RECORD OF DECISION

FOR

TOLLGATE FUELS REDUCTION PROJECT

USDA Forest Service

Umatilla National Forest

Walla Walla Ranger District

Umatilla and Union Counties, Oregon

Legal Location: T. 2 N., R. 38 E., section 5; T. 3 N., R. 37 E., sections 1-5, 8-16, and 21-26; T. 3 N., 

R. 38 E., sections 1-12, 14-23, 26-30, and 32-35; T. 3 N., R. 39 E., sections 6 and 7; T. 4 N., R. 37 E., 

sections 34-36; T. 4 N., R. 38 E., sections 1, 2, 7-36; T. 4 N., R. 39 E., sections 5-9, 16-20, and 29-

32; W. M. surveyed.

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 3

LOCATION AND AREA ...................................................................................................................... 4

DECISION ......................................................................................................................................... 4

Modifications to Alternative B.................................................................................................... 4

Forest Plan Amendment ............................................................................................................. 8

Design Features and Management Requirements ................................................................... 11

BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 11

Geographic Context .................................................................................................................. 11

Regulatory Context ................................................................................................................... 12
Purpose and Need..................................................................................................................... 13

DECISION RATIONALE.................................................................................................................... 15

Consideration of No-Action Alternative.................................................................................... 15

Response to Purpose and Need................................................................................................ 16

Other Direct Project Benefits.................................................................................................... 20

Public Involvement.................................................................................................................... 21

Issues Considered...................................................................................................................... 23

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED......................................................................................................... 49

Reasons for Not Selecting Alternative A (No Action)................................................................ 52

Reasons for Selecting Alternative B-Proposed Action .............................................................. 52

Reasons for Not Selecting Alternative C ................................................................................... 52

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS.......................................................... 54

National Historic Preservation Act............................................................................................ 54

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Regional Forester's Sensitive Species ............................... 54

Clean Air Act............................................................................................................................ 555

Clean Water Act ........................................................................................................................ 55

Prime Farmland, Range Land and Forest Land ......................................................................... 55

Civil Rights, Women and Minorities.......................................................................................... 55

Treaty Trust Responsibilities..................................................................................................... 55

National Forest Management Act............................................................................................. 56

Floodplains and Wetlands - Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 ............................................. 56

Municipal Watersheds.............................................................................................................. 57

Energy Requirements................................................................................................................ 57

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 2 of 62
Public Health and Safety ........................................................................................................... 57

Environmental Justice............................................................................................................... 57

Other Jurisdictions.................................................................................................................... 57

2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule .................................................................................... 58

Finding of Non-Significant Forest Plan Amendment................................................................. 58

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE............................................................................ 61

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OPPORTUNITIES.................................................................................. 61

IMPLEMENTATION DATE............................................................................................................... 61

CONTACT INFORMATION .............................................................................................................. 62

_____________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION

This Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision and rationale for selecting a course of 

action to be implemented for the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project. I have considered the analysis 

that is documented in the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the Tollgate Fuels 

Reduction Project, information in the project file, and input received from the public during the 

course of the analysis of this project as required by the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA).

This ROD was developed according to requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) (42 USC §§ 4321-4370), the Council of Environmental Quality’s implementing regulations 

(40 CFR §§ 1500-1508), Forest Service NEPA regulations (36 CFR Part 220), Forest Service policy 

in Forest Service Manual 1900, Chapter 1950, and Forest Service Handbook 1909.15.

The Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project is authorized under the “Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 

2003” (HFRA) (P.L. 108-148), because it occurs within a wildland-urban interface (WUI) identified 

in a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) (HFRA, Section 102(a)(1)). This ROD 

incorporates by reference the document entitled “Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Objection Statements and Responses, Umatilla National 

Forest” (February 2014) (Project Record).

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 3 of 62
LOCATION AND AREA

The Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project planning area (approximately 46,000 acres) is located on 

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

County, Oregon. Portions of the Lookingglass Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA), Walla Walla River 

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

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. The planning area is bisected by Oregon Highway 204. 

Elevations above sea level range from 2,400 to 5,200 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.

DECISION

I have decided to implement Alternative B, as modified (referred to throughout this document as 

Alternative B- Modified). My decision is based on my review of the environmental analysis 

disclosed in the Tollgate Fuels Reduction FEIS, project file; and consideration of the public 

comments received from early collaboration as required by the HFRA, scoping, public comments 

received on the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), and the objections received on the 

FEIS. I have determined that the actions and effects of Alternative B-Modified are within the 

scope of the actions and effects analyzed in the FEIS.

Alternative B is described in Chapter 2 of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project FEIS on pages 2-2 

to 2-12. Appendix A, Map A3, of the FEIS is a map of the treatment units included in Alternative 

B. Appendix B, Table B1, includes a unit-by-unit description of the activities included in 

Alternative B. Appendix C, Table C1, discloses the roads to be used for Alternatives B and C. 

MODIFICATIONS TO ALTERNATIVE B

I decided to make a change to the logging systems from conventional ground-based “tractor” to 

harvester-forwarder for units 23, 33, 35, 82, 89 and 90 located on Forest roads systems 3715 and 

3719 in order to lessen visual effects and to group units based on logging types.

Based on the objections that the Forest received, I have decided to make modifications to 

Alternative B in order to address concerns that some of the objectors had about the project. 

These modifications include changes to treatments in the Lookingglass IRA, Potential Wilderness 

Area associated and contiguous with North Fork Umatilla Wilderness (NFUW PWA), Lookingglass 

Potential Wilderness Area (LG PWA), and Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) as 

follows:

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 4 of 62
• Unit 10 – Alternative B proposes 148 acres of commercial treatments in this unit.

○ Modification: My decision will eliminate all activities, as described in Alternative B 

for the portion of the unit within the NFUW PWA (eliminate 21 acres of activities).

• Unit 12 –Alternative B proposes 17 acres of commercial treatment in this unit.

○ Modification: My decision will eliminate all activities, as described in Alternative B 

for the portion of the unit within the NFUW PWA (eliminate 3 acres of activities).

• Unit 26 –Alternative B proposes 104 acres of non-commercial treatment in this unit.

○ My decision will implement activities in this unit (all acres included in the LG PWA) 

as described under Alternative B, except treatments will be limited to trees less 

than 8 inches in diameter, all hand work, no machinery except chainsaws.

• Unit 33 – Alternative B proposes 27 acres of commercial treatment in this unit. 

○ Modification: My decision will eliminate all activities, as described in Alternative B 

for the portion of the unit within the LG PWA (eliminate 15 acres of activities).

• Unit 38 –Alternative B proposes 87 acres of commercial treatment in this unit.

○ Modification: (1) My decision will implement non-commercial thinning of live 

trees less than 8 inches in diameter; (2) My decision will implement noncommercial removal of existing down wood that is 14 inches or less in diameter; 

(a) this treatment will require heavy equipment to remove material from the site; 

(b) the material will be transported off-site and disposed of in a variety of ways; 

for example, it may be used for restoration work, or personal or tribal firewood; (c) 

some snags will need to be felled where they pose a safety risk to operators; (d) 

employ mitigation measures, such as: low stumps, light scarification of heavy 

equipment trails, spreading vegetative debris within the treated areas to reduce to 

impact to LG PWA determination factors (modify prescription on all 87 acres

within unit 38).

• Unit 75 – Alternative B proposes 52 acres of commercial treatment in this unit.

○ Modification: For those 15 acres of this unit within the Lookingglass IRA: (1) My 

decision will implement non-commercial thinning to trees less than 8 inches in 

diameter; (2) The My decision will implement non-commercial removal of existing 

down wood that is 14 inches or less in diameter; (a) this treatment will require 

heavy equipment to remove material from the site; (b) the material will be 

transported off-site and disposed of in a variety of ways; for example, it may be 

used for restoration work, or personal or tribal firewood, or burned; (c) some 

snags will need to be felled where they pose a safety risk to operators; (d) employ 

mitigation measures, such as; low stumps, light scarification of heavy equipment 

trails, spreading vegetative debris within the treated areas to reduce the impact to 

LG PWA determination factors (modify prescription on 15 acres within unit 75).

• Unit 89 – Alternative B proposes 57 acres of commercial treatment in this unit.

○ Modification: My decision will eliminate all activities, as described in Alternative B 

for the portion of the unit within the NFUW PWA (eliminate 2 acres in unit 89).

• Unit 101 – Alternative B proposes 14 acres of commercial treatment in this unit.

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 5 of 62
○ Modification: My decision will eliminate all activities, as described in Alternative B 

for the portion of the unit within undeveloped lands in this unit (eliminate 3 acres 

within unit 101). During the objection process an error was made which identified 

these 3 acres within the LG PWA inventory. These 3 acres are identified as 

undeveloped lands. (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-118).

• Unit 104 – Alternative B proposes 75 acres of non-commercial treatments in this unit.

○ My decision will implement activities in this unit (all acres included in the NFUW 

PWA) as described under Alternative B, except treatments will be limited to trees 

less than 8 inches in diameter, all hand work, no machinery except chainsaws.

SUMMARY FOR LOOKINGGLASS PWA AND PWA CONTIGUOUS WITH NORTH 

FORK UMATILLA WILDERNESS:

• My decision will eliminate all proposed activities for commercial treatment acres within

NFUW and LG PWAs that are outside of IRAs (units 10, 12, 33, 89, 101). This modification 

eliminates a total of 44 acres from treatment.

• My decision will implement non-commercial treatments within units 38 and 15 acres of unit 

75 as described above. This modification affects a total of 102 acres within the LG PWA.

• Consistent with Alternative B, my decision will implement non-commercial thinning (less 

than 8 inches in diameter, hand work, no equipment except chainsaws) within unit 104. This 

modification affects 75 acres in NFUW PWA.

• Consistent with Alternative B, my decision will implement non-commercial thinning (less 

than 8 inches in diameter, hand work, no equipment except chainsaws) within unit 26. This 

modification affects 104 acres within LG PWA.

SUMMARY FOR LOOKINGGLASS IRA:

• My decision will implement non-commercial thinning within unit 26 (104 acres) as described 

in Alternative B of the FEIS (treat trees less than 8 inches in diameter; all hand work, no 

machinery except chainsaws). For all 87 acres of unit 38 and 15 acres of unit 75 (102 acres), 

implement a non-commercial treatments as described above.

SUMMARY FOR RHCAS:

• My decision will implement non-commercial treatment within the riparian portions of units 

38 and 75 as described above (13 acres). No entry of heavy equipment into the RHCA.

• My decision will implement RHCA treatments within units 19 and 66 as described in 

Alternative B of FEIS (12 acres).

Table 1 summarizes the activities included in my decision in comparison with Alternative B. Table 

2 summarizes the 25 acres of treatments that will occur within RHCAs. Table 3 summarizes the 

treatments that will occur in the Lookingglass IRA.

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 6 of 62
Table 1. Comparative summary of activities for Alternative B and selected Alternative B-Modified

Alternative B

Alternative BModified

Reduction of Amount and Continuity of Surface and Canopy Fuels

Commercial thinning of live and dead trees (CT) 3,445 acres 3,299 acres

Non-commercial thinning of live and dead trees in even-aged plantations (NCT) 

and the forest understory (LFR)*

885 acres 972 acres

Down and dead woody debris removal (DDR) 300 acres 315 acres

Mastication 1,200 acres 1,148 acres

Hand-pile burning 500 acres 485 acres

Total area treated 4,330 acres 4,286 acres

Tree Cutting and Yarding Systems

Conventional ground-based (“tractor”) 2,660 acres 2,328 acres

Harvester-forwarder 785 acres 971 acres

Roads Used for Project Activities

Open roads used for timber and/or biomass hauling 30 miles 30 miles

Gated closed system roads used then re-closed 16 miles 16 miles

Temporary roads: 

Existing templates 1.3 miles 1.3 miles

Newly constructed (de-commissioned after use) 1.3 miles 1.3 miles

Road realignment 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 338 acres 338 acres

RHCA activities 25 acres 25 acres**

Danger tree removal along haul routes Yes Yes

IRA activities 206 acres 206 acres***

Forest Plan Amendment required Yes Yes

* Acreage totals do not include non-commercial thinning activities in commercial thinning units.

** See “Summary for RHCAs:” on page 6 if this ROD. 

*** See “Summary for Lookingglass IRA:” on page 6 of this ROD.

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 7 of 62
Table 2. Units within RHCAs that will be treated in Alternative B-Modified

Unit 19 Unit 38 Unit 66 Unit 75

Unit Area (Acres) 17 87 40 52

RHCA Treated (Acres) 4 8 8 5

Existing Condition

Basal Area (ft2/acre) 180 240 280 200

Trees per Acre 170 250 250 250

Canopy Cover (%) 50 80 80 80

Post Treatment Condition*

Basal Area (ft2/acre) 120-140 240* 100-120 200*

Trees per Acre 109 170-250* 170 170-250*

Canopy Cover (%) 40 80* 50 80*

Distance to ESA Fish (Miles)

Steelhead 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.25

Bull Trout 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.25

No-Cutting Stream Buffer (Feet) 50 Minimum 50 ft. 

up to 100 ft.

Minimum 30 ft. 

up to 50 ft. 

Minimum 50 ft. 

up to 100 ft.

Channel Length Treated (Feet) 600 1,200 1,200 600

* Post-treatment effects displayed for Units 38 and 75 are based on thinning of live trees less than or equal to 8 inches diameter 

breast height as specified in the description of Alternative B-Modified.

Table 3. Treatments in units within the Lookingglass IRA under Alternative B-Modified

Unit Acres in Unit Acres of Unit in IRA Treatments in IRA

26 104 104 LFR, Hand Pile/Burn

38 87 87 LFR, DDR, Material removed by heavy equipment

75 52 15 DDR, Material removed by heavy equipment

FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT

My decision includes a non-significant, site-specific, and project-specific amendment to the 

Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (FEIS, Chapter 2, 

page 2-8). I considered this amendment in order to determine whether it would be a significant 

amendment to the Forest Plan (36 CFR Part 219 and FSM 1900, Chapter 1920, Section 1926.51). 

My consideration of the significance of this amendment is documented on page 58 of this ROD. 

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 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 8 of 62
areas on lands administered by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

PACFISH 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 (RHCAs) along 

both sides of streams, rivers, lakes, and other wetlands. RHCA widths extend from the edge of 

the active stream channel. RHCA widths vary with stream class and whether a stream is fishbearing or not. RHCAs can be established using specified feet of slope distance (such as 300 feet 

on either side of perennial, fish-bearing streams). The interim RHCA widths established by the 

PACFISH environmental assessment can be adjusted during watershed analysis or after sitespecific analysis presenting a rationale for RHCA modifications.

Timber harvest activities are prohibited in RHCAs by the PACFISH amendment except in the 

following situations:

TM-1a. For catastrophic events such as fire, flooding, volcanic, wind or insect damage 

that result in degraded riparian conditions, and where present and future woody 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 

TM-1b. 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, my decision includes a site- and project-specific 

Forest Plan amendment which will allow for the proposed fuels activities within PACFISH

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

amendment will 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 will remain valid only 

during implementation of this project.

The Forest Plan amendment will 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 will allow silvicultural practices to manage for desired fire behavior 

that will allow safe and effective suppression efforts. The amendment applies only to the 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project.

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 9 of 62
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 will be added as an additional 

exception to the prohibitions described in TM-1, and will apply to the RHCAs within activity units 

19, 38, 66, and 75.

TM-1c will 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 and 66, a Forest Plan amendment is also needed to allow these activities to occur. Although 

my decision modifies Alternative 3, this amendment will still apply to units 38 and 75 because 

some of the material removed may be used as firewood. 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 will both modify and supplement item FM-1. The first sentence of FM-1 will 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 will be listed as FM-1a, and will read:

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

riparian habitat 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.

CONSISTENCY OF AMENDMENT WITH HFRA

When a HFRA-authorized hazardous fuel reduction project is approved contemporaneously with 

a plan amendment that applies only to that project, the project-level pre-decisional 

administrative review process for HFRA projects specified in 36 CFR 218 subparts A and C applies 

to both the plan amendment and the project (36 CFR § 218.31(b)).

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 10 of 62
DESIGN FEATURES AND MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS

As part of my decision, I will implement project-specific design features and management 

requirements identified in the FEIS (Chapter 2, Table 2-7, pages 2-14 to 2-22) and best 

management practices (BMPs) listed in Appendix D of the FEIS. 

Project design elements were developed by the interdisciplinary team to reflect existing 

direction found in the Forest Plan. These include measures for PACFISH, Eastside Screens, the 

Invasive Plant Program (FEIS, Chapter 2, page 2-18), and other program direction established on 

Umatilla National Forest. These design elements include all practical means of avoiding or 

minimizing environmental harm from management activities. Implementation of these design 

elements is considered highly effective.

I will also implement monitoring measures and effectiveness measures as disclosed in the FEIS 

(Chapter 2, page 2-22) to assure that the attributes of my decision are carefully tracked during 

and after implementation.

BACKGROUND

GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT

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 (FEIS, Appendix A, Map A2). 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 mostly privately owned Tollgate plateau, however, sits 

above large tracts of both Roadless and Wilderness areas of the Umatilla National Forest.

Preliminary analysis indicates that wildfires may initiate in these lower remote places, attain 

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. A fire that starts on the plateau would also move quickly through the 

area, potentially threatening the recreational and other values that Roadless and Wilderness 

areas provide. These wildfire risks threaten many important values identified in the Umatilla 

County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) (FEIS, Chapter 1, page 1-3):

• 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, Map A2).

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 11 of 62
• 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, Map A2). 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, Oregon in the east to Milton-Freewater, Oregon, and Pendleton, 

Oregon, in the west (Appendix A, Map A1).

• Forest Service infrastructure: There are four Forest Service campgrounds, six trailheads, four

snowparks, and other Forest Service facilities (such as the Tollgate Work Center and Tollgate 

Visitor Center).

• 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 area’s current vegetative conditions, this would constitute 

increased risk due to the amount of personnel hours spent on suppression activities.

REGULATORY CONTEXT

HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT

In 2003, Congress and President George W. Bush enacted the “Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 

2003” (HFRA) (P.L. 108-148). This 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. . .” (HFRA, Section 2- “Purposes”).

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 analyses 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.

The Tollgate project is an authorized HFRA project because it occurs within a WUI identified in a 

Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) (HFRA, Section 102(a)(1)). For an authorized 

hazardous fuel reduction project that is proposed to be conducted in a WUI, the Forest Service 

“is not required to study, develop, or describe more than the proposed agency action and 1 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 12 of 62
action alternative in the environmental assessment or environmental impact statement . . .” 

(HFRA, Section 104(d)(1)).

UMATILLA COUNTY COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN

Umatilla County, Oregon, completed its CWPP in June 2005. The CWPP identified thirteen (13) 

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 (T. 4 N., R. 38 E., Section 36). The WUI boundary was adjusted by the 

Oregon Department of Forestry to provide protection to the residents located in this private 

inholding. All of the proposed activities for the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project will occur on NFS 

lands within the Tollgate WUI.

UMATILLA NATIONAL FOREST LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Forest Plan is incorporated into this ROD by reference (FEIS, page 1-9). 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 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 (Forest Plan, 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

PURPOSE AND NEED

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

desired conditions with respect to fuel levels, associated potential wildfire behavior, and related 

risks to the values identified above. 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 13 of 62
Fire regime and condition class departures have resulted in conditions that will support more 

active crown fire and thus more stand replacement fire of greater spatial extent than would be 

expected historically within the Tollgate planning area.

The vast majority of stands proposed for treatment within the Tollgate planning area are 

represented by Condition Classes 2 and 3 of Fire Regimes III and IV. Therefore, these stands are 

moderately to severely departed from historic fire regime values (FEIS, Chapter 3, page 3-56).

Fire Regimes III and IV would have historically burned with mixed and high severities,

respectively, in a complex mosaic of lethal and non-lethal fire intensities. This mosaic would 

result in a patchwork of stand-replaced and mixed/low severity stands (FEIS, Chapter 3, pages 3-

45 and 3-55). These patches of live and dead stands would vary in size, shape, distribution, and 

continuity across the landscape.

The moderate to severe departures from historic conditions (Condition Class 2 and 3), as 

modeled and displayed within the FEIS, suggests that wildland fires that may occur under 

present conditions could be expected to burn with higher intensities and severities over larger 

more continuous areas than would have occurred historically (FEIS, Tables 3-28 and 3-29, pages 

3-55 to 3-56). This would result in larger and more continuous patches of stand-replacement, 

and correspondingly smaller patches that would exhibit non-lethal or mixed-lethality effects 

than would be expected. These effects are a direct result of this departure from historic 

conditions (again, represented as Condition Classes 2 and 3).

Consistent with the Umatilla County CWPP and the 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 

wildfire-caused 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 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 purpose of the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project is to address the needs identified above, by 

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

within the Tollgate WUI. The project will reduce the amount and continuity of surface and 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 14 of 62
canopy fuel loading, and in so doing, enhance and expand opportunities for protection of 

identified values at risk from wildfire damage or destruction.

DECISION RATIONALE

I have reviewed the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project FEIS. Information in the project file shows a 

thorough review of relevant scientific information, a consideration of responsible opposing 

views, the acknowledgement of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty 

and risk; the Forest Plan; applicable laws (FEIS, Chapter 1, pages 1-13 to 1-14); treaty rights (FEIS, 

Chapter 1, pages 1-15 to 1-16); regulations (40 CFR §§ 1500 to 1508, and 36 CFR Part 220); and 

Forest Service policies.

In making my decision I considered and compared how each alternative addresses the stated 

purpose and need (FEIS, Chapter 1, pages 1-3 to 1-4, Chapter 2, Table 2-2, page 2-7); how each 

alternative responds to identified environmental issues (FEIS, Chapter 1, Table 1-2, pages 1-18 to 

1-20; and Chapter 4); and I have taken into consideration public comments submitted during the 

45-day comment period on the DEIS, our responses to those comments (FEIS, Appendix G, pages 

G-1 to G-144), and public objections submitted during the 30-day objection period on the FEIS.

CONSIDERATION OF NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

I considered the potential outcome to this area if I had selected the No-Action Alternative (FEIS, 

Chapter 4, pages 4-61 to 4-62). I find that Alternative A, the No-Action Alternative, fell short of 

addressing the purpose and need for action. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, any wildfire start inside the project area, or wildfire start 

outside the project that burns into the project area, would likely be more expensive, difficult, 

and dangerous to suppress. The No-Action Alternative would increase potential for greater fire 

intensities, spot fires, faster rates of fire spread, greater resistance to fire control, increased 

likelihood for sustained crown fire, and greater risk to fire suppression resources. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, surface and crown fuels would continue to accumulate due to 

disease, decadence, and natural events such as wind and insect infestation. Heavy down fuels 

would contribute to increased surface fire intensities, spotting potential, receptive fuels for 

firebrands from other locations, and extreme fire behavior. Continued growth in the understory 

vegetation would increase the likelihood that normally expected ignitions would have the 

potential to transition from surface fires to crown fires in the forest overstory.

I have a choice to either proactively conduct fuels treatments in selected areas under controlled 

circumstances, to reduce wildfire hazards now; or conduct more reactive, unplanned wildfire 

suppression tactics as a wildfire spreads quickly and indiscriminately through expansive areas of 

National Forest and threatens private land in the future. My choice is to act now and I believe 

that it is the most responsible course of action to take. As such, I did not choose the No-Action 

Alternative.

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 15 of 62
RESPONSE TO PURPOSE AND NEED

Currently 370 homes, the ski resort, public infrastructure, National Forest System facilities, and 

public health and safety on the Tollgate plateau are threatened and at risk of a high-severity, 

high-intensity wildfire initiating on NFS land. Should a fire become uncontrollable as it

consumes available fuel and moves upslope, the potential risk and impact to people, their 

homes, and other important facilities increases. These potential impacts are unwanted and 

unacceptable. Not acting now would be irresponsible given our current understanding of this 

situation.

By acting now to reduce surface and canopy fuels, I can improve protection to adjacent private 

lands and public/private infrastructure, reduce the intensity of 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.

My decision recognizes the atypical geographic positioning of the National Forest System land 

needing treatment in relation to the values at risk (FEIS, Chapter 1, page 1-3). Implementing 

Alternative B-Modified will make much needed progress in changing the conditions in the 

project planning area toward desired vegetative and fuel conditions with a low likelihood of 

active crown fire. These conditions will allow:

• 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; and 

• Protection (by firefighters and firefighting resources) of identified values at risk from 

wildfire-caused injury, loss of life, property damage, or destruction.

I find that both action alternatives (B and C) will address the project objectives, but to different 

extents and with different effects and trade-offs. Alternatives B and C are similar with the 

following exceptions: 

• Alternative C has no activities in IRAs and thus treats about 320 fewer acres than Alternative 

B (FEIS, Chapter 2, Table 2-2, page 2-7). Although this amounts to only a 7% reduction in 

project activity acres, these treatment areas within the IRA contain some of the heaviest fuel 

loading in the planning area and are immediately adjacent to private property. Treating 

these 320 acres is consistent with of the Purpose and Need for this project to protect private 

properties adjacent to Forest Service land.

• Alternative B proposes to remove trees greater than or equal to 21 inches diameter at breast 

height in units 45, 83, 84 and 95 to meet the project purpose and need of reducing 

horizontal canopy continuity. Alternative C treats units 45, 83, 84 and 95, but not as 

intensively as it does not include removal of trees greater than or equal to 21 inches 

diameter breast height; and

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 16 of 62
• Alternative B treats 25 acres of RHCAs in units 19, 38, 66, and 75. Alternative C avoids 

activities within all RHCAs, except for 4 acres of RHCA in unit 19, which is proposed for 

treatment to protect vulnerable structures (FEIS, Chapter 2, page 2-12).

Alternative B-Modified treats the same number of acres in IRAs and RHCAs as Alternative B, but 

not as intensively, yet still results in modifying fire behavior in critical areas.

In making my decision, I considered several factors in determining each alternative’s potential to 

address the purpose and need: crown fire potential, fire travel times, fire intensity, spotting 

distance, and treatment adjacency to private land. (For a definition of terms used in the 

following subheadings, see the FEIS, Glossary, pages 1-19.)

CROWN FIRE POTENTIAL

The analysis shows that commercial harvest that targets canopy closure and subsequent surface 

fuels treatments will reduce the crown fire potential by decreasing stem and crown densities 

and reducing surface fuel loadings. Ladder fuels will be reduced through timber harvest and 

non-commercial thinning.

Treatments will result in reductions in the potential of stand-replacement fire in terms of both 

prevalence and spatial extent, and will reduce crown fire potential within and adjacent to the 

WUI. This reduction will allow a trend toward more historic conditions. Table 4-23 (FEIS, Chapter 

4, page 4-62) shows the crown fire potential before and after harvest activities are completed.

Acres where active crown fire could potentially occur will be reduced from 21.7 percent under 

the No-Action Alternative, to 0.4 percent under Alternative B, and 1.5 percent under Alternative 

C. Acres where passive crown fire could potentially occur will be reduced from 39.9 percent of 

the project area under the No-Action Alternative, to 30.9 percent of the project area under 

Alternative B, and 34.4 percent under Alternative C.

Meanwhile, acres where wildfire would be expected to remain on the surface will increase from 

38.4 percent of the project area under the No-Action Alternative, to 68.7 percent of the project 

area under Alternative B, and 64.1 percent under Alternative C.

The effectiveness of treatments in reducing active and passive crown fire is clear when viewing 

the results of models showing the difference in active crown fire between Alternatives B and C. 

Active (and passive) crown fire is present in untreated areas of Alternative C. However, in those 

same areas within Alternative B (in which treatment occurs), active crown fire is not present and 

is largely represented by surface fire. 

The areas not prescribed for treatment under Alternative C can be viewed as not receiving the 

benefit of these treatments in terms of condition class and, therefore, will remain departed from 

historic conditions. These areas will continue on a trend towards further departure over time. 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 17 of 62
Areas receiving treatments should become more historically representative (in terms of 

condition class) as a result of these treatments. The benefit of treatments, in regard to this issue, 

will be to generally trend the planning area toward more historic conditions.

Thinning activities are designed to leave the largest and healthiest trees on site to provide 

shading of surface fuels and reduced surface wind speeds. Smaller diameter tree densities will

be reduced to minimize the potential for crown fire initiation. This partially shaded gap between 

the surface and crown fuels will again minimize potential crown fire.

Long range spotting potential will decrease as crown fire potential decreases. Firefighter and 

public safety will be increased, and the potential for high-intensity fire spreading onto private 

lands that contain homes and improvements will be reduced.

The effects of the treatments on crown fire potential will last for 20 to 30 years in terms of 

recommended stocking levels (ladder and crown fuels), and can be maintained longer through 

understory thinning.

FIRE TRAVEL TIMES

The analysis shows that commercial harvest, non-commercial thinning, and reduction of surface 

fuels will reduce fire travel times in the project area (FEIS, Chapter 4, Table 4-24, page 4-62). 

Reduction of fire travel times will allow for more effective suppression responses to wildfire 

incidents that occur in the planning area. 

A fire emerging from the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness and moving toward the Tollgate 

plateau would only move half as fast under Alternative B than it would under the No-Action

Alternative. Such a fire would arrive at Langdon Lake and other values at risk within the first 

operational period (the first 16 hours) after ignition under the No-Action Alternative. Under the 

action alternatives (conditions that would exist under Alternative B-Modified) the same fire 

would still be well removed from Langdon Lake and other values at risk until the middle of the 

following operational period on the subsequent day.

This change in spread rate and travel time will 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 will increase the likelihood that safe, 

effective, and less costly firefighting operations can occur; and ultimately that firefighting 

resources can use defensible fuel profile zones (DFPZ’s) (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-62) to directly 

engage and quickly contain fires that would otherwise threaten the Tollgate area without 

treatment. These zones will allow fire suppression forces a higher probability of successfully 

attacking a wildfire by changing the behavior of a wildfire entering the zone and can be used as 

anchor points for indirect and direct attack on wildfires.

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 18 of 62
FIRE INTENSITY

Down woody fuel can greatly increase the intensity of surface fires and in some cases increase 

flame lengths sufficiently to ignite ladder and /or canopy fuels. My decision will decrease 

excessive surface fuel loadings through removal or rearrangement of down dead material. This 

will provide the opportunity to apply direct suppression tactics to decrease the potential fire 

size, and the risk to public and firefighter safety, and private property (including homes). 

Reducing fire intensity will also reduce the impacts to other forest resource values, including 

soils, which can be seriously damaged by high-intensity wildfire (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-2).

Hand crews can apply direct fire suppression tactics when flame lengths are less than 4 feet. My 

decision will increase the number of acres in the planning area where expected flame lengths 

are less than 4 feet by approximately 80 percent (FEIS, Chapter 4, Table 4-25, page 4-65).

Engines and dozers (where roads and terrain allow) can directly fight fire with 4- to 8-foot flame 

lengths. My decision decreases the number of acres where expected flame lengths would be 

more than 8 feet by a factor of 50.

The benefits of these surface fuels treatments will last for 10 to 15 years. Periodic maintenance 

treatments would be required to keep surface fuel loadings below 10 to 15 tons per acre.

SPOTTING DISTANCE

Spotting probability and distance is a key factor in successfully containing a fire at a small size 

and protecting critical values within the WUI. In the western United States where extensive 

spotting is typical of fire behavior, firebrands are the main cause of home ignitions. As the 

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.

While decreasing crown fire potential, my decision will also decrease long-range spotting 

potential. Reductions in stand densities, ladder fuels, and the amount of flammable surface fuels 

to receive flying embers will all contribute to reducing the potential for crown fires and the 

distance that firebrands could travel to ignite a spot fire. Table 4-26 (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-65) 

shows that my decision will reduce spotting distance by 50 percent.

TREATMENT ADJACENCY TO PRIVATE LAND

My decision is based on the need to protect 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). My selection of Alternative B-Modified will 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 19 of 62
reduce crown fire potential, fire travel times, fire intensity, and spotting distance on 757 acres of 

NFS land within 1⁄4-mile of private land (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-65).

OTHER DIRECT PROJECT BENEFITS

Activities including danger tree removal, road realignment, and culvert replacement will also 

benefit the Tollgate planning area. Harvest of trees will benefit the local economy.

Danger trees are likely to fall in an uncontrolled manner within the next 10 years. They are 

identified as danger trees because of their proximity to unprotected areas likely to be used by 

people or by property. They may also limit effective ingress or egress to an area, and thereby 

pose a substantial risk to human life or property, especially during a wildfire. These trees would 

also pose a hazard and be felled and removed along all haul routes used for timber sale activity, 

including both open and closed system roads.

If considered economically feasible, these trees will be sold as part of a timber sale. Danger trees 

that occur within the RHCAs of units 19 and 66 will be felled and removed commercially. Danger 

trees that occur within the RHCAs of units 38 and 75 will be felled and removed if equal to or 

less than 14 inches diameter, as I described in the modifications on page 5 of this Decision. All 

other danger trees occurring within RHCAs outside of the units described above will not be 

removed, but instead cut and left to provide additional coarse woody debris.

My decision will realign approximately 0.35 miles of Forest Road 3718155. This section of road 

occurs inside the RHCA of a perennial non-fish-bearing stream and has a native (soil) surface. 

This segment of road will be moved to an upland site, outside of the RHCA. The realignment 

activities will require the removal of several trees (some greater than 21 inches diameter breast 

height) to create the road template. 

The existing segment of road will be decommissioned and rehabilitated. Forest Road 3718155 is 

listed as a closed road by the Walla Walla Ranger District Access and Travel Management Plan. 

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

will retain its current status as a closed road.

My decision will replace two culverts along Forest Roads 3715030 and 6400100. Both culverts 

will be removed with an excavator; the old culverts will be disposed properly off lands managed 

by the National Forest System. The culverts will be sized to match the drainage area above the 

installation. The culverts will be bedded in native material, installed on grade; there will be no 

water diversion during removal or installation. Culvert replacement will be timed to occur during 

normal in-stream work windows. After the installation of the culverts, the ponds below the 

outflow will be drawn down and deepened to provide adequate water for wildlife, grazing, fire 

suppression, and road maintenance.

The economic analysis estimates that between 2,770,000 and 2,960,000 cubic feet of timber will 

be supplied to local mills, directly and indirectly creating between 130 and 140 jobs (FEIS, 

Chapter 4, page 4-121).

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 20 of 62
I believe I have chosen the best course of action to meet the needs we have identified for land 

management. Implementing Alternative B-Modified will make important progress in moving the 

area toward desired conditions for vegetation and fuels, and will continue to provide for wildlife 

habitat and contribute to regional and local economies.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

My decision is based on my review of public comments received in scoping, comments on the 

draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), and objections over the FEIS during the 30-day 

pre-decisional administrative objection period.

SCOPING

Public engagement for the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project began in 2008 and 2009 with a series 

of public meetings. At these meetings a collaborative process was employed that helped identify 

potential areas of interest and concern. This assisted Forest Service personnel in refinement of 

the project’s purpose and need as well as the development of the proposed action. All meetings 

were open to any interested members of the public and were announced on the Forest’s website 

and in local newspapers. Letters were sent to the Board of Trustees Chairman for the 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and the Chairman of the Nez Perce Tribal 

Executive Council during the scoping period. (FEIS Chapter 1, pages 1-16 and 1-17)

This project has been listed on the Umatilla National Forest’s Schedule of Proposed Actions since 

April of 2010. In October of 2010, scoping letters describing the proposed action were sent to 

interested individuals, groups, and agencies. A notice of intent to prepare an environmental 

impact statement (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on September 6, 2011. Comments 

received in response to these solicitations were evaluated in order to identify issues and 

concerns. Alternatives were developed to address the issues, and the DEIS was prepared.

PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT

A notice of availability (NOA) for the DEIS was published in the Federal Register, a legal notice

was published in the East Oregonian, which is the newspaper of record for activities on the 

Umatilla National Forest, and the 45-day comment period for the DEIS ended on March 15, 

2013. 

I received and reviewed eighteen (18) responses during the 45-day comment period. Appendix G 

of the FEIS describes the 45-day comment period for the DEIS, the comments that were 

received, and the Forest Service’s responses to those comments.

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 21 of 62
PRE-DECISIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

This project is a hazardous fuel reduction project as defined by the HFRA, section 101(2), that is 

subject to the project-level pre-decisional administrative review process of subparts A and C of 

36 CFR Part 218. 

The FEIS was completed in November of 2013. Letters were sent, notifying interested agencies, 

groups, and individuals of the availability of the FEIS in December of 2013. These letters stated 

that the FEIS was subject to a 30-day pre-decisional objection period as required by 36 CFR Part 

218 (36 CFR §§ 218.7(c)(2)(iv) and 218.32(a)) , and described how objections could be 

submitted. 

On December 13, 2013, a NOA for the FEIS was published in the Federal Register and a legal 

notice of the opportunity to object, initiating the 30-day pre-decisional objection period, was 

concurrently published in the East Oregonian newspaper (36 CFR §§ 218.7 and 218.32).

A Deputy Regional Forester for Region 6 of the National Forest System was assigned as the 

“Reviewing Officer” having the delegated authority and responsibility to review objections filed 

under 36 CFR Part 218. The Reviewing Officer received timely and eligible objection letters from 

the following groups and individuals:

1. Union County Board of Commissioners

2. Boise Cascade, LLC

3. Thomas A. Insko

4. Oregon Wild

5. American Forest Resource Council

6. League of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project and Hells Canyon 

Preservation Council

I reviewed the objection letters and identified a total of 25 objections from these objectors. 

(Copies of these objections are in the project record.) I considered each of these objections and 

provided responses to the Reviewing Officer.

While the Reviewing Officer’s review was proceeding, I participated in optional meetings with 

the Reviewing Officer and the objectors in an effort to resolve their objections as permitted by 

36 CFR § 218.11(a). Resolution meetings with all objectors participating began on January 28, 

2014. Several telephone calls between myself, the Walla Walla District Ranger, and the objectors 

were held over the following several weeks to resolve the objections. 

After considering the information gained through these discussions, and to demonstrate my 

commitment towards resolving the objections, I voluntarily modified Alternative B to the terms

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 22 of 62
now specified in this ROD (see page 4). In a conference call on February 13, 2014, I offered these 

modifications as a possible resolution to the objectors. 

Four objectors did not necessarily agree with my modifications because they believed that more 

of the area should have been treated. However, they were willing to accept my modifications if it 

would allow the project to move forward. My modifications were not acceptable to all of the 

objectors and none of the objectors chose to withdraw their objections. While the modifications 

did not resolve any of the objections, I believe that the modifications I have made to Alternative 

B have addressed some of the concerns that were raised regarding potential impacts to 

Inventoried Roadless Areas and Potential Wilderness Areas. By voluntarily modifying my 

decision, I am hopeful that everyone involved in this project will support my decision to reduce 

fuels and wildfire risk in this wildland urban interface area, which serves as a permanent home 

for area residents and an area of high value for the recreating public. 

REVIEWING OFFICER’S RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS

As required by 36 CFR §§ 218.11(b) and 218.32(b), the Reviewing Officer sent written responses 

to all eligible objectors on February 13, 2014, describing the results of his review of their

objections with respect to the disclosures in the FEIS (Project Record). The review determined 

that the FEIS and the actions analyzed are consistent with all applicable laws, regulations, and 

policies (36 CFR § 218.8(d)(5)). I received copies of the letters sent to the objectors.

The Reviewing Officer instructed me to provide clarification in this ROD to address two objection 

points:

1. “[T]o clearly summarize how the project complies with the Roadless Area Conservation 

Rule;” and

2. To “add a graphic and/or narrative that more clearly shows how fire intensity would 

diminish in the IRA as a result of implementing the project.” 

The first of these instructions is carried out on page 40 (“Roadless Area Characteristics”) of this 

ROD. The second of these instructions is carried out through a narrative on page 45

(“Clarification on Reduced Fire Intensity in the Lookingglass IRA”) of this ROD.

I also agreed to correct an omission in the FEIS by adding the American Forest Resource Council 

to the list of Agencies, Organizations, Persons Consulted, and List of Preparers in Chapter 5 of 

the FEIS (see FEIS Errata, page 10). 

ISSUES CONSIDERED

Issues identified from public comments and during the analysis serve to highlight effects or 

unintended consequences that may occur from the proposed action and alternatives, giving 

opportunities during the analysis to reduce adverse effects and compare trade-offs for the 

decision maker and public to understand. Issues are best identified during scoping early in the 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 23 of 62
process to help set the scope of the actions, alternatives, and effects to consider (FSH 1909.15, 

Chapter 10, Sec. 12.4).

The interdisciplinary team recommended, and I approved, significant environmental issues, 

measures, and indicators, and resulting alternatives deserving of detailed study (FEIS, Chapter 1, 

page 1-17). The significant issues used for analysis of environmental effects of each alternative 

analyzed in detail are discussed Chapter 1, pages 1-17 to 1-25 of the FEIS. Issues were grouped 

according to common resources, which include:

• 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 (PWAs) for Wilderness designation.

• Visual resources: Proposed tree cutting activities may impair the visual characteristics of the 

6400 road and Highway 204 corridor.

The first of these issue groups quantitatively or qualitatively described an alternative’s relative 

ability to address the purpose and need. This allowed me to weigh the benefits of an alternative 

against its environmental impacts. 

I also designated as issues several other analysis topics for each alternative. Some of these topics 

served as a basis for determining consistency with applicable laws, regulations and policies. 

Table 1-2 of the FEIS (pages 1-18 to 1-20) summarizes how each issue was categorized.

Additionally, I approved the issues that the interdisciplinary team identified and eliminated from 

detailed study. These types of issues are not significant or have been covered by prior 

environmental review (40 CFR §1506.3). Following are the resource topics in Chapter 4 of the 

FEIS not discussed in detail in this decision:

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 24 of 62
Resource Topic Environmental Impacts Disclosed

• Soils FEIS, pages 4-1 to 4-5

• Fisheries FEIS, pages 4-16 to 4-25

• Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants FEIS, pages 4-68 to 4-69

• Invasive Plants FEIS, pages 4-69 to 4-73

• Recreation FEIS, pages 4-92 to 4-94

• Other Undeveloped Lands FEIS, pages 4-116 to 4-120

• Economics FEIS, pages 4-121 to 4-122

I recognized that the public was passionate about what they felt was best for the land, and that 

there is no single management strategy that could completely satisfy all concerns expressed 

about the Tollgate project. I have selected a modified alternative that addresses concerns 

expressed, but is not likely to resolve conflicting points of view. The resource issue groups most 

relevant to me in making my decision are discussed in the five sections that follow.

FUELS REDUCTION AND WILDFIRE BEHAVIOR

This issue drives the purpose and need for the project. The rationale that I considered with 

regard to fuels reduction and fire behavior are described, above, under the heading, “Response 

to Purpose and Need,” beginning on page 16 of this ROD.

RHCA ACTIVITIES

Issues considered in this issue group were based on concerns that the proposed action might

have the following adverse effects or unintended consequences with regard to RHCAs:

1. Impair water quality 

2. Alter hydrologic function and condition

3. Affect water yield

The development of Alternative C avoids activities within all RHCAs, except for a 4-acre portion 

of unit 19, which is proposed for treatment to protect vulnerable structures (FEIS, Chapter 2, 

page 2-12). Although a Forest Plan amendment would have still been needed to treat the RHCA 

in unit 19 under Alternative C, I considered the scoping comments regarding treatments in the 

RHCA (FEIS, Appendix G, pages G-42 to G-63) and developed Alternative C to respond to those 

concerns. Alternative C includes treatments in the RHCA of unit 19 to address the purpose and 

need.

My decision modifies Alternative B by implementing non-commercial treatments within the 

RHCA portions of units 38 and 75 (13 acres). Without modification, Alternative B would have 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 25 of 62
commercially thinned these areas. Therefore, under Alternative B-Modified, commercial 

thinning will only occur on 12 acres of RHCAs, located in units 19 and 66. 

Hydrologic effects of the alternatives, including effects to RHCAs likely to result from the 

alternatives are disclosed in the Hydrology section of the FEIS, beginning on page 4-6.

WATER QUALITY

My decision will have no measurable effect on water temperature or sediment and will not 

measurably affect water quality (FEIS, Chapter 4, pages 4-9 to 4-11).

HYDROLOGIC FUNCTION AND CONDITION

My decision will have no effect to watershed hydrologic function (FEIS, Chapter 4, pages 4-6 and 

4-7).

WATER YIELD

The thinning in RHCAs that will result from my decision will have no measurable effect on the 

capture, storage, and release of water (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-12).

OLD FORESTS/WILDLIFE HABITAT

Issues considered in this issue group were based on concerns that the proposed action might 

have the following adverse effects or unintended consequences with regard to old forest 

characteristics:

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

2. Alter the characteristics of old forest wildlife habitat

3. Reduce the connectivity of old forest wildlife habitat

4. Reduce the abundance of large trees greater than 21 inches in diameter breast height

5. Affect the habitat and populations of management indicator species (MIS)

6. Affect the habitat and populations of Sensitive wildlife species 

7. Affect the habitat and populations of the northern goshawk 

8. Affect the habitat and/or populations of other priority birds/ landbirds/ neotropical migrants

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 26 of 62
SNAGS AND DOWN WOOD FOR WILDLIFE

While down wood and dead trees will be removed to reduce fuels, large snags are not targeted 

for removal in this project. The removal of dead trees is limited to those 12 inches diameter at 

breast height and smaller. Some 7- to 12-inch diameter breast height dead trees and down wood 

may be removed in order to reduce crown fire potential and excess fuels. Occasional hazard 

trees may need to be removed that are larger, but this will be a minor occurrence. At a 

minimum, all treatment units will maintain snags and down wood in excess of Forest Plan 

standards (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-83). 

In general, snags and down wood within harvest units will be retained well above the minimum 

levels required in the Forest Plan, especially in the larger size classes. The average density of 

large snags (greater than 20 inches diameter breast height) is 4.9 per acre at the landscape scale 

(FEIS, Table 3-37, page 3-72). Where possible, all of the large snags will be retained. At a 

minimum, at least three large snags per acre will be retained in treated areas where they exist, 

and all existing snags outside of treated areas will remain unless they are a hazard to operations. 

A minimum of three to six down logs per acre (in the dry plant association) or 15 to 20 down 

logs per acre (in the moist plant association) will be retained to meet Forest Plan standards, as 

amended. 

With regards to future snag and down wood development, stand thinning may retard the 

development of snags in general, but not for the long term. These stands will remain well 

stocked after treatment and will meet long-term snag replacement objectives. Most trees 21 

inches diameter breast height and larger will be retained, as well as an adequate number of 

replacement trees for future snag development. 

Recent insect-related tree mortality is occurring in the area, and will continue to create future 

snags within and outside of harvest units. Forested areas in the planning area that will not be 

affected by this project will continue to exist and change naturally with regard to snag longevity 

and recruitment. 

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 cumulative effects to snag availability will be very 

minor.

The Jubilee Hazard Tree Removal project will remove dead trees around the Jubilee Lake 

campground and the effects of this activity will accumulate with the effects of the Tollgate 

project. According to the Forest Service pathologist, there are numerous decay and insect agents 

in the Jubilee Lake recreation area that are affecting the integrity of tree roots, butts, boles and 

branches. As such, new snags are being created through these agents in this area and should not 

be in short supply. 

When the expected effects from my decision are combined with residual, present, and 

foreseeable future actions in the analysis area, they will all add to past reductions in snag 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 27 of 62
densities. Structural habitat for cavity excavating birds will be reduced at the stand scale, but 

watershed averages will remain relatively constant.

Snag and down wood retention levels developed for this project are above required Forest Plan 

standards (FEIS, Chapter 2, page 2-19) and I consider them adequate to support population 

viability for associated species at the Forest scale due to the relatively small scale of the project. 

Less than 1 percent (.005) of the Umatilla National Forest will be impacted (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 

4-84) (see “Management Indicator Species” discussions below, beginning on page 29 of this 

ROD).

OLD FOREST

Likely impacts of all alternatives on old forest wildlife habitat are disclosed in the FEIS on pages 

4-73 to 4-76. 

No actions are proposed within the Dedicated Old Growth management areas designated in the 

Forest Plan (Management Area C1). Treatments on approximately 60 percent of the acres 

proposed for treatment in old forest stands outside of Management Area C1 will affect old forest 

stands under the two action alternatives. No reduction in the overall amount of old forest 

structure will occur because improvement cutting will leave at least 10 trees per acre that are at 

least 21 inches in diameter breast height. 

Late-seral, shade-tolerant tree species will continue to dominate the Tollgate project planning 

area landscape, and understory biodiversity will generally be maintained or increase. The 

amount of old forest in the Tollgate project planning area will remain within or above the 

historical range of variability in all classes of old forest (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-43).

Both overstory and understory tree cover will decrease in extended areas along Highway 204 

and nearby residential areas. These stands may be less attractive to old growth associated 

species such as northern goshawk and American marten, but use of these areas will not be 

precluded by thinning.

OLD FOREST CONNECTIVITY

The Tollgate FEIS complies with direction in Eastside Screens for maintaining connectivity for 

wildlife species. While tree canopy will be reduced in over 2,000 acres of old forest, these stands 

will remain well stocked and conducive to movement of various wildlife species. Old forest 

structure will continue to be well distributed and connected within the entire project planning 

area (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-75).

LARGE TREE HABITAT

The HRV analysis documents the effects of the action alternatives to forest structure (FEIS, 

Chapter 4, pages 4-27 to 4-36 and pages 4-39 to 4-45).

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 28 of 62
The HFRA at section 102(f) requires that I carry out projects in a manner that “(A) focuses largely 

on small diameter trees, thinning, strategic fuel breaks, and prescribed fire to modify fire 

behavior, as measured by the projected reduction of uncharacteristically severe wildfire effects 

for the forest type (such as adverse soil impacts, tree mortality or other impacts); and (B) 

maximizes the retention of large trees, as appropriate for the forest type, to the extent that the 

trees promote fire-resilient stands.” However, section 102(f)(2) also states that “nothing in this 

subsection prevents achievement of the purposes described in section 2(1).” Section 2(1) 

describes the purposes of the act, one of which is to “reduce wildfire risk to communities.”

The Eastside Screens amended the Umatilla National Forest Plan in 1995. The Screens 

amendment describes two scenarios for the wildlife standard based on the results of the HRV 

analysis for late-old structure stage forests. Under Scenario A, trees over 21 inches diameter 

breast height may not be cut, unless a Forest Plan amendment is proposed. Under Scenario B, 

trees over 21 inches diameter breast height may be cut, but the project must still comply with 

snag and green tree replacement standards (FEIS, Chapter 4, pages 4-46 to 4-51). I determined 

that Scenario B applied (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-49). Therefore, removal of larger trees is 

permitted.

As documented in the FEIS, there is no Forest Plan amendment needed for removal of greater 

than 21-inch trees (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-46 to 4-51; and HRV analysis for structure, Appendix 

F-5 to F-7). Chapter 3 of the FEIS (pages 3-46 to 3-50) details the rationale for not amending the 

Forest Plan, based on the HRV analysis.

The purpose and need of the Tollgate Fuels reduction project references and is consistent with 

Agee and Skinner’s 2005 scientific paper identifying the value of retaining large trees of fireresistant species and thin-from-below cutting treatments (FEIS, page iii). The HRV analysis 

documents forest structure and discloses that old forest structure is currently within or above 

the HRV (FEIS, Appendix F, pages F-6; FEIS, Chapter 3, page 3-49).

The action alternatives are consistent with the HFRA section 102(f) and section 102(e)(2), 

because the majority of the trees to be cut will be under 21 inches diameter breast height and

the overall area of old forest will remain constant (FEIS, Chapter 4, pages 4-33 and 4-43). Of the 

proposed 3,445 acres of treatment under Alternative B-Modified, only 340 acres will include 

thinning where some trees 21 inches in diameter breast height or greater will be removed. This 

equates to about 10 percent of the treatment area, thus demonstrating that the majority of the 

treatments focus on small diameter trees. The overall extent of old forest within the project area 

will be maintained.

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES

I considered effects of the alternatives on the management indicator species (MIS) designated 

for the Umatilla National Forest: Rocky Mountain elk, American (pine) marten, pileated 

woodpecker, northern three-toed woodpecker, and primary cavity excavators.

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 29 of 62
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK

The action alternatives will have minimal effects to the habitat effectiveness index for elk. Both 

action alternatives will reduce the habitat effectiveness index by one index number, from 63 to 

62. The Forest Plan standard for this index is 45, so the habitat effectiveness index will remain 

consistent with the Forest Plan. Total cover will not change because satisfactory cover within 

treatment areas will convert to marginal cover. Satisfactory cover will be reduced by about 2 

percent in both action alternatives. Where cover decreases, elk forage quantity and quality will 

likely increase (FEIS, Chapter 4, Table 4-32, page 4-77).

Harvest and fuels treatments will take place on 4,286 acres under Alternative B-Modified.

Because the treatments are intermediate thinning, low thinning, non-commercial thinning, and 

ladder fuel removal, all of the treated areas will retain enough trees to continue to provide 

marginal cover in the short and middle term. Satisfactory cover will be reduced by 2.3 percent 

(650 acres) but the amount of total cover will not change (FEIS, Chapter 4, Table 4-32, page 4-

77).

In addition to effects of vegetation removal, I considered the effects of road work associated 

with the project. No changes in open road densities will occur. The project will utilize about 46 

miles of existing road, of which approximately 16 miles are currently closed. The closed roads 

will not be open to the public during project activities and will remain closed after the project is 

completed.

Road maintenance, removal of danger trees along roads, and the construction and use of 

temporary roads will have a minimal impact to elk. The total of 2.6 miles of temporary road is 

comprised of many short spurs within harvest units and will be re-vegetated after the project is 

completed. These short road extensions will 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 will take place 

gradually over several years, and will be spread out spatially, no effects to the elk population will 

be caused by the use of roads.

Ongoing non-commercial thinning and the proposed Swamp unit small sale will open up an 

additional 150 acres, which cumulatively adds to the reduction of hiding cover for elk, but to a 

very small degree. 

The incremental impact of reasonably foreseeable future activities would increase the amount 

of disturbance in the area but would not 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 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (FEIS, Chapter 4, pages 4-

77 to 4-78).

The overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will result in a neutral elk habitat trend. 

Forest Plan standards for elk habitat will be met, and no changes to the elk population are 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 30 of 62
expected. The project is consistent with the Forest Plan and thus continued viability of Rocky 

Mountain elk is expected on the Umatilla National Forest (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-78).

AMERICAN (PINE) MARTEN

Approximately 15 percent of available marten habitat in the planning area will be affected by 

thinning in Alternative B (1,500 acres) and a similar area will be affected under my decision. A 

reduction of existing down wood and dense understory will make these areas less suitable for 

marten denning in the short and middle term. Most of the affected habitat is around private 

land and along Highway 204, and there will be very little effect to the large blocks of marten 

habitat along the larger stream corridors.

Marten habitat will remain abundant in the project planning area. Treated areas will remain 

suitable for marten foraging, while the large blocks of habitat along Summer Creek, Lookingglass 

Creek, and the North Fork Umatilla River will likely be available for denning. Over 8,500 acres of 

marten habitat in the planning area will not be affected by proposed activities.

Temporary roads and danger tree removal will have very little or no effect to marten or their 

habitat.

Proposed activities in combination with other past, ongoing, and potential future projects are 

not expected to cause cumulative effects to marten or their habitat. The Jubilee Hazard Tree 

Removal project is within an administrative site that is already highly impacted and not likely 

used by marten for denning. Use of the area by marten will likely occur in the winter and 

removal of hazard trees in the summer will have no cumulative impacts. Ongoing noncommercial 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 will remain low, which restricts the amount of 

human disturbance (FEIS, Chapter 4, pages 4-78 to 4-79).

The overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will result in a small negative habitat trend for 

marten. Because the project impacts less than 2 percent (0.015) of the marten habitat on the 

forest, 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 (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-79).

PILEATED WOODPECKER

Approximately 1,375 acres of existing pileated woodpecker habitat (7 percent of habitat in the 

project planning area) will be affected by tree thinning and fuels treatments in Alternative B and 

a similar area will be affected by my decision. About 1,000 of these acres are potential nesting 

habitat. Therefore, 10 percent of 10,200 acres of potential nesting habitat in the analysis area 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 31 of 62
will convert to foraging habitat in Alternative B and in my decision. This is because there will be 

less canopy closure and fewer snags and down wood.

No snags over 12 inches diameter breast height are targeted for removal, but some may be 

felled to prevent hazardous conditions to workers. At least three large snags per acre in dry 

forest and two large snags per acre in moist forest will remain in all thinning units. In addition, all 

functioning snag habitat will be retained wherever possible. Most trees and snags greater than 

21 inches diameter breast height will be retained, as well as an adequate number of 

replacement trees for future snag development.

Some trees 21 inches diameter breast height and larger will be removed where needed to 

reduce crown density in 4 units (45, 83, 84, and 95) which total approximately 340 acres. These 

stands will still be classified as old forest because improvement cutting will leave at least 10 trees 

per acre greater than 21 inches diameter breast height. These units are included in the above 

potential nesting habitat that will convert to foraging habitat. The remaining 9,200 acres of 

pileated woodpecker reproductive habitat in the project planning area will not be affected by 

commercial thinning. Other proposed activities such as non-commercial thinning, ladder fuel 

removal, and temporary roads will have no effect to pileated woodpeckers or their habitat.

Past logging in old growth forest has undoubtedly reduced the density of large diameter snags in 

the project planning area. Personal firewood collection and roadside hazard tree removals will 

contribute to snag reductions. However, the overall effects on pileated woodpecker habitat will 

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 will have no 

cumulative effect to pileated woodpeckers or their habitat. The proposed Swamp unit small sale 

is not within pileated woodpecker habitat. 

The Jubilee Campground Hazard Tree Removal project may affect pileated woodpecker foraging 

to a very small degree. According to the Silviculturist and Forest Service pathologist, there are 

numerous decay and insect agents in the Jubilee Lake recreation area that are affecting the 

integrity of tree roots, butts, boles and branches. As such, new snags are being created through 

these agents in this area and snags should not be in short supply. When the expected effects 

from proposed activities are combined with residual, present, and foreseeable future actions in 

the analysis area, they will all add to past reductions in snag densities (FEIS, Chapter 4, pages 4-

79 to 4-81).

The overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will result in a very small negative habitat 

trend for pileated woodpecker. Because the project impacts less than 1 percent (0.005) 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 (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-81).

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 32 of 62
THREE-TOED WOODPECKER

About 3,400 acres of three-toed woodpecker foraging habitat in Alternative B and 3,100 acres in 

Alternative C will be affected. About 85 acres of mature lodgepole pine stands that may provide 

prime nesting opportunities will be affected in both alternatives. Other areas with possible nest 

habitat in spruce and fir stands that will be affected include 2,200 acres in Alternative B, and 

1,985 acres in Alternative C. Approximately 15 percent of possible nesting habitat for three-toed 

woodpecker in the planning area will be affected by my decision.

Stand thinning and fuels treatments will reduce tree density, snag density, and down wood 

abundance. No snags over 12 inches diameter breast height are targeted for removal, but some 

may be felled to prevent hazardous conditions to workers. Treatments will likely result in less 

potential for insect disturbances that three-toed woodpeckers depend upon in the short and 

middle term.

Because thinning will be light, all old forest will remain old forest, and enough canopy cover will 

remain to allow three-toed woodpecker to continue to use these stands. Some trees greater 

than or equal to 21 inches diameter breast height will be removed where needed to reduce 

crown density in four units (45, 83, 84, and 95) which total approximately 340 acres. These 

stands will still be classified as old forest because improvement cutting will leave at least 10 trees 

per acre greater than or equal to 21 inches diameter breast height.

The remaining 17,300 acres of potential three-toed woodpecker foraging habitat will not be 

affected by tree thinning and fuels reduction, and will continue to provide foraging and nesting 

opportunities. Other proposed activities such as non-commercial thinning, and temporary roads 

will have no cumulative effect to three-toed woodpeckers or their habitat.

Fire suppression and salvage logging in insect-killed lodgepole pine has undoubtedly reduced the 

amount of three-toed woodpecker habitat in the project planning area. 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, noncommercial 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 will

affect only 50 acres. The Jubilee Campground Hazard Tree Removal project may affect threetoed woodpecker foraging and nesting to a very small degree. According to the Forest Service 

pathologist, there are numerous decay and insect agents in the Jubilee Lake recreation area that 

are affecting the integrity of tree roots, butts, boles and branches. As such new snags are being 

created through these agents in this area and should not be in short supply (FEIS, Chapter 4, 

pages 4-81 to 4-82).

The overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will 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 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 33 of 62
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 (FEIS, 

Chapter 4, page 4-82).

PRIMARY CAVITY EXCAVATORS

Effects to primary cavity excavators are disclosed in the FEIS on pages 4-82 to 4-84. Also, refer to 

the discussion on “Snags and Down Wood for Wildlife,” beginning on page 27 of this ROD. 

Commercial thinning will take place on 3,445 acres in Alternative B and 3,299 acres in 

Alternative B-Modified. No large snags are targeted for removal, but some may be felled to 

prevent hazardous conditions to workers. Some 7- to 12-inch diameter breast height dead trees 

and down wood may be removed in order to reduce crown fire potential and excess fuels. At a 

minimum, at least 3 large snags (20 inches diameter breast height and larger) per acre will be 

retained in all units where they occur. If large snags are not available, snags between 10 and 19 

inches will be substituted. In addition, all functioning snag habitat will be retained wherever 

possible. No prescribed burning is planned. Therefore, snags will not be burned in post-harvest 

treatment. 

A minimum of three to six down logs per acre (in the dry plant association) or 15 to 20 down 

logs per acre (in the moist plant association) will be retained to meet Forest Plan standards as 

amended. A minimum of 16 green trees per acre will be left for future snag development. Most 

thinning units will exceed this number.

In general, managing forests within or towards the historical range of variability will provide 

habitat for a wide range of cavity excavator species. Snags within harvest units will be retained 

above the minimum levels required in the Forest Plan, especially in the larger size classes.

When the expected effects from my decision 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. 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. The 

Jubilee Hazard Tree Removal project will remove dead trees around the Jubilee Lake 

campground and the effects of this activity would accumulate with the effects of the Tollgate 

project. According to the Forest Service pathologist, there are numerous decay and insect agents 

in the Jubilee Lake recreation area that are affecting the integrity of tree roots, butts, boles and 

branches. As such, new snags are being created through these agents in this area and should not 

be in short supply. 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 34 of 62
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 as a result of that activity.

The project will affect less than 1 percent (0.005) of the forested land on the Umatilla National 

Forest. Large snags are not targeted for removal. The overall direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects will 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 (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-84).

THREATENED, ENDANGERED AND SENSITIVE WILDLIFE AND INVERTABRATE SPECIES

Effects to sensitive wildlife species are disclosed in the FEIS on pages 4-87 to 4-89. Ten species 

were evaluated because their presence was either documented or considered possible in the 

analysis area.

NORTH AMERICAN WOLVERINE (PROPOSED THREATENED)

My decision will have no effect to North American wolverine. Wolverine are not currently known 

or suspected to occur in the project area. The nearest documented area of wolverine activity is 

over 25 air miles to the northeast of the Tollgate analysis area. There is a chance that they could 

be present or pass through, but the likelihood of wolverine presence during project activities is 

extremely small. In addition, wolverine habitat and prey will not be affected.

Wolverine are known to travel long distances in a short amount of time, and could occasionally 

be present anywhere on the Umatilla National Forest. However, management actions such as 

grazing, timber harvest, and prescribed fire are not considered a threat to this species. Because 

wolverines are dependent on deep snow cover that persists into the month of May for 

successful denning, the primary threat is from habitat and range loss due to climate warming. 

Only minor changes to forest habitat will result from stand thinning. No openings will be created

and no potential travel corridors for wolverine or their prey species will be greatly altered. The 

availability of food items such as small mammals and dead ungulates will not change due to 

implementation of this project. Since denning is not expected in the area, there will be no effects 

to reproduction.

GRAY WOLF (SENSITIVE)

The Tollgate analysis area is inhabited by wolves, and is partially within the known areas of 

activity for two established wolf packs. The proposed activities will not disturb key wolf areas 

such as den sites, will not change prey availability, and will not increase public access in the area. 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 35 of 62
If a den or rendezvous site is identified prior to or during project activities, the Forest Service will 

consult with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife personnel to determine if seasonal 

restrictions or other requirements are necessary. Because these sites are difficult to locate and 

can change yearly, this condition will be assessed on an ongoing basis throughout the life of the 

Tollgate project. 

Major impacts to wolves are not expected, but increased truck traffic and other activity could 

affect individuals during project activities. Therefore, my decision 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.

TOWNSEND’S BIG-EARED BAT (SENSITIVE)

My decision will not affect caves, buildings, or mine adits that attract big-eared bats. A 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 

will be no impact to big-eared bat.

BALD EAGLE (SENSITIVE)

Bald eagle use of the area is incidental and there are no nearby nests. Since it is highly unlikely 

that individuals will be in close proximity during project activities, there will be no impact to bald 

eagle.

WHITE-HEADED WOODPECKER (SENSITIVE) AND LEWIS’ WOODPECKER (SENSITIVE)

No timber harvest will occur in existing white-headed woodpecker or Lewis’ woodpecker 

reproductive habitat. Both species may forage in the analysis area but it is unlikely that they nest 

there. No large snags will be removed unless they are a hazard to workers, and insect damage is 

expected to remain prevalent in the area which will continue to create snags.

About 8 acres of single-story old ponderosa pine habitat will be created by thinning. Even in 

addition to existing habitat in the area, this is not large enough to support a pair of reproducing 

white-headed woodpeckers. No existing nesting habitat will be affected, and therefore, no 

impacts to the population are expected. Therefore there will be no impact to white-headed 

woodpecker or Lewis’ woodpecker.

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 36 of 62
COLUMBIA SPOTTED FROG - GREAT BASIN DPS (SENSITIVE) AND ROCKY MOUNTAIN 

TAILED FROG (SENSITIVE)

These two species have not been documented in or near project units. There will be no harvest 

or skidding across active stream channels, but treatment may affect areas 10 to 20 feet from the 

streams. 

My decision modifies Alternative B by implementing non-commercial treatments within the 

riparian portions of units 38 and 75 (13 acres), and allowing commercial thinning in units 19 and 

66 (12 acres). If spotted or tailed frogs are present during project work, adults can move a short 

distance to avoid work activity. 

Larvae are confined to the water and less mobile, but project work will not affect water and 

stream channels directly. Therefore, any effects will be limited in time and space and no effects 

to populations are expected. As such, tree thinning in riparian areas may impact spotted and 

tailed frogs, but will not likely cause a trend toward federal listing. 

FIR PINWHEEL (SENSITIVE)

Fir pinwheel are not documented in this area, but cannot be ruled out. They are typically found 

near talus and down logs near perennial water.

My decision modifies Alternative B by implementing non-commercial treatments within the 

riparian portions of units 38 and 75 (13 acres), and allowing commercial thinning in units 19 and 

66 (12 acres).

Proposed activities within riparian areas have been carefully designed to avoid adverse effects to 

fish and aquatic habitat, but timber harvest will 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, my decision may impact fir pinwheel, but would 

not likely cause a loss of viability or a trend toward federal listing.

WESTERN RIDGED MUSSEL (SENSITIVE)

My decision will have no impact to western ridged mussel. All timber harvest will be outside 

riparian areas of fish bearing streams. The glochidea larval stage of the western ridged mussel is 

an obligate parasite of fish. They cannot reproduce in the absence of fish, and they require fish 

for transport in upstream directions. Because there are no fish present in streams near the 

project activities, there are no western ridged mussels there either.

JOHNSON’S HAIRSTREAK (SENSITIVE)

My decision may impact Johnson’s hairstreak, but would not cause a loss of viability or trend 

toward federal listing because there is a very slight risk of effects.

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 37 of 62
In Northeastern Oregon, this species has been found feeding on western dwarf mistletoe specific 

to ponderosa pine, which also is uncommon in the project area. Because there is little known 

about Johnson’s 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 project’s commercial thinning 

activities will affect only 8 acres in the ponderosa pine cover type, and no large pine trees will be 

removed. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS TO THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES AND 

INVERTEBRATE SPECIES

Sensitive species which may receive direct or indirect effects from my decision include gray wolf, 

spotted frog, tailed frog, fir pinwheel, and Johnson’s hairstreak.

My decision, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

may impact gray wolf during project activities, but would not likely cause a trend toward federal 

listing because key wolf areas such as den sites will not be disturbed, prey availability is not 

expected to change, and public access in the area will not increase.

Most other ongoing or proposed activities do not and will not occur within riparian areas. 

However the Jubilee Hazard tree removal project affects a very small amount of streamside area. 

There may be a small cumulative impact to spotted frog and tailed frog from the Jubilee project.

It was determined that the fir pinwheel will not be affected by the Jubilee project. Therefore,

there will be no cumulative effects to fir pinwheel from the Jubilee project.

My decision, 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. The 

presence of Johnson’s hairstreak is doubtful in this area. Firewood cutting will not likely impact 

this species because it is believed to be associated with dwarf mistletoe in live ponderosa pine 

trees in Eastern Oregon. Firewood cutting of live ponderosa pine is not allowed. 

Ongoing non-commercial thinning will also not affect Johnson’s hairstreak habitat. The Swamp 

small sale and the Jubilee Lake Hazard Tree Removal project were evaluated for impacts to 

Johnson’s hairstreak, but potential effects were determined to be unlikely (questionable 

habitat). Therefore minimal, if any cumulative effects are expected for this species.

NORTHERN GOSHAWK

Effects to northern goshawk are disclosed in the FEIS on pages 4-84 to 4-85. Timber harvest and 

fuels treatments follow the Eastside Screens requirements 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 (FEIS, Appendix F).

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 38 of 62
Proposed activities in Alternative B will 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. Both action 

alternatives and my decision will affect between 11 and 12 percent of the potential goshawk 

nesting habitat. 

Fuels treatments will reduce high down wood and snag densities to reduce fuel loading and 

make stands more resilient to wildfire. Because treatments in these stands will retain almost all 

of the larger trees, they may still be suitable for goshawk nesting. This will depend on other 

variables such as slope and distance to water. If active nests are found at any time, they will be 

protected as specified in the project design criteria.

Approximately 15,775 acres of potential goshawk nesting habitat in the project planning area 

will not be affected by proposed activities. Proposed non-commercial thinning, ladder fuel 

reduction, and temporary roads will have very little or no effect to northern goshawk or their 

habitat.

Alteration of 1,900 to 2,200 acres of potential nesting habitat will accumulate slightly with past 

changes in goshawk habitat, which is reflected in the existing condition. Reproductive habitat 

outside of harvest units (15,775 acres) will remain untouched and continue to provide large 

areas of contiguous forest.

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities in the area such as sheep grazing, noncommercial thinning, and recreational use in combination with proposed projects will not cause 

cumulative effects to northern goshawk. The proposed Swamp unit small sale is not within 

goshawk habitat. 

OTHER PRIORITY BIRDS

Effects to migratory landbirds are disclosed in the FEIS on pages 4-85 to 4-86. The reduction of 

crown and ladder fuels will reduce habitat for some birds, but it will also reduce the chances that 

a large scale uncharacteristic wildfire would eliminate large areas of forest habitat. Some existing 

snag habitat will decrease within harvest and fuels reduction units, and where danger trees are 

removed along haul routes. The retention of trees greater than 21 inches diameter breast height

and greater in most units will reduce the extent of effects to some birds of concern.

Late-seral, shade-tolerant tree species will continue to dominate the Tollgate project planning 

area landscape, and understory biodiversity will generally be maintained or increase.

DRY FOREST HABITAT

Only 8 acres in the ponderosa pine cover type will be commercially thinned in my decision. Postharvest, these 8 acres will consist of single story, old forest ponderosa pine and remain dry forest 

habitat. 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 39 of 62
MESIC MIXED CONIFER HABITAT

My decision authorizes commercial thinning and fuels reduction activities that will affect 600 

acres of Douglas-fir, grand fir and larch sites in a multi-layered condition. Understory will be 

reduced in the short term, but will soon grow in. Late-seral, shade-tolerant tree species will 

continue to dominate the Tollgate project planning area landscape, and understory biodiversity 

will generally be maintained or increase.

SUBALPINE HABITAT

About 2,000 acres dominated by subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, and lodgepole pine in a multilayered condition will be thinned under my decision. 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 will not be affected by

my decision.

Ongoing sheep grazing, non-commercial thinning, recreational uses, will not have a cumulative 

effect on birds of concern due to the limited duration, amount, intensity and location of these 

and proposed activities.

ROADLESS AREA CHARACTERISTICS AND POTENTIAL WILDERNESS SUITABILITY

Issues considered in this issue group were based on concerns that the proposed action might

have the following adverse effects or unintended consequences with regard to Roadless and 

Potential Wilderness Areas:

1. Alter Roadless Area characteristics

2. May remove areas from Potential Wilderness Inventory

The effects of the alternatives on Inventoried Roadless Area characteristics and Potential 

Wilderness Areas are disclosed in the FEIS on pages 4-112 to 4-116 and 4-102 to 4-112, 

respectively.

ROADLESS AREA CHARACTERISTICS

WALLA WALLA RIVER IRA

My decision will have no direct effects on the Walla Walla River IRA because no activities will 

take place within this IRA. The Walla Walla River IRA will retain its current degree of natural 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 40 of 62
integrity. There will be no management changes or improvements to the ecological function 

within this IRA.

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

activities in areas adjacent to this IRA may reduce a sense of solitude and remoteness in the 

short term, during project activities.

SUMMARY FOR LOOKINGGLASS IRA:

My decision modifies Alternative B in the following ways:

Under Alternative B, project activities would occur on 203 acres of the Lookingglass IRA in units 

26, 38, and 75 (FEIS, Table 4-42, page 4-114). Alternative B-Modified will treat these same areas, 

but less intensively, as follows:

• Unit 26 –Alternative B proposes 104 acres of non-commercial treatment in this unit.

○ The Forest Service will continue as described for this unit under Alternative B, 

except treatments will be limited to trees less than 8 inches in diameter, all hand 

work, no machinery except chainsaws.

• Unit 38 –Alternative B proposes 87 acres of commercial treatment in this unit.

○ Modification: The Forest Service will implement non-commercial thinning of live 

trees less than 8 inches in diameter; (2) The Forest Service will implement noncommercial removal of existing down wood that is 14 inches or less in diameter; 

(a) this treatment will require heavy equipment to remove material from the 

site; (b) the material will be transported off-site and disposed of in a variety of 

ways; for example, it may be used for restoration work, or personal or tribal 

firewood; (c) some snags will need to be felled where they pose a safety risk to 

operators; (d) employ mitigation measures, such as: low stumps, light 

scarification of heavy equipment trails, spreading vegetative debris within the 

treated areas to reduce to impact to PWA determination factors (modify 

prescription on all 87 acres within unit 38).

• Unit 75 – Alternative B proposes 52 acres of commercial treatment in this unit.

○ Modification: For those 15 acres of this unit within the Lookingglass IRA, the 

Forest Service will do the following: (1) The Forest Service will implement noncommercial thinning to trees less than 8 inches in diameter; (2) The Forest 

Service will implement non-commercial removal of existing down wood that is 

14 inches or less in diameter; (a) this treatment will require heavy equipment to 

remove material from the site; (b) the material will be transported off-site and 

disposed of in a variety of ways; for example, it may be used for restoration 

work, or personal or tribal firewood, or burned; (c) some snags will need to be 

felled where they pose a safety risk to operators; (d) employ mitigation 

measures, such as; low stumps, light scarification of heavy equipment trails, 

spreading vegetative debris within the treated areas to reduce the impact to 

PWA determination factors (modify prescription on 15 acres within unit 75).

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 41 of 62
I was instructed by the Reviewing Officer to clearly summarize how the project complies with 

the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) at 36 CFR § 294.13(b)(1). The RACR allows generally 

small diameter timber trees to be cut, sold, or removed in Inventoried Roadless Areas where it 

maintains or improves one or more of the roadless area characteristics as defined in 36 CFR § 

294.11. The RACR does not require that every roadless area characteristic be maintained or 

improved, but requires one or more be maintained or improved. As I was preparing this ROD, I 

read through the responses to comments the Agency prepared for the 2001 RACR. In the 

Federal Register (Vol. 66, No. 9, January 12, 2001), the RACR states that WUIs “rarely occur in” or 

are “adjacent to” IRAs; as I have demonstrated earlier in this ROD, the Tollgate plateau is an 

exception to the rule. In the response to comments regarding effects of uncharacteristic fire, the 

Agency made it clear that hazardous fuel treatments in IRAs are not prohibited by the RACR, so 

long as road construction or reconstruction are not needed and that the project-level analysis 

demonstrates that tree cutting would contribute to the ecological objectives and characteristics 

of roadless areas. Roadless area characteristics include high-quality or undisturbed soil, water, 

and air; sources of public drinking water; diversity of plant and animal communities; habitat for 

threatened, endangered proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those species 

dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land; primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized and 

semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation; reference landscapes, natural 

appearing landscapes with high scenic quality, traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; 

and other locally identified unique characteristics (36 CFR § 294.11). 

In addition, the cutting, sale, or removal of generally small diameter timber must be needed for 

one or more of the following purposes, which include: (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 (36 CFR §§ 294.13(b)(1)(i) and (ii)).

In the paragraphs below, I have summarized how the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project complies 

with the RACR.

MAINTAINING OR IMPROVING ROADLESS CHARACTERISTICS

The Tollgate FEIS clearly demonstrates that one or more roadless area characteristics are 

maintained or improved. The FEIS at pages 4-114 and 4-115 articulates five of the characteristics 

listed in 36 CFR § 294.11, but also refers back to the body of the FEIS at Chapter 4 for other 

disclosures. Instead of asking the reader to go back through those sections, I’ve addressed them 

here.

The FEIS demonstrates that only short-term impacts will occur to high quality or undisturbed 

soil, water, and air (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-114). The FEIS on page 4-4 documents that increased 

fuel loads can result in increased fire intensity and severity, which, in turn, can damage soils 

more severely than areas with lower fuel loads as I previously noted in this ROD. Because 

Alternative B-Modified would result in maintaining soil characteristics because high intensity and 

severity fire would be reduced in the IRA, this characteristic is maintained. 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 42 of 62
The FEIS documents that there will be no effects to the surface water system of Pendleton from 

proposed actions and that the action alternatives in the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project comply 

with the Safe Drinking Water Act (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-16), thereby maintaining this roadless 

area characteristic.

The FEIS documents that there will be “no effect” to any threatened or endangered plants and 

“no impact” or “may impact, but not likely to contribute to trend towards federal listing or cause 

a loss of viability to populations” of sensitive plant species (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-69), again 

maintaining this roadless area characteristic.

With regard to the roadless area characteristic of habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, 

candidate, and sensitive species; and those species dependent on large, undisturbed area of 

land (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-114), the FEIS states that the project will retain large blocks of 

habitat for marten, including that in the Lookingglass Creek IRA, which means that the Tollgate 

project maintains this roadless area characteristic for this species, which is dependent on large, 

undisturbed areas of land (FEIS, Chapter 4, pages 4-78 and 4-79). Other species that depend on 

unburned old structure forests may also be displaced, if a fire were to occur (FEIS, Chapter 4, 

pages 4-73 and 4-82).

The FEIS documents that in the short term, recreationists may be interrupted, but in the long 

term, minimal to no impact to recreationists will occur; particularly because the areas to be 

treated are along existing roads (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-115). Because the impacts are short 

term, I believe that this roadless area characteristic is maintained.

The FEIS documents that naturally appearing landscapes with high scenic quality will be reduced 

by this project (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-115). Although this roadless area characteristic is not 

maintained in the short term, the scenic stability of the area will be slightly improved with 

implementation of Alternative B-Modified; therefore, I believe that in the long term, this 

roadless area characteristic will be maintained.

The FEIS documents that there will be no impact to cultural properties or sacred sites, and 

therefore, my decision will maintain this roadless area characteristic (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-

122). The FEIS does not indicate any other locally identified unique characteristics for this IRA,

and as such, this characteristic will be maintained.

Overall, in examining the nine roadless area characteristics outlined at 36 CFR § 294.11, the 

proposed limited activities in the IRA will maintain at least one or more roadless area 

characteristics. Because at least one or more roadless area characteristic is maintained, the 

Tollgate Project complies with the regulation at 36 CFR § 294.13(b)(1).

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 43 of 62
SMALL TREE DIAMETER

There are three units with timber harvest prescriptions planned within the Lookingglass IRA 

under Alternative B (Alternative C does not treat these units). Under Alternative B, unit 26 (104 

acres) will receive ladder fuels reduction treatments. Unit 38 (86 acres) will receive commercial 

thinning and ladder fuels reduction treatments. Unit 75 will receive commercial thinning, ladder 

fuels reduction, and down and dead woody debris removal treatments. However, only 15 acres 

of unit 75 are within the Lookingglass IRA.

The FEIS clearly demonstrates that the preponderance of trees removed within the IRA will be 

small diameter, with a quadratic mean diameter (QMD) of approximately 7.2 inches in diameter 

breast height, and that no trees over 20.9 inches in diameter breast height will be removed

(FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-129). Thus, it is my conclusion that the trees to be removed will be 

generally small diameter and that the project complies with the requirement at 36 CFR § 

294.13(b)(1). 

In addition and of great importance, as a result of the resolution meetings, I have voluntarily 

modified the IRA prescriptions to be non-commercial in nature for the areas of the three units 

within the Lookingglass IRA (see “Modifications to Alternative B” on page 4 of this ROD). This 

further reduces impacts to the Lookingglass IRA and fully complies with the requirement at 36 

CFR § 294.13(b)(1).

PURPOSE OF CUTTING, SALE, OR REMOVAL

The three units in the IRA are not being treated in order to improve habitat for threatened, 

endangered, proposed, or sensitive species. As such, the criteria at 36 CFR § 294.13(b)(1)(i) does 

not apply to this project, meaning that timber cutting, sale, or removal must meet the criteria at 

36 CFR § 294.13(b)(1)(ii) in order to occur. The following paragraphs articulate how the project 

will 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.” (36 CFR § 

294.13(b)(1)(ii)).

The FEIS (Chapter 4, page 4-128) articulates that the units within the Lookingglass IRA are 

categorized as Fire Regime 3 and 4 forests, with Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) 2 and 3. 

These classifications demonstrate that species composition and structure have been altered and 

are outside the ranges of variability (either moderately or substantially) that would be expected 

to occur under natural disturbance regimes. 

The three units (26, 38, and 75) now have moderate to high tree densities, moderate to high 

encroachment of shade-tolerant tree species, and moderate to high losses over time of firetolerant tree species. 

The FEIS states that “much of the forest area within the IRA and adjacent to private land are 

characterized by dense forest and high loads of surface and canopy fuels” (FEIS, Chapter 1, page 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 44 of 62
1-7). The FEIS states that the stand structure within these units has been “moderately and/or 

substantially altered from Historic Ranges of Variability expected for this area and climatic 

period” (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-128). Furthermore, the FEIS states that tree cutting and removal 

is needed to reduce tree densities in order to maintain or restore the characteristics of 

ecosystem composition and structure within the range of variability expected to occur under 

natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-128). 

Because the treatments would reduce tree densities that left untreated would result in high 

severity and intensity fire and would improve the resiliency of fire-tolerant tree species, I believe 

that the project reduces the risk of uncharacteristic fire effects and moves the area closer to 

being within the range of variability, which means that the Tollgate project complies with the 

RACR criteria at criteria at 36 CFR § 294.13(b)(1)(ii). 

CLARIFICATION ON REDUCED FIRE INTENSITY IN THE LOOKINGGLASS IRA

After considering the clarification requested by the Reviewing Officer, I asked the Fuels Specialist 

to help me clarify the effects of fire that may occur, post-treatment, within these units in the IRA

under the alternatives. The Fuels Specialist provided me with maps of the crown fire potential 

and fire travel pathways associated with both Alternative B, which treats select units on the edge 

of the IRA, and the No-Action Alternative, which does not treat the units in the IRA. I was also 

provided with a narrative that describes the Effects Pertaining to Fire Regime and Condition 

Class Within the Tollgate FEIS and explains differences in crown fire potential between 

Alternatives B and C (See maps and narrative in Project Record).

The current condition of this landscape is structured such that large areas display tendencies 

toward both active and passive crown fire. Fire regime and condition class modeling suggest that 

these two types of fire are spatially overrepresented in this watershed. The maps show a change 

in fire behavior from crown fire to no or minimal crown fire within the IRA when units 38 and 75

are treated. They also show that fire traveling through the IRA would slow or drop to a ground 

fire within the IRA, if these units were treated. Therefore, fire effects will be moderated, 

resulting in less intense fire that, at the scale of the IRA and surrounding area, is more consistent 

with the natural disturbance regime (as defined by the fire regime and condition class), thus 

maintaining roadless area characteristics and complying with the requirement at 36 CFR § 

294.13(b)(1)(ii).

The post-treatment conditions displayed in the crown fire mapping show a conversion of active 

and passive crown fire acreage to surface fire acreage. As a result, this reduction in crown fire

potential in the Lookingglass watershed will result in reductions of stand replacement effects 

within the watershed. The treatments will allow the condition class to reflect characteristics 

more consistent with the natural fire regime at both the stand and watershed scale. 

What should be noted however is that the treatments within this watershed are restricted to the 

topographic interface of the plateau and the rims of the surrounding canyon lands, resulting in

relatively small overall acreages that may receive treatment. As a result of these small acreages, 

located exclusively on the “edges” of the watershed, small changes to the area’s overall crown 

fire potential will occur relative to the scale of the Lookingglass watershed as a whole. The scale 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 45 of 62
of treatment activities is not adequate to drive an overall condition class reduction, but will 

result in a trend toward more historic conditions.

The small scale of changes should not, however, detract from the efficacy of these treatments in 

aiding the restoration of more representative crown fire and severity conditions, overall. While 

these changes are perhaps not as dramatic in comparison to other sites within the planning 

area, or as dramatic as treatments of entire watersheds might be, the proposed treatments will 

aid in a trend toward more historically representative conditions.

POTENTIAL WILDERNESS AREAS

My decision modifies Alternative B in the following ways:

SUMMARY FOR PWAS:

• Eliminate all proposed activities for commercial treatment acres within PWAs that are 

outside of IRAs (units 10, 12, 33, 89, 101). This modification eliminates a total of 44 acres 

from treatment.

• Implement non-commercial treatments within units 38 and 15 acres of unit 75 as described 

above. This modification affects a total of 102 acres.

• The Forest Service will continue as described under Alternative B, except treatments will be 

limited to trees less than 8 inches in diameter, all hand work, no machinery except 

chainsaws in the PWA (unit 104); 75 acres.

• The Forest Service will continue as described under Alternative B, except treatments will be 

limited to trees less than 8 inches in diameter, all hand work, no machinery except 

chainsaws in the PWA (unit 26); 104 acres.

The FEIS discloses the likely effects of the alternatives to Potential Wilderness Areas on pages 4-

102 through 4-112. We investigated whether the alternatives will affect PWAs contiguous to the 

North Fork Umatilla Wilderness, the PWA in the Lookingglass IRA, the Walla Walla River PWA, 

and other isolated PWAs. Only the PWAs contiguous to the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness and 

the within the Lookingglass IRA will be affected by my decision.

Potential Wilderness Areas are areas of potential wilderness that we identified using inventory 

procedures found in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12, Chapter 71. The inventory is 

conducted to identify all lands that meet criteria for being evaluated for wilderness suitability. A 

discussion of this step-by-step analysis is described in Appendix H of the FEIS (pages H-2 through 

H-12). I want to note that the formal inventory process is part of Forest Planning, but that 

project-level planning only evaluates the potential for effects to these areas.

My decision will treat 285 acres of Potential Wilderness Areas. This is 50 fewer acres than 

analyzed in the FEIS under Alternative B. Commercial treatments will occur on 151 fewer acres 

than described under Alternative B. Non-commercial treatments will occur on 263 acres, 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 46 of 62
treating 101 acres that had been planned for commercial treatment under Alternative B (Table 

4). 

Table 4. Comparative summary of treatments within Potential Wilderness Areas

PWA

Alternative B Alternative B-Modified

Commercial 

Thinning

Non-Commercial 

Treatments Only

Commercial 

Thinning

Non-Commercial 

Treatments Only

Contiguous to NF Umatilla 

Wilderness (Acres) 56 58 15 58

Within Lookingglass IRA (Acres) 117 104 7 205

Total (Acres) 173 162 22 263

There are 1,151 acres of PWA contiguous to the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness. Effects to the 

PWA in this area will generally be of the same type described for Alternative B in the FEIS (FEIS, 

Chapter 4, pages 4-106 to 4-108). However, these impacts will occur on 41 fewer acres due to 

the modifications to Alternative B that will drop 41 acres of commercial treatments from this 

PWA. 

After treatments prescribed under Alternative B-Modified, approximately 73 acres inventoried 

as PWAs that are contiguous to the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness will no longer meet the 

definition of a PWA as a result of the proposed fuel reduction activities because stumps will be 

evident in the short term. These effects will occur on approximately 6 percent of the PWA 

contiguous to the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness. 

There are 5,917 acres of PWA within the Lookingglass PWA. Alternative B-Modified will affect 

212 acres of PWA within the Lookingglass IRA. This is 9 fewer acres than proposed in Alternative 

B. Effects to the PWA in this area will generally be of the same type described for Alternative B 

(FEIS, Chapter 4, pages 4-108 to 4-110). However, these impacts will occur on 9 fewer acres and 

at a lower intensity due to the modifications to Alternative B that will drop 110 acres from 

commercial treatment and treat 101 of those acres non-commercially.

After treatments prescribed under Alternative B-Modified, approximately 212 acres inventoried 

as PWAs that are within the Lookingglass IRA will no longer meet the the definition of a PWA in 

the short term, primarily because stumps will be evident. These effects will occur on 

approximately 4 percent of the PWA within the Lookingglass IRA, which represents a slight 

reduction but not a substantial change in area than what will be treated under Alternative B.

The FSH 1909.12 sections 71.1(3) and 71.11(9) state that areas qualify for placement on the 

potential wilderness inventory if they meet the statutory definition of wilderness. These areas 

“should not contain forest roads (36 CFR § 212.1) or other permanently authorized roads.” 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 47 of 62
Based on the above regulation and handbook guidance, the FEIS excluded roads (per FSH 

1909.12 section 71.1(3)) in addition to a 300-foot setback (per FSH 1909.12 section 71.11(9)) 

from inclusion in the Potential Wilderness Area analysis. I selected a 300-foot setback from roads 

because harvesting for personal-use firewood is permitted within 300 feet of forest roads and 

danger tree removal occurs at various distances from open forest roads, depending on tree 

height and topographic slope. Past removal of danger trees along forest roads created stumps 

that are evident and recognizable (FEIS, Appendix H, page H-5).

The FEIS noted that “professional judgment” and “local knowledge regarding the evidence of 

recognizable stumps, skid trails, etc.” were used to delineate setback widths. Furthermore, 

according to FSH 1909.12, 71, there was a need to locate PWA boundaries at semi-permanent, 

human-made features to facilitate easy on-the-ground identification (i.e., common setback 

width) of a boundary (FEIS, Appendix H, page H-5).

This same 300-foot setback issue was addressed in the South George Project Summary 

Judgment (CV-12-619-FVS-1, dated 1/06/2014, Eastern District of Washington) (See Project 

Record). The process for identifying PWAs for the South George Project was the same as that 

used for the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project. In the summary judgment, the judge found the 

300-foot setback methodology was not arbitrary.

VISUAL RESOURCES

Issues in this issue group were based on concerns that the proposed action might have the 

following adverse effects or unintended consequences with regard to visual resources:

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

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

SCENIC INTEGRITY

The effects of the action alternatives analyzed in the FEIS on scenic integrity will be the same 

(FEIS, Table 4-34, page 4-95 and Table 4-35, page 4-99). The scenic integrity ratings for both 

action alternatives will mostly remain the same, except for unit 25 (commercial thinned) which 

will change from an existing rating of partial retention/retention prior to treatment, to retention 

after treatment in both action alternatives.

I decided to make a change to the logging systems from conventional ground-based “tractor” to 

harvester-forwarder for units 23, 33, 35, 82, 89 and 90 in order to lessen visual impacts and 

group units based on like logging systems. I have decided to make this change to units located 

along the 3715 and 3719 road systems because they provide access to and views of the North 

Fork Umatilla Wilderness Area via the popular Zig Zag Springs and Coyote Ridge trailheads. I 

believe scenic integrity is an important value to Forest users visiting this area and outweighs 

additional costs associated with using the harvester-forwarder logging system. This change to 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 48 of 62
harvester-forwarder logging systems will also result in a decreased overall effect to soils and is 

consistent with Forest Plan standards and guides (Project Record).

SCENIC STABILITY

Scenic stability will be slightly improved by Alternative B. Scenic stability in the project area is 

currently low to moderate (FEIS, Chapter 3, page 3-90). Following treatments, scenic stability will

be moderate under Alternative B, but remain at low to moderate under Alternative C.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The interdisciplinary team recommended and I approved two action alternatives in addition to a 

No-Action Alternative to analyze in detail. The action alternatives are described in detail in the 

FEIS (pages 2-2 through 2-22). I have determined that there is adequate information to make a 

reasoned choice among the alternatives that were analyzed in detail. Table 5 summarizes the 

alternatives analyzed in detail, as well as the selected alternative (Alternative B-Modified).

Alternatives for this project were designed to address unresolved conflicts over alternative uses 

of existing resources in a manner that meets the project purpose and need. The interdisciplinary 

team developed the range of alternatives, project design features, and mitigation measures 

presented in Chapter 2 of the FEIS based on the purpose and need for action (described in 

Chapter 1 of the FEIS), consideration of scoping responses, issue development, and internal 

deliberations. 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 49 of 62
Table 5. Summary of all alternatives analyzed in detail

Alternative A Alternative B

Alternative BModified

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 3,299 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 972 acres 725 acres

Down and dead woody debris removal (DDR) 0 acres 300 acres 315 acres 280 acres

Mastication 0 acres 1,200 acres 1,148 acres 1,015 acres

Hand-pile burning 0 acres 500 acres 485 acres 330 acres

Total area treated 0 acres 4,330 acres 4,286 acres 4,010 acres

Tree Cutting and Yarding Systems

Conventional ground-based (“tractor”) 0 acres 2,660 acres 2,529 acres 2,520 acres

Harvester-forwarder 0 acres 785 acres 770 acres 770 acres

Roads Used for Project Activities

Open roads used for timber and/or biomass hauling 0 miles 30 miles 30 miles 30 miles

Gated closed system roads used then re-closed 0 miles 16 miles 16 miles 16 miles

Temporary roads: 

Existing templates 0 miles 1.3 miles 1.3 miles 1.3 miles

Newly constructed (de-commissioned after use) 0 miles 1.3 miles 1.3 miles 1.3 miles

Road realignment 0 miles 0.35 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 338 acres 0 acres

RHCA activities (Unit Numbers)** None 19, 38, 66, 75 19, 38, 66, 75 Unit 19 Only

Danger tree removal along haul routes No Yes Yes Yes

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 50 of 62
IRA activities*** 0 acres 206 acres 206 acres 0 acres

Forest Plan Amendment required No Yes Yes Yes

* Acreage totals do not include non-commercial thinning activities in commercial thinning units.

** See “Summary for RHCAs:” on page 6 if this ROD.

*** See “Summary for Lookingglass IRA:” on page 6 of this ROD.

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 51 of 62
Both alternatives (B and C) considered and applied current science in developing design features 

with the intent to lessen negative effects to the environment. Current science (FEIS, 

Bibliography) was also used to help predict the effects to the environment, and the FEIS clearly 

discloses the positive and negative effects of all alternatives in Chapter 4.

I considered seven additional alternatives and determined they should not be analyzed in detail. 

These alternatives are summarized, along with the reasons for not analyzing them in detail, in 

the FEIS (FEIS, Chapter 2, pages 2-22 to 2-24, and Appendix G of the FEIS).

REASONS FOR NOT SELECTING ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

I have documented my consideration of the No-Action Alternative in this ROD (“Consideration of 

No-Action Alternative,” page 15). 

The theme of the No-Action Alternative was to allow current biological and ecosystem processes 

to continue with the associated risks and benefits, and to provide a baseline for comparison with 

other alternatives. With implementation of this alternative, no activities identified in the 

proposed action would be approved to occur in Tollgate project planning area. 

REASONS FOR SELECTING ALTERNATIVE B-PROPOSED ACTION

Alternative B is the selected and preferred alternative, with modifications discussed on page 4 of 

this ROD. The rationale supporting my decision is contained throughout this ROD. I believe that 

Alternative B-Modified best meets the purpose and need, protects the environment, and is 

responsive to comments and objections that were received. I believe that it is the most 

responsible course of action that I could take to protect the values at risk throughout the Tollgate 

plateau.

REASONS FOR NOT SELECTING ALTERNATIVE C

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 21 

inches diameter breast height. 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 FEIS, 

Chapter 1) by:

• Avoiding entering Roadless Areas, or by modifying Roadless activities to minimize impacts;

• Avoiding the removal of trees greater than 21inches diameter breast height;

• Avoiding tree cutting within PWA’s; and

• Avoiding activities within all RHCAs except those immediately adjacent to vulnerable 

structures.

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 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 52 of 62
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 will 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 diameter breast height:

o Under Alternative C, no trees greater than 21 inches diameter breast height 

would be removed except in the following circumstances:

 Trees greater than 21 inches diameter breast height may be removed for 

incidental purposes such as being necessitated by safety concerns 

and/or operational needs.

Alternative C is summarized in Table 2-2 of the FEIS (FEIS, Chapter 2, page 2-7). Design features 

and management requirements common to all action alternatives are described in Table 2-7 of 

the FEIS (FEIS, Chapter 2, pages 2-14 to 2-22), with the exception of items pertaining to activities 

within RHCAs, in which case will apply to only unit 19 for Alternative C (FEIS, Table 2-6, page 2-

14).

I recognize Alternative C does address the purpose and need but not to the extent as Alternative 

B. This is because Alternative C does not conduct any fuels treatments within the Lookingglass 

IRA, and this IRA is adjacent to private property and other values at risk that were identified. 

I fully understand that my decision may not be fully acceptable to all members of the public, 

even with the modifications that I have voluntarily made to reduce the impacts of the project to 

areas that they believe should be protected. However, it is my conclusion, based on the evidence 

presented in the Tollgate Fuels Reduction FEIS, that Alternative B-Modified represents the best 

choice of providing the most effective landscape level fuel reduction treatments to reduce the 

wildfire hazards to the identified values at risk, while also providing for effective resource 

stewardship and protection. The selected alternative, as modified, will provide the appropriate 

treatments at the appropriate scale.

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 53 of 62
FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS

NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT

Heritage surveys have been completed. State Historic Preservation Office consultation is 

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 Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding Cultural Resource 

Management on National Forests dated June 2004. 

Identified sites and any newly recorded sites will be protected from all project activities 

associated with Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project, see the Design Criteria listed in Chapter 2 (FEIS, 

Table 2-7, pages 2-14 through 2-22). Because heritage resources will not be affected by proposed 

activities under any action alternative, there will be no effect to any historic property listed in or 

eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. The SHPO concurred with this determination 

on January 9, 2012 (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-122).

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 for Region 6 of the 

National Forest System. 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 the proposed actions were not likely to 

adversely affect, or 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 (FEIS, 

Chapter 4, pages 4-16 to 4-25), TES plants (FEIS, Chapter 4, pages 4-68 to 4-69), and Wildlife 

(FEIS, Chapter 4, pages 4-73 to 4-92) sections of the FEIS.

Consultation with USDI Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service has been 

completed. Letters of Concurrence from the National Marine Fisheries Service, dated April 5, 

2013, and from the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, dated April 25, 2013, are located in the 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project Record (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-122). 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 54 of 62
CLEAN AIR ACT

All proposed prescribed burning will 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 will occur if there is an air stagnation advisory in place within the northeast Oregon 

geographic area. No ignitions will occur if existing or forecast conditions will transport 

measurable smoke into downwind communities. 

The removal and direct treatment of biomass will reduce emissions should a wildfire occur. The 

effect of smoke under any action alternative will be short term and restricted to dispersed 

campgrounds. Particulate matter is not expected to exceed standards in the communities of 

concern (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-123). 

CLEAN WATER ACT 

All project alternatives are consistent with the Clean Water Act. See the “Hydrology” section of 

the FEIS (FEIS, Chapter 4, pages 4-6 to 4-16).

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 will be expected to result from implementation of any 

alternative (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-123).

CIVIL RIGHTS, WOMEN AND MINORITIES 

No adverse effects on civil rights, women, and minorities not already identified in the FEIS for 

the Forest Plan will be expected to result from implementation of any alternative. Alternatives B 

and C will 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 (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-123).

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 (CTUIR) have 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 55 of 62
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 (FEIS, Chapter 1, page 1-15). Government-to-Government communications 

regarding this project have occurred through yearly Tribal Program of Work meetings with both 

the Nez Perce and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian beginning in 2010.

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 USC §§ 1604(E)(i) through (iv) and 16 USC §§ 

1604(F)(i) and (iii). See the FEIS, Chapter 4, pages 4-123 and 4-124. Those requirements are as 

follows:

16 USC § 1604:

(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 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 will avoid all floodplains and effects to floodplains, and are consistent with 

this EO.

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 56 of 62
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 will avoid all wetlands and effects to wetlands, and are consistent with this 

EO (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-124)..

MUNICIPAL WATERSHEDS

There is no de-facto or designated municipal watershed in the Tollgate project planning area

(FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-124).

ENERGY REQUIREMENTS

No adverse effects on energy requirements would be expected to result from implementation of 

any alternative (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-124).

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 

Public health and safety will 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 will be enhanced by proposed activities under either alternative during a wildland fire 

event and it will be protected during implementation of project activities (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 

4-124).

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 will be no disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority or low-income populations. Smoke management will keep particulate matter 

within standards. The actions will occur in a remote area and nearby communities will 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 (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4-124). 

OTHER JURISDICTIONS 

There are a number of other agencies responsible for management of resources within the 

Tollgate 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. 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 57 of 62
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 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 will 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 

Consistency with the 2001 Roadless Conservation Rule (RACR) (36 CFR part 294) is demonstrated 

in this ROD (see “Roadless Area Characteristics,” beginning on page 40). The FEIS describes the 

Tollgate project’s consistency with this rule on pages 4-125 through 4-129.

FINDING OF NON-SIGNIFICANT FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT

The Forest Plan amendment to be implemented with this decision (FEIS, Chapter 2, page 2-8; 

page 8 of this ROD) will be made under the 2008 Forest Service planning regulations (36 CFR Part 

219) which allow plan amendments to be made using the procedures from the 1982 planning 

regulations during the three-year transition period (36 CFR § 219.14 (b)(2)). This amendment is 

being made using the 1982 procedures.

The Forest Service Land and Resource Management Planning Manual (FSM 1900, Chapter 1920, 

Section 1926.51) lists four factors to be used when determining whether a proposed change to a 

Forest Plan is a significant amendment. The four factors are:

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term 

land and resource management.

2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from 

further on-site analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the 

multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management. 

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines.

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 58 of 62
4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement of the 

management prescription.

These factors are considered as follows:

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term 

land and resource management.

This Forest Plan amendment is for establishing vegetation management objectives and how 

projects can be implemented in the RHCAs of units 19, 38, 66, and 75 in Alternative B as well as 

unit 19 for Alternative C. The amendment will not change or affect multiple-use goals and 

objectives in these RHCAs.

Current actions within other RHCAs, located within project planning area as well as across the 

Umatilla National Forest, will not be impacted by the change in PACFISH standards and 

guidelines. The amendment is specific to fuel reduction treatments associated with the Tollgate 

project. 

These fuels reduction activities take the form of commercial timber harvest and ladder fuel 

reduction. Alternative B (as proposed and as modified by this decision) proposes fuels reduction 

activities (including commercial harvest of trees as well as cutting and removal of danger trees) 

within RHCAs located within four activity units. Activities within RHCA buffers for these units will

cover a total of 25 acres. 

Alternative C proposes fuel reduction activities within RHCA buffers located within unit 19 only, 

which will result in four (4) acres of activity within RHCA buffers. 

The amendment (and its supporting rationale) recognizes that these small, low-velocity, nonfish-bearing headwater channels have the ability to transport neither woody material 

downstream nor potential sediment from proposed activities. As a result, removal of standing 

wood in these locations will not adversely affect riparian management objective attainment 

downstream in fisheries habitat. The fuel treatments will not have long-term impacts to 

multiple-use goals and objectives because they are limited in context and intensity.

2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from 

further on-site analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the 

multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management

This amendment does not change any Forest Plan management area boundaries or 

prescriptions. PACFISH RHCAs will remain as currently defined in the Forest Plan. The 

amendment makes additions to PACFISH Standards and Guidelines which are discussed below. 

The standard and guideline changes will not change the multiple-use goals and objectives for 

long-term land and resource management of the RHCAs proposed for treatment, nor for other 

RHCAs within the project planning area or across the Umatilla National Forest. 

The PACFISH Amendment’s focus for downstream fisheries habitat will remain in place with this 

amendment, but in a way more compatible with considerations for protection of life and 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 59 of 62
property from wildland fire. It allows the use of timber sale contracts to accomplish wildfire 

management objectives within the identified RHCAs only during the life of the Tollgate project 

(approximately 10 years).

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines.

This addition to the PACFISH standards and Guidelines is for the identified RHCAs within units 19, 

38, 66, and 75 for Alternative B (as proposed and as modified by this decision) and within unit 19 

for Alternative C. 

The 3,600 linear feet of RHCAs located in these units in Alternative B (as proposed and as 

modified by this decision) is a very small portion of the total miles of PACFISH riparian areas on 

the Umatilla National Forest, constituting less than 0.1 percent. The amendment associated with 

Alternative C, in which only 600 feet will receive activity, represents an even smaller footprint. 

The amendment for the identified RHCAs adds two additional objectives for the riparian area. 

One objective is to apply silvicultural practices to acquire desired vegetation characteristics for 

fuels reduction objectives. The other objective is to design fuel treatments and fire suppression 

strategies so as to maintain channel stability and prevent adverse impacts to riparian and aquatic 

habitat in the event of wildfire. 

The reduction in tree canopy in these RHCAs will be short-term in nature, lasting ten to fifteen 

years, and will contribute to future riparian values. The addition of objectives for fuel reductions 

supports the ability of successful wildfire suppression efforts in and adjacent to structures, in an

area of high risk for wildfire starts. 

The need for fuel reduction within these RHCAs provides minor changes in the ability to meet 

Riparian Management Objectives because they do not serve as fisheries habitat and have limited 

ability to transport woody material to other fish-bearing streams due to their low current 

velocity and low gradient.

4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement of the 

management prescription.

This Forest Plan amendment does not provide for the opportunity for the continued 

maintenance of fuel reduction in the future. The proposed actions are limited in time to the 

duration of activities on the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project, which is expected to be 

approximately 10 years. 

FINDING

On the basis of the information and analysis contained in the FEIS and all other information 

available as summarized above, I have determined that adoption of the management direction 

reflected in the action alternatives considered (B or C) and selected (B-Modified) will result in a 

non-significant amendment to the Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan.

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 60 of 62
ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

In this ROD, I have described the selected alternative, Alternative B-Modified, and given 

rationale for its selection. Based upon the description of alternatives and associated analysis 

detailed in the FEIS, I believe Alternative B-Modified is the environmentally preferred alternative. 

My rationale is as follows:

• It allows for treatment to meet and fulfill the purpose and need for the project with regard 

to fire regime, condition class, crown fire potential, fire travel times, fire intensity, spotting 

distance, and adjacency to private land and values at risk;

• It reduces ground and ladder fuels and canopy densities;

• It is consistent with Forest Plan goals and objectives, Forest Service policy, and applicable 

laws, regulations, and policies;

• It allows for commercial harvest of forest products for community economic well-being 

while protecting biological, physical, and social resources in the area; and 

• The decision I’ve made reflects consideration of the viewpoints expressed by the public and 

professional land managers.

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OPPORTUNITIES

The objection process set forth in 36 CFR Part 218, subparts A and C, has been completed. This 

objection process fully implements Congress’ design for a pre-decisional administrative review of 

the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project. The predecisional administrative review process has allowed a full and fair opportunity for concerns to 

be raised and considered on this project and its analysis as required by NEPA. Individuals and 

groups have informed me of their positions and contentions and I have considered them in 

making this decision. The Reviewing Officer responded to all objections and I have complied 

with the instructions for clarifications set forth in his written response.

Further administrative review of my decision is subject to the requirements of Section 105(c) of 

the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.

IMPLEMENTATION DATE

The Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project may be implemented immediately upon my issuance of this 

decision. I will notify interested or affected parties of the availability of this ROD as soon as 

practical after signing (36 CFR § 220.5(g)). 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD

Page 61 of 62
CONTACT INFORMATION 

For additional information concerning this decision, contact Michael Rassbach, District Ranger, 

Umatilla National Forest, Walla Walla Ranger District, 1415 West Rose St., Walla Walla, WA 

99362, call (509)522-6290, email mrassbach@fs.fed.us. 

KEVIN D. MARTIN Date 

Forest Supervisor 

Umatilla National Forest 

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. 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction Project - ROD 

Page 62 of 62