i 

Final Environmental 

Impact Statement 

North End Sheep Allotment 

Union, Wallowa, and Umatilla Counties, Oregon 

August 2011 

Lead Agency USDA Forest Service 

Responsible Official Michael L. Rassbach, District Ranger 

Walla Walla Ranger District 

Umatilla National Forest 

1415 West Rose St 

Walla Walla, WA 99362 

(509) 522-6290 

Further Information Holly Harris, Team Leader 

Walla Walla Ranger District 

Umatilla National Forest 

1415 West Rose St 

Walla Walla, WA 99362 

(509) 522-6290 

This document is available on the internet: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop/?project=28354

 

Abstract 

 

This Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) documents the detailed analysis of five 

alternatives for the management of the North End Sheep Allotment. The North End 

Sheep Allotment analysis area is located approximately six miles northwest of Elgin, 

Oregon. Alternatives include Alternative 1 (proposed action), Alternative 2, Alternative 

3, Alternative 4, and Alternative 5 (no grazing). The preferred alternative is Alternative 4 

which would authorize sheep grazing consistent with Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines while implementing specific resource protection measures. 
ii
iii

Table of Contents................................................................................................... iii 

List of Figures ........................................................................................................... iv 

List of Tables ............................................................................................................ v 

Summary of the Final Environmental Impact Statement ...................................... vii 

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need 

Analysis Area ............................................................................................................ 1 

Purpose of and Need for Action ................................................................................ 3 

Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ............................................................................... 4 

Decision Framework ................................................................................................. 4 

Project Record ........................................................................................................... 5 

Management Direction ............................................................................................. 5 

Treaty Rights ............................................................................................................ 6 

Public Involvement .................................................................................................. 7 

Issues ......................................................................................................................... 8 

Changes Between DEIS and FEIS ..........................................................................10

Chapter 2 – Alternatives 

Alternatives Considered and Analyzed in Detail ..................................................... 11 

Management Requirements...................................................................................... 18 

Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 25 

Alternative Comparison and Summary.................................................................... 28 

Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................31

Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail .............................................. 32 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Key Issue: Bighorn Sheep ......................................................................................... 33 

Key Issue: Management Feasibility ......................................................................... 51 

Rangeland Conditions ...............................................................................................62

Invasive Plants ......................................................................................................... 76 

Botanical Resources ..................................................................................................84

Wildlife Species and Habitat .................................................................................... 87 

Soils ...........................................................................................................................101

Hydrology and Water Quality...................................................................................105 

Fish and Aquatic Habitat ......................................................................................... 114 

Sensitive Invertebrates ............................................................................................. 127 

Recreation and Wilderness .......................................................................................130

Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................134

Climate Change ........................................................................................................ 135 

Required Legal Disclosures ...................................................................................... 136 

Chapter 4 – Persons and Agencies Consulted 

Recipients of the Draft EIS .......................................................................................143 

Preparers ...................................................................................................................145 

References...............................................................................................................146 

Index ........................................................................................................................159 
iv

Appendix A – Management Areas ............................................................................ A-1 

Appendix B – Acronyms and Glossary ..................................................................... B-1 

Appendix C – Response to public comments on Draft EIS ...................................... C-1 

Appendix D – Letters ................................................................................................ D-1 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. North End Allotment Vicinity Map .......................................................... 2 

Figure 2. North End Allotment Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) ............................ 14 

Figure 3. North End Allotment Alternative 2 .......................................................... 15 

Figure 4. North End Allotment Alternative 3 .......................................................... 16 

Figure 5. North End Allotment Alternative 4 .......................................................... 17 

Figure 6. Acres grazed and number of sheep by alternative ................................... 27 

Figure 7. Aerial view of North End Allotment .........................................................36 

Figure 8. Alternative 1 in relation to bighorn sheep ................................................47

Figure 9. Alternative 2 in relation to bighorn sheep ................................................48

Figure 10. Alternative 3 in relation to bighorn sheep ..............................................49

Figure 11. Alternative 4 in relation to bighorn sheep .............................................. 50 

Figure 12. Number of sheep authorized by alternative ...........................................54

Figure 13. Allotment acres by alternative ................................................................54

Figure 14. Condition and trend plot photographs .................................................... 67 

Figure 15. Photographs of a typical range site on the allotment .............................69

Figure 16. Number of acres grazed by alternative ...................................................80

Figure 17. North End Allotment fish distribution ................................................... 116 

Figure 18. Map of Management Areas ..................................................................... A-6 
v 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Alternative Summary ................................................................................ viii 

Table 2. Separation distance and separation effectiveness by alternative ............ix

Table 3. Comparison of Operation and Administration by alternative ..................ix

Table 4. Economic indicators by alternative ........................................................... x 

Table 5. Alternative Summary ................................................................................ 13 

Table 6. Allowable grazing utilization standards .................................................. 25 

Table 7. Alternative Summary ................................................................................ 27 

Table 8. Separation distance and separation effectiveness by alternative ............29

Table 9. Comparison of Operation and Administration by alternative .................. 30 

Table 10. Economic indicators by alternative .......................................................... 30 

Table 11. Other Issues by alternative ......................................................................31

Table 12. Separation distance and separation effectiveness by alternative ........... 41 

Table 13. Stocking rates by Alternative ................................................................... 55 

Table 14. Comparison of Operation and Administration by alternative ................. 55 

Table 15. Economic indicators by alternative .......................................................... 56 

Table 16. Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health ..........................................66

Table 17. Invasive plants within the existing allotment boundary ......................... 78 

Table 18. Invasive plant occurrence by Alternative .................................................81

Table 19. Special Interest Botanical Areas ..............................................................84 

Table 20. Wildlife Management Indicator Species ...................................................88 

Table 21. Priority bird habitat features and potential for grazing effects ..............94 

Table 22. Summary of effects for TES wildlife species ............................................102 

Table 23. Land Type Associations (LTAs) of the North End Allotment ..................103

Table 24. Representative soils of the North End Allotment ....................................104

Table 25. Subwatershed acres by Alternative ..........................................................108

Table 26. Beneficial uses for streams in the Grande Ronde, Walla Walla, and 

Umatilla Basins ........................................................................................................110

Table 27. Developed water sources by Alternative ..................................................112 

Table 28. Fish presence relative to North End and Goodman Allotments ..............115

Table 29. Watershed Conditions ...............................................................................121

Table 30. Effects determinations for sensitive and listed fish species ....................125

Table 31. Effects determinations for sensitive invertebrates ..................................129

Table 32. Comparison of recreation impacts by Alternative....................................131

Table 33. Management Area acres by Alternative ................................................... A-7 
vi

 This page left blank intentionally
Summary 

vii 

Summary of the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Introduction 

This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) analyzes and discloses the potential 

site-specific environmental effects of a proposal to continue to authorize domestic sheep 

grazing on the North End Allotment. The current allotment configuration includes 

approximately 132,000 acres on the Walla Walla Ranger District of the Umatilla National 

Forest. The North End Allotment is located in Umatilla, Union, and Wallowa Counties of 

the state of Oregon, and within the Umatilla River and Upper Grande Ronde subbasins. 

Refer to Figure 1 on page 2 of the FEIS. 

Purpose and Need for Action 

The purpose of this action is to authorize domestic sheep grazing in a manner that is 

consistent with the Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest 

Plan), as amended. 

The North End Allotment is scheduled for an environmental analysis of grazing use on the 

Umatilla National Forest, as required by the Rescission Act (Burns Amendment 1995). The 

purpose of this analysis is to ensure that proposed sheep grazing is consistent with the 

most current laws, regulations, and management direction. 

Part of the allotment is near occupied Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep range. There is a 

need to effectively separate permitted domestic sheep from bighorn sheep. Effective 

separation is defined as spatial and/or temporal separation between wild sheep and 

domestic sheep or goats, resulting in (at most) a minimal risk of potential respiratory 

disease transmission (WAFWA 2010). 

There is also a need to maintain management flexibility such that a grazing operation is 

economically and environmentally feasible. 

Key Issues 

Issues that could best be addressed by forming an alternative or introducing mitigation or 

monitoring were identified and categorized as ‘Key Issues’. Two issues were considered to 

be major or relevant to the development of alternatives to the proposed action. Key Issue 1 

addresses concerns about bighorn sheep. Key Issue 2 addresses concerns regarding the 

economic viability and operability of proposed grazing. Many of the other concerns raised 

by the public were addressed in the EIS by providing additional information. A summary of 

key issue effects is presented below. More detailed information can be found in Chapter 3. 

Key Issue 1 – Bighorn Sheep 

Part of the North End Allotment is near occupied Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep range. 

There is the potential for physical contact between the permitted domestic sheep and wild 

bighorn sheep. Contact between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep would likely be 

detrimental to the health of the bighorn sheep herd, and could result in substantial 
Summary

viii 

population declines. There is a need to effectively separate permitted domestic sheep from 

bighorn sheep. Effective separation is defined as spatial and/or temporal separation 

between wild sheep and domestic sheep or goats, resulting in (at most) a minimal risk of 

potential respiratory disease transmission (WAFWA 2010). This can be achieved through a 

combination of factors including maintaining separation distance appropriate for the 

terrain, managing livestock properly, and coordinating closely with the state wildlife 

agency. 

There is also a desire by several agencies and publics to establish a bighorn sheep herd in 

the South Fork Walla Walla River area (SFWW), which would necessitate additional 

changes to the allotment boundary. 

The following indicators were used to compare the effects of alternatives to bighorn sheep 

(Table 2): 

Separation distance between the allotment and the Wenaha bighorn sheep herd, and 

separation distance between the allotment and the potential SFWW release area. 

Separation effectiveness between domestic sheep on the allotment and the Wenaha 

bighorn herd, and separation effectiveness between domestic sheep on the allotment 

and prospective bighorn sheep in the SFWW river area. 

Key Issue 2 – Management Feasibility 

Alternatives to address the separation of bighorn sheep from permitted livestock could 

cause a reduction in the size of the allotment and/or the number of permitted sheep. This in 

turn could affect the permittee, the livestock industry, and how the allotment is managed. 

Any reduction in the size of the allotment without reducing the number of livestock could 

result in unwanted resource effects. Stocking levels and the reduction in acres were brought 

up in public comments. It was also suggested that additional acreage be offered to 

compensate for acres proposed for removal from the allotment. 

Measures for evaluating this issue are (Tables 3 and 4):

Operations: sheep herd routing and access challenges based on stocking rate and 

configuration of allotment 

Administration: water development and range monitoring needs

Economics: revenue and jobs based on number of livestock 

Alternatives 

This FEIS includes an analysis of the proposed action and four additional options, including 

no grazing. These 5 options are collectively referred to as alternatives (Table 1). A 

comparison of key issue effects is presented below in Tables 2 and 3. 
Summary 

ix

Alternative 1 is the Proposed Action. The proposed action would establish a new allotment 

boundary and reduce the allotment size from 132,000 acres to 101,000 acres. Four bands of 

sheep (3,962 ewe/lamb pair) would be allowed to graze within 5 pastures. The proposed 

action reflects how the allotment has been managed since 2008 through Annual Operating 

Instructions. 

Alternative 2 would establish a new allotment boundary and grazing would be limited to 

the area south of Lookingglass Creek (Figure 3). Three bands (3,000 ewe/lamb pair) would 

be authorized to graze within an 81,500 acre area. This alternative provides better 

separation of the allotment from the Wenaha bighorn sheep herd, and also allows for a rest 

rotation or deferred grazing system. 

Alternative 3 would establish a new allotment boundary which would include portions of a 

former grazing area known as the Goodman Allotment. Grazing would be limited to the 

area south of Lookingglass Creek, and grazing would not occur in the North Fork Umatilla 

Wilderness Area. Three bands (3,000 ewe/lamb pair) would be authorized to graze within 

an 79,600 acre area. This alternative better addresses both the Wenaha bighorn sheep issue 

as well as providing a wider buffer from the prospective SFWW bighorn area, while 

maintaining a sizeable area for grazing. 

Alternative 4 would establish a new allotment boundary similar to Alternative 3, but this 

alternative does not include grazing in the Goodman area. Grazing would be limited to the 

area south of Lookingglass Creek, and grazing would not occur in the North Fork Umatilla 

Wilderness Area. The amount of grazing area would total 52,600 acres, and could be grazed 

by up to 2,000 ewe/lamb pair. This alternative was developed to give decision makers and 

the public a range of alternatives to compare the effects with and without the Goodman 

area. 

Alternative 5 is the “No Grazing” alternative. 

Table 1. Alternative Summary. 

Alternative 1 2 3 4 5

Allotment size (acres) 101,000 81,500 79,600 52,600 0

Ewe / lamb pairs 3,962 3,000 3,000 2,000 0

Number of bands 4 3 3 2 0
Summary

x 

Table 2. Separation distance and separation effectiveness by alternative. 

Table 3. Comparison of Operation and Administration by alternative. 

Measure Current 

permit

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Stocking Rate (acres /SHM) 5.1 5.8 6.2 6.1 6.0 0

Herd route management 

challenges Low Moderate Moderate High Moderate NA

Access and grazing 

management challenges No No No Yes No NA

Increased monitoring needs No Yes Yes Yes Yes NA

Water development costs 0 0 0

$50,000 

or less 0 0

 

Measure

Current 

allotment 

boundary

Alternative

1 2 3 and 4 5 – no 

grazing

Separation distance

between allotment boundary and 

Wenaha bighorn sheep (air miles)

1 8 10.5 12 NA

Separation effectiveness

between North End permitted sheep

and Wenaha bighorn sheep

Low Moderate High High NA

Separation distance

between allotment boundary and 

SFWW bighorn sheep habitat (air 

miles)

1 1 4 9 NA

Separation effectiveness

between North End permitted sheep 

and potential SFWW bighorn sheep

Low Low Low to 

Moderate High NA
Summary 

xi

Table 4. Economic indicators by alternative. 

 Measure Current 

permit

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Revenue $385,899 $385,899 $292,200 $292,200 $194,800 0

Grazing Fees to U.S. 

Treasury $7,012 $7,012 $5,309 $5,309 $3,539 0

County payments (25 %) $1,753 $1,753 $1,327 $1,327 $885 0

Jobs 5.1 5.1 3.9 3.9 2.5 0

Percent reduction 

for all of the above - 0 % 24 % 24 % 50 % 100 %

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The affected environment and environmental consequences were disclosed for range, soils, 

water, fish, wildlife, and plants, recreation, and specially designated areas. Direct, indirect 

and cumulative environmental effects that could result from the implementation of any of 

these alternatives are disclosed in Chapter 3. The alternatives were found to be consistent 

with Forest Plan standards and guidelines, including Forest Plan amendments such as 

PacFish, and the Region 6 Invasive Species Management Plan. The environmental 

consequences indicate consistency with the Clean Water Act, and processes have been 

followed consistent with the Endangered Species Act. For further information, see Chapter 

3 of the FEIS.
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need 

1 

Chapter 1 - Purpose of and Need for Action 

Introduction 

The Walla Walla District Ranger proposes to authorize the continuation of domestic sheep 

grazing on the North End Allotment. 

This chapter identifies the analysis area, explains the purpose and need for action, and 

describes the proposed action. This chapter also describes the decision framework and 

outlines applicable management direction. Treaty rights and tribal consultation are 

addressed. The chapter closes by summarizing public involvement and lists the issues 

identified during scoping. 

Analysis Area 

The North End Allotment is located northwest of Elgin, Oregon in Umatilla, Union, and 

Wallowa Counties. It occurs primarily within the Upper Grande Ronde and Umatilla River 

Subbasins, and includes major tributaries such as Phillips Creek, Lookingglass Creek, 

Thomas Creek, and the North Fork Umatilla River. See Figure 1, Vicinity Map. 

The current allotment boundary covers roughly 132,000 acres of National Forest and 

interspersed private land. The large size of the allotment makes for a diverse array of 

mountain uplands and plateaus dissected by large canyons. The allotment includes some 

steep terrain; however, much of the allotment is gentle or rolling uplands. Approximately 

75 percent of the allotment is covered by mixed conifer forest. 

Allotment History 

Sheep grazing has occurred in the Blue Mountains since the late 1800’s, including the area 

known as the North End Allotment. Sheep herders moved sheep each year into the Blue 

Mountains following the snow as it melted from the valley bottoms in the spring to high 

elevations during the summer months. Historically, forage was first come, first serve, 

resulting in degraded vegetative and soil conditions. In 1905, before the establishment of 

the Wenaha Forest Reserve, the north half of the Umatilla National Forest was used by an 

estimated 275,000 sheep, 40,000 head of cattle and 15,000 horses (Powell et. al, 2008). The 

Forest Service began attempting to regulate sheep grazing in the early 1900’s, but it wasn’t 

until 1935 that the Taylor Grazing Act established grazing districts and specific 

regulations. 

More recently on the North End Allotment, domestic sheep primarily graze the ridges tops, 

rolling upland hills, and headwater areas. These areas have primarily been used because of 

good vehicle access, an abundance of forage for sheep, and the relatively easy ability to herd 

sheep. These areas are also where timber management practices have been focused, which 

has provided transitory range for livestock. Over 70 developed water sources (ponds and 

troughs) have been constructed to improve livestock distribution across these areas. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need 

2 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need 

3 

In 1986, an Allotment Management Plan (AMP) was prepared for the North End Allotment. 

The AMP allowed for 5,000 sheep on 6 units or “pastures1,” however the Forest Service and 

permittee have elected to graze 3,962 sheep with the exception of a few years. As a result, 

four bands have generally utilized four pastures, allowing for a rest rotation in two 

pastures each year. 

Purpose 

The purpose of this action is to authorize domestic sheep grazing in a manner that is 

consistent with the Forest Plan, as amended. Providing forage for permitted domestic 

livestock is proposed in this allotment because of the following: 

Where consistent with other multiple use goals and objectives, there is 

Congressional intent to allow livestock grazing on suitable lands (Multiple-Use 

Sustained-Yield Act of 1960; Wilderness Act of 1964; Forest and Rangeland 

Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974; Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976; and National Forest Management Act of 1976).

It is Forest Service policy to make forage available to qualified livestock operators 

from lands suitable for livestock grazing consistent with land management plans (36 

CFR §222.2 (c); and Forest Service Manual [FSM] 2203.1). 

The Umatilla Forest Plan, which directs the management of lands contained within 

this Analysis Area, has as one of its goals to manage the forage resources while 

providing for forage productivity and making suitable range available for livestock 

grazing (Forest Plan, p. 4-63).

Need 

National Forests are required by Section 504 of the 1995 Rescission Act to establish and 

implement schedules to complete NEPA analysis on all livestock grazing allotments. The 

North End Allotment is scheduled for an environmental analysis of grazing use on the 

Umatilla National Forest. This analysis is needed to ensure that livestock grazing on this 

allotment is consistent with the most current laws, regulations, and management direction. 

Upon completion, the terms and conditions of the existing grazing permit may be modified 

or reissued, if necessary. 

The present Allotment Management Plan was completed in 1986, prior to the signing of the 

Forest Plan. There is an overall need to analyze the possible effects of grazing in order to 

create a new Allotment Management Plan that is reflective of current laws, regulations, 

and new information. 

Part of the allotment is near occupied Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep range. There is a 

need to effectively separate permitted domestic sheep from bighorn sheep. Effective 

separation is defined as spatial and/or temporal separation between wild sheep and 

 

1Management units are commonly called pastures and subpastures; however the areas are not fenced. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need 

4 

domestic sheep or goats, resulting in (at most) a minimal risk of potential respiratory 

disease transmission (WAFWA 2010). This can be achieved through a combination of 

factors including maintaining separation distance appropriate for the terrain, managing 

livestock properly, and coordinating closely with the state wildlife agency. 

There is also a need to maintain management flexibility such that a grazing operation is 

economically and environmentally feasible. 

Proposed Action

The Walla Walla Ranger District, Umatilla National Forest, proposes to authorize the 

continuation of domestic sheep grazing on the North End Allotment under the following 

terms: 

Grazing Area: 

The grazing area would be approximately 101,000 acres including the English 

Springs, Middle Ridge, Phillips Creek, Spout Springs, and portions of the Swamp 

Creek pastures (Figure 2). Portions of the Swamp Creek pasture and all of the Jarboe 

pasture would be eliminated from the allotment to increase the separation distance 

from bighorn sheep populations. 

Number of Livestock: 

A maximum of 3,962 ewe/lamb pairs or a maximum of 17,300 Sheep Head Months 

(SHMs) would be allowed. Annual authorized livestock numbers would be based on 

existing conditions, available water and forage, and predicted forage production for 

the year. Adjustments may occur during the grazing season based on conditions 

and/or range inspections. 

Season of Use: 

The season of use would be from June 1 to October 9. Sheep would not be allowed on 

the allotment outside of this time period. 

Management: 

Livestock grazing would occur through a rest rotational grazing system. Routing 

schedules would be designed each year to allow deferment and to rest areas within the 

allotment. Sheep would be routed through the allotment in separated bands of 

approximately 1,000 ewes and their lambs. Each band of sheep would be managed by 

a herder and dogs. This allows control of where the sheep graze and protects riparian 

and other sensitive areas. Existing corrals and water improvements would be used 

and maintained. Closed roads may be used by special permit to route sheep, access 

water sources, and for camps. 

Decision Framework 

The decision framework refers to the nature of the decision that will be made based on the 

analysis contained in this document and the comments submitted during the public review 

and comment period. The decision framework does not describe the actual content of the 

decision. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need 

5 

The Responsible Official for this analysis is the Walla Walla District Ranger. At the 

conclusion of the public review and comment period, the District Ranger will decide 

whether to continue authorization of livestock grazing on the North End Allotment. If the 

District Ranger decides to authorize livestock grazing, the decision will include determining 

how the grazing resources are to be managed to best meet the goals of the Forest Plan and 

meet the purpose and need for the project. The decision would also include the kind and 

number of livestock, season of use, terms and conditions, and mitigation and monitoring as 

needed. A new Allotment Management Plan will be prepared and implemented in the 

summer of 2012. 

The Record of Decision accompanies the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), 

and identifies the selected alternative. Selection of alternatives will be based on the 

analysis contained in the FEIS, including factors such as how the alternatives: meet the 

purpose of and need for action, respond to the key issues, consider the environmental 

effects, comply with the Forest Plan, and respond to public comments. 

Project Record 

A Project Record will be maintained at the Walla Walla Ranger District. The Project 

Record includes items such as: letters sent to tribes and other governmental organizations; 

public mailing lists; notices of availability of the DEIS; letters and emails received during 

the scoping process as well as comments on the DEIS; meeting minutes; and specialist 

reports. This Project Record may be viewed at the Walla Walla Ranger District, 1415 West 

Rose, Walla Walla, Washington. 

Management Direction 

In order to eliminate repetition and focus on site-specific analysis, this DEIS is tiered to the 

following documents as permitted by 40 CFR 1502.20. 

The Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan FEIS and 

Record of Decision (ROD) dated June 11, 1990, and all subsequent NEPA analysis 

for amendments. 

The 2005 Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Final Environmental 

Impact Statement and Record of Decision that amended the Umatilla National 

Forest Plan by adding management direction relative to invasive plants. 

This DEIS also incorporates by reference the following documents: 

The Biological Opinion for the Implementation of Interim Strategies for Managing 

Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, 

and Portions of California (PACFISH) from National Marine Fisheries Service dated 

January 23, 1995. PACFISH itself does not propose any ground-disturbing actions, 

but sets in place certain riparian management goals and management direction with 

the intent of arresting the degradation and beginning the restoration of riparian and 

stream habitats. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need 

6 

Environmental Assessment for the Management of Noxious Weeds, Umatilla 

National Forest, May 1995. Implements a long-term integrated weed management 

program on 773 specific noxious weed management projects beginning in 1995. 

Invasive Plants Treatment Project Environmental Impact Statement, Umatilla 

National Forest, July 2010. Authorizes treatment of invasive species over a 5-15 

year period. Up to 4,000 acres may be treated annually, including known sites and 

those detected in the future. 

The Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management in the Interior 

Columbia Basin released 1996. Links landscape, aquatic, terrestrial, social, and 

economic characterizations to described biophysical and social systems.

Forest Plan Goals, Standards, and Guidelines 

The existing North End Allotment includes portions of 17 different Forest Plan 

Management Areas. Livestock grazing is allowed in all of these Management Areas at 

varying levels. Management Areas are mapped and described in Appendix A. 

Additional forest-wide standards and guidelines related to livestock grazing apply to this 

allotment. Compliance with these standards and guides is addressed by each resource 

specialist and summarized at the end of each section in Chapter 3. 

Treaty Rights 

The Forest Service, through the Secretary of Agriculture, is vested with statutory authority 

and responsibility for managing resources of the National Forests. Commensurate with the 

authority and responsibility to manage is the obligation to consult, cooperate, and 

coordinate with Indian Tribes in developing and planning management decisions regarding 

resources on National Forest system land that may affect the exercise of treaty rights. 

Locally, the North End Allotment lies within areas ceded to the United States government 

by the Nez Perce Indians, and areas ceded by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla 

Indians (CTUIR) as a result of the Treaties of 1855. Elements of respective Indian cultures, 

such as tribal welfare, land, and resources were entrusted to the United States government 

as a result of the treaties. Trust responsibilities resulting from the treaties dictate, in part, 

that the United States government facilitate the execution of treaty rights and traditional 

cultural practices of the CTUIR and Nez Perce Indians by working with them on a 

government to government basis in a manner that attempts a reasonable accommodation of 

their needs, without compromising the legal positions of the respective tribes or the federal 

government. Both Tribes were contacted during the scoping phase of the project and their 

input, concerns and issues have been incorporated in the development of the alternatives. 

Specific treaty rights applicable to that land base managed by the Umatilla National Forest 

area generally articulated in Article I of the CTUIR Treaty of 1855 and Article III of the 

1855 Nez Perce Treaty, include: 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need 

7 

“The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams where running through or 

bordering said reservation is further secured to said Indians; as also the right of 

taking fish at all usual and accustomed places in common with citizens of the 

Territory; and of erecting temporary buildings for curing, together with the 

privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses and 

cattle upon open and unclaimed land.”

Although the 1855 Treaties do not specifically mandate the federal government to manage 

habitats, there is an implied assumption that an adequate reserve of water will be available 

for executing treaty related hunting and fishing activities. 

Because tribal trust activities often occur in common with the public, Umatilla National 

Forest will strive to manage tribal ceded land to enable the execution of tribal rights, as far 

as practicable, while still providing goods and services to all people. 

Consultation with Tribes

Contacts were made throughout the analysis process with staff members of the CTUIR and 

Nez Perce Tribe. Meetings were held to discuss possible effects on treaty reserved 

resources from livestock grazing activities. The following meetings were held specific to the 

North End Allotment. Meetings were held with local agency biologists, including tribal 

representative Carl Scheeler, on May 13, 2008, October 30 2008, December 1, 2008, and 

October 23, 2009. Keith Lawrence, representing the Nez Perce tribe, attended 2 meetings –

December 1, 2008, and October 23, 2009. Updates on the project status were also provided 

to tribal staff members at the yearly coordination meetings. 

The Draft EIS was sent to both the CTUIR and Nez Perce Tribe during the comment 

period. 

Public Involvement 

Scoping 

The Forest Service encourages public involvement in the identification of issues and 

development of alternatives through a process called ‘scoping’. Public scoping was initiated 

in April 2009 with the project's inclusion on the quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions. 

On April 10, 2009, a letter describing the proposed action was mailed to 33 individuals, 

organizations, and agencies for their comment. These individuals and organizations 

included State and Federal resource management agencies, special interest organizations, 

and the grazing permittee. A Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement was published in the Federal Register on December 24, 2009. 

Scoping efforts generated responses from five individuals, five organizations, two state 

agencies, one federal agency, and one Tribe. Responses are documented in nine letters, as 

well as several e-mails, telephone conversation records, and meeting notes. These 

documents are filed in the project record. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need 

8 

Coordination with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) was conducted for this 

proposal through several informal meetings and telephone conversations. 

The permittee holding the grazing permit for this allotment was included throughout the 

analysis process. The permittee provided input for alternatives and site-specific grazing 

operations information. 

To clarify the concerns, follow-up telephone conversations, meetings, and e-mails were 

made between the Interdisciplinary Team and those who submitted comments. 

Responses expressed a wide variety of opinions about the proposed action and information 

to be disclosed in the EIS. These comments were used to identify issues, alternatives to the 

proposed action, and the extent of environmental analysis necessary for making an 

informed decision. Information obtained from the scoping process is contained in the 

Project Record. 

In addition to issues identified through public response, the Interdisciplinary Team 

considered potential issues not identified by the public. The Interdisciplinary Team 

considered these potential conflicts or issues, together with those identified during scoping, 

to determine whether it required development of an alternative to the proposed action, 

needed mitigation measures, or whether it was beyond the scope of this project. 

Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Notice of Availability was published in 

the Federal Register on February 8, 2011 and comments were solicited during a 45-day 

comment period. 

A total of 14 letters, email, and phone calls were received: seven from individuals, two from 

state agencies, two from other federal agencies, one from the CTUIR tribe, and two from 

environmental organizations. One letter from a federal agency (Department of Interior) 

simply stated that they had no comments on the DEIS. All comments were considered by 

the interdisciplinary team and the District Ranger. The specific comments and our 

responses are provided in Appendix C. 

A summary of changes between the DEIS and FEIS is provided at the end of this chapter. 

Issues 

Relevant issues are defined as “unresolved conflicts between alternative uses of available 

resources” [NEPA § 102(2)(E)]. Issues that could best be addressed by forming an 

alternative or introducing mitigation or monitoring were identified and categorized as ‘Key 

Issues’. Other issues that were raised in public scoping or relate to existing regulations 

were addressed within Chapter 3 of the EIS. Additional information is available in the 

project record. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need 

9 

Two issues were considered to be major or relevant to the development of alternatives to 

the proposed action. Key Issue 1 was developed to address concerns about bighorn sheep. 

Key Issue 2 was developed to address concerns regarding the economic viability and 

operability of proposed grazing. Many of the other concerns raised were addressed in the 

EIS by providing additional information. A summary of key issue effects can be found in 

Chapter 2, Tables 8, 9, and 10. A more detailed discussion of effects can be found in 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. 

Issue 1 – Bighorn Sheep

Part of the North End Allotment is near occupied Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep range. 

There is the potential for physical contact between the permitted domestic sheep and wild 

bighorn sheep. Contact between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep would likely be 

detrimental to the health of the bighorn sheep herd, and could result in substantial 

population declines. There is a need to manage livestock distribution to reduce the 

likelihood of contact between domestic and bighorn sheep. 

In addition, unoccupied bighorn sheep habitat in the South Fork Walla Walla River 

(SFWW) area has long been identified as a potential bighorn re-introduction site (ODFW 

2003). Establishing a bighorn sheep herd in this area would provide hunting opportunities 

for CTUIR tribal members and the general public; provide recreational wildlife viewing 

opportunities; and return a native species to the ecosystem. This area lies just to the 

northwest of the allotment. Changes to the management of this allotment would be 

necessary before active re-introduction of bighorn sheep into the SFWW area could occur. 

Comparison of Alternatives

The following indicators were used to compare the effects of alternatives to bighorn sheep: 

Separation distance between the allotment and the Wenaha bighorn sheep herd, and 

separation distance between the allotment and the SFWW bighorn sheep habitat. 

Separation effectiveness between domestic sheep on the allotment and the Wenaha 

bighorn herd, and separation effectiveness between domestic sheep on the allotment 

and prospective bighorn sheep in the SFWW river area. 

Issue 2 – Management Feasibility

Alternatives to address the separation of bighorn sheep from permitted livestock could 

cause a reduction in the size of the allotment and/or the number of permitted sheep. This in 

turn could affect the permittee, the livestock industry, and how the allotment is managed. 

Any reduction in the size of the allotment without reducing the number of livestock could 

result in unwanted resource effects. Stocking levels and the reduction in acres were 

brought up in public comments. It was also suggested that additional acreage be offered to 

compensate for acres proposed for removal from the allotment. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need 

10

Measures for evaluating this issue are: 

Operations: sheep herd routing and access challenges based on stocking rate and 

configuration of allotment 

Administration: water development and range monitoring needs

Economics: revenue and jobs based on number of livestock 

Changes between the DEIS and FEIS 

The following changes were made in the Final EIS: 

One management criteria for wildlife was added to Chapter 2 which allows 

temporary electric fencing. 

The wildlife section of Chapter 3 was updated to provide additional information 

about Management Indicator species and to reflect the status change for gray wolf 

from Endangered to Sensitive. A footnote on Table 12 was corrected. 

A table was added to the wildlife section in Chapter 3 which caused a shift in table 

numbers, as indicated in the List of Tables on page iii. 

The scale of analysis was clarified for various resources in Chapter 3. 

Cumulative effects for various resources were updated in Chapter 3. 

The References section following Chapter 4 was updated to reflect additional 

literature cited. 

Appendix C, “Response to Comments” was added to the end of the document.
Chapter 2 –Alternatives 

11

Chapter 2 – Alternatives 

This chapter describes the alternatives, summarizes the environmental impacts of each, 

and considers how well they achieve project objectives. A more detailed discussion of 

environmental impacts is presented in Chapter 3. 

Alternatives were developed to respond to relevant issues. Public and interagency issues 

centered on the configuration of the allotment, potential effects to the livestock industry, 

potential effects to vegetation, soils, and water quality, and potential effects to fish and 

wildlife. 

Five alternatives were developed, including the “No Action Alternative,” which is defined as 

no livestock grazing. All action alternatives have been designed to satisfy the purpose and 

need of the action (see Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need). Each was designed to reduce the 

potential for contact between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep while providing forage for 

domestic livestock. Four other alternatives were considered but not analyzed in detail. This 

provided a wide range of reasonable alternatives. 

Alternatives Considered and Analyzed in Detail 

Alternatives vary by the configuration (location and size) of the allotment and the number 

of sheep bands allowed. All action alternatives incorporate the same Management 

Requirements, which are listed beginning on page 19. All action alternatives also 

incorporate the following management strategy described in Chapter 1: 

Livestock grazing would occur through a rest rotation grazing system. Routing 

schedules would be designed each year to allow deferment and to rest areas within the 

allotment. Sheep would be routed through the allotment in separated bands of 

approximately 1,000 ewes and their lambs. Each band of sheep would be managed by 

a herder and dogs. This allows control of where the sheep graze and protects riparian 

and other sensitive areas. Existing corrals and water improvements would be used 

and maintained. Closed roads may be used by special permit to route sheep, access 

water sources, and for camps. 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 is the Proposed Action. The proposed action would establish a new allotment 

boundary and reduce the allotment size from 132,000 acres to 101,000 acres. There would 

no longer be grazing in the Jarboe pasture and part of the Swamp pasture. The northeast 

edge of the allotment would follow Forest Road 63 (Figure 2). 

This alternative reflects how the allotment has been managed since 2008 in order to 

provide a separation area between permitted domestic sheep and wild bighorn sheep. 

Annual operating instructions to the permittee were adjusted as an interim measure until a 

full analysis could be completed, and was used as the starting point in this EIS. This 

alternative provides a separation distance of 8 miles from the Wenaha bighorn sheep herd, 

and 1 mile from the SFWW bighorn sheep habitat. 
Chapter 2 –Alternatives 

12

A maximum of 3,962 ewe/lamb pairs would be allowed to graze from June 1st to October 

9th. Four bands of sheep would be allowed to graze within 5 pastures (English Springs, 

Phillips Creek, Middle Ridge, Spout Springs, and a portion of Swamp Creek). Sheep would 

be managed in 4 separate bands within the remaining allotment. Each band would be 

routed in separate areas of the allotment using routing schedules within the pastures and 

subpastures. 

Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 would establish a new allotment boundary and grazing would be limited to 

the area south of Lookingglass Creek (Figure 3). There would no longer be grazing in all of 

the Swamp Creek and Jarboe pastures. The size of the allotment would be approximately 

81,500 acres. 

A maximum of 3,000 ewe/lamb pairs would be authorized to graze from June 1st to October 

9th. Three bands would be allowed to graze within 4 pastures (Spout Springs, Middle Ridge, 

Phillips Creek, and English Springs), which would allow for a rest rotation or deferred 

grazing system. 

This alternative would further increase the separation distance between the allotment and 

the Wenaha bighorn sheep herd while providing for a relatively large number of domestic 

sheep at an appropriate stocking level. There would be a 10.5 mile separation from the 

Wenaha bighorn sheep herd, and a 4 mile separation from the SFWW potential release site. 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 would establish a new allotment boundary and grazing would be limited to 

the area south of Lookingglass Creek except for the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness Area 

(Figure 4). The Jarboe, Swamp Creek, and English Springs pastures would no longer be 

part of the allotment and the Spout Springs pasture would be slightly smaller. The 

wilderness boundary was used because it follows a topographic break and is easily 

identifiable with signs. Using parts of the wilderness was considered but deemed 

impractical and of little benefit to the sheep operation under this alternative. 

This alternative better addresses the bighorn sheep issue in the SFWW area by increasing 

the separation distance to 9 miles. There would also be more separation from the Wenaha 

bighorn sheep herd (12 miles). 

Unique to Alternative 3 is the addition of the Goodman area on the southwest side of the 

allotment (Figure 4). The Goodman allotment has not been grazed for over 50 years, and is 

currently administratively closed. Parts of the Goodman allotment are included in this 

alternative in order to provide a grazing area in exchange for areas removed near bighorn 

sheep. 

By adding this area, a relatively large number of domestic sheep could be sustained at an 

appropriate stocking level. The total amount of grazing area would be similar to 

Alternative 2 with 79,600 acres, and forage would be provided for up to 3,000 ewe/lamb 

pairs. 
Chapter 2 –Alternatives 

13

Alternative 4 

Alternative 4 would establish a new allotment boundary similar to Alternative 3, but this 

alternative does not include grazing in the Goodman area (Figure 5). The amount of grazing 

area would total 52,600 acres, and could be grazed by up to 2,000 ewe/lamb pairs in three 

pastures (Middle Ridge, Phillips Creek, and Spout Springs). 

This alternative was developed to address the bighorn sheep issue without adding new land 

to the grazing area. This alternative was developed to give decision makers and the public a 

range of alternatives to compare the effects with and without the Goodman area. The 

effectiveness of the bighorn sheep – domestic sheep separation would be the same as 

Alternative 3. 

Alternative 5 

Alternative 5 is the “No Grazing” alternative. The Council for Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) require 

that a ‘no action’ alternative be developed as a benchmark from which the agency can 

evaluate the proposed action. No action in livestock management planning is defined as ‘no 

permitted livestock grazing’ (USDA-FS 2005a). 

Under this alternative, livestock grazing would be discontinued and the North End 

Allotment would no longer exist. The North End Allotment would be closed by a separate 

decision signed by the Forest Supervisor. The existing Term Grazing Permit would be 

cancelled under the time period provisions of FSH 2209.13 (USDA-FS 2005a). This would 

not be a permanent elimination of grazing. At any point in the future, grazing could be 

proposed with a new NEPA analysis. 

Table 5. Alternative Summary. 

Alternative 1 2 3 4 5

Allotment size (acres) 101,000 81,500 79,600 52,600 0

Ewe / lamb pairs 3,962 3,000 3,000 2,000 0

Number of bands 4 3 3 2 0
Chapter 2 –Alternatives 

14

 
Chapter 2 –Alternatives 

15

 
Chapter 2 –Alternatives 

16
Chapter 2 –Alternatives 

17
Chapter 2 –Alternatives 

18

Management Requirements 

Management requirements apply to all action alternatives and will be incorporated into the 

Allotment Management Plan. These requirements are generally over and above the Forest 

Plan requirements. 

General Management of livestock 

Salting 

Salt will be located in areas such as old road beds or bare rock sites. Salting will be 

done from a container, and no salt is to remain at the site after the sheep have 

moved on.

 

Livestock Bedding 

Noon and overnight bed grounds should be used only once, except for densely 

timbered or rocky areas. Livestock will not normally be bedded in areas of 

dedicated old growth. Bedding should not occur on slopes greater than 30 percent, 

or on canyon edges or rims. 

Sheep will not be bedded within 300 feet of streams, seeps, and developed or 

undeveloped springs. 

Herder Camps 

Camps will be placed at least 300 feet from live water, including undeveloped 

springs and seeps. 

Camps will be kept clean and garbage packed out. 

All fires built for any purpose by the permittee and/or herder will not be left 

unattended and will be completely extinguished. Each camp must be equipped with 

a serviceable shovel and ax. During periods the Forest has enacted fire restrictions, 

these restrictions will be followed. 

Sick and Dead Livestock 

Producers/permittees should take appropriate measures to prevent turnout of sick 

or diseased domestic sheep. Sick or diseased animals should be removed or 

otherwise eliminated as soon as possible after their recognition. 

Dead livestock located on Forest Service administered lands and within 300 feet 

from any water source or designated roads, trails, or recreation sites will be 

promptly removed and properly disposed. 

Working dogs 

Working dogs will be under the herder’s control and must be non-threatening to 

people working or recreating on the forest. 

The Forest Service will post information about sheep herder working dogs at high 

public use areas in the allotment. 

Stray management 

The permittee will count the number of sheep turned onto the allotment and the 

number of sheep taken off the allotment. If sheep are unaccounted for when leaving 
Chapter 2 –Alternatives 

19

the allotment, the permittee will notify the Forest Service immediately and make a 

concerted effort to locate the animals. 

The permittee will be required to mark all sheep in such a way that allows for easy 

identification of ownership. 

A herder is required to be with sheep at all times. 

The permittee will provide herders with an effective means of communication such 

that incidents can be reported promptly. 

If the herder and/or permittee are aware of or are notified that stray domestic 

sheep are outside the permitted area, the permittee or their agent will respond 

immediately and make best efforts to find and retrieve them, and notify the Forest 

Service within 24 hours. 

If the herder observes domestic sheep straying or notices that sheep are missing 

from the herd, he will call the permittee immediately, and the herder and or 

permittee will notify the Forest Service. 

The permittee is expected to make arrangements for retrieval of strays if he/she 

cannot be present, no more than 24 hours after discovery. The permittee will notify 

the Forest Service if delays occur. 

Wildlife 

Troughs will be installed with escapement ramps to reduce potential mortality to 

bats and other species. 

The herder and/or permittee will report any interactions with wolves and follow 

appropriate procedures as outlined in the Wolf Management Plan (ODFW 2010). 

If a wolf den or rendezvous site is located in the allotment, the Forest Service will 

determine if seasonal restrictions or other requirements are necessary. Because 

these sites difficult to locate and can change from year to year, this will need to be 

assessed on an ongoing basis. 

The use of temporary electric fencing will be allowed at overnight bed grounds in 

order to deter predators. Options include steel posts, fiberglass stays, or metal 

panels. 

A deterrence, detection and response protocol will be developed and reviewed 

annually which outlines agency and permittee responsibilities if bighorn sheep are 

seen near domestic sheep herds, or if domestic sheep are separated from the 

permitted area. 

The Forest Service will provide identification materials written in both English and 

Spanish to assist herders with identification of bighorn sheep, which includes 

phone numbers for both the Forest Service and ODFW. 
Chapter 2 –Alternatives 

20

If the permittee or herder observes any interaction between wild and domestic 

sheep or sees any wild bighorn sheep within the permitted area, it is the herder’s 

and the permittee’s responsibility to immediately notify the Forest Service.

The Forest Service will confer with ODFW regarding the need to locate, capture, or 

remove bighorn sheep. 

The Forest Service will post advisory signs at campgrounds, trailheads and other 

high-use recreational areas to educate visitors about sheep in the area and the need 

to report stray domestic sheep or observations of bighorn sheep. 

Range Improvements 

Maintenance of existing ponds and spring developments 

Water rights and uses will be assessed as developed water sources are maintained, 

rebuilt, and developed. 

Berms and dams will be reconstructed and maintained as needed to prevent 

leakage, downstream erosion, and minimize the risk of failure. 

Adequate spillways shall be developed and maintained to allow the safe release of 

water out of the pond. If needed, spillways will be hardened to ensure that down 

cutting does not occur. 

Ponds will be kept clean of logs and will be cleaned out when silted in. 

Permittees shall notify the USFS if a pond is leaking. 

Spring boxes will be kept clean to ensure that water flows freely from the spring 

box. 

Where no spring box exists, one will be installed or perforated pipe will be used. 

The fence around the water source will be maintained to prevent livestock from 

trampling the spring source. If no fence has been installed, one will be constructed 

or other methods will be used to protect the source (logs, bury, herding, etc). 

Leaks in the pipe will be fixed and lines will be checked to ensure they are free of 

air locks. 

The trough will be kept level and cleaned out to prevent water from overflowing. 

The overflow shall be maintained to ensure the excess water flows through the 

overflow pipe and off site (usually back to original water course). 

Leaks in troughs will be fixed or new troughs will be installed. 
Chapter 2 –Alternatives 

21

Troughs will be installed with escapement ramps to reduce potential mortality to 

bats and other species. 

New spring developments 

New developments are not needed unless Alternative 3 is selected and the 

Goodman area is added to the allotment. Specific locations have not been identified; 

therefore any new developments will be addressed in a separate NEPA document 

prior to implementation. 

The spring source will be collected into a spring box or perforated pipe. If a spring 

box is used, gravel will be placed behind and in the spring box to act as a filter. 

The spring box will be buried or fenced to protect the spring source from animal 

trampling. 

The spring will be piped from the box or perforated pipe some distance away from 

the source to a trough or series of troughs to prevent livestock concentration near 

the source. The pipe shall be buried deep enough to protect it from animals as well 

as from freezing. 

An adequate overflow will be installed from the troughs to drain excess water away 

from the troughs. The overflow pipe shall be directed back to the original water 

course. 

Water Quality 

See Term Grazing Permit for terms and conditions associated with livestock administration 

on the North End Allotment. Best Management Practices (Ref: November 1988 PNW 

publication titled General Water Quality Best Management Practices) and corresponding 

mitigation measures include: 

Best Management Practice, Range Management (RM)-2: Soil and water resources will be 

protected through management of livestock numbers and season of use. 

Permission to turn out must be obtained from the Forest Officer at least five (5) days 

in advance. Livestock entry onto the allotment or into a specific pasture will not be 

permitted until: 

o Soils are dry enough to prevent damage 

o Key plant species are ready to withstand grazing. 

The off-date for a pasture is when stock will be fully out of the pasture, or in the case 

of the last pasture in the rotation, fully off the Forest. It may be necessary to begin 

gathering early or hire additional help to achieve this. 

If implementation standards are reached on key areas prior to the scheduled 

move/turn off date, livestock will be required to move to the next pasture or off the 

Forest earlier than scheduled. 

Livestock numbers, season of use, and movement may be adjusted each year 

through the Annual Operating Instructions to allow for resource management needs. 
Chapter 2 –Alternatives 

22

Adjustments to livestock numbers, season of use, and movement may also be made 

during implementation to respond to resource conditions that develop as the season 

progresses. These conditions may include: drought, wildfire, achievement of key 

plant species utilization levels, stubble height, etc. The type of mitigation used will 

be determined by the Forest Officer in charge, based on the degree of the problem 

and its cause. If mitigation activities do not achieve desired results, additional 

action will be taken (for example, reductions in stocking or season of use in 

subsequent years). 

Best Management Practice RM-3: Preclude concentration of stock in areas that are 

sensitive to concentrated use and/or preclude prolonged use of an area which will result in 

loss of vegetative cover and soil compaction or damage to seeps and springs. 

In no case will salt be placed closer than 1⁄4-mile to streams, springs, or other 

wetlands without prior approval. 

Best Management Practice RM-4: Safeguard water quality under sustained forage 

production and manage forage harvest by livestock and wildlife. 

Forage resources will be allocated on a pasture-specific basis to meet basic plant and 

soil needs as a first priority. Forage production above basic resource needs will be 

available to wildlife and permitted livestock. See Table 6 in the Monitoring section 

below. 

Management activities will be designed and implemented to retain sufficient ground 

vegetation and organic matter to maintain long-term soil and site productivity. 

Fish Habitat 

The following Forest Plan standards (PACFISH) associated with livestock grazing apply to 

all Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) and activities outside of RHCAs that will 

degrade them: 

Grazing Management (GM)-1: Modify grazing practices (e.g. season, stocking, access 

to riparian areas) that retard or prevent attainment of Riparian Management 

Objectives, or are likely to adversely affect listed anadromous fish. Suspend grazing 

if adjusted practices are not effective in meeting Riparian Management Objectives 

and avoiding adverse effects on listed anadromous fish. 

GM-2: Locate new livestock handling and/or management facilities outside of 

RHCAs. For existing livestock handling facilities inside RHCAs, assure that 

facilities do not prevent attainment of Riparian Management Objectives or adversely 

affect listed anadromous fish. Relocate or close facilities where these objectives 

cannot be achieved. 

GM-3: Limit livestock trailing, bedding, salting, loading, watering, and other 

handling efforts to those areas and times that will not retard or prevent attainment 

of Riparian Management Objectives or adversely affect listed anadromous fish. 
Chapter 2 –Alternatives 

23

Grazing will not be authorized within 300 feet (PACFISH buffer) either side of 

streams with steelhead, Chinook or bull trout populations except at designated crossings 

as described below. 

Sheep will not bed within RHCAs of streams, springs, or other wet areas. 

Protect stream channel crossings by reviewing designated crossings to ensure there 

are no conflicts with fish, fish habitat, or bank stability. Select crossings that are 

dry during season of use, and have stable, naturally rocky banks. Road crossings 

will be used where available. 

Forest Plan riparian utilization standards will be followed. See Table 6 in the 

Monitoring section below. 

Steelhead and Critical Habitats (spring-spawning species) 

Sheep will not be authorized to graze within 300 ft. of stream reaches that are used 

by steelhead except at crossings. 

Sheep will not be allowed to cross those stream reaches that are used by steelhead 

for spawning until after July 15th except at road crossings (where a bridge or 

culverts are present) or above perennial flow. 

Bull Trout and Chinook salmon and Critical Habitats (fall-spawning species) 

Sheep will not be authorized to graze within 300 ft. of stream reaches that are used 

by bull trout or Chinook salmon except at crossings. 

Sheep will not be allowed to cross those stream reaches that are used by bull trout or 

Chinook salmon for spawning after August 15th except at road crossings (where a 

bridge or culverts are present) or above perennial flow. 

[Steelhead, bull trout, and/or Chinook salmon habitat occurs on the following 

streams: Lookingglass, Little Lookingglass, Swamp, Mottet, Eagle, Spring, 

Buck, Johnson, Woodward, Lick, Ryan, Shimmiehorn, Spring, Summer, Cabin, 

SF Cabin, Gordon, Phillips, East Phillips, Little Phillips, Dry, Creeks, Thomas, 

Bear, and NF Meacham creeks; Boston Canyon; Umatilla River, SF Umatilla 

River, NF Umatilla River, and SF Walla Walla River.] 

Heritage resources 

The appropriate level of compliance with National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), Section 106 must be completed before maintenance of existing and 

development of new improvements. 

Special Management Areas

Sheep will not graze on special Botanical Areas as described in the Special Interest 

Management Area in the Forest Plan (p. 4-131), which include Farr Meadow (50 

acres), Ruckle Junction (5 acres), Shimmiehorn Canyon (140 acres), and Woodward 

Campground (15 acres). 
Chapter 2 –Alternatives 

24

Sheep will be routed around all viewpoint special interest areas as described in the 

Special Interest Management Area in the Forest Plan, which include Bald 

Mountain, Gray Rock, Lookout Mountain, and Umatilla Breaks. None of the 

alternatives propose grazing near Lookout Mountain. 

Sheep will normally be routed around all developed recreation areas. The following 

recreation sites are included in the Developed Recreation Management Area of the 

Forest Plan (p. 4-117): Beaver Marsh, Buck Creek, Umatilla Forks, Corporation, 

Jubilee Lake, Woodland, Woodward, Mottet, Spout Springs, Tollgate, and Target 

Meadows. In some cases, sheep may be routed near developed recreation sites but 

will not be allowed to stay for an extended period of time. Depending on the 

alternative selected, sheep may be authorized to graze the Spout Springs ski area to 

maintain desired vegetative conditions (Alternatives 1 and 2 only). 

Livestock will be managed within wilderness areas to minimize impacts on the 

wilderness environment and to minimize potential conflict with other users of the 

area. For example, high use areas such as trailheads will be avoided, and sheep will 

be routed away from or around people using the area. 

Sensitive Plant Areas 

Livestock will not be allowed in Lookingglass Creek and the slopes immediately 

above it to protect Rorippa columbiae.

Livestock will not be allowed in the Carex cordillerana area near Umatilla Forks. 

Livestock use will be monitored near the Carex vernacula area in the Middle Ridge 

pasture and appropriate measures will be taken to exclude sheep where necessary. 

Invasive Plants 

The Allotment Management Plan map will show current, inventoried noxious weed 

infestations to be avoided and/or monitored. 

Locations of infestations shall be discussed with the permittee during annual 

meetings to prevent spread of these sites. Permittee will be given identification 

information about noxious weeds during annual meetings with the Forest Service. 

The permittee should inform the Forest Service of infestations on the allotment. 

Vehicles used in managing livestock on the allotment shall be cleaned of any weed 

transporting material such as hay, mud, or seeds prior to entering Forest Service 

lands. 

All hay used on USFS land shall be certified weed free. 

Any seeding for restoration purposes will utilize certified weed-free seed.
Chapter 2 –Alternatives 

25

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. Non-native, noninvasive plant species may be used in any of the 

following situations: 1) when needed in emergency conditions to protect basic 

resource values (e.g., soil stability, water quality and to help prevent the 

establishment of invasive species), 2) as an interim, non-persistent measure 

designed to aid in the reestablishment of native plants, 3) if native plant materials 

are not available, or 4) in permanently altered plant communities. Under no 

circumstances will nonnative invasive plant species be used for re-vegetation. 

Monitoring 

The following monitoring would occur as part of implementing grazing in the North End 

Allotment. These standards and monitoring methods have proven to be effective on the 

Umatilla National Forest and supported by the Forest Plan, past monitoring, permit 

administration, and long term monitoring data. 

Forest Plan Utilization Standards 

The Umatilla Forest Plan identifies utilization standards to assure continued maintenance 

or improvement of vegetation and soils. Maximum utilization standards have been set for 

both riparian and upland vegetative communities depending on range condition 

(Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory) (Table 6). Utilization of grass and forbs are measured by 

percent weight of forage remaining, while shrubs are measured by annual growth 

remaining. These utilization standards are maximum levels of use, regardless of which 

animal species uses the forage or browse. The standard reached first will be the most 

restrictive and livestock will be removed prior to that standard being exceeded. If 

standards do not maintain the desired conditions, a more restrictive standard will be 

prescribed as part of the adaptive management process. 

Table 6. Allowable grazing utilization standards. 

Measure

Upland Riparian

Grass and Forbs

Shrub

Grass 

and 

Forbs

Shrub

Forested Grassland

Satisfactory 45% 55% 40% 45% 45%

Unsatisfactory 35% 35% 30% 35% 30%

The Forest Service range manager assesses utilization during and after grazing. 

Monitoring of riparian vegetation occurs in areas that are representative of the associated 

pasture. The monitoring areas are locations where forage utilization would first become 

evident, or where utilization would lead to unacceptable resource conditions. Upland 

monitoring may be conducted by the permittee, with visual inspections by the Forest 

Service range manager. If the range manager visually identifies an area of concern, more 

intensive measurements are taken. 
Chapter 2 –Alternatives 

26

Height/weight curves for many rangeland plant species have been converted to utilization 

measures to provide a quick, reasonable estimate of the level of grazing that could be 

sustained, while still allowing plants to store carbohydrates for seasonal growth and 

persistence. 

Interagency Implementation Monitoring 

Implementation monitoring is required on grazing allotments to meet the terms of the 1998 

PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinions. This monitoring will occur at Designated 

Monitoring Areas (DMA) along streams within each pasture. Monitoring will occur on 

herbaceous vegetation (stubble height or % utilization), bank alteration, and utilization of 

woody vegetation. This monitoring will occur on the greenline. Designated Monitoring 

Areas may be moved to different locations based on resource conditions. If there is not an 

appropriate monitoring area within a management unit, a DMA will not be established. 

Effectiveness Monitoring 

Effectiveness monitoring, or long term monitoring, is used to determine the trend of 

riparian and upland vegetation as they relate to livestock grazing activities in the North 

End Allotment. Described below is the effectiveness monitoring plan for the North End 

Allotment. 

Upland Habitats

Two Condition and Trend (C&T) Clusters were established in 1993 have been monitored 

to determine the trend of vegetation and soil conditions on the allotment. These C&Ts 

would continue to be monitored approximately every 10 years by the Forest Service. 

Trend evaluation would be used to help determine if livestock grazing on the allotment 

is allowing maintenance of or movement towards desired vegetation conditions (Forest 

Plan Goal). Other monitoring protocols may be used to help determine vegetation 

condition and trend. 

Riparian Habitats

The majority of the riparian habitats within the allotment will not be grazed. 

Compliance checks will occur to ensure that sheep are not accessing streams with fish 

populations (RHCAs). Riparian monitoring/assessments may occur in the headwaters of 

streams or in small isolated meadows to determine the condititon of plant communtities 

and the condition of undeveloped seeps and springs. Adjustments in routing schedules 

may occur based on these assessments. 

Maintenance of developed water sources and their management is intended to protect 

spring and seep integrity, to prevent damage to wet soil, and to control erosion and 

sedimentation from watering sources. Effectiveness of these BMPs will be monitored at 

selected developed sources each year of grazing. 

Other Implementation Monitoring 

Implementation of BMPs identified for developed water source maintenance and 

management will occur each year of grazing. 

Monitoring results since 1992 are detailed in the Range Report. 
Chapter 2 –Alternatives 

27

Alternative Comparison and Summary 

Table 7. Alternative Summary. 

Alternative 1 2 3 4 5

Allotment size (acres) 101,000 81,500 79,600 52,600 0

Ewe / lamb pairs 3,962 3,000 3,000 2,000 0

Number of bands 4 3 3 2 0

Figure 6. Acres grazed and number of sheep by alternative. 

 

 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Acres

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Sheep
Chapter 2 –Alternatives 

28

Comparison of Alternatives by Key Issue 

Key Issue: Bighorn Sheep 

There is a need to effectively separate permitted domestic sheep from bighorn sheep. 

Effective separation is defined as spatial and/or temporal separation between wild sheep 

and domestic sheep or goats, resulting in (at most) a minimal risk of potential respiratory 

disease transmission (WAFWA 2010). This can be achieved through a combination of 

factors including maintaining separation distance appropriate for the terrain, managing 

livestock properly, and coordinating closely with the state wildlife agency. 

All action alternatives increase the distance separating domestic sheep on the North End 

allotment from bighorn sheep. Separation distance is measured in air line miles from the 

edge of allotment to the closest known area used by bighorn sheep. Simply stated, the 

further apart the two species, the less likely they will contact one another. 

Separation effectiveness is a relative rating based on distance in combination with other 

factors. Local knowledge of the area was used to determine the relative ranking of high, 

moderate or low separation effectiveness. After considering potential vegetative and 

topographic deterrents to bighorn sheep movement, considering available bighorn sheep 

radio telemetry data, and considering separation distance, a relative rank of high, moderate 

or low separation effectiveness was assigned to each alternative 

The following indicators were used to compare the effects of alternatives to bighorn sheep 

(Table 8): 

Separation distance between the allotment and the Wenaha bighorn sheep herd, and 

separation distance between the allotment and the potential SFWW release area. 

Separation effectiveness between domestic sheep on the allotment and the Wenaha 

bighorn herd, and separation effectiveness between domestic sheep on the allotment 

and prospective bighorn sheep in the SFWW river area. 
Chapter 2 –Alternatives 

29

Table 8. Separation distance and separation effectiveness by alternative.

* NOTE: the column above labeled “1986 allotment boundary” represents the configuration 

of the allotment since 1986, and the typical number of sheep grazed. These figures are 

provided to clearly demonstrate the changes proposed in each of the alternatives. It is not 

an alternative analyzed in detail. 

** While Alternatives 3 and 4 have differing effects to other species and resources, the 

effects to the above bighorn sheep measures are identical. 

Key Issue: Management Feasibility 

The management feasibility rating compares the current management of the allotment as 

written in the 1986 Allotment Management Plan to each alternative. All action 

alternatives result in a reduction in management flexibility as compared to the current 

management of the allotment. 

Operations: sheep herd routing and access challenges based on stocking rate and 

configuration of allotment (Table 9) 

Administration: water development and range monitoring needs (Table 9)

Economics: revenue and jobs based on number of livestock (Table 10) 

 Measure

1986 

allotment 

boundary

*

Alternative

1 2 3 & 4** 5 – no 

grazing

Separation distance

between allotment boundary and 

Wenaha bighorn sheep (air miles)

1 8 10.5 12 NA

Separation effectiveness

between North End permitted sheep

and Wenaha bighorn sheep

Low Moderate High High NA

Separation distance

between allotment boundary and 

SFWW bighorn sheep habitat (air 

miles)

1 1 4 9 NA

Separation effectiveness 

between North End permitted sheep 

and potential SFWW bighorn sheep

Low Low Low to 

Moderate High NA
Chapter 2 –Alternatives 

30

Table 9. Comparison of Operation and Administration by alternative.* 

Alternative Current 

permit 1 2 3 4 5

Stocking Rate (acres /SHM) 5.1 5.8 6.2 6.1 6.0 0

Herd route management 

challenges Low Moderate Moderate High Moderate NA

Access and grazing 

management challenges No No No Yes No NA

Increased monitoring needs No Yes Yes Yes Yes NA

Water development costs 0 0 0

$50,000

or less 0 0

 

*Routing challenges are expected because the allotment would be smaller with fewer 

options to rest areas. The “high” rating for Alternative 3 reflects the current lack of 

knowledge about managing the new grazing area. Access challenges refer to expected 

difficulties with road access in the new grazing area. An increase in vegetation 

monitoring would be expected in all alternatives because the allotment would be smaller 

with fewer options to rest areas. 

Table 10. Economic indicators by alternative.* 

 Alternative Current 

permit 1 2 3 4 5

Revenue $385,899 $385,899 $292,200 $292,200 $194,800 0

Grazing Fees to U.S. Treasury $7,012 $7,012 $5,309 $5,309 $3,539 0

County payments (25 %) $1,753 $1,753 $1,327 $1,327 $885 0

Jobs 5.1 5.1 3.9 3.9 2.5 0

Percent reduction 

for all of the above

- 0 % 24 % 24 % 50 % 100 %

*Revenue is estimated based on a 100 lb. lamb sold at the 2008 sale price of $97.40 per 

hundred weight. Jobs are calculated as 0.3 employees for every 1000 head month (HM) 

livestock grazed. Grazing fees are based on the 2010 rate of $1.35 per SHM. 
Chapter 2 –Alternatives 

31

Other Issues 

Issues that were not considered major, but which relate to existing regulations or which 

help to better understand the consequences of the proposed activities were considered and 

are listed below (Table 11). These other issues are generally of high interest or concern to 

the public or are necessary to understand the full extent of the alternatives. 

Table 11. Other Issues by Alternative. 

For additional information on Alternative effects, see Chapter 3. 

Preferred Alternative 

Alternative 4 is the agency preferred alternative. 

Alternatives 1 2 3 4 5

Invasive plant sites within 

allotment boundary 429 313 325 278 0

Wilderness acres within 

allotment boundary 20,520 20,520 0 0 0

Roadless acres within 

allotment boundary 7,500 5,300 13,800 3,860 0

Recreation

Occasional 

contact / 

minor 

effects

Occasional 

contact / 

minor 

effects

Occasional 

contact / 

minor 

effects

More opportunities in 

undeveloped areas

than Alternatives 1-3
Chapter 2 –Alternatives 

32

Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail 

Additional options were considered in response to public comments, but were dismissed 

because they would not reasonably meet the Purpose and Need for action. They are as 

follows: 

Keep entire allotment as described in the 1986 Allotment Management Plan. This 

would not meet the stated purpose and need for action (see Chapter 1, Purpose and 

Need) because there would not be adequate separation between domestic sheep and 

bighorn sheep. 

Convert allotment to cattle grazing. Conversion to cattle does not meet the purpose 

and need because management feasibility would be greatly reduced. It would be 

costly to plan and administer a cattle allotment. It would be costly to build fences 

and cattle guards. In addition, cattle grazing would likely result in negative impacts 

to other resources. 

Use the Proposed Action boundary, but reduce the number of livestock. This did not 

meet the purpose and need to effectively separate domestic sheep from bighorn 

sheep. 

Limit allotment to areas south and west of Highway 204. This alternative was not 

developed in detail because it would only address the Wenaha bighorn sheep herd, 

and would not provide enough separation from the South Fork Walla Walla bighorn 

habitat. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

33

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences

This chapter describes the environment and the environmental impacts that would likely 

result from the various alternatives. It focuses on the following resources that are relevant 

to or affected by the proposed activities: bighorn sheep, management feasibility, rangeland 

conditions, invasive plants, sensitive plants, soils and water quality, fish and aquatic 

habitat, wildlife species and habitats, recreation, wilderness, and cultural resources. 

This chapter summarizes the analysis provided by each resource specialist (listed in 

Chapter 4). Resource specialist reports and biological evaluations are part of the Project 

Record. Each of the following resource sections identifies the existing condition for that 

resource and the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed activities. 

Past, ongoing, and future foreseeable projects in the area include aquatic restoration 

projects, invasive plant treatments, landscape prescribed fire, recreation site maintenance, 

timber harvest, and fuel reduction projects. 

The chapter ends with specifically required disclosures which demonstrate consistency with 

applicable laws and regulations. 

The scale of analysis for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to bighorn sheep is 

primarily the 1986 North End Allotment boundary but also includes the home range area 

for the Wenaha bighorn sheep herd, and the South Fork Walla Walla potential bighorn 

sheep habitat (see maps on following pages). For Alternative 3, the addition of the Goodman 

Area was also evaluated. 

Background 

At one time, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep were possibly the most common big game 

mammal in the mountain regions (Toweill and Geist 1999). One historic estimate was that 

up to 2 million animals occurred in North America prior to European settlement. Currently 

there are about 35,000 Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in North America (Toweill and Geist 

1999). 

Bighorn sheep are native to the mountain and canyon country in northeastern Oregon and 

southeastern Washington (Bailey 1936), but were gone from the region by 1945 due to overhunting, competition for forage with domestic livestock, and introduced diseases (Coggins 

and Mathews 1996, HCBSRC 2004). 

A long history of bighorn sheep die-offs has been documented across Canada and the United 

States, many coinciding with the influx of domestic sheep (Goodson 1982, Jessup 1985). 

Singer et al. (2001) found that the persistence of bighorn sheep populations was negatively 

Key Issue: Bighorn Sheep
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

34

correlated with the presence of domestic sheep. For decades, biologists and scientists have 

emphasized the need to maintain spatial separation of domestic and wild sheep in order to 

reduce disease transmission. 

Disease transmission 

Bighorn sheep and domestic sheep are closely related, and they are naturally attracted to 

one another (Schommer and Woolever 2001). Bighorn sheep are native to North America, 

whereas domestic sheep most likely descended from the wild mouflon of Asia (Mason 1996). 

Domestic sheep have been selectively bred for disease resistance, among other factors, and 

have historically been raised in concentrated flocks. North American bighorn sheep evolved 

in high mountains and arid climates at relatively low population densities, and are 

generally more susceptible to each of the diseases they share with livestock (Jessup 1985). 

The primary factor limiting bighorn sheep populations and long-term viability is their 

susceptibility to disease transmission from domestic sheep and goats (Beecham et al. 2007, 

George et al. 2008). This is followed by lack of connectivity and/or loss of genetic fitness due 

to habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; human disturbance; competition for resources with 

domestic livestock; and predation on small, isolated herds (Beecham et al. 2007). Bighorn 

sheep have a low tolerance to over hunting, poor range conditions, and habitat loss 

compared to other wild ungulates (Martin et al. 1996). 

Bighorn sheep are highly susceptible to pneumonia and particularly to pasteurellosis, a 

generic term for disease caused by bacteria in the Pasteurellaceae family (Miller 2001). 

This condition is known to cause individual deaths, large-scale herd mortality events, and 

depressed lamb recruitment (George et al. 2009). Other factors that can potentially 

predispose a bighorn sheep to disease or increase the potential for mortality include the 

presence of lungworms, respiratory viruses, other bacteria, other microbial agents, 

gastrointestinal and external parasites; breeding behavior; and genetics (Foreyt 1998). 

Harsh weather and poor nutrition may periodically reduce the ability of bighorn sheep to 

resist disease (Garde et al. 2005). 

Bighorn sheep pneumonic deaths are most often caused by a bacteria known as 

Mannheimia haemolytica (formerly Pasteurella haemolytica), and other Pasteurella species 

(Foreyt 1990). Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae has also been recently implicated, which 

appears to cause a predisposition to fatal pneumonia due to M. haemolytica (Dassanayake 

et al. 2010). Domestic sheep are often carriers of Pasteurella spp. but do not exhibit clinical 

signs (Foreyt 1989). These bacteria species survive less than 24 hours outside the host and 

thus do not persist in the environment (CAST 2008, Garde et al. 2005, Onderka and 

Wishart 1988). 

A recent study unequivocally demonstrated the transmission of tagged M. haemolytica

bacteria from infected domestic sheep directly to several bighorn sheep, leading to death of 

the bighorns (Lawrence, et al. 2010). Mannheimia haemolytica generally requires direct 

physical contact between animals for transmission (Foreyt et al. 1994), such as nose to nose 

or sneezing in close proximity. 

There have been close encounters between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep that did not 

result in disease (Coggins 2002). The development of immunity to pasteurellosis in bighorn 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

35

sheep is complex and poorly understood (Miller 2001). Vaccines to protect bighorn sheep 

have thus far been ineffective (Foreyt 1992, Foreyt 1998, Foreyt and Silflow 1996). 

However, individual bighorn sheep that recover from pasteurellosis may remain healthy 

during subsequent epidemics (Miller et al. 1991). 

This analysis recognizes the complexity associated with various disease pathogens. All 

bighorn sheep disease epidemics cannot be specifically attributed to contact between 

domestic and bighorn sheep, however numerous empirical studies and field observations 

demonstrate that interactions between domestic and bighorn sheep increases the 

probability of mortality and reduced lamb survival (CAST 2008, Wehausen et al. 2011). 

There is widespread support in the scientific community to do as much as we can to keep 

the two species separated until additional research provides other solutions. 

Bighorn sheep habitat 

Primary bighorn sheep habitat consists of rugged, open to semi-open grassland or 

grass/shrub plant communities that allow high visibility. Terrain is characterized by a mix 

of steep or gentle slopes, broken cliffs, rock outcrops, and canyons and their adjacent river 

benches and mesa tops (Beecham et al. 2007). Expanses of rim rock, broken cliffs, and rock 

outcrops are especially important for lambing and escape from predators. Most northeast 

Oregon bighorn sheep herds have excellent grassland ranges with abundant food (ODFW 

2003). Grasses are the staple forage species, complemented seasonally with forbs and 

shrubs. 

The North End Allotment itself contains very little potential bighorn sheep habitat and 

would not likely support a bighorn population (Schommer pers. comm., Kirsch pers. comm.). 

Portions of the Umatilla River drainage contain steep, open areas; however there is a very 

limited amount of exposed basalt (rocky habitat) that bighorn sheep need for escape terrain. 

There is also little to no contiguity of bighorn habitat between the Wenaha / Grande Ronde 

bighorn habitat and the Umatilla River area because of the large tracts of conifer forest 

(Figure 7). 

The South Fork Walla Walla River (SFWW) area has long been identified as high quality, 

unoccupied Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat. This bighorn sheep habitat is on Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land Management lands. The area is identified as a potential 

transplant site in the state of Oregon’s Bighorn Sheep and Rocky Mountain Goat 

Management Plan (ODFW 2003). Establishing a bighorn sheep herd in this area would 

provide hunting opportunities for CTUIR tribal members and the general public; provide 

recreational wildlife viewing opportunities; and return a native species to the ecosystem. 

Although there are no immediate plans to introduce bighorn sheep there (Kirsch, pers. 

comm.), individual bighorn sheep could migrate there on their own. At least two bighorn 

sheep have appeared in the general SFWW area in the past, and were removed by ODFW 

because it was likely they had come into contact with domestic sheep (Kirsch, pers. comm.). 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

36
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

37

Wenaha bighorn sheep herd 

This analysis focuses on the Wenaha herd, but acknowledges the potential for interaction 

with other bighorn sheep populations in the Hells Canyon bighorn sheep metapopulation.

In particular the Wenaha bighorn sheep population is closely linked to the Mountain 

View/Cottonwood bighorn sheep population in Washington on the Grande Ronde River 

north of Troy. 

The Wenaha bighorn sheep herd was established with animals translocated from Idaho, 

Oregon, and Washington. In 1983, 30 Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep were released into 

the Wenaha River canyon. Additional transplants occurred in 1984 and 1986, for a total of 

72 animals released (HCBSRC 2004). The population grew quickly, peaking in 1992 with 

an estimated 130 animals (HCBSRC 2004). 

In 1995 and 1996, a pneumonia die-off spread throughout bighorn sheep herds in the 

region. Bighorn sheep first began dying north of the Grande Ronde River in Washington. 

The pneumonia outbreaks spread south to other herds near the Grande Ronde River and 

lower Hells Canyon (Cassirer et al. 1996). The Wenaha herd was reduced down to 50 

animals. 

In 1997 a joint effort to radio collar and monitor bighorn sheep began as part of the Hells 

Canyon Initiative (HCBRSC 1997). Between 1997 and 2009, an average of 16 bighorn 

sheep have had functioning radio-collars annually (range of six in 2009 to 23 in 2006). With 

the exception of three rams collared with GPS radio-collars in 2007, all collars were 

equipped with VHF transmitters and located approximately every two weeks. 

In addition to immediate all-age bighorn sheep herd deaths, long-term reductions in lamb 

survival and recruitment can result in stagnant populations over many years (George et al. 

2009). Adult sheep that survive the initial pneumonia episode have apparently remained 

infected for many years or have been periodically reinfected but have some level of 

protective immunity. Between 1997 and 2003, in the years after the initial die-off, survival 

of adult rams averaged 89 percent and ewe survival averaged 93 percent. However, lamb 

survival to weaning averaged less than 50 percent and recruitment averaged 23 lambs per 

100 ewes (Cassirer and Sinclair 2007). 

Productivity observed in the Wenaha population from 1997 to 2003 averaged 63 percent, 

but in most years over 70 percent of these lambs will die within the first few months of life 

from pneumonia, apparently caused by exposure to the bacteria shed in nasal secretions of 

adults (Foreyt 1990, Cassirer and Sinclair 2007). Eighty-six percent of lambs found dead 

are diagnosed with pneumonia (Akenson 1998, Cassirer and Sinclair 2007). 

Summer lamb survival rates in the Wenaha herd have fluctuated widely, but generally 

remain low and pneumonia continues to be detected in dead lambs. Seven radio collared 

ewes were observed with lambs each year in 2008 and 2009, but only one of these lambs 

made it to October (IDFG 2009, HCBSRC December 2009 – meeting minutes). 

In 2008 the Wenaha herd numbered about 90 individuals (ODFW 2009). The maximum 

count in 2009 was 57 sheep in the Wenaha segment of the population and 34 in Mountain 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

38

View/Cottonwood. Essentially, the Wenaha herd has still not recovered from the 1995 - 

1996 pneumonia epizootic. 

In 2010, the Forest Service provided funds to purchase additional radio collars and increase 

monitoring of the Wenaha bighorn herd. Radio collars were placed on 21 bighorn sheep in 

the Wenaha and Mountain View/Cottonwood populations. Seven of these are GPS (Global 

Positioning System) collars with an Argos uplink, and two are “store on board’ GPS collars 

(Cassirer pers. comm.). GPS collars provide several locations per day and are accompanied 

by ground and aerial surveillance. 

Wenaha herd distribution in relation to the North End Allotment 

Based on radio telemetry and visual observations, the majority of bighorn sheep in the 

Wenaha herd are located along the Wenaha River and the lower Grande Ronde River near 

Troy, Oregon. A small number of bighorn sheep are frequently located further to the south 

immediately adjacent to the North End Allotment (Figures 7 and 8). At current population 

levels, about 20 bighorn sheep make use of this area primarily in summer and fall (Cassirer 

pers. comm.).

The 1986 North End Allotment Management Plan acknowledged the potential for conflicts 

with bighorn sheep in this area. The allotment boundary was pulled back from the breaks 

of the Grande Ronde River, providing a one mile buffer between bighorn habitat and the 

allotment edge. The portions of the allotment that are in close proximity to the Wenaha 

bighorn herd is forested, although there has been a great deal of timber harvest and 

roading. There are no obvious dispersal corridors through the forest between suitable 

patches of bighorn habitat. 

Although bighorn sheep do not favor timbered areas, they will pass through them and are 

extremely hard to detect when this happens (Schommer 2009). Bighorn sheep exhibit 

strong site fidelity and dispersal rates are believed to be low (Beecham et al. 2007), but 

occasional long distance movements do occur. Patterns of long distance movements have 

not been adequately studied (Beecham et al. 2007). In general, dispersal of individuals 

tends to occur when resources are abundant and individuals are strong and healthy 

(Toweill and Geist 1999). Newly established (transplanted) populations in high quality 

habitat are prone to disperse (Beecham et al. 2007, DeCesare and Pletcher 2006). 

No bighorn sheep have been documented in the North End Allotment for the past 13 years. 

However, there were 2 years in the 1990’s in which bighorn sheep were present. In 1994, 

two bighorn sheep were removed just west of the North End Allotment (Kirsch pers. 

comm.). In 1997, two additional bighorn rams had to be removed from within the allotment 

(Kirsch pers. comm.). None of these animals were radio collared, so we do not know where 

they came from, but presumably they traveled from either the Grande Ronde River area or 

the Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness. 

Both bighorn rams and ewes can be attracted to domestic sheep (Coggins 2002). The 

Jarboe pasture was grazed by domestic sheep in both 1994 and 1997, which at some points 

is within a mile of known bighorn sheep use areas. It is possible that the presence (sound 

and sight) or lingering sign (odor and droppings) of domestic sheep on the allotment 

affected the behavior of these wandering bighorn rams. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

39

Domestic sheep have also strayed from permitted grazing areas into bighorn sheep 

territory. Two domestic sheep moved off the North End Allotment in 2008. One was found 

east of the Grande Ronde River with a cow, and the other was observed to the north in the 

Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness with a mountain goat (Coggins and Mathews 2008, District 

records). 

Domestic sheep herds have been grazing on large tracts of private property adjacent to 

Forest Service land. These areas are owned by Forest Capital Partners (formerly Boise 

Cascade Corporation), a private timber company. Documented straying incidents include a 

domestic sheep that moved from private land at least 30 miles north through rugged 

terrain. This ewe joined some cattle in close proximity to the Wenaha bighorn herd 

(Coggins 2002). Another stray ewe, presumably from the same area, moved 12 miles south 

and joined some mule deer (Coggins 2002). 

WAFWA Recommendations 

A document written by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) 

Wild Sheep Working Group (2010) provides numerous recommendations to consider in the 

management of grazing allotments near bighorn sheep. 

Applicable recommendations have been incorporated into the planning process, the project 

design, and the management requirements outlined in Chapter 2 of the North End 

Allotment EIS. In turn, these measures will be appropriately incorporated into an 

Allotment Management Plan. 

WAFWA (2010) provides additional suggestions for permittees. These are suggestions 

rather than recommendations because they are not based on evidence or evaluations of 

effectiveness (WAFWA 2010). These items have also been considered in the management of 

this allotment. 

WAFWA recommends that a ‘detection and response protocol’ be in place for domestic sheep 

allotments near bighorn sheep range. This has been completed and will be reviewed 

annually. The protocol outlines timeframes, responsibilities, and procedures in the event 

that bighorn sheep are seen near domestic sheep herds, or if domestic sheep are separated 

from the permitted area. 

Evaluation of Effects to Bighorn Sheep 

Several bighorn sheep models were recently developed for the Payette National Forest (NF) 

as part of an EIS to modify the Southwest Idaho Eco-group Land and Resource 

Management Plan (USDA-FS 2010a). These models were developed to assess bighorn sheep 

population viability on the Payette NF. 

A more simplified approach was used in this analysis because the EIS objectives as well as 

the environmental conditions are different than the Payette EIS. This EIS does not amend 

the Umatilla NF forest plan. Population viability is more appropriately addressed at a 

larger scale, and as such it will be addressed in the upcoming revisions of the Umatilla, 

Malheur, and Wallowa-Whitman forest plans. Unlike the Payette, the North End 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

40

Allotment does not directly overlap occupied bighorn sheep habitat, and the allotment is 75 

percent forest with little to no contiguity of potential bighorn sheep habitat. 

To determine the potential effects of domestic sheep grazing on the Wenaha bighorn sheep 

herd and on the potential South Fork Walla Walla bighorn sheep herd, we relied on local, 

expert knowledge and published literature on bighorn sheep distribution, habitat use, and 

behavior. 

Effective separation is defined as spatial and/or temporal separation between wild sheep 

and domestic sheep or goats, resulting in (at most) a minimal risk of potential respiratory 

disease transmission (WAFWA 2010). This can be achieved through a combination of 

factors including maintaining separation distance appropriate for the terrain, managing 

livestock properly, and coordinating closely with the state wildlife agency. 

Simply stated, the further apart the two species, the less likely they will contact one 

another. Separation distance between the two species is of utmost importance (Coggins 

2002), although it will not prevent long distance movements by either species. Additional 

management strategies were developed to reduce the potential for contact (see Chapter 2, 

Management Requirements). A response protocol is also in place which outlines procedures 

to take if livestock straying does occur, or if bighorn sheep travel into the allotment 

(Wildlife Report). 

Comparison of Alternatives 

The following indicators were used to compare the effects of alternatives to bighorn sheep 

(Table 12): 

Separation distance between the allotment and the Wenaha bighorn sheep herd, and 

separation distance between the allotment and the potential SFWW release area. 

Separation distance is measured in straight air miles from the edge of the 

allotment at the point nearest the bighorn sheep range, to the closest known 

bighorn sheep use area. 

Separation effectiveness between domestic sheep on the allotment and the Wenaha 

bighorn herd, and separation effectiveness between domestic sheep on the allotment 

and prospective bighorn sheep in the SFWW river area. 

Separation effectiveness is a relative rating based on distance in combination 

with other factors. Separation effectiveness relies heavily on distance and the 

fact that the distance space is primarily forested (Figure 7). Bighorn sheep do not 

like to move through areas where visibility is low and they are vulnerable to 

predation. Therefore, the fact that the ‘buffer’ area between bighorn sheep and 

the allotment is primarily forested (low visibility) is a key consideration. Other 

factors were considered such as past bighorn sheep movements in this area, and

allotment management requirements (Wildlife Report). 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

41

Table 12. Separation distance and separation effectiveness by alternative.

* Note that the “1986 allotment boundary” column represents the configuration of the 

allotment since 1986, and the typical number of sheep grazed. These figures are provided 

to clearly demonstrate the changes proposed in each of the alternatives. It is not an 

alternative analyzed in detail. 

** While Alternatives 3 and 4 have differing effects to other species and resources, the 

effects to the above bighorn sheep measures are identical. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 

Management Requirements are in place and apply to all alternatives (Ch. 2, Management 

Requirements). Specific management requirements related to bighorn sheep have been 

taken into consideration in this effects analysis. These requirements include procedures 

which are designed to deter bighorn/domestic sheep contact, and procedures to take if comingling occurs or could predictably occur. 

If bighorn sheep are found within any part of the allotment during an active grazing 

season, ODFW personnel will attempt to remove them (ODFW 2003). Once wandering 

bighorns have potentially come into contact with domestic sheep or goats, they cannot be 

allowed to return to the main herd and spread disease. It may only take one contact by one 

domestic sheep to spread respiratory illness throughout and between bighorn sheep herds 

(Gross et al. 2000, George et al. 2008). This potential for lethal removal could have a direct 

 Measure

1986

allotment 

boundary

Alternative

1 2 3 and 4*

5 – no 

grazing

Separation distance

between allotment boundary and 

Wenaha bighorn sheep (air miles)

1 8 10.5 12 NA

Separation effectiveness

between North End permitted sheep

and Wenaha bighorn sheep

Low Moderate High High NA

Separation distance

between allotment boundary and 

SFWW bighorn sheep habitat 

(air miles)

1 1 4 9 NA

Separation effectiveness 

between North End permitted sheep 

and potential SFWW bighorn sheep

Low Low Low to 

Moderate High NA
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

42

effect to individual bighorn sheep and indirect effects to the population under all action 

(grazing) alternatives. 

If lost domestic sheep are found in close proximity to occupied bighorn sheep range, the 

Forest Service and ODFW would work with the allotment permittees on both private and 

federal land to determine ownership, and take appropriate action to remove the domestic 

sheep. 

While management requirements are important for protecting bighorn sheep, the primary 

way to avoid conflicts is to maintain distance between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep 

(Schommer 2009). Most of the time, domestic sheep would be even farther away than 

indicated in Table 12; in other words, they would spend little time near the boundary from 

which distance was measured. 

The likelihood that bighorn sheep in the Wenaha herd would come into contact with 

domestic sheep on the North End Allotment is considerably reduced in all alternatives. 

Separation distance is increased by at least 7 miles and separation effectiveness is 

improved from low to moderate or high in all alternatives (Table 12).

The likelihood that prospective bighorn sheep in the South Fork Walla Walla (SFWW) 

River area would come into contact with domestic sheep on the North End Allotment is 

considerably reduced in Alternatives 3 and 4, but under Alternatives 1 and 2 there would 

not be any reduction. Alternatives 3 and 4 increase the separation distance by 8 miles 

compared to the existing condition (Table 12).

 

In addition, domestic sheep are removed from the allotment by October 9, so there is little 

to no overlap with the bighorn sheep rut period of late October to early December. Male 

bighorn sheep may be more likely to roam during this period and be attracted to domestic 

ewes. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 1 

The 31,000 acres of the existing allotment that are closest to the Wenaha bighorn herd 

would no longer be grazed by domestic sheep. The number of domestic sheep would not 

change, so 3,962 ewe lamb pairs would graze in a smaller allotment compared to the 

existing allotment. The distance between the edge of the existing allotment boundary and 

the Wenaha bighorn herd would be a minimum of 8 to 9 air miles, which is a 7 mile 

increase in separation (Figure 8). 

 

The separation effectiveness for the Wenaha bighorn herd would be improved to Moderate 

(Table 12). The area that would be dropped from the allotment is primarily managed, 

mixed conifer forest. While this does not guarantee that bighorns would not move through 

it, there would be a forested buffer that would be unattractive to bighorn sheep. 

The relative separation effectiveness for the SFWW is considered Low (Table 12). If 

bighorn sheep were to occupy the South Fork Walla Walla River (SFWW) area in the 

future, Alternative 1 would not maintain adequate separation between domestic sheep and 

the potential SFWW bighorn sheep area. The distance between the allotment boundary 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

43

and the SFWW bighorn habitat would only be 1 to 2 air miles. If bighorn sheep were to 

move into this area on their own, they would likely have to be removed by ODFW. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 2

More than 50,000 acres nearest the bighorn herd would be eliminated from the allotment. 

The number of sheep would decrease to 3 bands, or 3000 ewe/lamb pair. Having 25 percent 

fewer domestic sheep on the allotment could reduce the chances that any would become lost 

and end up contacting wild sheep. The distance from the allotment boundary to the 

Wenaha herd would be 10 to 11 air miles, a 2 mile improvement over Alternative 1 (Figure 

9). Separation effectiveness is considered High for the Wenaha bighorn sheep herd (Table 

12). 

The distance from the allotment boundary to the SFWW bighorn habitat would be 4 miles, 

a 3 mile improvement over Alternative 1. If bighorn sheep were to occupy the SFWW area 

in the future, there would still be a moderate potential for contact with domestic sheep in 

the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness. Separation effectiveness is considered to fall between 

Low and Moderate. If bighorn sheep move into the SFWW area, they may have to be 

removed by ODFW. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 3

Just over 79,000 acres nearest the bighorn herd would be eliminated from the allotment. 

Similar to Alternative 2, the number of domestic sheep would decrease to 3 bands, or 3000 

ewe/lamb pair. Having 25 percent fewer domestic sheep on the allotment could reduce the 

chances that any would become lost and end up contacting wild sheep. The distance from 

the allotment boundary to the Wenaha herd extent would be 12 air miles (Figure 10). The 

addition of the Goodman area would not increase or decrease the separation distances 

between the allotment and both bighorn sheep areas. Separation effectiveness is 

considered High for this alternative (Table 12). 

Separation effectiveness is also considered High for the SFWW potential bighorn area. The 

closest distance from the allotment boundary to the SFWW bighorn habitat would be at 

least 9 miles. If bighorn sheep were to occupy the SFWW area in the future, there would be 

a low potential for contact with domestic sheep on the North End Allotment. The future 

transplant of bighorn sheep into this area could be feasible if this alternative is chosen. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 4

Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 3 in regards to bighorn sheep (Table 12), except that 

only 2000 pair of domestic sheep would be permitted. Having 50 percent fewer permitted 

sheep on the allotment would reduce the chances that any might become lost and end up 

contacting wild sheep. 

Just over 79,000 acres nearest the bighorn herd would be eliminated from the allotment. 

The distance from the allotment boundary to the Wenaha herd extent would be the same as 

Alternative 3 which is 12 air miles (Figure 11). This would be an 11 mile improvement in 

separation distance compared to the existing allotment boundary. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

44

Separation effectiveness is also the same as Alternative 3. Separation effectiveness is 

considered High for both the Wenaha bighorn sheep and the SFWW potential bighorn area 

(Table 12). The closest distance from the allotment boundary to the SFWW bighorn habitat 

would be 9 miles, an 8 mile improvement compared to the existing situation. The future 

transplant of bighorn sheep into this area could be feasible if this alternative is chosen. 

Because the smallest number of domestic sheep would be permitted under Alternative 4 

(see Table 7), this alternative would provide the best situation for bighorn sheep in both the 

Wenaha and SFWW areas besides the ‘no grazing’ alternative. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 5 – No Grazing

Eliminating livestock grazing on this allotment would be the best scenario for bighorn 

sheep. The chance that domestic sheep would move from this allotment into bighorn sheep 

territory would be eliminated. If bighorn sheep were to wander onto the allotment, there 

would be no need to remove them unless they move too close to sheep on private land. As 

long as domestic sheep herds are permitted on adjacent private holdings, they will continue 

to be an issue for both the Wenaha herd and any expansion of bighorn sheep into the 

SFWW. 

It is unlikely that removal of sheep on the North End Allotment would create issues for 

bighorn sheep in other areas. The current North End Allotment permittee is based in 

Nevada, and holds numerous grazing permits on BLM land in Nevada. Elimination of 

livestock grazing on the North End Allotment could result in the permittee keeping all of 

their sheep in Nevada. The degree to which this could affect bighorn sheep in Nevada 

depends on how those allotments near bighorn sheep are managed. 

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4

The issue of effective separation is further complicated by the presence of domestic sheep on 

nearby private lands. In some areas, these private grazing areas are contributing to the 

risk of contact between the two species. Private land sheep grazing operations may or may 

not follow the best management practices that deter bighorn sheep – domestic sheep 

contact. 

Limited information indicates that domestic sheep graze on private land within six miles of 

the Wenaha bighorn sheep in the lower Lookingglass Creek area. At least one time a 

domestic sheep wandered away from the private Lookingglass grazing area and into 

bighorn sheep territory (Coggins 2002). 

Domestic sheep are also currently grazing on private land in the South Fork Walla Walla 

River (SFWW) area within one mile of high quality bighorn sheep habitat (Figure 7). This 

bighorn sheep habitat is on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands, but is 

surrounded by a large privately held tract. It is highly unlikely that bighorn sheep can 

become established in the SFWW as long as this sheep operation is active. If bighorn sheep 

naturally expand into this area, ODFW would likely have to remove them. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

45

Considering both public and private land sheep operations, the alternatives in this analysis 

would result in overall increased separation effectiveness between bighorn sheep and 

domestic sheep, and would not contribute to adverse cumulative effects for bighorn sheep 

populations or habitat. 

Other activities that could potentially result in cumulative effects to bighorn sheep include 

the presence of domestic sheep on other FS sheep allotments, ongoing landscape burning 

and other forest management activities, recreational use of pack goats and llamas, and 

bighorn sheep harvest. 

Domestic sheep grazing occurs on other parts of the Walla Walla Ranger District. The 

chance that bighorn sheep would encounter domestic sheep in these areas is extremely low. 

The Butcher Creek and Spring Mountain allotments are farther away from the Wenaha 

bighorn herd (>25 miles) and the SFWW area, and have no history of conflict with bighorn 

sheep. There are no obvious travelways such as contiguous, steep, open slopes that bighorn 

sheep would be comfortable moving through to access these areas. Likewise, the Mud Creek 

sheep allotment on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (WWNF) is separated from the 

Wenaha herd by ten air miles, and has no history of conflicts with bighorn sheep. The 

Spring Creek sheep allotment on the WWNF is also > 25 miles away, and across the 

interstate highway. 

Proposed landscape burning would have a positive effect on bighorn sheep. After burning, 

there will be a mosaic of unburned, lightly burned, moderately burned, and intensely 

burned patches. As green-up occurs the following spring and summer, the new sprouts will 

be highly palatable and rich in nutrients. Burning can also increase visibility in areas 

where conifers have encroached on grassland. Burning has been planned on up to 10,000 

acres of primarily grassy slopes along the Grande Ronde River over a 10 year period. In 

October 2010, about 2,000 of these acres were completed. 

Ongoing treatment and control of invasive plants would also have a positive effect on 

bighorn sheep. Other management activities such as ongoing and proposed timber harvest, 

fuels reduction, road work, and people recreating have little effect to bighorn sheep because 

the bighorn sheep are relatively restricted to areas that are difficult to access, and most of 

these projects are far away from the bighorn sheep. 

Goats and llamas can also spread disease to bighorn sheep. There are no goat or llama 

commercial packing outfitters on the forest. Recreational use of pack llamas is increasing 

in the Wenaha-Tucannon wilderness. On the north end of the forest, pack goats have only 

been seen twice in the past 10 years. Potential contact between bighorn sheep and 

recreational pack llamas or goats could occur in the Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness. This is 

currently considered a low risk because the use of pack goats and llamas is sporadic and 

these animals are usually tightly controlled by their owners. 

 

Hunting of bighorn sheep has been highly regulated. After the 1996 herd die-off, there were 

no bighorn tags offered in the Wenaha herd for many years. In 2006, the herd had 

stabilized enough that Oregon and Washington each offered one tag. CTUIR also agreed to 

limit tribal harvest to one bighorn. Therefore, typically three bighorn sheep per year were 

harvested for several years. Due to concerns over low numbers of rams, and in light of the 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

46

considerable disease problems occurring throughout the Northwest, ODFW and WDFW 

decided not to issue tags for the Wenaha herd in 2010. 

The activities described above were reviewed to assess whether, in combination with the 

likely effects of domestic sheep grazing on the North End Allotment, there would be any 

cumulative effects to bighorn sheep. Based on this review there would be no adverse 

cumulative effects. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

47
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

48
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

49
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

50
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

51

The scale of analysis for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to management feasibility 

is primarily the 1986 North End Allotment boundary. For Alternative 3, the addition of the 

Goodman Area was also evaluated. 

Measures for evaluating this issue are based on: 

Operations: sheep herd routing and access challenges based on stocking rate and 

configuration of allotment 

Administration: water development and range monitoring needs

Economics: revenue and jobs based on number of livestock 

Existing Condition 

Operations 

The North End Allotment is approximately 132,000 acres in size, with diverse topography 

and vegetation. Most of the allotment ranges in elevation from 4,000 to 5,000 feet, and 

approximately 75 percent is forested vegetation. The allotment includes some rugged river 

and stream drainages like the North Fork Umatilla River, however, much of the allotment 

is gentle or rolling uplands. Domestic sheep have primarily used the ridges tops, rolling 

upland hills, and the headwaters of streams. These areas have primarily been used because 

of good vehicle access, an abundance of forage for sheep, and the relatively easy ability to 

herd sheep. These areas are also where timber management practices have been focused, 

which has provided transitory range for livestock. 

The North End Allotment has been managed differently over the history of the Forest 

Service. The number of sheep authorized, the size of the allotment, the number of pastures, 

and the rotations have all changed over the years. The current management of the 

allotment has been in effect since the signing of the 1986 Allotment Management Plan

(AMP). This AMP authorized 5,000 sheep (five bands) on the allotment from June through 

September on six units or “pastures”2

. Only five of the six units would be used each year, 

allowing for a rest rotation strategy. Grazing use was rotated so that each pasture was be 

deferred every sixth year (1986 AMP).

Though the AMP allowed for 5,000 sheep, the Forest Service and permittee have elected to 

graze 3,962 sheep per year with the exception of a few years. As a result, four bands have 

utilized four pastures, allowing for a rest rotation in two pastures per year. However, sheep 

have been routed into portions of the rested pastures to increase livestock distribution and 

reduce the potential for resource damage. 

 

2

 Management units are commonly called pastures and subpastures; however the areas are not fenced. 

Key Issue: Management Feasibility
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

52

There have been a number of management changes since development of the current AMP. 

The Forest Plan was signed; several fish species were listed on the Endangered Species list; 

and the Forest Plan was amended with PACFISH riparian management objectives, 

standards and guidelines. As a result, changes in implementation requirements have been 

added to the AMP using Annual Operating Instructions. Use of the allotment has been 

relatively consistent over the last 20 years. 

The 1986 AMP acknowledged the presence of bighorn sheep adjacent to the allotment, as 

well as the potential reintroduction area in the South Fork Walla Walla River area. Small 

buffer zones were established in both areas. 

The portions of the allotment nearest the Wenaha bighorn sheep herd have not been grazed 

since 2005. The permittee took nonuse in 2006 and 2007. In 2008, the Jarboe pasture and a 

portion of the Swamp pastures were not grazed by agreement with the permittee. Full 

sheep numbers were grazed in the other 4 pastures. In 2009, the permittee brought only 

one band of sheep, and in 2010 the permittee was given nonuse for resource protection. 

This has afforded the Forest Service the time and flexibility to study the issues and 

determine how the allotment should be managed in the future.

Administration 

Over the years, over 70 developed water sources (ponds and troughs) have been constructed 

to improve livestock distribution across these areas. The majority of these improvements 

have been constructed since the early 1980’s.

Monitoring of both rangeland conditions and sheep routing schedules are conducted by both 

the permittee and USFS. USFS monitoring efforts have focused on the routing schedules 

as it relates to utilization standards and other resource conditions. Spot checks and 

utilization monitoring occurs annually. Long term vegetation health monitoring occurs at 

longer intervals (every 5-10 years). 

Utilization monitoring has shown that the management of the North End Allotment has 

consistently met Forest Plan utilization standards. 

Economics 

The North End Allotment is grazed by sheep belonging to one permittee for about four 

months. The North End Allotment provides a small but important contribution to the 

overall success of the permittee’s sheep growing operation. 

Benefits from permitted grazing can be evaluated by both the potential income to the 

permittee and opportunities to employ individuals who assist in the operations. Indirect 

economic benefits come from the purchase of local goods and services for allotment 

operations. In addition, approximately 25 percent of grazing fees collected from the 

permittee are returned from the U. S. Treasury to the local community for roads and 

schools. 

Revenues generated by the sale of sheep that graze on this allotment can be roughly 

estimated. In 2008 the average price for lambs was $97.40 per hundred weight (cwt) 

(USDA 2009). Currently 3,962 head of ewe/lamb pairs are permitted on the allotment for 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

53

about 4.37 months. Potentially this would produce 3,962 lambs weighing approximately 

100 pounds at time of sale. Therefore each lamb would be valued at approximately $97.40 

each, or a minimum of $385,898.00 for all lambs on the allotment. This assumes that there 

are no twins, and does not account for losses to predation, etc. An accurate prediction of net 

revenue is not possible because operating expenses vary from year to year. Therefore a 

gross sales indicator is used in this analysis. 

Employment is an important variable contributing to the economic stability of the region. 

The employee effects from grazing the allotment were derived from a multiplier obtained 

from the IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning) model for the Umatilla National Forest 

Impact zone (USDA-FS 1990b). These IMPLAN coefficients for employment were used in 

the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Umatilla National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan. The direct employment coefficient was 0.3 direct jobs per 

1,000 HM livestock (USDA-FS 1990b). 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4

Alternatives are compared to the current management of the allotment as written in the 

1986 Allotment Management Plan. All action alternatives have the same management 

requirements, which are described in Chapter 2. All action alternatives result in a 

reduction in management feasibility as compared to the current management (permit). 

Operations 

Sheep would be managed within individual bands and each band would have approximately 

1,000 ewes and their lambs. A herder employed by the permittee would be with each band 

at all times. A routing schedule would be prepared before each grazing season identifying 

the route of the sheep through the allotment during the grazing season. The grazing 

season for all action alternatives is from June 1st to October 9th. The primary difference 

between all action alternatives is the allotment size in acres, and the number of sheep 

authorized on the allotment (Figures 12 and 13). 

In the past, there has been an average stocking rate of approximately 5.1 acres per sheep 

head month, and portions of two pastures were rested each year. There is little difference 

between each alternative in terms of stocking rates (Table 13). The stocking rates range 

among the action alternatives from 5.8 to 6.2 acres per sheep head month (SHM). This was 

prescribed to ensure that standards and objectives for vegetation would be met in a similar 

manner that has occurred in the past. The stocking rates on the North End Allotment have 

been very light compared to other allotments on the Forest, and this would continue to be 

the case under all action alternatives. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

54

Figure 12. Number of sheep authorized by alternative. 

 

Figure 13. Allotment acres by alternative. 

 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

current

mgmt

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Sheep

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

current

mgmt

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Acres
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

55

Table 13. Stocking rates by alternative.

All action alternatives have a lower stocking rate than what has been prescribed in the 

past, but they do not have the flexibility of resting two pastures each year. All action 

alternatives allow small areas within the allotment to be rested each year, as well as 

deferment through adjustments in the routing schedules. Management of the routing 

schedule would be more intensive due to the reduction in flexibility that was previously 

afforded with a larger allotment. 

The flexibility of managers and the permittee to respond to change of annual conditions 

such as drought or wet conditions would be reduced in Alternatives 1-4 because there are 

fewer pastures (Table 14). The flexibility of managers and permittees to respond to events 

that may occur in the allotment such as wildfires, prescribed burning, harvest activities, or 

a change in resource conditions would also be reduced. Although a rest rotation strategy is 

not required and is not a normal strategy on grazing allotments on the Umatilla National 

Forest, it is the strategy that has been applied on the North End Allotment since 1986. 

Without the ability to rest large areas within the allotment, a reduction in authorized 

numbers or a reduced season of use may be required in some years in order to respond to a 

change in annual conditions. This management scenario is typical for allotment 

management on the Umatilla National Forest. The grazing strategy for all action 

alternatives is consistent with the Umatilla National Forest Plan. 

Table 14. Comparison of Operation and Administration by alternative. 

Alternative Current 

permit 1 2 3 4 5

Herd route management 

challenges Low Moderate Moderate High Moderate NA

Access and grazing 

management challenges No No No Yes No NA

Increased monitoring needs No Yes Yes Yes Yes NA

Water development costs 0 0 0

$50,000

or less 0 0

current 

management Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Allotment size 132,000 101,000 81,500 79,600 52,600

Number of Head on Allotment 3,962 3,962 3,000 3,000 2,000

Days / Months on Allotment 131/4.37 131/4.37 131/4.37 131/4.37 131/4.37

Head Months 17,314 17,314 13,110 13,110 8,740

Stocking Rate (acres /SHM) 5.1 5.8 6.2 6.1 6.0
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

56

Administration 

Monitoring costs in terms of time, energy and funds would increase for both the Forest 

Service and permittee to ensure that desired conditions are met. This is because the 

allotment would be smaller and have fewer options to rest large areas. The action 

alternatives do not allow for two pastures to be rested from grazing each year as they were 

in the past, because of the smaller size of the allotment. Instead, routing schedules would 

be used to allow for small areas within the allotment to be rested as well as allowing a 

deferred grazing strategy. A reduction in authorized numbers or a reduced season of use 

may be required in some years in order to respond to changes in annual conditions. This 

management scenario is typical for other allotments on the Umatilla National Forest. 

Economics 

Changing permitted livestock numbers could affect grazing related jobs and income, and 

changes in livestock management can affect costs to the permittees and the Forest Service. 

This analysis does not include the costs of livestock transport, veterinary expenses, 

supplemental feed, employee payment, maintenance and upkeep of ranch property etc. 

These are normal expenses by the ranch operator and were not requested from the 

permittee. 

Economic conditions are displayed as a function of revenue and employment for each 

alternative (Table 15). All costs are averaged. They are relative and should be used for 

comparison purposes only and not as actual costs. They represent an example based on 

current costs that are being used to determine differences in values between alternatives. 

Costs to permittee and the Forest Service are not enumerated, but relative indicators are 

displayed in Table 14. 

Revenue is estimated based on a 100 lb. lamb sold at the 2008 sale price of $97.40 per 

hundred weight (cwt). Jobs are calculated as 0.3 employees for every 1000 head month 

(HM) livestock grazed. Grazing fees are based on the 2010 rate of $1.35 per SHM. 

Table 15. Economic indicators by alternative. 

Alternative

current 

permit 1 2 3 4 5

Revenue $385,899 $385,899 $292,200 $292,200 $194,800 0

Jobs 5.1 5.1 3.9 3.9 2.5 0

Grazing Fees to U.S. 

Treasury $7,012 $7,012 $5,309 $5,309 $3,539 0

County payments 

(25%) $1,753 $1,753 $1,327 $1,327 $885 0

Percent reduction for 

all of the above _ 0 % 24 % 24 % 50 % 100 %

 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

57

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 1 

Operations 

Alternative 1 would reduce the allotment size from 132,000 acres to 101,000 acres. The 

Jarboe Creek pasture and part of the Swamp Creek pasture would no longer be grazed 

(Figure 2). The current permit would not be affected in terms of the authorized number of 

sheep (3,962) or the season of use (June 1st to October 9th). 

Routing schedules would be adjusted to account for the loss of the Jarboe Creek Pasture 

and portions of the Swamp Creek Pasture. Four separate bands of approximately 1,000 

sheep would be routed in different areas within the allotment by herders. Stocking rates 

would be lower with more acres per sheep (5.8 acres per SHM) than past management (5.1 

acres per SHM). 

A reduction of 30,682 acres while maintaining 3,962 sheep would not allow two pastures to 

be rested each year. Small areas within the allotment could be rested each year by 

adjusting the routing schedules. Deferment could also be prescribed through adjusting the 

annual routing schedule. 

Administration 

Twelve developed ponds would no longer be needed for livestock. The 12 ponds would be 

assessed to determine if they need to be removed and restored, abandoned and allowed to 

recover naturally, or maintained for other purposes such as wildlife or road maintenance. 

The improvements that would continue to be maintained include 59 ponds, 7 spring 

developments, and 4 corrals. 

Economics 

Alternative 1 maintains the current authorized number of sheep and the same grazing 

season that has been authorized in the recent past. No change in domestic sheep numbers 

or time spent on the allotment would occur. There is no change in economic values when 

compared to the current grazing permit. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 2

Operations 

Alternative 2 would reduce the size of the allotment from 132,000 acres to 81,500 acres 

(Figure 3). The Jarboe pasture and the entire Swamp Creek pasture would no longer be 

grazed. The remaining pastures would be Phillips Creek, Middle Ridge, Spout Springs, and 

English Springs. This would reduce the allotment size by approximately 50,500 acres, and 

the permit would be reduced by 962 sheep. Therefore the number of authorized sheep 

would be 3,000 while maintaining the same grazing season of June 1st to October 9th. 

Herding and routing plans would require a similar effort as in Alternative 1, but stocking 

rates would be slightly lower with more acres per sheep (6.2 acres/SHM). Management of 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

58

the routing schedule would be more intensive than was previously afforded with a larger 

allotment. Managing 3,000 sheep within the Alternative 2 boundary would not allow two 

pastures to be rested each year. Routing schedules would be used to allow for small areas 

within the allotment to be rested as well as allowing a deferred grazing strategy. This 

alternative allows the use of the English Springs pasture to allow rest or deferment in 

portions of the other pastures. 

Administration 

There would be 20 ponds and 1 corral that would no longer be needed for livestock 

watering. The Swamp Creek corral would be disassembled and removed. The 20 ponds 

would be assessed to determine if they need to be removed and restored, abandoned and 

allowed to recover naturally, or maintained for other purposes such as wildlife or road 

maintenance. 

The remaining improvements that would require maintenance include: 51 ponds, 7 

springs, and 3 corrals. 

Economics 

There would be a 24 percent reduction in potential sale revenue, grazing fees collected, and 

county payments per year (Table 15). One seasonal herder would no longer be employed. 

The Wenaha bighorn sheep population would have a better chance at maintaining a 

healthy population than with Alternative 1. This could generate income in the form of 

recreational viewing and hunting of the Wenaha bighorn sheep population. 

This alternative would not provide enough separation to ensure that a bighorn herd could 

be established in the South Fork Walla Walla River (SFWW) area, so no additional 

recreational income would be generated there. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 3

Operations 

Alternative 3 would reduce the size of the allotment from 132,000 acres to 79,600 acres. 

The configuration of the allotment would change with the removal of the North Fork 

Umatilla Wilderness, and the addition of the Goodman area (Figure 4). 

The existing permit would be reduced by 1,000 sheep, resulting in 3,000 sheep to be 

authorized within remaining allotment boundary from June 1st to October 9th. Stocking 

rates would be lower than past management and the grazing system would remain the 

same. 

Routing and access issues in the wilderness would no longer be a concern, but there would 

be routing and access challenges in the Goodman area (Table 14). Typically snow drifts 

keep the roads closed in this area until late June or early July. Snow plowing would be 

needed to provide access, or use would need to be deferred until the road is passable. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

59

Additionally, there is a lack of knowledge about how to best use the area for grazing. There 

would be an increase in administrative time and expense to develop routing schedules for 

the Goodman area. There would be an increase in the amount of monitoring to ensure that 

routing schedules are adjusted to meet desired conditions. 

Full use of the allotment would not be authorized within this area until an adequate 

number of water sources were developed. 

Administration 

There would be an increase in the amount of monitoring required within the Goodman 

addition. Since livestock grazing has not been authorized in the Goodman area for a 

considerable length of time, the Forest Service and the permittee would need to monitor the 

effects of grazing within this area closely. Monitoring would be used to make adjustments 

in the annual routing schedules to meet prescribed standards and desired conditions. 

The total number of existing watering sources requiring maintenance would change. There 

would be 44 ponds, 4 springs, and 2 corrals. With the Goodman area addition, developing 

stock watering structures would be required to manage sheep within the area in order to 

meet prescribed standards. Twelve potential water developments have been identified. 

Ten of those are new or complete reconstructions and 2 are existing developments that need 

maintenance. More water developments may be needed to graze the area to full capacity. 

The cost to build or reconstruct these structures would be up to $50,000. 

Economics 

Effects are the same as Alternative 2. There would be a 24 percent reduction in potential 

sale revenue, grazing fees collected, and county payments per year (Table 15). One seasonal 

herder would no longer be employed. 

The Wenaha bighorn sheep population would have a better chance at maintaining a 

healthy population than with Alternative 1. This could generate income in the form of 

recreational viewing and hunting of the Wenaha bighorn sheep population. 

This alternative would not provide enough separation to ensure that a bighorn herd could 

be established in the South Fork Walla Walla River (SFWW) area, so no additional 

recreational income would be generated there. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 4

Operations 

Comparatively, Alternative 4 would be the smallest allotment alternative. The size of the 

existing allotment would be reduced from 132,000 acres to 52,600 acres. The allotment 

would consist of portions of Phillips Creek and Middle Ridge pastures outside of the North 

Fork Umatilla Wilderness, and most of the Spout Springs pasture (Figure 5). 

The number of sheep permitted on the allotment would also be reduced by about half. The 

permit would allow 2000 sheep for grazing season of June 1st to October 9th. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

60

The grazing strategy would also remain the same within the remaining area to be grazed. 

Herding and routing plans would require a similar effort per area, but the area would be 

much smaller to manage. Stocking rates would be similar to Alternative 3 (6 acres/SHM). 

Management of the routing schedule would be more intensive than was previously afforded 

with a larger allotment. 

Managing 2,000 sheep within the Alternative 4 boundary would not allow two pastures to 

be rested each year. Routing schedules would be adjusted each year to allow small areas 

within the allotment to be rested and to allow deferment. 

Administration 

There are a total of 27 ponds, 3 spring developments, and 2 corrals that would no longer be 

used. The ponds would be assessed to determine if they need to be removed and restored, 

abandoned and allowed to recover naturally, or maintained for other purposes such as 

wildlife or road maintenance. The spring developments would either be maintained for 

wildlife or removed. If they were removed, all troughs, piping, spring boxes, and fences 

would be disassembled and removed from the site. The Swamp Creek and Coyote Ridge 

corrals would be disassembled and removed. 

The remaining improvements that would require maintenance in accordance with design 

criteria described in Appendix B of the Range Report include: 44 ponds, 4 springs, and 2 

corrals. 

Economics 

There would be a 50 percent reduction in potential sale revenue, grazing fees collected, and 

county payments per year (Table 15). Jobs provided would also decrease to 2.6, so 

essentially two herders would no longer be needed. 

Alternative 4 would provide the most separation between domestic sheep and both the 

Wenaha bighorn sheep and the SFWW area (other than Alternative 5). This degree of 

separation would result in the least potential for bighorn sheep population decline. The 

potential influx of income that could be generated by healthy bighorn sheep populations 

through recreational hunting and viewing could offset any grazing related economic losses 

to the community.

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4

Current and future timber harvest, fuel reduction activities, and prescribed burning will 

occur within or adjacent to the allotment. These activities can create transitory range by 

increasing forage and improving access to forage. Stocking will not change as a result of a 

change in forage condition in this decision. Any improvements in the amount or condition 

of forage will allow managers more flexibility in routing schedules and reduce overall 

utilization. This effect is relative to the amount of acres treated within the alternatives. 

If wildland fires occur, burned areas may be rested until it is determined that livestock 

grazing would not cause cumulative effects to vegetation health. This would cumulatively 

add to management challenges. As the size of the allotment becomes smaller, the flexibility 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

61

to respond to events such as fires also decreases. A reduction in numbers or season may be 

required to respond to a short term loss of range due to a large fire. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Unique to Alternative 5 – No 

Grazing

Operations 

Sheep would not be authorized to graze the North End Allotment and there would be no 

management. 

Administration 

Alternative 5 would not authorize grazing and would therefore not require any monitoring 

to assess domestic sheep grazing effects to resources. 

There are 4 corrals on the allotment that would be disassembled and removed. The 7 

developed springs would be restored by removing the trough, pipe, fences, and spring boxes. 

The springs would flow in their historic channel. The 71 ponds on the allotment would be 

assessed to determine if they would be restored, abandoned and allowed to recover 

naturally, or maintained for other uses.

Economics 

Livestock would not be permitted on the North End Allotment and the allotment would 

provide no value to the profitability of this ranching operation. This is a 100 percent 

reduction in value added to livestock on National Forest System lands. Additional and 

likely more expensive pasture or hay would be needed to maintain the livestock and this 

would likely lead to a smaller ranching operation and lower net returns. There would be no 

grazing related employment generated and no grazing fees would be collected. 

Eliminating domestic sheep from this allotment could eliminate a source of potential 

bighorn sheep population decline. Bighorn sheep hunting and viewing opportunities could 

generate income for the local communities, as well as support state wildlife management 

programs. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

62

Scale of Analysis 

The scale of analysis is the 132,000 acre North End Allotment (see Chapter 1, Figure 1). For 

Alternative 3, the analysis area was extended to include the Goodman area (see Chapter 1, 

Figure 3).

Existing rangeland conditions are based on past monitoring and an analysis of current 

conditions. The area’s capability and suitability for livestock grazing are discussed, as well 

as vegetation and rangeland health. 

Suitability Analysis 

In forest planning, the suitability and potential capability of National Forest System lands 

for producing forage for grazing animals and for providing habitat for management 

indicator species shall be determined as provided in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 

Lands so identified shall be managed in accordance with direction established in forest 

plans. 

(a) Lands suitable for grazing and browsing shall be identified and their condition and 

trend shall be determined. The present and potential supply of forage for livestock, 

wild and free-roaming horses and burros, and the capability of these lands to 

produce suitable food and cover for selected wildlife species shall be estimated. The 

use of forage by grazing and browsing animals will be estimated. Lands in less than 

satisfactory condition shall be identified and appropriate action planned for their 

restoration. 

(b) Alternative range management prescriptions shall consider grazing systems and the 

facilities necessary to implement them; land treatment and vegetation manipulation 

practices; and evaluation of pest problems; possible conflict or beneficial interactions 

among livestock, wild free-roaming horses and burros and wild animal populations, 

and methods of regulating these; direction for rehabilitation of ranges in 

unsatisfactory condition; and comparative cost efficiency of the prescriptions (36 

CFR 219.20).

The North End Sheep Allotment EIS and project record provides a project specific analysis 

of suitability. The alternatives in the EIS and project record discuss grazing systems, the 

range improvements needed for each alternative, and the design criteria for each 

alternative. The Wildlife Report discusses management indicator species and other species, 

and the Range report discusses the condition and trend of vegetation. A capability analysis 

is discussed below as well as areas that are considered unsuited for grazing. 

Capability 

Whether lands are capable of being managed for grazing depends on conditions such as 

slope, aspect, geology, soil types, vegetation type, and climate. The North End Allotment 

covers a large area with a diverse landscape of mountain uplands and plateaus dissected by 

Rangeland Conditions
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

63

large canyons. Only 20 percent of the allotment consists of grasslands, and 75 percent is 

forested. 

The range capability analysis determined that approximately 45 percent (60,928 acres) of 

the North End Allotment, in its existing configuration, is fully capable of being managed for 

livestock grazing. Areas with slopes over 60 percent, canopy cover over 60 percent, and 

lands with low forage production were less than fully capable. 

Areas considered fully capable represent where sheep spend most of their time and where 

effects would most likely occur. Though sheep grazing may occur in areas that are less 

than fully capable, it is expected that use would be infrequent or inconsistent. Prescribed 

utilization standards are adequate to ensure that resource needs are met on lands 

considered less than fully capable. Timber and fuels management such as commercial 

thinning, noncommercial thinning, prescribed fire, and wildfires can reduce canopy cover 

below 60 percent, creating transitory rangeland and changing those areas to fully capable. 

Suitability 

Areas considered unsuitable for grazing generally include developed campgrounds, 

administrative sites, exclosures, and other areas where grazing has been eliminated for 

various reasons. Research Natural Areas are usually excluded unless grazing is used to 

achieve a vegetation objective. 

Areas considered unsuitable for grazing within the North End Allotment in its current 

configuration include the following developed recreation sites: Beaver Marsh, Buck Creek, 

Umatilla Forks, Jubilee Lake, Woodland, Woodward, Mottet, Tollgate, and Target 

Meadows. Sheep have been allowed to graze the ski runs at Spout Springs Ski Area in the 

past if authorized through the annual instructions. 

The following Special Interest Areas are also considered unsuitable: Big Sink, Target 

Meadows, Burnt Cabin Overlook, Bald Mountain, Gray Rock, Lookout Mountain, Umatilla 

Breaks, Ruckel Junction, Farr Meadow, Shimmiehorn Canyon, and Woodward 

Campground. 

Since sheep are herded across the landscape within bands, sheep can be simply herded 

around areas that are unsuitable for grazing. All other areas within the allotment are 

considered suitable under the prescribed management (design criteria) for the allotment. 

Grazing in wilderness: 

Livestock grazing is an approved and appropriate use of wilderness if it occurred prior to 

formal designation. Livestock grazing has been occurring in the Analysis Area since the 

early 1900’s. The North Fork Umatilla Wilderness was designated in 1984. Livestock 

grazing in the wilderness has been conducted in accordance to the regulations associated 

with the 1964 Wilderness Act, and Forest Plan standards and guidelines for wilderness 

areas. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

64

Vegetation 

The Umatilla Land and Resource Management Plan goal for range is to “manage the forage 

resources for an upward vegetative trend in areas in less than fair condition and an upward 

or stable trend for areas in fair or better condition, while providing for forage productivity 

and making suitable range available for livestock grazing (Page 4-63). 

Upland Habitats 

Upland vegetation makes up approximately 95 percent of the allotment. Upland vegetation 

can be classified as either grassland plant communities or forested communities. Upland 

forest occurs on approximately 70 percent of the allotment. Conifer species present in order 

of prevalence include: grand fir, ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, Western larch, lodgepole pine, 

subalpine fir, and spruce. 

Grassland dominates about 20 percent of the uplands. Grassland communities within the 

allotment are most often found on south facing slopes and in areas where soil depths limit 

tree survival. Shallow soil types are often found along ridges or steep slopes where rock 

outcrops occur. Grassland communities within the allotment are usually dominated by 

native bunchgrass species such as Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, and Sandberg’s 

bluegrass. Shrubs are usually absent in these community types within the allotment, 

though they can be found in small isolated pockets with less than 10 percent cover. 

Riparian Habitats 

Riparian vegetation can be found on perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams as 

well as wetlands. Many of the streams within the allotment are found in the bottoms of 

steep canyons. Sheep primarily use the broad ridge tops and rolling topography found on 

the uplands. The uplands are where much of the fully capable areas are found, where 

timber harvests have occurred and created transitory rangeland, and where stock water 

has been developed. As a result, riparian communities are generally not a major source for 

livestock forage or water within the allotment in any of the action alternatives. 

Rangeland Health and Utilization Monitoring 

To assess the North End Allotment and determine the existing conditions of vegetation, a 

variety of tools were used. Assessment of range health was conducted on grasslands across 

the allotment using the Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health (IIRH) protocols 

(Pellant et al. 2005). Past grazing management and the results were analyzed. Past 

utilization levels and general field reconnaissance was also used to help determine if 

management was meeting objectives for the allotment. Established Condition and Trend 

Plots were analyzed to determine the trend of range health. Photo interpretations were also 

used in conjunction with the collection and analysis of data. All of these assessment tools 

were collectively used to determine the condition and trend of vegetation within the 

allotment. 

Past implementation monitoring has focused on utilization and residual stubble height 

monitoring on both upland and riparian habitats. Utilization monitoring measures the 

percentage of available forage that has been consumed (weight of plant, number of plants, 

twigs, etc). Utilization monitoring can be used to identify use patterns, help establish 

cause-and-effect relationships, and aid in making adjustments to the grazing strategy 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

65

(USDI 1999). Implementation monitoring is often used to adjust annual operating 

instructions. 

The North End Allotment consistently meets utilization standards prescribed for the 

allotment (Range Report). These monitoring results indicate that the North End Allotment 

is in compliance with the implementation standards found in the Umatilla National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan. 

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health 

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health (IIRH) is a method to assess rangeland heath 

defined in Technical Reference 1764-6 as: “The degree to which the integrity of the soil, 

vegetation, water, and air, as well as the ecological processes of the rangeland ecosystem is 

balanced as sustained” (Pellant et al. 2005). This assessment is accomplished with an 

interdisciplinary team, and is an attempt to look at how well ecological processes in a site 

are functioning within a normal rate of variability. The following three parameters are 

rated: 

1. Soil and Site Stability, which is defined as “the capability of an area to limit 

redistribution and loss of soil resources (including nutrients and organic matter) by 

wind and water”.

2. Hydrologic Function, which is defined as “the capability of an areas to capture, store, 

and safely release water from rainfall, run-on, and snowmelt (where relevant), to 

resist a reduction in this capacity, and to recover this capacity when a reduction 

does occur”.

3. Biotic Integrity, which is the “capability of the biotic community to support 

ecological processes within the normal range of variability expected for the site, to 

resist a loss of capacity to support these processes, and to recover this capacity when 

losses do occur. The biotic community includes plants, animals, and microorganisms 

occurring both above and below ground” 

Ratings reflect the degree of departure from expected levels or the reference condition as 

follows: 

Extreme to Total Departure 5 

Moderate to Extreme Departure 4 

Moderate Departure 3 

Slight to Moderate Departure 2 

None to Slight Departure 1 

For the North End Allotment, qualitative indicators were rated from one to five. Indicators 

related to soils and/or hydrologic function included compaction, surface resistant to erosion, 

surface loss or degradation, wind scours/deposition, litter movement, pedestals/terraces, 

bare ground, water flow patterns, degrees of rills, gullies, and plant composition relative to 

infiltration. 

Indicators relate to the biotic community included surface resistant to erosion, surface loss 

or degradation, compaction, functional/structural groups, plant mortality/decadence, litter 

amount, annual production, invasive plants, and reproductive capability of perennial 

plants. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

66

IIRH Results 

The monitoring conducted using the IIRH indicates that the North End Allotment is 

meeting the vegetation objective in Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (page 4-63). 

Field crews inspected some of the grassland sites to identify existing plant communities 

and to determine locations for the application of IIRH. During this assessment, it was 

confirmed that these plant communities are primarily dominated by variations of Idaho 

fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, and Sandberg’s bluegrass. During the field seasons of 2008 

and 2009, data was collected at five sites using the IIRH method, one per pasture. 

Monitoring was not completed in the Jarboe Pasture because it was not being used. 

Results represent the current resource conditions at the time of the assessment. This 

allows for an interpretation of how past and current management are affecting the ecology 

of allotment area. Table 16 represents a summary of the IIRH site ratings. 

Table 16: Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health. 

Departure from Reference Conditions

Pasture Soil & Site Stability Hydrologic Function Biotic Integrity

Phillips Creek None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight

Swamp Creek None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight

Spout Springs None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight

Middle Ridge None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight

English Springs None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight

The assessment looked at the 17 indicators of soil, hydrologic and biotic function, and the 

preponderance of evidence showed none to slight departure from reference conditions. This 

assessment indicates that the grassland communities on the North End Allotment are 

similar to the desired condition or reference condition. Annual grasses that tend to 

increase with disturbance are absent or are present in trace amounts. Idaho fescue and 

bluebunch wheatgrass dominate the grass communities, and closely resemble reference site 

conditions. The soil and hydrologic function is what would be expected for these vegetative 

conditions. Bunchgrass dominated communities show little signs of rill, gully, or wind 

erosion. 

These results represent those bunchgrass plant communities located away from roads, 

dispersed camp sites, and where off road travel has occurred. This was intended to isolate 

grazing from other impacts to help assess livestock management in relation to vegetation 

conditions. Lower seral plant communities likely exist where other disturbances occur (i.e. 

dispersed camp sites, off road vehicle sites, campgrounds, trails, landings, roads, skid trails, 

corrals, and ponds). Areas of past disturbances, such as landings and clearcuts, have often 

been seeded with nonnative species. Though these conditions occur, they represent a small 

portion of the allotment and landscape. These localized areas may need active restoration 

efforts to improve vegetative conditions. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

67

The monitoring conducted using the Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health (Pellant 

et. al. 2005) indicates that bunchgrass vegetation closely resembles reference conditions. 

Reference conditions would meet the vegetation objective in Umatilla National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan (4-63). 

Condition and Trend Plots 

Two Condition and Trend plots were analyzed in 1993 and again in 2008. Both plots were 

located within native bunchgrass plant communities. A comparison of species composition 

measurements and the photo record between the two years of collected data showed that 

conditions closely resemble the site potential for these sites (Figure 14). In comparing the 

data and the photo record between 1993 and 2008, there were no apparent changes in 

species composition or soil characteristics (amount of bare soil or erosion). As a result, it 

was determined that the current trend at these sites is stable or static. A review of these 

condition and trend plots indicates that open grasslands are meeting the vegetation 

objectives in the Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (page 4-

63). 

Figure 14. Condition and trend plot photographs in 2008 (top) and 1993 (bottom). 

 

 

In summary, utilization monitoring has shown that the management of the North End 

Allotment has consistently met Forest Plan utilization standards. Open grassland 

communities were assessed using the Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health protocol 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

68

and it was determined that these plant communities are in a similar state as reference 

conditions. Two Condition and Trend plots were assessed. Both sites were determined to 

be in a stable trend and were in a satisfactory condition as defined in the Forest Plan. In 

reviewing this information, it was determined that the current management of the North 

End Allotment is consistent with the Forest Plan standards and objectives for range. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4

Vegetation 

Upland Habitats 

All action alternatives have been prescribed the same design criteria, grazing strategy, and 

similar stocking rates. As a result, direct and indirect effects to upland habitats are 

expected to be similar. Based on past management and monitoring, it is expected that 

plant communities in mid to late seral stages would be maintained. Plant communities in 

low seral stages occur in small localized areas within the allotment (roadsides, landings, 

rock pits, dispersed campgrounds, corrals, etc). These areas within the allotment may need 

active restoration efforts to improve vegetative conditions. All action alternatives are 

consistent with the Forest Plan objective for range in all action alternatives. 

Sheep grazing has and would continue to primarily occur on upland habitats within the 

allotment in all action alternatives. Grassland communities, open ponderosa pine and 

Douglas fir communities, and managed mixed conifer stands would continue to provide 

much of the forage for sheep within the allotment, and this is where effects would most 

likely occur. Upland water sources in the form of constructed ponds and spring 

developments would provide most of the water for domestic sheep, focusing grazing in the 

uplands versus riparian areas. 

Idaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass plant communities are the prominent communities 

on open grassland habitats within the area. These plant communities are normally 

dominated by bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, Sandberg’s bluegrass, and prairie 

junegrass. Lupine, yarrow, balsamroots, buckwheat, phlox, and other species are usually 

present. Shrubs are usually absent in these community types within the allotment, though 

they can be found in small isolated pockets within the allotment and usually are present 

with less than 10 percent cover. Fire normally promotes bunchgrass species. 

Overgrazing by ungulates usually causes a decrease in bunchgrass species, while annual 

bromes and forbs usually increase. Vegetation risks include expansion of annual grasses 

and weeds (Johnson, et al 1992). Early season grazing can be detrimental to bunchgrass 

species if continued over several grazing seasons (Johnson et al. 1992). Early seral or 

degraded conditions of these communities often show increases in annual brome species 

and some forbs (Johnson et al. 1992). 

Monitoring has shown that open grassland communities in this allotment are generally in 

mid to late seral status. Native bunchgrass species dominate these plant communities and 

annual bromes and other annual invasive grass species are normally absent, both 

indicators of healthy conditions. Hydrologic and soil conditions were found to be similar to 

desired conditions for these range sites. These communities are grazed under the current 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

69

management of the North End Allotment indicating that the current management is 

meeting desired conditions for the allotment. 

Figure 15: Photographs of a typical range site on North End Allotment (Idaho 

fescue dominated plant communities). 

 

Small areas within the allotment are in lower seral stages, though these areas represent a 

very small portion of the allotment and usually are associated with other disturbances such 

as roads, recreation areas, landings, etc. (see existing conditions). 

None of the action alternatives allow for a consistent rest rotation strategy as was applied 

in the past. Instead, deferment and small areas to be rested would be incorporated into 

routing schedules, and monitoring would be an important task to ensure that management 

continues to result in meeting objectives. 

The stocking rates on the North End Allotment have been very light compared to other 

allotments on the Forest. Management of the allotment has also been to rest large areas 

within the allotment each year, which is also not a common management practice on the 

Forest. Past management of the allotment has resulted in meeting the prescribed 

utilization standards. Monitoring shows that shrub use is slight to light use, which 

indicates that grazing is not adversely impacting shrub communities. Upland and riparian 

standards (utilization and stubble heights) have also been consistently met. Localized 

areas of higher utilization levels may occur at bed grounds, next to developed water 

sources, or at corrals. Adjustments in routing schedules would be used to minimize affects 

to vegetation near these localized areas. 

All action alternatives have lower stocking rates than past management for any particular 

grazing season, therefore utilization by sheep on shrubs and herbaceous vegetation are 

expected to continue to meet the prescribed standards. Utilization standards have been 

established to meet individual plant needs to ensure that long term plant community 

health is maintained or trending towards desired conditions. 

Sheep grazing would continue to occur in forested communities within the allotment. The 

amount of grazing within a particular forested stand depends on the amount of forage 

production as well as how accessible a particular stand is for sheep. Over-grazing, along 

with fire suppression, has been identified as a contributing factor in the decline in forest 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

70

health (an increase in fire sensitive and disease susceptible species) over the last 100 years 

(Belsky et. al. 1997). Over-grazing can affect the long term health of forested communities 

by reducing understory vegetation that competes with tree seedlings and reducing fine fuels 

that carries wildfire (Belsky et. al. 1997). These grazing impacts that contributed to the 

decline in forest health primarily occurred in the early 1900’s (Borman 2005). During this 

time, grazing in the Blue Mountains and the project area was unregulated. The numbers of 

sheep in Umatilla County approached 250,000 during the early 1900’s, compared to 8,000 

in 2009. Historic over-grazing likely contributed to overstocked forested stands in the 

project area. 

Livestock management practices have significantly changed since the early 1900’s in the 

project area. The most fundamental change is the number of livestock allowed to graze a 

particular area and the length and timing of the grazing season. Sheep grazing would 

occur in forested communities within the allotment in all action alternatives. The amount of 

sheep use in a particular forested stand is mostly dependent on the amount of forage the 

stand produces and how accessible it is for sheep. Managed timber stands, normally called 

transitory rangeland, generally provide available forage and good access for sheep grazing 

to occur. These areas were often seeded with nonnative species. As canopy cover increases, 

the amount of forage and accessibility normally decreases. The prescribed utilization 

standard prescribed for all action alternatives in forested communities is 45 percent. This 

utilization standard was prescribed to ensure individual plant needs to ensure long term 

health of individual plants and the plant community as a whole. 

Due to the lighter stocking rates, shorter season of use, range readiness standards, and 

utilization standards, all action alternatives are unlikely to affect the long term condition of 

forested stands within the project area. 

Riparian Habitats 

Each band of sheep is required to have a herder present at all times, allowing for sheep to 

be herded away from riparian areas. Many of the streams within the allotment would have 

a 300 ft. buffer on either side of the stream to protect ESA listed fish species. This buffer 

applies to most of the main streams within the allotment and includes the majority of the 

perennial streams within the allotment. Sheep would be herded away from this buffer 

except at designate crossings to minimize effects to fish habitat. As a result, effects to 

riparian vegetation are limited to headwaters of streams and isolated wetlands. Sensitive 

areas such as aspen stands can be avoided by herding sheep around those sites when a 

there is a need to improve vegetation condition to meet specific objectives. 

As a result of the management requirements to herd sheep away from sensitive areas, the 

direct/indirect effects to riparian vegetation would be limited to the headwater areas of the 

streams and isolated meadows, springs, and seeps within the allotment. Utilization 

standards prescribed in the Forest Plan and in each alternative would minimize effects to 

riparian vegetation. As a result, all action alternatives would be consistent with the Forest 

Plan for vegetation objectives. 

Sheep grazing does not occur on many riparian communities within the allotment. 

Utilization monitoring has shown 0 percent use along many of the streams within the 

allotment due to the prescribed no grazing buffer (Range Report). Utilization standards 

would be prescribed for all action alternatives consistent with the Forest Plan. The 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

71

utilization standard of 30 percent would be prescribed for all riparian shrub species and 45 

percent on herbaceous species. This prescription would limit effects to riparian vegetation. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 1 

Vegetation 

This alternative eliminates approximately 30,860 acres from the existing allotment (Figure 

2). Domestic livestock grazing would no longer effect vegetation within this 30,860 acre 

area. Plant community succession would occur absent of livestock grazing. Other effects to 

plant communities would continue to occur such as wild ungulate grazing, fire, timber and 

fuels management activities, recreation activities, roads, etc. 

The direct and indirect effects to vegetation are the same for all action alternatives, except 

that a different number of acres are affected. Alternative 1 is the largest in size with about 

101,000 acres. It includes an area north of Lookingglass Creek that is approximately 

19,000 acres in size. Alternative 1 is the only alternative that proposes grazing within this 

area. 

Upland Habitats 

The direct and indirect effects to upland habitats within this 19,000 acre area unique to 

Alternative 1 would be similar to the effects within all areas proposed to be grazed in all 

alternatives. Prescribed utilization standards would be met and vegetation conditions 

would meet objectives in the Forest Plan. 

Riparian Habitats 

Grazing would no longer be authorized within the Jarboe pasture and portions of the 

Swamp Creek pasture. Streams in this area include Jarboe Creek, Sheep Creek, Little 

Lookingglass Creek, Buzzard Creek, Fry Meadow Creek, and their tributaries. Utilization 

of vegetation by domestic sheep would no longer occur in the headwater areas of these 

areas. 

Mottet Creek and Swamp Creek are within the 19,000 acre area. A 300-foot no grazing 

buffer would be applied on either side of these creeks. Sheep may still be herded up the 

road along Mottet Creek, but would not spend enough time in this area to affect the long 

term condition of riparian vegetation. Grazing would be authorized in the headwaters of 

these streams, though utilization standards and other design criteria would allow riparian 

vegetation objectives to be met. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 2

Vegetation 

Alternative 2 eliminates approximately 50,500 acres from the existing allotment (Figure 3). 

Domestic livestock grazing would no longer affect vegetation within this area. Plant 

community succession would occur absent of livestock grazing. Other effects to plant 

communities would continue to occur such as fire, timber and fuels management activities, 

recreation activities, roads, etc. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

72

Upland Habitats 

Grazing would occur within an 81,500 acre allotment. Within this area, the direct and 

indirect effects to upland vegetation would be similar to all action alternatives. Prescribed 

utilization standards would be met and vegetation conditions would meet objectives in the 

Forest Plan. 

Riparian Habitats 

The direct and indirect effects to riparian communities are expected to be similar in all 

action alternatives. The change in allotment size would eliminate livestock grazing in the 

following drainages: Swamp Creek, Lost Creek, Summer Creek, Mottet Creek, and the 

tributaries of the South Fork Walla Walla River. These are in addition to the riparian 

areas listed in Alternative 1. Utilization of vegetation would no longer occur in the 

headwaters of these areas. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would eliminate the same 50,500 acres as Alternative 2, plus grazing would 

be eliminated from the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness (-31,000 acres) (Figure 4). In 

addition, grazing would be allowed in portions of an adjacent closed allotment known as the 

Goodman Allotment (+29,000 acres). The overall size of the allotment would be slightly 

different from Alternative 2, with 79,500 acres. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide 

forage for three bands of sheep. 

Capability 

The Goodman Allotment has not been grazed by domestic sheep since the 1950’s. Much of 

the area consists of drier forested sites and open grasslands suitable for grazing. The 

majority of the fully capable lands are found on the ridge tops and gentle slopes near 

Goodman, Little Goodman, Shimmiehorn, and Bobsled ridges. There are approximately 

12,552 fully capable acres within the Goodman area. Those areas considered less than fully 

capable (14,548 acres) include low production areas, slopes over 60 percent, and forest 

stands with over 60 percent canopy closure. 

The capacity analysis determined that forage could be provided for 1000 sheep (1 band). 

However, access to this area can be difficult in the spring. Snow plowing would likely be 

required to allow herders and sheep into the area early in the grazing season. Otherwise, 

use of the Goodman area would be deferred until the road opens up. Full use would not be 

authorized until an adequate number of water sources are developed. 

Vegetation 

Upland Habitats 

There would no longer be any grazing effects in the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness Area. 

Plant community succession would occur absent of livestock grazing. Other effects to plant 

communities would continue to occur such as wild ungulate grazing, fire, timber and fuels 

management activities, recreation activities, roads, etc. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

73

Stocking rates for the Goodman area were based on the North End Allotment and adjusted 

for differences in the amount of forage. As a result, utilization levels should be similar to 

what has been experienced on the North End Allotment. Utilization on upland vegetation 

should consistently meet prescribed utilization standards consistent with the Forest Plan. 

Open grasslands and managed forested stands would supply most of the forage for sheep. 

Since management practices would be the same as what has been applied on the North End 

Allotment and the plant communities are similar, effects to vegetation are expected to be 

similar to Alternatives 1 and 2. Grazing in the Goodman area would meet the objectives 

identified in the Forest Plan for vegetation. 

Existing and proposed water developments are also located in upland areas. 

Riparian Habitats 

In addition to stream systems listed in Alternatives 1 and 2, there would no longer be any 

grazing effects in the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness. The following riparian areas would 

no longer be within the allotment: North Fork Umatilla River, Buck Creek, the north side 

of Thomas Creek, Bear Creek, Lick Creek, Coyote Creek, Woodward Creek, and Johnson 

Creek. The uppermost headwaters of some of these creeks would remain within the 

allotment. 

The main stream systems in the Goodman area are the South Fork Umatilla River, Spring 

Creek, Shimmiehorn Creek, and Hellhole Creek. Most of these streams and their 

associated riparian vegetation are not accessible to sheep because they are located in the 

bottom of large canyons. Sheep would not be herded down into these reaches. Streams 

that contain steelhead and bull trout would have a 300 ft. no grazing buffer on both sides. 

As a result, effects to riparian vegetation on streams with the Goodman area would be 

limited to the headwaters of these systems. These conditions and resulting effects are 

similar to Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Direct/indirect effects would be limited to the 

riparian vegetation in the headwaters of streams and small, isolated meadows, springs, and 

seeps. 

Utilization standards would be prescribed consistent with all action alternatives and 

consistent with the Forest Plan. Routing schedules would be used to ensure that utilization 

on herbaceous riparian vegetation and shrubs do not exceed the prescribed standards. 

Sheep grazing in the Goodman area would be expected to result in meeting vegetation 

objectives identified in the Forest Plan. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 4

Vegetation 

Alternative 4 is the smallest size allotment being considered, with about 52,600 acres. 

Effects would be similar to Alternative 3 except that the Goodman area would not be 

included (Figure 5). There would be no grazing in the North Fork Umatilla wilderness. 

A total of 79,400 acres would no longer be grazed by domestic livestock from what is 

currently be grazed. Domestic livestock grazing would no longer affect vegetation in upland 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

74

or riparian habitats within this area. Plant community succession would occur absent of 

livestock grazing. Other effects to plant communities would continue to occur such as wild 

ungulate grazing, fire, timber and fuels management activities, recreation activities, roads, 

etc. 

Upland Habitats 

The direct/indirect effects to upland vegetation would be the same for all action alternatives 

within the remaining area to be grazed. 

Riparian Habitats 

The direct/indirect effects to riparian vegetation would be the same for all action 

alternatives within the remaining area to be grazed. 

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4

Past Actions 

The result of past actions is evident in the existing conditions of vegetation on the 

allotment. Current conditions on grassland communities are currently in mid to late seral 

stages. Low seral conditions are present, but represent a small portion of the grassland 

communities in the allotment. Low seral conditions often occur where other disturbances 

have occurred such as along roads, rock pits, dispersed camps, campgrounds, landings, 

recent wildfires, etc. These conditions are the result of past actions. Utilization standards 

are identified in the Umatilla Forest Plan and are a part of the prescribed management for 

all action alternatives to reduce livestock grazing use where unsatisfactory conditions 

occur. The action alternatives are unlikely to cumulatively affect these sites with 

adherence to management requirements (utilization standards, stocking rates, season of 

use, and routing schedules). 

Current and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions 

This section addresses potential cumulative effects of Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 along with 

current and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Since all action alternatives have the 

same prescribed management, cumulative effects should be the same proportionate to the 

area proposed to be grazed. 

Maintenance and use of recreational areas will continue to occur with the allotment area. 

Developed recreation areas within the alternatives have been identified and herders would 

be required to route sheep away from these sites. The exception is in Alternatives 1 and 2 

where sheep may be used to manage vegetation in the ski runs at the Spout Springs Ski 

area. Due to prescribed management, it is unlikely that the action alternatives would 

result in negative cumulative effects on vegetation or allotment management at 

recreational areas. 

Current and future harvest and fuel reduction activities will occur within or adjacent to the 

allotment (Loon, Tollgate, and High Buck planning areas). Harvest and fuel reduction 

activities focus on the retention of large trees and thinning small diameter trees to meet 

desired stand conditions. These activities can create transitory range conditions by 

increasing forage for ungulates as well as improving access for domestic and wild 

ungulates. Creating transitory range may improve livestock distribution; however, 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

75

stocking rates (number of sheep) would not be increased as a result of these activities. In 

the long term (> 10 years), it is likely that the transitory range created by harvest activities 

would again become unavailable as succession occurs. As a result, there would be no 

cumulative effects on vegetation. 

Historic over-grazing has often been considered a reason why forested stands have departed 

from historic stand conditions (Belsky et al. 1997). However, prescribed grazing in all 

action alternatives is much less than what historically occurred in the Blue Mountains in 

terms of intensity, stocking rates, or season of use. 

Prescribed burning and wildfires will continue to occur within the allotment area. 

Prescribed burning is normally used as a tool to improve vegetation conditions or to meet 

desired conditions for a particular area. Prescribed burning normally allows plant 

communities to become more resilient to deal with wildfires and other natural events. 

Allotment management activities may be modified to allow areas burned (prescribed fires 

or wildfires) to recover to a state where livestock grazing can again occur without causing 

cumulative effects to vegetation health. This may include rest for a period of time to allow 

plants to recover from fire before grazing is allowed. 

Invasive plant treatments currently occur within the allotment and will continue to occur. 

Treating invasive plants is a tool used to manage for healthy plant communities with 

preference toward native species. Prescribed grazing management, based on past 

monitoring, has been designed to manage for desired plant communities. The action 

alternative should not affect the ability of plant communities to out-compete invasive 

plants. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Unique to Alternative 5 – No 

Grazing

Vegetation 

There would no longer be any effects to upland or riparian plant communities from 

domestic livestock grazing. Plant community succession would occur absent of livestock 

grazing. Wild fire, prescribed fire, insects, wild ungulate grazing, and other disturbances 

would continue to occur affecting the condition of plant communities. Plant communities in 

low seral stages (unsatisfactory condition) occur in small localized areas within the 

allotment (roadsides, landings, rock pits, dispersed campgrounds, corrals, etc). These 

areas within the allotment may need active restoration efforts to improve vegetative 

conditions regardless of whether livestock grazing occurs or not. The removal of livestock 

from the area would not cause cumulative effects. 

Forest Plan Compliance 

Each alternative was evaluated to determine if the Forest Plan Goal was met “to manage 

the forage resources for an upward trend in areas in less than “Fair” condition and an 

upward or stable trend for areas in “Fair” or better condition, while providing for forage 

productivity and making suitable range available for livestock grazing.” 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

76

Forest Plan range standards and guidelines were also reviewed for each Management Area 

in the allotment (Appendix A). Monitoring indicates that standards are being met under 

the current allotment management, and the proposed alternatives in this EIS were 

designed to have the same or less effects (Range Report). 

All action alternatives would be compliant with the Forest Plan by using a partial rest, 

deferred rotation management system, and by abiding by the project design criteria 

outlined in Chapter 2. 

Scale of Analysis 

Invasive plant inventory and monitoring throughout the Walla Walla Ranger District 

occurs annually. This analysis considers known infestations of invasive plants within the 

North End Allotment (see Chapter 1, Figure 1), and high priority species adjacent to the 

allotment that could spread into the allotment. For alternative 3, the analysis area was 

extended to include the Goodman area (see Chapter 1, Figure 3).

Methodology and Assumptions

Invasive plants, as defined by the Pacific Northwest Region Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Invasive Plant Program, 2005, are non-native plants whose introduction 

do or are likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. This 

analysis focuses on those species that are listed on the Oregon Department of Agriculture 

noxious weed list. The terms invasive plants and noxious weeds are used interchangeably. 

Invasive plants are discussed based on inventoried weed sites as well as known weed 

species that occur in the analysis area that are not inventoried. Known noxious weed sites, 

soil disturbance, and the potential spread of invasive plants are the foundation of the 

analysis. In rating the priority of noxious weeds for treatment and inventory, the Forest 

classification was used. 

This analysis is tiered to the Pacific Northwest Region Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Invasive Plant Program (USDA-FS 2005b), hereby referred to as the R6 

Weed EIS. The R6 Weed EIS Record of Decision amended the Umatilla National Forest 

Plan by adding management direction relative to invasive plants. This project is intended 

to comply with the new management direction. The portions applicable to the North End 

Allotment include the prevention standards, which are detailed in Chapter 2.

Future treatments of these sites have also been approved in the Umatilla National Forest 

Invasive Plants Treatment EIS (USDA-FS 2010b). 

Existing Conditions 

There are currently 4,730 acres of inventoried invasive plant populations within the current 

boundary of the North End Allotment (132,000 acres) (Table 17). Many of these species 

overlap. Approximately 3.5 percent of the allotment area is infested with invasive plants. 

Approximately 2,770 acres of the 4,730 acres (59 percent) with invasive plants are located 

along roads and right of ways. The other 41 percent are typically found within managed 

Invasive Plants
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

77

timber stands and are generally low priority species such as mullein, bull thistle, and St. 

Johnswort.

High Priority Species 

The high priority species of most concern within the allotment are: spotted knapweed; 

diffuse knapweed; Canada thistle; sulfur cinquefoil; leafy spurge; yellow hawkweed; 

Dalmatian toadflax, and yellow toadflax. The largest infestations of high priority species 

within the allotment are diffuse knapweed, spotted knapweed and Canada thistle. 

There are currently 34 of spotted knapweed infestations covering 287 acres, and 285 diffuse 

knapweed infestations that cover approximately 1,591 acres within the allotment. 

Knapweed is primarily found along roads and right of ways. There are established 

biological control populations on knapweed within and adjacent to the allotment. The 

effectiveness of the biological control agents is not known at this time, though success has 

occurred in other areas. 

There are currently 76 infestations of Canada thistle that occupy approximately 1,436 acres 

within the allotment. Canada thistle is an aggressive nonnative species that forms colonies 

from deep and extensive horizontal roots (Whitson, 1992). Biological control agents are 

available for this species, but have not been released within the project area. 

Sulfur cinquefoil can be found at 12 sites totaling about 23 acres. Sulfur cinquefoil has an 

extensive root system that tends to form colonies of infestations. Roadsides, disturbed 

areas, and dry meadow types tend to be vulnerable to this species (Whitson, 1992). 

There are 3 infestations of leafy spurge within the allotment that total only approximately 

1 acre in size. These three infestations are found near Forest Service Road 3715 and are 

located within the English Springs pasture. Leafy spurge is a high priority aggressive 

invasive. It has an extensive and deep root system that makes it difficult to control 

(Whitson, 1992). 

Medium Priority Species 

Houndstongue and yellow toadflax are considered medium priority species. Houndstongue 

infests about 460 acres within the allotment at 41 locations. Houndstongue can be easily 

spread by livestock and wildlife as the seeds cling to animals (Whitson, 1992). Currently 

there is one known yellow hawkweed site that affects 1.5 acres within the allotment. 

Low Priority Species 

These weed species are typically less invasive and/or persistent than high priority species 

and give way to or do not pose as high a risk of outcompeting desirable vegetation. Low 

priority “established” invasive plants are generally so extensive Forest-wide that they are 

not generally inventoried and treatment options are normally limited. The low priority 

weeds within the allotment include ventenata, St. Johnswort, bull thistle, mullein, teasel, 

and chicory. These weed species can be found within the North End Allotment at relatively 

low densities along road corridors and in past logging units. Biological control agents are 

currently being released in the analysis area to help control existing populations. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

78

Table 17. Existing invasive plants within the existing North End Allotment 

boundary. 

Species Common Name Number 

of Sites Acres

Centaurea biebersteinii spotted knapweed 34 287

Centaurea diffusa diffuse knapweed 285 1591

Cynoglossum officinale houndstongue 41 460

Potentilla recta sulfur cinquefoil 12 23

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle 76 1436

Euphorbia esula leafy spurge 3 1

Hieracium caespitosum yellow hawkweed 8 74

Linaria vulgaris yellow toadflax 1 1

Centaurea solstitialis yellow starthistle 1 4

Senecio jacobaea tansy 24 66

Linaria dalmatic dalmatian toadflax 1 22

Low Priority Species listed in text 54 769

Ongoing Treatment Efforts

Recent treatment efforts have been limited to those sites covered under the Environmental 

Assessment for the Management of Noxious Weeds for the Umatilla National Forest signed 

in April of 1995. Most of the invasive plant infestations within the allotment have become 

established or were found after 1995. As a result, treatment options within the project area 

have been limited to hand pulling and biological controls. Despite this, past efforts to 

control weed sites have been successful. 

The Record of Decision for the Umatilla National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment EIS 

(USDA-FS 2010b) is now in place, and allows more aggressive action against weeds (such 

as herbicide spot treatments). All of the invasive plant populations discussed in this report 

are covered by this new decision, and treatment efforts should begin in 2011. Monitoring of 

these sites will be ongoing.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4

Livestock grazing has the potential to influence weed establishment and spread through 

vegetation consumption, seed transport, and soil disturbance. Livestock grazing can affect 

the ability of native plant communities to out-compete and prevent invasive species from 

becoming established and spreading. Invasive plants can compete and out-compete native 

species resulting in a decline in native species diversity and affect plant community 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

79

condition and succession. Ground disturbing activities may increase the potential for 

invasive plants to become established, however many invasive species can become 

established without disturbance. 

Livestock grazing can also be a vector for the dispersal of invasive plant seeds. Sheep are 

hauled onto National Forest Land each year around June 1st. There is a potential for sheep 

to bring invasive plant seeds onto the allotment during this time. If sheep graze in existing 

noxious weed sites on the allotment, there is a risk of spread as they move around. 

Areas where sheep are concentrated can result in soil disturbance that may lead to the 

establishment and spread of invasive plants. These areas include corrals, water 

developments, and bed grounds and are considered high risk areas for soil disturbance. 

There are known weed sites within 100 feet of eight improvements in the allotment 

(common to all action alternatives). Most of these are not associated with the range 

improvement. The establishment of invasive plants as a direct result of concentrated sheep 

at range improvements has not been a common occurrence on this allotment.

All action alternatives have prescribed utilization standards, relatively low stocking rates, 

and a rest/deferred grazing system that are designed to reduce negative effects to plant 

community health. This in turn would reduce the risk of the establishment and spread of 

invasive species. The following prevention standards and management requirements have 

been prescribed for all of the action alternatives to reduce the risk of the spread and 

establishment of invasive plants: 

Utilization standards for upland and riparian vegetation (Umatilla National Forest 

LRMP).

Permitted numbers and season of use (term grazing permit).

If hay is used for livestock, certified weed free hay will be required (Prevention 

Standard #4 R6 FEIS 2005).

Native plant material will be the first choice for rehabilitation or restoration work. 

(Prevention Standard # 13, R6 FEIS 2005).

Equipment used outside of the road prism (maintenance of range improvements) 

will be required to be cleaned prior to entering National Forest land. (Prevention 

Standard #2 R6 FEIS 2005).

The invasive plant coordinator and range managers will work closely together to 

make adjustments to the annual routing schedule of sheep in relation to invasive 

plant populations (Management Requirement).

Maps in the Allotment Management Plans would show current, inventoried, high 

priority, noxious weed infestations to be avoided and/or monitored. (Prevention 

Standard #6 R6 FEIS 2005). 

In general, the risk of weed establishment and spread from livestock grazing is 

proportionate to the area grazed (Figure 16). Alternative 4 (other than the no grazing 

alternative) poses the lowest amount of risk to existing infestations (Table 18).

Roadside infestations account for over 50 percent of the infestations within all action 

alternatives. The roadside infestations within the allotment are primarily knapweed 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

80

species. Sheep grazing has been used throughout the west to control knapweed 

infestations. A study conducted by Colorado State University determined that grazing 

knapweed twice in the spring decreased seed set by 50 percent, and reduced tumblingoffsite by 15 percent (Beck 2008). Grazing sheep on knapweed sites before seed set may 

reduce seed production, however grazing after seed maturity poses a risk of spreading 

seeds. Annual routing schedules would be adjusted to avoid high priority infestations after 

seed maturity. 

Sheep and goats have been increasingly used to control invasive plants on public lands 

(Beck 2008). In order to use sheep to effectively control invasive plants, an intensive 

management plan must be implemented to ensure that objectives are met. Though this EIS 

does not propose a comprehensive plan in the use of sheep to control invasive plants, the 

invasive plant coordinator and range managers would work closely together to identify 

opportunities to use sheep in the control of some weed species, as well as adjust the annual 

routing schedules of sheep through the allotment to help prevent the spread of seeds.

Figure 16. Number of acres grazed by alternative

 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

current

permit

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Acres
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

81

Table 18. Invasive plant occurrence by alternative. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 would eliminate grazing on approximately 31,000 acres. This alternative 

would reduce the risk of the establishment and spread of noxious weeds caused by sheep. 

Domestic sheep would no longer affect soils or vegetation within this 31,000 acre area, 

reducing the potential establishment and spread of invasive plants. Within this 31,000 

acre area, there are currently 1,530 acres of invasive plants. Livestock grazing would no 

longer be a concern within or adjacent to these 1,530 acres of invasive plants.

Sheep grazing would continue to occur on 101,138 acres, and 3,962 sheep would be 

authorized to graze from June 1st to October 9th within the new allotment boundary. 

There are a total of 3,672 acres of inventoried invasive plant populations within the 

boundary of Alternative 1 (Table 18). About 1,950 acres of these are located along roads 

and right of ways. The other 47 percent of the infestations are typically found within 

managed timber stands and are generally low priority species such as mullein, bull thistle, 

and St. Johnswort. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would eliminate grazing on 50,500 acres and the number of sheep authorized 

to graze this area would be reduced by 962. This alternative would reduce the risk of the 

establishment and spread of noxious weeds caused by sheep as compared to what is 

currently authorized. Domestic sheep would no longer affect soils or vegetation within this 

50,500 acre area, reducing the potential establishment and spread of invasive plants.

Sheep grazing would continue to occur on 81,500 acres. Within this area, there are 

currently 3,200 acres with inventoried weeds. This is approximately 470 less total weed 

acres that could be affected by sheep grazing than Alternative 1.

Of the 3,200 acres of infestations within Alternative 2, 54 percent are found along roads. 

The remaining 46 percent are primarily found in managed timber stands.

Alternative Weed sites Weed Acres

1 429 3672

2 313 3200

3 325 3226

4 278 2713

5 0 0
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

82

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 3

Alternative 3 proposes to graze approximately 79,600 acres. This alternative would 

eliminate grazing on 79,400 acres of the current allotment; however it would authorize 

grazing on an additional new 27,000 acres in the Goodman area. This alternative would 

reduce the risk of the establishment and spread of noxious weeds caused by sheep as 

compared to what is currently authorized. 

There are a total of 325 infestations that total approximately 3,226 acres within Alternative 

3. This includes about 500 acres in the Goodman area. The species of most concern within 

this alternative are diffuse and spotted knapweed.

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 4

Alternative 4 poses the smallest amount of risk to the establishment and spread of invasive 

plants among the action alternatives. Alternative 4 would result in the fewest amount of 

acres grazed and would authorize the fewest number of sheep. Only 52,600 acres would be 

grazed by 2,000 sheep.

There are a total of 278 invasive plant sites that total approximately 2,713 acres of 

infestations within the allotment boundary of Alternative 4. Compared to all other action 

alternatives, this is the smallest number of existing weed sites that would be within the 

proposed area to be grazed.

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4

Roads are the highest risk area for invasive plants within the analysis area. Over half of 

the existing infestations are found along roads. Maintenance of road systems within the 

project area will continue to occur. Sheep grazing primarily occurs away from roads, 

though roads are used to trail sheep throughout the allotment. There is a potential for 

cumulative effects with road maintenance and sheep grazing to cause the establishment 

and spread of invasive plants.

Recreational use within the allotment will also continue to be a vector for the establishment 

and spread of invasive plants. High risk areas include trail heads, developed recreation 

sites, roads, and dispersed camps. Sheep would not be authorized to graze developed 

recreation sites, resulting in no cumulative effects at these locations. 

Harvest and fuels reduction activities would continue to occur within the allotment area. 

These treatments normally focus on removing small diameter trees to meet forest stand 

health objectives. Weed prevention standards are required during these activities, reducing 

the risk of invasive plant infestations. Harvest and fuel reduction activities create 

transitory rangeland that sheep would use. 

Prescribed burning and wildfires would continue to occur within the allotment. 

Adjustments to routing schedules for sheep would be required to ensure that sheep grazing 

does not occur within burned areas until such time as conditions have improved to a level 

suitable to allow grazing again (Range Report). This may include rest for a period of time 

to allow plants to recover from fire before grazing is allowed. As a result, the cumulative 

effects of burning and sheep grazing on weed spread would be minimal. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

83

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Unique to Alternative 5 – No 

Grazing

Alternative 5 would not authorize livestock grazing within the North End Allotment. If 

this alternative is chosen, there would be no environmental effects concerning invasive 

plants as a result of livestock grazing. This alternative provides the lowest amount of risk 

to the spread of existing or new infestations within the project area. 

Ponds, troughs, and corrals would eventually be restored, removed, or abandoned from the 

allotment. Livestock would no longer concentrate at these areas, therefore soil disturbance 

and potential weed spread would be greatly reduced at these sites. 

The potential for noxious weed establishment or spread by other means would continue. 

New noxious weed infestations would likely continue to be found along roads, trails, and 

campgrounds. 

Ongoing treatment efforts would continue to occur within the project area consistent with 

NEPA decisions regarding weed control. Low priority species would most likely continue to 

spread to some extent due to a lack of treatment efforts, while high priority infestations 

would likely be controlled through treatment efforts. The removal of livestock from the area 

would not cause cumulative effects to invasive plants. 

Forest Plan Compliance 

All action alternatives include the prevention standards described in the Pacific Northwest 

Region Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Invasive Plant Program signed in 

2005. All alternatives have been designed to be consistent with the Umatilla Land and 

Resource Management Plan as amended by the R6 FEIS 2005 Record of Decision for 

Invasive Plants. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

84

The scale of analysis for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to botanical resources is the 

1986 North End Allotment boundary. For Alternative 3, the addition of the Goodman Area 

was also evaluated. 

Botanical Areas 

There are four Special Interest Botanical Areas within the North End Allotment and the 

Goodman area. These areas are either established in the Forest Plan, or are proposed to be 

added to the upcoming revision of the Forest Plan. Grazing is not allowed in these areas, as 

indicated in the Management Requirements in Chapter 2. The following table outlines 

these areas and their spatial relationships to the boundaries of the alternatives. 

Table 19. Special Interest Botanical Areas. 

Area Name

Size 

in 

Acres

Reason For Establishment Present Status Alternative

Farr’s 

Meadow 50 sensitive willow species (Salix farriae) / other sensitive taxa

proposed in new 

forest plan 1/2/3/4

Ruckel 

Junction 5

population of Sabine’s lupine 

(Lupinus sabinianus)

established in 

existing forest plan 1/2/3/4

Shimmiehorn 

Canyon 140 unusual suite of fern species established in existing forest plan 3

Woodward 

Campground 15

coralroot orchid (Coralorhiza 

sp.) population / bracted 

lousewort (Pedicularis 

bracteosa)

proposed for removal 

in the new forest plan 

as the taxa of concern 

have been delisted

1/2

Threatened Plant species: Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii) 

Silene spaldingii is listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act and is known to 

occur on the Umatilla and the adjacent Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Silene 

spaldingii occurs primarily in open grasslands on deep loess-derived Palousian soils. There 

is no suitable habitat for Spalding’s catchfly within any of the proposed alternatives for the 

North End Allotment. All known occurrences of the species are many miles distant. 

Therefore this species is not expected to occur in the area and will not be discussed further. 

Sensitive Plant Species 

There are four vascular plant taxa listed on the Regional Forester’s sensitive list that have 

been found in the area: Cordilleran sedge (Carex cordillerana), native sedge (Carex 

vernacula), Farr’s willow (Salix farriae), and persistent sepal yellowcress (Rorippa 

columbiae). 

Botanical Resources
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

85

There are additional species that are currently being considered for inclusion on the 

Regional Forester’s sensitive list and/or strategic list. Bolander's bruchia moss (Bruchia 

bolanderi), a bryophyte, is the only species known in the area that is currently on the 

strategic list. Information about other species can be found in the Botanical Resources 

Report for the North End Allotment. 

Cordilleran sedge (Carex cordillerana) 

Carex cordillerana is present in the North Fork Umatilla River area. Palatable to livestock 

and very easily uprooted, this Carex species is extremely sensitive to any disturbances from 

grazing pressure. It is surmised that historical grazing pressure in the region may have 

been a driving factor in greatly reducing population sizes and overall abundance (Wilson et 

al. 2008). 

Native sedge (Carex vernacula) 

Native sedge is recorded in Oregon from 10 sites in the Cascades, Wallowa Mountains., and 

on Steens Mountain, where it occupies the borders of small water bodies or wet subalpine 

meadows. This species is present in the Middle Ridge grazing unit. 

Farr’s willow (Salix farriae) 

Known from 5 locales in Oregon, this subalpine/alpine clonal willow species is present in a 

few small patches in the Farr’s Meadow Botanical Area. The area also contains a 

population of a rare bryophyte, Bolander's bruchia moss (Bruchia bolanderi). 

Persistent sepal yellowcress (Rorippa columbiae)

This rare mustard is only known from the wetted margins of lakes, ditches and perennial 

stream and river systems. It requires a narrow hydrologic setting in which it is fully 

inundated for at least a portion of the growing season. It has been found in Lookingglass 

Creek. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4

Although Botanical Areas would not be fenced off, the grazing permit would include 

language that excludes grazing from these areas. Accurate location information (maps) 

would be made available to the permittee’s on-the-ground staff so sheep bands can be 

directed accordingly. 

Grazing would not be allowed in the immediate area of the known occurrences of sensitive 

plants. In addition, the management requirements for riparian areas would provide 

protection for these sites. The chances that grazing would occur in these areas is small. If 

livestock were to get into these areas, the loss of individuals could occur. It is not expected 

that this would result in population extirpation or significant species decline. Therefore, 

the determination for all sensitive and strategic plants is may impact individuals or 

habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of 

viability to the population or species. 

Indirectly, the spread of invasive plants and soil compaction can cause effects to sensitive 

plant species and other botanical resources. These factors can result in degraded habitat 

poorly suited or no longer ecologically capable of supporting sustainable populations of 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

86

species of interest. Management requirements to reduce the potential for weed spread are 

in place. All alternatives would affect fewer weed sites than what has occurred in the past 

(Invasive Plants Report). 

There are no effects unique to Alternatives 1 or 2

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 3

The Shimmiehorn Canyon Botanical Area would be within the new allotment boundary. 

Grazing would not be allowed in the botanical area and therefore no effects are expected. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternatives 3 and 4

The Woodward Botanical Area would no longer be within the allotment boundary; therefore 

no effects from grazing would be expected. 

The cordilleran sedge area would no longer be within the allotment boundary, therefore 

there would be no impact to cordilleran sedge. 

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4

Historical uses of the area include intensive sheep grazing that has had profound effects on 

the character of the vegetation – particularly the shallow soil scabland areas. Owing to this 

period of grazing, much of this habitat contains vegetation that differs from what would be 

expected historically. 

Historical intensive predator management also has led to landscape scale modifications –

most notably in the character of the vegetation. Elk in particular have increased in 

abundance. Their presence has been a strong driver of changes in the mix and abundance 

of numerous native plant species. Likewise, a significant history of disturbance via timber 

management has occurred. This includes logging, thinning and plantation style conifer 

plantings; all with associated road building activities that have left ongoing landscape 

legacies. 

Other ongoing modifications to the landscape include special uses such as summer homes, 

rock quarrying (e.g. Swamp Creek pit), and range improvements such as fencing, corrals 

and water developments. Recreational uses are numerous and include hiking, trail 

building and associated maintenance, snowmobile trails, downhill skiing at the Spout 

Springs Ski Area, dispersed and developed camping activities and OHV usage. OHV usage 

may be contributing to landscape-scale modifications. Future activities in the area may 

include wind power developments. 

The addition of a tightly-managed sheep grazing strategy for the North End allotment to 

historical, ongoing and future land usages is not considered likely to be a significant 

modifier to the existing vegetation on the landscape. Sheep grazing as a vector for inroads 

by invasive species is, however, a concern that must receive attention in the permitting 

process in order to limit future effects. Management requirements to reduce the potential 

for weed spread are in place. All alternatives would affect fewer weed sites than what has 

occurred in the past (Invasive Plants Report). 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

87

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Unique to Alternative 5 – No 

Grazing

Elimination of grazing on the North End Allotment would eliminate potential grazing 

impacts to sensitive plant species. The removal of livestock from the area would not cause 

cumulative effects. 

Forest Plan Compliance 

Adherence to forage utilization standards established for wetland and riparian areas in the 

Forest Plan would minimize impacts to rare plants in these areas. Grazing would not occur 

within forest plan management areas set aside as Special Interest Botanical Areas. 

Analysis Procedures 

The scale of analysis for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to wildlife species in this 

section is the 1986 North End Allotment boundary. For Alternative 3, the addition of the 

Goodman Area was also evaluated. 

Time frames considered for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to wildlife are shortterm (within 10 years) and long-term (10-100 years). In my professional opinion, these 

spatial and temporal scales are appropriate given the parameters of the proposed activities 

and the duration of potential effects to all wildlife species addressed below. 

The assessment of wildlife species and habitat was done with field reviews, literature 

reviews, district records, and Geographic Information System (GIS) data. The best 

available science was used to determine effects to wildlife species in a manner appropriate 

for the circumstances. 

The wildlife section is organized into the following categories: Management Indicator 

Species; Neotropical and other Bird Species; and Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive 

species. The bighorn sheep discussion can be found at the beginning of Chapter 3. 

Wildlife Species and Habitats
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

88

Table 20. Wildlife Management Indicator Species for the Umatilla National Forest (Forest Plan p.2-9). 

Species Habitat Types

Rocky Mountain elk general forest habitat and winter ranges

pine marten mature and old growth stands at high elevations

pileated woodpecker dead/down tree habitat (mixed conifer) in mature and old growth stands

northern three-toed woodpecker dead/down tree habitat (lodgepole pine) in mature and old growth stands

primary cavity excavators dead/down tree (snag) habitat

This section addresses the following wildlife management indicator species from the Forest 

Plan: Rocky Mountain elk and American marten. Pileated woodpecker, northern threetoed woodpecker, and other primary cavity excavators are present in the area but would not 

be affected by proposed activities. Therefore, further discussion of effects to each of these 

species is not necessary. More detailed information is available in the Wildlife Specialist 

Report. 

Rocky Mountain elk 

The Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus) was chosen as a Management Indicator Species 

to represent general forest habitat and winter ranges (Table 20). The Allotment area is 

used by elk primarily as summer range, but important calving and wintering areas are also 

present in or adjacent to the allotment. Critical big game winter range occurs on less than 

one percent of the allotment. 

This area is within the Mt. Emily and Wenaha Game Management Units. Winter counts 

indicate that the elk numbers are well below the objectives set by Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) in both of these units. Reasons for this are unclear. A mountain 

lion study is in progress to help determine the extent that predation is depressing the elk 

population. 

Forage quality and quantity influences elk nutrition and therefore health and productivity. 

Stubble height standards and Forest Plan utilization standards were developed to ensure 

sufficient forage would be available for wildlife. Both upland and riparian vegetation have 

consistently met standards in the North End allotment, which indicates that forage 

quantity is not likely a limiting factor in elk production. 

Several invasive plant species are documented within the allotment. If left unchecked, 

invasive plants can displace native bunchgrasses and other plants that elk eat. The largest 

infestations of high priority species are diffuse knapweed, spotted knapweed, and Canada 

thistle. Other high priority species present include sulfur cinquefoil, leafy spurge, yellow 

hawkweed, and dalmation toadflax. 

Management Indicator Species 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

89

Past efforts to control weed sites have been successful and monitoring and treatments 

would continue. Future treatment of these sites was approved in the Umatilla National 

Forest Invasive Plants Treatment EIS (USDA-FS 2010b). 

Most of the roads used previously for timber removal in the allotment are now closed year 

round. Open road densities are low (< 2 mi/mi2) throughout the allotment. This is within 

the desired condition of an average of 2 miles per square mile or less Forest-wide (USDA-FS 

1990a). Although timber harvest has occurred within the allotment, there is generally an 

adequate ratio of cover to forage. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4

Because all grazing alternatives would reduce the size of the allotment, there would be less 

direct disturbance to elk and less competition for forage. There would also be a reduction of 

potential weed establishment and spread with a smaller allotment (Invasive Plants 

Report). 

 

Where sheep grazing would continue, the potential grazing impact is small given the 

abundance of forage and the once-over grazing system utilized for sheep. Stubble height 

standards and Forest Plan utilization standards for upland and riparian vegetation have 

consistently been met in the allotment. Shrubs have had slight to light utilization (up to 40 

percent current year growth browsed), which indicates that grazing is not adversely 

impacting shrub communities or significantly reducing grass and forb cover (Range Report). 

Livestock stocking rates have been prescribed to ensure that standards and objectives for 

vegetation are met in a similar manner that has occurred in the past (Range Report). 

Open road densities and cover habitat (hiding and thermal) would not be affected by the 

presence or use by sheep. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 1 

The allotment would be about 23 percent smaller but have the same number of permitted 

sheep (4 bands). This alternative reduces flexibility for resting areas because of the acre 

reduction (Range Report). There would be less direct disturbance to elk and less 

widespread competition for forage, but potentially more intense competition for forage on 

the remaining allotment. Because the allotment encompasses mainly elk summer range, 

which is plentiful on the district, this effect would be relatively small. Livestock stocking 

rates have been prescribed to ensure that standards and objectives for vegetation are met 

in a similar manner that has occurred in the past (Range Report), and Forest Plan range 

and wildlife standards would continue to be met. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 2

The allotment would be 38 percent smaller and have three bands of sheep instead of four. 

There would be an equivalent reduction in direct disturbance to elk and competition for 

forage.
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

90

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 3

The allotment would be 40 percent smaller than its current size, and have three bands of 

sheep. An additional 26,000 acres in the Goodman area would be added to the allotment. 

The Goodman addition was designed to avoid critical elk winter range, although it is 

immediately adjacent to elk calving and winter range. Displacement would not be expected 

because game animals would primarily use the area in the winter and spring, while sheep 

grazing would occur late in the season. However, the addition of sheep grazing in the 

Goodman area would slightly reduce the amount of forage available during the elk use 

period. The potential grazing impact is still considered small given the abundance of forage 

and the once-over grazing system utilized for sheep, and the manner in which the allotment 

is managed. Forest Plan range and wildlife standards would continue to be met. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 4

The allotment would be 60 percent smaller than its current size, and have two bands of 

sheep. This alternative would cause the least amount of competition for forage between elk 

and domestic sheep. It would also reduce the amount of displacement that may occur due 

to the presence of sheep, dogs, and humans. 

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4

The potential for weed invasion will likely continue along all travel routes independent of 

livestock activities. Weeds could be spread by natural mechanisms (wind, water, wildlife 

and wildfire), and public and administrative activity on roads and trails. Known and 

reported sites will continue to be monitored and treated. Ongoing and proposed projects 

such as the Luger rock pit expansion and Swamp pit road decommissioning require the use 

of native seed to restore areas of ground disturbance, which helps reduce weed spread. 

Habitat enhancement projects will improve elk habitat both within and outside of the 

allotment. The proposed Ryan Creek burn will increase the palatability and nutritional 

value of forage on nearby elk calving and wintering areas. Future aspen enhancement will

help to maintain and restore aspen habitat for elk and other wildlife species. 

Ongoing and proposed fuel reduction and timber harvest could cause temporary 

disturbance of individual elk, as well as long term habitat changes within the allotment. 

Many other factors influence elk such as weather, predation, and forage nutrition quality 

on land owned by various entities. The cumulative effect of the above projects in 

combination with sheep grazing is not expected to cause long term changes in elk behavior 

or population size. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Unique to Alternative 5 – No 

Grazing

Eliminating livestock grazing in the area would result in more forage available for elk, less 

disturbance from sheep herds and people, and the lowest risk of invasive plant spread. 

More food would be available for elk, especially in the spring as snow recedes near the 

winter range. There would be no added cumulative effects from the removal of livestock 

grazing.
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

91

Forest Plan Consistency

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

Forest plan standards for elk habitat would be met, and no changes to the elk population 

are expected. The project is consistent with the forest plan and thus continued viability of 

Rocky Mountain elk is expected on the Umatilla National Forest. 

American Marten

The American marten (Martes americanus) was selected as a Management Indicator 

Species in the Forest Plan to represent mature and old growth stands at high elevations 

(Table W2). There are seven Dedicated Old Growth areas set aside for marten within the 

North End Allotment. 

American marten are found throughout Canada and Alaska, south through the Rockies, 

Sierra Nevada, northern Great Lakes Region, and northern New England. In Oregon, they 

occur in the southern Oregon Coast Range, Siskiyou Mountains, Cascade Mountains, and 

Blue Mountains (Marcot et al. 2003). The global conservation status of marten is 

considered ‘widespread, abundant, and secure’ (NatureServe 2010). 

The Umatilla National Forest provides roughly 100,000 acres of marten source habitat. 

Source habitat is defined as those habitats contributing to long-term population persistence 

(Widsom et al. 2000). 

In a comparison of historical versus current conditions in the Blue Mountains, marten 

habitat appears to be strongly increasing (Wisdom et al. 2000). Suitable environments for 

marten are broadly distributed and of high abundance on the Umatilla National Forest, 

and there has been little change from historic to current conditions (Wales et al. 2011). 

Marten are typically associated with late-seral coniferous forests with closed canopies, large 

trees, and abundant snags and down wood (Zielinski et al. 2001). Wisdom et al. (2000) list 

subalpine and montane forests in old multi- and single-story, and unmanaged young multistory structural stages as providing source habitat for American marten in the Columbia 

Basin. A study in northeastern Oregon showed that martens selected for areas with denser 

canopy, more canopy layers, larger diameter live and dead trees, larger down logs, and 

closer proximity to water compared to available habitat (Bull et al. 2005). 

About 16,000 acres of marten habitat are well distributed throughout the allotment. This 

indicates that there is sufficient habitat within the North End grazing allotment to support 

several reproducing females. Bull and Heater (2001) found that the average home range 

size for males was about 6,700 acres, and the average for females was about 3,500 acres in 

and Eastern Oregon study. Home ranges typically include both source habitat as well as 

foraging areas and nonhabitat. 

Marten are an elusive species, rarely observed, and difficult to detect. A marten track plate 

survey was conducted in 2006 on the district, and additional snow tracking and remote 

camera surveys were completed in early 2011. Marten tracks were detected at the far 

north boundary of the allotment in 2006 and to the east of the allotment in 2011. Marten 

were also detected in Union County on the adjacent LaGrande Ranger District in 1991. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

92

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4

Sheep grazing would have little to no impact to American marten habitat. Generally the 

sheep are not utilizing areas with dense conifer and down wood and do not alter the 

character of such habitats. 

No effects to marten denning activities would be expected because young are typically out of 

their dens by early June (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). There would be a slight disturbance 

to individual marten if they happen to be resting or foraging in the same area that sheep 

are currently grazing or moving through. The presence of guard and herd dogs could cause 

marten to seek refuge, curtail hunting activities, or move to an adjacent area. 

Such effects would be short lived as the sheep herd generally does not stay in one place for 

more than a day or two, and the sheep generally do not move through dense forest. These 

effects would also be less than the current grazing situation because the allotment would be 

smaller and contain less marten habitat. 

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4

Cumulative effects are assessed at the scale of the 1986 allotment boundary because it is a 

large area that potentially could provide habitat for one or more reproducing female 

marten. Cumulative, the very minor potential effects from proposed activities in 

combination with other past, ongoing, and potential future projects are not expected to have 

lasting negative impacts to marten or their habitat. 

Ongoing weed treatments do not affect marten habitat. Ongoing and future projects such 

as prescribed burning, aspen fencing, and pond expansion would have little to no effect to 

marten habitat. Public recreation activities such as hunting, hiking, sightseeing, and berry 

picking take place during the day time when marten are less active. Ongoing and future 

timber sales would likely affect marten habitat, but the addition of proposed grazing 

activities would have little to no incremental effects. 

There are no other effects unique to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Unique to Alternative 5 – No 

Grazing

The slight chance that grazing activity would disturb marten would be eliminated. There 

would be no direct or indirect effects to marten individuals or habitat. 

The removal of livestock from the area would not cause cumulative effects. 

Forest Plan Consistency

Potential effects to marten are a slight and short term in nature. The overall direct, indirect 

and cumulative effects would not cause changes to the marten habitat trend on the forest 

nor cause changes to the marten population. The project is consistent with the forest plan 

and thus continued viability of marten is expected on the Umatilla National Forest. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

93

Neotropical migratory birds 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. Roughly 

one half of all birds occurring on the forest are Neotropical migrants. Many of these species 

are associated with old forest, riparian areas, or unique features such as aspen, shrubs, and 

meadows. 

Partners in Flight (PIF) led an effort to complete a series of Bird Conservation Plans for the 

entire continental United States to address declining population trends in migratory 

landbirds. These plans are used to address the requirements contained in Executive Order 

(EO) 13186 (January 10, 2001), Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory 

Birds. 

 

The Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Northern Rocky Mountains of Eastern 

Oregon and Washington (Altman 2000) identifies the priority habitat types, habitat 

features, and focal species. The North End Allotment contains some of these priority 

habitat features, but not all are affected by livestock grazing (Table 21).

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4

In the context of the North End Allotment, the effects to birds and bird habitat would be 

minor. Grazing would occur at low stocking levels (Range Report). Any grazing effects 

would be less than the current situation because the permitted grazing area would be 

smaller, and stocking rates would be equal to or less than the current stocking rate. 

Focal bird species that rely on habitat components such as snags and tree canopy would 

likely be unaffected by grazing (Wales 2001). There would be limited, localized effects to 

birds that use ground and shrub vegetation for nesting, foraging, and perching. These 

effects could include disturbance, direct mortality from crushing, or degradation of habitat. 

Because sheep are herded, grazing effects to vegetation and soil are less than would occur 

with cattle grazing. As sheep are herded through the subunits of the allotment, they only 

use certain areas where forage is available and terrain is navigable, therefore effects are 

not widespread. Many areas are left ungrazed. Stubble height standards and Forest Plan 

utilization standards for upland and riparian vegetation have consistently been met in the 

allotment. Shrubs have had slight to light utilization (up to 40 percent current year growth 

browsed), which indicates that grazing is not adversely impacting shrub communities or 

significantly reducing grass and forb cover (Range Report). 

Since sheep are herded to ponds and troughs, the amount of grazing in riparian areas is 

very low. Streams are avoided by the herders because of restrictions for listed fish species. 

Much of the utilization monitoring has shown 0 percent use of riparian vegetation along 

many of the streams within the allotment (Range Report). Therefore, effects to riparian 

habitat for birds would be very minor. 

Neotropical Migratory Birds
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

94

Table 21. Priority bird habitat features and potential for grazing effects in the North End 

Allotment. N/A = habitat not present; No = habitat may be present, but sheep grazing would not 

likely affect this feature; Yes = sheep grazing may affect this feature.

Habitat Type Habitat Feature/Conservation Focus Focal Species

Potential 

Grazing 

Effects?

Dry Forest

Large patches of old forest with large trees and 

snags

White-headed 

woodpecker No

Old forest with large trees & snags interspersed 

with grassy openings and dense thickets Flammulated owl Yes

Open understory with regenerating pines Chipping sparrow No

Patches of burned old forest Lewis’ woodpecker N/A

Mesic Mixed 

Conifer

Large snags Vaux’s swift No

Overstory canopy closure Townsend’s warbler No

Structurally diverse; multi-layered Varied thrush No

Dense shrub layer in the forest understory or 

forested openings MacGillivray’s warbler Yes

Edges and openings created by wildfire Olive-sided flycatcher No

Riparian 

Large snags in riparian woodland Lewis’ woodpecker No

Riparian woodland canopy foliage and structure Red-eyed vireo No

Riparian woodland understory foliage and 

structure Veery No

Shrub density Willow/alder shrub patches Willow flycatcher No

Unique (special) 

Habitats

Subalpine Forest Hermit thrush No

Montane meadow Upland sandpiper Yes

Steppe shrubland Vesper sparrow Yes

Aspen Red-naped sapsucker Yes

Alpine Gray-crowned rosy finch N/A

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 

Past, ongoing, and proposed timber sales create larger and longer lasting impacts to birds 

in this area, and grazing would add only slightly to these effects. For the area covered by 

Alternative 1, about 6,000 acres of timber harvest has taken place in the past 10 years, and 

several thousand more are being planned for harvest in the near future (Tollgate and High 

Buck projects). 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

95

In light of the very minor effects expected from sheep grazing, and because the permitted 

grazing area would be between 23 and 60 percent smaller depending on the alternative, the 

continuation of sheep grazing of the North End allotment should not adversely impact birds 

of conservation concern or their habitats. 

There are no effects unique to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Unique to Alternative 5 – No 

Grazing

There would be no potential for displacement or mortality from sheep presence and 

associated livestock management activities. Habitat conditions would be expected to 

slightly improve over time, particularly for birds that utilize grasses and shrubs to forage 

and nest. Although minor effects from recreation activities, timber management, and road 

management may continue, the removal of livestock grazing would not cause cumulative 

effects to migratory birds. 

An endangered species is an animal or plant species listed under the Endangered Species 

Act that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A 

threatened species is an animal or plant species listed under the Endangered Species Act 

that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. A sensitive species is an animal or plant species identified 

by the Forest Service Regional Forester for which species viability is a concern either there 

is a significant current or predicted downward trend in population numbers or density, or 

there is a significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would 

reduce a species existing distribution. 

The Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive Animal List (dated 2008) and the federal endangered 

species list were reviewed for species that may be present. Based on District records, 

surveys, and monitoring, as well as published literature about distribution and habitat 

utilization, species that might occur in or near the planning area include: Canada lynx, 

gray wolf, California wolverine, big-eared bat, bald eagle, Lewis’ woodpecker, 

white-headed woodpecker, inland tailed frog, and Columbia spotted frog. 

The peregrine falcon, upland sandpiper, northern leopard frog, and painted turtle are not 

expected to occur in the allotment. These species and their habitat would not be affected by 

the proposed activities; therefore, no further discussion is necessary. Other species 

identified as potentially occurring on the Umatilla forest are sensitive only in the State of 

Washington. Since this project is entirely within the state of Oregon, these species do not 

need to be addressed. 

Canada lynx (Threatened) 

The Umatilla Forest is currently considered “unoccupied” by Canada lynx (USDA-FS 

2006a). Based on the lack of reproduction records, limited verified records of lynx, low 

frequency of occurrences, and correlations with cyclic highs with populations in Canada, the 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Wildlife
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

96

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that lynx occur in Oregon as dispersers that have 

never maintained resident populations (USFWS 2003). There is no lynx critical habitat 

designated in the state of Oregon (USFWS 2009a). However, numerous individual lynx 

have been reported on the Walla Walla Ranger District in recent years. As a Threatened 

species, effects to lynx as potential transients and effects to lynx habitat are disclosed here, 

even though there may not be a resident population. 

Potential lynx habitat on the Umatilla Forest is primarily subalpine fir potential vegetation 

types where lodgepole pine is a major seral species. This is generally between 4,100 and 

6,600 feet in elevation. There are about 47,000 acres of potential lynx habitat within the 

allotment, of which 25,000 acres are currently suitable for lynx denning or foraging. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4

Potential effects include direct disturbance of individuals or changes to vegetation that lynx 

prey species depend upon. If a lynx moved into or traveled through the allotment during 

the summer, sheep, dog, and human presence could cause temporary avoidance of the area 

but should have no effect to lynx populations. No predator control activities have taken 

place on this allotment for many years, so this is not expected to be an issue for lynx. 

Effects to vegetation that lynx prey species such as grouse and snowshoe hare use would be 

very minor. Huckleberry and other hardwoods may be browsed by sheep in isolated areas. 

Vegetation above the snowline (5-10 feet above the ground) where food for snowshoe hare is 

critical during winter would not be affected by summer grazing. 

Changes to the allotment boundaries in all action alternatives would result in less overlap 

with lynx habitat. There would be 25 percent less lynx habitat potentially affected in 

Alternative 1, 55 percent less in Alternative 2, and 70 percent less in Alternatives 3 and 4. 

Overall, because it is unlikely that they occur in the area, there would be no direct or 

indirect effects to lynx.

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4

The proposed Tollgate Fuels project and the ongoing snowmobile trail grooming would 

potentially have the biggest effect to lynx if they are in the area. However no cumulative 

effects are expected because it is unlikely that lynx frequent the area and no direct or 

indirect effects are expected from the proposed allotment activities. Overall, there would be 

no effect to Canada lynx, because the Blue Mountains are considered ‘unoccupied’ by 

resident lynx (USDA-FS 2006a). 

There are no other effects unique to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Unique to Alternative 5 – No 

Grazing

Elimination of sheep grazing in the North End Allotment could result in a slight 

improvement of habitat conditions for lynx prey, such as snowshoe hare. The removal of 

livestock from the area would not cause negative cumulative effects. Because lynx are not 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

97

expected to occupy the area, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects 

to Canada lynx. 

Gray wolf (Sensitive) 

The gray wolf is a habitat generalist inhabiting a variety of plant communities typically 

containing a mix of forested and open areas with a variety of topographic features. The 

gray wolf Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment (DPS) was recently 

delisted from the Endangered Species List (USFWS 2011). This DPS would include any 

wolves potentially occurring on the allotment. 

Two areas of wolf activity are currently known in the area; one is about 10 miles northwest 

of the allotment, and the other about 5 miles northeast. No wolf activity has been reported 

within the North End Allotment boundary. 

Guidance for wolves in Oregon is outlined in the state’s Wolf Conservation and 

Management Plan (ODFW 2010). The state will continue to manage gray wolf as a state 

endangered species until four breeding pairs are established in eastern Oregon (ODFW 

2010). If there is future wolf activity within the allotment, the Oregon Wolf Conservation 

and Management Plan (ODFW 2010) contains a coordinated response strategy between 

federal and state agencies, which includes a process for monitoring and responding to 

problem incidents.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4

All proposed alternatives would create a wider distance between the permitted grazing area 

and the current areas of wolf activity. The chances that wolves might prey on domestic 

animals would decrease, thereby reducing the potential for conflicts and potential lethal 

control of wolves. 

Key things to consider when evaluating effects to wolves include direct disturbance, prey 

availability, and the potential for wolf/human interactions. The proposed activities would 

not disturb known key wolf areas such as den sites, would not change prey availability, and 

would not increase public access in the area. 

If a den or rendezvous site is identified prior to or during project activities, the Forest 

Service would consult with ODFW personnel to determine if seasonal restrictions or other 

requirements are necessary. Because these sites are difficult to locate and can change from 

year to year, this will need to be assessed on an ongoing basis. 

Based on the analysis of elk habitat (discussed previously in this chapter), wolf prey 

availability in the area is not expected to change as a result of the proposed activities. 

The potential for wolf /human interactions which may lead to mortality from accidental or 

illegal shooting would not increase. Herders are provided with information about wolf 

identification and procedures. All roads that are closed to the public would remain closed. 

If wolves begin to frequent the allotment, and are present at the same time and place as 

domestic sheep, and conflicts begin to occur, the permittee would work with ODFW and 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

98

USDA Wildlife Services to resolve complaints. Suspected wolf depredation on livestock 

would be investigated and an appropriate response determined to prevent further losses. 

ODFW would work with the permittee to minimize potential negative impacts to both 

livestock and wolves (ODFW 2010). 

No predator control activities have taken place on this allotment for many years, but if they 

do in the future, Wildlife Services would work closely with ODFW to avoid incidental take 

of wolves during the control of other species (USDA 2010). 

The use of temporary electric fencing at overnight bedding grounds would be allowed if 

conflicts with predators arise. 

Because wolves are currently not known to be active within the allotment, and no dens or 

rendezvous sites are known, the proposed alternatives would have no impact to gray 

wolf. 

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4

Ongoing activities in the area include aspen fencing maintenance, non-commercial tree 

thinning, noxious weed control, and road maintenance. Public recreation uses generally 

stem from roads and include hunting, hiking, sightseeing, and berry picking. Ongoing 

motorized vehicle use, including ATVs, is expected to continue at current low levels. 

The potential for wolf /human interactions which may lead to mortality from accidental or 

illegal shooting would not increase because all roads that are closed to the public would 

remain closed. 

Because there are no direct or indirect effects from proposed activities, there would also be 

no cumulative effects. The proposed activities in combination with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would have no impact gray wolf. 

There are no effects unique to Alternatives 1, 2, or 4.

Effects Unique to Alternative 3

The addition of the Goodman area to the allotment would move the allotment boundary 

closer to important elk winter range and calving grounds. The potential for wolf – livestock 

conflicts would be slightly higher than that predicted for other alternatives. However, since 

no wolves are known to be using the area currently, this alternative would have no impact 

to gray wolf. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Unique to Alternative 5 – No 

Grazing

There would be no direct or indirect effects to wolves if proposed actions were not 

implemented. Existing habitat conditions, prey base, and potential for wolf/human conflict 

would not change. Natural processes over the long term such as growth in vegetation and 

potential wildfires would not affect wolf behavior or ability to survive. Therefore, taking no 

action would have no impact to gray wolf. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

99

California wolverine (Sensitive) 

Wolverines typically inhabit high elevation conifer forest where sufficient food is available 

and human activity is low. Denning habitat is usually open rocky talus slopes where snow 

depths remain over 3 feet into spring. They tend to forage over large areas and travel long 

distances. The majority of the allotment is suitable for wolverine foraging, but no potential 

denning areas are known or suspected. Wolverines are not documented within the 

allotment, but have been reported on the district. Wolverine may pass through undetected 

and/or stay for short periods. There are no indications that wolverine do more than pass 

through on a rare occasion. Occasional sightings may represent extreme dispersal events 

rather than self-sustaining populations (Aubry et al. 2007). 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives

If wolverine they happen to be in the area, the presence of sheep and related human 

activity could cause them to temporarily avoid the area but this would not cause mortality 

or other effects. No direct, indirect or cumulative effects are expected, therefore there would 

be no impact to wolverine. 

There are no effects unique to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5.

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Sensitive) 

The big-eared bat occurs in a wide variety of habitats including coniferous forests (Gruver 

and Keinath 2006). Bat occurrence is strongly correlated with the availability of caves or 

cave-like roosting habitat such as mines adits and buildings (Perkins and Schommer 1992). 

These sites are highly sensitive to disturbance and human interference. Individuals or 

small groups (3-5 individuals) of bats may day roost in hollow and creviced trees and snags 

for a limited time, but tend to stay within a few miles of colonial roosts (Perkins and 

Schommer 1992). 

This bat species is not known to occur within the allotment, but is known to reside in 

buildings within 1 mile of the western border. Potential habitat in the allotment consists of 

out buildings, rocky areas with deep crevices, hollow trees, and snags near water. 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives

Sheep grazing and associated activities would not affect caves, buildings, or mine adits that 

attract big-eared bats. Since there are no historic or recent records of this species within 

the allotment, and activities would not affect habitat, there would be no direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects. Therefore there would be no impact to big-eared bat.

There are no effects unique to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5

Northern bald eagle (Sensitive) 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

100

Northern bald eagles are occasionally seen at Langdon Lake and Jubilee Lake. They also 

winter along parts of the Umatilla River. There are no active roost or nest sites within the 

allotment. 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives

Since no nesting or roosting sites have been identified, and sheep grazing would not alter 

prey or habitat resources, there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects. 

Therefore there would be no impact to northern bald eagle. 

There are no effects unique to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5.

White-headed woodpecker and Lewis’ woodpecker (both Sensitive)

White-headed woodpeckers are most commonly found in large stands of mature ponderosa 

pine. There are two known locations of white-headed woodpeckers within the allotment. 

Several other potential areas were surveyed and no white-headed woodpeckers were found. 

Lewis’ woodpecker also prefers more open pine, and is attracted to burned old forest, which 

is lacking in the allotment. 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives

Nesting and foraging habitat for white-headed woodpecker and Lewis’ woodpecker would 

not be affected by sheep grazing or associated activities. Therefore there would be no direct, 

indirect, or cumulative effects and there would be no impact to these species. 

There are no effects unique to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5.

Columbia spotted frog - Great Basin population (Sensitive) 

Spotted frogs have been located in several areas within the North End Allotment, but not at 

typical livestock watering sites such as rock pit ponds and springs with troughs. They are 

most likely to be present in calm waters with abundant aquatic vegetation such as marshy 

areas, meandering streams, or side channels. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives

The potential for grazing effects would be less because the permitted grazing area would be 

smaller and stocking rates would not increase as compared to the 1986 allotment boundary. 

If present, it is unlikely that spotted frogs would be directly affected. Livestock would enter 

the allotment after eggs have hatched (June 1), and research in Eastern Oregon indicates 

that there is no significant difference in the abundance of recently metamorphosed 

Columbia spotted frogs between grazed and ungrazed ponds (Bull and Hayes 2000). Adult 

frogs are highly mobile and able to avoid livestock trampling. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

101

Indirectly, removal of riparian vegetation (grasses and shrubs) through grazing may 

increase the susceptibility of spotted frogs to predation by reducing hiding cover. 

Generally, sheep are kept away from riparian areas. Utilization standards prescribed in 

the Forest Plan would continue to be used to achieve desired riparian conditions. 

No direct, indirect or cumulative effects are expected, therefore, implementation of any of 

these alternatives would have no impact to Columbia spotted frog. 

There are no effects unique to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5.

Inland tailed frog (Sensitive) 

Tailed frogs occur in cold, fast flowing streams. Eggs are laid under rocks, and generally 

hatch in late summer. Hatchlings and tadpoles spend most of their time clinging to rocks. 

They are slow to develop and spend several years as tadpoles. The current distribution of 

tailed frogs is uncertain, but they have been observed recently in the Lookingglass Creek 

drainage. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives

Because tailed frogs occur in cold streams, no direct or indirect effects are expected. In this 

allotment, sheep are kept away from most riparian areas. Sheep cross streams at 

headwater areas where water is intermittent, and cross other streams at designated 

crossings such as on roads or dry channels. 

Because no direct or indirect effects are expected, there would also be no cumulative effects. 

Therefore implementation of any of these alternatives would have no impact to inland 

tailed frog. 

There are no effects to tailed frog unique to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Forest Plan Compliance 

Forest Plan wildlife standards within all of the management area allocations within the 

allotment would be met. Adherence to forage utilization standards in the Forest Plan 

would minimize impacts to wildlife species. Grazing would not occur within forest plan 

management areas that contain unique wildlife habitat, such as Dedicated Old Growth, 

Research Natural Areas, and Special Interest Botanical Areas.
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

102

Biological Evaluation Summary 

Table 22. Summary of Effects for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive wildlife 

species* 

 Species Status Species Occurrence /

Habitat Suitability

Alternative

1 2 3 4

5

Canada lynx

Lynx canadensis T Potential NE NE NE NE NE

Gray wolf

Canis lupus S Potential NI NI NI NI NI

California Wolverine

Gulo gulo S Potential NI NI NI NI NE

Townsend’s big-eared bat

Corynorhinus townsendii S Potential NI NI NI NI NE

Northern bald eagle

Haliaeetus leucocephalus S Documented NI NI NI NI NE

Peregrine falcon

Falco peregrinus S No Habitat NI NI NI NI NE

White-headed woodpecker

Picoides albolarvatus S Documented NI NI NI NI NE

Lewis’ woodpecker

Melanerpes lewis S Potential NI NI NI NI NE

Upland sandpiper

Bartramia longicauda S No Habitat NI NI NI NI NE

Columbia spotted frog

Rana luteiventris S Documented NI NI NI NI NE

Inland tailed frog

Ascaphus montanus S Documented NI NI NI NI NE

Northern leopard frog

Rana pipiens S No Habitat NI NI NI NI NE

Painted turtle

Chrysemys picta S No Habitat NI NI NI NI NE

*Key to abbreviations T = Threatened, E = Endangered S= Sensitive 

NI No Impact to R6 sensitive species individuals, populations, or their habitat. 

MI May impact, but will not likely lead to federal listing as threatened or endangered. 

NE No effect on a proposed or listed species. 

 NLAA May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect a listed species.
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

103

The scale of analysis for soil resources is the allotment boundary, including the Goodman 

area, expanded or subdivided by pasture or specific use areas if any notable difference is 

evident. Effects are measured by considering current or potential risk of accelerated erosion 

(exposed mineral soil compared to presumed potential) and effects on soil condition or 

quality (compaction, displacement, or organic matter). 

Land and Soil Characteristics 

The Blue Mountain National Forest Landtype Association (LTA) mapping and description 

(USDA-FS 2006b) is used for characterization of this allotment as it is more appropriate to 

the size and scale of the project area and analysis intensity. LTA mapping units for the 

allotment are available in the Soil Report. 

Table 23. Land Type Associations (LTAs) of the North End Allotment. 

The Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory (TEUI) is nearly complete for the North End 

Allotment area, but the detail of this inventory is generally too great for application on such 

a large area. It could be used for more focused areas of intensive use. A few named soil 

series from the TEUI were selected for this project as the common representatives in order 

to utilize soil description and interpretations generating capability available via the 

National Resource Conservation Service’s (NRCS) National Soil Information System 

(NASIS) and Soil Data Mart http://www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/pnw_soil/index.html. 

Soil series chosen for characterization are: Anatone, Bocker and Fivebeaver for the nonforested sites; Limberjim (deep), Syrupcreek (mod. deep) for the uplands; and Bandarrow 

and Melloe for the drainageways, deep or very deep, poorly drained soil with clay loam 

subsoil, formed in alluvium (Table 24). More detailed descriptions are contained in the Soils 

Report. 

LTA Symbol Potential natural vegetation zones -

geology group - basic landform 

Slope 

Group

116 Moist Forest - Basic Igneous - Gentle Slopes 0-30%

117 Moist Forest - Basic Igneous - Steep Slopes 30-60%

118 Moist Forest - Basic Igneous - Canyons 60-90%

218 Dry Forest - Basic Igneous - Canyons 60-90%

244 Dry Forest - Lacustrine Interlay - Land Slide 0-60%

317 Dry Non-Forest - Basic Igneous - Steep Slopes 30-60%

318 Dry Non-Forest - Basic Igneous - Canyons 60-90%

418 Moist Non-Forest - Basic Igneous - Canyons 60-90%

Soils 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

104

Table 24. Representative Soils of the North End Allotment. 

Map Unit Symbol 

TEUI

 Soil 

Series 

Depth 

Class

Surface 

Texture

Subsurface 

Texture

Plant 

Association/Ecosite

5809AO

Anatone—BockerFivebeaver complex, 

0 to 15% slopes

Anatone shallow 

10-20 in.

very stony 

ashy Silt 

Loam

very cobbly 

Silty Clay 

Loam

Bluebunch 

wheatgrassSandberg’s bluegrass; 

Mountain Shallow 13+ 

PZ

Bocker

very 

shallow 4-

10 in.

extremely 

cobbly ashy 

Silt loam

very cobbly 

Silt loam

Bluebunch 

wheatgrassSandberg’s bluegrassonespike oatgrass; 

Mountain Very 

Shallow 13+ PZ

Fivebeaver Shallow 

10-2- in. 

Gravelly 

ashy Silt 

loam

Extremely 

cobbly ashy 

Silt loam

Ponderosa pinecommon snowberry

5776AO LimberjimSyrupcreek complex, 

0 to 15% slopes

Limberjim deep, 40-

60 in. 

Ashy silt 

loam

Very cobbly 

clay loam 

Grand fir- big 

huckleberry

Syrupcreek

Moderatel

y deep, 20-

40 in. 

Ashy silt 

loam

Very stony 

clay loam

Grand fir- big 

huckleberry

0031AW 

Moist Meadow: 

Bandarrow-Melloe

Bandarrow Very deep 

60+ in. Silt loam

Very 

gravelly 

loamy sand

Cusick’s sedge

Melloe Very deep 

60+ in. Loam

Clay loam; 

very cobbly 

sandy clay 

loam

Cusick’s sedge

The area includes a section of a relatively level, geomorphic bench above the Grande Ronde 

River. This area includes some of the bedded lacustrine (water-lain) deposits found in this 

part of the Blue Mountain uplift block. Soils in this allotment on forested sites are typically 

deep or moderately deep on gentle slopes, with relatively high clay subsoil in slightly 

concave to level, poorly drained areas where the streams, springs or moister drainages are 

located. The upland soils are moderately deep, well drained formed in a volcanic ash mantle 

over gravelly residual soils developed in basalt and andesite. 

Grazing limitations for these soil types are few. Soils in the wet to moist meadows are 

among the most productive for forage on the Forest. The poorly drained soils in the wet 

meadow areas stay wetter into the summer longer than better drained soils and are 

therefore susceptible longer to puddling from hooves. Soils in the dry meadows are 

moderately productive although many have had surface soil loss from un-regulated 

historical grazing. When dry they are very firm and resist puddling, displacement and 

compaction but can be susceptible to puddling from hoof action when saturated (most 

common in early spring conditions). 

Vascular plants dominate in these ecological sites (soil and vegetation). Biotic soil crusts 

are a minor component as there is little unoccupied soil surface available and are not of 

concern in this allotment. Crusts are in generally good condition in this allotment. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

105

Existing Condition 

The North End allotment is relatively less impacted from historical grazing activities than 

other parts of the Blue Mountains. Current conditions still reflect, to varying degrees, the 

impacts of overly heavy grazing by sheep and horses from late 1800’s to mid 1930’s. While 

the current condition is certainly changed from natural (pre-European) conditions, soil 

erosion and physical impacts have stabilized with a generally positive trend in soil quality 

relative to grazing effects. Soils are typically deeper in this portion of the Forest, and 

topography more gently sloping where the sheep graze and are herded. 

Grazing impacts to soils typically pertain to increased erosion potential (due to loss of 

vegetative protection and surface disruption), and puddling and displacement from hoofaction. In the North End Allotment, a few, very small areas around watering sites, bedding 

areas and heavily used trails receive compaction sufficient to reduce short-term 

productivity. Each affected area is several hundred square feet (less than an acre) and often 

linear. Less than 1 percent of the total 132,000 acre allotment is exceeding the criteria for 

detrimental soil conditions. 

Current pasture management is effective in minimizing or eliminating adverse effects to 

soil productivity or erosion hazard. Pastures are generally stable without active accelerated 

upland erosion due to grazing activity. The potential concentration of animals in areas near 

springs or streams is discussed in the hydrology and fisheries sections. Areas of reduced soil 

quality due to displacement (or bank erosion) from current riparian grazing (trampling or 

calving of banks) is intermittent and measurable in hundreds of square feet (rather than 

acres). 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 1 

As compared to the current grazing activity allowed in the 1986 Allotment Management 

Plan, the reduction in grazing acreage and livestock numbers would allow for an increase in 

ground cover height and ground cover percentages, such that erosion risk would be reduced 

further and soil quality would continue to improve on the discontinued pastures (Jarboe 

and part of Swamp). The inability to provide for a rested pasture in the rotation would 

slightly increase the risk of accelerated erosion in the remaining pastures. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 2

As compared to the Proposed Action, the further reduction in acreage (elimination of all of 

the Jarboe and Swamp pastures) and livestock numbers would reduce the potential for 

increased erosion hazard on that portion of the Swamp pasture that would otherwise be 

utilized. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 3

This alternative would remove the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness, and add the Goodman 

area to the grazing plan. There would be a similar amount of land within the allotment, but 

in different areas than Alternative 2. Stocking rates would also be similar. Erosion hazard 

would increase slightly in the Goodman area, which has not been grazed by livestock for 

over 40 years. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

106

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 4

This alternative would provide a similar grazing intensity as the others, but would affect 

the smallest amount of area. There would be correspondingly less potential for effects to 

soils overall. 

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4

In addition to historical grazing discussed earlier, past activities including homesteading, 

haying, ditch development, clearcutting and roading, have altered the landscape. Intensive 

logging and roading are unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future and over time. Fuels 

reduction projects are planned, but will occur on the forested portions of the allotment 

where grazing pressure is slight. Each alternative in sequence reduces the size of the 

allotment, thereby reducing the overall cumulative potential for soil effects on the 

landscape. Grazing pressure would be light enough that erosion hazard increase or soil 

quality decrease would be difficult to measure. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Unique to Alternative 5 – No 

Grazing

Effects of any kind from permitted livestock would be eliminated. The existing slight 

potential for increase of erosion hazard and risk of soil quality effects would be eliminated. 

Therefore there would not be direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to soil resources. 

Forest Plan Compliance 

The proposed action and all alternatives would meet standards and guidelines in the 

Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan for soil resource condition 

(soil quality) and erosion risk or hazard. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

107

Analysis Methods 

The existing allotment includes portions of four subbasins and eight watersheds (Table 25); 

however, all portions of the allotment in the Lower Grande Ronde Subbasin have been 

dropped from consideration in this EIS. 

For this evaluation, the Clean Water Act is discussed by watershed and subwatershed 

(HUC 5 and HUC 6). Effects to developed water sources and perennial surface waters are 

evaluated at the scale of the local sites. These geographic extents encompass the area that 

reasonably could be affected by the North End Allotment. 

Short term effects to water sources and perennial waters are evaluated for the period of 

use. Long term effects are those that would occur as funding becomes available for water 

improvement projects. These time frames are appropriate to display immediate effects and 

to encompass the potential for ongoing localized damage and recovery. 

Existing Condition 

Water quality and other hydrologic conditions were not identified as issues for this 

allotment. This is primarily due to past and ongoing management controls that have kept 

effects to a minimum. Due to the topography of the area and the way sheep are routed 

through the allotment, there is little riparian utilization (Range Report). Sheep bands are 

accompanied by herders who keep sheep away from stream channels. Utilization of 

riparian or stream side vegetation is managed by measuring stubble heights and shrub 

utilization. If utilization is close to or exceeding Forest Plan standards, sheep are moved 

(Range Report). 

 

Sheep grazing, use of water sources, bedding sites, and stream crossings are closely 

controlled. Stream crossings are primarily on roads, and otherwise are closely managed to 

minimize channel disturbance. Three intermittent channels are crossed when they are dry: 

Dry Creek, East Fork Coyote Creek, and Finley Creek. These channels are protected by 

having sheep cross at designated sites that have naturally rocky banks so that bank 

stability can be maintained.

Sheep use of livestock watering sites could affect water quality and hydrologic function. 

Springs, ponds, and troughs make up nearly all livestock water sources. Developed water 

sources were identified based on records and recent surveys (Range Report). These water 

sources are generally located near ridge tops in or near headwater draws. Rock pit ponds 

occur in areas with no soil or vegetation and have little or no potential to influence surface 

waters or the functioning of groundwater. 

Water Quality
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

108

Table 25. Subwatershed Acres by Alternative. 

Current Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

HUC 6 Subwatershed Name Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres

LOWER GRANDE RONDE RIVER SUBBASIN

Grande Ronde River-Grossman Creek Watershed

170601060101 Sheep Creek 6008 0 0 0 0

170601060102 Grande Ronde River-Clear Creek 1013 0 0 0 0

170601060104 Grande Ronde River-Bear Creek 183 0 0 0 0

Wenaha River Watershed

170601060301 Upper South Fork Wenaha River 756 0 0 0 0

170601060302 Lower South Fork Wenaha River 36 0 0 0 0

UPPER GRANDE RONDE RIVER SUBBASIN

Willow Creek Watershed

170601040801 Dry Creek 7020 7020 7020 7020 7020

Lookingglass Creek Watershed

170601041001 Upper Lookingglass Creek 14429 14349 3245 470 470

170601041002 Little Lookingglass Creek 20246 3563 0 0 0

170601041003 Jarboe Creek 6175 0 0 0 0

170601041004 Lower Lookingglass Creek 7023 7023 5316 5300 5300

Grande Ronde River-Cabin Creek Watershed

170601041101 Phillips Creek 16958 16958 16958 16976 16976

170601041102 Gordon Creek 4200 4200 4200 4200 4200

170601041104 Cabin Creek 5080 5080 5080 5080 5080

WALLA WALLA RIVER SUBBASIN

Upper Walla Walla River Watershed

170701020101 Upper SF Walla Walla River 17 17 0 0 0

170701020102 Middle SF Walla Walla River 3277 3277 0 0 0

UMATILLA SUBBASIN

Upper Umatilla River Watershed

170701030101 Thomas Creek 8334 8337 8337 9926 6030

170701030102 South Fork Umatilla River 0 0 0 14980 0

Current Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

HUC 6 Subwatershed Name Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres

170701030103 Buck Creek 8559 8560 8560 2800 2800

170701030104 North Fork Umatilla River 18474 18474 18474 3614 3614

170701030105 Ryan Creek 0 0 0 2240 0

170701030106 Bear Creek 3190 3190 3190 6 0

Meacham Creek Watershed

170701030204 North Fork Meacham Creek 1101 1101 1101 3872 1100

170701030205 Camp Creek 0 0 0 3080 0

170701030206 Boston Canyon 0 0 0 125 0
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

109

Developed water sources in the North End Allotment include rock pit ponds and springs 

that rise and fall on NFS lands, exempting them from requirements for state-based water 

rights. Springs have low flow volumes; some are connected to the channel network, others 

not. There are numerous existing livestock water rights in the allotment area. Water rights 

and uses will be assessed as water sources are maintained, redeveloped, or newly 

developed. 

Nine spring sources were also inventoried during a spring inventory protocol pilot program 

(Johnson and Clifton 2008). The volume of water flow ranged from .0004 to .005 cubic feet 

per second, or 0.1 to 2.4 gallons per minute. Channels associated with these springs, called 

spring brooks, ranged from 0 to about 800 meters in length (0.5 mile), with median length 

of 50 meters. Eight of these nine springs had one or more identified sources of disturbance. 

Grazing was noted as a disturbance factor for three springs, and diversion was noted as a 

factor for two springs. Most diversions would have occurred to develop water sources for 

grazing. Other disturbance types identified were recreation at five springs, and logging or 

roads at two springs. 

Specific management requirements and Best Management Practices have been identified to 

control development of water sources and to reduce risks to springs and water quality (see 

Chapter 2). Water developments no longer inside the allotment would be assessed to 

determine if they need to be removed and restored, abandoned and allowed to recover 

naturally, or maintained for other purposes such as wildlife or road maintenance. 

Clean Water Act 

The Environmental Protection Agency has designated the State of Oregon as having 

responsibility to implement the Clean Water Act. A Memorandum of Understanding 

between Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the Forest Service defines the 

Forest Service’s responsibilities (USDA-FS and ODEQ 2007). The MOU designates the 

Forest Service as the management agency responsible for meeting the Clean Water Act on 

National Forest lands and recognizes best management practices (BMPs) as the primary 

mechanism to control nonpoint source pollution on said lands. There is further recognition 

that BMPs are developed by the Forest Service as part of the planning process and includes 

a commitment by the Forest Service to meet or exceed standards. 

The Clean Water Act requires that water quality standards be developed to protect 

beneficial uses, and that a list of water quality impaired streams be developed (303d list). 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) has identified Use Designations 

(Table 26). 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

110

Table 26. Beneficial Uses for Streams in the Grande Ronde, Walla Walla, and 

Umatilla Basins. (Source: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/uses.htm)

Aquatic Life Uses Bull trout, salmon and trout spawning and rearing, migration

Recreation Uses Fishing, Boating, Water Contact Recreation

Water Supply Uses Domestic, Industrial, and Agricultural

Miscellaneous Uses Wildlife & Hunting, Hydro Power, Aesthetic Quality

 

Water Temperature standards are based on life stages of fishes and measured with 7-dayaverage maximums. For the North End Allotment the following standards apply: 

Gordon Creek, Cabin Creek, Phillips Creek and Dry Creek: 

Salmon and steelhead spawning; may not exceed 13.0 degrees Celsius (55.4 

degrees Fahrenheit) January 1 – May 15. 

Salmon and trout rearing and migration use; may not exceed 18.0 degrees 

Celsius (64.4 degrees Fahrenheit) 

Lookingglass Creek, Little Lookingglass Creek, Swamp Creek, South Fork Walla Walla 

River, North and South Fork Umatilla River, Buck Creek, Thomas Creek, Ryan Creek, 

Bear Creek, North Fork Meacham Creek, Camp Creek and Boston Canyon: 

Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing; may not exceed 12.0 degrees Celsius 

(53.6 degrees Fahrenheit). 

Sedimentation: The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of 

any organic or inorganic deposits deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to 

public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed. 

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 

A TMDL is the pollutant amount that a water body can receive and still meet Oregon water 

quality standards. The State of Oregon completed TMDLs for the Upper Grande Ronde 

River Subbasin in May 2000, for the Umatilla River Subbasin in May 2001, and for the 

Walla Walla Subbasin in September 2005. There are no 303d Category 5 listed streams 

inside the allotment boundaries because TMDLs are in place. 

The current 303d list can be found at: 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt0406/search.asp . 

Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP) 

These plans are developed to restore impaired waters. Forestry WQMPs rely on current 

laws, management plans, and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to provide the basis for 

improving water quality in the forested landscape. In addition to BMPs, All federal land 

management activities must follow standards and guidelines (S&Gs) found in the Umatilla 

National Forest Plan, as amended by PACFISH (USDA-FS and USDI 1995). PACFISH 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

111

provides management direction in the form of interim Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas 

(RHCAs) and Standards and Guides for Key Watersheds. 

WQMPs covering Forest Service lands are in place in the Upper Grande Ronde Sub-Basin 

and the Umatilla River Basin. The WQMP for the Walla Walla Subbasin is in draft. 

The various basin WQMPs expect current policies, regulations, BMPs, and adaptive 

management techniques to minimize unwanted sedimentation from forestry related 

activities. Habitat conditions are expected to be improved through implementation of 

BMPs developed for the temperature TMDL which promote riparian conditions that 

improve channel stability and reduce erosion and promote the protection and recovery of 

channel morphology to the most stable forms. 

Most streams in the allotment area do not have identified impairments. These waters are 

protected by the same laws, management plans, and BMPs as discussed above to prevent 

their degradation. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4

Compared to the existing allotment, effects would be reduced in all alternatives because the 

allotment would be smaller and fewer water sources would be used. 

Springs provide the perennial water that support developed water sources. These springs 

have low volumes of flow, are generally located in headwater areas, and have nearly no 

connectivity with the drainage network. The potential for off-site effects of their use as 

water sources would be negligible. 

There would be a potential for local effects to developed water sources and the areas around 

them. Trampling, especially in areas with wet soil, could reduce vegetative cover, damage 

soils, and reduce the potential of vegetation to recover. Local effects would be mitigated by 

application of Best Management Practices (BMPs) listed in Chapter 2. For example, proper 

construction and maintenance would prevent or correct muddy conditions around water 

sources; fencing around springs would protect their hydrologic and biologic integrity; and 

adequate spillways would reduce the risk of pond or berm failure and would control 

overflow. These practices would be implemented as funding became available. Stabilization 

or removal of abandoned water sources would reduce risks of erosion from these sources. 

Control of access to water sources by herders provides ongoing monitoring of their condition 

and allows for quick reporting of problems. As water development BMPs are implemented 

for maintenance, development, or abandonment, local site conditions would improve. 

Riparian vegetation and channel condition would be protected by prescribed grazing 

patterns, utilization standards, and designation of stream crossings (Range Report). 

Effects to channel morphology and riparian condition would be expected to be negligible. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

112

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 1 

Changes to the allotment boundary would remove sheep from pastures containing Jarboe 

Creek, Sheep Creek, Little Lookingglass Creek, Buzzard Creek, Fry Meadow Creek, and 

their tributaries. Mottet Creek and Swamp Creek would remain inside the proposed 

allotment, but no grazing would be permitted within 300 feet of these streams because ESA 

listed fish species are present. Twelve developed water sources would no longer be needed 

(Table 27). No off-site water quality or hydrologic effects would be expected from reducing 

the size of the allotment. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 2

The change in allotment boundaries would remove sheep from pastures drained by Swamp 

Creek, Lost Creek, Summer Creek, Mottet Creek, and the tributaries of the South Fork of 

the Walla Walla River. Twenty developed water sources would no longer be needed. This 

would reduce the potential for localized effects to springs below that of Alternative 1. 

Table 27. Developed Water Sources by Alternative. 

Springs & 

Ponds Rock Pits

Existing Allotment 78 5

Alternative 1 66 5

Alternative 2 58 4

Alternative 3 60 4

Alternative 4 48 4

Alternative 5 0 0

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 3

In this alternative, the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness would be removed from the 

allotment and the Goodman Area would be added. The North Fork Umatilla River, Coyote 

Creek, Woodward Creek, Lick Creek, Bear Creek, Buck Creek, Swamp Creek, Lake Creek, 

Johnson Creek, and their tributaries would no longer be in the allotment. Ten additional 

developed water sources would no longer be needed. There would be correspondingly less 

potential for localized effects to springs. 

The main stream systems in the Goodman area are the South Fork of the Umatilla, Spring 

Creek, Shimmiehorn Creek, and Hellhole Creek. Most of these streams and their 

associated riparian vegetation are not accessible to sheep because they are located in the 

bottom of steep canyons. Sheep would not be herded down into these reaches. A 300 foot 

no-grazing buffer would be applied to each side of streams that contain populations of 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

113

steelhead and bull trout. As a result, effects in the Goodman area would be limited to the 

headwaters of these systems. These conditions and resulting effects are similar to those 

described for Alternative 1 and 2. 

New water sources for grazing would be required in the Goodman area. Twelve locations 

for water developments have been identified. Ten of those are new or complete 

reconstructions and two are existing developments that need little maintenance. These 

water developments are located in upland areas. Management requirements used for water 

developments would be implemented as described in Chapter 2, and would occur before 

grazing could begin in the Goodman area. 

Best Management Practices for spring development and maintenance would be 

implemented before grazing began in the Goodman area. Damage to springs and areas 

around springs would be controlled and minimized by BMPs. Hydrologic function and water 

quality would be protected at these sites. The potential for local disturbance near water 

sources in the existing allotment areas would be the same as described in Alternative 2. 

Improvements to those water sources would occur as funding became available. No offsite 

water quality or hydrologic effects would be expected from grazing and related use of the 

allotment. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 4

Effects would be similar to Alternative 3, except that the Goodman Area would not be 

grazed. This alternative would cover the smallest amount of area. There would be 

correspondingly less potential for localized effects to springs. No offsite water quality or 

hydrologic effects would be expected. 

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4

Local site conditions would improve as water sources receive maintenance. No off site 

water quality or hydrologic effects would be expected from grazing and related activities 

proposed in these alternatives. There would be no potential for cumulative effects with 

past, ongoing, or future foreseeable actions in the area such as recreation use, fuels 

reduction projects, etc. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Unique to Alternative 5 – No 

Grazing

Under this alternative livestock grazing would be discontinued in the North End Allotment 

and the existing grazing permit would be cancelled. Developed water sources would not be 

needed by permitted livestock and would either be decommissioned, stabilized, or 

maintained for other uses. Seven developed springs would be restored by removing the 

trough, pipe, fences, and spring boxes. There would be no potential for localized effects to 

water quality and hydrologic function due to livestock use of developed water uses. 

Therefore there would be no cumulative effects from Alternative 5. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

114

Forest Plan Compliance 

Implementation of management requirements and best management practices as described 

above and PACFISH grazing Standards and Guides would constitute compliance with the 

Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan for hydrologic and water 

quality components. 

Existing Condition 

The existing boundaries of the North End and Goodman Allotments include portions of 4 

subbasins and 8 watersheds that drain to both the east and west faces of the Blue 

Mountains. The North End Allotment drains into the Upper and Lower Grande Ronde 

River subbasins and into the Umatilla and Walla Walla River subbasins, while the 

Goodman Allotment drains into the Umatilla subbasin. Although a portion of the current 

North End allotment lies within the Lower Grande Ronde subbasin, effects to that portion 

of the existing allotment will only be analyzed under the No Grazing alternative since those 

acres would be excluded from any of the action alternatives. 

Table 25 in the Hydrology section above displays the subwatersheds involved, by 

alternative. This scope enables analysis of both direct and indirect effects to ESA listed and 

Forest Service sensitive fish species present inside and/or within a reasonable distance 

downstream of the allotment boundary, for purposes of indirect and cumulative effects 

analysis. One or more listed or sensitive fish species are present in each watershed and 

subwatershed in which the allotment is located. 

The North End allotment includes some rugged river and stream drainages like the North 

Fork Umatilla River, but much of the allotment is gentle or rolling uplands. Domestic 

sheep have primarily used the ridges tops, rolling upland hills, and the headwaters of 

streams. Over the years, over 70 developed water sources (ponds and troughs) have been 

constructed to improve livestock distribution within the allotment. The majority have been 

constructed since the early 1980’s and are supplied by perennial springs. Sheep are herded 

and are not expected to use undeveloped spring sources on this allotment. Nearly all of the 

springs associated with developments occur in headwater locations, have low flow volumes 

and very few flow directly into the stream network (Hydrology Report). 

Fish Species 

This section provides a description of the legal status, species distribution, and habitat 

conditions for the fish species of concern in this analysis area. Distribution and status are 

derived from: stream survey data; Federal Register notices listing the Threatened Species 

present in the allotment; and Federal Register notices proposing or designating Critical 

Habitat for those listed species. Figure 17 is a map of fish distribution and Table 28 

displays presence and status for each species relative to the current allotment, the potential 

Goodman addition, and the analysis area subwatersheds. 

Fish and Aquatic Habitat
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

115

Table 28. Fish presence relative to current North End Sheep and Goodman Allotment boundaries. 

Species, ESUs* and Listed 

Habitats Status**

Location Relative to Analysis Area

Within 

North End

Allotment

Within 

Goodman 

Allotment

Within analysis 

area subwatersheds

Snake River Basin (SRB) 

steelhead T Yes No Yes

Critical Habitat, SRB steelhead D Yes No Yes

Mid-Columbia (Mid-C) steelhead T Yes Yes Yes

Critical Habitat, Mid-C steelhead* D/EFH Yes Yes Yes

SRB spring/summer Chinook 

salmon T Yes No Yes

Critical Habitat, SRB 

spring/Summer Chinook salmon 

(and Essential Fish Habitat)

D/EFH Yes Yes Yes

SRB fall Chinook salmon T No No No

Critical Habitat, SRB fall Chinook 

salmon (and Essential Fish 

Habitat)

D/EFH No No No

Columbia River bull trout T Yes Yes Yes

Critical Habitat, Columbia River 

bull trout (2010 Rule) D Yes Yes Yes

Margined sculpin S No No Yes

Redband trout S Yes Yes Yes

Westslope cutthroat trout S No No No

*The separate listings for the anadromous species are considered Evolutionarily Significant Units, or ESUs. 

Mid-C steelhead and SRB steelhead are listed separately under the Endangered Species Act. SRB 

spring/summer Chinook salmon are listed, while Mid-C Chinook are not listed. SRB fall Chinook salmon are 

listed separately from SRB spring/summer Chinook salmon. 

**T=Threatened, D=Designated Critical Habitat, S=Region 6 Forest Service Sensitive Species, EFH=Essential 

Fish Habitat. EFH is terminology from the Magnuson-Stevens Act, a separate act protecting habitat for 

commercially important anadromous species such as salmon. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

116
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

117

Snake River Basin steelhead are found in analysis area subwatersheds draining to the 

Grande Ronde River. Snake River steelhead were listed as Threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) on October 17, 1997 and the listing was reaffirmed on 

January 6, 2006 (NMFS 2006). Critical Habitat was designated in 2005 (NMFS 2005).

Adult summer steelhead leave the Pacific Ocean and enter the Columbia River from June 

through September. They proceed up the Columbia and Snake Rivers until reaching 

tributary watersheds and subwatersheds between September and May. Spawning takes 

place from March through April in the lower elevation tributaries, and March through May 

in the higher elevation tributaries. Egg incubation and emergence from gravels occurs from 

March through mid July, depending on time of spawning and water temperatures. 

Mid-Columbia River steelhead (Busby et al. 1996) are found in several subwatersheds 

draining into the Umatilla and South Fork Walla Walla Rivers or into major tributaries to 

the Umatilla River, such as Meacham Creek. The Mid-Columbia Steelhead Evolutionarily 

Significant Unit was listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as a 

threatened species in March of 1999 (NMFS 1999a). 

Designated Critical Habitat for Mid-Columbia steelhead within the Umatilla and 

Walla Walla River subbasins includes all river and stream reaches accessible to steelhead 

below long-standing natural barriers (NMFS 2005). The accessible stream reaches in the 

Mid-Columbia steelhead portion of the North End allotment alternatives are synonymous 

with steelhead distribution (Figure 17).

Mid-Columbia River steelhead start to enter the Umatilla and Walla Walla Rivers with 

rising stream flow that typically occurs in late November and December. Spawning takes 

place from March through May. Egg incubation occurs from March through mid July 

(depending on time of spawning and water temperatures). Fry typically emerge from the 

gravel in June and July. Mid-Columbia River steelhead show about a 50/50 split between 

age-1-ocean and age-2-ocean returning adults (Busby et al. 1996). 

Note: The National Marine Fisheries Service adopted a Final Recovery Plan for 

Mid-Columbia River steelhead on September 30, 2009. The plan acknowledged 

implementation of Forest Service Forest Plan-level PACFISH policy as one of 

the primary mechanisms by which recovery is being achieved on National Forest 

System lands within the Recovery Plan area in Oregon. PACFISH includes 

Riparian Management Objectives for stream bank stability and sediment, 

establishes special riparian management zones adjacent to streams called 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs), and provides standards and 

guidelines for grazing that when implemented, are intended to ensure no 

adverse effects to listed fish, and that would avoid retarding near-natural rates 

of recovery for fish habitat. No draft or final Recovery Plan has yet been 

completed for Snake River steelhead or salmon in Oregon, but PACFISH policy 

is applied throughout the Umatilla National Forest, not just within the MidColumbia River portion of the Forest. 

Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon are present within the lower portion of 

Lookingglass Creek within the analysis area. They were first listed as Threatened in 1992. 

The listing was reaffirmed on June 28, 2005 (Federal Register Vol. 70 (123). Critical 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

118

Habitat was first designated in on May 22, 1992 and revised on October 25, 1999 (NMFS 

1999b). 

Adult spring/summer Chinook salmon leave the Pacific Ocean and enter the Columbia 

River from February through May. They proceed up the Columbia and Snake Rivers. They 

reach the Grande Ronde River and Lookingglass Creek in June and July. They spawn from 

early August through September 30. Egg incubation and emergence from gravels occurs 

from August 15 through the end of February. After emerging, juvenile fish typically remain 

in fresh water for one year before migrating to the ocean from March through June. Adults 

will typically return to the spawning grounds after three to six years in the ocean. 

Snake River Fall Chinook salmon are not present in any of the subwatersheds 

associated with the North End Sheep allotment. 

Mid-Columbia Spring/summer Chinook salmon had been extirpated from the Umatilla 

and Walla Walla systems until recently, when the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla 

Indian Reservation reintroduced the species using hatchery stock. This stock is not a 

Regional Forester’s Sensitive species and is not listed under the ESA. They are only 

considered in this analysis for purposes of compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

which requires an assessment of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Pacific salmon. 

Mid-C Chinook salmon habitat in this project area includes the headwaters of the Umatilla 

River, and the Upper Walla Walla and Meacham Creek watersheds. Designated Critical 

Habitat for Mid-C steelhead is used as a surrogate to consider effects to Mid-C Chinook. 

Adult spring/summer Chinook salmon leave the Pacific Ocean and enter the Columbia 

River from February through May. They proceed up the Columbia. They spawn from early 

August through September 30 in the Umatilla and Walla Walla rivers. Egg/alevin 

incubation and emergence from gravels occurs from August 15 through the end of February. 

After emerging, juvenile fish typically remain in fresh water for one year before migrating 

to the ocean from March through June. Adults will typically return to the spawning 

grounds after three to six years in the ocean. 

Columbia River bull trout 

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published a final rule listing the bull trout in 

the Columbia River Distinct Population Segment as a threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act (USFWS 1998). Bull trout subpopulations in the Wenaha and 

Lookingglass watersheds are two of thirteen subpopulations remaining in the Grande 

Ronde system (Buchanan et al. 1997). Other subpopulations are present in the Umatilla 

and Walla Walla River subbasins. 

A draft recovery plan for Columbia River bull trout (USFWS 2002b) identified the following 

objectives for bull trout in the Grande Ronde and Umatilla-Walla Walla Recovery Units: 

• Maintain the current distribution of bull trout within the core areas and reestablish 

bull trout in previously occupied habitats. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

119

• Maintain stable or increasing trends in abundance of bull trout in both the 

Umatilla-Walla Walla and the Grande Ronde Recovery Units. 

• Restore and maintain suitable habitat conditions for all bull trout life history stages 

and strategies. 

Two distinct bull trout life history forms occur in the project area: fluvial and resident 

(Pratt 1992, Buchanan et al. 1997). Fluvial forms rear in natal tributaries for one to four 

years before moving to larger rivers to mature. Fluvial bull trout may use a wide range of 

habitats ranging from second to sixth order streams and varying by season and life stage. 

They live for another two to four years in these larger systems, growing to much larger 

sizes than resident forms, before returning to natal tributaries to spawn. 

Migratory fish move seasonally from spawning and rearing areas into overwintering 

habitat in downstream reaches of larger basins. This is the fluvial life history, which is still 

present in the Grande Ronde River populations including those in Wenaha and 

Lookingglass watersheds. Fluvial fish are still present in the Walla Walla watershed and 

in the Umatilla watersheds as well (Buchanan et al 1997). The resident form may be 

restricted to headwater streams throughout life. Both forms may exist together in some 

areas, but migratory fish may dominate populations where corridors and sub adult rearing 

areas are in good condition (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). 

Migratory/fluvial bull trout typically migrate from May through the end of December and 

typically spawn in tributaries from September 1 through the end of October. Hatching may 

occur in winter or early spring, but alevins may stay in the gravel for an extended period 

after yolk absorption. Emergence from gravels occurs at the end of April. Growth, 

maturation, and longevity vary with environmental conditions. First spawning is often 

noted after age six, with individuals living 10 or more years (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). 

Rearing occurs year-round in the analysis area. 

Bull trout Critical Habitat was designated in 2005. At that time, no Critical Habitat 

was designated on National Forest System lands. More recently, a Final Rule for 

Designated Critical Habitat was published (USFWS 2010) which went into effect on 

November 17, 2010. The new designation now includes National Forest lands as well as 

non-federal lands in the action area. Affected subwatersheds in the analysis area are 

managed under PACFISH direction. 

Inland redband trout are the same species as steelhead (Onchorhynchus mykiss) and 

juveniles cannot be distinguished phenotypically. Redband and steelhead are also 

considered Management Indicator Species in the Umatilla National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan. 

Isolated populations of O. mykiss above longstanding natural passage barriers (and barring 

hatchery introductions) are presumed to be resident redbands. There are known natural 

barriers (waterfalls), on Lookingglass and Mottet creeks, which prevent steelhead and bull 

trout access to the uppermost reaches. O. mykiss upstream of the barriers are presumed to 

be of hatchery origin due to stocking of headwater lakes above the barriers. No other 

isolated resident populations are known to exist in the North End allotment project area. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

120

Oncorhynchus mykiss may be resident, and spend their entire life in freshwater, or 

anadromous, and migrate to the ocean before returning to freshwater to spawn as an adult. 

Offspring of resident forms are known to have become anadromous, and offspring of 

anadromous forms are known to have failed to migrate and become residents. The 

anadromous form, known as steelhead, may spend up to seven years (typically 2 years) in 

fresh water before smoltification. Juveniles migrate to the ocean from early April through 

September. Adults will return to the spawning grounds after one to three years (typically 

one year) in the ocean. A limited number of adult steelhead will spawn a second time but 

most spawn only once. The number of possible combinations of these life history factors 

gives Oncorhynchus mykiss one of the largest suites of life history patterns of any of the 

salmonids (Busby et al. 1996). 

Margined sculpin are a localized endemic species limited to the Walla Walla River 

portion of the analysis area. They are not found in other drainages of the analysis area. 

Sculpin are small bottom-feeding fish with small home territories. They are closely 

associated with the streambed, and require clean gravel-cobble and bigger substrate with 

low embeddedness, as they shelter from the current and predators, as well as feed on macro 

invertebrates on the stream bottom. 

Westslope cutthroat trout are very localized on the Umatilla National Forest, only being 

found in the North Fork John Day subbasin. They are not present in any of the four 

subbasins associated with the North End allotment, and would not be affected by grazing in 

the allotment. Therefore westslope cutthroat trout will not be discussed further. 

Aquatic Habitat Conditions 

The hydrologist’s report has determined that there would be no direct or indirect effects on 

stream temperature for any fish bearing streams within various alternative boundaries. 

This analysis was considered when selecting separate analysis criteria for fish and will not 

be repeated here. The following indicators were selected to evaluate alternatives relative to 

concerns for sheep management based on the alternatives developed: stream bank stability; 

fine sediment effects on spawning substrate quality; and the risk of redd trampling. 

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) is a minimum level condition that provides the 

necessary attributes to maintain riparian stability, but may not result in conditions that 

provide high quality waters. Systems are functioning appropriately when adequate 

vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to: dissipate stream energy, reduce 

erosion and improve water quality; filter sediment; improve flood-water retention; develop 

root masses that stabilize stream banks; and develop ponds and channel characteristics to 

provide fish habitat. There are three PFC classes: Functioning, Functioning at Risk, and 

Nonfunctioning (Table 29). A more detailed account of this information can be found in the 

Fish Specialist Report. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

121

Table 29. Watershed Conditions.

Watershed stream bank stability spawning substrate 

Walla Walla Functioning Functioning

Umatilla / Meacham No data Functioning (steelhead)

Functioning At Risk (bull trout)

Lookingglass Functioning Functioning (steelhead)

Functioning At Risk (bull trout)

Phillips/Gordon/Cabin/Dry Functioning Functioning At Risk

Wenaha Functioning Functioning

Grande Ronde – Rondowa No data Not Functioning (Grande Ronde 

River only, no data on tributaries)

Walla Walla Watershed - The South Fork Walla Walla River is in a special Forest Plan 

Management Area which manages for unroaded conditions and no scheduled timber 

harvest. Sheep grazing barely touches into this watershed and there are no active cattle 

allotments. Recreational use is light and mainly on trails. 

Umatilla/Meacham Watersheds - Sheep grazing in the upper Umatilla and Meacham 

Creek watersheds under current management is having very little effect on riparian plant 

communities, which are probably at or near their natural potential (USDA-FS 1998b). 

Bull trout habitat distribution is more limited in the Umatilla and Meacham watersheds 

than steelhead habitat. Surveys indicate that bull trout reaches ranged from 5 to 35 percent 

embeddedness in the North Fork Meacham Creek subwatershed, and 17 percent in the 

North and South Fork Umatilla subwatersheds (USDA-FS 1998b). Ideal bull trout habitat 

is less than 20 percent embedded; more than 30 percent embeddedness creates 

unacceptable substrate conditions for both steelhead and bull trout habitat according to 

both U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries criteria. 

Lookingglass Watershed - Sheep grazing is having very little effect on riparian plant 

communities which are probably at or near their natural potential. Most fish bearing 

streams on the Forest Service managed portion of the Lookingglass Watershed are in 

roadless areas or steep inaccessible canyons. 

Phillips/Gordon/Cabin/Dry – stream inventory data indicates that much less than 10 

percent of stream banks are unstable. Data on substrate is limited, but based on the 

combination of dominant particle size, percent cobble embeddedness, personal knowledge of 

the area (Crabtree, pers. comm.), and best professional judgment, substrate conditions in 

these subwatersheds can be categorized as Functioning at Risk. 

Wenaha - Estimates by Pomeroy and Walla Walla District biologists are that stream bank 

stability is greater than 90 percent on all streams within these watersheds. Recent surveys 

of the Wenaha River indicate fines are less than 8 percent and embeddedness is less than 

20 percent. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

122

Grande Ronde-Rondowa Watershed - No data is available on bank stability for 

tributary streams within the Grande Ronde River-Rondowa watershed. 

Tributary streams were affected by 1996 - 1997 flood events, and riparian vegetation has 

been altered. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4

It would be highly unlikely that any of these alternatives would cause direct effects to any 

species of fish in the allotment. The risk of redd trampling is practically zero because sheep 

are closely managed by a herder and dogs. Prescribed management requirements would 

ensure that a buffer of 300 feet would be maintained between sheep bands and fish-bearing 

streams during critical spawning periods. Sheep would primarily water upstream of fish 

bearing reaches and critical habitats, using spring developments which are predominantly 

spatially disjunct from perennial channels. Stream headwaters are often dry or 

intermittent when sheep move through, and sheep watering sites are provided at troughs 

and ponds. 

Risk of indirect effects to fish downstream from upstream disturbance would also be near 

zero. Designated stream crossings have been designed to cause the least possible impacts 

to fish and riparian habitat. Sheep would cross streams when dry, outside of critical 

spawning periods, and on roads where available. The risk of sediment introduction to fish 

bearing streams would therefore be negligible and discountable. 

Riparian utilization standards would apply and ensure that stream bank vegetation and 

physical stream bank conditions are maintained or improved. These conditions have been 

consistently maintained in the past, particularly due to the 300 foot buffers maintained 

between herded sheep and fish-bearing reaches and Critical Habitats. 

The project hydrologist has also determined that any downstream indirect effects to water 

quality from sheep watering at developed headwater springs would be negligible, even 

where connectivity to perennial channels downstream exists. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 1 

The proposed reconfiguration of the allotment boundary removes several streams with 

listed species and critical habitat from the allotment, particularly streams containing 

Snake River steelhead, as well as a portion of Mottet and Little Lookingglass Creeks which 

support bull trout populations. The risk of redd trampling and sediment introduction to 

fish bearing streams and Critical Habitats would no longer exist in those areas. 

In comparison to other action alternatives, this alternative contains the most miles of 

Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat (for all species combined) of any of the action 

alternatives (Figure 17). 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

123

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 2

The allotment would be smaller and therefore less stream habitat would be potentially 

affected than under Alternative 1. The change in allotment boundaries would remove sheep 

from pastures drained by Swamp Creek, Lost Creek, Summer Creek, Mottet Creek, and the 

tributaries of the South Fork Walla Walla River. The risk of redd trampling and sediment 

introduction to fish bearing streams and Critical Habitats would no longer exist in those 

areas. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 3

Relative to existing management and Alternative 1, risk to fish bearing streams and 

unoccupied Critical Habitats within the Grande Ronde subbasins would be reduced similar 

to what would occur in Alternative 2. 

The addition of the Goodman pasture would add fish bearing streams and unoccupied 

critical habitat to the North End Allotment. The main stream systems in the Goodman area 

are the South Fork Umatilla River, Spring Creek, Shimmiehorn Creek, and Hellhole Creek. 

Most of these streams and their associated riparian vegetation are not accessible to sheep 

because they are located in the bottom of steep canyons. Sheep would not be herded down 

into these reaches, thus risks to fish habitat would be avoided. 

Given the use of project management requirements, effects in the Goodman area would be 

limited to the headwaters of these systems. The risk to listed and sensitive fish and critical 

habitats within the Goodman allotment portion of the alternative would be negligible and 

discountable for the same reasons as they would be for the other action alternatives. (See 

effects common to Alternatives 1-4). 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 4

Due to the small size of the allotment, even fewer streams would be potentially affected by 

grazing. The North Fork Umatilla River, Coyote Creek, Woodward Creek, Lick Creek, Bear 

Creek, Buck Creek, Swamp Creek, Lake Creek, Johnson Creek, and their tributaries would 

no longer be in the allotment. 

Compared to Alternative 3, habitat that is currently ungrazed in the Goodman allotment 

area would continue to be ungrazed, and would continue to entirely avoid the risk of 

grazing impacts to steelhead and bull trout streams in that area. 

Overall, the fewest fish-bearing streams would be contained within the Alternative 4 

allotment boundary relative to the other action alternatives. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 5 – No Grazing

Alternative 5 would remove even the slightest possibility of direct, indirect or cumulative 

effects to fish and fish habitats from sheep grazing within the analysis area, because no 

sheep would be present. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

124

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4

Current fish and fish habitat conditions are reflective of all past management activities on 

widely distributed anadromous and fluvial fish populations. Anadromous species such as 

steelhead and salmon are impacted by dams on the main stem rivers, commercial and 

recreational fishing in freshwater and saltwater habitats, hatchery genetic impacts on wild 

stocks, and impacts to spawning and rearing freshwater habitats on forest lands. Fluvial 

species such as bull trout, have also been impacted by habitat changes on National Forest 

System lands and on private, state and other federal lands downstream, as well as 

impacted by interbreeding with introduced species such as brook trout, which were 

historically stocked for recreational fishing opportunities, such as in Langdon Lake at the 

head of Lookingglass Creek. 

Continued grazing of the North End Allotment is not expected to cumulatively affect fish or 

fish habitat when added to the effects of past and ongoing management actions on current 

conditions in the subwatersheds associated with North End Allotment, especially since 

fewer fish-bearing streams would be contained within the allotment boundary. 

Cumulative Effects Unique to Alternative 3

Although the long-inactive Goodman allotment would add to the area grazed, this 

alternative would not increase cumulative effects to fish or fish habitat relative to 

Alternative 2, since the risk of effects to fish and fish habitat are already considered 

negligible and discountable under these other alternatives.

Cumulative Effects Unique to Alternative 4

Continued grazing of the North End Allotment on a smaller scale is not expected to 

cumulatively affect fish or fish habitat when added to the effects of past and ongoing 

management actions on current conditions in subwatersheds influenced by sheep grazing. 

Fewer fish-bearing streams would be contained within the allotment boundary relative to 

the current allotment area. This would reduce the possibility of cumulative fish effects 

relative to the effects of current management. 

Effects determinations 

Effects determinations by alternative are detailed below (Table 30). A biological assessment 

was prepared for listed species (Snake River Chinook, Snake River steelhead, Middle 

Columbia River steelhead, and Columbia River bull trout). Consultation with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service has been completed. Both 

USFWS and NMFS concurred with our determinations that sheep grazing on the North 

End Allotment would not likely adversely affect any of these species or their critical 

habitats. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

125

Table 30. 

Effects Determinations for ESA Threatened and R6 Sensitive Fish and Fish Habitats* 

Stock

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Snake River Basin (SRB) 

steelhead NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NE

SRB steelhead Critical Habitat NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NE

SRB spring/summer Chinook 

salmon NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NE

SRB spring/Summer Chinook 

salmon Critical Habitat (and 

Essential Fish Habitat)

NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NE

SRB fall Chinook salmon NE NE NE NE NE

SRB fall Chinook salmon Critical 

Habitat (and Essential Fish 

Habitat)

NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NE

Mid-Columbia (Mid-C) steelhead NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NE

Mid-C steelhead Critical Habitat NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NE

Columbia River bull trout NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NE

Columbia River bull trout 

Critical Habitat (2010 Rule) NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NE

Redband trout MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH NI

Margined sculpin NI NI NI NI NI

Westslope cutthroat trout NI NI NI NI NI

*NLAA=May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect. For Critical Habitat, this level of effect is 

equivalent to “No Adverse Effect” to Essential Fish Habitat under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

No Effect (NE) is equivalent under both statutes. NI = No Impact, MIIH = May Impact 

Individuals or Habitat but will not likely lead to federal listing. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

126

Rationales

Under any alternative, sheep will be watered away from perennial fish bearing streams, 

using upland developed spring sources. Sheep will cross dry and intermittent channels 

upstream of perennial fish bearing channels and will cross perennial flow on roads where 

available. Sheep bands will be herded along the ridge tops and will not graze in the steep 

canyons where fish habitat is located. Therefore, adverse effects to Designated Critical 

Habitat, listed fish, and Sensitive fish or their habitats are not likely for any fish species. 

Because there is not likely to be any adverse effects to Designated Critical Habitat for any 

listed species in any of the watersheds associated with North End allotment, there is also 

not likely to be any adverse effects to Essential Fish Habitat in any of the watersheds. 

All alternatives are consistent with the Recovery Plan for Mid-Columbia River steelhead 

and the draft Recovery Plan for Columbia River bull trout, based on implementation of 

PACFISH standards and guidelines and design features for grazing management in the 

allotment. Bull trout habitat is likely to continue improving and fish distribution will not 

be affected. 

Fish listed as Sensitive occur in many of the same reaches as do listed fish, and their 

habitats overlap. Grazing outside RHCAs high on the ridge tops, using spring sources for 

water, and crossing streams in locations least likely to disturb fish or result in stream bank 

or red trampling, would result in minimal impacts to fish. Therefore, sheep grazing in 

North End allotment May Impact individual sensitive fish species, but is not likely to trend 

towards listing. 

Forest Plan Compliance (including PACFISH amendment) 

Implementation of management requirements and best management practices as described 

in Chapter 2 and PACFISH grazing Standards and Guides (USDA-FS and USDI 1995) 

would constitute compliance with the Umatilla Forest Plan direction and objectives for 

hydrologic and water quality components within the allotment boundaries and analysis 

subwatersheds. 

The same practices ensure that sheep grazing under any of the alternatives would be 

managed to avoid adverse effects to listed fish, and to maintain or improve fish habitat. 

Due to the low risk of effects to redband trout and margined sculpin from streambed 

trampling, fine sediment inputs or stream bank stability, sheep grazing is not likely to 

result in a trend towards listing for any sensitive species under any alternative. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

127

The scale of analysis for sensitive invertebrates is the 1986 North End Allotment boundary. 

For Alternative 3, the addition of the Goodman Area was also evaluated. 

The Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (USDA-FS 2008) lists the following invertebrate 

species as potentially occurring on the Umatilla National Forest: western ridged mussel, 

shortface lanx, Hells Canyon land snail, fir pinwheel, and meadow fritillary. 

Other invertebrate species identified on the Regional Foresters Sensitive Species list as 

suspect or documented on the Umatilla NF will not be discussed, as they are either 

Strategic species not requiring surveys, or are Sensitive only in the state of Washington. 

The project area is located entirely in the state of Oregon. 

Two surveys for invertebrate species have occurred on the Walla Walla Ranger District. 

Springs and small spring fed streams were surveyed in 2007 (Groves 2007), and a search 

for several terrestrial snail species was completed in 2010 (Jepsen 2010). These surveys 

were designed to locate other invertebrate species, i.e. they were not specifically looking for 

the five species of interest here. Of these 5 species, only the fir pinwheel was documented 

by these surveys, but outside of the allotment. 

Western ridged mussels (Gonidea angulata) have been documented within the allotment. 

Records indicate that they have been present in the North and South Fork Umatilla River 

and Thomas Creek (Jepsen 2009). This species is associated with well oxygenated 

substrates, shallow water, and constant flow, but is absent from areas with continuously 

turbid water (Jepsen 2009). 

Freshwater mussels are filter feeders that consume microscopic organisms in the water. 

Threats to the species include loss of host fish, channel modification, water pollution, 

sedimentation, and livestock grazing in riparian areas (Jepsen 2009). 

Shortface lanx (Fisherola nuttalli) is an aquatic snail that has experienced habitat loss 

caused by dams, water removal, and pollution. They feed by scraping algae and diatoms 

from the surface of rocks and boulders in larger perennial streams and rivers. A small 

population has been noted in the Grande Ronde River (Mazzacano 2008). Threats to this 

species include water diversions, sedimentation, and riparian habitat degradation. 

Although the Grande Ronde River provides shortface lanx habitat, the smaller tributaries 

that are associated with the North End allotment do not appear to contain the habitat 

components required, such as large cobble-boulder substrate and high flow velocities. 

The Hells Canyon land snail (Cryptomastix populi) is a species known from basalt talus 

of the Snake, Salmon, and lower Clearwater Rivers (Frest and Johannes 1995). The 

nearest known population was extirpated west of Clarkston, WA due to road construction 

and maintenance. They do not likely occur on the Umatilla National Forest. 

Sensitive Invertebrates
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

128

The fir pinwheel (Radiodiscus abietum) is hermaphroditic, terrestrial snail (Duncan 

2008). This species is generally found in moist and rocky Douglas-fir forest with a rich 

understory of shrubs, forbs and bryophytes (Frest and Johannes 1995). Moist valley, ravine, 

gorge, or talus sites are preferred, near water or where moisture is persistent (Frest and 

Johannes 1995). They are often in or near rock talus or under fallen logs (Duncan 2008). 

Their habitat may be degraded by logging, grazing, and roads (Frest and Johannes 1995). 

The fir pinwheel has been observed on or near the Walla Walla Ranger District at the 

following locations: Touchet River area; Tiger Canyon area; and above the town of Weston 

(Duncan 2008, Jepsen pers. comm). Although not documented, the species could be present 

within the North End Allotment. 

The meadow fritillary (Boloria bellona) is a widely distributed montane butterfly, but is 

locally endemic (confined to small specific areas). A few historic colonies in the Blue 

Mountains have apparently disappeared. One colony known from the Lehman Springs area 

on the Umatilla National Forest has not been seen since 1984 (Fleckenstein 2006). 

Meadow fritillary have typically been found in open, moist meadows. The caterpillar phase 

feeds solely on violets (Opler and Wright 1999). Several species of violet are present on the 

forest (USDA-Forest Service 2004), but the extent and distribution are unknown. Although 

known populations of meadow fritillary may have been extirpated, undiscovered 

populations on the Umatilla forest may yet exist (Fleckenstein 2006). Drainage of wet 

areas, overgrowth of woody vegetation in meadows, and livestock overgrazing may cause 

habitat loss (Miller and Hammond 2007). 

Sensitive Invertebrates Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Common 

to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 

Effects on the stream-dwelling invertebrate species, if present, are not likely to occur, since 

sheep do not graze within RHCAs. Livestock only cross streams on roads, at designated 

crossings when dry, and where streams are intermittent in the headwaters. 

Effects to sensitive terrestrial invertebrate species could occur if those species are present. 

Fir pinwheel and meadow fritillary have not been documented in the affected area, but 

could be present. Fir pinwheel live in areas that generally would not be affected by sheep 

grazing, such as rock talus and under logs. Meadow fritillary live in moist meadow habitat, 

which grazing sheep typically avoid and are herded away from. 

Continued grazing of the North End Sheep allotment is not expected to cumulatively affect 

invertebrates when added to the effects of past and ongoing management actions on current 

conditions. If these species are present, BMPs and other management requirements would 

make it unlikely that effects would occur. 

Therefore, sheep grazing on the North End Sheep Allotment may impact individuals of 

some sensitive invertebrate species, but is not likely to result in a trend towards 

listing (Table 31). 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

129

Table 31. Effects Determinations for Sensitive Invertebrates 

 Species

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Western ridged mussel MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH NI

Shortface lanx NI NI NI NI NI

Hells Canyon land snail NI NI NI NI NI

Fir pinwheel MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH NI

Meadow fritillary MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH NI

NI = No Impact, MIIH = May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but is not likely to result in a 

trend toward listing. 

Western ridged mussels and shortface lanx are dependent on perennial flow and are 

typically found in larger perennial streams and rivers. Although sheep crossing on the road 

across Lookingglass Creek could occur under some alternatives, the probability of mussels 

being present and sheep straying into the water off the road and impacting individual 

mussels is very low. Therefore there would be No Impact on Western ridged mussels

and shortface lanx. 

The fir pinwheel may be present in RHCAs within the North End allotment, but since 

these snails tend to inhabit talus and the moist undersides of logs in moist habitats, sheep 

grazing in the North End allotment May Impact individuals, but is not likely to result 

in a trend towards federal listing. 

There would likely be No Impact on the Hells Canyon landsnail. This species is not 

likely present on the allotment, based on: the extreme distance relative to nearest known 

distribution; its limited ability to travel across wide stretches of dry ground; and its 

preferences for lower elevation large canyon river bottom riparian areas. Travel would 

likely follow river corridors. 

Meadow fritillary populations once detected on the forest appear to no longer be present. 

Because sheep graze preferentially on forbs, including violets when available, sheep may 

impact availability of food plants for fritillary caterpillars if present. Because the Blue 

Mountains are on the fringe of the species’ broad geographic range, and the species as a 

whole is not known to be threatened (Fleckenstein 2006), sheep grazing in the North End 

allotment May Impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend towards 

listing. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

130

Sensitive Invertebrates Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Unique to 

Alternative 5 

Under the no grazing alternative, there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on 

invertebrates or any of their habitats because there would be no grazing. 

Forest Plan Compliance 

Adherence to forage utilization standards in the Forest Plan as well as Management 

Requirements set forth in this document would minimize impacts to sensitive 

invertebrates. Invertebrate habitats such as wet meadows, rock talus, and down logs in 

ravines would not likely be affected. Riparian areas are generally protected from grazing. 

Grazing would also not occur within special forest plan management areas such Special 

Interest Botanical Areas, Dedicated Old Growth, and Research Natural Areas. 

The analysis area for effects to recreation and wilderness includes the area within the 

existing North End allotment boundary. The potential for grazing to affect recreation 

facilities, use, and opportunities is addressed. For Alternative 3, the addition of the 

Goodman Area was also evaluated. 

Existing Condition

The existing boundary of the North End Allotment covers a large area of the Walla Walla 

Ranger District. It includes high recreation use areas such as Jubilee Lake and the 

Tollgate area. Highway 204 is the main access across the Blue Mountains from Weston to 

Elgin and runs through the allotment. 

Sense of Place

Sense of place is defined as the identity of a place created by people’s social meanings and 

attachments, including valued scenery and recreation settings, cultural and spiritual 

values, economic, social and biophysical characteristics. Grazing is and has been a part of 

this landscape for generations and is recognized as a part of the sense of place. 

Recreation opportunities in this area include developed facilities such as campgrounds, 

recreation residences, OHV and snowmobile routes, hiking trails, scenic viewpoints, and 

boating. Spout Springs Ski Area and Jubilee Lake Campground are popular areas within 

the allotment. Recreation in less developed areas include dispersed camping, hunting, 

fishing, huckleberry picking, horn hunting, and other gathering activities. 

Wilderness 

The North End Allotment includes the 20,280 acre North Fork Umatilla Wilderness. The 

majority of use in the wilderness is hunting, hiking, and horseback riding. 

Recreation and Wilderness
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

131

The North Fork Umatilla Wilderness was added to the National Wilderness Preservation 

System by the Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-328, June 26, 1984). The 

Wilderness Act states that “the grazing of livestock, where established prior to the effective 

date of this Act, shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are 

deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture” (Sec. 4 (d)(4)(2).

Livestock grazing has been occurring in the Analysis Area since the early 1900’s. Because 

permitted livestock grazing was established in the Analysis Area well before Congress 

designated the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness area in 1984, livestock grazing is an 

allowable use of this wilderness area (also see Chapter 1, section 1.7). Livestock grazing in 

the wilderness has been conducted in accordance to the guidelines of the 1964 Wilderness 

Act and Forest Plan standards and guidelines for wilderness areas. 

Potential Wilderness Areas 

Grazing would occur in roadless areas to varying degrees with all action alternatives (Table 

32). Because livestock grazing would not cause any areas to be less suitable for future 

wilderness designation, an in-depth analysis of potential wilderness areas is not necessary 

in this EIS. 

Table 32. Comparison of Recreation Impacts by Alternative. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4

None of the alternatives would be expected to result in significant direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects to the recreation resource, trail system or wilderness designation within 

the analysis area. 

Grazing in this allotment in recent years has resulted in very minimal conflict with 

recreation users and resources. It has been uncommon for forest visitors to encounter 

domestic sheep, but occasionally the recreation experience could be affected by the sight, 

Alternative 1 2 3 4 5

Wilderness acres grazed 20,520 20,520 0 0 0

Roadless acres grazed 7,500 5,300 13,800 3,860 0

Recreation

Occasional 

contact / 

minor 

effects

Occasional 

contact / 

minor 

effects

Occasional 

contact / 

minor 

effects

More opportunities in undeveloped areas

than Alternatives 1-3
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

132

sound, and smell of sheep. A visitor may encounter droppings, odors, bleating, working 

dogs, sheep herders, and herder camps. 

In all action alternatives, there could be an improvement in the chances that bighorn sheep 

herds would stabilize and/or increase (Wildlife Report). This would result in an increased 

opportunity for recreational hunting and viewing of bighorn sheep. 

Within the allotment, sheep grazing would change the appearance of vegetation, which 

could affect the recreation setting. Grazed vegetation is discernible from an onsite 

experience rather than from a distance. Grazing tends to keep some grasses from becoming 

mature, seeding out and curing. This annual practice can create a cleaner, more managed 

appearance to the understory. This could be perceived by some as a less primitive setting. 

Livestock grazing is a historical use of the area, and portions of the allotment within 

wilderness and potential wilderness areas have exhibited only short-term, minor impacts to 

vegetation and other resources. These minor impacts have not significantly impaired 

wilderness characteristics nor diminished the opportunity for future use as wilderness. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 1 

People who utilize the undeveloped areas east of road 63 would have a greater opportunity 

to experience the area without encountering a band of sheep. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 2

People who utilize the undeveloped areas outside of the new allotment boundary would 

have a greater opportunity to experience the area without encountering a band of sheep. 

There could be a noticeable effect to the surrounding areas of the lesser developed sites 

north of Looking Glass Creek: Burnt Cabin trailhead (TH), Target Meadows Campground 

(CG), Bald Mountain Viewpoint, Dusty Spring CG, Rough Fork TH, Mottet CG, Timothy 

Springs TH, Luger Springs TH, Bone Springs CG, and Fry Meadow Cabin. Visually there 

would be increasing grasses and forbs, maturing, seeding out and curing near these areas. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 3

In addition to removal of grazing near developed sites identified in Alternative 2, areas 

near the following developed sites would no longer be affected: Woodward CG, Spout 

Springs Ski Resort, Umatilla Breaks Viewpoint, Woodland CG, Coyote Ridge TH, Zig Zag 

Spring TH, Corporation CG, Buck Creek CG, and Buck Creek TH. Visually there would be 

increasing grasses and forbs, maturing, seeding out and curing. 

Although use of domestic sheep would not be permitted to reduce vegetation in the ski runs 

at Spout Springs Ski area, this could be accomplished using other means (mechanical or 

hand trimming). According to operating permits, mechanical means have been the standard 

practice for at least 10 years. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

133

There would be no grazing in the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness. The absence of grazing 

would eliminate any minor effects that have been occurring in the wilderness, such as the 

sight, sound, and droppings of livestock. 

 

Although the wilderness would not have grazing, the addition of the Goodman area would 

add grazing in the Hell Hole Roadless Area. The Goodman area has not been grazed for 

many years, and people who frequently camp here (mainly for hunting) would likely notice 

the changes caused by sheep grazing. Some dispersed camps would be used temporarily by 

the sheep herder, and some previously natural springs would be developed to provide water 

troughs for sheep. 

There are no developed recreation sites in the Goodman area that would be affected. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative 4

Effects to Recreation would be similar to Alternative 3, except that Goodman would not be 

grazed. Of all action alternatives, this alternative provides the greatest opportunity to 

recreate in undeveloped areas without seeing any effects of grazing. 

The absence of grazing would eliminate any minor effects that have been occurring in the 

wilderness, such as the sight, sound, and droppings of livestock. 

Of all action alternatives, this alternative offers the best chance that bighorn sheep herds 

would stabilize and/or increase (Wildlife Report). This would result in an increased 

opportunity for recreational hunting and viewing of bighorn sheep. 

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4

Effects from continued livestock use when combined with past, present and future activities 

are limited and well below the level of significance. Wilderness character will be 

maintained throughout the North Fork Umatilla Wilderness Area as a whole. 

Direct and Indirect and Cumulative Effects Unique to Alternative 5 – No 

Grazing

Elimination of grazing would result in a higher degree of recreation opportunity than is 

currently occurring. This alternative provides the greatest opportunity to recreate in 

undeveloped areas without seeing livestock or their effects on the landscape. 

The absence of grazing would eliminate any minor effects that have been occurring in the 

wilderness, such as the sight, sound, and droppings of livestock. 

This alternative offers the best chance that bighorn sheep herds would stabilize and/or 

increase (Wildlife Report). This would result in an increased opportunity for recreational 

hunting and viewing of bighorn sheep. 

There would be no cumulative effects due to the removal of sheep grazing. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

134

Forest Plan Compliance 

Implementation of Management Requirements described in Chapter 2 would constitute 

compliance with the Umatilla Forest Plan direction and objectives for recreation resources 

within the allotment. Domestic sheep were authorized to graze within the North Fork 

Umatilla Wilderness prior to its designation on June 26, 1984. There will not be an 

increase in grazing levels within the wilderness area, and grazing levels are compliant with 

the Forest Plan. 

The scale of analysis for cultural resources is the 1986 North End Allotment boundary. 

An assessment of grazing on heritage resource values was conducted according to the 

regional interagency guidelines for grazing permit reauthorization. All of the North End 

Sheep Allotment has been previously surveyed over the years through small and large scale 

landscape heritage surveys. Existing records for known sites within the proposed allotment 

boundary indicate that there are approximately 70 sites that have been located and 

documented. Slightly less than half are comprised of pre-contact sites, consisting largely of 

lithic scatters. The remaining historic sites are associated with grazing activities and early 

Forest Service administration. These sites are either eligible for inclusion on the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under existing Programmatic Agreements, or have not 

been evaluated but are treated as eligible until a determination can be made. None of the 

completed site forms indicate impacts due to livestock grazing. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives 

After reviewing all known field information and evaluating the potential effects on known 

cultural resources within the North End Sheep Allotment boundary, a monitoring report 

and determination of No Adverse Effect for the proposed project was completed and sent to 

both the Oregon SHPO and the Cultural Resource Program departments for the CTUIR 

and Nez Perce Tribe for opportunity to comment. 

Changes in the grazing strategy, range improvement projects, and/or surface disturbing 

projects, will be subject to the standard Section 106 and tribal consultation processes. If 

subsequent monitoring reveals impacts to any historic property, appropriate protection 

mitigation measures will be developed and implemented. 

Forest Plan Compliance 

All Forest Plan requirements regarding inventory, evaluation, and protection of cultural 

resources have been met. 

Cultural Resources
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

135

Soil Carbon and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) 

The scale for this analysis is the North End Allotment, its relative contribution and impact 

on the global carbon cycle and global climate change associated with greenhouse gas 

emissions. It is impossible to assess the impact of global climate change on rangeland 

ecosystems without high quality, consistent, assessable soil and vegetation data and models 

that describe how changes occur in response to stress and disturbance (SRM 2008).

Quantitatively or even qualitatively determining the relative effects of the different 

alternatives for livestock grazing from the North End Allotment on climate change or the 

effects from climate change on proposed project is speculative. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 

Grazing lands are estimated to contain 10 to 30 percent of the world’s soil organic carbon. 

(Schuman et al. 2002). Grazing results in redistribution of carbon on the landscape (Stavi et 

al. 2008). Free ranging livestock deposit manure across the landscape resulting in aerobic 

decomposition. Aerobic decomposition of manure generates considerably less methane than 

does decomposition associated with stockpiling strategies employed in more concentrated 

livestock production strategies (US EPA 2005). This “in-effect” land application of manure 

also results in a buildup of soil carbon that decomposes much more slowly than occurs when 

composting (NRCS 2007) and represents a potential long-term soil carbon gain (Fellman et 

al. 2008). 

Studies based on modeling and remotely sensed data indicate that proper grazing 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 increase carbon sequestration 

(Hellquist et al. 2007, Derner et al. 2005, LeCain et al. 2001, Ganjegunte et al. 2005, and 

Manley et al. 1995). 

Several studies indicate that light to moderate levels of grazing have no overall effect on 

total carbon sequestration (Hellquist et al. 2007, XiuZhi et al. 2005, Ingram et al. 2008, 

Derner et al. 2005, Stavi et al. 2008, Owensby, et al. 2006, Shrestha and Stahl 2007, 

Ingram et al. 2007), while some studies have found limited to large reductions in soil carbon 

and increases in CO2 flux associated with grazing (Haferkamp and Macneil 2004, Welker et 

al. 2004). 

Rotational grazing appears to be a viable option for green house gas (GHG) reduction and 

carbon sequestration credits (Bosch et al. 2008, Steiguer et al. 2008, NRCS 2007, Li et al. 

2007, Ingram et al. 2008, Sharrow 2008). 

Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Projected climate change impacts from cumulative effects of all activities releasing GHG 

around the globe include air temperature increases; sea level rise; changes in the timing, 

location, and quantity of precipitation; and increased frequency of extreme weather events 

Climate Change
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

136

such as heat waves, droughts, and floods. These changes would vary regionally and affect 

renewable resources, aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and agriculture. While 

uncertainties would remain regarding the timing, extent, and magnitude of climate change 

impacts, the scientific evidence predicts that continued increases in GHG emissions will 

lead to increased climate change (USDA-FS 2009b).

The ongoing and future effects of livestock grazing from this particular allotment on global 

or regional climate change or the effects of global or regional climate change on the North 

End Allotment, regardless of how the allotment is managed, are speculative. It is doubtful 

whether any meaningful or measurable effects are assessable and therefore are not likely to 

be significant. 

Applicable laws and regulations were considered in this EIS. The proposed activities in 

all alternatives are consistent with Federal, State, and local laws and requirements for 

the protection of the environment. 

Other Jurisdictions 

The Environmental Protection Agency has a responsibility to ensure that environmental 

quality standards are being met. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality sets 

standards for water quality. 

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) is responsible for the management of 

fish and wildlife populations, whereas the Forest Service manages habitat for these species. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service are 

responsible for the recovery of species listed under the Endangered Species Act. 

Consultation with these agencies regarding the North End Allotment has occurred and 

updates are being prepared. Consultation will be completed prior to implementation of 

proposed activities. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

This EIS is the result of an environmental analysis, public scoping, documentation, and 

policies and procedures related to NEPA. 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) 

The analysis and proposed activities in this EIS are consistent with direction in the Forest 

Plan, as amended. The Forest Plan was developed per guidance from the NFMA. Forest 

Plan compliance statements are provided under each resource.

Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act 

Alternatives 1-4 meet the intent of the Multiple Use Act, in that they ensure that 

recreation, fish and wildlife, water, timber resources, and range are available for current 

Legal Disclosures
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

137

and future generations. The no grazing alternative would meet all of these needs, except 

that range would not be available for grazing on the North End Allotment. 

Endangered Species Act 

Biological Evaluations were completed for those species currently listed as sensitive on the 

Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List. Determinations were made that the proposed 

project would not adversely affect, contribute to a trend toward Federal listing, nor cause a 

loss of viability to sensitive species. 

Silene spaldingii is listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act and is known to 

occur on the Umatilla Forest. All known occurrences of the species are many miles distant 

from the proposed alternative footprints of the North End Allotment. There is no suitable 

habitat within any of the proposed alternatives for Silene spaldingii. The proposed grazing 

allotment alternatives comply with present federal regulations pertaining to the 

management of Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive plant species. 

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) is listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. 

Consultation is not necessary since a determination was made that the alternatives would 

have no effect to Canada lynx.

Consultation for Snake River Chinook, Snake River steelhead, Middle Columbia River 

steelhead, and Columbia River bull trout was completed in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s 

under multiple Biological Assessments. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurred with our determinations that sheep 

grazing on the North End Allotment would not likely adversely affect any of these species. 

A final rule to designate critical habitat for Columbia River bull trout was published in the 

Federal Register October 18, 2010 (50 CFR Part 17), with an effective date of November 17, 

2010. As required when critical habitat is listed under Section 7 of the ESA, the forest reinitiated consultation on the North End Allotment with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

For document consistency, the forest also re-initiated consultation with the National 

Marine Fisheries Service for ESA listed anadromous species. 

The USFWS and NMFS concurred with our determinations that the North End Allotment 

is not likely adversely affect any listed fish species or their designated critical habitats. 

This includes Snake River and Middle-Columbia River steelhead, Snake River 

spring/summer run Chinook salmon, and bull trout. A letter of concurrence dated February 

23, 2011 was received from USFWS, and a letter of concurrence dated March 2, 2011 was 

received from NMFS. 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Essential 

fish habitat. 

Essential fish habitat applies only to habitat for commercially important fish species. For 

the Umatilla National Forest these are Chinook salmon. Most named streams downstream 

of longstanding natural barriers in the analysis area watersheds would be counted as 

Essential Fish Habitat. The proposed North End Allotment project would have no effect on 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

138

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat, and consultation with National Marine 

Fisheries Service is not required. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186 

Activities comply with the Fish and Wildlife Service Directors order #131 related to 

applicability of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to federal agencies and requirements for 

permits for “take”. In addition, the permit is compliant with Executive Order 13186 

because the analysis meets our obligation as defined under the January 16, 2001 

Memorandum Of Understanding between the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service designed to complement Executive Order 13186. The purpose of this 

Memorandum of Understanding is to strengthen migratory bird conservation through 

enhanced collaboration between the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

with state, tribal, and local governments. As required, management practices that could 

affect high priority species have been identified, and conservation measures to minimize 

impacts to birds have been considered. 

Invasive Species, Executive Order 13112 

This 1999 order requires Federal agencies whose actions may affect the status of invasive 

species to identify those actions and within budgetary limits, “(i) prevent the introduction of 

invasive species; (ii) detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of such species... 

(iii) monitor invasive species populations... (iv) provide for restoration of native species and 

habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded, ... (v) promote public education on 

invasive species... and not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to 

cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species... unless, pursuant to 

guidelines that it has prescribed, the agency had determined and made public... that the 

benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species; and 

that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm will be taken in 

conjunction with the actions.”

Based on management requirements for invasive plants, the North End Sheep Allotment 

EIS complies with this Executive Order. 

Clean Water Act

The action alternatives in the North End Allotment EIS protect water quality by 

management requirements and Best Management Practices (listed in Chapter 2). The 

topography of the allotment and management of grazing routes keeps sheep high in the 

watershed, away from most perennial streams. In addition, no-grazing buffers of 300 feet 

are maintained on streams with known endangered fish species. The Range Specialist’s 

report contains implementation monitoring data from this allotment and includes a 

vegetation analysis, both of which demonstrate that grazing in this allotment has had 

negligible impacts to streamside riparian areas. Channel morphology and bank stability 

are maintained by BMPs at the three sites where sheep cross dry streams. Protection and 

maintenance standards for developed water sources are identified in Chapter 2. The use of 

developed water sources poses a negligible risk to water quality due to the location of these 

sources being high in the watershed, the low volume of flow, and the limited connectivity to 

perennial streams. Based on these factors the action alternatives in the North End 

Allotment EIS comply with the Clean Water Act. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

139

Floodplains, Executive Order 11988 

Executive Order (EO) 11988 requires the Forest Service to avoid “to the extent possible the 

long and short term adverse impacts associated with the occupation or modification of 

floodplains...” The proposed alternatives would avoid effects to floodplains by managing 

vegetation utilization and maintaining integrity of channels, and is consistent with this EO. 

Wetlands, Executive Order 11990 

Executive Order (EO) 11990 requires the Forest Service to “avoid to the extent possible the 

long and short term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of 

wetlands.” The proposed alternatives would prescribe and implement management 

requirements and best management practices at developed water sources to protect and 

minimize effects to wetlands. The action alternatives are consistent with this EO. 

Safe Drinking Water Act 

The North Fork of the Umatilla River was designated as the municipal water supply for the 

City of Pendleton by the Oregon State Legislature in 1941. In 1984 the area was 

subsequently designated as a wilderness area and the city has since transferred its water 

intake to a point on the Umatilla River near the City of Pendleton. The City of Pendleton 

uses membrane filtration for water treatment. 

The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act require Federal agencies that 

manage lands which serve as drinking water sources to protect these source water areas. 

Source Water Area delineation has been completed and a source water assessment has been 

conducted for the City of Pendleton. High to moderate risks have been identified. Grazing 

was not identified as an activity on National Forest Lands in the assessment. Disturbances 

such as timber harvest, road building, and road use in the same location were considered 

low risk, because potential contamination source in the upper reaches of the watershed 

“represent a very low risk to the City’s source water.” 

[http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/dwp/docs/swasummary/pws00613.pdf] 

The North End Allotment boundary is nearly 50 river miles upstream of the City of 

Pendleton. Management requirements and best management practices have been 

identified to prevent or minimize damage to soils, water sources, and stream channels. 

Those and other BMPs identified for this project are discussed above. All action 

alternatives in the North End Allotment EIS comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act 

because no effects to the surface water system of Pendleton would occur from proposed 

actions. 

Government-to-Government Consultation, Executive Order 12875 

Executive Order 12875 clarifies government-to-government relations with American Indian 

governments. In accordance with this order, scoping letters asking for comment were sent 

to the Tribal Chairmen of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and 

of the Nez Perce Tribe. The North End Allotment is within ceded lands of both tribes. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

140

National Historic Preservation Act and Treaty Resources 

The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation as well as the Nez Perce Tribe 

were consulted on the Proposed Action.. The Oregon State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO) was also consulted with in accordance with the terms of the 2004 Programmatic 

Agreement among the USFS R6, ACHP and SHP0, dated June 2004. 

Civil Rights, Women, and Minorities 

Environmental Justice, Executive Order 12898 

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 occupies the largest sector of the minority populations in all counties, 

Union (3.2 percent), Umatilla (19.3 percent), and White Pine Nevada (12 percent) (U.S. 

Census Bureau). See Economics Report for more information. 

Females are listed as the primary operator in 43.6 percent of the farms in White Pine 

County, as compared to 50.9 percent in Union and 48.7 percent in Umatilla County. The 

Forest Service does not maintain records on the minority status of permit holders and does 

not discriminate in the permitting process. The permit for this allotment is held by a 

corporation. 

This project does not appear to generate a disparate impact on minority or low income 

populations, women, or minorities. The project alternatives, given the size of potential 

social and economic effects, are also not likely to result in civil rights impacts to Forest 

Service employees or customers of its programs. 

Climate Change 

The North End Analysis considered the effects of livestock grazing on both hydrologic 

function and climate change. Insufficient data are available to determine the extent to 

which grazing on North End Allotment may contribute to Climate Change, but the 

probability is that any contributions are immeasurable and insignificant. See full 

discussion above in the effects to climate change section. 

Incomplete and Unavailable Information 

Knowledge is, and always will be, incomplete regarding many aspects of terrestrial and 

aquatic species and their habitats, geology of specific areas, and the economy. However, the 

North End Allotment and the issues surrounding it have been studied for many years, and 

a substantial amount of credible information is known. The alternatives were evaluated 

using the best available information at the time. No missing information was deemed to be 

essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives being considered. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

141

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

There are no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources associated with 

implementing this project that are not already identified in the FEIS for the Forest Plan 

(USDA-FS 1990b). 

Prime Farm Land, Range Land and Forest Land 

The actions proposed would have no effect on park lands or prime farmlands, rangeland, 

and forest land as defined in FSH 1909.15 section 65.2. These kinds of land allocations or 

land capability either do not exist in the Analysis AreaError! Bookmark not defined. or 

would be unaffected by the proposed activities in the alternatives. 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Implementation of any of the alternatives would inevitably result in some adverse 

environmental effects. The severity of the effects can be minimized by adhering to the 

management requirements outlined in Chapter 2 of this document. 

Short-term Uses and Long-Term Productivity 

Short term uses are generally those that determine the present quality of life for the public. 

In this area, these uses include recreation, transportation, fish and wildlife habitat, 

livestock grazing, timber harvest, and utility corridors. Long term productivity refers to the 

land’s capability to support sound ecosystems producing a continuous supply of resources 

and values for future generations. Short term uses could reduce the productivity of some 

portions of the National Forest. The long term productivity of the North End Allotment 

would be protected from unacceptable degradation by the standards and guidelines in the 

Forest plan, specific project design, and monitoring measures. 

Public Health and Safety 

There are no adverse effects expected to public health or safety under any of the 

alternatives. Sheep guard dogs are used to protect domestic sheep herds and can be 

aggressive towards people, but people rarely come into contact with the sheep herds on this 

allotment. The sheep herder is required to keep control of guard dogs at all times. 

Information about sheep guard dogs will be posted at information boards. 
Chapter 3–Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

142

The page left blank intentionally. 
 Chapter 4–Agencies and Persons Consulted 

143

Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted

Recipients of the Draft EIS 

The following is a list of agencies, organizations, and individuals receiving a copy the Draft 

North End Environmental Impact Statement or notification of web availability. The list 

includes those who requested copies or responded to the scoping efforts; the allotment 

permittee affected by the proposal, and required agencies. 

Individuals and Organizations 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 

Double U Livestock, LLC 

Forest Capital Partners, LLC 

Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics 

Gillespie Grazing 

Harlow Sheep Co. 

Hells Canyon Preservation Council 

Idaho Wool Growers Association 

John Day - Snake Resource Advisory Committee 

Marie Bulgin 

Morgan Olson 

Nez Perce Tribe 

Northwest Power Planning Council 

Oregon Foundation for North American Wild Sheep 

Oregon Wild 

Packy Burns 

Rick Isaacson 

Agencies 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Oregon Department of Forestry 

Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 

Oregon Department of Parks and Recreation 

Oregon Department of Water Resources 

Oregon Division of State Lands 

Oregon Economic and Community Development 

Oregon State Economist 

Oregon State Geologist 

Oregon State Governor’s Natural Resource Policy Director

US Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

US Army Corp of Engineers, Northwest Division 

US Coast Guard, Marine Environmental and Protection Division 

US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 
Chapter 4–Agencies and Persons Consulted 

144

USDA APHIS, Environmental Analysis and Documentation 

USDA APHIS, Policy and Program Development 

USDA National Agricultural Library 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

USDA Office of Civil Rights 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 

USDI Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

USDOC NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservationists Division 

USDOC NOAA Office of Policy and Strategic Planning 

USDOE Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance 

USDOT Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region 

USDOT Federal Highway Administration 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 
 Chapter 4–Agencies and Persons Consulted 

145

Preparers and Contributors 

The following agency personnel participated in the preparation of this EIS. 

Michael L. Rassbach, District Ranger 

Contribution: Line Officer 

Robert Gianniny, Environmental Coordinator 

Contribution: NEPA review 

Bradley A. Lathrop, Range Conservationist 

Contribution: Rangeland Resources; Project Leader 

Holly Harris, Wildlife Biologist 

Contribution: Wildlife Specialist Report; Team Leader 

Jill Bassett, Archaeologist 

Contribution: Cultural Resources 

Stacia Peterson, Hydrologist 

Contribution: Hydrology Specialist Report 

Craig Busskohl, Soil Scientist 

Contribution: Soils Specialist Report 

Katherine Ramsey, Fish Biologist 

Contribution: Fisheries Specialist Report 

Mark Darrach, Botanist 

Contribution: Botanical Resources Specialist Report 

Donna Mattson, Landscape Architect 

Contribution: Recreation Specialist Report 
References 

146

References 

Akenson, H.A. 1998. Predicting summer lamb mortality in free ranging bighorn sheep. 

Proceedings of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 11:70-76.

Altman, B. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds in the northern Rocky Mountains of 

eastern Oregon and Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 86pp 

Aubry, K.B., K. S. Mckelvey, and J.P. Copeland. 2007. Distribution and broad scale habitat 

relations of the wolverine in the contiguous United States. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 71(7):2147–2158.

Bailey, V. 1936. The mammals and life zones of Oregon. North American Fauna, No. 55. 

416p. 

Beck, K.G. 2008. Diffuse and spotted knapweed. Colorado State University Extension Fact 

Sheet no. 3.110. http://www.ext.colostate.edu/Pubs/natres/03110.html

Beecham, J.J., C.P. Collins and T.D. Reynolds. 2007. Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis 

canadensis): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region. 

Belsky, A.J., and D.M. Blumenthall . 1997. Effects of Livestock Grazing on Stand 

Dynamics and Soils in Upland Forests of the Interior West. Conservation Biology 

11(2): 315-327.

Borman, M.M. 2005. Forest stand dynamics and livestock grazing in historical context. 

Conservation Biology 19(5):1658-1662.

Bosch, D., K. Stephenson, G. Groover, and B. Huthins. 2008. Farm returns to carbon credit 

creation with intensive rotational grazing. 11 October 2008. 

http://www.jswconline.org/content/63/2/91

Brown, J., and Thorpe, J. 2008. Climate Change and Rangelands: Responding Rationally to 

Uncertainty. Rangelands June 2008, 3-6.

Buchanan, D.V., M.L. Hanson, and R.M. Hooton. 1997. Status of Oregon's bull trout. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. 

Bull, E.L. and M.P. Hayes. 2000. Livestock effects on the reproduction of the Columbia 

spotted frog. Journal of Range Management 53:291-294. 

Bull, E. L., and T. W. Heater. 2001. Home range and dispersal of the American marten in 

northeastern Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist 82:7-11.

Bull, E. L., T. W. Heater, and J. F. Shepherd. 2005. Habitat selection by the American 

marten in northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science 79(1):37-43.

Busby, P. J., T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, L. J. Lierheimer, R. S. Waples, F. W. Waknitz, 

and I. V. Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from 

Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFS-NWFSC-27.
References 

147

Buskirk, S. W., and L. F. Ruggiero. 1994. American marten. Pages 7-37 In L. F. Ruggiero, 

K. B. Aubrey, S. W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski (editors), The Scientific 

Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and 

Wolverine in the Western United States. USDA Forest Service General Technical 

Report RM-254. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Cassirer, E. F., L. E. Oldenburg, V. L. Coggins, P. Fowler, K. Rudolph, D. L. Hunter, and W. 

J. Foreyt. 1996. Overview and preliminary analysis of a bighorn sheep die-off, Hells 

Canyon 1995–96. Proceedings of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 10:78–

86.

Cassirer, E.F. and A.R.E. Sinclair. 2007. Dynamics of pneumonia in a bighorn sheep 

metapopulation. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(4):1080-1088.

Cassirer, F. 2010. Personal communications, Francis Cassirer, Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game, Lewiston, Idaho. 

CAST. 2008. Pasteurellosis transmission risks between domestic and wild sheep. Council 

for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). Commentary QTA2008-1. Ames, 

Iowa. 

Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act). http://epw.senate.gov/water.pdf

Coe, P.K., B.K. Johnson, K.M. Stewart, and J.G. Kie. 2004. 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. 

Coggins, V., and P. Mathews. 2008. Wallowa Wildlife District monthly report, September 

2008. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Enterprise, Oregon. 6p. 

Coggins, V.L. 2002. Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep/domestic sheep and domestic goat 

interactions: a management perspective. Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 

proceedings 13:165-174.

Coggins, V.L. and P.E. Mathews. 1996. Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in Oregon, history 

and present status. Proceedings of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 10:87-

92.

Cook, J.G., L.L. Irwin, L.D. Bryant, R.A. Riggs, and J.W. Thomas. 1998. Relations of forest 

cover and condition of elk: a test of the thermal cover hypothesis in summer and 

winter. Wildlife Monographs No. 141. 61p. 

Dassanayake, R.P., S. Shanthalingam, C.N. Herndon, R. Subramaniam, P.K. Lawrence, J. 

Bavananthasivam, E.F. Cassirer, G.J. Haldorson, W.J. Foreyt, F.R. Rurangirwa, 

D.P. Knowleds, T.E. Besser, and S. Srikumaran. 2010. Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae 

can predispose bighorn sheep to fatal Mannheimia haemolytica pneumonia. 

Veterinary Microbiology 145: 354–359.
References 

148

Decesare, N.J. and D.H. Pletscher. 2006. Movements, connectivity, and resource selection 

of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Journal of Mammalogy 87(3):531–538. 

Derner, J., G. Schuman, M. Jawson, S. Shafer, J. Morgan, H. Polley, G. Runion, S. Prior, H. 

Torbert, H. Rogers, J. Bunce, L. Ziska, J. White, A. Franzleubbers, J. Reeder, R. 

Venterea, and L. Harper. 2005. USDA-ARS global change research on rangelands 

and pasturelands. Rangelands October 2005: 36-42.

Derner, J., T. Boutton, and D. Briske. 2006. Grazing and ecosystem carbon storage in the 

North American Great Plains. Plant and Soil Journal 280:77-90.

Dixon, D. M., K. M. Rudolph, M. L. Kinsel, L. Cowan, D. L. Hunter, and A. C. S. Ward. 

2002. Viability of air-borne Pasteurella spp. Proceedings of the Northern Wild 

Sheep and Goat Council 13:6-13.

Duncan, N. 2008. Species Fact Sheet: fir pinwheel (Radiodiscus abietum). 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml Last 

accessed 10/22/2010 

Fellman, J., Franz, E., Crenshaw, C., and Elston, D. 2008. Global estimates of soil carbon 

sequestration via livestock waste: a STELLA simulation. Environmental 

Development and Sustainability DOI 10.1007/s10668-008-9157-0.

Fire Effects Information System (FEIS). http://www.fs.fed.us/database/FEIS. Viewed 

online 14, 15 December 2009. 

Fleckenstein, J. 2006. Species Fact Sheet: meadow fritillary (Boloria bellona). 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml Last 

accessed 10/22/2010. 

Foreyt, W.J. 1989. Fatal Pasteurella haemolytica pneumonia in bighorn sheep after direct 

contact with clinically normal domestic sheep. American Journal of Veterinary 

Research 50(3):341-344.

Foreyt, W. J. 1990. Pneumonia in bighorn sheep: Effects of Pasteurella haemolytica from 

domestic sheep and effects on survival and long-term reproduction. Proceedings of 

the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 7:92-101.

Foreyt . W.J. 1992. Failure of an experimental Pasteurella haemolytica vaccine to prevent 

respiratory disease and death in bighorn sheep after exposure to domestic sheep. 

Proceedings of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 8:155-163.

Foreyt, W. J. 1998. Evaluation of a multivalent Pasteurella haemolytica toxoid-bacterin in 

protecting bighorn sheep from pneumonia after exposure to domestic sheep. 

Proceedings of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 11:18-26.

Foreyt, W.J. and R.M. Silflow 1996. Attempted protection of bighorn sheep (Ovis 

canadensis) from pneumonia using a nonlethal cytotoxic strain of Pasteurella 

haemolytica, biotype A, serotype. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 32(2):315-321.
References 

149

Foreyt, W.J., K.P. Snipes, and R.W. Kasten. 1994. Fatal pneumonia following inoculation of 

healthy bighorn sheep with Pasteurella haemolytica from healthy domestic sheep. 

Journal of Wildlife Diseases 30(2):137-145.

Frazee, J. Umatilla Forest Botanist, personal communication. 

Frest, T.J. and E.J. Johannes. 1995. Interior Columbia Basin mollusk species of special 

concern. Final report: Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 

Walla Walla, WA. Deixis Consultants, Seatttle, WA. Contract #43-0E00-4-9112. 

274pp + appendices. 

Funk, W., C.A. Pearl, H.M. Draheim, M.J. Adams, T.D. Mullins, and S.M. Haig. 2008. 

Range-wide phylogeographic analysis of the spotted frog complex (Rana luteiventris 

and R. pretiosa) in northwestern North America. Molecular Phylogenetics and 

Evolution 49:198-210.

Ganjegunte, G., G. Vance, C. Preston, G. Schuman, L. Ingram, P. Stahl, and J. Welker. 

2005. Soil organic carbon composition in a northern mixed-grass prairie: effects of 

grazing. Soil Science Society of America 69:1746-1756.

Garde, E., S.Kutz, H.Schwantje, and A. Veitch. 2005. Examining the risk of disease 

transmission between wild Dall’s sheep and mountain goats, and introduced 

domestic sheep, goats and llamas in the Northwest Territories. Prepared for the 

Northwest Territories Agricultural Policy Framework and the Environment and 

Natural Resources Government of the Northwest Territories, Canada. 139 pp. 

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/zoonoticspub/29

George, J.L., D.J. Martin, P.M. Lukacs, and M.W. Miller. 2008. Epidemic pasteurellosis in 

a bighorn sheep population coinciding with the appearance of a domestic sheep. 

Journal of Wildlife Diseases 44(2): 388-403.

George, J.L., R. Kahn, M.W. Miller, and B. Watkins. 2009. Colorado Bighorn Sheep 

Management Plan 2009-2019. Special Report Number 81, Colorado Division of 

Wildlife, Terrestrial Resources. Denver, Colorado. 83 p. + appendices. 

Goodson, N. 1982. Effects of domestic sheep grazing on bighorn sheep populations: a 

review. Proceedings of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 3: 287-313.

Gross, J. E., F. J. Singer, and M. E. Moses. 2000. Effects of disease, dispersal, and area on 

bighorn sheep restoration. Restoration Ecology 8(4S):25-37. 

Groves, K. 2007. Aquatic spring snail survey and habitat analysis. Umatilla National 

Forest, Pendleton, Oregon. 5p 

Gruver, J.C. and D.A. Keinath. 2006. Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii): 

a technical conservation assessment. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Available online at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/townsendsbigearedbat.pdf

Haferkamp, M., and M. Macneil. 2004. Grazing effects on carbon dynamics in the Northern 

mixed-grass prairie. Environmental Management 33(1):S462-474.
References 

150

Hankin, D.G., and G.H. Reeves. 1988. Estimating total fish abundance and total habitat 

area in small streams based on visual estimation methods. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:834-844.

Hellquist, C., E.W. Hamilton, M. Thorne, and D. Frank. 2007. The influence of simulated 

grazing on carbon exchange processes and microbial communities in Yellowstone 

National Park grasslands. Poster presented as part of the Ecological Restoration 

Association / Society of Ecological Restoration Joint Meeting, San Jose, California, 5-

10 August 2007. 

Hells Canyon Bighorn Sheep Restoration Committee (HCBSRC). 1997. Restoration of 

bighorn sheep to Hells Canyon: The Hells Canyon Initiative. Technical Bulletin 97-

14, Bureau of Land Management. 60 pp. 

HCBSRC. 2003. Annual report of the Hells Canyon Initiative: Restoration of bighorn sheep 

to Hells Canyon. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Lewiston, Idaho. 

HCBSRC. 2004. Annual report of the Hells Canyon Initiative: Restoration of bighorn sheep 

to Hells Canyon. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Lewiston, Idaho. 

HCBSRC. 2007. Annual Report of the Hells Canyon Initiative: Restoration of Bighorn 

Sheep to Hells Canyon. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Lewiston, Idaho. 

HCBSRC. 2009. December 2009 meeting minutes of the Hells Canyon bighorn sheep 

restoration committee. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Lewiston, Idaho. 

Henderson, D., B. Ellert, and A. Naeth. 2004. Grazing and soil carbon along a gradient of 

Alberta rangelands. Journal of Range Management 57(4):402-410. 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 2004. Wildlife research progress report, 

Project W-160-R-31, Study I: Hells Canyon bighorn sheep restoration plan. Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. 72 pp 

IDFG. 2009. Wildlife research progress report, Project W-160-R-36, Study IV: Hells Canyon 

bighorn sheep restoration. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. 

Ingram, L., P. Stahl, G. Schuman, J. Buyer, G. Vance, G. Ganjegunte, J. Welker, and J. 

Derner. 2008. Grazing impacts on soil carbon and microbial communities in a mixedgrass ecosystem. Soil Science Society of America Journal 72(4):939-948.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate change 2007: synthesis report 

summary for policymakers. 

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spm.html

Jepsen, S. 2009. Species fact sheet: Western ridged mussel species fact sheet. Xerces 

Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, Oregon. 

Jepsen, S. 2010. Personal communication. Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, 

Portland, Oregon. 

Jessup, D.A. 1985. Diseases of domestic livestock which threaten bighorn sheep 

populations. Transactions of the 29th Annual Desert Bighorn Council, pages 29-33.
References 

151

Johnson, C.G. and R.R. Clausnitzer. 1992. Plant Associations of the Blue and Ochoco 

Mountains. Publication R6-ERW-TP-036-92. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Region, Portland, OR. 205p. 

Johnson, J. and C. Clifton. 2008. Spring inventory report and files. Umatilla National 

Forest, Pendleton, OR. 18p 

Kirsch, M. 2009. Personal communications. Mark Kirsch, Wildlife Biologist for Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Pendleton, Oregon. 

Lawrence, P.K., S. Shanthalingam, R.P. Dassanayake, R. Subramaniam, C.N. Herndon, 

D.P. Knowles, F.R. Rurangirwa, W.J. Foreyt, G. Wayman, A. Marciel, S.K. 

Highlander, and S. Srikumaran. 2010. Transmission of Mannheimia haemolytica 

from domestic sheep (Ovis aries) to bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis): unequivocal 

demonstration with green fluorescent protein-tagged organisms. Journal of Wildlife 

Diseases 46(3):706-717.

LeCain, D., Morgan, J., Schuman, G., Reeder, J., and Hart, R. 2002. Carbon exchange and 

species composition of grazed pastures and exclosures in the shortgrass steppe of 

Colorado. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93: 421-435.

Li, Z., Liu, S., and Tan, Z. 2007. Spatially explicit modeling of grazing effects on soil organic 

carbon change in the Green River Basin, Wyoming. American Geophysical Union, 

Fall Meeting 2007, abstract #B23C-1508.

Manley, J., G. Schuman, J. Reeder, and R. Hart. 1995. Rangeland soil carbon and nitrogen 

responses to grazing. Journal of Soil & Water Conservation 50:294-297.

Manley, J., G. Schuman, J. Reeder, and R. Hart. 1995. Undated. Impact of grazing 

management strategies on carbon sequestration in semi-arid rangeland, USA. 

Presented at the Proceedings of the XIX International Grassland Congress, 2001. 

Marcot, B.G., B.C. Wales, R. Demmer. 2003. Range maps of terrestrial species in the 

Interior Columbia River Basin and northern portions of the Klamath and Great 

Basins. PNW-GTR-583, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR. 304 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/gtr583

Martin, K.D., T. Schommer, and V. L. Coggins. 1996. Literature review regarding the 

compatibility between bighorn and domestic sheep. Proceedings of the Northern 

Wild Sheep and Goat Council 10:72-77.

Mason, I.L. 1996. A world dictionary of livestock breeds, types and varieties. Fourth edition. 

C.A.B. International. 273 pp. 

Mazzacano, C. 2008. Fisherola nuttalli (Haldeman 1841) species profile. Xerces Society for 

Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, Oregon. 5p. 

McInnis, M.L. and M. Vavra. 1986. Summer diets of domestic sheep grazing mountain 

meadows in Northeast Oregon. Northwest Science 60:4. 
References 

152

Miller, M.W. 2001. Pasteurellosis. Pages 330-337 in: Infectious disease of wild mammals. 

E.S. Williams and I.K. Barker, eds. Iowa University Press, Ames, Iowa. 

Moser, M. and D. Close, 2003. Assessing Pacific lamprey status in the Columbia River 

Basin. Bonneville Power Administration Project No. 1994-02600). Portland, OR. 

12pp. 

Miller, J.C. and P.C. Hammond. 2007. Butterflies and moths of Pacific Northwest forests 

and woodlands: rare, endangered, and management-sensitive species. USDA Forest 

Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, West Virginia. 

234 p. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1993. Designated Critical Habitat; Snake River 

sockeye salmon, Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, and Snake River fall 

chinook salmon. Federal Register Vol. 58, No. 247, pages 68543-68553.

NMFS. 1999a. Endangered and Threatened status for two ESUs of steelhead in 

Washington and Oregon. Federal Register Vol.64, No.57, pages 14517-14528.

NMFS. 1999b. Revision of Critical Habitat for Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon. 

Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 205, pages 57399-57403.

NMFS. 2005. Designation of Critical Habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units of West 

Coast salmon and steelhead in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. Federal Register 

Vol.70, No.170. 

NMFS. 2006. Final Listing Determinations for 10 Distinct Population Segments of West 

Coast Steelhead. Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 3, page 834-862.

National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Environment and Natural 

Resources. 2008. Scientific assessment of the effects of global change on the United 

States. http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/scientific-assessment/

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), 2007. Manure chemistry – nitrogen, 

phosphorus, & carbon. Manure Management Technology Development Team, East 

National Technology Support Center. Manure Management Information Sheet, 

Number 7. 

NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 

Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer

Last accessed April 2011. 

Onderka, D.K. and W.D.Wishart. 1988. Experimental contact transmission of Pasteurella 

haemolytica from clinically normal domestic sheep causing pneumonia in Rocky 

Mountain bighorn sheep. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 24(4):663-667.

Opler, P.A. and A.B. Wright. A field guide to western butterflies. 1999. Houghton Mifflin 

Company, Boston, MA. 540 pp. 

Oregon, State of. Revised Statutes, Water Quality Standards. 

http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARs_300/OAR_340/340_041.html
References 

153

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). Oregon Drinking Water Protection 

Program. http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/dwp/results.htm

ODEQ. Source Water Assessment Summary Brochure City of Pendleton, PWS #4100613. 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/dwp/docs/swasummary/pws00613.pdf

ODEQ. Water quality impaired streams. 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt0406/search.asp

ODEQ. Water Quality rules and regulations. 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/regulations/rules.htm

ODEQ. Water Quality standards, beneficial uses. 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/uses.htm

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2003. Oregon’s bighorn sheep and Rocky 

Mountain goat management plan. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, 

Oregon. 80p. 

ODFW. 2005. Oregon native fish status report, Vol. I. Species Management Unit 

summaries. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR. 164pp. 

ODFW. 2010. Oregon wolf conservation and management plan. Salem, Oregon. 194p. 

ODFW. 2009. Bighorn Sheep Section H, pages 115-121 IN: 2009 Big game statistics. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR. 127pp. 

Owensby, C., J. Ham, and L. Auen. 2006. Fluxes of CO2 from grazed and ungrazed 

tallgrass prairie. Rangeland Ecology and Management 59:111-127.

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, Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology Center, 

Denver, CO. 122 pp. 

Perkins, J.M. and T. Schommer. 1992. Survey protocol and an interim species conservation 

strategy for Plecotus townsendii in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. 

Unpublished report. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Baker City, Oregon. 23p. 

Powell, D.C. 2008. Early livestock grazing in the Blue Mountains. Umatilla National 

Forest, Pendleton, Oregon. 

Pratt, K. 1992. A review of bull trout life history. Pages 5-9 In: Proceedings of the Gearhart 

Mountain bull trout workshop. Oregon Chapter, American Fisheries Society. 

Reeder, J., G. Schuman, J. Morgan, D. LeCain, R. Hart. 2001. Undated. Impact of grazing 

management strategies on carbon sequestration in semi-arid rangeland, Presented 

at the Proceedings of the XIX International Grassland Congress. 

Rieman, B. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for 

conservation of bull trout. USDA Intermountain Research Station. General Tech. 

Report INT-302.
References 

154

Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson, and J.G. Kie. 2000. Elk distribution and 

modeling in relation to roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(3): 672-684. 

Sallabanks, R., B.G. Marcot, R.A. Riggs, C.A. Mehl, and E.B. Arnett. 2001. Wildlife of 

eastside (interior) forests and woodlands. Chapter 8 (pages 213-238) In: WildlifeHabitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press. 

Johnson, D.H.; O’Neil, T.A., Managing Directors. 

Schommer, T. 2009. Evaluation of best management practices. Appendix F IN: Update to 

the draft supplemental environmental impact statement for the Southwest Idaho 

Ecogroup land and resource management plans. U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain 

Region,McCall, Idaho. 4pp. 

Schommer, T. 2009. Personal communications. Tim Schommer, bighorn sheep program 

leader, U.S. Forest Service (retired). 

Schommer, T. and M. Woolever. 2001 A process for finding management solutions to the 

incompatibility between domestic and bighorn sheep. Unpublished report. U.S. 

Forest Service. 

Schuman, G., H. Janzen, and J. Herrick. 2002. Soil carbon dynamics and potential carbon 

sequestration by rangelands. Environmental Pollution 116:391-396.

Schuman, G.E., L.J. Ingram, P.D. Stahl, J.D. Derner, G.F. Vance, and J.A. Morgan. 2009. 

Soil carbon sequestration and the greenhouse effect, 2nd edition. SSSA Special 

Publication 57, Soil Science Society of America. 

Sharrow, S. 2008. Trading carbon sequestion and carbon credits. Department of Rangeland 

Ecology and Management. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. The Grazier, 

December 2008 2-7.

Shrestha G., and P. Stahl. 2007. Carbon accumulation and storage in semi-arid sagebrush 

steppe: Effects of long-term grazing exclusion. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and 

Environment 125(2008): 173-181.

Singer, F.J., L.C. Zeigenfuss, and L. Spicer. 2001. Role of patch size, disease, and movement 

in rapid extinction of bighorn sheep. Conservation Biology 15(5):1347-1354.

Society for Range Management (SRM). 2008. Rangelands and global change; an issue 

paper. http://rangelands.org/pdf/Global_Issue_Paper.pdf [accessed 1/20/2010] 

Stavi, I., E. Ungar, H. Lavee, and P. Sarah. 2008. Grazing-induced spatial variability of soil 

bulk density and content of moisture, organic carbon and calcium carbonate in semiarid rangeland. Cantena 75(3):288-296.

Steiguer, J., J. Brown, and J. Thorpe. 2008. Contributing to the mitigation of climate 

change using rangeland management. Rangelands June 2008, 7-11.

Steinfeld, H., and T. Wassenaar. 2007. The role of livestock production in carbon and 

nitrogen cycles. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 32:271-94
References 

155

Toweill, D.E. and V. Geist. 1999. Return of royalty: wild sheep of North America. Boone and 

Crockett Club and Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, Missoula, Montana. 

214p. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. State and county quick facts. 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/41000lk.html [accessed 1/20/2010]. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1999. Impact of livestock grazing on carbon and 

nitrogen balance of a short-grass steppe. Agricultural Research Station. 

http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_USDA.ARS.CGPRS.SGSgraze.html [accessed 

10/11/2008].

USDA. 2008. U.S. agriculture and forestry greenhouse gas inventory: 1990-2005. Global 

Change Program Office, Office of the Chief Economist. Technical Bulletin No. 1921. 

161 pp. http://www.usda.gov/oce/global_change/AFGGInventory1990_2005.htm

USDA. 2009. 2008-2009 Oregon agriculture & fisheries statistics. National Agricultural 

Statistics Service, Portland, Oregon. 

www.oregon.gov/ODA/docs/pdf/pub/agripedia_stats.pdf

USDA. 2010. Oregon Wildlife Services annual work plan for the John Day District. 

LaGrande, Oregon. 15 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA-FS). 1988. General water quality 

best management practices. Unpublished report. Pacific Northwest Regional Office, 

Portland, OR. 104 p. 

USDA-FS. 1990a. Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

Umatilla National Forest, Pendleton, Oregon. 

USDA-FS. 1990b. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource 

Management Plan, Umatilla National Forest. 1990. Appendix B, Page B-50.

USDA-FS. 1995. Environmental assessment for the management of noxious weeds. 

Umatilla National Forest, Pendleton, Oregon. 

USDA-FS. 1998. Bull trout biological assessments for the Walla Walla Wenaha, Umatilla, 

and Lookingglass watersheds. Umatilla National Forest, Pendleton, OR. 

USDA-FS. 2004. A pocket checklist of plants of the Umatilla National Forest, Oregon and 

Washington, 7th Ed. FS-SO-06-04. Umatilla National Forest, Pendleton, Oregon. 

152p. 

USDA-FS. 2005a. Forest Service Handbook 2209.13, Chapter 90. 

USDA-FS. 2005b. R6 FEIS: Pacific Northwest Region invasive plant program final 

Environmental Impact Statement. Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. 

USDA-FS. 2006a. Occupied mapped lynx habitat; amendment to the Canada lynx 

conservation agreement. Letter to Regional Foresters dated May 26, 2006. U.S. 

Forest Service, Washington D.C. 6p. 
References 

156

USDA-FS. 2006b. Landtype associations of the Blue Mountains ecoregion, Oregon and 

Washington. USDA Forest Service, Region 6, Portland, Oregon. 

USDA-FS. 2007. Invasive plants treatment project, draft environmental impact statement. 

Umatilla National Forest, Pendleton, Oregon. 

USDA-FS. 2008. Regional Forester’s sensitive animal list. 2670/1950 Memo (to Forest 

Supervisors). U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR. 

USDA-FS. 2009a. Walla Walla Ranger District monitoring and inventory data. Umatilla 

National Forest, Pendleton, Oregon. 

USDA-FS. 2009b. Climate change considerations in project level NEPA analysis. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/documents/nepa-guidance.pdf [accessed 1/13/09] 

USDA-FS. 2010a. Update to the draft supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup land and resource management plans. U.S. Forest 

Service, Intermountain Region, Payette National Forest, McCall, Idaho. 

USDA-FS. 2010b. Umatilla National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement: 

Invasive plants treatment project. Umatilla National Forest, Pendleton, Oregon. 

USDA-FS and USDI. 1995. Decision Notice, Finding of No Significant Impact, and 

Environmental Assessment for the interim strategies for managing anadromous 

fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions 

of California. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 

Washington, DC. 109p + appendices. 

USDA-FS and ODEQ. 2007. Memorandum of Understanding to meet state and federal 

water quality rules and regulations. Unpublished document, U.S. Forest Service 

Pacific Northwest Region, Portland Oregon, 42 pages. 

U.S. Department of Interior (USDI), Bureau of Land Management. Interagency Technical 

Team. 1999. Utilization studies and residual measurements. Technical Reference 

1734-3. National Applied Resource Sciences Center, Denver, CO. 165p. Last 

accessed November 2010. http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/pdf/utilstudies.pdf 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Greenhouse gas mitigation potential in U.S. 

Forestry and Agriculture. EPA 430-R-05-006. Washington, DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/pdf/greenhousegas2005.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Determination of Threatened status for the 

Klamath River and Columbia River Distinct Population Segments of bull trout. 

Federal Register Vol. 63, No. 111, pages 31647-31674. 

USFWS. 1999. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 50 CFR Part 17. Federal 

Register Vol. 62, No. 182 pages 49398 to 49411. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Washington D.C. December 31. 

USFWS. 2002a. Birds of conservation concern. 2002. Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99p. http://migratorybirds.fws.gov 
References 

157

USFWS. 2002b. Draft recovery plan for Columbia River bull trout. 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/Recovery.html Last accessed 10/22/2010. 

USFWS. 2003. Notice of remanded determination of status for the contiguous United States 

distinct population segment of the Canada lynx; clarification of findings; final rule. 

Federal Register Vol. 68, No. 128, pages 40076-40101.

USFWS. 2009a. Revised designation of critical habitat for the contiguous United States 

Distinct Population Segment of the Canada lynx. Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 36. 

pages 8616-8702.

USFWS. 2009b. Final Rule to identify the Northern Rocky Mountain population of gray 

wolf as a distinct population segment and to revise the list of endangered and 

threatened wildlife. Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 62, pages 15123-15188. 

USFWS. 2010. Revised designation of critical habitat for bull trout in the coterminus 

United States. Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 200, pages 63898-64070.

Umatilla National Forest. 2002. Best Management Practices monitoring 2001-2002. 

Unpublished report, Umatilla National Forest, Pendleton, Oregon. 

Wales, B. C. 2001. The management of insects, diseases, fire, and grazing and implications 

for terrestrial vertebrates using riparian habitat in eastern Oregon and Washington. 

Northwest Science 75 (Special Issue): 119-127

Wales, B.C., W.L. Gaines, L.H. Suring, and K. Mellen-Mclean. 2011. Viability analysis of 

focal species for the Blue Mountain National Forests – Forest Plan Revisions (draft 

June 2011). Unpublished report. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Baker City, 

OR. 

Weber, K.T., C.L. Marcum, M.G. Burcham, and L.J. Lyon. 2000. Landscape influence on 

elk vulnerability to hunting. Intermountain Journal of Sciences 6(2): 86-94. 

Wehausen, J.D., S.T. Kelley, and R.R. Ramey. 2011. Domestic sheep, bighorn sheep, and 

respiratory disease: a review of the experimental evidence. California Fish and 

Game 97(1):7-24. 

Welker, J., J. Fahnestock, K. Povirk, C. Bilbrough, and R. Piper. 2004. Alpine grassland 

CO2 exchange and nitrogen cycling: grazing history effects, Medicine Bow range, 

Wyoming. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 36(1):11-20.

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA), Wild Sheep Working Group. 

2010. Recommendations for domestic sheep and goat management in wild sheep 

habitat, July 21, 2010. 29p. http://www.wafwa.org/html/wswg.shtml [accessed 

8/20/10]

Whitson, T.D., L.C. Burrill, S.A. Dewey, D.W. Cudney, B.E. Nelson, R.D. Lee, and R. 

Parker. 1992. Weeds of the West. Western Society of Weed Science. 630 pp. 

Wilson, B.L., R. Brainerd, D. Lytjen, B. Newhouse, and N. Otting. 2008. Field guide to the 

sedges of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press. 431p. 
References 

158

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. Eames. 2000. Source habitats for 

terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the interior Columbia basin: broad-scale trends 

and management implications. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-485. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 3 

vol. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project: scientific assessment). 

XiuZhi, M., W. YanFen, W. ShiPing, W. JinZhi, L.ChangSheng. 2005. Impacts of grazing on 

soil carbon fractions in the grasslands of Xilin River Basin, Inner Mongolia. Acta 

Phytoecologica Sinica 29(4):569-576.

Zielinski, W. J., K. M. Slauson, C. R. Carroll, C. J. Kent, and D. K. Kudrna. 2001. Status of 

American marten populations in the coastal forests of the Pacific states. Journal of 

Mammalogy 82:478–490.
Index 

159

Index

Affected Environment, 33 

allotment boundary, 1, 11, 12, 13, 38 

allotment history, 1

Allotment Management Plan, 3, 5, 18, 32, 

38, 51, 53

alternative comparison, 27 

alternatives considered but not analyzed in 

detail, 32 

anadromous fish, 22 

annual operating instructions, 52

bighorn sheep, 3, 28, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 

40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 52

bighorn sheep habitat, 35, 44

Biological Evaluation, 102 

Biological Opinion, 5 

bull trout, 23, 124, 137

Canada lynx, 95 

capability, 62, 63, 65, 103 

cattle grazing, 32 

Chinook salmon, 23, 117, 118, 125, 137 

civil rights, 140 

Clean Water Act, 107, 138 

climate change, 135, 140

condition and trend, 26, 64, 67, 68 

consultation with tribes, 7 

critical habitat, 114 

CTUIR, 6, 7, 45, 117 

cultural resources, 134 

design features, 18, 41 

developed water sources, 52, 69, 107, 111, 

112, 114, 138, 139

disease, 34, 46, 70 

dogs, 4, 11, 18, 90, 92 

economics, 10, 29, 51, 52, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 

61, 140

elk, 88, 89, 90, 98

Endangered Species Act, 95

Environmental Consequences, 33 

environmental justice, 140 

fish species, 114 

forage utilization, 25, 87, 101, 130 

Forest Plan, 101, 114 

forest plan compliance, 75, 83, 87, 101, 106, 

126, 134

gray wolf, 19, 97, 98 

grazing fees, 30, 56, 60

Hells Canyon Initiative, 37

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland 

Health, 64, 66, 67 

invasive plants, 5, 25, 31, 65, 75, 76, 77, 78, 

79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 88, 90, 138

issues, 8, 31 

jobs, 29, 53, 56 

Management Area, 6, 121 

management direction, 5

management feasibility, 9, 29, 53 

management indicator species, 88

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 138

monitoring, 25, 52, 59, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 75 

National Historic Preservation Act, 23, 140 

neotropical migratory birds, 93

Nez Perce, 6, 7, 139, 140

Notice of Intent, 7 

noxious weed, 6, 24, 76, 79, 83

ODFW, 8, 19, 20, 35, 37, 42, 44, 46, 88, 98, 

136

OHV, 86, 130 

PACFISH, 5, 22, 23, 52, 110, 114, 126 

pastures, 3, 51 

permittee, 3, 7, 8, 9, 44, 51, 52, 53, 98 

pneumonia, 34, 37, 38 

potential for contact, 11 

preparers and contributors, 145

Project Record, 5, 8 

Proper Functioning Condition, 120

Proposed Action, 4, 11 

Purpose of and Need for Action, 1 

range improvement, 79 

recipients of the draft EIS, 143

recreation, 31, 130, 131 

responsible official, 5

revenue, 29, 56

riparian habitat conservation areas, 22, 111 

riparian management objectives, 22 

road densities, 89

roadless, 31, 131, 133 

routing, 73 

Safe Drinking Water Act, 139

scoping, 5, 7, 8 

season of use, 4, 55, 57, 70, 74, 75, 79 

sensitive plant species, 84 

separation effectiveness, 3, 9, 28, 40, 42, 45 
Index 

160

soil resources, 103 

Special Interest Botanical Areas, 84

State Historic Preservation Office, 140 

steelhead, 23, 117, 124, 137 

stocking levels, 93 

stubble height, 64 

suitability, 62, 63 

term grazing permit, 13, 79

TMDL, 110, 111 

transitory range, 51, 60, 74 

treaty rights, 6

Tribes, 118, 139, 140 

utilization standards, 25, 52, 63, 65, 67, 69, 

70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 79, 88, 89, 93

water quality, 21, 25, 107, 109, 110, 112, 

113, 114, 122, 126, 134, 136, 138

wilderness, 3, 12, 24, 31, 58, 59, 72, 73, 130, 

131, 133, 139

wildlife species, 87 

winter range, 90, 98 

wolverine, 99 
Appendix A 

A-1 

Appendices

Appendix A. Forest Plan Management Area goals and related range standards 

and guidelines. 

Acres are based on existing allotment boundary. Acres by alternative are provided in a 

table below this section. 

A2—OHV Recreation (3230 acres)

Goal: Provide motorized recreation in a predominantly natural or natural 

appearing environment with a moderate degree of isolation from sights and sounds 

of human activity. 

Range Standard and Guideline: A moderate level of grazing is permitted. 

Improvement maintenance and development are permitted. Improvement 

development is not to detract from the Semi-primitive setting. The full range of 

management strategies1 (B to D) could apply. 

A3—Viewshed 1 (9400 acres) 

Goal: Manage the area seen from a primary travel route, use area, or water body, 

where the forest visitors have a major concern for the scenic qualities (sensitivity 

level 1) as a natural appearing landscape. 

Range Standard and Guideline: A moderate level of livestock grazing is 

permitted. Openings created by management of timber stands should be available 

for management as transitory range. Development and maintenance of range 

improvements are permitted. Range utilization standards, management practices, 

and improvements are to be designed and managed to meet visual quality objectives. 

A4—Viewshed 2 (3800 acres) 

Goal: Manage the area seen from a travel route, use area or water body where some 

forest visitors have a major concern for the scenic qualities (sensitivity level 2) as a 

natural appearing to slightly altered landscape. 

Range Standard and Guideline: A moderate level of livestock grazing is 

permitted. Openings created by management of timber stands should be available 

for management as transitory range. Development and maintenance of range 

improvements are permitted. Range utilization standards, management practices, 

and improvements are to be designed and managed to meet visual quality objectives. 

 

1

 Forest Plan range management strategy B is minimal use, C is extensive use, and D is intensive use. A maximum 

percent of annual utilization by big game and livestock is defined for each strategy. Refer to page 4-64 of the Forest 

Plan. 
Appendix A 

A-2 

A5—Roaded Natural (1415 acres) 

Goal: Provide dispersed recreation opportunities in an area characterized by a 

predominantly natural to near natural appearing environment with moderate 

evidences of the sights and sounds of man. Such evidences usually harmonize with 

the natural environment. 

Range Standard and Guideline: Livestock grazing is permitted; all range 

management strategies are available consistent with visual and recreation goals. 

Openings created by management of timber stands are available for management as 

transitory range. 

A6—Developed Recreation (1650 acres) 

Goal: Provide recreation opportunities that are dependent on the development of 

structural facilities for user conveniences where interaction between users and 

evidence of others is prevalent. 

Range Standard and Guideline: Domestic livestock grazing will ordinarily be 

excluded from developed sites. It will be allowed on certain sites at specified periods 

(i.e., sheep grazing on ski area slopes in summer) on a controlled basis to reduce fire 

hazard, and to maintain or improve the vegetation. 

A8—Scenic Area (6 acres)

Goal: Protect or enhance the unique natural characteristics of landscapes notes for 

their scenic beauty. 

Range Standard and Guideline: Light grazing is permitted with a B range 

management strategy. The emphasis for forage allocation is wildlife. Where range 

improvements are needed, design and implement improvements to be compatible 

with scenic area objectives. 

A9—Special Interest Area (650 acres) 

Goal: Manage, preserve, and interpret areas of significant cultural, historical, 

geological, botanical, or other special characteristics for educational, scientific, and 

public enjoyment. 

Range Standard and Guideline: Domestic livestock may be permitted to utilize 

existing forage without changing overall natural characteristics or conflicting with 

the purpose of the area. Structural improvement, development, and maintenance is 

permitted where livestock use is allowed; structural improvements may be used to 

exclude domestic livestock. 

B1—Wilderness (20,280 acres)

Goal: Manage to preserve, protect, and improve the resources and values of the 

forest wilderness, as directed by the Wilderness Act of 1964. 
Appendix A 

A-3 

Range Standard and Guideline: Grazing of domestic livestock is permitted at 

places and approximate levels established prior to the effective date of wilderness 

classification. A level “B” or “C” strategy for range can apply. Sustained livestock 

grazing may be reduced if damaging to the resource. Existing livestock 

management improvements may be maintained. Structural range improvements 

may be built only when necessary to protect the resource (not to increase capacity). 

 

C1—Dedicated Old Growth (3190 acres)

Goal: Provide and protect sufficient suitable habitat for wildlife species dependent 

upon mature and/or overmature forest stands, and promote a diversity of vegetative 

conditions for such species. 

Range Standard and Guideline: Moderate levels of livestock grazing are 

permitted; however, forage in general will be limited to that which is normally 

present under densely forested canopies. Bedding by domestic sheep in dedicated 

old growth units will not normally be permitted. Maintain existing range 

improvement structures. Additional structural improvements are generally not 

permitted. 

C2—Managed Old Growth (350 acres)

Goal: Provide and protect sufficient suitable habitat for wildlife species dependent 

upon mature and/or overmature lodgepole pine forest stands, and promote a 

diversity of vegetative conditions for such species. 

Range Standard and Guideline: Moderate levels of livestock grazing are 

permitted; however, forage in general will be limited to that which is normally 

present under densely forested canopies. Bedding by domestic sheep in dedicated 

old growth units will not normally be permitted. Maintain existing range 

improvement structures. Additional structural improvements are generally not 

permitted. 

C3—Big Game Winter RangeError! Bookmark not defined. (870 acres)

Goal: Manage big game winter range to provide high levels of potential habitat 

effectiveness and high quality forage for big game species. 

Range Standard and Guideline: Domestic livestock grazing is permitted at 

Range Management Strategy C. All available range and livestock management 

practices with the primary management goal of maintaining or enhancing the big 

game winter ranges may be used. Structural improvements are permitted to the 

extent they are compatible with big game winter ranges. This may entail the use of 

let-down fences, etc. 
Appendix A 

A-4 

C4—Wildlife Habitat (35,300 acres)

Goal: Manage forest lands to provide high levels of potential habitat effectiveness 

for big game and other wildlife species with emphasis on size and distribution of 

habitat components (forage and cover areas for elk, and snags and dead and down 

materials for all cavity users). Unique wildlife habitats and key use areas will be 

retained or protected. 

Range Standard and Guideline: Domestic livestock grazing is permitted at 

Range Management Strategy C. All available range and livestock management 

practices may be used as long as consistent with the primary management goal of 

maintaining or enhancing the big game and all other species wildlife habitat. 

Structural improvements are permitted to the extent they are compatible with big 

game winter ranges. This may entail the use of let-down fences, etc. 

C5—Riparian (Fish and Wildlife) (4720 acres) 

Goal: Maintain or enhance water quality, and produce a high level of potential 

habitat capability for all species of fish and wildlife within the designated riparian 

habitat areas while providing for a high level of habitat effectiveness for big game. 

Range Standard and Guideline: Intensive range management, including 

superior grazing systems, such as periodic rest, will be practiced to protect and 

improve riparian vegetation and anadromous fish and wildlife habitats. Periods of 

extended rest may be utilized in some situations where it is necessary to allow reestablishment of desired shrub communities. Meet forage utilization standards for 

riparian areas, found in the Range portion of Forest-wide-Standards and Guidelines. 

Range Management techniques that control livestock distribution and timing of use 

will be used to meet riparian habitat goals. Range improvements that maintain or 

enhance riparian habitat goals will be permitted. Improvements should be located 

to encourage livestock use away from the riparian areas. Grazing systems utilizing 

riparian pastures may be required to maintain water quality and protect riparian 

vegetation. Riparian corridor fencing should be considered on a limited basis for 

special applications. 

C8—Grass-Tree Mosaic (820 acres) 

Goal: On areas known as Grass-Tree Mosaic (GTM), provide high levels of potential 

habitat effectiveness, high quality forage for big game wildlife species, visual 

diversity, and protect erosive soils. 

Range Standard and Guideline: Domestic livestock grazing is permitted at level 

C management strategy. All available range and livestock management practices 

may be used consistent with the primary management goals of maintaining or 

enhancing the big game winter ranges and summer ranges, and providing sufficient 

residual forage for big game species during the winter use period. Structural 

improvements are permitted to the extent they are compatible with big game 

management. 
Appendix A 

A-5 

E2—Timber and Big Game (40,300 acres) 

Goal: Manage forest lands to emphasize production of wood fiber (timber), 

encourage forage production, and maintain a moderate level of big game and other 

wildlife habitat. 

Range Standard and Guideline: Manage range and livestock at Range 

Management Strategy C and D with improved management systems. The full range 

of development and maintenance of structural and nonstructural improvements is 

permitted. Seeding of forage species is permitted where tree establishment and 

growth are not restricted. Prescribed burning may be practiced to improve range 

forage conditions and trend. 

F3—High Ridge Evaluation Area (880 acres) 

Goal: To provide an administrative study area to evaluate the effects of timber 

harvesting activities on water quality and stream flow regimes. 

Range Standard and Guideline: Livestock grazing will be permitted after timber 

operations are completed as long as grazing meets the objectives of the study. 

F4—Walla Walla River Watershed (26 acres) 

Goal: Provide high quantity and quality of water and elk habitat effectiveness 

while sustaining or enhancing other resource values. Management activities will 

not substantially change the level of water discharge from the National Forest 

during the May 1 through September 30 use period. 

Range Standard and Guideline: Domestic livestock grazing is permitted at 

Range Management Strategy C. All available range and livestock management 

practices may be used where consistent with the primary management goal of 

maintaining or enhancing water quality and quantity and big game and other 

species‟ habitats. Meet the forage utilization standards for riparian and upland 

areas, as found in the Range portion of Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines. 

Structural improvements are permitted to the extent they are compatible with the 

management goal. 
Appendix A 

A-6 
Appendix A 

A-7 

Table 33. Management Area acres by Alternative. 

Management 

Area

Current 

Allotment

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3

Alternative 

4

Alternative 

5

A2 3226 3226 1713 275 275 0

A3 9404 7841 4524 3332 3332 0

A4 3794 2936 2828 2471 2432 0

A5 1415 1415 1415 960 960 0

A6 1654 849 825 68 68 0

A8 6 0 0 0 0 0

A9 649 233 70 205 9 0

B1 20276 20246 20246 0 0 0

C1 3186 2756 2111 2487 1925 0

C2 349 349 345 345 345 0

C3 873 873 873 873 873 0

C4 35292 18841 15983 37048 15976 0

C5 4722 2627 2225 2657 2174 0

C8 820 820 820 5563 819 0

E2 40311 33744 24358 21554 21554 0

F3 881 881 881 881 881 0

F4 26 26 0 0 0 0

Other 

Ownership 5192 3470 2258 958 958 0

Total 132,075 101,138 81,478 79677 52581 0

Rounded 132,000 101,000 81,500 79,600 52,600 0
Appendix A 

A-8 

This page left blank intentionally
Appendix B - Glossary 

B-1 

Appendix B. Glossary of Terms and Acronyms. 

AMP Allotment Management Plan

AOI Annual Operating Instructions

ATV All-Terrain Vehicle

BA Biological Assessment

BLM Bureau Of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practice

BO Biological Opinion

CG Campground

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs Cubic Feet per Second

CTUIR Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

CWA Clean Water Act

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DFC Desired Future Condition

DSC Detrimental Soil Conditions

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESU Evolutionary Significant Units

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FR Federal Register

FS U.S. Forest Service

FSH Forest Service Handbook

FSM Forest Service Manual

GIS Geographic Information System

HCNRA Hells Canyon National Recreation Area

HRV Historic Range Of Variability

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code

IDFG Idaho Department Of Fish And Game

IIT Interagency Implementation Team

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning (trademark name)

MA Management Area

MOU Memorandum Of Understanding

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NF National Forest

NFMA National Forest Management Act

NFS National Forest System

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Appendix B -Glossary 

B-2 

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish And Wildlife

OWRD Oregon Water Resources Department

PACFISH Interim strategies for managing anadromous fish–producing 

watersheds in eastern Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and portions of 

California

PFC Proper Functioning Condition

PL Public Law

RAC Resource Advisory Council

RHCA Riparian Habitat Conservation Area

RMO Riparian Management Objectives

RN Roaded Natural

ROD Record Of Decision 

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

RPA Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act

SHM Sheep Head Month

SHPO State Historic Preservation Organization

SMS Scenery Management System

SWS Subwatershed

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TH Trailhead

TR Technical Reference

USC United States Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDC U.S. Department of Commerce

USDI U.S. Department of The Interior

USFWS U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service

WDFW Washington Department of Fish And Wildlife

WQMP Water Quality Management Plan

Administrative site: All Forest Service owned buildings, building equipment, or space. 

Affected environment: The natural, physical and human-related environment that would be 

sensitive to changes from implementation of the alternatives. 

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. 

Allotment: Rangeland and /or forestland area designated for the use of a prescribed number 

and kind of livestock under a specific plan of management 

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. A baseline utilization percentage 

established in a Forest Plan. 
Appendix B - Glossary 

B-3 

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. 

Analysis area: One or more capability areas combined for the purpose of analysis in 

formulating alternatives and estimating various impacts and effects. 

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. 

Biotic community: The assemblage of native and exotic plants and animals associated with a 

particular site or landscape, including microorganisms, fungi, algae, vascular and herbaceous 

plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates. These assemblages and their biotic and abiotic 

relationships serve landscape and watershed functions by promoting soil properties supporting 

water infiltration and storage, energy and nutrient fixation, recycling and transfer, species 

survival, and sustainable population dynamics. 

Aquatic : within water. 

Available forage: That portion of the forage production that is accessible for use by a specified 

kind or class of grazing animal. 

Bankfull: A specific location on a stream bank that corresponds to the water level with a 

recurrence interval of two years or less. Bankfull discharge largely controls the form of the 

watercourse. It is at this discharge level that stream waters just begin to flow over the banks 

and into the floodplain. 

Bare Ground: All soil surfaces not covered by vegetation, rock or litter. 

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. 

Bighorn sheep: A member of the species Ovis canadensis found throughout the mountains of 

western North America. 

Biological Assessment: 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. 
Appendix B -Glossary 

B-4 

Biological Evaluation: The legal record of finding for Pacific Northwest Regional Forester 

sensitive species. 

Biotic integrity: is the capacity of the biotic community (plants, animals, and microorganisms 

occurring both above and below ground) to support ecological processes within the normal range 

of variability expected for the site, to resist a loss of capacity to support these processes, and to 

recover this capacity when losses do occur. 

Browse: Leaf and twig growth of shrubs, woody vines, and trees available for use by animals. 

Also, to search for or consume browse. 

Bryophytes: a division of nonflowering plants characterized by rhizoids rather than true roots 

and having little or no organized vascular tissue, such as mosses and liverworts.

Buffer zone (bighorn sheep): a defined and delineated space on a landscape established by 

wildlife managers to prevent contact and disease transmission between wild and domestic sheep 

and goats across a geographic space. 

Buffer (PACFISH): a defined distance that sheep must stay from the stream. 

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.

Channel morphology: Form and structure of stream bank which is that portion of the channel 

bank cross section that controls the lateral movement of water. Includes channel dimensions, 

patterns, and profile. 

Close management: A specific management prescription that requires intensive monitoring of 

animals in a population whose long-term persistence is at risk. 

Community type: An aggregation of all plant communities with similar structure and floristic 

composition. 

Connectivity: Creating or maintaining networks of habitat that connect fragmented habitats, 

thus linking population segments of wildlife. Connectivity allows gene flow and enhances longterm species survival. 

Consultation (Endangered Species Act): A process between a Federal agency and the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service that determines whether a 

proposed Federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or 

destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Formal consultation is required if a 

proposed Federal action may affect a listed species or designated critical habitat, unless 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]. 
Appendix B - Glossary 

B-5 

Contact: Direct contact or close proximity between body parts of two animals during which a 

disease might be transmitted from one to another. In this document, “contact” typically refers to 

sheep nose-to-nose or face-to-face interaction that may lead to the transmission of respiratory 

disease via secretions or aerosols. 

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 impact of 

the action added to other past, present or future actions. They can also result from individually 

minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 

CWT: a centum weight, which is exactly 100 pounds. 

Deferment: Delay of livestock grazing on an area for an adequate period of time, to provide for 

plant reproduction, establishment of new plants, or the restoration of vigor in existing plants. 

Generally defined as delay of grazing until the seed of the key forage species is mature. 

Deferred grazing: The use of deferment in grazing management. 

Deferred rotation: Any grazing system that provides for a systematic rotation of deferment 

among pastures. Moving grazing animals to various parts of a range in succeeding years or 

seasons to provide for seed production, plant vigor, and for seedling growth. 

Density: The number of individuals per unit area. It is not a measure of cover. 

Management Requirements. Actions intended to reduce or prevent undesirable effects to 

rangeland resources by livestock grazing and/or provide for the progression of existing 

conditions toward desired conditions. 

Desired condition: The future condition of a landscape that meets 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. Desired condition is 

usually expressed as ecological status or management status of vegetation (species composition, 

habitat diversity, age and size classes of species) and desired soil qualities (conditions of soil 

cover, erosion, compaction, loss of soil productivity). 

Die-off: A large scale mortality event that impacts many animals from a population and may 

have significant demographic consequence to the long-term persistence of that population. 
Appendix B -Glossary 

B-6 

Direct effect: Effects on the environment that occur at the same time and place as the initial 

cause or action. 

Disease: transmission of and exposure to infectious agents or congenital defects which 

interfere with normal functions of an animal. 

Dispersal: the process where individuals leave one habitat or landscape to seek another 

habitat or landscape in which to live. 

Diversity: The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and 

species within the area covered by a land and resource management plan (National Forest 

Management Act Planning Regulation). 

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. To further define drought in 

quantitative terms that can be used to trigger the onset of drought, the use of the Society for 

Range Management‟s definition is recommended: “Prolonged dry weather when precipitation is 

less than 75% of the average amount.” 

Ecological process: an action that involves a series of stages that lead to an end result and 

involve interplay between organisms and their environment. 

Ecological site: A kind of land with a specific potential natural community and specific 

physical site characteristics, differing from other kinds of land in its ability to produce 

vegetation and to respond to management. 

Ecological status: The present state of vegetation of an ecological site in relation to the 

potential natural community for the site. Described in ecological terms, which are early seral, 

mid seral, and late seral. 

Ecosystem: Organisms together with their biotic and abiotic environment, forming an 

interacting system and inhabiting an identifiable space. 

Effective separation: spatial and/or temporal separation between wild sheep and domestic 

sheep or goats, resulting in (at most) a minimal risk of potential respiratory disease 

transmission (WAFWA 2010). 

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. 

Effects determinations (Endangered Species Act consultation):

Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA): a determination made when adverse effects 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. 
Appendix B - Glossary 

B-7 

May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA): a determination made when any 

effects to listed species or designated critical habitat may occur, but are deemed discountable, 

insignificant, or beneficial. 

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 direct or indirect effect whatsoever on listed or proposed species. 

Endangered species: Any animal or plant species in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, as designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National 

Marine Fisheries Service under provisions of the Endangered Species Act. 

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 impact statements 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 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. 

Ephemeral (stream): streams that flow only during and immediately after precipitation.

Erosion: The wearing away of the land‟s surface by water, wind, ice, or other physical 

processes. It includes detachment, transport, and deposition of soil or rock fragments. 

Exclosures: generally structures areas designed to exclude animals from a specific area. 

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. 

Flow: see stream flow 

Foliage: The green or live leaves of plants. 

Forage production: Weight of forage produced within a designated period of time on a given 

area. 

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. 
Appendix B -Glossary 

B-8 

Forb: Any broad- leafed, herbaceous plant other than those in the Poaceae (grass) Cyperaceae 

(sedge) and Juncaceae (rush) families. 

Frye: Newly hatched, active feeding post larval fishes; may include all fish stages from 

hatching to fingerling 

Functioning Appropriately (proper functioning condition): Riparian-wetland areas are 

functioning appropriately when adequate vegetation, landforms, or large woody debris is 

present to (1) dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows, thereby reducing 

erosion and improving water quality; (2) filter sediment, capture bed load, and aid floodplain 

development; (3) improve flood-water retention and ground-water recharge; (4) develop root 

masses that stabilize stream bank 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). See also Proper Functioning Condition. 

Functioning at Risk (proper functioning condition): Riparian-wetland areas that are in a 

functional condition but an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute categorizes them with a 

reversible loss in capability and increased vulnerability to irreversible degradation based upon 

evaluation of current conditions and processes. See also Proper Functioning Condition. 

Geographic Information System (GIS): A computer software platform designed to facilitate 

the assembly and analysis of diverse data sets pertaining to specific geographic areas using 

spatial locations of the data as the basis for the information system 

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. 

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 management: The manipulation of grazing animals to accomplish desired results 

when considering of animal, plant, land, or economic responses. 

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 grazing permits is issued. 

(2) The time interval when animals are allowed to utilize a certain area. 
Appendix B - Glossary 

B-9 

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 

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, 

cryptograms, and rock over 3⁄4 inch. Ground cover plus bare ground would total 100 percent. 

Habitat type: The collective area which one plant association occupies or will come to occupy 

as succession advances, based on the vegetation and its associated environment. 

Head month: Tenure of one herbivore on National Forest for a period of one month. 

Headwaters: the most extreme upstream areas of a watershed.

Herbaceous: Vegetation growth with little or no woody components, such as graminoids and 

forbs. 

Herding: A strategy for managing livestock where the manager maintains the animals in a 

“herd” and moves them from area to area as a group. 

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. These 

characteristics have defined over time, average conditions of stream flow, quantity and 

character of sediment moving through the system, and composition of the materials forming the 

bed and banks of the channels. 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 

“Effects” and “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. 

Infiltration rate: Rate of absorption and downward movement of water into the soil layer. 
Appendix B -Glossary 

B-10

Interaction: Direct contact or close proximity between two or more entities. As related to 

sheep, interaction typically refers to nose-to-nose or face-to-face interaction that may lead to the 

transmission of respiratory disease via secretions or aerosols. Synonymous with “Contact”.

Interested public: An individual, group or organization that has submitted a written request 

to the authorized officer to be provided an opportunity to be involved in the decision making 

process for the management of livestock grazing on specific grazing allotments or has submitted 

written comments to the authorized officer regarding the management of livestock grazing on a 

specific allotment. 

Intermittent stream: A stream that does not flow year-round, but does interact with a water 

table to receive groundwater outflow during part of the year. 

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health: A qualitative approach to analyze the health 

of the biotic, hydrologic and soils of a rangelands using 17 indicators, a team of professional 

ecologists, and references to pristine rangeland conditions for the site evaluated. 

Introduced species: A non-native species that has been intentionally or unintentionally 

released into an area as a result of human activity. 

Invasive plant: An alien 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). Used 

interchangeably with “noxious weed.”

Invasive species: A non-native species introduced into an ecosystem as a result of human 

activities. 

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.) 

Key issue: relevant issues most important to the decision at hand. 

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 and listed under Section 4 of the ESA. 

Litter: The uppermost layer of organic debris on the soil surface, essentially the freshly fallen 

or slightly decomposed vegetal material. 

Macroinvertebrate: An invertebrate animal (animal without a backbone) large enough to be 

seen without magnification. 

Management Indicator Species (MIS): see “Indicator Species.” 
Appendix B - Glossary 

B-11

Meta-population: An assemblage of populations, or a system of local populations (demes) 

connected by movement of individuals (dispersal) among various population segments. 

Migration or migratory: A term used to refer to the movement of individuals or genes (gene 

flow) across a landscape; typically refers to movements from one seasonal habitat to another, or 

between breeding and non-breeding habitats. 

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. 

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): The Act which declared a National policy to 

encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between humans and their environment, to 

promote efforts that will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere, to 

stimulate the health and welfare of humans, to enrich our understanding of the ecological 

systems and natural resources important to our Nation; and to establish a Council on 

Environmental Quality. 

NEPA analysis: Analysis conducted during the preparation of documents required under the 

National Environmental Policy Act, particularly environmental assessments and environmental 

impact statements. 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA): A law passed in 1976 as amendments to the 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, which requires the development of 

Regional and Forest plans and the preparation of regulations to guide that development. 

National Forest System (NFS): 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. 

Native species: Species that are a part of the original fauna or flora of an area. 

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. 
Appendix B -Glossary 

B-12

Non Point Source pollution (NPS): pollution caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over 

and through the ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries away natural and humanmade pollutants, finally depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and even 

our underground sources of drinking water. These pollutants include: excess fertilizers, 

herbicides, and insecticides from agricultural lands and residential areas; oil, grease, and toxic 

chemicals from urban runoff and energy production; sediment from improperly managed crop 

and forest lands, and eroding stream banks; salt from irrigation practices and acid drainage 

from abandoned mines; bacteria and nutrients from livestock, and other animal wastes. 

Noxious weed: a plant 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) 

Objective: The planned results to be achieved within a stated time period. Objectives are 

subordinate to goals, narrow in scope, and shorter in range. Objectives must specify time 

periods for completion, and products or achievements that are measurable. 

Overgrazed: Continued heavy grazing that exceeds the recovery capacity of the community 

and creates a deteriorated range. 

PACFISH: Interim strategies for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in Eastern 

Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California. 

Palatability: The relish an animal shows for a particular plant as forage. This varies with 

succulence, fiber content, nutrient and chemical content, and morphological features such as 

spines or thorns. Palatability and preference are sometimes incorrectly used interchangeably. 

Pasture: a subdivision of area within an allotment usually delineated by topographical features 

or fences. In this allotment, pastures are not fenced. 

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 storm water 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 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. 

Plant 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. 
Appendix B - Glossary 

B-13

Potential for contact (sheep): a relative measure based on distance, topography, 

vegetation, roads, past straying, bighorn sheep radio telemetry and movements, and local 

knowledge. See also “contact”.

Preferred alternative: The alternative that is disclosed by the selecting official as the 

alternative that is most likely to be selected for implementation, when a Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement is submitted to the public. 

Prescribed fire: Prescribed fire (Rx fire) is defined as fire applied in a knowledgeable manner 

to forest fuels on a specific land area 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. 

Prescription: Management practices selected to accomplish specific land and resource 

management objectives. 

Project area: Area of analysis for this proposal. 

Project file: An assemblage of documents that contain all the information developed or used 

during an environmental analysis, and is summarized in an Environmental Impact Statement. 

The file is part of the administrative record. 

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC): Refers to riparian or wetland areas. A riparian or 

wetland area is considered to be in proper functioning condition when adequate vegetation, 

landform, or large woody debris is present to: 1) dissipate stream energy; 2) filter sediment, 

capture bed load, aid in floodplain development; 3) improve flood-water retention and groundwater recharge; 4) develop root masses that stabilize stream banks; 5) develop diverse ponding 

and channel characteristics to provide habitat for wildlife; and 6) support greater biodiversity. 

Proposed action: In terms of the National Environmental Policy Act, the project, activity, or 

action that a Federal agency proposes to implement or undertake. The proposed action is sent to 

the public, and interested agencies for their review and comment. Comments are then used to 

develop alternatives to the proposed action. 

Public land: Land owned by the federal government with multiple uses and intended for public 

use. 

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. 

Rangeland health: The status or stage of condition of an area based on what is expected of the 

area. The condition is based in biotic, hydrologic and soil factors. 
Appendix B -Glossary 

B-14

Range improvement. Any activity or program on or relating to rangelands which is designed 

to improve production of forage; change vegetative composition; control patterns of use; provide 

water; stabilize soil and water conditions; and provide habitat for livestock and wildlife. The 

term includes, but is not limited to, structures, treatment projects, and use of mechanical means 

to accomplish the desired results (Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, 43 U.S.C. 1902). 

The following types are included: 

Range improvement (Nonstructural): Practices and treatments undertaken to improve 

range or facilitate livestock management, excluding structural improvements, such as seeding, 

spraying, and chaining. 

Range improvement (Structural): Improvements requiring construction or installation to 

improve the range or facilitate livestock management, such as fences, wells, reservoirs, 

pipelines, and stock tanks. 

Range management: The science and art of planning and directing rangeland use in order to 

obtain maximum sustained economic livestock production consistent with the conservation 

and/or improvement of the related natural resources: soil, water, vegetation, wildlife and 

recreation. Scientific range management stands on the premise that the range resources can be 

improved and grazed perpetually by domestic stock and, at the same time, produce high-quality 

watershed, wildlife, recreation and, where suitable, forest products. 

Range of variability: The range of sustainable conditions in an ecosystem which 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. (Also called the historic range of variability or natural range of variation.) 

Range or rangeland: All land-producing or capable-of-producing native forage for grazing and 

browsing animals and lands that have been revegetated naturally or artificially to provide a 

forage cover that is managed like native vegetation. It includes all grasslands, shrublands, and 

those forest lands which continually or periodically, naturally or through management, support 

an understory of herbaceous or shrubby vegetation that provides forage for grazing or browsing. 

Rangeland project decision. A project level NEPA decision. Refer to FSH 2209.13, section 93. 

Reach (stream): An expanse of a stream channel. 

Record of Decision (ROD): A concise public document separate from but associated with an 

environmental impact statement that publicly and officially discloses the responsible (decision 

making) official‟s decision (and rationale for the decision) about the alternatives assessed in the 

environmental impact statement, and the alternative chosen to implement. 

Recovery plan: A document drafted by the US Fish & Wildlife Service or other knowledgeable 

individual or group, that serves as a guide for activities to be undertaken by Federal, State, or 

private entities in helping to recover and conserve endangered or threatened species. Recovery 

plans typically include a listed species life history and current status, habitat requirements and 

availability, factors which limit the species survival, conservation measures currently in place, 

and specific management objectives that will facilitate recovery of the species. 
Appendix B - Glossary 

B-15

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. 

Rest rotation: A system in which one part of the range is ungrazed for an entire grazing year 

or longer, while other parts are grazed for a portion, or perhaps all, of a growing season. 

Rest: Leaving an area ungrazed, thereby foregoing grazing of a forage crop. Normally, rest 

implies absence of grazing for a full growing season. 

Rill: A very small steep sided channel carrying water. This landscape feature is intermittent 

and forms for only a short period of time after a rainfall. 

Riparian area: Area with distinctive soils and vegetation located between a stream or other 

body of water and the adjacent upland. It includes wetlands and those portions of floodplains 

and valley bottoms that support riparian vegetation. Riparian ecosystems are distinguished by 

the presence of free water within the common rooting depth of native perennial plants during at 

least a portion of the growing season. Riparian ecosystems are normally associated with seeps, 

springs, streams, marshes, ponds, or lakes. The potential vegetation of these areas commonly 

includes a mixture of water (aquatic) and land (phreatic) ecosystems. 

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). 

Riparian vegetation: Plant communities dependent upon the presence of free water near the 

ground surface (high water table). 

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” (40CFR 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 material, both mineral and organic, that is in suspension, being transported, 

or has been moved from its site or origin by air, water, gravity, or ice. 

Sedimentation: The process of depositing solid fragmented material, such as silt and sand, 

which is transported and deposited by water, ice, or wind. 
Appendix B -Glossary 

B-16

Sensitive species: All species that are under status review, have small or declining 

populations, or live in unique habitats. In the Forest Service, sensitive species are designated 

by Regional Foresters. 

Separation effectiveness: see effective separation 

Seral Stages: The developmental stages of an ecological succession. 

Seral: Pertaining to the successional stages of biotic communities. 

Sheep Head Month (SHM): Tenure of one sheep (ewe/lamb pair) on National Forest for a 

period of one month. 

Shrub: A plant with persistent, woody stems and relatively low growth. Generally produces 

several basal shoots (stems) and many branches. 

Soil and site stability: The capacity of an area to limit redistribution and loss of soil resources 

(including nutrients and organic matter) by wind and water.

Soil compaction: A physical change in soil properties that results in a decrease in porosity and 

an increase in soil bulk density and soil strength. 

Soil productivity: the capacity of a soil, in its normal environment, to support plant growth. 

Spatial separation: A defined physical distance between animal populations. 

Spawning: the production or depositing of eggs by aquatic organisms. Depending on the 

species many fish spawn in different methods and at different times of the year. 

Species composition: Proportions of various plant species in relation to the total on a given 

area. Proportions may be expressed in percentages based on weight, cover, density, etc. 

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. 

Stable: The condition of little or no perceived change in plant communities that are in relative 

equilibrium with existing environmental conditions; describes persistent but not necessarily 

culminating stages (climax) in plant succession. Implies a high degree of resilience to minor 

perturbations. 

Stray: A domestic sheep or goat physically or temporally separated from its associated flock or 

band. 

Stream bank: Sides of the stream channel. 

Stream channel: Long trough-like depression that is normally occupied by the water in a 

stream. 

Stream discharge: A river or stream‟s rate of flow over a particular period of time. Usually 

measured and expressed in cubic feet per second. Stream discharge depends on the volume and 

velocity of the flow. 
Appendix B - Glossary 

B-17

Stream flow: The rate at which water travels in a river or stream channel. 

Stream substrate: The mineral and/or organic material that forms the bed of the stream. The 

composition of the streambed (substrate) is an important factor in understanding how a stream 

functions. It influences channel form and hydraulics, erosion rates, sediment supply, and 

habitat conditions for fish and other aquatic organisms. Simply put, steep mountain streams 

with beds of boulders and cobbles will act differently than low-gradient streams with beds of 

sand or silt. Therefore, measurement of every sample point should include a basic 

characterization of bed material. 

Stressor: A specific action or condition that causes an animal to experience stress and the 

subsequent physiological results of that stress. 

Structure: How the parts of ecosystems are arranged, both horizontally and vertically. 

Structure might reveal a pattern, or mosaic, or total randomness of vegetation. 

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, stream bank damage, and shrub browsing, as well as a direct 

measure of herbaceous plant defoliation. 

Substrate: Inorganic materials that comprises the bottom and banks of a watercourse. See 

stream substrate. 

Succession (plant): the gradual supplanting (replacement) of one community of plants by 

another in a particular ecosystem or landscape following a disturbance. 

Seral stage: Seral stages are described as early, mid, or late in relation to the potential natural 

community that would occur over a long period of time absent of disturbance. 

Suitability: The appropriateness if 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. 

Suitable habitat: Landscape that has all necessary habitat requirements to sustain a 

population through time. 

Summer range: Range that is grazed during the summer months. 

Temporal separation: Segregating animal populations over time to prevent contact, such that 

they may occupy the same physical space but at different times. 

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. 

Terrestrial: Living on land. 
Appendix B -Glossary 

B-18

Threatened and Endangered Species (TES): Species identified by the Secretary of Interior 

in accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act, as amended. 

Threatened species: Any plant or animal species likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a part of its range as designated by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service under the Endangered Species Act. See 

Endangered Species. 

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): The sum of the individual waste load allocations for 

point sources and load allocations for both nonpoint sources and natural background sources 

established at a level necessary to achieve compliance with applicable water quality standards 

[75-5-103(32) MCA]. In practice, TMDLs are water quality restoration targets for both point and 

nonpoint sources that are contained in a water quality restoration plan or in a permit. 

Trailing: The planned ambulatory movement of domestic sheep across a landscape or within a 

corridor to reach a destination where grazing or use will be allowed. 

Transmission (disease): The physical transfer (direct or indirect mechanisms) of a disease 

agent from one animal to another, either within an animal population or between animal 

populations. In some instances, transmission can lead to full expression of disease in individuals 

or populations. 

Trend: The direction of change in a plant community or a measured attribute of that plant 

community as observed over time. The change in direction could be in vegetation, ground cover, 

or noxious plants, non-native invasive plant species features over time. Most of the time trend 

should be described as "meeting", "moving toward", or "not meeting" a desired plant community. 

Unoccupied habitat: Suitable habitat in which an animal population does not currently exist. 

Unsatisfactory range condition: Unsatisfactory Range Condition exists when the desired 

condition is not being met and short term objectives are not being achieved to move the range 

toward the desired condition. 

Unsuitable habitat: Landscape that does not provide all necessary habitat requirements to 

sustain an animal population through time. 

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. 

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. 

Utilization standards: Standards established to guide the use and removal of forage and 

measured in terms of the percent of the plant that is removed. 

Vector: Literally 'a carrier'. An animal, vehicle, wind, water course, etc. carrying seeds of 

noxious weeds. 
Appendix B - Glossary 

B-19

Vegetation management: Activities designed primarily to promote the health of forested and 

non-forested vegetation for multiple-use purposes. 

Vegetation type: A plant community with distinguishable characteristics. 

Vegetation: Plants in general, or the sum total of the plant life above and below ground in an 

area. 

Vegetative: Relating to nutritive and growth functions of plant life, in contrast to reproductive 

functions. Should not be confused with vegetation. 

Viability: The demographic and genetic status of an animal population whereby long term 

persistence is likely. 

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. 

Water quality: The physical, biological and chemical components of stream or lake waters and 

the degree to which their combined characteristics support beneficial uses. 

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: Any unwanted or undesirable plant, whether grass, forb, shrub or tree. 

Wet meadow: A meadow where the surface remains wet or moist throughout the growing 

season, usually characterized by sedges and rushes. 

Wild ungulate: Hoofed animals such as deer, elk, moose, and big horn sheep 

Winter range: Range that is grazed during the winter months. 
Appendix C – Response to Comments 

C-2 

This page left blank intentionally 
Appendix C – Response to Comments

C-1

Appendix C. Response to Comments. 

A 45-day comment period for North End Sheep Allotment DEIS began when a Notice of 

Availability (NOA) was published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2011. Letters 

requesting comments from federal and state agencies, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla 

Indian Reservation (CTUIR), Nez Perce Indian Tribe, and interested individuals and 

organizations were sent out on January 31, 2011. A legal notice requesting comments was 

also published on February 15, 2011 in our newspaper of record, The East Oregonian. 

A total of 14 responses were received: one from the CTUIR; two from state agencies; two 

from federal agencies; two from environmental organizations; and seven from individuals. 

All correspondence received is kept in the project file and is available for review at the 

district office in Walla Walla, Washington. The following responses to comments were 

formed by the Interdisciplinary Team and the Deciding Official. 

Comment 1: 

I am opposed to sheep grazing as described in this EIS because:

the rates paid by permittees are too low;

sheep grazing destroys the lands used; and

the land would be better managed as bird and wildlife habitat.

FS Response: Thank you for your comment. A full range of alternatives, including the no 

grazing option, was evaluated in the DEIS.

Comment 2: 

The current permittee:

has grazed these lands with due diligence to all that have been raised that 

constitute honest and well cared for land;

paid a fortune to graze these public lands;

raised healthy free range meat that is a rare commodity these days;

contributed to providing the public with meat that is totally produced in the 

United States reducing our dependence on foreign countries for food;

helped sustain the American culture of ranchers and farmers who have passed 

their knowledge, pride, and passion for providing the highest quality food 

anywhere, down through generations, and;

successfully raised food animals with all the controls placed on food producers 

in the US, unlike food animals being raised in other countries.

This proposal is being driven by a desire to run the current permittee out of the state of 

Oregon. The Forest Service decision should not be driven by lobbyist groups that are 

trying to stop grazing. The Forest Service should allow the current permittee to 

continue to graze his current authorized number of animals.

FS Response: 

The EIS includes a full range of alternatives, including full livestock numbers. 

See pages 52-62 of the DEIS for the economic effects analysis.
Appendix C – Response to Comments 

C-2 

Comment 3: 

The issue of disease transfer from domestic sheep to wild bighorn sheep is a myth. This 

pseudo science is being pushed by advocacy groups. A recent genetically modified 

experiment indicated a buffer of only 30 feet was needed to prevent disease 

transmission. Of all the bighorn sheep die-offs last year, not one incident could be 

traced to domestic sheep. The lack of genetic diversity, predation, mineral deficiency, 

and bad weather on any scale, would be percentage wise, a far greater risk to bighorn 

sheep populations than the potential interaction with domestic sheep.

FS Response: 

Page 35 of the DEIS has a summary of the best and most recent science regarding 

bighorn sheep disease.

Comment 4:

This EIS is being driven by the Forest Service desire to be „politically correct‟. This 

project will contribute to reduce the amount of food animals produced in the US, 

adding to actions taking place in other countries that are leading to the very real 

possibility of a global food shortage which is a direct result of the reductions in 

American agriculture. 

FS Response: Thank you for your comment

Comment 5: 

Using statements such as: "Contact between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep would 

likely be detrimental to the health of the bighorn sheep herd, and could result in 

substantial population declines" falsely suggests a premise that is not supported by 

factual science, and merely serves to exacerbate the problem of half baked assumptions 

based on the politics of anti-agriculture. STRESS, from human interaction, however, 

is a proven detriment and DOES result in population declines. Hunting absolutely 

results in population declines if you want to be totally factual.

FS Response: 

Page 35 of the DEIS has a summary of the best and most recent science regarding 

bighorn sheep disease.

Comment 6: 

Reducing the number of sheep allowed on this allotment constitutes a “Taking” by the 

federal government. This EIS is a ploy of the self destructive US Government to put its 

own citizens and own future well being in the tank like it‟s done to so many other vital 

parts of our economy. The Forest Service should justly compensate the permittee for 

their loss of ranching base and allow them to move to an area where there are no 

bighorn sheep.

FS Response: The DEIS includes a full range of alternatives, including full numbers of 

livestock.
Appendix C – Response to Comments

C-3

Comment 7: 

Sheep were originally brought into this area to reduce the bush (which they did), which 

in turn helped reduce fires and enhance tree growth of the timber. Sheep grazing in 

this area has had no adverse impacts to the forest or to wildlife. It is not the 

permittee‟s fault that wild stock (bighorn sheep) are drifting into the area where the 

permittee has grazed his sheep, then accuse the domestic sheep of transferring a disease 

that is found in other wild stock.

FS Response: Thank you for your comment.

Comment 8: 

There have been plenty of bighorn die-offs in Canada and there no domestic sheep 

within a 1000 miles of the bighorns to blame it on.

FS Response: 

Page 35 of the DEIS has a summary of the best and most recent science regarding 

bighorn sheep disease.

Comment 9: I do not support a reduction in the size of the North End Allotment.

FS Response: Thank you for your comment. The DEIS includes a full range of 

alternatives, including full numbers of livestock.

Comment 10: 

Given the county and country-wide economic conditions, this is not the time to take 

land out of production in favor of protecting the non-harvestable bighorn sheep. It is 

our understanding that economic recovery is the number ONE priority of this country 

and its tax-paying citizens. Reducing the amount of grazing as proposed in this EIS, is 

one more small action, for a small “risk”, which is cumulatively contributing to the 

possibility of economic disaster to the agriculture industry which puts food in people‟s 

mouths.

FS Response: Pages 52-62 of the DEIS contain an analysis of effects to economic factors.

Comment 11: 

Establishment of a northern buffer zone when there is not an effective barrier will not 

work because it does not provide exclusive containment for the bighorn sheep. Your 

DEIS itself indicates there was only ONE TIME when a domestic sheep wandered 

away from the Lookingglass area into bighorn sheep territory (referring to a report 

from 2002, nearly ten years ago!) That certainly seems like a very small risk of 

“contamination!” Unless there is total seclusion of the bighorn sheep there will always 

be some risk! Barring that, it seems to us that approving Alternative One, establishing 

the new boundary and somewhat reducing the number of acres, is the best choice 

presented.
Appendix C – Response to Comments 

C-4 

FS Response: 

Pages 39-51 of the DEIS contain an analysis of separation effectiveness for each 

alternative. 

Comment 12: 

The Goodman area has not been utilized for approximately 30 years. Why not open up 

that area for grazing separately and allow a local citizen the opportunity to expand? 

There is a tremendous need in this area for additional acres to graze by local sheep 

producers!

FS Response: 

The Goodman area is being considered in this EIS in one alternative. This analysis is 

about environmental effects of grazing sheep on the North End Sheep Allotment, not 

about who does or does not hold the grazing permit for specific allotments or areas. 

Considering opening the Goodman area for other producers is outside the scope of this 

analysis.

Comment 13: 

All of the alternatives being considered appear to reward the current permittee who is 

not even actively utilizing the land.

FS Response: 

The existing permittee on the North End Allotment has met the eligibility 

requirements to hold a Term Grazing Permit. The permittee has not exceeded nonuse 

limitations. 

Comment 14: 

The best choice of all is to do nothing.

FS Response: 

Continuation of the grazing management as described in the 1986 Allotment 

Management Plan was discussed in „Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in 

Detail‟ on page 33 of the DEIS.

Comment 15: 

We support your choice of Alternative 4 as the preferred alternative. We believe that 

this alternative provides the best chance, short of complete elimination of domestic 

sheep and goat grazing, for establishment and maintenance of viable bighorn sheep 

populations within all suitable habitats in the Walla Walla District. 

FS Response: Thank you for your comment. 
Appendix C – Response to Comments

C-5

Comment 16: 

We are still concerned with the sufficiency of some of the management requirements. 

Specifically, in Chapter 2: Alternatives - Management Requirements (page 19&20), 

stray management calls for the counting of sheep onto and off of the allotment but 

provides no mechanism to determine if sheep are missing from the flock during the 

grazing period. This would appear to render the requirement to notify the Forest 

Service of missing animals within 24 hours of detection of limited value in assuring 

separation from big horns.

The requirements to mark sheep should be more specifically prescribed to permit an 

evaluation of the ease of determining ownership, e.g., “Marking should be easily 

interpreted at a distance of XX yards and have a low probability of becoming ineffective 

during the grazing season due to inadvertent removal, fading or other loss of 

definition”. Additionally, there is no specific reference to a requirement to mark and 

enumerate lambs born during the grazing season

FS Response: 

The primary means for bighorn sheep protection is the distance between the allotment 

and the bighorn herd. Some flexibility was allowed regarding the methods used to 

meet some of the management requirements, such that the EIS does not restrict to 

one method. If monitoring indicates that objectives for bighorn sheep protection are 

not being met, the Annual Operating Instructions can be modified at any time in 

order to better meet the requirements. Although not specifically mentioned, any 

lambs born on the allotment do fall within the marking requirements. This occurrence 

would be extremely rare. 

Comment 17: 

We urge that more be done to reduce conflicts (disease transmission and forage 

competition) between domestic sheep and Rocky Mountain Bighorn sheep.

FS Response: 

Thank you for your comment. A full range of alternatives, including the no grazing 

option, was evaluated in the DEIS.

Comment 18: 

Contact between sheep and wolves can lead to mortality of threatened wolves. Given 

that wolves are in NE Oregon and highly likely to expand, we urge that more be done 

to reduce potential conflicts between livestock and wolves, and between livestock and 

wolf prey. Wolves are just getting established in Oregon and we need to make room for 

them to recover without setting up livestock conflicts that could easily lead to lethal 

control of wolves.

Wolf populations are highly mobile and rapidly expanding so the need for separation 

is even greater than for sheep, but the DEIS did not address the issue appropriately in 

terms of suitability. The applicable Forest Service policy requires that suitability 

analysis consider the suitability for livestock grazing in light of the needs of wildlife. 

The potential for conflicts between domestic and bighorn sheep and between wolf and 
Appendix C – Response to Comments 

C-6 

livestock has direct bearing on the "suitability" determination, but the DEIS analysis 

did not conduct such an analysis. The DEIS analysis indicated that unsuitable lands 

are mostly campgrounds. If the FS is trying to separate the domestic sheep from where 

the wild bighorns are, doesn't that clearly indicate that areas occupied by bighorn are 

unsuitable? 

FS Response: 

The suitability of lands for livestock grazing was analyzed in the FEIS for the 

Umatilla Forest Plan in 1990, and will be reassessed in the forest plan revision that 

is currently underway. Under the 1982 Planning Rule, grazing suitability in part 

refers to providing habitat for Management Indicator Species (MIS). MIS fish and 

wildlife species are addressed in Chapter 3 of the DEIS. 

The section addressing gray wolves has been updated in Chapter 3 of the FEIS to 

reflect the changed status of wolves from „Endangered‟ to „Sensitive.‟ Wolves have 

thrived and expanded their range in the Rocky Mountains in the midst of a variety of 

management and human activities, including domestic sheep grazing. Fladry, 

penning, RAG boxes, and guard dogs have been used successfully to reduce 

depredation by wolves. In contrast, no management practices have been proven to 

keep domestic sheep and bighorn sheep apart. 

Comment 19: 

The EIS analysis of roadless area impacts is incomplete. Roadless areas are important 

not just for recreation but also because they offer disproportionate ecological values in 

terms of water quality, weed-free plant communities, big game security, dead wood 

habitat, etc. The FEIS should discuss the effects of livestock grazing on reducing these 

significant ecological values. For instance, wolves should find better habitat, more 

prey, and less conflicts in unroaded areas without livestock, but if there are sheep in 

those areas, then the wolves could get in trouble and may be killed.

FS Response: 

The analysis of effects for all resources included those lands within roadless and 

wilderness areas. In Alternative 4, roadless acres make up only 7% of the allotment, 

and within that only the gentle slopes and ridges, etc, would be grazed. See page 129 

and Table 31 in DEIS. Also, Chapter 3 of the FEIS was updated to reflect the 

changed status of wolves from „Endangered‟ to „Sensitive.‟ 

Comment 20: 

We support the Forest Service's Preferred Alternative--Alternative 4. 

We believe the Forest Service carefully assessed the potential impacts of continued 

domestic sheep grazing in this area to the current bighorn population. We are also 

very pleased to see the agency looking forward to protecting currently unoccupied, but 

crucial, bighorn habitat in the South Fork Walla Walla River area. This is a critical 

step in the conservation of this iconic species in the region. 

The management changes set forth in Alternative 4 will not only greatly benefit 
Appendix C – Response to Comments

C-7

bighorn sheep, but many other species and forest resources, will benefit as well. The 

reduction in stocking rates (from 3,952 to 2,000 ewe/lamb pairs) and the acreage 

allocated to livestock grazing (from 132,000 to 52,600 acres) will benefit soil health, 

native plants, riparian habitat and aquatic species. 

FS Response: Thank you for your comment.

Comment 21: 

Eliminating livestock grazing from the North Fork Umatilla wilderness and 

significantly reducing grazing in adjacent roadless areas will greatly enhance the 

value of this intact habitat to serve as an undisturbed linkage area for wide-ranging 

species sensitive to human disturbance, such as wolves, lynx and wolverine. 

The recreational benefits that would flow from the elimination of domestic livestock 

grazing in wilderness and other pristine backcountry areas are also far-reaching. 

Besides its inherent value, livestock-free and fence-free wildlife habitat enhances 

opportunities for ecological services and recreational uses. There is rising demand for 

outdoor recreation on our public lands. As a recently released report emphatically 

illustrates, the economic contribution of recreationists to the national economy is 

staggering in the United States today.

From birdwatchers to mountain bikers, outdoor enthusiasts bring in almost $300 

billion in annual retail sales, and contribute more than twice that to the United States 

economy. Outdoor recreationists spend $46 billion a year on the gear they need to 

recreate in the American woods, rivers, and slopes. They spend five times that much-

$243 billion--on the food, lodging, entertainment, and transportation they require 

along the way. In all, active outdoor recreation pumps $730 billion annually into the 

United States economy. The recreation industry supports about 6.5 million jobs, and 

associated annual tax revenues add up to $88 billion a year. Wildlife viewing is 

currently the most common outdoor activity, with birding alone attracting 66 million 

people last year. While the proposed reductions will undoubtedly have a negative 

economic impact on the individual permittee's operations, the public at large will be 

greatly served. 

Thank you again for this thorough assessment. We strongly encourage the adoption of 

Alternative 4 and appreciate the opportunity to participate in this planning process 

and for your review of these comments.

FS Response: Thank you for your comment. 
Appendix C – Response to Comments 

C-8 

Comment 22: 

We support the preferred Alternative 4, as it provides the most protection for Rocky 

Mountain bighorn sheep and unoccupied wild sheep habitat. While we would have 

preferred Highway 204 as the Northeast boundary (eliminating the Spout Springs 

allotment), Alternative 4 provides a larger buffer between Wenaha bighorns and 

domestic sheep than any of the other alternatives.

FS Response: 

Thank you for your comment. Highway 204 as a potential boundary was considered 

but eliminated from detailed study (DEIS page 33).

Comment 23: 

Under most circumstances a water use authorization is needed from the Oregon Water 

Resources Department (OWRD) prior to building any structure to divert, use, or store 

water. Where the Forest Service is considering developing new water sources, it may 

be desirable to work through the details prior to selection of one of your alternatives in 

your Draft EIS.

FS Response: 

Thank you for your comments. Water source development is not included as a 

proposed action in this document.

Comment 24: 

EPA supports the reduction in grazing to protect bighorn sheep range from risk of 

disease; however, we are concerned with the inherent level of risk if interaction occurs. 

The EIS is very clear about the risk of disease spread and impacts to bighorn sheep

and defines effective separation as “spatial and/or temporal separation between wild 

sheep and domestic sheep or goats, resulting in (at most) a minimal risk of potential 

respiratory disease transmission.” We support measures to effectively separate species 

and the proposed management measures appear to ensure this. 

FS Response: Thank you for your comment. 

Comment 25: 

Monitoring, successful implementation of management measures and adaptive 

management/further reduced grazing if necessary are critical to maintain bighorn 

sheep viability. Monitoring is a key component in determining whether or not 

management strategies are effective and also in determining the accuracy of modeling. 

We appreciation the inclusion of management requirements and we recommend that 

the EIS also include information on a proposed monitoring plan, including how 

monitoring will be funded, who will conduct monitoring, how often, and how results 

will be used to adapt management strategies.
Appendix C – Response to Comments

C-9

FS Response: 

A monitoring plan is not considered necessary because bighorn sheep are continually 

monitored by ODFW, and range conditions and management are continually 

monitored by Forest Service staff. A detection protocol and communication plan is in 

place (see DEIS page 40 paragraph 6).

Comment 26: 

The EIS did not include water quality as a key concern due to requirements currently 

in place to protect water quality. The section on water quality states that the State of 

Oregon has developed Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the Upper Grande 

Ronde Subbasin, Umatilla subbasin, and the Walla Walla subbasin. However, the 

parameters that these subbasins are listed for and detail on individual streams are 

not included. The EIS also states that the allotment boundaries do not include any 

water temperature or sediment water quality impaired streams. The EIS should 

further discuss the TMDL parameters and load allocations in the project area. 

FS Response: This information is provided below:

Subbasin TMDL Load Allocation

Umatilla

Water Temperature No anthropogenic related increase

Sediment 30 NTU and TSS=80 mg/L

pH, aquatic weeds, algae No anthropogenic related increase in 

water temperature 

Upper Grande 

Ronde

Water Temperature No anthropogenic related increase

Sediment 30 NTU and TSS = 80 mg/L 

pH, related to agriculture None on Umatilla NF

DO, related to agriculture None on Umatilla NF 

Walla Walla Water Temperature No anthropogenic related increase

Oregon DEQ database refers to 303d category 5 streams as „delisted‟ at the 

completion of relevant TMDLs. Within the allotment, no streams are currently listed. 

Stream segments within allotment boundaries which have been delisted based on 

TMDL completing follow:

South Fork Walla Walla River, summer temperature, 100 C, bull trout

North Fork Walla Walla River, summer temperature, 100 C, bull trout

Little Lookingglass Creek, summer temperature, 100 C, bull trout

Little Lookingglass Creek, sedimentation

Lookingglass Creek, lower 7 miles, coming just onto National Forest, summer 

temperature, 100 C, bull trout
Appendix C – Response to Comments 

C-10

Comment 27: 

The EIS discusses best management practices (BMPs) to protect water quality and 

aquatic habitat and included Figure 17 which illustrates the stream network and 

critical habitat for steelhead and bull trout. We support the BMPs and timing 

restriction of when stream crossing by domestic sheep are allowed. We recommend 

that the EIS also include a figure illustrating which streams are impaired in the 

watershed with an overlay of allotment boundaries to better understand the potential 

impacts from grazing on water quality in the project area.

FS Response: 

All ODEQ 303d category 5 listed steams are outside the allotment boundary. Issues 

of scale (three subbasins) prevent a figure with the allotment boundary and 303d 

listed streams from being readable. 

Comment 28: 

The EIS includes a “no grazing” alternative (Alternative 5) and states that this is the 

no action alternative analyzed as required by the Council of Environmental Quality 

and per USDA Forest Service Handbook. The no action alternative can also be 

interpreted as no change in current management per CEQ‟s “NEPA‟s Forty Most 

Asked Questions.” The EIS does not appear to discuss current management and 

allotment boundaries other than to discuss the history of grazing in the region. 

Because Alternative 5 is based on no grazing, we are unclear what the implications of 

current management are and are not able to understand how the alternatives compare 

to what has occurred in the Forest and how alternatives would affect current issues 

and impacts. The EIS should provide more detail regarding current management 

and consider including an alternative that analyzes this and contrasts it with the 

proposed alternative so that the environmentally preferable alternative can be 

identified in the final EIS.

FS Response: 

Alternative 1 reflects the allotment boundary used since 2008. The 1986 allotment 

configuration does not meet the stated Purpose and Need, and therefore was 

eliminated from detailed study (DEIS page 33). However, in many sections of the 

DEIS, information about the 1986 allotment configuration is used to compare and 

contrast the alternatives. Examples are DEIS Tables 12 through 15, Table 24, 

Figure 16, and statements for water quality, fish, and wildlife. 
Appendix D – Letters 

D-1

Appendix D. Letters received from Federal, State, and local agencies, and 

elected officials. 

As required by the Forest Service Handbook 24.1, a copy of letters from agencies and 

elected officials are provided on the following pages. 
Department of Fish and Wildlife

Enterprise Field Office

65495 Alder Slope Rd

Enterprise, Oregon 97828

(541) 426-3279

FAX (541) 426-3055

www.dfw.state.or.us/

Holly Harris, Team Leader 

Walla Walla Ranger District 

Umatilla National Forest 

1415 West Rose Street 

Walla Walla, Washington 99362 March 28, 2011 

Dear Holly, 

This letter is written to provide comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement 

for the North End Sheep Allotment. 

We support the preferred Alternative 4, as it provides the most protection for Rocky 

Mountain bighorn sheep and unoccupied wild sheep habitat. While we would have 

preferred Highway 204 as the Northeast boundary (eliminating the Spout Springs 

allotment), Alternative 4 provides a larger buffer between Wenaha bighorns and domestic 

sheep than any of the other alternatives. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

Respectfully, 

/S/ Vic Coggins 

Vic Coggins 

Wallowa Wildlife District 

65495 Alder Slope Rd 

Enterprise, Or 97828 

(541)426-3279 

Fax (541)426-3055 

Cc: Bruce Eddy 

 Mark Henjum 

Oregon

John A Kitzhaber, MD., Governor



Treaty June 9, 1855 ~ Cayuse, Umatilla and Walla Walla Tribes 

Confederated Tribes of the

Umatilla Indian Reservation 

Department of Natural Resources 

46411 Timíne Way 

Pendleton, OR 97801 

www.ctuir.org michellethompson@ctuir.org

Phone 541-429-7221 Fax: 541-429-7221 

March 23, 2011 

Michael Rassbach 

Walla Walla District Ranger 

Umatilla National Forest 

1415 West Rose 

Walla Walla, WA 99362 

Dear Mr. Rassbach: 

The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) Department of Natural 

Resources (DNR) have reviewed the North End Allotment Draft EIS Analysis (February 25, 2011). We support 

your choice of Alternative 4 as the preferred alternative. We believe that this alternative provides the best 

chance, short of complete elimination of domestic sheep and goat grazing, for establishment and maintenance of 

viable bighorn sheep populations within all suitable habitats in the Walla Walla District. However, we are still 

concerned with the sufficiency of some of the management requirements. 

Specifically, in Chapter 2: Alternatives- Management Requirements (page 19&20), stray management calls for 

the counting of sheep onto and off of the allotment but provides no mechanism to determine if sheep are 

missing from the flock during the grazing period. This would appear to render the requirement to notify the 

Forest Service of missing animals within 24 hours of detection of limited value in assuring separation from big 

horns. 

The requirements to mark sheep should be more specifically prescribed to permit an evaluation of the ease of 

determining ownership, e.g., “Marking should be easily interpreted at a distance of XX yards and have a low 

probability of becoming ineffective during the grazing season due to inadvertent removal, fading or other loss 

of definition”. Additionally, there is no specific reference to a requirement to mark and enumerate lambs born 

during the grazing season 

Again, we thank you for your consistent, close coordination with our staff on this project. Please continue to 

contact Carl Scheeler, Wildlife Program Manager within CTUIR DNR if you have questions regarding our 

comments. 

Sincerely, 

Eric Quaempts, Director, 

Department of Natural Resources