Antelope Grazing Allotments...

Antelope Grazing Allotments Project

Fremont-Winema National Forest

Hydrology Specialist Report

Vince Pacific

Eastside Hydrologist

Fremont-Winema National Forest

Signature: Vince Pacific Date: 07/05/2013



Project Objectives The objective of this project is to reauthorize livestock grazing on the Antelope Allotment (Silver

Lake Ranger District (RD) and the Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment (Chemult RD) on the

Fremont-Winema National Forest (NF), consistent with Forest Plan objectives and in compliance

with the Rescission Act of 1995. The proposed actions include, but are not limited to,

combination of pastures for administrative purposes, set pasture rotations, fence improvements,

creation or removal of riparian exclosures, and development and/or improvement of water

structures.

This report will analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action and

four alternatives to hydrologic resources.

Project Area Location The project area for this analysis is the combined acreage of the Antelope Grazing Allotment

(Silver Lake RD) and Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment (Chemult RD) which encompasses

these existing allotments’ combined boundaries with additional acreage in the Cannon Well area

and Tobin Cabin Pasture, as well as a portion of the northern part of the Jack Creek Sheep and

Goat Allotment. The portion of the Jack Creek Sheep and Goat Allotment includes a portion of

one of the existing pastures (North Pasture). The allotments will be referred to throughout the

rest of this document either individually by their allotment or pasture names or collectively as the

“Antelope Allotments.” The project area encompasses approximately 169,599 acres of land

(137,189 acres National Forest System (NFS) lands).

Antelope Grazing Allotment

The Antelope Grazing Allotment is on the Silver Lake RD and is approximately 77,806 acres,

50,334 acres of which are on NFS lands. This allotment is currently divided into three grazing

pastures (North Willow, Halfway, and Tobin Cabin). There are four smaller (80-484 acres)

pastures (Antelope Flat 1-4) which are used seasonally for gathering or short duration grazing or

holding. The legal description for these pastures is:

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

Lake County (Co.)

Halfway Pasture: T28S, R12E, Sec. 1, 2, 11-16, 22-27; T28S, R13E, Sec. 18-19; (W.M.), Lake

Co.

Tobin Cabin Pasture: T26S, R11E, Sec. 13-36; T27S, R11E, Sec. 1-36; T28S, R11E, Sec. 3-10,

14-24, 27-34; T29S, R11E, Sec. 4-6; T27S, R12E, Sec. 6, 7, 18, 19, 30 (W.M.), Klamath & Lake

Cos.

Antelope Flat 1: T28S, R12E, Sec. 34 and 35; T29S R12E, Sec. 2 and 3; (W.M.), Lake Co.

Antelope Flat 2: T28S, R12E, Sec. 33 and 34; (W.M.), Lake Co.

Antelope Flat 3: T28S, R12E, Sec. 22, 26, and 27; (W.M.), Lake Co.

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

Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment



The Antelope Cattle and Horse Allotment is on the Chemult RD and is approximately 68,349

acres, 64,948 acres of which are on NFS lands. This allotment is comprised of one pasture

(Chemult). The legal description for this pasture is:

Chemult Pasture: T25S, R9E, Sec. 13-17; T26S, R9E, Sec. 1-5, 7- 36; T27S, R9E, Sec. 1-6, 11-

14; T25S, R10E, Sec. 31; T26S, R10E, Sec. 1-36; T27S, R10E, Sec. 1-27, W.M., Klamath Co.

Jack Creek Sheep and Goat Allotment

Approximately 19,063 acres (18,687 acres NFS lands) of the North Sheep Pasture within the

Jack Creek Sheep and Goat Allotment (Chemult RD) are included in the project area. The legal

description for this pasture is:

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

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

Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)

The project area is located within both Lake and Klamath counties and includes mainly the

headwater portions of three river basins: Deschutes River, Klamath River and Oregon Closed

Basins. The subbasins in which the project is located are the Little Deschutes, Williamson, and

Summer Lake (Figure 1). The HUC for each subbasin and subwatershed in which the project is

located are listed in Table 1.

Figure 1: Location of Antelope Grazing Allotment project.



Table 1. Basins, subbasins, and subwatersheds in which the Antelope Grazing Allotments

project area is located. HUCs are listed for each basin (6 digit), subbasin (8 digit), and

subwatershed (12 digit).

Basin Subbasin Subwatershed HUC 12 Acres within

Project Area

Deschutes

(170703)

Little Deschutes

(17070302)

Corral Springs 171200050501 9

Crescent Butte 170703020505 413

Lower Sellers Creek 170703020404 942

Marmot Butte 170703020503 861

Sellers Marsh 170703020402 12,383

Upper Sellers Creek 170703020401 9,300

Klamath

(180102)

Williamson

(18010201)

Dillon Creek 180102010402 979

Lower Jack Creek 180102010403 19,590

Mosquito Creek 180102010404 1,239

Shoestring Creek 180102010202 2,367

Upper Jack Creek 180102010401 23,115

Oregon Closed

Basins

(171200)

Summer Lake

(17120005)

Bear Creek 171200050105 9,697

Buck Creek 171200050107 864

Dry Creek 171200050403 36



Lower Bear Flat Draw 171200050102 28,201

Lower Rock Creek 171200050104 8,963

Oak Butte 171200050201 713

Oatman Flat 171200050202 3,174

Timothy Creek 171200050106 4,869

Upper Bear Flat Draw 171200050101 16,172

Upper Rock Creek 171200050103 25,689

Allotment History

Livestock grazing has occurred in south central Oregon since the late 1800s, and the project area

has been under permitted grazing by the Forest Service since each Forest’s congressional

designation. The lands have been grazed primarily by cattle, but have also been permitted for

sheep prior to the 1950s. NEPA analysis and AMPs from 1975, 1985, and (most recently) 1995

describe the same grazing strategy, season of use and total numbers of cattle with authorizations

varying by permit and by Forests over the roughly 35 years of administration. Current permitted

grazing within the allotments allows 419 cow/calf pair per month for five and a half months

(May 15-September 30).

Recent (within the last 20 years) land exchanges have affected the boundaries and acres of NFS

land within the Antelope and Antelope Cattle & Horse Allotment. Lands acquired through the

Crown Pacific Land Exchange EIS (1998) added lands to the allotment at Cannon Well, Round

Meadow, and Rock Springs placing them within Winema Forest Plan Management Area (MA)

8C, (moist and wet meadows) which permits controlled grazing. The EIS required NEPA

analysis should a change in capacity be proposed from the additional acres. This analysis

includes the exchanged lands and evaluates any changes in the management of this allotment.

Data Collection/Methodology Assessments of over 60 fens and springs throughout the project area were made during the 2010

and 2011 field seasons, following the methods of Weixelman and Cooper (2009). In preparation

of conducting the fen and spring surveys, the project interdisciplinary team (which included a

Botanist, Hydrologist, Soil Scientist, and Range Conservationist) decided what constituted

“excessive” conditions based upon professional judgment and the Standards and Guidelines of

the Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (USDA Forest

Service, 1989) and the Winema LRMP (USDA Forest Service, 1990). Information collected

included estimates of bare soil, erosion, soil compaction, pedestaling, and water quality. Some

of the surveys occurred at developed ponds for the purpose of documentation. Following survey

protocol, the developed ponds not associated with fens and/or springs were excluded from data

analysis. At developed ponds located adjacent to fens and/or springs, the survey assessments

were restricted to the fens and/or springs. The surveys occurred at all Terrestrial Ecological Unit

Inventory (TUEI) 2006 polygons (soil mapping units in very wet meadows and fens, see “Soils”

specialist report for detailed description of soil mapping units), except those less than 5 acres

and/or those that had dense forest cover. Surveys were also conducted at locations with sensitive

fen plant species, existing fenced riparian areas, and some of the known fen inclusions in other



TEUI map units. While it is estimated that the majority of fens and springs were surveyed, it is

likely that an unknown number of small fens and springs were not surveyed.

The current condition of each surveyed fen was given a ranking of “good,” “fair,” or “poor”

based upon ocular estimate of soil disturbance (good = less than 10% soil disturbance, fair = 10-

20% disturbance, and poor = greater than 20% soil disturbance) and presence of native peat

forming species (see “Botany” report for more detail on ranking system). The condition rating

was based in part on Cooper et al. (2005). It is important to note that a ranking of “good” does

not necessarily indicate that there are no impacts from grazing, but that any impacts that may be

present are within Forest Standards and Guidelines (e.g. less than 10% soil disturbance in

riparian areas for the Winema NF).

A Hankin and Reeves Stream Survey of Jack Creek was conducted in 2003 (Ruda and Hogen,

2008), which is an extensive inventory of stream channel, riparian vegetation, and aquatic

ecosystem conditions. Examples of measurements included stream width:depth ratios, pool

frequency, and stream bank stability. The surveys were completed by Fremont-Winema NF

Stream Survey Crews, and measurements collected were in accordance with Forest Service (FS)

Region 6 Stream Survey Protocols (USDA Forest Service, 2010). The results of these surveys

are available in the stream survey files located at the Fremont-Winema NF Supervisor’s Office,

Lakeview, Oregon.

Measurements of streamflow, pH, water temperature, conductivity, and nitrate concentrations

were collected in Jack Creek at two monitoring locations: at the creek’s intersection with FS road

8821 (Station #5526) and FS road 9418 (Station #5430). Measurements were collected 1-2 times

per month by FS personnel from June through September during 2009, 2010, and 2011.

The 2010 Water Quality Report by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ,

2010) was used to determine if a stream officially had impaired water quality (denoted by

placement on the 303(d) list). GIS and the National Hydrography Dataset were used to calculate

distances of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams within each allotment.

Project Area Current Hydrologic Conditions The Antelope Grazing Allotments Project is located in all or part of 7 subwatersheds (Table 1),

which drain into three basins: the Deschutes (drains to the north), the Oregon Closed Basin

(drains to the east), and the Klamath Basin (drains to the south) (Figure 1). The project area

includes mainly the headwater portions of these 3 basins. Streams within allotments are not

located in or near municipal watersheds and water flowing through the allotments is not a source

of municipal drinking water.

Climate

The project area is characterized by warm dry summers, and cool wet winters. Elevation ranges

from 4,700 to over 6,400 ft. Average annual precipitation in the Chemult and North Sheep

pastures is approximately 33 inches. Tobin Cabin Pasture receives approximately 30 inches,

while Antelope Flats 1-4, North Willow and Halfway pastures receive between 15 and 19 inches.



The majority of precipitation falls as snow from November through May, and summer

precipitation is generally low.

Geology

The geology of the project area is characterized in Aldous and Gurrieri (2012) and Cummings

(2012). The project area lies east of the Cascade Range in the Basin and Range province of

south-central Oregon. It is bounded by Walker Rim escarpment on the west, and Fort Rock

Valley on the east. The geology is composed of late Miocene and Pliocene basalt to rhyolite lava

flows, rhyolite domes, and silicic ash-flow tuff (McLeod and Sherrod, 1992). Major silicic

volcanic centers are located nearby at Yamsay Mountain and Bald Mountain, and mafic volcanic

vent complexes are located nearby at Parker Butte and Pumice Butte (McLeod and Sherrod,

1992). The project area is approximately 35 miles northeast of Crater Lake, and pumice deposits

from a series of eruptions from Mount Mazama approximately 7,700 years ago overlie the area

to a depth of 2-3 m (McLeod and Sherrod, 1992). Rock outcrops are rare and are generally

limited to boulder-like exposures that presumably represent bedrock at that location.

Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (i.e. wetlands, springs, and fens)

The hydrology within the project area is mainly dominated by an extensive complex of

meadows, riparian zones, wetlands, seeps, and springs and fens. There are approximately 8,070

acres of riparian and wetland area in the Antelope Project area, with 2,929 acres on the Silver

Lake RD and 5,141 acres on the Chemult RD.

There are numerous wetlands within the project area that can be divided into 4 classifications

(Cummings, 2012):

1. Wetlands associated with basalt lava flows that were deposited ~4 to 5 million years ago

(Ma): These lava flows underlie the upland topography of the modern basin. The flows

are buried beneath 2-3 m of pumice, and wetlands form in broad shallow depressions

controlled by morphology of underlying lava flows. An example of this type of wetland

is Stimson Meadow. The water table is near the ground surface throughout the year, and

year-round discharge takes place from several of these depressions. Yield from one small

stream between July 18 and October 1 (2009) was estimated at ~6 acre-feet.

2. Wetlands associated with morphology of lava flows erupted between ~1.5 and 1.0 Ma:

Rather than forming broad gently sloping surfaces, these younger flows are narrow and

long, extending up to 2 km from the vent. The orientation of flows and flow lobes reflect

the paleoslope at the time of eruption. Locally, these flows are draped over erosional

topography and form blockages in the older valley of Jack Creek. In some cases these

flows are partially intracanyon flows. Covered in pumice, wetlands are prominent along

flow boundaries as long, narrow features that transport water from gentle topographic

highs across old valley walls and at least locally to the valley floor of Jack Creek. These

wetlands appear to have the greatest biodiversity.



3. Wetlands associated with valley bottom of Jack Creek valley: Pumice-filled valley

bottoms in the Jack Creek valley are present between areas where ~1.5 to 1.0 Ma lava

flows blocked the valley. Locally, broad alluvial fans of glassy silt and rounded pumice

overlie 2-3 m of pumice. During snow melt, these valleys are often flooded, but the

water table drops into the valley fill to a depth of about 1 m during the summer. Jack

Creek channel may hold water year round. Examples of these wetlands include Jamison

Meadow, O’Connor Meadow, and Davis Flat. These wetlands are disrupted along the

valley bottom by areas where young lava flows form dams and flow during snow melt

has removed pumice to expose bedrock.

4. Wetlands associated with changes in permeability: Small wetlands persist where

groundwater moving through the 4-5 Ma bedrock along permeable pathways, along the

bedrock/pumice interface, or within pumice deposits that intersect constrictions in

pumice or alluvial deposits. These wetlands are often developed on slopes. Their origins

are linked to specific details of local geologic history. Two potential examples are

provided:

Example 1: Groundwater discharge from permeable zones in the 4 to 5 Ma bedrock or

along the pumice-bedrock interface. After eruption of Mount Mazama, but before

significant vegetation stabilized the newly formed surface, coarse-grained pumice of

the upper pumice unit floated out of the profile and left the fine-grained lower pumice

unit behind. As groundwater saturated the newly deposited pumice, water moving

down slope through the pumice deposits encountered constrictions in the newly

formed unconfined aquifer. Where the upper pumice had been removed, surface

seeps developed and were inhabited by wetland vegetation. Peat deposits formed in

these seep areas, further reducing the near-surface permeability. This type of wetland

is present on sloping surfaces that likely hosted springs or seeps in the pre-eruption

landscape.

Example 2: Ground water migrating through pumice along flow boundaries of

younger lava flows. Locally, Jack Creek valley is characterized by alluvium rather

than pumice deposits. In such settings the pumice deposits have been thinned or

removed by erosion and the valley bottom is underlain by glassy silt and rounded

pumice sand and pebbles. This alluvial material is finer grained and exhibits lower

permeability than the undisturbed pumice deposits. Where groundwater migrating

down slope through pumice and guided by the lobes of younger lava flows encounters

the alluvial fill, water ponds in the pumice and supports wetland environments.

Fens are common on the west side of the project area in the Chemult RD. Fens are groundwater

influenced/supported peatlands with high water tables (USDA Forest Service, 2007, 2012a). The

consistently high water table creates anaerobic conditions that slow decomposition and lead to

the development of peats or mucks, which is plant material in various stages of decomposition

(USDA Forest Service, 2007, 2012). Fens have hydric soils with an aquic soil moisture regime,

and an accumulation of peat in the histic epipedon with a minimum of 40 cm of organic horizons

within the upper 80 cm of the soil profile (Weixelman and Cooper, 2009). Fens are often



associated with springs, are characterized by water with a neutral or slightly alkaline pH, and are

able to support a diverse plant community (EPA, 2011).

Fens within the project area are characterized in Aldous and Gurrieri (2012). The fens generally

occur on the edges of eroded pumice terraces on valley edges. The pumice has been eroded

down to the bedrock surface and is thickest at the head of the fens and pinches out towards the

toe. In meadow bottoms sparse herbaceous vegetation is present and does not appear to receive a

continuous supply of water from fens. This vegetation is likely supported in the summer by high

soil moisture that results from spring snowmelt and precipitation. There is also an unusual

concentration of “fen inclusions,” also on the westside of the project area. These “fen

inclusions” occur in areas where groundwater discharge is sufficient for formation of peat soils,

but are smaller in size and have less plant species diversity than traditional fens. See the

“Botany” report for a more detailed characterization of fens within the project area.

Fen and Spring Surveys

Surveys of over 60 springs and fens within the project area were conducted in 2010 and 2011

(Figure 2). On the Chemult RD, the surveys identified 32 fens (the majority associated with

springs) and 19 springs not associated with fens. On the Silver Lake RD, the surveys identified 1

fen and 15 springs. Seven developed ponds were found on the Chemult RD, and 3 were found

on the Silver Lake RD. Following the methods of Weixelman and Cooper (2009), the ponds

were excluded from data analysis. Some of these ponds were found at or adjacent to springs

and/or fens; at these locations the surveys were restricted to the springs and/or fens. It is

important to note that the network of springs and fens within the project area is extensive and

complex, particularly on the Chemult RD. As noted in the “Methods” section of this report,

there was a strong attempt to survey all fens and springs within the project area, but it is likely

that an unknown number of small fens and springs were not surveyed.



Figure 2. Location of springs and fens within the project area surveyed during 2010 and 2011.

At each location, the degree of soil alteration, if any, was quantified (Table 2). Approximately

75% of all springs and fens had less than 10% bare ground cover (Table 2). Soil compaction

occurred at 19% of the fens and at 36% of the springs. Channel erosion was found at only 9% of

the fens and 4% of the springs (Table 2). Pedestaling was evident at 59% of the fens, and 18%

of the springs (Table 2).

Table 2. Degree of soil alteration at fens and springs within the Antelope Grazing Allotments

Project area. Measurements were collected during assessment of vegetation, soil, and hydrologic

conditions at over 60 fens, springs, and developed ponds during 2010 and 2011 by the project

interdisciplinary team, following the methods of Weixelman and Cooper (2009). The surveys at

developed ponds were excluded from data analysis.

Soil Alteration

Fens Springs

Compaction 19% 36%

Channel Erosion 9% 4%

Pedestaling 59% 18%

Bare Ground

< 10% 75% 73%



10-20% 16% 6%

> 20% 9% 21%

The surveys also assessed impacts to hydrologic resources, such as water quality and wetland

vegetation, at each location (Table 3). None of the locations exhibited excessive fluctuations in

the height of the groundwater table or had water quality that was not sufficient to support hydric

vegetation, and excessive erosion was found at only 3% of the fens and 4% of the springs (Table

3). As described in the “Data Collection/Methodology” section of this report, the project

interdisciplinary team (which included a Botanist, Hydrologist, Soil Scientist, and Range

Conservationist) decided what constituted “excessive” conditions relative to the project area

based upon professional judgment and Forest Standards and Guidelines (USDA Forest Service,

1989, 1990). It is important to note that the assessment of negative hydrologic impacts at fens

and springs was based upon conditions across the entire fen or spring area. This differs from the

assessment of soil alteration (Table 2), which was based upon presence or absence of

disturbance. For example, channel erosion was present at 9% of the surveyed fens (Table 2);

however, only 3% of the fens had “excessive” erosion (Table 3).

Table 3. Assessment of hydrologic impacts to springs and fens within the Antelope Grazing

Allotments Project area. Measurements were collected during assessment of vegetation, soil,

and hydrology at over 60 locations during 2010 and 2011 by the project interdisciplinary team,

following the methods of Weixelman and Cooper (2009).

Negative Hydrologic Impacts

Fens Springs

Excessive fluctuation of water levels*

0% 0%

Contribution from upland watershed to site

degradation

0% 4%

Water quality not sufficient to support hydric

or other natural vegetation

0% 0%

Accumulation of chemicals that are affecting

plant productivity/production

0% 0%

Soil saturation (i.e. ponding, flood frequency

and duration) not sufficient to compose and

maintain hydric soils

3% 11%

Excessive erosion or deposition at the site

3% 4%

No presence of wetland vegetation

0% 0%

Vegetation species present do not indicate

maintenance of hydric soil characteristics

0% 0%

Vegetation cover is not adequate to prevent

erosion from flows (i.e. storm events,

13% 4%



snowmelt, flooding) * “Excessive” fluctuations in the groundwater table are site specific. Groundwater dynamics were monitored at

many locations throughout the project area (Aldous and Gurrieri, 2012) and were used for calibration of what

constituted “excessive” fluctuations in the water table at springs and fens within the project area.

During the spring and fen surveys, eight fens were determined to be in poor condition; all but 1

of these fens were located outside of ungrazed fenced riparian areas. Eleven of the surveyed fens

were within ungrazed fenced riparian areas; ten of these were determined to be in good

condition. The majority of fens that were observed to be in poor condition were located in the

southeast corner of the Chemult pasture near the entry/exit gate for the pasture.

The public had previously expressed concern about grazing in Round Meadow. To determine

current conditions at Round Meadow, the project interdisciplinary team conducted spring and

riparian surveys at 4 locations. At all four locations, bare ground cover was less than 10%, one

area showed signs of channel erosion, and another area exhibited pedestaling. The public also

expressed concern about grazing at Rock Springs. Based upon the results of the spring survey,

Rock Springs was determined to be in poor condition. Here, soil disturbance was greater than

20%, and channel erosion, soil compaction, and pedestaling were documented.

Groundwater Dynamics

Aldous and Gurrieri (2012) quantified groundwater dynamics as part of their investigation on

environmental flows and levels (EF/L) for GDEs at 3 fens within the project area (Johnson,

Wilshire, and Dry) where water is provided to livestock by piping water to watering troughs

outside of the fen exclosures. The current FS working definition of EF/L is “Environmental

flows and levels describe the quantity, quality, timing and range of variability of water flows and

levels required to sustain or restore freshwater or estuarine ecosystems and the functions and

services they provide. EF/Ls include instream flows, geomorphic and flood flows, groundwater

levels, and lake and wetland levels established for environmental purposes” (Aldous and

Gurrieri, 2012). Specific to this project, the EF/L for the fens describe the amount of allowable

drawdown of the groundwater table within the fen that still maintains integrity of resident

wetland plant community and peat saturation so that the peat layer does not oxidize and

continues to accrete.

Aldous and Gurrieri (2012) found that over a 32 hour period of constant withdrawl of

groundwater (at a rate of 0.7 gpm, which is approximately 1/3 of the pumping rate used to fill the

livestock watering trough), fluctuations in the height of the groundwater table were at most 0.9

cm and within the range of measurement error. Aldous and Gurrieri (2012) suggested that a

sustained groundwater table drawdown in excess of 30 cm would lead to the loss of some

wetland indicator plant species, and that a sustained drawdown in excess of 70 cm would lead to

complete loss of wetland indicator species. They concluded that the pumping rate caused a

negligible drawdown of the groundwater table as it accounted for ~3% of the drawdown

necessary to initiate the loss of wetland indicator plant species. In addition, Aldous and Gurrieri

(2012) estimated the water budget at these locations (i.e. the movement of water into and out of a

system). They found that groundwater outflow and evapotranspiration accounted for over 90%

of the water leaving the system, while pumping groundwater to feed off-site livestock watering



troughs accounted for a minor component (less than 10%) of water leaving the system (5% for

Johnson, 0.5% for Wilshire, and 7% for Dry). The results of Aldous and Gurrieri (2012) further

support the conclusion that continued groundwater withdrawl to feed livestock watering troughs

on the height of the groundwater table would be negligible.

In addition to the pump tests at the 3 fens, Aldous and Gurrieri (2012) constructed transects to

investigate the variability of vegetation and groundwater table dynamics across the fens. Along

each transect they installed 14-25 groundwater wells, depending on the size of the fen. In the

middle of the fens the height of the groundwater table was relatively stable and remained near

the ground surface. In contrast, the height of the groundwater table was more dynamic near the

edges of the fens, in which the groundwater table was high during spring snowmelt, then

declined over the course of the summer (by over 100 cm at some locations). Aldous and Gurrieri

(2012) also measured peat depth throughout the fens. They found that the greatest peat

accumulation occurred in areas with a high groundwater table. Their results also indicated that

peat accumulation was inversely related to the degree of groundwater table fluctuation. Lower

peat depths were found in areas with high groundwater table fluctuations, particularly on the

edges of the fens. The results of Aldous and Gurrieri (2012) agree with the results of other

studies, which found thinner peat soils on the margins of fens (Craft and Richardson, 1993;

Weixelman and Cooper, 2009). This variability in groundwater dynamics and peat accumulation

illustrate the spatially and temporally complex and dynamic hydrologic system within the project

area.

Water Structures and Spring Protections

There are approximately 70 stock ponds and/or pit tanks on the allotments. Many of the

ponds/pit tanks are seasonal in nature and are dry by mid-summer. There are six developed

springs on the allotments and a well at Antelope Flat that provides water to troughs located in

each of the Antelope Flat pastures. Many structures have been identified as in need of repairs

(e.g. cleaning and sealing with bentonite).

Streamflow

Deep pumice deposits from the eruption of Mount Mazama have created a landscape where

stream channels are disconnected from tributaries and/or spring sources. Water within the

project area does not leave in appreciable amounts as surface flow. Peak streamflow is driven by

snowmelt and historically occurs between March and June, with the highest monthly stream flow

during May. Spring snowmelt ultimately controls groundwater recharge and storage, and thus

stream baseflow, as it is the main input of water to soil. Summer precipitation is low and

provides a relatively small contribution to streamflow and soil water storage. Stormflow

(overland flow) generally occurs only during snowmelt or large precipitation events.

In the project area, there are 7 miles of perennial streams (year-round water flow), 287 miles of

intermittent streams (seasonal water flow), and 15 miles of ephemeral streams (short term,

precipitation or snowmelt-induced water flow). The measurement of drainage density is a useful

numerical measure of runoff potential, or the potential for water to be exported from a watershed

via streamflow. Drainage density is defined as the total length of all streams in a watershed



divided by the total area of the watershed. On a highly permeable landscape drainage densities

are sometimes less than 1 km/km2, indicating a small potential for runoff. In areas with high

runoff potential, drainage densities are often over 500 km/km2. The drainage density for the

Antelope Grazing Allotments Project area is 0.075 km/km2, indicating a very low potential for

export of water by streams.

All of the perennial flow within the project area occurs in Jack Creek. The geology along Jack

Creek is characterized in Cummings (2012). The headwaters of Jack Creek are on the flank of

Walker Rim northeast of Chemult. From there, Jack Creek flows south to the Williamson River.

Year-round surface flow is present in upper reaches of the valley, but occurs infrequently in

lower reaches. Jack Creek streamflow generally goes subsurface near its intersection with FS

Road 8821 in late summer. Pools often persist in the downstream reaches through much of the

year with surface flow appearing and subsiding through the North Sheep Pasture. Jack Creek

can be divided into sections based upon geology: 1) Headwaters (including Johnson Meadow) to

Davis Flat; 2) Davis Flat to FS Road 83, and 3) FS Road 83 to its confluence with the

Williamson River.

In the headwaters (Section 1), two subdivisions are recognized. In the upper reaches of the

valley, horizontal geologic units overlap geologic units of Walker Mountain and associated units.

Broad, low relief valleys lie between lava flow capped ridges. The Wilshire site is in this setting.

The Dry Meadow site may also be in such a setting, but at the headwaters of the Sellers Marsh

system. The lower reaches of this section start where younger basalt lava flows partially blocked

the drainage and formed intracanyon flows that moved down valley to near Davis Flat. These

flows arrested erosion of valleys in the upper reaches. The vents for the basalt lava flows appear

to lie to the east and west of the Johnson Meadow site. Jack Creek is cutting into the lava flows

from the western center. Some of the lava flows entered the Jack Creek valley and flowed south

as intracanyon flows to near FS Road 88. Since these flows were erupted, Jack Creek has cut

head-ward on the east side of these flows in the area now occupied by Davis Flat.

From Davis Flat to FS Road 83 (Section 2), Jack Creek is segmented into broad meadows such

as Davis Flat and O’Connor Meadow where pumice deposits overlie bedrock and are separated

by areas where younger lava flows erupted from vents to the east intersected Jack Creek valley.

The pumice deposits are locally overlain by fans of glassy silt washed from neighboring

highlands, particularly east of the valley.

From FS Road 83 to the confluence of Jack Creek with the Williamson River (Section 3), lava

flows blocking the valley are more common and at least one intracanyon flow occupies the

valley as far south as near Rakes Meadow. Near Silver Lake Highway the creek cuts through an

older lava flow (3.63 Ma) that erupted from a center southeast of Rakes Meadow. Jack Creek

then flows south to join the broad valley of the Williamson River south of Silver Lake Highway.

Monitoring of Streamflow and Water Quality

Measurements of streamflow and stream water quality parameters such as pH, temperature,

conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and nitrate concentrations were collected at least once a month

from June through September during 2009, 2010, and 2011. The monitoring locations were at



the crossing of FS Road 8821 (Water Quality Monitoring Station #5526, downstream location)

and at the crossing of FS Road 9418 (Water Quality Monitoring Station #5430, approximately 5

miles upstream from Station #5526). Results from Station #5526 are shown in Table 4 and

summarized in Table 5, and results from Station #5430 are shown in Table 6 and summarized in

Table 7. At Station #5528 (downstream location), streamflow became intermittent in July in

2009 and 2010, but not until August in 2011 following a heavy snow year and a cool, wet spring.

At Station #5430 (upstream location), perennial flow was observed during all measurements.

Table 4. Data from Water Quality Monitoring Station #5226 on Jack Creek at FS Road 8821.

Dashes indicate that measurements were not collected on that date.

Date

pH

Temp

(°C)

Conductivity

(mS/cm)

DO

(mg/L)

Nitrates

(mg/L)

Flow

(cfs)

05/28/2009 7.7 16.1 30 --- 0.6 3.65

06/11/2009 6.0 12 22 9 3.8 5.26

07/02/2009 7.4 17 40 5.16 0.5 0.35

07/17/2009 --- --- --- --- 0.5 0.89

07/30/2009 7.4 17 60 5.7 0.1 0

08/13/2009 6.9 16 70 5.4 0.3 0

08/27/2009 7.4 10 80 5.31 0.8 0

09/16/2009 7.4 11 70 7 0.5 0

10/01/2009 --- --- --- --- 0 0

05/21/2010 7.2 7 22 7.6 1.3 0

06/10/2010 6.8 11 30 6.4 1.5 2.46

07/01/2010 6.6 11 35 4.6 2.6 0.18

07/15/2010 6.3 12 70 3.5 2.6 0

07/29/2010 6.5 16 70 5.4 2.5 0

08/26/2010 6.6 11 70 5.6 0.4 0

09/08/2010 6.6 9 70 8.4 0.8 0

09/23/2010 6.6 8 60 9.6 2.3 0

10/06/2010 6.5 11 70 --- --- 0

06/09/2011 7.1 11 --- 7.16 3.6 11.84

06/23/2011 6.5 15 42 6.24 3.8 3.77

07/07/2011 --- 20 --- --- 0.123 1.12

08/04/2011 6.7 15.5 40 3.82 0.674 0.21

09/01/2011 6.4 8 80 5.52 0.387 0

10/06/2011 6.8 5.5 40 8.18 0.179 0

Table 5. Summary of data from Water Quality Monitoring Station #5226 on Jack Creek at FS

road 8821.

pH

Temp

(°C)

Conductivity

(mS/cm)

DO

(mg/L)

Nitrates

(mg/L)

Flow

(cfs)

Min 6.0 5.5 22.0 3.82 0 0

Max 7.7 20.0 80.0 9.6 3.8 11.84

Average 6.5 12.4 48.7 5.7 1.2 1.2



Table 6. Data from Water Quality Monitoring Station #5430 on Jack Creek at FS Road 9418.

Dashes indicate that measurements were not collected on that date.

Date

pH

Temp

(°C)

Conductivity

(mS/cm)

DO

(mg/L)

Nitrates

(mg/L)

Flow

(cfs)

05/28/2009 6.8 13.1 30 8 0.7 0.96

06/11/2009 6.0 11.9 22 9 3.8 1.67

07/02/2009 7.3 14 30 6.4 1 0.33

07/17/2009 0.0 13.3 0 --- 1.2 0.30

07/30/2009 7.8 16 35 7.7 0.8 0.17

08/13/2009 7.5 15 30 7 0.7 0.15

08/27/2009 7.2 10 25 8.1 1.1 0.12

09/19/2009 7.2 11 30 8.04 1.3 0.15

10/02/2009 6.8 6 19 9.4 1.5 0.17

05/21/2010 7.2 6.5 20 8.14 2 ---

06/10/2010 7.1 11 25 7.08 1.9 0.64

07/01/2010 6.5 13 30 7.16 4.3 0.25

07/15/2010 6.8 16 35 8.24 1.7 0.17

07/29/2010 7.0 16 35 7.96 3.1 0.21

08/12/2010 6.9 11 30 7.96 1 0.14

08/26/2010 6.9 12 30 9.58 1.3 0.52

09/08/2010 7.0 9 28 8.8 1.8 0.18

09/23/2010 6.5 7 30 9.08 1.3 0.24

10/06/2010 7.0 10 30 8.96 2 0.22

06/09/2011 6.7 8 25 7.72 3.7 2.24

06/23/2011 6.8 16 35 6.76 3.6 1.25

07/07/2011 --- 20 --- --- 0.112 0.84

08/04/2011 6.8 15.5 30 5.78 0.623 0.35

09/01/2011 6.7 7 30 9.06 0.11 0.20

10/06/2011 7.3 5 20 9.9 --- 0.19

Table 7: Summary of data from Water Quality Monitoring Station #5430 on Jack Creek at FS

road 9418.

pH

Temp

(°C)

Conductivity

(mS/cm)

DO

(mg/L)

Nitrates

(mg/L)

Flow

(cfs)

Min 6.0 5.0 19.0 5.8 0.1 0.12

Max 7.8 20.0 35.0 9.9 4.3 2.24

Average 7.0 11.7 28.4 8.1 1.7 0.49

Channel Morphology

Jack Creek is the only creek within the project area with perennial flow, and analysis of stream

channel morphology is therefore restricted to Jack Creek.



A Hankin and Reeves Level II Stream Survey was completed for Jack Creek in 2003 (Ruda and

Hogen, 2008). This survey documented habitat and stream channel morphology conditions in

the perennial portion of Jack Creek from the FS Road 8821 crossing to the headwaters

downstream of the FS Road 9400 road crossing on NFS managed lands. The Forest Service does

not conduct Level II Stream Surveys on private land, and therefore no data is available for the

privately owned sections. From the surveys, Jack Creek can be characterized as low gradient

(<1-2%), narrow (3-4 ft wetted width) and shallow (residual pool depths 1-2 ft). The dominant

substrate is silt sized pumice less than 6 mm. Several short reaches have cobbles and boulders as

the dominant substrate, but these areas are limited in extent (USDA Forest Service, 2004).

The perennial portion of Jack Creek is described as Rosgen E/C types (Rosgen, 1994). ‘E’ type

channels are considered highly stable systems, provided the floodplain and low channel

width/depth characteristics are maintained. ‘E’ channels are found within broad valleys and

meadows. They are highly sinuous with stable, well-vegetated banks. The primary features of

‘C’ type streams are a sinuous, low gradient channel with well developed floodplains, and point

bars within the active channel (Rosgen, 1994). ‘C’ channel streams are found in broad valleys

with terraces. Both ‘E’ and ‘C’ channel types are sensitive to disturbance and can be rapidly

adjusted and converted to other stream types in relatively short time periods (Rosgen, 1994).

INFISH Standards

The Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) (USDA Forest Service, 1995) provides direction for

protecting Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs). INFISH Riparian Management

Objectives (RMOs) are landscape-scale values describing good habitat for fish (USDA, 1995).

All of the described habitat features may not occur in a specific segment of stream within a

watershed, but should generally occur at the watershed scale for stream systems of moderate to

large size (3rd to 6th order). Jack Creek is a 1st to 3rd order stream. First through third order

streams are also called headwater streams and constitute any waterways in the upper reaches of

the watershed. Although Jack Creek is a smaller sized stream than INFISH RMOs are designed

to represent, the habitat conditions in Jack Creek have been compared to INFISH standards for

the purpose of data interpretation (Table 8).

Table 8. Results from 2003 Level II Stream Survey of Jack Creek compared to INFISH RMOs.

Stream reaches 1, 3, 5, and 8 were on private land and not surveyed. Stream width:depth ratios

were not calculated for Reaches 2 and 4 due to lack of streamflow. The surveys were conducted

by the Fremont-Winema National Forest Stream Survey Crew that is trained annually by a cadre

of Forest Service Region 6 stream inventory trainers.

Bank Stability

(%)

Pool Frequency

(pool/mile)

LWD

(pieces/mile)

Width:Depth

Ratio

INFISH

Standard

80 96 >20 (>12 in

diameter and 35

ft length)

10

Reach 2

98 63 6 no streamflow

Reach 4 100 35 0 no streamflow



Reach 6

98 58 1 14.6

Reach 7

98 52 5 8.1

Reach 9

99 44 7 9.4

Stream bank stability was estimated during the Level II Stream Survey of Jack Creek. Bank

stability is a measure of actively eroding banks at an elevation above the bankfull stream margin.

An eroding bank, as defined in the Forest Service Stream Inventory Handbook (USDA Forest

Service, 2010), is characterized by any one, or a combination of: bare exposed colluvial or

alluvial substrates, exposed mineral soil, evidence of tension cracks, and/or active sloughing.

Bank stability was estimated to be 98-100% on those reaches that were included in the survey.

This exceeds the 80% INFISH RMO (USDA Forest Service, 1995).

All surveyed reaches of Jack Creek had less than 96 pools/mile, which falls below the INFISH

RMO. However, INFISH pool frequency objectives may not be appropriate in such a small, low

gradient headwater stream as Jack Creek. Levels of LWD in Jack Creek were below INFISH

RMOs. However, most of Jack Creek is a “non-forested system” with no upstream wooded

slopes from which large wood could be recruited. The few trees that are present within the

system are lodgepole pines that are often clumped in ‘dog-hair thickets’ of very small diameter

trees. Although there is some component of wood helping to create and maintain pool habitat to

some degree in Jack Creek, LWD as defined by INFISH standards is not a major component in

this system.

The stream width:depth ratio quantifies how wide a stream is relative to its depth. Stream

width:depth ratios are an important indicator of stream health because as a stream become wider,

which can occur as cattle trample the banks, it becomes more susceptible to increased water

temperature. Stream width:depth ratios were not calculated for Stream Reaches 2 and 4 due to

lack of streamflow. The width:depth ratio was less than the INFISH RMO on Reaches 7 and 9,

but slightly exceeded the RMO on Reach 6 (Table 8).

Headcuts are present at several locations in Jack Creek, which has resulted in lowering of the

groundwater table and sections with an entrenched channel (USDA Forest Service, 2004). Some

of these headcuts have been subject to enhancement projects (e.g. placement of logs and rocks to

halt headcut migration), however these attempts generally did not halt headcut migration (USDA

Forest Service, 2004). Few willows are present along Jack Creek, and abundance may be less

than what has occurred historically (USDA Forest Service, 2004).

Stream Water Quality

Results of water quality measurements collected in Jack Creek at Water Quality Monitoring

Stations #5526 (downstream location, at the intersection with FS Road 8821) and #5430

(upstream location, at the intersection with FS Road 9418) are shown in Tables 4-7. There are



no 303(d) listed streams (which classify a stream as being officially impaired by ODEQ) in the

project area.

Steam Temperature

Stream temperature in Jack Creek at Water Quality Monitoring Stations #5526 and #5430 ranged

from 5 to 20°C, which meets the ODEQ water quality limit of 20°C for redband trout. Stream

water temperature in Jack Creek also met INFISH RMOs, which call for “no measurable

increase in maximum water temperature (7 day moving average of daily maximum temperature

measured as the average of the maximum daily temperature of the warmest consecutive 7-day

period)” (USDA Forest Service, 1995).

Turbidity

Neither ODEQ nor the FS measured stream turbidity levels (i.e. have cloudy/hazy water) in any

of the streams within the project area, and it is therefore not possible to determine if any of the

streams are impaired with respect to turbidity.

Nutrient Concentrations

Nitrate concentrations are often used as an indicator of excessive nutrient loading (e.g. from

septic tanks or agricultural and livestock practices), and is often a nutrient of concern with

regards to water quality as high concentrations in water can be harmful to humans.

Concentrations ranged from 0 to 3.8 mg/L at Station #5226 (Table 5), and from 0.1 to 4.3 mg/L

at Station #5430 (Table 7). While Jack Creek is not a source of drinking water, nitrate

concentrations at both monitoring locations were below the EPA’s limit of 10 mg/L for drinking

water.

Fecal Coliform

Neither ODEQ nor the FS measured fecal coliform levels in any of the streams within the project

area. Therefore, it is not possible to determine if any of the streams are impaired with respect to

fecal coliform.



Regulatory Framework The following documents provide regulatory framework for resource management activities with

respect to hydrology and establish applicable standards and guidelines. The actions analyzed in

this environmental assessment and the resulting effects are all compliant with the regulations

listed below.

Direction for the management of the planning area comes primarily from the Standards and

Guidelines of the Winema LRMP (USDA Forest Service, 1990) and the Fremont LRMP (USDA

Forest Service, 1989), as amended to incorporate programmatic planning such as INFISH

(USDA Forest Service, 1995). Both the Winema LRMP (USDA Forest Service, 1990) and the

Fremont LRMP (USDA Forest Service, 1989) define four classes of streams based on the present

and foreseeable uses made of the water, and the potential effects of on-site changes on

downstream uses. The four classes are defined as (Winema LRMP, Glossary - page 43 and 44;

Fremont LRMP, Glossary - page 34):

Class I – Perennial or intermittent streams that: provide a source of water for domestic

use; are used by large numbers of fish for spawning, rearing or migration; and/or are

major tributaries to other Class I steams

Class II – Perennial or intermittent streams that: are used by moderate through significant

numbers of fish for spawning, rearing or migration; and/or may be tributaries to Class I

streams or other Class II streams

Class III – All other perennial streams not meeting higher class criteria

Class IV – All other intermittent streams not meeting higher class criteria

Winema LRMP (USDA Forest Service, 1990):

The goal of the Winema LRMP, as related to hydrologic resources, is that: Water bodies, stream

courses, and wetlands, their riparian vegetation, and the immediately adjacent upland areas will

be managed to stabilize stream channels; prevent soil erosion; and maintain or improve water

quality, fish habitat, recreation opportunities, and riparian/wetland habitat for dependent fish and

wildlife species and dependent aquatic species. The objectives of the Winema LRMP related to

hydrologic resources are to:

maintain or improve the soil, water, riparian, floodplain, and wetland resources through

implementation of the forest-wide standards and guidelines.

comply with state requirements in accordance with the Clean Water Act to protect

Oregon waters, which includes the anti-degradation policy for high quality waters and

wild and scenic rivers.

monitor Forest Plan implementation to determine if management practices are aliening

soil productivity, water quality, floodplains, riparian areas, or stream structure and

function.

restore deteriorated watershed areas identified in the Watershed Improvement Needs

Inventory. Update the Inventory as needed.



protect habitat and hydrologic values of wetlands and riparian areas and improve fish

habitat in streams.

meet the requirements of the Klamath Adjudication for filing and protecting Forest water

rights and uses.

work with the Klamath Tribe to recommend and to file for minimum stream flows within

the former reservation lands (Tribe needs to coincide with those of the Forest)

Anticipated Future Conditions

In 10 Years:

Much of the detrimental compaction from previous entries will have been mitigated

through tillage or other appropriate means. Ground-disturbing activities will cause

detrimental effects on less than 20 percent of an activity area (10% for riparian zones).

Water quality and channel conditions will be sufficient to support at least the current

level of beneficial uses.

Watersheds currently in excellent condition will remain so. All watershed improvements

currently scheduled will be completed, however, it may take many years for the

beneficial effects of the improvements to be fully realized.

50 Years and Beyond:

Most detrimental compaction will have been mitigated. Ground-disturbing activities will

cause detrimental effects on less than 20 percent of an activity area, even after repeated

entries

At least 90 percent of the riparian areas will be in good condition.

Fremont LRMP (USDA Forest Service, 1989):

The Forest Plan sets management goals related to hydrologic resources of meeting or exceeding

water quality standards, re-establishing channel stability (by re-establishing a good or better

riparian ecological condition), improving water quality (by decreasing sediment and late season

water temperature), maintaining water quantity consistent with downstream needs and resource

protection, and restoring and maintaining all riparian areas in a condition which enhances

riparian dependent resource values. The objectives of the Fremont LRMP related to hydrologic

resources are to:

protect water quality and favorable conditions of flow through the application of Best

Management Practices

reduce sediment and decrease late summer stream temperatures

restore eroded gullies and streambanks affecting fish habitat in Class I and II Streams

reduce stream temperatures by restoring and maintaining shade on stream surfaces and

restoring stream channel configurations to narrow and deep

monitor water quality and riparian condition by projects and by long-term trend analysis

to document effects of plan implementation

secure both instream and consumptive uses of water and work cooperatively with the

State of Oregon on basin adjudications and water rights secured under state law



Anticipated Future Conditions

In 10 Years:

Range improvements will increase in an attempt to manage cattle grazing more

effectively, especially in riparian areas

Noticeable improvement in some degraded riparian zones will be evident at the end of the

first decade. Willows, alder, and other deciduous species will give those areas a more

brushy look. Consequently, fish habitat will be improved.

In Fifty Years:

Additional improvements to facilitate the management of cattle grazing, especially in

riparian areas, would be evident.

Fisheries habitat would be improved considerably over present conditions. Management

would emphasize the restoration, maintenance, and/or improvements of habitat quality on

major fish-bearing streams, as well as the creation of several small reservoirs.

Riparian habitat conditions would be significantly improved with noted improvements in

overall water quality. Evidence of eroded streambanks would be notably reduced from

present levels. Minimum streamflows would be maintained on selected streams.

Livestock use of these areas would be reduced. Additional improvements would be

apparent in presently active eroding gullies. These areas would be restored to dry or wet

meadow conditions. Many would provide water flow as a result of improvement

measures.

Forest Service Manual 2500 R6 Supplement No. 2500-98-1 (Watershed Protection and

Management):

The objectives of this supplement relative to water quality are: “To meet direction in the

National Forest Management Act of 1976 and other legal mandates. To manage National Forest

System lands under ecosystem management principles without permanent impairment of land

productivity and to maintain or improve soil and water quality.”

Forest Service Manual 2882.3 - Ground Water and Dependent Ecosystems

This section of Forest Service Manual 2800 (Minerals and Geology) gives direction to evaluate

the availability, quantity, quality, depth to, and extent of the ground-water resources in relation to

the development, use, and conservation of groundwater and its dependent ecosystems. It also

gives direction to evaluate effects of surface-use development and/or disturbance on ground-

water quality, quantity, recharge, and dependent ecosystems.

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA):

This act stresses “ . . . the maintenance of productivity and the need to protect and improve the

quality of soil and water resources, and avoid permanent impairment of productive capability of

land.”



Water Quality Act of 1965, Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, and Clean Water Act of 1977:

These Acts developed the federal, state, and municipal guidelines for controlling water pollution.

The Clean Water Act of 1977 directed greater attention to forest best management practices for

clean water and stream bank erosion control.

The Organic Administration Act of 1897:

This Act established National Forests, with the purpose of improving and protecting the forest

and securing favorable conditions of water flows, for the use and necessities of citizens of the

United States.

Executive Orders

The following Executive Orders are applicable to this project:

Executive Order 12088 requires Federal compliance with pollution control standards (i.e.

The Clean Water Act)

Executive Order 11988 requires agencies to avoid adverse impacts associated with the

occupancy and modification of floodplains

Executive Order 11990 requires agencies to avoid adverse impacts associated with the

destruction or modification of wetlands

Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) (USDA Forest Service, 1995)

INFISH provides direction for protecting RHCAs, which are portions of watersheds where

riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis and management activities are subject to

specific standards and guidelines. RHCAs include traditional riparian corridors, wetlands, and

other areas that help maintain the integrity of aquatic ecosystems by (1) influencing the delivery

of coarse sediment, organic matter, and woody debris to streams, (2) providing root strength for

channel stability, (3) shading the stream, and (4) protecting water quality.

There are four categories of RHCAs. Each category has a defined width of the RHCA that is

adequate to protect streams from non-channelized sediment inputs and be sufficient to provide

other riparian functions, including delivery of organic matter and woody debris, stream shading,

and bank stability. The four categories are:

Category 1 - Fish-bearing streams: Interim RHCAs consist of the stream and the area on either

side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel to the top of the inner

gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or to the outer edges of riparian

vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of two site-potential trees, or 300 feet slope

distance (600 feet including both sides of the stream channel), whichever is greatest.

Category 2 - Permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams: Interim RHCAs consist of the

stream and the area on either side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream

channel to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year flood plain, or to the

outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree,



or 150 feet slope distance (300 feet, including both sides of the stream channel, whichever is the

greatest.

Category 3 - Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 1 acre: Interim RHCAs consist

of the body of water or wetland and the area to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, or to

the extent of the seasonally saturated soil, or to the extent of moderately and highly unstable

areas, or to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 150 feet slope distance

from the edge of the maximum pool elevation of constructed ponds and reservoirs or from the

edge of the wetland, pond or lake, whichever is greatest.

Category 4 - Seasonally flowing or Intermittent streams, wetlands less than 1 acre, landslides,

and landslide-prone areas: This category includes features with high variability in size and site-

specific characteristics. At a minimum the interim RHCAs must include:

a. the extent of landslides and landslide-prone areas

b. the intermittent stream channel and the area to the top of the inner gorge

c. the intermittent stream channel or wetland and the area to the outer edges of the riparian

vegetation

d. for Priority Watersheds the area from the edges of the stream channel, wetland, landslide,

or landslide-prone area to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 100

feet slope distance, whichever is greatest

e. for watersheds not identified as Priority Watersheds, the area from the edges of the

stream channel, wetland, landslide, or landslide-prone area to a distance equal to the

height of one half site-potential tree, or 50 feet slope distance, whichever is greatest

Standards and Guidelines

Project and site-specific standards and guidelines listed below would apply to all RHCAs and to

projects and activities in areas outside RHCAs that would degrade them. The combination of the

standards and guidelines for RHCAs specified below with the standards and guidelines of

existing forest plans and land use plans would provide a benchmark for management actions that

reflects increased sensitivities and a commitment to ecosystem management.

Riparian Goals (pages A-1 to A-2): These goals establish an expectation of the characteristics of

healthy, functioning watersheds, riparian areas, and associated fish habitats. INFISH identifies

several goals for watershed, riparian, and stream channel conditions, which include goals to

maintain or restore:

water quality, to a degree that provides for stable and productive riparian and aquatic

ecosystems;

stream channel integrity, channel processes, and the sediment regime . . . under which the

riparian and aquatic ecosystems developed;

instream flows to support healthy riparian and aquatic habitats, the stability and effective

function of stream channels, and the ability to route flood discharges;



natural timing and variability of the water table elevation in meadows and wetlands;

diversity and productivity of native and desired non-native plant communities in riparian

zones;

riparian vegetation, to:

o provide an amount and distribution of large woody debris characteristic of natural

aquatic and riparian ecosystems;

o provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation within the riparian and

aquatic zones; and

o help achieve rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration

characteristic of those under which the communities developed.

Riparian Management Objectives (pages A-2 to A-4): These objectives provide the criteria

against which attainment or progress toward attainment of the riparian goals is measured.

Riparian management objectives that are applicable to this project’s hydrological resources

include (Table B1 within INFISH):

water temperature: 7 day average maximum water temperature below 59°F within adult

holding habitat and below 48°F within spawning and rearing habitats;

bank stability greater than 80%; and

stream width:depth ratio less than 10 (mean wetted width divided by mean depth)

The following Grazing Management Standards and Guidelines (INFISH, 1995, Appendix A-9)

are applicable to this project:

GM-1: Modify grazing practices (e.g. accessibility of riparian areas to livestock, length of

grazing season, stocking levels, and timing of grazing) that retard or prevent attainment

of Riparian Management Objectives or are likely to adversely affect inland native fish.

Suspend grazing if adjusting practices is not effective in meeting Riparian Management

Objectives.

GM-3: Limit livestock trailing, bedding, watering, salting, loading, and other handling

efforts to those areas and times that would not retard or prevent attainment of Riparian

Management Objectives or adversely affect inland native fish.

Best Management Practices

The National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest

System Lands (USDA Forest Service, 2012b) lists three Best Management Practices (BMPs)

related to Rangeland Management Activities that would apply to this project:

Range-1: Rangeland Management Planning. The objective of this BMP is to avoid,

minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts to soil, water quality, and riparian resources from

rangeland management activities.

Range-2: Rangeland Permit Administration. The objective of this BMP is to avoid,

minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources when



managing rangeland vegetation and livestock grazing through administration and

monitoring of grazing permits and Annual Operating Instructions.

Range-3: Rangeland Improvements. The objective of this BMP is to implement range

improvements to maintain or improve soil, water quality, and riparian resources.



Alternatives Considered & Analyzed in Detail

Note: The following description of Alternatives is copied directly from Chapter 2 of the EA.

Alternatives vary by the configuration (location and size) of the allotment and the number of

cow/calf pairs allowed. All alternatives incorporate Design Criteria, which are listed beginning

on page 2-9 of the Environmental Assessment (EA).

Alternative 1 – No Action (No Grazing)

This alternative was developed in response to Grazing Permit Administration Handbook

requirements (FSH 2209.13, 92.31) for a No Action Alternative. The handbook defines “no

action” to be synonymous with “no grazing” and means that this alternative analyzes effects of

livestock grazing not being authorized within the existing Antelope and Antelope Cattle & Horse

Allotments’ boundaries. This alternative would not modify existing permitted grazing on any

part of the Jack Creek Sheep & Goat Allotment, nor would it provide management of the grazing

of private lands within the Antelope Allotments.

No grazing would remove livestock associated ground disturbance from the Antelope and

Antelope Cattle & Horse Allotments. There would no longer be ground disturbance associated

with allotment management activities including fence maintenance and reconstruction, water

hauling, salting, and permitted off-road motorized vehicle use.

Alternative 1 proposes some new ground disturbing activities through removal of almost all

fencing around currently fenced riparian meadows and between pastures. Allotment boundary

fences adjacent to active allotments would remain to assist in administration of the adjacent

allotments. No new fence construction or reconstruction of the Tobin Cabin northern boundary

would be included, but could be considered and analyzed through the adjacent McCarty Butte

Allotment’s analysis (projected for 2015). No existing water developments are proposed for

removal and would likely receive some maintenance, as these developments also provide water

for wildlife in the area. Maintenance of remaining allotment infrastructures would cease and

would deteriorate or collapse with time.

Under Alternative 1, the Antelope and Antelope Cattle & Horse Allotments would be

administratively closed and would not be available for permit re-issuance for a minimum of ten

years. With the withdrawal of the land from permitted grazing use, continued monitoring of key

areas and utilization would not occur. No waiver of private lands or term/private permits would

be issued and grazing on private lands would be at stockings, timings, and utilizations of the

private landowners’ choosing.

Elements Common to All Action Alternatives

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 have a set of associated activities needed to successfully manage the

proposed grazing. Associated actions vary between alternatives, as displayed in Tables 9-16 and

displayed on maps 5, 7, 10, 13, and 16 (Appendix A in the EA). Associated actions include the

following:

Administrative Modifications



Administrative modifications are proposed including modifications of allotment boundaries and

number of total allotments and pastures. These modifications vary by alternative based on the

need associated with actions proposed.

Fence Construction, Reconstruction, & Removal

Land management activities have affected the boundaries of the Antelope Allotments. Changes

in timber stand structure and land ownership have made existing fences and natural barriers of

dense timber and/or steep slopes ineffective in continuing to define the allotment boundary.

Varying levels of fence construction, reconstruction, and removal are needed under each

alternative to implement proposed pastures and grazing rotations (Table 9). Constructed and

reconstructed fences would predominately consist of a 3-strand barbed-wire fence, and would

require a 4 foot right-of-way clearance on either side of the fence. Right-of-ways would be

cleared of all forested and shrub vegetation that would impede access for continued maintenance.

Removal of fences would include the removal of all wire and steel posts; all wood posts would

be left in-place.

Water Structures & Spring Protections

There are currently approximately 70 stock ponds and/or pit tanks on the allotments. Many of

the ponds/pit tanks are seasonal in nature and generally are dry by mid-summer. There are six

developed springs on the allotments and a well at Antelope Flat that provides water to troughs

located in each of the Antelope Flat pastures. Many structures have been identified as in need of

repair. Actions associated with providing water structures include: improving/maintaining (i.e.,

cleaning and sealing with bentonite), spring protections, spring developments, and designation of

water haul and trough placement locations (Appendix A in the EA, Maps 7, 10, 13, and 16).

Surveys of spring sources throughout the project area were conducted from 2009 to 2011.

Protection measures such as fencing or caging of spring sources were identified as needed for

each location. The total number of springs needing protection varies by each alternative based

on allotment boundaries and grazing strategies proposed (Appendix A in the EA, Maps 7, 10, 13,

and 16).

Distribution Management

Salting, riding, herding, and water hauling would occur throughout the allotment to better

distribute cattle across pastures to improve utilization and cattle distribution within the allotment.

Varying intensities of these actions are needed under each alternative to implement effective

distributions.

Forage Conditions

Range readiness determinations and appropriate forage utilizations would be established for each

pasture compliant with Forest Plan standards and guidelines for the type of forage and forage

condition. Timings and numbers outlined below reflect estimated appropriate use for grazing

that would both allow for range readiness conditions to be met and for allowable utilizations.

These numbers are provided to help depict the grazing scenarios for each alternative; however,

annual range readiness would determine on-dates for each pasture (within +/- two weeks from

identified dates below) and utilizations would be the determining factor for the removal of cattle.



Permitted Motorized Access

Wheeled motorized access to roads within the allotment boundary would be permitted for permit

administration and required allotment maintenance. Consistent with the Travel Management

Plan, limited off-road use would be permitted for required allotment maintenance by specific

classes of vehicles for specific tasks. Varying miles of permitted roads are needed under each

alternative.

Alternative 2 – Current Management

This alternative was developed in response to Grazing Permit Administration Handbook

requirements (FSH 2209.13, 92.31) for analysis of current grazing. The handbook defines

current grazing as “actions being implemented, specifically, current management over the last 3

to 5 years”. Consideration of this alternative serves as a baseline for evaluating other alternatives

during the effects analysis.

Under Alternative 2, the Antelope and Antelope Cattle & Horse Allotments would remain two

separate administrative allotments and retain their existing boundaries. Approximately 3.6 miles

of fence would need to be constructed along the northeast corner of the Chemult Pasture to

reinforce the allotment boundary at this location. Existing allotment infrastructure (fences and

water structures) and resource protection fences in need of repair would be reconstructed in-

place without modifications to size or type of infrastructure.

Alternative 2 proposes to continue permitting livestock grazing under current management

systems designed to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines for two herds at 419 cow/calf pair

per month with permitted grazing from May 15 to September 30 (Table 9).

Table 9. Alternative 2 livestock grazing levels and seasons.

PASTURE Approx.

Acres1

Permit

Type

Max. # of

Permitted Cattle

(Cow/Calf Pairs)

Grazing

Season2

Grazing

Duration

Grazing

System

Halfway 8,293 Term 230 June 1-

July 15 15 days Early Season

North Willow 4,831 Term 189 July 15-

Sept. 30 15 days Early Season

Antelope Flat 1 557 Term 200 June 1-

June 30 1 month Early Season

Antelope Flat 2 403 Term 230 May 15-

Sept. 30 n/a

Transition/

Holding3

Antelope Flat 2 403 Term 154 Sept. 15-

Sept. 30 n/a

Transition/

Holding3

Antelope Flat 3 &

4 860 Term 230

May 15-

Sept. 30 1 month

Transition/

Holding3

Antelope Flat 3 &

4 860 Term 154

Sept. 15-

Sept. 30 15 days

Transition/

Holding3

Tobin Cabin 62,872 Term/

Private 163

May 15-

Sept. 30 1 month

Season-long

Grazing



PASTURE Approx.

Acres1

Permit

Type

Max. # of

Permitted Cattle

(Cow/Calf Pairs)

Grazing

Season2

Grazing

Duration

Grazing

System

Chemult 68,349 Term/

Private 419

July 1-

Sept. 30 3 months

Season-long

Grazing

Antelope Grazing

Allotments/All

Pastures

147,428 n/a 419 cow/calf

pair

May 15-

Sept. 30

4.5

months n/a

1 Acres include both NFS land and other ownerships within pasture boundaries.

2 Dates shown reflect proposed dates permitted. Actual on/off dates or dates identified for

movement between pastures would vary +/- two weeks annually based on forage conditions,

weather variations, or resource conditions within the overall allotment and individual pastures. 3 Use of Antelope 2-4 is as needed to facilitate pasture moves.

Under Alternative 2, no grazing would be authorized within the existing fenced riparian areas

known as Round Meadow, Jack Creek, Dry Meadow, Squirrel Camp, Rider’s Camp, Cannon

Well, Sproats Meadow, Johnson’s Meadow, or Wilshire Meadow. Grazing would also not be

permitted on NFS lands within the fenced portion of Jack Creek’s perennial reach. However,

these locations would remain administratively within the allotment.

Under Alternative 2, the private in-holdings within Oregon spotted frog occupied and potential

habitat at Upper Jamison, Lower Jamison, and Moffit would not be waived to the Forest under a

term/private grazing permit. Grazing on these private lands would be at stockings, timings, and

utilizations of the private landowners’ choosing.

Actions associated with allotment management would continue as they have in the past,

including salting, riding, herding, fence maintenance, water hauling, and stock pond

maintenance. Wheeled motorized access to roads within the allotment boundary would be

permitted for permit administration and required allotment maintenance. Limited off-road use

would be authorized for required allotment maintenance by specific classes of vehicles for

specific tasks.

Alternative 3 – Modified Proposed Action

Alternative 3 proposes to continue permitting livestock grazing under management systems

designed to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines for one herd at a total of 494 cow/calf pair

per month with grazing permitted (occurring) from May 20 to October 15 (Tables 10-11). This

alternative includes the additional acreage identified from the Jack Creek Sheep and Goat

Allotment and grazing of the private land parcels along Jack Creek known as Upper Jamison,

Lower Jamison, and Moffit under a term/private grazing permit. The addition of 75 cow/calf

pairs under this alternative reflects the inclusion of the current number of cow/calf pairs being

grazed on these private lands and do not represent an addition of cattle to the landscape.


PASTURE/UNIT Approx.

Acres1

Permit

Type

Max. # of

Permitted Cattle

(Cow/Calf Pairs)

Grazing

Season2

Grazing

Duration Grazing System




Acres1

Permit

Type

Max. # of

Permitted Cattle

(Cow/Calf Pairs)

Grazing

Season2

Grazing


Halfway Pasture 8,293 Term 230 June 1-


North Willow

Pasture 4,831 Term 189

June 1-

June 15 15 days Early Season


June 15 3 weeks Early Season

Antelope Flat 2 403 Term 50 July 1-

July 153

n/a Transition/

Holding3

Antelope Flat 3 & 4 860 Term 200 Sept. 15-

Oct. 153

n/a Transition/

Holding3

Tobin Cabin

Pasture 66,500

Term/

Private 189

June 15-

July 15 1 month Early Season

Tobin Cabin

Pasture 66,500

Term/

Private 230

July 1-

July 15 15 days Early Season

Chemult Pasture4 69,092

Term/

Private 494

July 15-

Sept. 30 2 months

Deferred

Rotation

Dry Meadow

Unit5

12 Term 10 July 15-

Sept. 30 15 days

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Squirrel Camp

Unit5

21 Term 14 July 15-

Sept. 30 15 days

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Rider’s Camp

Unit5

72 Term 38 July 15-

Sept. 30 15 days

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Cannon Well

Unit5

44 Term 58 July 15-

Sept. 30 15 days

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Jack Creek

Unit5

2,3326

Term/

Private 75

July 15-

Sept. 30 1 month

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Round Meadow

Unit5

392 Term 114 July 15-

Sept. 30 1 month

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

North Sheep

Pasture4

19,063 Term 494 July 15-

Sept. 30 15 days

Deferred

Rotation

Antelope Grazing

Allotments/All

Pastures

169,599 n/a 494 cow/calf

pair

May 20-

Oct. 15 5 months n/a





4 The Chemult and North Sheep Pastures/units would be managed together using a deferred

rotation grazing system with alternating seasons of use (see Table 11).



5 These units are encompassed in the Chemult Pasture under this alternative. Allocated cow/calf

pair for these units would be part of the total allocation for the Chemult Pasture, not an addition

to the pasture’s allocation. 6 Acres displayed for the Jack Creek Unit include the approximately 319 acres of the Moffit

private parcel, which will eventually be fenced to be part of the riparian unit. Prior to this

fencing, those acres would be grazed as part of the greater Chemult Pasture.

Table 11. Example of a livestock grazing pasture two-year rotation1 schedule.

Pastures/Dates Pastures/Dates

Year 1 Chemult Pasture & Meadow Units

July 15 – September 152

North Sheep Pasture

September 16 – September 302

Year 2 North Sheep Pasture

July 15 – August 12

Chemult Pasture & Meadow Units

August 1 – September 302

1 Resource protection needs and/or local weather variations or resource conditions could restrict

rotation between pastures. 2 Dates shown reflect proposed dates permitted. Actual on/off dates or dates identified for


weather variations, or resource conditions within the overall allotment and individual pastures.


habitat within the Jack Creek Unit at Upper Jamison, Lower Jamison, and Moffit would be

waived to the Forest under a term/private grazing permit. Grazing on these private lands would

be at stockings, timings, and utilizations outlined above, and consistent with management

proposed for the Oregon spotted frog in the Jack Creek Site Management Plan. Grazing within

Jack Creek would be variable during the lifetime of this analysis as on-going Oregon spotted

frog habitat restoration would be occurring and would influence the location, stockings, timings,

and utilizations of grazing each year (see Wildlife section, Chapter 3 in the EA). In addition,

annual monitoring as outlined in Appendix G in the EA may influence the location, stockings,

timings, and utilizations of grazing each year.

Alternative 4


designed to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines for one herd at 419 cow/calf pair per

month with grazing permitted (occurring) from May 20 to July 30 (Table 12), without using the

Chemult RD portion of the allotment.


PASTURE Approx.

Acres1

Permit

Type

Max. # of

Permitted Cattle

(Cow/Calf Pairs)

Grazing

Season2

Grazing

Duration

Grazing

System

Halfway 8,293 Term 230 June 1-


North Willow 4,831 Term 189 June 1-

June 15 15 days Early Season





PASTURE Approx.

Acres1

Permit

Type

Max. # of

Permitted Cattle

(Cow/Calf Pairs)

Grazing

Season2

Grazing

Duration

Grazing

System

Antelope Flat 2 403 Term 50 July 1-

July 15 n/a

Transition/

Holding3

Antelope Flat 3

& 4 860 Term 200

July 15-

July 30 n/a

Transition/

Holding3


Private 189

June 15-

July 15 1 month

Season-long

Grazing


Private 230

July 1-

July 15 15 days

Season-long

Grazing

Antelope Grazing

Allotments/All

Pastures

80,060 n/a 419 cow/calf

pair

May 20-

July 30

2.5

months n/a





Under Alternative 4, the Antelope Cattle & Horse Allotment would be administratively closed

and would not be available for permit re-issuance for a minimum of ten years. With the

withdrawal of the land from permitted grazing use, continued monitoring of key areas and

utilization would not occur. No waiver of private lands or term/private permits would be issued

and grazing on private lands would be at stockings, timings, and utilizations of the private

landowners’ choosing.

Alternative 5


designed to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines for two herds at a total of 494 cow/calf

pair per month with grazing permitted (occurring) from May 15 to October 15 (Tables 13-16).

This alternative includes the additional acreage identified from the Jack Creek Sheep and Goat

Allotment and grazing of the private land parcels along Jack Creek known as Upper Jamison,

Lower Jamison, and Moffit under a term/private grazing permit. The addition of 75 cow/calf

pairs under this alternative reflects the inclusion of the current number of cow/calf pairs being

grazed on these private lands and do not represent an addition of cattle to the landscape.



Acres1

Permit

Type

Max. # of

Permitted Cattle

(Cow/Calf Pairs)

Grazing

Season2

Grazing


3

Halfway Pasture 8,293 Term 163 (Herd 1) May 15-


North Willow

Pasture 4,831 Term 256 (Herd 2)

June 1-





Acres1

Permit

Type

Max. # of

Permitted Cattle

(Cow/Calf Pairs)

Grazing

Season2

Grazing


3



Antelope Flat 2 403 Term 163 (Herd 1) June 15-

June 203

n/a Transition/

Holding3

Antelope Flat 2 403 Term 256 (Herd 2) July 1-

July 153

n/a Transition/

Holding3

Antelope Flat 3 &

4 860 Term 250

Sept. 15-

Oct. 153

n/a Transition/

Holding3

Tobin Cabin

Pasture 66,424

Term/

Private 163 (Herd 1)

June 15-

Sept. 15 1 month

Season-long

Grazing

North Sheep

Pasture4

19,063 Term 163 (Herd 1) July 15-

Sept. 30 1.5 months Deferred Rotation

Chemult Pasture4 69,168

Term/

Private 340 (Herd 2)

7

July 1-

Sept. 30 3 months Deferred Rotation

Dry Meadow

Unit5

12 Term 20 July 1-

Sept. 30 15 days

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Squirrel Camp

Unit5

21 Term 40 July 1-

Sept. 30 15 days

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Rider’s Camp

Unit5

72 Term 50 July 1-

Sept. 30 15 days

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Cannon Well

Unit5

44 Term 40 July 1-

Sept. 30 15 days

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Sproats

Meadow Unit 14 Term 5

July 1-

Sept. 30 10 days

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Johnson’s


July 1-

Sept. 30 10 days

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Wilshire


July 1-

Sept. 30 10 days

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Round Meadow

Unit5

396 Term 114 July 1-

Sept. 30 1 month

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Jack Creek

Unit5

2,3326

Term/

Private 75

June 15-

Sept. 30

3.5

month

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Lower

Jamison8

243 Term/

Private 75

June 15-

July 21 1 month

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Upper

Jamison8

1,134 Term/

Private 75

July 21-

Sept. 30 1 month

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Jack Creek

(NFS) &

Moffit8

955 Term/

Private 75

July 21-

Sept. 30 1 month

High Intensity/

Low Frequency

Antelope Grazing

Allotments/All 169,599 n/a

494 cow/calf

pair

May 15-

Oct. 15

5

months n/a




Acres1

Permit

Type

Max. # of

Permitted Cattle

(Cow/Calf Pairs)

Grazing

Season2

Grazing


3

Pastures 1 Acres include both NFS land and other ownerships within pasture boundaries.




4 The Chemult and North Sheep Pastures/units would be managed together using a deferred

rotation grazing system with alternating seasons of use (see Tables 14-15). 5

These units are encompassed in the Chemult Pasture under this alternative. Allocated cow/calf

pair for these units would be part of the total allocation for the Chemult Pasture, not an addition

to the pasture’s allocation. 6 Acres displayed for the Jack Creek Unit include the approximately 319 acres of the Moffit

private parcel, which will eventually be fenced to be part of the riparian unit. Prior to this

fencing, those acres would be grazed as part of the greater Chemult Pasture. 7 Herd 2 includes 75 cow/calf pair proposed for rotation through the Jack Creek Unit parcels as

shown in Table 16. 8 Lower Jamison, Upper Jamison, and Jack Creek (NFS) & Moffit are subdivisions of the larger

Jack Creek Unit and are not additional acres grazed within the Jack Creek Unit.

Table 14. Example of Herd 1 (163 pair) proposed three-year rotation schedule.

May 15 – June 15 June 16 – July 30 Aug. 1 – Sept. 30

Year 1 Halfway Pasture Tobin Cabin Pasture North Sheep Pasture

Year 2 Halfway Pasture Tobin Cabin Pasture Chemult Pasture (N)1

Year 3 Halfway Pasture North Sheep Pasture Chemult Pasture (S) 1

1

The N/S division of the Chemult Pasture is Forest Road 94. This is not proposed to be fenced,

but instead active management would be utilized to keep cattle at or above/below this road

during allocated timing of use. Cattle would likely utilize forage locations adjacent to the road

during both seasons and active management would not be done to keep them out of these areas

unless overutilization or resource damage began to show.

Table 15. Example of Herd 2 (256/340 pair) proposed three-year rotation schedule.

June 1 – June 302 July 1 – Aug. 15

2 Aug. 16 – Sept. 30

Year 1 North Willow Pasture Chemult Pasture (S) 1 Chemult Pasture (N)

1

Year 2 North Willow Pasture Chemult Pasture (N) 1

Chemult Pasture (S) 1

Year 3 North Willow Pasture Chemult Pasture (S) 1 Chemult Pasture (N)

1

1 The N/S division of the Chemult Pasture is Forest Road 94. This is not proposed to be fenced,

but instead active management would be utilized to keep cattle at or above/below this road

during allocated timing of use. Cattle would likely utilize forage locations adjacent to the road

during both seasons and active management would not be done to keep them out of these areas

unless overutilization or resource damage began to show.

Table 16. Example of Jack Creek Unit (75 pair) proposed two-year rotation schedule.



June 15 – July 21 July 22 – Aug. 28 Aug. 29 – Sept. 30

Year 1 Lower Jamison (private) Upper Jamison (private) Jack Creek (NFS) & Moffit

(private)

Year 2 Lower Jamison (private) Jack Creek (NFS) & Moffit

(private) Upper Jamison (private)


habitat at the Jack Creek Unit at Upper Jamison, Lower Jamison, and Moffit would be waived to

the Forest under a term/private grazing permit. Grazing on these private lands would be at

numbers, season, and duration outlined above, and consistent with management proposed for the

Oregon spotted frog in the Jack Creek Site Management Plan. Grazing within Jack Creek would

be variable during the lifetime of this analysis as on-going Oregon spotted frog habitat

restoration would be occurring and would influence the location, stockings, timings, and

utilizations of grazing each year (see Wildlife section, Chapter 3 in the EA). In addition, annual

monitoring as outlined in Appendix G in the EA may influence the location, stockings, timings,

and utilizations of grazing each year. While the 75 pair authorized for grazing on the Jack Creek

Units would operate separate from the remainder of Herd 2, they would be under permit with

Herd 2. Because of this, any suspended use of the Jack Creek lands for Oregon spotted frog

restorations would redistribute those 75 pair onto the remainder of the herd’s allowed use back

onto the permitted location on the greater Chemult Pasture.



Effects Analysis The potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed actions of each alternative

to hydrologic resources were analyzed and reported below.

General Potential Impacts of Grazing to Hydrologic Resources Grazing has the potential to impact hydrologic resources such as streamflow, stream channel

morphology, water quality, and health of groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs) such as

wetlands, springs, and fens.

Streamflow

Grazing by livestock can impact both the amount and timing of streamflow (Meehan and Platts,

1978; Belsky et al., 1999). Streamflow can be divided into two components, baseflow and

stormflow. Stream baseflow is the water in the stream channel that originates from the inflow of

groundwater. In contrast, stormflow is water that enters the stream channel from overland flow

during precipitation and snowmelt events, as well as from direct precipitation on to the stream

surface. In dry climates, the majority of the water in the stream channel is composed of

baseflow, with an increasing proportion of stormflow during snowmelt or extended periods of

precipitation.

Livestock grazing can impact both stream baseflow and stormflow due to increased soil

compaction (Greenwood and McKenzie, 2001; Tate et al., 2004), loss of vegetation (Kauffman

and Krueger, 1984), and reduced soil water infiltration (Warren et al., 1986; Kauffman et al.,

2004). As soils become compacted and vegetation is removed, the ability of water to infiltrate

the soil decreases, which can increase the amount of water traveling to the stream as overland

flow (stormflow). This increase in overland flow can also increase the amount and velocity of

peak streamflow during snowmelt or precipitation events (Belsky et al., 1999). Further, the

reduction in soil water infiltration due to compaction and loss of vegetation can lead to a decline

in the height of the groundwater table and thus the amount of groundwater entering the stream

channel (baseflow) (Belsky et al., 1999; Wondzell and Swanson, 1999; Agouridis et al., 2005).

This reduction in groundwater inputs to the stream channel has the potential to change weakly

defined perennial streams (year-round water flow) to intermittent (seasonal water flow) or

ephemeral (short term, precipitation or snowmelt induced water flow) streams (Li et al., 1994;

Belsky et al., 1999), particularly in dry climates. A decrease in the height of the groundwater

table may also lead to disconnection of the stream channel from its floodplain (Schilling et al.,

2004). The floodplain acts as a large sponge during flood events, and disconnection of a stream

from its floodplain can further increase the amount and velocity of water in a stream channel

during snowmelt and precipitation events.

Channel Morphology

It is well documented that grazing can impact stream channel morphology due to changes in

streambank stability, sediment inputs and transport, and streamside vegetation (Belsky et al.,

1999). For example, decreased streambank stability can occur as cattle trample streambanks and

cause soil to slough (Kauffman et al., 1983; Trimble and Mendel, 1995). As streambanks

deteriorate, the stream becomes wider and stream width:depth ratios increase, which can impact

stream temperature (see “Water Quality” section below). Trampling of soil by cattle can also



reduce streamside vegetation cover (Kauffman and Krueger, 1984), and thus the availability of

plant roots to protect streambanks from erosive stream flow (Trimble and Mendel, 1995).

Streambank erosion may be further exacerbated by increased peak streamflows that may be

attributed to grazing (Meehan and Platts, 1978). Further, decreased vegetation cover often leads

to greater sediment inputs to the stream from overland flow (Trimble and Medel, 1995;

Wondzell, 2001). The impacts of grazing may also result in stream channel downcutting (Belsky

et al., 1999) and disconnection of the stream from its floodplain (Schilling et al., 2004).

Water Quality

Water quality can be defined as the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of water.

Grazing has the potential to impact numerous water quality parameters, including stream water

temperature, turbidity, nutrient concentrations, and fecal coliform levels (Belsky et al., 1999).

Stream Temperature

Stream temperature is largely controlled by vegetation that shades the stream channel (Gregory

et al., 1991; Belsky et al., 1999). Removal or reduction in vegetation from grazing can increase

the amount of solar radiation reaching the stream and lead to increased stream temperatures (Li

et al., 1994; Bescheta, 1997; Bartholow, 2000). Cattle can also impact stream temperature by

trampling streambanks and increasing channel width (Belsky et al., 1999). As a stream becomes

wider (increased width:depth ratios), the water surface area grows larger. This increases the

relative proportion of total water volume exposed to direct solar radiation, making the stream

more susceptible to warming (Bartholow, 2000).

Turbidity

Turbidity is a measure of the clarity, or cloudiness/haziness, of water and is often used to

characterize stream water quality (Belsky et al., 1999). Turbid water occurs when high levels of

suspended particulate matter are present in the stream, which can negatively impact stream

aquatic biota (Allan, 2004; Dewson et al., 2007). Grazing can lead to high stream turbidity due

to increased sediment inputs from overland flow across bare ground, trampling and sloughing of

the stream bank, cattle walking within the stream channel, and reduction in streamside vegetation

(which acts as a sediment trap).

Nutrient Concentrations

Livestock grazing is often associated with increased nutrient concentrations in stream water due

to deposition of livestock urine and manure in and near the stream, increased sediment inputs

from overland flow and streambank erosion, and a reduction in the amount of water in the stream

(which leads to higher nutrient concentrations) (Belsky et al., 1999).

Fecal Coliform

Fecal coliform is a bacteria that is commonly present in animal feces and is often used as an

indicator of fecal contamination of water. Cattle can cause high fecal coliform levels in streams

due to defecation in and near the stream channel. Although generally not harmful itself, fecal



coliform is often used as an indicator of harmful bacteria in water that result from fecal

contamination (Tiedemann et al., 1987; Agouridis et al., 2005). Such contamination brings the

threat of bacterial infection to people who come in direct contact with contaminated water

(Hubbard et al., 2004).

Health of GDEs (i.e. wetlands, springs, and fens)

Riparian and wetland areas play an essential role in the health of a watershed. A riparian zone is

the area of land adjacent to a stream channel. Properly functioning riparian zones trap and filter

sediments traveling to the stream channel, act as giant sponges during flood events, and provide

vegetation necessary to stabilize streambanks and shade the stream channel (Kauffman and

Krueger, 1984; Belsky et al., 1999). A wetland is an area of land where soil remains saturated

with water. Wetlands provide similar ecosystem services as riparian zones, such as water storage

and filtration. Grazing can negatively impact riparian and wetland areas due to increased soil

compaction from trampling, removal of vegetation, and sloughing and deterioration of

streambanks (Belsky et al., 1999). Overgrazing by livestock is considered one of the most

widespread causes of deterioration of riparian and wetland areas (Armour et al., 1994; Ehrhart

and Hansen, 1997).

Many riparian and wetland areas are GDEs. GDEs are ecosystems that are dependent upon

surface or near-surface expressions of groundwater (Eamus et al., 2006, Brown et al., 2007) and

are located in areas where the groundwater table remains at or near the ground surface. GDEs

are often associated with springs, which the United States Geological Survey (USGS) defines as

an area where there is a concentrated discharge of groundwater that flows at the ground surface

(USGS, 2012a). Springs form when the side of a hill, a valley bottom, or other excavation

intersects a flowing body of groundwater at or below the local water table, below which the

subsurface material is saturated with water (USGS, 2012b). An example of a GDE is a wetland

adjacent to a spring that often has little to no sign of surface inflow (e.g. a stream channel), and

remains saturated after extended periods with no precipitation (Brown et al., 2007). As GDEs

are dependent on a surface or near-surface groundwater table (Eamus et al., 2006; Brown et al.,

2007), they can be negatively impacted by a decline in the height of the groundwater table (often

referred to as “drawdown”) that may occur when groundwater is withdrawn from the system

(e.g. during agricultural irrigation or supply of off-site water developments for livestock).

Fens and springs are GDEs that are prevalent within the project area. Fens are groundwater

influenced/supported peatlands with high water tables (USDA Forest Service, 2007, 2012a). The

consistently high water table creates anaerobic conditions which slow decomposition leading to

the development of peats or mucks, which is plant material in various stages of decomposition

(USDA Forest Service, 2007, 2012a). Like other wetlands, livestock grazing can negatively

impact fens due to fecal contamination, soil compaction, and removal of vegetation, which can

lead to erosion, decline in water quality, and changes in the hydrology of fen systems. If the

amount of groundwater input to a fen is reduced (e.g. due to withdrawl to supply off-site water

developments for livestock), the fen will receive fewer nutrients and may turn into a bog, which

is characterized by acidic water that supports a less diverse plant and animal population (EPA,

2011). Once the groundwater table is lowered, potential peat subsistence and subsequent

decomposition can alter hydrologic patterns and result in changes to plant species composition



(Cooper, 1990). Bedford and Godwin (2003) suggest that a fluctuation of the groundwater table

by a few centimeters throughout the year can negatively impact a fen.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct effects are defined as effects which are caused by the action and occur at the same time

and place, while indirect effects are effects which are caused by the action and are later in time

or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. The bounds of analysis for

determination of direct effects of the Antelope Grazing Allotments Project proposed actions to

hydrologic resources are the project area and the time period allowed for grazing each year (3-5

months, depending on alternative). The bound of analysis for determination of short-term

indirect effects is the project area and the time period allowed for grazing (3-5 months,

depending on alternative) plus an additional 2 weeks beyond the grazing time period. For the

measurement indicators pertaining to Jack Creek, the bound for spatial analysis is extended to

include approximately 2 miles of Jack Creek downstream of the project area. This spatial area

and time period was selected because potential impacts to water quality could extend

downstream of the project area and/or beyond the grazing time period, but would be expected to

dissipate within the additional stream distance and the additional time period specified. For

determination of long-term indirect effects, the time period is extended to the duration of the

grazing permit (10 years). Alternative 2 (current management) serves as a baseline for

comparison of effects between the alternatives.

Measurement Indicators

Measurement indicators are presented to compare and contrast the potential effects of each

alternative to hydrologic resources. Measures were selected based on professional judgment and

a thorough literature review on the impacts of grazing to hydrologic resources. The potential

impacts of the alternatives on hydrologic resources are disclosed quantitatively using the

following measurement indicators:

Acres of riparian area subject to grazing (includes wetlands, fens, springs, seeps, GDEs,

etc.)

Number of currently ungrazed fenced riparian areas subject to grazing

Miles of perennial stream grazed under NFS management

Miles of perennial stream grazed under private management

Quantification of these measurement indicators is shown in Table 17 below.

Table 17. Measurement indicators used to compare and contrast the potential effects of each

alternative to hydrologic resources. All perennial stream miles occur within Oregon spotted frog

habitat.

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Acres of riparian area subject to grazing

(includes wetlands, fens, springs, seeps, meadows,

GDEs, etc.)

0 3,276 4,643 1,362 4,656

Number of currently ungrazed fenced riparian areas 0 0 9 0 13



subject to grazing

Mile of perennial stream grazed under NFS

management

0 1 7 0 7

Miles of perennial stream grazed under private

management

3 3 0 3 0

Alternative 1

The removal of grazing under Alternative 1 would provide for the greatest improvements to

hydrologic resources. Soil compaction resulting from trampling of soil by cattle would no longer

occur, and vegetation cover would increase once livestock grazing ceased. Existing soil

compaction would decrease over time due to root growth and expansion and frequent freeze-

thaw cycles. The increase in vegetation cover and reduction in soil compaction would have the

potential to increase soil water infiltration and storage and decrease overland flow. Existing

water structures would not be maintained, and there would be the possibility of increased

streamflow in Jack Creek. The increase in streamflow would have the potential to add perennial

streamflow to sections of Jack Creek that currently flow intermittently, however this would be

unlikely due to the porous geology of the project area.

The health of GDEs such as springs and fens within the project area would see the greatest

improvements under Alternative 1. Livestock grazing would no longer occur within riparian and

meadow areas (Table 17), where most if not all of the GDEs are located within the project area.

Riparian vegetation cover would increase, and cattle would no longer compact sensitive wet soils

characteristic of GDEs. Off-site livestock water developments would no longer be used, and the

potential for a livestock grazing-related decline in the groundwater table would be eliminated.

Conditions in Round Meadow, which was rated as being in “good” condition based upon degree

of soil disturbance (< 10%) and presence of native peat forming plant species but did show signs

of channel erosion and pedestaling in some areas, would be maintained or improved. Conditions

at Rock Springs, which is rated as being in “poor” condition due to soil disturbance greater than

20%, would improve over time as vegetation cover increased and soil compaction decreased.

The 2003 stream survey of the sections of Jack Creek on NSF lands (Ruda and Hogen, 2008)

documented that streambank stability was 98-100%, and stream width:depth ratios were

generally within INFISH standards (Table 8). As no grazing would occur on this section of

creek, bank stability and stream width:depth ratios would be maintained. Pool frequency, size,

and longevity would have the potential to increase if stream baseflow increased, but attainment

of INFISH standards for pool frequency would be unlikely. However, INFISH pool frequency

objectives may not be appropriate in small, low gradient headwater streams such as Jack Creek.

LWD would remain at low levels, but this would not necessarily indicate poor stream health as

large wood is not a major component of meadow stream systems. Stream conditions at the

headcuts along Jack Creek would slowly improve over time as increased vegetation cover would

trap sediment and allow the channel to aggrade. There would also be potential for an increase in

willows with removal of grazing.

Water quality within Jack Creek would continue to meet state water quality standards for stream

temperature with implementation of Alternative 1, and Jack Creek would remain off the ODEQ



303(d) list of impaired waters. Fecal coliform levels and stream nutrient concentrations may

decrease as livestock urine and manure would no longer have the potential to be deposited in or

near the stream channel, although the potential for deposition from wildlife would continue.

While the implementation of Alternative 1 would lead to the greatest improvements to

hydrologic resources, some negative impacts would still occur. For example, private parcels

along Jack Creek at Moffit, Upper Jamison, and Lower Jamison would not be waived for grazing

management to the NFS under a term/private grazing permit. As grazing would not occur on

NFS lands, there would be potential for increased grazing intensity along the 3 mile private

section of Jack Creek (Table 17), which could negatively impact water quality and channel

morphology in Jack Creek on NFS land downstream from the private lands. Monitoring of key

areas would no longer occur and long-term trends in allotment health would remain unknown.

Some short-term (1-2 years) ground disturbance would occur during removal of fences between

pastures and around currently fenced riparian areas, however the impacts would be minimal.

Once fences were removed, vehicular use necessary for allotment management would be

eliminated. Vegetation cover would increase on user-created roads, reducing the potential for

erosion of road surfaces and sediment input to riparian/wetland areas and streams.

Under implementation of Alternative 1, grazing by wildlife would continue and possibly increase

due to the removal of livestock competition. Some impacts from wildlife would likely occur at

riparian and wetland areas, such as soil compaction and removal of vegetation, however, damage

would be less than would occur if livestock were present.

In conclusion, implementation of Alternative 1 would lead to the greatest improvements in

hydrologic resources of all alternatives. In areas where livestock grazing has negatively

impacted the land, livestock exclusion has consistently resulted in the most dramatic and rapid

rates of ecosystem recovery (Belsky et al., 1999).

Alternative 2

Implementation of Alternative 2 (current management) would maintain, but generally not

improve the current hydrologic conditions within the project area. The fen and spring surveys

documented various degrees of soil alteration within the project area. For example, pedestaling

was documented at 59% of the fens and 18% of the springs, and over 20% of the springs had

bare ground that exceeded 20% (Table 2). It is important to note that the assessments of soil

alteration were based upon the presence/absence of disturbance and do not necessarily indicate

widespread disturbance across the survey location. For example, while 59% of the fens had

pedestaling, the pedestaling was not necessarily widespread and often did not result in soil

disturbance greater than 10% across the fen. Thus while some negative impacts were found,

overall good hydrologic conditions were found at many areas. Bare ground was less than 10% at

75% of the fens that were surveyed (Table 2), and channel erosion was found at only 9% of the

locations (Table 3). None of the locations exhibited excessive fluctuations of the groundwater

table or lack of wetland vegetation, and soil saturation that was not sufficient to maintain hydric

soils was found at only 3% and 11% of the fens and springs, respectively (Table 3).

Implementation of Alternative 2 would likely maintain these conditions, but negative impacts

such as pedestaling and erosion would continue to occur at some locations. Those fens and



springs identified as being in poor condition would likely remain in poor condition due to

continued soil compaction and vegetation removal.

Grazing would not be authorized within the existing fenced meadows (Round Meadow, Dry

Meadow, Squirrel Camp, Rider’s Camp, Cannon Well, Sproats Meadow, Johnson’s Meadow,

and Wilshire Meadow), and conditions within these areas would be maintained or continue to

improve. Comparison of survey results at springs and fens within and outside of ungrazed

fenced riparian areas documented better hydrologic conditions within ungrazed fenced riparian

areas. For example, eleven of the surveyed fens were within ungrazed fenced riparian areas; ten

were determined to be in “good” condition. Similarly, of the 8 fens determined to be in “poor”

condition, all but 1 were located outside of ungrazed fenced riparian areas. As Round Meadow

would continue to not be grazed, conditions would be maintained or improved. Rock Springs

would likely remain in a “poor” condition with continued livestock use.

Six spring developments would be constructed or reconstructed under Alternative 2. The

withdrawl of groundwater from these spring developments would have the potential to impact

the associated GDEs, which are sensitive to even small fluctuations in the height of the

groundwater table. A recent study by Aldous and Gurrieri (2012) at 3 fens within the project

area concluded that current levels of groundwater withdrawl were not negatively impacting the

fens. Their results indicated that an extraction rate of 0.7 gpm is the “tipping point” at which

drawdown of the groundwater table would be large enough to negatively impact fen vegetation

that is dependent upon a surface or near-surface groundwater table. The average extraction rate

at the locations where the study took place was approximately 1/3 of the 0.7 gpm “tipping point,”

and therefore it is not likely that continued groundwater withdrawl to feed off-site water

developments would negatively impact fens. Further, many of the wetlands within the project

area are larger and wetter than the study locations. The average size of the wetlands within the

project area is ~12.7 acres, while the 3 fens at which the study took place are 1.4, 2.9, and 11.3

acres. In theory, the larger and wetter the wetland, the more resistant it is to drawdown of the

groundwater table during groundwater extraction (i.e. as the size of the “pool” of water

increases, the amount of water that can be extracted before a similar decline in the height of the

water in the “pool” also increases).

Some short-term negative impacts may occur during maintenance and

construction/reconstruction of spring developments, such as soil compaction and damage to

vegetation, but impacts would be minimal and localized. Once spring development fences were

operational, the hydrologic conditions within the fenced areas would improve. Some soil

disturbance would also occur with the maintenance and construction of allotment boundary

fences, however these impacts would also be minimal and localized, and conditions would

improve over time after the work was completed.

Grazing would not occur along the 3 mile section of Jack Creek on NFS lands. Streambank

stability and stream width:depth ratios would continue to meet INFISH standards. Current

streamflow trends would be maintained, and stream water temperature would remain within

acceptable levels specified by INFISH and ODEQ. Inputs of cattle urine and feces to the stream

channel would continue to occur, but would not increase from current levels. Sediment inputs to



the stream from overland flow and streambank erosion would continue at current levels, and

stream turbidity would not change in appreciable amounts.

As with Alternative 1, private parcels along Jack Creek at Moffit, Upper Jamison, and Lower

Jamison would not be waived for grazing management to the NFS under a term/private grazing

permit, and grazing intensity and duration along the 3 mile private section of Jack Creek would

be at the private landowner’s discretion (Table 17). Depending on the grazing duration and

intensity, there could be negative impacts to water quality and channel morphology in Jack

Creek on NFS lands downstream from the private lands.

In summary, implementation of Alternative 2 would maintain, but generally not improve, the

current hydrologic conditions within the project boundary. Hydrologic conditions within those

areas ranked in fair to good condition would be maintained, and Jack Creek would remain off of

the ODEQ 303(d) list of impaired waters. Areas currently in poor condition (e.g. where soil

disturbance is greater than 20%) would remain in that state.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 is the modified proposed action. The total number of cattle permitted in the

allotment would increase from 419 to 494 cow/calf pair per month as grazing on private land

would be waived to the FS. The amount of riparian area subject to grazing would increase from

3,276 acres under Alternative 2 to 4,643 acres under Alternative 3 (Table 17), which would

increase the amount of land susceptible to negative grazing impacts such as soil compaction and

removal of vegetation. However, the Chemult Pasture, where nearly all GDEs are located,

would also be grazed for only 2 months under a deferred rotation grazing system, compared to 3

months of continuous grazing under Alternative 2. This reduction in grazing duration and use of

a rotational grazing system would reduce the grazing intensity and increase the time plants have

to recover from being grazed the prior year. In general, deferred rotation grazing systems have

less of a negative impact to hydrologic resources than continuous season-long grazing (Leonard

et al., 1997) as livestock is rotated through different pastures for shorter time periods and not

allowed to concentrate in one pasture for an entire grazing season.

The number of currently ungrazed fenced riparian areas subject to grazing (e.g. Round Meadow,

Jack Creek, Squirrel Camp, Cannon Well, Dry Meadow, and Rider’s Camp) (Table 17), which

generally support GDEs, would increase from 0 under Alternative 2 to 9 under Alternative 3.

These areas were determined to be in good condition during the spring and fen surveys, and

reintroduction of grazing into these areas would have the potential to cause negative impacts

such as soil compaction and removal of vegetation. Grazing duration would be limited to 15-30

days and utilization would be limited to 30-40%. Under this grazing intensity and duration,

these areas would likely remain in healthy condition. Reintroduction of grazing may lead to

some negative impacts at Round Meadow. Round Meadow was determined to be in “good”

condition during the spring and surveys, and it is not likely that widespread negative impacts

would occur with the reintroduction of grazing under the duration (1 month) that would occur

within Round Meadow under implementation of Alternative 3. Further, fences would be

constructed around the springs and fens within Round Meadow, and these GDEs would be



protected from grazing. Grazing duration at Rock Springs would also be reduced under

Alternative 3, but it would likely remain in “poor” condition.

Under Alternative 3, 9 spring developments would be constructed/reconstructed over

approximately 6 years; the springs would remain unprotected until fences were operational.

Some short term negative impacts, such as soil compaction and vegetation disturbance, may

occur during construction/reconstruction, but impacts would be minimal and localized. Once

fences were operational, the hydrologic conditions within the fenced areas would improve as

these areas would not be grazed. Vegetation growth would increase, and soil compaction would

become lower over time due to root growth and expansion and frequent freeze-thaw cycles.

Water quality at the springs would increase as sediment inputs from cattle trampling would be

reduced and/or eliminated.

As discussed under Alternative 2, there would be potential for negative impacts to the GDEs

associated with the spring developments due to drawdown of the groundwater table. However,

Aldous and Gurrieri (2012) documented that groundwater withdrawl at 3 fens within the project

area did not negatively impact the fens. While the number of spring developments would

increase from 6 under Alternative 2 to 9 under Alternative 3 (Table 17), the new spring

developments would be located in a similar hydrologic setting. Based upon the results of Aldous

and Gurrieri (2012), it is unlikely that the groundwater pumping rates would cause water table

drawdown large enough to negatively impact fen vegetation or lead to peat oxidation.

Reintroduction of grazing in the NFS section of Jack Creek that is currently within an ungrazed

fenced riparian area would likely cause some negative impacts, such as soil compaction, and

damage to streamside vegetation. Due to the fine texture of stream substrate, streambank

stability may decrease in localized areas where cattle congregate on streambanks. However,

widespread impacts are not likely under the proposed deferred rotational grazing system,

intensity, and duration. There is some potential for continued migration of the stream headcuts,

however this is unlikely due to upcoming restoration efforts combined with low grazing duration

and intensity. As willows are low in number under current conditions, willows would likely not

increase with reintroduction of grazing along this section of Jack Creek. Water quality would

likely be maintained and continue to meet ODEQ water quality standards, and stream channel

morphology would likely continue to meet INFISH RMOs. The addition of the North Sheep

Pasture would increase the length of Jack Creek that is grazed, however Jack Creek flows

intermittently through the North Sheep Pasture, and negative impacts to water quality and/or

channel morphology within perennial reaches of Jack Creek would not be likely due to

incorporation of the North Sheep Pasture.

One of the differences between Alternative 3 and Alternative 2 is that grazing management of

the private parcels along Jack Creek at Moffit, Upper Jamison, and Lower Jamison would be

waived to the NFS under a term/private grazing permit through implementation of Alternative 3.

Grazing would occur in a manner that was consistent with Fremont LRMP (USDA Forest

Service, 1989) and Winema LRMP (USDA Forest Service, 1990) Standards and Guidelines.

Grazing intensity on private land would decrease from current levels, and vegetation cover

would likely increase. Stream baseflow would be expected to be maintained under the

implementation of Alternative 3 and may even increase due to increased soil water infiltration



that would occur with decreased soil compaction and increased vegetation cover along the 3 mile

private section of Jack Creek. As the private section of Jack Creek was not included in the 2003

stream survey of Jack Creek (Ruda and Hogen, 2008), stream channel conditions along this

section is unknown. But, as grazing intensity and duration would decrease under NFS

management, it is likely that improvements to bank stability and vegetation cover would occur.

Alternative 3 would increase the grazing duration on the pastures on the Silver Lake RD by 2

weeks, which may increase soil compaction. These pastures are much drier than those pastures

located further west, and impacts from increasing grazing duration by 2 weeks would likely be

minimal as dry soils are more resistant to soil compaction than wet soils.

In summary, implementation of Alternative 3, the modified proposed action, would maintain and

likely improve hydrologic resources within the project area relative to Alternative 2 due to

reduced grazing intensity and duration, implementation of a deferred rotation grazing system,

and improved grazing management on private lands. However, the benefits to hydrologic

resources would not be as great as those that would occur under implementation of Alternative 1,

the no-action alternative.

Alternative 4

The main difference between Alternative 4 and Alternative 2 is that grazing would no longer be

permitted on the Chemult Pasture. Therefore, the impact of Alternative 4 to hydrologic

resources within the Chemult Pasture would be the same as under Alternative 1, the no-action

alternative. The removal of grazing on the Chemult Pasture would lead to decreased soil

compaction and overland flow, and increased vegetation cover. As the majority of GDEs such as

fens and springs are located within the Chemult Pasture, implementation of Alternative 4 would

lead to the same improvements to these sensitive GDEs discussed under Alternative 1.

Grazing would still occur in riparian areas on the Silver Lake RD. Soils on the Silver Lake RD

are drier and less susceptible to compaction compared to soils on the Chumult RD, and it is

likely that conditions would continue to meet Forest Standards and Guidelines with continuation

of grazing on the Silver Lake RD under Alternative 4.

Grazing would not be reintroduced into any of the currently ungrazed fenced riparian areas

(Table 17), and hydrologic conditions within these areas would be maintained or continue to

improve. The number of spring developments would decrease from 6 under Alternative 2 to 4

under Alternative 4 due to the removal of livestock grazing from the Chemult Pasture, although

this change is likely negligible in terms of effects to hydrologic resources.

Jack Creek would not be grazed on NFS land (Table 17), and the impact of implementation of

Alternative 4 to Jack Creek on NSF land would be the same as discussed under analysis of

Alternative 1. Similar to Alternative 2, private parcels along Jack Creek at Moffit, Upper

Jamison, and Lower Jamison would not be waived to the NFS for grazing management under a

term/private grazing permit, and 3 miles of Jack Creek would be grazed under private

management (Table 17). Without reauthorization of grazing on NFS lands, grazing intensity



may increase on the private section of Jack Creek, which could negatively impact water quality

in Jack Creek on NFS lands downstream from the private land.

In summary, implementation of Alternative 4 would lead to the greatest improvements in

hydrologic resources when compared to the other action alternatives, but not as much as under

Alternative 1, the no-action alternative. The greatest improvements to hydrologic resources

would occur in the Chemult Pasture due to the removal of grazing.

Alternative 5

Riparian area subject to grazing would increase from 3,276 acres under Alternative 2 to 4,656

acres under Alternative 5 (Table 17), which would increase the amount of riparian area in which

negative hydrologic impacts could potentially occur. The Chemult Pasture would be grazed

under a deferred rotation system, as compared to a continuous grazing system under Alternative

2. As discussed under analysis of Alternative 3, deferred rotation grazing systems generally

result in less negative impacts to hydrologic resources as compared to continuous grazing

systems (Leonard et al., 1997). With implementation of Alternative 5, reductions in soil

compaction and increases in vegetation cover would likely occur in areas that have been

negatively impacted under current management.

Of all the alternatives, Alternative 5 has the highest number of currently ungrazed fenced

riparian areas that would be subject to grazing (Table 17). As discussed under analysis of

Alternative 2, reintroduction of grazing into these areas has potential to negatively impact

hydrologic resources as soil compaction and vegetation removal may occur. However, grazing

duration would be limited to 15-30 days and utilization would be limited to 30-40%. Under this

grazing intensity and duration, these areas would likely remain in healthy condition and meet

Forest Standards and Guidelines. Grazing would be reintroduced to Round Meadow, which was

determined to be in “good” condition during the spring and fen surveys. While some negative

impacts would likely occur, such as soil compaction and vegetation removal, grazing would be

limited to one month and Round Meadow would likely remain in good condition and continue to

meet Forest Standards and Guidelines. The reduction in grazing intensity at Rock Springs would

reduce soil compaction and lead to increased vegetation cover, but it is likely that Rock Springs

would remain in “poor” condition with continued livestock use.

Compared to Alternative 2, it is likely that implementation of Alternative 5 would improve the

overall health of GDEs such as springs and fens within the project area. The majority of the

springs and fens are on the Chemult Pasture, and the use of a deferred rotation grazing system

would reduce negative impacts to GDEs within this area. As described above, some negative

impacts such as soil compaction and vegetation removal would likely occur with reintroduction

of grazing in currently ungrazed fenced riparian areas, but widespread damage would be unlikely

under the proposed grazing system and utilization standards. There would be 9 spring

developments under implementation of Alternative 5, which could potentially impact the

associated GDEs through drawdown of the groundwater table. The results of Aldous and

Gurrieri (2012) indicated that groundwater withdrawal to feed offsite livestock water

developments would not lead to water table drawdown, and it would be unlikely that GDEs at

these locations would be negatively impacted.



The addition of the North Sheep Pasture under Alternative 5 would increase the length of Jack

Creek that is grazed. Jack Creek flows intermittently through the North Sheep Pasture, and

negative impacts to water quality and/or channel morphology within perennial reaches of Jack

Creek would not be expected. Grazing management along the 3 mile section of Jack Creek that

flows through private land would be waived to the Forest under a term/private grazing permit.

This area would be grazed under a deferred rotation grazing system (Table 17), and conditions in

Jack Creek both within and downstream of the private area would likely improve. However,

some negative impacts to streambank stability would likely occur with livestock grazing. Some

ground disturbance may occur during general allotment maintenance, such as fence and stock

pond maintenance, water hauling, and limited off-road use, but impacts would be minimal.

Compared to Alternative 3, implementation of Alternative 5 would permit grazing for a longer

duration in both the Chemult Pasture and the North Sheep Pasture. The increased grazing

duration would increase the potential for negative impacts to hydrologic resources, such as soil

compaction and removal of vegetation, relative to that which would occur under Alternative 3.

Alternative 5 would also allow for an earlier turnout and a longer grazing duration on the

pastures on the Silver Lake RD. This would increase the potential for soil compaction, overland

flow, and removal of vegetation. However, these pastures are generally much drier than those on

the Chemult RD and therefore not as susceptible to soil compaction relative to areas with wetter

soils.

In summary, Alternative 5 would have less negative impacts to hydrologic resources across the

project area than current management (Alternative 2), but more negative impacts than would

occur under Alternatives 1, 3, or 4.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are defined as the impact on the environment which results from the

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable

future actions. In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of

the proposed action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a

proxy for the impacts of past actions. Existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all

prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute

to cumulative effects. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities in the allotments’ sub-

watersheds are listed in Appendix E and include livestock grazing, road construction and

maintenance, invasive plant management, and continued land management such as commercial

and non-commercial thinning and fuels treatments. Potential cumulative effects to streamflow,

channel morphology, stream water quality, and health of GDEs such as fens and springs were

analyzed and are reported below. The temporal bound of analysis is the time period for this term

grazing permit (10 years).

Channel Morphology and Stream Water Quality

The spatial bound for analysis of cumulative effects to channel morphology and stream water

quality is the 7 mile segment of Jack Creek within the project area that has perennial streamflow.



This analysis area has been determined to be appropriate as any potential cumulative effects,

such as increased sedimentation, would not be substantially transported downstream beyond the

perennial section, after which streamflow becomes intermittent. Future activities that have the

potential to impact stream channel morphology and water quality includes habitat restoration for

Oregon spotted frog that would occur adjacent to Jack Creek within the project area, as well as

treatment of the Jack Creek headcuts.

All Alternatives

The residual impacts of past actions along the 7 mile section of Jack Creek with perennial flow

has resulted in current conditions of stream channel morphology and stream water quality that

generally meet standards imposed by both INFISH and ODEQ. Depending on alternative,

grazing intensity and duration would remain the same or be reduced, and future conditions

within Jack Creek would be maintained or improved under all alternatives. Some future

activities, such as the creation of off channel ponds to improve Oregon spotted frog habitat and

treatment of Jack Creek headcuts, have the potential to negatively impact stream water quality

and/or stream channel morphology due to compaction and increased sediment delivery to the

stream. However, potential negative impacts would be minimal and short-term (i.e. not extend

beyond 1-2 years), and negative cumulative effects are not expected.

Streamflow

The spatial bound for analysis of cumulative effects to streamflow is the entire length of Jack

Creek within and downstream of the project area. This analysis area has been determined to be

appropriate as potential changes in streamflow would impact this stretch of Jack Creek.

All Alternatives

All alternatives, combined with reasonably foreseeable future actions such as prescribed burning

and removal of encroaching conifers, have the potential to increase streamflow within Jack

Creek due to the removal of grazing, reduction in grazing duration, and/or use of deferred

rotation grazing systems. Due to the porous nature of the geology of the project area, any

potential increases in streamflow would be small and not substantial enough to add perennial

streamflow to those sections of Jack Creek that currently flow intermittently, and cumulative

impacts to streamflow are not likely.

Health of GDEs

The spatial area for analysis of cumulative effects to the health of GDEs such as fens and springs

is the total amount of fen and spring habitat within the project area. On-going and future

foreseeable activities include thinning and/or removal of encroaching conifers and hand piling

and burning of thinning slash. These activities may cause impacts to GDEs such as soil

compaction and reduction in shading that overlap with the effects of grazing under the action

alternatives. However, the effects would be minimal, and combined with the actions of any of

the alternatives, negative cumulative impacts would not be likely. Thinning and removal of

encroaching conifers may improve the health of GDEs by reducing consumption of groundwater

that is essential to maintain the health of GDEs.



Alternatives 1 and 4

As grazing would not occur in the Chemult Pasture, which contains nearly all GDEs within the

project area, the health of GDEs such as fens and springs would be maintained or improved and

negative cumulative impacts would not be likely. Soil compaction, pedestaling, and vegetation

removal from livestock would no longer occur and conditions would improve over time in areas

that currently have soil disturbance, however impacts from wildlife grazing would likely

continue.

Alternative 2

Implementation of Alternative 2 would likely maintain current GDE conditions. Those springs

and fens in good condition would remain in good condition or continue to improve, while those

in poor condition would remain in that state.

Alternatives 3 and 5

Both of these alternatives would implement a deferred rotation grazing system, which causes less

negative impacts to hydrologic resources than the currently used continuous grazing system. It is

likely that the health of GDEs would be maintained or improved under implementation of either

Alternative 3 or 5, although greater improvements would be expected under Alternative 3 due to

a shorter grazing duration on the Chemult Pasture, where nearly all GDEs are located.

Project Design Criteria

1. Salting in aspen areas, riparian areas, and near developed water sources (e.g. ponds and

springs) would be prohibited. Salt blocks would be placed at least ¼ mile from these

locations (Leonard et al., 1997).

2. Cattle would not be allowed into pastures until Range Readiness Indicators were met

(Appendix G).

3. Throughout the grazing permit all applicable Rangeland Management Activities Best

Management Practices pertaining to water quality (USDA Forest Service, 2012) would be

implemented to enable the achievement of water quality standards, including:

i. Range-1: Rangeland Management Planning. The objective of this BMP is

to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts to soil, water quality, and

riparian resources from rangeland management activities.

ii. Range-2: Rangeland Permit Administration. The objective of this BMP is

to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and

riparian resources when managing rangeland vegetation and livestock



grazing through administration and monitoring of grazing permits and

Annual Operating Instructions.

iii. Range-3: Rangeland Improvements. The objective of this BMP is to

implement range improvements to maintain or improve soil, water quality,

and riparian resources.

4. Throughout the grazing permit all applicable Grazing Management Standards and

Guidelines (INFISH, 1995, Appendix A-9) would be implemented, including:

i. GM-1: Modify grazing practices (e.g. accessibility of riparian areas to

livestock, length of grazing season, stocking levels, and timing of grazing)

that retard or prevent attainment of Riparian Management Objectives or

are likely to adversely affect inland native fish. Suspend grazing if

adjusting practices is not effective in meeting Riparian Management

Objectives.

ii. GM-3: Limit livestock trailing, bedding, watering, salting, loading, and

other handling efforts to those areas and times that would not retard or

prevent attainment of Riparian Management Objectives or adversely affect

inland native fish.

Monitoring Requirements Monitoring requirements are listed in the Antelope Grazing Allotment Aquatics Monitoring Plan

(Appendix G). Requirements include annual photo-monitoring and Level II Stream Habitat

Surveys of Jack Creek (years 1, 5, and 10 from the implementation of the grazing permit).

In addition, water quality monitoring (every 2-4 weeks from May-October, depending on site

accessibility) should continue on Jack Creek at monitoring stations #5226 (at FS Road 8821) and

#5430 (at FS Road 9418).



References

Agouridis, C.T., Workman, S.R., Warner, R.C., & Jennings, G.D. 2005. Livestock grazing

management impacts on stream water quality: A review. Journal of the American Water

Resources Association, 41, 591-606.

Aldous, A., & Gurrieri, J. 2012. Environmental flows and levels for groundwater-dependent

fens of the Antelope Grazing Allotment, Fremont-Winema National Forest, Oregon.

Allan, J.D. 2004. Landscapes and Riverscapes. The influence of land use on stream ecosystems.

Annual Review of Ecology and Evolutionary Systematics, 35, 257-284.

Bartholow, J.M. 2000. Estimating cumulative effects of clearcutting on stream temperatures.

Rivers, 4, 284-297.

Bedford, B.L., & Godwin, K.S. 2003. Fens of the United States: Distribution, characteristics,

and scientific connection versus legal isolation. Wetlands, 23, 608-629.

Bescheta, R.L. 1997. Riparian shade and stream temperature: An alternative perspective.

Rangelands, 19, 25-28.

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

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

Conservation, 54, 419-431.

Brown, J., Wyers, A., Aldous, A., & Bach, L. 2007. Groundwater and biodiversity

conservation: a methods guide for integrating groundwater needs of ecosystems and

species into conservation plans in the Pacific Northwest. The Nature Conservancy.

Cooper, D.J. 1990. Ecology of wetlands in Big Meadows, Rocky Mountain National Park,

Colorado. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 90 (15).

Cooper, D.J., Chimner, R.A., & Wolf, E.C. 2005. Livestock use and the sustainability of

southern Sierra Nevada Fens. Report prepared for the Inyo National Forest, USDA Forest

Service, Region 5, California. 18pp.

Craft, C.B., & Richardson, C.J. 1993. Peat accretion and N, P, and organic C accumulation in

nutrient-enriched and unenriched Everglades peatlands. Ecological Applications, 3, 446-

458.

Cummings, M.L. 2012. Ground- and surface-water hydrogeology of the unconfined pumice

aquifer, Antelope Unit, Chemult Ranger District, Fremont-Winema National Forest.

Dewson, Z. S., James, A.B.W., & Death, R.G. 2007. A review of the consequences of

decreased flow for instream habitat and macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North

American Benthological Society, 26, 401-415.



Eamus, D., Froend, R., Loomes, R., Hose, G., & Murray, B. 2006. A functional methodology

for determining the groundwater regime needed to maintain the health of groundwater-

dependent vegetation. Australian Journal of Botany, 54, 97-114.

Ehrhart, R.C. & Hansen, P.L. 1997. Effective cattle management in riparian zones: A field

survey and literature review. Montana BLM Riparian Technical Bulletin No. 3, U.S.

DOI.

Greenwood, K.L. & McKenzie, B.M. 2001. Grazing effects on soil physical properties and the

consequences for pastures: A review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture,

41, 1231-1250.

Gregory, S.V., Swanson, F.J., McKee, W.A., & Cummins, K.W. 1991. An ecosystem

perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience, 41, 540-551.

Hubbard, R.K., Newton, G.L., & Hill, G.M. 2004. Water quality and the grazing animal.

Journal of Animal Science, 82, 255-263.

Kauffman, J.B., Krueger, W.C., & Vavra, M. 1983. Impacts of cattle on streambanks in

northeastern Oregon. Journal of Range Management, 36, 683-685.

Kauffman, J.B. & Krueger, W.C. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and

streamside management implications: A review. Journal of Range Management, 37, 430-

438.

Kauffman, J.B., Thorpe, A.S., & Brookshire, E.N.J. 2004. Livestock exclusion and

belowground ecosystem responses in riparian meadows of eastern Oregon. Ecological

Applications, 14, 1671-1679.

Leonard, S., Kinch, G., Elsbernd, V., Borman, M., & Swanson, S. 1997. Riparian Area

Management: Grazing Management for Riparian-Wetland Areas. United States

Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Technical Reference TR 1737-

14

Li, H.W., Lamberti, G.A., Persons, T.N., Tait, C.K., Li, J.L, & Buckhouse, J.C. 1994.

Cumulative effects of riparian disturbances along high desert trout streams of the John

Day Basin, Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 123, 627-640.

McLeod, N.S., & Sherrod, D.R. 1992. Reconnaissance Geologic Map of the West Half of the

Crescent 1 by 2 Quadrangle, Central Oregon: U.S. Geologic Survey Miscellaneous

Investigations Series Map I-2215, scale 1:250,000.

Meehan, W.R. & Platts, W.S. 1978. Livestock grazing and the aquatic environment. Journal of

Soil and Water Conservation, 33, 274-278.



Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2010. Integrated Report Database for

the 2010 Water Quality Assessment.

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt2010/search.asp#db.

Ruda, S., & Hogen, D. 2008. Level II Stream Habitat Summary Report for Jack Creek,

Fremont-Winema National Forest.

Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena, 22, 169-199.

Schilling, K.E., Zhang, Y.K., & Drobney, P. 2004. Water table fluctuations near an incised

stream, Walnut Creek, Iowa. Journal of Hydrology, 286, 236-248.

Tate, K.W., Dudley, D.M., McDougald, N.K., & George, M.R. 2004. Effect of canopy and

grazing on soil bulk density. Journal of Range Management, 57, 411-417.

Tiedemann, A.R., Higgins, D.A., Quigley, T.M., Sanderson, H.R., & Marx, D.B. 1987.

Responses of fecal coliform in streamwater to four grazing strategies. Journal of Range

Management, 40, 322-329.

Trimble, S.W., & Mendel, A.C. 1995. The cow as a geomorphic agent – A critical review.

Geomorphology, 13, 233-253.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 1989. Fremont National

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP).

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Winema National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

(LRMP).

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the

Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH).

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Technical Guide to Managing Ground Water Resources. FS-881.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. United States Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region Stream

Inventory Handbook, Levels I and II (version 2.10).

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/water/fhr/sida/handbook/Stream-Inv-2010.pdf.

USDA Forest Service. 2012a. Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystems: Level II Inventory Field

Guide. Gen. Tech. Report WO-86b.

USDA Forest Service. 2012b. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality

Management on National Forest System Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical

Guide. FS-990a.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011.

http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/fen.cfm. Last accessed on 12/09/2011.

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt2010/search.asp#db

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/water/fhr/sida/handbook/Stream-Inv-2010.pdf



United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2012a. USGS Groundwater Glossary.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/gw/glossary.html. Accessed on April 12, 2012.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2012b. USGS Water Cycle: Springs.

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercyclesprings.html. Accessed on April 12, 2012.

Warren, S.D., Thurow, T.L., Blackburn, W.H., & Garza, N.E. 1986. The influence of livestock

trampling under intensive rotation grazing on soil hydrologic characteristics. Journal of

Range Management, 39, 491-495.

Weixelman, D.A., & Cooper, D.J. 2009. Assessing proper conditioning condition for fen areas

in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Ranges in California: A user’s guide.

General Technical Report R5-TP-028, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

Wondzell, S.M., & Swanson, F.J. 1999. Floods, channel change, and the hyporheic zone.

Water Resources Research, 35, 555-567.

Wondzell, S.M. 2001. The influence of forest health and protection treatments on erosion and

stream sedimentation in forested watersheds of eastern Oregon and Washington.

Northwest Science, 75, 128-140.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/gw/glossary.html

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercyclesprings.html

Appendix A: Report Changes Tracking Table Page No. Paragraph No. Line No. Provide description/explanation of what you changed and why.

17 1 All Added clarification that the Forest Service does not perform Level II Stream Surveys on private land. Also clarified particle size composition on stream substrate classes.

18 4 All Clarifying remarks added that acknowledged that headcuts are present in Jack Creek, and that some have been subject to restoration projects that did not halt headcut migration. It is also noted that few willows are present. This information was used to make the determinations in my report, but was not specifically described in the initial report.

41 3 9-12 Needed to state that condition at headcuts would slowly improve over time and that willow may increase.

45 3 3-4 and 6-9

Added clarifying remarks about streambank stability in relation to livestock use. Noted that the number of willows would likely not increase. Also noted that there would be potential for continued headcut migration, but that it would be unlikely due to upcoming restoration combined with the low grazing duration.

48 1 7-8 Stated that some damage to streambanks could occur under implementation of Alternative 5.

48- onto pg 49

5 7-8

Acknowledged upcoming treatment of Jack Creek headcuts in cumulative effects analysis.

Antelope Grazing Allotments...

Documents

Transcript of Antelope Grazing Allotments...