Environmental Assessment (EA) in Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Other Relevant Federal and State Laws and Regulations

United States Department of Environmental Agriculture

Forest Assessment Service

September 2013 Snake/Pine Rangeland Allotment Management Plans

Whitman Ranger District Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Baker and Wallowa Counties, Oregon

For Information Contact: Josh White Whitman Ranger District 3285 11th St. Baker City, OR 97814 541-523-1340

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 - Purpose and Need for Action ...... 1 Analysis Area...... 1 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 2 Proposed Action ...... 5 Decision Framework ...... 6 Scope of the Proposed Action ...... 7 Management Direction ...... 7 Public Involvement ...... 9 Issues ...... 11 Resources Eliminated from Further Analysis ...... 11 Pertinent Laws and Regulations ...... 12 CHAPTER 2 – Alternatives ...... 19 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail ...... 19 Alternatives Considered and Analyzed in Detail ...... 19 Alternative Comparison and Summary ...... 31 Protection Measures Specific to Action Alternatives ...... 32 Monitoring Specific to Action Alternatives ...... 35 CHAPTER 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 41 Cumulative Actions and Activities ...... 41 Rangeland Resources ...... 45 Social/Economics ...... 79 Fisheries ...... 87 Hydrology ...... 128 Soils ...... 146 Biological Soil Crust ...... 163 Botanical Resources ...... 172 Fuels and Vegetation ...... 198 Recreation and Wilderness ...... 205 Invasive Species ...... 214 Specifically Required Disclosures ...... 226 CHAPTER 4 – Organizations and Persons Consulted ...... 229

Preparers ...... 230 References ...... 231 Glossary ...... 254 Appendix A – Issue Tracking from Scoping ...... 269 Appendix B – Consistency Review ...... 274 Appendix C – Wildlife Biological Evaluation ...... 294 Appendix D – Response to Comments ...... 315

LIST OF MAPS Map 1 - Snake/Pine Vicinity Map ...... 15 Map 2 - North Pine and Double Pine Allotments ...... 16 Map 3 – Snake River Allotment ...... 17 Map 4 – Management Areas ...... 18 Map 5 – Alternative 2: North Pine Allotment ...... 36 Map 6 – Alternative 2: Snake River Allotment...... 37 Map 7 – Alternative 3: North Pine Allotment ...... 38 Map 8 – Alternative 3: Snake River Allotment...... 39 Map 9 - North Pine/Double Pine Allotment – Current Capability ...... 49 Map 10 - Snake River Allotment – Current Capability ...... 50 Map 11. Fish Distribution and Critical Habitat ...... 127 Map 12. Stream Gradient Map North Pine ...... 133 Map 13. Stream Gradient Map Snake River ...... 134

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

CHAPTER 1 - Purpose and Need for Action

Introduction

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. The purpose of this EA is to evaluate the potential effects of authorizing livestock grazing on three allotments within the 26,469-acre Snake/Pine Rangeland Analysis Area (SPRAA), which includes 415 acres of private land and 2 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land. The allotments being evaluated are North Pine, Double Pine and Snake River. These allotments are administered by the Whitman Ranger District and are located within the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (HCNRA) of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

This document is organized into five parts:

 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: This section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, the proposal for achieving that purpose and need, and key issues used to formulate alternatives, develop mitigation, and track effects and other issues that did not drive alternatives but were addressed in this analysis.  Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the proposed action, as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. This discussion also includes possible mitigation measures.  Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource areas (i.e. rangeland, wildlife, botanical resources). Within each section, the effect of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow is described.  Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment.  Appendices. The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental assessment.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, data specific to the project, public notifications and their responses, and miscellaneous documentation, may be found in the project planning record located at the Whitman Ranger District in Baker City, Oregon.

Analysis Area

The SPRAA is located approximately 25 miles northeast of Halfway, Oregon, within the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (HCNRA) of the Wallowa-Whitman National

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Forest. The analysis area is approximately 26,469 acres and encompasses approximately 26,053 acres of National Forest with interspersed private and BLM lands. The rangeland analysis area contains the Snake River/Indian Creek Watershed and the Pine Creek Watershed and includes the following major streams: Duck Creek, North Pine Creek, McGraw Creek, Thirty-two Point Creek and Spring Creek. The elevation varies from a low of 1,200 feet near the Snake River to more than 5,500 feet on the ridges above the Imnaha River.

The legal description of the location of each allotment follows:

Snake River - T5S; R03W; Sec. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 17, 18, 19, 20 T5S; R04W; Sec. 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27 T4S; R04W; Sec. 25, 34, 35, 36, T4S; R03W; Sec. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 29, 30, 31, 32 Wallowa County, OR

North Pine - T05S; R48E; Sec. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 Wallowa County, OR T05S; R47E Sec. 25, 35, 36 T06S; R47E; Sec. 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, 25 T06S; R48E; Sec. 5, 6, 7 Baker County, OR

Double Pine - T06S; R48E; Sec. 18, 19, 30, 31 Baker County, OR

A vicinity map (Map 1) and allotment maps (Maps 2 and 3) can be found at the end of this chapter.

Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose and need is driven by the difference between the existing and desired conditions with respect to the management direction for the area. The purpose of the Snake/Pine Rangeland Allotment Management Plans are to consider re-authorizing livestock grazing on the allotments using management that is consistent with the goals, objectives, standards and guidelines of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan 1990) and the HCNRA Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP 2003). Livestock grazing has been permitted on these allotments for many years. Periodically, the grazing management strategies and the condition and trends of the vegetation and soils need to be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether to continue the permitted grazing for the established seasons.

Existing Condition

The existing condition is the result of ongoing livestock grazing that has been authorized through term grazing permits (FSH 2230 2231.11 and 2231.13), which are administered each year by annual instructions and authorized by the issuance and payment of a bill for collection (FSH 2230 2231.41). The permits have been issued on a 10-year basis,

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need with the most recent permits issued under the authority of the Rescissions Act (PL 104- 19).

Historic records for the SPRAA indicate that prior to and for a number of years after the inception of the Forest in 1906, this particular rangeland (aka Buchanon Range) was grazed yearlong by cattle and horses with horses grazing during the winter months as late as 1928. Fencing was limited and there was little control of the livestock. During the period from 1917 to 1922 three bands of sheep grazed the area until it was changed back in 1922 and authorized for 1500 head of cattle permitted yearly. After 1922 the number of cattle were reduced to approximately 500 and the season of use reduced to April 1 thru Nov 30. Beginning in the 1960’s utilization, carrying capacity and rangeland condition studies were conducted to determine carrying capacity and use patterns resulting in additional adaptations to the permitted numbers, grazing seasons, and added improvements (i.e. allotment boundary and pasture divisions fences and water developments). Condition and trend plots (C&Ts) were established and an understanding of the ecology of the area was incorporated into management of the allotments. In 1990, and then again in 2002, the permits were reissued and the permitted numbers and grazing season were adapted to develop a grazing system that responded to the results of the long-term trend monitoring. These modifications have allowed ecological conditions to improve by reducing grazing pressure within the project area.

The Forest Plan provides direction to identify the condition of rangelands, but generally relies heavily on forage condition and not ecological status. The CMP requires that ecological status is considered when identifying the condition of an allotment. Ecologically, satisfactory range conditions are those in at least mid-seral stages while unsatisfactory range conditions are those in mid (while trending downward), early, or very early seral stages (USDA 2003). Further, consideration must be given to potential changes that have occurred as a result of past management that may now affect ecological status and condition. Ecological sites can be classified as occurring in one of many different states (states A through D in Figure 1-1). Based on analysis completed by Stringham et al. (2003), Swanson and Johnson (2008) and Betelmeyer et al. (2009), ecological conditions can be described by states and transitions. A critical defining point between states is referred to as a threshold. In Figure 1-1, the threshold is shown with a dark line between States C and D. Where a plant community has been altered to a State D (or has crossed a threshold), transition to a State C, B, or A is thought to be unlikely without intensive restoration techniques such as tilling and reseeding or widespread herbicide application. Management response to an area in a transitioned state will require different goals and objectives than a site in a non-transitioned state. With appropriate management, a system within states B or C can move toward state A, and this movement would be seen through improving trends over time.

Recently collected upland C&T monitoring data for the Snake River and North Pine allotments indicate an improvement in upland range condition as perennial native species and other desirable vegetation is increasing within the project area. However, three upland areas within the SPRAA were in unsatisfactory range condition. These areas still show a static or upward trend based on vegetation monitoring, but are not meeting the requirements for satisfactory rangelands as they occur in an earlier seral stage. Riparian conditions within the allotments are reflected in the Fisheries and Hydrology section of this document. The overall result of monitoring and survey indicate that riparian conditions are improving and this project will not modify this trend. Findings

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need of this analysis shows that the proposed activities in this project will not create a downward trend in the riparian condition or retard the attainment of applicable riparian management objectives.

Information provided in Chapter 3 of this EA supports a conclusion that on an allotment- wide basis, rangeland conditions within the SPRAA are satisfactory and on an upward trend. The findings of upland condition monitoring and the analysis of riparian condition indicate that the project area is in a mid-seral or later stage and in improving condition. These findings result in the allotments being classified as satisfactory and only three specific upland sites being classified as unsatisfactory. The unsatisfactory condition sites are outlined in Chapters 2 & 3 with appropriate adaptive management to address the site specific issues.

Desired Condition

The desired condition is represented by Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) direction to offer livestock forage production where forage is in excess to basic plant and soil needs, wildlife forage is available, and other specific resource conditions are achieved or maintained (Forest Plan, Page 4-3). It is also represented by the HCNRA Comprehensive Management Plan to manage grassland vegetation to ensure continued ecological function and sustainability of native ecosystems.

Basic plant, soil, wildlife and other resource conditions are defined by the Forest Plan specific to each Management Area. Table 1-1 displays the number of acres within each Management area within the analysis area.

Refer to Map 4 at the end of this chapter for the location of these management areas. Desired conditions for each management area are described in the Forest Plan (Forest Plan pg. 4-21 to 4-24; 4-51 to 4-54).

The CMP identifies a desired condition for grassland vegetation that ensures continued ecological function and sustainability of native ecosystems. The CMP further directs managers to maintain and/or restore the ecological status of grassland communities to their Potential Natural Community (PNC) recognizing their Historic Range of Variability (HRV) and that the potential for some communities may be altered (Page C-31-32). Conceptually, this desired condition is shown in Figure 1-1. Ecological sites in State A, are managed to maintain this state, where ecological sites in States B or C are managed to transition toward State A (Stringham et al. 2003, Swanson and Johnson 2008, and Bestelmeyer et al. 2009). In situations where ecological sites have crossed a threshold, restoration through modification of livestock management is not possible. These areas must be managed for modified goals and objectives recognizing a new potential condition and rate of recovery for the new transitioned state.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

State D1

annuals State C1

annuals,

State A State B State D2

Idaho Fescue forbs, fescue, perennial wheatgrass forbs State C2

forbs,

State D3

bluegrass, perennial forbs

Figure 1-1. State and Transition model of the Poa pratensis degenerated bench in the Snake River province. This model is specific to the C&T plots in the Snake River allotment. SR1, SR3, SR4, SR5, and SR6 have been identified as fitting this plant association type.

Proposed Action

The Whitman District Ranger proposes to continue authorizing grazing on three cattle and horse allotments within the analysis area. No previous NEPA analysis has been completed on this activity. The Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) will be developed at the completion of the site-specific analysis and project-level decision and will be implemented in spring 2014. This AMP will become a modification of Part 3 of the term grazing permit with a letter to the permittee(s) notifying them of this modification (FSH 2209.13, Chapter 90, Section 94.1).

Stocking of each allotment is described in terms of head-months (HM). A HM is a unit of measure that counts one animal for 30.4 days ((animal units (cow/calf pair) x days)/30.4). In accordance with Forest Service Range Handbook, a cow-calf pair qualifies as one animal in these calculations if the calf is 6 months of age or less. To calculate billing the Forest Service multiplies the annually prescribed grazing fee with the authorized HM.

North Pine – Eighty-one cow/calf pairs currently graze between June 15 and September 30 annually in the 10,595-acre North Pine Allotment. Total HM does not exceed 288 (FSH 2209.15-91-1). The North Pine allotment is currently divided into two pastures, Jolly Pine and Nelson.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

The allotment is currently managed under an elevationally-determined rotational grazing system. Cattle move from the lower to higher elevation during the grazing season, with pasture moves based on resource condition and meeting utilization standards (pg. 4-52, 4-53 USDA 1990) in key areas, then are herded back through the lower elevations, using roads and trails, before being moved off the allotment. The North Pine and the Double Pine allotments are run by the same permittee, and are utilized together as a logical grazing unit rather than individual allotments.

This allotment includes one spring development and one quarter mile of pasture division fence maintained by the permittee.

Double Pine – Twenty cow/calf pairs currently graze between June 15 and September 30 annually in the 1,730-acre Double Pine Allotment. Total HM does not exceed 71 (FSH 2209.15-91-1). This allotment is comprised of one pasture (Double Pine) and is authorized for season long grazing, but it is grazed in conjunction with the North Pine allotment as described above.

The allotment currently includes no improvements.

Snake River –One hundred cow/calf pairs currently graze between April 15 and September 26 annually in the 14,144-acre Snake River Allotment. Total HM does not exceed 542 (FSH 2209.15-91-1). The Snake River allotment is currently divided into two pastures called Spring Creek and Squaw Creek pastures. The allotment contains 415 acres of private land that is currently grazed by the permittees cattle, but has not been waived for management to the Forest Service.

The allotment is managed under a rotational grazing system on the two pastures. The cattle move from one pasture to the other during the grazing season, with moves based on resource condition and meeting utilization standards in key areas, then are herded back off the allotment, utilizing ridgetops, closed roads, and trails to avoid trailing through riparian areas before being moved off the allotment at the end of the season.

This allotment includes one spring development and 1.2 miles of pasture division fence maintained by the permittee.

Decision Framework

The decision framework refers to the nature of the decision that will be made by the Whitman District Ranger based on the interdisciplinary analysis and the comments submitted during the public review and comment period for this Environmental Assessment. The decision framework does not describe the actual content of the District Ranger’s pending decision.

At the conclusion of the public review and comment period, the Whitman District Ranger will decide whether to implement management of the SPRAA as proposed, to implement management in a modified fashion, or not to implement management at all. The District Ranger’s decision will also determine if the project might require an amendment of the Forest Plan or might cause significant environmental effects requiring analysis in an Environmental Impact Statement.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Scope of the Proposed Action

Section 40 CFR 1508.25 of the NEPA implementing regulations provided guidance for the Interdisciplinary Team in determining proper scope of the Environmental Analysis (EA). The proposed action is limited to the revision of the AMPs. If livestock grazing is authorized, the decision will include specific elements of the AMPs; the actual AMPs will be developed following and based on the decision. Implementation of this project is scheduled to begin spring 2014. The project would provide guidance for the three grazing allotments in the project area.

The project level NEPA decision will be reviewed periodically to determine if the analysis and documentation is valid or if new information would require further analysis and potential modification of the activity. After interdisciplinary team review and consideration, the authorized officer will determine if correction, supplementation or revision of the decision is warranted. If revision is not necessary, implementation of the current management would continue. The findings of this review would be documented in the analysis file.

Management Direction

National Direction

An allotment is a designated area of land available for domestic livestock (cattle and/or sheep) grazing. The Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA), as amended by the Public Rangelands Improvement Act, allows for AMPs to be included in grazing permits at the discretion of the Secretary of the Agriculture (43 USC 1752(d), as amended by 92 Stat. 1803 [1978]). The Secretary has elected to exercise this discretion and has delegated his authority to issue regulations in this area to the Chief of the Forest Service (See 36 CFR 222.1 and 222.2). An AMP as defined in FLPMA is a document prepared in consultation with lessees or permittees that applies to livestock operations on the public lands and prescribes:

 The manner and extent to which livestock operations will be conducted in order to meet multiple use, sustained yield, economic and other needs and objectives.

 Range improvements to be installed and maintained.

 Range fences constructed to a standard that is compatible with wildlife and human uses, i.e., gates placed a minimum of every one mile and bottom fence wire 18 inches off the ground.

 Such other provisions relating to livestock grazing and other objectives found by the Secretary to be consistent with provisions of FLPMA.

Other direction relating to rangeland grazing includes the following:

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

 There is Congressional intent to allow grazing on suitable lands, when consistent with other multiple use goals and objectives (Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Wilderness Act of 1964, Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Act of 1974, Federal Land Policy and Management Act 1976, National Forest Management Act of 1976, Forest Service Manual 2202.1 and 2323.22).

Forest Direction

The Snake/Pine EA tiers to the management direction derived from the Forest Plan, as amended, which incorporates 1995 PACFISH/INFISH, the 2003 CMP FEIS and ROD, and the 2005 Region 6 (R-6) Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants FEIS and ROD. Management Direction is also derived from the 2010 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment Program FEIS and ROD1.

Because management direction for livestock grazing is more limiting in the HCNRA CMP than the Forest Plan, and the SPRAA is mostly within or adjacent to the HCNRA, management direction for all three allotments will be primarily guided by the CMP. See Appendix B for the specific goals, objectives, standards and guidelines relative to grazing.

Management Areas

Management Areas prescribed by the Forest Plan are listed in Table 1-1 by allotment. Map 4 displays a map of the management areas (MA) within the analysis area. A summary of the resource objectives behind each management area follows:

Table 1-1. Management Area Acres by Allotment in the SPRAA Total Included National Included BLM MA MA Grand Allotment MA 4 MA 9 Forest Private Land 10 11 Total System Land Land Snake 14,053 13 1 77 13,729 415 0 14,144 River North 0 0 5,304 5,290 10,595 0 1 10,595 Pine Double 0 0 1,714 16 1,729 0 1 1,730 Pine Total 14,053 13 7,019 5,383 26,053 415 2 26,469

1 The 2010 decision for treatment of invasive plants on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is currently under litigation (League of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mountain Biodiversity Project v. Wagner; Case 3:10- cv-01397). In December 2012 the U. S. District Court of Oregon granted partial summary judgment, remanding the decision to the FS for reconsideration of cumulative effects, but allowing certain treatments to continue while the analysis is being completed. In January 2013 the WWNF published a Notice of Intent to publish a supplement to the 2010 FEIS & ROD. A Draft EIS is expected to be completed later this year. The federal district court’s decision is now on appeal.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

MA4 (Wilderness) - The intent is to preserve the wilderness qualities of these areas. These areas will be managed in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964, P.L.94- 199 (establishing the Hells Canyon Wilderness), the Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984, and the 2320 section of the Forest Service Manual.

MA9 (HCNRA Dispersed Recreation/Native Vegetation) - In these areas, all activities will be managed to provide ample opportunities for dispersed recreation and to enhance native vegetation. Range will be managed to maintain satisfactory range condition which will be achieved and maintained primarily by nonstructural means. These areas will provide a mix of primitive, semiprimitive nonmotorized and semiprimitive motorized recreation opportunities.

MA10 (HCNRA Forage Production) – This area lies within grasslands interwoven with timbered stringers in the HCNRA. The grassland portions of these areas will be managed to provide maximum forage production with ranges maintained in satisfactory condition (desired ecological status) and structural improvements be rustic in nature.

MA11 (HCNRA Dispersed Recreation/Timber Management) – These areas combine dispersed recreation with timber management on the more productive sites within the NRA. The objective is to provide a variety of tree species, a diversity of healthy timber stands and ample dispersed recreation opportunities.

Public Involvement

Scoping

Public scoping for the SPRAA was initiated in spring 2010 with the project's inclusion on the quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions. In April 2010, a letter describing the proposed action was mailed to 100 individuals, organizations, and agencies for their comment. These individuals and organizations included grazing permittees, State and Federal resource management agencies, Tribes and other special interest organizations.

The permittees holding grazing permits on the allotments analyzed in this EA were included throughout the process. The permittees provided input for alternatives and site- specific development proposals for their respective allotments.

A Range 101 workshop that was held on January 27, 2010, focused on the results of the PFC data collected on the Snake/Pine allotments, along with potential grazing strategies to address some of the issues. The workshop was attended by approximately 50 people, including local, state and federal agencies, grazing permittees and natural resource consultants.

These scoping efforts generated responses from two organizations. Responses expressed a wide variety of opinions about the proposed action and information to be disclosed in the EA. The Issue Tracking statement (Appendix A) summarizes the scoping responses and describes where in the EA these other concerns were addressed.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Consultation with Tribes

Contacts were made throughout the analysis process with staff members of the Nez Perce Tribe. Meetings were held to discuss the relationship between livestock grazing and Tribal Treaty Rights. The following meetings were held specific to the Snake/Pine AMP Analysis:

 A scoping letter outlining the proposed actions was mailed to several tribal staff members on April 19, 2010.  A meeting was held with a Nez Perce tribal staff member on June 30, 2010, to review the proposal with respect to Tribal Treaty Rights.  An update on the project status was given on November 4, 2010, April 24, 2012, and April 3, 2013, for tribal staff members at the quarterly staff-to-staff coordination meeting.

Information on the Snake/Pine AMP Analysis has also been included in annual program of work packets and quarterly meetings with the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR). Maps showing the project area, and a brief description of the project, were provided to the CTUIR Cultural Resources Protection Program at staff- to-staff WWNF Program of Work meetings on May 17, 2011, and March 27, 2012. Information was also presented at WWNF and CTUIR Board of Trustees government-to- government meetings on August 31, 2011, and May 9, 2012.

Background on the EA

Two letters were received in response to the EA that was distributed on August 11, 2011, to 255 individuals, agencies and organizations. Comments included that an alternative including a reduction in authorized grazing should have been considered in detail, an environmental impact statement should have been prepared, additional data should be provided to ensure compliance with Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and that the recreation activities should be prioritized above livestock grazing. Responses to all comments received during the 2011 30-day comment period can be found in the project file. All previous comments were considered in this analysis.

The Whitman District Ranger signed the Decision Notice on September 22, 2011. The decision was appealed by Hells Canyon Preservation Council but dismissed when the decision was withdrawn on January 25, 2012. This 2013 EA includes a proposed action that is slightly modified from the previous, adds an additional alternative, and updated analyses.

Comments on the EA

Two letters were received in response to the EA that was released on July 29, 2013 via publication in the Baker City Herald and letters to 39 individuals, agencies and organizations. Comments were considered in development of the final EA. Responses to all comments received during the 30-day comment period can be found in Appendix D.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Issues

Issues that could best be addressed by forming an alternative or introducing mitigation or monitoring were identified and categorized as ‘Key Issues’. An issue tracking sheet in Appendix A lists other issues considered by the team and either addressed in the analysis or considered outside the scope of this analysis. The following two key issues were developed from comments on the proposed action.

Issue 1: Condition of Upland Vegetation

Issue: The condition of upland vegetation has been affected by past management activities, and the spread and introduction of non-native species. Unsatisfactory conditions have been identified at three upland condition and trend plots within the project area.

Indicator/Measure: 1) Relative rate of recovery towards site specific desired conditions

Issue 2: Socioeconomics Issue: Livestock production contributes to the local and regional economy. Changes in permitted livestock numbers can create impacts, especially when substitute sources of grazing lands are not available.

Indicator/Measure: 1) Changes in number of permitted head months 2) Changes in revenue 3) Changes in operating costs

Resources Eliminated from Further Analysis

The following resources were considered during the analysis. These resources will not be impacted by any of the alternatives considered, and they will not be addressed any further in this document. The rationale for not addressing them further in this EA is also described.

Minerals There are some historic locatable mineral resources within the project area. However, there are no currently approved Plans of Operation; therefore none of the alternatives would have an impact on mineral resources in the project area.

Wild and Scenic Rivers No designated Wild and Scenic Rivers occur within the project area.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Air Quality All lands within the project area have been designated as either Class I or II areas as authorized by the 1977 Clean Air Act. None of the alternatives are expected to change air quality conditions.

Pertinent Laws and Regulations

This EA adheres to the following legal requirements and coordination, and regulations:

National Forest Management Act of 1976 The proposed action incorporates all applicable Forest Plan forest-wide standards and guidelines and management area prescriptions as they apply to the project area, and complies with Forest Plan goals and objectives. This includes additional direction contained in all amendments. All required interagency reviews and coordination has been accomplished; new or revised measures resulting from these reviews have been incorporated. The Forest Plans comply with all resource integration and management requirements of 36 CFR 219 (219.14 through 219.27). Application of Forest Plan direction for the proposed action ensures compliance at the project level.

Executive Order 11988 and 11990 – Wetlands Protection The order directs federal agencies to “minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands….”

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended Threatened and endangered fish, plant and wildlife species and their habitat are evaluated in Chapter 3 of this EA, and in the Biological Assessments found in the project file.

National Historic Preservation Act Cultural resource surveys have been conducted, following inventory protocols approved by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). This analysis was documented in a report sent to the Oregon SHPO on August 25, 2010. An addendum to the report was sent to the Oregon SHPO on August 19, 2013. Native American communities have been contacted (Nez Perce, Pauite, and Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation) and public comment encouraged.

The Clean Water Act, as amended in 1977, 1982 and 1987 The primary objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the integrity of the nation’s waters. This objective translates into two fundamental national goals: 1) Eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the nation’s waters; and 2) Achieve water quality levels that are fishable and swimmable. This Act establishes a non-degradation policy for all federally proposed projects. The proposed action meets anti-degradation standards

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need agreed to by the State of Oregon and the Forest Service, Region 6, in a Memorandum of Understanding (Forest Service Manual 1561.5). This will be accomplished through planning, application, and monitoring of Best Management Practices (BMPs).

Monitoring and evaluation of the implementation and effectiveness of Forest Plan standards and guidelines and Best Management Practices will occur as described in the Watershed section of Chapter 3 of this EA. The project activities are expected to meet all applicable State of Oregon water quality standards.

Executive Order on Invasive Species (No. 13112, signed Feb. 3, 1999) Implementation of any alternative with mitigation is not anticipated to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species, as described in Chapter 3, Invasive Plants.

Executive Order on Migratory Birds (No. 13186 signed January 11, 2001) It is the responsibility of federal agencies to protect migratory birds. Implementation of any project alternative is not expected to have a negative effect on migratory birds or their habitat, as described in Chapter 3, Wildlife.

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) Federal actions to address Environmental Justice in minority and low-income populations, and Departmental Regulations 5600-2 direct Federal agencies to integrate environmental justice considerations into Federal programs and activities. Environmental justice means that, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, all populations are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, are allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a disproportionately high and adverse manner by government programs and activities affecting human health or the environment. Public involvement activities described above (Scoping) indicate the efforts made to provide the opportunity to comment. Implementation of any project alternative is not anticipated to cause disproportionate adverse human health or environmental effects to minority or low- income populations, as described in Chapter 3, Specifically Required Disclosures.

HCNRA Act of 1975 The HCNRA Act established the HCNRA and defines how the Secretary shall administer the recreation area. The following direction is specific to grazing:

Sec. 7. Except as otherwise provided in sections 2 and 3 of this Act, and subject to the provisions of section 10 of this Act, the Secretary shall administer the recreation area in accordance with the laws, rules, and regulations applicable to the national forests for public outdoor recreation to a manner compatible with the following objectives:

(7) such management, utilization, and disposal of natural resources on federally owned lands, including, but not limited to, timber harvesting by selective cutting,

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

mining, and grazing and the continuation of such existing uses and developments as are compatible with the provisions of this Act.

The project activities are expected to meet the intent of the HCNRA Act and are analyzed in Chapter 3, Recreation and Wilderness.

Wilderness Act of 1964 The 1964 Wilderness Act defines wilderness and appropriates uses within wilderness areas. The following direction is specific to grazing:

Water resources and grazing. (4) Within wilderness areas in the national forests designated by this Act, … (2) the grazing of livestock, where established prior to September 3, 1964, shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture.

The project activities are expected to meet the intent of the Wilderness Act and are analyzed in Chapter 3, Recreation and Wilderness.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Map 1 - Snake/Pine Vicinity Map

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Map 2 - North Pine and Double Pine Allotments

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Map 3 – Snake River Allotment

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Map 4 – Management Areas

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 2 - Alternatives

CHAPTER 2 – Alternatives

Three alternatives were considered and analyzed by the interdisciplinary team (IDT). Alternative 1- No Grazing, and Action Alternatives 2 and 3, are analyzed in detail in the EA and are described below. Current Management is described as part of the existing condition (Chapter 1), and the effects are analyzed in Chapter 3 as a baseline comparison to the other alternatives (FSH 1909.15, 14.2). An additional alternative was considered but not analyzed in detail.

Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail

An alternative was considered by the IDT that would reduce the number of livestock authorized on allotments by a percentage and then follow with monitoring to determine if increasing livestock numbers is appropriate. The original intent of this alternative was to provide an alternative that would achieve an increased rate of recovery for vegetation. This alternative was considered, but not analyzed in detail because Alternative 1 accomplishes this, and Alternatives 2 and 3 also provide for rates of vegetation recovery. Effects analysis of forage capacity and big-game populations has determined that the levels of livestock grazing authorized under current management strategies provide for basic plant and wildlife needs. Additionally, rangeland condition results show the allotments overall are classified as being in satisfactory rangeland condition, indicating that reducing livestock numbers is not needed to meet the purpose and need of the project.

The North Pine, Snake River and Double Pine allotments contain lands identified as suitable for domestic livestock grazing in the Forest Plan and CMP. It is Forest Service policy to make forage available to qualified livestock operators from lands suitable for grazing consistent with land management plans (FSM 2203.1, USDA Forest Service 2005a). By regulation, forage producing lands will be managed for livestock grazing where consistent with land management plans (36 CFR 222.2 (c)). Current management is consistent with the goals, objectives, standards and guidelines of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan 1990) and the HCNRA Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP 2003), as described in Chapter 3.

Alternatives Considered and Analyzed in Detail

Alternative 1 - No Grazing

Under this alternative, the current permits for the SPRAA would not be reissued upon their expiration. Livestock grazing would no longer be authorized within the SPRAA.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 2 - Alternatives cooperative range improvements where they participated in the development (FSH 1109.13 Chapter 70). Exterior allotment boundary fences would be assigned to adjacent permittees for continued maintenance.

Action Alternatives

Items Common to Action Alternatives

 The existing Double Pine allotment would be combined with the Jolly Creek pasture of the North Pine allotment to form one, two-pasture allotment. The pastures will remain the Nelson pasture, and Jolly Creek pasture. The allotment will be called the North Pine Allotment and will be 12,325 acres if alternative 2 is selected, and 12,551 acres if alternative 3 is selected. See detailed descriptions of alternatives below for differences in acres by alternative. This combines the allotments into a single, logical grazing unit and reduces administrative efforts.  Boundary fencing will be constructed on the North and West boundary of the North Pine allotment to prevent livestock use in the closed Mud Duck allotment and Imnaha River. The fences will likely be constructed incrementally until livestock containment needs are met. Total fencing should not exceed 8 miles.  Two water sources will be developed within the North Pine allotment to create an off-site water sources for livestock use.  One spring will be developed in the Snake River allotment.  Other water sources may be developed as surveys identify a need, good seeps/springs with development potential, or a need for protection of these seep/springs.  Livestock access to McGraw Creek, during the spawning period of redband trout, will be minimized. Low-impact management techniques like riding, herding and salting will be implemented.  Protection, mitigation and monitoring measures would be included in the AMPs for each allotment.  In conjunction with desired future condition and response to monitoring of sites in unsatisfactory condition or changes in biological soil crust communities (tables 2-1 and 2-2) adaptive management strategies are included in both action alternatives. Adaptive management, as defined in 36 CFR220.3, is a system of management practices based on clearly identified intended outcomes and monitoring to determine if management actions are meeting those outcomes; and if not, to facilitate management changes that will best ensure that those outcomes are met or re-evaluated. Adaptive management stems from the recognition that knowledge about natural resource systems is sometimes uncertain.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Alternative 2 represents the Proposed Action. This alternative would authorize livestock (cattle) and an incidental level of horse grazing within the SPRAA allotments. The level of permitted use would be similar to past levels that have been authorized through term grazing permits (FSH 2230 2231.11 and 2231.13), which are administered each year by annual instructions and authorized by the payment of grazing fees (FSH 2230 2231.41).

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Similar to current management, this alternative requires permittees to achieve proper livestock distribution through herding and salting techniques and maintenance of existing water developments and fencing. Stocking levels and season of use are discussed in the description by allotment section below. Stocking of each allotment is described in terms of head-months (HM). A HM is a unit of measure that counts one animal for 30.4 days. A cow-calf pair qualifies as one animal in these calculations if the calf is 6 months of age or less.

The following items are specific to alternative 2.

 Utilization on upland areas identified in unsatisfactory condition will be initially established at 35% and monitored by district range personnel.  Trend monitoring of C&Ts in unsatisfactory condition will occur every 3-5 years by district or forest range personnel, botanist, or ecologist.  Trend monitoring of C&T’s in satisfactory condition will occur every 8-10 years by district or forest range personnel, botanist, or ecologist.  Trend monitoring of long-term monitoring plots for biological soil crusts will occur in conjunction with the C&T monitoring shown above.

Utilization monitoring is short-term and generally occurs every one to two years, while trend monitoring is long-term and occurs less frequently. Adaptive management responses to monitoring could result in in changes in utilization levels as described in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1. Desired future condition and response to monitoring of sites in unsatisfactory condition or changes in biological soil crust communities C&T’s in Initial use level Site Specific Trigger Response Unsatisfactory on current Key Desired Condition Condition Species* (DC) Snake River 1 35% -Dominant plant -Decreases in -Utilization levels (Snake River Kentucky functional group bare ground, are capped at 35% allotment) bluegrass consists of native reduction in soil when site is in perennials and/or erosion unsatisfactory Kentucky bluegrass elements, condition. -Annual species decreases in -If the site remains decreasing and annual species, stable or moves perennial cover at and increases away from DC, as least 3 times in perennial identified by trend greater than annual cover is monitoring, the cover. considered allowable -Percent bare improvement in utilization will be ground below 20%, site condition. decreased by 5%. down from the -No change or -If the site moves current of 29%, any increases towards the DC, with isolated in bare ground, as identified by patches less than 1 increases in soil trend monitoring, ft in diameter and erosion the allowable not in large elements, utilization will be interconnected increases in increased by 5%. patches. There are annual species, -If site meets DC, no active gullies or or decreases in increases above rills on the site, and perennial cover 35% allowable

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 2 - Alternatives

active pedestalling is considered utilization may be or terracette stability or approved. formation is rare. degradation of -If native site condition. bunchgrasses become detectable by monitoring protocol and on an increasing trend, reevaluate site. Site specific goals may change to attain mid-seral ecological status based on this reevaluation. Snake River 3 35% -Dominant plant -Decreases in -Utilization levels (Snake River Kentucky functional group bare ground, are capped at 35% allotment) bluegrass consists of native reduction in soil when site is in perennials and/or erosion unsatisfactory Kentucky bluegrass elements, condition. -Percent bare decreases in -If the site remains ground below 20%, annual species, stable or moves down from the and increases away from DC, as current of 29%, in perennial identified by trend with isolated cover is monitoring, the patches less than 1 considered allowable ft in diameter and improvement in utilization will be not in large site condition. decreased by 5%. interconnected -No change or -If the site moves patches. There are any increases towards the DC, no active gullies or in bare ground, as identified by rills on the site, and increases in soil trend monitoring, active pedestalling erosion the allowable or terracette elements, utilization will be formation is rare. increases in increased by 5%. -If native annual species, -If site meets DC, bunchgrasses or decreases in increases above become detectable perennial cover 35% allowable by monitoring is considered utilization may be protocol and on an stability or approved. increasing trend, degradation of reevaluate site. site condition. Site specific goals may change to attain mid-seral ecological status based on this reevaluation. Nelson Creek 3 35% -Bluebunch -Stability or -Utilization levels

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 2 - Alternatives

(North Pine bluebunch wheatgrass cover decreases in are capped at 35% allotment) wheatgrass increased from bare ground, when site is in 10% to 15-35%. stability or unsatisfactory -Maintain bare decreases in condition. ground at 1-35%. non-native -If the site remains -Maintain non- species cover, stable or moves native species and increases away from DC, as cover at less than in bluebunch identified by trend 5%. wheatgrass monitoring, the cover is allowable considered utilization will be improvement in decreased by 5%. site condition. -If the site moves -Increases in towards the DC, bare ground as identified by above 35%, trend monitoring, increases in the allowable non-native utilization will be species above increased by 5%. 5%, or stability -If site meets DC, or decreases in increases above bluebunch 35% allowable wheatgrass utilization may be cover is approved. considered degradation of site condition. All C&T sites Allowable -Maintain or -Decreases in -If a significant monitored for utilization will increase combined the total native decrease in the Biological Soil be consistent basal cover of plant cover plus combined basal Crusts in Current with that native plants and the biotic crust cover of native EA (Snake River outlined for elements of biotic cover is plants and biotic 2, 3, 4, 5; Nelson each site crusts. considered a crust is found Creek 3, 5; and degradation of through trend Jolly Creek 2. 3. site condition. monitoring, the 4.) -Stabitlity of allowable increases in utilization will be total native decreased by plant cover 5%^. pluse biotic -If a maintenance crust cover is or increase in considered an basal cover of improvement of native plants and site condtion. biotic crust is found through trend monitoring, utilization could be increased or maintained depending on the

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 2 - Alternatives

identified condition of the site^. *The key species can be modified as conditions change and other species appear in the community ^Changes to biotic crusts will be evaluated using a paired T-Test to compare the combined number of basal hits on all native plants and biotic crust elements combined.

If continued long term monitoring identifies other areas in unsatisfactory condition (upland or riparian) then a site specific desired condition will be identified and livestock management will be modified (see Table 2-1, Figure 1-1). If conditions on unsatisfactory condition sites continue to decline, and allowable use is reduced to less than 20%, livestock use in these areas will be discouraged. This could happen through reduction in season of use, reduction in numbers of permitted livestock, modification of salting protocols, identification and development of other off- site water, construction of enclosure fences, or other actions designed to reduce the use of livestock on rangelands. If construction of new water developments, or enclosure fencing are needed, further site specific NEPA analysis will be necessary.

When specific C&Ts are found to be in unsatisfactory condition, modified utilization standards are required. Once utilization standards have been met, the permittee must move livestock to the next available grazing unit. If this is the last unit in the schedule, and adequate forage is available, the permittee may be given the option to move livestock into an early season pasture. If, in accordance with monitoring results, this is not feasible, then the permittee must remove livestock from the allotment. If livestock are removed from the allotment prior to the permitted off-date in any three out of five years, then there may be a need to modify the numbers of permitted livestock or the season of use on that allotment. An average head month calculation, for all five years, will be conducted and the permitted numbers or season of use may be modified. However, if no early removal has been necessary, and residual utilization measures show that there is excess forage available at the end of the season, then the authorized officer may identify a need for added analysis to potentially increase the authorized head months for that specific allotment.

Description by Allotment

The grazing systems for Alternative 2 are described below. Refer to Maps 5 and 6 for the allotments and pastures.

North Pine – The Double Pine allotment would be incorporated into this allotment, and would operate under one AMP. One-hundred-one cow/calf pairs would be permitted to graze between June 15 and September 30 annually in the 12,325 acre North Pine Allotment. Modification to the use on the North Pine allotment could occur by order of the authorized officer however, total head months would not exceed 359. The North Pine allotment would be divided into two pastures the Jolly Pine and Nelson Creek pastures.

The allotment would continue to be managed under an elevationally-determined rotational grazing system on the two pastures. The cattle would move from the lower to higher elevation during the grazing season, with moves based on resource condition and utilization standards in key areas. At the end of the authorized season of use, the livestock would be herded back through the lower elevation, utilizing ridgetops and roads to avoid trailing through riparian areas, before being moved off the allotment.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Under this alternative, grazing would continue to be managed to maintain desired riparian and upland conditions. Grazing in areas identified in unsatisfactory condition would be managed as discussed and referenced (Table 2-1, Figure 1-1).

Snake River – One hundred cow-calf pairs would be permitted on the 14,144 acre Snake River allotment between April 15 and September 26. Modification to the use on the Snake River allotment could occur by order of the authorized officer however, total head months would not exceed 542. The Snake River allotment would continue to be divided into two pastures called the Spring Creek and Squaw Creek pastures. The allotment contains 415 acres of private land that is currently grazed by the permittees cattle, but is not managed by the forest service under the term grazing permit.

The allotment would continue to be managed under a rotational grazing system on the two pastures. The cattle would move from pasture to pasture during the grazing season, with moves based on resource condition and utilization standards in key areas. At the end of the authorized season of use, the livestock would be herded, utilizing ridgetops, trails, and roads to avoid trailing through riparian areas before being moved off the allotment.

Timing

The timing for the beginning and end of the grazing season, and the dates for movement to a new pasture is estimated in the description of alternatives and on the annual operating plan. However, timing varies each year based on factors such as range readiness, climatic fluctuations, utilization standards, and resource conditions. Use would be authorized before each permitted season and would outline total number of livestock and on/off dates for that grazing season. However, total use will not exceed the total permitted head months as identified on the term grazing permit and detailed by allotment above. Utilization standards and resource conditions then determine livestock placement or movement within the grazing season.

Alternative 3 – Rest Rotation

Alternative 3 would authorize livestock (cattle) and an incidental level of horse grazing within the SPRAA allotments. The level of permitted use would be similar to levels that have been authorized through term grazing permits (FSH 2230 2231.11 and 2231.13), which are administered each year by annual instructions and authorized by the payment of grazing fees (FSH 2230 2231.41), however all allotments will be on a scheduled rest rotation. Every fourth year, to coincide with the scheduled rotation of the BLM’s Homestead allotment, no livestock will be authorized on the North Pine or Snake River allotments. The BLM’s Homestead allotment is located adjacent to two of the allotments in this analysis. It is east of the North Pine allotment and south of the Snake River allotment. This alternative was initially created to address management direction in the CMP (GRA-G3).

Similar to current management, this alternative requires permittees to achieve proper livestock distribution through herding and salting techniques and maintenance of existing water

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 2 - Alternatives developments and fencing. Stocking levels and season of use are discussed in the description by allotment section below. Stocking of each allotment is described in terms of head-months (HM). A HM is a unit of measure that counts one animal for 30.4 days. A cow-calf pair qualifies as one animal in these calculations if the calf is 6 months of age or less.

The following items are specific to alternative 3.

 Allowable Utilization on upland areas identified in unsatisfactory condition will be initially established at 30% and monitored by district range personnel.  Trend monitoring of C&T’s in unsatisfactory condition will occur every 3-5 years by district or forest range personnel, botanist, or ecologist.  Trend monitoring of C&T’s in satisfactory condition will occur every 8-10 years by district or forest range personnel, botanist, or ecologist.  Every fourth year, livestock use on the North Pine and Snake River allotments will not be authorized. This rest is established to coincide with the neighboring BLM Homestead allotment.  The north boundary of the Snake River allotment will be modified and moved south to the ridge between Buck Creek and Thirty-two Point creek. This modification will remove about 2500 acres from the Snake River allotment, and will more closely resemble the actual boundaries of use on the allotment.  The area between the North Pine allotment and the Double Pine allotment, approximately 226 acres, along North Pine Creek will be made part of the North Pine allotment. This area is currently in an unused portion of the Ghostbull allotment which was analyzed under NEPA in 1999. This area will be included to reflect a more logical grazing unit.  Trend monitoring of long-term monitoring plots for biological soil crusts will occur in conjunction with the C&T monitoring shown above.

Table 2-2. Desired future condition and response to monitoring of sites in unsatisfactory condition or changes in biological soil crust communities

C&T’s in Initial use level Site Specific Trigger Response Unsatisfactory on current Key Desired Condition Condition Species* (DC) SR1 30% -Dominant plant -Any -Utilization levels Kentucky functional group decreases in are capped at bluegrass consists of native bare ground, 35% when site is perennials and/or reduction in in unsatisfactory Kentucky bluegrass soil erosion condition. -Annual species elements, -If the site decreasing with decreases in remains stable or perennial cover 3 annual moves away from times greater than species, and DC, as identified annual cover. increases in by trend -Percent bare perennial monitoring, the

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 2 - Alternatives

ground below 20%, cover is allowable down from the considered utilization will be current of 29%, with improvement decreased by 5%. isolated patches in site -If the site moves less than 1 ft in condition. towards the DC, diameter and not in -No change as identified by large or any trend monitoring, interconnected increases in the allowable patches. There are bare ground, utilization will be no active gullies or increases in increased by 5%. rills on the site, and soil erosion -If site meets DC, active pedestalling elements, increases above or terracette increases in 35% allowable formation is rare. annual utilization may be -If native species, or approved. bunchgrasses decreases in become detectable perennial by monitoring cover is protocol and on an considered increasing trend, stability or reevaluate site. degradation Site specific goals of site may change to condition. attain mid-seral ecological status based on this reevaluation. SR3 30% -Dominant plant -Any -Utilization levels Kentucky functional group decreases in are capped at bluegrass consists of native bare ground, 35% when site is perennials and/or reduction in in unsatisfactory Kentucky bluegrass soil erosion condition. -Percent bare elements, -If the site ground below 20%, decreases in remains stable or down from the annual moves away from current of 29%, with species, and DC, as identified isolated patches increases in by trend less than 1 ft in perennial monitoring, the diameter and not in cover is allowable large interconnected considered utilization will be patches. There are improvement decreased by 5%. no active gullies or in site -If the site moves rills on the site, and condition. towards the DC, active pedestalling -No change as identified by or terracette or any trend monitoring, formation is rare. increases in the allowable -If native bare ground, utilization will be bunchgrasses increases in increased by 5%. become detectable soil erosion -If site meets DC, by monitoring elements, increases above

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 2 - Alternatives

protocol and on an increases in 35% allowable increasing trend, annual utilization may be reevaluate site. Site species, or approved. specific goals may decreases in change to attain perennial mid-seral ecological cover is status based on this considered reevaluation. stability or degradation of site condition. NC3 30% -Bluebunch -Stability or -Utilization levels bluebunch wheatgrass cover decreases in are capped at wheatgrass increased from bare ground, 35% when site is 10% to 15-35%. stability or in unsatisfactory -Maintain bare decreases in condition. ground at 1-35%. non-native -If the site -Maintain non- species remains stable or native species cover, and moves away from cover at less than increases in DC, as identified 5%. bluebunch by trend wheatgrass monitoring, the cover is allowable considered utilization will be improvement decreased by 5%. in site -If the site moves condition. towards the DC, -Increases in as identified by bare ground trend monitoring, above 35%, the allowable increases in utilization will be non-native increased by 5%. species -If site meets DC, above 5%, increases above or stability or 35% allowable decreases in utilization may be bluebunch approved. wheatgrass cover is considered degradation of site condition. All C&T sites Allowable -Maintain or -Decreases -If a significant monitored for utilization will be increase combined in the total decrease in the Biological Soil consistent with basal cover of native plant combined basal Crusts in Current that outlined for native plants and cover plus cover of native EA (Snake River each site elements of biotic the biotic plants and biotic 2, 3, 4, 5; Nelson crusts. crust cover crust is found Creek 3, 5; and is through trend

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Jolly Creek 2. 3. considered a monitoring, the 4.) degradation allowable of site utilization will be condition. decreased by -Stabitlity of 5%^. increases in -If a maintenance total native or increase in plant cover basal cover of pluse biotic native plants and crust cover biotic crust is is found through considered trend monitoring, an utilization could improvement be increased or of site maintained condtion. depending on the identified condition of the site^. *The key species can be modified as conditions change and other species appear in the community. ^Changes to biotic crusts will be evaluated using a paired T-Test to compare the combined number of basal hits on all native plants and biotic crust elements combined.

If continued long term monitoring identifies other areas in unsatisfactory condition (upland or riparian) then they will also be treated as those initially identified (Table 2-2, Figure 1-1). If conditions continue to decline and allowable use is reduced to less than 20%, livestock use in these areas will be discouraged. This could happen through reduction in season of use, reduction in numbers of permitted livestock, modification of salting protocols, identification and development of other off-site water, construction of enclosure fences, or other actions designed to reduce the use of livestock on rangelands. If construction of water developments or enclosure fences is needed, further site specific NEPA analysis will be necessary.

When specific C&Ts are found to be in unsatisfactory condition, modified utilization standards are required. Once utilization standards have been met the permittee must move livestock to the next available grazing unit. If this is the last unit in the schedule, and adequate forage is available, the permittee may be given the option to move livestock into an early season pasture. If, in accordance with monitoring results, this is not feasible then the permittee must remove livestock from the allotment. If livestock are removed from the allotment prior to the permitted off-date in any 3 out of 5 years, then there may be a need to modify the numbers of permitted livestock or the season of use on that allotment. An average head month calculation, for all years, will be conducted and the permitted numbers or season of use may be modified. However, if no early removal has been necessary, and residual utilization measures show that there is excess forage available at the end of the season, then the authorized officer may identify a need for added analysis to potentially increase the authorized head months for that specific allotment.

Description by Allotment

The grazing systems for Alternative 3 are described below. Refer to Maps 7 and 8 for the allotments and pastures.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 2 - Alternatives

North Pine – The Double Pine allotment would be incorporated into this allotment, and would operate under one AMP. One-hundred-one cow/calf pairs would be permitted to graze between June 15 and September 30 annually in the 12,551 acre North Pine Allotment. Modification to the use on the North Pine allotment could occur by order of the authorized officer however, total head months would not exceed 359. The North Pine allotment would be divided into two pastures the Jolly Pine and Nelson Creek pastures.

The allotment would be managed under a rest-rotation system where livestock grazing would not be authorized every fourth year. This rest period will be timed to coincide with the rest schedule on the neighboring Homestead allotment (managed by the BLM). This concurrent rest should reduce conflicts for the North Pine permittee who also holds the lease for the Homestead allotment permit. During rested grazing seasons, permittees would still be required to ensure all assigned maintenance of range improvements is complete but no authorized use of livestock will occur. During authorized grazing seasons, the allotment will be managed under an elevationally-determined rotational grazing system on the two pastures. The cattle would move from the lower to higher elevation during the grazing season, with moves based on resource condition and utilization standards in key areas. At the end of the authorized season of use, the livestock would be herded back through the lower elevation, utilizing ridgetops and roads to avoid trailing through riparian areas, before being moved off the allotment.

Snake River – One hundred cow-calf pairs would be permitted on the 11,605 acre Snake River allotment between April 15 and September 26. Modification to the use on the Snake River allotment could occur by order of the authorized officer on an annual basis however, total head months would not exceed 542. The Snake River allotment would continue to be divided into two pastures called the Spring Creek and Squaw Creek pastures. The allotment contains 415 acres of private land that is currently grazed by the permittees cattle, but is not managed by the forest service under a term or private land grazing permit.

The allotment would be managed under a rest-rotation system where livestock grazing would not be authorized every fourth year. The rest period on the Snake River allotment will coincide with the rest schedule on the North Pine allotment. This concurrent rest should reduce the administration need within the SPRAA. During rested grazing seasons, permittees would still be required to ensure all assigned maintenance of range improvements is complete but no authorized use of livestock will occur. During authorized grazing season the allotment would continue to be managed under a rotational grazing system on the two pastures. The cattle would move from pasture to pasture during the grazing season, with moves based on resource condition and utilization standards in key areas. At the end of the authorized season of use, the livestock would be herded, utilizing ridgetops and roads to avoid trailing through riparian areas before being moved off the allotment at the end of the season.

Timing

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Alternative Comparison and Summary

Tables 2-3 and 2-4 display comparisons of the alternatives.

Table 2-3. Comparison of Alternatives for the SPRAA Authorized Grazing Levels (head months/year averaged over 4 years) Allotment Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Snake River 0 542 407 North Pine 0 359 270 Double Pine 0 Included in North Pine Included in North Pine

Table 2-4. Key indicators by Alternative Within the SPRAA (+ indicates positive measure)

Issue and Indicators Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Issue 1 - Upland Vegetation/Forage Condition

Relative rate of recovery towards desired +++ + ++ future conditions

Issue 2 - Economic Viability of Alternatives

Change, from current management, in Maintain Decrease to Decrease to 0 number of permitted head months (annual number at 901 677 average over 4 years)

Changes in revenue for the permittee and No Change Decrease Decrease to 0 from current from current the Forest Service

Changes in operating costs for the Large Increase No change Increased due to lack of from current from current permittee pasture due to year of

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Issue and Indicators Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 rest

Changes in operating costs for the Forest Decreased to No change Decrease Service zero from current from current

Protection Measures Specific to Action Alternatives

Protection measures are the set of management requirements, constraints and mitigation measures pertinent to action alternatives and provide the information and measures necessary to keep project impacts at acceptable levels. Mitigation measures address potential impacts by avoiding adverse impacts, minimizing adverse impacts by limiting activities, or rectifying adverse impacts through rehabilitation. In addition to the mitigation measures listed below, measures are included from the Forest Plan (including 1995 PACFISH/INFISH) and any agreements reached during the ESA consultation process for this proposal. Management measures will be incorporated into the AMPs, and term grazing permits and implemented through the AOI to provide for further protection of resources.

Rangeland

 The Term Grazing Permits for the current permittees would be modified to include the maintenance responsibility for any new fences and range improvements.  Cattle will be removed from the allotment when utilization standards have been met or by the “off date” specified on the permittee’s AOI. Grazing extensions will only be granted if allowable use guidelines will not be exceeded and only after an appropriate inspection is conducted to determine whether it is feasible for an extension to occur.  Salt will not be placed within one-quarter mile of any spring, stream or wet meadow. Salt will not be placed in recently harvested or burned areas where tree regeneration efforts are being implemented. Salt will be used as a tool to improve cattle distribution. Additionally, salt will not be placed in areas next to open roads, campsites or trails.  To mitigate potential effects to rangelands, a review process would be in place to assess burned areas after a wildfire. The district fuels, range and natural resource specialists would determine the areas resource rehabilitation needs, and grazing adaptations necessary to allow the area to recover. These adaptations to grazing would be accomplished through actions, such as but limited to temporary fencing, resting the pasture, or herding livestock.  Every reasonable effort will be made when designing and construction range improvements within the NRA portion of the allotment to insure a “rustic” appearance, when those improvements may impact the recreation experience of the public.

Invasive Plants

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 2 - Alternatives

To mitigate the effects of livestock grazing on potential establishment and spread of noxious weeds the following protection measures have been incorporated into action alternatives:

 To reduce the potential for weed spread from known noxious weed patches, known weed occurrences within allotments will be depicted as Areas-to-Avoid (except those occurrences known only from open road edges). Avoid concentrating ground disturbing activities in these areas including but not limited too; salting, water development, unloading, round-up, and stock driveways – unless the area is deemed at a low risk of weed spread because of treatment success. Coordinate this information with the district weed treatment program.  Permittees will be provided with a current list of noxious weeds of concern on the Forest, and a map of those known to occur within the SPRAA. Permittees will also be asked to add noxious weed locations that they know about, but that do not show on the map.  To reduce the risk of introducing noxious weeds, ensure that annual instructions include quarantining livestock that come from known weed infested areas before turning out on the National Forest. The quarantine area must also be free of these weeds. Quarantine time must be long enough for plant material ingested off-site to be fully processed by the livestock.  To reduce the risk of introducing noxious weeds, any seed used in the maintenance of water developments or in restoration projects will be certified weed free. Seed priority will be given to local sourced native species in compliance with Region 6 restoration materials guidelines.

Applicable Regional weed management guidelines are incorporated into this project through the Regional Invasive Plant EIS amendment of the WWNF Forest Plan. There are 23 standards for prevention, treatment and restoration associated with the Regional Invasive Plant EIS. All will be followed, however, below are the most applicable to range projects (outside of standards governing the actual treatment actions):

 Prevention of invasive plant introduction, establishment and spread will be addressed in watershed analysis, roads analysis, fire and fuels management plans, Burned Area Emergency Recovery Plans, emergency wildland fire situation analysis, wildland fire implementation plans, grazing allotment management plans, recreation management plans, vegetation management plans and other land management assessments.  Use only pelletized or certified weed free feed on all National Forest System lands. If state certified weed free feed is not available, individual Forests should require feed certified to be weed free using North American Weed Free Forage Program standards or a similar certification process. Choose weed-free project staging areas, livestock and packhorse corrals, and trailheads.  Use available administrative mechanisms to incorporate invasive plant prevention practices into rangeland management. Examples of administrative mechanisms include, but are not limited to, revising permits and grazing allotment management plans, providing annual operating instructions, and adaptive management. Plan and implement practices in cooperation with the grazing permit holder.  Prioritize infestations of invasive plants for treatment at the landscape, watershed or larger multiple forest/multiple owner scale.

Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive (PETS) Plants

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 2 - Alternatives

 A map titled “Areas to avoid” will be made to indicate Special status and Hell’s Canyon endemic plant locations. Locations will not be labeled by species, and will include ¼ mile buffer. The map will be provided to permittees and reviewed at each annual operating meeting.  Permittees will be advised to consult the “Areas to avoid” map when planning salt placement and range improvements used to improve distribution during the grazing season. As a result, salt and range improvements would not occur within 1/4 mile of known Special status and Hell’s Canyon endemic plant occurences unless site-specific conditions dictate otherwise and the Forest Service concurs.

Wildlife

 Development of springs and seeps for livestock watering will be accomplished so as to not reduce their wildlife habitat. If possible, the riparian area, including the source and overflow, will be fenced to exclude livestock and the water piped to a trough outside the fenced area. Water troughs should not exceed 24 inches in height, shall include the placement of escape ramps in the troughs for birds and small mammals and checked annually.  In order to reduce hazards to big game animals, all fences that are new construction, or reconstruction of old fences, will not exceed 40 inches from the top wire to the ground. The bottom wire will be 16 inches above the ground to allow deer to go under the wire. A full description of wildlife friendly fencing techniques is contained in the project file (USDI, USDA, Fences 1988).

Cultural Resources

 To eliminate the potential for salting areas to impact previously unidentified archaeological sites, all new salting areas will be placed on closed or decommissioned roads.  To ensure protection of archaeological sites, site-specific surveys would occur prior to implementation of any new ground disturbing activities (i.e. improvements).  To ensure protection of archaeological sites, if cultural resources are located/relocated during implementation of any action, work will be halted and the Wallowa Whitman Archaeologist will be notified. The cultural resource will be evaluated and a mitigation plan developed in consultation with the Oregon SHPO if necessary.

Riparian Areas

 To reduce cattle impacts on riparian vegetation and stream channels, permittees will select stock driveway locations that avoid riparian areas except at needed crossings and will ride and herd cattle as needed throughout the grazing season to reduce cattle grazing and trailing in riparian areas.  Continue maintenance and new development of upland water to ensure they provide dependable sources of clean water for livestock away from riparian areas.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Monitoring Specific to Action Alternatives

Unless otherwise identified, completion of these monitoring measures is the responsibility of the Forest Service who administers the allotments.

 Complete utilization monitoring as needed during the grazing season at designated key areas to ensure end of season standards can be met.  Participate in the Interagency Implementation/PIBO Team Effectiveness monitoring study by completing end of season utilization monitoring (implementation monitoring) as per the 1998-2004 PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion direction at identified Designated Monitoring Areas (DMAs). The DMA sites to complete end of season monitoring are determined by annual Region 6 direction and the monitoring protocol requires greenline, browse, and streambank alteration parameters be read as guided by “Monitoring Stream Channels and Riparian Vegetation Multiple Indicators” (MIM Protocal-Interagency Technical Bulletin Version 5.0, 2008).  Complete Condition and Trend monitoring using the appropriate methodology needed to identify trends for particular upland attributes to include biological soil crusts (Parker 3- step, ecoplot, cover/frequency, line point intersect etc.) every 3 to 5 years on sites in unsatisfactory condition and every 8 to 10 years on sites in satisfactory condition.  Conduct administrative inspections and monitoring as needed to ensure livestock are in appropriate pastures, range improvements are maintained as specified and the terms and conditions of the term grazing permit are being followed.  Utilization monitoring of grasses, grass-likes and shrubs in identified riparian areas and uplands will be completed using the appropriate approved sampling protocol as directed in FSH 2209.21 Chapter 20.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Map 5 – Alternative 2: North Pine Allotment

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Map 6 – Alternative 2: Snake River Allotment

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Map 7 – Alternative 3: North Pine Allotment

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Map 8 – Alternative 3: Snake River Allotment

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

CHAPTER 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 describes the environment and environmental consequences relevant to this analysis. The chapter begins by describing the past, present, and foreseeable future activities and actions that were considered in the cumulative effects analyses throughout the chapter. The analysis then describes how the alternatives respond to the key issues. The following section focuses on resources that are relevant to or affected by the scope of the analysis: Range, Social and Economics, Hydrology, Soils, Fisheries, Wildlife, Fuels, Recreation and Wilderness, Botanical Resources and Invasive Species. The chapter concludes with a discussion of specifically required disclosures. The analysis in this chapter is derived from specialist reports, biological assessments and biological evaluations contained in the analysis file.

Cumulative Actions and Activities

Cumulative effects are analyzed in this chapter. Each resource area identifies the specific actions and activities that were considered to overlap with the direct and indirect effects of the proposal and alternatives. The actions and activities considered for cumulative effects are those that have occurred, currently occurring, or are planned to occur in the project area. These activities have occurred in the past, and present and are expected to continue into the future.

Past Actions In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. This chapter includes a description of the existing conditions for each resource area. Any specific past actions that have measurably contributed to the current condition are identified by resource area in this chapter.

This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking this approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly costly to obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over the last century (and beyond), and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would be nearly impossible. Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposed action or alternatives. In fact, focusing on individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because there is limited information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions, and one cannot reasonably identify each and every action over the last century that has contributed to current conditions. Additionally, focusing on the impacts of past human actions can lead to ignoring the important residual effects of past natural events, which may contribute to cumulative effects just as much as human actions. By looking at current conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. Third,

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects public scoping for this project did not identify any public interest or need for detailed information on individual past actions. Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005 regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.”

The cumulative effects analysis in this EA is also consistent with Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations (36 CFR 220.4(f)), which state, in part:

“CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to determine the present effects of past actions. Once the agency has identified those present effects of past actions that warrant consideration, the agency assesses the extent that the effects of the proposal for agency action or its alternatives will add to, modify, or mitigate those effects. The final analysis documents an agency assessment of the cumulative effects of the actions considered (including past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions) on the affected environment. With respect to past actions, during the scoping process and subsequent preparation of the analysis, the agency must determine what information regarding past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis of cumulative effects. Cataloging past actions and specific information about the direct and indirect effects of their design and implementation could in some contexts be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposal. The CEQ regulations, however, do not require agencies to catalogue or exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions. Simply because information about past actions may be available or obtained with reasonable effort does not mean that it is relevant and necessary to inform decision making. (40 CFR 1508.7)”

For these reasons, the analysis of past actions in this section is based on current environmental conditions, and is presented in the existing condition discussions for each resource area.

Past, Present and Future Actions

The following list includes the past, present, ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future activities considered for cumulative effects within the SPRAA:

Road Maintenance – The level of maintenance a road receives depends on the condition of the road, the assigned maintenance level, and the maintenance priority. Paved roads receive asphalt patching, roadside brushing, and culvert cleaning. Gravel roads receive occasional surface blading and culvert cleaning. Remaining roads are considered native surface roads which receive culvert cleaning.

Snowmobile Routes – Designated snowmobile routes are available for grooming each year, and when winter conditions develop, the roads are closed to wheeled vehicles. The Hells Canyon Scenic Byway is a designated route within the project area.

Sled Dog Races – This annual winter event uses some of the groomed routes previously mentioned as snowmobile routes. Teams of dog sleds along with support personnel use the trail system.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Trail Use and Maintenance – Hiking and horseback trails occur in the unroaded portions of the project area. These trails receive occasional trail maintenance such as brushing and digging drainage structures. Most trail use occurs during the fall hunting seasons, although incidental summer use occurs.

Puderbaugh Vegetation Management Project – Proposed for a NEPA decision in 2014, the Puderbaugh project proposes to reduce fuel loadings through a combination of mechanical treatments, hand-treatments and prescribed burning. The project would also prescribe an inspection and removal regimen for infested ponderosa pine trees in the Imnaha River corridor prior to the spread of infestation to nearby trees. In addition, the project would provide a shaded fuel break along FS Road 3965 from the overlook to PO Saddle. The proposed action includes approximately 1,400 acres of commercial thinning, 2,600 acres of noncommercial thinning and handpiling, and 15,000 acres of prescribed burning. In addition, the project proposes annual inspections of large diameter pine stands within a 1,040 acre unit along the Imnaha River corridor for 10 years. Western pine bark beetle infested ponderosa pine trees would be cut and removed from the site prior to beetle flight. A shaded fuel break would be created by thinning, piling and burning trees less than seven inches DBH and pruning remaining trees to a height of 15 feet on approximately 400 acres along FS Road 3965.

Past Harvest – Forest records for the past 2-3 decades, indicate approximately 1,402 acres of timber harvest has occurred on the North Pine Allotment. This harvest occurred from 1986- 1991 during four timber sales.

Upper Imnaha Prescribed Burning – This project involved underburning of 1,000 to 3,000 acre blocks over about a five-year period. The project has been completed. Some of the Puderbaugh natural fuels blocks in the Imnaha corridor overlay these burning areas.

Large Fires and Wildfire Suppression – Two large wildfires have recently occurred within the SPRAA. The 2007 Battle Creek fire burned approximately 6,496 acres in the Snake River allotment; and the 2006 Fosters Gulch fire burned approximately 374 acres in the North Pine allotment, and 341 acres in the Double Pine allotment. Road 3965 and Summit Ridge are frequently used as a fire break for halting the progress of wildfires between the Imnaha and Snake River drainages.

Outfitting – One outfitter/guide operates within the allotments. Historically, guided services offered by the outfitter have been limited to spring bear hunts beginning April 15 and continuing through May. Typically, pack stock is used to transport supplies to and from hunting camps located in the Snake River allotment.

Dispersed and Developed Recreation – No developed sites, such as designated camping areas, designated picnic areas, or trailheads are located in the analysis area. Two trailheads are located just outside the area that provide trail access into the allotments, 1) Copper Creek Trailhead located on BLM lands along Hells Canyon Reservoir, and 2) Buck Creek Trailhead within the HCNRA. Approximately 21 miles of hiking/horseback trails are within the SPRAA boundary. Hells Canyon Overlook is also adjacent to the project area.

Big-Game Hunting – The analysis area lies within the Pine Creek and Snake River Big Game Management Units of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Hunting season typically begins

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects in September and extends through November for big game and extends into January for upland birds.

Noxious Weed Treatments – Treatment of known noxious weed sites within the project area are ongoing and include hand pulling, biological agents, and herbicide application. Treatment records and inventory data are kept on file at the Wallowa Mountains Ranger District office in Joseph, Oregon.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Rangeland Resources

Key Issue 1: Condition of Upland Vegetation

Indicator/Measure:

1) Relative rate of recovery towards site specific desired conditions

Rangeland - Existing Condition

The North Pine, Snake River and Double Pine allotments are located approximately 25 miles northeast of Halfway, Oregon. Together these allotments make up the Snake/Pine Rangeland Analysis Area (SPRAA). The southern portion of the SPRAA is accessed from Highway 86 and the North Pine Road (Forest Road 39). The northern portion of the SPRAA is generally accessed via foot, boat or horseback from Forest Road (FR) 39 or trailheads along the Snake River. National Forest System Lands (NFS) border three sides of the North Pine and Double Pine allotment, with BLM lands on the south and east. The Snake River allotment is surrounded by NFS lands on the north and west, with BLM lands on the south, and the Snake River on the east. The allotments consist of 26,469 total acres; 26,053 acres NFS Lands, two BLM and 415 are private lands.

These allotments are comprised of primarily open, ponderosa pine or mixed conifer stands, open bunchgrass benches and ridges, and moderately rolling timbered slopes; but there are also some extreme steep rocky slopes that are inaccessible to livestock. There are five major stream systems within the boundaries of these allotments. These systems are North Pine Creek, Duck Creek, McGraw Creek, Thirty-two Point Creek and Spring Creek. The elevation varies from a low of 1,200 feet near the Snake River to more than 5,500 feet on the ridges above the Imnaha River.

Rangeland Conditions When range condition assessments were conducted for this project, both the forested and non- forested portions of each allotment were included. Many rangeland condition assessments do not include the forested areas; however reconnaissance indicates that many of these areas within the SPRAA contained vigorous stands of native and non-native grass species, and more than incidental levels of livestock grazing. Many of the non-native species present within the project area were purposefully seeded after historical activities, and continue to persist with some providing palatable forage and ground stabilizing cover.

The Forest Plan provides direction to identify the condition of rangelands but generally relies heavily on forage condition and not ecological status. The HCNRA CMP requires that ecological status is considered when identifying the condition of an allotment. Ecologically, satisfactory range conditions are those in at least mid-seral stages while unsatisfactory range

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects conditions are those in mid (while trending downward), early, or very early seral stages (USDA, 2003). Since grassland health was historically measured using range forage condition and soil stability, many of the long term monitoring plots were installed to determine conditions using these measures. A scoring system was developed that could compare forage and soil ratings over multiple visits to a permanent monitoring point (Table 3-1). However, since forage condition, and not ecological status (as required by the CMP), was used to complete this scoring system, it was necessary to use a broader approach to evaluate the status of each allotment in the project area. Analysis within the project area has factored in density and cover of certain desirable species, riparian health and condition and assessments made by range management personnel and ecologists during visits to the project area to evaluate the condition of the allotments from an ecological perspective. While forage condition and score is discussed, there was less reliance on these measures when identifying allotment condition than past range analyses. Allotment condition was derived using a combination of assessment and analysis techniques including Parker Three-step Condition and Trend (C & T) plots, Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) surveys, stream and riparian health surveys and aerial reconnaissance. In areas where long term trend monitoring was not available, paced transects and professional judgment (including review of all available data, historic accounts, utilization records, past pasture moves, and grazing management) was utilized to assess range condition. Within areas that included long-term monitoring locations we compared vegetation data at these sites between monitoring visits. This comparison grouped all similar (i.e. all plots in the same plant association in one allotment) upland C&T plots and compared the number of direct hits of desirable species. In general direct hits equate to basal cover of a plant, however, it is important to remember that any comparison is quite generalized, so a site specific evaluation was also needed.

Further consideration must be given to potential changes that have occurred as a result of past management that may now affect ecological status and condition. Ecological sites can be classified as occurring in one of many different states (states A through D in Figure 3-1). Based on analysis completed by Stringham et al. (2003), Swanson and Johnson (2008), and Betelmeyer et al. (2009), ecological conditions can be described by “states and transitions”. A critical defining point between states is referred to as a threshold. In Figure 3-1, the threshold is shown with a dark line between States C and D. Where a plant community has been altered to a State D (or has crossed a threshold), transition to a State C, B, or A is thought to be unlikely without intensive restoration techniques such as tilling and reseeding or widespread herbicide application. However, with correct management, a system within states B or C can move toward state A. The figure displays these likely directions using an arrow between the boxes. A double arrow indicates that changes can occur in both directions, usually with management changes or through succession. A single sided arrow indicates a one way interaction that generally occurs when an association has crossed a threshold. This is important when we consider the condition of the allotments within the SPRAA.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

State D1

annuals State C1

annuals,

State A State B State D2

Idaho Fescue forbs, fescue, perennial wheatgrass forbs State C2

forbs,

State D3

bluegrass, perennial forbs

Figure 3-1. State and Transition model of the Poa pratensis degenerated bench in the Snake River province. This model is specific to the C&T plots in the Snake River allotment. C&T plot numbers SR1, SR3, SR4, SR5, and SR6 have been identified as fitting this plant association type.

Table 3-1. Forage and Soil Stability Score and Condition Equivalent

Score Rating Condition Equivalent

76-100 Good

51-75 Fair

26-50 Poor

0-25 Very Poor

Capability and Suitability Rangeland suitability is defined as the appropriateness of applying certain management activities to an area of land. On the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, rangelands are termed suitable unless they are developed campgrounds, administrative sites, exclusive use special use areas, fenced road rights-of-way, Research Natural Areas (RNA) where the establishment report excludes grazing as a use, wilderness where grazing was not permitted at the time of

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects wilderness designation, long-term enclosures, municipal watersheds, town-sites, areas administratively closed to livestock grazing and lands, which have been shown to be uneconomical to manage under any reasonable management system (USDA, 1999).

Rangeland capability is defined as the potential of an area to produce resources under an assumed set of management practices at a given intensity. The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest refined this definition for capable rangeland by establishing criteria for capable lands based on land type, inherent native forage production, conifer or shrub canopy cover, soil depth, slope, elevation, and available water (USDA 1999) and further modified the definition using the Blue Mountain Forest Plan revision team’s draft Range Suitability/Capability process (USFS 2009). A geographic information systems (GIS) model that distinguishes capable lands based on these criteria was created and used on the SPRAA. A total of 6,423 acres of capable lands were identified within the SPRAA. The results of this model were used to determine stocking rates within the allotments of the SPRAA (Table 3-2). Stocking rates were determined by dividing the total number of capable acres by the total head months (head month (HM): one month’s use and occupancy of the range by a cow/calf pair) used per allotment.

Table 3-2. Stocking rates for allotments within the Snake/Pine Range Analysis Area.

Allotment Capable Lands Permitted Head Acres/HM (FS only) Months (HM)

Snake River 2792 542 5.15

North Pine 3236 288 11.24

Double Pine 395 71 5.6

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Map 9 - North Pine/Double Pine Allotment – Current Capability

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Map 10 - Snake River Allotment – Current Capability

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Monitoring

Implementation standards, including requirements in permits, AMP’s, Biological Assessments and Opinions, HCNRA CMP and Forest Plan standards, are used to meet allotment goals and objectives on the North Pine, Double Pine and Snake River Allotments. Current management has been designed to meet implementation standards, including allowable use standards described in the Forest Plan as amended by PACFISH/INFISH and the HCNRA CMP. Monitoring that identifies the condition of the upland/riparian vegetation, compliance with utilization standards, condition of stream systems, implementation of management standards, and others has occurred throughout the allotments in the SPRAA. This monitoring falls into four general categories described below. These categories are compliance, upland condition, proper functioning condition, and effectiveness/implementation monitoring. The monitoring within this report, as well as that provided by members of the ID team will be used to identify the overall condition of the allotments within this project area.

Compliance The Forest Plan identifies utilization standards to assure continued maintenance or improvement of the vegetation and soil conditions. Maximum utilization standards have been set for both riparian and upland vegetative communities depending on the management goals and condition of these areas. Utilization of upland herbaceous vegetation is generally measured by percent removed by weight, while herbaceous vegetation use in riparian areas is measured by amount of residual stubble height remaining, including regrowth, at the end of the grazing season. Utilization on woody shrubs is measured as the amount of annual growth removed by grazing animals. These utilization standards are set to represent the maximum levels of use by both wildlife (within agreed upon management objectives) and permitted livestock.

To determine compliance with utilization standards, the Forest Service Range Management Specialist will measure utilization at key areas, which are areas that have been identified as representative of the overall livestock use within the area, pasture, or allotment. These measurements can occur both during and at the end of the grazing season. Allotments are annually prioritized and identified for monitoring to ensure the management of the allotment is in compliance with the standards identified in the permit. The decision of which allotments to focus the monitoring effort is based on an established rotational schedule, need for NEPA analysis, management and resource issues, and available resources (i.e. budget and personnel). This prioritization process results in some allotments being monitored nearly every year, and others that are monitored less frequently. Rangeland condition can be inferred from reviewing past compliance with utilization standards and evaluating the effects of grazing and browsing on rangelands. This information can be used in the short term to determine resource use levels and needed adjustments in management and can be considered along with other monitoring data to identify the achievement of management objectives.

Allowable utilization standards for satisfactory and unsatisfactory rangeland condition are described in Table 3-3. The identified standards represent a resource management level from the Forest Plan where “Livestock are managed to achieve full utilization of allocated forage”. This management level has been used in the past on the allotment within the SPRAA with the associated standards applied at all key areas on the allotments. It is however, often necessary to move key areas if it is determined that the existing key area is not representative of livestock utilization within the area, pasture, or allotment. Many areas within the allotments that have unavoidable livestock concentrations such as salt grounds, water developments, gateways, or

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects corrals are not designated as key areas as they represent areas of congregated livestock use and are not representative of use throughout the unit. These concentration areas are generally a very small percentage of the total land area within an allotment. Utilization triggers are identified for each key area as a point in time measurement when livestock management will be adjusted to ensure that standards are not exceeded.

Table 3-3. Allowable Forest Plan utilization standards for livestock managed within the SPRAA Allotments

Upland Riparian Condition Rating Herbaceous Shrubs Herbaceous Shrubs Forested Grassland Satisfactory 45% 55% 40% 4” 40% Unsatisfactory 0-35% 0-35% 0-30% >6” 0-30%

Upland Condition To determine the current condition of upland vegetation within the allotments and to assess improvement or maintenance of the vegetation and soil, many of the existing monitoring plots were re-visited within the SPRAA. Where C&T plots were revisited, cover frequency plots were established in their place to allow for future monitoring. Cover Frequency plots have been used by the Wallowa-Whitman ecology program to assess vegetative condition in many locations, and are currently the recommended method. All information is used collectively to determine resource conditions and identify opportunities for potential management changes.

Condition and trend plots were developed within the SPRAA in the 1960s and have been used on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest extensively throughout the forest. The purpose of C&T plots is to document change in vegetation and soil stability over time. Ideally, C&T plot data is gathered on a 10 year basis, which allows for a comparison of the results to distinguish a trend over time.

Forage Rating and Soil Stability Rating are designated as Very Poor, Poor, Fair, or Good. Forage rating is based on a compilation of the numerical data associated with type of species and percent of species within each C&T plot. Soil stability rating is based on an index number of stability assigned by the data gatherer, and the percent of bare ground present in the plot. The trend data was delineated solely based on departure from the previous reading’s data. If a departure of 0 to 5 was calculated, then the trend was considered static, a departure of 5-10 was considered to have a slight departure (either upward or downward), and a departure of 10 and above was considered to have a total departure from the previous reading (either upward or downward). By interpreting the data based on the quantitative results of the calculations, other components such as vegetation and soil attributes, which may have led to these departures, were not considered.

Ecological status of these upland areas does not necessarily reflect the forage rating and trend found using the above technique. To assess the ecological status the information from all field visits, the cover frequency measures taken at the permanent monitoring plots, comparison between potential natural communities, and presence/absence/increase/decrease of non-native

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects vegetation was used. Together the forage condition and ecological status is used to determine the site condition.

Effectiveness/Implementation (IIT/PIBO) The Forest Plan as amended by the PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion (PIBO) and Interagency Implementation Team (IIT) standards direct grazing practices be modified that retard or prevent attainment of riparian management objectives (RMOs) that are likely to adversely affect federally listed fish (USDA PIBO 1998-2004). Designated Monitoring Areas (DMAs) are established through an interdisciplinary team process to monitor impacts to resources by livestock grazing and to determine compliance with ESA consultation. This monitoring measures riparian indicators such as sediment entrapment, shrub utilization and stream bank alteration, which identify a condition when livestock may be impacting the riparian habitat area, and to assess if potential changes in annual grazing management are needed.

The standards are applied at IIT/PIBO DMAs along designated reaches of stream systems to monitor livestock use. DMAs may be moved to different locations based on the characteristics of the site and how closely they meet DMA site selection criteria; and trigger, shrub utilization, or other needed indicators such as bank alteration will be applied. Green line utilization standards are monitored at the end of season to assess the compliance with standards identified in the management documents. Standards may be created that are more restrictive if it is determined that livestock grazing practices are not allowing the desired future conditions to be realized. The IIT/PIBO protocol requires that all scheduled sites and any sites that were in non- compliance the previous year must be visited by district personnel.

Proper Function Condition (PFC) This assessment is accomplished through an interdisciplinary team process and refers to a consistent approach for considering hydrology, vegetation, erosion/deposition (soils) attributes, and related processes to assess the condition of riparian-wetland areas (USDI, 1998). Generally this procedure is used to help establish future monitoring needs, and not as a proxy for riparian health and condition. Results from a PFC survey will categorize a stream reach or system into one of three categories. A system could be rated as PFC (proper functioning condition), FAR (functioning at risk), or NF (non functioning). The PFC protocol will also provide an estimate of the trend of the system as either upward, downward, or no apparent trend. Stream systems that are rated as NF or FAR (downward trend or no apparent trend) should be priorities for other more quantitative monitoring methods, while those rated as FAR (upward trend) are generally not considered as the highest priority for further monitoring. A system rated as PFC would rank as the lowest priority for future monitoring needs, however, in all cases a detailed analysis of the team’s findings and reasoning for the rating must be conducted before a final prioritization is accomplished.

Snake River Allotment

Grazing on the Snake River allotment began prior to the inception of the forest in 1906, and was initially intended for cattle and horse use, but sheep grazing was allowed on a part time basis from the 1920s through the 1950s. At that time, the range was grazed yearlong with winter grazing permitted until 1923. In 1923, the season of use was shortened to eight months and only 400 cow/calf pairs were authorized (2400 HM’s). This management level continued with only slight decreases in numbers until 1950, when the HM allowance was reduced to 1,200. It appears that this level of stocking was used through 1990 when the duration was reduced to 3

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

½ months for 200 cow/calf pairs. Management levels changed in 2002, and again in 2005, when the current management level of 542 HM’s was authorized (100 cow/calf pairs, 4/15-9/26).

Much of the Snake River Allotment is steep grassland fragmented with timbered stringers within the higher elevation draws. Due to the steep nature of the terrain, most of the livestock use occurs on the larger ridgelines and within the large grass dominated benches. Most stream drainages are steep and straight and all flow towards the Snake River. The majority of systems within the Snake River allotment show intermittent flow, but three streams (McGraw, Spring, and Squaw Creek) have perennial flow in at least some sections of their channel. McGraw Creek has generally perennial flow except at the mouth, were a sediment wedge causes the flow to be lost after late spring flows have ended.

There is one livestock water development and .5 miles of fence within the Snake River Allotment. The water development is old and has fallen into disrepair, and due to difficulties with the wilderness nature and inaccessibility of the area reconstruction of this improvement has not occurred. Further, there is about .5 miles of letdown fence on this allotment that is maintained by the permittee and used to aid in distribution of livestock.

A spring located at the head of South Fork Squaw Creek has been identified as a likely location for a rangeland water development. This is a perennial spring in an isolated location uphill from the Hells Canyon Bench Trail. There is limited capability of this spring as a groundwater dependent ecosystem (GDE) due to topography and flow rate. Estimated flow rates are less than 2 gpm, but the topography would allow for the development of an off-site water trough. Wildlife and livestock use in this area are potentially impacting the site.

Monitoring

Compliance Table 3-4 reflects compliance with utilization standards using management strategies that have evolved through a set of Annual Operating Instructions and issuance of term grazing permits. For the past five years, compliance with allowable utilization standards occurred every year that we measured end of season use within the Snake River allotment. Reasons for not meeting utilization standards could include; gates left open, lack of range improvement maintenance, unequal distribution of livestock, livestock remaining in pastures after the exit date, overstocking, or unauthorized livestock use. Other utilization monitoring has occurred throughout the last five years and all visits to the allotment have shown utilization to be within allowable standards. Other monitoring (not captured in Table 3-4) from 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2011 shows forage condition and amount to be well above the standards required. This monitoring was not displayed in Table 3-4 because it occurred mid-season.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Table 3-4. End of Season Compliance with Allowable Utilization Standards for the Snake/Pine Allotments

Compliance with Allowable Utilization Standard Allotment/Key Area Type 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Snake River

McGraw Creek Riparian Y ------Y

Saddle Area Upland ------Y

Y = Yes, Standards Met; N = No, Standards Were Not Met; -- = Not Monitored;

Upland Condition Six C&T cluster transects were read within the Snake River allotment in 2009, 2010, or 2012. These clusters were established in 1962 and 1963 to represent plant associations and the influences of livestock grazing throughout the allotment. Each plot has been revisited at least once during this period. The following table (Table 3-5) outlines the forage condition and trend of each of these plots.

Table 3-5. Forage/Soil condition and trend for permanent monitoring plots in the Snake River allotment. Cluster ID Year Forage Trend Soil Trend Condition Condition

Snake River 1963 Very Poor Good (83) 1 (17)

1993 Poor (54) Upward Good (85) Stable

2010 Poor (41) Stable Good (85) Stable

Snake River 1962 Good (79) Fair (72) 2

1978 Good (79) Stable Fair (69) Stable

1993 Good (79) Stable Fair (74) Stable

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

2010 Good (79) Stable Good (79) Upward

Snake River 1963 Good (91) Good (87) 3

1978 Good (95) Stable Good (84) Stable

1993 Poor (27) Downward Good (87) Stable

2010 Good (95) Upward Good (84) Stable

Snake River 1963 Poor (48) Good (90) 4

1993 Very Poor Downward Good (85) Stable (21)

2012 Fair (61) Upward Good (90) Stable

Snake River 1963 Fair (61) Good (90) 5

2012 Fair (71) Stable Good (90) Stable

Snake River 1963 Fair (59) Fair (69) 6

2010 Good (95) Upward Good (100) Upward

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

C&T cluster transects have been read sparingly over the last forty years, so establishing a true trend is difficult. Further, there is a lack of true connection between forage condition and ecological status. In order to fully evaluate the condition of these locations, and the allotment, other measures were also taken. Below is a site-by-site evaluation of each permanent monitoring plot. Comparisons were made using hits on desirable species between all monitoring visits on each site.

- Snake River 1: This site is most likely a degenerated Kentucky blue-grass bench community (Johnson & Simon, 1987) resulting from a degraded Idaho fescue plant association. Early monitoring (1963) shows that this site had degraded beyond a natural plant association, so other indicators must be used to evaluate the condition of the plot. The evaluation of Snake River 1 will use the number of direct hits on all native species and the number of direct hits on Kentucky bluegrass. Recent monitoring of this plot shows an increase in plant hits (perennial species only) from 6 in 1963 to 27 in 2010. This increase in plant hits is the result of increased amounts of Kentucky blue-grass on the site over the last few assessments as native plants seem to be relatively unchanged. Other non-native species in this plot include bulbous blue-grass and salsify, which have appeared only since the last two monitoring visits. Cover frequency monitoring on this site shows dominance by annual species that would not have been identified using the Parker 3-step method. It is necessary to realize that early assessments did not conduct cover frequency techniques and may have excluded annual species as a result of the monitoring protocol, so these species could have been present during early monitoring events. Soil condition, as identified by the Parker 3-step method, has remained good with a stable trend in all assessments of this plot. Due to the stability of native plant hits, and the potential appearance of bulbous bluegrass and salsify, this site was rated as unsatisfactory. Site-specific desired condition for this site should include increases in native species, reductions in annuals and increases in Kentucky bluegrass.

- Snake River 2: This plot is located in a bluebunch wheatgrass/Sandberg’s bluegrass association (Johnson & Simon, 1987) and has changed little over the four assessments. This site maintained a stable natural vegetation component with very little change in species composition. There are few non-native species present and those that are seem to have persisted within the site since the initial reading. Cover frequency monitoring and comparison with other plant associations of the same type indicate that this site is in a mid-seral condition (Johnson & Simon, 1987). When using state and transition modeling, this site is likely in a B state. According to the reference for the models, the A state is a hypothetical that has not been found during creation of these models (Johnson & Swanson 2005). This reference however, was designed for use in the Blue and Ochoco mountains and not specifically for the Snake River area, so care must be taken with interpretation of this data. Soil condition has slightly improved between the assessments in 1993 and 2010 (fair in 1993 and good in 2010). This change is likely the result of higher numbers of direct plant hits and an apparent increase in presence of moss and lichens. Due to the seral stage of the community, stability of bluebunch wheatgrass, the increase in overall native plant hits and cover, and the decrease in bare soil, this site was rated as satisfactory. Site-specific desired condition for this site is a maintenance or increase in bluebunch wheatgrass, maintenance of native plant levels, decrease in annuals and invasive plants and maintenance of bare ground levels.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

- Snake River 3: This site is most likely a degenerated Kentucky blue-grass bench community (Johnson & Simon, 1987), resulting from a degraded Idaho fescue plant association. Early monitoring (1963) shows that this site had degraded beyond a natural plant association, so other indicators must be used to evaluate the condition of the plot. This site is degraded beyond a natural plant community, but monitoring seems to indicate it may have been an Idaho Fescue plant association. This site also seems to have transitioned (like Snake River 1) prior to the initial assessment in 1963. This site is dominated by Kentucky bluegrass and sulfur cinquefoil (invasive perennial forb), and it is the increase in Kentucky bluegrass that has increased the forage condition at this site. Soil condition for all assessments has remained good with a stable trend throughout all four plot visits due to low levels of bare ground. While the condition of this plot is less than satisfactory when compared with a natural plant association, it seems likely that a transition in ecological site has occurred beyond which could be remedied without significant and expensive restoration. However, monitoring should focus on this site as a concern over declining ecological condition and loss of rangeland capability due to further spread of the non-native cinquefoil could occur. Spread of cinquefoil could force livestock to abandon the bench where this plot is located and begin to increase utilization in historically light use areas. Due to the stability of native plant hits and the increase in the sulfur cinquefoil, this site was rated as unsatisfactory. Site-specific desired condition for this site should include increases in native species, reductions in noxious weeds and increases in Kentucky bluegrass.

- Snake River 4: This site is most likely a degenerated Kentucky blue-grass bench community (Johnson & Simon, 1987), resulting from a degraded Idaho fescue plant association. Early monitoring (1963) shows that this site had degraded beyond a natural plant association, so other indicators must be used to evaluate the condition of the plot. This plot was degraded from a natural plant association prior to the initial reading in 1963. It further declined in forage condition between 1963 and 1993 most likely due to a drop in Kentucky bluegrass on the site plus an increase in bulbous bluegrass. Between 1993 and 2012 there has however, been improvement in the site condition. Although non-native and weedy species are still present, there are more hits on, and a longer list of native species. One of the transects (historically dominated by bulbous bluegrass) is now completely dominated by native species. The changes within this plot seem to indicate an improving trend in forage/vegetative condition. Soil condition for this plot was rated at good in all three assessments. Change in this site, including the continued increase in native species, the soil condition, the reduction in the amount of undesirable species and the marked increase in Kentucky bluegrass makes this site satisfactory condition. This site is likely in a state D3 which represents a POPR dominated site and is considered more stable and resilient than other transitioned states. Site specific objectives for this site include continued increases in native species and decreases in undesirable non-natives.

- Snake River 5: This site is most likely a degenerated Kentucky blue-grass bench community (Johnson & Simon, 1987) resulting from a degraded Idaho fescue plant association. Early monitoring (1963) shows that this site had degraded beyond a natural plant association, so other goals must be used to evaluate the condition of the plot. This site has been degraded, prior to 1963, to a point that identification of the natural plant association is not possible. There is a positive change within this site as the number of direct plant hits has nearly tripled since the initial reading of the plot. Further, there has been an increase in the number of native species present on the site, but as with most other areas on this allotment non-native species have been identified. It is important to

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

note however, that early assessments may have excluded non-native species as a result of the monitoring protocol, so establishing a trend of non-native species presence, spread, or decline is not feasible. Soil condition within this plot has been good in both assessments. This site is likely in a state D3 which represents a POPR dominated site and is considered more stable and resilient than other transitioned states. Change in this site, including the continued increase in native species, the soil condition, and increase in Kentucky bluegrass makes this site satisfactory condition. Site specific objectives for this site include continued increases in native species and decreases in undesirable non-natives.

- Snake River 6: This site is most likely a degenerated Kentucky blue-grass bench community (Johnson & Simon, 1987) resulting from a degraded Idaho fescue plant association. Early monitoring (1963) shows that this site had degraded beyond a natural plant association, so other goals must be used to evaluate the condition of the plot. This plot was classified as a Kentucky bluegrass degenerated bench associations on all visits, but unlike other sites in this allotment bulbous bluegrass has not appeared. The most recent readings of this plot indicate that this site is much improved over previous visits due to the increase in plant hits and native species (including Idaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass). Soil condition has improved on this site most likely due to the increase in plant direct hits, which would decrease the amount of bare ground. It is unlikely that this site will ever return to a native bunchgrass community without significant and expensive restoration, but it seems clear that there has been an improvement over the time since plot establishment. This site is likely in a state D3 which represents a POPR dominated site and is considered more stable and resilient than other transitioned states. The stability of the state D3, improving soil condition, and increase in direct hits especially on native species makes this site satisfactory condition. Site specific objectives for this site include continued increases in native species and decreases in undesirable non-natives.

The SR1, SR3, SR4, SR5, and SR6 C&T sites have been degenerated to a point that identification of the plant association is difficult, however, field surveys and data collection indicate that these sites are likely a Kentucky bluegrass (degenerated bench) plant community type most likely departed from an Idaho fescue plant association. All C&T plots identified in this association were examined and a determination was made that a return to a natural state (Figure 3-1) is not likely without expensive and large scale restoration activities. Since this transition is unlikely, improvement must be measured in another way. All transects within similar plant association or community types were grouped and used to identify the number of direct plant hits on native plants within this allotment. This grouping gives a general condition and trend of the allotment as a whole. According to the data there has been an increase in native plant cover between monitoring visits (Figure 3-2).

Further, each site received a site-specific analysis to determine the condition of the individual areas. Comparisons were made using hits on desirable species between all monitoring visits on each site. The site specific analysis was used to identify condition and trend of the site, key species for utilization monitoring and allowable utilization standards. The current analysis was conducted using the ideas behind state and transition theory however, if native bunchgrasses begin to re-establish and increase, the site will be reevaluated regarding its potential natural community (PNC). Site specific goals may change in order to attain mid-seral ecological status based on the newly assessed potential of the site.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

25 *

10 Numberof Native Plant Hits

0 1962 2010 Sampling Year

Figure 3-2. Change in number of direct hits on all native plants, within the Kentucky bluegrass bench plant association (SR1, SR3, SR4, SR5, & SR6), on the Snake River allotment. Values represent the mean ± standard error (n=18). There was an increase in native species between the two sampling periods, an asterisk indicates significant differences between sampling periods (t=-2.983, p=0.004). This figure shows only two sampling points but SR1 and SR4 had three visits (1960’s, 1990’s, and 2000’s) while SR3 was visited four times (1960’s, 1970’s, 1990’s, and 2000’s). Comparison plots for each site, over all monitoring events, are contained in Appendix A of the rangeland report in the project file.

Implementation (IIT/PIBO) Within the Snake River allotment an integrator PIBO site was established by the PIBO EM (effectiveness monitoring) team in 2003. The team has visited this site and conducted the monitoring protocol in 2003 and 2008. In 2012, a designated management area (DMA), part of the PIBO protocol, was established and the implementation portion of the protocol was conducted. Table 3-6 summarizes the findings from all monitoring visits. This site will be monitored in the future once within every five year period to correspond with the site visits from the EM team.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Table 3-6. Results of monitoring conducting on McGraw Creek for PIBO/IIT. Stream Allotment Sample Elevation Stable Total Reach Green Native YR Banks Cover/Native line weed Species Cover cover Richness

McGraw Snake 2003 1006 ft. 94% 61/58 0% 20 Cr. River

McGraw Snake 2008 1006 ft. 98% 82/77 1% 29 Cr. River

McGraw Snake 2012 1006 ft. 97% N/D N/D N/D Cr. River

Monitoring data collected for this plot over these three visits seems to indicate that some important variables are increasing or remaining stable. Grazing induced bank instability has remained relatively stable over all three readings, and the total reach cover has improved. The improvement of total cover has followed what appears to be an improvement in the amount of native cover, although the relative native cover compared to the total has remained stable (95% native cover in 2003 and 94% native cover in 2008).

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) A PFC assessment was conducted on McGraw Creek within the Snake River allotment. This assessment was conducted in 1997 by an interdisciplinary team beginning at the confluence of McGraw Creek and upstream for 4 miles. The findings found that this reach of McGraw Creek was nonfunctional with no apparent trend. This assessment occurred about six months after a large scale flood event and found that there was an increase in width to depth ratio caused by sediment depositions, slumps and eroding banks continuing to increase sediment load, and inner riparian vegetation that was completely removed and replaced by gravels. According to the survey field notes the flood is the cause of the issues on this reach and livestock grazing is not mentioned. Field surveys by members of the IDT in 2012 and 2013 indicate that some of the issues, especially the lack of riparian vegetation, have improved in the past 15 years.

North Pine Allotment

Grazing on the North Pine allotment has occurred for many years, but prior to 1981 this unit was grazed as part of the Snake River allotment. After 1981, the allotment has been used on nearly an annual basis with approximately 280 head months authorized per season. There have been some modifications to numbers and season of use, but beginning around 1996 the permitted use was 80 cow/calf pairs to graze between 6/15 and 9/30. This system has remained the same until the present day. However, in 2009 upon re-issuance of the term grazing permit, the allotment boundary identified in the permit was increased beyond the historical (or the boundary identified in the corporate GIS layer) boundary. This new boundary increased the size of the allotment by as much as 3,000 acres and includes portions of the now closed Mud Duck allotment. The Mud Duck allotment was officially closed in 2003 with the record of decision for the HCNRA CMP. While the reasons for this boundary increase are not known, it is important to remember that the permitted use (numbers and season of use) for this allotment did not change. Due to the closure of these lands to livestock grazing (USDA, 2003), and the increased

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects presence of sensitive plant species, the boundary of the North Pine allotment will be returned to the original boundary beginning in the 2013 grazing season.

Livestock use within the North Pine allotment generally follows a seasonal rotation. The cattle move from lower to higher elevations using a two-pasture (Jolly Creek and Nelson) rotation, then are re-trailed back through the lower elevation areas as they are removed from the allotment. This re-trailing generally utilizes ridge tops and roads while avoiding the riparian areas. Administration of the current management for the North Pine allotment is being implemented to meet or move towards HCNRA CMP, Forest Plan and AMP standards, guidelines, goals and objectives.

There is one livestock water development and .25 miles of fence within the North Pine allotment. These developments are maintained by the permittee and are used to aid in the distribution of livestock.

Two springs have been identified as likely locations for rangeland water developments in this allotment. The first is located near FR 6695 and is a perennial spring in an isolated draw location. There is limited capability of this spring as a GDE based on topography and flow rate. Estimated flow rate of 1 gpm, but the topography allows for the development of an off-site water trough. Wildlife and livestock use in this area is potentially impacting the area. The second site is located at the head of Herman Creek and is a perennial spring near a dispersed campground. This site has limited potential as a GDE based on topography and flow rate. Estimated flows for this spring are 1/10 gpm, but the topography does allow for the development of an off-site water trough. There is a short section of pipe at this location that indicates this spring has been developed at some point in the past. Wildlife, livestock, and recreation use in this area may be impacting the functionality of the GDE.

Monitoring

Compliance Table 3-7 reflects compliance with utilization standards using management strategies that have evolved through a set of Annual Operating Instructions and issuance of term grazing permits. For the past five years, compliance with allowable utilization standards occurred for all measurements within the North Pine allotment. Reasons for not meeting utilization standards could include: gates left open, lack of range improvement maintenance, unequal distribution of livestock, livestock remaining in pastures after the exit date, overstocking, or unauthorized livestock use. Other utilization monitoring has occurred throughout the last five years and all visits to the allotment have shown utilization to be within allowable standards. Other monitoring (not captured in Table 3-7) from 2008 shows forage condition and amount to be well above the standards required. This monitoring was not displayed in Table 3-7 because it occurred mid- season.

Table 3-7. Annual Compliance with Allowable Utilization Standards for the North Pine Allotment.

Allotment and Compliance with Allowable Pasture Type Utilization Standard

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

North Pine

Lonesome Cr Riparian Y Y -- Y Y

Duck Creek Riparian Y -- -- Y Y

Y = Yes, Standards Met; N = No, Standards Were Not Met; -- = Not Monitored

Upland Condition Seven C&T cluster transects were read within the North Pine allotment in 2009 or 2010. These clusters were established in 1960 and 1962 to represent several plant associations and the levels of grazing throughout the allotment. Each plot has been revisited at least once during this period. The following table (Table 3-8) outlines the forage condition and trend of each of these plots.

Table 3-8. Forage/Soil condition and trend for permanent monitoring plots in the Snake River allotment.

Cluster ID Year Forage Trend Soil Trend Condition Condition

Nelson Cr 2 1960 Poor (42) Good (81)

2009 Fair (51) Upward Good (71) Stable

Nelson Cr 3 1960 Poor (48) Good (83)

2009 Poor (48) Stable Good (79) Stable

Nelson Cr 4 1960 Fair (71) Good (67)

2009 Good (80) Upward Good (70) Stable

Nelson Cr 5 1962 Fair (59) Good (72)

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

2009 Good (80) Upward Good (84) Stable

Jolly Cr 2 1960 Fair (62) Good (77)

1993 Fair (74) Stable Good (73) Stable

2010 Good (78) Upward Good (99) Stable

Jolly Cr 3 1960 Fair (72) Good (100)

1993 Good (82) Upward Good (100) Stable

2009 Good (86) Stable Good (100) Stable

Jolly Cr 4 1960 Fair (57) Good (87)

1993 Fair (67) Stable Good (87) Stable

2009 Good (79) Upward Good (85) Stable

- Nelson Cr 2: This site was classified as a bluebunch wheatgrass/Wyeth’s buckwheat plant association which is likely endemic to the North Pine creek area. This plot appears to be in mid-seral stage and improving over time, due to the cover frequency of major indicator species (Johnson & Simon 1987). Hits on native species have increased over the years with hits on forage plants (esp. bluebunch wheatgrass) being the major contributors. This site appears to be moving toward a later seral stage, and the lack of non-native species indicates that this site should continue to improve. Soil condition for this plot was rated as good in both readings. Signs of potential degradation, outlined in Johnson & Simon (1987), for this association type are not apparent from site visits and monitoring. This site was rated as satisfactory and site-specific objectives for this site are the maintenance or increase in bluebunch wheatgrass, maintenance of native plant levels and maintenance of bare ground levels.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

- Nelson Cr 3: This site was classified as a bluebunch wheatgrass/Wyeth’s buckwheat plant association, which is likely endemic to the North Pine creek area. This plot appears to be in an early seral stage, due to the cover of principle indicator species and amount of bare ground. Hits (basal cover) on native species have increased over the years but hits on bluebunch wheatgrass remained stable. The lack of non-native species however indicates that over time this site should continue to improve. Soil condition for this plot was rated as good in both readings. This site was rated as unsatisfactory due to the seral stage of the plot. Site-specific objectives for this site include increase in bluebunch wheatgrass, maintenance of native plant levels, and maintenance of levels of bare ground.

- Nelson Cr 4: This site was classified as a bluebunch wheatgrass/Wyeth’s buckwheat plant association which is likely endemic to the North Pine creek area. This plot appears to be in mid-seral stage and improving over time, due to the cover frequency of major indicator species (Johnson & Simon 1987). Hits on native species have increased over the years with hits on forage plants (esp. bluebunch wheatgrass) being the major contributors. This site appears to be moving toward a later seral stage, and the lack of non-native species indicates that this site should continue to improve. Soil condition for this plot was rated as good in both readings. Signs of potential degradation, outlined in Johnson & Simon (1987), for this association type are not apparent from site visits and monitoring. This site was rated as satisfactory and site-specific objectives for this site are the maintenance or increase in bluebunch wheatgrass, maintenance of native plant levels, and maintenance of bare ground levels.

- Nelson Cr 5: This site was classified as a bluebunch wheatgrass/Wyeth’s buckwheat plant association, which is likely endemic to the North Pine creek area. A note from ecologist Charlie Johnson identified this site as “extremely varied site with little slumps filled with Cusick’s camas. Very denuded-BASA heavy, scattered AGSP, lots of knotweed. Condition Poor”. However, according to the site visit in 2009, this plot appears to be in mid-seral stage and improving. This improvement is likely due to increases in the cover frequency of major indicator species (Johnson & Simon 1987). Hits on native species have increased over the years with hits on forage plants (esp. bluebunch wheatgrass) being the major contributors. This site appears to be moving toward a later seral stage, and the lack of non-native species indicates that this site should continue to improve. Soil condition for this plot was rated as good in both readings. This site was rated as satisfactory and site-specific objectives for this site are the maintenance or increase in bluebunch wheatgrass, maintenance of native plant levels, and maintenance of bare ground levels.

- Jolly Cr 2: This plot was classified as bluebunch wheatgrass/Wyeth’s buckwheat plant association and appears to be in good shape ecologically. The species present in this site are all native species and are consistent with those expected of this plant association occurring in a mid-late seral stage. From data collected on this site it appears to be in an improving condition as the cover of bluebunch wheat grass is increasing. Soil condition has been rated in good condition in all three past monitoring visits. This site was rated as satisfactory and site-specific objectives for this site are the maintenance or increase in bluebunch wheatgrass, maintenance of native plant levels and maintenance of bare ground levels.

- Jolly Cr 3: This site was classified as a grand fir/pinegrass plant association and seems to be in good condition ecologically, as well as forage. All species within the cluster

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

were native species and consistent with the expected species for a mid-seral stage of this association. Basal cover of plants increased from previous visits due mostly to an increase in pinegrass and bluebunch wheatgrass. Soil condition in this site has been consistently rated in good condition through all readings of this monitoring plot. This plot was classified as bluebunch wheatgrass/Wyeth’s buckwheat plant association and appears to be in good shape ecologically. The species present in this site are all native species and are consistent with those expected of this plant association occurring in a mid-late seral stage. From data collected on this site, it appears to be in an improving condition as the cover of bluebunch wheat grass is increasing. Soil condition has been rated in good condition in all three past monitoring visits. This site was rated as satisfactory and site-specific objectives for this site are the maintenance or increase in bluebunch wheatgrass, maintenance of native plant levels and maintenance of bare ground levels.

- Jolly Cr 4: This plot was classified as bluebunch wheatgrass/Wyeth’s buckwheat plant association and appears to be in good shape ecologically. The species present in this site are all native species and are consistent with those expected of this plant association occurring in a mid-late seral stage. From data collected on this site it appears to be in an improving condition as the cover of bluebunch wheat grass is increasing. Soil condition has been rated in good condition in all three past monitoring visits. This site was rated as satisfactory and site-specific objectives for this site are the maintenance or increase in bluebunch wheatgrass, maintenance of native plant cover and maintenance of bare ground levels.

The NC2, NC3, NC4, NC5, JC2, and JC4 C&T sites all occur in the same plant association (bluebunch wheatgrass/Wyeth’s buckwheat). All C&T plots identified in this association were examined and all transects within similar plant association or community types were grouped. These groups were used to identify the number of direct plant hits on bluebunch wheatgrass within this allotment. This grouping gives a general condition and trend of the allotment as a whole. According to the data, there has been an increase in desired species cover between monitoring visits (Figure 3-3).

Further, each site received a site specific analysis to determine the condition of the individual areas. Comparisons were made using hits on desirable species between all monitoring visits on each site. The site specific analysis was used to identify condition and trend of the, key species for utilization monitoring, and allowable utilization standards. The current analysis was conducted using the ideas behind state and transition theory however; these models have not been developed for the plant association types, in the Hells Canyon/Snake River province so care must be taken when using other models.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

9 *

Numberofbluebunch wheatgrass hits 2

0 1962 2010 Sampling Year

Figure 3-3. Change in number of direct hits on bluebunch wheatgrass, within the bluebunch wheatgrass/Wyeth’s buckwheat plant association (NC2, NC3, NC4, NC5, JC2, & JC4), on the North Pine allotment. Values represent the mean ± standard error (n=18). There was an increase in bluebunch wheatgrass between the two sampling periods, an asterisk indicates significant differences between sampling periods (t=-3.815, p<0.001). This figure shows only two sampling points but JC2 and JC4 had three visits (1960’s, 1990’s, and 2000’s). Comparison plots for each site, over all monitoring events, are contained in Appendix A of the rangeland report in the project file.

Implementation (IIT/PIBO) Within the North Pine allotment, on Duck Creek, an integrator PIBO site (established in 2002) and reference site (established in 2007) have been created by the PIBO EM (effectiveness monitoring) team. The team has visited this site and conducted the monitoring protocol in 2002 and 2007. These two locations are outside of the actual allotment boundary, but due to findings from the PFC surveys we feel this data is still valuable. Table 3-9 summarizes the findings from these monitoring visits. This site will be monitored in the future once within every five year period with the site visits from the EM team.

Table 3-9. Results of monitoring conducting on Duck Creek for PIBO/IIT. Stream Allotment Sample Elevation Stable Total Reach Greenline Native

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

YR Banks Cover/Native weed Species Cover cover Richness

Duck North 2002 1413 ft. 98 N/D N/D N/D Cr. Pine

Duck North 2007 1413 ft. 95 72/68 15% 31 Cr. Pine

Monitoring data collected for this stream over the two visits seems to indicate that the reach is remaining stable. Grazing induced bank instability has remained relatively stable over all readings, and the total reach cover to native cover is 94%. Greenline weed cover is higher than other systems in this analysis, but the species present are not of high priority or even listed as “noxious weeds”. The species on this reach are reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) and field horsetail (Equisetum arvense).

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) Two PFC assessments were conducted on the North Pine allotment in 2009. These assessments were conducted by Forest Service Staff with help from Full Stream Consulting. The assessments were conducted on about 1 mile of North Pine Creek and 4.9 miles of Duck Creek.

The assessment on North Pine Creek began about 1 mile above Doe Creek at an unnamed tributary and ended downstream at the confluence with Doe Creek. The survey team found that this reach of North Pine Creek was Functioning at Risk with an upward trend. The channel was incised from past mining and road activity, which was preventing bank full inundation and a lack of riparian vegetation needed to protect banks and dissipate energy during high-flow events. The survey further identified a lower than expected sinuosity in this reach due to the activities mentioned above. The findings from the 2009 survey identified that even with the FAR rating; no further monitoring was needed as the impacts of the past disturbance were recovering on their own. They further stated that, barring extremely expensive and large scale restoration efforts, there is no practical way to speed up the recovery process.

The survey on Duck Creek began at the crossing of FS road 6600 and continued downstream to the Dutchman Creek Trail (about 4.9 miles). The area surveyed was not within the SPRAA, but the PFC surveyors stated that this segment is representative (in condition and management) of that portion of Duck Creek that is within the project boundaries. The findings from this survey identified that this reach of Duck Creek is at PFC. There is mention in the report of some concerns about the abundance of Reed Canary Grass, unnecessary road/trail crossings, and a few dry meadows (about 2-3% of the stream length) that are accessible to livestock. However, no specific monitoring was identified as needed for this area.

Double Pine Allotment

Grazing on the Double Pine allotment has occurred for many years but this unit used to be grazed as part of the Snake River allotment. Currently, this allotment has been used on nearly an annual basis with approximately 70 head months authorized per season. There have been some modifications to numbers and season of use but recently the permitted use has been 20

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects cow/calf pairs from 6/15 to 9/30. The grazing system is scheduled for season long grazing and has followed this with only minor annual adjustment.

There are no identified livestock improvements in this allotment.

Monitoring

Compliance Table 3-10 reflects compliance with utilization standards using management strategies that have evolved through a set of Annual Operating Instructions and issuance of term grazing permits. For the past ten years, compliance with allowable utilization standards occurred every year that compliance monitoring was conducted within the Double Pine allotment. Reasons for not meeting utilization standards could include; gates left open, lack of range improvement maintenance, unequal distribution of livestock, livestock remaining in pastures after the exit date, overstocking, or unauthorized livestock use.

Table 3-10. Annual Compliance with Allowable Utilization Standards for the North Pine Allotment. Compliance with Allowable Utilization Standard Allotment and Pasture Type 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

North Pine

Section 19 Upland Y ------Y

Upland Condition There are no known or identified upland condition and trend plots in this allotment.

Implementation (IIT/PIBO) There are no IIT/PIBO stream monitoring plots in this allotment.

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) There have been no PFC surveys conducted in this allotment.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Rangeland Effects Analysis

Alternative 1

Under this alternative, the current permits for the SPRAA would not be reissued upon their expiration. Livestock grazing would no longer be authorized within the SPRAA.

All range developments currently in existence on the allotment would be abandoned. Subsequent NEPA decisions would need to be made regarding retention of any improvements (such as water developments) for other resource needs, and funding for maintenance would need to be secured. All interior fences and any water developments not needed for wildlife or other purposes would be removed. Permittees would be reimbursed for their amortized share of cooperative range improvements where they participated in the development (FSH 1109.13 Chapter 70). Exterior allotment boundary fences would be assigned to adjacent permittees for continued maintenance.

Direct/Indirect Effects

Under this alternative, domestic livestock effects on upland and riparian vegetation would no longer occur. In some areas vegetative reproductive rate and ability, plant vigor and ground cover would occur at natural levels. Upland areas identified in mid to late seral stage would likely continue to move towards a later seral stage and potentially an historic native community climax state. However, areas that have departed from a historic plant community, resulting in annual or non-native species introduction, would likely persist and would result in a modified climax plant association even with the removal of permitted livestock use. Under this alternative, these departed (transitioned) areas would not likely return to a pre-disturbance community without significant restoration.

Alternative 1 would reduce the risk of invasive plant introduction and spread as a result of domestic livestock grazing, but would not reduce the risks due to large-scale wildfire, recreation and other activities. Areas of soil compaction caused by past logging activities would remain, although there may be a reduction in soil compaction caused by livestock around water areas and salting grounds. The riparian areas would exhibit a faster rate of recovery as would be evident by less hoof action along creeks, and reduced herbivory on shrubs and riparian vegetation as a whole. Wildlife impact to vegetation and stream banks would remain the same and potentially increase without the competition from permitted livestock.

Cumulative Effects

Suppression of naturally-occurring wildfire, intensive and improperly managed livestock grazing practices, significant increases and fluctuations in certain wildlife species populations, recreation, and timber harvest and silvicultural activities (including road construction) over the past 50 to 120 years have changed the composition of certain riparian and upland vegetation communities, and in some cases have altered natural functions. Although many of these historic practices have improved (decreasing the impacts) over the past several decades, some effects are still evident today. Actions that would still contribute to cumulative effects in the absence of grazing in SPRAA include timber harvesting, prescribed burning, noxious weed treatments, maintenance of roads and trails (including reconstruction of the 39 road), grazing on adjacent private land, recreation, wildfire and wildfire suppression, and rehabilitation activities.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Uncontrolled wildfires are most likely to create an adverse effect on the landscape within the SPRAA. With the removal of livestock grazing under alternative 1, fine fuels (grasses, forbs, increased litter) would not be removed by livestock and would increase the fuel loading within the project area. Increased fuel loading would likely lead to increased risk of large scale wildfire. Increased frequency of wildfires and/or acres burned by wildfire would likely result in increases in resource impacts or damage and the costs associated with wildfire suppression needed to protect these resources.

The Puderbaugh thinning and prescribed burning project will occur within the next ten years. The Puderbaugh proposal includes commercial thinning and under-burning, mechanically thinning and hand piling and reconstruction of road networks. Of the acres proposed for treatment, only a small area (less than 500 acres) occurs within the SPRAA. The objective of this project is to reduce fuel loads within conifer stands. Grazing on adjacent private and BLM land would continue and could contribute to adverse rangeland health effect. This would occur from increased livestock numbers or seasons of use on private lands located adjacent to federal lands, leading to degradation in the riparian areas and uplands located on the private lands. This increased use may cause increased sediment delivery to streams, and a possible change in functioning condition. Private Land inholdings may be fenced from the adjacent federal land and also grazed more heavily. This may cause a marked increase in utilization and impacts of livestock on these private lands, as the areas may become more heavily stocked to economically compensate for the loss of federal grazing land.

Removal of livestock grazing from the SPRAA would not be expected to change much of the effects of past or future management practices and projects. However, the removal of livestock grazing may result in some changes, such as faster recovery rates to herbaceous plant communities in those areas currently grazed to a moderate or greater extent. For the most part, upland plant communities most likely to be affected are those on flat or gently sloped ground, relatively close to water, primary entry and exit gates, and those grazed early in the season when upland grasses are most palatable. Changes may occur in cover or composition for those species most preferred for grazing by livestock. Without livestock grazing there would be a potential for increased amounts of fine fuels in the form of grasses, forbs, and accumulated litter. This could affect future prescribed fire activities (Puderbaugh) and contribute to the rate of spread and intensity of fire. Riparian habitat, including shrub recruitment and stream bank stability, would recover at a faster rate, specifically in the streams where ungulate grazing has been attributed to poor shrub recruitment. However, increased wildlife use may also occur in these areas, and may decrease the rate of recovery. Grazing on private land adjacent to the SPRAA would continue. A lack of grazing and moderate to light grazing tends to show an upward increase in vegetation changes (Holechek et al. 2006). However, when enclosed areas in ten studies were compared, five study sites increased in climax species, and five sites decreased in climax species (Holechek et al. 2006). Light to moderate grazing has been found to reduce cool-season grasses (such as bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho fescue), and increase warm season grasses, such as annuals (Holechek et al. 2006). Milchunas et al. (1994) found that plant diversity increases with a decrease in grazing. According to Holechek et al. (2006), on average, vegetation production shows a decrease of four percent with managed grazing operations compared to areas with a lack of grazing, however, stagnation of vegetative growth may occur with long-term grazing exclusion. Other impacts of livestock grazing include mechanical damage left by hooves in riparian areas, on biotic crusts, and within other systems that include soils with a higher content of silts and ash (Chapin 2009a).

Climate change and its effects to natural resources are becoming more and more of a global concern. The former Chief of the Forest Service, Abigail R. Kimbell, addressed the necessity of

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects the Forest Service to consider climate change by establishing that, “...as a science-based organization, we need to be aware of, and consider [climate change] anytime we make a decision regarding resource management...” This then poses the question of the relationship between climate change, ecosystem dynamics, and subsequent livestock grazing management on the National Forest. Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the many components which may be contributing to climate change. Miller (2005) stated that greenhouse gas emissions, specifically carbon dioxide, are increasing in the atmosphere. These emissions are expected to escalate the invasion of annual grasses and noxious weeds on rangeland as they thrive with increased levels of carbon dioxide (Miller 2005). Furthermore, according to Young and Clements (2003) and Cox and Anderson (2004), as [annual grasses] increase, they will inhibit plant succession by outcompeting native perennial grass seedlings for moisture. If climate change is truly having an impact on rangelands, and is elevating invasive species levels, the inhibiting plant succession effects may be compounded by a lack of grazing. In a study by West et al. (1982), thirteen years after the removal of livestock from an area with cheatgrass, the total herbaceous standing crop did not increase. Also, many of the perennial grasses decreased, and cheatgrass increased over the 13 year period.

Alternative 2

For a complete description of Alternative 2, please see Chapter 2 of this EA. Direct/Indirect Effects This alternative encourages the responsible management of livestock within the project area by allowing existing levels of grazing. These levels of grazing will continue only where permittees are responsive and preemptive in their management of resources, and continue to meet the terms and condition of their permits. It further resolves or penalizes poor performance by allowing the modification of allowable use/management activities when monitoring indicates that site specific objectives are not being met or that trends are moving away from the desired condition. This alternative addresses those areas on the allotments where current condition is not compliant with LRMP standards and guidelines by identifying site specific objectives and management actions that must occur. Adjustments (through adaptive management) are outlined within this alternative (see chapter 2) to respond to indicators that show when conditions change across the project area.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects levels of grazing may even increase carbon sequestration (Hellquist et al. 2007, Derner et al. 2005 and 2006, LeCain et al. 2002, Ganjegunte et al. 2002, Manley et al. 2005, Reeder et al. 2001, Schuman et al. 2002). Given the above information, it can be assumed that there is variability in carbon storage and landscape carbon storage response to grazing pending land type and local conditions (Derner et al. 2006 and Henderson et al. 2005). However, literature research consistently suggested that management practices which maintain or move plant associations to satisfactory rangeland conditions appear to be consistent with maintaining soil organic pool, and therefore soil carbon sinks (Henderson et al. 2005, Brown and Thrope 2008, and Sharrow 2008).

This alternative addresses all the key issues that were identified for the SPRAA project. Adaptive management allows for adjustments in stocking rates, season of use, allowable use percentage, and desired condition to accommodate available forage, meets the requirements for upland vegetative health, and meets local economic needs for summer forage (for detailed analysis of Key Issue 2 see the socioeconomics section of this chapter).

Key Issue 1: Condition of upland vegetation Three of the thirteen upland condition and trend plots have been identified in unsatisfactory condition. In accordance with LRMP direction, allowable use on the plots has been reduced to 35% for this alternative. This reduction in allowable use is intended to help improve the condition on these sites by reducing the amount of livestock use, thus increasing vegetative reproductive capacity, plant vigor, and competitive advantage of desirable species. Adaptive management outlined in this alternative identifies site-specific objectives and desired condition for these plots, and specific management responses to indicators identified through long-term monitoring (see chapter 2). The allowable use level of 35% is expected to improve the condition of the unsatisfactory plots, but it is likely to occur at a slower rate than under the no grazing or rest-rotation alternatives (alternatives 1 and 3).

Livestock may impact climate change however; there is very little scientific data on the impacts of climate change within the ecosystems present on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Therefore, it is difficult to address how livestock grazing would affect climate change conditions. Our current management protocols allow the Forest Service and the Range Specialists to alter grazing management if a trend change in resource conditions is observed. Furthermore, annual and long term monitoring protocols are in place to identify when vegetation dynamics and rangeland conditions need management changes. According to Brown et al. (2010), methane gas is considered a greenhouse gas, and has increased within the atmosphere as a result of ruminant animals, the burning of natural gas, and emissions from landfills. Approximately 18 percent of agriculturally emitted greenhouse gasses are from grazed lands, and is not representative of carbon stored within the soils and forests (USDA 2008a). Some studies have found limited to large reductions in soil carbon and increases in carbon dioxide flux with grazing (Haferkamp and Macneil 2004 and Welker et al. 2004). Studies involving modeling and remotely sensed data indicate that proper grazing on rangelands can improve ecosystem production as measured by soil carbon storage (Li et al. 2007, Steinfeld and Wassenaar 2007, Reeder et al. 2001, Schuman et al. 2002). Additional studies similarly conclude that certain levels of grazing may even increase carbon sequestration (Hellquist et al. 2007, Derner et al. 2005 and 2006, LeCain et al. 2002, Ganjegunte et al. 2002, Manley et al. 2005, Reeder et al. 2001, Schuman et al. 2002). Given the above information, it can be assumed that there is variability in carbon storage and landscape carbon storage response to grazing pending land type and local conditions (Derner et al. 2006 and Henderson et al. 2005). However, literature research consistently suggested that management practices which maintain or move plant

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects associations to satisfactory rangeland conditions appear to be consistent with maintaining soil organic pool, and therefore soil carbon sinks (Henderson et al. 2005, Brown and Thrope 2008, and Sharrow 2008).

Cumulative Effects Under this alternative, livestock would be authorized to graze the two allotments in the SPRAA. Rangeland condition in the analysis area as a whole is on an upward trend as depicted by data collected and described in the Existing Condition section of this document. In general, the current upward trend in rangeland and riparian conditions has occurred with the presence of livestock, therefore alternative 2 would continue to accelerate the rate of recovery in isolated areas of unsatisfactory range condition on both allotments by maintaining grazing use standards and good livestock distribution, while monitoring and adapting management as discussed in Direct/Indirect Effects of Alternative 2.

The overall upward trend in the watersheds within the SPRAA would continue when considering cumulative effects of grazing and future prescribed fuels projects together, such as the Puderbaugh thinning and prescribed burning project. Reducing fuel loads, conifer encroachment in open meadows, and opening canopies would increase understory grass, forb, and shrub vegetation, and could improve livestock and herbivore distribution. Bunchgrasses normally respond to low intensity burning with improved vigor which attracts an increase in big game and livestock use (Johnson 1998b). The additional use is managed by implementing a review process where burned areas (prescribed or wildfire) are assessed by the fuels specialist and range manager to determine if the area may need some form of rest from grazing. This is accomplished through temporary fencing, resting the pasture, or herding livestock.

Improper grazing management and timber harvest practices on adjacent private lands, together with effects of grazing on public lands, could increase sediment delivery to streams. However the additive effects to the public land is mitigated through meeting HCNRA CMP and Forest Plan Standards, by monitoring effects of grazing on riparian areas, and keeping within the guidelines as established.

Alternative 3

For a complete description of Alternative 3, please see Chapter 2 of this EA. Direct/Indirect Effects This alternative encourages the responsible management of livestock within the project area by allowing existing numbers and season of use, but implements a rest-rotation system of grazing. Each allotment will be required to undergo complete rest for one year out of every 4 years. The rest year will occur in conjunction with the rest imposed on the Homestead BLM allotment which neighbors the SPRAA. These levels of grazing will continue only where permittees are responsive and preemptive in their management of resources, and continue to meet the terms and condition of their permits. It further resolves or penalizes poor performance by allowing the modification of allowable use/management activities when monitoring indicates that site specific objectives are not being met or that trends are moving away from the desired condition. This alternative addresses those areas on the allotments where current condition is not compliant with LRMP standards and guidelines by identifying site specific objectives and management actions that must occur. Adjustments (through adaptive management) are outlined within this

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects alternative (see chapter 2) to respond to indicators that show when conditions change across the project area.

This alternative addresses all the key issues that were identified for the SPRAA project. Adaptive management allows for adjustments in stocking rates, season of use, allowable use percentage, and desired condition to accommodate available forage, meets the requirements for upland vegetative health, and meets local economic needs for summer forage (for detailed analysis of the economics of this alternative see the socioeconomics section of this report).

Key Issue 1: Condition of upland vegetation Three of the thirteen upland condition and trend plots have been identified in unsatisfactory condition. In accordance with LRMP direction, allowable use on the plots will be reduced to 30% for this alternative. This reduction in allowable use is intended to help improve the condition on these sites by reducing the amount of livestock use, thus increasing vegetative reproductive capacity, plant vigor, and competitive advantage of desirable species. Adaptive management outlined in this alternative (see chapter 2) identifies site-specific objectives and desired condition for these plots, and specific management responses to indicators identified through long-term monitoring. The allowable use level of 30% with the rest-rotation system on these allotments is expected to improve the condition of areas identified as the unsatisfactory plots, and is likely to increase the rate of improvement over the system outlined in alternative 2.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects collected and described in the Existing Condition section of this document. In general, the current upward trend in rangeland and riparian conditions has occurred with the presence of livestock, therefore alternative 3 would continue to accelerate the rate of recovery in isolated areas of unsatisfactory range condition on both allotments by maintaining early season grazing and good livestock distribution, while monitoring and adapting management as discussed in Direct/Indirect Effects of Alternative 3.

Summary of Effects for all Alternatives Tables 3-11 and 3-12 display comparisons of the alternatives. Each alternative will affect the key issues differently and the actual change within each indicator is difficult to measure, so a qualitative assessment was used as a comparison. Under key issue 1, condition of upland vegetation, alternative 1 will likely have the highest relative rate of recovery towards desired conditions, while alternative 2 will have the slowest. However, all three alternatives will improve the conditions of upland vegetation within the allotments of the SPRAA. The indicators of issue 2, and how each alternative will affect them, are much more complex. For detailed descriptions of the effects to key issue 2 see the socioeconomics section of this chapter.

Table 3-11. Comparison of Alternatives for the SPRAA

Authorized Grazing Levels (head months/year averaged over 4 years) Allotment Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Snake River 0 542 407 North Pine 0 359 270 Double Pine 0 Included in North Included in North Pine Pine

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Table 3-12. Key indicators by Alternative within the SPRAA Issue and Indicators Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Issue 1 – Condition of upland vegetation

Relative rate of recovery towards desired +++ + ++ future conditions

Consistency with Laws, Regulations and Policy

Alternative 1

This alternative does not meet and is not consistent with Forest Plan (as amended by the CMP) direction to make forage production above that needed for maintenance or improvement of the basic resources to wildlife (within Management Objective levels), available to permitted domestic livestock under standards and guidelines that will assure continued maintenance or improvement of the resource (FSM 2203.1). Alternatives 2 and 3

Both action alternatives meet Forest Plan (as amended by the CMP) goals and objectives, including specifically those for Rangeland and Grazing Management.

Congressional intent to allow grazing on suitable lands (Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Wilderness Act of 1964, Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Act of 1974, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, National Forest Management Act of 1976), where consistent with other multiple use goals and objectives, is met with both alternatives 2 and 3.

It is Forest Service policy to make forage available to qualified livestock operators from lands suitable for grazing, consistent with management plans (FSM 2203.1).

Alternatives 2 and 3 meet Forest Service policy to continue contributing to the economic and social well-being of people by providing opportunities for economic diversity and by promoting stability for communities that depend on range resources for their livelihood (FSM 2202.1).

These action alternatives identify that forage-producing lands will be managed for grazing where consistent with land management plans (36 Code of Federal Regulations 222.2(c)). This action is consistent with the 1995 Rescission Bill, PL 104-19 section 504 subsection (a) that states … each National Forest System unit shall establish and adhere to a schedule for the completion of NEPA analysis … for which NEPA analysis is needed. The Double Pine, Snake River and

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

North Pine Allotments were placed on the National Forest's Rescission Act schedule with a completion date of 2013.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would meet Forest Plan and HCNRA CMP goals, desired future conditions and objectives because livestock would be managed on the allotments utilizing adaptive management practices, protection measures, monitoring (long and short term) to address any site-specific issues as they are identified.

See Appendix B (Consistency Review) for a detailed description of how Alternatives 2 and 3 respond to direction specific to grazing included in the amended Forest Plan and CMP.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Social/Economics

Key Issue 2: Socioeconomics

Issue: Livestock production contributes to the local and regional economy. Changes in permitted livestock numbers can create impacts, especially when substitute sources of grazing lands are not available.

Indicators/Measures:

1) Changes in number of permitted head months 2) Changes in revenue for the permittee and the Forest Service 3) Changes in operating costs

Social/Economics - Existing Condition

Introduction

This section describes the analysis of effects on Socioeconomics by grazing on the Snake River, North Pine and Double Pine grazing allotments (SPRAA) of the Whitman Ranger District. The description along with the analysis, along with the expected and potential effects were assessed using data collected from a variety of publications, U.S. Census Bureau county records and professional judgment (See References). Site visits to the allotment and conversation with various Wallowa -Whitman permittees were conducted during project development and analysis by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) assigned to this project. Only those acres under National Forest ownership are considered in this analysis.

Livestock grazing has economic and social importance in the study area. Allotments support agricultural jobs and income, as well as the ranching way of life for many families. Communities surrounding National Forest Lands have historical ties to agriculture. For many residents, ranching is more than just a form of employment; it is a way of life and supports long-standing family traditions. However, due to the multiple use nature of NFS lands, grazing may conflict with other land management goals such as inhibiting healthy ecosystems and recreational opportunities. Many stakeholders value these services offered by the National Forest. The objective of this report is to describe the existing conditions, environmental justice issues, and the social and economic consequences of the alternatives.

Study Area

The primary assessment area for this project consists of Baker and Wallowa Counties in eastern Oregon. Communities are closely tied to the forest in both work activities and recreation. The local communities in Baker and Wallowa County that are anticipated to be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed action and alternatives include Baker City, Halfway, Enterprise, Joseph and Wallowa.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Existing Condition The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires integrated use of the natural and social sciences in all planning and decision making that affect the human environment. The human environment includes the natural and physical environment and the relationship of environment (40 CFR 1508.14).

According to U.S. Census Bureau 2007-2011 (Figure 2A and 2B of social economic report in project file) of the counties analyzed, (Baker and Wallowa), 11.1% and 16.1% (respectively) of their economy depends on natural resource based production such as ranching, farming, mining and wood products. Changes in these natural resource based productions can impact the economics around the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest including Baker, Union and Wallowa Counties and the surrounding communities. This impact occurs through changes in purchasing of local goods for farming, ranching and mining, which all require yearly maintenance materials; machinery for operation; improvements to ranch lands and dwellings; farm and industrial commerce; financial commitments to local veterinarian/supplies; and feeds and supplements. Revenue resulting from production and beef processing is a main source of income for many areas including towns such as Cottonwood, Idaho, Fossil, Oregon, and Hermiston, Oregon. The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Land and Resource Management Plan, (1990) Appendix B (B-66) also provides information that describes the main social and economic characteristics of the area.

The current permittees that rely on livestock grazing within the (SPRAA) Allotments maintain their base ranch operations within Baker County. The Snake River permittee’s currently graze 100 cow calf pairs (not to exceed 542 HM, April 15-September 26) on the 14,144 acre allotment, of which approximately 415 acres are private land. North Pine and Double Pine Permittee (same permittee) graze 81 and 20 cow calf pairs (not to exceed 359 Total HM, June 15- September 30) on 10,595 and 1,730 acre allotments respectively, of which all is National Forest Land. The majority of (SPRAA) permitted grazing land is located in or adjacent to the Hells Canyon National recreation area (HCNRA). Information provided in the Range Resources section supports a conclusion that on an allotment wide-basis, rangeland conditions within the SPRAA are satisfactory and in an upward trend. With respect to riparian conditions, 5 pastures that comprise the 3 allotments are classified as satisfactory, as reflected through Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) riparian surveys, stream surveys and utilization monitoring. Overall, riparian resource condition on the Snake River, North Pine and Double Pine allotments have been found to be in good condition and meeting Forest Plan direction.

For detailed descriptions of the condition of the study area as it pertains to demographics, employment, income, and environmental justice see the full socio-economic report on file at the Whitman Ranger District office in Baker City, Oregon.

Social/Economics - Effects Analysis

The following section will consider the potential consequences of alternative management scenarios on the social and economic environment.

Data and Methodology

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Socio-Economic impacts: The economic effects of the three management alternatives were assessed in terms of changes in number of head months, changes in operating costs for both the permittee and the Forest Service, and the changes in income generated for both the permittee and the Forest Service.

Assumptions  The economic efficiency analysis does not provide a full accounting of all costs and benefits. The only benefits considered are program revenues (i.e., National Forest receipts) and the national average beef price as of May 2012 ($121.41/cwt according to the National Cattleman’s beef association 2012). It may be assumed that the permittees sold all of their calves at 700 pounds. The only costs considered are direct ranching operation expenditures (Forage expense). Although other ranching expenses are apparent; it is problematic to quantify as the expenses may change from year to year due to unforeseen scenarios. Therefore, the estimates of Social and Economic Efficiencies by Alternative do not fully account for the social costs and benefits of management actions.

 The framework for the social analysis employs generalities. Area residents and users of National Forest have diverse preferences and values that may not be fully captured in the description of social consequences. Nevertheless, generalities are useful for assessing social impacts based on particular National Forest -related interests.

 The Economic Viability Change is calculated by subtracting the sum of National Forest grazing fees (AUMs multiplied by the federal grazing fee) from the replacement cost of this forage from private providers (AUMs multiplied by private grazing fee). Economic Viability Change is the difference between what ranchers are willing to pay for forage and what they are required to pay for forage. (Table 12 is calculated over a 4 year period; surmising many of the calculations throughout this document refer only to one grazing season).

Alternative 1 – No Grazing

Under this alternative, the current permits for the SPRAA would not be reissued upon their expiration. Livestock grazing would no longer be authorized within the SPRAA, resulting in a reduction of 901 HM eliminated from National Forest Lands.

All range developments currently in place on the allotment would be abandoned. Subsequent NEPA decisions may need to be made regarding retention of any improvements (such as water developments) for other resource needs, and funding for maintenance may need to be secured. All interior fences and any water developments not needed for wildlife or other purposes may need to be removed. Permittees may be reimbursed for their amortized share of cooperative range improvements where they participated in the development (FSH 1109.13 Chapter 70). Exterior allotment boundary fences may be assigned to adjacent permittees for continued maintenance.

Direct and Indirect Effects The NFS lands would no longer provide value to the profitability of the ranching operations that depend on the (SPRAA) allotment analysis. Livestock would not be permitted on the allotments.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

This would be a 100% reduction in value added to livestock on NFS lands within the project area.

Using an average private grazing fee of $22.00 in Baker and Wallowa County Oregon (Per Conv. Dan Warnock, Linda McLean and Jamie McCormack) over the past three years (2009- 2012), the private replacement cost of NFS-managed forage would be $19,822.00/year. In contrast, the cost of NFS-managed forage would be $1,216.35 (901 AUMs multiplied by $1.35 federal grazing fee). Therefore, the replacement of NFS-managed forage for private forage would cost ranchers an additional $18,605.00. However, fees account for only one portion of the total cost of grazing. Rimbey and Torrell (2011) find that the cost differential between public and private grazing is not what is suggested by the grazing fees. Once they account for other grazing-related costs (e.g., maintenance), the cost difference is eliminated. Indeed, in their study of three western states (New Mexico, Wyoming, and Idaho) the authors find that the total cost of a public land AUM exceeds the total cost of a private land AUM. Nevertheless, it is possible that the reduction in available forage (through the elimination of grazing on National Forest Land) would increase the private grazing fees, due to increased demand from ranchers seeking to replace lost forage.

As described in the income section, agriculture accounts for 14 percent of study area employment, and 17 percent of study area income, and individuals who work in the agriculture sector have moderate incomes. Based on this, it is reasonable to assume that the poverty rate may be higher among individuals employed in the agriculture sector than those employed in other sectors (e.g., government). This raises the possibility of environmental justice consequences. The cost of elimination of grazing on the national Forest could fall most heavily on individuals most vulnerable to economic change.

The social consequences of alternative 1 are not fully captured in the economic impact analysis. Although alternative 1 would eliminate approximately 8 more sources of income (4 fulltime and 4 temporary/seasonal employees) in the study area than alternatives 2 and 3, this does not suggest that only 8 individual would be affected by alternative 1. All individuals (and members of their households) who rely on forage from the National Forest lands would be affected. Socially, livestock grazing contributes to local sense of place. The study area continues to be heavily influenced by agriculture, and shifts away from agricultural land uses may challenge residents’ values.

Alternative 1 would not produce revenue from grazing fees; in turn this revenue would be unavailable for the counties and forest in the study area; although some initial administrative costs may continue.

Cumulative Effects As this report describes, Baker County may be experiencing a number of trends that compromise their social and economic resiliency. The consequences of a loss of grazing opportunities on the National Forest could be exacerbated by expected future conditions and trends. Recall several conditions and trends and their implications for study area residents:

 Low population density generally indicates less developed infrastructure, which contributes to social and economic isolation.

 Low (or negative) population growth signals stagnant or declining economic opportunities in the study area.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

 High poverty rates and low per capita income indicate less access to capital needed to start businesses and expand economic opportunities.

 Low education rates signal lower human capital, which is an important element of social and economic well-being.

 A high median age in the study area suggests that retirees make up a large percentage of the population, which means that a smaller percentage of area residents are employed (or seeking employment) compared to the state and nation.

 Approximatley16 percent of the study area is dependent on livestock/Agriculture for employment and income.

Under all management scenarios, these trends and conditions are expected to continue. However, the elimination of livestock grazing on the National Forest could accumulate with the consequences of these trends to produce results that are more pronounced than predicted by the economic impact analysis. Fewer opportunities for residents to engage in agricultural activities could hasten population decline and increase poverty rates. Fewer economic opportunities in the study area would also likely contribute to the emigration of young individuals in search of educational and employment opportunities. Fewer young and educated individuals would reduce the probability that new businesses may establish within the study area. The impact of grazing decisions under alternative 1 on these trends would likely be minimal; any decisions regarding National Forest management are unlikely to change the trajectory of these trends. Nevertheless, the removal of grazing from the National Forest could, particularly for some individuals, magnify existing social and economic trends.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects Under alternative 2, grazing activity on the National Forest lands would support approximately eight jobs (four permanent and four temporary/seasonal) and annually approximately $130,138 permanent labor income and approximately $24000.00 for the seasonal work force in the study area.

The ranchers would be responsible for the term grazing permit and a portion of the cost of infrastructure improvements/maintenance – approximately $1,216.00 annually for grazing permit (901 HM X $1.35 permit grazing fees) and an underdetermined amount for infrastructure. This cost reduces the forage expenses to ranchers from $19,822.00 ($22.00/AUM private land) to $1,216.00. As discussed in the Assumptions section, the economic efficiency calculations use only the difference between private and public grazing fees. The actual consumer surplus of ranchers will be influenced by other costs associated with grazing.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

No new effects to the Socio-economics of the study area are anticipated due to the continuation of livestock grazing at near current levels. Since livestock grazing is an ongoing activity, it can be predicated that any effects to the study area are already occurring and are captured in the existing conditions section of this report.

Cumulative Effects No cumulative effects are anticipated under alternative 2 because there will be no direct or indirect effects as management will continue as in past years.

Alternative 3 – Rest Rotation

Alternative 3 would authorize livestock (cattle) and an incidental level of horse grazing within the SPRAA allotments. The level of permitted use would be similar to levels that have been authorized through term grazing permits (FSH 2230 2231.11 and 2231.13), which are administered each year by annual instructions and authorized by the payment of grazing fees (FSH 2230 2231.41), however all allotments will be on a scheduled rest rotation. Every fourth year, to coincide with the scheduled rotation of the BLM’s Homestead Allotment, no livestock will be authorized to graze on the North Pine or Snake River allotments.

Direct and Indirect Effects Under alternative 3, grazing activity on the National Forest lands would support approximately eight jobs (four permanent and four temporary/seasonal) and approximately $130,138 (annually) permanent labor income and approximately $24000.00 (annually) for the seasonal work force in the study area.

The ranchers would be responsible for the term grazing permit and a portion of the cost of infrastructure improvements – approximately (677 HM’s X $1.35) $914 annually for grazing permit fees, an additional $4955 annually for the one season of rest (private land grazing must be used to replace the loss during the rest seeason), and an underdetermined amount for infrastructure. This cost reduces the economic efficiency of ranchers from ($22.00/HM private land) $19,822.00 to $5869. As discussed in the Assumptions section, the economic efficiency calculations use only the difference between private and public grazing fees. The actual consumer surplus of ranchers will be influenced by other costs associated with grazing. Additional considerations for alternative 3 that differ from alternative 2 will include:

 Every fourth year, livestock use on the North Pine and Snake River allotments will not be authorized. This rest is established to coincide with the neighboring BLM Homestead allotment.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

 The north boundary of the Snake River allotment will be modified and moved south to the ridge between Buck Creek and Thirty-two Point Creek. This modification will remove about 2500 acres from the Snake River allotment, and will more closely resemble the actual boundaries of use on the allotment.

 The area between the North Pine allotment and the Double Pine allotment, along North Pine Creek will be made part of the North Pine allotment. This area is currently in an unused portion of the Ghostbull allotment which was analyzed under NEPA in 1999. This area will be included to reflect a more logical grazing unit.

New effects to the Socio-economics of the study area are anticipated, due to the continuation of livestock grazing but with a rest period during every fourth season. Due to the absence of available NFS land grazing during this rest cycle, it will be necessary for the permittees to secure other grazing opportunities for forage during this rest year. However, this implemented rest still affects the economic efficiency of the ranchers by reducing annual fees from $19,822 to $5869. While less impactful than alternative 1, this would still increase the required payments when compared to alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects Economically, fourth year rest cycles on the allotments may have an adverse and irreversible financial effect to the ranchers operations. The ranchers may accrue the additional cost for private land grazing every four years at a (potentially) variable rate; the rate would depend on available land and resources in the immediate vicinity. With an influx of cattle to the surrounding private lands; it may lead to a higher demand and may result in higher private land grazing fees. Similarly if no land is available the rancher may have to incur another unexpected cost of transporting the animals to a location that makes it too financially demanding to continue operations. Other options include the rancher purchasing feed for their livestock for that grazing season at current prices which may fluctuate with the market, making it improbable to determine actual cost.

Modifying the north boundary of the Snake River allotment; which removes approximately 2500 acres from available grazing would not likely have any measurable effect on the Permittee or the managing office. Grazing availability in this portion of the allotment is limited due to natural boundaries which inhibit access to that portion of the allotment.

Combining the North Pine and Double Pine allotments as proposed in alternative 3 is not likely to have any measurable effect to the Permittee or the Forest Service.

Summary of Effects

From a social and economic perspective, alternative 1 is quite different from alternative 2 and 3. Finally, it is important to realize that while grazing provides potential profit to local counties and communities the somewhat limited size of this project may be a limiting factor for contemplation of economic value.

As discussed in the Assumptions section, these calculations only consider direct costs and benefits to the National Forest Lands grazing receipts and the rancher’s economic efficiencies. The social costs and benefits are not included. Although annual administrative costs are not part of the total calculation, it is important to briefly discuss the cost to government for each

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects alternative. Annual Administrative costs of grazing include the managing official and other employees associated with the programs cost to government. In this instance daily cost to government, vehicles use, administrative activities and other related costs equate to approximately $300.00/day for 10 days/grazing season.

Alternative 1 would eliminate grazing on the National Forest Lands; no grazing revenues would be collected. However, alternative 1 may also lower range program costs to a negligible factor compared to alternatives 2 and 3. Nevertheless additional administrative cost for the Forest Service may increase, with possible non authorized use issues if they arise. This may result in law enforcement man hours and on the ground inspections which may require travel time, reports and other administrative activities associated with unauthorized use. The present employment and labor income estimates will decrease under this alternative as public land grazing is unavailable. Ranchers who currently use forage from the National Forest Lands would need to either replace their public land forage with private forage or reduce herd size. In addition to the reduction in employment and labor income, management changes under alternative 1 would also affect social well-being. As presented in the report, the study area is dependent on agriculture and livestock grazing in particular. This dependence is both economic (i.e., employment and income) and social (e.g., lifestyle and heritage values). Based on the number of individuals involved in grazing on the National Forest, multiple households may be affected by the elimination of grazing on SPRAA.

Alternative 2 will continue to create employment and income at its current rate. Alternative 2 would continue to support social values of heritage and sense of place related to livestock grazing in the project area at current levels as changes in numbers and season of use are not occurring. Proportionately, alternative 2 has a higher administrative cost (when averaged over a 4 year period) than the other alternatives because of the livestock presence.

Alternative 3 will implement a rest period for one grazing season out of four in which the permittee will accrue all cost associated with livestock operations without the benefit of reduced forage expenses through government grazing permits. Alternative 3 is similar to alternative 2; however the differences (even slight) do not indicative a lower administrative cost to the government. It is even possible that the cost of administration may be maintained due to the complexity of the alternative.

Finally, it is important to realize that while grazing provides potential profit to local counties and communities the somewhat limited size of this project may be a limiting factor for contemplation of economic value.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Fisheries

Introduction

This section discusses existing conditions for fish and other aquatic resources within the SPRAA and the potential environmental consequences of the three alternatives to these resources. Specifically, it addresses federally listed species and federally designated critical habitat and documents compliance with the Endangered Species Act. This section also addresses existing conditions and environmental consequences relative to compliance with Forest Plan requirements for aquatic resources including: impacts to riparian management objectives and compliance with INFISH direction, impacts to aquatic management indicator species, and impacts to aquatic species identified on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List.

The SPRAA includes approximately 43.7 miles of perennially-flowing streams that provide habitat for aquatic organisms, with portions of seven streams known to be fish-bearing. Additional stream reaches are suspected to support seasonal use by fish. Some perennial streams in SPRAA support populations of inland redband trout, a species listed as “sensitive” by the Regional Forester. Redband trout are also identified by the Forest Plan (i.e. as a native fish) as a management indicator species for aquatic habitat. Historically, the Upper Snake River tributaries, including some in SPRAA, also supported populations of Columbia River bull trout. It is believed that viable populations of bull trout no longer occur in these streams, as discussed in greater detail below. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed Columbia River bull trout as a threatened species on June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31647). In January 2011, USFWS designated stream reaches within the Snake River drainage as critical habitat for bull trout, including portions of Duck Creek and North Pine Creek within the North Pine Allotment. The SPRAA includes potential habitat for three sensitive aquatic mollusks: western ridge mussel, shortfaced lanx and Columbia pebblesnail.

Fisheries - Existing Condition

The following is a summary of the existing conditions of instream habitat, riparian vegetation, water quality, stream flow regimes, and fish populations for the three grazing allotments included in the 26,469 acre Snake/Pine Range Analysis Area (SPRAA). The three allotments are located in Baker and Wallowa Counties, within two watersheds in the Brownlee subbasin. Allotments included in the SPRAA are Snake River, North Pine and Double Pine (Table 3-14). See Table 3-15 for allotment acres within subwatersheds.

Table 3-14. SPRAA allotment locations by subbasin, watershed, and subwatershed. ALLOTMENT SUBBASIN WATERSHED SUBWATERSHED(S) (Name/Number) (Name/Number) Double Pine Brownlee Indian Creek-Snake Herman Creek-Snake River/1705020107 River/170502010703 Pine Creek/1705020106 Lower North Pine Creek/170502010609 Upper North Pine Creek/170502010607 North Pine Brownlee Indian Creek-Snake Herman Creek-Snake River/1705020107 River/170502010703 Pine Creek/1705020106 Upper North Pine Creek/170502010607

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Lake Fork Creek/170502010608 Imnaha Upper Imnaha/1706010201 Dry Creek-Imnaha River/170601020104 Snake River Brownlee Indian Creek-Snake Hells Canyon Dam-Snake River/1705020107 River/170502010705 McGraw Creek-Snake River/170502010704 Herman Creek-Snake River/170502010703 Imnaha Upper Imnaha/1706010201 Dry Creek-Imnaha River/170601020104

Table 3-15. SPRAA allotment acres by subwatershed. Allotment Subwatersheds (SWS) *Name- Total Acres of Allotment Number) SWS National Acres in Acres Forest/SWS SWS

Double Pine Lower North Pine 16,109 13,889 13 Creek/170502010609 Upper North Pine 19,012 18,783 1713 Creek/170502010607 Herman Creek-Snake 26,729 7,222 3 River/170502010703 North Pine Upper North Pine 19,012 18,783 10,000 Creek/170502010607 Dry Creek-Imnaha 21,387 21,387 40 River/170601020104 Herman Creek-Snake 26,729 7,222 561 River/170502010703 Lake Fork Creek/170502010608 19,968 19,968 12 Snake River Hells Canyon Dam-Snake 17,865 17,769 6,025 River/170502010705 McGraw Creek-Snake 25,368 24,221 7,568 River/170502010704 Dry Creek-Imnaha 21,387 21,387 5 River/170601020104 Herman Creek-Snake 26,729 7,222 546 River/170502010703

Instream Habitat

Streams are classified based on type of flow and presence or absence of fish. Category 1 streams are fish bearing streams. Category 2 streams are permanently flowing non-fish bearing. Category 3 streams are ponds, lakes, reservoirs and wetlands greater than one acre. Category 4 streams are seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, wetlands less than one acre, landslides and landslide-prone areas (PACFISH/INFISH 1995).

GIS analysis and field visits by FS staff show there are seven confirmed Category 1 streams within the SPRAA, although seasonal fish use is suspected in many streams. Tables 3-27 and 3-28 include total confirmed and suspected fishbearing stream miles within the SPRAA. Of the seven confirmed fishbearing streams, stream habitat surveys have been conducted on three streams (Table 3-16). This information was obtained from the Region 6 stream survey

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects database. Surveys are on file at the Whitman Ranger District, Baker City Oregon. Stream habitat surveys within the analysis area were completed from 1995 through 2000.

Table 3-16. Results of instream habitat surveys for fishbearing streams within the SPRAA. Allotment Stream/Year Surveyed Survey Pools Wetted Stable W/D LWD Rosgen Length (#/mile) Width Banks Ratio (pcs/mi) Stream (miles) (ft) (%) Class

North Pine North Pine Creek/2000 3 69 8.2 n/a 18.1 n/a B3 Duck Creek/1996 6.7 28 11 n/a 17.2 72 B3 Snake River McGraw Creek/1997 6.6 34 8.4 n/a n/a 38 A3 *LWD data is from 1995.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Stream Habitat Survey An ODFW stream habitat survey was conducted on McGraw Creek in 1994. The survey began at the mouth and continued upstream for 5.8 miles. Results of the survey found a very low percentage of actively eroding streambanks (2%), average streamshade of 80%, and 39 pools per mile. Although, since this survey, there have been several flood events that have altered these conditions.

Proper Functioning Condition Surveys (PFC) A methodology used in SPRAA for determining existing and potential condition of riparian areas is Proper Functioning Condition (BLM TR-1737), typically referred to as PFC. PFC involves qualitative ratings on 17 indicators. These 17 parameters are evaluated in an Interdisiplinary Team (IDT) setting. The indicators form a basis for qualitatively determining function in three broad classes: Proper functioning (PFC); Functioning-at-risk (FAR); and Non-functioning (NF). PFC surveys consider biotic (vegetation) and abiotic (channel/floodplain characteristics) factors in an integrated fashion to determine the ability of a riparian system to sustain a 50-year flow event without substantial change. Riparian areas at PFC display favorable ratings for all 17 indicators for maintaining stability. FAR riparian areas have some indicators that do not fully support maintaining stability. NF riparian areas have few if any indicators that support maintaining stability. Stable stream channels and PFC can be considered synonymous. Not all perennial streams in the allotments had PFC surveys completed. In allotments where key areas were not designated, PFC surveys were completed in a riparian area representative of the allotment. PFC assessments are useful for not only discerning effects from livestock grazing, but provide information on use by wild ungulates, impacts of roads, mining, diversions, channelization, and other channel and riparian impacts.

The PFC checklist for evaluating streams: 1. Floodplains are inundated by relatively frequent events (i.e., 1-3 years); 2. Beaver dams are present, active and stable; 3. Sinuosity, width/depth ratio, and gradient are in balance with the landscape setting; 4. Riparian-wetland area is widening or has achieved potential extent; 5. Upland watershed is not contributing to riparian-wetland degradation; 6. There is diverse age-class distribution of riparian-wetland vegetation; 7. There is diverse composition of riparian-wetland vegetation;

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

8. Species present indicate maintenance of riparian-wetland soil moisture characteristics; 9. Streambank vegetation is comprised of those plant or plant communities that have root masses capable of withstanding high stream flow events; 10. Plants exhibit high vigor; 11. Adequate riparian-wetland vegetative cover is present to protect banks and dissipate energy during high flows; 12. Plant communities are an adequate source of course and or large woody debris; 13. Floodplain and channel characteristics are adequate to dissipate energy; 14. Point bars are re-vegetating with riparian-wetland vegetation; 15. Lateral stream movement is associated with natural sinuosity; 16. System is vertically stable; 17. Stream is in balance with the water and sediment being supplied by the watershed.

“There is a correlation between PFC assessment attributes and processes and the Forest RMO elements. The RMO elements are represented by quantitative values established by the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Plan in compliance with PACFISH and INFISH. While the RMOs are largely quantitative and rely on physical measurements taken using appropriate scientific methods, the PFC approach for determiniming stream/riparian condition is qualitative, relying on highly trained and experienced surveyors to evaluate the PFC elements. Both however are designed to evaluate similar attributes and processes” (Wayne Elmore, 2009 Proper Functioning Condition Assessment Report, Full Stream Consulting). PFC surveys have been conducted on three of the seven fish bearing streams within allotments in the SPRAA (Table 3-17).

In 2009, PFC surveys were conducted by Forest Service staff and Full Stream Consulting on portions of North Pine Creek and Duck Creek. The North Pine Creek PFC survey began at the creek’s confluence with an unnamed tributary and continues downstream to its confluence with Doe Creek, for a total distance of just under 1 mile.

The Duck Creek PFC survey began where the FS 6600 road crosses the creek and continues 4.9 miles downstream to the Dutchman Creek Trail. The area surveyed is not within the SPRAA however, the PFC surveyors state in their report that this segment is representative of the portion of Duck Creek within the North Pine allotment boundary. Field visits by FS staff in 2012 support this conclusion.

In 1997, Forest Service staff conducted a PFC survey on McGraw Creek in the Snake River allotment. The survey began at its confluence with the Snake River and continued upstream for 4 miles.

North Pine Creek was given a rating of Functioning at Risk (FAR) with an upward trend for the following reasons:

 The channel is deeply incised from past mining and road activity, preventing bankfull inundation.  A lack of enough riparian vegetation (woody plants) to protect banks and dissipate energy during high-flow events, although recovery is occurring.  Sinuosity is lower than expected because of previous disturbances.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

The PFC survey report states that mining and road activity has created these conditions and that they are likely not attributed to grazing. In addition, surveyors saw no evidence of cattle use in these upper reaches of North Pine Creek. The report mentions the lack of herbaceous plants in the riparian area which may account for the absence of cattle.

Although North Pine Creek was given a rating of FAR, surveyors felt that no additional management or monitoring was necessary. The large scale disturbances caused by past mining and road activity have created conditions that are recovering slowly on their own. There is no practical way to speed up the recovery process.

Duck Creek was given a rating of Proper Functioning Condition (PFC). Surveyors did mention a few management concerns including: the abundance of reed canary grass, unnecessary road/trail crossings, and a few dry meadows (approximately 2-3% of the stream length) that are highly accessible to livestock. The area surveyed is not within the SPRAA however, the PFC surveyors state in their report that this segment is representative of the portion of Duck Creek within the North Pine allotment boundary. Field visits by FS staff in 2012 support this conclusion.

McGraw Creek was given a rating of Nonfunctional (NF) with no apparent trend. This survey took place six months after a 100-year flood event in 1997 and describes the following concerns:

 Increase in the width to depth ratio caused by sediment depositions on entire valley floor.  Slumps and eroding banks continuing to increase sediment load.  Inner riparian vegetation has been completely wiped out and replaced by gravels.

The PFC survey does not mention livestock grazing anywhere in the comments. All of the conditions discussed were caused by the flood event in 1997. A field visit in May 2012, showed recovery of riparian vegetation in many areas, but unstable banks were common throughout the creek because of flood events in 1997 and 2010 (Shannon Archuleta, personal observation, Whitman Ranger District Fish Biologist).

Table 3-17. Results of PFC surveys for fishbearing streams within SPRAA. Allotment Stream Name/ Year of PFC *PFC Trend North Pine Duck Creek/ 1997 PFC North Pine Creek/ 2009 FAR upward Snake River McGraw Creek/ 1997 NF not apparent

Multiple Indicator Monitoring System (MIMS), (Burton et al., Version 5.0) MIMS monitoring was conducted in 2012 on McGraw Creek. McGraw Creek is the only stream with a Representative DMA. Representative DMAs are stream reaches representative of a larger area, located in areas representative of grazing use, and located in an identified riparian complex that is the most sensitive to management influences.

Multiple Indicator Monitoring System (MIMS) results in Table 3-18 include:

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

 Streambank stability: Defined as percent of stable streambanks. Provides an indication of the ability of streambanks to buffer the forces of water during conditions of high stream flow, floating ice, or debris. The INFISH streambank stability objective is >80% stable streambanks.  Streambank Cover: Defined as percent of streambanks covered. Uncovered streambanks are vulnerable to a decrease in streambank stability. Streambank cover can include perennial and herbaceous vegetation, roots of vegetation (deep rooted vegetation), cobble-size rocks, and logs. Desirable covered streambank is >85% covered banks.  Annual Streambank Alteration: Defined as the percent of linear streambank that has been altered by large herbivores. Allowable streambank alteration is <20% altered streambanks.

Table 3-18. Results of the McGraw Creek MIM survey. Stable Covered Streambank Allotment/Year Stream Streambanks (%) Streambank (%) Alteration (%) Spring McGraw 97 94 1 Creek/2012 Creek

PACFISH/ INFISH Biological Opinion (PIBO) Monitoring (Archer et al. 2008)

PIBO monitoring was conducted on two streams with integrator reaches within the SPRAA in 2007 and 2008. An integrator reach is the downstream, most low gradient (<3%) reach within the 6th field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC). Integrator reaches are randomly selected and sampled as part of the five year rotating sampling design. Reaches are at least 20 bankfull widths in length or a minimum of 160 meters (approximately 525 feet). PIBO monitoring results are shown in Table 3-19.

Table 3-19. PIBO monitoring reaches within Snake/Pine AMP. Pool Stable Undercut Tail Maximum Sample Elevation Banks Stream Allotment Banks Fines 7 day Year (ft) Method (%) < 2mm avg. (F) (%) (%) Duck North Pine 2007 1413 95.45 38.64 6.34 no data McGraw Snake River 2008 1006 97.5 2.5 8.14 66* *Temperature data is from 2003 PIBO monitoring.

Table 3-20. Substrate and Rosgen Stream Types for streams within the SPRAA.

Allotment Stream Dominant Subdominant Rosgen Type

North Pine North Pine Creek Cobble Gravel B3 Duck Creek Cobble Gravel B3 Snake River McGraw Creek Cobble Gravel A3

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

INFISH Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs).

Landscape-scale interim RMOs describing good habitat for inland native fish species were developed using stream inventory data for pool frequency, large woody debris, bank stability, and width to depth ratio. State water quality standards were used to define favorable water temperatures. The RMO and their objectives are presented in Tables 3-21a and 3-21b.

Table 3-21a. Interim INFISH RMOs. Habitat Feature Objectives Pool Frequency (kf1) Varies by channel width (all systems) Water Temperature (sf2) Compliance with state water quality standards, or maximum <53.6F Large Woody Debris (sf) >20 pieces per mile; >12” diameter, > 35’ length (forested systems) Substrate Sediment (all Fine Sediment: < 20% in spawning habitat. If cobble systems) embeddedness used, < 30% in rearing habitat. Bank Stability (sf) >90 percent stable (non-forested systems) Lower Bank Angle (sf) >75% of banks with >90 degree angle (undercut) (non-forested systems) Width/Depth Ratio (sf) <10, stratify by channel type (all systems) 1 Key feature 2 supporting feature

Table 3-21b. RMO Interim objectives for pool frequency Wetted widths (feet) 10 20 25 50 75 100 125 150 Pools per mile 96 56 47 26 23 18 14 12

Pool Frequency All streams surveyed (Table 3-16) had pool frequencies below riparian management objectives.

Fish habitat in the analysis area generally does not meet INFISH RMOs for pool habitat (Table 3-16). In general, pool habitat increases as LWD increases (Dollof and Warren, 2003). However, there does not appear to be a relationship between LWD and pool habitat in steeper streams (Montgomery et al., 1995) or in streams with low stream power (Jackson and Sturm, 2002). The majority of streams in the analysis area are high gradient streams including fishbearing streams which have been surveyed (Table 3-16), which may reduce the pool forming function of LWD. Another confounding factor in the linkage between LWD and pool habitat is the lack of consistency in the definition of LWD used in various studies. There is no evidence that current management is inhibiting the formation of pools within the SPRAA. Pool frequency is likely be affected by past land management and natural events. Water Temperature The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) water quality standards for temperature are based on the maximum 7-day running average. Temperature standards were developed based on temperature requirements of salmonids during different seasons and life stages. Table 3-22 below shows ODEQ’s temperature standards on streams in the SPRAA.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Table 3-22. ODEQ temperature standards in the SPRAA. Watershed Fishbearing Streams in the Temperature Standard Water Bodies Watershed Must Not be Warmer Than: (Maximum Weekly Average Temperature) Indian Creek-Snake Lonesome, Doe, McGraw Creek, 68°F- for redband trout River Spring Creek, Thirty-two Point Creek North Pine Creek, Duck Creek 53.6°F-for bull trout spawning/rearing

There is only one long term temperature monitoring site within the Snake/Pine allotments, and is located near the confluence of Duck Creek and North Pine Creek. Duck Creek has designated critical habitat for Bull Trout, therefore is subject to the 53.6°F temperature standard. In all the years monitored the maximum 7-day running average has exceeded the temperature standard of 53.6°F.

In 2003, the PIBO team collected temperature data on McGraw Creek. The 7-day running average was 66°F (table 3-19) which is below the ODEQ standard of 68°F.

In 2009 and 2010, Idaho Power Company (IPC) conducted temperature monitoring on North Pine and Duck Creek. The Duck Creek site is just downstream of the confluence with Dutchman Creek. The North Pine sites are all within the allotment boundary and are listed in Table 3-23 from the most downstream site (NPine 4) working upstream to (NPine 8) which is above the confluence with Doe Creek.

It is not clear why Duck Creek or North Pine Creek have higher stream temperatures than the ODEQ standard. Duck Creek was rated PFC for the latest assessment, which indicates that management of riparian areas has been successful at creating near optimum conditions for the channel and riparian vegetation. There are few impacts to the RHCA or the channel. Much of the channel is shaded by either shrubs such as alder, or shaded by large conifers. Stream temperatures may be slightly elevated as a result of pre-INFISH timber harvest and bug kill in the 80s that may have removed large trees in the RHCA that moderated stream temperature. Current levels of livestock grazing in the allotment do not appear to be reducing riparian vegetation, or increasing channel width to depths and subsequently contributing to high stream temperatures along Duck Creek. North Pine Creek has been impacted by past land management, roads and flooding which may explain elevated stream temperatures.

Table 3-23. Results of stream temperature monitoring in Duck Creek. Site Source Maximum Weekly Average Temperature (F°) 1998 1999 2001 2002 2005 2009 2010 Duck USFS 67.6 65.7 68.4 71 69.2 * * 15E.1 McGraw PIBO * * * * * * * Duck_1 IPC * * * * * 68.2 67.3 NPine_4 IPC * * * * * 73.2 70.9 NPine_5 IPC * * * * * 72.5 69.8 NPine_11 IPC * * * * * * 70.2 NPine_6 IPC * * * * * 71.2 * NPine_7 IPC * * * * * 68.2 *

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

NPine_8 IPC * * * * * 68.4 66.7  * No data available

Bank Stability There was no bank stability data included in any of Hankin and Reeves stream surveys. However, PIBO and MIM results found stream banks monitored met the 80% stability standard. In addition, observations of streams in the project area by FS staff indicated that stream stability was generally high and met the 80% stability standard. Field visits by FS staff have shown that many of the streams are located in inner gorges and have rocky well-vegetated banks.

Width to Depth Ratio McGraw Creek did not have any width to depth data. North Pine and Duck Creek had width to depth ratios that exceeded the RMO of <10 (Table 3-16).

Table 3-24. Streams exceeding the RMO for width to depth ratio, and width to depth ratios described for Rosgen stream types. Rosgen General Average Rosgen Range Rosgen Streams Existing Channel Rosgen Width to Depth Width to Depth Exceeding RMO Width to Type Width to for Channel Ratio Width to Depth Depth Depth Type Ratio Ratio B3 >12 18.8 11.7 to 38.0 North Pine 18.1 B3 >12 18.8 11.7 to 38.0 Duck 17.2

Streams surveyed in the analysis area do not meet the INFISH RMO for width-to-depth ratio (<10, Table 3-21a). However, the INFISH RMO was developed prior to advances in our understandings of the relationship between width-to-depth ratios and natural channel forms (sensu Rosgen, 1996). Normal ranges for width-to-depth ratios (bankfull width) for Rosgen B3 channels are shown in Table 3-24. North Pine and Duck Creek fall within the expected range of widto to depth rations. RMOs do not reflect the variable conditions on the landscape.

Large Woody Debris McGraw and Duck Creek met the RMO of ≥20 pieces per mile. North Pine did not meet this RMO. The channel is deeply incised from past mining and road activity, preventing bankfull inundation, and mine tailings inhibit the growth and recruitment of future sources of large wood. There is no evidence that livestock grazing is retarding the attainment of this RMO.

Riparian Exclosure Fences and Water Diversions There are no riparian exclosure fences or water diversions in the SPRAA.

Water Quality

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) 303(d) listed streams Beneficial Uses in the Powder basin

In Oregon, surface and ground water are publicly owned resources whose use is regulated by the state. In order for a person, business, or agency to use the public water, it must be put to a

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects beneficial use. The beneficial uses designated by the State of Oregon for the Powder River basin are listed in Table 3-25 below.

Table 3-25. Beneficial uses in the Powder River Basin. Beneficial Uses All Basin Waters Public Domestic Water Supply X Private Domestic Water Supply X Industrial Water Supply X Irrigation X Livestock Watering X Fish and Aquatic Life X Wildlife & Hunting X Fishing X Boating X Water Contact Recreation X Aesthetic Quality X Hydro Power Commercial Navigation and Transportation

The ODEQ has also created fish use designations on the surface water found in the SPRAA These fish use designations determine the temperature standards for state waters. In the Snake/Pine allotments, Duck Creek has bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) spawning and juvenile rearing as the designated fish use. This designation means that the seven-day-average maximum temperature may not exceed 53.6°. The rest of the streams within the allotment have designated redband trout use. The seven-day-average maximum temperature for these streams may not exceed 68°F.

The ODEQ assigns specific standards for water quality parameters based on beneficial uses. Water bodies that do not meet State standards are generally listed as water quality-limited streams under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. There are currently no 303(d) listed streams with in the Snake/Pine allotments. Duck Creek was reassessed by ODEQ in 2010 for exceeding temperature standards. The assessment concluded that there was insufficient information and consequently Duck Creek remains unlisted.

Municipal Watersheds There are no de-facto or designated municipal watersheds within the SPRAA.

Streamflow Regime General hydrologic patterns in the SPRAA are driven by seasonal precipitation. Peak flows normally occur in the spring months of April through June due to increased rates of snow-fed runoff along with rain-on-snow events. The post-runoff period is typically characterized by dry conditions through the summer months with occasional thunderstorms (Pine Creek Existing Conditions Reconnaissance Report 2012).

Aquatic Species and Distribution

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Bull trout are not documented to occur within the SPRAA, however, bull trout Designated Critical Habitat is located within the North Pine allotment (Table 3-26). There are seven confirmed fish bearing streams within the SPRAA. Tables 3-27 and 3-28 show the confirmed and suspected fish bearing stream miles within the SPRAA. Redband (Onchorynchus mykiss) are on the Regional Foresters Sensitive Species List, and are a Management Indicator Species (MIS) are found throughout the SPRAA.

Bull trout Designated Critical Habitat (DCH) occurs in the SPRAA. The coterminous United States population of the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) was listed as threatened on November 1, 1999 (64 FR 58910). The threatened bull trout occurs in the Klamath River Basin of south-central Oregon and in the Jarbidge River in Nevada, north to various coastal rivers of Washington to the Puget Sound, and east throughout major rivers within the Columbia River Basin to the St. Mary-Belly River, east of the Continental Divide in northwestern Montana (Bond 1992, Brewin et al., Cavender 1978, Leary and Allendorf 1997).

The Service published a final rule for bull trout critical habitat for the coterminous United States on October 18, 2010 (USFWS 2010). A justification document was also developed to support the rule and is available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife website (www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout). The scope of the designation involved the species’ coterminous range, which includes the Jarbidge River, Klamath River, Columbia River, Coastal-Puget Sound, and Saint Mary-Belly River population segments (also considered as interim recovery units). The critical habitat designation includes approximately 19,729 miles of streams (which includes 754 miles of marine shoreline) and approximately 488,252 acres of reservoirs and lakes, in Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, and Montana. Designated bull trout critical habitat is of two primary use types: 1) spawning and rearing, and 2) foraging, migration, and overwintering (FMO). The Hells Canyon Complex Critical Habitat Unit (CHU) has 377 stream miles designated (USFWS 2010). North Pine Creek and Duck Creek are included in the designated critical habitat.

Table 3-26. Miles of DCH habitat type for Bull Trout within the SPRAA. Stream DCH Habitat (miles) Spawn & Rear FMO North Pine 0 4.88 Duck 1.89 0

The Hells Canyon Complex Recovery Unit, as described in the Bull Trout Recovery Plan, includes basins in Idaho and Oregon that drain into the Snake River and associated reservoirs from below the confluence of the Weiser River downstream to the Hells Canyon Dam (USFWS 2002). The major watersheds include Pine Creek, Powder River, Burnt River and three reservoirs; Hells Canyon, Oxbow, and Brownlee. Habitat fragmentation and degradation are likely the most limiting factors for bull trout in the Hells Canyon Complex Recovery Unit (USFWS 2002). The estimated abundance of adult bull trout for the Hells Canyon Complex Recovery Unit is at least 5,000 individuals (USFWS 2002). In the SPRAA there are no known bull trout populations. Drainages within the Snake River allotment feed directly into the Snake River, which is identified as bull trout rearing and migration habitat.

Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements than other salmonids, as summarized in the final ruling for the Columbia River bull trout distinct population segments (DPS) (USFWS, 2010).

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Habitat components include water temperature, cover, channel form and stability, valley form, spawning and rearing substrates, and migratory corridors. Complex forms of cover (e.g. large woody debris, undercut banks, boulders and pools) are used at all life history stages. Both juveniles and adults frequently inhabit side channels, stream margins and pools with suitable cover, and they require stream channel and flow stability. Low gradient streams with loose, clean gravel are preferred for spawning.

Redband trout (O. mykiss gibbsi) are listed as a sensitive species on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List and are also a MIS for the Wallowa-Whitman Land and Resource Management Plan (1990). The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has listed native redband trout as a “species of concern”. Table 3-27 shows the miles of confirmed redband distribution and Table 3-28 shows suspected redband distribution throughout the SPRAA.

Table 3-27. Miles of confirmed redband distribution within the SPRAA, by stream, allotment and pasture Allotment Pasture Stream Miles of Confirmed Redband Dist.

North Pine Jolly Pine Doe 0.17 Duck 1.98 Jolly Pine/ Nelson North Pine 4.88 Nelson Lonesome 0.20 Snake River Spring McGraw 6.36 Spring 1.98* Squaw Thirty-two Point 2.44* *Presence was confirmed by Idaho Power (1994), distribution was estimated from the USFS streams GIS layer.

Table 3-28. Miles of suspected seasonal redband distribution within the SPRAA by stream, allotment and pasture. *Miles of Suspected Allotment Pasture Stream Redband Dist. North Pine Jolly Pine Deer 1.33 Dutchman 0.24 Jolly 2.87 Snake River Spring Creek W. Fork McGraw 1.40 Nelson 0.91 Spring/Squaw Leep 1.77 Squaw Creek Buck 1.81 Dove 0.73 Doyle 0.40 Kirby 1.61 Lynch 1.66 Squaw 2.24 *Distribution was estimated from the FS streams GIS layer, and based on perennial flow.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Redband trout are similar to brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in that both are assumed to require relatively the same food, space, cover, and individual territories that are afforded by the riffles and small pools of headwater streams. Spawning behavior for redband trout appears to be most similar to that of rainbow (O. mykiss) and golden trout (O. mykiss aguabonita). All are spring spawners and require gravel riffles in which the female excavates a redd. Redband trout prefer to spawn in the shallow pool tail-out riffles with moderate water velocities.

Trout are found throughout the SPRAA where seasonal flows allow, for purposes of this analysis we assume that all O. mykiss found are redband. Redband have been found in North Pine, Lonesome, Duck, McGraw, Doe, Spring and Thirty-two Point Creeks, in various surveys conducted 1994-2012. Redband presence is assumed (at least seasonally) in many other streams within the SPRAA based on perennial flow according to the FS “streamswaw” GIS layer (Table 3-28). For the purposes of the SPRAA, we are assuming redband are found in all these streams and our assessment of effects will account for this assumption.

Idaho Power Company (1994) conducted genetic sampling that found that there were redband and rainbow trout in North Pine and Lonesome Creeks, a genetically isolated redband population in McGraw Creek, a hybridized redband x coastal rainbow trout population in Spring Creek and wild rainbow trout in Thirty-two Point Creek.

The only known isolated redband trout population in the SPRAA is in McGraw Creek, in the Snake River Allotment. McGraw Creek is a tributary to the Snake River, on the Oregon side of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. McGraw Creek has a 17 foot waterfall, fish barrier, 0.3 miles upstream from its confluence with the Snake River that has resulted in this isolated population. Redband trout in Hells Canyon are considered to have special ecological significance because of their limited distribution and isolation. In 1993, ODFW conducted snorkeling and electroshocking surveys in conjunction with a habitat survey in McGraw Creek.

A genetic study in the mid-90’s indicated that the McGraw Creek population showed various levels of genetic divergence from other Snake River redband/steelhead populations not isolated by barriers (Curren 1990). This isolated redband population has not been influenced by hatchery stocking due to the remoteness and the presence of a passage barrier that prevents movement of hatchery fish from the Snake River. Since the mid-90’s, a number of large scale natural disturbance events have affected this population and has put it at risk of extirpation. The 1997 New Year’s Day flood resulted in a large debris flow that greatly altered habitat conditions in McGraw Creek. In the 1997 post-flood survey of McGraw Creek, very few redband were observed.

Western Ridge Mussel (Gonidea angulata) are listed as a sensitive species on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List. Initially, western ridge mussels were suspected to be present on the Wallowa-Whitman NF based a review of occurrence records. Additional record reviews and data searches by WWNF personnel revealed that western ridge mussels were historically present in large numbers in the Snake River and confirmed that western ridge mussels are currently present in the Snake River, Hells Canyon portion, on the HCNRA. The current Snake River western ridge mussel population is suspected to be at very low levels compared to pre- European settlement. Relic shells of western ridge mussels were collected by Wallowa Mountain Office personnel during a monitoring trip on the Hells Canyon portion of the Snake River in October of 2010. Western ridge mussels were also documented in the Powder River (1963) and Grande Ronde River (pre-1929) downstream of the WWNF.

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Western ridge mussels occur in streams of all sizes and are rarely found in lakes or reservoirs. They are found mainly in low-to- mid-elevation watersheds, and do not often inhabit high elevation headwater streams where western pearlshells are found. They often share habitat with Margaritifera falcata (western pearlshell mussel) throughout much of the Pacific Northwest. They inhabit mud, sand, gravel and cobble substrates. Western ridge mussels are more tolerant of fine sediments than western pearlshells and occupy depositional habitats and banks. They can withstand moderate amounts of sedimentation, but are usually absent from habitats with highly unstable or very soft substrates. Cursory evidence suggests that western ridged mussels are more pollution-tolerant than other native mussels.

Habitat for western ridge mussels appears to have fairly broad environmental gradients. In the John Day system western ridge mussels are more abundant in the mid and lower reaches of the M.F. and N.F. John Day Rivers compared to western pearlshell mussels (Brim Box et al. 2006). Habitat in the middle reaches of these streams is warmer and has higher levels of fine sediment compared to the upper reaches. In the Salmon River, Vannote and Minshall (1982) found western pearlshell mussels being replaced by western ridge mussels where fine sediment had increased as a result of timber management activities in the watershed.

Threats to western ridge mussels and other species of freshwater mussels include: loss of host fish, introduction of non-native fish, dams, channel modification from channelization and suction dredge mining, thermal pollution, chemical pollution, sedimentation and siltation from silvicultural and agricultural practices, water withdrawal and diversions, and livestock grazing in riparian areas. Since western ridge mussels require stable habitats, they may be particularly threatened by dewatering and other activities that cause shifting substrates, water level fluctuation and seasonal hypoxia or anoxia. Species that live for 20 to 30 years, as has been suggested for western ridge mussels, often appear to have healthy populations, when in reality only the older adults may be withstanding environmental changes and the population may no longer be reproducing.

The presence of western ridge mussels has been documented on the WWNF but has not been confirmed in the analysis area.

Shortfaced Lanx (Fisherola nuttalli) are listed as a sensitive species on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List. The following species profile was downloaded from the Xerces Society website ( http://www.xerces.org/giant-columbia-river-limpet/ accessed February 11, 2013):

The Shortfaced Lanx is a small pulmonate (lunged) snail in the family Lymnaeidae. It inhabits cold, unpolluted, medium to large streams with fast-flowing, well-oxygenated water and cobble and boulder substrate, and is generally found at the edges of rapids. It was historically present throughout much of the Columbia River drainage in Washington, Montana, Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia, but most populations were extirpated due to habitat loss resulting from dams, impoundments, water removal, and pollution. Currently, large populations of F. nuttalli persist in only four streams: the lower Deschutes River in Oregon; the Okanogan River and the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River in Washington; and the Snake River in Oregon and Idaho. Additional small populations are found in Oregon in the John Day and Imnaha Rivers, and the lower Columbia River near Bonneville Dam; the Methow River, Washington; and the Grande Ronde River, Washington and Oregon. This species is threatened by habitat alteration and reduced water quality due to dams, impoundments, and siltation and pollution from agriculture, development, industry, and grazing.

100

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Fisherola nuttalli is generally restricted to relatively large perennial streams ranging from 30-100 m (98-300 ft.) wide. Within such streams, it is found primarily at the edges of rapids or immediately downstream from rapids in areas that have suitable substrate. This species requires clean, cold, well-oxygenated water with gravel, cobble, and boulder substrate. In an assessment of Hells Canyon Dam (Snake River, Idaho), F. nuttalli was found on cobbles in higher velocity areas of the stream much more frequently than any other mollusk species; this was considered to reflect the species preference to attach themselves to hard surfaces in high velocities to avoid competition with other species (Richards et al. 2005). Fisherola nuttalli has not been found in areas with the following characteristics: slow flow; silt or mud substrates; extreme seasonal variations in discharge; an abundance of macrophytes (aquatic plants) or epiphytic algae; a bedrock substrate; or where dredging or mining occurs (Neitzel and Frest 1992; Frest and Johannes 1995; Frest 1999; Richards et al. 2005). The snails feed by scraping algae and diatoms from the surface of rocks and boulders.

The presence of shortfaced lanx has been documented on the WWNF but has not been confirmed in the analysis area.

Columbia Pebblesnail (Flumincola fuscus) are listed as a sensitive species on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List. The following species profile was downloaded from the USFS/BLM Interagency Special Status/ Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP) website (www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning-docs/sfs-ig-fluminicola-fuscus-2009- 02.doc.; accessed February 11, 2013):

Originally known from the Lower Snake and Columbia River drainages in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, British Columbia, and possibly Montana (Frest and Johannes 1995, Hershler and Frest 1996). Probably extirpated from the middle and upper Columbia River in Washington, Montana, and British Columbia, and may be extinct in the lower Columbia River in Washington and Oregon (Frest and Johannes 1995). Is still extant in some tributaries in Washington (Okanogan and Methow Rivers).

Found in larger tributaries and rivers, on upper surfaces of stable rocks, boulders and bedrock outcrops in fast current, in relatively shallow water. Species requires cold water with high oxygen content, so is not found behind impoundments, or where water is warm, slow, nutrient-enriched or turbid. Generally found in areas with few aquatic macrophytes of epiphytic algae.

Impoundments created by dams and other structures which create oxygen-poor conditions can create unsuitable habitat for this species. Waste-water or agricultural run-off into rivers can also create nutrient-rich conditions which are unfavorable to this species. Pollutants from pulp mill effluents or metal smelting discharges are harmful to Columbia pebblesnails.

The presence of Columbia pebblesnails has been documented on the WWNF but has not been confirmed in the SPRAA.

Individual Allotment Descriptions

Table 3-29. Perennial stream miles found within subwatersheds and allotments. Allotment SWS Perennial Stream Miles North Herman Creek-Snake Pine River/170502010703 0.8

101

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Allotment SWS Perennial Stream Miles Upper North Pine Creek/170502010607 12.8 Snake Hells Canyon Dam-Snake River River/170502010705 12.8 Herman Creek-Snake River/170502010703 0.9 McGraw Creek-Snake River/170502010704 16.4

Snake River Allotment There are two pastures found within the Snake River allotment, Squaw Creek and Spring Creek. Elevations in this allotment range from 2,000 feet to 6,020 feet. In addition to surveys and field visits, FS staff (Range Specialist and Wilidlife Biologist) flew over the allotment in August, 2012 to observe conditions and cattle distribution across the landscape in a single point in time. All of the streams were dry with the exception of McGraw Creek which has intermittent flow in its lower reaches. Streams in this allotment all flow towards the Snake River and are naturally steep and straight, Rosgen A type channels with narrow valley bottoms and intermittent flow. Some of the drainages have springs or seeps that may contribute flow to the channels during the summer.

There is no bull trout DCH in this allotment. The segment of the Snake River in which these tributaries empty contains occupied bull trout DCH. This habitat is considered rearing and migration habitat. It is important to note that the Snake River is outside the SPRAA boundary, and potential downstream effects are discussed in the Cumulative Effects section of the Effects Analysis.

Field visits by FS staff found that cattle use tends to occur south of Buck Creek, utilizing forage areas adjacent to the 1789 trail. There is very limited movement of cattle up or down streams in the Snake River allotment and most use occurs at trail/stream crossings.

There is approximate 1.2 miles of lay down fence within this allotment that aids in the distribution of the livestock and is maintained by the permittee.

McGraw Creek McGraw Creek is located within the Spring Creek pasture. McGraw is primarily a Rosgen A3 channel type, with intermittent flow in lower reaches during summer months. There are approximately 6.4 miles of McGraw Creek in the Snake River allotment. A habitat survey in 1997 indicated that McGraw Creek had pools per mile that did not meet RMO’s. Large wood per mile is very close to meeting RMOs at 20 pieces per mile. A PFC survey in 1997 found McGraw Creek to be Nonfunctioning due to a recent flood event and related sediment caused issues. According to Bill Stack’s Hydrology report (1997) the flood occurred January 1st, 1997 and had flows that more than doubled (20,200 cfs) the estimated 100-year flows (8,640 cfs). As a result, McGraw has unstable banks throughout caused by a combination of flooding and local topography.

In August 2012, Forest Service specialists viewed the Snake River allotment by plane to observe conditions and cattle distribution, staff found that the majority of access by cattle occurs on a parcel of private land located 2 miles upstream of McGraw Creek’s confluence with the Snake River, which is within this redband population’s habitat distribution. This 160 acre parcel of land is easily accessible and attractive to cattle because of its location on flatter terrain and its

102

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects water availability. Approximately, 0.3 miles of McGraw is contained within this private land. McGraw’s water goes subsurface below the parcel of private land. Cows were observed utilizing the dry creek beds as well as adjacent slopes and benches of FS lands.

Squaw Creek Squaw Creek is a Rosgen A2/A3 channel type with intermittent flow. Livestock use appears to be confined to areas within 100 feet of the stream/trail crossing. There is no overstory near the stream due to a recent wildfire, although shrub regrowth is about 10 feet tall.

North Pine Allotment

There are two pastures found in the North Pine allotment, Jolly Pine and Nelson. Elevations in this allotment range from 3,200 feet to 5,500 feet. North Pine and Duck Creek are the only perennial streams found in this allotment. Streams in this allotment have steep intermittent drainages that flow for a short time during snow melt periods and after significant rainfall. All drainages flow into North Pine Creek. The creeks in the North Pine allotment have riparian shrub communities that include species such as; Alder, Red Osier Dogwood, Thimbleberry, Willow and Cottonwood.

One water development and 0.25 miles of lay down fence within this allotment aids in the distribution of the livestock and are maintained by the permittee.

North Pine Creek Portions of North Pine Creek are found in both Jolly Pine and Nelson pastures. North Pine Creek is primarily a Rosgen B3 channel type. A habitat survey in 2000 indicated that North Pine Creek had pools per mile and bankfull width to depth ratio that did not meet RMOs. There was no data available on the large wood per mile. However, a habitat survey in 1995 found that there were 4 pieces of large wood per mile, which does not meet RMOs. Temperature monitioring by IPC in 2009 and 2010 show that North Pine Creek is not meeting the ODEQ temperature standard or the RMO. In 2009, North Pine Creek had a PFC survey conducted which showed a FAR rating with an upward trend. The riparian vegetation is comprised of Alder and Dogwood, although the PFC survey suggests that increased distribution and size would be necessary in order to be effective for dissipating high energy flow events. The PFC team determined the condition of North Pine Creek was due to past mining impacts, which have slowed recovery. They also found no evidence of livestock use. There are approximately 4.88 miles of unoccupied bull trout DCH on North Pine Creek.

Duck Creek Duck Creek is located in the Nelson pasture. Duck Creek is primarily a Rosgen B3 channel type. A stream survey conducted in 1996 indicated that Duck Creek has pools per mile and bankfull width to depth ratio that did not meet RMOs. Duck Creek had PFC surveys performed in 2009 that showed a PFC rating with minimal livestock impacts. The PFC surveys indicate that riparian vegetation largely consists of Alder, Dogwood and Cottonwood. There are approximately 1.89 miles of unoccupied bull trout DCH on Duck Creek in the North Pine allotment.

Stream temperature monitoring in Duck Creek at its confluence with North Pine Creek from 1998 to 2010 found that the seven day average maximum stream temperatures ranged from 65.7°F (1999) to 73.2°F (2009). These stream temperatures exceed the ODEQ seven day

103

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects average maximum stream temperature standard of 53.6°F for bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing. Discussion of possible causes can be found above in the RMO discussion.

Double Pine Allotment

Double Pine allotment consists only of the Double Pine pasture. Elevations in this allotment range from 3,000 feet to 5,200 feet. There are no perennial streams in the Double Pine allotment. Streams in this allotment, like many in the North Pine allotment, have steep intermittent drainages that flow for a short time during snowmelt periods and after significant rainfall. All drainages flow into North Pine Creek. There are no known fish in these high gradient, low sinuosity streams and no bull trout DCH.

There are no improvements on this allotment.

Fisheries – Effects Analysis and Biological Evaluation

The description of fisheries resources, along with the analysis of the expected and potential effects for each alternative were assessed using field surveys, water quality databases, supporting literature and professional judgment.

Several management directives/recommendations apply to this project: the management directives from the Wallowa-Whitman Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) 1990; the Interim Strategies for Managing Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California (INFISH 1995); and the Forest Plan Biological Opinions will be followed. In addition, the INFISH amendments add further interim management direction in the form of Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) and standards and guidelines.

Three alternatives are analyzed for this project. Under alternative 1, the no action or no grazing alternative, existing grazing would be discontinued across the three allotments. Under alternative 2, the Proposed Action, livestock grazing would be at similar levels but with the addition of a few adaptive management changes (described below). Under alternative 3, grazing would be at similar levels, however, all of the allotments would be on a scheduled rest rotation and there would be additional boundary changes.

Items that are common to all Action alternatives include: combining the existing Double Pine allotment with the Jolly Creek pasture of the North Pine allotment to form one, two pasture allotment. This addition would not result in the addition of any fish bearing streams or Designated Critical Habitat (DCH). Other items include new fence construction, two new water developments in the North Pine allotment and one spring development in the Snake River allotment. Direct/Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 Under this alternative, the current permits for the Snake Pine AMP would not be reissued upon their expiration. Livestock grazing would no longer be authorized within the SPRAA. The

104

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects allotments within the SPRAA have been managed in the past to prevent or minimize impacts to fish and fish habitat. Monitoring data (Existing Condition Report) shows that over all, fish habitat within the SPRAA is in good condition. The North Pine allotment is the only allotment within the SPRAA that contains bull trout DCH. There are no problem areas identified through surveys or observations that suggest livestock is causing habitat degradation. Past land management especially mining has caused conditions within the North Pine allotment that would likely not improve at an accelerated rate, even with the removal of livestock grazing. The potential areas where accelerated recovery could occur under alternative 1 are those areas that are accessible to livestock and those Rosgen stream types that are more sensitive to disturbance.

Alternative 2 For a complete description of alternative 2, please see Chapter 2 of this EA.

Alternative 2 represents the Proposed Action. This alternative would authorize livestock (cattle) and an incidental level of horse grazing within the SPRAA. The level of permitted use would be similar to past levels that have been authorized through term grazing permits (FSH 2230 2231.11 and 2231.13), which are administered every year with Annual Operating Instructions and authorized by the payment of grazing fees (FSH 2230 2231.41).

Alternative 2 would not add any fish bearing stream miles or DCH to the SPRAA.

Alternative 3 For a complete description of alternative 3, please see Chapter 2 of this EA.

Alternative 3 would authorize livestock (cattle) and an incidental level of horse grazing within the SPRAA. The level of permitted use would be similar to levels that have been authorized through term grazing permits (FSH 2230 2231.11 and 2231.13), which are administered every year by Annual Operating Instructions and authorized by the payment of grazing fees (FSH 2230 2231.41), however all allotments would be on a scheduled rest rotation. Every fourth year, to coincide with the scheduled rotation of the BLMs Homestead Allotment, no livestock would be authorized on the North Pine or Snake River allotments.

There would be two additional boundary changes under alternative 3; the area between the North Pine allotment and Double Pine allotment, along North Pine Creek would be made part of the North Pine allotment. This would result in the addition of 226 acres. The second boundary change would be the north boundary of the Snake River allotment. This boundary would be modified and moved south to the ridge between Buck Creek and Thirty-two Point Creek, removing 2538 acres and 3.4 perennial stream miles. The removal of Thirty-two Point Creek from the Snake River allotment would eliminate any potential risk to the redband that have been documented in that stream.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Aquatic Species There are potentially four Regional Forester sensitive species and critical habitat for one ESA- listed species in the analysis area (Table 3-30).

Table 3-30. Species presence or absence and status within the SPRAA.

105

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Species Status Present

Bull Trout/ Salvelinus confluentus T No

Bull Trout Critical Habitat Designated Yes

Redband trout/ Onchorynchus mykiss R6S/MIS Yes

Shortface Lanx/ Fisherola nuttalli R6S Suspected

Columbia Pebblesnail/ Flumincola fuscus R6S Suspected

Western Ridged Mussel/ Gonidea angulata R6S Suspected Status: MIS = Forest Plan management indicator species, R6S = Region 6 sensitive species, T = Threatened under ESA

Effects to Species and Critical Habitat Shared by Alternatives 2 and 3 Under these action alternatives, combining the Double Pine and North Pine allotments would have no impact on any aquatic species habitat and/or populations as it is only an administrative change and will not change stocking rate. Current management and development of new water sources is expected to improve livestock distribution.

Fencing on the North and West boundary of the North Pine allotment to prevent livestock movement into unauthorized areas would have beneficial effects for the occupied bull trout DCH in the Imnaha River. Cattle would also no longer be able to access the Mud Duck allotment which contains a portion of Duck Creek and bull trout DCH. This would result in a beneficial effect for DCH in the portion of Duck Creek outside the SPRAA.

The development of two off site water sources for cattle in the North Pine allotment and one spring development in the Snake River allotment would help reduce some of the potential impacts to riparian areas and streams by creating more accessible water sources away from fish bearing streams.

The areas that would have the potential for direct and indirect effects to fish habitat and fish populations from the implementation of alternatives 2 and 3 are those areas accessible to livestock. These are the areas where livestock could potentially affect spawning fish and/or incubation of eggs and alevins developing in the gravel, and where effects to fish habitat could occur.

Cattle access to the other fish bearing streams in the SPRAA has not been identified as causing degradation in riparian areas of these streams. Access too many of these streams is limited due to steep slopes, dense vegetation, down wood and boulders. In the case of McGraw Creek, unstable banks and deposition of large substrate caused by large flood events has limited cattle access and utilization of riparian areas in much of the streams length. North Pine has been altered heavily by mining, tailings are present on both sides of the stream and channel incision has occurred. A PFC survey of North Pine Creek in 2009 found little evidence of cattle utilization.

Stream habitat surveys, PIBO monitoring data, MIMS monitoring data, PFC surveys and FS staff observations indicate that the majority of streams within the SPRAA are in good condition with a high percentage of stable streambanks and the majority of streams properly functioning

106

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects or functioning at risk with an upward trend toward properly functioning. However, McGraw Creek is the exception, a PFC survey in 1997 rated the stream as nonfunctional with no apparent trend. In 2012, field visits and MIMs results show that McGraw Creek is slowly revegetating after the major flood events that occurred in 1997 and 2010. This demonstrates that current management, on the landscape scale, has been effective in preventing degradation to stream morphology and riparian vegetation, has not retarded the attainment of INFISH RMOs, and has met Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.

The SPRAA would incorporate a variety of management techniques to minimize impacts of use in riparian areas. This will help prevent the removal of key hydric stabilizers needed for streambank stabilization to prevent channel widening, the removal of shrubs that provide streamshade, prevent sedimentation to the stream channel, promote streambank building, maintain or restore riparian areas, and minimize or prevent the amount of feces and urine that could impact water quality.

Bull Trout Critical Habitat The coterminous United States population of the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) was listed as threatened on November 1, 1999 (64 FR 58910). The threatened bull trout occurs in the Klamath River Basin of south-central Oregon and in the Jarbidge River in Nevada, north to various coastal rivers of Washington to the Puget Sound, and east throughout major rivers within the Columbia River Basin to the St. Mary-Belly River, east of the Continental Divide in northwestern Montana (Bond 1992, Brewin et al., Cavender 1978, Leary and Allendorf 1997).

The Service published a final rule for bull trout critical habitat for the coterminous United States on October 18, 2010 (USFWS 2010). A justification document was also developed to support the rule and is available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife website (http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout). The scope of the designation involved the species’ coterminous range, which includes the Jarbidge River, Klamath River, Columbia River, Coastal-Puget Sound, and Saint Mary-Belly River population segments (also considered as interim recovery units). The critical habitat designation includes approximately 19,729 miles of streams (which includes 754 miles of marine shoreline) and approximately 488,252 acres of reservoirs and lakes, in Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, and Montana. Designated bull trout critical habitat is of two primary use types: 1) spawning and rearing, and 2) foraging, migration, and overwintering (FMO). The Hells Canyon Complex Critical Habitat Unit (CHU) has 377 stream miles designated (USFWS 2010). North Pine Creek and Duck Creek are included in the designated critical habitat.

Critical habitat includes the stream channels within the designated stream reaches and a lateral extent as defined by the bankfull elevation on one bank to the bankfull elevation on the opposite bank. Bankfull elevation is the level at which water begins to leave the channel and move into the floodplain and is reached at a discharge that generally has a recurrence interval of 1 to 2 years on the annual flood series. If bankfull elevation is not evident on either bank, the ordinary high-water line must be used to determine the lateral extent of critical habitat. The lateral extent of designated lakes is defined by the perimeter of the waterbody as mapped on standard 1:24,000 scale topographic maps.

There is no record of bull trout presence in the SPRAA and the closest documented is the Elk Creek population and Hells Canyon Reservoir both of those distribution lie outside of the SPRAA boundaries. There would be No Effect to bull trout individuals under alternatives 1, 2 or 3 from the implementation of the Snake/Pine AMP.

107

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Alternative 1

Under alternative 1, there are approximately 4.88 miles of unoccupied bull trout DCH on North Pine Creek considered potential Forage, Migration and Overwintering habitat (FMO) and 1.89 miles of unoccupied bull trout DCH considered potential Spawning and Rearing habitat on Duck Creek in the North Pine allotment.

The elimination of grazing from the SPRAA would remove the potential for indirect effects to fish habitat. Indirect effects to fish habitat include trampling of streambanks and/or removal of key hydric stabilizers leading to streambank instability, channel widening, destruction of overhanging streambanks and increase in sediment yield. Removal of streamside vegetation can potentially alter stream temperatures. Livestock grazing can also potentially affect benthic and terrestrial insects, altering community composition and the food chain.

The degree to which the potential effects to critical habitat would be removed from the landscape with the elimination of grazing depends on several factors which include:

 accessibility of streams to livestock,  stream channel type,  past management

The majority of streams within the SPRAA are Rosgen stream type “A” and “B” channels, which are primarily, stream systems that are constrained by narrow valleys. These narrow valleys are characterized by steep timbered slopes and valley bottoms with down timber and dense shrubs.

Clary and Webster (1989), state that grazing conflicts with riparian dependent resources were usually not severe in type “A” streams or in most type “B” stream channels. Generally these stream channels are in narrow valleys occupied by woody species and are armored by rocks providing resistance to erosion and trampling damage. The greatest conflicts occurred in type “B” channels with medium to fine textured, easily eroded soil materials (B4) and most type “C” channels.

North Pine and Duck Creek are considered B3 channels, and have a coarser substrate than B4 channels (Table 3-31). Surveys and observations of North Pine and Duck Creek show very little livestock impact. Most of the degradation of these streams stems from past land management, particularly mining.

Table 3-31. Substrate and Rosgen Stream Types for streams within the SPRAA. Rosgen Allotment Stream Dominant Subdominant Type North Pine North Pine Creek Cobble Gravel B3 Duck Creek Cobble Gravel B3 Snake River McGraw Creek Cobble Gravel A3

With the elimination of grazing, the amount of benefit to fish populations and fish habitat also depend on past management and present stream condition.

108

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

The potential impacts of livestock grazing on riparian areas is largely from unmanaged grazing. Unmanaged grazing appears to result in overuse of riparian areas, impairment of plant species vigor and physical damage to the channel and banks (Ohmart 1996).

The allotments within the SPRAA have been managed in the past to prevent or minimize impacts to fish and fish habitat. Monitoring data (Existing Condition Report) shows that over all, fish habitat with the SPRAA is in good condition. The North Pine allotment is the only allotment within the SPRAA that contains bull trout DCH. There are no problem areas identified through surveys or observations that suggest livestock grazing is causing habitat degradation. Past land management especially mining has caused conditions within the North Pine allotment that would likely not improve at an accelerated rate, even with the removal of livestock grazing. The potential areas where accelerated recovery could occur under alternative 1 are those areas that are accessible to livestock and those Rosgen stream types that are more sensitive to disturbance.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Under alternatives 2 and 3, there are approximately 4.88 miles of unoccupied bull trout DCH on North Pine Creek potential Forage, Migration and Overwintering habitat (FMO) and 1.89 miles of unoccupied bull trout DCH considered potential Spawning and Rearing habitat on Duck Creek in the North Pine allotment.

Gregory and Gamett (2009) found that the number of simulated bull trout redds trampled by cattle can be relatively high, but there was substantial variation in the trampling rates among pastures. The authors suggest that stocking intensity strongly influences redd trampling, as well as site conditions such as the presence of palatable vegetation adjacent to the stream, accessibility of the stream to cattle, and presence of woody debris. Overhead cover, such as large woody debris, protected simulated redds from livestock trampling. Similarly, simulated redds located in a short bedrock canyon were protected from trampling because it was difficult for livestock to access the area. The authors also suggest that because proximity to cover was not one of their selection criteria but had the potential to reduce redd trampling, that trampling results presented in this paper may over estimate impacts. Salmonids have been shown to select spawning sites relatively close to cover (Witzel and MacCrimmon 1983).

Below is a description of bull trout DCH streams and accessibility of those streams by livestock.

North Pine Creek North Pine Creek, within the North Pine allotment would contain 4.88 miles of DCH considered potential FMO habitat under alternative 2. There is no documentation of bull trout in North Pine (USDI 2010).

North Pine Creek has been altered and incised by past mining activities and flood events. Observations by FS staff, as well as the 2009 PFC survey show little disturbance in or around North Pine Creek caused by livestock. North Pine Creek is a Rosgen B3 stream channel type, and substrate is dominated by cobble and small boulders. The large substrate makes it difficult for livestock to trail up or down the stream channel.

Duck Creek Duck Creek, within the North Pine allotment, provides 1.89 miles of DCH considered potential Spawning and Rearing habitat. There is no documentation of bull trout in Duck Creek (USDI 2010).

109

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Duck Creek has a high number of pieces of large wood to provide cover for any potential spawning bull trout. Duck Creek has 44 pieces per mile which greatly exceeds the INFISH RMO of >20 pieces.

Determination of Effect

After a determination of the direct and indirect risks to listed fish and their habitat indicators has been completed, the next step is to determine the actual effect that these projects would have on the listed fish. This analysis must involve a check of the existing baseline condition for the project areas, coupled with a specific analysis of the effects the projects may have on the life history of the listed fish. Guidance for making this biological determination was provided by Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale (NFMS 1996) and A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Bull Trout Subpopulation Watershed Scale (USFWS 1998b). These methods were combined to provide a consistent approach for all listed fish species analyzed in this document.

Only those Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) and pathways and indicators that could potentially be affected as a result of this project are addressed. Refer to PCE table for further explanation on possible effects.

Effects on Bull Trout and their Designated Critical Habitat PCE’s

PCE 2. Migratory habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater and marine foraging habitats, including but not limited to permanent, partial, intermittent or seasonal barriers.

Water Quality: is addressed by the Temperature, Sediment/Turbidity/Substrate Embeddedness, Chemical Contamination/Nutrients, Physical Barriers, Large Wood, Pool Frequency, Pool Quality Off-channel Habitat Refugia, Width/Depth Ratio, Streambank Condition, and Floodplain Connectivity indicators. Snake/Pine AMP may affect this PCE.

PCE 3. An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates and forage fish.

PCE 4. Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments and processes with features such as large wood, side channels, pools, undercut banks and substrates, to provide a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure.

Complex Condition: is addressed by the Large Wood, Pool Frequency, Pool Quality, Off Channel Habitat and Refugia indicators. Snake/Pine AMP may affect this PCE.

PCE 5. Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15° C (36 to 59 ° F), with adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures at the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures

110

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects within this range will vary depending on bull trout life-history stage and form; geography; elevation, diurnal and seasonal variation; shade such as that provided by riparian habitat; and local groundwater influence.

Water Temperature: is addressed by the Temperature indicator. Snake/Pine AMP may affect this PCE.

PCE 6. Substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young-of-the-year and juvenile survival. A minimal amount (e.g. less than 12 percent) of fine substrate less than 0.85 mm (0.03 in) in diameter and minimal embeddedness of these fines in larger substrates are characteristic of these conditions.

Substrate: is addressed by the Sediment/Turbidity/Substrate Embeddedness, and Change in peak/base flows indicators. Snake/Pine AMP may affect this PCE.

PCE 8. Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited.

Water Quantity and Quality: is addressed by the Temperature Sediment/Turbidity/Substrate Embeddedness, Chemical Contamination/Nutrients, and Disturbance History/Peak Base flow indicators. Snake/Pine AMP may affect this PCE.

Effects on Environmental Baseline None of the proposed actions, either by themselves, or cumulatively, are expected to restore or degrade the environmental baseline condition in the Upper North Pine subwatershed for any of the matrix indicators. All indicators would be maintained.

Effects to Redband and Their Habitat Redband Trout are on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List. Redband trout spawning occurs March through May, with the peak occurring in late-April and May. The eggs have a short incubation period, one to two months depending on water temperature and fry emerge from redds from May through June.

Alternative 1

Under this alternative, the current permits for the SPRAA would not be reissued upon their expiration. Livestock grazing would no longer be authorized within the SPRAA. Alternative 1 would have No Impact on Individual redband trout and their habitat (NI), watershed and aquatic habitat conditions would likely remain in their current condition.

The elimination of grazing from the three allotments would remove the potential for direct and indirect effects to fish habitat and fish populations. Direct effects to fish populations include trampling of redds resulting in fish mortality caused by damaging of the eggs and alevins developing within the redd. Indirect effects to fish habitat and populations include trampling of streambanks and/or removal of key hydric stabilizers leading to streambank instability, channel widening, destruction of overhanging streambanks, and increase in sediment yield. Removal of streamside vegetation can potentially alter stream temperatures. Livestock grazing can also

111

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects potentially affect benthic and terrestrial insects altering community composition and the food chain.

Salmonids have been shown to select spawning sites relatively close to cover (Witzel and MacCrimmon 1983). This could further reduce the risk of redd trampling since spawning sites may be located where cattle cannot trample redds due to physical obstructions.

Redband trout spawn, rear, incubate and emerge from gravels at the same time as steelhead. DelCurto et al. (2000) determined cattle locations from the Starkey Projects Loran telemetry system, to determine relative use of creek bottoms and the potential for direct impacts (trampling) to spawning steelhead. The cattle locations summarized here are those from years 1991, 1993, and 1995, during the period from turn-out approximately 6/15 to 7/1. Cattle were monitored 24 hours a day. The streams involved are the reach of Meadow Creek from the Meadow Creek riparian exclosure to the boundary of the Experimental Forest, and the entire reach of Smith Creek. A total of 20,371 cattle locations were logged for the three years during this two week period. Of these, 36 locations included the stream channel (0.2%) and 61 locations (0.3%) included the area within 30 meters of the channel. This clearly shows that the potential for direct impacts to spawning steelhead is extremely low. During this early season of use, forage quality in the uplands is extremely high, and cattle are widely dispersed.

Research shows a significant reduction in the survival of rainbow trout eggs and pre-emergent fry due to disturbance of redd sites by angler wading (Roberts and White 1992). Similar impacts could occur due to livestock grazing near spawning areas.

Streamside vegetation can strongly influence the quality of habitat for anadromous and resident cold water fishes (Duff 1979, Everest and Meehan 1981, Marcuson 1977, Meehan et al. 1977). Riparian vegetation prevents the adverse alteration of water temperature by providing streamshade (Meehan et al. 1977). The roots of trees, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation stabilize streambanks, and provide cover in the form of overhanging streambanks (Marcuson 1977, Meehan et al. 1977). Streamside vegetation can act as a filter to prevent sediment and debris from entering streams (Meehan et al. 1977). Riparian vegetation directly controls the food chain of the ecosystem through stream shading and providing organic detritus and insects for stream organisms (Cummins 1974, Meehan et al. 1977).

Livestock grazing can profoundly alter the abundance and composition of stream communities through interactive effects on nutrient loadings, streambank stability, channel morphology, substrate size/composition, and riparian vegetation (Kaufman et al. 1983, Quinn et al. 1992, Trimble 1994, Harding et al. 1998, Belsky et al. 1999, Clary 1999). Studies have shown that such effects can alter the abundance and composition of benthic invertebrate communities largely by modifying consumer resource dynamics (Lenat 1984, Townsend et al. 1997, Delong and Brusven 1998, Wiegel et al. 2000).

Some studies have documented a reduction of salmonids in grazed reaches has been attributed to the effects of increased isolation due to decreased riparian vegetation (Tait et al. 1994, Li et al. 1994), effects of fine sediment deposition through grazing (Rinne and Edina 1988), and effects of livestock trampling on streambanks (Clarkson and Wilson 1995).

The degree to which the potential direct and indirect effects to fish habitat and fish populations would be removed from the landscape with the elimination of grazing depends on several factors which include:

 distribution of fish species,

112

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

 accessibility of streams to livestock,  stream channel type,  past management

North Pine and Duck Creek are considered B3 channels, and have a coarser substrate than B4 channels (Table 3-31). Surveys and observations of North Pine, Duck and McGraw Creeks show very little livestock impact. Most of the degradation of these streams stems from past land management, particularly mining as evidenced by loss of sinuosity, lack of adequate riparian vegetation and channel incision.

With the elimination of grazing, the amount of benefit to fish populations and fish habitat also depend on past management and present stream condition.

The impacts of livestock grazing on riparian areas are largely from unmanaged grazing. Unmanaged grazing appears to always result in overuse of riparian areas, impairment of plant species vigor, and physical damage to the channel and banks (Ohmart 1996).

The allotments within the Snake/Pine AMP have been carefully managed in the past to prevent or minimize impacts to fish and fish habitat. Monitoring data (Existing Condition Report) shows that on a landscape scale, fish habitat with the Snake/Pine AMP is in good condition. There are few problem areas identified through surveys or observations that suggest livestock grazing is causing habitat degradation. According to PFC surveys, past land management especially mining has caused conditions within the North Pine allotment that would likely not improve at an accelerated rate, even with the removal of livestock grazing. The potential areas where accelerated recovery could occur under alternative 1 are those areas that are accessible to livestock and those Rosgen stream types that are more sensitive to disturbance.

Alternatives 2 and 3

The Snake/Pine AMP May Impact Individual redband trout and their Habitat (MIIH), but would not likely contribute toward federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species. Impacts to redband trout may occur as a result of potential livestock trout redd interactions.

113

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects reach of Smith Creek. A total of 20,371 cattle locations were logged for the three years during this two week period. Of these, 36 locations included the stream channel (0.2%) and 61 locations (0.3%) included the area within 30 meters of the channel. This clearly shows that the potential for direct impacts (redd trampling) to spawning steelhead is extremely low. During this early season of use, forage quality in the uplands is extremely high, and cattle are widely dispersed.

The McGraw Creek population of redband is the only known isolated population within the Snake/Pine AMP. The FS will minimize access to portions of McGraw Creek located on FS lands, during the spawning season and until emergence (July 1) by implementing low-impact management techniques like riding, herding and salting. However, field visits by FS staff found that the majority of access by cattle occurs on a parcel of private land located 2 miles upstream of McGraw Creek’s confluence with the Snake River, which is within this population’s habitat distribution. This 160 acre parcel of land is easily accessible and attractive to cattle because of its location on flatter terrain and its water availability. Approximately, 0.3 miles of McGraw Creek is contained within this private land. The early spawning behavior of redband in addition to the preference of uplands by cattle during early season should reduce potential effects to redds prior to emergence.

Western Ridge Mussel (Gonidea angulata)

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would have No Impact on Individual western ridge mussels and their habitat (NI), watershed and aquatic habitat conditions would likely remain in their current condition. Current habitat conditions in the SPRAA are not likely limiting for western ridge mussels.

Alternatives 2 and 3

The Snake/Pine AMP May Impact Individual Western Ridge Mussel and their Habitat (MIIH), but would not likely contribute toward federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species. Impacts to Western Ridge Mussel may occur as a result of immeasurable increases in fine sediment.

Current levels of fine sediment in streams surveyed within the SPRAA (North Pine and McGraw) are below the 20 percent threshold used to indicate adverse impacts to salmonids and other aquatic species. In these areas short term potential increases in fine sediment from grazing activities are unlikely to result in measurable increases in fine sediment in streams within the SPRAA.

Impacts from activities proposed under alternatives 2 and 3 are unlikely to result in degradation of habitat for western ridge mussels. Potential effects would be minimized by meeting INFISH Standards and Guidelines, utilization standards, C&T trend monitoring, herding, placement of salt, off-site water sources, fencing, achievement of resource objectives and adaptive management would restrict the time cattle spend in stream and riparian areas. These actions would help prevent the removal of key hydric stabilizers needed for streambank stabilization to

114

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects prevent channel widening, the removal of shrubs that provide streamshade, prevent sedimentation to the stream channel, promote streambank building, maintain or restore riparian areas, and minimize or prevent the amount of feces and urine that could impact water quality.

Shortfaced Lanx (Fisherola nuttalli) Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would have No Impact on Individual shortfaced lanx and their habitat (NI), watershed and aquatic habitat conditions would likely remain in their current condition. Current habitat conditions in the SPRAA are not likely limiting for shortfaced lanx.

Alternatives 2 and 3

The Snake/Pine AMP May Impact Individual Shortfaced lanx and their Habitat (MIIH), but would not likely contribute toward federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species. Impacts to shortfaced lanx may occur as a result of immeasurable increases in fine sediment.

Impacts from activities proposed under alternatives 2 and 3 are unlikely to result in degradation of habitat for shortfaced lanx. Off-site water sources, fencing, achievement of resource objectives and adaptive management would help prevent the removal of key hydric stabilizers needed for streambank stabilization to prevent channel widening, the removal of shrubs that provide streamshade, prevent sedimentation to the stream channel, promote streambank building, maintain or restore riparian areas, and minimize or prevent the amount of feces and urine that could impact water quality.

Columbia Pebblesnail (Flumincola fuscus)

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would have No Impact on Individual Columbia pebblesnail and their habitat (NI), watershed and aquatic habitat conditions would likely remain in their current condition. Current aquatic habitat conditions in the analysis area are not likely limiting for Columbia pebblesnails.

Alternatives 2 and 3

The Snake/Pine AMP May Impact Individual Columbia pebblesnails and their Habitat (MIIH), but would not likely contribute toward federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species. Impacts to Columbia pebblesnails may occur as a result of immeasurable increases in fine sediment.

Current levels of fine sediment in streams surveyed within the SPRAA (North Pine and McGraw) are below the 20 percent threshold used to indicate adverse impacts to salmonids and other

115

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects aquatic species. In these areas short term potential increases in fine sediment from grazing activities are unlikely to result in measurable increases in fine sediment in streams within the SPRAA.

Impacts from activities proposed under alternatives 2 and 3 are unlikely to result in degradation of habitat for Columbia pebblesnail. Potential effects would be minimized by meeting INFISH Standards and Guidelines, utilization standards, C&T trend monitoring, herding, and placement of salt. Off-site water sources, fencing, achievement of resource objectives and adaptive management would help prevent the removal of key hydric stabilizers needed for streambank stabilization to prevent channel widening, the removal of shrubs that provide streamshade, prevent sedimentation to the stream channel, promote streambank building, maintain or restore riparian areas, and minimize or prevent the amount of feces and urine that could impact water quality.

Aquatic Management Indicator Species Analysis The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan identifies two fish species as Management Indicator Species (MIS). These include the redband /rainbow trout and steelhead (USDA 1990). These species were selected as they were considered to be good indicators of the maintenance and quality of instream habitats. These habitats were identified as high quality water and fishery habitat.

The NFMA regulations require that “fish and wildlife habitat be managed to maintain viable populations of existing…species in the planning area.” To ensure that these viable populations are maintained, the Pacific Northwest Region of the Forest Service has identified management requirements for a number species within the region. These Management Indicator Species are emphasized either because of their status under ESA or because their populations can be used as an indicator of the health of a specific type of habitat (USDA 1990).

Riparian ecosystems occur at the margins of standing and flowing water, including intermittent stream channels, ephemeral ponds, and wetlands. The aquatic MIS were selected to indicate healthy stream and riparian ecosystems across the landscape. Attributes of a healthy aquatic ecosystem includes: cold and clean water; clean channel substrates; stable streambanks; healthy streamside vegetation; complex channel habitat created by large wood, cobbles, boulders, streamside vegetation, and undercut banks; deep pools; and waterways free of barriers. Healthy riparian areas maintain adequate temperature regulation, nutrient cycles, natural erosion rates, and provide for instream wood recruitment.

The confirmed fish bearing stream systems in the SPRAA are North Pine, Duck, Lonesome, Doe, McGraw, Spring, and Thirty-two Point Creeks, although seasonal use is suspected in many other streams. Habitat for redband and steelhead exists within or is adjacent to the project area and is included in the analysis area. Table 3-32 below describes the MIS, the habitat they represent, and whether they are present in the project analysis area.

Table 3-32. MIS and habitat description for the SPRAA. Species Habitat Present Present MIS Habitat Description in Analysis Area in Analysis

116

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Area

Rainbow Trout/ Yes Yes Redband Trout Water quality/ Fish Habitat Steelhead Yes No

In general, the aquatic MIS selected for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest have similar stream and riparian ecosystem requirements. Because the habitat requirements for each species are generally similar and often overlap, they were collectively chosen to represent healthy stream and riparian ecosystems.

Methods used to document fish distribution include field presence/absence surveys, aquatic inventory surveys, escapement data and redd surveys. The origin of this data has come from several sources including Forest Service watershed baseline updates, Forest Service Level II stream survey reports on fish-bearing streams based on the Hankin and Reeves method of stream survey and the State of Oregon Streamnet fish distribution database. Geographic Information System data (GIS) catalogues miles of MIS distribution by fish species. Only presence/absence surveys have been completed for redband trout/rainbow trout in the project area.

Steelhead – The SPRAA is upstream of Hells Canyon Dam which lacks fish passage. The construction of the dam ended the movement of anadromous fish upstream. There are no steelhead or steelhead Designated Critical Habitat (DCH) found in the Snake/Pine AMP. There are no expected downstream cumulative effects for steelhead or their DCH and they will not be discussed further.

Redband/Rainbow Trout – Redband trout are sensitive to changes in water quality and habitat. Adult redband trout are generally associated with pool habitat, although other life stages require a wide array of habitats for rearing, hiding, feeding and resting. Pool habitat is important refugia during low water periods. An increase in sediment in the stream channel lowers spawning success and reduces the quality and quantity of pool habitat. Other important habitat features include healthy riparian vegetation, undercut banks and large wood debris. The Wallowa- Whitman National Forest is utilizing this fish/habitat relationship to provide the basis for assessment of redband trout populations for the purposes of MIS assessment.

Habitat Condition – Wallowa-Whitman National Forest has completed Forest Service Region 6 Stream Surveys in fish-bearing streams in the SPRAA. The stream survey protocol (Hankin and Reeves survey methodology) guides collection of field data for stream channels, riparian vegetation, and fish presence. Data collected from these surveys are then rated using habitat indicator benchmarks developed by NMFS and FWS. Table 3-16 in the Fish Existing Condition section shows stream survey data. In the following paragraphs, measured habitat data is summarized.

North Pine Creek- Habitat conditions range from poor to good. There are high road densities in the subwatershed, low pool frequency, lack of LWD, presence of a fish barrier and lack of riparian vegetation that rate in poor condition. North Pine Creek’s streambank stability and levels of fine sediment are in good condition.

117

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Table 3-33. MIS habitat summary for North Pine Creek Habitat Element Value Rating

Road Density ~3.3mi/mi2 Not Properly Functioning Fine Sediment (<6mm) 7.7% Properly Functioning Temperatures nd* nd* Streambank Stability High (80-100%)** Properly Functioning Pool Frequency/Quality 69 pools/mile Functioning at Risk Large Wood 4 LWD/mile Not Properly Functioning Past mining has incised Riparian Vegetation channel and led to a Functioning at Risk decline in riparian species Fish Barrier One culvert Functioning at Risk *nd = no data available **District fish biologist, pers. obs. 2012

Duck Creek- Habitat conditions in Duck Creek range from poor to good. There are high road densities in the subwatershed, high stream temperatures and low pool frequency. Streambank stability, LWD, riparian vegetation and fish barrier are rated in good condition.

Table 3-34. MIS habitat summary for Duck Creek. Habitat Element Value Rating

Road Density ~3.3mi/mi2 Not Properly Functioning Fine Sediment (<6mm) nd* nd* Temperatures 65.7, 68.4, 71, 69.2°F Functioning at Risk Streambank Stability High (80-100%)** Properly Functioning Pool Frequency/Quality 28 pools/mile Not Properly Functioning Large Wood 44 LWD/mile Properly Functioning % of riparian vegetation- Riparian Vegetation Properly Functioning ground cover is high Fish Barrier None Properly Functioning *nd = no data available **District fish biologist, pers. obs. 2012

McGraw Creek - Habitat conditions in McGraw Creek range from poor to good. Low pool frequency, fine sediment and low streambank stability are rated in poor condition. However, there is a very low road density in this subwatershed. LWD and fish barriers are rated as being in good condition.

118

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Table 3-35. MIS habitat summary for McGraw Creek. Habitat Element Value Rating

Road Density ~0.1mi/mi2 Properly Functioning Fine Sediment (<6mm) 15% Functioning at Risk Temperatures nd* nd* Erosion caused by flood Streambank Stability Functioning at Risk events** Pool Frequency/Quality 34 pools/mile Not Properly Functioning Large Wood 20 LWD/mile Properly Functioning Unstable banks from large flood events inhibiting the Riparian Vegetation regrowth of riparian Functioning at Risk vegetation in the lower reaches. Fish Barrier None Properly Functioning *nd = no data available **District fish biologist, pers. obs. 2012

Table 3-36. MIS distribution in the project area in relation to the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest range. Forest MIS in Proportion of MIS MIS Distribution Analysis habitat in Project Area (mi)* Area (mi) out of total on Forest Rainbow Trout/ Redband Trout 1310 32 2% Steelhead 990 0 0% *Miles calculated for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

Redband trout spawn, rear, incubate and emerge from gravels at the same time as steelhead. Redband trout spawning occurs March through May, with the peak occurring in late-April and May. The eggs have a short incubation period, one to two months depending on water temperature and fry emerge from redds from May through June. MIS life stages present in the project area include juvenile, adult, and eggs.

DelCurto et al. (2000) determined cattle locations from the Starkey Projects Loran telemetry system, to determine relative use of creek bottoms and the potential for direct impacts (trampling) to spawning steelhead. The cattle locations summarized here are those from years 1991, 1993, and 1995, during the period from turn-out approximately 6/15 to 7/1. Cattle were monitored 24 hours a day. The streams involved are the reach of Meadow Creek from the Meadow Creek riparian exclosure to the boundary of the Experimental Forest, and the entire reach of Smith Creek. A total of 20,371 cattle locations were logged for the three years during this two week period. Of these, 36 locations included the stream channel (0.2%) and 61 locations (0.3%) included the area within 30 meters of the channel. This clearly shows that the potential for direct impacts to spawning steelhead is extremely low. During this early season of use, forage quality in the uplands is extremely high, and cattle are widely dispersed.

119

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

The McGraw Creek population of redband is the only known isolated population within the Snake/Pine AMP. The FS will minimize access to portions of McGraw Creek located on FS lands, during the spawning season and until emergence (July 1) by implementing low-impact management techniques like riding, herding and salting. However, field visits by FS staff found that the majority of access by cattle occurs on a parcel of private land located 2 miles upstream of McGraw Creek’s confluence with the Snake River, which is within this population’s habitat distribution. This 160 acre parcel of land is easily accessible and attractive to cattle because of its location on flatter terrain and its water availability. Approximately, 0.3 miles of McGraw is contained within this private land. The early spawning behavior of redband in addition to the preference of uplands by cattle during early season should reduce potential effects to redds prior to emergence.

Snake/Pine AMP would incorporate a variety of management techniques to uniformly distribute cattle across allotments and minimize or prevent use in riparian areas in streams currently within Snake/Pine AMP. Utilization standards, off-site water sources, placement of salt, low stress herding, achievement of resource objectives, and adaptive management would restrict the time cattle spend in stream and riparian areas. These actions will help prevent the removal of key hydric stabilizers needed for streambank stabilization to prevent channel widening, prevent the removal of shrubs that provide streamshade, prevent sedimentation to the stream channel, promote streambank building, maintain or restore riparian areas, and minimize or prevent the amount of feces and urine that could impact water quality. See Analysis of Effects on Fisheries and Watershed Resources for direct and indirect effects to fish and fish habitat.

Effects to Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs)

Alternative 1

The elimination of grazing in the Snake/Pine allotments would remove the potential for effects to INFISH RMOs. Attainment of RMOs may be achieved at a greater rate than under continued grazing since any risk of effects to RMOs as a result of grazing would be removed. Other legacy influences will continue to affect conditions within the SPRAA.

Alternatives 2 and 3

The majority of stream and riparian areas are not accessible to cattle; therefore RMOs would be maintained or enhanced at the landscape scale for which the INFISH RMOs are based. Off-site water sources, placement of salt, herding, monitoring, achievement of resource objectives and adaptive management will prevent the risk of removing key hydric stabilizers (shrubs) that could lead to increase in the width to depth ratio. These actions will help prevent the removal of key hydric stabilizers needed for streambank stability to prevent channel widening, prevent the removal of stream shade and prevent sedimentation to the stream channel. This would maintain or enhance riparian areas and move RMOs in a desired direction at a near natural rate of recovery. All components of the Snake/Pine AMP would prevent degradation of the areas

120

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects accessible to cattle where potential effects could occur. Implementation of alternatives 2 and 3 would prevent degradation of the areas accessible to cattle where potential effects could occur. Implementation of alternatives 2 and 3 would not retard the attainment of RMOs.

Landscape-scale RMOs describing good habitat for inland native fish were developed using stream inventory data for pool frequency, large woody debris, bank stability, and width to depth ratio. State water quality standards were used to define favorable water temperatures.

Pool Frequency: (varies by wetted width) Wetted width in feet: 10 20 25 50 75 100 125 150 Number of pools per mile: 96 56 47 26 23 18 14 12

Water Temperature: Compliance with state water quality standards Large Woody Debris: >20 pieces per mile; >12 inches diameter; 35 foot length Bank Stability: >80 percent stable Width/Depth Ratio: <10, mean wetted width divided by mean depth Lower Bank Angle: >75 percent of the banks with <90 degree angle (i.e. undercut)

Pool Frequency Pool frequencies would not be reduced. Maintaining and/or restoring streambank stability would prevent changes in stream channel morphology (channel widening), and restricting the time livestock spend in stream and riparian areas would prevent sedimentation to the stream channel.

Water Temperature

McGraw Creek has only one year’s worth of temperature data. The temperature was below the ODEQ standard. The temperature standard for McGraw Creek is 68°F for redband use. McGraw Creek is meeting the temperature RMO.

Duck Creek is not meeting the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) water quality standards for stream temperature standards. The temperature standard for Duck Creek is 53.6°F for bull trout spawning and rearing. Duck Creek is a Rosgen B channel types where shrubs are the key hydric stabilizer and are also the dominant riparian vegetation type. If there is sustained recruitment of shrubs and trees, an area will maintain or eventually support appropriate amounts of woody plants to provide a naturally functioning system (Winward 2000). It is assumed that if management is such that sustained recruitment is progress, eventually that area will support appropriate amounts of woody species needed to provide a naturally functioning complex.

Meeting utilization standards will sustain recruitment of shrubs and trees, maintain overall plant health, and will lead to the appropriate amounts of woody plants to provide a naturally functioning system. Meeting utilization standards for shrubs will prevent heavy to extreme grazing that could lead to increases in stream temperature.

The SPRAA will incorporate a variety of management techniques to distribute livestock across allotments and minimize or prevent use in riparian areas. Off-site water sources, placement of salt, herding, monitoring, achievement of resource objectives and adaptive management will prevent the risk of removing key hydric stabilizers (shrubs) that could lead to increase in the width to depth ratio.

121

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Large Woody Debris Cattle grazing will not increase or decrease the current levels of large wood or affect future recruitment of large wood to the stream channel.

Streambank Stability The use of utilization standards, herding, salt placement, and alternate water sources, would restrict the time livestock spend in the riparian area and prevent removal of key hydric stabilizers needed for streambank stability.

Lower Bank Angle The use of utilization standards, herding, salt placement, and alternate water sources, would prevent removal of key hydric stabilizers needed for streambank stability. Ensuring stable streambanks would prevent impacts to the lower bank angle (undercut streambanks).

Width to Depth Ratio North Pine and Duck Creek had width to depth ratios that exceeded the RMO of <10. However, the width to depth ratios for North Pine and Duck Creek are in the expected range of Rosgen stream types (Rosgen 1996). Both streams are Rosgen B channel types where shrubs are the key hydric stabilizer and are also the dominant vegetation type.

If there is sustained recruitment of shrubs and trees, an area will maintain or eventually support appropriate amounts of woody plants to provide a naturally functioning system (Winward 2000). Removal of the key hydric stabilizer (shrubs) could lead to increases in the width to depth ratio. The SPRAA incorporates a variety of management techniques to distribute livestock across allotments and minimize or prevent use in riparian areas. Off-site water sources, placement of salt, herding, monitoring, achievement of resource objectives and adaptive management will lower the risk of removing key hydric stabilizers (shrubs) that could lead to increase in the width to depth ratio.

Climate Change

1) Higher flows during the winter and spring, and lower flow during the summer and fall. 2) More precipitation and warmer temperatures during the winter resulting in more rain, less snow pack accumulation and therefore increased wintertime runoff. 3) Less summertime precipitation and higher summer-time temperatures and evapotranspiration resulting in decreased summertime flows. 4) Peak spring flows are expected to be earlier compared to current runoff patterns.

122

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Adaptive management would modify grazing operations when progress towards achieving the desired conditions is not being made. This type of management would aid in maintaining and restoring stream and riparian conditions with the changing climate.

Cumulative Effects

Potential cumulative effects are analyzed by considering the effects of proposed activities additively with any effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that overlap in time and space. The cumulative effect for past actions has been described in the existing condition for this analysis area. Past actions relevant to aquatic species are grazing, timber harvest, fire suppression, fuels management, and road construction. For the Snake/Pine AMP, the subwatersheds where allotments are located are the cumulative effects analysis area for aquatic resources. This is the area cumulative effects may occur.

Effects from past management activities and natural events in the analysis area such as timber harvest, road construction, grazing activities and floods are reflected in the current condition of aquatic and riparian habitats. These conditions include reduced pool frequency, increased width to depth ratios, removal of streamside conifers reducing the recruitment of large wood to stream channels, increase in sediment yield, decreased riparian vegetation, plant diversity and vigor, increased cattle access to streams and riparian areas via roads, altered stream flows and elevated stream temperatures. Table 3-37 below is the cumulative effect determination table that identifies the actions with a potential cumulative effect and whether that cumulative effect is measurable at the subwatershed scale.

Table 3-37. Present and Reasonably foreseeable future actions within the SPRAA. Project or Overlap Risk of Rationale Action Time Space Cumulative Effect?

Roads are a contributor of sediment yield to stream systems. Roads also provide cattle easy access to streams and riparian areas resulting in potential cumulative Road effect. Data and observations from the Yes Yes Low Maintenance North Pine allotment show little cattle use of riparian areas even with the high road density. Snake River allotment has a low road density because of its location within the Hells Canyon NRA. Snowmobile Over the snow activities do not impact water No Yes None Routes quality or fisheries resources. Over the snow activities do not impact water Sled Dog Races No Yes None quality or fisheries resources. The area does not have many trails in riparian Trail Use and Yes Yes None areas and would have little impacts to Maintenance fisheries. The potential for cumulative effects on 1402 acres fisheries from past timber harvests is Past Harvest on North No None mainly from sediment. The past harvests Activities Pine had INFISH standards and guidelines and allotment BMPs to prevent or minimize sediment

123

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Project or Overlap Risk of Rationale Action Time Space Cumulative Effect?

yield to streams.

The potential for cumulative effects on fisheries from future timber harvests is Puderbaugh 3 harvest mainly from sediment. The past harvests Fuels units on had INFISH standards and guidelines and Yes None Reduction North Pine BMP to prevent or minimize sediment Project allotment yield to streams. This action will be analyzed under NEPA/ESA in future federal documents. If a large fire occurs in the SPRAA and is not Large Fires and contained it may contribute sediment to Wildfire Yes Yes Yes the streams. The amount of sediment Suppression would be low for many areas in the (ongoing) SPRAA as there are limited fuels. The area does not have many trails/camps in Outfitting Yes Yes None riparian areas and would have little (ongoing) impacts to fisheries. Dispersed and The area does not have many trails/camps in Developed riparian areas and would have little Yes Yes None Recreation impacts to fisheries. (ongoing) Big-Game The area does not have many trails in riparian Hunting Yes Yes None areas and would have little impacts to (ongoing) fisheries. No mining claims are active, therefore they would not add to cumulative effects. Mining No Yes None However, historical mining has created poor channel condition, particularly in North Pine Creek. Field visits by FS staff found that the majority of access to McGraw Creek by cattle occurs on a parcel of private land located 2 miles upstream of McGraw Creek’s confluence with the Snake River, which is within this population’s habitat distribution. This 160 acre parcel of land is easily Private Land accessible and attractive to cattle because Yes No Low Grazing of its location on flatter terrain and its water availability. Approximately, 0.3 miles of McGraw is contained within this private land. The early spawning behavior of redband in addition to the preference of uplands by cattle during early season should reduce potential effects to redds prior to emergence.

124

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Summary of Effects Determinations for Aquatic Species

The following is an occurrence matrix of aquatic species with special management status in the SPRAA and effects determinations:

Effects Scientific Occurrence Determination Common Name Status Name in SPRAA Alts 2 Alt 1 & 3 Salvelinus ESA CR Bull Trout confluentus Threatened Not Present NE NE CR Bull Trout-DCH Designated Present NLAA NLAA R6 Sensitive, Inland Redband Onchorynchus WWNF Trout mykiss MIS Present NI MIIH Western Ridge Gonidea R-6 Habitat Mussel angulata Sensitive Present NI MIIH Fisherola R-6 Habitat Shortfaced Lanx nuttalli Sensitive Present NI MIIH Columbia Flumincola R-6 Habitat Pebblesnail fuscus Sensitive Present NI MIIH Effects Determinations: NI = No Impact, MIIH = May Impact Individuals or Habitat, NE = No Effect, NLAA = Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Consistency with Laws, Regulations and Policy

Alternatives 2 and 3

See Appendix B (Consistency Review) for a detailed description of how alternatives 2 and 3 respond to direction specific to grazing included in the amended Forest Plan and CMP.

Forest Plan and INFISH Amendment Alternatives 2 and 3 are consistent with the WWNF Forest Plan including the 1995 INFISH amendment. The proposed activities are consistent with all Forest Plan Watershed and INFISH standards and guidelines.

The Fisheries specialist report satisfies requirements of Forest Service Manual 2672.4 requiring the Forest Service to review all planned, funded, executed or permitted programs and activities for possible effects on proposed, endangered, threatened or sensitive species by completing a

125

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Biological Evaluation (BE). The BE process is intended to review the SPRAA in sufficient detail to determine effects of alternatives on species in this evaluation and ensure proposed management actions would not:

 Likely jeopardize the continued existence, or cause adverse modification of habitat, for a species that is proposed (P) or listed as endangered (E) or threatened (T) by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service or NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service; or  Contribute to the loss of viability for species listed as sensitive (S) by USDA Forest Service, Region 6, or any native or desired, non-native species; nor cause any species to more toward federal listing (FSM 3672.4).

INFISH established explicit goals and objectives for inland native fish habitat condition and function. INFISH requires that management activities not retard the near natural rate of recovery of riparian and aquatic habitats. By following INFISH standards and guidelines and design criteria specific to this project, it is believed that irretrievable commitment of this resource will be avoided. Impacts to WWNF Forest Plan MIS fish species (redband) were analyzed for the SPRAA.

Hells Canyon NRA Comprehensive Management Plan (HCNRA CMP) Alternatives 2 and 3 would meet Forest Plan and HCNRA CMP goals, desired future conditions and objectives because livestock would be managed on the allotments utilizing adaptive management practices, protection measures, monitoring (long and short term) to address any site-specific issues as they are identified.

Incomplete or Unavailable Information Current stream survey data to determine if INFISH RMOs are being achieved are not available for a number of streams in the SPRAA. This lack of information was not critical for analysis of effects to aquatic habitat because alternate information for habitat was available. The alternate information included information gathered and observations made during PFC assessments, MIMs monitoring, PIBO monitoring, ODFW fish habitat surveys, Idaho Power fish surveys and FS staff observations made of stream habitat conditions during field reconnaissance. Additionally, the majority of stream reaches are located in areas that are inaccessible to livestock.

Water temperature has not been monitored in the majority of streams within the SPRAA. This lack of information was not critical for the analysis of effects to aquatic habitat because alternate information was available. Based on observations made during PFC assessment and field reconnaissance, current management activities (including livestock grazing) do not appear to be having large impacts to stream shading.

Information on spawning areas used by redband trout is not available. To estimate spawning habitat for redband trout, data from Streamnet was used, as well as WWNF fish distribution information, Idaho Power fish distribution information and ODFW information.

126

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Map 11. Fish Distribution and Critical Habitat

*Note - IPC distribution data was not available in GIS.

127

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Hydrology

Introduction

This section describes the watershed, riparian, and stream existing conditions, and analysis of effects on riparian and stream resources on grazing allotments in the SPRAA. The description of riparian and stream resources along with the analysis of the expected and potential effects were assessed using field surveys and professional judgment. Site visits to each allotment and Properly Functioning Condition (PFC) surveys were conducted during the summers of 1997, and 2009. Only those acres under National Forest ownership are considered in this analysis. Further information regarding RMOs is found in the Fisheries sections.

The Snake River, North Pine and Double Pine allotments are analyzed together. They share some similarities. All are within the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (HCRNA); relatively proximal to each other, and share some bio/physical characteristics. Streams and riparian resources are addressed with respect to each allotment boundary. The analysis area for hydrology is the entire area managed for livestock grazing within the North Pine, Double Pine and Snake River allotments.

Regulatory Framework

Federal and state laws, policies and regulations control the activities on National Forest system lands, including the Clean Water Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Section 208 of the 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Public Law 92-500) specifically mandated identification and control of non-point source pollution.

The Clean Water Act authorizes states to develop water quality standards to protect beneficial uses. Beneficial uses for waters within SPRAA include livestock watering, resident fish, and aquatic life. Streams in the SPRAA have water quality standards and requirements set by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). For non-point sources of pollution, a Memorandum of Understanding exists between the Forest Service and ODEQ that allows Best Management Practices (BMPs) to act as the “performance standard” for meeting water quality standards. Potential water quality effects from livestock grazing are considered non-point sources. No decrease in water quality is allowable as a result of the implementation of this project.

Clean Water Act Section 303(d) directed the States of Oregon and Idaho to list Water Quality Limited Waterbodies (303(d) listed streams) and develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) and Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP) to control the non-point source pollutant causing loss of beneficial uses. No streams within the SPRAA are 303(d) listed.

Implementation guidelines from the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan, 1990), the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area CMP (2003), and the 1995 INFISH Forest Plan amendment, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Watershed Management Practices Guide for Achieving Soil and Water Objectives (USDA 1988), and the Protection Measures in Chapter 2, are included in this analysis.

Forest Plan Direction for riparian areas and water resources

128

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

The WWNF Forest Plan provides direction for management of all NFS lands within the SPRAA. The following goals address water resources:

 Soil and Water: Goal – To maintain and enhance soil productivity, water quality, and water quantity and to meet or exceed State water quality standards, and to acquire water rights for water uses under State law (Forest Plan, p. 4-1).  Watershed: Goal – To maintain or enhance the unique and valuable characteristics of riparian areas and to maintain improve water quality, streamflows, wildlife habitat, and fish habitat. Design and conduct all management activities in all streamside management units to maintain or improve water quality and associated beneficial uses in SMU Class I and II streams. Management indicator species for riparian habitat include steelhead and resident trout (Forest Plan, p. 4-22).  The Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) amended the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan in 1995 (USDA 1995). Discussion of INFISH Standards, Guidelines, and Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) are covered in the Fisheries Specialist Report.  The Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan (HCNRA CMP) provides specific guidance for protection of soil and water resources within the Hells Canyon Recreation Area (Table 3-39).

Table 3-38. The following Forest Plan standards and guidelines apply to proposed activities within the SPRAA. Number Emphasis Standard and Guideline Water quality/fish 1 Priority of water quality/fish habitat over other uses habitat 2 Water quality Application and monitoring of BMPs 7 Fish habitat Prevent measureable increases in stream temperature Water quality/fish 8 Protect or enhance channel stability habitat Water quality/fish 9 Maintain/enhance streambank vegetation and large woody debris habitat Water 10 quality/channel Give adversely affected areas high priority for treatment stability Watershed 11 Perform cumulative effect analyses function 14 Floodplains Analyze any potential effects to floodplains 17 Wetlands Analyze any potential effects to wetlands

The HCNRA CMP prescribes maintaining conditions consistent with the following hydrology and soils-related standards and guidelines (FEIS Volume 2 Appendix C):

Table 3-39. HCNRA CMP standards and guidelines for hydrology and soils Number Emphasis Standard and Guideline Gra-O4: Soils/hydrology Evaluate annual impacts associated with livestock grazing (p. C-44). Soils/hydrology Unsuitable or not capable lands will not be allocated for grazing by Gra-S1: domestic livestock (p. C-44) Soils/hydrology AMP’s would establish site-specific rates of recovery to achieve goals Gra-S3: for ecological status, soil conditions, and riparian management objectives (p. C-46) Gra-G3: Soils/hydrology During the allotment planning process evaluate periodic rest and

129

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Number Emphasis Standard and Guideline deferred rotations grazing systems (p. C-49) Gra-S6: Soils/hydrology Implement Forest Plan Utilization Standards (p. C-47) Soils/hydrology Where feasible and desired, plan and implement restoration projects (p. Gra-G4: C-49) Soils/hydrology Range improvements would be designed and located to minimize their Gra-S7: impact on other resources (p. C-54) Hydrology Springs, seeps and other wetlands: ensure that management practices BUC- provide for protection, retentions or enhancement of water quality and O13: quantity (p. C-106) Hydrology Springs, seeps and other wetlands: Where springs are developed, BUC- ensure that the water source is protected from trampling damage (p. C- S21: 106) BUC- Hydrology Springs, seeps and other wetlands: protect undeveloped springs (p. C- G27: 106)

See Appendix B (Consistency Review) for a detailed description of how alternatives 1, 2 and 3 respond to direction specific to grazing included in the amended Forest Plan and CMP.

Hydrology - Existing Condition

The SPRAA is located in seven subwatersheds that drain into the Snake River/Brownlee Reservoir sub-basin. Table 3-40 displays the acres per allotment by subwatershed in the SPRAA.

Table 3-40. Allotment acres in 6th Field subwatersheds within Brownlee Reservoir Sub- basin Allotment Name HUC 6 Sub # HUC 6 Subwatershed Name Acres Double Pine 170502010703 Herman Creek-Snake River 3 Double Pine 170502010609 Lower North Pine Creek 13 Double Pine 170502010607 Upper North Pine Creek 1,713

North Pine 170601020104 Dry Creek-Imnaha River 40 North Pine 170502010703 Herman Creek-Snake River 561 North Pine 170502010608 Lake Fork Creek 12 North Pine 170502010607 Upper North Pine Creek 10,000

Snake River 170601020104 Dry Creek-Imnaha River 5 Snake River 170502010705 Hells Canyon Dam-Snake River 6,025 Snake River 170502010703 Herman Creek-Snake River 546 Snake River 170502010704 McGraw Creek-Snake River 7,568

Water Rights

130

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Two water rights exist within the project area, both owned by the US Forest Service for the purpose of livestock watering. Both are within McGraw Creek watershed. In addition to the filed water rights, exempt claims exist for permitted livestock use of water on US Forest Service lands.

Watershed Characteristics Landtype Associations (LTAs) represent a stratification of the landscape and provide details for watershed characteristics. Pertinent interpretations of inherent capabilities associated with individual LTAs are listed in the Hydrology specialist report. LTA attributes also provide useful insights in understanding how precipitation interacts with the landscape and routes its way through the watershed.

Elevations range from 3200 feet to 5500 feet on North Pine and Double Pine allotments, and 2000 feet to 6020 feet on the Snake River allotment. Average annual precipitation varies from 15 inches at lower elevations to over 30 inches at the highest elevation. Streams tend to exhibit flashy flow regimes with shallow depths to bedrock and steep slope gradients. Streams react very quickly to significant amounts of snowmelt, rain-on-snow and rainfall events. During baseflow periods in late summer and fall, many streams go dry especially where significant alluvial deposits are found. Groundwater sources (springs) are relatively rare across the landscapes offering very limited opportunities for developing off-stream water developments. Ephemeral draws without defined channels are also commonly found.

Conifers are typically the dominant vegetation outside of near-stream areas in RCHAs. Riparian vegetation such as near-stream willows, sedges, red-osier dogwood, cottonwood, and alders provide bank stability, shade, and nutrient inputs for streams. Upslope conifers typically provide shade and woody debris inputs to the channel and riparian area, creating a cooler microclimate near the channel that helps moderate increases in stream temperatures. Intermittent drainages have little to no riparian vegetation. Ephemeral draws often have no riparian vegetation associated with them.

Riparian-Stream Channel Function Channel function will be discussed in holistic terms including: stream stability; sediment transport; channel capacity during less than bankfull conditions; and interactions with floodplain or floodprone areas during greater than bankfull conditions. Benefits of channel function may include aquatic organism habitats and water storage/release within riparian zones. Channel function is an expression that integrates inherent watershed characteristics and any management effects. For that reason, channel functions serves as an excellent indicator for detecting direct, in-direct, and cumulative effects when analyzed at the proper watershed scale.

Methodologies for determining riparian/stream channel function Various methodologies for characterizing stream channel function and conditions exist, with three of them used in this analysis. The Rosgen methodology (Rosgen, 1996) can involve both qualitative (Level I) and quantitative (Level II and above) techniques for determining stream type. Stream types presented in this report were determined using Level I methods, based on field reconnaissance. The Rosgen methodology considers parameters that determine pattern (sinuosity, meanders); dimensions (bankfull width and depth, substrate composition, plus others); and profile (channel slope). Understanding the role these parameters play in characterizing stream type provides a basis to determine existing and potential condition, and sensitivities to management actions.

131

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

A coarse filter approach to predicting potential stream types utilizes landform attributes including valleybottom slope and width. Stream types help characterize sensitivity to management effects, or may even indicate a change in channel function if a shift has occurred. The following table displays the interrelationships between Level I stream types, landform, and possible management effects; allowing for identification of sensitive stream reaches.

Table 3-41. Level I Rosgen Stream Characteristics Valleybottom Potential Sensitivity to Stream Type Remarks Landform (slope Rosgen Stream Livestock Shift Risk & width) Type(s) Grazing Steep (>4%); A Low Not likely Steep, rocky streams narrow (<50’) with high stability Moderate (2-5%); B Moderate Low – Moderate, Pool-drop streams moderate with (50- under severe with some point bar 150’) conditions development Flat (<2%); Wide C and E High High, shift to F or The low gradient, (>100’) G most common meandering streams rely on vegetation for stability.

A second assessment methodology considered for the SPRAA was the Stream Reach Inventory and Channel Stability Evaluation developed mainly for forested stream types (Phankuch D, 1975). This methodology considers the interrelationships of channel form, vegetation and Large Woody Debris (LWD) when determining channel stability. These concepts apply very well to Rosgen A and B channel types, the dominant channel types within SPRAA. And further supports the resistance and resilience of the stream reaches to the effect of livestock grazing.

The following two maps display stream gradients for the major streams within SPRAA. A selection of the mapped streams having gradients >4% were field verified and found to be very stable Rosgen A type channels. The Rosgen A channels within SPRAA are very resistant to effects from livestock due to their rocky streambanks and bottom. In general, stream reaches most sensitive to effects from cattle will be those with relatively low gradient <4%.

Maps show the alternative which provides the best display of the entire allotment stream channels.

132

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Map 12. Stream Gradient Map North Pine

133

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Map 13. Stream Gradient Map Snake River

134

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Streamflow Regime The miles of perennial and intermittent streams are listed below in Table 3-42. Ephemeral channels are not accounted for in this table, as these draws without defined channels rarely flow water and do not exhibit riparian vegetation. Perennial streams within the allotments have narrow riparian areas and limited floodplains due to narrow valley bottoms and channel confinement. Where developed riparian areas exist, vegetation is predominantly willow/sedge, red osier dogwood, thimbleberry, alder or black cottonwood plant communities. Few springs and seeps exist within the SPRAA. Developed springs attract heavy use by livestock and wildlife.

The following table summarizes the flow regimes for streams within SPRAA. This table is based on National Hydrography Data (NHD) found in the corporate GIS database (accessed on May 16, 2013).

Table 3-42. Stream flow regimes

Allotment Perennial Stream Miles Intermittent Stream Miles Snake River 30.1 143.0 North Pine 13.6 87.2 Double Pine 0 18.5

North Pine Allotment Streams

As shown on Map 12, most channels are high gradient, with North Pine Creek and Duck Creek having substantial reaches of moderate gradient (2-4%) and Lonesome Creek having short reaches of moderate gradient. Both North Pine Creek and Duck Creek have roads along much of their length within the allotment. However, both of these streams were observed to receive low grazing pressure with rare exceptions. Of all streams, Duck Creek exhibits the most length with wider valleybottom areas offering some livestock forage near the stream. North Pine Creek exists within a confined, narrow valley bottom, with few riparian areas offering livestock forage. The remaining tributaries are steep, Rosgen A3 perennial channels with few areas of forage. These streams exhibit characteristics that are very resistant to any change from livestock due to their rocky nature. Legacy activities (mining, timber harvest, road building) are present and slowing recovery. Water quality appears to fully support beneficial uses associated with streams.

The following observations were made on 11-6-2012 by David Salo (Hydrologist, WWNF):

North Pine Creek: Within the allotment, a perennial Rosgen B3 stream type. Most of the channel does not exhibit any change or shift in Rosgen stream type or channel stability. This stream lies in close proximity to Forest Road (FR) 39 throughout much of its entire length. Within the allotment, the road effects are much less apparent, but do occur in a few short reaches which constrict the channel migration zone and reduces floodplain/floodprone access.

At the confluence of Jolly Creek, the stream flow is estimated at 2-3 cubic feet per second (cfs). Streambanks appear relatively stable, but the base of hillslopes/valley margins, show frequent evidence of sloughing (potentially exacerbated by the road location). There is very little

135

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects evidence of cattle use within the riparian zone. Some light utilization of reed canary grass was noted in the area of the Jolly Creek confluence on the west bank. Grazing activities are not currently affecting stream bank stability or existing riparian vegetation.

Jolly Creek: Stream type estimated as A3/B3 (steep, rocky). The stream does not exhibit any change or shift to Rosgen stream type or channel stability. Only a minor amount of riparian vegetation occurs at the confluence Jolly Creek with North Pine. Channel is not perennial throughout its length within the allotment. It is dry at FR 39 crossing down to confluence with North Pine Creek. However, about 200 yards above FR 39 crossing, flow was estimated at 10 gallon per minute (gpm).

Area has only minor amounts of forage south of creek, and there was no sign of utilization by cattle. As a result, grazing activities are not currently affecting stream bank stability or existing riparian vegetation.

Duck Creek: A very stable Rosgen B3 stream type. The stream within the allotment does not exhibit any change or shift to Rosgen stream type or channel stablility. The channel has abundant Large Woody Debris (LWD) and riparian vegetation. There are limited areas within the allotment where the valleybottom becomes relatively wider with available forage. The stream channel is stable. This is a perennial stream with an estimated flow of 3 cfs. Some past off-channel placer mining is evident below FR 6695. FR 66 may have minor impacts to stream function, but in general the road is located outside of the riparian zone.

Within the allotment, moderate levels of utilization was noted (ocular estimate of 30-40%) where the valleybottom becomes wider with available forage. The meadow areas associated with Duck Creek experience utilization levels higher than other riparian areas in the allotment. However, grazing activities are not currently affecting stream bank stability or existing riparian vegetation.

Doe Creek: A Rosgen B3 stream which resides entirely within a narrow, V-shaped valleybottom. The stream does not exhibit any change or shift to Rosgen stream type or channel stability. Above FR 39, there is an estimated flow of about 20 gpm. Vegetation is dominated by conifers with little to no riparian vegetation.

Cow use was noted along FR 3980 (above and outside of the riparian area). Grazing activities are not currently affecting stream bank stability or existing riparian vegetation as the V-shaped valleybottom disallows cattle use. Therefore, grazing activities are not currently affecting stream bank stability or existing riparian vegetation.

Deer Creek: A Rosgen A3 stream type. The stream does not exhibit a change or shift to Rosgen stream type or channel stability. Channel is mostly intermittent. Perennial flow is estimated at 10 gpm at the FR 66 crossing. Within this crossing area, the riparian vegetation consists of alder and conifers.

Some utilization was noted on a closed road and the associated skid trails about 0.6 miles above the confluence with Duck Creek, but outside the riparian area. As a result, grazing activities are not currently affecting stream bank stability or existing riparian vegetation.

136

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Lonesome Creek: A B3/4 Rosgen stream type. This stream does not exhibit any change or shift to Rosgen stream type or channel stability. The riparian vegetation consists of alder and conifer. Channel is perennial, and flow is estimated at ¼ cfs.

Cattle use along the stream is practically non-existent. The only apparent access for cattle is via a closed logging road that branches off FR 39. After this closed road crosses the creek it becomes less evident. As a result, grazing activities are not currently affecting stream bank stability or existing riparian vegetation.

Rock Spring: A perennial spring located at the very head of North Pine Creek, with a flow of about 1/10 gpm. Trough is located in T5S, R48E, Section 19. Very limited capability as a Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem (GDE), based on topography and flow rate. The spring area is not fenced. And the area above the spring has only minimal upland forage available due to poor soils.

Cow use noted at and above the spring. Existing riparian vegetation is utilized. Functionality of the GDE is being impacted by this use.

Proposed spring development near road 6695: A perennial spring in a somewhat isolated location. Limited capability as a GDE, based on topography and flow rate. Estimated flow rate of 1 gpm, topography allows for the development of an off-site trough location.

Wildlife and cattle use in the area. Functionality of the GDE is being impacted by this use.

Proposed spring development head of Herman Creek: A perennial spring located at the head of Herman Creek. Very limited capability as a GDE, based on topography and flow rate. Estimated flow rate of 1/10 gpm, topography allows for the development of an off-site trough location. This spring appears to have been partially developed in the past; it currently has a short pipe section in place.

There is wildlife, cattle, and recreation (dispersed camping) use in the area. Functionality of the GDE is being impacted by these uses.

Snake River Allotment Major Streams

Streams in this allotment all flow towards the Snake River (Hells Canyon Reservoir) in Hells Canyon. As shown on Map 13, most of these drainages are steep and straight with intermittent flow as a result of spring snowmelt or occasional intense summer thunderstorms. Some of these drainages have springs or seeps that may contribute flow to the channels during the summer. Others, such as McGraw and Spring Creeks, have perennial flow in sections of the channel. McGraw Creek is perennial in its upper reaches, but goes sub-surface late spring – early fall due to a thick sediment wedge at its mouth.

Streams within the allotment are typically high gradient (>4%) within narrow valley bottoms, typically Rosgen A types. Some inclusions of B type channels exist where streams encounter the mid-slope bench, which offers a relatively flatter longitudinal valley bottom profile for short distances. All streams exhibit characteristics that are very resistant to any change from livestock due to their rocky nature. A general theme of cow use tends to occur south of Buck Creek. Cattle tend to use Trail 1789 to access forage areas adjacent to the trail. It appears that watering by cattle occurs at the vicinity of stream crossings, with limited wandering up or

137

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects downstream beyond the actual crossing sites. Water quality appears to fully support beneficial uses associated with streams.

Individual streams discussed below were visited on 10-3-2012, by David Salo (Hydrologist, WWNF):

Buck Creek: A Rosgen A2/B2 channel type. This stream does not exhibit any change or shift to Rosgen stream type or channel stability. The stream has mostly intermittent flow regime with some riparian vegetation. Trail 1789 crosses a tributary to Buck Creek a short distance south of Buck Creek, which had a trace of flow.

No use from cattle noted on stream channel or riparian vegetation. Cow use along Trail 1789 noted for about ¼ mile north of the stream crossing but no further. However, grazing activities are not currently affecting stream bank stability or existing riparian vegetation.

Unnamed Creek between Buck and Squaw: A Rosgen A1/A2 channel type, bedrock/boulder. This stream does not exhibit any change or shift to Rosgen stream type or channel stability. At the Trail 1789 crossing, an estimated flow rate of ¼ gpm.

Cow use noted within 50 feet upstream of the crossing. Dry meadow along Trail 1789 south of the stream had about 60% utilization (ocular estimate) with thistle and other invasive/increasers. Grazing activities are not currently affecting stream bank stability or existing riparian vegetation.

Squaw Creek: A Rosgen A2/A3 channel (boulder/cobble). This stream does not exhibit any change or shift to Rosgen stream type or channel stability. Recent wildfire caused complete loss of overstory along the stream and south of the stream crossing. Brush and hardwood are established with re-growth up to 10 feet high. Estimated flow of 20 gpm, however, no fish were observed.

Cattle use on Trail 1789 is higher here than to the north. Localized affects (no more than 100 feet) at the stream crossing were noted. The pattern of use appears to be access via the Trail 1789 with some dispersed use along the corridor. However, grazing activities are not currently affecting the overall stream bank stability or existing riparian vegetation.

Hydrology - Effects Analysis

Introduction

The effects analysis considers any changes to riparian and stream channel function. The changes in management that could potentially affect riparian/stream channel function are timing and magnitude of livestock use (McInnis ML and McIver JD, 2009) and potential/existing Rosgen stream types. Studies of streams in Nevada show that Rosgen A and B stream types are much more resistant to change from livestock than other stream types (Myers and Swanson, 1992). Livestock are much less able to affect channel dimensions through bank alteration on streams with cobble/boulder substrate than streams with finer (smaller) substrate. Rosgen also rates streams in these terms as well (Rosgen, 1996). Streams with streambanks comprised of fine soil and poor plant communities (eg. Kentucky bluegrass) represent a much higher risk to alteration than similar stream types with deep-rooted stable plant communities

138

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

(Svoboda D and Bengeyfield P, 1998). Cattle can also affect riparian areas through over- utilization of stabilizing grasses and shrubs. Svoboda and Bengeyfield found that not only does above-ground plant vigor and productivity suffer, but eventually their ability to hold streambanks intact via their root systems will decrease.

The cumulative effects area for hydrology is the entire area managed for livestock grazing within the North Pine, Double Pine and Snake River allotments.

Any effects to water quality for streams within SPRAA will also be discussed. Livestock can increase sediment delivery to streams through alteration of soil and vegetation within riparian areas and possibly adjacent upland sites. Increases in coliform bacteria can occur when livestock occupy streams and streambank areas during defecation. If vegetation within riparian areas is sufficiently altered by livestock, maintaining natural stream temperatures can be affected by loss of shade. Where overstory vegetation (trees and/or tall shrubs) provides the dominant shade, cattle utilization will have little or no effect on temperature.

Livestock can affect GDEs through similar mechanisms as with riparian/stream areas, namely through utilization of vegetation and alteration of soils (compaction and shearing). Because GDEs within SPRAA do not have “springbrooks” (streams originating from a groundwater orifice) with developed streambanks, streambank alteration is less an issue.

Mitigation considered under action alternatives

Protection of water quality is achieved through the implementation of BMPs. The Forest Service requires that projects “meet…state requirements in accordance with the Clean Water Act…through planning, application, and monitoring of BMPs” (USDA Forest Service 1990). BMP’s are practices designed to reduce or eliminate non-point sources of water pollution. The goal of BMP use is to prevent degradation of water bodies. Appropriate BMPs designed for site-level application have been found to maintain or improve water quality and beneficial uses in range lands (Ellison, CA 2009).

BMP’s are required to be developed for project implementation. Project application BMP’s are contained in the Allotment Management Plan (AMP), Grazing Permit, Annual Operating Instructions (AOI), and the Forest Plan/INFISH Amendment.

Project BMP’s have the following goals: - design project to maintain or improve water quality - maintain channel stability - support beneficial uses (resident trout populations)

Project Implementation BMP’s include: - maximum number of cattle that can use the allotment - limits on time period of use - limits on shrub and other forage use - controls on livestock distribution in the allotment - maintenance and use of rangeland water improvements - prohibition from turning out livestock if the soil is too wet

139

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Direct/Indirect Effects Because streams and riparian areas are similar in all three allotments, with similar existing conditions and projected effects, all riparian/stream systems within SPRAA are considered together in the following discussions.

Alternative 1- No Grazing

This alternative removes all authorized grazing from SPRAA. All range developments currently in existence on the allotments would be abandoned. Subsequent NEPA decisions would need to be made regarding retention of any improvements (such as water developments) for other resource needs, and funding for maintenance would need to be secured. All interior fences and any water developments not needed for wildlife or other purposes would be removed.

Direct and Indirect Effect Under this alternative, no planned direct or indirect effects would occur as livestock grazing would not be authorized for these three allotments. However, some direct/indirect effects to soil and vegetation attributes of the GDEs are expected to continue to occur from wildlife and any unauthorized livestock use from adjacent allotment(s). The natural trend over time would be toward improvement of streamflow regime, wetland habitat, and water availability for wildlife.

With no grazing, stream temperature and water quality would be maintained or possibly improved at isolated sites where livestock have accessed streams. Because existing water quality already supports beneficial uses, no measurable improvement in water quality is expected.

Cumulative Effects Stream systems will continue to function at their current status. Very little change is expected because no management actions affecting stream function are expected in the future. The dominant management action affecting North Pine Creek is FR 39, as discussed in the existing condition. No changes to this road system are planned, so effects will remain static. GDEs affected by livestock will show improvement in condition with the removal of livestock use. The possible changes of watershed condition due to large wildfire events are very difficult to predict, and represent a “what-if” scenario. If a severe wildfire event did occur, changes to stream stability could result from higher water yield and sediment delivery. This alternative would provide for improvements to GDEs, stream function, water quality, and streamflow regime over time.

Alternative 2

This alternative represents the proposed action. Boundary fences will be constructed to better manage livestock use. Two springs in the North Pine allotment and one spring in the Snake River allotment will be developed to improve livestock distribution. Livestock access to McGraw Creek in Snake Pine allotment will be minimized during the spawning period of redband trout. Other management actions including utilization standards target improvement of upland vegetation condition. Allowable utilization on upland areas in unsatisfactory condition will initially be 35%.

140

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Direct and Indirect Effects: Under this alternative, management of livestock through fencing on the North Pine allotment may change use levels along streams. This may cause higher use levels within the allotment as cattle will not disperse to areas outside the allotment boundaries. It may also disallow cattle from surrounding allotments to migrate into the North Pine allotment, resulting in potential positive effects from decreased unauthorized grazing. Monitoring of utilization will determine what, if any, changes in livestock use occurs within the North Pine allotment. The risk of any effects on riparian/stream channel function is low due to the armored, rocky nature of streams and the lack of palatable forage on most stream reaches. Streams within North Pine allotment are expected to remain at their present level of function. No changes in effects to riparian/stream channel function is predicted on Snake River allotment, because the continuation of little or no cattle use of these areas is expected.

Development of the three springs will reduce the impacts from livestock at the spring source with a riparian fence exclosure, provide a clean water source (trough) for wildlife and livestock use outside of the GDE, and maintain habitat at the source.

A similar low grazing intensity level of riparian/stream areas as currently experienced should continue under this alternative. This means stream temperature and water quality would be maintained. Because existing water quality already supports beneficial uses, no measurable improvement in water quality is expected.

Cumulative Effects: Stream systems will continue to function at their current status, with no measureable direct or indirect effects. Also, no measurable change in other management actions (past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions) affecting stream function are expected in the future. The dominant management action affecting North Pine Creek is FR 39, as discussed in the existing condition. No changes to this road system are planned. GDEs affected by livestock will show improvement in condition, as improvement actions will help protect spring sources. The possible changes of watershed condition due to large wildfire events are very difficult to predict, and represent a “what-if” scenario. If a severe wildfire event did occur, changes to stream stability could result from higher water yield and sediment delivery. Thus, there will be no cumulative effects to stream function, water quality, or streamflow regime.

Alternative 3

Under this alternative the North Pine and Double Pine allotments are combined. A cycle of rest will be instituted every 4th year on both North Pine and Snake River allotments. Allowable utilization on upland areas in unsatisfactory condition will initially be 30%. The northern boundary of the Snake River allotment will be adjusted, moving it south to a ridge between Buck and Thirty-two Point Creeks. Two springs in the North Pine allotment and one spring in the Snake River allotment will be developed to improve livestock distribution.

Development of the three springs will reduce the impacts from livestock at the spring source with a riparian fence enclosure, provide a clean water source (trough) for wildlife and livestock use outside of the GDE, and maintain habitat at the source.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Similar to alternative 2, as livestock use of riparian/stream systems, and GDEs will be similar between alternative 2 and 3, but alternative 3 will have 5% less utilization of upland forage and a rest period every fourth year. Any improvements between alternative 2 and 3 will be immeasurable.

141

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Cumulative Effects: Similar to alternative 2 with immeasurable difference between alternatives 2 and 3. Thus, there will be no measureable cumulative effects to stream function, water quality, or streamflow regime.

Table 3-43. Cumulative Effects Analysis for SPRAA

Project or Overlap Cumulative Rationale Action Time Space Effect? Road 39 Reconstruction No None No impact Outside of allotments (2009) – outside Impact expected of project area Roads can be a contributor of sediment yield to stream systems. Roads in some areas may provide easier access for cattle to access streams, leading to a potential cumulative effect from grazing due to higher livestock concentrations. Road Use and Alternative 2 includes methods to Maintenance Yes Yes Yes disperse cattle to achieve better livestock (ongoing) distribution. This would help to avoid cumulative effects from livestock grazing where roads allow easy access to streams. Also, only 1.3 acres of roads are included in the allotments, therefore, the potential for a cumulative effect from roads in the allotments is minimal. Occur in winter when there is no grazing. Over the snow activities do not impact Snowmobile water quality or fisheries resources. Routes Yes Yes No Routes are usually maintained roads in (ongoing) summer and may have an impact on sediment in streams. Sled Dog Races No No No No impact. (ongoing) Trail networks can be a source of Trail Use and sediment to streams if not properly Maintenance Yes Yes Yes maintained. Little to no livestock use of (ongoing) these trails has been observed. 1.402 Impacts from past harvest on sediment Past Harvest acres on yield in project watersheds is low because Activities (see No North No very few acres of harvest has occurred table below) Pine (1,402 acres). allotment The highest potential for cumulative effects on watershed and fisheries 3 harvest resources as a result of current and future Puderbaugh units on timber harvest and grazing is from an Fuels Reduction Yes North No increase in sediment yield or increases in Project Pine stream peak flows. The extent would not allotment be detectable due to INFISH and PACFISH standards and guidelines and implementation of BMPs to prevent or

142

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Project or Overlap Cumulative Rationale Action Time Space Effect? minimize sediment yield to streams. The proposed actions for the allotments are methods for restricting the time cattle spend in stream and riparian areas and preventing or minimizing sediment yield to streams. Timber harvests are designed to minimize or prevent sediment yield over the life of the project, retain stream shade, and not retard the attainment of RMOs. Only 3 harvest units have been treated in the SPRAA allotments. Areas of prescribed fire recover quickly and are usually revegetated within one year. Present and future prescribed burning (over the next 5 years) within the analysis area would reduce impacts to Prescribed Yes Yes No water and fisheries resources by Burning preventing large catastrophic wildfires that could result in overstory mortality and severe soil damage resulting in sedimentation to stream channels. No direct ignition is allowed within RHCAs. Large wildfires can cause erosion and Large Fires and streamflow changes. A mitigation Wildfire Yes Yes Yes measure is included in alternative 2 and 3 Suppression to adjust grazing after wildfires (Chapter (ongoing) 2). Outfitting Yes Yes No No impact. (ongoing) Dispersed camping is scattered across the landscape and occurs on a seasonal Dispersed and basis. Dispersed camping within RHCAs Developed and streamside typically depends on road Yes Yes No Recreation access to sites. The majority of streams (ongoing) and riparian areas within the SPRAA do not support dispersed camping due to the lack of road access to these areas. Big-Game Hunting Yes Yes No No impact. (ongoing) Mining No No No None of the claims have filed a Plan of Operation and therefore would not add to cumulative effects. Private Land Yes No No Private land ownership is present within Activities and bordering parts of the allotments, and uses on these lands include roads, livestock pastures, minor timber harvest, and recreational uses.

143

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Table 3-44. Past Harvest Activities (All occurred on the North Pine Allotment) Project Year Acres Activity Broken Top 1986 257 Harvest Cold Grave 1986 562 Harvest Duck Creek 1991 568 Harvest Hawk Helix 1986 16 Harvest TOTAL 1,402

Consistency with Laws, Regulations and Policy

Management of the SPRAA allotments under alternatives 1, 2 and 3 (relative to Hydrologic resources) is consistent with both the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan (1990), the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area CMP (2003) because of the application of Best Management Practices, mitigation measures, monitoring, and INFISH riparian management goals and objectives. Livestock will would be managed on the allotments utilizing adaptive management practices, protection measures, monitoring (long and short term) to address any site-specific issues as they are identified. No alternative will cause a change or shift to Rosgen stream type, channel stability, or water quality.

Floodplains, Executive Order 11988 Executive Order (EO) 11988 requires the Forest Service to avoid “to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the ... occupation ... or modification of floodplains...”

The SPRAA range analysis is consistent with this EO because it does not propose to occupy or modify any floodplain.

Wetlands, Executive Order 11990 Executive Order (EO) 11990 requires the Forest Service to "avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the ... destruction or modification of wetlands."

The SPRAA range analysis is consistent with this EO because it does not propose to destroy or modify any wetland.

Clean Water Act Federal and state laws, policies and regulations control the activities on National Forest system lands, including the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Section 208 of the 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Public Law 92- 500) specifically mandated identification and control of non-point source pollution.

144

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Memorandum of Understanding exists between the Forest Service and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality that allows Best Management Practices (BMPs) to act as the “performance standard” for meeting water quality standards. Potential water quality effects from livestock grazing are considered non-point sources. No decrease in water quality is allowable as a result of the implementation of this project.

The implementation of alternatives 1, 2 or 3 would be consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act as described above. The current livestock management meets consistency with the Federal CWA and State Water Quality standards. Changes in livestock management proposed in this analysis would not result in any measurable changes to Beneficial Use, Rosgen stream type, channel stability, or water quality. BMPs will continue to effectively mitigate management activities.

145

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Soils ______

Introduction

This section describes the existing conditions, and analysis of effects of livestock grazing on soil resources in the SPRAA. Three assessments were used in support of the soil analysis for this project. These included long-term Condition and Trend monitoring plot soil stability ratings described in the Region 6 Forest Service Range Analysis and Management Handbook (USFS 1994), Soil condition data point intercept data analysis (Herrick et al. 2005) and Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health (IIRH)-Technical Reference 1734-6 (Herrick et al. 2009).

Regulatory Framework

Implementation guidelines from the HCNRA CMP and Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan, 1990), and the Protection Measures in Chapter 2, are included in this analysis.

The National Forest Management Act requires that soils not be irreversibly damaged (16 U.S.C. 1604(g) (3) (E)), with the goal of not substantially or permanently impairing the productivity of the land, (16 U.S.C. 1604(g) (3) (C)). Forest Plan and Forest Service Manual Direction (USDA Forest Service 1990) provide guidelines designed to meet these NFMA requirements.

Soils - Existing Condition

Soils within the SPRAA are generally grouped together into three categories based on relative amounts of volcanic ash influence. The general terms for these soil groups are 1) Volcanic ash mantel or “ash soils” 2) “mixed ash soils” and 3) “residual soils”. Ash soils or ash capped soils are predominately derived from volcanic ash, or a mixture of volcanic ash and windblown loess deposits (USFS 2006). Residual soils are formed in place from local bedrock or other parent materials, and have minor to no ash influence. Residual soils within the SPRAA have developed primarily from Columbia River basalts. However, residual soils developed from or influenced by pyroclastic flows, limestone, granodiorite intrusive and colluvial and alluvial materials derived from bedrock are also prevalent throughout the SPRAA, particularly in the Snake River Allotment (USFS 2006). Mixed soils are derived from both volcanic ash and residual soils.

Landtype Association Map Units (LTAs) Table 3-45 lists the dominant land type associations (LTAs) and representative soil series, landform, principle vegetation zone, key soil properties for SPRAA Capable Grazing Lands (CMP Soi- O3-O4, G1). Twelve LTAs are represented on capable lands.

Table 3-45. LTA map units for the SPRAA Capable Grazing Acres (no restrictions) along with the predominant associated soil series listed in order of extent, and general landscape and soil characteristics and corresponding disturbed soil erosion potential.

146

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

LTA Associated Landform Veg- Volcanic Ash Soil Depth Slope Soil Acres Percent Map Soil Series Zone Mantle (%) Erosion SPRAA Unit Potential Capable (Disturbed) Lands Acres 115 Mount Emily Basins, Moist thick ash, cobbly Moderate 15-30 Moderate to 322 5 Limberjim fans, Forest basalt to deep to high terraces very deep 116 Limberjim Gentle Moist Medium ash, Moderate 0-30 Low to 1253 20 Syrupcreek mountain Forest cobbly basalt to deep to moderate slopes very deep 117 Limberjim, Steep Moist thick ash, cobbly Moderate 30- High 1622 25 Mountemily mountain Forest basalt to deep 60 slopes 166 Bordengulch Gentle Moist thin to thick ash, Moderately 0-30 Low to 5 Threecent mountain Forest gravelly deep moderate 310 slopes metabolcakic and sedimentary 217 Klickson, Steep Dry- mixed Shallow to 30-60 High 299 5 Larabee Mountain Forest ash/residual, deep Slopes cobbly/gravelly basalt 218 Klicker, Canyons Dry- minor ash, Very 60-90 High 546 9 fivebit Forest gravely basalt shallow to shallow 266 Deck Gentle Dry- Mixed to minor Very 0-30 Moderate 348 5 mountain Forest ash, <15% to shallow to slopes 70% gravel, shallow metavolcanic and sedementary 317 Anatone Steep Dry- Mixed to minor, Very 30-60 Moderate to 710 11 Imnaha Rock mountain non- gravelly basalt shallow to high outcrop slopes Forest moderately Bocker deep 318 Anatone, Canyons Dry- minor ash, Very 60-90 High 309 4 Rock outcrop, non- gravely basalt shallow to Bocker, Forest moderately Imnaha deep 366 Bluecanyon Gentle Dry- minor ash, Shallow to 0-30 Low to 346 6 analulu mountain non- gravelly moderately moderate slopes Forest metavolcanic, deep sedimentary 368 Blackgulch Canyons Dry- minor ash, Shallow 60-90 High 214 3 non- cobbly Forest meatvolcanic, sedimenary 468 Analulu Canyons Moist thin ash, gravelly Shallow to 60-90 High 140 2 rock outcrop, non- metavolcanic, moderately forest sedimentary deep

Non-Capable Land LTA map units, soil type, and risk of disturbed soil erosion (CMP Soi- O3-O4, S1, G1) Approximately 75% of the acres in SPRAA are considered to be non-capable of supporting permitted cattle grazing. However, non-capable lands will most likely be used by livestock, but due to the severity of topographic and canopy features use may vary.

Fourteen LTAs are represented on non-capable lands for the allotments as listed in Table 3-46. The risk of disturbed soil erosion ranges from low to high (USFS 2006). Representative soil

147

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects series, key soil properties and risk of soil erosion for non-capable land LTAs are also found in Appendix A, Table 7 of the soil specialist report.

Table 3-46. Predominant LTAs by acre and percent of area of Non-Capable Grazing acres for individual Allotments within the SPRAA Non-Capable Grazing Lands Percent of Non- Capable Allotment LTA Acres Grazing Acres within Allotment Area 217 141 39 Double Pine 218 1,686 54 318 872 7 Total Acres 1,504 100 115 770 11 116 1,458 21 117 2,104 29 118 1,214 17 North Pine 131 495 6 217 320 4 218 615 9 318 209 3 Total Acres 7,190 100 116 14 0.1 117 738 7 166 335 2 218 1,556 14 266 513 4 Snake River 317 1,201 11 318 2,126 19 366 72 1 368 1,749 16 468 2,619 24 Total Acres 10,933 100

Detrimental Soil Disturbance (DSC)

A description of the detrimental soil condition survey results, along with IIRH results, field soil descriptions, plant association, and field reconnaissance field notes are found in Appendix B of the soils specialist report.

Current Forest Plan utilization standards are intended to help maintain ground cover and reduce other soil effects such as excessive compaction. Forest Plan utilization standards allow for maintenance of soil porosity and a supply of organic matter. The current estimates of detrimental soil conditions in the SPRAA are consistent with the Forest Plan’s standards and guidelines. No allotment exceeds the 20% standard for detrimental soil conditions (Table 3-47).

148

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

The grazing land analysis section of this document also indicates that the trend in rangeland conditions has improved over the last 50 years, with substantial improvement in ecological status and increases in native grass species and ground cover. These improvements are most likely slowing the rate of soil erosion and are associated with improved soil productivity of previously disturbed areas.

Estimate of Current Detrimental Soil Conditions in the SPRAA In order to assess compliance with FS direction, an effort has been made to quantify the percent of SPRAA with detrimental soil conditions using the repeating patterns of grazing soil disturbance and impacts from roads, trails, recreation activities and timber management (Chapin 2013) (Table 3-47).

Table 3-47. Area and Percent of SPRAA Capable Lands with Detrimental Soil Disturbance 1. DSC DSC Total DSC DSC DSC 0-30 >30 DSC DSC Capable DSC Percent Percent Timber Capable Allotment Land Water Fence Capable Road Slope Slope harvest Land (acres) Devl. 1) Land (acres) (acres 2 3 (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (percent) (acres)

Double 226 0ac 0ac 10ac 1ac 5ac 0ac 16ac 7% Pine North 3,404 1 0.3 144 74 11 128 357 10 Pine Snake 2,791 1 0.5 6 33 296 1 338 12 River Total 6,422 2 0.8 160 108 312 129 835 13 SPRAA 1Includes all open and closed FS and private roads. 2 Low gradient sites with less than 30% slope are assumed to have intensive historic and current management resulting in broad distribution of DSCs. This assumes 20 percent DSC of all sites in the SPRAA with slopes less than 15 percent. 3 Moderately steep to steep with greater than 30 to 45 percent slope are assumed to have intensive historic and current management resulting in broad distribution of DSCs. Acres of DSCs assume 20 percent DSC LTAs 318, 366 and 468 within SPRAA.

The combination of soil condition surveys and general reconnaissance surveys, indicate that greater than 80 percent of SPRAA Capable Lands are currently being maintained with non- detrimental soil conditions (Table 3-47). Permitted grazing is the primary land based activity impacting soil conditions on slopes between 0 to 45 percent slopes. Risks include soil compaction and displacement, increased bare soil, and reduced composition, diversity and cover of vegetation and soil crusts (Forest Plan, CMP Soi- O1, S1, G1). Rangeland activities with high potential for causing DSC are concentrated on 0 to 30 percent slopes, and on 30 to greater than 45 percent slopes within non-forested vegetation zones with low cobble and stone sized rock cover and soil rock content.

149

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Few road acres are accounted for in SPRAA. The amount of detrimental soil conditions associated with roads is estimated to be approximately 160 acres or 2.5 percent of SPRAA Capable Land (Forest Plan, CMP Soi- O1, S1, G1). Two water developments are located in the SPRAA. The amount of detrimental soil conditions associated with water development sites is estimated to be approximately 2 acres or less than 0.6 percent of the SPRAA Capable Lands (Forest Plan, CMP Soi- O1, S1, G1).

The amount of detrimental soil conditions associated with grazing activities within the SPRAA Capable Lands is estimated to be approximately 546 acres or approximately 9.5 percent (Forest Plan, CMP Soi- O1, S1, G1). Total amount of DSCs associated with grazing, timber and road activities is approximately 835 acres or 13 percent of the SPRAA Capable Lands.

The primary type of detrimental soil disturbance in the form of soil compaction at approximately 2 to 4 inch depth, and assumed to be a result of historic grazing practices. Little to no soil compaction was noted at 0 to 2 inch soil depth. Fine to medium sized, granular soil structure was often noted throughout the first 2 inches of soil indicating natural recovery of surface soil compaction. Natural recovery appears to be aided often by mechanical fracturing by grass root mat, forbs and shrubs and high gopher activity common throughout most sites. No signs of accelerated soil erosion were observed within the SPRAA.

Forest direction, permit administration and compliance with utilization and grassland condition requirements intended to maintain the rangeland in satisfactory condition appear to be effective at maintaining soil resource conditions (Forest Plan, CMP Bic-O1-3, Soi- O1, S1, G1). For more information regarding management strategies please refer to chapter 3, Rangeland resources. However, impacts from historic use are still visible on the landscape today and affecting the soil and site stability, hydrologic function, biotic integrity and overall rangeland health.

In summary, livestock grazing will have some impacts on soils. However, management of the allotments in the SPRAA is consistent with the Forest Plan soil management goal and standards and guidelines for detrimental soil conditions.

Erosion Processes, Site Stability, and Sedimentation

The dominant natural erosion processes are mass wasting and soil creep, wind, and water erosion. Soil creep occurs during freeze-thaw cycles through the influence of gravity on steep slopes and with hoof shear in the soft loam soils. Erosion occurs under the influence of water, wind, and mechanical pressure where vegetation and ground cover is sparse and unable to protect and stabilize the soil surface. Many of the bare ridges in the steeper areas in the SPRAA landscape have been historically scoured by wind, especially with frequent fires and conversion of vegetation from perennial to annual grasses. Churning of the soil by rodents is also common. Soil creep and soil erosion can be limited by maintaining vegetation with dense above ground biomass, and strong root systems and groundcover, including biological soil crusts, litter, and rocks.

Small slumps were observed on steep, northern facing slopes with deep soils. Historic animal formed terraces were also commonly observed on steep, northern facing slopes with deep soils and are currently used by both wild and domestic animals. Soil creep occurs during freeze-thaw cycles through the influence of gravity on steep slopes. It is increased by churning of the soil by rodents and hoof shear in the soft loam soils. Alluvial debris fans (terraces) are common erosional landscapes within steeper portions of the allotments in the SPRAA. Within the

150

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects allotments, no direct upland hillslope erosion material appears to be reaching the stream channels.

Soil Quality and Rangeland Health

Soil quality and rangeland health are interdependent (NRCS 2001). Soil quality or productivity is the capacity of a specific kind of soil to function within natural or managed ecosystem boundaries. The base of any rangeland ecosystem is considered to be the soil resource; the inherent and dynamic soil properties (NRCS 2013). Degradation of a rangeland ecosystem occurs with loss of soil processes or integrity (Pellant et al. 2005, NRCS 2011).

Inherent soil properties include soil texture, mineralogy, soil depth, volcanic ash thickness and content, and rock content. Dynamic properties include the content and quality of organic matter, and soil structure and bulk density. Dynamic properties are most influential in the surface soil, and most influential of overall rangeland ecological processes.

The inherent soil properties are not significantly altered by management activities (Larson and Pierce, 1991; Doran and Parker, 1994; Karlen et al., 1995). However, key dynamic soil chemical, physical and biological properties are oftentimes altered in response to management and climate change in the surface soil which can reflect changes in overall productivity, including plant population and diversity of native and invasive vegetation, erosion, and water quality. It is the response of key dynamic soil properties that is generally the focus of land use or management analysis (Pierce and Larson, 1993; Seybold et al.1997; Carter et al. 1997).

To determine overall soil quality and rangeland ecosystem function it is essential to consider the vegetation dynamics and plant functional groups together with the soil dynamic properties (Herrick and Whitford1995). An example of this is the interactions between soil erodibility, plant canopy cover and rainfall. Soils with higher plant canopy are able to resist soil erosion, even with soil texture and erosion potential at a constant (NRCS 2013).

Summary of Soil Disturbance Patterns Across the Landscape

Soil condition survey data indicates that the type, extent and severity of soil disturbance are concentrated on high use areas, and related to both off-site and on-site influences (Forest Plan, CMP Soi- O1, S1, G1). The extent and severity of soil disturbance from grazing tends to be highest on sites easily accessed and/or within a half to quarter mile of water. Permitted grazing impacts are less on the North Pine allotment as compared to the Snake River allotment. Soil disturbance in the North Pine allotment is highly related to existing roads and past timber management. Soil disturbance in the Snake River allotment is mostly related to past and current permitted grazing and the historic recreation bench trail. Overall soil quality is markedly better throughout the Squaw Creek Pasture of the Snake allotment than the Spring Creek Pasture of the Snake allotment. Causes for higher soil disturbance (primarily soil compaction) in the Spring Creek Pasture appears to be associated with fine textured soils, accessibility, distance to water, and longer grazing season of use by the permit holder.

Off-site influences on soil disturbance type and severity include distance to water, high use areas (springs, creeks and water developments, salting and loafing sites, seeded pastures or old roads/skid trails), fence lines, and ATV, horse and other developed trails. Within the Snake

151

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

River allotment, Forest Service recreation bench trail is an off-site influence in that it is used extensively by cattle and elk to travel on and access prime grazing sites.

On-site influences included site topography and landform (including sedimentation and hydrologic processes), slope and aspect, geologic characteristics, soil depth, soil texture and soil compaction and displacement potentials, the soil rock content and surface rock cover, change in natural vegetation, and the duration, intensity and scale of current and historic permitted grazing and elk grazing activities.

Livestock grazing effects to soils are described in detail in the Hells Canyon CMP (2003) and in research by Warren et al. (1986), Daniel et al. (2002), Yeo (2005), Gill (2007), Allington and Valone (2011) and others. Livestock activity has been shown to modify surface soil properties by degrading soil structure, increasing soil bulk density, and reducing surface cover and reducing infiltration rates (Kolb et al. 2011, Yeo 2005, Daniel et al. 2002).

Soil provides a foundation for vegetation establishment and growth as well as provides for the processes of air, gas, water, and nutrient movement into and through the soil profile. These soil processes are dependent on soil physical, chemical properties and biological properties, as well as consistent supply of organic matter. The key for range management is to maintain adequate soil structure (soil porosity) and supply of organic matter. Loss of either component may lead to an increased risk of erosion, especially as the slope increases.

Soils - Desired Condition

Desired Soil Condition for Allotments: A functional ecosystem that is an integral component of a larger biologic region. Ecological functions and process are sustained. Soil resources are managed in a manner compatible with those values for which the HCNRA and Wallowa- Whitman National Forest were established. Soil productivity is maintained and site stability provided by minimizing soil and groundcover disturbance (USDA 2003, pp. 193-250). The Desired Condition for soils is to improve the soil condition rating to Satisfactory based on a definition of the potential plant community, improve indicators of Rangeland Health soil and site stability and hydrologic functions to less than moderate departure from ecological conditions expected for the site. Also to improve extent of detrimental soil conditions to less than 20 percent, and recognition that historic soil erosion is irreversible by:

 Managing the current vegetation community to promote potential vegetation  Maintaining litter on site and throughout the year to protect against erosion  Reducing trampling when soils are moist or wet  Reducing evidence of plant, litter, and rock pedestals because of less surface erosion  Encouraging the establishment of biological soil crusts in areas of reduced utilization  Reducing lounging and grazing periods on the lower benches to reduce compaction, encourage bunchgrasses to thrive, and leave litter on site  Maintaining the late seral vegetation communities where currently existing – particularly on uplands and steeper areas  Acknowledging existing spring use by wild ungulates and not encouraging cattle grazing on the steep slopes or important late winter and early spring grazing sites (Johnson and Simon 1987)

152

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Minimum Effective Ground Cover

US Forest Service guidelines are for a minimum effective ground cover of 60-70% on rangelands to prevent accelerated erosion (USFS 1978, USFS 1984). This guidance is based on USFS ground cover, runoff, and soil erosion research in rangelands of western states, and is substantiated by local studies (Johnson 2003). Long-term studies of ground cover in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest show that ground cover has improved in the nearby Wallowa- Mountains with improved grazing management. Johnson (2003) shows that over a period of 43 to 46 years, from the 1950’s to 1990’s, good ground cover (vegetation and litter) at study sites increased by about 30%, from lows of 47-58% (which is below the level of ground cover required for watershed stability and which allowed unacceptable levels of accelerated erosion) to highs of 75-88% (which is near-optimal ground cover and which allows near-natural levels of erosion).

Long-term data for all allotments on groundcover is only available at C&T plots; however, maintaining adequate ground cover is critical for erosion control.

Condition and Trend (C&T)

Vegetation and soil condition and trend (C&T) plots were developed forest-wide in the 1950’s and have been used on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest since that time. The purpose of C&T plots is to document changes in vegetation and soil stability over time. Ideally, C&T plot data is gathered on a 10 to 25 year basis, which allows for a comparison of the results to distinguish a trend over time. Detailed information on C&T’s for the allotments is provided in the Rangeland Resources section. Forage Rating and Soil Stability C&T ratings are designated as Very Poor, Poor, Fair, or Good. Forage rating is based on a compilation of the numerical data associated with type of plant species and percent of species within each C&T plot. Soil stability rating is based on an index number of stability assigned by the data gatherer, and the percent of bare ground present in the plot.

Generally, soil stability conditions were either static or improving for C&T plots. Four of the plots showed an upward trend in soil stability from their previous reading, eight exhibited a static trend and one showed a downward departure from its previous reading. All four plots on an upward trend, and all seven on a static trend had a ‘good’ rating for soil stability. One of the eight on a static trend and the one plot on a downward trend had a ‘fair’ rating for soil stability. The upward departures from previous readings are from shifts in the plant communities toward mid to late seral stages, increases in the number of plants, increases in native bunchgrasses and increases in litter. The downward departures from previous readings and poor ratings are from sites located on shallow, scabland type soils that tend to be less stable with very little potential for change, resulting in very slight to no change in plant composition and increases in bare ground.

Increases in native bunchgrasses noted in the C&T plots is important because annual species (e.g., bromus spp.) may result in early drying of the soils in the spring, before bunchgrasses finish growth. In addition, annual species do not have the root mass density or above ground biomass desired to hold soil against erosion. Overuse by ungulates (wild and domestic) results from easy access to these gentle slopes and concentrated use in the late winter and early spring when higher elevations are snow covered or plant green-up is delayed due to weather. Signs of overuse include loss of bunchgrass communities, hoof shear, terracing and trailing, and

153

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects soil compaction in lounging areas (under Ponderosa Pine trees). If overuse results in reduced above ground biomass during the winter, erosion risk increases on steeper slopes with spring rains and snowmelt.

Forest Plan and HCRA CMP Standards for Soils

The Forest Plan has three standards and guidelines and one goal, which relate to grazing’s effect on soils. The requirements are:

Goal- Maintain or enhance soil productivity

Standards and guidelines related to grazing management: 1. Maintain a minimum of 80 percent of an activity area in a condition of acceptable productivity potential (20% maximum detrimental soil impacts). Provide restoration treatments when detrimental conditions exceed 20 percent (Forest Plan, p. 4-21). 2. Management activities shall be designed and implemented to re-establish vegetation and maintain sufficient ground vegetation and organic matter to reduce erosion (Forest Plan, p. 4-21). 3. Give maintenance of soil productivity and stability priority over uses described or implied in all other management direction, standards, or guides. (Forest Plan, p. 4-21).

The HCRA CMP specifies standards for soils management that are listed in Appendix B.

Soils - Effects Analysis

Introduction

The current soil condition assessment of the SPRAA focuses on portions of the North Pine and Snake allotments considered too be capable of supporting permitted grazing (i.e. capable lands). The current condition of the soils resources under current management is described in the existing soil conditions section.

It is expected that under the proposed action many of the same conditions that have been documented will continue. For this discussion, the analysis area consists of capable lands of the SPRAA project area boundary. Short-term effects are those that last less than about a year (or one growing season). Long term effects last longer than a year (or multiple growing seasons).

The scale of the cumulative soil effects analysis, is bounded in time by 10 to 15 years (or in perpetuity if grazing authorizations continue) and in space by the SPRAA analysis area boundary.

Alternative 1- No Grazing

For a complete description of alternative 1, please see Chapter 2 of this EA.

154

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Under this alternative, livestock grazing would no longer be authorized within the SPRAA. Without continued disturbance from livestock grazing there would be less compaction, bare ground and disturbance of biotic crusts in areas where livestock concentrate such as low gradient sites, trails, water sources and salting and loafing areas. Detrimental soil conditions in these areas would likely improve over time through natural processes including freeze\thaw cycles, wet\dry cycles and vegetative growth (Daniel et al. 2002, Allington and Valone 2011). Effective ground cover throughout the allotments would most likely continue to improve. These factors would increase infiltration rates, improve soil stability and decrease any associated surface erosion. Natural potential vegetation may or may not improve with absence of livestock grazing (Loeser et al. 2007). The amount of natural recovery and the total amount of time for soil damage to recover to acceptable levels depends on the extent, depth and degree of existing soil damage.

Water development sites would be abandoned and hardware such as troughs, pipe and exclosure fencing would be left on the landscape. If water development sites were not dismantled or removed, trough drains would plug over time and water would run onto the ground and pool around the trough or run downhill, creating new wetland areas and perhaps new channels on the landscape. The degree that new channels would form would depend on the amount of water flow that eroded soil before vegetative recovery.

Areas within the SPRAA would continue to provide critical habitat for wildlife in the winter and early spring. Grazing by wild ungulates would continue to occur in the SPRAA. Shallow, south facing sites receive moderate to high late winter and early spring use by wild ungulates. Due to the susceptibility of these sites to impacts, soil disturbance from grazing by wild ungulates would also continue.

The current estimates of detrimental soil conditions in the SPRAA are consistent with the Forest Plan’s standards and guidelines. No allotment exceeds the 20% standard for detrimental soil conditions (Tables 3-47). For the soil resource, the removal of cattle from the SPRAA would have the most beneficial effect. This is because livestock grazing is not completely controllable and even with careful management, hoof shear, trampling, and herbivory do occur. With alternative 1, biological soil crust recovery and expansion would occur at the highest rate. Erosion risk would be reduced due to increased groundcover and litter. However, with alternative 1, there would not be any monitoring of the resources, nor control of noxious weeds.

Cumulative Effects

Dispersed camping, OHV riding and timber harvesting would continue to occur in the SPRAA. The impacts to soils from these activities would include localized areas of compaction, displacement and increased soil erosion hazard.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

For a complete description of alternative 2, please see Chapter 2 of this EA.

155

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Detrimental Soil Conditions (DSC) Livestock grazing effects to soils are described in detail in the above section. Site specific detrimental soil conditions from livestock grazing were observed in the SPRAA (See Existing conditions section above). However, current range management appears to be maintaining soil productivity at acceptable levels. The combination of rangeland health monitoring, and timber DSC surveys indicate that greater than 80 percent of capable lands in the SPRAA are currently being maintained with non-detrimental soil conditions. Monitoring data and IIRH assessments show slight to moderate deviation of soil stability and hydrologic function from ecological conditions expected for the site. Deviations are related to soil type, topography, off-site influences and historic use. Static and upward trends in forage conditions indicate that current management is not compounding historic over utilization and resultant vegetation community changes and soil loss. Natural soil stability processes appear to be satisfactorily maintaining soil integrity, productivity and overall rangeland health.

Forest direction of maintaining a minimum of 80 percent in non-detrimentally impacted conditions will be maintained with a continued upward trend in overall soil conditions and rangeland health under this alternative. Detrimental soil disturbance will most likely decrease at a faster rate where utilization will be set at 35 percent in upland areas identified with unsatisfactory vegetation condition and unsatisfactory soil conditions. However, under this alternative, intensive use areas, where permitted livestock concentrate, exhibiting detrimental soil disturbances including compaction, bare ground, impacts to soil biotic crusts and transition of vegetation communities would persist. These areas of high use and concentration include fence lines trails, water sources, and salting and loafing areas. These areas of high use are generally located on gentler slopes of open grasslands with shallow to very shallow soils, and moderately steep to steep slopes with deep, moist soils with low surface rock or rock content. The extent of these intensive use areas encompasses approximately 11 percent of the SPRAA (Table 3-47).

Ground Cover US Forest Service guidelines include a minimum effective ground cover of 60-70% on rangelands to prevent accelerated erosion (USFS 1978, USFS 1984). Long-term monitoring of ground cover in the SPRAA show increased effective ground cover since the 1960s (refer to existing conditions section).

Ground cover protects rangelands from soil loss due to erosion. Under this alternative soil ground cover would be adequate to maintain current soil erosion rates, and as long-term C&T monitoring of ground cover indicates, recovery would continue from past conditions.

However, where soil conditions were found to be unsatisfactory, or moderately departed from ecological conditions expected for the site, monitoring would be required to insure long-term compliance with Forest Plan ground cover guidelines. The most affected sites from permitted livestock grazing in the allotments include cattle trails, unprotected spring, salting and loafing areas, sites in proximity to water sources and sites with moderately steep to steep slopes with deep, moist soils and low surface rock or rock content.

156

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Summary

The combination of rangeland health monitoring, and timber DSC surveys indicate that greater than 80 percent of capable lands in the SPRAA are currently being maintained with non- detrimental soil conditions. Static and upward trends in vegetation conditions indicate that current management is not compounding over utilization and vegetation community changes or soil loss. Natural soil stability processes appear to be satisfactorily maintaining soil integrity, productivity and overall rangeland health.

Forest direction of maintaining a minimum of 80 percent in non-detrimentally impacted conditions will be maintained with a continued upward trend in overall soil and vegetation conditions and rangeland health under this alternative.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects consider the past, present, and foreseeable future actions in the Snake River and North Pine allotment analysis areas. Soil conditions in the SPRAA vary, and have been affected by a variety of human-caused impacts. Cumulative effects of decreased soil productivity and accelerated erosion have occurred in the SPRAA. Cumulative effects on soil productivity are generally caused by increased intensity and levels of direct impacts such as hoof shear and trampling, which can lead to detrimental soil damage. Cumulative effects to soil productivity can lead to changes in forage production and a shift in potential natural vegetation.

On National Forest managed lands, land management activities include current and past timber sales, grazing, firewood collection, motorized and non-motorized recreation, prescribed fire and wildfires, and mining. Roads can impact by providing easy access to high use areas, but can also aid in achieving proper livestock distribution. Timber harvest can result in soil compaction, displacement and reduced effective ground cover or change in vegetation of upland soils, leading to decreased soil productivity and increased soil loss by erosion.

Cumulative effects on allotment watersheds may be influenced by privately-owned lands. Private land ownership is present within and bordering parts of the allotments, and land uses on these lands include roads, livestock pastures, minor timber harvest, and recreational uses. Approximately 415 acres of private land is located in the Snake River allotment. This private land is grazed at the time of the Snake River permitted season of use, but is not managed by the Forest Service. Activities on other private land within the SPRAA may overlap with the Snake/Pine grazing activities in time, but not in space. Although impacts from private land activities are difficult to quantify, alternative 2 is not expected to result in measurable impacts to the soil resource (as described in the Direct and Indirect effects above), therefore no cumulative effects from private land activities are expected.

Specific actions that may have contributed to cumulative effects are included in Table 3-48.

Table 3-48. Cumulative Effects Analysis for SPRAA Overlap Cumulat Project or ive Rationale Action Time Space Effect?

157

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Overlap Cumulat Project or ive Rationale Action Time Space Effect? Road 39 Reconstruction No None No impact Outside of allotments (2009) – outside Impact expected of project area Roads in some areas may provide easier access for cattle to access streams, and low gradient, high forage production areas leading to a potential cumulative effect from grazing due to higher livestock concentrations. Alternative 2 includes Road Use and methods to disperse cattle to achieve Maintenance Yes Yes Yes proper livestock distribution. This would (ongoing) help to avoid cumulative effects from livestock grazing where roads allow easy access to streams. Also, only 1.3 acres of roads are included in the allotments, therefore, the potential for a cumulative effect from roads in the allotments is minimal. No impact. Occur in winter when there is no Snowmobile Yes Yes No grazing. Over the snow activities do not Routes (ongoing) impact soil resources. No impact. Occur in winter when there is no Sled Dog Races No No No grazing. Over the snow activities do not (ongoing) impact soil resources. Livestock heavily use trails. Trails often provide easier access to streams, and areas of high forage production, or other high use sites. Action alternatives provide Trail Use and methods to disperse cattle to achieve Maintenance Yes Yes Yes proper livestock distribution. This would (ongoing) help to avoid cumulative effects from livestock use of trails. Soil conditions will minimally change from existing conditions due to continued, historic use of trails. Impacts from past harvest have been estimated to have resulted in approximately 2,007 129 acres detrimental soil conditions acres on generally in the form of compacted skid Past Harvest No North No trails dispersed throughout the SPRAA. Activities Pine Skid trails from past timber harvest are not allotment prone to heavy use or high livestock concentrations. Skid trails may provide for greater livestock dispersal and distribution. The highest potential for cumulative effects Puderbaugh to soil resources as a result of proposed Vegetation timber harvest and grazing. Approximately management and 280 acres of harvest are planned within the Fuels Reduction – Yes 280 acres Yes Puderbaugh Project Area. Forest Plan (Proposed for standards and guidelines require 2014 maintenance of 80 percent of the project implementation) area with non-detrimental soil conditions.

158

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Overlap Cumulat Project or ive Rationale Action Time Space Effect? Compliance with the Forest Plan will result in a maximum of 56 acres of new DSCs within the SPRAA project boundary. Areas of prescribed fire recover quickly and are usually revegetated within one year. Present and future prescribed burning (over Prescribed the next 5 years) within the analysis area Yes Yes No Burning would reduce impacts to soil resources by preventing large catastrophic wildfires that could result in overstory mortality and severe soil damage. Large wildfires can cause loss in soil Large Fires and productivity from severe soil burning and Wildfire soil loss from accelerated erosion. A Yes Yes Yes Suppression mitigation measure is included in action (ongoing) alternatives to adjust grazing after wildfires (Chapter 2). Minimal impact. Use of same trails and low Outfitting Yes Yes No gradient sites where cattle tend to (ongoing) congregate and utilize. Dispersed camping is scattered across the Dispersed and landscape and occurs on a seasonal basis. Developed Yes Yes No Dispersed camping within the SPRAA Recreation typically depends on road or trail access to (ongoing) sites. Hunting activities are scattered across the Big-Game landscape and occur on a seasonal basis. Yes Yes No Hunting (ongoing) Hunting activities within the SPRAA typically depends on road or trail access to sites. Mining No No No None of the claims have filed a Plan of Operation and therefore would not add to cumulative effects. Private Land Yes No No Private land ownership is present within and Activities bordering parts of the allotments, and land uses on these lands include roads, livestock pastures, minor timber harvest, and recreational uses.

Cumulative Effects Summary

The above-mentioned activities within the SPRAA are expected to continue into the future on both private and Forest Service System lands. Landscape changes associated with these continued activities would be similar to the existing conditions and would be evaluated as future actions are permitted or planned. Wildfire is an unknown entity. If and when wildfire occurs in the allotment, decisions would be made to consider the continuation or restriction of grazing on the allotment for recovery.

The effects from alternative 2 are expected to only minimally overlap with effects from past and ongoing activities. Few to no impacts are expected from snowmobiles, sled dog races, outfitting, hunting, camping and mining. Potential cumulative impacts could occur from roads,

159

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects timber harvest and prescribed fire activities. Grazing of the SPRAA is on-going and its effects have been described under the existing condition discussion. Monitoring and mitigations have been proposed under the alternative 2 to reduce grazing effects on soil and water resources. Continued grazing of the SPRAA would have no additive effect on soil resources.

Cumulative effects from these activities would allow maintenance of greater than 80 percent of the SPRAA activity area to remain with non-detrimental soil conditions.

Alternative 3

For a complete description of alternative 3, please see Chapter 2 of this EA.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

The effects of livestock grazing on soils are well documented, and would be similar to those described for alternative 2. However, they would be less in magnitude under alternative 3 than alternative 2 due to reduced utilization (30%) of areas found in unsatisfactory forage or soil conditions, and the benefit of rest rotation grazing schedule.

The season and timing of grazing affects soil quality and biotic crusts. A rest rotation grazing system where pastures are rested each fourth year will decrease the frequency of surface disturbance and decrease potential soil effects. Rest rotation and reduced utilization rates would allow for perennial plants to complete their growth cycle and improve vigor and production. The improvement in vegetative condition may benefit soil stability, soil productivity and may increase the rate of overall rangeland condition’s upward trend. Rest rotation and reduced utilization may improve the composition and distribution of soil biotic crusts.

Decreasing the Snake River allotment acres by adjusting the boundary, would have minimal total impacts to soil and range due to current limited use of the north boundary of this allotment.

Forest direction of maintaining a minimum of 80 percent in non-detrimentally impacted conditions will be maintained under alternative 3 with a continued upward trend in overall soil conditions and rangeland health under this alternative.

Cumulative Effects

The above-mentioned activities described under alternative 2 within the SPRAA are expected to continue into the future on both private and Forest Service System lands under alternative 3. Landscape changes associated with these continued activities would be similar to the existing conditions and would be evaluated as future actions are permitted or planned. Wildfire is an unknown entity. If and when wildfire occurs within an allotment, decisions would be made to consider the continuation or restriction of grazing on the allotment for recovery.

The effects from alternative 3 are expected to only minimally overlap with effects from past and ongoing activities. Few to no impacts are expected from snowmobiles, sled dog races, outfitting, hunting, camping and mining. Potential cumulative impacts could occur from roads, timber harvest and prescribed fire activities. Grazing of the SPRAA is on-going and its effects have been described under the existing condition discussion. Monitoring and mitigations have

160

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects been proposed under the alternative 3 to reduce grazing effects on soil resources. Continued grazing of the SPRAA would have no additive effect on soil resources.

Recovery would be realized at an increased rate under alternative 3 than alternative 2 because more vegetation would remain on the allotment after the permitted season and active management would reduce overall grazing impacts to soils. Landscape erosion rates would be reduced under a rest rotation schedule, with more vegetation biomass and groundcover. Biological soil crust density and diversity is limited to protected sites, deferred rotation spring grazing would promote recovery of the biological soil crust in grazed areas and slow expansion of the populations may be realized.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Actions Common to Action Alternatives

Under both alternatives 2 and 3 the North Pine and Double Pine allotments are combined. No effect is expected on the soil resources from combining these two allotments. BMPs, Annual Operating Plans, and mitigation measures prohibit turn out of cattle when soils are excessively wet, and prone to compaction and displacement from hoof shear and trampling.

The proposed water developments would allow for more even distribution of livestock throughout SPRAA, and reduce trampling and soil loss from erosion of current water sources.

Fence maintenance would ensure that livestock do not use the allotment outside of the permitted period, or outside of the SPRAA. Benefits to the soil resource would be realized with reduced livestock use of vegetation resources as well as reduced trampling of moist soils and less hoof shear of the closed Mud Duck allotment and the Imnaha River.

Soil Resources Effects Summary – All Alternatives

Within the SPRAA, benefits to the soil resource with continued grazing come from fence maintenance, careful management of stocking rates, adhering to utilization standards and length of time the allotment is grazed. These management strategies help to ensure the desired vegetation complete their growth cycles and set seed. These strategies also help to manage cattle grazing patterns to reduce impacts to soils. Implementing additional range BMPs, and the proposed action mitigations and monitoring would provide further benefits. Table 3-49 summarizes soil effects by alternative.

Table 3-49. Degree of Soil Effects Compared to Existing Conditions RESOURCE ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 CONCERN NO GRAZING PROPOSED ACTION REST ROTATION

No change to slightly less Less effects than existing Least effect, no cattle hoof Detrimental risk from the existing conditions under current shear or trampling would Soil condition due to livestock management due to occur. Elk grazing effects Conditions management changes in livestock management would continue. the AOI changes in the AOI

161

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

RESOURCE ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 CONCERN NO GRAZING PROPOSED ACTION REST ROTATION Least risk of soil erosion No change to slightly less Less effects than existing due to vegetation growth risk from the existing conditions under current Soil Erosion and retention on site. Elk condition due to livestock management due to Rates grazing effects would management changes in livestock management continue. the AOI changes in the AOI No change to slightly less Less effects than existing Least effect, no cattle hoof risk from the existing conditions under current Soil Biotic shear or trampling would condition due to livestock management due to Crusts occur. Elk grazing effects management changes in livestock management would continue. the AOI changes in the AOI

Consistency with Laws, Regulations and Policy

Alternatives 1, 2 and 3

Soils and Forest Plan Compliance Management of the SPRAA allotments under alternatives 1, 2 and 3 is consistent with both the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan (1990) and the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area CMP (2003) because of the application of Best Management Practices, mitigation measures, and monitoring management goals and objectives.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Alternatives 2 and 3 would meet Forest Plan and HCNRA CMP goals, desired future conditions and objectives because livestock would be managed on the allotments utilizing adaptive management practices, protection measures, and monitoring (long and short term) to address any site-specific issues as they are identified.

See Appendix B (Consistency Review) for a detailed description of how alternatives 2 and 3 respond to direction specific to grazing included in the amended Forest Plan and CMP.

162

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Biological Soil Crust

Introduction

This section describes the existing condition and analysis of effects on biological soil crust (biocrust). Biocrusts have not been included in past AMP analysis documents; Hell’s Canyon CMP (2003) and its direction specifically for biocrust lead us to include this chapter. With regards to management direction, biocrusts can be considered part of both the vegetation resource and the soils resource. In support of the biocrust assessment for this project, we sampled 15 sites in Snake River and North Pine allotments. Crust sampling was done according to direction from the Area Ecology Program and used a modified version of Line-Point Intercept (Herrick et al. 2009) in which the categories moss and lichen were inventoried according to morphological groups. Refer to Geer (2013) for a full description of field work and more detailed analysis including statistical significance.

Regulatory Framework

The Soils chapter provides a thorough list of current management direction which applies to soils. Likewise, the Rangeland Resources chapter provides a list of current management direction which applies to rangeland vegetation. Refer to those chapters for management direction which is not specific to soil crust, but may be applied. In addition to direction found in those sections of this document, Hell’s Canyon National Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan (2003) provides 9 objectives, standards and guidelines specific to biocrust (Appendix B).

Existing Condition

Biocrusts are important components to overall soil quality and the plant community. Biocrusts are a complex mosaic of cyanobacteria, green algae, lichens, mosses, microfungi and bacteria. Biocrusts occupy the interspaces between vascular plant vegetation creating a matrix of tissue just below the soil surface and stabilizing the soil by trapping soil particles. The algal and bacterial components of the biocrust bind soil particles through the secretion of polysaccharides. Soil crusts also function as living mulch by retaining soil moisture and discouraging annual weed growth (Belnap et al. 2001).

Biocrust composition, diversity and distribution is related to soil type (especially texture), natural and man caused disturbances (including blow down, landslides and fire), potential natural vegetation, climate, and the soil organic matter quality and quantity (Olarra 2011, Belnap et al. 2001). Crust can be limited by soil fertility, particularly phosphorus, manganese and zinc, as well as moisture. North to east micro-aspects supported greater crust cover in one study (Bowker et al. 2006); cryptogam organisms are active only when moist, and moisture is more limited on other aspects.

Under current conditions, biocrusts in the analysis area occur in all non-forested plant communities. However, composition and cover by crust morphological groups varies with plant association. The summary statements that follow are drawn from analysis of 40 transects at 15 sites on the most common non-forested plant associations, where crust components were differentiated to the level of morphological group. For more details, see Biological Soil Crust:

163

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Observations on Snake River and North Pine allotments 2012-13 (Geer 2013). Analysis was done at the transect level since in some cases transects at the same C&T site were in different plant associations. Further variation would undoubtedly be discovered upon more extensive sampling.

Pairing of sites in good vs. poor condition was attempted. However, pairing sites for analysis turned out to be invalid for most of the data. Sites needed to be essentially in the same plant association and best if they were on similar slope, aspect, and soils. Only one set of sites was paired and analyzed.

An Idaho fescue/prairie junegrass reference site (99-2078) was paired with a site which had similar elevation, aspect and soils, but was dominated by the exotic annual Poa bulbosa and lacked bunchgrasses (BC003). The annual-dominated site was immediately adjacent to the main bench trail, heavily traveled by cattle, while reference site is removed from the trail by over a mile and is farther from water. The reference site had more tall moss, but not meaningfully more, and the degraded site had considerably more short moss. Plant bases and bare soil were not very different, and there was little or no cover for other soil surface elements.

Figure 3-4. Soil surface cover comparison, Reference vs. degraded condition FEID- KOCR communities

No reference sites were available to pair with the four remaining sites typed as disclimax. Except for short moss, and to a lesser extent tall moss, the paired sites were extremely similar in soil surface cover elements, in contrast with the other four sites which are much different, both from the paired sites and from each other.

Overall, biocrusts of moister grassland associations with potential for Idaho fescue (FEID/KOCR and POPR/POBU degraded) are dominated by moss, with smaller amounts of lichens or cyanobacterias. Degraded bulbous or Kentucky bluegrass communities have biocrust co- dominated by short and tall mosses, while more intact Idaho fescue communities have biocrust dominated nearly exclusively by tall mosses.

164

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

In the drier bluebunch wheatgrass (PSSPS) plant communities, mosses still provided the bulk of biocrust cover, but cyanobacteria and crustose lichens provide more coverage than they do at the moister grassland sites. The rockier, more sparsely vegetated PSSPS-ERHE communities had much less coverage by biocrust, and short and tall mosses were roughly equal in coverage. The PSSPS-POSE communities had relatively more biocrust coverage, and were more clearly dominated by tall mosses.

Table 3-50. Average (and range) of cover by biocrust morphological forms in non- forested plant communities sampled on Snake Pine analysis area

Plant N (sites/ Short moss Foliose Crustose Tall moss % Cyanobacteria % community transects) % lichen % lichen %

PSSPS-POSE 3/8 4.8 (2-8) 19.2 (10-32) 2.8 (0-10) 0 4.8 (0-20)

PSSPS-ERHE 5/14 4.7 (2-10) 3.1 (2-16) 1.1 (0-10) 0 0.1 (0-2)

FEID-KOCR reference 1/2 0.7 (0-1) 20.7 (15-27) 0 0 0.7 (0-2)

POPR/POB U degraded 6/16 7.2 (0-34) 7.3 (0-27) 0 0.3 (0-2) 0.3 (0-2)

It seems likely that PSSPS-POSE and PPSPS-ERHE communities have different potentials for biocrust cover, both in total cover and in composition by morphological group. A next step would be to locate several paired sites for each plant community.

Past studies often show that just as vascular plant communities are likely to become more specialized as time goes on, with little to no disturbance, so may biotic crust communities. A well-developed lichen component is considered part of the late seral stage for biotic soil crust communities and requires some development of vascular plants and bryophytes in order to establish and persist. Tall moss (Syntrichia ruralis) grows under shrub and bunchgrass canopy. Short mosses (various species) are found in the interspaces and under bunch grasses, thus we consider tall mosses evidence of later seral phases than short mosses (Kaltnecker and Wicklow-Howard 1994, Belnap et al. 2001).

In a Columbia Basin study, Ponzetti et al. (2007) found the following variables were most highly related to biotic crust integrity: total crust cover, crust species richness, and bluebunch wheatgrass and Sandberg’s bluegrass cover. Every vascular plant except cheatgrass was positively correlated to biotic crust integrity. In sampling conducted of the analysis area no correlation between plant basal cover and cover by biotic crust elements was found, which seems to differ from those results, but this could be due to deficiency of both samples and statistical sophistication.

165

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

On the other hand, Belnap et al. (2001) found invasive exotic plants generally decrease the structural diversity of native vascular plant communities by creating monocultures of densely spaced plants and by homogenizing litter distribution. They also lead to decreased biological crust cover and species richness in most ecosystems.

In the Snake Pine AMP analysis area, basal plant cover at long term C&T plots has increased in the past 50 years, while surface cover by bare soil has decreased (Range section, White 2013), with the notable exception of Snake River 4. Paradoxically, at many of the most disturbed sites, while basal cover by native plants has increased basal cover by non-natives has also increased. Revisits to ecology plots in the analysis area have generally revealed a similar pattern: many plant communities appear to now be at a later seral stage than they were in the early 1980’s when only cover by natives is considered, yet have a longer list of non-natives and higher cover by non-natives than they did 30 years ago. This is contrary to the often held assumption that native plant cover will always decrease as invasive cover increases and vice versa. Further investigation is warranted to see whether biotic crust is increasing (with native plant cover), decreasing (with increasing non-native cover), or perhaps shifting in composition.

Biocrust - Desired Condition

In general, the desired condition for biocrust is the same as that for soils; refer to Soils Desired Condition section for a full description. In addition to attaining the desired conditions for soils, biocrusts composed of a variety of morphological forms and species appropriate to the various sites where they occur is desirable. Reduced trampling is a goal for biocrust maintenance. In addition to the grazing constraints outlined in the Soils section, biocrusts benefit from reduced trampling when soils are dry. Warren and Eldridge (2001) found that:  Damage to biocrust by livestock trampling is proportional to the intensity of impact, determined in large part by stocking rate and distance to water sources.  Biocrusts appear to be most susceptible to damage during the driest seasons.  For any given level of livestock impact, biocrusts on sandy soil may suffer greater damage than crusts on finer textured soils.  Ranked in order of susceptibility, mosses>lichens>gelatinous lichens>diatoms>non- filamentous algae/cyanobacteria.

Reduction or elimination of other disturbance agents is also desirable for biocrusts. Biological crusts develop slowly and in addition to trampling, they are susceptible to damage from humans, off-road vehicles, invasion by exotic annual grasses, soil erosion and compaction, and fire (Belnap and Eldridge 2001). Trampling and crushing are the primary disturbances with recovery rates of less than 5-years to greater than 50 years for lichens.

The degree of degradation of soil crusts is related to soil type and soil moisture. More stable fine textured soils (such as silty loams) support greater cover and more varied populations of soil crust communities (Belnap et al. 2001). The biocrusts actively grow when wet or moist. Under spring conditions, soil crusts may grow up to one mm/year (Finch et al. 2004). During periods of low soil moisture (summer and fall) soil crusts are dormant, dry, and brittle. Wet or moist clay is less stable relative to wet sand as a substrate for biocrusts. However, dry clay is more stable relative to dry sand as a substrate for crusts.

166

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Belnap et al. (2001) and Finch et al. (2004) recommend light to moderate grazing in the early to mid-wet season, when soil crusts are actively growing, to allow time for recovery before the dry dormant period, and to minimize grazing during periods of low soil moisture when livestock grazing may break soil crust connection with the soil or crush the crusts (Belnap et al. 2001; Finch et al. 2004). Frequent or continuous disturbance will keep the biocrust at an early successional stage (HCNRA CMP EIS 1999 and Brooks 2009).

In summary, grazing in the early to mid-wet season when soil moisture is high has much less impact on medium to fine textured silt loam soils found in the analysis area, and would be the most desirable grazing scenario for biocrust maintenance. Late spring, summer, or fall grazing has less impact on very fine or clay-textured soils when soil moisture is low, than on medium or coarse-textured silt loams or sandy loam soils with low soil moisture.

HCNRA CMP Standards for Biocrusts

The Hell’s Canyon National Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan (2003) provides 9 objectives, standards and guidelines specific to biocrust (HCNRA CMP Appendix C “Detailed Management Direction”, paraphrased in Appendix B of this document). Three of these directives, Bic-O2, Bic-O3, and Bic-G1, developing a crust management plan for the HCNRA, developing desired levels of crust development based on site capability, and designating reference areas as genetic reserves, are overall directives for the HCNRA which are not yet done and should be completed at the Forest level. The biocrust data collected for this project (Geer 2013) may serve as a starting point for information gathering in support of overall HCNRA directives.

Bic-O1 is concerned with maintaining, enhancing, and facilitating restoration of crusts, and Bic- S1 with reducing and eliminating unacceptable human-caused impacts to crust. Bic-G2 and Bic-G3 are specific to grazing and mention minimizing grazing in dry periods and spring, placing water developments and salt away from crust and using fencing to divert from crust. Bic-G4 and Bic-G5 are concerned with the effects of fire on soil crust, which is not proposed as part of this project, so this analysis does not discuss them.

Biocrust - Effects Analysis

Introduction

For the most part, effects to biocrusts mirror effects to soils documented in the Soils section. A summary statement specific to biocrusts is given for each alternative below. Refer to the Soils section for more complete discussion of effects.

167

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

The scale of the cumulative soil effects analyses are bounded in time by 10 to 15 years (or in perpetuity if grazing authorizations continue) and in space by the SPRAA analysis area boundary.

Alternative 1- No Grazing

For a complete description of alternative 1, please see Chapter 2 of this EA.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under this alternative, livestock grazing would be discontinued. Alternative 1 would likely lead most quickly to continued biotic crust and native plant restoration. Invasive plants would still persist and proliferate, but native plant cover would likely continue to increase and possibly compete more effectively, and hoof shear and soil compaction would be reduced to levels caused by native animals. Biocrust cover and composition would probably improve as native plant cover and composition does, though more slowly.

As stated in the Soils section, there would be less compaction, bare ground and disturbance of biocrusts in areas where livestock currently concentrate such as low gradient sites, trails, water sources and salting and loafing areas. As soil conditions improve over time through natural processes, biocrust cover would likely increase and composition would move toward later seral crust components including foliose lichens and tall mosses. It remains to be seen how much improvement is possible, particularly in the most utilized areas with a long history of very heavy impacts prior to regulated grazing.

Biotic crust on the Snake Pine analysis area may be recovering in a timeframe similar to vascular plant communities, which have in most cases improved dramatically over the past 50 years, but in others have seen little change (Range section, White 2013). Kaltnecker and Wicklow-Howard (1994) found the following recovery times after different levels of disturbance: light trampling by humans: 1-3 years to redevelop with less complex structure, partial recovery after livestock use: 14-18 years, and early to mid-seral community development after disturbance: 10 years (western Snake River Plain).

Different components of biotic crust recover at different rates. Monitoring on Prineville BLM District (Demmer 2005) revealed that in most cases Pacific NW mosses recover more quickly than lichens. Conversely, Belnap and Eldridge (2001) map a successional sequence for the western U.S. in which very early successional lichens such as Collema spp. were the first to follow cyanobacteria and green algae. In Snake Pine analysis area, sites classified as “POPR/POBU degraded” which are so far departed from reference condition for so long that their potential is unknown, retain high moss cover but likely have potential for a much more complex biocrust cover.

Some sites may already be near their potential, while the most highly disturbed sites may take decades to recover. Kaltnecker and Wicklow-Howard (1994) initially estimated the following recovery times: 30-40 years for cyanobacteria, 45-85 years for lichens (full recovery), and 250

168

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects years for bryophytes (late seral). However, Belnap and Eldrige (2001) recognize that this and other published estimates were based on linear extrapolations of observed recovery rates. In their Colorado Plateau studies, they found that when scalped plots were re-assessed after 2-5 and 10-14 years from disturbance, cyanobacteria that was predicted to recover in 45-110 years following the 2-5 year assessment actually recovered within 14-34 years; thus extrapolations based on 2-5 years greatly overestimated recovery times. Similarly, at first sample, moss recovery was predicted at 400 years and at second sample it was only 42 years. Thus one might find full recovery in less than 50 years in the analysis area.

Cumulative Effects

Dispersed camping would continue to occur in the SPRAA, and in the non-Wilderness portion OHV riding and timber harvesting would continue. No prescribed burns are planned for the analysis area, but wildfires would continue to occur. The impacts to biocrusts from these activities would include localized areas of disturbance. Overall, however, improvements to biotic crust cover and composition may be expected under this alternative.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

For a complete description of alternative 2, please see Chapter 2 of this EA.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 is nearly identical to the current stocking and timing regime for cattle grazing. Stocking levels have dropped dramatically on these allotments since the establishment of these plots (Range section). Since most long term C&T plots and ecoplots show improvement in native plant cover in the last 30 – 60 years, it is likely that improvement will continue. Because biocrusts generally improve along with native plant communities, they have probably improved with reduction in stocking. Improvement will likely continue, albeit at a slower rate than that of the No Action alternative. At some point a plateau in improvement could be reached.

Livestock grazing effects to soils are described in detail in the Soils section. Time frames and degree of recovery by biocrust morphological forms are detailed above under alternative 1.

Under this alternative, intensive livestock use areas would continue to exist, so localized disturbance to biotic crusts would continue. These areas of high use and concentration include trails (primarily the Bench trail in Snake River allotment), fence lines, roads and skid trails (North Pine allotment), water sources, and salting and loafing areas. As documented in the Soils section, these areas encompass approximately 11 percent of the SPRAA (Table 3-47).

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects to biocrusts are the same as those to soils; refer to the Soils section and Table 3-48 for a detailed discussion. As concluded in the soils section, continued grazing of the SPRAA would have no additive effect on soil resources, and thus on the biocrusts. Overall,

169

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects improvements to biocrust cover and composition may be expected under this alternative, but at a slower rate than alternative 1.

Alternative 3

For a complete description of alternative 3, please see Chapter 2 of this EA.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 involves reduction in the size of Snake River Allotment by about 2500 acres to reflect actual use by cattle, an addition of approximately 226 acres in the North Pine allotment, and a rest rotation schedule in which both allotments would be rested every fourth year. Continued improvement in native plant and biocrust cover would likely occur more quickly than Alternative 2, but at a slower rate than the No Action alternative.

Livestock grazing effects to soils are described in detail in the Soils section. Time frames and degree of recovery by biocrust morphological forms are detailed above under alternative 1.

Cumulative Effects

Activities described under alternative 2 are expected to continue under alternative 3. Cumulative effects to biotic crusts are the same as those to soils; refer to the Soils section for a detailed discussion. As concluded in the Soils section, continued grazing of the SPRAA would have no additive effect on soil resources, and thus on the biotic crusts. Overall, improvements to biocrust cover and composition may be expected under this alternative. These improvements may occur more quickly under alternative 3 than alternative 2, due to the rest rotation schedule, but at a slower rate than under alternative 1.

Biocrust Effects Summary – All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, restoration of biocrusts (Bic-O1) would continue since improvements to vegetation are still being seen following past stocking level reductions. Bic-S1 is addressed under all alternatives: impacts of human-caused activities (i.e. livestock grazing) to biocrust would be reduced through adaptive management (alternatives 2 and 3), rest-rotation/ reduced acres (alternative 3) or withdrawal from grazing (alternative 1, No Action).

Bic-G2 is addressed under the No Action alternative and under alternative 3, since alternative 3 would introduce a rest rotation for both allotments; grazing would continue annually in dry periods and in spring under alternative 2. All alternatives address Bic-G3; water developments and salting locations are examined for biotic crust before placement.

Table 3-51 below summarizes potential biocrust recovery rate by alternative.

Table 3-51. Biocrust maintenance and recovery compared to existing condition

170

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 NO GRAZING PROPOSED ACTION REST ROTATION Biocrust maintained and Increased recovery Increased rate of recovery slowly recovering to slightly compared to existing compared to existing increased rate of recovery conditions under current condition and other due to livestock management due to Alternatives. management changes in livestock management the AOI changes in the AOI

Consistency with Laws, Regulations and Policy

Biocrust and Forest Plan Compliance

Alternatives 1, 2 and 3

Management of the SPRAA allotments under alternatives 1, 2 and 3 is consistent with both the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan (1990) and the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area CMP (2003) because of the application of Best Management Practices, mitigation measures, and monitoring management goals and objectives.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Alternatives 2 and 3 would meet Forest Plan and HCNRA CMP goals, desired future conditions and objectives because livestock would be managed on the allotments utilizing adaptive management practices, protection measures, and monitoring (long and short term) to address any site-specific issues as they are identified.

See Appendix B (Consistency Review) for a detailed description of how alternatives 2 and 3 respond to direction specific to grazing included in the amended Forest Plan and CMP.

171

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Botanical Resources

Introduction and Regulatory Framework

The North Pine, Snake River and Double Pine allotments are located within Whitman Ranger District and Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (HCNRA). The HCNRA Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) Appendix G “Detailed Vegetation Data” (2003) defines biologically unique resources to meet section 7 (3) of the HCNRA Act. Rare and endemic plant species are one of three categories of biologically unique resources. Rare and endemic plant species meet one or more of the following criteria: 1. Federally listed species (Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed), 2. FS Sensitive species (now known as Special status species in R6), or 3. disjunct or endemic plant populations. Federally listed species are provided by the USFWS (USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013). The R6 Special status plant list was most recently updated in 2011 (USDA-Forest Service). Since the HCNRA also encompasses parts of Regions 1 and 4, rare species on those lists which occur in the HCNRA, as well as species which meet criteria for disjunct are included in a comprehensive table (G-2) in Appendix G of the CMP (2003). Appendix G of the CMP also recognizes that any new species discovered which meet the criteria for disjunct or endemic must be considered.

Hell’s Canyon National Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan Appendix C (2003) provides 10 objectives, standards and guidelines specific to rare and endemic plant species (Appendix B).

Existing Condition

Pre-field reviews and field surveys for this analysis were conducted during 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2013. Prior to the project specific surveys, only three R6 special status plant populations were documented in the project area, all bartonberry (Rubus bartonianus) in the Snake River allotment. Hells’ Canyon endemics Mimulus clivicola and Primulus cusickiana were also documented. During field surveys, the following R6 special status species were located: Carex cordillerana, Cheilanthes feei, Mimulus hymenophyllus, and Phacelia minutissima. In addition the following Hell’s Canyon endemics which are not on the R6 list were noted: Astragalus vallaris, Camassia cusickii, Frasera albicaulis var. idahoensis, Lomatium serpentinum, Penstemon elegantulus, and Phlox colubrina. A recently described species, Lomatium brunsfeldianum (2012) was also located. It is unknown if it will be added to any species lists in the future, but for purposes of this analysis is being treated as a Hell’s Canyon rare and endemic plant. Although approximately 200 person-hours were spent surveying for rare plants, the project area is large and it is likely that some went undiscovered.

Threatened, endangered and proposed species that were considered for this project were provided by the USFWS (USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, lists updated 8/1/2013):

The USFWS identified the following federally listed species that may have habitat in Baker or Wallowa Counties:

Howell’s Spectacular Thelypody (Thelypodium howellii ssp. spectabilis) – threatened.

172

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis) – candidate Mac Farlane’s four o’clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei) – threatened Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii) – threatened

During pre-field review and field surveys, no habitat or populations were identified for any of the federally listed species in the project area.

Desired Condition

Desired conditions in the Wallowa Whitman Land and Resource Management Plan speak of the necessity to maintain plant and habitat diversity (Forest Plan, page 4-1):

Maintain native and desirable introduced or historic plant and animal species and communities. Provide for all seral stages of terrestrial and aquatic plant associations in a distribution and abundance to accomplish this goal. Maintain or enhance ecosystem function to provide for long-term integrity and productivity of biological communities.

The HCNRA CMP provides a description of changes needed from current direction to better address biologically unique species, habitats, and ecosystems (CMP, page 1-12):

A change in management direction is needed to define which species, habitats, and ecosystems contribute to the biological uniqueness of the HCNRA and to provide management direction to ensure their protection and maintenance.

HCNRA CMP Standards for Rare and Endemic Plants

The Hell’s Canyon National Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan (2003) provides 10 objectives, standards and guidelines specific to rare and endemic plants (HCNRA CMP Appendix C “Detailed Management Direction”, in Appendix B of this document). Four of these directives, TES-01, TES-03, TES-04 and TES-S2 specifically address known occurences of federally listed plant species. Currently no federally listed plant species are known in the project area. TES-G1 suggests reintroduction of federally listed species to unoccupied suitable habitat.

Bio-S1 is concerned with survey and documentation of biologically unique species, ecosystems, or habitats. TES-02 speaks of managing the habitat to ensure continued existence of rare plants, and TES-S1 urges survey of probable habitat for new and ongoing actions, and mitigating conflicts. TES-S3 calls for following any conservation agreements or strategies. Finally, TES-G2 suggests considering modification activities such as road closure, exclusion of livestock, or modification of grazing plans when conflicts with rare plant species are identified.

Federally Listed Species -Effects Analysis

Direct/Indirect and Cumulative Effects

All Alternatives

173

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

No known sites or occupied habitat exists within the project area for any federally Listed Proposed, Endangered or Threatened (PET) plant species. No sites or populations were discovered during field surveys. Therefore, this project (all alternatives) will have No Effect to any listed plant species or critical habitat.

R6 Sensitive Species & Hell’s Canyon rare and endemic species - Effects Analysis

The Regional Forester’s Special Status list is located in the project file. Forest GIS and NRIS data was used to display the known Sensitive plant sites in the project area. In addition the full Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (WWNF) Sensitive Plant list 2011 was reviewed to determine which species may have high-potential habitat within the project area and have not been located by field surveys. The following table lists those sensitive species that are known or suspected in the project area. All other species on the full WWNF sensitive plant list are given a determination of “NI-No Impact” due to not being known in the area or not suspected to have potential habitat. A determination is given for each species in the table below (Table 3-52).

Allotment monitoring information notes that all allotments are in fair to good condition with upward trends. Allotments that are being managed in fair to good condition with an upward trend results in target sensitive plant habitats also being managed in fair to good condition. The determination statements below are based on the existing information that the management of the allotments is fair to good condition with an upward trend and future management would continue meeting utilization and vegetation standards for riparian areas and uplands as identified in the SPRAA EA.

Table 3-52. R6 Regional Forester’s Special Status Species List 2011 (documented or suspected) in the project area and Determination Statement (rows shaded are documented in project area).

Documented Det. Det. Det. Scientific Name Common Name /Suspected? Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Achnatherum wallowaensis Wallowa ricegrass Susp BI MIIH MIIH

Allium geyeri var. geyeri geyer's onion Susp BI MIIH MIIH

Arabis hastatula hells canyon rockcress Susp NI NI NI

Asplenium trichomanes- green spleenwort Susp NI NI NI ramosum

Botrychium ascendens upward-lobed moonwort Susp BI MIIH MIIH

Botrychium campestre prairie moonwort Susp BI MIIH MIIH

174

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Documented Det. Det. Det. Scientific Name Common Name /Suspected? Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Botrychium crenulatum crenulate moonwort Susp BI MIIH MIIH

Botrychium hesperium western moonwort Susp BI MIIH MIIH

Botrychium lineare slender moonwort Susp BI MIIH MIIH

Botrychium lunaria moonwort Susp BI MIIH MIIH

Botrychium montanum mountain grape-fern Susp BI MIIH MIIH

Botrychium paradoxum twin-spiked moonwart Susp BI MIIH MIIH

Botrychium pedunculosum stalked moonwort Susp BI MIIH MIIH

Calochortus macrocarpus green-band mariposa-lily Susp BI MIIH MIIH var. maculosus

Carex cordillerana cordilleran sedge Doc BI MIIH MIIH

Castilleja flava v. rustica country paintbrush Susp BI MIIH MIIH

Cheilanthes feei fee's lip-fern Doc NI NI NI

Cryptogramma stelleri steller's rockbrake Susp NI NI NI

Cyperus lupulinus ssp. Great Plains flatsedge Susp BI MIIH MIIH lupulinus

Cypripedium fasciculatum clustered lady's-slipper Susp BI MIIH MIIH

Erigeron disparipilus white cushion erigeron Susp BI MIIH MIIH

Delphinium bicolor Flathead larksspur Susp BI MIIH MIIH

Erigeron engelmannii var. Engelmann's daisy Susp BI MIIH MIIH davisii

Heliotropium curassavicum salt heliotrope Susp BI MIIH MIIH

Listera borealis northern twayblade Susp BI MIIH MIIH

Lycopodium complanatum ground cedar Susp BI MIIH MIIH

membrane-leaved Doc BI MIIH MIIH Mimulus hymenophyllus monkeyflower

Ophioglossum pusillum adder's-tongue Susp BI MIIH MIIH

175

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Documented Det. Det. Det. Scientific Name Common Name /Suspected? Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Pellaea bridgesii bridges' cliff-brake Susp NI NI NI

Phacelia minutissima dwarf phacelia Doc BI MIIH MIIH

Phlox multiflora many-flowered phlox Susp BI MIIH MIIH

Platanthera obtusata small northern bog-orchid Susp BI MIIH MIIH

Rubus bartonianus bartonberry Doc BI MIIH MIIH

Pyrracoma scaberula rough pyrracoma Susp BI MIIH MIIH

Suksdorfia violacea violet suksdorfia Susp NI NI NI

Thelypodium eucosmum arrow-leaf thelypody Susp BI MIIH MIIH

Trifolium douglasii douglas' clover Susp BI MIIH MIIH

USFWS listed species

Spalding's catchfly No No No Silene spaldingii NA Effect Effect Effect

Note: updated with R6 Regional Forester’s Special Status Species List 2011 Susp- Suspected potential habitat is within the project area, but no known sites as of this BE date. Doc- Documented population(s) within the project area. BI – Beneficial Impact MIIH- May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but will not result in a trend to Federal Listing NI – No impact

The table below lists the HCNRA Rare and Endemic plants. Species known to be in the project area are highilighted. Endemic and disjunct species which are known to be in the project area and not given an effects call in Table 3-52 receive a call of “BI-Beneficial Impact” with alternative 1, and “MIIH- May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but will not result in a trend to Federal Listing” with alternatives 2 and 3.

Table 3-53. HCNRA Rare and Endemic Plant list (rows highlighted are documented in project area)

Forest Service2

1 Federal Sensitive Species Plant Species Doc3 Habitat4 Status Region Region Region

6 4 1

176

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Forest Service2

1 Federal Sensitive Species Plant Species Doc3 Habitat4 Status Region Region Region

6 4 1

Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed Species Howellia aquatilis LT X R

Mirabilis macfarlanei LT X X X X G

Silene spaldingii LT X X X X G

Spiranthes diluvialis LT X R

Sensitive Species Achnatherum wallowaensis X X L

Allium madidum X MWM

Allium geyeri var. geyeri X X MWM, R

Allium tolmeii var. persimile X X L

Arabis hastatula X X RCB

Asplenium trichomanes-ramosum X

Barbilophozia lycopodioides X

Blechnum spicant X CF

Botrychium ascendens X R, MWM

Botrychium campestre X R, MWM

Botrychium crenulatum X R, MWM

Botrychium lanceolatum var. X R, MWM lanceolatum

Botrychium lineare X X X R, MWM

Botrychium lunaria X R, MWM

Botrychium montanum X R, MWM

Botrychium paradoxum X R, MWM

Botrychium pedunculosum X R, MWM

Botrychium pinnatum X R, MWM

Botrychium simplex X X R, MWM

Bupleurum americanum X

177

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Forest Service2

1 Federal Sensitive Species Plant Species Doc3 Habitat4 Status Region Region Region

6 4 1

Buxbaumia aphylla X CF

Buxbaumia viridis X CF

Calamagrostis tweedyi X CF, G

Calochortus macrocarpus var. X X G maculosus

Calochortus nitidus X X X X G

Camassia cusickii X X R

Cardamine constancei X CF

Carex atrata var. atrosquama X MWM, A

Carex backii X R

Carex buxbaumii X MWM

Carex capillaris X

Carex capitata X

Carex diandra X

Carex dioica var. gynocrates X R

Carex lasiocarpa var. americana X

Carex nardina X A

Carex norvegica X A, MWM, R

Carex nova X A, MWM

Carex parryana X MWM

Carex pyrenaica ssp. micropoda X

Carex retrorsa X

Carex saxatalis X

Carex scirpoidea var. stenochlaena X MWM

Carex stenophylla X G, MWM

Carex subnigricans X

178

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Forest Service2

1 Federal Sensitive Species Plant Species Doc3 Habitat4 Status Region Region Region

6 4 1

Carex vernacular X

Castilleja fraterna X A, RCB, MWM, R

Castilleja rubida X RCB, A

Cheilanthes feei X X

Cornus nuttallii X CF

Cryptogramma stelleri X

Cyperus lupulinus ssp. tenella X X

Cypripedium fasciculatum X X X CF, R

Delphinium bicolor X

Dermatocarpon meiophyllizum X

Douglasia idahoensis X X CF,

Elatine brachysperma X AQ

Eleocharis bolanderi X MWM

Encalypta intermedia X

Epipactis gigantea X X R

Erigeron disparipilus X X L

Erigeron engelmanni var. davisii X X G, RCB

Gentiana prostrata X

Gentianella tenella ssp. tenella X

Halimolobos perplexa var. perplexa X X X X G

Pyrrocoma radiata X G

Pyrrocoma scaberula X

Heliotropium curassavicum X

Helodium blandowii X X MWM

Hookeria lucens X CF, R,

Jungermannia polaris X

179

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Forest Service2

1 Federal Sensitive Species Plant Species Doc3 Habitat4 Status Region Region Region

6 4 1

Juncus triglumis var. albescens X

Kobresia bellardii X A

Kobresia simpliciuscula X MWM, R

Leptodactylon pungens ssp. hazeliae X X X G, RCB

Leptogium burnetiae X

Leptogium cyanescens X

Lewisia kelloggii X A

Lipocarpha aristulata X

Listera borealis X CF

Lomatium erythrocarpum X A

Lomatium greenmanii X A

Lomatium salmoniflorum X G

Lycopodium complanatum X CF, R

Mimulus ampliatus X R

Mimulus clivicola X X G

Mimulus hymenophyllus X X R, RCB

Muhlenbergia minutissima X

Pellaea bridgesii X RCB

Peltigera pacifica X

Peltolepis quadrata X

Pentagramma triangularis ssp. X X RCB triangularis

Phacelia minutissima X X MWM,

Phlox multiflora X G, RCB

Platanthera obtusata X MWM

Pleuropogon oregonus X R, MWM

180

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Forest Service2

1 Federal Sensitive Species Plant Species Doc3 Habitat4 Status Region Region Region

6 4 1

Potamogeton diversifolius X

Ptilidium pulcherrimum X

Rhizomnium nudum X X CF

Rorippa columbiae X R

Rotala ramosior

Rubus bartonianus X X X R, RCB

Salix farriae X MWM, R

Salix wolfii X

Saxifraga adscendens var. X RCB, A oregonensis

Saxifraga tolmiei var. ledifolia X CF, A

Schistidium cinclidodonteum X

Schistostega pennata X MWM, R

Sedum borschii X RCB

Sphagnum mendocinum X MWM

Splachnum ampullaceum X

Stylocline filaginea X G

Suksdorfia violacea X RCB

Syntheris platycarpa X CF

Tetraphis geniculata X

Thalictrum alpinum var. hebetum X MWM

Thelypodium eucosmum X G

Tomentypnum nitens X

Tortula mucronifolia X

Townsendia montana X A

Townsendia parryi X A

181

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Forest Service2

1 Federal Sensitive Species Plant Species Doc3 Habitat4 Status Region Region Region

6 4 1

Triantha occidentalis ssp. brevistyla X X MWM, R

Trifolium douglasii X G, MWM

Trifolium plumosum var. amplifolium X G, MWM

Trollius laxus var. albiflorus X X MWM, R

Utricularia minor X

Waldsteinia idahoensis X CF

Endemic Species

Arabis crucisetosa X MWM

Arabis hastatula X X RCB

Astragalus vallaris X G

Camassia cusickii X X R

Erigeron engelmanni var. davisii X X G, RCB

Frasera albicaulis var idahoensis X G

Leptodactylon pungens ssp. hazeliae X X X G, RCB

Lomatium rollinsii X G

Lomatium serpentinum X G

Mimulus clivicola X X G, L

Mimulus hymenophyllus X X R, RCB

Nemophila kirtleyi X CF

Penstemon elegantulus X G

Phlox colubrina X G, RCB

Primula cusickiana X R, L

Ribes cereum var. colubrinum X R

Rubus bartonianus X X X R, RCB

Disjunct Species

Allium geyeri var. geyeri X X MWM, R

182

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Forest Service2

1 Federal Sensitive Species Plant Species Doc3 Habitat4 Status Region Region Region

6 4 1

Bupleurum americanum X X A

Carex limosa X MWM

Cryptogramma stelleri X X RCB

Drosera anglica X MWM

Geum rossii var. turbinatum X RCB

Pediocactus simpsonii var. robustior X G

Potentilla palustre X MWM

Xerophyllum tenax X CF, A-MWM

1. Federal Status. LT- Listed Threatened as defined by the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 2. Region 6 Regional Forester’s Special Status Species List. Applies to all Hells Canyon land in Oregon (December 2011). Region 4 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List. Applies to all land on the Payette National Forest in Idaho that is administered by the HCNRA (July 2004). Region 1 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List. Applies to all land on the Nez Perce National Forest in Idaho that is administered by the HCNRA (October 28, 2004). 3. Doc - Documented in the HCNRA. Indicates that the species has been documented in the HCNRA. 4. Habitat: A=Alpine; AQ=Aquatic; CF = Coniferous Forest; G = Grassland; L = Lithosol; MWM = Moist and Wet Meadows; R = Riparian Areas; RCB = Rock Outcrops, Cliffs, and Bluffs.

Alternative 1

A Beneficial Impact is given to alternative 1 (no grazing) for documented or suspected special status plants, based on the highly probable effect that removing livestock grazing would have immediate and long-term benefits to any species that is documented or suspected in the allotment and that would be normally be impacted by any level of livestock grazing. There are few species that are not impacted by any level of livestock grazing, due to habitat.

Alternatives 2 and 3

A May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but will not result in a trend to Federal Listing (MIIH) determination is given for alternatives 2 (proposed action) and 3 for any documented or suspected special status species that would normally be affected by livestock grazing, with the understanding that those MIIH determination statements are based on the existing C & T information that show upward trends at the majority of plots, and future adaptive range management would continue meeting utilization and vegetation standards for riparian areas and uplands as identified in the SPRAA Environmental Assessment (EA). In addition, project protection measures are noted for any known or discovered TES species and also for the survey and control of noxious weeds. These protection measures (described in chapter 2) would serve to reduce any impacts on known or suspected sensitive plant populations.

183

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative Actions and Activities (listed at the beginning of Chapter 3) were reviewed in respect to impacts on botanical resources. The cumulative effects of those actions combined with the SPRAA action alternatives 2 or 3, are not great enough that any sensitive plant species would be impacted or moved toward federal listing. Project design features of future projects would have protection measures for known sensitive plants. Field surveys and any new sites are added to the Forest database and are available for review when new projects are proposed. Ongoing actions such as camping, hunting and other public uses are not thought to have any cumulative impacts on any sensitive plant population because limited recreation use occurs in the SPRAA, and most of those activities occur on hardened sites where sensitive plants are not located (campsites, trails, roads),. Therefore, no cumulative effects are thought to occur on the sensitive plant resource as a result of the project (SPRAA) alternatives.

Consistency with Laws, Regulations and Policy

The Forest Plan provides direction for diversity that applies to plant and animal species and their habitats (Forest Plan 4-30). The goals focus on maintaining or enhancing ecosystem function to provide for long-term integrity and productivity of biological communities, including habitat that supports plant species that have become identified as regionally sensitive or listed under the endangered species act. The Snake/Pine AMP project is consistent with these goals through development of Allotment Management Plans and Annual Operating Instructions which are designed to address allotment specific and yearly climatic issues on the allotments. These specific instructions are reviewed and agreed upon each year with the Forest Service rangeland specialists and the permittees. The end result of the agreement lies in the attainment of utilization standards to protect vegetative resources.

Another component of consistency is the preparation of Biological Evaluations as directed: prepare a biological evaluation (per direction in FSM 2670, including R-6 manual supplements) during the environmental analysis of each project to determine possible effects of the proposed activity on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (Forest Plan 4-30). This process was completed for the Snake/Pine AMP project.

HCNRA CMP Standards for Rare and Endemic Plants

TES-01, TES-03, TES-04 and TES-S2 specifically address known occurences of federally listed plant species. Currently no federally listed plant species are known in the project area, thus they are not discussed here. TES-G1 suggested reintroduction of federally listed species to unoccupied suitable habitat. At this time, no unoccupied suitable habitat has been identified within the project area.

Bio-S1 is concerned with survey and documentation of biologically unique species, ecosystems, or habitats. Biologically unique plant species were surveyed for and documented specifically for this project. TES-02 speaks of managing the habitat to ensure continued existence of rare plants, and TES-S1 urges survey of probable habitat for new and ongoing actions, and mitigating conflicts. Through adaptive management and mitigation measures, all alternatives can be expected to mitigate conflicts with known and as of yet undiscovered occurences of rare

184

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects plants. TES-S3 calls for following any conservation agreements or strategies. Currently there are no conservation agreements or strategies in place for rare plants known in the project area. Finally, TES-G2 suggests considering modification activities such as road closure, exclusion of livestock, or modification of grazing plans when conflicts with rare plant species are identified. At this time, no conflicts with rare plant species have been identified.

See Appendix B (Consistency Review) for a detailed description of how alternatives 2 and 3 respond to direction specific to grazing included in the amended Forest Plan and CMP.

185

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Wildlife

Introduction

This section describes the wildlife habitat conditions in the SPRAA and the effects of the project alternatives; including direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to wildlife and their habitats. The SPRAA is characterized by a diverse range of habitats including sagebrush, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, rocky outcrops, and numerous streams. This analysis focuses on those species and habitats that are likely to experience effects from range allotment operations.

Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive species

A Biological Evaluation (BE) on Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive (PETS) species was completed for this project. It addresses existing information, species habitat in the project area, and describes the anticipated direct, indirect, and cumulative effects resulting from the proposed project. Biological evaluations are required as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) decision-making process for all proposed Forest management activities to determine how they may affect PETS species or their habitat (U.S. Forest Service Manual [FSM] 2670). The review is conducted to ensure that FS actions do not contribute to the loss of species viability or cause a species to move toward federal listing (43 U.S.C. 1707 et seq). Threatened and Endangered species are managed under authority of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (36 U.S.C. 1531-1544) and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) (16 U.S.C. 1600-1614). The ESA requires Federal agencies make certain all actions they authorize, fund, or carry out will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species. Sensitive species are those recognized by the Region 6 Regional Forester as needing special management to meet NFMA obligations. FS Policy requires a BE to determine possible effects to them from proposed management activities. The complete BE is included as Appendix C of this EA.

Prefield Review

The list of Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened species used is from the FWS from January 31, 2008. The Regional Forester's Sensitive species list for Region 6 (FSM 2670.43) from December 9, 2011 and Whitman RD information regarding the project area were reviewed to determine species occurrence. Only those PETS, or their habitats, known or suspected to occur in or immediately adjacent to the analysis area are addressed (Table 3-54).

Summary of PETS Species and Effects Analysis

Direct/Indirect and Cumulative Effects

A summary with an effects determination is included in Table 3-54 for PETS species. For discussion on existing species information, habitat and the anticipated direct, indirect, and cumulative effects resulting from the proposed project alternatives, see Appendix C.

Table 3-54. Summary of PETS Species and Effect Determination

186

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Animal Species Status Habitat Determination Canada lynx Threatened Historic No Effect Northern bald eagle Sensitive Potential No Impact Gray wolf Sensitive Known May Impact California wolverine Sensitive Potential No Impact Pacific fisher Sensitive Potential No Impact Peregrine falcon Sensitive Known No Impact Upland sandpiper Sensitive No No Impact Lewis woodpecker Sensitive Potential No Impact White-headed Sensitive Potential No Impact woodpecker Sage grouse Sensitive No No Impact Bufflehead Sensitive No No Impact Sharp-tailed grouse Sensitive No No Impact Johnson’s hairstreak Sensitive Potential No Impact Meadow fritillary Sensitive Potential May Impact Silver-border fritillary Sensitive Potential May Impact Inland tailed frog Sensitive Potential May Impact Columbia spotted Sensitive Potential May Impact frog Hells Canyon land Sensitive Potential May Impact snail Fir pinwheel Sensitive Potential May Impact Yuma skipper Sensitive No No Impact Intermountain Sensitive Potential May Impact sulphur Western bumblebee Sensitive Potential May Impact Fringed myotis Sensitive Potential May Impact Spotted bat Sensitive No No Impact Townsend’s bat Sensitive Potential May Impact Wallowa rosy finch Sensitive No No Impact Black rosy finch Sensitive No No Impact Harlequin duck Sensitive No No Impact Black swift Sensitive No No Impact

Wildlife Species and Habitat

Current condition and effects from the alternatives on wildlife Management Indicator Species and neotropical migratory birds are discussed here. Scientific literature was reviewed and documented to better analyze wildlife species and habitat.

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

187

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

The Forest Plan (1990) identified terrestrial wildlife Management Indicator Species (MIS) for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (Table 3-55). The habitat requirements of these species are presumed to represent those of a larger group of wildlife species. Potential habitat for the pileated woodpecker, primary cavity excavators, northern goshawk, American marten, and Rocky Mountain elk is present in the analysis area.

Table 3-55: Management indicator species for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (Forest Plan, Appendix G). SPECIES HABITAT Pileated woodpecker Old growth and mature forests Primary cavity excavators Snag and log habitat Northern goshawk Old growth and mature forest Rocky Mountain elk Arrangement of cover and forage American marten Old growth and mature forest

Pileated Woodpecker - Existing Condition

The pileated woodpecker prefers dense, multistory old growth habitat with high snag densities. Nesting occurs in large diameter dead and live trees (Bull and Holthausen 1993). Snags, living trees, and down woody debris are used during foraging. Bull and Holthausen (1993), suggest that pileated woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon have an average home range size of 900 acres. This species occurs in mixed conifer stands in the SPRAA.

Nesting and foraging habitat is not affected by cattle grazing or activities associated with grazing. Although cattle use areas where snags and down wood are present, they do not affect the density or distribution of these habitat components. Range structural improvements (fences, spring developments, ponds, etc.) are not affecting this species or habitat features (large snags and green trees) required by this species. Management activities associated with grazing (riding, salting, moving cattle between pastures, etc.) are also not affecting this species or potential habitat.

Effects Analysis

Direct/Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

The no grazing alternative would have no effect on pileated woodpecker habitat.

Alternatives 2 and 3

As in the current condition, nesting and foraging habitat is not affected by cattle grazing or activities associated with grazing. For these reasons, cattle grazing would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the pileated woodpecker.

188

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Primary Cavity Nesters - Existing Condition

Primary cavity excavator refers to 15 bird species that create holes for nesting or roosting in live, dead, or decaying trees (northern flicker, Lewis' woodpecker, yellow-bellied sapsucker, Williamson's sapsucker, hairy woodpecker, downy woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, northern three-toed woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, mountain chickadee, black-capped chickadee, white-breasted nuthatch, red-breasted nuthatch, and pygmy nuthatch).

Secondary cavity users such as owls, bluebirds, and flying squirrels may use cavities later for denning, roosting, and nesting. Habitat for primary cavity excavators mainly consists of dead and dying trees in various size classes (Walters and Maguire 2005). Primary cavity nester habitat can occur in a variety of vegetative communities with various structural conditions (Thomas 1979). In general, existing and potential habitat can be found throughout the analysis area, except for non-forest areas and forest stands in the process of regeneration (stand initiation and stem exclusion structures).

Cattle grazing does not affect nesting and foraging habitat for these species. Although cattle use areas where snags and down wood are present, they do not affect the density or distribution of these habitat components. There would be no change in the quality or availability of habitat for these species due to the effects of grazing.

Effects Analysis

Direct/Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

The no grazing alternative would have no effect on primary cavity nesters.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Northern Goshawk - Existing Condition

The goshawk is associated with mature and old growth forests (Greenwald et al. 2005). The goshawk preys on large to medium sized birds and small mammals that it captures on the ground, in trees, or in the air (Reynolds et al. 1991).

Goshawks use large diameter green trees, especially those close to water, for nest sites. They use down logs as places to pluck their prey before carrying it to the nest. Prey species

189

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects important to goshawks depend on snags, down logs, and vegetative layering found within old growth forests for habitat (Reynolds et al. 1991; McGrath and DeStafano 1995).

Home ranges for a goshawk pair can approach 6,000 acres and typically contain 2 to 4 alternate nests. Nest areas are often used for more than one year and some are used intermittently for decades (Reynolds et al. 1991; Wallowa-Whitman National Forest data on file). Each of these nest areas is usually defined as a use area of about 30 acres. Also associated with nests are post-fledging areas (PFA), which are approximately 420 acres. PFAs are usually associated with habitat characteristics that resemble the nest site, that is, there is a need for 50% canopy closure, large trees, snags and predator escapement. The remainder of the 6,000 acres area may be defined as foraging habitat, which is usually more open, but should contain large trees, snags, down logs, and other structural elements important to prey species (USDA 1990).

The SPRAA contains suitable goshawk breeding habitat, mostly at mid elevations. Cattle grazing does not affect abundance or quality of nesting and foraging habitat for this species. Although cattle use these areas, they do not affect the density or distribution of multistory, closed canopy forest, snags or large trees. Range structural improvements (fences, spring developments, ponds, etc.) are not affecting this species or habitat features required by this species. Management activities associated with grazing (riding, salting, moving cattle between pastures, etc.) are also not affecting this species or potential habitat.

Effects Analysis

Direct/Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

The no grazing alternative would have no effect on northern goshawks.

Alternatives 2 and 3

American Marten - Existing Condition

Marten represent species associated with old growth forests. Important habitat features for American marten include large diameter snags and down wood as resting and denning sites, down wood accumulations used for under snow resting sites, and continuous forest habitat to reduce vulnerability to predation (Bull and Heater 1996). Primary prey items include voles and redback voles. Other prey species include deer mice, squirrels, birds, shrews, chipmunks, bushytail woodrats, snowshoe hares, and mountain cottontails.

Martens use a variety of habitat components for den sites. Typically they hunt during the night and spend the day in a den site or rest site away from potential predators (Bull et al. 2005, Bull

190

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects and Heater 1996). Den sites used by females are cavities in hollow trees, slash piles or hollow logs. Rest sites are in platforms in trees, under snow, cavities in trees, logs or underground. In the summer, many of the rest sites are on mistletoe or broom rust platforms where it is presumably cooler than in cavities. In winter, they use snag cavities at first, and then shift to hollow logs and jackstraw logs once the snow is deep.

Large trees, typically >20 inches in diameter at breast height, are a common characteristic of rest sites (Bull et al. 2005). Marten are extremely susceptible to predation and are reluctant to venture into openings. Older aged forests often provide overstory cover from avian predators and high density provides an avenue of escape from avian and mammalian predators.

Martens are also susceptible to habitat fragmentation by isolating populations that are too small for long term viability. Thus, maintenance of travel corridors between habitat areas in managed forests is important. Because marten disproportionately use riparian areas, these make excellent travel corridors.

Cattle grazing does not affect potential denning and foraging habitat for the American marten. Although cattle may use potential habitats, they do not affect the density or distribution of down wood in potential habitat. Due to high down wood densities in potential habitat, cattle generally avoid these areas. Livestock do not adversely affect American marten prey resources because they would generally avoid those habitats that would be used by the American marten for foraging. Although this species has been observed on the Whitman Ranger District in the past, there have been no observations within the SPRAA.

Effects Analysis

Direct/Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

The no grazing alternative would have no effect on the American marten.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Because cattle would generally avoid potential American marten habitat, there would be no effect on the quality and quantity of potential habitat. Therefore, there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on this species through implementation of alternative 2 or 3 in the SPRAA.

Rocky Mountain Elk - Existing Condition

Rocky Mountain elk serve as an indicator of the quality of general forest habitat and winter ranges for a number of big game species. Elk management on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is a cooperative effort between the Forest Service and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). The Forest Service manages habitat while ODFW manages populations

191

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects by setting seasons, bag limits, and goals for individual management areas. The Snake/Pine AMP area lies within the Pine Creek Big Game Management Unit designation of ODFW.

The National Forest Management Act (1976) requires that habitat exist to provide for viable populations of all native and desired non-native vertebrates. Elk is a game species that is managed on a management objective (M.O.) basis. Management objectives were developed to consider not only the carrying capacity of the land, but also the elk population size that would provide for a huntable surplus, and tolerance levels of ranchers, farmers, and other interests that may sometimes compete with elk for forage and space. Biologically, a population that is managed around a M.O. is much larger than a minimum viable population. A minimum viable population represents the smallest population size that can persist over the long term. Currently, elk populations on the WWNF are regulated by hunting and predation. Elk numbers are substantially higher than what would constitute a concern over species viability. All alternatives, including the existing condition, would provide for elk populations well above a population viability threshold.

Research shows that cattle and elk diets show a high degree of overlap over the grazing season (Coe et al. 2005; Findlholt et al. 2005). However, elk and cattle spatial separation has been observed where cattle are present (Stewart et al. 2002 and Coe et al. 2005). Stewart et al. (2002) and Coe et al. (2005) concluded that elk avoid cattle during summer. In the Starkey Experimental Forest, La Grande Oregon, spatial separation was observed for elk and mule deer and for elk and cattle during spring and early summer. Elk move to higher elevations following introduction of cattle during spring, returning to lower elevations following removal of cattle in autumn (Stewart et al. 2002). Conversely, mule deer moved to lower elevations following introduction of cattle during spring, possibly in response to displacement of elk following introduction of cattle (Stewart et al. 2002).

However, during late summer and fall more overlap among all ungulates was observed. This spatial overlap is indicative of competition among and between the three species of ungulates as forage resources become depleted later in the grazing season. Studies (Findholt et al. 2005, Cook et al. 2004, Holechek et al.1982) have found nutritional deficits of both elk and cattle in late summer. In the Starkey area, the diets of cattle may not meet the National Research Council standard for nutrient requirement during late summer. These studies implicate competition for resources as a potential limiting factor in ungulate productivity during late summer and fall.

Currently, the management objective for the Pine Creek Big Game Management Unit is 650. The population estimate in 2012 was 785. Surveys conducted annually by ODFW indicate that elk population levels in the Pine Creek unit have exceeded the management objective in 10 of the last 14 years.

Potential disturbance to elk habitat may be evaluated using the Habitat Effectiveness Index (HEI; Thomas et al. 1988). This model considers the density of open roads, the availability of cover habitat (see definitions; Forest Plan 1990, 4-57), the distribution and juxtaposition of cover and forage across the landscape, forage quantity and quality. Only this last variable is affected by grazing because cattle do not trample or otherwise affect cover habitat (i.e., overstory height and canopy closure) or affect road densities. Because this project will not change the ratio of cover to forage, the HEI value would not be affected by the proposed action. In addition, the HEI model was not designed to be applied to rangeland habitat and the high proportion of forage (99.5% in Snake/Pine and 46% in North Pine/Double pine allotments) results in a low

192

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

HEI value despite the fact that these areas provide high quality winter range for elk due in part to their remote nature and low road density.

Effects Analysis

Direct/Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

Based on research on the Starkey Experimental Forest, elk are found on flatter and more westerly aspects when cattle are not present. Resource selection by elk during early summer when cattle are present is shown to be significantly different from elk resource selection functions when cattle were absent (Coe et al. 2005).

The no grazing alternative would result in elk most likely selecting sites with gentler slopes, more open canopy, closer to forest edges, and further from roads. In late summer, elk would select denser canopy when cattle were absent. The Starkey project determined that larger ungulates displace smaller ones; therefore, without the presence of cattle, elk would no longer be displaced by cattle and elk would not suffer nutritional deficits as quickly as when cattle are present.

Alternative 2

Rangeland condition in the analysis area as a whole is on an upward trend as depicted by data collected and described in the rangeland resources report. In general, the current upward trend in rangeland and riparian conditions has occurred with the presence of livestock, therefore alternative 2 would continue the current rate of recovery. Sites that have been identified as unsatisfactory will have a reduction in allowable use to 35% and should begin to exhibit recovery, albeit at a slower rate than alternative 1 or 3.

Under this alternative, competition for forage may exist in late summer and early fall because forage quality can be poor and not meet nutritional requirements of wild ungulates and cattle. Forage may be the limiting factor in ungulate productivity during late summer and fall; there is no strong evidence that previous grazing by cattle improves forage quality later that year. The Starkey study (Findholt et al. 2005) found that forage quality did not improve following cattle and elk grazing because soil moisture may not have been adequate in late June and July for vegetation regrowth. Enforcing season dates and ensuring permittees remove their cattle by the end of the permitted grazing season may allow for regrowth of vegetation on fall and winter range and reduce competition between cattle and elk.

Although the fitness of mule deer and elk may not be affected during the summer, their ability to survive severe winters and reproduce may be negatively affected by poor summer nutrition (Coe et al. 2005 and Findholt et al. 2005). However, the current level of grazing has been compatible with a harvestable surplus of elk well above management objectives and alternative 2 will not threaten the viability of elk in this population.

Alternative 3

193

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Alternative 3 is similar to alternative 2 with two primary differences. The first difference is that sites that have been identified as unsatisfactory will have a reduction in allowable use to 30% rather than 35% as in alternative 2. The second significant difference is that each allotment will be required to undergo complete rest for one year out of every 4 years. These two differences would result in more available forage for elk. It is likely that elk would utilize flatter slopes during the years the allotments are rested because they would not be displaced by cattle. However, it is unclear whether these differences would translate to an increase in the elk population.

Cumulative Effects on Rocky Mountain Elk (MIS)

Alternative 1

This alternative would not contribute to cumulative effects to Rocky Mt. Elk. With the exclusion of cattle, elk would no longer be displaced by cattle, and elk would not suffer nutritional deficits as soon as when cattle are present.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Past, present, and forseeable actions within the project area include trail use and maintenance, dispersed recreation, and big game hunting. The human presence associated with any of these activites can result in a short-term disturbance to elk and reduce the effectiveness of available habitat. However, recreation activities within the project area are relatively light due to the steep and remote nature of the area and the existence of few roads and trails.

Other foreseeable actions include prescribed fuels projects, such as the Puderbaugh thinning and prescribed burning project. Reducing fuel loads, conifer encroachment in open meadows, and opening canopies would increase understory grass, forb, and shrub vegetation, and could improve livestock and herbivore distribution. Bunchgrasses normally respond to low intensity burning with improved vigor which attracts an increase in big game and livestock use. The additional use is managed by implementing a review process where burned areas (prescribed or wildfire) are assessed by the fuels specialist and range manager to determine if the area may need some form of rest from grazing. This review process ensures that adequate forage will remain for wild ungulates.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in no cumulative effects to elk or their habitat.

Neotropical Migratory Birds - Existing Condition

Neotropical migratory birds (NTMBS) are those that breed in the U.S. and winter south of the border in Central and South America. Continental and local declines in population trends for migratory and resident landbirds have developed into an international concern. Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, directs that environmental analyses evaluate the effects of proposed actions on migratory birds.

The Partners in Flight (PIF) Bird Conservation Plan is used to address the requirements contained in Executive Order 13186. Conservation planning allows the analysis of proposed

194

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects projects on NTMBS through the use of guidelines for priority habitats and bird species of concern for each planning unit. The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest lies within the Northern Rocky Mountain Landbird Conservation Planning Region. The conservation planning for the Blue Mountains is addressed in the Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Northern Rocky Mountains of Eastern Oregon and Washington (Altman 2000), referred to in this section as the Conservation Strategy. The Conservation Strategy identifies priority habitats and focal species for each planning unit in the United States.

Habitat types described in the Conservation Strategy that occur in the Snake/Pine Allotments include Dry Forest, and Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest (late succession) and Riparian. This document focuses on the Riparian habitat type because of the potential effects from livestock grazing.

Literature Review

Saab (1998) reviewed studies that evaluated bird responses to livestock grazing in riparian habitats and found that nearly half of 68 neotropical migrant landbirds decreased in abundance with cattle grazing, 9% increased with grazing, and 25% showed no clear response. Ground nesting birds (veery, fox sparrow) were most negatively affected by livestock grazing. Ground nesters are probably more vulnerable to nest losses and reductions in foraging habitat through the physical removal and damages to ground vegetation in grazed areas (Saab 1998).

Walsberg (2005) studied the nest success of the ground nesting dark-eyed junco and found that fledgling success was reduced by 75% in areas of cattle grazing. Reduction in vegetation cover exposed nesting birds to more extreme temperature conditions and increased exposure to predation. Some nests are trampled by cattle.

Taylor (1986) studied nesting birds along the Blitzen River in Oregon and found that bird populations and species richness increased with shrub heights and greater volume and that bird species decreased with increased grazing. Altman (2000) found that cottonwood/willow habitat has declined by 100% in the Blue Mountains.

Ohmart (1996) found impacts of livestock grazing on riparian areas are largely from unmanaged grazing. If livestock are allowed to freely graze they will spend a disproportionate amount of time in riparian areas.

Current Condition

Riparian habitats within the Snake/Pine area are centers of high diversity and abundance of birds. Studies have shown that vegetation structure within the ground, shrub, and canopy layers were positively correlated with abundance of birds nesting in those layers. Riparian habitat surveys, within the Snake/Pine Allotment area, indicate that the riparian areas are in good condition (see “Snake/Pine Allotment Management Plan: Fisheries Report”).

Effects Analysis

195

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Direct/Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

Many riparian areas within the Snake/Pine Range Allotment area are inaccessible to livestock due to topography. Where livestock have access to riparian areas, the elimination of grazing would result in accelerated recovery and long term improvement of some riparian areas.

Abundance of shrub-nesting bird species may increase compared to grazed areas; nest predation may decrease with increased foliage densities. Ground-nesting bird species would be most positively affected by the no grazing alternative. These ground nesters would be less vulnerable to nest losses due to the increase in ground vegetation. Large snags and overstory canopy would continue to provide habitat for canopy-nesting species, including cavity-nesting species.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Forest Habitat Large snags, down wood, overstory canopy closure, horizontal stand diversity, and edges/opening created by wildfire are not being affected by the presence of cattle. Livestock grazing is not adversely affecting old forest patches interspersed with grass opening or single- stratum old forest with patches of pine regeneration. Cattle generally use dense stands of timber sparingly because these habitats tend to have moderate to high downed wood densities that make access difficult.

Because cattle grazing would not adversely affect potential habitat of dry forest or mesic mixed conifer there would be no adverse impact on neotropical migratory bird populations in these portions of the affected area.

Riparian Habitat Parsons et al. (2003) found that the season of use affected livestock distribution patterns throughout their study. During early summer, cattle were consistently observed farther from the stream than during late summer. From early April through mid July, livestock can be drawn to the uplands by succulent, herbaceous forage. Cattle congregate in riparian areas from mid July through late September when upland forage conditions decline and temperatures increase (Siekert et al.1985).

Few bird species appear to benefit from grazing in riparian habitats. Based on available information, when riparian areas are grazed, moderate use during late summer and fall or short- term use in spring would be less damaging than growing-season grazing (Saab 1998).

The combination of salting, herding, and off-site water sources to distribute cattle uniformly across pastures and allotments proposed in the Snake/Pine Range Allotment is designed to reduce effects to accessible riparian areas. PFC monitoring will provide information on the effects of grazing on riparian vegetation. Although less shrub and grass cover would be available for nesting NTMBS under alternative 2 compared to alternative 1, forage utilization standards identified in the EA would continue to be met. Should overgrazing occur permitted livestock would be reduced until utilization standards are met. Meeting livestock forage

196

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects standards are expected to provide adequate nesting structure for ground and shrub nesting birds; thereby, reducing the potential for nest loss.

Due to the small scale of these accessible riparian areas by cattle and the occurrence of cattle during late summer when most birds have fledged young there would be no adverse impact on NTMBS in these portions of the analysis area.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

This alternative would not contribute to cumulative effects to NTMBS. With the removal of livestock grazing, alternative 1 would favor shrub and ground-nesting NTMBS, especially those species associated with riparian areas.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Other uses in the project area include trail use and maintenance, dispersed and developed recreation, big game hunting and the Puderbaugh Vegetation Management Project. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in no cumulative effects to NTMBS or their habitat; as forage utilization standards would be implemented and monitored. Forage standards not met would result in reduced livestock numbers until utilization standards are met.

Consistency with Laws, Regulations and Policy

Alternatives 2 and 3

See Appendix B (Consistency Review) for a detailed description of how alternatives 2 and 3 respond to direction specific to grazing included in the amended Forest Plan and CMP.

197

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Fuels and Vegetation

Existing Condition

Because of the prolonged absence of periodic surface burning, low and moderate severity fire regimes in the analysis area have developed multi layered tree densities and vegetation accumulation greater than that of historical fire regimes. These areas could support intense, stand replacing fire events which could result in a loss of late old structure (LOS) and wildlife habitat cover.

Fire Environment

Primary Vegetation Conditions - Northern aspects and higher elevations of the analysis area consist of mixed conifer types. Ridge tops and southern aspects transition into ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and dry grand fir types. Areas that have not had harvest activity or recent wildfire are overstocked. Due to fire exclusion, shade tolerant species, grand fir and Douglas-fir have expanded into areas that were once pure ponderosa pine or ponderosa pine/western larch mixtures. Regeneration and growth of these species, over-time, has created dense multiple canopy layered stands. Due to the lack of disturbance the shade intolerant ponderosa pine and western larch have become susceptible to future disturbance from insects, disease, and wildfire. However, lack of fire, accompanied by conifer encroachment and browsing by ungulates has led to aspen decline in some area on the WWNF. Very few aspen stands are located within the SPRAA; therefore, no measurable effects on aspen are anticipated from livestock grazing in the SPRAA. Topography - Slopes in this analysis area are steep, in some areas in excess of 50%. Slope increases fire behavior by preheating fuels upslope of the fire and enabling spotting from rolling and aerial fire brands. Flame length and rate of spread increase with increasing slope. Aspect is the cardinal direction a slope is facing. All aspects are represented in this analysis area. South and Southwest aspects typically experience the more severe fire behavior due to the duration of sun exposure. Fires in the Snake/Pine analysis area frequently experience a moderate down-slope push late afternoon or early evening hours with the diurnal wind switch. Weather - Summers are typically hot and dry with day time temperatures in the 80’s to lower 90’s degree Fahrenheit with relative humidity’s in the teens (with poor overnight recovery). Lightning caused fires primarily occur in the months of July and August. These storms produce lightning and strong winds, often with little or no precipitation.

Fire Regimes A fire regime is described as the potential of a fire over time for particular ecosystems. Five fire regime groups with different combinations of fire frequency and severity are used in the Pacific Northwest to describe different ecosystems, (Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire Adapted Ecosystems; A Cohesive Strategy). Fire regimes 1 and 3 represent the analysis area. The following table describes these fire regime groups:

198

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Table 3-56. Fire Regime Groups Fire Frequency Vegetation Regime (Fire Return Severity Types Group Interval) 1 All ponderosa pine 0 – 35 years Low severity. Large stand types; Dry-Douglas fir/ replacing fires can occur under pine grass; and grand certain weather conditions, but fir/grass. are very rare (200+ years). 3 35 – 100+ years Mixed Severity

3a - Mixed conifer; 3a - < 50 years 3a - Low severity tends to very dry westside dominate. Douglas-fir; dry grand fir;

3b - Dry western 3b - 50 - 100 years 3b - Mixed severity hemlock; mesic grand fir; eastside western redcedar;

3c - Western hemlock; 3c - 100 - 200 3c - High severity tends to Pacific silver fir, and years dominate. white bark pine below 45 degrees latitude; cool, mesic grand fir and Douglas-fir

Condition Classes Condition class is a description of how far “current conditions” have deviated from historical conditions. Three condition classes have been developed to categorize the current condition with respect to each of the five historic fire regime groups. The higher the condition class number the higher the relative risk of fire, insect, or disease caused losses to natural resources and other key ecosystem components. A higher condition class rating shows a higher risk of loss of key ecosystem components landscape wide. The following table describes the three condition classes:

Table 3-57: Fire Regime Condition Classes. Condition Description Class 1 Fire regimes are within or near historical ranges, and the risk of losing key ecosystem components is low. Vegetation conditions in terms of species composition and structural stage are in tact and functioning within the historical range. 2 Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their historical range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is moderate. Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by one or more interval returns (increased or

199

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Condition Description Class decreased). This results in moderate changes to one or more of the following:  Fire size  Intensity and Severity, and  Landscape patterns Vegetation conditions in terms of species composition and structural stage have been moderately altered from historical conditions. 3 Fire regimes have significantly altered from their historical range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by multiple return intervals. This results in dramatic changes to one or more of the following:  Fire size  Intensity and Severity, and  Landscape patterns Vegetation conditions in terms of species composition and structural stage have been significantly altered from historical conditions.

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) The analysis area consists of mixed conifer, ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir, dominate forested landscape. This landscape is currently dominated by Condition Class 3 (moderate to significant alteration to the historic disturbance regimes are clearly evident, such as one or more missed fire return intervals which may predispose the landscape or ecosystem to disturbance events well outside the historic range of variability), and are typical of those stands that have short fire return intervals and low intensity fires. Approximately 7,000 acres of the Snake River allotment experienced a large wildfire in 2007, shifting the landscape from a Condition Class 3 to a Condition Class 2.

Fuel Types Description Fire suppression and the lack of recent management activities over the last 100 years has resulted in forest communities that are denser overall, with more tons/acre of fuel available to burn. The ponderosa pine and mixed conifer stands within the analysis area are overstocked with small diameter trees and have large accumulations of surface fuels. Under these vegetation and fuels conditions, fire can easily reach the crowns of overstory trees and prevent direct fire suppression tactics.

Fuel Models within the Analysis Area This analysis uses the Northern Forest Laboratory (NFFL) fuel models. These models are broken into four categories: grass, brush, timber, and slash, as described in Aids in Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior (GTR INT-122). Fuel models used for fire behavior calculations in the analysis area were FM-2, FM-8, FM-10. Fire spread in FM-2 is primarily through the fine herbaceous fuels, either curing or dead. These generally are high rate of spread surface fires where the herbaceous material, in addition to litter and dead-down stemwood from open shrub or timber overstory, contributes to intensity. Fire spread in FM-8 is mainly through needles, leaves, and occasionally twigs because little undergrowth is present in the stand. These fuels can be characterized as having a low rate of spread and intensity. Fire spread in FM-10 is through larger limbwood resulting from overmaturity or natural events that

200

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects create a large load of dead material on the forest floor. These fuels can be characterized as having a moderate rate of spread with high intensity. Both FM-2 and FM-10 represent approximately 50% of the analysis area, and have flame lengths above that which personnel may be able to handle when weather conditions are typical of mid July to late August. Fire behavior under these conditions minimizes suppression effort effectiveness and place fire suppression personnel at risk.

Fire History The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest has one of the highest wildfire occurrence rates in Oregon and Washington. The SPRAA had 64 documented ignitions on the National Forest system lands from 1970 through 2012, which included 25 fires in the Snake River Allotment, 34 fires in the North Pine Allotment, and 3 fires in the Double Pine Allotment.

Table 3-58. Comparison of Average Annual fire Frequencies and Occurrence Rates Years W-W Snake/Pine Snake North Double Forest AMP River Pine Pine 1970-2012 (2,521,280) Analysis Allotment Allotment Allotment (42 years) acres Area (14,144) (10,594) (1,730) Boundary acres acres acres (26,074) acres

Total Fires 5888 64 25 34 3 Avg Annual 140 1.5 .6 .9 .08 Fire Frequency Fire .06 .06 .05 .08 .05 Occurrence Rate/1,000 ac *The Fire Occurrence rate equals the number of fires per year per 1,000 acres. The rate is used to compare average fire occurrence per year based on recorded annual ignitions and relative data. The Snake/Pine analysis area has a fire occurrence rate that equals the Forest average.

Table 3-59. Fire Acres within allotments Allotment Name Acres Snake River 6,496 North Pine 374 Double Pine 340

Fire Suppression

201

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

The structure and fuel loading within the analysis area has changed considerably during the past century. Fire exclusion, harvest activities, and various land use practices have reduced the frequency of fires, especially in low severity fire regimes, resulting in high accumulations of canopy, ladder, and surface fuel. The Snake/Pine AMP analysis area is comprised of various terrain conditions. Most of the project area has limited access which provides “moderate risk” to suppression forces. The Snake River allotment has fewer roads, making access a concern, exposing firefighters to greater risk and provides fewer options for successful suppression operations. The following table displays the total number of fires documented by size class for the past 39 years (1970-2012) for the analysis area.

Table 3-60. Fire Size Class SIZE CLASS TOTAL FIRES PERCENT OF FIRES A Spot - .25 acres 47 73.4 B .26 - 9.9 acres 13 20.3 C 10 – 99.9 2 3.1 D 100 – 299.9 0 0 E 300 - 999 1 1.6 F 100 - 4,999 0 0 G 5000 + 1 1.6 TOTAL 64 100

Of the 64 fires that occurred in the analysis area within the past 42 years, 90% were lightning caused, and 20% (primarily unattended campfires) were human caused. Two large fires have recently occurred in the analysis area: the Foster Gulch Complex, 714 acres in size located in the North Pine and Double Pine allotments in 2006, and the Battle Creek Complex, 6,495 acres located in the Snake River allotment in 2007. The combination of aggressive initial attack on wildfire starts, past timber harvest, and grazing were all key factors in the limited fire size.

Desired Condition

Desired future conditions would be to allow active grazing management efforts, and to help reduce fine fuel loadings (grasses/forbes) allowing fire suppression efforts to be more successful. Continued fire exclusion with no active grazing management would lead to increased hazardous fine fuel levels within the analysis area, making fire suppression efforts more difficult and increasing risk to fire fighter safety. It is also desirable to remain in compliance with the Hells Canyon Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan by utilizing fire for resource benefit and prescribed fire when appropriate. This tool would be beneficial in creating and maintaining diverse landscapes, important habitat components, such as appropriate stand stage/density/age class, and appropriate condition class for the fire regimes.

202

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Effects Analysis

Methodology

Fire behavior modeling was used to predict the fire behavior in the analysis area for the vegetation conditions that would exist under each alternative. Fire behavior model inputs were obtained from weather records at the Sparta Butte Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS) and fuel models were assigned based on the existing or proposed treatment (grazing) vegetation types. The modeling results show how alternative 2 would change surface fire behavior within the analysis area. Fire behavior fuel models are used as input to Rothermel (1972) fire spread model, which is used in a variety of fire behavior modeling systems. The fuel models used in this analysis are from Hal Anderson’s Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior (Anderson, 1982). Fire behavior was modeled from the following fuel models:  Fuel Model 2  Fuel Model 8  Fuel Model 10

A number of factors, including crown fire potential, spotting potential, and flame lengths were analyzed in determining differences between alternatives (reference detailed modeling results in the analysis file). Fire managers are interested in flame lengths, crowning indices and torching indices to help determine how and where to fight a wildfire. The following scientific principles can be used in reducing fire behavior potential in large fires:  Reduce surface fuel loading  Increase crown base heights  Reduce canopy density  Retain large trees which create shade and moderate wind speed

Fire Behavior Potential Comparison The following table compares Flame Length, Rate of Spread, and Fire Size output to show the relative difference between fine fuel loadings (grass) for the no-action alternative (Alt 1) and for the proposed action (Alt 2). An average output was calculated from using 90th percentile weather information from the Sparta (RAWS) and slope for the analysis area.

Table 3-61. Fire Behavior Potential Fire Behavior Flame Rate of Fire size Fuel Type Alternatives Length Spread in 1 hour (ft) (chains/hr) (ac) Moderate Load, Dry Alt 1 7.0 ft 60 140 Climate Grass No Action Low Load, Dry Climate Alt 2 Grass Proposed 3.7 ft 30 35 Action

203

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Alternative 1

Direct/Indirect Effects The effects of alternative 1 (No Grazing) would allow multiple years of plant growth to accumulate, making fire suppression more difficult and increasing risk to firefighter safety. Continued fire exclusion with no active grazing management would lead to increased hazardous fine fuel levels and higher frequency in ignitions within the analysis area, making fire suppression more difficult and increasing risk to fire fighter safety.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Direct/Indirect Effects The effects on fuels and vegetation resources will be the similar for both action alternatives. Alternative 3 is similar to alternative 2 and does not vary significantly in the number of livestock authorized or the season of use. Under alternative 3, there is an imposed rest period of 1 year out of every 4 and the north section of the Snake River allotment will not be authorized for livestock use.

Under both action alternatives there would be a reduction in the fine fuel loadings (grass/forbs) from grazing, decreasing fire spread potential and allowing fire suppression efforts to be more successful. This in turn would drive suppression costs down and decrease risk to firefighter and public safety.

Cumulative Effects The Puderbaugh thinning and prescribed burning project will occur within the next ten years. Of the acres proposed, 80 acres would occur on the North Pine allotment. The objective of this project is to reduce hazardous fuel loads. Because of the small overlap of treated acres, there would be no potential cumulative effects between thinning, prescribed burning projects and livestock operations within this alternative.

Consistency with Laws, Regulations and Policy

Alternatives 2 and 3

Alternatives 2 and 3 are consistent with the Hells Canyon Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan (HCNRA CMP) and Forest Plan direction. Utilizing wildland fire for resource benefit and prescribed fire when appropriate is a beneficial tool for creating and maintaining diverse landscapes, important habitat components, appropriate stand stage/density/age class and appropriate condition class for the fire regimes.

See Appendix B (Consistency Review) for a detailed description of how alternatives 2 and 3 respond to direction specific to grazing included in the amended Forest Plan and CMP.

204

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Recreation and Wilderness

Overview

The primary issue is the potential impact or conflicts related to the interaction between recreational activities common to the area and grazing.

Recreational conflict is defined as “goal interference attributed to another’s behavior” (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980). Anytime people with different goals meet on the same landscape conflicts can occur (Giroux).

The potential for interaction will be measured by evaluating the size of the area, the amount of animals authorized under the proposed permit, the type of recreation activities anticipated in the area, and the percentage of time each year that both uses will occur simultaneously.

Existing Condition

Developed Sites, Campgrounds, Trails and Trailheads

The primary forms of recreation within this analysis area are hunting and camping at dispersed camp sites. No developed sites, such as designated camping areas, designated picnic areas, or trailheads, are located in the analysis area. Two trailheads are located just outside the area that provide trail access into the allotment, 1) Copper Creek Trailhead located on BLM lands along Hells Canyon Reservoir, and 2) Buck Creek Trailhead within the HCNRA. Approximately 21 miles of hiking/horseback trails are within the SPRAA boundary. Hells Canyon Overlook is also adjacent to the project area.

The trail system within the Hells Canyon Wilderness is a result of past ranching activity (Forest Plan FEIS III – 84). This system provides good access, but the rugged nature of the wilderness provides excellent opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. In the summer, the temperature in the Snake River allotment often reaches 110 degrees F. After May, hiking in the canyon is very difficult due to heat with average summer temperatures in the mid to upper 80’s. Use surveys (RMIS) recorded at Copper Creek Campground/Trailhead by the Bureau of Land Management from 2008 through 2011 indicated 17% of the visits were related to hiking (3%) and packing (14%). Over 50% of the visits at this site were water orientated recreation such as swimming, boating and fishing.

Approximately 9,200 acres of the project area is roaded, with 75 total miles of open roads. Dispersed camping, such as undeveloped hunting camps, occurs in 35% of the area along or near open roads, with an estimated 10-15 sites, or 2-5 acres of potential disturbance. Some sites are plainly visible, having been used to park a recreation vehicle or pitch a tent each hunting season. Others are much less conspicuous, with additional camps established each year and other sites going several years without use. The analysis area occurs within the Pine Creek and Snake River Big Game Management Units of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Hunting season typically begins in September and extends through November for big game and extends into January for upland birds.

205

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Areas and Areas Included in the Potential Wilderness Inventory

A total of 14,144 acres, or 53% of the allotments, are within the Hells Canyon Wilderness (Snake River allotment lies almost entirely within the wilderness). Under alternative 3, the Snake River Allotment will be reduced by 2500 acres. That will reduce the allotment to 11,606 acres of wilderness. 1,045 acres or 4% of the allotments are within Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). A total of 613 acres of the Lake Fork Roadless Area are located in the North Pine Allotment, and 432 acres of the Homestead Roadless Area are within the Double Pine Allotment. The Homestead Roadless Area is isolated, split into two smaller parcels, and bordered by BLM and private lands in the east. A small segment of the Lake Fork Roadless Area is located within the North Pine Allotment. This segment is bordered on the east by the Hells Canyon Scenic By-Way. A total of 11,741 acres of the project area has been identified in the potential wilderness inventory.

The recreational value of wilderness and/or IRAs is to offer outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation (Section 2 of the Wilderness Act). Users of the area are seeking an experience isolated from sights, sounds, and the presence of others. Additionally, users wish to feel a part of nature, to have vastness of scale, and a degree of challenge and risk while using outdoor skills. The landscape is typically void of developments and the evidence of humans.

Hells Canyon National Scenic By-Way (All American Road)

In May of 2000, the Federal Highways Administration established the Hells Canyon All American Road for its “intrinsic qualities” of exceptional scenery, widely varied terrain, recreational opportunities, and historical significance. The Hells Canyon All American Road is one of 15 in the nation. The purpose of the scenic byways program is to create a distinctive collection of American roads, their stories, and treasured places by creating a unique travel experience and enhanced local quality of life through efforts to preserve, protect, interpret, and promote the intrinsic qualities of designated byways.

The Hells Canyon All American Road extends from La Grande to Enterprise and Joseph; Joseph to Wallowa Lake; Joseph to Oxbow and Halfway; and Halfway to Richland and Baker City. Its 218-mile route travels through exceptional scenery from river’s edge to mountain passes and valley floors. Featured along the route are panoramic views of rugged basalt cliffs and fertile fields, rimmed by snow-tipped peaks. Foundries, galleries and museums are located in the communities along the route. Travelers can visit the Oregon Trail Interpretive Center, and watch the majestic Snake River tumble through North America's deepest canyon. The National Forest section of the route, 40 miles on Forest Road #39, between the communities of Halfway and Joseph, traverses the most scenic part of the HCNRA.

The Hells Canyon Scenic By-Way is typically open in the 10 mile section through the allotment between mid June and November. The remaining portion of the year it is closed to highway vehicles by snow and used as a snowmobile route. The segment of the By-Way that is within the allotment equals 5% of the total length and 25% of the route located on NFS lands.

Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (HCNRA)

206

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

The HCNRA was established in 1975, including the Hells Canyon Wilderness and the Wild and Scenic Rapid and Snake Rivers. A Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) was approved in 1982 and incorporated into the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) in 1990. The HCNRA is located in western Idaho and the northeast corner of Oregon on portions of the Wallowa-Whitman, Nez Perce, and Payette National Forests. It is administered by the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (WWNF).

Approximately 652,488 acres lie within the HCNRA boundary which is approximately 28 percent of the land under the administration of the WWNF. Approximately 33,000 acres of privately- owned land occur within the HCNRA. Approximately 117,073 acres of the Nez Perce and 24,000 acres of the Payette National Forests occur in the HCNRA. The HCNRA lies within Baker and Wallowa counties in Oregon; Adams, Idaho and Nez Perce counties in Idaho; and near the Asotin County border in Washington (CMP, 7/2003). The entire Snake/Pine AMP project area is located within the HCNRA.

Desired Condition

The following are Federal laws, Forest Service direction, and other regulatory direction that is relevant to the desired condition that relate to the management and protection of recreation resources. Specific goals, objectives, standards and guideline in the Forest Plan and CMP relative to grazing can be found in Appendix B.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)

The Forest Service developed the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) system to help identify, quantify, and describe the variety of recreational settings available on National Forest system lands. The ROS system provides a framework for planning and managing recreation resources. The ROS settings are classified on a scale ranging from primitive to urban. The National Forest System lands encompassed within the Snake River, North Pine, and Double Pine allotments have been inventoried using the ROS system to determine what recreation opportunities and settings are available to visitors. Currently, the area meets semi-primitive non-motorized and roaded natural. Management direction for recreation as outlined in the Forest Plan is to continue to maintain existing ROS settings.

Roaded Natural – A predominantly natural-appearing environment with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of humans. Such evidence usually harmonizes with the natural environment. Interaction between users may be moderate to high with evidence of other users prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident but harmonize with the natural environment. Conventional motorized use is allowed.

Semi-primitive Non-Motorized - A predominately natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. Interaction between users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum onsite controls and restrictions may be present but would be subtle. Motorized recreation use is not permitted, but local roads used for other resource management activities may be present on a limited basis. Use of such roads is restricted to minimize impacts on recreational experience opportunities.

207

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

The ROS setting of a recreation place largely determines its attractiveness and utility. Many recreation opportunities, such as viewing scenery, require a natural ROS setting; other activities, such as hunting, may not directly depend on the setting.

Section 7 of the HCNRA Act

Except as otherwise provided in Sections 2 and 3 of this Act, and subject to the provisions of Section 10 of this Act, the Secretary shall administer the recreation area in accordance with the laws, rules, and regulations applicable to the national forests for public outdoor recreation in a manner compatible with the following objectives:

1) the maintenance and protection of the free flowing nature of the rivers within the recreation area; 2) conservation of scenic, wilderness, cultural, scientific, and other values contributing to the public benefit; 3) preservation, especially in the area generally known as Hells Canyon, of all features and peculiarities believed to be biologically unique including, but not limited to, rare and endemic plant species, rare combinations of aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric habitats, and the rare combinations of outstanding and diverse ecosystems and parts of ecosystems associated therewith; 4) protection and maintenance of fish and wildlife habitat; 5) protection of archeological and paleontologic sites and interpretation of these sites for the public benefit and knowledge insofar as it is compatible with protection; 6) preservation and restoration of historic sites associated with and typifying the economic and social history of the region and the American West; and 7) such management, utilization, and disposal of natural resources on federally owned lands, including, but not limited to, timber harvesting by selective cutting, mining and grazing and the continuation of such existing uses and developments as are compatible with the provisions of the Act.

Wilderness Act of 1964

The 1964 Wilderness Act defines wilderness and appropriates uses within wilderness areas. The following direction is specific to grazing:

The Snake River allotment is the only allotment in this analysis that is partially within wilderness. It was established prior to September 3, 1964. Therefore, grazing is an appropriate use for those portions of the allotment included in wilderness.

Effects Analysis

Methodology

208

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

As mentioned in the introduction, the methodology used to measure the impacts to recreation will evaluate the potential interaction between recreation resources and grazing. The primary factors will be the acreage involved, the number of animals allowed under each alternative, and the season of use proposed.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

Snake River Allotment A total of 542 head-months of livestock grazing for 100 cow-calf pairs would be authorized on the 14,144 acre Snake River allotment between April 15 and September 26. In alternative 3 as a result of resting the allotment every 4 years, the total head-months would be reduced to 407.

North Pine Allotment The Double Pine allotment would be incorporated into this allotment under alternative 2, and would operate under one AMP. A total of 359 head-months of livestock grazing for 101 cow-calf pairs would be authorized on the 12,325 acre (if alternative 2 is selected) or 12,551 acre (if alternative 3 is selected) North Pine allotment from June 15 to September 30. In alternative 3 as a result of resting the allotment every 4 years, the total head-months would be reduced to 270.

Table 3-62 displays the authorized grazing levels by allotment under each alternative.

Table 3-62. Authorized Grazing Levels Allotment Authorized Grazing Levels (head months averaged over 4 years) Alternative 1 Current Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Management Snake River 0 542 542 407 North Pine 0 288 359 270 Double Pine 0 71 0 0

Developed Sites, Campgrounds, Trails and Trailheads Assuming that only a portion of each allotment is available for grazing due to steep terrian, and the same limitation would apply to most hunters, the same area for grazing is likely the same areas available for recreationists.

The period of time that both grazing and some recreational activities is anticipated to overlap would be from April 15 through June 15 each year on the Snake River allotment, and on the North Pine allotment from June 15 through September 30. Under alternative 3, every fourth year during the rest cycle of the allotment, there will be no overlap between grazing and recreational activities.

Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Areas and Areas Included in the Potential Wilderness Inventory See areas described above.

Hells Canyon National Scenic By-Way (All American Road)

209

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

The period of time that grazing would be authorized within the North Pine allotment is the same period that this section of the Scenic By-Way is available for travel. Approximately 5% of the Scenic By-Way or 10 miles of the 218 miles travels through the North Pine allotment.

Hells Canyon National Recreation Area All allotments are entirely within the HCNRA.

Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities

One outfitter/guide operates within the allotments. Historically, guided services offered by the outfitter have been limited to spring bear hunts beginning April 15 and continuing through May. Typically, pack stock is used to transport supplies to and from hunting camps located in the Snake River allotment.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

There would be a minimal direct effect, and no indirect, or cumulative effects on recreation resources under alternative 1. With the absence of grazing, no interaction would occur between recreationists and livestock. Visitor encounters with recreational stock, including horses and mules, may still occur.

Wilderness, IRAs, and Areas included in the Potential Wilderness Inventory Livestock grazing is considered evidence of human control on the landscape. The effects to individuals engaged in the recreation opportunities available within the allotments are minimal. The IRAs are undeveloped, offer little recreation opportunities except for occasional hunters, and are relatively inaccessible. Wilderness areas within the allotment are used primarily by hunters for big game and upland birds. Some hikers use the trails along Hells Canyon Reservoir early in the spring but high temperatures in the summer discourage use.

Under this alternative, no livestock grazing would occur. This would eliminate evidence of human interference caused by grazing on the landscape; therefore there would be no effect on wilderness values from grazing.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Under this alternative no grazing would be authorized. This would not change the current recreation use in the area or affect any management conditions outlined in the CMP, or Section 7 of the HCNRA Act. There would be no change in recreation opportunities and settings that are currently available to visitors.

Summary of Effects

The effects to recreation within the project are expected to be minimal. A lack of developed sites, the dispersed nature of the anticipated recreation activity, and the short season due to

210

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

environmental factors (high temperatures), are all factors that limit recreation opportunities and reduce the chance of encounters with livestock.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Alternatives 2 and 3

Developed Sites, Campgrounds, Trails and Trailheads A study on the Uncompahgre National Forest, Colorado found that about 10% of all visitors believed the presence of cattle lessened the quality of their time on a National Forest (Mitchell et al. 1996); however local visitors had a relatively favorable view of range livestock in comparison to those from more metropolitan areas. Brunson and Gilbert (2003) found that hikers were more likely than hunters to feel negatively toward livestock and multiple-use management.

Visitor perceptions about cattle grazing on National Forest land is highly variable depending on whether visitors are local or rural residents (Mitchell et al. 1996), hunters or hikers (Brunson and Gilbert 2003), and the presence of range management features such as water developments and fences (Cole 1994). Research indicates that perception depends on recreation users, livestock knowledge, and exposure to ranching, but if livestock are kept away from campsites and riparian areas used for fishing, there is little objection to them (Mitchell et al. 1996; Brunson and Gilbert 2003).

The effects on recreational resources will be the same for alternatives 2 and 3 with one exception, for alternative 3, the periods when the allotment is in a rest cycle, with the absence of grazing, no interaction would occur between recreationists and livestock. Visitor encounters with recreational stock, including horses and mules, may still occur

Wilderness, IRAs and Areas included in the Potential Wilderness Inventory

Table 3-63. Wilderness Attributes and Effects from Alternative 2

Wilderness Attributes Alternatives 2 and 3 Effects (FSH 1909.12, Ch. 70(72)) Natural– Are the area’s ecological systems Alternatives 2 and 3 proposes no activity that substantially free from the effects of modern would degrade the free-flowing condition of civilization and generally appear to have been rivers and streams, degrade night sky quality affected primarily by forces of nature. or introduce pollutants that degrade water Consider: quality, thereby retaining the characteristics of a. -presence of non-native species that alter the an area that is free from the effects of modern composition of natural plant and animal civilization. Rare or at risk plant species are communities protected by the measures found in Chapter 2 b. -developments that degrade the free flowing (PETS Plants), and the introduction of non- condition of rivers and streams native species is minimized by the protection c. -presence of light pollution that degrades measures found in Chapter 2 (Invasive night sky quality and night sky quality related Plants). values d. -presence of pollutants that degrade water quality e. -health of ecosystems, plant communities,

211

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Wilderness Attributes Alternatives 2 and 3 Effects (FSH 1909.12, Ch. 70(72)) and plant species that are rare or at risk Undeveloped – The degree to which an area Alternatives 2 and 3 would retain the is without permanent improvements or human undeveloped wilderness attribute with minimal habitation. Consider level of human evidence of human development. Human occupation and modification. habitation or occupation in the area is minimal, and is limited to times when the permittee is in the allotment, or when recreationists are in the area (camping, hunting, sight-seeing). Eight improvements will continue under the proposal, 5 water developments and three segments of fence. These would not be considered permanent features and if removed would show no evidence of existence. Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or Localized conflict with some wilderness Primitive and Unconfined Recreation – An visitors over the location and timing of area’s capability of providing solitude or permitted livestock presence within the primitive and unconfined types of recreation. allotment may continue; the presence of cows may negatively affect some wilderness Solitude is isolation from sights, sounds, and visitors’ experiences. However, this portion of the presence of others from the the wilderness receives a relatively low developments and evidence of humans; amount of visitor use. The short use period by consider size of area, presence of screening, the public, and the low number of livestock distance from impacts, and degree of would minimize the effect on the opportunities permanent intrusions. for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. Opportunity to feel a part of nature; to have a vastness of scale; a degree of challenge & risk while using outdoor skills are measures of primitive and unconfined recreation Untrammeled - The wilderness is essentially Alternatives 2 and 3 would retain the unhindered and free from modern human untrammeled wilderness attribute with minimal control or manipulation. evidence of human control or manipulation. Eight improvements would continue under alternatives 2 and 3, 5 water developments and three segments of fence. These would not be considered permanent features and if removed would show no evidence of existence, thereby retaining the characteristic of an area that is unhindered and free from modern human control or manipulation.

IRAs Livestock grazing within IRAs would have similar effects as described for all other areas within the analysis area. The requirements set forth in the final ruling described in 36 CFR 294 prohibit the construction of new roads within IRAs. Alternatives 2 and 3 in this analysis do not

212

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects propose the construction of any roads or trails in IRAs; therefore, there would be no effect on IRAs from these alternatives.

Areas included in the Potential Wilderness Inventory Alternatives 2 and 3 also conform to the requirements in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 CH. 70- Wilderness evaluation. This portion of the handbook described range management activities which do not alter an area’s potential inclusion as wilderness.

FSH 1902.12 Ch.71.11- Criteria for Including Improvements: 7. Minor structural range improvements (FSM 2240.5) such as fences or water troughs. Exclude areas where non-structural range improvements are readily visible and apparent. Areas with spray or burning projects are permissible if there is little or no evidence of the project.

Alternatives 2 and 3 meets the above criteria and do not include activities which would result in the inability to include any area within the project area as wilderness in the future.

HCNRA/Hells Canyon National Scenic By-Way (All American Road) A majority of the Hells Canyon Scenic By-Way travels through eastern Oregon where livestock is a principal industry. Grazing is a common occurrence along the entire route. Continued grazing through the 10 mile segment will have no effect on the “intrinsic qualities” of exceptional scenery, widely varied terrain, recreational opportunities, or the historical significance of the By- Way because it is an activity that is recognized as being common throughout the area.

The objectives outlined above in the Desired Condition section and identified within Section 7 of the HCNRA Act applies to specific resource values (listed 1-7 above). The effects of alternatives 2 and 3 on these resource values are addressed within the appropriate sections specific to each resource.

Consistency with Laws, Regulations and Policy

The Wilderness Act of 1964, the Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984, and the 2320 section of the Forest Service Manual (Forest Plan 1990; 4:63-66) were designed to preserve the wilderness qualities in the Hells Canyon Wilderness and provide wilderness attributes described in Table 3- 63. In the Snake River allotment, grazing by domestic livestock was established prior to the Wilderness Act (CMP, Wil-S10), therefore, the action is allowable as long as standards and guidelines are met for range conditions (refer to Range specialist report, 2013).

Alternatives 2 and 3 are consistent with Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1990; 4:10) inventoried roadless area direction because the area would continue to be managed to retain its essentially roadless condition. Alternatives 2 and 3 do not propose road construction; therefore grazing is not expected to affect the roadless characteristics of the IRAs.

See Appendix B (Consistency Review) for a detailed description of how alternatives 2 and 3 respond to direction specific to grazing included in the amended Forest Plan and CMP.

213

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Invasive Species

Existing Condition

Introduction

Prevention and management of non-native species under all planning efforts is derived from the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program FEIS and Record of Decision (ROD) (USDA 2005) and the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment Program FEIS and ROD (USDA 2010).

The Region 6 ROD outlines 23 standards for the prevention and management of invasive non- native plants that have been added to all regional Forest Plans (Forest Plan amendment #RF5), including CMP’s, and require consideration of invasive species in all planning efforts. The regional ROD does not, however, approve any site-specific treatment, instead requiring that analysis be completed by each National Forest. The Wallowa-Whitman ROD therefore has been completed to provide direction for a more efficient program to contain, control, and eradicate new and existing sites found within NFS lands. Since the recent forest level decision has been litigated, many of the authorized activities within this framework are on hold, and site- specific treatment will continue guided by the 1992 and 1994 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Environmental Assessments (EA’s) for the management of noxious weeds2.

Of the 23 prevention and management standards in the Regional 6 ROD, five directly affect activities found in the SPRAA. These standards are:

 Prevention of invasive plant introduction, establishment, and spread must be addressed in watershed analysis, roads analysis, fire and fuels management….. grazing allotment management plans, and all other land management assessments.

2 In December 2012, Judge Simon, U.S. District Court of Oregon, issued an “Opinion and Order on Motion for Partial Vacatur”, remanding the decision to the FS for reconsideration of cumulative effects, but allowing certain treatments to continue while the analysis is being completed. All infested sites can be treated by non-herbicide methods, which include mechanical, manual, and biological treatments. Herbicide treatments are permitted in accordance with the 2010 ROD (using the 10 herbicides evaluated in the FEIS and following project design features and buffering requirements) on approximately 5000 acres previously mapped under Decision Notices and Findings of No Significant Impacts for noxious weed management signed on April 2, 1992 and August 8, 1994. The site numbers associated with these 5000 acres are listed in Exhibit 1 of Judge Simon’s Order. An additional 840 acres, located within the Cache Creek Fire area and outside of RHCA boundaries, may be treated using eight herbicides specified in the Order. Specific sites in the fire area are listed in Exhibit 2 of the Order. Spot and hand/select treatments are allowed using specified formulations on specified infestations of Japanese knotweed and rush skeleton weed, and on noxious weeds occurring immediately adjacent to a known population of Macfarlane’s four-o’clock.

214

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

 Actions conducted or authorized by written permit by the Forest Service that will operate outside the limits of the road prism, require the cleaning of all heavy equipment prior to entering national Forest System Lands.  Use only pelletized or certified weed free feed on all National Forest System Lands.  Use available administrative mechanisms to incorporate invasive plant prevention practices into rangeland management (i.e. revise permits and grazing AMP’s).  Native plant materials are the first choice in re-vegetation for restoration and rehabilitation where timely natural regeneration of the native plant community is not likely to occur.

Under the Region 6 ROD, these standards apply to the prevention and management of all invasive non-native species and not just those listed as “noxious weeds”.

Invasive plants are defined as non-native plants whose introduction causes or are likely to cause economic, environmental, or human health harm. An invasive species is distinguished from other non-natives by their ability to spread in native ecosystems. “Noxious weed” on the other hand is a legal term used by state, county, and federal agencies to denote plants that pose particular threats generally to agriculture. Many undesirable non-natives can be invasive and pose threats to healthy native plant communities but do not meet the criteria for listing as a “noxious weeds”. For that reason, this analysis will focus on invasive non-natives as a whole and not just listed “noxious weeds”.

Existing Condition

Existing condition of invasive non-native species within the SPRAA was determined using documented site information, GIS analysis, on the ground field surveys, and professional judgment by invasive species specialists.

There are 43 inventoried invasive non-native plant sites (10 different species) within the SPRAA. The inventoried infestations are shown in the tables below (Table 3-64 and 3-65). Acreages reflect current information in the Forest GIS layer (GIS query, 2011). In addition to these listed species the project area also includes Ventenata dubia, Bromus tectorum, Potentilla recta, and others that are potentially harmful invasive species but don’t meet the requirement for listing on the state or county “noxious weed” lists.

Table 3-64. Invasive Infestations for Snake River Allotment Species Code Common Name Infestation ID Acres Total/Species LIDA dalmatian toadflax 06160401046 0.10 06160401045 0.10 06160401044 0.10 06160401071 0.10 06160401074 0.10 06160401062 0.10 06160401063 0.10 0.70 TACA8 medusahead 06160401075 0.10 06160401076 0.10 06160401077 0.10 06160401089 0.10

215

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

06160401078 0.10 06160401080 0.10 06160401079 0.10 06160401081 0.10 06160401058 0.10 06160401088 0.10 06160400818 2.20 06160401060 0.09 06160401083 0.10 06160401087 0.10 06160401085 0.10 06160401061 0.10 06160401064 0.10 3.79 CHJU rush skeletonweed 06160401082 0.10 06160401059 0.09 06160401086 0.10 06160401084 0.10 06160401065 0.10 06160401380 443.83 444.32 scotch ONAC cottonthistle 06160400814 6.88 6.88 455.69

Table 3-65. Invasive Infestations for North Pine and Double Pine Species Code Common Name Infestation ID Acres Total/Species LIVU2 butter and eggs 06160400808 7.46 7.46 CIAR4 Canada thistle 06160400075_c 81.78 81.78 HYPE St. Johnswort 06160400802 4.14 4.14 CEDI3 diffuse knapweed 06160400816 6.79 06160400804 3.84 10.62 TACA8 medusahead 06160400569 0.41 0.41 CHJU rush skeletonweed 06160400118 2.01 2.01 CEMA4 spotted knapweed 06160400810 0.13 0.13 CADR whitetop 06160400366 0.41 06160400053 1.23 06160400807 9.18 06160700023 2.20 13.02 119.58

Treatment and monitoring records document all site visits by invasive plant specialists, spanning the years since initial discovery and inventory of the site. These records are on file at the Wallowa Mountains Ranger District Office in Joseph, Oregon. These sites are visited on a regular basis for treatment and monitoring and can be relocated and identified on the ground when necessary.

Desired Condition

216

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

In accordance with the HCNRA CMP, grassland vegetation should be managed to ensure continued ecological function and sustainability of native ecosystems. The CMP directs managers to maintain and/or restore the ecological status of grassland communities to their potential natural community (PNC). Specific to grazing, the requirements for invasive plants are found in the CMP under standards and guidelines (Section GRA-S5), and dictates that managers implement grazing practices to minimize the potential for transport of invasive plants or creation of habitats for invasive species. Further, the CMP requires the natural restoration of degraded sites by modifying management activities as necessary.

Effects Analysis

Invasive non-native plants can pose a significant risk to healthy native plant communities and are currently damaging biological diversity. This can affect wildlife, habitat health, and recreation values (Vitousek et al. 1996, Chapin et al. 2000). Further, the presence of invasive species, both on and off NFS lands, can displace native species, reduce suitable habitat, reduce forage for livestock, destroy habitat and further the loss of TES species, increase soil erosion, reduce water quality, and significantly reduce soil productivity. However, predicting a specific response (direct or indirect) of non-native species to activities such as pre-commercial thinning, mechanical thinning, prescribed burning, and grazing is exceedingly complex. A variety of factors such as intensity and frequency of disturbance, ongoing activities in the area, and lack of consensus of biologically important changes in non-native species leads to difficulty in determining effects of specific projects (D’ Antonio 2000). In general, however, disturbance can increase the rate of invasion and chance of successful establishment of non-native species (Vitousek et al. 1996, Mack & D’ Antonio 1998, Chapin et al. 2000, D’ Antonio 2000).

The establishment and spread of non-native plants is a dynamic event that incorporates many diverse variables. Invasion theory, as it pertains to non-native species, contains three main principles: disturbance, propagule pressure, and competition (Hobbs & Huenneke 1992, Lockwood et al. 2005, Sutherland 2008).

Invasive species are quick to colonize an area of disturbance and can use their “weedy” life- history traits to establish within novel habitats. Disturbance such as fire, construction, and commercial timber harvest can alter native plant communities and increase the chance of invasion by non-natives. Several factors such as type of disturbance, proximity to propagule source, and size or magnitude of disturbance can increase the propensity for invasion of an otherwise healthy plant community by non-natives.

The second factor in the invasion theory is propagule pressure. Propagule pressure is defined as the number of possible individuals (seeds, seedlings, etc.) released into a region in which they are not native and the number of such release events (Lockwood et al. 2005). In essence, the higher the propagule pressure (more seeds or more opportunities for a release) the greater the likelihood of a successful colonization. Many factors can lead to increased propagule pressure but the most likely cause is an increase in the number of release events. Many of the activities conducted on NFS lands can lead to an increase in the propagule pressure including fire suppression activities, timber sales and salvage, road construction, recreation, and grazing.

217

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Finally, the last principle of invasion theory is competition. Even though the ability of an invasive to spread or colonize new sites is generally species dependent, all invasive non-natives are considered potential threats to native plant communities.

Table 3-66. Description of invasive plant characteristics found in the SPRAA “Noxious” Code Scientific/ Common Name Remarks Weed Rating B CADR Cardaria draba Deep-rooted perennial. Forms dense Whitetop patches. Highly competitive. This species is very difficult to eradicate. Common on disturbed soils. Reproduces by seeds and root segments. Most aggressive during moist years or conditions. A CEBI Centaurea biebersteinii Biennial/perennial. A large biennial. This Spotted Knapweed species reproduces only through seeds. Rapid spreading - occurring along forested roads, ditch, and stream banks. Prolific in moist conditions. B CEDI3 Centaurea diffusa Annual/Biennial/Perennial. Most abundant Diffuse Knapweed in disturbed areas and roads. Can invade undisturbed grasslands, shrub lands, and riparian communities. Highly adaptable and competitive. Spread by animals, humans, wind, and vehicles. Some biological control is occurring. A CHJU Chondrilla juncea Aggressive perennial. Spreads primarily by Rush Skeletonweed seeds and root segments. Difficult to control. Seeds dispersed by wind, water, humans, and animals. B CIAR Cirsium arvense Aggressive perennial. Spreading from deep Canada Thistle and extensive horizontal roots and seeds. Difficult to control. Prolific seed production spread by wind and water. B HYPE Hypercium perforatum Perennial. Well established on roads and Common St. Johnswort rangeland. Slow spreading via road or equipment. Reproduces through seeds and root segments. Some biological control is occurring. A LIDA LInarea dalmatica Perennial. Rapidly colonizes open or Dalmatian Toadflax disturbed areas and thrives in arid rangelands, pastures, clear-cut, and roadsides. Reproduces through seeds and root segments. Can suppress other vegetation through competition. Spread by water, birds, and roads. Some biological control.

Methodology

The descriptions, resources, and effects (expected and potential) were assessed using field surveys, literature documentation, documented site information, and professional judgment. Throughout this document, the intensity of the effect is graded on a qualitative scale using the

218

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects effect levels of low, moderate, and high. Those effects identified as low intensity will create little to no bare soils, and extremely limited potential for introduction of invasive plant material to the project area. If left untreated invasive species within these areas would not spread from current locations or expand from current levels at rates higher than those found in the absence of project activities. Moderate level activities are those that, with proposed mitigation measures, could be treated and reduced to pre-project levels, but without the implementation of these measures could begin to spread beyond current levels. Finally, a high intensity effect is one that could create opportunities for spread and introduction of invasive species that could not be mitigated with normal effort or proposed measures. A high intensity effect, if controllable, would likely require significant increase in invasive treatment activities or funding in order to control the infestations.

Direct/Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

This alternative is the no action (No Grazing) alternative. All inventoried weed sites would continue to be managed in accordance with the Wallowa-Whitman Invasive Plant Program EIS (USDA 2010) and the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan as amended by Regional Forester Amendment #5 that incorporates the Pacific Northwest Region Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Record of Decision (USDA 1990, USDA 2005).

Many vectors for spread of known populations would still exist with recreation and vehicle travel, big game transport, uncontrolled wildfire, and fire suppression activities. However, the potential risk of spread from project related activities would not exist. Over time, without additional disturbances to known sites, further treatment success, and no reduction to existing desirable vegetation cover and vigor the known sites could be eradicated or significantly reduced.

Action Alternatives 2 and 3

The proposed action for the SPRAA consists of reauthorizing grazing on the allotments within the project area. This alternative would include numbers and season of use similar to current management, but the Double Pine allotment will be incorporated into the North Pine allotment. The North Pine allotment will continue to be managed as a two pasture rotational grazing system.

Alternative 3 is similar to alternative 2 and does not vary significantly in the number of livestock authorized or the season of use. Under alternative 3, there is an imposed rest period of 1 year out of every 4 and the north section of the Snake River allotment will not be authorized for livestock use. Below is a summary of effects between all alternatives, see the summary section for specific differences.

Direct/Indirect Effects

The effects of project activities on vegetation and habitats can be temporary or permanent with effects measured by duration as well as magnitude. Short-lived effects are those that last one to two growing seasons while long-term effects are those that last more than two years. Impacts to individual plants, soils, or habitat areas from the actions of animals, machinery, fire,

219

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects or other human activities are direct effects, while indirect effects are those associated with changes in habitat composition and plant community dynamics. For this analysis, specific project activities and the associated disturbance are direct effects, while changes in the competitive balance due to modifications of existing plant communities are indirect effects.

While direct effects of authorized grazing projects on non-native plants are difficult to predict and quantify, they could occur through ground disturbance and introduction of invaders into new areas. Disturbance is defined as a punctuated event or series of events that kill or damage existing organisms, directly or in-directly increase resource availability, and create an opportunity for new individuals to become established (Sousa 1984). Disturbance associated with grazing projects are expected through movement of animals, soil displacement and disturbance, vegetation compression, and removal of vegetative material through grazing; but the amount of disturbance can vary depending on activity density and type. Further, project activities can introduce new species into areas by transporting non-native plant material on the fur of animals or through the spreading of fecal material after consumption of non-native plant seeds.

Indirect effects include the possible increase in “invasibility” of a plant community after disturbance. With invasive plants spreading at an estimated 8-12 percent a year on NFS land (USDA 2005), we would expect (without the implementation of the the proposed mitigations and the above standards) changes in community dynamics (i.e. reduced competition) from project activities to continue or possibly increase the spread of invasive non-native species. According to the R6 ROD (USDA 2005) the adoption and use of the standards shown above should reduce the rate of spread of invasive plants by over 50% (down to 4-6%).

Snake River Allotment The action alternatives have the potential to introduce new invasive non-native species and affect established infestations through both direct and indirect effects. With the further authorization of livestock grazing the potential for ground disturbance, further spread, and new introduction of invasive non-native plants could increase (see Table 3-64 for known site information). The different invasive non-native species found within this allotment pose different risks associated with cattle grazing. All are adapted to quickly establish and spread through disturbance activities. Rush skeletonweed and medusahead wildrye are dispersed directly through contact with animals attaching to fur or sticking in mud and dirt attached to the animal. The risk of dispersal and introduction of these plants could increase directly through effects of livestock grazing. The indirect effects, as stated earlier, are much more complex. The changes in competitive interactions due to herbivory could however, allow for an advantage to invasive non-native species increasing their spread and establishment, but with the standards above and mitigations this risk would be reduced from its current rate.

North Pine Allotment (includes Double Pine) The action alternatives have the potential to introduce new invasive non-native species and affect established infestations through both direct and indirect effects. With the further authorization of livestock grazing the potential for ground disturbance, further spread, and new introduction of invasive non-native plants could increase (see Table 3-65 for known site information). The different invasive non-native species found within this allotment pose different risks associated with cattle grazing. All are adapted to quickly establish and spread through disturbance activities. Rush skeletonweed, medusahead wildrye, spotted knapweed, and whitetop are dispersed directly through contact with animals by passing through their gut when

220

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects eaten, attaching to fur, or moving in mud and dirt attached to the animal. The risk of dispersal and introduction of these species could increase directly through effects of livestock grazing. The indirect effects, as stated earlier, are much more complex. The changes in competitive interactions due to herbivory could however, allow for an advantage to invasive non-native species increasing their spread and establishment, but with the standards above and mitigations this risk would be reduced from its current rate.

Cumulative Effects

Since the effects (direct, indirect, short-term, and long-term) will be similar between the two allotments, and the two action alternatives, represented in this project, this analysis will examine the cumulative effects on invasive non-native plants in one section. For a specific description of other project activities, see Table 3-67 below. The information in Table 3-67 is followed by more in-depth description of the cumulative effects within the SPRAA.

Table 3-67. Cumulative effects determination for invasive non-native species within the SPRAA Project Potential Overlap in: Effect Rationale Effects Intensity Time Space

Road Increase in Yes Yes Medium Ongoing road maintenance Maintenance possibility of creates situations that favor the (ongoing) spread and spread of invasive plants by new disturbing roadsides and introduction carrying seeds to un-infested areas. Using road maintenance with current non-native plant treatments however, increases treatment efficacy and could reduce seed production by removal. Snowmobile None No Yes None No effect. Occurs out of Routes growing seasons. (ongoing) Sled Dog None No Yes None No effect. Occurs out of the Races growing seasons (ongoing) Trail Use and Low potential Yes Yes Low The threat, however low, exists Maintenance, to increase for the spread or new Big Game spread of non- introduction of invasive plants Hunting, and native plant through the movement of seeds other rec. material on trail crews or recreational activities hikers. Seeds attached to (ongoing) tools, clothes or equipment could be moved to novel habitats. Past, Present, Increase in Yes Yes Medium The highest potential for and Future disturbance cumulative effects on invasive Timber and risk of non-native plants because of Harvest (i.e. introduction of timber harvest is from an Puderbaugh invasive plant increase in disturbance due to Fuels material the creation of log landings,

221

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Project Potential Overlap in: Effect Rationale Effects Intensity Time Space

Reduction) skid trails, and increased access on roadways. The extent of this disturbance could be mitigated by the reclamation of roadways and landings; including the reseeding with native grasses and forbs. Movement of heavy equipment increases the risk of introduction or spread of invasive plant material onto NFS lands. Cleaning equipment prior to use reduces this risk, but combined with the movement of livestock could present increased risks of introduction and spread. AOI’s are used to identify the steps needed to reduce the introduction potential by quarantining animals as needed and using certified weed free forage where applicable. Prescribed Increase in Yes Yes Medium Prescribed burning has the Fire and Fuels disturbance potential to increase Reduction and short-term disturbance thus favoring reduction in invasive non-native plants. The competition short-term reduction in fuels may also reduce competition of native plants allowing the spread of the non-native plants. The burning could however, reduce the cover of the invasive plants all ready in place and retard seed set, and in conjunction with ongoing treatment allow native plants to establish. Large Fires Large scale Yes Yes High The extreme size and and Wildfire disturbance temperatures of wildfire can Suppression and create optimal locations for introduction of invasive plant establishment. seeds and The removal of native other plant vegetation coupled with the material speed of movement of non- native plants creates ideal invasion conditions. Introduction of weedy material is also a risk during suppression operations due to the movement on equipment,

222

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Project Potential Overlap in: Effect Rationale Effects Intensity Time Space

engines, aircraft, etc. Outfitting Introduction of Yes Yes Low Movement of invasive plant invasive plant material is slightly increased by material on outfitting activities, but the equipment, cleaning of equipment and pack animals, animals plus the regional weed or feed free forage order will reduce this to minimal levels. Dispersed and Movement Yes Yes Low Minimal risks involved with Developed and dispersed and developed Camping introduction of camping due to the movement invasive plant and spread of invasive plant material material by people and equipment. This risk is further minimized by a focused treatment of invasive plants in and around camping and gathering areas. Mining Ground Yes Yes Low Ground disturbance by disturbance machinery could allow for the and colonization of invasive plants introduction of or movement of plant materials invasive plant on the equipment or machinery material itself. Rehabilitation and reclamation plans with each mining claim reduce this risk requiring the cleaning of all equipment and the reseeding of disturbed areas prior to the end of the mining claim permit. Grazing Ground Yes Yes Med Ground disturbance due to (SPRAA and disturbance or gathering or moving livestock adjacent transportation can create disturbance areas allotments) of non-native susceptible to invasive plant plant material establishment. Direct transport of invasive plant material could introduce new species or new infestations onto forestlands. Improved management, alternative salting and trailing methods, and quarantine of livestock before moving to NFS lands can significantly reduce the risk of invasive non-native plants establishment. Ongoing treatment of infested sites and restoration of disturbed areas will also reduce the possibility of spread.

223

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Activities, past, present, and future may present increased risks to invasive non-native plant spread and establishment within the SPRAA. These activities have influenced vegetation and habitat throughout the project area and have favorable situations for non-native plants to gain an advantage. Invasive non-native plants pose a risk to healthy native plant communities, which can affect wildlife, habitat health, and recreation values.

The above activities, as outlined in the table, coupled with livestock grazing can create situations for increased risk of introduction and spread of non-native plant material. Ongoing treatments as part of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Invasive Species Program help to mitigate the risks posed by management activities. Treatment continues on an annual basis within previously inventoried invasive sites. Cooperation with permittees and forest invasive species specialists can increase the efficiency of this treatment by identifying areas early and beginning a treatment protocol.

Wildfire has the greatest chance of effects on invasive non-native plants within the SPAA but predicting wildfire occurrence is problematic. Of the activities with predictable timetables, grazing coupled with roads and timber harvest has a high possibility of cumulative effects within the SPRAA. Roads are a significant vector of weed spread and transport, thus unregulated road use increases the risk. Roads also create an ideal situation for livestock movement because of the lack of obstacles. The livestock use of roadways will also increase the risk involved with the road system. However, the low number of active roadways within the SPRAA decreases the impacts of these effects. Timber sales create significant amounts of ground disturbance; log landings, skid trails, etc.; thus compounding the situation for invasive plants. These disturbed areas are likely sites of invasive plant infestations as well as common gathering and movement corridors for cattle. Surveys of completed timber sales as well as treatment of new infestations occurring after survey would reduce the overall risk of spread of invasive plants due to the combined effects of cattle grazing and timber activities.

Increased flexibility and treatment options, available upon completion of the supplemental EIS (SEIS) to the 2010 WWNF Invasive Plant EIS, will increase the effectiveness of treatment and mitigate many of the effects of project activities. Specific mitigations within each project can also help reduce the rate and risk of introduction of invasive non-native species. Specific to the SPRAA and invasive species there are seven specific mitigation measures. These are:

1. Permit administrators and invasive species coordinators will cooperate to ensure known infestations are approaching containment, control, or eradication objectives through effective treatment protocols. 2. New infestations will be inventoried and managed as rapidly as possible under early detection rapid response (EDRR) guidelines upon approval of the SEIS to the 2010 WWNF Invasive Plant EIS. 3. To reduce the potential for spread from known invasive plant sites, these occurrences will be depicted as Areas-To-Avoid for ground disturbance or congregating activities including; salting, bedding, water developments, unloading, round-up, and stock driveways. Coordination will occur with invasive species specialists for exceptions for low risk spread areas due to treatment success. 4. Permitees will be provided location maps of known invasive non-native plant infestations and encouraged to report new sightings. 5. All equipment, used outside of the drivable surfaces of the road prism, for maintenance of range and permit improvements must be cleaned thoroughly to reduce the chance of introduction of invasive non-native plants. This must occur prior to entering NFS lands.

224

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

6. Livestock originating from home pastures with known infestations must be quarantined for periods to allow for the removal of invasive plant material from the gut and fur of animals. Quarantine areas must also be free of invasive non-native plants. 7. All seed, mulch, or other material used in restoration or rehabilitation projects must be certified weed free. Seed priority will be given to locally sourced native species in compliance with Region 6 restoration standards.

These standards and measures should reduce risks involved with livestock grazing and reduce the cumulative impacts on the project area occurring through all management activities.

Summary of Effects

Alternative 1 will have no new effects on the SPRAA. Continuing risks could still exist from other types of activities occurring in the analysis area, and invasive non-native species could continue to spread and establish. Although risks are present with or without livestock grazing, the danger of invasive species spread under alternatives 2 and 3 is increased and likely to have continued risks due to the mobile nature of the infestations and the location (along roads and trails) of these infestations regardless of the alternative chosen. It is likely that due to the rest rotation implemented under alternative 3 and the smaller land area authorized for livestock grazing that risks to non-native species will be slightly reduced from what is expected in alternative 2. This reduction is slight and is not a measurable difference.

Protection measures to reduce and control the introduction and spread of non-native species would minimize the impacts that do exist. Specific mitigations, shown above with other activity and project management features will continue to reduce the chances of new introductions, spread, and establishment of invasive non-native plants

Consistency with Laws, Regulations and Policy

The Forest Plan (FP 4-55) provides direction for the control of noxious weeds and other competing vegetation where such activities are not precluded by management area direction. The goals focus on maintaining or enhancing ecosystem function to provide for long-term integrity and productivity of biological communities, treatment of priority infestations, and monitoring the effects of all activities to reduce the impacts of non-native plants. The goals and objectives are further amended by the Region 6 Invasive Species Program EIS and, upon approval, the SEIS to the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Invasive Plant Treatment Program EIS (2010). The Snake/Pine Grazing project is consistent with these goals through adherence to the EIS, development of Allotment Management Plans, and Annual Operating Instructions which are designed to address specific issues within the allotments. These specific instructions are reviewed and agreed upon each year with the Forest Service rangeland specialists/invasive species coordinators and the permittees. The end result of the agreement lies in the attainment of utilization standards to protect vegetative resources.

See Appendix B (Consistency Review) for a detailed description of how alternatives 2 and 3 respond to direction specific to grazing included in the amended Forest Plan and CMP.

225

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Specifically Required Disclosures

Cultural Resources

Cultural resource inventories within the Snake/Pine AMP project area have identified cultural resource sites and isolated occurrences. Analysis of ongoing and potential future livestock- related impacts on cultural resources was completed, and a “No Adverse Effect (No Historic Properties Affected)” determination was made. The Forest finds that there are historic properties but the undertaking would have no effect on them as defined by 36 CFR 800 16(i). Site-specific surveys would occur prior to implementation of any fencing or off-site water developments identified in alternatives 2 or 3. Any potential impacts would be mitigated through avoidance. If cultural resources are located/relocated during implementation of any action, work would be halted and the Wallowa-Whitman Archaeologist would be notified. The cultural resource would be evaluated and a mitigation plan developed in consultation with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) if necessary.

The Oregon SHPO has been consulted on this project. This analysis was documented in a report sent to the Oregon SHPO on August 25, 2010. Native American communities have been contacted (Nez Perce, Paiute and CTUIR) and public comment encouraged.

Probable Adverse Environmental Impacts that Cannot Be Avoided Grazing by any large ungulate, including deer, elk or domestic livestock, can cause some degree of damage to forage or browse plants or to soil structure. Most, but not all of these impacts can be mitigated for use by livestock through implementation of the Forest Plan utilization standards and guidelines and riparian standards. In addition, intensification of management can ensure that impacts are kept to levels allowed by the Forest Plan. It is recognized that recovery of degraded soils can occur under proper grazing management, though at a slower rate compared to recovery without the presence of livestock grazing. Impacts to riparian areas through the existence of current and past roads and structures in the riparian zones would continue. These impacts would limit recovery potentials and, in places, would prevent the reaching of desired future condition objectives.

Best Available Science This analysis meets the advice for incorporating “best available science” in specialist reports for NEPA projects as given in the May 2, 2007 advice letter, (Advice on Documenting “Best Available Science”) and the clarification letter dated June 20, 2007, (Clarification of May 2, 2007, Advice on Documenting “Best Available Science”), issued by the Acting Director and Director for Ecosystem Management Coordination, respectively. This analysis of effects was based on a combination of peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals, publications produce by Forest Service research, and resource professionals, as well as field surveys.

226

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Relationship Between Short-Term Use and Long-Term Productivity Forage harvest is a short-term use of resources that is permitted over a ten-year period, but is managed on an annual basis. Alternatives 2 and 3 promote long-term use and management of the range vegetative and related resources under management standards that are designed to promote long-term health of the resources on the allotment.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources There are no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources associated with implementing the alternatives that are not already identified in the FEIS for the Forest Plan.

Potential Conflicts with Plans and Policies of Other Agencies Implementation of alternatives 2 or 3 would not result in conflicts between the provisions of the proposed activities and any goals or objectives developed for other government entities.

Tribal Treaty Rights The Snake/Pine allotments are located within lands covered by the June 9, 1855 Treaty between the Cayuse, Umatilla and Walla Walla Tribes (CTUIR), and the United States. The Snake/Pine allotments are also located within lands covered by the June 11, 1855 Treaty between the Nez Perce Tribe, and the United States. Article 1 of the June 9, 1855 Treaty provides for the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries and pasturing stock on unclaimed lands in common with the citizens. Article 3 of the June 11, 1855 Treaty provides for the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries and pasturing stock on unclaimed lands in common with the citizens. If the CTUIR and/or Nez Perce requests to expand the expression of their rights, the Forest Service will comply to the extent required to exercise these rights.

The treaty provides that the Indians will retain the rights of taking fish in streams running through and bordering the reservations and at all other usual and accustomed stations in common with other citizens of the United States and of erecting suitable buildings for fish curing; the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing stock on unclaimed lands.

All of the alternatives provide the opportunity for Indian tribes to assert their rights for the pasturing of stock. When approached by a tribe for assertion of those rights, the Forest Service would work with existing livestock permittees to establish an area that would serve tribal needs. Alternative 1 does not provide a mechanism to accommodate such a need without initiating further environmental analysis. Alternatives 2 and 3 do provide this mechanism. These alternatives prescribe limits on allotment and pasture stocking while leaving individual permits the flexibility to graze cattle. Under this scenario, tribal assertion of treaty rights related to pasturing of stock could be accommodated without further environmental analysis.

Effects of authorizing livestock grazing on fisheries are disclosed in the previous section on Fisheries. Actions have been adopted to reduce the impact of livestock grazing on riparian habitat and aquatic species. Tribal members would continue to be able to fish in accordance with reserved treaty rights, and those opportunities would not be diminished by the presence of livestock grazing.

227

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Plants are actively gathered within the region by tribal members, but no specific knowledge about activity within the project area is known. Vegetation of the Blue Mountain Province of the Columbia basin physiographic area include: ponderosa pine, grand fir, Douglas fir, and western larch. Bunch-grasses: bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, and bitterbrush. Berries: serviceberries, gooseberries, huckleberries, current, chokecherries. Roots: camas, couse, bitterroot, wild carrot, wild onion.

Specific flora and fauna located during the archaeological survey for this project include oak fern, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, Aspen, huckleberry, low sagebrush, snowbrush, ceanothus, Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, wild mint, and skunk cabbage. The fauna include evidence of elk and deer, coyote, cougar, and multiple varieties of birds within the Snake/Pine AMP area.

In the absence of specific information, it is assumed that native species in the project area would continue to be represented in approximately the same locations over time, and culturally important flora and fauna would not be adversely affected by the continued presence of livestock grazing. This assumption is based on the conclusion that alternatives 2 and 3 would cause rangeland conditions to move toward or remain in satisfactory condition.

Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forestland Adverse effects on prime farmland, rangeland and forestland not already identified in the FEIS for the Forest Plan are not expected from implementing alternatives 2 or 3.

Energy Requirements There would be no unusual energy requirements for implementing alternatives 2 or 3.

Wetlands and Floodplains Refer to the Fisheries, and Hydrology effects in Chapter 3. The SPRAA range analysis does not propose to modify any wetland or floodplain.

Civil Rights, Women, Minorities, and Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice requires federal agencies to identify and address any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-include populations. Hispanic or Latino populations occupy the largest sector of the minorities in Baker County (3.3%). The next sector includes those who identified themselves as mixed race at 2.4%. Baker County is also represented by an American Indian- Alaska Native population of 1.1%. All other minorities sectors exhibit populations less than 1%. The Forest Service does not maintain records on the minority status of permit holders and does not discriminate in the permitting process. This project would not generate disparate impacts to civil rights, women or minorities. The project alternatives would not result in any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low- income populations.

228

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

CHAPTER 4 – Organizations and Persons Consulted Recipients of the EA The following list contains Organizations, Agencies, Tribes and Permittees receiving copies of the Snake AMP Environmental Assessment. The list includes those who requested copies, responded to the scoping efforts and permittees affected by the proposal.

Organizations Hells Canyon Preservation Council Oregon Wild Blue Mountain Audobon Society Blue Mountain Biodiversity Project Blue Mountain Native Forest Alliance Greg Walden’s Office Ron Wyden’s Office Jeff Merkley’s Office Baker County NRAC

Agencies Oregon Dept. of Forestry Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Bureau of Land Management Environmental Protection Agency Baker County Board of Commission

Permittees Linda K. Mallery – Mallery Family Trust Rowen Ranch, Inc.

Tribes Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Nez Perce Tribe Burns Paiute Tribe

229

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

Preparers The following agency personnel participated in the preparation of the Environmental Assessment. All personnel are either employees of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (WWNF) or employees of Forest Service T.E.A.M.S.

Jeff Tomac – Whitman District Ranger

Josh White – Range Management Staff Specialist and Project Leader, Whitman Ranger District

Sophia Millar – Interdisciplinary Planner, WWNF Supervisor’s Office

Melissa Shelley – Environmental Coordinator, Whitman Ranger District

Debra Moeller – Technical Writer Editor, Whitman Ranger District

Shannon Archuleta – Fisheries Biologist, Whitman Ranger District

Dave Salo – Hydrologist, WWNF Supervisor’s Office

Jamie Ratliff – Wildlife Biologist, Whitman Ranger District

Eric Harvey – Archaeologist, Whitman Ranger District

Mike Hall – Minerals, Lands and Recreation, Whitman Ranger District

Keith Dunn – Assistant Fire Management Officer, Burnt-Powder Zone, Whitman Ranger District

Michele Chapin – Soil Scientist, Hells Canyon NRA

Susan Geer – Botanist, Whitman Ranger District

Ray Lovisone – Biological Technician, Whitman Ranger District

230

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

References

Hydrology Ellison C.A., Skinner Q.D. and Hicks L.S. 2009, Assessment of Best-Management Practice Effects on Rangeland Stream Water Quality Using Multivariate Statistical Techniques

Hauter W. and Harkenrider D. June 1988, Watershed Management Practices Guide for Achieving Soil and Water Objectives, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

McInnis ML, JD McIver (2009). Timing of cattle grazing alters impacts on streambanks in an Oregon mountain watershed. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation In Press

Myers T. and Swanson S. 1992, Variation of Stream Stability with Stream Type and Livestock Band Damage in Northern Nevada JAWRA Vol. 28, Issue 4

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2010. Water Pollution Division 41: Water Quality Standards: Beneficial Uses, Policies, and Criteria for Oregon, The Oregon Administrative Rules October 15, 2010

Pfankuch D. 1975, Stream reach inventory and channel stability evaluation: USDA Forest Service, R1-75-002

Rosgen D. 1996, Applied River Morphology, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.

Svoboda D. and Bengeyfield P. 1998, Determining Allowable Use Levels for Livestock Movement in Riparian Areas. AWRA Proceedings

USDA. INFISH (Inland Native Fish Strategy), U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Interim strategies for managing fish-producing watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, Western Montana, and portions of Nevada. Washington D.C: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (“Forest Plan”). USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (6), Wallowa- Whitman National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. HCNRA. Comprehensive Management Plan.Wallowa- Whitman National Forest. FEIS Volume 2 Appendix C, pg 44-106

USDI. Bureau of Land Management. 1993, Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition. 42 P. BLM TR 1737-15

Fish

Archer, E.J., A. Birnie, B. Bouwes, J. Heitke, and G. Kliewer. 2006. Effectiveness monitoring program for streams and riparian areas within the Upper Columbia River Basin. Annual Summary Report 2001-2006. Ft. Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 231

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

Belsky, A.J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. In: Waren P. Clary and Wayne C. Lenniger. 200. Stubble height as a tool for management of riparian areas. Journal of Range Management 53: 562-573.

Brim Box, J., J. Howard, D. Wolf, C. O’Brien, D. Nez, and D. Close. 2006. Freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoida) of the Umatilla and Middle Fork John Day Rivers in eastern Oregon. Northwest Science 80(2):95-107.

Bond, C. E. 1992. Notes on the nomenclature and distribution of the bull trout and the effects of human activity on the species. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain bull trout workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, OR.

Brewin, P. A., M. K. Brewin, and M. Monita. 1997. Distribution maps for bull trout in Alberta. Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedings. Bull Trout Task Force (Alberta), c/o Trout Unlimited Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Burton, T.A., S.J. Smith, and E.R. Cowley. 2008. Monitoring stream channels and riparian vegetation – multiple indicators. Version 5.0. USDI Bureau of Land Management. Idaho State Office. Boise, Idaho.

Cavender, Ted M. 1978. Taxonomy and distribution of the bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus (Suckley), from the American Northwest. California Fish and Game 64.3: 139-174.

Clarkson, R.W., and J.R. Wilson. 1995. Trout biomass and stream habitat relationships in the White Mountains area, east-central Arizona. In: P.B. Bailey and H.W. Li. 2008. Stream fish responses to grazing exclosures. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 28:1335- 147.

Clary, W.P. and B.F. Webster. 1989. Managing grazing of riparian areas in the intermountain region. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-263. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 11p.

Clary, W.P. 1999. Stream channel and vegetation responses to late spring cattle grazing. In:W.P. Clary and W.C. Lenniger. 2000. Stubble height as a tool for management of riparian areas. Journal of Range Management 53: 562-573.

Cummins, K.W. 1974. Structure and function of stream ecosystems. In: J.B. Kauffman and W.C. Kruger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications: a review. Journal of Range Management 37:430-438.

Curren, K.P. 1990. Allozyme and morphological divergence of rainbow trout. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Science 57, 10 (2152-2162).

DelCurto, T., Johnson, B.K., Vavra, M., Ager, A.A., Coe, P.K. 2000. The influence of the seasonal distribution patterns relative to water and resource use by cattle grazing mixed

232

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

forested rangelands. Proceedings, Western Section, American Society of Animal Science 51:171-175.

Delong, M.D. and M.A. Brusven. 1998. Macroinvertebrate community structure along the longitudinal gradient of an agriculturally impacted stream. In: Scrimgeour G.J., and S. Kendall. 2003. Effects of livestock grazing on benthic invertebrates from a native grassland ecosystem. Freshwater biology 48:347-362.

Dollof, C.A. and M.L. Warren. 2003. Fish relationships with large wood in small streams. American Fisheries Symposium, 37:179-193.

Duff, D.A. 1979. Riparian habitat recovery on Big Creek, Rick County, Utah. In: J.B. Kauffman and W.C. Kruger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications: a review. Journal of Range Management 37:430-438.

Everest, F.H., and W.R. Meehan. 1981. Forest management and anadromous fish habitat productivity. In: J.B. Kauffman and W.C. Kruger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications: a review. Journal of Range Management 37:430-438.

Frest, T.J. and E.J. Johannes. 1995. Interior Columbia basin mollusk species of special concern. Deixis Consultants, Seattle, WA:. A contract report prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Upper Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project. 274 pp. + appendices.

Frest, T. J. 1999. A review of the land and freshwater mollusks of Idaho. Final report prepared for Idaho Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. 281 pp. + appendices.

Gregory, J.S., and B.L. Gamett. 2009. Cattle trampling of simulated bull trout redds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29:361-366.

Harding, J.S., E.F. Benfield, P.V. Bolstad, G.S. Helfman, and E.B. Jones. Stream biodiversity: the ghost of land use past. In: Scrimgeour G.J., and S. Kendall. 2003. Effects of livestock grazing on benthic invertebrates from a native grassland ecosystem. Freshwater biology 48:347-362.

Hershler, R. and T. J. Frest. 1996. A review of the North American freshwater snail genus Fluminicola (Hydrobiidae). Smithsonian Contributions of Zoology: No. 583

Idaho Power Company. 2003. Hells Canyon Complex. Retrieved from http://www.idahopower.com/pdfs/Relicensing/hellscanyon/hellspdfs/hc_licenseapp.pdf.

INFISH (Inland Native Fish Strategy), U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Interim strategies for managing fish-producing watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, Western Montana, and portions of Nevada. Washington D.C: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

233

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

Jackson, C. R., and C. A. Sturm. 2002. Woody debris and channel morphology in first- and second-order forested channels in Washington’s coast range. Water Resour. Res., 38: 16.1- 16.14

Kauffman, J.B., W.C. Kruger, and M. Vavra. 1983. Impacts of cattle on streambanks in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Range Management 36:683-685.

Leary, Robb F., and Fred W. Allendorf. 1997. Notes: Genetic Confirmation of Sympatric Bull Trout and Dolly Varden in Western Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126.4: 715-720.

Lenat, D.A. 1984. Agriculture and stream quality: a biological evaluation of erosion control practices. In: Scrimgeour G.J., and S. Kendall. 2003. Effect of livestock grazing on benthic invertebrates from a native grassland ecosystem. Freshwater biology 48:347-362.

Li, H.W. G.A. Lamberti, T.N. Pearsons, C.K. Tait, J.L. Li, and J.C. Buckhouse. 1994. Cumulative Effects of riparian disturbances along high desert trout streams of the John Day Basin, Oregon. In: P.B. Bailey and H.W. Li. 2008. Stream fish responses to grazing exclosures. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28:135-147.

Marcuson, P.E. 1977. The Effect of cattle grazing on brown trout in Rock Creek, Montana. In: J.B. Kauffman and W.C. Kruger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications: a review. Journal of Range Management 37:430-438.

Meehan, W.R., F.J. Swanson, and J.R. Sedell. 1977. Influences of riparian and vegetation on aquatic ecosystems and streamside management implications: a review. Journal of Range Management 37:430-438.

Miles, E.L., A. K. Snover, A. F. Hamelet, B. Callahan, and D. Fluharty. 2000. Pacific Northwest Regional Assessment: the impacts of climate variability and climate change on the water resources of the Columbia River Basin. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Vol. 36(2):399-420.

Montgomery, D.R, J.M Buffington, R.D. Smith, K.M. Schmidt and G. Pess. 1995. Pool spacing in forest channels. Water Resources Research 31:1097-1105.

NatureServe. 2012. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: February 8, 2013 ).

Neitzel, D.A. and Frest, T.J. 1992. Survey of Columbia River Basin streams for Columbia pebblesnail Fluminicola columbiana and shortface lanx Fisherola nuttalli. Technical Report PNL- 8229, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA. 83 pp.

Ohmart, R.D. 1996. Historical and present impacts of livestock grazing on fish and wildlife resources in western riparian habitats. In: L. Fitch and B.W. Adams. 1998. Can cows and fish co-exist. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 78: 191-198.

234

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

Pine Creek Existing Conditions Reconnaissance Report. River Design Group. 2012. Corvallis, OR.

Quinn, J.M. R.B. Williamson, R.K. Smith, and M.L. Vickers. 1992. Effects of riparian grazing and channelization on streams in Southland New Zealand. In: Scrimgeour G.J., and S. Kendall. 2003. Effects of livestock grazing on benthic invertebrates from a native grassland ecosystem. Freshwater biology 48:347-362.

Richards, D. C., Falter, C. M., Lester, G. T., and Myers, R. 2005. Additional Information Request Ar-2: Listed Mollusks. Final report to the Idaho Power Company. Hells Canyon Project FERC #P-1971-079. 180 pp.

Rinne, J.N., and A.L. Medina. 1988. Factors influencing salmonid populations in six headwater streams. In: P.B. Bailey and H.W. Li. 2008. Stream fish responses to grazing exclosures. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28:135-147.

Roberts, B.C., and R.G. White. 1992. Effects of angler wading on survival of trout eggs and pre- emergent fry. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:450-459.

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO.

Tait, C.K., J.L. Li, G.A. Lamberti, T.N. Pearsons, and H.W. Li. 1994. Relationships between riparian cover and the community structure of high desert streams. In: P.B. Bailey and H.W. Li. 2008. Stream fish responses to grazing exclosures. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28:135-147.

Townsend, C.R., C.J. Arbuckle, T.A. Crowl, and M.R. Scarsbrook. 1997. The relationships between land use and physiochemical, food resources, and macroinvertebrate communities of the Taieri River, New Zealand. In: Scrimgeour G.J., and S. Kendall. 2003. Effects of livestock grazing on benthic invertebrates from a native grassland ecosystem. Freshwater biology 48:347-362.

USDI. Bureau of Land Management. 1993, Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition. 42 P. BLM TR 1737-15

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Bull Trout. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Klamath River and Columbia River Distinct Population Segments of Bull Trout. 64 Federal Register 210 (November 1, 1999), pp. 58910-58933.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Chapter 13, Hells Canyon Complex Recovery Unit, Oregon and Idaho. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, OR.

Vannote, R.L., and G.W. Minshall. 1982. Fluvial processes and local lithology controlling abundance, structure, and composition of mussel beds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 79:4103-4107. 235

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

Wildlife Altman, Robert. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds in the northern Rocky Mountains of eastern Oregon and Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 86p.

Anthony, R.G. and F.B. Isaacs. 1989. Characteristics of bald eagle nest sites in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:148 159

Anthony, R.G., R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, B.R. McClelland, and J.L. Hodges. 1982. Habitat use by nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 47:332−342.

Black, S.H. and L. Lauvray. 2005. Species Fact Sheet, Johnson’s Hairstreak. Prepared by the Xerces Society, Portland, OR. 8 pp.

Bull, E.L., and B.E. Carter. 1996. Tailed frogs: distribution, ecology, and association with timber harvest in northeast Oregon. USDA Pacific NW Research Station. PNW-RP 497.

Bull, E. L., and R. S. Holthausen. 1993. Habitat use and management of pileated woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:335-45.

Bull, E.L. and T.W. Heater. 1996. The effect of management on the American marten in Northeastern Oregon. Progess Report. November 1996. Forestry and Range Sciences Lab, La Grande, OR. 13pp

Chung-MacCoubrey, A.L., 1996. Bat species composition and roost use in pinyon-juniper woodlands of New Mexico. In: Barclay, R.M.R., Brigham, R.M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Bats and Forests Symposium. BC Ministry of Forests Working Paper No. 23/1996, pp. 118–123.

Coe, P.K., B.K. Johnson, K.M. Stewart, and J.G. Kie. Spatial and temporal interactions of elk, mule deer, and cattle. Pages 150-158 in Wisdom, M.J., technical editor, 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.

Cook, J.G. 2002. Nutrition and food. In North American elk: ecology and management, eds. D.E. Toweill and J.W. Thomas, 259-349. Washington and London: Smithsonial Institution Press.

Cook, J.G., B.K. Johnson, R.C. Cook, R.A. Riggs, T. DelCurto, L.D. Bryant, and L.L. Irwin. 2004. Effects of summer-autumn nutrition and parturition date on reproduction and survival of elk. Wildlife Monograph 155:1-61.

Corkran, Charlotte C. and C. R. Thomas. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. Lone Pine Publishing, Redmond WA.

236

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

Csuti, Blair, A. J. Kimerling, T. A. O’Neil, M. M. Shaughnessy, E. P. Gaines, and M. M. Hus. 1997. Atlas of Oregon Wildlife: distribution, habitat, and natural history. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR 492p.

Findholt, SL, BK Johnson, D. Damiran, T DelCurto, and JG Kie. 2004. Diet and composition, dry matter intake, and diet overlap among mule deer, elk, and cattle. Pages 159-169 in Wisdom, M.J., technical editor, 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.

Fleckenstein, J. 2006. Meadow fritillary, species fact sheet. Natural Heritage Progam, Washington Dept. of Natural Resources, Olympia WA. 3 pp.

Frest, T.J. & Johannes, E.J. 1995. Interior Columbia Basin mollusc species of special concern. Final Report Contract #43-0E00-4-9112. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Walla Walla, WI.

Greenwald, D.N., D. Coleman Crocker-Bedford, L. Broberg, K. F. Suckling, and T. TIbbitts. 2005. A review of northern goshawk habitat selection in the home range and implications for forest management in the western United States. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 33:120-128.

Hayes, M.P., J.D. Engler, R.D. Haycock, D.H. Knopp, W.P. Leonard, K.R. McAllister, and L.L. Todd. 1997, Status of the Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) across its geographic range: Oregon Chapter of the Wildlife Society, Corvallis.

Holechek, J.L., M. Vavra, J. Skovlin, and W.C. Krueger. 1982. Cattle diets in the Blue Mountains of Oregon II. Forests. Journal of Range Management 35:239-242.

Howard, A. and J.C. Munger. 2000. Effects of livestock grazing on the invertebrate prey base and on the survival and growth of larvae of the Columbia spotted frog, Rana luteiventris. Final Report on Cooperative Research between the Bureau of Land Management and Boise State University. Department of Biology, Boise State University, Boise ID. 28 p.

Kaminski, T., and J. Hansen. 1984. Wolves of central Idaho. Unpublished report. Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Missoula

Leonard, W.P, H.A. Brown, L.L.C. Jones, K.R. McAllister, and R.M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society. 168 pp.

Marshall, D.B. 1997. Status of the white-headed woodpecker in Oregon and Washington. Audubon Society of Portland, 5151 NW Cornell Road, Portland, OR 97210

Marshall, D.B., M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, Eds. 2003. Birds of Oregon: A general Reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768p.

McGrath, M.T. and S. DeStefano. 1995. Annual report: Northern goshawk habitat analysis in managed forest landscapes. Oregon Coop Wildlife Res. Unit, Corvallis, OR 10pp.

237

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.4. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/.

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center. 2010. Rare, threatened and endangered species of Oregon. Available online: http://orbic.pdu.edu

Parsons, C.T., P.A. Momont, T. Delcurto, M.McInnis, and M.L. Porath. 2003. Cattle distribution patterns and vegetation use in mountain riparian areas. Journal of Range Management 56(4):334-341.

Pierson, E.D.; Wackenhut, M.C.; Altenbach, J.S.; [and others]. 1999. Species conservation assessment and strategy for Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii and Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens). Idaho Conservation Effort, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise.

Powell, R. A. and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. Chapter 3 Fisher. In: The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores, American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the Western United States. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ft. Collins, CO, General Tech. Report RM-254. 184pp.

Rambo, J.L and S.T. Faeth. 1999. Effect of vertebrate grazing on plant and insect community structure. Conservation Biology 13:1047-1054

Reynolds, R.T., G.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1991. Management recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the southwestern United States. USFS Report. November 26, 1991. 194pp

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores, American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United Staes. USDA For. Serv. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254, Fort Collins, CO.

Saab, V.A. 1998. Effects of recreational activity and livestock grazing on habitat use by breeding birds in cottonwood forests along the South Fork Snake River. Idaho BLM Technical Bulletin no. 98-17.

Schommer, T. and B. Johnson. 2003. Analysis of elk statistics 1965-2001: Wallow, Wenaha- Snake, and Umatilla-Whitman Provinces. Forest Service Report. 21pp.

Siekert, R.E., Q.D. Skinner, M.A. Smith, J.L. Dodd, and J.D. Rodgers. 1985. Channel response of an ephemeral stream in Wyoming to selected grazing treatments. In: T.M. DelCurto, M. Porath, C.T. Parsons, and J.A. Morrison. 2005. Management strategies for sustainable beef cattle grazing on forested rangelands in the Pacific Northwest. Rangeland Ecology and Management 58(2): 119-127.

238

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

Stewart, KM, RT Bowyer, JG Kie, NJ Cimon, and BK Johnson. 2002. Temporospatial distributions of elk, mule deer, and cattle: resource partitioning and competitive displacement. Journal of Mammalogy 83(1):229-244.

Taylor, D.M. 1986. Effects of cattle grazing on passerine burds nesting in riparian habitat. Journal of Range Management 39(3):254-258.

Thomas, J.W. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook No. 553. 512 pp.

Thomas, J.W., D.A. Leckenby, M. Henjum, R.J. Pedersen, and L.D. Bryant. 1988. Habitat- efffectiveness index for elk on Blue Mountain winter ranges. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-218. 28pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Updated Regional Forester’s Sensitive Animal List. 2670/1950 Memo (to Forest Supervisors). U.S. Dept.of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service-Pacific Northwest Region (6). Portland, OR. July 2004.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Plant and Animal Species that are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened: Annual notice of findings on recycled petitions. 50 CFR Part 17. Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 210 pages 54808 to 54832. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. October 30.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 50 CFR Part 17. Federal Register Vol. 62, No. 182 pages 49398 to 49411. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. December 31.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon. 160p.

Verts, B.J. and L.N. Carraway. 1998. Land Mammals of Oregon. University of California Pres. Berkeley, California. 668p

Walsberg, G.E. 2005. Cattle grazing in a National Forest greatly reduces nesting success in a ground-nesting sparrow. The Condor 107:714-716.

Walters, S.T. and C.C. Maguire. 2005. Snags, cavity-nesting birds and silvicultural treatment in western Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 64:1578-1591.

Western Bat Working Group. 2005a. Species account: Spotted bat. On-line: www.wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/.

239

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

Western Bat Working Group. 2005b. Species account: Fringed myotis. On-line: www.wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/.

White, C. M., N. J. Clum, T. J. Cade, and W. G. Hunt. (2002). Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology; Retrieved from The Birds of North American Online database

Wisdom, M.J., R.S. Holthausen, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis, V.A. Saab, D.C. Lee, W.J. Hann, T.D. Rich, M.M. Rowland, W.J. Murphy and M.R. Earnes. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-scale trends and management implications, Volume 2 – Group level results. Gen. Tech. Rep. Threatened and Endangered Species, Sensitive Species and Management Indicator Species and the level of analysis required. PNW-GTR-485. pp. 181-190; 199-208; 219-223; 237-241; 242-248; 258-265; 293-297

Witmer, G. W., S. K. Martin, and R. D. Sayler. 1998. Forest carnivore conservation and management in the interior Columbia Basin: Issues and environmental correlates. General Technical Report GTR-PNW-420. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 51 pp.

Recreation and Wilderness Brunson and Gilbert (2003) Recreationist responses to livestock grazing in a new national monument. Journal of Range Management, 56(6):570-576.

Cole, D. N. 1994. The wilderness threats matrix: a framework for assessing impacts. Res. Pap. INT-475. Ogden, UT: USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 14 p.

Jacob, G.R., and R. Schreyer. “Conflict in outdoor recreation: A theoretical perspective.” Journal of Leisure Research, 1980: 368-380.

Kathryn A. Giroux Conflicts on the Range:The Management of Multiple Uses On Rangelands www.srnr.arizona.edu/~gimblett/Conflicts_On_the_Range.pdf

Mitchell et al. 1996, Visitors Perception about cattle grazing on National Forest lands. Journal of Range Management Vol. 49, No. 1, Jan., 1996

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (6), Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. HCNRA. Comprehensive Management Plan.Wallowa- Whitman National Forest.

Botany

240

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

Anderson, David C., K.T. Harper, and S.R. Rushforth. 1982. Recovery of Cryptogamic Soil Crusts Grazing on Utah Winter Ranges. Journal of Range Management 35(3): 355-359.

Belnap, J., J. H. Kaltenecker, R. Rosentreter, J. Williams, S. Leonard and D. Eldridge. 2001. Biological soil crusts: Ecology and management, Technical Reference No. 1730-2. Denver, Colorado, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, 110 pp.

Bowker, M. A. 2007. Biological soil crust rehabilitation in theory and practice: An underexploited opportunity. Restoration Ecology 15(1): 13-23

Bulthuis, Mitch, Sabine Mellmann-Brown, Dave Salo, and Anne Carlson. 2012. Issue Paper: Hells Canyon NRA: Management of Biological Soil Crust and Soil Health dated 8/6/2012. Unpublished.

Demmer, Rick. 2005. Bryophyte, lichen and biological soil crust monitoring in Prineville District. 2005. USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Prineville District, OR. 9 December 2005. 26pp.

Ferriel, Jenifer. 2013. Draft Biological Soil Crust Literature Review dated 5/7/13. Unpublished.

Herrick, J. E.; Van Zee, J.W; Havstad, K.M.; Burkett, L.M.; Whitford, W.G. 2009. Monitoring manual for grassland, shrubland, and savanna ecosystems. Volume I, Quick Start.

Johnson, C.G.; Simon, S.A. 1987. Plant Associations of the Wallowa-Snake Province. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, R6-ECOL-TP-255A-86, 400 pp. plus appendices.

Johnson, C.G.; Swanson, D.K. 2005. Bunchgrass plant communities of the Blue and Ochoco Mountains: A guide for managers. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-641, 119 pp.

Kaltenecker, J. and M. Wicklow-Howard. 1994. Microbiotic soil crusts in sagebrush habitats of southern Idaho. Walla Walla, Wash.: Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, ii, 48, [9] p. http://www.icbemp.gov/science/kaltenec.pdf

Ponzetti, J., et al. 2007. Biotic soil crusts in relation to topography, cheatgrass and fire in the Columbia Basin, Washington. Bryologist 110(4): 706-722.

Root, H. and B. McCune .2012. Regional patterns of biological soil crust lichen species composition related to vegetation, soils, and climate in Oregon, USA. Journal of Arid Environments 79: 93-100.

Rosentreter, R., M. Bowker and J. Belnap. 2007. A field guide to biological soil crusts of western U.S. drylands: Common lichens and bryophytes. Denver, Colorado, U.S. Government Printing Office, 104 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Pacific Northwest Region. 399 pp. 241

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

USDA Forest Service. 2003. HCNRA Comprehensive Management Plan. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Chapter 3, pp. 193-250

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Pacific Northwest Region, Wallowa- Whitman National Forest; Baker and Wallowa Counties, OR; Nez Perce, ID and Adams Counties, ID. online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/wallowa- whitman/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb5305041

Warren, S.D. and D.J. Eldridge. 2001. Biological Soil Crusts and Livestock in Arid Ecosystems: Are They Compatible?. In: Belnap, J., Lange, O.L. (Eds.), Biological Soil Crusts: Structure, Function, and Management. Ecological Studies Series 150 Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 401-411

Economics Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President. 40pp.

Rimbley, T. and Torrell, L.A. 2011. Grazing Costs: What’s the Current Situation? Moscow, Idaho: University of Idaho.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. Accessed 10 May 2011. .

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Decennial Census. Accessed 16 April 2013. .

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. Population Estimates Program. Accessed 20 April 2013. .

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Census Redistricting Data. Accessed 20 April 2013. .

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). 2010. Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool (FEAST).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA NASS). 2009.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA NASS). 2011.

242

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service Wallowa-Whitman 2008 fence adjustment pricing.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Land Resource Management Plan, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Pacific Northwest Region. 399 pp.

Work Force Quality Info. 2012 < http://www.doleta.gov/performance/workforcedatagrant09.cfm

Dan Warnock, Baker Ranger District Permittee. 2013 (pers com)

Linda McLean, Baker Ranger District Permittee. 2013 (pers com)

Jamie McCormack Wallowa Valley Ranger Manager (Wallowa-Whitman) 2013 (pers com)

Invasives

Bradley, B.A, M. Oppenheimer, & D.S. Wilcove, 2009. Climate change and plant invasions: restoration opportunities ahead? Global Change Biology 15: 1511-1521.

Chapin, F.S., E.S. Zavaleta, V.T. Eviner, R.L. Naylor, P.M. Vitousek, H.L. Reynolds, D.U. Hooper, S. Lavorel, O.E. Sala, S.E. Hobbie, M.C. Mack, & S. Diaz, 2000. Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405:234-242.

D’Antonio, C.M., 2000. Fire, plant invasions, and global changes. Pages 65-93 in H.A. Mooney and R.J. Hobbs, editors. Invasive species in a changing world. Island Press, Covelo, California, USA.

Hellmann, J.J, J.E Byers, B.G. Bierwagen, & J.S. Dukes, 2008. Five potential consequences of climate change for invasive species. Conservation Biology 22(3): 534-543.

Hobbs, R.J. & L.F. Huenneke. 1992. Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: implications for conservation. Conservation Biology 6(3):324-337.

Lockwood J.L., P. Cassey, & T. Blackburn. 2005. The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20(5):223-228.

Mack, M.C. & C.M. D’Antonio, 1998. Impacts of biological invasions on disturbance regimes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13(5):195-198.

Merriam, K.E., J.E. Keeley, & J.L. Beyers, 2006. Fuel breaks affect nonnative species abundance in californian plant communities. Ecological Applications 16(2):515-527.

Potts, J.B. & S.L. Stephens, 2009. Invasive and native plant responses to shrubland fuel reduction: comparing prescribed fire, mastication, and treatment season. Biological Conservation 142:1657-1664. 243

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

Sousa, W.P., 1984. The role of disturbance in natural communities. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15:353-391.

Sutherland, S. 2008. Monitoring the impact of wildfire, fire suppression, and post-burn restoration on exotic weed invasion. Unpublished data on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences laboratory, Missoula, MT.

USDA Forest Service, 2005. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Record of Decision. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. October 2005.

USDA Forest Service, 2010. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment Project Record of Decision. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Baker City, Or. May 2010.

Vitousek, P.M., C.M. D’Antonio, L.L. Loope, & R. Westbrooks, 1996. Biological invasions as global environmental change. American Scientist 84:468-478.

Range Brown, J. and J. Thrope. 2008. Climate change and Rangelands: Responding rationally to uncertainty. Rangelands 30:3 3-6

Brown, J. J. Angerer, S.W. Salley, R. Blaisdell, and J. W. Stuth. 2010. Improving Estimates of Rangeland Carbon Sequestration Potential in the US Southwest. J. Ecol and Manage 63:1 147- 154

Chapin, M.F. 2009a. Condition of rangeland soils in response to grazing. (pers com), September 8, 2009.

Cox, R.D., V.J. Anderson. 2004. Increasing native diversity of cheatgrass-dominated rangeland through assessed succession. J. Range Manage. 57:203-210.

Derner, J.D., G.E. Schuman, M. Jawson, S.R. Shafer, J.A. Morgan, H.W. Polley, G.B. Runion, S.A. Prior, H.A. Torbert, H.H. Rogers, J. Bunce, L. Ziska, J.W. White, A.J. Franzluebbers, J.D. Reeder, R. Venterea and L.A. Harper. 2005. USDA-ARS Global Change Research on Rangelands and Pasturelands. Rangelands 27:36-42.

Derner, J.D., T.W. Boutton, and D.D. Briske. 2006. Grazing and ecosystem carbon storage in the North American Great Plains. Plant and Soil. 280: 77 – 90

Haferkamp, M. R. and M. D. MacNeil. 2004. Grazing effects on carbon dynamics in the northern mixed-grass prairie. Environmental Management 33: Suppl 1S462–S474.

Henderson, R.C.; Archer, E. K.; Bouwes, B. A; Coles-Ritchie, M.S.; Kershner, J.L. 2005. PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion (PIBO): Effectiveness Monitoring Program seven-year status report 1998 through 2004. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-162. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 16 p.

244

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

Holechek, J.L, Baker, T,T, Boren, J.C, and D. Galt. 2006. Grazing impacts on rangeland vegetation: what we have learned. Rangelands, February, 2006 (6-12).

Johnson, C.G. Jr. 1998b. Vegetation response after wildfires in national forests of northeastern Oregon. R6-NR-ECOL-TP-06-98. Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, PNW.

Johnson, C.G. Jr. and R.R. Clausnitzer. 1992. Plant associations of the Blue and Ochoco Mountains. Publication R6-ERW-TP-036-92. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 164 p.

Johnson Jr., Charles G. and Steven A. Simon. 1987. Plant Associations of the Wallowa- Snake Province, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

LeCain, D.R., J.A. Morgan, G.S. Schuman and J.D. Reeder, and R.H. Hart. 2002. Carbon exchange rates and species composition of grazed pastures and exclosures in the shortgrass steppe of Colorado. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93:421-435.

Li, Z., S. Liu, and Z. Tan. 2007. Spatially Explicit Modeling of grazing effect on soil organic carbon change in the Green River Basin, Wyoming. American Geophysical Union. Abstract #B23C-1508

Manley, J., van Kooten, G.C., Moeltner, K. & Johnson, D.W. 2005. Creating Carbon Offsets in Agriculture through Zero Tillage: A Meta-Analysis of Costs and Carbon Benefits, Climatic Change, 68(January), 41-65.

Milchunas, D.G., J.R. Forewood, and W.K. Lauenroth. 1994. Productivity of long-term grazing treatments in response to seasonal precipitation. Journal of Range Management, 47:133-139.

Miller, R. 2005. Carbon dioxide effects on rangeland vegetation: In conversation. Department of Rangeland Ecology and Management, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Ofir, M. and D. Kerem. 1982. The effects of temperature and photoperiod on the onset of summer dormancy in Poa bulbosa L. Ann. Bot. 50, 259-264.

Pellant, Mike. 1996. Cheatgrass: The invader that won the west. Interior Columbia Baisn Ecosystem Management Project. BLM, Idaho State Office.

Platt, K. and E.R. Jackman. 1946. The cheatgrass problem in Oregon. Extension Bull. 668. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State College. 48p.

Powell, D. C., C.G. Johnson Jr., E. A. Crowe, A. Wells and D.K. Swanson. 2007. Potential vegetation hierarchy for the Blue Mountains section of northeastern Oregon, southeastern Washington, and west-central Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-709. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 87p.

Reeder, J.D., G.E. Schuman, J.A. Morgan, D.R. LeCain and R.H. Hart. 2001. Impact of grazing management strategies on carbon sequestration in a semi-arid rangeland, USA. Proceedings of

245

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

the XIX International Grassland Congress. pp 211-213. Brazilian Society of Animal Husbandry, Sao Pedro, Sao Paulo, Brazil. XIX International Grassland Congress.

Schuman, G. E., Janzen, H. H., Herrick, J. E. 2002. Soil carbon dynamics and potential carbon sequestration by rangelands. Environmental Pollution 116: 391-396

Sharrow, S. 2008. Trading carbon sequestion and carbon credits. Department of Rangeland Ecology and Management. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. The Grazier, December 2008 2-7. In: USDA Forest Service. 2009. Climate change and green house gas emissions effects consideration within AMP NEPA. Steve Gibson, Ochoco National Forest, Region 6.

Steinfeld, H. and T. Wassenaar . 2007. The role of livestock production in carbon and nitrogen cycles. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 271-294.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Pacific Northwest Region. 399 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Monitoring Stream Channels and Riparian Vegetation Multiple Indicators (MIM Protocal-Interagency Technical Bulletin Version 5.0, 2008

USDA Forest Service 1998-2004. PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion (PIBO): Effectiveness Monitoring Program seven-year status report. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-162. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Research Station. 16 p.

USDA Forest Service 2009. Range Suitability/Capability Process, Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision, Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. Pacific Northwest Region. USDA Forest Service. 1994. Range Analysis and Management Handbook. Region 6 Forest Service Handbook. Portland, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Tentative Capability and Suitability Rating Guide.

USDA Forest Service. 2008a. USDA Forest Service Manual 2500, Watershed and Air Management. Accessed in 2008.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1998a. A user guide to assessing proper functioning condition and the supporting science for lotic areas. Technical Reference 1337-15. Bureau of Land Management, Denver CO.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1996. Tech Ref. 1734-3, Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements.

Welker, J. J. Fahnestock, K. Povirk, C. Bilbrough, and R. Piper. 2004. Alpine grassland carbon dioxide exchange and nitrogen cycling: grazing history effects, medicine bow range, Wyoning, USA. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 36(1):11-20. In: USDA Forest Service. 2009. Climate change and green house gas emissions effects consideration within AMP NEPA. Steve Gibson, Ochoco National Forest, Region 6.

246

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

West, N.E., F.D. Provenza, P.S. Johnson, and M.K. Owens. 1982. Vegetation change after 13 years of livestock grazing exclusion on stagebrush semideserts in west central Utah. J. Range Manage.

Young, J.A., Clements, D.D. 2003. Rangeland monitoring and invasive weeds. Arid Land Research and Management. 17(4): 439-447.

Soils Adams and Froehlich. 1984. Compaction of Forest Soils. PNW Publication #217. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Belnap, J and D. Eldridge. 2001. Disturbance and recovery of biological soil crusts.

Belnap, J., R. Reynolds, M. Reheis, S.L. Phillips. 2001. What makes the desert Bloom? Contribution of dust and crusts to soil fertility on the Colorado Plateau. USDA Forest Service Proceedings. RMRS-P-21. 2001

Bliss, T. 2000. Range Allotment Soil Concerns. White paper prepared by Tim Bliss, Wallowa- Whitman National Forest.

Brooks, Paula. 2009. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Botanist. September, 2009 .(pers com).

Chapin, Michele. 2013. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Soil Scientist. (pers com).

Daniel, J. A., K. Potter, W. Altom, H. Aljoe, R. Stevens. 2002. Long term grazing density impacts on soil compaction. Am. Soc. Of Agr. Eng. Vol. 45(6):1911-1915

Finch, D.M. edt. 2004. Assessment of Grassland Ecosystem Conditions in the Southwestern United States, Volume 1. Gen Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-135-vol 1. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station. 167 p. www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr135_1.pdf [accessed 10/15/2008].

Grahm, R. T., A.E. Harvey, M. F.Jurgensen, T.B. Jain, J.R. Tonn and Page-Dumroese, D.S. 1994. Managing coarse woody debris in forests of the Rocky Mountains. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Gen.Tech. Rpt. NT-28. pp32-50.

Herrick, J. and W. Whitford. 1995. Assessing the quality of rangeland soils: challenges and opportunities. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 50: 237-242

Herrick J.E., W.G. Withford, A.G. de Soyza, J.W. Vanzee, K.M. Havstad, C.A. Seybold, and M. Walton. 2001. Field aggregate stability kit for soil quality and rangeland health evaluations. Catena 44:27-35.

Herrick, J.E., J.W. Van Zee, K.M. Havstad, L. M. Burkett, and W.G. whtiford. 2005. Monitoring manual for grasslands, shrubland and savanna ecosystems. UDSA_ARS Jornada Experimental Range, Las Curses, NM. Distributed by Arizina Press.

247

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

Han, Sang-Kyun. 2006. Impacts on Soils from Cut-to-Length and Whole Tree Harvesting. A Thesis. College of Natural Resources. University of Idaho.

Hun-Sup, H., D. Page-Dumroese, S.K., Han, J. Tirocke. 2006. Effects of Slash, Machine Passes, and Soil Moisture on Penetration Resistance in a Cut-to-length Harvesting. Journal of Forest Engineering. Vol. 17, No. 2, July.

Johnson, Charles Grier. 2003. Green Fescue Rangelands: Changes Over Time in the Wallowa Mountains. PNW-GTR-569. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.

Johnson, C. G. and Clausnitzer, R.R. 1992. Plant associations of the Blue and Ochoco Mountains. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region. R6-ERW-TP-036-92. 164p.

Johnson, Charles Grier. 2003. Green fescue rangelands: changes over time in the Wallow Mountails. PNW_GTR-569. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland Oregon.

Johnson, G.G and S.A Swanson. August 2005. Bunchgrass plant communities of the Blue and Ochoco Mountains: A guide for manageres. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station Gen. Tec. Rep. PNW_GTR-641.

Larson, W. E.; Pierce, F. J. 1991. Conservation and enhancement of soil quality. In: Evaluation of Sustainable Land Management in the Developing World. Int. Bangkok, Thailand: Board for Soil Res. and Management: 175-203.

McDaniel, P and Miller, D. 2007. Assessing quality in volcanic ash soils. In: Paige-Dumroese, Deborah; Miller, Richard; Mital, Jim; McDaniel, Paul; Miller, Dan, tech.eds. 2007. Volcanic Ash- Derived Soils of the Inland Northwest: Properties and Implications for Management and Restoration. 9-10 November 2005; Coeur D’Alene, ID; Proceedings RMRS-P-44; Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station.

McNabb, David H. and Swanson, Frederick J. 1990. Chapter 14. Effects of fire on soil erosion. In: Natural and prescribed fire in Pacific Northwest forests. Walstad, John D., ed., et al. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press, pp. 159- 176.

Mellmann-Brown. 2013. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Ecologist. Baker, OR. (pers com).

Miller, R.E., McIver, J.M., Howes, S.W., Gaeuman, W.B. 2010. Assessment of soil disturbance in forests of the interior Columbia River Basin: A Critique. USDA Forest Service, Pacific

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1996. Wallowa County Soil Survey. Soil Conservation Service, Oregon

NRCS. 2013. Interactive Website. (http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/glti) 248

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

NRCS. 2013. Interactive Website. Soil Quality, Soil Organic Matter, Soil Crusts, Soil Aggregate Stability, Soil Compaction. (Accessed 11/11) http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/publications/files/sq_thr_2.pdf

NRCS . 1993. National hierarchical framework of ecological units. USDA Forest Service Washington Office. Washington D.C. 15p.

NRCS Soil Survey Staff. 1993. Soil Survey Manual. United States Department of Agriculture Handbook No. 18. Washington D.C. 437p.

NRCS Soil Survey Staff. 2013. Keys to soil taxonomy, tenth edition. Washington, D.C. 644p.

Olarra, Jennifer. 2011. Powerpoint on soil microbes. Department of Crop and Soil Science. Oregon State University

Page-Dumroese, D. Harvey, A., Jurgensen, M., Graham, R. 1990. Organic matter function the Western Montane forest soil system. Symposium on management and productivity of western montane forest soils. Boise, ID. April 10-12. 1990.

Page-Dumroese, D.S., M. Jurgensen, and T. Terry. 2009. Maintaining soil productivity during forest or biomass to energy thinning harvests in the western United States. W. J. Appl. For. 25(1) 2010

Pellant, M., P. Shaver, D.A. Pyke, and J.E. Herrick. 2005. Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health, Version 4. Technical Reference 1734-6. U.S. Department of the Interior

Quigley, T.M.; and Arbelbide, S.J.; eds. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins, Volumes I-IV. PNW- GTR-405. Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR

Robichaud, P. R. and R.E.Brown. 1999. What Happened After The Smoke Cleared: Onsite Erosion Rates After Wildfire in Eastern Oregon. Wildland Hydrology

Robichaud, P. R. 2000. Research Forest Soil Scientist. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. (pers com).

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR (including Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision).

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Range Analysis Handbook. Region 6 Forest Service Handbook. Portland, Oregon

USDA Forest Service. 2003. HCNRA. Comprehensive Management Plan.Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Landtype Associations of the Bluemountain Ecoregion. Portland, OR 249

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

USDA. 2007. Volcanic-ash derived forest soils of the Inland Northwest: Properties and implications for management and restoration. Rocky Mountain Research Station symposium proceedings. RMRS-P-44. March 2007.

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Puderbaugh Soil Specialist Reports. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Enterprise, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Terrestrial ecological unit inventory (TEUI) of the Blue Mountains Ecoregion. Wallowa Whitman National Forest, La Grande, OR

Fire and Fuels Anderson Hal E, 1982. Aids to Determining Fuel Models For Estimating Fire Behavior

Scott, Joe H. & Burgan, Robert E. Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set for Use with Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Model.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Pacific Northwest Region.

USDA Forest Service, 2008. Wallowa-Whitman National Fire Management Plan, Pacific Northwest Region

Cultural Alt, David and, Hyndman, Donald. . Roadside Geology of Oregon. Missoula, Mont: Mountain Press Publishing Company, 2005.

Biechler, Sara. Chinese Massacre of 1887. La Grande, OR. Senior Thesis, 2006.

Bishop, Ellen M. In Search of Ancient Oregon. Portland, OR: Timber Press, Inc, 2003.

Blakeslee, W. B. "GLO." Cadastral Survey (Township 6S, Range 48E). Map. 24 April 1899. August 25, 2010 .

Hug, Bernal D. History of Union County, Oregon. La Grande, OR: Eastern Oregon Review, 1961.

Ruby, Robert H. The Cayuse Indians, Imperial Tribesman of Old Oregon. Vol. 12. University of Oklahoma Press, 1975.

Sturtevant, William C. Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 11. Smithsonian Institution, 1986.

Orr, William N., and Elizabeth L. Orr. Geology of the Pacific Northwest. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 1996.

250

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

An Illustrated History of Union and Wallowa Counties. 1902. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, a Xerox Company, 1970.

"Nez Perce Treaty 1855." Center for Columbia River History. 30 June 2008 .

"The Cayuse, Umatilla and Walla Walla people make up the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation." Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. 25 June 2008 .

"Treaty of 1855." Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. 1996. 26 June 2008 .

Worth, Edwar "GLO." Cadastral Survey (Township 4S, Range 48E). Map. 16 December 1919. August 25, 2010 .

"GLO." Unsurveyed (Township 4S, Range 49E). Map. 11 August 1998. August 25, 2010 .

"GLO." Unsurveyed (Township 5S, Range 47E). Map. 16 December 1999. August 25, 2010 .

"GLO." Unsurveyed (Township 5S, Range 48E). Map. 29 July 1997. August 25, 2010.

"GLO." Unsurveyed (Township 6S, Range 47E). Map. 12 March 1997. August 25, 2010 .

"GLO." Unsurveyed (Township 5S, Range 49E). Map. 16 December 1999. August 25, 2010 .

Biological Soil Crust References

Anderson, David C., K.T. Harper, and S.R. Rushforth. 1982. Recovery of Cryptogamic Soil Crusts Grazing on Utah Winter Ranges. Journal of Range Management 35(3): 355-359.

Belnap, J. and D. Eldridge. 2001. Ch. 27: Disturbance and Recovery of Biological Soil Crusts In: Belnap, J., Lange, O.L. (Eds.), Biological Soil Crusts: Structure, Function, and Management. Ecological Studies Series 150 Springer-Verlag, Berlin pp. 363-383.

251

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

Belnap, J., R. Reynolds, M. Reheis, S.L. Phillips. 2001. What makes the desert bloom? Contribution of dust and crusts to soil fertility on the Colorado Plateau. USDA Forest Service Proceedings. RMRS-P-21. 2001

Bowker, M.A. et al. 2006. Correlates of biological soil crust abundance across a continuum of spatial scales: support for a hierarchical conceptual model> Journal of Applied Ecology 43 (1): 152-163.

Bowker, M. A. 2007. Biological soil crust rehabilitation in theory and practice: An underexploited opportunity. Restoration Ecology 15(1): 13-23.

Bulthuis, Mitch, Sabine Mellmann-Brown, Dave Salo, and Anne Carlson. 2012. Issue Paper: Hells Canyon NRA: Management of Biological Soil Crust and Soil Health dated 8/6/2012. Unpublished.

Chapin, Michele. 2013. SPRAA Soil Specialist Report. Unpublished report written for Snake Pine AMP project, Whitman RD, Wallowa Whitman NF.

Demmer, Rick. 2005. Bryophyte, lichen and biological soil crust monitoring in Prineville District. 2005. USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Prineville District, OR. 9 December 2005. 26pp.

Ferriel, Jenifer. 2013. Draft Biological Soil Crust Literature Review dated 5/7/13. Unpublished.

Geer, Susan. 2013. Biological Soil Crust: Observations on Snake River and North Pine allotments 2012-13. Unpublished report written for Snake Pine AMP project, Whitman RD, Wallowa Whitman NF.

Herrick, J. E.; Van Zee, J.W; Havstad, K.M.; Burkett, L.M.; Whitford, W.G. 2009. Monitoring manual for grassland, shrubland, and savanna ecosystems. Volume I, Quick Start.

Johnson, C.G.; Simon, S.A. 1987. Plant Associations of the Wallowa-Snake Province. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, R6-ECOL-TP-255A-86, 400 pp. plus appendices.

Olarra, Jennifer. 2011. Powerpoint on soil microbes. Department of Crop and Soil Science. Oregon State University.

Ponzetti, J., et al. 2007. Biotic soil crusts in relation to topography, cheatgrass and fire in the Columbia Basin, Washington. Bryologist 110(4): 706-722.

252

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

Root, H. and B. McCune .2012. Regional patterns of biological soil crust lichen species composition related to vegetation, soils, and climate in Oregon, USA. Journal of Arid Environments 79: 93-100.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Pacific Northwest Region. 399 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. HCNRA Comprehensive Management Plan. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Chapter 3, p. 193-250.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. HCNRA Comprehensive Management Plan. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Appendix C: Detailed Management Direction: accessed on July 12, 2013. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/wallowa- whitman/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb5305041

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Pacific Northwest Region, Wallowa- Whitman National Forest; Baker and Wallowa Counties, OR; Nez Perce, ID and Adams Counties, ID. accessed on July 12, 2013. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/wallowa- whitman/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb5305041

Warren, S.D. and D.J. Eldridge. 2001. Biological Soil Crusts and Livestock in Arid Ecosystems: Are They Compatible? In: Belnap, J., Lange, O.L. (Eds.), Biological Soil Crusts: Structure, Function, and Management. Ecological Studies Series 150 Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 401-411.

White, Josh. 2013. Range report for Snake Pine allotments. Unpublished report written for Snake Pine AMP project, Whitman RD, Wallowa Whitman NF.

253

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

Glossary

Administrative Site: All US Forest Service-owned and occupied buildings, building equipment, or space used by the unit.

Affected Environment: The natural, physical and human-related environment that would be sensitive to changes from implementation of the alternatives.

Allotment: Rangeland and/or forestland area designated for the use of a prescribed number and kind of livestock under a specific plan of management.

Allotment Management Plan (AMP): A long-term operating plan for a grazing allotment document prepared in consultation with the permittees involved that specifies the program of action for implementation of the Forest Plan as related to livestock grazing activities. Each allotment on National Forest System lands is required to have an Allotment Management Plan.

Allowable Utilization: The degree of utilization considered desirable and attainable on various parts of a ranch or allotment considering the present nature and condition of the resource, management objectives and level of management. The degree of use estimated to be proper until proper use is known. A baseline utilization percentage established in a Forest Plan.

Alternative: A mix of management prescriptions applied to specific land areas to achieve a set of goals and objectives. Each alternative represents a different way of achieving a set of similar management objectives responding to the purpose and need for action.

Analysis Area: A delineated area of land subject to analysis of (1) responses to proposed management practices in production, enhancement, or maintenance of forest and rangeland outputs and environmental quality objectives; and (2) economic and social impacts.

Animal Unit: Considered to be one mature cow of approximately 1,000 pounds, either dry or with calf up to six months of age, or their equivalent, based on a standardized amount of forage consumed (26 lbs/day).

Animal Unit Month (AUM): The amount of feed or forage required by an animal unit for one month.

Annual Operating Instructions (AOI): A set of instructions developed by the US Forest Service and given to the Grazing Permittee on an annual basis, that explains the specific pastures to be used, and adjustments to the Allotment Management Plan for the current year.

Available Forage: That portion of the forage production that is accessible for use by a specified kind or class of grazing animal.

Bank Alteration: Recent (1 or 2 years) physical alteration of the stream bank by livestock trampling.

254

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

Bare Ground: All soil surface not covered by vegetation, rock or litter. The combination of bare soil and erosion pavement.

Bedrock: Rock at or near (beneath soil and regolith) the Earth's surface that is solid and relatively unweathered.

Beneficial Uses: Different ways in which natural waters are used by humans and nature. Human uses include drinking water, bathing, recreation, agricultural, and industrial water supplies. Natural uses include growth and propagation of fish and associated aquatic life, wildlife, and furbearers.

Best Management Practices (BMP): A practice or combination of practices that are the most effective and practical means of achieving resource protection objectives (primarily water quality protection) during resource management activities.

Big Game: Those species of large mammals normally managed as a sport hunting resources.

Biological Assessment (BA): An assessment or study required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to determine the potential effects of a proposed management action on threatened and endangered species or their habitats. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service review Biological Assessments and requests that all threatened, endangered, proposed threatened or endangered, and Category 1 “candidate species be addressed.

Biological Evaluation: The legal record of finding for US Forest Service Region Six sensitive species.

Biomass: The total amount of living plants and animals above and below ground in an area at a given time.

Browse: Leaf and twig growth of shrubs, woody vines, and trees available for use by animals. Also, to search for or consume browse.

Canopy Cover: The percentage of ground covered by a vertical projection of the outermost perimeter of the natural spread by foliage of plants. Canopy cover is measured along a line intercept transect. Small openings within the canopy are included. The sum of canopy cover of several species may exceed 100 percent. (syn. Crown Cover).

Capability: is defined as the potential of an area to produce resources under an assumed set of management practices at a given intensity.

Carrying Capacity: The average number of livestock and/or wildlife which may be sustained on a management unit compatible with management objectives for the unit without damaging vegetation or related resources. In addition to site characteristics, it is a function of management goals and management intensity. Carrying capacity may vary from year to year on the same area due to fluctuating forage production.

Channel Morphology: Form and structure of streambank which is that portion of the channel bank crosssection that controls the lateral movement of water. Includes channel dimensions, patterns, and profile. 255

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

Climax Plant Community: The final or stable biotic community in a successional series; it is self-perpetuating and in equilibrium with the physical habitat. The assumed end point in secondary succession. Determined primarily by climate but also influenced by soil, topographic, vegetative, fire and animal factors.

Community: A general term for an assemblage of plants and/or animals living together and interacting among themselves in a specific location.

Composition: The proportions of various plant taxa in relation to the total on a given area. It may be expressed in terms of cover, density, or weight. (syn. Species Composition).

Consultation: A process between the Services and a Federal agency or applicant that: (1) determines whether a proposed Federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat; (2) begins with a Federal agency's written request and submittal of a complete initiation package; and (3) concludes with the issuance of a biological opinion and incidental take statement by either of the Services. If a proposed Federal action may affect a listed species or designated critical habitat, formal consultation is required (except when the Services concur, in writing, that a proposed action "is not likely to adversely affect" listed species or designated critical habitat). [50 CFR §402.02, 50 CFR §402.14]

Cover: The area covered by the combined aerial or basal parts of plants and mulch expressed as a percent of the total area, percentage of ground area covered by aerial parts of live plants, litter, gravel and rocks.

Critical Habitat: As defined under the Endangered Species Act, Critical Habitat is the area determined necessary for a listed species to make a successful recovery. Within the geographical area constituting critical habitat are the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of a species.

Cultural Resource: Archaeological and cultural places of prehistoric and historic human activity including aboriginal mounds, forts, buildings, earth works, village locations, burial grounds, ruins, caves, petroglyphs, pictographs or other locations which are the source or prehistoric cultural features and specimens.

Cumulative Effect: The impact on the environment resulting from the incremental impacts of an action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions. They can also result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

Density: The number of individuals per unit area. It is not a measure of cover.

Desired Condition: The future condition of rangeland resources on a landscape scale that meet management objectives. Desired condition is based on ecological (such as desired plant community) social, and economic considerations during the land and resource management planning process.

256

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

Direct Effect: Effects on the environment that occur at the same time and place as the initial cause or action.

Diversity: The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and species within the area covered by a Forest Plan.

Dominant: Plant species or species groups, which by means of their number, coverage, or size, have considerable influence or control upon the conditions of existence of associated species. Also, those individual animals which, by their aggressive behavior or otherwise, determine the behavior of one or more animals resulting in the establishment of a social hierarchy.

Drought: An extended period of below normal precipitation which causes damage to crops and rangelands; diminishes natural stream flow; depletes soil and subsoil moisture; and because of these effects, causes social, environmental, and economic impacts. The Society for Range Management’s definition is: “Prolonged dry weather when precipitation is less than 75% of the average amount”.

Ecological Status: The present state of vegetation of an ecological site in relation to the potential natural community for the site. Vegetation status is the expression of the relative degree to which the kinds, proportions, and amounts of plants in a community resemble that of the potential natural community. Described in ecological terms, which are early seral, mid seral, and late seral.

Ecosystem: Organisms together with their abiotic environment, forming an interacting system, inhabiting an identifiable space.

Effects: The results expected to be achieved from implementation of actions relative to physical, biological, and social (cultural and economic) factors resulting from the achievement of outputs. Examples of effects are tons of sediment, pounds of forage, person-years or employment, and income. There are direct effects, indirect effects, and cumulative effects.

Effect Determination - No Effect (NE): A determination of NE is applicable if (a) there are no listed or proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitat occurring in the area, or (b) the project will have no impacts on the species (documentation of this is required). A NE determination is only appropriate when the proposed action will have no direct or indirect effect whatsoever on listed or proposed species.

Effect Determination - May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA): This determination is the appropriate conclusion when a proposed action may pose any effects on listed species or designated critical habitat. When the Federal agency proposing the action determines that a "may affect" situation exists, then they must either initiate formal consultation or seek written concurrence from the Services that the action "is not likely to adversely affect" listed species.

Effect Determination - Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA): This determination is the appropriate finding in a biological assessment (or conclusion during informal consultation) if any adverse effect to listed species may occur as a direct or indirect result of the proposed action or its interrelated or interdependent actions, and the effect is not: discountable, insignificant, or beneficial (see definition of "is not likely to adversely affect"). In the event the overall effect of 257

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

the proposed action is beneficial to the listed species, but is also likely to cause some adverse effects, then the proposed action "is likely to adversely affect" the listed species. If incidental take is anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed action, an "is likely to adversely affect" determination should be made. An "is likely to adversely affect" determination requires the initiation of formal section 7 consultation.

Effects Determination – No Impact (NI): is similar to a no effect call, however it pertains to sensitive species.

Endangered Species: A plant or animal that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Endangered species are identified by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Environment: The aggregate of physical, biological, economic, and social factors affecting organisms in an area.

Environmental Analysis: An analysis of alternative actions and their predictable long and short-term environmental effects. Environmental analyses include physical, biological, economic, social, and environmental design factors and their interrelations.

Environmental Consequences: A situation that naturally or logically follows as a result of an action. Commonly used in environmental assessments for discussions about how the human environment, which includes the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment, is influenced by the government actions.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): The documentation of environmental effects and action required for major Federal actions under Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and released to the public and other agencies for comment and review. It is a formal document that must follow the requirements of NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines, and directives of the agency responsible for the project proposal.

Erosion: The wearing away of the land’s surface by water, wind, ice, gravity, or other geological physical processes. It includes detachment, transport, and deposition of soil or rock fragments.

Exclosures: 1) Fenced structures that “exclude” animals from a specific area. These areas may also contain permanent vegetation monitoring plots. 2) Grazing areas and sites which have never been grazed or have removed livestock grazing.

Floodplain: The area adjacent to the active stream channel which is inundated during flows that exceed bankfull level. The floodplain acts as an energy dispersion zone during flood flows, and functions as an area of deposition.

Foliage: The green or live leaves of plants.

Forage: Browse and herbage which is available to and may provide food for grazing animals or be harvested for feeding, to search for or consume forage.

Forage Production: Weight of forage produced within a designated period of time on a given area. 258

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

Forest Plan (land and resource management plan [LRMP]): A document that guides natural resource management and established stands and guidelines for a National Forest, required by the National Forest Management Act.

Forb: A broadleaf plant that has little of no woody material in it, including plants commonly called wildflowers and weeds.

Functioning (proper functioning condition): Riparian-wetland areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, landforms, or large woody debris is present to (1) dissipate stream energy associated with high waterflows, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality; (2) filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development; (3) improve flood-water retention and ground-water recharge; (4) develop root masses that stabilize streambank against cutting action; (5) develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and water depth, duration and temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses, and (6) support greater biodiversity (USDI Bureau of Land Management 1995).

Geographic Information System (GIS): Computer software that provides database and spatial analytic capabilities.

Goal: The desired state or condition that a resource management policy or program is designated to achieve. Narrower and more specific than objectives, goals are usually not measurable and may not have specific dates by which they must be reached. Objectives are developed by first understanding one's goals.

Gradient: The steepness of a slope as measured in degrees, percentage, or as a distance ratio (rise/run).

Grass: Plants of the Gramineae family, usually herbaceous plants with narrow, parallel-veined, two-ranked leaves.

Grassland: Lands on which the vegetation is dominated by grasses, grasslike plants, and/or forbs.

Grazing: Consumption of native forage from rangelands or pastures by livestock or wildlife.

Grazing Allotment: An area where one or more livestock operators graze their livestock. An allotment generally consists of federal land but may include parcels of private or state-owned land.

Grazing Permit: Official written permission to graze a specific number, kind, and class of livestock for a specified time period on a defined rangeland.

Grazing Season: 1) On public land, an established period for which a grazing permit is issued. 2) The time interval when animals are allowed to utilize a certain area.

Grazing System: A specialization of grazing management, which defines the periods of grazing and non-grazing. Grazing system should consist of at least the following: the number of

259

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

pastures; number of herds; length of grazing period; length of non- grazing periods for any given unit in the system. Examples are Deferred Rotation and Rest Rotation.

Greenline: The first perennial vegetation from the water's edge. Riparian areas that are in high seral status with stable stream banks will exhibit a continuous line of vegetation at the bankfull discharge level. Rocky stream types may have a significant amount of rock causing breaks in the vegetation. This rock is considered part of the green line. Other breaks may occur in the first perennial band of vegetation (watercourses or bare ground). The amounts of these (perennial vegetation, rock, and bare ground) should be recorded.

Ground Cover: The percentage of material, other than bare ground and erosion pavement, covering the land surface. It may include live vegetation, standing dead vegetation, litter, crytograms, and rock over ¾ inch. Ground cover plus bare ground would total 100 percent.

Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem: Wetlands fed by ground water that support flora and fauna that require moist or saturated soils and/or surface or sub-surface water. These ecosystems and habitats are found in various forms including springs, streams, lakes, ponds, caves and karst aquifers, hyporheic and hypolentic zones. They often provide rare and unique habitats within terrestrial landscapes.

Habitat Type: The collective area which one plant association occupies or will come to occupy as succession advances. The habitat type is defined and described on the basis of vegetation and its associated environment. Habitat type is similar in concept to ecological site depending on how specifically plant associations are defined. Habitat is commonly misused to refer to classification of vegetation or wildlife habitat rather than a land classification.

Head Month (HM): A HM is a unit of measure that counts one animal for 30.4 days (animal units (cow/calf pair) * days)/30). A cow-calf pair qualifies as one animal in these calculations if the calf is 6 months of age or less.

Herbaceous: Vegetation with little or no woody components, such as graminoids and forbs.

Hydrologic Function: The ability of a stream to transport water and sediment in a balanced condition. The degree and rate of transport is the result of the natural watershed characteristics, including precipitation, geology, landforms, and vegetation. Stream systems that are in a balanced condition exhibit a relatively stable channel structure with only minor annual changes. Also, the ability to safely capture, store and release water in a system.

Impacts: The effect of one thing upon another. Impacts may be beneficial or adverse. See Environmental Consequences.

Indicator Species: A species selected because its population changes indicate effects of management activities on the plant and animal community. A species whose condition can be used to assess the impacts of management actions on a particular area.

Indirect Effects: Secondary effects which occur in locations other than the initial action, significantly later in time, or to one resource that in turn, affects another resource. i.e.: effects to vegetation that may reduce prey species for a raptor.

260

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

Intermittent Stream: A stream that flows only at certain times of the year when it receives water from streams or some surface source, such as melting snow.

Invaders: Plant species that were absent or present in very small amounts in undisturbed portion of the original vegetation of a specific range site and will invade following disturbance or continued overuse.

Invasive Plant Species: A non-native plant species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health (Executive Order 13122, 2/3/99). Invasive plants are distinguished from other non-native plants by their ability to spread (invade) into native ecosystems.

Issue: An “issue” is defined as a point of discussion, debate, or dispute about the environmental effects of the proposed action. It may represent an “unresolved conflict.”

Key Area: A relatively small portion of rangeland which because of its location, grazing or browsing value, and/or use, serves as a monitoring and evaluation site. (A key area guides the general management of the entire area of which it is a part, and will reflect the overall acceptability of current grazing management over the range.)

Landscape Scale: A scale of ecological evaluation that includes multiple habitats, ecosystems, and land uses.

Listed Species: Any species of fish, wildlife, or plant determined to be endangered or threatened under Section 4 of the ESA.

Litter (forest litter): The freshly fallen or only slightly decompose plant material on the forest floor. This layer includes foliage, bark fragments, twigs, flowers, and fruits.

Management Indicator Species (MIS): A wildlife species selected by a land management agency to indicate the health of the ecosystem in which it lives, and consequently, the effects of management activities on that ecosystem. MIS whose presence in a certain location or situation at a given population level indicates a particular environmental condition. Population changes on an indicator species are believed to indicate effects of management activities on a number of other wildlife species.

Mesic: A habitat characterized by moderate moisture conditions.

Migratory Bird: All birds, whether or not raised in captivity, included in the terms of the [migratory bird] conventions between the United States and any foreign country.

Mitigation Measures: Planning actions taken to avoid an impact altogether, to minimize the degree or magnitude of the impact, reduce the impact over time, rectify the impact, or compensate for the impact (40 CFR 1508.20). Mitigation is defined as “measures designed to reduce or prevent undesirable effects” and is used to reduce adverse environmental effects below the “significance” level and resolve issues and concerns raised by the public and the ID team.

261

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

Monitoring: (Grazing Activities) The practice of tracking the utilization rates and overall effects of grazing over time, through repeated collection of data. Food plants are examined and measured to determine what percentage has been eaten, trampled, or lost to other causes. Other plants in the area (e.g., willows and other woody species) are examined, and observations are recorded regarding trampling or other damage. Records are maintained of livestock stocking rates (number of cattle per unit of area per unit of time), and all changes are recorded. Significant climatological events are noted (e.g., hard freezes, heavy rains, floods, droughts, high temperatures).

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): An act of Congress passed in 1969 declaring a national policy to encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between people and their environment. Section 102 of the NEPA requires a statement of possible environmental effects to be released to the public and other agencies for review and comment..

National Forest Management Act (NFMA): A law passed in 1976 requiring preparation of regional guides and forest plans and regulations to guide that development.

National Forest System: All National Forest land reserved or withdrawn from the public domain of the United States; all National Forest lands acquired through purchase, exchange, donation, or other means; the National Grasslands and land utilization projects administered under Title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (50 Stat. 525, 7 U.S.C. 1010-1012); and other lands, waters, or interests therein which are administered by the Forest Service or are designated for administration through the Forest Service as a part of the system.

Neotropical Migratory Birds: Birds that breed in the United States and Canada and later migrate south to Central and South America, Mexico, and the Caribbean islands. These birds include almost half of the bird species that breed in the United States and Canada.

NEPA Analysis: Analysis conducted during the preparation of documents required under the National Environmental Policy Act, particularly environmental assessments and environmental impact statements.

Noxious Weed: “Any living stage (including but not limited to, seeds and reproductive parts) of any parasitic or other plant of a kind, or subdivision of a kind, which is of foreign origin, is new to or not widely prevalent in the United States, and can directly or indirectly injure crops, other useful plants, livestock, or poultry or other interests of agriculture, including irrigation, or navigation or the fish and wildlife resources of the United States or the public health” (Public Law 93-629, January 3, 1975, Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974). Noxious weed is also an important legal designation that can be assigned at both the state and/or Federal level. Noxious weed lists vary by state and often focus on species that have a control or negative impact on commercial agriculture or rangelands. States have developed laws that require the control or elimination of noxious weeds by landowners. Not all invasive plants are designated as a state or Federal noxious weed. The term “weed” includes all plants defined as “noxious weeds” by Forest Service policy: “plants designated as noxious weeds by the Secretary of Agriculture or by the responsible State official. Noxious weeds generally possess one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage, poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a carrier or host of serious insects or disease, and being native or new to or not common to the United States or parts thereof.” (FSM 2080.5)

262

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

Objective: The planned results to be achieved within a stated time period. Objectives are subordinate to goals, more narrow in scope, and shorter in range. Objectives must specify time periods for completion, and products or achievements that are measurable.

Overgrazing: Continued heavy grazing that exceeds the recovery capacity of the community and creates a deteriorated range.

Parker 3-Step: A "point" sampling procedure used extensively by land management agencies for monitoring trends in range condition. The basic concept behind this procedure is essentially the same as that of quadrat frequency except that a point is used as the sample or sub-sample unit rather than a quadrat. In fact, data collected with point sampling methods can be evaluated as frequency data; i.e. the number of hits on a plant species as a percentage of the total number of points read. However, because a point is essentially dimensionless, the data are usually used as absolute measures of cover, basal area or whatever the criteria used for determining "hits".

Perennial (Plants): One with a life cycle of three or more years.

Perennial Stream: Perennial stream means a well-defined channel that contains water year round during a year of normal rainfall with the aquatic bed located below the water table for most of the year. Groundwater is the primary source of water for a perennial stream, but it also carries stormwater runoff. A perennial stream exhibits the typical biological, hydrological, and physical characteristics commonly associated with the continuous conveyance of water.

Permittee (Range Permittee): An individual who has been granted a Federal permit to graze livestock for a specific period on a specific range allotment.

Plant Association: A kind of climax plant community consisting of stands with essentially the same dominant species in corresponding layers.

Plant Community: An assemblage of plants occurring together at any point in time, thus denoting no particular ecological status.

Prescribed Fire: The intentional use of fire, applied in a knowledgeable manner to forest fuels on a specific land area and under selected weather conditions, that produce the fire behavior and fire characteristics required to attain planned fire treatment and resource management objectives to accomplish predetermined, well-defined management objectives.

Project Area: Area of analysis for this proposal on the Whitman Ranger District of the Wallowa- Whitman National Forest.

Proposed Action (PA): A proposal by a Federal agency to authorize, recommend, or implement an action. In terms of the National Environmental Policy Act, the project, activity, or action that a Federal agency proposes to implement or undertake. The PA is sent to the public, and interested agencies for their review and comment. Comments are then used to develop alternatives to the proposed action.

Range Of Variability (Also called the historic range of variability or natural range of variation.): The natural fluctuation of components of healthy ecosystems over time. It refers to the range of conditions and processes that are likely to have occurred prior to settlement of the 263

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

project area by people of European descent (approximately the mid 1880s), which would have varied within certain limits over time. The components of healthy ecosystems fluctuate over time. The range of sustainable conditions in an ecosystem is determined by time, processes (such as fire), native species, and the land itself. For instance, ecosystems that have a 10 year fire cycle have a narrower range of variation than ecosystems with 200-300 year fire cycle. Past management has placed some ecosystems outside their range of variability. Future management should move such ecosystems back toward their natural, sustainable range of variation.

Range or Rangeland: Land on which the principle natural plant cover is composed of native grasses, forbs, and shrubs that are valuable as forage for livestock and big game.

Range Allotment: A designated area of land available for livestock grazing upon which a specified number and kind of livestock may be grazed under a range allotment management plan. It is the basic land unit used to facilitate management of the range resource on National Forest System lands and associated lands administered by the Forest Service.

Range Condition: A generic term relating to present status of a unit of range in terms of specific values or potentials. Specific values or potentials must be stated. Also defined as the present state of vegetation of a range site in relation to the climax (natural potential) plant community for that site.

Reach: An expanse of a stream channel.

Redds: Most salmonids deposit their eggs in nests called redds, which are dug in the streambed substrate by the female. Most redds occur in predictable areas and are easily identified by an experienced observer by their shape, size, and color (lighter than surrounding areas because silt has been cleaned away). Spawning surveys utilize counts of redds and fish carcasses to estimate spawner escapement and identify habitat being used by spawning fish. Annual surveys can be used to compare the relative magnitude of spawning activity between years.

Research Natural Area: Part of a national network of reserved areas that include protected areas representative of the full array of North American ecosystems; biological communities, habitats, phenomena, and geological and hydrological formations and conditions.

Rest: Leaving an area ungrazed, thereby foregoing grazing of a forage crop. Normally, rest implies absence of grazing for a full growing season.

Riparian Area: The area along a watercourse or around a lake or pond area with distinctive vegetation between a stream and other body of water and the adjacent upland; includes wetlands and those portions of floodplains and valley bottoms that support riparian vegetation.

Riparian Soils: Soils that occur in land types and valley bottoms that have the potential to support wetland and riparian vegetation. These soils are flooded, ponded, or saturated with water for usually a week or more during the period when soil temperatures are above biologic zero (41° Fahrenheit).

264

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

Riparian Vegetation: Plant communities dependent upon the presence of free water near the ground surface (high water table).

Runoff: The portion of precipitation that flows over the land surface or in open channels.

Salting: 1) Providing salt as a mineral supplement for animals. 2) Placing salt on the range in such a manner as to improve distribution of livestock grazing.

Scoping: The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines scoping as “…an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action” (40 CFR 1501.7). Among other things, the scoping process is used to invite public participation, to help identify public issues, to obtain public comment at various stages of the analysis process, and to determine the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be addressed; identification of significant issues related to a proposed action; and the depth of environmental analysis needed.

Season of Use: The time during which livestock grazing is permitted on a given range area, as specified in the grazing permit.

Sediment: Solid materials, both mineral and organic, in suspension or transported, by water, gravity, or ice or air; may be moved and deposited away from their original position and eventually will settle to the bottom.

Sensitive Species: All species that are under status review, have small or declining populations, or live in unique habitats. May also be any species needing special management. Sensitive species include threatened, endangered, and proposed species as classified by the Fish and Wildlife Service. In the Forest Service, sensitive species are designated by Regional Foresters.

Seral Community: The relatively transitory communities which develop under ecological succession (synonym – seral stage).

Seral Stages: The developmental stages of an ecological succession.

Shrub: A plant with persistent, woody stems and relatively low growth. Generally produces several basal shoots (stems) and many branches.

Stability: The ability of the channel banks and bottom to resist the erosive powers of flowing water. Inherent stability refers to the potential stability of a riparian system.

Stubble Height: Residual vegetation/stubble height is that measure of the herbaceous vegetation remaining at the end of the growing season just prior to winter dormancy. Stubble height is the average height measured from the soil surface to the height of actively growing leaves. A 4-inch stubble height is a direct measurement indicating that a forage plant is clipped off or broken at 4 inches above the ground. Stubble height can serve as an indirect indicator of trampling, soil compaction, streambank damage, and shrub browsing, as well as a direct measure of herbaceous plant defoliation.

265

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

Structure: How the parts of ecosystems are arranged, both horizontally and vertically. Structure might reveal a pattern, or mosaic, or total randomness of vegetation.

Succession: Process of vegetational development whereby an area becomes successively occupied by different plant communities of higher ecological order.

Successional stage: A phase in the gradual supplanting (replacement) of one community of plants by another. Stages are described as early, mid, late in relation to the potential natural community that would occur over a long period of minimal grazing, fire, or mechanical disturbance.

Suitability: The appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices to a particular area of land, as determined by an analysis of the economic and environmental consequences and the alternative uses foregone (passed). A unit of land may be suitable for a variety of individual or combined management practices.

Term Grazing Permit: Official written permission to graze a specific number, kind, and class of livestock for a specified time period (usually for a ten-year term) on a defined rangeland, in which the land (allotment) contains only federal land.

Threatened species: Those plant or animal species likely to become endangered throughout all or a specific portion of their range within the foreseeable future as designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Uplands: Land at a higher elevation, in general, than the alluvial plain or stream terrace; land above the foot slope zone of the hill slope continuum.

Usable Forage: That portion of the forage that can be grazed without damage to the basic resources; may vary with season of use, species and associated species.

Use: 1) The proportion of current year’s forage production that is consumed or destroyed by grazing animals. May refer either to a single species or to the vegetation as a whole, degree of use. 2) Utilization of range for a purpose such as grazing, bedding, shelter, trailing, watering, watershed, recreation, forestry, etc.

Vector: Literally 'a carrier'. Any animal, vehicle, wind, water course, etc. carrying seeds of noxious weeds.

Vegetation: Plants in general, or the sum total of the plant life above and below ground in an area.

Vegetation Management: Activities designed primarily to promote the health of forested and non-forested vegetation for multiple-use purposes.

Vegetative: Relating to nutritive and growth functions of plant life, in contrast to reproductive functions. Should not be confused with vegetation.

266

Snake/Pine AMP EA Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

Viable population: A population that has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure the continued existence of the species throughout its existing range (or range required to meet recovery for listed species) within the project area.

Viability: Capability of living things of normal growth and development.

Vigor: Relates to the relative robustness of a plant in comparison to other individuals of the same species. It is reflected primarily by the size of a plant and its parts in relation to its age and the environment in which it is growing.

Watershed: A topographically discrete unit or stream basin that includes the headwaters, main channel, slopes leading to the channel, tributaries and mouth area. The land area from which surface runoff drains into a stream, channel, lake, reservoir, or other body of water; also called a drainage basin.

Weed: A human-oriented term generally applied to any plant that is growing where someone does not want it. Which plants are wanted and unwanted depends on the setting and on individual prejudices and taste.

267

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix A

268

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix A

Appendix A – Issue Tracking from Scoping

Issues were considered by the Interdisciplinary Team and characterized as key issues or other issues. Key issues are listed in Chapter 1 of the analysis, and other issues identified by the public are listed below. The following tracking table either provides a response or lists where in the Environmental Assessment the other issues were addressed.

Issue Statement Source Response The Forest Service should prepare an EIS because the Jennifer An EA is prepared proposed project would issue Allotment Management Plans Schwartz, Hells to determine (AMPs) and reauthorize grazing for at least the next ten years Canyon whether the for five grazing allotments, covering over 60,000 acres, with two Preservation selected action of those allotments within the nationally recognized significant Council May 21, would have a area of the HCNRA, and all allotments contain numerous 2010. significant impact streams, many of which are likely spawning, rearing, and upon the quality of migration habitat for federally listed and sensitive fish species. the human environment and therefore require development of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The need for an EIS will be determined after reviewing the effects analysis conducted by the interdisciplinary team.

The Forest Service should consider, in detail, an alternative that Jennifer See Chapter 2, would reduce grazing levels, implement a rest-rotation Schwartz, Hells Alternatives schedule, and other management techniques that will prioritize Canyon Considered but the management and enhancement of water quality, streamside Preservation not Analyzed in areas, and fish habitat over the reallocation of livestock grazing, Council May 21, Detail, and as required by the WWNF Forest Plan. 2010 Alternative 3

This assessment should determine the amount of vegetation Jennifer See Chapter 3, available to slow down water and nutrient runoff into these Schwartz, Hells Fisheries, stream systems. Given the ecological problems the Forest Canyon Hydrology, and Service has documented across this landscape, any new Preservation Soils. grazing plan must be accompanied by a much more protective Council May 21, level of utilization, trampling standards and other mandatory, 2010 measurable use standards. This should include mandatory, quantifiable standards for riparian area use, such as stubble heights, bank damage/stability standards, riparian browse standards, width-to-depth ratios, and the use of these standards to trigger livestock removal from pastures or riparian areas.

The scoping notice does not indicate what, if any, water bodies Jennifer See Chapter 3, within the analysis area are listed on the State of Oregon’s Schwartz, Hells Fisheries, and 303(d) list. Please include this information in the EA or EIS, Canyon Hydrology whether any corresponding TMDLs have been established, and Preservation 269

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix A

Issue Statement Source Response address any proposed compliance measures. In the event the Council May 21, area does contain 303(d) listed streams, the Forest Service 2010 must insure that its proposed adaptive management approach does not lead to violations of the CWA. Of particular concern are adverse impacts from livestock Jennifer See Chapter 3, grazing on sensitive riparian areas. Schwartz, Hells Fisheries, and Canyon Hydrology Preservation Council May 21, 2010.

To determine compliance with PACFISH/INFISH, the Forest Jennifer See Chapter 3, Service must monitor both RMOs and the rate of recovery. The Schwartz, Hells Fisheries, and EA or EIS must provide quantitative monitoring data Canyon Hydrology demonstrating the effectiveness for meeting PACFISH/INFISH Preservation standards. Council May 21, 2010.

In addition, the proposed grazing may negatively impact native Jennifer See Chapter 3, vegetation on the allotments. Schwartz, Hells Key Issue 1, Canyon Rangeland Preservation Resources and Council May 21, Botany 2010.

Another chief concern is grazing’s role in the establishment and Jennifer See Chapter 3, spread of noxious weeds. Schwartz, Hells Invasive Species Canyon Preservation Council May 21, 2010.

Monitoring data for the presence of TES species must be Jennifer See Chapter 3, gathered prior to environmental analysis and incorporated into Schwartz, Hells Wildlife, Fisheries, that process. The Forest Service must additionally demonstrate Canyon and Botany that project level surveys have been conducted and current Preservation population data gathered for forest plan Management Indicator Council May 21, Species (MIS). 2010.

The Forest Service should include a cost/benefit Jennifer The National analysis in its NEPA document that encompasses the Schwartz, Hells Forests are socio-economic impacts to the broader public, the Canyon managed for owners of public lands, and not just a small minority of Preservation multiple uses grazing permittees. Council May 21, which include 2010. recreation and permitted livestock use. Management of livestock grazing to meet Forest Plan guidelines and ESA requirements will meet the intent of

270

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix A

Issue Statement Source Response the multiple use guidance (Chapter 1, Management Direction). A social and economic analysis was prepared (Chapter 3, Key Issue 2, Social/Economics) The EA or EIS must present evidence that the Forest Service Jennifer See Chapter 1, has complied with Section 106 of the National Historic Schwartz, Hells Consultation with Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. § 470(f), and its implementing Canyon Tribes, and regulations, 36 C.F.R. §§ 800 et seq….The EA or EIS must also Preservation National Historic contain information that demonstrates the Forest Service Council May 21, Preservation Act, adequately consulted with members of the interested public, 2010. and Chapter 3, including potentially affected tribes or tribal members Specifically concerning cultural resources. Required Disclosures: Cultural Resources, and Tribal and Treaty Rights. Consider the effects of grazing on forest health, climate change, Oregon Wild See Chapter 3 unroaded areas, drought-stressed plants, long-term viability of May 21, 2010 native plants, and maintenance of viable populations. Protection of streams and wetlands from the impacts of Oregon Wild See Chapter 3, livestock (and restoration of areas already degraded) are of May 21, 2010 Fisheries, and utmost important because they represent a small subset of the Hydrology landscape, they provide disproportionately important ecosystem services, and they suffer disproportionate adverse impact from livestock grazing. We strongly encourage the agency to make contingency plans Oregon Wild See Chapter 3, that require the removal of livestock during droughts, and after May 21, 2010 Rangeland, droughts the agency should provide for long periods of rest and Compliance recovery before livestock are allowed to return so that plants Monitoring would can rebuild soil cover, biomass, and energy stores both above ensure that and below ground. allowable use would not be exceeded, regardless if it is a dry or wet year, which allows plants to maintain and improve their condition over time. The agency has not prepared a legally adequate grazing Oregon Wild See Chapter 3, suitability analysis based on economic and environmental May 21, 2010 Key Issue 1: considerations as required by NFMA. Rangeland Consider and avoid the effects of livestock grazing on the fire Oregon Wild See Chapter 3, regime. Livestock grazing shifts the plant community May 21, 2010 Key Issue 1: composition from palatable grasses and forbs toward Rangeland, unpalatable conifers. Existing

271

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix A

Issue Statement Source Response Condition, Condition and Trend data indicate the conditions of the plant communities in the allotment are improving over time under current management The agency should protect and restore biotic soil crusts that Oregon Wild See Chapter 3, help prevent erosion, fix nitrogen, cycle nutrients, and increase May 21, 2010 and Soils, and site productivity. Botanical Resources If the agency and the permittee fail to commit necessary Oregon Wild See Chapter 2, resources for range monitoring and moving animals, livestock May 21, 2010 Monitoring grazing should be terminated.

Use fencing sparingly because they harm birds and other Oregon Wild Fencing will be wildlife. May 21, 2010 constructed incrementally and coordinated with wildlife biologists until livestock containment needs are met. See Chapter 2, Alternative 2, and Chapter 3, Wildlife Please mitigate all the significant ecological impacts of livestock Oregon Wild See The Forest grazing described in Fleischner, T.L. 2010. Livestock grazing May 21, 2010 Plan Standard and wildlife conservation in the American West: historical, and Guidelines as policy, and conservation biology perspectives. Pages 235-265 amended by in J. DuToit, R. Kock, and J. Deutsch, eds. Wild Rangelands: PACFISH/INFISH Conserving Wildlife While Maintaining Livestock in Semi-Arid and Chapter 2 Ecosystems. Zoological Society of London/ Blackwell Management Publishing Ltd., Oxford, UK. and Fleischner, T. 1994. Ecological Requirements, Costs of Livestock Grazing in Western North America. Constraints and Conservation Biology. Volume 8 Issue 3, Pages 629 – 644. Mitigation http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/awa/ripthreatbib/fleishner_ecocosts.pdf measures will be followed to mitigate the impacts of livestock grazing that are allowed on the W-WNF lands. The agency should not misunderstand their responsibilities Oregon Wild See Chapter 1, under the multiple-use laws. The agency is not required to allow May 21, 2010 Management livestock grazing everywhere, nor everywhere they have Direction, and historically or currently allowed grazing. The agency’s highest Chapter 3, priority is to meet the requirements of substantive requirements Fisheries, of the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act even if it Hydrology, and

272

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix A

Issue Statement Source Response means curtailing grazing. Wildlife Consider the grazing standards in Appendix 2 of AFSEEE’s Oregon Wild The analysis 1995 Grazing Suitability Report. We consider these to be May 21, 2010 considers all minimum standards to meet the agency’s legal requirements applicable laws, under NFMA, ESA, MBTA, NEPA, etc. regulations and policies (See Chapter 3 and Appendix B)

273

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix B

Appendix B – Consistency Review

Forest Plan Consistency Review for Alternatives 2 and 3 of the Snake/Pine AMP EA

Prepared for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Whitman Ranger District

IDT Members: Joshua White, Jamie Ratliff, Shannon Archuleta, Susan Geer, David Salo, Michele Chapin, Keith Dunn, Erik Harvey

Date: June 18, 2013

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1990) Forest Wide Standards and Guidelines (4-21 to 4-24; 4-30 to 4-31; 4-44 to 4-46; 4-51 to 4-54)

(Includes only standards and guidelines specific to livestock grazing)

Soils Goal: To maintain or enhance soil productivity. Table 1 – Soils, LRMP standards and guidelines, project statement Standards and Project Statement – All Action Alternatives Guidelines Soil resources productivity and stability are given equal consideration with other resources, but priority over uses. In all allotments, erosion and site 1. Conflicts with deterioration seem to be due to historic unregulated grazing patterns. Other Uses Current management appears to be achieving an improved productivity and stability over time. Total acres of detrimental soil conditions currently do not exceed 20% of the 2. Protection allotments, and would not exceed 20% as a result of proposed livestock grazing. One C&T plot (NC2) with scabland and shallow soils showed fair soil condition rating with a downward trend. One C&T plot (NC3) with scabland and shallow soils was identified with unsatisfactory forage conditions. Slight 3. Scablands and to no change percent bare ground or plant composition has occurred over areas of Shallow Soils time. Forest Plan utilization standards set for unsatisfactory range condition would be specified in the AMP and applied to ensure these scabland and shallow soil sites are protected and restored. 4. Harvest Impacts N/A No harvest is proposed

274

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix B

Standards and Project Statement – All Action Alternatives Guidelines Ground cover reduces soil erosion. Vegetation and adequate ground cover is being maintained on the allotments. Soil ground cover would continue to improve throughout the Allotments under action alternatives, and should be adequate to prevent soil loss from excessive soil erosion. However, some 5. Establish areas of high livestock concentration may require monitoring to insure vegetation to prevent Forest Plan compliance with ground cover guidelines. These areas may excessive erosion include streams, springs and other wet areas most vulnerable to high livestock concentration. The AMP will require monitoring of soil conditions and effective ground cover of sites identified with unsatisfactory soil conditions.

Watershed Goal: To maintain or enhance the unique and valuable characteristics of riparian areas; to maintain or improve water quality, streamflows, wildlife habitat, and fish habitat. Design and conduct all management activities in all streamside management units to maintain or improve water quality and associated beneficial uses in SMU Class I and II streams. Management indicator species for riparian habitat include steelhead and resident trout (i.e. redband/rainbow trout). Table 2 – Watershed, LRMP standards and guidelines, project statement

Standard and Project Statement – All Action Alternatives Guideline Watercourses, streamside management units, springs and seeps and other wet areas may be grazed but because action alternatives incorporate 1. Conflicts with Other protection measures and require permittees to properly distribute livestock Uses and not allow concentration along springs, no adverse effects are expected under action alternatives. Implementation and monitoring of BMPs are included in all alternatives, 2. Water Quality with specific needs outlined in the appropriate resource sections of Chapter Standards and BMPs 3. 3. Process to use in Implementation and monitoring of BMPs are included in all alternatives, cooperation with the with specific needs outlined in the appropriate resource sections of Chapter State of Oregon 3. BMPs specified in Appendix B of the MOU between ODEQ and R6 USFS 4. State Water Quality would be implemented and monitored for effectiveness of grazing practices Management Plans in meeting desired conditions and attaining water quality standards. All alternatives include the use of BMPs and protection measures included 5. Mitigations in Chapter 2 and specified in the appropriate resource section of Chapter 3. 6. Timber N/A, no timber management with this project. Considered as a cumulative Management effect. Measurable increases in stream temperatures are not expected. Forest Plan standards as amended by INFISH and stream temperature and other 7. Stream water quality standards would be maintained through the use of vegetation Temperatures utilization standards and maintaining near natural rates of recovery of vegetation along streams.

275

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix B

Standard and Project Statement – All Action Alternatives Guideline Many of the streams in these allotments are intermittent, steep, rocky and difficult for cattle to access, and would be minimally impacted by this alternative. Watercourses, streamside management units, springs and seeps and other wet areas may be grazed but because this alternative 8. Channel Stability incorporates protections measures and requires permittees to properly distribute livestock and not allow concentration along stream channels, springs, or other wet areas no adverse effects are expected under action alternatives. Vegetation was the predominant indicator of trend in most of the reaches surveyed for this analysis and includes factors both recent and legacy in terms of condition. As vegetation trend depends on the kind of species present, vigor, abundance and age classes, trends typically represent a longer term look at the effects of management and response of plant 9. Enhance species. Under this alternative, based on findings specified within chapter streambank vegetation 3, RHCAs (specifically streambank vegetation) would continue recruiting new plants and developing the root masses needed to maintain and recover streams at a near natural rate of recovery. This recovery depends mostly on the interval of natural flood events within the project area, and is not likely affected by proposed management within this project. Areas of adverse impacts such as salting areas, fencelines, loafing areas, 10. Treatment of and trails have been identified in the uplands, but not in the riparian areas. adversely impacted Monitoring of standards and desired conditions for both uplands and areas riparian areas would be specified in AMPs to ensure these types of areas are improved and protected 11. Conduct Cumulative Watershed N/A. Outside the scope of this project. Analysis Changes to watershed condition occurred historically. The condition of the 12. Restore, maintain, watershed is moving towards desired conditions under the Current improve watershed management and would continue under alternative 2 or 3 based on conditions analysis results found in Chapter 3. 13. Groundwater N/A no change in groundwater is expected with this project. No impacts to floodplains are expected. BMP protection measures would 14, 15, 16. Floodplain be utilized to distribute cattle and avoid adverse effects to channel Management floodplains. The presence of wetlands and springs located within the allotments have been identified, any potential impacts noted, and BMP protection measures 17. Wetlands such as distributing cattle to avoid sensitive wetlands would be specified in the AMP. N/A no road construction or maintenance is proposed. No road problems 18-22. Roads within the allotments were identified during field review.

Range Goal: To manage range ecosystems to ensure that the basic needs of the forage and soil resources are met. To make available forage production, above that needed for maintenance or improvement of the basic resources to wildlife (within Management Objective levels) and permitted livestock under standards and guidelines that will assure continued maintenance or improvement of the resources.

276

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix B

Table 3 – Range, LRMP standards and guidelines, project statement Standard and Project Statement – All Action Alternatives Guideline The forage resources allocated to livestock grazing and wildlife under action alternatives are in excess of the basic plant and soil needs. This is based on the carrying capacity calculated for the allotments that exceeds 1. Forage Allocation the stocking rates of the permitted livestock and the wildlife that are at Management Objective levels (see the Wildlife Biological Evaluation in the project file). Utilization standards, as outlined in the LRMP, and the CMP, would be 2. Utilization applied based on the analysis to both riparian areas and uplands through Standards the AMP. The LRMP (as amended by PACFISH/INFISH) desired conditions would 3. Allotment be used to set measureable goals, objectives and monitoring Management Plans requirements in the AMP to ensure that all applicable objectives are being met. Application of BMP implementation and monitoring, Forest Plan utilization standards, protection measures and implementation monitoring identified 4. Identify in the alternatives would ensure near-natural rates of management actions achievement/maintenance of RMOs for water temperature, riparian needed to meet RMOs vegetation (i.e. grasses, grass-like and shrubs) and bank and channel stability. Including but not limited to the application of PACFISH/INFISH BO implementation monitoring, compliance monitoring, shrub and grass 5. Address monitoring utilization monitoring, C&T monitoring, and trigger monitoring as specified needs in Chapter 2 of the EA would determine if the desired rate of improvement is occurring. Suitable lands in unsatisfactory condition were identified in this project and 6. Identify suitable specific objectives and desired future conditions for these lands have been lands in unsatisfactory developed (see protective measures Chapter 2) and would be specified in range condition the AMP. This project would develop AMPs for the Snake River Allotment, North 7. Allotment plan Pine Allotment (including Double Pine Allotment) that include; a time inclusions schedule for improvement, activities needed to meet forage objectives, and a range project effectiveness analysis.

Forage Allocation Table 4 – Forage Allocation, LRMP standards and guidelines, project statement

Standard and Project Statement – All Action Alternatives Guideline Allowable Use of These standards provide for maximum utilization levels regardless of which Available Forage in species of animal uses the forage or browse and would be incorporated into Riparian Areas* AMPs and implemented through AOIs for each allotment within the SPRAA. Allowable Use of These standards provide for maximum utilization levels regardless of which Available Forage on species of animal uses the forage or browse and would be incorporated into Suitable Ranges other AMPs and implemented through AOIs for each allotment within the SPRAA. than Riparian* *See table of Allowable Use below.

277

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix B

Table 5 – LRMP, Allowable use of available forage on suitable ranges in riparian areas Maximum Annual Utilization (Percent) Range Resource Management Level Grass & Shrubs Grass-like Sat Unsat Sat Unsat Livestock use managed within current grazing capacity by riding, herding, and salting. Cost-effective improvements used only to 40 0-30 30 0-25 maintain stewardship of range. Livestock managed to achieve full utilization of allocated forage. Management systems designed to obtain distribution and maintain 45 0-35 40 0-30 plant vigor include fencing and water development Livestock managed to optimize forage production and utilization. Cost-effectiveness cultural practices improving forage supply, 50 0-40 50 0-35 forage use and livestock distribution may be combined with fencing and water development to implement complex grazing systems.

Table 6 – LRMP, Allowable use of available forage on suitable ranges other than riparian areas Maximum Annual Utilization (Percent) Grass & Range Resource Management Level Forest Shrubs Grass-like Sat Unst Sat Unst Sat Unst Livestock use managed within current grazing capacity by riding, herding, and salting. Cost- 40 0-30 50 0-30 40 0-25 effective improvements used only to maintain stewardship of range. Livestock managed to achieve full utilization of allocated forage. Management systems designed 45 0-35 55 0-35 45 0-30 to obtain distribution and maintain plant vigor include fencing and water development Livestock managed to optimize forage production and utilization. Cost-effectiveness cultural practices improving forage supply, forage use and 50 0-40 60 0-40 50 0-35 livestock distribution may be combined with fencing and water development to implement complex grazing systems.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Table 7 – Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species, LRMP standards and guidelines, project statement

Standard and Guideline Project Statement – All Action Alternatives

1. Reviews/Biological Evaluations. Review all ESA-listed fish or their habitat occurs within the SPRAA. Sensitive actions and programs, redband trout are present in the analysis area. The project was reviewed

278

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix B

authorized, funded, or for potential effects to these species through consultation, see project file. carried out by the Forest Service, to Plants: The SPRAA was reviewed and potential effects to R6 Special determine their Status species -including federally listed TEPS species -were determined. potential effects on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species.

2. Prepare a biological Biological Evaluations were completed for all TES species that occur evaluation during the within the project area. Where the evaluation identified the presence of environmental analysis ESA listed species or their designated critical habitat a Biological of each project to Assessment was conducted and the project was reviewed for potential determine possible effects to these species through consultation with the appropriate effects of the proposed regulatory agency. activity on threatened, endangered, and Plants: A Biological Evaluation was prepared to document possible effects sensitive species. to R6 Special Status species -including federally listed TEPS species

Wildlife Table 8 – Wildlife, LRMP standards and guidelines, project statement Standard and Project Statement – All Action Alternatives Guideline 1. Management indicator species: Habitat must support individuals and must Potential habitat for the pileated woodpecker, primary cavity excavators, be distributed so northern goshawk, American marten, and Rocky Mountain elk is present in individuals can interact the analysis area. with others in the planning area to ensure a viable population. Riparian and Old Applies to all riparian and old growth habitat and species associated with Growth. Manage that habitat in the SPRAA Where natural stream characteristics permit the riparian and old Allotment Management Plan would provide for 60-100 percent stream growth habitat. shade on live streams, more than 80 percent of the total lineal distance of Maintain old growth to streambank in stable condition, limit fine inorganic sediment covering meet old growth stream substrate to 15 percent, and 80 percent or more of the potential wildlife species needs. plant cover. 2. Give preferential consideration to resources such as Applies to all riparian area and associated wildlife species in the SPRAA. fish, wildlife and PACFISH direction ensures preferential consideration given to fisheries, vegetation, and water riparian vegetation and water resources during project design and which are dependent implementation. ESA also requires preferential consideration is given to upon riparian areas these resources due their potential effects on listed species and their over another resource habitat. in actions within or affecting riparian

279

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix B

Standard and Project Statement – All Action Alternatives Guideline areas. 5. Manage existing Applies to SPRAA with wild bighorn sheep adjacent to the area. No contact and proposed with cattle should occur because cattle and horses usually do not associate populations of wild with bighorn sheep. bighorn sheep. 18. Unique habitat. SPRAA has many springs scattered throughout the area. Springs are Avoid alteration of considered unique habitat. unique habitats. =

PACFISH/INFISH Direction (1995)

Goal: Establish an expectation of the characteristics of healthy, functioning watersheds, riparian areas, and associated fish habitats. Since the quality of water and fish habitat in aquatic systems is inseparably related to the integrity of upland and riparian areas within the watersheds, the strategy identifies several goals for watershed, riparian, and stream channel conditions. The goals are to maintain or restore: water quality, to a degree that provides for stable and productive riparian and aquatic ecosystems; stream channel integrity, channel processes, and the sediment regime (including the elements of timing, volume, and character of sediment input and transport) under which the riparian and aquatic ecosystems developed; instream flows to support healthy riparian and aquatic habitats, the stability and effective function of stream channels, and the ability to route flood discharges; natural timing and variability of the water table elevation in meadows and wetlands; diversity and productivity of native and desired non-native plant communities in riparian zones; riparian vegetation, to: provide large wood; adequate summer and winter thermal regulation; and, provide rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration characteristics of those under which the communities developed; riparian and aquatic habitats necessary to foster the unique generic fish stocks that evolved within the specific geo-climatic region; and, habitat to support populations of well-distributed native and desired non-native plant, vertebrate, and invertebrate populations that contribute to the viability of riparian-dependent communities.

Table 9 – PACFISH/INFISH RMOs and standards and guidelines Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) Project Statement – All Action Alternatives

280

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix B

Under current grazing, livestock use has been managed to maintain good channel conditions on streams that were evaluated for PFC in these allotments. It is expected that grazing under the proposed action alternatives would not alter existing channel width to depth ratios, number of pools, or streambank stability.

RMO’s would be maintained within the allotments by implementation of the proposed RMOs alternative. Many of the streams in these allotments are intermittent, steep, rocky and difficult for cattle to access, and would be minimally impacted by these alternatives. Springs and seeps and other wet areas may be grazed but because action alternatives require permittees to properly distribute livestock and not allow concentration along springs, no adverse effects are expected under either action alternative.

Standard and Guideline Project Statement – All Action Alternatives GM-1 Modify grazing practices that retard or prevent attainment of Riparian Management BMP protection measures to protect and Objectives maintain the RHCAs are included in Chapter 2. GM-2 Locate new livestock handling and/or Field inventory determined no livestock handling management facilities outside of RHCAs. or management facilities are located within the Ensure existing facilities do not prevent RHCAs (documentation can be found in the attainment of RMOs. Relocate where Whitman Ranger District’s 2240 file), and no new necessary. facilities would be approved under the proposed alternatives. The allotments would be managed under an elevational-determined rotational grazing system. The cattle would move between pastures from GM-3 Limit livestock trailing, bedding, the lower to higher elevation during the grazing watering, salting, loading, and other handling season, with moves based on resource condition efforts to those areas and times that would and meeting utilization standards in key areas, not retard or prevent attainment of RMOs then herded back through the lower elevation, utilizing ridgetops and roads to avoid trailing through riparian areas before being moved off the allotment at the end of the season. GM-4 Adjust wild horse and burro management to avoid impacts that prevent Not applicable. No wild horse or burro attainment of RMOs management within the project allotments.

Hells Canyon Comprehensive Management Plan (2003)

All Allotments - Management Area 10

281

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix B

Goal: The HCNRA functions as a healthy ecosystem that is an integral component of a larger biological region. Sustainability of ecological functions and processes is deemed important to maintaining ecosystem health

Grasslands and Forest Understory (C-42 to C-53) Goal: The HCNRA functions as a healthy ecosystem that is an integral component of a larger biological region. Sustainability of ecological functions and processes is deemed important to maintaining ecosystem health and shall be attained by promoting vegetation with the HRV for structural stands (forested vegetation). Manage grassland communities to attain their potential natural community recognizing their HRV and that the potential for some communities may be altered. Table 10 – Hell’s Canyon Comprehensive Management Plan, objectives, standards and guidelines, project statement Objective (O), Standard (S), and Guideline (G) Project Statement – All Action Alternatives Gra-O1: Manage grassland vegetation to These standards would be incorporated into AMPs ensure continued ecological function and for each allotment within the SPRAA. Site specific sustainability of native ecosystems. Maintain conditions have been outlined in areas that are and/or restore the ecological status of considered unsatisfactory but suitable for grazing grassland communities to their PNC management. recognizing their HRV Gra-O2: Develop management plans for all The final outcome of this project would be active grazing allotments which address Allotment Management Plans (AMP’s) which identified issues and compatibility with the address issues and are compatible with the provisions of the HCNRA act. HCNRA act, and other standards and guidelines. Gra-O3: Evaluate rangeland capability and suitability, and present rangeland condition or See applicable resource reports in Chapter 3. ecological status in relation to PNC. Gra-O4: Evaluate annual impacts associated See applicable resource reports in Chapter 3. with livestock grazing. Gra-S1: Unsuitable or not capable lands will not See Range analysis Chapter 3 be allocated for grazing by domestic livestock Gra-S2: Satisfactory conditions will be evaluated during allotment management See Range analysis Chapter 3 planning process. See Range, Hydrology, Soils, and Fisheries Gra-S3: AMP’s would establish site-specific analyses in Chapter 3; site specific issues are rates of recovery to achieve goals for ecological identified and all AMPs would include site specific status, soil conditions, and riparian rates of recovery to achieve goals and objectives management objectives. set for any issues identified. See Range, Hydrology and Soils and Fisheries Gra-G1: Emphasize enhancement and/or analysis Chapter 3 and protection measures restoration of potential native vegetation. Chapter 2 Gra-G2: Incorporate management considerations in Plant Associations of the Site specific conditions were developed for Wallowa-Snake Province (Johnson and Simon locations within the allotments. These conditions 1987) and Mid-Montane Wetlands, and adaptive management strategies were Classification of the Malhuer, Umatilla, and devised using the resources named in this Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (Crowe and guideline, as well as professional judgment based Clausnitzer 1997) or other FS approved guides on site visits and the inter-disciplinary process. to determine the appropriate timing, intensity,

282

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix B

Objective (O), Standard (S), and Guideline (G) Project Statement – All Action Alternatives duration and frequency of grazing use by community type. See Wildlife Biological Evaluation, Fisheries Gra-S4: When determining carrying capacity Biological Evaluation, Hydrology, Soils Chapter 3, and range management objectives, consider Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive and Proposed other use. Botany Biological Evaluation, and Invasive Plants Analysis Chapter 3. Gra-S5: Implement grazing management practices to minimize the potential for transport See Chapter 2, Protection Measures. of invasive plants or creation of habitats for invasive species. Alternative 2 includes a rotational grazing system and adaptations to the timing, frequency and Gra-G3: During the allotment planning process duration of the grazing within the grazing system evaluate periodic rest and deferred rotations would be evaluated and implemented when grazing systems. needed. Alternative 3 includes a rest system where each allotment would not be grazed every fourth year. See Range analysis Chapter 3. FP utilization Gra-S6: Implement Forest Plan Utilization standards would be included in the AMPs and Standards implemented using the AOI. To mitigate potential effects to rangeland after a prescribed burn, a review process would be in place to assess burned areas (prescribed or Gra-G3: During the AMP process, analyze wildfire) by the fuels specialist and range manager effects and management of wildfire and PF in to determine if the area may need at least a full conjunction with domestic livestock grazing. growing season of rest from grazing. This is accomplished through temporary fencing, resting the pasture, or herding livestock. See protection measures Chapter 2. Through AOIs and AMP’s the permittees would be practicing measures to allow for restoration of Gra-G4: Where feasible and desired, plan and resources and the protective measures put in implement restoration projects. place for the areas in unsatisfactory condition and the maintenance of areas in satisfactory condition. Proposed range improvements, identified through the interdisciplinary process, are designed to Gra-S7: Range improvements would be minimize impacts to other resources. Design of designed and located to minimize their impact these improvements include features such as on other resources. wildlife friendly fences, locations to avoid cultural resources, and protections for water quality and spring function. Gra-G6: Encourage the Payette and Nez Perce N/A. These allotments do not share boundaries National Forests to adjust allotment boundaries. with these national forests.

Biological Soil Crusts (page C-64 to C-66) Table 11 – Biological Soil Crusts, Hell’s Canyon Comprehensive Management Plan (page C-64 to C-66), objectives, standards and guidelines, project statement

283

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix B

Objective (O), Standard (S), and Guideline (G) Project Statement – All Action Alternatives The primary management activity proposed in SPRAA is livestock grazing. None of the alternatives for the SPRAA would include increases in livestock grazing, therefore existing Bic – O1: conduct management that maintains, biological soil crust communities would be enhances, facilitates restoration of biological maintained. Season of use affects conditions of soil crust communities. biological crust communities. Late summer and early fall grazing (as proposed in this project) when soils are dry is damaging to sandy soils, but less damaging to clay, shallow and rocky soils. Soil crusts were observed and noted during Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health and Soil Condition field surveys. Rangeland health assessments were performed, soil and site stability was determined, and nutrient cycling via biotic Bic – O2: develop management objectives for integrity was assessed soil crusts and rangeland health indicators for site stability and nutrient cycling. Use the The biological soil crust evaluation process has not biological soil crust evaluation process. This yet been developed for the HCNRA. Project level plan will begin an analysis of plant associations biological soil crust data was collected and with high to moderate existing or potential evaluated for SPRAA. A monitoring technique development of biological soil crusts, maps based on modified line point intercept method was showing various crust potential, tested, and sites were assessed based on plant recommendations for maintenance and association. Future long term monitoring will restoration of biological soil crusts, and include crust data collection and may contribute monitoring techniques. toward development of maps and recommendations for management. At this point, further study is needed at the level of the HCNRA before these steps can be completed.

Project level biocrust data collection and analysis Bic-O3: Develop, through project level were done in 2012-13 on SPRAA; this begins the planning, management objectives that include process of determining site capability. Further data desired levels of biological soil crust will be collected in conjunction with vascular plant development based on site capability and data to continue determining site capability so that rangeland health indicators of site stability and management objectives can be refined as part of nutrient cycling. ongoing adaptive management With the implementation of SPRAA AMPs, seasonal use impacts will be reduced relative to Bic – S1: change human caused activities to the existing condition with grazing management reduce or eliminate impacts to bio crusts practices like improved herding techniques, addressed through the selected alternative. Please refer to Chapter 2 for more information. Bic – G1: designate representative crust Beyond the scope of this analysis. Needs to be communities considered at a larger scale.

284

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix B

Objective (O), Standard (S), and Guideline (G) Project Statement – All Action Alternatives Although action alternatives allow grazing to continue during dry periods and spring, grazing Bic – G2: consider grazing strategies that management practices such as improved herding minimize the frequency of surface disturbance techniques and pasture rotation are expected to during dry periods or in the spring to allow re- lead to less frequent disturbance in any one growth. Maximize time between disturbances. location relative to the existing condition. See Chapter 2 Alternatives and 3 Soils and Botanical Resources for more information. Bic – G3: locate water developments and Existing and potential biological crust would be salting areas on sites with low potential for bio considered for any new water developments or soil crust development. salting areas. Bic - G4: When planning Prescribed Fire, No Prescribed Fire is planned as part of the identify areas with high current, or potential for, Snake/Pine AMP. biological soil crusts. Post-wildfire rest and/or grazing modifications Bic – G5: post fire rest of grazing season would be analyzed for effects to biological soil modifications crusts if and when a fire occurs within the project area.

Water and Riparian Areas (page C-58 to C-61; C-118-C-122) Goal: Ensure the protection and maintenance of riparian and aquatic habitat and maintain viable populations of native and desired nonnative riparian and aquatic vertebrate and invertebrate species. Table 12 – Water and Riparian Areas, Hell’s Canyon Comprehensive Management Plan objectives, standards and guidelines, project statement Objective (O), Standard (S), and Guideline (G) Project Statement – All Action Alternatives Water Use Management and Cultivated Areas N/A. No change to current water use or cultivated (page C58-C61) areas is proposed. Vegetation utilization standards for shrubs and grasses would be used to measure effects of grazing on riparian vegetation. IIT/PIBO effectiveness and implementation monitoring would occur and results would be considered in Rip/Aqu-S1: Protect, maintain, and restore developing strategies to protect and maintain the RHCA to meet RMOs RHCAs. Any Grazing regime changes would be addressed in annual instructions and Allotment Management Plans. Grazing management would be designed to maintain and enhance INFISH riparian management objectives.

285

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix B

Objective (O), Standard (S), and Guideline (G) Project Statement – All Action Alternatives Vegetation utilization standards for shrubs and grasses would be used to measure effects of grazing on riparian vegetation. IIT/PIBO effectiveness and implementation monitoring would occur to protect and maintain the RHCAs. Monitoring results would be used to develop grazing strategies that avoid detrimental effects to riparian areas, wetlands, flood plains, stream channels or water quality. Any Grazing regime changes would be addressed in annual instructions Rip/Aqu-S2: Modify or prohibit management and Allotment Management Plans. RMO’s would practices causing detrimental changes to be maintained or enhanced in the allotments by riparian areas, wetlands, flood plains, stream implementation of this alternative. Many of the channels or water quality streams in these allotments are intermittent, in steep, rocky terrain, and difficult for cattle to access, therefore would be minimally impacted by action alternatives. Springs and seeps and other wet areas may be grazed but because this alternative requires permittees to properly distribute livestock and not allow concentration along springs, no adverse effects are expected under action alternatives.

Vegetation utilization standards for shrubs and grasses would be used to measure effects of grazing on riparian vegetation. IIT/PIBO effectiveness and implementation monitoring would occur and results would be considered in developing strategies to protect and maintain the RHCAs. Any Grazing regime changes would be addressed in annual instructions and Allotment Management Plans. Grazing management would be designed so as to not retard the attainment of INFISH riparian management objectives. Rip/Aqu-S3: Design actions to not retard Currently, allotment streams are at PFC or attainment of RMOs within RHCAs. Ensure functional at risk with an upwards trend, and habitat is maintained or moving toward PFC vegetation recovery should continue to occur at a near natural rate of recovery. RMO’s would be maintained or enhanced in the allotments by implementation of action alternatives. Many of the streams in these allotments are intermittent, and steep, rocky and difficult for cattle to access, and would be minimally impacted by this alternative. Springs and seeps and other wet areas may be grazed but because this alternative requires permittees to properly distribute livestock and not allow concentration along springs, no adverse effects are expected under action alternatives.

286

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix B

Objective (O), Standard (S), and Guideline (G) Project Statement – All Action Alternatives IIT/PIBO effectiveness and implementation monitoring would occur and results would be Rip/Aqu-O1: Focus restoration on human- considered in developing strategies to protect and caused disturbance maintain the RHCAs. Any Grazing regime changes would be addressed in annual instructions and Allotment Management Plans. IIT/PIBO effectiveness and implementation monitoring would occur and results would be Rip/Aqu-S4, S5, S6: Restore habitat found to considered in developing strategies to protect and be At risk or nonfunctional maintain the RHCAs. Any Grazing regime changes would be addressed in annual instructions and Allotment Management Plans. IIT/PIBO effectiveness and implementation Rip/Aqu-O2: Manage lands to achieve monitoring would occur and results would be watershed management objectives in the considered in developing strategies to protect and Wallowa Count/Nez Perce Tribe Salmon maintain the RHCAs. Any Grazing regime Habitat Recovery Plan changes would be addressed in annual instructions and Allotment Management Plans. The Matrix of Pathways and Indicators used in Rip/Aqu-G1: Incorporate the Coarse Screening ESA consultation provides this Coarse Screen, Process as part of PCF which was also applied during analysis at the BE scale. IIT/PIBO effectiveness and implementation monitoring would occur and results would be Rip/Aqu-G2: Monitor for riparian/aquatic considered in developing strategies to protect and condition and trend maintain the RHCAs. Any Grazing regime changes would be addressed in, annual instructions and Allotment Management Plans. Rip/Aqu-G3: Cooperate with state and Tribe to N/A. Beyond scope of the proposed action conduct species and spawning surveys Because of the application of BMPs, and monitoring their implementation and effectiveness through the use of Allotment Management Plans Wqq-O1: Maintain or improve water quality and permits, livestock grazing within the SPRAA is in accordance with the Clean Water Act and complies with the Clean Water Act requirements and the 1990 Forest Plan Under current grazing, livestock use has been managed to maintain good channel conditions on streams that were evaluated for PFC in these Wqq-O2: Maintain favorable conditions of allotments. It is expected then that grazing under streamflow for water quality action alternatives would not alter existing channel width to depth ratios, number of pools, or streambank stability. These are all components of INFISH Riparian Management Objectives.

287

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix B

Objective (O), Standard (S), and Guideline (G) Project Statement – All Action Alternatives Because of the application of BMPs, and monitoring their implementation and effectiveness through the use of Allotment Management Plans Wqq-S1: Meet or exceed state water quality and permits, livestock grazing within the SPRAA is standards in accordance with the Clean Water Act and complies with the Clean Water Act requirements and the 1990 Forest Plan. RMO’s would be maintained or enhanced in the allotments by implementation of this alternative. Many of the streams in these allotments are intermittent, and steep, rocky and difficult for cattle to access, and would be minimally impacted by Wqq-S2: Implement water quality improvement action alternatives. Springs and seeps and other standards for water quality impaired waters wet areas may be grazed but because alternatives require permittees to properly distribute livestock and not allow concentration along springs, no adverse effects are expected under either action alternative.

Wqq-S3: Develop water quality restoration N/A. Beyond scope of the proposed action. plans (WQRP) Wqq-G1, G2, G3: Cooperate with State to N/A. Beyond scope of the proposed action develop TMDLs and WQMPs

Noxious Weeds, Invasive Plants and Nonnative Plants (C-66 to C-68) Table 13 – Noxious Weeds, Invasive Plants and Nonnative Plants, Hell’s Canyon Comprehensive Management Plan objectives standards and guidelines, project statement Objective (O), Standard (S), and Guideline (G) Project Statement – All Action Alternatives See Chapter 2 Protection Measures specific to noxious weeds. The permit administrator would work annually with the District noxious weed Nox-O1: Manage noxious weeds to reduce treatment manager to ensure that all known negative impacts noxious weed sites within these allotments are at or approaching containment, control, or eradication objectives such that their further spread by livestock is unlikely. Active restoration is outside the scope of this analysis. However, management considerations Nox-G1: Conduct restoration activities on may reduce spread of weeds by limiting grassland sites in mid-seral or earlier status. disturbance and allowing recovery of native vegetation. Nox-G3: Provide for natural restoration of Management proposed under both action degraded sites by modifying management alternatives will limit timing and intensity of grazing activities as necessary. to encourage natural restoration.

Heritage Resources (C-69 to C-76) Goal: Historic sites that typify the economic and social history of the region and American West are managed for their preservation and restoration. Heritage resources are protected from damage or 288

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix B

destruction. Heritage resources are managed for scientific research, public education and enjoyment to the extent consistent with their protection.

Table 14 – Heritage Resources, Hell’s Canyon Comprehensive Management Plan objectives, standards and guidelines, project statement Objective (O), Standard (S), and Guideline (G) Project Statement – All Action Alternatives Her-S8: prevent degradation of heritage Cultural resource surveys have been conducted, resource sites from domestic livestock grazing following inventory protocols approved by the State through appropriate practices Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). SHPO has been consulted on this project,

Soils (page C-80 to C-83) Goal: Manage soil resources in a manner compatible with those values for which the HCNRA was established. Maintain soil productivity and stability by minimizing soil or ground cover disturbance.

Table 15 – Soils, Hell’s Canyon Comprehensive Management Plan objectives standards and guidelines, project statement Objective (O), Standard (S), and Guideline (G) Project Statement – All Action Alternatives Rimrock and slopes steeper than 60 percent are currently managed for soil conditions consistent with late seral stage vegetation communities of native bunchgrass. Sites with moderately steep and steep slopes (greater than 30 percent and less than 60 percent) are currently managed for soil conditions consistent with early to mid seral stage Soi-O1: Manage soil surface conditions vegetation communities of native bunchgrass. consistent with late-seral status depending on Sites with slopes from 0 to 30 percent have the PNC. During project planning and historical impacts and vegetation changes which monitoring, document the location and may not allow late seral stand development condition of soils or sites that do not have this depending on the annual grass component. potential, or that have a lower rating due to The desired soil condition with the proposed impacts from wildfire, flood, or management alternative is to maintain soil litter and organic activities, and develop appropriate soil matter to reduce future soil erosion and sustain soil improvement objectives, where needed. health and productivity. Forest Plan utilization standards set for unsatisfactory range and soil condition would be specified in the AMP and protection measures outlined in Chapter 2. Utilization standards applied to these sites would ensure these areas are protected and restored. Range, and Soils, Chapter 3 identify soil surface condition for the project area. Soi-O2: Complete a watershed improvement needs inventory for HCNRA that includes soil N/A beyond scope of project. resource improvement needs. Soi-O3: Complete an Order 2/3 ecological inventory (based on National Cooperative Soil N/A beyond scope of project. Survey protocols)

289

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix B

Objective (O), Standard (S), and Guideline (G) Project Statement – All Action Alternatives No unique soils have been identified in the SPRAA. Most of the soils are derived from Soi-O4: Identify and characterize unique soils volcanic rocks, but source rock also includes sedimentary rocks along the Snake River, and extrusive igneous and metasedimentary rocks. Refer to Soil Resources, Chapter 3 and the Soil Resources project file for more information. Soi-S1: Identify and evaluate adverse impacts Because Forest Plan standards would be adhered to soil productivity and soil stability to under action alternatives, biological soil crusts, soil porosity and a supply of organic matter would be maintained. Refer to Soil Resources, Chapter 3 and the Soil Resources project file for more information. Soi-G1: Use soil information to evaluate soil Because Forest Plan standards would be adhered characteristics, potentials, limitations when to under action alternatives, biological soil crusts, implementing projects soil porosity and a supply of organic matter would be maintained. Soi-G2: Soils and forest management N/A, no forest management is proposed Soi-G3: Methods to achieve soil quality and Please refer to the Protection Measures and site productivity objective: Monitoring sections of Chapter 2 and the Soil Consider using the following methods to Resources section of Chapter 3 for more achieve soil quality and soil-related information. riparian/water quality objectives for all management activities: - No restoration is proposed. Restoration of sites

that have crossed a threshold is not practical from Restore damaged soils to as near pre-impact a financial or ecological point of view. conditions as possible, where appropriate and - No erosion control work is proposed. When practicable(New) erosion control work occurs, location, timing and . Use native species, where practicable, use of native species will be considered. when re-establishing vegetative - Post-wildfire restoration would be analyzed. Use ground cover following wildfire or of native species would be considered for post fire management activities. (FSM 2600) restoration considered in the future. . Keep erosion control work current,

when required; plan to complete all Forest Plan utilization standards are intended to work prior to the first major rainfall help maintain ground cover, improve soil event or snowfall event that would productivity and reduce other soil effects such as prevent achievement of project excessive compaction. Because Forest Plan objectives. (Forest Plan) utilization standards would be adhered to under

action alternatives, soil porosity and a supply of Use fertilizer, where and when appropriate, to organic matter would be maintained. accelerate vegetation establishment or growth Vegetation community changes have resulted in different amounts of fine organic matter availability from the PNC (see Rangeland Resources and Soil Resources sections of Chapter 3 for more Soi-G4: Maintain fine and coarse material information). The desired soil condition with the necessary to control erosion and to maintain action alternatives is to maintain fine organic nutrient recycling for long-term soil productivity. matter and coarse woody material to reduce soil erosion and sustain soil health, productivity and nutrient cycling.

290

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix B

Biologically Unique Species, Habitats and Ecosystems (C-88 to C 106) Goal: Maintain or restore habitat to provide viable populations of rare and endemic plant species in the HCNRA. Maintain and restore biologically unique and rare combinations of outstanding and divers ecosystem s and parts associated therewith to ensure their continued functionality and sustainability. Maintain and restore biologically unique and rare combinations of aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric habitats. Table 16 – Biologically unique species, habitats and ecosystems, Hell’s Canyon Comprehensive Management Plan objectives standards and guidelines, project statement Objective (O), Standard (S), and Guideline (G) Project Statement Unique or rare communities were identified and Bio-O1; Manage the HCNRA as an area of high analyzed for effect of current and proposed biological diversity and endemism management practices. Interdisciplinary analysis of the SPRAA and Bio-O2: Manage the HCNRA to ensure the resulting protection measures and maintenance and/or restoration of ecological recommendations to proposed grazing practices function and sustainability. ensure proper ecosystem functioning and sustainability. A number of rare and endemic plant species occurrences were located. All alternatives Bio-O3: Manage habitat and populations of all exclude development of salting or watering rare and endemic plant species. locations at known or yet-to-be discovered sites. Under any alternative considered, habitat would be maintained. The SPRAA area was surveyed for rare and Bio-S1: During planning, survey and document endemic plants. Survey routes and rare plant the locations of rare and endemic plant species locations were entered in NRM database. Endemic plants are noted in the Botany BE. TES-O1: Manage habitat and populations of Not applicable. No federally listed TE and P federally listed TE and P plant species. plants were found in SPRAA. A number of R6 special status plant species occurrences were located. All alternatives TES-O2: Manage habitat and populations of all exclude development of salting or watering FS sensitive plant species locations at known or yet-to-be discovered sites. Under any alternative considered, habitat would be maintained. TES-O3: Implement recovery plans for federally Not applicable. No federally listed TE and P listed TE and P plant species plants were found in SPRAA. Probable habitat in the SPRAA was surveyed for TES-S1: Survey probable habitat for rare plants rare plants. Biologically unique and rare combinations or BUC-O1: Maintain biologically unique and rare parts of outstanding and diverse ecosystems combinations of outstanding and diverse were identified and analyzed within the context of ecosystems and parts associated therewith. the SPRAA. See the Botany Biological Evaluation report. This plant association is common in SPRAA. BUC- S2 and BUC-G2: Bluebunch Several long term monitoring sites represent in wheatgrass/Wyeth’s buckwheat plant association SPRAA represent it. Monitoring will continue 291

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix B

Objective (O), Standard (S), and Guideline (G) Project Statement and if a downturn in condition is detected, the adaptive management practices described in Range (chapter 3) will be implemented BUC-O3, BUC-S3, and BUC-S4: Douglas’ buckwheat/sandberg bluegrass plant community Not applicable, not found in the SPRAA area. type This plant association occurs rarely in SPRAA. It occurs in the lower elevation part of Spring BUC-G6: Bitterbrush/bluebunch wheatgrass pasture. It does not appear to be overbrowsed plant association with current stocking levels, and SPRAA alternatives would not increase stocking. This plant association occurs on a few scab areas of the North Pine allotment. With current BUC-S6 and BUC-G7: Buckwheat/Oregon stocking levels, there appears to be little to no bladderpod plant association use by cattle. SPRAA alternatives would not increase stocking. This plant association occurs in the highest elevation portion of the Squaw pasture in Snake River allotment. Alternative 3 would exclude BUC-O5, BUC-S9, and BUC-G10: Subalpine most of it from the allotment. Under current fre/fool’s huckleberry plant association stocking levels, cattle rarely travel to areas where this is located and it receives little use. No SPRAA alternatives increase stocking. BUC-O6: Ponderosa pine/Idaho fescue and Not applicable, Little Granite RNA is not within Ponderosa Pine/bluebunch wheatgrass plant the SPRAA area. association: for Little Granite RNA BUC-G12: Ponderosa pine/Idaho fescue and Soil is most saturated prior to mid-May, when Ponderosa Pine/bluebunch wheatgrass plant cattle are not present. SPRAA alternatives association: Limit grazing when soils are would not allow earlier grazing. saturated. This plant community occurs in a few drainages BUC-O10: Quaking aspen plant community type: in the SPRAA area. Addressed with current rest enhance and expand community type and deferred rotation grazing systems, annual instructions and AMPs. This plant association occurs sporadically at the elevation of the Bench trail in Spring pasture. Long term monitoring plots nearby indicate BUC-S12 and BUC-G18: Giant wildrye plant upward trend in the past 50 years, so this community type association is likely on the increase. To verify this, a long term monitoring plot is recommended in the Botanical Resources section, chapter 3. BUC-O9: Maintain or enhance curlleaf mountain- Not applicable, Pleasant Valley is not within the mahogany plant communties within the Pleasant SPRAA area. Valley RNA BUC-G21: Do not try to increase big game presence in areas containing curlleaf mountain- Out of the scope of this project. mahogany plant communities BUC-G22: Do not encourage livestock Through annual instructions and AMP, use of distribution into curlleaf mountain-mahogany these sites would be discouraged. SeeChapter 3 plant communities. Soils and Botanical Resources, and Botany

292

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix B

Objective (O), Standard (S), and Guideline (G) Project Statement Biological Evaluation report for more information. BUC-S15: Mountain big sagebrush/Idaho fescue This plant association occurs on North Pine plant association allotment. BUC-O10 and BUCS16: Slender sedge plant Carex lasiocarpa is not documented and is community unlikely to occur in the SPRAA area. Wet cliffs in SPRAA area are not accessible to BUC-S17 and BUC-G24: Wet cliff habitats cattle It is likely they exist in the SPRAA area but none BUC-O11 and BUCS19: natural salt licks have been documented. BUC-O13: Springs, seeps and other wetlands: Utilization standards, IIT implementation ensure that management practices provide for monitoring, and mitigations would help achieve protection, retentions or enhancement of water and maintain water quality and quantity provided quality and quantity. by wetlands in the allotments. Forest Plan Utilization standards and PIBO BUC- S21: Springs, seeps and other wetlands: implementation and effectiveness monitoring, Where springs are developed, ensure that the would help achieve and maintain water quality water source is protected from trampling and quantity provided by wetlands in the damage. allotments. Forest Plan Utilization standards would help achieve and maintain water quality and quantity BUC-G27: Springs, seeps and other wetlands: and would help maintain integrity of springs, protect undeveloped springs. seeps and other wetlands and undeveloped springs.

Fire (C-111 to C-144) Goal: Within the Hells Canyon Wilderness, as nearly as possible, ensure that fire plays a natural role. In other parts of the HCNRA, manage natural and prescribed fire to emulate historic function of fire, where compatible with the Section 7 objectives of the HCNRA Act. Table 17 – Fire, Hell’s Canyon Comprehensive Management Plan objectives, standards and guidelines, project statement Objective (O), Standard (S), and Guideline (G) Project Statement Fire- G4: after fire, use an interdisciplinary team These areas would be assessed and accounted to determine when activities may resume in for in annual instructions and AMPs. burned areas.

Wildlife Habitat (C-127 to C-131) Goal: Ensure the protection and maintenance of wildlife Habitat Table 18 – Wildlife Habitat, Hell’s Canyon Comprehensive Management Plan objectives, standards and guidelines, project statement Objective (O), Standard (S), and Guideline (G) Project Statement Wld-S6: Identify late/old structure replacement stands and develop a management strategy to SPRAA has timber stringers in the draws of each maintain or move stands toward late/old allotment. structure conditions as needed.

293

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix C

Appendix C – Wildlife Biological Evaluation

Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive species

Introduction: This evaluation presents existing information on Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive (PETS) species and their habitat in the project area, and describes the anticipated direct, indirect, and cumulative effects resulting from the proposed project. Biological evaluations (BE) are required as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) decision-making process for all proposed Forest management activities to determine how they may affect PETS species or their habitat (U.S. Forest Service Manual [FSM] 2670). The review is conducted to ensure that FS actions do not contribute to the loss of species viability or cause a species to move toward federal listing (43 U.S.C. 1707 et seq). Threatened and Endangered species are managed under authority of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (36 U.S.C. 1531-1544) and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) (16 U.S.C. 1600-1614). The ESA requires Federal agencies make certain all actions they authorize, fund, or carry out will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species. Sensitive species are those recognized by the Region 6 Regional Forester as needing special management to meet NFMA obligations. FS Policy requires a BE to determine possible effects to them from proposed management activities.

Prefield Review: The list of Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened species used is from the FWS from January 31, 2008. The Regional Forester's Sensitive species list for Region 6 (FSM 2670.43) from December 9, 2011 and Whitman RD information regarding the project area were reviewed to determine species occurrence. Only those PETS, or their habitats, known or suspected to occur in or immediately adjacent to the analysis area are addressed in this BE (Table 1).

Table 1. Summary of PETS Species and Effect Determination

Animal Species Status Habitat Determination

Canada lynx Threatened Historic No Effect

Northern bald eagle Sensitive Potential No Impact

Gray wolf Sensitive Known May Impact

California wolverine Sensitive Potential No Impact

Pacific fisher Sensitive Potential No Impact

294

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix C

Peregrine falcon Sensitive Known No Impact

Upland sandpiper Sensitive No No Impact

Lewis woodpecker Sensitive Potential No Impact

White-headed Sensitive Potential No Impact woodpecker

Sage grouse Sensitive No No Impact

Bufflehead Sensitive No No Impact

Sharp-tailed grouse Sensitive No No Impact

Johnson’s hairstreak Sensitive Potential No Impact

Meadow fritillary Sensitive Potential May Impact

Silver-border fritillary Sensitive Potential May Impact

Inland tailed frog Sensitive Potential May Impact

Columbia spotted frog Sensitive Potential May Impact

Hells Canyon land snail Sensitive Potential May Impact

Fir pinwheel Sensitive Potential May Impact

Yuma skipper Sensitive No No Impact

Intermountain sulphur Sensitive Potential May Impact

Western bumblebee Sensitive Potential May Impact

Fringed myotis Sensitive Potential May Impact

Spotted bat Sensitive No No Impact

Townsend’s bat Sensitive Potential May Impact

Wallowa rosy finch Sensitive No No Impact

Black rosy finch Sensitive No No Impact

Harlequin duck Sensitive No No Impact

Black swift Sensitive No No Impact

295

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix C

Affects calls on species and their habitats are based on the expertise, training, and records of the preparer of this biological evaluation and uses the procedures and language of a USDA Forest Service R-6 letter, “Determining Effects to Listed, Proposed and Sensitive Species”, signed by Harv Forsgren, Regional Forester, R-6 (1995).

Existing Condition of Populations and Habitat and Environmental Consequences

Northern Bald Eagle

Nest sites are typically near large bodies of water (rivers, lakes, etc.) that supports an adequate food supply (NatureServeExplorer 2005 and USDI 1986). In the Pacific Northwest recovery area, preferred nesting habitat for bald eagles is predominately an uneven-aged, mature, coniferous stands (ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir) or large black-cottonwood trees along riparian corridors (NatureServeExplorer 2005 and USDI 1986). Eagles usually nest in mature conifers with gnarled limbs that provide ideal platforms for nests. The nest tree is characteristically one of the largest in the stand and usually provides an unobstructed view of a body of water (USDI 1986). In Oregon, the majority of nests are within 0.5 miles of the shoreline (Anthony and Isaacs 1989). Important prey species include fish, birds, mammals, and carrion. (NatureServeExplorer 2005).

Wintering eagles tend to perch on dominant trees that provide a good view of the surrounding area and close to a food source such as carrion, fish, etc. (NatureServeExplorer 2005 and USDI 1986). A communal roost generally hosts several eagles each evening at the sme site during the winter months. Communal night roosts are generally near a rich food source (high concentrations of waterfowl or fish) and in forested, uneven-aged stands with a remnant old growth component (Anthony et al. 1982). Communal winter roosts tend to be isolated from disturbance and offer more protection from the weather than diurnal roosts (NatureServeExplorer 2005 and USDI 1986).

Wintering bald eagles have been observed along the Snake River, however no winter roosts have been documented. Wintering bald eagles typically leave the area in March or April. No nesting has been observed in this area.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects – Common to all alternatives- The Snake/Pine AMP project would not alter habitat that would render it unsuitable for eagles to nest there in the future. Therefore, there will be no impact (NI) to the bald eagle or habitat from the Snake/Pine AMP project.

Gray Wolf

Habitat preference for the gray wolf is more prey dependent than cover dependent. The wolf is a habitat generalist inhabiting a variety of plant communities, typically containing a mix of forested and open areas with a variety of topographic features (NatureServeExplorer 2005). Dens are usually located on moderately steep slopes with southerly aspects within close proximity to surface water. Rendezvous sites, which are used for resting and gathering, are complexes of meadows adjacent to timber and nearby surface water 296

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix C

(Kaminski and Hansen 1984). Both dens and rendezvous sites are often characterized as having nearby forested cover and being remote from human disturbance (NatureServeExplorer 2005). Wolves are strongly territorial, defending an area of 75-150 square miles. Territory size and location is strongly related to prey abundance. Wolves prey mainly on large ungulates (deer and elk) and to a lesser extent on small mammals. The gray wolf prefers areas with few roads, generally avoiding areas with an open road density greater than one mile per square mile (NatureServeExplorer 2005 and Witmer et al. 1998).

A wolf pack that includes both adults and pups was confirmed in a forested area of northern Union County on July 18, 2008, the first evidence of multiple wolves and wolf reproduction in Oregon since wolves were extirpated from the state in the mid-1940s. In November 2009 another pack was located with at least 10 wolves, 4 of which were radio-collared. At least 4 more pups were seen with this pack in July 2010. While no wolves have been documented within the Snake/Pine AMP project area, the close proximity to the Eagle Cap Wilderness and the remote nature of the project area make it a likely area for wolf activity.

As of May 4, 2009, wolves in the eastern portion of Oregon (east of highways 395, 78 and 95) are “de-listed,” or removed from protection under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). This Final Rule was published in the Federal Register Vol 74, No. 62 pages 15123- 15188 on April 2, 2009. Wolves in this area remain protected by Oregon’s ESA, while wolves west of the boundary remain protected by both the federal and state ESA.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects

Alternative 1- There would be no impact (NI) to wolves or their habitat from the no grazing alternative.

Alternatives 2 and 3- Livestock grazing does not directly impact wolves. Indirectly, livestock have the ability to affect wolf prey with intensive grazing. Grazing could reduce forage available to deer and elk to the point that prey populations are reduced and/or redistributed. However, the moderate level of grazing occurring in the Snake/Pine allotments would not be significant enough to affect prey populations and the difference in grazing management between alternatives 2 and 3 would not translate into a measurable difference in the wolf population. In the event wolves depredate cattle within Snake/Pine allotments, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) may authorize lethal control to remove wolves. However, ODFW maintains responsibility for “working towards conservation of endangered species” and “managing wildlife to prevent serious depletion of any indigenous species” under the Oregon Endangered Species Act and the ODFW Wildlife Policy. Thus, lethal control is a last resort when responding to wolf/livestock depredation.

The Snake/Pine AMP project may impact individuals or habitat (MIIH) for gray wolves, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

California Wolverine

Wolverines prefer high elevation, conifer forest types, with a sufficient food source, and limited exposure to human interference (Wolverine Foundation 2005; TWF). Natal denning 297

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix C

habitat includes open rocky slopes (talus or boulders) surrounded or adjacent to high elevation forested habitat that maintains a snow depth greater than 3 feet into March and April (TWF 2005). The wolverine is an opportunistic scavenger, with large mammal carrion the primary food source year-round. While foraging, they generally avoid large open areas and tend to stay within forested habitat at the mid and high elevations (>4,000 ft) and typically travel 18-24 miles to hunt (TWF 2005).

Adjacent wilderness areas including the Eagle Cap and North Fork John Day Wilderness are the nearest potential natal denning sites. Snow tracking surveys conducted across the Forest (since 1990s) for wolverine, fisher, American marten, and lynx have found no possible wolverine tracks in or near the project areas. There have been no observations of wolverines within or near the Snake/Pine AMP project area.

The wolverine may periodically pass through portions of this analysis area, but the area likely does not support a breeding population. The rationale for addressing wolverine in regard to this project is the contiguousness of this analysis area with the Eagle Cap Wilderness to the west. This unroaded area has limited human intrusion.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects – Common to all alternatives- Livestock grazing activities are not expected to reduce habitat suitability for wolverines; therefore, the Snake/Pine AMP project will have no impact (NI) on wolverines or their habitat.

Pacific Fisher

Pacific fisher habitat consists of mixed conifer stands where grand fir, Engelmann spruce, Douglas-fir and/or lodgepole pine is present. Mature and old growth coniferous forests have commonly been described as optimal or preferred fisher habitat (Powell & Zielinski 1994), although it has been noted that in the winter younger forested stands may be used. Generally fishers use stands that are low to mid elevation where deep snow does not accumulate (Ruggiero et al. 1999). Fishers commonly use forested riparian areas along streams when moving across the landscape. It has been suggested that timbered saddles between major drainages may serve as important landscape linkages for fishers (Powell & Zielinski 1994).

Cavities in either live or dead trees are the most commonly reported sites for natal dens. Large diameter down logs that are hollow, tree cavities or tree nests (witches’ brooms or mistletoe clumps) are used for denning or resting (Powell & Zielinski, 1994).

Fishers are primarily carnivorous. Small and medium sized forest mammals are the primary prey; porcupines, snowshoe hares, tree squirrels, mice and vole species are among the most common species preyed upon (Powell & Zielinski 1994). Fishers are renowned for their ability to prey on porcupines. Carrion (deer, elk) and seasonally birds, bird eggs, amphibians, fish and insects may be added to the diet and in some regions fruits may be eaten (Verts and Carraway 1998).

Trapping and habitat loss due to logging extirpated fisher from Oregon by the early 1900s. However, reintroductions in 1961 in the Eagle Cap Wilderness reestablished fisher for at

298

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix C

least 2 decades; populations from this transplant never increased. Fisher have not been documented in northeastern Oregon since the early 1980s. Snow tracking surveys conducted across the Forest (since 1990s) for wolverine, fisher, American marten, and lynx have found no possible fisher tracks in or near the project areas. There have been no observations of the Pacific fisher within or near the Snake/Pine AMP project area.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects – Common to all alternatives- Livestock grazing activities are not expected to reduce habitat suitability for fisher; therefore, the Snake/Pine AMP project will have no impact (NI) on fishers or their habitat.

Peregrine Falcon

Suitable habitat for the peregrine falcon includes various open habitats from grassland to forest land in association with suitable nesting cliffs (NatureServeExplorer 2005; Marshall et al. 2003). The falcon often nests on ledges or holes on the face of rocky cliffs or crags. Ideal locations include undisturbed areas with a wide view, near water, and close to plentiful prey. Foraging habitats (woodlands, open grasslands, and bodies of water) are generally associated with the nesting territory. Preferred peregrine falcon prey is predominately birds caught on the wing including waterfowl and small birds. Small rodents are also occasionally taken (White et al. 2002).

There is 1 active peregrine falcon nest within the Snake/Pine AMP project area. Peregrine nest site surveys have been conducted in potential nesting habitat since 1991. Because peregrines are aerial predators who feed mostly on birds, they often feed on prey 10 to 15 miles from their nest.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects – Common to all alternatives- Grazing removes ground vegetation used by nesting birds and could indirectly affect peregrines by reducing prey populations. However, the moderate levels of grazing observed on the Snake/Pine AMP project area should not affect the abundance of preferred prey species. Therefore, there will be no impact (NI) on the peregrine falcon or their habitat.

Lewis’s Woodpecker

This uncommon bird is a primary cavity nester and is listed as sensitive. Lewis’s woodpecker has a geographic range in western United States and is associated with open forests, often at lower elevations. It nests in Oregon in large ponderosa pine snags primarily adjacent to riparian areas. Large stand replacement fires in ponderosa pine forests along streams and rivers have provided important nesting habitat for this species.

The Lewis’s woodpecker has not been observed within the Snake/Pine AMP project area although potential habitat exists in the lower elevations. Wisdom et al. 2000 concludes that source habitats for this species have declined significantly from historical to current periods across large geographic areas.

299

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix C

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects – Common to all alternatives- Cattle grazing does not affect cavity nesters or their habitat (Saab 1998). For these reasons, there would be no impact (NI) on Lewis’s woodpecker or their habitat.

White-headed Woodpecker

The white-headed woodpecker is closely associated with stands of large diameter ponderosa pine. These woodpeckers forage mainly on the trunks, branches, and foliage of large diameter ponderosa pine, where they take a variety of invertebrates and pine seeds (Marshall 1997). Past, present, and ongoing habitat loss pose a threat to the continued existence of the species throughout its range (Wisdom et al. 2000). Amounts of old growth ponderosa pine remaining in Oregon is unknown, but are probably less than 10% of what occurred in pre-European settlement times (Marshall 1997). The loss has occurred mainly through a combination of timber harvest, road building and fire.

There are no observations of the white-headed woodpecker within the Snake/Pine AMP project area. This woodpecker is considered very rare and the viability of the species may be in question on this forest. Wisdom et al. 2000 concludes that source habitats for this species have declined significantly from historical to current periods across large geographic areas. There are few acres in this project area that provide large structure ponderosa pine habitat adequate to support a reproductive white-headed woodpecker population.

Johnson’s Hairstreak

Johnson’s hairstreak is a butterfly that recently was listed as sensitive. The species is characteristic of mature to old growth conifer forests that have abundant quantities of mistletoe. The distribution is largely restricted to the Pacific Northwest. A disjunct population is thought to be isolated in the Hells Canyon region of northeast Oregon and adjacent to Idaho.

There are 52 records in Oregon with the majority from 3,500 to 6,000 feet in elevation and west of the Cascade Range. There are a few records near the project area in Baker County (Black and Lauvray 2005). Additional local sightings are needed to document its range.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects – Common to all alternatives- Johnson’s hairstreak typically spends much of its time in the top of the forest canopy and thus grazing should not negatively affect this species. The Snake/Pine AMP project is not expected to impact the Johnson’s Hairstreak or their habitat.

Meadow Fritillary

The meadow fritillary is a medium sized brown colored butterfly of the family Nymphalidae which has recently been listed as sensitive. Adults fly between late May and late August. There are two generations of adults in a year. Larvae of the late summer generation

300

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix C

overwinter. Larvae feed primarily on violet flowers. This species is widely distributed across the northern montane regions of North America. Colonies of meadow fritillary are localized in the Pacific Northwest. A few colonies are known to exist in northeast and southeast Washington. Its preferred habitat is open, boggy, wet meadows.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects – Common to all alternatives- The distribution of this species on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is not known. One site was recorded at Lehman Hot Springs in the Blue Mountains of Oregon, but has not been seen since 1984 (Fleckenstein 2006). Therefore, grazing may impact individuals or habitat (MIIH) but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Silver-Bordered Fritillary

The silver-bordered fritillary is distributed across the northern and montane regions of North America, but colonies are very local and endemic in the Pacific Northwest. The habitat consists of open, boggy, wet meadows. Colonies are widespread in northeast Washington and northern Idaho, but are extremely isolated southward. Only two primary colonies are found in Oregon, one at Big Summit Prairie on the Ochoco National Forest and one in the Strawberry Mountains on the Malheur National Forest. Caterpillars feed on violet plant species.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects – Common to all alternatives- The distribution of this species on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is not known. Habitat for the species may be available in some parts of the forest. Therefore, grazing may impact individuals or habitat (MIIH) but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Columbia Spotted Frog

Habitat for this species consists of marshes and wet meadows, permanent ponds, and slow moving streams with abundant aquatic vegetation (Corkran and Thomas 1996). Spotted frogs breed in the spring in shallow water at pond edges, stream margins, and inundated floodplain areas. Egg masses are free-floating. Tadpoles live in the warmest parts of ponds. Froglets and adults live in well-vegetated ponds, marshes or slow, weedy streams that meander through meadows. Springs may be used as over-wintering sites for local populations of spotted frogs (Hayes et al. 1997).

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects – Common to all alternatives- Cattle grazing within the Snake/Pine AMP may directly and indirectly affect this species and its habitat. In the early portion of the grazing season (June), cattle generally congregate on open ridges and timbered stands with low canopy closure to take advantage of early growth of palatable grass species in these areas. During this time of year, livestock generally do not frequent streams and stream courses. After upland vegetation cures out and air temperatures rise (July-August), livestock move to cooler forested stands and riparian areas. During this period effects on the different life stages of the spotted frog could occur.

The ponds used by livestock in the project area are small, ephemeral ponds. Livestock use

301

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix C

of ponds has the potential to introduce sediment, increase turbidity, and introduce livestock feces and urine into potential spotted frog habitat. As a result, water quality (temperature, dissolved oxygen, contaminants) in these ponds could be affected, depending on the number of livestock and the amount of time livestock spend in and around the water source. Due to the dispersed nature of grazing in the project area and the availability of water (quantity and distribution of stock ponds) in the area, it is not expected that grazing would result in excessively high concentrations of waste in any of the ponds within the project area and therefore not impact potential tadpole populations.

It is unlikely that adult spotted frogs would be directly impacted during the grazing season due to their mobility. Frogs would be able to avoid livestock trampling at ponds or other areas where they are encountered. Indirectly, removal of riparian vegetation through grazing may increase the susceptibility of spotted frogs to predation by reducing hiding cover. It is unlikely that reduced height of grass in the project area would adversely impact cover habitat for spotted frogs. Although vegetation height is reduced during the grazing period, grazing within utilization standards should retain adequate residual cover during and after livestock grazing occurs.

Grazing would not affect the biomass of insects or insect diversity within the Allotment. Several recent studies (Rambo and Faith 1999, Howard and Munger 2000) found no scientifically significant difference in insect biomass or diversity between grazed and ungrazed segments of streams and ponds. Since current grazing in the project area maintains residual vegetative cover, insect populations would also be maintained as a food source for frogs and therefore no impact would occur to adult spotted frog populations in the project area.

The Snake/Pine AMP project may impact individuals or habitat (MIIH) for Columbia spotted frog, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Fir Pinwheel

The fir pinwheel is a land snail that has recently been listed as sensitive. It is generally found in rather moist, rocky, forested terrain. Most often, the preferred plant association on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest would likely be the very moist mixed conifer habitat with a rich understory of forbs, deciduous shrubs, and bryophytes. These plant associations adjacent to the bottom of talus slopes near persistent water are preferred.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects – Common to all alternatives- This species was probably once very common and widespread, but is now uncommon. It has lost most of its habitat and most historic sites. It has not been found abundant anywhere. The distribution of this species on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is unknown. Habitat for this species is probably available in some parts of the forest. Grazing may impact individuals or habitat (MIIH) but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Inland Tailed Frog

302

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix C

Tailed frogs are strongly adapted to cold water conditions. They occur in very cold, fast- flowing streams that contain large cobble or boulder substrates, little silt, and are often darkly shaded (Bull and Carter 1996). Hatchlings are striking because they have no pigment and are almost transparent. Tailed frogs develop very slowly in the cold water, and tadpoles are two to five years old before they metamorphose (Corkran and Thoms 1996). Juveniles take another few years to reach sexual maturity.

Tailed frogs lay their eggs in streams in summer, attaching them under cobbles or boulder- sized rocks. Tadpoles cling to the undersides of moss-free small boulders or large cobbles. They are more likely to be found lower in a stream than adults (Corkran and Thoms 1996). Adults often occur on streambanks at night and during wet weather.

Tailed frog surveys near the project area have found this species to be frequently found in high elevation clear cold streams (Bull and Carter 1996). They have not been found within the Snake/Pine AMP project area. It appears that stream characteristics are more important than landscape characteristics. The parameters most important to their presence are cold water, clean cobble, and medium size substrate.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects – Common to all alternatives- Timber harvest and road building may severely reduce tailed-frogs. Sedimentation of streams and increased stream temperatures are likely causes (Leonard et al. 1993). The known tailed- frog sites on the Wallowa-Whitman are steep, fast moving streams that are mostly inaccessible by cattle, so the Snake/Pine AMP project may impact individuals or habitat for inland tailed frogs, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Hells Canyon Land Snail

Existing Condition

Populations typically occur in basalt talus at the bases along the lower slopes of the river canyons. Sites are xeric and sparsely vegetated with netleaf hackberry, sagebrush, and forbs and grasses. Livestock grazing and road construction have been listed as among the most important threats to this species (Frest 1999). This species has been documented in Wallowa County and is suspected to occur on the forest, however, this species has not been found within the project area.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects – Common to all alternatives- Direct mortality to snails could occur from livestock trampling adults and larvae, however this is not likely because the talus slopes this species uses are largely inaccessible to cattle. Indirectly, cattle could consume the plants this snail relies on for food, although this is not likely due to the inaccessibility of the talus slopes they occur in. For these reasons the Snake/Pine AMP project may impact individuals or habitat (MIIH) for the Hells Canyon land snail, but

303

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix C

would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Bats

Bats use rangelands for foraging and drinking, and vegetation structure is a critical component in the life cycles of insect prey (Ellison et al. 2003). Removal of vegetation at foraging sites may reduce overall prey abundance, shift availability of particular prey species, alter foraging efficiency, and alter the number of species competing for insects at the site (Gruver and Keinath 2006). Impacts from over-grazing are potentially significant to some populations of bats (Ellison et al. 2003). Wetland and riparian habitats and other sources of open fresh water (e.g., water impoundments) are an important conservation concern (Gruver and Keinath 2006). Livestock grazing may indirectly benefit bat species through the construction of additional water sources (Chung- MacCoubrey 1996)

At least 14 species of bats occur in northeastern Oregon. The three sensitive bat species are: Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), and fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes).

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) The Townsend's big-eared bat occurs throughout the West. Distribution of this species is strongly correlated with the availability of caves and cave-like roosting habitat. Townsend's big-eared bats have adapted to a variety of man-made structures, most commonly mines (Pierson et al. 1999). This species has also been found in abandoned buildings with cave-like attics, water diversion tunnels, and bridges.

Foraging associations include edge habitats along streams and areas adjacent to and within a variety of wooded habitats. Diet consists primarily of small moths; foraging occurs in flight or near vegetation where prey is gleaned from vegetation surfaces.

The project area does contain similar habitat features typically used by this species, including potential roost trees and open forest foraging areas.

Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum) Spotted bats use a variety of habitats including open ponderosa pine, desert scrub, pinon-juniper, and open pastures and hay fields. Prominent rock features appear to be a necessary feature for roosting. They appear to be solitary animals, but occasionally roost or hibernate in small groups. Roost sites are cracks, crevices, and caves, usually high in fractured rock cliffs. Winter range and hibernacula are unknown for most of its range, though the species has been captured year-round in the southern part of its range and is may be year-round in central Oregon with the exception of December and January (Western Bat Working Group 2005a).

Spotted bats forage primarily on moths, but do not appear to select particular moth species. They likely feed on any moth they encounter that is the appropriate handling size (8 to 12 millimeters long) (Western Bat Working Group 2005a). 304

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix C

No records exist for the project area, nor have there been any documented sightings within the project area. The Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (formerly Oregon Natural Heritage Program) does not show this species as present in Baker County (Oregon Biodiversity Information Center 2010). Cliffs and rock outcrops for roosting and potential foraging habitat exist in the project area.

Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Fringed myotis ranges through much of western North America. It occurs from sea level to 2,850 meters. Distribution is patchy, but appears to be most common in drier woodlands (oak, pinyon-juniper, ponderosa pine), but is also found in a wide variety of habitats including desert scrub, mesic coniferous forest, grassland, and sage-grass steppe (Western Bat Working Group 2005b).

Fringed myotis roost in crevices in buildings, underground mines, rocks, cliff faces, and bridges. Roosting in decadent trees and snags, particularly large ones, is common throughout its range in western U. S. and Canada. Roosts have been documented in a large variety of tree species and it is likely that structural characteristics (e.g., height, decay stage) rather than tree species play a greater role in selection of a snag or tree as a roost (Western Bat Working Group 2005b).

Fringed myotis forage along forest edges as well as the interior and feed on a variety of invertebrate taxa; the relative importance of prey items may vary according to prey availability, geography, or time period. The two most commonly reported orders in its diet are beetles (Coleoptera) and moths (Lepidoptera). However, several potentially flightless taxa such as Phalangida (harvestmen), Araneida (spiders), and Gryllidae (crickets) have been found in its diet. The presence of non-flying taxa in its diet indicates that the bat may glean prey from vegetation in addition to capturing prey on the wing (Western Bat Working Group 2005b).

No records exist for the project area, nor have there been any documented sightings within the project area. Potential roosting and foraging habitat exist in the project area.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects – alternative 1- The no action alternative would cease all grazing in these allotments. There would be no direct impacts to bats from this alternative. Indirect impacts may occur where water developments cease to be maintained, eliminating this drinking and foraging habitat for bats. Riparian areas that were previously open enough to provide drinking and foraging habitat, could become too brushy for bats to use, causing bats to shift their use to other areas.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects – action alternatives- Cattle grazing has no direct impact on bats. Indirectly, cattle may consume vegetation that serves as habitat for the insects that bats prey on. However, it is unlikely that the level of grazing in these allotments would impact insect prey availability significantly enough to cause a decline in bat populations. However, localized impacts to vegetation and associated insects could occur where cattle congregate, potentially causing bats to shift their foraging to alternate sites.

305

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix C

Where cattle concentrate in riparian areas, they may create more open water where bats can drink and forage. Grazing will have no impact on bat roost sites such as trees, snags, caves, or rock outcroppings. A reasonably forseeable project that has a potential to create a cumulative effect on bat species is the Puderbaugh vegetation management project. Timber harvest and prescribed burning have the potential to alter roosting and foraging habitat for these species. This habitat alteration may combine with the habitat alteration potentially caused by grazing to create a cumulative impact on foraging behavior and patterns. Because there is potential for grazing to cause bats to alter their foraging behavior, this project may impact individuals or habitat (MIIH) for the fringed myotis and Townsend’s big-eared bat, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Because the spotted bat is not thought to occur in Baker County, there would be no impact (NI) to the spotted bat or their habitat.

Western Bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis)

The western bumble bee is on the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list (http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy/). The western bumble bee was a common, widespread species throughout much of the west but populations of it along with 3 other bumble bee species have declined precipitously in the past two decades (Cameron et al. 2011). Bumble bees visit a range of flowers and are very important generalist pollinators. Their large, hairy bodies allow them to fly far and during cold, rainy weather that deters other pollinators such as honey bees (Andrews 2010). Bumble bees are obligate flower feeders, requiring flowers all season long. Nectar provides them with carbohydrates and pollen provides them with protein.

All bumble bees feed on a range of flower species over the course of the summer. However, some specific flowers require a specific species of bee for pollination. Different bumble bee species have different tongue lengths and are thus effective at pollinating flowers with different corolla lengths. The western bumble bee is a short-tongued bee (Koch et al. 2012) and thus is an effective pollinator of species such as oilseed rape. Bumble bees and some solitary bees can also perform buzz pollination. Some flowers have dry pollen hidden in a long tube that is forcibly expelled when vibrated at high frequencies. Tomatoes, blueberries, and cranberries are examples of buzz pollinated plants, while apples, melons, clover, and onion also benefit from bumble bee pollination (Koch et al. 2012).

Bumble bee colonies are annual, with queens emerging from hibernation in the spring to find existing holes, such as a rodent hole or a hole in a building foundation, in which to establish a colony. In late summer new queens mate, dig holes for overwintering, and the old queen, males, and workers die.

Until recently western bumble bees were widely distributed throughout the west from Alaska to Arizona and New Mexico, from the coast to the plains of central Canada, South Dakota and central Colorado (Milliron 1971). Historically it was collected in subalpine meadows, 306

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix C

high valleys, and coastlines and not collected in the drier areas of the Mojave Desert and the Great Basin. It is a generalist forager, with host plants including 661 species in 21 families. It also is a known nectar robber, biting holes in flowers with long corollas (Koch & Strange 2009). It has relatively high output with colonies observed to produce a mean of 1007 workers/males and 146 queens in one season (Macfarland et al. 1994).

The western bumble bee, like other bees, feeds on a wide variety of flowers. It is known to feed on species in the following genera: Melilotus, Cirsium, Trifolium, Centaurea, Chrysothamnus, Eriogonum. The foraging distance of bumble bees from their nests is believed to range from 500m to 11 km depending on species and availability of desirable forage (Osborne et al. 2008; Rao & Strange 2012). Different bumble bee species have different life history traits that make them near, or “door step” foragers, or more distance foragers (Darvill et al. 2004). But they also fly farther for flowers that offer more nectar or pollen (Osborne et al. 2008) and can exploit distant rare or unique resources (Batra 1993).

Research suggests that the decline of the western bumble bee is concentrated on the west coast (Koch et al. 2012). The decline is believed due to nonnative pathogens acquired during commercial rearing for greenhouse pollination (Otterstatter & Thomson 2008). Recent surveys on the Zumwalt Prairie in Wallowa County have documented the highest number of western bumble bees at a single Oregon location since the late 1990’s (Rao et al. 2011). The authors suggest this is due either to the isolation and distance from coastal populations or to possible resistance to the pathogens that decimated coastal populations.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects – alternative 1-

No action would result in no immediate direct effects. But instead there would be a gradual change of the plant community from one maintained by grazing to probably one with more fire due to increased dry grass and forb fuels leading to either larger and/or more frequent range fires. Without cattle grazing the community of flowering plants is likely to change but it is unknown if or how the seasonality of flowering would change. Because of the wide variety of elevations and aspects in Snake/Pine, access to continued flowering forage is likely not difficult for bumble bees. The western bumble bee is a generalist forager likely capable of foraging over large distances, so changes to flowering plant community resulting from no grazing would have subtle and slow effects. The community of rodents digging burrows that might be used by the bumblebee for nesting would likely change with vegetation changes but it is unknown how the rodent burrow resource would change. So much of this area is inaccessible or not readily accessible to cattle, that many areas are essentially refugia for insects that operate at a smaller scale than grazing animals.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects – action alternatives-

All action alternatives may directly impact individuals or habitat but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

307

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix C

The impact would occur to individuals in the possibility of trampling a nesting site, nesting colony, or individual.

Indirect effects would occur through the change in flowering forbs or nesting habitat. Very little research has been done on the effects of grazing and bees. But a recent study on the Zumwalt Prairie (Kimoto 2012) found that decreases in the number of blooming forbs occurred above about 20% utilization. Grazing also had variable effects on the diversity of species of bees found. Diversity of some species was unaffected, some were affected more by early season grazing, and some were more affected by late season grazing. Bumble bees as a group were particularly sensitive to grazing intensity, with abundance, diversity, and species richness affected during June but not July and August. However, even within this genus (Bombus) different species responded to different grazing intensities differently, probably due to different life history traits. Because the two years of the study varied significantly in temperature and precipitation, weather seemed to be the biggest driver of population dynamics in this study (Kimoto 2012).

Bumble bees are fairly strong fliers. This combined with the fact that the area is not fully accessible to grazing animals due to steep slopes ensures that there are areas not impacted by grazing. While some of the area is susceptible to and has suffered compaction, over 95% of it is not compacted (Geer, personal communication) and will likely remain this way.

Cumulative Effects

According to the botanist on this project, only the slopes less than 30% exceeded utilization, even in October immediately after the cattle were gone (Geer, personal communication). There is no way to know how much utilization is due to cattle vs. native deer and elk, so we do not know what the utilization level would be in the absence of cattle. The number of acres on the project area which is less than 30% slope is small so overall we would expect that if cattle grazing continues at current stocking levels, the western bumblebee will retain current numbers. If cattle were not present, it is possible that the western bumblebee may increase in number, due to slightly more floral resources. However, floral resources may not be the limiting factor for bumblebees in this area. Also, there may not be much of an increase in floral resources without cattle. The flattest areas within the project area (and most affected by cattle) are dominated by annual grasses, and may continue to be that way even in the absence of cattle. Other projects that could have cumulative impacts on floral resources and thus, western bumblebees, include the Puderbaugh Vegetation Management Project and associated thinning and burning. However, because bumblebees are generalists, they would likely shift their foraging to other areas and populations would not be negatively impacted.

All action alternatives may impact individuals or habitat (MIIH) for the western bumblebee, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

308

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix C

Intermountain sulphur (Colias occidentalis pseudochristina = Colias christina pseudochristina)

The intermountain sulphur butterfly is on the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list. This is a taxonomically unstable subspecies which has been classified differently by different authors (Pyle 2002, Warren 2005, Pelham 2008). Until recently it was classed by some as its own species, Colias pseudochristina (Hammond & McCorkle 2003), possessing some of the characters of C. occidentalis and some of C. christina. However, the most recent account (Pelham 2008) places it with the christina sulphur, C. christina. The christina sulphur is found from central Canada through the northern Rockies to South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, and eastern Oregon (Hammond and McCorkle 2003). The western sulphur, C. occidentalis, occurs from southern BC to central CA, east to Utah and western MT, but not Nevada (Opler et al. 2006). The subspecies intermountain sulphur is found in far northeastern Oregon including Wallowa County, eastern Union and Baker Counties, and western Asotin County Washington (Pelham 2008, Foltz 2009). Individuals from this area have not been studied in detail to compare them to the individuals defining the subspecies from northwestern Utah, nor to the specimens from the western slope of the Blue Mtns.

There is one generation a year with adults flying from late May to September depending on local conditions, peaking in June and July. Eggs are laid individually on larval host plants. Eggs hatch about a week after being laid and larvae feed a little during the summer. Third instar larvae overwinter in folded leaves of host plants (Pyle 2002). Larval food plants are therefore important all year long for both feeding and overwintering.

Larval food plants include several species of Lathyrus in the pea family, L. brachycalix, L. lanzwertii, L. nevadensis, and L. pauciflorus (Foltz 2009) and also false lupine, Thermopsis montana. While L. rigidus co-occurs with this butterfly, some authors believe it rarely if ever utilizes this species (Hammond & McCorkle 2003). In the Blue Mountains these Lathyrus species are generally associated with forests and forest edges and are known from the Snake River (northern) allotment where this habitat is more common (Geer 2013).

Adults have been collected from 1400’ elevation along the Grande Ronde River, at 3000’ on the Imnaha, near Wallowa, near Baker City, near Medical Springs on Big Creek, and around 7000’ feet in the Eagle Caps (Foltz 2009). The adults are strong fliers and primary habitat is apparently open woodland from 2600-5000 feet elevation including roadsides, meadows, forest openings and edges and steep sunny slopes (Carleton et al. 2012). Adults nectar at a variety of plants as well as at mud puddles (Opler et al. 2006). In Canada C. Christina adults fed on Erigeron, Solidago, and Sedum (Ezzeddine & Matter 2008).

Current threats to this subspecies include agricultural conversion of adult nectar and larval forage habitat. Other possible threats are insecticide spraying for grasshopper control, particularly if larval foodplants are sprayed.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects – alternative 1- 309

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix C

No action would result in no direct effects but likely indirect effects through changes in abundance of host plants. Cattle are known to feed on Lathyrus (Geer 2013) so initially without grazing they may produce more or larger plants or seeds. The effect over time on the plant community and indirectly the butterfly is unknown.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects – action alternatives-

All action alternatives may directly impact individuals or habitat but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. The impact would occur through the grazing of larval food plants, of food plants with larvae on them, and the change in nectar plants for adults. Due to the steep terrain that is in many areas inaccessible to cattle, there are numerous refugia for the intermountain sulphur and both its larval and adult host plants.

Cumulative Effects

Reasonably forseeable projects that include alteration of vegetation such as the Puderbaugh Vegetation Management Project have the potential to contribute to cumulative effects for this species. Any actions that increase the proportion of forest openings may cause an increase in the Lathyrus plant resource. It is unclear whether thinning and burning would cause an increase or decrease in Lathyrus distribution. However, it is unlikely this change would result in a population-level response from the intermountain sulphur. All action alternatives may impact individuals or habitat (MIIH) for the intermountain sulphur, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

References

Andrews, H. 2010. Species fact sheet: western bumble bee. USDA FS. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml. (1 May 2013).

Anthony, R.G. and F.B. Isaacs. 1989. Characteristics of bald eagle nest sites in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:148 159

Batra, S.W.T. 1993. Opportunistic bumble bees congregate to feed at rare, distant alpine honeydew bonanzas. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society. 66(1): 125-127.

Black, S.H. and L. Lauvray. 2005. Species Fact Sheet, Johnson’s Hairstreak. Prepared by the Xerces Society, Portland, OR. 8 pp.

Bull, E.L., and B.E. Carter. 1996. Tailed frogs: distribution, ecology, and association with timber harvest in northeast Oregon. USDA Pacific NW Research Station. PNW-RP 497. 310

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix C

Cameron, S.A.; Lozier, J.D.; Strange, J.P. [et al.]. 2011. Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108(2): 662-667.

Carleton, A.; Burd, L.A.; Jepsen, S.; Jordan, S.F. 2012. Final report on Umatilla National Forest surveys for the Intermountain sulphur butterfly (Colias occidentalis pseudochristina = Colias christina pseudochristina). 26 p.

Corkran, Charlotte C. and C. R. Thomas. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. Lone Pine Publishing, Redmond WA.

Darvill, B.; Knight, M.E.; Goulson, D. 2004. Use of genetic markers to quantify bumble bee foraging range and nest density. OIKOS. 107: 471-478.

Ezzeddine, M.; Matter, S.F. 2008. Nectar flower use and electivity by butterflies in subalpine meadows. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society. 62(3): 138-142.

Fleckenstein, J. 2006. Meadow fritillary, species fact sheet. Natural Heritage Progam, Washington Dept. of Natural Resources, Olympia WA. 3 pp.

Foltz, S. 2009. Colias occidentalis pseudochristina fact sheet. Prepared for the Interagency Special Status / Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP) by the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Available online: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/planning- documents/species-guides.shtml, last accessed 1 October 2012.

Geer, Susan. 2013. Personal communication with Lia Spiegel, Blue Mountains Insect and Disease Service Center, USFS, La Grande, OR.

Hammond, P.; McCorkle, D.V. 2003. A new desert subspecies of Colias occidentalis (Pieridae) from southeastern Oregon. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society. 57(4): 274-278.

311

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix C

Kaminski, T., and J. Hansen. 1984. Wolves of central Idaho. Unpublished report. Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Missoula

Kimoto, C. 2011. Effect of livestock grazing on native bees in a Pacific Northwest bunchgrass prairie. Oregon State University. 153 p.

Koch, J.B.; Strange, J.P.; Williams, P. 2012. Bumble bees of the Western United States. FS-972(W). USDA Forest Service and The Pollinator Partnership. 144p.

Leonard, W.P,, H.A. Brown, L.L.C. Jones, K.R. McAllister, and R.M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society. 168 pp.

Marshall, D.B. 1997. Status of the white-headed woodpecker in Oregon and Washington. Audubon Society of Portland, 5151 NW Cornell Road, Portland, OR 97210

Marshall, D.B., M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, Eds. 2003. Birds of Oregon: A general Reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768p.

Macfarlane, R.P.; Patten, K.D.; Royce, L.A. [et al.]. 1994. Management potential of sixteen North American bumble bee species. . Melanderia. 50: 1-12.

Milliron, H.E. 1971. A monograph of the western hemisphere bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae; Bombinae) I. The genera Bombus and Megabombus subgenus Bombias. Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada 82: iii- 80.

NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.4. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/.

Opler, P.A., Pavulaan, H., Stanford, R.E. and M. Pogue, coordinators. 2006. Butterflies and Moths of North America. Bozeman, MT: Big Sky Institute. . Accessed May 2, 2013.

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center. 2010. Rare, threatened and endangered species of Oregon. Available online: http://orbic.pdu.edu

312

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix C

Osborne, J.L.; Martin, A.P.; Carreck, N.L. [et al.]. 2008. Bumblebee flight distances in relation to the forage landscape. Journal of Animal Ecology. 77(2): 406-415. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01333.x.

Otterstatter, M. C., and J. D. Thomson. 2008. Does pathogen spillover from commercially reared bumble bees threaten wild pollinators? PloS One 3(7): e2772.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002771.

Pelham, J.P. 2008. A catalogue of the butterflies of the United States and Canada with a complete bibliography of the descriptive and systematic literature. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera. 40: 658p. Pyle, R. M. 2002. Butterflies of Cascadia. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington.

Rao, S.; Stephen, W.P.; Kimoto, C.; DeBano, S.J. 2011. The status of the 'red-listed' Bombus occidentalis (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) in Northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science. 85(1): 64-67.

Rao, S.; Strange, J.P. 2012. Bumblebee (Hymenoptera:Apidae) foraging distance and colony density associated with a late-season mass flowering crop. Environmental Entomology. 41(4): 905-915.Rambo, J.L and S.T. Faeth. 1999. Effect of vertebrate grazing on plant and insect community structure. Conservation Biology 13:1047-1054

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Updated Regional Forester’s Sensitive Animal List. 2670/1950 Memo (to Forest Supervisors). U.S. Dept.of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service- Pacific Northwest Region (6). Portland, OR. July 2004.

313

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix C

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan, Wallowa-Whtiman National Forest (“Forest Plan”). Baker City, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (6), Wallowa-Whtiman National Forest. Sept.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon. 160p.

Verts, B.J. and L.N. Carraway. 1998. Land Mammals of Oregon. University of California Pres. Berkeley, California. 668p

Warren, A.D. 2005. Butterflies of Oregon: Their taxonomy, distribution, and biology. Lepidoptera of North America 6. Vol. Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity. Ft Collins, CO: Colorado State University. 408p.

Western Bat Working Group. 2005a. Species account: Spotted bat. On-line: www.wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/.

Western Bat Working Group. 2005b. Species account: Fringed myotis. On-line: www.wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/.

314

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix D

Appendix D – Response to Comments Appendix D – Comments and Responses

Comments were solicited during a 30-day comment period for the EA. The following responses to comments were formed by the Interdisciplinary Team and the Deciding Official.

Comment 1 - The Forest Service must prepare an EIS for all major federal actions that “may significantly affect the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). An agency may first prepare an EA to determine whether the action may have a significant environmental effect, thus requiring an EIS. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.4, 1508.9. The factors used to determine significance are “context” and “intensity” and include consideration of the unique characteristics of the geographic area, public controversy, the uncertainty of the project’s possible effects, and whether the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its critical habitat. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27.

In this instance the Forest Service should prepare an EIS because the proposed project would issue Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) and reauthorize grazing for at least the next ten years for two grazing allotments, covering 26,470 acres, within congressionally designated wilderness and the nationally recognized significant area of the HCNRA, contain federally designated critical habitat for bull trout and habitat for sensitive redband trout, and numerous sensitive plant species. An EIS is also necessary to gather additional monitoring data, data that the EA failed to present and that is necessary to support a determination that these special resources have been, and will be, under the selected action, adequately protected. [HCPC]

Response 1 – The Finding of No Significant Impact included in the Decision Notice documents no significant impacts will occur as a result of implementing Alternative 2. The effects analyses for each individual resource area documents Alternative 2’s consistency with laws, regulations and policy (EA Appendix B – Consistency Review). Therefore, an EIS in not warranted for this project.

Comment 2 - NEPA requires that federal agencies provide a detailed evaluation of alternatives to the proposed action in every NEPA document. 42 U.S.C. § 4332; 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a). This discussion of alternatives is essential to NEPA’s statutory scheme and underlying purpose. See, e.g., Bob Marshall Alliance v. Hodel, 852 F.2d 1223, 1228 (9th Cir. 1988), cited in Alaska Wilderness Recreation & Tourism Ass’n v. Morrison, 67 F.3d 723, 729 (9th Cir. 1995). Indeed, NEPA’s implementing regulations recognize that the consideration of alternatives is “the heart of the environmental impact statement.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. The Forest Service must “[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives” in order “to restore and enhance the quality of the human environment and avoid or minimize any possible adverse effects of [the agency’s] actions upon the quality of the human environment.” 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14(a), 1500.2(f).

HCPC requested in their scoping comments that the Forest Service consider, in detail, an alternative that would reduce grazing levels, implement a rest-rotation schedule, and other management techniques that will prioritize the management and enhancement of natural

315

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix D

resources, such as water quality, streamside areas, and fish habitat over the reallocation of livestock grazing, as required by the WWNF Forest Plan. (Forest Plan, 4-22). We reiterated that request in our initial EA comments and noted it in our appeal. The Forest Service did not, however, consider such an alternative. Instead, the Forest Service considered three alternatives: a No Action/No Grazing Alternative (Alternative 1), the Proposed Alternative (Alternative 2) – which amounts to the continuation of current grazing management without any real change – and a Rest Rotation Alternative (Alternative 3) which would allow the same level of grazing but requires that every fourth year the allotments be “rested”. EA 19-28. The agency justified not looked at reducing the number of authorized livestock because “analysis of forage capacity and big-game populations has determined that the levels of livestock grazing authorized under current management strategies provide for basic plant and wildlife needs”. EA 19. This misses the point. HCPC requested the consideration of an alternative that prioritizes the protection of natural resources, as required throughout the WWNF Forest Plan and the HCNRA Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP). Such an alternative doesn't necessitate ending livestock grazing on these allotments, it simply requires the Forest Service to consider modifying grazing management in a way that maximizes natural resource protection. While Alternative 3 was a step in the right direction it did not go far enough. [HCPC]

Response 2 – Key Issues are developed to address resource or social concerns through alternatives, monitoring, or mitigation. Key issue development did not see the need for alternative development “that will prioritize the management and enhancement of natural resources, such as water quality, streamside areas, and fish habitat”. As discussed in the EA (pages 87-145), any existing and predicted future effects from livestock management on stream/riparian are not measureable, and do not warrant a specific alternative to address these natural resources. Further, while alternative 2 uses current management as a basis for the alternative, there are several differences in management identified in this alternative. The EA includes changes to utilization standards in unsatisfactory sites, introduction of new protection measures that will become part of the term-grazing permit, livestock distribution aids like fencing and water developments, and adaptive management to respond to future changes in condition of vegetation and soil crusts. Alternative 3 would enforce a rest-rotation grazing system that would reduce the average head months over any four year period from 901 head months to 677 head months per year (pg. 31, 209). This alternative not only includes a rest-rotation, where every fourth year there will be no authorized use of livestock on the allotments, but this rest is also considered a reduction in the amount of permitted use within the project area.

Comment 3 - The EA fails to assess the impacts of large amounts of livestock waste deposited on the land, with nutrients, coliform bacteria and other disease organisms washing into downstream waters. This assessment should determine the amount of vegetation available to slow down water and nutrient runoff into these stream systems. The primary cause of water quality degradation on the public lands is pollution from nonpoint sources. As you likely know, the evidence linking livestock grazing to riparian degradation and water quality problems is overwhelming and conclusive. Grazing degrades water quality by causing bacterial contamination, decreasing oxygen levels, stimulating algal blooms, and causing increased water temperatures as a result of trampled stream banks and denuded riparian vegetation. See, e.g., A.J. Belsky et al., “Survey of Livestock Influences on Stream and Riparian Ecosystems in the Western United States,” 54 J. Soil & Water Cons. 419 (1999). A more thorough analysis is required to address this concern. [HCPC]

316

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix D

Response 3 – As shown in the EA (Fisheries and Hydrology sections), there was little access by cattle observed in channels throughout the allotments. As a result, non-point source bacterial contamination was not thought to be a significant issue, and riparian degradation, or impairment of vegetation needed to slow down runoff and nutrients was not observed in the allotments. Further, research conducted and summarized in Roche et al. (2013) indicates that there are many factors that influence the amount of water quality degradation as a result of livestock waste deposited on the landscape, and that the effect of livestock waste from forest allotments is uncertain. The conclusion from Roche et al. (2013) suggests that cattle grazing, recreation, and provisioning of clean water can be compatible goals across National Forest Lands. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are used to manage any water quality issues from “non-point” sources as they are identified. Monitoring and assessment of streams indicate that BMPs are being applied and achieved throughout both allotments (p. 128-145). Information on streambank stability and riparian vegetation conditions are found in the Fisheries and Hydrology sections of the EA. Field visits confirmed conditions reported in the PFC surveys (p. 91). PIBO and MIM survey results show data on bank stability in Duck Cr. and McGraw Cr. that has been consistently over 94% (p. 61, 68). There was no evidence from the Hankin and Reeve stream surveys, PFC surveys, MIM survey, PIBO surveys, or field visits that suggest that grazing is causing trampled stream banks or denuded riparian vegetation. Recent field visits found little evidence of livestock use in the Snake/Pine riparian areas at all, which is consistent with previous surveys/observations. We do not expect to see changes to water quality related to this project

Comment 4 - A “near natural rate of recovery” of degraded riparian features is synonymous with INFISH’s obligation to not “retard” or “measurably slow” attainment of RMOs. In other words, the “do not retard” standard prohibits status quo grazing practices where those practices are degrading, or merely maintaining degraded, ecological conditions. Instead, the Forest Service has an affirmative duty to evaluate RMO trends over time and move toward attainment of RMOs and riparian recovery. [HCPC]

Response 4 – This excerpt from INFISH clarifies the application of INFISH RMOs: “Landscape- scale interim RMOs describing good habitat for inland native fish were developed using stream inventory data for pool frequency, large wood, bank stability, lower bank angle, and width to depth ratio. All of the described features (RMOs) may not occur in a specific segment of stream within a watershed, but all generally should occur at the watershed scale for stream systems of moderate to large size (3rd to 7th order).”

Livestock are not able to physically access the majority of the streams in the Snake/Pine AMP allotments. Therefore, at the landscape or watershed scale, cattle grazing in the allotments would not slow or retard the attainment of the RMOs (p. 120-122, response #2 and #3).

317

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix D

use in the Snake/Pine riparian areas, which is consistent with previous surveys/observations. We do not expect to see changes to water quality related to this project

Comment 5 - The EA states that the Snake/Pine allotment area includes approximately 43.7 miles of perennially-flowing streams that provide habitat for aquatic organisms, with portions of seven streams known to be fish-bearing. Additional stream reaches are suspected to support seasonal use by fish. Some perennial streams in allotments support populations of inland redband trout. EA 83. Of the seven confirmed fishbearing streams, stream habitat surveys have been conducted on three of the seven streams. EA 85. PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion (PIBO) monitoring was conducted on two streams within the allotments. EA 87. No bank stability data was included in any of the stream surveys. Duck creek was the only stream where temperature was monitored. EA 89. All streams surveyed had pool frequencies below RMOs. EA 88. Only two streams surveyed had data width to depth ratio data collected. EA 89. One of the three streams surveyed did not meet the large woody debris RMO.

Despite this lack of qualitative data, the EA concludes that the majority of streams within the Snake/Pine allotment areas “are in good condition with a high percentage of stable streambanks and the majority of streams properly functioning or functioning at risk with an upward trend toward properly functioning”. EA 101. Agency reliance on stale data or is arbitrary and capricious. See Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1031 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that thirteen year old habitat data and six year old fish population counts were stale and not sufficient as evidence of current habitat conditions or trends); McNair, 537 F.3d at 998 (stating that decision is arbitrary and capricious where agency based conclusions on outdated or inaccurate information). In this case, the sparse data that was collected showed certain RMOs were not being met and data for other RMOs affected by livestock grazing, such as temperature, does not exist. Here, the Forest Service lacks sufficient monitoring data to effectively demonstrate compliance with INFISH and Forest Plan riparian management objectives. Compliance must be shown prior to finalization of the Snake/Pine EA.

Response 5 – This excerpt from INFISH clarifies the application of INFISH RMOs: “Landscape- scale interim RMOs describing good habitat for inland native fish were developed using stream inventory data for pool frequency, large wood, bank stability, lower bank angle, and width to depth ratio. All of the described features (RMOs) may not occur in a specific segment of stream within a watershed, but all generally should occur at the watershed scale for stream systems of moderate to large size (3rd to 7th order).” Further, the RMOs within the INFISH document are identified as interim, and all RMOs may not occur or reflect the inherent capability of different stream types.

Stream bank stability information was not available from the Hankin and Reeves stream surveys. However, MIM (PIBO) streambank stability data shows that stability on monitored streams is greater than 94% (p. 61, 68). In addition, field visits during the spring of 2012 and 2013 and PFC surveys conducted in 1997 and 2009, while not quantitative, indicate little if any grazing induced bank stability issues (p. 89, 91, 94).

318

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix D

Temperature data is available for Duck Creek (forest monitoring) and McGraw Creek (PIBO) (p. 92, 94-95) within the project boundary. Monitoring on McGraw creek shows that the 7-day running average in 2003 was 66oF which is below the ODEQ standard for Redband Trout of 68oF. Temperature monitoring on Duck Creek however has shown that the 7-day running average is higher than the ODEQ standard for Bulltrout of 53.6oF. However, since stream systems within the project area are mostly inaccessible to livestock (due to physical barriers and terrain), livestock grazing is unlikely to affect stream shade or to increase stream temperatures (p. 94, 122). In all portions of these streams shrub utilization standards would protect the overall health of shrubs and maintain or enhance stream shade (p. 122)

Some of the data used in the EA dates to 1994 (ODFW) and 1997 (USFS). Field checks in 2012 and 2013 by the IDT; PFC surveys in 2009; and PIBO/MIMS monitoring in 2002, 2003, 2008, 2007, and 2012 was used to determine the validity of the survey data to current conditions within the project area. Based on the follow up surveys and monitoring the Forest Service judges the stream survey data to be relevant.

There was no evidence from the Hankin and Reeve stream surveys, PFC surveys, MIM survey, PIBO surveys, or field visits that suggest that grazing is retarding the attainment of RMOs. Further, it is unlikely that a change in RMOs condition would occur due to grazing as there is little evidence of livestock disturbance in the streams or riparian areas (p. 120-122, 135-138). The EA states that the only functioning at risk reach is North Pine Creek with no expected change in its present level of function due to historic mining activity and the effect of roads. These conclusions are based on field reviews done in 2008, 2009, and 2012 (pg. 90-95, 102-104, 135-138). Discussion of potential effects to RMOs is found on pages 120-122. Refer to Appendix B – Consistency Review that shows how Alternative 2 complies with the Forest Plan and HCNRA CMP pages B1-B18.

Comment 6 - The detrimental effects of cattle grazing on wildlife and federally listed threatened and endangered species are numerous and far reaching. Nearly one-quarter of all of the imperiled species listed under the ESA are imperiled by livestock grazing.1 Grazing depletes food sources necessary for sustaining wildlife by denuding the landscape of vegetation. Native plants are integral components of the ecosystem, and they not only provide direct nutritional value for herbivorous species, but this serves to nourish the prey base for carnivorous ones. As native vegetation is overgrazed, exotic weeds invade, threatening grass and shrub ecosystems and disturbing the soil surface. Even under moderate stocking rates, livestock grazing can substantially contributes to deterioration of soil stability. In the allotment area there are additional concerns regarding biological soil crusts. This leads to increased soil erosion. Soil erosion is further exacerbated by increased surface runoff triggered by loss of vegetation cover and litter, both of which have been shown by numerous studies to be reduced by livestock grazing. Soil erosion in turn leads to high turbidity. Higher turbidity increases water temperatures because suspended particles absorb more heat. This, in turn, reduces the concentration of dissolved oxygen (DO) because warm water holds less DO than cold. Higher turbidity also reduces the amount of light penetrating the water, which reduces photosynthesis and the production of DO. Suspended materials can clog fish gills, reducing resistance to disease in fish, lowering growth rates, and affecting egg and larval development. As the particles settle, they can blanket the stream bottom, especially in slower waters, and smother fish eggs. [HCPC]

319

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix D

1 Flather, C. T., L. A. Joyce, and C. A. Bloomgarden. 1994. Species endangerment patterns in the United States. Pp. 42. USDA Forest Service, Ft Collins.

Response 6 – There is no indication that there are any federally listed species within the Snake/Pine project area. Surveys for all 4 federally listed plant species provided by the USFWS in their 8/1/2013 updated lists for Baker and Wallowa counties were done. These were done at the correct time of year between 2009 and 2013. None of the federally listed species were found (p. 172-185). Further, the list of federally threatened and endangered wildlife species was reviewed for this project and there are no threatened or endangered terrestrial wildlife species within the Snake Pine project area (p. 186-197). A biological assessment (BA) was created to address impacts to Designated Critical Habitat for Bulltrout even though there is no known occupied habitat for this species within the project area (p. 107). The BA determined that this project May Effect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Effect bull trout critical habitat. This determination was supported by a Letter of Concurrence from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (project file). As shown in the above reference, livestock grazing can affect species that are listed under the endangered species act, however; there is no indication that there are any federally listed species within the Snake/Pine project area.

The current estimates of detrimental soil conditions in the SPRAA are consistent with the Forest Plan’s standards and guidelines. No allotment exceeds the 20% standard for detrimental soil conditions (Table 3-47, p. 149). Generally, soil stability conditions were either static or improving for C&T plots, and indicated increases in native bunchgrasses, while monitoring data and IIRH assessments show slight to moderate deviation of soil stability expected for the site. Natural soil stability processes appear to be satisfactorily maintaining soil integrity, productivity and overall rangeland health (p. 153, 155-157). The grazing land analysis section of this document also indicates that the trend in rangeland conditions has improved over the last 50 years, with substantial improvement in ecological status and increases in native grass species and ground cover. These improvements are most likely slowing the rate of soil erosion and are associated with improved soil productivity of previously disturbed areas. US Forest Service guidelines include a minimum effective ground cover of 60-70% on rangelands to prevent accelerated erosion (USFS 1978, USFS 1984). Long-term monitoring of ground cover in the SPRAA show increased effective ground cover since the 1960s. Generally, soil stability conditions were either static or improving for C&T plots, and indicated increases in native bunchgrasses. As long-term C&T monitoring of ground cover indicates, recovery would continue from past conditions. Five of the 6 Snake River C&T plots have greater than 70 percent effective ground cover. Four of the 7 North Pine C&T plots have grater than 60 percent effective ground cover (p. 55-60, 63-67, 153). Many of these sites that are below the recommended ground cover guidelines are shallow rocky wheatgrass/buckwheat plant associations with low natural herbage cover and naturally high bare ground and rock/gravel cover (upwards of 61% in mid-seral stage communties). There was also no evidence from the Hankin and Reeve stream surveys, PFC surveys, MIM survey, PIBO surveys, or field visits that suggest that grazing is causing streambank instability or reduction in riparian vegetation. Erosion of streambanks and loss of vegetative cover could increase turbidity in streams, however; data and field visits show the majority of streambanks meet or exceed the RMO of 80% stable banks. McGraw Creek has unstable banks related to flood events (page 91, 102-103, and response #3). Because of the limited access to riparian areas, the soil stability and ground cover, and the increases in vegetation, we do not expect turbidity issues related to grazing in the SPRAA.

320

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix D

Comment 7 - With regards to unique and sensitive biological soil crusts the HCNRA CMP requires the Forest Service to: conduct management activities in a manner that maintains, enhances and facilitates restoration of healthy biological soil crust communities; develop through project level planning management objectives that include desired levels of biological soil crust development based on site capability and rangeland health indicators of site stability and nutrient cycling; implement changes in management activities to reduce or eliminate unacceptable impacts (e.g. changes in the timing intensity frequency or duration of the activity); and in areas with high potential or current biological soil crust development consider grazing strategies that minimize the frequency of surface disturbance during dry periods and in the spring to allow re-growth Encourage use of grazing systems that maximize the time between disturbances. CMP C-64-65. The Forest Service’s cursory analysis provides little information on the current conditions of biological soil crust communities within the Snake/Pine allotment and even less information to support a finding that the above requirements relating to this special resource are being met. See EA 161 (Alternatives 2 and 3 would meet Forest Plan and HCNRA CMP goals, desired future conditions and objectives because livestock would be managed on the allotments utilizing adaptive management practices, protection measures, and monitoring to address any site-specific issues as they are identified). This is of particular concern given that grazing within the allotment area occurs during both the growing, mid-wet season and throughout the entire summer period when the crusts are dry, brittle and most sensitive to disturbance.

Response 7 – Data collected during the past 2 field seasons have been compiled and a more thorough analysis has been provided in the EA. This data provides information about current conditions of biocrust in the project area. We do recognize that under Alternatives 2 and 3 grazing would continue during the dry summer season when crusts are brittle and sensitive to disturbance, however, the use of Range Readiness Indicators that require dry ground conditions prior to turn-out of livestock, should reduce the impacts to biological soil crusts during the growing and mid-wet season. In response, we are adding required biocrust monitoring to the alternatives. As described in the EA, monitoring at all 9 C&T sites where biocrust was assessed in 2012-13 will also include biocrust monitoring in future visits (every 5-10 years), and monitoring at sites which are currently considered unsatisfactory range condition (p. 55-60, 63-67, and response #6), will occur more often (3-5 years). Monitoring will be done using the protocol outlined in the “Biological Soil Crust” report; if a significant decrease in combined number of biocrust and plant base points is seen, the adaptive management utilization reductions outlined in the Range section of the EA will be implemented.

Alternative 3 addresses grazing strategies that minimize the frequency of soil disturbance, as well as CMP C-64-65 (p. 284-285). Implementation of rest-rotation strategies that minimize frequency of surface disturbance during dry seasons and maximize rest periods between disturbances will reduce impacts to biological soil crusts (Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology & Management Technical Reference 1730-2, pg. 68). The proposed action, alternative 2, also addresses this concern and would implement guidance from the Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology & Management Technical Reference 1730-2 page 68, such as emphasis of the dispersal of livestock throughout usable potions of pastures. Ways to disperse livestock include: locating water and salt (or other supplements) on sites with low potential for biological crust development and in areas that discourage livestock from loitering. In many areas, sites with high rock cover are good options.

321

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix D

Livestock trailing preferences need to be considered when evaluating locations. Using brush barriers or fence segments divert trailing. Sites with high potential for biological crust development are often not preferred by livestock for forage; however, these same sites may be open and easy to walk across. Because of lack of forage, minimal barriers are usually sufficient to discourage access. Stocking levels and season of use should be ascertained on an annual basis, with optimal coverage of both vascular plants and biological soil crusts as the management goal. Optimal coverage should be based on site capability and rangeland health indicators of site stability and nutrient cycling.

Comment 8 - Further, the EA admits that commercial livestock grazing is detrimentally affecting soil conditions in the allotments and that the detrimental soil conditions would improve with cessation of livestock grazing. EA 150, 153. Similarly, the EA admits that continuation of current management would result in the introduction of new invasive species and the dispersal of invasive species into new areas. EA 207. Despite this, the agency’s proposed alternative would allow current management to continue without any modification. The agency should have analyzed an alternative that would prioritize the management and enhancement of natural resources by requiring more management of cattle with regards to their impacts on soils and invasive species.

Response 8 – See response to comment #2. As shown in the EA invasive non-native species have the potential to increase and spread regardless of which alternative is chosen. The risk, while higher under the two action alternatives, could still exist even without the authorization of project activities. However, regional standards, mitigation measures, and project design features would likely reduce the risk associated with new introductions, spread, and establishment of invasive non-native species under all action alternatives (p. 214-225). Further, the EA (p. 148- 150), through a combination of soil condition surveys and general reconnaissance, indicate that greater than 80 percent of the SPRAA Capable Lands are currently being maintained with non- detrimental soil conditions (Table 3-47) and that no allotment exceeds the 20% standard for detrimental soil conditions. The rangeland analysis section also indicates that the trend in rangeland conditions has improved over the last 50 years, with substantial improvement in ecological status and increases in native grass species and ground cover. These improvements are most likely associated with improved soil productivity of previously disturbed areas. Further, the grazing land analysis section of this document also indicates that the trend in rangeland conditions has improved over the last 50 years, with substantial improvement in ecological status and increases in native grass species and ground cover. These improvements are most likely slowing the rate of soil erosion and are associated with improved soil productivity of previously disturbed areas which could limit the spread and establishment of invasive non-native species.

Comment 9 – The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires the Forest Service “to provide for diversity of plant and animal communities” in the national forests. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(g)(3)(B). To comply with this requirement, the 1990 WWNF Forest Plan designated resident trout (including both bull trout and redband trout) as MIS, consistent with the NFMA regulations in effect at the time. 36 C.F.R. § 219.19 (1990) (Forest Service has a duty to manage fish and wildlife habitat “to maintain viable populations of existing native vertebrate species in the planning area.”). MIS are proxies used to measure the effects of Forest Service management strategies on the forest, species diversity and species population viability. Species were selected as MIS because their population changes were believed to indicate the effects of management activities.

322

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix D

See 36 C.F.R. 219.19(a)(1)(1990). By monitoring and analyzing impacts to MIS, the Forest Service can gauge the overall health and trends of other species within the forest, without incurring the time and expense of studying each species individually. Inland Empire Pub. Lands Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 88 F.3d 754, 762 n.11 (9th Cir.1996). To ensure the viability of MIS, the Forest Service must: 1) provide habitat to support, at least, a minimum number of reproductive individuals and 2) provide habitat that is well-distributed so that those individuals can interact with others in the planning area. (Forest Plan incorporating 36 CFR §219.19). In order to meet the above requirements, the agency must monitor MIS population trends and determine how those species react to habitat changes. 36 CFR § 219.19(a)(6). Viability determinations are best made by gathering population monitoring data, which document population trends and provides a baseline for estimating the effects of a proposed project. Under limited circumstances, assessment of the habitat needs for any given MIS may qualify for a sufficient viability determination. This assessment is known as the proxy-on-proxy approach whereby the Forest Service use[s] habitat as a proxy to measure a species‘ population, and then use[s] that species‘ population as a proxy for the population of other species. NEC v. Tidwell, 599 F.3d at 933. This approach may be applied only where both the Forest Service's knowledge of what quality and quantity of habitat is necessary to support the species and the Forest Service's method for measuring the existing amount of that habitat are reasonably reliable and accurate. Id. (internal quotations omitted); see also Lands Council II, 537 F.3d 981, 998 (9th Cir. 2008); Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund v. Goodman, 505 F.3d 884, 890-91 (9th Cir. 2007).

The Forest Plan requires the Forest Service to "assure that habitat quality and populations [of anadromous and resident trout] are being maintained or improved" with a variability threshold of "any reduction in habitat quality or population." WWNF LRMP, 5-10. The Forest Plan additionally requires the Forest Service to conduct annual monitoring. Id. Having selected resident trout as MIS in the Forest Plan and committed to monitoring these species' habitat capability, the Forest Service actually must evaluate the condition of these MIS species in undertaking its management actions. The Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1033–34 (9th Cir. 2005). The EA demonstrates that the agency has failed to monitor habitat to determine whether management activities, including grazing, are causing habitat to decline below the Forest Plan variability threshold. The Forest Service cannot rely upon stale habitat data to satisfy this obligation. Lands Council, 395 F.3d at 1031 (impermissible for Forest Service to use 13-year-old fish habitat survey, even where updated by 6-year-old fish count surveys). The EA also demonstrates that the Forest Service has never conducted population surveys or sampling on any regular and consistent basis in order to estimate fish population levels. Thus, the Forest Service has ignored or simply given up on its NFMA and Forest Plan obligation to monitor MIS fish habitat and populations.

Because the Forest Service lacks data on resident trout population trends it must rely on the habitat proxy approach to demonstrate viability, however, the agency fails to present data on what quality and quantity of habitat is necessary to support viable populations of resident trout on the forest. While the EA provides estimates on the amount of occupied redband habitat throughout the forest, EA 114, the agency never assesses whether these estimates reflect the requisite quantity and quality of habitat to maintain viable redband populations. Even if the project area only encompasses a small percentage of resident trout habitat on the forest, the Forest Service lacks knowledge of what quantity and quality is necessary for the species to remain viable and whether enough quality habitat currently exists on the forest. If there is currently not enough habitat of a sufficient quality to maintain viable populations of resident trout on the forest, then it would seem to logically follow that the degradation of even a small percentage of that remaining

323

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix D

habitat would further threaten the viability of forest-wide populations. As such, the Forest Service is unable to reasonably support its conclusion that grazing under alternatives 2 and 3, direct impacts to MIS fish species in areas accessible to cattle would be offset by increasing the rate of recovery of riparian and aquatic habitats. EA 121.

Response 9 – As outlined in the Forest Plan bulltrout are not an MIS species. Native trout refers to “true trout” or those within the Onchorhynchus genus. Bull trout belong to the genus Salvelinus. Steelhead and Redband are the aquatic MIS on the Wallowa-Whitman NF. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife tracks the status of redband trout which is the only MIS fish species with habitat in the SPRAA. The Snake/Pine EA includes a monitoring plan to determine whether standards, guidelines, and management prescriptions are being met and are effective in achieving expected results.

For fisheries, the amount of occupied MIS habitat on the Wallowa-Whitman NF ranges from about 990-1310 stream miles, depending on the species. Based on GIS analysis, surveys and field visits, the amount of MIS habitat in the project area (32 miles) represents a fraction of the overall miles of habitat for the entire forest.

Forest MIS in Proportion of MIS MIS Distribution Analysis habitat in Project Area (mi)* Area (mi) out of total on Forest Rainbow Trout/ Redband Trout 1310 32 2% Steelhead 990 0 0%

Since the majority of stream systems and riparian areas within the project are not accessible to livestock, the RMOs would be maintained and would allow the riparian areas to move in a desired direction at a near natural rate of recovery. Implementation of alternative 2 or 3 would prevent degradation of the few areas accessible to livestock through the use of utilization standards, herding, salt placement, alternate water sources, implementation monitoring, effectiveness monitoring, achievement of resource objectives and adaptive management by placing utilization standards on key riparian areas that would restrict the time livestock spend near the stream and riparian areas. These actions will help prevent the removal of key hydric stabilizers needed for streambank stability to prevent channel widening, prevent the removal of stream shade and prevent sedimentation to the stream channel. This would maintain or enhance riparian areas and move RMOs in a desired direction at a near natural rate of recovery.

Comment 10 - The EA failed to adequately analyze how ecosystem disturbance associated with livestock grazing along with the greenhouse gases released by livestock will promote climate change and global warming processes. Stating that “there is very little scientific data on the impacts of climate change within the ecosystems present on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest [and] [t]herefore, it is difficult to address how livestock grazing would affect climate change conditions” is insufficient. EA 69. There are an overwhelming number of reports that have looked at grazed livestock’s contribution to climate change as well as the impact of grazing on the environment’s ability to adapt to a changing climate. These resources could have been used in determining whether there are significant environmental impacts of the proposed action or ways to minimize any possible adverse effects. 324

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix D

Livestock grazing on public lands alters vegetation, soils, hydrology, and wildlife species composition and abundances in ways that exacerbate the effects of climate change on these resources. 2 Grazing negatively impacts riparian vegetation, water turbidity, and stream temperatures, this in turn affects fisheries as they respond to a changing climate. Compaction of soils reduces sequestration potential and can spur emission of global warming gases. Cows themselves produce methane - a green house gas much more potent than carbon. The grazing cow-calf section of the beef industry is the largest emitter of methane within the whole industry in the United States. Reducing landscape activities on our national forest lands that contribute to global warming and the landscapes ability to adapt to a changing climate not only reduces the costs of adapting to climate change but also the chance that irreversible or catastrophic damage will occur as a result of climate change. A full range of actions and alternatives to mitigate climate change effects should have been addressed in the EA.

Response 10 - We addressed climate change in the Snake Pine EA in Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects for the Rangeland Effects Analysis Cumulative Effects, Direct/indirect Effects of the alternatives, in the Fisheries section of Chapter 3, and Appendix A.

Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the many components which may be contributing to climate change. Miller (2005) stated that greenhouse gas emissions, specifically carbon dioxide, are increasing in the atmosphere. These emissions are expected to escalate the invasion of annual grasses and noxious weeds on rangeland as they thrive with increased levels of carbon dioxide (Miller 2005). Furthermore, according to Young and Clements (2003) and Cox and Anderson (2004), as [annual grasses] increase, they will inhibit plant succession by outcompeting native perennial grass seedlings for moisture. If climate change is truly having an impact on rangelands, and is elevating invasive species levels, the inhibiting plant succession effects may be compounded by a lack of grazing. In a study by West et al. (1982), thirteen years after the removal of livestock from an area with cheatgrass, the total herbaceous standing crop did not increase. Also, many of the perennial grasses decreased, and cheatgrass increased over the 13 year period.

According to Brown et al. (2010), methane gas is considered a greenhouse gas, and has increased within the atmosphere as a result of ruminant animals, the burning of natural gas, and emissions from landfills. Approximately 18 percent of agriculturally emitted greenhouse gasses are from grazed lands, and is not representative of carbon stored within the soils and forests (USDA 2008a). Some studies have found limited to large reductions in soil carbon and increases in carbon dioxide flux with grazing (Haferkamp and Macneil 2004 and Welker et al. 2004). Studies involving modeling and remotely sensed data indicate that proper grazing on rangelands can improve ecosystem production as measured by soil carbon storage (Li et al. 2007, Steinfeld and Wassenaar 2007, Reeder et al. 2001, Schuman et al. 2002). Additional studies similarly conclude that certain levels of grazing may even increase carbon sequestration (Hellquist et al. 2007, Derner et al. 2005 and 2006, LeCain et al. 2002, Ganjegunte et al 2002, Manley et al. 2005, Reeder et al. 2001, Schuman et al. 2002). Given the above information, it can be assumed that there is variability in carbon storage and landscape carbon storage response to grazing pending land type and local conditions (Derner et al. 2006 and Henderson et al. 2005). However, literature research consistently suggested that management practices which maintain or move plant associations to satisfactory rangeland conditions appear to be consistent with maintaining

325

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix D

soil organic pool, and therefore soil carbon sinks (Henderson et al. 2005, Brown and Thrope 2008, and Sharrow 2008).

A study conducted by Miles et al. (2000) within the Columbia River Basin, which includes the Snake River and Powder River drainages, examined the consequence of climate change on stream flows using two models and comparing results against the historic record. They found the following conditions are expected: 1) Higher flows during the winter and spring, and lower flow during the summer and fall. 2) More precipitation and warmer temperatures during the winter resulting in more rain, less snow pack accumulation and therefore increased wintertime runoff. 3) Less summertime precipitation and higher summer-time temperatures and evapotranspiration resulting in decreased summertime flows. 4) Peak spring flows are expected to be earlier compared to current runoff patterns.

The effects to Columbia River Streamflow from simulated changes in climate are generally towards higher winter streamflow, reduced winter snow accumulation and reduced spring and summer streamflow (Hamlet and Lettenmaier 1999). The result of earlier peak flows, higher summer temperatures and less precipitation would be increased summer stream temperatures. Adaptive management would modify grazing operations when progress towards achieving the desired conditions is not being made. This type of management would aid in maintaining and restoring stream and riparian conditions with the changing climate.

The potential for cumulative effects from grazing is mainly from increased sediment and impacts to riparian areas. Potential effects will be minimized by meeting INFISH Standards and Guidelines, utilization standards, C&T trend monitoring, herding, placement of salt, off-site water sources, fencing, achievement of resource objectives and adaptive management would restrict the time cattle spend in stream and riparian areas preventing the removal of key hydric stabilizers needed for streambank stabilization to prevent channel widening, the removal of shrubs that provide stream shade, prevent sedimentation to the stream channel, promote streambank building, maintain or restore riparian areas, and minimize or prevent the amount of feces and urine that could impact water quality. There are no anticipated effects to bull trout or their DCH for any area outside the SPRAA (Snake River and North Pine) from the implementation of the Snake/Pine AMP.

Comment 11 - HCPC requested in its scoping comments that the Eden C&H analysis include an analysis of the socio-economic costs to the public. However, the Eden C&H EA fails to consider the expense of continuing to authorize livestock grazing on these allotments to the public at large. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported that the federal government spends at least $144 million each year managing private livestock grazing on federal public lands, but collects only $21 million in grazing fees. This equates to an annual net loss of at least $123 million.3 Considering the additional direct and indirect costs not included in the GAO report, economists have estimated that the federal public lands grazing on BLM and USFS lands may cost as much as $500 million to $1 billion annually.4 The economic benefits that would flow from the elimination of cattle, however, are numerous. Besides its inherent value, livestock-free and fence-free wildlife habitat, particularly on lands such as these that congressionally designated for wilderness and recreation as their highest

326

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix D

priorities, enhances opportunities for recreational uses. This in turn leads to increased recreation and as a recently released report emphatically illustrates, the economic contribution of recreationists to the national economy – $730 billion annually – is staggering.5

The EA provides a cost-benefit analysis the grazing allowances in terms of benefit to permittee and individuals employed by the permittee. EA 77-82. The analysis does not mention how much it will cost the Forest Service/federal taxpayers to administer the grazing permit on an annual basis, the cost of diminished ecosystems services (e.g. water quality, soil health and threatened and endangered species habitat), or the cost of reduced recreational use. The allotment area is used for recreational uses including hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, sightseeing, and berry picking, contains two trails and is within designated wilderness. See EA 191. It is well known that public lands grazing can deter other recreational uses. As we suggested in our scoping comments, a cost-benefit analysis that analyzes the impacts of grazing on the federal treasury, ecosystem services and recreation opportunities needs to be completed. [HCPC]

2 Beschta, Robert L., et al. "Adapting to climate change on Western public lands: Addressing the ecological effects of domestic, wild, and feral ungulates."Environmental management 51.2 (2013): 474-491. 3 GAO. 2005. Livestock grazing: federal expenditures and receipts vary, depending on the agency and the purpose of the fee charged. GAO-05-869. Government Accountability Office. Washington, D.C. 4 Moscowitz, K. and C. Romaniello. 2002. Assessing the full cost of the federal grazing program. Center for Biological Diversity. Tuscon, AZ. The estimated cost of the federal grazing program at $500 million is consistent with estimates developed by other experts. 5 Joanne Kelly, US Impact of Outdoor Recreation: $730 Billion, Scripps Howard News Service, Sept. 18, 2006.

327

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix D

Response 11 - The National Forests are managed for multiple uses which include recreation and permitted livestock use. Management of livestock grazing to meet Forest Plan guidelines and ESA requirements will meet the intent of the multiple use guidance (EA Chapter 1). An economic analysis was prepared (EA Chapter 3).

Literature provided was reviewed, however the scope of the SPRAA was at the local county level where the direct impacts would be influenced. Therefore we did not analyze the contribution of the SPRAA allotments in the larger economy, much less to the Federal Treasury. Further, there are no expected effects to recreation within the project area due to livestock grazing activities (p. 205-213).

In the EA, we state, “Although annual administrative costs are not part of the total calculation, it is important to briefly discuss the cost to government for each alternative. Annual Administrative costs of grazing include the managing official and other employees associated with the programs cost to government. In this instance daily cost to government, vehicles use, administrative activities and other related costs equate to approximately $300.00/day for 10 days/grazing season (p. 85-86).

Alternative 1 would eliminate grazing on the National Forest Lands; no grazing revenues would be collected. However, alternative 1 may also lower range program costs to a negligible factor compared to alternatives 2 and 3. Nevertheless additional administrative cost for the Forest Service may increase, with possible non authorized use issues if they arise. This may result in law enforcement man hours and on the ground inspections which may require travel time, reports and other administrative activities associated with unauthorized use. Proportionately, alternative 2 has a higher administrative cost (when averaged over a 4 year period) than the other alternatives because of the livestock presence. Alternative 3 is similar to alternative 2; however the differences (even slight) do not indicative a lower administrative cost to the government. It is even possible that the cost of administration may be maintained due to the complexity of the alternative.

Comment 12 - The EA lacks an analysis of effects of livestock grazing on gray wolves that are listed under the state ESA. The FS should contribute to recovery of wolves by reducing potential conflicts between livestock and wolves, and by maintaining high populations of suitable prey, such as big game. The EA lacks an analysis of potential conflicts, nor does it address the effects of alternative grazing levels on big game numbers.

Even if wolves do not currently occupy the project area, the wolf population is likely to expand and create foreseeable management issues in the future. Special attention should be given to facilitate recovery of ecologically functional populations of threatened gray wolves. Some allotments may need to be closed to give predators more opportunity to thrive

328

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix D

while minimizing risks of human conflicts. Where grazing will continue in areas frequented by predators, permitees should be required to take all necessary steps to avoid conflicts and use non-lethal methods to prevent and limit depredation of livestock. See ODFW Non-Lethal Measures to Minimize Wolf-Livestock Conflict, http://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/ODFW_Non-lethal_Measures_130719.pdf, http://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/non-lethal_methods.asp (Oregon Wild)

Response 12 - The EA provides an analysis of effects of livestock grazing on wolves (Appendix C p. 298-299) as well as an analysis of effects of livestock grazing on big game (p. 194).

Comment 13 - The redband trout population in McGraw Creek was adversely affected by the 1997 flood event. Grazing represents a cumulative impact that should be minimized or avoided. (Oregon Wild)

Response 13 - The McGraw Creek population of redband is genetically isolated population within the Snake/Pine AMP. The FS will minimize access to portions of McGraw Creek located on FS lands, during the spawning season and until emergence (July 1) by implementing low-impact management techniques like riding, herding and salting (p. 111- 114). The early spawning behavior of redband, the preference of uplands by cattle during early season, and the effort to minimize livestock presence in McGraw Creek should reduce potential effects to redds prior to emergence. The Snake/Pine AMP would also incorporate a variety of management techniques to uniformly distribute cattle across allotments and minimize or prevent use in riparian areas in streams currently within Snake/Pine AMP. Utilization standards, off-site water sources, placement of salt, low stress herding, achievement of resource objectives, and adaptive management would restrict the time cattle spend in stream and riparian areas. These actions will help prevent the removal of key hydric stabilizers needed for streambank stabilization to prevent channel widening, prevent the removal of shrubs that provide streamshade, prevent sedimentation to the stream channel, promote streambank building, maintain or restore riparian areas, and minimize or prevent the amount of feces and urine that could impact water quality.

Further, field visits by members of the IDT found that the majority of access by cattle occurs on a parcel of private land located 2 miles upstream of McGraw Creek’s confluence with the Snake River, which is within this population’s habitat distribution, while the majority of McGraw Creek is inaccessible to livestock due to extreme terrain and physical barriers. The 160 acre parcel of private land is easily accessible and attractive to cattle because of its location on flatter terrain and its water availability. Approximately, 0.3 miles of McGraw is contained within this private land. Since management of this private land has not been waived to the Forest Service as part of the allotment, it is not included in the Snake/Pine analysis area (p. 102-103).

Comment 14 - The EA lacks an analysis that would show compliance with PACFISH/INFISH. These plan amendments require that grazing be modified to prevent any

329

Snake/Pine AMP EA Appendix D

delay in the recovery of riparian management objectives. Compliance with this standard requires an analysis of the rate of riparian recovery under alternative grazing levels. The EA does provide that analysis. (Oregon Wild)

Response 14 - This excerpt from INFISH clarifies the application of INFISH RMOs: “Landscape-scale interim RMOs describing good habitat for inland native fish were developed using stream inventory data for pool frequency, large wood, bank stability, lower bank angle, and width to depth ratio. All of the described features (RMOs) may not occur in a specific segment of stream within a watershed, but all generally should occur at the watershed scale for stream systems of moderate to large size (3rd to 7th order).”

There was no evidence from the Hankin and Reeve stream surveys, PFC surveys, MIM survey, PIBO surveys, or field visits that suggest that grazing is retarding the attainment of RMOs. There was also no evidence that grazing is maintaining “degraded ecological conditions”. In fact, by using the old surveys and photos associated with them, we were able to visit these sites and compare them to the current conditions. Livestock are not able to physically access the majority of the streams in the Snake/Pine AMP allotments. Therefore, at the landscape or watershed scale, cattle grazing in the allotments would not slow or retard the attainment of the RMOs (p. 120-121). McGraw Creek at its confluence with the Snake is showing some regrowth of vegetation following several major flood events since it was surveyed in 1997. This is also the case for North Pine. Field visits found little evidence of livestock use in the Snake/Pine riparian areas at all, which is consistent with previous surveys/observations. We do not expect to see changes to RMOs unless there is evidence of excessive cattle utilization or related livestock disturbance in or near riparian areas. (See responses #2. #3, #4).

330