starkey allotment management plan update project...

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Starkey Allotment Management Plan Update Project

Environmental Assessment La Grande Ranger District, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Union

County, Oregon

March 2016

For More Information Contact:

Bill Gamble, District Ranger La Grande Ranger District

3502 Highway 30 La Grande, OR 97850

Phone: 541-962-8582 Fax: 541-962-8580

Email: [email protected]

ii

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and

policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA

programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity

(including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived

from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any

program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing

deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for

program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the

responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the

Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages

other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination

Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA

office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To

request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected] . USDA is an equal

opportunity provider, employer and lender.

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html

mailto:[email protected]

i

Contents Contents ............................................................................................................................................ i Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Proposed Project Location ............................................................................................................... 2 Need for the Proposal ...................................................................................................................... 3 Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation ................................................................................... 4

Issues ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Proposed Action and Alternatives ................................................................................................... 5

Alternative One ........................................................................................................................... 5 Alternative Two - Proposed Action ............................................................................................ 7

Management Requirements, Constraints and Mitigation Measures ........................................ 9 Monitoring Plan ..................................................................................................................... 13

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives................................................. 15 Rangeland Resource .................................................................................................................. 16 Aquatic and Water Resources ................................................................................................... 26

A. Water Quality ................................................................................................................... 33 B. Fish Habitat and Populations ............................................................................................ 40 C. Aquatic Management Indicator Species .......................................................................... 48 D. Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) ...................................................................... 49

Wildlife Resources .................................................................................................................... 55 Rocky Mountain Elk.............................................................................................................. 55 Neotropical Migratory (NTM) Bird Species ......................................................................... 58

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Sensitive Species ....................................................... 61 Wildlife Species..................................................................................................................... 61 Botanical Species................................................................................................................... 62 Fisheries Species ................................................................................................................... 63

Invasive Species ........................................................................................................................ 64 Social/Economics ...................................................................................................................... 68 Soils ........................................................................................................................................... 71 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 73 Required and Additional Disclosures ........................................................................................ 74

Finding of No Significant Impact .................................................................................................. 77 Context ...................................................................................................................................... 77 Intensity ..................................................................................................................................... 77

List of Tables

Table 1. Forest Plan Management Areas Acres for Briggs and Meadow Creek Pastures 3 and 4. 3 Table 2. Current Grazing Management within the Starkey Allotment ............................................ 6 Table 3. Meadow Creek Study Area, Year 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022 .............................................. 7 Table 4. Meadow Creek Study Area, Year 2017, 2019, 2021, 2023 ............................................... 8 Table 5. Briggs Pasture addition to Burnt Corral Rotation, Year 1 ................................................. 8 Table 6. Briggs Pasture addition to Burnt Corral Rotation, Year 2 ................................................. 9 Table 7. Percent shrub utilization and use class ........................................................................... 10 Table 8. Allowable Forest Plan utilization standards for the Starkey Allotment .......................... 11 Table 9. Starkey Allotment Information ....................................................................................... 17 Table 10. Permitted and Authorized Numbers. ............................................................................. 17 Table 11. Forage Condition and Trend Ratings Starkey Allotment .............................................. 19

ii

Table 12. Alternative 2 pastures and streams within the Starkey AMP ....................................... 26 Table 13. Alternative 2 miles of fish distribution and species ..................................................... 27 Table 14. Meadow Creek and Battle Creek stream survey results ............................................... 27 Table 15. Alternative 2 riparian plant associations by stream ...................................................... 28 Table 16. MIS and habitat description for Starkey AMP project area .......................................... 30 Table 17. MIS habitat summary for Meadow Creek .................................................................... 31 Table 18. MIS habitat summary for Battle Creek ........................................................................ 32 Table 19. MIS distribution in the project area in relation to the WWNF ...................................... 33 Table 20. Alternative 2 miles of stream accessible to livestock ................................................... 41 Table 21. Steelhead redds/mile in ODFW index area on Meadow Creek (2004-2015) ............... 44 Table 22. Results of ODFW research steelhead spawning surveys in the Starkey Allotment ..... 44 Table 23. PETS species known or suspected to occur on the WWNF ......................................... 61 Table 24. Invasive Plant Inventory Sites in Starkey Allotment..................................................... 66 Table 25. Current Permitted and Authorized AUMs for the Starkey Allotment ........................... 69 Table 26. Non-productive soil areas within the Starkey Allotment .............................................. 72

List of Figures

Figure 1. Vicinity map ..................................................................................................................... 1

La Grande Ranger District, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

1

Introduction We are proposing to update the Starkey Allotment Management Plan to include authorizing

livestock grazing on 2 pastures within the Meadow Creek Pasture and one pasture in the

Briggs Pasture to facilitate new research and improve livestock management and

distribution. These actions are proposed to be implemented within the Starkey

Experimental Forest and Range on the La Grande Ranger District of the Wallowa-

Whitman National Forest.

We prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether implementation of the

authorization of livestock grazing within these 3 pastures may significantly affect the quality of

the human environment and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact

statement. By preparing this EA, we are fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For more details of the proposed action, see the

Proposed Action and Alternatives section of this document.

Figure 1. Vicinity map

The Starkey Experimental Forest

and Range is a one-of-a-kind,

world class research facility, used

by scientists from around the

world, and is the primary field

location for the study of the effects

of deer, elk, and cattle on

ecosystems. Interactions between

cattle, elk and deer have been

studied intensively since 1989

when approximately 25,000 acres

of the allotment were included

within an eight foot high big game

fence. The area is managed by the

Pacific Northwest Forest and

Range Research Station (PNW)

and the WWNF. Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife

(ODFW) and Oregon State

University (OSU) are the primary

research partners.

An allotment management plan

analysis was completed in 2007

with a decision memo signed by

the District Ranger on August 22,

2007. This analysis was consistent

with regulation guidance at the

time of the decision. This decision

included the current management as the proposed action.

Starkey AMP Update Project EA

2

No land outside the current allotment boundary is proposed for new grazing activity and all lands

proposed for grazing in this proposal has been grazed in the past.

Proposed Project Location The 30,396 Starkey Allotment Management Plan (AMP) Update project area also known as the

Starkey Experimental Forest and Range, was established in 1906 as a Forest Service grazing

allotment and has been managed primarily for research since the 1940’s. The project area is

located in the Meadow Creek drainage approximately 23 miles west of La Grande, Oregon on

National Forest System lands along State Highway 244 in Townships 3 & 4S, Ranges 34 & 35E.

Refer to Figure 1 Starkey AMP Update Vicinity Map.

Forest Plan Management Direction

This environmental assessment is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for

the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended.

Major Plan amendments relevant to this project include:

EA on Continuation of the Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian,

Ecosystem, and wildlife Standards for Timber Sales, as signed on May 20, 1994, which

provides additional standards and guidelines (USDA, 1994, and commonly known as the

Screens);

Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern

Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California, as signed in 1995, which

provides additional standards and guidelines (USDA, 1995, and commonly known as

PACFISH). Refer to guidelines described on page 42 of the EA for specific PACFISH

direction.

The Forest Plan, as amended, includes management goals and objectives and standards and

guidelines, both forest-wide and specific to land allocations. All proposed activities in this

project area and standards and guidelines, both forest-wide and project specific proposed

activities are consistent with the management guidance and direction provided in the Forest Plan.

All applicable management direction specific to the following management areas apply to this

project area (refer to Management Direction Map in Appendix B):

MA1 – (3,290 acres). Emphasizes wood fiber production on suitable timberlands while providing

relatively high levels of forage and recreational opportunities.

MA3 – (585 acres). These management areas provide a broad array of forest uses and outputs

with emphasis on timber production. However, timber management is designed to provide near-

optimum cover and forage conditions on big game winter (MA3) and selected summer ranges.

MA14 – (26,521 acres). This area is allocated to research use and will be managed to protect

existing research projects and provide for future research needs. In addition to its research

contribution, the experimental forest is expected to provide a variety of other benefits including

timber and livestock forage when compatible with research uses.


3

Table 1. Forest Plan Management Areas Acres for Briggs and Meadow Creek Pastures 3 and 4.

Pasture Management Area Acres

Meadow Creek 3 Management Area 14 621

Meadow Creek 4 Management Area 1 166

Management Area 14 863

Briggs Management Area 3 448

Need for the Proposal The purpose and need for action describes what the desired condition is for the Starkey AMP

Update project area and how the existing condition does not meet that desired condition

answering the question “why here, why now?”

Desired Condition

The desired condition for range vegetation and related resources is to manage them in a manner

insuring that the basic needs and of the forage and browse plants and the soil resources are met.

To make available for harvest, forage production that is excess to the basic needs of the plants

and soil resource for wildlife (within agreed upon management objectives) and domestic livestock

(within Forest Plan utilization standards) which are compatible with research uses.

Grazing allotments contribute to a predictable supply of livestock forage that contributes to local

ranching operation sustainability and local community’s growth while maintaining or achieving

ecological desired conditions.

Existing Condition

The existing management for the Starkey Allotment authorizes three permittees to graze up to 701

cow/calf pairs utilizing three separate grazing systems, two inside the big-game enclosure/main

study area and one outside. Grazing is currently authorized for livestock grazing between the

dates of June 16 to October 15 using a multi-pasture deferred rotation system in which fences

separate each of the pastures.

Oregon State University (OSU) researchers also manage a herd of up to 60 pair of livestock

within two of the Meadow Creek pastures where livestock grazing is already authorized. Pastures

1, 2 and 5 are currently authorized for livestock grazing. All of the Meadow Creek pastures

(pastures 1-5) are being considered for part of a new study being conducted by the Pacific

Northwest (PNW) lab, Oregon State University (OSU), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

(ODFW), Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (WWNF) and others. The study would assess the

effects of livestock and wildlife herbivory on recovery of riparian ecosystems following riparian

restoration projects. Grazing is not currently authorized in pastures 3 and 4.

Outside the main study area, one permittee is authorized to graze a total of 141 cow/calf pairs

between the dates of June 16 and October 15. These cattle are managed using a two pasture

deferred rotation system. The Briggs pasture was historically part of the outside pasture rotation

but has not been used due to fences which had been in place to facilitate permitted livestock

grazing. In order to improve livestock distribution and management flexibility to achieve grazing

goals, the permittee has expressed an interest in utilizing this pasture again.


4

Purpose and Need

There is a need to consider permitting grazing within all of the Meadow Creek pastures in order

to facilitate research goals and meet the Forest Plan direction for the Starkey Experimental Forest

and Range. There is also a need to improve livestock management within the pastures outside of

the fence to facilitate meeting allotment goals.

Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies

during the development of this EA:

The Starkey AMP Update project was published in the Wallowa-Whitman Schedule of Proposed

Actions (SOPA), a quarterly publication, in April 2015 and has appeared in each quarterly SOPA

since then. This mailing is distributed to a mailing list of individuals, organizations, and agencies

and is published on the forest web page.

Scoping and consultation for the project was initiated and is ongoing with the the Confederated

Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) and ODFW.

A detailed description of the proposed action was mailed on August 21, 2015 to approximately 95

forest users and concerned publics soliciting comments and concerns related to this project. One

letter was received supporting the actions described in the proposed action.

This project has been reviewed and approved by the State Historical Preservation Officer

(SHPO).

Consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service for

threatened and endangered species has been completed for this project.

An analysis file for this project is available for public review at the La Grande Ranger District.

The analysis file includes specialist’s reports, data specific to the project, public notifications and

their responses, meeting notes, and miscellaneous documentation.

Issues

The ID Team did not identify any key issues in public comments that would lead to the

development of additional alternatives. Specific issues brought up by the public can be found in

italics in the key issues and other issues sections below. Non-key issues that were analyzed in

detail and for which modifications to the proposed action may have been made are:

Promotion and Protection of New and On-going Research

Forest plan direction within Starkey Experimental Forest and Range for range management is to

manage utilization of forage by domestic livestock and wildlife according to research needs.

Grazing practices need to protect any on-going research projects within the 3 pastures. Livestock

grazing within Meadow Creek pastures 3 & 4 is needed for the good and benefit of the ongoing

research.

Fish Habitat and Water Quality

Livestock grazing along fish-bearing streams may impact fish and fish habitat (redds trampling,

removal of riparian vegetation). Management and monitoring within the Meadow Creek 3 & 4


5

and Briggs pastures need to ensure protection of riparian areas in Meadow Creek, Battle Creek,

and Burnt Corral Creek.

Rangeland Resources

Forest plan direction within Starkey Experimental Forest and Range for range management is to

manage utilization of forage by domestic livestock and wildlife according to research needs. An

allotment management plan (AMP) analysis was completed in 2007. Portions of the allotment

were not grazed by permitted livestock at the time of the decision and there now exists a need to

include these pastures as part of the management of the allotment to support ongoing grazing

research and to improve livestock distribution within the allotment boundary. Grazing practices

need to protect any on-going research projects within the 3 pastures.

Economics

Livestock production contributes to the local and regional economy. Changes in permitted

livestock numbers can result in impacts especially when substitute sources of forage are not

available. Changes in how the allotment is managed can affect implementation and operations

costs for permittees.

Cultural Resources and Tribal Trust Responsibilities

The Starkey allotment lies within ceded lands of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian

Reservation (CTUIR). There are known cultural sites located within the Starkey AMP

boundaries. Appropriate protections need to be implemented as needed to prevent disturbance of

known sites. Protection of first foods through active livestock management needs to ensure

continued availability of these culturally important resources.

Proposed Action and Alternatives The following is a brief description of the proposed action and alterative(s) that meet the need for

action. NEPA requires that the agency study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to

recommend courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning

alternative uses of available resources. Because no unresolved conflicts exist, the EA will only

analyze the proposed action and proceed without consideration of additional topics (36 CFR

220.7(b)(2)(i)).

Alternative One This alternative constitutes the "No Action" required by NEPA. Grazing would continue as

authorized under the 2007 AMP within the Starkey Allotment and no grazing would occur in the

currently vacant Meadow Creek and Briggs pastures. This alternative forms the baseline for

comparison of the action alternatives.


cow/calf pairs utilizing three separate grazing systems, two inside the big-game enclosure/main

study area and one outside. Grazing is currently authorized for livestock grazing between the

dates of June 16 to October 15 using a multi-pasture deferred rotation system in which fences

separate each of the pastures.

Inside the main study area, two permittees, private and OSU, are authorized to graze a total of

519 cow-calf pairs between the dates of June 16 and October 15. These cattle are managed using


6

a five pasture deferred rotation system. A full-time rider is provided by the permittees to facilitate

livestock management during pasture moves and to manage cattle distribution out of riparian

areas on a daily basis.

Oregon State University (OSU) researchers also manage a herd of up to 60 pair of livestock

within two of the Meadow Creek pastures where livestock grazing is already authorized. Pastures

1, 2 and 5 are currently authorized for livestock grazing. Grazing is not currently authorized in

pastures 3 and 4.



deferred rotation system.

The current management of the allotment also includes “design features,” such as Best

Management Practices and PACFISH requirements, which have been successful in meeting

and/or moving the allotment toward the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan (Forest Plan) goals and objectives. All Endangered Species Act (ESA)

consultation biological assessments or biological opinions will be incorporated into the annual

grazing plans and required monitoring.

Table 2. Current Grazing Management within the Starkey Allotment

Unit Acres Permitted

Numbers

Average Days

in Unit

Animal Unit

Months

(AUMs)

Head Months

Main Study Area

Smith-Bally 5,861 500 41 685 890

Half Moon 1,381 500 8 132 174

Bear 8,814 500 47 773 1,020

Campbell Strip 200 500 3 49 65

Campbell Flat 1,536 500 22 361 477

Meadow Creek Study Area

Phase III/IV 1,413 60 43 85 112

Phase I/II 1,627 0 0 0 0

Northeast Study Area

NE-East 2,080 0 0 0 0

NE-West 1,507 0 0 0 0

Feed Grounds 654 0 0 0 0

Outside Main Study

Burnt Corral 3,456 141 76 352 465

Strip 1,536 141 46 213 281

The grazing season may be adjusted due to resource conditions or unpredictable events such as,

but not limited to, fire, drought, or saturated soil conditions, to meet Forest Plan goals and

objectives. The number of days cattle spend on each pasture may be modified annually to meet

goals and objectives.


7

The allotment includes 89 previously constructed water sources (ponds and developed springs)

that were built to encourage livestock use away from riparian areas. Riparian fencing has been

constructed in some pastures to allow better control of livestock along stream corridors.

Alternative Two - Proposed Action The following changes in current management are proposed to occur in the Meadow Creek and

the Briggs Pastures. General rotation dates are identified in tables 2 and 3 for Meadow Creek and

tables 4 and 5 for the Briggs pasture. As described under Alternative 1, Pastures 1, 2 and 5 are

currently authorized for livestock grazing through the previous 2007 decision. Pastures 3 (621

acres), 4 (1,029 acres), and the Briggs (448 acres) pasture are not currently authorized for

livestock grazing and would be authorized as described below. (Refer to map in Appendix A)

Meadow Creek: The Meadow Creek pastures are part of a new study being conducted by the

PNW lab, OSU, ODFW, WWNF and others. The study would assess the effects of livestock and

wildlife herbivory on recovery of riparian ecosystems following riparian restoration projects. A

series of pasture fences, exclosures and planting protections have been installed to monitor the

different grazing effects along the entire reach of Meadow Creek within the Starkey allotment.

OSU cattle would be grazed using the rotations described below in Tables 3 and 4. PNW and

ODFW researchers would monitor the effects of livestock and wildlife herbivory on riparian plant

and ESA fisheries recovery. This change would add 1,650 acres of authorized grazing to the

Meadow Creek study pastures.

Briggs: The Briggs pasture was historically part of the outside pasture rotation but has not been

used due to ameliorated fences which had been in place to facilitate permitted livestock grazing.

The existing permittee has expressed an interest in utilizing this pasture again to improve

distribution and flexibility of livestock use within the outside pastures (Tables 5 and 6). This

change would add 488 acres of authorized grazing to the outside rotation.

MEADOW CREEK STUDY AREA

A. Meadow Creek Study Area- 122 days. 5,481 acres. 635 AUMS

A two year deferred rotation system will be used for the Meadow Creek Riparian study

pastures. The rotation will be reversed each year. The general distribution of days per

pasture is outlined below. Slight adjustments will occur to accommodate yearly hunts

which require limitations on access prior to and during the hunt period (Tables 3 and 4).

Table 3. Meadow Creek Study Area, Year 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022

Pasture

Number

Number

of Head

AUMS Acres Acres

per

AUM

Entry

Date

Exit

Date

Days

in

Unit

Key Area Maximum

Percent

Utilization

Minimum

Stubble

Height

5 120 323 2718 8.4 6/16 8/16 62

Meadow Cr. 40% shrubs

45% terrace 4” greenline

Cougar Cr. 40% shrubs


Cougar Cr.

uplands

45%

bunchgrass

2-4” by

species

1 120 78 499 6.4 10/1 10/15 15 Meadow Cr. 40% shrubs


2 120 78 614 7.9 9/16 9/30 15 Meadow Cr. 40% shrubs



8

Pasture

Number

Number

of Head

AUMS Acres Acres

per

AUM

Entry

Date

Exit

Date

Days

in

Unit

Key Area Maximum

Percent

Utilization

Minimum

Stubble

Height

3 120 78 621 8.0 9/1 9/15 15 Meadow Cr. 40% shrubs


4 120 78 1029 13.2 8/17 8/31 15 Meadow Cr. 40% shrubs


Table 4. Meadow Creek Study Area, Year 2017, 2019, 2021, 2023

Pasture

Number

Number AUMS Acres Acres

per

AUM

Entry

Date

Exit

Date

Days

in

Unit

Key Area Maximum

Percent

Utilization

Minimum

Stubble

Height

1 120 78 499 6.4 6/16 6/30 15 Meadow Cr. 40% shrubs


2 120 78 614 7.9 7/1 7/15 15 Meadow Cr. 40% shrubs


3 120 78 621 8.0 7/16 7/30 15

Meadow Cr.

40% shrubs


4 120 78 1029 13.2 7/31 8/14 15 Meadow Cr. 40% shrubs


5 120 323 2718 8.4 8/15 10/15 62

Meadow Cr. 40% shrubs


Cougar Cr. 40% shrubs


Cougar Cr.

uplands

45%

bunchgrass

2-4” by

species

B. Outside main study area- 122 days. 5,030 acres. 747 AUMS.

A two year deferred rotation system will be used for the pastures outside the main study area.

The rotation will be reversed each year. The general distribution of days per pasture is outlined

below. Briggs pasture will be utilized following completion of boundary fencing and off-site

water development to facilitate stock water outside Burnt Corral Creek and Battle Creek (Tables 5

and 6). The Briggs pasture may also be utilized as a gathering pasture at the end of the season.

Implementation: Grazing management changes would begin in May 2016.

Table 5. Briggs Pasture addition to Burnt Corral Rotation, Year 1

Pasture Number AUMS Acres Acres

per AUM

Entry Date

Exit Date

Days in

Unit

Key Area

Maximium Percent

Utilization

Minimum Stubble Height

Burnt Corral

141 404 3318 7.0 6/16 8/28 74

Camas Uplands

45% uplands

2-4” uplands

Camas Creek

45% terrace 40% shrubs

4” greenline

Upper Strip

75 Strip

216 1439 6.6

8/29 10/15 48 Camas Uplands

45% uplands

2-4” uplands

66 Briggs 8/29 9/19 21 Camas Creek


4” greenline

Briggs 66 72 448 6.0 9/20 10/15 25 Battle Creek


4” greenline


9

Table 6. Briggs Pasture addition to Burnt Corral Rotation, Year 2

Pasture Number AUMS Acres Acres

per AUM

Entry Date

Exit Date

Days in

Unit

Key Area

Maximium Percent

Utilization

Minimum Stubble Height

Upper Strip

75 Strip

216 1,439 6.6

6/16 8/2 48 Camas Uplands

45% uplands

2-4” uplands

66 Briggs 7/11 8/2 21 Camas Creek


4” greenline

Briggs 66 72 448 6.0 6/16 7/10 25 Battle Creek


4” greenline

Burnt Corral

141 404 3,318 7.0 8/3 10/15 74

Camas Uplands

45% uplands

2-4” uplands

Camas Creek


4” greenline

Management Requirements, Constraints and Mitigation Measures

The following items are included in the action alternative and provide the measures necessary to

keep project impacts at acceptable levels.

Noxious Weeds

Prior to project implementation, known weed sites and any additional weed sites discovered at the

time of implementation would be flagged and pulled by knowledgeable personnel approved by

the District’s Noxious Weed program.

An assessment report of known noxious weed populations is available in the Analysis File.

Noxious weed locations also appear on project maps in the analysis file. If new noxious weed

infestations are located within the project area, a noxious weed inventory and site assessment will

be completed.

The analysis for vegetation management is conducted in accordance with the 1990 Forest Plan

Standards and Guidelines, the 1998 Forest Noxious Weed EA, the Integrated Noxious Weed

Management Plan - Wallowa Whitman National Forest (INWMP, 1992), and the 2005 Pacific

Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants FEIS.

Management activities will give consideration and evaluation of prevention strategies during the

planning process (INWMP, Chapter V. Prevention Strategies, Section B).

The following measures shall be implemented to reduce new establishment or spread of noxious

weeds and responds to the non-key issue of noxious weeds:

1. The Forest Service will monitor for and treat noxious weeds as identified in the Wallowa-

Whitman Forest Invasive Plants Treatment Project (2010). Permittees would be

encouraged to identify new infestations of noxious weeds and report these annually to the

Forest Service. New populations of weeds would be scheduled for treatment.

2. If new noxious weed infestations are located within the project area, a noxious weed

inventory and site assessment (as defined in the W-W INWMP) will be completed.

Location of other species, conditions or future treatments may require additional analysis

to determine the appropriate treatment method.


10

3. The Wallowa-Whitman Forest Invasive Plants Treatment Project (2010) would be fully

implemented for all allotments and individual pastures. The strategy provides a

systematic approach to noxious weed treatment using chemical, biological, and

mechanical means of weed control for the project area. Early detection and treatment are

the most cost-effective way to prevent spread of noxious weeds.

4. Highly disturbed areas will be seeded. The seed mix to be used will consist of native

species, or a non-native species mix, to be approved by the District Diverse Species

Program. This may include one fast germinating annual grass species to provide

immediate ground cover. Seed application rates will be adjusted, as needed to

compensate for the broadcast method of application, and to generate vegetation densities

adequate to help in deterrence of noxious weed invasion.

5. Seed will be certified weed free, per the Wallowa-Whitman INWMP protocol.

Riparian Habitat

Utilization of key hydric stabilizers on the greenline will be expressed as stubble height

measurements. Utilization on non-greenline grass and grass-like vegetation is not to exceed 45%

of the annual production, and is based on height/weight curves. Utilization for shrub browse

would be measured by percent removed of annual leader production. A streambank alteration

objective of < 20% will be used and is measured at the end of the season using MIM

methodology.

Below are the endpoint and trigger values for forage utilization and streambank alteration used

for monitoring.

The endpoint value for greenline utilization is a minimum 4 inch stubble height. A

stubble height of 5 inches will be used as a trigger indicator where herbaceous vegetation

is a key hydric stabilizer

The endpoint value for shrub utilization is a maximum of 40%. A shrub utilization of

30% will be used as a trigger indicator where shrubs are a key hydric stabilizer

An endpoint objective value for streambank alteration is < 20%

Shrub utilization is estimated by percent use and use class (Table 7).

Table 7. Percent shrub utilization and use class

Percent Use Use Class

0-5 No use

6-20 Slight

21-40 Light

41-60 Moderate

61-80 Heavy

81-100 Severe

To determine compliance with utilization standards, the Forest Service range manager will

measure utilization during and after the grazing season a minimum of one out of five years.

Monitoring within the Meadow Creek riparian study area (Meadow Creek pastures 1-5) will

occur each year as part of the grazing study. In other parts of the allotment, implementation

monitoring will occur on a 2-3 year rotating basis. The PNW lab conducts LRMP monitoring


11

every year on a number of long term implementation monitoring sites that do not necessarily

overlap with the designated monitoring areas (DMAs) identified and monitored by the La Grande

Ranger District. The monitoring results can trigger discussions with the permittee to identify why

the standard was not met and develop a plan (adaptive management) to be implemented the

following year to correct the management to meet the standard. Spot checks will be made

throughout the season to determine if a utilization or distribution issue is developing. Riparian

vegetation and upland monitoring occurs in areas that are representative of the overall pasture. If

the range manager visually identifies an area of concern or where forage utilization would lead to

unacceptable resource conditions, more intensive measurements will be taken.

Table 8. Allowable Forest Plan utilization standards for the Starkey Allotment

The standards described in Table 8 are applied at DMAs in pastures of the Starkey Allotment.

DMAs have been established at representative locations within pastures. DMAs may be moved as

needed if it is determined that the existing DMA is not representative of livestock utilization

within the pasture. Small areas within the allotments that have unavoidable livestock

concentrations such as salt licks, water developments, gateways or corrals, are not designated as

DMAs. Stubble height and shrub utilization triggers will be applied as a point in time

measurement. Livestock management will be adjusted when the trigger standards are met or

before they are met. DMAs may be established through an interdisciplinary team process to

monitor impacts to resources by livestock to determine compliance with ESA consultation and

complete effectiveness monitoring.

Fisheries Conservation Measures

To reduce cattle impacts on riparian vegetation and stream channels, permittees will herd cattle

weekly (or more frequently if needed) during the grazing season to reduce cattle grazing and

trailing in riparian areas. Emphasis will be placed on reaches accessible to cattle. These reaches

include: 0.1 mile of Battle Creek and 2.6 miles of Meadow Creek.

Avoid cattle grazing where steelhead spawning habitat is accessible to livestock during 6/16 – 7/1

before fry emergence. If grazing is proposed in these areas during this time period, steelhead

spawning surveys will be conducted twice between late April and May in pastures containing

steelhead spawning. Surveys will determine vulnerability of steelhead redds to trampling by

livestock. Redds will be protected with fencing if determined to be vulnerable to trampling.

To reduce cattle impacts on riparian vegetation and stream channels, permittees will select stock

driveway locations that avoid riparian areas except at needed crossings. And will avoid moving

cows at periods of high vulnerability for fish (spawning, eggs in gravel).

To reduce cattle impacts on riparian vegetation and stream channels, permittees will not place salt

for livestock use within 1/4 mile of streams and springs.

Condition Rating

Upland Riparian

Grass and Forbs Shrub

Grass and Forbs

Shrub Forested Grassland

Satisfactory 45% 55% 40% by weight 45% by weight 40%

Unsatisfactory 0-35% 0-35% 0-30% 0-35% 0-30%


12

The 89 existing off site water sources will be maintained annually. Continue to develop additional

off site water sources to insure they provide dependable sources of clean water for livestock away

from riparian areas.

Fences and riparian exclosures will be maintained on a regular basis to ensure their integrity.

Water Quality

The Forest Plan requires that projects “meet state requirements in accordance with the Clean

Water Act through planning, application, and monitoring of Best Management Practices (BMPs)”.

BMPs are practices designed to reduce or eliminate non-point sources of water pollution. The

goal of BMP use is to prevent degradation of water bodies.

Project planning BMPs may be found in the document General Water Quality Best Management

Practices, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, November 1988. Project application

BMPs are contained in the Allotment Management Plan (AMP), Grazing Permit, Annual

Operating Instructions (AOI), and the Forest Plan. These planning BMPs are implemented during

the NEPA planning process.

Project Planning BMPs include:

Designing projects to maintain and improve water quality

Documenting water quality conditions

Analyzing the water resource during planning and resource use permitting

Project application BMPs are implemented as part of the grazing permit administration. Project

application BMPs includes the following standards:

Limiting the number of cattle that use the allotment

A limit on the period of use

A limit on vegetation use

Control of livestock distribution within the allotment

Maintenance and use of rangeland improvements

Prohibition from turning on livestock until soil and forage are in a suitable condition

Application of BMPs in the Starkey AMP include: excluding livestock from streams with fencing;

placing restrictions on number, duration and timing of livestock; constructing numerous off-site

water sources to encourage better distribution of livestock and draw them away streams; meeting

sedge, grass and shrub utilization standards; using riders to push cows from riparian areas on a

daily basis; placement of salt in upland locations away from riparian areas; and prohibition from

turning on livestock until soil and forage are in a suitable condition were initiated in the Starkey

AMP 2006, have been implemented and improved management of the Starkey Allotment.

Cultural Resource Protection

All identified sites within the Starkey AMP Update project area have been avoided during project

design.

If any new cultural resources are located during project implementation, work would be halted

and the South Zone Archaeologist notified. The cultural resource would be evaluated and a

mitigation plan developed in consultation with the Oregon SHPO if necessary.


13

Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species (PETS)

Biological evaluations and/or assessments have been completed for plants, fish, and wildlife

PETS species. Annual operating plan (AOP) provisions will be included to provide for the

protection of areas where PETS occur and for those that may be discovered in the area during the

grazing period.

Monitoring Plan

Monitoring specific to project activities would be accomplished to assure that activities conform

to objectives of the Forest Plan. Project level monitoring is a component of Forest Plan

monitoring. The following types of monitoring would be accomplished:

Implementation Monitoring - Is the project being implemented as planned?

Utilization Standards

Riparian key areas would have shrub utilization and grass utilization checked prior to

livestock turnout and at the end of the grazing season. Upland cages would have

utilization measured post-cattle use. Ocular reconnaissance would be used throughout

the grazing period to assess the potential for overuse before pasture move dates, with

stubble height measurements used if problems are noted. Shrub utilization would be

measured as percent twig length removed. Grass utilization would be measured using

standard USFS stubble height method (standards are listed below). Utilization would be

measured at the end of the season as described in the Interagency Implementation

Module for 2000, on all key areas, to determine if standards are being met. Photos would

be taken of riparian key areas by PNW personnel after livestock removal. Data

summaries will be sent to the District at the end of the season, with photos and raw data

available on request.

The following maximum allowable use standards are based on the needs of ongoing

research within the Starkey project enclosure, as well as research results on riparian

management for maintenance of riparian shrub components, and Forest Plan standards

and guidelines. They provide for flexibility for livestock/big game grazing research,

while maintaining important plant communities and functioning riparian areas. These

standards would be reviewed on an annual basis on an annual basis, and may be altered at

a future date to accommodate identified research or management needs.

Grassland/scab communities

Bunchgrass wheatgrass (AGSP) 40% utilization

One-spike oatgrass (DAUN) 30% utilization

Timber communities

Elk sedge (CAGE) 40% utilization

Idaho fescue (FEID) 40% utilization

Meadow terrace/floodplain communities

Introduce pasture grasses (ALPR, PHPR, FEOC) 3 inch stubble

Kentucky bluegrass (POPR) 3 inch stubble


14

Riparian zone/greenline communities

Willow (SALIX) 40% utilization

Alder (ALNUS) 30% utilization

Currant (RIBES) 25% utilization

Wet zone sedges (CAREX) (greenline) 4”-6” stubble

Meadow Creek Pastures:

Due to the large amount of relatively unpalatable vegetation on the terrace of Meadow Creek and

the presence of palatable vegetation directly adjacent to the stream, trigger monitoring would be

done along the greenline to ensure that forest plan utilization standards are met in this area.

Within the Meadow Creek Upper and Lower pastures, the following monitoring would occur

annually to ensure compliance with forest plan utilization standards.

1. Greenline vegetation monitoring would occur during the grazing period to meet a three

inch trigger median stubble height to initiate livestock removal from the pasture.

2. Greenline vegetation monitoring would occur at the end of the growing season (EOS) to

ensure a four inch median residual stubble height or 40% utilization, whichever is more

restrictive, remains for capture of sediment during peak flow. Site specific height weight

curves would be used as triggers for meeting forest plan utilization standards of 40%.

3. Shrub utilization monitoring would continue to ensure compliance with forest plan

utilization standards of 40%.

4. Three photo points installed within the pasture would be continue to be used to monitor

riparian greenline vegetation before livestock use, end of the livestock use period and

EOS for forest plan compliance.

Fisheries - Summer Steelhead:

In the Starkey Allotment there is a two week period (June 16th to July 1) where livestock may be

present and fry have not yet emerged from the gravel. The Briggs pasture has 0.1 miles of

steelhead spawning (Battle Creek) that would be accessible to livestock that could be stocked

with livestock by June 16th every other year. Meadow Creek Pastures #3 and #4 have 2.6 miles of

steelhead habitat that would be accessible to livestock; however, early turn-out of cattle would not

occur in these pastures in order to prevent redd trampling.

Steelhead redd surveys would be conducted in the accessible reach twice between late April to

mid-May. Reaches that are considered accessible are determined by a lack of fencing and

topography/vegetation that enables access.

Steelhead surveys will be conducted to satisfy the following objectives:

Determine the amount of steelhead spawning that occurs within areas accessible to livestock

that contain steelhead spawning habitat.

Document the location of redd(s), and determine the vulnerability of the redd (s) to trampling

by cattle.

Protect redd if it is determined that it is vulnerable to trampling by cattle. Redds will be

protected with a fence. Redd protection will end after first of July after fry have emerged.


15

Cultural Resources:

Heritage site monitoring would be implemented with the ongoing Starkey allotment use,

administration and research monitoring. Information from this monitoring shall be reported in the

Wallowa-Whitman’s Annual Heritage Report.

Effectiveness Monitoring - Were the desired results achieved?

Noxious weeds: Noxious weeds would be monitored, yearly, for three years after project

operations. This monitoring will be completed by the USFS.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives The No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and Action Alternative (Alternative 2) are described in

detail in the section above. This section discloses the anticipated environmental effects of these

alternatives on various resources for which there are potential direct, indirect and cumulative

effects. The effects analysis forms the basis for comparison of the alternatives.

The following resources were considered during the analysis. These resources are not impacted

by any of the alternatives being considered, and they will not be addressed any further in this

document. The rationale for not addressing them further in this EA is also described.

Resources Not Analyzed

Resources that were not impacted and therefore not further analyzed include:

Forest Vegetation – Livestock and wild ungulate grazing has direct and indirect effects on

forage and shrub resources; however, effects on upland timber resources from grazing

activities are generally unmeasurable and will not be analyzed further.

Minerals – Livestock grazing does not impact minerals resources.

Wilderness/inventoried roadless areas – There are none within the project area; therefore,

there will be no effects on these resources.

Recreation – Most of the recreation activities within the Starkey Allotment area is

associated with big game hunting, antler shed hunting, and mushroom hunting.

Livestock grazing within the Meadow Creek and Briggs pastures would have no effect on

recreation activities and in most cases livestock would be off the allotment before big

game rifle seasons begin.

Fire/Fuels – While livestock grazing helps to manage light fuel levels such as grasses and

shrubs, it would primarily affect the rate of spread of fire under extreme fire conditions

within the project area. These fuels would have a very minor immeasurable effect on fire

intensity which is primarily influenced by 3” and larger fuels (standing and down tree

fuel loadings). Livestock grazing would have to effect on these fuels.

Old Growth Forest Structure – As described under forest vegetation above, livestock

grazing would have no effect on old growth forest structures.


16

Scenery/Visuals – Managed livestock grazing within the Starkey Experimental Forest is

an on-going activity, the addition of intermittent use of the Briggs pasture for livestock

management will not impact scenery resources along Highway 244. The Meadow Creek

pastures are outside of the seen areas of any visually sensitive routes in this area.

Analysis Process

For the purposes of this EA, past actions are part of the existing condition descriptions;

cumulative effects are the sum of all present actions and reasonably foreseeable future actions in

combination with the impacts of this project. The purpose of the cumulative effects analysis in the

EA is to evaluate the significance of the No Action’s and Action Alternatives’ contributions to

cumulative effects.

All known baseline activities used by the Interdisciplinary team for their cumulative effects

analyses are located in Appendix D of this EA. The duration and geographic scale of direct,

indirect, and cumulative effects varies, and is addressed by each resource and subject area. In

addition, the type of projects considered under the cumulative analysis varies according to the

resource and nature of project being considered.

The best available science is considered in preparation of this EA; however, what constitutes best

available science might vary over time and across scientific disciplines. As a general matter, we

show consideration of the best available science when we insure the scientific integrity of the

discussions and analyses in the project NEPA document. Specifically, this EA and the

accompanying Project Record identifies methods used, references reliable scientific sources,

discusses responsible opposing views, and discloses incomplete or unavailable information,

scientific uncertainty, and risk (See 40 CFR, 1502.9 (b), 1502.22, 1502.24).

The Project Record references all scientific information considered: papers, reports, literature

reviews, review citations, academic peer reviews, science consistency reviews, and results of

ground-based observations to validate best available science. This EA incorporates by reference

(as per 40 CFR 1502.21) the Project Record, including specialist reports and other technical

documentation. Analysis was completed for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive

(PETS) Species, Botanical Resources (includes PETS species and Noxious Weeds), Wildlife

(includes PETS species), Watershed and Fisheries (includes PETS species), Cultural/Heritage,

and Range Management. Information from these reports has been summarized below in this

Chapter. The Project Record is located at the La Grande District Office.

Rangeland Resource

Affected Environment

The Starkey Allotment is administered by the La Grande Ranger District, Wallowa-Whitman

National Forest (WWNF). The area is managed by the Pacific Northwest Forest and Range

Research Station (PNW) and the WWNF. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and

Oregon State University (OSU) are the primary research partners.

An allotment management plan (AMP) analysis was completed in 2007. Portions of the

allotment were not grazed by permitted livestock at the time of the decision and there now exists

a need to include these pastures as part of the management of the allotment to support ongoing

grazing research and to improve livestock distribution within the allotment boundary. No land


17

outside the current allotment boundary is proposed for new grazing activity and all land proposed

for grazing has been grazed in the past.

Table 9. Starkey Allotment Information

Allotment

Type

Total Allotment

acres

Permitted AUMs

Permitted Numbers

Season of use

Starkey Cattle 30,396 3,711 701 6/15-10/15

Current Management:

The allotment is currently authorized for livestock grazing between the dates of June 16 to

October 15 using a multi-pasture deferred rotation system in which fences separate each of the

pastures.


cow/calf pairs utilizing three separate grazing systems, two permittees inside the 25,000 acre big-

game enclosure/main study area and one permittee outside (Table 10).

Inside the main study area, two permittees, private (399 pair) and OSU (101 pair), are currently

authorized to graze a total of 500 cow-calf pairs between the dates of June 16 and October 15.

These cattle are managed using a five pasture deferred rotation system. A full-time rider is

provided by the permittees to facilitate livestock management during pasture moves and to

manage cattle distribution out of riparian areas on a daily basis.

OSU researchers also manage a herd of 60 pair of livestock within two of the Meadow Creek

pastures where livestock grazing is already authorized.



deferred rotation system.

Table 10. Permitted and Authorized Numbers.

Permittee Permitted Number

Current Authorized

Number

Current Authorized

AUMs

Permit Type

Season of Use

Snow 399 399 2,112 Term 6/16-10/15

Diggins 141 141 736 Term 6/16-10/15

OSU 190 161 607 MOU 6/16-10/15


Management Practices and PACFISH requirements, which have been successful in meeting

and/or moving the allotment toward the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest LRMP goals and

objectives. All Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation biological assessments or biological

opinions will be incorporated into the annual grazing plans and required monitoring.

The grazing season may be adjusted due to resource conditions or unpredictable events such as,

but not limited to, fire, drought, or saturated soil conditions, to meet Forest Plan goals and


18

objectives. The number of days cattle spend on each pasture may be modified annually to meet

goals and objectives.




A variety of livestock and wildlife exclosures are also located within the Starkey allotment.

These exclosures are used for different studies supported by the PNW/ODFW/OSU scientists.

Forest and Rangeland Vegetation

Elevations range from 3600 feet to 5000 feet. Precipitation averages 27 inches annually, of

which half comes in the form of winter snows.

The soils within the Starkey allotment are generally colluvium derived from Columbia River

basalts covered in many locations with volcanic ash cap deposits. These ashy soils are commonly

the most productive growing sites for forest vegetation (Fryxell, 1965). Forest vegetation

includes open and closed mixed conifer stands, upland shrubs, dry meadows, moist meadows and

areas of conifer regeneration. Conifer stands are interspersed with rocky, grass covered slopes;

dry meadows; and moist meadows usually associated with a riparian area. Forestlands are

defined as those areas with at least 10% canopy cover.

Dominant plant communities within the forested type include Douglas-fir/snowberry, ponderosa

pine/Idaho fescue, grand-fir/big huckleberry, Lodgepole pine/grouse huckleberry with a variety of

shrubs and grasses intermixed depending on the soil type, aspect, and density of the forest

canopy.

Riparian plant communities include Douglas-fir/Common Snowberry, Grand-fir/Common

Snowberry, Mountain Alder-Red-osier Dogwood/Mesic Forb and Willow/Aquatic Sedge.

Past timber harvest activities included post-harvest seeding with non-native perennial grasses

which are still present today and provide forage for wildlife and livestock.

Where limited or no canopy exists, rangeland types are predominately shrub-grassland plant

communities and include species such as snowberry, bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, blue

wild rye, Sandberg’s bluegrass, prairie Junegrass, and onespike oatgrass and a variety of forbs

such as camas, mountain pea, lupine, yarrow, and arrowleaf balsamroot. Small moist to wet

meadow areas are found with a variety of sedge and aquatic forbs plant composition.

The area also supports areas of annual grasses most notably the invasive annual African wiregrass

(Ventenata dubia). This annual is unpalatable to wild ungulates and livestock. Its spread across

the Blue Mountains province has been rapid and unchecked. Ventenata is found in areas with

shallower soils which are inundated with water in early spring but dry out as the season

progresses. Range condition seems to be irrelevant to Ventenata as it is found in healthy

bunchgrass stands as well as areas of disturbance and poor range condition.

The project area has been and continues to be grazed by wild ungulates (elk and mule deer).

Many portions of the project area have been grazed by domestic livestock since the early 1900’s.

Effects from livestock can be similar to those of wildlife. While some effects of livestock grazing

are considered acceptable and/or desirable, concentrated use or use that occurs in the same areas

year after year can have undesirable effects.


19

The Starkey allotment area has small to medium sized (10-500 acres) stands of rangeland

vegetation within much larger expanses of forested landscapes, primarily Ponderosa pine and

grand fir/ mixed conifer overstory vegetation.

Transitory Rangeland

Most areas within the project area have experienced past timber harvest, most recently in the

early 2000’s. These harvest activities allowed for the development of transitory rangeland where

forage grasses and shrubs became established in areas that had previously been under closed

forest canopy.

Transitory range is defined as “forested lands that are suitable for grazing for a limited time

following a complete or partial forest removal” (Spreitzer 1985). The increased forage production

made available as a result of past forest management that reduced overstory shading, has allowed

for distribution of ungulates over a larger area within the project boundaries (Hedrick D.W.

1975). The forage produced following development of transitory range is highly variable

depending on site conditions.

Transitory forest range is temporary and becomes less productive as the trees regenerate. Forage

production for ungulates can be expected to peak from a few years to perhaps 20-30 years after

logging. Grass and forb production peaks earlier than shrub production (Bedunah and Willard,

1987).

Through tree regeneration, this condition has been gradually reverting back to a closed canopy

forest and resulting in reduced forage production over these portions of the Starkey allotment.

Proposed vegetation management and prescribed burning would allow retention of understory

vegetation released during forest thinning projects. Many of the mixed conifer stands within the

project area are outside the historic level of canopy closure expected in a stand where natural fire

cycles would have reduced stems per acre and allowed for full canopy closure, precluding

maintenance of understory grasses and shrubs.

Vegetation Condition

Range vegetation assessment was completed during the 2007 AMP analysis. The analysis

showed that range condition was stable or improving on all condition and trend transects that

were re-read. Table 11 displays the results of the assessment as completed in 2005. There were

no condition and trend transects within the pastures proposed for authorization in this analysis.

Table 11. Forage Condition and Trend Ratings Starkey Allotment

Cluster Pasture Type Rating 1980 2005 Trend

3* Campbell FEID/AGSP Forage Soils

Excellent Fair

Excellent Excellent

Stable Upward

34 Half/Moon AGSP/POSA/DAUN Forage Soils

Fair Fair

Fair Good

Stable Upward

65 Bear POSA/DAUN Forage Soils

Excellent Good

Excellent Excellent

Stable Upward

62** Bear AGSP/POSA/DAUN Forage Soils

Excellent Good

Excellent Excellent

Stable Upward

46 Smith/Bally POSA/DAUN Forage Soils

Excellent Excellent

Excellent Excellent

Stable Stable

26*** Burnt Corral AGSP/POSA/DAUN Forage Soils

Excellent Good

Excellent Excellent

Stable Upward


20

*Cluster 3, 1952-1967, Forage quality rating Excellent **Cluster 62, 1960-1967, Forage quality rating Good ***Cluster 26, 1960-1966, Forage quality rating Good

With similar management strategies including the deferment that has been in place for 10-25

years in each of the pastures proposed for authorization, it is expected that forage and soil

conditions within the pasture would be in Fair or better condition as compared to other areas

within the allotment.

Effects of Implementation

Direct and Indirect Effects on Rangeland Resources

Alternative 1

Under this alternative, the current management (no grazing) of the Meadow Creek 3 and 4

Pastures and the Briggs Pasture proposed for authorization of livestock grazing would continue.

The changes in vegetative and riparian condition described here are expected to gradually occur

within a timeframe of 10 to 20 years. Time frames for changes in range condition are influenced

by climate, fire and vegetation management, and big game use.

Within the Starkey allotment, domestic livestock effects on areas of upland and riparian rangeland

vegetation (through grazing and browsing on riparian shrubs, riparian, and upland vegetation, as

well as physical impacts to soil and water) would not occur. Reproductive rate and ability, plant

vigor, and ground cover in some areas would be allowed to proceed at natural rates. This

alternative would allow upland areas in mid to late seral stage plant communities to maintain their

condition over time. Interspersed areas where a conversion from historic plant communities has

resulted in the establishment of annual or non-native perennial grass species would most likely

persist. These areas where a transition has occurred will often result in a new climax plant

community and will generally not able to return to the native pre-disturbance community without

significant restoration. These areas provide early season green forage and are generally sought

out by ungulates.

It is possible that with the absence of livestock grazing in these areas, the increase in annual

grasses would inhibit the rate of perennial grasses to re-occupy the sites. In areas where upland

vegetation indicates a decline in vegetative condition, the absence of livestock could have the

potential for improvement if site conditions are favorable. The potential for introduction and

spread of invasive plant species by domestic livestock would be eliminated, however the potential

for introduction and spread by recreational livestock and wildlife would continue. Areas of soil

compaction caused by past logging activities would remain, although there may be a reduction in

soil compaction caused by livestock around water areas and salting grounds. The riparian areas

accessed by livestock would exhibit a faster rate of recovery. This would be evident by less hoof

action along streams and overall reduced herbivory on shrubs and riparian vegetation. Wildlife

impacts to vegetation and streambanks would remain the same.

Alternative 2

This alternative would authorize livestock grazing within the Meadow Creek pastures 3 and 4 and

Briggs pasture within the Starkey analysis area. The level of authorized use as identified in the

proposed action would be included in the Annual Operating Instructions (AOI).


21

Livestock use within the pastures would be authorized allowing cattle to use the pastures between

the dates of June 16 – October 15 each year. Climatic variations may allow earlier or later

stocking as needed, usually not more than two weeks on either end of the season.

Livestock use would consume forage within each pasture during the time authorized. The level

of forage consumption is evaluated throughout the season. Allowable use standards are described

in the LRMP. Pasture moves are scheduled to allow retention of adequate foliar mass to provide

for the health of the plant and retain forage for wildlife following removal of livestock. Improper

grazing can result in decreased plant vigor and increases in bare soil which can allow for

introduction of invasive species.

Livestock induced streambank alteration would occur causing displacement of soil and

introduction of sediment into stream where stream crossing occurs. This action could indirectly

affect salmonid redds if sedimentation/soil displacement occurs directly above any redd prior to

emergence. Redd surveys will occur in all pastures where occupied salmonid habitat is grazed

prior to July 1. Redds will be protected with either fencing or delay of entry by livestock if

protection is not feasible.

Deferring the periods of time when livestock are grazed in each pasture would allow the existing

vegetation and any vegetation planted during the ongoing restoration efforts to become well

established, however all species ungulate use is an important part of the ongoing research.

Neither Meadow Creek pasture 3, 4 and the Briggs pasture will be grazed season long. Meadow

Creek pasture 3 and 4 would be grazed for 14 days each. The Briggs pasture could be grazed at

any time during the June 16- October 15 period however it is expected that use will occur at the

end of the growing season (September/October) allowing plants to complete a full growing phase

each year contributing to improved plant heath, vigor and reproductive ability.

Throughout the allotment, the proposed management would require active management of cattle

at any given time during the authorized use period. Active management of livestock ensures that

cattle are evenly distributed and rotated through the allotment to reduce the potential for excess

use in any specific location reducing the direct effects of livestock herbivory and reduces the

potential for changes in species composition.

The extensive monitoring associated with the Meadow Creek study will be used to assess the

effect of livestock and other ungulates on a wide range of metrics which will be assessed to

determine appropriate grazing strategies within riparian areas.

Summary of Effects

Impacts to forage would be limited to the timeframes identified in the proposed action for the

Starkey allotment, with particular benefits in the early growing season where season of use can be

varied through the deferred rotation plan proposed. Plants which reproduce through production

of seed would have an opportunity to set seed for increased reproductive ability and different

plants would be grazed from year to year when pastures can be alternated based on range

readiness. Seasonal variation in temperature and spring moisture is expected to occur based on

historic weather variation (anecdotal reference) and allow deferral in some areas. Deferred

grazing systems should continue the improvement shown in plant reproductive ability and vigor.

Areas not considered satisfactory would be expected to show continued improvement toward

desired conditions, if site conditions allow.


22

Active livestock grazing management on the Starkey allotment would increase residual

vegetation where needed, reduce litter accumulations in some areas, lessen amounts of bare

ground, and increase the overall vigor of plants through better distribution of livestock across the

allotment. It is expected that by increasing desired perennial vegetation and improving its vigor,

adequate material is available for trapping sediment in runoff and overland flow events.

Additionally, adequate litter (not excessive) insulates plant crowns and over wintering buds,

protects and covers soil, holds moisture in the ground and allows the plants to continue

photosynthesis for carbohydrate production and storage. Greater carbohydrate storage results in

more roots being produced by each plant. This increases the erosion defensibility and moisture-

holding capability of soils. It also provides a buffer to plants in times of stress (such as drought).

While most pastures will be used after forage plants have reached maturity, some areas may see

use earlier due to elevation differences within the unit. Grazing during the earlier growth period

before seed set may encourage vegetative reproduction through tillering and increased vigor for

bunchgrasses and rhizomatous grasses (Briske and Richards, 1995). (Valentine, et al 1990) found

that grazing which removed biomass prior to the boot stage allowed for increased development of

tillers and increased leaf growth and plant expansion. This earlier (vegetative development)

grazing will not occur on a widespread basis but may occur in some locations.

This alternative responds to periodic disturbances, such as drought or wildfire, in that it provides

for pre-planned management options to such events (such as the deferral of affected pastures, and

the ability to alter the planned make use of pastures scheduled for periodic rest).

Representative key areas or designated monitoring areas (DMAs) have been chosen to show the

current level of utilization or disturbance attributable to livestock grazing and its management

during each grazing season. Monitoring key areas/DMAs and establishing standards by which to

manage provides insurance to all other areas of the pasture where specific monitoring may not

regularly occur.

This system encourages responsible management as it allows for continuation of the existing

levels of grazing where permittees are responsive and preemptive in management of the resources

on the allotments as well as meeting the terms and conditions of their permits. In cases where

permittees are not engaged and adequately managing their livestock, poor performance is

resolved or penalized as appropriate. Managing pastures effectively through the use of regular

livestock herding, salt placement, construction of trails, and regular maintenance of fences and

off-site waster developments would result in an even distribution of livestock and grazing use

across a pasture (Skovlin 1965). Promoting appropriate livestock distribution will allow

previously ungrazed plants to have a greater chance of being grazed (stimulating growth), and

that individually, frequently grazed plants would be grazed fewer times.

Under this alternative, the permittee and range manager can adapt livestock management to meet

the seasonal climatic variations and future forest vegetation changes resulting from fuels

reduction thinning or burning expected over the lifetime of the Starkey AMP. Future

management options within the scope of research needs and LRMP standards and objective that

may be needed to accelerate or adjust management decisions to meet desired conditions and/or

project standards and objectives, will be determined through monitoring.

The direct effects of livestock grazing on forage, soils and riparian areas would be minimized

through monitoring of forage utilization (either herbaceous or woody) or streambank alteration.

If through future monitoring, areas are found to not meet Forest Plan standards and objectives, the

allowable use of forage would be reduced to enable attainment of the Forest Plan standards and


23

objectives. Effectiveness monitoring will determine if the objectives identified are adequately

moving toward meeting the desired condition. Monitoring of key areas/DMAs would provide

feedback to allow for adjusting management of livestock to meet the objectives and desired

condition.

Changes in management utilized to meet research and LRMP standards and objectives would be

determined based on monitoring of the pastures and the permittees ability to meet resource

objectives. If it is found that the permittee is not able to adequately manage the authorized

livestock to meet the utilization standards identified to allow achievement of resource objectives,

more aggressive management in the form of herd management or reductions in authorized use

would occur. Therefore, Alternative 2 would limit grazing impacts to meet Forest Plan standards

and resource objectives.

Areas where forest canopy closure naturally reaches 60 percent and available forage for livestock

decreases would see less livestock use over time. Conversely, the areas where forested vegetation

maintains less that 60 percent canopy closure would likely show an increase in livestock grazing.

Increased dependence on vegetation in these areas could result in declines in the forage condition

if livestock is not managed properly and at the appropriate stocking rate for the available forage.

The effectiveness of the allotment’s management would be measured by including additional

permanent vegetative monitoring plots within the riparian pastures associated with the Meadow

Creek study (pastures 3 and 4). These plots would be installed to establish baseline vegetative

condition and be used to determine trend on representative locations. Canopy cover, species

frequency, and species composition by canopy cover would be measured. Data from these plots

would be used to determine when changes in management are required.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

Suppression of naturally occurring wildfire, intensive and improperly managed livestock grazing

practices, significant increases and fluctuations in certain wildlife species populations, and timber

harvest and silvicultural activities (including associated road construction) over the past 50 to 100

years has changed the pattern of certain riparian and upland vegetation communities, and in some

cases has altered natural functions. Although many of these historic practices have improved

over the past several decades, some effects of these practices are still evident today. Actions that

may contribute to cumulative effects in the Starkey analysis area include timber harvesting,

underburning, noxious weed treatments, maintenance of roads, regulated hunting seasons, and

grazing on adjacent private land (Appendix D).

Ongoing research within the Starkey analysis area includes ungulate herbivory studies, ungulate

distribution studies, transportation and ungulate disturbance studies, various vegetation

monitoring and small mammal habitat observation.

There are no vegetation management projects currently planned within the analysis area. There is

opportunity for future vegetation management in support of silvicultural and forest health study.

Projects generally result in increased areas of transitory range which would increase the forage

available to wildlife if livestock use is not authorized. Based on research need, it is expected that

a large-scale vegetation management project could occur within the project area in the next ten to

fifteen years. Stand management, including thinning and prescribed fire, may be utilized. Under-

burning usually occurs in blocks of approximately 500 to 1000 acres. The objective of these


24

activities is generally to reduce fuel loads within conifer stands. To minimize ground disturbance

from constructing firelines, existing control features such as roads and ridgelines are used to bind

the prescription area, resulting in the burning of intervening rangeland. This would reduce the

amount of fine fuels in these areas. In general, bunchgrasses respond to burning with improved

vigor which attracts an increase in big game and livestock use (Johnson 1998).

Grazing on adjacent private land would likely continue at levels determined by the individual

who manages the private land. Implementation of the no action Alternative 1 would not be

expected to change the effects of past or future management practices and projects. However

recovery or maintenance of herbaceous plant communities in those areas currently ungrazed will

be maintained to a greater extent. For the most part, upland plant communities most likely to be

affected are those on flat or gently sloped ground, relatively close to water, primary entry and exit

gates, and those grazed early in the season when upland grasses are most palatable. Without

livestock grazing there would be a potential for increased amounts of fine fuels in the form of

grasses, forbs and accumulated litter. This could affect future prescribed fire activities in that it

could contribute to the rate of spread and intensity of fire. Riparian habitat, including shrub

recruitment and stream bank stability, would recover at a faster rate, specifically in the streams

where ungulate grazing has been attributed to poor shrub recruitment.

Alternative 2

Under this alternative, livestock would be authorized to graze the existing pastures where

livestock grazing has been previously authorized in addition to the pastures described in

Alternative 2. Rangeland condition in the analysis area as a whole is on an upward trend as

depicted by data collected and described in the existing condition section of this document. In

general, the upward trend in forest and rangeland herbaceous vegetation as well as riparian

condition has occurred with the presence of livestock. Stream surveys confirm that riparian

conditions have shown an improving trend and current restoration has improved pool frequency

and large wood material counts within the stream channels. Most upland vegetation monitoring

plots show stable or upward trends (project file), which is expected to continue with Alternative

2.

The overall upward trend in the sub-watersheds within the Starkey AMP analysis area would

continue when considering the overlapping effects of grazing, ongoing riparian restoration and

potential future vegetation management/prescribed fuels projects (Appendix D). Potential future

vegetation and fuels treatment may result in increased areas of transitory range which would

increase the forage available to be used by livestock. This increased production would allow for

distribution of livestock into areas where they would otherwise be limited by overstory

vegetation. Reducing fuel loads, conifer encroachment in open meadows and opening canopies

would increase understory vegetation, and therefore, could improve livestock and herbivore

distribution.

Bunchgrasses normally respond to burning with improved vigor which attracts an increase in big

game and livestock use (Johnson 1998). This effect has been mitigated when necessary, by

allowing for a rest for one growing season to prevent adverse impacts to the health of the

vegetative communities and soil. This is typically done by changing rotation, herding, or

placement of temporary fencing of small burned areas.

The total amount of transitory rangeland vegetation available for livestock grazing is expected to

decline without future forest vegetation management or wildfire. The Meadow Creek pastures

are largely dominated with overstory coniferous forest and are all becoming reforested at natural


25

rates. It is expected that some level of vegetation management projects would occur within the

life of this analysis although none are planned at this time. Vegetation management projects

would thin the existing forest vegetation and utilize prescribed fire to reduce fuel loading and

overstocked stands. These projects would also be utilized to enhance and develop transitory

rangeland vegetation and allow continued use of these areas. The Briggs pasture is largely

bunchgrass and conifer/bunchgrass dominated. This area is not expected to be part of any

vegetation management other than prescribed fuels burning.

The potential for improper or unregulated grazing management and timber harvest practices on

adjacent private lands, together with effects of grazing on public lands, could increase sediment

delivery to streams caused by hoof action or riparian herbivory. It is unknown how many acres of

private lands adjacent to the Starkey allotment is currently grazed by livestock and what the

current condition of these lands is in compared to the public lands. Observation and local

knowledge of the area supports the assumption that nearly all of the private lands adjacent to the

Starkey allotment are grazed by livestock. Appropriate management of the NFS lands should

allow for retention of soil in the upper watersheds and reduce the potential for movement of

sediment above what would be expected in near natural systems.

Effects of Climate Change

Livestock may have many direct and indirect impacts on climate change. According to Brown et

al. (2009), methane gas is considered a greenhouse gas, and has increased within the atmosphere

as a result of ruminant animals, the burning of natural gas, and emissions from landfills.

Approximately 18 percent of agriculturally emitted greenhouse gasses are from grazed lands, and

is not representative of carbon stored within the soils and forests (USDA 2008). Some studies

have found limited to large reductions in soil carbon and increases in carbon dioxide flux with

grazing (Hamferkamp and Macneil 2004 and Welker et al. 2004). Studies involving modeling

and remotely sensed data indicate that proper grazing on rangelands can improve ecosystem

production as measured by soil carbon storage (Li, et al. 2007, Steinfeld and Wassenaar 2007,

Reeder et al. 2004, Schuman et al. 2002). Additional studies similarly conclude that certain levels

of grazing may even increase carbon sequestration (Hellquist et al. 2007, Derner et al. 2006 and

2005, LeCain et al. 2001, Ganjegunte et al 2005, Manley et al. 2005, Reeder et al. 2004, Schuman

et al. 2002).

Given the above information, it can be assumed that there is variability in carbon storage and

landscape carbon storage response to grazing pending land type and local conditions (Derner et

al. 2006 and Henderson et al. 2004). However, literature research consistently suggested that

management practices which maintain or move plant associations to satisfactory rangeland

conditions appear to be consistent with maintaining soil organic pool, and therefore soil carbon

sinks (Henderson et al. 2004, Brown and Thrope 2008, and Sharrow 2008).

According to Brown et al. (2009), “evaluating rangeland ecosystem resilience generally involves

defining the capability of an ecosystem or community to withstand stress and/or disturbance and

recover to its original condition. Some rangelands are quite resilient if current disturbances and

stresses mimic those in their evolutionary history. However, disturbances tend to interact

different as soils, vegetation and climate change. It will be impossible to assess the impact of

global change on rangeland ecosystems without high quality, consistent accessible soils and

vegetation data and models that describe how changes occur in response to stress and

disturbance”.


26

At this point in time, there is not any scientific data on the impacts of climate changes within the

ecosystems present on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Therefore, it is difficult to address

how livestock grazing should be altered to compensate for climate change conditions. Our

current management protocols allow the Forest Service and the Range Specialists to alter grazing

management if a trend change in resource conditions is observed. Furthermore, annual and long

term monitoring protocols are in place to identify when vegetation dynamics and rangeland

conditions need management changes. Alternative 2 address changes when detected by

implementing the standards and guidelines of the Forest Plan and adaptive management, both of

which will allow for the range managers to recognize and address trends regardless of the cause.

Compliance with Forest Plan: Alternative 2 meets Forest Plan goals and objectives, including specifically those for Rangeland

Management and the protection and promotion of research required under management area 14.

Alternative 1 would not promote research opportunities within the pastures proposed for research

in this project. It also meets the goals for local community stability (USDA Forest Service 1998).

Aquatic and Water Resources


The description of watershed and fisheries resources as well as the analysis of expected and

potential effects for each alternative were assessed using field surveys, water quality databases,

supporting literature and professional judgement.

Aquatic Habitat

Table 12 below summarizes additional pastures and acres in the proposed action (Alternative 2)

and additional miles of stream by stream category within the allotment. The proposed changes

would add 2.5 miles of Category 1 fish bearing stream in Meadow Creek and 0.7 miles of

Category 1 fish bearing stream in Battle Creek, which is a tributary to Meadow Creek. These

portions of Meadow Creek and Battle have not previously been within pasture in the Starkey

AMP.

Table 12. Alternative 2 pastures and streams within the Starkey AMP

Pasture Acres Added Category 1-perennial

fish bearing

Category 2-

perennial non-fish

bearing

Category 4-

intermittent

Meadow #3 621 1.1 1.0 2.5

Meadow #4 1029 1.5 1.2 3.9

Briggs 448 0.7 0 1.4

Total 2098 3.3 2.2 7.8

Table 13 summarizes the addition miles of fish distribution, stream, and species in each of the 3

pastures that would be added to the Starkey Allotment. Acres in the new pastures in Alternative 2

would add 3.3 miles of designated critical habitat (DCH) for Snake River Basin (SRB) summer

steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and redband trout (O.mykiss gibbsi). It would also add 2.6

miles of DCH for Snake River spring Chinook (O. tshawytscha). SRB steelhead and Chinook and

their DCH are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).


27

Table 13. Alternative 2 miles of fish distribution and species

Pasture New Streams

Added

Miles Distribution Added to Starkey

Allotment

Redband Steelhead Chinook

Meadow #3 Meadow Creek 1.1 1.1 1.1

Meadow #4 Meadow Creek 1.5 1.5 1.5

Briggs Battle Creek .7 .7 0

Total 3.3 3.3 2.6

Of the approximately 13 miles of streams and portions of streams that would be added to the

AMP in Alternative 2, 3.3 miles are fish bearing stream in Meadow Creek and Battle Creek

(Table 13). Habitat surveys were conducted in these creeks in 2013 and 2014 (Table 14). These

surveys were conducted after completion of restoration projects which took place in Battle Creek

in 2012 and Meadow Creek in 2012 and 2013. Stream restoration projects have increased number

of pieces of large wood and pools/mile have almost doubled in Meadow Creek. Meadow Creek

and Battle Creek now meet the Riparian Management Objective (RMO) for large wood and stable

banks see Table 14. The width to depth ratio of 16.7 for Battle Creek exceeds the PACFISH

RMO of <10, however Rosgen B3 stream types are expected to have a width to depth ratio of >12

with an average of 18.8. The width to depth ratio in Battle Creek is within the expected values for

B3 stream types. The width to depth ratio of 40.3 on Meadow Creek exceeds the PACFISH RMO

and Rosgen C3 stream types, which are expected to have a width to depth ration >12 with an

average of 29.3.

For pebble count surveys a minimum of 100 pieces of substrate are measured at each transect.

Transects are from bankfull to bankfull. In Meadow Creek, 8 transects over 7.1 miles of stream

were collected. The range was 6.0% to 25.5% in the 8 transects. Battle Creek had 2 reaches and 4

transects. The average percent fines was 31.9% and range was 22.4% to 58.6%. There is no RMO

for fines; the National Marine Fisheries Service however, in the Matrix of Pathways and

Indicators, has a range of criteria for sediment where 12-20% fines is considered At Risk and

>20% is considered Not Properly Functioning for water quality (NMFS 1996).

Table 14. Meadow Creek and Battle Creek stream survey results

Stream/Year

Surveyed

Survey

Length

(miles)

Pools

(#/mile)

Wetted

Width

(ft)

Stable

Banks

(%)

W/D

Ratio

LWD

(pcs

/mi)

%

Fines

<6mm

Average

gradient

Dominant

Substrate

Rosgen

Type

Meadow

Creek/2014 7.1 29 13.7 96.8 40.3 70

29.3% 0.8% cobble B3

Battle

Creek/2013

2.5 38 4.9 98.5 16.7 52 31.9% 3.5% gravel C4

A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been

developed for the Upper Grande Ronde Basin, and was approved by EPA in May of 2000. The

Upper Grande Ronde Basin TMDL applies to streams that are already in the Starkey Allotment

and would have additional length of stream in the case of Meadow Creek that are being added to

the Starkey Allotment. Meadow Creek, Bear Creek and Burnt Corral, are on the ODEQ 303 (d)

list due to water quality standards exceedances for temperature.


28

Riparian Plant Associations

Riparian plant associations were determined following Crowe and Clausnitzer (1997) Mid-

Montane Wetland Plant Associations of the Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National

Forests. The riparian plant associations in streams within the proposed additional pastures

Meadow Creek #3 and #4 and Briggs are show below in Table 15.

Table 15. Alternative 2 riparian plant associations by stream

Stream Name Plant Association

Battle Creek Ponderosa Pine/Common Snowberry-Floodplain

Meadow Creek

Lower- Mountain Alder-Common Snowberry Upper- Lodgepole Pine/Aquatic Sedge

Lodgepole Pine/Mountain Alder/Mesic Forb Intermixed- Engelmann Spruce/Columbia Brome

Utilization Monitoring

Past utilization monitoring found an area of overuse in Meadow Creek Pasture #2 in 2012 where

utilization standards for terrace stubble height was exceeded by 0.5 inches and shrub utilization

was exceeded by 10%. In all other monitoring years, 2009-2014, the standards were met in

Meadow Creek pastures #1 and #2 and all other pastures monitored in the Starkey Allotment.

Listed Fish Species

Summer Steelhead (O. mykiss) and their Designated Critical Habitat

The NMFS published a final rule listing steelhead in the Snake River ESU as a threatened species

under the ESA August 18, 1997 (62 FR 43937). This ruling became final on October 17, 1997.

Critical habitat for steelhead in the Snake River and Mid-Columbia evolutionary significant units

was designated September 2, 2005 and became effective January 2, 2006. Designated critical

habitat for steelhead is located on both private land and National Forest.

Adult steelhead arrive in the Upper Grande Ronde River Basin in early spring, and spawning

activity typically occurs March through May, with the peak occurring in late April and May. The

eggs have a short incubation period, one to two months depending on water temperature.

Steelhead for the Upper Grande Ronde River Basin emerge from redds as fry from May to June.

They then rear in their natal streams for an average of two years. Steelhead juveniles then migrate

to the ocean, leaving in March through May with the peak migration occurring in May.

Steelhead Designated Critical Habitat includes all spawning and rearing habitat.

There are two streams within the proposed action that support summer steelhead, Meadow Creek

and Battle Creek. The additional pastures in Alternative 2 add stream miles containing summer

steelhead (Table 12).

Spring Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Designated Critical Habitat

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published a final rule listing spring/summer

Chinook salmon in the Snake River Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) as a threatened species

(57 FR 14653) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This ruling became final May 22,


29

1992. Critical Habitat was designated for spring/summer Chinook salmon December 28, 1993

(58 FR 68543).

Most adult spring/summer Chinook salmon destined for the Upper Grande Ronde River Basin

enter the Columbia Basin in April and May. By June or July it is assumed that most adults are

holding in the Upper Grande Ronde River Basin near spawning tributaries. Spawning usually

occurs in late August through September. Eggs incubate in the gravel over the winter and fry

emerge between March and May. It is assumed that most spring Chinook salmon juveniles rear in

the Upper Grande Ronde River Basin for one year before migrating out to the ocean as smolts in

March through May.

Spring Chinook Designated Critical Habitat includes all accessible stream miles above known

occupied habitat.

Meadow Creek on the Starkey allotment is considered rearing habitat and DCH for Chinook

salmon. There is no Chinook spawning in Meadow Creek.

Redband trout (O. mykiss gibbsi)

Redband trout are on the Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List. Redband trout spawn, rear,

incubate and emerge from gravels at the same time as steelhead. Therefore, redband trout

spawning activity occurs from March through May, with the peak occurring late-April and May.

The eggs have a short incubation period, one to two months depending on water temperature and

fry emerge from redds from May through June.

Aquatic Management Indicator Species

The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan identifies two fish

species as Management Indicator Species (MIS). These include the redband /rainbow trout and

steelhead (USDA 1990). These species were selected as they were considered to be good

indicators of the maintenance and quality of instream habitats. These habitats were identified as

high quality water and fishery habitat.

In general, redband trout/rainbow trout and steelhead have similar stream and riparian ecosystem

requirements. However, there are some differences in habitat utilized by steelhead and redband

trout/rainbow trout at various life stages across the forest. Because the habitat requirements for

each species are generally similar and often overlap, they were collectively chosen to represent

healthy stream and riparian ecosystems on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

Riparian ecosystems occur at the margins of standing and flowing water, including intermittent

stream channels, ephemeral ponds, and wetlands. The aquatic MIS were selected to indicate

healthy stream and riparian ecosystems across the landscape. Attributes of a healthy aquatic

ecosystem includes: cold and clean water; clean channel substrates; stable streambanks; healthy

streamside vegetation; complex channel habitat created by large wood, cobbles, boulders,

streamside vegetation, and undercut banks; deep pools; and waterways free of barriers. Healthy

riparian areas maintain adequate temperature regulation, nutrient cycles, natural erosion rates, and

provide for instream wood recruitment.

The area of analysis for Forest Service MIS in this project in Alternative 2 is miles of steelhead

and redband trout habitat in the additional pastures proposed to be added to the Starkey

Allotment, Meadow Creek #3, #4 and Briggs pastures. The fish bearing streams or portions of


30

fish bearing streams in the project area that have MIS species include Meadow Creek and Battle

Creek.

Habitat for MIS species, steelhead and rainbow trout and redband trout, exists within the project

area and is included in the analysis area. Table 16 below describes the MIS, the habitat they

represent, and whether they are present in the project analysis area.

Table 16. MIS and habitat description for Starkey AMP project area

MIS Habitat Description Habitat Present in

Analysis Area Species Present in

Analysis Area

Rainbow Trout/ Redband Trout Water quality/ Fish Habitat

Yes Yes

Steelhead Yes Yes

Methods used to document fish distribution include field presence/absence surveys and aquatic

inventory surveys, escapement data and redd surveys

Steelhead

The viability criteria defined by the Interior Columbia Technical Review Team (ICRT) reflects

the hierarchical structure of salmonid populations and species. The criteria describe the

biological characteristics for the species, Major Population Groups (MPGs) and independent

populations that are consistent with a high probability of long-term persistence. The ICTRT used

the viability criteria to assess the extinction risk based on four different viable salmonid

population (VSP) parameters: abundance, productivity, spatial structure and diversity. The

ICTRT also assessed the “gap” between the populations’ current status and the desired status for

delisting based on the viability criteria. The ICTRT used the information from the population –

level assessments to evaluate viability at the next hierarchical level, the MPG. All Steelhead

MPGs need to meet the ICTRTs viability criteria for the ESU to be rated viable.

The Lower Grande Ronde population of the Grande Ronde MPG currently does not meet the

minimum abundance and productivity values that represent levels needed to achieve a viable

population (95% probability of persistence over 100 years for the population). The current status

of the Lower Grande Ronde River Steelhead population for risk of extinction is Low to Moderate

with the desired status of Low or Very Low Risk.

The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is utilizing this viability assessment for Snake River

Steelhead populations for the purposes of MIS assessment.

Redband/Rainbow Trout

Redband trout are sensitive to changes in water quality and habitat. Adult redband trout are

generally associated with pool habitat, although other life stages require a wide array of habitats

for rearing, hiding, feeding and resting. Pool habitat is important refugia during low water

periods. An increase in sediment in the stream channel lowers spawning success and reduces the

quality and quantity of pool habitat. Other important habitat features include healthy riparian

vegetation, undercut banks and large wood debris. The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is

utilizing this fish/habitat relationship to provide the basis for assessment of redband trout

populations for the purposes of MIS assessment.


31

In the absence of redband trout population trend data, the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest has

measured key habitat variables, and then assessed changes expected to occur as a result of project

activities. This MIS analysis assumes that activities that maintain and improve aquatic/riparian

habitat will provide for resident fish population viability on Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

lands.

Habitat Condition – The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest has completed Forest Service

Region 6 Stream Surveys in the fish bearing streams in the additional acres analyzed for the

Starkey AMP project area. Measured habitat data is summarized in Table 3 for Meadow Creek

and Battle Creek. The stream survey protocol (based on the Hankin and Reeves survey

methodology) guides collection of field data for stream channels, riparian vegetation, and fish

presence. Data collected from these surveys are then compared to habitat indicator benchmarks as

outlined in PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion RMOs (summarized in Table 17, 18).

Table 17. MIS habitat summary for Meadow Creek

Habitat Element Value Rating

Road Density (open and closed) 3.2 mi/mi2 (watershed) Not Properly Functioning

Stream Temperature <64.40F (RMO value) Not Properly Functioning

Streambank Stability >90% (RMO value) Properly Functioning

Pool Frequency/Quality 56 pools/mi (RMO value) Not Properly Functioning

Large Wood >20 pcs/mi (RMO value) Functioning At Risk

Riparian Zone Vegetation

Loss due past management

activities including road

building, timber harvest and

grazing. Also impact from

wildlife brose.

Functioning At Risk

Fish Barrier Number culverts impacting

fish passage Properly Functioning

The 2014 post restoration habitat survey found 29 pools per mile, 96.86% stable streambanks,

and 70 pieces of large wood per mile. Stream restoration that took place in 2012 and 2103 along 7

miles of Meadow Creek has increased the number of pieces of large wood, pools per mile and

percent of stable streambanks. In addition riparian planting of woody shrubs has improved

streambank and riparian condition and is expected to have a positive effect on stream temperature

as shade producing vegetation grows. RMOs for stable streambanks and large wood per mile of

stream have been attained. The width to depth ratio of 40.3 exceeds the PACFISH RMO of <10.

However, according to Rosgen (1996) C3 stream types are expected to have a width to depth ratio

>12 with an average of 33.2, and C4 stream types are expected to have a width to depth ratio >12

with an average of 29.3.

A stream restoration project was implemented on the entire length of Meadow Creek on the

Starkey Allotment in 2012 and 2103. Restoration included the addition of large wood, deciduous

and conifer vegetation plantings, and road decommissioning and slope rehabilitation.


32

Table 18. MIS habitat summary for Battle Creek

Habitat Element Value Rating

Road Density (open and

closed) 3.2 mi/mi2 (subwatershed) Not Properly Functioning

Stream Temperature <64.40F (RMO value) Not Properly Functioning

Streambank Stability >90% (RMO value) Properly Functioning

Pool Frequency/Quality 56 pools/mi (RMO value) Not Properly Functioning

Large Wood >20 pcs/mi (RMO value) Properly Functioning

Riparian Zone Vegetation

Loss due past management activities including

road building, timber harvest and grazing. Also

impact from wildlife brose.

Functioning At Risk

Fish Barrier Number of culverts impacting fish passage Properly Functioning

The 2013 post restoration stream habitat survey found 38 pools per mile, 98.5% stable

streambanks, and 52 pieces of large wood per mile (this is an increase from 4 pieces of large

woody debris per mile pre restoration) (Table 3). The RMOs for pieces of large wood per mile

and stable stream banks meet the standards in Battle Creek. The width to depth ratio exceeds the

PACFISH RMO of <10, however, is within the Rosgen B3 stream types channel width to depth

ratio an average.

A railroad grade was constructed adjacent to Battle Creek in the early 1900’s and large conifers

were removed from the stream bottom and hillslopes. The Battle Creek restoration project

implemented in 2012 and 2013 removed railroad grade, added large wood to the stream channel,

planted deciduous vegetation and conifers, and constructed 1.5 miles of livestock exclosures. The

livestock fencing excludes livestock from 0.9 miles of Battle Creek in the Campbell Pasture and

0.6 miles of Battle Creek in the Briggs Pasture.

Riparian condition and associated stream shade is expected to improve conditions for riparian

vegetation and stream temperature as vegetation that was planted establishes and grows. Pool

quality is expected to improve over time as scour pools develop where large wood was placed in

the channel to enhance pool habitat.

Habitat data from Battle Creek and Meadow Creek stream surveys show habitat in fair to poor

condition, with some RMOs functioning appropriately. The amount of MIS habitat in these three

subwatersheds represents far less than 1% of the overall miles of redband/rainbow and steelhead

trout MIS habitat verified on the Wallowa Whitman National Forest. There are 1,310 miles of

redband/ rainbow trout MIS verified habitat on the Wallowa Whitman National Forest (See Table

18). Based on GIS analysis of Region 6 Fish Distribution Data, the amount of verified MIS

habitat in the project area is <1% of the total miles verified on the Wallowa Whitman National

Forest.


33

Table 19. MIS distribution in the project area in relation to the WWNF

MIS

Forest

Distribution

(mi)*

MIS in Analysis

Area (mi)

Proportion of MIS habitat in

Project Area out of total on

Forest

Redband Trout/ Rainbow

Trout 1,310 3.3 <1%

Steelhead 990 3.3 <1%

*Miles calculated for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

Effects Analysis

Introduction

The following is the analysis of the effects on fisheries and watershed resources of authorizing

additional grazing pastures within the Starkey Allotment Management Plan (herein referred to as

Starkey AMP). All changes to the Starkey Allotment are in the Meadow Creek watershed

(1706010402) and are specifically located within the Middle Meadow Creek subwatershed

(170601040202) and Lower Meadow Creek subwatershed (170601040206).

This section will be divided into the following sections to describe the effects of the project on:

A. Water Quality

B. Fish Habitat and Populations

C. Aquatic Management Indicator Species (MIS)

D. Riparian Management Objectives

A. Water Quality

Direct and Indirect Effects to Water Quality

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative

This alternative constitutes the "No Action" required by NEPA. Grazing would continue as

authorized under the 2007 AMP within the Starkey Allotment and no grazing would occur in the

currently vacant Meadow Creek #3 and #4 and Briggs pastures. This alternative forms the

baseline for comparison of the action alternative.

The existing management for the Starkey Allotment is described under Alternative 1 in the

alternative description section of this EA. A full-time rider is provided by the permittees to

facilitate livestock management during pasture moves and to manage cattle distribution out of

riparian areas on a daily basis.


Management Practices and PACFISH requirements. Using these design features in the

management of the Starkey Allotment has been successful in meeting and/or moving the

allotment toward the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

(Forest Plan) goals and objectives. All ESA consultation biological assessments or biological

opinions will continue to be incorporated into the annual grazing plans and required monitoring.


34




In the no action alternative, the Briggs pasture, which has not been grazed for at least 10 years

and Meadow Creek pastures 3 and 4, which have not been grazed since 1991 would continue to

be unauthorized for grazing. Stream banks and riparian areas would be maintained at current

conditions.

Summary - Authorized grazing would not occur on the additional 2,098 acres on the Briggs and

Meadow Creek #3 and #4 pastures. This would likely result in the long term maintenance and

more rapid recovery and improvement of stream and riparian conditions compared to Alternative

2.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Additional Grazing would be authorized in two Meadow Creek Pastures (3 and 4) and Briggs

Pasture adding 2,098 acres to the existing 30,181 acres authorized in the Starkey Allotment

Management Plan (AMP). Stocking levels would stay the same, there would be no additional

cattle numbers with the addition of acres. There are over 13 miles of stream within these three

additional pastures (see Table 12), 3.3 miles are Category 1, fish bearing streams. Exclosure fence

exists on 0.6 miles of Battle Creek in the Briggs pasture to keep cattle out of the stream and

riparian area. There would be no direct effects to water quality by implementing Alternative 2,

therefore effects to water quality and channel morphology described in this section are all indirect

in nature. There are no additional 303 (d) listed streams being added to Starkey AMP allotment

with the implementation of Alternative 2.

Unless managed carefully, grazing can generate substantial impact on the riparian areas,

particularly through vegetation reduction and trampling of stream banks (Trimble and Mendel

1995). According to Ohmart (1996), the impacts of livestock grazing on riparian areas are largely

from unmanaged grazing. Unmanaged livestock grazing is the practice of releasing livestock into

an area without any planned riparian growing season rest or measures designed to protect

vegetation health along the stream or on its floodplain. If livestock are allowed to freely graze

they will likely spend a disproportionate amount of time in riparian areas. Unmanaged grazing

often results in overuse of riparian areas, impairment of plant species vigor, and physical damage

to the stream channel and banks.

Platts (1991) highlights three major considerations for conserving resources and maintaining or

restoring riparian areas. First, grazing management must consider the needs of those plant species

that establish riparian function. Second, there must be adequate plant cover to attenuate high

stream flows. Third, protection from grazing is required during vulnerable periods when

conditions are wet and banks are saturated and easily damaged, or in autumn when woody species

are most vulnerable to browsing. The literature emphasizes several options (Platts and Nelson

1989, Kinch 1989, Clary and Webster 1989) for developing riparian grazing strategies that

address the conditions highlighted by Platts (1991). These include:

Control of animal distribution and access to water.

Control of grazing intensity (forage utilization).

Control of grazing frequency and rest periods.

Control of timing of grazing use (season).

Total exclusion of grazing.


35

The additional pastures proposed to be added to the Starkey AMP would use a variety of grazing

management methods and techniques for maintaining or restoring riparian areas as described

above, and would be consistent with Forest Plan and PACFISH/INFISH direction. Grazing

management methods and techniques that will be used in the pastures in Starkey include:

forage utilization standards

distribution of livestock

riparian exclosures

pasture management

Forage Utilization Standards

Forest Plan standards for forage utilization would be used in the three pastures being added to the

allotment as described under the Proposed Action and Alternatives section of this EA. Utilization

would be measured in designated monitoring areas (DMA) in the allotment. DMAs are those

areas located in suitable locations on allotments where excessive forage utilization first becomes

evident, or in areas where forage utilization may be causing resource conflicts. There is one DMA

on Battle Creek in the Briggs pasture and one DMA site in Meadow Creek pastures #3 and #4 on

Meadow Creek. In addition Multiple Indicator Monitoring of Stream Channels and Streamside

Vegetation (MIM) sites were added in Meadow Creek Pasture #3 and #4 and baseline data was

collected in 2015.

Shrub utilization is estimated by percent use and use class (described in the Management

Requirements, Constraints and Mitigation Measures section). Studies have shown that it is

extremely difficult and time consuming to accurately measure utilization (browsing) impacts on

many riparian shrubs (Hall 1999). Until more acceptable methodologies are developed, it is

suggested that only a general estimate on overall browsing on woody plants be recorded

(Winward 2000).

A 40% utilization standard for shrubs is considered light use (Burton et al. 2012). Research has

shown that heavy to extreme use by grazing animals every year is detrimental to plant health,

while light to moderate use maintains overall plant health (Thorne et al. 2005). In general, there is

a reduction in seed production with utilization levels above 55 percent (Winward 2000). There

can be a reduction in the overall health of plants, including size and root strength, when heavy

and severe utilization levels are sustained over time.

Clary and Webster (1989) found that the reduction of shrubs in the riparian plant community

appeared to be due to grazing of young reproduction age classes rather than due to the mechanical

damage to the older shrub age classes by rubbing and bedding. It is important that measurements

or estimates be taken on the younger aged shrubs since these plants are most likely to have, and

show, impacts from browsing (Winward 2000). If there is sustained recruitment of shrubs and

trees, an area will maintain or eventually support appropriate amounts of woody plants to provide

a naturally functioning system. This demonstrates the importance of monitoring amount of

livestock use on seedlings and young age classes of shrubs for continued recruitment into the

riparian plant community needed for streambank stability, channel stability, streamshade, and

water quality.

Measurement of the age class distribution can provide an evaluation of whether management is

satisfactory to maintain or eventually reach appropriate coverage’s and densities of woody species

capable of being present on that area (Winward 2000). It is assumed that if management is such

that sustained recruitment is in progress, eventually that area will support appropriate amounts of


36

woody species needed to provide a naturally functioning complex. A measurement of age class

distribution can indicate whether current management is allowing an adequate amount of

recruitment to sustain or recover the woody component in a particular complex.

Stubble height has been shown to be related to two areas of concern (University of Idaho Stubble

Height Review Team 2004):

The effect of grazing on the physiological health of the individual plant, and

the ability of the vegetation to provide streambank protection and to filter out and trap

sediment from overbank flows.

Clary and Leiniger (2000) concluded that a streamside stubble height of approximately 10 cm

(four inches) may be near optimal in many, but not all situations when considering a number of

riparian issues such as: maintaining forage vigor, entrapping and stabilizing sediment under

inundated flow, trampling of streambanks, sustaining forage intakes and cattle gains, and

diversion of willow browse. In some situations, 7 cm or even less stubble height may provide for

adequate riparian ecosystem function, while under other conditions 15-20 cm of stubble height

may be required to reduce willow browsing.

The suggestion of a specific streamside stubble height is for the purpose of a starting point when

initiating improved riparian management that can be changed as monitoring indicates. Hall and

Bryant (1995) found that cattle preference switched to shrubs as stubble height approached 3

inches. Additional studies in the laboratory setting suggest that flexible vegetation with stubble

heights ranging from one to 15 and up to 20 cm (0.4 to 5.9 and 7.9 inches) could be the most

effective for the streambank building process within a single sedimentation event (Clary et al.

1996, Thorton et al. 1997). Field studies in Nevada by Bell (1998) tested four residual vegetation

heights of 0, 5, 10 cm (0, 2, and 3.9 inches) and unclipped (about 30 cm or 11.8 inches) stubble

heights. The study found that in the second year of the study that the 5 centimeter height (2

inches) often captures significantly more sediment than other treatments. Additional field studies

in Wyoming by Rumsey (1996) tested 0, 1, 8, and 15 cm (0, 0.4, 3.1, and 5.9 inches) stubble

heights. He found that in years following strong floods the 8 and 15 cm (3.1 and 5.9 inches)

stubble heights appear to stabilize the greatest amount of sediment. Clary (1999) found that

stubble heights of 10 to 14 cm (3.9 to 5.5 inches) allowed for streambank recovery, but at a

slower rate than occurred under no grazing.

Pasture Rotation

Livestock management on Starkey allotment utilizes a summer grazing/deferred rotation strategy.

Livestock are moved through the allotment pastures in a manner that allows achievement of

Forest Plan standards and permits the maintenance of basic needs of the herbaceous forage and

browse plants as well as soil and water resources. Livestock use is alternated between pastures to

allow for a different first and last pasture each year. The pasture rotation for the Starkey

Allotment is designed to limit the amount of days and manage the number of cattle on each

pasture in the allotment. It also controls the timing and placement of cows within the allotment so

that sensitive resources can be avoided during vulnerable time periods.

Distribution of Livestock

Distribution of cattle across the landscape is affected by abiotic factors (slope and distance from

water) and biotic factors (forage quality and quantity, species composition, plant morphology, and

canopy cover) (Senft et al. 1987, Smith 1988). Muegler (1965) and Cook (1966) also list dense


37

shrub cover and distance to salt as factors affecting domestic livestock distribution. Social

interactions between individual livestock can act to influence livestock distribution (Harris et al.

2002). Subgroups of animals use different areas of landscape than other subgroups that form herd

units (Howery et al. 1996, Roath and Kruger 1982).

Parsons et al. (2003) found that the season of use affected livestock distribution patterns

throughout their study. During early summer, cattle were consistently observed further from the

stream at any given hour than during late summer. During early season grazing (early April

through mid-July), livestock can be drawn to the uplands by succulent, herbaceous forage and

cool temperatures that discourage cattle from loitering in riparian areas and where warmer

temperatures in the uplands serve as an attractant to grazing (Gillen et al. 1985, Clary and

Webster 1989, Kinch 1989, Clary and Booth 1993). Midseason or hot season grazing occurs

from mid-July through late September. During this period, the increased maturity of upland

vegetation and increased temperatures can combine to drive livestock out of upland areas and

congregate in the cooler riparian areas (Siekert et al. 1985). During late season grazing

(September through November), upland vegetation can be very mature and has a lower

palatability than riparian vegetation (DelCurto et al. 2005).

Managers can increase uniformity of grazing and protect sensitive rangeland by changing

attributes of the pasture or by modifying animal behavior (Bailey 2004). Allotment and pasture

management within the Starkey Allotment include the use of off-site water developments, use of

salt, and fencing (discussed in the following section). The modification of cattle behavior

includes low stress herding to move cattle away from stream and riparian areas and facilitate

uniform distribution across pastures in combination with off-site water sources and salt

placement. A land manager can improve utilization on less preferred sites by strategically

locating water and salt facilities (Miller and Kruger 1976).

Management on the Starkey AMP area uses a combination of fencing, salting, herding, and off-

site water sources to distribute livestock uniformly across pastures and allotment.

Off-stream Water Sources

Cattle distribution is largely determined by the availability of water (Miller and Kruger 1976,

Gillen et al. 1985, Pinchak et al. 1991). Ganskopp (2001) found that the movement of drinking

water was the most effective tool for altering the distribution of cattle. There are 89 off-stream

water sources for livestock on the Starkey Allotment.

Sheffield et al. (1997) found that the presence of an off-site water source for grazing cattle

reduced the time which they spent drinking from the stream. When given the choice, cattle were

observed to drink from a spring fed water trough 92% of the time, as compared to the time they

spent drinking from the stream. Sheffield also found that when an off-stream water source was

present primarily during the summer and fall period, cattle were not observed to spend large

portions of the day standing in streams. In conclusion, Sheffield noted that the study was

conducted during the warmer summer months of the year, during which greater sediment,

nutrient, and bacteria concentrations are expected, and therefore results of the presence of off-site

water sources was conservative.

Historic research and experience has shown that stock water developments do divert livestock use

improving grazing distribution and forage management flexibility (Chamberlain and Doverspike

2001).


38

Clawson (1993) found that an off-stream water development would reduce water quality impacts

in a mountainous riparian zone during the summer months. After the installation of the watering

trough, the cattle used the stream significantly less. There was an 85% decrease in time spent in

the stream and 53% reduction in the time cattle spent in an adjacent streamside area. Miner et al.

(1992) observed that cows spent an average of 25.6 minutes per day in the stream when it was the

only source of water. However, if an off-stream tank was available, cows spent 1.6 minutes per

day in the stream.

The use of an off-stream watering source without fencing has shown promise as an alternative to

exclusion fencing (Miner et al. 1992, Clawson 1993, Godwin and Miner 1996, Sheffield et al.

1997, Porath et al. 2002, Veira and Liggins 2002). This form of management allows the use of

the riparian area for grazing while maintaining its environmental functionality (McIver 2004).

Off-site water developments have been effective in decreasing impacts to streambanks and water

quality in the Starkey allotment.

Sheffield (1997) found that the use of off-site water sources decreased streambank loss due to

bank sloughing by cattle by 77%, and significantly reduced the concentration in total suspended

solids as a result of the reduction of streambank erosion.

The Sheffield study also found that the installation of off-stream water sources was effective in

reducing the concentration of fecal coliform. Concentrations of fecal coliform and fecal

streptococci were reduced by an average of 51% and 77% respectively. The presence of an off-

stream water source for grazing cattle greatly reduced the impact which grazing cattle had upon

streambank erosion and water quality. The results of this study indicate that off-stream water

sources for grazing cattle would be effective BMPs for reducing streambank erosion as well as

sediment-bound pollutants and fecal bacteria production from smaller order streams. Godwin and

Miner (1996) found that animals with access to alternate water spent significantly less time at the

stream than those with no water trough. This response decreases direct fecal contamination of the

stream, because more fecal matter is deposited farther from the stream. It also creates more

opportunity for riparian vegetation to filter bacteria, nitrogen, and phosphorous present in the

fecal matter.

Salt Placement

Salt placement in upland areas in combination with off-site water developments has been an

effective technique in facilitating distribution away from stream and riparian areas. Porath et al.

(2002) compared two treatments; one without off-stream water and salt, and one with off-stream

water and salt during a period spanning from mid-July to late August in the Wallowa Mountains

of Oregon. Results of the study indicate that cattle with access to off-stream water and salt

displayed a more uniform average distance from the stream throughout the day compared to cattle

without off-stream water or salt, which began the day farther from the stream, but moved closer

to the stream as the day progressed. McInnis and McIver (2001) found that off-stream water and

salt attracted cattle into the uplands enough to significantly reduce the development of uncovered

and unstable streambanks.

Herding

A study conducted by Bailey et al. (2008) found that moving cow-calf pairs from streams to

uplands using low stress herding at midday was an effective approach to reduce time spent by

cattle near streams. Visual observations showed some evidence that cows that were herded used


39

higher elevations and were farther from the study stream and water in the evenings. Fecal

abundance and stubble heights near the study stream indicated that herding reduced the extent of

grazing in riparian areas.

Butler (2000) observed that the effectiveness of herding cattle from riparian areas increased over

time. If cattle had been herded for a longer period or if the same cows were used on subsequent

years, the effectiveness may have been even higher.

Preliminary results in a study conducted by Bailey (2004) suggest that herding and a combination

of herding and strategic supplementation were very effective in protecting the stream that flowed

through center of pastures. Stubble heights in pastures where cows were herded were greater than

in the control pasture.

Herding livestock on a somewhat daily basis has been successful in limiting the number of

livestock that visit stream bottoms and improving utilization of upland areas (Kauffman and

Kruger 1984).

Allotment management uses a combination of salting, herding, and off-site water sources

described above to distribute livestock uniformly across pastures and allotments. Uniform

distribution will facilitate forage utilization across pastures and allotments and prevent or

minimize livestock use in riparian areas.

Permittees are required to manage livestock in the most sensitive areas, such as those accessible

to livestock, to prevent livestock from congregating in these areas.

Riparian Exclosures

Fencing is a direct method of altering livestock grazing patterns. Sensitive areas can be separated

from other areas and managed differently (Bailey 2004). Fencing these most sensitive areas will

prevent degradation of stream and riparian areas, and aid in the restoration of those areas

previously impacted by livestock. Battle Creek in the Briggs pasture has an exclosure fence on

0.6 miles of fish bearing stream. Meadow Creek in pastures #3 and #4 does not have exclosure

fencing.

The Starkey allotment is fenced on the private land borders, and cross fenced for pasture

management and livestock control.

Pasture Management

Management of the three additional pastures includes all of the livestock management techniques

described above to restrict the time livestock spend in riparian areas.

Summary - Authorized grazing would occur on an additional 2,098 acres in the Briggs and

Meadow Creek #3 and #4 pastures. These pastures have not had active grazing in 10 and 25

years, respectively.

Alternative 2 would add a total of approximately 13 miles of stream to allotments within the

Starkey AMP (Table 1). Of the 13 miles, 12.4 miles are accessible to cattle. An exclusion fence

along Battle Creek keeps cattle away from the stream and riparian area for 0.6 miles of fish

bearing habitat in the Briggs pasture. There would be no direct effects to water quality or channel

morphology by implementing Alternative 2. All potential effects are indirect.


40

A Properly Functioning Condition survey was conducted on Meadow Creek in 1997. The rating

was Functioning at Risk with an upward trend. The rating was due to an old railroad grade that

restricted natural sinuosity and lack of recruitment of large wood. Seven miles of Meadow Creek

and 6 miles of Battle Creek received major restoration efforts in 2012 and 2013. Restoration work

included channel treatment with large wood and boulder complexes, removal of culverts,

construction of exclosure fencing, and shrub planting and grass/forb seeding in riparian areas.

Stream habitat surveys now indicate that the majority of stream and riparian areas are in fair to

good condition with a high percentage of stable streambanks and sufficient large wood post 2012

and 2013 restoration projects. This improving trend demonstrates that current management, on

the landscape scale, has been effective in preventing degradation to stream morphology and

riparian vegetation, and has not retarded the attainment of PACFISH and INFISH RMOs, and has

met Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

The three additional pastures in the Starkey Allotment Management Plan would incorporate the

variety of management techniques described above to uniformly distribute cattle across

allotments and minimize or prevent use in riparian areas and in streams currently within the

allotment and streams in pastures added to the allotment under Alternative 2. Utilization

standards, off-site water sources, placement of salt, low stress herding, exclusion fences, riparian

protection drift fences, achievement of habitat and resource objectives, and adaptive management

would restrict the time cattle spend in stream and riparian areas. This would prevent the removal

of key hydric stabilizers necessary for streambank stabilization to prevent channel widening,

prevent the removal of shrubs that provide streamshade, prevent sedimentation to the stream

channel, promote streambank building, maintain or restore riparian areas, and minimize or

prevent the amount of feces and urine that could impact water quality.

If monitoring reveals that progress towards achieving resource objectives is not being made,

adaptive management would modify grazing operations using the following:

Change in season or numbers

Fencing proposals

Change in utilization standards

Increased herding

Change in salt and water placements

B. Fish Habitat and Populations

Direct and Indirect Effects on Fish Habitat and Populations


In Alternative 1, stream and riparian areas in Meadow Creek #3 and #4 and Briggs pastures

would continue to be maintained or improve at an accelerated rate compared to Alternative 2. The

potential areas where accelerated recovery would occur under Alternative 1 are those areas that

are accessible to livestock and those Rosgen Stream types most sensitive to disturbance.

No grazing in these pastures eliminates the potential for direct and indirect effects to fish habitat

and fish populations. Direct effects to fish populations include trampling of redds resulting in fish

mortality caused by damaging of the eggs and alevins developing within the redd. Indirect effects

to fish habitat and populations include trampling of streambanks and/or removal of key hydric

stabilizers leading to streambank instability, channel widening, destruction of overhanging

streambanks, and increase in sediment yield. Removal of streamside vegetation can potentially


41

alter stream temperatures. Livestock grazing can also potentially affect benthic and terrestrial

insects altering community composition and the food chain.

Fish habitat, populations and trends would be expected to be maintained at current conditions in

Alternative 1.

Summary - Authorized grazing would not occur on the additional 2,098 acres on the Briggs and

Meadow Creek #3 and #4 pastures. An additional 2.7 miles of fish bearing habitat that is not

excluded from livestock by fencing or terrain would not be impacted by livestock grazing. This

would likely result in the long term maintenance and improvement of stream and riparian areas

compared to Alternative 2.


Areas that have the potential for direct and indirect effects to fish habitat and fish populations

from the implementation of Alternative 2 are those areas accessible to livestock (Table 14).

These are the areas where livestock could potentially affect spawning fish and/or incubation of

eggs or alevins developing in the gravel, and where affects to fish habitat could occur.

Table 20 shows accessible stream reaches, Rosgen stream channel types, and fish species

associated with accessible stream reaches. Fish habitat in the pastures proposed to be added to the

Starkey Allotment in Alternative 2 include 0.7 miles in Battle Creek in the Briggs Pasture. An

exclosure fence was constructed so that only 0.1 mile of Battle Creek is accessible to livestock. In

Meadow Creek pastures #3 and #4, 2.6 miles of fishbearing stream in Meadow Creek is

accessible to livestock. Battle Creek in Briggs Pasture has 0.7 miles of steelhead distribution

DCH. Meadow Creek #3 has 1.1 miles of steelhead distribution and DCH and Meadow Creek #4

has 1.5 miles of steelhead distribution and DCH. The 2.6 miles of fishbearing stream in Meadow

Creek is also Chinook rearing and DCH. Redband trout are also present in the 3.3 miles of habitat

utilized by steelhead in the three additional pastures in Alternative 2.

Areas that have the potential for direct and indirect effects to fish habitat and fish populations

from the implementation of Alternative 2 are areas accessible to livestock (Table 20). These are

the areas where livestock could potentially affect spawning fish and/or incubation of eggs or

alevin developing in the gravel, and where affects to fish habitat could occur. Cattle access to fish

streams within the proposed additional pastures is restricted by fence. Only 0.1 of a mile of Battle

Creek in the Briggs Pasture would be accessible to livestock during the vulnerable life stage when

eggs or alevin are developing in the gravel.

Table 20 shows the accessible stream reaches, Rosgen stream channel types, and fish species

associated with those accessible stream reaches.

Table 20. Alternative 2 miles of stream accessible to livestock

Stream Rosgen Channel

Type

Total Miles of

Category 1 habitat

Miles Accessible to

Livestock

Fish Species

Battle Creek B3 0.7 0.1 S, RT

Meadow Creek C3 2.6 2.6 S, RT, CH

RT= redband trout, ST= summer steelhead, CH= spring Chinook salmon, BR=brook trout


42

Meadow Creek within the allotment is spawning and rearing habitat and designated critical

habitat for steelhead, and rearing habitat and designated critical habitat for Chinook salmon.

There is no Chinook spawning in Meadow Creek.

Summer Steelhead (O. mykiss) and their Designated Critical Habitat

The potential for livestock grazing to have a direct impact on steelhead is directly related to the

proximity of the activity to habitat and use by juveniles and adults. Allowing livestock access to

critical stream reaches may directly impact redd sites by trampling of eggs/alevins developing in

redds, and/or physically harassing or causing bodily harm to spawning adults or juveniles.

Direct effects to steelhead could occur in steelhead spawning areas where livestock are turned

onto the allotment for the two week period of June 16 to July 1 and where these livestock can

access the stream channel. Steelhead fry emerge from the gravel by the first of July. The June 16

to July 1 time period is after steelhead spawning has typically occurred and when eggs are

developing or alevin are present in the gravel. Livestock could potentially harm eggs or alevin in

the gravel by trampling and impacting redds. However, cattle will not be turned out before July 1

in Meadow Creek #3 and #4 (Tables 3 and 4). Steelhead fry will emerge from gravels prior to

cattle turnout on the Meadow Creek #3 and #4 pastures. On year two of the two year deferred

rotation system, cattle will be turned out on Briggs pasture on June 16 but only 0.1 mile of

steelhead spawning habitat on Battle Creek is accessible to livestock (Table 20). The 0.1 mile of

summer steelhead spawning habitat accessible to livestock will be checked for steelhead redds

when livestock is present June 16-July 1. The exclosure fence is expected to prevent redd

trampling by livestock in Battle Creek; however, if vulnerable redds are discovered in the 0.1

mile accessible reach, they will be protected by fencing.

Researchers from the PNW lab at Starkey submitted the following telemetry data regarding cattle

distribution during steelhead spawning times:

DelCurto et al. (2000) determined cattle locations from the Starkey Project Loran

telemetry system, to determine relative use of creek bottoms and the potential for direct

impacts (trampling) to spawning steelhead. The cattle locations summarized here are

those from years 1991, 1993, and 1995, during the period from turn-out (approximately

6/15) through 7/1. Cattle were monitored 24 hours a day. The streams involved are the

reach of Meadow Creek from the Meadow Creek riparian exclosure to the boundary of

the Experimental Forest, and the entire reach of Smith Creek. A total of 20,371 cattle

locations were logged for the three years during this two week period. Of these, 36

locations included the stream channel (0.2%) and 61 locations (0.3%) included the area

within 30 meters of the channel. This clearly shows that the potential for direct impacts to

spawning steelhead is extremely low. During this early season of use, forage quality in

the uplands is extremely high, and cattle are widely dispersed.


throughout their study. During early summer, cattle were consistently observed further from the

stream at any given hour than during late summer. During early season grazing (early April

through mid-July), livestock can be drawn to the uplands by succulent, herbaceous forage and

cool temperatures that discourage cattle from loitering in riparian areas and where warmer

temperatures in the uplands serve as an attractant to grazing (Gillen et al. 1985, Clary and

Webster 1989, Kinch 1989, Clary and Booth 1993).


43

Research has demonstrated that during the early season of use prior to steelhead emergence cattle

prefer uplands and not riparian areas, greatly reducing the risk of redd trampling. Cattle may

move into the stream bottoms to drink water in the spring, however forage in the upland areas are

moist in the early season and spring developments are typically full and functional keeping cattle

in the upland areas.

Salmonids have been shown to select spawning sites relatively close to cover (Witzel and

MacCrimmon 1983). This could further reduce the risk of redd trampling since spawning sites

may be located where livestock cannot trample redds due to physical obstructions.

To verify that livestock are remaining in the uplands and not in steelhead spawning areas early in

the grazing season, accessible reaches will be surveyed for steelhead redds two times per season

in pastures stocked on June 16th (Briggs Pasture only in Alternative 2). Surveys will determine

location of steelhead redds and density throughout accessible areas, vulnerability of redds to

trampling by livestock, and will determine if livestock use occurs in the accessible areas early in

the season. To prevent trampling of redds in vulnerable locations, redds will be flagged, location

documented with GPS, and vulnerable redds will be fenced from livestock. Fencing will remain

in place until after July 1.

Direct effects to steelhead juveniles in accessible areas are considered low. In the event that

livestock should enter the stream, juvenile fish will exhibit avoidance behavior either moving a

short distance upstream or downstream.

Below is a description of summer steelhead streams and access to streams by livestock.

Battle Creek (Briggs Pasture)

Battle Creek, within Briggs Pasture provides 0.7 miles of spawning and rearing habitat

for summer steelhead and 0.7 miles of DCH. An exclosure fence along 0.6 miles of Battle

Creek in the Briggs pasture precludes access to livestock to the stream and riparian area.

Briggs pasture will not be utilized until boundary fencing and off-site water development

is completed to facilitate stock water outside Burnt Corral Creek and Battle Creek and to

encourage cattle to graze outside of riparian areas. Every other year Briggs would be

stocked with cattle on 6/16. The 0.1 mile of Snake River Steelhead habitat would be

accessible to livestock during this vulnerable life stage.

Steelhead spawning surveys conducted on Battle Creek in 2006, 2009, 2013, and 2014

have found no redds or adult steelhead. The 2006 and 2009 surveys were conducted in

the Campbell pasture. The 2013 and 2014 surveys were conducted in both the Campbell

and Briggs Pastures. Scattered O. mykiss species were observed in 1.2 miles of Battle

Creek in the Campbell pasture and 0.7 miles of the Briggs pasture. It is unknown if these

are resident redband trout or juvenile steelhead. Because of the limited amount of habitat

accessible to livestock (year two of the pasture rotation when cattle turn out is 6/16) and

that cattle prefer the uplands early in the season, the lack of redds or adult steelhead seen

in Battle Creek, and identification and protection of redds prior to cattle turn out, there is

a very low risk of direct effects to spawning steelhead or pre-emergent fry.

Battle Creek can be dry by early to mid-July.


44

Meadow Creek (Meadow Creek Pasture #3 and #4)

Meadow Creek within Pastures #3 and #4 provides 2.6 miles of spawning and rearing and

DCH for summer steelhead. There are no exclosure fences along Meadow Creek within

pastures #3 and #4. There is one stream temperature monitoring site on Meadow Creek

located approximately 1.1 miles upstream of the allotment boundary and National Forest

Boundary. Maximum weekly average stream temperatures over the past ten years (2004-

2015) range from 73.0oF in 2011 to 81.1oF in 2007. Annually, Meadow Creek exceeds

state of Oregon water quality standards for temperature, which is 64°F (criterion for

rearing temperature), and is listed on Oregon’s 1998 303(d) list. Results of long term

stream monitoring on Meadow Creek are located in Table 8 in the Starkey Fisheries and

Water Existing Conditions report.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has a long term steelhead

spawning survey index area on Meadow Creek. The survey reach is 6.6 miles in length,

and includes Meadow Pastures 2-5 and Meadow Creek in the Smith Bally Pasture. Table

21 shows survey results 2004-2015.

Table 21. Steelhead redds/mile in ODFW index area on Meadow Creek (2004-2015)

Years

Number

of

Redds

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

0.6 0.6 1.1 1.4 0 0.6 NS NS 1.9 1.6 2.3 9.7

NS=Not surveyed

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Research conducted steelhead spawning

surveys in the Upper Grande Ronde River Basin in 2008-2013 (Ruzycki et al. 2008-2010,

Dobos et al. 2011-2012, Fitzgerald et al. 2013) including Meadow Creek through pastures

#3 and #4.

Table 22. Results of ODFW research steelhead spawning surveys in the Starkey Allotment

Stream Pasture Survey Year Survey

Length

Number of

Redds Redds/Mile

Meadow Creek Meadow Pasture 3&4 2008 1.3 miles 0 0

Meadow Creek Meadow Pasture 3&4 2009 1.2 miles 3 2.5





Given that the 2.6 miles of habitat accessible to livestock in Meadow Creek Pastures #3 and #4

would not overlap with early cattle turn out on June 16, there would be a low probability of direct

effects to steelhead redds from livestock trampling with the implementation of Alternative 2.

The potential for indirect effects that livestock grazing may have on the fish populations and

habitat are discussed below. This discussion is based on professional judgment along with site


45

specific knowledge of the project area, past monitoring results, stream habitat survey data, and

temperature data. Habitat indicators which have the greatest risk of being affected by grazing in

the three pastures in Alternative 2 include temperature, sediment/turbidity/substrate

embeddedness, off channel habitat, refugia, width/depth ratio, streambank condition, and

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RCHA).

Temperature

Meadow Creek exceeds state of Oregon water quality standards for temperature and is listed on

Oregon’s 1998 303(d) list because the applicable criterion for rearing temperature (64°F) is

exceeded (see Table 8 Starkey Fisheries and Water Existing Condition report).

The potential for affecting shade producing vegetation and future large wood in the allotment is

directly related to the allowable forage utilization level. This utilization level is important for

managing the amount of bank disturbance from livestock trampling, which can affect

establishment of riparian vegetation. Disrupting riparian vegetation establishment and growth can

reduce shade and increase solar input into the stream channel. It can also impact recruitment of

future large wood.

Allotment Management incorporates techniques to uniformly distribute cattle across allotments

and minimize or prevent use in riparian areas. Maximum forage utilization standards, off-site

water sources, placement of salt, low stress herding, exclusion fences, monitoring, achievement

of resource objectives, and adaptive management will restrict the time cattle spend in stream and

riparian areas preventing the removal of shrubs that provide streamshade. Continued grazing in

the allotment will not lead to an increase in stream temperatures. Temperature is expected to be

maintained with the implementation of Alternative 2.

Sediment, Turbidity, Substrate Embeddedness

Grazing-disturbed streams are usually characterized physical and biological channel adjustment

processes including high sediment yields and turbidity from bank trampling (Magilligan and

McDowell, 1997). Because grazing related bank disturbance that would impact sediment/turbidity

and substrate embeddedness levels in streams in the Starkey Allotment is related to impacts to

riparian vegetation and cover, this discussion focusses on using cover and riparian vegetation to

restrict amount of use, which would reduce sediment yield to streams.

Stubble height has been shown to be related to two areas of concern (University of Idaho Stubble

Height Review Team 2004):

The effect of grazing on the physiological health of the individual plant,

and the ability of the vegetation to provide streambank protection and to filter out and

trap sediment from overbank flows.

Simulated grazing procedures have illustrated that relatively continuous hoof action can severely

break down streambanks, while more restricted use can result in minimal changes (Clary and

Kinney 2000). Meeting utilization standards will restrict the amount of use on riparian vegetation

and prevent livestock damage to streambanks that could lead to an increase in sediment yield to

streams.

Where available, stream habitat survey data shows excellent streambank stability (Table 14).

Forage utilization standards, off-site water sources, placement of salt, low stress herding,


46

exclusion fences, monitoring, achievement of resource objectives, and adaptive management will

restrict the time cattle spend in stream and riparian areas preventing the removal of vegetation

and preventing streambank trampling that could lead to an increase in sediment yield to streams.

Livestock grazing the additional pastures in Alternative 2 is not expected to result in a measurable

increase in sediment yield to streams.

Off Channel Habitat

The probability that potential effects to off-channel habitat could occur depends on the amount of

time livestock spend in riparian areas. Forage utilization standards, off-site water sources,

placement of salt, low stress herding, exclusion fences, monitoring, achievement of resource

objectives, and adaptive management will restrict the time cattle spend in stream and riparian

areas minimizing or preventing effects to off-channel habitat.

Livestock grazing the additional pastures in Alternative 2 is not expected to result in a change in

off channel habitat.

Refugia

The probability that potential effects to refugia could occur depends on the amount of time

livestock spend in riparian areas. Forage utilization standards, off-site water sources, placement

of salt, low stress herding, exclusion fences, monitoring, achievement of resource objectives, and

adaptive management will restrict the time cattle spend in stream and riparian areas minimizing

or preventing effects to refugia.

Livestock grazing the additional pastures in Alternative 2 is not expected to result in effects to

stream refugia.

Width/Depth Ratio

Stream habitat survey data shows excellent streambank stability in Meadow Creek and Battle

Creek. Forage utilization standards are designed to maintain and/or restore streambank stability

and prevent changes in stream channel morphology (channel widening) that could lead to

decreases in streambank stability and increases in the width to depth ratio.

The maximum 40% utilization standard for shrubs that will be used in allotments is considered

light use (Burton et al. 2012). Research has shown that heavy to extreme use by grazing animals

every year is detrimental to plant health, while light to moderate use maintains overall plant

health (Thorne et al. 2005). If there is sustained recruitment of shrubs and trees, an area will

maintain or eventually support appropriate amounts of woody plants to provide a naturally

functioning system (Winward 2000). Maintaining overall plant health and key hydric stabilizers

on streambanks will provide a naturally functioning system and prevent decreases in streambank

stability and prevent increases in width to depth ratios that could be caused by unmanaged

livestock grazing.

Clary and Leiniger (2000) concluded that a streamside stubble height of approximately 10 cm

(four inches) may be near optimal in many, but not all, situations when considering a number of

riparian issues such as: maintaining forage vigor, entrapping and stabilizing sediment under

inundated flow, trampling of streambanks, sustaining forage intakes and cattle gains, and

diversion of willow browse. Clary (1999) found that stubble heights of 10 to 14 cm (3.9 to 5.5

inches) allowed for streambank recovery, but at a slower rate than occurred under no grazing.


47

The maintenance of herbaceous greenline vegetation will prevent streambank instability that

could be caused by livestock leading to an increase in width to depth ratios.

Simulated grazing procedures have illustrated that relatively continuous hoof action can severely

break down streambanks, while more restricted use can result in minimal changes (Clary and

Kinney 2000). Meeting utilization standards will restrict the amount of use on riparian vegetation

and prevent livestock damage to streambanks that could lead to channel widening and an increase

in width to depth ratios.

The probability that effects to width to depth ratio could occur as a result of livestock grazing

depends on the amount of time livestock spend within the riparian area and stream channel.

Forage utilization standards, off-site water sources, placement of salt, low stress herding,

exclusion fences, achievement of resource objectives, and adaptive management will restrict the

time cattle spend in stream and riparian areas. Permittees are required to manage areas accessible

to livestock so that livestock do not congregate in these areas. All aspects of allotment

management will prevent the removal of key hydric stabilizers needed for streambank

stabilization, and prevent the trampling of streambanks that could result in an increase in the

width to depth ratio.

Streambank Condition

Stream habitat survey data shows excellent streambank stability for Meadow Creek and Battle

Creek.

Forage utilization standards are designed to maintain and/or restore streambank stability.

Maintaining overall plant health and key hydric stabilizers on streambanks will provide a

naturally functioning system and prevent decreases in streambank stability that could be caused

by unmanaged livestock grazing.

The probability that effects to streambank stability could occur as a result of livestock grazing

depends on the amount of time livestock spend within the riparian area and stream channel.

Components of allotment management will restrict the time cattle spend in stream and riparian

areas. This will prevent the removal of key hydric stabilizers needed for streambank stabilization,

and prevent the trampling of streambanks.

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas

Forage utilization standards, use of off-site water sources, placement of salt, low stress herding,

exclusion fences, achievement of resource objectives, and adaptive management will restrict the

time cattle spend in stream and riparian areas and prevent loss of RHCA function.

Livestock grazing the additional pastures in Alternative 2 is not expected to result in a loss in

RCHA function.

Spring Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Designated Critical Habitat

The additional pastures in Alternative 2 would add 2.6 miles of Chinook rearing and DCH.

Because there is no spawning habitat for Chinook in Meadow Creek the risk of redd trampling

does not exist, therefore there are no direct effects to Chinook by implementing Alternative 2. The


48

indirect effects to juvenile Chinook rearing in Meadow Creek are the same as the indirect effects

to summer steelhead described above.

Redband trout (O. mykiss gibbsi)

Direct and indirect effect to redband trout by implementing Alternative 2 are the same as the

effects described above for steelhead.

Summary - Those areas that have the potential for direct and indirect effects to fish habitat and

fish populations from the implementation of Alternative 2 are those areas accessible to livestock.

These are the areas where livestock could potentially affect spawning fish and/or incubation of

eggs or alevins developing in the gravel, and where affects to fish habitat could occur.

Improving riparian conditions within the stream reaches not currently meeting resource objectives

will improve fish habitat conditions within the stream reaches that are fishbearing. The stream

reaches that are fishbearing include Meadow Creek and Battle Creek. Alternative 2 would add an

additional 3.3 miles of steelhead and redband trout spawning, rearing and DCH, and 2.6 miles of

Chinook rearing and DCH to the Starkey Allotments.

Direct effects to fish species would be minimal due to existing exclosure fences on Battle Creek

and no early turn out of cattle in Meadow Creek #3 and #4 pastures when steelhead and redband

trout are are spawning or pre-emergent eggs/alevin incubating in redds.

C. Aquatic Management Indicator Species

Direct and Indirect Effects on MIS

The National Forest Management Act regulations require that “fish and wildlife habitat be

managed to maintain viable populations of existing …species in the planning area.” To ensure

that these viable populations are maintained, the Pacific Northwest Region of the Forest Service

has identified management requirements for a number species within the region. These

Management Indicator Species are emphasized either because of their status under ESA or

because their populations can be used as an indicator of the health of a specific type of habitat

(USDA 1990).

The portions of Meadow Creek and Battle Creek in the three additional pastures analyzed for

grazing in Alternative 2 comprise a minimal proportion of MIS habitat compared to the

distribution of MIS species on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest overall. MIS habitat in

Alternative 2 are fenced or will avoid direct and indirect effects from grazing by exclosure fences,

timing of cattle on pastures, management including pasture rotation, development of off channel

watering sites, placement of salt, and limiting the number of cattle and amount of time they are on

a given pasture. This MIS analysis assumes proposed project activities will maintain aquatic and

riparian habitat and water quality for steelhead and redband/rainbow trout population viability on

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest lands.


49

D. Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs)

Direct and Indirect Effects on RMOs

Alternative 1-No Action

If grazing is not authorized in Briggs and Meadow Creek #3 and #4 pastures, the potential for

effects to PACFISH and INFISH RMOs would be removed. Attainment of RMOs may be

achieved at a greater rate than if grazing is authorized since any risk of effects to RMOs as a

result of grazing would be removed.

Alternative 2-Proposed Action Alternative

The use of utilization standards, herding, salt placement, alternate water sources, implementation

monitoring, effectiveness monitoring, achievement of resource objectives, and adaptive

management would restrict the time livestock spend near the stream and riparian area, prevent the

removal of key hydric stabilizers needed for streambank stability to prevent channel widening,

prevent the removal of stream shade, and prevent sedimentation to the stream channel. This

would maintain or enhance riparian areas and move RMOs in a positive direction at a near natural

rate of recovery. In stream and riparian areas that are not accessible to cattle, RMOs would be

maintained or enhanced at the landscape scale on which PACFISH and INFISH RMOs are based.

All components of the Starkey AMP would prevent degradation of the areas accessible to cattle

where potential effects could occur. Implementation of Alternative 2 is not expected to retard the

attainment of RMOs.

Landscape-scale interim RMOs describing good habitat for anadromous fish were developed

using stream inventory data for pool frequency, large woody debris, bank stability, and width to

depth ratio. State water quality standards were used to define favorable water temperatures.

RMOs are as follows:

Pool Frequency: (varies by wetted width)

Wetted width in feet: 10 20 25 50 75 100 125 150

Number of pools per mile: 96 56 47 26 23 18 14 12

Water Temperature: Compliance with state water quality standards, or maximum

<68F

Large Woody debris: > 20 pieces per mile; >12 inches diameter; 35 foot length

Bank Stability: >80 percent stable

Width/Depth Ratio: <10, mean wetted width divided by mean depth

Lower Bank Angle: >75 percent of banks with <90 degree angle (i.e. undercut)

Pool frequency:

Pool frequencies would not be reduced. Maintaining and/or restoring streambank stability would

prevent changes in stream channel morphology (channel widening), and restricting the time

livestock spend in stream and riparian areas would prevent sedimentation to the stream channel.

Water Temperature

Meadow Creek does not meet Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) water quality

standards for stream temperature. The temperature standard for Meadow Creek is that water

bodies must not be warmer than 640F for salmon/trout rearing. Meadow Creek is a Rosgen C


50

channel types where herbaceous vegetation or mixed herbaceous and shrubs are dominant

vegetation type. Meadow Creek also has B channel type characteristics with woody shrubs along

banks and in the riparian area. Key hydric stabilizers are stubble height on key riparian species, or

species groups on the greenline and bank disturbance or alteration, and woody shrub utilization.

In the Meadow Creek restoration effort in 2012 and 2013 woody shrubs were planted along over

6 miles of the creek. Alternative 2 uses a 40% utilization standard for shrubs which is considered

light use (Burton et al. 2008). Research has shown that heavy to extreme use by grazing animals

every year is detrimental to plant health, while light to moderate use maintains overall plant

health (Thorne et al. 2005). If there is sustained recruitment of shrubs and trees, an area will

maintain or eventually support appropriate amounts of woody plants to provide a naturally

functioning system (Winward 2000). It is assumed that if management is such that sustained

recruitment is in progress, eventually that area will support appropriate amounts of woody species

needed to provide a naturally functioning complex.

Meeting the 40% utilization standard for shrubs will sustain the recruitment of shrubs and trees,

maintain overall plant health, and will lead to the appropriate amounts of woody plants to provide

a naturally functioning system. Meeting utilization standards for shrubs will prevent heavy to

extreme grazing that could lead to increases in stream temperature.

The Starkey AMP will incorporate a variety of management techniques to uniformly distribute

cattle across allotments and minimize or prevent use in riparian areas. Utilization standards,

livestock accessibility to streams, off-site water sources, placement of salt, low stress herding,

exclusion fences, riparian protection drift fences, monitoring, achievement of resource objectives,

and adaptive management will restrict the time cattle spend in stream and riparian areas

preventing the removal of shrubs that provide streamshade.

Large Woody Debris

Cattle will not increase or decrease the current levels of large wood or affect future recruitment of

large wood to the stream channel. Battle Creek and Meadow Creek meet the RMO for large

woody debris (Table 14).

Streambank Stability

The use of utilization standards, herding, salt placement, and alternate water sources, would

restrict the time livestock are allowed to spend in the riparian area and prevent removal of key

hydric stabilizers needed for streambank stability. Battle Creek and Meadow Creek meet the

RMO for stable banks (Table 14).

Lower Bank Angle

The use of utilization standards, herding, salt placement, and alternate water sources, would

restrict the time livestock are allowed to spend in the riparian area and prevent removal of key

hydric stabilizers needed for streambank stability. Ensuring stable streambanks would prevent

impacts to the lower bank angle (undercut streambanks).

Width to Depth Ratio

Battle Creek and Meadow Creek have width to depth ratios that exceeded the RMO. However,

the width to depth ratios exceeding the RMO are within the expected range of Rosgen stream

types (Rosgen, 1996). Meeting the 40% utilization standard for shrubs will sustain the

recruitment of shrubs and trees, maintain overall plant health, and will lead to the appropriate

amounts of woody plants to provide a naturally functioning system. Meeting utilization standards

for shrubs will prevent heavy to extreme grazing that could lead to the removal of hydric

stabilizers needed for streambank stability. Removal of the key hydric stabilizer (shrubs) could


51

lead to an increase in the width to depth ratio. The Starkey AMP incorporates a variety of

management techniques to uniformly distribute cattle across allotments and minimize or prevent

use in riparian areas. Off-site water sources, placement of salt, low stress herding, monitoring,

achievement of resource objectives, and adaptive management will restrict the time cattle spend

in stream and riparian areas preventing the removal of key hydric stabilizers (shrubs) that could

lead to increase in the width to depth ratio.

Cumulative Effects for Fisheries and Watershed Resources

Potential cumulative effects are analyzed by considering the proposed activities in the context of

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Reasonably foreseeable actions are defined as

within the next 5 years. Appendix D summarizes the present and reasonably foreseeable

management activities that will occur in the cumulative effects for water quality. The cumulative

effects for past actions have been described in the existing condition for this analysis area. Past

actions relevant to fisheries and watershed resources include grazing, timber harvest, fire

suppression, fuels management, road construction, riparian exclosure fencing, stream and riparian

restoration work and water diversions. The cumulative effect area includes all acres in all

subwatersheds in the Starkey Allotment. This includes Middle Meadow, Lower Meadow, Lower

McCoy, Upper McCoy and Dry Camus subwatersheds.


Effects from past management activities in the analysis area include timber harvest, road

construction, grazing activities, and irrigation ditches and diversions, and instream and riparian

restoration work are reflected in current stream habitat conditions (Table 14). Current habitat

conditions show reduced pool frequency, increased width to depth ratios, high sediment yield,

decreased riparian vegetation plant diversity and vigor, increased cattle access to streams and

riparian areas from roads, altered stream flows, and elevated stream temperatures. However,

restoration work that has happened in the past 3-4 years have shown improvements in large

woody debris/mile, and streambank stability. Vegetation plantings that were completed along

streambanks and in riparian areas are recovering and are expected to improve habitat conditions

as they become established and provide stream bank stability, stream shade and eventually a

source of large woody debris recruitment. In addition, pool quantity and quality is expected to

improve as scour occurs where large woody debris structures were placed to enhance pool

habitat. This would continue under the Alternative 1.


Tables in Appendix D of the EA summarizes the present and reasonably foreseeable actions that

would occur over the next five years within the cumulative effects analysis area. Analysis in

Appendix D indicates that for fisheries and aquatic resources only two of the current and

reasonably foreseeable future activities within the project area would overlap in time and space

and have a measurable cumulative effect at the watershed scale.

Meadow Creek, Bear Creek, and Battle Creek instream restoration work has improved stream and

riparian habitat conditions and is expected to continue to improve over time as riparian vegetation

is established and channel adjusts to wood additions (including development of pools from

scouring events and large woody debris confining flow to address over-widened channels).

The Starkey Experimental Forest and Range has focused on big game research for many years. A

sizeable elk herd is located within the fence to facilitate these research goals. Wildlife also affects


52

streamside vegetation and elk can get over exclosure fences and eat riparian plants that stabilize

streambanks and produce shade.

Water Quality Compliance Statement, Floodplains and Wetlands Executive Orders

Implementation of Alternative 2 would not degrade water quality. The use of utilization

standards, herding, salt placement, alternate water sources, implementation monitoring,

effectiveness monitoring, achievement of resource objectives, adaptive management, and pasture

management would restrict the time livestock spend near the stream and riparian area, prevent the

removal of key hydric stabilizers needed for streambank stability to prevent channel widening,

prevent the removal of stream shade, prevent sedimentation to the stream channel, and reduce the

amount of feces and urine that could affect water quality. The Starkey AMP is in accordance with

the Clean Water Act and complies with the Clean Water Act requirements of the 1990 Forest Plan.

Clean Water Act Compliance Statement

The additional pastures and acres in Alternative 2 that would be added to the Starkey AMP would

not degrade water quality. The AMP uses planning and application BMPs to maintain and

improve water quality, and includes monitoring of BMP implementation and effectiveness.

Results of BMP monitoring over the years have allowed managers to adapt to watershed needs.

Current monitoring shows that the allotment streams are no longer being degraded by reduced

riparian vegetation or unstable streambanks. Because of using planning and application BMPs,

and monitoring implementation and effectiveness of BMPs, the Starkey Allotment Management

Plan is in accordance with the Clean Water Act and complies with the Clean Water Act

requirements of the 1990 Forest Plan.

Floodplains, Executive Order 11988

Executive Order (EO) 11988 requires the Forest Service to “avoid to the extent possible the long

and short term adverse impacts associated with the occupation or modification of floodplains.

The Starkey AMP is consistent with this EO because it does not propose to occupy any

floodplain.

Wetlands, Executive Order 11990

Executive Order (EO) 11990 requires the Forest Service to “avoid to the extent possible the long

and short term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands. The

Starkey AMP is consistent with this EO because it does not propose to destroy or modify any

wetlands.

Municipal Watersheds

There are no de-facto or designated municipal watersheds in the Starkey Allotment area.

Recreational Fisheries

Implementation of Alternative 2 will not result in reductions in quantity, function, sustainable

productivity, and distribution of recreational fisheries as directed under Executive Order 12962,

Recreational Fisheries.


53

Clean Water Act Section 303(d)

Antidegradation Policy - Under Oregon Water Quality rules, activities can not result in

measurable decrease of water quality in 303(d) listed waterbodies except as provided under the

Antidegradation Policy. The purpose of the Antidegradation Policy is to guide decisions that

affect water quality such that unnecessary further degradation from new or increased point and

nonpoint sources of pollution is prevented, and to protect, maintain, and enhance existing surface

water quality to ensure the full protection of all existing beneficial uses. The standards and

policies set forth in OAR 340-041-0007 through 340-041-0350 are intended to supplement the

Antidegradation Policy.

Water Quality Limited Streams – Meadow Creek is listed on the 2004/2006 Oregon DEQ

303(d) list for temperature (and habitat modification?) Further habitat modification on Meadow

Creek would not occur due to the variety of management techniques to uniformly distribute cattle

across allotments and minimize or prevent use in riparian areas. Implementation of Alternative 2

will not add to habitat modification on these streams due to utilization standards, off-site water

sources, placement of salt, low stress herding, exclusion fences, riparian protection drift fences,

achievement of resource objectives, and adaptive management which would restrict the time

cattle spend in stream and riparian areas preventing the removal of key hydric stabilizers needed

for streambank stabilization to prevent channel widening that could lead to habitat modification.

Cattle grazing would not result in further impact to temperature or habitat modification since

grazing would not reduce riparian function including stream shade.

A TMDL and WQRP have been developed for the Upper Grande Ronde Subbasin and

incorporates the following management actions for range management:

Modify grazing practices (e.g., accessibility of riparian areas to livestock, length of

grazing season, stock levels, timing of grazing, etc) that retard or prevent attainment of

RMOs or are likely to adversely affect listed anadromous fish. Suspend grazing if

adjusting practices is not effective in meeting RMOs and avoiding adverse effects on

listed anadromous fish.

Locate new livestock handling and/or management facilities outside of RHCAs. For

existing livestock handling facilities outside RHCAs, assure that facilities do not prevent

attainment of RMOs or adversely affect listed anadromous fish. Relocate or close

facilities where these objectives cannot be met.

Limit livestock trailing, bedding, watering, salting, loading, and other handling efforts to

those areas and times that will not retard or prevent attainment of RMOs or adversely

affect listed anadromous fish.

Develop and implement an effectiveness monitoring strategy for all range allotment

activities that considers Federally listed fish species (IIT 1999).

These management actions are essentially PACFISH/INFISH grazing standard and guidelines and

have been incorporated in the proposed livestock grazing activities under Alternative 2.

Alternative 2 is consistent with the direction and regulations of the Clean Water Act and 303(d)

listed streams.

Forest Plan

Alternative 2 is consistent with the WWNF Forest Plan including the 1995 PACFISH/INFISH

amendment. The proposed activities are consistent with all Forest Plan Watershed, and

PACFISH/INFISH standards and guidelines including:


54

Watershed S&G-1. Conflicts with Other Uses. Give management and enhancement of

water quality, protection of watercourses and streamside management units, and fish

habitat priority over uses described or implied in all other management standards or

guidelines.

Wildlife S&G-1. Riparian. Manage riparian habitat consistent with Forest Service

Manuals 2500 and 2600. Where natural stream characteristics permit, the management

(as described in Managing Riparian Ecosystems (Zones) for Fish and Wildlife in Eastern

Oregon and Eastern Washington) will provide for 60-100 percent shade on live streams,

80 percent or more total lineal distance of streambank in stable condition, limiting fine

inorganic sediment covering stream substrate to 15 percent, and 80 percent or more of the

potential grass-forb, shrub and tree cover.

Wildlife S&G-2. Give preferential consideration to resources such as fish, certain

wildlife and vegetation, and water which are dependent upon riparian areas over other

resources in actions within or affecting riparian areas.

Range S&G-2. Utilization Standards. Apply utilization standards to all management

areas as shown in Table 4-7 and 4-8. These standards provide for maximum utilization

levels regardless of which species of animal uses the forage or browse.

The PACFISH/INFISH amendment (1995) contains four standards and guidelines for livestock

grazing activities to protect and restore aquatic and riparian habitats and to prevent adverse

impacts to listed anadromous fish and inland native fish:

GM-1 - Modify grazing practices (e.g. accessibility of riparian areas to livestock, length

of grazing season, stocking levels, timing of grazing, etc.) that retard or prevent

attainment of Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) or are likely to adversely affect

listed anadromous fish and inland native fish. Suspend grazing if adjusting practices is

not effective in meeting RMOs and avoiding adverse effects on listed anadromous fish

and inland native fish.

GM-2 - Locate new livestock handling and/or management facilities outside of Riparian

Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs). For existing livestock handling facilities inside the

RHCAs, assure that facilities do not prevent attainment of RMOs or adversely affect

listed anadromous fish and inland native fish. Relocate or close facilities where these

objectives cannot be met.

GM-3 - Limit livestock trailing, bedding, watering, salting, loading, and other handling

efforts to those areas and times that would not retard or prevent attainment of RMOs or

adversely affect listed anadromous fish and inland native fish.

GM-4 - Adjust wild horse and burro management to avoid impacts that prevent

attainment of RMOs or adversely affect listed anadromous fish and inland native fish.

PACFISH/INFISH established explicit goals and objectives for anadromous fish habitat condition

and function. PACFISH/INFISH requires that management activities not retard the near natural

rate of recovery of riparian and aquatic habitats. By following PACFISH/INFISH standards and

guidelines and design criteria specific to this project, it is believed that irretrievable commitment

of this resource will be avoided. Impacts to WWNF Forest Plan MIS fish species (redband trout

and steelhead) were analyzed for the Starkey AMP (Section 4 page 27). Under Alternative 2,

direct impacts to MIS fish species in areas accessible to cattle will be offset by increasing the rate

of recovery of riparian and aquatic habitats.


55

Wildlife Resources

Introduction

The Forest Plan (1990) identified terrestrial wildlife Management Indicator Species (MIS) for the

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. The habitat requirements of these species are presumed to

represent those of a larger group of wildlife species. Potential habitat for the pileated

woodpecker, primary cavity excavators, Northern goshawk, American marten, and Rocky

Mountain elk is present in the analysis area.

Management Indicator

Species

Habitat Presence Within Analysis

Area

Rocky mountain elk Cover and forage Yes

American marten Old growth and mature forest Yes

Northern goshawk Old growth and mature forest Yes

Pileated woodpecker Old growth and mature forest Yes

Primary cavity excavators* Snags and logs Yes

Assumptions:

Old Growth Dependent Species

The American marten, Northern goshawk, Pileated woodpecker and primary cavity excavators

are all indicator species of old growth conditions, including canopy cover, large trees, snags and

down wood. Large snags, down wood, over story canopy closure, horizontal stand diversity, and

edges/opening created by wildfire or disease are not being affected by the presence of cattle.

Livestock generally use dense stands of timber sparingly because these habitats tend to have

moderate to high downed wood densities that make access difficult. Because cattle grazing would

not adversely affect potential habitat in dry forest or mesic mixed conifer there would be no

adverse impact on old growth dependent management indicator species from continuing the

current grazing regime within the Starkey Allotment and these species will not be discussed

further.

Rocky Mountain Elk


Rocky Mountain elk have been selected as an indicator of habitat diversity, interspersion of cover

and forage area, and security habitat provided by areas of low human disturbance. Elk

management on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is a cooperative effort between the Forest

Service and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). The Forest Service manages

habitat while ODFW manages populations by setting seasons, harvest limits, and goals for

individual Wildlife Management Units (WMU). The Limber Jim/Muir project lies within the

Catherine Creek WMU.

Potential elk habitat effectiveness may be evaluated using the Habitat Effectiveness Index (HEI;

Thomas et al. 1988). This model considers the density of open roads, the availability of cover

habitat, the distribution and juxtaposition of cover and forage across the landscape, and forage

quantity and quality. More recently, Rowland et al. (2005) has proposed the use of distance band

analysis (DBA) to better understand the effects of roads on elk security habitat.


56

Background Information

Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus canadensis nelson- hereafter elk) are an important big game species

in northeastern Oregon (Csuti et al. 2001) and are an indicator of the quality and diversity of

forested habitat (defined as > 40% canopy closure, USDA LRMP 1990) which includes an

interspersion of cover and forage areas, and security habitat provided by cover and low levels of

human activity (Thomas 1979). It is commonly accepted that the other big game species (i.e.

mule deer, white-tailed deer, black bear, and cougar) are at least partially accommodated when

high quality elk habitat is present. Elk are habitat generalists; they exploit a variety of habitat

types in all successional stages and their patterns of use change daily and seasonally (Toweill and

Thomas 2002). Optimal calving habitat is gentle terrain with plenty of succulent vegetation less

than 1,000 feet from water, with an abundance of low shrubs or small trees under an overstory

with a > 50% canopy closure (Thomas 1979). Elk are quite responsive to land management

activities, thus the density or health of elk populations (as opposed to examining population

trends) most likely indicate the effectiveness of elk management. (Toweill and Thomas 2002).

Potential disturbance to elk habitat may be evaluated using the Habitat Effectiveness Index (HEI;

Thomas et al. 1988). This model considers the density of open roads, the availability of cover

habitat, the distribution and juxtaposition of cover and forage across the landscape, and forage

quantity and quality. Only this last variable is affected by grazing as cattle will not affect cover

size and spacing, or increase road densities.

Blue Mountain/WWNF Population Viability- the National Forest Management Act (1976)

requires that habitat exist to provide for viable populations of all native and desires non-native

vertebrates. Elk is a game species that is managed on a management objective (M.O.) basis.

Management objectives were developed to consider not only the carrying capacity of the lands,

but also the elk population size that would provide for all huntable surplus, and tolerance levels of

ranchers, farmers, and other interests that may sometimes compete with elk for forage and space.

Biologically, a population that is managed around a M.O. is much larger than a minimum viable

population. A minimal viable population represents the smallest population size that can persist

over the long term. Historically there were game species, including elk, which warranted serious

conservation concerns due to depressed populations and range contractions resulting from

unregulated market and sport hunting and loss of habitat. Many of the factors that contributed to

the decline of large wild ungulates in the past do not exist today. Currently, elk populations on the

WWNF are regulated by hunting and predation. Elk numbers are substantially higher than what

would constitute a concern over species viability.

The Starkey Allotment falls within the Starkey WMU (ODFW) contained within the Umatilla-

Whitman Province. Elk populations in the province increased from about 7,500 in the late 1960’s

to about 19,000 in the mid-1970’s. Populations have remained between 15,000 and 20,000 ever

since. The Starkey unit has remained fairly stable over the years. In 2001, elk numbers were

about 116% of the management objective of 17,100

The Forest Plan establishes standards for wildlife habitat on the Forest. Condition and Trend data,

stubble height monitoring, and utilization standard monitoring can be used to analyze the effect

that cattle grazing has on elk habitat in Starkey Allotment. Forage utilization measurements from

2009-2014 shows that forage utilization standards have been met each year with the exception of

one pasture in 2011 (Meadow #2) and one pasture in 2012 (Upper Strip). A letter of non-

compliance was issued to the permittee in both instances.


57

Effects Analysis

The following describes the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on Rocky Mountain Elk.

Appendix D describes all present and reasonably foreseeable future activities for the analysis area

that were considered in the cumulative effects analysis.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Rocky Mtn Elk


Research shows that cattle and elk diets show a high degree of overlap over the grazing season

(Coe et al. 2005; Findholt et al. 2005); however, elk and cattle spatial separation has been

observed where cattle are present. Stewart et al. 2002 and Coe et al. 2005 concluded that elk

avoid cattle during the summer. In the Starkey Experimental Forest, La Grande Oregon, spatial

separation was observed for elk and mule deer and for elk and cattle during the spring and early

summer. Elk move to higher elevations following introduction of cattle during spring, returning to

lower elevations following the removal of cattle in the autumn (Stewart et al. 2002). During late

summer and fall more overlap among all ungulates was observed. This spatial overlap is

indicative of competition among and between the three species of ungulates as forage resources

become depleted later in the grazing season. Studies (Findholt et al. 2005, Cook et al. 2004,

Holecheck et al. 1982) have found nutritional deficits of both elk and cattle in late summer. In the

Starkey area, the diets of cattle may not meet the National Research Council standard for nutrient

requirement during late summer. These studies implicate competition for resources as a potential

limiting factor in ungulate productivity during late summer and fall.

Under Alternative 1, this interaction and competition for resources would continue to occur at

existing levels.


The addition of 2,139 acres of pasture available for grazing has the potential to increase the

amount of area for overlap of cattle, elk and deer resulting in increased areas of forage

competition. Cattle choose resources before smaller herbivores; therefore, expanding the grazing

allotments may affect distributions of elk and mule deer. During late summer and fall more

overlap among all ungulates can be expected as result of competition for forage resources as they

become depleted later in the grazing season. Management of ungulate density (e.g. stocking

reductions in areas of high ungulate overlap) in late summer and fall would achieve higher

productivity of both wild and domestic ungulates as forage resources become limited. It is

important to monitor the forage base and if necessary, reduce livestock numbers to maintain plant

vigor and leave adequate forage for mule deer and elk. Although the fitness of elk may not be

affected during the summer, their ability to survive severe winters and reproduce may be

negatively affected by poor summer nutrition.

Although adding available pasture for cattle may result in less forage for elk, Adaptive

Management Strategies address forage utilization standards and livestock densities. Should

overgrazing occur permitted livestock would be reduced until utilization standards are met.

Meeting livestock forage standards are expected to provide adequate forage for elk.

Cumulative Effects to Rocky Mtn Elk

Past activities that affected elk habitat include grazing, fire suppression and logging. Fire

suppression activities have resulted in the encroachment of conifers into grassland habitats,


58

though this has not significantly reduced the amount of grassland habitat in the Allotment.

Prescribed burning has helped to mitigate the conifer encroachment and improve forage

conditions. Past logging has included a combination of thinning, precommercial thinning and fuel

reduction prescription. Some intensive logging has resulted in areas of dense regrowth that now

are in need of thinning and management. All of these activities has resulted in the current

condition of the area.

Current and future activities that could affect elk include grazing and continued fire suppression.

Although ungulate competition for forage could increase during late summer, adaptive

management strategies based on allotment monitoring assure that forage utilization standards are

met throughout the grazing season. As part of adaptive management, forage utilization standards

would be implemented and monitored and livestock numbers would be reduced if forage

utilizations standards are not met. Continuing the current grazing regime with the addition of

2,098 acres would not contribute to cumulative effects for elk.

Neotropical Migratory (NTM) Bird Species

Introduction

A migratory bird is defined by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 as any species or family of

birds that live, reproduce or migrate within or across international borders at some point during

their annual life cycle. They are a large group of species, including many hawks (Buteo sp.),

shorebirds (Charadriiformes), flycatchers (Muscicapidae sp), vireos (Vireonidae sp.), swallows

(Hirundinidae sp.), thrushes (Turdidae sp.), warblers (Parulidae sp.), and hummingbirds

(Trochilidae sp.), with diverse habitat needs spanning nearly all successional stages of most plant

community types. Nationwide declines in population trends for migratory species, especially

neotropical species, have developed into an international concern. Recent analyses of local and

regional bird population counts, radar migration data, and capture data from banding stations

show that forest-dwelling bird species, have experienced population declines in many areas of

North America (Finch 1991). Habitat loss is considered the primary reason for declines. Other

contributing factors include fragmentation of breeding grounds, deforestation of wintering

habitat, and pesticide poisoning.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is the lead federal agency for managing and

conserving migratory birds in the United States; however under Executive Order (EO) 13186 all

other federal agencies are charged with the conservation and protection of migratory birds. In

response to this, the Forest Service has implemented management guidelines that require the

Forest Service to address the conservation of migratory bird habitat and populations when

developing, amending, or revising management plans (Executive Order 13186, 2001). To aid in

this effort, the USFWS published Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 (BCC 2008). The overall

goal of the report is to accurately identify the migratory (and non-migratory) bird species that

represent the high conservation priorities. BCC 2008 uses current conservation assessment scores

from three bird conservation plans: Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation

Plan (PIF; Rich et al. 2004), the United States Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP; Brown et al.

2001, USSCP 2004), and the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (NAWCP, Kushlan et

al. 2002).

Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) are used to separate ecologically distinct regions in North

American with similar bird communities, habitats, and resource management issues. Species

contained within the BCC are identified for each BCR. The La Grande District and majority of

the Wallowa-Whitman NF is found within BCR-10, Northern Rockies. Habitat types described in


59

the Conservation Strategy that occur in the Starkey Allotment area include Dry Forest, and Mesic

Mixed Conifer Forest (late succession) and Riparian. This document focuses on the Riparian

habitat type because of the potential effects from livestock grazing.


Riparian habitats within the Starkey Allotment area are centers of high diversity and an

abundance of birds. Studies have shown that vegetation structure within the ground, shrub, and

canopy layers were positively correlated with abundance of birds nesting in those layers.

Utilization standards in all pastures have been met for the past 6 years with the exception of two

pastures in 2012. A letter of non-compliance was issued to the permittee in both instances.

Effects Analysis

Direct and Indirect Effects on NTM Species


Saab (1998) reviewed studies that evaluated bird responses to livestock grazing in riparian

habitats and found that nearly half of 68 neotropical migrant landbirds decreased in abundance

with cattle grazing, 9% increased with grazing, and 25% showed no clear response. Ground

nesting birds (veery, fox sparrow) were most negatively affected by livestock grazing. Ground

nesters are propably more vulnerable to nest losses and reductions in foraging habitat through the

physical removal and damages to ground vegetation in grazed areas.

Walsberg (2205) studies the nest success of the ground nesting dark-eyed junco and found that

fledgling success was reduced by 75% in areas of cattle grazing. Reduction in vegetation cover

exposed nesting birds to more extreme conditions and increased exposure to predation. Some

nests were trampled by cattle.

Taylor (1986) studied nesting birds along the Blitzen River in Oregon and found that bird

populations and species richness increased with shrub heights and greater volume and that bird

species decreased with increased grazing. Ohmart (1996) found impacts of livestock grazing on

riparian areas are largely from unmanaged grazing. If livestock are allowed to freely graze they

will spend a disproportionate amount of time in riparian areas.

Large snags, down wood, overstory canopy closure, horizontal stand diversity, and edges/opening

created by wildfire are not being affected by the presence of cattle. Livestock grazing is not

adversely affecting old forest patches interspersed with grass opening or single-stratum old forest

with patches of pine regeneration. Cattle generally use dense stands of timber sparingly because

these habitat tend to have moderate to high downed wood densities that make access difficult.

Because cattle grazing would not adversely affect potential habitat of dry forest or mesic mixed

conifers there would be no adverse impact on neotropical migratory bird populations in these

portions of the affected area.


throughout their study. During early summer, cattle were consistently observed farther from the

stream than during late summer. From early April through mid-July, livestock can be drawn to the

uplands by herbaceous forage. Cattle congregate in riparian areas from mid-July through late

September when upland forage conditions decline and temperatures increase (Siekert et al. 1985).


60

Few bird species appear to benefit from grazing in riparian habitats. Based on available

information, when riparian areas are grazed, moderate use during late summer and fall or short-

term use in spring would be less damaging than growing-season grazing (Saab 1998). 5 creeks

within the Allotment are protected with cattle exclosures; Battle creek, Burnt creek, Campbell

creek, Meadow creek and Sullivan creek. Generally, shrub and ground-nesting birds have begun

nesting in June and have fledged young by late July. Cattle being turned out to pasture on June

16th should help reduce conflict between grazing and nesting birds. Late nesting could be affected

by grazing, and there is a chance that shrub and ground-nesting bird species would decrease in

abundance as compared to area not currently grazed by livestock. Forage utilization standards are

expected to provide adequate nesting structure for ground and shrub nesting birds, reducing the

potential for nest loss. Utilization standards are been consistently met within the Allotment with

the exception of one pasture in 2011 and one pasture in 2012. Should overgrazing occur,

permitted livestock would be reduced until utilization standards are met.


Alternative 2 would permit grazing within 2 riparian pastures in Meadow Creek which have

recently had stream restoration treatments including large wood placement, small wood

placement, planting, and fencing of newly planted shrub species. Research associated with

permitting grazing within these allotments is to study and assess the success of these treatments

for recovery from grazing. The proposed action will help validate the effectiveness of these

treatments and provide options for improving these treatments in the future. There may be short

term effects to neotropical bird habitat; however, utilization standards and monitoring by the

permittee and researchers will assure compliance with these standards.

Cumulative Effects on NTM Species

Past cattle grazing has contributed to the existing condition within the Allotment. Cattle grazing

prior to 1940 had profound impacts on the affected area due to a longer season of use and much

higher stocking levels. Grazing during this period had a much higher impact on riparian habitat.

The effects of recent cattle grazing, since 1990, have been similar to those described in the effects

section above. Past timber harvest, including salvage and green timber harvest, occurred within

and adjacent to riparian habitat in the Allotment. These activities resulted in a reduction in

overstory vegetation and contributed sediment to streams from the ground disturbance. Currently

vegetation is recovering across the Allotment and previously treated acres are not currently

contributing sediment to riparian habitat. The overall effects of past activities have resulted in the

current neotropical migrant population and stable upland and riparian habitat condition in the

Allotment. Present and future activities that could affect neotropical migrant habitat include

grazing and fire suppression.

Increased livestock grazing with the addition of the proposed 2,098 acres could affect nesting

success in riparian habitat types, however forage utilization standards would be implemented and

monitored. Forage standards not met would result in reduced livestock numbers until utilization

standards are met. Utilization standards are meant to reduce grazing competition from wild

ungulates and maintain the integrity of riparian habitat. The current grazing and addition of new

pastures will not contribute to measureable cumulative effects.


61

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Sensitive Species

Wildlife Species

The following proposed, endangered, threatened, or sensitive species (PETS) of wildlife are listed

on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List (January 2011; Table 23). Their habitats, known

or suspected to occur in or immediately adjacent to the analysis area are addressed in the BE and

the table below. This table describes the effects determination for each species or their habitat.

Refer to the biological evaluation (BE) in the Analysis File for specific information related to

each species and this determination.

Table 23. PETS species known or suspected to occur on the WWNF

STATUS1 Species WAW2,3 La Grande District3

Starkey Grazing

Allotment4

Addressed in the BE

Effects Determination5

AMPHIBIANS

Sen Columbia spotted frog Rana luteiventris

D K

P x MIIH

BIRDS

Sen Northern bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

D

K

P

x NI

Sen Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda

D

K

K

x MIIH

Sen Lewis’ woodpecker Melanerpes lewis

D K H X NI

Sen White-headed woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus

D K H X

NI

MAMMALS

T Canada lynx Felix lynx canadensis

D K H x

NI

Sen North American wolverine Gulo gulo luteus

D

K

P

X NI

Sen Gray wolf Canis lupus

D K H x NI

Sen Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes

D K H x NI

INVERTEBRATES

Sen Johnson’s hairstreak Callophrys johnsoni

D K H x NI

Sen Intermountain sulphur Colia Christina pseudochristina

D P P x MIIH

Sen Western bumblebee Bombus occidentalis

D K H x MIIH

Sen Fir pinwheel Radiodiscus albietum

D P P x MIIH

Sen Shiny tightcoil Pristiloma wascoense

S P P x MIIH

1T = Threatened; E = Endangered; C = Federal Candidate;Sen = Region 6 Sensitive.

2WAW= Wallowa-Whitman NF

3D = documented occurrence, S= suspected occurrence

4 K = Known habitat; P = Potential habitat; N = No habitat

5Listed species: NE = No Effect, LAA = May Affect-Likely to Adversely Affect, NLAA = May Affect – Not Likely to Adversely Affect, BE = Beneficial Effect Sensitive species: NI = No Impact, MIIH = May Impact Individuals or Habitat but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species, WIFV = Will Impact Individuals or Habitat with a consequence that the action may contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species, BI = Beneficial Impact


62

Grazing can negatively influence terrestrial mollusk species. Boschi and Baur (2007) found that

snail species richness and abundance decrease with grazing intensity in nutrient-poor calcareous

grasslands. The shiny tightcoil is associated with moist microsites associated with trees and

shaded talus slopes and is not likely to be found in grassland areas. Cattle are less likely to disturb

required habitat components (litter, woody debris, temperature) within the forest and on rocky

slopes then they are within a grassland and should have a minimal effect on the shiny tightcoil.

However cattle could contribute to direct mortality through trampling.

Cumulative Effects- Past events that affected potential shiny tightcoil habitat include grazing,

prescribed fire, fire suppression and vegetation treatment. Previous grazing was more intensive

with higher stocking levels and longer season of use than what currently occurs. Present and

proposed activities within the Allotment with a potential to affect shiny tightcoil habitat include

fire suppression and livestock grazing. The effects of present activities when combined with past

activities, will maintain the current habitat conditions for the shiny tightcoil.

Determination- The current grazing regime and the addition of 2,098 acres to the grazing

Allotment May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH) but would not likely contribute to a

trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Botanical Species

A Biological Evaluation (BE) addressing Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive (PETS)

plant species has been prepared for this project to determine its’ effects on Federally proposed or

listed species, in accordance with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered

Species Act (19 USC 1536(c)). The results of the BE are described below. The complete

Biological Evaluation is located in the project analysis file.

There are no currently listed threatened, endangered (T&E), proposed or candidate plant species

within the project area. There is no known potential habitat within the project area for the

following federally listed threatened, endangered or proposed plant species: Mirabilis

macfarlanei and Silene spaldingii.

Review of existing records of R-6 sensitive species indicate there are sixteen documented sites of

Phlox multiflora within the Meadow Creek pasture and ten P. multiflora sites within one mile

south and one mile west of the fence boundary. There are no other sensitive plant species

documented within either pasture. During field surveys potential habitat was identified for

Trifolium douglasii, Carex cordillerana, and Botrychium and Carex species. A new population of

Phlox multiflora was discovered on the north side of Meadow Creek.

Potential habitat for Carex cordillerana was discovered in several locations within the Briggs

pasture, although none were found during survey. No other rare plants or habitat were located at

this time.

No federally listed, threatened, endangered, or proposed plant species or habitat was found during

the surveys.

There will be no effect to any threatened, endangered, candidate or proposed plant species from

project activities. Grazing activities may impact some Phlox multiflora plants and undiscovered

individuals or habitat of R-6 sensitive plant species, but will not contribute to a loss of viability

of, or move a species toward federal listing (FSM 2672.43).


63

Fisheries Species

A Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared for the Starkey Allotment in 2015/2016. The BA

analyzed determination of effects for the entire Starkey Allotment. The determinations within the

BA are summarized below. The effects specific to the 3 pastures proposed in this EA are also

summarized below. Guidance for making this biological determination was provided by Making

Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the

Watershed Scale (NFMS 1996) and A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act

Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Bull Trout Subpopulation

Watershed Scale (USFWS 1998b). These methods were combined to provide a consistent

approach for all listed fish species analyzed in the BA.

Summer Steelhead and Designated Critical Habitat:

Species Determination for Starkey Allotment:

Livestock grazing in the entire Starkey Allotment May Affect, and is LIKELY to Adversely Affect

summer steelhead and designated critical habitat. This determination is based on steelhead

spawning habitat and designated critical habitat being highly accessible to livestock, especially

Meadow Creek and Bear Creek Pastures.

Species Determination for Alternative 2 (Briggs, Meadow Creek #3 and Meadow Creek #4

pastures):

Livestock grazing in the three pastures proposed in this EA (Briggs, Meadow Creek #3 and

Meadow Creek #4) May Affect, but is NOT LIKELY to Adversely Affect summer steelhead and

designated critical habitat. This determination is based on the exclosure fencing along Battle

Creek precluding cattle access to all but 0.1 mile of stream, surveys that will protect any steelhead

redds from being trampled in this 0.1 mile of Battle Creek, and Meadow Creek through pastures

#3 and #4 not having cattle turn out in the vulnerable time period of June 16-July 1.

Spring Chinook Salmon and Designated Critical Habitat:

Species Determination:

Continued livestock grazing in the Starkey Allotment with the addition of the three pastures:

Briggs, Meadow Creek #3, and Meadow Creek #4 May Affect, but is NOT LIKELY to Adversely

Affect spring/summer Chinook salmon. There is no Chinook salmon spawning habitat on the

Starkey Allotment.

Designated Critical Habitat Determination:

Livestock grazing in the Starkey Allotment May Affect, and is LIKELY to Adversely Affect

designated critical habitat. This determination is based on Chinook salmon designated critical

habitat in Meadow Creek being highly accessible to livestock.


64

Redband Trout

Implementation of Alternative 2 may impact redband trout individuals or habitat for this species,

but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the

population or species.

In the Meadow Creek #3 and #4 pastures redband trout fry will have emerged prior to cattle being

turned onto the allotment preventing any risk of redd trampling. For the Briggs pastures

exclosure fencing along Battle Creek will preclude the majority of access for livestock to the

stream and riparian area. In addition, early season cattle use of uplands, salmonids preference for

selecting spawning sites close to cover, utilization standards, low stress herding, salt placement,

and use of alternate water sources would minimize direct effects to redband trout redds and

minimize indirect effects to redband habitat.

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Designations-Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Management Act

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for

spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity”.-Pacific salmon EFH includes freshwater,

marine, and estuarine environments. The majority of the Columbia River Basin is designated

EFH for Pacific Salmon, under the Pacific Coast salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP),

approved by the Secretary of Commerce on September 27, 2000. Pacific salmon species covered

in the FMP are coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), and pink

salmon (O. gorbuscha), however only Chinook salmon EFH are affected by the proposed action.

The FMP designates EFH for the Pacific salmon fishery as all those streams, lakes, ponds,

wetlands, and other waterbodies currently or historically accessible to salmon in Washington,

Oregon, Idaho, and California, except above certain impassable barriers identified by PFMC, or

above longstanding naturally impassable barriers.

Livestock grazing in the Starkey Allotment May Affect, and is LIKELY to Adversely Affect

Essential Fish Habitat for spring Chinook salmon. This determination is based on Chinook

salmon designated critical habitat in Meadow Creek being highly accessible to livestock. The

Starkey AMP would incorporate a variety of management techniques to uniformly distribute

cattle across allotments and minimize or prevent use in riparian areas. Utilization standards, off-

site water sources, placement of salt, low stress herding, exclusion fences, riparian protection drift

fences, achievement of resource objectives, and adaptive management would restrict the time

cattle spend in stream and riparian areas preventing the removal of key hydric stabilizers needed

for streambank stabilization to prevent channel widening, prevent the removal of shrubs that

provide streamshade, prevent sedimentation to the stream channel, promote streambank building,

maintain or restore riparian areas, and minimize or prevent the amount of feces and urine that

could impact water quality. This would minimize or prevent effects to EFH.

Invasive Species

Introduction

This report addresses the existing condition of non-native (invasive) species within the Starkey

Cattle and Horse Allotment (Starkey Allotment) and the effects on these species from proposed

changes to the allotment management plan (AMP). The pastures included in the Starkey

Allotment are located within the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range and are administered by

the La Grande Ranger District, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Currently, cattle are managed


65

using a nine pasture deferred rotation system. The proposed change to the AMP is to authorize

grazing activities in three pastures (2,098 acres) that currently have none. These pastures are

Meadow Creek Pastures 3 and 4, and Briggs Pasture.

Prevention and management of non-native species under all planning efforts is derived from the

Pacific Northwest Region 6 Invasive Plant Program Record of Decision (ROD) (USDA 2005)

and the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment Program ROD (USDA

2010). The Region 6 ROD outlines 23 standards for the prevention and management of invasive

non-native plants and require consideration of invasive species in all planning efforts. The

Regional ROD does not however approve any site-specific treatment, instead requiring that

analysis be completed by each National Forest. The Wallowa-Whitman ROD therefore has been

completed to provide direction for a more efficient program to contain, control, and eradicate new

and existing sites found within NFS lands.

Of the 23 prevention and management standards in the Region 6 ROD, five directly affect

activities found in the Starkey AMP. These standards are:

1-Prevention of invasive plant introduction, establishment, and spread must be addressed

in watershed analysis, roads analysis, fire and fuels management….. grazing allotment

management plans, and all other land management assessments.

2-Actions conducted or authorized by written permit by the Forest Service that will

operate outside the limits of the road prism, require the cleaning of all heavy equipment

prior to entering national Forest System Lands.

4- Use only pelletized or certified weed free feed on all National Forest System Lands.

6- Use available administrative mechanisms to incorporate invasive plant prevention

practices into rangeland management (i.e. revise permits and grazing AMP’s)

13- Native plant materials are the first choice in re-vegetation for restoration and

rehabilitation where timely natural regeneration of the native plant community is not

likely to occur.

Under the Region 6 ROD, these standards apply to the prevention and management of all invasive

non-native species and not just those listed as “noxious weeds”. Invasive plants are defined as

non-native plants, whose introduction is likely to cause economic, environmental, or human

health harm. An invasive species is distinguished from other non-natives by their ability to

spread in native ecosystems. “Noxious weeds” on the other hand is a legal term used by state,

county, and federal agencies to denote plants that pose particular threats, generally to agriculture.

Many undesirable non-natives can be invasive and pose threats to healthy native plant

communities but do not meet the criteria for listing as a “noxious weeds.” For that reason, this

analysis will focus on all invasive non-native plants and not just those listed as “noxious weeds.”


Existing condition of invasive non-native species within the Starkey Allotment was determined

using documented site information, GIS analysis, on the ground field surveys, and professional

judgment by invasive species specialists.

There are 20 inventoried invasive non-native species sites (8 different species) within the Starkey

Allotment. A 0.1 acre Tansy Ragwort site has not been active for at least six years. Two sites are


66

Bird’s Foot Trefoil in a barnyard and at Headquarters. The remainder of the sites are described in

Table 24. Most of the sites are very small and are along roadsides. The exceptions are two Leafy

Spurge sites in the Elk Winter Pasture and at the downstream end of Campbell Creek. Acreages

reflect current information in the Forest GIS layer (GIS query, 2016). In addition to these listed

species the project area also includes Ventenata dubia, and Bromus tectorum.

Table 24. Invasive Plant Inventory Sites in Starkey Allotment

Scientific Name Common Name Number of Sites Gross Acres

Centaurea diffusa diffuse knapweed 3 9.8

Centaurea stoebe Spotted knapweed 2 1

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle 2 82.1

Cynoglossum officinale Gypsy flower 2 82.1

Euphorbia esula Leafy spurge 4 30.4

Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle 1 82

Potentilla recta sulphur cinquefoil 3 13.7

Total 17 301.1

Currently there are no existing weed sites in the Yearling Bull/Weaning Pasture or in Meadow

Creek Pastures 3 and 4. The Briggs Pasture has a half-acre gypsy flower site, a half-acre leafy

spurge site, and about 50 acres of the scotch thistle site. In summary, of the 301 acres of invasive

species inventory in the Starkey Allotment, 51 acres are within the 3 proposed additional pastures.

Effects Analysis

The following describes the effects of implementing this project on invasive species.

Direct and Indirect Effects on Invasive Species


If the proposed action were not implemented there would be no new direct or indirect effects to

established weed infestations, or introductions of new species from livestock grazing in the non-

utilized pastures. Continuing risks would still exist from other types of activities occurring in the

analysis area and invasive non-native species would continue to spread and establish, though at a

slower rate.


The proposed action has the potential to introduce new invasive non-native species and affect

established infestations in the Starkey Allotment. With the additional areas of livestock grazing

the potential for ground disturbance, further spread, and new introductions of invasive non-native

plants would increase. The different invasive non-native species found within this allotment pose

different risks associated with cattle grazing. All are adapted to quickly establish and spread

through disturbance activities. Invasive species are dispersed directly through contact with

animals by passing through their gut when eaten, attaching to fur, or moving in mud and dirt

attached to the animal. The risk of dispersal and introduction of these species is increased

directly through effects of livestock grazing. The changes in competitive interactions due to

herbivory could allow for an advantage to invasive non-native species increasing their spread and

establishment.

Management methods such as those described below to reduce and control the introduction and

spread of non-native species minimize the impacts that do exist. Specific mitigations and project


67

management features will continue to reduce the chances of new introductions, spread, and

establishment of invasive non-native plants.

Cumulative Effects on Invasive Species

Cumulative effects are the incremental impacts of the proposed action when added to other past,

ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future action. Cumulative effects are those that occur at the

same site, or same time, as the proposed actions. Reasonably foreseeable actions are those which

are reasonably certain to occur within five years, and include the proposed actions of this project.

Appendix D of the EA describes the present and reasonably foreseeable future activities within

the Starkey Allotment.


If the proposed action were not implemented there would be no potential cumulative effects as

ongoing activities, such as grazing on the Starkey allotment, would continue at current levels in

current locations. This alternative would not have any measurable effect to known noxious weed

patches.

Present (ongoing) actions may introduce, establish, or spread invasive plant species. They can be

expected to occur in areas disturbed by (past) management activities.

Much of the disturbance that has occurred in the project area is associated with riparian

restoration projects, fire, recreation, and grazing. Past road construction, closures and

decommissioning also have the potential to contribute to the invasion, establishment and spread

of invasive plant species.

With repeated disturbance, less impacting activities may have similar results. Recreation,

dispersed camping, and hunting would all continue as at present and would continue to be

probable noxious weed spread vectors, along with wildlife movements. Likewise, the interaction

of multiple disturbances such as fire, grazing, and road building have been noted to allow non-

native species to invade or colonize native ecosystems.


The following discussion summarizes present, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities

within the cumulative effects analysis area which overlap in time and space with the pastures

being added in this analysis which would have a measurable effect on invasive species.

Minimizing direct and indirect effects through the management methods described under the

mitigations section of this EA is the largest factor in reducing potential cumulative effects.

Although there is no way to currently quantify the level of potential weed spread from this

project’s implementation; it is clear that the risk is greater under the proposed action than if the

proposed action were not implemented and adds to potential for cumulative effects from ongoing

activities.

Grazing

Soil disturbances associated with grazing can create conditions which are conducive for

introduction of invasive plant species. The proposed action may contribute to the spread of

invasive plants, and to the introduction of new species and infestations. This may occur on a

broad-scale level, but is more likely to happen over a fairly localized area. The expected duration

of the effects is variable, based on site conditions and impacts.


68

Invasive Plant Treatment

With the increased potential for invasive plants to invade and spread in the project area, there is

potential for more invasive plant technician traffic in the project pastures and increased treatment

frequencies which would help with the control and eradication of existing populations.

Riparian Restoration Projects

The past riparian projects caused localized ground disturbance. Cattle tend to congregate in

riparian areas because of water availability, increased shading during summer heat, and the

presence of desirable forage. The combination of disturbance caused by restoration activities and

cattle traffic along with the potential for cattle to transfer seeds from other invasive plant sites in

the pasture to the riparian area is a cumulative effect.

Forest Plan Consistency for Invasive Species

The Region 6 Record of Decision for Invasive Species Management (ROD) provides direction for

the control of noxious weeds and other competing vegetation where such activities are not

precluded by management area direction. The goals focus on maintaining or enhancing

ecosystem function to provide for long-term integrity and productivity of biological communities,

treatment of priority infestations, and monitoring the effects of all activities to reduce the impacts

of non-native plants. The goals and objectives are further amended by the Wallowa-Whitman

National Forest Invasive Plant Treatment Program EIS (2010). The Starkey AMP Project is

consistent with these goals through adherence to the EIS, development of Allotment Management

Plans, and Annual Operating Instructions which are designed to address specific issues within the

allotments. These specific instructions are reviewed and agreed upon each year with the Forest

Service rangeland specialists/invasive species coordinators and the permittees. The end result of

the agreement lies in the attainment of Forest Plan utilization standards to protect vegetative

resources.

Social/Economics

Introduction

This analysis provides an overview of the current social and economic conditions found in the

assessment area to provide the context of the effects analysis that address the purpose and need

and the issues discussed in EA, and includes the effects of implementing the alternatives on the

issues. The following affected environment and effects analysis discusses the potential social and

economic trends and how these trends may affect the Starkey allotment management, and how

allotment management activities may affect social and economic conditions in the assessment

area, including concerns associated with potential environmental justice and civil rights.

The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan),

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B (Page B-46), also provides further detailed

description of the main social and economic characteristics of the area.


Unique to the Starkey allotment is the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range, managed by the

USDA Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW) in La Grande, Oregon. The PNW lab provides

a network of researchers and supporting personnel who utilize Starkey as a long term study area

primarily to conduct long term studies of ungulates and associated human activities, land uses and


69

disturbance regimes common to public and private lands in the western US. The Starkey

Allotment project proposes to authorize livestock grazing in support of ongoing research. The

research is dependent upon authorization of the livestock grazing within the Meadow Creek

pastures 3 and 4.

Ranching Economic Conditions and Trends

Ranching operations associated with the production of beef cattle use a variety of resources to

feed and pasture these animals. Forage provided on National Forest System lands (NFS) can

provide an integral and important component to beef cattle production to local communities.

This project would authorize grazing of 3 additional pastures within the Starkey Allotment for use

by the existing permittees. It would not increase the number of permitted livestock on the

allotment; therefore, no gain or loss of revenue to the permittees or federal government through

additional grazing fees would occur.

Ranching Industry and Grazing on the Starkey Allotment

The Starkey allotment is grazed by three permittees, two of which are private individuals and one

is a public entity, Oregon State University. Forage from NFS lands is important to the two ranch

operations with federal grazing permits whose base operations are within Umatilla county and the

Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Station (EOARC) located within Union county, which is

authorized to use publically owned livestock for research purposes.

Forest allotments can be key elements of the total year-round ranch operation. Federal allotments

provide high quality forage for cow/calf herds at a time when home pastures are growing and

being harvested for winter hay. The Starkey allotment is generally grazed for four months from

mid-June up to mid-October. This grazing period provides approximately one third of the annual

forage requirement for the cattle and calves using the allotments. This forage requirement is

displayed in animal unit months (AUMs) and is the forage required to supply a lactating cow and

her calf or a mature bull for the period of one month. Table 25 displays the current permitted

numbers and authorized AUMs for Starkey Allotment.

Table 25. Current Permitted and Authorized AUMs for the Starkey Allotment

Allotments Permitted number Authorized AUMs Average Authorized

Use Period

Starkey Allotment 701 3,455 6/16-10/15

Starkey Allotment Economic Condition

Of the three permittees grazing the Starkey allotment, two pay annual grazing fees and derive

value from the forage made available through their term grazing permits.

Revenues generated through permitted grazing on the Starkey allotment can be roughly calculated

by examining the number of livestock permitted and estimating the potential overall returns for

these animals. Of the 701 cow/calf pairs authorized for grazing on the Starkey allotment, 540

pair are billed for use following federal grazing fee caluculations for a period of four months.

Potentially this will produce 540 head of livestock weighing approximately 600 pounds at 10

months of age (cattle are on the allotment for about 35% of these 10 months). In February 2016

the average price for steers and heifers was $140-170 ($155 average) per hundred weight (ctw)i.

This would calculate to average $930 per beef calf sold. A calf roughly doubles in weight while


70

on the allotment which allows for $465 in value per calf while on the forest. A very rough

estimate would be that livestock production value based on average weight gained and the portion

of time spent (average 3.5 months) on the Starkey Allotment, contributes $251,100 in gross

revenue.

Jobs created and supported by livestock grazing on public lands are important to the local

communities. While the number of individuals employed is generally low, the jobs that are

available provide seasonal employment for some and year-round employment for others.

Approximately 25% of grazing fees collected are returned from the U. S. Treasury to the local

community for roads and schools. In 2016, grazing fees were $2.11 per head month. The total

billing for the 540 pair which are billed at this generate $3,942 in grazing fees. This would return

approximately $985.50 to Union County where the Starkey allotment is located.

Research conducted through the use of the EOARC livestock on the Meadow Creek study will be

used to assist in developing a better understanding of the effects of ungulate (wild and domestic)

use on restoration of riparian areas in the Blue Mountains. This research may be used to

determine appropriate levels of management and protection necessary to achieve restoration

objectives. The proposed research is part of a multi-year, multi-agency effort funded through

various entities within and outside governmental agencies.

Effects Analysis

This social and economic analysis addresses how the proposed additional authorized livestock use

areas within the Starkey allotment would affect grazing related jobs and income.

Direct and Indirect Effects


The Meadow Creek pastures 3 and 4 and Briggs pasture would not be authorized for livestock

grazing. The existing use of the remaining Starkey pastures would continue.

The proposed grazing study within the Meadow Creek pastures would not be authorized to

continue as designed. This would result in loss of information valuable to future planning and

development of grazing strategies to support recovery of riparian systems within the Blue

Mountains. A loss of investment in the proposed study would occur at some level however this

loss is not necessarily quantifiable as some study could occur, just not at the level proposed.

The use of the Briggs pasture would not be authorized reducing the flexibility for the permittee to

utilize the available forage within the pasture and increasing the possible requirement for the

permittee to remove livestock earlier than planned during low forage production years.

There would be no effect on grazing related jobs and income based on this decision as the exiting

level of livestock grazing would continue within the remaining portions of the allotment.


There would be no change in the number of livestock authorized for grazing in the Starkey

allotment. Since this project only authorizes the use of additional pasture by the existing

permittees, no gain or loss of revenue to the permittees or federal government through additional

grazing fees would occur.


71

There is no proposed increase or decrease in livestock numbers within the Starkey allotment as

part of either of the alternatives: Alternative one No Action, continue with the existing grazing or

Alternative 2 the proposed action which authorizes livestock grazing in Meadow Creek pastures 3

and 4 and the Briggs pasture.

Since there is no proposed increase or decrease in the number or season of livestock authorization

there would be no effect to ranching economic conditions and trends.

This alternative would authorize livestock grazing necessary for the proposed Meadow Creek

study to continue as planned. This study will provide important information related to the effects

of ungulate grazing on recovery of riparian ecosystems following restoration activities. Loss of

investment in the study would not occur.

The proposed authorization of livestock use within the Briggs pasture would directly affect the

ability of the outside permittee to utilize the pasture as part of the outside grazing rotation.

Authorizing use of this pasture will allow reduced livestock use within the other outside pastures,

increasing the flexibility of the permittee to maintain full authorized numbers and season of use.

There would be no effect on grazing related jobs and income based on this decision as the exiting

level of livestock grazing would continue with no increase or decrease from the existing

condition.

Cumulative Effects

Present and reasonably foreseeable future activities in and around the Starkey AMP project area

are described in Appendix D of the EA.


Livestock would not be authorized on any of the pastures proposed for livestock grazing with the

Starkey allotment. This would result in changes or loss of integrity of the proposed scientific

study on Meadow Creek and reduce the flexibility provided to the ranching operation using the

proposed outside pasture rotation. The grazing study would not be completed as planned, thus

reducing information needed to better understand the interactions between wild and domestic

ungulates on riparian recovery.


There are no expected measurable cumulative effects from the addition of grazing on the 3

additional pastures to social and economic resources.

Soils

Introduction

The Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan has one goal, two standards, and one guideline which relate to

grazing’s effect on soils.

Goal

To maintain or enhance soil productivity.


72

Standards and Guidelines

1. Conflicts with other uses. Give maintenance of soil productivity and stability priority

over uses described or implied in all other management direction, standards, or

guidelines. …(p.4-21)

2. Protection. Minimize detrimental soil conditions with total acreage detrimentally

impacted not to exceed 20 percent of the total acreage within the activity area including

landings and system roads. Where detrimental conditions affect 20 percent or more of

the activity area, restoration treatments will be considered. Detrimental soil conditions

include compaction, puddling, displacement, and severe burning (p. 4-21).

3. Give special consideration to scablands or other lands having shallow soils during project

analysis. Such analysis will especially consider the fragile nature of the soils involved

and, as necessary, provide protection and other mitigation measures.


In the Starkey Allotment analysis area, there are approximately 215 miles of roads impacting an

area of approximately 371 acres. They are dedicated to transportation and may be considered to

be permanently out of vegetative production. There are also administrative and rangeland

management related land uses in the area which remove soils from vegetative production. These

uses are detailed in Table 26.

Table 26. Non-productive soil areas within the Starkey Allotment

Use Number Total Area for Use

Roads 215 371 acres

Ponds and troughs 89 8.9 acres

Salt sites 60 0.60 acres

Cattle trails 100 miles 24 acres

Handling corral 3 3 acre

Cow camp 1 3 acre

Administrative sites 2 20 acres

Total Area Used 430.5 acres

Adding the acres covered by roads to the acres used for range management shows that there are

approximately 430.5 acres dedicated to uses besides vegetation production in the Starkey

Allotment. This is approximately 1.4 percent of the 30,396 acre analysis area, and is consistent

with the Forest Plan’s requirement for standard 2 above.

Starkey Allotment Range Condition and Trend Monitoring shows a satisfactory or better

condition and static or upward trend of range vegetation and soil condition (Existing Management

of Starkey Allotment). This is consistent with the Forest Plan’s requirement for standard 2 and 3

above.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) require delay in livestock entry to NFS lands if soil

conditions are wet and susceptible to compaction, puddling or displacement. This is consistent

with the Forest Plan’s requirement for standards 2 and 3 above.

Salt sites, handling facilities and spring developments are located for the most part out of

RHCA’s. No new structural improvements will be located within RHCA’s and existing


73

improvements will be moved or decommissioned if it is determined that they are adversely

affecting the RHCA. This is consistent with the Forest Plan’s requirement for standard 1 above.

Because the Starkey Allotment is consistent with the above goals, standards and guideline, it is

consistent with the soil guidance of the Forest Plan.

Effects Analysis

The following describes the effects of implementing this project on Forest Plan goals, standards

and guidelines for soils resources.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Soils


This alternative would continue to represent the soils conditions described under the Affected

Environment above.


Inclusion of grazing in the pastures proposed in this alternative would not contribute any

additional detrimental soil conditions due to use of BMPs and allotment management

requirements.

Cultural Resources

Introduction

This section covers the existing conditions and effects of implementation for heritage resources.

Reports and analyses can be found in the Starkey AMP Update analysis file.


Prehistory

The Starkey AMP Update project area elevation ranges from 3,700 feet to 6,500 feet. Due to the

elevation gradient of the project area Native American use is assumed to have been occasional to

seasonal. Temporary camps were limited to spring, summer, and early fall use. Deer and elk and

other big game continue to be significant source of meat for Tribal members today. Plants are also

gathered within the region by Tribal members. Some specific plants observed by the archaeologist

during survey includes Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, larch, spruce, white fir, willow, aspen,

juniper, sage, rabbit brush, currant, ceanothus, yarrow, balsam root, strawberry, huckleberry, and

grasses.

Prehistoric and historic American Indian cultural resource site types may include such things as

lithic scatters, toolstone quarries, and plant processing sites, seasonal camps etc. Special places

may consist of sites and places that are valued for cultural, religious, or traditional importance.

Tribal members have expressed interest in this project area specific to huckleberry gathering and

the potential for maintenance and enhancement of huckleberry production for protection of tribal

treaty rights.


74

History

Trappers and Protestant and Catholic missionaries began to arrive in the area around 1807. In

1855, treaties were formed with the Cayuse, Umatilla, Walla Walla, and Nez Perce tribes.

Persons who traveled to the Willamette Valley often passed through northeastern Oregon on the

Oregon Trail. Settlements were not established in the area until the 1860s at the same time gold

began to be discovered. Gold mining created the need for new and larger settlements. Gold

camps stimulated the economy through their demand for food, living supplies, and mining

equipment. The need for food brought ranchers to the area. Once the railroad reached the region,

the lumber market grew. By the 1880s, lumber began to be shipped to distant markets.

Effects Analysis

The Starkey AMP Update Project heritages resources analysis area encompasses all of the 30,396

acre project area. The area of potential effect, following Region 6 guidance and 36 CFR

800.16(d), for the Starkey AMP Update project area consists of slopes less than 15 percent within

the analysis area. Site records and existing maps were reviewed; all known sites were surveyed

again for this project. Transects that follow Oregon State Historic Preservation Office guidelines

at 20 meter intervals were used. Springs are considered a high potential area and were surveyed.

Cultural resource identification in the project area focused on three primary types of resources:

prehistoric archaeological sites, historic archaeological sites, and places that support resources of

contemporary tribal interest. No new or isolated sites were discovered within the project area.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Heritage Resources


Under this alternative, no treatment activities would be undertaken.


Avoidance criteria built into the design of the action alternative provides protection of all known

heritage resources within the project area. Mitigation measures are in place and will be part of

contract specifications should any new cultural sites be discovered during project activities.

Because these measures are adequate to protect heritage resources within the project area there

are no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on heritage resources from this alternative.

Alternative 2 would be consistent with the Wallowa-Whitman Land and Resource Management

Plan as all cultural resource standards and guidelines would be met (USDA Forest Plan 1990).

Required and Additional Disclosures

This section discloses the effects of the alternatives on the human environment as specified by

law, regulation, policy, or Executive Order.

Tribal Treaty Rights

Treaties provide that Native Americans will continue to have the right to erect suitable buildings

for fish curing, privileges of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing stock on

unclaimed lands. Indian treaty rights and privileges were considered throughout this analysis and

maintained through appropriate design and layout features, especially related to first food

resources such as fish, wildlife, and riparian areas. Both alternatives are equal in their treatment

of treaty rights and are expected to maintain treaty rights and opportunities into the future.


75

Biological Diversity

All existing native and desirable introduced species and communities are maintained with both

alternatives. Erosion control measures (seeding, straw bales, etc.) would use native species and

certified weed-free materials. Biological diversity is not expected to be affected.

Public Safety

No long-term public safety problems are anticipated with this project. Short-term safety hazards

such as truck traffic when moving livestock on or off of the allotment may occur; however, this is

very limited in duration and intensity and is not anticipated to impact public safety.

There is no expectation that there would be a change to public health and safety. Livestock on

roadways can pose safety issues with public using these roads; however, the Starkey

Experimental Forest and Range is completely fenced and access is actively managed within this

area to support on-going research studies.

Research Natural Areas, Experimental Forests, and Wilderness

There is one research natural area (Strickler RNA) immediately adjacent to this project area on

the northern edge; however, it is completely fenced off from the project area and would not be

impacted by any activities proposed in this project. There are no wilderness areas associated with

the Starkey AMP Update project area. This project area encompasses the entire Starkey

Experimental Forest and Range (refer to management direction map, Appendix B). The area is

allocated to research use and managed to provide for current and future research needs. As

described in the alternatives section of this document, research is a key component to the changes

proposed under this update and would meet the short and long term goals and for this

management area.

There are no known significant cumulative effects from the project and other projects

implemented or planned on areas separated from the affected area of the project beyond those

evaluated in Chapter IV of the FEIS of the Forest Plan. The physical and biological effects are

limited to this analysis area. No actions are proposed which are considered precedent setting.

There are no known effects on the human environment that are highly uncertain or involve unique

or unknown risks. None of the actions threaten a violation of Federal, State, or local law. Action

alternatives would comply with air and water quality regulations (laws). The effects on the

quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial based on public

participation.

There are no known plant communities containing yew species within the analysis area.

Probable Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot Be Avoided

There would be no adverse environmental impacts caused by implementation of the management

activities proposed in this analysis that may be considered adverse according to individual

interpretations.


76

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

Irreversible resource commitments are actions that either deplete a non-renewable resource or

disturb another resource to the point that it cannot be renewed within 100 years. No heritage sites

will be negatively affected.

Impacts to soil and water are controlled by management practices and mitigation measures and

would not represent an irreversible resource commitment. For all practical purposes, rock is a

non-renewable resource. Existing roads constitute a more-or-less permanent commitment of a

portion of land to a purpose other than timber production; however, this project does not affect or

change the existing road system.

Energy Requirements of Alternatives

Management activities requiring heavy equipment usage are less energy-efficient. The need for

less energy-efficient and more expensive techniques would generally not be required to meet

project objectives for management of this allotment. Trucking livestock onto and off the

allotment would generally require the most energy commitments; however, it would be of very

limited frequency and duration.

Prime Farmlands, Range Land, Forest Land

Actions taken under any of the alternatives would have no impact on farmland, rangeland, or

forestland inside or outside the National Forest. There are no prime farmlands affected by the

proposal.

Civil Rights, Women, Minorities, Environmental Justice

This project does not generate disparate impacts to civil rights, women or minorities. The project

alternatives, given the size of potential social and economic effects, are also not likely to result in

civil rights impacts to Forest Service employees or customers of its programs.

Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice requires federal agencies to identify and address

any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and

low-include populations.

As there will be no decrease in the level of permitted livestock use within the Starkey allotment

based on either alternative, there will be no effect on any of the above mentioned populations.

The Starkey allotment is located within ceded lands recognized in the June 9, 1855 Treaty

between the Cayuse, Umatilla and Walla Walla Tribes, in Confederation, and the United States.

Article 1 states, “The above-named confederated bands of Indians cede to the United States all

their right, title and claim to all and every part of the country claimed by them included in the

following boundaries … [p]rovided … the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries and

pasturing their stock on unclaimed lands in common with the citizens, is also secure to them.”

There would be no change to the Tribes ability to access or utilize the ceeded lands within the

Starkey allotment this project.

This project would not generate a disparate impact on minority or low income populations. The

project alternatives, given the size of potential social and economic effects, are also not likely to

result in civil rights impacts to Forest Service employees or customers of its programs. The


77

project alternatives would not result in any disproportionately high or adverse human health or

environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.

Wetlands and Floodplains

Wetlands and floodplains associated with streams and springs would be protected and enhanced

using design criteria and mitigation guidelines previously identified. No designated Wild and

Scenic rivers would be affected by this project proposal.

Executive Order 11190 requires the Forest Service to “avoid to the extent possible the long and

short term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands”. The

Starkey AMP Update Project is consistent with this EO because it does not propose to destroy any

wetlands and any modifications to the wetlands would enhance them moving the project toward

riparian management objectives. Executive Order (EO) 11988 requires the Forest Service to

“avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the

occupation or modification of floodplains. The Starkey AMP Update Project is consistent with

this EO.

Finding of No Significant Impact As the responsible official, I am responsible for evaluating the effects of the project relative to the

definition of significance established by the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.13). I have reviewed

and considered the EA and documentation included in the project record, and I have determined

that the proposed action and alternatives will not have a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. As a result, no environmental impact statement will be prepared. My

rationale for this finding is as follows, organized by sub-section of the CEQ definition of

significance cited above.

Context For the proposed action and alternatives the context of the environmental effects is based on the

environmental analysis in this EA.

Intensity Intensity is a measure of the severity, extent, or quantity of effects, and is based on information

from the effects analysis of this EA and the references in the project record. The effects of this

project have been appropriately and thoroughly considered with an analysis that is responsive to

concerns and issues raised by the public. The agency has taken a hard look at the environmental

effects using relevant scientific information and knowledge of site-specific conditions gained

from field visits. My finding of no significant impact is based on the context of the project and

intensity of effects using the ten factors identified in 40 CFR 1508.27(b).

1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the

Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial.

Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse are discussed in the Effects of

Implementation section of the EA. These impacts are within the range of those identified in

the Forest Plan. The actions will not have significant impacts on other resources identified

and described in this analysis. The effect of the decision is non-significant in the long and

short term.


78

2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.

Public health and safety will be minimally affected over a short term by the proposed project

due to occasional cattle trucks in the area while cattle are being put onto or removed from the

allotment. Fencing will mitigate the potential safety hazard of cattle on major highways

within or adjacent to the project area (EA, p. 75).

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as the proximity to historical or cultural

resources, parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically

critical areas.

This project proposal does not affect any unique geographical characteristics such as

parklands, prime farmlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas (EA, pp. 76-

77).

4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be

highly controversial.

Based on the analysis of the effects of implementing this project no substantial scientific

evidence exists to dispute the size, nature, or effects of this project on any human

environmental factors. (EA, Environmental Impacts section)

5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or

involve unique or unknown risks.

There are no known effects on the human environment that are highly uncertain or involve

unique or unknown risks associated with this project. Instream enhancement, planting,

floodplain enhancement, and channel realignment are common practices and the effects are

well known. The EA effectively addresses and analyzes issues and environmental impacts

associated with the project (EA, Environmental Impacts section).

These actions pose no disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental

effects, including social and economic effects, on minority or low-income populations. This

project has shared in the federal government’s overall trust responsibility to Indian tribes

where treaty or other legally defined rights apply to National Forest System lands.

Consultation has incorporated opportunities for tribal comments and contributions to the

proposed action. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) was

provided copies of the proposed action and heritage reports. The CTUIR Board also received

several general briefings on this project during formal consultation meetings in 2015 and

2016. Discussions with tribal archaeologists have been incorporated into project design. No

other comments were received. (EA, pp. 73-74)

6. The degree to which the action may establish precedent for future actions with significant

effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.

These actions do not set a precedent for other projects that may be implemented to meet the

goals and objectives of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan. The Forest Plan, as amended has set a goal of managing range vegetation

and related resources in a manner insuring the basic needs of the forage and browse plants

and the soils are met. It also has a goal of making forage that is in excess of the basic needs

of plants and soils resources available for wildlife and domestic livestock. This project does


79

not change or amend the forest plan and meets the research goals for Management Area 14.

(EA, pp. 15-77)

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively

significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively

significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action

temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts.

There are no known significant adverse, cumulative, or secondary effects between this project

and other projects (completed, active, or planned) adjacent to the affected area. Effects to the

basic resource values of soil, water, vegetation, air, or fish and wildlife were estimated and

determined to be localized and limited (EA, pp. 15-77). This determination is based on the

results of cumulative effects analyses discussed in the EA that considered past, existing, and

proposed activities.

8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or

objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause

loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.

Based on a cultural resource inventory and report, mitigation and protection measures, the

known cultural, scientific, or historical resources within the project area have been protected

during project design (EA, pp. 73-74). Field studies have been completed for cultural and

historic resources (Heritage Report, analysis file). The contract will contain a contract clause

requiring protection of any newly detected sites. Consultation with potentially affected tribes

and SHPO has been completed.

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or

its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

A biological evaluation for wildlife proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive (PETS)

species indicates that this project received a “no impact" determination for the “sensitive”

Northern bald eagle, Lewis’ woodpecker, White-headed woodpecker, North American

wolverine, gray wolf, Johnson’s hairstreak, and fringed myotis. Columbia spotted frog,

Upland sandpiper, Intermountain sulphur, Western bumblebee, Fir pinwheel, and Shiny

tightcoil received a “May impact individuals or habitat but will not likely contribute to a trend

toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species” determination.

Canada Lynx received a “no effect” determination. (EA p. 61 and Wildlife Biological

Evaluation, Analysis File)

The biological evaluation for fish species indicates that this project may affect but is not

likely to adversely affect summer steelhead and spring Chinook salmon and their designated

critical habitat. NMFS concurred with this finding in their Letter of Concurrence (LOC),

dated XXXXXX, 2016 (Analysis File). No terms and conditions were provided.

Implementation of the Starkey AMP Update project may impact redband trout individuals or

habitat for this species, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or

cause a loss of viability to the population or species. (EA pp. 64)

The biological evaluation for PETS Plants indicates that project activities will have no impact

on any threatened, endangered, candidate, or proposed plant species. Grazing activities may


80

impact some Phlox multiflora plants and undiscovered individuals or habitat of R-6 sensitive

plant species but will not contribute to a loss of viability of, or move a species toward federal

listing (EA p. 62)

10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements

imposed for the protection of the environment. The actions proposed in this project would

not threaten a violation of any laws or requirements and would provide for research findings

focused on the protection and enhancement of instream and fish habitat in grazed pastures

(EA, Environmental Impacts pp. 15-77).

starkey allotment management plan update project...

Documents