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