Record of Decision 

North End Sheep Allotment 

Walla Walla Ranger District 

Umatilla National Forest 

Union, Wallowa, and Umatilla Counties, Oregon 

For information contact: Kimpton Cooper 

Walla Walla Ranger District 

1415 West Rose St 

Walla Walla, WA 99362 

509-522-6290 

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

August 

2011
ROD 2 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all 

its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, 

gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or 

marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, 

etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office 

of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence 

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice 

and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Record of Decision

ROD 1 

Record of Decision 

1. Introduction 

This Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision to select an alternative from the 

North End Sheep Allotment Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). This ROD was 

developed according to requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the 

Council of Environmental Quality’s implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), U. S. 

Department of Agriculture NEPA regulations (7 CFR part 1b), Forest Service NEPA 

regulations (36 CFR 220), and Forest Service policy in Forest Service Manual 1950 and 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.15. 

This Record of Decision contains a brief summary of the environmental analysis completed 

for this project, as well as the rationale for selecting the alternative I have chosen to 

implement. It also contains certain findings required by various laws and regulations, and 

information concerning the rights to administrative review of this decision. The North End 

Sheep Allotment FEIS is incorporated by reference in this decision document and is 

attached as a separate volume. 

Throughout the FEIS and this document, domestic sheep may be referred to as permitted 

sheep, permitted domestic sheep, livestock, permitted animals, or permitted numbers. The 

individuals associated with the term grazing permit may be referred to as the ‘permittee”.

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep may be referred to as wild sheep or bighorn sheep. 

2. Background 

Analysis Area and Scope 

The North End Allotment covers roughly 132,000 acres of National Forest and interspersed 

private land northwest of Elgin, Oregon in Umatilla, Union, and Wallowa Counties. Figure 

1 shows the analysis area in context with local communities. 

The large size of the allotment makes for a diverse array of mountain uplands and plateaus 

dissected by large canyons. Approximately 75 percent of the allotment is covered by mixed 

conifer forest, with many previously harvested areas that have created transitory range for 

livestock. Permitted sheep primarily graze on grassy ridges, rolling upland hills, and in 

transitory range created by timber harvest. 

Over the past 25 years, the permittee has typically grazed up to 3,962 sheep in 4 bands. 

Each band grazed in a designated area of the allotment. This allowed a rest-rotation 

grazing system with large areas rested each year. This system has resulted in overall 

improving conditions on the allotment. Utilization monitoring has shown that the 

management of the North End Allotment has consistently met Forest Plan utilization 

standards. 

The scope of this analysis was limited to evaluating the appropriate management of 

permitted livestock grazing, given considerations of rangeland conditions and other Forest 

Plan goals and objectives. The proposed action was to continue to permit 3,962 sheep on 

101,000 acres of the allotment. This allowed for domestic sheep to graze no closer than 8 

miles from the Wenaha herd of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. 
Record of Decision

ROD 2 

 
Record of Decision

ROD 3 

In Forest Service Region 6, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep are not listed as Threatened, 

Endangered, or Sensitive. However, the National Forest Management Act as well as the 

Umatilla Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (herafter referred to as the 

Forest Plan) require that habitat be provided for native wildlife species, while also 

providing for multiple uses such as recreation, range, and timber. 

Extensive scientific literature supports a relationship between disease in bighorn sheep and 

contact with domestic sheep. The literature includes both circumstantial evidence as well 

as controlled experiments where healthy bighorn sheep exposed to domestic sheep 

displayed high mortality rates. Large scale die-offs have been documented throughout 

Canada and the U.S., most often attributed to bacterial pneumonia in combination with 

other stressors. Domestic sheep are carriers of the pathogens that cause pneumonia in wild 

sheep. Pages 34-37 of the FEIS provide more information about this subject. 

The bighorn sheep herd nearest the North End Allotment continues to be affected by a 

pneumonia epidemic that occurred 15 years ago. There is widespread support in the 

scientific community to keep domestic sheep and bighorn sheep separated until additional 

research provides other solutions. 

Purpose and Need Summary 

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

consistent with the Forest Plan. Providing forage for permitted domestic livestock is 

desirable in this area to satisfy Forest Plan, Forest Service policy, and Congressional intent 

which will be described in further detail under section 4 – Decision Rationale. 

Because the allotment is near occupied and unoccupied Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep 

habitat, there is a need to effectively keep permitted domestic sheep separated from these 

areas. 

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

administration is economically and environmentally feasible. 

3. Decision 

Based on my review of the North End Sheep Allotment Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS), I have decided to implement Alternative 4, which changes the allotment 

boundary and authorizes the grazing of up to 2,000 sheep (Figure 2). 

A detailed description of Alternative 4 is contained in Chapter 2 of the FEIS, page 12. The 

decision also includes the management requirements and monitoring measures listed in 

Chapter 2, pages 18-26 and provided in Appendix 1 to this ROD. 

This alternative was selected 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 Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement. The rationale for my decision is included below. 
Record of Decision

ROD 4 

 Figure 2. North End Allotment FEIS Alternative 4. 
Record of Decision

ROD 5 

4. Decision Rationale 

Purpose and Need 

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).

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

Forest Plan in 1990. 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 

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 grazing use is 

economically and environmentally feasible. 

Alternative comparison 

Alternative 4, the selected alternative, best meets the stated purpose and need for action 

by: 

Allowing livestock grazing on the North End Allotment 

Maintaining management flexibility by limiting grazing to an area within the 

historic boundary of the allotment and keeping stocking rates at an appropriate 

level for the area 
Record of Decision

ROD 6 

Providing for multiple use benefits while also contributing to bighorn sheep 

sustainability 

Providing management requirements to protect various other resources 

Alternatives 1 and 2 were not selected because they did not provide adequate, effective 

separation between grazing domestic sheep and the existing and potential bighorn sheep 

herd areas.

Alternative 3 was not selected because it would open an area up for grazing that has not 

been grazed in over 40 years and would add complexity to the allotment management. For 

example, watering sites would need to be developed and there would be road access issues. 

Alternative 5, the no-grazing alternative, does not make forage available for livestock 

grazing. Although it is the environmentally preferred alternative (see page 15 of this 

ROD), it does not meet the purpose of and need for action, and the alternative was not 

selected. 

How issues were considered and taken into account 

Alternative 4 was selected because it is the most responsive alternative to comments 

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

C 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. All of the comments were 

considered in the decision. 

Two key issues were identified from public comments and resource specialist information 

regarding the proposed action. The two key issues were 1) bighorn sheep and 2) 

management feasibility. A summary of alternatives developed to address the key issues is 

provided below on page 11. 

Key Issue 1 – Bighorn Sheep 

Alternative 4 includes authorizing domestic sheep grazing on the North End Allotment and 

addresses the issue of potential bighorn sheep and domestic sheep interaction. The 

Wenaha bighorn sheep herd is located to the northeast of the North End Allotment in the 

Grande Ronde River and Wenaha River canyons. While the land directly affected by the 

North End allotment does not contain enough rugged escape terrain to support a bighorn 

sheep herd, the proximity of the allotment to the Wenaha bighorn sheep herd and other 

high quality bighorn sheep habitat could lead to disease transmission. 

The effect of domestic livestock diseases on bighorn sheep is well documented, and disease 

continues to threaten bighorn herds in areas where bighorns and domestic sheep and goats 

have an opportunity to interact. The Wenaha bighorn sheep herd experienced a major herd 

die-off in 1995 and 1996. Since that time, lamb survival has been very low, which has been 

primarily attributed to lingering herd pneumonia. Refer to FEIS pages 33-35 for more 

details. 
Record of Decision

ROD 7 

This decision considers the professional judgment and input from experienced biologists 

who have worked with bighorn sheep issues for over 20 years and know this area well. 

Alternative 4 addresses the bighorn sheep issue more thoroughly than the other 

alternatives by providing the greatest separation distance between the allotment and both 

the Wenaha herd and the South Fork Walla Walla bighorn sheep habitat. Alternative 4 

provides a separation distance of 12 air miles from the Wenaha bighorn sheep herd, and 9 

air miles from the South Fork Walla Walla bighorn sheep habitat. 

This decision also adopts proactive management requirements that will help to maintain 

effective separation. Management requirements will be discussed by the Forest Service and 

the permittee during annual meetings and will be utilized each year. These are outlined on 

pages 20-27 of the FEIS. Key requirements for the protection of bighorn sheep are 

summarized below: 

A deterence, detection, and response protocol will be developed, 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 plan will be 

annually reviewed and updated. 

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

identification of ownership. 

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 

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

concerted effort to locate the animals. 

A herder is required to be with permitted sheep at all times, and be supplied with an 

effective means of communication such that incidents can be reported promptly. 

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.

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. 

In summary, the decision to continue domestic sheep grazing and to reduce the size of the 

North End Allotment is expected to result in a low likelihood and manageable risk of 

contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep. This decision considered current 

bighorn sheep population characteristics, site-specific habitat conditions, separation 

distances, best available science, and input from experienced biologists to make an 

informed range management decision. 

Key Issue 2 – Management Feasibility

The decision to implement Alternative 4 considered the issues associated with changing the 

allotment boundary and the resulting economic impacts. This alternative would result in a 
Record of Decision

ROD 8 

smaller grazing operation on the allotment. Although Alternative 4 reduces the number of 

sheep on the allotment, a livestock operation of 2,000 ewe/lamb pairs would be permitted. 

Alternative 4 was selected because it provides for a level of livestock grazing that will 

maintain satisfactory range conditions. Based upon past and current rangeland health 

surveys and information, rangeland conditions within the North End Allotment are 

considered to be in satisfactory condition, and Alternative 4 is designed to perpetuate 

satisfactory rangeland conditions while also maintaining and/or improving other values and 

benefits. Alternative 4 authorizes a similar stocking level as the current grazing 

authorizations. 

While Alternatives 1, 2, or 3 would also provide for permitted livestock grazing 

opportunities, Alternative 4 was selected because it provides the best mix of range 

management and economic factors while also responding to the need to separate permitted 

domestic sheep from Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. 

Environmental Effects 

This decision considered the balance of environmental effects presented in Chapter 3 of the 

FEIS. All of the alternatives were consistent with applicable laws such as the Endangered 

Species Act and Clean Water Act. 

Alternative 5 is the environmentally preferable alternative as described on Page 15 of this 

decision, and shows a clear difference in impacts on the biological and physical environment 

from the other alternatives. However, it was not selected in part because of potential 

adverse social and economic impacts. 

Alternative 5 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. There is a 

demand for use of this surplus forage, and not offering it for livestock utilization would be 

inconsistent with management direction. 

As described throughout Chapter 3 of the FEIS, managing environmental effects within the 

sideboards of Forest Plan standards and guidelines would be more readily achieved under 

Alternative 4 than under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. In general, the environmental effects 

associated with Alternative 4 are less than for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 because the 

allotment is smaller and less ground would be affected. Refer to Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

Alternative 4 outlines a more successful approach for managing livestock grazing consistent 

with the forest plan goal to provide habitat for all native wildlife species. 

All alternatives provide additional space between the allotment and the bighorn sheep 

habitat, but Alternative 4 provides the best chance for a sustainable bighorn sheep 

population in this area. The differences among Alternatives for effects on bighorn sheep are 

outlined on pages 42-52 of the FEIS. 
Record of Decision

ROD 9 

Cumulative effects 

In making this decision, I considered cumulative effects. During the public comment 

period, I received letters that raised a concern about potential bighorn sheep – domestic 

sheep contact off forest. Activities that occur on private lands are outside my control. By 

implementing Alternative 4, I believe we can successfully maintain effective separation on 

Forest Service lands so that our actions will not add to the risk of contact off forest. 

Under Alternative 4, employment and income associated with permitted sheep will be less 

than the current levels. It is expected that two seasonal sheep herding jobs would no longer 

be needed. There could potentially be a 50 percent reduction in lamb sale revenue, grazing 

fees collected, and county payments per year. Refer to Table 2 on page 13 of this ROD. 

The increasing popularity of nature-based tourism and the demand for the bighorn sheep 

hunting experience suggest that the role of a stable or increasing bighorn sheep population 

in the local recreation economies could remain stable or increase.

The North End Sheep Allotment FEIS documents the analysis and conclusions upon which 

this decision is based. 

5. Public Involvement 

Comments on the DEIS made by individuals and organizations are individually addressed 

in Appendix C of the FEIS. The perspective and individual points in these comments were 

considered by the interdisciplinary team. For specific information on how comments were 

addressed, refer to Appendix C. 

Comments on the DEIS were received from the permittee through individual meetings and 

during the comment period. This decision also acknowledges that permit actions can be 

appealed by permittees under administrative appeal processes described in 36 CFR 251. 

Since the permittee is the party who will ensure the success of the operation, their input 

was carefully considered. 

The North End Allotment lies within areas ceded to the Unites States government by the 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) and Nez Perce Tribe. 

Government to government and staff to staff communications were maintained throughout 

the analysis process. The Umatilla Forest acknowledges its responsibility to address the 

reserved rights of hunting, fishing, gathering, and the pasturing of cattle and horses. 

Alternative 4 emphasizes protection of those rights to a greater degree than the other 

alternatives by causing the least impact to bighorn sheep and other first foods. 

Based on the comments received on the DEIS, Alternative 4 strikes a reasonable balance by 

addressing comments that are within the scope of the deciding officer’s authority as well as 

being consistent with grazing management direction in the Forest Plan. 

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, 
Record of Decision

ROD 10

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. 

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. 

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

proposal through several informal meetings and telephone conversations. 

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

to be disclosed in the draft 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. 

Two Key Issues were identified. Key Issue 1, Bighorn Sheep, addresses the need to reduce 

the likelihood of contact between domestic and bighorn sheep. Key Issue 2, Management 

Feasibility, addresses the economic, operational, and administrative impacts associated 

with changing the allotment boundary. Many of the other concerns raised were addressed 

in the EIS by providing additional information. Pages 10-11 of the FEIS summarizes the 

scoping responses and describes how these concernes were addressed. 

Comments on the DEIS 

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

the Federal Register on February 8, 2011 and comments were accepted 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. 

Consultation with Tribes 

Contacts with staff members of the Nez Perce Tribe and the CTUIR were made throughout 

the analysis process. A staff member from CTUIR attended meetings on May 13, 2008, 
Record of Decision

ROD 11

October 30 2008, December 1, 2008, and October 23, 2009. A staff member from the Nez 

Perce tribe attended meetings on December 1, 2008, and October 23, 2009. These meetings 

are supplemented by contacts through electronic mail and by telephone. Updates on the 

project status were also provided to tribal staff members at the yearly coordination 

meetings.

6. Alternatives Considered 

Five alternatives were developed and analyzed in detail, including a “No Grazing 

Alternative.” Four other alternatives were considered but not analyzed in detail. This 

provided a wide range of reasonable alternatives. For a more detailed description of 

Alternatives see pages 11-17 of the FEIS. 

All of the alternatives described below include the following: 

 Sheep 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 represents the Proposed Action. Alternative 1 would authorize sheep 

grazing similar to levels that have been authorized in the most recent Annual Operating 

Instructions (AOI). The proposed action would establish a new allotment boundary and 

reduce the allotment size from 132,000 acres to 101,000 acres, and permit 3,962 ewe/lamb 

pairs in 4 bands to graze between from June 1st and October 9th. 

Alternative 2 would authorize sheep grazing within an 81,500 acre allotment and permit 

3,000 ewe/lamb pairs in 3 bands to graze between from June 1st and October 9th. Grazing 

would be limited to the area south of Lookingglass Creek. 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 authorize sheep grazing within a 79,600 acre allotment and permit 

3,000 ewe/lamb pairs in 3 bands to graze between from June 1st and October 9th. The 

allotment boundary would be moved to the wilderness line and would include a new area to 

the west of the allotment referred to in the FEIS as “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. 
Record of Decision

ROD 12

This alternative addresses the need to separate domestic sheep from the Wenaha bighorn 

sheep, and in addition, addresses the issue raised about the bighorn sheep habitat near the 

South Fork Walla Walla River. Both the Wenaha and SFWW bighorn sheep habitat would 

be at least 9 miles from the edge of the allotment. The addition of the Goodman area would 

provide a new grazing area farther away from bighorn sheep habitat. 

Alternative 4 would authorize sheep grazing within a 52,600 acre allotment and permit 

2,000 ewe/lamb pairs to graze between June 1st and October 9th. This alternative also 

moves the allotment boundary to the wilderness line, but unlike Alternative 3, does not 

include the 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. Both the Wenaha and SFWW bighorn 

sheep habitat would be at least 9 miles from the edge of the allotment. 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 represents the ‘no grazing’ alternative. Under this alternative, the Term 

Grazing Permit would be canceled upon implementation of the decision . 

Management Requirements and Monitoring 

All practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative 

selected have been adopted (40 CFR 1505.2(c)). Management requirements and monitoring 

actions were developed and apply to all action alternatives, including the selected 

alternative. There are listed in the FEIS on pages 18-26, and are also included as Appendix 

1 to this ROD. 

Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail 

Four alternatives were considered in response to comments received during public scoping. 

These alternatives were considered but not analyzed in detail because they either did not 

meet the purpose of and need for action, or did not address the key issues. 

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

alternative was not analyzed in detail because it did not meet the stated purpose 

and need to effectively separate domestic sheep from bighorn sheep. 

2. Convert the allotment to cattle grazing. This alternative was not analyzed in detail 

because it would not meet the purpose and need because management feasibility 

would be greatly reduced. It would be costly to plan and administer a cattle 

allotment and it would be costly to build fences and cattle guards. In addition, cattle 

grazing would likely result in negative impacts to other resources. 

3. 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. 
Record of Decision

ROD 13

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

developed in detail because although it meets the purpose and need, it would only 

address the Wenaha bighorn sheep herd, and would not provide enough separation 

from the South Fork Walla Walla bighorn habitat. 

Comparison of Alternatives

Tables 1 through 4 compare the alternatives considered in detail. 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. 

Table 1. Comparison of Alternatives 

Alternative

1986 

allotment 

boundary

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Allotment size (acres) 132,000 101,000 81,500 79,600 52,600 0

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

Number of bands 4 4 3 3 2 0

Table 2. Key Indicator: Management Feasibility: Economic indicators 

Alternative

1986 

allotment 

boundary

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 %
Record of Decision

ROD 14

Table 3. Key Indicator: Management Feasibility: Operations and Administration Indicators 

Alternative

1986 

allotment 

boundary

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

Table 4. Key indicator: Bighorn Sheep: separation distance and separation effectiveness. 

Alternative

1986 

allotment 

boundary*

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Separation distance

between allotment boundary and 

Wenaha bighorn sheep 

(air miles)

1 8 10.5 12 12 NA

Separation effectiveness

between North End permitted 

sheep and Wenaha bighorn sheep

Low Moderate High High High NA

Separation distance

between allotment boundary and 

SFWW bighorn sheep habitat 

(air miles)

1 1 4 9 9 NA

Separation effectiveness

between North End permitted sheep 

and potential SFWW bighorn sheep

Low Low Low to 

Moderate High High NA
Record of Decision

ROD 15

7. The Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

In this decision, the selected alternative is described and rationale is given 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 North End Allotment, Alternative 5, no grazing, is the environmentally 

preferable alternative because: Alternative 5 does not authorize livestock grazing and 

therefore the influence of livestock on the biological and physical environment and 

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

however, Alternative 5 does not meet the purpose of and need for action. All other 

alternatives would authorize livestock grazing, and thus would result in 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. 

8. 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. The analysis 

summarized in Chapter 3 of the FEIS and the analysis contained in the Project Record 

address (1) the NFMA management requirements of resource protection, riparian areas, 

soil and water, and diversity and (2) compliance with the Forest-wide and Area-specific 

standards and guidelines of the Forest Plan. 

These analyses demonstrate that the North End Allotment is found to be consistent with 

the requirements of the NFMA and the goals, objectives, standards and guidelines of the 

Forest Plan. Therefore, based on the effects analysis contained in Chapter 3 of the FEIS, 

and the data in the Project Record, implementation of Alternative 4 is found to be 

consistent with Management Direction for the Forest Plan. 

Endangered Species Act 

As determined in the Biological Assessment for the North End Allotment, implementation 

of Alternative 4 is not likely to 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. 

Potential effects are minimized through protection measures adopted for allotments 

containing listed fish habitat. Specific measures are listed in Chapter 2 of the FEIS under 

Management Requirements. The use of herding, management of grazing routes, use of 

developed water sources, and designated stream crossing areas keep sheep away from 

perennial streams. Refer to pages 114-126 of the FEIS for further information. 
Record of Decision

ROD 16

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) concur with these determinations. 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. 

With respect to all other fish, plant, and wildlife species, a determination of No Effect was 

made for all other species listed as Threatened or Endangered. Refer to pages 84, 95-102, 

127-130, and 137 of the FEIS for further rationale behind these determinations. 

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

USFWS and NMFS on these effects, implementation of Alternative 4 is found to be 

consistent with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

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”.

Best Management Practices and Management Requirements listed in Chapter 2 of the 

FEIS would ensure the protection of water quality. The topography of the allotment, 

management of grazing routes, use of developed water sources, and designated stream 

crossing areas keep sheep away from perennial streams. There would be no additional 

effect to the parameters for which certain streams were placed on the 303(d) list. Therefore, 

as indicated in the FEIS page 138, Alternative 4 is consistent with the Clean Water Act. 

National Historic Preservation Act 

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

proposed activities in the North End Allotment. Within 30 days, SHPO is obligated to 

respond if it does not concur with a submitted determination. No such responses were 

received, indicating SHPO concurrence with the No Adverse Effect determination. Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act has been completed for this project. 

Civil Rights, Women, and Minorities 

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

Alternative 4, as addressed on page 140 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 

Executive Order 12898 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 
Record of Decision

ROD 17

activities on minority populations and low-income populations. This order is accompanied 

by a memorandum, emphasizing the need to consider these types of effects during NEPA 

analysis. 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 analysis and 

documentation. Effects on the human environment from implementation of Alternative 4 

are expected to be similar for all human populations, regardless of nationality, gender, race, 

or income (refer to Page 140 of the FEIS). Therefore, Alternative 4 is found to be consistent 

with Executive Order 12898. 

Wetlands and Floodplains 

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

destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands. 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. 

Effects to wetlands and floodplains are avoided by managing vegetation utilization and 

maintaining the integrity of channels. Riparian areas such as seeps, springs, and other wet 

habitats exist within the North End Allotment and would be incidentally grazed by 

livestock. Sheep herding and management requirements in Alternative 4 will minimize the 

effects of grazing on wetlands and floodplains (refer to pages 111-113 and page 139 of the 

FEIS. Therefore, Alternative 4 is found to be consistent with Executive Order 11988. 

9. Administrative Appeals 

This decision is subject to administrative appeal under two separate appeal regulations, 36 

CFR 215 and 36 CFR 251. Appeal regulations 36 CFR 251 are available only to the current 

holder of the permit for grazing on the North End Sheep Allotment; all others must file 

under appeal regulations contained in 36 CFR 215. 

Project Appeal Regulations 36 CFR 215 

Appeals filed under 36 CFR 215 must be fully consistent with 36 CFR 215.14, "Appeal 

Content.” 

Appeals must be filed with the Appeal Deciding Officer: Kevin Martin, Forest Supervisor, 

Umatilla National Forest, USDA Forest Service, ATTN: Appeals Office, PO Box 3623, 

Portland, Oregon 97208-3623.

Appeals may be submitted by regular mail, fax, email, hand-delivery, or express delivery. 

Appeals submitted via regular mail must be sent to the address in the previous paragraph 

and be postmarked by the last day of the appeal filing period. 

The location for hand-delivery or express delivery services is: 333 SW 1st Ave, Portland, 

OR. The office business hours for those submitting appeals via hand-delivered or express 

delivery services are: 7:45 am to 4:30 pm Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. 
Record of Decision

ROD 18 

Appeals submitted by fax must be sent to fax number: 503-808-2339. 

Appeals submitted via email must be submitted by email to: appeals-pacificnorthwestumatilla@fs.fed.us. Emailed appeals must be in a format as an email message, or an 

attachment to an email message in one of the following formats: plain text (.txt); rich text 

format (.rtf); MS Word© (.doc); or portable document format (.pdf). 

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 comments or otherwise expressed interest during the comment period may 

appeal. 

Appeals may be hand-delivered to the above address during regular business hours of 7:45 

A.M. and 4:30 P.M., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays. The appeal must be 

postmarked or delivered within 45 days of the date the legal notice for this decision appears 

in the East Oregonian newspaper. 

The publication date of the legal notice in the East Oregonian 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. 

Special Use Appeal Regulations 36 CFR 251 

The permit holder for the North End Allotment is also entitled to appeal under 36 CFR 251, 

which is the normal appeal process available for agency actions taken with respect to 

permitted activities. Permittees are entitled to appeal this decision under the 215 

procedures or under the 251 procedures, but not both. 

Notices of appeal filed under 36 CFR 251 must be fully consistent with 36 CFR 251.90, 

“Content of Notice of Appeal.” The notice of appeal must be filed with Kevin D. Martin,

Forest Supervisor, as described in the previous paragraph. In addition a simultaneous copy 

of the notice of appeal must be filed with Kent Connaughton, Regional Forester, to the 

address of USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Attention Appeals Office, PO 

Box 3623, Portland, OR 97208-3623. Again, the appeal must be postmarked or delivered 

within 45 days of the date the legal notice for this decision appears in the East Oregonian

newspaper.

Implementation 

If no appeals are filed within the 45-day appeal filing time period, implementation of 

the decision may occur on, but not before, the 5th business day after the close of the 

appeal filing period (36 CFR 215.9(a)). 

If any appeals are filed, and the Forest Service decision is upheld, implementation 

may occur on, but not before, the 15th business day following the date of the last 

appeal disposition (36 CFR 215.9(b)). 
Record of Decision

ROD 19

10. Contact Information 

For additional information on the FEIS and ROD, please contact Holly Harris, 

Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Walla Walla Ranger District, 1415 West Rose St., 

Walla Walla, WA 99362; Telephone (509-522-6267); or: Kimpton Cooper, 

Environmental Coordinator, Walla Walla Ranger District, 1415 West Rose St., 

Walla Walla, WA 99362; Telephone (509) 522-6009. 

The EIS, ROD, and supporting documents are available for inspection during 

regular business hours (Monday through Friday, 7:45 A.M. to 4:30 P.M) at the Walla 

Walla Ranger District. The FEIS and ROD are also posted on the Umatilla National 

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

11. Signature and Date 

I have been delegated the authority and I am the Responsible Official for the 

decisions outlined in this ROD. Note that in many cases this ROD summarized 

information described more completely in the accompanying FEIS. For more 

detailed information, please refer to the FEIS and its associated project 

administrative record. 
Record of Decision

ROD 20

The page left blank intentionally. 
Record of Decision Appendix 1 

ROD A1 

North End Allotment 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 
Record of Decision Appendix 1 

ROD A2 

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. 
Record of Decision Appendix 1 

ROD A3 

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. 

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

bats and other species. 
Record of Decision Appendix 1 

ROD A4 

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. 

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 
Record of Decision Appendix 1 

ROD A5 

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. 
Record of Decision Appendix 1 

ROD A6 

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). 
Record of Decision Appendix 1 

ROD A7 

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. Sheep may be authorized 

to graze the Spout Springs ski area to maintain desired vegetative conditions. 

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. 
Record of Decision Appendix 1 

ROD A8 

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. 

North End Allotment Monitoring Requirements 

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. 
Record of Decision Appendix 1 

ROD A9 

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.