occur due to the activities on this unit. Retention would be retained. 

Unit 72 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-95

Unit 72 lies approximately 250 to 350 feet away from Hwy 204. Timber and shrubbery between the 

highway and the unit effectively screens the unit from the traveling viewer. No impacts to the view are 

expected from the proposed activities in this unit. Retention would be retained. 

 Unit 73 

This unit lies adjacent to Hwy 204 on the eastern side of the road. The topography is generally level with 

the road prism. There appears to be a strip of timber in the immediate foreground. The forest floor 

vegetation is abundant with 5 to 10 foot shrubbery that is expected to screen the ground disturbance and 

stumps. The commercial thinning and harvest would reduce the wall effect of the existing tree boles that 

are stripped of limbs due to the snow blowing activities in the winter. The activities are expected to meet 

retention. 

Unit 76 

Unit 76 lies adjacent to Forest Road 64. The unit is approximately 0.6 miles long. The unit slopes toward 

the road and is heavily timbered. Commercial thinning and harvest would increase the space between 

tree boles and reduce the thick massing that restricts visual viewing distances into the forest. Ladder fuel 

reduction and removal of dead and down material would reduce the understory and midstory vegetation 

that restricts views into the forest. The foreground stumps and skid trails are expected to be visible, 

however the visibility of this elements are not expected to dominate the view. Partial retention is 

expected to be met. 

Unit 86 

This unit is visible from the EJ Haney Viewpoint, however most viewing is primarily of the vista beyond 

the unit that is within the immediate foreground. The unit lies on the slope facing away from the viewer. 

Ladder fuel reduction would reduce the understory and midstory vegetation that restricts views into the 

forest. There are no expected negative visual impacts associated with this treatment. The resulting visual 

appearance would meet retention. 

Predicted Effects to Hwy 204 

The effects to Hwy 204 as a whole are expected to be beneficial. Approximately 5 miles of the hwy 

viewshed would be treated in some manner. 1.5 miles would have treatment on both sides of the 

highway. It is expected that the overall appearance would be improved by the activities, creating 

opportunities for views into the adjacent canyon and vistas beyond, as well as creating a more open and 

less chaotic appearance on the forest interior. The tunnel effect of a wall of trees on each side would be 

reduced in the treatment areas. 

It is expected that all of the activities proposed in all of the action alternatives would meet the visual 

quality objectives of the Forest Plan. The impacts would not exceed the limits of visual impacts defined 

by modification and partial retention. 

Scenic Stability 

The proposed activities on Alternative B would treat 4330 acres with commercial and non-commercial 

thinning which is approximately 10% of the project area. The alternative proposes activities such as 

removal of dead and down material that also improve fire resiliency, and improve the safety element for 

suppression efforts. This would slightly improve the scenic stability by strategically placed activities that 

help fire suppression efforts. The alternative is expected to achieve a moderate scenic stability rating. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-96

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The units visible from the visually sensitive roads (as determined in the Forest Plan) are shown in the 

following Table 4-36: 

Table 4-36 — Alternative C Unit Treatment, Visual Quality, and Forest Plan Compliance 

Unit # Prescription

Existing 

Visual 

Quality

Expected 

Visual Quality 

after 

implementation 

of Alternative 

B

Forest Plan

Visual Quality 

Objective

In 

Compliance 

with Forest 

Plan?

18 NCT R R FG/R Yes

19 CT,LFR R R FG/R Yes

20 LFR R R FG/R Yes

21 LFR, DDR R R FG/R Yes

25 CT PR/R R MG/PR,FG/R Yes

37 NCT PR PR FG/PR Yes

48 CT, LFR PR PR MG/PR,FG/R Yes

61 CT, LFR PR PR FG/PR Yes

62 CT, LFR R R FG/R Yes

64 CT, LFR R R FG/R Yes

67 CT, LFR R R MG/PR Yes

68 CT, LFR R R FG/R Yes

71 CT, LFR R R FG/R Yes

72 CT, LFR R R FG/R Yes

73 CT, LFR R R FG/R Yes

76 DDR* PR PR MG,FG/PR Yes

86 LFR R R FG/R Yes

FG=Foreground, MG=Middleground, R-Retention, PR=Partial Retention 

The expected direct and indirect effects of activities implemented as a result of adopting Alternative C are 

the same as those resulting from adopting Alternative B, except for the following units: 

Unit 18 

Non-commercial thinning of young, even age stands would reduce the “thicket” appearance that is 

generally undesired as a visual element. The treatment would create space amidst these stands and 

provide greater visibility into the stands. Non-commercial thinning does not create visual impacts that are 

noticeable to the casual observer, thus maintaining foreground retention. 

Unit 37 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-97

Non-commerical thinning of young, even-age stands would reduce the understory thicket appearance and 

opening up the stand to greater viewing distances into the stand. The treatment would create space amidst 

these stands and provide greater visibility into the stands. Non-commercial thinning does not create 

visual impacts that are noticeable to the casual observer, thus maintaining foreground retention. 

Unit 76 

Unit 76 lies adjacent to FS RD 64. The unit is approximately .6 miles long. The unit slopes toward the 

road and is heavily timbered. Commercial thinning would increase the space between tree boles and 

reduce the thick massing that restricts visual viewing distances into the forest. Ladder fuel reduction 

would reduce the understory and midstory vegetation that restricts views into the forest. The foreground 

stumps and skid trails are expected to be visible, however the visibility of this elements are not expected 

to dominate the view. Partial retention is expected to be met. 

Predicted Effects to Hwy 204 

The effects to Hwy 204 as a whole are expected to be beneficial, however the activities would not reduce 

the canopy bulk density therefore the amount of light filtering down to the forest floor would not be 

increased, thus reducing the opportunity for illumination of the forest floor attributes. Approximately 5 

miles of the highway viewshed would be treated in some manner. 1.5 miles would have treatment on 

both sides of the highway. It is expected that the overall appearance would be improved by the activities, 

creating opportunities for views into the adjacent canyon and vistas beyond, as well as creating a more 

open and less chaotic appearance on the forest interior. The tunnel effect of a wall of trees on each side 

would be reduced in the treatment areas. 

It is expected that all of the activities proposed in all of the action alternatives would meet the visual 

quality objectives of the Forest Plan. The impacts would not exceed the limits of visual impacts defined 

by modification and partial retention. 

Scenic Integrity 

The visual experience of the Tollgate Mountain area as viewed from Hwy 204 is primarily a foreground 

view of a heavily timbered landscape. There are some vistas that break up the continuous timbered view. 

There are various man-made elements along this route including cabins, and related outbuildings as well 

as the driveways, and yards. There are also road maintenance facilities such as the gravel shed and other 

elements that make this route have an “inhabited” appearance. The Forest Service lands along the route 

have fewer man-made elements but it too has the recreation residences, SnoParks, and the ski area. 

The existing vegetation management visual impacts that are most apparent from Hwy 204 are related to 

previous clearing along Highway 204 that occurred during road construction and the areas of windthrow 

around the Andes Prairie Sno-park and the Morning Creek Sno-park. The combined distance of these 

impacts are approximately 2 miles out of the 25 miles of travel distance from end to end. The percentage 

of this visual impact is approximately 8%. The project proposed to treat 5 miles of the Hwy 204 

viewshed in a manner that would not visibly impact the viewshed in a negative way. It is expected that 

the long term effects would be beneficial to the viewshed integrity. 

The 6400 Rd viewshed has a much more varied visual character from contiguous forest to open grassy 

slopes and vistas of the canyon lands. There are areas of visual impact related to timber harvest visible 

from middleground distances. The proposed project impacts would not create additional visual impacts 

from middleground views. The openings would not be of unnatural size or shape. 

The 6401 Rd viewshed has visual impacts of recent thinning and mastication that are apparent but not 

dominant to the view. The activities proposed would be similar to the existing impacts therefore 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-98

contributing to the cumulative effect to the viewshed. The cumulative effect would continue to be 

apparent but not dominant to the view therefore partial retention would be maintained. 

Scenic Stability 

The proposed activities on Alternative C would treat 4,010 acres with commercial and non-commercial 

thinning, which is approximately 9% of the project area with activities that improve fire resiliency, and 

improve the safety element for suppression efforts. This would slightly improve the scenic stability by 

addressing strategic areas for fire suppression efforts; however it is not a large enough improvement to 

alter the rating. This alternative is expected to help maintain a low to moderate scenic stability rating. 

Cumulative Effects 

Scenic Integrity 

The visual experience of the Tollgate Mountain area as viewed from Hwy 204 is primarily a foreground 

view of a heavily timbered landscape. There are some vistas that break up the continuous timbered view. 

There are various man-made elements along this route including cabins, and related outbuildings as well 

as the driveways, and yards. There are also road maintenance facilities such as the gravel shed and other 

elements that make this route have an “inhabited” appearance. The Forest Service lands along the route 

have fewer man-made elements but it too has the recreation residences, SnoParks, and the ski area. 

The existing vegetation management visual impacts that are most apparent from Hwy 204 are related to 

previous clearing along Highway 204 that occurred during road construction and the areas of windthrow 

around the Andes Prairie Sno-park and the Morning Creek Sno-park. The combined distance of these 

impacts are approximately 2 miles out of the 25 miles of travel distance from end to end. The percentage 

of this visual impact is approximately 8%. The project proposed to treat 5 miles of the Hwy 204 

viewshed in a manner that would not visibly impact the viewshed in a negative way. It is expected that 

the long term effects would be beneficial to the viewshed integrity. 

The 6400 Rd viewshed has a much more varied visual character from contiguous forest to open grassy 

slopes and vistas of the canyon lands. There are areas of visual impact related to timber harvest visible 

from middleground distances. The proposed project impacts would not create additional visual impacts 

from middleground views. The openings would not be of unnatural size or shape. 

The 6401 Rd viewshed has visual impacts of recent thinning and mastication that are apparent but not 

dominant to the view. The activities proposed would be similar to the existing impacts therefore 

contributing to the cumulative effect to the viewshed. The cumulative effect would continue to be 

apparent but not dominant to the view therefore partial retention would be maintained. 

Scenic Stability 

Activities on this project have contributed toward the improvement of scenic stability. 4,010 acres would 

have been treated to increase fire resiliency and to create safer ingress and egress for fire fighters. 

However, there have been very little previous efforts to improve conditions. Therefore, there are no 

measurable positive or negative cumulative effects to scenic stability in this area. 

Consistency Findings with Forest Plan and other Regulations/Law 

Alternative B 

Alternative B would achieve a greater visual effect by reducing the “thicket appearance, opening up the 

canopy to allow filtered light to the forest floor, and opening up potential vistas of the canyon lands. The 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-99

alterations of the existing condition would be more apparent than alternative C initially, to the traveler 

who is familiar with the route. To the casual observer, who is unfamiliar with existing conditions, the 

activities would not be apparent. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C would also achieve a greater visual effect by reducing the “thicket appearance, and opening 

up potential vistas of the canyon lands. The alterations of the existing condition would be less apparent 

than Alternative B initially to the traveler who is familiar with the route. To the casual observer, who is 

unfamiliar with existing conditions, the activities would not be apparent. 

It is expected that both alternatives would comply with Forest Plan visual quality objectives. 

NORTH FORK UMATILLA WILDERNESS

Effects Common to All Alternatives (A, B, and C) 

Direct/Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Untrammeled, Undeveloped, and Natural 

No project activities are proposed in the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness and, therefore, would have no 

direct and indirect effects on wilderness qualities of untrammeled, natural, and undeveloped character. 

North Fork Umatilla Wilderness within the planning project boundary would retain the current degree of 

natural integrity. There would be no management changes or improvements to the ecological function 

within the wilderness and associated inventoried PWAs. Biological and ecosystem functions would 

likely continue as they are in the present condition. 

Opportunities for solitude and remoteness 

There would be no effects to solitude from timber harvest, mechanical fuel activities or road construction 

because those actions are not proposed for this area. The sounds, air quality, and possible sighting of 

mechanical activities and fuel treatment activities occurring in areas adjacent to the wilderness would 

reduce a sense of solitude and remoteness in the short-term, during project activity. Other sights and 

sounds of ongoing and previously approved activities in areas adjacent to the boundary of the wilderness 

would continue to have short-term effects on opportunities of solitude and remoteness. In the long-term 

there would be no change to the availability of solitude or primitive recreation. 

POTENTIAL WILDERNESS AREAS (PWAS) 

The potential wilderness areas (PWAs) under consideration here are described below: 

PWAs contiguous to Wilderness is comprised of acres that meet PWA criteria and are 

contiguous with the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness. 

The Lookingglass PWA is comprised of the entire Lookingglass IRA and PWAs contiguous with 

the IRA. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-100

The Wall Walla River PWA is comprised only of the Walla Walla River IRA and PWAs 

contiguous with the IRA that is located within the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project planning 

area. Note: A portion of the Walla Walla River IRA is located outside the project planning area 

and is not considered in the analysis because no project activities are proposed in or around that 

portion of the IRA. 

Other Isolated PWAs: The PWA inventory identified only one PWA that was not contiguous to 

either of the IRAs or the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness. It is referred to as polygon 362 and is 

1,087 acres in size. Polygon 362 is located northeast of the Lookingglass PWA separated by a 

high voltage powerline disturbance corridor. No project activities are proposed in or around 

polygon 362, therefore this area would not be analyzed any further. 

PWAs contiguous to North Fork Umatilla Wilderness 

Spatial and Geographic extent of analysis

The cumulative effects analysis geographic boundary is the Tollgate fuels Reduction Project Planning 

area from Highway 204 south to the planning area boundary. This area encompasses the northern half of 

the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness, all inventoried PWA contiguous with the wilderness and developed 

lands that are in the vicinity of the wilderness and PWA. This boundary is appropriate because it can 

reasonably be expected that the types of direct/indirect effects expected to occur as a result of the Tollgate 

Fuels Reduction project (effects of sight, sound and smell from project activities on sense of solitude and 

remoteness would occur along in this area. Given the size of the wilderness (in excess of 12,000 acres in 

the project planning area) and contiguous PWA (1,151 acres), geographic features (canyons that drop 

steeply off from the edge of the wilderness and PWA, these effects are not expected to interact with any 

similar effects that might occur elsewhere along or within the wilderness area boundary and associated 

PWA. 

The temporal boundary for this cumulative effects analysis is 10 years. This timeframe is appropriate, 

because the effects to a sense of solitude and remoteness would be limited to the times when Tollgate 

Fuels Reduction activities would be occurring since the sights, smells and sounds of mechanical activities 

would only occur during this projects implementation. 

There would be no cumulative effects on Potential Wilderness contiguous to the North Fork Umatilla 

Wilderness because there are no past, present or reasonably foreseeable future activities that would 

overlap with the activities proposed in the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project in time and space. 

Alternative A

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Roadless characteristics 

No project activities are proposed in any inventoried PWAs (1,151 acres) contiguous to the North Fork 

Umatilla Wilderness. Soils would remain undisturbed. There would be no adverse effects to hydrologic 

function and condition, water quality, or water yield. Any smoke from prescribed fire activities near 

these areas would comply with the State of Oregon Smoke Management Implementation Plan and would 

be implemented following the guidelines in this plan. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-101

Plant and animal communities would not be impacted by project activities and habitat for TE&S species 

and MIS species would not be adversely impacted. 

Trailheads into the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness would remain the same as they currently exist and 

there would be no change to any primitive, semi-primitive, or non-motorized recreation. Trailheads, trail 

corridors and dispersed campsites may be affected in the short-term by the noise, dust, smoke, and 

possibly increased traffic in some areas during harvest and burning activities in areas located close-by. 

Natural landscapes would remain the same and there are no locally identified unique characteristics in 

these areas. Old growth areas (management area C-1) would remain as old growth areas. There would be 

no effects to traditional and sacred properties because no activities would occur to impact these areas. 

The smells, sounds and possible sighting of mechanical activities and fuel treatment activities occurring 

in areas adjacent to the PWAs would reduce a sense of solitude and remoteness in the short-term, during 

project activity. Adjacent activity would not preclude the PWAs from being retained in the PWA 

inventory. 

Change in acres of inventoried PWAs 

The approximately 1,151 acres inventoried as PWAs that are contiguous to the North Fork Umatilla 

Wilderness would not change, because no proposed activities would occur with implementation of 

alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

North Fork Umatilla Wilderness and associated contiguous PWAs 

The cumulative effects analysis geographic boundary is the Tollgate fuels Reduction Project Planning 

area from Highway 204 south to the planning area boundary. This area encompasses the northern half of 

the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness, all inventoried PWA contiguous with the wilderness and developed 

lands that are in the vicinity of the wilderness and PWA. This boundary is appropriate because it can 

reasonably be expected that the types of direct/indirect effects expected to occur as a result of the Tollgate 

Fuels Reduction project (effects of sight, sound and smell from project activities on sense of solitude and 

remoteness would occur along in this area. Given the size of the wilderness (in excess of 12,000 acres in 

the project planning area) and contiguous PWA (1,151 acres), geographic features (canyons that drop 

steeply off from the edge of the wilderness and PWA, these effects are not expected to interact with any 

similar effects that might occur elsewhere along or within the wilderness area boundary and associated 

PWA. 

The temporal boundary for this cumulative effects analysis is 10 years. This timeframe is appropriate, 

because the effects to a sense of solitude and remoteness would be limited to the times when Tollgate 

Fuels Reduction activities would be occurring since the sights, smells and sounds of mechanical activities 

would only occur during this projects implementation. 

Under Alternative A there are no proposed actions that could potentially produce direct or indirect effects. 

Ongoing activities are expected to occur near the wilderness and PWA contiguous to wilderness include 

logging activities on private lands, summer home maintenance in the Tollgate Recreation Residence Tract 

and road maintenance. The smells, sights and sounds associated private timber harvest activities on 

private lands and with road maintenance activities such as danger tree removal and brushing may reduce a 

sense of solitude and remoteness above the canyon rims along the edge of the wilderness and PWAs. The 

feeling of solitude and remoteness in the wilderness below canyon rims to canyon bottoms is not expected 

to be adversely effected by these activities. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-102

Projects that have occurred within wilderness and associated inventoried PWAs contiguous with the 

wilderness within the planning project boundary include minor trail construction, trail location, and 

general trail maintenance including removal of danger trees. These projects are very limited and designed 

for managing recreation use and primitive/semi-primitive recreation opportunities. 

There are no reasonably foreseeable actions proposed for this wilderness and associated inventoried 

PWAs relevant to this analysis. Tollgate Fuels Reduction project, when combined with past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions is not expected to have any cumulative effects on wilderness qualities and 

Roadless characteristics in associated inventoried potential wilderness areas. 

Alternatives B and C 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Project activities are proposed to occur on 113 acres of the 1,151 acres of PWA contiguous to the 

Wilderness under Alternative B and five (5) acres under Alternative C. The activities are designed to 

reduce overall fuel load and reduce the vertical and horizontal continuity of the fuels within the planning 

area. The activity units are located mostly along the northeast boundary of the wilderness. Proposed 

treatment activities are primarily commercial thinning and ladder fuel reduction using tractors and 

forwarders. Slash Treatments include hand pile and burn, mastication or no slash treatment. No new 

roads are proposed in any of these areas. See Appendix H, maps H-7 and H-8, Table 4-37, and Table 

4-38. 

Table 4-37 — Alternative B units intersecting PWA polygons that are contiguous with the NF 

Umatilla Wilderness 

Treatment 

Unit Prescription

Treatment 

Unit Acres

PWA 

Polygon

PWA 

Acres 

Affected

9 CT, LFR 17.4 110 1.4

10 CT 147.7 75 14.8

10 CT 147.7 110 6.3

12 CT 16.8 75 1.2

12 CT 16.8 111 1.9

19 CT, LFR 17.4 84 4.8

20 LFR 0.6 21 0.6

32 NCT 11.5 46 0.2

33 CT, LFR 27.3 105 15.2

64 CT, LFR 63.9 23 2.9

83 CT, LFR 102.1 110 0.1

89 CT, LFR 57.0 52 1.3

94 CT, LFR 16.9 111 2.08

96 CT, LFR, DDR 12.60 105 3.2

97 CT 32.2 111 0.40

98 CT 12.0 111 0.10

104 LFR 75.1 111 56.7

Total 908.9 113.3
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-103

(113)

Table 4-38 — Alternative C units intersecting PWA polygons that are contiguous with NF Umatilla 

Wilderness 

Treatment 

Units Prescription

Treatment

Unit Acres PWA 

Polygon

Affected 

Acres

19 CT, LFR 17.4 84 4.8

Total

4.8

(5)

Roadless characteristics 

Evidence of activity would be apparent to varying degrees in treatment areas. The natural appearance of 

the landscape would be reduced following treatment activities. Stumps, skid trails and slash would be 

evident where commercial thinning and ladder fuel reduction occurs. Tree density would be reduced 

which would result in more open stands compared with neighboring untreated areas. The stands would 

not likely be opened to the point that the skyline of the forest canopy appears highly manipulated to the 

casual observer. In strategic areas, typically nearer roads, trees would be limbed to about six feet to 

reduce fuel ladders. These trees would no longer appear natural. Overall, scenic quality and natural 

appearance would be reduced. These acres would no longer meet PWA inventory criteria found in Forest 

Service handbook (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 71, due to the presence of stumps, skid trails, slash, changes in 

stand density and appearance of individual trees that were limbed. 

The effects to soils and water are described in detail in the Soils and Hydrology sections of Chapter 4. 

Any smoke from prescribed fire activities in these areas would comply with the State of Oregon Smoke 

Management Implementation Plan and would be implemented following the guidelines in this plan. 

Effects to plant and animal communities are described in detail in the Botany, Forest Vegetation, and 

Wildlife sections of Chapter 4. The project may Impact Individuals or Habitat of region 6 Sensitive fish 

species, but it would not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to 

the population or species. Management Indicator fish species are not expected to indicate adverse 

effects of the project. 

The smells, sounds and possible sighting of mechanical activities and fuel treatment activities occurring 

in areas adjacent to the PWAs would reduce a sense of solitude and remoteness in the short-term, during 

project activity. Adjacent activity would not preclude the PWAs from being retained in the PWA 

inventory. 

Change in acres of inventoried PWAs Contiguous to Wilderness 

Table 4-39 displays the acres of PWA that would remain following proposed activities. 

Under Alternative B approximately 113 acres inventoried as PWAs that are contiguous to the North Fork 

Umatilla Wilderness would no longer meet Roadless characteristics due to proposed activities in those 

areas. This represents about a 10 % reduction in acres of PWAs contiguous with the wilderness and a less 

than 1% reduction in total acres of PWA inventoried within the PWA analysis area boundary. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-104

Under Alternative C approximately five acres inventoried as PWAs that are contiguous to the North Fork 

Umatilla Wilderness would no longer meet Roadless characteristics due to proposed activities in 

treatment unit 19. This represents a 0.4 % reduction in acres of PWAs contiguous with the wilderness. 

The effects to Roadless characteristics on the remaining PWAs contiguous with the wilderness within the 

planning project boundary where no activities are planned (approximately 1,038 acres in Alternative B 

and 1,146 acres in Alternative C) would be the same as in Alternative A. These acres would retain their 

current degree of natural integrity. There would be no management changes or improvements to the 

ecological function within these inventoried PWAs. Biological and ecosystem functions would likely 

continue as they are in the present condition. 

Table 4-39 — Change in acres of PWA adjacent to NF Umatilla Wilderness by Alternative 

Alternative Acres of PWA adjacent 

to Wilderness

Acres of PWA no longer 

meeting inventory criteria

Acres of PWA 

Remaining

Percent 

Change

A 1,151 0 1,151 0

B 1,151 113 1,038 -10%

C 1,151 5 1,146 -0.4%

Cumulative Effects - Alternative B 

North Fork Umatilla Wilderness and associated contiguous PWAs 

The cumulative effects from ongoing activities for alternative B are the same as Alternative A. 

Implementation of Alternative B would result in 113 fewer acres of PWA contiguous with the 

Wilderness. These acres of PWA would be removed from the PWA inventory because they would not 

have naturally appearing landscapes and no longer meet PWA inventory criteria found in Forest Service 

handbook (FSH) 1909.12, Chapter 71. Removal of these acres would represent about a 10 % reduction in 

acres of PWAs contiguous with the wilderness and a 0. 7% reduction in total acres of PWA inventoried 

within the PWA analysis area boundary. 

The smells, sounds and possible sighting of mechanical activities and fuel treatment activities occurring 

in areas adjacent to the Wilderness and contiguous PWAs would reduce a sense of solitude and 

remoteness in the short-term, during project activity. Adjacent activity would not preclude the PWAs 

from being retained in the PWA inventory. 

Cumulative Effects-Alternative C 

North Fork Umatilla Wilderness and associated contiguous PWAs

The cumulative effects from ongoing activities for alternative C are the same as Alternative A. 

Implementation of Alternative C would result in approximately five fewer acres of PWA contiguous with 

the Wilderness. These acres of PWA would be removed from the PWA inventory because they would 

not have a naturally appearing landscape and no longer meet PWA inventory criteria found in Forest 

Service handbook (FSH) 1909.12, Chapter 71. Removal of these acres would represent about 0.4% 

reduction in acres of PWAs contiguous with the wilderness. 

The smells, sounds and possible sighting of mechanical activities and fuel treatment activities proposed in 

areas adjacent to the Wilderness and contiguous PWAs under Alternative C would reduce a sense of 

solitude and remoteness in the short-term, during project activity. Adjacent activity would not preclude 

the PWAs from being retained in the PWA inventory. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-105

Findings of Consistency with Forest Plan and other Laws and 

Regulations

Implementation of proposed activities occurring adjacent to North Fork Umatilla Wilderness would not 

impact any of the qualities needed to be consistent with those listed in the definition of wilderness as 

stated in the 1964 Wilderness Act from Section 2(c). All acres (20,256) within the North Fork Umatilla 

Wilderness would remain as wilderness with implementation of any alternative. Environmental effects 

would be fully consistent with Forest Plan management area allocation (B1-Wilderness) standards and 

guidelines, and would not impair the values for which the wilderness was created. Effects from activities 

are consistent with guidance in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2300, Chapter 2320, Wilderness 

Management. 

All 1,151 acres within the inventoried PWAs contiguous with North Fork Umatilla Wilderness would 

remain within the PWA inventory following implementation of alternative A. Thus, all 1,151 acres 

would be available for evaluation of potential wilderness (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 72) and preliminary 

administrative recommendations for wilderness designation (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 73) during forest plan 

revision. Environmental effects would be fully consistent with Forest Plan management area allocation 

standards and guidelines. 

In Alternative B approximately 1,038 (approximately 90%) of the inventoried PWA acres contiguous 

with the wilderness would be available for evaluation as potential wilderness. Environmental effects 

from treatment activities proposed on the remaining113 acres of inventoried PWA would be fully 

consistent with Forest Plan management area allocation standards and guidelines. 

In Alternative C about 1,146 (more than 99%) of the inventoried PWA acres contiguous with the 

wilderness would be available for evaluation as potential wilderness. 

Lookingglass PWA 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative B proposed project activities would have a direct effect on 220 acres of the 5,917 acre 

Lookingglass PWA (approximately 4% of the PWA). The activities are located in treatment units 26, 38, 

69, 70 and 75. See Table 4-40 below. 

Table 4-40 — Alternative B Units intersecting with Lookingglass PWA 

Treatment 

Units Prescription Treatment Unit Acres

PWA 

Acres 

Affected

26 LFR 104 104

38 CT, LFR 87 86

69 CT,LFR 63 3

70 CT, LFR 11 4

75

CT. LFR, 

DDR 52 24

TOTAL 220 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-106

Under Alternative C project activities would occur on approximately 11 acres of PWA. The activities are 

located in treatment area 75 and described in Table 4-41. 

Table 4-41 — Alternative C Units intersecting Lookingglass PWA 

Treatment 

Unit Prescription TreatmentUnit Acres

PWA 

Affected 

Acres

75

CT, LFR, 

DDR 38 11

TOTAL 11

Approximately 4% of the PWA in Alternative B and the less than 1% of the PWA in Alternative C would 

be directly affected by the proposed activities (Table 4-42). These acres are confined to the outer edges 

of the PWA, on flatter areas above the topographic break, generally adjacent to roads, private land and 

areas with evidence of past human activity. The vast core of the PWA (97% for Alternative B and more 

than 99% in Alternative C) would remain undisturbed and retain the existing degree of Roadless 

characteristics. 

Under Alternative B approximately 221 acres inventoried as Lookingglass PWA would no longer meet 

Roadless characteristics due to proposed activities in those areas. This represents about a 4% reduction in 

the PWA and less than 1% reduction in total acres of PWA inventoried in the PWA analysis area. 

Under Alternative C approximately 11 acres inventoried as Lookingglass would no longer meet Roadless 

characteristics due to proposed activities in treatment unit 75. This represents a 0.2 % reduction in acres 

of Lookingglass PWA. 

High Quality or Undeveloped Soil, Air and Water Quality: The effects to the Roadless qualities 

characterized by these resources are described in detail elsewhere in the EIS. In summary short term 

effects would be diminished in the treatment areas. The long term effect of activities on quality of the 

Roadless characteristics would be negligible. 

Habitat for Threatened, Endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those species 

dependent upon large, undisturbed areas of land: Effects to wildlife are described in detail elsewhere in 

the EIS. Species such as wolf and wolverine are not expected to be impacted by the project (Wildlife 

Specialist Report). 

Naturally Appearing Landscapes with High Scenic Quality: Evidence of activity would be apparent to 

varying degrees in treatment areas. The natural appearance of the landscape would be reduced following 

treatment activities. Stumps, skid trails and slash would be evident where commercial thinning and 

ladder fuel reduction occurs. Tree density would be reduced which would result in more open stands 

compared with neighboring untreated areas. The stands would not likely be opened to the point that the 

skyline of the forest canopy appears highly manipulated to the casual observer. In strategic areas, 

typically nearer roads, trees would be limbed to about six feet to reduce fuel ladders. These trees would 

no longer appear natural. Overall, scenic quality and natural appearance would be reduced. 

Recreation: Primitive recreation opportunities, including cross-country hiking, motorcycle riding, 

mountain biking, horseback riding, and hunting, may be interrupted by the sights, sounds and smells of 

activities. Hunters and dispersed hunting camps may be displaced while activities are taking place. The 

sense of solitude at campsites located near treatment areas may also be reduced while project activities are 

taking place. In the long term treatment areas would again be available although the primitive setting 

some recreationists seek would be reduced to varying degrees on the treated acres. The vast majority of 

the PWA would continue to offer the current level of recreation opportunities in natural settings. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-107

The effects to Roadless characteristics on the remaining Lookingglass PWA where no activities are 

planned (approximately 5,697 acres in Alternative B and 5,906 acres in Alternative C) would be the same 

as in Alternative A. These acres would retain their current degree of natural integrity. There would be no 

management changes or improvements to the ecological function within the PWA. Biological and 

ecosystem functions would likely continue as they are in the present condition. 

Table 4-42 — Change in acres of Lookingglass PWA inventory by Alternative 

Alternative

Acres of 

Lookingglass

PWA

Acres of 

PWA no 

longer 

meeting 

inventory 

criteria

Acres of 

PWA 

Remaining

Percent 

Change

A 5,917 0 5,917 0

B 5,917 220 5,697 -3.7%

C 5,917 11 5,906 -0.2%

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis geographic boundary for Lookingglass PWA is the entire Lookingglass 

IRA; all inventoried PWA associated with the IRA and developed lands that are within the vicinity of the 

IRA. 

The cumulative effects analysis geographic boundary for Walla Walla PWA is the portion of the Walla 

Walla River IRA that is within the project planning area (about 7,140 acres which is 20% of the IRA), 

inventoried PWA associated with the IRA and developed lands that are within the vicinity of the IRA. 

These boundaries are appropriate because it can reasonably be expected that the types of direct/indirect 

effects expected to occur as a result of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project (effects of sight, sound and 

smell from project activities on sense of solitude and remoteness would occur along in these areas. Given 

the nature of the geographic features (canyons that drop steeply off from the edge of PWAs and 

associated PWA, these effects are not expected to interact with any similar effects that might occur 

elsewhere along or within the PWA boundaries. 

The temporal boundary for this cumulative effects analysis is 10 years. This timeframe is appropriate, 

because the effects to a sense of solitude and remoteness would be limited to the times when Tollgate 

Fuels Reduction activities would be occurring since the sights, smells and sounds of mechanical activities 

would only occur during this projects implementation. 

There would be no cumulative effects on Potential Wilderness contiguous to the North Fork Umatilla 

Wilderness because there are no past, present or reasonably foreseeable future activities that would 

overlap with the activities proposed in the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project in time and space. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-108

Walla Walla River PWA 

Alternative A – No Action, and Alternatives B and C 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Roadless Characteristics 

There would be no direct effects to the Walla Walla River PWA because no activities are proposed within 

the boundaries of the PWA. The PWA would retain its current degree of natural integrity. There would be 

no management changes or improvements to the ecological function within the PWA. Biological and 

ecosystem functions would likely continue as they are in the present condition 

Potential indirect effects may occur from project activities outside the PWA. The sounds, air quality, and 

possible sighting of mechanical activities and fuel treatment activities occurring in areas adjacent to the 

PWA would reduce a sense of solitude and remoteness in the short-term, during project activity. Other 

sights and sounds of ongoing and previously approved activities in areas adjacent to the boundary of the 

wilderness would continue to have short-term effects on opportunities of solitude and remoteness. In the 

long-term there would be no change to the availability of solitude or primitive recreation. 

Other potential indirect effects may occur because the landscape would continue developing complex fuel 

loads. A wildfire may burn more extensively and kill more trees within timbered stringers in grass/tree 

mosaic. There would be more impacts to visual quality (more acres blackened) caused by a wildfire as 

compared to a treated areas, however, it would be a natural occurrence and expected condition of the 

landscape. 

Changes in acres of Inventoried PWAs 

The short term indirect effects would not preclude any of the PWA from remaining in the inventory. The 

Walla Walla River PWA inventory would remain unchanged at 7,248 acres. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis geographic boundary for Lookingglass PWA is the entire Lookingglass 

IRA; all inventoried PWA associated with the IRA and developed lands that are within the vicinity of the 

IRA. 

The cumulative effects analysis geographic boundary for Walla Walla PWA is the portion of the Walla 

Walla River IRA that is within the project planning area (about 7,140 acres which is 20% of the IRA), 

inventoried PWA associated with the IRA and developed lands that are within the vicinity of the IRA. 

These boundaries are appropriate because it can reasonably be expected that the types of direct/indirect 

effects expected to occur as a result of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project (effects of sight, sound and 

smell from project activities on sense of solitude and remoteness would occur along in these areas. Given 

the nature of the geographic features (canyons that drop steeply off from the edge of PWAs and 

associated PWA, these effects are not expected to interact with any similar effects that might occur 

elsewhere along or within the PWA boundaries. 

The temporal boundary for this cumulative effects analysis is 10 years. This timeframe is appropriate, 

because the effects to a sense of solitude and remoteness would be limited to the times when Tollgate 

Fuels Reduction activities would be occurring since the sights, smells and sounds of mechanical activities 

would only occur during this projects implementation. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-109

There would be no cumulative effects on Potential Wilderness contiguous to the North Fork Umatilla 

Wilderness because there are no past, present or reasonably foreseeable future activities that would 

overlap with the activities proposed in the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project in time and space. 

INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREAS

The Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) under consideration here are described below: 

Walla Walla River IRA and 

Lookingglass IRA 

Alternative A – No Action (All IRAs) 

Direct/Indirect Effects

Roadless Characteristics 

There would be no direct effects to the Lookingglass or Walla Walla River IRAs, because no activities 

would occur in the project planning area. The affected environment would remain unchanged, except by 

natural processes and ongoing management activities. Biological and ecosystem functions would likely 

continue as they are in the present condition. 

Potential indirect effects may occur because the landscape would continue developing complex fuel loads. 

A wildfire may burn more extensively and kill more trees within timbered stringers in grass/tree mosaic. 

There would be more impacts to visual quality (more acres blackened) caused by a wildfire as compared 

to treated areas, however, it would be a natural occurrence and expected condition of the landscape. 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis geographic boundary for Lookingglass IRA is the entire IRA, all 

inventoried PWA associated with the IRA and developed lands that are within the vicinity of the IRA. 

The cumulative effects analysis geographic boundary for Walla Walla IRA is the portion of the IRA that 

is within the project planning area (about 7,140 acres which is 20% of the IRA), inventoried PWA 

associated with the IRA and developed lands that are within the vicinity of the IRA. 

These boundaries are appropriate because it can reasonably be expected that the types of direct/indirect 

effects expected to occur as a result of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project (effects of sight, sound and 

smell from project activities on sense of solitude and remoteness would occur along in these areas. Given 

the nature of the geographic features (canyons that drop steeply off from the edge of IRAs and associated 

PWA, these effects are not expected to interact with any similar effects that might occur elsewhere along 

or within the IRA boundaries and associated PWA. 

The temporal boundary for this cumulative effects analysis is 10 years. This timeframe is appropriate, 

because the effects to a sense of solitude and remoteness would be limited to the times when Tollgate 

Fuels Reduction activities would be occurring since the sights, smells and sounds of mechanical activities 

would only occur during this projects implementation. 

Under Alternative A there are no proposed actions that could potentially produce direct or indirect effects. 

Ongoing activities are expected to occur near the IRAs and PWA contiguous to IRAs including logging 

activities on private lands and road maintenance. The smells, sights and sounds associated private timber 

harvest activities on private lands and with road maintenance activities such as danger tree removal and 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-110

brushing may reduce a sense of solitude and remoteness above the canyon rims along the edge of the 

IRAs and PWAs. The feeling of solitude and remoteness in the IRAs below canyon rims to canyon 

bottoms is not expected to be adversely effected by these activities. 

Projects that have occurred within IRAs include minor trail construction, trail location, and general trail 

maintenance including removal of danger trees. These projects are very limited and designed for 

managing recreation use and primitive/semi-primitive recreation opportunities. 

There are no reasonably foreseeable actions proposed for this IRA and associated inventoried PWAs 

relevant to this analysis under the No Action Alternative. Tollgate Fuels Reduction project, when 

combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions is not expected to have any cumulative 

effects on Roadless characteristics associated with IRAs. Based on the definition provided in the CEQ 

regulations there would be no cumulative effects for Alternative A. 

Walla Walla River IRA

Alternatives B and C

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Roadless Characteristics 

In alternatives B and C there would be no direct effects to the Walla Walla River IRA because no 

activities are proposed within the boundaries of the IRA. The IRA would retain its current degree of 

natural integrity. There would be no management changes or improvements to the ecological function 

within the IRA. Biological and ecosystem functions would likely continue as they are in the present 

condition 

Potential indirect effects may occur from project activities outside the IRA. The sounds, air quality, and 

possible sighting of mechanical activities and fuel treatment activities occurring in areas adjacent to the 

IRA would reduce a sense of solitude and remoteness in the short-term, during project activity. Other 

sights and sounds of ongoing and previously approved activities in areas adjacent to the boundary of the 

wilderness would continue to have short-term effects on opportunities of solitude and remoteness. In the 

long-term there would be no change to the availability of solitude or primitive recreation. 

Other potential indirect effects may occur because the landscape would continue developing complex fuel 

loads. A wildfire may burn more extensively and kill more trees within timbered stringers in grass/tree 

mosaic. There would be more impacts to visual quality (more acres blackened) caused by a wildfire as 

compared to a treated areas, however, it would be a natural occurrence and expected condition of the 

landscape. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis geographic boundary for Lookingglass IRA is the entire IRA, all 

inventoried PWA associated with the IRA and developed lands that are within the vicinity of the IRA. 

The cumulative effects analysis geographic boundary for Walla Walla IRA is the portion of the IRA that 

is within the project planning area (about 7,140 acres which is 20% of the IRA), inventoried PWA 

associated with the IRA and developed lands that are within the vicinity of the IRA. 

These boundaries are appropriate because it can reasonably be expected that the types of direct/indirect 

effects expected to occur as a result of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project (effects of sight, sound and 

smell from project activities on sense of solitude and remoteness would occur along in these areas. Given 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-111

the nature of the geographic features (canyons that drop steeply off from the edge of IRAs and associated 

PWA, these effects are not expected to interact with any similar effects that might occur elsewhere along 

or within the IRA boundaries and associated PWA. 

The temporal boundary for this cumulative effects analysis is 10 years. This timeframe is appropriate, 

because the effects to a sense of solitude and remoteness would be limited to the times when Tollgate 

Fuels Reduction activities would be occurring since the sights, smells and sounds of mechanical activities 

would only occur during this projects implementation. 

There would be no cumulative effects on the Walla Walla River IRA because there are no past, present or 

reasonably foreseeable future activities that would overlap with the activities proposed in the Tollgate 

Fuels Reduction project in time and space. 

Lookingglass IRA

Alternative B

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative B proposed project activities would have a direct effect on 203 acres of the 4,859 acre 

Lookingglass IRA (approximately 4% of the IRA). The activities are located in treatment units 26, 38 

and 75. See Table 4-43. 

Table 4-43 — Alternative B units intersecting Lookingglass IRA 

Treatment 

Units Prescription

Treatment 

Unit Acres

Lookingglass

IRA Acres 

Affected

26 LFR 104 104

38 CT, LFR 86 86

75 CT. LFR, DDR 52 13

TOTAL 203

Roadless Characteristics 

The 4% of the IRA that would be directly affected by the proposed activities are confined to its outer 

edges, on flatter areas above the topographic break, generally adjacent to roads, private land and areas 

with evidence of past human activity. The vast majority of the IRA (96%) would remain undisturbed and 

retain the existing degree of Roadless characteristics. 

High Quality or Undisturbed Soil, Air and Water Quality: Units 38 and 75 include removal of green 

trees within RHCRAs (Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas). The effects to water temperature and on 

sediment are so small as to be not measureable. Short-term effects would be minor in the treatment areas, 

while the long term effect of activities on quality of the Roadless characteristics would be negligible. 

Habitat for Threatened, Endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those species 

dependent upon large, undisturbed areas of land: Effects to wildlife are described in detail earlier in this 

chapter. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-112

Naturally Appearing Landscapes with High Scenic Quality: Evidence of activity would be apparent to 

varying degrees in treatment areas. The natural appearance of the landscape would be reduced following 

treatment activities. Stumps, skid trails and slash would be evident where commercial thinning and 

ladder fuel reduction occurs. Tree density would be reduced which would result in more open stands 

compared with neighboring untreated areas. The stands would not likely be opened to the point that the 

skyline of the forest canopy appears highly manipulated to the casual observer. In strategic areas, 

typically nearer roads, trees would be limbed to about six feet to reduce fuel ladders. These trees would 

no longer appear natural. Overall, scenic quality and natural appearance would be reduced. 

Recreation: Primitive recreation opportunities, including cross-country hiking, motorcycle riding, 

mountain biking, horseback riding, and hunting, may be interrupted by the sights, sounds and smells of 

activities. Hunters and dispersed hunting camps may be displaced while activities are taking place. The 

sense of solitude at campsites located near treatment areas may also be reduced while project activities are 

taking place. In the long term treatment areas would again be available although the primitive setting 

some recreationists seek would be reduced to varying degrees on the treated acres. The vast majority of 

the IRA (96%) would continue to offer the current level of recreation opportunities in natural settings. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis geographic boundary for Lookingglass IRA is the entire IRA, all 

inventoried PWA associated with the IRA and developed lands that are within the vicinity of the IRA. 

The cumulative effects analysis geographic boundary for Walla Walla IRA is the portion of the IRA that 

is within the project planning area (about 7,140 acres which is 20% of the IRA), inventoried PWA 

associated with the IRA and developed lands that are within the vicinity of the IRA. 

These boundaries are appropriate because it can reasonably be expected that the types of direct/indirect 

effects expected to occur as a result of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project (effects of sight, sound and 

smell from project activities on sense of solitude and remoteness would occur along in these areas. Given 

the nature of the geographic features (canyons that drop steeply off from the edge of IRAs and associated 

PWA, these effects are not expected to interact with any similar effects that might occur elsewhere along 

or within the IRA boundaries and associated PWA. 

The temporal boundary for this cumulative effects analysis is 10 years. This timeframe is appropriate, 

because the effects to a sense of solitude and remoteness would be limited to the times when Tollgate 

Fuels Reduction activities would be occurring since the sights, smells and sounds of mechanical activities 

would only occur during this projects implementation. 

There would be no cumulative effects on the Lookingglass IRA because there are no past, present or 

reasonably foreseeable future activities that would overlap with the activities proposed in the Tollgate 

Fuels Reduction project in time and space. 

Alternative C

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Roadless Characteristics 

There would be no direct effects to the Lookingglass IRA because no activities are proposed within the 

boundaries of the IRA. The IRA would retain its current degree of natural integrity. There would be no 

management changes or improvements to the ecological function within the IRA. Biological and 

ecosystem functions would likely continue as they are in the present condition. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-113

Potential indirect effects may occur from project activities outside the IRA. The sounds, air quality, and 

possible sighting of mechanical activities and fuel treatment activities occurring in areas adjacent to the 

IRA would reduce a sense of solitude and remoteness in the short-term, during project activity. Other 

sights and sounds of ongoing and previously approved activities in areas adjacent to the boundary of the 

wilderness would continue to have short-term effects on opportunities of solitude and remoteness. In the 

long-term there would be no change to the availability of solitude or primitive recreation. 

Other potential indirect effects may occur because the landscape would continue developing complex fuel 

loads. A wildfire may burn more extensively and kill more trees within timbered stringers in grass/tree 

mosaic. There would be more impacts to visual quality (more acres blackened) caused by a wildfire as 

compared to a treated areas, however, it would be a natural occurrence and expected condition of the 

landscape. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects from ongoing activities for alternative C are the same as Alternative A. The 

sounds and possible sighting of mechanical activities and fuel treatment activities proposed in areas 

adjacent to the IRA under Alternative C would reduce a sense of solitude and remoteness in the shortterm, during project activity. Considering past, present and possible future activities, the IRA would 

retain its Roadless characteristics and current degree of natural integrity. There would be no management 

changes or improvements to the ecological function within the IRA. Biological and ecosystem functions 

would likely continue as they are in the present condition. 

Consistency finding with the Roadless Area Conservation Rule 

A consistency finding of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project with the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation 

Rule can be found in the Specifically Required Disclosures Section later in this Chapter. 

OTHER UNDEVELOPED LANDS

Alternative A - No Action 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

There would be no direct effects to other undeveloped lands because no activities would occur in these 

areas. The affected environment would remain unchanged, except by natural processes and ongoing 

management activities. Biological and ecosystem functions would continue. The landscape would likely 

continue developing complex fuel loads. A wildfire may burn more extensively and kill more trees 

within upland forest stands which would result in larger acreages of blackened landscapes compared to 

prescribed fires. Some forest visitors may avoid blackened landscapes until green vegetation returns after 

3 to 5 years. Fire is a natural occurrence and expected disturbance process in this landscape. All 

polygons of other undeveloped lands would continue to not meet inventory criteria as potential wilderness 

areas and would continue to not be an inventoried Roadless area or a designated wilderness area. 

Cumulative Effects 

For the No Action alternative, Tollgate Fuels reduction project would not be authorizing any actions; 

therefore it would not be adding anything to the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. Based on the definition provided in the CEQ regulations there would be no cumulative effects 

for the No Action Alternative.
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-114

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Fuels reduction treatment would occur on approximately 391 acres of other undeveloped lands in 

Alternative B and 390 acres in alternative C. There would be no roads constructed in other undeveloped 

lands under either alternatives. 

Appendix H, Maps H-7 and H-8 displays the location of treatment units and other undeveloped lands. 

Table 4-44 displays a listing of proposed harvest activity units, treatment methods and acres of other 

undeveloped lands that would be affected under each action alternative. 

Table 4-45 is a summary of acres of activities proposed under each action alternative within other 

undeveloped lands. 

Table 4-44 — Interaction between treatment units (Alternative B & C) and Other Undeveloped 

Lands 

Treatment 

Units

Prescription Treatment Unit 

Acres

Other 

Undeveloped

lands Affected 

(acres)

Alternative B

Other Undeveloped

Acres Affected 

(acres)

Alternative C

10 CT 147.7 2.1 2.1

21 LFR, DDR 13.4 4.1 4.1

25 CT 47.9 31.4 31.4

27 LFR 13.9 9.0 9.0

31 NCT 78.5 1.1 0.0

34 CT, LFR, DDR 59.1 15.5 15.5

35 CT, LFR 38.4 1.1 1.1

36 LFR 23.3 0.0 0.0

41 CT, LFR 171.7 12.2 12.2

42 CT, LFR 121.7 1.1 1.1

45 CT, LFR 104.1 1.1 1.1

50 CT, LFR 88.8 57.9 57.9

51 CT, LFR, DDR 53.6 17.2 17.2

52 CT, LFR 29.4 8.9 8.9

54 CT, LFR 66.4 3.9 3.9

55 CT, LFR 13.3 0.0 0.0

61 CT, LFR 35.8 9.8 9.8

62 CT, LFR 34.1 19.7 19.7

78 CT, LFR 50.0 0.6 0.6
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-115

81 CT 22.1 0.3 0.3

83 CT, LFR 102.1 25.4 25.4

84 CT, LFR 84.9 43.8 43.8

85 CT, LFR 78.1 64.2 64.2

86 LFR 46.7 46.7 46.7

95 CT, LFR 47.1 9.6 9.6

100 CT, LFR 37.3 1.8 1.8

101 CT 13.5 2.4 2.4

Total 391.1 390.0

Table 4-45 — Proposed Activities in Other Undeveloped Lands by Action Alternative 

Primary Activities within

Other Undeveloped Lands Alternative B (acres) Alternative C (Acres)

CT-Commercial Thinning and 

associated activity fuels activities 330 330

NCT-Non-Commercial Thinning

and associated activity fuels 

activities

1 0

LFR-Ladder Fuels Reduction 60 60

DDR-Dead and Down Removal 0 0

Total 391 390

The descriptions of environmental consequences to the ‘intrinsic physical and social values’ of other 

undeveloped lands applies to 286 acres of HCPC’s polygons that overlap with other undeveloped lands 

polygons displayed in Appendix I; maps I-2 

The environmental consequences to the 30,751 remaining acres of land within the Tollgate Fuels 

Reduction project planning boundary that are not IRAs, PWAs or other undeveloped lands are disclosed 

throughout all other resource sections of Chapter 3. The descriptions of environmental consequences to 

the 30,751 remaining developed acres applies 1,529 acres of HCPC’s polygons that do not overlap with 

IRAs, PWAs or other undeveloped lands polygons displayed in Appendix H; map H-5 and Appendix I; 

maps I-2. 

Environmental effects to the acres listed above in Table 4-45 and the physical, biological and social 

values within them are described below. 

Physical and biological resources (soils, water, wildlife, recreation, fisheries, etc.) 

For other undeveloped lands within the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project planning area where proposed 

activities would occur the impacts to soil, water quality, air quality, forage; plant and animal 

communities; habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; recreation; noxious weeds; and 

cultural resources, etc. are essentially the same as disclosed for areas of proposed project activity in 

previous sections of this chapter and are not reiterated here. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-116

Environmental effects to resources in other undeveloped lands due to the implementation of proposed 

project activities would be consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and Forest Plan management area 

standards and guidelines (see previous sections of this chapter for Findings of Consistency for each 

resource). 

Social values (apparent naturalness, degree of solitude, sense of remoteness) 

Proposed fuel activities in other undeveloped lands would create stumps which would reduce the size of 

undeveloped polygons. The lands would appear managed and developed. The sights, sounds, and 

changes in vegetation from activities and use would further decrease the natural integrity and sense of 

naturalness within treatment units and along roads. All treated units would remain forested after harvest 

although skid trails, stumps, and landings would be evident. Stand structure would change, therefore, 

diversity of plant and animal communities may shift from current patterns but ecological diversity would 

remain (Chapter 3, Vegetation section). Impacts to natural integrity and sense of naturalness would likely 

be evident until stumps and vegetation canopies are no longer substantially recognizable (about 75 to 100 

years). The sounds of machinery from active units would reduce a sense of naturalness and solitude 

during project operations but would not persist in the long term. Other impacts, such as tree marking 

paint and logging slash would be visible in the short term (about 5 to 10 years). Impacts such as skid 

trails and tree stumps would be evident for a longer period. The increased numbers of stumps and the 

open nature of the forest stand would likely be the most apparent visual change resulting from 

implementation. 

Change in acres in other undeveloped lands 

Other undeveloped lands with no proposed thinning or mechanized activity (2,193 acres in Alternative B 

and 2,194 acres in Alternative C) would retain their intrinsic physical, biological, and social values as 

described in the affected environment. They would remain free of developments such as forest roads or 

timber harvest stumps. 

All 2,584 acres of other undeveloped lands would continue to not meet inventory criteria as potential 

wilderness areas and would continue to not be an inventoried Roadless area or a designated Wilderness 

area. Table 4-46 is a summary showing the changes in acres for other undeveloped lands by alternative. 

Table 4-46 — Changes in Acres of Other Undeveloped Lands by Alternative 

ALT.

Acres of Other 

Undeveloped Land 

Acres of Other Undeveloped

Land Affected by Treatment 

(Developed)*

Acres of Other 

Undeveloped Land 

Remaining

Percent 

Change

A 2,584 0 2,584 0

B 2,584 391 2,194 -15%

2,584 390 2,193 -15%

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects geographic boundary is the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project planning area 

(46,464 acres). This boundary is appropriate because it can reasonably be expected that the types of 

direct/indirect effects expected to occur as a result of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project (intrinsic 

physical and biological resources and intrinsic social values) and geographic features (canyons that drop 

steeply off from the project area) these effects are not expected to interact with any similar effects that 

might occur elsewhere outside of the project area. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-117

The temporal boundary for this cumulative effects analysis is 10 years. This timeframe is appropriate, 

because the effects to a sense of solitude and remoteness would be limited to the times when Tollgate 

Fuels Reduction activities would be occurring since the sights, smells and sounds of mechanical activities 

would only occur during this projects implementation. 

For other undeveloped lands in which project activities would occur the cumulative effects to soil, water 

quality, air quality; plant and animal communities; habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive 

species; recreation; noxious weeds; and cultural resources are disclosed in previous sections of this 

chapter and are not reiterated here. 

The cumulative impacts to the ‘intrinsic physical and social values’ of other undeveloped lands applies to 

286 acres of HCPC’s polygons that overlap with other undeveloped lands polygons displayed in 

Appendix I; maps I-2. 

In the project planning area the increased numbers of stumps and the open nature of the forest stand 

would likely be the most apparent visual change resulting from implementation. In the long term (about 

50+ years), the project would result in the development of historic open, park-like conditions, 

characterized by larger diameter trees, though more stumps would be present than currently exist. 

Prescribed burning and future wildfires would cumulatively change composition and structure of 

vegetation which could affect some forest visitor’s sense of naturalness and remoteness. Prescribed 

burning would change composition and structure of vegetation (EA, Chapter 3). For a few years burned 

areas would display a blackened color. Outside the burned areas, the conditions described in the affected 

environment would remain unchanged except by natural processes and ongoing management activities 

such as grazing and hunting. 

Apparent naturalness and solitude and remoteness would be cumulatively impacted by grazing, dispersed 

camping, and motorized ATV and vehicle use on roads. Effects associated with recreational use, 

including noxious weed spread, hunting, fishing, erosion, litter, and evidence of fire rings, are expected to 

remain cumulatively minor. Ongoing removal of danger trees along forest roads changes the vegetation 

but does not change the overall sense of naturalness or sense of solitude along an existing developed 

transportation corridor. Overall, cumulative impacts from these activities on apparent naturalness, 

solitude and remoteness is very small (not measurable/indistinguishable) in proportion to the changes 

anticipated from the direct and indirect impacts of the alternatives disclosed above. 

Findings of Consistency with Forest Plan and other Laws and 

Regulations

Other undeveloped lands with no proposed thinning or mechanized activity (2,194 acres in Alternative B, 

2,193 acres in Alternative C,) would retain their intrinsic physical, biological, and social values as 

described in the affected environment. They would remain free of developments such as forest roads or 

timber harvest stumps. All 2,584 acres of other undeveloped lands within the project planning area would 

still not be a potential wilderness area, inventoried Roadless area, or a designated wilderness area. This 

outcome is consistent with the intent of the land allocation decisions made in the forest plan. 

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Timber values and logging costs have the most direct effect on the economic viability of this project. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-118

Market conditions may fluctuate widely throughout the year, and depending on the time of year the sales 

are offered for auction, the current estimates may or may not be accurate, which could have an impact on 

the final sales values. Rising or falling fuel and delivered log prices could create a substantial increase or 

decrease in sale operation and manufacturing costs. The estimated discounted revenues, costs, present net 

value (as of 2012), cost-benefit ratio, and jobs created as a result of implementing the activities under 

Alternatives A, B, or C are described below in Table 4-47.

Table 4-47 — Financial Summary by Alternative 

Item Alt A Alt B Alt C

Discounted Revenues 0 $845,658 $826,332

Discounted Costs 0 $487,503 $457,253

Present Net Value 

(PNV)

0 $358,155 $369,079

Cost/Benefit Ratio 

(gross value/ 

associated costs)

0 1.73 1.81

CCF (Volume) 0 29,589 27,753

Jobs Created 0 139 130

Alternative A

This alternative would not harvest any timber and therefore would not produce any revenue or support 

direct, indirect or induced employment, or increased income to local economies. Current downward 

trends in timber harvesting from National Forests lands would continue into the future. Current 

employment in the wood products sector of the local economy would remain unchanged. 

Alternative B

Alternative B was found to be economically viable with a net present value of $358,155. Alternative B 

has a lower present net value (PNV) than alternative C because it has slightly higher logging costs. These 

costs are attributed to logging more acres and slightly larger trees. The cost benefit ratio of this alternative 

is 1.73. The cost benefit ratio takes into account Forest Service contract administration costs. There are 

slightly more jobs created in alternative B due to more volume. 

Alternative C

Alternative C was found to be economically viable with a net present value of $369,079. Alternative C 

has a higher PNV than alternative B because alternative C has slightly lower logging costs, with all other 

associated costs being the same. The cost benefit ratio of this alternative is 1.81. The cost benefit ratio 

takes into account Forest Service contract administration costs. Alternative C creates slightly fewer jobs 

than alternative B because of less volume.

Cumulative Effects 

Past Activities 

Past timber harvest activities on all ownerships within the local area have affected the viability of timber 

harvest to the extent that the present industrial infrastructure and workforce have developed as a result of 

the past activities. The effects of specific activities on the viability of timber harvest are not measurable. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-119

Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities 

Due to the competitiveness of the market, and its global nature, none of the alternatives would in 

themselves affect prices, costs or harvest viability of other present or reasonably foreseeable timber sales 

in the area. 

SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED DISCLOSURES

This section describes how the action alternatives comply with applicable State and Federal laws, 

regulations, and policies. 

National Historic Preservation Act

Heritage surveys have been completed. State Historic Preservation Office consultation are conducted under 

the Programmatic Agreement among the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region (Region 6), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and Washington State 

Historic Preservation Officer regarding Cultural Resource Management on National Forests dated April 

1997. Identified sites and any newly recorded sites would be protected from all project activities associated 

with Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project, see the Design Criteria listed in Chapter 2 (Table 2-7). Because 

heritage resources would not be affected by proposed activities under any action alternative, there would be 

no effect to any historic property listed in or eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Regional Forester's Sensitive 

Species 

Environmental effects of implementing any alternative in Tollgate project planning area are in compliance 

with the ESA and Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list. The Endangered Species Act requires 

protection of all species listed as "Threatened" or "Endangered" by Federal regulating agencies (Fish and 

Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service). 

Biological Evaluations and Assessments have been completed for all TES plant, aquatic and terrestrial 

wildlife. Determinations were made that none of the proposed actions would adversely affect, contribute to 

a trend toward federal listing, nor cause a loss of viability to listed plant, fish, and animal populations or 

species. Details are found in the Fisheries, TES plants, and Wildlife sections of this chapter. 

Consultation with USDI Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service are expected to be 

completed prior to signing of the Record of Decision (ROD). Agreement of findings will include Chinook 

Salmon Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), which satisfies requirements under the Mangnuson-Stevens Act. 

Clean Air Act 

All proposed prescribed burning would be conducted in compliance with National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) regulations and restrictions 

contained in the Oregon Smoke Management Plan (ODEQ Directive 1-4-1-601). Fuel activities can be 

timed to minimize the impacts of smoke on forest users and local communities. An operator’s burn plan 

is developed prior to ignition. On site weather conditions are monitored before, during, and after an 

ignition. Ocular smoke observations are made throughout the ignition phase. Residual smoke is 

monitored for dispersion and direction. No ignitions would occur if there is an air stagnation advisory in 

place within the northeast Oregon geographic area. No ignitions would occur if existing or forecast 

conditions would transport measurable smoke into downwind communities. The removal and direct 

treatment of biomass would reduce emissions should a wildfire occur. The effect of smoke under any 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-120

action alternative would be short term and restricted to dispersed campgrounds. Particulate matter is not 

expected to exceed standards in the communities of concern (Elgin, Troy and Eden Bench area). See Air 

Quality analysis and impacts within the Grande Ronde Wild and Scenic River Corridor. 

Clean Water Act 

See Hydrology section of this chapter. 

Prime Farmland, Range Land and Forest Land 

No adverse effects on any prime farmland, range land and forest land not already identified in the Final EIS 

for the Forest Plan would be expected to result from implementation of any alternative. 

Civil Rights, Women and Minorities 

No adverse effects on civil rights, women, and minorities not already identified in the FEIS for the Forest 

Plan would be expected to result from implementation of any alternative. Alternatives B and C would be 

governed by Forest Service contracts, which are awarded to qualified contractors and/or purchasers 

regardless of race, color, sex, religion, etc. Such contracts also contain nondiscrimination requirements. 

Treaty Trust Responsibilities 

In this analysis, the primary focus of the federal government trust responsibility is the protection of the 

treaty rights and interests that tribes reserve on land included in this project. Both the Nez Perce Tribe 

and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation have treaty rights and interests in the 

Tollgate project planning area. General concerns expressed on past projects are the potential effects on 

fish habitat and populations and water quality, which are key components of aquatic habitat, and the 

protection of archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties. 

National Forest Management Act 

The Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project is consistent with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) 

(36 CFR 219.8(e)) requirements at 16 U.S.C. 1604(E) (i) through (iv) and 16 U.S.C. 1604(F) (i) and (iii). 

 (E) insure that timber would be harvested from National Forest System lands only where: 

(i) soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged; 

(ii) there is assurance that such lands can be adequately restocked within five years after 

harvest; 

(iii) protection is provided for streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other 

bodies of water from detrimental changes in water temperatures, blockages of water courses, 

and deposits of sediment, where harvests are likely to seriously and adversely affect water 

conditions or fish habitat; and 

(iv) the harvesting system to be used is not selected primarily because it will give the greatest 

dollar return or the greatest unit output of timber; and 

(F) insure that clearcutting, seed tree cutting, shelterwood cutting, and other cuts designed to 

regenerate an evenaged stand of timber will be used as a cutting method on National Forest 

System lands only where: 

(i) for clearcutting, it is determined to be the optimum method, and for other such cuts it is 

determined to be appropriate, to meet the objectives and requirements of the relevant land 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-121

management plan; (iii) cut blocks, patches, or strips are shaped and blended to the extent 

practicable with the natural terrain; 

Floodplains and Wetlands - Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 

Executive Order (EO) 11988 requires the Forest Service to avoid “to the extent possible the long and 

short term adverse impacts associated with the occupation or modification of floodplains...” Alternatives 

B and C would avoid all floodplains and affects to floodplains, and are consistent with this EO. 

Executive Order (EO) 11990 requires the Forest Service to “avoid to the extent possible the long and 

short term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands.” Alternatives B 

and C would avoid all wetlands and affects to wetlands, and are consistent with this EO. 

Municipal Watersheds 

There is no de-facto or designated municipal watershed in the Tollgate project planning area.

Energy Requirements 

No adverse effects on energy requirements would be expected to result from implementation of any 

alternative. 

Public Health and Safety 

Public health and safety would be improved with Alternatives B and C removing danger trees along haul 

routes and trailheads within Tollgate project planning area. Additionally, public health and safety would be 

enhanced by proposed activities under either Alternative during a wildland fire event and it would be 

protected during implementation of project activities. 

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 requires that federal agencies adopt strategies to address environmental justice 

concerns within the context of agency operations. With implementation of any alternative, there would 

be no disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or lowincome populations. Smoke management would keep particulate matter within standards. The actions 

would occur in a remote area and nearby communities would mainly be affected by economic impacts 

related to contractors implementing harvest, non-commercial thinning, planting, fuels treatment, and 

burning activities. Racial and cultural minority groups could be prevalent in the work forces that 

implement these activities. Contracts contain provision clauses which address worker safety. 

Other Jurisdictions 

There are a number of other agencies responsible for management of resources within the Cobbler II 

project planning area. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is responsible for management of 

fish and wildlife populations, whereas, the Forest Service manages the habitat for these animals. The 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has been contacted regarding this analysis. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for enforcement of environmental quality 

standards, such as those established for water resources, while the Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality sets standards, identifies non-point sources of water pollution, and determines which waters do 

not meet the goals of the Clean Water Act. The EPA has certified the Oregon Forest Practices Act as 

Best Management Practices. Oregon State compared Forest Service practices used to control or prevent 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-122

non-point sources of water pollution with the Oregon Forest Practices Act and concluded that Forest 

Service practices meet or exceed State requirements. These are periodically reviewed as practices 

change. The Forest Service and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality have signed a 

Memorandum of Understanding (2/12/79 and 12/7/82) outlining this. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Oregon Department of Forestry are 

responsible for regulating all prescribed burning operations. The USDA Forest Service, Region 6, has a 

Memorandum of Understanding with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department 

of Forestry, and the USDI Bureau of Land Management regarding limits on emissions, as well as 

reporting procedures. All burning would comply with the State of Oregon's Smoke Management 

Implementation Plan and, for greater specificity, the memorandum of understanding mentioned above. 

2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) 36 CFR Part 294 

This section provides the basis for, and a finding of, consistency of the activities proposed under 

Alternative B of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project with the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule 

(“Roadless Rule”), by describing and/or referencing: 

Tree-cutting activities expected to occur within the Lookingglass Inventoried Roadless Area 

(“Roadless Area”) 

Existing characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure (“ecosystem characteristics”) 

within the Tollgate Project Planning Area, and relative to ecosystem characteristics resulting from 

the variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current 

climatic period 

Why tree-cutting activities are needed to maintain or restore ecosystem characteristics within the 

Tollgate Project Planning Area 

How the project will maintain or improve one or more of the roadless area characteristics as 

defined in 36 CFR §294.11 

Tree-cutting activities 

Timber cutting activities included under Alternative B are expected to occur within the Lookingglass 

Inventoried Roadless area, and no other Inventoried Roadless Areas. The expected stem diameter sizes of 

trees to be removed would be of small diameter. Trees per acre (TPA) of stem diameter size classes 

(inches diameter at breast height, DBH) and acres for forest areas with tree cutting, sale, or removal 

activities included under Alternative B of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project occurring within the 

Lookingglass Inventoried Roadless Area are shown in Table 4-48. 

Planned thinning activities included in Alternative B and occurring in the Lookingglass Inventoried 

Roadless Area would prioritize smaller-diameter trees for cutting and removal. As a result, Table 4-48

indicates that the vast majority of trees within Units 26, 38, and 75 have stem diameter sizes less than 5 

inches at breast height. As a result, the thin-from-below silvicultural prescription (which would prioritize 

smaller trees for removal until a desired residual tree density is attained) planned for Units 26, 38, and 75, 

would result in a large majority of cut trees with stem sizes less than 5 inches DBH. For mapped 

vegetation polygons with 0 trees per acre in the 0-5” DBH size class, the activity proposed under 

Alternative B is a Ladder Fuel Reduction which would only remove trees <9” DBH. Therefore, within 

Units 26, 38, and 75, the cutting, sale, or removal of trees within the units would be of generally small 

diameter. 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-123

Existing Ecosystem Composition and Structure 

Ecosystem composition and structure within the range of variability that would be expected to occur 

under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period are described in the Forest Vegetation, 

Fuels, Wildlife, and Fisheries sections of Chapter 3 for the Tollgate Project Planning Area, which 

contains the Lookingglass Inventoried Roadless Area. Information pertinent to this Roadless Rule 

consistency finding is briefly discussed below. 

Within the Tollgate Project Planning Area, tree density classes are outside Ranges of Variation consistent 

with natural disturbance regimes (Table 3-26). Specifically, Dry Upland Forest PVG has too little of the 

Low density class and too much of the High density condition. In the Moist Upland Forest biophysical 

environment, all three density classes are outside of ranges of variation associated with natural 

disturbance regimes, such that the Low and Moderate density classes are currently under-represented, and 

the High density class is extremely over-represented. The units proposed for tree cutting, sale or removal 

activities within the Lookingglass Inventoried Roadless Area fall into the High and Moderate tree density 

classes. 

Table 4-48 — Trees per acre (TPA) of stem diameter size (inches diameter at breast height, DBH) 

classes for forest areas with tree cutting, sale, or removal activities included under Alternative B of 

the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project occurring within the Lookingglass Inventoried Roadless Area. 

Each row represents one mapped vegetation polygon. 

TPA <5” DBH TPA >5 and 

<21” DBH TPA >21” DBH Acres

359 173 29 27.5

0 97 26 0.1

220 284 18 31.0

209 139 33 6.0

209 139 33 1.2

209 139 33 1.2

0 64 16 0.2

0 64 16 1.5

0 182 14 18.9

0 196 18 7.3

0 124 19 6.5

1524 86 38 29.4

1360 73 34 22.1

2295 119 30 1.0

0 145 13 0.8

947 90 21 16.4

527 181 28 3.3

53 137 31 10.9

0 68 23 0.5

1365 88 26 0.1

1339 177 21 51.0

The units proposed for tree cutting, sale or removal activities within the Lookingglass Inventoried 

Roadless Area are also categorized as Fire Regime 3 and 4 forests, and classified as Fire Regime 

Condition Class 2 and 3. These classifications indicate that the forest vegetation species composition and 

structure have been moderately and/or substantially altered from Ranges of Variability expected to result 

from natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period (Barrett et al. 2010). These alterations 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-124

include moderate to high increases in density, moderate to high encroachment of shade-tolerant tree 

species, and moderate to high losses over time of fire-tolerant tree species. 

The need for tree cutting, sale, or removal 

Live tree density can be reduced by three methods, alone or in combination: prescribed burning, girdling, 

or tree cutting. As indicated in Chapter 2, the use of prescribed broadcast burning was considered as a 

means to reduce tree density, but was not included as an action alternative for several reasons. Tree 

girdling is extremely cost-prohibitive and would not address project objectives to reduce surface and 

canopy fuel loading. Therefore, tree cutting and removal is needed to reduce the relative amount of high 

tree density classes and increase the abundance of low and moderate tree density classes across the 

Tollgate Project Planning Area, and thereby maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem 

composition and structure within ranges of variability expected to occur under natural disturbance 

regimes of the current climatic period. 

In addition to the need for tree cutting to address tree density concerns across the Tollgate Project 

Planning Area, tree cutting is also needed specifically within Units 26, 38, and 75 to address problems 

relating to the Fire Regime Condition Class in these areas, as described above. Specifically, tree cutting is 

required to reduce increases of tree density and vertical (canopy) vegetation layering within the Units, and 

use individual tree marking to prioritize for retention of fire-tolerant tree species and cutting/removal of 

shade-tolerant tree species. 

Consistency Finding 

As indicated in Chapter 1 of this document, the consistency finding of the Tollgate project with the 2001 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”) must show that for any activities proposed under any 

action Alternative occurring within an IRA, one of the circumstances (1(i), 1(ii,), 2, 3 or 4) outlined in 36 

CFR § 294.13 exist. In the case of the Tollgate project, the project is expected to maintain or improve 

one or more of the roadless area characteristics as defined in 36 CFR §294.11expected to “remove 

generally small-diameter timber,” and “is needed...to maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem 

composition and structure...within the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural 

disturbance regimes of the current climatic period.” Because this circumstance (circumstance 1(ii) in 36 

CFR § 294.13) exists, and because “high quality...soil, air and water quality” (a roadless area 

characteristic for the Lookingglass IRA) will be maintained, the activities included under Alternative B of 

the Tollgate project are consistent with the 2001 Roadless Rule. 

Special Use Permits 

There are several special use permits within the Tollgate project planning area including the Spout 

Springs Ski Area, numerous Recreation Residences, a Communication Site housing serving local law 

enforcement and various cellular providers. 

OTHER RESOURCE CONCERNS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Relationships Between Short-Term Use and Long-Term Productivity 

Maintenance of healthy soils in terms of organic matter and structure is a key prerequisite to maintaining 

healthy ecosystems. Long-term productivity depends on maintaining the basic ecosystem resources and 

their function. For this project, implementation of standards and guidelines as outlined in the FEIS for the 

Forest Plan are designed to provide for continued long-term site productivity. However, there would be 
Chapter 4 –Environmental Consequences 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

4-125

some short-term effects related to the implementation of any of the action alternatives. There are no adverse 

effects associated with implementing any of the action alternatives that are not already identified in the FEIS 

for the Forest Plan (Chapter 4, pages IV 230-231). 

Probable Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided 

There are no unavoidable adverse effects associated with implementing any of the action alternatives that 

are not already identified in the FEIS for the Forest Plan (Chapter 4, pages IV 228-230). 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 

Irreversible commitment of resources refers to a loss of future options – once executed it cannot be reversed. 

Irreversible is primarily relevant to the extraction of use of nonrenewable resources, such as minerals, 

cultural resources, or to those factors (such as soil productivity) that are renewable only over long periods of 

time. An irretrievable commitment of resources refers to a loss of production or use of natural resources for 

a time. For example, timber production is lost irretrievably while an area is serving as a winter ski area. 

The production is irretrievable, but the action is not irreversible. If the land use changes, it is possible to 

resume production. 

There are no unavoidable adverse irreversible effects associated with implementing any action alternatives 

that are not already identified in the FEIS for the Forest Plan (Chapter 4, pages IV 231-233). 

There is an irretreviable effect associated with the removal of timber within areas that have been identified, 

using the Potential Wilderness inventory criteria found at FSH 1909.12 Chapter 70, as Potential Wilderness 

within the project planning area. These areas are confined to actions within Alternative B. These acres 

would result in visibibly detectable signs of timber harvest (such as stumps and skid trails) which would 

preclude the areas inclusion as part of the inventory until such a future time as the signs of past harvest are 

no longer visible (likely several decades). The effects of project activities on Potential Wilderness is 

disclosed above. Although these areas would not be included as part of the Forest Service’s Potential 

Wilderness inventory, they would not necessarily eliminate the possibility of the areas inclusion as 

wilderness at some point by Congressional action. 

Congressionally Designated Areas 

The North Fork Umatilla Wilderness is a Congressionally designated wilderness area which occurs 

partially within the Tollgate project planning area. The North Fork Umatilla is 20,256 acres in size. No 

activities are proposed to occur within the Wilderness area under either alternative. Indirect effects (such 

as sights and sounds) associated with the implementation of project activities are discussed above. 

Potential Conflicts with Plans and Policies of Other Jurisdictions 

Possible conflicts with plans and policies of other jurisdictions, such as the State of Oregon or local 

counties, have been considered. There are no known conflicts with plans and policies of other 

jurisdictions associated with implementing the alternatives. The FEIS for the Forest Plan (Chapter 4, 

Pages IV 226-227) discusses this in further detail. 

CHAPTER 5 – AGENCIES, 

ORGANIZATIONS, PERSONS 

CONSULTED, AND LIST OF 

PREPARERS

PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 

David Powell Silviculturist 

Holly Harris Wildlife Biologist 

Tyson Albrecht Fuels 

Stacia Peterson Hydrologist 

David Crabtree Fish Biologist 

Steve Anderson Road/Trail Manager 

Donna Mattson Recreation/ Visuals 

Larry Randall Potential Wilderness, Other Undeveloped Lands, Inventoried 

Roadless Areas 

James Archuleta Soil Scientist 

Joan Frazee Botany 

Robin Harris GIS 

Eric Tonn Economics 

Jill Bassett Heritage 

Eric Pfeifer Interdisciplinary Team Leader/ NEPA specialist 

Collaborative Process Participants 

The following individuals attended at least two of the collaborative working group meetings held during 

winter of 2008 and Spring of 2009. 

Mary Louise Chapman 

Bernard Chapman 

Rod Morrow 

Marcella Morrow 

Norm Kralman 

Ray Denny 

David King 

Julia Lauch 

Tom Insko 
 Chapter 5 – List of Preparers and Public Involvement 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS 

 5-3 

LISTS OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS 

RECEIVING A COPY OF THE DEIS OR NOTIFICATION OF 

WEB AVAILABILITY 

Washington and Oregon State Government and Agencies 

Columbia County Board of Commissioners 

Inland Northwest Wildlife Council 

Wallowa County Board of Commissioners 

Union County Board of Commissioners 

Washington Dept. of Wildlife, Region 1 Habitat Program 

Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife 

Oregon Dept. of Forestry 

Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality 

Oregon State Division of State Lands 

Umatilla County Watermaster 

Umatilla County Board of Commissioners 

Umatilla Basin Watershed Council 

Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 

Federal Agencies 

Deputy Director, USDA APHIS PPD/EAD 

Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Director, Planning and Review, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration (WA) 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, EIS Review Coordinator 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservationists Division, Northwest Region 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Environmental Coordinator, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture 

NOAA Office of Policy and Strategic Planning, NEPA Coordinator 

Northwest Mountain Region, Regional Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration 

Northwest Power Planning Council 

U.S. Army Engr. Northwestern Division 
 Chapter 5 – List of Preparers and Public Involvement 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS 

 5-4 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Environmental Impact Branch, Marine Environmental and Protection 

Division 

U.S. Department of Energy, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

USDA, National Agricultural Library, Head, Acquisitions & Serials Branch 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Navy Office of Chief of Naval Operations 

American Indian Tribes 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation 

Niimpuu (Nez Perce Tribe) 

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of OR 

Organizations 

Adopt-A-Forest 

Associated Oregon Loggers 

Back Country Horsemen 

Blue Mountains Audobon 

Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project 

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 

Forest Service Employees for Environmental 

Ethics (FSEEE) 

Hells Canyon Preservation Council 

Lewis-Clark Valley Air Quality 

Oregon Wild 

Oregon Snowmobilers 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation 

Sierra Club, Oregon Chapter 

Larry Pennington, Sierra Club Eastside Forest 

Committee 

Mount Misery Snow Drifters 

Northwest Trailbikers 

Sierra Club Juniper Group 

Dessert Rats 

Lewis-Clark Valley Air Quality 

Center for Tribal Water Advocacy 

Oregon Natural Desert Association 

Washington Wilderness Coalition 

Businesses 

Associated Oregon Loggers Inc. 

Boise Building, John Fullerton 

Blue Mountain Lumber Products 

Columbia Helicopter 

East Oregonian Newspaper 

Guy Bennett Lumber Company 

Henderson Logging, Inc. 

Joe Cook Logging 

Pine Creek Logging 

Ski Bluewood 

Walla Walla Union Bulletin 

Pendleton Record 

LaGrande Observer 

Healy Ranch LLC 
Individuals 

Don Stroeber 

Earle & Shirlee Marvin 

Lyle Perkins 

M. L. Weseman 

Howard Gaines 

Jack Preston 

Richard Artley 

Shirley Muse 

Richard Isaacson 

Gary Moton 

Mary Louise Chapman 

Bernard Chapman 

Rod Morrow 

Marcella Morrow 

Norm Kralman 

Ray Denny 

David King 

Julia Lauch 

Tom Insko 

Jeremy Cox 

M. Sharp 

Glenn Warren 

Mike Ziemantz 

Tom Peterson 

Brett Harting 

Tom Wood 

Chey Powelson
GLOSSARY

 

Glossary 

ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS

ASQ Allowable Sale Quantity 

ATV All Terrain Vehicle 

BA Biological Assessment 

BE Biological Evaluation 

BAER Burned Area Emergency Response 

BMP Best Management Practice 

BIO Biological Opinion 

CCF Hundred Cubic Feet 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CTUIR Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla 

Indian Reservation 

CY Calendar year 

DBH Diameter Breast Height 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality 

DFC Desired Future Condition 

EA Environmental Analysis 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESD Emergency Situation Declaration 

FR Forest Road 

FEIS Final Environment Impact Statement 

FSH Forest Service Handbook 

FSM Forest Service Manual 

FY Fiscal Year 

GIS Geographic Information System 

HFRA Healthy Forest Restoration Act 

HRV Historic Range of Variability 

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code 

IDT Interdisciplinary Team 

KV Knutson Vandenberg Act 

LOS Late Old Structure 

LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan 

MA Management Area 

MBF Thousand Board Feet 

MIS Management Indicator Species 

MMBF Million Board Feet 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NF National Forest 

NFMA National Forest Management Act 

NFS National Forest System 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOI Notice of Intent 

PAG Plant Association Group 

PVG Potential Vegetation Group

PWA Potential Wilderness Area 

RD Ranger District 

RHCA Riparian Habitat Conservation Area 

RMO Riparian Management Objective 

RNA Research Natural Area 

ROD Record of Decision 

S&G Standard and Guideline 

SRI Soil Resource Inventory 

TES Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive 

TMDL Total Maxim Daily Load 

UMA Umatilla National Forest 

USFS United States Forest Service 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

VQO Visual Quality Objective 

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife 
Glossary 

GLOSSARY

A 

Activity fuels – Fuels generated or altered by a management activity. 

Adfluvial individuals – are those which emigrate as juveniles from spawning tributaries, maturing and 

overwintering in lakes and reservoirs. 

Affected environment - Natural environment that exists at the present time in the area being analyzed. 

Afforestation – The establishment of a forest or stand in an area where the preceding vegetation or land use 

was not forest. 

Age class - A group of trees that started growing (regenerated) within the same time frame, usually 20 

years. A single age class would have trees that are within 20 years of the same age, such as 1-20 years or 

21-40 years. 

Air quality – The composition of air with respect to quantities of pollution therein; used most frequently 

in connection with “standards” of maximum acceptable pollutant concentrations.

Airshed - A geographic area that, because of topography, meteorology, and climate, shares the same air. 

Allotment (range allotment) - Area designated for use by a prescribed number of livestock for a prescribed 

time period. 

Alternative – In an EIS, one of a number of possible options for responding to the purpose and need for 

action. 

Anadromous fish – Fish that hatch in fresh water, migrate to the ocean, mature there, and return to fresh 

water to reproduce; for example, salmon and steelhead. 

Aspect - The direction a surface faces. A hillside facing east has an eastern aspect. 

ASQ (allowable sale quantity) - Amount of timber that may be sold within a certain period from an area of 

suitable land. The suitability of the land and the time period are specified in the Forest Plan. 

B 

Bankful width – The width of a stream channel measured between the tops of the most prominent banks on 

either side of the stream. Also refers to the width of the stream at the normal flood flow. 

Basal area - The area of the cross-section of a tree trunk near its base, usually 4 1/2 feet above the ground. 

Basal area is a way to measure how much of a site is occupied by trees. The term basal area is often used to 

describe the collective basal area of trees per acre. 

Benchmark – The analytical basis from which the alternatives were developed; the use of assessed land 

capability as a basis from which to estimate the effects of alternative patterns of management on the land. 

Beneficial uses – Any of the various uses which may be made of water including, but not limited to, 

domestic water supplies, industrial water supplies, agricultural water supplies, navigation, recreation in and 

on the water, wildlife habitat, and aesthetics. The beneficial use is dependent upon actual use, the ability of 

the water to support a non-existing use either now or in the future, and its likelihood of being used in a given 

manner. The use of water for the purpose of wastewater dilution or as a receiving water for a waste 

treatment facility effluent is not a beneficial use. 
Glossary 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) – A practice or combination of practices that is the most effective and 

practical means (including technological, economic, and institutional considerations) of preventing or 

reducing negative environmental impacts to water pollution.that may result from resource management 

activities. 

Big game - Large mammals, such as deer and elk, that are hunted for sport. 

Big game summer range – A range usually at higher elevations, used by deer and elk during the summer. 

Summer ranges are usually much more extensive than winter ranges. 

Big game winter range – A range usually at lower elevation used by migratory deer and elk during the 

winter months; usually more clearly defined and smaller than summer range. 

Bioenergy – Energy derived from fuel, such as wood or ethanol, derived from biomass. 

Biological diversity - The number and abundance of species found within a common environment. This 

includes the variety of genes, species, ecosystems, and ecological processes that connect everything in a 

common environment. 

Biological Assessment (BA) – A document prepared by a federal agency for the purpose of identifying any 

endangered or threatened species that is likely to be affected by an agency action. This document facilitates 

compliance with the Endangered Species Act. 

Biophysical – The combination of biological and physical components in an ecosystem. 

Board foot (bf) - A measurement term for lumber or timber. It is the amount of wood contained in an 

unfinished board 1 inch thick, 12 inches long, and 12 inches wide. Often expressed as MBF (thousand 

board feet) or MMBF (million board feet). 

Broadcast burn - A prescribed fire that burns forest fuels as they are, with no piling or windrowing. 

Browse - Twigs, leaves, and young shoots of trees and shrubs that animals (such as deer and elk) eat. 

Buffer - A land area designated to block or absorb impacts to the area beyond the buffer. For example, a 

streamside buffer is often retained to reduce impacts of a harvest unit. 

C 

Canopy - In a forest, the branches of the uppermost layer of foliage. It can also be used to describe lower 

layers in a multistoried forest. 

Canopy closure – The amount of ground surface shaded by tree canopies as seen from above. Used to 

describe how open or dense a stand of trees is, often expressed in 10 percent increments. 

Capability – The potential of an area or land/or water to produce resources, supply goods and service, 

and allow resource uses under a specified set of management practices and at a given level of 

management intensity. 

Catastrophic wildfire – An especially intense and widespread fire that usually, but not always, occurs in 

forests that are outside the historical range of variability in terms of forest structure and forest fuels due to 

fire suppression. 

Classified road – See Road Definitions. 

Cavity - A hole in a tree often used by wildlife species, usually birds, for nesting, roosting, and 

reproduction. 

CCF - One hundred cubic feet (see CF). 
Glossary 

CF - A measurement term for lumber or timber. It is the amount of wood contained in an unfinished 

block of wood 12 inches thick, 12 inches long, and 12 inches wide. Often expressed as CCF (hundred 

cubic feet). 

CFR – Code of Federal Regulations. A codification of the general and permanent rules published in the 

Federal Register by the Executive departments and agencies of the federal government.

Channel (stream) – The deepest part of a stream or riverbed through which the main current of water 

flows. 

Channelization - Human-caused alterations to a stream channel that cause the channel to be fixed in 

place, such as levees, dikes, trenching, and riprap. 

Climax - The culminating seral stage in plant succession for any given site where, in the absence of highseverity disturbances, the vegetation has reached a highly stable condition and undergoes change very 

slowly. A self-replacing community that is relatively stable over several generations of the dominant 

plant species, or very persistent in comparison to other seral stages.

Clearcutting - A regeneration harvest method that removes all merchantable trees in a single cutting 

except for wildlife trees or snags. A “clearcut” is an area from which all merchantable trees have been 

cut. 

Closed system road – Classified system road closed to public use. Opened to administrative use. Not 

decommissioned. 

Commercial thinning – Thinning where the trees being removed are large enough to have economic 

value and can be sold to a timber purchaser. 

Community - A group of species of plants or animals living and interacting at a particular time and place; 

a group of people residing in the same place under the same government. 

Compaction – Making soil hard and dense, decreasing its ability to support vegetation because the soil 

can hold less water and air and because roots have trouble penetrating the soil. 

Conifer - A tree that produces cones, such as a pine, spruce, or fir tree. 

Consultation – A process required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act whereby federal agencies 

proposing activities in a listed species habitat confer with governing agencies about the impacts of the 

activity on the species. Consultation may be informal, and thus advisory, or formal, and thus binding. 

Connectivity (of habitats) - The arrangement of habitats that allows organisms and ecological processes 

to move across the landscape; patches of similar habitats are either close together or linked by 

corridors of appropriate vegetation. The opposite of fragmentation. 

Corridor - Elements of the landscape that connect similar areas. Streamside vegetation may create a 

corridor of willows and hardwoods between meadows where wildlife feed. 

Cover - Any feature that conceals wildlife or fish, sometimes referred to as "hiding cover." Cover may 

be dead or live vegetation, boulders, or undercut stream banks. Animals use cover to escape from 

predators, rest, or feed. 

Cover deficient area – Any forage area greater than 600 feet from the defined forage: cover edge. 

Cover forage ratio - The ratio of hiding cover to foraging areas for wildlife species. Necessary in 

determining the effectiveness of the habitat an area provides. 

Critical habitat - Areas designated for the survival and recovery of federally listed threatened or 

endangered species. 

Crown - The part of a tree containing life foliage; treetops. 
Glossary 

Crown fire – A forest fire that advances through the crown fuel layer normally in direct conjunction with 

a surface fire. 

Cultural resource - The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people in the past (at least 50 

years old); this can be prehistoric or historical. 

Cumulative effects - Effects on the environment that result from the incremental impacts of an action 

when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Cumulative effects can result from 

individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 

D 

DBH (diameter at breast height) - The diameter of a tree 4 1/2 feet above the ground measured on the uphill 

side of the tree. 

Danger Tree – A hazard tree is considered to be any tree that is likely to fail within one and one-half tree 

lengths of an open class 3 or higher system road, any road designated for hauling, developed recreation or 

administrative site." 

DecAid – An advisory tool that provides guidance to land managers evaluating effects of forest conditions 

and existing or proposed management activities on organisms that use snags, downwood, and other wood 

decay elements. DecAid is a statistical summary of empirical data from published research on wildlife and 

deadwood. Data provided in DecAid allows the user to relate the abundance of deadwood habitat for both 

snags and logs to the frequency of occurrence of selected wildlife species that require dead wood habitat for 

some part of their life cycle. 

Decommission – Activity that results in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads to a more 

natural state. Removes the road segment from the Forest road inventory system. Decommissioning can 

involve: closing entrances; scarifying road surfaces, or decompacting (sub-soiling) to establish vegetation 

and reduce run-off.; seeding to control erosion; partial to full restoration of stream channel by removing 

culverts and fills; and removing unstable portions of embankments. 

Deforestation – The removal of a forest stand where the land is put to a non-forest use. 

Desired future condition - A portrayal of the land or resource conditions that are expected to result if 

goals and objectives are fully achieved. 

Direct effects – Impacts on the environment that are caused by the action and occur at the same time and 

place. 

Disturbance - Any event, such as flood, wildfire, insect infestations, or timber harvest, that alters the 

structure, composition, or functions of terrestrial or aquatic habitats. 

Diversity - The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and species within 

the area covered by a land and resource management plan. 

Duff – Organic matter in various stages of decomposition on the floor of the forest. 

E 

Early forest succession - The stage of vegetation or wildlife that inhabits an area immediately following 

removal or destruction of vegetation. For instance, grasses may be the first plants to grow in an area that 

was burned. 

Eastside Screens – Regional Foresters’s Forest Plan Amendment (June 1995) designed to maintain options 

for old growth related and other species. 
Glossary 

Ecological approach - An approach to natural resource management that considers the relationships among 

all organisms, including humans, and their environment. 

Ecology - The interrelationships of living things to one another and their environment or the study of these 

interrelationships. From the Greek Oikos meaning "house" or "place to live." 

Ecological integrity – In general, ecological or biological integrity refers to the elements of biodiversity and 

the functions that link them together and sustain the entire system; the quality of being complete; a sense of 

wholeness. Absolute measures of integrity do not exist. Proxies provide useful measures to estimate the 

integrity of major ecosystem components (forestland, rangeland, aquatic, and hydrologic). Estimating these 

integrity components in a relative sense across the project area helps to explain current conditions and to 

prioritize future management. Thus areas of high integrity would represent areas where ecological functions 

and processes are better represented and functioning than areas rated as low integrity. 

Ecosystem - A complete interacting system of living organisms and the land and water that make up their 

environment; the home places of all living things, including humans. 

Ecosystem health – A condition where the parts and functions of an ecosystem are sustained over time and 

where the system’s capacity for self-repair is maintained, such that goals for uses, values, and services of the 

ecosystem are met. 

Ecosystem-based management – Scientifically based land and resource management that integrates 

ecological capabilities with social values and economic relationships, to produce, restore, or sustain 

ecosystem integrity and desired conditions, uses, products, values, and services over the long term. 

Edge (habitat) - The margin where two or more vegetation patches meet, such as a meadow opening next to 

a mature forest stand or a ponderosa pine stand next to an aspen stand. 

Endangered species - A plant or animal that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. Endangered species are identified by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance 

with the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

Environmental analysis - An analysis of alternative actions and their predictable long and short-term 

environmental effects. Environmental analyses include physical, biological, social, and economic factors. 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - A statement of environmental effects of a proposed action and 

alternatives. The Draft EIS is released to other agencies and the public for comment and review. A Final 

EIS is issued after consideration of Public and agency comments. A Record of Decision (ROD) is based on 

the information and analysis in the Final EIS. 

Ephemeral streams - Streams that flow only as the direct result of rainfall or snowmelt. They have no 

permanent flow. 

Erosion - The wearing away of the land surface by wind, water, ice, gravity, or other geological activities. 

Erosion can be intensified by human activities (such as road building) that may reduce the stability of soils 

or slopes. 

ETA – Equivalent Treatment Acres –is a watershed cumulative effects model that calculates the acres of 

created openings in forested areas based on harvest prescription or other mortality. It is used as an index 

to represent the potential for increased water yield and peak flows as a consequence of reducing water 

loss by interception and evapotranspiration, or by changing snow distribution and melt rates. 

Even-aged management - Method of forest management in which trees, usually the same species, are 

maintained at the same age and size and harvested all at once so a new stand may grow. 

Even-aged stands – Stands of trees of approximately the same age. Silvicultural methods that generate 

even-aged stands include clearcutting, shelterwood, and seed tree. 
Glossary 

Exotic - A plant or animal species introduced from a distant area; not native to the area, often particularly 

aggressive. 

Extirpation – Localized disappearance of a species from an area. 

F 

Fauna - The vertebrate and invertebrate animals of an area or region. 

Fine fuels – Fast-drying fuels, generally with a comparatively high surface area-to-volume ratio, which are 

less than 1⁄4 -inch in diameter and have a time lag of one hour or less. These fuels readily ignite and are 

rapidly consumed by fire when dry. 

Fire behavior – How fire reacts to the influences of fuel, weather, and topography. 

Fire cycle (mean fire interval) - The average time between fires in a given area. 

Fire-dependent - Forests, grasslands, and other ecosystems historically composed of species that evolved 

with and are maintained by periodic fire. 

Fire-intolerant – Species of plants that do not grow well or die from the effects of too much fire. Generally 

these are shade-tolerant species. 

Fire regimes – The ecological effects of frequency, intensity, extent, season, and synergistic interactions 

with other disturbances, such as insects and disease, classified into generalized levels of fire severity. 

Fire severity or Burn severity –Severity describes the fire-caused damage to the soil. The severity 

ratings (high, moderate, and low) are based on standards in Forest Service Handbook 2509.13. 

Fire-tolerant – Species of plants that can withstand certain frequency and intensity of fire. Generally these 

are shade–intolerant species. 

First-order stream – Stream channel with no tributaries. 

Fisheries habitat - Streams, lakes, and reservoirs that support fish or have the potential for supporting fish. 

Flood plain - The portion of a river valley or level lowland next to streams which is covered with water 

when the river or stream overflows its bank at flood stage. 

Flora - The vegetation of an area. 

Fluvial individuals – are those which emigrate as juveniles from spawning tributaries, maturing and 

overwintering in large rivers. 

Forage - Vegetation (both woody and non-woody) eaten by animals, especially big game and livestock. 

Forage area – All areas that do not meet the definition of either satisfactory cover or marginal cover. 

Forage deficient area – Any total cover farther than 600 feet from the defined forage: cover edge. 

Forb - A broadleaf plant that has little or no woody material in it, including plants commonly called 

wildflowers and weeds. 

Foreground - The part of a scene or landscape that is nearest the viewer. 

Forest health – The condition in which forest ecosystems sustain their complexity, diversity, resiliency, and 

productivity while providing for human needs and values. It is a useful way to communicate about the 

current condition of the forest, especially with regard to resiliency, a part of forest health that describes the 

ability of the ecosystem to respond to disturbances. Forest health and resiliency can be described, in part, by 

species composition, density, and structure. 
Glossary 

Forest plan (Umatilla Land and Resource Management Plan) – A document that guides natural resource 

management and establishes standards and guidelines for a National Forest; required by the National Forest 

Management Act. 

Forest road or trail - A road or trail wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the National 

Forest System that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, administration, and 

utilization of the National Forest System and the use and development of its resources. 

Forest transportation atlas – A display of the system of roads, trails, and airfields of an administrative 

unit. 

Fragmentation - The breakup of a large land area (such as a forest) into smaller patches that are isolated 

from the original area. Fragmentation can occur naturally (as by stand-replacing wildfire) or from human 

activities (such as road building). 

Fuel(s) – Combustible material that includes vegetation such as grass, leaves, ground litter, plants, shrubs, 

and trees. Includes both living plants; dead, woody vegetative materials; and other vegetative materials 

which are capable of burning. 

Fuel break – A zone in which fuel quantity has been reduced or altered to provide a position for 

suppression forces to make a stand against a wildfire. Fuel breaks are designated or constructed before the 

outbreak of a fire. Fuel breaks may consist of one or a combination of the following: natural barriers, 

constructed fuel breaks, man-made barriers. 

Fuel ladder - Shrubs, small trees, and low growing branches that allow fire to move from the ground to the 

tree crowns. 

Fuel load – The dry weight of combustible materials per unit area; usually expressed as tons per acre. 

Fuels management - The treatment of fuels that would otherwise interfere with effective fire management 

or control. For instance, prescribed fire can reduce the amount of fuels that accumulate on the forest floor 

before the fuels become so heavy that a natural wildfirein the area would be explosive and impossible to 

control. 

Function - The processes within an ecosystem through which the elements interact, such as succession, the 

food chain, fire, weather, and the hydrologic cycle. 

G 

Geographic Information System (GIS) – Computer software that provides database and spatial analytic 

capabilities. 

Geomorphic processes - Processes that change the form of the earth, such as volcanic activity, running 

water, and glacial action. 

Geomorphology - The geologic study of the shape and evolution of the earth's landforms. 

Ground fire - A fire that burns along the forest floor and does not affect trees with thick bark or high 

crowns. 

Ground fuels – All combustible materials below the surface litter layer. These fuels may be partially 

decomposed, such as forest soil organic layers (duff), dead moss and lichen layers, punky wood and deep 

organic layers (peat), or may be living plant material, such as tree and shrub roots. 

Groundwater - Water that sinks into the soil and is stored in slowly flowing and slowly renewed 

underground reservoirs called aquifers. 

H 
Glossary 

Habitat - The place where a plant or animal finds what it needs to survive, either year-round or seasonally. 

Habitat capability - The ability of a habitat to support a given species of wildlife. 

Habitat diversity - The variety of different types of wildlife habitat within a given area. 

Habitat type - A way of defining land areas potentially capable of producing similar plant communities at 

climax. In Forestry, habitat types are named for the predominant climax tree species. For example,the 

Pinus Ponderosa habitat type series is habitat that typically supports climax Ponderosa Pine. A number of 

other habitat features can be identified using habitat types, such as aspect, elevation, climate, and use by 

wildlife species. 

Harvest – (1) Felling and removal of trees from the forest; (2) removal of game animals or fish from a 

population, typically by hunting or fishing. 

Headwaters – Beginning of a watershed; unbranched tributaries of a stream. 

Hiding area/cover - Vegetation capable of hiding 90 percent of an adult elk or deer from a human's view at 

a distance of 200 feet or less. 

Historical Range of Variability (HRV) – The natural fluctuation of components of healthy ecosystems 

over time. In this EIS, it refers to the range of conditions and processes that are likely to have occurred prior 

to settlement of the project area by people of European descent (approximately the mid 1800s), which 

would have varied within certain limits over time. 

Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) – An area of land upstream from a specific point on a stream (designated as 

the mouth) that defines a hydrologic boundary and includes all of the source areas that could contribute 

surface water runoff directly and indirectly to the designated outlet point. 

Hydrology - The study of water on the surface of the land, in the soil and underlying rocks, and in the 

atmosphere. 

I 

Indicator species - A plant or animal species that is presumed to be sensitive to habitat change. Its presence 

indicates specific habitat conditions are also present. Population changes in an indicator 

species can indicate the effects of land management activities. 

Indirect effects – Impacts on the environment that are caused by the action and are later in time or farther 

removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. 

Individual tree selection - The removal of certain size and age classes of individual trees from a stand. 

Regeneration is allowed to naturally occur and an uneven-aged stand is maintained. 

Instream flow - The natural flow of water in a stream channel. 

Intensity (fire intensity) - The rate of heat release for an entire fire at a specific time. 

Interdisciplinary team (IDT) - A team of individuals with skills from different disciplines that focuses on 

the same task or project, referred to as ID Team. 

Intermediate harvest - The removal of trees from a stand between the time of its formation and harvest 

cutting. Thinning, liberation, and improvement cuts are all types of intermediate harvest. Sometimes 

salvage harvests and sanitation harvests are termed intermediate. 
Glossary 

Intermittent stream - A stream that flows only at certain times of the year when it receives water from 

streams or some surface source, such as melting snow. 

Irretrievable – A category of impacts that applies to losses of production or commitment of renewable 

natural resources. 

Irreversible – A category of impacts that applies to non-renewable resources, such as minerals and 

archaeological sites. Losses of these resources cannot be reversed. Irreversible effects can also refer to 

effects of actions on resources that can be renewed only after a very long period of time, such as the loss of 

soil productivity. 

Issue – A matter of controversy, dispute, or general concern over resource management activities or land 

uses. To be considered a “significant “ EIS issue, it must be well defined, relevant to the proposed action, 

and within the ability of the agency to address through alternative management strategies. 

L 

Ladder fuels – Fuels which provide vertical continuity between strata. Fire is able to carry from the surface 

fuels by convection into the crowns with relative ease. 

Landing - Any place where cut timber is collected before further transport from the timber sale area. 

Landscape - All the natural features such as grasslands, hills, forest, and water, which distinguish one part 

of the earth's surface from another; usually that portion of land which the eye can comprehend in a single 

view, including all its natural characteristics. 

Late forest succession - The stage of forest succession in which most of the trees are mature or overmature. 

Lethal fire (stand replacement) - Fire that kills upwards of 70 percent of overstory trees. 

Litter (forest litter) - The freshly fallen or only slightly decomposed plant material on the forest floor. This 

layer includes foliage, bark fragments, twigs, flowers, and fruit. 

M 

Mainstem – The main channel of the river in a river basin, as opposed to the streams and smaller rivers that 

feed into it. 

Management action - Any activity undertaken as part of the administration of the National Forest. 

Management area – An aggregation of capability areas that have a common management direction, and 

may be dispersed over the Forest. 

Marginal cover – A stand of coniferous trees 10 or more feet tall with an average canopy closure equal to 

or more than 40 percent but less than 70 percent and generally capable of obscuring at least 90 percent of a 

standing elk from the view of humans at a distance of 200 feet.. 

Merchantable timber - Timber that can be bought or sold. 

Middleground – A term used in visual management to describe the portions of a view extending from the 

foreground zone out to 3 to 5 miles from the observer. 

MIS (management indicator species) - A wildlife species selected by a land management agency to 

indicate the health of the ecosystem in which it lives and, consequently, the effects of forest management 

activities on that ecosystem (see "indicator species"). 

Mitigation - Measures designed to counteract environmental impacts or make impacts less severe. 

Mixed stand - A stand consisting of two or more tree species. 

MBF - Thousand Board Feet (see board foot). 
Glossary 

MMBF - Million Board Feet (see board foot). 

Modification- Human activity may dominate the characteristic landscape, but at some time follow naturally 

established form, line, color, and texture. It should appear as a natural occurrence when viewed in 

foreground or middle ground. 

Monitoring - A process of collecting information to evaluate whether or not objectives of a project and its 

mitigation activities are being realized. 

Mortality - The loss of a population due to all lethal causes, often referring to the rate of death of a species 

in a given population or community. 

Mosaic - A pattern of vegetation in which two or more kinds of plant communities are interspersed in 

patches, such as a meadow between stands of old growth. 

Motor Vehicle – Any vehicle which is self propelled, other than: (1) a vehicle operated on rails, and (2) 

Any wheelchair or mobility device, including one that is battery-powered, that is designed solely for use by 

a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, and that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area. 

Multiple-use management – The management of public lands and their various resource values so they are 

used in the combination that best meets the present and future needs of the American people. 

Mycorrhizae - The symbiotic relationship between certain fungi and the roots of certain plants; important 

for plants to take nutrients from soil. 

N 

National Forest System Road - A forest road other than a road which has been authorized by a legally 

documented right-of-way held by a State, county, or other local public road authority. 

Natural regeneration – Reforestation of a site by natural seeding from surrounding trees. Natural 

regeneration may or may not be preceded by site preparation. 

Natural resource - Water, soil, wild plants and animals, air, minerals, nutrients, and other resources 

produced by the earth's natural processes. 

NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) - An act of Congress passed in 1969 declaring a national 

policy to encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between people and their environment. Section 102 

of the NEPA requires a statement of possible environmental effects be released to 

the public and other agencies for review and comment. 

NFMA (National Forest Management Act) - A law passed in 1976 requiring the preparation of Regional 

Guides and Forest Plans and regulations to guide that development. 

No Action alternative - The most likely condition expected to exist in the future if management practices 

continue unchanged.

Non-Commercial Thinning - – Thinning where trees are too small to be sold for conventional products. 

Non-game – Term for wild animals not commonly harvested for recreation, fur or subsistence. 

Non-point source pollution - Pollution whose source is not specific in location. The sources of the 

discharge are dispersed, not well defined, or constant. Examples include sediments from logging activity 

and runoff with chemicals from agricultural lands. 

Non-system road/unclassified road – Any continuous set of wheel tracks that exist for more than one 

season, and does not belong to the transportation system. 
Glossary 

Noxious weed - A weed that causes disease or has other adverse effects on man or his environment and, 

therefore, is detrimental to public health and the agriculture and commerce of the United States. Noxious 

weeds are often aggressive and difficult to manage and non-native, new, or not common to the United 

States. 

Nutrient cycle - Ecological processes in which nutrients and elements such as carbon, phosphorous, 

nitrogen, calcium, and others circulate among animals, plants, soils, and air. 

O 

Old growth - Old forests often containing several canopy layers, variety in tree sizes and species, decadent 

old trees, and standing and dead woody material. 

Ongoing actions – Actions that have been implemented, or have contracts awarded or permits issued. 

Open system road – Classified system road, open to public use.

Optimum cover – Any total cover within 600 feet of the defined forage:cover edge. 

Optimum forage – Forage area within 600 feet of the defined forage: cover edge. 

Overmature timber - Trees that have attained full development, particularly in height, and are declining in 

vigor, health, and soundness. 

Overstory - The upper canopy layer; the plants below comprise the understory. 

P 

PACFISH – Interim strategies for managing Pacific anadromous fish-producing watersheds in eastern 

Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California. 

Park-like structure - Stands with large scattered trees, few or no understory trees, and open growing 

conditions, usually maintained by frequent ground fires. 

Partial Retention- Human activity may dominate the characteristic landscape, but must at some time 

follow naturally established form, line, color, and texture. It should remain visibly subordinate when viewed 

in foreground or middle ground. 

Patch - An area of uniform vegetation that differs in structure and composition from what surrounds it. 

Perennial stream - A stream that flows throughout the year from its source to mouth. 

Plant Association - A taxonomic unit in a potential vegetation classification system. A plant association 

consists of plant communities with similar form and structure and plant composition; commonly it is a 

climax community. 

Plant Association Group (PAG)—Groupings of plant associations (and other taxonomic units classified 

as potential vegetation types), representing similar ecological environments as characterized by 

temperature and moisture regimes. 

Plant Community Type (PCT) - In a potential vegetation classification context, plant community type is 

a taxonomic unit with no particular successional status implied. 

Predator - An animal that captures and feeds on parts or all of an organism of another species. 

Preferred alternative – The alternative identified in a draft environmental impact statement which has been 

initially selected by the agency as the most acceptable resolution to the problems identified in the purpose 

and need. 

Prescribed fire - The intentional use of fire under specified conditions to achieve specific management 

objectives. 
Glossary 

Prescription – Measurable criteria that define conditions under which a prescribed fire may be ignited, 

guide selection of appropriate management responses, and indicate other required actions. Prescription 

criteria may include safety, economic, public health, and environmental, geographic, administrative, social, 

or legal considerations. 

Present net value (PNV) [also called present net worth] - The measure of the economic value of a project 

when costs and revenues occur at different times. Future revenues and costs are "discounted " to the present 

by an interest rate that reflects the changing value of a dollar over time. The assumption is that dollars today 

are more valuable than dollars in the future. PNV is used to compare project alternatives that have different 

cost and revenue flows. 

Public involvement - The use of appropriate procedures to inform the public, obtain early and continuing 

public participation, and consider the views of interested parties in planning and decision making. 

R 

Range of variability - The fluctuation, over time, in the population, size, and components of healthy 

ecosystems. 

Rangeland (range) - Land on which the principle natural plant cover is composed of native grasses, forbs, 

and shrubs that are valuable as forage for livestock and big game. 

Redd –Spawning nest made by salmon or steelhead in the gravel bed of a river. 

Reforestation - The restocking of an area with forest trees by either natural or artificial means such as 

planting. 

Regeneration - The process of establishing a new tree crop on previously harvested land. The term also 

refers to the young crop itself. 

Regeneration harvest - A silvicultural treatment intended to regenerate a stand of trees. Shelterwood and 

seed tree harvests are forms of regeneration treatments. 

Resident fish – Fish that spend their entire life in freshwater: examples include bull trout and westslope 

cutthroat trout. 

Resilient, resiliency - The capacity of a plant community or ecosystem to maintain or regain normal 

function and development following disturbance. 

Restoration (of ecosystems) - Actions taken to modify an ecosystem to achieve a desired, healthy, and 

functioning conditions and processes. Generally refers to the process of enabling the system to resume its 

resiliency to disturbances. 

Retention- Human activities are not evident to the casual forest visitor. 

Revegetation - Establishing or reestablishing desirable plants on a site where they are absent or in few 

numbers. Revegetation can be accomplished through natural or artificial reseeding or transplanting. 

Riparian area - The area along a watercourse or around a lake or pond. Area with distinctive soil and 

vegetation between a stream or other body of water and the adjacent upland; includes wetlands and those 

portions of floodplains and valley bottoms that support riparian vegetation. 

Riparian ecosystem - The ecosystems around or next to water areas that support unique vegetation and 

animal communities as a result of the influence of water. 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) – Portions of watershed where riparian-dependent 

resources receive primary emphasis, and management activities are subject to specific standards and 

guidelines. RHCAs include traditional riparian corridors, wetlands, intermittent headwater streams, and 
Glossary 

other areas where proper ecological functioning is crucial to maintenance of the stream's water, sediment, 

woody debris and nutrient delivery systems. 

Riparian Management Objectives (RMO) – Quantifiable measures of stream and stream-side conditions 

that define good anadromous fish habitat, and serve as indicators against which attainment, or progress 

toward attainment, of the goals will be measured. 

Road – A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as a trail. 

Runoff - The portion of precipitation that flows over the land surface or in open channels. 

S 

Salvage – Salvage timber harvest is defined as "the removal of dead trees or trees damaged or dying 

because of injurious agents other than competition, to recover economic value that would otherwise be 

lost" (Helms 1998). When a fire front passes a tree, some of the resulting heat is transferred to the 

vascular cambium, foliage and roots. If the temperatures are high enough and the flame residence time is 

long enough, these tissues are killed. When a high proportion of the cambium, crown or fine roots are 

killed, the whole tree dies. Lower temperatures or shorter residence times will injure tissues rather than 

kill them (Dickinson and Johnson 2001). 

Satisfactory cover – A stand of coniferous trees 40 or more feet tall with an average canopy closure equal 

to or more than 70 percent. Umatilla Forest Plan defines it as cover used by animals to ameliorate the effect 

of weather. 

Scoping - The early stages of preparation of an environmental analysis to determine public opinion, receive 

comments and suggestions, and determine issues during the environmental analysis process. It may involve 

public meetings, telephone conversations, or letters. 

Seasonally Closed Road – Classified system road closed to public use for part of the year. 

Sediment – Solid materials, both mineral and organic, in suspension or transported by water, gravity, ice, or 

air; may be moved and deposited away from their original position and eventually will settle to the bottom. 

Sensitive species - A sensitive species is one that has been designated by the Regional Forester because of 

concern for population viability. Indications for concern include significant current or predicted downward 

trends in population numbers or density or in habitat capability that would reduce an existing species 

distribution. 

Seral - Refers to the sequence of transitional plant communities during succession. Early seral refers to 

plants that are present soon after a disturbance or at the beginning of a new successional process (such as 

seedling or sapling growth stages in a forest); mid-seral in a forest would refer to pole or medium saw 

timber growth stages; late or old seral refers to plants present during a later stage of plant community 

succession (such as mature or old forest stages). 

Shade-intolerant species - Species of plants that do not grow well in the shade of others. They are species 

that develop on a site soon after a major disturbance. Ponderosa pine and western larch are 

shade-intolerant tree species. 

Shade-tolerant species - Species of plants that grow well in the shade of others. Grand fir is a relatively 

shade-tolerant tree species. 

Shelterwood harvest - A regeneration cut designed to establish a new crop of trees under the protection of 

the old. This type of harvest typically occurs in stages with a second entry following the first after 

regeneration has occurred. 

Silvicultural system - The cultivation of forests; the result is a forest of a distinct form. Silvicultural 

systems are classified according to harvest and regeneration methods and the type of forest that results. 
Glossary 

Silviculture - The practice of manipulating the establishment, composition, structure, growth, and rate of 

succession of forests to accomplish specific objectives. 

Site potential – A measure of resource availability based on interactions among soils, climate, hydrology, 

and vegetation. 

Site preparation - The general term for removing unwanted vegetation, slash, roots, and stones from a site 

before reforestation. Naturally-occurring wildfire as well as prescribed fire can prepare asite for natural 

regeneration. 

Slash - The residue left on the ground after timber cutting or after a storm, fire, or other event. Slash 

includes unused logs, uprooted stumps, broken or uprooted stems, branches, bark, etc. 

Smolt – Young salmon or trout migrating to the ocean and undergoing biological changes to enable them to 

move from freshwater streams to saltwater. 

Snag - A standing dead tree. 

Soil compaction - The reduction of soil volume. For instance, the weight of heavy equipment on soils can 

compact the soil and thereby change it in some ways, such as in its ability to absorb water. 

Soil productivity - The capacity of a soil to produce a specific crop. Productivity depends on adequate 

moisture and soil nutrients as well as favorable climate. 

Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) – An inventory of the soil resource based on landform, vegetative 

characteristics, soil characteristics, and management potentials. 

Spawning habitat – Areas used by adult fish for laying and fertilizing eggs. 

Special use permit - A permit issued to an individual or group by the USDA Forest Service for use of 

National Forest land for a special purpose. Examples might be a special use permit for the Boy Scout 

Jamboree or a mountain bike race. 

Species – A population or series of populations of organisms that can interbreed freely with each other but 

not with members of other species. 

Stability – Ability of a living system to withstand or recover from externally imposed changes or stresses. 

Stand - A group of trees in a specific area that are sufficiently alike in composition, age, arrangement, and 

condition so as to be distinguishable from the forest in adjoining areas. 

Stand composition – The vegetative species that make up the stand. 

Stand density – Refers to the number of trees growing in a given area, usually expressed in trees per acre. 

Stand structure –The mix and distribution of tree sizes, layers, and ages in a forest. Some stands are all 

one size (single-story), some are two-story, and some are a mix of trees of different ages and sizes (multistory). 

Standards and guidelines - Requirements found in a Forest Plan which impose limits on natural resource 

management activities, generally for environmental protection. 

Stream morphology – The study of the form and structure of streams. 

Strongholds (fish) – Watersheds that have the following characteristics: (1) presence of all major lifehistory forms (for example, resident, fluvial, and adfluvial) that historically occurred within the watershed; 

(2) numbers are stable or increasing, and the local population is likely to be at half or more of its historical 

size or density; (3) the population or metapopulation within the watershed, or within a larger region of 

which the watershed is a part, probably contains at least 5,000 individuals or 500 adults. 
Glossary 

Succession – The process by which a series of different plant communities successively occupy and 

replace each other over time in a particular ecosystem or landscape location following a disturbance 

event. Succession refers to the process of development of an ecosystem over time. The different stages in 

succession are often referred to as seral stages (see "seral"). 

Successional stage - A stage of development of a plant community as it moves from bare ground to climax. 

The grass-forb stage of succession precedes the woody shrub stage (see "seral"). 

Suitability - The appropriateness of certain resource management practices for an area of land. Suitability 

can be determined by environmental and economic analysis of management practices. 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) - A supplementary statement of environmental 

effects of a proposed action and alternatives. A SEIS is prepared when new relevant information comes to 

light after the issuance of a Final EIS. The Draft SEIS is released to other agencies and the public for 

comment and review. A Final SEIS is issued after consideration of Public and agency comments. A Record 

of Decision (ROD) is based on the information and analysis in the Final SEIS. 

Sustainability – (1) Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the abilities of future 

generations to meet their needs; emphasizing and maintaining the underlying ecological processes that 

ensure long-term productivity of goods, services, and values without impairing productivity of the land. (2) 

In commodity production, refers to the yield of a natural resource that can be produced continually at a 

given intensity of management. 

T 

Thermal cover - Cover used by animals against weather. For example, thermal cover for elk can be found 

in a stand of coniferous trees at least 40 feet tall with a crown closure of at least 70 percent. 

Thinning - An intermediate cutting method designed to reduce stand density in order to improve growth 

of the residual trees, enhance forest health, or recover potential mortality resulting from inter-tree 

competition. 

Threatened species - Those plant or animal species likely to become endangered throughout all or a 

specific portion of their range within the foreseeable future as designated by the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

Tiering – In an EIS, refers to incorporating by reference the analyses in an EIS of a broader scope. For 

example, a Forest Service project-level EIS could tier to the analysis in a Forest Plan EIS; a Forest Plan EIS 

could tier to a Regional Guide EIS. 

Total cover – All coniferous tree cover 10 or more feet tall and with a canopy closure of equal to or greater 

than 40 percent (i.e. satisfactory cover plus marginal cover), 

Tractor logging - A logging method that uses tractors to carry or drag logs from the stump to a landing. 

Trail – A route 50 inches or less in width or a route over 50 inches wide that is identified and managed as a 

trail. 

U 

Unauthorized road or trail – A road or trail that is not a forest road or trail or a temporary road or trail and 

that is not included in a forest transportation atlas. 

Unauthorized or Temporary Road – Formerly also referred to as unclassified road. These are defined as 

Roads on National Forest System lands that are not managed as part of the forest transportation system, such 

as unplanned roads, abandoned traveled way, and off-road vehicle track that have not been designated and 

managed as a trail; and those roads that were once under permit or other authorization and were not 
Glossary 

decommissioned upon the termination of the authorization. Roads not authorized or necessary for long-term 

resource management. 

Underburn - A burn by a surface fire that can consume ground vegetation and ladder fuels. 

Understory - The trees and woody shrubs growing beneath the overstory. 

Uneven-aged management - Method of forest management in which trees of different species in a given 

stand are maintained at many ages and sizes to permit continuous natural regeneration. Selective cutting is 

one example of an uneven-aged management method. 

Uneven-aged stand – Stand of trees in which there are considerable differences in the ages of individual 

trees. 

Unsuitable lands - Forest land that is not managed for timber production. Reasons may be matters of 

policy, ecology, technology, silviculture, or economics. 

V 

Vegetation management - Activities designed primarily to promote the health of forest vegetation for 

multiple-use purposes. 

Vertical diversity - The diversity in a stand that results from the different layers or tiers of vegetation. 

Viable population - The number of individuals of a species sufficient to ensure the long-term existence of 

the species in natural, self-sustaining populations that are adequately distributed throughout 

their range. 

Visual quality objective (VQO) - A set of measurable goals for the management of forest visual resources. 

W 

Water yield - The runoff from a watershed including groundwater outflow. 

Watershed - The entire region drained by a waterway (or into a lake or reservoir). More specifically, a 

watershed is an area of land above a given point on a stream that contributes water to the stream flow at that 

point. 

Wetlands - Areas that are permanently wet or intermittently covered with water. Wetlands generally 

include swamps, bogs, seeps, wet meadows, and natural ponds. 

Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) – Includes those areas of resident human population at imminent risk 

from wildfire, and human developments having special significance. These areas may include critical 

communication sites, municipal watershed, high voltage transmission lines, observatories, church camps, 

scout camps, research facilities, and other structures that if destroyed by fire, would result in hardships to 

communities. These areas encompass not only the sites themselves, but also the continuous slopes and fuels 

that lead directly to the sites, regardless of the distance involved. 

Wildfire - A human or naturally caused wildland fire that does not meet land management objectives. 

Wildlife habitat diversity - The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and 

species within a specific area. 

Windthrow - Trees blown over by the wind.

Winter range - That portion of big game's range where animals congregate for the winter. 

X, Y, Z 

Yarding – Hauling timber from the stump to a collection point. 

INDEX OF TERMS USED

INDEX OF TERMS USED 

B 

basal area, 1-5, 2-2, 2-8, 3-73, 4-37, 1, 18 

burning, iii, 1-5, 2-4, 2-7, 2-16, 2-19, 2-21, 3-56, 3-90, 4-1, 

4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-10, 4-57, 4-58, 4-67, 4-81, 4-90, 4-101, 

4-118, 4-120, 4-122, 4-123, 4-125, 7, 21 

C 

canopy, i, ii, viii, x, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-8, 

2-23, 3-51, 3-52, 3-54, 3-58, 3-66, 3-67, 3-73, 3-76, 3-

77, 3-82, 3-89, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-14, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-31, 

4-36, 4-37, 4-39, 4-40, 4-46, 4-56, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-

67, 4-74, 4-79, 4-80, 4-82, 4-97, 4-99, 4-103, 4-106, 4-

112, 4-125, 9, 11, 13, 15 

canopy bulk density, 1-5, 2-2, 2-23, 3-52, 3-58

Civil Rights, ii, 4-121

Clean Air Act, 1-13, 2-16, 4-120

Community Wildfire Protection Plan, i, 1-1 

Cover Type, 3-46, 3-47, 4-28, 4-31, 4-32, 4-39, 4-41

crown fire, ii, viii, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-22, 2-2, 2-3, 2-8, 2-

12, 2-22, 2-23, 3-52, 3-53, 3-57, 3-58, 3-71, 4-7, 4-46, 4-

60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-66, 4-81, 14, 21, 22, 

27, 28 

Crown Fire Potential, xvi, 3-52, 3-58, 4-61

CT. See Commericial Thinning 

Culvert, 2-6, 4-10, 4-11, 4-18

CWPP, i, ii, 1-1, 1-3 

D 

Dead and Down Woody Debris Removal, 1-5, 2-2, 2-4 

desired condition, ii, 1-3, 3-67, 3-77, 4-66

detrimental soil conditions, 3-5, 3-7, 4-2 

Disease, 3-51

drain, 2-17, 3-10, 3-14

DSC. See Detrimental Soil Condition 

E 

Eastside Screens, xviii, 1-11, 2-20, 3-65, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-

49, 4-83, 4, 9 

egress, ii, iv, v, 1-3, 1-4, 1-6, 1-17, 1-18, 2-6, 2-8, 3-89, 4-99

Endangered Species Act, 1-10, 1-13, 3-24, 3-25, 3-78, 4-88, 

4-120, 1, 2, 3, 5, 15 

Environmental Justice, 4-122

Equivalent Treatment Acre, xv, 1-22, 1-23, 3-8, 4-12

ESA. See Endangered Species Act 

ETA. See Equivalent Treatment Acre 

F 

fire behavior, ii, iv, v, 1-3, 1-4, 1-6, 1-17, 1-18, 1-22, 1-23, 

2-8, 2-12, 3-52, 3-53, 3-56, 3-58, 3-88, 4-61, 4-62, 4-64, 

4-65, 4-72, 10, 15, 26, 27, 28 

Fire Behavior, 3-56, 3-57

Fire Regime, xv, 3-53, 3-54, 3-55, 3-56, 3-89, 4-72, 4-77, 4-

124, 4-125, 11, 15 

Fire Regimes, xv, 3-52, 3-53, 3-56, 26 

Forest Plan Amendment, vi, 2-7, 2-8, 2-13, 3-64, 3-73, 4-

44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 4-51, 4-83, 4, 9, 24 

Forest Service, 1-1 

Forest Structural Stage, 3-49

fuel, ii, iii, iv, v, viii, ix, x, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-18, 1-

22, 2-1, 2-2, 2-4, 2-5, 2-15, 2-16, 2-21, 2-22, 2-23, 3-26, 

3-52, 3-53, 3-54, 3-56, 3-57, 3-58, 3-89, 3-92, 3-111, 4-

2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-12, 4-18, 4-22, 4-29, 4-33, 4-52, 4-53, 

4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-

66, 4-74, 4-76, 4-79, 4-83, 4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-97, 4-99, 

4-101, 4-102, 4-103, 4-104, 4-105, 4-106, 4-108, 4-109, 

4-110, 4-112, 4-113, 4-116, 4-118, 4-125, 2, 4, 6, 7, 13, 

19, 20, 26, 27, 28, 30 

G 

Grazing, 3-3, 3-4, 4-24, 4-66

H 

habitat effectiveness index, 3-1, 3-66, 6 

Health, ii, 1-1, 1-3, 2-22, 4-44, 4-122, 20 

Healthy Forest Restoration Act, 1-1 

HEI. See Habitat Effectiveness Index 

HFRA. See Healthy Forest Restoration Act 

Highway 204, ii, iii, iv, v, 1-2, 1-3, 1-5, 1-7, 1-8, 1-17, 2-4, 2-

15, 3-10, 3-86, 3-99, 3-102, 4-74, 4-77, 4-97, 4-98, 4-

100, 4-101

Historic Range of Variability, iv, 1-8, 4-31, 4-40, 4-47, 1 

HRV. See Historic Range of Variability 

I 

Infrastructure, ii, 1-3 

ingress, ii, iv, v, 1-3, 1-4, 1-6, 1-17, 1-18, 2-6, 2-8, 3-89, 4-

99

Insect, 3-51, 3-72, 4-28, 4-56

intensity, i, iii, v, viii, 1-3, 1-6, 1-11, 1-18, 1-23, 2-23, 3-5, 3-

54, 3-55, 3-56, 3-58, 4-1, 4-3, 4-4, 4-22, 4-23, 4-46, 4-54, 

4-58, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-65, 4-84, 4-90, 2, 6, 8, 15 

Invasive Plants, 2-18

issue, v, 1-16, 2-16, 3-98, 3-104, 4-35, 4-44, 4-74, 9, 10, 26 
L 

Ladder Fuel Reduction, 1-5, 2-2, 2-3, 4-123

Landings, 2-4, 2-18, 4-4, 4-89

LFR. See Ladder Fuel Reduction 

Lookingglass, i, iii, x, xiii, xiv, xv, xvii, 1-2, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-12, 

1-14, 1-22, 1-23, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 3-3, 3-7, 3-10, 

3-11, 3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-17, 3-18, 3-20, 3-21, 3-

22, 3-23, 3-25, 3-26, 3-28, 3-29, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 

3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 3-42, 3-43, 3-58, 3-65, 3-

70, 3-77, 3-82, 3-86, 3-91, 3-92, 3-93, 3-96, 3-98, 3-99, 

3-100, 3-101, 3-104, 3-105, 3-106, 3-107, 3-108, 3-109, 

4-8, 4-12, 4-14, 4-16, 4-20, 4-21, 4-23, 4-24, 4-78, 4-89, 

4-100, 4-105, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 4-110, 4-111, 

4-112, 4-123, 4-124, 4-125

M 

mastication, iii, 1-5, 2-4, 4-3, 4-9, 4-28, 4-67, 4-98, 4-102, 

17

N 

National Forest Management Act, 1-13, 4-50, 4-121, 1, 7, 

10

National Historic Preservation Act, 1-13, 4-120

NCT. See Non-Commercial Thinning 

North Fork Umatilla Wilderness, i, iii, ix, xii, 1-2, 1-3, 1-6, 1-

7, 1-22, 2-11, 2-12, 3-3, 3-30, 3-92, 3-93, 3-94, 3-96, 3-

97, 3-98, 3-99, 3-102, 3-104, 3-108, 3-109, 4-99, 4-100, 

4-101, 4-104, 4-105, 4-107, 4-109, 4-126

O 

Old Forest Multi Strata, 3-48, 3-49, 3-65

P 

Pacfish, i, iii, 1-1, 1-6, 1-7, 1-9, 1-11, 2-13, 2-14, 3-16, 3-29, 

3-38, 3-39, 4-7, 4-9, 4-10, 4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 4-17, 4-18, 

4-19, 4-21, 4-26, 4-46, 4-51, 4 

Potential Vegetation, 3-45, 3-46, 3-71, 1 

Potential vegetation group, xv, 4-26

potential wilderness areas, 3-92, 3-94, 3-95, 3-96, 3-97, 3-

98, 3-104, 3-108, 3-109, 4-100, 4-102, 4-113, 4-117

PVG. See Potential vegetation group 

PWAs. See Potential Wilderness Areas 

R 

Recreation, vi, xii, xiii, 1-11, 1-12, 1-19, 1-24, 2-20, 2-23, 3-

3, 3-4, 3-15, 3-82, 3-83, 3-84, 3-85, 3-88, 3-99, 3-100, 3-

101, 3-102, 3-103, 3-105, 3-106, 3-110, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 

4-102, 4-106, 4-112, 4-125, 5-2, 31 

Residences, i, xiii, 1-3, 3-88, 4-125

RHCA. See Riparian Habitat Conservation Area 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Area, 2-12, 4-6, 1, 12 

Risk, ii, 1-3, 3-26, 3-32, 3-35, 3-37, 3-39, 3-51, 4-16, 4-35, 

4-44, 4-69, 4-70, 18 

Roadless, i, iii, iv, v, ix, x, xii, xv, xvii, 1-2, 1-3, 1-6, 1-7, 1-13, 

1-14, 1-17, 1-18, 1-21, 1-22, 2-10, 2-12, 2-13, 3-23, 3-

26, 3-27, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-37, 3-39, 3-92, 3-93, 3-94, 

3-94, 3-95, 3-96, 3-97, 3-98, 3-100, 3-101, 3-103, 3-104, 

3-105, 3-108, 4-14, 4-74, 4-101, 4-102, 4-103, 4-104, 4-

106, 4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-

117, 4-118, 4-123, 4-124, 4-125, 5-2 

S 

Safety, ii, 1-3, 1-5, 3-83, 4-91, 4-122 

Scenic Integrity, xv, 3-86, 3-87, 3-92, 4-97, 4-98

Scenic Stability, 3-86, 3-88, 3-89, 3-90, 3-92, 4-96, 4-98, 4-

99

scoping, v, viii, 1-1, 1-16, 2-1, 2-7, 2-11, 2-12, 2-23, 3-15, 4-

74

severity, i, 1-3, 2-8, 3-39, 3-51, 3-53, 3-54, 3-55, 3-56, 4-2, 

4-4, 4-22, 4-23, 4-29, 4-30, 4-37, 4-46, 4-54, 4-58, 4-59, 

4-65, 4-66, 4-68, 4-72, 4-82, 3, 6, 4, 15, 19, 20, 21, 23, 

26, 27 

skid, ix, x, 2-2, 2-17, 2-18, 2-20, 3-5, 3-7, 4-1, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 

4-9, 4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-97, 4-103, 4-106, 4-112, 4-116, 

4-126

Slash, 2-4, 2-19, 2-21, 4-3, 4-4, 4-44, 4-102, 14 

Snag, xv, 1-10, 1-20, 2-19, 3-70, 3-71, 4-81, 14 

soil productivity, viii, 2-17, 4-2, 4-5, 4-126, 9 

Species Composition, 3-46, 3-54, 4-27, 4-31, 4-39, 4-40

Stand Initiation, 3-48, 3-49

Stem Exclusion, 3-48, 3-49

Subsoiling, 2-17

surface, i, ii, iv, v, viii, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-18, 1-22, 1-

23, 2-1, 2-5, 2-6, 2-8, 2-15, 2-17, 3-3, 3-4, 3-7, 3-10, 3-

11, 3-13, 3-14, 3-17, 3-52, 3-53, 3-56, 3-57, 3-58, 3-85, 

3-91, 4-1, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-7, 4-10, 4-11, 4-16, 4-18, 4-24, 

4-57, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-90, 4-125, 1, 2, 4, 5, 

6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 16 

Susceptibility, 3-51, 4-35, 4-44, 27 

T 

temperature, viii, 1-22, 3-8, 3-11, 3-12, 3-13, 3-15, 3-16, 3-

22, 3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-37, 3-43, 3-45, 3-101, 4-6, 4-7, 4-

8, 4-9, 4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-18, 4-21, 4-55, 4-56, 4-

111, 11, 3, 4 

temporary road, 1-5, 2-6, 2-17, 4-7, 4-11, 4-14, 4-15, 4-67, 

4-73, 4-76, 15 

Thinning, ii, 1-4, 1-5, 2-2, 2-3, 2-5, 2-8, 2-23, 3-3, 3-4, 4-3, 

4-7, 4-11, 4-13, 4-36, 4-54, 4-56, 4-61, 4-66, 4-90, 4-

116, 3, 8, 10, 15, 11, 20, 21 

Treaty, xi, 1-15, 4-89, 4-121

Tree Density, 3-50, 4-29, 4-30, 4-34, 4-40, 4-42

U 

Understory Reinitiation, 3-48, 3-49
Undeveloped, x, xii, xv, xvii, 1-22, 3-92, 3-97, 3-100, 3-102, 

3-108, 3-109, 4-99, 4-106, 4-113, 4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 

5-2 

unresolved conflicts, v, viii, x, 1-17, 2-1, 2-11, 2-12

W 

Walla Walla River, i, iii, ix, xv, 1-2, 1-3, 1-7, 1-12, 1-13, 1-

22, 1-23, 2-11, 3-7, 3-8, 3-11, 3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-

16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-26, 3-28, 3-29, 

3-31, 3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 3-42, 3-

43, 3-58, 3-61, 3-64, 3-65, 3-66, 3-70, 3-82, 3-85, 3-86, 

3-87, 3-93, 3-96, 3-98, 3-101, 3-102, 3-103, 3-104, 3-

105, 3-106, 3-107, 3-108, 3-109, 4-12, 4-21, 4-23, 4-100, 

4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 4-110, 4-111

Water, viii, xiv, 1-10, 1-13, 1-22, 1-23, 2-5, 2-15, 3-11, 3-

12, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-25, 3-35, 3-43, 3-101, 3-

103, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-12, 4-13, 4-15, 4-16, 4-18, 4-21, 4-

106, 4-111, 4-121, 4-122, 7, 10, 16, 2, 3, 4, 14, 22 

Wilderness, i, iv, v, viii, ix, xii, xv, xvii, xviii, 1-2, 1-3, 1-6, 1-

12, 1-17, 1-18, 1-21, 1-22, 2-12, 2-24, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-23, 

3-39, 3-65, 3-84, 3-85, 3-92, 3-93, 3-94, 3-95, 3-96, 3-

97, 3-98, 3-104, 3-107, 4-89, 4-100, 4-102, 4-103, 4-104, 

4-105, 4-107, 4-109, 4-117, 4-126, 5-2, 1, 11 

Wildland Urban Interface, i, 1-1, 4-64, 4-65, 16 

WUI. See Wildland Urban Interface 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Bibliography 

HYDROLOGY 

Ager, A. A.; Clifton, Caty. 2005, Software for calculating vegetation disturbance and recovery by using 

the equivalent clearcut area model. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-637. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 11.p. 

Belt, George H., Jay O’Laughlin, and Troy Merrill. 1992. Design of Forest Riparian Buffer Strips for the 

Protection of Water Quality: Analysis of Scientific Literature. Report No. 8. Idaho Forest, 

Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 34 p. 

Caldwell, Jean E., Kent Doughty, and Kate Sullivan. 1991. Evaluation of downstream Temperature 

Effects of Type 4/5 Waters, Timber-Fish-Wildlife Report No. WQ5-91-004. Prepared for T/F/W 

CMER Water quality Steering Committee and Washington Dept. of Natural Resources. 

Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment (FEMAT), 1993. 

Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team.

Grant, Gordon, et al. Effects of Forest Practices on Peak Flows and Consequent Channel Response: A 

State-of-Science Report for Western Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service, PNWGTR-760, May 2008. 

Gravelle, John A. and Timothy E. Link, 2007, Influence of Timber Harvesting on Headwater Peak Stream 

Temperatures in a Northern Idaho Watershed. Forestry Science 53(2):189-205. 

Helvey, J.D., Fowler, William B., 1995, Umatilla National Forest Barometer Watershed Program, Effects 

of timber harvest on the hydrology and climate of four small watersheds. 

Luce, C.H., Black, T. A., 1999, Effects of Traffic and Ditch Maintenance on Forest Road Sediment 

Production, in Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, 

March 25-29, 2001, Reno, Nevada. Pp. V67-V74. 

Moore, R.Dan, Spittlehouse, D.L., and Story, Anthony; Riparian Microclimate and Stream Temperature 

Response to Forest Harvesting: A Review; Journal of the American Water Resources 

Association, August 2005 

Reid, L.M. and T. Dunne. 1984, Sediment Production from Forest Road Surfaces. Water Resources 

Research 20(12): pg 1753-1761. 

Scherer, Rob. 2001. Effects of Changes in Forest Cover on Streamflow: A Literature Review. In 

Watershed Assessment in the Southern Interior of British Columbia: Workshop Proceedings, 

March 9-19m 2000. Penticton, British Columbia, Canada. Pg. 44-55. 

Stednick, John C., 1995. Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual water yield. Journal of 

Hydrology 176 (1996) 79-95. 

Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 1990. 

Umatilla National Forest. Unpublished Report. Best Management Practices monitoring 2001-2002. 
Bibliography 

Umatilla National Forest, Unpublished Report. School Fire Salvage Recovery Project FEIS, Milli, 

Oli, Sun Salvage Sales, PACFISH RHCA Implementation Monitoring. 

USDA Forest Service. 2012. FS-990a, National Best Management Practices for Water Quality 

Management on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical 

Guide. 

USDA Forest Service and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2007. Memorandum of 

Understanding to meet state and federal water quality rules and regulations. Unpublished 

document, U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region, Portland Oregon, 42 pages. 

USDA Forest Service, Implementation of Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing 

Watersheds in Easter Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California (PACFISH). 

1995 

FISHERIES

Ager, A. A.; Clifton, Caty. 2005, Software for calculating vegetation disturbance and recovery by using 

the equivalent clearcut area model. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-637. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 11.p. 

Belt, George H, Jay O’Laughlin, and Troy Merrill, 1992. Design of Forest Riparian Buffer Strips for the 

Protection of Water Quality, Analysis of the Scientific Literature. Report of the Idaho Forest, 

Wildlife, and Range Policy Analysis Group, University of Idaho, College of Forestry, Wildlife and 

Range Sciences, Moscow, Idaho. 35 pages. 

Beschta, Robert L.; Robert E. Bilby, George W. Brown, L. Blair Holtby, Terry D. Hofstra, 1987. Stream 

temperature and aquatic habitat: fisheries and forestry interactions. Chapter 6 in: Salo, Ernest O.; 

Terrance W. Cundy, editors; Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. University 

of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources Contribution No. 57, Seattle. p 191-232. 

Brown, George W., 1991, Forestry and water quality, Oregon State University Book Stores, Inc., 

Corvallis, OR. 142 p. 

Brown, Thomas, C; Binkley, Dan, 1994. Effect of Management on Water Quality in North American 

Forests. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-248, Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 29 pages. 

Cramer, Steven P. and Kenneth L. Witty, 1998. The Feasibility for reintroducing sockeye and coho 

salmon in the Grande Ronde Basin. Report for the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee and Nez 

Perce Fisheries Resource Management, by S.P. Cramer & Associates, Inc., 300 S.E. Arrow Creek 

Lane, Gresham, OR 97080. (503) 669-0133. www.spcramer.com. 

Dittmann, Rebecca, 2011. final North End BA. E-mail note to Tracii Hickman, Feb. 14, 2011. 

Dunham, Jason B. Amanda E. Rosenberger, Charlie H. Luce, and Bruce E. Rieman, 2007. Influences of 

Wildfire and Channel Reorganization on Spatial and Temporal Variation in Stream Temperature and 

the Distribution of Fish and Amphibians. Ecosystems 10: 335–346. 

Grant, Gordon, et al. Effects of Forest Practices on Peak Flows and Consequent Channel Response: A 

State-of-Science Report for Western Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service, PNW-GTR760, May 2008. 
Bibliography 

Groom Jeremiah D., Liz Dent, Lisa J. Madsen, Jennifer Fleuret, 2011. Response of western Oregon 

(USA) stream temperatures to contemporary forest management. Forest Ecology and Management. 

Forest Ecol. Manage. (2011), in press. 

Heath, Daniel D, Corwyn M. Bettles, Sara Jamieson, Iga Stasiak, And Margaret F. Docker, 2008. 

Genetic Differentiation among Sympatric Migratory and Resident Life History Forms of Rainbow 

Trout in British Columbia. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137:1268–1277, 2008 

Helvey, J.D., Fowler, William B., 1995, Umatilla National Forest Barometer Watershed Program, Effects 

of timber harvest on the hydrology and climate of four small watersheds. 

Howell, Phillip J., 2001. Effects of Wildfire and subsequent hydrologic events on fish distribution and 

avundance in tributaries of North Fork John Day River. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management, 26 (4), p 983-994. 

Lakel William A. III, Wallace M. Aust, M. Chad Bolding, C. Andrew Dolloff, Patrick Keyser, Robert 

Feldt, 2010. Sediment Trapping by Streamside Management Zones of Various Widths after Forest 

Harvest and Site Preparation. Forest Science 56(6):541–551. 

Neville, Helen, Jason Dunham, Amanda Rosenberger, John Umek, Brooke Nelson, 2009. Influences of 

Wildfire, Habitat Size, and Connectivity on Trout in Headwater Streams Revealed by Patterns of 

Genetic Diversity, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 138:1314–1327, 

Overton, C. Kerry; McIntyre, John D.; Armstrong, Robyn; Whitwell, Shari L.; Duncan, Kelly A. 1995. 

User’s guide to fish habitat: descriptions that represent natural conditions in the Salmon River 

Basin, Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-322. Ogden UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Research Station. 142 p. 

Pacfish, 1995. Decision Notice/Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact,Environmental 

Assessment for the interim strategies for managing anadromous fish_producing watersheds in 

Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California. USDA Forest Service, USDI 

Burelau of Land Management. 82 p + appendices. 

Page, Lawrence M and Burr, Brooks M. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north 

of Mexico. New York: Houghton Mifflin; 1991; ISBN: 0-395-91091-9. 432p. 

Pearson, Todd N., Stevan R. Phelps, Steven W Martin, Eric L. Bertrand, and Geoffrey A. McMichael, 

2007. Gene Flow between resident and anadromous rainbow trout in the Yakima Basin: Ecological 

and genetic evidence. Pages 56-64 in R.K. Schroeder and J.K. Hall, editors. Redband trout: 

resilience and challenge in a changing landscape. Oregon Chapter, American fisheries Society, 

Corvallis. 

Peterson, Stacia 2011. Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Hydrologic Effects Analysis, Umatilla National 

Forest. Walla Walla, WA. 24 p.

Rashin, Edward B.//Clishe, Casey J.//Loch, Andrew T.//Bell, Johanna M., 2006. Effectiveness of timber 

harvest practices for controlling sediment related water quality impacts. Journal of the American 

Water Resources Association, 42 (5). pp 1307-1327 

Charles C. Rhoades, Deborah Entwistle and Dana Butler 2011. The influence of wildfire extent and 

severity on streamwater chemistry, sediment and temperature following the Hayman Fire, Colorado. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire, 20, 430–442. 

Rieman, Bruce, Jim Clayton , 1997. Wildfire and native fish: issues of forest health and conservation of 

native species. Fisheries 22 (11), pp6-15 
Bibliography 

Rieman, Bruce E., Paul F. Hessburg, Charles Luce, And Matthew R. Dare, 2010. Wildfire and 

Management of Forests and Native Fishes: Conflict or Opportunity for Convergent Solutions? 

Bioscience,June 2010 / Vol. 60 No. 6. p 460-468. 

Rosgen, Dave, 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado. 

ISBN 0-9653289-0-2. 

Scherer, Rob. 2001. Effects of Changes in Forest Cover on Streamflow: A Literature Review. In 

Watershed Assessment in the Southern Interior of British Columbia: Workshop Proceedings, March 

9-19m 2000. Penticton, British Columbia, Canada. Pg. 44-55. 

Sestrich, Clint Michael, 2005. Changes in Native and Nonnative Fish Assemblages and Habitat 

Following Wildfire in the Bitterroot River Basin, Montana. Masters Thesis, Montana State 

University Bozeman, Montana. 93 pages 

Sestrich, Clint M., Thomas E. McMahon, and Michael K. Young, 2011. Influence of Fire on Native and 

Nonnative Salmonid Populations and Habitat in a Western Montana Basin. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 140:136–146. 

Stednick, John C., 1995. Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual water yield. Journal of 

Hydrology 176 (1996) 79-95. 

Sylte, Traci//Fischenich, Craig, 2003. An Evaluation of Techniques for Measuring Substrate 

Embeddedness. Stream Notes, Stream Systems Technology Center, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Fort Collins, CO. 5p 

Wang, Lizhu, Timothy D Simonson, John Lyons, 1996. Accuracy and Precision of Selected Stream 

Habitat Estimates. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16 (2), p340-347. 

Whitman, Matthew S; Edward H Moran, Robert T Ourso, 2003. Photographic Techniques for 

Characterizing Streambed Particle Sizes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 132 (3) p 

605-610 

Wydoski, Richard S and Whitney, Richard L. 2003. Inland fishes of Washington. Seattle: University of 

Washington Press; ISBN: 0-295-98338-8. Second edition, revised and expanded. 322p. 

WILDLIFE 

Agee, J.K. 2002. Fire as a coarse filter for snags and logs. Gen. Tech. Report PSW-GTR-181. Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, U.S. Forest Service. 9p. 

Altman, B. 2000. Conservation strategy for land birds in the northern Rocky Mountains of eastern 

Oregon and Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 86pp 

Bagne, K.E., K.L. Purcell, and J.T. Rotenberry. 2008. Prescribed fire, snag population dynamics, and 

avian nest site selection. Forest Ecology and Management 255:99-105. 

Brown, B. 2003. Current Vegetative Survey: Forest inventory and monitoring. U.S. Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest Research Station; Portland, Oregon. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/survey

Bull, E.L. 1987. Ecology of the pileated woodpecker in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 51(2):472-481.

Bull, E.L. and A.K. Blumton. 1999. Effect of fuels reduction on American martens and their prey. 

Research Note PNW-RN-539, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Norwest Research Station, Portland, 
Bibliography 

OR. 9 pp. 

Bull, E.L. and B.Carter. 1993. Summary of pileated woodpecker monitoring in eastern Oregon, 1992. 

Unpublished report, USFS Pendleton OR. 8p. 

Bull, E.L. and R.S. Holthausen. 1993. Habitat use and management of pileated woodpeckers in 

northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:335-345. 

Bull, E.L., C.G. Parks, and T.R. Torgerson, 1997. Trees and logs important to wildlife in the interior 

Columbia River basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-391. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 55 p. 

Bull, E.L., and T.W. Heater. 2000. Resting and denning sites of American marten in northeastern Oregon. 

Northwest Science 74:179-185. 

Bull, E.L., and T.W. Heater. 2001. Home range and dispersal of the American marten in northeastern 

Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist 82:7-11. 

Bull, E.L., and T.W. Heater. 2001b. Survival, causes of mortality, and reproduction in the American 

marten in northeastern Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist 82:1-6. 

Bull, E.L., T.W. Heater, and J. F. Shepherd. 2005. Habitat selection by the American marten in 

northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science 79(1):37-43. 

Bull, E.L., N.Nielsen-Pincus, B.C.Wales, and J.L. Hayes. 2007. The influence of disturbance events on 

pileated woodpeckers in Northeastern Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management 243: 320-329. 

Buskirk, S.W., and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994. American marten. Pages 7-37 In L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubrey, 

S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski (editors), The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest 

Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the Western United States. USDA 

Forest Service General Technical Report RM-254. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. 

Cook, J.G, L.L. Irwins, L.D. Bryant, R.A. Riggs, and J.W. Thomas. 1998. Relations of forest cover and 

condition of elk: a test of the thermal cover hypothesis in summer and winter. Wildlife 

Monograph No. 141. Journal of Wildlife Management Vol 62, No. 4. 

Funk, W., C.A. Pearl, H.M. Draheim, M.J. Adams, T.D. Mullins, and S.M. Haig. 2008. Range-wide 

phylogeographic analysis of the spotted frog complex (Rana luteiventris and R. pretiosa) in 

northwestern North America. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 49(1):198-210. 

Goggans, R., R.D. Dixon, and L.C. Seminara. 1989. Habitat use by three-toed and black-backed 

woodpeckers, Deschutes National Forest, Oregon. Non-game Wildlife Program Technical Report 

87-3-02. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland. 

Gruver, J.C. and D.A. Keinath. 2006. Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii): a technical 

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Unpublished report 

available online (last accessed 06-11-2011) at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/townsendsbigearedbat.pdf

Harrod, R.J., W.L. Gaines, W.E. Hartl, and A. Camp. 1998. Estimating historical snag density in dry 

forests east of the Cascade Range. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-428. Portland, OR: U.S. Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 16p. 

Hitchcock, M. and A. Ager. 1992. Microcomputer software for calculating and elk habitat effectiveness 

index on Blue Mountain winter range. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-301. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 13 p. 

Imbeau, L. and A.Desrochers. 2002. Foraging ecology and use of drumming trees by three-toed 
Bibliography 

woodpeckers. Journal of Wildlife Management 66(1):222-231. 

Leonard, Jr., David L. 2001. American three-toed woodpecker (Picoides dorsalis), The Birds of North 

America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Last accessed April 2011. 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/588 

Marcot, B.G., B.C. Wales, R. Demmer. 2003. Range maps of terrestrial species in the Interior Columbia 

River Basin and northern portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. PNW-GTR-583, USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 

Portland, OR. 304 p.http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/gtr583/ 

Mason, R. and B. Countryman. 2010. CVS inventory plot snag and down wood data for the Blue 

Mountain Forest Plan Revision. Unpublished report (9/1/2010). Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest, Baker City, OR. 

McGrath, M.T., S. DeStefano, R.A. Riggs, L.L. Erwin, and G.J. Roloff. 2003. Spatially explicit 

influences on northern goshawk nesting habitat in the interior Pacific Northwest. Wildlife 

Monographs No. 154. 63 pp. 

McKelvey, K.S., J.J. Claar, G.W. McDaniel, and G. Hanvey. 1999. National lynx detection protocol. 

Unpublished paper. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, Montana. 

11 p. 

Mech, L.D. and L. Boitani, eds. 2003. Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. University of 

Chicago Press, Chicago IL. 448p. 

Mellen-McLean, K., B.G. Marcot, J.L. Ohmann, K. Waddell, S.A. Livingston, E.A. Willhite, B.B. 

Hostetler, C. Ogden, and T. Dreisbach. 2009. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for managing 

snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of Washington and Oregon. 

Version 2.10. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest Research 

Station; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office; Portland, Oregon. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/index.shtml Last accessed April 18, 2011. 

NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. 

NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer . Last accessed 

April 2011. 

Nielsen-Pincus, N and E.O. Garton. 2007. Responses of cavity-nesting birds to changes in available 

habitat reveal underlying determinants of nest selection. Northwestern Naturalist 88:135–146. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2010. Oregon wolf conservation and 

management plan. Salem, Oregon. 194p 

Ohmann, J.L. and K.L. Waddell. 2002. Regional patterns of dead wood in forested habitat of Oregon 

and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181, U.S. Forest Service. 560p 

Partners in Flight (PIF). 2011. Species Assessment Database. Last accessed April 2011.

http://www.rmbo.org/pif/scores/scores.html

Perkins, J.M. and T. Schommer. 1992. Survey protocol and an interim species conservation strategy for 

Plecotus townsendii in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washinton. 23 p. Unpublished Report 

for the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Boise, Idaho. 

Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M. S. W. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D. W. 
Bibliography 

Demarest, E. H. Dunn, W. C. Hunter, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, J. A. Kennedy, A. M. Martell, A. O. 

Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt, T. C. Will. 2004. Partners in 

Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. 

Partners in Flight website. www.partnersinflight.org/cont_plan.

Rose, C.L., B.G. Marcot, T.K. Mellen. 2001. Decaying wood in Pacific Northwest forests: concepts and 

tools for habitat management. Pages 580-623 in: J. Greenlee, editor. Proceedings of the 

symposium of fire effects on threatened species and habitats. International Association of 

Wildland Fire, Fairfield, Washington. 

Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson, and J.G. Kie. 2000. Elk distribution and modeling in 

relation to roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(3): 672-684. 

Ruediger, Bill, J. Claar, S. Mighton, B. Naney, T. Rinaldi, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, A. 

Williamson, L. Lewis, B. Holt, G. Patton, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, and S.Gniadek. 2000. Canada 

Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. U.S. Forest Service. January 103p 

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. The scientific basis for 

conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United 

States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station. 184 pp. 

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R. Squires. 

1999. Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. Univ. Press of Colorado. Bolder, 

CO and U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report, 

RMRS-GTR-30WWW. 480p 

Saab, V. A., T. D. Rich. 1997. 1998. Large-scale conservation assessment for Neotropical migratory 

land birds in the interior Columbia basin: Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-399. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 57 p. 

Sallabanks, R, B.G. Marcot, R.A. Riggs, C.A.Mehl, and E.B. Arnett. 2001. Wildlife of eastside (interior) 

forests and woodlands. Chapter 8 (pages 213-238) In: Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon 

and Washington. Oregon State University Press. Johnson, D.H.; O’Neil, T.A., Managing 

Directors. 

Slauson, K.M., W.J. Zielinski, and J.P. Hayes. 2007. Habitat Selection by American Martens in Coastal 

California. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(2):458-468. 

Squires, J.R. and P.L. Kennedy. 2006. Goshawk ecology: an assessment of current knowledge 

and information needs for conservation and management. Studies in Avian Biology No. 

31:8-62. 

Tait, C. 2007. Conservation assessment of the Great Basin population of the Columbia spotted frog 

(Rana luteiventris). U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah. 

Thomas, J.W. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and 

Washington. U.S. Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook No. 553. 512pp. 

Thomas, J. W, D.A. Leckenby, M.A. Henjum, R.J. Pedersen, and L.D. Bryant. 1988. Habitat 

effectiveness index for elk on Blue Mountain Winter Ranges. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-218. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 28p. 

Tobalske, B.W. 1997. Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis). In: The Birds of North America, No. 284 

(A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The 

American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan, Umatilla National Forest 
Bibliography 

(“Forest Plan”). Pendleton, OR: U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Umatilla 

National Forest. Sept. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1995. Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem and 

Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales, (``Eastside Screens''), Regional Forester's Forest Plan 

Amendment #2 . Appendix B Revised Interim Direction. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. Pacific Northwest Region (6), Portland, Oregon. June. 14p. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2006. Occupied mapped lynx habitat; amendment to the Canada lynx 

conservation agreement. Letter to Regional Foresters dated May 26, 2006. U.S. Forest Service, 

Washington D.C. 6p. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2011. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Animal List. 2670/1950 Memo (to 

Forest Supervisors). U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 50 CFR 

Part 17. Federal Register Vol. 62, No. 182 pages 49398 to 49411. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Washington D.C. December 31. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Notice of remanded determination of status for the 

contiguous United States distinct population segment of the Canada lynx; clarification of 

findings; final rule. Federal Register Vol. 68, No. 128, pages 40076-40101. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines . 

23 pp. Last accessed March 7, 2011. 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/BaldEagle/National

BaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Final Rule to identify the Northern Rocky Mountain 

Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and to revise the list of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife. Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 62, pages 15123-15188. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Reissuance of Final Rule to identify the Northern Rocky 

Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and to revise the list of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Federal Register Vol. 76, No. 87, pages 25590 - 25592. 

Wales, B.C., W.L. Gaines, L.H. Suring, and K. Mellen-Mclean. 2011. Viability analysis of focal species 

for the Blue Mountain National Forests – Forest Plan Revisions (draft June 2011). Unpublished 

report. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Baker City, OR. 

Weber, K.T., C.L. Marcum, M.G. Burcham, and L.J. Lyon. 2000. Landscape influence on elk 

vulnerability to hunting. Intermountain Journal of Sciences 6(2): 86-94. 

Wiggins, D. 2004. American three-toed woodpecker (Picoides dorsalis): a technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 40 p. Available online at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/americanthreetoedwoodpecker.pdf 

Wisdom, M. J.; R.S. Holthausen, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis, V.A. Saab, D.C. Lee, W.J. Wendel, T.D. 

Rich, M.M. Rowland, W.J. Murphy, M.R. Eames. 2000. Source habitat for terrestrial vertebrates 

of focus in the interior Columbia basin: broad scale trends and management implications. 

Volume 1-3. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-485. Portland, OR. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 

Wisdom, M.J., B.K. Johnson, M. Vavra, J.M. Boyd, P.K. Coe, J.G. Kie, A.A. Ager, and N.J. Cimon. 

2005. Cattle and elk responses to intensive timber harvest. Pp. 197-216 in The Starkey Project: A 

Synthesis of Long-term Studies of Elk and Mule Deer (M.J. Wisdom, tech. ed.). Transactions of 

the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Alliance Communications 
Bibliography 

Group, Lawrence, KS. 

Zielinski, W.J., K.M. Slauson, C.R. Carroll, C.J. Kent, and D.K. Kudrna. 2001. Status of American 

marten populations in the coastal forests of the Pacific states. Journal of Mammalogy 82:478–

490.

FOREST VEGETATION AND SILVICULTURE 

Adams, H.D.; Guardiola-Claramonte, M.; Barron-Gafford, G.A.; Villegas, J.C.; Breshears, D.D.; Zou, 

C.B.; Troch, P.A.; Huxman, T.E. 2009. Temperature sensitivity of drought-induced tree mortality 

portends increased regional die-off under global-change-type drought. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences. 106(17): 7063-7066. 

Agee, J.K. 1996a. Fire in the Blue Mountains: a history, ecology, and research agenda. In: Jaindl, R.G.; 

Quigley, T.M., eds. Search for a solution: sustaining the land, people, and economy of the Blue 

Mountains. Washington, DC: American Forests in cooperation with the Blue Mountains Natural 

Resources Institute: 119-145. 

Agee, J.K. 1996b. The influence of forest structure on fire behavior. In: Proceedings of the seventeenth 

annual forest vegetation management conference; 1996 January 16-18; Redding, CA: 52-68. 

Agee, J.K. 1998. The landscape ecology of western forest fire regimes. Northwest Science. 72 (special 

issue): 24-34. 

http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/org_NWS/NWSci%20journal%20articles/1998%20files/Special%20

addition%201/v72%20p24%20Agee.PDF 

Allen, C.D.; Savage, M.; Falk, D.A.; Suckling, K.F.; Swetnam, T.W.; Schulke, T.; Stacey, P.B.;Morgan, 

P.; Hoffman, M.; Klingel, J.T. 2002. Ecological restoration of southwestern ponderosa pine 

ecosystems: a broad perspective. Ecological Applications. 12(5), pp. 1418-1433. 

Anderson, L.; Carlson, C.E.; Wakimoto, R.H. 1987. Forest fire frequency and western spruce budworm 

outbreaks in western Montana. Forest Ecology and Management. 22: 251-260. doi:10.1016/0378-

1127(87)90109-5 

Aplet, G.H.; Keeton, W.S. 1999. Application of historical range of variability concepts to biodiversity 

conservation. In: Baydack, R.K.; Campa, H.; Haufler, J.B., eds. Practical approaches to the 

conservation of biological diversity. Washington, DC: Island Press: 71-86. 

Arkley, R.J. 1981. Soil moisture use by mixed conifer forest in a summer-dry climate. Soil Science 

Society of America Journal. 45: 423-427. 

Arno, S.F and G.E. Gruel. 1986. Douglas-fir Encroachment into Mountain Grasslands in Southwestern 

Montana. Journal of Range Management, Vol. 39, No.3, pp. 272-275. 

Arno, S.F. 1987. Fire Ecology and Its Management Implications in Ponderosa Pine Forests. 

Intermountain Research Station. USDA-Forest Service, Missoula, MT. 7 pp. 

Arno, S.F. 1991. Ecological Relationships of Interior Douglas-fir. Interior Douglas-fir the Species and Its 

Management Symposium Proceedings. Compo and Ed. D.M. Baumgartner and J.E. Lotan. 

Spokane, WA. pp. 47-51. 

Arno, S.F. and G.E. Gruel. 1983. Fire History at the Forest-grassland Ecotone in Southwestern Montana. 

Journal of Range Management, Vol. 36, No.3, pp. 322--336. 

Arno, S.F.; Harrington, M.G.; Fiedler, C.E.; Carlson, C.E. 1995. Restoring fire-dependent ponderosa pine 

forests in western Montana. Restoration and Management Notes. 13(1): 32-36. 

doi:10.3386.er.13.1.32 
Bibliography 

Auclair, A.N.D.; Carter, T.B. 1993. Forest wildfires as a recent source of CO2 at northern latitudes. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 23: 1528-1536. 

Avery, T.E., and Burkhart, H.E. 2002. Forest Measurements. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 456 p. 

Baron, J.S.; Julius, S.H.; West, J.M.; Joyce, L.A.; Blate, G.; Peterson, C.H.; Palmer, M.; Keller, B.D.; 

Kareiva, P.; Scott, J.M.; Griffith, B. 2008. Some guidelines for helping natural resources adapt to 

climate change. IHDP Update. 2: 46-52. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/32465

Barrett, S. W. 1988. Fire Suppression's Effects on Forest Succession within a Central Idaho Wilderness. 

Western Journal of Applied Forestry, Vol. 3, No.3, pp. 76-80. 

Barrett, S.; Havlina, D.; Jones, J.; Hann, W.; Frame, C.; Hamilton, D.; Schon, K.; Demeo, T.; Hutter, L.; 

and Menakis, J. 2010. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook. Version 3.0 

[Homepage of the Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class website, USDA Forest Service, US 

Department of the Interior, and The Nature Conservancy]. [Online], Available: www.frcc.gov

Bentz, B. J., J. Regniere, C. J. Fettig, E. M. Hansen, J. L. Hayes, J. A. Hicke, R. G. Kelsey, J. Lundquist, 

J. F. Negron, R. Progar, S. J. Seybold, and J. Vandygriff. 2010. Climate change and bark beetles 

of the western US: Direct and indirect effects. BioScience 60: 602-613. 

Birdsey, R.A. 1992. Carbon storage and accumulation in United States forest ecosystems. General 

Technical Report WO-GTR-59. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Washington Office. 51 p. 

Bonan, G.B. 2008. Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. 

Science. 320(5882): 1444-1449. 

Bond, W.J.; Woodward, F.I.; Midgley, G.F. 2005. The global distribution of ecosystems in a world 

without fire. New Phytologist. 165(2): 525-538. 

Bormann, B.T.; Homann, P.S.; Darbyshire, R.L.; Morrissette, B.A. 2008. Intense forest wildfire sharply 

reduces mineral soil C and N: the first direct evidence. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 

38(11): 2771-2783. 

Bowman, D.M.J.S.; Balch, J.K.; Artaxo, P.; Bond, W.J.; Carlson, J.M.; Cochrane, M.A.; D’Antonio, 

C.M.; DeFries, R.S.; Doyle, J.C.; Harrison, S.P.; Johnston, F.H.; Keeley, J.E.; Krawchuk, M.A.; 

Kull, C.A.; Marston, J.B.; Moritz, M.A.; Prentice, I.C.; Roos, C.I.; Scott, A.C.; Swetnam, T.W.; 

van der Werf, G.R.; Pyne, S.J. 2009. Fire in the Earth system. Science. 324(5926): 481-484. 

Boyer, D.E. and J.D. Dell. 1980. Fire Effects on Pacific Northwest Forest Soils. Doc. #R6 WM 040 1980, 

Pacific Northwest Region USDA-Forest Service, Portland, OR, 58 pp. 

Breshears, D.D.; Cobb, N.S.; Rich, P.M.; Price, K.P.; Allen, C.D.; Balice, R.G.; Romme, W.H.; Kastens, 

J.H.; Floyd, M.L.; Belnap, J.; Anderson, J.J.; Myers, O.B.; Meyer, C.W. 2005. Regional 

vegetation die-off in response to global-change-type drought. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 102(42): 15144-15148. 

Brown, James K.; Reinhardt, Elizabeth D.; Kramer, Kylie A. 2003. Coarse woody debris: Managing 

benefits and fire hazard in the recovering forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-105. Ogden, UT: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 16 p. 

Brown, R. 2000. Thinning, fire and forest restoration: a science-based approach for national forests in the 

interior northwest. Washington, DC: Defenders of Wildlife. 40 p. 

http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/biodiversity_partners/thin

ning,_fire_and_forest_restoration.pdf
Bibliography 

Brown, R. 2008. The implications of climate change for conservation, restoration, and management of 

national forest lands. [Eugene, OR]: University of Oregon. 32 p. 

http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/biodiversity_partners/imp

lications_of_climate_change_for_conservation,_restoration_and_management_of_national_forest

_lands.pdf

Brown, R.T.; Agee, J.K.; Franklin, J.F. 2004. Forest restoration and fire: principles in the context of 

place. Conservation Biology. 18(4): 903-912. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.521_1.x 

Burns, R.M., compiler. 1989. The scientific basis for silvicultural and management decisions in the 

national forest system. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-55. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 180 p. 

Canadell, J.G.; Raupach, M.R. 2008. Managing forests for climate change mitigation. Science. 

320(5882): 1456-1457. doi:10.1126/science.1155458 

Carlson, C.E.; Wulf, N.W. 1989. Silvicultural strategies to reduce stand and forest susceptibility to the 

western spruce budworm. Agric. Hand. No. 676. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Cooperative State Research Service. 31 p. 

Carroll, A.L.; Taylor, S.W.; Régniere, J.; Safranyik, L. 2004. Effects of climate change on range 

expansion by the mountain pine beetle in British Columbia. In: Shore, T.L.; Brooks, J.E.; Stone, 

J.E., editors. Mountain pine beetle symposium: challenges and solutions. Information Report BCX-399. Victoria, BC: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry 

Centre: 223-232. 

Chapin, F.; Woodwell, G.; Randerson, J.; Rastetter, E.; Lovett, G.; Baldocchi, D.; Clark, D.; Harmon, M.; 

Schimel, D.; Valentini, R.; Wirth, C.; Aber, J.; Cole, J.; Goulden, M.; Harden, J.; Heimann, M.; 

Howarth, R.; Matson, P.; McGuire, A.; Melillo, J.; Mooney, H.; Neff, J.; Houghton, R.; Pace, M.; 

Ryan, M.; Running, S.; Sala, O.; Schlesinger, W.; Schulze, E.-D. 2006. Reconciling carbon-cycle 

concepts, terminology, and methods. Ecosystems. 9(7): 1041-1050. doi:10.1007/s10021-005-

0105-7 

Christensen, Alan G.; Lyon, L J.; Unsworth, J. W.; 1993, Elk Management in the Northern Region: 

Considerations in Forest Plan Updates or Revisions. US Forest Service, Intermountain Research 

Station, General Technical Report INT -303, 10 pp. 

Christensen, G.A.; Dunham, P.; Powell, D.C.; Hiserote, B. 2007. Forest resources of the Umatilla 

National Forest. Res. Bull. PNW-RB-253. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 38 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/27656 

Christiansen, E.; Waring, R.H.; Berryman, A.A. 1987. Resistance of conifers to bark beetle attack: 

searching for general relationships. Forest Ecology and Management. 22: 89-106. 

doi:10.1016/0378-1127(87)90098-3 

Climate Change Resource Center (CCRC), http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/. U.S. Forest Service. Accessed 

August 2009. 

Cochran, P.H. 1992. Stocking levels and underlying assumptions for uneven-aged ponderosa pine stands. 

Res. Note PNW-RN-509. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 10 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/25110 

Cochran, P.H.; Barrett, J.W. 1993. Long-term response of planted ponderosa pine to thinning in Oregon’s 

Blue Mountains. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 8(4): 126-132. 

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/saf/wjaf/1993/00000008/00000004/art00007
Bibliography 

Cochran, P.H.; Geist, J.M.; Clemens, D.L.; Clausnitzer, R.R.; Powell, D.C. 1994. Suggested stocking 

levels for forest stands in northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. Res. Note PNWRN-513. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 21 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/25113 

Cook, R.J. 2007 (May 2). Advice on documenting “best available science”; 1920/1950 memorandum to 

Regional Planning Directors. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Washington Office. 2 p. 

Coops, N.; Waring, R. 2011. A process-based approach to estimate lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta; 

Dougl.) distribution in the Pacific Northwest under climate change. Climatic Change. 105(1): 

313-328. doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9861-2 

Crane, M.F. and W.C. Fischer. 1986. Fire Ecology of the Forest Habitat Types of Central Idaho. 

Intermountain Research Station General Technical Report INT -218. USDA-Forest Service, 86 

pp. 

Crookston, N.L.; Moeur, M.; Renner, D. 2002. Users guide to the most similar neighbor imputation 

program, version 2. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-96. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 35 p. 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/4813 

Dale, V.H.; Joyce, L.A.; McNulty, S.; Neilson, R.P.; Ayres, M.P.; Flannigan, M.D.; Hanson, P.J.; Irland, 

L.C.; Lugo, A.E.; Peterson, C.J.; Simberloff, D.; Swanson, F.J.; Stocks, B.J.; Wotton, B.M. 2001. 

Climate change and forest disturbances. BioScience. 51(9): 723-734. doi:10.1641/0006-

3568(2001)051[0723:CCAFD]2.0.CO;2 

Daubenmire, R., and Daubenmire, J.B. 1968. Forest vegetation of eastern Washington and northern 

Idaho. Washington Agricultural Experiement Station, Pullman, WA. Technical Bulletin 60, 104 

p. 

DeLuca, T.H.; Aplet, G.H. 2008. Charcoal and carbon storage in forest soils of the Rocky Mountain west. 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 6(1): 18-24. 

Depro, B.M., Murray, B.C., Alig, R.J., Shanks, A. 2008. Public land, timber harvests, and climate 

mitigation: Quantifying carbon sequestration potential on U.S. public timberlands. Forest 

Ecology and Management 255: 1122-1134. 

Dillard, D.S. 2007 (June 20). Clarification of May 2nd, 2007, advice on documenting “best available 

science”; 1920/1950 memorandum to Regional Planning Directors. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office. 2 p. 

Dixon, G.E. 2009. Essential FVS: a user’s guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office, Forest Management Service 

Center. 220 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/fmsc/fvs/documents/gtrs_essentialfvs.php

Donovan, G.H.; Brown, T.C. 2005. An alternative incentive structure for wildfire management on 

national forest land. Forest Science. 51(5): 387-395. 

Donovan, G.H.; Brown, T.C. 2007. Be careful what you wish for: the legacy of Smokey Bear. Frontiers in 

Ecology and the Environment. 5(2): 73-79.

Donovan, G.H.; Brown, T.C. 2008. Estimating the avoided fuel-treatment costs of wildfire. Western 

Journal of Applied Forestry. 23(4): 197-201. 

Dore, S.; Kolb, T.E.; Montes-Helu, M.; Sullivan, B.W.; Winslow, W.D.; Hart, S.C.; Kaye, J.P.; Koch, 

G.W.; Hungate, B.A. 2008. Long-term impact of a stand-replacing fire on ecosystem CO2
Bibliography 

exchange of a ponderosa pine forest. Global Change Biology. 14(8): 1801-1820. 

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01613.x 

Dunster, J.; Dunster, K. 1996. Dictionary of natural resource management. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. 

363 p. ISBN:0-7748-0503-X 

Eckberg, T.B.; Schmid, J.M.; Mata, S.A.; Lundquist, J.E. 1994. Primary focus trees for the mountain pine 

beetle in the Black Hills. Res. Note RM-RN-531. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 10 p. 

Entry, J. A.; Cromack, K.; Kelsey, R.G.; Martin, N.E. 1991. Response of Douglas-fir to infection by 

Armillaria ostoyae after thinning or thinning plus fertilization. Phytopathology. 81(6): 682-689. 

Eriksson, E.; Gillespie, A.R.; Gustavsson, L.; Langvall, O.; Olsson, M.; Sathre, R.; Stendahl, J. 2007. 

Integrated carbon analysis of forest management practices and wood substitution. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research. 37(3): 671-681. 

Fahey, T.J; Woodbury, P.B; Battles, J.J; Goodale, C.L; Hamburg, S.; Ollinger, S.; Woodall, C.W. 2009. 

Forest carbon storage: ecology, management, and policy. Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment. doi:10.1890/080169. 

Fellows, A.W.; Goulden, M.L. 2008. Has fire suppression increased the amount of carbon stored in 

western U.S. forests? Geophysical Research Letters. 35: L12404. 

Fiedler, C.E. 2000a. Restoration treatments promote growth and reduce mortality of old-growth 

ponderosa pine (Montana). Ecological Restoration. 18(2): 117-119. doi:10.3368/er.18.2.117 

Fiedler, C.E. 2000b. Silvicultural treatments. In: Smith, H.Y., ed. The Bitterroot Ecosystem Management 

Research Project: what we have learned. Proceedings RMRS-P-17. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 19-20. 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/21649 

Fiedler, C.E.; Keegan, C.E.; Woodall, C.W.; Morgan, T.A. 2004. A strategic assessment of crown fire 

hazard in Montana: potential effectiveness and costs of hazard reduction treatments. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-622. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 48 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/7448

Filip, Gregory M.; Goheen, Donald J.; Johnson, David W.; Thompson, John H. 1989c. Precommercial 

thinning in a ponderosa pine stand affected by Armillaria root disease: 20 years of growth and 

mortality in central Oregon. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 4(2): 58-59. 

Finkral, A.J.; Evans, A. M. 2008. The effects of a thinning treatment on carbon stocks in a northern 

Arizona ponderosa pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 255(7): 2743-2750. 

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.01.041

Fleming, R.A.; Volney, W.J.A. 1995. Effects of climate change on insect defoliator population processes 

in Canada’s boreal forest: some plausible scenarios. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 82(1): 445-

454. 

Franceschi, V.R.; Krokene, P.; Christiansen, E.; Krekling, T. 2005. Anatomical and chemical defenses of 

conifer bark against bark beetles and other pests. New Phytologist. 167(2): 353-376. 

doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01436.x 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-310, Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA-Forest Service. 13 pp. 

Goetz, S.J., Bond-Lamberty, B., Law, B.E., Hicke, J.A., Huang, C., Houghton, R.A., McNulty, S., 

O’Halloran, T., Harmon, M., Meddens, A.J.H., Pfeifer, E.M., Mildrexler, D., and Kasischke, E.S. 
Bibliography 

2012. Observations and assessment of forest carbon dynamics following disturbance in North 

America. J.G.R. Biogeosciences. In press. 

Graham, R.T.; Harvey, A.E.; Jain, T.B.; Tonn, J.R. 1999. The effects of thinning and similar stand 

treatments on fire behavior in western forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-463. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 27 p. 

Graham, R.T.; Jain, T.B. 2007. Treatments that enhance the decomposition of forest fuels for use in 

partially harvested stands in the moist forests of the Northern Rocky Mountains (Priest River 

Experimental Forest). Project 00-2-20. 13p. 

Graham, R.T.; McCaffrey, S.; Jain, T.B., technical editors. 2004. Science basis for changing forest 

structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-120. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

43 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/6279 

Graham, Russell T.; Harvey, Alan E.; Jurgensen, Martin F.; Jain, Theresa B.; Tonn, Jonalea R.; PageDumroese, Deborah S. 1994. Managing coarse woody debris in forests of the Rocky Mountains. 

Res. Pap. INT-RP-477. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

lntermountain Research Station. 12 p. 

Gustavsson, L.; Madlener, R.; Hoen, H.-F.; Jungmeier, G.; Karjalainen, T.; Klöhn, S.; Mahapatra, K.; 

Pohjola, J.; Solberg, B.; Spelter, H. 2006. The role of wood material for greenhouse gas 

mitigation. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 11(5): 1097-1127. 

Hall, F.C. 1973. Plant communities of the Blue Mountains in eastern Oregon and southeastern 

Washington. R6 Area Guide 3-1. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Region. 62 p. 

Hall, F.C. 1993. Structural stages by plant association group: Malheur and Ochoco National Forests. 

Unpub. Rep. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Region. 5 p. 

Hamilton, R.H. 1993. Characteristics of Old-Growth Forests in the Intermountain West. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 86 p. 

Harmon, M.E. 2001. Carbon sequestration in forests: addressing the scale question. Journal of Forestry 99 

(4): 24-29. 

Harmon, M.E., Ferrell, W.K., Franklin, J.F. 1990. Effects on carbon storage of conversion of old-growth 

forests to young forests. Science 247 (4943): 699-702. 

Harmon, M. E.; Marks, B. 2002. Effects of silvicultural practices on carbon stores in Douglas-fir / 

western hemlock forests in the Pacific Northwest, U.S.A.: results from a simulation model. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 32(5): 863-877. 

Harrington, M.G. 1990. Fire Management in Interior Douglas-fir Forests. Interior Douglas-fir the Species 

and Its Management Symposium Proceedings. Compo and Ed. D.M. Baumgartner and J.E. Lotan. 

Spokane, WA. pp. 47-51. 

Harvey, Alan E. 1994. Integrated roles for insects, diseases and decomposers in fire dominated forests of 

the inland western United States: past, present and future forest health. Journal of Sustainable 

For-estry. 2(1/2): 211-220. 

Havlina et al. 2010. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class website. USDA Forest Service, USDA 

Department of the Interior, and The Nature Conservancy [www.frcc.gov]. 
Bibliography 

Heller, R.C.; Sader, S.A. 1980. Rating the risk of tussock moth defoliation using aerial photographs. 

Agric. Handbook. 569. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

Helms, J.A., editor. 1998. The dictionary of forestry. Bethesda, MD: The Society of American Foresters. 

210 p. ISBN:0-939970-73-2 

Hessburg, P.F.; Smith, B.G.; Kreiter, S.D.; Miller, C.A.; Salter, R.B.; McNicholl, C.H.; Hann, W.J. 

1999a. Historical and current forest and range landscapes in the interior Columbia River basin 

and portions of the Klamath and Great basins. Part 1: linking vegetation patterns and landscape 

vulnerability to potential insect and pathogen disturbances. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-458. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 357 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/29638 

Hessburg, P.F.; Smith, B.G.; Miller, C.A.; Kreiter, S.D.; Salter, R.B. 1999b. Modeling change in potential 

landscape vulnerability to forest insect and pathogen disturbances: methods for forested 

subwatersheds sampled in the midscale interior Columbia River basin assessment. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-454. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 56 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/2987 

Heyerdahl, E.K. 1997. Spatial and temporal variation in historical fire regimes of the Blue Mountains, 

Oregon and Washington: the influence of climate. Ph.D. dissertation. Seattle, WA: University of 

Washington, College of Forest Resources. 224 p. 

Heyerdahl, E.K.; Brubaker, L.B.; Agee, J.K. 2001. Spatial controls of historical fire regimes: a multiscale 

example from the interior west, USA. Ecology. 82(3): 660-678. doi:10.1890/0012-

9658(2001)082[0660:SCOHFR]2.0.CO;2 

Heyerdahl, E.K.; Brubaker, L.B.; Agee, J.K. 2002. Annual and decadal climate forcing of historical fire 

regimes in the interior Pacific Northwest, USA. Holocene. 12(5): 597-604. 

doi:10.1191/0959683602hl570rp 

Heyerdahl, E.K.; McKenzie, D.; Daniels, L.D.; Hessl, A.E.; Littell, J.S.; Mantua, N.J. 2008. Climate 

drivers of regionally synchronous fires in the inland Northwest (1651-1900). International Journal 

of Wildland Fire. 17(1): 40-49. doi:10.1071/WF07024 

Heyerdahl, E.K.; Morgan, P.; Riser, J.P. II. 2008. Multi-season climate synchronized historical fires in 

dry forests (1650-1900), northern Rockies, USA. Ecology. 89(3): 705-716. doi:10.1890/06-

2047.1 

Hicke, J. A., C. D. Allen, A. Desai, M. Dietze, R. J. Hall, E. T. Hogg, D. Kashian, D. Moore, K. Raffa, R. 

Sturrock, and J. Vogelmann. 2010. The effects of biotic disturbances on carbon budgets of North 

American forests, Global Change Biology, 18: 7-34. 

Hillis, J. Michael, Thompson, Michael J., Canfield, Jodie E., Lyon, L Jack, Marcum, C. Les, Dolan, 

Patricia M., McCleerey, David W., 1991. Defining £IJ( Security: The Hillis Paradigm. Elk 

Vulnerability Symposium, MSU, Bozeman, MT, April 10-12, 1991. 6 pp. 

Houghton, R.A.; Hackler, J.L.; Lawrence, K.T. 2000. Changes in terrestrial carbon storage in the United 

States. 2: The role of fire and fire management. Global Ecology & Biogeography. 9:145-170. 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/2979 

Hudiburg, T.; Law, B.; Turner, D.P.; Campbell, J.; Donato, D.; Duane, M. 2009. Carbon dynamics of 

Oregon and Northern California forests and potential land-based carbon storage. Ecological 

Applications: Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 163-180. 

Hurteau, M.; Hungate, B.; Koch, G. 2009. Accounting for risk in valuing forest carbon offsets. Carbon 

Balance and Management. 4:1 doi:10.1186/1750-0680-4-1 
Bibliography 

Hurteau, M.; North, M. 2009. Fuel treatment effects on tree-based forest carbon storage and emissions 

under modeled wildfire scenarios. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 7: 

doi:10.1890/080049. 

Hurteau, M.D.; Koch, G.W.; Hungate, B.A. 2008. Carbon protection and fire risk reduction: toward a full 

accounting of forest carbon offsets. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 6(9): 493-498. 

Hurtt, G.C.; Pacala, S.W.; Moorcroft, P.R.; Caspersen, J.; Shevliakova, E.; Houghton, R.A.; Moore, B. 

2002. Projecting the future of the U.S. carbon sink. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences of the United States of America. 99(3): 1389-1394. 

IPCC 2000. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Special Report on Land Use, Land Use 

Change and Forestry, Summary for Policy Makers, 2000. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. 20 pp. 

IPCC. 2007. Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the 

fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. Geneva, 

Switzerland: IPCC. 104 p. 

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis

_report.htm

Jenkins, J.C.; Chojnacky, D.C.; Heath, L.S.; Birdsey, R.A. 2003. National-scale biomass indicators for 

United States tree species. Forest Science. 49(1): 12-35. 

Johnson, C.G. 1993 (August 9). Ecosystem screens; file designation 2060 memorandum to WallowaWhitman, Umatilla, and Malheur Forest Supervisors. Baker City, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 4 p 

(and 6 exhibits). 

Johnson, C.G., Jr.; Clausnitzer, R.R. 1992. Plant associations of the Blue and Ochoco Mountains. Tech. 

Pub. R6-ERW-TP-036-92. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 164 p. 

Joyce, L.; Blate, G.; McNulty, S.; Millar, C.; Moser, S.; Neilson, R.; Peterson, D. 2009. Managing for 

multiple resources under climate change: national forests. Environmental Management. 44(6): 

1022-1032. doi:10.1007/s00267-009-9324-6 

Joyce, L.A.; Blate, G.M.; Littell, J.S.; McNulty, S.G.; Millar, C.I.; Moser, S.C.; Neilson, R.P.; 

O'Halloran, K.; Peterson, D.L. 2008. National forests. In: Julius, S.H.; West, J.M., editors. 

Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 3-1 to 3-127. 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/30612 

Kalabokidis, K.D.; Omi, P.N. 1998. Reduction of fire hazard through thinning/residue disposal in the 

urban interface. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 8(1): 29-35. doi:10.1071/WF9980029 

Kane, J.M.; Varner, J.M.; Knapp, E.E.; and Powers, R.F. 2010. Understory vegetation response to 

mechanical mastication and other fuels treatments in a ponderosa pine forest. Applied Vegetation 

Science. 13:207-220. 

Kashian, D.M.; Romme, W.H.; Tinker, D.B.; Turner, M.G.; Ryan, M.G. 2006. Carbon storage on 

landscapes with stand-replacing fires. Bioscience. 56(7): 598-606. doi: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56 

Kaufmann, M.R.; Graham, R.T.; Boyce, D.A., Jr.; Moir, W.H.; Perry, L.; Reynolds, R.T.; Bassett, R.L.; 

Mehlhop, P.; Edminster, C.B.; Block, W.M.; Corn, P.S. 1994. An ecological basis for ecosystem 

management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-246. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 
Bibliography 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 22 p. 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/7612 

Keane, R.E.; Hessburg, P.F.; Landres, P.B.; Swanson, F.J. 2009. The use of historical range and 

variability (HRV) in landscape management. Forest Ecology and Management. 258(7): 1025-

1037. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.05.035 

Keyes, C.R.; O’Hara, K.L. 2002. Quantifying stand targets for silvicultural prevention of crown fires. 

Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 17(2): 101-109. 

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/saf/wjaf/2002/00000017/00000002/art00007

Kitzberger, T.; Brown, P.M.; Heyerdahl, E.K.; Swetnam, T.W.; Veblen, T.T. 2007. Contingent Pacific–

Atlantic Ocean influence on multicentury wildfire synchrony over western North America. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104(2): 543-548. 

doi:10.1073/pnas.0606078104 

Kline, J.P. 1995 (August 14). Reforestation and salvage sales; file designation 2470-3 memorandum to 

District Rangers. Pendleton, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Umatilla 

National Forest, Supervisor’s Office. 4 p. 

Knutson, D.; Tinnin, R. 1986. Effects of dwarf mistletoe on the response of young Douglas-fir to 

thinning. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 16(1): 30-35. doi:10.1139/x86-006 

Kolb, T.E.; Holmberg, K.M.; Wagner, M.R.; Stone, J.E. 1998. Regulation of ponderosa pine foliar 

physiology and insect resistance mechanisms by basal area treatments. Tree Physiology. 18(6): 

375-381. doi:10.1093/treephys/18.6.375 

Kurz, W.A.; Dymond, C.C.; Stinson, G.; Rampley, G.J.; Neilson, E.T.; Carroll, A.L.; Ebata, T.; 

Safranyik, L. 2008a. Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change. Nature. 

452(7190): 987-990. doi:10.1038/nature06777 

Kurz, W.A.; Stinson, G.; Rampley, G.J.; Dymond, C.C.; Neilson, E.T. 2008b. Risk of natural 

disturbances makes future contribution of Canada’s forests to the global carbon cycle highly 

uncertain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105(5): 1551-1555. 

doi:10.1073/pnas.0708133105 

Landres, P.B.; Morgan, P.; Swanson, F.J. 1999. Overview of the use of natural variability concepts in 

managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications. 9(4): 1179-1188. doi:10.1890/1051-

0761(1999)009[1179:OOTUON]2.0.CO;2 

Larsson, S.; Oren, R.; Waring, R.H.; Barrett, J.W. 1983. Attacks of mountain pine beetle as related to tree 

vigor of ponderosa pine. Forest Science. 29(2): 395-402. 

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/saf/fs/1983/00000029/00000002/art00029

Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Hessburg, P.F.; Everett, R.L.; Huff, M.H.; Ottmar, R.D. 1994. Historical and current 

forest landscapes of eastern Oregon and Washington. Part 1: Vegetation pattern and insect and 

disease hazards. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-328. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 88 p. 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/6407 

Lesica, P. 1996. Using fire history models to estimate proportions of old growth forest in northwest 

Montana, USA. Biological Conservation. 77: 33-39. 

Liu, S., B. Bond-Lamberty, J. A. Hicke, R. Vargas, S. Zhao, J. Chen, S. L. Edburg, J. Liu, A. D. 

McGuire, J. Xiao, R. Keane, W. Yuan, J. Tang, Y. Luo, C. Potter, and J. Oeding, Simulating the 

impacts of disturbances on forest carbon cycling in North America: Processes, data, models, and 
Bibliography 

challenges, Journal of Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences, 116, G00K08, 

doi:10.1029/2010JG001585, 2011. 

Logan, J.A.; Régniere, J.; Powell, J.A. 2003. Assessing the impacts of global warming on forest pest 

dynamics. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 1(3): 130-137. 

Lorenz, T.J.; Aubry, C.; Shoal, R.. 2008. A review of the literature on seed fate in whitebark pine and the 

life history traits of Clark’s nutcracker and pine squirrels. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-742. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 62 p. 

Lotan, J.E., J.K Brown, LF. Neuenschwander. 1984. Role of Fire in Lodgepole Pine Forests. Lodgepole 

Pine: The Species and Its Management: Symposium Proceedings. Compo and Ed. D.M. 

Baumgartner. Spokane, WA. 

Lowe, J.E. 1995 (November 14). Regional Forester Amendment #2 implementation – Umatilla NF trip; 

file designation 2430/2600 memorandum to Forest Supervisors: Colville, Deschutes, Fremont, 

Malheur, Ochoco, Okanogan, Umatilla National Forest, Wallowa-Whitman, and Winema NFs. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 4 p. 

Luyssaert, S.; Schulze, E.D.; Borner, A.; Knohl, A.; Hessenmoller, D.; Law, B.E.; Ciais, P.; Grace, J. 

2008. Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature. 455(7210): 213-215. 

Lynch, H.J.; Renkin, R.A.; Crabtree, R.L.; Moorcroft, P.R. 2006. The influence of previous mountain 

pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) activity on the 1988 Yellowstone fires. Ecosystems. 9(8): 

1318-1327. 

Macias Fauria, M.; Johnson, E.A. 2009. Large-scale climatic patterns and area affected by mountain pine 

beetle in British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Geophysical Research. 114: G01012. 

Martin, K. 2010. Range of Variation Direction for Forest Vegetation Project Planning; file designation 

1920-2-1 (Routing 2470) memorandum to Supervisor Office Staff and District Rangers. 

Pendleton, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Umatilla National Forest, 

Supervisor’s Office. 6 p. 

Mason, C.L.; Ceder, K.; Rogers, H.; Bloxton, T.; Comnick, J.; Lippke, B.; McCarter, J.; Zobrist, K. 2003. 

Investigation of Alternative strategies for design, layout and administration of fuel removal 

projects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, Rural Technology 

Initiative. 78 p. http://www.ruraltech.org/pubs/reports/fuel_removal/index.asp 

McKenzie, D., Gedalof, Z., Peterson, D.L., Mote, P. 2004. Climatic change, wildfire, and conservation. 

Conservation Biology 18 (4): 890-902. 

Mehringer. P .J.. S.F. Arno, and KL Peterson. 1977. Postglacial History of Lost Trail Pass Bog, Bitterroot 

Mountains, Montana. Arctic and Alpine Research, Vol. 9. No.4. pp. 345-368. 

Millar, C.I.; Stephenson, N. L.; Stephens, S. L. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future: Managing 

in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications, 17(8). 7 p. 

Millar, C.I.; Woolfenden, W.B. 1999. The role of climate change in interpreting historical variability. 

Ecological Applications. 9(4): 1207-1216. 

Miller, J.; Safford, H.; Crimmins, M.; Thode, A. 2009. Quantitative evidence for increasing forest fire 

severity in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Mountains, California and Nevada, USA. 

Ecosystems. 12:16-32. 

Miner, R.; Perez-Garcia, J. 2007. The greenhouse gas and carbon profile of the global forest products 

industry. Forest Products Journal. 57(10): 80-90. 
Bibliography 

Mitchell, R.G.; Martin, R.E. 1980. Fire and insects in pine culture of the Pacific Northwest. In: Martin, 

R.E.; Edmonds, R.L.; Faulkner, D.A.; Harrington, J.B.; Fuquay, D.M.; Stocks, B.J.; Barr, S., eds. 

Proceedings: sixth conference on fire and forest meteorology. Washington, DC: Society of 

American Foresters: 182-190. 

Mitchell, R.G.; Waring, R.H.; Pitman, G.B. 1983. Thinning lodgepole pine increases tree vigor and 

resistance to mountain pine beetle. Forest Science. 29(1): 204-211. 

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/saf/fs/1983/00000029/00000001/art00031

Mitchell, S. R.; Harmon, M. E.; O’Connell, K. E. B. 2009. Forest fuel reduction alters fire severity and 

long-term carbon storage in three Pacific Northwest ecosystems. Ecological Applications 19(3) 

pages 643-655. 

Moeur, M.; Stage, A.R. 1995. Most similar neighbor: an improved sampling inference procedure for 

natural resource planning. Forest Science. 41(2): 337-359. 

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/saf/fs/1995/00000041/00000002/art00012

Moghissi, A.A.; Love, B.R.; Straja, S.R.; McBride, D.K.; Swetnam, M.S. 2008. Best available science: its 

evolution, taxonomy, and application. Arlington, VA: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. 93 p. 

http://www.potomacinstitute.org/publications/Best%20Available%20Science%20FINAL.pdf

Monnig, E. and J. Byler. 1992. Forest Health and Ecological Integrity in the Northern Rockies. FPM 

Report 92-7 (second edition), Northern Region USDA-Forest Service. 20 pp. 

Morehouse, K.; Johns, T.; Kaye, J.; Kaye, M. 2008. Carbon and nitrogen cycling immediately following 

bark beetle outbreaks in southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 

255(7): 2698-2708. 

Morgan, P.; Aplet, G.H.; Haufler, J.B.; Humphries, H.C.; Moore, M.M.; Wilson, W.D. 1994. Historical 

range of variability: a useful tool for evaluating ecosystem change. Journal of Sustainable 

Forestry. 2(1/2): 87-111. doi:10.1300/J091v02n01_04 

Morgan, P.; Parsons, R. 2001. Historical range of variability of forests of the Idaho southern batholith 

ecosystem. Unpublished report submitted to Boise Cascade Corporation. Moscow, ID: University 

of Idaho, Department of Forest Resources. 34 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/uma/publications/HRV_Idaho_So_Batholith_Ecosys.PDF

Mutch, R.W.; Arno, S.F.; Brown, J.K.; Carlson, C.E.; Ottmar, R.D.; Peterson, J.L. 1993. Forest health in 

the Blue Mountains: a management strategy for fire-adapted ecosystems. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-310. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 14 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr310.pdf 

Myneni, R.B.; Keeling, C.D.; Tucker, C.J.; Asrar, G.; Nemani, R.R. 1997. Increased plant growth in the 

northern high latitudes from 1981 to 1991. Nature. 386(6626): 698-702. 

Nabuurs, G.J.; Masera, O.; Andrasko, K.; Benitez-Ponce, P.; Boer, R.; Dutschke, M.; Elsiddig, E.; FordRobertson, J.; Frumhoff, P.; Karjalainen, T.; Krankina, O.; Kurz, W.A.; Matsumoto, M.; 

Oyhantcabal, W.; Ravindranath, N.H.; Sanz Sanchez, M.J.; Zhang, X. 2007. Forestry. In: Climate 

change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the fourth assessment report of 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press: 

541-584. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter9.pdf

Negrón, J.F.; Popp, J.B. 2004. Probability of ponderosa pine infestation by mountain pine beetle in the 

Colorado Front Range. Forest Ecology and Management. 191(1-3): 17-27. 

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2003.10.026 
Bibliography 

North, M.; Hurteau, M.; Innes, J. 2009. Fire suppression and fuels treatment effects on mixed-conifer 

carbon stocks and emissions. Ecological Applications. 19(6): 1385-1396.

O’Hara, K.L.; Latham, P.A.; Hessburg, P.; Smith, B.G. 1996. A structural classification for inland 

Northwest forest vegetation. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 11(3): 97-102. 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/4746

Obedzinski, R.A.; Schmid, J.M.; Mata, S.A.; Olsen, W.K.; Kessler, R.R. 1999. Growth of ponderosa pine 

stands in relation to mountain pine beetle susceptibility. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-28. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

13 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/31983

Oliver, C.D.; Larson, B.C. 1996. Forest stand dynamics. Update edition. New York: John Wiley. 520 p. 

ISBN:0-471-13833-9 

Olsson, P.; Folke, C.; Berkes, F. 2004. Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in socialecological systems. Environmental Management. 34(1): 75-90. 

Parry, M.L.; Canziani, O.F.; Palutikof, J.P.; and others. 2007. Technical summary. In: Parry, M.L.; 

Canziani, O.F.; Palutikof, J.P.; van der Linden, P.J.; Hanson, C.E., editors. Climate change 2007: 

impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment 

report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 

University Press: 23-78. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-ts.pdf 

Perera, A.H.; Buse, L.J.; Weber, M.G., editors. 2004. Emulating natural forest landscape disturbances: 

concepts and applications. New York: Columbia University Press. 315 p. ISBN:0-231-12916-5 

Perez-Garcia, J.; Lippke, B.; Comnick, J.; Manriquez, C. 2005. An assessment of carbon pools, storage, 

and wood products market substitution using life-cycle analysis results. Wood and Fiber Science. 

37(Special Issue): 140-148. 

Perry, D.A.; Hessburg, P.F.; Skinner, C.N.; Spies, T.A.; Stephens, S.L.; Taylor, A.H.; Franklin, J.F.; 

McComb, B.; Riegel, G. The ecology of mixed-severity fire regimes in Washington, Oregon, and 

Northern California. 2011. Forest Ecology and Management: 262, pp. 703-717. 

Pfeifer, E. M., J. A. Hicke, and A. J. H. Meddens, Observations and modeling of aboveground tree carbon 

stocks and fluxes following a bark beetle outbreak in the western United States, Global Change 

Biology, 7, 339–350, 2011. 

Pitman, G.B.; Perry, D.A.; Emmingham, W.H. 1982. Thinning to prevent mountain pine beetles in 

lodgepole and ponderosa pine. Exten. Circ. 1106. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, 

Extension Service. 4 p. 

Pollet, J.; Omi, P.N. 2002. Effect of thinning and prescribed burning on crown fire severity in ponderosa 

pine forests. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 11(1): 1-10. doi:10.1071/WF01045 

Powell, D.C. 1999. Suggested stocking levels for forest stands in northeastern Oregon and southeastern 

Washington: an implementation guide for the Umatilla National Forest. Tech. Pub. F14-SO-TP03-99. Pendleton, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 

Umatilla National Forest. 300 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/uma/nr/silv/stockingpub1.pdf 

Powell, D.C. 2000. Potential vegetation, disturbance, plant succession, and other aspects of forest 

ecology. Tech. Pub. F14-SO-TP-09-00. Pendleton, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Umatilla National Forest. 88 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/uma/nr/silv/Forest%20ecology%20pub.pdf 
Bibliography 

Powell, D.C. 2009a. Tree density protocol for mid-scale assessments. Unpub. Rep. Pendleton, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Umatilla National Forest. 

45 p. 

Powell, D.C. 2009b. A stage is a stage is a stage....or is it? Successional stages, structural stages, seral 

stages. Unpub. Rep. Pendleton, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region, Umatilla National Forest. 9 p. 

Powell, D.C. 2010a. Estimating crown fire susceptibility for project planning. Fire Management Today. 

70(3): 8-15. http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fmt/fmt_pdfs/FMT70-3.pdf

Powell, D.C. 2010b. Range of Variation Recommendations for Dry, Moist, and Cold Forests. Tech. 

Pub. F14-SO-WP-Silv-03. Pendleton, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region, Umatilla National Forest. 37 p. 

Powell, D.C.; Johnson, C.G., Jr.; Crowe, E.A.; Wells, A.; Swanson, D.K. 2007. Potential vegetation 

hierarchy for the Blue Mountains section of northeastern Oregon, southeastern Washington, and 

west-central Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-709. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 87 p. 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/27598

Preisler, H.K.; Mitchell, R.G. 1993. Colonization patterns of the mountain pine beetle in thinned and 

unthinned lodgepole pine stands. Forest Science. 39(3): 528-545. 

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/saf/fs/1993/00000039/00000003/art00010

Price, C.; Rind, D. 1994. Possible implications of global climate change on global lightning distributions 

and frequencies. Journal of Geophysical Research. 99(D5): 10823-10831. 

Raffa, K. F., B. H. Aukema, B. J. Bentz, A. L. Carroll, J. A. Hicke, M. G. Turner, and W. H. Romme. 

2008. Cross-scale drivers of natural disturbances prone to anthropogenic amplification: The 

dynamics of bark beetle eruptions. BioScience.58. 501-517. 

Reyer, C.; Guericke, M.; Ibisch, P. 2009. Climate change mitigation via afforestation, reforestation and 

deforestation avoidance: and what about adaptation to environmental change? New Forests. 

38(1): 15-34. doi:10.1007/s11056-008-9129-0 

Rhemtulla, J.M.; Mladenoff, D.J.; Clayton, M.K. 2009. Historical forest baselines reveal potential for 

continued carbon sequestration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106(15): 

6082-6087. 

Running, S.W. 2008. Ecosystem disturbance, carbon, and climate. Science. 321(5889): 652-653.

Ryan, M. G.; Archer, S. R. Lead authors. 2008. The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land 

Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity. In: Land Resources: Forests and Arid Lands. Final 

Report, synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the 

Chief Economist. 2009. Global Climate Change web site. 

http://www.usda.gov/oce/global)change/files/SAP4_3/Land.pdf 

Safranyik, L.; Nevill, R.; Morrison, D. 1998. Effects of stand density management on forest insects and 

diseases. Tech. Tran. Note No. 12. Victoria, BC: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest 

Service, Pacific Forestry Center. 4 p. http://bookstore.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/detail_e.php?recid=35719

Salinger, M.; Sivakumar, M.; Motha, R. 2005. Reducing vulnerability of agriculture and forestry to 

climate variability and change: workshop summary and recommendations. Climatic Change. 

70(1): 341-362. doi:10.1007/s10584-005-5954-8 
Bibliography 

Schmid, J.M.; Mata, S.A. 1992. Stand density and mountain pine beetle-caused tree mortality in 

ponderosa pine stands. Res. Note RM-515. [Fort Collins, CO]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 4 p. 

Schmid, J.M.; Mata, S.A. 2005. Mountain pine beetle-caused tree mortality in partially cut plots 

surrounded by unmanaged stands. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-54. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Experiment Station. 11 p. 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/20626

Schmitt, C.L.; Powell, D.C. 2005. Rating forest stands for insect and disease susceptibility: a simplified 

approach (version 2.0). Pub. BMPMSC-05-01. La Grande, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, 

Blue Mountains Pest Management Service Center. 20 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/uma/publications/SusceptibilityRatingV.2.pdf 

Schmitt, Craig L. 1999. Effects of stocking level control on the occurrence and severity of conifer 

diseases in the Blue Mountains of northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. Publication 

BMZ-99-04. [La Grande, OR]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Blue Mountains Pest Management Zone. 

13 p. 

Schmitz, R.F.; McGregor, M.D.; Amman, G.D.; Oakes, R.D. 1989. Effect of partial cutting treatments of 

lodgepole pine stands on the abundance and behavior of flying mountain pine beetles. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research. 19(5): 566-574. doi:10.1139/x89-089 

Shrimpton, D.M. 1978. Resistance of lodgepole pine to mountain pine beetle infestation. In: Berryman, 

A.A.; Amman, G.D.; Stark, R.W., tech. eds. Theory and practice of mountain pine beetle 

management in lodgepole pine forest. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and 

Range Experiment Station: 64-76. 

Simonin, K.A. 2000. Vaccinium membranaceum. In: Fire Effects Information System (on-line). U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences 

Laboratory (producer). http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/vacmem/introductory.html

Sloan, John P. 1998. Interruption of the natural fire cycle in a grand fir forest of central Idaho: changes in 

stand structure and composition. In: Pruden, Teresa L.; Brennan, Leonard A., editors. Fire in ecosystem management: shifting the paradigm from suppression to prescription. Tallahassee, FL: 

Tall Timbers Research Station. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings. 20: 250-257.

Smith, J.E.; Heath, L.S.; Skog, K.E.; Birdsey, R.A. 2006. Methods for calculating forest ecosystem and 

harvested carbon with standard estimates for forest types of the United States. General Technical 

Report NE-343. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northeastern Research Station. 216 p. 

Smith, T.F.; Rizzo, D.M.; North, M. 2005. Patterns of mortality in an old-growth mixed-conifer forest of 

the southern Sierra Nevada, California. Forest Science. 51(3): 266-275. 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/24976

Sohngen, B.L.; Haynes, R.W. 1997. The potential for increasing carbon storage in United States 

unreserved timberlands by reducing forest fire frequency: an economic and ecological analysis. 

Climate Change. 35(2): 179-197. 

Society of American Foresters. 1980. Cover Types of the United States and Canada. Washington D.C. 

Spittlehouse, D. L.; Stewart, R.B. 2003. Adaptation to climate change in forest management. BC Journal 

of Ecosystems and Management. 4(1). 11p. 
Bibliography 

Spracklen, D.V.; Logan, J.A.; Mickley, L.J.; Park, R.J.; Yevich, R.; Westerling, A.L.; Jaffe, D.A. 2007. 

Wildfires drive interannual variability of organic carbon aerosol in the western U.S. in summer. 

Geophysical Research Letters. 34: L16816. 

Steele, R.O., Pfiser, R.D. Ryker, R.A.,and Kittams, J.A. 1981. Forest Habitat Types of Central Idaho. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-114, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station, Ogden, UT. 138 p. 

Steele, R.O S.F. Arno, and K Geier-Hayes. 1986. Wildfire Patterns Change in Central ldaho's Ponderosa 

Pine -Douglas-fir Forest. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. Volume 1, number 1. pp. 16-18. 

Steele, Robert; Williams, R.E.; Weatherby, J.C.; Reinhardt, E.D., Hoffman, J.T.; Their, R.W. 1996. Stand 

Hazard Rating for Central Idaho Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-332. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 80-94. 

http://treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/23915 

Stephens, S.L. 1998. Evaluation of the effects of silvicultural and fuels treatments on potential fire 

behaviour in Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 105(1-3): 

21-35. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(97)00293-4 

The Nature Conservancy, USDA Forest Service, and Department of the Interior. LANDFIRE Vegetation 

Dynamics Modeling Manual, Version 4.1. March 2006. Boulder, CO. 71 pp. 

Turner, M.G.; Gardner, R.H.; O’Neill, R.V. 2001. Landscape ecology in theory and practice: Pattern and 

process. New York: Springer Science. 401 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Continuation of interim management direction establishing riparian, 

ecosystem and wildlife standards for timber sales; Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment 

#1. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Lost Trail Pass to Gibbonsville: An Integrated Resource Analysis. Unpub. 

Rep. North Fork, ID, Salmon-Challis National Forest. 66 p. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Clarification of Meaning and Intent in “Characteristics of Old-Growth 

Forests in the Intermountain Region.” File code 1920/2400/2600/5100. Internal agency 

memorandum. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Forest Service strategic framework for responding to climate change; 

version 1.0. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington 

Office. 21 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/documents/strategic-framework-climatechange-1-0.pdf

USDA Forest Service, 2012. Common Stand Exam User Guide. February 2012 version. 

USDA Forest Service; US Department of the Interior; US Bureau of Land Management 2004. The 

Healthy Forests Initiative and Healthy Forests Restoration Act: Interim Field Guide. FS-799. 39 

pp. 

van Mantgem, P.J.; Stephenson, N.L.; Byrne, J.C.; Daniels, L.D.; Franklin, J.F.; Fulé, P.Z.; Harmon, 

M.E.; Larson, A.J.; Smith, J.M.; Taylor, A.H.; Veblen, T.T. 2009. Widespread increase of tree 

mortality rates in the western United States. Science. 323(5913): 521-524. doi: 

10.1126/science.1165000 

Waring, R.H.; Pitman, G.B. 1985. Modifying lodgepole pine stands to change susceptibility to mountain 

pine beetle attack. Ecology. 66(3): 889-897. doi:10.2307/1940551 

Waring, R.H.; Running, S.W. 1998. Forest ecosystems: analysis at multiple scales. Second edition. San 

Diego, CA: Academic Press. 370 p. ISBN:0-12-735443-3 
Bibliography 

Weatherby, J.C.; Gardner, B.R.; Barbouletos, T.N. 1993. A Douglas-fir tussock moth hazard rating 

system for use in southern Idaho. Rep. R4-93-04. Ogden, UT: U.S.Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Forest Pest Management, Intermountain Region. 14 p. 

West, J.; Julius, S.; Kareiva, P.; Enquist, C.; Lawler, J.; Petersen, B.; Johnson, A.; Shaw, M. 2009. U.S. 

natural resources and climate change: concepts and approaches for management adaptation. 

Environmental Management. 44(6): 1001-1021. doi:10.1007/s00267-009-9345-1 

Westerling, A.L.; Hidalgo, H.G.; Cayan, D.R.; Swetnam, T.W. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase 

western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science. 313(5789): 940-943. doi:10.1126/science.1128834 

Whitehead, R.J.; Russo, G.L. 2005. “Beetle-proofed” lodgepole pine stands in interior British Columbia 

have less damage from mountain pine beetle. Infor. Rep. BC-X-402. Victoria, BC: Natural 

Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre. 17 p. 

http://bookstore.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/detail_e.php?recid=12584702

Wiedinmyer, C.; Neff, J.C. 2007. Estimates of CO2 from fires in the United States: implications for 

carbon management. Carbon Balance and Management. 2: 1-12. 

Williams, D.W.; Liebhold, A.M. 1995. Herbivorous insects and global change: potential changes in the 

spatial distribution of forest defoliator outbreaks. Journal of Biogeography. 22(4/5): 665-671. 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2845968 

Williams, J.T. and R.C. Rothermel. 1992. Fire Dynamics in Northern Rocky Mountain Stand Types. Res. 

Note INT -405, Intermountain Research Station. USDA-Forest Service. 4 pp. 

Winnett, S.M. 1998. Potential effects of climate change on U.S. forests: a review. Climate Research. 11: 

39-49. 

Witty, J.H.; Graham, R.C.; Hubbert, K.R.; Doolittle, J.A.; Wald, J.A. 2003. Contributions of water supply 

from the weathered bedrock zone to forest soil quality. Geoderma. 114(3-4): 389-400. 

Woodbury, P.B.; Smith, J.E.; Heath, L.S. 2007. Carbon sequestration in the U.S. forest sector from 1990 

to 2010. Forest Ecology and Management. 241(1-3): 14-27. 

INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES

R6 FEIS: Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Final Environmental Impact Statement, 2005. 

Publication R6-NR-FHP-PR-02-05,USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, 

Oregon. 

Record of Decision. 2005. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, Record of Decision. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland, OR. 

Record of Decision. 2010. Umatilla National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. Umatilla National Forest, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Pendleton, Oregon. http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/project_content.php?project=15119. (Accessed 

2010) 

Umatilla National Forest Environmental Assessment for the Management of Noxious Weeds. 1995. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Pendleton, Oregon. 

Umatilla National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment Final Environmental Impact Statement. 2010. 

Umatilla National Forest, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pendleton, Oregon. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/project_content.php?project=15119. (Accessed September 2010) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990. Land and resource management plan: Umatilla 
Bibliography 

National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 

Portland, OR. 

Wood, J. 2006. Unpublished Botanical Specialist Report, Invasive Plant Species. School Fire Salvage 

Recovery Project. USDA Forest Service, Umatilla National Forest, Pomeroy Ranger District. 26 

p. 

FUELS 

Cone Fire Tests Fuel Reduction Treatment Effectiveness, Blacks Mt Experimental Forest and The Cone 

Fire, September 26, 2002 By Gary Nakamura, UC Cooperative Extension. 

 Well-researched study of the concept of defensible fuels profile zones 

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Washington, D.C. Island Press. 493 p. 

 The standard text of fire ecology for this location 

Agee, J.K. 1994. Fire and weather disturbances in terrestrial ecosystems of the eastern Cascades. General 

Technical report PNW-GTR-320. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 52 p. 

 Most time-tested example of fire and weather interplay for this area. 

Agee, J.K. 1998. The landscape ecology of western forest fire regimes. Northwest Science. 72 (special 

issue): 24-34 

 Provides the most thorough overview of fire regime function 

Agee, J.K., Skinner, C.N. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 211: 83-96 

 Well researched road map of critical fuels treatment principles used to design treatments for this 

project 

Agee, J.K. 2004. The complex nature of mixed severity fire regimes. Mixed Severity Fire Regimes: 

Ecology and Management. The Association for fire Ecology. MISC103: 1-10. 

 Standard example of mixed severity fire regimes and sensible approaches to management in these 

areas 

Albini, F. 1976. Estimating wildfire behavior and effects. General Technical Report INT-GTR-30. 

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 92 p. 

 Standard reference for modeling fire behavior and effects 

Anderson, H.E. 1982. Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior. General Technical 

Report INT-GTR-122. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 22p. 

 Represents the standard for classification of fuel models. 

Bar Massada, Avi; Radeloff, Volker C.; Stewart, Susan I. 2011. Allocating fuel breaks to optimally 

protect structures in the wildland-urban interface. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 20: 59-

68.. 

 A well-researched study about wildland-urban interface, spotting, and strategic fuels placements. 
Bibliography 

Brown, J.K.; Reinhardt, E.D.; Kramer, K.A. 2003. Coarse woody debris: managing benefits and fire 

hazard in the recovering forest. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-105. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 16 p. 

 Standard reference about appropriate management of downed wood 

Evers, L. 2002. Unpublished Report. Fire regimes of Oregon and Washington. Portland, OR: Bureau of 

Land Management, Oregon State Office 

 Fire regime science tailored for this geographic locale 

Evers, L. 2009. Unpublished Report. Potential fuels treatments in the WUI area near Tollgate. Portland, 

OR: Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office. 

 Reports specific conditions and management strategies for the Tollgate area from the perspective 

of a fire ecologist 

Graham, R.T.; McCaffrey, S.; Jain, T.B. (tech eds.) 2004. Science basis for changing forest structure to 

modify wildfire behavior and severity. General Technical Report. RMRS-GTR-120. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

43 p. 

 Example of the types, scales, and natures of fuels treatments and their results on fire effects. 

Hann, W.J. Strohm, D.J. 2003. Fire regime condition class and associated data for fire and fuels 

planning: methods and applications. Proceeding RMRS-P-29. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Center. 397-434. 

 Standard example of using FRCC to design fuels treatments 

Huff, M.H.; Ottmar, Foger D.; Alvarado, Ernesto; Vihnanek, Robert E.; Lehmkuhl, John F.; Hessburg, 

Paul F.; Everett, Richard L. 1995. Historical and current forest landscapes in eastern Oregon and 

Washington. Part II: Linking vegetation characteristics to potential fire behavior and related 

smoke production. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-355. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 43 p. 

 Well-researched example of the relationship between fuels conditions and fire behavior for this 

specific geographic area 

Keyes, C.R., O’Hara, K.L., 2002. Quantifying stand targets for silvicultural prevention of crown fires. 

Western Journal of Applied forestry. 17(2): 101-109 

 Standard example of a general overview of silvicultural approaches aimed at minimizing crown 

fires 

Mason, C. Larry; Ceder, Kevin; Rogers, Heather; Bloxton, Thomas; Comnick, Jeffrey; Lippke, Bruce; 

McCarter, James; Zobrist, Kevin. 2003. Investigation of alternative strategies for design, layout 

and administration of fuel removal projects. Unnumbered Report. Seattle, WA: University of 

Washington, College of Forest Resources, Rural Technology Initiative. 78 p. 

 Well-researched example of different approaches taken in fuels reduction projects and their 

potential outcomes 

Powell, D.C. 2010. Estimating Crown Fire Susceptibility for Project Planning. Fire Management Today 

Vol. 70 No. 3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 8 p. 

 Most appropriate example of using standard forestry metrics to estimate and define crown fire 

potential of a given stand 
Bibliography 

Powell, D.C. 2005. Fire regimes of the blue mountains. Unpublished Report. Pendleton, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Umatilla National Forest. 

3 p. 

 Most specific reporting of fire regimes for this specific geographic location 

Reinhardt, Elizabeth; Crookston, Nicholas L. (Technical Editors). 2003. The Fire and Fuels Extension to 

the Forest Vegetation Simulator. General Technical report RMRS-GTR-116. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain research Station. 209 p. 

 A standard tool for modeling fire behavior at the landscape level 

Rothermel, R.C. 1991. Predicting behavior and Size of crown fires in the Northern Rocky Mountains. 

Research Paper INT-438. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station. 46 p. 

 The standard model when researching crown fire behavior 

Sandberg, Ottmar, Peterson and Core, 2002. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems Effects of Fire on Air. General 

Technical report RMRS-GTR-42. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station. Volume 5. 

 Well-researched example of smoke effects in relation to wildland fire 

Schmidt, K.M.; Menakis, J.P.; Hardy C.C.; Hann, W.J.; Bunnell, D.L. 2002. Development of coarse 

scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR87. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain research 

Station. 41 p. 

 Well-researched example of fuels management strategies and their effects on wildland fire 

Schroeder, 2010. Fire behavior in thinned jack pine: two case studies of FireSmart treatments in 

Canada’s Northwest Territories, Advantage, Vol. 12 No. 7 October 2010. 

 A thorough and well-researched example of thinning’s effect on wildland fire behavior 

applicable to this area 

Van Wagner, C.C. 1977. Conditions for the start and spread of crown fire. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research. 7(1): 23-24. 

 Standard example of crown fire predictors 

Youngblood, A., et al., 2008. Changes in fuelbed characteristics and resulting fire potentials after fuel 

reduction treatments in dry forests of the Blue Mountains, northeastern Oregon. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 255: 3151-3169. 

 Standard example of fire behavior reductions as a result of fuels treatments for this geographic 

area 

SOILS 

Harvey, A. E., et al. Biotic and abiotic processes in eastside ecosystems: the effects of management on 

soil properties, processes, and productivity. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-323. 

USDA 1977. Forest Service, Umatilla National Forest Soil Resource Inventory. 
Bibliography 

BOTANY

Ahlenslager, Kathy and Laura Potash. April 18, 2007. Conservation Assessment for 13 Species of 

Moonworts (Botrychium Swartz Subgenus Botrychium). USDA Forest Service Region 6 and 

USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington. 

Reference is good summary of what is known about species of Botrychium and 

has extensive reference list. It is best science because it references the only 

experts studying the genus in the Pacific Northwest. 

Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America north of Mexico. 14+ 

vols. New York and Oxford. 

Reference is a multi-volume work describing all plant species in North America 

and when finished, this 30 volume set will be the first and only work to describe 

all native flora north of Mexico. It is best science because it is a collaboration of 

over 800 authors, many experts in their particular plant group. 

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center. 2010. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species of Oregon. 

Institute for Natural Resources, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon. 

Reference is only location for state rankings of sensitive species. It is best 

science because Oregon Biodiversity Information Center is only source for state 

rankings of sensitive species. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program. Preventing and 

Managing Invasive Plants. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Volume III. 

Appendix D. Potential Influences of Forest Service Land Management on Invasive Plant 

Species in Pacific Northwest Forests and Rangelands: A Review. 

Reference is comprehensive summary of what is known about land management 

activities and invasive plant spread. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Record of Decision. Umatilla National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment 

Project. 

Reference is decision document that guides/directs invasive plant treatment on 

Umatilla NF.

Wilson, Barbara, R.E. Brainerd, D. Lytijen, B. Newhouse and Nick Otting. 2008. Field Guide to the 

Sedges of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, OR. 

Reference is most recent treatise of Carex species in the Pacific Northwest. It is 

best science because the Carex Working Group (all authors included) are experts 

on the genus. 

INVASIVE PLANTS

Beyers, Jan, 2004. Postfire seeding for erosion control: effectiveness and impacts on native plant 

communities. Conservation Biology 18:4 pp. 947-956. 

Brooks, M.L. and D.A. Pyke, 2001. Invasive plants and fire in the deserts of North 

America. In K. Galley and T. Wilson (eds). Proceedings of the invasive species workshop: the role of fire 

in the control and spread of invasive species. Fire Conference 2000: the first national congress on 
Bibliography 

fire ecology, prevention, and management. Miscellaneous publication No.11, Tall Timbers 

Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. 

Defenders of Wildlife, 2002. Impacts of off-road vehicles and roads on wildlife and habitat in Florida's 

National Forests http://www.defenders.org/habitat/florvs/ORVmain.pdf 

Goodwin, K. M. R. L. Sheley, 2001. What to do when fires fuel weeds: A step-by-step guide for 

managing invasive plants after a wildfire. Rangelands. 2001 Dec; 23(6):15-21 

Keeley, J.E. 2001. fire and invasive species in Mediterranean-climate ecosystems of California. Pp. 81-

94 in K. Galley and T. Wilson (eds.). Proceedings of the invasive species workshop: the role of 

fire in the control and spread of invasive species. Fire Conference 2000: the first national 

congress on fire ecology, prevention, and management. Miscellaneous publication No.11, Tall 

Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. 

Ibid, 2004. Ecological impacts of wheat seeding after a Sierra Nevada wildfire. International 

Journal of Wildland Fire 13:73-78. 

Johnson, C.J. 1998. Vegetation response after wildfires in National Forests of northeastern Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service Technical Report R6-NR-ECOL-TP-06-98, Pacific Northwest Region, 

Portland, Oregon. 

Kimberling, D. N.; Parks, C. G.; Shanafelt, B. J.; Knecht, D. E., and DePuit, E. J. 2005. Potential 

influences of Forest Service land management on invasive plant species in Pacific Northwest 

forests and rangelands: a review. In: Pacific Northwest Region invasive plant program final 

environmental impact statement, III: Appendix D, pp.1-32. 

McIver, J. and L. Starr, tech. eds. 2000. Environmental effects of postfire logging: literature review and 

annotated bibliography. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-486. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 72 p. 

R6 FEIS: Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Final Environmental Impact Statement, 2005. 

Publication R6-NR-FHP-PR-02-05,USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, 

Oregon. 

R6 FEIS: Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Final Environmental Impact Statement, 2005. 

Publication R6-NR-FHP-PR-02-05,USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, 

Oregon. 

Record of Decision. 2005. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, Record of Decision. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland, OR. 

Record of Decision. 2010. Umatilla National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. Umatilla National Forest, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Pendleton, Oregon. http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/project_content.php?project=15119. (Accessed 

2010). 

Reever-Morghan, K. J. Frequent fire slows invasion of ungrazed tallgrass prairie by Canada thistle. 

Ecological Restoration . 2000; 18(3):194-195.

Schoennagel, T. and D. Waller 1999. Understory responses to fire and artificial seeding in an eastern 

Cascades Abies Grandis forest, U.S.A. Can. J. For. Res. 29:1393-1401.

Trabaud, L. Fire as an agent of plant invasion? A case study in the French Mediterranean vegetation. Di 

Castri, F.; Hansen, A. J., and Debussche, M. Biological invasions in Europe and the 

Mediterranean Basin. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic; 1990; pp. 417-437. 
Bibliography 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA Forest Service). Umatilla National Forest 

Environmental Assessment for the Management of Noxious Weeds. 1995. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. Pendleton, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service. Umatilla National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. 2010. Umatilla National Forest, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Pendleton, Oregon. http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/project_content.php?project=15119. (Accessed 

September 2010). 

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Land and resource management plan: Umatilla National Forest. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR. 

USDA Forest Service. Final Environmental Impact Statement, North End Sheep Allotment. 2011. 160 p. 

Wright, H.A. and A.W.Bailey, 1982. Fire Ecology; United States and southern Canada. John Wiley and 

sons, New York, NY. 

RECREATION

Umatilla Land and Resource Management Plan, p.4-47. 

This reference lists the standards and guidelines of the Umatilla Forest. 

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A Framework for Planning, Management, and Research, General 

Technical Report PNW-98, 1979, p. 7. 

This reference documents the agencies foundational principles and the framework of the 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. 

SCENERY RESOURCES

Umatilla Land and Resource Management Plan, p.4-49. 

 Desired condition and Forest Plan direction is found in the Umatilla LRMP. 

Landscape Aesthetics: A Scenery Management Handbook, Agricultural Handbook #701. 

The Scenery Management Handbook is the most recent Handbook for Scenery Management of 

Forest Service lands. 

Bradley, A. Gordon, Forest Aesthetics, Harvest Practices in Visually Sensitive Areas, Washington Forest 

Protection Assoc., 1996, pg. 6. 

This publication, being in the Pacific Northwest among similar landscapes shows recent and 

applicable conclusions about visual sensitivity. 

Landscape Aesthetics: A Scenery Management Handbook, Appendix J, 2008, p.9-12. 

This appendix applies the integrated approach to scenery management that is key to the intent of 

the SMS Handbook.
APPENDIX A

MAPS

APPENDIX A

An index of the maps included in this appendix is listed below.

Index of Maps

Map A1: Tollgate Project Planning Area Location and Vicinity 

Map A2: Tollgate Project Planning Area, Land Ownership, and Values at Risk 

Map A3: Tollgate Project Planning Area- Alternative B, Treatment Units

Map A4: Tollgate Project Planning Area- Alternative C, Treatment Units

1- RO 1

TRO

W

Y

ASHINGTON

OREGON

Grande Ronde R vi er Road

WAO 5- 69

ASO-116

4039000

WAO-194

111

1

WAO-570

OR-204

OR-204

Union

deess

North Fork Umatilla

Wilderness

Eagle Cap Wilderness

3109

3113

8036

3200

6500

4039

0036

6401

6415

6234

13 20

2126

6235

3150

3100

3128

6200

3728

6206

6219

026 8

6236

26 17

3715

6232

6406

036 7

3725

3738

3719

6231

6214

6306

46 13

TROY

MILTON-FREEWATER

FLORA

WESTON

WALLOWA

ELGIN

MEACHAM LOSTINE

SUMMERVILLE

IMBLER

ENTERPRISE

JOSEPH

ISLANDCITY

LAGRANDE

COVE

UNION

U M AT I L L A U M AT I L L A

U N I O N U N I O N

W A L L O W A W A L L O W A

WASHINGTON

OREGON

ID

A

H

O

Legend

Tollgate Project Planning Area

Walla Walla Ranger District

Pomeroy Ranger District

Other Forests

Wilderness

Cities

County

Forest Service Road

County Roads

Tollgate Project

Planning Area

A-1
Tollgate

Langdon Lake

Jubilee Lake

OR-204

OR-204

64

030

64

050

020

070

025

040

051

051

150

300

022

0 3 6

083

070

020

140

035

015 032

035

060

050

020

100

900 030

200

120

010

110

3725

155

040

033

080

030

041

060

3715

034

6401

3718

020

100

6406

3719

T. 5 N T. 4 N T. 3 N T. 2 N

R. 36 E R. 37 E R. 38 E R. 39 E

 ́ 1 0.5 0 1 Miles

1:83,000

Legend

Tollgate Project Planning Area

Walla Walla Ranger District Boundary

Tollgate WUI

Private Residences

Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness

Inventoried Roadless Area

Other Ownership

Closed

Open

Overhead Electrical Line

Tollgate Project Planning Area

Land Ownership and

Values at Risk

ATTENTION

This product is reproduced from geospatial information

prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest

Service. GIS data and product accuracy may vary. They

may be: developed from sources of differing accuracy,

accurate only at certain scales, based on modeling or

interpretation, incomplete while being created or

revised. etc... Using GIS products for purposes other

than those for which they were created may yield

inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest Service

reserves the right to correct,update,modify,or replace

GIS products without notification. For more information

contact the The Umatilla National Forest Supervisors office.

Walla Walla River IRA

Lookingglass IRA

North Fork Umatilla Wilderness

A-2
1

79

46

41

10

68

42

4

83

50

18

84

31

77 47

48

78

43

87

15

45

26

38

85

76

44

54

64

69

49

53

34

89

62

51

104

75 25

95

86

56

20

66

35

82

5

61

103

62

97

9

52

37

3

33

99

100

67

62

36

81

90

23

72

19 94

12

62

73

71

27

102

21

55

96 98

32

70

101

29

105

7

6

7

6

6 5

3

7

4

9

2 1

5 4

8

9

2

1 5

1

2

8

9

4

9

4

6

8

3

3

1

5

2

8

3

8 9

6

8 9

7

7

7

2 1

2 1

5 4 2

1

1

1

3

2 5 4 3

3 2

6

4

19

31

30

31

19

18

30

5

18

6

6

1

7

3 2

11

11

4

11

11

11

5

12

11

10

18

15

11

11

21

14

33

34

10

32

14

28

24

14

20

16

34

22

14

32

23

23

27

26 29 27

13

20

34

21

28

25

36

12

35 32

22

13

33

33

36

28

23

12

12

26

10

15

24

29

21

14

29

17

20

24

25

25 30

28

35

30

25

15

17

16

16

13

27

27 26

27

30

16

34

10

22

13

29

17

13

31

17

36

35

26

31

21

22

26

17 15

26

29

19

34

33

27

24

18

35

32

13

15 14

20

33

17

32 36

21

35

34

28

35

22 23

36

6

24

33

28

32

25

14

26

25

13

16

30 29

12

31

10

35

12

24

25

18

31

36

19

23

19

26

23

36

15

20

14

16

25

18

23

13

35

36

10

23

12

22 24

24 19

1

20 21

12

7

6

6

5 4 3 2

3

3

2 1

6

18

19

35

30

31

34

36

27

31

22

3

32

18

15

19

33

30

34

31

10

35

10

36 31 32

15

34

34

22

33

27

34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31

R. 36 E R. 37 E R. 38 E R. 39 E R. 39 E R. 40 E R. 39 E

T. 5 N T. 4 N T. 3 N T. 2 N

Tollgate Project Planning Area

Alternative B

Treatment Units

1 0.5 0 1 Miles  ́

ATTENTION

This product is reproduced from geospatial information

prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest

Service. GIS data and product accuracy may vary. They

may be: developed from sources of differing accuracy,

accurate only at certain scales, based on modeling or

interpretation, incomplete while being created or

revised. etc... Using GIS products for purposes other

than those for which they were created may yield

inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest Service

reserves the right to correct,update,modify,or replace

GIS products without notification. For more information

contact the The Umatilla National Forest Supervisors office.

1:83,000

Legend

Tollgate Project Planning Area

Walla Walla Ranger District Boundary

Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness

Inventoried Roadless Area

Closed

Open

Road Realignment

Commercial Thin, Ladder Fuel Reduction, Down & Dead Removal

Commercial Thin

Commercial Thin, Ladder Fuel Reduction

Commercial Thin, Non Commercial Thin

Ladder Fuel Reduction

Ladder Fuel Reduction, Dead & Down Removal

Non Commercial Thin

Walla Walla River IRA

Lookingglass IRA

North Fork Umatilla Wilderness

A-3
1

79

46

41

68

10

4

42

83

50

18

84

31

77 47

48

78

43

87

15

45

85

76

44

54

49

64

69

53

34

62

89

51

25

95

86

56

20

66

35

75

82

5

61

103

62

97

52

37

3

9

99

100

67

62

36

81

90

23

72

19

62

73

71

94

27

102

12

21

55

33

98

32

104

101

96

70

29

105

104

104

7

6

7

6

6 5

3

7

4

9

2 1

5 4

8

9

2

1 5

1

2

8

9

4

9

4

6

8

3

3

1

5

2

8

3

8 9

6

8 9

7

7

7

2 1

2 1

5 4 2

1

1

1

3

2 5 4 3

3 2

6

4

19

31

30

31

19

18

30

5

18

6

6

1

7

3 2

11

11

4

11

11

11

5

12

11

10

18

15

11

11

21

14

33

34

10

32

14

28

24

14

20

16

34

22

14

32

23

23

27

26 29 27

13

20

34

21

28

25

36

12

35 32

22

13

33

33

36

28

23

12

12

26

10

15

24

29

21

14

29

17

20

24

25

25 30

28

35

30

25

15

17

16

16

13

27

27 26

27

30

16

34

10

22

13

29

17

13

31

17

36

35

26

31

21

22

26

17 15

26

29

19

34

33

27

24

18

35

32

13

15 14

20

33

17

32 36

21

35

34

28

35

22 23

36

6

24

33

28

32

25

14

26

25

13

16

30 29

12

31

10

35

12

24

25

18

31

36

19

23

19

26

23

36

15

20

14

16

25

18

23

13

35

36

10

23

12

22 24

24 19

1

20 21

12

7

6

6

5 4 3 2

3

3

2 1

6

18

19

35

30

31

34

36

27

31

22

3

32

18

15

19

33

30

34

31

10

35

10

36 31 32

15

34

34

22

33

27

34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31

R. 36 E R. 37 E R. 38 E R. 39 E R. 39 E R. 40 E R. 39 E

T. 5 N T. 4 N T. 3 N T. 2 N

Tollgate Project Planning Area

Alternative C

Treatment Units

1 0.5 0 1 Miles  ́

ATTENTION

This product is reproduced from geospatial information

prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest

Service. GIS data and product accuracy may vary. They

may be: developed from sources of differing accuracy,

accurate only at certain scales, based on modeling or

interpretation, incomplete while being created or

revised. etc... Using GIS products for purposes other

than those for which they were created may yield

inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest Service

reserves the right to correct,update,modify,or replace

GIS products without notification. For more information

contact the The Umatilla National Forest Supervisors office.

1:83,000

Legend

Tollgate Project Planning Area

Walla Walla Ranger District Boundary

Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness

Inventoried Roadless Area

Closed

Open

Road Realignment

Commercial Thin, Ladder Fuel Reduction, Down & Dead Removal

Commercial Thin, Dead & Down Removal

Commercial Thin

Commercial Thin, Ladder Fuel Reduction

Commercial Thin, Non Commercial Thin

Ladder Fuel Reduction, Dead & Down Removal

Ladder Fuel Reduction

Non Commercial Thin

Walla Walla River IRA

Lookingglass IRA

North Fork Umatilla Wilderness

A-4
APPENDIX B

PLANNED ACTIVITIES BY UNIT AND 

ALTERNATIVE

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

B-1

APPENDIX B

Table B1: Planning Unit Treatments for Alternative B

Unit # Alt. B Acres Silvicultural 

Prescription Harvest Method Fuel Treatment

1 134 CT, NCT Tractor none

3 17 CT, NCT Tractor none

4 72 CT, NCT Tractor none

5 22 CT, NCT Tractor none

9 17 CT, LFR Tractor none

10 148 CT Tractor none

12 17 CT Tractor None

15 109 NCT n/a Mechanical

18 86 NCT n/a Mechanical

19 17 CT, LFR Forwarder Hand Piling/ Burn

20 41 LFR n/a Hand Piling/ Burn

21 13 LFR, DDR n/a Hand Piling/ Burn

23 20 CT Tractor none

25 48 CT Forwarder Mechanical

26 104 LFR n/a Hand Piling/ Burn

27 14 LFR n/a Hand Piling/ Burn

29 5 CT Tractor none

31 78 NCT n/a Mechanical

32 11 NCT n/a Mechanical

33 27 CT, LFR Tractor Hand Piling/Burn

34 59 CT, LFR, DDR Forwarder Mechanical

35 38 CT, LFR Tractor none

36 23 LFR n/a Mechanical

37 29 NCT n/a Hand Piling/Burn

38 87 CT, LFR Tractor none

41 172 CT, LFR Tractor none

42 122 CT, LFR Tractor none

43 49 CT, LFR Tractor none

44 69 CT, LFR Tractor none
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

B-2

Unit # Alt. B Acres Silvicultural 

Prescription Harvest Method Fuel Treatment

45 105 CT, LFR Tractor none

46 177 CT, LFR Tractor none

47 70 CT, LFR Tractor none

48 50 CT, LFR Forwarder Mechanical

49 62 CT, LFR Tractor none

50 89 CT, LFR Tractor none

51 54 CT, LFR, DDR Tractor none

52 29 CT, LFR Tractor none

53 60 CT, LFR Tractor none

54 66 CT, LFR Tractor none

55 13 CT, LFR Tractor none

56 41 CT, LFR Tractor none

61 36 CT, LFR Tractor none

62 132 CT, LFR Forwarder Mechanical

64 64 CT, LFR Forwarder Mechanical

66 40 CT, LFR, DDR Forwarder Hand Piling/ Burn

67 26 CT, LFR Tractor none

68 148 CT, LFR Tractor none

69 63 CT, LFR Tractor none

70 11 CT, LFR Tractor none

71 15 CT, LFR Tractor none

72 18 CT, LFR Tractor none

73 15 CT, LFR Tractor none

75 52 CT, LFR, DDR Forwarder Mechanical

76 70 CT, LFR, DDR Tractor none

77 77 CT, LFR Tractor none

78 50 CT, LFR Tractor none

79 206 NCT n/a Mechanical

81 22 CT Tractor none

82 38 CT, LFR Tractor none

83 102 CT, LFR Forwarder Mechanical 

84 85 CT, LFR Forwarder Mechanical

85 78 CT, LFR Forwarder Mechanical
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

B-3

Unit # Alt. B Acres Silvicultural 

Prescription Harvest Method Fuel Treatment

86 47 LFR n/a Hand Piling/Burn

87 47 CT, LFR Tractor none

89 57 CT, LFR Tractor none

90 21 CT, LFR Tractor none

94 17 CT, LFR Tractor none

95 47 CT, LFR Forwarder Mechanical

96 13 CT, LFR, DDR Forwarder Mechanical

97 32 CT Tractor none

98 12 CT Tractor none

99 27 CT, LFR Tractor none

100 37 CT, LFR Tractor none

101 14 CT Tractor none

102 19 CT, LFR Tractor none

103 49 NCT n/a Hand Piling/Burn

104 75 LFR n/a Hand Piling/Burn

105 7 CT, LFR Tractor none

Totals 4333

Table B2: Planning Unit Treatments for Alternative C

Unit # Alt. C Acres Silvicultural 

Prescription Harvest Method Fuel Treatment

1 134 CT, NCT Tractor none

3 17 CT, NCT Tractor none

4 72 CT, NCT Tractor none

5 22 CT, NCT Tractor none

9 16 CT, LFR Tractor none

10 127 CT Tractor none

12 14 CT Tractor None

15 109 NCT n/a Mechanical
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

B-4

Unit # Alt. C Acres Silvicultural 

Prescription Harvest Method Fuel Treatment

18 86 NCT n/a Mechanical

19 17 CT, LFR Forwarder Hand Piling/ Burn

20 1 LFR n/a Hand Piling/ Burn

21 13 LFR, DDR n/a Hand Piling/ Burn

23 20 CT Tractor none

25 48 CT Forwarder Mechanical

26 0 LFR n/a Hand Piling/ Burn

27 14 LFR n/a Hand Piling/ Burn

29 5 CT Tractor none

31 77 NCT n/a Mechanical

32 12 NCT n/a Mechanical

33 12 CT, LFR Tractor Hand Piling/Burn

34 59 CT, LFR, DDR Forwarder Mechanical

35 38 CT, LFR Tractor none

36 23 LFR n/a Mechanical

37 29 NCT n/a Hand Piling/Burn

38 0 CT, LFR Tractor none

41 172 CT, LFR Tractor none

42 121 CT, LFR Tractor none

43 49 CT, LFR Tractor none

44 69 CT, LFR Tractor none

45 104 CT, LFR Tractor none

46 177 CT, LFR Tractor none

47 70 CT, LFR Tractor none

48 50 CT, LFR Forwarder Mechanical

49 62 CT, LFR Tractor none

50 89 CT, LFR Tractor none

51 54 CT, LFR, DDR Tractor none

52 29 CT, LFR Tractor none

53 60 CT, LFR Tractor none

54 66 CT, LFR Tractor none

55 13 CT, LFR Tractor none

56 41 CT, LFR Tractor none
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

B-5

Unit # Alt. C Acres Silvicultural 

Prescription Harvest Method Fuel Treatment

61 36 CT, LFR Tractor none

62 132 CT, LFR Forwarder Mechanical

64 61 CT, LFR Forwarder Mechanical

66 0 CT, LFR, DDR Forwarder Hand Piling/ Burn

67 26 CT, LFR Tractor none

68 148 CT, LFR Tractor none

69 60 CT, LFR Tractor none

70 7 CT, LFR Tractor none

71 15 CT, LFR Tractor none

72 18 CT, LFR Tractor none

73 15 CT, LFR Tractor none

75 38 CT, LFR, DDR Forwarder Mechanical

76 70 CT, LFR, DDR Tractor none

77 77 CT, LFR Tractor none

78 50 CT, LFR Tractor none

79 206 NCT n/a Mechanical

81 22 CT Tractor none

82 38 CT, LFR Tractor none

83 102 CT, LFR Forwarder Mechanical 

84 85 CT, LFR Forwarder Mechanical

85 78 CT, LFR Forwarder Mechanical

86 47 LFR n/a Hand Piling/Burn

87 47 CT, LFR Tractor none

89 56 CT, LFR Tractor none

90 21 CT, LFR Tractor none

94 15 CT, LFR Tractor none

95 47 CT, LFR Forwarder Mechanical

96 10 CT, LFR, DDR Forwarder Mechanical

97 32 CT Tractor none

98 12 CT Tractor none

99 27 CT, LFR Tractor none

100 37 CT, LFR Tractor none

101 14 CT Tractor none
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

B-6

Unit # Alt. C Acres Silvicultural 

Prescription Harvest Method Fuel Treatment

102 19 CT, LFR Tractor none

103 49 NCT n/a Hand Piling/Burn

104 19 LFR n/a Hand Piling/Burn

105 7 CT, LFR Tractor none

Totals 3934
APPENDIX C

ROADS 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

C-1

Appendix C

Table C-1 - Roads used in Alternative B and C

Road Number Length - Miles Access and Travel Management

Category

6400 6.04 Seasonal

3700050 0.10 Seasonal

3700051 0.19 Seasonal

3719 4.68 Seasonal

3725 0.69 Seasonal

6401 3.14 Seasonal

3700070 0.10 Seasonal

3715030 0.54 Open

3718 3.15 Seasonal

3718150 0.20 Seasonal

3719025 0.11 Seasonal

3719080 0.85 Seasonal

6400030 1.59 Seasonal

6400100 2.07 Seasonal

6401000 1.54 Seasonal

6401020 2.04 Seasonal

6406 2.95 Seasonal

6406050 0.05 Seasonal

3700040 0.76 Closed

3700040 2.21 Closed

3700041 1.05 Closed

3700060 0.43 Closed

3715020 0.33 Closed

3715034 1.30 Closed

3715035 0.41 Closed

3715036 0.27 Closed

3718150 2.46 Closed

3718155 0.70 Closed

3718200 0.59 Closed

3718300 0.21 Closed

3719020 0.46 Closed

3719025 0.79 Closed

3719030 0.91 Closed

3719050 0.44 Closed

3719060 1.06 Closed

3719070 0.64 Closed

3719083 0.31 Closed

3725020 0.08 Closed
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

C-2

Road Number Length - Miles Access and Travel Management

Category

3725022 0.25 Closed

6400032 0.37 Closed

6400033 0.83 Closed

6400035 0.36 Closed

6401010 0.62 Closed

6401015 0.36 Closed

6401040 0.11 Closed

6401041 0.20 Closed

6401110 0.64 Closed

6401120 0.60 Closed

6401140 0.34 Closed

6406051 0.12 Closed

6406100 0.47 Closed

3715 3.06 Closed

6401900 0.52 Seasonal

Total 52
APPENDIX D

SELECTED NATIONAL 

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

2

Appendix D

Selected National Best Management Practices (BMPs)

for Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project

Specific resource protection measures and mitigation's listed below would be implemented in any action 

alternative. These resource protection measures and mitigation's are consistent with the Umatilla 

National Forest LRMP standards and guidelines. BMP's and resource protection measures are identified 

below. A general discussion of Best Management Practices (BMP’s) and these specific BMPs are found 

in the document referenced below.

National Best Management Practices for Water quality Management on National Forest System 

Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide FS-990a, April 2012

Plan-2. Project Planning and Analysis

Objective: Use the project planning, environmental analysis, and decision making processes to 

incorporate water quality management BMPs into project design and implementation.

Practices: Include watershed specialists (hydrologist, soil scientist, geologist, and fish biologist) and other 

trained and qualified individuals on the interdisciplinary team for project planning, environmental 

analysis, and decision making to evaluate onsite watershed characteristics and the potential environmental 

consequences of the proposed activity(s).

• Determine potential or likely direct and indirect impacts to chemical, physical, and biological 

water quality, and watershed condition from the proposed activity.

Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions, design criteria, and mitigation measures to 

achieve water quality management objectives. Consult local, regional, State, or other 

agency’s required or recommended BMPs that are applicable to the activity.

• Document site-specific BMP prescriptions, design criteria, mitigation measures, and restoration, 

rehabilitation, and monitoring needs in the applicable National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

documents, design plans, contracts, permits, authorizations, and operation and maintenance plans.

Plan-3 Aquatic Management Zone Planning

Objective: To maintain and improve or restore the condition of land around and adjacent to waterbodies 

in the context of the environment in which they are located, recognizing their unique values and 

importance to water quality while implementing land and resource management activities.

Practices: Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when 

required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, BMP 

monitoring information, and professional judgment.

• Design and implement project activities within the AMZ to:

Avoid or minimize unacceptable impacts to riparian vegetation, groundwater recharge 

areas, steep slopes, highly erodible soils, or unstable areas.
3

Road-4 Road Operations and Maintenance

Objective: Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources by 

controlling road use and operations and providing adequate and appropriate maintenance to minimize 

sediment production and other pollutants during the useful life of the road.

Practices: Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when 

required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, BMP 

monitoring information, and professional judgment.

Operations

• Designate season of use to avoid or restrict road use during periods when use would likely damage 

the roadway surface or road drainage features.

o Upgrade drainage structures to avoid, to the extent practicable, or minimize direct 

discharges into nearby waterbodies.

• Ensure that drainage features are fully functional on completion of seasonal operations.

o Shape road surfaces to drain as designed.

o Construct or reconstruct drainage control structures as needed.

o Ensure that ditches and culverts are clean and functioning.

Maintenance Activities

• Maintain the road surface drainage system to intercept, collect, and remove water from the road 

surface and surrounding slopes in a manner that reduces concentrated flow in ditches, culverts, and 

over fill slopes and road surfaces.

o Clean ditches and catch basins only as needed to keep them functioning.

o Do not undercut the toe of the cut slope when cleaning ditches or catch basins.

o Use suitable measures to avoid, to the extent practicable, or minimize direct discharges from road 

drainage structures to nearby waterbodies.

• Ensure the necessary specifications concerning prehaul maintenance, maintenance during haul, and 

posthaul maintenance (putting the road back in storage) are in place when maintenance level 1 roads 

are opened for use on commercial resource management projects or other permitted activities.

o Require the commercial operator or responsible party to leave roads in a satisfactory condition 

when project is completed.

Road-5. Temporary Roads

Objective: Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources from 

the construction and use of temporary roads.

Practices: Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when 

required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, BMP 

monitoring information, and professional judgment.

• Use applicable practices of BMP Road-2 (Road Location and Design) to locate temporary roads.
4

Road-2. Road Location and Design

Objective: Locate and design roads to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, 

and riparian resources.

Practices: Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when 

required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, BMP 

monitoring information, and professional judgment.

Location

• Locate roads to fit the terrain, follow natural contours, and limit the need for excavation.

• Locate roads as far from waterbodies as is practicable to achieve access objectives, with a minimum 

number of crossings and connections between the road and the waterbody.

Road-7. Stream Crossings

Manual or Handbook Reference: FSM 7722 and FSH 7709.56b

Objective: Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources when 

constructing, reconstructing, or maintaining temporary and permanent waterbody crossings.

• Use crossing structures suitable for the site conditions and the RMOs.

• Culverts

Align the culvert with the natural stream channel.

Cover culvert with sufficient fill to avoid or minimize damage by traffic.

Construct at or near natural elevation of the streambed to avoid or minimize potential flooding 

upstream of the crossing and erosion below the outlet

Veg-1. Vegetation Management Planning

Objectives: Use the applicable vegetation management planning processes to develop measures to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources during mechanical 

vegetation treatment activities.

• Evaluate and field verify site conditions in the project area to design mechanical vegetation treatment 

prescriptions that avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian 

resources.

o Design mechanical vegetation treatment prescriptions to limit site disturbance, soil exposure, and 

displacement to acceptable levels as determined from the land management plan desired 

conditions, standards, and guidelines or other local direction or requirements.

o Evaluate direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of vegetation alteration on streamflow regimes 

and consequent channel responses at suitable watershed scales.

o Use local direction or requirements for slope, erosion potential, mass wasting potential, and other 

soil or site properties to determine areas suitable for ground-based, cable, and aerial yarding 

systems (see BMP Veg-4 [Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding Operations] and BMP Veg-5 

[Cable and Aerial Yarding Operations]).

o Consider site preparation and fuel treatment needs and options.
5

o Use applicable practices of BMP Veg-8 (Mechanical Site Treatment) to determine areas suitable 

for mechanical treatments for site preparation, fuels treatment, habitat improvements, or other 

vegetation management purposes.

• Evaluate and field verify site conditions in the project area to design a transportation plan associated 

with the mechanical vegetation treatments to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, 

water quality, and riparian resources.

o Use the logging system that best fits the topography, soil types, and season, while minimizing soil 

disturbance and road densities and that economically achieves silvicultural objectives.

o Evaluate the condition of system roads, including roads in storage, and unauthorized roads in the 

project area to determine their suitability for use in the project and any reconstruction or prehaul 

maintenance needs.

• Identify sources of rock for roadwork, riprapping, and borrow materials (see BMP Min-6 [Mineral 

Materials Resource Sites]).

• Identify water sources available for purchasers’ use (see BMP Uses-3 [Administrative Water 

Developments]).

• Ensure the timber sale contract, stewardship contract, or other implementing document includes 

BMPs from the decision document to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water 

quality, and riparian resources.

o Use appropriate standard B and C provisions and regional or local provisions to address measures 

and responsibilities consistent with the BMPs in the decision document in the timber sale or 

stewardship contract.

o Delineate all protected or excluded areas, including AMZs and waterbodies, on the sale area map 

or project map.

o Delineate approved water locations, staging areas, and borrow areas on the sale area map or 

project map.

o Ensure that the final unit location, layout, acreage, and logging system or mechanical treatment 

and Knutson-Vandenberg Act plans are consistent with the decision document.

Veg-2. Erosion Prevention and Control

Objective: Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources by 

implementing measures to control surface erosion, gully formation, mass slope failure, and resulting 

sediment movement before, during, and after mechanical vegetation treatments.

Practices: Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when 

required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, BMP 

monitoring information, and professional judgment

1. Develop erosion control and sediment plan that covers all disturbed areas including skid trails and 

roads, landings, cable corridors, temporary road fills, water source sites, borrow sites, or other areas 

disturbed during mechanical vegetation treatments.

• Refer to State or local forestry or silviculture BMP manuals, guidebooks, and trade publications for 

effective structural and nonstructural measures to:

o Apply soil protective cover on disturbed areas where natural revegetation is inadequate to prevent 

accelerated erosion before the next growing season.
6

o Maintain the natural drainage pattern of the area wherever practicable.

o Control, collect, detain, treat, and disperse stormwater runoff from disturbed areas.

o Divert surface runoff around bare areas with appropriate energy dissipation and sediment filters.

o Stabilize steep excavated slopes.

• Use suitable species and establishment techniques to cover or revegetate disturbed areas in 

compliance with local direction and requirements per FSM 2070 and FSM 2080 for vegetation 

ecology and prevention and control of invasive species.

• Use suitable measures in compliance with local direction to prevent and control invasive species.

• Install sediment and stormwater controls before initiating surface disturbing activities to the extent 

practicable.

• Operate equipment when soil compaction, displacement, erosion, and sediment runoff would be 

minimized.

o Avoid ground equipment operations on unstable, wet, or easily compacted soils and on steep 

slopes unless operation can be conducted without causing excessive rutting, soil puddling, or 

runoff of sediments directly into waterbodies.

o Evaluate site conditions frequently to assess changing conditions.

o Adjust equipment operations as necessary to protect the site while maintaining efficient project 

operations.

• Install suitable stormwater and erosion control measures to stabilize disturbed areas and waterways on 

incomplete projects before seasonal shutdown of operations or when severe storm or cumulative 

precipitation events that could result in sediment mobilization to streams are expected.

• Routinely inspect disturbed areas to verify that erosion and stormwater controls are implemented and 

functioning as designed and are suitably maintained.

• Maintain erosion and stormwater controls as necessary to ensure proper and effective functioning.

o Prepare for unexpected failures of erosion control measures.

• Implement mechanical treatments on the contour of sloping ground to avoid or minimize water 

concentration and subsequent accelerated erosion.

Veg-3. Aquatic Management Zones

Objectives: Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources 

when conducting mechanical vegetation treatment activities in the AMZ.

Practices: Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when 

required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, BMP 

monitoring information, and professional judgment.

• Clearly delineate AMZ locations and boundaries in the project area using suitable markings and 

structures.

o Maintain or reestablish these boundaries as necessary during project implementation or operation.

o Specify AMZ layout, maintenance, and operating requirements in contracts, design plans, and 

other necessary project documentation.
7

Veg-4. Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding Operations

Objectives: Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources 

during ground-based skidding and yarding operations by minimizing site disturbance and controlling the 

introduction of sediment, nutrients, and chemical pollutants to waterbodies.

Practices: Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when 

required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, BMP 

monitoring information, and professional judgment.

• Use ground-based yarding systems only where physical site characteristics are suitable to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

o Use local direction or requirements for slope, erosion potential, mass wasting potential, and other 

soil or site properties to determine areas suitable for ground-based yarding systems.

• Use existing roads and skid trails networks to the extent practicable.

o Create new roads and skid trails where re-use of existing ones would exacerbate soil, water 

quality, and riparian resource impacts.

• Design and locate skid trails and skidding operations to minimize soil disturbance to the extent 

practicable.

o Designate skid trails to the extent practicable to limit site disturbance.

• Use suitable measures during felling and skidding operations to avoid or minimize disturbance to 

soils and waterbodies to the extent practicable.

o Perform skidding or yarding operations when soil conditions are such that soil compaction, 

displacement, and erosion would be minimized.

o Suspend skidding or yarding operations when soil moisture levels could result in unacceptable 

soil damage.

o Directionally fell trees to facilitate efficient removal along predetermined yarding patterns with 

the least number of passes and least amount of disturbed area (e.g., felling-to-the-lead).

o Directionally fell trees away from streambanks, shorelines, and other waterbody edges.

o Remove logs from wet meadows or AMZs using suitable techniques to minimize equipment 

operations in the sensitive area and minimize dragging the logs on the ground.

o Use low ground pressure equipment when practicable, particularly on equipment traveling over 

large portions of units with sensitive soils or site conditions.

• Use suitable measures to stabilize and restore skid trails after use.

o Reshape the surface to promote dispersed drainage.

o Install suitable drainage features.

o Mitigate soil compaction to improve infiltration and revegetation conditions.

o Apply soil protective cover on disturbed areas where natural revegetation is inadequate to prevent 

accelerated erosion before the next growing season.

o Use suitable measures to promote rapid revegetation.

o Use suitable measures in compliance with local direction to prevent and control invasive species.
APPENDIX E

SOILS

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

E-1

Appendix E

Table E-1: Cumulative effects to Detrimental Soil Condition (DSC) by Alternative and recommendation 

of mitigation for DSC. Units with combined existing and proposed DSC that exceed forest S&Gs are in 

bold. Unit 3 is the only proposed unit currently exceeding forest S&Gs.

 1 Unit 33 exceeds S&Gs only in Alternative C. Unit ID

Alt 

A

Alternative B Proposal Effects & 

Recommendations Alternative C Proposal Effects & Recommendations

Existing DSC 

(%)

Alt B (ac)

Total 

Detrimental (%)

Detrimental 

(ac)

Prescribed 

overlap of 

legacy & 

proposed 

DSC ac (%)

Skid trail 

overlap 

for DSC 

mitigation 

(ft)

Alt C (ac)

Total 

Detrimental (%)

Detrimental 

(ac)

Prescribed 

overlap of legacy 

& proposed DSC 

ac (%)

Skid trail 

overlap 

for DSC 

mitigation 

(ft)

1 8% 133.8 20% 26.8 20% 11658 133.7 20% 26.7 20% 11650

3 23% 16.9 35% 5.9 70% 5164 16.9 35% 5.9 70% 5164

4 0% 71.8 12% 8.6 0% 0 71.8 12% 8.6 0% 0

5 8% 21.9 20% 4.4 10% 955 21.9 20% 4.4 10% 955

9 0% 17.4 18% 3.1 0% 0 16.0 18% 2.9 0% 0

10 6% 147.7 21% 31.6 20% 16501 126.7 22% 27.8 20% 14665

12 0% 16.8 18% 3.0 0% 0 13.7 19% 2.6 0% 0

15 0% 109.2 0% 0.0 0% 0 109.2 0% 0.0 0% 0

18 4% 85.5 4% 3.4 0% 0 85.5 4% 3.4 0% 0

19 0% 17.4 12% 2.0 0% 0 17.4 12% 2.0 0% 0

20 0% 41.0 0% 0.0 0% 0 41.0 0% 0.0 0% 0

21 0% 13.4 0% 0.0 0% 0 13.4 0% 0.0 0% 0

23 0% 20.3 17% 3.4 0% 0 20.3 17% 3.4 0% 0

25 12% 47.9 20% 9.6 20% 2815 47.9 20% 9.6 20% 2815

26 0% 103.7 0% 0.0 0% 0 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0

27 0% 13.9 0% 0.0 0% 0 13.9 0% 0.0 0% 0

29 0% 5.2 31% 1.6 20% 1182 5.2 31% 1.6 20% 1182

31 5% 78.5 5% 3.9 0% 0 77.2 5% 3.9 0% 0

32 0% 11.5 0% 0.0 0% 0 11.5 0% 0.0 0% 0

331 0% 27.3 16% 4.3 0% 0 12.1 20% 2.5 10% 892

34 0% 59.1 9% 5.5 0% 0 59.1 9% 5.5 0% 0

35 0% 38.4 17% 6.6 0% 0 38.4 17% 6.6 0% 0

36 8% 23.3 8% 1.9 0% 0 23.3 8% 1.9 0% 0

37 0% 28.7 0% 0.0 0% 0 28.7 0% 0.0 0% 0

38 0% 87.1 14% 12.5 0% 0 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0

41 0% 171.7 14% 24.6 0% 0 171.7 14% 24.6 0% 0

42 0% 121.7 15% 18.6 0% 0 120.8 15% 18.5 0% 0
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

E-2

43 0% 49.0 16% 7.9 0% 0 49.0 16% 7.9 0% 0

44 0% 68.9 16% 11.3 0% 0 68.9 16% 11.3 0% 0

45 0% 104.1 16% 16.5 0% 0 104.1 16% 16.5 0% 0

46 5% 176.9 20% 36.1 20% 19766 176.9 20% 36.1 20% 19766

47 2% 70.1 17% 11.8 0% 0 70.1 17% 11.8 0% 0

48 0% 50.2 10% 5.0 0% 0 50.2 10% 5.0 0% 0

49 0% 61.8 15% 9.4 0% 0 61.8 15% 9.4 0% 0

50 0% 88.8 15% 13.7 0% 0 88.8 15% 13.7 0% 0

51 0% 53.6 16% 8.4 0% 0 53.6 16% 8.4 0% 0

52 3% 29.4 18% 5.4 0% 0 29.4 18% 5.4 0% 0

53 0% 59.5 15% 9.1 0% 0 59.5 15% 9.1 0% 0

54 0% 66.4 15% 10.0 0% 0 66.4 15% 10.0 0% 0

55 0% 13.3 20% 2.6 20% 1881 13.3 20% 2.6 20% 1881

56 2% 40.8 19% 7.7 0% 0 40.8 19% 7.7 0% 0

61 5% 35.8 20% 7.1 20% 3847 35.8 20% 7.1 20% 3847

62 0% 132.0 9% 11.9 0% 0 132.0 9% 11.9 0% 0

64 5% 63.9 17% 11.0 0% 0 61.0 18% 10.7 0% 0

66 5% 39.6 16% 6.4 0% 0 39.6 16% 6.4 0% 0

67 5% 25.8 25% 6.4 20% 3699 25.8 25% 6.4 20% 3699

68 5% 147.7 21% 31.1 20% 17225 147.7 21% 31.1 20% 17225

69 0% 63.1 17% 10.6 0% 0 60.1 17% 10.2 0% 0

70 8% 10.7 29% 3.1 30% 2487 7.1 34% 2.4 30% 2022

71 0% 14.5 19% 2.7 0% 0 14.5 19% 2.7 0% 0

72 0% 18.1 18% 3.2 0% 0 18.1 18% 3.2 0% 0

73 11% 15.1 30% 4.5 30% 3058 15.1 30% 4.5 30% 3058

75 0% 51.9 10% 5.1 0% 0 38.3 11% 4.3 0% 0

76 8% 69.6 24% 16.9 20% 8245 69.6 24% 16.9 20% 8245

77 13% 76.6 29% 22.2 30% 13281 76.6 29% 22.2 30% 13281

78 0% 50.0 16% 8.0 0% 0 50.0 16% 8.0 0% 0

79 0% 206.1 0% 0.0 0% 0 206.1 0% 0.0 0% 0

81 0% 22.1 17% 3.7 0% 0 22.1 17% 3.7 0% 0

82 0% 37.7 15% 5.5 0% 0 37.7 15% 5.5 0% 0

83 0% 102.1 9% 9.1 0% 0 102.1 9% 9.1 0% 0

84 3% 84.9 13% 10.6 0% 0 84.9 13% 10.6 0% 0

85 0% 78.1 9% 6.7 0% 0 78.1 9% 6.7 0% 0

86 0% 46.7 0% 0.0 0% 0 46.7 0% 0.0 0% 0

87 0% 46.6 16% 7.6 0% 0 46.6 16% 7.6 0% 0

89 0% 57.0 16% 8.8 0% 0 55.7 16% 8.7 0% 0

90 5% 21.3 22% 4.6 20% 2585 21.3 22% 4.6 20% 2585

94 0% 16.9 18% 3.0 0% 0 14.4 19% 2.7 0% 0

95 0% 47.1 10% 4.8 0% 0 47.1 10% 4.8 0% 0
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

E-3

96 0% 12.6 14% 1.8 0% 0 9.4 17% 1.6 0% 0

97 0% 32.2 18% 5.9 0% 0 32.2 18% 5.9 0% 0

98 0% 12.0 20% 2.4 10% 886 12.0 20% 2.4 10% 886

99 0% 26.6 16% 4.2 0% 0 26.6 16% 4.2 0% 0

100 0% 37.3 15% 5.5 0% 0 37.3 15% 5.5 0% 0

101 2% 13.5 21% 2.9 10% 950 13.5 21% 2.9 10% 950

102 0% 19.4 17% 3.3 0% 0 19.4 17% 3.3 0% 0

103 6% 48.9 6% 2.9 0% 0 48.9 6% 2.9 0% 0

104 5% 75.1 5% 3.8 0% 0 18.4 5% 0.9 0% 0

105 0% 7.0 26% 1.8 20% 1332 7.0 26% 1.8 20% 1332

Alt B Total 117518 ft Alt C Total 116102 ft

APPENDIX F

CONSISTENCY WITH EASTSIDE SCREENS

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

F-2

APPENDIX F

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project

Consistency with Eastside Screens

Introduction and Analysis of Ranges of Variability

This appendix presents a characterization of historical and existing vegetation conditions for a large landscape called the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Planning Area (“planning area”). Four indicators were 

used for the upland-forest characterization: potential vegetation, species composition, forest structure, and 

tree density.

The vegetation information summarized in this appendix was developed using the Most Similar Neighbor 

(MSN) imputation process (Crookston et al. 2002, Moeur and Stage 1995). The MSN algorithm uses 

canonical correlation analysis to derive a similarity function, and then chooses the most similar stand as a 

proxy from the global set of stands by comparing detailed design attributes (local variables) and lowerresolution indicator attributes (global variables). The most similar stand is selected by using the similarity 

function to maintain multivariate relationships between the global variables and the local variables.

The planning area contains approximately 46,460 acres of National Forest System lands and includes 

portions of the upper Umatilla, upper Walla Walla, and Lookingglass creek watersheds. This Appendix 

Considers all 46,460 acres located in the planning area; acreages are rounded to nearest 10 acres.

Potential Vegetation

In the Tollgate planning area, 39 potential vegetation types (PVTs) were identified (Table F1). Twentyfive of the PVTs are forest types, comprising 81% of the analysis-area acreage, and the other 14 PVTs are 

nonforest types (19% of the planning area).

PVTs representing equivalent temperature and moisture environments have been aggregated into higherlevel hierarchical units called plant association groups (PAG) and potential vegetation groups (PVG) 

(Powell et al. 2007). The 39 forest PVTs in the planning area were aggregated into 8 PAGs and 4 PVGs 

(Table F1) by using the information from Powell et al. (2007).

The upland forest PVGs are dry forest (3% of total acreage), moist forest (77%), and cold forest (<1%). 

This appendix uses upland forest PVGs when reporting vegetation conditions for the planning area. Table 

F2 presents certain biophysical characteristics of the forest PVGs.

When performing analysis of vegetation Historic Ranges of Variability (HRVs), existing vegetation was 

stratified into PVGs (Martin 2010). Since the cold upland forest PVG included less than 1,000 acres 

within the Tollgate planning area, it was largely ignored during HRV analysis because a full complement 

of cover types, structural stages, or tree density classes would not be expected for such a small amount of 

acreage (Martin 2010 and Powell 2010b). 
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

F-3

Table F1 – Potential vegetation types (PVT) of the Tollgate planning area

PVG PVT and PAG PVT Acronym Acres Percent

of Total

Percent

of Forest

Dry Upland Forest

(1,574 acres; 3%)

grand fir/elk sedge ABGR/CAGE2 675 1 2

grand fir/birchleaf spiraea ABGR/SPBE2 900 2 2

Warm dry upland forestland PAG 1574 3 4

Moist Upland Forest

(35,715 acres; 77%)

grand fir/queencup beadlily ABGR/CLUN2 7309 16 19

grand fir/twinflower ABGR/LIBO3 1247 3 3

grand fir/big huckleberry ABGR/VAME 4561 10 12

subalpine fir/queencup beadlily ABLA/CLUN2 6620 14 18

subalpine fir/twinflower ABLA/LIBO3 289 1 1

subalpine fir/false bugbane ABLA/TRCA 1095 2 3

subalpine fir/big huckleberry ABLA/VAME 2916 6 8

lodgepole pine(grand fir)/twinflower PICO(ABGR)/LIBO3* 433 1 1

lodgepole pine(grand fir)/big 

huckleberry/twinflower PICO(ABGR)/VAME-LIBO3* 409 1 1

lodgepole pine(subalpine fir)/big 

huckleberry PICO(ABLA)/VAME* < 1 < 1 < 1

Cool moist upland forestland PAG 24882 54 66

grand fir/swordfern-ginger ABGR/POMU-ASCA2 73 < 1 < 1

grand fir/false bugbane ABGR/TRCA 34 < 1 < 1

Cool very moist upland forestland PAG 107 < 1 < 1

grand fir/Pacific yew/queencup beadlily ABGR/TABR2/CLUN2 2385 5 6

grand fir/Pacific yew/twinflower ABGR/TABR2/LIBO3 808 2 2

subalpine fir/claspleaf twistedstalk ABLA/STAM2 9 < 1 < 1

Cool wet upland forestland PAG 3203 7 9

grand fir/Rocky Mountain maple-mallow 

ninebark ABGR/ACGL-PHMA5 672 1 2

grand fir/Columbia brome ABGR/BRVU 88 0 0

Douglas-fir/Rocky Mountain maplemallow ninebark PSME/ACGL-PHMA5 1460 3 4

Douglas-fir/oceanspray PSME/HODI 2753 6 7

Warm moist upland forestland PAG 4973 11 13

grand fir/Rocky Mountain maple ABGR/ACGL 2551 5 7

Warm very moist upland forestland PAG 2551 5 7

Cold UF (277 

acres,1%)

subalpine fir/elk sedge ABLA/CAGE2 51 < 1 < 1

subalpine fir/grouse huckleberry ABLA/VASC 213 < 1 < 1

subalpine fir/grouse huckleberry/Jacob’s 

ladder ABLA/VASC/POPU3 12 < 1 < 1

Cold dry upland forestland PAG 277 < 1 < 1

Nonforest

(8,892 acres; 19%)

bluebunch wheatgrass-Sandberg’s 

bluegrass AGSP-POSA12 3537 8

bluebunch wheatgrass-Sandberg’s 

bluegrass-onespike oatgrass AGSP-POSA12-DAUN 4 0

alder snow slides ALSI3 251 1

mountain big sagebrush/elk sedge 

(montane) ARTRV/CAGE2 59 0
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

F-4

mountain big sagebrush/Idaho fescuebluebunch wheatgrass ARTRV/FEID-AGSP 262 1

mountain big sagebrush-mountain 

snowberry/mountain brome ARTRV-SYOR2/BRCA5 186 0

tufted hairgrass DECE 41 0

Idaho fescue-bluebunch wheatgrass FEID-AGSP 3280 7

mallow ninebark-common snowberry PHMA5-SYAL* 306 1

Kentucky bluegrass (dry meadow) POPR 29 0

Sandberg’s bluegrass-onespike oatgrass POSA12-DAUN 66 0

western needlegrass STOC* 549 1

mountain snowberry SYOR2 17 0

common cattail TYLA 5 0

Nonforest PVTs 8892 19

Sources/Notes: Summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (NFS lands only). Powell et al. (2007) describes how 

PVTs were assigned to potential vegetation groups (PVG) and plant association groups (PAG). PVTs and PVGs are 

characterized generally in Powell (2000).

* These PVTs are plant community types or plant communities; all others are plant associations.

Table F2 – Biophysical characteristics for upland forest potential vegetation groups 

(PVG)

PVG

Area

(acres) Disturbances

Fire

Regime

Patch

Size (acres)

Dry

Upland

Forest

1,574

Fire

Insects

Harvest

Frequent

Surface

1-252

Moist

Upland

Forest

35,715

Insects

Fire

Diseases

Infrequent

Mixed

1-583

Cold

Upland

Forest

277

Wind

Insects

Fire

Replacement 1-51

Sources/Notes: Area and patch size were derived from the Tollgate vegetation database (NFS lands only). 

Fire regime names correspond to Schmidt et al. (2002). Disturbances and fire regimes were supplied by the 

author and described in Appendix D and Agee (1996a, 2008).

Table F3 – Existing species composition (cover types) for the Tollgate planning area

Code Cover Type Description Acres

Pct. of 

Total

Pct. of 

Forested

Non-forest Non-forest cover types (rocky, water, administrative sites, etc.) 

lacking extensive vegetation cover. 301 <1

Herb-shrub Non-forest cover types dominated by herbaceous and shrub 

species 8591 18

Ponderosa pine Forest with ponderosa pine as the majority or plurality species 2465 5 7

Douglas-fir Forest with Douglas-fir as the majority or plurality species 9885 21 26

Western larch Forest with western larch as the majority or plurality species 1045 2 3

Lodgepole pine Forest with lodgepole pine as the majority or plurality species 3269 7 9

Broadleaved species Forest with various broadleaved trees as the majority or plurality 578 1 2
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

F-5

species

Grand fir Forest with grand fir as the majority or plurality species 10416 22 28

Subalpine firEngelmann spruce

Forest with subalpine fir and/or Engelmann spruce as the 

majority or plurality species 9907 21 26

Sources/Notes: Summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (NFS lands only). The subalpine firEngelmann spruce cover type contains either a majority or plurality of either species, alone or in combination.

Species Composition

Plant species occur in either pure or mixed communities called cover types. Tree species occurrence in 

the planning area was categorized by forest cover type, a classification of existing vegetation composition 

(Eyre 1980). Forest cover types reflect current tree species amounts in the Tollgate planning area.

Forest cover types are based on a predominance of tree stocking and are seldom pure – the grand fir type, 

for example, has a majority (50% or more) or plurality of grand fir trees but could also contain Douglasfir and other tree species (Eyre 1980).

Table F3 summarizes existing species composition for the Tollgate planning area. It shows that the 

predominant forest cover type is grand fir (28% of the forest environment has grand fir as the majority or 

plurality tree species), followed by spruce-fir (26%) and Douglas-fir (26%), and lodgepole pine (9%).

About 19% of the Tollgate planning area supports non-forest vegetation (Table F1), much of which 

consists of dry meadows and bunchgrass communities dominated by Idaho fescue or bluebunch wheatgrass. 

HRV Analysis for Species Composition

An historical range of variability (HRV) analysis was used to evaluate species composition for the 

Tollgate planning area; HRV results are presented in Table F4. It summarizes the current amount of each 

forest cover type by potential vegetation group (PVG), as well as the estimated historical range.

An HRV analysis was completed for species composition of the forest vegetation Affected Environment. 

Because species composition varies by biophysical environment, the HRV analysis was stratified by 

potential vegetation group: dry upland forest and moist upland forest. The cold upland forest PVG was 

not included because it has too few acres (277 acres) for a credible HRV analysis. Species composition 

HRV results are presented in Tables F4a, F4b, and F4c.

The information presented in Table F4a, F4b, and F4c suggests that dry forestland currently supports too 

much of the grand fir and Douglas-fir forest cover types, and too little of the ponderosa pine forest cover 

type. Moist forestland supports too much of the grand fir and spruce-fir forest cover types, and too little of 

the western larch, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole pine forest cover types.

Table F4a – HRV analysis for species composition on the dry upland forest PVG

Historical Range Current Amount

Cover Type Percent Acres Percent Acres HRV Interpretation

Western juniper 0-5 0-1786 0 0 At low end of historical range

Ponderosa pine 50-80 787-1259 51 800 At low end historical range

Douglas-fir 5-20 79-315 21 326 Above historical range
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

F-6

Western larch 1-10 16-157 0 0 Below historical range

Broadleaved trees 0-5 0-79 0 0 At low end of historical range

Western white pine 0-5 0-79 0 0 At low end of historical range

Grand fir 1-10 16-157 28 448 Well above the historical range

Table F4b – HRV analysis for species composition on the moist upland forest PVG

Historical Range Current Amount

Cover Type Percent Acres Percent Acres HRV Interpretation

Ponderosa pine 5-15 1786-5357 5 1665 At low end of historical range

Douglas-fir 15-30 5357-10715 27 9559 Within the historical range

Western larch 10-30 3572-10715 3 1045 Well below the historical range

Broadleaved trees 1-10 357-3572 2 578 Within the historical range

Lodgepole pine 25-45 8929-16072 9 3196 Well below the historical range

Western white pine 0-5 0-1786 0 0 At low end of historical range

Grand fir 15-30 5357-10715 28 9968 Within historical range

Spruce-fir 1-10 357-3572 27 9704 Well above the historical range

Table F4c – HRV analysis for species composition on the cold upland forest PVG

Historical Range Current Amount

Cover Type Percent Acres Percent Acres HRV Interpretation

Ponderosa pine 0-5 0-14 0 0 This PVG contains too few acres 

(only 277) for an HRV analysis, 

which should not be completed 

for PVGs having less than 1,000 

acres in a planning area. It is 

also not appropriate to add the 

cold PVG acreage to another 

PVG for analysis purposes 

because each PVG represents a 

unique biophysical environment.

Douglas-fir 0-15 0-42 0 0

Western larch 5-15 14-42 42 110

Broadleaved trees 5-15 14-42 0 0

Lodgepole pine 25-45 69-125 26 73

Grand fir 5-15 14-42 0 0

Whitebark pine 0-10 0-28 0 0

Spruce-fir 15-35 42-97 73 204

Sources/Notes for tables F4a to AFc: Current amounts are summarized from the Tollgate planning

area vegetation database (NFS lands only). Historical ranges were adapted by Dave Powell from 

Morgan and Parsons (2001); they were based on multiple 1200-year simulations representing 

landscapes in a dynamic equilibrium with their disturbance regimes and summarized in Martin (2010) 

and Powell (2010b).

Forest Structure

Oliver and Larson (1996) developed a forest structure classification system incorporating four structural 

stages. Oliver and Larson’s (1996) system works well for conifer forests west of the Cascade Mountains, 

but it does not adequately characterize the diverse structural conditions of the interior Pacific Northwest. 

Therefore, the Oliver and Larson (1996) system was expanded to eight classes to include a wider 

spectrum of structural variation (O’Hara et al. 1996).

Table F5 uses a modified version of the 8-class system developed by O’Hara et al. (1996) to summarize 

the acreages and percentages of forest structural stages for the Tollgate planning area. It shows that the 
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

F-7

predominant forest structural stage is Old Forest Single Stratum (34% of the Affected Environment, 

OFSS), followed by Old Forest Multi Strata (31%, OFMS), Stand Initiation (21%, SI), Stem Exclusion 

(8%, SE), and Understory Reinitiation (6%, UR). OF structure classes, by definition, contain 10 or more 

live conifer trees per acre greater than or equal to 21” diameter at breast height (DBH).

Table F5 – Existing forest structural stages for the Tollgate planning area

Code Forest Structural Stage Name Acres

Percent

of Total

Percent

of Forested

SI Stand Initiation 2176 5 6

SE Stem Exclusion 3184 7 8

UR Understory Reinitiation 7746 17 21

OFMS Old Forest Multi Strata 11600 25 31

OFSS Old Forest Single Stratum 12859 28 34

NF Nonforest 8892 19

Sources/Notes: Summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database (NFS lands only). 

Forest structural stages are described in O’Hara et al. (1996). 

HRV Analysis for Forest Structure

An HRV analysis was completed for forest structural stages of the forest vegetation Affected 

Environment. Because forest structure varies by biophysical environment, the HRV analysis was stratified 

by potential vegetation group: dry upland forest and moist upland forest. Note that the cold upland forest 

PVG is not included because it has too few acres (277 acres) for a credible HRV analysis. Forest 

structural stage HRV results are presented in Tables F6a, F6b, and F6c.

The information presented in Tables F6a, F6b, and F6c suggest that the SE and OFMS structural stages 

are outside of their historical ranges for the dry upland forest PVG, and that all structural stages are 

outside of respective historical ranges for the moist upland forest PVG.

The wildlife standard from the Eastside Screens (Forest Plan amendment #11; USDA Forest Service 

1995) has two possible scenarios to follow as based on HRV results for late-old structural stages (LOS), 

with LOS defined as the old forest multi strata and old forest single stratum structural stages.

The wildlife standard directs that one of two scenarios is to be used:

1. Scenario A is to be used whenever either one of the LOS stages is below HRV. If both LOS 

stages occur within a single PVG and one is within or above HRV and one below, scenario A is 

to be used.

2. Scenario B is only to be used when both LOS stages for a particular PVG are within or above 

HRV.

For the dry and moist PVGs, results of the Eastside Screens wildlife standard are presented in the Screens 

Interpretation columns of tables F8a and F8b.

Table F6a – HRV analysis for forest structural stages on the dry upland forest PVG

Historical Range Current Amount HRV Screens

Structural Stage Percent Acres Percent Acres Interpretation Interpretation

Stand Initiation 15-25 236-394 17 260 Within HRV

Stem Exclusion 10-20 157-315 <1 7 Below HRV

Understory Reinitiation 5-10 79-157 9 141 Within HRV

Old Forest MS 5-15 79-236 31 487 Above HRV Scenario B
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

F-8

Old Forest SS 40-60 630-944 43 678 Within HRV

Table F6b – HRV analysis for forest structural stages on the moist upland forest PVG

Historical Range Current Amount HRV Screens

Structural Stage Percent Acres Percent Acres Interpretation Interpretation

Stand Initiation 20-30 7143-10715 5 1894 Below HRV

Stem Exclusion 20-30 7143-10715 9 3177 Below HRV

Understory Reinitiation 10-20 3572-7143 21 7477 Above HRV

Old Forest MS 15-20 5357-7143 31 11095 Above HRV

Scenario B Old Forest SS 10-20 3572-7143 34 12072 Above HRV

Table F6c – HRV analysis for forest structural stages on the cold upland forest PVG

Historical Range Current Amount HRV Screens

Structural Stage Percent Acres Percent Acres Interpretation Interpretation

Stand Initiation 20-45 55-125 8 22 This PVG contains too few acres (only 

277) for an HRV analysis, which should 

not be completed for PVGs having less 

than 1,000 acres in a planning area. It is 

also not appropriate to add the cold 

PVG acreage to another PVG for 

analysis purposes because each PVG 

represents a unique biophysical 

environment.

Stem Exclusion 10-30 28-83 <1 <1

Understory Reinitiation 10-25 28-69 46 128

Old Forest MS 10-25 28-69 6 18

Old Forest SS 5-20 14-55 39 109

Sources/Notes for tables F8a to F8c: Current amounts are summarized from the Tollgate vegetation database 

(NFS lands only).MS refers to multi strata and SS to single stratum. Upland forest potential vegetation groups 

(PVG) are described in Table F1 and Powell et al. (2007). Historical percentages (H%) were derived from Hall 

(1993), Johnson (1993), and USDA Forest Service (1995), as summarized in Martin (2010) and Powell (2010b). 

Forest structural stages are enumerated in Table F7. For the purposes of an HRV analysis, the bare ground 

structural stage is combined with the stand initiation stage.

Tree Density

Suggested stocking guidelines (Cochran et al. 1994, Powell 1999) were used to analyze existing tree 

density levels for the Tollgate planning area. By using the stocking guidelines in conjunction with PVGs, 

it was possible to estimate how much forest acreage is currently overstocked (Table F12); the tree density 

analysis protocol is described in Powell (2009c).

Table 11 summarizes existing tree density classes for the forest vegetation Affected Environment. It 

shows that the predominant tree density class is High (76%), followed Moderate (15%) and then by Low 

(9%).

Table F7 – Existing tree density for the Tollgate planning area

Tree Density Category Acres

Percent

of Total

Percent

of Forested

Low 3356 7 9

Moderate 5548 12 15

High 28662 62 76
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

F-9

None (nonforest polygons) 8798 19

Sources/Notes: Summarized from the Tollgate vegetation 

database (NFS lands only). Queries for assigning polygons to the 

tree density categories are provided in Powell (2009c).

HRV Analysis for Tree Density

An HRV analysis was completed for tree density classes of the forest vegetation Affected Environment. 

Because tree density varies by biophysical environment, the HRV analysis was stratified by potential 

vegetation group: dry upland forest and moist upland forest. Note that the cold upland forest PVG is not 

included because it has too few acres (277 acres) for a credible HRV analysis. Tree density HRV results 

are presented in Tables F8a, F8b, and F8c.

The information presented in Tables F8a, F8b, and F8c suggest that the dry upland forest PVG portion of 

the forest vegetation Affected Environment has too little of the Low density class and too much of the 

High density condition. For the Moist upland forest portion of the Affected Environment, all three density 

classes are outside their historical ranges of variability. 

Table F8a – HRV analysis for tree density on the dry upland forest PVG

Historical Range Current Amount

Tree Density Class Percent Acres Percent Acres HRV Interpretation

Low (<45% CC) 40-85 630-1338 5 83 Well below historical range

Moderate (45-55%) 15-30 236-472 30 466 At upper end of historical range

High (>55% CC) 5-15 79-236 65 1025 Well above historical range

Table F8b – HRV analysis for tree density on the moist upland forest PVG

Historical Range Current Amount

Tree Density Class Percent Acres Percent Acres HRV Interpretation

Low (<65% CC) 20-40 7143-14286 9 3221 Below historical range

Moderate (65-75%) 25-60 8929-21429 14 5077 Below historical range

High (>75% CC) 15-30 5357-10715 77 27417 Well above historical range

Table F8c – HRV analysis for tree density on the cold upland forest PVG

Historical Range Current Amount

Tree Density Class Percent Acres Percent Acres HRV Interpretation

Low (<55% CC) 15-30 40-80 19 52

No interpretation because this 

PVG contains too few acres. Moderate (55-65%) 20-40 50-100 2 5

High (>65% CC) 25-60 60-160 79 220

Sources/Notes for tables F13a to F13c: Current amounts are derived from the Tollgate vegetation 

database (NFS lands only). Upland forest potential vegetation groups (PVG) are described in Table 

F1 and Powell et al. (2007). Historical ranges were taken from Schmitt and Powell (2008).
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

F-10

In March 1993, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) petitioned the U.S. Forest Service 

(Pacific Northwest Region) to halt all timber harvest activity in old growth forest occurring on national 

forest lands located east of the Cascade Mountain crest in Oregon and Washington (this geographical area 

is also known as the Eastside).

A month later in April 1993, a group of university and U.S. Forest Service research scientists released an 

“Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment” in draft form; this assessment is known as the “Everett 

Report” because it was directed by Dr. Richard Everett, a scientist located at the Wenatchee Forestry 

Sciences Laboratory (Everett et al. 1994).

In response to both the NRDC petition and the Everett report, the Pacific Northwest Region of the U.S. 

Forest Service issued interim direction in August 1993 requiring that timber sales prepared and offered by 

Eastside national forests be evaluated to determine their potential impact on riparian habitat, historical 

vegetation patterns, and wildlife fragmentation and connectivity.

This interim direction, known as the Eastside Screens, was used to amend Eastside forest plans when 

Regional Forester John Lowe signed a Decision Notice on May 20, 1994 to implement Regional 

Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #1 (USDA Forest Service 1994). Regional Forester’s Forest Plan 

Amendment #1 is amendment #8 to the Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

A slightly revised version of the Eastside Screens was issued as Regional Forester’s Forest Plan 

Amendment #2 when Regional Forester John Lowe signed a Decision Notice on June 12, 1995 (USDA 

Forest Service 1995). Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2 is amendment #11 to the Umatilla 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

The Eastside Screens consist of six items: three general items (items 1 to 3), a riparian standard (item 4), 

an ecosystem standard (item 5), and a wildlife standard (item 6). This section describes how proposed 

silvicultural activities for the Tollgate Vegetation Management Project would comply with the Eastside 

Screens.

1. General Standards (items 1-3 in FP Amendment #11)

Item 1 defines the scope of the Eastside Screens to be timber sales only.

Finding: The Proposed Action includes intermediate harvest silvicultural activities. In some portions of 

the planning area, these activities would be implemented using a commercial timber sale contract. Since 

item 1 defines the scope of the Eastside Screens to be timber sales only, and because a timber sale 

contract would be used to implement some of the silvicultural activities, this means that the Tollgate 

Vegetation Management Project must comply with the Eastside Screens.

Item 2 exempts personal-use firewood sales, post and pole sales, sales to protect health and safety, and 

sales within recreation special use areas from the amendment.

Finding: It is not anticipated that personal-use firewood sales, post and pole sales, sales to protect health 

and safety, or sales within recreation special use areas would be used to implement any of the thinning or 

regeneration cutting silvicultural activities, so item 2 does not apply to the Tollgate Vegetation 

Management Project.

Item 3 exempts five categories of timber sales from the ecosystem standard (but not from the riparian and 

wildlife standards):

• Precommercial thinning;

• Material sold as fiber;

• Dead material less than 7 inches in diameter, with incidental green volume;
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

F-11

• Salvage sales located outside mapped old growth, with incidental green volume; and

• Commercial thinning and understory removal sales located outside mapped old growth.

Finding: Both of the intermediate silvicultural activities (improvement cutting and low thinning) qualify 

for an exemption from the ecosystem standard because they are “commercial thinning and understory 

removal sales located outside mapped old growth” (the fifth category of timber sales included in item 3).

“Mapped old growth” is defined to include both of the Forest Plan allocations for old growth (C1 and 

C2) and as depicted on published maps distributed with the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990), as 

amended. This definition for mapped old growth follows written guidance and direction from the Pacific 

Northwest Region “Eastside Screens Oversight Team” (Lowe 1995).

However, direction from the Pacific Northwest Regional Office states that it is not mandatory to exempt 

“commercial thinning and understory removal sales” from the ecosystem standard and it further notes that 

in some circumstances, it may be advantageous to project viability to not exempt them (Lowe 1995).

The intermediate silvicultural activities described in the Proposed Action (improvement cutting, low 

thinning) are contained in the land base used for the historical range of variability (HRV) analysis for the 

Tollgate Vegetation Management Project, so there is no need to exempt them from the ecosystem 

standard, and an exemption is not claimed.

2. Riparian Standard (item 4 in Forest Plan Amendment #11)

Item 4 of the Eastside Screens directs that timber sales (green and salvage) will not be planned or located 

in riparian areas.

Umatilla National Forest policy is that amendment #10 (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land 

Management 1994) to the Land and Resource Management Plan will be applied in lieu of the riparian 

standard from the Eastside Screens.

Forest Plan amendment #10, commonly referred to as PACFISH, is interim direction designed to “arrest 

the degradation and begin the restoration of aquatic habitat and riparian areas on lands administered by 

the Forest Service and BLM; it applies to watersheds outside the range of the northern spotted owl that 

provide habitat for Pacific salmon, steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat trout.” This policy means that 

applying PACFISH also meets the Eastside Screens riparian standard.

PACFISH uses a buffer concept to establish riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCA) along both sides 

of streams, rivers, lakes and other wetlands. RHCA widths extend from the edge of the active stream 

channel and they vary with stream class and whether a stream is fish bearing or not. RHCAs can be 

established using specified feet of slope distance (such as 300 feet on either side of perennial, fish-bearing 

streams) or in numbers of “site potential tree heights” (such as 2 site-potential tree heights for perennial,

fish-bearing streams). The interim RHCA widths established by the PACFISH environmental assessment 

could be adjusted during watershed analysis or after site-specific analysis presenting a rationale for 

RHCA modifications.

Timber harvest activities are prohibited by the PACFISH amendment except in the following situations 

(see timber management standards, page C-9, in USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land 

Management 1994):

1. For catastrophic events such as fire, flooding, volcanic, wind or insect damage (when salvage harvest 

and fuelwood cutting is then allowed if compatible with riparian management objectives); and

2. When applying silvicultural practices to control stocking, reestablish and culture stands, and acquire 

desired vegetation characteristics in a manner that also meets riparian management objectives.
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

F-12

Finding: None of the proposed silvicultural activities will occur in any of the riparian habitat 

conservation areas established by PACFISH (FP amendment #10) not covered by exception authorities 

under item #2 above, and/or a Forest Plan amendment. The project will include a site specific Forest Plan 

amendment for the fuels treatments within RHCA of units 19, 38, 66, and 75 (unit 19 only, under 

Alternative C), described in Appendix B. The amendment will modify applicable PACFISH standards 

and guides regarding treatment within RHCAs. The amendment is site specific to the Tollgate Fuels 

Reduction project and will remain valid only during implementation of this project. The intention of the 

treatment is to control stocking by reducing stand density to within management zones recommended by 

Powell (1999, 2009c), and would result in desirable vegetation characteristics because post-treatment 

stands would be relatively resistant to passive or active crown fire, as described in the fire and fuels 

specialist report in the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project record. The desired vegetation characteristics 

would also meet riparian management objectives by reducing future wildfire intensity and severity 

(references), maintaining high levels of canopy cover and stream shade, and maintain moderate to high 

levels of woody structure to maintain hydrologic form and function (refer to the hydrology and fisheries 

reports in the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project record for a description of sufficient riparian canopy cover 

and woody debris/structure) 

3. Ecosystem Standard (item 5 in Forest Plan Amendment #11)

The ecosystem standard requires a landscape-level assessment of the historical range of variability (HRV) 

for structural stages, including a comparison of existing structural stage amounts with their historical 

ranges.

Item 5 (a) requires that the Forest Service “characterize the proposed timber sale and its associated 

watershed for patterns of stand structure by biophysical environment and compare to the Historic Range 

of Variability (HRV).”

Item 5 (c) requires that the Forest Service “characterize the difference in percent composition of structural 

stages between HRV and current conditions.”

Finding: Structural stages for the planning area were determined and then compared with their historical 

ranges (e.g., HRV) by biophysical environment. Results of the analysis results are included in Tables 10 

and A6a, A6b, and A6c.

Item 5(b) requires that the Forest Service (1) “describe the dominant historical disturbance regime, i.e. the 

disturbance types and their magnitudes and frequencies. (2) Characterize the landscape pattern and 

abundance of structural stages maintained by the disturbance regime. Consider biophysical environmental

setting across the landscape to make this determination. (3) Describe spatial pattern and distribution of 

structural stages under the HRV disturbance regime, and (4) Map the current pattern of structural stages 

and calculate their abundance by biophysical environmental setting” (USDA Forest Service 1995).

Finding: The analyses and map required by item 5(b) above are included within this analysis as follows:

• 5(b)(1): Table F2 and associated references

• 5(b)(2) and (3): Tables F6a-c and associated references

• 5(b)(4): Figure F6 below, Tables F6a-c and associated references

Item 5 (c) also requires that the Forest Service “identify structural conditions and biophysical 

environment combinations that are outside HRV conditions to determine potential treatment areas” 

(USDA Forest Service 1995).

Finding: Results from the structural stage HRV analysis were used when determining potential treatment 

areas for the Tollgate Vegetation Management Project. However, HRV analyses were also completed for 

species composition and tree density in addition to structural stages, so potential treatment areas may 
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

F-13

reflect HRV results for more than one of these indicators: species composition, structural stage, and tree 

density. 

4. Wildlife Standard (item 6 in Forest Plan Amendment #11)

Item 6 (a) states that the wildlife standard has two possible scenarios to follow as based on HRV results 

for late-old structural stages (LOS), and it defines LOS to be the “multi-stratum with large trees” and 

“single stratum with large trees” structural stages.

Item 6 (b) directs that:

1. Scenario A (item 6 d) is to be used whenever either one of the LOS stages is below HRV. If both 

LOS stages occur within a single biophysical environment and one is above HRV and one below, 

scenario A is to be used.

2. Scenario B (item 6 e) is to be used only when both LOS stages for a particular biophysical 

environment are within or above HRV.

Finding: Tables F6a-b in Appendix A show that both LOS stages are within or above HRV for both 

dry and the moist upland forest biophysical environments. According to item 6 (b) of the wildlife 

standard and the HRV results presented in Appendix Tables F6a-b, this means that forest vegetation 

silvicultural activities for the Tollgate Vegetation Management Project must comply with

Scenario B for the Dry and Moist Upland Forest biophysical environments.

When performing analysis of vegetation Historic Ranges of Variability (HRVs), existing vegetation was 

stratified into PVGs (Martin 2010). Since the cold upland forest PVG included less than 1,000 acres 

within the Tollgate planning area, it was largely excluded during HRV analysis because a full 

complement of cover types, structural stages, or tree density classes would not be expected for such a 

small amount of acreage (Martin 2010 and Powell 2010b). 

Item 6(e), which is scenario B of the wildlife standard, has the four requirements described below. Since 

the Dry and Moist Upland Forest biophysical environments must comply with Scenario B, all findings 

will be reported in the context of these biophysical environments.

1. Item 1 of scenario B establishes a priority for timber harvest activities, ranging from non-LOS 

stands (first priority) to smaller, isolated LOS stands (second priority) and finally to the interior of 

large LOS stands as a third priority (large LOS is defined as stands occupying 100 acres or more). 

Regeneration and group selection treatments are not allowed in the interior of large LOS stands 

(item 6(e)(1)(c)).
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

F-14

5. Figure F1 – Map depicting the current pattern of structural stages for the entire Tollgate 

analysis area (app. 37,566 acres). 1

Finding: The underlying assumption of this item is that if timber sale activities were allowed to 

occur within LOS stands, they could cause significant reduction in LOS suitability, particularly if 

the silvicultural activities being applied involved regeneration cutting methods; however, all 

silvicultural activity proposed for LOS stands involves intermediate (non-regeneration) 

silvicultural activities that would maintain LOS characteristics after treatment. Since intermediate 

harvest is the only harvest activity proposed for LOS stands, regardless of which biophysical 

environment activities occur in or which of the wildlife screen scenarios they fall under, there is 

no regeneration cutting proposed (including group selection) for any portion of the LOS stands, 

including their interiors. 

2. Item 2 of scenario B requires that connectivity be maintained between LOS stands and Forest 

Plan-designated old-growth areas, and that fragmentation of existing LOS stands be avoided by 

 

1 Structural stage names in the map legend correspond to the Eastside Screens names (see Table 9), and are 

synonymous with the old forest names or acronyms used for structural stages elsewhere in this report.
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

F-15

limiting silvicultural treatments to non-regeneration and single-tree selection prescriptions (this 

requirement is derived from item 6(d)(3) of scenario A).

Finding: Because only intermediate thinning treatments are included under Alternatives B and C 

(see Description of Alternatives section), connectivity would be maintained between LOS stands 

and Forest Plan-designated old-growth areas, and that fragmentation of existing LOS stands 

would be avoided by limiting silvicultural treatments to non-regeneration and single-tree 

selection prescriptions.

3. Item 3 of scenario B is a non-fragmentation standard that limits silvicultural treatments within the 

interior of large LOS stands to “non-fragmenting prescriptions such as thinning, single-tree 

selection (UEAM), salvage, understory removal, and other non-regeneration activities.” Group 

selection is allowed when openings mimic the natural forest pattern and do not exceed 1⁄2 acre in 

size.

Finding: As described above for item 1, all silvicultural activity proposed for LOS stands 

involves improvement cutting, an intermediate silvicultural activity (and a “non-fragmenting 

prescription”) that would maintain LOS characteristics after treatment. Since improvement 

cutting is the only activity proposed for LOS stands, regardless of the biophysical environment in 

which it occurs or which of the wildlife screen scenarios under which it falls, there are no 

proposals to use group selection or other regeneration cutting methods for LOS stands.

4. Item 4 of scenario B requires that the snag, green-tree replacement, and down log standards from 

scenario A be followed (this is item 6(d)(4)(a) of scenario A), and that the goshawk standards 

from scenario A also be met (this is item 6(d)(4)(b) of scenario A), although item 4 does modify 

certain aspects of the post-fledging goshawk requirement from scenario A.

Finding: The project’s design features and management requirements stipulate that snags and 

replacement tree numbers will meet or exceed Forest Plan standards. For specific details about 

the snags, replacement trees, and down logs items, see the wildlife specialist report. According to 

the wildlife specialist report, there are no known goshawk nests in the Tollgate planning area. If a 

nest is discovered during project preparation or implementation, most-suitable nesting habitat and 

post-fledging area standards from portion 6(d) of the Wildlife Standard would be applied at that 

time.
APPENDIX G

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

APPENDIX G

This page is intentionally left blank

APPENDIX H

POTENTIAL WILDERNESS INVENTORY

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

H-1

APPENDIX H

POTENTIAL WILDERNESS INVENTORY

METHODOLOGY and RESULTS

For 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project

Index of Appendix H Maps

Map H-0.......................................Roadless Context Map for Northern Portion of

 Umatilla National Forest

Map H-2.........................................Removal of Past Timber Harvest Area

Map H-3....................................... Forest Roads

Map H-4........................................ Acres not containing Past Timber Harvest or Forest

 Roads

Map H-5......................................... Forest Service Inventory of Potential Wilderness

 Areas

Map H-6.........................................5 panel map; Summary of the inventory process

Map H-7..........................................Interaction between Potential Wilderness Areas and

 Alternative B Treatment Units

Map H-8...........................................Interaction between Potential Wilderness Areas and

 Alternative C Treatment Units

Map H-9..........................................Interaction between Other Undeveloped Lands and

 Alternative B Treatment Units

Map H-10........................................Interaction between Other Undeveloped Lands 

 and Alternative C Treatment Units

Background:

This document describes the process and rationale used to inventory for and identify potential 

wilderness areas within the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project, Walla Walla Ranger District, 

Umatilla National Forest. The inventory is based on, and consistent with criteria found at Forest 

Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12 Ch. 71. 

Each step of the inventory process is visually documented as a map (see map discussion below). 
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

H-2

These maps are displayed in this appendix. The Forest Service used professional judgment and 

local knowledge regarding unique, site-specific conditions of each area being considered for 

placement in the inventory of potential wilderness areas.

Potential Wilderness Areas (PWA): Areas of potential wilderness identified using inventory 

procedures found in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12 Chapter 71 are called potential 

wilderness areas. The inventory is conducted with the express purpose of identifying all lands 

that meet the criteria for being evaluated for wilderness suitability. 

Potential wilderness areas are not a land designation decision, they do not imply or impart any 

particular level of management direction or protection, they are not an evaluation of potential 

wilderness (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 72), and lastly they are not preliminary administrative 

recommendations for wilderness designation (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 73). The inventory of 

potential wilderness does not change the administrative boundary of any inventoried roadless 

areas (IRAs), any congressionally established wilderness, or any forest plan management areas.

Typically, PWAs substantially overlap and/or are contiguous with inventoried roadless areas. 

PWAs may also be contiguous with designated wilderness. Some newly inventoried PWAs may 

be stand alone areas that were not identified as ‘roadless areas’ in Appendix C of the 1990 

Umatilla Forest Plan and ‘inventoried roadless areas’ as identified in a set of maps in the 2001 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR). PWAs overlap inventoried roadless areas only where 

those acres of land are consistent with the inventory criteria (FSH 1909.12 Chapter 71) and may 

extend beyond IRA and wilderness boundaries consistent with inventory criteria. 

The scope of this potential wilderness analysis inventory includes all acres contained within the 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction project boundary and lands outside the boundary sufficient to consider 

the potential wilderness area criteria found at FSH 1909.12 Chapter 71.1. The portion of the 

Walla Walla River IRA that is located outside the project boundary was not considered because 

there would be no effects from the project in this area.

Methodology:

The inventory process was conducted through a sequence of GIS analyses and application of 

professional judgment. The judgment applied was situational and instance by instance. Each 

map (Appendix map H-1, H-2, H-3, H-4, and H-5) documents the outcome of the application of 

specific inventory criteria. Inventory criteria were applied in a different order than appears in 

Chapter 71 but all criteria were considered and accounted for as described below under the Map 

H-1 – H-5 headings. Map H-6 is a summary map that depicts all five maps to aid the reader’s 

understanding of this inventory process. Map H-0 is a roadless context map for the northern 

portion of the Umatilla National Forest.

Examples of typical situations that required applications of professional judgment included, but 

are not limited to:

1. placement of PWA boundaries along permanent natural or semi-permanent human-made 

features such as ridges, streams, topographic breaks, past harvest, or forest roads to facilitate 

easy on the ground identification. 

2. whether to proceed through an isthmus (or pinch point) created between two roads or two 

harvest areas or place a PWA boundary across the isthmus;

3. whether to locate a PWA boundary around a peninsula or place the boundary through the 

peninsula.
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

H-3

Table H-1A is a summary of acres evaluated in the inventory process. Table H-1B was used to 

account for and display all polygons as described in Map H-4. Table H-1C is a summary of the 

areas that meet inventory criteria as potential wilderness areas. Table H-1D is a summary of all 

inventoried lands in the project area.

Map by Map Description

Table H-1A Potential Wilderness Area Inventory Summary

Approximate Acres

Tollgate Project Planning 

Area

Approximate Acres

PWA Analysis Area

Map H-1; Total Acres 

Inventoried. Tollgate Project 

Planning area and PWA analysis 

area).

46,464 52,284

Map H-2; Acres Removed from 

inventory due to past harvest.

14,878 16,894 

Map H-3; Acres removed from 

inventory due to activities related 

to roads

10,364* 11,690*

Map H-4; Resulting lands that 

remain after past harvest and 

activities related to roads are 

removed from inventory. 

(undeveloped lands)

15,712** 19,110**

Map H-5; Acres of Potential 

Wilderness Areas (PWAs) 13,129** 15,403**

Acres of undeveloped lands that 

did not meet PWA inventory 

criteria at FSH 1909.12 Chapter 

71.1 (other undeveloped lands)

2,584** 3,709**

Lookingglass PWA (consists of 

the Lookingglass IRA and PWA 

contiguous to the IRA)

3,660** 5,917 **

Walla Walla River PWA(consists 

of portions of the Walla Walla 

River IRA and PWA contiguous 

to the IRA)

7,248** 7,248**

PWA contiguous with North Fork 

Umatilla Wilderness 1,151** 1,151**

Isolated PWA (polygon 362)

1,070** 1,087**

Total PWA

13,129** 15,403**
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

H-4

The largest single PWA in this analysis is the Walla Walla River IRA/PWA at 7,248 acres 

followed by the Lookingglass PWA/IRA at 5,917 acres. There are numerous smaller PWAs 

contiguous with the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness totaling about 1,151 acres and one isolated 

PWA at 1,087 acres for a total of 15,403 acres of PWA within the PWA analysis area.

Map H-0 (Context)

Map H-0 is a roadless context map for the northern portion of the Umatilla National Forest.

Map H-1 (Analysis Area)

Map H-1 displays the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project planning area and PWA analysis area, 

forest roads, North Fork Umatilla Wilderness and Lookingglass and Walla Walla River 

inventoried roadless areas (IRAs). The project planning area for Tollgate Fuels Reduction is 

approximately 46,464 acres. A portion of the Lookingglass IRA is located outside the project 

planning area. The PWA analysis area extends beyond the project planning area to account for 

potential wilderness areas that are contingent with the whole of the Lookingglass IRA. The PWA 

analysis area is 52,284 acres.

Map H-1A

Map H-1A is an imagery photo representation of Map H-1.

Map H-2 (Past Harvest)

Map H-2 displays Tollgate Fuels Reduction project planning area and PWA analysis area, forest 

roads, past harvest, North Fork Umatilla Wilderness and Lookingglass Creek and Walla Walla 

Creek IRAs. The PWA analysis area was overlain with Walla Walla district's GIS harvest layer 

which displays locations of timber harvest over the past 50 years. Past timber harvest included 

clear-cuts to thinning units. The past timber harvest layer also includes lands where local 

knowledge and field visits were utilized to verify past timber harvest. Notes from field 

verification can be found in the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project record). In all cases, past timber 

harvest resulted in features such as stumps, skid trails etc. which are evident; therefore, all acres 

(approximately 16,894 acres) depicted on the map do not meet FSH 1909.12 Ch 71.11(9) 

inventory criteria and were removed from the inventory in Map H-3. 

Map H-3 (Roads)

Map H-3 displays Tollgate Fuels Reduction project planning area and PWA analysis area, forest 

roads, acres with evidence of recognizable stumps, skid trails, uneven canopy closure, North Fork 

Umatilla Wilderness and Lookingglass Creek and Walla Walla Creek IRAs. The entire analysis 

area was overlain with Walla Walla district's GIS forest roads layer. Forest roads have associated 

permitted uses and maintenance. Road maintenance and many permitted uses have removed trees 

and created visible stumps in the corridor. These activities are expected to continue into the 

future.

During initial road construction trees were felled within a clearing limit to provide for safe and 

efficient construction and future operational safety of road users. Clearing distances away from 

the edge of a road varied by many factors including tree height, topographic slope, and other 

factors. Past clearing of trees along forest roads created stumps that are evident and recognizable.

*Some of these acres may overlap with acres of past harvest. 

** This number does not include polygons less than one acre in size.
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

H-5

Road maintenance occurs to varying degrees along each road according to an assigned 

maintenance level and available funding. Road maintenance includes the periodic clearing of 

brush and the falling of danger trees that present a hazard to forest visitors, employees, and 

contractors as defined by the Region 6 Danger Tree Policy (2008). The distance of the hazard 

removal away from a road varies by tree height, topographic slope, and other factors. Past 

removal of danger trees along forest roads created stumps that are evident and recognizable.

Harvest of trees for personal-use firewood is permitted within 300 feet of open forest roads 

consistent with project NEPA decisions and travel and access management plan decisions. Past 

firewood gathering along open forest roads created stumps that are evident and recognizable.

We recognize stumps are not present along every mile of forest road; for example roads adjacent 

to a meadow, talus, or a lake. The judgment we applied in setting a PWA boundary balanced 

inventory criteria regarding excluding past harvest and facilitating easy on-the-ground 

identification.

Based on local knowledge, and professional judgment regarding the evidence of recognizable 

stumps, skid trails, etc. which occur to varying degrees adjacent to forest roads (as described 

above) and to facilitate easy on-the-ground identification of a uniform, measurable boundary 

along a semi-permanent, human-made feature; the boundary was set as 300 feet each side of the 

forest road. 

This boundary is fully consistent with and supported by the following inventory criteria.

• FSH 1909.12 at 71.1(3); potential wilderness areas do not contain forest roads therefore 

all acres that are a forest road will be removed from the inventory in Map H-4. 

• FSH 1909.12 at 71.1(9); acres with evidence of past logging and roads will be removed 

from the inventory in Map H-4. 

• FSH 1909.12, at 71; locate potential wilderness area boundaries at semi-permanent, 

human-made features to facilitate easy on-the-ground identification of a boundary.

Therefore, highlighted acres along forest roads (approximately 11,690 acres) in Map H-3 were 

removed from the inventory in Map H-4. Note some of the highlighted acres overlap with acres 

removed due to past harvest activities.

Map H-4 ((Acres not containing Past Timber Harvest or Forest Roads)

Map H-4 displays Tollgate Fuels Reduction project planning area and PWA analysis area, forest 

roads, acres that do not contain evidence of past harvest or forest roads (undeveloped lands) and 

Lookingglass Creek and Walla Walla Creek IRAs. Approximately 363 individual polygons of 

undeveloped lands were evaluated in the PWA analysis area. Two hundred thirty two (232)

individual polygons less than 1 acre in size (totaling 39 acres) were eliminated from further study. 

The removal of these polygons resulted in 131 individual polygons, ranging in size from 1 acre to 

approximately 7,140 acres, covering approximately 19,110 acres.

Map H-4 displays the remaining 131 polygons of undeveloped lands, each with its own unique, 

numeric identifier. These polygons do not have substantially recognizable stumps, do not contain 

forest roads, and each polygon boundary is greater than or equal to 300 feet from a forest road. 

Map H-5 (Potential Wilderness Areas and Other Undeveloped Lands)

Map H-5 displays the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness, Walla Walla River and Lookingglass 

IRAs, and Forest Service’s completed inventory of PWAs within Tollgate Fuels Reduction 
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

H-6

project planning area and PWA analysis area. Map H-5 also displays the remaining other 

undeveloped lands.

The acres of the Walla Walla River and Lookingglass IRAs and each of the other undeveloped 

polygons in Map H-4 were considered individually and compared to inventory criteria found at 

FSH 1909.12 at 71.1 (1, 2a, 2b, 2c). This process and the results are documented in Table H-1B 

below and displayed in Map H-5. Acres of any polygon need only meet one of the four found at 

FSH 1909.12 71.1 criteria 1, 2a, 2b, or 2c to be retained and displayed on Map H-5 as PWA.

Of the 131 polygons (19,110 acres) evaluated in the PWA analysis area, 93 polygons, totaling 

3,709 acres (2,584 acres within the project planning area), are not contiguous with wilderness, 

primitive areas, Administration-endorsed wilderness, or potential wilderness in other Federal 

ownership due to the presence of forest roads and/or past timber harvest activity. Based on 

review of a site-specific orthophoto (project record) and local knowledge, each of these individual

polygons is a part of a larger ecosystem and not a separate, self-contained ecosystem, such as 

found on an island surrounded by water. These polygons cannot be separately preserved due to 

physical terrain or a natural condition in part because of their small size and in part because they 

are each part of the larger, continuous ecosystem distributed throughout the project area. Based 

on the discussion above, local knowledge and professional judgment, none of these individual 

polygons met inventory criteria, and therefore were removed from the inventory. They will be 

evaluated as “other undeveloped lands” and discussed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

One isolated polygon, #362 (1,087acres) meets PWA criteria 71.1 (2a). It is less than 5,000 acres 

but can be preserved due to physical and natural features. This polygon is retained in the 

inventory. 

Approximately 2,317 acres are contiguous with either the North Fork Umatilla wilderness area or 

the Walla Walla River or Lookingglass IRAs. These polygon acres generally met criteria 71.1 

(2c) however, some contiguous acres were removed from the inventory based on professional 

judgment when locating a boundary at a prominent natural or semi-permanent human-made 

feature to facilitate easy on-the-ground identification. The Forest Service interpreted ‘prominent 

natural or semi-permanent human-made’ to include features such as, but not limited to, 

topographic breaks, streams, ridges, and the existing administrative boundaries of wilderness 

and/or inventoried roadless areas. These judgments are documented in Table H-1B and 

associated maps/documents in the Wilderness Potential portion of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction 

project file. The remaining contiguous acres are retained in the inventory. These areas are 

displayed in Map H-5 and in Table H-1C.

The Walla Walla River IRA (polygon # 363) and Lookingglass IRA (polygon # 364) were 

examined as independent units, separate from the polygons discussed above. The IRAs were 

examined with the same techniques as each of the other individual polygons. 

All of the Walla Walla River IRA acres located within the Tollgate project planning area meet 

potential wilderness criteria. The entire Lookingglass IRA, both inside and outside the project 

area, meet potential wilderness criteria. Regardless of the outcome, this inventory does not 

change the administrative boundary for either IRA, which was established in the Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule (2001). Both IRAs/PWAs are displayed on map H-5.

Map H-6 (Inventory Process Summary)

Map H-6 is a summary map that displays all five maps described above.

Maps H-7 and H-8 
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

H-7

Maps display interaction between Potential Wilderness and Alternatives B and C treatment units.

Map H-9 and H-10

Maps display interaction between Other Undeveloped Lands and Alternative B and C treatment 

units.
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

H-8

Table H-1B: Tollgate Fuels Reduction Potential Wilderness Inventory

The following inventory for the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project planning area was created using the inventory criteria 

found in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12 Chapter 71.1. Each polygon and IRA from Map H-4 (described 

above) were examined against the following criteria from FSH 1909.12 Chapter 71.1:

(1) Area is more than 5,000 acres in size

(2) Area contains less than 5,000 acres, but can meet one or more of the following criteria:

2a. Area can be preserved due to physical terrain and natural conditions.

2b. Areas are self-contained ecosystems, such as an island, that can be effectively managed as a separate unit of 

the National Wilderness Preservation System.

2c. Areas are contiguous to existing wilderness, primitive areas, Administration-endorsed wilderness, or potential 

wilderness in other Federal ownership, regardless of their size.

The Forest Service relied on local knowledge and judgment regarding unique, site specific conditions of each area being 

considered for placement on the inventory of potential wilderness. Delineation of areas for potential wilderness 

inventory; locate boundaries at prominent natural or semi-permanent human-made features to facilitate easy on-theground identification.

Note: In general, the scope of this potential wilderness inventory analysis was limited to acreage contained within the 

project planning area boundary. However, the Forest Service’s inventory crossed the project planning area boundary to 

include all of the Lookingglass IRA and acres immediately adjacent to the east end of the Lookingglass IRA. Polygons 

were examined as an entire unit (both portions that occur inside and outside of planning area) against the potential 

wilderness area criteria. 

Polygons less than 1 acre in size were dropped from the inventory. The inventory was conducted in January of 2012.

Polygon ID Acres

Meets one or 

more criteria

FSH1909.12 

71.1(1) Is 

area greater 

than 5000 acres 

in size? 

FSH1909.12 

71.1(2a) 

Can be 

preserved due 

to terrain?

FSH1909.12 

71.1(2b) Is 

it a selfcontained 

ecosystem?

FSH1909.12 

71.1(2c) 

Is area 

contiguous?

1 3.91 N N N N N

4 16.80 N N N N N

8 89.32 Y N N N Y

9 21.86 N N N N N

12 1.32 N N N N N

13 7.71 Y N N N Y

14 21.71 Y N Y N Y

15 4.92 N N N N N

16 6.41 N N N N N

17 19.55 N N N N N
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

H-9

Poly ID Acres

Meets one or 

more criteria

FSH1909.12 

71.1(1) Is 

area greater 

than 5000 acres 

in size? 

FSH1909.12 

71.1(2a) 

Can be 

preserved due 

to terrain?

FSH1909.12 

71.1(2b) Is 

it a selfcontained 

ecosystem?

FSH1909.12 

71.1(2c) 

Is area 

contiguous?

21 194.50 Y N N N Y

23 36.29 Y N Y N Y

42 7.16 Y N Y N Y

46 69.11 Y N Y N Y

49 56.12 N N N N N

50 12.00 Y N Y N Y

52 50.92 Y N Y N Y

54 11.01 N N N N N

56 6.31 N N N N N

57 8.92 Y N N N Y

60 7.02 Y N Y N Y

64 2.38 N N N N N

66 1.17 N N N N N

67 1.13 N N N N N

70 8.02 Y N N N N

71 4.07 Y N Y N Y

75 82.09 Y N Y N Y

78 6.19 N N N N N

80 1.20 N N N N N

83 2.06 N N N N N

84 132.07 Y N N N Y

86 4.10 N N N N N

89 21.31 N N N N N

92 15.37 Y N Y N Y

94 70.03 Y N Y N Y

97 14.25 Y N Y N Y

101 8.17 N N N N N

103 3.07 Y N N N Y

105 62.21 Y N Y N Y

110 40.86 Y N Y N Y

111 211.17 Y N Y N Y

117 3.63 N N N N N

119 11.62 N N N N N

122 12.06 Y N Y N Y

125 3.64 N N N N N

127 38.59 Y N Y N Y

128 3.57 N N N N N
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

H-10

Poly ID Acres

Meets one or 

more criteria

FSH1909.12 

71.1(1) Is 

area greater 

than 5000 acres 

in size? 

FSH1909.12 

71.1(2a) 

Can be 

preserved due 

to terrain?

FSH1909.12 

71.1(2b) Is 

it a selfcontained 

ecosystem?

FSH1909.12 

71.1(2c) 

Is area 

contiguous?

129 1.87 Y N Y N Y

133 17.26 N N N N N

134 195.13 N N N N N

135 11.05 N N N N N

138 1.54 N N N N N

142 1.35 N N N N N

143 17.14 Y N N N Y

147 4.37 N N N N N

159 39.01 N N N N N

160 1.64 N N N N N

165 66.94 N N N N N

167 100.67 N N N N N

168 4.37 N N N N N

171 3.57 N N N N N

173 1.12 N N N N N

175 2.69 N N N N N

179 93.76 N N N N N

180 1.08 N N N N N

183 4.89 N N N N N

185 2.32 N N N N N

186 2.41 Y N Y N Y

187 11.43 N N N N N

191 1.46 N N N N N

193 4.81 N N N N N

198 1.76 N N N N N

199 2.14 N N N N N

208 11.17 N N N N N

209 24.03 N N N N N

212 12.31 N N N N N

213 10.22 Y N Y N Y

227 9.80 N N N N N

235 1.55 N N N N N

240 9.83 N N N N N

241 1.08 N N N N N

242 53.46 N N N N N

246 7.00 N N N N N

247 5.54 N N N N N

254 26.59 Y N N N Y
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

H-11

Poly ID Acres

Meets one or 

more criteria

FSH1909.12 

71.1(1) Is 

area greater 

than 5000 acres 

in size? 

FSH1909.12 

71.1(2a) 

Can be 

preserved due 

to terrain?

FSH1909.12 

71.1(2b) Is 

it a selfcontained 

ecosystem?

FSH1909.12 

71.1(2c) 

Is area 

contiguous?

257 1.20 N N N N N

259 9.72 N N N N N

263 68.59 Y N Y N Y

266 6.41 N N N N N

269 135.94 N N Y N N

272 16.37 N N N N N

278 34.07 N N N N N

279 2.63 N N N N N

280 6.24 N N N N N

281 90.01 N N N N N

282 19.89 N N N N N

283 28.14 N N N N N

284 186.26 N N N N N

285 22.88 N N N N N

290 22.10 N N Y N

293 245.74 N N N N N

294 91.77 N N N N N

295 514.75 N N N N N

310 9.38 N N N N N

311 17.79 N N N N N

320 6.45 N N N N N

324 10.46 N N N N N

325 8.18 N N N N N

340 639.25 Y N N N Y

341 3.35 N N N N N

342 3.03 N N N N N

343 98.90 Y N N N Y

345 111.24 Y N N N Y

346 20.15 N N N N N

347 22.56 N N N N N

348 7.34 N N N N N

349 8.94 N N N N N

350 33.86 N N N N N

351 59.65 Y N N N Y

352 973.54 N N N N N

353 140.95 N N N N N

354 37.49 N N N N N

355 11.98 N N N N N
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

H-12

Poly ID Acres

Meets one or 

more criteria

FSH1909.12 

71.1(1) Is 

area greater 

than 5000 acres 

in size? 

FSH1909.12 

71.1(2a) 

Can be 

preserved due 

to terrain?

FSH1909.12 

71.1(2b) Is 

it a selfcontained 

ecosystem?

FSH1909.12 

71.1(2c) 

Is area 

contiguous?

357 4.54 N N N N N

358 15.00 N N N N N

359 2.02 N N N N N

362 1086.64 Y N Y N N

363 7139.74 Y Y Y Y Y

364 4858.92 Y Y Y Y

Total Acres 19,110

Inventory Results

In summary the following areas meet inventory criteria as potential wilderness areas and are 

displayed in Map H-5. 

Table H-1C; Final Inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas for the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project

Potential Wilderness Area 

Identifier

(Polygon ID)

Planning Project Area 

Acreage

(rounded)

PWA Analysis Area

Acreage 

(rounded)

Lookingglass PWA (consists 

of the Lookingglass IRA and 

PWA contiguous to the IRA)

3,660** 5,917 **

Walla Walla River 

PWA(consists of portions of 

the Walla Walla River IRA 

and PWA contiguous to the 

IRA)

7,248** 7,248**

PWA contiguous with North 

Fork Umatilla Wilderness

1,151** 1,151**

Isolated PWA (polygon 362) 1,070** 1,087**

Total PWA 13,129** 15,403**

** This number does not include polygons less than one acre in size.

Table H-1D; Summary of inventoried lands for the Tollage Fuels Reduction Project

NF 

Umatilla 

Wilderness

PWA 

contiguous 

with NF 

Umatilla

Lookingglass 

PWA 

Walla 

Walla 

River 

PWA

Isolated

PWA 

polygons

Other 

Undeveloped 

Lands

Developed 

Lands 

(evidence of 

past harvest 

and/or roads)

Total 

(Acres)

Tollgate 

Project 

Planning 

Area

12,571 1,151 3,660 7,248 1,070 2,584 18,180 46,464

PWA 

Analysis 

Area

12,571 1,151 5,917 7,248 1,087 3,709 20,601 52,284
1- RO 1

TRO

W

Y

ASHINGTON

OREGON

Grande Ronde R vi er Road

WAO 5- 69

ASO-116

4039000

WAO-194

111

1

WAO-570

Union

North Fork Umatilla

Wilderness

Eagle Cap Wilderness

3109

3113

8036

3200

6500

4039

0036

6401

6415

6234

13 20

2126

6235

3150

3100

3128

6200

3728

6206

6219

026 8

6236

26 17

3715

6232

6406

036 7

3725

3738

3719

6231

6214

6306

46 13

TROY

MILTON-FREEWATER

FLORA

WESTON

WALLOWA

ELGIN

MEACHAM LOSTINE

SUMMERVILLE

IMBLER

ENTERPRISE

JOSEPH

ISLANDCITY

LAGRANDE

COVE

UNION

U M AT I L L A U M AT I L L A

U N I O N U N I O N

W A L L O W A W A L L O W A

Tollgate Project

Planning Area

WASHINGTON

OREGON

ID

A

H

O

Walla Walla Ranger District

Umatilla National Forest

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project

Legend

Tollgate Project Planning Area

Walla Walla Ranger District

Pomeroy Ranger District

Other Forests

Inventoried Roadless Areas(IRA)

Wilderness

Cities

County

Forest Service Road

State Road

County Roads

Robin Harris

GIS Specialist

06/21/2011

Tollgate Project

Planning Area
Walla Walla River

Lookingglass

Tollgate Project Planning Area - Inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas

Map H-2: Removal of Past Timber Harvest Area

H-2

2 1 0 2 Miles  ́

Legend

Tollgate Project Planning Area

Tollgate PWAAnalysis Area Boundary

District Boundary

Forest Roads

Past Timber Harvest

Wilderness

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Depicts Walla Walla Ranger District's

Past timber harvest as well as

Walla Walla River and Lookingglass IRA's.

Past timber harvest areas where logging and

roads are evident will be removed from further

examination per (FSH 1909.12 71.11(9)).

North Fork Umatilla Wilderness
Walla Walla River

Lookingglass

Tollgate Project Planning Area - Inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas

Map H-3: Forest Roads

H-3

2 1 0 2 Miles  ́

Legend

Tollgate Project Planning Area

Tollgate PWAAnalysis Area Boundary

District Boundary

Forest Roads

300' each side of Forest Road

Wilderness

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Depicts forest roads. Acres highlighted around

forest roads have evidence of stumps due to

road maintenance, public safety efforts,

and approved personal use activities which

all occur within 300’ each side of forest roads.

These activities result in evidence of substantially

recognizable stumps due to removal of danger

trees, firewood, etc. (FSH 1909.12 71.11(9)).

North Fork Umatilla Wilderness
Walla Walla River

Lookingglass

Tollgate Project Planning Area - Inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas

Map H-4: Acres not containing Past Timber Harvest or Forest Roads

H-4

2 1 0 2 Miles  ́

Legend

Tollgate Project Planning Area

Tollgate PWAAnalysis Area Boundary

District Boundary

Forest Roads

Acres not containing past timber harvest

or forest roads

Wilderness

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Depicts acres that remain following the

removal of past timber harvest and forest roads.

The remaining polygons are examined using

inventory criteria at FSH 1909.12 ch 71. Details

of the examination can be found in Potential

Wilderness Inventory methodology and Results

document (appendix H- Tollgate EIS).

North Fork Umatilla Wilderness
Walla Walla River

Lookingglass

Tollgate Project Planning Area - Inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas

Map H-5: Forest Service Inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas

H-5

2 1 0 2 Miles  ́

Legend

Tollgate Project Planning Area

Tollgate PWAAnalysis Area Boundary

District Boundary

Forest Roads

Potential Wilderness Areas

Other Undeveloped Lands

Wilderness

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Map displays potential wilderness areas and

other undeveloped lands.

North Fork Umatilla Wilderness
Walla Walla River

Lookingglass

Walla Walla River

Lookingglass

Walla Walla River

Lookingglass

Walla Walla River

Lookingglass

This product is reproduced from geospatial information prepared by the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. GIS data and product accuracy may vary. They may be: developed from

sources of differing accuracy, interpretation, incomplete while being created or revised, etc.

Using GIS products for purposes other than those for which they were created may yield inaccurate

or misleading results. The Forest Service reserves the right ot correct, update, modify, or replace GIS

products without notification. For more information contact the Umatilla National Forest Supervisors Office.

Depicts forest roads. Acres highlighted around

forest roads have evidence of stumps due to

road maintenance, public safety efforts ,

and approved personal use ac tivities which

all occur within 300’ each side of forest roads.

These activities result in evidence of subs tantially

recognizable stumps due to removal of danger

trees, firewood, etc. (FSH 1909.12 71.11(9)).

Legend

Tollgate Project Planning Area

Tollgate PWA Analysis Area Boundary

Forest Roads

District Boundary

300' each side of Forest Road

Wilderness

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Walla Walla RD, Tollgate Project Planning Area

Existing Forest Plan Inventoried Roadless Areas

Appendix C - 2001 Roadless Rule

Legend

Tollgate Project Planning Area

Tollgate PWA Analysis Area Boundary

Forest Roads

District Boundary

Wilderness

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Depicts Walla Walla Ranger District's

Past timber harvest and Walla Walla River

and Lookingglass IRA's.

Past timber harvest areas where logging and

roads are evident will be removed from further

examination per (FSH 1909.12 71.11(9)).

Legend

Tollgate Project Planning Area

Tollgate PWA Analysis Area Boundary

Forest Roads

District Boundary

Past Timber Harvest

Wilderness

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Map reflects FS inventory of areas with

wilderness potential within the Tollgate

project planning boundary.

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project

Potential Wilderness Inventory

 ́

Legend

Tollgate Project Planning Area

Tollgate PWA Analysis Area Boundary

Forest Roads

District Boundary

Wilderness

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Areas Meeting PWA Criteria

Other Undeveloped Lands

5 2.5 0 5 Miles

H-1 H-2 H-3

H-5

H-6

Walla Walla River

Lookingglass

Depicts acres that remain following the

removal of past timber harvest and forest roads.

The remaining polygons are examined using

inventory criteria at FSH 1909.12 ch 71. Details

of the examination can be found in Potential

Wilderness Inventory Methodology and Results

document (appendix H- Tollgate EIS).

Legend

Tollgate Project Planning Area

Tollgate PWA Analysis Area Boundary

Forest Roads

District Boundary

Wilderness

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Acres not containing past timber harvest

or forest roads

H-4

North Fork Umatilla Wilderness North Fork Umatilla Wilderness North Fork Umatilla Wilderness

North Fork Umatilla Wilderness North Fork Umatilla Wilderness
Walla Walla River

Lookingglass

Tollgate Project Planning Area - Inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas

Map H-7: Interaction between PWA and Alternative B Units

H-7

2 1 0 2 Miles  ́

Legend

Tollgate Project Planning Area

Tollgate PWAAnalysis Area Boundary

District Boundary

Forest Roads

Potential Wilderness Areas

Wilderness

Inventoried Roadless Area

Alt B Treatment Units

Map displays interaction between Forest Service

Potential Wilderness inventory and Alternative B Units.

North Fork Umatilla Wilderness
Walla Walla River

Lookingglass

Tollgate Project Planning Area - Inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas

Map H-8: Interaction between PWA and Alternative C Units

H-8

2 1 0 2 Miles  ́

Legend

Tollgate Project Planning Area

Tollgate PWAAnalysis Area Boundary

District Boundary

Forest Roads

Potential Wilderness Areas

Wilderness

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Map displays interaction between Forest Service

Potential Wilderness inventory and Alternative C Units.

North Fork Umatilla Wilderness
Walla Walla River

Lookingglass

Tollgate Project Planning Area - Inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas

Map H-9: Interaction between Other Undeveloped Lands and Alternative B Units

H-9

2 1 0 2 Miles  ́

Legend

Tollgate Project Planning Area

Tollgate PWAAnalysis Area Boundary

District Boundary

Forest Roads

Other Undeveloped Lands

Wilderness

Inventoried Roadless Area

Alt B Treatment Units

Map displays interaction between Alternative B Units

and other undeveloped Lands

North Fork Umatilla Wilderness
Walla Walla River

Lookingglass

Tollgate Project Planning Area - Inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas

Map H-10: Interaction between Other Undeveloped Lands and Alternative C Units

H-10

1.5 0.75 0 1.5 Miles  ́

Legend

Tollgate Project Planning Area

Tollgate PWAAnalysis Area Boundary

District Boundary

Forest Roads

Other Undeveloped Lands

Wilderness

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Alt C Treatment Units

Map displays interaction between Alternative C Units

and other undeveloped lands.

North Fork Umatilla Wilderness
APPENDIX I

CONSIDERATION OF MAPS

SUBMITTED BY 

Hells Canyon Preservation Council (HCPC)

Cobbler II Timber Sale and Fuels Reduction Project FEIS

I-1

Appendix I

Consideration of Roadless Maps submitted by the Public

This appendix displays how the Forest Service considered the maps presented by interested parties which 

reported to show acres within the planning area that contained ‘roadless’ characteristics. During project 

scoping Hells Canyon Preservation Council (HCPC) supplied GIS information showing their 

determinations of acres showing ‘roadless’ characteristics. To date, only HCPC has provided such 

information for the Tollgate project. An index of maps included in this appendix are listed below:

Index of Maps

Map I-0................................... Roadless Expanses as identified by HCPC’s inventory method

Map I-1....................................HCPC polygons in relation to Inventoried Roadless Areas, 

Potential Wilderness Areas, Other Undeveloped Lands and Forest Roads

Map I-2....................................HCPC polygons in relation to Inventoried Roadless Areas, 

Potential Wilderness Areas, Other Undeveloped Lands, Forest Roads and Alternative B activities

Map I-3.................................... HCPC polygons in relation to Inventoried Roadless Areas, 

Potential Wilderness Areas, Other Undeveloped Lands, Forest Roads and Alternative C activities

Background:

HCPC submitted written comments (project file) about the ‘roadless issue’ in response to our scoping 

letter on the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project. Their letter included maps with polygons they present as 

roadless using inventory criteria and methods they developed for their purposes. They asked the Forest 

Service to consider the impacts to roadless characteristics within the polygons they inventoried and 

submitted as roadless.

The HCPC map and comment letter describe their polygons using many different terms including, but 

not limited to, inventoried roadless areas, roadless, unroaded, roadless expanse, and un-inventoried 

roadless. Some acres on both maps agree and overlap. Portions of the polygons submitted do not 

coincide with polygons on Forest Service maps (Appendix H). HCPC did not provide the forest service 

with inventory criteria they used to develop their maps submitted during public comment.

Confusion surrounds this issue because there are conflicts between Forest Service maps and the map 

presented by HCPC. Each map has its own history of genesis; these maps appear to use similar terms 

with different definitions; use different terms altogether; and, based on different map products, and 

appear to have different methodology and criteria used to inventory the land. Confusion continues 

when HCPC asks the Forest Service to disclose impacts to ‘roadless characteristics’ on lands the Forest 

Service determined do not meet agency inventory criteria. 
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

I-2

In a related example, this EIS discloses impacts to a number of resources sensitive to the construction of 

new forest roads or from our system of existing roads. A road is defined and criteria and methods for 

inventorying a road conform to agency policy. Definitions and inventory criteria do not change project 

to project, Forest to Forest; they are common agency-wide. It would not be reasonable for a single 

individual or group to assert their own definition of a road or how to inventory a road system and then 

ask the Forest Service to disclose the impacts of ‘their road system’ on resources present such as elk 

habitat, fish habitat, or potential wilderness areas. Further, it is unreasonable to consider one version of 

inventoried forest roads to analyze impacts to elk and fish habitat and then apply a second, different 

version of roads in another analysis (PWA, other undeveloped lands) within the same EIS. Inventories 

of resources and facilities in support of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project have been predicated on 

agency policy and procedures.

These situations described above confound our ability to conduct a clear and meaningful effects 

analysis for the topic in the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project. 

To resolve this confusion the Forest Service uses its discretion to rely on agency policy, agency 

definitions of terms, and agency procedures for the inventory of resources and facilities. Inventory 

criteria and procedures for potential wilderness areas are found in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Ch 

71. Definitions and criteria used by the Umatilla National Forest to inventory potential wilderness areas 

are used by other national forests across the county. The application of these procedures to the Tollgate 

Fuels Reduction project is found in Appendix H of this EIS. The effects to inventoried roadless areas 

(IRAs), potential wilderness areas (PWAs), and other undeveloped lands were based on maps and 

polygons created using agency inventory procedures (Appendix H) and are considered and disclosed in 

Chapter 3 of the EIS titled ‘Wilderness and Undeveloped Lands’.
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

I-3

Methodology and Discussion:

The following narrative describes how HCPC maps were considered in the Tollgate Fuels Reduction 

EIS NEPA process. 

1. HCPC polygons were mapped from their digital files identified as Blues_rdls1.20.2010. Map I-0. 

Approximately 15,067 acres are represented within the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project planning 

area.
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

I-4

Table I-1 Comparison of HCPC’s polygons and Forest Service inventory of PWAs, Other Undeveloped Lands 

and Forest Plan Management Area Allocations within Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Planning Area

Management 

Area

Acres of 

PWA 

located in 

each MA

Percent of 

PWA in 

each MA

Acres of Other 

Undeveloped 

Lands located in 

each MA

Percent of 

Other 

Undeveloped 

Land in each 

MA

Acres of 

HCPC

inventory 

located in 

each MA

Percent 

of HCPC 

Inventory 

in each 

MA

A2 3,061 23.3 0 0 3,080 20.4

A3 635 4.8 960 37.1 927 6.2

A4 76 <1 0 0 77 <1

A5 9 <1 1 <1 231 1.5

A6 157 1.1 384 14.9 266 1.7

A9 62 <1 32 <1 73 <1

B1 0 0 0 0 10 <1

C1 1,466 11.1 18 <1 1,560 10.4

C4 547 4.1 488 18.9 509 3.4

C5 76 >1 60 2.3 86 <1

E2 1,626 12.4 641 24.8 2,756 18.3

F4 5,411 41.2 0 5,410 36

Total 13,126 2,584 15,066

Rounded 13,128 100 100 15,067 100

2. Map I-1 was created that compared HCPC’s polygons to locations of other undeveloped lands, 

IRA’s, PWAs, and forest roads.

Table I-2 displays the acres of overlap of HCPC’s polygons with IRA’s, PWAs, other 

undeveloped lands, forest roads and past harvest on National Forest System Lands within the 

project planning area. 

Table I-2 Overlap of HCPC’s Polygons with PWAs, Other Undeveloped Lands, Roads, And Past Harvest 

PWAs

(acres)

Other 

Undeveloped 

Lands*

(acres)

Forest Roads 

within 

Polygon

(miles)

Areas with evidence of 

stumps and Past 

Harvest 

(acres)

HCPC 12,871 286 1.45 1,527

The affected environment of other undeveloped lands is disclosed in the EIS, Chapter 3 in the 

section titled Wilderness and Undeveloped Lands. The affected environment of other 

undeveloped lands is based on maps and acres described in Chapter 3, and Appendix H.

Descriptions for the affected environment of other undeveloped lands applies to the acres of 

HCPC’s polygons that overlap with other undeveloped lands polygons displayed in Map I-2, and 

Table I-2. 
Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project DEIS

I-5

3. Maps listed below were created that compared HCPC’s polygons to the locations of project 

activities proposed in Alternatives B and C, of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project. 

a. Map I-2: Consideration of HCPC polygons and Alternative B units

b. Map I-3: Consideration of HCPC polygons and Alternative C units

 

Table I-3 displays the acres of HCPC’s polygons in comparison to the fuels reduction treatments 

proposed in Alternatives B and C. 

Table I-3 Proposed Activities within

HCPC’s Polygons by Action Alternative

Treatment 

(acres)

Alt. B Alt. C

HCPC 837 529

No activities are proposed in the Walla Walla River IRA, Walla Walla River PWA or in the 

isolated PWA polygon 362 (1,087 acres). 

Under Alternative B approximately 220 acres in the Lookingglass PWA will be directly affected 

by fuels treatments (113 acres are in the Lookingglass IRA).

Under Alternative C approximately 11 acres in the Lookingglass PWA will be directly affected 

by fuels treatments (0 acres are in the Lookingglass IRA).

The descriptions of environmental effects to the ‘intrinsic physical and social values’ of other 

undeveloped lands applies to the acres of the HCPC’s polygons that overlap with other 

undeveloped lands polygons displayed in maps I-3 and I-4, and Table I-2 and I-3. Fuels 

treatments proposed within other undeveloped lands and environmental effects are described in 

the Chapter 3.

4. Lastly, about 1,528 acres of HCPC’s polygons within the Tollgate Fuels Reduction project 

planning boundary do not overlap other undeveloped lands or PWAs. These remaining acres are 

essentially developed because they contain evidence of stumps along forest roads and evidence of 

past timber harvest. 

Activities in these remaining essentially developed acres of land applies to the acres of the 

HCPC’s polygons that do not overlap with other undeveloped lands polygons or PWAs as 

displayed in maps I-HCPC-Alt B and I-HCPC-Alt C. The environmental effects to the remaining 

essentially developed acres of land are disclosed throughout all other resource sections of Chapter 

4.

Hwy 204

Hwy 204

SF

64

FS 63

 ́

I-0

Lookingglass IRA

Hellhole

IRA

North Fork Umatilla Wilderness
Walla Walla River

Lookingglass

Tollgate Project Planning Area - Inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas and consideration of HCPC polygons

Map I-1: HCPC's Polygon in relation to Inventoried Roadless Areas, Potential Wilderness Areas, Other Undeveloped Lands, and Forest Roads.

I-1

2 1 0 2 Miles  ́

Legend

Tollgate Project Planning Area

Tollgate PWAAnalysis Area Boundary

District Boundary

Forest Roads

Wilderness

Inventoried Roadless Areas

HCPC Polygon

Potential Wilderness Areas

Other Undeveloped Lands

Map displays Forest Service potential wilderness

inventory and other undeveloped lands and their

relation to HCPC's polygons.

North Fork Umatilla Wilderness
Walla Walla River

Lookingglass

Tollgate Project Planning Area - Inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas and consideration of HCPC polygons

Map I-2: HCPC's Polygon in relation to Inventoried Roadless Areas, Potential Wilderness Areas, Other Undeveloped Lands, Forest Roads and Alternative B activities

I-2

2 1 0 2 Miles  ́

Legend

Tollgate Project Planning Area

Tollgate PWAAnalysis Area Boundary

District Boundary

Forest Roads

Wilderness

Inventoried Roadless Areas

HCPC Polygon

Potential Wilderness Areas

Other Undeveloped Lands

Alt B Treatment Units

North Fork Umatilla Wilderness

Map depicts Forest Service Potential Wilderness Inventory,

other undeveloped lands, and Alternative B Units in relation

to HCPC polygons
Walla Walla River

Lookingglass

Tollgate Project Planning Area - Inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas and consideration of HCPC polygons

Map I-3: HCPC's Polygon in relation to Inventoried Roadless Areas, Potential Wilderness Areas, Other Undeveloped Lands, Forest Roads and Alternative C activities

I-3

2 1 0 2 Miles  ́

Legend

Tollgate Project Planning Area

Tollgate PWAAnalysis Area Boundary

District Boundary

Forest Roads

Wilderness

Inventoried Roadless Areas

HCPC Polygon

Potential Wilderness Areas

Other Undeveloped Lands

Alt C Treatment Units

North Fork Umatilla Wilderness

Map depicts Forest Service Potential Wilderness Inventory,

other undeveloped lands, and Alternative C Units in relation

to HCPC polygons