Appendix-Management Plan for the 4-0 Ranch Unit of the Chief

Home , Grande Ronde River, Ribes oxyacanthoides

July 2019

Management Plan for the 4-0 Ranch Unit of the Chief Joseph Wildlife Area

Appendix of the Blue Mountains Wildlife Areas Management Plan (2019)

The mission of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is to preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 1111 Washington Street, SE Olympia, WA 98501

Table of Contents Plan Purpose and Use ...... 2 Property Description ...... 3 Species Management & Objectives ...... 8 Management Action Timeline ...... 28 References ...... 29 Appendix A: Parcel Table with Tax Lots and Parcel Maps ...... 30 Appendix B: Species to Benefit ...... 34 Appendix C: Rare Plants ...... 37 Appendix D: Grazing Management ...... 38

Photo cover by Justin Haug, WDFW Photo this page by Alan L. Bauer 1

Plan Purpose and Use This Management Plan was developed for the properties on the 4-0 Ranch Unit of the Chief Joseph Wildlife Area (Figures 1 and 2), acquired in fee title (from 2014 on) with financial support from the federal Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund’s Habitat Conservation Land Acquisition grants. Accordingly, these properties, listed in Table 1, are to be managed in perpetuity for the benefit of the federally listed bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Snake River steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and Snake River fall Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), as well as other state species and other target species.

This Management Plan is in effect from July 2, 2019 until it is updated, replaced, or supplemented by documents approved by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). WDFW will undertake management activities herein as funding and staffing allow. If any management activities on the property result in generating revenue, the revenue will only be used for management of the property in keeping with the grant purpose.

The 4-0 Ranch Unit of the Chief Joseph Wildlife Area (part of the Blue Mountains complex) was purchased in five phases, from 2012 – 2016, with Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund’s Habitat Conservation Land Acquisition (CESCF) grants and Recreation Conservation Office (RCO) – Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP) funding. This plan covers lands purchased in phases 4 and 5 (see Table 1 for properties purchased from 2014 on). It is included as an appendix to the Draft Blue Mountains Wildlife Areas Management Plan (expected to be completed in spring 2019). The 4-0 Ranch Unit is 10,451 acres, in two management sections, Grouse Creek, west of Wenatchee Creek, and Mountain View, east of Wenatchee Creek. This plan covers the western portion of the property, Grouse Creek, which is 4,069 acres. Management activities conducted on the Grouse Flats will also apply to and benefit the whole 4-0 Ranch Unit, as well as other properties in the Blue Mountains Wildlife Areas.

This acquisition addresses two recovery objectives for bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), from the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board (2004, 2011): 1) Protect, restore, and maintain suitable habitat conditions for bull trout, and 2) Use all available conservation programs and regulations to protect and conserve bull trout and bull trout habitats.

The entire project area supported by CESCF funds includes both Grouse Creek and Mountain View, and will protect approximately 15 miles of river and creek habitat for at least nine aquatic species covered by the Washington Forest Practices Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) including federally listed bull trout (see Figure 3).

In the 10-year Draft Management Plan for the Blue Mountains Wildlife Areas, the overall vision of the Chief Joseph Wildlife Area, where the project is located, is “To protect native range and forest habitats, cultural resources, and big game winter range, while offering excellent hunting opportunities and world-class fisheries on the Snake and Grande Ronde Rivers.”

The overall management objective of the 4-0 Ranch Unit is the conservation of a diversity of high quality habitat types, state and federally classified fish and wildlife species, and numerous plant species. 2

Property Description The Blue Mountains Wildlife Areas is made up of three wildlife areas: Asotin Creek, Chief Joseph, and W.T. Wooten, and cover 77,177 acres in Asotin, Garfield, Columbia, and Walla Walla counties of SE Washington (Figure 1). The 4-0 Ranch unit is part of the Chief Joseph Wildlife Area, in the Snake River and Grand Ronde River watersheds. The 4-0 Ranch unit is located about 30 miles southwest of Clarkston (Figure 2). Primary access to the unit is from Highway 129, to the Grande Ronde Road, to Grouse Creek Road. The unit is bordered by the Umatilla National Forest, US Bureau of Land Management, and private property. The creek that runs through the property appears as Wenatchee and Menatchee on different maps. In this plan it will be referred to as Wenatchee, the name on the legal documents and the locally used name.

Elevations on the 4-0 Ranch Unit range from about 1,400 feet to 3,500 feet. Close to the Grande Ronde River, narrow canyons and steeps slopes are common. Above the major drainage breaks, broad ridges and gentle benches tend to prevail. The dominant drainage pattern is to the southwest toward the Grande Ronde River. Many relatively level areas have been under recent cultivation and or harvest. Average annual precipitation is approximately 19-21 inches.

At the time of acquisition, WDFW’s interest in acquiring this property was due to its relatively ecologically intact and diverse landscape that will protect habitats and species, as well as connecting large blocks of public land. The unit includes ten miles of river and creek habitat, with parts of the Wenatchee, Cougar, Grouse, and Medicine Creek drainages, tributaries, and shorelines of the Grande Ronde River, a tributary of the Snake River.

Various National Ecological Systems are present, with the Columbia Foothill and Dry Canyon Grassland and Northern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine and Woodland Savanna predominating (see Figure 4).

There have not been any significant recent fires on the 4-0 Ranch Unit. However, before fire suppression efforts began in the 1900’s, the forest and grasslands are thought to have burned every 16-40 years historically. Due to fuels accumulation over the last 100 years, changing vegetation conditions, and fire suppression, the surrounding areas have more recently experienced large, often stand-replacing wildfires such as the Grizzly Bear Complex fire of 2015 which burned over 82,000 acres and came within a few miles of the 4-0 Ranch Wildlife Area.

Tribal Treaty Rights The Blue Mountains Wildlife Areas are in part of the aboriginal range of the Nez Perce, Walla Walla, Cayuse, Umatilla, and Palouse Tribes. The Nez Perce Tribe and Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation have treaty harvest rights within the subbasin. The tribes have retained the right to take fish at all “usual and accustomed” places, and to hunt, gather, and pasture livestock on open and unclaimed land. The Treaty of Walla Walla (June 9, 1855) and the Treaty with the Nez Perces (June 11, 1855), both signed at Camp Stevens, Walla Walla Valley, include language about these rights. Treaty tribes have been recognized as managers of their treaty-reserved resources, and have interest in the management decisions in the Blue Mountains Wildlife Area (US. v Washington 1974). WDFW honors and respects Tribal treaty reserved rights, and will take into consideration traditional

hunting and gathering sites in any actions in this plan that may affect them. Communicating and coordinating with tribes is an objective of the Blue Mountains Wildlife Areas Management Plan.

Land Use Prior to the WDFW acquisition, the 4-0 Ranch was a well-managed working ranch, with agricultural fields and cattle grazing. The former town of Mountain View, which currently lies on the 4-0 Ranch Unit, had a post office until 1951 and a school until 1954 before purchase by a private ranching company. Part of the purchase agreement with WDFW allowed the seller to continue agricultural and grazing practices, but the seller ceased operations in 2017. In 2018, an agreement was reached with two new operators to graze cattle and grow crops in a similar fashion. Grazing is regulated under the terms of the management plan, described below (see Appendix D for Grazing Management Plan).

Land use is predominately open space, agriculture/grazing, and recreation. Recreation on the 4-0 Ranch Unit includes hunting, fishing, wildlife and wildflower viewing, camping, horseback riding, and shed antler gathering. Management actions across the entire wildlife area include grazing and agriculture, forest management, weed control, road management, and public education through signage. Additional management actions, as noted in the Blue Mountains Wildlife Areas Management Plan, will be prioritized by wildlife area field staff based on technical, logistical, and financial considerations.

The greatest benefit to wildlife in this area is the protection from land development that comes with public ownership of the land, and management more attuned to the needs of species of conservation concern. The landowner preferred to sell the property to WDFW so that the land would remain intact and managed for fish and wildlife, reducing the risk of the property being subdivided into recreational lots. The very qualities that make the project area so unique – spectacular views of the Blue Mountains and Grande Ronde River, diverse habitat, excellent hunting and fishing – make the site vulnerable to development. Land conversions that might appear to be relatively minor, such as development of a single residence, reduce the conservation potential of adjacent lands managed for wildlife habitat. Development of vacation properties is a potential threat. However, the management actions described in this document will provide conservation benefits to federal, state listed and rare species above and beyond protection from development.

Rare Plants In 2015, WDFW contracted for a botanical and rare plant survey on the 4-0 Ranch Unit, with the results of the survey to support future planning and management in the area. The survey documented eight rare or state listed plants: Cusick’s milk-vetch (Astragalus cusickii var. cusickii), sagebrush lily (Calochortus macrocaropus var. maculosus), Sheldon’s sedge (Carex sheldonii), smooth- leaved gilia (Gilia capillaris), Blue Mountain penstemon (Penstemon pennellianus), wax currant (Ribes cereum var. colubrinum), Idaho gooseberry (Ribes oxyacanthoides var. irriguum), and prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata) (Beck 2015). See Appendix C of this plan for a list of these plants, including state and federal status. These plants were found on the 4-0 Ranch and may or may not be present in the areas covered by this plan. Any areas where rare plants are found, including other plants not on this list, activities such as grazing, agriculture, and recreation will be evaluated and adjusted if necessary to protect the rare plants.

Federally threatened Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii), endemic to the Pacific Northwest, is present on other areas of the Blue Mountains Wildlife Areas but has not yet been documented on the 4-0 Ranch Unit. As part of the overall Blue Mountains Wildlife Area Management Plan (2019), the entire wildlife area will be surveyed for S. spaldingii, and a management plan developed.

Spalding’s catchfly Photo by David Woodall, WDFW

Figure 1: Map of the Blue Mountains Wildlife Area (includes 4-0 Ranch unit)

Figure 2: Map of 4-0 Ranch Unit Area covered by this plan is cross-hatched (Phases 4 & 5).

Table 1: 4-0 Ranch Unit Properties Covered by Management Plan

This table shows the property acquisition phases and location. The full table with the tax lot numbers is found Appendix A, along with the parcel maps.

Parcel Tax Lot # Acres Location (TRS) Grant # Date of Approval Fed Share Name Phase 4 See 2005.84 T6N, R43E, Sections1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13 F12AP01111- Commission Date: $3.7 M Appendix A T7N, R43E, Section 34&35 0001-007A 11/07/14

Recording Date: 12/12/2014 Phase 4 See 2005.84 T6N, R43E, Sections1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13 F15AP00001- Commission Date: $2.0 M Appendix A T7N, R43E, Section 34&35 0001-0530 11/07/14

Recording Date: 12/12/2014 Phase 5 See 2063.05 T6N, R43E, Sections 2,3,4,10,11,14 F15AP00001 Commission Date: $3.77 M Appendix A T7N, R43E, Sections 27,33,34,35 11/13/15

Recording Date: 01/29/16

Species Management & Objectives Overview of Listed Species Management There are many terrestrial and aquatic species present on the unit. (See the species management section below and the Blue Mountains Wildlife Areas Management Plan – Table 13, for a list of all species conservation status). Many wildlife species inhabit the area, including elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep, wolves, cougar, black bear, golden eagles, northern goshawk, and a diversity of reptiles, invertebrates, neotropical migrant birds.

The species covered by this management plan are bull trout, Snake River steelhead trout, and Snake River fall Chinook salmon (Table 2). WDFW also identified additional priority species in need of conservation including Rocky Mountain tailed frogs, great blue heron, bald eagle, golden eagle, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep,

Rocky Mountain elk, and gray wolf. Bull trout Photo by Eric Anderson

Table 2. Federal and State Status of species likely to benefit from management of the 4-0 Ranch

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status Occurrence Key Federal Species Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Candidate Present Snake River Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened Candidate Present steelhead trout Snake River fall Oncorhynchus Threatened Candidate Vicinity Chinook salmon tshawytscha Other Fish Species Interior redband Oncorhynchus mykiss None Present trout gairdneri Pacific lamprey Lampetra tridentata Concern Vicinity Paiute Sculpin Cottus beldingi None Present Bridgelip sucker Catostomus columbianus None Present Largescale sucker Catostomus macrocheilus None Vicinity Peamouth Mylocheilus caurinus None Present WDFW Priority Species in Grant Rocky Mountain Ascaphus montanus None Candidate, SGCN* Present tailed frogs Priority species** Great blue heron Ardea herodias None Priority species Present Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Concern SGCN Present Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos None Candidate, SGCN Present Priority species Rocky Mountain Ovis canadensis None Priority species Present bighorn sheep Rocky Mountain elk Cervus elaphus None SGCN Present Priority species Gray wolf (eastern Canis lupus Endangered SGCN Present WA) Priority species Endangered in wester 2/3 of state

* WDFW Species of Greatest Conservation Need ** WDFW Priority Habitats and Species

WDFW priority species that are present include: gray wolf, giant Columbia River limpet, western toad, western rattlesnake, Columbia spotted frog, northern goshawk, willow flycatcher, flammulated owl, bald eagle, Lewis’s woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, Vaux’s swift, loggerhead shrike, yellow-billed cuckoo, golden eagle, bighorn sheep, American badger, white-tailed deer, Rocky Mountain elk, and moose (for the full list, see Appendix B of this plan).

Additionally, the 2015 botanical survey of the 4-0 Ranch identified two State Status threatened or endangered plants (determined by the Washington Natural Heritage Program, 2015): Sagebrush lily (Calochortus macrocarpum var. maculosus) and Idaho gooseberry (Ribes oxyacanthoides var. irriguum).

State and federal listed species will benefit from the conservation efforts of restoration, weed management, and grazing management described within this plan and the Blue Mountains Wildlife Areas Management Plan.

The 4-0 Ranch unit includes ten miles of river and creek habitat, with parts of the Wenatchee, Cougar, Grouse, and Medicine Creek drainages, tributaries, and shorelines of the Grande Ronde River, a tributary of the Snake River. Federally listed steelhead, spring and fall Chinook and bull trout occur in this section of the Grande Ronde, as well as many other resident fish species (Figure 3).

Fishing regulations in the Grande Ronde provide opportunities to harvest gamefish including rainbow trout and hatchery origin steelhead. Season structure, gear restrictions, and tributary closures provide protection of spring and fall Chinook, bull trout, and natural origin steelhead.

WDFW releases 225,000 steelhead smolts from Cottonwood Acclimation Facility on the Grande Ronde as harvest mitigation under the Lower Snake River Compensation Program. These releases and hatchery fish produced in Oregon provide for a popular steelhead fishery that draws anglers from across the country. The Chief Joseph Wildlife Area and water access sites provide access to this fishery.

Because of the large amount of stream miles and riparian and upland habitats protected, this plan has multiple benefits for six other fish species covered by the Washington Forest Practices Habitat Conservation Plan: interior redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri), Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentate), Paiute sculpin (Cottus beldingi), bridgelip sucker (Catostomus columbianus), largescale sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus), and peamouth (Mylocheilus caurinus).

Grande Ronde River Photo by Alan L. Bauer

Figure 3: Listed Fish Distribution Map - 4-0 Ranch Unit

Life History Background

Bull Trout - Salvelinus confluentus Bull trout in this Columbia River Distinct Population Segment (DPS) face threats from habitat degradation and fragmentation, poor water quality, and introduced native fishes. They spawn in headwater streams and rivers from late summer to late fall, with falling water temperatures between 41 to 48 degrees Fahrenheit, and require colder water than other trout species. Eggs hatch in late winter or early spring, and fry emerge from gravel in April or May. Small bull trout eat terrestrial and aquatic insects, and shift to preying on fish as they grow larger. Resident and riverine migratory forms may co-occur, and each form produces offspring with either life history strategy.

Bull trout in the Mid-Columbia Recovery Unit occur in Washington, Oregon and Idaho watersheds of the Columbia Basin east of the Cascade Mountains crest. In Washington, there are seven core areas, and Washington shares two other core areas with Oregon. The area upstream from Chief Joseph Dam on the Columbia River is currently unoccupied by bull trout. Asotin Creek Core Area was as rated one of the least robust (most threatened). Some populations are regularly monitored, especially in the Yakima River Core Area, for spawner abundance, but total population abundance estimates are not available.

Habitat includes deep pools in cold rivers and large tributary streams, often in moderate to fast currents, and large, cold lakes and reservoirs. The wildlife area is adjacent to but does not contain most of this habitat. Conditions that favor population persistence include stable channels, relatively stable stream flow, low levels of fine substrate sediments, high channel complexity with various cover types, and temperatures not exceeding about 59 degrees Fahrenheit. Suitable migratory corridors between seasonal habitats and for genetic exchange among populations are needed. Spawning usually occurs in gravel riffles of small tributary streams, including lake inlet streams, with sites often associated with springs and upwelling groundwater. Optimum temperatures for incubation are about 36 to 39 degrees Fahrenheit and for juvenile rearing, about 45 to 46 degrees Fahrenheit. Abundance of large woody debris and rubble substrate are important for rearing habitat.

Snake River Steelhead Trout DPS - Oncorhynchus mykiss Adults in this DPS exhibit summer return-timing. They enter freshwater in immature condition in late spring, and travel to and enter natal tributaries through summer, fall, and the following spring if they hold through winter in mainstem reservoirs. They mature in freshwater and spawn from February to May in a calendar year following Columbia River entry. Adults can survive spawning and migrate back to sea, allowing some to spawn more than once. Juveniles may rear in freshwater for one to three years, with most rearing for two years. Juveniles that migrate seaward do so predominately from March through June; some mature in freshwater without going to sea, more commonly in males than females. Ocean migration paths are not well-documented but sub-adults may rear in North Pacific Ocean or Gulf of Alaska, typically for one to three years. Age at first return to spawn usually ranges from three to six years.

Steelhead in this DPS occur in Snake River tributaries in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. Of 24 extant populations, two are entirely in Washington and two are in watersheds shared by Washington and Oregon. Historical populations also occurred upstream of the impassable Hells Canyon Dam.

Adult steelhead use a wide variety of freshwater habitats, spawning or holding in river mainstems and large and small tributaries. They migrate relatively far upstream in natal rivers and access is aided by flow conditions during migration timing. Redds are constructed in riffles, glides, and downstream margins of pools in streambeds where gravel sizes are optimal. Instream woody debris, boulders and stream bank structure provide important cover. Newly emerged juveniles use shallow gravel bed areas in riffles, among boulders, or near stream banks. As juveniles grow they move to higher water velocity areas and maintain individual territories for feeding. During long-term rearing, juveniles may move throughout watershed, using differing habitats in response to seasonal flow and temperature conditions. Instream cover is important for overwintering juveniles, and intact riparian vegetation is essential for contributing woody debris, supporting invertebrate prey, and shading. Freshwater temperatures over 77 degrees Fahrenheit are expected to be stressful or lethal, and temperatures above 68-70 degrees Fahrenheit are known to reduce growth and survival and affect migration. Columbia and Snake rivers are migration corridors, and are greatly modified by dams and reservoirs.

Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon - Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Adults begin entering the Columbia River in August and quickly move upstream, entering the Snake River from late August through December. Spawning occurs from mid-October through mid- December in the mainstem and lower areas of Snake River tributaries. Juveniles rear for a few months in freshwater before migrating to the ocean. Some Snake River fall Chinook may also rear for a year in mainstem reservoirs. Migration to the sea through the Snake and Columbia rivers’ mainstems occurs from spring through summer. Sub-adults rear in the Pacific Ocean coastal areas off British Columbia and Washington, and most rear for two to five years before returning to spawn.

Distribution of historical spawning habitat has been significantly altered by Snake River mainstem dams. Habitat upstream of Hells Canyon Dam is inaccessible, and a 108-mile mainstem reach between that dam and upper end of Lower Granite Dam reservoir is the remaining primary spawning habitat. Spawning also occurs now in lower areas of Snake River tributaries such as Grande Ronde, Clearwater, Salmon, and Tucannon rivers. Fish in two artificial production programs are included in the Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU). Abundance of wild-born fish has increased in recent years due to on-going hatchery supplementation, and majority of naturally spawning fish are hatchery-origin. The geometric mean of natural-origin adult abundance for the 10 years of annual spawner escapement estimates from 2005-2014 was 6, 418.

Adults and juveniles use riverine and reservoir habitats of the Snake River and lower mainstem areas of its tributaries. Habitat available is significantly reduced from historical conditions. The Snake River Basins’ rainfall is generally low, between 10-20 inches, and snow is major form of precipitation, between 20-40 inches. High spring-time flows are important for successful juvenile outmigration. Natural seasonal hydrology has been altered by dams that control Snake River mainstem and some tributaries’ flows. Four dams in lower Snake River and four dams in the Columbia River migration corridor negatively affect passage, flow and temperature conditions needed for adult and juvenile survival. Suitable or optimal freshwater temperatures vary by life stage, but generally range between 41 and 59 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperatures above 68 degrees Fahrenheit may block adult migration and over 75 degrees Fahrenheit may be lethal

Fish management throughout the wildlife areas consists primarily of providing recreational angling and hatchery fish production while protecting and trying to restore ESA listed species.

Habitat Connectivity Fish and wildlife survival depends in part on the ability to move through the environment to find food and reproduce. The degree to which land protection and condition supports these necessary movements is called habitat connectivity. Recent conservation planning efforts in Washington incorporate connectivity analysis into evaluation of landscape structure when identifying habitat and species conservation targets. WDFW is a member of the Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group (WHCWG) (http://waconnected.org/).

Information gained from this analysis maps core habitat areas for wildlife species. Development disrupts connectivity, so knowing core areas where species are can help guide management activities. Habitat restoration and management projects should consider the linkages between habitat blocks on the Blue Mountains Wildlife Areas and neighboring lands for bighorn sheep, western rattlesnake, western toad, and elk; on the 4-0 Ranch, primarily bighhorn sheep and elk.

The 4-0 Ranch plays an important role in connectivity. It connects existing protected U. S. Forest Service lands – the USFS Wenatchee (sometimes referred to as Creek Roadless Area and the Wenaha- Tucannon Wilderness Area to the north with Bureau of Land Management land to the south and east (see Figure 2). These ownerships provide habitat connectivity at a geographic scale that supports fish and wildlife species.

The large reach of the Grande Ronde River protected under this plan provides significant habitat connectivity between the Snake River and Upper Grande Ronde River for many fish species, protecting a major gap in the Grande Ronde River riparian corridor.

Predator Species Management Predators on the 4-0 Ranch Unit include cougar (Puma concolor), gray wolf (Canis lupus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), black bear (Ursus americanus), as well as many smaller species. Any depredation related management involving these species is regulated under Washington Administrative Code 220-440. The gray wolf was listed as endangered by the State of Washington (WAC 232.12.014) in 1980 and receives protection under state law (RCW 77.15.120) from hunting, possession, malicious harassment, and killing. Predations on livestock by gray wolves have been confirmed in this area. WDFW has an established internal program focused on crop depredation by deer and elk, and livestock depredation by carnivores. Currently, management of livestock and wolves will be consistent with the statewide protocol that sets out responses to wolf/livestock depredation events. We acknowledge and recognize that these lands were purchased in part with Section 6 funds specifically for the purposes of conservation of federally listed species, including wolves. The WDFW is working to determine how management of wolf/livestock interactions may be managed differently than the current statewide protocol.

Species Management Objectives The overall management objective of the 4-0 Ranch Unit is conservation of high quality diverse habitat, state and federally listed fish and wildlife species, and numerous plant species. WDFW acquired the ranch in a well-managed state, and management efforts are focused on protecting and maintaining or improving the condition of the land for fish and wildlife, with weed management a high priority. The aquatic and terrestrial habitats are in good condition, but some areas are infested with weeds, such as the Mountain View area with sulfur cinquefoil. Securing intact uplands ensures good water quality and quantity for anadromous and resident aquatic fauna.

Species objectives based on recovery plans for bull trout, Snake River steelhead trout, and Snake River fall Chinook salmon are provided below. Following that is a list of management objectives beneficial to all species.

Bull Trout Objectives This area is in the Mid-Columbia Recovery Unit, Lower Snake Geographic Region (USFWS 2015). The 4-0 Ranch Unit is not in a specific core area, the closest being the Wallowa/Minam Core Area. Primary threats to habitat include livestock grazing and forest management practices, including forest roads, which have resulted in a lack of large wood recruitment, loss of pools, sedimentation, warm water temperatures and low flows. Legacy forest management practices, including splash damming, and agricultural practices, have channelized the river channel, reduced instream complexity, and increased water temperature and sedimentation in FMO habitats. Temperature barriers and low flows impede movement of bull trout between populations and in FMO habitats. The USFWS’s Mid-Columbia Recovery Unit Implementation Plan for Bull Trout (USFWS 2015) provides action to address threats to bull trout. Department actions are listed below. WDFW actions will take into account the needs of bull trout and protection of habitat during planning and implement of all management activities, including road management, recreation, fishing, grazing, agriculture, forestry, and weed control.

- Restore and protect riparian zones associated with bull trout habitat. o Protect riparian zones from development o Protect riparian zones from recreational users o Protect riparian zones from livestock

- Implement stream restoration projects in degraded stream reaches. o Assess condition of stream reaches, and develop restoration projects were warranted

- Reduce grazing impacts o Ensure that ecological integrity is maintained through protective conditions (following WDFW Commission Policy on livestock grazing o Monitor grazed lands to ensure ecological integrity is not compromised. o Through permit conditions, ensure that livestock are not impacting the riparian zone

- Evaluate incidental catch and illegal harvest from recreational angling.

- Promote interagency collaboration and coordination on bull trout recovery actions by supporting existing bull trout working groups or the formation of new bull trout working groups where they do not exist

Snake River Steelhead Trout Objectives NOAA Fisheries’ ESA Recovery Plan for Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) & Snake River Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (NOAA 2017) includes the following recovery strategies for Grande Ronde River steelhead: - Improve winter rearing habitats in the lower Grande Ronde River and tributary production areas. - Improve summer rearing habitats in the mainstem Grand Ronde River and tributary production areas. - Enhance spawning and egg and alevin survival by reducing sediment in spawning gravels in tributaries.

The Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington (2011) prepared by the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board, lists recovery strategies for tributary habitat, harvest, and hatcheries. Bull trout, spring Chinook, and Lower Grande Ronde River summer steelhead are covered. For tributary habitat, these are the main recovery strategies:

- Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history strategies throughout their life cycle. - Restore floodplain connectivity and function. - Restore channel structure and complexity. - Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment. - Restore altered hydrograph to provide appropriate flows. - Improve degraded water quality.

Snake River Fall Chinook Objectives NOAA Fisheries’ ESA Recovery Plan for Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) (NOAA 2017) includes the Lower Grande Ronde River Major Spawning Areas (MaSa). Impacts to habitat from within and upstream of this area include past and present land use actions, such as livestock grazing, road development, recreation, water diversion, and agricultural uses. The plan also includes recovery strategies for the Lower Snake River population. - Maintain and improve spawning, incubation, rearing, and migration conditions. o Actions to maintain and improve habitat are implemented under the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion (and future Biological Opinions, as they are developed) through the Hells Canyon Project Federal Power Act relicensing process (NOAA 2017).

Management of the 4-0 Ranch Unit does not specifically implement these recovery strategies, but any action on the unit that may affect tributary habitat will take these strategies into consideration.

Blue Mountains Wildlife Areas Management Objectives Beneficial to All Species

The following management objectives are a subset of the objectives from the Blue Mountains Wildlife Areas Management Plan (2019) that are applicable wildlife area-wide, those that are 4-0 Ranch specific. For the 4-0 Ranch specific objectives, this task is included: “Consult the ESA Section 6 Plan (this plan) to assure management actions are consistent with species protections”.

1. Establish a baseline and associated goals to maintain or improve the ecological integrity of priority systems. The primary ecological systems of concern on the 4-0 Ranch Unit are Columbia Basin Foothill and Canyon Dry Grassland and Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane, Foothill, and Valley Grassland.

2. Conduct an assessment of native prairie habitat and develop a restoration and protection strategy. Ensure that staff are trained and aware of rare and listed plants and locations. Ensure that management actions take these plants into account.

3. Develop plan to survey the entire wildlife area for rare plants including Spalding’s catchfly (S. spaldingii) by 2024. Develop management plan for all areas where rare plants are found, including adaptive measures. In areas where rare plants, adjust activities to minimize impact.

4. Develop a plan to monitor and conserve federally threatened S. spaldingii on Asotin Creek WLA and anywhere it is found on the Blue Mountains Wildlife Areas. Monitor S. spaldingii in areas where grazing occurs and in future locations where it is found. If found, implement measures to minimize impacts to the plant from grazing, including grazing exclusions.

5. Inspect and repair fences to help manage wildlife and cattle, which will minimize impacts to streambanks, reduce sedimentation, and protect riparian vegetation. Maintain integrity of boundary stock fences to reduce presence of trespass cattle. Reduce injuries to wildlife by continuing to remove unnecessary or problematic fencing where and when possible, replacing and installing wildlife-friendly fences of no more than 42 inches high, 3-strand when possible. Where appropriate, mark fences with flags to make them more visible to wildlife to reduce injuries. Maintain boundary stock fences to reduce trespass cattle on the wildlife area.

6. Implement the Weed Management Plan, Appendix B of the Blue Mountains Wildlife Areas Management Plan. On the 4-0 Ranch, focus on: o Sulfur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta) o Annual invasive grasses such as: ventenata (Ventenata dubia); jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrical); and medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae). o Small amounts of rush skeletonweed (Condrilla juncea), Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium) o Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), which is actively being treated with bio-controls

This includes monitoring for weeds that may potentially increase due to climate change. Where weeds are managed in or near S. spaldingii or other rare plant habitat, implement control measures to avoid or minimize effects on the plants, such as spot spraying of weeds.

In riparian areas, implement measures to avoid or minimize impacts to listed fish species, including bull trout.

7. Implement forest management practices that improve the health of the forest, reduce severity and intensity of fire, and protect streams by implementing the Forest Management Plan, Appendix E of the Blue Mountains Wildlife Areas Management Plan.

All forest actions will follow the Forest Practices riparian management zone requirements for upland perennial and seasonal streams that may flow into the fish-bearing streams (Wenatchee and Brushy on the 4-0 Ranch). Perennial streams will maintain 50 foot no- cut/no-equipment buffers to maintain shade and help cool water for fish and other aquatic species. Sedimentation in streams will be minimized by following the Road Maintenance and Abandonment Plan in place on the unit. Between 800-1000 acres will be commercially and non-commercially thinned to improve forest health, habitat, and reduce risk of catastrophic fire. Thinning also improves the habitat for mule deer.

8. Maintain healthy bighorn sheep population by not allowing domestic sheep or goats on the wildlife area and by communicating to the public the risk of diseases from domestic animals.

9. Protect golden eagles and other species by reducing the threat of lead poisoning by investigating best management practices for lead ammunition.

10. Protect aquatic and other species by continuing to limit off-road vehicle travel and close any temporary roads constructed for forest health projects to vehicles. This includes reducing the number of ADA licensees taking motorized vehicles beyond where it is allowed.

11. Implement the Grazing Management Plan for the 4-0 Ranch Unit, which specifies that ecological integrity is maintained with protective conditions, wolf-related responsibilities, and monitoring is conducted. Grazing is not permitted in the drainage of Wenatchee Creek, the largest stream in the covered area. This includes the stream, riparian area, and all portions of the drainage except for the rims 1,000+ feet above. Existing improved livestock watering facilities will help minimize streambank degradation.

12. Provide information to the public about the management of ESA-listed species. Develop talking points on fish protection and management activities. The outreach will include information about climate change vulnerability of listed fish.

13. Develop an interpretive site/information on the 4-0 Ranch. Determine messaging, location, and include climate change impacts, especially for fish and aquatic resources.

14. Protect wintering wildlife by implementing emergency closures to human entry in sensitive areas like the 4-0 Ranch Unit, when determined necessary by the wildlife area manager and district biologist.

15. Use best management practices to reduce impacts to habitat, rare plants, fish, and wildlife when developing recreational facilities, such as the planning for a proposed trail connection from the 4-0 Ranch to Forest Service trails on Wenatchee Creek. 18

16. Identify high use areas on the units where toilets could be located.

17. Manage and develop recreational activities that promote non-consumptive recreational uses compatible with fish and wildlife, such as wildlife viewing, hiking, and interpretational of the cultural and ecological significance of the unit

See Table 4 for the Management Action Timeline.

Required Species Conservation Measures To ensure protection of those species intended to benefit from acquisition and conservation of the property, measures will be applied to any activities currently allowed under this plan and to any activities which may be approved for implementation for the future.

Habitat Management and Uses This section briefly describes habitat management activities on the Blue Mountains Wildlife Areas, with information specifically on the 4-0 Ranch Unit. This includes ecological integrity, forest management, road management, restoration, weed management, grazing, agriculture, recreation, and cultural resources. The unit has significant acreage of native grasslands, riparian habitat, ponderosa pine woodlands, wildflower meadows, and curl-leaf mountain mahogany stands. The Grande Ronde Subbasin Plan (Northwest Power and Conservation Council) identified these habitats to be protected and managed to improve ecological functions.

Riparian Conditions and Management The project area includes sections of Wenatchee, Grouse, and Brushy creeks. The riparian areas are all in relatively natural states, and do not show signs of recent disturbance. Riparian restoration has not been identified at this time.

Livestock are not permitted in or near Wenatchee Creek. The riparian zone along Wenatchee Creek is brushy, grown over, difficult to access, and not used by the public. Along Grouse Creek, only a very short, steep-sided stream reach is included in the permitted grazing area. Such terrain tends to discourage livestock use, but WDFW will respond to any observed livestock use of this area with measures that will protect fish habitat, typically with fencing or timing restrictions. Similar measures will be implemented as necessary in other riparian areas, including an unnamed tributary to Grouse Creek and Brushy Creek (a Wenatchee Creek tributary), which support typical assemblages of native species. Presently, livestock are utilizing three wells, rather than riparian areas, for much of their stock water on this side of the 4-0 Ranch Unit. Ongoing monitoring—in particular, Multiple Indicator Monitoring (US DOI 2011), which is designed to provide detailed data describing livestock usage and riparian condition—is expected to inform WDFW if this situation changes and riparian areas become affected by livestock grazing.

Figure 4: Ecological Systems of the 4-0 Ranch Unit

The 4-0 Ranch Unit is covered by many ecological systems, and is dominated by eight systems. They are listed by relative size (with the top two predominating). The systems in bold face have been identified as systems of concern in the state: Columbia Basin Foothill and Canyon Dry Grassland Northern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland and Savanna Northern Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane, Foothill, and Valley Grassland Columbia Plateau Steppe and Grassland Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Mesic Meadow Northern Rocky Mountain Western Larch Savanna Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland

Forest Management Forest management activities will restore or maintain fire-resilient forests on the 4-0 Ranch. Timber harvest and prescribed fire will remove excess fuels within treatment areas and presumably allow wildfires to burn through areas at a lower fire severity and intensity. This could feasibly benefit fish by minimizing soil sterilization and erosion that can be associated with catastrophic high severity-high intensity forest fires.

The two fish-bearing streams on the 4-0 Ranch, Wenatchee Creek and Brushy Creek, are at the bottom of steep canyons that would very likely not be treated due to inaccessibility and expense. Forest management activities follow all Forest Practices riparian management zone requirements for upland perennial and seasonal streams that may flow into the fish-bearing streams. Seasonal streams may be thinned, but will have equipment-limitation-zones to reduce potential for sedimentation of entering streams. Perennial streams will maintain 50 foot no-cut/no-equipment buffers to maintain shade and help cool water for fish and other aquatic species.

Table 3 describes the planned or potential forest management projects on the 4-0 Ranch Unit in the next 10 years. Two commercial thins are planned in the area covered by this plan.

Table 3. Forest Treatment on the 4-0 Ranch Unit Estimated Anticipated Objective Treatment Unit Acres Task Completion 300 acres complete 2018; Reduce tree density to improve Mountain View, 4-0 Ranch More thinning forest health and fire resiliency Wildlife Area 300 to 500 Commercial Thin planned 2020 Accelerate reforestation and reduce risk of catastrophic Mountain View, 4-0 Ranch Non-commercial wildfire Wildlife Area up to 500 Thin 2019 Reduce tree density to improve Sawmill, 4-0 Ranch Wildlife forest health and fire resiliency Area 500 Commercial Thin 2022 Reduce tree density to improve Cougar Creek Rd, 4-0 Ranch 200 Commercial Thin To Be forest health and fire resiliency Wildlife Area Determined Reduce tree density to improve Mace, 4-0 Ranch Wildlife To Be forest health and fire resiliency Area 400 Commercial Thin Determined Stimulate understory vegetation 4-0 Ranch, Asotin Creek, To Be Prescribed Fire To Be Determined and reduce risk of catastrophic fire Weatherly Wildlife Areas Determined 21

Figure 5: Forest Treatment on the 4-0 Ranch Unit

New road construction for timber harvest and prescribed fire will be minimized to the extent possible, and roads constructed will be placed on existing road ‘footprints’ when feasible. The entire area has been logged previously and roads are established. A Road Maintenance and Abandonment Plan (RMAP) has been developed, and forest management activities will continue to follow the RMAP for the 4-0 Ranch. The RMAP minimizes sedimentation in streams. Since the acquisition, two areas of concern on the Mountain View side identified in the RMAP have been addressed to comply with Washington Forest Practice Rules. First, a non- functional culvert on a seasonal stream was replaced with a rocked ford. Second, an area that was washing sediment into Medicine Creek after a winter snowmelt event was fixed with two wide rocked fords, rock placement on both sides of the fords for few hundred feet, and ditching above the lower ford. The RMAP minimizes the possibility of sedimentation into the streams through these and other crossings.

Weed Management The goal of weed control on WDFW managed lands is to maintain and improve the habitat for fish and wildlife, meet legal obligations, provide good stewardship, and protect adjacent private lands. Control for certain listed species, regardless of extent, is mandated by state law (RCW 17.10 and 17.26) and enforced by the County Noxious Weed Board. WDFW will strive to meet its legal obligation to control noxious weeds listed according to state law (Class A, B-Designate, and county listed weeds).

State law (RCW 17.15) requires that WDFW use integrated pest management (IPM), defined as a coordinated decision-making and action process that uses the most appropriate pest control methods and strategy in an 22

environmentally and economically sound manner to meet agency programmatic pest management objectives, to accomplish weed control. The elements of IPM include: prevention, monitoring, and prioritizing.

Managing weeds is a significant part of staff workload to establish and maintain diverse native plant communities that support fish and wildlife populations. Invasive plants and noxious weeds can infest high quality native plant communities and convert them to low quality monocultures that reduce wildlife value. The weed management plan (see Appendix B of the Blue Mountains Management Plan) identifies species, and management practices to control weeds. The goal of weed control plan is to maintain or improve the habitat for fish and wildlife, meet legal obligations, and reduce spread to adjacent private lands.

The botanical survey conducted for rare plants also surveyed for noxious weeds (Beck 2015). No Class A noxious weeds were observed. Class B weeds observed include: • Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) – Scattered plants observed in low elevation areas • Rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea) – Roadsides. Controlled by Wildlife Area personnel. • Poison hemlock (Conium maculatum) – Common in riparian areas of large creeks • Common hound’s-tongue (Cynoglossum officinale) – Uncommon • Hairy willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum) – Uncommon, small • Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) – Patches • Dalmatian toad-flax (Linaria dalmatica) - Uncommon and scattered • Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium) - Widespread and common • Sulfur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta) – Observed several times in disturbed areas • Puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris) – Populations of this noxious weed are controlled by Wildlife Area personnel.

Wildlife area staff identified these weeds of primary concern on the 4-0 Ranch Unit to focus on: - Sulfur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta) - Annual invasive grasses such as: ventenata (Ventenata dubia); jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrical); and medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae). - Small amounts of rush skeletonweed (Condrilla juncea), Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium).

Restoration The 4-0 Ranch property was desirable for protection by WDFW since it was in generally in good condition and agricultural and forestry had been well managed. In the Blue Mountains Wildlife Area Management Plan (2019), no specific restoration needs have been identified, however weed management is a high priority.

Without scrupulous management, weeds are a natural consequence of agriculture. The former owner of the 4-O Ranch managed its agriculture both with relatively intense management and with relatively high amounts of physical inputs like fertilizer, seed, and infrastructure. Neither are within WDFW’s long-term capacity. To ensure that weeds do not invade agricultural fields, WDFW will seek to retire some of those fields by restoring them to diverse stands of native, perennial vegetation. Once established, native plant communities resist weeds by competing with them for resources and provide self-sustaining habitat value for wildlife. WDFW will focus on keeping weeds in check while seeking restoration funding needed to retire those fields.

Road Management The primary access roads to the 4-0 Ranch Unit are county roads. The Grande Ronde Road that follows the river is also a county road, maintained by Asotin County. The only roads on the unit are for administrative-use only. These roads are closed to the public for motorized access for the protection of wildlife and habitat, but

non-motorized use is allowed. There is no regular maintenance schedule for the roads. Repairs or upgrades such as unclogging culverts, adding gravel, grading, and repairing washouts occurs on an as-needed basis. There are no roads in the riparian area of Wenatchee Creek. If roads are created for forest management, the Forest Practices rules are followed to reduce the impacts of sedimentation to aquatic species.

Grazing Management Livestock grazing has been occurring on the lands that are part of the 4-0 Ranch Unit for many years, and under WDFW ownership, is now managed according to the grazing plan developed by the interdisciplinary WDFW District 3 team (see Figure 8) and in cooperation with the operator. This plan is consistent with WDFW Commission Policy on livestock grazing, which specifies that ecological integrity will be maintained where grazing is permitted. Maintenance of ecological integrity is achieved with protective conditions, and is demonstrated with long-term range monitoring. Additionally, the permit includes wolf-related responsibilities. Additional guidance for WDFW lands as it pertains to grazing where wolves are present is under development in collaboration with a diverse set of interested parties.

The grazing plan contains the following protections that are or may be relevant for the protected species: 1. Stocking rate of up to 659 animal-unit months on over 2,650 acres, including productive current and former hay fields. 2. Permitted timing is restricted to a window between May 15 and July 31. These dates can be amended depending on the conditions at the time. This relatively early off-date minimizes the likelihood that livestock will over-utilize streams and riparian areas, a risk that is highest in late summer and early fall. 3. The largest stream in the area, Wenatchee Creek, is excluded entirely from any permitted grazing. This includes the stream, riparian area, and all portions of the drainage except for the rims 1,000+ feet above. 4. Salt supplements are to be placed as far from water as practical. 5. Riparian/wetland vegetation in unfenced spring and riparian areas must exhibit 6 inch minimum stubble height (verified during the grazing season) or livestock must be moved. 6. Adaptive management may occur in response to periodic range condition monitoring, and the department reserves the right to restrict acreage or allotted forage if needed for fish and wildlife.

These measures, combined with existing improved livestock watering facilities, are expected to minimize streambank degradation and sediment delivery to streams, and to encourage robust riparian vegetation and improved stream structure, consistent with recommendations in the 2015 USFWS Bull Trout Recovery Plan, and consistent with the regional approach to address tributary habitat-related factors limiting recovery of Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon and steelhead populations (NOAA 2017).

Grazing is permitted on the entire permit acreage including fields (areas shown as “Ag field), as shown on the map below, and subject to conditions in the permit. Where grazing actually occurs in the permit area may change from year to year. In 2018 there was no grazing on the Grouse Creek east pasture.

Figure 6: Grazing Areas on the 4-0 Ranch

Agriculture Agriculture has been an integral part of management practices on the wildlife area and can provide multiple benefits for wildlife, habitat, and the local economy. It is an effective way to enhance forage and cover for wildlife, and it provides weed and erosion control. Until 2017, agricultural and ranch activities on the 4-0 Ranch Unit were coordinated under the management of a single owner/operator who also lived on the ranch. WDFW now allows agriculture (no cultivation, hay only) and grazing on the 4-0 Ranch Unit in subsections, and agricultural opportunity in each elicits far less interest from potential lessees than the corresponding grazing permit. The agricultural fields require regular management and are too remote for WDFW staff to manage in a cost-effective manner. Consequently, an agriculture lease accompanies the grazing permits on the unit. Agricultural leases, like grazing, are negotiated with the lessees and are designed to meet needs of the agency, wildlife, the farmer, and the community. In the near term, agriculture fields are in use; in the future, with sufficient resources, WDFW ideally would restore these fields back to native grassland habitat, which would provide native cover to wildlife while suppressing weeds.

Education and Outreach The Draft Blue Mountains Wildlife Areas Management Plan identifies an objective to provide information to the public about ESA-listed species management, and to develop an interpretive site/information for the 4-0 Ranch Unit.

Recreation Recreation on the 4-0 Ranch Unit includes hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, camping, horseback riding, and shed antler collecting. All hunting and fishing is managed annually under statewide regulations and seasons. The 4-0 Ranch is managed as a quality hunt for deer and elk, meaning that a limited number of permits are issued. Statewide rules governing pets allow hunters to use hunting dogs under their control, but not to let them or other pets roam unattended. From April through July, all dogs and other pets must be leashed on WDFW lands to protect nesting wildlife. Dog presence on the 4-0 Ranch and in general on the wildlife areas is not a concern at this time, and WDFW officers can enforce violations. The growing popularity of collecting shed antlers has led to some emergency closures to protect wintering wildlife from disturbance.

In 2018, a campground with an outhouse was constructed on the 4-0 Ranch Unit, outside of the covered area of this plan, in cooperation with the Backcountry Horsemen. WDFW allows commercial and group activities on wildlife areas with a permit from the regional office. Non-commercial group activities of 30 participants or more must have a permit. For commercial operators such as rafting companies or hunting and fishing guides, a fee-based permit is required to operate on the wildlife area. In the Blue Mountains, rafting is a popular activity on the Snake and Grande Ronde rivers, and about 6-10 commercial use permits are issued each year. An action in the Blue Mountains Wildlife Areas Plan is to improve permit compliance by the outfitters and to improve the facilities at Heller Bar on the Snake River.

The 4-0 Ranch Unit has fishing access along the lower Grande Ronde River. Fishing regulations in the Grande Ronde provide opportunities to harvest gamefish including rainbow trout and hatchery origin steelhead. Season structure, gear restrictions, and tributary closures provide protection of spring and fall Chinook, bull trout, and natural origin steelhead. More information is found at WDFW’s Fishing Regulations webpage: https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations

Bull trout fishing is closed in the Grande Ronde River and tributaries within Washington. If an angler incidentally catches a bull trout while fishing for other species, it must not be taken out of the water, and must be immediately released. Information on bull trout is reported to the USFWS Eastern Washington Field Office.

Washington hatchery steelhead smolt releases and hatchery fish produced in Oregon provide for this nationally renowned steelhead fishery that draws anglers from across the country. Coded wire tags are inserted into juvenile salmonids before they are released from a fish hatchery or juvenile fish trap. WDFW uses this data to help assess salmonid abundance and catch rates on certain populations of salmonids and steelhead.

See page 17 for the list of “Blue Mountains Wildlife Areas Management Objectives Beneficial to All Species” for management actions that reduce impacts from recreation.

Cultural Resources The Blue Mountains Wildlife Area has a rich history of use by Native Americans and settlers. State and federal law requires the protection of cultural, geological, and other non-renewable resources. Governing regulations include: Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 27.34.200; RCW 27.44, RCW 27.53.060, and RCW 79.105.600; The Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 232-12-251 and WAC 25-48; Executive Order 05-05: Archeological and Cultural Resources; and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Section 106).

Such resources may not be removed unless determined to be beneficial to wildlife, habitat, or scientific or educational purposes, and procedures are implemented to comply with all relevant laws. WDFW coordinates with appropriate agencies and tribes for the protection of such resources if any activity affects cultural, archaeological, or historic resources. Wildlife area staff are appropriately trained, fully aware of the importance of, and committed to, the protection of all cultural resources found on the wildlife area.

Management Action Timeline

Table 4 shows the timeline for management activities.

Table 4: Activity Frequency & Timing Location Staff informed of rare and On-going Entire unit threatened or endangered plants and locations Inspect and repair fences, Annually Entire unit replace with wildlife- Spring – Fall friendly fences Implement the Weed On-going Entire unit Management Plan Implement Forest On-going Entire unit Management Plan As appropriate Protect bighorn sheep by On-going Entire unit not allowing domestic sheep or goats on the wildlife area Protect golden eagles from On-going Entire unit lead ammunition Limit off road vehicles and On-going, mostly during Entire unit reduce un-allowed vehicle hunting season access As appropriate Implement the Grazing Multiple events Grazing locations Management Plan; monitor Spring – Fall grazing Provide information to the When funding and staffing Entire unit public on ESA-listed species allows Develop interpretive When funding and staffing Entire unit information allows Implement emergency Seasonally, as needed Entire unit closures to protect wintering wildlife Use best management On-going Entire unit practices when developing recreational facilities Identify high use areas for When funding and staffing Entire unit toilets allows and new opportunities developed

References Beck, Kathryn. 2015. A Botanical Survey of 4-0 Ranch, WDFW, Asotin County. Prepared for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Fowler, Pat E. 2001. Washington State Elk Herd Plan: Blue Mountains Elk Herd.

Gray, Karen. 2008. 2008 Field Survey for Silene spaldingii (Spalding’s Catchfly) in the Asotin Wildlife Area, Asotin County, Washington. Final Report to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Mendel, G. and J. Trump. 2010. Tucannon Lakes Fishery Monitoring Report for 2003.

NOAA Fisheries. 2017. ESA Recovery Plan for Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon (Oncorhrynchus tshawytscha) & Snake River Basin Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).

Washington Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office. 2011. Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington.

Scott, T., J. Kohr, R. Granger, A. Marshall, D. Gombert, M. Winkowski, E. Bosman Clark and S. Vigg. 2016. Columbia River Instream Atlas (CRIA), FY2016. A component of the Columbia River Basin 2016 Water Supply & Demand Forecast. November 9, 2016. Funded by Washington Office of the Columbia River, Department of Ecology. 98 Pages

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Recovery plan for the coterminous United States population of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Portland, Oregon. xii + 179 pages.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Mid-Columbia Recovery Unit Implementation Plan for Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2011. Riparian area management: Multiple indicator monitoring (MIM) of stream channels and streamside vegetation. Technical Reference 1737-23. BLM/OC/ST-10/003+1737. Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO. 155 pp.

Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group (WHCWG). 2010. Washington Connected Landscapes Project: Statewide Analysis. Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, and Transportation, Olympia, Washington.

Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group (WHCWG). 2012. Washington Connected Landscapes Project: Analysis of the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Department of Transportation, Olympia, Washington.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2015. Washington’s State Wildlife Action Plan: 2015 Update. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. June 2017. Wolf-livestock interaction protocol. https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/at-risk/species-recovery/gray-wolf/conflict-prevention

Treaty with the Nez Perces, June 11, 1855, 12 Stat. 957 (1859).

Appendix A: Parcel Table with Tax Lots and Parcel Maps

Table 5: 4-0 Ranch Unit Properties Covered by Management Plan

Parcel Tax Lot # Acres Location (TRS) Grant # Date of Fed Name Approval Share Phase 2-006-43-001-1000-0000 2005.84 T6N, R43E, Sections1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13 F12AP01111- Commission $3.7 M 4 2-006-43-001-4000-0000 T7N, R43E, Section 34&35 0001-007A Date: 2-006-43-001-6000-0000 11/07/14 7-006-43-001-0100-0000 2-006-43-002-8000-0000 (FKA Recording 2-006-43-002-0000-0000) Date: 3-006-43-002-8000-0000 (FKA 12/12/2014 3-006-43-002-0000-0000) 7-006-43-002-0200-0000 2-006-43-003-8000-0000 (FKA 2-006-43-003-0000-0000) 3-006-43-003-8000-0000 (FKA 3-006-43-003-0000-0000), 7- 006-43-003-0300-0000 2-006-43-004-1000-0000 3-006-43-004-1000-0000 7-006-43-004-0400-0000 2-006-43-012-2000-0000 3-006-43-012-2000-0000 2-006-43-012-3100-0000 2-006-43-012-3200-0000 2-006-43-012-4200-0000 3-007-43-034-3500-0000 2-007-43-034-3500-0000 2-007-43-034-4000-0000 3-007-43-034-4000-0000 7-007-43-034-4300-0000 3-007-43-035-3000-0000

Phase 2-006-43-001-1000-0000 2005.84 T6N, R43E, Sections1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13 F15AP00001- Commission $2.0 M 4 2-006-43-001-4000-0000 T7N, R43E, Section 34&35 0001-0530 Date: 2-006-43-001-6000-0000 11/07/14 7-006-43-001-0100-0000 2-006-43-002-8000-0000 (FKA Recording 2-006-43-002-0000-0000) Date: 3-006-43-002-8000-0000 (FKA 12/12/2014 3-006-43-002-0000-0000) 7-006-43-002-0200-0000 2-006-43-003-8000-0000 (FKA 2-006-43-003-0000-0000) 3-006-43-003-8000-0000 (FKA 3-006-43-003-0000-0000), 7- 006-43-003-0300-0000 2-006-43-004-1000-0000 3-006-43-004-1000-0000 7-006-43-004-0400-0000 2-006-43-012-2000-0000 3-006-43-012-2000-0000 30

2-006-43-012-3100-0000 2-006-43-012-3200-0000 2-006-43-012-4200-0000 3-007-43-034-3500-0000 2-007-43-034-3500-0000 2-007-43-034-4000-0000 3-007-43-034-4000-0000 7-007-43-034-4300-0000 3-007-43-035-3000-0000 Phase 2006-430-027000-0000 2063.05 T6N, R43E, Sections 2,3,4,10,11,14 F15AP00001 Commission $3.77 M 5 2006-430-037000-0000 T7N, R43E, Sections 27,33,34,35 Date: 2006-430-044400-0000 11/13/15 2006-430-10100-00000 2006-430-102000-0000 Recording 2006-430-104100-0000 Date: 2006-430-111000-0000 01/29/16 2006-430-112500-0000 2006-430-114400-0000 2006-430-114800-0000 2006-430-116600-0000 2006-430-141120-0000 2007-430-333000-0000 2007-430-334800-0000 2007-430-343600-0000 2007-430-352000-0000 3006-430-027000-0000 3006-430-037000-0000 3006-430-044400-0000 3006-430-102000-0000 3006-430-111000-0000 3006-430-112500-0000 3007-430-274400-0000 3007-430-333000-0000 3007-430-334700-0000 3007-430-334800-0000 3007-430-341200-0000 3007-430-341300-0000 3007-430-341500-0000 3007-430-342100-0000 3007-430-342400-0000 3007-430-343600-0000

Figure 7: Phase 4

Figure 8: Phase 5

Appendix B: Species to Benefit

4-0 Ranch Species Table (from grant application)

Common Name Federal, Species Use of the Property Expected Benefit and Scientific Name State Justification Status (Major, Minor) USFWS Listed Species Covered by the HCP Bull Trout FT/SC Present in the Lower and Upper Major – because of large amount Salvelinus confluentus Grande Ronde River during late fall, of high quality designated critical winter and spring. Migratory (fluvial) FMO habitat on the Grande Ronde adults use this as overwintering River and Menatchee Creek habitat. Documented in lower (USFWS 2010); project provides Menatchee (Wenatchee) Creek. connectivity between Snake River and Upper Grande Ronde. GNLCC vulnerable species because ESA listed, some anadromy, migratory, temperature sensitive. NMFS Listed Species Covered by the HCP Snake River Steelhead FT/SC Spawning and rearing areas Major – widespread spawning Trout including Lower Grande Ronde, and rearing in the project Onchorynchus mykiss lower Menatchee Creek, Cougar tributaries, plus migration and Creek, Grouse Creek & Cottonwood rearing in Lower Grande Ronde Creek. River. Designated Critical Habitat and tributaries are in good shape for steelhead (SRSRB 2006, 2011). GNLCC vulnerable species because ESA listed, anadromous, high social and economic value. Snake River Fall FT/SC Spawning, migration and rearing Major – widespread spawning Chinook Salmon habitat in the lower Grande and rearing in Onchorynchus Ronde River (including upstream and Lower Grande Ronde River; tshawytscha downstream of project area). project provides connectivity between Snake River and Upper Grande Ronde. Designated Critical Habitat (SRSRB 2006, 2011). GNLCC vulnerable species because ESA listed, anadromous, high social and economic value. The freshwater aquatic ecosystem needs for the 3 federally listed fish species above are currently being met by the diverse and healthy riverine, stream and riparian habitats on and adjoining the property. Conservation of a variety of aquatic systems including springs, wetlands, tributaries (both permanent and seasonal), and portions of a mainstem river will provide the range of habitats necessary to contribute to the recovery of these federally listed aquatic species. This acquisition will protect federally-designated critical habitat, essential excluded habitat (due to HCP coverage), as well as the headwater systems and associated uplands that feed into and affect the health of those critical habitats.

USFWS Unlisted Species Covered by HCP Interior Redband Trout FSC Present and locally abundant in lower Major for 6 species – This Oncorhynchus mykiss and upper Grande Ronde both spawning acquisition has gairdneri and rearing. Isolated population in upper multiple benefits for these Menatchee Cr. species that occur within, above and below the project area:

Present in very low numbers in the lower -conserves uplands Pacific Lamprey FSC, S1 Grande Ronde River, and planned affecting water Lampetra tridentate population augmentation. quality/quantity; -maintains/improves riparian habitats affecting Paiute Sculpin instream habitat Cottus beldingi S3S4 Present in lower and upper conditions; Grande Ronde River and likely present in -ensures aquatic creeks within project area. connectivity among tributaries and mainstem habitats; Present in lower and upper -protects instream habitats Bridgelip Sucker S4 Grande Ronde River and likely present in that provide for spawning, Catostomus project tributaries. rearing, migration, columbianus movement, foraging, cover; -maintains food base and food web; -protects current abundance of individuals in population; -protects tributaries and mainstem that together Largescale Sucker S5 Present in the lower and upper Provide a diversity of Catostomus Grande Ronde River; abundant in habitat types and seasonal macrocheilus Snake River. refuge/seasonal use. (WDFW Fish and Habitat S5 Present in the lower Grande Biologists, NatureServe, Peamouth Ronde River on project and downstream Luzier et al. 2011, CRITFC Mylocheilus caurinus 2011) WDFW Priority Species – Present but Not Covered by the HCP Gray Wolf SE Within pack home range WDFW Wildlife Biologist Giant Columbia River SC Present WDFW Priority Habitats limpet and Species Database (PHSDB) Western Toad SC Present WDFW Biologist, Audubon, WWCCD Western Rattlesnake Resident WDFW Biologist Columbia Spotted Frog FC, SC Present GNLCC vulnerable species and a federal candidate. Northern Goshawk FSC, SC Resident WDFW Wildlife Biologist Willow Flycatcher FSC Neotropical Migrant Audubon, WWCCD GNLCC vulnerable species because ICUN red list and migratory. Flammulated Owl SC Nesting WDFW-Priority Habitats & Species Database

(PHSDB) Bald Eagle FSC/SS Nesting WDFW Wildlife Biologist Lewis’s Woodpecker SC Nesting Audubon, WWCCD White-headed SC Nesting WDFW-PHSDB Woodpecker Vaux’s Swift SC Nesting Audubon, WWCCD Loggerhead Shrike FSC/SC Nesting Audubon, WWCC Yellow-billed Cuckoo FC/SC Rare Visitor Audubon, WWCCD Golden Eagle SC Nesting WDFW Wildlife Biologist Townsend’s big-eared FSC, SC Breeding WDFW- PHSDB bat Big-horned Sheep Breeding, winter, year- WDFW Wildlife Biologist round American Badger Present WDFW-PHSDB Mule Deer Breeding, winter, year- WDFW Wildlife Biologist round White-tailed Deer Breeding, winter, year- WDFW Wildlife Biologist round Rocky Mountain Elk Breeding, winter range, WDFW Wildlife Biologist year- round Moose Breeding, winter range, WDFW Wildlife Biologist year- round FE – federal endangered, FT – federal threatened, FC – federal candidate, FSC – federal species of concern, SE – state endangered, ST – state threatened, SS – state sensitive, SC – state candidate. NatureServe Status: S1-critically imperiled; S3S4 – vulnerable; S4 – apparently secure; S5 – secure; R1 – of potential concern but needs more field work to assign another rank. Audubon – reported by Mike Denney, Walla Walla County Conservation District (WWCCD) WNHDB – Washington Natural Heritage Database (suitable habitat determined from rare plant field guide) Darrach – USFS Botanist, Umatilla National Forest

Appendix C: Rare Plants

Table 6: Rare Plant Species of the 4-0 Ranch Unit (WDFW 2015)

Common Name Scientific Name *State Federal Habitat, area locations Status Status Cusick’s milk- Astragalus cusickii S BLM Dry, grassy, rocky slopes in fine textured basalt vetch var. cusickii sensitive soils. USFS 2 large populations in the Mountain View and sensitive Chitim Gulch areas. On dry, south-facing shrub- steppe slopes. Sagebrush lily Calochortus E BLM Dry, rocky hillsides in fine textured basalt soils. macrocarpum var. sensitive 4 populations in the Mountain View, Upper maculosus USFS Chitim Gulch, Hanson Ridge areas. sensitive Sheldon’s sedge Carex sheldonii + Banks of large rivers. This is the first documented population in Washington. 1 small population along Grande Ronde River. Smooth-leaved Navarettia capillaris ++ Meadows, dry, open, lightly wooded slopes, gilia foothills mountains 1 small population in Upper Hanson Ridge area. Blue Mountain Penstemon R1 Open, rocky ridges and slopes at mod. Elevations penstemon pennellianus in Blue Mts. 2 small populations in the Upper Hanson Ridge area. Wax currant Ribes cereum var. E BLM A historical population of 1 plant is located colubrinum sensitive adjacent to the Grande Ronde River. Not seen since 1980. Not searched for during 2015 surveys. Idaho Ribes oxyacanthoides T BLM Streams, meadow openings, slopes of moist to gooseberry var. irriguum sensitive dry canyons. USFS 1 population along Medicine Creek. sensitive Prairie Spartina pectinata S BLM Banks of large rivers. cordgrass sensitive 2 populations along Grande Ronde River. USFS sensitive

*State Status of plant species is determined by the Washington Natural Heritage Program. Factors considered include abundance, occurrence patterns, vulnerability, threats, existing protection, and taxonomic distinctness. Values include: E = Endangered. In danger of becoming extinct or extirpated from Washington. T = Threatened. Likely to become endangered in Washington. S = Sensitive. Vulnerable or declining and could become Endangered or Threatened in the state. R1 = Review Group 1. Of potential concern but needs more field work to assign another rank. + = Species located in Washington for the first time; will be suggested for WNHP rare plant list. ++ = Species rare in Washington; will be suggested for WHNP rare plant list. Information on most species can be found in Washing Department of Natural Resource’s Rare Plant Field Guide, at: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPfieldguide

Appendix D: Grazing Management

Grazing Management Plan for the 4-0 Ranch

1. Sections from the 4-0 Ranch Grazing Plan and Agricultural Lease Summary (February 2018)

Grouse Creek (West side) agricultural fields and disposition:

1. Upper Green Field. 60.9 acres. Mostly grass hay. Not hayed in 2017. Will need treatment such as burning in early spring 2018 and possible fertilization to produce productive hay. 2. Porter Field (upper). 36.6 acres. Festulolium grass hay. Mostly not hayed in 2017. Will need treatment such as burning in early spring 2018 and possible fertilization to produce productive hay. 3. Porter Field (lower). 110 acres. Festulolium grass hay. Mostly not hayed in 2017. Will need treatment such as burning in early spring 2018 and possible fertilization to produce productive hay. 4. Upper Airport Field. 81.6 acres. Mostly grass hay. Hayed in 2017. May need fertilizer in early 2018 to be productive. 5. Middle Airport Field. 46.8 acres. Timothy hay. Hayed in 2017. May need fertilizer in early 2018 to reach its full production potential. 6. Lower Airport Field. 129.2 acres. Festulolium grass hay. Much of it was hayed in 2017. Will need some treatment such as burning in early spring 2018 and possible fertilization to produce productive hay. 7. Mace Fields. 72.7 acres. Plowed, cultivated, packed, and seeded to a cover crop of winter wheat in 2017. Will need sprayed for weeds and eventually re-seeded into perennial grass or RR alfalfa crop. Grouse Creek (West side) grazing disposition: 1. Not as much early season grazing on the Grouse Creek side as Mountain View 2. Maximum permitted size is 200 AUs 3. Grazing period is May 15th – July 31 each year. 4. There is 500 AUMs of forage available. 5. Much of this side is agricultural fields that may be better off transitioned from hay production to grazing production down the road. 6. Many interior fences have damage and have had no maintenance for nearly 2 years. Much work needs to be completed prior to turnout in some areas. The start and end dates will be reassessed after the first year taking into consideration how the permit is meeting department goals and objectives, and feasibility for the permittee.

2. Grazing Management Plan (Exhibit B of February 2018 Permit)

Background

History. Between 2011 and 2015, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) acquired the 4-0 Ranch, now managed as a unit of the Chief Joseph Wildlife Area. Livestock grazing has occurred on the property for many years. During the acquisition process, grazing was managed according to the terms of a continuing use lease and of an external grazing management plan. The 4-0 Ranch includes a number of open fields that have been cultivated, seeded, and/or hayed, often specifically for livestock-related objectives. Over 1700 acres of such fields have been identified. These fields are also supporting elk.

Purpose and regulations. Commission Policy C-6003 authorizes WDFW to issue grazing permits to facilitate coordinated resource management and to accomplish specific habitat objectives, which should help WDFW fulfill its legislative mandate. This document fulfills a requirement of WAC 220- 500-200, livestock grazing on Department of Fish and Wildlife lands. Furthermore, an Ecosystem Standards (HB1309) assessment has been completed for the proposed permit in fulfillment of RCW 77.12.204. Ecological implications are discussed below.

Resource Description

Overview. The permit area includes approximately 2651 acres of the 4-0 wildlife area as shown in Exhibit A, roughly 30 miles southwest of Clarkston. This acreage includes 1) approximately 1989 acres of rangeland and grazeable forest, of which a relatively small portion may have been cultivated in the past, and 2) approximately 663 acres of fields that are either actively hayed or may have been cultivated in the past. Actively cultivated fields are to be covered by an agricultural lease issued by WDFW that will be associated with this grazing permit and grazing management plan. The dominant aspect and drainage pattern is to the southeast toward the Grande Ronde River. Access to the property is via the Grouse Creek Road. Wenatchee Creek is located between Cougar Creek and Grouse Creek, but access to the mouth of Wenatchee Creek is privately controlled. Privately owned lands in fact surround most of the unit, with U.S. Forest Service land only abutting some 4 miles of the northwestern perimeter of the property. Two small private inholdings also exist. Although several fences have been documented on the property, the total extent of functional fencing and livestock watering facilities is incompletely known, which fact has significantly influenced the prescribed timing placement of livestock on the permit area.

Physical Environment. Elevations range from approximately 1300 feet to 4600 feet. Close to the Grande Ronde River, narrow canyons and steep slopes are common. Above the major drainage breaks, broad ridges and gentle benches tend to prevail, and many relatively level areas have been under recent cultivation and/or harvest. Average annual precipitation is estimated to be approximately 19-21 inches (PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University, http://prism.oregonstate.edu, created 4 Oct 2012). Stony ecological sites are common, including Cool Stony 15”+, Dry Stony 15”+, and Stony Bottom 15”+ sites. Cool Loamy 15” PZ and Loamy Bottom 15”+ sites also occur. Finally, the permit area supports substantial amounts of forest that have not been linked to range site descriptions.

Current Condition. The property includes various forest and steppe assemblages. Non-timbered areas consist mainly of grasses and forbs, while forested acreage often supports herbaceous understories (see photographs in “Results of Previous Management” below), or less commonly big sagebrush/bunchgrass communities, rigid sagebrush/bunchgrass communities, bitterbrush communities, or riparian communities. The majority of the permit area is covered by several

ecological systems: Northern Rocky Mountains Western Larch Savanna, Northern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland and Savanna, Northern Rocky Mountain Dry-mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest, Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Foothill and Valley Grassland, Columbia Plateau Steppe and Grassland, Columbia Basin Foothill and Canyon Dry Grassland, Introduced Upland Vegetation - Annual Grassland, and Cultivated Cropland. The variety of ecological systems reflects the large elevation range and diversity of habitats present on the wildlife area. At lower elevations, annual grasses including cheatgrass, medusahead, and ventenata are present. At various elevations, active forest management is being planned. Riparian areas are not universally accessible to livestock, and appear to be in generally good condition. Terrain or brush tend to limit livestock access to these streams, including Grouse Creek and Wenatchee Creek.

Priority Habitats and Species and Sensitive Species. The permit area supports Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, and bighorn sheep. Summer steelhead, redband trout, and bull trout occur in Grouse Creek, Wenatchee Creek, or Cougar Creek according to WDFW Salmonscape (accessed 23 June 2017). Snake River Chinook salmon (Grande Ronde), Rocky Mountain tailed frog, great blue heron, gray wolf, golden eagle, Columbia spotted frog, western toad, northern goshawk, chukar, dusky grouse, wild turkey, flammulated owl, Lewis’ woodpecker, pileated woodpecker, multiple bat species, and likely butterfly species also occur. There are also PHS Habitats on the property including aspen stands, eastside steppe, riparian, cliffs, and talus.

Goals and Objectives

Goals. This permit is being issued with three goals: 1) to contribute to the maintenance of working landscapes consistent with local cultural values as identified in WDFW’s Strategic Plan; 2) to facilitate the coordinated management of the 4-0 Ranch, where agricultural fields have been managed in concert with livestock use for many years; and 3) to reduce herbaceous fuel loading, which may result in some reduction in the risk of wildfire spread. Livestock use of the agricultural fields may have a variety of effects on elk use, discussed in the expected effects section below, but it could also affect haying or planting operations. The possibility of conflict between different operators has led the Department to seek a single operator to hold the agricultural lease and the grazing permit on this western portion of the 4-0 Ranch Unit. Policy C-6003 stipulates that livestock grazing should protect ecological integrity, which is defined as an ecosystem’s structure, composition, and function as compared to reference systems operating within the bounds of natural or historic disturbance regimes (Lindenmayer and Franklin 2002). An ecosystem with integrity should be relatively functional as demonstrated by various attributes at multiple spatial and temporal scales (Karr 1994). WDFW expects that constraints on seasonality, intensity, location, and frequency of grazing will act to conserve ecological integrity on the permit area.

Objectives. 1. Maintain ecological integrity as described in the “monitoring” section below. 2. Harvest no more than 50% utilization of native perennial grass biomass so that associated regrowth and structural changes may attract elk to the permit area, and so that overall grass biomass and fire risk is reduced. 3. Protect the ecological integrity and function of the springs and wetlands widely distributed across the Wildlife Area, either by fencing or by meeting riparian stubble height benchmarks (described in the “monitoring” section) in unfenced spring areas.

Grazing Prescription Pastures and Intensity. See Exhibit A. See also Table 1 below. Exhibit A depicts several smaller agricultural fields, former agricultural fields, and a few larger “pastures” or grazing units based on previous and ongoing surveys of the property and existing fence.

Many of the agricultural fields are surrounded by fence and are described in the associated agricultural lease. These fields will generally be available for grazing, but if current-year cuttings are taken from a particular agricultural field, then grazing is not allowed until after the cutting

(approximately July). For the purposes of this permit, hay cutting is assumed to occur at the point of the growing season when 85% of plant production has already occurred. 90% of the remaining production on cut fields is allowed for grazing harvest, and of that amount, half is allotted for livestock and half for wildlife use. The associated agricultural lease may specify a minimum cutting height. Animal unit months (AUMs) allotted on the permit area, including all agricultural fields even if being cut, will be billed at the usual Department rate, which is updated annually. The associated agricultural lease will include terms accounting for the hay stubble and rent where cuttings are removed. AUMs on former agricultural fields are estimated by assuming approximately 2000 lbs per acre of annual production. Fields actively cultivated for hay—such as the Airport fields—are assumed to support approximately 3500 lbs/acre of production, of which 85% is subtracted for the haying operation. Some fields may be in the process of replanting and establishment, which may or may not be described in the agricultural lease. Fields in this state will not be available for grazing until the wildlife area manager deems it appropriate. Table 1 below lists estimated AUMs supported by these fields for reference purposes during the agricultural field portion of the grazing season (mid- to late summer).

The larger pastures consist of a combination of rangeland, former agricultural fields seeded to pasture grasses, grazeable woodland/open forest, and more heavily forested areas. Park is mostly fenced and is initially estimated to support 195 allowed AUMs. Additional fence along the southern portion of Park and Grouse Creek E is planned. Grouse Creek E is initially estimated to support 152 allowed AUMs. Rangeland AUMs are estimated according to differential production among ecological sites, then adjusted to account for slope, distance to water, plant community physiological needs, and wildlife use. The portion of the river breaks on the western side of Wenatchee Creek in sections 11 and 12 (at the southernmost extent of the wildlife area) are not included in the permit due to a lack of fencing infrastructure and concern about livestock using the area to access the Wenatchee Creek riparian zone. The green areas on Exhibit A are department-owned property. Although livestock presence in these areas will not constitute trespass, no AUMs are allotted from these areas and the operator is responsible for making a good-faith effort to keep livestock from entering. This includes the Wenatchee Creek canyon and riparian zone. The Department at its option may issue written notification requiring the permittee to employ and use a range rider to effect control of livestock if problems with livestock distribution occur.

Table 1. Ag fields shown on Exhibit A, and approximate associated AUMs.

Grazing Unit AUMs Hay Barn 11 Lower Airport 34 Mace 12 7 Mace 13 27 Mace 14 12 Middle Airport 13 North of Park 21 Porter 2 20 Porter 3 57 Reynolds 10 12 Reynolds 11 24 Upper Airport 21 Upper Green 35

In summary, the permit includes up to 365 rangeland AUMs and 294 agricultural field AUMs of forage. It is likely that not all AUMs will be available in any given year. The wildlife area manager may adjust the following year’s grazing schedule and intensity in response to observation and monitoring. See “timing and intensity” below.

Timing and Intensity. Prior to turnout on any 4-0 Ranch grazing area, cattle must have spent 3-5 days in a “quarantine” pasture to reduce the likelihood of spreading invasive weeds that are problematic on the 4-0 Ranch or other units of the Blue Mountains Wildlife Area Complex. In general, grazing use is permitted during a window from May 15 to June 30 (and from July 1 to July 31 on fenced ag fields), although the wildlife area manager or designee may authorize changes or restrictions in writing in response to identified resource needs. Livestock must be removed from the permit area after either the allowed AUMs have been harvested (even if this occurs prior to the annual off-date), or if a utilization move trigger has been reached (page 8). No minimum stocking density is required to utilize these AUMs, but the maximum permitted herd size at any given time is 170 AUs.

The main drainage of Wenatchee Creek, to include the steep canyon walls and riparian area at the bottom, are not permitted for livestock grazing. Livestock may not be herded into or driven across Wenatchee Creek to facilitate access to or egress from any other area, and any livestock in this drainage must be removed at the earliest opportunity.

Finally, this rotation is tentative. The permittee will be new to this acreage and in all likelihood so will the permittee’s livestock. WDFW and the permittee will remain in frequent communication to refine and if necessary alter the dates and intensity of use such that grazing is consistent with the department’s mission and is feasible for the permittee. Adjustments for some combination of weather, water availability, depredations, and unexpected events are probable. All terms of the grazing permit including performance will be reviewed, based on observed outcomes of grazing, annually.

Selected Responsibilities. In addition to the provisions of the grazing prescription described herein, the following apply: During the term of this permit the Wildlife Area Manager shall determine the on- and off-dates. A minimum of one week’s notice will be given for these dates if there is to be any change from the dates listed above, such as in the event of a utilization threshold being reached. Any necessary reductions in AUM numbers will be determined by the Wildlife Area Manager. In addition, WDFW shall: Conduct vegetation monitoring and collect fees based on current grazing fee rates in the form of cash, in-kind payment services performed, or goods provided, as agreed upon by the permittee and Wildlife Area Manager, with WDFW determining the form of payment. WDFW will identify and prioritize water sources on the property for possible exclusion by fencing and conduct any necessary cultural clearances. The Department will pay electricity costs to run pumps, but may or may not repair major malfunctions such as submersible pump failures. The permittee shall: provide a telephone number that affords 7 days/week contact; maintain all interior pasture fences in their present conditions such that they will hold livestock; gather any stray cattle immediately upon notification; keep livestock well distributed across pastures; maintain water troughs in working order to minimize overflow; remove any temporary fencing and gates promptly at the end of the grazing period; provide WDFW numbers of livestock and dates of use; and pay fees as previously determined and described. Permittee is also responsible for startup, maintenance, and operation of wells, associated pipelines, and troughs necessary for livestock water in various pastures, all subject to prior written approval by the wildlife area manager. Distribution may be accomplished using riders, attractive nutritional blocks, or and/or other means. Salt should be placed on a naturally hardened site if possible and as far away from watering points as practical. Weed control will be a coordinated effort between the lessee and WDFW, and the permittee shall notify WDFW of any new sightings of noxious weeds on the permitted lands. Use of existing corral facilities is allowed as long as permittee maintains these facilities in present condition or better.

Also, numerous springs and wetlands occur throughout the wildlife area with varying levels of protection. Department staff have numbered these springs, which will be evaluated and prioritized by the end of 2018 for possible future fencing. Springs with wetlands and/or high flow rates will have higher priority, while man-made ponds will have the lowest prioritization. The permittee will be responsible for excluding the highest-priority site—Herndon Spring—with either hotwire or permanent fence (per the department’s instruction) during 2018, and to fence one additional location per calendar year for the duration of the permit. Unfenced wetlands are subject to the move triggers identified in the management and contingencies section below.

Additional wolf-related responsibilities.

The permit area supports known wolf activity. The department is currently drafting language that will apply to permitted livestock grazing on all wildlife areas. In the absence of final superseding language, the measures described in Exhibit D will apply, with the following exceptions: • Wolves will be managed in accordance with the department’s wolf recovery plan and wolf advisory group. • This permit is conditional on the permittee’s use of multiple nonlethal deterrents, including the capacity for alternate pasture off of the wildlife area if necessary. • Livestock that die on the Wildlife Area will be removed by the operator as soon as feasibly possible. Disposal will occur in a manner that does not attract wolves to other sites as well. • If repeat depredations occur, the department may at its option terminate grazing privileges for the remainder of the season. This action would not be taken before consultation with the permittee and exhaustion of all reasonable alternatives. The prescribed timing of grazing on rangeland as opposed to fenced fields is expected to reduce the likelihood of this scenario, but guarantees are not possible.

WDFW strongly advises the operator to follow recommendations described in WDFW’s Wolf- Livestock Interaction Protocol (WLIP) which describes a variety of proactive measures to reduce the probability of wolf-livestock conflicts and establishes a framework for WDFW’s response when wolf/livestock conflicts do occur. WLIP can be found at: https://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/livestock/final_protocol_for_wolf- livestock_interactions_jun012017.pdf.

Three conditions pertaining to this permit taken from the WLIP are required by the operator for this permit. They are: 1. Calves must weigh 200 lbs before being turned out on the Wildlife Area 2. The operator must engage in regular human presence (e.g., range riders, hired hands, family members) to protect livestock by patrolling the vicinity occupied by livestock on a daily or near-daily basis. 3. Carcass disposal must be adhered to as described in Exhibit “C” and the WLIP document.

Lastly, the operator is responsible for meeting with the local WDFW Conflict Specialist before turnout each year to discuss proactive measures to reduce the probability of wolf/livestock conflicts. The Wildlife Area Manager will provide contact information for the local Wildlife Conflict Specialist.

Anticipated Effects Wildlife. Properly managed grazing can be compatible with wildlife and may contribute to increased wildlife diversity (Tubbs 1980, Vavra 2005). Although wild ungulates may avoid cattle, deer (Yeo et al. 1993) and elk (Crane et al. 2001) preferred areas that had been grazed by cattle earlier in the year. During active grazing, elk have been documented to be displaced from preferred habitats by livestock during early summer (Coe et al. 2005), possibly displacing elk from the most palatable and nutritious 43

forage. The mechanism that drove these effects is not always clear, but it may have been partially due to the effect of forage conditioning described by some authors (Anderson and Scherzinger 1975, Pitt 1986, Ganskopp et al. 2004, Ganskopp et al. 2007), and Clark et al. (2000) specifically found that late spring cattle grazing could condition grasses such as bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho fescue—both common on the permitted area—to be more nutritious for elk use in winter. The possibility that improved forage nutrition might come at the expense of reproductive output suggests that rotations where native vegetation receives regular rest are important, which has informed the prescription on the Breaks pastures. With respect to deer-livestock interactions, varying results are found in the literature. Although Dusek (1975) concluded there is little if any conflict between mule deer and cattle provided that grazing is not intense and range condition is good, Wagoner et al. (2013) did not find that grazing contributed to mule deer nutrition. In any case, browse is critical for deer habitat and should be encouraged on deer winter range (Wamboldt 1996) such as the permitted lands. The proposed grazing is not expected to reduce available browse on the permit area because 1) cattle tend to reduce the herbaceous standing crop and increase the shrub component of a system (Vallentine 1971, Knick et al. 2011), and 2) the allowed grazing period ends on July 31 or earlier, prior to when cattle are most likely to utilize woody riparian vegetation.

Elk use of the permit area occurs all year, but Burritt and Banner (2013) noted that the tendency of previously grazed rangeland to attract elk could occur in multiple seasons, including in very low precipitation regimes. Damiran et al. (2003) reported that elk foraging efficiency on the Starkey Experimental Forest in Oregon was unchanged as a result of cattle grazing, but that cattle grazing may subsequently improve elk diets. This study also found that previous elk grazing did not have the same beneficial effect on subsequent elk grazing. A four-year study in Wyoming and Montana concluded that in spring, elk avoided areas that had not been previously grazed by cattle and selected for areas that had been either lightly or moderately grazed the previous year (Crane et al. 2016). This same study found that incidence of previous cattle grazing was the single best predictor of elk foraging patterns in spring. Although the study does not entirely rule out a non-livestock related spatial correlation between elk and cattle grazing, it did control for such things as slope, aspect, security cover, and roads. Grover and Thompson (1986) also found that previous cattle grazing along with bunchgrass density explained a majority of the variation in elk feeding site selection in Montana.

Still, Vavra (2005) cautions that modern grazing systems should conserve biodiversity in addition to merely providing for game species, and this is consistent with Policy C-6003. Primary successional species, many of which are forbs, are commonly found on sites disturbed by livestock grazing or logging (Schneegas and Bumstead 1977), and early season forbs can be important for deer emerging from winter. Rambo and Faeth (1999) also found increased species richness associated with grazing. Livestock grazing proposed under this plan and as recently managed is unlikely to have a detrimental impact to elk or deer at the population level. It is unclear whether this dynamic would change in the event of significant big game population increases that approached carrying capacity. In this case, revisiting timing and intensity of grazing may be necessary.

Bighorn sheep extensively use the breaks of the Grande Ronde and Wenatchee Creek throughout the year. The Mountain View herd is normally present on the Grande Ronde Breaks pasture throughout the year and could be potentially sensitive to disturbance during key times of year. Utilization rates do not seem to be a concern for bighorns in this part of the country, nor have we observed that as an issue with any of the other herds in Hells Canyon. Priority Habitat and Species and Sensitive Species. The proposed grazing is expected to amount to a light stocking rate and is not expected to negatively affect the PHS ungulate species listed above. It is also expected to be consistent with conservation of Rocky Mountain tailed frogs and western toads supported by the permit area. In some cases of the PHS species mentioned above, minimal quantitative information is available on the effects of livestock grazing, but the prescribed light grazing regime is expected to be consistent with maintaining these populations. The Department may arrange to fence out identified aspen stands, which are not common on the permit area. Cliffs and talus are

not expected to be affected significantly by the proposed grazing. Eastside steppe is considered jointly with native bunchgrass systems as evaluated in the “vegetation” subsection above.

Vegetation. Managed grazing by livestock can change the species composition of plant communities, increase production of selected species, and increase habitat diversity by changing plant community structure across the landscape (Vavra 2005). As noted above, patchy livestock utilization can benefit certain wildlife populations; cattle that are too concentrated, however, can damage vegetation and soil resources. Forage quality is more similar through the permit area during spring and early summer compared to later in the season, facilitating more uniform cattle distribution (Bailey 2004). Although many cool-season bunchgrasses might tolerate up to 60% use during the dormant season (Laycock 1967), moderate to heavy livestock grazing during the critical growth period for native bunchgrasses (i.e., boot stage to seed ripe phenological stages, usually late spring to early summer) can result in reduced vigor, as evidenced by fewer seed stalks, lower vegetative production, and smaller crown size (Mueggler 1972, Pyke 2011). Heavy grazing during the critical growth period for several years can lead to mortality of key species and a concomitant increase in less palatable plants (Wilson et al. 1966). Many examples exist of resource damage caused by inappropriate grazing (Belsky et al. 1999, Reisner et al. 2013), which can include excessive riparian impacts, long-term perennial grass decline due to season-long grazing, undesirable soil impacts, and others. The grazing season has been deliberately curtailed after July on rangeland habitats to minimize potential late-season impacts that could occur in the absence of fencing that would offer rotational control. Additionally, it may offer modest reduction in the likelihood of fire ignition and spread (Davies et al. 2017), particularly in those locations where grasslands predominate (Strand et al. 2014) or in wet, productive years. Strand et al. (2014) also note that maximum reduction in fire risk is associated with grazing occurring at or just before peak biomass expression. Grazing will be present at that time on the permit area, but not in every location. Rhizomatous or introduced pasture grasses, which are abundant on the permit area, do not require the same kind of rest that is recommended for native species. Even though increasing utilization of such forage may be associated with increased reduction of fire risk, a 50% forage utilization limit will remain in place for this permit to protect ecological integrity due to the difficulties of restricting livestock to certain kinds of grasses where they co-occur.

Management and Contingencies Utilization Move Triggers. Range conditions can be generally expected to deteriorate if more than 50% of annual production is utilized on a yearly basis (Holechek et al. 1982), so this is the move trigger for this permit. If average seasonal utilization is observed to exceed 50% bluebunch wheatgrass production, the permittee will be notified that livestock must be moved to a separate pasture on the permit area. Idaho fescue may be preferred forage over the more common bluebunch wheatgrass where it is available; thus, Idaho fescue will be monitored if sufficiently abundant at sampling locations. The condition of native bunchgrass populations has been shown to be correlated with resilience and resistance of sagebrush ecosystems to disturbance (Chambers et al. 2014), and the terms of this permit are expected to be consistent with resilient rangeland systems. In riparian areas or around unfenced springs and ponds, the move trigger is 6 inches or less of riparian grass stubble height, consistent with WDFW’s recommendation (Knutson and Naef 1997). Riparian grasses are defined as obligate wetland or facultative wetland species according to PLANTS database or Multiple Indicator Monitoring definitions.

Weed Management. Any class A weeds will be treated as soon as possible upon discovery, because models indicate that seeking, identifying, and treating small new infestations is more effective and cost-effective than treating large, highly visible, well-established invasive populations (Frid et al. 2013). If areas of heavy soil disturbance are observed, herbicides will be used as needed to control and minimize the spread of noxious weeds. Ventenata (Ventenata dubia) is an invasive annual grass that is relatively common on the permit area and is of increasing concern. If relative abundance of ventenata appears to be increasing (with or without connection to grazing management), the district team will be consulted to discuss possible treatment options. Sulphur cinquefoil is already widespread

throughout multiple portions of the permit area. Medusahead, scotch thistle, jointed goatgrass, and other weeds have also been well established dating from before Department acquisition. Permittee is not required to control these weeds as part of the grazing operation, but is required, as detailed in the grazing prescription, to hold livestock in a weed-free “quarantine” area for a period of 3-5 days prior to entering the permit area to reduce the likelihood of bringing new invaders to the permit area.

Fire. Wildfires are natural disturbances in shrub-steppe and forested ecosystems, although the changing frequency of fires and accompanying pressures of invasive species may have undesirable effects (Brooks and Pyke 2001, Chambers et al. 2007, Chambers et al. 2014, Brooks et al. 2015). WDFW may also choose to implement prescribed fire on the permit area in the future. Should fire occur within the permitted area, WDFW may exclude grazing for up to 3 subsequent years to allow the vegetation to adequately recover without the additional stress of grazing (Knick et al. 2011). WDFW may be unable to guarantee the permitted number of AUMs in this case. One growing season of rest may be sufficient on rangelands; severely burned riparian areas may require all 3 years of rest. Infrastructure. If the department requires spring boxes and/or troughs, the permittee will procure and install these. Troughs will be made of aluminum and will include escape ramps consistent with the department’s draft wildlife areas habitat conservation plan.

Monitoring

Compliance/Utilization. The wildlife area manager or designee will ensure required utilization monitoring is completed and note any obvious changes in factors that could affect ecological integrity. This monitoring consists of either the landscape appearance method or the height-weight method (BLM 1999) at multiple locations on the permit area that are not on agricultural fields. These locations will at a minimum coincide with the ecological monitoring points that are the subject of the next paragraph, and will be observed monthly during the grazing season. Landscape appearance is a general measurement, suited to rangelands or grazeable forests and woodlands. The height-weight method, where used, will evaluate utilization of bluebunch wheatgrass, which is a common and palatable native perennial bunchgrass on the permit area. If average utilization of either measurement exceeds 50% within the current pasture of use, livestock must be moved off of that pasture or off of the permit area entirely if no agricultural fields are available to be utilized. Priority unfenced springs and ponds will also be sampled monthly by wildlife area staff for riparian grass stubble height, where the move trigger is 6 inches. The priority list of springs and ponds is due by the end of the 2018 grazing season. Priority springs and ponds that are eventually excluded by fence will be removed from the monitoring schedule. If average riparian grass stubble height is measured to be less than 6 inches, livestock must be moved off of the current pasture or off of the permit area entirely if no agricultural fields remain available to be utilized. End-of-season utilization data will also be obtained. If in-season utilization measurements comply with the move triggers above but end-of- season measurements do not (a rarely observed occurrence, and not expected), then WDFW staff will determine whether to increase monitoring frequency, reduce season length, or a combination of both, and notify permittee accordingly. WDFW may also conduct stubble height monitoring on fenced agricultural fields, and would communicate any standards in advance to the permittee.

Long-term/Effectiveness/Ecological Integrity. Long-term ecological monitoring transects were initiated in 2016 on the permit area. These are typically sampled at approximately 5-year intervals and will not be monitored during 2018, but are tentatively scheduled to be sampled in 2021. Methods include photo points, species richness, and line-point intercept (Herrick et al. 2009), and are largely comparable with AIM methodologies used by the Bureau of Land Management. Data from these plots’ associated ecological integrity results (Schroeder et al. 2011) are reported below and will be reported upon subsequent resampling/renewing of the grazing permit. The monitoring being conducted on the 4-0 results in data comparable to a Level 3 ecological integrity assessment as described by Schroeder et al. The wildlife area manager or designee will also note any factors obviously affecting ecological integrity during the interim between formal sampling events. Ecological integrity (EI) is a multi-

faceted concept that has been quantified in a variety of ways. Table 2, in the next section, shows the component categories as WDFW evaluates them on the 4-0 and other wildlife areas. The district team will receive new long-term sampling data (EI and MIM) prior to a renewal of this permit in 2022 or later. Significant decreases in component categories or in ecological integrity will be grounds for the district team to evaluate how and whether the permit should continue.

Results of Previous Management

Management. Extensive infrastructure work proposed in the previous grazing management plan did not occur. The previous owner seeded and occasionally hayed a number of fields within the current wildlife area footprint. Ongoing management of these fields is anticipated (please see associated 4-0 agricultural lease).

Ecosystem Standards. See HB1309 Documentation. Current resource conditions generally meet the intent of applicable ecosystem standards for state-owned agricultural and grazing land.

Long-term/Effectiveness/Ecological Integrity Monitoring Data.

The data summarized in Table 2 below were collected per the protocols discussed in the “monitoring” section at a variety of plot locations. These plots were selected from the previous grazing management plan and from randomly generated locations. Original data were collected to species and were then assigned to various categories and life forms. Table 2. Mean cover values and associated standard deviations for monitoring plots (n=13) as recorded in 2016. B=bare ground, BSC=biological soil crust, N=native, NPG=relative composition of native perennial grasses among all grasses, NPG2=relative composition of native perennial grasses among all vegetation, NI=native increasers (including rabbitbrushes, phlox, balsamroots, and some others, FSS=fire sensitive shrubs (including big sagebrush, wax currant, and bitterbrush), I=invasive, and EI=ecological integrity score.

B BSC N NPG NPG2 NI FSS I EI Mean 0.08 0.06 0.69 0.53 0.34 0.07 0.01 0.30 3.12 SD 0.07 0.06 0.29 0.26 0.17 0.07 0.02 0.19 0.44

Photos.

Figure 1. Selected photo points on the permit area as they appeared in 2016.

Literature Cited Anderson, E. W., and R. J. Scherzinger. 1975. Improving quality of winter forage by elk by cattle grazing. Journal of Range Management 28:120-125. Bailey, D. W. 2004. Management strategies for optimal grazing distribution and use of arid rangelands. Journal of Animal Science 82:E147-E153. Belsky, A. J., A. Matzke, and s. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54:419-431. BLM. 1999. Interagency technical reference: utilization studies and residual measurements. Page 174. USDA-Cooperative Extension Service, USDA-Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. Brooks, M. L., J. R. Matchett, D. J. Shinneman, and P. S. Coates. 2015. Fire patterns in the range of greater sage-grouse, 1984-2013--Implications for conservation and management. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2015-1167. Brooks, M. L., and D. A. Pyke. 2001. Invasive plants and fire in the deserts of North America.in K. E. M. Galley and T. P. Wilson, editors. Proceedings of the invasive species workshop: the role of fire in the spread and control of invasive species. Fire Conference 2000: the first national congress on fire ecology prevention, and management. Miscellaneous publication no. 11. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. Burritt, B., and R. Banner. 2013. Elk and cattle grazing can be complementary. Rangelands 35:34-39. Chambers, J. C., R. F. Miller, D. I. Board, D. A. Pyke, B. A. Roundy, J. B. Grace, E. W. Schupp, and R. J. Tausch. 2014. Resilience and resistance of sagebrush ecosystems: implications for state and transition models and management treatments. Rangeland Ecology and Management 67:440-454. Chambers, J. C., B. A. Roundy, R. R. Blank, S. E. Meyer, and A. Whittaker. 2007. What makes Great Basin sagebrush ecosystems invasible by Bromus tectorum? Ecological Monographs 77:117-145. Clark, P. E., W. C. Krueger, L. D. Bryant, and D. R. Thomas. 2000. Livestock grazing effects on forage quality of elk winter range. Journal of Range Management 53:97-105. Coe, P. K., B. K. Johnson, L. M. Stewart, and J. G. Kie. 2005. Spatial and temporal interactions of elk, mule deer, and cattle. The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference. Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas, USA. Crane, K. K., J. C. Mosley, T. K. Brewer, W. L. F. Torstenson, and M. W. Tess. 2001. Influence of cattle grazing on elk habitat selection. Bozeman, MT. Crane, K. K., J. C. Mosley, T. K. Mosley, R. A. Frost, M. A. Smith, W. L. Fuller, and M. W. Tess. 2016. Elk foraging site selection on foothill and mountain rangeland in spring. Rangeland Ecology and Management 69:319-325. Damiran, D., T. DelCurton, S. Findholt, G. Pulsipher, and B. Johnson. 2003. Influence of previous cattle and elk grazing on the subsequent quality and quantity of diets for cattle, deer, and elk grazing late- summer mixed-conifer rangelands. Proceedings of the Western Section of the American Society for Animal Science 54:320-324. Davies, K. W., A. Gearhart, C. S. Boyd, and J. D. Bates. 2017. Fall and spring grazing influence fire ignitability and initial spread in shrub steppe communities. International Journal of Wildland Fire 26:485-490. Dusek, G. L. 1975. Range relations of mule deer and cattle in prairie habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 39:605-616. Frid, L., D. Hanna, N. Korb, B. Bauer, K. Bryan, B. Martin, and B. Holzer. 2013. Evaluating alternative weed management strategies for three Montana landscapes. Invasive Plant Science and Management 6:48-59. Ganskopp, D., L. Aguilera, and M. Vavra. 2007. Livestock forage conditioning among six northern Great Basin grasses. Rangeland Ecology and Management 60:71-78. Ganskopp, D., T. Svejcar, and M. Vavra. 2004. Livestock forage conditioning: bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, and bottlebrush squirreltail. Journal of Range Management 57:384-392.

Grover, K. E., and M. J. Thompson. 1986. Factors influencing spring feeding site selection by elk in the Elkhorn Mountains, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:466-470. Herrick, J. E., J. W. Van Zee, K. M. Havstad, L. M. Burkett, and W. G. Whitford. 2009. Monitoring manual for grassland, shrubland, and savanna ecosystems. Volume 1: Quick start. USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range, Las Cruces, New Mexico. Holechek, J. L., R. Valdez, S. D. Schemnitz, R. D. Pieper, and C. A. Davis. 1982. Manipulations of grazing to improve or maintain wildlife habitat. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10:204-210. Karr, J. R. 1994. Landscapes and management for ecological integrity.in K. C. Kim and R. D. Weaver, editors. Biodiversity and landscapes: a paradox of humanity. Cambridge University Press. Knick, S. T., S. E. Hanser, R. F. Miller, D. A. Pyke, M. J. Wisdom, S. P. Finn, E. T. Rinkes, and C. J. Henny. 2011. Ecological influence and pathways of land use in sagebrush. Pages 203-251 in S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly, editors. Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Knutson, K. L., and V. L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats: riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. Laycock, W. A. 1967. How heavy grazing and protection affect sagebrush-grass ranges. Journal of Range Management 34:52-58. Lindenmayer, D. B., and J. F. Franklin. 2002. Conserving forest biodiversity: a comprehensive multiscaled approach. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Mueggler, W. F. 1972. Influence of competition on the response of luebunch wheatgrass to clipping. Journal of Range Management 25:88-92. Pitt, M. D. 1986. Assessment of spring defoliation to improve fall forage quality of bluebunch wheatgrass (Agropyrum spicatum). Journal of Range Management 39:175-181. Pyke, D. A. 2011. Restoring and rehabilitating sagebrush habitats. Pages 531-548 in S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly, editors. Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Rambo, J. L., and S. H. Faeth. 1999. Effect of vertebrate grazing on plant and insect community structure. Conservation Biology 13:1047-1054. Reisner, M. D., J. B. Grace, D. A. Pyke, and P. S. Doescher. 2013. Conditions favouring Bromus tectorum dominance of endangered sagebrush steppe ecosystems. Journal of Applied Ecology 50:1039- 1049. Schneegas, E. R., and R. S. Bumstead. 1977. Decline of western mule deer populations: probable cause, tentative solution. 57th annual conference of the Western Association of State Game and Fish Commissioners, Tucson, AZ. Schroeder, M. A., R. C. Crawford, J. Rocchio, D. J. Pierce, and M. VanderHaegen. 2011. Ecological integrity assessments: monitoring and evaluation of wildlife areas in Washington. Page 236. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlfie, Olympia, WA. Strand, E. K., K. Launchbaugh, L., R. Limb, and L. A. Torell. 2014. Livestock grazing effects on fuel loads for wildland fire in sagebrush dominated ecosystems. Journal of Rangeland Applications 1:35-57. Tubbs, A. A. 1980. Riparian bird communities of the Great Plains. Pages 403-418 Management of western forests and grasslands for nongame birds. USDA Forest Service general technical report INT-86. Vallentine, J. F. 1971. Range development and improvements. Brigham Young University Press, Provo, UT. Vavra, M. 2005. Livestock grazing and wildlife: developing compatibilties. Rangeland Ecology and Management 58:128-134. Wagoner, S. J., L. A. Shipley, R. C. Cook, and L. Hardesty. 2013. Spring cattle grazing and mule deer nutrition in a bluebunch wheatgrass community. Journal of Wildlife Management 77:897-907. Wamboldt, C. L. 1996. Mule deer and elk foraging preference for 4 sagebrush taxa. Journal of Range Management 49:499-503. Wilson, A. M., G. A. Harris, and D. H. Gates. 1966. Cumulative effects of clipping on yield of bluebunch wheatgrass. Journal of Range Management 9:90-91. Yeo, J. J., J. M. Peek, W. T. Wittinger, and C. T. Kvale. 1993. Influence of rest-rotation cattle grazing on mule deer and elk habitat use in east-central Idaho. Journal of Range Management 46:245-250. 49