Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife...ranches that supported active livestock operations while providing valuable habitat for fish and wildlife. Grazing has been continued on

Washington Department of

Fish and Wildlife

2009 Pilot Grazing Plan

Prepared by:

Janet Sutter and Melissa Asher

With Contributions From:

John Pierce, Jennifer Quan, Pat Fowler, and Tom Schirm

Wildlife Program

600 Capitol Way North

Olympia, Washington 98501-1091

Phone: (360) 902-2515

Email: [email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1. WDFW Pilot Grazing Project and Plan Development ............................... 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................... 1

GOALS ........................................................................................................................... 2 DESIRED ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS AND INTEGRITY THRESHOLDS ......... 3 DEFINING LIVESTOCK GRAZING VIABILITY ...................................................... 8 FORAGE PRODUCTION ESTIMATES ....................................................................... 9 UTILIZATION TARGETS ............................................................................................ 9

STOCKING RATES AND PASTURE ROTATION ................................................... 10 ENHANCEMENTS TO IMPROVE DISTRIBUTION................................................ 10

HUMAN ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................ 11 EROSION AND SOIL .................................................................................................. 12 MONITORING ............................................................................................................. 14 CONTINGENCIES....................................................................................................... 16

LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................. 17 CHAPTER 2. Pintler Creek Unit 2009 Pilot Grazing Plan .............................................. 22

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 22 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................... 22 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................... 22

GRAZING PRESCRIPTION........................................................................................ 24 HUMAN ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................ 28

MONITORING ............................................................................................................. 29 CONTINGENCIES....................................................................................................... 29

LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................. 30 CHAPTER 3. Smoothing Iron Unit 2009 Pilot Grazing Plan .......................................... 31

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 31

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................... 31 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................... 31

GRAZING PRESCRIPTION........................................................................................ 35 HUMAN ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................ 40 MONITORING ............................................................................................................. 41

CONTINGENCIES....................................................................................................... 42

LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................. 43 CHAPTER 4. 2009 Pilot Grazing Plan Roles and Responsibilities ................................ 46 APPENDIX 1. WDFW and WCA Memorandum of Understanding .............................. 49

APPENDIX 2. Desired Ecological Conditions: Dry Stony 9-15 PZ ................................ 55 APPENDIX 3. Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) that may occur on Pilot

Grazing Study Area, Asotin County Washington. .................................. 56 APPENDIX 4. Plants observed at the Pintler Creek and Smoothing Iron Units. ............ 57

1

CHAPTER 1. WDFW Pilot Grazing Project and Plan Development

INTRODUCTION

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW; Department) permits grazing

on approximately 78,000 acres of rangeland and woodland. Most of these lands have

been acquired by the Department since 1940, and were privately owned farms and

ranches that supported active livestock operations while providing valuable habitat for

fish and wildlife. Grazing has been continued on these lands, often as a condition of

purchase or to meet the desired ecological conditions identified by the agency.

Currently, grazing on Fish and Wildlife Lands is governed by Washington Administrative

Code 232.12.181 (Livestock grazing on department of fish and wildlife lands).

Accordingly, the director is authorized to enter into grazing permits when grazing is

consistent with desired ecological conditions. In addition, by commission policy,

livestock grazing, if permitted, must be integrated with other uses to ensure the protection

of all resource values, the most important of which is maintaining ecological integrity

(WDFW Policy C-6003). All grazing permitted on WDFW land is regulated by

individual grazing management plans that specify the number of animals, timing, and

duration of livestock use.

On November 10, 2005, the Washington Cattlemen’s Association (WCA) and the

WDFW signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU; Appendix 1), designed to

develop several pilot grazing projects on Department lands that could “…demonstrate the

benefits to fish and wildlife and/or department land management that can be derived from

controlled livestock grazing.” This partnership is a result of the governor’s Working

Lands Initiative, which recognizes the importance of Washington’s working forests and

farms to the state’s economy and continued well-being of many of its communities.

Since the MOU was signed, two pilot grazing sites have been established in the Blue

Mountain Wildlife Area Complex in Asotin County in southeast Washington: the Pintler

Creek grazing site and the Smoothing Iron grazing site. The Pintler Creek and

Smoothing Iron sites were selected based on their past grazing history and commitments

by the department to include grazing as part of land management in those areas.

It is WDFW’s intention that the Pilot Grazing Program, and development of this pilot

grazing plan, will establish both process and implementation standards for domestic

livestock grazing on WDFW lands.

PURPOSE

The primary purpose of this document is to ensure that the objectives of the MOU are

realized. In support of this, this plan includes the following requirements identified in

Section 3.0 of the MOU:

Identification of areas suitable for domestic livestock grazing;

Measureable habitat and/or management objectives for each area to be grazed;

2

A monitoring program to evaluate progress towards objectives; and

Contingency provisions for circumstances preventing implementation.

The Pilot Grazing Plan is structured so that site-specific grazing plans are brief and easily

extractable to facilitate plan implementation by the Wildlife Area Manager and the

operator. Other pertinent elements, including background, methods, and roles and

responsibilities are thorough and readily available in supporting chapters.

The remainder of this introductory chapter includes elements that are common to both the

Pintler Creek Unit and the Smoothing Iron Unit, such as: 1) general goals and objectives;

2) how desired ecological conditions and ecological integrity thresholds were defined; 3)

how “viability” in the context of livestock grazing was defined; 4) how forage

production, utilization rates, stocking rates and pasture rotation schedules were

determined; 5) general human activity impacts; and 6) erosion issues. Chapters 2 and 3

are site-specific grazing plans that present more specific goals and objectives, site

descriptions including ecological sites and species. In addition, specific to the grazing

prescriptions, each chapter includes site-specific forage production estimates and

proposed utilization rates, pasture rotation schedules and stocking rates for the 2009

season, and site-specific contingency plans should they be necessary. Information on

possible impacts of increased human activities due to the project and how those impacts

will be minimized is provided. Where necessary, effects of human activities due to

increased research, monitoring and active cattle management, are addressed. Chapter 4

explicitly lists the roles and responsibilities of each participant in the Pilot Grazing

Program.

This plan was developed by WDFW in close coordination with WCA and Washington

State University.

GOALS

WDFW has worked with WCA to identify the following general goals for the Pilot

Grazing Program:

1) Improve forage for deer and elk while maintaining or enhancing Ecological

Integrity; and

2) Support an operationally and economically viable livestock grazing operation.

The use of grazing as a habitat management tool is identified in the Blue Mountains

Wildlife Area Management Plan (Dice et al. 2006). The maintenance, enhancement and

acquisition of elk habitat, and the maintenance or enhancement of mule deer habitat, are

listed as Objectives 30 and 57, respectively, in the current game management plan

(WDFW 2003).

3

DESIRED ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS AND INTEGRITY THRESHOLDS

It is essential for the success of the pilot grazing program, that WDFW meets its stated

goal of maintaining desired ecological conditions. Grazing on Fish and Wildlife Lands is

governed by Washington Administrative Code 232.12.181: Livestock grazing on

department of fish and wildlife lands. Accordingly, the director is authorized to enter

into grazing permits when grazing is consistent with desired ecological conditions. In

addition, by commission policy, livestock grazing, if permitted, must be integrated with

other uses to ensure the protection of all resource values, the most important of which is

maintaining ecological integrity (WDFW Policy C-6003). The MOU between WDFW

and WCA makes explicit WDFW’s responsibility to prepare habitat management

objectives for each area to be grazed that are consistent with agency policy, requiring the

agency to identify ecological integrity for each site.

There are several, well-accepted definitions of ecological integrity. The U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency has defined that a system exhibits integrity if, “when

subjected to disturbance, it sustains and organizes self-correcting ability to recover

toward a biomass end-state that is normal for that system. End-states other than the

pristine or naturally whole may be accepted as normal and good” ([online] Washington,

D.C. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/OCEPAterms/ [accessed 3 March 2009]). A

panel for Parks Canada adopted the following definition: "An ecosystem has integrity

when it is deemed characteristic for its natural region, including the composition and

abundance of native species and biological communities, rates of change and supporting

processes. In plain language, ecosystems have integrity when they have their native

components (plants, animals and other organisms) and processes (such as growth and

reproduction) intact” (available online at http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/np-pn/ie-ei_e.asp).

In general, ecological integrity is defined as the maintenance of structure, species

composition, and the rate of ecological processes and functions within the bounds of

normal disturbance regimes (Lindenmayer and Franklin 2002). WDFW’s definition of

desired ecological conditions for all of the dominant ecological sites in the project area

will be consistent with these definitions, to ensure the existing level of ecological

integrity is maintained or enhanced on the grazing units.

Ecological Sites

Ecological Site classifications were developed by the Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS) and are briefly described below (from Comer et al. 2003).

NRCS Ecological Sites use soil is the basis for determining, correlating, and

differentiating one ecological site from another. Soils with like properties that

produce and support a characteristic native plant community, and that respond

similarly to management, are grouped into the same ecological site. Criteria used

differentiate one ecological site from another include a) significant differences in

the species or species groups that are in the characteristic plant community, b)

significant differences in the relative proportion of species or species groups in

the characteristic plant community, c) soil factors that determine plant production

4

and composition, the hydrology of the site, and the functioning of the ecological

processes of the water cycle, mineral cycles, and energy flow, and d) differences

in the kind, proportion, and production of the overstory and understory plants due

to differences in soil, topography, climate, and environment factors, or the

response of vegetation to management. In practice, ecological sites may define

units at or near the scale of plant associations of the National Vegetation

Classification (see below), or small groups of associations.

There are eight ecological sites that comprise the Pintler Creek and Smoothing

Iron Units. Ecological Site descriptions developed by NRCS were accessed

electronically through NRCS’ Field Office Technical Guide, Section 2 (available

at http://efotg.nrcs.usda.gov/treemenuFS.aspx).

WDFW will be working with WSU to refine desired ecological conditions as part of this

pilot project. Working definitions of desired ecological conditions will be developed this

spring and included in graduate student study plans that will guide sampling and

monitoring methods that will be implemented starting in 2009. These working

descriptions of desired ecological conditions will be finalized at the end of the study with

WSU. A working description of desired ecological conditions for Ecological Site Dry

Stony 9-15 is provided in Appendix 2.

Habitats and Areas of Concern

Maintaining existing ecological conditions in riparian habitat on the two grazing sites is a

priority for the agency. Riparian areas in the arid west tend to be biologically rich and

easily damaged, and livestock may affect four general components of riparian systems:

(1) streamside vegetation, (2) stream channel morphology, (3) shape and quality of the

water column, and (4) structure of streambank soil (Fleischner 1994). Riparian habitat is

excluded from grazing on the Smoothing Iron unit and in the Owl Creek pasture of

Pintler Creek. However, livestock have access to riparian areas along 2 perennial creeks,

Ayers Gulch and Kelly Creek. Kelly Creek is perennial for approximately 3 miles, but is

ephemeral during the last 1/2 mile prior to intersecting Pintler Creek.

Areas of concern include benches that are vulnerable to erosion if vegetation removal is

heavy; ephemeral seeps, particularly those supporting Mimulus patulus, ponds; and areas

where Silene spaldingii occurs. Strategies for minimizing livestock use of riparian areas

and seeps, and minimizing impact to benches and S. spaldingii are included in

“Enhancements to Improve Distribution” and “Utilization Targets” below, as well as in

the site-specific plans. There are several ponds on the Smoothing Iron unit that could

potentially support amphibian breeding in the early spring. These ponds will be surveyed

periodically during the grazing period for eggs and adults, and should either be

discovered, an expert will be consulted to confirm identification and the ponds will be

protected from livestock disturbance.

Wildlife of Concern

The department assumes that achieving and maintaining desired ecological conditions as

measured by the vegetative and soil metrics identified for Ecological Sites will provide

5

for the needs of most wildlife species that occur on the pilot grazing area. However,

there may be certain priority wildlife species that may occur in the study area and also

have special habitat requirements that are not adequately addressed by the desired

vegetative and soil ecological conditions. Five such priority wildlife species were

identified on the pilot grazing area, and accordingly, additional special habitat conditions

were added to the list of desired ecological conditions as additional wildlife habitat

requirements.

This list was derived through application of the following criteria:

1) The species is known to occur in the Blue Mountains Ecoregion or the Columbia

Plateau Ecoregion and is likely to occur on the pilot grazing study area;

2) The species is identified as a species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) in the

state’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS; WDFW 2005);

3) The species has special habitat requirements that are not adequately contained in

the vegetation and soils desired ecological conditions; and

4) The specialized habitat of the species is likely to be affected by grazing as

implemented.

Through the use of ecoregional assessments, WDFW identified 37 species of greatest

conservation need (WDFW 2005) that occur in the Blue Mountain and/or Columbia

Plateau ecoregions and may occur on the pilot grazing study area (Appendix 3). A

species likelihood of occurrence on the pilot grazing study area was determined from

empirical and non-empirical occurrence data from several sources, including a Breeding

Bird Survey conducted on the site in 2006 (Appendix 9 in Quinn et al. 2008), WSU 2008

Progress Report (Shipley and Hardesty 2009) and data collected in support of the

Wildlife Areas Habitat Conservation Plan (Dobler and Quan 2007). The likelihood of

effects from grazing (Criteria 4 listed above) on fish, bivalves, amphibians, and aquatic

birds was considered low, since the majority of cattle use of aquatic habitats is expected

to occur in traditionally used riparian areas in Kelly Creek and additional impacts from

this grazing plan are expected to be minimal. A discussion of management conservation

measures to ensure minimal impacts to aquatic habitat is presented in Chapter 2.

Based on scientific opinion, WDFW determined that specialized habitat needs of five of

the 37 species that occur or are likely to occur, may possibly be affected by the Pilot

Grazing Project. Specific habitat requirements for two species of terrestrial invertebrates

are unknown and could not be evaluated. The Mann's mollusk-eating ground beetle is

thought to be closely tied to riparian strips in canyons along lowland tributaries of the

Snake River (Niwa et al. 2001). Shepard’s Parnassian is known to occur along the Snake

River drainage in Asotin, Garfield and Whitman counties. This butterfly uses moister

parts of canyons, and host plants identified include bleeding heart (Dicentra cucullaria)

and golden corydalis (Corydalis aurea) (Larsen et al. 1995). Neither of these plant

species have been found on either area (Appendix 4).

Preble’s shrew is a SGCN, and may occur on the study area. The following summarizes

findings from Utah ecological integrity project (unpublished report, Utah Division of

6

Wildlife Resources). Preble’s shrew has been found in a wide variety of habitats. Studies

have S. preblei associated with both wet sites habitats dominated by or containing

sagebrush (especially sagebrush steppe), grasslands, and dry, open forests. There is little

definitive information on the life history and ecological requirements of Preble’s shrew,

but the literature supports the idea that the shrew is likely a habitat generalist. Habitat

selection may occur at the local scale. Evidence suggests arid or riparian shrubs may be

an important habitat component, but their importance may be an artifact of the local

conditions where studies have been reported. Preble’s shrew populations throughout their

range appear to be disjointed, but may be an articfact of limited sampling and field

investigations. Given the limited information available in the literature for this species

combined with its apparent generalist habits, we are unable to identify any special habitat

requirements unique to the shrew that could be used to guide our desired ecological

conditions.

The 5 species of concern where potential affects on specialized habitats were identified

include Merriam’s shrew (Sorex merriami), Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus

savannarum), Mountain Quail (Oreotyx pictus), Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius

ludovicianus), and American badger (Taxidea taxus). A description of key habitat traits

for these species are briefly described below.

Merriam’s Shrew (summarized from Azerrad 2004)

Merriam’s shrews are associated primarily with arid shrub-steppe and steppe

communities. The information available on the distribution and ecological needs

of the Merriam’s shrew is not adequate enough to provide species-specific

recommendations. Therefore, the following are generalized guidelines based on

the major factors influencing species that depend on the availability of steppe

communities. Because Merriam’s shrews are found most often in sage-grass and

undisturbed bunchgrass habitats (Larrison 1976), these habitats should not be

degraded through activities such as conversion to croplands, chaining, spraying of

chemicals, burning, or overgrazing (i.e., repeated grazing that exceeds the

recovery capacity of the vegetation and creates or perpetuates a deteriorated plant

community).

Grasshopper Sparrow (summarized from Denchant et al. 1998)

The grasshopper sparrow is a ground-dwelling songbird that uses open habitats,

including old fields, shrubsteppe, grasslands, and cultivated crop fields. Breeding

habitat is described as dry and open with short, sparse, and patchy herbaceous

vegetation; some bare ground; and low to moderate shrub or tall forb cover.

Nests are built on the ground under or at the base of vegetation, including grasses,

forbs and shrubs, or beside or under logs and dead branches, and are usually well

concealed by vegetation. Grasshopper sparrows forage on the ground in low grass

cover, consuming invertebrates and seeds; insects are especially important during

the nestling stage. WDFW conducted breeding bird surveys on both grazing units

in 2006 and 2007; Grasshopper sparrow was one of the most common species on

7

the Smoothing Iron site in both years, and on the Pintler Creek site in 2006

(Quinn et al. 2008). Selected measures of ecological integrity, including presence

of exotic/invasive plants, residual grass cover, and visual obstruction may indicate

whether suitable nesting cover and habitat for invertebrate prey is being

maintained.

Loggerhead shrike

Loggerhead shrikes are fairly widespread inhabiting grasslands, shrublands, and

generally open areas, including pastures, old orchards, agricultural fields, riparian

areas and open woodlands (Yosef 1996). In central Washington, shrikes have

been documented in shrubsteppe habitats (e.g. Vander Haegen et al. 2000; Smith

et al. 1997; McConnaughey and Dobler 1994) but they have not been documented

on the units being grazed in this project. The loggerhead shrike hunts for both

invertebrate and vertebrate prey, including birds, small mammals and reptiles and

amphibians, which they impale on thorny bushes or barbed wire fencing. Yosef

(1996) describes microhabitat for foraging as open landscapes characterized by

well-spaced, often spiny, shrubs and low trees, usually interspersed with short

grasses, forbs, and bare ground.

While grazing has not been cited as a threat to loggerhead shrikes in Washington

(Pruitt 2000), structural changes in ground vegetation caused by grazing may

influence prey diversity and abundance for loggerhead shrikes (Yosef 1996).

Selected measures of ecological integrity, including presence of exotic/invasive

plants, residual grass cover, and visual obstruction may indicate whether habitat

for prey species is being adequately maintained.

Mountain Quail (summarized from Ware et al. 1999)

Mountain quail are associated with mixed evergreen-deciduous forests,

regenerating clearcuts, forest and meadow edges, chaparral slopes, shrub-steppe,

and mixed forest/shrub areas. Mountain quail are often found in close proximity

to both water and heavy escape cover, and use brushy wooded areas, with 20-50%

shrub cover, as nesting and winter habitat. Loafing and roosting cover consists of

dense vegetation approximately 2-3 m in height. Riparian corridors often serve as

avenues for dispersal and movement between breeding and wintering habitat, and

management recommendations for this species include avoiding the removal of

tall dense cover in riparian brush communities, and limiting grazing in riparian

zones.

American badger (summarized from Wier et al. 2003)

Badgers are semi-fossorial and may select sites where soil can be easily

excavated, including loamy, silty and sandy soils. Badgers commonly prey on

colonial fossorial rodents, and are expected to select areas on the basis of food

availability. The scales at which foraging and burrowing resources may be

8

selected for appear to differ, as they rely upon habitat features of ecosystems

units, patches and elements across different habitat types. Management

recommendations for badgers include avoiding activities that affect soil suitability

and prey abudanceabundance. The authors indicated that most grazing that occurs

in grassland zones is compatible with habitat conservation for badgers, providing

that landowners do not exterminate resident animals. Very high grazing levels

may diminish prey populations, but grazing has not been shown to be a factor that

strongly affects the habitats of badgers.

Plants of Concern

WDFW has contracted two rare plant surveys on the pilot grazing units, one on the

Smoothing Iron unit in August and September 2005, and one on both the Smoothing Iron

and Pintler Creek units in September 2008. The 2005 survey found scattered occurrences

of the Sagebrush mariposa lily (Calochortus macrocarpus var. maculosa), a State

Endangered species (Salstrom and Easterly 2005). The 2008 field surveys were

conducted specifically for Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii), although GPS locations

were also collected for other rare plants and invasive, non-native weeds. Both surveys

identified that potential habitat was available for some rare plant species though those

species did not occur. In addition, State Threatened Rollin’s biscuitroot (Lomatium

rollinsii) and State Endangered wax currant (Ribes cereum var. colubrinum), have been

documented, and the Nez Perce mariposa lily has been tentatively identified on the

Pintler Creek Unit (Quinn et al. 2008, L. Applegate, pers. comm.), and State Sensitive

Waha milk vetch (Astragalus arthurii), State Threatened stalk-leaved monkeyflower

(Mimulus patulus), and State Endangered Ribes cereum var. colubrinum have been

documented on the Smoothing Iron Unit. A list of scientific and common names of plant

species observed at the Pintler Creek and Smoothing Iron Units is available in Appendix

4. More detailed information on rare plants present at each site is included in the site-

specific plans (Chapters 2 and 3).

DEFINING LIVESTOCK GRAZING VIABILITY

The success of the Pilot Grazing Program relies on the ability of WCA and its operators

to sustain a grazing operation under the ecological integrity parameters (i.e. desired

ecological conditions) set by WDFW. The WCA has identified several factors that will

determine the economic viability of a grazing operation. Ultimately, the requirements

and the true cost-benefits will be operator and site specific, and these details are captured

Chapters 2 and 3. In general, the following issues will influence the viability of a grazing

operation:

1.) Requirements for livestock ingress and egress;

2.) Area of the pasture, stocking density and allowed duration;

3.) Required infrastructure developments;

4.) Proximity of the operator to the area;

5.) Breed of cattle;

6.) Acclimatization of livestock to local topography;

7.) Contingency plans for when biological/ecological thresholds are met;

9

8.) Operational flexibility in pasture transition (“flexible in and out dates”); and

9.) Good communication on the ground between the operator and land manager.

Because viability must to be defined for each grazing operation, based on the issues

above, WDFW has worked with each individual operator involved in the Pilot Grazing

Project to develop objectives for operational viability.

FORAGE PRODUCTION ESTIMATES

Forage production estimates were developed using data from published soil surveys

(USDA 1991), and ecological site descriptions with digital soil survey data for use with

geographic information system (GIS) software available through the Natural Resources

Conservation Service. These sources, coupled with data from field surveys, were used to

estimate forage production. The site-specific grazing plans report the forage production

estimates based on NRCS ecological site descriptions.

UTILIZATION TARGETS

Utilization is defined as the proportion of current year’s forage production that is

consumed or destroyed by animals (BLM 1999). Utilization is typically measured at the

end of the growing season, when total annual production can be assessed. Utilization

measurements collected during the growing season are termed “seasonal utilization”.

Seasonal utilization measurements are generally overestimates of actual utilization. This

effect is more pronounced in the early growing season, and tends to diminish as the

growing season progresses (Smith et al. 2007). Seasonal utilization measurements

provide a biologically meaningful method of tracking livestock grazing impacts on native

bunchgrasses. As most grazing in the Pilot Project Areas occurs during the growing

season, seasonal utilization measurements are required to track livestock use and prevent

overutilization.

Utilization targets are based on USDA-NRCS guidelines for the key forage species on

these sites, i.e. bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegnaria spicatum) and Idaho fescue

(Festuca idahoensis). These species are common on all ecological sites that occur on the

grazing units, are palatable to both livestock and wildlife, and tend to decrease in

numbers and/or size if overgrazed. These characteristics make them good indicators of

overall utilization because they will be used before less palatable species. The current

standards for bluebunch wheatgrass limit utilization to 40 percent of the current year’s

growth if grazing occurs during the growing season. Utilization of Idaho fescue should

not exceed 50 percent of the current year’s growth. These utilization levels are based on

new NRCS recommendations (Ogle 2002). No utilization targets are proposed for areas

dominated by cheatgrass. Utilization targets specific to each grazing unit are presented in

site-specific chapters.

10

STOCKING RATES AND PASTURE ROTATION

Horizontal distance to water and slope can be important factors determining livestock

distribution within a pasture (Holechek et al. 2003; Bailey 2005). Estimates of stocking

rates for the pilot project use a model that adjusted for slope and distance to water (Table

1a) to account for cattle’s tendency to forage close to water and on flat ground. This

model was developed in the early 1990s, based on field observations, by a NRCS Range

Management Specialist in the Okanogan Field Office. We expect that this model

underestimates utilization potential for steeper slopes on the study area. WDFW plot data

and visual inspection of these slopes indicate that grazing has occurred on slopes that the

model predicts would receive 0% use

Table 1a. NRCS Forage Accessibility Model.

ACCESSIBILITY

FACTOR

PERCENT SLOPE

Distance to Water 0-5% 6-15% 16-45% 46-60% > 60%

0-200 meters 100 100 90 60 0

201-400 meters 100 100 80 50 0

401-600 meters 100 90 70 50 0

601-150 meters 90 80 70 40 0

>1500 meters 0 0 0 0 0

For the 2009 Pilot Grazing Plan, WDFW used the Accessibility Model and a range of

forage production estimates, based on poor, average, and excellent growing season

conditions, to develop the stocking rate estimates presented in the grazing prescription

sections of each grazing plan.

Using a GIS, WDFW calculated the total effective acres (i.e. where forage is accessible

based on the information in Table 1a). Using the range of forage production estimates

(lbs/acre) for the ecological site, an estimate of forage required per AUM, a 15%

adjustment for wildlife forage, and a utilization target to 40%, WDFW generated a range

of estimated AUMs available for cattle. Though stocking rates are presented as a range,

the ultimate determinant of when cattle are moved off a pasture will be utilization

thresholds.

ENHANCEMENTS TO IMPROVE DISTRIBUTION

Necessary resources are generally not uniformly dispersed throughout an area, causing

uneven distribution of animals as they congregate around those resources. Factors

causing uneven distribution of cattle and their use of rangelands include, among others,

distance from water and topography, with cattle preferring forage close to water and on

gentle slopes. Fencing, water and salt can be used to influence cattle distribution across a

landscape (Holecheck et al. 2003), with water placement being most important in

distributing cattle within pastures (Ganskopp 2001).

11

Fencing

Fences serve to 1) control seasonal drift of livestock, 2) regulate the use among forage

types or protect choice grazing areas for special use, and 3) separate range units for

special management (Holecheck et al. 2003).

Water Source Development

In addition, development of water sources within a pasture increases the accessibility of

forage, and may draw cattle away from riparian areas (Porath et al. 2002; Miner et al.

1992).

Salt

Though secondary to water, salt supplementation may help obtain desired distribution of

cattle, and placing salt away from water points may draw cattle to areas otherwise

avoided (Holecheck et al. 2003, Bailey et al. 2008). On mountainous rangeland, careful

placement of salt may increase grazing capacity by as much as 20% (Holecheck et al.

2003).

Herding

Herding could increase the use of areas that typically receive little use, including steep

slopes and areas far from water (Bailey 2005), and reduce cattle use in sensitive areas

include riparian zones (Butler 2000; Bailey et al. 2008).

HUMAN ACTIVITIES

WDFW has a dual mandate to preserve, protect, perpetuate and manage the fish and

wildlife species of the state (RCW 77.04.012) while striving to sustain and increase

opportunities to hunt, fish, and appreciate wildlife when those activities are consistent

with this responsibility (RCW 77.04.020). The Asotin Wildlife Area is attractive to

recreationists for horseback riding, hunting, day-hiking, OHV use and other activities,

and human disturbance has increased dramatically over the last five years.

Beyond this human presence “baseline,” the pilot grazing program has increased the level

of human disturbance on the Smoothing Iron and Pintler Creek Units, through necessary

activities such as fence building, water source development, livestock operator activity,

range monitoring, and monitoring by environmental groups. Many of these activities

occur during sensitive periods for the wildlife species that this grazing plan is proposing

to benefit, and others that have been identified as sensitive. Site-specific information on

wildlife sensitivities is provided in each site plan.

12

EROSION AND SOIL

Soils

Soil quality is determined by its mineral components, organic matter, and pore spaces

between soil particles; those components play a critical role in water retention and

availability, and forage production. Rangeland health and soil quality are interdependent,

with rangeland health characterized by the function of both soil and plant communities.

The capacity of the soil to function affects ecological processes, including the capture,

storage, and redistribution of water; plant growth; and nutrient cycling. Significant

changes in vegetation generally are associated with changes in soil properties and

processes and/or the redistribution of soil resources across the landscape (NRCS 2001).

Changes in soil quality that occur from management affect the following:

the amount of water from rainfall and snowmelt that is available to plant growth;

runoff, water infiltration, and the potential for erosion;

the availability of nutrients for plant growth;

the conditions needed for germination, seedling establishment, vegetative

reproduction, and root growth; and

the ability of the soil to act as a filter and protect water and air quality.

The effects of grazing on soil quality are well documented in the literature. In upland

systems, livestock can increase soil compaction and decrease infiltration by removing

protective plant cover, reducing soil organic matter and trampling the soil surface (Bohn

and Buckhouse 1985). In areas with cryptogamic crusts, which are important for soil

protection, tramping and overgrazing can result in rapid and possibly permanent loss of

the crust (Spaeth et al. 1996). This affect on surface porosity changes the runoff potential

of the rangeland (Engels 2001). When runoff occurs, its erosive nature transports soil

nutrients from the site and can even reduce A-horizon (topsoil) depth, decreasing the

amount of water that can be stored in the soil profile (McGinty et al. 1971). Ultimately,

the deleterious results of trampling include: 1) compacting the soil, 2) penetrating and

disrupting the soil surface, 3) reducing infiltration, 4) vertical displacement of soil on

steep slopes, 5) developing animal trails, and 6) increasing erosion (Vallentine 2001).

Erosion

Erosion, or geologic erosion, is a natural process of dislodgement of soil particles from

the surface and subsequent transport by water and wind (Brooks et al. 1997). Grazing by

wildlife and livestock may both directly and indirectly influence erosion on a landscape,

through the creation and maintenance of areas denuded of vegetation, upon which the

weather acts (Ozgul and Oztas, 2002). These bare areas facilitate runoff (Harris et al.

2004), which may erode the soil surface and incise the ground surface forming gullies

(Evans 1998). In addition, as soil is compacted, infiltration decreases and runoff

increases, resulting in increased soil erosion (Sedivec 1992).

In grazed areas, the differences in soil loss due to accelerated erosion can be substantial

between different utilization rates. In North Dakota, Engels (2001) demonstrated that

heavily grazed pastures (80% utilization) resulted in soil loss of 10.3 lbs/hr/acre, while

13

moderately grazed pastures (50% utilization) lost only 0.5 lbs.hr.acre, due to greater

standing vegetation and litter cover. Low to moderate utilization rates leave more above

ground vegetative biomass, maintaining infiltration potential and reducing the likelihood

and intensity of erosion (Engels 2001; Sedivec 1992).

Accelerated erosion is a concern not only for the impact to rangeland health, but also to

the potential increase of sediment delivery to streams, particularly fish bearing streams,

or those that influence fish bearing streams. Sediment produced from animal disturbance

in riparian has little or no opportunity to settle before reaching the stream (Bohn and

Buckhouse 1985), increasing stream turbidity and reducing primary productivity. Also,

as sediment increases and settles into interstitial spaces in the gravel where eggs incubate,

the availability of dissolved oxygen is reduced and egg mortality increases. For example,

for steelhead, when sediment reaches 30% of the substrate, less than 25% of eggs develop

to emergent fry, compared to 75% emerge when sediment is less than 20% (AFS Policy

Statement #23).

Because of the steep slopes in the Pintler Creek and Smoothing Iron units increased or

accelerated erosion is a legitimate concern in the Pilot Grazing Program. The Snake

River Salmon Recovery Plan (SRSRB 2006), the Asotin Creek Subbasin Plan (ACCD

2004), and the Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors for WRIA 35 (Kuttel 2002) list

sediment in Asotin Creek and its tributaries as one of the primary habitat factors limiting

salmonid survival and production. The SRSRS has a goal of reducing fine sediment,

substrate embeddedness, and turbidity in Asotin Creek and its tributaries by 25 – 100%

depending on location. The most improvement was desired or expected in Lower George

Creek (81%), and lower South Fork Asotin Creek (100%). The presence of ESA listed

salmonid species in Asotin Creek and its tributaries, coupled with the concern of the

Smoothing Iron unit being critical winter range for 400 head of elk, makes increased and

accelerated erosion and sediment delivery very important to monitor.

Erosion Control and Monitoring

In the Pilot Grazing Program, WDFW and WCA are taking specific actions to minimize

the potential for major erosion events. These include:

Conservative Forage Utilization estimates;

Preventing cattle from direct use of riparian areas along fish-bearing streams;

Active herding to improve cattle distribution; and

Desired Ecological Condition monitoring for indicators of erosion, such as rills

(see below and Appendix 2)

A USDA funded proposal is being implemented in the Asotin Creek watershed to

evaluate the impacts of Conservation Practices on Watershed health (Hardesty et al.

2008). The study will evaluate existing and proposed conservation practices influence on

runoff, erosion, sediment delivery, and stream temperature using the Water Erosion

Prediction Project (WEPP) and temperature models. This will be a several year study

that should develop erosion-monitoring results, erosion management procedures, and

facilitate better management of these steep sloped, arid areas.

14

MONITORING

Habitat Quality

WSU has been contracted to assess the effectiveness of the Pilot Grazing Program in

improving deer and elk habitat and achieving desired ecological conditions. The specific

objectives of this research include:

1) Establish whether targeted cattle grazing can increase deer and elk use of wildlife

management areas and the digestible energy (DE, KJ/day) and protein (g N/day) they

can consume there; and

2) Determine if targeted cattle grazing can sustain or enhance the ecological integrity of

ranges shared by cattle, elk or deer and other wildlife.

Habitat quality monitoring includes the continuation of 24 vegetation trend sites

established by WDFW personnel in 2006 and 2007, along with additional trend sites as

necessary to achieve a statistically valid sample size. The WSU graduate student

research study proposals provide a detailed description of the methodology that will be

used to conduct the ecological monitoring and evaluate deer and elk forage quality and

quantity assessment.

Desired Ecological Conditions

WDFW is working with WSU to characterize specific desired ecological conditions for

the major ecological sites that occur on the grazing units. Definitions of desired

ecological conditions will be developed this spring and included in graduate student study

plans that will guide sampling and monitoring methods that will be implemented starting

in 2009. Desired ecological condition parameters include native vegetation importance,

presence and trends of exotic/invasive plants, continued presence of sensitive plants,

ground cover measures, and NRCS range health indicators (e.g. plant morality,

reproductive capability, and erosion metrics). Desired ecological conditions for

Ecological Site Dry Stony 9-15 is provided as an example in Appendix 2.

Utilization Thresholds

Utilization thresholds are based on the biological requirements of key plant species, and

represent the total allowable use during the livestock grazing period for both livestock

and wildlife. Utilization monitoring will not distinguish between livestock and wildlife

use; therefore, it is possible that a combination of livestock and wildlife use will

contribute to measured utilization at any given site.

Upland utilization thresholds will vary depending on bunchgrass phenology. During the

early to mid growing season (up to the seedhead emergence stage), a maximum of 50%

utilization will be allowed for key forage species. Grazing in excess of 50% during this

period may result in significant root mortality, which, if repeated, may reduce bunchgrass

vigor and allow weed invasion. Bluebunch wheatgrass plants are growing rapidly during

the early-mid growing season, and are expected to meet end-of-season utilization targets

15

of 40%. Following the seedhead emergence phenological stage, bunchgrass growth and

consequently regrowth potential is greatly reduced. Therefore, following the seedhead

emergence stage, utilization targets will revert to the end of the growing season NRCS

recommendations, ie, 40% for bluebunch wheatgrass and 50% for Idaho fescue.

Riparian utilization thresholds are based on browse utilization, with the idea that

increased browse use is indicative of livestock concentration in riparian areas. During the

2007 grazing period, browse use was light until late May, when a warm, dry weather

pattern caused a shift in livestock grazing from uplands to riparian. Allowable browse

utilization includes up to 35% of the preferred browse species. Preferred browse species

will be determined at the time of measurement, ie whichever species cattle select.

Preferred species in 2007 included redosier dogwood (Cornus sericea), mockorange

(Philadelphus lewisii), and snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus).

The 2009 utilization monitoring plan includes qualitative use monitoring, seasonal

utilization monitoring, and end-of-season utilization monitoring. Qualitative use

monitoring will be conducted by Wildlife Area Staff, the Rangeland Ecologist, and WSU

technicians, with the intention of identifying traditional areas of livestock congregation,

where overutilization could potentially occur. This information will be relayed to the

permittees, so that they may adjust herd management if necessary, but will also be used

to identify critical areas for quantitative utilization monitoring.

Five days into the planned grazing period, the Rangeland Ecologist and WSU technicians

will begin quantitative utilization monitoring, following Height-Weight methods included

in the Interagency Technical Reference (BLM 1999). Utilization will be monitored every

4-5 days until utilization targets are reached. Once utilization reaches targeted levels,

cattle will either be moved to another pasture or removed from the Pilot Grazing Area.

Quantitative utilization monitoring will be conducted in critical areas, ie benchtops or

sites with gentle slopes. Given the steep topography of the Pilot Grazing Units,

utilization thresholds on critical areas may be reached ahead of other areas. The livestock

accessibility GIS model will be used to select monitoring sites; sites mapped at 90% use

or greater and dominated by native perennial bunchgrasses will be considered critical

areas. Active cattle management may be used to ensure better utilization of forage on

steeper slopes and away from water sources to lengthen the time before utilization targets

are met on the monitored areas. Additional sites may be added, should qualitative

monitoring indicate that high livestock use is occurring in other areas.

Additional critical areas in the Pintler Creek Unit include riparian that is accessible to

livestock. Much of the riparian along Kelly Creek is either protected by dense shrub

cover, or inaccessible due to steep canyon walls. However, there are areas, particularly

the northern reach of Kelly Creek, which are readily accessible to livestock. These areas

are designated as critical areas, and will be monitored during and after grazing following

the Multiple Indicators Monitoring methods for browse use (Burton et al. 2008).

Traditional livestock watering points along Kelly Creek will also be monitored

throughout the year. Historical grazing practices in the Pintler Creek Unit have resulted

16

in multiple, traditional livestock watering sites along the reach of Kelly Creek.

Monitoring of watering points in Kelly Creek is described in the Pintler Creek Grazing

Plan (Chapter 2).

After the growing season ends, WDFW and WSU will conduct utilization monitoring

across both grazed and ungrazed pastures to quantify wildlife and livestock use.

Monitoring will include Height-Weight transects, as described in the Interagency

Technical Manual (BLM 1999). Monitoring sites will be stratified by dominant

ecological site and landform (ie, benches vs. hillsides).

CONTINGENCIES

Contingency plans, indicating the alternatives an operator will employ when a utilization

threshold is reached sooner than expected and/or another event arises that warrants

removal of cattle, are a critical component of the grazing plans. Before any cattle are

released on the project area, individual operators will have site-specific contingency

plans. If the utilization targets are reached prior to the specified egress date and/or a

situation arises where WDFW deems it necessary for removal of cattle, the operators will

be required to move their cattle to their predetermined location. Once the contingency

plan is invoked, operators will have three days to move their cattle off of WDFW

pastures. Specific contingency plans for each operator are presented in Chapters 2 and 3.

17

LITERATURE CITED

American Fisheries Society. The Effects of Livestock Grazing on Riparian and Stream

Ecosystems. AFS Policy Statement #23. Available online at

www.fisheries.org/afs/docs/policy_23f.pdf . Applegate, L. 2009. Personal communication.

Asotin County Conservation District. Asotin Subbasin Plan. 2004. Prepared for

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Submitted by Asotin County Conservation

District.

Azerrad, J. M. 2004. Merriam's shrew (Sorex merriami). In J. M. Azerrad, editor.

Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species, Volume V: Mammals

[Online]. Available http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phs/vol5/some.pdf

Bailey, D.W. 2005. Identification and creation of optimum habitat conditions for

livestock. Rangeland Ecology & Management 58: 109-118.

Bailey, D.W., H.C. VanWagoner, R. Weinmeister, and D. Jensen. 2008. Evaluation of

low-stress herding and supplement placement for managing cattle grazing in riparian and

upland areas. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61:26-37.

Belsky, A.J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on

stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water

Conservation. 54:419-431.

Bohn, C.C. and J.C. Buckhouse. 1985. Some responses of riparian soils to grazing

management in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Range Management 38:378-382.

Brooks, K.N., P.F. Ffolliott, H.M. Gregersen, and L.F. DeBano. 1997. Hydrology and

the management of watersheds, 2nd

ed., Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, Iowa.

Bureau of Land Management (ed). 1999. Interagency Technical Reference: Utilization

Studies and Residual Measurements. USDA-Cooperative Extension Service, USDA-

Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDI Bureau of Land

Management. 174 pps.

Burton, T. A., S. J. Smith, and E. R. Cowley. 2008. Monitoring stream channels and

riparian vegetation – multiple indicators. 53 p. Boise, ID, USA: Idaho

State office of Bureau of Land Management and Rocky Mountain

Research Station, Forest Service BLM/ID/GI-08/001+1150.

Butler, P.J. 2000. Cattle distribution under intensive herded management. Rangelands

22:21-23.

18

Comer, P., D. Faber-Landendoen, R. Evans, S. Gawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, M.

Pyne, M. Reid, K Schulz, K. Snow, and J. Teague. 2003. Ecological Systems of the

United States: A working classification of U.S. terrestrial systems. NatureServe,

Arlington, Virginia.

Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, M. P.

Nenneman, and B. R. Euliss. 1998 (revised 2002). Effects of management practices on

grassland birds: Grasshopper Sparrow. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center,

Jamestown, ND. 28 pages.

Dice, B., G. Stendal, and S. Winegeart. 2006. Blue Mountain Wildlife Area Plan.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. [Online.] URL:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/wildlife_areas/management_plans/pdfs/draft_blue_mountain

_plan.pdf .

Dobler, F.C. and J. Quan. 2007. Species Inventory: Status update of species (by Wildlife

Area Unit) to be covered by the Habitat Conservation Plan. Washington Department of

Fish and Wildlife. 66 pps.

Engels, C.L. 2001. The Effect of Grazing Intensity on Rangeland Hydrology. NDSU

Central Grasslands Research Extension Center.

Evans, R. 1998. The erosional impacts of grazing animals. Progress in Physical

Geography 22(2), pp 251-268. Department of Geography, Anglia Polytechnic

University, Cambridge, UK.

Fleischner, T.L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America.

Conservation Biology 8:629-644.

Ganskopp, D. 2001. Manipulating cattle distribution with salt and water in large arid-

land pastures: a GPS/GIS assessment. Applied Animal Behavior Science 73:251-262.

Green, G.A., K.B. Livezey, and R.L. Morgan. 2001. Habitat selection by northern

sagebrush lizards (Sceloporus graciosus graciosus) in the Columbia Basin, Oregon.

Northwestern Naturalist 82:111-115.

Hardesty, L. Wu J.Q., Wulfhorst, J.D., Ndegwa, P.M., Rhee, H. 2008. Evaluating the

Impacts of Conservation Practices on Watershed Health in a Salmon-Bearing Rangeland

Watershed: Asotin Creek, Washington (Draft) Washington State University.

Harris, R.M., Clifton, C.F., and Wondzell, S.M. 2004. Hillslope Erosion Rates with

Volcanic Parent Materials and the Effects of Prescribed Fires in the Blue Mountains of

Eastern Oregon and Washington, USA. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station.

19

Holechek, J.L., R.D. Pieper, and C.H. Herbal. 2003. Range Management: Principles and

Practices. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Kuttel, M. 2002. Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors Water Resource Inventory Areas 33

(Lower) & 35 (Middle) Snake Watersheds, & Lower six Miles of the Palouse River.

Washington State Conservation Commission. Olympia, WA.

Larsen, E. E. Rodrick, R. Milner. 1995. Management Recommendations for

Washington’s Priority Species, Volume I: Invertebrates. WDFW Report Olympia, WA.

87p.

Lindenmayer, D.B., and J.F. Franklin. 2002. Conserving forest biodiversity: A

comprehensive mutiscaled approach. Island Press, Washington, DC. 352 pps.

McConnahaughy, J. and F.C. Dobler. 1994. Project Shrike: Abundance and perch use of

loggerhead shrike in eastern Washington, 1994. Washington Dept. of Wildlife, Ephrata,

Washington. 59 pps.

Miner, J.R., J.C. Buckhouse, and J.A. Moore. 1992. Will a water trough reduce the

amount of time hay-fed livestock spend in the stream (and therefore improve water

quality)? Rangelands 14:35-38.

Niwa, C. G., R. E. Sandquist, R Crawford,T. J. Frest, T. Griswold, P. Hammond, E.

Ingham, S. James, E. J. Johannes, J. Johnson, W.P. Kemp, J. LaBonte, J. D. Lattin, J.

McIver, J. McMillin, A. Moldenke, J. Moser, D. Ross, T. Schowalter, V. Tepedino, and

M. R. Wagner. 2001. Invertebrates of the Columbia River Basin Assessment Area.

USDA USFS PNW-GTR-512. Portland Oregon. 74p.

NRCS. 2001. Rangeland Soil Quality –Introduction. Rangeland Sheet 1. Natural

Resources Conservation Service.

Ogle, D. 2002. Bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata). USDA-NRCS Plant

Fact Sheet. Available on-line at http://plants.usda.gov/factsheet/pdf/fs_pssp6.pdf

Ozgul, M., and Oztas, T. 2002. Overgrazing Effect on Rangeland Soil Properties.

Ataturk University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Soil Science, Erzurum,

Turkey.

Porath, M.L., P.A. Momont, T. DelCurto, N.R. Rimbey, J.A. Tanaka, and M. McInnis.

2002. Offstream water and trace mineral salt as management strateties for improved

cattle distribution. Journal of Animal Science 80:346-356.

Quinn, M., E. Bracken, M. Asher, B. Dice, and J. Quan. 2008. Status Report on Pilot

Grazing in 2007. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 98 pps.

20

Salstrom, D., and R. Easterly. 2005. Rare Plant Survey, Smoothing Iron and Rockpile

Units, Chif Joseph and Asotin Creek Wildlife Areas. SEE Botanical Consulting,

Bellingham, WA. 18 pps.

Sedivec, K. 1992. Water Quality: The Rangeland Component. NDSU. Extension

publication R-1028, North Dakota State University, Fargo, N.D.

Severson, K.E., and P.J. Urness. 1994. Livestock grazing: a tool to improve wildlife

habitat. In: M. Vavra, W.A. Laycock, and R.D. Pieper (eds.). Ecological implications of

livestock herbivory in the West. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. P 232-

249.

Shipley, L.A. and L.H. Hardesty. 2009. Assessing the Effectiveness of Targeted Cattle

Grazing for Improving Wildlife Habitat on Wildlife Management Areas in Asotin

County, Washington. Annual Progress Report to WDFW. Olympia, WA. 12 p.

Smith, L., G. Ruyle, J. Maynard, S. Barker, W. Meyer, D. Stewart, B. Coulloudon, S.

Williams, and J. Dyess. 2007. Principles of Obtaining and Interpreting Utilization Data

on Rangelands. Arizona Cooperative Extension Report. Available on-line at

http://ag.arizona.edu/pubs/natresources/az1375.pdf

Smith, M.R., P.W. Mattocks, Jr., and K.M. Cassidy. 1997. Breeding birds of

Washington State. Voluume 4 in M. Cassidy, C.E. Grue, M.R. Smith, and K.M.

Dvornich, eds. Washington State gap analysis – final report. Seattle Audubon Society

Publications in Zoology No. 1, Seattle. 538 pps.

Snake River Salmon Recovery Board. Technical Document Snake River Salmon

Recovery plan for SE Washington. 2006. Prepared for Washington Governor’s Salmon

Recovery Office. Prepared by Snake River Salmon Recovery Board.

Spaeth, K.E., Pierson, M.A., Weltz. M.A., and Hendricks, R.G. 1996. Grazingland

Hydrology Issues: Perspectives for the 21st Century. Pp 41 – 46. Society for Range

Management, Denver, CO.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Unpublished report. Salt Lake City, UT.

Vallentine, J.F. 2001. Grazing Management, Second Edition. Pages 156 – 165.

Academic Press. San Diego, CA.

Vander Haegen, W.M., F.C. Dobler, and D.J. Pierce. 2000. Shrubsteppe bird response to

habitat and landscape variables in eastern Washington, USA. Conservation Biology 14:

1145-1160.

21

Vander Haegen, M. 2003a. Sage Sparrow. Pages 33-1 – 33-4 in E. Larsen, J. M. and

Azerrad, N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington’s

Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,

Olympia, Washington, USA.

Vander Haegen, M. 2003b. Sage Thrasher. Pages 32-1 – 32-4 in E. Larsen, J. M. and

Azerrad, N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington’s

Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,

Olympia, Washington, USA.

Vavra, M. 2005. Livestock grazing and wildlife: Developing compatibilities. Rangeland

Ecology and Management 58:128-134.

Ware, D.A., M. Tirhi, and B. Herbig. 1999. Mountain quail. Pages 12-1 – 12-6 in E.

Larsen, J. M. and Azerrad, N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for

Washington’s Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, USA.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2003. Game Management Plan: July 2003

– June 2009. Wildlife Program. Olympia, WA. 145 pps.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2005. Washington's Comprehensive

Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Wildlife Division. Olympia, WA. 778 p.

Wier, R.D., H. Davis and C. Hoodicoff. 2003. Conservation Strategies for North

American Badgers in the Thompson and Okanagan Regions: Final Report for the

Thompson-Okanagan Badger Project. Artemis Wildlife Consultants. 101pps.

Yosef, Reuven. 1996. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). In The Birds of North

America, No. 231 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences,

Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

22

CHAPTER 2. Pintler Creek Unit 2009 Pilot Grazing Plan

INTRODUCTION

The Blue Mountains Wildlife Area Management Plan (Dice et al. 2006), developed with

a local citizens advisory group, identifies the use of livestock grazing as a habitat

management strategy to help meet WDFW’s objective of protecting, restoring, and

enhancing fish and wildlife populations and their habitats.

This grazing plan addresses livestock management on a portion of the lands within the

Pintler Creek Unit of Asotin Creek Wildlife Area. The grazing area on this unit includes

approximately 4,280 acres in the Ayers Gulch, Kelly Creek, and Pintler Creek Drainages.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Goal 1. Improve conditions for deer while maintaining or enhancing ecological integrity

Objective 1A. Improve or increase deer forage quality and quantity.

Objective 1B. Maintain or achieve desired ecological conditions for predominant

ecological sites and key habitat requirements of selected WDFW

species of greatest conservation need.

Goal 2. Support an operationally and economically viable livestock grazing operation.

Objective 2A. Maximize stocking rates, consistent with objectives 1A and 1B,

through infrastructure developments.

Objective 2B. Provide for flexibility in ingress and egress dates.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The Pintler Creek study area, comprising approximately 4,280 acres, is located five miles

southwest of Asotin, Washington. Major drainages on the property include Pintler Creek,

Kelly Creek, and Ayers Gulch. Uplands adjacent to the drainages are characterized by

very steep slopes (i.e. 45 to 60%). Average annual precipitation is approximately 13

inches, with 85 percent of that falling between October and June. Upland vegetation

consists primarily of grasses and forbs with occasional shrubs.

Ecological Sites

Ecological sites on the Pintler Creek Unit, as described by NRCS, include Cool Stony

15+PZ (precipitation zone), Cool Loamy 9-15PZ, and Dry Stony 9-15PZ, with some

Stony 9-15PZ and Loamy 9-15PZ intermixed (Figure 2a). The dark green polygons in

Figure 2a were not classified into Ecological Sites during the soil survey. WDFW

Rangeland Ecologist, through consultation with local NRCS staff, has since classified

most of these polygons as either Loamy 9-15PZ or Loamy 15+PZ. Desired ecological

conditions for Dry Stony 9-15PZ are characterized by a mix of native perennial grasses

23

and forbs and shrubs, as well as Opuntia spp, limited invasive plants, and ground cover

that includes vegetative, rock, litter, bare-ground, and cryptogamic crust. A complete list

of desired ecological condition parameters for this ecological site, their measures, and

monitoring triggers are included as Appendix 2. Desired ecological conditions for other

major ecological sites will be available as appendices to this plan as they are developed

this spring.

Figure 2a. NRCS Ecological Sites on the Pintler Creek Unit.

Plants

Two rare plant species have been documented on the Pintler Creek Unit and another has

been tentatively identified. Rollin’s biscuitroot (Lomatium rollinsii) is listed by

Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) as a State Threatened species. This

species was noted at multiple sites on loamy and stony soils on north-facing slopes along

Ayers Gulch, Pintler Creek, and Kelly Creek. Wax currant (Ribes cereum var.

colubrinum) has also been documented on north-facing hillsides throughout Kelly Creek

and Ayers Gulch. The Nez Perce mariposa lily (Calochortus macrocarpus var.

maculosus) was tentatively identified throughout the Pintler Creek Unit. This species

occurred commonly on loamy, north-facing hillsides on sites dominated by Idaho fescue

(Festuca idahoensis) and native forbs, as well as sites heavily infested with weeds

including Fuller’s teasel (Dipsacus fullonum), common St. Johnswort (Hypericum

perforatum) and field brome (Bromus arvensis). There was little to no use of either of

24

these species documented during the 2006 and 2007 grazing seasons (Quinn et al. 2007).

Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii) was not found on the Pintler Creek Unit during a

2008 fall survey (Gray 2008).

We assume that the widespread occurrence of both Rollin’s biscuitroot and Nez Perce

mariposa lily in with an area with a long history of livestock use (ie, Pintler Creek)

suggests some tolerance to grazing. The current level of livestock grazing in this area,

which is likely more conservative than historic use, is not expected to negatively impact

these species. Incidental observations of all rare plant species will be mapped by WDFW

staff and provided to the Washington Natural Heritage Program, and any livestock

grazing impacts will be noted. In addition, verification of the identity of the Nez Perce

Mariposa lily will be a priority this summer.

GRAZING PRESCRIPTION

The grazing prescription for Pintler Creek includes treatments to improve forage quality

and quantity for mule deer. Grazing will occur in upland grassland communities early in

the growing season when cattle feed primarily on grasses, with the intent of promoting

forb growth and increasing plant diversity. Competition theory suggests that ungulate

preferences for one class of forage (e.g. grasses) will, through grazing, reduce

competition with other forage classes. Properly timed livestock grazing has been

demonstrated to increase the forb (Crawford et al. 2004) and browse (Ganskopp et al.

1999) component of plant communities, and does not necessarily lead to the invasion of

unpalatable exotic species (Stohlgren et al. 1999, Augustine and McNaughton 1998).

Repeated (i.e. annual) livestock grazing during the critical growing season in late spring

can result in reduced bluebunch wheatgrass vigor (Blaisdell and Pehancec 1949) and

yield (Wilson et al. 1966, Brewer et al. 2007). This grazing prescription requires periodic

rest, to ensure that bunchgrasses remain healthy and productive.

Pasture Configuration and Developments

Though previously managed as one pasture, in 2007 and 2008, WDFW and WCA

installed fencing and water developments to enhance the operator’s ability to more

uniformly distribute cattle (Figure 2b). Approximately 26,000 feet of fencing were

erected to create three separate pastures: Kelly Creek, Owl Gulch and Ayers Gulch. In

addition, approximately 16,000 feet of pipeline was laid to carry water from existing

waters sources to pastures, and four water troughs were added. A spring box and water

trough was also installed at a spring in the Kelly Creek drainage.

25

Figure 2b. Pintler Creek Pasture Map.

Forage Production Estimates

Forage production estimates are based on NRCS Asotin County soil survey data.

Estimates at the ecological site level are summarized in Table 2a. Spatial distribution of

ecological sites across the Pintler Creek unit is illustrated above in Figure 2a.

26

Table 2a. Forage production estimates for Ecological sites on the Pintler Creek Unit. Unless other

indicated, data is from the NRCS Asotin County soil survey.

ECOLOGICAL SITE SITE ID FORAGE PRODUCTION ESTIMATE

(LBS/ACRE)

Below Normal Above

Cool loamy 15+ PZ R009XY103WA 1400 1700 2000

Cool loamy 9-15 PZ R009XY103WA 800 1000 1200

Cool stony 15+ PZ R009XY203WA 1200 1500 1800

Dry stony 15+ PZ R009XY201WA 450 700 900

Dry stony 9-15 PZ R008XY201WA 300 450 550

Loamy 9-15 PZ R008XY102WA 700 900 1200

Stony 9-15 PZ R008XY202WA 300 600 750

Stony bottom 15+ PZ R009XY403WA 600 750 900

Loamy 9-15 PZ* R008XY102WA 700 900 1200

Loamy 15+ PZ* R009XY102WA 1100 1300 1500

*Unclassified soil polygons have been classified into ecological sites based on species composition and

forage production, in consultation with local NRCS staff. Forage production estimates come from

corresponding Ecological Site Descriptions.

Utilization Rates

Utilization targets specific to the Pintler Creek Unit include the following:

For areas within 100 yards of stock water or salt blocks, excluding the areas

immediately surrounding stock water and salt blocks (within 5 to 10 yards, where

no utilization targets are set) a maximum of 60% use of bluebunch wheatgrass

and Idaho fescue throughout the growing season.

For all other sites, a maximum of 50% use for bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho

fescue prior to the seedhead emergence stage, and 40% use for bluebunch

wheatgrass and 50% use for Idaho fescue from the seedhead emergence stage to

the end of the growing season.

For sites dominated by cheatgrass, no maximum utilization target is proposed.

However, benches and other heavily used areas by cattle will be monitored to

ensure that a minimum of 30% cover remains to protect the site from erosion.

In riparian areas, a maximum of 35% seasonal browse use. Increased browse use

often indicates a shift to warmer weather patterns, which tends to increase

livestock impacts in riparian areas. This use target is in place to prevent increased

livestock use of riparian in hot weather.

Stocking Rates and Rotation Schedule

The pilot project grazing history for the Pintler Creek unit is presented in Table 2b.

Grazing in 2008 occurred on the Ayers Gulch Pasture and the Owl Gulch Pasture, while

the Kelly Creek Pasture was rested. Grazing on the Pintler Creek Unit in 2009 will be

limited to the Kelly Creek Pasture.

27

Table 2b. Schedule of grazing rotation for Pintler Creek pastures, 2007 through 2008.

YEAR PASTURE ACRES ANIMAL

UNITS

ON DATE OFF DATE AUMS

2006 Ayers Gulch* 1,308 128 April 15 May 30 192

2006 Ayers Gulch* 1,308 60 April 17 May 30 86

2006 Ayers Gulch* 1,308 70 April 17 May 18 72

2007 Kelly Creek 1,258 190 April 15 May 30 285

2008 Ayers Gulch 1,308 200 April 1 May 15 300

2008 Owl Gulch 496 200 May 16 May 30 100

*No pasture fences existed in 2006. Cattle were turned out in Ayers Gulch, and spent the majority of the

grazing period in that pasture, but light use was noted in the Pintler Creek and Kelly Creek drainages.

Table 2c. Proposed 2009 dates and stocking rates for Pintler Creek.

MANAGEMENT UNITS

STOCKING

RATE

(COW/CALF

PAIRS)*

ESTIMATED

AUMS ** IN DATE *** OUT DATE ***

Kelly Creek 200 157-254 April 6-13 April 30 – May

22

* Actual stocking plan is 195 cow/calf pairs until May 1, then additional 10 bulls added, until utilization

targets are reached or June 6 whichever comes first.

** AUMs estimates are based on distance to water and slope forage accessibility model; early dates are

based on AUMs estimated for below average forage production, later dates are based on AUM estimates

for above average forage production estimates.

*** In and Out dates are estimates of when utilization targets would be reached given planned stocking

rates and NRCS estimates of forage production. In date for entering Pintler will be determined by plant

phenology and soil conditions. The range of out dates are estimates based on assumptions for below

average production (earlier dates) and above average forage production (later dates). Overall out date

will be determined by utilization monitoring or June 6, whichever comes first. Operator defined

contingency plans will be initiated in the case where utilization targets are reached sooner than estimated

out dates.

28

Figure 2c. Percent accessibility distribution on Kelly Creek and Owl Gulch.

Spring Turnout

Prior to livestock turnout in the spring, the WDFW Rangeland Ecologist will evaluate

bunchgrass growth and soil firmness to determine whether each pasture is "ready" for

livestock grazing.

Soil firmness guidelines require that 1) all snow is melted off the pasture, with the

exception of brushy draws and large drifts, and 2) normally dry sites are fairly dry

and firm. Soil firmness criteria have NOT been met when upland soils are wet,

loose, or subject to excessive compaction or damage.

Bunchgrass growth guidelines require that both bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho

fescue have achieved a minimum of 4 inches of growth and that cheatgrass has

achieved at least 2 inches of growth.

HUMAN ACTIVITIES

Hunter recreation use of the Pintler Creek unit fairly minimal, with a low number of

turkey hunters present in the spring. We anticipate increased human disturbance due to

monitoring activities by WDFW and WSU, and increased active cattle management, as

well as construction and maintenance of necessary fences and water sources.

29

WDFW’s Wildlife Biologist estimated that fewer than 90 deer use the site during the

proposed grazing period and indicated that low deer density coupled with relatively low

human density would have a negligible impact on deer.

MONITORING

Deer Forage Quality and Quantity

Changes in deer forage quality and quantity are being monitored by WSU, and details are

documented in the graduate student research study plan available from Dr. Shipley at

WSU.

Desired Ecological Conditions

Monitoring for desired ecological conditions is also being conducted by WSU. For each

NRCS ecological site, WSU is working with WDFW to develop desired ecological

condition parameters, their measures, and monitoring triggers (see example in Appendix

2). Desired ecological condition parameters will include measures for native and non-

native vegetative cover, soil metrics, and erosion. Details of the ecological monitoring

study will be documented in the graduate student research study plan, available from Dr.

Hardesty at WSU later this spring.

Utilization Monitoring

Utilization monitoring will include qualitative use monitoring, quantitative seasonal

utilization monitoring, and end-of-season utilization monitoring as described in Chapter 1

to determine if utilization targets identified above have been reached.

In the Pintler Creek Unit, livestock watering points along the riparian areas of Kelly

Creek will be monitored throughout the seasoon. Historically, grazing practices in the

Pintler Creek Unit have resulted in multiple traditional livestock watering sites along the

reach of Kelly Creek. Photo-points will be established prior to turnout, and photos will

be taken before, during, and after turnout to establish whether cattle are contributing to

significant changes in streambank degradation at these sites. If necessary, any newly

impacted watering sites will be armored, fenced, or otherwise protected from livestock in

the future.

Browse monitoring will be conducted in these same riparian monitoring areas along

Kelly Creek , following the Mutliple Indicator Monitoring methods (Burton et al. 2008).

CONTINGENCIES

The operator on the Pintler Creek unit resides adjacent to the Wildlife Area. If utilization

targets are reached, his contingency plan is to remove his cattle from WDFW land to his

own property. If the contingency is triggered, the operator will have four days to remove

cattle from the Pintler Creek study area.

30

LITERATURE CITED

Augustine, D.J., and S.J. McNaughton. 1998. Ungulate effects on the functional species

composition of plant communities: Herbivore selectivity and plant tolerance. Journal of

Wildlife Management 62:1165-1183.

Blaisdell, J.P. and J.F. Pechanac. 1949. Effects of herbage removal at various dates on

vigor of bluebunch wheatgrass and arrowleaf balsamroot. Ecology 30:298-305.

Brewer, T.K., J.C. Mosley, D.E. Lucas, and L.R. Schmidt. 2007. Bluebunch wheatgrass

response to spring defoliation on foothill rangeland. Rangeland Ecology and

Management 60:498-507.

Burton, T. A., S. J. Smith, and E. R. Cowley. 2008. Monitoring stream channels and

riparian vegetation – multiple indicators. 53 p. Boise, ID, USA: Idaho

State office of Bureau of Land Management and Rocky Mountain

Research Station, Forest Service BLM/ID/GI-08/001+1150.

Crawford, J.A., R.A. Olson, N.E. West, J.C. Mosley, M.A. Schroeder, T.D. Whitson,

R.F. Miller, M.A. Gregg, and C.S. Boyd. 2004. Ecology and management of sage-

grouse and sage-grouse habitat. Journal of Range Management 57:2-19.

Dice, B., G. Stendal, and S. Winegeart. 2006. Blue Mountain Wildlife Area Plan.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. [Online.] URL:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/wildlife_areas/management_plans/pdfs/draft_blue_mountain

_plan.pdf .

Ganskopp, D., T. Svejcar, F. Taylor, J. Farstevdt, and K. Paintner. 1999. Seasonal cattle

management in 3- to 5-year-old bitterbrush stands. Journal of Range Management 45:

401-405.

Gray, K. 2008. 2008 field survey for Silene spaldingii (Spalding’s catchfly) in the

Asotin Wildlife Area, Asotin County, Washington. 7 pp plus appendix.

Quinn, M., E. Bracken, M. Asher, B. Dice, and J. Quan. 2008. Status Report on Pilot

Grazing in 2007. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 98 pps.

Stohlgren, T.J., L.D. Schell, and B. Vanden Heuvel. 1999. How grazing and soil quality

affect native and exotic plant diversity in Rocky Mountain grasslands. Ecological

Applications: 9:45-64.

Wilson, A.M., G.A. Harris, and D.H. Gates. 1966. Cumulative effects of clipping on

yield of bluebunch wheatgrass. Journal of Range Management 19:90-91.

31

CHAPTER 3. Smoothing Iron Unit 2009 Pilot Grazing Plan

INTRODUCTION

The Blue Mountains Wildlife Area Management Plan (Dice et al. 2006), developed with

a local citizens advisory group, identifies the use of livestock grazing as a habitat

management strategy to help meet WDFW’s objective of protecting, restoring, and

enhancing fish and wildlife populations and their habitats.

This grazing plan addresses livestock management on a portion of the lands within the

Smoothing Iron Unit of the Asotin Creek Wildlife Area. The grazing on this unit

includes approximately 2,500 acres.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Goal 1. Improve conditions for elk while maintaining or enhancing ecological integrity.

Objective 1A. Improve elk forage quality and quantity.

Objective 1B. Maintain or achieve desired ecological conditions for predominant

ecological sites and key habitat requirements of selected WDFW

species of greatest conservation need.

Goal 2. Support an operationally and economically viable livestock grazing operation.

Objective 2A. Maximize stocking rates, consistent with objectives 1A and 1B,

through infrastructure developments.

Objective 2B. Provide for flexibility in ingress and egress dates.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The Smoothing Iron Pilot Grazing site is located 13 miles southwest of the town of

Asotin in Asotin County. The topography is steep bordering two major drainages,

Warner Gulch and the South Fork Asotin Creek, with flat to rolling along ridge tops.

A complex of rock outcrop and steppe vegetation covers the south-facing hillsides.

Common plant species on these hillsides include bluebunch wheatgrass, Sandberg’s

bluegrass, balsamroot, and cheatgrass. North-facing hillsides support a mosaic of steppe

and ponderosa pine woodland plant communities. Common plants on these northern

exposures include bunchgrasses (e.g. Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, and Cusick’s

bluegrass) and a wide variety of forbs. Shrubs typically occurring on these sites include

hawthorn, snowberry, ninebark, and currant. The soil surface between plant bases often

supports a biological crust composed of mosses, lichens, and a variety of soil algae and

bacteria.

32

A narrow band of riparian vegetation occurs in the bottom of South Fork Asotin Creek.

The overstory here includes Douglas fir, grand fir, ponderosa pine, black cottonwood and

water birch. Understory vegetation includes shrubs (e.g., oceanspray, snowberry,

hawthorn, and currant) and a variety of grasses (e.g., wildrye, bluebunch wheatgrass,

Kentucky bluegrass) and forbs (e.g., common yarrow, and lupine and arnica species.

The ridge tops are dominated by steppe vegetation, consisting primarily of bluebunch

wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, and Sandberg’s bluegrass. Native forbs typically found on

these sites include lupine, balsamroot, fleabane, and buckwheat.

Ecological Sites

Ecological sites on the Smoothing Iron unit, as described by NRCS, predominantly

include Cool Loamy 15+ PZ and Dry Stony 15+ PZ with a band of Very Shallow 15+ PZ

along the upper hillside in Pasture 1 (Figure 3a). Green polygons were not classified into

Ecological Sites during the soil survey. The Rangeland Ecologist, through consultation

with local NRCS staff, has since classified most of these polygons as Loamy 15+PZ.

Two polygons that occur on the hillside in Pasture 6 appear transitional between Loamy

and Dry Stony ecological sites, and remain unclassified. Desired ecological conditions

and ecological integrity thresholds have been identified based on Ecological Site

Descriptions developed by NRCS (see example in Appendix 2).

Figure 3a. NRCS Ecological Sites on the Smoothing Iron Unit.

33

Wildlife

The Smoothing Iron Unit provides excellent habitat bighorn sheep, mule deer, and

grassland birds. WDFW has recently led a program releasing captive-bred mountain

quail to bolster the native population in this area. The South Fork of Asotin Creek is part

of a watershed that supports threatened bull trout and spring Chinook salmon (Dice et al.

2006).

In addition to the wildlife values listed above, nearly half of the elk in the local game

management unit (viz., GMU 175 Lick Creek) winter on or near the Smoothing Iron Unit

(Fowler 2007) and the pastures in the Smoothing Iron Unit are used as elk calving

grounds. Elk calving normally peaks the last week of May and first week of June in the

Blue Mountains. Research on elk/cattle spatial interactions determined that cattle are

socially dominant to elk, resulting in elk avoiding cattle during the spring/summer

months (Coe et al. 2005, Stewart et. al. 2002, Nelson and Burnnell 1976, Lonner 1975,

Skovlin et. al. 1968, Mackie 1970). Grazing an area during the calving season, even at

fairly low densities, may re-distribute cow elk into less favorable habitat. This in turn

may increase calf mortality, which has been a major problem throughout the Blue

Mountains over the last 20 years.

Of the pastures scheduled for grazing in 2009, pasture 2 has been identified as a key elk

calving area, where livestock should be limited during the period of May 15 to June 15.

Based on WDFW biologist recommendations, cattle will be removed no later than May

15 to minimize disturbance to calving elk.

Plants

A rare plant survey (Salstrom and Easterly 2005) of the Smoothing Iron Unit conducted

in 2005 confirmed the presence of mariposa lily (Calochortus macrocarpus var.

maculosus). This species is listed as endangered in Washington (WHNP 1997), and is

found in grasslands in Asotin and Garfield Counties. Sagebrush mariposa lily has been

noted were located in three separate areas of the Smoothing Iron Unit. The light to

moderate grazing intensity currently being planned is not expected to impact this plant.

No livestock grazing will occur near the mariposa lily locations in July and August when

it has been observed flowering, and its preference for rugged, isolated habitats “protects

the variety from some grazing threats” (WNHP 1997). Since the 2005 rare plant survey, 4

additional sensitive plants have been documented on the Smoothing Iron Unit: Waha

milkvetch (Astragalus arthurii), wax currant (Ribes cereum var. colubrinum), stalk-

leaved monkeyflower (Mimulus patulus), and Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii).

Waha milkvetch is listed at sensitive in Washington State, and occurs commonly on

rocky, south-facing hillsides along Warner Gulch and the South Fork of Asotin Creek.

Livestock grazing is a considered a threat to this species (WHNP 1997), particularly

adverse grazing that leads to an increase of weedy annuals. Light to moderate intensity

livestock grazing that results in a stable or upward rangeland trend is not expected to

impact this species.

34

A state endangered variety of wax currant has been recently documented on northerly

hillsides in Pastures 4, 5, and 6. Primary threats to this species include road construction,

herbicides, and agriculture (WNHP 1997). Light to moderate intensity livestock grazing

is not expected to impact this species. Furthermore, no livestock grazing will occur on

the Smoothing Iron during the hot summer months, when upland grasses and forbs have

cured and cattle diets include a larger proportion of palatable shrubs (Holecheck et al.

1982).

Stalk-leaved monkeyflower, a threatened species in Washington, has been documented in

an ephemeral seep in Pasture 1. This species is known from only several locations in

Washington, and little is known about potential threats or management concerns (WNHP

1997). Pasture 1 will not be grazed in 2009. Prior to future grazing, this seep will be

fenced to exclude livestock. WDFW will also prioritize rare plant survey efforts for

similar seeps within the Smoothing Iron Unit.

In the fall of 2008, a large population of federally and state threatened Spalding’s

catchfly was discovered on the Smoothing Iron Unit. Over 700 individual catchfly plants

were documented in pastures 3, 4, and 5, and additional, unsurveyed, habitat exists (Gray

2008). Spalding’s catchfly was documented on deep, loamy soils with northerly aspects,

within bunchgrass or bunchgrass/shrub communities dominated by Idaho fescue. The

largest concentration of plants occurred in pasture 4, which contained approximately 75%

of all documented catchfly plants.

Adverse livestock grazing practices are considered a threat to Spalding’s catchfly,

although insufficient research has been completed to determine exactly what effect

grazing has on this species (USFWS 2007). Best management practices adopted on

federal and private land where livestock grazing and Spalding’s catchfly co-occur include

the following: restricting livestock use during summer months when Spalding’s catchfly

is most susceptible to herbivory (USFS 2005); restricting salt placement and new water

developments within ¼ mile of Spalding’s catchfly plants (USFS 2005); when spring or

summer grazing occurs, avoid grazing more than 3 years in a row (USFS 2005);

conducting population trend monitoring (USFS 2005; Taylor and Schmalz 2008);

conduct utilization monitoring at Spalding’s catchfly sites (USFS 2005); and conduct

vegetation trend monitoring at sites containing representative Spalding’s catchfly habitat

(USFS 2005, Taylor and Schmalz 2008).

Some of these practices are currently in effect on Smoothing Iron, including rest-rotation

grazing and vegetation trend monitoring. Pastures containing Spalding’s catchfly are

rested once every three years, at a minimum, to allow for recovery of native

bunchgrasses. Both annual and population trend monitoring will also occur, see the

monitoring section below for more information.

Livestock grazing on Smoothing Iron occurs during April and May, for 2 weeks in June,

and occasionally, during the last 2 weeks in October. Such timing should limit direct

herbivory of Spalding’s catchfly, as plants will be relatively inconspicuous in the spring

and early summer, and senescent in the fall. Main grazing threats to Spalding’s catchfly

35

during the spring and early summer include trampling of seedlings and site degredation

that allows weed invasion.

In addition to this, WDFW has removed pasture 4, which contained over 75% of

Spalding’s catchfly occurrences, from the grazing rotation. This pasture will be protected

from livestock grazing throughout the life of the Pilot Grazing Project.

In 2009, no cattle grazing will occur in pastures with documented Spalding’s catchfly

plants. Conservation measures in place specifically for this season include recording

incidental observations of Spalding’s catchfly, should it occur in either of the grazed

pastures. The WDFW Rangeland Ecologist will train all stakeholders (including grazing

permittees, WSU researchers, and WDFW staff) to identify Spalding’s catchfly in the

vegetative, flowering, and senescent growth stages. Incidental observations of Spalding’s

catchfly will be noted on topographic maps or GPS locations will be collected and

reported to the Rangeland Ecologist. If Spalding’s catchfly is documented in either

Pasture 2 or 6, the below conservation measures will apply.

The following conservation measures were adapted from USFS (2005). WDFW will

restrict salt placement and new water developments that encourage livestock to move

towards documented catchfly sites. No new watering sites will be developed within ¼

mile of documented catchfly sites, and salt placement will also be restricted within this

¼-mile buffer, unless site conditions suggest that such salt placement will not draw cattle

towards catchfly sites, and WDFW gives prior approval. The permittee will be given a

map of all known rare plant occurrences, and salt placement strategy will be discussed

with the Wildlife Area Manager.

GRAZING PRESCRIPTION Livestock grazing can be used as a habitat management strategy to help meet WDFW’s goal of enhanced wildlife habitat (Dice et el. 2006). Management objectives for livestock grazing on the Smoothing Iron Unit include improving forage quality and quantity, specifically for wintering elk. Managed livestock grazing can improve forage conditions through both indirect and direct means. Indirect improvements in forage quality may occur when livestock grazing removes older, rank grass, thus increasing the availability of more palatable and nutritious spring or fall regrowth (Gordon 1988). Direct improvements to forage quality may occur when spring grazing delays maturation of bunchgrasses, causing plants to cure at a phenologically younger and more nutritious growth stage (see Anderson and Scherzinger 1975 for an elaboration of this hypothesis). Field application of the forage conditioning hypothesis has had mixed results. Clark et al. (2000) found that late-spring domestic sheep grazing led to increased fall bluebunch wheatgrass forage quality (percent crude protein and in vitro dry matter digestibility), relative to ungrazed controls. In addition, Pitt (1986) demonstrated that clipped bluebunch wheatgrass plants had a higher crude protein and phosphorus content that unclipped controls. However, other authors (Bryant, 1993; Westenkow-Wall et al., 1994)

36

have reported no discernible effects of spring grazing on bluebunch wheatgrass forage quality.

Several authors have demonstrated improved forage quality of bluebunch wheatgrass

when clipping or grazing occurred during the late spring, corresponding with the boot or

inflorescence emergence phenological stages (Pitt 1986; Clark et al 1998; Clark et al

2000). However, grazing in successive years during this critical growing period can

result in reduced bluebunch wheatgrass vigor (Blaisdell and Pehancec 1949) and yield

(Wilson et al. 1966, Brewer et al. 2007).

Vavra and Sheehy (1996) have recommended a rest-rotation grazing system to allow

foraging conditioning in some pastures, while remaining pastures rest and recover vigor.

The Smoothing Iron grazing prescription includes a rest-rotation schedule, to ensure that

bunchgrasses remain healthy and productive. Most use will occur during the spring from

mid-April to mid-June, but occasional fall use will also occur. In 2009, cattle grazing

will occur in May and June. The objectives of both spring and fall grazing are indirect

forage improvement through the removal of standing dead material, while the objectives

of late spring grazing are direct forage improvement through forage conditioning.

Pasture Configuration and Developments

The Smoothing Iron Unit is divided into six pastures that have been enhanced with water

developments and fencing (figure 3b). In 2008, 9,000 feet of above ground pipeline was

installed along the top of the ridge to supply water to additional trough sites at the top of

Pasture 3 and between Pastures 4 and 5. An electric fence has been installed between

Pastures 5 and 6.

37

Figure 3b. Smoothing Iron pastures and water developments.

Forage Production Estimates

Forage production estimates are based on NRCS soil survey data. Estimates at the

ecological site level are summarized in Table 3a. Spatial distribution of ecological sites

across the Smoothing Iron unit is illustrated above in Figure 3a.

Table 3a. Forage production estimates for Ecological Sites on the Smoothing Iron Unit. Unless other

indicated, data is from the NRCS Asotin County soil survey.

ECOLOGICAL SITE SITE ID FORAGE PRODUCTION ESTIMATE

(LBS/ACRE)

Below Normal Above

Cool loamy 15+ PZ R009XY103WA 1200 1700 2200

Dry stony 15+ PZ R009XY201WA 400 700 1200

Very shallow 15+ PZ R009XY301WA 250 350 550

Loamy 15+ PZ* R009XY102WA 1100 1300 1500

Harlow-Snell-Harlow Variant

Complex, 30-70% slopes**

700 1000 1200

Harlow-Snell-Rock outcrop

complex, 40-90% slopes**

500 800 1000

*Soil polygons have been classified into ecological sites based on species composition and forage

production, in consultation with local NRCS staff. Forage production estimates come from

corresponding Ecological Site Descriptions.

**Unclassified soil polygons.

38

Utilization Rates

Utilization targets specific to the Smoothing Iron Unit include the following:

For areas within 100 yards of stock water or salt blocks, excluding the areas

immediately surrounding stock water (within 5 to 10 yards, where no utilization

targets are set) a maximum of 60% use of bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho fescue

throughout the growing season.

For all other sites, a maximum of 50% use for bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho

fescue prior to the seedhead emergence stage, and 40% use for bluebunch

wheatgrass and 50% use for Idaho fescue from the seedhead emergence stage to

the end of the growing season.

Stocking Rates and Schedule

The 2007 and 2008 stocking rates and rotation schedules for the Smoothing Iron Unit are

presented in Table 3b. Grazing in 2008 occurred on Pastures 1,3, and 5, while Pastures 2

and 6 were rested. Pasture 4 is used as a control and has not been grazed.

Table 3b. Stocking rates and rotation schedules on Smoothing Iron pastures, 2007-2008.

YEAR PASTURE ACRES ANIMAL

UNITS

ON DATE OFF DATE AUMS

2007 2 159 194 April 15 April 22 45

2007 5 670 194 April 23 May 15 130

2007 6 722 200 May 16 June 15 200

2007 1 453 350 October 15 October 31 200

2008 3 218 200 April 21 May 11 100

2008 1 453 200 May 12 May 30 140

2008 5 722 200 May 31 June 15 160

Based on the location of available water sites and slope distribution across the pastures,

the NRCS model used to calculate AUMs based on forage accessibility, with accessibility

based on distance to water and slope, indicated that pasture 6 could support from 67 to

150 AUMs while pasture 2 could support from 33 to 63 AUMs, depending on whether

forage production is below or above average, respectively. Limited portions of pasture 2,

as well as the southern edge and southeast end of pasture 6 have accessibility percentages

at or below 50% (Figure 3c).

39

Table 3c. Smoothing Iron range of stocking rate and rotation schedules for 2009.

MANAGEMENT

UNITS

STOCKING RATE

(COW/CALF PAIRS)

ESTIMATED

AUMS * IN DATES ** OUT DATES **

Smoothing Iron

2 175 33-63 April 27- May 2 May 2 – 10

6 175 67-150 May 3 – 11 May 19 – June 6

*AUMs estimates are based on distance to water and slope forage accessibility model; early dates are

based on AUMs estimated for below average forage production, later dates are based on AUM estimates

for above average forage production estimates.

**In and Out dates are estimates of when utilization targets would be reached given planned stocking

rates and NRCS estimates of forage production. Initial In date for entering Smoothing Iron will be

determined by plant phenology and soil conditions. The range of out dates are estimates based on

assumptions for below average production (earlier dates) and above average forage production (later

dates). Actual rotation date will be determined by in season utilization monitoring data or May 10

whichever comes first. Overall out date will be determined by utilization monitoring or June 15,

whichever comes first. Operator defined contingency plans will be initiated in the case where utilization

targets are reached sooner than estimated out dates.

Figure 3c. Percent accessibility distribution on Pastures 2 and 6.

40

Spring Turnout Prior to livestock turnout in the spring, the WDFW Rangeland Ecologist will evaluate

bunchgrass growth and soil firmness to determine whether each pasture is "ready" for

livestock grazing.

Soil firmness guidelines require that 1) all snow is melted off the pasture, with the

exception of brushy draws and large drifts, and 2) normally dry sites are fairly dry

and firm. Soil firmness criteria have NOT been met when upland soils are wet,

loose, or subject to excessive compaction or damage.

Bunchgrass growth guidelines require that both bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho

fescue have achieved a minimum of 4 inches of growth.

HUMAN ACTIVITIES

As introduced above, the Smoothing Iron area in the Asotin Creek watershed is critical

winter and parturition range for approximately 300 - 400 elk. Human activities have been

shown to redistribute elk away from the disturbance in many studies (Unsworth et al.

1998; Gratson and Whitman 2000; Skovlin et al. 2004; Thomas et al. 1988; VanDyke and

Klyne 1996; Czech 1991; Cassirer et al. 1992; Phillips and Alldredge 2000; Rowland et

al. 2005; and Wisdom et al. 2005). Activities on winter range can re-distribute elk to

higher elevation range where forage and weather conditions may not be optimal, or move

elk off public land onto private land causing agricultural damage. Due to the importance

of winter range in GMU-175 Lick Creek, a winter range closure was developed and

implemented in the early 1980’s by the USFS and WDFW, which includes the

Smoothing Iron winter range; Dec. 1 – March 31.

The Smoothing Iron pilot grazing area is also utilized by a large number of cow elk as a

calving area. Cow elk use the brushy draws and rock outcrops as havens for seclusion

during pre-calving and calving. Cow elk start separating from the herds in early to mid

May to seek seclusion before calving from mid-May through early-June. They stay in

these areas for 1-2 weeks after calving before re-assembling into cow/calf groups in mid-

June. Cow elk are extremely sensitive to disturbance during this period (Phillips and

Alldredge 2000). Phillips and Alldredge (2000) found that cow elk disturbed 10 times

(caused to move because of human presence) during the parturition time period had a

22.5% reduction in calf recruitment. Efforts should be made to limit all but essential

human activities in these areas during this period. Human activity that is necessary

should be brief and low intensity (as few individuals as possible, non-motorized). In the

mid 1980’s, the USFS and WDFW extended the winter range closure period to include a

calving area closure from April 1 through June 30 and vehicle access is restricted to

portions of GMU-175 on both USFS and WDFW lands during this period.

Though vehicle access is prevented through this closure, human access is not restricted,

and organized horseback riding, hiking, hunting, and shed antler collecting has increased

dramatically over the last five years. In addition, the implementation of the pilot grazing

program has added another level of human activity during this critical period. Human

activities required by the project include fence construction and maintenance, range

41

monitoring, cattle herding, watering site preparations. Much of this use involves

motorized vehicles (4-wheelers, 4x4 pickups).

As stated above, pasture 2 has been identified as a key calving area, and to minimize

interactions between cattle and calving elk, cattle will be removed from pasture 2 several

days prior to the onset of calving season (May 15). This will allow pregnant cows time to

acclimate to the area after cattle and associated monitoring activities are gone. To

minimize human-caused disturbance to calving elk on pasture 2, administrative activities

(e.g. fence maintenance and water development) other than for emergency reasons, will

be discontinued during the calving period (May 10 – June 15; table 3d). On all other

pastures, human activities associated with the grazing program will be limited to those

necessary to complete the project.

Table 3d. Human activities and timing on pasture 2.

ACTIVITY PRE-CALVING CALVING POST-CALVING

Fence construction and maintenance X

Water development X

Cattle herding X

Utilization monitoring X X

Research X X X

MONITORING

Forage Quality and Quantity

Changes in deer and elk forage conditions are being monitored by WSU, and details are

documented in the graduate student research study plan available from Dr. Shipley at

WSU.

Desired Ecological Conditions

Monitoring for desired ecological conditions is also being conducted by WSU. For each

NRCS ecological site, WSU is working with WDFW to develop desired ecological

condition parameters, their measures, and monitoring triggers (see example in Appendix

2). Desired ecological condition parameters will include measures for native and non-

native vegetative cover and erosion. Details of the ecological monitoring study will be

documented in the graduate student research study plan, available from Dr. Hardesty at

WSU later this spring.

Spalding’s Catchfly

There are no known occurrences of Spalding’s catchfly in areas scheduled for grazing in

2009. A population trend monitoring plan is currently being developed by WSU, and

will be implemented in 2010. If additional populations are documented within the grazed

areas, WDFW will implement the following management plan. Monitoring will include

photos and anecdotal observations of livestock impacts. Livestock trampling that creates

bare ground within catchfly sites will trigger immediate action, including herding,

42

fencing, and salt placement to move livestock away from catchfly sites. Trail formation,

excessive trampling, and utilization in excess of targets around catchfly sites will trigger

pasture moves. The WDFW rangeland ecologist is responsible for coordinating this

monitoring.

Utilization Thresholds

Utilization monitoring by WDFW will include qualitative use monitoring, seasonal

utilization monitoring, and end-of-season utilization monitoring as described in Chapter 1

to determine if utilization targets identified above have been reached.

CONTINGENCIES

The operator has negotiated the use of neighboring private land for a short period if

utilization levels are reached before 15 June. Four land owners are open to emergency

grazing, with appropriate fencing and water developments, during the transition of these

cattle from WDFW to Forest Service land, if necessary. Depending on environmental

conditions the Operator may choose to meet with USFS to negotiate an earlier on date. If

requested by the Operator, WDFW will assist in these discussions. WDFW has

committed to notifying the operator three days before cattle will need to moved off of

WDFW pastures, and will allow the operator two additional days to move them.

43

LITERATURE CITED

Anderson, E. W., AND R. J. Scherzinger. 1975. Improving quality of winter forage for

elk by cattle grazing. Journal of Range Management 28:120–125.

Blaisdell, J.P. and J.F. Pechanac. 1949. Effects of herbage removal at various dates on

vigor of bluebunch wheatgrass and arrowleaf balsamroot. Ecology 30:298-305.

Brewer, T.K., J.C. Mosley, D.E. Lucas, and L.R. Schmidt. 2007. Bluebunch wheatgrass

response to spring defoliation on foothill rangeland. Rangeland Ecology and

Management 60:498-507.

Bryant, L.D. 1993. Quality of bluebunch wheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum) as a winter

range forage for Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) in the Blue Mountains of

Oregon [thesis]. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 147 p.

Cassirer, E.F., D.J. Freddy, and E.D. Ables. 1992. Elk responses to disturbance by

cross-country skiers in Yellowstone National park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:375-381.

Clark, P.E., W.C. Krueger, L.D. Bryant, and D.R. Thomas. 1998. Spring defoliation

effects on bluebunch wheatgrass: I. Winter forage quality. Journal of Range

Management 51:519-525.

Clark, P.E., W.C. Krueger, L.D. Bryant, and D.R. Thomas. 2000. Livestock grazing

effects on forage quality of elk winter range. Journal of Range Management 53:97-105.

Coe, P.K., B.K. Johnson, K.M. Stewart, and J.G. Kie. 2005. Spatial and temporal

interactions of elk, mule deer, and cattle. Pages 150-158 in Wisdom, M.J., technical

editor. The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer.

Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of the North American Wildlife and natural

Resource Conference, Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas.

Czech, B. 1991. Elk behavior in response to human disturbance at Mount St. Helens

National Volcanic Monument. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 29:269-277.

Dice, B., G. Stendal, and S. Winegeart. 2006. Blue Mountain Wildlife Area Plan.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. [Online.] URL:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/wildlife_areas/management_plans/pdfs/draft_blue_mountain

_plan.pdf .

Gordon, I. J. 1988. Facilitation of red deer grazing by cattle and its impact on

red deer performance. Journal of Applied Ecology 25:1–10.

Gratson, M.W. and C.L. Whitman. 2000. Road closures and density and success of elk

hunters in Idaho. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:302 – 310.

44

Gray, K. 2008. 2008 field survey for Silene spaldingii (Spalding’s catchfly) in the

Asotin Wildlife Area, Asotin County, Washington. 7 pp plus appendix.

Holechek, J.L.; Vavra, M.; Skovlin, J.; Krueger, W.C. 1982. Cattle diets in the Blue

Mountains. II. Forests. Journal of Range Management 35:239-242.

Lonner, T.N. 1975. Elk-cattle distribution and interspecific relationships. Long Tom

Creek Study, Montana. In Mont. Coop. Elk/logging Study Annual Program Report. pp.

60-72. Bozemon, Montana.

Mackie, R.J. 1970. Range ecology and relations of mule deer, elk, and cattle in the

Missouri River Breaks, Montana. Wildlife Mongraphs. No. 20. Washington D.C.: The

Wildlife Society. 79 pp.

Nelson, J.R., and D.G. Burnell. 1976. Elk-cattle competition in central Washington. In

Range Multiple Use management. University of Idaho. Moscow. 172 pp.

Phillips, G.E. and A.W. Alldredge. 2000. Reproductive success of elk following

disturbance by humans during calving season. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:521-

530.

Pitt, M.D. 1986. Assessment of spring defoliation to improve fall forage quality of

bluebunch wheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum). Journal of Range Management 39:175-

181.

Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson, and M.A. Penninger. 2005. Effects of

roads on elk: implications for management in forested ecosystems. Pages 42 – 52 in

Wisdom, M.J., technical editor, The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of

elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of the North American

Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference, Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence ,

Kansas, USA.

Salstrom, D., and R. Easterly. 2005. Rare Plant Survey, Smoothing Iron and Rockpile

Units, Chif Joseph and Asotin Creek Wildlife Areas. SEE Botanical Consulting,

Bellingham, WA. 18 pps.

Skovlin, J.M., P.J. Edgerton, and R.W. Harris. 1968. The influence of cattle

management on deer and elk. Transactions of North American Wildlife and Natural

Resources Conference 33: 169-181.

Skovlin, J.M., P. Zager, and B.K. Johnson. 2004. Elk habitat selection and evaluation.

Pages 531-555 in Toweill, D.E. and J.W. Thomes, editors. North American Elk: ecology

and management. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

45

Stewart, K.M., R.T. Bowyer, J.G. Kie, N.J. Cimon, and B.K. Johnson. 2002.

Temporospatial distribution of elk, mule deer, and cattle: Resource partitioning and

competitive displacement. Journal of Mammalogy 83:229-244.

Taylor, R.V. and H. Schmalz. 2008. Monitoring Spalding’s catchfly across a gradient of

cattle stocking rates. Unpublished draft report. 4 pages.

Thomas, J. W., D. A. Leckenby, M. Henjum, R. J. Pedersen, and L. D. Bryant. 1988.

Habitat effectiveness index for elk on Blue Mountain winter ranges. U.S. Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station Publication 218.

Unsworth J.W., L. Kuck, E.O. Garton, and B.R. Butterfield. 1998. Elk habitat selection

on the Clearwater National Forest, Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1255-

1263.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Recovery Plan for Silene spaldingii

(Spalding’s Catchfly). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. xiii

+ 187 pages.

U.S. Forest Service. 2005. Joseph Creek Rangeland Analysis EIS. U.S. Forest Service

Wallowa-Valley District. Available on-line at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/w-

w/projects/Joseph-Cr-range-EIS/index.shtml

VanDyke, F. and W.C. Klein. 1996. Response of elk to installation of oil wells. Journal

of Mammalogy 77:1028-1041.

Vavra, M., and D.P. Sheehy. 1996. Improving elk habitat characteristics with livestock

grazing. Rangelands 18:182-185.

Washington Natural Heritage Program. 1997. Field Guide to Selected Rare Plants of

Washington. Available on-line at

http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/fguide/htm/fgmain.htm

Westenskow-Wall, K.J., W.C. Kreuger, L.D. Bryant, and D.R. Thomas. 1994. Nutrient

quality of bluebunch wheatgrass regrowth on elk winter range in relation to defoliation.

Journal of Range Management 47:240-244.

Wilson, A.M., G.A. Harris, and D.H. Gates. 1966. Cumulative effects of clipping on

yield of bluebunch wheatgrass. Journal of Range Management 19:90-91.

Wisdom, M.J., A.A. Ager, H.K. Preisler, N.J. Cimon, and B.K. Johnson. 2005. Effects

of Off-road recreation on mule deer and elk. Pages 67 – 80 in Wisdom, M.J., technical

editor, The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer.

Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural

Resource Conference, Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence , Kansas, USA.

46

CHAPTER 4. 2009 Pilot Grazing Plan Roles and Responsibilities

The Pilot Grazing 2009 Plan was developed by WDFW in close coordination with WCA,

Washington State University. For the success of this project, it is imperative that all

parties are responsible for implementation and are accountable to other partners. This

chapter provides a description of the roles and responsibilities of each partner. All parties

are responsible for maintaining direct and timely communication with other parties. A

summary of roles and responsibilities is provided in Table 4a.

WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

Oversight and Implementation of Plan

WDFW will maintain oversight of project implementation for the duration of the pilot

grazing project. WDFW is responsible for communicating the objectives and progress of

the project with its stakeholders.

On-the-ground coordination

The on-site Wildlife Area Manager will act as the primary point of contact for concerns

and issues on the ground. These may include infrastructure maintenance needs,

Infrastructure development and maintenance

WDFW will work with WCA and the operators to identify and implement infrastructure

development and maintenance, as necessary, to successfully manage cattle. This may

include fencing construction and water source development.

Scientific Review

WDFW is responsible for the establishment and ongoing participation of a Scientific

Review Committee. This committee will review the process to define desired ecological

conditions and its outcomes; draft study plans developed by WSU to evaluate scientific

credibility and rigor; and research results.

Research Field Support

WDFW is working with both Washington State University (WSU) to conduct research on

this project. WDFW will provide the agreed-upon funding to WSU. WDFW will

provide necessary support equipment to WSU while research is being conducted. This

equipment will include:

One horse trailer for 2-3 weeks in spring/summer

Eight radiocollars for 2-3 weeks in spring/summer

Two ATVs seasonally

Use of two 4x4 pick-up trucks

47

One travel trailer seasonally

One satellite phone seasonally

Utilization Monitoring

WDFW is responsible for conducting utilization monitoring, and communicating

monitoring results to the permittee.

Contingency Plans

If requested by the operator, WDFW will assist in meetings with USFS to discuss on

dates for USFS grazing lease.

WASHINGTON CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCATION

Oversight and Implementation of Plan

WCA will maintain oversight of project implementation for the duration of the pilot

grazing project to represent the operators and maintain relations between the operators

and WDFW. WCA is responsible for communicating the objectives and progress of the

project with its members and representatives.

Infrastructure development and maintenance

WCA and the operators will work with WDFW to identify and implement infrastructure

development and maintenance, as necessary, to successfully manage cattle. This may

include fencing construction and water source development.

Contingency Plans

WCA and the operators are responsible for identifying practicable plans that outline

operator response to possible but unintended events or circumstances that require

removal of cattle from WDFW lands prior to the agreed upon date. This will include

reaching utilization thresholds, which may be hastened by annual changes in

precipitation, as well as annual climatic differences.

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY

Long-term Ecological Monitoring

WSU is responsible for assisting WDFW in defining desired ecological conditions and

for the two grazing sites. In addition, WSU is responsible for identifying appropriate

parameters of desired ecological conditions, measures and monitoring triggers to indicate

if the sites are moving towards or away from desired ecological conditions. WSU will

monitor for these trends.

48

Forage Quality/Quantity Monitoring

WSU will be assessing the effectiveness of targeted cattle grazing for improving wildlife

habitat, and is responsible for monitoring changes in forage quality and quantity on the

grazing units.

Research Management

Dr. Lisa Shipley and Dr. Linda Hardesty will co-manage the pilot grazing budget,

supervise graduate students, design and implement research studies on pilot grazing

areas, secure necessary Animal Care approvals and permits, participate in meetings with

agencies and stakeholders, and supervise the completion and submission of proposals,

reports and manuscripts. Their graduate students are responsible for proposal

development, field work, field crew supervision, data analysis, and reporting.

Table 4a. Summary of Pilot Grazing Plan Roles and Responsibilities 2009.

Task WDFW Operator WSU

Oversight X X

On ground Coordination/Communication X X X

Infrastructure Development and Maintenance X X

Scientific Review X

Research Field Support X

Contingency Plans X X

Utilization Monitoring X

Long Term Ecological Monitoring X

Forage Quality/Quantity Monitoring X

Research Management X

49

APPENDIX 1. WDFW and WCA Memorandum of Understanding

50

51

52

53

54

55

APPENDIX 2. Desired Ecological Conditions: Dry Stony 9-15 PZ

56

APPENDIX 3. Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) that may occur on

Pilot Grazing Study Area, Asotin County Washington.

Taxon Group COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAMEUnknown Yes No

Oregon floater (bivalve) Anodonta oregonensis 1

Western pearlshell (bivalve) Margaritifera falcata 1

Western ridged mussel Gonidea angulata 1

Winged floater (bivalve) Anodonta nuttalliana 1

4

Mann's mollusk-eating ground beetle Scaphinotus mannii1

Shepard's parnassian butterfly Parnassius clodius shepardi 1

Silver-bordered fritillary butterfly Boloria selene atrocostalis 1

2 1

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1

Black-backed woodpecker Picoides arcticus 1

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos 1

Grasshopper sparrow ** Ammodramus savannarum 1

Great blue heron Ardea herodias 1

Great gray owl Strix nebulosa 1

Lewis' woodpecker Melanerpes lewis 1

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus 1

Mountain quail Oreortyx pictus 1

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis 1

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus 1

Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus 1

Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus 1

Pygmy nuthatch Sitta pygmaea 1

Sage sparrow Amphispiza belli 1

Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus 1

Vaux's swift Chaetura vauxi 1

White-headed woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus 1

3 15

Inland redband trout Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri 1

Margined sculpin Cottus marginatus 1

River lamprey Lampetra ayresi 1

Westslope cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi 1

4

Pygmy horned lizard Phrynosoma douglasii 1

Rocky Mountain tailed frog Ascaphus montanus 1

Sagebrush lizard Sceloporus graciosus 1

Western toad Bufo boreas 1

4

American badger Taxidea taxus 1

Merriam's shrew Sorex merriami 1

Pallid Townsend's big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii pallascens1

Preble's shrew Sorex preblei 1

1 2 1

3 5 29

Possible Grazing Affects on

Specialized Habitat

Aquatic

Invertebrate

Aquatic Invertebrate Total

Terrestrial

Invertebrate

Terrestrial Invertebrate Total

Bird

Mammal Total

Grand Total

** The Grasshopper Sparrow is not identified as Species of Greatest Concentration Need in WDFW's Comprehensive Wildlife

Conservation Strategy. We included the species in this list because growing concern for their population status throughout their range

(Vander Haegen pers. Com.) and their reliance on native perennial grass.

Bird Total

Fish

Fish Total

Herpetile

Herpetile Total

Mammal

57

APPENDIX 4. Plants observed at the Pintler Creek and Smoothing Iron Units.

Scientific Name Common Name Pintler Creek Smoothing Iron

Shrubs

Acer glabrum Rocky Mountain maple x

Amelanchier alnifolia Saskatoon serviceberry x x

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus yellow rabbitbrush x

Ericameria nauseosa rubber rabbitbrush x

Opuntia polyacantha pricklypear cactus x x

Physocarpus malvaceus mallow ninebark x

Prunus virginiana chokecherry x

Ribes sp. currant x x

Ribes cereum wax currant x x

Ribes cereum var

colubrinum wax currant x

Rosa woodsii Woods' rose x x

Spiraea betulifolia white spirea x

Symphoricarpos albus common snowberry x

Native Perennial Grasses

Achnatherum sp. needlegrass x

Calamagrostis rubescens pinegrass x

Elymus glaucus blue wildrye x

Festuca idahoensis Idaho fescue x x

Koeleria macrantha prairie Junegrass x x

Poa cusickii Cusick's bluegrass x x

Poa secunda Sandberg bluegrass x x

Pseudoroegneria spicata bluebunch wheatgrass x x

Introduced Perennial Grasses

Bromus inermis smooth brome x

Poa bulbosa bulbous bluegrass x

Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass x x

Native Annual Grasses

Vulpia sp. fescue x

Introduced Annual Grasses

Apera interrupta dense silkybent x x

Bromus arvensis field brome x x

Bromus briziformis rattlesnake brome x x

Bromus tectorum cheatgrass x x

Taeniatherum caput-medusae medusahead x

Ventenata dubia North Africa grass x x

Vulpia myuros rat-tail fescue x x

58

Scientific Name Common Name Pintler Creek Smoothing Iron

Native Perennial Forbs

Achillea millefolium common yarrow x x

Alyssum alyssoides pale madwort x x

Allium sp. wild onion x x

Arenaria congesta ballhead sandwort x

Artemisia dracunculus tarragon x x

Artemisia ludoviciana white sagebrush x x

Arnica sororia twin arnica x

Astragalus arthurii Waha milkvetch x

Astragalus lentiginosus specklepod milkvetch x

Astragalus purshii woollypod milkvetch x

Astragalus reventus Blue Mountain milkvetch x

Astragalus sp. milkvetch x

Balsamorhiza sagittata arrowleaf balsamroot x x

Balsamorhiza serrata serrate balsamroot x

Besseya rubra red besseya x x

Calochortus sp. mariposa lily x

Calochortus elegans elegant mariposa lily x

Calochortus macrocarpus

var maculosa sagebrush mariposa lily x

Castilleja cusickii Cusick's Indian paintbrush x

Castilleja hispida harsh Indian paintbrush x

Cirsium brevifolium Palouse thistle x

Cirsium undulatum wavyleaf thistle x

Crepis acuminata tapertip hawksbeard x

Crepis atribarba slender hawksbeard x

Crepis bakeri Baker's hawksbeard x

Crepis sp. hawksbeard x

Dodecatheon sp. shootingstar x

Erigeron corymbosus longleaf fleabane x x

Eriogonum heracleoides creamy buckwheat x

Frasera albicaulis whitestem frasera x x

Fritillaria pudica yellow fritillary x x

Galium boreale northern bedstraw x

Geum triflorum old man’s whiskers x x

Grindelia squarrosa curlycup gumweed x x

Heuchera cylindrica roundleaf alumroot x x

Helianthella uniflora oneflower helianthella x

Hieracium cynoglossoides houndstongue x

Hieracium scouleri var

albertinum Scouler's woolly-weed x

Ipomopsis aggregata scarlet gilia x

Lithophragma glabrum bulbous woodland-star x

Lithophragma sp. woodland-star x

Lithospermum ruderale western stoneseed x x

Lomatium sp. biscuitroot x

59

Scientific Name Common Name Pintler Creek Smoothing Iron

Lomatium ambiguum Wyeth biscuitroot x

Lomatium dissectum fernleaf buscuitroot x x

Lomatium macrocarpum bigseed biscuitroot x

Lomatium rollinsii Rollins' biscuitroot x

Lomatium triternatum nineleaf biscuitroot x

Lupinus burkei largeleaf lupine x

Lupinus sp. lupine x

Lupinus sericeus silky lupine x

Machaeranthera canescens hoary tansyaster x

Mimulus patulus stalk-leaved monkeyflower x

Packera cana woolly groundsel x

Penstemon deustus scabland penstemon x

Perideridia gairdneri Gardner’s yampah x

Penstemon glandulosus stickystem penstemon x x

Penstemon venustus Venus penstemon x

Phacelia sp. phacelia x

Phacelia heterophylla varileaf phacelia x

Phlox longifolia longleaf phlox x x

Potentilla sp. cinquefoil x

Potentilla glandulosa gland cinquefoil x

Potentilla gracilis slender cinquefoil x

Ranunculus glaberrimus sagebrush buttercup x

Scutellaria angustifolia narrowleaf skullcap x x

Senecio integerrimus lambstongue ragwort x

Silene sp. silene x

Silene spaldingii Spading’s catchfly x

Silene oregana Oregon silene x

Solidago missouriensis Missouri goldenrod x x

Triteleia grandiflora var.

howellii Howell’s triteleia x x

Woodsia oregana Oregon woodsia x x

Zigadenus venenosus meadow deathcamas x

Introduced Perennial Forbs

Conium maculatum poison hemlock x

Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed x

Dipsacus fullonum Fuller's teasel x

Hypericum perforatum common St. Johnswort x x

Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle x x

Rumex sp. dock x

Taraxacum sp. dandelion x x

Tragopogon dubius salsify x x

Verbascum blattaria moth mullein x x

Vicia villosa winter vetch x

60

Scientific Name Common Name Pintler Creek Smoothing Iron

Native Annual Forbs

Agoseris heterophylla annual agoseris x

Amsinckia sp. fiddleneck x

Amsinckia menziesii Menzies' fiddleneck x

Blepharipappus scaber rough eyelashweed x

Claytonia perfoliata

ssp. perfoliata miner's lettuce x x

Clarkia pulchella pinkfairies x x

Collomia grandiflora grand collomia x x

Collomia linearis tiny trumpet x x

Collinsia parviflora maiden blue eyed Mary x x

Cryptantha sp. cryptantha x x

Descurainia pinnata western tansymustard x x

Epilobium brachycarpum tall annual willowherb x x

Galium aparine stickywilly x x

Gaura mollis velvetweed x

Helianthus annuus common sunflower x

Lappula occidentalis flatspine stickseed x

Lagophylla ramosissima branched lagophylla x

Madia sp. tarweed x

Madia gracilis grassy tarweed x

Microsteris gracilis slender phlox x x

Montia linearis narrowleaf miners lettuce x

Navarretia intertexta needleleaf navarretia x

Orthocarpus tenuifolius thinleaved owl's-clover x

Phacelia linearis threadleaf phacelia x x

Plectritis macrocera longhorn plectritis x x

Plantago patagonica woolly plantain x x

Polygonum douglasii Douglas' knotweed x x

Polemonium micranthum annual polemonium x x

Rigiopappus leptocladus wireweed x

Stellaria nitens shiny chickweed x

Introduced Annual Forbs

Anthriscus caucalis burr chervil x

Arenaria serpyllifolia thymeleaf sandwort x x

Camelina microcarpa littlepod falseflax x x

Centaurea solstitialis yellow star-thistle x

Draba verna spring draba x x

Erodium cicutarium redstem stork's bill x x

Holosteum umbellatum jagged chickweed x x

Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce x x

Lepidium perfoliatum clasping pepperweed x

Logfia arvensis field cottonrose x x

Myosotis stricta strict forget-me-not x x

Sisymbrium altissimum tall tumblemustard x x Veronica arvensis corn speedwell x