Antelope Grazing Allotments Project Non-forested...

Non-forested Vegetation & Range Resources Specialist Report

Antelope Grazing Allotments Project



Jessica M. Dhaemers (with input from M. Nevill & J. Robson)

Winter Rim Zone Supervisory Rangeland Management Specialist

Fremont-Winema National Forest



Forage resources are renewable and sustainable through proper management of non-forested

plant community types, just as forested communities are renewable and sustainable within the

timber program. Forage resources are renewable on an annual basis and therefore management

needs to occur on an appropriate temporal scale to maintain and improve this resource. Grazing

is the management tool identified within Forest Plans and best available science to efficiently,

effectively, and responsibly manage forage and non-forested plant communities on NFS lands.

This report provides a description of upland and riparian non-forested vegetation resources and

the rangeland management program, the current conditions of vegetative and livestock

management resources within the project area and potential effects to those listed resources from

the management alternatives considered in this document. Analyses of direct, indirect and

cumulative effects to the vegetation and rangeland management program are included. Forest-

wide direction for managing vegetation resources may be found in the Fremont National Forest

Land and Resource Management Plan (Fremont Forest Plan, 1989) Final EIS Chapter 3, and the

Forest Plan Chapter 4 and Appendix I and the Winema National Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan (Winema Forest Plan, 1990). These will be referred to individually or as ―the

Forest Plans‖ for the remainder of this document.

Analysis was conducted using information contained in historic files, existing Range National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, existing rangeland Condition and Trend (C&T)

data, monitoring data for range permit compliance, and USDA Forest Service GIS mapping

layers. See FSH 2090.11 Zero Chapter for definitions of ecological terms used throughout this

report. All information is based on best available knowledge.

Project Basic Info

The project area for this analysis is the combined acreage of the two allotments which

encompasses the existing allotments combined boundaries with additional acreage in the Cannon

Well area and Tobin Cabin pasture as described in further detail in this document. Additionally

the project area includes a portion of the Jack Creek Sheep Allotment. The project area

encompasses approximately 168,599 acres of land, of which approximately 137,189 acres are

National Forest System (NFS) lands. The Antelope Allotment is approximately 77,806 acres

(approximately 50,334 acres are NFS lands) and is entirely within the Silver Lake RD. This

allotment currently is divided into seven grazing pastures; three large pastures (North Willow,

Halfway, and Tobin Cabin) used in rotation and four smaller pastures (Antelope Flat 1-4) which

are used seasonally for gathering, short duration grazing or holding. The Antelope Cattle and

Horse Allotment is approximately 68,349 acres (approximately 64,948 acres are NFS lands) and

is entirely within the Chemult RD. This allotment is comprised of one pasture (Antelope). The

north portion of the Jack Creek Sheep Allotment is 19,063 acres. The allotments will be referred

to throughout the rest of this document either individually by their allotment or pasture names or

collectively as the ―Antelope Grazing Allotments‖.

The project area boundary begins approximately 8 miles northwest of the town of Silver Lake,

Oregon, and approximately 5 miles east of the town of Chemult, Oregon (Figure 1). The

allotments are not within former reservation lands, but the lands encompassed still remain of

interest to the Klamath Tribes. The project area is located within both Lake and Klamath

Counties and includes portions of the Lower Sellers Creek, Crescent Butte, Stams Mountain,



Grass Well, Upper Sellers Creek, Dry Creek, Little Walker Mountain, Upper Bear Flat Draw,

Sellers Marsh, Jack Creek, Smoke Creek, Lower Bear Flat Draw, Corral Springs, Oak Butte,

Timothy Creek, Shoestring Creek, Upper Rock Creek, Bear Creek, Lower Rock Creek, and

Dillon Creek sub-watersheds.

The legal description for the project area is:

Antelope Allotment (Silver Lake RD)

North Willow Pasture – T27S, R13E, Sections (Sec.) 17-22, 27-32; Willamette Meridian

(W.M.), Lake County (Co.);

Halfway Pasture – T28S, R12E, Sec. 1, 2, 11-16, 22-

27; T28S, R13E, Sec. 18-19; (W.M.), Lake Co.;

Tobin Cabin Pasture – T26S, R11E, Sec. 13-36; T27S,

R11E, Sec. 1-36; T28S, R11E, Sec. 3-10, 14-24, 27-

34; T29S, R11E, Sec. 4-6; T27S, R12E, Sec. 6, 7, 18,

19, 30 (W.M.), Klamath & Lake Cos.;

Antelope Flat 1 – T28S, R12E, Sec. 34 and 35; T29S

R12E, Sec. 2 and 3; (W.M.), Lake Co.;

Antelope Flat 2 – T28S, R12E, Sec. 33 and 34;

(W.M.), Lake Co.;

Antelope Flat 3 – T28S, R12E, Sec. 22, 26, and 27;

(W.M.), Lake Co.;

Antelope Flat 4 – T28S, R12E, Sec. 28; (W.M.), Lake

Co.

Antelope Cattle and Horse(C&H) Allotment

(Chemult RD)

Chemult Pasture – T25S, R9E, Sec. 13-17; T26S,

R9E, Sec. 1-5, 7- 36; T27S, R9E, Sec. 1-6, 11-14; T25S, R10E, Sec. 31; T26S, R10E, Sec. 1-36;

T27S, R10E, Sec. 1-27, W.M., Klamath

Jack Creek Sheep and Goat (S&G) Allotment (Chemult RD)

North Sheep Pasture – T27S R9E, Sec. 23-26, 36; T27S R10E, Sec. 19-36; T28S R9E, Sec. 1;

T28S R10E, Sec. 1-17; 21-27, W.M., Klamath Co.

Project Area Background/History

The area currently known as the Antelope Allotments was first grazed in the 1870s with

livestock belonging to early Oregon homesteading families. Thousands of cattle, sheep and

horses are known to have used the project area during this early period. The area came under

control of the Forest Service in 1906 with the creation of the Paulina Forest Reserve and was

included in the Fremont National Forest (NF) in 1910. In 1930 the Antelope and the Tobin Cabin

Allotments were established on the Fremont NF. The current multiple allotment configuration,

using the ―spring‖ allotment on the Silver Lake Ranger District and the ―summer‖ allotment on

the Chemult Ranger District began prior to 1945. In 1961 the Winema National Forest was

created and the ―summer‖ allotment was placed under Chemult Ranger District administration.

In 1969 Tobin Cabin and Antelope Flat Allotments were added to the Antelope Allotment as

Figure 1. Project area location.

Antelope Grazing Allotments NFS Land

Chemult

Silver Lake



pastures. In 2001 the Fremont and Winema Forests were combined into a single administrative

unit, however the spring and summer allotments remained as separate grazing administrative

units managed by two ranger districts.

The east side of the Allotments straddles the boundary of the High Desert and Mazama

Ecological Provinces as described by Anderson et al. (1998), in Ecological Provinces of Oregon.

The High Desert Ecological Province in Oregon is the northern extent of the expansive Great

Basin. This province is characterized by numerous large and small closed basins surrounded by

extensive terraces formed in ancient lakes. The ecology of this province is well represented in

the Halfway and North Willow Pastures. Halfway Lake in Halfway Pasture and Antelope Flat

are examples of small, closed basin lakes within the project area.

The Mazama Ecological Province is entirely within Oregon and includes that area covered by

aeolian deposits of pumice, ash and other volcanic material from the Mt. Mazama eruption

approximately 6,500 years ago. Pumice and ash depths increase to the north and west of

Antelope Flat. The Mazama Province is characterized by sloping and undulating plateaus and

hilly to mountainous topography interspersed with basins throughout. Numerous buttes, cinder

cones, ridges and mountains formed by volcanism are interspersed across the landscape and

fields of lava and pumice are common. The Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment is

representative of this ecological province.

The landforms on the allotments can be generally described as gently sloped (1-10%), weakly

dissected, flat to rolling topography with scattered cinder cones, fault scarps, and eruptive

centers. Elevations range from 4900 feet in Antelope Flat and the east side of Halfway Pasture to

6134 feet at Pumice Butte near the Chemult/Silver Lake District boundary. Walker Mountain,

just off the Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment on the west side rises to 7,083 feet. The aspect

is generally southerly. Upland soils are primarily from aeolian Mazama ash and pumice derived

from the Mt. Mazama eruption. Pumice and ash overburden depths has been measured to 20 feet

on the west side of the allotments and to 6 feet north of Antelope Flat. Buried beneath the

pumice layer are the residual soils, derived from basalts, tuff and/or rhyolite. Soils occurring

along drainages, streams, valleys and old lakebeds have been transported and deposited by water.

These soils have been weathered from a wide variety of bedrocks including basalt, rhyolite, tuff,

breccias, and pumice.

The allotments are located in a semiarid rain-shadow area east of the Cascade Mountains.

Precipitation comes during the fall, winter and spring months with summers normally dry with

intense localized thunderstorms. Climate data is available from Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS) Snotel locations at Chemult and Silver Lake. Appendix A displays temperature

and precipitation measurements from these sites from 1981 through 2010.

Vegetation found on the allotments can be generally characterized as forested uplands, sagebrush

flats, dry meadows and riparian areas associated with drainages or springs. Range vegetation

assessments were first conducted on the allotments in 1955 with a number of permanent

vegetation transects established across different forage vegetation types. These transects were re-

read in 1969, 1980, 2008 and again in 2010. An Allotment Management Plan (AMP) was

developed through a Coordinated Resource Management Planning effort in 1985. This plan has



been implemented since its inception and was updated with a new AMP developed for the

Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment (Chemult Pasture) in 1995. This AMP continued the

season long grazing with no change in the number of livestock or the season of use.

An Appendix to the 1985 Range Environmental Assessment (REA) included a table of stocking

history displaying estimated annual permitted numbers, season of use, and animal units from

1930 through 1981. This dataset is updated to 2011 in Appendix B of this report. Sheep grazed

under permit on the Tobin Cabin portion of the allotment until 1969 at numbers ranging from

500 to 860 ewe/lamb pairs from June 15/July 1 to September 30. Cattle have grazed under

permit on the North Willow, Halfway, Antelope Flat, and Chemult Pastures since 1908. Stocking

records indicate some combined livestock class grazing (Cow/calf and Ewe/lamb) in the 1930‘s

and early 1940‘s on these pastures but since 1945 the class of livestock has been cow/calf pairs

on these pastures.

Project Area Current Conditions

Rangeland Management

The Antelope Allotments, as currently configured, have eight pastures across the Silver Lake and

Chemult Ranger Districts of the Fremont-Winema NFs. The Antelope Allotments are permitted

for a combined maximum of 3,218 animal unit months (AUMs) from May 15 through September

30, while the northeast portion of the Jack Creek Sheep Allotment is currently in non-use. Cattle

will typically enter the Antelope Allotment (SL) in May from private lands or Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) Allotments to the east and move westward into the Chemult Pasture as the

range becomes ready for livestock grazing.

Silver Lake Ranger District

North Willow Pasture

North Willow Pasture is a 4,860 acre management unit located in the northeast corner of the

allotment. North Willow is bordered by FS McCarty Butte, South Wastina Pasture to the north,

JWTR LLC to the west, BLM to the south and FS/BLM/Ward Lake Allotment/North Stratton

Pasture to the east. There are no private lands inventoried in this pasture. Historically the

pasture has been used in May/June and serves as an entry pasture to the allotment. The adjacent

BLM managed Ward Lake Allotment permits grazing to the Antelope Allotment permittee for

the months of March/April.

Past management plans describe rest rotation used in conjunction with Halfway Pasture. Early

season (mid-May –June) has been the grazing strategy since 2000 with the consolidation of

grazing permits. The North Willow Pasture receives the first herd of approximately 230

cow/calf pairs on or around May 15 as range forage becomes ready for grazing and remains in

this pasture until forage utilization is met or water availability is limited, usually around June 30.

There are approximately 13 miles of allotment and pasture boundary fences and three springs in

North Willow Pasture.

Ross Spring was developed in 1938 and is currently not functioning.

North Willow Spring was developed in 1979 and is currently not functioning.

Baskin Spring was developed after 1985 and is currently not functioning.



There were eight stock ponds inventoried in North Willow Pasture by Swanson in 1984.

Line Pond (SE of the NW of Section 30, T27S R13E) is high priority for cleanout.

Oat Pond (NW of SE, T27S R13E) provides perennial water for the north portion of this

pasture (it was ½ full in Oct. 2010).

Most of the remaining ponds in this pasture occur along FR 2780.

Halfway Pasture

Halfway Pasture is an 8,462 acre unit in the southeast corner of the Antelope Allotment. All

acres except 160 acres are NFS lands. North Willow Pasture is to the northeast with the BLM

Ward Lake Pasture to the east. Tobin Cabin Pasture and Antelope Flat Pastures #1 and #4 are to

the west of Halfway.

Past management plans describe rest rotation used in conjunction with North Willow Pasture.

Historically the pasture has been used in May/June and serves as an entry pasture to the

allotment. The adjacent BLM managed Ward Lake Allotment permits grazing to the Antelope

Allotment permittee for the months of March/April.

Early season (mid-May –June) has been the grazing strategy since 2000 with the consolidation of

the grazing permits. Herd 2, consisting of approximately 189 cow/calf pairs, enters the Forest in

the Halfway Pasture on or around June 1 and remains until range forage utilization is met or June

30, although movement generally occurs approximately fifteen days after entry into this pasture.

Early season use is necessary for these high desert areas as water holes and springs may become

inadequate to support livestock by early July.

There are no developed springs in Halfway Pasture. At one time there was a well and

pipeline/trough development at Halfway Lake. The ground water feeding this well dropped

below the bottom of the well so the source is lost. There are 2 small dugout ponds adjacent to the

lakebed but these only catch and hold water on years of significant runoff.

There were 12 stock ponds inventoried by Swanson in the 1984 REA.

Corner Pond (SE of NW, Section 1, T28S R13E)

A borrow pit/stock pond called Junction Pond, located just north of the junction of the

Bear Flat Highway and FR 2780,

Cinder Pond (SW of SW, Section 13, T27S R13E) and

Post Pond (SE of Section 35, T27S R13E) have been identified as high priority for

livestock water opportunities.

There are also several locations identified for permanent water haul locations that are

high priority livestock water opportunities in this pasture.

Antelope Flat Pastures

There are 4 pastures in the Antelope Flat Pasture complex. This flat was a historic, season long

holding field that was subject to unauthorized use and drift from surrounding allotments. The flat

was fenced in 1943 to curtail some of the unauthorized use and to bring management to the area.

The interior fences were constructed in 1959.



Cattle are moved through the Antelope Flat Pastures for short durations and for varying lengths

of time as necessary for transition between larger pastures and holding during fall gather. Herd 2

(189 pairs) spends three to four days in the southwest pasture (Antelope Flat Pasture #2) and is

then taken to the Tobin Cabin pasture in mid-June in most years and no later than July 5.

Additionally, the southwest pasture on Antelope Flat is used for another three to four days in

early July to rest and hold Herd 1 (approximately 230 pairs) during their move from North

Willow pasture to Chemult pasture.

The northeast pasture (Antelope Flat Pasture #3) is sometimes used by approximately 40 pairs as

utilization is reached in the Tobin Cabin pasture in August to September. It is also used in

conjunction with a private inholding and the northwest pasture (Antelope Flat Pasture #4) as

holding pastures during fall gather from the Chemult Pasture which starts around September 15.

Once enough livestock are placed in this pasture to constitute a load, the animals are trucked off

Forest to the home ranch. This gathering and trucking occurs until all of this permittee‘s

livestock are removed from the Forest.

The southeast pasture (Antelope Flat Pasture #1) is permitted to a different permittee than the

rest of the allotment. With the waiver of a Term Grazing Permit from the Pitcher Ranch to Tom

O‘Leary Ranch, this pasture is incorporated into the Buck Creek Allotment for management

purposes. This pasture is permitted for 200 pairs from June 1 thru June 30. Additional livestock

may trail through this pasture on their way to other Antelope Flat Pastures because of dangers

associated with trailing livestock down the highway; however, utilization of forage by these

trailing livestock should be minimal.

Tobin Cabin Pasture

The Tobin Cabin Pasture is located west of Halfway Pasture and east of the Chemult Ranger

District boundary and consists of both NFS lands (35,179 acres) and private lands (27,099 acres)

under Term Private Land Grazing Permit for a total of 62,278 acres in this pasture. The majority

of private acres were owned and managed by Weyerhaeuser (WEYCO). WEYCO sold these

lands in 1998 and they are currently owned and managed by JWTR LLC, a Klamath Falls, OR,

timber holding corporation.

Tobin Cabin Allotment was formed with the establishment of the Fremont NF and managed

primarily as a sheep allotment until 1969 when the class of livestock was converted to cattle.

Records prior to 1930 are not available but notes indicate the allotment was used intermittently

by both sheep and cattle. From 1930 until 1969 permitted and authorized sheep numbers varied

from 700 to 2000 for a grazing season from July 1 to September 30. Sheep were permitted under

G5/Term Private Land Grazing Permits, with WEYCO leasing the grazing to permittees. The

first Term permits were issued in 1969 for 225 AUMs on NFS lands and 300 AUMs permitted

on the private lands.

In 1979 a Production/Utilization study was conducted in Tobin Cabin with the objective of

verifying proper stocking capacity. The study was conducted in 1979 with some observations in

1981. The study concluded the capacity of this pasture was 1,350 AUMs (550 AUMs on NFS

lands, 800 AUMs on private lands). The study continued in 1982 with some focused

observations on management objectives for the WEYCO lands. With the addition of new ponds,



the study concluded the capacity was 700-800 AUMs. The study noted that as stands developed

and forage grasses were shaded out, the capacity would decline. WEYCO reduced the allowable

stocking level over the years to the current 560 AUMs. Currently the grazing permits authorize

105 AUMs under Term Grazing Permit and 560 AUMs under Term Private Land Grazing

Permit.

Herd 2 (189 pairs) is taken to the Tobin Cabin pasture in mid-June in most years and no later

than July 5. A portion of Herd 2, approximately 149 of 189 pairs, is then placed in the Chemult

Pasture around August 1 or as forage utilization is met in the Tobin Cabin Pasture. The 40

―extra‖ pairs are either left in the Tobin Cabin Pasture until September 15 or when utilization is

met then they are moved to private land or one of the three permitted Antelope Flat Pastures.

There are over 20 miles of fence on the boundary of this pasture and an additional 20 miles of

unfenced natural boundaries. Currently inventoried is 10 miles of division fence between Tobin

Cabin Pasture and Chemult Pasture in nonfunctional condition. There is another 10 miles of

allotment boundary fence between the Jack Creek S&G Allotment and Tobin Cabin Pasture. This

fence was constructed by WEYCO in the 1970‘s when WEYCO created a private pasture on

Jack Creek Ridge and is in an unknown condition.

There are 3 developed springs in Tobin Cabin.

Mud Springs has a spring box, pipeline and trough system inside a small livestock

holding trap. The source protection fence is in poor condition.

Bull Jack Spring has a protection fence that is still functional but the pipeline and trough

were abandoned when a pond was dug just downstream of the spring.

Tobin Spring is fenced and a pipeline feeds a trough below the spring. This development

is in good condition.

There are several undeveloped springs in this pasture as identified through an inventory of

springs conducted during the 2010 season. Those identified as important for consideration in

future livestock allotment and pasture management are:

Corral Springs,

an unnamed spring in the drainage south of Timber Well,

Section 9 Spring and

Tinhead Spring in the northeast corner of the pasture.

There are 26 stock ponds inventoried in this pasture. Most hold water seasonally and are dry

before the end of the grazing season. Those identified as high priority for future livestock

management objectives include:

Lake Pond (SW of NW of Sec 27, T28SR11E),

Coyote Pond (SW of NE of Sec 10, T28SR11E), and

Wallows Pond in Bear Draw (SE of NW of Sec. 32, T27S R11E).

There are two small trick tank/guzzler structures located in this pasture (#1 is at T27S R11E,

Sec29, NWSE, #2 is at T27S R11E, Sec17, SWNE). These consist of small collection pads,

about 50 feet by 100 feet, constructed with sheet roofing material, draining into 500 gallon



storage tanks that feed troughs. These structures are nonfunctional and no longer necessary for

livestock management in this pasture.

Chemult Ranger District

Chemult Pasture

Grazed as the ‗upper forest‘ since the Antelope Allotments were established, the 66,118 acre

Chemult Pasture provides mid-late summer foraging opportunities for the allotment. The

Chemult Pasture consists of both NFS lands and private lands under Term Private Land Grazing

Permit and 379 pairs graze until approximately September 15 when the permittee begins to

gather livestock and place them in the northern pastures of Antelope Flat. Gathering continues

until all livestock are located and removed from NFS lands. Any livestock remaining on either of

the Antelope Allotments after October 10 are considered to be excess use based on Rangeland

Management Handbook definition and are billed for based on these guidelines.

The Chemult pasture is the primary forage base for the allotment offering the greatest capacity

and best quality feed. Starting in the mid-2000s extensive fenced riparian areas were constructed

to exclude grazing from one large meadow and several smaller ones. This reduction in available

forage base continued in 2008 with the exclusion of cattle in the Jack Creek meadows. The Jack

Creek Meadow Fenced Riparian Area was considered in the authorized use resulting in a permit

modification to the herd size from 419 pairs to 379 pairs however there have been no

modifications in numbers or seasons for the other fenced riparian areas. There are several other

large meadows within the Chemult Pasture that are privately owned, most of which are

considered in overall grazing capacity through a Term Private Land Grazing Permit.

The following range improvement structures are assigned to the grazing permit for maintenance

and with the exception of condition assessments these are accurately recorded in the I-Web

(INFRA) database;

The Antelope/ Jack Creek boundary fence west of Tea Table Mountain is 2.2 miles of

three strand barbed wire fence, constructed prior to 1960 and is in critical condition.

The Antelope/ Jack Creek boundary fence west of the Jamison Ranch is 2.7 miles of three

strand barbed wire fence, constructed prior to 1980 and is in critical condition.

The Antelope/ Jack Creek boundary fence east of Tea Table Mountain is 3.0 miles of

three strand barbed wire fence, constructed prior to 1960 and is in critical condition.

The Chemult/Jack Creek riparian division fence is 3.12 miles of three strand barbed wire

fence, constructed in 2008 and is in satisfactory condition.

The following wildlife and watershed structures are assigned to the Chemult Ranger District for

maintenance and with the exception of condition assessments these are accurately recorded in the

I-Web (INFRA) database;

The Dry Meadow fenced riparian area is 1.13 miles of four strand barbed wire, with

approximately 300 feet of buck and pole. T-posts are 18-22 feet apart with single 4 inch



wood posts every 50-60 feet. Constructed in 2005, this fence was not constructed to FS

standards for ―H‖ bracing fences which may limit the lifespan of the fence. The brace

posts are too small (4 inch) and the cross members of the line braces are less than 6 feet.

Construction standards call for a minimum of 8 feet (ideally 10 feet) for cross braces.

There are at least 3 places where wire tie-off to the braces is poor or substandard. This

fence was constructed using two by fours for stays between t-posts. Stays of this size are

heavy and put additional weight on the fence, possibly limiting the life of the fence. The

buck and pole section, across the meadow at the north end, was constructed using

lodgepole pine cut locally. The material used to construct this section of fence is adequate

from a construction standard perspective but will require considerable maintenance if

damaged by falling trees. Current condition of the improvement as a whole cannot be

assessed due to failure to use approved FS fence construction specifications.

The Dry Meadow spring, pipeline, and trough is approximately 300 feet of buried pipe

from a vintage (1950‘s era) spring box to a 10‘ Powder River trough. The pipeline may

be compressed or bent and flows seem restricted, especially in below average water

years. There is a pumper chance at Dry Meadow that is currently unavailable to livestock

due to the installation of the fenced riparian area.

The Sproats Meadow Spring fenced riparian area is approximately 0.84 miles of three

strand barbed wire fence constructed in 1994 or 1995 and rebuilt to extend the fence

north in 2005. The fence construction standard is the same as other non-range fences of

this era, and current condition cannot be assessed due to failure to use approved FS fence

construction specifications.

Sproats Meadow spring, pipeline, and trough is approximately 300 feet of buried pipe

from a new spring box to a Powder River trough outside the fenced riparian area.

Johnson Meadow Spring fenced riparian area is approximately 0.58 miles of three strand

barbed wire let-down fence with approximately 500 feet of buck and pole fence on the

east side and was constructed in 2005. Spot checks of line braces found small (4 inch)

posts and cross braces less than 6 feet in length. The buck and pole section, along the

meadow at the east side, was constructed using lodgepole pine cut locally. The material

used to construct this section of fence is adequate from a construction standard

perspective but will require considerable maintenance if damaged by falling trees. The

fence construction standard is the same as other fences of this era and current condition

cannot be assessed on the improvement as a whole due to failure to use approved FS

fence construction specifications throughout.

The Johnson Meadow spring, pipeline and trough is approximately 50 feet of over-the-

ground pipeline from a vintage spring box to a Powder River trough. The system is solar

powered and pumps water uphill slightly as opposed to gravity fed downhill. The system

was installed with Resource Advisory Committee funds and the current condition is

good.



The Riders/Cow Camp fenced riparian area is approximately 1.39 miles of three strand

barbed wire fence constructed in 1995. The fence was not constructed to FS standard for

corner and line braces and failure of these structures is considered eminent. The fence

construction standard is the same as other fences of this era and current condition cannot

be assessed due to failure to use approved FS fence construction specifications.

The Squirrel Camp fenced riparian area is approximately 1.24 miles of three strand let-

down fence constructed in 2005 and this fence was not constructed to FS standards for

line and corner braces. The let-down components are not standard but function. The fence

dead ends and ties off into timber slash windrowed in the uplands at the northeast corner

and at the southwest corner. The fence construction standard is the same as other non-

range fences of this era and current condition cannot be assessed due to failure to use

approved FS fence construction specifications.

The Squirrel Camp spring, pipeline and trough system is approximately 300 feet of

buried pipeline from a vintage spring box to a Powder River trough. The system was

installed in 2005 and pipeline may be compromised due to kinks or bends as flow is

restricted. Further assessment is necessary to determine the condition of this structure and

whether heavy maintenance or reconstruction is necessary to resolve functionality issues.

The Wilshire Meadow Spring fenced riparian area is 0.36 miles of three strand barbed

wire fence with approximately 130 feet of log-worm fence on the south side. The fence

was constructed in 2005 and was not constructed to standard for line and corner braces.

The log-worm section was constructed with locally harvested lodgepole pine and seems

solid.

Wilshire Meadow Spring is approximately 500 feet of buried pipeline from a vintage

spring box to a Powder River trough and is considered in good condition.

Round Meadow fenced riparian area is 3.5 miles of 3 strand barbed wire let-down fence

constructed in 2005. The fence was not constructed to FS standard for line and corner

braces. The let-down components are not to standard, but function. The fence

construction standard is the same as other non-range fences of this era and current

condition cannot be assessed due to failure to use approved FS fence construction

specifications.

Cannon Well fenced riparian area is 1.75 miles of 3 strand barbed wire fence constructed

in 2007. The fence was not constructed to FS standard for line and corner braces. The

fence construction standard is the same as other non-range fences of this era and current

condition cannot be assessed due to failure to use approved FS fence construction

specifications.

There are approximately 27 stock ponds or developed water sources inventoried on the Chemult

Pasture. Most are dugout ponds, created to water livestock or for pumper chances and

firefighting. There may be ponds that are not in the inventory, particularly ponds that were

attained by the FS through land exchanges. Maintenance of ponds is a condition in the Term



Grazing Permit Part 3 but current implementation instructions need to be developed. The ponds

were not surveyed for other resources when they were created so some inventory may be needed

before pond maintenance can occur.

Jack Creek S&G Allotment

The Jack Creek S&G allotment consists of approximately 135,700 acres. Historic livestock use is

primarily sheep grazing except for a few years of cattle utilization in the mid-1970s. Allotment

inspection reports from the early 1960s mention cattle drift from the Antelope Allotments onto

Davis Flat and Little Round Meadow. Sheep numbers have varied from over 5000 ran in the

1930s thru 1940s, to around 1400 in the 1950s thru 1960s, and 1000-2000 in present times.

For this analysis only the area considered for possible conversion to part of the Antelope

Allotments are analyzed. This area is north of the 83 Road and east of Jackie‘s Thicket. The area

has not been authorized for livestock use since around 2003 as the current permittee has reduced

his band and after repeated partial non-use his permit was modified from 2000 ewe/lambs to

1100 ewe/lambs from June 1 thru September 30. Currently sheep use the southern portion of the

allotment south of the 83 road with most of the current use occurring south of the Silver Lake

Highway.

The portion being analyzed for use by cattle is primarily the Jack Creek corridor where the

majority of the meadows are located. Primary forage areas are available in Bull Frog, O‘Connor,

Davis Flat and Cabin Springs meadows with several small meadow complexes to the east and

west. A majority of the O‘Connor Meadow is privately owned and is fenced out of the allotment.

Jack Creek flows intermittently through this portion of the allotment and is often dry early in the

season with water left in small pools and pot holes late into the season. The potential livestock

capacity from this acreage is estimated to be approximately 619 AUMs; however the actual

capacity will be determined and adjusted through monitoring of utilization levels and other

resource objectives if appropriate.

The following structural improvements exist on the portion of the Jack Creek Allotment being

considered and analyzed in this document. Maintenance responsibilities may change as

appropriate.

There are no interior fences in the portion of the Jack Creek Allotment being considered

and only one half acre fenced riparian area on North O‘Connor Meadow.

Cabin Spring is developed including a spring box and a 2000 gallon redwood tank placed

in the meadow. This was installed in 1962 and is still functioning. Although the location

in the meadow is not in line with current management practices, moving this trough or

preventing livestock use may not be practical due to other resource considerations.

Dempsey Spring has a small reservoir that was originally built in 1963 and is not

functional.



Huckleberry Spring has a small reservoir that was originally built in 1963 and is not

functional.

Yellow Jacket Spring consists of a culvert headbox that fills a small 100 gallon steel

trough in a small meadow. The system is currently functional but may be inadequate to

meet future livestock management objectives considered later in this document.

Little Round Meadow pond is a manmade stock pond in the meadow that is functioning.

Cleary Spring is a spring fed stock pond in the meadow built in 1963 that is functioning.

Bartley Headquarters Pond is a stock pond in the meadow built in 1963 that is

functioning.

Lily Camp is a reservoir in Jack Creek that is accessible to water tenders and livestock.

Private Lands

There are numerous private parcels that exist within the Chemult Pasture portion of the project

area. These parcels have multiple owners and multiple uses, including but not limited to

livestock grazing. Some of these private parcels are administered for livestock grazing through

Term Private Land Grazing Permits by the FS. For the purpose of informing later discussions in

alternatives below, we are including information about some of the private parcels here.

Jamison private lands consist of several meadows along Jack Creek within the Chemult Pasture

that are not under FS grazing permit. These two parcels are 160 acres each and provide feed for

75 pairs of cattle for three to three and half months. These numbers are not included in current

permitted numbers.

The Jack Creek fenced riparian area is divided into private and NFS lands; NFS lands have been

rested since 2008 with the exception of a small portion (less than 40 acres) of NFS land at the

southern end of Jamison Ranch private lands. Livestock exclusion has been attempted through

the use of temporary electric fence, but has seen limited success. Administrative process through

the Rangeland Management Handbook has been used to address any noncompliance with current

resource protection objectives or current legal rulings.

Plant Community Types

Methods for describing, characterizing and mapping vegetation community types differ across

the project area due to the extent of the analysis crossing District and Forest level administrative

boundaries and private lands. For this reason, non-forested vegetation will be described by

district. Total acreages of described vegetation may not match total project area acreage due to

some private land acreages‘ exclusion from plant community type surveys and use of more

accurate mapping techniques to acquire project area acreage.


The 1984 REA describes plant associations existing on the Silver Lake portion of the Antelope

Allotments and provides a summary of acreage of each plant community type. This plant



association mapping completed by J.Swanson in 1982 remains accurate while the Fremont

Ecoclass GIS layer has validation issues associated with meadows not being classified by soil or

vegetation types. Consequently, the range acre summary forms from the 1984 REA were used to

describe current plant associations for the Silver Lake portion of the project area (Table 1).

North Willow pasture is characterized primarily by low sage/Idaho fescue flats (1,582 acres)

scattered between ponderosa pine/bitterbrush/Idaho fescue timber stands (3,197 acres).

Intermingled in these timbered stands are several Cusick‘s bluegrass dry meadows (81 acres) and

mountain mahogany dominated ecotones.

The vegetation inventoried in the Halfway Pasture is dominated by ponderosa

pine/bitterbrush/fescue plant associations (6,576 acres) with low sage flats and mountain

mahogany types intermingled (1,637 acres). Western juniper is common on dry forest sites and

has invaded onto big sagebrush and low sagebrush types, but current acreage of invaded

shrubland is unknown. There are 39 acres inventoried as Cusick‘s bluegrass dry meadow type,

primarily represented by the Halfway Lake (dry) area.

Table 1. Plant associations for the Silver Lake portion of the Antelope Allotments as

described in the 1984 REA.

Plant Community Type Forage Type Pasture Acres

Low sagebrush/ Idaho fescue Primary1 North Willow 1,582

Halfway 1,637

Big sagebrush/grass Primary

Antelope #12 484

Antelope #22 407

Antelope #3 250

Antelope #42 80

Cusick’s bluegrass meadows Primary North Willow 81

Halfway 39

Meadow Primary Tobin Cabin 427

Ponderosa pine/ bitterbrush/ Idaho fescue Primary1 North Willow 3,197

Halfway 6,576

Ponderosa pine/ mahogany-bitterbrush/ Idaho fescue Primary Antelope #3 395

Ponderosa pine/ shrub/ grass Primary Tobin Cabin 1,470

Transitory Tobin Cabin 7,734

Lodgepole pine Primary Tobin Cabin 690

Transitory Tobin Cabin 22,274

Mixed conifer/ shrub/ grass Transitory Tobin Cabin 4,504

Total acreage of suitable range described 51,827 1 A portion of this acreage includes mahogany/shrub/grass communities.

2 These areas were plowed and seeded with introduced wheatgrass species in the mid-1940s-50s and therefore may

no longer be representative of a natural big sagebrush/grass community.



The Tobin Cabin pasture is characterized by forested vegetation types that represent both

primary and transitory forage for livestock and wildlife. These forested types include ponderosa

pine/shrub/grass types, lodgepole pine, and mixed conifer/shrub/grass types. Shrub species such

as antelope bitterbrush and manzanita dominate the understory of drier forested types while

blueberry, huckleberry and bearberry are common as understory in wetter lodgepole pine types.

Forage species common in the forest understory include western needlegrass, Idaho fescue and

upland sedge species in drier forest types and riparian sedge, tufted hairgrass and Kentucky

bluegrass communities in wetter lodgepole communities.

Meadows make up approximately 427 acres within the Tobin Cabin Pasture and these are

generally characterized by Cusick‘s bluegrass communities in drier meadows and tufted

hairgrass, riparian sedges and Kentucky bluegrass in wetter meadow types. The 1984 REA also

characterizes 16,530 acres within Tobin Cabin Pasture as non-range acres due to dense forested

canopy cover. Generally forested types are considered marginal or non-range acres if canopy

closure exceeds 40 to 50% unless there is sufficient soil moisture to support forage species that

are shade tolerant.

Poor forage production and extensive sagebrush in the Antelope Flat pastures led to a plowing

and reseeding program in 1944 with revegetation work continuing in 1947, 1948 and 1953.

Various sagebrush conversion projects were implemented using herbicides and fire along with

revegetation seeding with introduced wheatgrasses, shrubs and forbs. These projects had limited

success and sagebrush reoccupied the treatments. Crested wheatgrass is still a major component

in Antelope Flat #2 and #3.

Chemult Ranger District

Since 1962 several protocols have been established and used to describe the vegetation

community types present on the Winema National Forest. Among these are:

1962 long term range vegetation assessments,

1982 Plant Associations of the Central Oregon Pumice Zone (Volland), and

2000s Terrestrial Ecosystem Unit (TEU) Inventory (GTR W0-68 2005).

Each of these protocols built on previous information and it has been determined that the TEU

information is most relevant to the current vegetation conditions for the Chemult Ranger District

portion of the project area (Chemult Pasture and portion of Jack Creek S&G including private

lands).

TEU inventories are an attempt to characterize, map and interpret distinct combinations of

landform, soil, potential natural vegetation, near surface geology/hydrology and climate.

Ecological Types are the taxonomic units of this inventory and represent categories of land with

a distinct combination of landscape elements, differing from other types in the kind and amount

of vegetation it can produce and in its ability to respond to management actions and natural

disturbances. The landscape elements include climate, landform, lithology, near surface

hydrology and soil.

The TEU inventory describes 23 distinct ecological types representing eleven plant community

types within the Chemult RD portion of the project area. The majority of these plant

communities is dominated by forested species and represents most of the acreage in this portion



of the project area. Table 2 displays the TEU Inventory map units, plant community types and

acres occupied by each within the Chemult pasture and portion of the Jack Creek S&G

Allotment being considered in this analysis.

Approximately 26,907 acres within the Chemult RD portion of the project area (Table 2) are

dominated by lodgepole pine plant communities representing both upland and riparian soil types

(Table 2). Those lodgepole pine communities with upland soils (TEUs 1003 & 1004) represent

96% of the total lodgepole pine dominated acreage (Table 2). These communities are

characterized by antelope bitterbrush, western needlegrass and mixed upland grasses as the

major understory forage species. The remaining 4% (Table 2) of the lodgepole pine plant

communities are present within riparian soil types (TEUs 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2016, &

2017) and are characterized by rose spirea, widefruit sedge, bog blueberry and/or kinnikinnick as

understory species (Table 2).

In addition, approximately 37,937 acres within the Chemult RD portion of the project area

(26,461- Chemult; 11,476- North Sheep) are dominated by ponderosa pine plant communities

completely within upland soil types (TEUs 1016, 1053 & 1026 (½ the acreage)) (Table 2).

These plant communities are characterized by understories of antelope bitterbrush, snowbrush

ceanothus, and/or western needlegrass (Table 2).

The remaining forested plant community types represented within the Chemult RD portion of the

project area are dominated by white fir and all exist on upland soil types (TEUs 1013, 1018,

1023, 1026 (½ the acreage) & 1031). White fir communities cover approximately 18,473 acres

(17,882-Chemult; 591- North Sheep) and support snowbrush ceanothus, greenleaf manzanita and

giant chinquapin as understory species. None of these plants are considered forage species for

livestock.

The remaining plant communities represented within the project area exist on riparian soil types

and are considered non-forested communities. This includes approximately 20 acres of big

sagebrush with bunchgrasses in the Chemult Pasture (TEU 2019) that is considered primary

range for livestock. There are approximately 3,777 acres (3,002- Chemult; 775- North Sheep) of

moist meadow types (TEU 2000 & 2004) within the Chemult RD portion of the project area

which also fall within lands considered primary range for livestock. These moist meadows areas

are primarily tufted hairgrass or Cusick‘s bluegrass dominated meadows with components of

sedges, rushes and other meadow species. There are also approximately 134 acres (TEU 2008)

that represent a willow wetland dominated plant community.



Table 2. Acreage Summary by TEU and Ecological Type for the Chemult RD portion of the project area.

Landscape

Position TEU Soils & Slopes Ecological Type Code; Plant Community Type Acres

1

UPLAND SOILS

Level to

Gentle

Slopes

1003 Pumice Lapine, PICO/PUTR2/ACOC3; lodgepole pine/antelope

bitterbrush/western needlegrass

18,770 C

1-6% 5,647 NS

1004 Deepdish,

PICO/grass; lodgepole pine/mixed grass community 1,182 C

0-1% 133 NS

1016 Pumice Lapine,

2-12%

PIPO/PUTR2/ACOC3; ponderosa pine/ antelope

bitterbrush/ western needlegrass

25,773 C

10,910 NS

1031 ABCO/CEVE-ARPA6; white fir/snowbrush ceanothus-

greenleaf manzanita

10,251 C

66 NS

1053 Shukash, 2-12% PIPO/PUTR2-CEVE/ACOC3; ponderosa pine/antelope

bitterbrush- snowbrush ceanothus/ western needlegrass 139 NS

Gentle to

Steep

Slopes

1018 Lapine, 12-35% ABCO/CEVE-CHCHC4; white fir/snowbrush ceanothus-

giant chinquapin

5,062 C

3 NS

1023

Pumice Lapine,

12-35%

ABCO/CEVE-ARPA6; white fir/snowbrush ceanothus-

greenleaf manzanita

1,180 C

95 NS

1026

PIPO/PUTR2/ACOC3 OR ABCO/CEVE-ARPA6;

ponderosa pine/antelope bitterbrush/western needlegrass

OR white fir/snowbrush ceanothus-greenleaf manzanita

1,366 C

854 NS

Steep

Slopes 1013 Lapine, 35-70%

ABCO/CEVE-CHCHC4; white fir/snowbrush ceanothus-

giant chinquapin 706 C

RIPARIAN SOILS

Dry

Meadow 2019

Humic

Haploxerands ARTR2/bunchgrass; big sagebrush/bunchgrass 20 C

Moist

Meadow

2000 Moist meadow

Chinchallo, 0-1% Moist meadow; tufted hairgrass & sedge meadow

2,799 C

715 NS

2004 Moist meadow

Chocknott, 1-4% Moist meadow; Cusick‘s bluegrass dry meadow

203 C

60 NS

Wet

Meadow

2001 Mesquito, 1-8% PICO/SPDO/CAAN15; lodgepole pine/rose

spirea/widefruit sedge

86 C

58 NS

2002 Mesquito, 8-15% 12 C

9 NS

2005 Wickiup,

0-1%6

PICO/VAUL/CAAN15; lodgepole pine/bog

blueberry/widefruit sedge

183 C

89 NS

Very Wet

Meadow

2006 Cosbie-Stirfry

complex6, 1-15%

PICO/CAAN15 OR PICO/VAUL/CAAN15; lodgepole

pine/widefruit sedge OR lodgepole pine/bog

blueberry/widefruit sedge

513 C

180 NS

2007 gentle slope Nonvegetated land; river wash 47 C

37 NS

2008 Salix wetlands

Chemult, 0-2% SALIX wetlands; willow wetlands

133 C

1 NS

2017 Cosbie,

1-3% PICO/CAAN15; lodgepole pine/widefruit sedge

3 C

67 NS

OTHERS

Water 3000 level to gentle

slope Not Applicable; Water 8 C

Other

5200 No vegetation described 18

C 5201 Chinchallo, 0-1% No vegetation described 10

2016 Skellock, 0-1% PICO/ARUV; lodgepole pine/kinnikinnick 5

Other unknown 19

Totals 68,349 C

19,063 NS 1C= Chemult Pasture; NS= North portion of Jack Creek S&G Allotment considered in this analysis.



Data Collection/Methodology

Three types of datasets are available for assessing non-forested vegetation within the Antelope

Allotments Project area. These include effectiveness monitoring that assesses long-term

condition and trend of vegetation communities (upland and meadow types), photo points that can

be taken in time sequence to show apparent trend of plant communities or support annual

changes in management and implementation monitoring which measures annual utilization of

forage and disturbance of plant communities by livestock.

Condition and trend (C&T) monitoring transects are assessed using the Guidelines for Forage

Resource Evaluation within Central Oregon Pumice Zone (Volland 1985) and any datasets

collected before 1985 have been recalculated using this protocol where appropriate. These sites

are generally assessed on a timeframe of ten to twenty years or more because upland vegetation

community (meadows and shrublands) response is relatively slow to measurable changes.

Locations are typically in a single ecological site/plant community that show a response to

management actions and are representative of management within each plant community type

(USDI, Bureau of Land Management 1997).

Plant community assessment protocols have remained relatively the same over time; a collection

of points (generally greater than 100) along a line or belt transect. These sites are permanently

marked so they can be assessed repeatedly over time to determine changes in plant community

structure, composition, diversity and effective ground cover. Forage condition rating is

calculated based on number of times plants and specifically palatable plants are encountered (hit)

at specific points along transects or within a plot and all plant hits are recorded as well as rock,

litter and moss that represent effective ground cover, or bare ground. The soil rating associated

with these condition and trend assessments is determined based on the relationship between the

presence of bare ground versus ground cover (plant, litter, rock, or moss). As the occurrence of

ground cover increases, the soil rating improves and bare ground decreases.

According to the Range Management section of the Forest Plans ―The forage resource will be

managed for healthy range with satisfactory condition‖ (Fremont FP pg 75; Winema FP pg 4-

62). Satisfactory condition is defined in the glossary of each Forest Plans as ―On suitable range,

forage condition is at least fair, with stable trend, and allotment is not classified PC (basic

resource damage) or PD (other resource damage)‖ (Fremont FP glossary pg 30; Winema FP

glossary pg 39). Allowable use levels (or maximum annual utilization) of forage are based on

whether range resources are in satisfactory or unsatisfactory condition (Fremont FP pg 75-76;

Winema FP pg 4-62 & 4-63).

Over the years the clarification of different plant species as increasers, decreasers and palatable

or unpalatable has changed in users guide such as Guidelines for Forage Resource Evaluation

within Central Oregon Pumice Zone (Forage Rating Guide) (Volland 1985) and previous range

analysis publications use to rate the old Parker 3 step methods. In addition local knowledge and

observation has resulted in the reclassification of certain species from unpalatable to palatable.

For instance, Baltic rush (Juncus balticus) is described in most forage guides as an unpalatable

increaser; however our observation indicates it may behave more like a palatable increaser.

Likewise Nebraska sedge (Carex nebraskensis) is considered a palatable increaser in some

guides, but is often a decreaser when exposed to heavy grazing. These differences in interpreting

the data can change vegetation condition scores and result in inconsistencies over the years even



though the actual vegetation hits may not have changed significantly between assessments. With

this in mind interpreting trend over time is difficult and requires a certain amount of professional

judgment. In most cases the trend appears to be static even though the most recent years seem to

have vastly improved.

Photo point monitoring generally follows guidance from Ground-based Photographic

Monitoring (Hall 2001). This method is used to document and support findings at long-term

monitoring sites as well as to document annual activities and adjustments in management. Many

of these photo points are assessed annually before and after grazing to determine both short and

long term grazing impacts to non-forested vegetative communities. This method can also be used

to document annual variation in plant communities that may be caused by forces outside of land

management practices, such as weather patterns and wildlife impacts.

Implementation monitoring protocols are generally outlined in Technical Reference 1734-3:

Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements (1996) and may be refined at the regional and

forest levels. The bulk of the implementation uses three methods; greenline stubble height

measurement, height-weight method (utilization cages) or ocular estimation based on

professional judgment. While actual measurements are often preferred, ocular estimation coupled

with photographic documentation is a useful tool for areas that are lightly used by livestock or

where local knowledge allows for adequate calibration of this technique.


North Willow Pasture

There are 3 long term vegetation transects inventoried in this pasture. C&T 7 and P1 are located

in low sage/fescue vegetation stands. These sites scored Fair forage ratings with a static trend.

The soil score for these sites is ―Good‖. The trend is considered static.

Table 3. Summary of vegetation and ground cover at C&T 7 from 1980 and 2010. Average Direct Hits by Year of Record

Transect Date 08/21/1980 09/24/2010

Hits on All Plants 22 33.5

Hits on Forage Plants 4 20

Hits on Litter 26 15.5

Hits on Rock 4 10

Hits on Moss 1 0

Hits on Bare Ground 47 40

Forage Condition Rating Poor (40) Fair (62)

There has been a significant increase in hits on the forage plant Sandberg‘s bluegrass along this

transect (Table 3) since 1980. This indicates the interspaces between bitterbrush and big sage are

being occupied by forage plants. The hits on bare ground decreased slightly, increasing the Soil

Stability score to ―Good‖.

P1 is located in a low sage flat along FR 278 in North Willow Pasture. The area receives

moderate use by livestock during the spring grazing season but use is somewhat limited by the

―scab rock‖ nature of the terrain.



Table 4. Summary of vegetation and ground cover at P1 from 1980 and 2010. Average Direct Hits by Year of Record

Transect Date 06/18/1980 09/24/2010

Hits on All Plants 4 22


Hits on Litter 20 12

Hits on Rock 56 41

Hits on Moss 0 0



Hits on all plants increased over time while hits on Sandberg bluegrass and California oatgrass

doubled (Table 4). The site appears to be only moderately influenced by livestock grazing. The

low sage stand is maturing; there are fewer low sage plants but they appear to be larger with

more canopy cover. There are more herbaceous plants in the shrub interspaces. Due to the flat

topography and rock armor, the Soil Stability is ―Good‖.

C&T 4 is located on a Cusick‘s bluegrass dry meadow near Line Pond. The vegetation at this

site has changed very little in the 25+ years since the last transect reading (Table 5). According

to Volland (1985) in The Forage Rating Guide for the Central Oregon Pumice Zone, Cusisk‘s

bluegrass dry meadows are not as resilient to livestock grazing as Kentucky bluegrass or tufted

hairgrass, and historically high levels of grazing may have caused these sites to cross an

ecological threshold as described above. This change in site productivity and potential may

preclude reaching Forest Plan desired conditions with or without permitting of livestock grazing

(Laycock 1989).

Table 5. Summary of vegetation and ground cover collected at C&T 4 from 1963 – 2010. Average Direct Hits by Year of Record

Transect Date 08/13/1963 08/20/1980 09/24/2010

Hits on All Plants 59 45 40.5

Hits on Forage Plants 25 13 10.5

Hits on Litter 31.5 35 40.5

Hits on Rock 0 0.5 1

Hits on Moss 0 4 2

Hits on Bare Ground 6 15.5 16

Forage Condition Rating Poor (26) Very Poor (21) Poor (25)

These data indicate changes in forage plant composition and ground cover parameters. The

biggest composition change noted was a decrease in the occurrence of California oatgrass and an

increase in analogue sedge (Carex simulata). Analogue sedge is difficult to key when grazed

and overestimation of abundance for this plant is likely if Forage Condition Rating assessments

are completed post grazing. The Forage Rating Guide for Cusick‘s bluegrass meadows lists

analogue sedge as an unpalatable increaser. This affects the forage plants ―hits‖ and can skew

the rating. Iris has increased indicating early successional plants are occupying more of the site.

Due to the flat topography and intermittent hydrology, erosion is not evident. Soil rating is

―Good‖ for this transect. This site is also influenced by the recreating public with a large hunting

camp occupying this meadow during deer and elk seasons.

C3 was installed near Baskin Spring in 1963. This transect is located on a low sage/fescue

vegetation type. J. Swanson, in the 1984 REA, did not reread this transect, citing the proximity to



water and the slow response to management changes on this community type. This transect was

re-photographed. The photos indicate canopy expansion of individual junipers but no increase in

number. Some bitterbrush mortality is evident but there are numerous new plants and plants that

show obvious growth between photos. Livestock are most likely not influencing this vegetation

type and any differences can be attributed to site development.

Halfway Pasture

There are six range vegetation transects located in Halfway Pasture. Two of these transects (C2

and P2) were reread for this assessment. Vegetation conditions are at Forest Plan standards for

satisfactory range conditions.

C2 is located on a ponderosa pine/bitterbrush/sedge vegetation type (Table 6).

Herbaceous vegetation increased on this site over the study period. Live vegetation, primarily

Idaho fescue, replaced litter and there was minimal change in bare ground hits. This location

does not reflect changes due to livestock grazing as the site is in a marginally used portion of the

pasture. The closest stock water is at Halfway Lake. There are indications that livestock move

through this area but the vegetation does not appear to be used consistently. The development

and maturing of the conifer vegetation has more influence on the understory vegetation at this

site than does livestock grazing.

Table 6. Summary of vegetation and ground cover for C2 collected in 1980 and 2010. Average Direct Hits by Year of Record

Transect Date 08/20/1980 10/06/2010




Hits on Rock 0 0

Hits on Moss 1 0


Forage Condition Rating Good (78) Good (85)

P2 is located on a big sage-bitterbrush/fescue vegetation type. This transect was established in

1980 just south of the Bear Flat Highway.

Table 7. Summary of vegetation and ground cover for P2 collected in 1980 and 2010. Average Direct Hits by Year of Record

Transect Date 08/08/1980 10/06/2010




Hits on Rock 0 0

Hits on Moss 2 0


Forage Condition Rating Fair (63) Good (89)

At this transect site, hits on all plants and forage plants increased as hits on litter decreased

(Table 7). Hits on perennial shrubs and percent composition of shrubs remained relatively

constant over the study period. There are indications livestock move through this area but the



vegetation does not appear to be used consistently. The development and maturing of the shrub

vegetation has more influence on the herbaceous vegetation at this site than livestock grazing.

Tobin Cabin Pasture

There are six range vegetation transects established in this pasture. In 1984, J.Swanson

determined that P4, P6, C1, C2 and C6 were not in primary range sites and therefore rereads

were not completed. After completing an extensive field reconnaissance, it was determined that

these sites were still not included within primary range acreage and were not assessed for current

condition and trend.

Cluster 3 (C3) is located in a Cusick‘s bluegrass dry meadow. This transect was established in

1963 and repeated in 1980 and 2010 (Table 8).

The transect data indicates a decrease in forage plants (decreasers and palatable increasers) since

the 1980 reading but the percent composition of Cusick‘s bluegrass increased during this time

period. There was a decrease in palatable increaser composition but this may be attributed to

sedge species misidentification. Volland, in the Forage Rating Guide for the Central Oregon

Pumice Zone, classifies slenderbeak sedge (Carex athrostachya) as a palatable increaser and

analogue sedge as an unpalatable increaser and scores the Forage Rating accordingly.

Table 8. Summary of vegetation and ground cover at C3 from 1963, 1980 & 2010. Average Direct Hits by Year of Record

Transect Date 09/16/1963 09/10/1980 09/27/2010

Hits on All Plants 46.5 68.5 49

Hits on Forage Plants 36 42 30

Hits on Litter 34.5 28 43.5

Hits on Rock 0 0 0

Hits on Moss 15 3.5 0

Hits on Bare Ground 2 0 7

Forage Condition Rating Poor (47) Poor (47) Fair (55)

Slenderbeak sedge and analogue sedge are difficult to distinguish under field conditions and lack

of positive identification of these sedges will influence the score. The increase in Cusick‘s

bluegrass (2.5% of the composition in 1980 and 7.5% of the composition in 2010) indicates

improving conditions and upward trend.

Timber harvest and silvicultural treatments responding to mountain pine beetle infestations

created many acres of clearcuts and transitory forage. Term Private Land Grazing Permits were

increased to allow for additional grazing in plantations to reduce competition with grasses. As

the conifer stands developed and canopies closed there has been reduction in animal units

authorized through the Term Private Land Grazing Permits. Continued studies in 1982 noted

that as stands developed and forage grasses were shaded out, the capacity for livestock grazing

would decline. A canopy closure study was conducted using 2005 ISAT data for this pasture and

is summarized in Table 9.

Canopies for conifer communities close as conifers occupy more of the space and out compete or

shade out neighboring vegetation. Shrubs, grasses and other herbaceous plants lose competitive

advantages when canopy closure exceeds 40-50% and herbaceous production diminishes.



Table 9. Summary of canopy closure values for theTobin Cabin pasture for NFS lands and

private ownership.

Canopy Class NFS acres Percent of Total (FS) Private Acres Percent of total

(Private)

Rock/Sparse Veg 7 0.02 9 0.03

Grass 237 0.67 55 0.20

Shrub 50 0.14 46 0.17

0-9% 0 0 1 0

10-19% 194 0.55 255 0.94

20-29% 1,075 3.06 933 3.45

30-39% 4,494 12.77 2,564 9.46

40-49% 10,213 29.03 4,845 17.88

50-59% 12,647 35.95 5,636 20.80

60-69% 4,940 14.04 9,749 35.98

70-79% 1,152 3.27 2,765 10.20

80-89% 98 0.28 227 0.84

90-99% 72 0.21 13 0.05

35,179 27,099

Table 9 indicates there are 18,909 (53% of the total) acres of NFS lands and 18,390 acres (61%

of the total) with 50% or greater canopy closure, respectively. The table also indicates there are

1,563 acres of NFS lands and 1,300 acres of private lands, respectively, classified as primary

foraging acres (non-forest or with canopy closures less than 30%).

By dividing the primary foraging acres by permitted AUMs, an imbalance in permitted AUM‘s

becomes obvious. The FS lands are stocked at 15 acres/AUM and the private land is stocked at

2.3 acres/AUM. Monitoring of utilization in the Tobin Cabin Pasture over the past 20 years has

not indicated problems with overutilization but adjustments to current Term and Term Private

Grazing Permits may be needed to reflect accurate levels of use on each ownership type.

Antelope Flat Pastures

There is one vegetation transect (P5) located in Antelope Flat #2. This transect was established in

1981 and reread in 2010.

Table 10. Summary of vegetation and ground cover from transect P5 in Antelope Flat #2. Average Direct Hits by Year of Record

Transect Date: 08/04/1981 10/11/2010




Hits on Rock 0 0

Hits on Moss 2 2


Forage Condition Rating Fair (61) Fair (58)

This transect data indicate some change in composition and a strong increase in hits on plants

with a corresponding decrease in hits on bare soil. The transect data show crested wheatgrass has

declined over time with increases in Sandberg bluegrass.

Swanson, in 1980, established 4 photo point monitoring locations in Antelope Flat. These camera

points were re-photographed in 2010. The photos are not sharp enough to detect changes in



community composition but increases in shrub heights are readily apparent. The 2010 repeat

photos are filed at O:\NFS\FremontWinema\Program\Range-

2200\SLV\2210\RangeAnalysis\AntelopeFRE.

Chemult Pasture

Data collected during forage assessments (1962, 1993, & 2008) is compared when possible for

trend determinations. All data was scored or rescored to the 1985 Forage Rating Guide (Volland

1985). The 2008 Forage Ratings by Keith Guenther were corrected to the proper scorecard as

Guenther used the scorecard for the mesic sedge-rush phase of this community for sites that are

xeric grass-forb types. The scoring for this report has been corrected but leaves Guenther‘s

original analysis uncorrected.

There are 8 vegetation transects established and inventoried on tufted hairgrass/sedge meadows

(TEU 2000). Four transects on this type were inventoried for the first time in 2008. A fifth

transect at Stimson Meadow was found to have data errors and is not considered in this

assessment. The data has been scored based on the Forage Rating Guide for the Pumice Zone

(Volland 1985).

While all four transects in Table 11 represent the same plant community type, they may differ in

species composition and effective ground cover that result in similar Forage Condition Ratings.

These differences may be a product of observer error, natural variability within this community

type, or as a result of management. All transects presented in Table 11 meet Forest Plan level

desired conditions as set forth in standards and guidelines.

T1 is located at Squirrel Camp and is inside a fenced riparian area that became effective in 2007.

The transect area had not been grazed for 1 year prior to the transect reading. This fence

replaced an older fence constructed around 1995 but enlarged the area protected from grazing.

Table 11. Summary of available ground cover data for these transects T1, T4, T7, & S10.

The older fence was functional from about 1995 to 2000 when the fence failed from lack of

maintenance. A thorough review of the project files for the Antelope Allotment or Squirrel

Camp projects (1994 and 2005) found no documented resource issue or concern (forage or soil

conditions) that led to exclusion of grazing in this area. There is a known headcut inside the

fence constructed in 1994 but no evidence was presented that attributed this resource issue to

historic effects of livestock grazing.

Transect Number T1 T4 T7 S10

Transect Date 08/21/08 08/20/08 10/05/08 08/20/08

Hits on All Plants 89 66 79 78

Hits on Forage Plants 64 49 73 63

Hits on Litter 8 9 16 11

Hits on Rock 0 0 0 0

Hits on Moss 3 25 0 11

Hits on Bare Ground 0 0 5 0

Forage Condition Rating Fair (60) Fair (59) Fair (58) Fair (50)



The 1994 REA states ―four meadows in associated drainages have been identified until recovery

can be demonstrated‖ (1994 EA at page 1-4). The 2005 Antelope Allotment Springs, Channels,

and Headcuts Decision Memo described these four meadows as Dry Meadow, Sproats Meadow,

Middle Jack, and Rider‘s Camp (footnote on page 2). The existing fence, constructed under the

2005 Antelope Allotment Springs, Channels, and Headcuts Decision Memo, did not elaborate on

the resource conditions that were being protected or the desired conditions that would allow

grazing to resume. From 1906 until 1995 and from 2000 until the fenced riparian area was

completed in 2007, cattle grazed this area. No efforts, other than the protection fence, were made

to correct or retard development of the headcut. To date no monitoring has been completed to

inform management on the condition of this headcut.

At this time no desired conditions or resource objectives have been identified that would keep

Squirrel Camp Meadow from being grazed. The forage rating based on vegetation transect

information indicates the meadow is in ―Fair‖ forage condition and meets Forest Plan standards

and guidelines for grazing suitability. Tufted hairgrass and narrowfruit sedge dominate the

composition and indicate mid seral conditions. High seral status decreaser species make up 28%

of the composition.

T4 is located in the Rock Springs area, on the east side of the Chemult pasture at the head of the

Rock Creek drainage, an intermittent tributary to Buck Creek in the Silver Lake watershed. This

transect is located about ¼ mile west of Rock Springs waterhole, a pond constructed in the 1960s

for fire protection and livestock/wildlife water. Proximity to this water has an effect on the

forage vegetation condition in this area. Utilization is normally considered high, based on

observations but there is no utilization data collected at this meadow. Tufted hairgrass and

slenderbeak sedge dominate the composition. High seral status decreaser species make up 28%

of the composition. The forage rating based on vegetation transect information indicates the

meadow is in ―Fair‖ forage condition and meets Forest Plan standards and guidelines for grazing

suitability (Table 11).

T7 is located in the mesic grass dominated vegetation of Round Meadow and was established in

2008. A fence to control grazing in Round Meadow was completed in 2004 while channel

stabilizing projects were implemented. Vegetation along this transect is dominated by

slenderbeak sedge and tufted hairgrass with California oatgrass and Kentucky bluegrass also

present as part of overall plant composition. The forage rating based on vegetation transect

information indicates the meadow is in ―Fair‖ forage condition and meets Forest Plan standards

and guidelines for grazing suitability (Table 11). Bare soil accounted for 5% of the ground cover

measurements.

S9 was established in August of 2008 and located in the Sproats Meadow area of the Chemult

Pasture. This transect is located within the Sproats fenced riparian area, a small portion of the

larger tufted hairgrass and sedge dominated meadow (TEU 2000) fenced in 1994 and developed

in 2004. This transect has been fenced from grazing since 1995 and with the exception of use

when fence maintenance was not complete, the area has not been grazed for 12-14 years. A

forage rating of ―Fair‖ was calculated for this site. Tufted hairgrass is poorly represented at this

time (6% of the composition) but species diversity and a strong sedge composition supported the

―Fair‖ rating (Table 11).



S10 was established in August of 2008 in Sproats Meadow. Sproats Meadow is a large drainage

system in the Rock Creek/Silver Lake watershed in the central part of the pasture. There are

approximately 125 acres of tufted hairgrass and sedge dominated meadow (TEU 2000)

inventoried in this area. This transect was located in the center of the meadow. The ―Fair‖

forage rating is based on the diverse species composition found at this site but tufted hairgrass is

poorly represented here, making up only 10% of the composition, as opposed to 27% at Rock

Springs. The ―Fair‖ forage condition meets Forest Plan standards and guidelines (Table 11).

Two vegetation transects were established within tufted hairgrass and sedge dominated

meadows(TEU 2000) that showed or indicated the presence of standing water during the early

growing season (mineral precipitates on foliage). T5 is located at the south end of Sellars Marsh.

The majority of Sellars Marsh, the terminal end of a closed basin watershed in the north part of

the Chemult pasture, is private land fenced out of the pasture and managed separate from NFS

land. The marsh makes up approximately 1,198 acres of which 336 acres are within the Chemult

pasture. Due to the dominance of tufted hairgrass in the composition, the calculated forage

rating for this transect is ―Fair‖ and apparent trend is considered static.

S-8 was established in 1994 by G. Adams at Johnson Meadow. This transect was reread in 2008

by K. Guenther. Table 12 summarizes vegetation and ground cover data from this transect.

S-8 is located just below (downstream) the culvert on FR 9418 at Johnson Meadow. A slight

depression or sump contains the runoff in a small basin several acres in size for a period of time

after runoff ends. Plant growth is limited until this sump dries, effecting both production and

composition. The transect data indicates minimal change to this site. There was a decrease in

hits on plants and a corresponding increase in hits on bare soil. Along with sump effects and

changes in hydrology due to culvert placement, grazing may be a factor in maintaining the

―Poor‖ forage rating.

Table 12. Summary of vegetation and ground cover at S-8 from 1993 and 2008. Average Direct Hits by Year of Record

Transect Date 08/04/1993 07/23/2008



Hits on Litter 0 0

Hits on Rock 0 0

Hits on Moss 0 2


Forage Condition Rating Poor (25) Poor (27)

A vegetation transect was established on lodgepole pine/rose spirea/widefruit sedge community

type (TEU 2001) at the middle Jack Creek site in 2008. The transect forage rating value was

calculated as ―Good‖ (numeric score 76) as the composition of forage plants made up more than

50%. Bare ground was less than 2% of the measured ground cover parameters.

The Cusick‘s bluegrass dry meadow type (TEU 2004) is represented by five forage vegetation

transects established on the pasture. Three of these transects (C&T 13, C&T 20/S7, and C&T

24/S2) are long term Parker 3-Step sites established in 1963 and monitored again in 1967, 1993

and 2008. These three transects have been rescored to Volland‘s scorecards and data collected

are presented for each below.



C&T 13- This transect is located at Wilshire Meadow and was established by Pigg and Eversole.

Table 13 displays available data collected at this site.

Wilshire Meadow is one of the primary foraging areas on the pasture and the forage vegetation

reflects the management applied. There has been very little change in ground cover or species

composition over the data timeline. Trend is considered static and meets Forest Plan standards.

Table 13. Summary of vegetation and ground cover data collected at C&T 13 from 1962 -

2008.

C&T 20/S7-This transect is located at Dry Meadow which is mapped as 2 distinct ecological

units. The southern portion of the meadow is lodgepole pine/widefruit sedge (TEU 2006) and the

northern end (and downstream end) of the meadow is mapped as Cusick‘s bluegrass dry meadow

(TEU 2004). This transect is located within the Cusick‘s bluegrass meadow type and was

established in 1962. Table 14 displays available data collected at this site.

Table 14. Summary of vegetation and ground cover at C&T-20/S7 from 1962 and 2008. Average Direct Hits by Year of Record

Transect Date 08/29/1962 08/02/1967 08/04/1993 07/22/2008


Hits on Forage Plants n/a n/a 55 63



Hits on Moss 0 7 0 6


Forage Condition Rating n/a n/a Poor (27) Poor (49)

This area of Dry Meadow is a primary foraging area and the forage vegetation reflects the

management applied. There has been an increase in hits on plants and a decrease in hits on bare

soil between assessments however improvement in score has not been adequate to change the

overall forage condition rating.

C&T 24/S2 – This transect is located at Pumice Meadow on the northeast side of the Chemult

Pasture, was established in 1971 and was last read in 2008 by K. Guenther. Table 15 displays

available vegetation and ground cover data collected at this site.

This site had a scoring error in Adams original 1993 report that was corrected in 2011 by

following the Forage Rating Guide for a Cusick‘s bluegrass dry meadow (Volland 1985). This

correction places the meadow in a static trend.

Average Direct Hits by Year of Record

Transect Date 08/22/1962 08/02/1967 08/04/1993 07/22/2008


Hits on Forage Plants 49 42.5 43.5 63



Hits on Moss 0 0 1.5 6


Forage Condition Rating Fair (54) Fair (49) Fair (52) Fair (64)



Table 15. Summary of vegetation and ground cover at CT24/S2 from 1993 and 2008. Average Direct Hits by Year of Record

Transect Date 08/04/1993 08/21/2008



Hits on Litter 16 6

Hits on Rock 0 0

Hits on Moss 1 6


Forage Condition Rating Fair (51) Fair (57)

S4 – This transect is located at Cannon Well, a complex of moist meadows in the northeast

corner of the Chemult Pasture. G. Adams, during the 1993 Range Assessment, established this

transect. This transect was reread in 2008 by K. Guenther. Table 16 displays available vegetation

and ground cover data collected at this site.

There was an increase in hits on plants and a corresponding decrease in hits on bare soil. Hits on

tufted hairgrass went from 4 to 13 and Cusick‘s bluegrass was not recorded on the 1993 transect.

The trend is considered up.

Table 16. Summary of vegetation and ground cover at S4 from 1993 and 2008. Average Direct Hits by Year of Record

Transect Date: 07/23/1993 08/21/2008




Hits on Rock 0 0

Hits on Moss 0 5


Forage Condition Rating Fair (61) Good (75)

S5 - This transect is located in a small stringer meadow about 2 miles east of Sellars Marsh. This

transect was established by G. Adams in 1993 and reread by K. Guenther in 2008. Table 17

displays available vegetation and ground cover data for this transect.

Table 17. Summary of vegetation and ground cover at S5 from 1993 and 2008. Average Direct Hits by Year of Record

Transect Date 07/28/1993 08/21/2008




Hits on Rock 0 0

Hits on Moss 0 0



There was little change in total plant hits but in 2008 more decreaser plants were recorded. There

was an increase in bare soil. The trend for this transect is static.

A transect was established on a lodgepole pine/bog blueberry/widefruit sedge (TEU 2005)

community type at Crooked Meadows in 2008. This transect was not scored through the Forage



Rating Guide but the amount of spikerush (Eleochariss spp.) (53%) is high and indicates less

than mid-seral conditions.

One vegetation transect was established on a lodgepole pine/widefruit sedge (TEU 2006)

community type near Sproats Meadow in 1993. This transect scored a ―Fair‖ rating.

The Dry Meadow fenced riparian area is inventoried as lodgepole pine/widefruit sedge (TEU

2006). The 1994 Antelope Allotment Temporary Fencing CE/DM created a fenced riparian area

that excluded the majority of the north end of the meadow (Cusick‘s bluegrass meadow; TEU

2004) and included the moist to wet meadow system north of the Dry Meadow spring source.

This temporary electric fence was functional until 2000 when District resources quit maintaining

the fence. A new permanent barbed wire fence was constructed in 2005 under the 2004 Dry and

Wilshire Meadows CE/DM. This fence enclosed the area mapped as lodgepole pine/widefruit

sedge (TEU 2006; 11 acres) and included two water sources, the spring head and the pumper

chance/stock pond. There is no forage vegetation transects located in this area. Extrapolating

forage vegetation conditions from grazed transect at Sproats Meadow (―Fair‖ condition) to the

ungrazed area at Dry Meadow, the forage conditions at Dry Meadow are estimated as ―Good‖.

A vegetation transect established in 2008 on a willow wetland community type (TEU 2008)

scored as ―Fair‖ condition. All of this community type mapped within the analysis area falls

along Jack Creek. Trend is considered up.

Jack Creek Sheep and Goat Allotment

Data from past C&T transects is unavailable so three new paced line transects were established

in 2011 to set a baseline for existing condition.

Bull Frog - This transect is located in the largest meadow complex available for grazing and is

located about 1.5 miles north of the 83 road and west of Bull Frog Spring about ½ mile. This

transect was established in 2011 and utilizes a t-post already present in the meadow as the

starting point. This post was most likely an early monitoring point but no reference can be found

as to its origin. Table 18 displays available vegetation and ground cover data for this transect.

Table 18. Summary of vegetation and ground cover at Bull Frog from 2011. Average Direct Hits by Year of Record

Transect Date 08/31/2011

Hits on All Plants 37

Hits on Forage Plants 11

Hits on Litter 53

Hits on Rock 0

Hits on Moss 1

Hits on Bare Ground 9

Forage Condition Rating Poor (26)

This site has undergone disturbance from thinning of lodgepole pine and burning of slash both as

broadcast and piles. A preponderance of perennial forbs indicates a xeric site. Actual clipped

herbaceous plant production ranges from 2000 to 2200 pounds per acre which is higher than

would be expected from a poor forage condition rating. Bare soil is lower than would be

expected from a poor rating. Vigor is good and the trend for this transect appears static as

lodgepole pine are reestablishing the site.



O’Conner Meadow – This transect is located north of the private lands meadow that is fenced

out of the allotment and is not available for grazing. The meadow south of the private is narrow

and offers little acreage for grazing. This transect was established in 2011 and uses the utilization

cage as the general starting point to a northwesterly direction. There is some data available when

comparing the NFS lands with the private lands in this meadow that have a historic vegetation

inventory. Table 19 displays available vegetation and ground cover data for this transect.

Table 19. Summary of vegetation and ground cover at O’Connor Meadow from 2011. Average Direct Hits by Year of Record




Hits on Litter 48

Hits on Rock 0

Hits on Moss 0


Forage Condition Rating Good (79)

This tufted hairgrass meadow rates as ―Good‖ using the Forage Condition Rating (Volland

1985). Kentucky bluegrass represented a higher than normal component of the vegetation

community and bare ground was also higher than expected. Herbaceous plant production was

clipped and weighed at 4300 pounds per acre dry weight which would be high for this sites

expected forage production potential. Vigor of high quality forage plants is considered low and

trend appears static.

Davis Flat Meadow – This transect is on Davis Flat approximately ½ mile north of the junction

of the 88 and 450 road. This transect was established in 2011 and utilizes a t-post that was

already present in the meadow as the starting point. This post was most likely an early

monitoring point but no reference can be found as to its origin. Table 20 displays available

vegetation and ground cover data for this transect.

This site has experienced disturbance from past grazing and recreation and some stream work

has occurred consisting of rock and brush check dams that date back to the early 1960s. This site

exhibits infrequent bare soil and herbaceous forage production is approximately 2000 pounds per

acre. Cattle have trespassed on to this meadow frequently due to lack of maintenance on private

land fences and prefer the high Kentucky bluegrass component and relatively dry nature of this

meadow. Vigor is good and the trend for this transect appears static.

Table 20. Summary of vegetation and ground cover at Davis Flat from 2011. Average Direct Hits by Year of Record




Hits on Litter 35

Hits on Rock 0

Hits on Moss 0


Forage Condition Rating Fair (60)



Conclusion

The Winema Forest Plan standards and guidelines for Range (9-1) state that ―the forage and

browse resource shall be managed to at least satisfactory range condition‖ (4-62). Satisfactory

Range Condition is defined as ―on suitable range, forage condition is at least fair, with stable

trend, and allotment is not classified PC (basic resource damage) or PD (other resource damage)

(Winema Forest Plan, glossary pg 39). The Fremont Forest Plan uses the same standards and

guideline and definitions (pg 75).

For this analysis of the Antelope Allotments on the Chemult and Silver Lake Ranger Districts, 20

C&T and paced transects were read and reread to determine forage condition and to determine

trend. An additional 3 transects were established on the North end of the Jack Creek S&G

Allotment.

North Willow Pasture is generally in fair condition with one Cusick‘s bluegrass site rated as

poor. Sites have static trends which may be attributed to annual early season grazing with no

deferment. Volland indicates that poor to very poor condition Cusick‘s bluegrass meadows are

common when grazed early in the season. Poor sites can rate in unsatisfactory condition when

they meet either PC (Basic Resource Damage) or PD (Other Resource Damage) (Fremont Forest

Plan, glossary pg 30) and could require adjustment to utilization standards as suggested in the

Fremont Forest Plan (pg 75). These sites may also represent areas of historically heavy livestock

use that have crossed an ecological threshold that changes in livestock management may not

reverse (Laycock 1989). Fair condition forage with static trend is within Fremont Forest Plan

standards.

Halfway pasture transects indicate good forage condition ratings or satisfactory range

conditions with trends that are static.

Tobin Pasture has extensive canopy cover and very limited open meadows or primary range.

One transect was reread in a Cusick‘s bluegrass meadow and is in fair condition with an upward

trend. It is recommended balancing the Term and Term Private Land Permits through assessment

of actual use across the pasture and ownership boundaries. The pasture stocking level at present

is within the capacity as utilization levels are within allowable levels.

Antelope Flat Pastures have one transect that was reread for this analysis that rated as a fair

forage condition rating with a static trend. These pastures have had extensive vegetation

treatment over the years and recently have been used for gathering and sorting.

In the Chemult Pasture, the majority of transects (9) have a fair forage condition rating with a

static trend and two with a good rating and upward trend. Two transects read poor rating with a

static trend. These transects are located in Johnson and Dry Meadows that receive consistent

livestock use. Adherence to allowable use levels and timing and duration of use should help

improve the two sites if livestock are preventing the improvement of these sites. Poor sites can

rate in unsatisfactory condition when they meet either PC (Basic Resource Damage) or PD

(Other Resource Damage) (Winema Forest Plan, glossary pg 39) and could require adjustment to

utilization standards as suggested in the Winema Forest Plant (pg 4-62). These transects for the

most part indicate satisfactory range conditions as defined by the Winema Forest Plan.



Jack Creek Allotment

Three paced transects were established and read to determine a baseline for several of the larger

meadows systems. Although there is evidence of long term C&T transects, no records could be

found. Two of these transects are in satisfactory condition with static trends and one read a poor

forage condition rating with a static trend. The poor condition site has undergone past

disturbance in the form of vegetation treatments and the plant composition exhibits a high

percentage of forb abundance. A short duration grazing season in this pasture would have little

effect on the forage component. The limiting factor of this pasture would be the lack of

developed and accessible water.

Overall the forage conditions for the Antelope Allotment are in satisfactory condition for

livestock grazing. The meadow sites that rate in poor condition should improve with adjustments

to the grazing system, such as shorting the duration of grazing and deferring season of use or

reducing allowable utilization levels.

Regulatory Framework

The following documents provide regulatory framework for the direction regarding resource

management activities and establishes management standards and guidelines for range resources.

The allotments fall within the Fremont and Winema National Forest so both Forest Plans are

cited here. The project is expected to meet the following laws, regulations, Forest-wide standards

and guidelines, and Management Area direction:

The Rescission Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-19, Section 504) that requires the Forest

Service to establish and adhere to a schedule for completion of National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) analyses and decisions on all grazing allotments by 2016.

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

to allow grazing on suitable lands (Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Wilderness

Act of 1964, Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Act of 1974, Federal Land Policy

and Management Act 1976, National Forest Management Act of 1976, Forest Service

Manual 2202.1).

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

lands suitable for grazing consistent with land management plans (FSM 2203.1; 36 CFR

222.2 (c)).

The need for action is created by the disparity between what is present (existing condition)

and what is wanted (desired condition).

Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH)

INFISH Standards and Guidelines for grazing management are as follows:

GM-1: Modify grazing practices (e.g., accessibility of riparian areas to livestock, length

of grazing season, stocking levels, timing of grazing, etc.) that retard or prevent

attainment of Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) or are likely to adversely affect

inland native fish. Suspend grazing if adjusting practices in not effective in meeting

RMOs.



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

For existing livestock handling facilities inside the RHCA, assure that facilities do not

prevent attainment of RMOs. Relocate or close facilities where these objectives cannot

be met.

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

efforts to those areas and times that would not retard or prevent attainment of RMOs or

adversely affect inland native fish.

GM-4: Adjust wild horse and burro management to avoid impacts that prevent attainment

of RMOs or adversely affect inland native fish. There are no wild horse and burros

territories with the project area.

FSM 2202.1

The objectives of the range management program for National Forests are to:

Manage the range vegetation to protect basic soil and water quality resources, provide for

ecological diversity, improve or maintain environmental quality, and meet public need

for interrelated resource use (1).

Integrate management of range vegetation with other resource programs to achieve

multiple use objectives contained in Forest land and resource plans (2).

Provide livestock forage, wildlife food and habitat, outdoor recreation, and other resource

values dependent on range vegetation (3).

Contribute to the economic and social wellbeing of people by providing opportunities for

economic diversity and by promoting stability for communities that depend on range

resources for their livelihood (4).

Provide expertise on range ecology, botany, and management of grazing animals (5).

Forest plans Standards and Guidelines

Desired conditions (goals and objectives) for resources potentially affected by domestic livestock

grazing as described in the Fremont Forest Plan (1989) and Winema Forest Plan (1990), as

amended, include, but are not limited to:

Sustainable production of palatable forage (Fremont Forest Plan, pp. 49, 65, 75, 119, 120,

125)

Provide stability to local ranch operations (Fremont Forest Plan, p. 13).

Rangelands and grazing on the Forest will continue to play only a minor role in the economic

growth of Klamath County (Winema Forest Plan, p. 2-6).

Revise, update, and implement all allotment management plans to meet Forest Plan

objectives (Fremont Forest Plan, p. 65; Winema Forest Plan, p. 4-12).

Riparian vegetation (including aspen communities) that is moving toward or is at mid-to-late

successional stages and providing for needs of sensitive and other riparian-dependent species

(Fremont Forest Plan, pp. 50, 65, 76, 78).

Adjacent upland non-forested vegetation that is moving toward or is at mid-to-late seral

stages and therefore contains moderate to high resource values (Fremont Forest Plan, pp. 13,

75).



Protection of important cultural and heritage resources (Fremont Forest Plan, pp. 51, 92).

Compliance with state requirements in accordance with the Clean Water Act for protection of

waters of the State of Oregon (Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 340-341) (Fremont

Forest Plan, p. 88).

Improve range condition by improving the administration of the livestock grazing program

(Winema Forest Plan, p. 2-12).

The demand for livestock grazing will be met only when it does not conflict with other uses

(Winema Forest Plan, p. 2-12).

Manage the range vegetation resource to avoid conflicts with mule deer, to decrease erosion,

and to enhance riparian areas. Improve range condition with special emphasis in riparian

areas (Winema Forest Plan, p. 2-12).

Management Areas: Standards and Guidelines that apply to Range Management

Table 21. Antelope Grazing Allotments Forest Plan MAs and total acres in project area.

MA Goal Acres*

Fremont Forest Plan Management Areas

1 Manage for mule deer forage and cover on winter range 10,125

3 Provide additional old growth for better habitat distribution and quality 473

5 Manage commercial timber production and domestic livestock forage 58,747

6A Provide high to moderately high visual quality 1,251

14 Manage old growth to maintain dependent species populations 6,708

15 Manage water courses and riparian vegetation for improved water quality, fish habitat,

recreation opportunities, and riparian habitat for dependent species 2,936

Winema Forest Plan Management Areas

3 Maintain and create visually appealing scenery 1,391

7 Provide, maintain, and enhance existing mature and old-growth communities 1,605

8

Riparian area management is designed to protect soil, water, wetland, floodplain, wildlife,

and fish resource values associated with riparian vegetative communities and adjacent drier

ecosystems

3,742

12 Produce a high level of growth and timber production with considerations for economic

efficiency and resource protection 55,588

* Acre numbers by MA do not total FS acre totals because some Fremont MAs overlap.

Consistency with the Forest Plan and Other Regulatory Direction

Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), project-

level decisions, which authorize the use of specific National Forest System lands for a particular

purpose like livestock grazing must be consistent with the broad programmatic direction

established in the LRMP. Consistency is determined by examining whether the project-level

decision implements the goals, objectives, desired conditions, standards and guidelines, and

monitoring requirements from the LRMP. When necessary, grazing permits must be modified to

ensure consistency with the LRMP (FSH 2209.13, 91.1).

The above guidelines and management framework that apply to grazing management pertinent to

this project analysis has been considered in these effects analysis that follow.

Alternative(s) Description(s)

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

cow/calf pairs allowed. All alternatives incorporate PDCs.



Alternative 1 – No Action (No Grazing)

This alternative was developed in response to Grazing Permit Administration Handbook

requirements (FSH 2209.13, 92.31) for a No Action Alternative. The handbook defines ―no

action‖ to be synonymous with ―no grazing‖ and means that this alternative analyzes effects of

livestock grazing not being authorized within the existing Antelope and Antelope Cattle & Horse

Allotments‘ boundaries. This alternative would not modify existing permitted grazing on any

part of the Jack Creek Sheep & Goat Allotment, nor would it provide management for grazing on

private lands within the Antelope Allotments. Continuance or establishment of grazing on all

private lands within the Antelope Allotments, including lands within Oregon spotted frog habitat

on private lands, would be at stockings, timings, and utilizations of the private landowners‘

choosing.

No grazing would remove livestock associated ground disturbance from the Antelope and

Antelope Cattle & Horse Allotments. There would no longer be ground disturbance associated

with allotment management activities including fence maintenance and reconstruction, water

hauling, salting, and permitted off-road motorized vehicle use.

Alternative 1 proposes some new ground disturbing activities through removal of almost all

fencing around currently fenced riparian meadows and between pastures. Allotment boundary

fences adjacent to active allotments would remain to assist in administration of the adjacent

allotments. No new fence construction or reconstruction of the Tobin Cabin northern boundary

would be included, but could be considered and analyzed through the adjacent McCarty Butte

Allotment‘s analysis (projected for 2015). No existing water developments are proposed for

removal and would likely receive some maintenance, as these developments also provide water

for wildlife in the area. Maintenance of remaining allotment infrastructures would be minimal or

likely cease and would deteriorate or collapse with time.

Under Alternative 1, the Antelope and Antelope Cattle & Horse Allotments would be

administratively closed and would not be available for permit re-issuance for a minimum of ten

years. With the withdrawal of the land from permitted grazing use, continued monitoring of key

areas and utilization would not occur. No waiver of private lands or term/private permits would

be issued and grazing on private lands would be at stockings, timings, and utilizations of the

private landowners‘ choosing.

Elements Common to All Action Alternatives

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 have a set of associated activities needed to successfully manage the

proposed grazing. Associated actions vary between alternatives, as displayed in Tables 22-29 and

displayed on maps (EA, Appendix A). Associated actions include the following:

Administrative Modifications

Administrative modifications are proposed including modifications of allotment boundaries and

number of total allotments and pastures. These modifications vary by alternative based on the

need associated with actions proposed.

Fence Construction, Reconstruction, & Removal

Land management activities have affected the boundaries of the Antelope Allotments. Changes

in timber stand structure and land ownership have made existing fences and natural barriers of



dense timber and/or steep slopes ineffective in continuing to define the allotment boundary.

Varying levels of fence construction, reconstruction, and removal are needed under each

alternative to implement proposed pastures and grazing rotations (EA, Appendix A and Table

2.10). Constructed and reconstructed fences would predominately consist of a 3-strand barbed-

wire fence, and would require a 4 foot right-of-way clearance on either side of the fence. Right-

of-ways would be cleared of all forested and shrub vegetation that would impede access for

continued maintenance. Removal of fences would include the removal of all wire and steel posts;

all wood posts would be left in-place.

Water Structures & Spring Protections

Approximately 84 stock ponds, pit tanks and reservoirs on the allotments are currently identified

for allotment management and permittee maintenance. Many of the ponds/pit tanks are seasonal

in nature and are generally dry by mid-summer. There are six developed springs on the

allotments, a well at Halfway Lake that is not functional and a well at Antelope Flat that provides

water to troughs located in each of the Antelope Flat pastures. Many structures have been

identified as in need of repair or reconstruction. Actions associated with providing water

structures include: improving/maintaining existing sources (i.e., cleaning and sealing with

bentonite), spring protections (fences), spring developments, and designation of water haul and

trough placement locations (EA, Appendix A). Additional water infrastructure (troughs) exists

on the allotments for livestock and wildlife management which were installed during resource

protection projects over the last twenty years. These troughs are not currently considered

allotment infrastructure because their construction and maintenance requirements are not within

range management program or permittee responsibilities. However, these water developments

have been considered as available water sources for livestock and have been analyzed for

conversion to range management infrastructure under some alternatives.

Surveys of spring sources throughout the project area were conducted from 2009 to 2011.

Protection measures such as fencing or caging of spring sources were identified as needed for

each location. The total number of springs needing protection varies by each alternative based on

allotment boundaries and grazing strategies proposed (EA, Appendix A).

Distribution Management

Salting, riding, herding, and water hauling would occur throughout the allotment to better

distribute cattle across pastures to improve utilization and cattle distribution within the allotment.

Varying intensities of these actions are needed under each alternative to implement effective

distributions.

Forage Conditions & Use

Range readiness determinations and appropriate forage utilizations have been established for

each pasture compliant with Forest Plan standards and guidelines for the type of forage and

forage condition. Timings and numbers outlined below reflect estimated appropriate use for

grazing that would both allow for range readiness conditions to be met and for allowable

utilizations. These numbers are provided to help depict the grazing scenarios for each alternative;

however, annual range readiness would determine on-dates for each pasture (within +/- two

weeks from identified dates below) and utilizations would be the determining factor for the

removal of cattle.



Permitted Motorized Access

Wheeled motorized access to roads within the allotment boundary would be permitted for permit

administration and required allotment maintenance. Consistent with the Travel Management

Plan, limited off-road use would be permitted for required allotment maintenance by specific

classes of vehicles for specific tasks. Varying miles of permitted roads are needed under each

alternative.

Alternative 2 – Current Management

This alternative was developed in response to Grazing Permit Administration Handbook

requirements (FSH 2209.13, 92.31) for analysis of current grazing. The handbook defines current

grazing as ―actions being implemented, specifically, current management over the last 3 to 5

years‖. Consideration of this alternative serves as a baseline for evaluating other alternatives

during the effects analysis.

Under Alternative 2, the Antelope and Antelope Cattle & Horse Allotments would remain two

separate administrative allotments and retain their existing boundaries. Approximately 3.6 miles

of fence would need to be constructed along the northeast corner of the Chemult Pasture to

reinforce the allotment boundary at this location. Existing allotment infrastructure (fences and

water structures) and resource protection fences in need of repair would be reconstructed in-

place without modifications to size or type of infrastructure.

Alternative 2 proposes to continue permitting livestock grazing under current management

systems designed to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines for two herds at 419 cow/calf pair

per month with permitted grazing from May 15 to September 30 (Table 22).

Table 22. Alternative 2 livestock grazing levels and seasons.

PASTURE Approx.

Acres1

Permit

Type

Max. # of

Permitted

Cattle

(Cow/Calf

Pairs)

Grazing Season2

Grazing

Duration

Allowable

Utilization

Grazing

System

Halfway 8,293 Term 230 June 1-July 15 15 days 45-55 Early Season

North Willow 4,831 Term 189 July 15-Sept. 30 15 days 30-55 Early Season

Antelope Flat 1 557 Term 200 June 1-June 30 1 month 45-55 Early Season

Antelope Flat 2 403 Term 230 May 15-Sept. 30 n/a 45-55 Transition/

Holding3

Antelope Flat 2 403 Term 154 Sept. 15-Sept. 30 n/a 45-55 Transition/

Holding3

Antelope Flat 3 & 4 860 Term 230 May 15-Sept. 30 1 month 45-55 Transition/

Holding3

Antelope Flat 3 & 4 860 Term 154 Sept. 15-Sept. 30 15 days 45-55 Transition/

Holding3

Tobin Cabin 62,872 Term/Private 163 May 15-Sept. 30 1 month 40-50 Season-long

Grazing

Chemult 68,349 Term/Private 419 July 1-Sept. 30 3 months 25-45 Season-long

Grazing

Antelope Grazing

Allotments/All

Pastures

147,428 n/a

419

cow/calf

pair

May 15- Sept. 30 4.5 months n/a



1 Acres include both NFS land and other ownerships within pasture boundaries.

2 Dates shown reflect proposed dates permitted. Actual on/off dates or dates identified for movement between

pastures would vary +/- two weeks annually based on forage conditions, weather variations, or resource conditions

within the overall allotment and pastures. 3 Use of Antelope 2-4 is as needed to facilitate pasture moves.

Under Alternative 2, no grazing would be authorized within the existing fenced riparian areas

known as Round Meadow, Jack Creek, Dry Meadow, Squirrel Camp, Rider‘s Camp, Cannon

Well, Sproats Meadow, Johnson‘s Meadow, and Wilshire Meadow. Grazing would also not be

permitted on NFS lands within the fenced portion of Jack Creek‘s perennial reach. However,

these locations would remain administratively within the allotment.

Under Alternative 2, the private in-holdings within Oregon spotted frog occupied and potential

habitat at Upper Jamison, Lower Jamison, and Moffit would not be waived to the Forest under a

term/private grazing permit. Grazing on these private lands would be at stockings, timings, and

utilizations of the private landowners‘ choosing.

Actions associated with allotment management would continue as they have in the past,

including salting, riding, herding, fence maintenance, water hauling, and stock pond

maintenance. Wheeled motorized access to roads within the allotment boundary would be

permitted for permit administration and required allotment maintenance. Limited off-road use

would be authorized for required allotment maintenance by specific classes of vehicles for

specific tasks.

Alternative 3 – Modified Proposed Action

This alternative was developed by the IDT to address changes needed to current grazing

management to better utilize forage, protect resources, and meet the need for action. The

proposed action was also modified to incorporate changes to address issues raised from public

scoping where appropriate to still meet the need for action.

Alternative 3 proposes to continue permitting livestock grazing under management systems

designed to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines for one herd at a total of 494 cow/calf pair

per month with grazing permitted (occurring) from May 20 to October 15 (Table 23-24). This

alternative includes grazing in some fenced riparian areas, the additional acreage identified from

the Jack Creek Sheep and Goat Allotment, and grazing of the private land parcels along Jack

Creek known as Upper Jamison, Lower Jamison, and Moffit under a term/private grazing permit.

The addition of 75 cow/calf pairs under this alternative reflects the inclusion of the current

number of cow/calf pairs being grazed on these private lands and do not represent an addition of

cattle to the landscape.




PASTURE/UNIT Approx.

Acres1

Permit Type

Max. # of

Permitted

Cattle

(Cow/Calf

Pairs)

Grazing Season2

Grazing

Duration

Allowable

Utilization Grazing System

Halfway Pasture 8,293 Term 230 June 1-June 30 1 month 45-55 Early Season

North Willow Pasture 4,831 Term 189 June 1-June 15 15 days 30-55 Early Season

Antelope Flat 1 557 Term 50 May 20-June 15 3 weeks 45-55 Early Season

Antelope Flat 2 403 Term 50 July 1-July 153 n/a 45-55

Transition/

Holding3

Antelope Flat 3 & 4 860 Term 200 Sept. 15- Oct. 153 n/a 45-55

Transition/

Holding3

Tobin Cabin Pasture 66,500 Term/Private 189 June 15-July 15 1 month 40-50 Early Season

Tobin Cabin Pasture 66,500 Term/Private 230 July 1-July 15 15 days 40-50 Early Season

Chemult Pasture4 69,092 Term/Private 494 July 15-Sept. 30 2 months 25-45

Deferred

Rotation

Dry Meadow Unit5 12 Term 10 July 15-Sept. 30 15 days 25-35

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Squirrel Camp Unit5 21 Term 14 July 15-Sept. 30 15 days 35-45

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Rider‘s Camp Unit5 72 Term 38 July 15-Sept. 30 15 days 35-45

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Cannon Well Unit5 44 Term 58 July 15-Sept. 30 15 days 35-45

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Jack Creek Unit5 2,332

6 Term/Private 75 July 15-Sept. 30 1 month 35-45

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Round Meadow

Unit5

392 Term 114 July 15-Sept. 30 1 month 35-45 High Intensity/

Low Frequency

North Sheep Pasture4 19,063 Term 494 July 15-Sept. 30 15 days 25-45

Deferred

Rotation

Antelope Grazing

Allotments/All

Pastures

169,599 n/a

494

cow/calf

pair

May 20- Oct. 15 5 months n/a





4 The Chemult and North Sheep Pastures/units would be managed together using a deferred rotation grazing system

with alternating seasons of use (see Table 2.3). 5 These units are encompassed in the Chemult Pasture under this alternative. Allocated cow/calf pair for these units

would be part of the total allocation for the Chemult Pasture, not an addition to the pasture‘s allocation. 6 Acres displayed for the Jack Creek Unit include the approximately 319 acres of the Moffit private parcel, which

would eventually be fenced to be part of the riparian unit. Prior to this fencing, those acres would be grazed as part

of the greater Chemult Pasture.



Table 24. Example of a livestock grazing pasture two-year rotation1 schedule.

Pastures/Dates Pastures/Dates

Year 1 Chemult Pasture & Meadow Units

July 15 – September 152

North Sheep Pasture

September 16 – September 302

Year 2 North Sheep Pasture

July 15 – August 12

Chemult Pasture & Meadow Units

August 1 – September 302

1 Resource protection needs and/or local weather variations or resource conditions could restrict rotation between

pastures. 2 Dates shown reflect proposed dates permitted. Actual on/off dates or dates identified for movement between


within the overall allotment and individual pastures.


habitat within the Jack Creek Unit at Upper Jamison, Lower Jamison, and Moffit would be

waived to the Forest under a term/private grazing permit. Grazing on these private lands would

be at stockings, timings, and utilizations outlined above, and consistent with management

proposed for the Oregon spotted frog in the Jack Creek Site Management Plan. Grazing within

Jack Creek would be variable during the lifetime of this analysis as on-going Oregon spotted

frog habitat restoration would be occurring and would influence the location, stockings, timings,

and utilizations of grazing each year. In addition, annual monitoring as outlined in Appendix G

may influence the location, stockings, timings, and utilizations of grazing each year.

Grazing within the North Sheep Pasture would require the construction of approximately 14

miles of new boundary fence. Grazing in this pasture would not be authorized until construction

of the new boundary fence has been completed. Until completion, grazing would occur on the

Chemult RD portion of the allotment consistent with timing and utilization allowances.

Alternative 4

This alternative was developed by the IDT to address issues raised from public scoping that

presented alternatives to existing alternatives that still met the need for action.


designed to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines for one herd at 419 cow/calf pair per

month with grazing permitted (occurring) from May 20 to July 30 (Table 25), without using the

Chemult RD portion of the allotment.


PASTURE Approx.

Acres1

Permit Type

Max. # of

Permitted

Cattle

(Cow/Calf

Pairs)

Grazing Season2

Grazing

Duration

Allowable

Utilization

Grazing

System

Halfway 8,293 Term 230 June 1-June 30 1 month 45-55 Early Season

North Willow 4,831 Term 189 June 1-June 15 15 days 30-55 Early Season




PASTURE Approx.

Acres1

Permit Type

Max. # of

Permitted

Cattle

(Cow/Calf

Pairs)

Grazing Season2

Grazing

Duration

Allowable

Utilization

Grazing

System

Antelope Flat 2 403 Term 50 July 1-July 15 n/a 45-55 Transition/

Holding3

Antelope Flat 3 & 4 860 Term 200 July 15- July 30 n/a 45-55 Transition/

Holding3

Tobin Cabin 65,116 Term/Private 189 June 15-July 15 1 month 40-50 Season-long

Grazing

Tobin Cabin 65,116 Term/Private 230 July 1-July 15 15 days 40-50 Season-long

Grazing

Antelope Grazing

Allotments/All

Pastures

80,060 n/a

419

cow/calf

pair

May 20- July 30 2.5 months n/a





Under Alternative 4, the Antelope Cattle & Horse Allotment would be administratively closed

and would not be available for permit re-issuance for a minimum of ten years. This is the lifetime

of a term grazing permit, the approximate time between a NEPA decision and sufficiency

analysis and the timeframe that may allow for measurable changes in resource conditions to

occur if the condition was being affected by livestock grazing. With the withdrawal of the land

from permitted grazing use, continued monitoring of key areas and utilization would not occur.

No waiver of private lands or term/private permits would be issued and grazing on private lands

would be at stockings, timings, and utilizations of the private landowners‘ choosing.

Alternative 5

This alternative was developed by the IDT to address issues raised from public scoping that

presented alternatives to existing alternatives that still met the need for action.


designed to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines for two herds at a total of 494 cow/calf

pair per month with grazing permitted (occurring) from May 15 to October 15 (Tables 26). This

alternative includes grazing in some fenced riparian areas, the additional acreage identified from

the Jack Creek Sheep and Goat Allotment, and grazing of the private land parcels along Jack

Creek known as Upper Jamison, Lower Jamison, and Moffit under a term/private grazing permit.

The addition of 75 cow/calf pairs under this alternative reflects the inclusion of the current

number of cow/calf pairs being grazed on these private lands and do not represent an addition of

cattle to the landscape.




PASTURE/

UNIT

Approx.

Acres1

Permit Type

Max. # of

Permitted

Cattle

(Cow/Calf

Pairs)

Grazing Season2

Grazing

Duration

Allowable

Utilization Grazing System

3

Halfway Pasture 8,293 Term 163

(Herd 1) May 15-June 15 1 month 45-55 Early Season

North Willow

Pasture 4,831 Term

256

(Herd 2) June 1-June 30 1 month 30-55 Early Season


Antelope Flat 2 403 Term 163

(Herd 1) June 15-June 20

3 n/a 45-55

Transition/

Holding3

Antelope Flat 2 403 Term 256

(Herd 2) July 1-July 15

3 n/a 45-55

Transition/

Holding3

Antelope Flat 3 & 4 860 Term 250 Sept. 15- Oct.

153

n/a 45-55 Transition/

Holding3

Tobin Cabin Pasture 66,424 Term/Private 163

(Herd 1) June 15-Sept. 15 1 month 40-50

Season-long

Grazing

North Sheep

Pasture4

19,063 Term 163

(Herd 1) July 15-Sept. 30 1.5 months 25-45 Deferred Rotation

Chemult Pasture4 69,168 Term/Private

340

(Herd 2)7

July 1-Sept. 30 3 months 25-45 Deferred Rotation

Dry Meadow

Unit5

12 Term 20 July 1-Sept. 30 15 days 25-35 High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Squirrel Camp

Unit5


Low Frequency

Rider‘s Camp

Unit5


Low Frequency

Cannon Well

Unit5


Low Frequency

Sproats Meadow

Unit 14 Term 5 July 1-Sept. 30 10 days 25-35

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Johnson‘s

Meadow Unit 12 Term 5 July 1-Sept. 30 10 days 25-35

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Wilshire Meadow

Unit 6 Term 5 July 1-Sept. 30 10 days 35-45

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Round Meadow

Unit5

396 Term 114 July 1-Sept. 30 1 month 35-45 High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Jack Creek Unit5 2,332

6 Term/Private 75 June 15-Sept. 30 3.5 month 35-45

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

- Lower Jamison 243 Term/Private 75 June 15-July 21 1 month 35-45 High Intensity/

Low Frequency

- Upper Jamison 1,134 Term/Private 75 July 21-Sept. 30 1 month 35-45 High Intensity/

Low Frequency

- Jack Creek

(NFS) & Moffit 955 Term/Private 75 July 21-Sept. 30 1 month 35-45

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Antelope Grazing

Allotments/All

Pastures

169,599 n/a

494

cow/calf

pair

May 15- Oct. 15 5 months n/a







4 The Chemult and North Sheep Pastures/units would be managed together using a deferred rotation grazing system

with alternating seasons of use (see Table 2.6 and 2.7). 5 These units are encompassed in the Chemult Pasture under this alternative. Allocated cow/calf pair for these units

would be part of the total allocation for the Chemult Pasture, not an addition to the pasture‘s allocation. 6 Acres displayed for the Jack Creek Unit include the approximately 319 acres of the Moffit private parcel, which

would eventually be fenced to be part of the riparian unit. Prior to this fencing, those acres would be grazed as part

of the greater Chemult Pasture. 7 Herd 2 includes 75 cow/calf pair proposed for rotation through the Jack Creek Unit parcels as shown in Table 2.8.

Table 27. Example of Herd 1 (163 pair) proposed three-year rotation schedule.

May 15 – June 15 June 16 – July 30 Aug. 1 – Sept. 30

Year 1 Halfway Pasture Tobin Cabin Pasture North Sheep Pasture

Year 2 Halfway Pasture Tobin Cabin Pasture Chemult Pasture (N)1

Year 3 Halfway Pasture North Sheep Pasture Chemult Pasture (S) 1

1 The N/S division of the Chemult Pasture is Forest Road 94. This is not proposed to be fenced, but instead active

management would be utilized to keep cattle at or above/below this road during allocated timing of use. Cattle

would likely utilize forage locations adjacent to the road during both seasons and active management would not be

done to keep them out of these areas unless overutilization or resource damage began to show.

Table 28. Example of Herd 2 (256/340 pair) proposed three-year rotation schedule.

June 1 – June 302 July 1 – Aug. 15

2 Aug. 16 – Sept. 30

Year 1 North Willow Pasture Chemult Pasture (S) 1 Chemult Pasture (N)

1

Year 2 North Willow Pasture Chemult Pasture (N) 1

Chemult Pasture (S) 1

Year 3 North Willow Pasture Chemult Pasture (S) 1 Chemult Pasture (N)

1

1 The N/S division of the Chemult Pasture is Forest Road 94. This is not proposed to be fenced, but instead active

management would be utilized to keep cattle at or above/below this road during allocated timing of use. Cattle

would likely utilize forage locations adjacent to the road during both seasons and active management would not be

done to keep them out of these areas unless overutilization or resource damage began to show.

Table 29. Example of Jack Creek Unit (75 pair) proposed two-year rotation schedule.

June 15 – July 21 July 22 – Aug. 28 Aug. 29 – Sept. 30

Year 1 Lower Jamison (private) Upper Jamison (private) Jack Creek (NFS) & Moffit

(private)

Year 2 Lower Jamison (private) Jack Creek (NFS) & Moffit

(private) Upper Jamison (private)


habitat at the Jack Creek Unit at Upper Jamison, Lower Jamison, and Moffit would be waived to

the Forest under a term/private grazing permit. Grazing on these private lands would be at

numbers, season, and duration outlined above, and consistent with management proposed for the

Oregon spotted frog in the Jack Creek Site Management Plan. Grazing within Jack Creek would

be variable during the lifetime of this analysis as on-going Oregon spotted frog habitat

restoration would be occurring and would influence the location, stockings, timings, and

utilizations of grazing each year. In addition, annual monitoring as outlined in Appendix G of



the EA may influence the location, stockings, timings, and utilizations of grazing each year.

While the 75 pair authorized for grazing on the Jack Creek Units would operate separate from

the remainder of Herd 2, they would be under permit with Herd 2. Because of this, any

suspended use of the Jack Creek lands for Oregon spotted frog restorations would redistribute

those 75 pair onto the remainder of the herd‘s allowed use back onto the permitted location on

the greater Chemult Pasture.

Resource Effects Measurement Indicators

The possible effects of the proposed alternatives on range and non-forested vegetation resources

have been discussed quantitatively using the indicators below (Table 30).

Removal of forage as effected by stocking rate, intensity, timing, and frequency,

Pasture configuration,

Plant community species composition and production of forage,

Acres of land available for grazing, and



Table 30. Range Resource Effects Measurement Indicators.

Measurement

Indicator

Alternative 1

(No Grazing)

Alternative 2

(Current

Condition)

Alternative 3

(Proposed

Action)

Alternative 4

(No Grazing Chemult

RD portion)

Alternative 5

(Maximum

Alternative)

Effect Differences

Removal of forage based on: stocking rate, intensity, timing, frequency

Heavy to Extreme use of private lands; incidental use of NFS from crossing permits

Moderate Use Light to Moderate Use

incidental use of Chemult RD portion from crossing permits; Heavy to Extreme use of private lands; moderate use of Silver Lake portion

Light to Moderate Use

Short term effects become more severe as the flexibility and management options decrease.

Pasture Configuration

~ 5 private land pastures not under permit

8 permitted pastures; 3 private land riparian pastures not under permit

15 permitted pastures (both private land and term permits)

7 permitted pastures; ~ 5 private land pastures not under permit

20 permitted pastures (both private land and term permits)

Higher number of pastures available for grazing increases flexibility in management options and increases control of stocking rate, intensity, timing and frequency of grazing.

Plant community species composition and production of forage

short term improvement; long term decline from lack of disturbance

stable or upward trend in grazed areas; long term decline in ungrazed areas without disturbance

stable or upward trend in grazed areas; long term decline in ungrazed areas without disturbance

stable or upward trend in grazed areas; long term decline in ungrazed areas without disturbance and private lands due to potential for overgrazing

stable of upward trend in all grazed areas

Plant communities need some level of disturbance to improve diversity and stimulate growth; too much disturbance or too little disturbance can cause declines in ecological status and reductions in forage production.

Acres of land available for grazing

-- = + - ++ The more land area available for use in one grazing allotment, the more diluted the effects of grazing will be across the landscape.



Effects Analysis

This section discloses effects of no livestock grazing or some level of livestock grazing on non-

forested vegetation communities, both upland and riparian. Effects by each alternative are

analyzed as they relate to how compatible they are in meeting plant physiological needs

considered essential for meeting the desired conditions from the Forest Plans.

General Effects of No Grazing on Vegetation

Direct environmental effects are those occurring at the same time and place as the initial cause or

action. For Alternatives 1 and a portion of Alternative 4 (Chemult RD) the only direct effect

from the lack of livestock grazing would be the lack of utilization of forage plants and removal

of the disturbance-response cycles, also known as community dynamics, within plant

communities.

Indirect effects are those that occur later in time or are spatially removed from the activity. These

would include the long term impacts of no grazing on plant communities‘ structure, composition,

diversity and dynamics.

Since term grazing would be removed on both allotments in Alternative 1 and the Chemult RD

portion of the allotments in Alternative 4 there would be no direct effects to forage vegetation or

ground cover by livestock only the direct effect, of no action (no permitted disturbance or

stimulation of plant communities through proper levels of grazing). Indirect effects to vegetation

and ground cover may be beneficial on the short term as vegetation communities respond to the

absence of livestock disturbance, but may also show some negative effects to standing forage

crop as dead plant material accumulates in the crown of grass species and reduces individual

plant health over time. This alternative would meet the standards and guidelines for non-forested

vegetation outlined in the Forest Plans (1989 & 1990) and INFISH (1995).

Riparian Plant Communities

No grazing would result in the quickest recovery of watershed stability and proper functioning

riparian resources (streambanks, meadows, springs, and fens). In the short term, meadow plant

vigor may rapidly increase in response to livestock removal if livestock grazing was the limiting

factor for current ecological condition. The amount of bare soil would decrease. Structural

complexity of all the vegetation would increase, and the amount of plant material in the

ecosystem as litter and decaying organic material would increase. Water infiltration rates may

increase in response to possible increases in root production by more vigorous grasses in the

short term. Livestock removal may also result in decreased soil compaction and thus increased

infiltration rates. Vegetation and seed plant reproduction would increase in the short term. The

additional litter and standing plant matter would help stabilize the system, be incorporated into

the meadow soil-building process, and lead to more increases in water storage capacity and plant

growth and reproduction. This trend may continue through mid to late-seral stage if natural

disturbances do not prevent this progression.

However due to the dynamic nature of riparian and aquatic systems and natural hydrologic

processes, this trend may not remain stable through time. In studies of streams where livestock

use has been excluded from riparian areas, recovery of riparian habitat has occurred in 4 to 8

years, depending on the site location and measure of riparian and stream channel recovery

(Skovlin 1984). Vigor and reproduction can decline in the long term (perhaps after 10 to 20



years, depending upon climate, water table availability, presence of other ungulates, and current

conditions) due to a buildup of vegetation residue preventing sunlight from reaching the lower

portions of the plants and a lack of growth stimulation of plants by disturbance (grazing). In

addition, no grazing may allow for some riparian-wetland resources historically lost to be

restored, where a potential for such recovery still exists.

In numerous studies of riparian grazing impact, investigators concluded that total removal of

livestock was necessary to restore ecosystem health. Along Mahogany Creek, Nevada, reduction

in grazing had little benefit; only a complete removal brought about habitat improvement

(Chaney et al. 1990). Ames (1977) found that even short-term or seasonal use is too much and

compared mere reductions in livestock numbers to letting "the milk cow get in the garden for one

night". In a recent comparison of 11 grazing systems, total exclusion of livestock offered the

strongest ecosystem protection (Kovalchik and Elmore 1992). As Stevens et al. (1992) put it, "If

the overgrazing by livestock is one of the main factors contributing to the destruction of the

habitat, then the solution would be to ...remove the cause of the problem."

A riparian restoration effort on Camp Creek, in northeastern Oregon's Blue Mountains, involved

the fencing of a stream corridor and periodic observation of the resulting changes. Roath and

Krueger (1982) noted that when Camp Creek was fenced in 1964, the streamside was devoid of a

shrub canopy and exposed streambanks were common. They reported that by 1974, though the

condition of the stream outside the fenced section remained unchanged, inside alder and willow

shrub canopy was providing up to 75 percent shade to the stream, with maximum water

temperatures outside and downstream from the exclosure averaging 12°F higher than those

samples taken within the fenced area. They found that daily water temperature fluctuations

averaged 27°F outside compared to 13°F inside the fenced area. Fish composition was such that

within the fenced area, game fish made up 77 percent of the population while game fish

comprised only 24 percent of the fish population outside the fence. Since 1968, Camp Creek has

been opened to livestock grazing again, providing late-season (after August 1) grazing which is

carefully monitored. Since grazing has been reintroduced, Roath and Krueger reported that no

measurable change in fish population had been identified as a result of proper grazing. This

study suggests that 1) degraded environments will need management intervention to achieve

short-term restoration and 2) proper use of healthy ecosystems can be made without causing

succesional regression.

Platts (1984) confirms that, except for eliminating grazing entirely, fencing the riparian stream

corridor provides the best chance for rehabilitating degraded riparian habitats in the shortest

time. Lacey and VanPoolen (1981) compared 11 studies throughout the west and found that

protected areas produced an average of 68% more herbage than comparable areas grazed at a

"moderate" rate. However, permanent removal of grazing will not gaurantee maximum

herbaceous plant production. Volland (1989) found that a protected Kentucky bluegrass

meadow reached peak production in 6 years and then declined until production was similar to the

adjacent area grazed season-long. Similar results were reported by Bryant (1985) and Green and

Kauffman (1995) in northeastern Oregon. Clary and Webster (1989) report that the

accumulation of litter over a period of years seems to retard herbage production in wet meadow

areas. Thus, some grazing of riparian areas could have beneficial effects. This is a response

similar to that documented by Branson (1985). From their studies on the Edwards Plateau of



Texas, Reardon and Merrill (1976) suggested that even decreaser plants need some grazing in

order to remain vigorous and productive.

Despite defoliation of willow cuttings in the grazed pastures (2 year study in early and late

summer) there was no significant effect on willow survival or growth compared to no grazing

(Conroy and Svejcar 1991). Removal of grazing destabilizes some systems. Grazing increases

the chances of some species survival and moderate grazing can enhance community and

landscape diversity (West 1993). Livestock exclusion may be appropriate to begin stream

recovery. Livestock and riparian systems can coexist if season and intensity of use is controlled

(Elmore and Beschta 1987).

While there is abundant documentation of positive changes when removing livestock from

deteriorated rangelands, a review of research literature indicates that there may be little

difference in the effects of no grazing and grazing at proper use (rather than over-grazing).

Bryant (1985) states that total exclusion of all human activites from riparian areas, is unlikely to

return those areas to pristine conditions. Hall (1985) offers the same conclusion with regard to

effects on wildlife: "Even if livestock grazing were excluded from public lands in the Great

Basin, the resulting circumstances would not provide optimum habitat conditions". Permanent

removal of grazing will not guarantee maximum herbaceous plant production. The accumulation

of litter over a period of years seems to retard herbage production in wet meadow areas. Thus,

some grazing of riparian areas could have beneficial effects (Clary and Webster 1989).

Upland Plant Communities

For uplands in deteriorated condition, removing livestock would immediately benefit forage

vegetation. To the extent that livestock grazing would inhibit or prevent reaching the desired

ecological condition, permanent livestock removal would result in better ecosystem health in the

short term. No grazing would also have undesirable effects in some upland vegetation zones,

especially those that evolved under the grazing pressure of large native herbivores. No grazing

would result in little or no change in upland vegetation conditions in shrub- or juniper-dominated

areas. To significantly change, these areas would need a catalyst to disrupt the dominance of

woody plants. More herbaceous vegetation, resulting in more standing litter would increase the

potential for wildfire, which might become that catalyst.

In the sagebrush ecosystem, no grazing would improve grass cover, soil cover, water infiltration

rates, and plant vigor and reproduction, as climate and soil potentials allow. Communities

dominated by woody shrubs would not significantly improve until woody plants were reduced by

such means as fire, mechanical treatment, or even livestock. The percent composition of plants

would resemble the late seral stage in some but not all areas, because vegetation communities

representing all seral stages are needed to maintain biodiversity. In areas having less than 10

inches of annual precipitation, sagebrush communities would not significantly improve in 20

years except for nonfunctioning areas whose vegetation is being treated. Without treatment,

trend in the lower precipitation areas would not significantly change over the long term.

Removing livestock from juniper ecosystems would allow the grass and shrub component of the

ecosystem to increase in vigor where the juniper canopy is not closed. Allowing conifers to

continue encroaching into historic meadow sites could eventually lead to loss of native plant

species, productive soil characteristics, and ground cover, as the ecological threshold approaches



woodland phase (Laycock 1991). In addition, as the stages of conversion from non-forested to

forested communities progresses, management opportunities to restore meadow communities

decrease. Only practices such as prescribed fire and mechanical and chemical treatment would

allow biodiversity to return, and the juniper ecosystem may take a long time to recover

(discussed in cumulative effects).

Holechek et al. (1989) claims that positive effects of controlled grazing compared to no grazing

are most likely in areas receiving over 400 mm (approximately 16 inches) of average annual

precipitation. Below this level of precipitation, excessive accumulations of vegetation usually do

not occur, due to aridity. It is noted by some authors that severe overgrazing that has resulted in

regressive succession, or even destructive change, severely delays or halts successional advance

even with the removal of livestock. Holechek et al. (1989) found that when shrub species in the

genera of Juniperus (juniper), Artemesia (sagebrush), Larrea (creosote), and Adenostoma

(chamise) dominate a rangeland as a result of overgrazing, recovery is very slow when grazing

pressure is removed. Improvement in productivity of palatable forage species can best be

accomplished by reducing the influence of these shrubs through burning, herbicides, or

mechanical control. Ellison et al. (1951) notes that accelerated erosion may continue under its

own momentum until all the soil is lost, even though grazing is eliminated.

Ellison (1960) concluded that there was no evidence to support the claims that grazing benefits

plants. Belsky (1986) reported that in the last quarter century there has been no new evidence

that renders Ellison's conclusion any less accurate today. Pieper and Heitschmidt (1988)

concurred with Belsky, especially for arid and semi-arid rangelands. They suggest that

destocking is the quickest, surest, and most viable way to reduce current deterioration trends

wherever they are occurring.

In 1991, Friedel presented a threshold concept that describes why some upland range types seem

to be static (stable trend) for very long periods of time. He hypothesized rangelands do not go

through gradual stages of secondary succession but, rather, pass through various levels or

thresholds and reach a stable state unless additional pressure or release from pressure is applied

(Laycock 1989 and Miller et al. 1994). If a community has entered a new steady state, removal

of livestock will most often not return this ecosystem to near pristine conditions (Miller et al.

1994) or high similarity to historic plant community types supported. Return to pre-disturbance

conditions on most previously altered sites will be very slow or non-existent once key thresholds

have been passed (Laycock 1989).

Much of the research literature compares the effect of no grazing with effects of severe (even

destructive) overgrazing, with the desired effect being recovery. The lack of abundant

comparisons with grazing at proper use does not answer with clarity that no grazing is more

beneficial than proper grazing. Buckhouse et al. (1981) states, "What is less clear, however, is

what constitutes overgrazing on any given system; to what degree geologic events are operating

independent of grazing; and what ameliorating effects might grazing systems, season of grazing,

and animal behavior modification have".

Virtual elimination of livestock grazing (except crossing permits) on upland grasses,

predominately bunchgrasses in the North Willow, Halfway and Antelope Flat pastures may

increase litter accumulation and decrease bare ground. Matting and accumulation of available



dead plant material would insulate the ground, provide some water-holding capacity and

decrease surface soil movement and erosion. Annual seed production of grasses may increase

under no grazing and increases in plant cover potential may occur depending on the site and

environmental conditions. Shrub communities without fire or other disturbance regimes would

gradually move towards a predominance of shrubs while grasses and forbs would be

outcompeted. On the Tobin Cabin and Chemult pastures upland conifer forested areas,

understory shrubs and grasses would continue to decline as canopies close, except where fire is

prescribed or wildfire occurs.

In the short term, understory plants in coniferous and deciduous forests may increase in response

to a lack of grazing pressure if forest canopies are not limiting understory potential. Bare soil

may decrease. The vegetation's structural complexity may increase. Plant material in the

ecosystem, including litter and decaying organic material, may increase. Seed and vegetative

plant reproduction would increase in the short term. The long term response would depend on

other influences, most notably fire and timber harvesting.

General Effects of Grazing (Defoliation) to Vegetation

Direct environmental effects are those occurring at the same time and place as the initial cause or

action. Indirect effects are those that occur later in time or are spatially removed from the

activity. For Alternatives 2, 3, a portion of Alternative 4 (Silver Lake RD), and Alternative 5,

the direct, indirect and cumulative effects would be the same, only the degree and location of the

effect may differ.

The direct effect of livestock grazing is the removal of plant material; this usually is a temporary

impact. Other direct effects may include soil disturbance in the form of trailing, trampling

(compaction), streambank alteration, and areas of disturbance from bedding, salting and watering

locations. These disturbances may reduce vegetation cover in the short term, but regrowth and

overall plant vigor should not be affected if allowable use levels in the Forest Plans are followed

and range readiness is assessed prior to livestock entering NFS lands. Indirect effects of

livestock grazing on plant community composition may be alteration of the microenvironment

and fire return intervals, and influence on ecosystem processes such as nutrient cycling, energy

flow, and the water cycle (Miller et al., 1994). Community alteration can occur if grazing

pressure is selective to one or a few species within a diverse plant community. The individual

plant effects from grazing or tolerance to grazing is dependent on the following factors:

Intensity (amount of plant removed) and frequency (number of times a plant is grazed)

Season of use

Time of grazing

Competition

Site characteristics

Seasonal weather variations

Continuous season long grazing throughout the growing period with little control over cattle

distribution (―passive continuous grazing‖) will usually result in the overgrazing of riparian areas

(Leonard et al. 1997). Continued season long grazing can cause forage species to lose vigor,

cause roots to die back and cause reductions in seed production. This can shift the plant

community composition to less palatable species (Ehrhart and Hansen 1998). This may have



contributed to the poor forage condition of the key areas in North Willow and Dry Meadow as

noted earlier in this report. Season long grazing in riparian areas also exposes wet areas and

streambanks to an extended period of hoof action and trampling. This is evident in portions of

the Chemult pasture (see spring survey data project record). The available range in the Chemult

pasture is primarily riparian meadows with little upland forage due to forested canopy cover that

reduces understory vegetation.

As stated above, Alternative 3 would not graze the Sproats Meadow unit, Johnson‘s Meadow

unit or Wilshire Meadow units due to their limited size and available forage. With a shorter and

deferred season in the Chemult pasture, and applied Winema Forest utilization standards for

riparian forage, expect improve forage conditions relative to their current conditions. This is

especially true for Kentucky bluegrass sites as they tend to receive the heaviest use under season

long grazing (Volland 1985). Tobin Cabin Pasture would likely see forage condition remain

static. Improvement of forage condition and trend to North Willow and Halfway pastures will be

slower. Continued early season grazing within the North Willow and Halfway pastures may

cause forage species to lose vigor, roots to die back and reductions in seed development may

occur. The Jack Creek sheep pasture will expect to see increased disturbance around riparian

areas and waterholes as a result of cattle grazing. Streamside trampling, bedding, salting and

dusting areas will be expected to increase bare ground. These can be minimized by placing salt

in previously disturbed areas such as on landings from timber harvest.

Deferred grazing rotation strategies help plant physiology by allowing seed establishment and

rhizome production during the early growth periods. The longer grazing can be delayed the

better opportunity exist for new plants to become established and for old plants to gain vigor

(Stoddart et al. 1975). It also suggests a possible balance of grazing use on the preferred

streamside zones with use on the less palatable upland vegetation (Platts and Nelson 1985).

Under Alternative 3 deferring entry into the Chemult pasture by 15 days every other year should

help plant physiology as described above and allow additional regrowth time on the odd years

when cattle exit the pasture 15 days early. This beneficial influence of deferment is entirely

dependent on weather conditions in the given year and could be of limited success because of the

relatively short deferment period. Reducing the period of use within the Chemult pasture from 3

months to 2 months will improve vigor of forage plants and meadow vegetation, especially on

the poor condition sites.

Disturbance-induced seral states associated with past levels of heavy grazing exist on some areas

within the project area. These are evident in the dominance of such species as wild iris and

Kentucky bluegrass. Return to original conditions on these isolated occurrences will be very

slow or non-existence (Winward 1991). In other areas showing an early seral state (primarily

drier sites or sites that have been thinned and/or logged), movement towards a higher ecological

status will continue to advance into mid seral position at a slower rate depending on the severity

of disturbance and soil loss (Winward 1998).

May and Davis (1981) concluded that livestock grazing either by sheep or cattle is not inherently

bad. Streamside areas have historically been grazed by herbivores with varying degrees of

impact, both positive and negative. They found that the critical element influencing effects of

grazing is the management of grazing activities.



Holechek et al. (1989) and Pieper & Heitschmidt (1988) discuss the theory that range herbivores

have been grazing and browsing on range plants for eons, suggesting that herbivores and the

vegetation on which they feed co-evolved in a mutualistic manner and that grazing may enhance

the long-term reproduction and survival of some species. Davis and Marlow (1990) clarifies that

the grazing behavior of native animals resulted in less than 10% of use on riparian areas.

Consequently, riparian areas developed under light grazing pressure: short term heavy use with

long periods of rest. Cattle evolved in a different environment with different behavior patterns-

tall grass communities where they had to stay in one location to continuously utilize readily

available grass production. Certain degrees of defoliation can increase plant productivity.

Removal of apical dominance by grazing or browsing has long been understood as one means of

increasing productivity (Holechek et al. 1989; Buwai and Trlica 1977; Heady 1984; Stoddart and

Smith 1943).

Stocking rate has more influence on vegetation productivity than any other grazing factor

(Holechek et al. 1989). However, Tohill and Dollerschell (1990) point out that grazing duration,

the major cause of overgrazing, is unaffected by livestock reductions. Remaining livestock

continue to seek out regrowth (selective grazing of preferred plants) while the number of

ungrazed plants increases (overrest). Holechek et al.(1989) summarizes the management

requirements of livestock grazing into four basic factors: regulation of grazing intensity, timing,

frequency, and selectivity (differential grazing of range plants). Because intensity governs the

amount of leaf area remaining for photosynthesis, it is of the most importance.

Rangeland vegetation may be altered by livestock through (1) herbage removal, (2) physical

damage to vegetation by trampling and browsing, and (3) altering the growth form by removing

terminal buds and stimulating lateral branching (Kaufman & Krueger 1984; Szaro 1989). These

alterations may effect vegetation in two ways: (1) Species composition and (2) Herbage

Production. These two effects are so closely connected and interdependent that most literature

does not discuss them separately. As a result, citations listed herein provide information, without

differentiation, related to the effects of grazing on both species composition and herbage

production.

Cattle grazing within the Fremont Winema National Forest is usually permitted for cows with

calves at their sides. A herd composed of cow-calf combinations is often characterized by poor

livestock distribution over the range because the cow is unwilling to travel long distances with a

calf at her side (Bailey 2004). This is particularly important when water is poorly distributed,

because the cow needs abundant water for milk production (George et al. 2007). Cows are often

retained in the base herd 6 to 10 years. Such cows develop traditional patterns of grazing that

may not provide good distribution (George et al. 2007). In general, cows scatter over the range

best in the spring and fall when the weather is cooler and less energy is needed for movement.

Relative community preference by livestock often changes during the grazing period due to

changing levels of forage availability and quality among plant community types. Non-forage

vegetation factors also influence sites animals select to graze, rest, and bed down (George et al.

2007). Timber harvesting methods also affect site selection by grazing animals. Slope is an

important factor affecting grazing distribution in hilly or mountainous country, but its effect

varies greatly among kinds of grazing animals (Bailey 2004). The location and number of

watering points on grazing lands is important in controlling the movement, distribution, and



concentration of grazing animals. Past experience appears to play a prominent role in which

plants and plant parts individual grazing animals select and also in the sites they choose to graze

(George et al. 2007).

Utilization standards have been developed based on scientific research on common rangeland

species (Clary and Webster 1989, Clary 1995, Crider 1955, Valentine 1990). They are based on

ecological principals, management concerns, and averages for representative floristic lifeforms

(grasses, grasslikes, and shrubs). Measurement of utilization is based on the annual production

of above-ground biomass of plants and is stratified by management type, rangeland ecosystem

conditions, and by broad groups including upland, riparian, browse, introduced wheatgrass

seedings, and alpine ecosystems. Eight years of studies at the Starkey Experimental Station

indicated that a highly controlled grazing system is required to manage riparian pastures at the

proper use level. Therefore, the riparian utilization standards, developed by the FS Pacific

Northwest Region, incorporated slightly lower values to compensate for this discrepency in

control (Volland 1990).

Forage utilization standards and guidelines are developed to ensure, with proper implementation

and management, the achievement of identified future desired conditions of forest rangeland

resources. Properly managed livestock grazing, permitted within Forest Plans‘ standard and

guideline limits, is designed to cause no negative impacts to rangeland resources.

Holechek et al. (1989) recommends that if ranges are in good or excellent condition, maintaining

them in a stable condition may be the best management strategy. However, if they are in poor or

fair conditions, management that is aimed at "improvement" may be indicated. Most literature

(Buckhouse et al. 1979, Chaney et al. 1990, Buckhouse 1981, May and Davis 1981, Clary and

Webster 1989, Chaney et al. 1993) documents that light to moderate grazing/proper stocking

levels sustains and improves degraded rangeland areas, restoring long-term productivity.

Leonard et al. (1997) reported that in many instances, proper stocking levels and grazing

practices improve declining range and riparian areas faster than total exclusion of livestock.

Borman et al. (1999) suggested that 3 to 4 inches of stubble height would maintain plant vigor

and sustain riparian conditions. However, Clary and Webster (1989) recommend that a residual

standing height of 4 to 6 inches is necessary to improve riparian ecosystem function.

Holechek et al. (1989) presents utilization guidelines for range types showing the percent use of

key species for moderate grazing. He displays percentages in a 10 percent range, indicating that

ranges in good condition can withstand the higher utilization level; those in poor condition

should receive 10 percent less utilization. Padgett (1995) noted that while there are no data that

specifically state how long it will take a community to change from unsatisfactory to satisfactory

condition, the amount of time it takes to move toward Desired Future Condition (DFC) can be

decreased through increased rest, lower utilization levels, and/or rehabilitation. He recommends

utilization levels for unsatisfactory rangelands be 10 percent lower than those for satisfactory

condition ranges, which is consistent with guidelines outlined in both Forest Plans. Chaney et al.

(1993) concur that common, moderate utilization standards may be inappropriate for some

degraded riparian plant communities.

As discussed above, studies have shown that moderate levels of livestock grazing have positive

effects on maintaining, sustaining, and improving rangelands that are in either satisfactory or



unsatisfactory condition. The rate of recovery of unsatisfacory condition ranges is expedited by

decreasing levels of intensity and lowering levels of utilization.

Riparian Plant Communities

Control of the frequency and severity of defoliation of individual plants is the basic principle of

range management (Pieper and Heitschmidt 1988). Since livestock are selective grazers, the

frequency and severity of defoliation of individual plants or species of plants varies depending

upon preference and availability. The result is that most preferred plants will be defoliated more

frequently or severely than less preferred plants. Because of this preference, many riparian areas

fail to respond favorably to management strategies (Platts and Nelson 1985). Most riparian areas

are contained within much larger management units or pastures- broad combinations of lands

that mix riparian zones with upland zones. It is now widely recognized that streamside

environments are different from other terrestial systems, and need specialized management

(Platts 1981). Most grazing strategies were designed without specialized management of

riparian areas emphasized- irregardless of the grazing system employed, livestock concentrate in

these attractive areas, making frequency and intensity of use the primary management emphasis.

In an intensive literature review Clary and Webster (1989) concluded that vegetation appears to

be more affected by grazing intensity than by grazing systems. They reiterate that the success of

grazing systems depends in part upon managerial control of intensity and severity of forage

utilization. In a 1987 review of 250 miles of riparian areas on the Sawtooth National Forest, no

single grazing strategy was found to be effective in every riparian area situation (USDA 1987).

Rest-rotation, deferred-rotation, and season-long grazing systems were tested. Although there

was no statistically different changes in plant composition among the systems, the production of

riparian vegetation increased dramatically when utilization was 70% or less. Although specially

designed grazing systems that control degree and timing of use in the riparian area can be highly

beneficial, experience in riparian areas has generally failed to show an advantage to any specific

grazing system (Clary and Webster 1989). They maintain that as long as good management is

practiced- managerial control of time, place, and degree of forage utilization coupled with

adequate fencing, good distribution of water and salt, and adequate riding to ensure uniform

distribution- the specific grazing system employed may not be significant. In referencing Van

Poolen and Lacey (1979), Clary and Webster suggest that managers should place more emphasis

on proper stocking intensity and less on grazing system implementation.

Cattle tend to congregate in riparian areas because they provide shade, cooler temperatures,

water, and an abundance of forage. Many observers have noted that cattle spend a

disproportionate amount of their time in riparian zones (Ames 1977; Thomas et al. 1979: Roath

& Krueger 1982; VanVuren 1982). However Kauffman et al.(1982) found that late season use,

approaching 60 percent, showed no effect on riparian vegetation composition.

Cattle selectively seek out riparian areas and within these zones they selectively graze preferred

grass species. Cattle, normally, are only occasionally influenced by herding activity, and are

usually left alone to seek there own level of distribution and use. Cattle often stay in riparian

areas after forage is scarce even when they are not able to consume enough forage to supply their

daily nutritional requirements. Because of this habitual pattern and the intensive use made by

cattle near water, Swanson (1986) notes that areas around water troughs have long been

considered by many as "sacrifice areas". Cattle utilize riparian vegetation more closely and



consistently than native wildlife, affecting three important influences: the removal of herbage,

trampling of soil, and dissemination of seed. Platts (1981) summarized the effects of livestock

grazing on riparian vegetation: "Grazing can affect the streamside environment by changing,

reducing, or eliminating vegetation bordering the stream." Impacts caused by livestock are

primarily a function of the timing, frequency, and intensity of use.

In the spring, cattle often avoid riparian zones because of cold temperatures, soil wetness, and

forage immaturity (Kauffman and Krueger 1984). Therefore, spring grazing encourages cattle to

graze uplands where forage maturity and climate are more favorable compared to the riparian

zone (Platts 1984). As a result, spring-grazed riparian zones have less than half the cattle

occupancy compared to fall use (Krueger 1983). As spring grazing precludes late-summer use,

willow browsing is light and seedling survival high (Kovalchik and Elmore 1992).

Swanson (1986) notes that different riparian areas have different potentials. Some will produce

trees that provide shade and nesting habitat for birds, and others will produce lush meadow

vegetation as their best crop. Most riparian areas support a diversity of vegetation types which

may encompass only a small area. Some streams can support productive fisheries and others

never could.

A riparian zone is characterized by grasses, woody shrubs, trees, and other vegetation. It

maintains a relatively high water table and acts as a sponge by holding water in streambanks,

therby raising the water table in the surrounding area and providing a more stable stream flow.

Diversity of vegetation is an important characteristic of riparian areas in good condition (Chaney

et al. 1990). Unlike adjacent terrestial communities, water is more readily available for plant

uptake in riparian zones, and duration of this free, unbound water may influence community

composition (Youngblood et al. 1985). Woody riparian vegetation can improve with livestock

grazing, even with heavy use on grass species, as long as use on the willows is regulated (Grette

1992).

Late seral communities, especially along the greenline, are stable by nature; they are dominated

by deep rooted, often rhizomatous, species which take several years (5-7 years) to show the

effects of changes in management. It is especially important, when monitoring late seral to

potential natural community (PNC) riparian sites to also monitor physical conditions of the

stream channels. Streambanks and channel characteristics will respond more quickly to

increased impacts than will the stable vegetation. Conversely, these late seral communities may

show improvement more quickly because the desirable plant communities are already in place.

In contrast, early to mid seral greenline communities will show downward trends more quickly

because they are typically dominated by weakly rooted species that are more easily displaced

through continued surface disturbance and through water action against stream banks lacking

adequate protection because of the weak rooting systems. Early seral greenlines will take more

time to improve because the species necessary to colonize and develop into communities stable

enough to hold streambanks are not well represented (Padgett 1995).

Communities associated with streams and rivers may have to contend with frequent scouring or

deposition resulting from flooding. Riparian communities found along seeps or springs that have

constant high water tables may be limited by continual accumulation of organic material

(Youngblood et al. 1985).



Kindschy (1987) emphasizes that "only one factor can be dominant in limiting the successional

advancement of riparian vegetation. Typical primary factors are hydrologic scouring due to high

volume spring runoff, steep shoreline relief, livestock grazing, or a lack of suitable soil.

Reduction or removal of this limiting factor will enable progressive vegetative succession until

the next limiting factor is reached. Reduction or removal of any secondary factor will have little

effect if the primary factor is not similarily reduced." Winward (1984) notes that streams (in

Utah) with gradients less than .5 percent are usually dominated by herbaceous species; shrubs

and trees are most often absent. Streams with gradients between .5 and 1.5 percent usually have

patchy willows or trees present. Where gradients range between 1.5 and 3.0 percent, large

willows and trees become very prominent. Winward notes that in general, almost all of the

dominant natural species that occur in riparian settings are extremely strong, deep-rooted species.

As such, their major role is in buffering the forces of moving water (Winward 1994).

All riparian zones within the Fremont-Winema National Forest have four things in common: (1)

They create well-defined habitat zones within the much drier surrounding areas; (2) they make

up a minor portion of the overall area; (3) they are generally more productive in terms of

biomass- plant and animal- than the remainder of the Forest; and (4) they are critical sources of

diversity within the Forest ecosystem. Livestock grazing under well-managed strategies can use

riparian forage in compatability with the riparian-stream environment (Platts 1986).

Upland Plant Communities

The vegetation zones and plant associations found in the uplands are the result of, or are

influenced by, the changes in climate, elevation, and aspect. Upland range ecosystems are those

typically dominated by sagebrush, juniper, mountain brush, mahogany, forb, dry meadow, or

seeded grass plant communities. The desired future condition is to improve or maintain stable

watershed conditions by maintaining vegetation with healthy ground cover and plant

communities dominated by desired perennial grasses, forbs, with a range of shrub cover.

Associated herbaceous and woody vegetation provides for plant communities that are diverse in

seral status and structure and provide food and habitat for game and nongame animals,

songbirds, raptors, and reptiles, forage for livestock, and a variety of recreational opportunities

and aesthetic values.

Cattle are primarily grass eaters, but they do consume forbs and shrubs, such as bitterbrush and

mountain mahogany. Because they have only lower incisors and comparatively thick lips, they

ordinarily graze no closer than 1 to 2 inches from the ground (Hall 1985). Eight years of

research at Meadow Creek, Starkey Experimental Forest and Range, Wallowa-Whitman National

Forest, in northeastern Oregon, indicated that herbage production was increased 1-to 4-fold

through timing and intensity of grazing (Bryant 1985).

Upland vegetation response under defered grazing was superior to season-long continuous use

and works best where considerable differences exist between palatability of plants and the

convenience of grazing (Holechek et al. 1989).

Cattle tend to utilize shrubs more intensely at the end of the season because they generally have

greater crude protein content than cured out grasses. Cattle may also utilize shrubs more often

during crucial times in the growth and development of calves (pregnancy) because of added



nutritional requirements. These browse effects may be reduced through the use of mineral

blocks or loose mineral to supplement cows‘ diets during crucial times of nutritional need.

When controlled, grazing animals can have positive influences on vegetative resources: (1)

removal of excessive vegetation that may negatively affect net carbohydrate fixation and

increase water transpiration losses, (2) Maintaining an optimal leaf area index of plant tissue, (3)

Trampling seed into the ground, (4) Reducing excessive accumulations of standing dead

vegetation and mulch that may chemically and physically inhibit new gowth, (5) Inoculating

plant parts with saliva that may stimulate plant regrowth (Holechek et al. 1989). In addition,

research shows that lightly or moderately grazed plants are more productive than those left

ungrazed (Holochek et al. 1989).

The concept of desired or allowable use is even less clear with shrubs which have perennial parts

and buds above ground. A major question with shrubs may not be the percent use of current

year's growth but the amount and timing of use of buds. Under certain conditions, browsing

stimulates the growth of shrubs. Studies have shown that nonuse of shrubs resulted in vegetation

stagnation with an average reduction in productivity of 70 percent in bitterbrush and 36 percent

in big sagebrush (Tueller and Tower 1979). Mechanical topping of overmature bitterbrush

shrubs in the northern intermountain area, averaging 50 percent canopy removal every 6 years,

resulted in a flush of new twig growth and a several-fold increase in browse yield (Ferguson

1972). Other studies show that clipping stimulated bud elongation and growth in bitterbrush but

not in big sagebrush (Bilbrough and Richards 1993). The utilization levels for shrubs as

identified in the Forest Plans appear to be consistent with available knowledge on shrub

defoliation rates.

Indirect Effects Of Vegetation Defoliation By Livestock

The range-watershed complex is never static, but constantly undergoes change. Normally the

change is very slow and is marked by the progressive invasion of certain species and elimination

of others. Such orderly change is called "succession".

Indirect effects of grazing defoliation at proper use is expressed primarily through secondary

succession, orderly change where vegetation has been disturbed.

Although history is replete with documentation of the cumulative effects of overgrazing, history

also documents that regulated grazing at proper use causes positive, beneficial secondary

succession.

Chaney et al. (1990) reported that the extensive range deterioration began with severe

overgrazing- native perennial grasses were virtually eliminated from vast areas and replaced by

sagebrush, rabbitbrush, mesquite and juniper, and by exotic plants or shallow-rooted native

vegetation less suited for holding soils in place. This severe overgrazing catalyzed the natural

response of secondary succession, which is the sequential changes in vegetation composition

resulting from some disturbance.

Persistence of soil and plant cover through the centuries during recurring periods of dry and wet

years as a normal feature of climate is proof that the range-watershed complex is resilient enough

to absorb these natural impacts rather than be destroyed by them. For centuries the various



components of the complex have had to adjust themselves to changes other than those in

weather- fire, and changes in grazing use by wildlife, for example. That a soil mantle and

vegetal cover have persisted is the best possible evidence that the adjustments have been made

successfully and hence that balance between the various components has been maintained

throughout. Thus an intact soil mantle is a record of a long period of balance. Evidence that the

soil mantle has been recently destroyed is proof that some powerful stress, of greater magnitude

than normal stress of the environment, has been placed upon it (Ellison et al. 1951).

Examples of secondary succession, orderly change in which a soil mantle, or at least part of a

mantle, is present and may be seen wherever vegetation has been disturbed. Many secondary

successions under grazing are undesirable trends, usually resulting from differences in

palatability of different species to a given kind of grazing animal. The most palatable species are

grazed closest and are handicapped; the least palatable species are passed by and, in relation to

the others, are encouraged. The result is a trend toward a stand containing a smaller proportion

of palatable plants and a larger proportion of unpalatable plants. Factors other than palatability

may play a part in secondary succession due to grazing- growth form, physiological

requirements, and season of development in relation to time of grazing, may be just as important

(Ellison et al. 1951).

Grazing at proper use will change undesired succesional trends to desired trends and will

stabilize destructive change induced by overgrazing. Proper use and prescribed changes in

timing, frequency and intensity of use will 1) reduce overuse in key areas, 2) result in better

distribution and more even use of forage plants, and 3) reduce the frequency of individual plant

exposure to trampling and grazing which is beneficial to preferred plant species. Plant species

are more or less tolerant to defoliation depending on the timing of grazing. The likelihood of a

plant being grazed is also variable, due to seasonal differences in animal forage preferences. The

application of deferred-rotation grazing systems will vary the timing of plant exposure to grazing

each year. Thus, species favored one year may be less favored in another year. This will

equalize the competitive interaction between species, and will result in maintaining species

diversity and productivity. Proper grazing management aids in the recruitment and persistence

of desired forage species (Jones and Mott 1980). The combination of reduced intensity, reduced

frequency, and rotational timing of grazing use will reduce defoliation and trampling of forage

plants. This will provide more plant material to maintain sheltered,moist microclimates, and will

result in improving the competitive ability of key forage plants. This will ultimately result in

increased density and productivity of desired rangeland forage species.

Research literature suggests that riparian areas be grazed in early spring, or fall, in order to

reduce grazing impacts on riparian areas (Clary and Webster 1989; Skovlin 1984). Grazing

under deferred-rotation systems will alow grazing to occur early, mid, and late season. This will

vary the timing of plant exposure to grazing each year. Thus, species favored one year may be

less favored another year. While this will maintain species diversity, density, and productivity

within riparian/meadow areas, the mid-season grazing which these areas would periodically

sustain may slow the shift towards more deeply rooted perennial plants and the opportunity for

rapid successional change to desired conditions.

Direct/Indirect Effects by Alternative



As discussed above, the presence of grazing has similar direct and indirect effects; it is the

degree and location of the potential effects that differ by alternative. The absence of grazing

also has the same general effects regardless of alternative.

Alternative 1

Under this alternative, no term grazing permits would be issued and only incidental grazing

would be expected through crossing permits. Cancellation of term permits must follow

direction in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2231.62d, Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2209.13,

Chapter 10 Section 16.24, and Part 2 item1b of the term permit. The direct effect of this

alternative would be a marked decrease in the disturbance to non-forested plant communities.

This would be expected to result in a short term improvement in species composition and

forage production followed by a long term decline in forage condition rating, species

composition, diversity and resilience of plant communities, both riparian and upland. Without

some level of disturbance to maintain dynamic processes within these plant communities,

individual plants would lose vigor and establishment of new plants would be limited by low

germination and survival rates of seedlings. These decreased germination rates would be

caused by the low incidence of seed finding a viable niche (location where seed-soil interaction

is possible) in which to establish. With the build-up of fuels and reduced resiliency of these

plant communities, other disturbances such as fire could create unintended and major impacts

to non-forested plant communities.

Additionally lands outside the allotment but under control of the permittee may be indirectly

affected by the exclusion of grazing on NFS lands. The effects to these lands outside the

project area are unknown. Private lands within the project area may experience higher levels

of grazing due to the cancellation of permits that designate appropriate levels of grazing

through Term Private Land Grazing Permits. Alternative 1 is not consistent with the purpose

and needs identified for this project. Specifically, this alternative does not support:

Where consistent with other multiple use goals and objectives, meet Congressional

intent to allow grazing on suitable lands as identified in the Forest Plans (as

addressed in the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Wilderness Act of

1964, Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Act of 1974, Federal Land Policy

and Management Act 1976, National Forest Management Act of 1976, Forest

Service Manual 2202.1).

Continue contributing to the economic and social-well-being of people by providing

opportunities for economic diversity and by promoting stability for communities

that depend on range resources for their livelihood (FSM 2202.14).

Indirect effects under this alternative include the loss of both professional rangeland management

and permittee awareness of on-the-ground conditions within the project area. With decreased

emphasis for management of the area, trespass and other unauthorized uses could go unnoticed.

This alternative would decrease the number of pastures (5 private pastures under landowner

control) and the overall acreage available for grazing within the project area, which would result

in a concentration of grazing effects to small areas. Grazing will likely continue on private lands

(approximately 245 cow/calf pairs) within the project area and would likely experience higher

levels of livestock grazing than current levels, possibly heavy to extreme livestock use. Crossing



permits for the purpose of trailing cattle to private in-holdings may be necessary thus increasing

the potential for trespass cattle.

Structural range improvements would fall into disrepair until their removal and removal may not

be allowed due to the historic and cultural nature of these uses or if structures provide additional

water availability to wildlife. The responsibility of preventing livestock from entering NFS lands

not permitted for livestock grazing is the sole responsibility of the livestock owner or adjacent

landowner (FSM 2230.6). Placing or allowing unauthorized livestock to enter NFS lands is

prohibited and subject to fines, 36 CFR 261.7(a).

Alternative 2

Under Alternative 2, the current grazing system of early season, continuous rotation and season

long grazing would continue. Cattle numbers and rotations through the various pastures would

remain the same. The majority of the rangeland plant community types are at mid- to late-

ecological stage. These riparian or meadow sites will continue to advance along their respective

successional pathways however, Alternatives 2 will most likely result in a slower rate of

improvement than Alternative 1 or 4 and similar rates of improvement to Alternative 3 and 5.

Under this alternative, and through proper levels of administration, plant communities would be

expected to remain in a steady ecological state (forage rating condition) or show slow levels of

improvement through the update of appropriate utilization levels based on current range

conditions. Fenced riparian areas and the northern portion of the Jack Creek Sheep Allotment

would continue to see no authorization of livestock grazing and may see some declines in

condition over time due to a lack of disturbance in these plant communities.

Alternative 2 would maintain the current number of pastures (8 permitted; 3 private pastures not

under permit) and the overall acreage available for grazing within the project area, which would

result in the same distribution of grazing effects across the landscape to be expected. Grazing

will continue on private lands within the project area and would likely experience levels of use

similar to current levels (moderate).

Alternative 3

This alternative would permit grazing in the Dry Meadow unit, Squirrel Camp unit, Rider‘s

Camp unit and Cannon Well unit, add the northern portion of the Jack Creek Sheep Allotment to

allow for some deferment in use on the west side, as well as result in additional private lands

being placed into a Term Private Lands Grazing Permit. These areas would be grazed in addition

to the current pastures being used. The fenced riparian areas (units) currently rate in fair or good

forage condition and satisfactory range condition which is expected to be maintained under all

alternatives. Current implementation monitoring indicates that utilization standards can be met

under current management and would be expected to be met under all alternatives. Effectiveness

monitoring indicates that trends can improve or be maintained.




conditions. Some fenced riparian areas and the northern portion of the Jack Creek Sheep

Allotment would be authorized for grazing and would also be expected to see steady ecological



states or slow levels of improvement based on appropriate levels of disturbance resulting in a

potential increase in plant community composition, diversity and resilience. Fens would not be

expected to decline in condition due to livestock generally avoiding areas of highly saturated soil

and mitigation measures being identified to minimize potential impacts.

Alternative 3 would increase the number of pastures (15; both NFS and private lands) and the

overall acreage available for grazing within the project area, which would result in a dilution of

grazing effects across the landscape and an increase of flexibility in grazing management options

on an annual basis. Grazing will continue on private lands within the project area and would

likely experience levels of use similar to current levels (moderate) however some new private

lands would fall under FS administration through a Term Private Land Grazing Permit. This

would further increase the flexibility of grazing options (and options for deferment of use or rest)

on an annual basis.

Alternative 4

Under this alternative, no term grazing permits would be issued for the Chemult RD portion of

the project area and only incidental grazing would be expected through crossing permits here.

Cancellation of term permits must follow direction in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2231.62d,

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2209.13, Chapter 10 Section 16.24, and Part 2 item1b of the

term permit. Grazing would continue to be permitted at current levels on the Silver Lake RD

portion of the project area. The direct effect of this alternative would be a marked decrease in

the disturbance to non-forest plant communities on the Chemult RD portion of the project area.

This would be expected to result in a short term improvement in species composition and

forage production followed by a long term decline in forage condition rating, species

composition, diversity and resilience of plant communities, both riparian and upland. Without

some level of disturbance to maintain dynamic processes within these plant communities,

individual plants would lose vigor and establishment of new plants would be limited by low

germination and survival rates of seedlings. These decreased germination rates would be

caused by the low incidence of seed finding a viable niche (location where seed-soil interaction

is possible) in which to establish. With the build-up of fuels and reduced resiliency of these

plant communities, other disturbances such as fire could create unintended and major impacts

to non-forested plant communities on the Chemult RD portion of the project area.




conditions on the Silver Lake RD portion of the project area.

Alternative 4 would decrease the current number of pastures (7 permitted; 5 private pastures not

under permit) and the overall acreage available for grazing within the project area, which would

result in a concentration of grazing effects across the landscape to be generally expected. Proper

use will still be enforced on NFS lands. Additionally lands outside the allotment but under

control of the permittee may be indirectly affected by the exclusion of grazing on NFS lands.

The effects to these lands outside the project area are unknown. Private lands within the project

area may experience higher levels of grazing due to the cancellation of permits that designate

appropriate levels of grazing through Term Private Land Grazing Permits. Alternative 1 is not



consistent with the purpose and needs identified for this project. Specifically, this alternative

does not support:

Where consistent with other multiple use goals and objectives, meet Congressional

intent to allow grazing on suitable lands as identified in the Forest Plans (as

addressed in the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Wilderness Act of

1964, Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Act of 1974, Federal Land Policy

and Management Act 1976, National Forest Management Act of 1976, Forest

Service Manual 2202.1).

Alternative 5

This alternative would permit grazing in the Dry Meadow unit, Squirrel Camp unit, Rider‘s

Camp unit and Cannon Well unit, Sproats Meadow unit, Johnson Meadow unit and Wilshire

Meadow, add the northern portion of the Jack Creek Sheep allotment to allow for some

deferment in use on the west side, as well as result in additional private lands being placed into a

Term Private Lands Grazing Permit. These areas would be grazed in addition to the current

pastures being used. The fenced riparian areas (units) currently rate in fair or good forage

condition and satisfactory range condition which is expected to be maintained under all

alternatives. Current implementation monitoring indicates that utilization standards can be met

under current management and would be expected to be met under all alternatives. Effectiveness

monitoring indicates that trends can improve or be maintained.




conditions. All fenced riparian areas and the northern portion of the Jack Creek Sheep Allotment

would be authorized for grazing and would also be expected to see steady ecological states or

slow levels of improvement based on appropriate levels of disturbance resulting in a potential

increase in plant community composition, diversity and resilience. Fens would not be expected

to decline in condition due to livestock generally avoiding areas of highly saturated soil and

mitigation measures being identified to minimize potential impacts.

Alternative 5 would maximize the number of pastures (20; both NFS and private lands) and the

overall acreage available for grazing within the project area, which would result in the greatest

dilution of grazing effects across the landscape and the greatest flexibility in grazing

management options on an annual basis. Grazing will continue on private lands within the

project area and would likely experience levels of use lower than current levels (light to

moderate) and some new private lands would fall under FS administration through a Term

Private Land Grazing Permit. This would further increase the flexibility of grazing options (and

options for deferment of use or rest) on an annual basis.

All standards and guidelines from the Forest Plans would continue to be enforced under any

alternative as would the terms and conditions of the Term Grazing Permits and Term Private

Land Grazing Permits. The Forest Plan standards and guidelines for range management

determine the allowable use levels based on current forage rating condition of the key areas

(Fremont Forest Plan pg 75-76, Winema Forest Plan pg 4-62 & 4-63) and appropriate utilization

levels are outlined in the alternative descriptions section above. Of the four sites that currently



have poor forage condition ratings (unsatisfactory), three may show improvement of forage

condition rating as Forest Plan utilization standards are adjusted to reflect the current forage

rating conditions. The poor condition site in the Jack Creek S &G Allotment may continue under

nonuse and the potential for change (positive or negative) in condition is unknown if the area

were grazed (Alternatives 3 & 5).

Cumulative Effects of No Grazing

Alternative 1 & Alternative 4 (Chemult RD portion)

Activities on all lands over the course of the reasonably foreseeable future (30 years) within

these sub-watersheds have been considered for their cumulative impacts on livestock

management and non-forested vegetation. Activities included in consideration of cumulative

effects are listed in Appendix E of the EA, and include other on-going and future known forested

vegetation management activities, fuels reduction efforts, and authorized land uses. Past actions

are considered included by use of the existing condition as a proxy for the effects past actions

have had on the forested vegetation resource.

Cumulative effects are those that result from the impact of an action when added to other past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within or adjacent to the analysis area.

Cumulative effects determined in this report have duration of about 10 years. This is the amount

of time expected for any detectable or measurable changes in non-forested vegetation due to

project activities.

There are expected to be no cumulative effects on the livestock grazing program or non-forested

vegetation when combined with the effects of Alternatives 1 or 4 (Chemult RD portion) as

grazing would not be occurring.

Cumulative Effects with active Grazing Management

Alternative 2 (Current Management), Alternative 3, Alternative 4 (Silver Lake RD portion,

grazing allowed), & Alternative 5

Activities on all lands over the course of the reasonably foreseeable future (30 years) within

these sub-watersheds have been considered for their cumulative impacts on livestock

management and non-forested vegetation. Activities included in consideration of cumulative

effects are listed in Appendix E of this EA, and include other on-going and future known

forested vegetation management activities, fuels reduction efforts, and authorized land uses. Past

actions are considered included by use of the existing condition as a proxy for the effects past

actions have had on the forested vegetation resource.

Cumulative effects are those that result from the impact of an action when added to other past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within or adjacent to the analysis area.

Cumulative effects determined in this report have duration of about 10 years. This is the amount

of time expected for any changes in non-forested vegetation due to project activities to be

detected and measured.

There is expected to be no cumulative effects to the livestock grazing program or non-forested

vegetation on other allotments considered as part of the cumulative effects analysis area.



McCarty Butte, Bear Flat, and Buck Creek allotments will continue to by managed through

current Range Management Handbook and Forest Plans directions, current NEPA decisions, and

current Permits, Allotment Management Plans, and Annual Operating Instructions.

Cumulative effects from past, present, or foreseeable future projects associated with

development of additional or reconstruction of existing livestock water improvements would

have a beneficial effect to the livestock grazing program and non-forested vegetation within the

cumulative effects area. These potential benefits are 1) improvements in livestock distribution

and 2) consequential reductions in duration, frequency and intensity of grazing in some areas.

There are expected to be beneficial cumulative effects to livestock grazing and non-forested

vegetation through the Invasive Plant Treatments on the Fremont- Winema National Forest

project. These include improvements to forage and non-forested vegetation communities

through the treatment and/or removal of non-native invasive plant species.

Allowing conifers to continue encroaching into historic meadow sites could eventually lead to

loss of native plant species, productive soil characteristics, and ground cover, as the ecological

threshold approaches woodland phase (Laycock 1991). On-going and future timber

management, fuels reduction, and meadow restoration activities would reduce forested canopy

closure and woody shrub cover where occurring. Acres from surrounding NFS land

management activities with these objectives would contribute improvements in available forage

as well as livestock distribution. The cumulative effects area of consideration is within the

bounds or surrounded by several on-going or future NFS timber and fuels management

proposals. Additional time spent on placement and distribution of livestock by permittees or

their agents may be necessary to minimize immediate utilization of forage in newly burned areas

as cattle are attracted to burned areas (Vermeire et al. 2004). Beneficial effects would be

expected within three to five years following fuel treatment, as early and mid seral plants

establish on burned sites (Wrobleski and Kauffman 2003). This increase in potential forage base

may improve livestock distribution across the landscape and pull grazing to areas that were

previously considered marginal or transitory range. Benefits of burning to herbaceous vegetation

are improved vigor and seed viability of perennial bunchgrasses (Dyer 2002). The management

proposals within the project area would contribute improvements in forage conditions that would

not be able to be obtained if not implemented. As such, there are beneficial cumulative effects to

livestock management and non-forested vegetation anticipated when considered with other NFS

land timber and fuels management activities.

In addition, there are private timber lands within the project area that while Term Private Land

Grazing Permits exist, grazing and non-forested plant community health are not the primary

management objectives. Grazing management and forage conditions in these areas would not be

expected to change when considered with the incremental changes provided to these resources

on lands with other ownerships. Because the timeline for timber management (pre-commercial

or commercial thinning) is unknown, the assumption is made that current forested community

conditions will progress into the foreseeable future. Forage conditions would likely continue to

decline as the areas remain untouched by fire and canopy closures progress. Use of these areas

by livestock is already low as existing conditions have declined to a point where herbaceous non-

forested vegetation grows in a level of abundance that no longer allows the majority of these

sites to be considered a primary foraging area. As conditions are currently limiting forage



growth and livestock use, the incremental changes to forage provided from outside these areas

would be beneficial. These unmanaged landscapes could affect non-forested plant community

extent and function. Recovery rates for degraded areas could decrease or become static. With

continued conifer encroachment actual condition may trend downward as non-forested species

are replaced by upland and forested species. Once non-forested vegetation is reduced and no

longer functioning as a non-forested community type, should large scale wildfire occur in and

around the project area, non-forested plant community recovery would be slow and may require

some input (seeding) to establish. An event such as this may negatively impact the livestock

management in the area as forage base is reduced or eliminated for prolonged periods of time.

Private lands not owned by timber companies within the analysis area represent a number of

current uses, including grazing and no management. Within the foreseeable future, livestock use

would vary based on the alternatives presented in this analysis and are described in the indirect

effects section. Those private lands not considered for Term Private Lands Grazing Permits in

this analysis would not be expected to change primary use. Therefore, no cumulative effects are

expected to livestock management or non-forested vegetation when considering these private

lands (O‘Connor Meadow, Sellers Marsh, Parker Meadow, Cannon Well, and Pumice Flat).

Travel Management effectively decreased the motorized road accesses available to the public.

However, permitted motorized use for grazing allotments is described in the permit/ annual

operating instructions and generally allows for administrative use of closed roads for allotment

management purposes, as well as limited off-road use. Because of the permit specifications,

despite the decrease in open roads within the allotments, no effects to permitted grazing are

anticipated.

Other uses of public lands such as dispersed recreation, developed recreation, motorized vehicle

recreation, firewood collection, cone collection, mushroom collection, or the special use permit

for the Tree of Life Christian Wilderness Experience may have cumulative effects to livestock

grazing and short or long term cumulative effects to non-forested vegetation through varying

levels of ground disturbance. For instance, repeated use of the same area for dispersed camping

can alter the soil and vegetation and have prolonged effects to forage rating conditions and plant

community ecological status and potential. Should this occur on the landscape, appropriate

utilization level for livestock may be reduced even if livestock were not the cause of the

downward trend. These potential effects would not be expected to cause a shift in suitability of

livestock grazing in these areas since grazing was not the cause of the disturbance or trend.

All other management actions identified in Appendix E of this EA are expected to have no

cumulative effects or possible beneficial effects to the livestock management program or non-

forested vegetation communities discussed in this document.

Overall, cumulative effects would be anticipated to livestock management and non-forested

vegetation resulting from the incremental effects of proposed actions combined with other land

management and uses as described above. There would be no cumulative effects to the permitted

grazing program as a result of on-going or reasonably foreseeable future land management. Any

unforeseen effects to permit administration which come as a result of the proposed action may be

mitigated without further NEPA analysis using legal framework for Range Permit

Administration.



Design Criteria & Mitigation

Mitigation Measures for Alternative 1 (No Grazing)

All equipment used to remove fences and water developments will be cleaned in a

manner sufficient to prevent noxious weeds from being carried onto the analysis area.

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.

Any restoration of disturbed sites will follow the Fremont Native Seed Policy. Any seed

used in restoration will be certified weed free.

Mitigation Measures for Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5

Use would not begin earlier than two weeks before the established season nor end more

than two weeks after the established season. If utilization standards are reached prior to

planned dates, or resource conditions warrant, livestock removal shall be based on these

factors rather than on the planned season of use date.

Key areas determined to be in a poor or very poor condition (unsatisfactory range

condition) will have utilization standards adjusted to aid recovery and improve trend.

Permittee will be provided with a current list of noxious weeds in the AMP developed. A

map showing known noxious weed infestations within each allotment will be reviewed

periodically. Permittees will be asked to add to known noxious weed locations as shown

on the map.

All equipment used to construct and maintain water developments and fences 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.

Any restoration of disturbed sites will follow the Fremont Native Seed Policy. Any seed

used in restoration will be certified weed free.

New spring developments will include source protection fencing, off site trough locations

and a closed float system to maintain water at the source.

Throughout the project, all applicable Rangeland Management Best Management

Practices (USDA FS-990a, 2012) will be implemented to enable the achievement of

water quality standards, including:

Range-1. Rangeland Management Planning

Range-2. Rangeland Permit Administration

Range-3. Rangeland Improvements

Monitoring Requirements



Monitoring that would occur if the Proposed Action were implemented is specified in the

Monitoring Plan outlined below (Table 32). This plan includes both implementation and

effectiveness monitoring. Implementation monitoring is used to determine if the grazing activity

is implemented as designed. Effectiveness monitoring is conducted to determine if the

management practices applied have been effective in moving toward or maintaining desired

condition and meeting resource objectives. The monitoring process involves collecting data to

determine, what—if any—adjustments are needed to meet the desired conditions and the

standard and guidelines outlined in LRMPs. Project-specific monitoring would be conducted at

the key areas for each pasture. At least 20 percent of the key areas shall be monitored annually.

Table 31 is compiled from Forest Plans: Allowable use of Forage for Range Resource

Management Level C-―Livestock Managed to achieve full utilization of forage. Management

systems designed to obtain distribution and to maintain plant vigor include fencing and water

development‖ (Fremont LRMP, page 75, Winema LRMP, page 4-62). Allowable use will be

incorporated in allotment management plans. Allotment management plans may include

utilization standards which are either lower or rarely higher when associated with intensive

grazing systems and specific vegetation management objectives that will meet resource

objectives including cumulative annual use by big game and livestock. Allowable use of forage

is based on the amount of forage that will be left at the end of the overall grazing season or the

end of the growing season, whichever is later.

Table 31. Summary of Maximum Annual Utilization as outlined in Forest Plans.

Maximum Annual Utilization (Percent)(1)

Range Type Satisfactory Conditions (2) Unsatisfactory Conditions

Forest 45 0-35

Grassland 55 0-35

Shrublands(3) 45 0-30

Riparian Meadows 45 0-35

Riparian Shrubs 40 0-30

(1) Utilization is based on percent removed by weight for grass, grasslike, and forbs.

(2) Satisfactory range conditions on suitable range with forage condition is at least fair with a

stable trend.

(3) Utilization is based on incidence of use, weight, and /or twig length. Example, if 50 leaders

out of 100 are browsed, utilization is 50 percent.

Table 32. Monitoring Plan

Monitoring Item

Method

Frequency

Variability Indicating Action/Action

to be Taken

Implementation Monitoring (Permit Administration)

Permit Compliance Allotment and Pasture

Inspections

Ongoing, annual

permittee actual use

reports

Follow Forest Service Handbook

(FSH) Suspension and Cancellation

Guidelines

Annual Operating

Instructions (AOI) AOI meetings Annually Non-compliance

Fee Payment Bill for Collection Annually Bill not paid by due date

Livestock numbers Count livestock Random Numbers outside of AOI authorized

for season.



Monitoring Item

Method

Frequency

Variability Indicating Action/Action

to be Taken

Excess use Allotment inspections Ongoing All excess use

Improvement maintenance Inspections Ongoing Failure to maintain improvements

Salting Allotment inspections Ongoing Failure to follow AOI instructions

Range Readiness R6 range readiness

procedure

Pre-season and ongoing

as needed Adjust turn out date

Upland utilization Height/weight curves,

Ocular

Minimum of 20% of key

areas Annually Utilization thresholds are

reached/Move livestock to next unit

or off of the allotment

Riparian utilization

Key Species, Stubble

height, Height/Weight

Curves


areas Annually

Streambank

Stability/Disturbance

MIM, Alteration by

livestock, Stability and

Cover


areas Annually

Riparian Pastures

Key Species, Stubble

height, Height/Weight

Curves, Ocular,

Alteration by livestock,

Stability and Cover

Several visits during

grazing seasons until

thresholds are determined;

then annually for

compliance

Utilization thresholds are

reached/Move livestock out of

riparian pasture

Browse utilization

Woody Species

Regeneration; Woody

species use.


areas Annually

Utilization thresholds are

reached/Move livestock to next unit

or off of the allotment

Effectiveness Monitoring

Riparian Ecologic

Condition and Trend

Rooted Frequency,

Greenline MIM, PFC,

Photo Points, BMP

5-10 years Downward trend

Upland Ecological

Condition and Trend

Line Intercept, Toe

Point, Shrub age and

form Class

5-10 years Downward trend

Watershed improvement

projects (head-cut

treatments)

Ocular, photo points Annually Downward trend

Heritage Resources At

Risk or Potentially At

Risk

Systematic Field Visits

Photo Point Monitoring

Monitor sites as needed if

livestock are in the area.

Potential adverse effects to heritage

resources would initiate

implementation of standard resource

protection measures or formal NRHP

evaluation to avoid adverse effects.

References



Ames, C.R. 1977. Wildlife conflicts in riparian management: grazing. U.S. Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station. p. 49-51.

Anderson, E.W., M.M Borman, and W.C. Krueger. 1998. The Ecological Provinces of Oregon:

A treatise on the basic ecological geography of the state. Oregon Agricultural Experiment

Station. SR 90.138p.

Bailey, D.W. 2004. Management strategies for optimal grazing distribution and use of arid

rangelands. Journal of Animal Science, 82: E147-E153.

Belsky, A. J. 1986. Does herbivory benefit plants: a review of the evidence. American Naturalist,

127: 870-892.

Bilbrough, C.J and J.H. Richards. 1993. Growth of sagebrush and bitterbrush following

simulated winter browsing: mechanisms of tolerance. Ecology, 74(2): 481-492.

Borman, M.M., Massingill, C.R. and Elmore, E.W. 1999. Riparian area responses to changes in

management. Rangelands, 21(3): 3-7.

Branson, F.A. 1985. Vegetation changes on western rangelands 1st ed. Range Monographs, 2.

Bryant, L.D. 1985. Livestock management in riparian ecosystems. General technical report RM

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, United States, Forest Service.

(120). p. 285-289.

Buckhouse, J.C., J.M. Skovlin, R.W. Knight.1981. Streambank erosion and ungulate grazing

relationships. Journal of range management. 34(4): 339-340.

Buckhouse, J. C, R. W. Knight, and J. M. Skovlin. 1979. Some erosional and water quality

responses to selected animal grazing practices in northeastern Oregon. Pp. 13-22 in

Proceedings of the Oregon Academy of Science. Vol. XV

Buwai, M. and M.J. Trlica. 1977. Multiple defoliation effects on herbage yield, vigor, and total

nonstructural carbohydrates of five range species. Journal of Range Management, 30(3):

164-171.

Chaney, E., W. Elmore, and W.S. Platts. 1990. Livestock grazing on western riparian areas.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Northwest Resource Center, Eagle,

Idaho.

Chaney, E., W. Elmore, and W. S. Platts. 1993. Managing change: livestock grazing on western

riparian areas. (for US Environmental Protection Agency) Northwest Resource

Information Center, Inc., Eagle, ID

Clary, W. P. and B. F. Webster. 1989. Managing grazing of riparian areas in the Intermountain

Region. USDA FS Intermountain Res. Sta., Ogden, UT. Gen. Tech. Report INT-263

http://ovidsp.tx.ovid.com/sp-3.6.0b/ovidweb.cgi?&S=DJFOFPFPEPDDANJLNCPKJGMCBNIHAA00&Search+Link=%22Buckhouse%2c+JC%22.au.

http://ovidsp.tx.ovid.com/sp-3.6.0b/ovidweb.cgi?&S=DJFOFPFPEPDDANJLNCPKJGMCBNIHAA00&Search+Link=%22Skovlin%2c+JM%22.au.

http://ovidsp.tx.ovid.com/sp-3.6.0b/ovidweb.cgi?&S=DJFOFPFPEPDDANJLNCPKJGMCBNIHAA00&Search+Link=%22Knight%2c+RW%22.au.



Clary, W. P. 1995. Vegetation and soil responses to grazing simulation on riparian meadows.

Journal of Range Management 48: 18-25

Conroy, S.D. and T.J. Svejcar. 1991.Willow planting success as influenced by site factors and

cattle grazing in northeastern California. Journal of Range Management. 44(1): 59-63.

Crider, F.J. 1955. Root-growth stoppage resulting from defoliation of grass. USDA Technical

Bulletin, no. 1102.

Davis, K.C. and C.B. Marlow. 1990. Altering cattle behavior through grazing management.

Montana agresearch, 7(1): 11-14.

Ellison, L. 1960. The influence of grazing on plant succession. Botanical Review 26: 1-17.

Ellison, L., A.R. Croft, and R.W. Bailey. 1951. Indicators of condition and trend on high range-

watersheds of the Intermountain region. USDA Agriculture handbook, no. 19.

Ehrhart, R.C. and Hansen, P.L. 1998. Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones.

Montana BLM Riparian TB No. 4. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Missoula, MT.

47p.

Ferguson, R.B. 1972. Bitterbrush topping: shrub response and cost factors. USDA Forest

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. INT-125. p. 47-53.

Friedel, M.H. 1991. Range condition assessment and the concept of thresholds: A viewpoint.

Journal of Range Management, 44(5): 422-426.

George, M., D. Bailey, M. Borman, D. Ganskopp, G. Surber, and N. Harris. 2007. Factors and

Practices that Influence Livestock Distribution. University of California, Division of

Agriculture and Natural Resources. ANR Publication 8217. 20 p.

Green, D.M. and J.B. Kauffman. 1995. Succession and livestock grazing in a northeastern

Oregon riparian ecosystem. Journal of Range Management, 48(4): 307-313.

Grette, T. 1990. Successful range management in the McCoy Gulch Riparian Demonstration

Area. Rangelands, 12(6): 305-307.

Hall, F.C. 1985. Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands- the Great Basin of Southeastern

Oregon. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, Pacific Northwest Forest and

Range Experiment Station. no. 189.

Hall, F.C. 2001. Ground-based Photographic Monitoring. USDA Forest Service General

Technical Report, Pacific Northwest Research Station, GTR-503.

Holechek, J., R.D. Pieper, and C.H. Herbel. 1989. Range management. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:

Prentice Hall. 501p.



Interagency Technical Reference 1734-3. 1996. Utilization Studies & Residual Measurements.

Jones,R.M. and J.J. Mott. 1980. Population dynamics in grazed pastures. Tropical grasslands,

14(3): 218-224.

Kauffman, J.B., W.C. Krueger, and M. Vavra. 1982. Impacts of late season grazing scheme on

nongame wildlife in a Wallowa Mountain riparian ecosystem rangeland, Oregon.

Proceedings of the Wildlife-Livestock Relationships Symposium, Coeur d‘Alene, Idaho.

p.208-220.

Kauffman, J.B. and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and

streamside management implications…a review. Journal of Range Management, 37(5):

430-438.

Kindschy, R.R. 1987. Riparian reminiscences. Rangelands, 9(2):71-74.

Kovalchik, B. L. and W. Elmore. 1992. Effects of cattle grazing systems on willow-dominated

plant associations in central Oregon. Pp. 111-119, in W. P. Clary, E. D. McArthur, D.

Beduah, and C. L. Wambolt (compilers), Proceedings - Symposium on Ecology and

Management of Riparian Shrub Communities. USDA FS Intermountain Res. Sta., Ogden,

UT. Gen. Tech. Report INT-89.

Lacey, J.R. and H.W. VanPoolen. 1981. Comparison of herbage production on moderately

grazed and ungrazed western ranges. Journal of Range Management, 34(3): 210-212.

Laycock, W. A. 1989. Secondary Succession and Range Condition Criteria: Introduction to the

Problem. Pages 1-13. In: W.K. Lauenroth and W.A Laycock (Editors). Secondary

Succession and the Evaluation of Rangeland Condition. Westview Press.

Laycock, W.A. 1991. Stable states and thresholds of range condition on North American

rangelands: a viewpoint. Journal of Range Management, 44(5): 427-433.

Leonard, S., Kinch, G., Elsbernd, V., Borman, M., Swanson, S., 1997. Riparian Area

Management-Grazing Management for Riparian-Wetland Areas. TR 1737-14. USDI,

Bureau of Land Management-National Applied Resource Sciences Center, Denver, CO.

p.21.

May, B.E. and B. Davis. 1981. Practices for livestock grazing and aquatic habitat protection on

Western rangelands, Rangeland management, wildlife management. Proceedings of the

Wildlife-Livestock Relationships Symposium, Coeur d‘Alene, Idaho. P. 271-278.

Miller, R. F, T. J. Svejcar, and N. E. West. 1994 Implications of livestock grazing in the

intermountain sagebrush region: composition. In: Martin Vavra, William A. Laycock and

Rex Pieper (editors). Ecological implications of livestock herbivory in the west. Society

for Range Management pp. 101-133.

Pieper, R. D. and R. K. Heitschmidt. 1988. Is short-duration grazing the answer? Journal of Soil



and Water Conservation (Mar-April): 133-137.

Platts,W.S. 1981. Influence of forest and rangeland management on anadromous fish habitat in

western North America. 7. Effects of livestock grazing. USDA Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report 124.

Platts, W.S. 1984. Compatibility of livestock grazing strategies with riparian-stream systems.

Range watershed, riparian zones and economics: interrelationships in management and

use: Proceedings, 1984 Pacific Northwest Range Management Short Course.

Platts, W.S. 1986. Managing fish and livestock on Idaho Rangelands. Rangelands, 8(5): 213-216.

Platts, W.S. and R.L. Nelson. 1985. Streamside and upland vegetation use by cattle. Rangelands,

7(1): 5-7.

Reardon, P.O. and L.B. Merrill. 1976. Vegetative response under various grazing management

systems in the Edwards Plateau of Texas. Journal of Range Management, 29(3): 195-198.

Roath, L.R. and W.C. Krueger. 1982. Cattle grazing and behavior on a forested rangeland in the

southern Blue Mountains of Oregon, vegeatation types. Journal of Range Management,

35(3): 332-338.

Skovlin, J. 1984. Impacts of grazing on wetlands and riparian habitat: A review of our

knowledge. In: developing Strategies for Rangeland Management. p. 1101-1103.

Stevens, R., E.D. McArthur, and J.N. Davis. 1992. Reevaluation of vegetative changes, erosion,

and sedimentation on two watersheds- 1912-1983. USDA Forest Service General

Technical Report INT-289. p.123-128.

Stoddart, L.A. and A.D. Smith. 1943. Range management, 1st ed. New York and London,

McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 547p.

Stoddart, L.A., Smith, A.D., Box, T.W. 1975. Planning Grazing Use of the Range. In Range

Management, Third Edition. McGraw-Hill Book Co. New York, NY. P. 290-294.

Swanson 1984. Range Environmental Analysis.

Swanson, S. 1986. Options for riparian grazing management. Fact Sheet- College of Agriculture,

University of Nevada- Reno, Nevada Cooperative Extension. 86-77.

Szaro, R.C. 1989. Riparian forest and scrubland community types of Arizona and New Mexico.

Desert plants, 9(3-4).

Thomas, J.W., C. Maser, and J.E. Rodiek. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands- the

Great Basin of Souteastern Oregon: riparian zones. USDA Forest Service General

Technical Report, PNW 80.



Tohill, A. and J. Dollerschell. 1992. ―Livestock‖ the key to resource improvement on public

lands. Rangelands, 12(6): 329-336.

Tueller, P.T. and J.D. Tower. 1979. Vegetation stagnation in three-phase big game exclosures.

Journal of Range Management, 32(4): 258-263.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Inland Fish Strategy, Environmental Assessment, Decision Notice

and Finding of No Significant Impact; Interim Strategies for Managing Fish Producing

Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington.

USDA, Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality

Management on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical

Guide. FS-990a.

USDA Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forest. 2005. Antelope Allotments Springs,

Channels, & Headcuts Decision Memo.

USDA Forest Service, Region 6. 1989. Land and Resource Management Plan. Fremont

National Forest. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/frewin/projects/forestplan/index.shtml

USDA Forest Service, Region 6. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan. Winema

National Forest. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/frewin/projects/forestplan/index.shtml

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory Technical Guide: Landscape

and Land Unit Scales. GTR WO-68. 266p.

USDA. 1987 Sawtooth National Forest. Surveys in support of the 1987 Land and Resource

Management Plan for livestock grazing.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1997. Riparian Area Management. TR 1737-14. USDI

Bureau of Land Management-National Applied Resources Sciences Center, Denver, CO.

pg 18.

Vallentine, J.F. 1990. Grazing Management. Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, California. 533p.

Van Vuren, D. 1982. Comparative ecology of bison and cattle in the Henry Mountains, Utah. Pp.

449-457, in J. M. Peck and P. D. Dalke (editors), Proceedings of the Wildlife-Livestock

Relationships Symposium, Forest, Wildlife, and Range Exp. Sta., Univ. Idaho, Moscow.

VanPoolen, H.W. and J.R. Lacey. 1979. Herbage response to grazing systems and stocking

intensities. Journal of Range Management, 32(4): 250-253.

Volland, L.A. 1989. Development of forage rating guides for monitoring rangeland condition

and trend. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical

Report 257. p 154-159.

Volland, L.A. 1982. Plant Associations of the Central Oregon Pumice Zone. USDA Forest



Service, Pacific Northwest Region. R6-ECOL-104-1982.

Volland, L. A. 1985. Guidelines for Forage Evaluation within Central Oregon Pumice

Zone. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region; R6-ECOLO-177. 216 p.

West, N.E. 1993. Biodiversity of rangelands. Journal of Range Management, 46(1): 2-13.

Winward, Alma H. 1991. Management in the Sagebrush Steppe. Special Report 880. July 1991.

Ag. Ex. Station, Oregon State University. 7 pages.

Windward, A. 1984. An ecosystem classification for intermountain riparian areas. Range

watersheds, riparian zones and economice: interrelationships in management and use:

Proceedings, 1984 Pacific Northwest Range Management Short Course. p 1-5.

Winward, Alma H. 1998. The Tall Forb Type. 6 pages.

Wrobleski and Kauffman. 2006. Initial effects of prescribed fire on morphology, abundance, and

phenology of forbs in big sagebrush communities in Southeastern Oregon. Restoration

Ecology. Vol 11(1). pp. 82-80.

Youngblood, A.P., W.G. Padgett, and A.H. Winward. 1985. Riparian community type

classification of eastern Idaho- western Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain

Region. R4-Ecol-85-01.



Nevill, M., Robson, J. 2011. Antelope Allotment, Range Analysis/Existing Conditions, Fremont-

Winema National Forest, Lakeview, OR.

USDA-Forest Service. 1991. Ecological classification and inventory handbook. FSH

2090.11.Zero Chapter. Washington, D.C. USDA.

Dyer, A. R. 2002. Burning and Grazing Management in a California Grassland: Effect on

Bunchgrass Seed Viability. Restoration Ecology 10:107-111.

Elmore and Beschta, 1987. Riparian Areas: Perceptions in Management. Rangelands. Vol. 9(6).

pp. 260-265.

Government Printing Office (GPO). 2009. 36 CFR 222.4. 2009. Code of Federal Regulations.

Title 36 Parks, Forests, and Public Property. Chapter II Forest Service Department of

Agriculture. Part 222: Range Management.

Government Printing Office (GPO). 2009. 36 CFR 219.3 Code of Regulations. Title 36 Parks,

Forests, and Public Prpoer4ty. Chapter II Forest Service Department of Agriculture. Part

219: Planning.

Hopkins, W. E. 1979. Plant Associations of the Fremont National Forest. USDA Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Region; R6-ECOLO-79-004.

Kovalchik, B. L. 1987. Riparian Zone associations: Deschutes, Ochoco, Fremont, and Winema

National Forests. R6-ECOL-TP-279-87. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Region. pp 171 .

Manning et. al 1989. Rooting characteristics of four intermountain meadow community types.

Journal of Range Management. Vol. 42(4). pp. 309-311.

USDA-Forest Service. 1991. Ecological classification and inventory handbook. FSH 2090.11

Zero Chapter. Page 2. Washington, D. C. USDA.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Grazing Permit Administration Handbook. FSH 2209.13 Chapter

10—Permits with Term Status. Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR 97208. pp. 56.

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

Pacific Northwest Region, Fremont National Forest. Lakeview, OR 97630. pp. 232.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2006. Riparian area management: Grazing management

processes and strategies for riparian-wetland areas. Technical Reference 1737-20.

Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology Center, Denver, CO. pp.

105.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1995. Process for assessing proper functioning condition.



Technical Reference 1737-9. Bureau of Land Management, National Science and

Technology Center. Denver, CO . pp. 58.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2003. Riparian area management: Riparian-wetland soils.

Technical Reference 1737-19. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO. pp. 109.

Antelope Grazing Allotments Project Non-forested...

Documents

Transcript of Antelope Grazing Allotments Project Non-forested...