Record of Decision

ROD - 1

Record of Decision

Introduction

This Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision and rationale for the selection of 

Alternative 3 Modified from the Joseph Creek Rangeland Analysis (JCRA) Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

Decision

As Wallowa-Valley District Ranger, I have decided to authorize livestock grazing on eleven 

livestock allotments within the 95,555-acre Joseph Creek Rangeland Analysis Area

(JCRAA) as described in Alternative 3 Modified of the Joseph Creek Rangeland Analysis 

Final Environmental Impact Statement. The eleven allotments are Al-Cunningham, 

Cougar Creek, Crow Creek, Davis Creek, Dobbins, Elk Mountain, Fine, Hunting

Camp/Table Mountain, Joseph Creek, and Swamp Creek Allotments. Refer to Figure 1 for 

a vicinity map. A detailed description of Alternative 3 Modified and its accompanying

mitigation and monitoring measures are contained in Chapter 2 of the FEIS, Pages 31 to 46 

and 66 to 74.

Purpose and Need

The Wallowa-Valley District Ranger has identified a purpose and need for forage allocation 

for commercial livestock grazing. The purpose and need for action is based on the premise 

that livestock forage production is to be offered where forage is in excess to basic plant and 

soil needs, wildlife forage is available, and other specific resource conditions are achieved or 

maintained (Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan,

Page 4-3). This plan, referred to as the Forest Plan, recognizes that the local livestock

industry desires to maintain and increase National Forest grazing which coincides with

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act (RPA) projections of increases in National 

population and total demand for beef (Forest Plan, Page 2-10). However, the Forest Plan 

also notes the complications that are involved regarding livestock effects on streamside

damage to soil, vegetation and water quality, and the cost of improvements needed to

alleviate these effects (Page 2-10).

The purpose and need is represented by the difference between the area’s desired and

existing conditions with respect to the management direction for the area.
Record of Decision

ROD - 2

CHUTE
Record of Decision

ROD - 3

Desired Condition

Basic rangeland, wildlife, and resource conditions are defined by the Forest Plan specific to 

each Management Area. The Joseph Creek Rangeland Planning Area contains Forest Plan 

allocations of Timber Emphasis (Management Area 1), Timber/Big Game Emphasis

(Management Area 3), Wild and Scenic Rivers (Management Area 7), Proposed Research

Natural Areas (Management Area 12), and Old Growth Emphasis (Management Area 15). 

Refer to Figure 1 for the location of these management areas. Desired range, wildlife, and 

resource conditions for each management area are described below.

For Management Areas 1 and 3, desired conditions are prescribed by the Forest Plan as 

‘satisfactory’ range conditions. In ecological terms, ‘satisfactory’ rangelands are those in

fair to good condition with static or upward trend. Satisfactory condition rangelands are 

assumed to be represented by mid to late-seral plant communities. Management Area 3 

distinguishes winter range for big game, which adds provisions that adequate forage be 

available for wintering big game. Desired riparian vegetation conditions within these

management areas are to be established by setting measurable objectives for key

parameters such as stream surface shade, streambank stability, and shrub cover (Forest

Plan, Page 4-54). Regional Forester Amendment #3, referred to as PacFish, established

streambank stability standards of at least 80 percent. Desired conditions for Swamp Creek 

are to reach shrub density and diversity conditions on the meadow segment similar to the 

lower canyon segment.

For Management Area 7, desired rangeland conditions are prescribed by the Forest Plan as 

those needed to protect or enhance the Outstandingly Remarkable Values for the Joseph 

Creek Wild and Scenic River. The Joseph Creek Wild and Scenic River Management Plan 

(Page 6) gives the following description for rangeland desired conditions.

“The desired future condition for this resource will consist of sustained

production of both palatable and non-palatable species for grazing by

livestock and dependent wildlife. The areas will remain ecologically diverse 

and provide excellent winter browse for big game species. The variety of

grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees will be more representative of the natural

community at the time of Euro-American settlement. On the grasslands,

native bunchgrass communities will predominate, browse species such as

ocean spray, snowberry, ninebark, and serviceberry will predominate. 

Riparian habitat will improve and approximate the natural potential of each 

site and contain dense stands of willow with a fair component of black

cottonwood and aspen. Recreational/grazing conflicts and livestock presence 

in riparian zone, however few, will be reduced. Recreationists, from late fall 

to spring, will encounter evidence of cattle on the trails, and the physical

presence of livestock, but this will be less than in the past.”

For Management Area 12, desired conditions are prescribed by the Forest Plan as those 

needed to preserve options for future establishment of Research Natural Areas (RNA). The 

potential Horse Pasture Ridge RNA and the Haystack Rock RNA comprise the area

allocated to Management Area 12 within the JCRAA. Both areas were identified as
Record of Decision

ROD - 4

potential RNAs for their representation of native bunchgrass communities. In ecological

terms, the desired condition for the potential RNAs is for maintenance of late-seral plant 

communities.

For Management Area 15, desired conditions are not addressed, as rangeland forage

presence in designated old growth stands is considered incidental and transitory due to

competition with the conifer overstory.

Existing Condition

Existing conditions can be described in the context of two scenarios: as if no livestock

grazing occurred, or if the current grazing regime continued. Because the existing range 

condition developed from a grazing history that predates the National Environmental

Policy Act and in some cases pre-dates establishment of the National Forest, existing

conditions are described here under the scenario of current grazing as influenced by

historical grazing. Further information regarding range conditions is provided in Chapter 3 

of this analysis.

Range conditions were evaluated for each of the 65 pastures of the Joseph Creek Rangeland 

Planning Area. All except for 4 pastures were found to have ‘satisfactory’ range condition. 

A description of range conditions by Management Area follows.

For pastures primarily within Management Area 1, range conditions are ‘satisfactory’ with 

the exception of the Bennett and Upper Swamp pastures of the Swamp Creek Allotment

and the Bennett pasture of the Davis Creek Allotment. Portions of the riparian areas in

these pastures are in an early seral stage, although in an upward trend. Swamp Creek has 

been altered through a history of railroad logging, homesteading, road construction, and

grazing. The 8.5-mile segment referred to as the Meadow Segment was recently acquired 

through a land exchange. In this segment, shrub species diversity and quantity are lacking 

and some streambank reaches are unstable. Much of the herbaceous plants include nonnative seeded grasses such as timothy, orchard, and brome. Although beaver occur

downstream, they are not found in the Meadow Segment, probably because the food source 

is limited. The stream system supports steelhead, and the meadow supports a variety of 

wildlife.

Range conditions for pastures primarily within Management Area 3 are ‘satisfactory’ with 

the exception of the Sumac Pasture of the Cougar Creek Allotment. Condition and Trend 

monitoring for this pasture indicates that areas are in an early seral stage as indicated by a 

substantial drop in native perennial grasses such as bluebunch wheatgrass and Sandberg’s 

bluegrass.

Management Area 3 emphasizes big-game winter range. Under the current grazing

system, big-game winter range has been adequate, according to Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife biologists. Current Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer populations are below 

Management Objectives, however. The decline in big-game populations can be attributed to 

factors such as open road densities, lack of hiding cover, hunting pressure, and predation. 
Record of Decision

ROD - 5

If deer and elk populations were to increase to Management Objectives, additional forage 

may be needed than currently available at the end of the livestock grazing period.

For areas within Management Area 7, range conditions in the Joseph Creek Wild and

Scenic River corridor are ‘satisfactory’ with isolated small areas of ‘unsatisfactory’ range 

condition. The ‘unsatisfactory’ condition is evident where annual non-native plant species 

such as cheat grass and introduced grass species exist as a relic of homesteading in this 

area before establishment of the National Forest. Riparian shrubs are present along

Joseph Creek and its tributaries at a density and species diversity that would occur

naturally. This condition is assumed to occur when utilization of shrubs by livestock and

big game is less than 20 percent.

For areas within Management Area 12, range conditions in the proposed Research Natural 

Areas are in a good to excellent ecological condition, and a static to upward trend. These 

areas are represented by late-seral plant communities.

For areas within Management Area 15, the existing range condition is mixed because the 

conifer overstory generally precludes sustainable rangeland.

Refer to Chapter 3, Rangeland Resources in the FEIS, for further description of existing

range conditions.

Public Involvement

Scoping

Public scoping for the JCRA was initiated in January 1999 with the project's inclusion on 

the January Schedule of Proposed Actions mailed from the Wallowa Mountains Office in

Enterprise, Oregon. Also in January 1999, a project information letter was mailed to over 

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

organizations included grazing permittees, State and Federal resource management

agencies, and other special interest organizations. A Notice of Intent to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register on February 18, 

1999.

Contacts were made with employees of the Nez Perce Tribe and Confederated Tribes of the 

Umatilla. An office meeting was held in October 2002 with fisheries/environmental policy 

representatives of the Nez Perce Tribe, and follow-up meetings were held throughout the 

process thereafter. A field review was conducted with fisheries/environmental policy

employees from the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla in October 2002.

The permittees holding grazing permits on the allotments analyzed in this EIS were

included throughout the process. The permittees provided input for alternatives and sitespecific development proposals for their respective allotments.

Coordination with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife was conducted for this proposal 

through two September 2003 meetings and several telephone conversations.
Record of Decision

ROD - 6

These scoping efforts generated responses from 19 agencies, organizations, tribes, or

individuals. Responses are documented in 15 letters, as well as several e-mails, telephone 

conversation records, and meeting notes.

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

made between the Interdisciplinary Team and those who submitted comments. Much of 

the correspondence focused on what information should be provided in the EIS. 

Information obtained from the scoping process is contained in the JCRA analysis file.

Some respondents expressed concerns about how grazing management might affect

specially designated areas, such as the Joseph Creek Wild and Scenic River, and potential 

Research Natural Areas. Key Issues 1, 2, and 3 were developed to respond to these

concerns. Concerns about water quality and fisheries habitat were expressed, particularly 

in Swamp Creek. Key Issue 2 responds to those concerns. Range health and potential

conflicts between livestock management and listed plant species were mentioned by some 

respondents. Key Issue 4 was developed to respond to those concerns. Several livestock 

grazing permittees expressed concerns about how increasing constraints on their operations 

sometimes inhibit their ability to manage the range resource effectively. Key Issue 5 was 

developed to address these concerns. Key Issue 5 also addresses concerns raised by the Nez 

Perce Tribe about flexibility in grazing systems if the tribe should assert treaty rights

related to pasturing of cattle or horses within these allotments. Consultation with Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists about big-game use of the analysis area resulted 

in few concerns with the current grazing program. However, the biologists emphasized the 

need to maintain big-game winter range in key locations, even in drought years. Key Issue 

6 was developed to address this concern. Several respondents stressed the need to design 

grazing systems that provide for long-term rangeland health. Key Issue 7 was developed to 

address this concern.

Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement

A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) which responded to the 7 key issues was 

circulated to all participants in the scoping process, along with the various agencies offered 

opportunity for review. The Notice of Availability of a DEIS was published in the Federal 

Register on September 24, 2004.

A total of 7 letters and 7 e-mails were received in response to the DEIS. These comments 

were reviewed and addressed by the interdisciplinary team. Refer to Appendix B of the 

FEIS for individual comments and responses.

Consultation with Indian Tribes

Consultation with the Nez Perce Tribe and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 

Reservation (CTUIR) was completed through a series of field and office meetings. A field 

meeting with staff members for the CTUIR was held in October 2002. A November 2002 

letter from the CTUIR Department of Natural Resources director was then received. This 
Record of Decision

ROD - 7

letter was addressed throughout the DEIS. Appendix A of the FEIS lists how the

comments in the letter were addressed. Although a letter inviting comment on the DEIS 

was sent to the department director in October 2003, along with a copy of the DEIS in 

September 2004, no further comments were received.

Several meetings were held and telephone calls exchanged with staff members for the Nez 

Perce Tribe starting in 2002 and continuing to the present (refer to the analysis file for a 

record of these contacts). A letter inviting comment on the Draft EIS was sent to the Chair 

of the Natural Resources Subcommittee for the Nez Perce Tribe on November 17, 2003, and 

a copy of the DEIS was then sent in September 2004. The Nez Perce Tribe Executive

Committee sent a letter dated October 26, 2004 which contained a detailed response to

information in the DEIS. Meetings between tribal and agency staff members continued

after the October 26, 2004 letter to clarify concerns and suggest approaches for resolving 

concerns. A letter that confirmed the agency’s interest in and approach to responding to 

the committee’s letter was sent to the Executive Committee on April 6, 2005. Refer to

Appendix B of the FEIS for specific comments on the DEIS and how the agency responded 

to each comment in the FEIS. An update on the status of the JCRA was presented by the 

District Ranger and Forest Supervisor at an August 16, 2005 Executive Committee meeting 

and a September 20, 2005 Natural Resources Subcommittee Meeting.

Issues

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

monitoring were identified and categorized as ‘Key Issues’. An issue tracking sheet in

Appendix A of the FEIS lists other issues considered by the team and either addressed in 

the analysis or considered outside the scope of this analysis. The following seven key issues 

and their indicators for measurement were developed from comments on the proposal.

Key Issue 1 - Authorizing livestock grazing within the Joseph Creek Wild and Scenic River 

may degrade water quality to the point that the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of ‘Fish 

and Water Quality’ and ‘Wildlife’ are neither protected nor enhanced.

• Percent streambank stability in 10 years

• Increases in average maximum summer water temperature in 10 years

• Increases in percent cobble embeddedness in 10 years

• Decreases in percent stream shade in 10 years

• Allowable shrub utilization in the Wild and Scenic River Corridor

• Allowable forage utilization in the Wild and Scenic River Corridor

Key Issue 2 - Authorizing livestock grazing along Swamp Creek may degrade water quality 

before it reaches the Wild and Scenic River so that the Outstandingly Remarkable Value of 

‘Fish and Water Quality’ is neither protected nor enhanced.

• Allowable shrub utilization in the Meadow Segment of Swamp Creek

• Anticipated streambank stability along the Meadow Segment of Swamp Creek in

five to ten years
Record of Decision

ROD - 8

Key Issue 3 - Authorizing livestock grazing as proposed may not preserve options for

establishing Research Natural Areas for the Haystack Rock and Horse Pasture Ridge

potential Research Natural Areas.

• Area within the Haystack Rock potential RNA where late-seral plant communities 

are maintained.

• Area within the Horse Pasture Ridge potential RNA where late-seral plant

communities are maintained.

Key Issue 4 - Authorizing livestock grazing within the Tommy’s Ridge and Fire Ridge areas 

as proposed may or may not adequately protect a Threatened plant, Spalding’s catchfly, 

from livestock trampling and habitat alteration. It may or may not adequately protect

unknown Spalding’s catchfly occurrences in uninventoried portions of the analysis area.

• Uninventoried Spalding’s catchfly risk areas subjected to livestock grazing impacts 

after 3 years

• Acres of risk areas that would be inventoried for the presence of Spalding’s catchfly 

within 3 years.

Key Issue 5 - Authorizing livestock grazing as proposed throughout the Joseph Creek

Rangeland Analysis Area may not be adaptive enough to allow a timely or effective

response to changing conditions.

• Minimum area for which season of use is defined

• Can tribal treaty rights for pasturing of horses be asserted without initiating a new 

proposal under NEPA?

Key Issue 6 - Authorizing fall livestock grazing in areas designated as big-game winter

range may not provide enough winter range for over-wintering big game.

• Percent plant material retained at the end of fall grazing in areas designated as biggame winter range (Management Area 3)

Key Issue 7 - Grazing as proposed for the JCRAA may not adequately provide for long-term 

range health in the 4 pastures which were identified as having areas with early seral stage 

plant communities.

• Predominant seral stage of plant communities within 10 to 20 years in the Sumac 

Pasture of the Cougar Allotment

• Allowable shrub utilization in the Meadow Segment of Swamp Creek
Record of Decision

ROD - 9

Alternatives Considered in Detail

A total of six alternatives were considered by the interdisciplinary team. Alternative 1, no 

grazing; Alternative 2, current management and Proposed Action; Alternative 3 Modified, 

and Alternative 4 were analyzed in detail in the FEIS. Alternative 3 from the DEIS was 

dropped from analysis in the FEIS. A sixth alternative was not analyzed in detail.

Alternative 1 - No Action

Alternative 1 represents the ‘no grazing’ alternative. Under this alternative, all Term

Grazing Permits would be canceled upon implementation of the decision and resolution of 

the appeals process. No permits would be issued for the eleven affected allotments.

For a more detailed description of Alternative 1 refer to Page 18 of the FEIS.

Alternative 2 - The Proposed Action

Alternative 2 represents continuation of the current grazing systems and is the Proposed 

Action. The 11 allotments and their associated pastures would be stocked at the same level 

that is currently authorized. Permits would be issued to continue the current grazing

system.

For a more detailed description of Alternative 2 refer to Pages 18-30 and 63-64 of the FEIS.

Alternative 3 Modified

Alternative 3 Modified was developed with acknowledgement that changes will occur in

resource conditions, issues, and agency direction throughout time. This alternative

incorporates adaptive management techniques to address those changes. Potential changes 

that this alternative may respond to include wildfire, drought, ranching operational

changes, ecological conditions, Federal listing of additional species under the Endangered 

Species Act, Forest Plan revision, and possible execution of Tribal treaty rights. 

Alternative 3 is the ‘preferred alternative’. The 11 allotments would be stocked at the same 

level as Alternative 2. Stocking of individual pastures within the 11 allotments would be 

determined by resource conditions rather than recent stocking levels. Modifications to the 

alternative were made in response to comments received during the public review period 

related to steelhead habitat, big-game winter range, Spalding’s catchfly protections, and

stocking of the Swamp Creek Allotment.

For a more detailed description of Alternative 3 Modified refer to Pages 31-46 and 63-64 of 

the FEIS.

Alternative 4
Record of Decision

ROD - 10

Alternative 4 was developed in response to comments received during the 45-day public 

review period of the DEIS. This alternative focuses on a different approach to riparian area 

management, Wild and Scenic River management, and botanical resources management as 

suggested by commenters on the DEIS. Alternative 4 is patterned after Alternative 2 in 

that it specifies stocking levels and grazing durations for each pasture of each allotment. 

Under Alternative 4, a specific prescription was made to reduce the presence of livestock 

grazing on fish-bearing streams to an incidental level. This would be accomplished through 

fencing, herding, and changing the periods in which livestock are permitted to graze.

For a more detailed description of Alternative 4 refer to Pages 47-64 of the FEIS.

Comparison of Alternatives

The following Tables 1 and 2 compare the alternatives.

Table 1 – Comparison of Alternatives

Features Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Modified Alternative 4

Need for Action Elements – Range Condition in 10 to 20 years

Sumac Pasture of the Cougar 

Creek Allotment Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory

Bennett Pasture of the Swamp 

Creek Alloment Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory

Upper Swamp Pasture of the 

Swamp Creek Allotment Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory

Bennett Pasture of the Davis 

Creek Allotment Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory

Authorization

Livestock Type None Cattle and 

Incidental Horse

Cattle and/or 

Horse

Cattle and/or 

Horse

Maximum Stocking (Animal Months)

Al-Cunningham 0 321 321 0

Cougar 0 2,702 2,702 2,702

Crow Creek 0 262 262 232

Davis Creek 0 631 631 631

Dobbins 0 378 378 378

Elk Mountain 0 179 179 179

Fine 0 253 253 253

Hunting Camp / Table 

Mountain 0 3,104 3,104 2,548

Joseph Creek 0 135 135 95

Swamp Creek 0 4,901 4,901 4,901

Total 0 12,866 12,866 11,919
Record of Decision

ROD - 11

Table 2 – Key Indicators by Alternative

Issue and Indicators Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Modified Alternative 4

Issue 1: Wild and Scenic River

• Percent streambank stability in 10 years

• Increases In average summer water temperature 

in 10 years

• Increases in % cobble embeddedness in 10 

years

• Decreases in % stream shade in 10 years

• Allowable shrub utilization in WSR Corridor (%)

• Allowable forage utilization in WSR Corridor (%)

95

0

0

0

wildlife only

wildlife only

95

0

0

0

30

55

95

0

0

0

20

50

95

0

0

0

incidental

incidental

Issue 2: Wild and Scenic River

• Allowable utilization of shrubs in the Meadow 

Segment of Swamp Creek (%)

• Streambank stability along the Meadow segment 

of Swamp Creek in five to ten years (%)

0

95

Up to 30

75 to 85

Determined by 

monitoring

85 to 95

Determined by 

monitoring

85 to 95

Issue 3 - Potential Research Natural Areas

• Area within the Horse Pasture Ridge potential 

RNA where late-seral plant communities are 

maintained

• Area within the Haystack Rock potential RNA 

where late-seral plant communities are 

maintained

250 acres

400 acres

250 acres

400 acres

250 acres

400 acres

250 acres

400 acres

Issue 4 – Spalding’s Catchfly

• Acres of uninventoried Spalding’s catchfly risk 

areas subjected to livestock grazing impacts after 3 

years

• Acres of additional risk areas that would be 

inventoried for the presence of Spalding’s catchfly 

within 3 years

0

0

7630

0

0 to 4740

2890 to 7630

0 to 4740

2890 to 7630

Issue 5 – Adaptive Management

• Minimum area for which season of use is defined

• Can tribal treaty rights for pasturing of cattle be 

asserted without initiating a new NEPA analysis?

• Can tribal treaty rights for pasturing of horses be 

asserted without initiating a new NEPA analysis?

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Pasture

Yes

No

Allotment

Yes

Yes

Pasture

Yes

Yes

Issue 6 – Big Game Winter Range

• Percent plant material retained at the end of fall 

grazing in designated big-game winter range

Wildlife use 

only 45 50 to 60 50 to 60

Issue 7 – Range Condition

• Predominant seral stage of plant communities 

within 10 to 20 years in the Sumac Pasture of the 

Cougar Allotment

• Allowable shrub utilization in the Meadow 

Segment of Swamp Creek (%)

Mid to Late

Wildlife use

Mid to Late

Less than 30

Mid to Late

Determined by 

monitoring

Mid to Late

Determined by 

monitoring
Record of Decision

ROD - 12

Rationale for the Decision

As the Responsible Official, it is my decision to select Alternative 3 Modified as described in 

the FEIS for the Joseph Creek Rangeland Analysis (Chapter 2, Pages 31–46, and 63-64), 

including the mitigation and monitoring requirements described in the FEIS (Chapter 2,

Pages 66-74). I selected this alternative after considering how it meets the purpose and

need for action, how it addresses the key issues, the trade-off of environmental effects

identified in the FEIS, and its responsiveness to public comments received on the DEIS.

Purpose of and Need for Action

I selected Alternative 3-Modified because it is the best alternative for meeting the purpose 

of and need for action. The purpose of and need for action is that livestock forage

production is to be offered where forage is in excess to basic plant and soil needs, where 

wildlife forage is available, and where other specific resource conditions are achieved or

maintained. This condition was defined for this analysis as maintaining satisfactory range 

conditions while allowing forage beyond basic plant and soil needs to be made available for 

wildlife and livestock. 

I selected Alternative 3-Modified because it provides for a level of livestock grazing that I 

believe will maintain satisfactory range conditions. Alternative 3 Modified authorizes the 

same stocking level as the current grazing systems. As shown on Pages 82-88 of the FEIS, 

monitoring of the current stocking level since 1995 indicates that utilization standards have 

been met at least 95 percent of the time, and condition and trend surveys indicate

unsatisfactory range conditions in portions of just 4 of the 65 pastures within the JCRAA. 

Three out of the four pastures with unsatisfactory range conditions are associated with

riparian conditions along Swamp Creek that are recovering from more intensive use while 

the pastures were held in private ownership. Considering the variability associated with 

measuring utilization levels, I am comfortable with 95 percent compliance. The prevalence 

of satisfactory range condition and relative success in complying with utilization standards 

indicates to me that reductions in stocking to maintain satisfactory range condition over

time are not needed. Rather, problem areas in the JCRAA with respect to range condition 

appear to be localized. Localized problem areas are addressed by Alternative 3 Modified 

through mitigation and monitoring, which I believe will be more effective than simply

reducing stocking levels. Alternative 3-Modified authorizes a total of 12,866 head-months 

of livestock grazing. I believe that this level of stocking is allowing for basic plant and soil 

needs. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists assessed the current livestock 

grazing level in the JCRAA as not limiting winter forage for big game. At the same time, 

this level of stocking supports viable livestock grazing operations.

Alternative 1, the no-grazing alternative, does not make forage beyond that needed for

basic plant and soils needs and for wildlife available for livestock grazing. Therefore, it

does not meet the purpose of and need for action, and I did not select it. Alternative 2,

current management, provides for the same level of stocking as Alternative 3-Modified. 

However, I prefer Alternative 3-Modified because it adopts a monitoring program for
Record of Decision

ROD - 13

adjusting livestock grazing use along the Meadow Segment of Swamp Creek. While

riparian conditions along this segment of Swamp Creek are continuing to recover from an 

“unsatisfactory” condition since their acquisition from a private landowner, Alternative 3-

Modified would allow for a greater rate of recovery by initiating a monitoring program for 

streambank stability and shrub utilization. I did not select Alternative 4 because while it 

meets the purpose of and need for action, it does so at a cost that would threaten the

viability of livestock operations that have shown a 10-year record of leaving adequate

forage for plant and soil and wildlife needs and therefore meeting the purpose of and need 

for action.

Key Issues

The key issues were developed from responses to comment and resource specialist

information regarding the proposed action. Refer to Table 2 for a summary of how the 

alternatives respond to the key issues. Key issues were developed with respect to the

Joseph Creek Wild and Scenic River (Issue 1) and potential Research Natural Areas (Issue 

3). Based on analysis of these issues however, the indicators did not point to distinct

differences between alternatives. We included the issues, however, because of public

interest and the disclosure of potential effects provided by the analysis of these issues. 

Information in the FEIS indicates that a certain level of livestock grazing is appropriate for 

the Wild and Scenic River (Pages 209-216) and potential Research Natural Areas (Pages 

216-219). Recent grazing systems for these areas have successfully maintained the

conditions for which these areas were designated, and little difference among the

alternatives was noted in the FEIS. In a similar vein, the issue related to forage health

(Issue 7) is resolved among all of the alternatives, due to normal range monitoring and

application of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.

My selection of Alternative 3 Modified focuses on the differences among alternatives with 

respect to Swamp Creek (Issue 2), Spalding’s catchfly (Issue 4), adaptive management

(Issue 5), and big game (Issue 6). I prefer the monitoring approach for determining shrub 

utilization and streambank stability for Swamp Creek, which is included in Alternative 3 

Modified. I think it is imperative to complete adequate inventory and monitoring of

Spalding’s catchfly potential habitat to reduce the potential risk to the species, and

Alternative 3 Modified commits to completion of that inventory. The adaptive management 

associated with Alternative 3 Modified allows greater flexibility in responding to change 

and allows for more timely response to assertion of tribal treaty rights for pasturing of

cattle or horses. I also support a measured approach to providing for big-game winter

range that considers fluctuating climatic and resource conditions. Alternative 3 Modified 

provides for adequate big-game forage, but without undue changes in livestock use.

Environmental Effects

I considered the balance of environmental effects presented in Chapter 3 of the FEIS before 

selecting Alternative 3 Modified. I noted that all of the alternatives were consistent with 

applicable laws such as the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act. While

Alternative 1 is the environmentally preferable alternative and shows a clear difference in 
Record of Decision

ROD - 14

impacts on the biological and physical environment from the other alternatives, I did not 

select Alternative 1 partly because of the adverse social and economic impacts associated 

with it. Alternative 1 also does not address Forest Plan direction to make available for

livestock grazing the forage that is surplus to the needs of plants, soil, and wildlife. Clearly 

there is a demand for use of this surplus forage, and not offering it for livestock utilization 

would be inconsistent with management direction. Between Alternatives 2, 3, Modified,

and 4, I found a similarity in impacts between Alternatives 2 and 3 Modified as opposed to 

Alternative 4. Alternative 4 would lessen impacts on fisheries and water quality at a

higher economic cost to the livestock permittees. As the FEIS compares impacts on aquatic 

resources to livestock grazing standards in the Forest Plan, as established by PacFish and 

InFish (FEIS, Pages 151-159), I see that none of the alternatives would retard attainment 

of RMOs. Alternative 4 provides a different approach for livestock management in

Nonetheless, this different approach is at the economic detriment to viable livestock

grazing operations. I narrowed my selection to Alternatives 2 or 3 Modified because they 

provide for a rate of recovery for aquatic resources consistent with Forest Plan standards 

and guidelines, and livestock grazing systems in these alternatives are similar to recently 

used systems which have proven to be viable over time. My decision to select Alternative 3 

Modified over Alternative 2 is then based on the adaptive management feature of

Alternative 3 Modified. The FEIS identifies foreseeable future actions (Page 77), but

experience shows that unforeseeable future actions are likely to occur as well (FEIS, Page 

31). I like the flexibility that Alternative 3 Modified affords to respond to changing

conditions with fewer ties to traditional grazing systems. I believe that managing

environmental effects within the sideboards of Forest Plan standards and guidelines would 

be more readily achieved under Alternative 3 Modified than under Alternative 2.

Comments on the DEIS

I selected Alternative 3 Modified because I believe it is the most responsive alternative to 

comments received on the DEIS. The individual comments and responses are contained in 

Appendix B of the FEIS. The comments represented a wide variety of viewpoints on the 

preferred alternative. Some comments stated that the preferred alternative was too

restrictive on livestock grazing operations while other comments stated that the preferred 

alternative did not contain enough restrictions on livestock grazing operations. I

considered all of the comments carefully in making my decision.

I considered the government to government and staff to staff communications that we have 

maintained throughout the analysis process with the Nez Perce Tribe and the Confederated 

Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. With the JCRAA being part of Nez Perce Tribe 

ceded lands, I acknowledge our responsibility to address the reserved rights of hunting,

fishing, gathering, and the pasturing of cattle and horses. Consequently, I instructed the 

interdisciplinary team to develop and address Alternative 4 and to modify and address

Alternative 3. The new and modified alternatives emphasize protection of those rights to a 

greater degree than the proposed action. Alternative 4 provided for greater protection of 

steelhead-bearing streams from the presence of livestock grazing through fencing and

altering livestock use. It also halted fall grazing of the Joseph Creek canyon, and limited 

livestock grazing to spring use, thus providing ample winter forage for big-game. In

Alternative 4, it is also anticipated that if the Blue Mountain Land Exchange proposal is 
Record of Decision

ROD - 15

finalized, that the Al-Cunningham allotment would not be stocked. Vacant allotments

provide logical placements for tribal grazing if treaty rights are asserted. Obviously, 

Alternative 4 addresses the Nez Perce Tribe’s concerns to a greater degree than the other 

alternatives. Modifications to Alternative 3 between the DEIS and FEIS also addressed

tribal comments, albeit to a lesser extent than Alternative 4. Alternative 3 Modified

includes some streamside fencing of steelhead fisheries, adopts the tribe’s suggested

controls on fall use of forage in big-game winter range, and adopts greater protections for 

Spalding’s catchfly. When I consider the full range of comments received on the DEIS,

however, Alternative 3 Modified emerges as a better balance, as described below.

Comments were received from a group of permittees that elected to submit a single letter. 

These comments focused on how information in the DEIS inaccurately characterized

resource conditions in the JCRAA as degraded. These comments concluded with a

preference towards a blending of Alternatives 2 and 3 so that producers would have more 

assurances in the future. These comments and responses to the comments are contained in 

Appendix B of the FEIS. Of particular concern in the permittee letter was the

characterization of range condition within the South Crow and Doe Gulch Pastures of the 

Crow Creek Allotment. An October 2004 field review by the interdisciplinary team

confirmed that range condition ratings used in the DEIS were overly broad and

mischaracterized the range condition of these two pastures. The permittees also

commented on how detrimental effects on aquatic and wildlife resources in the DEIS were 

presented as the general condition rather than isolated concern areas. The

interdisciplinary team considered each of these comments and where warranted, revised

the FEIS by clarifying the extent of any detrimental effects. I believe that the adaptability 

introduced by Alternative 3 Modified could be either beneficial or detrimental to permittee 

operations, depending on the adaptation that is needed. Therefore, I do not believe that my 

selection of Alternative 3 Modified constitutes an undue threat to the viability of livestock 

grazing operations in the JCRAA.

Of the 14 letters or e-mails we received on the DEIS, 11 of these contacts expressed a

preference for no grazing or strictly limited grazing within the Joseph Creek Wild and

Scenic River Corridor. One commenter submitted a detailed photo monitoring report taken 

along the Wild and Scenic River Corridor in August 2004 along with a letter referencing the 

report. The letter and photo report outlined what the commenter believed was substantial 

ongoing damage to the riparian vegetation and streambanks due to livestock grazing. 

Normally, the Wild and Scenic River corridor is grazed in the summer and fall. However, 

in August 2004, as described in the response to comment 7c.20, in Appendix B of the FEIS, 

a group of 10 cow-calf pairs and 1 dry cow were missed when moving a herd from the

Swamp Creek allotment and spent about two weeks in the vicinity of Joseph Creek before 

they were detected. The livestock were removed upon notifying the permittee. We also 

received several reports of a moose residing in the corridor that summer, and elk presence 

along the river is not uncommon. All of these factors contributed to evidence of large

animals being in the vicinity of Joseph Creek in August 2004.

When I review the monitoring photos, I note the evidence of large animals such as bent

grass and some hoof prints along the river bank. However, when this relatively subtle

amount of impact is compared to the standards established by the Joseph Creek Wild and 

Scenic River Management Plan, I believe that the impacts noted in August 2004 are well 

within the plan’s desired condition. Joseph Creek is designated as a Wild River bounded by 
Record of Decision

ROD - 16

an area designated Management Area 3 (big-game winter range). The Management Plan 

gives specific desired conditions to be achieved within the corridor related to livestock

grazing. While I understand the value that individuals would place on this unique area, I 

also believe that the Management Plan, a Forest Plan amendment, is the basis from which 

I am obliged to manage the area. The FEIS clearly describes the existing condition within 

the corridor and projects future effects from livestock grazing that would be well within the 

limits of the Management Plan (Pages 165-166 and 214-216). Therefore, I feel that the 

level of protection provided to the Wild and Scenic River by Alternative 3 Modified is

consistent with the Forest Plan. One commenter suggested that the Forest Plan be

amended by my decision on the JCRA so that more restrictive standards could be placed on 

livestock-induced effects. I find no compelling need for a Forest Plan amendment, rather I 

note that a commenter simply disagrees with the standards implemented by the original 

Management Plan for the Joseph Creek Wild and Scenic River Management Plan.

Several letters on the DEIS were submitted by organizations that prepared detailed

comments, and in response, the interdisciplinary team prepared detailed responses

(Appendix B of the FEIS). I used these comments as information for modifying Alternative 

3 and for developing Alternative 4. The level of concern about big-game indicated to me 

that Alternatives 3 Modified and 4 would best be designed to maintain in the fall 50 to 60 

percent of available forage in designated big-game winter range. Protections for known

Spalding’s catchfly sites were strengthened for Alternatives 3 Modified and 4, based on

these comments. Since Alternative 4 was developed partly in response to these comments, I 

expect that these commenters would support selection of Alternative 4 or perhaps an even 

more restrictive alternative. However, my selection of Alternative 3 Modified does address 

some of the concerns in these comments.

When I evaluate the comments received on the DEIS, I believe that Alternative 3 Modified 

strikes a reasonable balance by addressing comments that are within the scope of my

authority as well as consistent with how grazing management has been represented by the 

Forest Plan and its amendments.

Findings Required by Other Laws, Regulations, and Orders

National Forest Management Act

The Forest Plan guides all natural resource management activities through the

establishment of Forest-wide and Area-specific standards and guidelines. These standards 

and guidelines are based on the NFMA management requirements set forth at 36 CFR

219.27. The analysis contained in Pages 77 to 232 of the JCRA and the analysis contained 

in the Analysis File address (1) the NFMA management requirements of resource

protection, riparian areas, soil and water, and diversity and (2) the Forest-wide and Areaspecific standards and guidelines of the Forest Plan.

I find that these analyses demonstrate that the JCRA is consistent with the requirements 

of the NFMA and the standards and guidelines of the Forest Plan. Therefore, based on the 

effects analysis contained in Pages 77 to 232 of the JCRA, and the data in the Analysis File, 
Record of Decision

ROD - 17

I find that the implementation of Alternative 3 Modified is consistent with Management

Direction for the Forest Plan.

Endangered Species Act

As analyzed in the Lower Grande Ronde Biological Assessment, the proposed action ‘may 

affect, but is not likely to adversely affect’ listed Snake River steelhead. This is supported 

by the determination that the proposed actions would maintain or improve the

environmental baseline of Matrix indicators for streams within the analysis area and would 

decrease the risk of aggregate and cumulative effects on population and/or habitat. A risk 

of direct effects from trampling of steelhead redds is identified, but the risk would be

minimized through protection measures adopted for allotments containing steelhead

habitat. Refer to Pages 145-169 of the FEIS for further information on direct, indirect, 

aggregate, and cumulative effects. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and US Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have reviewed the best available information and concur

with information presented in the Lower Grande Ronde Subbasin Multi-Species Biological 

Assessment (contained in the Analysis File). Both agencies concur with the WallowaWhitman National Forest finding that authorizing grazing in the JCRAA May Affect, but is 

not Likely to Adversely Affect listed Snake River steelhead trout. This concurrence was 

documented in a joint Letter of Concurrence from the two agencies received on April 30,

2001 and contained in the analysis file.

With respect to Spalding’s catchfly, a determination of May Affect Likely to Adversely

Affect was made for the Al-Cunningham, Cougar Creek, Crow Creek, Davis Creek, Hunting 

Camp, Table Mountain, and Swamp Creek Allotments, a determination of May Affect, Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect was made for the Joseph Creek Allotment, and a determination 

of No Effect was made for the Dobbins, Elk Mountain, and Fine Allotments. Refer to Pages 

102-120 of the FEIS for further rationale behind these determinations. The USFWS

concurred with these determinations through its Biological Opinion dated September 16,

2005.

Effects on threatened or endangered wildlife species, or species proposed for listing, were 

evaluated, and a determination of No Effect was made (refer to the Wildlife Biological

Assessment in the Analysis File). Under interagency guidelines for implementing Section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act, such a determination requires no consultation with

USFWS.

Based on the process followed in making determinations of effect and consulting with

USFWS and NMFS on these effects, I find that implementation of Alternative 3 Modified is 

consistent with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Record of Decision

ROD - 18

Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act provides direction “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, 

and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters”. To carry out this law, the State of Oregon 

has established state water quality standards for factors such as water temperature,

sedimentation, habitat modification and pH, and an anti-degradation policy to protect

water quality conditions. Under the anti-degradation policy in Section 303(d), water bodies 

that do not meet water quality standards are designated as “water quality limited”.

Alternative 3 Modified is consistent with the Clean Water Act because as noted in the FEIS 

(Page 159), there would be no additional effect to the parameters for which certain streams 

in the JCRAA were placed on the ODEQ 303(d) list. Therefore, I find that implementation 

of Alternative 3 Modified is consistent with the Clean Water Act.

National Historic Preservation Act

The Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has been consulted concerning 

proposed activities in the JCRAA. The SHPO concurred with findings by the project

archaeologist that the project will have an effect on known cultural resources through a 

letter dated July 21, 2005. A Memorandum of Agreement will be drafted between the

Forest Service and SHPO for implementing the mitigations and monitoring contained in

the FEIS for archaeological site protection. I therefore find that Alternative 3 Modified is 

consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act.

Civil Rights, Women, and Minorities

Adverse effects on civil rights, women and minorities are not expected from implementing 

Alternative 3 Modified, as addressed on Page 231 of the FEIS. To the greatest extent

possible, all populations have been provided the opportunity to comment before decisions 

are rendered on proposals and activities affecting human health or the environment. The 

activities in this decision will not have a direct or indirect negative effect on minority or 

low-income populations.

Environmental Justice

On February 11, 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898. This order directs 

each Federal agency to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human

health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority

populations and low-income populations. The President also signed a memorandum on the 

same day, emphasizing the need to consider these types of effects during NEPA analysis. 

On March 24, 1995, the Department of Agriculture completed an implementation strategy 

for the executive order. Where Forest Service proposals have the potential to

disproportionately adversely affect minority or low-income populations, these effects must 

be considered and disclosed (and mitigated to the degree possible) through the NEPA
Record of Decision

ROD - 19

analysis and documentation. Effects on the human environment from implementation of 

Alternative 3 Modified are expected to be similar for all human populations, regardless of 

nationality, gender, race, or income (refer to Page 231 of the FEIS). I therefore find that 

Alternative 3 Modified is consistent with Executive Order 12898.

Wetlands and Floodplains

Executive Order 11988 requires government agencies to take actions that reduce the risk of 

loss due to floods, to minimize the impact of floods on human health and welfare, and to 

restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. Wetlands and 

floodplains are affected by the decision in this ROD. Livestock grazing will occur within 

100-year floodplains, however, the requirements in Alternative 3 Modified minimize

impacts and in the case of Swamp Creek, would contribute to the restoration of the flood 

plain (Page 231 of the FEIS). I therefore find that Alternative 3 Modified is consistent with 

Executive Order 11988.

Executive Order 11990 requires that government agencies take action to minimize the

destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands. Streamside riparian areas, seeps, springs, 

and other wet habitats exist within the JCRAA and would be grazed by livestock. 

Management requirements and site-specific mitigation will minimize the effects of livestock 

grazing on wetlands (refer to Page 231 of the FEIS. I therefore find that Alternative 3 

Modified is consistent with Executive Order 11990.

The Environmentally Preferable Alternative

In this decision, I have described the selected alternative and given rationale for its

selection. It is also required by law that one or more environmentally preferable

alternatives be disclosed [40 CFR 1505.2(b)]. The environmentally preferable alternative is 

not necessarily the alternative that will be implemented and it does not have to meet the 

underlying need for the project. It does, however, have to cause the least damage to the 

biological and physical environment and best protect, preserve, and enhance historical,

cultural, and natural resources (Title I, Section 101, NEPA as amended).

In the case of the JCRA, I have determined that Alternative 1, no action, is the

environmentally preferable alternative: Because Alternative 1 does not authorize livestock 

grazing, the influence of livestock on the biological and physical environment and historical, 

cultural, and natural resources would be eliminated. As previously noted, however,

Alternative 1 does not meet the purpose of and need for action. Alternatives 2, 3 Modified, 

and 4 all authorize livestock grazing, along with the livestock-induced effects upon the

biological and physical environment and upon historical, cultural, and natural resources. 

Refer to effects on the environment described in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.
Record of Decision

ROD - 20

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures pertinent to the action alternatives are listed below. Mitigation

measures address potential impacts by avoiding adverse impacts, minimizing adverse

impacts by limiting activities, or rectifying adverse impacts through rehabilitation. In

addition to the mitigation measures listed below, measures are included from the Forest

Plan (including PacFish/InFish) and agreements reached during the ESA consultation

process for this proposal.

• Riparian/upland utilization standards will be met through season of use, riding,

placing salt, and maintaining upland water sources.

• Allotments identified with unsatisfactory range conditions will be managed to

promote upward trends. Specific direction will be identified in the subsequent

Allotment Management Plans and the Annual Operating Instructions for each

allotment.

• Permittees will be provided with a current list of noxious weeds and Threatened,

Endangered, and Sensitive plant identification material. A map showing known

noxious weed infestations and Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant sites

within each allotment will be reviewed at each annual operating meeting. Permittes 

will be asked to add known noxious weed locations not shown on the map.

• To reduce the risk of introducing noxious weeds, all heavy equipment used to

maintain range improvements will be cleaned in a manner sufficient to prevent

noxious weeds from being carried onto the analysis area. This requirement does not 

apply to passenger vehicles or other equipment used exclusively on roads. Cleaning 

will occur off of National Forest System lands. Cleaning will be inspected and

approved by the Forest Officer in charge of administering the project, although

permittees may complete the inspection.

• To reduce the risk of introducing noxious weeds, annual instructions include

quarantining livestock that come from known weed infested areas before turning out 

on the National Forest and also inspection and treatment for allotment entry units if 

livestock have come from weed infested areas.

• To reduce the risk of introducing noxious weeds, any seed used in the maintenance 

of water developments or in restoration projects will be certified weed free.

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

will herd cattle during the grazing season at a frequency needed to reduce livestock 

concentration in riparian areas.

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

will select stock driveway locations that are on existing roads or avoid riparian 

areas.
Record of Decision

ROD - 21

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

will not place salt for livestock within 1⁄4- mile of riparian areas.

• In the Catchfly, Holding, North Crow, South Crow, and Doe Gulch Pastures, protect 

Spalding’s catchfly sites between approximately mid-May and late-August by not

grazing in those pastures during that critical growth time period. Alternatively,

avoid grazing management impacts to Spalding’s catchfly sites in those pastures at 

that time by utilizing various fencing techniques to eliminate livestock around the 

Spalding’s catchfly sites.

• In the North Crow, South Crow, Doe Gulch, Holding, Catchfly, and Dorrance

Pastures, place salt so that livestock will not be encouraged to move toward the

known populations of Spalding’s catchfly. Keep salting locations greater than 1/4th

mile from known occurrences unless site specific conditions dictate otherwise and

the Forest Service concurs.

• Manage the South Crow and Doe Gulch Pastures in a manner that continues their 

recovery and transition past a mid-seral stage.

• To reduce the risk of mortality to Sensitive bat species, watering troughs will be 

installed with escapement ramps, and troughs will be checked each year.

• Strategize and set inventory priorities for areas where potential habitat for

Spalding’s catchfly has been identified and is at risk to impacts from livestock

grazing as provided by this analysis. A range of 2,890 to 7,630 acres of risk areas 

would be inventoried. If sites are found, they would be protected utilizing the suite 

of actions being employed at the currently known sites in the Crow Creek and

Swamp Creek Allotments.

• Herding activities that move livestock (not part of the Crow Creek allotment permit) 

through the Doe Gulch pastures in the fall, enroute from the Swamp Creek

Allotment to deeded ground will be contained to the Doe Gulch roadway.

• Through project design, summer grazing of pastures containing Spalding’s catchfly 

will be avoided under foreseeable circumstances, with the exception of the Dorrance 

pasture. In the Dorrance pasture, summer grazing will occur every other season

and the Spalding’s catchfly sites will be protected with herding or similar active 

management techniques, alternative fencing, during this use period.

• Permittees will be provided with a current list of noxious weeds and Threatened,

Endangered, and Sensitive plant identification material. A map showing known

noxious weed infestations and Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant sites

within each allotment will be reviewed at each annual operating meeting. Permittes 

will be asked to add known noxious weed locations not shown on the map.

• If a severe spring drought situation is declared for the range land in the northern 

part of Wallowa County as a result of recommendations from agencies within the 

Department of Agriculture, avoid spring grazing around the Spalding’s catchfly sites 
Record of Decision

ROD - 22

in the South Crow, Doe Gulch and Catcfhly pastures. As an alternative to this

pasture use, consider utilizing portions of the Dorrance, or Holding pastures (with 

permittee concurrence). Do not spring graze these pastures more than 3 seasons in 

a row.

• To Sensitive plant populations, salt placement to improve distribution during the 

grazing season would not occur within 1/4 mile of known Sensitive plant populations 

unless site-specific conditions dictate otherwise and the Forest Service concurs.

• To limit physical damage to known occurrences of Wallowa Mountain Ricegrass,

Engelmann’s daisy, and Hazel’s prickly phlox, work with permittees on

identification of these plants and their locations. Instruct permittees to photograph 

selected occurrences of Wallowa Mountain Ricegrass and Engelmann’s daisy at the 

end of each grazing season and submit the photos to the Forest Service at the

annual operating meeting.

• To reduce the potential for physical impacts from livestock management to

Engelmann’s daisy and Hazel’s prickly phlox, instruct permittees not to establish

any new stock drive-ways in steep canyon terrain without first surveying for this 

species, and routing the driveway to avoid any found occurrences.

• To reduce the risk to sensitive riparian areas, the following steps will be taken or 

projects identified. Where site-specific ground-disturbing projects are identified, a 

separate environmental analysis will be completed to address potential impacts 

associated with the ground-disturbing activities:

Use adaptive techniques such as herding, salting, adjusting season of use, 

developing upland water sources, and fencing to draw livestock away from 

sensitive areas.

Relocate water gaps to appropriate sites, harden gaps with rock and wood 

placement, and develop offsite water sources.

When livestock trailing causes premature channelization or headcutting of 

intermittent streams and ephemeral draws, place woody material, fence, or 

change the timing of grazing to address these problems as they occur.

Continue to re-locate troughs from in-channel locations.

Monitoring

The following items are needed to keep impacts at acceptable levels while moving range 

conditions toward desired conditions. These items would be applied to the project as it is 

implemented on the ground. These monitoring items address Forest Plan direction, Section 

7 conclusions by the Level 1 ESA Consultation Team as documented in Biological

Assessments and letters of concurrence, commitments within the Lower Grande Ronde

Subbasin Biological Assessment (USDA 2001), terms and conditions within the Biological 
Record of Decision

ROD - 23

Opinion for Effects on Steelhead from Implementing the Forest Plan (DOC 1999),

Interagency Implementation Team’s implementation and effectiveness monitoring (IIT), 

and additional elements determined necessary by the Interdisciplinary Team for the

JCRAA. Refer to the FEIS for a definition of monitoring terminology (Pages 71-72).

• Complete trigger monitoring as needed during the grazing season to ensure end of 

season standards can be met.

• Complete end of season utilization monitoring annually at selected key areas. 

Priority key areas may include where resource concerns emerge or where previous 

years’ utilization standards were exceeded.

• Carry out compliance monitoring as needed to ensure livestock are in appropriate 

pastures.

• Collect streambbank disturbance data where needed.

• Complete Interagency Implementation Team implementation monitoring on key

areas within the JCRAA.

• Participate in the Interagency Implementation Team Effectiveness monitoring when 

watersheds within the planning area are selected for review.

• Complete Condition and Trend monitoring using the appropriate methodology

needed to identify trends for particular attributes (Parker 3-step, ecoplot, photo

trend etc.).

• Follow the National Riparian Service Team’s recommendations (refer to Appendix C) 

for annual monitoring of shrub utilization and streambank stability in the meadow 

segment of Swamp Creek in the Upper Swamp and Bennett Pastures of Swamp 

Creek Allotment and the Bennett Pasture of Davis Creek Allotment.

• Establish and monitor several key areas in elk winter range areas to ensure that 50 

to 60 percent of the available forage is retained after fall livestock grazing on key 

species such as bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho fescue.

• Monitor key areas in the Sumac Pasture of the Cougar Allotment for compliance 

with “unsatisfactory” range condition utilization standards until the pasture 

indicates mid to late seral stage plant communities. At this time, utilization 

standards for “satisfactory” range condition would be applied and compliance 

monitoring will continue for the revised standard.

• Shrub utilization monitoring on identified riparian areas will be documented using 

the riparian ocular utilization estimate form.

• Monitor and evaluate patterns of use of the Swamp Creek Allotment for three years 

to determine if stocking exceeds the allotment’s capacity.
Record of Decision

ROD - 24

• Coordinate the development and implementation of population trend monitoring for 

the Spalding’s catchfly found along Crow Creek. Trend monitoring implementation 

will be dependent upon budgets, available methodologies and recommendations

within the Spalding’s Catchfly Recovery Plan. Seek partnerships and academic

assistance with monitoring plan establishment, re-reading and reporting. Utilize

site visits and census techniques (where applicable) to look at site persistence until 

other monitoring techniques can be employed.

• To monitor forage utilization near Spalding’s catchfly, ensure that adequate 

numbers of “key areas” are established in terrain that represents grassland

conditions in the vicinity of the known Spalding’s catchfly sites. Make these a

priority for reading.

• Establish and conduct vegetation trend monitoring (using an appropriate 

methodology) in representative pastures where populations of Spalding’s catchfly

occur, to ensure that range condition is stable or on an upward trend.

• During grazing seasons, monitor conditions around representative Spalding’s

catchfly sites in the Crow Creek and Swamp Creek allotment for livestock impacts 

each year for 5 years. If no impacts are observed after 5 years, document and review 

again every 3rd year, or when there is a change in a permittee or a change in

livestock class. Seasonally document monitoring results with photos and or short

reports (memos). If signs of detrimental impacts, specifically new cattle trails,

bedding/dusting areas, or more than incidental hoof impacts are identified within

the sites, implement one or more of the following actions:

i. Change the grazing season, numbers or duration, to protect the occurrences 

from impacts.

ii. Fence or cage all or significant portions of the Spalding’s catchfly sites. 

iii. Herd, salt, or use other active management techniques to draw livestock

away from the Spalding’s catchfly sites.

iv. Move gates or alter cross pasture fences to better facilitate cattle movement 

away from Spalding’s catchfly.

v. Avoid grazing during the critical growth period (approximately mid-May 

through late-August).

• In the Dorrance pasture, monitor as stated above and avoid summer grazing more 

than 3 years in a row. In the Catchfly pasture, monitor as stated above and avoid 

spring grazing more than 3 years in a row.

• Engelmann’s daisy - While conducting utilization monitoring, observe the

representative Engelmann’s daisy patches in the Holding and Tamarack Pastures of 

the Hunting Camp Allotment. If needed, move key areas to better represent range 

conditions and Engelmann’s daisy populations. If more than incidental livestock use 
Record of Decision

ROD - 25

(trailing or herbivory) of Engelmann’s daisy is observed, actively manage cattle to 

minimize the impacts.

• Wallowa Mountain Ricegrass - Revisit representative Wallowa Mountain Ricegrass 

occurrences in pastures being grazed in the spring at least once every 5 years.

Appeal Rights

Appeals under 36 CFR 215 must be fully consistent with 36 CFR 215.14, "Appeal Content.” 

The notice of appeal must be filed hard copy with Steven A. Ellis, P.O. Box 907, Baker City, 

Oregon, faxed to 541-523-1315, sent electronically to appeals-pacificnorthwest-wallowawhitman@fs.fed.us, or hand-delivered to the above address between 7:45AM and 4:30PM, 

Monday through Friday except legal holidays. The appeal must be postmarked or delivered 

within 45 days of the date the Notice of Availability for this decision appears in the Federal 

Register. The publication date of the Notice of Availability is the exclusive means for

calculating the time to file an appeal and those wishing to appeal should not rely on dates 

or timeframes provided by any other source.

Electronic appeals must be submitted as part of the actual e-mail message, or as an

attachment in Microsoft Word, rich text format, or portable document format only. E-mails 

submitted to e-mail addresses other than the one listed above or in other formats than

those listed or containing viruses will be rejected. Only individuals or organizations who 

submitted substantive comments during the comment period may appeal. This project may 

be implemented 50 days after this legal notice if no appeal is received. If an appeal is 

received, the project may not be implemented for 15 days after the appeal decision.

Contact Person

For additional information regarding this decision, please contact

Alicia Glassford, Team Leader

Wallowa Mountains Office

88401 Highway 82

Enterprise, OR 97828

(541) 426-5689

BARBARA C. WALKER Date

Wallowa Valley District Ranger

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest